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
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
to distinguish them and thence certainly to know to which of the Churches Decrees they are to give a steadfast and to which a dubious Faith The same is the case of the second Exception Many of our Adversaries deny the Church to be infallible in questions of Fact. In the mean while they differ about determining what are matters of Fact and what of right To know what is the sense of a late Writer many account a question of Fact. Estrix 2 Estr Diat de sapientiâ c. assert on the contrary contends it belong to right The same may be said of the third Exception That excludes from the rank of infallible all Decrees not proposed as of Faith. But what those Decrees are doth not appear So the Council of Trent for example defined that the body of Christ exists under the Bread by vertue of the words but the Blood not by vertue of the words but by concomitance No anathema being inflicted upon those that think otherwise Hence arose a question whether this distinction were of Faith. Some in Vasquez 3 Vasq in 3. disp 185. cap. 2. hold the negative himself largely endeavours to prove the affirmative This might be further confirmed with innumerabe instances But I chuse rather to take notice of somewhat more remarkable The Church in defining hath in these latter Ages been wont to make use of words which might rather conceal than declare her opinion and from which the most sagacious persons should not collect her meaning For example one of the notes whereby we know whether a definition be by the Church proposed as of Faith is the excommunication of the Deniers of it yet it sometimes happens the Church would not have that be thought to be of Faith the Deniers whereof She excommunicates So the Council of Trent 6 Si quis contrarium doâ—ere prae dicare vel pertinaciter assirere praesumpserit eo ipso excommunicatus existat having enjoyned that every one conscious of any mortal sin should confess before he communicates subjoyneth If any one presume to teach preach or pertinaciously assert the contrary let him be ipso facto excommunicate Any one would hereby imagine that the opinion of Cajetan were condemned of Heresie Yet Canus 7 Hoc propter periculum cautum est Nam quod sententia Cajetani non fuerit pro hereticâ condemnata nos testes sumus qui Concilio intersuimus Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. tells us that for caution sake it was not and of this saith he we that were present in the Council are Witnesses See another Artifice which creates more perplexities When the Church condemneth many propositions in one Decree it oft-times happens that they are not all of the same kind and quality but some Heretical others only erroneus some Rash others Scandalous and some Offensive to Pious Ears as they are wont to term them Now none but Heretical propositions hurt the Faith and consequently if the Church be infallible only in matters which she proposeth as of Faith when she condemneth these mixed propositions her judgment is infallible only in respect of the Heretical ones The rest may with safety and truth be defended It is of insinite concern therefore in the direction of our Faith that these propositions should be distributed into their several Classes and the particular censure specified in each of them But that is very rarely done The propositions are all huddled up together And we are only told in general that some of them are Heretical others Erroneus c. Thus the Council of Constance 8 Quibus examinatis fuit repertum aliquos plures ex ipsis fuisse esse notoriè heretico alios non Catholicos sed erroreos alios scandalosos Blasphemos quosdam piarum aurium offensivos nonnullos corum temerarios seditiosos Concil Const Sess 8. condemned 45 Propositions of Wickliff in these Words This Holy Synod hath caused them to be examined and 't is found that many of them are notoriously Heretical others not Catholick but erroneous some scandalous and blasphemous some offensive to pious ears and some rash and seditious In the same manner that Council condemned Thirty Assertions of John Husse without acquainting us what particularly in them is contrary to Faith and consequently what wherein themselves cannot err The Popes make use of the same trick So the Bull 9 Quas quidem sententias quanquam nonnullae aliquo pacto sustineri possent in rigore tamen haereticas erroneas c. respectivè damnamus Bulla ad calcem Operum Vasq wherewith Pius V. and Gregory XIII condemned Seventy five Propositions of Michael Baius after it hath recited them and confessed that divers of them might be in some sense maintained condemns them all respectively as Heretical erroneous suspected rash scandalous and offensive to pious ears See an ambiguous sentence and very unfit to remove scruples Nor doth Vasquez deny it but tells 5 Ex quâ censurâ non apparet qualis untcuique propositioni censura sigillatiâ—n conveniat Vasq in 1.2 Disp 190. cap. 18. us that from their censure doth not appear what censure agreeth to each single Proposition Wherefore when himself had undertaken to defend some of these Propositions that he might know in which of them the Poyson of Heresie lay hid he began to read Baius's Book having first asked leave But when that would not do he consulted Cardinal Toletus whom the Pope had sent to Lovain to see the Bull put in execution and Learned from him that the Popes had condemned some of those Propositions only because they were too sharply worded Now what a rare help doth the Church afford in declaring to every one what he should believe when the sense of her own decrees cannot be known without consulting her most intimate Counsellours such as Canus and Toletus Further it may very well be that he which knoweth the particular propositions condemned of Heresie may be ignorant wherein the Heresie consists For the same proposition may admit of many senses whereof some may be true others false some Heretical others not If the Church had any care of the truth She ought accurately to distinguish these sences and tell us which may be admitted and which ought to be exploded But nothing of this is done Rather Pius V. and Gregory XIII declaring that some of Baius his Propositions are in some sense maintainable but in rigour heretical tell us neither what is that harmless sense which may be defended nor that pernicious Heresie which ought to be avoided But nothing evinceth this more clearly than what lately happened upon occasion of the Jansenist Doctrine Five Propositions were taken out of Jansenius his Augustinus and by some French Bishops sent to be examined by the Pope Others were present for Jansenius who pleaded the Propositions were capable of divers senses some true some false and earnestly desired it might be specified in which sense each Proposition were
be endured in matters of Faith and eternal Salvation For suppose the Delegates vote Heresie shall the Delegators be bound to confirm their Suffrages The second way of delegating destroys the liberty of the Council For the present Bishops would by this means be no Judges of the Controversies proposed and all disputation or examination of the Question in hand would be wholly vain The first way therefore of Representation is useless Let us now consider the second I affirm that the absent Bishops cannot be said to have committed their suffrages to the present For first Although this may with some colour be said of those which have been lawfully and sufficiently summoned yet it cannot be applied to them who either are not summoned at all or not by him who hath the lawful Authority to do it Who this is is yet undetermined Besides what if the absent Bishops shall openly protest they will not be obliged by what the others shall decree as the French did at Trent Shall they be also supposed to have tacitely assented But to shew the vanity of this pretence more clearly I will prove that tacit delegation which in other cases may be allowed to have here no place First it doth not appear what is the peculiar Office to be performed by the Bishops in a Council Holden makes them only Witnesses of revealed Truths Others rather think them to be Judges But Judges they cannot be unless also Witnesses For how shall they define an Opinion to have been revealed or not unless they know it to be so and be Witnesses of the Revelation or at least Tradition Yet 't is certain that Proxies in witnessing are not wont to be allowed or if they be that a tacit delegation will not suffice I add if it were a matter of more external Discipline or what concerns only the Bishops themselves those who absent themselves might perhaps be supposed to quit their right and submit themselves to the judgment of the rest which meet in the Council But to imagine such a thing in a matter of Faith and Truth is most absurd Shall those Bishops who might have born Witness to the Truth be thought to have forfeited or deserted their right only because either voluntarily or by force they were absent from the Council If this were admitted errour would soon triumph over Truth and Faith over Heresie For our Adversaries confess and Experience hath often proved That the major part of Bishops in a Council may favour Heresie For suppose the heretical Bishops nearer to the place of the Council or supported by the favour of the secular Prince or mightily zealous in the propagation of their Errour all which advantages Arianisme formerly enjoyed in the East If to these be added the right of representing absent Bishops they may establish Heresie in the Church for ever and oblige the absent Bishops for a punishment of their negligence to subscribe to erroneous Definitions of Faith. Lastly If the absent Bishops tacitely delegate their suffrages to the present there is no number of Bishops so small which may not constitute a General Council nay although they be all of one Province provided the Summons were directed to all the Provinces as being interpretatively invested with the Authority of all the absent Bishops Which yet is not allowed by our Adversaries and Bellarmine k Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui adveniant Bell. de Concil lib. 1. cap. 17. himself requires as the fourth condition of a General Council that some Bishops come from at least the greatest part of the Provinces of Christendom Let the Reader now judge how that can stand which Richerius l Maximè propriè perfectissimè Rich. Apol. axiom 21. so positively affirms That an Oecumenical Council represents the whole Church most properly and perfectly On the contrary what I have already offered proves that the Church is not at all much less most perfectly represented thereby CHAP. XIII That although there were Oecumenical Councils it would be always uncertain which they were THAT there is no truly Oecumenical Councils I have proved in the precedent Chapter But grant there is We shall gain but little unless we undoubtedly know which they are that deserve that Name For the Papists will not have their Faith rely upon a Council indefinitely but upon such or such a Council as for Example upon that of Constance or Trent But their Faith cannot rely on these unless they were certain they were Oecumenical which that they can never be I shall prove in this Chapter I might perhaps supersede this labour as being already performed by Learned Men even of the Church of Rome Launoy a Laun. Epist part 8. ad Ames and the Author b de lib. c. lib. 5. cap. 2. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church although with a different intention For the first seems to have undertaken it only for the love of Truth the second that he might shew the necessity of depending wholly and absolutely upon the Pope But because both of them have omitted many things it will not be perhaps unuseful to add mine to their Observations First therefore The difficulty of knowing Oecumenical Councils appears from the discord of Authors in numbring them Bellarmine reckons 32 which distributing into 4 Classes he makes 18 of them to have been approved 7 condemned 6 partly approved and partly condemned and 1 the Pisan neither manifestly approved nor manifestly condemned Bosius c Bos de signis Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. numbers 18 expresly denying the rest to have been General Bannes d Ban. Catal. Concil praemisso Tom. 3. in Thom. 15 or at most 17. But all omit that of Siena although acknowledged to have been General by the Council of Basil e Concil Basil in quâdam resp datâ 3. Id. Maii 1436. Again of those numbred by Bellarmin some are by other Writers expunged out of the List Let us view them in order After the 1. Nicene Council of whose Universality none doubts comes that of Sardica which is thought to be General by Bellarmin Baronius Perron Lupus Natalis Alex. Maimbourg denied by the Africans Photius and Auxilius f Apud Lupum Diss de Concil Sardic among the Ancients by Richerius g Rich. de Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. and Peter de Marca h Marca de Concord lib. 7. cap. 3. among the Moderns The first Constantinopolitan Council Natalis i Orientalis duntaxat Ecclesiae Concilium istud fuit nec Oecumenicum nisi ex post facto quatenus c. Nat. §. 4. part 1. p. 236. affirms to have been only a Synod of the Eastern Church and Oecumenical only ex post facto inasmuch as the Western Church in the Roman Synod under Pope Damasus approved it Yet in the year after the Council the Eastern Bishops meeting at Constantinople and writing to the Roman Synod call their former Council Oecumenical which Valesius k Val.
