First Tanquam refutari nequeat quod illicitè voluerit multitudo illa Nicenorum Canonum per Spiritum verò Sanctum ordinata conditio in aliqua unquam parte sit solubilis Leo Epist ad Anatol. in omnibus Ecclesiis his Legibus obsequentes quae ad pacificationem omnium Sacerdotum per CCCXVIII Antistites Spiritus Sanctus instituit idem ad Pulcheriam writing against the twenty eighth Canon of Chalcedon insists that it contradicted the Constitution of Nice which was ordained by the Holy Ghost § XXVI 1. For my part I cannot but think it a great presumption to imagin that the Councils of latter times should equal those of the primitive Ages For as the Ancients had greater advantages than after Ages could have to know what the Apostles taught and how they explained their own Writings by their private Discourses and their Sermons and by their Practice so methinks it is highly reasonable to suppose that they had greater assistences from above For it seems requisite and agreeable to God's methods of transacting with mankind to afford eminent abilities to instruct men fully in Christianity to those on whom he bestowed a power of working Miracles to convince the World of the Truth of it and we must in reason conclude their Wisedom in understanding the Scriptures as well as their Miracles to attest it and their Courage and Patience in suffering for it to have been supernatural This cannot be denyed of the Apostles themselves And as it pleased God not to let Miracles cease till he had raised up men of great Parts and Learning to undertake the Defence of his Religion so we have the same reason to believe that he would not till then wholly withdraw his extraordinary Gifts and Illuminations for these seem to have been as necessary against the many and pernicious Heresies so early sprung as those to vindicate it against Infidels We may well allow greater force to the Assertions of St. Clement St. Ignatius St. Irenaeus c. than their Arguments may seem to carry because they may have more of a Divine Spirit in them than we are aware of and so upon that account challenge a higher regard from us than upon the score onely of their Reasonings We must indeed still keep to the Analogy of Faith but why should we too confidently make our selves Judges of their ways of arguing especially from Figures and Allegories who would have known that the a 1 Cor. 10. Rock in the wilderness was Christ unless St. Paul had told him so or who would have understood the Allegory b Galat. 4. of the two Sons of Abraham unless he had explained it How can we be assured that St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles did not explain many more Types and make many more Allegorical Proofs than we have delivered to us in the Scriptures 'T is more than probable they did in so many Sermons to the Jews always arguing from the Old Testament instructed herein by our Saviour himself and by the Holy Ghost after his Ascension as their Followers and immediate Successours likewise were How then can we be assured but many of those Allegorical Interpretations which some men presume to set so light by might be the Interpretations of the Apostles themselves or of the Holy Ghost in these Apostolical men as they have been justly styled Those I mean delivered down by primitive Antiquity made use of in all succeeding Ages till men began to be so exceeding wise as to despise them 2. But as the Authority of Apostolical Traditions could reach no farther than the first Ages so in succeeding times we have little reason to think that the Holy Ghost had much to doe in their Councils Christ himself seems to have been almost excluded since Christ's Vicar as he styles himself has had such an absolute sway in Councils Si dixerit aliquis fiet recursus ad Sedem Curiam Summi Pontificis non negabimus hoc si Theologia illic habuerit duos Doctores non partiales non seductos non fastuosos non quaestuosos aut invidos non potestati seculari non spirituali plus quà m veritati studentes alioquin tolerabilius esset nullos habere quà m tales pati * Gerson apud Richer l. 2. p. 262. If any one shall say there must be recourse to the See and Court of the High Priest we will not deny it if Divinity shall have there two impartial Doctours not seduced not proud not covetous or envious not savourers of the temporal and spiritual Power more than of the Truth otherwise it would be more tolerable to have none than to endure such Upon which Richerius cries out Deus Bone Si nostra vidisset secula quibus malum in immensum per singulos dies ità excrevit ut semper posterior dies acerbior nequior priore exstiterit continuet Good God! Had he but seen our times wherein the mischief encreases so vastly every day that the latter days have always been sharper and worse than the former and shall always continue so And this is to be understood not onely of Discipline but of Faith and Manners †Ibid. p. 260. Video quod in Doctrinis quae Fidem quae Religionem quae bonos salubres respiciunt Mores vix invenietur in hac tempestate rebus ut sunt manentibus nec habito forti favore potentiae secularis terminatio debita vel expedita justitia Experto crede c. I see says Gerson that in those Doctrines which have regard to the Faith to Religion to good and wholsome Manners there will scarce be found at this time as things stand though we should be backt by strong assistences of the secular Power either a just determination or speedy justice Believe a man who has tryed it c. Such have been the Complaints of good men concerning the Generality of the Popish Clergy and are still in our days especially concerning all those that challenge the Governing part in Councils I wish says c Holden 's Lett. in Walsh 's Irish Remonstr p. 524. Dr. Holden with all my heart that with the loss of my Bloud I could blot out of the Belief of all experienced men that nothing but Interest and Faction are prevalent in the Court of Rome we need not insist upon the gross Ignorance of former Ages when the leading men as we have seen in Pius the Second Cusanus and others employed all their knowledge and cunning to uphold a Faction which made them go off from one Party to another as their Interest served and use all the arts and ways of management which are wont to be used in secular affairs 3. This quite breaks the force of the Argument that is most troublesome to a modest man that he should oppose his own judgment and the judgments of some few others perhaps in comparison to the Determination of so many Bishops met in Council we need but go to Nich. Clemanges Works to Espencaeus
