any of our Adversaries have assigned a Conjectural Certainty to the perswasion which they have of the Truth of the Rules of their Faith. And surely such Certainty would be too mean and inconsiderable for this place Belonging to Opinion rather than Faith as Bellarmine well notes and not excluding distrust which is absolutely destructive of Divine Faith. A Moral Certainty is rarely made use of by our Adversaries in this case being such as take place only in matters of fact and not all those neither but only such as are perceived by the senses of other men and those so many and so clearly as take away all suspicion either of fraud or errour Whereas those parts of a Papists belief which have most need of being backed by certainty and are subject to the greatest difficulties are matters of right or at least such as fall not under the senses either of himself or others There are some things indeed which they would have to be manifest by this kind of certainty such as the knowledg of a lawful Pope or a Canonical Council what the present Church teacheth or to which Society belong the notes of a true Church c. We must consider therefore whether in these cases this certainty be sufficient It would suffice indeed if the opinions of Bagotius or Huetius were admitted Of whom the first equals the second prefers Moral Certainty to Metaphysical and even that which is acquired by demonstration But few approve these excesses Many on the contrary depress this certainty too low However all agree that it is inferior to that of Divine Faith. For which reason alone I might reject it but shall notwithstanding be content only then to do it when it is falsly pretended As for an evident certainty our Adversaries neither do nor can glory in it For if the foundations of Faith had that No previous motion of the will by the Divine influence no supernatural assistance of grace would be necessary which yet all require and none but fools and stupid persons could be disbelievers Besides that those things which are of positive right and depend upon the free Will of God cannot be taught by nature but must be known only by Divine Revelation But herein our Adversaries consent to us as we shall see hereafter and presume not to boast of evidence in the Objects of their Belief There remains therefore only the certainty of Divine Faith which they can pretend to Wherefore I shall chiefly consider that not neglecting yet the rest whensoever it can be imagined that they may be made use of by our Adversaries omitting only the certainty of Theological Conclusions and that for the reasons beforementioned I shall now examine all the Foundations of Faith which our Adversaries are wont to produce beginning at the Holy Scriptures CHAP. II. That the Faith of Papists is not founded on Holy Scripture THAT the Scripture is most certain in it self and most fit to ground our Faith upon is our constant belief and profession But this cannot suffice our Adversaries unless they recede from their known Principles The Scripture may be considered and used for the establishing of our Faith two ways First as it is in it self and its own nature and Secondly as it is confirmed illustrated and assisted by the help of Tradition and the authority of the Church That Scripture the first way considered is not a fit foundation of our Faith our Adversaries not only freely confess but sharply contend maintaining that laying aside Tradition and the Church we cannot be assured either that Scripture is the Word of God or consists of such Books and Chapters or that they are delivered incorrupted to us or faithfully translated or that this or that is the sense of such a place Of these opinions and arguments their Authors are agreed their Books are full that should I recite but the names much more the testimonies of the maintainers of them I should become voluminous To this may be opposed that this is only the opinion of the School Divines and Controversial Writers that there are many in the Church of Rome who believe the authority of the Scripture independent from the judgment of the Church and dextrously use that method of arguing against Atheists as Hâ—etius in his Books of Evangelical Demonstration and the Anonymous Author of the Dissertation concerning the arguments wherewith the truth of Moses his Writings may be demonstrated that such as these may have a true and firm belief of those things which Scripture plainly teacheth which are all that are necessary to be believed Whilest I congratulate to the Church of Rome these more sober Prosylites and wish that by a general concurrence therein they would refute my Dissertation I observe first that there are very few among them of this opinion Secondly that it doth not appear that even these few are perswaded that their arguments suffice to found a Divine Faith upon the Scriptures demonstrated by them The Licensers and Approvers of the aforementioned Dissertation seemed to be afraid of this while they manifestly distinguish a perswasion arising from those arguments from true Faith. Lastly that it doth not appear whether they think that they can without the authority of the Church be obliged to believe either which are Canonical Books or what is the sense of those Books So that until they declare their mind herein they are not by us to be disjoined from much less opposed to the rest I may therefore take it for granted that according to our Adversaries the Faith of private men cannot relie upon the Scripture destitute of the assistance of Tradition since it is what themselves most of all contend for Now for what concerneth Scripture considered the latter way as it is fortified by the accedaneous help of Church and Tradition I might perhaps omit the handling of it here forasmuch as neither Church nor Tradition can confer a greater degree of firmness upon Scripture which that they have not themselves I shall in the proceeding of this Discourse more opportunely shew hereafter However because some few things occur not improper for this place I shall very briefly speak of them First then how little help there is for Scripture in Tradition appeareth hence that it can no otherwise teach what is the true sense of Scripture but by the unanimous consent of the Fathers which whether it be to be had in any one text of Scripture may be much doubted It was a hard condition therefore 1 Nec eam unquam nisi juata unanimem consensum patrum accipiam interpretabor which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in his Profession of Faith to all which desired admission into the Church of Rome and which may for ever silence all the Roman Commentators that they will never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Now I would fain know how this Law can be observed since I may confidently affirm that there is no one
place of Scripture explained the same way by all the Fathers For there are many places which none of them have touched and none which all have interpreted Nor will it suffice to say that they agree who have interpreted it and that the silence of the rest is to be taken for consent as if they must be supposed to consent who were ignorant of such interpretations or dead perhaps before they were made or as if the Antients were wont expresly to reject all interpretations different from their own or these might not be rejected or at least others proposed in those Books of the Fathers which are lost It is not enough therefore to have the consent of a few unless we be assured of the concurrence of the rest But granting that it is it cannot be denied that our Adversaries can collect nothing certain out of any place of Scripture if any one of the Antients have interpreted it otherwise Hence Alphonsus a Castro 2 Itaapertum indubitatum ut nullus ex sacris probatis Doctoribus illud in aliquo alio sensu interpretetur juxta quem non possit talis propositio per illud de haeresi convinci Castr de justâ haeret pun lib. 1. cap. 4. requireth that among the necessary qualifications of a Text of Scripture to be produced for the conviction of Hereticks this be the chief that it be so plain and undoubted that none of the sacred and approved Doctors interpret it in some other sence according to which such a proposition cannot be thereby convinced of Heresie But if this be true how few places will there be of whose sense we may not doubt Certainly there are very few explained the same way by all antient Commentators This Christopher