If the Catholicks sometimes say That the Scriptures depend upon the Church or a Council they do not understand it in respect of authority or in themselves but by explication and in relation to us * Bellarm. de Concil author lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Diximus Which is too crude an affirmative to be believ'd for besides that Pighius in his Epistle to Paul III. before his Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy affirms that the whole authority of the Scripture depends upon the Church and the Testimonies above cited doe in terms confute this saying of his the distinction it self helps not all for if the Scriptures have quoad nos no authority but what the Pope or the Church is pleas'd to give them then they have in themselves none at all For the Scriptures were written for our learning not to instruct the Angels but to conserve the truths of God for the use of the Church and they have no other use or design And if a man shall say the Scriptures have in themselves great authority he must mean that in themselves they are highly credible quoad nos that is that we are bound to believe them for their own truth and excellency And if a man shall say They have no authority quoad nos but what the Church gives them he says They are not credible in themselves and in se have no authority so that this distinction is a Metaphysical Nothing and is brought only to amuse men that have not leisure to consider And he that says one says the other or as bad under a thin and transparent cover The Church gives testimony external to the Scripture but the internal authority is inherent and derives only from God But let the witness of the Church be of as perfect force as can be desir'd I meddle not with it here but that which I charge on the Roman Doctors is that they give to their Church a power of introducing and imposing new Articles of Belief and pretending that they have power so to do and their definitions are of authority equal if not superiour to the Scriptures And this I have now prov'd by many testimonies to all which I add that of the Canon Law it self Dist. 19. Can. in Canonicis In which Gratian most falsly alledges pretended words of Saint Austin which Bellarmine * De Concil authorit lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Respondâ—o ad Graâ—ianum calls a being deceiv'd by a false Copy and among the Canonical Scriptures reckons the decretal Epistles of the Popes inter quas sanè illae sunt quas Apostolica Sedes habere ab eâ alii meruerunt accipere Epistolas Now who can tell of any Copy of S. Austin or heard of any in which these words were seen Certainly no man alive but if Gratian was deceiv'd the deceivers were among themselves and yet they lov'd the deception or else they might have expung'd those words when Gregory the 13th appointed a Committee of learned men to purge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it yet remains and if they do not pass for Saint Austin's words yet they are good Law at Rome 10â— Com. tit 1. de Ecclesiâ ejus authorit And Hereticks indeed talk otherwise said Eckius Objiciunt Haeretioi Major est authoritas Scripturae quam Ecclesiae but he hath confuted them with an excellent Argument The Church using bloud and strangled hath by authority chang'd a thing defin'd by the Scripture Behold says he the power of the Church over Scripture I love not to take in such polluted channels he that is pleased with it may find enough to entertain his wonder and his indignation if he please to read a fol. 126. 1. b. 104. b. 133. b. Capistrano b pag. 42. n. 15. p. 11. n. 18. 124. n. 9. Cupers c defens Trid. l. 1. l. 2. explic orthod l. 2. Andradius d pag. 3. l. 22. cap. 3. Sect. 3. Antonius e de fide justif 74. 6. hierarch Eccl. l. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. in praefatione ad Paulum terâ—ium Pighius f Contr. Luthâ— Concl. 56. Sylvester Prierias g dis contr Luther 8. de Eccl. Concl. 1. l. edit 1554. Johannes Maria Verratus h Encherid cap. 1. Coster i in 3. l. decâ—etal de convers conjug c. ex publico n. 16. Zabarel and k de verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. Sect. Ad decimum quintum Bellarmine himself who yet with some more modesty of expression affirms the same thing in substance which according as it hath been is and is still likely to be made use of is enough to undo the Church The word of the Pope teaching out of his Chair is non omnino not altogether or not at all the word of man that is a word liable to error but in some sort the word of God c. Agreeable to which is that which the Lawyers say that the Canon Law is the Divine Law so said * Super. 