« PreviousContinue »
cause one infallible Authoricy is sufficient, and the addition of another, though it may tend ad melius effe, yet ic cannot be necessary ad effe,(for then the former were not fufficient.) And the Papists who believe the Infallibility of Popes or Councels, do professe eo nomine chat Scripture-proof is not necessary, and chat the Churches aus thority without Scripture evidence is sufficient. When Whitak r urged the necessity of Scripture-proof to thew the Church,for proof of the Scriptures prerogative above the Church, Stapleton roundly answers, That such proof is not neceffary to a Christian man,and a Believer (a). For the Minor, That the Fathers did judge Scripture-proof necessary, hath been already thew'd, and will hereafter be made good, and to prevent tedious repetitions I shall now forbear it.
2. They who allow the people liberty of examination of all that any men, since the Apostles, say, do not believe the infallibility of Councels: but fo do che Fathers. The major is evident from the confeflion and practice of our Adversaries, who believing the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels, do injoyn the reception of their Decrees and Injunctions without examination. A Christian ought to receive the Churches deelrine without examination, Iaith Bellarmine (b). The Minor hath been proved from the expresse words of the Fathers.
3. They chat derogate Faith from all men without exception, beside the Apostles, do nor hold the Infallibi#lity of Councels: Buc fo do the Fathers, Ergo. The
Major needs no proof: for the Councels are made up of men, and such too as are confered to be each of them
(1) Homini Cbriftiano da Catbolico - hujusmodi probatio necesSaria non ef. De Authoritate Scripturæ.lib.3.cap. 1. in fine.
(b) Debet Chriflianus fine examine vecapere dottrinam Eccléfiæ. Bel. vbi fupra.
fallible. Nor do they pretend to any Enthusiasme, or immediare revelation. The Minor also hath been fully proved: to which I shall adde one out of Austir: If it be confirmed by authority of Scripture, we are to believe it with out all doubting: but for other witniles, or their testimonies, a man way believe, or not believe,as be apprehend's what they say hath weight or not (a). It is true, S. Clara sayes, chat S. Austin dith only prefiro Scripture before particular anthors (b): which, how false ic is, sufficiently appears from the other testimony of Aristins, which I have even now discussed, wheren you plainly saw in Occam's and St. Clara's own judgment, S. Axstia positively took away all difference between Councels and private Doctors in this particular, and equally denied alláu Tomasía to both of them. Thus s bope I have sufficiently proved what I undertook concerning the supposed Tradition and the teftimony of the Fathers, in reference to the Infallibility of Councels. This is the first Branch; The Infallibility of Councels is not made known to us by Tradition : the next Proposicion must shew, That it is not revealed in Scripture.
S. 13. This therefore is the Second branch, That the Infallibility of Councels hath no foundation in Script
T. I might justly insist upon what bach been already mentioned concerning the doctrine of the Romanists about the insignificancy and insufficiency of the Scripture to ground my faith without the Churches Authority. And surely they chat professe they are not bound to believe the Divinity of Christ, were it not for the teftimony and interpretation of the Church,i.e.che Pope, or a Councel, (which is their assertion) must needs give us the same liberty to assert, that a Christian is not bound to believe what the Scripture faith concerning the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels, but for the testimony of the Pope and Councels, that is, we have no reason co believe their infallibilicy, but this, that they tell us they are infallible, we have cheir word for it; foit seems the Diseiple is beccer then his Master, and the Pope's word will go further then the word of God : for the Scriptures Testimony is not to be credited in its own cause faith Bellar mine (a), as the Churches Testimony is. When the Papists would press che Scripture to the service of this notion, it may say to them as fepthah did to the Elders of Israel, fud. 11.7. Did not ye bare me, and exp: Il me out of my father's house, and why are you come vinto me no19, when we are in distress? And upon condition they will rep.y with the Gileadires, Therefore we turn again to thee now that thou may. It be our head. I will overlook that otherwife unpardonable faulo, (by which they have rendred the Scripture unserviceable in their purpose ) and once more they shall have a fair cryal, whether the Infallibility of Councels can be demonstrated from Scripture.
