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
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
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
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
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
corda eorum per fidem charitatem gratiam mihi inseparabiliter connectendo ita ut omnes sint unum corpus mysticum unaque domus Carth. in Matth. XVI art 26. brings in Christ thus speaking I will build and confirm my Church that is the Congregation of the Faithful by inseparably uniting their hearts to me by Faith Charity and Grace so as all may be one mystical Body and one House J. Fr. Picus Mirandula 15 A propriâ vocabuli significatione recedendum ipse non putarem ut primò propriè principalissimeque Sancta Catholica Ecclesia diceretur quae omnes rectae Apostolicae fidei non fictae charitatis homines complecteretur Pic. Theor. 13. saith That we ought not to recede from the proper signification of the Word that so that might be called primarily properly and most principally the Holy Catholick Church which comprehendeth all men of a right and Apostolick Faith and unfeigned Charity Ferus upon those words Matth. XV. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it saith 16 Sed loquitur de Ecclesiâ Secundùm spiritum quae solos electos complectitur Fer. in Matth. Christ speaks not here of the Church as it is commonly understood of the Collection of all Christians whether good or bad but of the Church according to the Spirit which comprehends only the Elect. Lastly Chr. Lupus 17 Ecclesia quae claves accepit non est universa fidelium in legitimis Sacramentis communio sed sola congregatio justorum seu Sanctorum communio Lup. in Concil tom 4. p. 818. affirms That the Church which received the Keys is not the universal Communion of the Faithful in the Lawful Sacraments but the sole Congregation of the just or the Communion of Saints Which he pursueth at large and proveth by many Testimonies of St. Augustine to which we might add many others no less cogent of other Fathers as St. Hierom Agobardus Bernard c. if our Argument consisted in the truth of this Opinion It sufficeth to shew it was received by many and consequently that our Adversaries do not agree in forming the Idea of a Church Now this Dissension is of great moment For if the second or especially the third Opinion be true the Doctrine of our Adversaries will be wholly overthrown For not to say that if Sinners be excluded out of the Church the Pope and whole Councils may perhaps not belong to it and so want that Infallibility which is appropriated to the true Church To omit this since we treat not now of active but passive Infallibilty I say That according to this Hypothesis the Faith of our Adversaries cannot rely upon the belief of the Universal Church For to conform themselves to this Rule of Faith they must first perfectly know it which cannot be if they know not what is that Church whose Faith they ought to follow But how shall they know the Church if that consist only of Pious Men whom none will deny to be known to God alone Canus was not ignorant of this who rejecteth this Opinion because saith he 18 Incerta erunt omnia si apud solos pios Ecclesia est Can. loc Theol. lib. 4. cap. 3. all things will be uncertain if the Church be limited to pious Men. Will our Adversaries therefore say that the first of these Opinions is certain the other undoubtedly false That is easter affirmed than proved Besides of what degree of certainty would they have their assertions to be Not certainly of Divine Faith unlessHeresie be imputed to all those Learned Men who maintained the second and third Opinions But no other degree of certainty can be obtained in these things nor will any other suffice CHAP. XXV That our Adversaries have no way of knowing the true Church IT doth not appear therefore who they are that truly belong to the Church Yet suppose it is and that all Baptized Persons outwardly professing the true Faith are Members of it which Opinion most pleaseth our Adversaries and is most advantageous for them It is still to be enquired which out of so many Societies that challenge to themselves the name of the Church justly and truly claims it For not any one that first occurrs is to be admitted and preferred before the rest But here if any where a diligent and accurate Examination is to be used lest instead of the Church of Christ we follow the Synagogue of Satan and for Divine Revelations receive execrable Errors This especially becomes them who when they have found the Church give over any further enquiry and receive without Examination all the dictates of it They ought to be very vigilant and curious in the choice of their Guide lest if they haply mistake they incurr that Sentence of Christ If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the ditch Let us see therefore whether our Adversaries can boast they have made a just and accurate enquiry herein and most certainly found out the true Church There are chiefly three Methods of making this Enquiry 1. From the