2. decret de jurejur c. Nimis n. 1. Hostiensis I hope I shall not be esteemed to slander her when these writers think they so much honour the Church of Rome in these sayings In pursuance of this power and authority Pope Pius the 4th made a new Creed and putting his power into act did multiply new Articles one upon another And in the Council of Trent amongst many other new and fine Doctrines this was one That it is Heresie to say That Matrimonial Causes do not pertain to Ecclesiastical Judges and yet we in England owe this priviledge to the favour and bounty of the King and so did the Ancient Churches to the kindness and Religion of the Emperour and if it were so or not so it is but matter of Discipline and cannot by a simple denial of it become an Heresie So that what I have alledged is not the opinion of some private Doctors but the publick practise of the Roman Church Lib. Benedicti de Benedict Bon niae excusus A. D. 1600. Commissum ei Papae munus non modò articulos indeterminatos determinandi sed etiam fidei Symbolum condendi atque hoc ipsum Orthodoxos omnes omnium saeculorum agnovisse palam confessos esse it was said to Paulus Quintus in an address to him And how good a Catholick Baronius was in this particular An. Dom. 373. n. 22. we may guess by what himself says concerning the business of the Apollinarists in which the Pope did and undid Vt planè appareat says Baronius ex arbitrio pependisse Romani Pontificis Decreta sancire sancita mutare 2. That which I am next to represent is that the Church of Rome hath reason and necessity to pretend to this power of making new Articles for they having in the body of their Articles and in the publick Doctrines allowed by them and in the profession and practises of their Church so many new things
is as every one likes for the Church of Rome that receives sixteen are divided and some take-in others and reject some of these as I have shown 5. How can it be known which is a General Council and how many conditions are requir'd for the building such a great House The question is worth the asking not only because the Church of Rome teaches us to rely upon a General Council as the supreme Judge and final determiner of questions but because I perceive that the Church of Rome is at a loss concerning General Councils A. D. 1409. deâ—â—oâ—cil Eccles. l. â— c. 8. The Council of Pisa Bellarmine says is neither approv'd nor reprov'd for Pope Alexander the 6th approv'd it because he acknowledg'd the Election of Alexander the 5th who was created Pope by that Council and yet Antoninus called it Conciliabulum illegitimum an unlawful Conventicle But here Bellarmine was a little forgetful for the fift Lateran Council which they in Rome will call a General hath condemn'd this Pisan with great interest and fancie and therefore it was both approv'd and reprov'd But it is fit that it be inquir'd How we shall know which or what is a General Council and which is not 1. If we inquire into the number of the Bishops there present we cannot find any certain Rule for that but be they many or few the parties interested will if they please call it a General Council And they will not dare not I suppose at Rome make a quarrel upon that point when in the sixth Session of Trent as some printed Catalogues * 1546. inform us they may remember there were but 38 persons in all at their first sitting down of which number some were not Bishops and at last there were but 57 Archbishops and Bishops in all In the first Session were but three Archbishops and twenty three Bishops and in all the rest about sixty Archbishops and Bishops was the usual number till the last and yet there are some Councils of far greater antiquity who are rejected although their number of Bishops very far surpass the numbers of Trent In Nice were 318 Bishops in that of Chalcedon were 600 and in that of Basil were above 400 Bishops and in that of Constance were 300 besides the other Fathers as they call them But this is but one thing of many though it will be very hard to think that all the power and energy the virtual faith and potential infallibility of the whole Christian Church should be in 80 or 90 Bishops taken out of the neighbour-Countreys 6. But then if we consider upon what pitiful pretences the Roman Doctors do evacuate the Authority of Councils we shall find them to be such that by the like which can never be wanting to a witty person the authority of every one of them may be vilified and consequently they can be infallible security to no man's faith Charles the 7th of France and the French Church assembled at Bruges rejected the latter Sessions of the Council of Basil because they depriv'd P. Eugenius and created Felix the 5th and because it was doubtful whether that Assembly did sufficiently represent the Catholick Church But Bellarmine says that the former Sessions of the Council of Basil are invalid and null because certain Bishops fell off there and were faulty Now if this be a sufficient cause of nullity then if ever there be a schism or but a division of opinions the other party may deny the Authority of the Council and especially if any of them change their opinion and go to the prevailing side the other hath the same cause of complaint but this ought not at all to prevail till it be agreed how many Bishops must be present for if some fail if enough remain there is no harm done to the Authority But because any thing is made use of for an excuse it is a sure sign they are but pretended more than regarded but just when they serve mens turns The Council of C. P. under Leo Isaurus is rejected by the Romanists because there was no Patriarch present but S. German though all the world knows the reason is because they decreed against images But if the other were a good Reason then it is necessary that all the old Patriarchs should