« PreviousContinue »
i 2i Because chie Papists will not, and cannot arcota ding to their principles cruly speak whac St. Auftin there speakes, and therefore St. Austin did not think as they think (unlelle they will make him one of those, who leldome (peak as they chink) It is the known and avowed Doctrine of the Romish Church, (however disowned by some few of them, whom they look on as Extrava. ganes and Schismaticks,) that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of che Pope, say some of the Councel, say or thers, of the Pope and Councel together , lay almost all, upon the credit of their own 'allertion, without any further reason. This is evident from Stapleton (a), Gregory de Valentia (6); Tannerus (C) and Bellarmine in several places, one I Shall instance in. It is one thing (faith he)to intirpret a law as a Dolor, (that requires Learning ;) another thing to interpret it as a fudge, (that requires Ano thority :) a Ducior propounds not his opinion as neceffary to be followed, farther ibin reason inducethus; but a fudge propounds his opinion with a necessity of following it, The Fethers expound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers, but ihe Pope and Councels as fudges or Princes (d). And now let S. Clara himself judge, if he will.deal candidly, whether St. Auftin& Billarmine were of a mind,or (which is all one) whether St. Auftin did receive the Decrees of Courcels as of Judges and Princes, barely upon che credit of their auchority or assertion, as the Papilts say he did, or only
(a) Cozhra whitab. in zaris locis, (b) Lib.8. Anal.fid. (c) In Collaquio Ratishonenfi
. ses. 9. (d). Alind est interpretari legem more Doctoris, aliud more Fudicis: ad explicationem more Doctoris requiritur eruditio, ad explicationem more Fudicis vequiritur audioritas. Doctor enim non proponit fuam sententiam ut necesario lequeatam, sed solum quatenus Yatio fuadet; at fudex proponit ut sequadam necessaris.
Auguftinus, & cæteri Patres in commentariis fingebantur officio Doctorum, at Concilia en Pontifices fragantur officio Judicis, De verbi Dei interpretatione.lib.3: capo 10. verfus fineme
as Doctors, because they could prove what they say from Scripture or reason, as St. Austin in terminis aflerts?
$11. But becaule ic is of some concernment to on. derstand Austin's mind in this point; ( whose authority is fo venerable both to them & us, and whom both parties willingly admit for Umpire in this controversy,) I shall further consider what' S. Clara alledgerh from him for this purpose: The paslage he pleads is this; Until than which was wholfоmely believed was confirmed, es all doubis removed by a general Councel (a), Therefore faith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels(b). Put it into a Syllogism, and it is this. That which so confirms a trucb, 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 fo 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 infallibilicy of the authority: Thas when God tells me that which seems improbable to reason, this fhould remove al doubt.2.By the evidence of argurrents,&to their argument proceeds à genere ad fpeciem affirmativè, thus a general Conncel removech doubts.ergo they do it by the Jnfallibility of their Authority; ic tolloweth not, for you see they may do it by the evidence of their argument. And this Answer might very well fuffice: But that I may give them full fatisfa&tion (i poflibly the interest of these men would suffer their coniciences to open their cyes, I shall prove that it was fo,& that St. Auli in speaks of this latter way of removing doubts, i. e. by their cons
(a) Donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè fealiebatu', etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur.lib.i.con.Donatillas (7. (6) Non licct igitur dubitare pof definitiones Conciliares.
vincing arguments, not by their infallible authority. This plainly appears by considering the contexture of che words: Left I should seem, saith he, only to prove it by humane arguments, because the obfcurity of this questión dich in former times, before the schilme of Donatus, make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Councels differ among themselves, untill by a General Councel, that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed, and all doubts removed,
I shall bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments a. Where you plainly see, that he cals the authority of Councels but a Humane argument and authority, and that he aca knowledgech pone 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 S. Austin speaks thus of Cyprian ; That holie man Sufficiently Sewed, that he would have changed his opinion, of any had dimorstrated to him that Baptisme might be so given &c. b And a little after, he would have yielded coa general Councel,if the truth of that question bad in his time been evidenced, and declared, and confirmed by a genes ral Councel c. And he gives the reason of his yielding,
Because that holy Soul would have yielded even to one man declaring and demonstrating the trutlad, --much more te
a fram enim ne vidcar humanis argumentis id agere, quoniam qus.ee ftionis hujus obscuritas prioribus Ecclefiæ temporibus ante lcbifma Denda ti-patres Episcopos ita inter le compulit salvâ pace disceptare af fluctua
are, ut diu Conciliorum in fuis quibufq; regionibus diversa statuta nutaves *rint, donec plenaria totius orbis Concilio , quod faluberrimè senticbatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur, cx Evangelio profero certa dochmenta. lib.s. com. Donatum.c.7.
b Satis ostendit se facillimè corre&turum fuisse sententiam fuam, fi quis demonstravet baptifmum Chrifti fic dari poße. Et paulo post.