life in great favour at Rome yet has he since been very ill treated by F. Raynaud a Jesuit at Lyons for his great caution and restraint in a matter of that importance p. 85 86. he shews that this Doctrine by degrees gained ground till the Jesuits growing daily more insolent proceeded to that extravagant Thesis of the College of Clermont wherein they dared to maintain publickly in the midst of Paris it self and in the face of the Parliament that Jesus Christ has given to all Popes whenever they shall speak è Cathedrâ the same Infallibility himself had as well in matters of Fact as of Right Great care is taken to suppress all Books which thwart this Doctrine and to publish and give credit to such as may infuse it Baronius and his Continuators are the Authours for History chiefly in vogue and these without coming near him in his Excellencies infinitely surpass him in his Faults He particularly observes Raynaldus to have been a Man without the Spirit of are Ecclesiastick without style without judgment without sincerity without credit yet he had the boldness to dedicate his eighteenth Tome to the French Clergy and presented it to the Assembly of the Clergy 1660 and though this Doctrine of the Authority of Councils is every where styled Schismatical and Heretical the Pragmatick Sanction vilified the Council of Basil outraged and all the Popes who possessed the See in Avignon during the Schism pronounced Antipopes who are the onely Popes that France has acknowledged though the most undefensible pretences of the Church of Rome are every where justified yet all the disfavour or discouragement that Book met with was that Raynaldus did not receive a Letter of thanks from the French Clergy as he expected but no Sentence being passed upon it this silence as my Authour observes will be one day taken for a tacit approbation and the Abettors of the Court of Rome believe with great reason that they have however gained a main point since there has been nothing positively done against such a Work presented to the whole Clergy besides the advantage gained by having such Books received and read without prohibition that may instill those Principles p. 94 c. whereas the Episcopal Decrees of the Bishops of France have been treated by the Bishops of Rome to that degree of indignity as to be ranged among the condemned Books without vouchsafing either to clear it with the Bishops before Censure or to render them any Account of what they thought amiss afterwards p. 71. After all the hideous outcries against Richerius when he requested of a certain Bishop one of Cardinal Perron's intimate Friends that he might have a fair hearing and liberty allow'd him to offer what he had to say in defence of his Book de Ecclesiastica Potestate the Bishop freely told him that he had made himself so many Enemies not by writing Errours but too plain and unpleasing Truths that though there was nothing could be disproved in his Book yet the Church-men had much rather have their sole dependence on the Pope than to have the perpetual trouble and dissatisfaction of appearing before Secular Judges Richer Pref. ad Conc. Gen. The Pope promised the D. of Espernon a Cardinalship for his Son if he would deliver him Richerius into the Inquisition whereupon he was thrust into Prison but the whole Vniversity of Paris interceded for him to the Parliament and upon a full hearing he was released but the Pope recompensed the Duke's good will with the promised reward to his Son. And when Richelieu requested a red Hat of Urban the Eighth for his Brother Richerius's retractation was the price must be paid for it The Apostolick Notary comes to Paris and is entertained by F. Joseph a Capuchin who having left his Convent then lived in the City This F. Joseph was Richelieu's Confessour and was employ'd by him to prepare all business first and then to bring it to him Butillerius Pater Josephus Capucinus negotia cruda accipiunt cocta ad Cardinalem deferunt Grot. Lett. 375. Par. 1. In Easter Week an acquaintance of F. Joseph's one of the Sorbon and a great Friend as he pretended to Richerius is sent to the good Man to invite him in F. Joseph's name to dinner that so he might give his opinion in a point of Controversie Richerius excused it saying he never frequented Feasts but he would wait upon him after Dinner but being pressed to come not to be uncivil he comply'd As soon as Dinner was done a Question was designedly mov'd concerning the Pope's Authority of which when Richerius discoursed modestly as his manner was F. Joseph tells him now says he you must either retract your Book which you formerly writ de Ecclesiastica Politica Potestate or die for it at that certain Ruffians rushed forth armed from behind the Hangings and threatned to murther him in this dreadfull surprize the poor old Man subscribed a Retractation ready prepared and drawn up for him and immediately was carried home where when he considered what he had done he wrote this Account of the business to his Friend Morisotus lamenting extremely his own timorousness and fainting under this Calamity so much more grievous than Death to him he had scarce sealed his Letter but flinging himself upon his Bed he dy'd Claudii Barthol Morisoti Epist ad Carelum in fin Vindic Doctr. c. Rich. lib. 4. p. 100. How little better Launoy fared is sufficiently known from an Account of his Life lately printed at London Whilst these are the proceedings against the Advocates for the Gallican Church its Adversaries are encouraged and their Works in high esteem The Abridgment of the Councils by Coriolanus was printed at Paris and revised by a Dr. of the Faculty though all the contrary Maxims to the Doctrine of the Gallican Church are set at the beginning of the Book as so many Catholick Doctrines And the Councils are published by men devoted to the Pope for the Jesuites have ever had the Government of the Royal Press and in printing the Councils have left in the Life of Boniface the Eighth these outragious words as the Advocate justly terms them against all France Philippum Pulchrum Galliae Regem justè excommunicavit and this printed at the King's House at his own Charges New Heresie p. 100. Nor is there the least intimation given that that Pope exceeded his Authority when he threatned to depose him vit Bonif. Octavi Tom. 28. pag. 676. And though Cossartius takes notice that Binius was mistaken in saying Philip was justly excommunicated whereas he was not indeed at all excommunicated yet is not one word said but that he might deserve to be excommunicated or any thing to the contrary but that the Pope did very well in threatning him with Deposition Conc. Labbé Tom. 2. part 2. p. 1389. The judicious Advocate abovementioned foresaw what was to be expected from this last Edition of the Councils which was then in hand for
