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
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
Synod Popes therefore as well as Councils may be drawn to decree against their Consciences No where is to be found invincible Constancy no where the desired Certainty CHAP. XVI That it cannot be known whether the Intention of the Fathers of the Council be right AS Lawfulness and Liberty are necessary to the constitution of an Infallible Council so is a right proceeding in it when constituted This consists in three things a good Intention an accurate Examination of the Question to be defined and a Canonical Conclusion Every one of these beget new scruples and perplexities of which in their Order First therefore it is required that the Bishops laying aside all Worldly Interests seek only the finding out of Truth the Glory of God and Edification of the Church For they cannot define Truth unless they know it Know it they cannot but either wholly by their own Sagacity and Industry or by the Assistance and Illumination of the Holy Ghost The first way must be and is acknowledged to be fallible by our Adversaries who therefore fly to the second and impute all the certainty of Conciliar definitions to the direction of the Holy Ghost Hence the Mass of the Holy Ghost and the Hymn Veni Creator Spiritus is wont to precede every Session of Councils and this Title presixed to their Decrees The Holy Vniversal Synod Lawfully Assembled in the Holy Ghost and oftentimes that other It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us which supposeth the Council to be directed and assisted by the Holy Ghost But can we imagine that Holy Spirit illuminates their Minds whose Hearts he doth not sanctifie and inflame with love of Truth and zeal of Divine Glory He inspireth not Souls defiled with Sin and addicted to worldly Considerations So the Author of the Book of Wisdom 1 Sap. I. 4 5. For into a malicious Sould Wisdom shall not enter nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto sin For the Holy Spirit of Discipline will flee Deceit and remove from Thoughts that are without Vnderstanding and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in Our Saviour promiseth the knowledge of his Truth only to those who by Piety and the Love of Heavenly things have sitted their Minds for the reception of it So he tells the believing Jews 2 John VIII 31 32. If ye continue in my word then are ye my Disciples indeed And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free And in another place 3 John XIV 21. He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and manifest my self to him The like saith David 4 Psal XXV The meek will he guide in judgment and the meek will he teach his way And a little after The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him and he will shew them his Covenant And St. Paul speaking of them that received not the love of Truth that they might be saved saith 5 2 Thef II. 11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lye And in another place 6 1 Tim. I. 19. asserteth that some having put away a good Conscience made shipwrack in the Faith. These places cannot be eluded by saying they speak of a Practical and not a Speculative Knowledge of the Truth For besides that this can by no means be apply'd to the two last places I cannot see with what appearance of reason God can be said to promise Knowledge of Truth to those that love him fear him and to the meek who by being such must be supposed to have had it before A Theoretical therefore or more clear and distinct knowledge of the Truth is to be understood to be here promised to Vertuous and sincerely Pious Persons Whence it cannot be supposed the same by the ordinary Law of Divine Government is granted to prophane and wicked Bishops in a Council if there be any such as none denieth such may be This St. Chrysostom asserts when upon those words Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them he saith 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Matth. Homil. 60. What then are not two or three gathered together in his name Yes but very rarely For he doth not only mention a Meeting a Synod or require that alone but together with that requireth others Vertues and that with great exactness and in the first place Nicholas de Clemangis 8 Illos quomodo audiat aut visitet aut illustret qui sibi adversantur illumque cum in se nâ—n possint in â—liis extinguere nituntur qui pro igne charitatis ardore sunt ambitionis indammati Clem. in disp cum Schol. par proveth the same thing largely and accurately He affirms the first four Councils were for no other reason had in so great Honour than because they consisted of holy and pious Men and denieth that wicked Men are directed by the Holy Ghost For how should he hear visit or illustrate them who resist him and endeavour to extinguish him in others when they cannot in themselves who instead of the fire of Charity are enflamed with the heat of Ambition He observeth also That the Fathers of Ancient