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
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
doubt whether he be lawful Pope that possesseth the Chair and also whether an unlawful Pope enjoyeth the Priviledge of Infallibility I may then justly doubt whether I ought to assent to the Decree of every single Pope and can never be certain of it That the first is uncertain I have already shewed That the latter is not certain Our Adversaries will not deny For if any it must be the certainty of Faith which Duvall will never grant who denies even the Infallibility of a lawful Pope to be of Faith. If any one yet shall dissent from Duvall and contend that it is of Faith he may be convinced by the same Arguments which we produced against the rest He may be asked where God revealed it or the Church defined it He may be told that Defenders of the contrary Opinion were never yet accused or condemned of Heresie Lastly He may be put in mind of Stephen Romanus and Sergius who declaring Formosus to have been an unlawful Pope did also annull his Decrees But I need not insist upon refuting that which no man maintains So that we may conclude there is no certainty to be had in this matter and therefore that Faith cannot safely rely on the Pope's Sentence CHAP. X. Wherein is prevented an Evasion whereby Duvall endeavours to elude whatsoever hath been hitherto said concerning the Pope DVvall a Respondeo definitiones Pontificis non esse de fide donec universalis Ecclesia quam de fide est errare non posse eas acceptaverit Duvall de potest Pont. part 2. qu. 5. oppressed with so many Difficulties takes refuge in saying The Definitions of the Pope are not of Faith before he Church whose Infallibility is of Faith hath received them I might justly rest here ince Duvall hereby grants us all we desire viz. that faith cannot be founded upon the definition of the Pope alone Whether the Churches Authority adds certainty to it I shall enquire hereafter In the mean while that the Truth maybe on all sides more manifest and because many things now occur not proper for another place I will more accurately consider Duval's argument And first Duval hereby is not consonant to himself For if the Pope's Decrees be not of Faith till received by the Church then the Pope alone is not a Rule of Faith but an aggregate of Pope and Church together when as Duval in another place b Id. in 22. pag. 62. teaches there are five Rules of Faith the Church Scripture Tradition Council and Pope whereof every one is so independent and sufficient that whatsoever it shall propose is most firmly to be believed not to say that hereby the perfections of a Rule of Faith will appear much more eminently in the Church than in the Pope since the Church can direct our Faith without the Pope but not the Pope without the Church whereas Duval c Ibid. p. 215. teaches the quite contrary Herein therefore he is neither consonant to himself nor to the other Patrons of Papal Infallibility while he denies obedience to be due to the Popes Decrees till they be received and confirmed by the Church this being very near the opinion of the Sorbonists those great Enemies of the Popes Infallibility For the Faculty of Divinity d Facultatis dogma non est quòd summus Pontifex nullo accedente Ecclesiae consensu sit infallibilis proposed their opinion in the year 1663. in these words It is not the judgment of this Faculty that the Pope is infallible without the consent of the Church And the Clergy of France in the year 1682. determined e In quaestionibus fidei praecipuas Summi Pontificis esse partes ejusque Decreta ad singula Ecclesias pertinere nec tamen irreformabile esse judicium nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit That questions of Faith chiefly pertained to the Pope and that his Decrees concerned all Churches yet that his sentence was not irreformable unless the consent of the Church had supervened How little doth Duval's opinion differ from this who maintains that the Popes Sentence is indeed infallible before the reception of the Church but appears not so to be till then For if so whether fallible or infallible it signifies not in matter of practice it will be the same and assent will be equally denied to the Popes Decrees until they shall have been admitted by the Church In the next place this Answer accuseth of rashness and imprudence the far greater part of the Church of Rome which without expecting the approbation of the universal Church blindly receives the Papal Decrees howsoever yet uncertain But that is of less moment This I would gladly know whether the Church whose reception makes the Papal Decrees to become of Faith ought to receive them without any precedent examination or not till she hath accurately compared them with the Word of God. If the latter then we have no definition on which Faith can rely For I dare confidently affirm there is none which the Church hath thus examined and approved Few undergo that labour most blindly follow the Dictates of the Pope Not to say that this is intirely repugnant to that profound submission wherewith the Decrees of the Head of the Church ought to be received or that according to this Principle the Pope ought together with his Decree to transmit to several Bishops the reasons of it since without the knowledge of these they cannot be duly examined or that the Pope is highly unjust who without being first certified of their universal approbation excommunicates and punisheth the contemners of them I will only urge that by this means the supreme Power is translated from the Pope to the Church as which passeth the last and peremptory Sentence not only on things to be believed but even on the Decrees of the Popes themselves How this will agree with the Doctrine of our present Adversaries let them see to it Certainly Raynaudus and the Author f De Lib. Eccles Gall. lib. 7. cap. 17. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church think far otherwise of whom the latter bestows a whole Chapter to prove this very Proposition That the Papal Decrees are not therefore to be obeyed because confirmed by the Churches consent but therefore consented to by the Church because antecedently infallible But if the Pope's Decrees are to be received by the Church with a blind assent and without any previous examination I do not see of what weight such a reception can be which according to this supposal must be granted to false Decrees as well as true Besides such reception would not differ from Divine Faith such as is given to the most authentick Revelations and so this opinion would be repugnant to it self For it supposeth Faith is not to be yielded to the Papal Decrees antecedently to the Churches reception and yet requires the Church to receive them with a blind assent that is with Faith. Theophilus Raynaudus useth a not
before them saith Ademarus Cabanensis 2 De imaginibus adorandis aliter quà m Orthodoxi Doctores antè definierant statuerunt Adem apud Marcam de Concord l. 6. c. 15. Because they Decreed many things inconvenient and contrary to the true Faith saith Hoveden 3 Multa inconvenientia verae sidei contraria Hoveden ad ann 792. Lastly that the Church in admitting Councils respects the matter not the form of them may be hence proved because the Church sometimes approveth the Decrees of unlawful Councils as of Antiochia which 4 Ad An. 341. Baronius accounts unlawful because Celebrated while the Indiction of the Synod of Rome was yet depending and did certainly act unlawfully in Condemning Athanasius and substituting to him Eusebius a Laick and when he refused George the Cappadocian a man unknown to the Church of Alexandria Yet the Canons of this Synod were afterwards received as also the Decrees of the V. Council which Baronius and with him not a few think to have proceeded Unlawfully There remains then to the Church only the latter way of examining Councils that is from the Matter of them by examining the truth and salseness of its Decrees admitting the one and rejecting the other This Examination we not only admit but also pray that it may obtain But then in it supposeth the fallibility in the first place of a Council otherwise why are her Decrees examined why not all promiscuously and reverently received Secondly hereby not a Council but the Universal Church will be the Supreme and Ultimate Tribunal as judging and irrevocably giving Sentence upon the Decrees of the Council which may be either approved or abrogated by her Thirdly hence it will also follow that the Decrees of a Council must not be assented to till received by the Church because not till then certainly known to be true contrary to the constant practice of our Adversaries by whom the Decrees are admitted immediatly after Sentence pronounced at least immediatly after the Pope's Confirmation Fourthly Councils themselves plainly shew that they are of a contrary Opinion by denouncing Anathema's against the Opposers of their Decrees or Disbelievers of their Definitions not staying till the Universal Church shall have approved both which demonstrateth that they believe a supreme and uncontroulable Authority to reside in themselves And this very argument is made use of by Bellarmine to prove that Councils are Supreme in which the Pope's Legates are present Lastly hence it will follow that the Decrees of a Council ought never to be assented to For the Universal Church is nothing else but the Collection of Christians If therefore all single Persons expect till the Universal Church receive the Decrees the Universal Church it self must expect and so no body shall ever begin to receive and assent to them Further it may be observed that to make this approbation of the Church of any weight it were necessary that this Opinion should be generally received at least not opposed by any Bishop For then immediatly after the Promulgation of the Decrees all Bishops would betake themselves to examine them by the Rules of Faith. If after this Examination they received them then an Approbation of the Universal Church might with some colour be pretended But now when all at least almost all are of a contrary Opinion and look upon the Decrees when once confirmed by the Pope as Infallible they receive them without any precedent Examination whereby