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
be endured in matters of Faith and eternal Salvation For suppose the Delegates vote Heresie shall the Delegators be bound to confirm their Suffrages The second way of delegating destroys the liberty of the Council For the present Bishops would by this means be no Judges of the Controversies proposed and all disputation or examination of the Question in hand would be wholly vain The first way therefore of Representation is useless Let us now consider the second I affirm that the absent Bishops cannot be said to have committed their suffrages to the present For first Although this may with some colour be said of those which have been lawfully and sufficiently summoned yet it cannot be applied to them who either are not summoned at all or not by him who hath the lawful Authority to do it Who this is is yet undetermined Besides what if the absent Bishops shall openly protest they will not be obliged by what the others shall decree as the French did at Trent Shall they be also supposed to have tacitely assented But to shew the vanity of this pretence more clearly I will prove that tacit delegation which in other cases may be allowed to have here no place First it doth not appear what is the peculiar Office to be performed by the Bishops in a Council Holden makes them only Witnesses of revealed Truths Others rather think them to be Judges But Judges they cannot be unless also Witnesses For how shall they define an Opinion to have been revealed or not unless they know it to be so and be Witnesses of the Revelation or at least Tradition Yet 't is certain that Proxies in witnessing are not wont to be allowed or if they be that a tacit delegation will not suffice I add if it were a matter of more external Discipline or what concerns only the Bishops themselves those who absent themselves might perhaps be supposed to quit their right and submit themselves to the judgment of the rest which meet in the Council But to imagine such a thing in a matter of Faith and Truth is most absurd Shall those Bishops who might have born Witness to the Truth be thought to have forfeited or deserted their right only because either voluntarily or by force they were absent from the Council If this were admitted errour would soon triumph over Truth and Faith over Heresie For our Adversaries confess and Experience hath often proved That the major part of Bishops in a Council may favour Heresie For suppose the heretical Bishops nearer to the place of the Council or supported by the favour of the secular Prince or mightily zealous in the propagation of their Errour all which advantages Arianisme formerly enjoyed in the East If to these be added the right of representing absent Bishops they may establish Heresie in the Church for ever and oblige the absent Bishops for a punishment of their negligence to subscribe to erroneous Definitions of Faith. Lastly If the absent Bishops tacitely delegate their suffrages to the present there is no number of Bishops so small which may not constitute a General Council nay although they be all of one Province provided the Summons were directed to all the Provinces as being interpretatively invested with the Authority of all the absent Bishops Which yet is not allowed by our Adversaries and Bellarmine k Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui adveniant Bell. de Concil lib. 1. cap. 17. himself requires as the fourth condition of a General Council that some Bishops come from at least the greatest part of the Provinces of Christendom Let the Reader now judge how that can stand which Richerius l Maximè propriè perfectissimè Rich. Apol. axiom 21. so positively affirms That an Oecumenical Council represents the whole Church most properly and perfectly On the contrary what I have already offered proves that the Church is not at all much less most perfectly represented thereby CHAP. XIII That although there were Oecumenical Councils it would be always uncertain which they were THAT there is no truly Oecumenical Councils I have proved in the precedent Chapter But grant there is We shall gain but little unless we undoubtedly know which they are that deserve that Name For the Papists will not have their Faith rely upon a Council indefinitely but upon such or such a Council as for Example upon that of Constance or Trent But their Faith cannot rely on these unless they were certain they were Oecumenical which that they can never be I shall prove in this Chapter I might perhaps supersede this labour as being already performed by Learned Men even of the Church of Rome Launoy a Laun. Epist part 8. ad Ames and the Author b de lib. c. lib. 5. cap. 2. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church although with a different intention For the first seems to have undertaken it only for the love of Truth the second that he might shew the necessity of depending wholly and absolutely upon the Pope But because both of them have omitted many things it will not be perhaps unuseful to add mine to their Observations First therefore The difficulty of knowing Oecumenical Councils appears from the discord of Authors in numbring them Bellarmine reckons 32 which distributing into 4 Classes he makes 18 of them to have been approved 7 condemned 6 partly approved and partly condemned and 1 the Pisan neither manifestly approved nor manifestly condemned Bosius c Bos de signis Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. numbers 18 expresly denying the rest to have been General Bannes d Ban. Catal. Concil praemisso Tom. 3. in Thom. 15 or at most 17. But all omit that of Siena although acknowledged to have been General by the Council of Basil e Concil Basil in quâdam resp datâ 3. Id. Maii 1436. Again of those numbred by Bellarmin some are by other Writers expunged out of the List Let us view them in order After the 1. Nicene Council of whose Universality none doubts comes that of Sardica which is thought to be General by Bellarmin Baronius Perron Lupus Natalis Alex. Maimbourg denied by the Africans Photius and Auxilius f Apud Lupum Diss de Concil Sardic among the Ancients by Richerius g Rich. de Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. and Peter de Marca h Marca de Concord lib. 7. cap. 3. among the Moderns The first Constantinopolitan Council Natalis i Orientalis duntaxat Ecclesiae Concilium istud fuit nec Oecumenicum nisi ex post facto quatenus c. Nat. §. 4. part 1. p. 236. affirms to have been only a Synod of the Eastern Church and Oecumenical only ex post facto inasmuch as the Western Church in the Roman Synod under Pope Damasus approved it Yet in the year after the Council the Eastern Bishops meeting at Constantinople and writing to the Roman Synod call their former Council Oecumenical which Valesius k Val.
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
certitudinem attribuere possumus assensui intellectûs propter authoritatem Dei revelantis elicito eam necesse est provenire ac dependere à certitudine medii quo haec Dei revelantis authoritas intellectui communicatur Impossibile est ut majori certitudine verâ rationali credat aliquis ea quae dicuntur à Deo revelari quà m quâ cognoverit Deum eâ revelasse Holden Anal. Fid. lib. 1. cap. 2. affirms that whatsoever certainty we can attribute to an assent of the understanding given for the sake of the authority of God revealing The same must necessarily be derived from and depend upon the certainty of the means whereby the authority of God revealing is communicated to the understanding And that it is impossible that any one should believe those things which are said to be revealed by God with a greater degree of true and rational certainty than wherewith he is assured that God did reveal them Aegidius Estrix 2 Est Diat de Sapientiâ Dei c. Assert 26 27 28. layeth down and proveth these three Assertions 1. That an Assent of Faith cannot be more certain than the Principles upon which it depends 2. That it cannot be more firm than those previous Assents from which it is deduced 3. That that which is otherwise is an imprudent assent And John Martinonus 3 Non potest fides supernaturalis superare formali certitudine sumptâ ex merito objecti certitudinem carum veritatum quae includuntur in ipsius objecto in quibus fundatur illa certitudo Mart. Tom. 5. disp 20. de Fide Sect. 8. to the same purpose writeth That supernatural Faith cannot with a formal certainty taken from the merit of the object exceed the certainty of those truths which are included in its object and in which that certainty is founded Since therefore the perswasion which Papists have of what they believe either is or is thought to be Divine Faith It hence appears that it cannot be solid unless they be assured by Divine Faith or some other not inferior perswasion that both the Rules of their Faith are true and that what they believe is entirely conformable to them This our Adversaries confess And because some of them hold that no perswasion is of equal certainty with Divine Faith therefore it is necessary that by Divine Faith they be ascertained of those two things or at least the first of them So Ludovicus Caspensis 4 Nisi fide divinâ credamus ejusmodi Pontifices esse successores Petri nihil est quod possimus fide divinâ credere Lud. Cisp de fide disp 2. Sect. 6. Unless we can believe saith he by Divine Faith that such and such Popes are Successors of Peter there is nothing we can believe by Divine Faith. Martinonus 5 Neque summus Pontifex posset nos obligare ad credendum de fide id quod definit ut dictum à Deo nisi de fide esset ipsum habere potestatem definiendi infallibilem assistentiam Mart. de fide disp 9. Sect. 6. affirms that the Pope could not oblige us to believe de fide that which he defineth as said by God unless it were de fide that he hath the Power of defining and infallible assistance Maimburgh 6 Maimb de la uraye parole Chap. 3. hath much to the same sence which would be here too long to insert If the opinion of these Divines