An answer, to a little book call'd Protestancy to be embrac'd or, A new and infallible method to reduce Romanists from popery to Protestancy

CHAP. IV. The Infallibility of General Coun∣cils defended.

SECT. I. St. Augustin's saying of the mending of a former Council, by a poste∣rior, fully answered.

OUr Adversary conscious to himself, that we put the Definitions of approv'd General Councils, in the number of reveal'd Truths,

Grants indeed that Protestants deny General Coun∣cils to be Infallible in their Decisions, but their In∣fallibility, saies he, is no Article of Faith. Else Augustin was an Heretick, avouching de Bap lib. 2. contra Donatis c. 3. That General Councils ga∣thered out of all the Christian World, are often corrected, the former by the latter; the correction of a Council undoubtedly supposes a precedent Er∣ror, and a Council to be Errable, as every one understands, that knows any thing.

Answer. St. Augustin does not say often cor∣rected, but mended, there is a great difference be∣tween these two Words, the one supposes an Er∣ror, the other only whatsomever defect it being deriv'd from menda, which as Scaliger in his notes upon varro remarks, comes from the Latin ad∣verb minus, and properly signifies any defect what∣somever. A Master Painter draws a Lady, his piece is prais'd as well done, having all its just pro∣portions, and perfectly all her Features. Another Master draws her again with a little more Life, he is also said to have drawn her well, nay to have mended the other, So, well, suffers a Latitude without the Compass of Error. The first did well, but as we say in Latine minus Benè. Altho' two Scholers compose a Theam, both without Er∣ror, yet one may have made minus Benè, then the other, i. e. with less Elegance.

If you ask me in what this amendment of a General Council was, or may be made. I Answer. if you will have this amendment to be the correction of an Error of a General approv'd Council, it is to be understood in some matters of Fact, or some precepts of maners which depending of the cir∣cumstance of Time, Place and Persons, may have been right and good at one time and in con∣venient

at another, and therefore chang'd by rea∣son of the change of circumstances.

And that this was the meaning of St. Aug••∣stin.

I prove by his following Words, pleanary Coun∣tils may be amended, the former by the latter, when, saies he, by some experiment of things that is Open∣ed which was shut up and that known which lay hid.

I ask can we know by any experiment of things how many persons are in the Divine Nature? How many in CHRIST, how many Sacraments? No; but the Truth of a Fact, which lay hid, with time may come to Light, and so alter the mind of the Judge.

You'l say the matter in Question here with St. Augustin and the Donatists was a matter of Faith. Ans. The matter which gave the occasion to Augustin, to speak of General Councils, I grant. the matter at which he hinted in these last Words, plenaria Saepe priora posterioribus emen∣dari, I deny; and with ground: Because when he speaks of the Letters of Bishops and of Provin∣cial or National Councils, he uses these Words, Licere reprehendi, Siquid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est, which import a capacity of down right Error as I said afore: And speaking of General Councils, he cautiously uses the Word Emendari, which imports only some defect whatsomever.

All this is strongly confirm'd by his saying in the same Chap: that St. Cyprian would certainly have corrected his Opinion, had the point in his time been defin'd by a General Council. And a∣gain, by what he sayes, Lib. primo de Bap. con∣tra donat. Tom. 7. that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General

Council, how can this be true, if in his Opinion a General Council may Err? I ask again had there been more then the first four General Councils, the fourth being that of Chalcedon, held under Leo the first, the year of our Lord four hundred and fifty, (which four General Councils St. Gregory respect∣ed as the four Evangils) when St. Augustin said this, and yet he sayes Saepe Emendari, had he seen any mended in matter of Faith?

Lastly I give, to take from you all Scruple, that a General Council may be mended as to the want of a more clear Explication by a posterior, when experience shows us that some new arising Errors demand, a more ample Declaration of some point of Doctrine already defin'd. But that New Declaration gives you no more a new point of Doctrine, then I give you a new Rose when I blow out a bud which is in your hand; you have no more of a Rose than you had before, but only a fuller sight of it. No more have you of the truth in such an Explanation then you had before, but onely a clearer sight of it. In fine if a posterior Council might correct a former in matter of Faith, 'twould serve for nothing, for why am I more sure of this, than they of the former? This were only to breed confusion and foment division, while the adherents of one party clash with the other, since neither has Infallibility as you sup∣pose.

