to the Universal Lastly J. Fr. Picus Mâ—randula 41 Christi tempore desicientibus in side Apostolis integra omnino persectissima fides in solae Virgine Domini matre remansit Pic. Theor. 13. saith that in the time of Christ the Apostles falling away from the Faith it remained intire and perfect in the Virgin alone The fourth Classis exhibits only Jandovesius of Minorca who by the relation of Banncs 40 Bann Comm. sus in 2.2 quaest 1. art 10. dub 1. taught about the year 1363. that in the time of Antichrist the Church should consist only of baptized infants all adult persons apostatizing from the Faith. Thus far these testimonies which occurred to me in a hasty search If I had time or opportunity to turn over the Writings of the XIII XIV and XV. Ages I doubt not but I should find many more However any one may see how utterly repugnant these which I have produced are to the Infallibility of Pope and Council Yet there is no sentence pronounced against these Writers no mark set upon them not the least censure inflicted on them How can this be if they had taught right down heresie Nay this opinion is not only not condemned but also many ways approved First in that the Defenders of it have been preferred to the greatest dignities of the Church some made Cardinals others Presidents of Councils one Antoninus Florontinus Sainted and at this day Worstripped Which surely would not have been done if he had taught Heresie But what is more express and which cannot be eluded is that Thomas Waldensis's work whence he produced the clearest passages was solemnly approved by Pope Martin V. This Trithemius 42 Quod Martinus Papa V. examinatum authoritate Apostolicâ confirmavit Trithem in Vald. assirms telling us that Martin V. examined this work and confirmed it by Apostolical authority The Bull of approbation also may be seen presixed before the third Volume with the Examination subjoyned which lasted above a month when the work being presented to the Pope it was by him confirmed in full Consistory So that after this strict examination and solemn approbation to imagine heresie is contained in this Book will draw the Pope who approved it and the whole Church which never opposed this approbation into the suspicion of heresie I have done with the first argument The second shall be drawn from the silence of the Council of Trent which alone proveth that they thought it not an Article of Faith since they condemned not the Protestants on that account although no less vigorously impugning it than any other Article of their Church This argument is so much the stronger in that our Adversaries frequently urge the silence of the Council of Trent to prove Articles by us objected to them not to be of Faith. So Veronus and the Valemburgian Brethren in the book above-mentioned So the Bishop of Meaux in that Famous Book which hath illuded so many If they reasoned well herein why may not we use the same Arguments And then the Infallibility of the Church cannot be of Faith because wholly pretermitted by the Tridentine Council Lastly that it is not of Faith may be proved hence that no soundation of such a Faith can be alledged For if any were it must be either Scripture or Tradition or some decree of the Ruling Church or the consent of the Universal Church That Scripture and Tradition cannot be produced in this Case we have already demonstrated for this reason especially because the certainty of both depends upon the testimony of the Church Yet Amicus 43 Sumi possunt Traditio Scriptura primo modo ut approbatae infallibili judicio ipsius regulae animatae quo pacto sunt authoritatis divinae credendae fide insusâ Hoc autem modo a nobis non sumuntur ad probandam infallibilem authoritatem regulae animatae Secundo modo sumi possunt ut testatae signis rationibus humanis ut qued c. quo pacto sunt authoritatis humanae credendae fide acquisitâ Atque hoc modo sumuntur ad probandam c. Amic de Fide disp 6. n. 52. slieth thither who after he had objected our argument to himself answers that Scripture and Tradition may be taken either as approved by the infallible judgment of the living Rule and so of divine authority and to be believed by infused Faith. That thus considered they cannot be produced to prove the authority of the living Rule Or they may be taken as only testified and confirmed by humane reason and so of humane authority and to be believed by acquired Faith That this way considered they are produced to prove the living Rule wanting indeed infallible divine authority but having such humane authority as by the accession of Christs Providence over his Church becomes infallible I wish the Jesuit in writing this had first objected to himself our whole Argument For that is drawn not only from the impossibility of knowing according to our Adversaries the Divinity of Scripture or Tradition without being first assured of the infallibility of the Church but also from hence that they teach it cannot be known which are the Canonical books whether received by us uncorrupted or faithfully Translated and is the true sense of them without the same previous assurance If he had objected all this to himself he must either have departed from all the rest of their Divines and denied their so much boasted of arguments or have yellded herein Yet let us examine whâ—â— he offers First therefore his joyning the provid 〈…〉 the yet human authority of Scripture and Tradition is 〈◊〉 and absurd For of that we are assured no otherwise then by Faith and consequently it cannot be a foundation to Faith. Now this being taken away the other Arguments of the Truth of Scripture and Tradition according to the Jesuits argumentation become fallible and so no sit foundation for infallible Faith. Besides I would know whether this acquired Faith carrieth with it indubitable Truth and be of the same certainty with Divine or infused faith or at least sufcient to found Divine Faith upon For if it be not our argument returns If it be why may we not have without the assistance of the Churches authority a Divine Faith of those things which Scripture or if you will Tradition also clearly and plainly teach at least as clearly as they are thought to teach that infallibility of the Church But Amicus hath a reserve for this He pretends 43 Ibid. num 49. that although the human Arguments of the Truth of Scripture and Tradition be self evident avd sufficient to create a Divine Faith yet that we are forbidden by God to believe them with a Divine Faith till his Vicar the Pope shall have confirmed them A miserable refuge which lyeth open to a thousand inconveniencies For to omit asking where this prohibition of God is to be found not to urge that hereby all their Arguments drawn from
Church cannot be by this way known by our Adversaries They freely grant it urge it and labour to demonstrate it The second Method is used by many who contend that the Church may be known independently from the Word of God by the help of Notes and Characters perceived by Natural Reason such as are Miracles Sanctity Antiquity Amplitude and the like But they withal admonish that the Church cannot this way be known as it hath annexed to it the Privilege of Infallibility by the assistance of the Holy Ghost and consequently as it is the certain Rule of Faith. They deny this can be any other way found out than by Faith relying on the Promises of Christ and the other testimonies of Scripture But that the Authority which these Notes conferr is Humane Fallible and a Foundation only of humane and acquired not of divine and infused Faith. So among infinite others teach Canus 2 Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. Bannes 3 In 2.2 qu. 1. art 1. dub 4. Suarez 4 De fide disp 3. Sect. 10. Duvall 5 In 2. 2. p. 10. Conink 6 De actib sup disp 17. n. 68. Arriaga 7 De fide disp 3. Sect. 1. Ysambertus 8 De fide disp 26 art 2. Gillius 9 De doctr sacrâ l. 1. tract 7. c. 9. Amicus 10 De side disp 2. Sect. 5. and Rhodius 11 Duplex est authoritas Ecclesiae alia est purè humana prout sc eam probant miracula prophetiae alia hujusmodi alia est divina prout ex assistentiâ Sp. S. est infallibilis Neutra potest esse objectum formale fidei Non prima sequeretur enim sidem esse naturalem esse fallibilem c. Rhod. de fide qu. 1. Sect. 4. §. 4. The last of these affirms there is a two-fold Authority of the Church the one purely Humane as it is proved by Miracles Prophecies and such like the other Divine as it is Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost Neither can be the formal Object of Faith. Not the first for then it would follow that Faith were Natural Fallible c. Certainly it is absurd to imagine that the Church of Christ redeemed and governed by him and animated by his Spirit can be known by the sole light of Nature without Revelation Nature might discover somewhat admirable and excellent in it but nothing more than humane or exalted beyond humane Infirmities But this is not that we seek for We are enquiring a Method of knowing the Church as it is the Rule of Faith and Infallible which since this Method cannot perform it cannot be produced in this place For these Reasons our Adversaries sly to the third Method and endeavour to demonstrate the Church from Notes which they pretend to be assigned in Scripture So Driedo 12 De Eccl. dogm l. 2. c. 3. l. 4. c. 4. from hence that Christ is not now present nor teacheth with his own mouth in the Church nor attesteth the Preaching of others with Signs and Miracles concludes We must necessarily slee to the Scriptures and enquire thence which is the true Church Stapleton 13 Dicimus ergo libentissimè dicimus cum Augustino in Scriptur is quaerendam esse Ecclesiam i. e. quae sint notae dotes proprietates Ecclesiae ex S. Scripturae oraculis non ex humanis document is investigandum esse De princip dectr lib. 1. cap. 24. We say therefore and willingly acknowledge with St. Augustine that the Church is to be sought for in the Scripture that is what are the Notes Privileges and Properties of the Church is to be found out from the Oracles of Holy Scripture not from Humane Arguments The same say the Popish Disputants in the Conference of Ratisbon 14 Tantummodo igitur ex Scripturis Religionem Christionam cognoscimus quia tantummodo ex notis in Scripturâ declaratis non ex aliis cognoscimus quae sit vera Ecclesia Colloq Ratisb Sess 8. We know the Christian Religion only from the Scriptures because from the Notes only declared in Scripture and from no others we know which is the true Church This way also Card. Richlieu 15 Meth. liv 1. Chap. 8. chiefly follows But there are many things inconsistent to be found in it As first that it supposeth the Scripture to be acknowledged for the Word of God. For no man can believe the Notes of the Church laid down in the Scripture to be true and certain till he be first perswaded that all things contained in it are true and Divine But how shall he who hath not yet known the Church for such is he who enquires after it be assured of the Divinity of Scripture if it be true what our Adversaries so often inculcate That the Scripture to us is of no Authority till attested and confirmed by the Church Thus a manifest Circle will be committed Scripture received for the Authority of the Church and the Church for the Authority of Scripture Card. Richlieu confesseth this a great difficulty but contendeth it may be solved by saying The Church is known independently from the Scripture by the help of Notes which Natural Reason suggesteth can agree to none but the true Church But if the Church can be known before the Scripture what need the Scripture be consulted to find Notes whereby we may be brought to the knowledge of the Church To what end these Labyrinths and fruitless toil to search out a thing already known Not to say that this Method is coincident with the second before mentioned and is therefore for the same reasons to be rejected Besides it manifestly contradicts our Adversaries Hypothesis concerning the obscurity of Scripture Every one knows how much they exaggerate this obscurity and Richlieu himself within a few pages of this place maintains it is obscure both as to the sense and as to the letter and that not only to the Reprobate but even the Elect to the Faithful and Doctors themselves Who after all this can believe that he speaks sincerely and in earnest when he undertakes to demonstrate out of this Book so obscure and impenetrable to the greatest Wits the Characters of the true Church not to a Doctor or a Believer but to an Infidel For this he pretends about his Conversion is the Dispute raised The Cardinal therefore in that undertakes a most difficult matter But the obscurity of Scripture is not all the difficulty of this undertaking For how shall it be demonstrated those things are by Scripture assigned for the Notes of the Church of which Scripture is wholly silent nay teacheth the contrary to some of them as might be evidently proved if the intended brevity of this Dissertation would permit it But suppose the Scripture attributes to the Church whatsoever our Adversaries would have to be so many Notes of it This avails not unless it appear that those Notes are not only true but also the only Notes and that no
place of Scripture explained the same way by all the Fathers For there are many places which none of them have touched and none which all have interpreted Nor will it suffice to say that they agree who have interpreted it and that the silence of the rest is to be taken for consent as if they must be supposed to consent who were ignorant of such interpretations or dead perhaps before they were made or as if the Antients were wont expresly to reject all interpretations different from their own or these might not be rejected or at least others proposed in those Books of the Fathers which are lost It is not enough therefore to have the consent of a few unless we be assured of the concurrence of the rest But granting that it is it cannot be denied that our Adversaries can collect nothing certain out of any place of Scripture if any one of the Antients have interpreted it otherwise Hence Alphonsus a Castro 2 Itaapertum indubitatum ut nullus ex sacris probatis Doctoribus illud in aliquo alio sensu interpretetur juxta quem non possit talis propositio per illud de haeresi convinci Castr de justâ haeret pun lib. 1. cap. 4. requireth that among the necessary qualifications of a Text of Scripture to be produced for the conviction of Hereticks this be the chief that it be so plain and undoubted that none of the sacred and approved Doctors interpret it in some other sence according to which such a proposition cannot be thereby convinced of Heresie But if this be true how few places will there be of whose sense we may not doubt Certainly there are very few explained the same way by all antient Commentators This Christopher Gillius 3 Multa sunt in sacris literis quorum sententia neque ex Traditione neque ex Ecclesiae definitione habetur neque semper communis Sanctorum sententia reperitur vel quia diversa sentiunt vel quia pauci locum aliquem interpretati sunt Gill. de doctr sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 6. Professor of Conimbria acknowledgeth who affirms many places to be in Scripture whose sense can be had neither from Tradition nor from the Definition of the Church neither yet can a concurrent explication of the Fathers be found either because they were of different opinions or because few explained the place And the Anonymous Writer of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church 4 Pauca sunt Scripturae loca que S S. Patres varii variè interpretati non fuerint lib. 3. cap. 11. maintains that there is few places of Scripture which the Holy Fathers have not differently interpreted As will also manifestly appear to any one who shall consult those Interpreters that are wont to produce the expositions of the Antient Writers Hence the Readers may imagine to what a streight our Adversaries would be reduced if they were tied up to their own Laws and allowed to urge no other places of Scripture against us than what are unanimously interpreted by the Fathers A Specimen hereof may be found in Launoy where he weigheth the Texts of Scripture produced by Bellarmine for the Popes authority and shewing that they are diversly explained by the Antients concludeth thence that they are wholly ineffectual That the sense of Scripture cannot be learned from Tradition hence appeareth but neither is it taught any better by the Church At least She hath not yet taught it For how many Decrees of the Church is there about the true sense of Scriptures Decrees I say for not every simple explication or allegation of a Text is to be lookt upon as an authentick interpretation of it but only that which hath an Anathema affixed to the deniers of it or dissenters from it Of this kind I find but four or five in the Decrees of the Council of Trent and in those of elder Councils none at all For 1500 years the Church delivered not the sense of so much as one place whence may be judged both what a faithful Interpreter She is of the Holy Scriptures and how small an assistance we are to expect from her in obtaining the true sense of them CHAP. III. That Tradition is no better ground for the Papists Faith than Holy Scriptures THUS have we taken from our Adversaries the first and chief foundation of Divine Faith. The Second will be as easily removed I mean Tradition which may be considered two ways as well as Scripture either as it is in it self or as it is confirmed by the authority of the Church That it hath no force the first way considered Bellarmine 1 Scriptura Traditiones omnia planè dogmata nisi certissimi simus quae sit vera Ecclesia incerta prorsus erunt omnia Bell. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 10. expresly acknowledgeth affirming that till we certainly know what is the true Church Scripture Tradition and all matters of belief are utterly uncertain That Bellarmin is in the right herein at least as to what concerns Tradition is manifest by these two reasons First that taking away the attestation of the Church it cannot be known that there is any Divine Traditions For laying aside that how shall we know that there is any unwritten Word of God derived down to us From Tradition that cannot be since we are now doubting whether there be any Tradition From Scripture That favours not Tradition but if it did it would avail nothing since as we shew in the foregoing Chapter Scripture according to our Adversaries cannot obtain belief till it be it self confirmed by Tradition and the Church Thus doth the truth of Tradition remain uncertain unless it be sustained by the Churches authority Gregory a Valentia 2 Sicut de authoritate ipsius Scripturae necesse per aliquam aliam certam authoritatem constare ita etiam de auctoritate Traditionis si ea quoque revocetur in dubium Val. Tom. 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. § 12. well knew this who puts Tradition into the same condition with Scripture neither being of authority when called in doubt unless confirmed by some other certain authority Secondly granting that it may be known that there are Divine Traditions it cannot yet without the authority of the Church be known which they are so many false dubious and suspected Traditions being carried about each of which pretends to the same Character of Divine Authority The testimonies of the Fathers will not help in this case since even their judgment is dubious and in many things it cannot easily be told what was their opinion Thus Valentia 3 Cum Traditio scriptis ferè Doctorum Orthod in Ecclesiâ conservetur quaestiones ac dubia moveri possunt de sensu illius sicut dubitatur saepe de sensu ac mente Doctorum Ejusmodi autem quaestiones per eandem ipsam Traditionem definiri satis non poterunt Val. loc cit confesseth that Tradition being conserved in the
