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
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
Church cannot be by this way known by our Adversaries They freely grant it urge it and labour to demonstrate it The second Method is used by many who contend that the Church may be known independently from the Word of God by the help of Notes and Characters perceived by Natural Reason such as are Miracles Sanctity Antiquity Amplitude and the like But they withal admonish that the Church cannot this way be known as it hath annexed to it the Privilege of Infallibility by the assistance of the Holy Ghost and consequently as it is the certain Rule of Faith. They deny this can be any other way found out than by Faith relying on the Promises of Christ and the other testimonies of Scripture But that the Authority which these Notes conferr is Humane Fallible and a Foundation only of humane and acquired not of divine and infused Faith. So among infinite others teach Canus 2 Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. Bannes 3 In 2.2 qu. 1. art 1. dub 4. Suarez 4 De fide disp 3. Sect. 10. Duvall 5 In 2. 2. p. 10. Conink 6 De actib sup disp 17. n. 68. Arriaga 7 De fide disp 3. Sect. 1. Ysambertus 8 De fide disp 26 art 2. Gillius 9 De doctr sacrâ l. 1. tract 7. c. 9. Amicus 10 De side disp 2. Sect. 5. and Rhodius 11 Duplex est authoritas Ecclesiae alia est purè humana prout sc eam probant miracula prophetiae alia hujusmodi alia est divina prout ex assistentiâ Sp. S. est infallibilis Neutra potest esse objectum formale fidei Non prima sequeretur enim sidem esse naturalem esse fallibilem c. Rhod. de fide qu. 1. Sect. 4. §. 4. The last of these affirms there is a two-fold Authority of the Church the one purely Humane as it is proved by Miracles Prophecies and such like the other Divine as it is Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost Neither can be the formal Object of Faith. Not the first for then it would follow that Faith were Natural Fallible c. Certainly it is absurd to imagine that the Church of Christ redeemed and governed by him and animated by his Spirit can be known by the sole light of Nature without Revelation Nature might discover somewhat admirable and excellent in it but nothing more than humane or exalted beyond humane Infirmities But this is not that we seek for We are enquiring a Method of knowing the Church as it is the Rule of Faith and Infallible which since this Method cannot perform it cannot be produced in this place For these Reasons our Adversaries sly to the third Method and endeavour to demonstrate the Church from Notes which they pretend to be assigned in Scripture So Driedo 12 De Eccl. dogm l. 2. c. 3. l. 4. c. 4. from hence that Christ is not now present nor teacheth with his own mouth in the Church nor attesteth the Preaching of others with Signs and Miracles concludes We must necessarily slee to the Scriptures and enquire thence which is the true Church Stapleton 13 Dicimus ergo libentissimè dicimus cum Augustino in Scriptur is quaerendam esse Ecclesiam i. e. quae sint notae dotes proprietates Ecclesiae ex S. Scripturae oraculis non ex humanis document is investigandum esse De princip dectr lib. 1. cap. 24. We say therefore and willingly acknowledge with St. Augustine that the Church is to be sought for in the Scripture that is what are the Notes Privileges and Properties of the Church is to be found out from the Oracles of Holy Scripture not from Humane Arguments The same say the Popish Disputants in the Conference of Ratisbon 14 Tantummodo igitur ex Scripturis Religionem Christionam cognoscimus quia tantummodo ex notis in Scripturâ declaratis non ex aliis cognoscimus quae sit vera Ecclesia Colloq Ratisb Sess 8. We know the Christian Religion only from the Scriptures because from the Notes only declared in Scripture and from no others we know which is the true Church This way also Card. Richlieu 15 Meth. liv 1. Chap. 8. chiefly follows But there are many things inconsistent to be found in it As first that it supposeth the Scripture to be acknowledged for the Word of God. For no man can believe the Notes of the Church laid down in the Scripture to be true and certain till he be first perswaded that all things contained in it are true and Divine But how shall he who hath not yet known the Church for such is he who enquires after it be assured of the Divinity of Scripture if it be true what our Adversaries so often inculcate That the Scripture to us is of no Authority till attested and confirmed by the Church Thus a manifest Circle will be committed Scripture received for the Authority of the Church and the Church for the Authority of Scripture Card. Richlieu confesseth this a great difficulty but contendeth it may be solved by saying The Church is known independently from the Scripture by the help of Notes which Natural Reason suggesteth can agree to none but the true Church But if the Church can be known before the Scripture what need the Scripture be consulted to find Notes whereby we may be brought to the knowledge of the Church To what end these Labyrinths and fruitless toil to search out a thing already known Not to say that this Method is coincident with the second before mentioned and is therefore for the same reasons to be rejected Besides it manifestly contradicts our Adversaries Hypothesis concerning the obscurity of Scripture Every one knows how much they exaggerate this obscurity and Richlieu himself within a few pages of this place maintains it is obscure both as to the sense and as to the letter and that not only to the Reprobate but even the Elect to the Faithful and Doctors themselves Who after all this can believe that he speaks sincerely and in earnest when he undertakes to demonstrate out of this Book so obscure and impenetrable to the greatest Wits the Characters of the true Church not to a Doctor or a Believer but to an Infidel For this he pretends about his Conversion is the Dispute raised The Cardinal therefore in that undertakes a most difficult matter But the obscurity of Scripture is not all the difficulty of this undertaking For how shall it be demonstrated those things are by Scripture assigned for the Notes of the Church of which Scripture is wholly silent nay teacheth the contrary to some of them as might be evidently proved if the intended brevity of this Dissertation would permit it But suppose the Scripture attributes to the Church whatsoever our Adversaries would have to be so many Notes of it This avails not unless it appear that those Notes are not only true but also the only Notes and that no
certitudinem attribuere possumus assensui intellectûs propter authoritatem Dei revelantis elicito eam necesse est provenire ac dependere à certitudine medii quo haec Dei revelantis authoritas intellectui communicatur Impossibile est ut majori certitudine verâ rationali credat aliquis ea quae dicuntur à Deo revelari quà m quâ cognoverit Deum eâ revelasse Holden Anal. Fid. lib. 1. cap. 2. affirms that whatsoever certainty we can attribute to an assent of the understanding given for the sake of the authority of God revealing The same must necessarily be derived from and depend upon the certainty of the means whereby the authority of God revealing is communicated to the understanding And that it is impossible that any one should believe those things which are said to be revealed by God with a greater degree of true and rational certainty than wherewith he is assured that God did reveal them Aegidius Estrix 2 Est Diat de Sapientiâ Dei c. Assert 26 27 28. layeth down and proveth these three Assertions 1. That an Assent of Faith cannot be more certain than the Principles upon which it depends 2. That it cannot be more firm than those previous Assents from which it is deduced 3. That that which is otherwise is an imprudent assent And John Martinonus 3 Non potest fides supernaturalis superare formali certitudine sumptâ ex merito objecti certitudinem carum veritatum quae includuntur in ipsius objecto in quibus fundatur illa certitudo Mart. Tom. 5. disp 20. de Fide Sect. 8. to the same purpose writeth That supernatural Faith cannot with a formal certainty taken from the merit of the object exceed the certainty of those truths which are included in its object and in which that certainty is founded Since therefore the perswasion which Papists have of what they believe either is or is thought to be Divine Faith It hence appears that it cannot be solid unless they be assured by Divine Faith or some other not inferior perswasion that both the Rules of their Faith are true and that what they believe is entirely conformable to them This our Adversaries confess And because some of them hold that no perswasion is of equal certainty with Divine Faith therefore it is necessary that by Divine Faith they be ascertained of those two things or at least the first of them So Ludovicus Caspensis 4 Nisi fide divinâ credamus ejusmodi Pontifices esse successores Petri nihil est quod possimus fide divinâ credere Lud. Cisp de fide disp 2. Sect. 6. Unless we can believe saith he by Divine Faith that such and such Popes are Successors of Peter there is nothing we can believe by Divine Faith. Martinonus 5 Neque summus Pontifex posset nos obligare ad credendum de fide id quod definit ut dictum à Deo nisi de fide esset ipsum habere potestatem definiendi infallibilem assistentiam Mart. de fide disp 9. Sect. 6. affirms that the Pope could not oblige us to believe de fide that which he defineth as said by God unless it were de fide that he hath the Power of defining and infallible assistance Maimburgh 6 Maimb de la uraye parole Chap. 3. hath much to the same sence which would be here too long to insert If the opinion of these Divines were received by all the Dispute would be the shorter For then I need only prove that none of our Adversaries is by Divine Faith assured of the certainty of the foundations of his Faith Since all other kind of assurance being inferior to that of Divine Faith would not suffice But because this Hypothesis although admitted by most is denied by some few and labours with insuperable difficulties which I will not here touch I will not have the force of my argument rely upon it It remains therefore to be inquired whether our Adversaries can boast of any certainty in this matter distinct from and as they think not inferior to the certainty of Divine Faith. But first we must lay down somewhat concerning the kinds and degrees of certainty Bellarmine 7 De Justif lib. 3. cap. 2. makes a two fold certainty Evident and Obscure that of things in themselves manifest this of things that depend upon external proofs and testimonies To the first kind he assigneth three degrees whereof first Principles constitute the first Conclusions evidently drawn from these the second and things perceived by sense the third That is certainty of the Intellect of Science and of Experience To Obscure Certainty he giveth as many degrees The first is of those things which are believed for Divine Authority The second of those believed upon the account of humane authority but that so illustrious that it leaveth no place for doubt the third of those things which are confirmed by such and so many arguments as may exclude anxiety but not distrust Or certainty of Divine Faith which is absolute certainty of Humane Faith which is Moral and certainty of opinion which is conjectural Thus far Bellarmine whose distribution of the kinds of Certainty might be allowed if the raising a conjectural opinion even to the lowest degree of it were not too improper and irrational But to pass by that this rather deserveth notice that he hath made no mention of that kind of certainty which is so famous in the Schools as neither wholly evident nor wholly obscure but mixt of both Such have Theological Conclusions which are deduced from two propositions the one evident the other revealed It need not much be inquired whether our Adversaries have this last certainty of the firmness of the foundations of their Faith. For it is either of the same kind with the certainty of Faith or of a diverse If of the same as some will then to prove that our Adversaries have not herein the certainty of Divine Faith will disprove this If of a diverse as most think then it is inferior to the other and less firm and consequently not sufficient Besides such who think that these Theological Conclusions founded upon a mixt certainty are de fide as Alphonsus a Castro and Melchior Canus must acknowledg that their opinion oppugned by so many and so great Divines of the same party cannot be certain But an incertain opinion though true in it self cannot be the foundation of an undoubted certainty such as is that of Divine Faith. Lastly whether this certainty be or be not inferior to that of Divine Faith it can have no place here but absurdly and preposterously For all this certainty is derived from things revealed and cannot therefore add any to things revealed Theological Conclusions are admitted only for the sake of those revealed Propositions from which they are deduced Those Propositions therefore cannot be admitted for the sake of these Conclusions without a manifest and absurd Circle I do not remember that