Councils used to begin their Sessions with Fastings Prayers and Tears Which would have been unnecessary saith he if they had been certain they could not err nor be deceived in their Vndertakings nor be defrauded of their desire for want of due preparation and disposition The Presidents of the Council of Trent were perswaded of the truth of this For in the beginning of the Council they penned an Admonition which they commanded frequently to be read wherein they exhorted the Fathers to be touched with a true and lively sense of the Sins that occasioned so many Evils 9 Nisi haec bene cognita perspecta fuerint frustra intramus in concilium frustra invocamus Spiritum Sanctum c. Haec sunt quae contristant repellunt quem invocaâ—imus Sp. S. sine quo nihil omnino facere poterimus quod ad bonum pacem Ecclesiae cedat that otherwise in vain was the Council celebrated in vain the Holy Ghost invocated For that he how greatly soever intreated would not be present That Repentance and Reformation of Life was absolutely necessary to obtain the assistance of that Holy Spirit who had formerly refused to give any Answer to the Jews consulting him in the Prophet Ezekiel because of their Abominations that they must necessarily abstain from those things which are wont to corrupt the love of Truth and deprave the Judgment as all Passions and perturbations of the Mind Anger Hatred Favour or the like For these are the things which grieve and drive away the Holy Ghost whom we have invoked without whom we can do nothing that may tend to the good and peace of the Church Hence may be noted the shameless folly of
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
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
wholly to his cognisance and that all necessary diligence was abundantly used by himself and the Cardinals and Doctors employed about the work he prenounceth by that irrevocable Decree with the consent and Counsel of his Brethren of his own cortain knowledge and the fulness of Apostolick power that this is undoubtedly to be accounted that very Edition which was made Authentick by the Councel of Trent and now approved by himself And by the Apostolick power delivered unto him by our Lord commandeth that every where and in all cases it be received for true Legitimate Authentick and undoubted and all suture Editions be corrected by this and not the least syllable be changed added or omitted upon pain of the greater Excommunication This certainly if any thing was a question of Faith and right being concerning the true Rule of Faith and pure word of God. Sixtus also omitted no words whereby he might make his Decree valid Yet Clement VII a while after undid all revoked his Predecessors decree suppressed his Edition and publisheth another of his own wherein he maketh more than 2000. corrections of Sixtus his Edition as our Learned Dr. James hath in a peculiar Treatise shewed To this so fatal an overthrow of the Papal Infallibility Tannerus 7 Tann de fide Disp 1. quaest 4. dub 6. the Jesuit replyeth that Sixtus his Decree was not Authentic nor did oblige because not promulged in the due form that is not assixed or at least not the whole due time to the doors of St. Peters Church the Apostolick Chancery and in Flora's Field And this he proveth by the here say Testimonies of Bellarmine and Ferdinandus Albertus the Jesuit Although in the printed Copies of the Bull the Messengers Names are found subscribed testifying that all the wonted Solemnities of promulgation were observed To this Launoy 8 Laun. Epist part 1 p. 144 rejoyns that these are meer tricks to establish the authority of the Roman Court and impose upon unwary men if yet any can be found so foolish as to regard them Hath Christ therefore appropriated the Infallibility conferred on his Vicar to Walls and doors that his definitions cannot be infallible unless these petty punctilio's be observed That these pretences of Tannerus Vasquez Bellurmine and others are madness and Foppery frivolous impertinence Deliramenta loquitur Ibberas naenias sectatur frivola Siculis gerris vaniora Theologiaer importat Haec referre me pudet and shameful nonsense That promulgation signifies nothing to the Popes Infallibility nor addeth any truth or falsehood to the definition but supposeth it in them For if it be false the Promulgation will not make it true although it be published by a thousand Messengers and affixed to St. Peters doors to all Eternity That Sixtus in defining that for which his Bull was abrogated did plainly err and that Clement in abrogating his Bull and suppressing his Edition ought himself to have believed this at least gave others occasion to believe it Thus Launoy I might add it hath hitherto been believed that this Infallibility doth proceed from the Holy Ghost But when should the Holy Ghost confer it Surely if ever while the question is discussing and defining Whereas now when the Pope hath done all that lay in his power and nothing remains but only some petty circumstances of promulgation to