any of our Adversaries have assigned a Conjectural Certainty to the perswasion which they have of the Truth of the Rules of their Faith. And surely such Certainty would be too mean and inconsiderable for this place Belonging to Opinion rather than Faith as Bellarmine well notes and not excluding distrust which is absolutely destructive of Divine Faith. A Moral Certainty is rarely made use of by our Adversaries in this case being such as take place only in matters of fact and not all those neither but only such as are perceived by the senses of other men and those so many and so clearly as take away all suspicion either of fraud or errour Whereas those parts of a Papists belief which have most need of being backed by certainty and are subject to the greatest difficulties are matters of right or at least such as fall not under the senses either of himself or others There are some things indeed which they would have to be manifest by this kind of certainty such as the knowledg of a lawful Pope or a Canonical Council what the present Church teacheth or to which Society belong the notes of a true Church c. We must consider therefore whether in these cases this certainty be sufficient It would suffice indeed if the opinions of Bagotius or Huetius were admitted Of whom the first equals the second prefers Moral Certainty to Metaphysical and even that which is acquired by demonstration But few approve these excesses Many on the contrary depress this certainty too low However all agree that it is inferior to that of Divine Faith. For which reason alone I might reject it but shall notwithstanding be content only then to do it when it is falsly pretended As for an evident certainty our Adversaries neither do nor can glory in it For if the foundations of Faith had that No previous motion of the will by the Divine influence no supernatural assistance of grace would be necessary which yet all require and none but fools and stupid persons could be disbelievers Besides that those things which are of positive right and depend upon the free Will of God cannot be taught by nature but must be known only by Divine Revelation But herein our Adversaries consent to us as we shall see hereafter and presume not to boast of evidence in the Objects of their Belief There remains therefore only the certainty of Divine Faith which they can pretend to Wherefore I shall chiefly consider that not neglecting yet the rest whensoever it can be imagined that they may be made use of by our Adversaries omitting only the certainty of Theological Conclusions and that for the reasons beforementioned I shall now examine all the Foundations of Faith which our Adversaries are wont to produce beginning at the Holy Scriptures CHAP. II. That the Faith of Papists is not founded on Holy Scripture THAT the Scripture is most certain in it self and most fit to ground our Faith upon is our constant belief and profession But this cannot suffice our Adversaries unless they recede from their known Principles The Scripture may be considered and used for the establishing of our Faith two ways First as it is in it self and its own nature and Secondly as it is confirmed illustrated and assisted by the help of Tradition and the authority of the Church That Scripture the first way considered is not a fit foundation of our Faith our Adversaries not only freely confess but sharply contend maintaining that laying aside Tradition and the Church we cannot be assured either that Scripture is the Word of God or consists of such Books and Chapters or that they are delivered incorrupted to us or faithfully translated or that this or that is the sense of such a place Of these opinions and arguments their Authors are agreed their Books are full that should I recite but the names much more the testimonies of the maintainers of them I should become voluminous To this may be opposed that this is only the opinion of the School Divines and Controversial Writers that there are many in the Church of Rome who believe the authority of the Scripture independent from the judgment of the Church and dextrously use that method of arguing against Atheists as Hâ—etius in his Books of Evangelical Demonstration and the Anonymous Author of the Dissertation concerning the arguments wherewith the truth of Moses his Writings may be demonstrated that such as these may have a true and firm belief of those things which Scripture plainly teacheth which are all that are necessary to be believed Whilest I congratulate to the Church of Rome these more sober Prosylites and wish that by a general concurrence therein they would refute my Dissertation I observe first that there are very few among them of this opinion Secondly that it doth not appear that even these few are perswaded that their arguments suffice to found a Divine Faith upon the Scriptures demonstrated by them The Licensers and Approvers of the aforementioned Dissertation seemed to be afraid of this while they manifestly distinguish a perswasion arising from those arguments from true Faith. Lastly that it doth not appear whether they think that they can without the authority of the Church be obliged to believe either which are Canonical Books or what is the sense of those Books So that until they declare their mind herein they are not by us to be disjoined from much less opposed to the rest I may therefore take it for granted that according to our Adversaries the Faith of private men cannot relie upon the Scripture destitute of the assistance of Tradition since it is what themselves most of all contend for Now for what concerneth Scripture considered the latter way as it is fortified by the accedaneous help of Church and Tradition I might perhaps omit the handling of it here forasmuch as neither Church nor Tradition can confer a greater degree of firmness upon Scripture which that they have not themselves I shall in the proceeding of this Discourse more opportunely shew hereafter However because some few things occur not improper for this place I shall very briefly speak of them First then how little help there is for Scripture in Tradition appeareth hence that it can no otherwise teach what is the true sense of Scripture but by the unanimous consent of the Fathers which whether it be to be had in any one text of Scripture may be much doubted It was a hard condition therefore 1 Nec eam unquam nisi juata unanimem consensum patrum accipiam interpretabor which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in his Profession of Faith to all which desired admission into the Church of Rome and which may for ever silence all the Roman Commentators that they will never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Now I would fain know how this Law can be observed since I may confidently affirm that there is no one
Writings of the Orthodox Doctors is as dubious and uncertain as the opinion of those Doctors is and that the doubts raised concerning it cannot be defined by Tradition it self In like manner George Rhodius 4 Neque scire potero Traditionem aliquam esse veram nisi vivens regula id definierit Rhod. de fide quaest 2. Sect. 5. § 1. affirms that no Tradition can be known to be true unless some living Rule shall so define it But that this matter being of no small moment may be the more manifest we may observe that our Adversaries require two things to make the testimony of the Fathers worthy to be relied on First that they consent and secondly that they do not meerly propose what seems most true to themselves but testifie moreover that what they teach was either delivered by Christ or is of Faith or which is all one the opposite of it heresie If either of these fail then their testimony is not secure The first condition is required by many and particularly by Alphonsus a Castro 5 Quarta est omnium SS Doctorum qui de re illâ scripserunt concors sententia Castr de justâ haeret pun lib. 1. cap. 4. who enquiring out the ways whereby a proposition may be convinced to be heretical in the fourth place assigns the unanimous consent of all the Fathers who have written upon that argument The latter condition is made necessary by many more Driedo 6 Non quia Hieronymus sic vel sic docei non quia Augustinus c. Dried de Eccles Dogm lib. 4. cap. 1. 6. tells us the authority of the Fathers is of no value any otherwise than as they demonstrate their opinion either from the Canonical Scriptures or the belief of the universal Church since the Apostles times and that they do not always deliver their sense as matters of Faith but by way of judgement opinion and probable reason Stapleton 7 Non enim omnibus eorum dictis haec authoritas datur sed quatenus vel Ecclesiae publicam fidem referunt vel ab Ecclesiâ Dei recepta approbata sunt Stapl de princip doctr lib 7. cap. 15. writeth that this authority is not allowed to all the sayings of the Fathers but either as they relate the publick belief of the Church or have been approved and received by the Church Gillius 8 Testimonium Patrum vel Doctorum Scholasticorum communiter asserentium ali pâ—id ad fidem vel Theologiam pertinens simpliciter tamen non indicando esse dogma fidei esse debet argumentum firmum Theologo sed citra infallibilitatem fidei Gill. de doctr Sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 13. lastly grants that the testimony of Fathers and Doctors unanimously asserting somewhat pertaining to Faith and Divinity if they simply assert it and do with all tell us it is an Article of Faith ought to be a firm Argument to a Divine but without Infallibity of Faith. Both conditions are required by Canus 9 Can. Loc. Theol. lib. 3. cap. 4. and Bannes 10 Bann in 2. quaest 1. art 10. Si quod dogma fidei Patres ab initio secundum suorum temporum successiones concordissimè tenuerunt hujusque contrarium ut haereticum refutârunt who laying down Rules whereby true Traditions may be discerned from false both assign this in the second place and in the same words If the Fathers have unanimously from the beginning all along the Succession of their times held any Article of Faith and refuted the contrary as heretical Bellarmine and Gretser 11 Bell. Grets de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9. give this for their fourth Rule When all the Doctors of the Church teach any thing by common consent to have descended from Apostolical Tradition either gathered together in a Council or each one a part in their Writings Suarez 12 Licet Patres vel Scholastici in aliquâ sententiâ conveniant non asserendo illam esse de fide sed judicium suum in eâ proferendo non faciens rem de fide quia semper manent intra mensuram authoritatis humanae Suarez de fide disp 2. Sect. 6. writeth that although the Fathers and Schoolmen agree in any opinion not asserting it to be of Faith But delivering their Judgment in it they will not make it to be of Faith because they remain always within the limits of humane authority Filliutius 13 quae unanimi consensu Patrum tanquam de fide proponuntur Fill. in Decal Tract 22. cap. 1. reckoning up the seven degrees of things pertaining to Catholick verity assigns the Sixth degree to those truths which by the unanimous consent of the Fathers are proposed to be of Faith. Martinonus 14 Certum est nullum ex S S. Patribus vel Doctoribus seorsim sumptum esse Regulam Fidei jam de eorundem simul sumptorum consensu distinguendum Vel enim loquuntur ex proprio sensu non asserendo rem tanquam de fide judicium suum de eâ proferendo sic non Regula Fidei Mart. de fide disp 8. Sect. 3. that none of the Holy Fathers or Doctors taken separately is the Rule of Faith nor all yet together conjunctly unless they assert their common opinion to be of Faith and not meerly propose their own judgment Lastly Natalis Alexander 15 Cum omnes Patres in eandem sententiam conspirant eamque propugnant ac proponunt ut Apostolicam doctrinam Ecclesiae dogma Catholi eâ fide credendum tunc eorum authoritas necessarium argumentum sacrae doctrinae subministrat Alex. saecul 2 p. 1022. affirms that when all the Fathers conspire in the same opinion defend it and propose it as Apostolick Doctrine and an Article of the Church to be believed by Catholick Faith Then doth their authority afford a necessary argument of Sacred Doctrine Thus far these Writers And that the rest do not disagree from them we shall soon be perswaded if we consider how unlikely it is that a greater infallibility should be allowed even to an unanimous testimony of the Fathers than to Pope or Council or both together or the present Universal Church All which our Adversaries grant may erre in those things which they simply affirm or teach and define not to be of Faith. It sufficeth not therefore either that many Fathers deliver an opinion as of Faith or that all should simply teach it but not affirm it to be of Faith. Now if these two conditions be observed How few Articles of Christian Faith shall we receive from Tradition For the Fathers seldom all agree and more rarely admonisheth us that what they teach is of Faith. So that if you take away all Articles wherein either of these conditions is wanting it may well be doubted whether any one will remain Certainly if our Controversial Divines should so far make use of this observation as to reject all testimonies of the Fathers
produced by our Adversaries against us with which themselves will not be obliged that is such as are deficient in either of the conditions before laid down They would be reduced to silence and not have one authority left to boast of From what hath been said it appears that matters of Tradition and belief cannot be learned from the Fathers Hence Aegidius Estrix 16 Est Apol. Sect. 4. vehemently inveighs against Peter-Van Buscum a Divine of Gaunt who in his Instruction had remitted young Divines to the Fathers to learn the Christian Doctrine from them 17 Nuet adv Claud. de Eucharist in praefat And Nuetus the Jesuite likens those Writers of Controversie who passing by the Scripture betake themselves to the Fathers to Thieves and Rogues who deserting the Cities flee into thick Woods that they may more securely hide themselves If the Fathers therefore teach not Tradition there remains only the Church whence it can be known Whether the Church therefore hath that power as to confer the desired Certainty upon what She pronounceth to be revealed and to be believed is next to be inquired Which because our Adversaries here chiefly fasten their hold easily giving up the former means of conveying Tradition shall be somewhat more accurately discussed CHAP. IV. That the Faith of Papists cannot be founded even upon the Definitive Judgment of the Church First because it is neither evident nor of Faith that the Judgment of the Church is certain BY the name of Church whereon our Adversaries would have the Faith of all men to be founded they are wont to design two things First that visible Congregation of men which consists of Pope Clergy and Laicks all professing the same Faith. Secondly that part of this first Church whose office it is to Rule the rest and prescribe Laws of acting and believing to them Whether this part be the Pope or a Council The former they call the Universal the latter the Representative or the Regent Church To both they ascribe infallibility but in a different way to the first in believing to the second in defining or as they chuse to speak in proposing So that whatsoever the Universal Church believeth or the Representative proposeth to be believed must necessarily be true and revealed by God and the denial of it heresie We shall examine each in order But first of the Representative Church Our Adversaries believe to have been instituted by God a living and visible Authority whose office it should be to define matters of belief and practice infallibly determine emergent Controversies and judge of Heresie That whatsoever this power which some call the Chair others more accurately the Tribunal defineth proposeth or judgeth may and ought to be received of all Christians as an Article of Faith and that this is the ordinary and immediate foundation of the Faith of private Christians Indeed in assigning this Tribunal what and where it is all do not agree But that there is such an one whatsoever it is all do contend Whether there be such an one is a great question and may justly take up another Discourse But now we only consider whether the judgment and definition of this Tribunal be such as that whosoever relyeth upon it can or ought to be certain that he doth not err and that what he believes is true For it is not enough that this Tribunal be infallible unless its infallibity be also manifest Since if it had such a priviledge but either unknown or uncertain he indeed that acquiesced in its definitions would not err but could never be certain that he doth not err and might reasonably doubt whether he doth or no. I enquire therefore whether our Adversaries can be certain that the Church in defining cannot err If the Papists have any certainty of the infallibility of the Church defining it must be either Moral or evident or that of Divine Faith For the rest we have excluded before But it can be none of these Not Moral for that depends upon the testimony of anothers senses But the Infallibility of the Church cannot be perceived either by our own or by anothers senses Nor indeed is it here pretended to by our Adversaries No more than Evident Certainty which they expresly acknowledge they have not herein So Andrew du Val 1 Non potest firmiter infallibiliter sciri nisi ex Divinâ Revelatione Du Val in 2. 2. pag. 16. tells us The Infallibility of the Church can be certainly known only by Divine Revelation Arriaga 2 Non est veritas per se nota Arr. de Fide Disp 3. Sect. 1. that it is not a Truth known by it self or self evident Conink 3 Solâ Fide ex Scripturae testimonio constat solos fideles dirigit Con. de act Cupern Disp 9. dub 5. that it is known to us only by Faith from the testimony of the Scriptures and serveth to direct only the Faithful Ysambertus 4 Non potest sciri ab hominibus infallibiliter nisi ex divinâ revelatione Ysamb de Fide Disp 26. art 2. that it cannot be known infallibly by men otherwise than by Divine Revelation Rhodius 5 Cognosâ—itur tantùm Fide divinâ Rhod. de Fide quaest 1. Sect 4. §. 4. that it is known only by Divine Faith. Lastly Antonius Arnaldus 6 Non est quid ex se evidens Arn. Perpert de la Foy liv 1. chap. 7. that it is not self evident The whole matter therefore comes to this whether the Infallibility of the Church be of Faith. That it is our Adversaries as we see pretend that it is not I prove many ways First this seems to be the opinion of a man of great Name among them Launoy who every where oppugneth the Infallability of the Pope and sheweth that the Infallibility of a Council appears to him not to be of Faith while he saith 7 Quamvis certum sit non errandi privilegium inesse Concilio longè tamen certius est apud Theologos Ecclesiae inesse Laun. Epist ad Vallant Tom. 2. that although it be certain the priviledge of not erring is in a Council yet that it is far more certain among Divines that it is in the Church Which he would never have said if he had believed the Infallibility of a Council to be of Faith. For then it would be no less certain than the Infallibility of the Church Besides it is the common opinion of our Adversaries that nothing is of Faith of which Disputes are raised in the bosom of the Church She being conscious of them Thus Holden 8 Certum est illud non esse Fidei divinae Catholicae dogma cujus oppositum a plurimis piissimis doctissimis Catholicis viris publicè sustentari vidimus sciente nimirum jacente Ecclesiâ universâ Hold. Anal. fid lib. 1. cap. 9. affirms that is not an Article of Divine and Catholick Faith whose opposite is publickly maintained by many pious and learned Catholicks