truth of the Doctrine professed by any Church and Conformity of that to the Word of God. 2. By Notes known only by the light of right Reason and independently from the Word of God. 3. By Notes which are marked out and taught in the Scripture Arriaga preferreth the first Method before all others I answer saith he 1 Respondeo veritatem doctrinae probari etiam posse non recurrendo ad Ecclesiam imò ante primam probationem verae Ecclesiae debere probari veritatem doctrinae Etenim cum Ecclesia ut Ecclesia definiatur per hoc quòd sit coetus profitentium veram doctrinam fidei repugnat in terminis me supponere aliquam congregationem esse veram Ecclesiam nisi dicam eo ipso ibi esse veram doctrinam Ergo non possum primò probare veram doctrinam ex verâ Ecclesiâ Arr. de fide disp 7. Sect. 5. that the truth of the Doctrine may be proved without recurring to the Church yea and that before the first Proof of the true Church the truth of the Doctrine ought to be proved He proveth both parts of his Assertion largely and in the second part of it maketh use of this Argument For since the Church as a Church is defined the Congregation of men professing the true Doctrine of Faith it is a contradiction in the very terms to suppose any Congregation to be the true Church unless I do for that very reason suppose there is the true Doctrine I cannot therefore first prove the Doctrine is true from the truth of the Church To this we willingly subscribe and approve this Method of Arriaga's only Not so the rest of our Adversaries who detest it and labour to render it both infamous and impossible pretending it to be full of inextricable difficulties and not to be surmounted by the most learned much less by illiterate persons Wherefore I need not endeavour to prove that the true
1 Ecclesia autem Latinorum non est Ecclesia Vniversalis sed quaedam pars ejus Ideo etiamsi tota ipsa errâsset non errabat Eccl. universalis quia manet Eccl. universalis in partibus istis quae non errant five illa fint plures numero quà m errantes sine non Tost in 2. Prol. Hier. in Matth. qu. 4. the Latin Church is not the Vniversal Church but only a part of it Therefore although that had wholly erred the Vniversal Church would not have erred because it remains in those parts which do not err whether they be more or fewer in number than the parts which do err So Canus 2 At nihil obstat cur major Ecclesiae pars non erret Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. Nothing hinders but that the greater part of the Church may err Bannes 3 Sententia majoris partis Ecclesiae potest esse falsa in materia fidei Bann in 2.2 qu. 1. art 10. dub 4. The Opinion of the greater part of the Church may be false in a matter of Faith. Valentia considering those words of Christ When the Son of Man comes shall he find Faith upon the Earth saith 4 Significat paucissimos certè fore postremo illo tempore fideles non autem nullos Val tom 3. disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. §. 16. He signifies that there will be very few Faithful in that last time not that there will be none And Bellarmin 5 Non tamen nullos nec tam paucos ut non faciant Ecclesiam Bel. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 16. treating of the same words saith with Theophylact That our Lord meaneth there will be few Faithful in the times of Antichrist not yet that there will be none nor so few as not to constitute a Church Many Divines and those of great name whose words we before produced have gone farther and maintained That the true Faith and true Church may be reduced to one only Woman Nor doth John Viguerius a Dominican Professor of Divinity in the University of Tholouse differ much from them teaching that Faith at least explicit may be preserved in one person all the rest retaining only implicit Faith. It may be said of the Church saith he 6 Sic potest dici de Ecclesiâ quòd potest servari in uno prout dicitur de Mariâ Virg. quòd in eâ solâ in triduo sepulturae mansit fides explicita de divinitate Christi quamvis multi alii per Judaeam existentes habere possent fidem catholicam actualem implicitam non tamen explicitam de divinitate Christi Vig. Instit Theol. c. 10. that it may be preserved in one person as it is said of the V. Mary that in her only during the three days of burial remained explicit Faith touching the Divinity of Christ although many others in Judea might have actual and implicit Catholick Faith but not explicit of the Divinity of Christ If either of these two Opinions be allowed we must despair of ever knowing the Faith of the Universal Church For where can be sought for by what Notes can be found that Phoenix that Deucalion of the Christian World who alone retains explicit Faith when all the rest have either erred or preserved only implicit Faith But be these Opinions true or false the opposite of neither of them can be of Faith as I before proved of the former and of the latter may be hence proved That this Book of Viguerius is approved by the Faculty of Divinity of Paris which would never have been done if it had been found to