be performed by servile and illiterate Messengers then only and not till then doth this Infallibility exert it self which makes the Pope fallible and the Messengers infallible For the first may pronounce somewhat false the latter nothing but what is true But passing by all these things suppose this excuse well grounded Yet have I obtained what was to prove that there may be sometime wanting in the Pope that diligence which is necessary to define well For this consists not in the circumstances of Promulgation but in examining the question inquiring the truth and weighing the reasons What if after all it be not duly published by Messengers That concerns not my argument nor hinders the precedent negligence of the Pope Besides if without these solemnities of Promulgation no Bulls be obligatory the authority of the Decrees of all antient Popes may be justly doubted of For who can assure us that all these circumstances were then observed when it is the height of folly to think they were so much as known Either these therefore are not necessary or the ancient Decretals are all void But suppose they are necessary That they are not wanting to this Bull of Sixtus the subscriptions of the Messengers do testifie I know it is pretended that they were added by anticipation only to hasten the Edition But that serveth my purpose as well For must every one that receive a Bull suspend his obedience till he shall ride post to Rome and consult the Registres And hence appears the uncertainty of the second condition required to the Infallibility of any Papal Decree For if the Testimony of the Bull it self be sometimes false and we be forced to pick up the Truth from flying reports how shall we be ever assured that the Decree was duly Promulged One thing more we may observe that even by Tanners confession some reported that the Decree of Sixtus was really affixed in the due places and taken down after his death This Compton 9 Compt. in 2.2 Disp 22. Sect. 5. also dares not deny but leaves it to the Reader to be believed or rejected by him But if the Bull was not taken down till Sixtus died then Sixtus erred as long as he lived and promoted errour as far as in him lay and what is the chief of all used not the necessary diligence to avoid errour CHAP. VIII That it is not certain whether the Pope defineth according to his own mind or against his conscience and that this latter case may happen is proved by many examples WE are not yet got rid of our doubts and perplexities Those which we have already mentioned are external and obvious to the senses if not of all yet at least of some Whereas here is one unknown and impenetrable to all but the Pope himself to wit his own Conscience For to judge right it is required that he pronounceth what he thinks is true and not decree against his judgment for any fear or force That the Pope notwithstanding hath not always such an assistance of the Holy Ghost as constantly to withstand these attempts I shall demonstrate by four examples those of Marcellinus Liberius Paschal II. and Eugenius IV. That Pope Mercellinus under Diocletian's persecution did deny the Faith publickly sacrifice to Idols and was for that reason deposed in the Synod of Sinuessa is acknowledged by Pope Damasus or whosoever be the Author of the Liber Pontificalis by Nicolas I. Luitprandus Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Gerson Cusanus Hosius Platina Papyrius Masso Bellarmine in the first Edition of his Controversies Baronius in the second Edition of his Annals Amicus Emanuel a Schelstrate and
perhaps was aware of these inconveniencies and therefore took another method He maintains it matters nothing whether he which possesseth the Popedom be true Pope or no and that his Decrees will not be at all the less infallible We affirm saith he g Dicimus talem Pontificem pro vero creditum nunquam erraturum ne in Ecclesiam falsum pro vero obtrudatur nunquam eum Deus errare sinet quidem secundum legem communem ordinariam Duvall de potest Pont. par 2. qu. 5. that such a Pope esteemed for true can never err For God lest falshood be obtruded upon his Church for truth will never permit him to err and that according to the common and ordinary Law because the Pope is not for himself but for the Church But there is nothing solid in all this For first his reason is vain For if the Pope be not for himself but for the Church no more are any other Governours of the Church Shall therefore whatsoever they do be valid although they be neither baptized nor ordained To think so Suarez calls Heresie nor will Duval allow it Yet allow it he must or else part with his Argument Secondly this is directly contrary to Julius II. his Decree For Duval would have a Simoniack or irregular Pope to be obeyed and heard Julius commands him to be looked upon as an Heresiarch and Magician to be disobeyed deprived and driven out of his See. Thirdly if we consult Scripture that forbids us to hearken to these Invaders of Church Offices For our Saviour after he had said that those which enter into the sheepfold any other way than by the door are Thieves and Robbers adds h John x. 5. And a stranger will they the sheep not follow but will flee from him for they know not the voice of Strangers And in another place i Mat. vii 15. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps cloathing but inwardly they are ravening Wolves Now Simoniacks and Vsurpers of Ecclesiastical Offices are these Thieves and Robbers and ravening Wolves Now as for reason that can never teach us that we owe the same reverence to unlawful as to lawful Popes For contrarily in the Civil Government every man is bound even to disobey a Tyrant and Usurper who drives out the lawful Prince Besides since Infallibility is by our Adversaries annexed to the Popedom as an inseparable Priviledge he that is no Pope can have no right nor claim to it So saith also Martinonus k Hujusmodi potestas assistentia non datur Pontifici nisi vero cui soli est promissa in Petro. Mart. de fide disp 9. Sect. 6. expresly This Power and Assistance is given to none but a true Pope to whom only it was promised in Peter And it seems indeed incredible to me that any wicked man should extort that from God by his Crimes which he had annexed to a lawful succession As if by Wickedness he could obtain a right to the perpetual assistance of the H. Ghost which had he been innocent he had for ever wanted Certainly the Antient Popes thought far otherwise They never dreamed of purchasing the H. Ghost by Simony but rather imagined that would obstruct his favour So Innocent I. l Perfectionem Spiritùs quam acceperant amiserunt Nec dare ejus plenitudinem possunt quae maximè in ordinatienibus operatur quam per impietatis suae perfidiam perdiderunt Innoc. 1. Epist 18. cap. 13. speaking of Simoniacks saith They have lost that perfection of the H. Ghost which they had received Neither can they give the fulness of it which exerts it self chiefly in Ordinations having forfeited it by the perfidiousness of their Impiety Gregory I. m Quia qui in templo Dei columbas vendere praesumpserunt eorum Deo judice cathedrae ceciderunt qui videlicet error in subditis cum augmento propagatur quia eum quem quis cum pretio ordinat provehendo agit ut haereticus siat Greg. I. lib. 4. Epist 50. They which in the Temple of God presume to sell Doves by which as in the words immediately precedent appears he means Simoniacks their Bishopricks by the judgment of God are become void which error is propagated with increase in those who are subject to them For whom any one ordains for Mony by ordaining he makes him an Heretick Which words he repeats more than ten times in his other Epistles John VIII n Joann VIII Epist 94. hath used the same Expressions in one of his Epistles And Peter Damian tells us this was confirmed by a miracle For a Simoniacal Bishop could never pronounce the Name of the H. Ghost on which he makes o Meritò siquidem Spiritum S. dum emit amisit P. Dam. Opose 19. cap. 6. this remark For he deservedly lost the H. Ghost while he bought him But to return to our Argument what more incredible than that an Atheist Infidel and profane person should be infallible Who would not wonder at a Pope pronouncing and deriding Oracles at the same time Infallible and ignorant of his Infallibility Teaching with certainty what himself thinks to be false Surely if things be so an irregular and usurping Pope ought not in prudence to be deposed Since his Infallibility as well as that of any lawful Pope will serve to direct the Faithful and confound Hereticks and his Deposition cannot be attempted without the danger of Schism Lastly I would know whether when an unlawful possesseth the Throne of a lawful Pope Infallibility belong to both or only to the first If to both then in vain doth God dispense so great a gift to the injured Pope whom no Body acknowledgeth as such If only to the first then the Priviledges of an Intruder will be more and greater than those of a lawful Pope and Usurpation will confer what Canonical Election cannot To these add the Arguments which Suarez p Suar. de fide disp 10. § 6. produceth against this Answer As That it incurreth the same difficulties it is brought to solve For it is not more certain that a reputed Pope hath the Priviledge of Infallibility than that he is a lawful Pope Since both depend upon the common belief of the Church and neither is revealed Again if he be only a Nominal Pope he may be also only a Nominal Priest and so cannot give Absolution hath therefore no right to all the Priviledges granted by Christ to St. Peter because no share in the Power delegated to S. Peter in those words Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth c. Farther that Answer is contradictory in assigning to the reputed Pope an inseparable property of the Papacy Infallibility and yet denying him to be Pope that is truly so It is manifest therefore that this Answer is plainly false But let it be true What still if it shall be uncertain It will be in the end the same thing and we shall as easily obtain our design For if I may