Gillius 3 Multa sunt in sacris literis quorum sententia neque ex Traditione neque ex Ecclesiae definitione habetur neque semper communis Sanctorum sententia reperitur vel quia diversa sentiunt vel quia pauci locum aliquem interpretati sunt Gill. de doctr sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 6. Professor of Conimbria acknowledgeth who affirms many places to be in Scripture whose sense can be had neither from Tradition nor from the Definition of the Church neither yet can a concurrent explication of the Fathers be found either because they were of different opinions or because few explained the place And the Anonymous Writer of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church 4 Pauca sunt Scripturae loca que S S. Patres varii variè interpretati non fuerint lib. 3. cap. 11. maintains that there is few places of Scripture which the Holy Fathers have not differently interpreted As will also manifestly appear to any one who shall consult those Interpreters that are wont to produce the expositions of the Antient Writers Hence the Readers may imagine to what a streight our Adversaries would be reduced if they were tied up to their own Laws and allowed to urge no other places of Scripture against us than what are unanimously interpreted by the Fathers A Specimen hereof may be found in Launoy where he weigheth the Texts of Scripture produced by Bellarmine for the Popes authority and shewing that they are diversly explained by the Antients concludeth thence that they are wholly ineffectual That the sense of Scripture cannot be learned from Tradition hence appeareth but neither is it taught any better by the Church At least She hath not yet taught it For how many Decrees of the Church is there about the true sense of Scriptures Decrees I say for not every simple explication or allegation of a Text is to be lookt upon as an authentick interpretation of it but only that which hath an Anathema affixed to the deniers of it or dissenters from it Of this kind I find but four or five in the Decrees of the Council of Trent and in those of elder Councils none at all For 1500 years the Church delivered not the sense of so much as one place whence may be judged both what a faithful Interpreter She is of the Holy Scriptures and how small an assistance we are to expect from her in obtaining the true sense of them CHAP. III. That Tradition is no better ground for the Papists Faith than Holy Scriptures THUS have we taken from our Adversaries the first and chief foundation of Divine Faith. The Second will be as easily removed I mean Tradition which may be considered two ways as well as Scripture either as it is in it self or as it is confirmed by the authority of the Church That it hath no force the first way considered Bellarmine 1 Scriptura Traditiones omnia planè dogmata nisi certissimi simus quae sit vera Ecclesia incerta prorsus erunt omnia Bell. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 10. expresly acknowledgeth affirming that till we certainly know what is the true Church Scripture Tradition and all matters of belief are utterly uncertain That Bellarmin is in the right herein at least as to what concerns Tradition is manifest by these two reasons First that taking away the attestation of the Church it cannot be known that there is any Divine Traditions For laying aside that how shall we know that there is any unwritten Word of God derived down to us From Tradition that cannot be since we are now doubting whether there be any Tradition From Scripture That favours not Tradition but if it did it would avail nothing since as we shew in the foregoing Chapter Scripture according to our Adversaries cannot obtain belief till it be it self confirmed by Tradition and the Church Thus doth the truth of Tradition remain uncertain unless it be sustained by the Churches authority Gregory a Valentia 2 Sicut de authoritate ipsius Scripturae necesse per aliquam aliam certam authoritatem constare ita etiam de auctoritate Traditionis si ea quoque revocetur in dubium Val. Tom. 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. § 12. well knew this who puts Tradition into the same condition with Scripture neither being of authority when called in doubt unless confirmed by some other certain authority Secondly granting that it may be known that there are Divine Traditions it cannot yet without the authority of the Church be known which they are so many false dubious and suspected Traditions being carried about each of which pretends to the same Character of Divine Authority The testimonies of the Fathers will not help in this case since even their judgment is dubious and in many things it cannot easily be told what was their opinion Thus Valentia 3 Cum Traditio scriptis ferè Doctorum Orthod in Ecclesiâ conservetur quaestiones ac dubia moveri possunt de sensu illius sicut dubitatur saepe de sensu ac mente Doctorum Ejusmodi autem quaestiones per eandem ipsam Traditionem definiri satis non poterunt Val. loc cit confesseth that Tradition being conserved in the
might be numbred perhaps if the Church were included in one Province But now that it is diffused throughout the whole World no mean is left of knowing what is the Opinion either of all or most Our Adversaries I suppose will say that when the Governours of the Church dissent about any matter of Faith the Faithful must suspend their assent while the Controversie endureth and content themselves by an implicit Faith to believe in it what the Church believeth not enquiring in the mean while what the Church believeth but leaving that to be enquired by the Church her self To this I answer First that this grants us all we desire For we dispute here only of explicite Faith maintaining that our Adversaries have no certain Foundation for that If they flee to implicite they thereby forsake explicite Faith. Secondly almost all our Adversaries confess that there are some Articles which even the most ignorant Christians are bound to believe with explicite Faith and Connink 6 De actib sup disp 4. dub 9. asserts the contrary Opinion of some Canonists to be held erroneous and even heretical by the other Doctors Further all consent there are some points of Faith necessary to be believed by all with explicite Faith not only because commanded to be so but because the explicite belief of them is also the means without which Salvation cannot be obtained Wherefore Hosius 7 Hâ—s contra Prol. Brent lib. 3. in relating the known story of the Collier saith he did not make that Answer of believing as the Church believeth before he had entirely repeated the Apostles Creed and professed his adherence to it Now suppose the Bishops differ about some Article necessary to be believed with explicite Faith as happened in the times of Arianism Certainly the Faithful cannot at that time sulpend their assent if they do not together suspend their hopes of Salvation But not to insist upon that Example suppose a Controversie raised about doing somewhat which God in the Scripture expresly commands to be done such as we contend to be Communion under both kinds reading of the Scripture c. What is then to be done Must all action be suspended This were to deny obedience to God. We must therefore chuse one part and so reject the pretence of implicite Faith. Again implicite Faith is thus expressed I believe what the Church believeth It therefore supposeth the Faith of the Church Of what kind not implicite surely For that would be absurd in the highest degree Certainly then the Church could not justly be accounted the Keeper of Tradition which is nothing else in our Adversaries sence but that Doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apostles they to their Successors until it was derived down to us If this be true the Church of every Age must of necessity distinctly and explicitly know that Doctrine Otherwise it cannot faithfully and accurately deliver it to the succeeding Church Then how shall this Faith of the Church her self be expressed It can be by no other Form than this I believe what I believe than which nothing can be more absurd But I need not refute a Folly which our Adversaries do not espouse as appears from the words of Duvall 8 Quamvis aliqua successu temporis suerint in Ecclesiâ desinita de quibus antea eitra haeresin dubitabatur certum tamen est illa fuisse semper à nonnullis praedicata declarata Quòd autem ab aliis non crederentur istud tantùm vel ex oblivione