For among Catholicks some affirm it because there is no promise found of the contrary Others deny it because the whole Church would be otherwise in great danger of error To me neither seemeth sufficiently certain Yet it is probable that it becomes the Providence of Christ not to permit it In these words two things may be observed First That Suarez speaks of the Infallibility of Bishops not in believing but in teaching For he saith this in answer to an Objection That if all the Bishops could err then the other part of the Church the Laity might also err because they ordinarily follow the Doctrine of their Pastors and are bound to do it Now the People are bound to follow their Pastors not in what they think but in what they teach This also appears from the reason why some denied the consent of all Bishops in any error to be possible because if that should happen the whole Church would be brought into great danger of error But if Bishops should teach rightly although they thought erroneously there would be thence no danger of Error to the rest of the Faithful Secondly Of this Infallibility of Bishops in what they teach unanimously he saith three things 1. That some Catholicks deny it 2. That neither part seems certain to him 3. That it is probable All which singly prove That he thought it not to be of Faith. But who can imagine so great a Doctor could be ignorant of what was of Faith Theoph. Raynaudus differed not much from the Opinion of Suarez That the visible Head saith he 3 Vt seposito capite visibili membra omnia possint infici aliquo errore materiali vix potest contingere verisimillimum est Deo semper cordi futurum ne id accidat Si tamen accideret incont aminato capite nibil decederet de perpetuitate verae fidei in Ecclesiâ Rayn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct 5. being laid aside all the Members should be infected with any material error could scarce happen and it is most probable God will take care it should not Yet if it should happen the Head being uninfected the perpetuity of true Faith in the Church would suffer no loss Where he determines not absolutely this cannot happen but looks upon the contrary only as most probable and denieth the Infallibility of the whole Church to depend thereon which is so much urged by the maintainers of the contrary Opinion Rhodius speaks more plainly who affirms 4 Mortuo pontifice non est in Ecclesiâ ulla infallibilis authoritas ad condenda fidei Decreta Nullam e◠tempore infallibilitatem actualem proximam habet Ecclesia Rhod. de fide qu. 2. Sect. 5. §. 5. That the Pope being dead the Church hath no Infallible Authority to make Decrees of Faith as having no actual and immediate Infallibility at that time Hence is manifest that we want little of a Confession from our Adversaries that the Infallibility of the Governours of the Church is not of Faith. And indeed it cannot be For no Foundation of such a Faith is to be found Not Scripture or Tradition For not to say that these to make any Article become of Faith ought according to our Adversaries most evidently to contain it which evidence even they will not deny to be here wanting It would be most absurd that Papists should believe this Infallibility of the Pastors of the Church for the Authority of Scripture and Tradition when they believe neither of these but for the Authority of the Pastors Take away their Testimony and they will deny it to be known whether Scripture or Tradition be the word of God or what is the sence of either The same may be said of the Decrees of the Church Representative For besides that no such express Decree of it can be produced the Infallibility of the Representative Church it self is believed by every single Papist only because they hear it taught by their Pastors As for the belief of the Universal Church that ought not be produced For that is the thing now inquired why the Universal Church believeth so Will our Adversaries therefore say they believe their Pastors cannot err in teaching unanimously what is of Faith because they so teach themselves This they must recurr to for they have no other reason left of believing so Yet nothing can be more absurd For first it is the constant Opinion of all Mankind and a received Law among all Nations that none should be Witness or Judge in his own Cause Secondly As we believe not any Man to be true and honest till we be assured of his veracity and honesty from some other Testimony than his own So it would be the highest imprudence to esteem those Infallible who challenge that privilege to themselves until their Infallibility be known to us from some other Argument than their own Testimony Certainly our Adversaries will not permit even the Scripture which is the word of God and hath so many illustrious Characters of a Divine Original to be believed for its own Testimony and Christ openly professed that if he bore Witness of himself his Witness was not credible Why then shall that be attributed to the Governours of the Church which Christ denied to himself and our Adversaries deny to the Word of God Thirdly The Question will return whence the Pastors of the Church know that they cannot err For they will not say they know it because the Faithful believe it since as Hallier 5 Non ideo vera docent Pastores quia vera credunt Auditores sed ideo vera credunt Auditores quia vera docentibus assentiuntur F. Hallier de Hierarch l. 4. c. 2. well saith The Pastors do not therefore teach truly because the Auditors believe truly but the Auditors believe truly because they assent to the Pastors teaching truly They cannot say that they know it from Scripture or Tradition For the truth of these without the Authority of the Church is no more known to learned than to unlearned persons Think not saith Bagotius 6 Cave existimes unumquenquam etiam Theologum Doctissimum posse quicquam eredere sine authoritate Ecclesiae independenter ab eâ Bagot Instit Theol. l. 4. c. 1. §. 1. that any one even the most learned Divine can believe any thing without the Authority of the Church and independently from it And Hosius 7 Hos cont Brent goeth so far that he maintains it to be the best way that even the most learned Men should recurr to implicit Faith and believe only in general as the Church believeth Shall the Pastors therefore believe that they cannot err for their own Testimony This is the natural consequence of our Adversaries Doctrine and that most absurd For first there is none of the Pastors which believeth so because he teacheth so but all teach so because all believe so Again The Question will recurr upon what Foundation do they teach so Here either nothing or only
any of our Adversaries have assigned a Conjectural Certainty to the perswasion which they have of the Truth of the Rules of their Faith. And surely such Certainty would be too mean and inconsiderable for this place Belonging to Opinion rather than Faith as Bellarmine well notes and not excluding distrust which is absolutely destructive of Divine Faith. A Moral Certainty is rarely made use of by our Adversaries in this case being such as take place only in matters of fact and not all those neither but only such as are perceived by the senses of other men and those so many and so clearly as take away all suspicion either of fraud or errour Whereas those parts of a Papists belief which have most need of being backed by certainty and are subject to the greatest difficulties are matters of right or at least such as fall not under the senses either of himself or others There are some things indeed which they would have to be manifest by this kind of certainty such as the knowledg of a lawful Pope or a Canonical Council what the present Church teacheth or to which Society belong the notes of a true Church c. We must consider therefore whether in these cases this certainty be sufficient It would suffice indeed if the opinions of Bagotius or Huetius were admitted Of whom the first equals the second prefers Moral Certainty to Metaphysical and even that which is acquired by demonstration But few approve these excesses Many on the contrary depress this certainty too low However all agree that it is inferior to that of Divine Faith. For which reason alone I might reject it but shall notwithstanding be content only then to do it when it is falsly pretended As for an evident certainty our Adversaries neither do nor can glory in it For if the foundations of Faith had that No previous motion of the will by the Divine influence no supernatural assistance of grace would be necessary which yet all require and none but fools and stupid persons could be disbelievers Besides that those things which are of positive right and depend upon the free Will of God cannot be taught by nature but must be known only by Divine Revelation But herein our Adversaries consent to us as we shall see hereafter and presume not to boast of evidence in the Objects of their Belief There remains therefore only the certainty of Divine Faith which they can pretend to Wherefore I shall chiefly consider that not neglecting yet the rest whensoever it can be imagined that they may be made use of by our Adversaries omitting only the certainty of Theological Conclusions and that for the reasons beforementioned I shall now examine all the Foundations of Faith which our Adversaries are wont to produce beginning at the Holy Scriptures CHAP. II. That the Faith of Papists is not founded on Holy Scripture THAT the Scripture is most certain in it self and most fit to ground our Faith upon is our constant belief and profession But this cannot suffice our Adversaries unless they recede from their known Principles The Scripture may be considered and used for the establishing of our Faith two ways First as it is in it self and its own nature and Secondly as it is confirmed illustrated and assisted by the help of Tradition and the authority of the Church That Scripture the first way considered is not a fit foundation