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
Cardinal Palavicini's pretence who would make his Readers believe That the Presidents by all this meant no more than that Repentance and amendment of Life was necessary not to defining rightly but to the successful execution of their Definitions and happy extirpation of Heresy Consonantly to the Admonition of the Presidents Didacus Payva Andradius who was present in the Council teacheth 10 Ii verò in Christi nomine congregari dicuntur quos non privata commoda inducunt non honoris aura c. Nam qui ut privatis rationibus consulant contentionibus serviant miserosque homines specioso Concilli nomine decipiant cocunt minime quidem in Christi nomine convenire nec Ecclesiasticos sed mortiferos conventus agitare dicendi sunt Andr. def Concil Trid. Lib. 1. That those only may be said to meet in the name of Christ whom not any private interests not Ambition Hatred Envy or the like but Charity and the love of Peace Truth and Piety actuates and enflames For they who meet to serve their own Interest or Party or to deceive Mankind with the specious name of a Council meet not in the name of Christ nor are to be called Ecclesiastical but pestilent Assemblies Lastly Duval 11 Sepesitis humanis assectibus solâ sibi propositâ veritate Duval de potest poâ—t part 4. qu. 6. Vbi nemini su fraus vis aut injuria nullusque adstantium animi motu aut passione praepeditur sed omnes veritatis amore ducuntur Id. qu. 10. absolutely requireth that the Bishops act in the Council Laying aside all Humane Affections and proposing to themselves only the sinding out of Truth And in another place That no fraud force or injury be offered to any that none of those present be prepossessed with any Passion or Commotion of Mind but that all be led with the love of Truth It is manifest therefore both from Reason and the Confession of our Adversaries That Truth cannot infallibly be defined in a Council unless the Bishops bring with them Minds truly desirous of it and animated with Zeal for the Honour of God and moreover cordially implore the Divine Assistance But since this escapeth the knowledge of Man and is perceived by God alone the searcher of Hearts whatsoever depends upon so dubious and obscure a condition must necessarily be uncertain For who can certainly tell whether all the Bishops of any Council were prepared and disposed and that nothing was indulged therein to Flesh and Blood Neither can you say that this is indeed necessary but never deficient that God takes care by his Providence the Bishops be rightly dispos'd and fully perform their duty For first God hath no where promised this and then Experience hath proved the contrary This vigilant care of God had no place in the 2d Ephesine Council none in the two Constantinopolitan Synods against Images under Leo Isaurus and Constantine Copronimus if our Adversaries speak true none in the Council of Basil where the Bishops were blinded with hatred against Eugenius if we believe the partizans of the Court of Rome who are wont abundantly to vilifie all Councils that decreed contrary to their liking But they are neither the first nor the only Persons that have complained of these abuses All know what Gregory Nazianzen 12 Naz. Querel de Episcopis hominum ingratitudine writes of the Fathers of the I. Council of Constantinople whom he calls a tumultuous Rabble a factious Assembly composed of ignorant and vile fellows newly taken from the Plough the Oar the Army and the Chain of the posterity of the Collectors who thought of nothing but falsifying their accounts of mean Mechanicks newly started out of their shops some of them meer Rascals and fitter to be placed in Houses of Correction Flagriones pistrinis digni Yet this is the second of the four most ancient and most famous Councils which Gregory I. and with him many others profess to reverence equally with the four Gospels These irregularities made Nazianzen resolve never to be present in any more Synods 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Carm. X. de divers vitae gener where nothing but Strife Contentions and exposing of one anothers faults and thence mortal hatred on each side were to be observed Isidore Peleusiota 14 Isid Epist 310. writes to Cyril of Alexandria President of the first Ephesine Synod that many of those who were present in Ephesus accused him that seeking the Revenge of a private injury he did not Orthodoxly enquire after the things of Christ And in another place he exhorts him to leave off contention and not take revenge of the Church for his private injuries and sow eternal Discord under pretext of Piety Of Pelagius Legate afterwards Pope of Rom and Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea whereof one procured Origen the other Theodorus of Mopsuestia to be condemned and so occasioned the fifth Synod Liberatus 15 Illud liquere omnibus credo per Pelagium c. hoc scandalum in Ecclesiam fuisse ingressum quod etiam publicè ipse