were received by all the Dispute would be the shorter For then I need only prove that none of our Adversaries is by Divine Faith assured of the certainty of the foundations of his Faith Since all other kind of assurance being inferior to that of Divine Faith would not suffice But because this Hypothesis although admitted by most is denied by some few and labours with insuperable difficulties which I will not here touch I will not have the force of my argument rely upon it It remains therefore to be inquired whether our Adversaries can boast of any certainty in this matter distinct from and as they think not inferior to the certainty of Divine Faith. But first we must lay down somewhat concerning the kinds and degrees of certainty Bellarmine 7 De Justif lib. 3. cap. 2. makes a two fold certainty Evident and Obscure that of things in themselves manifest this of things that depend upon external proofs and testimonies To the first kind he assigneth three degrees whereof first Principles constitute the first Conclusions evidently drawn from these the second and things perceived by sense the third That is certainty of the Intellect of Science and of Experience To Obscure Certainty he giveth as many degrees The first is of those things which are believed for Divine Authority The second of those believed upon the account of humane authority but that so illustrious that it leaveth no place for doubt the third of those things which are confirmed by such and so many arguments as may exclude anxiety but not distrust Or certainty of Divine Faith which is absolute certainty of Humane Faith which is Moral and certainty of opinion which is conjectural Thus far Bellarmine whose distribution of the kinds of Certainty might be allowed if the raising a conjectural opinion even to the lowest degree of it were not too improper and irrational But to pass by that this rather deserveth notice that he hath made no mention of that kind of certainty which is so famous in the Schools as neither wholly evident nor wholly obscure but mixt of both Such have Theological Conclusions which are deduced from two propositions the one evident the other revealed It need not much be inquired whether our Adversaries have this last certainty of the firmness of the foundations of their Faith. For it is either of the same kind with the certainty of Faith or of a diverse If of the same as some will then to prove that our Adversaries have not herein the certainty of Divine Faith will disprove this If of a diverse as most think then it is inferior to the other and less firm and consequently not sufficient Besides such who think that these Theological Conclusions founded upon a mixt certainty are de fide as Alphonsus a Castro and Melchior Canus must acknowledg that their opinion oppugned by so many and so great Divines of the same party cannot be certain But an incertain opinion though true in it self cannot be the foundation of an undoubted certainty such as is that of Divine Faith. Lastly whether this certainty be or be not inferior to that of Divine Faith it can have no place here but absurdly and preposterously For all this certainty is derived from things revealed and cannot therefore add any to things revealed Theological Conclusions are admitted only for the sake of those revealed Propositions from which they are deduced Those Propositions therefore cannot be admitted for the sake of these Conclusions without a manifest and absurd Circle I do not remember that
place of Scripture explained the same way by all the Fathers For there are many places which none of them have touched and none which all have interpreted Nor will it suffice to say that they agree who have interpreted it and that the silence of the rest is to be taken for consent as if they must be supposed to consent who were ignorant of such interpretations or dead perhaps before they were made or as if the Antients were wont expresly to reject all interpretations different from their own or these might not be rejected or at least others proposed in those Books of the Fathers which are lost It is not enough therefore to have the consent of a few unless we be assured of the concurrence of the rest But granting that it is it cannot be denied that our Adversaries can collect nothing certain out of any place of Scripture if any one of the Antients have interpreted it otherwise Hence Alphonsus a Castro 2 Itaapertum indubitatum ut nullus ex sacris probatis Doctoribus illud in aliquo alio sensu interpretetur juxta quem non possit talis propositio per illud de haeresi convinci Castr de justâ haeret pun lib. 1. cap. 4. requireth that among the necessary qualifications of a Text of Scripture to be produced for the conviction of Hereticks this be the chief that it be so plain and undoubted that none of the sacred and approved Doctors interpret it in some other sence according to which such a proposition cannot be thereby convinced of Heresie But if this be true how few places will there be of whose sense we may not doubt Certainly there are very few explained the same way by all antient Commentators This Christopher Gillius 3 Multa sunt in sacris literis quorum sententia neque ex Traditione neque ex Ecclesiae definitione habetur neque semper communis Sanctorum sententia reperitur vel quia diversa sentiunt vel quia pauci locum aliquem interpretati sunt Gill. de doctr sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 6. Professor of Conimbria acknowledgeth who affirms many places to be in Scripture whose sense can be had neither from Tradition nor from the Definition of the Church neither yet can a concurrent explication of the Fathers be found either because they were of different opinions or because few explained the place And the Anonymous Writer of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church 4 Pauca sunt Scripturae loca que S S. Patres varii variè interpretati non fuerint lib. 3. cap. 11. maintains that there is few places of Scripture which the Holy Fathers have not differently interpreted As will also manifestly appear to any one who shall consult those Interpreters that are wont to produce the expositions of the Antient Writers Hence the Readers may imagine to what a streight our Adversaries would be reduced if they were tied up to their own Laws and allowed to urge no other places of Scripture against us than what are unanimously interpreted by the Fathers A Specimen hereof may be found in Launoy where he weigheth the Texts of Scripture produced by Bellarmine for the Popes authority and shewing that they are diversly explained by the Antients concludeth thence that they are wholly ineffectual That the sense of Scripture cannot be learned from Tradition hence appeareth but neither is it taught any better by the Church At least She hath not yet taught it For how many Decrees of the Church is there about the true sense of Scriptures Decrees I say for not every simple explication or allegation of a Text is to be lookt upon as an authentick interpretation of it but only that which hath an Anathema affixed to the deniers of it or dissenters from it Of this kind I find but four or five in the Decrees of the Council of Trent and in those of elder Councils none at all For 1500 years the Church delivered not the sense of so much as one place whence may be judged both what a faithful Interpreter She is of the Holy Scriptures and how small an assistance we are to expect from her in obtaining the true sense of them CHAP. III. That Tradition is no better ground for the Papists Faith than Holy Scriptures THUS have we taken from our Adversaries the first and chief foundation of Divine Faith. The Second will be as easily removed I mean Tradition which may be considered two ways as well as Scripture either as it is in it self or as it is confirmed by the authority of the Church That it hath no force the first way considered Bellarmine 1 Scriptura Traditiones omnia planè dogmata nisi certissimi simus quae sit vera Ecclesia incerta prorsus erunt omnia Bell. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 10. expresly acknowledgeth affirming that till we certainly know what is the true Church Scripture Tradition and all matters of belief are utterly uncertain That Bellarmin is in the right herein at least as to what concerns Tradition is manifest by these two reasons First that taking away the attestation of the Church it cannot be known that there is any Divine Traditions For laying aside that how shall we know that there is any unwritten Word of God derived down to us From Tradition that cannot be since we are now doubting whether there be any Tradition From Scripture That favours not Tradition but if it did it would avail nothing since as we shew in the foregoing Chapter Scripture according to our Adversaries cannot obtain belief till it be it self confirmed by Tradition and the Church Thus doth the truth of Tradition remain uncertain unless it be sustained by the Churches authority Gregory a Valentia 2 Sicut de authoritate ipsius Scripturae necesse per aliquam aliam certam authoritatem constare ita etiam de auctoritate Traditionis si ea quoque revocetur in dubium Val. Tom. 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. § 12. well knew this who puts Tradition into the same condition with Scripture neither being of authority when called in doubt unless confirmed by some other certain authority Secondly granting that it may be known that there are Divine Traditions it cannot yet without the authority of the Church be known which they are so many false dubious and suspected Traditions being carried about each of which pretends to the same Character of Divine Authority The testimonies of the Fathers will not help in this case since even their judgment is dubious and in many things it cannot easily be told what was their opinion Thus Valentia 3 Cum Traditio scriptis ferè Doctorum Orthod in Ecclesiâ conservetur quaestiones ac dubia moveri possunt de sensu illius sicut dubitatur saepe de sensu ac mente Doctorum Ejusmodi autem quaestiones per eandem ipsam Traditionem definiri satis non poterunt Val. loc cit confesseth that Tradition being conserved in the
