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. Paul's 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 oftener allege, 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 itself. 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 examine 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 than 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 Governors, 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 sense by them understood, cannot err. II. That granting the Church cannot err, this her Infallibility is of that nature, that both itself 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 itself, 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 show 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 although it be most true in the Agenda also of their Religion; yet to avoid prolixity I confined myself 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 Scholastic 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 CHURCH 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 error, 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 show, that admitting their Hypotheses, a Papist cannot with a certain and firm Faith be persuaded 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 itself 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 itself 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 persuaded 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 persuasion of the truth of those things, which they believe merely for the sake of these Rules, should be more firm, than the persuasion 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, quàm 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, etc. 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 persuasion 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 persuasion, 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 persuasion 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 sense 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 than 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 mixed 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 divers. 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 divers, as most think, than it is inferior to the other, and less firm; and consequently not sufficient. Besides such who think, that these Theological Conclusions founded upon a mixed certainty, are de fide, as Alphonsus a Castro, and Melchior Canus, must acknowledge 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 itself, 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 any of our Adversaries have assigned a Conjectural Certainty to the persuasion which they have of the Truth of the Rules of their Faith. And surely such Certainty would be too mean and inconsiderable for this place: Belonging to Opinion rather than Faith, as Bellarmine well notes; and not excluding distrust, which is absolutely destructive of Divine Faith. A Moral Certainty is rarely made use of by our Adversaries in this case; being such as take place only in matters of fact, and not all those neither, but only such as are perceived by the senses of other men, and those, so many and so clearly, as take away all suspicion either of fraud or error. Whereas those parts of a Papists belief, which have most need of being backed by certainty; and are subject to the greatest difficulties, are matters of right; or at least such as fall not under the senses either of himself or others. There are some things indeed, which they would have to be manifest by this kind of certainty, such as the knowledge of a lawful Pope, or a Canonical Council, what the present Church teacheth, or to which Society belong the notes of a true Church, etc. We must consider therefore, whether in these cases this certainty be sufficient. It would suffice indeed, if the opinions of Bagotius or Huetius were admitted: Of whom the first equals, the second prefers Moral Certainty to Metaphysical, and even that which is acquired by demonstration. But few approve these excesses: Many on the contrary depress this certainty too low. However all agree, that it is inferior to that of Divine Faith. For which reason alone I might reject it, but shall notwithstanding be content only then to do it, when it is falsely pretended. As for an evident certainty our Adversaries, neither do, nor can glory in it. For if the foundations of Faith had that: No previous motion of the will by the Divine influence, no supernatural assistance of grace would be necessary; which yet all require; and none but fools and stupid persons could be disbelievers. Besides, that those things which are of positive right, and depend upon the free Will of God, cannot be taught by nature, but must be known only by Divine Revelation. But herein our Adversaries consent to us, as we shall see hereafter, and presume not to boast of evidence in the Objects of their Belief. There remains therefore only the certainty of Divine Faith, which they can pretend to. Wherefore I shall chief consider that; not neglecting yet the rest, whensoever it can be imagined that they may be made use of by our Adversaries: omitting only the certainty of Theological Conclusions, and that for the reasons beforementioned. I shall now examine all the Foundations of Faith which our Adversaries are wont to produce; beginning at the Holy Scriptures. CHAP. II. That the Faith of Papists is not founded on Holy Scripture. THAT the Scripture is most certain in itself, and most fit to ground our Faith upon is our constant belief and profession. But this cannot suffice our Adversaries, unless they recede from their known Principles. The Scripture may be considered and used for the establishing of our Faith two ways: First as it is in itself, and its own nature: and Secondly as it is confirmed, illustrated, and assisted by the help of Tradition, and the authority of the Church. That Scripture, the first way considered is not a fit foundation of our Faith, our Adversaries not only freely confess but sharply contend: maintaining that, laying aside Tradition and the Church, we cannot be assured either that Scripture is the Word of God, or consists of such Books and Chapters, or that they are delivered incorrupted to us, or faithfully translated; or that this, or that is the sense of such a place. Of these opinions and arguments their Authors are agreed, their Books are full: that should I recite but the names, much more the testimonies of the maintainers of them; I should become voluminous. To this may be opposed, that this is only the opinion of the School Divines and Controversial Writers: that there are many in the Church of Rome, who believe the authority of the Scripture independent from the judgement of the Church, and dextrously use that method of arguing against Atheists; as H●etius in his Books of Evangelical Demonstration, and the Anonymous Author of the Dissertation concerning the arguments, wherewith the truth of Moses his Writings may be demonstrated: that such as these may have a true and firm belief of those things which Scripture plainly teacheth; which are all, that are necessary to be believed. Whilst I congratulate to the Church of Rome these more sober Prosylites, and wish that by a general concurrence therein they would refute my Dissertation: I observe, first, that there are very few among them of this opinion. Secondly that it doth not appear, that even these few are persuaded that their arguments suffice to found a Divine Faith upon the Scriptures demonstrated by them. The Licensers and Approvers of the aforementioned Dissertation seemed to be afraid of this; while they manifestly distinguish a persuasion arising from those arguments, from true Faith. Lastly that it doth not appear, whether they think that they can without the authority of the Church be obliged to believe, either which are Canonical Books, or what is the sense of those Books. So that until they declare their mind herein, they are not by us to be disjoined from, much less opposed to the rest. I may therefore take it for granted, that according to our Adversaries the Faith of private men cannot rely upon the Scripture destitute of the assistance of Tradition: since it is what themselves most of all contend for. Now for what concerneth Scripture considered the latter way, as it is fortified by the accedaneous help of Church and Tradition; I might perhaps omit the handling of it here; forasmuch as neither Church nor Tradition can confer a greater degree of firmness upon Scripture; which that they have not themselves, I shall in the proceeding of this Discourse more opportunely show hereafter. However because some few things occur not improper for this place; I shall very briefly speak of them. First then how little help there is for Scripture in Tradition, appeareth hence; that it can not otherwise teach what is the true sense of Scripture, but by the unanimous consent of the Fathers: which whether it be to be had in any one text of Scripture, may be much doubted. It was a hard condition therefore, 1 Nec eam unquam nisi juata unanimem consensum patrum accipiam & interpretabor. which Pope Pius iv prescribed, in his Profession of Faith, to all which desired admission into the Church of Rome, and which may for ever silence all the Roman Commentators: that they will never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise, than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Now I would fain know, how this Law can be observed: since I may confidently affirm, that there is no one place of Scripture explained the same way by all the Fathers. For there are many places, which none of them have touched; and none, which all have interpreted. Nor will it suffice to say, that they agree, who have interpreted it, and that the silence of the rest is to be taken for consent: as if they must be supposed to consent, who were ignorant of such interpretations, or dead perhaps before they were made, or as if the Ancients were wont expressly 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 Ancients 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 Heretics, this be the chief; that it be so plain and undoubted, that none of the sacred and approved Doctors interpret it in some other sense, according to which such a proposition cannot be thereby convinced of Heresy. 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 ancient 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 Ancient Writers. Hence the Readers may imagine, to what a straight 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 Pope's authority; and showing that they are diversely explained by the Ancients, 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 looked upon as an authentic 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 itself, 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. expressly 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 show in the foregoing Chapter, Scripture according to our Adversaries cannot obtain belief; till it be itself confirmed by Tradition and the Church. Thus doth the truth of Tradition remain uncertain, unless it be sustained by the Church's 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 judgement 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 ment Doctorum. Ejusmodi autem quaestiones— per eandem ipsam Traditionem definiri satis non poterunt. Val. loc. cit. confesseth that Tradition being conserved in the Writings of the Orthodox Doctors is as dubious and uncertain, as the opinion of those Doctors is: and that the doubts raised concerning it cannot be defined by Tradition itself. In like manner George Rhodius 4 Neque scire potero Traditionem aliquam esse veram; nisi vivens regula, id definierit. Rhod. de fide quaest. 