the Universal Church knowing of it and winking at it To the same purpose Canus 9 Sunius aut paucorum opinatio non fuerit ab Ecclesiâ rejecta tum plurimorum authoritas nihil certum firmumque conficiet Can. loc Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. teacheth that if the opinion of one or a few be not rejecsed by the Church then the contrary authority of many will produce nothing firm or certain There is extant among the works of the Fratres Valemburgii a Treatise called the Rule of Faith written formerly in French by Veron and translated into Latine by the Valemburgii and so openly adopted by them that whatsoever Veron writ of himself in the singular they translate in the plural So that whatsoever is contained in it may be lookt upon as the sense of all three Writers Now the chief scope of this Book is to shew that not a few opinions taught by many of their Doctors and by us affixed to the whole Church of Rome are not of Faith but may be safely denied To the obtaining of this end they make use chiefly of two means the silence of the Council of Trent and the testimonies of Doctors of a contrary opinion and Section 15. 10 Variae sunt hâc de re Doctorum sententiae quod vel solum sufficit probando id non esse de fide Catholicâ have these words That the different judgement of the Doctors herein may aloné suffice to prove that it is not of Faith. Upon this foundation proceed all those Divines who maintain that the Pope is infallible or superiour to a Council Thus the Valemburgii 11 Eâ solìen de causâ non affirmamus hanc propositionem fide Catholicâ esse tenendam quòd Authores qui contrarium sentiunt nondum videamus ab Ecclesiâ damnatos pro haereticis Val. Tom. 1. Tract 1. Exam. 3. num 111. write that for this cause only they will not affirm this proposition to be of Catholick Faith because Authors of the contrary opinion are not condemned by the Church for Hereticks So Bannes 12 Bann in 2.2 quaest 1. art 10. dub 2. Bellarmine 13 Bell. de Pont. lib. 4. cap. 2. Vasquez 14 Vasq in 3. disp 137. cap. 1. and Duval 15 Duval in 2.2 p. 344. tells us that they will not assert the contrary opinion to be heresie because it is not yet condemned by Popes or Councils and is tolerated in the Church But Gillius 16 Quare rigida videtur censura quâ Bannes oppositam notat sententiam vocans eam temerariam Gill. de doctr Sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 4. goes farther and reprehendeth Bannes for inflicting even a mark of rashness upon the opinion of one only sense of Scripture since four Divines Alensis Albertus Henricus and Medina had defended it This opinion of our Adversaries is grounded on a double foundation The first Gillius declareth in express words viz. that it is not credible that so many learned and pious persons should either not know what the Catholick Faith teacheth or knowing it should oppose it The Second is that it would be a most unpardonable neglect of the Church to see the Faith torn in pieces by her Children and be silent in so urgent an occasion For by that connivance She should at least indirectly confirm heresie it being a Rule of the Canon Law 17 Error cui non resistitur approbatur Dist 83. that an Errour which is not resisted is approved If therefore I demonstrate that not one or two but many of the Roman Divines and those the most celebrated and by their merit preferred to the greatest dignities in the Church were not only ignorant of but also openly denied this Infallibility I shall at the same time prove that it is not of Faith. The former will easily be performed For first the most noble and learned Jo. Fr. Picus 18 Voluerunt multi Concilium si unâ cum Pontifice in iis quae ad essentiam fidei pertinent sententiam ferat nullo pacto errare posse Restitêre alii affirmantes errare posse Concilia jam errâsse nec ad huc aliquid quod sciam promulgatum est cujus vi ad alterutrum credendum obstringamur Picus ad Theor. 4. Prince of Mirandula confesseth that their Doctors and Canonists are divided in their opinions whether a Pope and Council conjunctly defining matters of Faith can err or not and that we are not obliged to believe either opinion That Picus his testimony is true any one will be convinced that considereth how many things repugnant to this Infallibility the greatest men of the Roman Church have taught These may be reduced to four heads First the testimonies of those which teach that the Pope and Council to whom alone this Infallibility is assigned can err Secondly of those which deny that Church which is unerring and indesectible to be so tied to the Clergy that it may not wholly consist in others Thirdly of those who assert that the Faith of all men one only excepted may fail and so the Church subsist in a single Laick or Woman Fourthly of those who imagine that the Faith may perish in all adult persons and so the Church consist only in baptized infants For the first we shall produce Ockam or at least them whose opinions he relates For in his Dialogues he never speaks in his own person 19 Vna sola est Ecclesia militans quae contra fidem errare non potest Temerarium est dicere quod Concilium Generale contra fidem errare non potest Occam Dial. part 1. lib. 5. cap. 25. He therefore assirms that it is rash to say a General Council cannot err against the Faith that being the peculiar priviledge of the Church Militant That 19 Scripturae divinae universali Ecclesiae Aposiolis absque allâ dubitatione in omnibus credendum Nullis vero aliis quantâcunque doctrinâ vel Sanctitate praepolleant It a quod nec in Concilio generali si esset congregata universalis Ecclesia nec Decretis Pontisicum nec Doctorum dictis est necessario credulitas in omni dicto absque omni exceptione praestanda Id. part 3. Tract 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. the Scriptures the Universal Church and the Apostles are without hesitation to be believed but none others how eminent soever in holiness and Learning no not a General Council although the Universal Church were gathered together in it nor the Decrees of Popes nor the Judgments of Doctors Lastly 20 Si quaeratur quis habet judicare an Concilia suerint Catholicè celebrata respondetur quod periti in Scripturis habent judicare per modum firmae assertionis quod definita ab iis sunt Catholicè definita Id. cap. 19. that it belongs to every man skilful in the Scriptures with a firm assurance to judge whether Councils have been celebrated Canonically or defined Catholickly Peter de Alliaco 21 1. Concilium generale
potest difformari legi Christi 2. Ecclesia Romana quae distinguitur a tot â congregatione sidelium ut pars à toto potest haereticari 3. Tota multitudo Clericorum Laicorum virorum potest à fide deficere All. in quaest vesper art 3. Cardinal of Cambray and one of the Presidents of the Council of Constance layeth down these Three Assertions 1. That a General Council can depart from the Law of Christ 2. That the Church of Rome which is distinguished from the whole Congregation of the Faithful as the part from the whole may fall into Heresie 3. That the whole multitude of Clergy and Laity may apostatize from the true Faith. This Lecture opposed by a Parisian Doctor he afterwards largely defended in his Reply which he Entitled de Resumptâ Where among other things to this purpose he enquireth what is to be done when a General Council errs and the State of Christendom is so depraved that Hereticks have all the Power the Faithful being become few and contemptible And in this case adviseth to make divers Appeals commit themselves to the Divine Grace and bear the injury with Patience Waldensis 22 Non est ergo specialis Ecclesia non Africana nec utique particularis illa Romana sed universalis Ecclesia non quidem in generali Synodo congregata quam aliquotiens errâsse percepimus Sed est c. Vald. doctr Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 19. Paulo post Quia nulla harum Synodi Episcopalis c est Ecclesia Catholica Symbolica nec vendicat sibi sidem dari sub paenâ perfidiae Sed c. Nec movere quenquam debet qued talem concordem professionem Patrum praeposui decreto generalis Concilu etiamsi è toto orbe existentes convenirent Episcopi Et cap. 27. Nec tamen alicui jam dictae Ecclesiis Apostolicis maxlmè verò Romanae authoritati Concilii Generalis ita obediendum censeo tam pronâ fide sicut primae fidei Scripturae vel Ecclesiae Christi Symbolicae sed sicut institutionibus Seniorum monitioni paternae teacheth that the Church which is the Infallible Rule of Faith is neither Pope nor Council which have sometimes erred but the Series and Collection of all Doctors successively from the Apostles to our times That neither an Episcopal Synod nor the common decree of the Roman Church nor yet a General Council of all the Bishops of the World is that Catholick Symbolical Church that can challenge assent upon pain of insidelity But the Universal succession of the Holy Fathers throughout all Ages That an unanimous consent of the Fathers is to be preferred before the Decree of a General Council although all the Bishops of the World be therein That Obedience is not so readily and intirely to be given to the dictates of any particular Church or even to the authority of a General Council as to the first Faith proposed by Scripture or the Symbolical Church of Christ The other being to be regarded only as the institution of the Elders and paternal admonition Cardinal Panormitan 23 Ideo in concernentibus sidem Concilium est supra Papam Puto tamen quod si Papa moveretur melioribus rationibus authoritatibas qudm Concilium quod standum esset sententiae suae Nam Concilinm potest errare sicut aliâs erravit c Nam in concernentibas sidem etiam dictum unius privati esser praeferendum dicto Papae si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus N. V. Testamenti quam Papa Panorm in Cap. Significâsti de electione writeth that in things indeed concerning Faith a Council is above the Pope Yet if the Pope be moved with better reasons and authorities than the Council we are to stand to his determination For even a Council may err and hath erred That in matters of Faith the judgment even of one private man is to be preferred before the Sentence of the Pope if he were moved with better Arguments drawn from the Old and New Testament than the Pope And much more to the same purpose Antony 24 Ant. Summ. Theol. part 3. Tit. 23. Cap. 2. §. 6. Archbishop of Florence hath transcribed this whole passage of Panormitan into his sum of Divinity without making the least mention of him and delivers it as his own opinion Cardinal Cusanus 25 Notandum est experimento rerum Concilium universale plenartum posse deficere quomodo etiam varia Concilia talia fuerunt quae judicando errârunt Cusan Concord Cath. lib. 2. cap. 3. 4. alloweth indeed Oecumenical Councils to be infallible But to this End requireth so many conditions that it is very difficult they should all be had and impossible to be known when had The fourth condition is that the Council regulate it self by the Rules of the Holy Ghost laid down in Scripture and the definitions of precedent Councils Otherwise that howsoever free and universal they may be appealed from and protested against And at last concludes that it is to be seen by experience that a full General Council can err as diverse such Councils have been which have erred in defining Thus he of Councils who hath much more about the errability of the Pope Wherefore Bellarmine reckons him among the Parisians Nicholas de Clemangis 26 Clem. in Disp de Conciliis expresly Disputes against the Infallibility of Councils But because he preadmonisheth he assirms nothing but only to dispute for finding out the truth I shall not urge his Testimony Cardinal Dominicus Jacobatius 27 Quia Concilium potest errare ut patet in Conctlio Ariminenâ—i Ephesino 2. Africanâ Synodo tempore Cypriani in aliis multis Nec obstat si dicatur quòd Ecclesià non potest errare quia intelligitur de Ecclesiâ universali Sed Concilium repraesentativè dicitur Ecclesiâ in Concilio enim verè non est universalis Ecclesia Jacob. de Concil lib. 6. pag. 239. asserteth that when Popes and Councils disagree in defining that judgment is to be preferred which is consonant to the definitions of precedent Councils If none of which have passed Sentence in this matter then the Councils definition shall not be received if the Popes be founded upon better reasons and authorities For that a Council can erre as appears by that of Ariminum the Second of Ephesus that of Africk under Cyprian and many others That the Infallibility of the Universal Church proves not the same to be in a Council Since the Universal Church is not truly in a Council That in the case of contrary definitions by the Pope and a Council it is not yet defined what is to be done or observed That his Opinion however is that he which should hold to and observe either part should not therefore incur the danger of Damnation although he died in the observation of it All these manifestly teach that both a Pope and Council to whom alone active Infallibility is attributed may erre
Nor is it enough to say that herein they deliver their judgments of the Pope and Council disagreeing one from another and not conjunctly defining This indeed may seem to be said with some colour of Truth in Jacobatius But as for Occam and Alliacensis it doth by no means fit them Nor yet doth it in the least enervate the Testimonies of the rest Since whensoever they deny infallibility to Pope or Council they do not thereto oppose the consent of both but either the Symbolical and successive Church as Waldensis or the Universal as all the rest Besides they deny infallibility to belong to the representative Church and to be the property of the Universal whereas every one knoweth and acknowledgeth that only the representative Church is in a Council As for Jacobatius his opinion it plainly is that obedience is then immediately to be given to the Decree of a Pope or Council when it is consonant to the definition of some former even particular Council which had been received by the universal Church that this obedience therefore is to be paid not for the authority of the present definition but the approbation of the Universal Church which She is supposed to have given to it by a long reception But what clears the matter beyond all exception is that Jacobatius is one of those who think the Church may fail except one woman only as we shall see afterwards under the third head The second Classis contains the testimonies of Doctors asserting the Church for which Christ prayed and promised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it not to be confined to the Ecclesiastick order but may consist of believers of whatsoever rank and order This Petrus Alliacensis expresly affirms in the place by us above cited So the Author of the Glosse 28 Quaero de quâ Ecclesiâ intelligas quod hîc dicitur quòd non possit errare de ipso Papâ qui Ecclesia dicitur sed certum est quòd Papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia Et talis Ecclesia non potest non esse Nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesia Caus 24. quaest 1. upon the Canon Law inquiring what Church it is that cannot err determineth it to be the Congregation of the faithful which cannot fail Christ having prayed for it and Nicolas Lyra 29 A verâ se fide subvertendo Ex quo patet quòd Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis Ecclesiasticae vel saecularis quia multi principes summi Pontifices c. inventi sunt apostatâsse a fide Propter quod Ecclesia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera confessio fidei veritatis Lyra in Matth. 16.18 to those words The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it affixeth this Glosse that is to subvert it from the true faith To which he subjoyns Whence is manifest that the Church consists not in men in respect either of Ecclesiastical or Secular Dignity for they have sometimes apostatized from the Faith but in those persons in whom remains a true knowledge and confession of the faith and truth The third Classis comprehendeth the testimonies of those who teach that the whole Church may fail except one only person and that either Ecclesiastick or Laick Man or Woman and so the Church consist in that person alone That the Church actually did so at the time of our Saviours Passion Tostatus 30 Tost in Matth. praef quaest 14. doth not assert as Suarez 31 Suar. de fide disp 9. Sect. 3. and Bannes 32 Bann in 2.2 q. 1. art 10. dub salsly relate but tells us it was the common opinion in his time The same writes Aeneas Sylvius in his History of the Council of Basil Bannes and Turrecremata 33 Terrec de Eccles lib. 3. cap 6. attribute this opinion to Alexander Alensis Hagutius and Durandus Asimatensis the latter ascribe it also to the whole multitude of Preachers and produceth out of Alensis 34 Opinio que dicit quid in sâ—lâ Vin ine stetit Ecclesia in qâ—â—d sâ—la sides mansit in passione videtur nobis vera this sentence That opinion which saith the Church consisted in the Virgin alone in whom alone romained true faith at the passion seems true to us which Turrecremata also himself defends in many places particularly Summ. de Eccles lib. 1. cap. 30. lib. 3. cap. 61. Beside these four there are not a few of the same mind Ockam 35 In uno sdo potest stare tota sides Ecclesiae quem â—dmedum tempare mortis Christi tota siles Ecclesiae in B. Virgine remanebat Non est ctiam credendum c. Occ. Dial. part 1. lib. 2. cap. 25. affirms that the whole Faith of the Church may remain in one single person as it did in the blessed Vargin at the time of our Lords passsion that if God permitted this in the days of the Apostles he will much sooner permit it in these latter Ages and that the contrary opinion is rash Panormitan 36 Passibile est quòd vera sides Christi remaneret in uno solo Hoe patuit post passionem Christi Nam c. Et fortè hine dicit Glossa quâ—d ubi sant bmi ibi est Ecclesia Romana Panorm loc cit in the words immediately following those before cited saith it is possible the Faith of Christ may remain in one only person That at the Passion of our Saviour it remained only in the blessed Virgin and that for this cause probably the Glosse saith where ever good men are there is the Church of Rome This passage also as well as the former Antonius Florentinus translated into his Sum. Peter de Monte 38 Quia sides potest remarere etiam apud simplicem Laicum in aliis omnibus jerire sicut accidit in personâ B. Mariae in passione Christi Pet. de Monte lib. de Monarchiâ Bishop of Brixia gives this reason why Laicks ought to be admitted into the Council because the Faith may possibly remain in one simple Laick as it did formerly in the Blessed Virgin. Clemangis 39 In soli potest mulierculâ per gratiam manere Ecclesia sicut c. Clem. disp de Concil asserts the Church may by grace remain in one single woman as formerly in the Virgin. Jacobatius 40 Nam remansit sides in B. Virgine aliis deficientibus post passionem ut astenderetur quid non possi defiâ—ere sides pro quâ Christus oravit cùm diait Petro. Et ego pro te rogavi ut non desietat svies tua Et non intelligitar Jac. de Concil lib. 6. p. 242. writeth that after the passion faith remained in the Blessed Virgin alone that so the promise of indefectibility made by Christ unto his Church might not fail which promise was made not to the representive Church or a Council but
the nature of the thing concerning the uncerainty of any revealed Article without the supervenient Authority of the Church are wholly destroyed not to say that hereby the controversie is turned from matter of Right into matter of Fact and become a meer enquiry whether God hath made any such prohibition Laying aside I say all these things I will insist upon this one Observation It is not here enquired whether Scripture and Tradition proposed by any other than the Pope oblige us to assent or not but only whether any one either obliged or not obliged can receive them howsoever proposed and thence build his Faith upon them If he can then our Argument returns and we may also believe with Divine Faith what we find taught in Scripture If he cannot I would fain know which way then Papists can admit Scripture and Tradition and from them learn the Infallibity of the Church since Amicus had before denied that it could be Learned or ought to be believed for the testimony of Scripture and Tradition as infallibly proposed by the Church It is manifest therefore the belief of the Insallibility of the Church cannot rest on Scripture or Tradition But neither can it on the judgment of the Ruling Church For besides that no such judgment is produced if it were it would be fruitless For then what was never granted the Church will be judge and give sentence in her own cause which Alphonsus a Castro 45 Si de Scripturâ ipsâ est quastio non poterit ipsamet esse Judex quia tunc erit abire in infinitum In propriâ causà nallius restimonium est validum Castr de justâ baret punit lib. 1. cap. 5. denieth to Scripture because that were to run in infinitum and no testimony can be valid in its own cause For imagine any one that believed not the Church to be infallible now to begin to believe it This first act of belief cannot be founded upon the judgment of the Church For whosoever believeth any thing for the sake of the Churches judgment did before believe that judgment to be certain which destroyeth the supposition This our Adversaries confess So Conink 46 Judicium quo judicamus nobis credendum esse Ecclesiam habere infallibilem omnino authoritatem proponendi res fidei debet aliis notis sive alio fundamento niti Conink de actib sup disp 17. dub 3. The judgment whereby we judge that we are to believe the Church hath infallible authority of proposing matters of Faith ought to be grounded upon other arguments or some other foundations So also Moeratius 47 Nemo potest credere hunc Articulum fidei nostrae interveniente ad assensum hunc ipsâ Ecclesiae authoritâ—te tanquam regulà res credendas infallibiliter proponente Maerat de fide disp 17. Sect. 2. None can believe this Article of our Faith the Infallibility of the Church the Churches authority it self intervening to this assent as the rule infallibly proposing matters of belief There remains therefore only the belief of the Universal Church wherein this Faith of private Papists herein can relie Many things might here be said but because we shall handle that matter more fully at the end of this Treatise we will not anticipate our arguments here I shall only in a word observe the absurdity of it Our Adversaries say that private persons ought to believe the active infallibility of the Ruling Church because they seeit believed by the Universal Church But why doth the Universal Church believe it truly for no other reason but because She