Theodorus clamitavit se Pelagium vivos incendendos per quos hoc scandalum intravit in mundum Liberat. Brev. cap. ult saith it is manifest that by those two this scandal entred into the Church which Theodorus also publickly Confessed crying out that he and Pelagius deserved to be burned alive for introducing that scandal And Garnerius 16 Etsi negotium hoc vesano partium studio infensisque incredibiliter animis susceptum est in his notes upon that place confesseth the thing was undertaken with a furious partiality and incredibly imbittered minds Not to say that Lupus in a passage above cited makes Justinian in this whole business a Partizan of Theodorus and all the Greek Bishops Slaves to him Lastly an Eminent Writer Claudius Sainctes 17 Nusquam praesentiori numine afflatus est quà m cum venire isthuc noluisti Nullus enim dubito quin prae dolore mortuus esses si ea vidisses quae ad eludendam reformationem infanda patrantur Cl. Sanct. epist ad Espenc who went with the other French Divines to the Council of Trent relates what he observed there in these words speaking to Espencaeus Never were you more plainly inspired by God than when you refused to come hither For I doubt not but you would have died with grief if you had seen those wicked Arts which are put in practice to elude a Reformation If any one shall suspect the like of any other Council he will have no mean Authors for his Leaders in it However that the Fathers of any Council were better inclined must appear to us otherwise than from the Universality of it since Learned Men have long since observed that many in Oecumenical Councils have sought any thing rather than the Glory of God. Yet is that the only way that is or can be offered for our assurance therein CHAP. XVII That it seldom appears whether a
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
For among Catholicks some affirm it because there is no promise found of the contrary Others deny it because the whole Church would be otherwise in great danger of error To me neither seemeth sufficiently certain Yet it is probable that it becomes the Providence of Christ not to permit it In these words two things may be observed First That Suarez speaks of the Infallibility of Bishops not in believing but in teaching For he saith this in answer to an Objection That if all the Bishops could err then the other part of the Church the Laity might also err because they ordinarily follow the Doctrine of their Pastors and are bound to do it Now the People are bound to follow their Pastors not in what they think but in what they teach This also appears from the reason why some denied the consent of all Bishops in any error to be possible because if that should happen the whole Church would be brought into great danger of error But if Bishops should teach rightly although they thought erroneously there would be thence no danger of Error to the rest of the Faithful Secondly Of this Infallibility of Bishops in what they teach unanimously he saith three things 1. That some Catholicks deny it 2. That neither part seems certain to him 3. That it is probable All which singly prove That he thought it not to be of Faith. But who can imagine so great a Doctor could be ignorant of what was of Faith Theoph. Raynaudus differed not much from the Opinion of Suarez That the visible Head saith he 3 Vt seposito capite visibili membra omnia possint infici aliquo errore materiali vix potest contingere verisimillimum est Deo semper cordi futurum ne id accidat Si tamen accideret incont aminato capite nibil decederet de perpetuitate verae fidei in Ecclesiâ Rayn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct 5. being laid aside all the Members should be infected with any material error could scarce happen and it is most probable God will take care it should not Yet if it should happen the Head being uninfected the perpetuity of true Faith in the Church would suffer no loss Where he determines not absolutely this cannot happen but looks upon the contrary only as most probable and denieth the Infallibility of the whole Church to depend thereon which is so much urged by the maintainers of the contrary Opinion Rhodius speaks more plainly who affirms 4 Mortuo pontifice non est in Ecclesiâ ulla infallibilis authoritas ad condenda fidei Decreta Nullam e◠tempore infallibilitatem actualem proximam habet Ecclesia Rhod. de fide qu. 2. Sect. 5. §. 