this Reception becomes of no value as grounded upon a preconceived Opinion which we have proved to be false This may be illustrated by what an Anonymous Author 5 Les desseins des Jesuites representés a lassemblée du Clergé p. 43. of the Sorbonists party saith He denieth those Subscriptions are to be accounted of whereby many assent to the Pope's Constitutions when transmitted to them that they are not to be compared with the Decrees of Councils because the Bishops act not therein as Judges nor examine what they subscribe If this Reason be valid in that case it will be much more in the confirmation of Councils by the subsequent reception of the Church For much fewer doubt of the Infallibility of a Council confirmed by the Pope than of the Infallibility of the Pope alone He subjoineth another Reason of the Invalidity of these Subscriptions because they are commonly extorted by threats and fear of being deposed from their Bishopricks if they should Dissent But hath not this happened in urging the Reception of a Council Certainly Baronius 6 Siquidem illi qui damnationem trium Capitulorum non reciperent Imperatoris jussu in exilium agebantur Bar. ad an 553. largly relateth how the Emperour Justinian deprived and Banished those Bishops who would not admit the Decrees of the Fifth Council and condemn the Tria Capitula Lastly it is certain there are very few Councils if any to which all Christians and consequently the Universal Church subscribed This was shewed before and might be further proved Whence among many other things these two may be concluded First that all Christians never thought the Approbation of the Universal Church to be the only Rule of admitting or rejecting Councils since there is none which although rejected by the rest many did not receive Secondly that the Unanimous approbation of the whole Church is no sufficient and ready means to discern those Councils to which Obedience is due For how should it be such when it is very rarely to be had Now if this means be not sufficient either some other must be pointed out which joined or substituted to it may afford this so necessary knowledge to the Faithful or it must be acknowledged that it is often unknown to which Councils assent is due But it seemeth incredible to me that God should give to Councils so great and so admirable a privilege as is absolute Infallibility and this to extinguish Heresies compose Controversies and direct the Faithful in the way of truth and all this while should give no certain or easy Sign whereby Infallible Councils from which alone we were to receive so great happiness might be destinguished from deluding Conventicles For this were to violate his own precept and hide the brightest candle in the Church under a bushel Yet hath he given none At least this approbation of the Church of which alone we now dispute cannot be here alledged since our Adversaries have many Councils to which they pretend obedience due that were not thus approved by the whole Church CHAP. XX. That it cannot be learned from the consent of Doctors what is to be beleived I. Because it doth not appear who those Doctors are II. because those Doctors whosoever they are do not always agree DRiven from Pope and Council our Adversaries fly to the Faith of the Universal Church Whether herein they have sure refuge is next to be enquired The Faith of the Universal Church may be taken two ways either as it is taught by the Pastours or
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
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
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
H. Ghost is not indifferently present in all Councils how numerous soever They acknowledge even the most numerous to have defined erroneously They require them to be rightly and canonically constituted and every way lawful Whence as often as we object to them the Errours of some Councils they think it enough to answer such were Pseudo-Councils Conventicles of no value not lawful Councils to which alone they allow the priviledge of Infallibility That the knowledge therefore of the lawfulness of Councils is very difficult however necessary to give assurance to Faith relying on the Decrees of them and that no true certainty is to be had therein I here undertake to prove And the difficulty of this knowledge may hence appear That it is utterly unknown what are the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful I never yet met with any one who dare undertake to assign them much less demonstrate them Some things may be found scattered here and there in treating of other matters but nothing delivered ex professo Yet unless this knowledge were fixed these conditions assigned agreed on and demonstrated and their number exactly determined so as we might be ascertained that neither more were required nor fewer sufficed in vain will Councils define the Infallibility of their Decrees will be always uncertain I doubt not but if God had intended to tie our Faith to the Decrees of Councils he would either have tied it to all indifferently or provided that no unlawful Councils should ever be held or given us