Nor is it enough to say that herein they deliver their judgments of the Pope and Council disagreeing one from another and not conjunctly defining This indeed may seem to be said with some colour of Truth in Jacobatius But as for Occam and Alliacensis it doth by no means fit them Nor yet doth it in the least enervate the Testimonies of the rest Since whensoever they deny infallibility to Pope or Council they do not thereto oppose the consent of both but either the Symbolical and successive Church as Waldensis or the Universal as all the rest Besides they deny infallibility to belong to the representative Church and to be the property of the Universal whereas every one knoweth and acknowledgeth that only the representative Church is in a Council As for Jacobatius his opinion it plainly is that obedience is then immediately to be given to the Decree of a Pope or Council when it is consonant to the definition of some former even particular Council which had been received by the universal Church that this obedience therefore is to be paid not for the authority of the present definition but the approbation of the Universal Church which She is supposed to have given to it by a long reception But what clears the matter beyond all exception is that Jacobatius is one of those who think the Church may fail except one woman only as we shall see afterwards under the third head The second Classis contains the testimonies of Doctors asserting the Church for which Christ prayed and promised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it not to be confined to the Ecclesiastick order but may consist of believers of whatsoever rank and order This Petrus Alliacensis expresly affirms in the place by us above cited So the Author of the Glosse 28 Quaero de quâ Ecclesiâ intelligas quod hîc dicitur quòd non possit errare de ipso Papâ qui Ecclesia dicitur sed certum est quòd Papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia Et talis Ecclesia non potest non esse Nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesia Caus 24. quaest 1. upon the Canon Law inquiring what Church it is that cannot err determineth it to be the Congregation of the faithful which cannot fail Christ having prayed for it and Nicolas Lyra 29 A verâ se fide subvertendo Ex quo patet quòd Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis Ecclesiasticae vel saecularis quia multi principes summi Pontifices c. inventi sunt apostatâsse a fide Propter quod Ecclesia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera confessio fidei veritatis Lyra in Matth. 16.18 to those words The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it affixeth this Glosse that is to subvert it from the true faith To which he subjoyns Whence is manifest that the Church consists not in men in respect either of Ecclesiastical or Secular Dignity for they have sometimes apostatized from the Faith but in those persons in whom remains a true knowledge and confession of the faith and truth The third Classis comprehendeth the testimonies of those who teach that the whole Church may fail except one only person and that either Ecclesiastick or Laick Man or Woman and so the Church consist in that person alone That the Church actually did so at the time of our Saviours Passion Tostatus 30 Tost in Matth. praef quaest 14. doth not assert as Suarez 31 Suar. de fide disp 9. Sect. 3. and Bannes 32 Bann in 2.2 q. 1. art 10. dub salsly relate but tells us it was the common opinion in his time The same writes Aeneas Sylvius in his History of the Council of Basil Bannes and Turrecremata 33 Terrec de Eccles lib. 3. cap 6. attribute this opinion to Alexander Alensis Hagutius and Durandus Asimatensis the latter ascribe it also to the whole multitude of Preachers and produceth out of Alensis 34 Opinio que dicit quid in sâ—lâ Vin ine stetit Ecclesia in qâ—â—d sâ—la sides mansit in passione videtur nobis vera this sentence That opinion which saith the Church consisted in the Virgin alone in whom alone romained true faith at the passion seems true to us which Turrecremata also himself defends in many places particularly Summ. de Eccles lib. 1. cap. 30. lib. 3. cap. 61. Beside these four there are not a few of the same mind Ockam 35 In uno sdo potest stare tota sides Ecclesiae quem â—dmedum tempare mortis Christi tota siles Ecclesiae in B. Virgine remanebat Non est ctiam credendum c. Occ. Dial. part 1. lib. 2. cap. 25. affirms that the whole Faith of the Church may remain in one single person as it did in the blessed Vargin at the time of our Lords passsion that if God permitted this in the days of the Apostles he will much sooner permit it in these latter Ages and that the contrary opinion is rash Panormitan 36 Passibile est quòd vera sides Christi remaneret in uno solo Hoe patuit post passionem Christi Nam c. Et fortè hine dicit Glossa quâ—d ubi sant bmi ibi est Ecclesia Romana Panorm loc cit in the words immediately following those before cited saith it is possible the Faith of Christ may remain in one only person That at the Passion of our Saviour it remained only in the blessed Virgin and that for this cause probably the Glosse saith where ever good men are there is the Church of Rome This passage also as well as the former Antonius Florentinus translated into his Sum. Peter de Monte 38 Quia sides potest remarere etiam apud simplicem Laicum in aliis omnibus jerire sicut accidit in personâ B. Mariae in passione Christi Pet. de Monte lib. de Monarchiâ Bishop of Brixia gives this reason why Laicks ought to be admitted into the Council because the Faith may possibly remain in one simple Laick as it did formerly in the Blessed Virgin. Clemangis 39 In soli potest mulierculâ per gratiam manere Ecclesia sicut c. Clem. disp de Concil asserts the Church may by grace remain in one single woman as formerly in the Virgin. Jacobatius 40 Nam remansit sides in B. Virgine aliis deficientibus post passionem ut astenderetur quid non possi defiâ—ere sides pro quâ Christus oravit cùm diait Petro. Et ego pro te rogavi ut non desietat svies tua Et non intelligitar Jac. de Concil lib. 6. p. 242. writeth that after the passion faith remained in the Blessed Virgin alone that so the promise of indefectibility made by Christ unto his Church might not fail which promise was made not to the representive Church or a Council but
to distinguish them and thence certainly to know to which of the Churches Decrees they are to give a steadfast and to which a dubious Faith The same is the case of the second Exception Many of our Adversaries deny the Church to be infallible in questions of Fact. In the mean while they differ about determining what are matters of Fact and what of right To know what is the sense of a late Writer many account a question of Fact. Estrix 2 Estr Diat de sapientiâ c. assert on the contrary contends it belong to right The same may be said of the third Exception That excludes from the rank of infallible all Decrees not proposed as of Faith. But what those Decrees are doth not appear So the Council of Trent for example defined that the body of Christ exists under the Bread by vertue of the words but the Blood not by vertue of the words but by concomitance No anathema being inflicted upon those that think otherwise Hence arose a question whether this distinction were of Faith. Some in Vasquez 3 Vasq in 3. disp 185. cap. 2. hold the negative himself largely endeavours to prove the affirmative This might be further confirmed with innumerabe instances But I chuse rather to take notice of somewhat more remarkable The Church in defining hath in these latter Ages been wont to make use of words which might rather conceal than declare her opinion and from which the most sagacious persons should not collect her meaning For example one of the notes whereby we know whether a definition be by the Church proposed as of Faith is the excommunication of the Deniers of it yet it sometimes happens the Church would not have that be thought to be of Faith the Deniers whereof She excommunicates So the Council of Trent 6 Si quis contrarium doâ—ere prae dicare vel pertinaciter assirere praesumpserit eo ipso excommunicatus existat having enjoyned that every one conscious of any mortal sin should confess before he communicates subjoyneth If any one presume to teach preach or pertinaciously assert the contrary let him be ipso facto excommunicate Any one would hereby imagine that the opinion of Cajetan were condemned of Heresie Yet Canus 7 Hoc propter periculum cautum est Nam quod sententia Cajetani non fuerit pro hereticâ condemnata nos testes sumus qui Concilio intersuimus Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. tells us that for caution sake it was not and of this saith he we that were present in the Council are Witnesses See another Artifice which creates more perplexities When the Church condemneth many propositions in one Decree it oft-times happens that they are not all of the same kind and quality but some Heretical others only erroneus some Rash others Scandalous and some Offensive to Pious Ears as they are wont to term them Now none but Heretical propositions hurt the Faith and consequently if the Church be infallible only in matters which she proposeth as of Faith when she condemneth these mixed propositions her judgment is infallible only in respect of the Heretical ones The rest may with safety and truth be defended It is of insinite concern therefore in the direction of our Faith that these propositions should be distributed into their several Classes and the particular censure specified in each of them But that is very rarely done The propositions are all huddled up together And we are only told in general that some of them are Heretical others Erroneus c. Thus the Council of Constance 8 Quibus examinatis fuit repertum aliquos plures ex ipsis