vel ex ignorantiâ Scripturae aut traditionis proveniebat Duval in 2.2 p. 111. Although some things were in process of time defined by the Church which were before doubted of without the Crime of Heresie yet it is certain they were always preached and declared by some But that they were not believed by others arose either from the forgetfulness or from the ignorance of Scripture or Tradition Is it therefore this explicite Faith of the Church which serveth as a Foundation to implicite Faith So it ought to be and so I doubt not but our Adversaries will say it is But in this case wherein the Governours of the Church dissent about an Article of Faith it cannot be For that which the Church explicitly believes is no desinite Opinion but a meer Contradiction repugnant to it self and destroying it self For one part of the Church believeth the Opinion whereof the Controversie is raised to be true wholsom and revealed by God the other part believes it false pernicious and suggested by Men. Now to have the belief of the whole Church you must joyn both parts of the Contradiction together and so the Church believeth that Opinion to be true and false wholsom and pernicious revealed by God and suggested by Men. But this is not Faith but a deformed Monster consisting of contrary and repugnant parts CHAP. XXI That the consent of Doctors even when it can be had is more difficult to be known than that we can by the help of it attain to the knowledge of the Truth TO what we observed in the precedent Chapter our Adversaries may perhaps answer That when the Governours of the Church differ about a matter to be believed then indeed the Faith of private Christians cannot rely upon their Authority but that this dissent is not perpetual that they oftentimes consent in delivering the Doctrine of the Church and then at least may be securely believed in what they teach To this I reply First that hereby they must grant they have no certain and sixed Rule of Faith for many great and weighty points of Religion contrary to their continual boasts of the abundance of Rules whereby God hath provided for all the necessities of his Church Secondly the Governours of the Church have now for many Ages differed about some matters upon which according to our Adversaries depend the hopes of eternal Salvation For Example whether the true Church is to be found among the Greeks or among the Latins For of the five Patriarchates of the Church four are divided from the Church of Rome and accuse her of Heresie and Schism both which Accusations she retorts upon them Now this is a matter of great moment which may be justly doubted of and can never be determined by the consent of Doctors But to omit that this consent if it could be had is not so manifest and obvious as a Rule of Faith ought necessarily to be which by the confession of all must be clear evident and easie to be applied This Duvall 1 Secunda conditio eaque pariter essentialis est perspicuitas Nam si hee regula obseurè sidei mysteria proponeret regula fidei non foret Duvall in 2.2 p. 207. assigns for an essential condition of a Rule of Faith and acknowledgeth that if a Rule obscurely proposeth the Mysteries of Faith it would thereby become no Rule And for this reason our Adversaries so much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture that they may thereby
OF THE Incurable Scepticism OF THE CHURCH OF ROME IMPRIMATUR Hic Liber Cui Titulus Of the Incurable Scepticism of the Church of ROME Octob. 20. 1687. GVIL. NEEDHAM LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Church yard MDLXXXVIII PREFACE AMong the manifold accusations with which the Papists are wont to defame our most holy Religion there is none which they oftner alledge or more seriously endeavour to evince or confirm with more plausible arguments than that whereby they pretend that we utterly overthrow all certainty in divine matters and consequently Faith it self This is the constant subject of their Writings and Discourses this is of late their only argument To obviate therefore these importunate clamours I resolved throughly to examin the whole Argument and inquire whether there be any truth in those things which many obtrude for most certain Having then with some diligence considered the matter I soon found first that those things are false and and frivolous which are commonly opposed to us and then that our Adversaries themselves are manifestly guilty of that crime wherewith they asperse us and can by no Arts be purged from it For both that celebrated infallibility of the Church and of her Governours upon which the whole System of Popish Faith relies is easily proved to be null and feigned and that even if it were true it could yet produce no assurance of Faith no certainty of belief To evidence and evince all this I thought not unfit and therefore have undertaken to demonstrate these three things I. That it is most false what is pretended with so much confidence that the Church at least in the sence by them understood cannot erre II. That granting the Church cannot erre this her Infallibility is of that nature that both it self labours with inextricable difficulties and can confer certainty upon nothing else III. That our Faith relieth upon far more firm foundations and that nothing is believed by us which is not both certain in it self and such as the certainty of it cannot be unknown by us Of these three Propositions which may in time God willing be demonstrated I have now undertaken the Second because that may be comprehended in a much shorter Discourse than the rest I will shew therefore in this Treatise that the least assurance of those things which are believed is wanting to the Popish Religion and that all things are there doubtful all things uncertain and nothing firm This altho it be most true in the Agenda also of their Religion yet to avoid prolixity I confined my self to the Credenda only and even in these omitted many things which might perhaps seem not inconsiderable to many For not one or two ways only doth the Roman Religion overthrow the firmness of Faith It doth it upon many accounts principally by their Doctrine of the Eucharist which introduces an universal Scepticism into the whole System of Christian Religion Not to say that their Divines in teaching that the very Existence of God is not so much known as believed manifestly betray to Atheists the Cause of Religion But I omit these things as not properly belonging to the matter by us undertaken What I offer in this Discourse may perhaps seem to some too much embarassed with Schâ—lastick Terms and Disputes Nor indeed do I wholly deny it But I desire those Persons to consider whether this could possibly be avoided For only to propose our Arguments and not vindicate them by examining what is opposed to them by our Adversaries seemeth to me the least part of an accurate Disputation Which whosoever shall peruse even with the greatest diligence and attention cannot nor ought not to give sentence because they have not yet heard the other party whose defence cannot be without injustice neglected Those defences indeed are become nauseous in this Age and not undeservedly But however they could not be justly passed by and dissembled by us Yet in these I have endeavoured to propose them as clearly and perspicuously as I could and accommodate them to the capacity of all persons Whether I have gained my intent experience must declare OF THE INCURABLE SCEPTICISM OF THE CHVRCH of ROME CHAP. I. Wherein is laid down the Design of this Treatise and some things are premised for the better understanding of the whole IT is acknowledged by all that the perfection of that Faith which the Schoolmen call Inform we Historical consists in three things that it be plenary pure and firm that is that it believeth all which God hath revealed and that without any mixture of errour or admittance of doubt That the Faith of Papists is neither plenary nor pure many have demonstrated That it is not firm or unshaken I here undertake to prove and to shew that admitting their Hypotheses a Papist cannot with a certain and firm Faith be perswaded of the truth of any thing not only not of those Articles which Rome hath added to the Divine Revelation but not even of those which were truly revealed by God. For since Objects of Faith are inevident of themselves and deserve assent no otherwise then as it shall appear that they have been revealed by God and Revelation