plain and manifest Rules whereby to distinguish lawful from unlawful ones For to permit divers unlawful Councils to be held to command the faithful to adhere only to the lawful ones and all this while to prescribe no certain conditions assign no manifest Characters of a lawful Council is highly repugnant to the Wisdom and Goodness of God. He might indeed justly have left this difficult inquiry to us if it had been accommodated to our strength and capacity But the discord of whole Churches in assigning the lawful Councils and consequently the Errour of some most Learned men manifestly evince it to exceed both So formerly adhered to the V. General Council the whole Eastern and the Roman Churches Africa France Spain and the rest of Italy openly and vigorously rejected it Each of these Churches did then abound with most Learned and most Holy men which proveth the thing to have been very doubtful and obscure and difficult to be determined The same may be said of the Council of Constance as to the first Sessions Basil Florence and the V. Lateran whose Lawfulness is to this day disputed of The difficulty of this matter can arise only from the ignorance of the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful If these were fixed the determination would be easie unless the conditions themselves were intricate and imperceptible The Monarchists who assert those Councils to be lawful which are called presided over governed and confirmed by the Pope all which are easily known can scarce doubt which are lawful Councils whence they all agree in numbring them Not so the rest who neither agree in assigning the conditions of a lawful Council nor explain the necessity of each condition nor demonstrate what they say to be true For Example the first condition given by the Monarchists is That the Council be called by the Pope So also many of the Sorbonists as Brevicoxa a Debet Concilium authoritate Pontificis congregari nisi in casu in quo Papa esset notorius haereticus Brev. apud Launoi Epist part 8. ad Amelium who saith The Council ought to be called by the Pope unless he be a notorious Heretick and Richerius b Est Summi Pontificis regulariter ordinariè generalia Concilia indicere convocare it a si rogatus id facere detrectet c. Rich. Apol. axiom 25. who affirms The calling of Councils ordinarily and regularly to belong to the Pope unless he be distracted or refuse to do it when desired Launoy on the contrary thinks it matters not by whom the Council is called so it decrees rightly when met Therefore after a clear passage cited out of Maximus his Disputation with Theodosius Bishop of Caesarea he c Igitur non à Synodorum convocatione quae ab hoc vel illo fiat sed à rectâ fide quae in Synodis sancitur Synodorum authoritas depromenda est Laun. Epist part 6. p. 263. concludes the authority of Synods not to depend upon the calling of them whether done by one or other but upon the truth of their definitions Nor without reason For if no Councils were lawful but what were called by the Pope then the ancient Christians had no lawful ones among whom all those famous and holy Councils were called only by the Emperours as Launoy and others have abundantly demonstrated The same may be said of the second condition assigned by the Monarchists the Presidence of the Pope in the Council either by himself or by his Legates Richerius d Rich. Apol. ax 25. 26. and Holden e Hold. Anal. fid lib. 2. cap. 3. do not refuse it of whom the first teacheth the Pope hath a Right to preside over Councils the latter affirms him to be by Divine Right Head of all Councils But Launoy in proving that the Pope presided not over the first Councils sheweth that he thinks not this condition necessary The third condition is more difficult which consists in this That the Council be made up of those who have a right to be present and none others Who these are is not manifest For first it is inquired Whether Laicks be comprehended in this number This almost all deny yet Peter de Monte f Ista jura suprà pro utraque parte producta reddunt hane materiam mirabiliter dubiam Tract de Monarchiâ Bishop of Brixia after he hath produced many places on both sides out of the Canon Law thence concludeth this matter to be wonderfully doubtful Certainly in the Council of Hierusalem which many hold to have been Oecumenical the first and the Pattern of all Councils Laicks were present subscribed the Synodical Epistle together with the Apostles and said equally with them g Acts xv It seemed good to the H. Ghost and to us But to exclude them and admit only Ecclesiasticks shall all ranks of these be admitted This the Monarchists deny and assert only Bishops to have ordinarily the Right of a definitive Suffrage and Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Religious Orders by priviledge The same seems to be the opinion of Holden Contrariwise Gerson h Gers de potest Eccl. confid 12. Lud. Alemanus i Apud Aeneam Silvium Hist Concil Basil l b. 1. Cardinal and President of the Council of Basil Almain k De sup porest Eccl. Richerius l Apol. ax 21.34 and Vigorius m Comm. cap. ult vehemently contend that Presbyters at least Parsons bearing Cure of Souls have