they would have Request made to the Pope to confirm the Council It is subjoined Responderunt Placet They all desire it And there is no mention of the least dissent and presently follows the dismission of the Fathers And after this manner have all the Editions been printed ever since without the least intimation that one Bishop demurred upon it h Richer ib. Ex quo patet Curiae Romanae propositum esse omnia delere atque supprimere Acta quae juribus suis usurpatis adversantur hinc etiam fit ut nulla Apocrypha pro veris legantur etiam in antiquis Conciliis Whence it appears that the Court of Rome is resolved to suppress and abolish all those Acts which shall contradict their usurped Rights and hence it is that many spurious things are read as genuine even in the ancient Councils I need pursue this subject no farther nor seek for Instances to make good this observation of Richerius his Testimony may suffice instead of a thousand Instances Nor shall I make any advantage of the many other great Corruptions wherewith partly through Ignorance partly with Design the monuments of Antiquity are defaced as the Authour of the Preface to Paul the Fifth's Edition of General Councils complains who was Sirmondus as i Praef. ad Conc. Cossartius informs us nor of the great alterations under that pretence made in innumerable places of the Roman Edition which have been retained ever since besides the carelesness of the several Publishers that has made the best Editions extreamly uncorrect which put Baluzius k Praef. ad Conc. Tem. 1. upon a new Collection And we have some better hopes of him if his skill in the Greek Tongue qualifie him for such a Work notwithstanding the sharp Contest that has been between him and M. Faget concerning Peter de Marca's posthumous Works or the undervaluing l Gerbais de Causis majoribus Character lately given him by a Doctour of the Sorbon PART II. § I. PApists are not agreed in the Authority of Councils I mean they are not agreed what Councils are General and what are not so They differ as much about the Councils as they do about the Notes of the Church For as Costerus assigns three Coccius five Bellarmin fifteen Bozius an hundred Notes so some assign more some fewer General Councils though the common computation proceeds no higher than to eighteen of such as are without exception As the seventh and eighth General Councils were not a long time received into the Professions of Faith which I shew in the seventh so the number of Councils recited in those Professions not exceeding eight as is manifest by those Professions in the Diurnus Romanus published by Garnerius shew that eight onely were looked upon as truly General and the rest not as of equal Authority Cardinal Contarenus in his short account of Councils written to Paul the Third and presented to him on his calling the Council of Trent or that of the delegated Cardinals in order to it he being one of the number reckons that for the eighth General Council which deposed Photius and the Council of Florence for the ninth not so much as naming any of the Lateran Councils but the last and not esteeming either this or that of Lyons under Gregory the Tenth nor that of Constance or Basil General though he does name them m Contarenus Sum. Conc. Edit Venet. MDLXII Cardinal Pole with his Synod at Lambeth under Paul the Fourth A. D. MDLVI calls the Council of Florence the eighth General Council though they own the fourth Lateran under Innocent the Third for General as they doe likewise the fifth Lateran n Decret 2. They mention the fourth of Lateran frequently and never but under the Title of a General Council and that of Lyons under Gregory the Tenth they mention under the same Character o Decret 3. Abraham Cretensis the first Publisher of the Council of Florence gives it the Title of the eighth General Council and so the Approbation of Clement the Seventh prefix'd to that Edition styles it and so Cardinal Pole with his Clergy account it So that this was the opinion of the Members p Launoy Epist part VIII ad Francisc Bonum of the Council and of the first Publishers of it and of our English Clergy in Queen Mary's Reign whereas in the common account new style the Council of Florence is the Sixteenth Merlin gives us but eight General Councils which are the first six with those of Constance and Basil In the Vatican Library as it now stands and was erected by Sixtus Quintus A. D. MDLXXXVIII where all the General Councils are represented in painting with Inscriptions to explain them there are but two Lateran Councils viz. Those under Alexander the Third and Innocent the Third q Angelus Roccha de Biblioth Vatican p. 200. Roccha in his Explications reckons the Council of Vienne the fifteenth and then proceeds to the Council of Florence which he calls the eighteenth as it is indeed computing the two intermediate Councils of Constance and Basil but Sixtus Quintus thought fit to take no notice of them in the Vatican but Roccha makes them up a full Score though the Councils of Constance and Basil be onely supposed not expressed in the number So many differing accounts we have concerning the number of General Councils to which may be added one more by taking in the Council of Arles as it ought to be in St. Augustine's opinion and in the opinion of Launoy Albaspinaeus Marca Labbé Sirmondus and others r Launoy confirmat dissert de vera plenarii Concilii ap Augustin notione p. 96. in which Council the Bishop of Arles presided to examine the Cause of the Donatists which had been before determined by the Bishop of Rome and his Synod they confirmed the Judgment past at Rome but would have as certainly nulled it if the Sentence had been wrong The two latter Editions of the Councils for awhile continue the Tale of them and the last continues it longer than the Royal Edition does but afterwards they break off and cease numbering onely giving us them as they come which may be a farther evidence how little certainty and exactness there is in any thing that relates to a Catalogue of General Councils It seems then we are at last reduced to that notable Expedient which is said to have been in a late Preachment proposed about the Sacraments If we must have Councils my Beloved let us take the greatest number and then we are sure to have all and so for the largest Bible and the largest Creed that we may be sure to have enough of whatever it be But because Bellarmin's number of Councils seems to be most in vogue I shall consider his eighteen which he assures us are all over Infallible and fully approved whereas there are half a dozen that have had the ill luck not to pass muster though they are pretty tolerable in the
