2. Because the Papists will not, and cannot atcora ding to their principles truly speak what St. Austin there fpeakes, and therefore St. Auftin did not think as they think (unleffe they will make him one of those, who feldome speak as they think) It is the known and avowed Doctrine of the Romish Church, (however disowned by fome few of them, whom they look on as Extravagants and Schifmaticks,) that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of the Pope, fay fome, of the Councel, fay others, of the Pope and Councel together, fay almost all, upon the credit of their own affertion, without any fur ther reason. This is evident from Stapleton (a), Gregory de Valentia (b), Tannerus (c) and Bellarmine in feveral places, one I fhall instance in. It is one thing (faith he) to interpret a law as a Doclor, (that requires Learning;) another thing to interpret it as a fudge, (that requires Authority) a Dolor propounds not his opinion as neceffary to be followed, farther then reafon induceth us; but a fudge propounds his opinion with à neceffity of following it. The Fathers expound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers,but the 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 to Austin did receive the Decrees of Councels as of Judges and Princes, barely upon the credit of their authority or affertion, as the Papists say he did, or only

(a) Contra Whitab. in varis locis, (b) Lib.8. Anal.fid. (c) In colloquio Ratifbonenfi. fes. 9. (d) aliud eft interpretari legem more Dottoris, aliud more Fudicis: ad explicationem more Doctoris requiritur eruditio, ad explicationem more Judicis vequiritur authoritas. Doctor enim non proponit fuam fententiam ut neceffario fequendam, fed folùm quatenus ratio fuadet; at Fudex proponit ut fequendam neceffario.

Auguftinus, & cæteri Patres in commentariis fangebantur officio Doctorum, at Concilia & Pontifices funguntur officio Judicis. De verbi Dei interpretatione.lib.3. cap° 10. verfus finem

as

as Doctors, because they could prove what they fay from Scripture or reafon, as St. Auftin in terminis afferts?

$11. But becaule it is of fome concernment to un derstand Austin's mind in this point; (whofe authority is fo venerable both to them & us, and whom both parties willingly admit for Umpire in this controversy,j I fhail further confider what' S. Clara alledgeth from him for this purpose: The paflage he pleads is this; Untill that which was wholfomely believed,was confirmed, all doubts removed by a general Councel (a), Therefore faith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels(by Put it into a Syllogifm, and it is this. That which fo confirms a truth, as to remove all doubts, is infallible: But a general Councel fo confirmes a truth,as to remove all doubts, Ergo. The Major is denied: for a private Minister may by the evidence of Scripture or reafon fo confirme a truth,as to remove all doubt from the bearers, and yet is not therefore infallible. There are then two wayes, whereby doubts may be removed. 1. By the infallibility of the authority: Thus when God tells me that which feems improbable to reafon this fhould remove all doubt.2.By the evidence of arguments,&fo their argument proceeds à genere ad fpeciem affirmative, thus a general Conncel removeth doubts ergo they do it by the Infallibility of their Authority; it followeth not, for you fee they may do it by the evidence of their argument. And this Answer might very well fuffice: But that I may give them full fatisfaction (i poflibly the interest of thefe men would fuffer their confciences to open their eyes) I fhall prove that it was fo,& that St. Auftin fpeaks of this latter way of removing doubts, i. e. by their con

(a) Donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod faluberrimè fentiebatur, elian remotis dubitationibus firmaretur. lib.s.con.Donatiftas cy. (b) Non licet igitur dubitare poft definitiones Conciliares,

vincing

vincing arguments, not by their infallible authority.This plainly appears by confidering the contexture of the words: Left I should feem, faith he, only to prove it by bumane arguments, because the obfcurity of this question did in former times, before the fchifme of Donatus, make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Councels differ among Themselves, untill by a General Councel, that which was wholfomely believed was confirmed, and all doubts removed, Ifball bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments a. Where you plainly fee, that he cals the authority of Councels but a Humane argument and authority, and that he ac knowledgeth none but Scripture-arguments to be certa, certain or infallible, as is evident from the Antithefis. 2. This appears moft undeniably from a parallel place, where S. Auftin fpeaks thus of Cyprian: That holic man fufficiently shewed, that he would have changed his opinion, if any had demonstrated to him that Baptifme might be fo given &c. And a little after, he would have yielded to a general Councel,if the truth of that question had in his time been evidenced, and declared,and confirmed by a gene» ·ral Councel. And he gives the reafon of his yielding, Because that holy Soul would have yielded even to one man declaring and demonftrating the truth, much more te