do believe it For the Universal Church is nothing else but the collection of all single believers CHAP. V. That it is uncertian what are those Decrees of the Church whereon Faith may relie WHAT I said will be more manifest to him who shall consider that to make the Decrees of the Church a fit foundation for our Faith it is not sufficient to know that the Church in defining cannot err unless also we know what are those definitions of the Church which are placed beyond all danger of errour For our Adversaries all acknowledge that the Church doth not always nor in all things enjoy this priviledge of Infallibility but in many things may be mistaken as in desining Philosophical questions and in general whatsoever belongeth not to Religion Some add Controversies of Fact others Canonization of Saints many all those things which although belonging to Faith are not yet proposed as of Faith but only simply affirmed or brought for the illustrating and confirming of some other matter Since the Church therefore may be mistaken in so many things we ought to be well acquainted what those Decrees are wherein Shecannot err That this notwithstanding is most uncertain two things evince First that it appears not what are the conditions what the Character and Notes of a firm and valid Decree Secondly that although this should appear it would not yet be known what are those particular Decrees which have these Characters The first again is manifest by two reasons first in that it is uncertain whether these exceptions wherewith the infallibility of the Church is limited be all lawful and then no less uncertain whether they be all which can and ought to be assigned For if both these things be not certainly known we shall continually doubt whether we do not for some unjust exception undeservedly reject some Decree of the Church that ought to be obeyed and received some other which for some just exception not yet assigned ought to be rejected But both on the contrary are uncertain The first concerning the lawfulness of the conditions already assigned is because our Adversaries themselves do so irreconciliably differ in assigning them Whatsoever one layeth down some other removeth So that nothing certain can be had thence Nor can it be said these conditions are self evident or of Faith. For what evidence is that which escapes the knowledge of so many Learned men And our Adversaries grant as we saw before that nothing can be of Faith whereof Catholick Divines dispute unregarded by the Church Besides if it be of Faith it must be revealed But where is this revelation In Scripture Nothing either is or can be produced thence In Tradition That will afford perhaps two or three Testimonies of the Antients but which respect only one condition that of excluding Controversies of Fact and are themselves liable to many exceptions But granting they are not what shall become of the other conditions assigned of no less moment Or what will two or three Testimonies avail wherein their Authors affirm not what they write to be of Faith Nor will the Regent Church give us any help herein For She hath defined nothing in this matter or if she had it would be wholly vain For it would still be enquired whether that Definition were of Faith and so in infinitum As for the Universal Church She can have no place here as well for the
wholly to his cognisance and that all necessary diligence was abundantly used by himself and the Cardinals and Doctors employed about the work he prenounceth by that irrevocable Decree with the consent and Counsel of his Brethren of his own cortain knowledge and the fulness of Apostolick power that this is undoubtedly to be accounted that very Edition which was made Authentick by the Councel of Trent and now approved by himself And by the Apostolick power delivered unto him by our Lord commandeth that every where and in all cases it be received for true Legitimate Authentick and undoubted and all suture Editions be corrected by this and not the least syllable be changed added or omitted upon pain of the greater Excommunication This certainly if any thing was a question of Faith and right being concerning the true Rule of Faith and pure word of God. Sixtus also omitted no words whereby he might make his Decree valid Yet Clement VII a while after undid all revoked his Predecessors decree suppressed his Edition and publisheth another of his own wherein he maketh more than 2000. corrections of Sixtus his Edition as our Learned Dr. James hath in a peculiar Treatise shewed To this so fatal an overthrow of the Papal Infallibility Tannerus 7 Tann de fide Disp 1. quaest 4. dub 6. the Jesuit replyeth that Sixtus his Decree was not Authentic nor did oblige because not promulged in the due form that is not assixed or at least not the whole due time to the doors of St. Peters Church the Apostolick Chancery and in Flora's Field And this he proveth by the here say Testimonies of Bellarmine and Ferdinandus Albertus the Jesuit Although in the printed Copies of the Bull the Messengers Names are found subscribed testifying that all the wonted Solemnities of promulgation were observed To this Launoy 8 Laun. Epist part 1 p. 144 rejoyns that these are meer tricks to establish the authority of the Roman Court and impose upon unwary men if yet any can be found so foolish as to regard them Hath Christ therefore appropriated the Infallibility conferred on his Vicar to Walls and doors that his definitions cannot be infallible unless these petty punctilio's be observed That these pretences of Tannerus Vasquez Bellurmine and others are madness and Foppery frivolous impertinence Deliramenta loquitur Ibberas naenias sectatur frivola Siculis gerris vaniora Theologiaer importat Haec referre me pudet and shameful nonsense That promulgation signifies nothing to the Popes Infallibility nor addeth any truth or falsehood to the definition but supposeth it in them For if it be false the Promulgation will not make it true although it be published by a thousand Messengers and affixed to St. Peters doors to all Eternity That Sixtus in defining that for which his Bull was abrogated did plainly err and that Clement in abrogating his Bull and suppressing his Edition ought himself to have believed this at least gave others occasion to believe it Thus Launoy I might add it hath hitherto been believed that this Infallibility doth proceed from the Holy Ghost But when should the Holy Ghost confer it Surely if ever while the question is discussing and defining Whereas now when the Pope hath done all that lay in his power and nothing remains but only some petty circumstances of promulgation to be performed by servile and illiterate Messengers then only and not till then doth this Infallibility exert it self which makes the Pope fallible and the Messengers infallible For the first may pronounce somewhat false the latter nothing but what is true But passing by all these things suppose this excuse well grounded Yet have I obtained what was to prove that there may be sometime wanting in the Pope that diligence which is necessary to define well For this consists not in the circumstances of Promulgation but in examining the question inquiring the truth and weighing the reasons What if after all it be not duly published by Messengers That concerns not my argument nor hinders the precedent negligence of the Pope Besides if without these solemnities of Promulgation no Bulls be obligatory the authority of the Decrees of all antient Popes may be justly doubted of For who can assure us that all these circumstances were then observed when it is the height of folly to think they were so much as known Either these therefore are not necessary or the ancient Decretals are all void But suppose they are necessary That they are not wanting to this Bull of Sixtus the subscriptions of the Messengers do testifie I know it is pretended that they were added by anticipation only to hasten the Edition But that serveth my purpose as well For must every one that receive a Bull suspend his obedience till he shall ride post to Rome and consult the Registres And hence appears the uncertainty of the second condition required to the Infallibility of any Papal Decree For if the Testimony of the Bull it self be sometimes false and we be forced to pick up the Truth from flying reports how shall we be ever assured that the Decree was duly Promulged One thing more we may observe that even by Tanners confession some reported that the Decree of Sixtus was really affixed in the due places and taken down after his death This Compton 9 Compt. in 2.2 Disp 22. Sect. 5. also dares not deny but leaves it to the Reader to be believed or rejected by him But if the Bull was not taken down till Sixtus died then Sixtus erred as long as he lived and promoted errour as far as in him lay and what is the chief of all used not the necessary diligence to avoid errour CHAP. VIII That it is not certain whether the Pope defineth according to his own mind or against his conscience and that this latter case may happen is proved by many examples WE are not yet got rid of our doubts and perplexities Those which we have already mentioned are external and obvious to the senses if not of all yet at least of some Whereas here is one unknown and impenetrable to all but the Pope himself to wit his own Conscience For to judge right it is required that he pronounceth what he thinks is true and not decree against his judgment for any fear or force That the Pope notwithstanding hath not always such an assistance of the Holy Ghost as constantly to withstand these attempts I shall demonstrate by four examples those of Marcellinus Liberius Paschal II. and Eugenius IV. That Pope Mercellinus under Diocletian's persecution did deny the Faith publickly sacrifice to Idols and was for that reason deposed in the Synod of Sinuessa is acknowledged by Pope Damasus or whosoever be the Author of the Liber Pontificalis by Nicolas I. Luitprandus Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Gerson Cusanus Hosius Platina Papyrius Masso Bellarmine in the first Edition of his Controversies Baronius in the second Edition of his Annals Amicus Emanuel a Schelstrate and
Hosius subscribed against the Consubstantiality and against Athanasius Sozomen 12 Soz. lib. 4. cap. 15. saith that Constantius sending for Liberius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forced him to confess that the Son is not consubstantial to the Father Where may be noted the disingenuous fraud of Valesius who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only by caepit compellere he begun or went about to compell him Lastly Peter Damian 13 Porro Liberius perfidiae deceptus errore Arianae haeresi subscripsisse dignoscitur Liberius itaque factus Apostata sex annorum spatia supervixit Pet. Dam. Epist Writes thus Liberius is known to have subscribed to the Arian Heresie deceived with the error of perfidiousness and faith that after he was become an Apostate he lived yet six years Many things might here be added to confute Bellarmines Answer which because they belong more immediately to the Controversie of the Papal Infallibility I shall omit them The third example is that of Pope Paschal II. All the World knows what quarrels were formerly between the Popes and Emperours about the Investiture of Bishops The Emperours would suffer no Bishops in their Dominions but what received Investiture from their hands The Popes excommunicated both the Givers and Receivers of it While the Controversie was yet hot the Emperour Henry V. takes Pope Paschal Prisoner and extorteth from him a Priviledg whereby 14 Illam dignitatis praerogativam nos dilectioni tuae concedimus praesentis privilegii paginâ confirmamus ut regni tui Episcopis investituram virgae annuli conferas Si quis item c. apud Marcam de Concord lib. 8. cap. 20. the Pope yields and confirms to him and his Successors the Right of Investiture for ever forbidding the Metropolitans to consecrate any Bishops or Abbots but what have been first invested by the Emperour Many then cryed out the Faith was violated and Heresie established by this concession particularly Goffridus Vindocinensis out of whom Christ Lupus 15 Lup. diss de laied Antist invest cites much to this purpose And the whole Council of Vien over whom Guido Archbshop of Vien the Popes Legate presided writ thus to Pope Paschal in their Synodical Epistle 16 Privilegium quod a vestrâ Majestate violenter extorsit tractare diligenter curavimus Igitur dictante Sp. S. investituram omnem de manu laicâ haeresin esse judicavimus scriptum illud quod Rex a vestrâ simplicitate extorsit damnavimus We have diligently examined the Priviledge by the Emperour extorted from your Majesty for so they call him Therefore by the direction of the Holy Ghost we have defined laick Investiture to be Heresie and condemned that Priviledge Nor did Paschal himself defend his action but in a full Council recanted his Errour acknowledged his Fault Scriptum illud quod magnis necessitatibus coactus feci sicut pravè factum cognosco ita pravè factum confiteor omnino corrigi desidero c. recalled his Priviledge and submitted himself to the censure and correction of the Council pleading that he was compelled to that sin by great necessities which being done Girardus Bishop of Angoulesme stood up as the Acts of the Council published by Baluzius testify and in the name of the Pope and Council condemned abrogated Nos omnes in hoc S. Concilio coram D. Papâ congregati judicio Sp. S. damnamus c. Et hoc ideo damnatum est quod in eo continetur quod est contra Sp. S. canonicam institutionem and excommunicated this priviledge declaring the reason to be because elect Bishops were therein forbid to be consecrated before they had received Investiture which say they is against the Holy Ghost and canonical Institution Now let the Reader judge whether that can be defended which the Pope himself confesseth to be pravè factum wickedly done and which the Council defineth to be against the H. Ghost and canonical Institution If the Pope can by a solemn Decree permit wicked things certainly he must be fallible if not in Faith yet in Manners if not in the Credenda yet in the Agenda of Religion For what Lupus r Lup. loc cit pleads that Paschal's fault was like that of St Peter carried away with the dissimulation of the Jews Gal. 2. of which Tertullian saith it was a fault of Conversation not of Doctrine that I say is wholly vain and frivolous For St Peter's fault consisted wholly in withdrawing his conversation from the Gentile Converts But who ever accounted Priviledges a matter of Conversation The one may be performed by every body the other by none but persons in Authority A priviledge saith Martin Bonacina f Privilegium ab eo conceditur à quo lex ferri potest Ita Azorius c. Ratio est tum quia privilegium est quaedam lex tum quia est quaedam dispensatio in lege Bon. de legib disp 1. quaest 2. §. 2. is granted by him who can make a law So Azorius Suarez and Salas. The reason is because a priviledge is partly a Law partly a Dispensation of the Law. Paschal therefore made a Law which was to be for ever valid St Peter neither said writ nor decreed any thing What more unlike than these two Nothing can here be said but what Paschal himself pleaded that he was constrained with great difficulties This I do not deny and it proves my assertion viz. That Popes may be induced by fear to decree against their Conscience The last example is that of Pope Eugenius IV. who having called the Council of Basil a little after dissolved it and removed it to Bononia The Council would not obey but continued to sit and consequently according to the Principles of our Adversaries became thenceforward unlawful Wherefore Leo X. t Conciliabulum seu potiùs Conventiculam quae praesertim post hujusmodi translationem Concilium ampliùs appellari non merebatur in the Council of Lateran calls it a False Counsel or rather a Conventicle which after that Translation deserved no longer to be called a Council Yet Eugenius u Decernimus declaramus praefatum generale Concilium Basileense à tempore praedictae inchoationis suae legitimè inchoatum fuisse esse c. revoked his own dissolution and pronounced the Council had notwithstanding his Translation been alwayes Catholick and lawful Now the Council of Basil after the Popes dissolution was either lawful or unlawful If lawful Leo X. and the Lateran Council erred If unlawful Eugenius yet erred worse in legitimating a Council guilty of so great a Crime as is Rebellion against the Head of the Church For it cannot be said the Council was really unlawful but that Eugenius gave it that validity and authority which it wanted and purged away its Crimes Eugenius himself professeth the contrary in his revocatory Bull of his Letters of Dissolution Nothing therefore can be answered here but what Duval x Respondeo Eugenium cum
doubt whether he be lawful Pope that possesseth the Chair and also whether an unlawful Pope enjoyeth the Priviledge of Infallibility I may then justly doubt whether I ought to assent to the Decree of every single Pope and can never be certain of it That the first is uncertain I have already shewed That the latter is not certain Our Adversaries will not deny For if any it must be the certainty of Faith which Duvall will never grant who denies even the Infallibility of a lawful Pope to be of Faith. If any one yet shall dissent from Duvall and contend that it is of Faith he may be convinced by the same Arguments which we produced against the rest He may be asked where God revealed it or the Church defined it He may be told that Defenders of the contrary Opinion were never yet accused or condemned of Heresie Lastly He may be put in mind of Stephen Romanus and Sergius who declaring Formosus to have been an unlawful Pope did also annull his Decrees But I need not insist upon refuting that which no man maintains So that we may conclude there is no certainty to be had in this matter and therefore that Faith cannot safely rely on the Pope's Sentence CHAP. X. Wherein is prevented an Evasion whereby Duvall endeavours to elude whatsoever hath been hitherto said concerning the Pope DVvall a Respondeo definitiones Pontificis non esse de fide donec universalis Ecclesia quam de fide est errare non posse eas acceptaverit Duvall de potest Pont. part 2. qu. 5. oppressed with so many Difficulties takes refuge in saying The Definitions of the Pope are not of Faith before he Church whose Infallibility is of Faith hath received them I might justly rest here ince Duvall hereby grants us all we desire viz. that faith cannot be founded upon the definition of the Pope alone Whether the Churches Authority adds certainty to it I shall enquire hereafter In the mean while that the Truth maybe on all sides more manifest and because many things now occur not proper for another place I will more accurately consider Duval's argument And first Duval hereby is not consonant to himself For if the Pope's Decrees be not of Faith till received by the Church then the Pope alone is not a Rule of Faith but an aggregate of Pope and Church together when as Duval in another place b Id. in 22. pag. 62. teaches there are five Rules of Faith the Church Scripture Tradition Council and Pope whereof every one is so independent and sufficient that whatsoever it shall propose is most firmly to be believed not to say that hereby the perfections of a Rule of Faith will appear much more eminently in the Church than in the Pope since the Church can direct our Faith without the Pope but not the Pope without the Church whereas Duval c Ibid. p. 215. teaches the quite contrary Herein therefore he is neither consonant to himself nor to the other Patrons of Papal Infallibility while he denies obedience to be due to the Popes Decrees till they be received and confirmed by the Church this being very near the opinion of the Sorbonists those great Enemies of the Popes Infallibility For the Faculty of Divinity d Facultatis dogma non est quòd summus Pontifex nullo accedente Ecclesiae consensu sit infallibilis proposed their opinion in the year 1663. in these words It is not the judgment of this Faculty that the Pope is infallible without the consent of the Church And the Clergy of France in the year 1682. determined e In quaestionibus fidei praecipuas Summi Pontificis esse partes ejusque Decreta ad singula Ecclesias pertinere nec tamen irreformabile esse judicium nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit That questions of Faith chiefly pertained to the Pope and that his Decrees concerned all Churches yet that his sentence was not irreformable unless the consent of the Church had supervened How little doth Duval's opinion differ from this who maintains that the Popes Sentence is indeed infallible before the reception of the Church but appears not so to be till then For if so whether fallible or infallible it signifies not in matter of practice it will be the same and assent will be equally denied to the Popes Decrees until they shall have been admitted by the Church In the next place this Answer accuseth of rashness and imprudence the far greater part of the Church of Rome which without expecting the approbation of the universal Church blindly receives the Papal Decrees howsoever yet uncertain But that is of less moment This I would gladly know whether the Church whose reception makes the Papal Decrees to become of Faith ought to receive them without any precedent examination or not till she hath accurately compared them with the Word of God. If the latter then we have no definition on which Faith can rely For I dare confidently affirm there is none which the Church hath thus examined and approved Few undergo that labour most blindly follow the Dictates of the Pope Not to say that this is intirely repugnant to that profound submission wherewith the Decrees of the Head of the Church ought to be received or that according to this Principle the Pope ought together with his Decree to transmit to several Bishops the reasons of it since without the knowledge of these they cannot be duly examined or that the Pope is highly unjust who without being first certified of their universal approbation excommunicates and punisheth the contemners of them I will only urge that by this means the supreme Power is translated from the Pope to the Church as which passeth the last and peremptory Sentence not only on things to be believed but even on the Decrees of the Popes themselves How this will agree with the Doctrine of our present Adversaries let them see to it Certainly Raynaudus and the Author f De Lib. Eccles Gall. lib. 7. cap. 17. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church think far otherwise of whom the latter bestows a whole Chapter to prove this very Proposition That the Papal Decrees are not therefore to be obeyed because confirmed by the Churches consent but therefore consented to by the Church because antecedently infallible But if the Pope's Decrees are to be received by the Church with a blind assent and without any previous examination I do not see of what weight such a reception can be which according to this supposal must be granted to false Decrees as well as true Besides such reception would not differ from Divine Faith such as is given to the most authentick Revelations and so this opinion would be repugnant to it self For it supposeth Faith is not to be yielded to the Papal Decrees antecedently to the Churches reception and yet requires the Church to receive them with a blind assent that is with Faith. Theophilus Raynaudus useth a not