who having produced the Example of the II. Ephesine Synod adds That if a true and a lawful Synod can err through fear then Hereticks may pretend that all the rest were subservient to the Lusts of Popes and Emperours and so the Authority of no one Synod will be left certain Nor indeed is this fear of Canus vain For long since many both Hereticks and Catholicks have complained of the violated liberty of Councils So Eusebius Theognis and Maris repenting of their having subscribed in the Council of Nice came to the Emperour and told him We have done wickedly O Emperour in that being terrified by you we subscribed to Heresy As Philostorgius r Apud Nicetam Thes lib. 5. cap. 8. relateth So Ibas in his famous Epistle to Maris the Persian complaineth the Fathers of the I. Ephesine Council were corrupted by Cyrill's Gold. The Legates of the Roman See made the like complaint in the Council of Chalcedon Lucentius f Concil Chalced Act. 16. telling the Presidents in open Council that the Bishops were circumvented and forced to subscribe to Canons to which they had not assented In the V. Synod Lupus t In hâe Synodo Justinianus Diocletianum induerat ejus affectibus serviebant omnes Graecorum Episcopi Lup. tom 1. p. 737. saith that Justinian became a Diocletian and all the Greek Bishops were Servants to his inclinations and relateth the words of Eustathius the Presbyter who affirms that nothing was therein done without violence necessity partiality and affection Richerius u Ita ut vix ullus contramussare auderet quae forma Conciliorum habendorum viguit à seculo Gregorii VII ad tempora Synodi Constantiensis Rich. Apol ax 38. saith that from the times of Gregory VII to the Council of Constance for 340 years the Popes were wont arbitrarily to impose Laws upon the Church and having formed Canons and Definitions at home to call Synods and imperiously to propose them where none dared so much as to mutter against them and in another place x Hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 13. Ita ut hoc stante regimine omnino impossibile videatur liberum haberi Concilium tells us That Gregory VII contrary to the custom used in the Church for more than a thousand years introduced that order that all Bishops should swear Obedience to the See of Rome whence saith he the liberty of all subsequent Councils was taken away but much more by the Popes arrogating to himself the collation of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices so that as long as his Government in the Church continueth it seemeth altogether impossible to have a free Council Duvall y Duvall Anteloq ad lib. de potest Pont. evinceth the Council of Basil was not free from Aeneas Sylvius who relates that the Eugenian party being terrified with threats all rose up together and cried out in the Council Liberty Liberty is taken away from us How is it that the Patriarch threatens he will break our heads The Greeks returning home protested against the force put upon them in the Council of Florence and therefore would not stand to the Decrees of it As for the Council of Trent Richerius z Colore quidem impediendae confusionis sed revera ut omnis occasio liberius disputandi de necessitate Ecclesiae reformandae in Capite in membris patribus Concilii tolleretur Et hae sunt artes eximiae quibus Curia Romana suam absolutam sulcit Monarchiam ne dicam tyrannidem Rich. Apol. ax 22. in Epilogo Si hodie celebrentur Concilia Episcopi non sunt Judices c. Item liberam sententiae dictionem non habent in Synodis quoniam potestas infallibilis voluntas absoluta Papae pro omni Synodo deliberatione consensa lege Canone communione Sanctorum coli servariqâ—e debet ex quo etium c. assures us That the Essential Liberty of Councils which giveth to the Bishops full power of proposing what they please was wholly taken away while none were permitted to propose any thing but the Popes Legates upon pretext indeed of avoiding confusion but really that all occasion of disputing freely concerning the necessity of reforming the Church both in Head and Members might be taken away from the Fathers of the Council And these are the fine arts wherewith the Court of Rome upholds her absolute Monarchy or rather Tyranny That in modern Councils Bishops are not fudges and Legislators as they ought to be but only Counsellors to the Pope and cannot freely give their Suffrages in the Council because the Infallible Power and absolute Will of the Pope must now adayes be received and observed instead of all Synod Deliberation Consent Law Canon and Communion of Saints whereby the Church is become the Bondslave of the Pope as Cajetan a A polop part 1. cap. 1. impiously and flatteringly calls her But the intolerable oppression of Liberty and various Arts used in the Council of Trent F. Paul amply relates in his History of that Council You will say perhaps these are false and calumnies But how doth this appear Other Historians perhaps deliver contrary accounts But how shall we be ascertained they tell truth If the first Historians be disbelieved why may not these also How ever it be possible it