be present and if this be true then the General Council of Ephesus is null because all the Patriarchs were not present at it and particularly the Patriarch of Antioch and in that of Chalcedon there wanted the Patriarch of Alexandria And the first of C. P. could not have all the Patriarchs nether could it be Representative of the whole Church because at the same time there was another Council at Rome and which is worse to the Romanists than all that the Council of Trent upon this and a 1000 more is invalid because themselves reckon but three Patriarchs there present one was of Venice another of Aquileia and the third was only a titular of Jerusalem none of which were really any of the old Patriarchs whose Authority was so great in the Ancient Councils 7. It is impossible as things are now that a General Council should be a sure Rule or Judge of Faith Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil Eccles. cap. 15. since it can never be agreed who of necessity are to be called and who have decisive voices in Councils Sect. At athâ—licorum At Rome they allow none but Bishops to give sentence and to subscribe and yet anciently not only the Emperours and their Embassadours did subscribe but lately at Florence Lateran and Trent Cardinals and Bishops Abbots and Generals of Orders did subscribe and in the Council of Basil Priests had decisive voices and it is notorious that the ancient Councils were subscribed by the Archimandrites who were but Abbots not Bishops L â—b 2. de Concil act 6. and Cardinal Jacobatius affirms that sometimes Lay-men were admitted to Councils to be Judges between those that disputed some deep Questions Nay Gerson says that Controversies of Faith were sometimes referred to Pagan Philosophers who though they believ'd it not yet supposing it such they determin'd what was the proper consequent of such Principles which the Christians consented in and he says Socrat. l. â— c 5. Eccles. hist. it was so in the Council of Nice as is left unto us upon record * And Eutropius a Pagan was chosen Judge between Origen and the Marcionites and against these he gave sentence and in behalf of Origen Certain it is that the States of Germany in their Diet at Noremberg propounded to Pope Adrian the VI th that Lay-men might be admitted as well as the Clergy and freely to declare their judgments without hindrance And this was no new matter for it was practis'd in all Nations in Germany France England and Spain it self as who please may see in the 6th 8th and 12th Councils of Toledo So that it is apparent that the Romanists though now they do not yet formerly
last days therefore commands that Christians who in Christianity would receive the firmness of true faith should fly to nothing but to the Scriptures otherwise if they regard other things they will be scandalized and perish not understanding which is the true Church and by this shall fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the Church Idem homil 41. in Matth. The summe is this deliver'd by the same Author Whatsoever is sought for unto salvation it is now fill'd full in the Scriptures Therefore there is in this feast nothing less then what is necessary to the salvation of mankind Sixtus Senensis though he greatly approves this book and brings arguments to prove it to be S. Chrysostom's and alleges from others that it hath been for many ages approv'd by the Commandement of the Church which among the Divine laws reads some of these Homilies as of S. Chrysostom and that it is cited in the ordinary and authentick glosses in the Catena's upon the Gospels in the decrees of the Popes and in the Theological sums of great Divine yet he would have it purg'd from these words here quoted as also from many others But when they cannot show by any probable argument that any hereticks have interpolated these words and that these are so agreeing to other words of S. Chrysostom spoken in his unquestion'd works he shews himself and his party greatly pinch'd and for no other reason rejects the words but because they make against him which is a plain self-conviction and self-condemnation Dissuasive in the Preface Theophilus Alexandrinus is already quoted in these words and they are indeed very severe It is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing divine without the authority of the holy Scriptures Here E. W. and A. L. say the Dissuasive left out some words of Theophilus It is true but so did a good friend of theirs before me for they are just so quoted by * Lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 11. Sect. Profert nonò Theophilum Bellarmine who in all reason would have put them in if they had made way for any answer to the other words The words are these as they lie intirely Truly I cannot know with what temerity Origen speaking so many things * In censuris super Matth. expositoribus and following his own errour not the authority of Scriptures does dare to publish such things which will be hurtful And a little after addes Sed ignorans quod demoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum Sophisms of his own mind and things that are not in Scriptures are explicative one of another and if he had not meant it meerly diabolical to induce any thing