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, fince this pas« fage was published and taken notice of, Mr.Cressy (having doubtielle been feverely school'd by his Superiors for fuch a dangerous paflage) is grown more cautious, and hath fretched his wit (and I fear his conscience too) to palliate his affértion, and make an honourable retreat: and he honestly acquaints us with his design, i. e. being crafty to catch the Proteftants with guite.Sec.2.ch.21. He that reads the Appendix to the second Edition of his Exomologefis, will easily discern the trepidations of a guilty confcience, 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 infalJibility in expreffe or equivalent terms, and in most places having no falvo for himselt but this; That his affertion, and the Proteftants difputation did proceed upon the mistaken notion of Infallibility, which the Proteftants advanced to an higher pitch then ever the Church of Rome did, and fo fought against an image that them felves had fer up: which is fo notorious a falfehood, that if Mr.Creffy's wit, and memory, and confcience had not all fais led him together, he could hardly have run into it, fince all Proteftants of any note ever did, and particularly Mr. Chillingworth doth difpute against the Churches Infalli bility, onely in that fense and degree which Mr. Cressy apon matureft advice in this fecond Edition hath thought fit to expreffe in thefe words: That God will preferve his Church in all truth, so as to fecure all believers, that she can neither deceive them, nor be deceived her felf. Sect.2. Chap. 21. Did ever any Proteftant, that understood himself, or the point pretend to more? Not Mr.Chillingworth I am fure, They all knew and granted, that abfolute infallibi

Ley

lity 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 vouchfafe fuch infallible guidance to the Church, that fhe could not erre in her decrees, and decifions; This Papifts affirmed, and Proteftants denied. and let me adde, that this Infallibility is as high as was ever afcribed to the Prophers or Apoftles and Penmen of the Holy Scripture: And although their infallibility be faid to be larger or greater extenfivè, because in them it reached to all sentences, and words, and Arguments, yer the Romanifts themselves cannot fay it is higher or greater intenfive, and the Articles of Faith or conclusive decifions decreed by Councels, are in their opinion as infallible, as the fame are when they are laid down in the Scripture. This was the Notion Mr. Chillingworth com bated against, with fo great fucceffe as Cressy confeffeth.e

The fecond Argument to prove the inevidence of this notion of the Churches infallibility, I fhall take from the impertinency and feebleneffe of those crutches or reasons wherewith they indeavour to fupport it obferve the fumme and strength of what he hath to fay 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 purfe Crefly 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 affertions of the Churches Authority which are frequent in the Fathers Mr Greffy urgeth as if they had been directly levelled at the Churches infallibility, Exomolog. Sect.2.chap. 19. Nay, fo daring is this man in his Argument, that not contented with bis

"

own

own pretended fatisfaction in it, he will needs obtrude the fame opinion upon that Noble Lord Falkland (which it is fufficiently known he abhorred) viz, that if the Ca tholick 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 confcience of this very man, but that Apoftates in the Faith do at the same time make fhipwrack of a good confcience: let any Romanist that is not prodigall of his damnation, seriously confider the groffe falfhood of this bold fuppofition. What! no Authority without Infallibility? Belike there is no Authority in the King, because no Infallibility. He will fay Civill Authority is but externall; But Ecclefiafticall reacheth the confcience, and commands the be liefe of the inward man: Mr Grefly knew this to be a gratu dictum and justly denied by Proteftants, and therefore he should have proved it, but crude fuppofitions and imperious dictates do passe among Romanists for folid demonftrations: Yet againe I would aske Me Crefy whether the Affembly 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, 'cis at his perill, if he affirme it, then his Argument is in great jeopardy: For Proteftants are allowed to disbe lieve the Popes perfonall Infallibility: And he confef feth (I gave you his own words before) that good Catholicks deny it and difpute against it: Yet once more; When generall Councels have been called to determine the pretenfions of Anti-Popes, or to depofe ufurping Popes,or when they have had differences with the Popes,

་

I demand whether thefe Councels had any Authority of no? To say they had none, or that their Authority was but an airy fantafme I think Mr Crefy will not dare; and if they had, then either a Councell without the Pope is Infallible (which moft Learned Papifts now deny, and if Me Crefy be of another mind let him tell us) or Autho rity may be without Infallibility.

In a word that the World may fee the complexion of an Apoftates confcience, This very man will grant that there is an Authority in the Superiour over his Convent, in every Bishop over his Dicceffe, in every Generall over his order, and a weighty Authority too (as their vaffals feel by fad experience) yet I hope these are not Infalli ble, E.the more impudent is he that argues from Authori ty to Infallibility.

A fecond Argument is much of the fame complexion,' taken from the stile and practise of generall Councels which was to propofe their Doctrines as infallible truths, and to command all Christians under the paine of Anathema, and eternall damnation to believe them for fuch: That Authority which should speak thus not be ing infallible, would be guilty of the greatest tyranny and cruelty, and ufurpation that ever was in the World.Append. chap.4.0.9.

i

This hath been fully answered before, and there fore I fhall here content my felf with these two re flections.

1. The utmost of this Argument (abstracting from the invidious expreffions he here clothes it with, that it may bave in terrour what it wants in ftrength) would be no more then this: That generall Councels in fuch a way of proceeding were miftaken and were liable to error a A propofition which he knew very well the Proteftants did univerfally own, and I hope well may,fince the Jefuices (fo great a part and fupport of the Roman Church)

have and do acknowledge that generall Councels and their decrees are not infallible untill the Popes confent be added, yet fuch Councels (as is notoriously known) bave used to put their Anathema'sito their decrees before the Popes affent was given: And yet forfooth (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 felfe (for fo he faith, ibid.)..

2. These Anathemas do not at all prove that fuch Councels either were or thought themfelves Infallible: It is true, it is an Argument they thought one of the fe two things, either that the Doctrine propofed by the m was Infallibly true (as indeed they did) or that their Authority was infallibly certaine (which they never pretended) either of these were a fufficient ground for fuch Anathema's, and therefore his Argument is infirme pro ceeding à genere ad fpeciem, animal eft, E. homo. They owned Infallibility E. they owned it In their Authority: Particular Pastors have a power to Anathematize and do fo in cafe of Excommunication of Hereticks. Are they therefore infallible? If it be faid they do it onely in purfuance and execution of the decrees of Councels : Answer: If fuch perfons (confeffedly fallible) may Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines deli vered in Councels, becaufe fuppofed to be Infallibly true, why may not the fame perfons Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines expreffely delivered in Scripture, which all grant to be infallible true? Againe, if we look into the Records of Councels we fhall find that this practife of Anathematizing was not onely in ufe in gene rall,but alfo in particular and Provinciall Councells which are confeffed to be fallible: E. Mc Crefly look to your Arguments and confcience better; once more, The Popes Anathemas all the World rings of,yet you have feen bis infallibility is denied by many and Learned Papifts, &

they