was afterwards improved into that which all Bishops c. take at their Consecration § IX 1. The fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third An. MCCXV is reckoned the twelfth General Council in order by Bellarmin Possevin c. Cardinal Pole with his Synod at Lambeth owns it for General they frequently mention it and never but under the Title of General though they do not put it in the same rank among the General Councils they profess however to receive and embrace the Faith of the Church of Rome according to the Decrees of the General Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third v Decret 2. The Council of Constance * Session 39. requires all Popes to make profession of the Faith established in the VIII Sacred General Councils whereof this is set down for one and the Council of Trent x Session 24. cap. 5. it self calls this a General Council The Great General Council of Lateran y Session 14. cap. 5. and makes use of its authority again z Session 21. cap. 9. and which is yet more to the purpose a Council of English Bishops held at Oxford a Conc. Tom. 11. Part. 1. A. MCCXXII cap. 24 28 29 33. not above seven years after acknowledge the Authority of this Council of Lateran and several times quote its Decrees In short as this is placed by Bellarmin among those Councils which are received with full approbation beyond all dispute by the Church of Rome so he looks upon it as no less than Heresie to deny the Authority of it and therefore when he has produced the third Canon of this Council in defence of the Deposing Doctrine against Barclay he cries out with great zeal and vehemence Quid hic Barclaius diceret si haec non est Ecclesiae Catholicae vox ubi obsecro eam inveniemus si est ut verissimè est qui eam audire contemnit ut Barclaius fecit annon ut Ethnicus Publicanus nullo mode Christianus pius habendus erit What can Barclay say to this if this be not the voice of the Catholick Church where I pray shall we find it and if it is as questionless it is he that despises to hear it as Barclay has done is he not to be look'd upon as an Heathen-man and a Publican and by no means a Christian or a pious Man This Widrington b Discussio Discuss Part. 1. § 2. p. 28. complains of as intolerably insulting others may rather think he speaks as a Cardinal when he was managing the Popes cause so victoriously from so infallible evidence For such is the authority and esteem in the Church of Rome of this Council that it is usually called The Great Council of Lateran either from the great number of Bishops in it or from the great importance of the matters decided or both The number of Bishops was no less than CCCCXII or in Bellarmin's reckoning CCCCLXXIII and among these were the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem and the Delegates of the other two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch LXXVII Primates and Metropolitans besides DCCC Abbats and Priors these were all there in person and proxies were sent innumerable The Emperour likewise of Constantinople the King of Sicily Emperour of the Romans Elect the Kings of England France Hungary Jerusalem Cyprus Arragon and other Princes and Cities sent their Embassadours hither so that never was there such a show perhaps in the world again 2. The matters Determined both of Faith and of Discipline were extraordinary and of the greatest importance The Doctrines of Faith defined were Transubstantiation c Cap. 1. the Articles concerning the Holy Trinity asserted and vindicated from the errour of Abbat Joachim and those errours condemned and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son declared d Cap. 2. The Deposing Doctrine established e Cap. 3. The Church of Rome declared to be the Mother and Mistress of all Christians universorum Christi fidelium and to have by God's appointment the Dominion over all other Churches of ordinary Authority by her extraordinary Prerogative f Cap. 5. 3. The Decrees in points of Discipline are in their kind no less considerable against the Incontinency of the Clergy g Cap. 14. against their Drunkenness h Cap. 15. against the Negligence and Debauchery of Prelates i Cap. 17. that no Clergy-man should give Sentence in Capital Causes k Cap. 18. Auricular Confession enjoyned once every year l Cap. 21. That no Clergy-man should take an Oath of Allegeance to any secular Persons unless he held some temporal Estate of them m Cap. 43. That no Clergy-man should be obliged to pay Taxes n Cap. 46. The manner of proceedings in Excommunications regulated o Cap. 47. The Prohibition of Marriages restrained to the fourth degree p Cap. 50. Clandestine Marriages forbidden and that Children of Parents married within the degrees prohibited declared illegitimate q Cap. 51. Against Simony r Cap. 63. and many other things of like nature which are of the highest consequence and fall under daily practice 4. All this one would think were sufficient to put the Authority of the fourth Council of Lateran beyond all contradiction or debate for who can imagine that a Council celebrated with so much solemnity which decided Controversies of so mighty concernment in the Church and determined things of continual use among all sorts and Orders of Men should not immediately meet with the most entire submission and always retain an undoubted Authority and veneration Thus much would have been due if it had not been infallible but being infallible what regard must every Age and every Nation and every Writer at least every Traditionary Christian pay to it yet this very Council so famous and so renowned in its Members so extraordinary in its Determinations and Decrees lay dormant unregarded and unknown till the year MDXXXVII that is till above CCC years after it was held 'T is very surprising that neither Innocent himself nor his Nephew and next Successour but one Gregory the Ninth who published his Uncle's Decretal Epistles and these very Decrees which now pass for the Decrees of this Council among the rest should put this forth among the other General Councils 't is strange that no other Pope or Bishop or at least some Canonist or other learned man should ever think of it but 't is yet more strange that Merlin in his Councils printed but three years before the fourth Council of Lateran was published should omit this though he sets down the Councils of Constance and Basil But when this Council did come to light with what Credentials did it come what evidence does it bring for its Authority is it printed from some ancient Manuscripts in the Vatican it might then be wondred how it should lie so long concealed never published never quoted nor mentioned but 't is a much greater