contain Heresie However let both be exploded the other cannot be denied That the greater part of the Church may err Nay further None ever yet dared to define how great that part of the Church must necessarily be which cannot be infected with Error without the ruin of the Infallibility of the whole Unless therefore it appears that the whole Church consenteth the belief of it cannot be a sure Foundation for our Faith. But first the whole Church seldom or never consenteth Certainly never in all things All things therefore can never be learned from her Whence then shall they be learned Besides where she doth consent it is so obscure that it can be known by no Man. This is proved and much more manifestly by all those Arguments which we brought against the certainty of knowing what all the Pastors teach For if it cannot be known what all the Pastors teach much less can it be known what all the Faithful believe since there are far more Believers than Pastors and these teach more distinctly than the others believe Beside it is not sufficient to know what seemeth true to all the Faithful unless it be also known what they all embrace as revealed by God. For our Adversaries acknowledge there are many false Opinions of the whole Church Maldonat 7 A pud Richer Hist Concil lib. 3. cap. 3. proveth this at large and giveth some Examples of it As that the Church for many Ages used a Preface upon the Festival of St. Hierom wherein she extolled his pure Virginity although St. Hierom in several places confesseth the contrary for which reason the Preface was at last expunged That for 600 years she administred the Eucharist to Infants That she worshippeth particular Reliques of Saints and prayeth for the Souls of particular Men in Purgatory although it be not of Faith that those Reliques are true or these Souls in Purgatory and the like which proveth the necessity of knowing not only what is held by the Universal Church but whether it is held by her as of Faith and revealed by God. But who shall ascertain this For the common sort of Believers are not wont accurately to distinguish these things so that if any one should ask whomsoever he meets What they admit as true what as revealed what they receive with Divine Faith what with Catholick Opinion he would find very few who could comprehend the Sence of his Question much fewer who could answer him distinctly So far shall we be therefore from knowing by this method what is believed in the Universal Church that it can scarce be known what is believed in any single Diocess CHAP. XXVII That it may justly be doubted whether all those things be true which the Vniversal Church believeth THere remains the third Reason of the impossibility of founding the Faith of all single Christians upon the belief of the Universal Church the uncertainty of the truth of this Belief For suppose the Church of Rome to be the true Church and that it is sufficiently known what she believeth It is not yet manifest whether she believeth rightly For a True Church is one thing an Infallible Church another Yet Infallible must that necessarily be which is to us a certain Rule of Faith. Before all things therefore it is required to be known that the Church is Infallible But how shall this be known Our Adversaries commonly say It
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
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
many others I know indeed that some deny it relying on the silence of Eusebius and testimony of St. Austin who saith the Donatists objected this to Marcellinus but could not prove it Whether the fact be true or no it is enough for me that Pope Nicolas I. and many others thought so Baronius 1 Non tanti sumus ut de Marcellini lapsu opinionem ore omnium diffamatam antiquare possimus quae communi ferè omnium consensu appareat postea esse credita Bar. ad An. 302 Edit Plant. p. 800. insinuates this when in the first Edition of his Annals where he endeavours to elevate the Faith of this History he excuseth himself for opposing the common and almost universal opinion And Natalis Alexander 2 Nat. Hist Eccl. Saec. 3. Dis 20. observes that the Roman Breviary favours this belief Whence it is evident that this thing seemed neither impossible nor improbable to the whole Roman Church which shews that according to the opinion commonly received in her the Popes may possibly be moved by some vehement perturbation of mind to betray the Faith. Bellarmines 3 Non nisi actu externo obâ—metummortis Bell. excuse here will not avail That Marcellinus taught nothing against the Faith was no Heretick or Infidel but in external act for fear of death For to pass by the accusation of the Synod of Stnuessa that he did it for the love of mony even this demonstrates what I was to prove that a Pope may be induced by some perturbation of mind as sear or covetousness to violate his Conscience and betray the truth Liberius comes next who after he had bravely a while resisted the threats of Constantius either weared out with the hardship of his Exile or moved with the desire of recovering his See