of our Faith our Adversaries not only freely confess but sharply contend maintaining that laying aside Tradition and the Church we cannot be assured either that Scripture is the Word of God or consists of such Books and Chapters or that they are delivered incorrupted to us or faithfully translated or that this or that is the sense of such a place Of these opinions and arguments their Authors are agreed their Books are full that should I recite but the names much more the testimonies of the maintainers of them I should become voluminous To this may be opposed that this is only the opinion of the School Divines and Controversial Writers that there are many in the Church of Rome who believe the authority of the Scripture independent from the judgment of the Church and dextrously use that method of arguing against Atheists as Hâ—etius in his Books of Evangelical Demonstration and the Anonymous Author of the Dissertation concerning the arguments wherewith the truth of Moses his Writings may be demonstrated that such as these may have a true and firm belief of those things which Scripture plainly teacheth which are all that are necessary to be believed Whilest I congratulate to the Church of Rome these more sober Prosylites and wish that by a general concurrence therein they would refute my Dissertation I observe first that there are very few among them of this opinion Secondly that it doth not appear that even these few are perswaded that their arguments suffice to found a Divine Faith upon the Scriptures demonstrated by them The Licensers and Approvers of the aforementioned Dissertation seemed to be afraid of this while they manifestly distinguish a perswasion arising from those arguments from true Faith. Lastly that it doth not appear whether they think that they can without the authority of the Church be obliged to believe either which are Canonical Books or what is the sense of those Books So that until they declare their mind herein they are not by us to be disjoined from much less opposed to the rest I may therefore take it for granted that according to our Adversaries the Faith of private men cannot relie upon the Scripture destitute of the assistance of Tradition since it is what themselves most of all contend for Now for what concerneth Scripture considered the latter way as it is fortified by the accedaneous help of Church and Tradition I might perhaps omit the handling of it here forasmuch as neither Church nor Tradition can confer a greater degree of firmness upon Scripture which that they have not themselves I shall in the proceeding of this Discourse more opportunely shew hereafter However because some few things occur not improper for this place I shall very briefly speak of them First then how little help there is for Scripture in Tradition appeareth hence that it can no otherwise teach what is the true sense of Scripture but by the unanimous consent of the Fathers which whether it be to be had in any one text of Scripture may be much doubted It was a hard condition therefore 1 Nec eam unquam nisi juata unanimem consensum patrum accipiam interpretabor which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in his Profession of Faith to all which desired admission into the Church of Rome and which may for ever silence all the Roman Commentators that they will never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Now I would fain know how this Law can be observed since I may confidently affirm that there is no one
Writings of the Orthodox Doctors is as dubious and uncertain as the opinion of those Doctors is and that the doubts raised concerning it cannot be defined by Tradition it self In like manner George Rhodius 4 Neque scire potero Traditionem aliquam esse veram nisi vivens regula id definierit Rhod. de fide quaest 2. Sect. 5. § 1. affirms that no Tradition can be known to be true unless some living Rule shall so define it But that this matter being of no small moment may be the more manifest we may observe that our Adversaries require two things to make the testimony of the Fathers worthy to be relied on First that they consent and secondly that they do not meerly propose what seems most true to themselves but testifie moreover that what they teach was either delivered by Christ or is of Faith or which is all one the opposite of it heresie If either of these fail then their testimony is not secure The first condition is required by many and particularly by Alphonsus a Castro 5 Quarta est omnium SS Doctorum qui de re illâ scripserunt concors sententia Castr de justâ haeret pun lib. 1. cap. 4. who enquiring out the ways whereby a proposition may be convinced to be heretical in the fourth place assigns the unanimous consent of all the Fathers who have written upon that argument The latter condition is made necessary by many more Driedo 6 Non quia Hieronymus sic vel sic docei non quia Augustinus c. Dried de Eccles Dogm lib. 4. cap. 1. 6. tells us the authority of the Fathers is of no value any otherwise than as they demonstrate their opinion either from the Canonical Scriptures or the belief of the universal Church since the Apostles times and that they do not always deliver their sense as matters of Faith but by way of judgement opinion and probable reason Stapleton 7 Non enim omnibus eorum dictis haec authoritas datur sed quatenus vel Ecclesiae publicam fidem referunt vel ab Ecclesiâ Dei recepta approbata sunt Stapl de princip doctr lib 7. cap. 15. writeth that this authority is not allowed to all the sayings of the Fathers but either as they relate the publick belief of the Church or have been approved and received by the Church Gillius 8 Testimonium Patrum vel Doctorum Scholasticorum communiter asserentium ali pâ—id ad fidem vel Theologiam pertinens simpliciter tamen non indicando esse dogma fidei esse debet argumentum firmum Theologo sed citra infallibilitatem fidei Gill. de doctr Sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 13. lastly grants that the testimony of Fathers and Doctors unanimously asserting somewhat pertaining to Faith and Divinity if they simply assert it and do with all tell us it is an Article of Faith ought to be a firm Argument to a Divine but without Infallibity of Faith. Both conditions are required by Canus 9 Can. Loc. Theol. lib. 3. cap. 4. and Bannes 10 Bann in 2. quaest 1. art 10. Si quod dogma fidei Patres ab initio secundum suorum temporum successiones concordissimè tenuerunt hujusque contrarium ut haereticum refutârunt who laying down Rules whereby true Traditions may be discerned from false both assign this in the second place and in the same words If the Fathers have unanimously from the beginning all along the Succession of their times held any Article of Faith and refuted the contrary as heretical Bellarmine and Gretser 11 Bell. Grets de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9. give this for their fourth Rule When all the Doctors of the Church teach any thing by common consent to have descended from Apostolical Tradition either gathered together in a Council or each one a part in their Writings Suarez 12 Licet Patres vel Scholastici in aliquâ sententiâ conveniant non asserendo illam esse de fide sed judicium suum in eâ proferendo non faciens rem de fide quia semper manent intra mensuram authoritatis humanae Suarez de fide disp 2. Sect. 6. writeth that although the Fathers and Schoolmen agree in any opinion not asserting it to be of Faith But delivering their Judgment in it they will not make it to be of Faith because they remain always within the limits of humane authority Filliutius 13 quae unanimi consensu Patrum tanquam de fide proponuntur Fill. in Decal Tract 22. cap. 1. reckoning up the seven degrees of things pertaining to Catholick verity assigns the Sixth degree to those truths which by the unanimous consent of the Fathers are proposed to be of Faith. Martinonus 14 Certum est nullum ex S S. Patribus vel Doctoribus seorsim sumptum esse Regulam Fidei jam de eorundem simul sumptorum consensu distinguendum Vel enim loquuntur ex proprio sensu non asserendo rem tanquam de fide judicium suum de eâ proferendo sic non Regula Fidei Mart. de fide disp 8. Sect. 3. that none of the Holy Fathers or Doctors taken separately is the Rule of Faith nor all yet together conjunctly unless they assert their common opinion to be of Faith and not meerly propose their own judgment Lastly Natalis Alexander 15 Cum omnes Patres in eandem sententiam conspirant eamque propugnant ac proponunt ut Apostolicam doctrinam Ecclesiae dogma Catholi eâ fide credendum tunc eorum authoritas necessarium argumentum sacrae doctrinae subministrat Alex. saecul 2 p. 1022. affirms that when all the Fathers conspire in the same opinion defend it and propose it as Apostolick Doctrine and an Article of the Church to be believed by Catholick Faith Then doth their authority afford a necessary argument of Sacred Doctrine Thus far these Writers And that the rest do not disagree from them we shall soon be perswaded if we consider how unlikely it is that a greater infallibility should be allowed even to an unanimous testimony of the Fathers than to Pope or Council or both together or the present Universal Church All which our Adversaries grant may erre in those things which they simply affirm or teach and define not to be of Faith. It sufficeth not therefore either that many Fathers deliver an opinion as of Faith or that all should simply teach it but not affirm it to be of Faith. Now if these two conditions be observed How few Articles of Christian Faith shall we receive from Tradition For the Fathers seldom all agree and more rarely admonisheth us that what they teach is of Faith. So that if you take away all Articles wherein either of these conditions is wanting it may well be doubted whether any one will remain Certainly if our Controversial Divines should so far make use of this observation as to reject all testimonies of the Fathers