it self not a whit more evident there is necessarily required one or more Rules whereby things Revealed may be distinguished from not Revealed We have only one such Rule the Holy Scriptures The Papists many that so what they want in goodness they may make up in number For to Scripture they have added Tradition Decrees of Popes Constitutions of Councils and consent of Pastors not only those who have successively ruled the Church from the first foundation of it but of those also who govern at any determinate time and lastly the belief of the whole Church Now that by the means of any Rule our Faith may become firm two things are necessary First that the Rule it self be true containing nothing false or not revealed And then Secondly that what we believe manifestly agree with this Rule If either of these conditions fail our Faith must be uncertain Nor is it only requisite that a Papist be ascertained both of the truth of the Rules of his Faith and the conformity of what be believe unto them But also that he be as firmly perswaded of the truth of these things as he is of the truth of any Article of his Faith. For since the Faith of Papists depends wholly upon these Rules and is sustained only by them How can it be that the perswasion of the truth of those things which they believe meerly for the sake of these Rules should be more firm than the perswasion of the truth of the Rules themselves or of the conformity of what they believe unto those Rules It being impossible that an Effect should have more in it than the Cause can give it A Conclusion stronger than the Premises or a House firmer than the Foundations Nor do our Adversaries deny this Holden 1 Quamcunque enim
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
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
shew it could not be given by God for a Rule of Faith. To which end Gr. à Valentia 2 Sententiam ejus authoritatis cujus de rebus omnibus sidei judicium est apertam oportet esse ut ab omnibus fidelibus commodè possit intelligi Nam si non ita perspicuè planè authoritas illa doceat non ad eam rem valebit Val. tom 3. disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. §. 4. layeth down this Axiom which he afterwards applyeth to the Scripture The Sentence of that Authority which is to judge of all matters of Faith ought to be manifest that it may be easily understood by all the Faithful For if that Authority doth not teach perspicuously and plainly it will be of no use to that end So he and with him many others If therefore I shall shew that the consent of Pastors about matters of belief is so obscure and difficult to be known that even the most learned much more illiterate men cannot avoid Error in searching it out I shall thereby prove that it could not be given to us by God as a common Rule of things to be believed This obscurity and difficulty ariseth from three Causes The first is the amplitude of the Church diffused throughout the whole World which permits not the Faith of all Pastors to be known unless we travel through all those Regions wherein they are dispersed For it sufficeth not to consult a few They may be mistaken The Opinion of all must be asked the consent of all appear But how shall they be all singly consulted Who ever learned the Christian Faith this way Yet this way Card. Richlieu 3 Method liv 1. chap. 14. points out to us He saith the uniformity of the Church is manifest to sense that all parts of the Church may be surveyed by one man at divers times or by divers men at one time True but to reduce this to practice every single man must take so many Journeys send out so many Intelligencers that this Method cannot be perswaded but in jeast Valentia 4 Fatendum est rarò accidere posse ut quae sit doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscatur Va. ubi supr §. 46 the Jesuit is more ingenuous who confesseth that it can rarely happen that it may be sufficiently known what is the Opinion in Religion of all Doctors living at the same time And this he understands in respect of the Pope himself as appears from what follows these words If then the consent of Doctors can rarely be known by the Pope who hath his Nuncio's and Emissaries in all places how shall it ever be known by private Men Tanner 5 Si opus esset ut plebeii seirent evidenter in totâ Ecclesiâ sic credi quot anni laberentur dum istam evidentiam acquirerent quam neque periti semper habent Tann apud Mart. de fide disp 3. Sect. 4. saith the same thing as he is cited by Martinonus If it were necessary saith he that all private men should know evidently what is believed in the whole Church how many years must be spent in acquiring that Evidence which even learned men have not always And Martinonus 6 Certò facilè potest consuli Pontifex non sic tota Ecclesia ne quidem omnes illius Pastores Mart. de fide disp 9. Sect. 9. saith The Pope may be certainly and easily consulted not so the whole Church no not all her Pastors only This may be proved by many Examples of which I will produce some few Bellarmine 7 Bell. de amiss Stat. lib. 5. c. 6. and Valentia 8 Val. tom 4. disp 11. qu. 1. punct 1. §. 3. omnes Theologi universa Theologorum Schola assert that all Divines agree concerning the punishment of Infants dying without Baptism and think it only poena damni undergone in that which they call the Limbus puerorum Yet is this Opinion falsly by them ascribed to all even Modern Divines for among the Ancients St. Fulgentius is known to have taught the contrary Florentius Conrius Titular Arch-bishop of Tuam published a Book wherein he endeavoured to prove the contrary approved by fourteen Doctors of Divinity whereof one Fr. Sylvius testifieth Conrius his Opinion is the common Doctrine of the School of Doway Another James Pollet professeth that for thirty years wherein he had been conversant in the Divinity Schools he had never heard any other Opinion taught by the Professors than that unbaptized Infants are condemned to the eternal Torments of Hell. A third H. Rampen 9 Quam S. Augustani sententiam verissimam semper judicavi desendi decui tanquaman tiquioribus Ecclesiae decioribus conformem semper hueusque ab excellentissimis quibusdam edoctam utpote Scriptur is magis innixam Conciliis Professor of Doway saith That he had always judged that Opinion being St. Augustine 's to be truest defended and taught it as more consonant to the ancient Doctors and always even to this day taught by some most excellent Persons being founded upon Scripture and Councils Of Indulgences our Adversaries teach chiesly three things I. That there is a Treasure of the Satisfaction of Christ and the Saints which may be applied to persons liable to suffer the punishment of their sins after the guilt of them is remitted in the Sacrament of Penance and that this Treasure is actually applied by Indulgences granted by the Pope II. That the Souls in Purgatory may be helped by these Indulgences III. That by them is remitted not only the punishment enjoyned in Penance and decreed by the Canons of the Church but also that which is due at the Tribunal of God. These three things Bellarmin and Valentia assirm to be taught by all Divines Although the first Bellarmin confesseth was doubted of by Mairo and Durandus who thought the Satisfaction of Saints have no part in that Treasure but the contrary saith he 10 Communls aliorum Theologorum tum antiquerum tum recentiorum omnium sententia Bell. de Indulg lib. 1. cap. 2. Res certissima apud Catho licos indubitata is the common Opinion of the other Divines as well Ancient as of all the Modern and was confirmed by a Decree of Clement VI. The Second he acknowledgeth was denied by Hostiensis and Gabriel but saith the latter corrected his Error and that it is a thing most certain and undoubted among Catholicks So Valentia 11 Val. tom 4. disp 7. qu. 20. punct 5. saith it is the assertion of all the Orthodox As for the Third Valentia affirms the contrary Opinion is exploded as erroneous by all the Orthodox Who could imagine after all this there were any doubt concerning these points among them Yet Holden 12 Caetera omni 1 dub a sunt a Theologis in utramque partem agitata Hold. Anal. fid lib. 2. cap. 6. teacheth that this only is certain and undoubted that the
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