A Subject. Another objecton solv'd.

OUr Adversary brings another passage out of St. Augustin, against Maximian an Arian Bi∣shop, lib. 3 cap. 4. But first St. Augustin has not wrote any thing against any Arian Bishop called Maximian, as you may see in the Index of his Works.

He has indeed written three Books against Max∣iminus an Arian Bishop, but in the fourth chap: of the third Book he quot's, there is no such thing as this passage, which he sets down thus.

Neque ego teneor concilio Niceno neque tu Arime∣nenci. Neque standum tibi est Authoritati hujus nec mihi illius. Ponenda materia cum materia, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione, examinanda res Au∣thoritate Scripturae.

Neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini, neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this, nor I to the Authority of that. Let us set matter to matter, cause to cause, reason to reason, the thing is to be examin'd by the Authority of Scripture.

How ever I explain the passage without diffi∣culty. Thus,

St. Agustin seeing that the Authority of the Council of Nice, was of no force with the Arian, who rely'd upon no other Council but that of A∣rimini: To draw him out of his hole, he pro∣vok'd to an Authority common to both, viz. to that of the Holy Scripture. And this is common in the

Schools, for Men to lay aside their private pria∣ciples and argue from one which is agree'd on by both parties.

The sense then of St. Augustin, (if this passage be his) may be this, neither am I so tyed to the Council of Nice, nor you to that of Arimini, that we may not make use of another principle which is common to both.

SECT. II. 'Tis an Article of Faith, that Ge∣neral approv'd Councils are Infallible.

AN Article of Faith saies our Adversary must either be clearly contained in Scripture, or defin'd by some General Council. But that the Decisions of General Conneils, are Infallible, is neither clearly contained in Scripture, nor defin'd by a General Council.

Therefore 'tis not an Act of Faith, sayes he, that the Decisions of General Councils are Infalli∣ble. He demands in what Book, Chapter, and Verse of Scripture, or in what General Council this Article is contained?

Answer. First, either he Argues out of Protestant or Catholick Principles: If out of Protestant Prin∣ciples, then he added ill the second part of his dis∣junctive, since 'tis of no weight with them▪ If out of Catholick Principles, he oversaw himself in bringing the first part of his disjunctive, because, 'tis deny'd by Catholicks. For we deny that it is re∣quir'd

that an Act of Faith be clearly set down in Scripture, nay, that all our Articles be con∣tain'd there, or in General Councils, either, since these two are not our adequat and total Rule of Faith, but are compleated in the being of our Rule by Apostolical Tradition, which enters in, and assures us with equal Authority. Wherefore I first deny the Major, which failing the whole Argument concludes nothing.

2. Giving, not granting the Major, I deny the Minor, and say, that Article of Faith is clearly con∣tained in the same Scriptures, in which its clearly contained according to Protestants, that their Ge∣neral Synods do not Err in the Decision of Con∣troversies arising among them; for if, as they think, it is elearly proven by those passages, that their Sy∣nods do not Err, because they are directed by the Holy Ghost, I say, its clearly proven by the same, that our General Councils cannot Err, because they are directed by the Holy Ghost, a possibiliiy of Erring being as repugnant to the Holy Ghost as an Actual Error.

And by this their acknowledging that their Gene∣ral Synod may Err, tho it does not Err, they discard their Synod of Authority, and disown them∣selves to be that Body of Pastors which CHRIST conserv's in his Church, that hearing them, we may not waver like Children, and be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine, Ephes. 4. v. 11. and 14. For if I believe the Body of my Teachers to be fal∣lible, I fear and waver in my believe of what they have said and taught me. For possibili posito in actu nullum sequitur impossibile. There's no im∣possibility or absurdity if that which is possible be brought to an Actual Being; and so CHRIST would be disappointed in the aim he had, when,

Ephes. 4. He made some Pastors in his Church, that we might not waver.