more easie than answering but he gives this very good reason for what he says because at this rate the Precept concerning Auricular confession would not be valid nor Transubstantiation de Fide no nor the Procession nor the opposite Articles to the errours of Joachim and so the Schoolmen in their Writings and the Inquisitors in punishing Hereticks had been all to blame Widrington replies that the Practice of the Church and the inserting these Canons into the Body of the Canon Law by Gregory the Ninth was sufficient to give Authority to them But this is to bring us back again from a Council to the Pope and from him to send us to the Church diffusive to inquire into her Faith and Practice and so we are disappointed of the vast hopes conceived from so numerous an Assembly But if these things had then been of known Practice and undoubted Truth how came they not immediately to be consented to in Council how came they to seem grievous and burthensome to the Bishops there was not Transubstantiation one of those Grievances the Deposing Doctrine another Auricular Confession a third and might not many more Grievances be mentioned Well but the Procession of the Holy Ghost and the true notion of the Trinity must be called in question if we reject this Council by no means because this had been explained in other Councils as far as was necessary and the Greek and Latin Manuscripts of Cossartius leave out the Procession so that that was it seems but in some Copies and cannot be proved from this Council But all these Doctrines says Widrington a Ibid. p. 12. have been received and embraced by the Catholick Church and from thence derive their Authority This we deny neither the Deposing Doctrine as Widrington himself confesses and maintains nor Transubstantiation nor Auricular Confession was ever received by the Catholick Church But the truth is he was forced to say something he was loth to deny the Authority of a Council now generally received by the Church of Rome he rather chose to evade the third Canon as well as he could nor durst he either in his Answer to Lessius b Discuss ib. p. 22. or in his last Rejoinder to Fitzherbert c Rejoynder cap. 9. disown the Council but after he has raised all the Objections he was able professes at last that as for his own part he receives it The same Objections have been lately renewed by Father Walsh yet still he too does not profess to disown the Authority of the Council 7. But Cossartius produceth a Greek Translation of this Council which he says is of the same Antiquity with the Council it self and he is positive that the very sight of this is enough to convince all men the Decrees are Genuine this Translation shewing the agreement between the Greeks and the Latins for that the Decrees which were made by the unanimous consent of all might be by all observed they were turned into the Greek Language for the use and benefit of those who did not understand the Latin. The Greek he confesses is in many places barbarous and his Manuscripts in some places imperfect and therefore in those places he was forc't to give us onely the Latin leaving void spaces in the opposite Column where the Greek was defective but here I observe that the whole first Chapter is not extant in the Greek Copy nor does it appear by any vacancies left in the Print that the Manuscript was imperfect but that the whole Chapter was omitted by the Greek Translatour and so if this Manuscript prove any thing it proves that the Greek Church did not concurr with the Latin in the Article of Transubstantiation for this being the first time that ever that Doctrine was asserted in a General Council certainly the Greeks would never have omitted to translate so material a Passage of the Council wherein this is contained if they had agreed to it All that part of the third Chapter which concerns the Deposing Doctrine is likewise wanting in the Greek but here he tells us is a leaf of the Manuscript wanting both in the Greek and the Latin 't were to be wished we could know how it came to be wanting but however this serves to confirm to us that nothing is deficient in the first Chapter but that the Manuscript is entire though the whole Chapter be onely in Latin and so the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the ill luck to be left out in the Translation of the first Council in which it ever was defined for which no other reason can be given if this Manuscript be Authentick but that the major part of the Church i. e. all the East and four Patriarchs of five rejected it The Translatour often mistakes the Latin and quite alters the sense and in the second Chapter where the Catholick Doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity is explained the Particle non is omitted in the Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek a small mistake in a matter of Faith but such a mistake as could not easily escape in both Languages or if it did must needs give a very exact and faithfull account of what was defined in the Council This and other gross faults do not make much for the credit of this Manuscript nor engage us necessarily to believe upon its sole Authority that the Greek Church received the fourth Lateran Council or indeed that it was ever received at all till of late years which many learned men in the Church of Rome have been so sensible of that they have never alledged its Authority but when they had nothing else to alledge For neither the more ancient of our Modern Divines says Widrington d Last Rejoynder c. 9. who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba Sanders and others nor Cardinal Bellarmin himself in his Controversies did make any great reckoning of the Decree of this great Council This was Bellarmin's last Refuge when he was beaten off from his other Arguments by Barclay and though he urges it with great confidence and earnestness yet if he had much relied upon its Authority he would have used it before for if the Council be General the Argument is unanswerable and infallible in their account whatever disguises may be put upon it The opposers of this Lateran Council farther add e Widrington ib. p. 20. that the Council of Constance meant not this Council but that of Lateran under Alexander the Third and that the Council of Trent spoke according to the common opinion that is in plain terms the Council of Trent was mistaken and that in a matter of no small consequence for if one General Council tell the world that another is General which really is not so what assurance can men have of any Council that it is General or what Errours may not a General Council by this means lead men into What they answer to the Testimony of the Council held at