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
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
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
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
doth not clearly enough teach this Infallibility The two first reasons are also made use of by Bellarmine Vasquez the Valemburgii and Boyvin And indeed this opinion is most consonant to the received Principles of their Church For if nothing can be an Article of Faith of which their Divines freely dispute unregarded by the Church This certainly cannot be whose Truth hath been and is to this day fiercely disputed of among them even by Bellarmines Confession from the time of the Council of Constance the Church all this while inflicting no censure on either party Besides if the Infallibility of the Pope be of Faith it will then be Heresie to deny it as we saw some before asserting Hadrianus Florentius therefore was an Heretick who affirms 11 Certum est quod possit Pontifex errare etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem Heresin per suam determinationem vel Deeretalem asserendo plures enim fuerunt Pontifices Rom. heretici Hadr. in Dictat in 4. Sentent the Pope can err even in those things which concern Faith by asserting Heresie by his determination or decretal and that many Popes have been Hereticks and the Church will be a favouress of Heresie in that She afterwards promoted Hadrian to the Popedom without first requiring of him an abjuration of his Heresie Again if this opinion be Heretical the Council of Basil will be heretical that defined it and vigorously maintained it The Sorbon and Gallican Clergy hereticks that teach it the Pope a favourer of heresie who daily conferreth Abbies Bishopricks and Cardinals Hats on notorious Hereticks giveth them places in Councils and maintains Communion with them the whole Latin Church will have been divided in point of Faith and part infected with heresie part with the Communion of hereticks for many Ages from the Council of Constance according to Bellarmine but even from the time of Firmilian or the middle of the third Century according to Lupus who assigns Firmilian to be the first opposer of Papal Infallibility and makes St. Basil to have been his Successor in opinion as well as in the See of Caesarea that thenceforward this Heresie got ground among the Grecians insomuch as the Pelagians condemned by the Popes appealed to the Council at Ephesus hoping their sentence might easily be reversed by the Greek Bishops as not allowing the Popes Infallibility If so then this dissention is very ancient in the Church which if it toucheth Faith then a pestilent Heresie hath for many Ages been connived at by the Church and Councils But whatsoever becomes of Lupus his Calculation certain it is this dissention hath continued from the Council of Constance so that if it be concerning a matter of Faith the Church of Rome hath all this while wanted that glorious Character of Unity of Faith which She so much boasts of CHAP. VII That it is not certain whether the Pope in defining used all diligence necessary to a right definition or whether he observed all the wonted solemnities in publishing his Decree ANother scruple next ariseth no less weighty than the former For granting we may be assured of the Infallibility of the Pope it is still to be inquired which be those Decrees of his that are infallibly true For that all are not so our Adversaries confess Many things are by them required and besides those before mentioned two other conditions viz. Diligence of the Pope in well examining the question to be defined and observation of the due solemnities in publishing the definition For the first they require that he diligently consult Scripture and Tradition address himself by Prayers to God and omit nothing which may assist him in finding out the Truth So Tapperus 1 Tapp orat 3. Canus 2 Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. Cellotius 3 Cell de Hier lib. 4. cap. 10. Bagotius 4 Bag. Instit Theol. and many others but above all Duvall 5 Duval de Pot. Pont. Sect. 2. quaest 5. who not only proposeth but also accurately demonstrates the necessity of these conditions But who can assure us that this requisite diligence was always used Or as often as a Papal decree comes forth are we to suspend our assent till we be ascertained that nothing requisite was omitted by the Pope If that be true there will be few Decrees to which we owe assent and obedience Canus Bellarmine Suarez Duvall Martinenus Rhodius and many others answer that as he which promiseth the End promiseth also the the means of that End so Christ in promising Infallibility to the Pope must be supposed likewise to have promised that he would take care the Pope should never omit any thing necessary for finding out of truth and declaring it to others when found I will not now enquire whether this be consonant to what they teach about the Controversie of the Aids of Grace I only ask whether what they alledge be certain If not our Faith will always sluctuate and ever be uncertain That it is not certain Tapperus 6 Si contingeret eum Pontisirem perperam pracedere an Deus eam volentem maledicere prchiberet sicut impedivit Balaam an potius retractari saceret ejus judicium sicut c. Certum non est Tapp loc cit ingenuously confesseth Whether saith he if it should happen that the Pope proceeds wrong would God hinder him going about to curse as he did Balaam or make him retract his judgment as the Counsel given by Nathan the Prophet to King David It is not certain Nay that it is absolutely false may be proved by many examples Did Benedict II. Examine well what he went about when he condemned Julian Toletanus his Book which he was afterwards forced to approve Did Vigilius who sometimes condemned sometimes defended the Tria Capitula Did John VIII who notwithstanding his Oath the Decrees of his Predecessors and Sanctions of Three Councils restored Photius and reinforced the Schism Another very evident Example of this is afforded by the suppression of Sixtus V. his Bibles which alone might evince three things that the Popes are not always sufficiently diligent in their Definitions that they can err in any Decrees and that it is not known when the requisite Solemnities are observed in the promulgation which was my second Argument The case was this The Council of Trent in authorizing the Vulgar Version had desired it might be correctly and accurately set forth leaving the Execution of this matter to the Pope That this might be well done Ad nos totum hoc judicium propriè specialiter pertinet Hac perpetuo valitura Constitutione de Venerab Fratrum consensu Consilio de certä suâ—i scientiâ Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine Apostolied sibi a Domino traditâ authoritate great industry was used At last after Forty Six years Sixtus V. published the Edition prefixing a Bull to it whereby he commanded it to be received by all men And wherein having prefaced that the matter belonged
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
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
who having produced the Example of the II. Ephesine Synod adds That if a true and a lawful Synod can err through fear then Hereticks may pretend that all the rest were subservient to the Lusts of Popes and Emperours and so the Authority of no one Synod will be left certain Nor indeed is this fear of Canus vain For long since many both Hereticks and Catholicks have complained of the violated liberty of Councils So Eusebius Theognis and Maris repenting of their having subscribed in the Council of Nice came to the Emperour and told him We have done wickedly O Emperour in that being terrified by you we subscribed to Heresy As Philostorgius r Apud Nicetam Thes lib. 5. cap. 8. relateth So Ibas in his famous Epistle to Maris the Persian complaineth the Fathers of the I. Ephesine Council were corrupted by Cyrill's Gold. The Legates of the Roman See made the like complaint in the Council of Chalcedon Lucentius f Concil Chalced Act. 16. telling the Presidents in open Council that the Bishops were circumvented and forced to subscribe to Canons to which they had not assented In the V. Synod Lupus t In hâe Synodo Justinianus Diocletianum induerat ejus affectibus serviebant omnes Graecorum Episcopi Lup. tom 1. p. 737. saith that Justinian became a Diocletian and all the Greek Bishops were Servants to his inclinations and relateth the words of Eustathius the Presbyter who affirms that nothing was therein done without violence necessity partiality and affection Richerius u Ita ut vix ullus contramussare auderet quae forma Conciliorum habendorum viguit à seculo Gregorii VII ad tempora Synodi Constantiensis Rich. Apol ax 38. saith that from the times of Gregory VII to the Council of Constance for 340 years the Popes were wont arbitrarily to impose Laws upon the Church and having formed Canons and Definitions at home to call Synods and imperiously to propose them where none dared so much as to mutter against them and in another place x Hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 13. Ita ut hoc stante regimine omnino impossibile videatur liberum haberi Concilium tells us That Gregory VII contrary to the custom used in the Church for more than a thousand years introduced that order that all Bishops should swear Obedience to the See of Rome whence saith he the liberty of all subsequent Councils was taken away but much more by the Popes arrogating to himself the collation of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices so that as long as his Government in the Church continueth it seemeth altogether impossible to have a free Council Duvall y Duvall Anteloq ad lib. de potest Pont. evinceth the Council of Basil was not free from Aeneas Sylvius who relates that the Eugenian party being terrified with threats all rose up together and cried out in the Council Liberty Liberty is taken away from us How is it that the Patriarch threatens he will break our heads The Greeks returning home protested against the force put upon them in the Council of Florence and therefore would not stand to the Decrees of it As for the Council of Trent Richerius z Colore quidem impediendae confusionis sed revera ut omnis occasio liberius disputandi de necessitate Ecclesiae reformandae in Capite in membris patribus Concilii tolleretur Et hae sunt artes eximiae quibus Curia Romana suam absolutam sulcit Monarchiam ne dicam tyrannidem Rich. Apol. ax 22. in Epilogo Si hodie celebrentur Concilia Episcopi non sunt Judices c. Item liberam sententiae dictionem non habent in Synodis quoniam potestas infallibilis voluntas absoluta Papae pro omni Synodo deliberatione consensa lege Canone communione Sanctorum coli servariqâ—e debet ex quo etium c. assures us That the Essential Liberty of Councils which giveth to the Bishops full power of proposing what they please was wholly taken away while none were permitted to propose any thing but the Popes Legates upon pretext indeed of avoiding confusion but really that all occasion of disputing freely concerning the necessity of reforming the Church both in Head and Members might be taken away from the Fathers of the Council And these are the fine arts wherewith the Court of Rome upholds her absolute Monarchy or rather Tyranny That in modern Councils Bishops are not fudges and Legislators as they ought to be but only Counsellors to the Pope and cannot freely give their Suffrages in the Council because the Infallible Power and absolute Will of the Pope must now adayes be received and observed instead of all Synod Deliberation Consent Law Canon and Communion of Saints whereby the Church is become the Bondslave of the Pope as Cajetan a A polop part 1. cap. 1. impiously and flatteringly calls her But the intolerable oppression of Liberty and various Arts used in the Council of Trent F. Paul amply relates in his History of that Council You will say perhaps these are false and calumnies But how doth this appear Other Historians perhaps deliver contrary accounts But how shall we be ascertained they tell truth If the first Historians be disbelieved why may not these also How ever it be possible it is the first relation may be true and until they be proved false we can never be certain they are not true can never esteem those Councils free and consequently not Infallible For that the irregularity of a Council is not manifest sufficeth not to found our Faith upon its Decrees but to that end the perfect regularity of it must be known and evident which cannot be while the freedom of it is uncertain But this is not all Canus and Estrix before truly observed That herein no more account is to be had of Fear than of any other perturbation of the mind and that he who can be forced by threats to decree against his Conscience may no less vehemently be shaken and drawn from the truth by Hatred Anger Hope Desire or the like Certainly the efficacy of these Passions is no whit less and if the H. Ghost defends not Bishops in Council from the impressions of Fear neither will he from the temptations of other Affections Suppose therefore we be assured no force was used to infringe the Liberty of the Council which we can never be yet this will not suffice unless we be at the same time ascertained that the Bishops were corrupted with no Passions led by no Affections and served no Interest in giving their Suffrages Till then we must suspend our assent to the Decrees of any Council as justly doubting whether that may not have undergone the same unhappiness which hath attended some former Councils So Lupus accuseth the Fathers of the I. Constantinopolitan Council of envy against the Western Bishops but especially the Church of Rome Liberatus relates That Theodorus Ascidas Favourite to the Emperour Justinian in revenge of the
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