fuisse esse notoriè heretico alios non Catholicos sed erroreos alios scandalosos Blasphemos quosdam piarum aurium offensivos nonnullos corum temerarios seditiosos Concil Const Sess 8. condemned 45 Propositions of Wickliff in these Words This Holy Synod hath caused them to be examined and 't is found that many of them are notoriously Heretical others not Catholick but erroneous some scandalous and blasphemous some offensive to pious ears and some rash and seditious In the same manner that Council condemned Thirty Assertions of John Husse without acquainting us what particularly in them is contrary to Faith and consequently what wherein themselves cannot err The Popes make use of the same trick So the Bull 9 Quas quidem sententias quanquam nonnullae aliquo pacto sustineri possent in rigore tamen haereticas erroneas c. respectivè damnamus Bulla ad calcem Operum Vasq wherewith Pius V. and Gregory XIII condemned Seventy five Propositions of Michael Baius after it hath recited them and confessed that divers of them might be in some sense maintained condemns them all respectively as Heretical erroneous suspected rash scandalous and offensive to pious ears See an ambiguous sentence and very unfit to remove scruples Nor doth Vasquez deny it but tells 5 Ex quâ censurâ non apparet qualis untcuique propositioni censura sigillatiâ—n conveniat Vasq in 1.2 Disp 190. cap. 18. us that from their censure doth not appear what censure agreeth to each single Proposition Wherefore when himself had undertaken to defend some of these Propositions that he might know in which of them the Poyson of Heresie lay hid he began to read Baius's Book having first asked leave But when that would not do he consulted Cardinal Toletus whom the Pope had sent to Lovain to see the Bull put in execution and Learned from him that the Popes had condemned some of those Propositions only because they were too sharply worded Now what a rare help doth the Church afford in declaring to every one what he should believe when the sense of her own decrees cannot be known without consulting her most intimate Counsellours such as Canus and Toletus Further it may very well be that he which knoweth the particular propositions condemned of Heresie may be ignorant wherein the Heresie consists For the same proposition may admit of many senses whereof some may be true others false some Heretical others not If the Church had any care of the truth She ought accurately to distinguish these sences and tell us which may be admitted and which ought to be exploded But nothing of this is done Rather Pius V. and Gregory XIII declaring that some of Baius his Propositions are in some sense maintainable but in rigour heretical tell us neither what is that harmless sense which may be defended nor that pernicious Heresie which ought to be avoided But nothing evinceth this more clearly than what lately happened upon occasion of the Jansenist Doctrine Five Propositions were taken out of Jansenius his Augustinus and by some French Bishops sent to be examined by the Pope Others were present for Jansenius who pleaded the Propositions were capable of divers senses some true some false and earnestly desired it might be specified in which sense each Proposition were
doth not clearly enough teach this Infallibility The two first reasons are also made use of by Bellarmine Vasquez the Valemburgii and Boyvin And indeed this opinion is most consonant to the received Principles of their Church For if nothing can be an Article of Faith of which their Divines freely dispute unregarded by the Church This certainly cannot be whose Truth hath been and is to this day fiercely disputed of among them even by Bellarmines Confession from the time of the Council of Constance the Church all this while inflicting no censure on either party Besides if the Infallibility of the Pope be of Faith it will then be Heresie to deny it as we saw some before asserting Hadrianus Florentius therefore was an Heretick who affirms 11 Certum est quod possit Pontifex errare etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem Heresin per suam determinationem vel Deeretalem asserendo plures enim fuerunt Pontifices Rom. heretici Hadr. in Dictat in 4. Sentent the Pope can err even in those things which concern Faith by asserting Heresie by his determination or decretal and that many Popes have been Hereticks and the Church will be a favouress of Heresie in that She afterwards promoted Hadrian to the Popedom without first requiring of him an abjuration of his Heresie Again if this opinion be Heretical the Council of Basil will be heretical that defined it and vigorously maintained it The Sorbon and Gallican Clergy hereticks that teach it the Pope a favourer of heresie who daily conferreth Abbies Bishopricks and Cardinals Hats on notorious Hereticks giveth them places in Councils and maintains Communion with them the whole Latin Church will have been divided in point of Faith and part infected with heresie part with the Communion of hereticks for many Ages from the Council of Constance according to Bellarmine but even from the time of Firmilian or the middle of the third Century according to Lupus who assigns Firmilian to be the first opposer of Papal Infallibility and makes St. Basil to have been his Successor in opinion as well as in the See of Caesarea that thenceforward this Heresie got ground among the Grecians insomuch as the Pelagians condemned by the Popes appealed to the Council at Ephesus hoping their sentence might easily be reversed by the Greek Bishops as not allowing the Popes Infallibility If so then this dissention is very ancient in the Church which if it toucheth Faith then a pestilent Heresie hath for many Ages been connived at by the Church and Councils But whatsoever becomes of Lupus his Calculation certain it is this dissention hath continued from the Council of Constance so that if it be concerning a matter of Faith the Church of Rome hath all this while wanted that glorious Character of Unity of Faith which She so much boasts of CHAP. VII That it is not certain whether the Pope in defining used all diligence necessary to a right definition or whether he observed all the wonted solemnities in publishing his Decree ANother scruple next ariseth no less weighty than the former For granting we may be assured of the Infallibility of the Pope it is still to be inquired which be those Decrees of his that are infallibly true For that all are not so our Adversaries confess Many things are by them required and besides those before mentioned two other conditions viz. Diligence of the Pope in well examining the question to be defined and observation of the due solemnities in publishing the definition For the first they require that he diligently consult Scripture and Tradition address himself by Prayers to God and omit nothing which may assist him in finding out the Truth So Tapperus 1 Tapp orat 3. Canus 2 Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. Cellotius 3 Cell de Hier lib. 4. cap. 10. Bagotius 4 Bag. Instit Theol. and many others but above all Duvall 5 Duval de Pot. Pont. Sect. 2. quaest 5. who not only proposeth but also accurately demonstrates the necessity of these conditions But who can assure us that this requisite diligence was always used Or as often as a Papal decree comes forth are we to suspend our assent till we be ascertained that nothing requisite was omitted by the Pope If that be true there will be few Decrees to which we owe assent and obedience Canus Bellarmine Suarez Duvall Martinenus Rhodius and many others answer that as he which promiseth the End promiseth also the the means of that End so Christ in promising Infallibility to the Pope must be supposed likewise to have promised that he would take care the Pope should never omit any thing necessary for finding out of truth and declaring it to others when found I will not now enquire whether this be consonant to what they teach about the Controversie of the Aids of Grace I only ask whether what they alledge be certain If not our Faith will always sluctuate and ever be uncertain That it is not certain Tapperus 6 Si contingeret eum Pontisirem perperam pracedere an Deus eam volentem maledicere prchiberet sicut impedivit Balaam an potius retractari saceret ejus judicium sicut c. Certum non est Tapp loc cit ingenuously confesseth Whether saith he if it should happen that the Pope proceeds wrong would God hinder him going about to curse as he did Balaam or make him retract his judgment as the Counsel given by Nathan the Prophet to King David It is not certain Nay that it is absolutely false may be proved by many examples Did Benedict II. Examine well what he went about when he condemned Julian Toletanus his Book which he was afterwards forced to approve Did Vigilius who sometimes condemned sometimes defended the Tria Capitula Did John VIII who notwithstanding his Oath the Decrees of his Predecessors and Sanctions of Three Councils restored Photius and reinforced the Schism Another very evident Example of this is afforded by the suppression of Sixtus V. his Bibles which alone might evince three things that the Popes are not always sufficiently diligent in their Definitions that they can err in any Decrees and that it is not known when the requisite Solemnities are observed in the promulgation which was my second Argument The case was this The Council of Trent in authorizing the Vulgar Version had desired it might be correctly and accurately set forth leaving the Execution of this matter to the Pope That this might be well done Ad nos totum hoc judicium propriè specialiter pertinet Hac perpetuo valitura Constitutione de Venerab Fratrum consensu Consilio de certä suâ—i scientiâ Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine Apostolied sibi a Domino traditâ authoritate great industry was used At last after Forty Six years Sixtus V. published the Edition prefixing a Bull to it whereby he commanded it to be received by all men And wherein having prefaced that the matter belonged
