« PreviousContinue »
own pretended satisfaction init, he will needs obtrude the same opinion upon that Noble Lord Falkland (which ic is fufficiently known be abhorred) viz. that if the Ca tholick. Churches Authority and Infallibility were opposed all other Churches muft expire: The Authority of the English Church would be an airy fantasme, &c. Appendo chap.6.num.9: : For Answer, I durst appeale to the conscience of this very man, but that Apoftates in che Faith do at the same
time make fhipwrack of a good conscience: let any Romanift that is not prodigall of his damnacion, seriously consider the grosse fallhood of this bold fuppofigion. What! no Authority without infallibilicy? Belike there is no Authority in the King, because no Infallibility. He will say Civill Authority is but externall;; . But Ecclesiasticall reacherb the conscience, and commands the bea liefe of the inward man: Mr Crelly knew this to be a gratus dictum and justly denied by Protestants, and therefore he should have proved it, but crude fuppofitions and imperious didaces do passe among Romanists for folid demonftrations : Yec againe I would aske Mt Crely-whether the Assembly of the Clergy in France have Auchoricy over chạt Church, or no: If he deny it I refer him to his brethren there for an Answer: If he gránt it, then Authority may be without Infallibility: Againe I aske him whether the Pope without a Councell bave Authority over che Church or no: If he deny ic, 'cis at his perill; if he affirme it, then his Argument is in great jeopardy: For Procestants are allowed to disbea lieve the Popes personall Infallibility: And he confefseth (I gave you his own words before ) that good Catholicks deny it and dispute against ic: Yeronce more; When generall Councels have been called to determiné the pretensions of Anti-Popes, or to depose usurping Popes, or when they have had differences with the Popes,
demand whether thefe Councels had any Authority oe 0? To say they bad none, or chat cheir Authority was ut an airy fantafme I think Mr Grely will not dare; nd if they had, then either a Counsell wichout the Pope Infallible (whicb molt Learned Papists nowdeny, and
Mr Crelly be of another mind let him cell us) or Author ity may be without Infallibility.
In a word that the World may see the complexion of n Apoftates conscience, This very man will grant that here is an Authority in the Superiour over his Convenc,
every Bishop over his Diccesse, in every Generall over is order, and a weighey Authority
. 10o C as their valsals cel by sad experience ) yet I hope these are not Infallile, E.che more impudenc is he that argues from Authoriy tp Infallibility. 5.
A fecond Argument is much of the same complexion, aken from the stile and practise of generall Councels vhich was to propose their Doctrines as infallible ruths , and co command all Christians under the paine f. Anathema., and eternall damnation to believe them or such : That Antbority which should speak tous not bee ng infallible, would be guilty of the greatest tyranny and ruelty, and usurpation that ever mas in the World.Append.
This hach been fully answered before, and theres ore I shall here concent my self with these two reElections,
1. The utmost of this Argument (abstrading from the nvidious expreffions he here clothes ic with, that it may bave in cerrour,wbat it wants in Atrength) would be no more then this : 1 Thar gerierall Councels in such a way of proceeding were mistaken and were liable to error: A proposition which he knew very well the Protestants did universally own, and I hope well may,since she Jefuices (so great a part and support of the Roman Church)
bave and do acknowledge that generall Councels and their decrees are not infallible uncill cbe Popes consent be added, yet such Councels ( as is pocoriously known) bave used to pur cheir Anathema'sito their decrees before the Popes assent was given : And yet forsooth (if you will believe a man that hach calt away his Faich) this Argument is more evident theo we can produce for the Scripcare it felfe (for fo he faith, ibid.).. ::2. These Anachemas do not at all prove that such Councels either were or thought themselves. Infallible
: It is true, it is an Argument chey thought one of these two things, either that the Do&rine proposed by them was Infallibly true (as indeed chey did, or chat their Authority was infallibly certaine (which they never pretended) either of these were a sufficient ground for such Anachema's, and therefore his Argument is infirme pro, ceeding à genere ad speciem, animal eft, E. homo. They owned Infallibility E. they owned it in their Authority Particular Pastors have a power to Anathematize and do so in case of Excommunication of Hereticks. Are they therefore infallible? If it be said they do it opely in pursuance and execution of che decrees of Councels : i Answer: If such persons (confessedly fallible) may Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines delig vered in Councels, because supposed to be Infallibly true, why may not the same persons Anathematize them that renounce the Do&rines 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 practise of Anatbematizing was notionely in use in gene, rall, but also in particular and Provinciall Councells which are confessed to be fallible : E. Mr Crelly look to your Arguments and conscience better ; once more, The Popes Anathemas all the World rings of yer you have seen bis infallibility is denied by many and Learned Papists, &
they too such as are universally
, esteemed good Catholicks) faith Mr Cressy Append. chap. 4. num. 7. Therefore how durft he tay, Anachema's are evidences of Infallig bility ?