is the first relation may be true and until they be proved false we can never be certain they are not true can never esteem those Councils free and consequently not Infallible For that the irregularity of a Council is not manifest sufficeth not to found our Faith upon its Decrees but to that end the perfect regularity of it must be known and evident which cannot be while the freedom of it is uncertain But this is not all Canus and Estrix before truly observed That herein no more account is to be had of Fear than of any other perturbation of the mind and that he who can be forced by threats to decree against his Conscience may no less vehemently be shaken and drawn from the truth by Hatred Anger Hope Desire or the like Certainly the efficacy of these Passions is no whit less and if the H. Ghost defends not Bishops in Council from the impressions of Fear neither will he from the temptations of other Affections Suppose therefore we be assured no force was used to infringe the Liberty of the Council which we can never be yet this will not suffice unless we be at the same time ascertained that the Bishops were corrupted with no Passions led by no Affections and served no Interest in giving their Suffrages Till then we must suspend our assent to the Decrees of any Council as justly doubting whether that may not have undergone the same unhappiness which hath attended some former Councils So Lupus accuseth the Fathers of the I. Constantinopolitan Council of envy against the Western Bishops but especially the Church of Rome Liberatus relates That Theodorus Ascidas Favourite to the Emperour Justinian in revenge of the
Condemnation of his admired Origen projected the design of the V. Council and thereby extorted from the whole World the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula Duval That the Council of Basil was blinded with hatred against Pope Eugenius What happened to these might as well to other Councils and who can assure us it did not But no Liberty seemeth more requisite to the establishment of Truth than that which purgeth the Mind from preconceived Opinions and addicts it wholly to Truth For it cannot be hoped that they who are infected with Errour should define rightly and immediately upon their entring the Council from Patrons of Heresie become Champions of Faith. This Experience hath often taught For why did the Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon desine rightly but because they consisted of Orthodox Bishops Why the African under Cyprian and all the Arrian Councils erroneously but because they were made up of Bishops favouring those Errours Why the Council of Sardica both rightly and erroneously well at Sardica ill at Philippopolis but because the Orthodox Bishops stay'd at Sardica the Heretical went to Philippopolis How comes it to pass therefore that in assigning so many conditions of an Infallible Council this one should be forgotten the most necessary of all that it consist only of Orthodox Bishops Wisely then did the Popes Leo and Vigilius who laboured hard that only an equal number of Greeks and Latins might be admitted into the IV. and V. Councils the one fearing the Eutychians the other the Enemies of the Tria Capitula However it be if Threats and Promises if Fear and Desire can hinder Orthodox Bishops from defining truly much more will preconceived Opinions hinder Heretical ones from decreeing rightly Since the first are drawn to favour Errour unwillingly and act in it coldly the latter promote it with their utmost Zeal and greatest Vigour Lastly I do not see how if a Council be placed beyond all danger of erring by the assistance of the Holy Ghost Fear or any other Passions can so far prevail in it as to divert the Fathers of it from the right way This might indeed be if Councils were infallible in their Nature but in their Hypothesis who ascribe their Infallibility only to the external direction of the Holy Spirit it is highly absurd and irrational For cannot the Holy Ghost invincibly arm the minds of those in whom he dwells against the terrors of Threats or Temptations of desire Why then is the Hymn Veni Creator Spiritus sung before every Session of Councils Why is it expresly said Accende lumen sensibus Infunde amorem cordibus Infirma nostri corporis virtute firmans perpeti Why is he called the Living Fountain Fire Charity and Spiritual Unction Why the finger of Gods Right Hand but to design his powerful Assistance against all the defects of Nature and infirmities of Mind This assistance therefore is desired If it be obtained in vain are Threats Bribes Promises and other Frauds they can never corrupt the Council If it be not who can assure us the other part of the Petition is granted viz. Illumination of Mind to discern and dispel the Sophistry of Hereticks But why do I insist on this If we consider those Holy Men in whom the Holy Ghost is thought to have dwelt and armed with his Graces for the defence of Truth as Athanasius Basil Chrysostom Hilary Ambrose Augustin and the rest we shall find that they were impenetrable to fear or flattery and constantly despised both the threats and promises