unlike Argument in disputing against this Answer of Duval which is now before us The definitions of the Pope saith he * At hoc perabsurdum est quia non est in potestate plebis fidelium facere ut quod non est de fide sit revera tale Raynaud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct 5. in matters of Faith are received by the People either as to be believed with Divine Faith and so antecedently to the Reception of the Church or not upon their own account but for the sake of the Churches Reception But this is very absurd because it is not in the Power of the multitude of the faithful to make that be of Faith by their Reception which was not really such before For then many things would become of Faith which are by no means such as the Assumption of the B. Virgin which no Christian doubts of and yet none believe to be of Faith. He might have added other Examples which we shall produce hereafter It may be yet asked Whether this Approbation of the Church required by Duvall ought to be express that is whether the Pope's Decrees ought to be positively received by all before they become Infallible for if so there are few or no Decrees which have been thus received certainly none whose Reception of this kind is or can be manifestly known or whether a negative Reception will suffice and so those Decrees become certain which are opposed by none But neither can this be certainly known until we be assured that the Decree is taken notice of by all the faithful Whereas how many Papal Decrees are there which are unknown to the greatest part of Christendom And no wonder since St. Augustine himself was ignorant of that Nicene Canon which forbad him to be associated in the Bishoprick to Valerius yet alive But that which is chiefly to be herein regarded is that the certainty of this sufficiency of the negative Reception of the Church can never be demonstrated and without that we are still at a loss This consideration also is of no small moment That if it be lawful to deny Credit and Obedience to the Popes Decrees before it shall be known they have been received by the Universal Church hereby a wide gate is opened to Schisms and Dissensions For then every contentious or capricious person may contemn and hinder the Execution of the most just Decrees and so put an end to the Authority of this 〈◊〉 much boasted Monarchy For suppose the Pope published 〈◊〉 Decree Some admit others reject it Hitherto according to Duvall it is not of faith because not yet received by the Universal Church What shall be done in this case Must a Council be called That Duval g Pessimè Deus Ecclesiae suae consuluisset si viam hanc quae rarò foeliciter desinit tanquam expeditius malorum indies emergentium remedium reliquisset quinimò Ecclesiam ad impossibile quodammodo obligâsset Duvall de Pot. Pont. part 4 quaest 1. himself acknowledgeth to be highly inconvenient sometimes impossible and for most part unsuccessful That if God had left only that remedy for daily emergent doubts he would in a manner have obliged his Church to impossibilities since the calling and meeting of a Council depends upon the pleasure of secular Princes who for reasons of State may prevent it although the Pope and with him all the Bishops in the World desire it But even if they meet 't is possible they may dissent in their Opinions If you say that part must be adhered to which the Pope favours I ask how it is to be adhered to whether with Divine Faith For of that only we now dispute This Duvall I suppose will not affirm For if the Infallibility of the Pope alone be not of Faith part of a Council adhering to him will not make his yet uncertain Decrees to become of Faith since according to Duval nothing but the Reception of the Universal Church can do it whereas in this case the Approbation even of the whole Representative Church is wanting CHAP. XI That neither can the Faith of Papists rely on the Decrees of Pope and Council consenting together First Because their Infallibility is not sufficiently certain THUS have we dispatched the three first Foundations of a Papist's Faith. The fourth succeeds viz. an Oecumenical Council which may be considered two ways either as disjoyned from the Pope and destitute of his consent or as confirmed by it The Sorbonists hold the Infallibility of it the first way considered The Monarchical Divines only the second But that I need not dispute separately against the Sorbonists appears for two reasons First Because their Opinion is easily confuted For we need oppose to them no more than this that the Infallibility of such a Council is not certain at least it is not of Faith as we before demonstrated it ought to be For the Sorbonists can never prove this to be revealed by God. Scripture saith nothing at all of Councils especially Oecumenical They flee indeed to Tradition But they cannot produce any Testimonies of the Fathers that say this is of Faith not any evident Decrees of Councils not the consent of the Universal Church for the greatest part of the Roman Church thinks otherwise Besides the Opposition it hath met with among many Divines of the Church undeniably proves it not to be of Faith. For if the dissent of a few Sorbonists can cause the Infallibility of the Pope not to be of Faith certainly the opposition of a far greater number of Monarchical Divines will produce the same Effect as to the Infallibility of a Council without the Pope Secondly Because it may be confuted with the same Arguments wherewith I shall prove that the definitions of Pope and Council consenting together are no firm Foundation for our Faith. For if both together suffice not a Council without the Pope will never be sufficient Since the consent of the Pope may possibly add some firmness to the Decrees of a Council but most certainly can take none from them To supersede therefore any further Dispute of that matter let us enquire whether the Faith of our Adversaries can rely on the Decrees of Pope and Council conspiring together This many of them imagine Bellarmin a Bell. de concil lib. 2. cap. 2. and Duvall b Duvall de Pot. Pont. part 2. qu. 6. glory there is no doubt of it among them that it is unanimously taught by their Divines and therefore is of Faith. But I deny both For although the Monarchical Divines are of this Opinion yet the Sorbonists dissent who maintain indeed the Infallibility of a General Council whether agreeing or disagreeing with the Pope but allow not this Prerogative to every Council but only to a Council truly Oecumenical lawfully constituted Canonically proceeding and wholly free The Monarchical Divines acknowledge the necessity of those Conditions yet differ from the Sorbonists two several wayes First In that they interpret these Conditions
of defining laying aside the Authority of the Pope II. The confirmation of the Pope being added any Council is infallible not so the Sorbonists they require the Council be truly Oecumenical The Sorbon saith Richerius b Schola◠Parisiensis soli Ecclesiae generali non particulari Concilio authoritatem infallibilem decernendi ascribit Rich. Apol. pro Gers ax 22. ascribes infallible authority of defining only to the Church and a general not particular Council So Holden c Primò debet Concilium hujusmodi esse verè generale Hold. Annal. fid lib. 2. cap. 3. Such a Council ought in the first place to be truly General This therefore is first to be inquired whether any Council obtruded on us for a Rule of Faith be General Now I assert two things I. That there were never yet any such II. That even if there had been it would be yet uncertain which were such The first I will prove in this the second in the following Chapter That a Council be truly Oecumenical one of these things may be thought necessary either that all the Bishops of the World be present or at least those who may sufficiently represent the absent For who can otherwise imagine that a few Bishops should authoritatively impose Laws upon the greater number not inferiour in Piety and Learning at least not necessarily inferiour Certainly by the consent of all one equal hath no authority over another and a few meeting together do not by their conjunction obtain a right to prescribe Laws to the greater number although disjoyned in place as a Learned man d Thornd Orig Eccles cap. 22. hath well observed We must therefore necessarily recur to one of these conditions Yet although even the first should happen which cannot be without infinite difficulty I am not obliged to grant the whole Church to be represented in that Assembly For not to say that would suppose that blind obedience which is forbidden by the Scripture it may happen that in a Diocess the Bishop be Heretical and the inferiour Clergy Orthodox In which case the Bishop cannot represent the belief of his Church neither de facto nor de jure unless we will say his Church was bound to follow him in his Heresie But I will not insist on this Suppose such an Assembly to represent the whole Church Yet this cannot be denied that such an Assembly never was nor any Council in which so much as the twentieth part of the Episcopal Colledge were present And if such a Council were never held formerly when the whole Christian World was subject to one Emperour it cannot be hoped for in this present state of Christendom divided into so many Kingdoms and Commonwealths Laying aside therefore this let us consider the second way of holding a General Council Those who are present in a Council can no otherwise represent absent persons than if they come in their name and by their command which may be two ways First if they be expresly and by name delegated as if Provincial Synods should be held every where before the General and Delegates there chosen for the whole Province Or secondly if omitting all this every Bishop absenting himself should for that very reason be thought tacitly and interpretatively to transfer his Vote and Authority on those which go to the Council Richerius and Holden seem to favour the first way Salmeron the latter For Richerius e Promptum expeditum est ex singulis ordinibus aut gene ribus Ecclesiasticorum aliquos ex singulis provinciis nationibus Christianis deligere Rich. Apol axiom 21. having defined a General Council to be an Assembly of the whole Clergy collected out of all the particular Provinces tells us this is not to be understood of every single Ecclesiastick but that the readiest way is to chuse some out of every Order and kind of Ecclesiasticks in every Province and Christian Nation Holden f Vt tot variarum Ecclesiarum in diversis regnis provinciis sitarum pars aliqua seu numerus Episcoporum deputetur intersit Hold. Anal. fid lib. 1. cap. 9. requireth that some part or number of Bishops may be deputed out of divers Kingdoms and Provinces and be present in the Council On the contrary Salmeron g Qui legitimè impediti vel ex permissu sedis Apostolicae non veniunt jus suum totum in eos qui convenerunt censentur transtulisse Salm. Tom. 12. Tract 77. saith Those who by a lawful hinderance or the permission of the Apostolick See come not to the Council are supposed to have transferred their right upon those which meet Occam and John Brevicoxa Bishop of Paris seem to have conjoyned both ways whereof the first h Diversae personae gerentes authoritatem vicem universarum partium totius Christianitatis nisi aliqui noluerint cel non potuerint convenire Vnde si aliquae provinciae nollent vel non possent c. Occam Dial. l. 5. c. 8. requires in a General Council divers persons bearing the authority and places of all the parts of Christendom unless some would not or could not come Whence if some Provinces would not or could not delegate persons having their Authority and Votes the Council would be no less General The latter i Congregationem in quâ diversae personae gerentes vicem diversarum partium provinciarum totius Christianitatis ad tractandum de bono communi ritè conveniunt Brev. apud Laun. epist part 8. ad Amel. defineth a General Council to be a Congregation wherein divers persons bearing the Proxies of the divers Provinces of Christendom meet Canonically to consult of the common good To which he subjoyns Ockam's Proviso concerning the absence of the Delegates of some Provinces However it be the first way of holding General Councils is not observed by our Adversaries For immediately upon the Summons every Bishop who intends to be present sets forward without expecting the Delegation of their Comprovincial Bishops Nay rather both the Historians of the Council of Trent Father Paul and Cardinal Palavicini relate that when the Viceroy of Naples would have had four Bishops of that Kingdom chosen and sent to the Council in the name of all the rest the Pope took it very ill and most severely forbid it to be done Which I question not to be the reason why Canus and Bellarmine in assigning the conditions of a General Council never mention this This express and formal Delegation therefore is not necessary to constitute a General Council unless they deny the Tridentine and other Councils in which it was not used to be General But neither is it valid if it were used For Bishops may be delegated either with an absolute and unlimited Power of giving their Suffrages as they please or restrained to certain Rules of Voting on this or that side The first way though tolerable in temporal affairs the success of which is of no great moment yet is not to
And if so what certainty can be founded upon their Decrees to which the very first conditions of an infallible Council is wanting To this may be opposed there are some Councils which none deny to have been Oecumenical as the I. Nicene that of Chalcedon in the first Sessions the VI. and the Tridentine I own the consent of our Adversaries herein and omitting many things which might be replied I will chiesly insist upon this That this consent of our Adversaries is vain and destitute of all foundation and would presently vanish if they adhered to their own Hypotheses For those conditions which they require to make a Council Oecumenical are not to be found in all these Councils and besides are such as create new scruples and perplexities First therefore Holden c Vt tot variarum Ecclesiarum in diversis regnis sitarum pars aliqua sen numerus Episcoporum deputetur ac intersit qui conventum communem ad eum universitatis gradum convenientem assurgere faciat ut improbarum conjurationum c. absit omnis suspicio c. Hold. Anal. sid lib. 1. cap. 9. teacheth that to constitute a General Council it is necessary some Bishops out of so many divers Churches situate in distant Christian Kingdoms and Provinces be deputed and be present as may make the common Assembly arise to that degree of Vniversality as may exclude all suspicion of fraudulent Conspiracies and Factions so that no prudent or honest man may doubt it to be Occumenical Many things may be here observed as first how many Bishops soever be present we can never be sure there is no Faction or Conspiracy in the Council how well disposed or from how different soever places they come What hinders but they may be corrupted at the place of Council The Councils of Milan Ariminum and Ephesus are eminent Examples of this yea and the Council of Trent it self wherein F. Paul d Hist Cont. Trid. lib. 6. relates that the Spanish Bishops complained there were present more than forty Bishops obnoxious to and Stipendiaries of the Court of Rome whereof some received thirty others sixty Crowns a month Again that when it was reported at Rome that the French Bishops were on their way to the Council Pius IV. in a great fright called together the Bishops waiting then at Rome told them how necessary their presence was at the Council and perswading some with promises others with gifts hastily packed them away to Trent The fear of this made the Councils of Constance and Basil to decree That the Votes should be taken not singly but according to the several Nations It being not reasonable saith Richerius eNihil causae est cur in rebus ad fidem aut disciplinam Eccles spectantibus una sola natio Italica sibi plus assumat arroget quà m aliae nationes Christianae Rich. Apol. ax 8. that in things pertaining to Faith and Discipline the Italian Nation alone should assume and arrogate to themselves more than any other Christian Nations The number of Bishops therefore affords no certain remedy against Factions But suppose it doth Is nothing else required to constitute a General Council but freedom from Factions Then many National and Provincial Synods will become Oecumenical Certainly Factions may be wanting in particular Councils if many Bishops be present and perhaps Oecumenical liberty if but a few If that liberty contributed any thing it would be only to enable the Bishops to proceed Canonically if they would But that is not the thing we now dispute of For particular Councils have been often seen to proceed very well and Oecumenical very ill Secondly Holden neither doth nor can define how many Bishops or out of how many Provinces must necessarily be present but leaves the matter to common prudence the judgments of which are infinitely various and uncertain whence no certainty in this particular upon which all the rest depend can be had thence especially if we consider that the Bishops present in Councils are sometimes more sometimes fewer So the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. is said to have had above a thousand Prelates that of Chalcedon six hundred the I Constantinopolitan one hundred and fifty the V. Lateran one hundred that of Trent in the first Sessions much fewer So that Prudence can six no certain rule here and if she be satisfied when a great Number is present she cannot but he sitate when but a few Holden's Rule therefore is of no use to the knowledge of Oecumenical Councils Lupus f Dico adesse oportere sedem Apostolicam omnes Ecclesiae Orthodoxos Patriarchas c. Lup. Dissert de Concil CP I. p. 306. comes somewhat nearer the truth who requireth the presence of the Pope all the Orthodox Patriarchs Primates Metropolitans and Bishops if not corporally at least by delegation or express consent whether previous or subsequent The same saith Bosius g Bos de signis Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. But neither are they in the right For if this were true all Councils whose Decrees are received by the whole Church would be Oecumenical and so the Councils of Ancyra Neocaesarea Laodicea Gangra c. whose Canons were received both by the Greek and Latin Church and confirmed by divers Popes and General Councils would become Oecumenical This Explication saith the Author h Haec explicatio Concilii ideam confundit Hâc enim ipsâ ratione non solum c. lib. 5. cap. 2. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church confounds the idea of a General Council and by resolving the whole Authority of it into the subsequent acceptation of the Vniversal Church raiseth National Provincial and even Diocesan Synods into the same rank with it This also would follow That Councils how frequent and numerous soever could not be Oecumenical till they were received by the Universal Church and so those Councils would have lyed which without expecting this subsequent Reception intitled themselves Oecumenical as almost all did although many of them not received of a long while after as the V. VII VIII of which before Nay Lupus observeth the Canons of the first Council of Constantinople were not received before Innocent III. For more than 800 years therefore according to Lupus that Council must have been Particular nay both General and Particular For the Creed of it was admitted by both Churches the Canons only by the Greeks But laying aside these Let us come to Bellarmin who hath used more accuracy herein He lays down four conditions of a General Council First i Prima est ut evocatio sit generalis ita ut innotescat omnibus majoribus Christianis provinciis Bell. de Concil lib. 1. c. 17. That the Summons be General and notified to all the greater Provinces of Christendom For that this was alwayes observed and for default of it the Council of Constantinople against Images was declared void by the VII Synod But how shall we be assured that this condition