• Si jam illo tempore quastionis hujus verit as eliquata e declarata per plenarium Concilium folidarétur: & poftea; d quia profcftò uni verum dicenti & demonftranti toffet facillimè consentire tam Sanita, lib, a. com. D076.6.3.
ageneral Councel. In all which it is plain, that it was not any prelumed Infallibility of the Councel, but the clear. nelle of the truth, and the strength of their arguments which would have satisfied Cyprian in S. Austin's judg.
3. This may be irrefragably proved from hence, thac S. Anftin makes this the peculiar property of the holy Scripture (by which it is diltinguished from,and advanced above all the opinions, decrees, or writings of all Bishops in or out of Councels) that we may not doubt of any thing contained in it. The words are express, and brought in with a Quis nefciat : Who knomes not that the holy Scripture is so preferred befire all the litters of afterBishops, that we may not so much as doubt cr debate concerning any thing contained in them, whether it be true or no. But the letters of tbe Bishops niny be reproved by Councels, if they werve from the truth:and Provincial Ciuncels muff geild 10 General Councels, and former general Councels are oft corrected by the latter a : where there is a gradation from Bishops to Provincial and thence to General Councels, but all of them are in this respect poftposed to the Scripture, that we may lawfully doubt ofany thing contained in their Decrees, and where they swerve from the truth, reject it. And nothing more evincech the strength of this argument, then the filliness of our Adversaries evafions: He speaks of questions of Fact and Ceremony, not of Faith,laith Bellarmine and Stapleton, whereas the ques stion there dispuced was, whether persons Baptized by
a Quis nesciat sanctam Scripturam--omnibus posiciorum Epifcon porum literis ita præponi , ut de illa omnino dubitari aut disceptari non polit,utrum verum vel certum fit, quicquid in ea fcriptum esse confiterit, Episcoporum autem liter as per concilia licere reprchendi , fi quid in iis fortè à veritate deviatum eft : & Concilia- per Provincias plenarie Ornon Conciliorum authoritati ccdere, & ipfa plenaria fæpe priora poftcri. tribus emendari.lib.z.contra Donatifas (3)
Herecicks should be rebaptized, which the Fathers formerly made and the Papilts now make a question of Faith. But by emendancur (saich Stapleton) he means perfe&iùs explicantur : If you ask in what Dictionary or Author Che word emendantur is so taken, you must understand that it follows à majori ad minus : chàc if our Romish Masters may coyn new Articles of Faich, which diverse Papists profese they may, much more may they devise new fignifications of words. But I would know of these Doctors,what they would think,or at least what discreet and sober men would chink of that Aucbor that should say, Libri Mosis à Prophetis emendantur,or Scripta Prophetarum ab Apoftolis emendantur : and yet if Stapletons LEXICON may be used, ic were an harmless ex. pression.' But if these men will give S. Austin leave to be the interpreter of his own words, he hath sufficiently open'd his mind, by making emendare and reprehendere parallel expressions,and by speaking of such an Emendation as followes afcer,or is conjoyned with a doubting of che fruch of what was delivered by the Councel. This may
serve for the chird Proposition. Ś. 12. And here I mighe give my self a super sede as , having thewed the imbecillity of their principal Proofs from the Fathers; but ex abundanti I shall adde the fourth Propoficion, which is this; That it doch appear, che Antienes did believe the fallibilicy of Councels. The former proposition shewed, that they could not prove cheir Assertion, and this I hope will disprove it. But because what bach been already said may lerve for chat end allo, I shall be che briefer in this, and thall only mention three arguments to prove it.
1. They who make Scripture-proof necessary to command the belief of doctrines or matters of Religion, do not hold the Infallibility of Coupcel; But so did the Fachers : Ergo. The Major is evident from hence: be