in an Exception to reserve the Liberties of the Gallican Church entire And in the e Id. p. 348. Low Countries when Margaret Dutchess of Parma then Governess there required the Magistrates of every Province to make search whether any thing in the Decrees of the Council of Trent were contrary to the Rights of his Catholick Majesty or to the ancient customs of their Countrey they animadverted upon several Chapters particularly upon C. 5. Sess 24. which the French likewise particularly except against and they said it was an Innovation and the King might insist upon his Ancient Right 3. I think nothing can be a greater Evidence that this Council was not General than the opposition of National Churches in behalf of their particular Privileges in points of Reformation for a General Council may undoubtedly prescribe to particular Churches in matters of Discipline as the first General Councils did and oblige them to a compliance for the peace and benefit of the whole and the Council must be judge what is most conducing to that end To deny this Authority to a General Council is plainly to lay its Authority quite aside and to receive onely as much of it as particular Churches shall think fit for it were an extravagant thing to demand absolute obedience and submission in matters of Faith when points of Discipline are insisted upon against the express Decrees of the Council a Council may err in Doctrine but if it have any Authority this must extend at least to points of Discipline which are in themselves indifferent and may be altered as it shall seem most conducing to the good of the whole Church * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb de Vita Constantini lib. 3. cap. 20. Constantine after the Council of Nice not onely determined the Controversie against Arius but the time of keeping of Easter and other things of Order and Discipline to which all Churches submitted whatever eager Debates they had had amongst themselves before The erecting the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem into Patriarchates and the settling of Church-Government was performed in the four first General Councils yet nothing was objected against the Authority of Councils in such Affairs nor did the Churches placed under the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople insist upon their particular Privileges onely the Church of Rome was unwilling to have Constantinople equalled to her self and therefore made a troublesome but fruitless opposition in the Council of Chalcedon 4. But if at this day the Church of France be so jealous of her Privileges in matters of Discipline we have much more reason to be carefull of the Privileges of our common Christianity in matters of Faith if she insist that her Bishops have Authority to decide the Causae Majores i. e. all Debates arising whether in matters of Faith or Discipline according to the Decrees of General Councils how can it be denied us to defend the Ancient Faith according to General Councils truly such if they reject the Decrees of Reformation how shall we subscribe Pope Pius's Creed nay how shall they subscribe it not by virtue of any obligation from this Church but because they otherwise think the Articles of it True and for the contrary reason we cannot subscribe them because we think them false so that the Authority of the Council of Trent is really laid aside on both hands and the merits of the cause must be the onely thing in Debate For to say that a General Council properly speaking cannot abridge a particular Church of her Privileges is to say that a particular Church is above a General Council or at least exempt from its Jurisdiction This is well enough understood at Rome where Gerbais's Book in defence of the Gallican Privileges is condemned § XVIII I have done now with their Councils and have shewn how far Papists themselves have been from thinking them infallible or from acknowledging most of them to be General whatever credit they may have gained by the ignorance and superstition of latter Ages when every Assembly of Bishops greater than ordinary was esteemed a General Council and every General Council voted it self infallible For 't is certain that in the most ignorant Ages they first fansied themselves infallible and then took the liberty to say and doe what they thought fit and so imposed many superstitious conceits and gainfull Projects on the world for infallible Truths It now remains onely to consider whether we can meet with any better satisfaction from the consent of the present Roman Church and to enquire whether there be any expedient to reconcile these differences concerning the Authority of their several Councils But here we are so far at a loss that we find them in nothing more disagreeing than in the very Fundamental Point upon which all the Authority of Councils depends and so disagreeing in this they must be at an eternal disagreement concerning the Councils themselves For some making the Pope above a General Council others a General Council above the Pope and a third sort making them co-ordinate those that place infallibility in the Pope alone have little reason to regard a Council and those that place it in a Council alone do upon occasion as little respect the Pope or judge of General Councils by Bellarmin's Rule and seek no farther than for the Pope's confirmation but those that think it is in neither separately can acquiesce in the Determinations neither of Pope nor Council unless they both concur unanimously in their Determinations and whoever make the Church diffusive to be the Judge of what Councils are General and what are not so are still at a wider difference from all the rest § XIX Our English Papists seem generally to be of the last Opinion placing the Authority of the Church in the Agreement of the Pope with a General Council but making the Authority of General Councils to depend upon the Reception of the Church diffusive hereby placing the Authority Executively onely in General Councils confirmed by the Pope but fundamentally and radically in the Church upon whose Approbation all depends but by Church they understand onely the governing part of it and such as would have had a right to vote if they had been assembled in Council This is the Doctrine advanced in the Book so much valued by our English Papists The Guide in Controversies and because this way has most Artifice and Amusement in it they are willing to put the issue here though most of their Priests must needs have great Prejudices against it from a foreign Education For the French are of the second opinion and the Pope with all his Adherents of the first How well the Guide's Hypothesis has been accepted abroad I am not able to say but it will be best guessed at by the contest that has been about the two other opinions whether the Parties seem inclinable to admit of the Guide as a Reconciler § XX. The Jesuites are for no less than a Personal