produced by our Adversaries against us with which themselves will not be obliged that is such as are deficient in either of the conditions before laid down They would be reduced to silence and not have one authority left to boast of From what hath been said it appears that matters of Tradition and belief cannot be learned from the Fathers Hence Aegidius Estrix 16 Est Apol. Sect. 4. vehemently inveighs against Peter-Van Buscum a Divine of Gaunt who in his Instruction had remitted young Divines to the Fathers to learn the Christian Doctrine from them 17 Nuet adv Claud. de Eucharist in praefat And Nuetus the Jesuite likens those Writers of Controversie who passing by the Scripture betake themselves to the Fathers to Thieves and Rogues who deserting the Cities flee into thick Woods that they may more securely hide themselves If the Fathers therefore teach not Tradition there remains only the Church whence it can be known Whether the Church therefore hath that power as to confer the desired Certainty upon what She pronounceth to be revealed and to be believed is next to be inquired Which because our Adversaries here chiefly fasten their hold easily giving up the former means of conveying Tradition shall be somewhat more accurately discussed CHAP. IV. That the Faith of Papists cannot be founded even upon the Definitive Judgment of the Church First because it is neither evident nor of Faith that the Judgment of the Church is certain BY the name of Church whereon our Adversaries would have the Faith of all men to be founded they are wont to design two things First that visible Congregation of men which consists of Pope Clergy and Laicks all professing the same Faith. Secondly that part of this first Church whose office it is to Rule the rest and prescribe Laws of acting and believing to them Whether this part be the Pope or a Council The former they call the Universal the latter the Representative or the Regent Church To both they ascribe infallibility but in a different way to the first in believing to the second in defining or as they chuse to speak in proposing So that whatsoever the Universal Church believeth or the Representative proposeth to be believed must necessarily be true and revealed by God and the denial of it heresie We shall examine each in order But first of the Representative Church Our Adversaries believe to have been instituted by God a living and visible Authority whose office it should be to define matters of belief and practice infallibly determine emergent Controversies and judge of Heresie That whatsoever this power which some call the Chair others more accurately the Tribunal defineth proposeth or judgeth may and ought to be received of all Christians as an Article of Faith and that this is the ordinary and immediate foundation of the Faith of private Christians Indeed in assigning this Tribunal what and where it is all do not agree But that there is such an one whatsoever it is all do contend Whether there be such an one is a great question and may justly take up another Discourse But now we only consider whether the judgment and definition of this Tribunal be such as that whosoever relyeth upon it can or ought to be certain that he doth not err and that what he believes is true For it is not enough that this Tribunal be infallible unless its infallibity be also manifest Since if it had such a priviledge but either unknown or uncertain he indeed that acquiesced in its definitions would not err but could never be certain that he doth not err and might reasonably doubt whether he doth or no. I enquire therefore whether our Adversaries can be certain that the Church in defining cannot err If the Papists have any certainty of the infallibility of the Church defining it must be either Moral or evident or that of Divine Faith For the rest we have excluded before But it can be none of these Not Moral for that depends upon the testimony of anothers senses But the Infallibility of the Church cannot be perceived either by our own or by anothers senses Nor indeed is it here pretended to by our Adversaries No more than Evident Certainty which they expresly acknowledge they have not herein So Andrew du Val 1 Non potest firmiter infallibiliter sciri nisi ex Divinâ Revelatione Du Val in 2. 2. pag. 16. tells us The Infallibility of the Church can be certainly known only by Divine Revelation Arriaga 2 Non est veritas per se nota Arr. de Fide Disp 3. Sect. 1. that it is not a Truth known by it self or self evident Conink 3 Solâ Fide ex Scripturae testimonio constat solos fideles dirigit Con. de act Cupern Disp 9. dub 5. that it is known to us only by Faith from the testimony of the Scriptures and serveth to direct only the Faithful Ysambertus 4 Non potest sciri ab hominibus infallibiliter nisi ex divinâ revelatione Ysamb de Fide Disp 26. art 2. that it cannot be known infallibly by men otherwise than by Divine Revelation Rhodius 5 Cognosâ—itur tantùm Fide divinâ Rhod. de Fide quaest 1. Sect 4. §. 4. that it is known only by Divine Faith. Lastly Antonius Arnaldus 6 Non est quid ex se evidens Arn. Perpert de la Foy liv 1. chap. 7. that it is not self evident The whole matter therefore comes to this whether the Infallibility of the Church be of Faith. That it is our Adversaries as we see pretend that it is not I prove many ways First this seems to be the opinion of a man of great Name among them Launoy who every where oppugneth the Infallability of the Pope and sheweth that the Infallibility of a Council appears to him not to be of Faith while he saith 7 Quamvis certum sit non errandi privilegium inesse Concilio longè tamen certius est apud Theologos Ecclesiae inesse Laun. Epist ad Vallant Tom. 2. that although it be certain the priviledge of not erring is in a Council yet that it is far more certain among Divines that it is in the Church Which he would never have said if he had believed the Infallibility of a Council to be of Faith. For then it would be no less certain than the Infallibility of the Church Besides it is the common opinion of our Adversaries that nothing is of Faith of which Disputes are raised in the bosom of the Church She being conscious of them Thus Holden 8 Certum est illud non esse Fidei divinae Catholicae dogma cujus oppositum a plurimis piissimis doctissimis Catholicis viris publicè sustentari vidimus sciente nimirum jacente Ecclesiâ universâ Hold. Anal. fid lib. 1. cap. 9. affirms that is not an Article of Divine and Catholick Faith whose opposite is publickly maintained by many pious and learned Catholicks
the Universal Church knowing of it and winking at it To the same purpose Canus 9 Sunius aut paucorum opinatio non fuerit ab Ecclesiâ rejecta tum plurimorum authoritas nihil certum firmumque conficiet Can. loc Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. teacheth that if the opinion of one or a few be not rejecsed by the Church then the contrary authority of many will produce nothing firm or certain There is extant among the works of the Fratres Valemburgii a Treatise called the Rule of Faith written formerly in French by Veron and translated into Latine by the Valemburgii and so openly adopted by them that whatsoever Veron writ of himself in the singular they translate in the plural So that whatsoever is contained in it may be lookt upon as the sense of all three Writers Now the chief scope of this Book is to shew that not a few opinions taught by many of their Doctors and by us affixed to the whole Church of Rome are not of Faith but may be safely denied To the obtaining of this end they make use chiefly of two means the silence of the Council of Trent and the testimonies of Doctors of a contrary opinion and Section 15. 10 Variae sunt hâc de re Doctorum sententiae quod vel solum sufficit probando id non esse de fide Catholicâ have these words That the different judgement of the Doctors herein may aloné suffice to prove that it is not of Faith. Upon this foundation proceed all those Divines who maintain that the Pope is infallible or superiour to a Council Thus the Valemburgii 11 Eâ solìen de causâ non affirmamus hanc propositionem fide Catholicâ esse tenendam quòd Authores qui contrarium sentiunt nondum videamus ab Ecclesiâ damnatos pro haereticis Val. Tom. 1. Tract 1. Exam. 3. num 111. write that for this cause only they will not affirm this proposition to be of Catholick Faith because Authors of the contrary opinion are not condemned by the Church for Hereticks So Bannes 12 Bann in 2.2 quaest 1. art 10. dub 2. Bellarmine 13 Bell. de Pont. lib. 4. cap. 2. Vasquez 14 Vasq in 3. disp 137. cap. 1. and Duval 15 Duval in 2.2 p. 344. tells us that they will not assert the contrary opinion to be heresie because it is not yet condemned by Popes or Councils and is tolerated in the Church But Gillius 16 Quare rigida videtur censura quâ Bannes oppositam notat sententiam vocans eam temerariam Gill. de doctr Sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 4. goes farther and reprehendeth Bannes for inflicting even a mark of rashness upon the opinion of one only sense of Scripture since four Divines Alensis Albertus Henricus and Medina had defended it This opinion of our Adversaries is grounded on a double foundation The first Gillius declareth in express words viz. that it is not credible that so many learned and pious persons should either not know what the Catholick Faith teacheth or knowing it should oppose it The Second is that it would be a most unpardonable neglect of the Church to see the Faith torn in pieces by her Children and be silent in so urgent an occasion For by that connivance She should at least indirectly confirm heresie it being a Rule of the Canon Law 17 Error cui non resistitur approbatur Dist 83. that an Errour which is not resisted is approved If therefore I demonstrate that not one or two but many of the Roman Divines and those the most celebrated and by their merit preferred to the greatest dignities in the Church were not only ignorant of but also openly denied this Infallibility I shall at the same time prove that it is not of Faith. The former will easily be performed For first the most noble and learned Jo. Fr. Picus 18 Voluerunt multi Concilium si unâ cum Pontifice in iis quae ad essentiam fidei pertinent sententiam ferat nullo pacto errare posse Restitêre alii affirmantes errare posse Concilia jam errâsse nec ad huc aliquid quod sciam promulgatum est cujus vi ad alterutrum credendum obstringamur Picus ad Theor. 4. Prince of Mirandula confesseth that their Doctors and Canonists are divided in their opinions whether a Pope and Council conjunctly defining matters of Faith can err or not and that we are not obliged to believe either opinion That Picus his testimony is true any one will be convinced that considereth how many things repugnant to this Infallibility the greatest men of the Roman Church have taught These may be reduced to four heads First the testimonies of those which teach that the Pope and Council to whom alone this Infallibility is assigned can err Secondly of those which deny that Church which is unerring and indesectible to be so tied to the Clergy that it may not wholly consist in others Thirdly of those who assert that the Faith of all men one only excepted may fail and so the Church subsist in a single Laick or Woman Fourthly of those who imagine that the Faith may perish in all adult persons and so the Church consist only in baptized infants For the first we shall produce Ockam or at least them whose opinions he relates For in his Dialogues he never speaks in his own person 19 Vna sola est Ecclesia militans quae contra fidem errare non potest Temerarium est dicere quod Concilium Generale contra fidem errare non potest Occam Dial. part 1. lib. 5. cap. 25. He therefore assirms that it is rash to say a General Council cannot err against the Faith that being the peculiar priviledge of the Church Militant That 19 Scripturae divinae universali Ecclesiae Aposiolis absque allâ dubitatione in omnibus credendum Nullis vero aliis quantâcunque doctrinâ vel Sanctitate praepolleant It a quod nec in Concilio generali si esset congregata universalis Ecclesia nec Decretis Pontisicum nec Doctorum dictis est necessario credulitas in omni dicto absque omni exceptione praestanda Id. part 3. Tract 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. the Scriptures the Universal Church and the Apostles are without hesitation to be believed but none others how eminent soever in holiness and Learning no not a General Council although the Universal Church were gathered together in it nor the Decrees of Popes nor the Judgments of Doctors Lastly 20 Si quaeratur quis habet judicare an Concilia suerint Catholicè celebrata respondetur quod periti in Scripturis habent judicare per modum firmae assertionis quod definita ab iis sunt Catholicè definita Id. cap. 19. that it belongs to every man skilful in the Scriptures with a firm assurance to judge whether Councils have been celebrated Canonically or defined Catholickly Peter de Alliaco 21 1. Concilium generale