of Arian Princes If the Holy Ghost therefore presides over Councils neither the force nor fraud of Enemies can obstruct the Infallibility of it and we may much more justly and truly than Richerius did before apply those words of St. Paul to them Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty For he alledged them to prove that Liberty is a Condition pre-required to the presence of the Holy Ghost in a Council whereas the construction of them manifests it to be rather an effect of this presence according to that of our Saviour 2 John. VIII 36. If the Son shall make you free ye shall be free indeed and 3 Ibid. v. 32. the Truth shall make you free For the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ so that what is done by the one may be well attributed to the other But to make an end Our Adversaries found the Infallibility of Councils upon the promises of the assistance of the Holy Ghost made to the Apostles by our Saviour in those words The Spirit of Truth shall guide you into all truth I will send another Comforter c. which they maintain to have been spoken not only to the Apostles but to their Successors also to the Worlds end If so then must necessarily be conferred on both an Infallibility of the same kind and quality But were the Apostles preserved by the assistance of the Holy Ghost from involuntary Errors and left unarmed to the assaults of Threats and Promises Certainly no. Christ both promised and gave to them his assistance against all kind of Temptations and Corruptions whereby they might be drawn to betray the Truth Either Councils therefore have the same assistance or can pretend no share in these Promises Two several ways therefore is the Authority of Councils overthrown by the Doctrine and Concessions of our Adversaries about the necessity of their Liberty both in that it is certain they may be drawn from Truth by any other means as well as defect of Liberty and uncertain whether there was ever any free Councils The Sorbonists can oppose nothing to this but the Monarchists think they can They pretend that when a Council is thus corrupted yet the Rock of the Church the Pope remains unshaken whom no force can move as for whom Christ prayed that his Faith should never fail For first the Sorbonists deny this which sufficeth for me as proving that pretended Privilege of the Pope not to be of Faith and so not able to give certainty to the Decrees of a Council whose Liberty is suspected But then this invincible Constancy of the Pope is demonstrated to be false by the Examples of Marcellinus Liberius Paschal II. and Eugenius IV. to which we may add a fifth that of Pope Vigilius from whom the Emperour Justinian after he had extorted by force and threats the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula from the fifth Council extorted an Approbation of the Council's Decree by the same Method as he did afterwards in like manner from his Successor Pelagius Lupus 4 Vigilius aerumnis lassus libertatis ac sedis recuperandae amore victus tandem consensit in Synodum Pelagius Romani Episcopatûs amore ad recipiendam Synodum est inflexus Lup. in Concil Tom. 1. p. 737. acknowledgeth both saying that Vigilius overcome with hardships and the desire of recovering his Liberty and See and Pelagius corrupted with desire of the Papal Chair both consented and approved the
out proceeding either from ignorance malice or partiality But both of ancient and later Councils this is chiefly to be considered That the conditions necessary to make them infallible are of that nature that one cannot supply the defect of another It sufficeth not to have some of them nor even all the rest if any one be wanting This Council must at the same time be Oecumenical Lawful Free and proceed rightly If any one of these Conditions or any part of them be wanting all the rest are of no value the Council becomes fallible Whence many Councils at least Decrees of Councils have been rejected that were desicient but in one Condition Hence it may be concluded First That the Sorbonists have no firm foundation for their Faith having nothing to oppose to so many just doubts and reasonable exceptions For they think not sufficient the Judgment of the Pope declaring any Council to have wanted no necessary conditions of Infallibility and reject many in favour of which he hath so declared They take their Judgment from the sole consideration of the Council it self and what was acted in it Secondly That the Sentence of Pope and Council together is no more certain than that of Pope alone and that those therefore err who make not the Judgment of either separately but of both conjunctly to be a firm Foundation for Faith and Certainty This might be perhaps with some colour of Truth defended if either all Councils agreeing with the Pope were admitted as infallible or it were certainly known what are those Councils which conjoin'd to the Pope obtain that privilege But both are false For all our Adversaries which acknowledge not the Infallibility of Pope alone allow it not also to him when united to a Council not Oecumenical or not lawfully constituted or not rightly proceeding