3. I prove our assertion thus: 'Tis an Article of Faith, to believe the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity, because its clearly set down in Scripture (ac∣cording to Protestants,) as all other things neces∣sary to Salvation. But that a General approved Council, or the teaching Church is Infallible, is as clearly set down in Scripture, as appears by many passages of the same, for, Math. 18. v. 17. God sends us to the Church for instruction, and threatens us there with Damnation, or the punishment of an Ethnick, if we do not harken to Her, and con∣sequently tells us, that she is Infallible, for his Goodness woul dnot oblidge me under pain of Damnation to hear a Church which might lead me wrong.

Who hears you, hears me, saies CHRIST, to his Disciples going to preach. Luc. 10. but who hears CHRIST is infallibly sure to be well in∣structed, then also he is infallibly sure, who is in∣structed by the Church.

St. Paul saies, that Christ made some Pastors, (as I said above) Ephes. 4. v. 1. Why? That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrine.

Hence we inferr, that they are Infallible in what they teach us in matter of Faith, for if I thought them fallible, I might still waver, which would make void the aim of CHRIST in giving us those Pastors and Teachers, that we might not waver, Then 'tis an Article of Faith to believe that a Ge∣neral approv'd Council, or the Teaching Church is Infallible. If our Adversary still deny this; I de∣sire him to quote to me as clear passages out of Scripture, to prove the most Blessed Trinity, as I

have brought for the Infallibility of a General Coun∣cil, or the Teaching Church: And since I am confident he cannot; he has as much Reason to be∣lieve the Infallibility of the Church as an Article of Faith, as he has to believe the Mystery of the most B. Trinity to be one.

SECT. III. The Infallibility of a General ap∣prov'd Council, proven by some other passages of Scripture, and our Adversary's ex∣plication of them ex∣ploded.

I Ask, in the case of General approv'd Coun∣cils Erring, would not the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church, contrary to CHRISTS promise, Math. 16. v. 18. For all are not Doctors according to St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12. v. 29. The Teach∣able Church is bound to hear the Teaching Church, otherways, how are these bound to teach them, or feed them with Doctrine, (as CHRIST com∣manded the Church, when he said to Peter, Feed my Sheep, Iohn 21. v. 15, 16, 17.) if they are not bound to receive the Food they give them? Now, if they hearken to them; teaching by their fallibi∣lity Erronious Doctrine, the Blind leads the Blind, and so both fall in the Ditch, Math. 15. v. 14. or runs Headlong to Hell. And does not thus, Hell prevail against them?

And what an Interpretation (The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,) is this of our Adver∣sary. That the Church of CHRIST will remain, altho' Invisible, notwithstanding the Persecution of Tyrants, as in the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST.

1. Who saies the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST was Invisible? Did not the Faith∣full then know one another, and where to find a Pastor for instruction, or the receiving of a Sacra∣ment in necessity? And did not the chief Pastors expose themselves, and so became Martyrs the first thirty three all one after another?

2. If it be an Errable Church, Visible or Invi∣sible, 'tis as good as no Church to Christians; for what I have said, and shall say hereafter.

If a particular Church, or Parish, Pastor, and People, should be all the Week dispers'd here and there about their business, would they be said to be an Invisible Church, all the Week, and onely Visible when they meet on Sunday? Is it not e∣nough that they can find one another on Week dayes in a necessity?

But truly 'tis not enough to make a true Church Visible or Invisible, if they have not among them true Doctrine, as might full out in Protestants sup∣position of the Churches fallibility.

To show we can't prove the Infallibility of the Church, from St. Pauls saying, the Church is the Pilla rand Ground of Truth. 1 Timot. 3. v. 15. He explains that passage, thus. The Church is the Pillar of Truth, saies he, because the providence of God will not permit all her Children to fall and Err, but will always stirr up some to oppose Super∣stition, Idolatry and Error.

Answer. Either those who will always oppose

Error and Superstition, will be Members of the R. Church or not? If they be Members of Her, She will always oppose Error, (as when my Hand Writes, I am said to Write) and since we know our Saviour has foretold, Iohn 14. v. 16. and c. 16. v. 13. That he will always direct Her by his Spi∣rit of Truth, 'twill be impossible for Her by a con∣sequential Impotency to Err. Likewise, 'tis im∣possible to compose a perpetual direction of the Spirit of God with Error.