potest difformari legi Christi 2. Ecclesia Romana quae distinguitur a tot â congregatione sidelium ut pars à toto potest haereticari 3. Tota multitudo Clericorum Laicorum virorum potest à fide deficere All. in quaest vesper art 3. Cardinal of Cambray and one of the Presidents of the Council of Constance layeth down these Three Assertions 1. That a General Council can depart from the Law of Christ 2. That the Church of Rome which is distinguished from the whole Congregation of the Faithful as the part from the whole may fall into Heresie 3. That the whole multitude of Clergy and Laity may apostatize from the true Faith. This Lecture opposed by a Parisian Doctor he afterwards largely defended in his Reply which he Entitled de Resumptâ Where among other things to this purpose he enquireth what is to be done when a General Council errs and the State of Christendom is so depraved that Hereticks have all the Power the Faithful being become few and contemptible And in this case adviseth to make divers Appeals commit themselves to the Divine Grace and bear the injury with Patience Waldensis 22 Non est ergo specialis Ecclesia non Africana nec utique particularis illa Romana sed universalis Ecclesia non quidem in generali Synodo congregata quam aliquotiens errâsse percepimus Sed est c. Vald. doctr Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 19. Paulo post Quia nulla harum Synodi Episcopalis c est Ecclesia Catholica Symbolica nec vendicat sibi sidem dari sub paenâ perfidiae Sed c. Nec movere quenquam debet qued talem concordem professionem Patrum praeposui decreto generalis Concilu etiamsi è toto orbe existentes convenirent Episcopi Et cap. 27. Nec tamen alicui jam dictae Ecclesiis Apostolicis maxlmè verò Romanae authoritati Concilii Generalis ita obediendum censeo tam pronâ fide sicut primae fidei Scripturae vel Ecclesiae Christi Symbolicae sed sicut institutionibus Seniorum monitioni paternae teacheth that the Church which is the Infallible Rule of Faith is neither Pope nor Council which have sometimes erred but the Series and Collection of all Doctors successively from the Apostles to our times That neither an Episcopal Synod nor the common decree of the Roman Church nor yet a General Council of all the Bishops of the World is that Catholick Symbolical Church that can challenge assent upon pain of insidelity But the Universal succession of the Holy Fathers throughout all Ages That an unanimous consent of the Fathers is to be preferred before the Decree of a General Council although all the Bishops of the World be therein That Obedience is not so readily and intirely to be given to the dictates of any particular Church or even to the authority of a General Council as to the first Faith proposed by Scripture or the Symbolical Church of Christ The other being to be regarded only as the institution of the Elders and paternal admonition Cardinal Panormitan 23 Ideo in concernentibus sidem Concilium est supra Papam Puto tamen quod si Papa moveretur melioribus rationibus authoritatibas qudm Concilium quod standum esset sententiae suae Nam Concilinm potest errare sicut aliâs erravit c Nam in concernentibas sidem etiam dictum unius privati esser praeferendum dicto Papae si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus N. V. Testamenti quam Papa Panorm in Cap. Significâsti de electione writeth that in things indeed concerning Faith a Council is above the Pope Yet if the Pope be moved with better reasons and authorities than the Council we are to stand to his determination For even a Council may err and hath erred That in matters of Faith the judgment even of one private man is to be preferred before the Sentence of the Pope if he were moved with better Arguments drawn from the Old and New Testament than the Pope And much more to the same purpose Antony 24 Ant. Summ. Theol. part 3. Tit. 23. Cap. 2. §. 6. Archbishop of Florence hath transcribed this whole passage of Panormitan into his sum of Divinity without making the least mention of him and delivers it as his own opinion Cardinal Cusanus 25 Notandum est experimento rerum Concilium universale plenartum posse deficere quomodo etiam varia Concilia talia fuerunt quae judicando errârunt Cusan Concord Cath. lib. 2. cap. 3. 4. alloweth indeed Oecumenical Councils to be infallible But to this End requireth so many conditions that it is very difficult they should all be had and impossible to be known when had The fourth condition is that the Council regulate it self by the Rules of the Holy Ghost laid down in Scripture and the definitions of precedent Councils Otherwise that howsoever free and universal they may be appealed from and protested against And at last concludes that it is to be seen by experience that a full General Council can err as diverse such Councils have been which have erred in defining Thus he of Councils who hath much more about the errability of the Pope Wherefore Bellarmine reckons him among the Parisians Nicholas de Clemangis 26 Clem. in Disp de Conciliis expresly Disputes against the Infallibility of Councils But because he preadmonisheth he assirms nothing but only to dispute for finding out the truth I shall not urge his Testimony Cardinal Dominicus Jacobatius 27 Quia Concilium potest errare ut patet in Conctlio Ariminenâ—i Ephesino 2. Africanâ Synodo tempore Cypriani in aliis multis Nec obstat si dicatur quòd Ecclesià non potest errare quia intelligitur de Ecclesiâ universali Sed Concilium repraesentativè dicitur Ecclesiâ in Concilio enim verè non est universalis Ecclesia Jacob. de Concil lib. 6. pag. 239. asserteth that when Popes and Councils disagree in defining that judgment is to be preferred which is consonant to the definitions of precedent Councils If none of which have passed Sentence in this matter then the Councils definition shall not be received if the Popes be founded upon better reasons and authorities For that a Council can erre as appears by that of Ariminum the Second of Ephesus that of Africk under Cyprian and many others That the Infallibility of the Universal Church proves not the same to be in a Council Since the Universal Church is not truly in a Council That in the case of contrary definitions by the Pope and a Council it is not yet defined what is to be done or observed That his Opinion however is that he which should hold to and observe either part should not therefore incur the danger of Damnation although he died in the observation of it All these manifestly teach that both a Pope and Council to whom alone active Infallibility is attributed may erre
the nature of the thing concerning the uncerainty of any revealed Article without the supervenient Authority of the Church are wholly destroyed not to say that hereby the controversie is turned from matter of Right into matter of Fact and become a meer enquiry whether God hath made any such prohibition Laying aside I say all these things I will insist upon this one Observation It is not here enquired whether Scripture and Tradition proposed by any other than the Pope oblige us to assent or not but only whether any one either obliged or not obliged can receive them howsoever proposed and thence build his Faith upon them If he can then our Argument returns and we may also believe with Divine Faith what we find taught in Scripture If he cannot I would fain know which way then Papists can admit Scripture and Tradition and from them learn the Infallibity of the Church since Amicus had before denied that it could be Learned or ought to be believed for the testimony of Scripture and Tradition as infallibly proposed by the Church It is manifest therefore the belief of the Insallibility of the Church cannot rest on Scripture or Tradition But neither can it on the judgment of the Ruling Church For besides that no such judgment is produced if it were it would be fruitless For then what was never granted the Church will be judge and give sentence in her own cause which Alphonsus a Castro 45 Si de Scripturâ ipsâ est quastio non poterit ipsamet esse Judex quia tunc erit abire in infinitum In propriâ causà nallius restimonium est validum Castr de justâ baret punit lib. 1. cap. 5. denieth to Scripture because that were to run in infinitum and no testimony can be valid in its own cause For imagine any one that believed not the Church to be infallible now to begin to believe it This first act of belief cannot be founded upon the judgment of the Church For whosoever believeth any thing for the sake of the Churches judgment did before believe that judgment to be certain which destroyeth the supposition This our Adversaries confess So Conink 46 Judicium quo judicamus nobis credendum esse Ecclesiam habere infallibilem omnino authoritatem proponendi res fidei debet aliis notis sive alio fundamento niti Conink de actib sup disp 17. dub 3. The judgment whereby we judge that we are to believe the Church hath infallible authority of proposing matters of Faith ought to be grounded upon other arguments or some other foundations So also Moeratius 47 Nemo potest credere hunc Articulum fidei nostrae interveniente ad assensum hunc ipsâ Ecclesiae authoritâ—te tanquam regulà res credendas infallibiliter proponente Maerat de fide disp 17. Sect. 2. None can believe this Article of our Faith the Infallibility of the Church the Churches authority it self intervening to this assent as the rule infallibly proposing matters of belief There remains therefore only the belief of the Universal Church wherein this Faith of private Papists herein can relie Many things might here be said but because we shall handle that matter more fully at the end of this Treatise we will not anticipate our arguments here I shall only in a word observe the absurdity of it Our Adversaries say that private persons ought to believe the active infallibility of the Ruling Church because they seeit believed by the Universal Church But why doth the Universal Church believe it truly for no other reason but because She do believe it For the Universal Church is nothing else but the collection of all single believers CHAP. V. That it is uncertian what are those Decrees of the Church whereon Faith may relie WHAT I said will be more manifest to him who shall consider that to make the Decrees of the Church a fit foundation for our Faith it is not sufficient to know that the Church in defining cannot err unless also we know what are those definitions of the Church which are placed beyond all danger of errour For our Adversaries all acknowledge that the Church doth not always nor in all things enjoy this priviledge of Infallibility but in many things may be mistaken as in desining Philosophical questions and in general whatsoever belongeth not to Religion Some add Controversies of Fact others Canonization of Saints many all those things which although belonging to Faith are not yet proposed as of Faith but only simply affirmed or brought for the illustrating and confirming of some other matter Since the Church therefore may be mistaken in so many things we ought to be well acquainted what those Decrees are wherein Shecannot err That this notwithstanding is most uncertain two things evince First that it appears not what are the conditions what the Character and Notes of a firm and valid Decree Secondly that although this should appear it would not yet be known what are those particular Decrees which have these Characters The first again is manifest by two reasons first in that it is uncertain whether these exceptions wherewith the infallibility of the Church is limited be all lawful and then no less uncertain whether they be all which can and ought to be assigned For if both these things be not certainly known we shall continually doubt whether we do not for some unjust exception undeservedly reject some Decree of the Church that ought to be obeyed and received some other which for some just exception not yet assigned ought to be rejected But both on the contrary are uncertain The first concerning the lawfulness of the conditions already assigned is because our Adversaries themselves do so irreconciliably differ in assigning them Whatsoever one layeth down some other removeth So that nothing certain can be had thence Nor can it be said these conditions are self evident or of Faith. For what evidence is that which escapes the knowledge of so many Learned men And our Adversaries grant as we saw before that nothing can be of Faith whereof Catholick Divines dispute unregarded by the Church Besides if it be of Faith it must be revealed But where is this revelation In Scripture Nothing either is or can be produced thence In Tradition That will afford perhaps two or three Testimonies of the Antients but which respect only one condition that of excluding Controversies of Fact and are themselves liable to many exceptions But granting they are not what shall become of the other conditions assigned of no less moment Or what will two or three Testimonies avail wherein their Authors affirm not what they write to be of Faith Nor will the Regent Church give us any help herein For She hath defined nothing in this matter or if she had it would be wholly vain For it would still be enquired whether that Definition were of Faith and so in infinitum As for the Universal Church She can have no place here as well for the