to the Universal Lastly J. Fr. Picus Mâ—randula 41 Christi tempore desicientibus in side Apostolis integra omnino persectissima fides in solae Virgine Domini matre remansit Pic. Theor. 13. saith that in the time of Christ the Apostles falling away from the Faith it remained intire and perfect in the Virgin alone The fourth Classis exhibits only Jandovesius of Minorca who by the relation of Banncs 40 Bann Comm. sus in 2.2 quaest 1. art 10. dub 1. taught about the year 1363. that in the time of Antichrist the Church should consist only of baptized infants all adult persons apostatizing from the Faith. Thus far these testimonies which occurred to me in a hasty search If I had time or opportunity to turn over the Writings of the XIII XIV and XV. Ages I doubt not but I should find many more However any one may see how utterly repugnant these which I have produced are to the Infallibility of Pope and Council Yet there is no sentence pronounced against these Writers no mark set upon them not the least censure inflicted on them How can this be if they had taught right down heresie Nay this opinion is not only not condemned but also many ways approved First in that the Defenders of it have been preferred to the greatest dignities of the Church some made Cardinals others Presidents of Councils one Antoninus Florontinus Sainted and at this day Worstripped Which surely would not have been done if he had taught Heresie But what is more express and which cannot be eluded is that Thomas Waldensis's work whence he produced the clearest passages was solemnly approved by Pope Martin V. This Trithemius 42 Quod Martinus Papa V. examinatum authoritate Apostolicâ confirmavit Trithem in Vald. assirms telling us that Martin V. examined this work and confirmed it by Apostolical authority The Bull of approbation also may be seen presixed before the third Volume with the Examination subjoyned which lasted above a month when the work being presented to the Pope it was by him confirmed in full Consistory So that after this strict examination and solemn approbation to imagine heresie is contained in this Book will draw the Pope who approved it and the whole Church which never opposed this approbation into the suspicion of heresie I have done with the first argument The second shall be drawn from the silence of the Council of Trent which alone proveth that they thought it not an Article of Faith since they condemned not the Protestants on that account although no less vigorously impugning it than any other Article of their Church This argument is so much the stronger in that our Adversaries frequently urge the silence of the Council of Trent to prove Articles by us objected to them not to be of Faith. So Veronus and the Valemburgian Brethren in the book above-mentioned So the Bishop of Meaux in that Famous Book which hath illuded so many If they reasoned well herein why may not we use the same Arguments And then the Infallibility of the Church cannot be of Faith because wholly pretermitted by the Tridentine Council Lastly that it is not of Faith may be proved hence that no soundation of such a Faith can be alledged For if any were it must be either Scripture or Tradition or some decree of the Ruling Church or the consent of the Universal Church That Scripture and Tradition cannot be produced in this Case we have already demonstrated for this reason especially because the certainty of both depends upon the testimony of the Church Yet Amicus 43 Sumi possunt Traditio Scriptura primo modo ut approbatae infallibili judicio ipsius regulae animatae quo pacto sunt authoritatis divinae credendae fide insusâ Hoc autem modo a nobis non sumuntur ad probandam infallibilem authoritatem regulae animatae Secundo modo sumi possunt ut testatae signis rationibus humanis ut qued c. quo pacto sunt authoritatis humanae credendae fide acquisitâ Atque hoc modo sumuntur ad probandam c. Amic de Fide disp 6. n. 52. slieth thither who after he had objected our argument to himself answers that Scripture and Tradition may be taken either as approved by the infallible judgment of the living Rule and so of divine authority and to be believed by infused Faith. That thus considered they cannot be produced to prove the authority of the living Rule Or they may be taken as only testified and confirmed by humane reason and so of humane authority and to be believed by acquired Faith That this way considered they are produced to prove the living Rule wanting indeed infallible divine authority but having such humane authority as by the accession of Christs Providence over his Church becomes infallible I wish the Jesuit in writing this had first objected to himself our whole Argument For that is drawn not only from the impossibility of knowing according to our Adversaries the Divinity of Scripture or Tradition without being first assured of the infallibility of the Church but also from hence that they teach it cannot be known which are the Canonical books whether received by us uncorrupted or faithfully Translated and is the true sense of them without the same previous assurance If he had objected all this to himself he must either have departed from all the rest of their Divines and denied their so much boasted of arguments or have yellded herein Yet let us examine whâ—â— he offers First therefore his joyning the provid 〈…〉 the yet human authority of Scripture and Tradition is 〈◊〉 and absurd For of that we are assured no otherwise then by Faith and consequently it cannot be a foundation to Faith. Now this being taken away the other Arguments of the Truth of Scripture and Tradition according to the Jesuits argumentation become fallible and so no sit foundation for infallible Faith. Besides I would know whether this acquired Faith carrieth with it indubitable Truth and be of the same certainty with Divine or infused faith or at least sufcient to found Divine Faith upon For if it be not our argument returns If it be why may we not have without the assistance of the Churches authority a Divine Faith of those things which Scripture or if you will Tradition also clearly and plainly teach at least as clearly as they are thought to teach that infallibility of the Church But Amicus hath a reserve for this He pretends 43 Ibid. num 49. that although the human Arguments of the Truth of Scripture and Tradition be self evident avd sufficient to create a Divine Faith yet that we are forbidden by God to believe them with a Divine Faith till his Vicar the Pope shall have confirmed them A miserable refuge which lyeth open to a thousand inconveniencies For to omit asking where this prohibition of God is to be found not to urge that hereby all their Arguments drawn from
reasons abovementioned as because her dissent rather than consent is to he shewed herein There is no way therefore left but to recur to Experience They will say they have observed the Church to erre when she undertook to define in cases excluded by their exceptions and that these exceptions therefore must necessarily be applied to those places of Scripture which attribute infallibility to the Church But then they will give us just reason to reply that if experience giveth us a right to reject that sense of Scripture which the words seem to imply meerly because it is repugnant to our Observations and substitute another more congruous to them Then we may most justly reject that sense of those Words This is my Body which our Adversaries assix to them as contrary to the experience of all mankind and assign another perfectly accommodated both to reason and experience Besides there is nothing against which our Adversaries more sharply contend than to judge and examine the Definitions of the Church by dumb and dead Rules such as Scripture and Tradition are yet this very thing is done by those men who thence conclude the Church to be fallible in certain cases because they have observed her to have been formerly mistaken in them For this can be done no otherwise than by examining the Decrees of the Church either by Scripture or Tradition Again if experience giveth them a right to limit the infallibility of the Church by their exceptions why may not we challenge the same priviledge and assign our exceptions likewise We then lay down only that one formerly proposed by Cusanus which if admitted by our Adversaries will soon put an end to all controversies that is that the Church never presume to define any thing but according to the Holy Scriptures leaving undecided all things wherein they are either silent or obscure And so all our Controversies are reduced to