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
differently as we shall see hereafter Secondly In that whether these Conditions be present they would have judged from the subsequent confirmation of the Pope which the Sorbonists will by no means allow but require the knowledge of it to be had some other way Hence many Councils which the Pope hath pronounced to be both lawful and Oecumenical the Sorbonists will not acknowledge either for lawful or Oecumenical as that of Lyons under Innocent IV. that of Florence and the Lateran under Leo X. others which the Sorbonists admit and the Monarchists reject as those of Pisa Constance at least as to the first Sessions and Basil So Bellarmin rejecting some antient Councils as those of Sirmium Ariminum Milan and the second of Ephesus on pretence that they were not approved by the Pope is said by Richerius c Richer apol pro Gers axiom 22. to trisle in assigning for the cause that which is not such Since as he affirms these Councils were not rejected because not approved by the Pope but because wanting the requisite Liberty Not to say that the Sorbonists reject some Councils meerly because the Pope was present oppressing and over-awing their Liberty It is manifest therefore that the consent of our Adversaries about the Infallibility of Councils confirmed by the Pope consists only in words and is not real and that by a General Council the Sorbonists understand one thing the Monarchists another The thing it self therefore cannot be of Faith since by the received Doctrine of that Church nothing can be so but what is unanimously acknowledged and taught by Catholick Divines But to make the whole matter more evident I will demonstrate two things First That this appears not to be of Faith from other Arguments beside the dissent of the Sorbonists and Monarchists Secondly That although it were certain in general there are some Infallible Councils yet it can never be known that any particular Council is so This was demonstrated above although under other terms when we proved that the active Infallibility of the Church is not of Faith and what I just now produced confirms it not a little To which may be added That the Infallibility of Pope and Council together cannot be of Faith because the Infallibility of neither separately is so For I would ask why that alone should be of Faith whether because that only is true or that alone revealed or that only known to be revealed Not the first for then the whole Latin Church would have erred For there is not at least not known to be any who do not attribute Infallibility either to the Pope alone or a Council alone Not the second For then the same inconvenience would follow since there are none but what hold the Infallibility of one of the two to have been revealed Not the third For who can ever imagine that God would give Infallibility to Pope or Council and yet not reveal it so clearly as that it might be believed with Divine Faith. For he can have given it for no other end than that it might be to Christians the Rule of Believing which it cannot be as we before proved unless it be it self of Faith. To this may perhaps be opposed that the Infallibility of Pope or Council separately wants not Divine Revelation but only the Definition of the Church proposing it But if so then the so much boasted of Wisdom and Assistance of the Holy Ghost must be wanting in the Church which would not make this Revelation by her Definition to be of Faith and thereby have left to the faithful no other living Rule of Faith than the Pope and Counsel consenting together which for the known difficulties of calling General Councils cannot be perhaps had and applied once in an Age whereas the Infallibility of the Pope if defined to be of Faith would be an apt and easie Rule ready to be consulted upon all occasions But in truth this Infallibility of Pope and Council united is no where expresly revealed by God or openly defined by the Church For many places of Scripture and Decrees of Councils are indeed alledged for the Infallibility of each separately but not one for that of both conjunctly None certainly will deny this if the Opinion of Albertus Pighius and Fr. à Victoria be true Of whom the first by the confession of Bellarmin d Bell. de concil lib. 1 cap. 3. thought the institution of Councils plainly human and found out by Natural reason the second e Nihil aliud posset totum Concilium quod non possent Patres per se singuli secundum suam potestatem unde haec potestas non est in Concilio immediatè jure divino sed ex voluntate Praelatorum Vict. Relect. 2. de potest Eccl. Sect. 1. hath these words A whole Council can do nothing which each Bishop might not by his own power do of himself whence this power is not in the Council immediately by Divine Right but by the will of the Bishops That this opinion is at least probable must be confessed For no mention of General Councils is to be found in Scripture none in the Ecclesiastical Writers of the three first Ages to whom they were wholly unknown If this opinion should be true that so much Infallibility would vanish into smoak For who could assure us that God had annexed so great a priviledge to an humane Institution at least it could never be of Faith because wanting Divine revelation I know this opinion is rejected by Bellarmine but so softly that he doth not explode it as absurd and intolerable nor say the contrary is of Faith but only more probable From whence I argue That if the Divine institution of Councils be only more probable then their humane institution is probable at least neither opinion exceedeth probability and so neither can be of Faith. CHAP. XII That there was never any Councils Oecumenical THus have we proved the existence of infallible Councils to be uncertain But grant it certain and undoubted This will be yet to be inquired what those Councils are without the knowledge of which the certainty of the former will be wholly vain Yet is this thing impossible to be known For let us survey the conditions which our Adversaries require The first is that the Council be truly Oecumenical This indeed is not much insisted upon by the Monarchists who maintain any Council great or small confirmed by the Pope to be infallible and so make no difference between particular and general Councils For according to their opinion without the approbation of the Pope both are alike fallible with it both alike infallible Whence Gr. à Valentia a Nullum Concilium infallibilem authoritatem definiendi per se habet seclusa Romani Pontisicis authoritate II. Accedente Rom. Pont. confirmatione Concilium quodvis est infallibile Val. com 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. §. 45. proposeth his judgment in these two assertions I. No Council hath of it self infallible authority
sufficient Inquiry hath preceded the Decrees of a Council THe second part of a lawful proceeding in the Council is a diligent Inquiry and Examination of the Question to be defined For truth is not now obtained by immediate Revelation or Extatick Inspiration but by a Labour and Diligence proportionate to the difficulty of the thing it self The Bishop of a Council must carefully enquire into the Truth patiently hear both Parties maturely weigh the Arguments on both sides accurately compare them with the invariable Rule of Faith and then only when they are conscious to themselves they have omitted no part of requisite diligence to pronounce sentence This is the constant Opinion of our Adversaries as well as ours Melchior Canus 1 In Conciliis non debent Patres mox quasi ex authoritate sententiam absque aliâ discussione dicere sed collationibus disputationibus re antè tractatâ precibusque primùm ad Deum fusis tum verò questio à Concilio sine errore finietur Dei sc auxilio atque favore hominumque diligentiâ studio conspirantibus Ex quo perspicuum est non dormientibus oscitantibus Patribus Spiritum Sanctum assistere sed diligenter humanâ viâ ratione quaerentibus rei de quâ disseritur veritatem quamobrem qui sive Pontificum sive Conciliorum diligentiam in fidei causâ finiendâ in dubium vocant eos necesse est Pontificum judicia ac Conciliorum infirmare Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. teacheth that in Councils the Fathers ought not immediately by their Athority to give Sentence but the Matter must be first weighed in conferences and Prayers offered up to God then shall the Question be determined by the Council without Errour the assistance and favour of God the diligence and study of Men conspiring together And then from the Examples of the Councils of Hierusalem and Nice concludeth It is manifest that the Holy Ghost assists not the Fathers when idle and careless but diligently seeking out the truth of the Question proposed by human means and ways wherefore they which call in doubt the diligence of Popes or Councils in defining a matter of Faith must necessarily invalidate the Decrees of Popes and Councils The same saith Ferus in Act. XV. 7. Bellarmin de Concil lib. 2. cap. 7. Duvall Anteloq ad lib. de potest Pont. part 2. qu. 4. Cellotius de Hierarchiâ lib. 4. cap. 10. Bagotius Instit Theol. lib. 4. disp 5. cap. 4. sect 1. Maimbourg de la vraye Eglise cap. 10. sect 4. 