possessed by Faelix subscribed to the Arian Heresie and the sentence against Athanasius Bellarmine pleads much in his excuse The sum of which is this That Liberius his fault consisted only in condemning Athanasius and communicating with Hereticks that himself neither taught Heresie nor was an Heretick but in external action lastly that the Confession which he subscribed was orthodox although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were wanting and that according to Sozomen before his departure from Sirmium he published a Confession wherein he condemned the Heterousians But this answer of Bellarmines is wholly insufficient For 1. Whereas he pretends Liberius was an Heretick only in external act that no less serves our purpose as manifesting that a Pope may be wrought by his passions to pronounce in matters of Faith against his own knowledg and judgment 2. If he condemned Athanasius it was not because he was by the false accusations of the Arians induced to believe Athanasius guilty but only that he might free himself from the miseries of banishment and the fears of death As Athanasius 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Epist ad Solit. witnesseth In the first case he had only erred in matter of fact but now he failed in constancy Which also proves my assertion 3. To communicate with known Hereticks as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Liberius to have done is to favour Heresie and add authority to it Christianus Lupus largely handles this ad praesoript Tertulliani cap. 41. where he strongly urgeth the example of the whole Clergy of Rome who seperated themselves from the Communion of Pope Anastasius meerly because he had not denied Communion to a Deacon of Thessalonica of Acacius his party who yet was far from an open Heretick 4. Where Bellarmine denieth Liberius to have subscribed to an Heretical Confession of Faith this is manifestly repugnant to the plain Testimonies of the Antients We shall produce some Liberius 5 Vbi cognovi justè vos illum Athanasium condemnâsse mox consensum meuâ—n commodavi sententiis vestris Itapâ—e amoto Athanasio a Communione omnium diâ—o me cum omnthus vobis pacem unanimitatem habere Nam Dominus nâ—ster frater communis Demophilus qui dignatus est fidem vestram Catholicam exponere quae Sirmii suscepta est Hane ego libenti animo suscepi c. Liber Epist 7. Me autem cum omnibus vobis Episcâ—pis Ecclesiae Catholicae pacem habere his literis sâ—ire debetis fratres charissuni Quicun que autem a pace concordiâ nostrâ dissenserit sâ—iat se separatum a nostrâ communione himself in his Epistle to the Eastern Bishops who were Arians tells them that he is convinced the Condemnation of Athanasius was just whom therefore he looked on as Excommunicate and would maintain Peace and Unanimity with them That he subscribed at Sirmium their Catholick Faith expounded unto him by Demophilus an Arian Bishop And in his Epistle to Valens Ursacius and Germinius the heads of the Arrian party saith I profess to hold Communion with all you Bishops of the Catholick Church And Excommunicate all those which shall dissent from this our Blessed concord St. Hillary 6 Anathema tibi a me dictum Liberi sâ—â—iis tuis Iterum tibi Anathama tertio Praevaricatoâ— Libeti Hil in Fragm Perfidiam apud Sirmium conscriptam quam dicit Liberius Catholicam a Demophilo sibi expâ—sitam Id. ibid. O te miserum qui nescio utrum majori impietate relegaveris Liberium quà m remiseris Id. lib. ad Constantium denounceth a threefold Anathema against Liberius for this Subscription and calls him a Prevaricator of the Faith and in another place saith the Heresie penned at Sirmium which Liberius calls Catholick expounded to him by Demophilus c. And tells Constantius that he sent back Liberius to Rome with no less impiety than wherewith he had before banished him intimating that he had made him an Heretick St. Hierome 7 In hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium primus sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haereseos impulit Hier. in Fortunat. Liberius taedio victus exilii in haeretied pravitate subscribens Romam quasi victor intraverat Id. in Chron. in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers saith Fortunatianus is to be detested for that he first broke the courage of Liberius and perswaded him to subscribe to heresie And in his Chronicle relates how Liberius worn out with the toils of banishment and having subscribed to heretical pravity entred Rome as a Conquerer Auxilius takes it for a thing most certain Who knows not saith he 8 Quis nesciat quod Liberius Arianae haeresi subscripserit Aux de Ordin lib. 1. cap. 25. that Liberius subscribed to the Arrian heresie which he repeats in another place 9 Lib. 2. cap. 1. The old Roman Breviany 10 Cùm doleret Eusebius Liberium Papam Arianae haeresi consensisse Breviar Rom. in the Festival of St. Eusebius the Confessor saith Liberius consented to the Arian Heresie To these produced by Launoy I shall add three others Philostorgius 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philost l. 4. c. 3. affirms that Liberius and