If these Opposers of Error, are a Church a part, I ask whether that Church, as distinct from the Roman be Fallible, or Infallible?

If Infallible, we have what we demand, viz. That the teaching Church of God is Infallible.

If Fallible, then the Church in as much as she op∣poses Herself to Error, may Err; which is absurd. The Inference is proven thus. In as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church, she opposes Error, and in as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church, she is Fallible, or may Err. Then in as much as she is distinct from the R. Church, she op∣posing Error, may Err.

SECT. IV, 'Tis not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a Ge∣neral Council, yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical defi∣nition.

TO that he asks us in what General Coun∣cil, is defined the Infallibility of General Councils.

I Answer. Asking him mutually, first, in what Parliament or Act of Parliament is it found declar'd, that a Parliament hath a Power to make Acts o∣blidging the People? If he thinks this Question Impertinent, and that it would be Impertinent for a Parliament or an Assembly of Men (if they were not otherways impowr'd) to Assemble and make an Act by which they will have all to submit and acknowledge that they have a Power to oblige the People.

I desire him to Reason the same way of the In∣fallibity of a General Council, and know that it has not 'its Infallibility, from its saying, we are In∣fallible, but from God, who has been pleas'd to declare it to us by Apostolical Tradition, and in the Holy Scriptures also, to those who read them with the Light which they have received from the Church of CHRIST.

As a Parliament then is fore-impowr'd to make Acts, and acknowledg'd as such, by the People, afore they set themselves to make any, so is the General Council acknowledged by all the Faithful, to have a promise from God, of not Erring in their Declaration of an Article of Faith, afore they set themselves to declare it; or by their Explication of a Truth, to take away the Cloud that hindred us to see it.

I Ans. Secondly, that it is defin'd in all General approv'd Councils (as much as it was necessary) by a practical definition, or their excercis'd power issu'd out by them in their oblidging Decrees al∣ways submissively receiv'd by the Faithful. If you say some have refused to receive them, my answer is, they ceas'd from that time to be number'd among the Faithful.

Does not a King sufficiently declare himself to be King, when he uses the Authority of a King in raising Armies and disbanding them, calling a Par∣liament, adjurning, proroging, or disolving it at his pleasure?

At last our Adversary brings a strong piece, viz. that the General Councils are so farr from pretend∣ing to be Infallible Judges of controversial debates, that in a set form of prayer appointed to be said atter every Council, they pray that God would spare their Ignorance and pardon their Errors.

Ans. I can't light upon this prayer: Shall I come as good speed in seeking it as I did with Maximian the Arian Bishop?

He quots, de ordin. Cele. Con. I desire him to write the Title of the Book at length, or rather tell me at the end of what Council this prayer is found. Since it is to be said after every Council, would not the Council of Trent have it. This Council

which hath set down things so exactly would it have omitted this.

But now these Errors are either in matters given out to the People for Articles of Faith; or not. If not, they make nothing against us. If these Errors be in matters of Faith, I ask are they in∣vincible Errors or vincible, if they are Invincible, they are not Sinful, and so need no pardon If they are vincible, it is either by their diligence in using more means to discover the Truth, or by an extraordinary assistance of God. For this extra∣ordinary assistance it is not in their power to have it, and depends only of God. For the other, if they find themselves not to have us'd all necessary means, let them use those they have omitted a∣fore they publish their Decrees, (for what a sim∣plicity and Impudence would it be, to continue in the Error I can avoid, and ask pardon for it?) and so having done what lay in them they will not stand guilty afore God, nor in a need of par∣don.

Rather say, (if some passage be found which may seem to have that sence) that in the fore discussion of questions some fear themselves to have been too much wedded (as is Natural to Man) to their own Opinion, & these desire God to spare their Ignorance, not having upheld their Opinion out of Malice, and pardon their fault in this, that they were not (it may be) so humble and deferent to others as they should have been.

If you say provincial Councils anatematize those who reject their decisions as well as General Councils, and so no Argument can be taken from thence for the General Council's Infallibility.