Infallibility in the Pope and that in matters of Fact. This is the Dispute so hotly debated of late years between them and the Jansenists For the Pope having condemned five Propositions in a Posthumous Book of Jansenius entituled Augustinus Forms were drawn up to be subscribed under pain of Excommunication though the Propositions could no where be found in that Book But as the Flatterers of the Court of Rome first raised the Pope above a General Council to secure him against the Reformation in Capite Membris which the other Bishops have so often required so the Jesuites have extended his Infallibility yet farther even to matters of Fact and so whatever he determins must be right in all cases It was upon these grounds that Subscription was to be made to the five Propositions by the Seculars and by the Regulars of both Sexes and was enforced not onely by the Pope but by the Gallican Church Notwithstanding certain Divines and the Nuns of the Port Royal resused to make the Subscription enjoyned not that they made any scruple of the Doctrine it self which they were required to acknowledge but because the contrary to it was no where to be found in the Book condemned but the Pope they said had been imposed upon by those who pretended to have taken the Propositions out of that Book Hereupon arose a Controversie concerning the Infallibility of the Church and of the Pope the Jesuites maintaining that the Pope cannot be mistaken in a matter of Fact and that therefore the Propositions are in that Book whatever ordinary Readers may think of it his Holiness has determined so and he cannot be mistaken For they f Les Imaginaires les Visionnaires la Traitè de la foy humaine Octavo à Cologne 1683. p. 81 86 88. make no scruple to assert that the Pope is as infallible in matters of Fact as our Saviour himself that he saw with the eyes of the Church as they phrase it and discovered those Propositions by the illumination of the Holy Ghost This is but what the Jesuites maintained in that famous Thesis of Decemb. 12. MDCLXI in the College of Clermont as a Catholick Truth repugnant to the Greek Heresie concerning the Primacy of the Pope viz. That Jesus Christ hath given to all Popes whenever they shall speak è Cathedra the same infallibility himself had both in matters of Right and of Fact. The Nuns of the Port Royal and all others that refused to sign the Formulary wherein the five Propositions of Jansenius are condemned were used with great severity and the Archbishop of Paris would not be dissuaded from imposing the Subscription But however the Church of France might stand affected towards the Pope at that time and in that affair yet the opinion against the Pope's Infallibility is so generally maintained in that Church that it is almost peculiar to it and is termed g New Heresie of the Jesuites p. 79. by the Jesuites Sententia Parisiensis A.D. MDCLXXXII the French Clergy in a Synod held at Paris determined that a General Council is above the Pope according to the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Sessions of the Council of Constance Against this Determination Emanuel à Schelstrate the present Vatican Library-keeper wrote a Book printed at Antwerp An. Dom. MDCLXXXIII wherein he endeavours to shew from ancient Manuscripts that those Decrees of the Council of Constance which have passed so long upon the World for authentick and were so often approved and confirmed in the Council of Basil are notwithstanding false and he sticks not to affirm that they were partly falsified by the Council of Basil and partly obtruded upon the Council of Constance against the consent of a great number in it and in the absence of others and so have been imposed upon the Church ever since in so many Editions and by so many Licences and Approbations particularly by the Bull of Paul the Fifth before the Roman Edition of the Councils and had the good luck never to be discovered by any before himself when he now sets himself to oppose the Determination of the French Clergy 2. But M. Schelstrate is not the onely man that opposed the Gallican Church in this Controversie For George Szelepechemy Archbishop of Gran and Primate of Hungary put forth his Synodical Letter containing a Censure of the four Propositions in which h Vide Not as in Censur Hungaricam 4. proposition Cleri Gallicani apud Edmun Richer Vindicias Doctrin major Schol. Paris is this assertion Ad solam sedem Apostolicam divino immutabili privilegio spectat de controversiis Fidei judicare It onely belongs to the Apostolick See by a Divine immutable Privilege to judge of Controversies in the Faith. And he with his Bishops were so zealous in the defence of that Doctrine that they profess in the conclusion they would spend the last drop of their Bloud rather than depart in the least from it This Proposition Jan. 30. MDCLXXXIII the Parliament of Paris delivered to M. Edmund Pirot Syndick of the Faculty to be examined which when the Faculty had received from him on the first of February they chose certain of their body to study and consider the Point and then after due deliberation to give their Judgment upon it This they did March the first and asterwards for three months together in their several Assemblies which were no less than fourty five in number the Question was propounded to be disputed upon and when they had by this means throughly debated and concluded the Controversie they declared That the Proposition as it excludes Bishops and General Councils from that Authority which they have immediately from Christ in judging in matters of Faith is rash erroneous contrary to the practice of the Church and to the Word of God as well as to the constant Doctrine of the Faculty This answer the Faculty of the Sorbon gave to the question May the eighteenth and then reviewing it the day following confirmed it moreover from the several Censures which had been formerly passed by their Body in this and former Ages upon such Tenets Thus that Reverend and Learned Society i Censura sacrae Facultatis Theolog. Paris ad dandum Senatui responsum data in propositionem de qua ille quaesierat quid ipsa sentiret Parisiis 1683. made the most deliberate and solemn determination that could be possibly made in any case But the controversie would not end here for another Authour under the name of Eugenius Lombardus took the Propositions into Examination MDCLXXXV and in contradiction to them asserts that the Pope has Authority to depose Kings that he is above a General Council that he is Infallible when he determines è Cathedra that he can dispense with Oaths and Vows made to God Almighty And the same year M. Maimbourg answered M. Schclstrate but Schelstrate replyed the year following and so the dispute is still depending unless we can suppose the desence of