Schools than to the Pulpit without either the knowledge or the damage of the People but cannot dissent in matters of Faith unless their dissensions be presently known because disputations strifes and Schisms presently arise from them which occasion either the Decree of a Pope or the calling of a Council to extinguish the dissension and cast the heretical part out of the Church That every Laick therefore both may and ought to be perswaded of the truth of those things which his Pastour teacheth to be of Faith while he seeth none opposing him although himself doth not inquire whether others teach the same thing So Suarez 5 De fide disp 5. Sect. 1. But here many things are supposed which cannot be granted First it is not necessary that as often as a Doctor proposeth any thing to be of Faith which is not so some others should rise to oppose him We daily see the contrary not only in Parishes but even in Universities where the Wits of Men are more easily excited to controversy yet there some affirm others deny many matters to be of Faith without any subsequent Schisms or Animosities Secondly if any Disputation or Opposition should arise herein it is not necessary it should ever come to the ears of the common People Every one knows how hot the Controversy about the Pope's Infallibility hath for some Ages been especially in France where are many Defenders of each Opinion Yet some Years since when I was in that Country talking with a Priest and him no ordinary Person but a man famous in the neighbourhood and Doctor of Divinity when I said the Pope's Infallibility was denied by many and particularly by the Sorbon he grew very angry said it was most false and confidently maintained that no Catholick Divine ever doubted of it Nor could I free the Man from his errour whatsoever I then offered to him See another example more remarkable I was present at Paris in an Assembly of Learned Men who met weekly to treat of matters of learning They then disputed of the Pope's Infallibility which a Priest said was lately rejected by the Gallican Clergy in their Synod At that an Abbot who presided over the Assembly and had the repute of a very Learned Man was not a little moved and denied any such thing was ever done by the Clergy He acknowledged indeed that the Pope could err whensoever he gave his opinion as a Private Doctor and that the Clergy meant no more than this but that there was no Catholick who did not hold his judgment Infallible whensoever he pronounced ex cathedrâ and whatsoever the Priest could say he would not be perswaded that there was any dissension among Divines in this matter If this Learned Abbot could be ignorant of so notorious a thing what shall we think of illicerate Christians Thirdly it is not necessary that as often as dissensions arise in matters of Faith Schism should thence immediately be produced and occasion a Decree of the Pope or calling of a Council How many things did Theodorus of Mopsuestia teach against the Faith which yet were not canvassed of many Years after his Death All acknowledge the number of Canonical Books of Scripture the necessity of the Eucharist and state of the Dead to be of Faith Yet none will deny the Ancients differed in judgment as to all these things and all know that no Schisms Disputes or Anathema's of Councils arose therefrom But not to depart from this very question What can be more of Faith than the Rule of Faith it self and the most essential condition of that Rule Infallibility Many Doctors of the Church denied this in the XIV and XV. ages as we before proved yet no Schism no Decree of the Church was occasioned thereby But to shew the sophistry of this objection more evidently it may be observed that there are five sorts of things which although not belonging to Faith may be in the Church proposed as of Faith. I. Things true but not revealed II. Neither true nor revealed but not repugnant to Revelation III. Repugnant to things revealed but such as it is not manifest that they were revealed IV. Repugnant to things manifestly revealed but so as that repugnance is obscure and remote not clear and immediate V. Clearly repugnant to things manifestly revealed Concerning matters of the last rank this objection might have some force but not much since the contrary may be shewn in some examples But for the four first Classes it hath no colour of truth They may be all taught as of Faith and that daily yet be observed and regarded by none much less violently opposed by any The want of apparent opposition therefore sufficeth not to make what any one Doctor proposeth as of Faith to be so The consent and concurrence of all in teaching the same to be of Faith must be ascertained Otherwise assent to it will be foolish and rash at least uncertain CHAP. XXIII That it is not certain those things are true which are unanimously taught by all Pastors THat it is uncertain what the Governours of the Church unanimously teach we have proved yet grant it certain Can we securely believe this their unanimous consent What if they may all err This our Adversaries will say they cannot But is that certain and undoubted If not in vain is it alledged They will perhaps say it is nay and of Faith so as it cannot be denied without open Heresy So Duvall 1 In 2. 2. p. 106. and many others And indeed if it be not of Faith that all the Pastors consenting cannot err Faith cannot rely upon their Authority Yet is this most false for we before proved these two Propositions I. That nothing is of Faith whose contrary is held and taught by Catholick Divines the Church knowing and not censuring their Opposition II. That the greatest Divines of the Roman Church Doctors Bishops and Cardinals taught 1. That the whole Clergy might be infected with Heresy 2. That the Church to which Infallibility was promised might consist in one Laick or one Woman the rest apostatizing from the Faith. This was the Opinion of Alensis the Author of the Gloss upon the Decretals Lyra Occam Alliaco Panormitan Turrecremata Peter de Monte S. Antoninus Cusanus Clemangis Jacobatius J. Fr. Picus But who can imagin so many and so great Men either not to have known what is of Faith or wilfully to have taught the contrary This moved Suarez to esteem the Infallibility of the Pastors thus consenting uncertain It is asked saith he 2 Petitur an omnes Episcopi Ecclesiae possint convenire in aliquo errore Nam inter Catholicos quidam affirmant quia non invenitur promissio Alii negant quia c. Mihi verò neutrum videtur satis exploratum probabile autem est ad providentiam Christi pertinere ut id non permittat Suar. de fide disp 5. Sect. 6. whether all the Bishops of the Church can agree in any error
corda eorum per fidem charitatem gratiam mihi inseparabiliter connectendo ita ut omnes sint unum corpus mysticum unaque domus Carth. in Matth. XVI art 26. brings in Christ thus speaking I will build and confirm my Church that is the Congregation of the Faithful by inseparably uniting their hearts to me by Faith Charity and Grace so as all may be one mystical Body and one House J. Fr. Picus Mirandula 15 A propriâ vocabuli significatione recedendum ipse non putarem ut primò propriè principalissimeque Sancta Catholica Ecclesia diceretur quae omnes rectae Apostolicae fidei non fictae charitatis homines complecteretur Pic. Theor. 13. saith That we ought not to recede from the proper signification of the Word that so that might be called primarily properly and most principally the Holy Catholick Church which comprehendeth all men of a right and Apostolick Faith and unfeigned Charity Ferus upon those words Matth. XV. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it saith 16 Sed loquitur de Ecclesiâ Secundùm spiritum quae solos electos complectitur Fer. in Matth. Christ speaks not here of the Church as it is commonly understood of the Collection of all Christians whether good or bad but of the Church according to the Spirit which comprehends only the Elect. Lastly Chr. Lupus 17 Ecclesia quae claves accepit non est universa fidelium in legitimis Sacramentis communio sed sola congregatio justorum seu Sanctorum communio Lup. in Concil tom 4. p. 818. affirms That the Church which received the Keys is not the universal Communion of the Faithful in the Lawful Sacraments but the sole Congregation of the just or the Communion of Saints Which he pursueth at large and proveth by many Testimonies of St. Augustine to which we might add many others no less cogent of other Fathers as St. Hierom Agobardus Bernard c. if our Argument consisted in the truth of this Opinion It sufficeth to shew it was received by many and consequently that our Adversaries do not agree in forming the Idea of a Church Now this Dissension is of great moment For if the second or especially the third Opinion be true the Doctrine of our Adversaries will be wholly overthrown For not to say that if Sinners be excluded out of the Church the Pope and whole Councils may perhaps not belong to it and so want that Infallibility which is appropriated to the true Church To omit this since we treat not now of active but passive Infallibilty I say That according to this Hypothesis the Faith of our Adversaries cannot rely upon the belief of the Universal Church For to conform themselves to this Rule of Faith they must first perfectly know it which cannot be if they know not what is that Church whose Faith they ought to follow But how shall they know the Church if that consist only of Pious Men whom none will deny to be known to God alone Canus was not ignorant of this who rejecteth this Opinion because saith he 18 Incerta erunt omnia si apud solos pios Ecclesia est Can. loc Theol. lib. 4. cap. 3. all things will be uncertain if the Church be limited to pious Men. Will our Adversaries therefore say that the first of these Opinions is certain the other undoubtedly false That is easter affirmed than proved Besides of what degree of certainty would they have their assertions to be Not certainly of Divine Faith unlessHeresie be imputed to all those Learned Men who maintained the second and third Opinions But no other degree of certainty can be obtained in these things nor will any other suffice CHAP. XXV That our Adversaries have no way of knowing the true Church IT doth not appear therefore who they are that truly belong to the Church Yet suppose it is and that all Baptized Persons outwardly professing the true Faith are Members of it which Opinion most pleaseth our Adversaries and is most advantageous for them It is still to be enquired which out of so many Societies that challenge to themselves the name of the Church justly and truly claims it For not any one that first occurrs is to be admitted and preferred before the rest But here if any where a diligent and accurate Examination is to be used lest instead of the Church of Christ we follow the Synagogue of Satan and for Divine Revelations receive execrable Errors This especially becomes them who when they have found the Church give over any further enquiry and receive without Examination all the dictates of it They ought to be very vigilant and curious in the choice of their Guide lest if they haply mistake they incurr that Sentence of Christ If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the ditch Let us see therefore whether our Adversaries can boast they have made a just and accurate enquiry herein and most certainly found out the true Church There are chiefly three Methods of making this Enquiry 1. From the truth of the Doctrine professed by any Church and Conformity of that to the Word of God. 2. By Notes known only by the light of right Reason and independently from the Word of God. 3. By Notes which are marked out and taught in the Scripture Arriaga preferreth the first Method before all others I answer saith he 1 Respondeo veritatem doctrinae probari etiam posse non recurrendo ad Ecclesiam imò ante primam probationem verae Ecclesiae debere probari veritatem doctrinae Etenim cum Ecclesia ut Ecclesia definiatur per hoc quòd sit coetus profitentium veram doctrinam fidei repugnat in terminis me supponere aliquam congregationem esse veram Ecclesiam nisi dicam eo ipso ibi esse veram doctrinam Ergo non possum primò probare veram doctrinam ex verâ Ecclesiâ Arr. de fide disp 7. Sect. 5. that the truth of the Doctrine may be proved without recurring to the Church yea and that before the first Proof of the true Church the truth of the Doctrine ought to be proved He proveth both parts of his Assertion largely and in the second part of it maketh use of this Argument For since the Church as a Church is defined the Congregation of men professing the true Doctrine of Faith it is a contradiction in the very terms to suppose any Congregation to be the true Church unless I do for that very reason suppose there is the true Doctrine I cannot therefore first prove the Doctrine is true from the truth of the Church To this we willingly subscribe and approve this Method of Arriaga's only Not so the rest of our Adversaries who detest it and labour to render it both infamous and impossible pretending it to be full of inextricable difficulties and not to be surmounted by the most learned much less by illiterate persons Wherefore I need not endeavour to prove that the true
OF THE Incurable Scepticism OF THE CHURCH OF ROME IMPRIMATUR Hic Liber Cui Titulus Of the Incurable Scepticism of the Church of ROME Octob. 20. 1687. GVIL. NEEDHAM LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Church yard MDLXXXVIII PREFACE AMong the manifold accusations with which the Papists are wont to defame our most holy Religion there is none which they oftner alledge or more seriously endeavour to evince or confirm with more plausible arguments than that whereby they pretend that we utterly overthrow all certainty in divine matters and consequently Faith it self This is the constant subject of their Writings and Discourses this is of late their only argument To obviate therefore these importunate clamours I resolved throughly to examin the whole Argument and inquire whether there be any truth in those things which many obtrude for most certain Having then with some diligence considered the matter I soon found first that those things are false and and frivolous which are commonly opposed to us and then that our Adversaries themselves are manifestly guilty of that crime wherewith they asperse us and can by no Arts be purged from it For both that celebrated infallibility of the Church and of her Governours upon which the whole System of Popish Faith relies is easily proved to be null and feigned and that even if it were true it could yet produce no assurance of Faith no certainty of belief To evidence and evince all this I thought not unfit and therefore have undertaken to demonstrate these three things I. That it is most false what is pretended with so much confidence that the Church at least in the sence by them understood cannot erre II. That granting the Church cannot erre this her Infallibility is of that nature that both it self labours with inextricable difficulties and can confer certainty upon nothing else III. That our Faith relieth upon far more firm foundations and that nothing is believed by us which is not both certain in it self and such as the certainty of it cannot be unknown by us Of these three Propositions which may in time God willing be demonstrated I have now undertaken the Second because that may be comprehended in a much shorter Discourse than the rest I will shew therefore in this Treatise that the least assurance of those things which are believed is wanting to the Popish Religion and that all things are there doubtful all things uncertain and nothing firm This altho it be most true in the Agenda also of their Religion yet to avoid prolixity I confined my self to the Credenda only and even in these omitted many things which might perhaps seem not inconsiderable to many For not one or two ways only doth the Roman Religion overthrow the firmness of Faith It doth it upon many accounts principally by their Doctrine of the Eucharist which introduces an universal Scepticism into the whole System of Christian Religion Not to say that their Divines in teaching that the very Existence of God is not so much known as believed manifestly betray to Atheists the Cause of Religion But I omit these things as not properly belonging to the matter by us undertaken What I offer in this Discourse may perhaps seem to some too much embarassed with Schâ—lastick Terms and Disputes Nor indeed do I wholly deny it But I desire those Persons to consider whether this could possibly be avoided For only to propose our Arguments and not vindicate them by examining what is opposed to them by our Adversaries seemeth to me the least part of an accurate Disputation Which whosoever shall peruse even with the greatest diligence and attention cannot nor ought not to give sentence because they have not yet heard the other party whose defence cannot be without injustice neglected