this one point whether this exception is to be added to those which our Adversaries have assigned As often therefore as they oppose to us the judgment of the Church we may with reason reject it till they can shew that our exception is unjust which they will never be able to do On the contrary we can demonstrance the equity of it by experience and shew that the Church hath erred as often as She observed not this exception But let it be rejected Who cantell Whether no other is to be added Certainly if the observation of the past Errours of the Church have given occasion to these Writers to form these exceptions the observation of future errors will likewise produce new exceptions Nay who will warrant that nothing already past hath escaped the notice of these Observers whence other exceptions might have been framed And hence also appears what I undertook to prove in the second place that although we were assured the exceptions are lawful and justly assigned we cannot be certain they are all that are so and whether others are not yet to be added For since the exceptions are formed only from experience if the Authors of them made not a just observation of all the past errours of the Church or had not in their eye all possible future errors of a different nature there may be other exceptions no less necessary and momentous to be assigned And how shall we be at last ascertained of the requisite diligence sagacity and prudence of these Observers I shall illustrate all by a famous example One of the cheif exceptions whereby the Papal power is limited is that all those Decrees are excluded which were not for some space of time affixed to the doors of St. Peters Church and the Apostolick Chancery and solemnly promulged by the Popes Messengers in the wonted places This exception was made about an hundred years since meerly to serve a turn when they could by no other means clude the arguments of the Protestants against the Papal Infallibility drawn from Pope Clement VIII his Bull whereby he re-called Sixtus V. his Edition of the Bible and Preface prefixed to it Then it was they forged this exception pretending that Sixtus his Bull although printed and prefixed to his Bibles had not been solemnly published by the Messengers An exception which had been never dreamt of had not Sixtus erred as appeareth hence that the precedent Writers Cajetan Canus and Bellarmine make no mention of it whereas of the subsequent Writers few forget it Nor is there any doubt but that if any Pope hereafter should commit some other mistake which might wound his pretended Infallibility some other Exception would be framed to salve his honour If therefore our Adversaries as we have proved cannot certainly know what are the conditions and characters of the Infallible Decrees of the Church they must necessarily be ignorant which Decrees may be securely believed and obeyed But granting they might be certain herein and taking away all these scruples they will be yet for ever uncertain which Decrees have which want these conditions For what will it avail to know that the Church may err in matters Philosophical or of Fact or which are not proposed as of Faith if we be uncertain what are Philosophical matters what of Fact and what proposed as of Faith Yet that all these kinds of things are yet uncertain will be easily evinced For First since the School Divines have so intermingled Aristotles Philosophy with Divinity nothing is more difficult than exactly to distinguish them Whence it frequently happens that what one accounts meerly Philosophical another esteems matter of Divinity So in the year 1666. when a certain Theatine 1 Apud Launoi Epist part 5. Epist 2. ad Berruer at Paris had proposed these and such like Theses to be publickly disputed of viz. That any knowledge in the Father was absolutely sufficient to beget the Son so that if the Father had understood but any one object suppose a Lilly he must be thereby supposed to have begotten the Son that if both together had loved but any one object as a Rose yet would they thereby have spirated the Holy Ghost That the unspeakable torment of Devils consists in this that by hypostatical union the Devil is become fire and fire become the Devil These and the like Theses the proposer maintained to be Theological Launoy contends they are Philosophical others think perhaps more truly that they are foolish and prophane The Council of Constance defined the accidents in the Eucharist to remain destitute of any subject The Cartesians deny this and value not the definition pretending that it is about a matter Philosophical Others thereupon accuse their denial of heresie Copernicus and Galilaeus their Systeme of the world were condemned at Rome Some thereupon dare not embrace it though otherwise inclined to believe it Others more bold contend it is purely a matter of Philosophy See therefore many learned and wise men divided about the application of the first exception And if so how shall more ignorant persons be able rightly
an essicacious remedy against the inconveniencies of clandestine Marriages Some advised the declaring them void for the future and these were the major number Fifty Bishops and among them the Patriarch of Hierusalem and two of the Legates Card. Hosius and Simonetta opposed it saying That was not in the power of the Council Morone the Legate and many others suspended their Votes The Disputations grew high at last they agreed to referr all to the Pope He answered the Council had Power to make such a Decree and that it ought to be made Hereupon clandestine Marriages were declared void and an Anathema added to the Decree against all those who should thenceforth deny the Church hath power to make Constitutions of that nature See a Power residing in the Church now become an Article of Faith which was vehemently impugned by a Patriarch two Legates fifty Bishops and doubted of by many others And shall those now be heard who maintain there is always in the Church a clear and distinct knowledge of all things revealed We proceed to the third Reason which consisteth in this That some Opinions are often divulged in the Church as revealed by God and approved by the Church and are every-where taught which at last are found out and known to be false Monsieur Pajon 24 Rép. aux prejugès part 2. chap. 2. produceth three eminent Examples of this Observation the first taken from the decisions of the Canonists the second from the form of Condemnation of the V. Jansenian Propositions the third from the Prohibition of reading the Bible which because he largely and accurately pursueth I will not here urge much less will add other Examples before pointed out in this Chapter However from what hath been said it appears that it is obscure and difficult to be known wherein the Doctors consent This will be more manifest if we consider that it is far more difficult to know certainly what all the present Doctors teach than what the former Doctors taught For the Opinions of these we have in their Books which we can read at home but to know the Judgment of the others we must travel through the whole World. Valentia supposeth this very thing where he giveth the reason why the Pope in desining rather maketh use of dead than living Doctors Because saith he 25 Qui proinde omnes nec facilè congregari nec interrogari possunt quid sentiant Val. Tom. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. §. 