such a Cause should dye with Maimbourg and no body else should be found to defend the Roman-catholick Church of France against the Catholick Church of Rome Schelstrate quotes Nine Manuscripts of the Council of Constance and Maimbourg Ten and which is very surprising the Manuscripts on both sides have all the Appearance of being Authentick which can be desired if we may believe one of our own Church who is a very able Judge in those matters But Maimbourg has out quoted him by one and whether it be in confidence of this odds or for some other reason he is positive that the Decrees of a General Council are valid without the confirmation of the Pope § XXII Thus we see that notwithstanding the glorious pretensions to Unity and the Advantages of an Infallible Church so much magnified the divisions concerning Infallibility are so many and so great that it is onely a fine pompous thing that may serve them to boast of but is otherwise of no use For we have at this day the Jesuites against the Jansenists M. Schelstrate against M. Maimbourg and Nine Manuscripts against Ten the Archbishop of Gran against the Archbishop of Paris and the Synod of Hungary against that of France Amidst so much opposition how shall we hope to find any agreement The grand Debate between these two contending Parties is whether the Pope or a General Council should have the Preheminence There is but one way more of disagreement possible in this matter which is that neither Pope nor Council is superiour but that the joint Definitions of both are infallible this way the Guide in Controversies and his Followers here in Iâ—â—gland take If the nature of the thing would admit any more differences of opinion they would undoubtedly be as numberless as they are opposite in a dispute which has so much of Prejudice and Interest and so little of Reason or Scripture in it Neither is there any way to reconcile these contrary Doctrines unless they would all conclude in that which they all help to prove viz. That there is no such thing as an Infallible Judge or Guide here on Earth The Pope in the mean while whom one would think it most concerns to interpose his Authority and decide the difference yet sits by as Neuter countenancing and encouraging the one but not by any Authoritative Act disavowing the other opinion And indeed how is it possible for him by his Authority to decide the Controversie when his Authority is the very thing in controversie When I say there is no way besides of disagreement possible in this matter I speak onely of the Point now before us and would not be thought by any means to exclude the Infallibility of Oral Tradition nor the Infallibility of the Church diffusive including every member of it nor any other Infallibility which can be named but these are disliked as much by Papists abroad as they are by Protestants at home and are utterly inconsistent with the Authority of Councils § XXIII From what has been said I suppose it evident that General Councils cannot be relyed upon as Infallible if there were no other reason against it but this that it is so uncertain and doubtfull which Councils are General And I can foresee nothing that can be objected against this Consequence but that the Council of Trent comprehends all the rest and is instead of All. Which indeed magnifies the Council of Trent very much but is not so much for the credit of all the General Councils before it for besides that the Council of Trent grounds many of her Definitions upon the Authority of General Councils that went before I conceive that all who lived three hundred years ago were as much concerned to know what Councils were General as any Body can be at this day and an Infallibility which could be of little or no use till since the Council of Trent is something suspicious unless we had better proof than the Authority of that Council to recommend it I have shewn that that Council it self is not received in France as a General Council but onely its Doctrines acknowledged for true as they were acknowledged they tell us before the Councils sitting for any thing farther they desire to be excused And how can that Council be General enough to be Infallible which is not so far General as to oblige a particular Church in points of Discipline 'T is apparent from the account I have given of them that we have but the four or almost but the six first General Councils without Exceptions and those most of them very considerable too so that when all is done we have no reason that I can see not to be contented with our ancient Creeds and the Councils of the first Ages which have been acknowledged by all because they teach the Faith necessary to the Salvation of all while others who have taught some particular fancies have found a suitable reception § XXIV But if all the eighteen Councils were as General as they are pretended to be yet it is no good Consequence that they are infallible I could never yet see any Grounds from Antiquity to believe the Infallibility of General Councils I am sure St. Austin k De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 2. cap. 3. could believe no such thing when he affirms that later General Councils may correct the Errours of the former in that known place Nor Gregory the Great l Lib. 1. Epist 14. who equals the four first General Councils to the four Gospels but none besides and thereby puts a manifest difference between General Councils and so could not hold all to be infallible If we meet with high Expressions in the Fathers concerning the extraordinary assistence of the Holy Ghost in General Councils I know no man but will acknowledge it if they say that the Holy Spirit did effectually guide them in the Truth this is no more than we always profess to be believe that the First Councils did determine Infallible Truths and so were not mistaken in their Determinations but it is but an ill consequence to say that they could not be mistaken because they were not or that all succeeding Councils cannot possibly err because the first Councils actually did not err § XXV It is not pretended that General Councils are Infallible in matters of Discipline yet I am confident many Expressions of the Ancients run as high for these as for matters of Faith. The first Council that ever was that of the Apostles themselves Act. XV. was about matters of Discipline and as the Apostles there write It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us so the following Councils were persuaded they had immediate directions from the Holy Ghost in things of this nature which made the Emperour Constantine the Great and the Council of Nice it self urge the uniform observation of Easter in the same Terms and from the same Arguments that they used to enforce the Nicene Creed And afterwards Leo the