5. That the Pope being dead the Church hath no Infallible Authority to make Decrees of Faith as having no actual and immediate Infallibility at that time Hence is manifest that we want little of a Confession from our Adversaries that the Infallibility of the Governours of the Church is not of Faith. And indeed it cannot be For no Foundation of such a Faith is to be found Not Scripture or Tradition For not to say that these to make any Article become of Faith ought according to our Adversaries most evidently to contain it which evidence even they will not deny to be here wanting It would be most absurd that Papists should believe this Infallibility of the Pastors of the Church for the Authority of Scripture and Tradition when they believe neither of these but for the Authority of the Pastors Take away their Testimony and they will deny it to be known whether Scripture or Tradition be the word of God or what is the sence of either The same may be said of the Decrees of the Church Representative For besides that no such express Decree of it can be produced the Infallibility of the Representative Church it self is believed by every single Papist only because they hear it taught by their Pastors As for the belief of the Universal Church that ought not be produced For that is the thing now inquired why the Universal Church believeth so Will our Adversaries therefore say they believe their Pastors cannot err in teaching unanimously what is of Faith because they so teach themselves This they must recurr to for they have no other reason left of believing so Yet nothing can be more absurd For first it is the constant Opinion of all Mankind and a received Law among all Nations that none should be Witness or Judge in his own Cause Secondly As we believe not any Man to be true and honest till we be assured of his veracity and honesty from some other Testimony than his own So it would be the highest imprudence to esteem those Infallible who challenge that privilege to themselves until their Infallibility be known to us from some other Argument than their own Testimony Certainly our Adversaries will not permit even the Scripture which is the word of God and hath so many illustrious Characters of a Divine Original to be believed for its own Testimony and Christ openly professed that if he bore Witness of himself his Witness was not credible Why then shall that be attributed to the Governours of the Church which Christ denied to himself and our Adversaries deny to the Word of God Thirdly The Question will return whence the Pastors of the Church know that they cannot err For they will not say they know it because the Faithful believe it since as Hallier 5 Non ideo vera docent Pastores quia vera credunt Auditores sed ideo vera credunt Auditores quia vera docentibus assentiuntur F. Hallier de Hierarch l. 4. c. 2. well saith The Pastors do not therefore teach truly because the Auditors believe truly but the Auditors believe truly because they assent to the Pastors teaching truly They cannot say that they know it from Scripture or Tradition For the truth of these without the Authority of the Church is no more known to learned than to unlearned persons Think not saith Bagotius 6 Cave existimes unumquenquam etiam Theologum Doctissimum posse quicquam eredere sine authoritate Ecclesiae independenter ab eâ Bagot Instit Theol. l. 4. c. 1. §. 1. that any one even the most learned Divine can believe any thing without the Authority of the Church and independently from it And Hosius 7 Hos cont Brent goeth so far that he maintains it to be the best way that even the most learned Men should recurr to implicit Faith and believe only in general as the Church believeth Shall the Pastors therefore believe that they cannot err for their own Testimony This is the natural consequence of our Adversaries Doctrine and that most absurd For first there is none of the Pastors which believeth so because he teacheth so but all teach so because all believe so Again The Question will recurr upon what Foundation do they teach so Here either nothing or only
corda eorum per fidem charitatem gratiam mihi inseparabiliter connectendo ita ut omnes sint unum corpus mysticum unaque domus Carth. in Matth. XVI art 26. brings in Christ thus speaking I will build and confirm my Church that is the Congregation of the Faithful by inseparably uniting their hearts to me by Faith Charity and Grace so as all may be one mystical Body and one House J. Fr. Picus Mirandula 15 A propriâ vocabuli significatione recedendum ipse non putarem ut primò propriè principalissimeque Sancta Catholica Ecclesia diceretur quae omnes rectae Apostolicae fidei non fictae charitatis homines complecteretur Pic. Theor. 13. saith That we ought not to recede from the proper signification of the Word that so that might be called primarily properly and most principally the Holy Catholick Church which comprehendeth all men of a right and Apostolick Faith and unfeigned Charity Ferus upon those words Matth. XV. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it saith 16 Sed loquitur de Ecclesiâ Secundùm spiritum quae solos electos complectitur Fer. in Matth. Christ speaks not here of the Church as it is commonly understood of the Collection of all Christians whether good or bad but of the Church according to the Spirit which comprehends only the Elect. Lastly Chr. Lupus 17 Ecclesia quae claves accepit non est universa fidelium in legitimis Sacramentis communio sed sola congregatio justorum seu Sanctorum communio Lup. in Concil tom 4. p. 818. affirms That the Church which received the Keys is not the universal Communion of the Faithful in the Lawful Sacraments but the sole Congregation of the just or the Communion of Saints Which he pursueth at large and proveth by many Testimonies of St. Augustine to which we might add many others no less cogent of other Fathers as St. Hierom Agobardus Bernard c. if our Argument consisted in the truth of this Opinion It sufficeth to shew it was received by many and consequently that our Adversaries do not agree in forming the Idea of a Church Now this Dissension is of great moment For if the second or especially the third Opinion be true the Doctrine of our Adversaries will be wholly overthrown For not to say that if Sinners be excluded out of the Church the Pope and whole Councils may perhaps not belong to it and so want that Infallibility which is appropriated to the true Church To omit this since we treat not now of active but passive Infallibilty I say That according to this Hypothesis the Faith of our Adversaries cannot rely upon the belief of the Universal Church For to conform themselves to this Rule of Faith they must first perfectly know it which cannot be if they know not what is that Church whose Faith they ought to follow But how shall they know the Church if that consist only of Pious Men whom none will deny to be known to God alone Canus was not ignorant of this who rejecteth this Opinion because saith he 18 Incerta erunt omnia si apud solos pios Ecclesia est Can. loc Theol. lib. 4. cap. 3. all things will be uncertain if the Church be limited to pious Men. Will our Adversaries therefore say that the first of these Opinions is certain the other undoubtedly false That is easter affirmed than proved Besides of what degree of certainty would they have their assertions to be Not certainly of Divine Faith unlessHeresie be imputed to all those Learned Men who maintained the second and third Opinions But no other degree of certainty can be obtained in these things nor will any other suffice CHAP. XXV That our Adversaries have no way of knowing the true Church IT doth not appear therefore who they are that truly belong to the Church Yet suppose it is and that all Baptized Persons outwardly professing the true Faith are Members of it which Opinion most pleaseth our Adversaries and is most advantageous for them It is still to be enquired which out of so many Societies that challenge to themselves the name of the Church justly and truly claims it For not any one that first occurrs is to be admitted and preferred before the rest But here if any where a diligent and accurate Examination is to be used lest instead of the Church of Christ we follow the Synagogue of Satan and for Divine Revelations receive execrable Errors This especially becomes them who when they have found the Church give over any further enquiry and receive without Examination all the dictates of it They ought to be very vigilant and curious in the choice of their Guide lest if they haply mistake they incurr that Sentence of Christ If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the ditch Let us see therefore whether our Adversaries can boast they have made a just and accurate enquiry herein and most certainly found out the true Church There are chiefly three Methods of making this Enquiry 1. From the truth of the Doctrine professed by any Church and Conformity of that to the Word of God. 2. By Notes known only by the light of right Reason and independently from the Word of God. 3. By Notes which are marked out and taught in the Scripture Arriaga preferreth the first Method before all others I answer saith he 1 Respondeo veritatem doctrinae probari etiam posse non recurrendo ad Ecclesiam imò ante primam probationem verae Ecclesiae debere probari veritatem doctrinae Etenim cum Ecclesia ut Ecclesia definiatur per hoc quòd sit coetus profitentium veram doctrinam fidei repugnat in terminis me supponere aliquam congregationem esse veram Ecclesiam nisi dicam eo ipso ibi esse veram doctrinam Ergo non possum primò probare veram doctrinam ex verâ Ecclesiâ Arr. de fide disp 7. Sect. 5. that the truth of the Doctrine may be proved without recurring to the Church yea and that before the first Proof of the true Church the truth of the Doctrine ought to be proved He proveth both parts of his Assertion largely and in the second part of it maketh use of this Argument For since the Church as a Church is defined the Congregation of men professing the true Doctrine of Faith it is a contradiction in the very terms to suppose any Congregation to be the true Church unless I do for that very reason suppose there is the true Doctrine I cannot therefore first prove the Doctrine is true from the truth of the Church To this we willingly subscribe and approve this Method of Arriaga's only Not so the rest of our Adversaries who detest it and labour to render it both infamous and impossible pretending it to be full of inextricable difficulties and not to be surmounted by the most learned much less by illiterate persons Wherefore I need not endeavour to prove that the true