Those defences indeed are become nauseous in this Age and not undeservedly But however they could not be justly passed by and dissembled by us Yet in these I have endeavoured to propose them as clearly and perspicuously as I could and accommodate them to the capacity of all persons Whether I have gained my intent experience must declare OF THE INCURABLE SCEPTICISM OF THE CHVRCH of ROME CHAP. I. Wherein is laid down the Design of this Treatise and some things are premised for the better understanding of the whole IT is acknowledged by all that the perfection of that Faith which the Schoolmen call Inform we Historical consists in three things that it be plenary pure and firm that is that it believeth all which God hath revealed and that without any mixture of errour or admittance of doubt That the Faith of Papists is neither plenary nor pure many have demonstrated That it is not firm or unshaken I here undertake to prove and to shew that admitting their Hypotheses a Papist cannot with a certain and firm Faith be perswaded of the truth of any thing not only not of those Articles which Rome hath added to the Divine Revelation but not even of those which were truly revealed by God. For since Objects of Faith are inevident of themselves and deserve assent no otherwise then as it shall appear that they have been revealed by God and Revelation it self not a whit more evident there is necessarily required one or more Rules whereby things Revealed may be distinguished from not Revealed We have only one such Rule the Holy Scriptures The Papists many that so what they want in goodness they may make up in number For to Scripture they have added Tradition Decrees of Popes Constitutions of Councils and consent of Pastors not only those who have successively ruled the Church from the first foundation of it but of those also who govern at any determinate time and lastly the belief of the whole Church Now that by the means of any Rule our Faith may become firm two things are necessary First that the Rule it self be true containing nothing false or not revealed And then Secondly that what we believe manifestly agree with this Rule If either of these conditions fail our Faith must be uncertain Nor is it only requisite that a Papist be ascertained both of the truth of the Rules of his Faith and the conformity of what be believe unto them But also that he be as firmly perswaded of the truth of these things as he is of the truth of any Article of his Faith. For since the Faith of Papists depends wholly upon these Rules and is sustained only by them How can it be that the perswasion of the truth of those things which they believe meerly for the sake of these Rules should be more firm than the perswasion of the truth of the Rules themselves or of the conformity of what they believe unto those Rules It being impossible that an Effect should have more in it than the Cause can give it A Conclusion stronger than the Premises or a House firmer than the Foundations Nor do our Adversaries deny this Holden 1 Quamcunque enim
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
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
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
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
naver Coster Enchirid. Controv. c. 3. the Jesuit We confess saith he the Successor of Peter may be an Idolater a private Heretick and in secret exercise Diabolick arts Secondly It may be that the reputed Pope be for some unknown reason incapable of that Dignity as if he be not baptized or hath not received Holy Orders For the Council of Florence e Janua Sacramentorum hath defined Baptism to be the door to the other Sacraments and in the third Book of the Decretals Tit. 43. it is commanded both by the Council of Compeign and by Innocent III. that if a Presbyter whom all accounted to have been baptized shall afterwards appear not to have been baptized he be first baptied and then anew ordained Wherefore if he be either not baptized or not ordained he cannot be Pope But either or both may easily happen since to the validity of those as well as other Sacraments our Adversaries require the intention of him that confers the Sacrament which can be known to God alone Thirdly It may be that he who is commonly accounted Pope may be unduly created and for some Canonical impediment manifest or occult be uncapable of the Papacy For saith Lupus f Neque enim gravis canonica personae vitia per Papalem electionem sanantur Lup. Schol. ad Conc. VIII p. 1354. all Canonical irregularities of the person are not taken away by Election to the Popedom For which reason he there observeth Pope Constantine was justly deposed as being of a Lay-man immediately made Pope whereby he became irregular by the Canon of Sardica and that as is affirmed by approved Authors Clement VII dared not call a General Council against the Lutherans because being a Bastard he feared to be declared irregular Fourthly He who is elected Pope may be ipso facto excommunicate and so not capable of that Dignity So Picus Mirandula g Pic. Theor. 4. tells us of a learned and sober man in his time and he a Dignitary of the Church who gave it for his opinion that the then Pope was no Pope because he had exercised the Office of Pope before he had been elected by two parts of the Cardinals whereas the Canons provide that such a man shall be so far from being Pope that he shall be rendred uncapable of that Dignity as lying under an Anathema For the like cause it is reported the Jesuits were resolved not to acknowledge Clement VIII for Pope if he had condemned Molina as he intended because of some slaw in his Election It is an established Rule of the Roman Conclave That none be accounted duly elected but who hath two third parts of the Cardinals Votes Cardinal Sanseverino had gained them and thereby of right became Pope But while they were giving their Votes in the Chappel the dissenting Cardinals crowded in disturbed those who were taking the Votes and perswaded one of the other Cardinals to withdraw his Vote whereby Sanseverino although duly elected missed the Chair and Aldobrandino consecrated who took upon him the Name of Clement VIII But these perhaps are very rare instances Those which follow are more frequent It often happens that the Election is not free but extorted by force threats promises bribes factions and the like arts In which cases the Popes themselves have pronounced the Election to be null and irregular and the elect Person an Antipope and Apostate So Nicolas II. h Plat. in Nicol II. decreed in a Lateran Council That all Elections procured by money or favour or popular tumult Non Apostolicus sed Apostaticus or military violence should be null and void and the Elect Pope accounted not Apostolical but Apostatical to be anathematized by the whole Church as a Robber and by any means deposed But Julius II. i Sicut de verâ indubitatâ haeresi Tanquam Apostaticus Simoniacus Haeresiarcha Magus Ethnicus Publicanus vitari Nec hujusmodi Simoniacè electus per subsequentem ipsius inthronizationem seu temporis cursum aut etiam omnium Cardinalium adorationem seu obedientiam ullo unquam tempore convalescat Habetur apud Raynald is much more rigorous who with the consent of the Cardinals decreed and defined That Simony was true and undoubted Heresie and that in whatsoever Election that intervened by giving receiving or promising of money or any other goods or Benefices the Election should be ipso facto void and the Elect although he had the concurrent Votes of two thirds of or even all the Cardinals should be no Pope but made for ever uncapable of that or any other Ecclesiastical Dignity and be held and detested by all Christians as an Apostate Simoniack Haeresiarch Magician Heathen and Publican and that the person thus Simoniacally elected shall never become regular by any subsequent inthronization or prescription of time or even the adoration or obedience of all the Cardinals Thus these Popes truly and wisely For Christ had said long before k John x. 1. Verily verily I say unto you He that entreth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up some other way the same is a thief and a robber And the Apostle after him l Hebr. v. 4. No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron Whosoever therefore obtain the Popedom by evil arts and enter not by the Door but leap into the Chair by wickedness are no lawful Pastors but Thieves and Robbers and ravening Wolves But you will say Were there ever such Popes I answer why not Certainly the very Constitutions of Nicolas and Julius and others which might be added prove it is possible and insinuate it hath sometimes happened For those things are not wont to be forbidden which cannot be performed and it is a received Maxim That good Laws arise from bad Actions Ex malis moribas bonae leges But we want not frequent Examples For to pass by what we before related out of Picus Mirandula who knows not that Vigilius obtained the Popedom by three most hainous crimes by the violent expulsion of his Predecessor Silverius whom falsly accusing of Treason he procured to be banished into the Island of Palmeria and there starved him to Death or as others say assassinated him by promising to the Empress Theodora he would establish the Eutychian Heresy and by notorious Simony giving to Belisarius two Centenaries of Gold These things are accurately described by Liberatus and after him by Baronius Nor doth what Baronius m Bar. ad ann 540. Binius n Bin. in Vigil Ferrandus o Ferr. Traite de l' Eglise chap. 3. and others alledge to obscure this matter avail any thing to wit that Vigilius after Silverius his death resigned the Popedom and would not resume it till he was canonically elected For to omit the insufficiency of this excuse since Vigilius and all his adhaerents were excommunicated by Silverius and so even these pretended Canonical Electors became excommunicate
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
Not. ad Theod. Hist lib. 5. cap. 3. doth not without cause wonder at and observes the Western Church did not of a long while after esteem it Oecumenical I find none which deny the 1. Ephesine Council to have been General Yet if any one should do it he would not want some foundation For in the first Session wherein Nestorius was condemned not only the whole Oriental Diocess subject to the Patriarch of Antioch was absent but also the Legates of the Western Bishops were not yet come Cyrill indeed supplyed the room of Pope Coelestin bat Arcadius and Projectus were sent in the name of the other Western Bishops as Lupus l Lup. diss de Concil Ephes cap. 6. observeth In the following Sessions the Oriental Bishops would not be present but making a separate Synod in the same City anathematized the other which prevailed indeed in number and reason and so may be called lawful but cannot be Oecumenical The Council of Chalcedon is acknowledged by all yet as to the 13th Session in which notwithstanding all the Canons of the Synod were made it is rejected by Baronius Lupus and many others because the Legates of Rome and the Bishops of Aegypt were then absent whereas the Greeks and others contend it was wholly Oecumenical The V. Council under Justinian which was the II. Constant inopolitan is admitted for Oecumenical by all the present Greeks and Latines Not so formerly when the Africans Italians Spaniards and Gauls rejected it And certainly it was not Oecumenical For Vigilius and the Western Bishops although then at Constantinople would not be present in it The Council in Trullo is accounted General by some Greeks and Latines as Innocent III. Gratian Bellarmine Barnes and others denied by Baronius m Bar. ad an 692. Leo Allatius n Leo All. de perp consensu and Bellarmin o Bell. de Pont. lib. 2. cap. 18. himself in another place The II. Nicene is esteemed Oecumenical both by Greeks and Latines Yet formerly Hincmar and even Theodorus Studita that great Patron of Image-Worship maintained it was only local as Lupus p Lup. dist de Concil Nicaen II. cap. 15. confesseth Certainly it was denied to be Oecumenical by the antient French Germans and English and by the Synod of Franoford who denied it could be called Oecumenical when it was proposed to them as Peter de Marca q Proposita est sacro conventui Synodus Nicaeae habita quam illi Oecumenicam dici posse negârunt Marc. de Concord lib. 7. cap. 17. acknowledgeth Yea and in the Caroline Capitular they call it an Heretical Schismatical Erroneous and Presumptuous Synod wondering at the impudence and vanity of its Bishops in ranking themselves with the six former General Councils And justly might they wonder at it For although the Roman Legates were present Yet the Western were not either by themselves or by their Delegates Not to say that the pretended Legatas of the three Oriental Patriarchs were suborned by the Council and had no Commission from those Patriarchs That the Council of Franoford was called General Baronius r Bar. ad ann 794. observes Certainly Hinomar gave it that name Nor doth Bellarmine oppose although in another place Å¿ Bell. de Concil lib. 2. cap. 8. he calls the II Nicene Synod more Universal However it could not be General since all the Greeks who were not yet divided from the Western Church by Schism were absent The VIII Synod the Latins call Oecumenical the Greeks deny it as the English French and Germans did also formerly The Greeks on the contrary reckon for the eighth General Council the Synod under Photius which is rejected by the Latins After these Bellarmine reckons eight other Councils eider than that of Constance viz. four of Lateran two of Lyons and those of Vien and Pisa But the Council of Constance t In formulâ fidei Pontifici eligendo praescriptâ admits only one of Lateran one of Lyons and that of Vien rejecting the other five Clement VII rejects yet more For in his Bull of Priviledge for the Edition of the Florentine Synod he calls it the eighth General Council whereby he proscribes all these eight the Council of Constance it self and the Constantinopolitan under Ignatius which commonly bears the Title of the Eighth of these eight that of Lyons under Innocent IV. was one wherein Frederick the Emperour was deposed This Bellarmine Onuphrius and the Assertors of the Pope's deposing Power contend to have been General Launoy and Widdrington deny it Nor is this a late Controversie This very thing was disputed in the Synod it self between the Pope and Thaddaeus the Emperour's Oratour Vid. Labbeanam Concil editionem who appealing to a future General Council was rejected by the Pope upon pretext that the present Synod was Oecumenical The Council of Constance is from the beginning to the end accounted General by the French as the Cardinal of Lorrain n Apud Gallos Constantiense Concilium in partibus suis omnibus ut generale habetur Comm. ad Briton Senat. expresly affirms and the whole Clergy of France lately confirmed with a solemn Decree The Monarchists deny it to have been General in the first Sessions because of the three Obediences but one was present So Cajetan Canus Bellarmine Duval and innumerable others Bosius x Bos de signis Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. and F. Cotton go farther of whom the first reckons it not at all among the Oecumenical Councils the second by the testimony of Richerius y Rich. Hist Concil lib. 2. cap. 3. wiped it out of the List of them That the Council of Basil was always held Oecumenical by the French the Cardinal of Lorrain witnesseth The same was the opinion of Eugenius IV. Bellarmine Carranza Labbé and others Duval z Duvall de potest Pont. in antelo su vehemently opposeth it and stifly contends it was never General The Council of Florence was never by the French esteemed either lawful or General saith the same Cardinal a Conc. Florentinum perinde ac nec legitimum nec generale repudiatur loc cit On the contrary the Italians and Spaniards extol it to the Skies The Council of Lateran under Leo X. Fabulottus Bellarmine and many more contend to have been Oecumenical Yet Bellarmine confesseth that some doubt of it and Duval b Quidam aiunt non fuisse verè propriè generale câ—m ei vix C. Episcopi intersuerint Duvall de potest Pont. part 4. qu. 7. That others affirm it not to have been truly and properly General forasmuch as there were scarce an hundred Bishops present in itc And himself a little after leaveth it uncertain because of the paucity of Bishops which reason might also exclude many Sessions of the Council of Trent Thus therefore it manifestly appears That there are many Councils whose universality was and is still disputed of the Latins agreeing neither with the Greeks nor among themselves