a Fam enim ne videar bumanis argumentis id agere, quoniam quæftionis bujus obfcuritas prioribus Ecclefiæ temporibus ante fchifma Donati-patres Epifcopos ita inter fe compulit falva pace difceptare ac fluctua are,ut diu Conciliorum in fuis quibufq; regionibus diverfa ftatuta nutavez *rint, donec plenario totius orbis Concilio, quod faluberrimè fentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur, ex Evangelio profero certà documenta. lib. 1. con Donatum.c.7.

b Satis oftendit fe facillimè correcturum fuiffe fententiam fuam, fi quis demonftraret baptifmum Chrifti fic dari poße. Et paulò poft.

d

Si jam illo tempore quæftionis bujus veritas eliquata & declarata per plenarium Concilium folidaretur: & poftea; quia profectò & uni verum dicenti & demonftranti poffet facillimè confcntire tam fanita. lib. a. con. Don.6.3.

a gc

general Councel. In all which it is plain,that it was not any presumed Infallibility of the Councel, but the clear. neffe of the truth, and the ftrength of their arguments which would have fatisfied Cyprian in S. Auftin's judgment. 3. This may be irrefragably proved from hence, that S. Austin makes this the peculiar property of the holy Scripture (by which it is diftinguifhed 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 exprefs, and brought in with a Quis nefciat: Who knowes not that the holy Scripture is fo preferred before all the letters of afterBishops, that we may not so much as doubt or debate concerning any thing contained in them, whether it be true or no. But the letters of the Bishops may be reproved by Councels, if they swerve from the truth; and Provincial Councels muft Jeild to General Councels, and former general Councels are eft 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 refpect poftpofed to the Scripture, that we may lawfully doubt of any thing contained in their Decrees,and where they fwerve from the truth, reject it. And nothing more evinceth the ftrength of this argument, then the fillinefs of our Adverfaries evafions: He peaks of questions of Fact and Ceremony, not of Faith,laith Bellarmine and Stapleton, whereas the quee ftion there difputed was, whether perfons Baptized by

a Quis nefciat fan&tam Scripturam-omnibus pofteriorum Epifco porum literis ita præponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari aut difceptari non poffit,utrum verum vel certum fit, quicquid in ea fcriptum effe conftiterit Epifcoporum autem liter as per concilia lisere reprehendi, fi quid in iis fortè à veritate deviatum eft: & Concilia-per Provincias plenavi orm Conciliorum authoritati cedere, & ipfa plenaria fæpe priora pefteri onibus emendari.lib.2.contra Donatiflas cz,

Hereticks fhould be rebaptized, which the Fathers for merly made and the Papifts now make a question of Faith. But by emendantur (faith Stapleton) he means perfectiùs explicantur: If you ask in what Dictionary or Author the word emendantur is fo taken, you must underftand that it follows à majori ad minus: that if our Romish Masters may coyn new Articles of Faith, which diverfe Papifts profeffe they may, much more may they devife new fignifications of words. But I would know of these Doctors, what they would think,or at least what difcreet and fober men would think of that Author that fhould fay, Libri Mofis à Prophetis emendantur,or Scripta Prophetarum ab Apoftolis emendantur: and yet if Stapletons LEXICON may be used, it were an harmless ex preflion. But if thefe men will give S. Austin leave to be the interpreter of his own words, he hath fufficiently open'd his mind, by making emendare and reprehendere parallel expreffions,and by fpeaking of fuch an Emendation as followes after,or is conjoyned with a doubting of the truth of what was delivered by the Councel. This may ferve for the third Propofition.

§. 12. And here I might give my felfa supersedeas having fhewed the imbecillity of their principal Proofs from the Fathers; but ex abundanti I shall adde the fourth Propofition,which is this, That it doth appear,the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels. The former propofition fhewed, that they could not prove their Affertion, and this I hope will difprove it. But because what hath been already faid may ferve for that end also, I fhall be the briefer in this, and shall only mention three arguments to prove it.

1. They who make Scripture-proof neceffary to command the belief of doctrines or matters of Religion, do not hold the Infallibility of Councel, But fo did the Fathers: Ergo. The Major is evident from hence: be

caufe