out proceeding either from ignorance malice or partiality But both of ancient and later Councils this is chiefly to be considered That the conditions necessary to make them infallible are of that nature that one cannot supply the defect of another It sufficeth not to have some of them nor even all the rest if any one be wanting This Council must at the same time be Oecumenical Lawful Free and proceed rightly If any one of these Conditions or any part of them be wanting all the rest are of no value the Council becomes fallible Whence many Councils at least Decrees of Councils have been rejected that were desicient but in one Condition Hence it may be concluded First That the Sorbonists have no firm foundation for their Faith having nothing to oppose to so many just doubts and reasonable exceptions For they think not sufficient the Judgment of the Pope declaring any Council to have wanted no necessary conditions of Infallibility and reject many in favour of which he hath so declared They take their Judgment from the sole consideration of the Council it self and what was acted in it Secondly That the Sentence of Pope and Council together is no more certain than that of Pope alone and that those therefore err who make not the Judgment of either separately but of both conjunctly to be a firm Foundation for Faith and Certainty This might be perhaps with some colour of Truth defended if either all Councils agreeing with the Pope were admitted as infallible or it were certainly known what are those Councils which conjoin'd to the Pope obtain that privilege But both are false For all our Adversaries which acknowledge not the Infallibility of Pope alone allow it not also to him when united to a Council not Oecumenical or not lawfully constituted or not rightly proceeding Now what Councils are Oecumenical what lawfully constituted and what rightly proceed we have proved that none can know Unless the Pope therefore hath Infallibility no certainty can accrue from his Judgment by the addition of any Council Which is also hence confirmed that the Sentence whereby the Pope pronounceth a Council to have been Oecumenical Lawful c comes from his sole Authority For although the Council should pronounce the same thing together with him their Sentence would be of no value as being pronounced in their own Cause So that the Decree of the Pope alone can not be of any efficacy in this matter which if it cannot afford certainty neither will the Decree of Pope and Council together at least no more certainty than that of Pope alone Turn therefore the Authority of Pope and Council on all sides take it separately conjunctly divided united no certainty no sirmness no foundation for Divine Faith will be ever obtained One thing only our Adversaries may pretend that the Decrees of Councils become then certain when the Universal Church shall have received them I have not indeed yet met with any who alledge this But I doubt not that many forced by the precedent Arguments will take refuge there and will therefore before I proceed any farther demonstrate the vanity and salseness of this pretence And first I oppose to it what I before observed That hereby Particular are equalled and put into the same condition with General Councils contrary to the sence of all Christians both Ancient and Modern who constantly give the greatest deference to General Councils Not to say that since hereby firm assent cannot be given to a General Council not received by the Church nor denied to a particular one received by her it would be foolish and absurd to call a General Council with infinite trouble and difficulty when a particular one may Define and Decree with the same Authority Secondly If the Church reject some Councils admit others there must be some reason of this different Judgment This reason must be taken either from the Condition necessary to the Councils Infallibility as Universality Freedom and the rest or from the matters decreed in the Council their conformity or repugnance to the rules of Faith. If from the first all the difficulties which we proposed in the soregoing Chapters will take place For whether such a Council were Occumenical or rightly constituted or did rightly proceed being all Matters of Fact the Universal Church may err in judging of them and so by her judgment manifested in the reception or rejection of the Council can neither add to nor take away any certainty from it Besides I have shewn that the conditions of an infallible Council cannot be known even by the Church when they are fulfilled and when not For if the Bishops present cannot know it much less those divided by great distance of place Can the Americans or Chinese know whether no bribes no sollicitation of votes or making of parties was used at Trent The existence of such a Council they know only by uncertain rumours In vain is a certain knowledge hoped for However it be to determine a thing of this nature and moment requireth an accurate and diligent inquisition and examination of all circumstances Such an examination neither ever was nor can be made by the Universal Church For that would require a judiciary kind of process which the Church out of a Council cannot observe For our Adversaries ascribe to the Universal Church only a passive infallibility in believing not an active in defining But grant she can judge of this matter Did she ever do it Was the Council of Trent thus examined by her What witnesses were heard What inquisition made either by all Bishops or any other The Acts of it were always kept secret and are to this day held Prisoners in the Vatican far from being submitted to the examination of the Universal Church The Canons are indeed promulged But if any one should examine them by himself whether to be admitted or rejected as the Gallican Church rejected all those Canons which concern Ecclesiastical Discipline that respects only the matter of the Council viz. The Truth or Falseness Justice or Injustice of its Decrees but not the form of it viz. The Legality Right Constitution and Proceeding of it of which only we are now treating So Lupus 1 In Concil Tom. 1. p. 742.7.44 tells us that the reason why almost all the Western Bishops rejected the V. Council was not any defect in the form of it but their respect to the Ancient custom of the Church of Gondemning no man after his Death that died in Catholick Communion Honour to the Memory of Theodorus of Mopsuestia so Famous over all the East and Reverence to the Canons of Chalcedon whose Authority they thought infringed by the Decrees of this Council So the Ancient French and English rejected the Seventh and Eighth Synods only for the falseness of their Decrees and defining the Lawfulness of Image worship which the others looked upon as Idolatry and contrary to the Faith because they had defined otherwise than the Orthodox Doctors had defined
before them saith Ademarus Cabanensis 2 De imaginibus adorandis aliter quà m Orthodoxi Doctores antè definierant statuerunt Adem apud Marcam de Concord l. 6. c. 15. Because they Decreed many things inconvenient and contrary to the true Faith saith Hoveden 3 Multa inconvenientia verae sidei contraria Hoveden ad ann 792. Lastly that the Church in admitting Councils respects the matter not the form of them may be hence proved because the Church sometimes approveth the Decrees of unlawful Councils as of Antiochia which 4 Ad An. 341. Baronius accounts unlawful because Celebrated while the Indiction of the Synod of Rome was yet depending and did certainly act unlawfully in Condemning Athanasius and substituting to him Eusebius a Laick and when he refused George the Cappadocian a man unknown to the Church of Alexandria Yet the Canons of this Synod were afterwards received as also the Decrees of the V. Council which Baronius and with him not a few think to have proceeded Unlawfully There remains then to the Church only the latter way of examining Councils that is from the Matter of them by examining the truth and salseness of its Decrees admitting the one and rejecting the other This Examination we not only admit but also pray that it may obtain But then in it supposeth the fallibility in the first place of a Council otherwise why are her Decrees examined why not all promiscuously and reverently received Secondly hereby not a Council but the Universal Church will be the Supreme and Ultimate Tribunal as judging and irrevocably giving Sentence upon the Decrees of the Council which may be either approved or abrogated by her Thirdly hence it will also follow that the Decrees of a Council must not be assented to till received by the Church because not till then certainly known to be true contrary to the constant practice of our Adversaries by whom the Decrees are admitted immediatly after Sentence pronounced at least immediatly after the Pope's Confirmation Fourthly Councils themselves plainly shew that they are of a contrary Opinion by denouncing Anathema's against the Opposers of their Decrees or Disbelievers of their Definitions not staying till the Universal Church shall have approved both which demonstrateth that they believe a supreme and uncontroulable Authority to reside in themselves And this very argument is made use of by Bellarmine to prove that Councils are Supreme in which the Pope's Legates are present Lastly hence it will follow that the Decrees of a Council ought never to be assented to For the Universal Church is nothing else but the Collection of Christians If therefore all single Persons expect till the Universal Church receive the Decrees the Universal Church it self must expect and so no body shall ever begin to receive and assent to them Further it may be observed that to make this approbation of the Church of any weight it were necessary that this Opinion should be generally received at least not opposed by any Bishop For then immediatly after the Promulgation of the Decrees all Bishops would betake themselves to examine them by the Rules of Faith. If after this Examination they received them then an Approbation of the Universal Church might with some colour be pretended But now when all at least almost all are of a contrary Opinion and look upon the Decrees when once confirmed by the Pope as Infallible they receive them without any precedent Examination whereby this Reception becomes of no value as grounded upon a preconceived Opinion which we have proved to be false This may be illustrated by what an Anonymous Author 5 Les desseins des Jesuites representés a lassemblée du Clergé p. 43. of the Sorbonists party saith He denieth those Subscriptions are to be accounted of whereby many assent to the Pope's Constitutions when transmitted to them that they are not to be compared with the Decrees of Councils because the Bishops act not therein as Judges nor examine what they subscribe If this Reason be valid in that case it will be much more in the confirmation of Councils by the subsequent reception of the Church For much fewer doubt of the Infallibility of a Council confirmed by the Pope than of the Infallibility of the Pope alone He subjoineth another Reason of the Invalidity of these Subscriptions because they are commonly extorted by threats and fear of being deposed from their Bishopricks if they should Dissent But hath not this happened in urging the Reception of a Council Certainly Baronius 6 Siquidem illi qui damnationem trium Capitulorum non reciperent Imperatoris jussu in exilium agebantur Bar. ad an 553. largly relateth how the Emperour Justinian deprived and Banished those Bishops who would not admit the Decrees of the Fifth Council and condemn the Tria Capitula Lastly it is certain there are very few Councils if any to which all Christians and consequently the Universal Church subscribed This was shewed before and might be further proved Whence among many other things these two may be concluded First that all Christians never thought the Approbation of the Universal Church to be the only Rule of admitting or rejecting Councils since there is none which although rejected by the rest many did not receive Secondly that the Unanimous approbation of the whole Church is no sufficient and ready means to discern those Councils to which Obedience is due For how should it be such when it is very rarely to be had Now if this means be not sufficient either some other must be pointed out which joined or substituted to it may afford this so necessary knowledge to the Faithful or it must be acknowledged that it is often unknown to which Councils assent is due But it seemeth incredible to me that God should give to Councils so great and so admirable a privilege as is absolute Infallibility and this to extinguish Heresies compose Controversies and direct the Faithful in the way of truth and all this while should give no certain or easy Sign whereby Infallible Councils from which alone we were to receive so great happiness might be destinguished from deluding Conventicles For this were to violate his own precept and hide the brightest candle in the Church under a bushel Yet hath he given none At least this approbation of the Church of which alone we now dispute cannot be here alledged since our Adversaries have many Councils to which they pretend obedience due that were not thus approved by the whole Church CHAP. XX. That it cannot be learned from the consent of Doctors what is to be beleived I. Because it doth not appear who those Doctors are II. because those Doctors whosoever they are do not always agree DRiven from Pope and Council our Adversaries fly to the Faith of the Universal Church Whether herein they have sure refuge is next to be enquired The Faith of the Universal Church may be taken two ways either as it is taught by the Pastours or
might be numbred perhaps if the Church were included in one Province But now that it is diffused throughout the whole World no mean is left of knowing what is the Opinion either of all or most Our Adversaries I suppose will say that when the Governours of the Church dissent about any matter of Faith the Faithful must suspend their assent while the Controversie endureth and content themselves by an implicit Faith to believe in it what the Church believeth not enquiring in the mean while what the Church believeth but leaving that to be enquired by the Church her self To this I answer First that this grants us all we desire For we dispute here only of explicite Faith maintaining that our Adversaries have no certain Foundation for that If they flee to implicite they thereby forsake explicite Faith. Secondly almost all our Adversaries confess that there are some Articles which even the most ignorant Christians are bound to believe with explicite Faith and Connink 6 De actib sup disp 4. dub 9. asserts the contrary Opinion of some Canonists to be held erroneous and even heretical by the other Doctors Further all consent there are some points of Faith necessary to be believed by all with explicite Faith not only because commanded to be so but because the explicite belief of them is also the means without which Salvation cannot be obtained Wherefore Hosius 7 Hâ—s contra Prol. Brent lib. 3. in relating the known story of the Collier saith he did not make that Answer of believing as the Church believeth before he had entirely repeated the Apostles Creed and professed his adherence to it Now suppose the Bishops differ about some Article necessary to be believed with explicite Faith as happened in the times of Arianism Certainly the Faithful cannot at that time sulpend their assent if they do not together suspend their hopes of Salvation But not to insist upon that Example suppose a Controversie raised about doing somewhat which God in the Scripture expresly commands to be done such as we contend to be Communion under both kinds reading of the Scripture c. What is then to be done Must all action be suspended This were to deny obedience to God. We must therefore chuse one part and so reject the pretence of implicite Faith. Again implicite Faith is thus expressed I believe what the Church believeth It therefore supposeth the Faith of the Church Of what kind not implicite surely For that would be absurd in the highest degree Certainly then the Church could not justly be accounted the Keeper of Tradition which is nothing else in our Adversaries sence but that Doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apostles they to their Successors until it was derived down to us If this be true the Church of every Age must of necessity distinctly and explicitly know that Doctrine Otherwise it cannot faithfully and accurately deliver it to the succeeding Church Then how shall this Faith of the Church her self be expressed It can be by no other Form than this I believe what I believe than which nothing can be more absurd But I need not refute a Folly which our Adversaries do not espouse as appears from the words of Duvall 8 Quamvis aliqua successu temporis suerint in Ecclesiâ desinita de quibus antea eitra haeresin dubitabatur certum tamen est illa fuisse semper à nonnullis praedicata declarata Quòd autem ab aliis non crederentur istud tantùm vel ex oblivione vel ex ignorantiâ Scripturae aut traditionis proveniebat Duval in 2.2 p. 111. Although some things were in process of time defined by the Church which were before doubted of without the Crime of Heresie yet it is certain they were always preached and declared by some But that they were not believed by others arose either from the forgetfulness or from the ignorance of Scripture or Tradition Is it therefore this explicite Faith of the Church which serveth as a Foundation to implicite Faith So it ought to be and so I doubt not but our Adversaries will say it is But in this case wherein the Governours of the Church dissent about an Article of Faith it cannot be For that which the Church explicitly believes is no desinite Opinion but a meer Contradiction repugnant to it self and destroying it self For one part of the Church believeth the Opinion whereof the Controversie is raised to be true wholsom and revealed by God the other part believes it false pernicious and suggested by Men. Now to have the belief of the whole Church you must joyn both parts of the Contradiction together and so the Church believeth that Opinion to be true and false wholsom and pernicious revealed by God and suggested by Men. But this is not Faith but a deformed Monster consisting of contrary and repugnant parts CHAP. XXI That the consent of Doctors even when it can be had is more difficult to be known than that we can by the help of it attain to the knowledge of the Truth TO what we observed in the precedent Chapter our Adversaries may perhaps answer That when the Governours of the Church differ about a matter to be believed then indeed the Faith of private Christians cannot rely upon their Authority but that this dissent is not perpetual that they oftentimes consent in delivering the Doctrine of the Church and then at least may be securely believed in what they teach To this I reply First that hereby they must grant they have no certain and sixed Rule of Faith for many great and weighty points of Religion contrary to their continual boasts of the abundance of Rules whereby God hath provided for all the necessities of his Church Secondly the Governours of the Church have now for many Ages differed about some matters upon which according to our Adversaries depend the hopes of eternal Salvation For Example whether the true Church is to be found among the Greeks or among the Latins For of the five Patriarchates of the Church four are divided from the Church of Rome and accuse her of Heresie and Schism both which Accusations she retorts upon them Now this is a matter of great moment which may be justly doubted of and can never be determined by the consent of Doctors But to omit that this consent if it could be had is not so manifest and obvious as a Rule of Faith ought necessarily to be which by the confession of all must be clear evident and easie to be applied This Duvall 1 Secunda conditio eaque pariter essentialis est perspicuitas Nam si hee regula obseurè sidei mysteria proponeret regula fidei non foret Duvall in 2.2 p. 207. assigns for an essential condition of a Rule of Faith and acknowledgeth that if a Rule obscurely proposeth the Mysteries of Faith it would thereby become no Rule And for this reason our Adversaries so much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture that they may thereby