9. Martinonus de fide disp 9. sect 7. whose words would be too long to cite at large The Sorbonists maintain the same thing So Richerius 2 Ecclesia errare non potest in quaestionibus juris decidendis si modò diligentiam necessariam adhibeat prudenter agat ut Patres Africani loquuntur Rich. Apol. ax 23. The Church cannot err in deciding Questions of Right if she useth necessary diligence and acts prudently as the African Fathers say in their Epistle to Pope Coelestin Holden 3 Debent omnia in hujusinodi Synodo conciliariter ut loquuntur Theologi peragi ita ut praevio examine diligenti fideli absque suffragiorum ambitu aut sollicitâ prensatione discutiatur subjecta materia Hold. Anal. fid lib. 2. cap. 3. In an infallible Synod all things ought to be done conciliarly as Divines speak so as the matter in hand be discussed with a diligent and faithful examination without any making of parties or solliciting of votes If these Divines be in the right as they certainly are then what certainty can be in the Decrees of Councils Who shall assure us that the Bishops did all they ought to do and how shall every private Man know that Canus was not ignorant of this If once saith he 4 Si semel haereticis hanc licentiam permittimus ut in quaestionem vocent c. quis adeò coecus est ut non videat omnia mox Pontificum Conciliorumque decreta labefactari It aque praestat semper Pontifex quod in se est praestatque Concilium cum de fide pronunciant caditque causa si quis è nostris aliter existimat Can. ubi supra we give Hereticks leave to call in question the requisite diligence of the Judges of the Church who doth not see that all the Decrees of Popes and Councils are presently overthrown He therefore takes Refuge in the Providence of God and pretends that God in promising Infallibility to his Church must be supposed to have obliged himself thereby to take care that necessary diligence which is the means of it should never be wanting in the Judges of the Church Hence saith he the Pope always performs his Duty the Council their duty when they pronounce of Faith and if any of our Divines think otherwise our cause is ruined In this Argument of Canus I observe first that he confounds the Means with the Conditions Diligence is a Condition which God imposeth upon the finding out Truth If the Council neglects this God is bound to no promise the Error is to be imputed wholly to them Secondly if the Council can neglect no Conditions no diligence necessary to defining rightly and always punctually perform their duty it is impossible it should ever err For the Divine Assistance will never be wanting to humane industry in Matters of Faith and when both meet there can be no Errour Thirdly if Councils therefore perform their duty because God in promising to them Infallibility the end must be supposed also to promise the means whereof this is one Then every Council is infallible none ought to be rejected all are indifferently to be received because God must be believed to have promised his Assistance to all Councils not wanting in their Duty and also to take care that none should be wanting in it You will say perhaps Canus understands not all but only Lawful Councils But I would know what are those Lawful Councils For Councils are such three ways upon account of their Indiction Constitution and Proceeding If you answer by the two first ways then the thing is false For the second Council of Ephesus by the Confession of Bellarmine and Baronius was both rightly called an dconstituted yet degenerated and proceeded inordinately If he means the third way then his answer will come to no more than this That Councils will proceed rightly if they proceed rightly But to put an end to this pretence none will deny that the Council of Constance was lawful Yet Canus confesseth that necessary diligence was not always used in it Some things saith he 5 Quaedam non conciliariter acta Nam in IV. V. sessione nec disputatio aut disquisitio aliqua intercesserat nec delecti fuerant adhuc viri docti ad disserendum tractandum ea quae in fidei doctrinâ essent constituenda Id. lib. 5. cap. ult were not acted conciliarly for in the IV. and V. Sessions no
is uncertain whether plurality of Suffrages ought to overcome or whether perfect unanimity be required That in both Cases no small Difficulties occurr THere remains the last part of a Lawful Proceeding the Conclusion whereby the President of the Council when he hath heard the Suffrages of the Fathers solemnly pronounceth Sentence Concerning this is no small Controversie viz. Whether the President of the Council whosoever he be ought to give Sentence according to the major part of the Suffrages or whether a full or absolute unanimity be necessary and whether the same account is to be made of a Decree made by the Votes of all and by the Votes of the major part The Monarchists distinguish here and say that if the Pope himself presideth and perceives either the major part or all to favour Error he may deny his assent to them and give Sentence as himself pleaseth But if only the Legates preside and have Instructions what to do if the major number of Votes be consonant to their Instructions they may give Sentence without expecting unanimity if repugnant they must suspend their assent on both sides and refer all to the Pope who may determine it as he pleaseth However regularly and ordinarily they think plurality of Votes ought to overcome So Bellarmin 1 Est verum decretum Concilii quod fit à majori parte alioqui nullum esset legitimum Concilii decretum cùm semper aliqui dissentiant Bell. de Concil lib. 2. cap. 11. That Decree of a Council is true which is made by the major part otherwise no Decree of a Council would be lawful since some have dissented in all And in another place 2 Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 18. produceth the Example of the Council of Chalcedon which declared Hereticks ten Aegyptian Bishops who would not acquiesce in the Judgment of the major part And in a third place saith 3 Nisi detur locus majori parti suffragiorum lib. 1. cap. 21. There will never be an end of Controversies unless we give place to the major part of Suffrages The same saith Tho. Bosius 4 Bos de signis Eccl. lib. 16. cap. 9. and many others This Opinion seemeth also to have obtained at Trent For when the Fathers were divided about abolishing Clandestine Marriages 56 Bishops against the Decree 133 for it and both parties obstinate they agreed to consult the Pope who gave Sentence for the Decree and his Approbation saith Card. Palavicini 5 Ejus approbatio sustulit omnem dubitationem Hist Concil Trid. took away all doubt Yet this was not always done For although 30 Bishops and among them the Legate Seripandus privily opposed the Decree whereby it was defined that Christ offered up himself in his last Supper yet the Decree was promulged and stood in force Far different was the Opinion of J. Fr. Picus Mirandula 6 Quia si pars major contra divinas literas decernere quicquam vellet numero minori adhaerendum esset Quinimò simplici potiùs rustico infanti aniculae quà m Pontifici mille Episcopis credendum si contra Evangelium isti illi pro Evangelio verba facerent Pic. Theor. 16. who in Dissensions of a Council thought the major part was to be adhered to caeteris paribus that is provided neither were repugnant to Scripture But if that happened then that part was to be followed either major or minor which had Scripture on its side For that if the major part would decree any thing against Scripture the minor were to be adhered to Yea a simple Rustick an Infant and an old Woman were to be believed rather than the Pope and 1000 Bishops if these spoke against the Gospel those for it Gerson 7 Si aliquis simplex non authorizatus esset excellenter in S. literis eruaitus potius credendum esset in casu doctrinae suae assertioni quam Papae declarationi Et talis eruditus si c. Ger de exam doctrin Part. 1. Consid 5. had said the same thing before him If any private person without Authority should be excellently learned in the Scriptures his Assertion were to be believed in matters of Faith before the Declaration of the Pope And in case he were present in a General Council he ought to oppose himself to it if he perceived the major part either through malice or ignorance go contrary to the Scriptures But if this Opinion be true and private Men may judge which part in a Council follows Scripture which the contrary then as often as there be dissensions in Councils their Power in desining will not be Supreme as being subject to the examination of all Men. Beside if the major part of a Council can manifestly and directly vote contrary to Scripture much more can they do it obscurely and indirectly and therefore may be even then mistaken when their error is not manifest And if so the Decrees of the major part can in no case not caeteris paribus be securely believ'd For these Reasons perhaps Cardinal Turrecremata maintains 8 In controversia quae dubia est nondum definita arguendum est à majore parte Tur. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 65. That in a doubtful Controversie not yet defined the major part must be adhered to But neither is this Opinion safe For if we must stand to the Plurality shall Truth always overcome Hath Truth that excellent fortune as to please always the greater part Let Canus be heard I deny saith he 9 Nego cum de fide agitur sequi plurimorum judicium oportere c. Can. loc Theol. lib. 5 cap. 5. that in matters of Faith the Judgment of the major part ought to be followed For we do not here as in Humane Judgments measure the Sentence by the number of Suffrages We see frequently that the greater overcomes the better part We know that those things are not always best that please most We know that in things of Faith the Opinion of wise Men is to be preferred Now Wise-men are few but Fools innumerable Four hundred Prophets lyed to Ahab while one Micaiah spoke truth The greater part of the 2d Ephesine Synod sided with the wicked Dioscorus Bannes 10 Bann in 2.2 quest 1. art 10. dub 4. his Disciple hath the like words and Salmero 11 Salm. tom 12. tract 70. the same And indeed it may easily be that more Heretical than Orthodox Bishops be present in a Council as well because the greater part of all the Bishops in the World may be infected with Heresy as we shall prove hereafter as because the Hereticks even although fewer in number in the whole Church may incited by a perverse Zeal flock to the Council in greater numbers than the Catholicks Now what can we expect from such an Assembly What but that every one should pronounce according to his preconceived Opinion and decree that which he thinks most true The fear of this made the Popes Leo and