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
was not wanting to any one Council either Antient or Modern or that certain Intelligence was received in every Province of the indiction of it Secondly k Vt ex Episcopis nullus excludatur undecunque veniat modo constet eum esse Episcopum non excommunicatum Id. ibid. That no Bishop be excluded whencesoever he come provided he be known to be so and be not excommunicated That this again was alwaies observed we cannot be assured For not only those are to be esteemed excluded who are openly rejected but those also who privily by Threats Promises or any other way are forced to depart as Paulus Vergerius Bishop of Justinople by publick Writing complained he was from the Council of Trent The third l Vt adsint omnes Patriarchae vel per se vel per legatos Id. ibid. condition is That all the Patriarchs be present either by themselves or by their Legates But to this Bellarmin adds That it is not very necessary because the Council of Ephesus without the Patriarch of Antioch condemned Nestorius and the Synod of Chalcedon concluded almost all things without him of Alexandria And at this time saith he m Non sunt necessarii quia haeretici vel certè schismatici Id. ibid. These Patriarchs are not necessary because Heretical or at least Schismatical But it doth not follow That because one Patriarch may be absent therefore the rest ought not to be present Besides Bellarmin herein contradicts himself For he demonstrateth the necessity of the presence of the Patriarchs by this Argument among others because the II. Nicene Council proves that the Council of Constantinople against Images was not Oecumenical from the absence of the Patriarchs If this Argument hold the presence at least of some Patriarchs will be necessary And whereas he denies the presence of the Patriarchs to be now necessary because Heretical or Schismatical this again creates new perplexities For they deny themselves to be so and 't is at least very uncertain whether they are so So that this thing must be first searched out and determined before a firm assent can be given to the Decrees of a Council wanting their presence See new Difficulties new Labyrinths Lastly With Canus Duvall and others he requires That if not all Bishops be present in the Council as they cannot all be at least some out of all the greater Provinces meet there If so then must be wiped out of the Catalogue of General Councils the II. and V. in which no Western some of Lateran and those of Vien Constance and Trent in which no Eastern Bishops were present Duvall n Duvall anteloq ad lib. de potest Pont. opposeth this reason to the Council of Basil which may with equal reason be returned upon all the rest Beside when neither Bellarmine nor any other dare determine how many Bishops out of each Province must necessarily be present or how many Provinces may safely be wanting in the Council the whole matter cannot but remain uncertain That also deserves to be observed which Bellarmine admonisheth That it was always thought sufficient that when a General Council is held in the East a few suppose one or two Western Bishops be present or as few Eastern Bishops in a Council held in the West as he proveth by divers Examples But if two or three Bishops can sufficiently represent one entire part of the Universal Church why may not as many more represent the other part Which being admitted a Meeting of four or five Bishops will constitute a General Council which to me seems very absurd and ridiculous Hence it appears therefore that our Adversaries can produce nothing satisfactory in this matter which will be yet more manifest if to what we have observed already be added that they talk much concerning it but prove nothing Whereas they should not tell us what they thought requisite or sufficient to constitute a General Council but also demonstrate it so to be and that so clearly that no doubt might remain Otherwise we shall be ever uncertain which are to be called Oecumenical Councils and which not Yet nothing of this is produced by them themselves rather differ about the conditions and what one thinks sufficient or necessary another rejects as insufficient or unuseful So Bellarmine thinks it sufficient that many be present in the Council and none excluded Lupus denies this to suffice unless the absent Bishops either before or after the Council shall assent Bellarmine holds this assent unnecessary For speaking of the Lateran Council under Leo X. he hath these words o Quod autem non fuerit receptum saltem ab omnibus parùm refert Nam decreta Conciliorum non indigent approbatione populi cùm ab coâ—uon accipiant authoritatem Bell. de Concil lib. 2. cap. 17. But whereas it was not received at least by all it matters little For the Decrees of a Council need not the approbation of the people since they receive not their authority from them Fabulottus p Fabul de potest Papae super Concil c. 5. and the Author q Vbi supra of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church maintain and at large prove the same things Thus all things are uncertain among them and hang upon a thread Martinonus was not ignorant of this who to proceed more warily flieth to the Pope and Council it self and maketh them especially the Pope the only Judges of these preliminary Questions To him saith he r Pontificis est declarare an congregatio sit generalis sufficienter an qui adsunt teneant locum sufficienter omnium aliorum Mart. de fide disp 5. Sect. 7. it belongs to declare whether the Assembly be sufficiently general and whether those which are present sufficiently represent all the rest But neither doth this suffice For as to a Council since only a General can infallibly pronounce in matters of Faith and the Universality of the Council pertains to Faith before we can acquiesce in the determination of the Council concerning its own Universality we must know whether it be general Otherwise we cannot be assured that it did not err in that very determination Besides if this Judgment of the Council it self sufficed all those were to be admitted as general which challenged that Title to themselves But some of these the Monarchists reject as the Council of Constance before the union of the three obediences and that of Basil others the Sorbonists as the Florentine and the Lateran under Leo X. The same may be said of the Pope For every one of these four Councils were decreed to be General by some Pope yet none of them acknowledged to be so by all CHAP. XIV That not all Oecumenical Councils are presently lawful That it is very difficultly known which are lawful THus have we considered the first condition of an Infallible Council Vniversality The second follows of no less moment That If it be lawful Our Adversaries confess that the
H. Ghost is not indifferently present in all Councils how numerous soever They acknowledge even the most numerous to have defined erroneously They require them to be rightly and canonically constituted and every way lawful Whence as often as we object to them the Errours of some Councils they think it enough to answer such were Pseudo-Councils Conventicles of no value not lawful Councils to which alone they allow the priviledge of Infallibility That the knowledge therefore of the lawfulness of Councils is very difficult however necessary to give assurance to Faith relying on the Decrees of them and that no true certainty is to be had therein I here undertake to prove And the difficulty of this knowledge may hence appear That it is utterly unknown what are the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful I never yet met with any one who dare undertake to assign them much less demonstrate them Some things may be found scattered here and there in treating of other matters but nothing delivered ex professo Yet unless this knowledge were fixed these conditions assigned agreed on and demonstrated and their number exactly determined so as we might be ascertained that neither more were required nor fewer sufficed in vain will Councils define the Infallibility of their Decrees will be always uncertain I doubt not but if God had intended to tie our Faith to the Decrees of Councils he would either have tied it to all indifferently or provided that no unlawful Councils should ever be held or given us plain and manifest Rules whereby to distinguish lawful from unlawful ones For to permit divers unlawful Councils to be held to command the faithful to adhere only to the lawful ones and all this while to prescribe no certain conditions assign no manifest Characters of a lawful Council is highly repugnant to the Wisdom and Goodness of God. He might indeed justly have left this difficult inquiry to us if it had been accommodated to our strength and capacity But the discord of whole Churches in assigning the lawful Councils and consequently the Errour of some most Learned men manifestly evince it to exceed both So formerly adhered to the V. General Council the whole Eastern and the Roman Churches Africa France Spain and the rest of Italy openly and vigorously rejected it Each of these Churches did then abound with most Learned and most Holy men which proveth the thing to have been very doubtful and obscure and difficult to be determined The same may be said of the Council of Constance as to the first Sessions Basil Florence and the V. Lateran whose Lawfulness is to this day disputed of The difficulty of this matter can arise only from the ignorance of the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful If these were fixed the determination would be easie unless the conditions themselves were intricate and imperceptible The Monarchists who assert those Councils to be lawful which are called presided over governed and confirmed by the Pope all which are easily known can scarce doubt which are lawful Councils whence they all agree in numbring them Not so the rest who neither agree in assigning the conditions of a lawful Council nor explain the necessity of each condition nor demonstrate what they say to be true For Example the first condition given by the Monarchists is That the Council be called by the Pope So also many of the Sorbonists as Brevicoxa a Debet Concilium authoritate Pontificis congregari nisi in casu in quo Papa esset notorius haereticus Brev. apud Launoi Epist part 8. ad Amelium who saith The Council ought to be called by the Pope unless he be a notorious Heretick and Richerius b Est Summi Pontificis regulariter ordinariè generalia Concilia indicere convocare it a si rogatus id facere detrectet c. Rich. Apol. axiom 25. who affirms The calling of Councils ordinarily and regularly to belong to the Pope unless he be distracted or refuse to do it when desired Launoy on the contrary thinks it matters not by whom the Council is called so it decrees rightly when met Therefore after a clear passage cited out of Maximus his Disputation with Theodosius Bishop of Caesarea he c Igitur non à Synodorum convocatione quae ab hoc vel illo fiat sed à rectâ fide quae in Synodis sancitur Synodorum authoritas depromenda est Laun. Epist part 6. p. 263. concludes the authority of Synods not to depend upon the calling of them whether done by one or other but upon the truth of their definitions Nor without reason For if no Councils were lawful but what were called by the Pope then the ancient Christians had no lawful ones among whom all those famous and holy Councils were called only by the Emperours as Launoy and others have abundantly demonstrated The same may be said of the second condition assigned by the Monarchists the Presidence of the Pope in the Council either by himself or by his Legates Richerius d Rich. Apol. ax 25. 26. and Holden e Hold. Anal. fid lib. 2. cap. 3. do not refuse it of whom the first teacheth the Pope hath a Right to preside over Councils the latter affirms him to be by Divine Right Head of all Councils But Launoy in proving that the Pope presided not over the first Councils sheweth that he thinks not this condition necessary The third condition is more difficult which consists in this That the Council be made up of those who have a right to be present and none others Who these are is not manifest For first it is inquired Whether Laicks be comprehended in this number This almost all deny yet Peter de Monte f Ista jura suprà pro utraque parte producta reddunt hane materiam mirabiliter dubiam Tract de Monarchiâ Bishop of Brixia after he hath produced many places on both sides out of the Canon Law thence concludeth this matter to be wonderfully doubtful Certainly in the Council of Hierusalem which many hold to have been Oecumenical the first and the Pattern of all Councils Laicks were present subscribed the Synodical Epistle together with the Apostles and said equally with them g Acts xv It seemed good to the H. Ghost and to us But to exclude them and admit only Ecclesiasticks shall all ranks of these be admitted This the Monarchists deny and assert only Bishops to have ordinarily the Right of a definitive Suffrage and Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Religious Orders by priviledge The same seems to be the opinion of Holden Contrariwise Gerson h Gers de potest Eccl. confid 12. Lud. Alemanus i Apud Aeneam Silvium Hist Concil Basil l b. 1. Cardinal and President of the Council of Basil Almain k De sup porest Eccl. Richerius l Apol. ax 21.34 and Vigorius m Comm. cap. ult vehemently contend that Presbyters at least Parsons bearing Cure of Souls have