without the authority of Scripture he ought to have added the other part of the rule and have called it Devilish to adde any thing without Scripture or tradition which because he did not we suppose he had no cause to do and then whatsoever is not in Scripture Theophilus calls the sophism of humane minds He spake it indefinitely and universally Paschal 11. vide etiam Paschal 3. It is true it is instanc'd in a particular against Origen but upon that occasion he gives a general rule And therefore it is a weak subterfuge of Bellarmine to say that Theophilus onely speaks concerning certain Apocryphal books which some would esteem Divine but by the way I know not how well Bellarmine will agree with my adversaries for one or two of them say A. L. and E. W. page 4. Theophilus spake against Origen for broaching fopperies of his own and particularly that Christs flesh was consubstantial with the Godhead and if they say true then Bellarmine in his want invented an answer of his own without any ground of truth But all agree in this that these words were spoken in these cases onely Lib. 4. De verb. Dei cap. 11. and it is foolish says Bellarmine to wrest that which is spoken of one thing to another But I desire that it may be observ'd that to the testimony of Tertullian it is answered He speaks but of one particular To that of S. Basil it is answered He spake but against a few particular heresies And to one of the testimonies of S. Athanasius it is answered He spake but of one particular viz. the heresie of Samosatenus and to this of Theophilus Alexandrinus it is just so answered he spake likewise but of this particular viz. that against Origen and to that of S. Hierom * Cited in the next page in 23. Matth. he onely spake of a particular opinion pretended out of some apocryphal book and to another of S. Austin It is spoken but of a particular matter Lib. de bono vidâ—itatis c. 1. the case of widowhood But if Hermogenes and Origen and Samosatenus and the hereticks S. Basil speaks of and they in S. Hierom be all to be confuted by Scripture and by nothing else nay are therefore rejected because they are not in Scripture if all these Fathers confute all these heresies by a negative argument from Scripture then the rule which they establish must be more than particular It is fitted to all as well as to any for all particulars make a general This way they may answer 500 testimonies if 500 Authors should upon so many several occasions speak general words But in the world no answer could be weaker and no elusion more trifling and less plausible could have been invented However these and other concurrent testimonies will put this question beyond such captious answers S. Hierom was so severe in this Article that disputing what Zechary it was who was slain between the Porch and the Altar Whether it was the last but one of the small Prophets S. Hierom. in 23. Matth. Hoc quiae de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ prâ—batur Et 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Titum Sine authoritate Scripturarum garrulitas non habet fidem nisi viderentur perver sam doctrinam etiam Diviâ—is testimoniis roborare Sic citantur verba apud Bellarm. qui sequutus Kemnitium in objectionibus responsiâ—nem de bene esse paravit Non curavit tamen nec metuit ne non recte cuarentur verba or the Father of the Baptist he would admit neither because it was not in the Scriptures in these words This because it hath not authority from Scripture is with the same easiness despis'd as it is approv'd And they that prattle without the authority of Scriptures have no faith or trust that is none would believe them unless they did seem to strengthen their perverse doctrine with Divine testimonies but most pertinent and material to the whole inquiry are these words In c. 1. Aggaei Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque contingunt
Origen Homil. 2. in Psal. 37. Tantum modo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum Si intellexerit praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat curari ex quo fortassis caeteri aedificari poterunt tu ipse facilè sanari multâ hoc deliberatione satis perito medici illius consilio procurandum est By which words he affirms 1. That it was in the power of the Confessor to command the publication of certain crimes 2. That though it was not lightly to be done yet upon great reason it might 3. That the spiritual good of the penitent and the edification of others were causes sufficient for the publication 4. That of these the Confessor was judge 5. That this was no otherwise done by the consent of the party but because he was bound to consent when the Confessor enjoyn'd it And the matter is evident in the case of the incestuous Corinthian who either was restor'd without private Confession or if he was not S. Paul caus'd it to be publish'd in the Church and submitted the man to the severest discipline and yet publick that was then or since in the world The like to this we find in a decretal Epistle of Pope Leo Epist. 