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
approved or condemned That request being stisly denied by the Roman Consistory who were resolved to condemn them in the gross The Jansenists distinguished Three Senses of each Proposition and placing the different senses in Three Columns offered them to the Examiners desiring they would admonish which of all those senses the Censure aimed at But neither so could they obtain their End. Only afterwards when the Controversie grew hot Pope Alexander VII declared the Propositions were condemned in the sense intended by the Author The Author had been now dead before his Book was published much less condemned And so while the Popes pretended to condemn the Authors sense they said nothing else but that they condemned a sense which neither they would nor any body else could tell what it was And to this day it is disputed among them what is that Heretical sense intended by the Author and condemned by the Popes Thus much of the Third Exception I might add another which not a few of our Adversaries produce For they require that the Church proceed maturely diligently and Canonically in her judgment Which certainly few or none can know But because the consideration of this would take up too much time I shall omit it Having already sufficiently evinced that nothing is more uncertain than to know what are those Decrees of the Church which may be securely believed and consequently that Faith cannot be founded on them CHAP. VI. That it is uncertain what is that part of the Vniversal Church to which active Infallibility belongs And First that it doth not appear whether it be in the Pope IF we should after all this grant the knowledg of the Churches Infallibility and of her Infallible Decrees not to be impossible this would contribute nothing to the establishing our Faith unless it were likewise known what is that Supream Tribunal whose Decrees are to be obey'd For if this were uncertain saith Arriaga 1 Si enim incertum hoc esset quicquid de judice controversiarum in Ecclesiâ ut certum de fidecreditur esset planè ridiculum Arr. de Fide Disp 7. Sect. 8. whatsoever is believed as of Faith concerning a Judge of Controversies in the Church would be ridiculous Now this thing is really uncertain as I shall prove There are three opinions concerning it among our Adversaries For this Supream and Infallible power is by most assigned to the Pope alone by almost all the French and some few more to a Council alone and lastly to Pope and Council together by some very few so few that I could never find one that expresly asserted this opinion and but two or three that obscurely insinuate it I begin with the Pope and affirm that unless his Infallibility be of Faith his Decrees cannot be the foundation of Faith. No other certainty will here suffice for as for Moral and Self evident here is not the least shadow of them and that of Theological Conclusions I before excluded So that certainty of Faith is necessary This our Adversaries confess at least those of the first opinion Caspensis 2 Nisi fide divinâ credamns ejusmodi Pontifices esse successores Petri nihil est quod possumus fide divina credere Casp de fide disp 2. Sect. 6. writeth that unless we believe by Divine Faith such Popes to be the Successors of Peter there is nothing we can believe with Divine Faith. Martinonus 3 Pontifex non posset nos obligare ad credendum de jide id quod definit ut dictum a Deo nisi de fide esset ipsum habere potestatem definiendi infalibilem assistentiam Sp. S. Mart. de fide disp 9. Sect. 6. that the Pope could not oblige us to believe as of Faith what he defineth to be revealed by God unless it were of Faith that he hath the power of defining and infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost Rhodius 4 Si non esset de fide quòd Papa sit infallibilis ergo non est de fide quôd non fallatur Rhod. de fide quaest 3. Sect. 1. §. 3. that unless the infallibility of the Pope were of Faith it would not be of Faith that he is not actually mistaken Is it therefore of Faith that the Pope is infallible So indeed some of them maintain as Suarez Castrus Palaus Lud. Abelly Ja. Vernautius Fr. Macedo Theoph. Raynaudus Amicus Caspensis Martinonus Rhodius and others Yea Abelly 5 Veritatem religionis fundamentalem articulum fidei ex praecipuis unum cui innitantur caeteri omnes Abelly apud Estrix Diat ass 47. affirms that it is a fundamental truth of Religion a Prime Article of Faith upon which the rest depend and the contrary opipinion a capital heresie Vernautius 6 Neminem posse sine crimine hereseos doctrinam tenere contrariam Pontificis fidei omnibus fidelibus propositae Vern apud eundem concludeth that none without the crime of heresie can hold an opinion contrary to the belief of the Pope proposed to all the faithful Macedo 7 Censeo qui absolutè negat insallibilem esse Papam errare haud dubiè in fide si in errore obstinatus perseveret haereticum fore Mac. ibidem thinks the denial of it to be an undoubted error in Faith and if obstinately persisted in heresie Lastly Raynaudus 8 Qui Pontifici eam infallibilitatem abrogant a plerisque sin minus ab omnibus trans Alpes Pyrenaeos habentur haeretici saltem materialiter Rayn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct 5. tells us the deniers are by many if not by all beyond the Alpes and Pyrenaeans accounted hereticks at least materially When he saith materially he meaneth in the Language of the Schoolmen that the opinion of these Deniers is accounted in it self heretical and wants only obstinacy in the defenders to make it downright and formal Heresie Now this obstinacy is judged of partly by the external Proposition of the Truth opposed to Heresie partly by the internal disposition of mind Now because the latter is known to God alone and all truths are not sufficiently proposed to all therefore those of whom Raynaudus speaks do wisely in laying down that limitation of material Heresie But this Salvo will not serve the Learned disbelievers of the Papal infallibility For since it is as clearly revealed to them as it is to the believers of it Either those are rank Hereticks whom a sufficient Proposition will not convince or these fools who assent to an opinion insufficiently proposed Thus indeed these Writers But others are of a contrary opinion as Bellarmine Vasquez Tannerus Duval the Valemburgii Gab. Boyvin and others who strenuously maintain the Infallibility of the Pope and yet deny it to be of Faith. Duval 9 Duval de potest Pont. part 2. quaest 1. produceth three weighty reasons 1. For that it hath been no where defined 2. That the opposite Doctors as Alliacensis Gerson c. Were never condemned 3. In that the Scripture
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
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
as it is believed by all the Faithful both Clergy and Laity Either way taken our Adversaries contend it is a certain Rule of Faith to all private Christians for that nothing false can either be taught by a common consent of all the Pastors or be believed by all the Faithful But since it is one and the same Faith which is taught by the Pastors and believed by the Faithful it might suffice to consider either of them only and thence demonstrate that neither can be a Rule of Faith. Yet that our adversaries may not complain any thing is omitted I will treat separately of each and first that Faith cannot be founded upon the common consent of Doctors This may be evinced many ways First because it doth not appear who are those Doctors whose consent is required The whole foundation of this is thought to be a place of St. Paul 1 Ephes IV. where he asserts that Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and teachers Doctors for the edifying of the Body of Christ c. But who these Pastors and Doctors are is uncertain It is enquired first whether the same be Pastors that are Doctors St. Hierom St. Augustin Isidorus Clarius Ben. Justinianus and Lud. Cellotius thought them the same Hilarius Diaconus Estius and Corn. à Lapide different Next who are designed by the word Pastors Many understand thereby Bishops and those only Cellotius 2 Rectè igitur Theodoretus Pastores Doctores eos dicit jui incivitate in pago erant deputati segregati Cell de Hier. l. 8. c. 6. Parsons only and cites Theodoret for his opinion Estius 3 Diâ—iprecipuè signisicari Episcopos nomine Pastorum nam generaliter hue etiam Parochi pertinent Est in loc understands both who also cites Theophylact. Now these questions are of great moment For if Pastors be the same with Doctors and by both names Bishops only be designed they only must be attended But if the Apostle understands Parsons too it is not enough to know what Bishops teach we must also enquire what Parsons teach Again if Professors of Divinity and Preachers be to be added we must further search out their Doctrine For if God annexed this privilege of insallibility to the four Orders of Bishops Parish-Priests Professours and Preachers taken all together we must not so follow one Order as to neglect the other For upon that supposition any one nay any three of them may err and truth remain only with the fourth However it be it is manifest that both ancients and modern differ in this point and that therefore nothing certain can be had therein much less what is of Faith which yet is necessary to assure us that we have an infallible Rule of Faith in the Governours of the Church But neither would that suffice if it were of Faith. Somewhat else would be yet necessary viz. to know certainly whether to give assent to the Doctrine of these Pastors and Doctors whosoever they be it be required that all should consent in their Doctrine every one of them which they call All Mathematically or whether the consent of All Morally that is almost all will suffice again who they are exactly that may be called All Morally and how great a part of the whole may dissent without prejudicing the infallibility of the rest whether the third or the fourth or the tenth or the hundredth