The third Argument is taken from the promises of Infallibility made to this Church. This Doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is the moft expresse in Scriptures faith M Cressy. Sect.z.cap.26.1.5. Iluppose he told, us so upon che fame account that the old Painter wrot under his picture, This is a Lion, for fear fome Should bare mistaken it for a Bull, 'for truely if he had not laid it was most expresse therc,amy racionall man would have sworn che contrary
1 confesse I thought M Crefy (as well as Mr White and other Traditionall Doctors) had been fick of those pre tences, and fufficiency discovered the impertinency of them to their purpose : and really wben I read over the Scriptures quoted by him to prove this Infallibility, and consider how inlignificant chey are to his businesle, and how plainly, and fully and frequeocly they have been answered by Proçeltants, which be doch not here reply to ). . mult nos dislenible, chat I find a great diffi, culty to believe his conscience could be fatisfied therewich, fure I am whileft he was a Protestant, if he undera stood himself) he would have entertained such proofs with contempt: 1 dare confidently say that most of the Scripeure-allegations produced
, by che Quakers. (in de fence of their absurd and ridiculous opinions) are every whic as pertinent as any chat are here cited: It is true they are material to that
purpose to which they are cited by the Fathers, viz. to prove the Churches perpetuicy and just Authority, buc tor Infallibility, bow far the fa thers were from believing that, I hope Bach been made fufficiently evidenç from the foregoing Discourse. where also particular Answers bave been given to their Argumonts from these places, which when they folidiy vindi cate, it will deserve, and four mem)thall have our confiderasion. Ar present i fhall content my self with chis gene. Tall animadversion.
Thore Scripturall promises prétended for the Churches Infallibility, eicher they do of themselves without the Churches lence and expoficion, evidently and folidly prove the poine they are brought for, or they do not ; vf they say ikiej do , then other passages of Scripture (undoubcedly farre more plaine and pofitive for diverse doatrines rejected by the Papists) do of themselves, wichout the Churches sence and expofition, prove chose points they are brought for, and Co Scripture may decide controverfies, if they say not, then the Churches Infallibility must be fupposed, before it can be proved from those Texts, which is I confefse agreeable to the Roman Catholick way of Disputation,
and fit for them that cannot endure reaton should be judge, buê I am sure it will never fatisfie any' man har hack any care of his consci. ence or 'Salvátitá: Bue 1'can tell the Reader good newes, and that which is ftrange too among Romanits, who use to confure Profestants by the meer naming of thofe Texts that have been fubftaneially vindicated an hundred times.' Mr Crely hath one Chapter entitled che Validicy of Juich Texts &c. is it is called, but I doubt it was the Printers mistake for Invalidity., as will appeare upon perufali? He offers but one Argument for proofé of this Capícall Assertion, upon which all the Papacy de pends, and it is this: The Antient Fathers do usrally
Argue against their Herericks and Schifmaticks from those promises, that Christs Church Tould continue for ever, and that the gates of Hell foould not prevaile against her: 'Now (faich he) if tbele promises of Christ be not infallible and abu solute and that Charch Visible. What then? 'chen woe to the poor Fachers, then the Writings of these Fathirs