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
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
he easily may It cannot be imagined that Doctor will tell the consulter the thing is not taught by the Church which himself thinks to belong to Faith. Or what if that Doctor be ignorant that others and those Learned Men teach the contrary as we proved might easily happen in the precedent chapter That answer surely cannot be sufficient to ground Faith upon which can be false For as Martinonus 4 Ad credendum fide indubitatâ infallibili qualis est fides divina requiritur argumentum infallibile Mart. de disp 3. sect 4. truly saith To believe with undoubting and Infallible Faith such is Divine Faith is required an Infallible Argument Lastly that the Cardinal meaneth it sufficeth that none in the World can shew the Parson teacheth what is repugnant to others I can never be induced to believe since a more foolish sence could not be invented For not the most sagacious Person much less a blind Man could make so diligent an inquiry as to be assured that none such can be found in the whole World. Add hereto that it is not more difficult to know directly whether any do teach otherwise than to know whether there be any who can shew that it is any where taught otherwise And so all our former Arguments will return with their full force against this answer But to omit all this I ask whether any ignorant Person using such diligence to inquire whether what is taught by his Parson is taught unanimously by all the other Governours of the Church as can be expected from a Man of his circumstances and capacity can be deceived therein If he cannot all those Learned Men whom I mentioned in the last Chapter will be guilty of a most intolerable negligence and supinity as being mistaken in that wherein even the most ignorant cannot be deceived If he can then he is not certain and therefore hath no Faith. For Faith must be certain CHAP. XXII That it doth not suffice it be known that any thing is taught Vnanimously by the Governours of the Church unless it appear that it is taught to be of Faith. But that this is most uncertain FRom what hath been said it is manifest that neither do the Governours of the Church always consent nor if they do can their consent be certainly known But suppose both The controversy is not yet ended For not whatsoever they unanimously affirm is to be received as the revelation of God and the Doctrine of the Church but only what they unanimously maintain to be of Faith. This Canus and Bellarmin plainly insinuate The first 1 Quiequid fidelem populum docent quod ad Christi fidem attineat Can. loc Theol. lib. 4. cap. 4. when he saith the Pastors of the Church cannot err in the Faith but whatsoever they teach the faithful People that it belongs to the Faith of Christ is most true Bellarmin 2 Id quod decent tanquam ad fidem pertinens Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 14. that whatsoever all the Bishops teach as belonging to Faith is necessarily true and of Faith. Therefore Flor. Conrius defends himself against the unanimous consent of Doctors who taught 500. Years since that unbaptized Infants were not punished with the torments of fire by pretending that they did not teach or propose this as of Faith. And indeed it cannot but be absurd that the consent of Pastors should reach farther than the Infallibility of Pope or Council or the Universal Church which as we have before observed is acknowledged not to take place but in matters which they propose as of Faith. Lastly the Council of Trent Pius V. and divers Provincial Councils wished 3 Non tanquam sidem docuerint aut proposuerint Con. destatu pary cap. 19. that the Catechism of Trent might be admitted every where and be used by all Pastors in the instruction of their people Perhaps this is observed For why should it not be This whole Book then may be reckoned among those things which all Pastors propose to their flocks not as pertaining to Faith but as true and wholsom If therefore whatsoever all propose must necessarily be true there can be nothing false nothing uncertain in this Book Yet none will deny there are taught in it many Propositions false more uncertain and none which might not safely be denied if they received not their Authority from some other Fountain Wherefore it is no where admitted as of Infallible authority a manifest Argument that those things may be false which are not taught as of Faith although taught unanimously Before we believe therefore the Doctrine of the Governours of the Church we must consider how they teach it whether as of Faith if not we must suspend our assent Now Bishops Parsons and Preachers are wont to teach what seems true to them and agreing with Divine Revelation but very rarely to admonish whether what they teach be of Eaith or a consequent of Faith whether expresly revealed or cohaerent to things revealed This Holden acknowledgeth We never heard saith 4 In Doctrinâ Christianâ tradendâ nunquam audivimus Ecclesiam articulorum revelatorum divinarum institutionum Catalogum exhibuisse vel composuisse quo separatim dislinctè cognosci possent hujusmodi sidei dogmata ab aliis omnibus quae vel Ecclèsiasticae sunt inslitutionis vel certè quae revelationi divinae haud immediatè innitantur atque adeò omnia simul confusè indistinctè docuisse Hold. Anal. fid lib. 1. cap. 8. he that the Church in delivering the Christian Doctrine exhibited or composed a Catalogue of revealed Articles and Divine Institutions whereby these Articles of divine Faith might be separately and distinctly known from all others which are either of Ecclesiastical Institution or not immediately founded upon Divine Revelation but taught all together confusedly and indistinctly Hence even those Divines who agree in the truth of any Article often disser in judging whether it be of Faith as we saw before concerning the supreme Power of the Pope Wherefore Holden assirms there are much fewer Articles of Divine and Catholick Faith than Divines commonly think and therefore bestows the whole Latter part of his Analysis in composing a Catalogue of such Articles which would indeed have been very useful if it were received by all But he hath omitted some things which others contend to be of Faith and inserted others which some would have omitted Further in this matter I appeal to the experience of all Persons who if they shall ask any of our Adversaries what the Church teacheth concerning Image worship Invocation of Saints or the like will be convinced by their different answers That it is not easie to say what the Church teacheth And if this be dissicult to learned Men how shall it be possible to ignorant Persons Our Adversaries cannot justly pretend as many of them do that the Doctors may dissent in those things which are of Theological not Divine right and belong rather to the
corda eorum per fidem charitatem gratiam mihi inseparabiliter connectendo ita ut omnes sint unum corpus mysticum unaque domus Carth. in Matth. XVI art 26. brings in Christ thus speaking I will build and confirm my Church that is the Congregation of the Faithful by inseparably uniting their hearts to me by Faith Charity and Grace so as all may be one mystical Body and one House J. Fr. Picus Mirandula 15 A propriâ vocabuli significatione recedendum ipse non putarem ut primò propriè principalissimeque Sancta Catholica Ecclesia diceretur quae omnes rectae Apostolicae fidei non fictae charitatis homines complecteretur Pic. Theor. 13. saith That we ought not to recede from the proper signification of the Word that so that might be called primarily properly and most principally the Holy Catholick Church which comprehendeth all men of a right and Apostolick Faith and unfeigned Charity Ferus upon those words Matth. XV. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it saith 16 Sed loquitur de Ecclesiâ Secundùm spiritum quae solos electos complectitur Fer. in Matth. Christ speaks not here of the Church as it is commonly understood of the Collection of all Christians whether good or bad but of the Church according to the Spirit which comprehends only the Elect. Lastly Chr. Lupus 17 Ecclesia quae claves accepit non est universa fidelium in legitimis Sacramentis communio sed sola congregatio justorum seu Sanctorum communio Lup. in Concil tom 4. p. 818. affirms That the Church which received the Keys is not the universal Communion of the Faithful in the Lawful Sacraments but the sole Congregation of the just or the Communion of Saints Which he pursueth at large and proveth by many Testimonies of St. Augustine to which we might add many others no less cogent of other Fathers as St. Hierom Agobardus Bernard c. if our Argument consisted in the truth of this Opinion It sufficeth to shew it was received by many and consequently that our Adversaries do not agree in forming the Idea of a Church Now this Dissension is of great moment For if the second or especially the third Opinion be true the Doctrine of our Adversaries will be wholly overthrown For not to say that if Sinners be excluded out of the Church the Pope and whole Councils may perhaps not belong to it and so want that Infallibility which is appropriated to the true Church To omit this since we treat not now of active but passive Infallibilty I say That according to this Hypothesis the Faith of our Adversaries cannot rely upon the belief of the Universal Church For to conform themselves to this Rule of Faith they must first perfectly know it which cannot be if they know not what is that Church whose Faith they ought to follow But how shall they know the Church if that consist only of Pious Men whom none will deny to be known to God alone Canus was not ignorant of this who rejecteth this Opinion because saith he 18 Incerta erunt omnia si apud solos pios Ecclesia est Can. loc Theol. lib. 4. cap. 3. all things will be uncertain if the Church be limited to pious Men. Will our Adversaries therefore say that the first of these Opinions is certain the other