Governours of the Church can and ought sometimes to indulge something and mitigate the severity of the Canons in each Tribunal All the rest are doubtful and disputed of by Divines on both parts to wit whether there be a Treasure of which the Pope and other Pastors of the Church are dispensers c. where he largely shews that all these Propositions are many ways doubted of and wholly uncertain among Divines If it be enquired whether the Church can put Hereticks to death Valentia 13 Ex side certum est Ecclesiam licité convenienter id facere posse Val. tom 3. disp 1. qu. 11. punct 3. answers That 't is not only certain but of Faith that the Church can lawfully and conveniently do it Holden 14 Nunquam fuit religionis Christianae Ecclesiae Christianae dogma Carholicum Nec omnes etiam piissâ—mi doctissimi Catholici inquisitionis usum rationem approbant Hold Anal. fid l. 1. c. 9. on the contrary maintains That to inflict death upon convicted relapsed or even the most obstinate Hereticks was never an Opinion of the Christian Religion and the Vniversal Church Neither do all even the most Pious and Learned Catholicks approve the use and methods of the Inquisition The like saith Richerius 15 Rich. Hist Concil l. 1. c. 10. If again it be enquired whether the corruption of humane nature introduced by sin consists only in the loss of supernatural Graces or also includes somewhat positive whereby the Soul is vitiated Rhodius 16 Ita contra sectarios omnes docent Orthodoxt omnes Theologi Rhod. de pece dis 4. qu. 2. Sect. 3. answers in the first sence and affirms That all the Orthodox Divines so teach against all the Sectaries Bellarmin 17 Omnes communi consensu docent Bell. de grat primi hom cap. 5. That it is taught by the common consent of all Yet Vasquez 18 Vasq 1.2 disp 132. cap. 4. 5. attributes the contrary Opinion to many Divines of great name as Holcot Greg. Ariminensis Gabriel Henricus Gulielmus Parisiensis Autissiodorensis Driedo It is a Famous Question whether the Pope besides the Spiritual Power commonly attributed to him hath a power over Temporals either direct or indirect whereby he deposes Princes for Heresie or any other Crime and absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance There are three Opinions about this The first is that the Pope hath jure divino a direct and absolute Power over the whole World as well in Temporals as in Spirituals The Second that the Pope as Pope hath no Temporal Power nor any Authority to deprive Princes The Third that the Pope as Pope hath not directly any Temporal but only Spiritual Power yet that by means of that Spiritual he hath indirectly a Supream Power even in Temporals Bellarmin 19 Bell. de Pont. lib. 5. cap. 1. who relateth these three Opinions in these very words attributes the first to many of the Canonists the third he makes the common Opinion of Catholick Divines The second he saith is not so much an Opinion as an Heresie and therefore he ascribes it only to Calvin P. Martyr Brentius and the Magdeburgenses And in another place under the feigned name of Adolphus Schulkenius he teacheth the same thing where he enveigheth 20 Contra S. literas doctrinam conciliorum summorum pont unanimem consensum pâ—â—lrum dociorum haeretiâ—is schismaticisqae se jungit Apud Widd. contra Schulk §. 15. against Widdrington a defender of the second Opinion as opposing the H. Scriptures the Doctrine of Councils and Popes and the unanimous consent of Fathers and Doctors who all with one Mouth teach the Pope's Supreme Power in Temporals and thereby ranking himself with Hereticks and Schismaticks while he pretends to be a Catholick Thus Bellarmin Now on the other side De Marca and Launoy contend this Opinion was always unknown in France The whole Sorbon in the Exposition of their Judgment published in the Year 1663 testify That not only they never received this Opinion but always refisted it with their utmost power Not to say that the Kings of France and Parliaments of Paris by their Edicts and Arrests often condemned it and forbid it to be held or taught particularly in the Years 1561 1594 1595 1610 1614 c. I might produce many more examples but these suffice to shew That the greatest Doctors mistake in imagining some Opinions to be approved by all the Divines of their Communion which yet are freely disputed of on both sides And if this happens to Doctors who employ their whole time in matters of learning what shall we think of poor and illiterate Men who know little beyond the providing for the necessities of this life Again If the Judgment of only those Doctors who commit their Opinions to Writing and are very few in comparison of the rest is not certainly known how shall we know the Judgment of those who teach their Flocks vivâ voce Lastly If their Opinion be true who would have the Judgment not only of Bishops but also of Parsons Professors of Divinity and Preachers to be accounted of what hope is there that the Opinion of so many Men should ever be known to any one Man or to any but God alone The second Reason of the difficulty of knowing the common consent of other Doctors is the obscure Knowledge which is in the Church of some points concerning which no Disputation hath been yet raised For nothing is more true than that Opinions are illustrated by Controversies So St. Augustin 21 Multa ad fidem Catholicam pertinentia dum haereticorum callidâ inquietudine agitantur ut adversum cos defendi possint considerantur diligentius intelliguntur clarius instantius praedicantur ab adversario mota quaestio existit discendi occasio August de Civit. Dei lib. 16. chap. 20. saith Many things pertaining to Catholick Faith while they are disputed of by the cunning perverseness of Heretickâ— that they be defended against them are considered more diligently understood more clearly and preached more earnestly the Question moved by the Adversary becoming an occasion of learning This he proves in another place 22 In Psalm 34. by the Doctrines of the Trinity Penance and Baptism not sully handled before the Controversies started in them by the Arians Novatians and Rebaptizers And therefore Valentia 23 Val. tom 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 6. Et fortasse latent adhuc in Ecclesia aliquae assirms It belongs to the Church as necessity shall require to deliver anew to the Faithful more explicitly and by an Infallible Authority as it were draw out of darkness those truth of Faith which were indeed at first delivered by the Apostles but now either by the negligence or perversity of Men lay hid And perhaps saith he some do yet lay hid in the Church An eminent example of this appeared in the Council of Trent when they were seeking out
he easily may It cannot be imagined that Doctor will tell the consulter the thing is not taught by the Church which himself thinks to belong to Faith. Or what if that Doctor be ignorant that others and those Learned Men teach the contrary as we proved might easily happen in the precedent chapter That answer surely cannot be sufficient to ground Faith upon which can be false For as Martinonus 4 Ad credendum fide indubitatâ infallibili qualis est fides divina requiritur argumentum infallibile Mart. de disp 3. sect 4. truly saith To believe with undoubting and Infallible Faith such is Divine Faith is required an Infallible Argument Lastly that the Cardinal meaneth it sufficeth that none in the World can shew the Parson teacheth what is repugnant to others I can never be induced to believe since a more foolish sence could not be invented For not the most sagacious Person much less a blind Man could make so diligent an inquiry as to be assured that none such can be found in the whole World. Add hereto that it is not more difficult to know directly whether any do teach otherwise than to know whether there be any who can shew that it is any where taught otherwise And so all our former Arguments will return with their full force against this answer But to omit all this I ask whether any ignorant Person using such diligence to inquire whether what is taught by his Parson is taught unanimously by all the other Governours of the Church as can be expected from a Man of his circumstances and capacity can be deceived therein If he cannot all those Learned Men whom I mentioned in the last Chapter will be guilty of a most intolerable negligence and supinity as being mistaken in that wherein even the most ignorant cannot be deceived If he can then he is not certain and therefore hath no Faith. For Faith must be certain CHAP. XXII That it doth not suffice it be known that any thing is taught Vnanimously by the Governours of the Church unless it appear that it is taught to be of Faith. But that this is most uncertain FRom what hath been said it is manifest that neither do the Governours of the Church always consent nor if they do can their consent be certainly known But suppose both The controversy is not yet ended For not whatsoever they unanimously affirm is to be received as the revelation of God and the Doctrine of the Church but only what they unanimously maintain to be of Faith. This Canus and Bellarmin plainly insinuate The first 1 Quiequid fidelem populum docent quod ad Christi fidem attineat Can. loc Theol. lib. 4. cap. 4. when he saith the Pastors of the Church cannot err in the Faith but whatsoever they teach the faithful People that it belongs to the Faith of Christ is most true Bellarmin 2 Id quod decent tanquam ad fidem pertinens Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 14. that whatsoever all the Bishops teach as belonging to Faith is necessarily true and of Faith. Therefore Flor. Conrius defends himself against the unanimous consent of Doctors who taught 500. Years since that unbaptized Infants were not punished with the torments of fire by pretending that they did not teach or propose this as of Faith. And indeed it cannot but be absurd that the consent of Pastors should reach farther than the Infallibility of Pope or Council or the Universal Church which as we have before observed is acknowledged not to take place but in matters which they propose as of Faith. Lastly the Council of Trent Pius V. and divers Provincial Councils wished 3 Non tanquam sidem docuerint aut proposuerint Con. destatu pary cap. 19. that the Catechism of Trent might be admitted every where and be used by all Pastors in the instruction of their people Perhaps this is observed For why should it not be This whole Book then may be reckoned among those things which all Pastors propose to their flocks not as pertaining to Faith but as true and wholsom If therefore whatsoever all propose must necessarily be true there can be nothing false nothing uncertain in this Book Yet none will deny there are taught in it many Propositions false more uncertain and none which might not safely be denied if they received not their Authority from some other Fountain Wherefore it is no where admitted as of Infallible authority a manifest Argument that those things may be false which are not taught as of Faith although taught unanimously Before we believe therefore the Doctrine of the Governours of the Church we must consider how they teach it whether as of Faith if not we must suspend our assent Now Bishops Parsons and Preachers are wont to teach what seems true to them and agreing with Divine Revelation but very rarely to admonish whether what they teach be of Eaith or a consequent of Faith whether expresly revealed or cohaerent to things revealed This Holden acknowledgeth We never heard saith 4 In Doctrinâ Christianâ tradendâ nunquam audivimus Ecclesiam articulorum revelatorum divinarum institutionum Catalogum exhibuisse vel composuisse quo separatim dislinctè cognosci possent hujusmodi sidei dogmata ab aliis omnibus quae vel Ecclèsiasticae sunt inslitutionis vel certè quae revelationi divinae haud immediatè innitantur atque adeò omnia simul confusè indistinctè docuisse Hold. Anal. fid lib. 1. cap. 8. he that the Church in delivering the Christian Doctrine exhibited or composed a Catalogue of revealed Articles and Divine Institutions whereby these Articles of divine Faith might be separately and distinctly known from all others which are either of Ecclesiastical Institution or not immediately founded upon Divine Revelation but taught all together confusedly and indistinctly Hence even those Divines who agree in the truth of any Article often disser in judging whether it be of Faith as we saw before concerning the supreme Power of the Pope Wherefore Holden assirms there are much fewer Articles of Divine and Catholick Faith than Divines commonly think and therefore bestows the whole Latter part of his Analysis in composing a Catalogue of such Articles which would indeed have been very useful if it were received by all But he hath omitted some things which others contend to be of Faith and inserted others which some would have omitted Further in this matter I appeal to the experience of all Persons who if they shall ask any of our Adversaries what the Church teacheth concerning Image worship Invocation of Saints or the like will be convinced by their different answers That it is not easie to say what the Church teacheth And if this be dissicult to learned Men how shall it be possible to ignorant Persons Our Adversaries cannot justly pretend as many of them do that the Doctors may dissent in those things which are of Theological not Divine right and belong rather to the
For among Catholicks some affirm it because there is no promise found of the contrary Others deny it because the whole Church would be otherwise in great danger of error To me neither seemeth sufficiently certain Yet it is probable that it becomes the Providence of Christ not to permit it In these words two things may be observed First That Suarez speaks of the Infallibility of Bishops not in believing but in teaching For he saith this in answer to an Objection That if all the Bishops could err then the other part of the Church the Laity might also err because they ordinarily follow the Doctrine of their Pastors and are bound to do it Now the People are bound to follow their Pastors not in what they think but in what they teach This also appears from the reason why some denied the consent of all Bishops in any error to be possible because if that should happen the whole Church would be brought into great danger of error But if Bishops should teach rightly although they thought erroneously there would be thence no danger of Error to the rest of the Faithful Secondly Of this Infallibility of Bishops in what they teach unanimously he saith three things 1. That some Catholicks deny it 2. That neither part seems certain to him 3. That it is probable All which singly prove That he thought it not to be of Faith. But who can imagine so great a Doctor could be ignorant of what was of Faith Theoph. Raynaudus differed not much from the Opinion of Suarez That the visible Head saith he 3 Vt seposito capite visibili membra omnia possint infici aliquo errore materiali vix potest contingere verisimillimum est Deo semper cordi futurum ne id accidat Si tamen accideret incont aminato capite nibil decederet de perpetuitate verae fidei in Ecclesiâ Rayn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct 5. being laid aside all the Members should be infected with any material error could scarce happen and it is most probable God will take care it should not Yet if it should happen the Head being uninfected the perpetuity of true Faith in the Church would suffer no loss Where he determines not absolutely this cannot happen but looks upon the contrary only as most probable and denieth the Infallibility of the whole Church to depend thereon which is so much urged by the maintainers of the contrary Opinion Rhodius speaks more plainly who affirms 4 Mortuo pontifice non est in Ecclesiâ ulla infallibilis authoritas ad condenda fidei Decreta Nullam e◠tempore infallibilitatem actualem proximam habet Ecclesia Rhod. de fide qu. 2. Sect. 5. §. 5. That the Pope being dead the Church hath no Infallible Authority to make Decrees of Faith as having no actual and immediate Infallibility at that time Hence is manifest that we want little of a Confession from our Adversaries that the Infallibility of the Governours of the Church is not of Faith. And indeed it cannot be For no Foundation of such a Faith is to be found Not Scripture or Tradition For not to say that these to make any Article become of Faith ought according to our Adversaries most evidently to contain it which evidence even they will not deny to be here wanting It would be most absurd that Papists should believe this Infallibility of the Pastors of the Church for the Authority of Scripture and Tradition when they believe neither of these but for the Authority of the Pastors Take away their Testimony and they will deny it to be known whether Scripture or Tradition be the word of God or what is the sence of either The same may be said of the Decrees of the Church Representative For besides that no such express Decree of it can be produced the Infallibility of the Representative Church it self is believed by every single Papist only because they hear it taught by their Pastors As for the belief of the Universal Church that ought not be produced For that is the thing now inquired why the Universal Church believeth so Will our Adversaries therefore say they believe their Pastors cannot err in teaching unanimously what is of Faith because they so teach themselves This they must recurr to for they have no other reason left of believing so Yet nothing can be more absurd For first it is the constant Opinion of all Mankind and a received Law among all Nations that none should be Witness or Judge in his own Cause Secondly As we believe not any Man to be true and honest till we be assured of his veracity and honesty from some other Testimony than his own So it would be the highest imprudence to esteem those Infallible who challenge that privilege to themselves until their Infallibility be known to us from some other Argument than their own Testimony Certainly our Adversaries will not permit even the Scripture which is the word of God and hath so many illustrious Characters of a Divine Original to be believed for its own Testimony and Christ openly professed that if he bore Witness of himself his Witness was not credible Why then shall that be attributed to the Governours of the Church which Christ denied to himself and our Adversaries deny to the Word of God Thirdly The Question will return whence the Pastors of the Church know that they cannot err For they will not say they know it because the Faithful believe it since as Hallier 5 Non ideo vera docent Pastores quia vera credunt Auditores sed ideo vera credunt Auditores quia vera docentibus assentiuntur F. Hallier de Hierarch l. 4. c. 2. well saith The Pastors do not therefore teach truly because the Auditors believe truly but the Auditors believe truly because they assent to the Pastors teaching truly They cannot say that they know it from Scripture or Tradition For the truth of these without the Authority of the Church is no more known to learned than to unlearned persons Think not saith Bagotius 6 Cave existimes unumquenquam etiam Theologum Doctissimum posse quicquam eredere sine authoritate Ecclesiae independenter ab eâ Bagot Instit Theol. l. 4. c. 1. §. 1. that any one even the most learned Divine can believe any thing without the Authority of the Church and independently from it And Hosius 7 Hos cont Brent goeth so far that he maintains it to be the best way that even the most learned Men should recurr to implicit Faith and believe only in general as the Church believeth Shall the Pastors therefore believe that they cannot err for their own Testimony This is the natural consequence of our Adversaries Doctrine and that most absurd For first there is none of the Pastors which believeth so because he teacheth so but all teach so because all believe so Again The Question will recurr upon what Foundation do they teach so Here either nothing or only