Now what Councils are Oecumenical what lawfully constituted and what rightly proceed we have proved that none can know Unless the Pope therefore hath Infallibility no certainty can accrue from his Judgment by the addition of any Council Which is also hence confirmed that the Sentence whereby the Pope pronounceth a Council to have been Oecumenical Lawful c comes from his sole Authority For although the Council should pronounce the same thing together with him their Sentence would be of no value as being pronounced in their own Cause So that the Decree of the Pope alone can not be of any efficacy in this matter which if it cannot afford certainty neither will the Decree of Pope and Council together at least no more certainty than that of Pope alone Turn therefore the Authority of Pope and Council on all sides take it separately conjunctly divided united no certainty no sirmness no foundation for Divine Faith will be ever obtained One thing only our Adversaries may pretend that the Decrees of Councils become then certain when the Universal Church shall have received them I have not indeed yet met with any who alledge this But I doubt not that many forced by the precedent Arguments will take refuge there and will therefore before I proceed any farther demonstrate the vanity and salseness of this pretence And first I oppose to it what I before observed That hereby Particular are equalled and put into the same condition with General Councils contrary to the sence of all Christians both Ancient and Modern who constantly give the greatest deference to General Councils Not to say that since hereby firm assent cannot be given to a General Council not received by the Church nor denied to a particular one received by her it would be foolish and absurd to call a General Council with infinite trouble and difficulty when a particular one may Define and Decree with the same Authority Secondly If the Church reject some Councils admit others there must be some reason of this different Judgment This reason must be taken either from the Condition necessary to the Councils Infallibility as Universality Freedom and the rest or from the matters decreed in the Council their conformity or repugnance to the rules of Faith. If from the first all the difficulties which we proposed in the soregoing Chapters will take place For whether such a Council were Occumenical or rightly constituted or did rightly proceed being all Matters of Fact the Universal Church may err in judging of them and so by her judgment manifested in the reception or rejection of the Council can neither add to nor take away any certainty from it Besides I have shewn that the conditions of an infallible Council cannot be known even by the Church when they are fulfilled and when not For if the Bishops present cannot know it much less those divided by great distance of place Can the Americans or Chinese know whether no bribes no sollicitation of votes or making of parties was used at Trent The existence of such a Council they know only by uncertain rumours In vain is a certain knowledge hoped for However it be to determine a thing of this nature and moment requireth an accurate and diligent inquisition and examination of all circumstances Such an examination neither ever was nor can be made by the Universal Church For that would require a judiciary kind of process which the Church out of a Council cannot observe For our Adversaries ascribe to the Universal Church only a passive infallibility in believing not an active in defining But grant she can judge of this matter Did she ever do it Was the Council of Trent thus examined by her What witnesses were heard What inquisition made either by all Bishops or any other The Acts of it were always kept secret and are to this day held Prisoners in the Vatican far from being submitted to the examination of the Universal Church The Canons are indeed promulged But if any one should examine them by himself whether to be admitted or rejected as the Gallican Church rejected all those Canons which concern Ecclesiastical Discipline that respects only the matter of the Council viz. The Truth or Falseness Justice or Injustice of its Decrees but not the form of it viz. The Legality Right Constitution and Proceeding of it of which only we are now treating So Lupus 1 In Concil Tom. 1. p. 742.7.44 tells us that the reason why almost all the Western Bishops rejected the V. Council was not any defect in the form of it but their respect to the Ancient custom of the Church of Gondemning no man after his Death that died in Catholick Communion Honour to the Memory of Theodorus of Mopsuestia so Famous over all the East and Reverence to the Canons of Chalcedon whose Authority they thought infringed by the Decrees of this Council So the Ancient French and English rejected the Seventh and Eighth Synods only for the falseness of their Decrees and defining the Lawfulness of Image worship which the others looked upon as Idolatry and contrary to the Faith because they had defined otherwise than the Orthodox Doctors had defined
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