46. the Opinion of these latter can very rarely be sufficiently known For being dispersed through the whole Church they cannot all easily be either assembled or asked what they think whereas the ancient Doctors are more famous and are not so many If this be true how dissicult must it be to know the Judgment of the present Church since the most learned Men can very hardly obtain the Sence of the Ancient Church Few or none can search all the Monuments of Antiquity pry into the most secret Recesses of it and turn over the Writings of sixteen Ages and in all this long Journey make no slips commit no errors Yet is all this easier in the Judgment of Valentia than to enquire and find out the Opinion of the Doctors living at any one time which yet must be done by them who lay the Foundation of their Faith upon their consent I have not yet seen any of our Adversaries who offereth the least solution of any one of these difficulties except Cardinal Richlieu who when he had objected to himself That blind Men hear neither all Preachers and Doctors nor learn from those which they do hear what the others teach which is our very Argument except that what he saith only of Blind-men we justly apply to all Men he ansewers 26 Method liv 2. chap. 8. That as for a Philosopher to conclude all Fires to be hot it is not necessary that he experiments all the Fires in the World the common consent of Philosophers sufficing so to know certainly whether any Doctrine be the Doctrine of the Church it abundantly sufficeth that Blind-men hear it proposed by divers Doctors of the Church and that it cannot be shown there are others who teach the contrary But many things may be here observed First Those things do not always suffice in matter of Faith with which we are contented in disputing There we often argue from Concessions which we own to be false Here nothing is to be produced but what is true and certain Wherefore if no body oppose those Doctrines which seem true to us it doth not follow that we ought to admit them unless they be both certain of themselves and appear so to us And if no body points out to us any maintainers of the contrary Doctrine it doth not â—â—â—refore follow that there are none whence the Doctrine propos'd obtains not thence any certainty any motive of Faith. Secondly Philosophers themselves admonish great diligence is to be used in making Arguments of Induction such as this is and that an insufficient enumeration of particulars is the great fountain of Errors while a few or even many are reckoned up and thence a conclusion made of all Wherefore he reasons not well who argues thâ—â— Such and such teach thus nor doth any appear who opposeth Therefore all teach the same For it may easily be that many may teach otherwise unknown to him who reasons thus but well known to others In the next place it were to be desired the Cardinal had explained his mind more clearly and told by whom he means it cannot be shewn that other teach the contrary whether by the blind Man himself or by other blind or ignorant Men like himself or by one Learned Man whom he should consult or by all Learned men every where dispersed If he means the first or second then he greatly errs in thinking it sufficient that the blind Man or other ignorant Persons of his acquaintance cannot name any who teach a contrary Doctrine to their Parish-Priest or those Doctors whom they hear For all the Husbandmen Labourers and Mechanicks of the Parish may be easily ignorant that a contrary Doctrine and that more true is taught in America or India or even the next Province and so the blind Man shall be obliged to believe a falsity But if the Cardinal means it suffice that the blind Man consult some learned Man to know whether none teacheth contrary to his Parson I would ask whether our Adversary requireth it as necessary If so then all the common sort of the Faithful are guilty of rashness and imprudence For I dare swear that none of them ever puts this in practice If he saith it is not necessary he deserts the cause For upon what foundation shall their Faith rely who do not that which he confesseth not necessary to be done and yet think sufficient to confirm their Faith But what if the Doctor who is consulted be in the same errour with the Parish-Priest as none will deny
For among Catholicks some affirm it because there is no promise found of the contrary Others deny it because the whole Church would be otherwise in great danger of error To me neither seemeth sufficiently certain Yet it is probable that it becomes the Providence of Christ not to permit it In these words two things may be observed First That Suarez speaks of the Infallibility of Bishops not in believing but in teaching For he saith this in answer to an Objection That if all the Bishops could err then the other part of the Church the Laity might also err because they ordinarily follow the Doctrine of their Pastors and are bound to do it Now the People are bound to follow their Pastors not in what they think but in what they teach This also appears from the reason why some denied the consent of all Bishops in any error to be possible because if that should happen the whole Church would be brought into great danger of error But if Bishops should teach rightly although they thought erroneously there would be thence no danger of Error to the rest of the Faithful Secondly Of this Infallibility of Bishops in what they teach unanimously he saith three things 1. That some Catholicks deny it 2. That neither part seems certain to him 3. That it is probable All which singly prove That he thought it not to be of Faith. But who can imagine so great a Doctor could be ignorant of what was of Faith Theoph. Raynaudus differed not much from the Opinion of Suarez That the visible Head saith he 3 Vt seposito capite visibili membra omnia possint infici aliquo errore materiali vix potest contingere verisimillimum est Deo semper cordi futurum ne id accidat Si tamen accideret incont aminato capite nibil decederet de perpetuitate verae fidei in Ecclesiâ Rayn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct 5. being laid aside all the Members should be infected with any material error could scarce happen and it is most probable God will take care it should not Yet if it should happen the Head being uninfected the perpetuity of true Faith in the Church would suffer no loss Where he determines not absolutely this cannot happen but looks upon the contrary only as most probable and denieth the Infallibility of the whole Church to depend thereon which is so much urged by the maintainers of the contrary Opinion Rhodius speaks more plainly who affirms 4 Mortuo pontifice non est in Ecclesiâ ulla infallibilis authoritas ad condenda fidei Decreta Nullam e◠tempore infallibilitatem actualem proximam habet Ecclesia Rhod. de fide qu. 2. Sect. 5. §. 5. That the Pope being dead the Church hath no Infallible Authority to make Decrees of Faith as having no actual and immediate Infallibility at that time Hence is manifest that we want little of a Confession from our Adversaries that the Infallibility of the Governours of the Church is not of Faith. And indeed it cannot be For no Foundation of such a Faith is to be found Not Scripture or Tradition For not to say that these to make any Article become of Faith ought according to our Adversaries most evidently to contain it which evidence even they will not deny to be here wanting It would be most absurd that Papists should believe this Infallibility of the Pastors of the Church for the Authority of Scripture and Tradition when they believe neither of these but for the Authority of the Pastors Take away their Testimony and they will deny it to be known whether Scripture or Tradition be the word of God or what is the sence of either The same may be said of the Decrees of the Church Representative For besides that no such express Decree of it can be produced the Infallibility of the Representative Church it self is believed by every single Papist only because they hear it taught by their Pastors As for the belief of the Universal Church that ought not be produced For that is the thing now inquired why the Universal Church believeth so Will our Adversaries therefore say they believe their Pastors cannot err in teaching unanimously what is of Faith because they so teach themselves This they must recurr to for they have no other reason left of believing so Yet nothing can be more absurd For first it is the constant Opinion of all Mankind and a received Law among all Nations that none should be Witness or Judge in his own Cause Secondly As we believe not any Man to be true and honest till we be assured of his veracity and honesty from some other Testimony than his own So it would be the highest imprudence to esteem those Infallible who challenge that privilege to themselves until their Infallibility be known to us from some other Argument than their own Testimony Certainly our Adversaries will not permit even the Scripture which is the word of God and hath so many illustrious Characters of a Divine Original to be believed for its own Testimony and Christ openly professed that if he bore Witness of himself his Witness was not credible Why then shall that be attributed to the Governours of the Church which Christ denied to himself and our Adversaries deny to the Word of God Thirdly The Question will return whence the Pastors of the Church know that they cannot err For they will not say they know it because the Faithful believe it since as Hallier 5 Non ideo vera docent Pastores quia vera credunt Auditores sed ideo vera credunt Auditores quia vera docentibus assentiuntur F. Hallier de Hierarch l. 4. c. 2. well saith The Pastors do not therefore teach truly because the Auditors believe truly but the Auditors believe truly because they assent to the Pastors teaching truly They cannot say that they know it from Scripture or Tradition For the truth of these without the Authority of the Church is no more known to learned than to unlearned persons Think not saith Bagotius 6 Cave existimes unumquenquam etiam Theologum Doctissimum posse quicquam eredere sine authoritate Ecclesiae independenter ab eâ Bagot Instit Theol. l. 4. c. 1. §. 