(a) si Divinarum Scripturarum--perspicua firmetur aisthoritate , fine ulla disisitatione credendum eft. Aliis vero teflibus vel testimoniis, quibus aliquid citdendum effe fuader'ır, tibi credere vel non credere liClail, quantum ea momenti ad faciendam fidem habere vel non habere perpenderis, Ephcf. 112.
(6) Dico Auguftinum hic folim preferre Scripturas particularibus kuiboribus. System.fid.ubi fuprà.
S. 14. The firit and principall support of Infallibility is 1 Tim. 3.15. where the Church is called the pillar and ground of Truth. This is their Ajacis olypus , which
you Thall finde used upon all occafions, and inti
(a) Eliams Scriptura dicat libras Prophetarum. Ý Apollo7ymi che divinos, tamen non credamelle, nisi prius id crediteio, fcripturan que hoc dicit effe divinam. Nam in Alcorano Mahumetis pafim legimus ipfüm Alcoranum de cælo à Dco mifum.
nitely repeated by every impertinenc scribler of the Roa,
For. Answer, to passe over that notion of our acute Chillingworth, that it is not the Church, but Timothy who is there called the ground and pillar of Truth, and fo.chere is onely an Ellipsis of the word as which is very frequent zao for co's sche, or of the word or sta o for SunG wr as the learned Gataker observes, and there are diverse instances of either of them, So the fence is that thou mightift behave ihy selfe in the House of God, the Church as a Pillar or as becomes a Pillar. And he gives this notable reason for it, because it was heterogeneous to call that Church, a pillar which in the same verse he had called an house. And this I am sure would puzle our masters to answer : But to wave chat,I answer.
1. The Church spoken of is not the Church of Rome but the Church in which Timothy was placed. And whether it be spoken of the Church in generall or in particular, what is this to Rome? Here we find a notable piece of the Roman mystery of iniquicy: If there be any reproofes, or censures applied to any other Churches, there every Church must bear its own borden: Bür if any Church be honoured in Scripture with commendations, promises , priviledges that presently be. longs to Rome, and they have a commission to seize it for their own use: but how unjustly we shall here discover, for if you understand these words of the Catholick Church,or of the Church in generall,then the words only prove the indefectibility of the whole Church, which may consist with the errour and Apoftacy of several which then were emirent Charches whereof we have unquestionable Instances in the glorious Churches of Asia,which notwithstanding this promise fell away: and consequently Rome, though then her faith was famous throvghout the World, might fall with them or after
them. And if you understand the words of a particular Church they must be understood of that Church in which Timothy was placed: And if my memory faile me not exceedingly, that was not Rome , buc Ephesus, which notwithstanding this Chara&er did fall away:And moreover it was not the Church ruling, but the Church ruled, in and over which Timothy was let, which is here called che pillar and ground of truth. And so the Argument runs thus: The Church and people of Ephesus are the pillar and ground of truth. Therefore the Pope of Rome is in fallible. The Consequence is thus proved, the Pope may interpret Scripture as he pleasech, and though he nay erre in the premises, as Stapleton confesseth (a) yer he is alwayes infallible in the conclusion as the same Stapleton afferts : Ergo the Popes infallibility is out of the reach of all Arguments.
2. The terme of Pillar notes the folidity, but not the infallibility of the Church, it notes the difficulty of its re. moval, but not the impofiibility. Every fout Champion of Gods Truch is a pillar of the truth, and such are frequently called by that name in the Fathers, but yet they are not infallible. Ai banafius was a pillar of the truth, but not infallible: The great Ofius a pillar of the truth, and Nicene faith,yet fell fowlely, as appears by the story. Mufonius Bishop of Neocæsarea is by Bafilius Cæfarienfis invested with this very title of
sui xe.es wun es ein stics. (b) Ergo by the Romane Logick Balil thought him infallible, or if he did not chen Bafil did not think those words implyed infallibility, Gregory Nylen tells us, not onely Pecer, có James ,and John are pillars, not only John Baptist is a light, but also all shat build up the Church are pillars and lights (c) Therefore it seems all ministers are
(a) In velc&tione principiornm fidei.controv.4.9142. (b) in Epif. 63 (c) in vita Mofis.