Condemnation of his admired Origen projected the design of the V. Council and thereby extorted from the whole World the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula Duval That the Council of Basil was blinded with hatred against Pope Eugenius What happened to these might as well to other Councils and who can assure us it did not But no Liberty seemeth more requisite to the establishment of Truth than that which purgeth the Mind from preconceived Opinions and addicts it wholly to Truth For it cannot be hoped that they who are infected with Errour should define rightly and immediately upon their entring the Council from Patrons of Heresie become Champions of Faith. This Experience hath often taught For why did the Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon desine rightly but because they consisted of Orthodox Bishops Why the African under Cyprian and all the Arrian Councils erroneously but because they were made up of Bishops favouring those Errours Why the Council of Sardica both rightly and erroneously well at Sardica ill at Philippopolis but because the Orthodox Bishops stay'd at Sardica the Heretical went to Philippopolis How comes it to pass therefore that in assigning so many conditions of an Infallible Council this one should be forgotten the most necessary of all that it consist only of Orthodox Bishops Wisely then did the Popes Leo and Vigilius who laboured hard that only an equal number of Greeks and Latins might be admitted into the IV. and V. Councils the one fearing the Eutychians the other the Enemies of the Tria Capitula However it be if Threats and Promises if Fear and Desire can hinder Orthodox Bishops from defining truly much more will preconceived Opinions hinder Heretical ones from decreeing rightly Since the first are drawn to favour Errour unwillingly and act in it coldly the latter promote it with their utmost Zeal and greatest Vigour Lastly I do not see how if a Council be placed beyond all danger of erring by the assistance of the Holy Ghost Fear or any other Passions can so far prevail in it as to divert the Fathers of it from the right way This might indeed be if Councils were infallible in their Nature but in their Hypothesis who ascribe their Infallibility only to the external direction of the Holy Spirit it is highly absurd and irrational For cannot the Holy Ghost invincibly arm the minds of those in whom he dwells against the terrors of Threats or Temptations of desire Why then is the Hymn Veni Creator Spiritus sung before every Session of Councils Why is it expresly said Accende lumen sensibus Infunde amorem cordibus Infirma nostri corporis virtute firmans perpeti Why is he called the Living Fountain Fire Charity and Spiritual Unction Why the finger of Gods Right Hand but to design his powerful Assistance against all the defects of Nature and infirmities of Mind This assistance therefore is desired If it be obtained in vain are Threats Bribes Promises and other Frauds they can never corrupt the Council If it be not who can assure us the other part of the Petition is granted viz. Illumination of Mind to discern and dispel the Sophistry of Hereticks But why do I insist on this If we consider those Holy Men in whom the Holy Ghost is thought to have dwelt and armed with his Graces for the defence of Truth as Athanasius Basil Chrysostom Hilary Ambrose Augustin and the rest we shall find that they were impenetrable to fear or flattery and constantly despised both the threats and promises of Arian Princes If the Holy Ghost therefore presides over Councils neither the force nor fraud of Enemies can obstruct the Infallibility of it and we may much more justly and truly than Richerius did before apply those words of St. Paul to them Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty For he alledged them to prove that Liberty is a Condition pre-required to the presence of the Holy Ghost in a Council whereas the construction of them manifests it to be rather an effect of this presence according to that of our Saviour 2 John. VIII 36. If the Son shall make you free ye shall be free indeed and 3 Ibid. v. 32. the Truth shall make you free For the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ so that what is done by the one may be well attributed to the other But to make an end Our Adversaries found the Infallibility of Councils upon the promises of the assistance of the Holy Ghost made to the Apostles by our Saviour in those words The Spirit of Truth shall guide you into all truth I will send another Comforter c. which they maintain to have been spoken not only to the Apostles but to their Successors also to the Worlds end If so then must necessarily be conferred on both an Infallibility of the same kind and quality But were the Apostles preserved by the assistance of the Holy Ghost from involuntary Errors and left unarmed to the assaults of Threats and Promises Certainly no. Christ both promised and gave to them his assistance against all kind of Temptations and Corruptions whereby they might be drawn to betray the Truth Either Councils therefore have the same assistance or can pretend no share in these Promises Two several ways therefore is the Authority of Councils overthrown by the Doctrine and Concessions of our Adversaries about the necessity of their Liberty both in that it is certain they may be drawn from Truth by any other means as well as defect of Liberty and uncertain whether there was ever any free Councils The Sorbonists can oppose nothing to this but the Monarchists think they can They pretend that when a Council is thus corrupted yet the Rock of the Church the Pope remains unshaken whom no force can move as for whom Christ prayed that his Faith should never fail For first the Sorbonists deny this which sufficeth for me as proving that pretended Privilege of the Pope not to be of Faith and so not able to give certainty to the Decrees of a Council whose Liberty is suspected But then this invincible Constancy of the Pope is demonstrated to be false by the Examples of Marcellinus Liberius Paschal II. and Eugenius IV. to which we may add a fifth that of Pope Vigilius from whom the Emperour Justinian after he had extorted by force and threats the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula from the fifth Council extorted an Approbation of the Council's Decree by the same Method as he did afterwards in like manner from his Successor Pelagius Lupus 4 Vigilius aerumnis lassus libertatis ac sedis recuperandae amore victus tandem consensit in Synodum Pelagius Romani Episcopatûs amore ad recipiendam Synodum est inflexus Lup. in Concil Tom. 1. p. 737. acknowledgeth both saying that Vigilius overcome with hardships and the desire of recovering his Liberty and See and Pelagius corrupted with desire of the Papal Chair both consented and approved the
sufficient Inquiry hath preceded the Decrees of a Council THe second part of a lawful proceeding in the Council is a diligent Inquiry and Examination of the Question to be defined For truth is not now obtained by immediate Revelation or Extatick Inspiration but by a Labour and Diligence proportionate to the difficulty of the thing it self The Bishop of a Council must carefully enquire into the Truth patiently hear both Parties maturely weigh the Arguments on both sides accurately compare them with the invariable Rule of Faith and then only when they are conscious to themselves they have omitted no part of requisite diligence to pronounce sentence This is the constant Opinion of our Adversaries as well as ours Melchior Canus 1 In Conciliis non debent Patres mox quasi ex authoritate sententiam absque aliâ discussione dicere sed collationibus disputationibus re antè tractatâ precibusque primùm ad Deum fusis tum verò questio à Concilio sine errore finietur Dei sc auxilio atque favore hominumque diligentiâ studio conspirantibus Ex quo perspicuum est non dormientibus oscitantibus Patribus Spiritum Sanctum assistere sed diligenter humanâ viâ ratione quaerentibus rei de quâ disseritur veritatem quamobrem qui sive Pontificum sive Conciliorum diligentiam in fidei causâ finiendâ in dubium vocant eos necesse est Pontificum judicia ac Conciliorum infirmare Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. teacheth that in Councils the Fathers ought not immediately by their Athority to give Sentence but the Matter must be first weighed in conferences and Prayers offered up to God then shall the Question be determined by the Council without Errour the assistance and favour of God the diligence and study of Men conspiring together And then from the Examples of the Councils of Hierusalem and Nice concludeth It is manifest that the Holy Ghost assists not the Fathers when idle and careless but diligently seeking out the truth of the Question proposed by human means and ways wherefore they which call in doubt the diligence of Popes or Councils in defining a matter of Faith must necessarily invalidate the Decrees of Popes and Councils The same saith Ferus in Act. XV. 7. Bellarmin de Concil lib. 2. cap. 7. Duvall Anteloq ad lib. de potest Pont. part 2. qu. 4. Cellotius de Hierarchiâ lib. 4. cap. 10. Bagotius Instit Theol. lib. 4. disp 5. cap. 4. sect 1. Maimbourg de la vraye Eglise cap. 10. sect 4. 9. Martinonus de fide disp 9. sect 7. whose words would be too long to cite at large The Sorbonists maintain the same thing So Richerius 2 Ecclesia errare non potest in quaestionibus juris decidendis si modò diligentiam necessariam adhibeat prudenter agat ut Patres Africani loquuntur Rich. Apol. ax 23. The Church cannot err in deciding Questions of Right if she useth necessary diligence and acts prudently as the African Fathers say in their Epistle to Pope Coelestin Holden 3 Debent omnia in hujusinodi Synodo conciliariter ut loquuntur Theologi peragi ita ut praevio examine diligenti fideli absque suffragiorum ambitu aut sollicitâ prensatione discutiatur subjecta materia Hold. Anal. fid lib. 2. cap. 3. In an infallible Synod all things ought to be done conciliarly as Divines speak so as the matter in hand be discussed with a diligent and faithful examination without any making of parties or solliciting of votes If these Divines be in the right as they certainly are then what certainty can be in the Decrees of Councils Who shall assure us that the Bishops did all they ought to do and how shall every private Man know that Canus was not ignorant of this If once saith he 4 Si semel haereticis hanc licentiam permittimus ut in quaestionem vocent c. quis adeò coecus est ut non videat omnia mox Pontificum Conciliorumque decreta labefactari It aque praestat semper Pontifex quod in se est praestatque Concilium cum de fide pronunciant caditque causa si quis è nostris aliter existimat Can. ubi supra we give Hereticks leave to call in question the requisite diligence of the Judges of the Church who doth not see that all the Decrees of Popes and Councils are presently overthrown He therefore takes Refuge in the Providence of God and pretends that God in promising Infallibility to his Church must be supposed to have obliged himself thereby to take care that necessary diligence which is the means of it should never be wanting in the Judges of the Church Hence saith he the Pope always performs his Duty the Council their duty when they pronounce of Faith and if any of our Divines think otherwise our cause is ruined In this Argument of Canus I observe first that he confounds the Means with the Conditions Diligence is a Condition which God imposeth upon the finding out Truth If the Council neglects this God is bound to no promise the Error is to be imputed wholly to them Secondly if the Council can neglect no Conditions no diligence necessary to defining rightly and always punctually perform their duty it is impossible it should ever err For the Divine Assistance will never be wanting to humane industry in Matters of Faith and when both meet there can be no Errour Thirdly if Councils therefore perform their duty because God in promising to them Infallibility the end must be supposed also to promise the means whereof this is one Then every Council is infallible none ought to be rejected all are indifferently to be received because God must be believed to have promised his Assistance to all Councils not wanting in their Duty and also to take care that none should be wanting in it You will say perhaps Canus understands not all but only Lawful Councils But I would know what are those Lawful Councils For Councils are such three ways upon account of their Indiction Constitution and Proceeding If you answer by the two first ways then the thing is false For the second Council of Ephesus by the Confession of Bellarmine and Baronius was both rightly called an dconstituted yet degenerated and proceeded inordinately If he means the third way then his answer will come to no more than this That Councils will proceed rightly if they proceed rightly But to put an end to this pretence none will deny that the Council of Constance was lawful Yet Canus confesseth that necessary diligence was not always used in it Some things saith he 5 Quaedam non conciliariter acta Nam in IV. V. sessione nec disputatio aut disquisitio aliqua intercesserat nec delecti fuerant adhuc viri docti ad disserendum tractandum ea quae in fidei doctrinâ essent constituenda Id. lib. 5. cap. ult were not acted conciliarly for in the IV. and V. Sessions no
is uncertain whether plurality of Suffrages ought to overcome or whether perfect unanimity be required That in both Cases no small Difficulties occurr THere remains the last part of a Lawful Proceeding the Conclusion whereby the President of the Council when he hath heard the Suffrages of the Fathers solemnly pronounceth Sentence Concerning this is no small Controversie viz. Whether the President of the Council whosoever he be ought to give Sentence according to the major part of the Suffrages or whether a full or absolute unanimity be necessary and whether the same account is to be made of a Decree made by the Votes of all and by the Votes of the major part The Monarchists distinguish here and say that if the Pope himself presideth and perceives either the major part or all to favour Error he may deny his assent to them and give Sentence as himself pleaseth But if only the Legates preside and have Instructions what to do if the major number of Votes be consonant to their Instructions they may give Sentence without expecting unanimity if repugnant they must suspend their assent on both sides and refer all to the Pope who may determine it as he pleaseth However regularly and ordinarily they think plurality of Votes ought to overcome So Bellarmin 1 Est verum decretum Concilii quod fit à majori parte alioqui nullum esset legitimum Concilii decretum cùm semper aliqui dissentiant Bell. de Concil lib. 2. cap. 11. That Decree of a Council is true which is made by the major part otherwise no Decree of a Council would be lawful since some have dissented in all And in another place 2 Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 18. produceth the Example of the Council of Chalcedon which declared Hereticks ten Aegyptian Bishops who would not acquiesce in the Judgment of the major part And in a third place saith 3 Nisi detur locus majori parti suffragiorum lib. 1. cap. 21. There will never be an end of Controversies unless we give place to the major part of Suffrages The same saith Tho. Bosius 4 Bos de signis Eccl. lib. 16. cap. 9. and many others This Opinion seemeth also to have obtained at Trent For when the Fathers were divided about abolishing Clandestine Marriages 56 Bishops against the Decree 133 for it and both parties obstinate they agreed to consult the Pope who gave Sentence for the Decree and his Approbation saith Card. Palavicini 5 Ejus approbatio sustulit omnem dubitationem Hist Concil Trid. took away all doubt Yet this was not always done For although 30 Bishops and among them the Legate Seripandus privily opposed the Decree whereby it was defined that Christ offered up himself in his last Supper yet the Decree was promulged and stood in force Far different was the Opinion of J. Fr. Picus Mirandula 6 Quia si pars major contra divinas literas decernere quicquam vellet numero minori adhaerendum esset Quinimò simplici potiùs rustico infanti aniculae quà m Pontifici mille Episcopis credendum si contra Evangelium isti illi pro Evangelio verba facerent Pic. Theor. 