c. Who shall desine this If All Mathematically must consent God would have appointed a Rule which never existed For so absolute a consent never was among the Governours of the Church But he which shall say it sufficeth that almost all consent ought not only to assirm but also to prove that he says But how shall so obscure a thing be proved Or what certainty can be had in it Yet grant it can be had it is still to be defined when almost all can be said to have consented for that hath a certain Latitude wherein some Men will think that number to be included which others hold excluded But not to seem too scrupulous let our Adversaries define this as they please and almost all be accounted to have consented when only a tenth twelfth or twentieth part shall dissent Let all this be as certain as it is indeed doubtful and uncertain I ask whether that consent which it shall have pleased our Adversaries to define necessary is always to be had If any one think so he must be a stranger to all Ecclesiastical History and never have heard of the prevailing Heresies of Arius Nestorius and Eutyches not to mention others But you will say they were Hereticks whereas we require only the consent of Catholicks Right but it did not sensibly appear they were Hereticks rather that was then the Question Who were Hereticks and who Orthodox For the Arians Nestorians and Eutychians took to themselves the name of Catholicks and branded the rest with the imputation of Heresie Now if this Question which was certainly a matter of Faith was to be determined only from the consent of Doctors it could never have been determined to the worlds end since that consent was never to be found But to deal liberally with our Adversaries have not those often dissented whom themselves acknowledge Catholick In the second and third Age the Asiaticks dissented from the Europeans about the celebration of Easter In the third Age all the Africans and many of the Asiaticks from the rest about the re-baptization of Hereticks In the fourth Age the followers of Theophilus Epiphanius and St. Hierom from the favourers of Origen about his Condemnation In the fifth Age the Greek from the Latin Church upon account of the Quarrels between the Roman and Constantinopolitan Sees In the sixth Age the Africans Dalmatians and Italians from the Greeks and Romans concerning the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula In the eight and ninth Ages the English French and Germans from the Greeks and many of the Italians about Image-worship The Eastern hath dissented from the Western Church now for many Ages about some points of Faith and Discipline The Western Church hath been divided for these three last Ages about the Power of Pope and Council And all these Dissensions proceeded even to breaking of Communion and pronouncing Anathema's against one another except the last which also did no less in the fifteenth Age. Now as often as this happens to which part can the Faithful securely adhere Think not that the most are then to be followed for besides that there are not always more Patrons of Truth than Error and that Canus 4 Nego cùm de fide agitur sequi plurimorum judicium oportere Can. loc Theol. l. 5. c. 5. and Bannes 5 Non negamus quin multi immò plures Sacerdotes Pastores possint errare Bann In 2.2 qu. 1. art 10. dub 3. expresly deny it It is impossible to number Suffrages and know which Party is most numerous They
might be numbred perhaps if the Church were included in one Province But now that it is diffused throughout the whole World no mean is left of knowing what is the Opinion either of all or most Our Adversaries I suppose will say that when the Governours of the Church dissent about any matter of Faith the Faithful must suspend their assent while the Controversie endureth and content themselves by an implicit Faith to believe in it what the Church believeth not enquiring in the mean while what the Church believeth but leaving that to be enquired by the Church her self To this I answer First that this grants us all we desire For we dispute here only of explicite Faith maintaining that our Adversaries have no certain Foundation for that If they flee to implicite they thereby forsake explicite Faith. Secondly almost all our Adversaries confess that there are some Articles which even the most ignorant Christians are bound to believe with explicite Faith and Connink 6 De actib sup disp 4. dub 9. asserts the contrary Opinion of some Canonists to be held erroneous and even heretical by the other Doctors Further all consent there are some points of Faith necessary to be believed by all with explicite Faith not only because commanded to be so but because the explicite belief of them is also the means without which Salvation cannot be obtained Wherefore Hosius 7 Hâ—s contra Prol. Brent lib. 3. in relating the known story of the Collier saith he did not make that Answer of believing as the Church believeth before he had entirely repeated the Apostles Creed and professed his adherence to it Now suppose the Bishops differ about some Article necessary to be believed with explicite Faith as happened in the times of Arianism Certainly the Faithful cannot at that time sulpend their assent if they do not together suspend their hopes of Salvation But not to insist upon that Example suppose a Controversie raised about doing somewhat which God in the Scripture expresly commands to be done such as we contend to be Communion under both kinds reading of the Scripture c. What is then to be done Must all action be suspended This were to deny obedience to God. We must therefore chuse one part and so reject the pretence of implicite Faith. Again implicite Faith is thus expressed I believe what the Church believeth It therefore supposeth the Faith of the Church Of what kind not implicite surely For that would be absurd in the highest degree Certainly then the Church could not justly be accounted the Keeper of Tradition which is nothing else in our Adversaries sence but that Doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apostles they to their Successors until it was derived down to us If this be true the Church of every Age must of necessity distinctly and explicitly know that Doctrine Otherwise it cannot faithfully and accurately deliver it to the succeeding Church Then how shall this Faith of the Church her self be expressed It can be by no other Form than this I believe what I believe than which nothing can be more absurd But I need not refute a Folly which our Adversaries do not espouse as appears from the words of Duvall 8 Quamvis aliqua successu temporis suerint in Ecclesiâ desinita de quibus antea eitra haeresin dubitabatur certum tamen est illa fuisse semper à nonnullis praedicata declarata Quòd autem ab aliis non crederentur istud tantùm vel ex oblivione vel ex ignorantiâ Scripturae aut traditionis proveniebat Duval in 2.2 p. 111. Although some things were in process of time defined by the Church which were before doubted of without the Crime of Heresie yet it is certain they were always preached and declared by some But that they were not believed by others arose either from the forgetfulness or from the ignorance of Scripture or Tradition Is it therefore this explicite Faith of the Church which serveth as a Foundation to implicite Faith So it ought to be and so I doubt not but our Adversaries will say it is But in this case wherein the Governours of the Church dissent about an Article of Faith it cannot be For that which the Church explicitly believes is no desinite Opinion but a meer Contradiction repugnant to it self and destroying it self For one part of the Church believeth the Opinion whereof the Controversie is raised to be true wholsom and revealed by God the other part believes it false pernicious and suggested by Men. Now to have the belief of the whole Church you must joyn both parts of the Contradiction together and so the Church believeth that Opinion to be true and false wholsom and pernicious revealed by God and suggested by Men. But this is not Faith but a deformed Monster consisting of contrary and repugnant parts CHAP. XXI That the consent of Doctors even when it can be had is more difficult to be known than that we can by the help of it attain to the knowledge of the Truth TO what we observed in the precedent Chapter our Adversaries may perhaps answer That when the Governours of the Church differ about a matter to be believed then indeed the Faith of private Christians cannot rely upon their Authority but that this dissent is not perpetual that they oftentimes consent in delivering the Doctrine of the Church and then at least may be securely believed in what they teach To this I reply First that hereby they must grant they have no certain and sixed Rule of Faith for many great and weighty points of Religion contrary to their continual boasts of the abundance of Rules whereby God hath provided for all the necessities of his Church Secondly the Governours of the Church have now for many Ages differed about some matters upon which according to our Adversaries depend the hopes of eternal Salvation For Example whether the true Church is to be found among the Greeks or among the Latins For of the five Patriarchates of the Church four are divided from the Church of Rome and accuse her of Heresie and Schism both which Accusations she retorts upon them Now this is a matter of great moment which may be justly doubted of and can never be determined by the consent of Doctors But to omit that this consent if it could be had is not so manifest and obvious as a Rule of Faith ought necessarily to be which by the confession of all must be clear evident and easie to be applied This Duvall 1 Secunda conditio eaque pariter essentialis est perspicuitas Nam si hee regula obseurè sidei mysteria proponeret regula fidei non foret Duvall in 2.2 p. 207. assigns for an essential condition of a Rule of Faith and acknowledgeth that if a Rule obscurely proposeth the Mysteries of Faith it would thereby become no Rule And for this reason our Adversaries so much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture that they may thereby