undoubtedly false That is easter affirmed than proved Besides of what degree of certainty would they have their assertions to be Not certainly of Divine Faith unlessHeresie be imputed to all those Learned Men who maintained the second and third Opinions But no other degree of certainty can be obtained in these things nor will any other suffice CHAP. XXV That our Adversaries have no way of knowing the true Church IT doth not appear therefore who they are that truly belong to the Church Yet suppose it is and that all Baptized Persons outwardly professing the true Faith are Members of it which Opinion most pleaseth our Adversaries and is most advantageous for them It is still to be enquired which out of so many Societies that challenge to themselves the name of the Church justly and truly claims it For not any one that first occurrs is to be admitted and preferred before the rest But here if any where a diligent and accurate Examination is to be used lest instead of the Church of Christ we follow the Synagogue of Satan and for Divine Revelations receive execrable Errors This especially becomes them who when they have found the Church give over any further enquiry and receive without Examination all the dictates of it They ought to be very vigilant and curious in the choice of their Guide lest if they haply mistake they incurr that Sentence of Christ If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the ditch Let us see therefore whether our Adversaries can boast they have made a just and accurate enquiry herein and most certainly found out the true Church There are chiefly three Methods of making this Enquiry 1. From the truth of the Doctrine professed by any Church and Conformity of that to the Word of God. 2. By Notes known only by the light of right Reason and independently from the Word of God. 3. By Notes which are marked out and taught in the Scripture Arriaga preferreth the first Method before all others I answer saith he 1 Respondeo veritatem doctrinae probari etiam posse non recurrendo ad Ecclesiam imò ante primam probationem verae Ecclesiae debere probari veritatem doctrinae Etenim cum Ecclesia ut Ecclesia definiatur per hoc quòd sit coetus profitentium veram doctrinam fidei repugnat in terminis me supponere aliquam congregationem esse veram Ecclesiam nisi dicam eo ipso ibi esse veram doctrinam Ergo non possum primò probare veram doctrinam ex verâ Ecclesiâ Arr. de fide disp 7. Sect. 5. that the truth of the Doctrine may be proved without recurring to the Church yea and that before the first Proof of the true Church the truth of the Doctrine ought to be proved He proveth both parts of his Assertion largely and in the second part of it maketh use of this Argument For since the Church as a Church is defined the Congregation of men professing the true Doctrine of Faith it is a contradiction in the very terms to suppose any Congregation to be the true Church unless I do for that very reason suppose there is the true Doctrine I cannot therefore first prove the Doctrine is true from the truth of the Church To this we willingly subscribe and approve this Method of Arriaga's only Not so the rest of our Adversaries who detest it and labour to render it both infamous and impossible pretending it to be full of inextricable difficulties and not to be surmounted by the most learned much less by illiterate persons Wherefore I need not endeavour to prove that the true
1 Ecclesia autem Latinorum non est Ecclesia Vniversalis sed quaedam pars ejus Ideo etiamsi tota ipsa errâsset non errabat Eccl. universalis quia manet Eccl. universalis in partibus istis quae non errant five illa fint plures numero quà m errantes sine non Tost in 2. Prol. Hier. in Matth. qu. 4. the Latin Church is not the Vniversal Church but only a part of it Therefore although that had wholly erred the Vniversal Church would not have erred because it remains in those parts which do not err whether they be more or fewer in number than the parts which do err So Canus 2 At nihil obstat cur major Ecclesiae pars non erret Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. Nothing hinders but that the greater part of the Church may err Bannes 3 Sententia majoris partis Ecclesiae potest esse falsa in materia fidei Bann in 2.2 qu. 1. art 10. dub 4. The Opinion of the greater part of the Church may be false in a matter of Faith. Valentia considering those words of Christ When the Son of Man comes shall he find Faith upon the Earth saith 4 Significat paucissimos certè fore postremo illo tempore fideles non autem nullos Val tom 3. disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. §. 16. He signifies that there will be very few Faithful in that last time not that there will be none And Bellarmin 5 Non tamen nullos nec tam paucos ut non faciant Ecclesiam Bel. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 16. treating of the same words saith with Theophylact That our Lord meaneth there will be few Faithful in the times of Antichrist not yet that there will be none nor so few as not to constitute a Church Many Divines and those of great name whose words we before produced have gone farther and maintained That the true Faith and true Church may be reduced to one only Woman Nor doth John Viguerius a Dominican Professor of Divinity in the University of Tholouse differ much from them teaching that Faith at least explicit may be preserved in one person all the rest retaining only implicit Faith. It may be said of the Church saith he 6 Sic potest dici de Ecclesiâ quòd potest servari in uno prout dicitur de Mariâ Virg. quòd in eâ solâ in triduo sepulturae mansit fides explicita de divinitate Christi quamvis multi alii per Judaeam existentes habere possent fidem catholicam actualem implicitam non tamen explicitam de divinitate Christi Vig. Instit Theol. c. 10. that it may be preserved in one person as it is said of the V. Mary that in her only during the three days of burial remained explicit Faith touching the Divinity of Christ although many others in Judea might have actual and implicit Catholick Faith but not explicit of the Divinity of Christ If either of these two Opinions be allowed we must despair of ever knowing the Faith of the Universal Church For where can be sought for by what Notes can be found that Phoenix that Deucalion of the Christian World who alone retains explicit Faith when all the rest have either erred or preserved only implicit Faith But be these Opinions true or false the opposite of neither of them can be of Faith as I before proved of the former and of the latter may be hence proved That this Book of Viguerius is approved by the Faculty of Divinity of Paris which would never have been done if it had been found to contain Heresie However let both be exploded the other cannot be denied That the greater part of the Church may err Nay further None ever yet dared to define how great that part of the Church must necessarily be which cannot be infected with Error without the ruin of the Infallibility of the whole Unless therefore it appears that the whole Church consenteth the belief of it cannot be a sure Foundation for our Faith. But first the whole Church seldom or never consenteth Certainly never in all things All things therefore can never be learned from her Whence then shall they be learned Besides where she doth consent it is so obscure that it can be known by no Man. This is proved and much more manifestly by all those Arguments which we brought against the certainty of knowing what all the Pastors teach For if it cannot be known what all the Pastors teach much less can it be known what all the Faithful believe since there are far more Believers than Pastors and these teach more distinctly than the others believe Beside it is not sufficient to know what seemeth true to all the Faithful unless it be also known what they all embrace as revealed by God. For our Adversaries acknowledge there are many false Opinions of the whole Church Maldonat 7 A pud Richer Hist Concil lib. 3. cap. 3. proveth this at large and giveth some Examples of it As that the Church for many Ages used a Preface upon the Festival of St. Hierom wherein she extolled his pure Virginity although St. Hierom in several places confesseth the contrary for which reason the Preface was at last expunged That for 600 years she administred the Eucharist to Infants That she worshippeth particular Reliques of Saints and prayeth for the Souls of particular Men in Purgatory although it be not of Faith that those Reliques are true or these Souls in Purgatory and the like which proveth the necessity of knowing not only what is held by the Universal Church but whether it is held by her as of Faith and revealed by God. But who shall ascertain this For the common sort of Believers are not wont accurately to distinguish these things so that if any one should ask whomsoever he meets What they admit as true what as revealed what they receive with Divine Faith what with Catholick Opinion he would find very few who could comprehend the Sence of his Question much fewer who could answer him distinctly So far shall we be therefore from knowing by this method what is believed in the Universal Church that it can scarce be known what is believed in any single Diocess CHAP. XXVII That it may justly be doubted whether all those things be true which the Vniversal Church believeth THere remains the third Reason of the impossibility of founding the Faith of all single Christians upon the belief of the Universal Church the uncertainty of the truth of this Belief For suppose the Church of Rome to be the true Church and that it is sufficiently known what she believeth It is not yet manifest whether she believeth rightly For a True Church is one thing an Infallible Church another Yet Infallible must that necessarily be which is to us a certain Rule of Faith. Before all things therefore it is required to be known that the Church is Infallible But how shall this be known Our Adversaries commonly say It