a right to sit in Councils This is indeed a great Question upon which depends the validity of all Councils There were some as those of Basil Constance Pisa and the Lateran by the testimony of Alemannus an Eye-witness in which Presbyters had a decisive Vote but far more even all the rest from which they were excluded If they have a right all these last Councils are unlawful if not all the first Concerning Abbots there arises another doubt They have sat in Councils now for many Ages by Priviledge The first who obtained it as Lupus n Lup. Tom. 1. p. 865. observeth was that most wicked Barsumas who made no small bawling in the Ephesine Latrocinium But it is inquired who had Power to give them such a Priviledge Certainly that Spirit which revealeth Truth and as our Saviour tells us bloweth where it listeth cannot be obliged by any humane Grant to confer Infallibility on those to whom he never promised it The Monarchists themselves acknowledge the Pope cannot confer on his Legates the priviledge of not erring How then shall either Pope or Council give it to Abbots But if they cannot then are unlawful all those Councils wherein Abbots sat those especially wherein they exceeded the Bishops in number as the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in which by Bellarmin's o Bell. de Con cil lib. 1. cap. 5. 7. computation were present 1283 Prelates of which only 473 Bishops and that of Constance which among a 1000 Fathers had no more than 300 Bishops The same Question is moved concerning Procurators of Bishops For 't is justly doubted whether Bishops can delegate that Power of defining matters of Faith without danger of Errour and transfer it upon others that are no Bishops For if not all those Councils will be invalid wherein these Procurators were admitted Now that they cannot seemeth probable For to omit that the Monarchists affirm the Pope cannot communicate his Infallibility and that Bishops should be able to do more than the Pope seems incredible I urge that this Procuration is not allowed even in temporal Causes Judges are not permitted to substitute others who may give Judgment and pronounce Sentence in their stead And if this be thought inconvenient in judging the frail and momentany things of life how much more will it be in defining matters that relate to eternal Salvation Lastly delegated Judges can never subdelegate another unless the Delegant shall expresly grant Power of doing it Let our Adversaries therefore either shew where God hath given Bishops power to constitute Procurators to sit in Councils in their Name or confess it to be uncertain whether those Councils are lawful in which these Procurators sit They will plead Prescription perhaps for this and urge that it is not probable a Custom received and approved by so many Ages should not be lawful But they have no Right to make use of this Argument For Widdrington p Aliud est facere de facto aliud determinare quòd ita possit fieri de jure Widd. contra Schulck pag. 241. in replying to that Objection of the Assertors of the deposing Power That Kings and Emperours have been deposed by the Church and therefore may be so answers out of Sylvester That it doth no way follow it being one thing to do withing another to determine that it may be done lawfully And Richerius q Apol. ax 38. freely reprehends many things observed in the Councils Lastly Holden r Theologi passim affirmant posse quodammodo errare Synodes omnes etiam Oecumenicas in legibus ad Eccles disciplinae regimen spectantibus Hold. Anal. fid l. 2. c. 3. tells us That all Synods even Oecumenical may in some measure err in matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline as most Divines hold If in those then surely in things which they neither command nor define but only tolerate The Presidents of the Council of Trent were very much perplexed with this Question and knew not well what to do in it Cardinal Palavicini Å¿ Hist Concil Trid. lib. 21. cap. 1. relates how they consulted the Court of Rome and the ablest Canonists and employed Learned men Scipio Lancelottus and Michael Thomasius to write concerning it The Question proposed was Whether to Procurators were of Right due a decisive Suffrage in the Synod This they determined in the Negative as well because it was not a matter of contract or private business 〈◊〉 which these Procurators were employed but the common concern of the whole Church as because they bore not that Office in the Church to which God had promised the assistance of the H. Ghost in Oecumenical Synods But because the custom of the Church was contrary and some shew of Arguments appeared on the other side the Legates thought not sit to determine this Question themselves but expected to know the pleasure of the Court of Rome Thus much for the third condition Gelasius t Secundùm Scripturas sec traditionem Patrum sec Ecclesiasticas regulas pro side Catholicâ communione 〈◊〉 ad Episc Dard. epist 13. assigns many together while treating of the difference of lawful and unlawful Synods he defineth a