is known by Faith. But to this I oppose the Opinion of those Divines who hold That all Christians may fall from the Faith except one single Woman Hence I conclude That the Infallibility of the Church cannot be of Faith because repugnant to the Opinion of these Catholick Divines Certainly we who deny the Infallibility of the Church go not so far as they We believe that God preserveth to himself even in the most difficult times a remnant according to the election of Grace and that there always remains at least an Invisible Church whose name being collective cannot consist and be restrained to one person Our Adversaries therefore cannot pretend their Opinion as it is at this day proposed to be of Faith And so much the less because they can assign no Foundation of this Faith. Not Scripture Tradition Decrees of Popes Definitions of Councils or Consent of Pastors For first I have proved in the preceding Discourse That none of all these can be rely'd upon at least according to our Adversaries Hypotheses and then it is the constant Doctrine of Papists That the Church is not believed for them but they for the Church Again it is certain that the Infallibility of the Church cannot be beieved for the Authority of the Church it self For that would be a manifest Circle and he that doubteth whether the Church can err doth for that very reason doubt whether she doth not err when she thinks that she cannot err Therefore Bannes 1 Non potest reduci ad authoritatem ipsius Ecclesiae hoc enim esset idem per idem confirmare Bann in 2. 2. qu. 1. art 1. dub 4. said truly That the Church is the Infallible rule of proposing and explaining truths of Faith cannot be reduced to the Authority of the Church it self for that would be to prove the same thing by it self Why then is it believed Our Adversaries commonly answer That it is a thing before all others to be believed and not for any other Rule for then the same Question would return about that Rule And because they commonly require three things to make up an Act of Faith. 1. The Testimony of God revealing as the formal Reason and principal Foundation 2. A Rule whereby this Revelation of God may be manifested 3. Motives of Credibility which may induce us to be willing to believe they think the first is here present and the third abundantly to be had in the Notes of the Church which are perceived and dictated by Natural Reason but the second wanting which they pretend not to be necessary in a matter of first belief such as this is But first if a Rule be not requir'd in forming this first Act of Faith Why is it necessary in others Why may not all the other Articles be believed for the Authority of God by the inducement of Motives of Credibility with which the Christian Religion is abundantly furnished Secondly Which is chiefly to be regarded it is absurd to boast of a Testimony of God revealing which no way can be known The Infallibility of the Church or any other Article of Belief can never be proved to have been revealed by God but by some Rule either living or dead whereby things revealed may be distinguished from not revealed otherwise the most foolish Opinion may intitle it self to Revelation and then cannot be rejected Here they fly to Motives of Credibility and by them undertake to supply their defect of a Rule and manifest the Revelation But if these Motives can confer upon the Church so sufficient an Authority that what she proposeth as revealed by God must be believed Why may not the like Motives give the same Authority to the Scripture and assure us of the Divine Original of it And that such Motives are not wanting to the Scripture Bellarmin 2 1 De verbo Dei ib. 1. cap. 2. Suarez 3 De fide disp 5. Sect. 2 3. Duvall 4 Duvall in 2. 2. p. 120. and Martinonus 5 De fide disp 7. Sect. 1. among many others expresly confess Why may we not then by these Motives first be satisfied of the Authority of Scripture and from thence learn all things necessary to Salvation which are clearly contained in it and be so saved without recurring to the Church Further How is it gathered from these Notes and Motives of Credibility that the Church cannot err whether evidently certainly and necessarily or only obscurely probably and contingently The first our Adversaries will never say for then it would necessarily follow That Faith is evident which they all contend to be false insomuch as Bellarmin 6 Ante approbationem Ecclesiae non est evidens aut certum certitudine fidei de ullo miraculo quòd sit verum mir aculum Et quidem quòd non sit evidens patet quia tunc fides esset evidens Bell. de Eccles l. 4. c. 14. disputing of Miracles the chief of these Motives hath these words Before the Approbation of the Church it is not evident nor certain with the certainty of Faith of any Miracle that it is a true one And that it is not evident is manifest for then Faith would be evident Besides if these Notes evidently prove the Church cannot err it would be most false what our Adversaries before delivered with so great consent that by these Notes the Church is not known as it hath an Infallible but only as it hath an Humane and Fallible Authority Lastly They acknowledge as we before shewed That a manifest and convictive Argument cannot be deduced from one or more of these Notes although fortified by the Authority of Scripture if any one be wanting How then will they afford evidence when perceived by the sole light of Nature and are much fewer For they allow more Notes to be pointed out by Scripture than taught by the light of Nature Do these Notes then only perswade probably If so I have gained what I was to prove For then it will be only probable that the Church cannot err and the Faith of Papists will have no certainty as not exceeding probability For whatsoever they believe they believe either for the Testimony or for the Judgment of the Church and so cannot be more certain or evident than is the Infallibility of the Church in testifying and judging Some to elude this make a twofold evidence Physical and Moral and grant the Arguments of the Infallibility of the Church not to be Physically evident but contend they are Morally So especially Aegidius Conink 7 De actib sup disp 2. dub 2. num 46. collat cum dub 3. num 71 72. But here in the first place this manifest absurdity occurrs That when they acknowledge these Arguments to be only Morally certain they yet maintain Faith which is founded solely upon them to be Physically certain for that degree of certainty all attribute to Divine Faith. Besides it hence also appears that this Moral Certainty doth not suffice because it
Lord Bacon in Arguments Civil Moral Natural c. with a large account of all his Works By Dr. Tho. Tenison 80. Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts 80. Mr. Seller's State of the Church in the three first Centuries Dr. Burnet's Account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester 80. Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England 80. History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-lands 80. Relation of the present state of the difference between the French King and the Court of Rome to which is added the Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy and their Protestation published by Dr. Burnet 80. Dr. Cumber's Companion to the Altar 80. Dr. Sherlock's Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies 80. Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation 80. A Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob about Catholick Communion 80. Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha or natural Power of Kings 80. Bishop Wettenhall's Method and Order for private Devotion 12 s. Valentine's Private Devotions 40. Dr. Spencer de Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus earum Rationibus fol. Dr. John Lightfoots's Works in English in 2 Vol. fol. Sir Tho. Brown's Vulgar Errors with all the rest of his Works fol. Patris Simâ—nii Disquisitionis Criticae de Variis per diversa Loca Tempora Bibliorum â— Editionibus Accedunt Castigat Opusc Is Vossi de Sibyllinis Oraculis 40. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered 40. Two Letters betwixt Mr. R. Smith and Dr. Hen. Hammond about Christ's Descent into Hell. 80. Dean Stratford's Disswasive from Revenge 80. Dr. Hez Burton's first Volume of Discourses of Purity and Charity of Repentance and of seeking the Kingdom of God. Published by Dean Tillotson 80. His second Volume of Discourses on several Practical Subjects Octavo Sir Thomas More 's Vtopia newly made English by Dr. Burnet 80. Mr. Seller's Devout Communicant assisted with Rules Meditations Prayers and Anthems 12 s. Dr. Towerson of the Sacraments in General Of the Sacrament of Baptism in particular 80. The History of the COVNCIL of TRENT in which besides the Ordinary Acts of the Council are declared many notable Occurrences which hapned in Christendom for 40 Years and particularly the Practices of the COVRT of ROME to hinder the Reformation of Their Errors and to maintain Their Greatness Written by Father Paul of the SERVI To which is added the Life of the Author and the History of the Inquisition Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation of the Church of England in 2 Vol. Fol. A Collection of Sixteen several Tracts and Discourses Written in the Years from 1678 to 1685. inclusive by Gilbert Burnet D. D. To which are added A Letter written to Dr. Burnet giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's Secret Powers The History of the Powder-Treason with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits dying Speeches who were Executed for the Popish Plot 1679. 40. A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachment of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representng the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS cocerning the Vnity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chilling-worth's never before Printed viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Transubstantiation Tradition c. And an account of what moved the Author to turn Papist wth his Confutation of the said Motives An Historical Treatise written by an AVTHOR of the Communion of the Church of Rome touching TRANSVBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of THAT CHVRCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 40. The Protestant's Companion Or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewed that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and
Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years and the Confession of the most Lerned Papists themselves 40. The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. Vers 15. 40. The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted 40. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs 40. An Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws 40. A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host in answer to the Two Discourses lately Printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is perfixed a Large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead The Fifteen Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin examined and confuted 40. With a Table of the Contents Preparation for Death Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died By W. W. 120. The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome A PRIVATE PRAYER to be used in Difficult Times A true account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29. 1687 between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tenison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 40. The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven 40. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an account of the occasions and beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom The Pamphlet entituled Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass considered in its False Reasonings and Quotations There are added by way of Preface two further Answers the First to the Defender of the Speculum the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the new Exposition of Mons de Meaux late Bishop of Conâom and his Vindicator The FIRST PART In which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition is fully vindicated the distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in Point of Image-worship more particularly considered 40. The Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome By the Author of the Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist 40. Mr. Pulton Considered in his Sincerity Reasonings Authorities Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto Published in his True Account his True and full Account of a Conference c. His Remarks and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T 's Rule of Faith. By Tho. Tenison D. D. A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church and inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation Being a sufficient Confutation of CONSENSVS VETERVM NVBES TESTIVM and other Late Collections of the Fathers pretending to the contrary 40.
differently as we shall see hereafter Secondly In that whether these Conditions be present they would have judged from the subsequent confirmation of the Pope which the Sorbonists will by no means allow but require the knowledge of it to be had some other way Hence many Councils which the Pope hath pronounced to be both lawful and Oecumenical the Sorbonists will not acknowledge either for lawful or Oecumenical as that of Lyons under Innocent IV. that of Florence and the Lateran under Leo X. others which the Sorbonists admit and the Monarchists reject as those of Pisa Constance at least as to the first Sessions and Basil So Bellarmin rejecting some antient Councils as those of Sirmium Ariminum Milan and the second of Ephesus on pretence that they were not approved by the Pope is said by Richerius c Richer apol pro Gers axiom 22. to trisle in assigning for the cause that which is not such Since as he affirms these Councils were not rejected because not approved by the Pope but because wanting the requisite Liberty Not to say that the Sorbonists reject some Councils meerly because the Pope was present oppressing and over-awing their Liberty It is manifest therefore that the consent of our Adversaries about the Infallibility of Councils confirmed by the Pope consists only in words and is not real and that by a General Council the Sorbonists understand one thing the Monarchists another The thing it self therefore cannot be of Faith since by the received Doctrine of that Church nothing can be so but what is unanimously acknowledged and taught by Catholick Divines But to make the whole matter more evident I will demonstrate two things First That this appears not to be of Faith from other Arguments beside the dissent of the Sorbonists and Monarchists Secondly That although it were certain in general there are some Infallible Councils yet it can never be known that any particular Council is so This was demonstrated above although under other terms when we proved that the active Infallibility of the Church is not of Faith and what I just now produced confirms it not a little To which may be added That the Infallibility of Pope and Council together cannot be of Faith because the Infallibility of neither separately is so For I would ask why that alone should be of Faith whether because that only is true or that alone revealed or that only known to be revealed Not the first for then the whole Latin Church would have erred For there is not at least not known to be any who do not attribute Infallibility either to the Pope alone or a Council alone Not the second For then the same inconvenience would follow since there are none but what hold the Infallibility of one of the two to have been revealed Not the third For who can ever imagine that God would give Infallibility to Pope or Council and yet not reveal it so clearly as that it might be believed with Divine Faith. For he can have given it for no other end than that it might be to Christians the Rule of Believing which it cannot be as we before proved unless it be it self of Faith. To this may perhaps be opposed that the Infallibility of Pope or Council separately wants not Divine Revelation but only the Definition of the Church proposing it But if so then the so much boasted of Wisdom and Assistance of the Holy Ghost must be wanting in the Church which would not make this Revelation by her Definition to be of Faith and thereby have left to the faithful no other living Rule of Faith than the Pope and Counsel consenting together which for the known difficulties of calling General Councils cannot be perhaps had and applied once in an Age whereas the Infallibility of the Pope if defined to be of Faith would be an apt and easie Rule ready to be consulted upon all occasions But in truth this Infallibility of Pope and Council united is no where expresly revealed by God or openly defined by the Church For many places of Scripture and Decrees of Councils are indeed alledged for the Infallibility of each separately but not one for that of both conjunctly None certainly will deny this if the Opinion of Albertus Pighius and Fr. à Victoria be true Of whom the first by the confession of Bellarmin d Bell. de concil lib. 1 cap. 3. thought the institution of Councils plainly human and found out by Natural reason the second e Nihil aliud posset totum Concilium quod non possent Patres per se singuli secundum suam potestatem unde haec potestas non est in Concilio immediatè jure divino sed ex voluntate Praelatorum Vict. Relect. 2. de potest Eccl. Sect. 1. hath these words A whole Council can do nothing which each Bishop might not by his own power do of himself whence this power is not in the Council immediately by Divine Right but by the will of the Bishops That this opinion is at least probable must be confessed For no mention of General Councils is to be found in Scripture none in the Ecclesiastical Writers of the three first Ages to whom they were wholly unknown If this opinion should be true that so much Infallibility would vanish into smoak For who could assure us that God had annexed so great a priviledge to an humane Institution at least it could never be of Faith because wanting Divine revelation I know this opinion is rejected by Bellarmine but so softly that he doth not explode it as absurd and intolerable nor say the contrary is of Faith but only more probable From whence I argue That if the Divine institution of Councils be only more probable then their humane institution is probable at least neither opinion exceedeth probability and so neither can be of Faith. CHAP. XII That there was never any Councils Oecumenical THus have we proved the existence of infallible Councils to be uncertain But grant it certain and undoubted This will be yet to be inquired what those Councils are without the knowledge of which the certainty of the former will be wholly vain Yet is this thing impossible to be known For let us survey the conditions which our Adversaries require The first is that the Council be truly Oecumenical This indeed is not much insisted upon by the Monarchists who maintain any Council great or small confirmed by the Pope to be infallible and so make no difference between particular and general Councils For according to their opinion without the approbation of the Pope both are alike fallible with it both alike infallible Whence Gr. à Valentia a Nullum Concilium infallibilem authoritatem definiendi per se habet seclusa Romani Pontisicis authoritate II. Accedente Rom. Pont. confirmatione Concilium quodvis est infallibile Val. com 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. §. 45. proposeth his judgment in these two assertions I. No Council hath of it self infallible authority