80. ad Epist◠Companiae for when some Confessors exceeding the ancient Ecclesiastical Rule were not so prudent and deliberate in conducting their Penitents as formerly they were but commanded that all their whole Confessions should be written down and publickly read he says Though the plentitude of Faith might be landable that is not afraid to blush in publick yet the Confession is sufficient if it be made in secret first to God and then to the Priest and adds Non omnium hujusmodi sunt peccata ut ea quae poenitentiam poscunt non timeant publicare All sins are not of that nature that are fit to be publish'd and therefore removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo let such a reprovable custome be taken away In which words of S. Leo we find 1. That the Seal of Confession as at this day it is understood at Rome was no such inviolable and religious secret for by a contrary custom it was too much broken 2. That he blames not the publication of some sins but that they indiscriminately did publish all 3. That the nature of some sins did not permit it for as he adds afterwards men by this means were betrayed to the malice of their Enemies who would bring them before tribunals in some cases 4. That this was not spoken in case of publick Crimes delated and brought into publick notice but such as were spoken in private Confession And here I cannot but desire there had been some more ingenuity in Bellarmine who relating to this Epistle of S. De poenitentiâ lib. 3. cap. 14. Sect. Denique cum secreta Leo affirms that S. Leo says It is against the Apostolical Rule to reveal secret sins declar'd in Confession when it is plain that S. Leo only blames the Custom of revealing all saying that all sins are not of that nature as to be fit to be reveal'd And by these precedent authorities we shall the easier understand that famous fact of Nectarius who abolished the Custom of having sins published in the Church and therefore took away the penitentiary Priest whose Office was as I prov'd out of Origen Sozomen and Burchard to enjoyn the publication of some sins according to his discretion It hapned in Constantinople that a foul fact was committed and it was published in the ears of the people and a tumult was rais'd about it and the Remedy was that Nectarius took away the Office and the Custom together Consulentibus quibusdam ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret prout sibi ipse conscius esset consideret ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere poenitentiarium illum presbyterum exauthoravit Every man was thenceforth left to his liberty according to the dictate and confidence of his own conscience to come to the Communion and this afterwards pass'd into a Rite for the manners of men growing degenerate and worse sins being now confess'd than as he supposes formerly they had been the judges having been more severe and the people more modest it was fit enough that this Custom upon the occasion of such a scandal and so much mischief like to follow it should be laid aside wholly and so it was Here is a plain story truly told by Sozomen and the matter is easie to be understood But Bellarmine seeing the practice and doctrine of the Church of Rome pinch'd by it makes a distinction deriv'd from the present Custom of his Church of publick Confession and private saying That Nectarius took away the publick and not the private This I shall have occasion to discuss in the next Section I am now onely to speak concerning the Seal of Confession which from this authority is apparent was not such a sacred thing but that it was made wholly to minister to the publick and private edification of the penitent and the whole Church Thus this Affair stood in the Primitive Church In descending ages when private Confessions grew frequent and were converted into a Sacrament the Seal also was made more tenacious and yet by the discipline of the Church there were divers Cases in which the Seal might be broken up 1. There is a famous Gloss in Cap. Tua nos lib. 4. Decretal tit 1. De Sponsalibus Matrimonio where the Pope answering to a question concerning a pretended contract of marriage says that the marriage is good unless the Inquiring Bishop of Brescia could have assur'd him that the man did never consent or intend the marriage Quod qualiter tibi constiterit non videmus The Gloss upon these words says Imò benè potuit constare quia vir ille hoc ei confitebatur The Bishop might well know it because the man had confessed it to him or because he had revealed it to him in penitential confession For though in Judicial confession before a tribunal no man is to be believed to the prejudice of a third person yet in penitential Confession he is to be believ'd because it is not to be supposed that he then is unmindful of his salvation Where the Gloss observing that he did or might have received it in Confession and yet make use of it in Consultation with his superiors and upon that answer was to pronounce it to be or not to be a marriage and to treat the persons accordingly it follows that the thing it self might be revealed for the good of the penitents soul and this was done by the Cardinal of S. Laurence in the case of a woman introducing a supposititious Child to the inheritance of her husband Lib. 5. decret tit 38. and this revelation of the Confession produc'd a decretal Epistle from the Pope in that particular case Cap. officii de poenit remiss