16. who in Dissensions of a Council thought the major part was to be adhered to caeteris paribus that is provided neither were repugnant to Scripture But if that happened then that part was to be followed either major or minor which had Scripture on its side For that if the major part would decree any thing against Scripture the minor were to be adhered to Yea a simple Rustick an Infant and an old Woman were to be believed rather than the Pope and 1000 Bishops if these spoke against the Gospel those for it Gerson 7 Si aliquis simplex non authorizatus esset excellenter in S. literis eruaitus potius credendum esset in casu doctrinae suae assertioni quam Papae declarationi Et talis eruditus si c. Ger de exam doctrin Part. 1. Consid 5. had said the same thing before him If any private person without Authority should be excellently learned in the Scriptures his Assertion were to be believed in matters of Faith before the Declaration of the Pope And in case he were present in a General Council he ought to oppose himself to it if he perceived the major part either through malice or ignorance go contrary to the Scriptures But if this Opinion be true and private Men may judge which part in a Council follows Scripture which the contrary then as often as there be dissensions in Councils their Power in desining will not be Supreme as being subject to the examination of all Men. Beside if the major part of a Council can manifestly and directly vote contrary to Scripture much more can they do it obscurely and indirectly and therefore may be even then mistaken when their error is not manifest And if so the Decrees of the major part can in no case not caeteris paribus be securely believ'd For these Reasons perhaps Cardinal Turrecremata maintains 8 In controversia quae dubia est nondum definita arguendum est à majore parte Tur. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 65. That in a doubtful Controversie not yet defined the major part must be adhered to But neither is this Opinion safe For if we must stand to the Plurality shall Truth always overcome Hath Truth that excellent fortune as to please always the greater part Let Canus be heard I deny saith he 9 Nego cum de fide agitur sequi plurimorum judicium oportere c. Can. loc Theol. lib. 5 cap. 5. that in matters of Faith the Judgment of the major part ought to be followed For we do not here as in Humane Judgments measure the Sentence by the number of Suffrages We see frequently that the greater overcomes the better part We know that those things are not always best that please most We know that in things of Faith the Opinion of wise Men is to be preferred Now Wise-men are few but Fools innumerable Four hundred Prophets lyed to Ahab while one Micaiah spoke truth The greater part of the 2d Ephesine Synod sided with the wicked Dioscorus Bannes 10 Bann in 2.2 quest 1. art 10. dub 4. his Disciple hath the like words and Salmero 11 Salm. tom 12. tract 70. the same And indeed it may easily be that more Heretical than Orthodox Bishops be present in a Council as well because the greater part of all the Bishops in the World may be infected with Heresy as we shall prove hereafter as because the Hereticks even although fewer in number in the whole Church may incited by a perverse Zeal flock to the Council in greater numbers than the Catholicks Now what can we expect from such an Assembly What but that every one should pronounce according to his preconceived Opinion and decree that which he thinks most true The fear of this made the Popes Leo and
Vigilius desire before the IV. and V. Councils that an equal number of Western and Eastern Bishops might be present in them For the like cause Richerius 12 Rich. Hist Concil lib. 14. cap. ult Novam inauditam rationem procedendi complaineth That in the Council of Trent there were more Italian Bishops than of all other Nations together And this he makes to be the cause of the exorbitant Power of the Pope in all latter Councils and of introducing a new and unheard of way of proceeding into them the Italian Bishops being almost all the Popes Creatures and obnoxious to him Thus he computes out of the Acts of the Council that from the beginning to the end of it there were present 187 Italian Bishops but out of other Nations no more than 80. Further our Adversaries do not deny that a Council gathered out of one half of the Christian World may totally err as for example The Council of Constantinople under Copronymus consisting of 338 Bishops who decreed Images were to be abolished To make this Council Oecumenical there wanted only the presence of two or three Western Bishops Suppose them present and opposing the Decree of all the rest How must the President then have pronounced if with the major part an Oecumenical Council would have erred and the Decree would have been Heretical in the Opinion of our Adversaries Moved with these Reasons some of our Adversaries as well Monarchists as Sorbonists deny that plurality of Votes ought to overcome in Councils and account only those Decrees certain which are established by the unanimous consent of all This was the Opinion of Cusanus 13 Ecce concordantiam maximè in iis quae fidei sunt requiri quanto major est concordantia tantò infallibilius judicium Vnde licèt in Synodis universalibus plura necessaria sint maximè tamen communis omnium sententia Cus Concord Cath. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. which he proveth from the Eighth Synod and then adds See how consent chiefly in those things which are of Faith is required and by how much the greater this consent is so much the more infallible is the Decree Whence although in Vniversal Synods many things be necessary yet most of all is the common consent of all So Holden 13 Imò tametsi plurimorum fuerit in Concilio congregatorum testimonium nisi universum Catholicum sit traditionis certitudinem perfectam non habet Hold. Anal. fid lib. 1. cap. 9. Although it be the Testimony of the major part of a Council if it be not universal and general it hath not the perfect certainty of Tradition Richerius 14 Rich. Apol ax 22. seemeth to be of the same mind although he speaks not so plainly Nor do Stapleton 15 Stapl. de princip lib. 7. cap. 9. or Duvall 16 Duval Anteloq dister from it But neither doth this Opinion want its inconveniencies For first hereby Councils are in a manner rendred useless For it cannot easily be imagined unless some Factious Conspiracy should intervene that all should think the same thing especially if they be many And indeed we have few examples of Councils wherein the Bishops were unanimous In that of Nice were some Arians at Sardica more at Ephesus many Nestorians at Chalcedon not a few Eutychians and so of the rest which according to this Hepothesis must be all expunged out of the number of lawful Councils Secondly The Infallibility of Councils will hereby become unuseful for they could never pronounce Sentence There would be always two or three Hereticks present in the Council who to prevent the condemnation of their Heresy need do no more than speak their Minds and dissent from the Votes of the rest Thus the Power of the Universal Church shall be overthrown and all methods of extinguishing Heresy eluded by the stubbornness of two or three Hereticks However it be the Council of Basil which the Sorbonists so much extol thought far otherwise and particularly the President of it Lewis Cardinal of Arles For when in treating of defining three Assertions that raised a Council above the Pope the major part voted the affirmative although many Fathers and among them the famous Canonist Panosmitan dissented and even protested against it yet the President pronounced Sentence in the affirmative and that Sentence was held valid as Aeneas Sylvius 17 Hist Concil Basil lib. 1. largely relates Whichsoever Opinion therefore our Adversaries embrace they involve themselves in inextricable difficulties But I will not any further urge them It suffi eth what none will deny that it is not certain whether the major part must take place or unanimity be required Both may be defended and neither is self-evident nor revealed by God nor defined by the Church as all acknowledge If this then be uncertain it will be also uncertain what Decrees of Councils were lawfully concluded and consequently what command and deserve belief CHAP. XIX That it cannot be known from the subsequent Approbation of the Church which were lawful Councils FRom what hath been hitherto said concerning Councils it is most evident both from the Reason of Things and the Principles of our Adversaries that the Infallibility of Councils is a meer Phantasm that if there were any Infallible Councils they must be such as are Oecumenical free lawful and rightly proceeding that it cannot be yet certainly known whether all these Conditions be singly necessary and whether all together suffice That if that were stated it were unknown what is required to make a Council Oecumenical what Free and so in the rest and much more uncertain which or whether any were so that the lawfulness freedom right intention necessary diligence and other conditions of an Infallible Council can never be certainly apply'd to any particular Synod Many of these things are of that nature that they cannot be known even by the Bishops of the Council themselves They can tell for example whether themselves have a right Intention and be corrupted with no Interest or Passion but to know whether all the rest be equally sincere is wholly impossible They no less than others must be uncertain what are the Conditions necessary to constitute an Infallible Council which neither God hath revealed the Church defined nor the consent of Doctors determined If these things cannot be known by the Fathers of a Council how shall they by the other Bishops far distant in the remote parts of the World How by every one of the common People by Mechanicks Husband-Men and Women whose Judgment is so small and Notions so obscure Again if not of the present and later Councils how of the first and ancient ones which length of time hath involved in darkness and left to be known only by Conjectures How shall the most learned Men be assured of the freedom legality and all other necessary conditions of these Councils perhaps from the testimony of one or two Historians as if infinite errors of Historians were not daily found
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
an essicacious remedy against the inconveniencies of clandestine Marriages Some advised the declaring them void for the future and these were the major number Fifty Bishops and among them the Patriarch of Hierusalem and two of the Legates Card. Hosius and Simonetta opposed it saying That was not in the power of the Council Morone the Legate and many others suspended their Votes The Disputations grew high at last they agreed to referr all to the Pope He answered the Council had Power to make such a Decree and that it ought to be made Hereupon clandestine Marriages were declared void and an Anathema added to the Decree against all those who should thenceforth deny the Church hath power to make Constitutions of that nature See a Power residing in the Church now become an Article of Faith which was vehemently impugned by a Patriarch two Legates fifty Bishops and doubted of by many others And shall those now be heard who maintain there is always in the Church a clear and distinct knowledge of all things revealed We proceed to the third Reason which consisteth in this That some Opinions are often divulged in the Church as revealed by God and approved by the Church and are every-where taught which at last are found out and known to be false Monsieur Pajon 24 Rép. aux prejugès part 2. chap. 2. produceth three eminent Examples of this Observation the first taken from the decisions of the Canonists the second from the form of Condemnation of the V. Jansenian Propositions the third from the Prohibition of reading the Bible which because he largely and accurately pursueth I will not here urge much less will add other Examples before pointed out in this Chapter However from what hath been said it appears that it is obscure and difficult to be known wherein the Doctors consent This will be more manifest if we consider that it is far more difficult to know certainly what all the present Doctors teach than what the former Doctors taught For the Opinions of these we have in their Books which we can read at home but to know the Judgment of the others we must travel through the whole World. Valentia supposeth this very thing where he giveth the reason why the Pope in desining rather maketh use of dead than living Doctors Because saith he 25 Qui proinde omnes nec facilè congregari nec interrogari possunt quid sentiant Val. Tom. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. §. 46. the Opinion of these latter can very rarely be sufficiently known For being dispersed through the whole Church they cannot all easily be either assembled or asked what they think whereas the ancient Doctors are more famous and are not so many If this be true how dissicult must it be to know the Judgment of the present Church since the most learned Men can very hardly obtain the Sence of the Ancient Church Few or none can search all the Monuments of Antiquity pry into the most secret Recesses of it and turn over the Writings of sixteen Ages and in all this long Journey make no slips commit no errors Yet is all this easier in the Judgment of Valentia than to enquire and find out the Opinion of the Doctors living at any one time which yet must be done by them who lay the Foundation of their Faith upon their consent I have not yet seen any of our Adversaries who offereth the least solution of any one of these difficulties except Cardinal Richlieu who when he had objected to himself That blind Men hear neither all Preachers and Doctors nor learn from those which they do hear what the others teach which is our very Argument except that what he saith only of Blind-men we justly apply to all Men he ansewers 26 Method liv 2. chap. 8. That as for a Philosopher to conclude all Fires to be hot it is not necessary that he experiments all the Fires in the World the common consent of Philosophers sufficing so to know certainly whether any Doctrine be the Doctrine of the Church it abundantly sufficeth that Blind-men hear it proposed by divers Doctors of the Church and that it cannot be shown there are others who teach the contrary But many things may be here observed First Those things do not always suffice in matter of Faith with which we are contented in disputing There we often argue from Concessions which we own to be false Here nothing is to be produced but what is true and certain Wherefore if no body oppose those Doctrines which seem true to us it doth not follow that we ought to admit them unless they be both certain of themselves and appear so to us And if no body points out to us any maintainers of the contrary Doctrine it doth not â—â—â—refore follow that there are none whence the Doctrine propos'd obtains not thence any certainty any motive of Faith. Secondly Philosophers themselves admonish great diligence is to be used in making Arguments of Induction such as this is and that an insufficient enumeration of particulars is the great fountain of Errors while a few or even many are reckoned up and thence a conclusion made of all Wherefore he reasons not well who argues thâ—â— Such and such teach thus nor doth any appear who opposeth Therefore all teach the same For it may easily be that many may teach otherwise unknown to him who reasons thus but well known to others In the next place it were to be desired the Cardinal had explained his mind more clearly and told by whom he means it cannot be shewn that other teach the contrary whether by the blind Man himself or by other blind or ignorant Men like himself or by one Learned Man whom he should consult or by all Learned men every where dispersed If he means the first or second then he greatly errs in thinking it sufficient that the blind Man or other ignorant Persons of his acquaintance cannot name any who teach a contrary Doctrine to their Parish-Priest or those Doctors whom they hear For all the Husbandmen Labourers and Mechanicks of the Parish may be easily ignorant that a contrary Doctrine and that more true is taught in America or India or even the next Province and so the blind Man shall be obliged to believe a falsity But if the Cardinal means it suffice that the blind Man consult some learned Man to know whether none teacheth contrary to his Parson I would ask whether our Adversary requireth it as necessary If so then all the common sort of the Faithful are guilty of rashness and imprudence For I dare swear that none of them ever puts this in practice If he saith it is not necessary he deserts the cause For upon what foundation shall their Faith rely who do not that which he confesseth not necessary to be done and yet think sufficient to confirm their Faith But what if the Doctor who is consulted be in the same errour with the Parish-Priest as none will deny