lawful Synod to be that which acteth aocording to the Scriptures Tradition of the Fathers Eccâ—â—â—astical Rules and in defence of Catholick Faith and Communion that to be unlawful which acteth contrary I inquire not now whether all these conditions be necessary I only say that it will be very difficult this way to distinguish lawful from unlawful Synods For how few can compare the Decrees of them with Scripture Fathers and Ecclesiastical Rules Maximus requireth much fewer things For he would have nothing else inquired but only whether the Council decreed rightly For to Theodosius Bishop of Caesarea objecting That the Lateran Synod held at Rome under Pope Martin was not received because not held by the Emperour's Command he thus replieth u Si Synodos quae sactae sunt jussiones Imperatorum firmant non sua fides recipe Synodos quae contra homoousion factae sunt c. Omnes enim has Imperatorum jussio aggregavit Attamen omnes damnatae sunt propter impietatem infidelium dogmatum ab eis confirmatorum illas novit sanctas probabiles Synodos pius Ecclesiae Canon quas rectitudo dogmatum approbavit Et dixit Theodosius It a est ut asseris dogmatum quippe rectitudo Synodos roborat Disp Maximi cum Theod. inter Anastasii Collectanea à Sirmondo edita Paris 1620. p. 161 162. If the Commands of the Emperour and not their holy Faith makes Synods valid then must you receive the Synods held by the Command of Princes against the Doctrine of Consubstantiality as those of Tyre Antioch Seleucra c. For all they were called by the Emperours but all condemned by reason of the impiety of the heretical Doctrines confirmed in them For the pious Rule of the Church acknowledgeth only those for holy and lawful Synods which the truth of
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
Governours of the Church can and ought sometimes to indulge something and mitigate the severity of the Canons in each Tribunal All the rest are doubtful and disputed of by Divines on both parts to wit whether there be a Treasure of which the Pope and other Pastors of the Church are dispensers c. where he largely shews that all these Propositions are many ways doubted of and wholly uncertain among Divines If it be enquired whether the Church can put Hereticks to death Valentia 13 Ex side certum est Ecclesiam licité convenienter id facere posse Val. tom 3. disp 1. qu. 11. punct 3. answers That 't is not only certain but of Faith that the Church can lawfully and conveniently do it Holden 14 Nunquam fuit religionis Christianae Ecclesiae Christianae dogma Carholicum Nec omnes etiam piissâ—mi doctissimi Catholici inquisitionis usum rationem approbant Hold Anal. fid l. 1. c. 9. on the contrary maintains That to inflict death upon convicted relapsed or even the most obstinate Hereticks was never an Opinion of the Christian Religion and the Vniversal Church Neither do all even the most Pious and Learned Catholicks approve the use and methods of the Inquisition The like saith Richerius 15 Rich. Hist Concil l. 1. c. 10. If again it be enquired whether the corruption of humane nature introduced by sin consists only in the loss of supernatural Graces or also includes somewhat positive whereby the Soul is vitiated Rhodius 16 Ita contra sectarios omnes docent Orthodoxt omnes Theologi Rhod. de pece dis 4. qu. 2. Sect. 3. answers in the first sence and affirms That all the Orthodox Divines so teach against all the Sectaries Bellarmin 17 Omnes communi consensu docent Bell. de grat primi hom cap. 5. That it is taught by the common consent of all Yet Vasquez 18 Vasq 1.2 disp 132. cap. 4. 5. attributes the contrary Opinion to many Divines of great name as Holcot Greg. Ariminensis Gabriel Henricus Gulielmus Parisiensis Autissiodorensis Driedo It is a Famous Question whether the Pope besides the Spiritual Power commonly attributed to him hath a power over Temporals either direct or indirect whereby he deposes Princes for Heresie or any other Crime and absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance There are three Opinions about this The first is that the Pope hath jure divino a direct and absolute Power over the whole World as well in Temporals as in Spirituals The Second that the Pope as Pope hath no Temporal Power nor any Authority to deprive Princes The Third that the Pope as Pope hath not directly any Temporal but only Spiritual Power yet that by means of that Spiritual he hath indirectly a Supream Power even in Temporals Bellarmin 19 Bell. de Pont. lib. 5. cap. 1. who relateth these three Opinions in these very words attributes the first to many of the Canonists the third he makes the common Opinion of Catholick Divines The second he saith is not so much an Opinion as an Heresie and therefore he ascribes it only to Calvin P. Martyr Brentius and the Magdeburgenses And in another place under the feigned name of Adolphus Schulkenius he teacheth the same thing where he enveigheth 20 Contra S. literas doctrinam conciliorum summorum pont unanimem consensum pâ—â—lrum dociorum haeretiâ—is schismaticisqae se jungit Apud Widd. contra Schulk §. 