1. that any one even the most learned Divine can believe any thing without the Authority of the Church and independently from it And Hosius 7 Hos cont Brent goeth so far that he maintains it to be the best way that even the most learned Men should recurr to implicit Faith and believe only in general as the Church believeth Shall the Pastors therefore believe that they cannot err for their own Testimony This is the natural consequence of our Adversaries Doctrine and that most absurd For first there is none of the Pastors which believeth so because he teacheth so but all teach so because all believe so Again The Question will recurr upon what Foundation do they teach so Here either nothing or only
is more than Morally even Physically evident that those things are false which the Church of Rome teacheth about the Eucharist For that the Eucharist after Consecration is still Bread and Wine is proved by innumerable Arguments of Physical Evidence which consequently can never be counterweighed much less out weighed by Arguments of Moral Evidence brought to prove the Infallibility of that Church which teacheth a contrary Opinion However it will not be amiss to examine whether the Arguments drawn from these Notes of the Church be morally evident as is pretended But first we must remove the Equivocation which lieth hid in this term For it is used by the Schoolmen in a threefold Sence First therefore many call that Morally Certain which is so probable that many Arguments perswade it but nothing insinuates the least suspicion of the contrary Secondly Those things are called Morally Certain which to use Bellarmin's words are confirmed by so many Signs and Conjectures as may exclude all Anxiety but not all Distrust Thirdly Those things are most properly said to be morally certain which are known by the common and unanimous testimony of a great multitude witnessing a thing by them seen which Testimony none contradicts as Conink 8 Quae ex communi concordi magnae multitudinis rem visam testantis testimonio cui nemo contradicit noscuntur De actib sup disp 11. dub 1. num 44. defines them If our Adversaries say the Arguments take from the Notes of the Church are morally certain in the first or second Sence in the first place I deny it For those things only are morally certain in those Sences against which no contrary Arguments can be produced For if any such occurr the Mind fluctuates and can obtain no certainty Now none can deny that there are many at least probable Arguments which perswade That the Church of Rome is not the true Church Secondly I assert That neither of these Certainties will suffice For they cannot but in a loose and improper Sence be called Certainty They are indeed meer probability which may suffice in matters of Life and Action where greater certainty cannot be had but not in matters of Belief and Salvation where the greatest is required whereas these may possibly be false as is manifest in the Cases of an Infant whether Baptized or an Host whether Consecrated which are commonly produced for Examples of the first and greatest of the two kinds of Moral Certainty For both the Baptism of an Infant and the Consecration of an Host depending upon the Intention of the Priest can never be certainly known to have been duly performed For no Man can be ever speculatively certain of those things which can be false There remains then the third Sence which I deny not to be sufficient although it be not wholly consonant to the Doctrine of our Adversaries But to pass by that it is manifest That here is no place for this kind of certainty since it depends upon the Testimony of others so framed and circumstantiated that it is altogether at least morally impossible to deceive or be deceived as that Caesar and Alexander formerly existed as Rome and Constantinople do now whereas Arguments drawn from Antiquity Amplitude Sanctity c. are of another kind as being wholly artificial and consequently most different from those which beget this Moral Certainty Besides there is none of these Notes wherein the Greek Church may not equally glory with the Latin. Sanctity Amplitude Antiquity and constancy of Martyrs none can deny to her As for Miracles the Greeks by the confession of the Latins have somewhat admirable which is not to be found in the Roman Church For Lupus 9 In Concil tom 5. p. 543. relates out of Chr. Angelus and Leo Allatius that it is at this day most frequent among the Greeks that the dead Bodies of Excommunicate Persons immediately after death grow black swell and become very hard nor can be dissolved before the Bishop gives them Absolution which being once pronounced they are reduced into Dust The Divine Goodness saith Lupus by these 10 Captivos sub Turcicâ tyrannide Christianos divina bonitas consolatur per talia miracula in Evangelicâ fide confirmat Miracles comforting and confirming in the Faith the poor Christians oppressed with the Turkish Tyranny In this Miracle four things may be observed 1. That it is not only boasted by the Greeks but also acknowledged by the Latins 2. That it is an ordinary and almost daily Miracle 3. That it is annexed to the Episcopal Dignity so as their Excommunication and Absolution hath a sensible and supernatural effect 4. That it serveth not only to favour the Christian Religion professed by the Greeks but also their private error For as Lupus observeth They imagine the Absolution given after death to be valid and to deliver from the Torments of Hell it self which seemeth to be confirmed by the sensible effect that immediately follows the Absolution What have the Latins like to this Their pretended Miracles are not acknowledged by their Adversaries but rather convinced of falsity by them and even by many of their own Communion they are rare not ordinary nor annexed to any Ecclesiastical Dignity and such as if they were true serve to confirm only the Christian Religion in general not their own particular Tenets It is manifest therefore That those Arguments are not certain which are deduced from the Notes of the Church since if they were so they would demonstrate what our Adversaries think to be false That the Greek is the True and Infallible Church This might be evidently evinced if we considered each Note singly But besides that it is already accurately performed by our Reverend B. Morton Jo. Gerardus and others it seems not very necessary in this place Here therefore I finish and in one word conclude That the Papists who boast of having so many immovable Foundations of their Faith have not so much as one which is solid and that what they believe they do it pertinaciously indeed but neither certainly nor firmly FINIS Books Printed for and Sold by Richard Chiswell Dr. CAve's Lives of the Primitive Fathers in 2 Vol. Folio Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time. fol. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity fol. Sir John Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion fol. The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits Seminary Priests Recusants the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgments and Resolutions of the Judges with other Observations thereupon By Willim Cawley Esq fol. Dr. Towerson's Explication on the Creed the Commandments and Lord's Prayer in 3 Vol. fol. Bishop Nicholson on the Church-Catechism 40. Mr. John Cave's seven occasional Sermons 40. Bishop Wilkin's Natural Religion 80. His Fifteen Sermons 80. Mr. Tanner's Primordia Or the Rise and Growth of the First Church of God described 80. Spaniard's Conspiracy against the State of Venice 80. Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity in three parts 80. Certain genuine Remains of the