troups as Slaves to Hell to be with himself for ever tormented yet no mortal must presume to reprehend his faults because he is to judge all to be judged of none Who not to mention obsolete Stories but lately commanded all to believe there is five heretical propositions in Jansenius and yet although humbly intreated by many Doctors would not declare in what part of Jansenius his Book they might be found What is this but to account Christians as most vile Slaves The seventh Note of the Church consists in this 3 John IV. 23. That she worship God in Spirit and in Truth The ancient Church of the Jews indeed used a gross and sensible kind of Worship and was employed about the mean and beggerly Elements of the World but it is the peculiar glory of the Christian Church to worship God in a way most consentaneous to the simplicity of his being and the holiness of his nature Not so the Church of Rome which observeth so many diverse and difficult ceremonies that in comparison of them the Mosaick Rites are both few and easy This you will soon acknowledge if you compare the fourth or at most the third part of the Pentateuch for no more is taken up with ritual matters with so many vast volumes the Ceremonial Pontifical Ritual Missal Gradual and others which prescribe the external part of the Roman Service Lastly the true Church is that which neither usurpeth nor disturbeth the civil Government Therein imitating Christ her Master who offered heavenly things to all earthly to none professed his Kingdom was not of this World withdrew himself unto the Mountains when sought for by the multitude to be made a King and refused to be a Judge in a matter of inheritance The true Church observeth the Apostles precept 4 Rom. XIII 1. of being subject to the higher Powers And that other 5 Ibid. v. 7. of rendering to all their due tribute to whom tribute custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour Not so the Church of Rome whose Head the Pope deposeth Kings at his pleasure absolveth their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance and pretends to a Sovereign Dominion over the whole World. I might produce many other like Notes of the Church out of Scripture but these suffice to shew how great danger they expose the Church of Rome to who out of those Holy Writings permit a judgment to be formed of her Truth and Purity I will now proceed briefly to demonstrate that not even from those Notes which the Church of Rome assigns can it be known that she is the true Church Card. Richlieu assigns four Antiquity Amplitude Perpetuity and Succession Amplitude shall be considered afterwards the other three I will now briefly touch Antiquity consists solely or chiefly in this that the Church which is called Ancient have preserved the same Faith Worship and Religion from the beginning While the Church of Rome therefore glorieth in Antiquity she meaneth that she now professeth the same Faith which Christ formerly instituted and his Apostles taught But to know this there is no other way than to compare the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome with the Ancient Monuments of Christian Religion of which Scripture is the Chief Now this in nothing differeth from the first method which we only approve and our Adversaries reject If then the Church cannot be known by that method neither can it by that which our Adversaries propose The discussion of perpetuity is yet more difficult For therein is to be proved not only that the present is the same with the first and original Doctrine but also that it was so in every Age and that this profession of the old Religion was never once interrupted Now how vast and unexhausted a knowledge of antiquity doth this require No ancient monument must be neglected infinite Volumes both Printed and Manuscript must be read through This few Men can attend to or if they could one Age would not suffice Yet this accordding to Richlieu's method must be done by any Infidel who is a Candidate of Christianity The same may be said of Succession That is twofold of Doctrine and of Persons The first is coincident with antiquity and perpetuity the second in Gretser's judgment is of little moment Without Truth of Doctrine saith he 6 Sine veritate doctrinae successio Pastorum est exigui ponderis De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 9. Succession of Pastors is of small weight But suppose it of the greatest moment What is more laborious and difficult to say no more than to prove that in a long series of Succession continued through XVI Ages there never happened the least interruption Thus much of the Notes singly As for all taken together it is manifest that even in our Adversaries opinion they cannot be certain since they are found in the Greek Church The Cardinal denies that of Antiquity because the Church of Constantinople cannot demonstrate her claim of being founded by St. Andrew Let it be Certainly the Churches of Hierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth and Athens which are parts of the Greek Church were founded by Apostles and the first even by Christ himself Again the Cardinal denieth the Succession of the Greek Bishops because their Patriarchs were heretical But first it matters not what the Patriarchs are if the other Bishops be Orthodox Secondly this very thing may be brought against the Succession of Popes for some of them have been condemned by General Councils Lastly if heresie interrupts succession it will be no more certain that the Succession of Popes was never interrupted than that no Pope was ever an Heretick But how shall this be ascertained especially to an Infidel of whom we now treat who may consider that many in the Church of Rome openly teach the contrary To this may be added That it is absurd in this case to pretend Heresy against the Succession of any Church For that is the very thing now inquired by this Infidel which Society of Christians is the true Church and consequently which of them are Hereticks or Schismaticks This method therefore can never certainly teach us That the Church of Rome is the true Church CHAP. XXVI That it is uncertain what the Vniversal Church believeth IF after all this we should grant That our Adversaries may certainly know which is the true Church it were yet to be inquired what this Church believeth But how shall this be known For first it doth not suffice to know what the greater or lesser part of the Universal Church believeth unless we know what is the Faith of the whole For our Adversaries confess That the greater part of it may erre So Tostatus answering to those who from the Universal corruption of the translations of the Bible before S. Hierom's time argued That the whole Church then erred replyed That all the Copies indeed of the Latin Church were corrupted but in the Greek Church were preserved entire Now saith he
1 Ecclesia autem Latinorum non est Ecclesia Vniversalis sed quaedam pars ejus Ideo etiamsi tota ipsa errâsset non errabat Eccl. universalis quia manet Eccl. universalis in partibus istis quae non errant five illa fint plures numero quà m errantes sine non Tost in 2. Prol. Hier. in Matth. qu. 4. the Latin Church is not the Vniversal Church but only a part of it Therefore although that had wholly erred the Vniversal Church would not have erred because it remains in those parts which do not err whether they be more or fewer in number than the parts which do err So Canus 2 At nihil obstat cur major Ecclesiae pars non erret Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. Nothing hinders but that the greater part of the Church may err Bannes 3 Sententia majoris partis Ecclesiae potest esse falsa in materia fidei Bann in 2.2 qu. 1. art 10. dub 4. The Opinion of the greater part of the Church may be false in a matter of Faith. Valentia considering those words of Christ When the Son of Man comes shall he find Faith upon the Earth saith 4 Significat paucissimos certè fore postremo illo tempore fideles non autem nullos Val tom 3. disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. §. 16. He signifies that there will be very few Faithful in that last time not that there will be none And Bellarmin 5 Non tamen nullos nec tam paucos ut non faciant Ecclesiam Bel. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 16. treating of the same words saith with Theophylact That our Lord meaneth there will be few Faithful in the times of Antichrist not yet that there will be none nor so few as not to constitute a Church Many Divines and those of great name whose words we before produced have gone farther and maintained That the true Faith and true Church may be reduced to one only Woman Nor doth John Viguerius a Dominican Professor of Divinity in the University of Tholouse differ much from them teaching that Faith at least explicit may be preserved in one person all the rest retaining only implicit Faith. It may be said of the Church saith he 6 Sic potest dici de Ecclesiâ quòd potest servari in uno prout dicitur de Mariâ Virg. quòd in eâ solâ in triduo sepulturae mansit fides explicita de divinitate Christi quamvis multi alii per Judaeam existentes habere possent fidem catholicam actualem implicitam non tamen explicitam de divinitate Christi Vig. Instit Theol. c. 10. that it may be preserved in one person as it is said of the V. Mary that in her only during the three days of burial remained explicit Faith touching the Divinity of Christ although many others in Judea might have actual and implicit Catholick Faith but not explicit of the Divinity of Christ If either of these two Opinions be allowed we must despair of ever knowing the Faith of the Universal Church For where can be sought for by what Notes can be found that Phoenix that Deucalion of the Christian World who alone retains explicit Faith when all the rest have either erred or preserved only implicit Faith But be these Opinions true or false the opposite of neither of them can be of Faith as I before proved of the former and of the latter may be hence proved That this Book of Viguerius is approved by the Faculty of Divinity of Paris which would never have been done if it had been found to contain Heresie However let both be exploded the other cannot be denied That the greater part of the Church may err Nay further None ever yet dared to define how great that part of the Church must necessarily be which cannot be infected with Error without the ruin of the Infallibility of the whole Unless therefore it appears that the whole Church consenteth the belief of it cannot be a sure Foundation for our Faith. But first the whole Church seldom or never consenteth Certainly never in all things All things therefore can never be learned from her Whence then shall they be learned Besides where she doth consent it is so obscure that it can be known by no Man. This is proved and much more manifestly by all those Arguments which we brought against the certainty of knowing what all the Pastors teach For if it cannot be known what all the Pastors teach much less can it be known what all the Faithful believe since there are far more Believers than Pastors and these teach more distinctly than the others believe Beside it is not sufficient to know what seemeth true to all the Faithful unless it be also known what they all embrace as revealed by God. For our Adversaries acknowledge there are many false Opinions of the whole Church Maldonat 7 A pud Richer Hist Concil lib. 3. cap. 3. proveth this at large and giveth some Examples of it As that the Church for many Ages used a Preface upon the Festival of St. Hierom wherein she extolled his pure Virginity although St. Hierom in several places confesseth the contrary for which reason the Preface was at last expunged That for 600 years she administred the Eucharist to Infants That she worshippeth particular Reliques of Saints and prayeth for the Souls of particular Men in Purgatory although it be not of Faith that those Reliques are true or these Souls in Purgatory and the like which proveth the necessity of knowing not only what is held by the Universal Church but whether it is held by her as of Faith and revealed by God. But who shall ascertain this For the common sort of Believers are not wont accurately to distinguish these things so that if any one should ask whomsoever he meets What they admit as true what as revealed what they receive with Divine Faith what with Catholick Opinion he would find very few who could comprehend the Sence of his Question much fewer who could answer him distinctly So far shall we be therefore from knowing by this method what is believed in the Universal Church that it can scarce be known what is believed in any single Diocess CHAP. XXVII That it may justly be doubted whether all those things be true which the Vniversal Church believeth THere remains the third Reason of the impossibility of founding the Faith of all single Christians upon the belief of the Universal Church the uncertainty of the truth of this Belief For suppose the Church of Rome to be the true Church and that it is sufficiently known what she believeth It is not yet manifest whether she believeth rightly For a True Church is one thing an Infallible Church another Yet Infallible must that necessarily be which is to us a certain Rule of Faith. Before all things therefore it is required to be known that the Church is Infallible But how shall this be known Our Adversaries commonly say It
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.