15. against Widdrington a defender of the second Opinion as opposing the H. Scriptures the Doctrine of Councils and Popes and the unanimous consent of Fathers and Doctors who all with one Mouth teach the Pope's Supreme Power in Temporals and thereby ranking himself with Hereticks and Schismaticks while he pretends to be a Catholick Thus Bellarmin Now on the other side De Marca and Launoy contend this Opinion was always unknown in France The whole Sorbon in the Exposition of their Judgment published in the Year 1663 testify That not only they never received this Opinion but always refisted it with their utmost power Not to say that the Kings of France and Parliaments of Paris by their Edicts and Arrests often condemned it and forbid it to be held or taught particularly in the Years 1561 1594 1595 1610 1614 c. I might produce many more examples but these suffice to shew That the greatest Doctors mistake in imagining some Opinions to be approved by all the Divines of their Communion which yet are freely disputed of on both sides And if this happens to Doctors who employ their whole time in matters of learning what shall we think of poor and illiterate Men who know little beyond the providing for the necessities of this life Again If the Judgment of only those Doctors who commit their Opinions to Writing and are very few in comparison of the rest is not certainly known how shall we know the Judgment of those who teach their Flocks vivâ voce Lastly If their Opinion be true who would have the Judgment not only of Bishops but also of Parsons Professors of Divinity and Preachers to be accounted of what hope is there that the Opinion of so many Men should ever be known to any one Man or to any but God alone The second Reason of the difficulty of knowing the common consent of other Doctors is the obscure Knowledge which is in the Church of some points concerning which no Disputation hath been yet raised For nothing is more true than that Opinions are illustrated by Controversies So St. Augustin 21 Multa ad fidem Catholicam pertinentia dum haereticorum callidâ inquietudine agitantur ut adversum cos defendi possint considerantur diligentius intelliguntur clarius instantius praedicantur ab adversario mota quaestio existit discendi occasio August de Civit. Dei lib. 16. chap. 20. saith Many things pertaining to Catholick Faith while they are disputed of by the cunning perverseness of Heretickâ— that they be defended against them are considered more diligently understood more clearly and preached more earnestly the Question moved by the Adversary becoming an occasion of learning This he proves in another place 22 In Psalm 34. by the Doctrines of the Trinity Penance and Baptism not sully handled before the Controversies started in them by the Arians Novatians and Rebaptizers And therefore Valentia 23 Val. tom 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 6. Et fortasse latent adhuc in Ecclesia aliquae assirms It belongs to the Church as necessity shall require to deliver anew to the Faithful more explicitly and by an Infallible Authority as it were draw out of darkness those truth of Faith which were indeed at first delivered by the Apostles but now either by the negligence or perversity of Men lay hid And perhaps saith he some do yet lay hid in the Church An eminent example of this appeared in the Council of Trent when they were seeking out
he easily may It cannot be imagined that Doctor will tell the consulter the thing is not taught by the Church which himself thinks to belong to Faith. Or what if that Doctor be ignorant that others and those Learned Men teach the contrary as we proved might easily happen in the precedent chapter That answer surely cannot be sufficient to ground Faith upon which can be false For as Martinonus 4 Ad credendum fide indubitatâ infallibili qualis est fides divina requiritur argumentum infallibile Mart. de disp 3. sect 4. truly saith To believe with undoubting and Infallible Faith such is Divine Faith is required an Infallible Argument Lastly that the Cardinal meaneth it sufficeth that none in the World can shew the Parson teacheth what is repugnant to others I can never be induced to believe since a more foolish sence could not be invented For not the most sagacious Person much less a blind Man could make so diligent an inquiry as to be assured that none such can be found in the whole World. Add hereto that it is not more difficult to know directly whether any do teach otherwise than to know whether there be any who can shew that it is any where taught otherwise And so all our former Arguments will return with their full force against this answer But to omit all this I ask whether any ignorant Person using such diligence to inquire whether what is taught by his Parson is taught unanimously by all the other Governours of the Church as can be expected from a Man of his circumstances and capacity can be deceived therein If he cannot all those Learned Men whom I mentioned in the last Chapter will be guilty of a most intolerable negligence and supinity as being