I Answer. Provincial Councils anathematize, &c. absolutly, as the General Councils do, I deny:

conditionally, and with submission to, and ap∣probation from the Sea of Rome, I grant: And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church.

To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say, the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible? He Answers by setting Reason to Reason, and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture.

Here I ask if that Collation, or comparing of Reason with Reason, and tryal by the Holy Scrip∣ture be fallible or infallible? If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speak∣ing, for since I must give an assent Infallible su∣per omnia (above all) my doubt must be taken infallibly away.

If it be Infallible, I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion? Not infundamentals, for there is no doubt in them, they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture.

If in Integrals, then, say I, since a private man use∣ing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals, then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them, and consequently infallibly propose them to the Peo∣ple to be believ'd, since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture, and conse∣quently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick.

SECT. V. We are sure that the Major Part, of an approv'd general Coun∣cil is Baptis'd.

ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility, is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd, but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly, sayes our Adversary, since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister. And up∣on the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention.

Answer. First, that the Synods, and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful, the members of them must be of the Elect, for if they are not of the Elect, Christ did not dye for them accord∣ing to the Kirk of Scotland; and if Christ did not dye for them, they are not Christians; and if they are not Christians, what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith, in which you believe, are found all the foundamen∣tals of Christianity? They composed them, they put them into your hands, by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them.

How are you more assured that they are of the Elect, then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd? Is it written in their faces? O but

they have a gift of prayer, had not Major Wyer in appearance one, and a very great one?

Answer Secundo, We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see, it approv'd by the Pope, because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Coun∣cil, unlawful for some hidden defect, to have all the outward form of a lawful Council; for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council, if, as it might fall out, such a Council should propose a false Doc∣trine to be believed. Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church. Matth. 18.23.17.

A Subsect: The Infallibility of the Church de∣ny'd underminds Christianity.

OUr Adversary having prov'd, as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions. The Church is fallible, then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith; then who rejects Transubstantiation, Purgatory, &c. are not Hereticks.

Answer. From that antecedent the Church is Fal∣lible, he might as well have drawn these con∣clusions, then, There is no Faith, nor true Reli∣gion.

For, if the Church be fallible in her Decisions, then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion; then its only probable that Chri∣stianity

is the true Religion: Again, if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion, the•• its only probable that CHRIST is God. Go fur∣ther, if it be only probable that CHRIST is God, then it may be, he is not God. Is this a pretty Discourse? Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent, The Church is Fallible; th•• Church nevertheless, which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him. Where is then Faith? Where is true Religion?

If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle, to wit, the Holy Scripture, by which you prove the Infallibi∣lity of Christianity.

I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture, and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demon∣strating the Infallibility of Christianity, is the Word of God?

By no other, but by your private Light or Spi∣rit, but this is Fallible, as I shall show anon, then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible, the former Discourse was Rational, it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion, if your principle carry with it fallibility, and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it.

Now, I prove that your private Light or pri∣vate Spirit is fallible. You are not sure 'tis the Spi∣rit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture, (try the Spirit, sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church, then you must try it by Scripture.) Again, you cannot read the Scripture in Order, to try this Spi∣rit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guid∣ed by the Spirit of God, for, if perchance it be

the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light, who guids you he'l make that seem to you true which is false. If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you, you can't be sure that the spirit, which inlightens you, is In∣fallible; then its fallible, and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible.

And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible, and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible, I pray, what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion, if we have none, we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion.

Be pleas'd to take notice then, that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church. According to that Ephes. 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors, &c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine. Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity.

Reflect again, how can we but waver in our thoughts, and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine, if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us, is fallible, and so, it may be, leading us wrong. This thought fru∣strates and makes void the design of CHRIST, who made some Pastors and Doctors a purpose, that we might not waver.

To confirm more this Catholick Tenet of the In∣fallibility of the Church, conceive well that, that Religion cannot have true Faith, which rejects this Principle of Infallibility by which all Errors in Faith have been condemn'd; and admits the Principle of a private Light, by which all Errors in Faith have

had their rise in the Church, and without which Men could not so much as pretend to defend them.