shew it could not be given by God for a Rule of Faith. To which end Gr. à Valentia 2 Sententiam ejus authoritatis cujus de rebus omnibus sidei judicium est apertam oportet esse ut ab omnibus fidelibus commodè possit intelligi Nam si non ita perspicuè planè authoritas illa doceat non ad eam rem valebit Val. tom 3. disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. §. 4. layeth down this Axiom which he afterwards applyeth to the Scripture The Sentence of that Authority which is to judge of all matters of Faith ought to be manifest that it may be easily understood by all the Faithful For if that Authority doth not teach perspicuously and plainly it will be of no use to that end So he and with him many others If therefore I shall shew that the consent of Pastors about matters of belief is so obscure and difficult to be known that even the most learned much more illiterate men cannot avoid Error in searching it out I shall thereby prove that it could not be given to us by God as a common Rule of things to be believed This obscurity and difficulty ariseth from three Causes The first is the amplitude of the Church diffused throughout the whole World which permits not the Faith of all Pastors to be known unless we travel through all those Regions wherein they are dispersed For it sufficeth not to consult a few They may be mistaken The Opinion of all must be asked the consent of all appear But how shall they be all singly consulted Who ever learned the Christian Faith this way Yet this way Card. Richlieu 3 Method liv 1. chap. 14. points out to us He saith the uniformity of the Church is manifest to sense that all parts of the Church may be surveyed by one man at divers times or by divers men at one time True but to reduce this to practice every single man must take so many Journeys send out so many Intelligencers that this Method cannot be perswaded but in jeast Valentia 4 Fatendum est rarò accidere posse ut quae sit doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscatur Va. ubi supr §. 46 the Jesuit is more ingenuous who confesseth that it can rarely happen that it may be sufficiently known what is the Opinion in Religion of all Doctors living at the same time And this he understands in respect of the Pope himself as appears from what follows these words If then the consent of Doctors can rarely be known by the Pope who hath his Nuncio's and Emissaries in all places how shall it ever be known by private Men Tanner 5 Si opus esset ut plebeii seirent evidenter in totâ Ecclesiâ sic credi quot anni laberentur dum istam evidentiam acquirerent quam neque periti semper habent Tann apud Mart. de fide disp 3. Sect. 4. saith the same thing as he is cited by Martinonus If it were necessary saith he that all private men should know evidently what is believed in the whole Church how many years must be spent in acquiring that Evidence which even learned men have not always And Martinonus 6 Certò facilè potest consuli Pontifex non sic tota Ecclesia ne quidem omnes illius Pastores Mart. de fide disp 9. Sect. 9. saith The Pope may be certainly and easily consulted not so the whole Church no not all her Pastors only This may be proved by many Examples of which I will produce some few Bellarmine 7 Bell. de amiss Stat. lib. 5. c. 6. and Valentia 8 Val. tom 4. disp 11. qu. 1. punct 1. §. 3. omnes Theologi universa Theologorum Schola assert that all Divines agree concerning the punishment of Infants dying without Baptism and think it only poena damni undergone in that which they call the Limbus puerorum Yet is this Opinion falsly by them ascribed to all even Modern Divines for among the Ancients St. Fulgentius is known to have taught the contrary Florentius Conrius Titular Arch-bishop of Tuam published a Book wherein he endeavoured to prove the contrary approved by fourteen Doctors of Divinity whereof one Fr. Sylvius testifieth Conrius his Opinion is the common Doctrine of the School of Doway Another James Pollet professeth that for thirty years wherein he had been conversant in the Divinity Schools he had never heard any other Opinion taught by the Professors than that unbaptized Infants are condemned to the eternal Torments of Hell. A third H. Rampen 9 Quam S. Augustani sententiam verissimam semper judicavi desendi decui tanquaman tiquioribus Ecclesiae decioribus conformem semper hueusque ab excellentissimis quibusdam edoctam utpote Scriptur is magis innixam Conciliis Professor of Doway saith That he had always judged that Opinion being St. Augustine 's to be truest defended and taught it as more consonant to the ancient Doctors and always even to this day taught by some most excellent Persons being founded upon Scripture and Councils Of Indulgences our Adversaries teach chiesly three things I. That there is a Treasure of the Satisfaction of Christ and the Saints which may be applied to persons liable to suffer the punishment of their sins after the guilt of them is remitted in the Sacrament of Penance and that this Treasure is actually applied by Indulgences granted by the Pope II. That the Souls in Purgatory may be helped by these Indulgences III. That by them is remitted not only the punishment enjoyned in Penance and decreed by the Canons of the Church but also that which is due at the Tribunal of God. These three things Bellarmin and Valentia assirm to be taught by all Divines Although the first Bellarmin confesseth was doubted of by Mairo and Durandus who thought the Satisfaction of Saints have no part in that Treasure but the contrary saith he 10 Communls aliorum Theologorum tum antiquerum tum recentiorum omnium sententia Bell. de Indulg lib. 1. cap. 2. Res certissima apud Catho licos indubitata is the common Opinion of the other Divines as well Ancient as of all the Modern and was confirmed by a Decree of Clement VI. The Second he acknowledgeth was denied by Hostiensis and Gabriel but saith the latter corrected his Error and that it is a thing most certain and undoubted among Catholicks So Valentia 11 Val. tom 4. disp 7. qu. 20. punct 5. saith it is the assertion of all the Orthodox As for the Third Valentia affirms the contrary Opinion is exploded as erroneous by all the Orthodox Who could imagine after all this there were any doubt concerning these points among them Yet Holden 12 Caetera omni 1 dub a sunt a Theologis in utramque partem agitata Hold. Anal. fid lib. 2. cap. 6. teacheth that this only is certain and undoubted that the
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
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
this must be answered That they teach so because they believe so Then if you ask why they believe so no other answer can be given than because they believe so which is so foolish as that I need not urge it any farther CHAP. XXIV That the Faith of all single Christians cannot rely upon the Faith of the Vniversal Church because first it appears not who belong to that Church which is thought Infallible THus far have we considered the Faith of the Universal Church as it is taught by the Pastors or Clergy It remains that we treat of it as it is believed both by Clergy and Laity which is the last refuge of our Adversaries Here I undertake to prove That there is nothing whereon the Faith of all private Christians can less rely and that for three reasons 1. Because it doth not appear what is that Universal Church whose Faith is to be the Rule of ours 2. Because it is not known what is the Faith of that Church 3. Because it is not manifest whether the Faith of any Church assignable be true The first is evinced two ways For first it is uncertain what is the true Idea or Definition of the Church what is required to constitute it whether only an external profession of the true Faith or also internal Faith and Piety And then although this were certain it would be yet unknown whether the Roman Greek or any other were that true Church As for the first our Adversaries would perswade us That they agree in the notion of a true Church Yet nothing is more manifest than their discord in this matter There are chiefly three Opinions of them herein For if we should make an exact enumeration of them we should find many more The first teacheth That the Church is made up of all persons baptized and outwardly professing the true Faith and adhering to the Pope of Rome whether they be truly Faithful or secretly Insidels The second to an External Profession requires Internal Faith at least in form to be added as necessary and thereby excludes all secret Insidels and Hereticks The third requireth Charity to be added to these two and leaveth no place in the Church but to those who are truly just and free from Mortal Sin. The first Opinion is defended by many particularly Canus Bellarmin Duvall and almost all the later writers of Controversy especially the French. The second is taught by many For all those seem to favour it who desine the Church to be the Congregation of the Faithful of whom Launoy 1 Laun. Epist Tom. 8. ad Gattin reckons up a very great number But it is openly and manisestly taught by Alensis Clemangis Turrecremata and Jacobatius while in the places formerly cited they assert That the Church may be reduced to one only Woman as it actually was at the time of our Saviour's Passion The University of Cracow produced by Launoy 2 Vbi supra desined 3 Est Ecclesia Corpus mysticum organicum side Chrisli animatum Ex quo fit quod omnes baptizati habentes fidem Christi sive informem sine formatam constituunt Ecclesiam militantem the Church to be a Mystical Organical Body animated by the Faith of Christ constituted by all baptized persons having the Faith of Christ either in form or formal The same Opinion is accurately and largely defended by Suarez 4 Suar. de fide disp 9. Sect. 2. Arriaga 5 Arr. de fide disp 7. Sect. 2. and Caspensis 6 Casp de fide disp 2. Sect. 2.9 among the Moderns The third Opinion seemeth to be favoured by Bannes 7 Catechumeni simpliciter pertinent ad Ecclesiam invisibilem siquidem sunt membra Christi per Charitatem sed ad Ecclesiam visibilem secundùm quid viz. per votum desiderium Bann in 2.2 qu. 1. art 10. p. 47. while he saith The Catechumens simply belong to the Invisible Church as being members of Christ through Charity but to the Visible Church only in part viz. in wish and desire But he inclineth more to the second in these words 8 Ecclesia licet sit Respublica quaedam visibilis requirit tamen aliquid invisibile sc fidem Haeretici ergo extra eam sunt cum fidem non habeant Id. comm fus in art 10. p. 90. The Church although it be a visible Commonwealth requireth somewhat invisible to wit Faith. Hereticks therefore as wanting that are out of the Church And in another place 9 Fideles peceatores sunt verè partes Ecclesiae militantis Id. Comm. brev p. 47. The Faithful which are Sinners are truly parts of the Church Militant But to omit Bannes the third Opinion is openly maintained by Hugo à Sancto Victore whose words are these 10 Ecclesia habet lapides sc fideles qui sicut per caementum lapis jungitur lapidi sic per charitatem junguntur sibi Hug. lib. C. Serm. Serm. 3. The Church hath Stones to wit the Faithful who as one Stone is joined to another by Cement are joined to the Church by Charity And in another place 11 Ecclesia sancta corpus est Christi uno spiritu vivificata unita fide unâ sanctificata Hoc itaque nomen significat membra Christi participantia Spiritum Christi Id. de Sacr. part 2. cap. 2. The Holy Church is the Body of Christ quickened by one Spirit and united by one Faith and sanctified This word therefore signifieth the Members of Christ partaking of the Spirit of Christ Antoninus of Florence after he had said The Church is sometimes taken for the General Collection of the Faithful subjoins these words 12 Secundo modo sumitur Ecclesia pro congregatione bonorum fidelium qui sunt per charitatem Christo incorporati Haec est Ecclesia quae regitur à Sp. S. corpus Christi mysticum quod vegetatur spiritu ejus pro quâ Christus oravit ne fides desiceret Ant. Summ. Theol. part 3. tit 12. c. 1. In the second place the Church is taken for the Congregation of Good Believers who are incorporated into Christ by Charity This is that Church which is governed by the Holy Ghost the Mystical Body of Christ which is animated by his Spirit for which Christ prayed that her Faith should not fail The same saith Cusanus 13 Manifestum est hoc corpus Ecclesiae quod ita se habuit ex praedestinatis tantùm constitui Existentes in gratiâ praesentis justitiae solum de Ecclesiâ esse censentur Cus Concord lib. 1. cap. 4. It is manifest that this Body of the Church which is thus disposed which adhereth to Christ in Spirit in which the Spirit dwells quickning the whole Body is made up only of Predestinate Persons Only those persons therefore who continue in the Grace of present Righteousness are accounted to be of the Church Dionysius Carthusianus 14 AEdificabo confirmabo Ecclesiam meam id est congregationem fidelium
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