mistaken in that wherein even the most ignorant cannot be deceived If he can then he is not certain and therefore hath no Faith. For Faith must be certain CHAP. XXII That it doth not suffice it be known that any thing is taught Vnanimously by the Governours of the Church unless it appear that it is taught to be of Faith. But that this is most uncertain FRom what hath been said it is manifest that neither do the Governours of the Church always consent nor if they do can their consent be certainly known But suppose both The controversy is not yet ended For not whatsoever they unanimously affirm is to be received as the revelation of God and the Doctrine of the Church but only what they unanimously maintain to be of Faith. This Canus and Bellarmin plainly insinuate The first 1 Quiequid fidelem populum docent quod ad Christi fidem attineat Can. loc Theol. lib. 4. cap. 4. when he saith the Pastors of the Church cannot err in the Faith but whatsoever they teach the faithful People that it belongs to the Faith of Christ is most true Bellarmin 2 Id quod decent tanquam ad fidem pertinens Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 14. that whatsoever all the Bishops teach as belonging to Faith is necessarily true and of Faith. Therefore Flor. Conrius defends himself against the unanimous consent of Doctors who taught 500. Years since that unbaptized Infants were not punished with the torments of fire by pretending that they did not teach or propose this as of Faith. And indeed it cannot but be absurd that the consent of Pastors should reach farther than the Infallibility of Pope or Council or the Universal Church which as we have before observed is acknowledged not to take place but in matters which they propose as of Faith. Lastly the Council of Trent Pius V. and divers Provincial Councils wished 3 Non tanquam sidem docuerint aut proposuerint Con. destatu pary cap. 19. that the Catechism of Trent might be admitted every where and be used by all Pastors in the instruction of their people Perhaps this is observed For why should it not be This whole Book then may be reckoned among those things which all Pastors propose to their flocks not as pertaining to Faith but as true and wholsom If therefore whatsoever all propose must necessarily be true there can be nothing false nothing uncertain in this Book Yet none will deny there are taught in it many Propositions false more uncertain and none which might not safely be denied if they received not their Authority from some other Fountain Wherefore it is no where admitted as of Infallible authority a manifest Argument that those things may be false which are not taught as of Faith although taught unanimously Before we believe therefore the Doctrine of the Governours of the Church we must consider how they teach it whether as of Faith if not we must suspend our assent Now Bishops Parsons and Preachers are wont to teach what seems true to them and agreing with Divine Revelation but very rarely to admonish whether what they teach be of Eaith or a consequent of Faith whether expresly revealed or cohaerent to things revealed This Holden acknowledgeth We never heard saith 4 In Doctrinâ Christianâ tradendâ nunquam audivimus Ecclesiam articulorum revelatorum divinarum institutionum Catalogum exhibuisse vel composuisse quo separatim dislinctè cognosci possent hujusmodi sidei dogmata ab aliis omnibus quae vel Ecclèsiasticae sunt inslitutionis vel certè quae revelationi divinae haud immediatè innitantur atque adeò omnia simul confusè indistinctè docuisse Hold. Anal. fid lib. 1. cap. 8. he that the Church in delivering the Christian Doctrine exhibited or composed a Catalogue of revealed Articles and Divine Institutions whereby these Articles of divine Faith might be separately and distinctly known from all others which are either of Ecclesiastical Institution or not immediately founded upon Divine Revelation but taught all together confusedly and indistinctly Hence even those Divines who agree in the truth of any Article often disser in judging whether it be of Faith as we saw before concerning the supreme Power of the Pope Wherefore Holden assirms there are much fewer Articles of Divine and Catholick Faith than Divines commonly think and therefore bestows the whole Latter part of his Analysis in composing a Catalogue of such Articles which would indeed have been very useful if it were received by all But he hath omitted some things which others contend to be of Faith and inserted others which some would have omitted Further in this matter I appeal to the experience of all Persons who if they shall ask any of our Adversaries what the Church teacheth concerning Image worship Invocation of Saints or the like will be convinced by their different answers That it is not easie to say what the Church teacheth And if this be dissicult to learned Men how shall it be possible to ignorant Persons Our Adversaries cannot justly pretend as many of them do that the Doctors may dissent in those things which are of Theological not Divine right and belong rather to the