2. Sect. 5. § 1. affirms that no Tradition can be known to be true; unless some living Rule shall so define it. But that this matter, being of no small moment, may be the more manifest; we may observe that our Adversaries require two things to make the testimony of the Father's worthy to be relied on. First that they consent; and secondly that they do not merely propose what seems most true to themselves; but testify moreover that what they teach, was either delivered by Christ, or is of Faith, or, which is all one, the opposite of it, heresy. If either of these fail, than their testimony is not secure. The first condition is required by many and particularly by Alphonsus a Castro, 5 Quarta est omnium SS. Doctorum, qui de re illâ scripserunt, concors sententia Castr. de justâ haeret, pun. lib. 1. cap. 4. who enquiring out the ways, whereby a proposition may be convinced to be heretical; in the fourth place assigns the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, who have written upon that argument. The latter condition is made necessary by many more. Driedo 6 Non quia Hieronymus, sic vel sic docei, non quia Augustinus, etc. Dried. de Eccles. Dogm. lib. 4. cap. 1. 6. tells us the authority of the Fathers is of no value any otherwise than as they demonstrate their opinion either from the Canonical Scriptures, or the belief of the universal Church since the Apostles times; and that they do not always deliver their sense as matters of Faith: but by way of judgement, opinion, and probable reason. Stapleton 7 Non enim omnibus eorum dictis haec authoritas datur; sed quatenus vel Ecclesiae publicam fidem referunt, vel ab Ecclesiâ Dei recepta & approbata sunt. Stapl de princip. doctr. lib 7. cap. 15. writeth that this authority is not allowed to all the say of the Fathers, but either as they relate the public belief of the Church, or have been approved and received by the Church. Gillius 8 Testimonium, Patrum vel Doctorum Scholasticorum communiter asserentium ali p●id ad fidem vel Theologiam pertinens, simpliciter tamen, & non indicando esse dogma fidei, esse debet argumentum firmum Theologo, sed citra infallibilitatem fidei. Gill. de doctr. Sacrâ lib. 1. Tract. 7. cap. 13. last grants, that the testimony of Fathers and Doctors unanimously asserting somewhat pertaining to Faith and Divinity, if they simply assert it, and do with all tell us it is an Article of Faith, aught to be a firm Argument to a Divine, but without Infallibility of Faith. Both conditions are required by Canus, 9 Can. Loc. Theol. lib. 3. cap. 4. and Bannes 10 Bann. in 2. quaest. 1. art. 10. Si quod dogma fidei Patres ab initio secundum suorum temporum successiones concordissimè tenuerunt, hujusque contrarium ut haereticum refutârunt, who laying down Rules, whereby true Traditions may be discerned from false; both assign this in the second place and in the same words: If the Fathers have unanimously from the beginning, all along the Succession of their times, held any Article of Faith, and refuted the contrary as heretical, Bellarmine and Gretser 11 Bell. & Grets'. de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9 give this for their fourth Rule. When all the Doctors of the Church teach any thing by common consent to have descended from Apostolical Tradition, either gathered together in a Council, or each one a part in their Writings. Suarez 12 Licet Patres vel Scholastici in aliquâ sententiâ conveniant, non asserendo illam esse de fide, sed judicium suum in eâ proferendo, non faciens rem de fide; quia semper manent intra mensuram authoritatis humanae. Suarez de fide disp. 2. Sect. 6. writeth, that although the Fathers and Schoolmen agree in any opinion not asserting it to be of Faith: But delivering their Judgement in it, they will not make it to be of Faith, because they remain always within the limits of humane authority. Filliutius 13— quae unanimi consensu Patrum tanquam de fide proponuntur. Fill. in Decal. Tract. 22. cap. 1. reckoning up the seven degrees of things pertaining to Catholic verity, assigns the Sixth degree to those truths, which by the unanimous consent of the Fathers are proposed to be of Faith. Martinonus 14 Certum est nullum ex S S. Patribus vel Doctoribus seorsim sumptum esse Regulam Fidei,— jam de eorundem simul sumptorum consensu distinguendum. Vel enim loquuntur ex proprio sensu, non asserendo rem tanquam de fide, & judicium suum de eâ proferendo; & sic non Regula Fidei. Mart. de fide disp. 8. Sect. 3. that none of the Holy Fathers or Doctors taken separately is the Rule of Faith; nor all yet together conjunctly, unless they assert their common opinion to be of Faith, and not merely propose their own judgement. Lastly Natalis Alexander 15 Cum omnes Patres in eandem sententiam conspirant, eamque propugnant, ac proponunt, ut Apostolicam doctrinam, & Ecclesiae dogma Catholi. eâ fide credendum: tunc eorum authoritas necessarium argumentum sacrae doctrinae subministrat. Alex. saecul. 2 p. 1022. affirms, that when all the Fathers conspire in the same opinion, defend it, and propose it as Apostolic Doctrine, and an Article of the Church to be believed by Catholic Faith: Then doth their authority afford a necessary argument of Sacred Doctrine Thus far these Writers: And that the rest do not disagree from them we shall soon be persuaded; if we consider, how unlikely it is, that a greater infallibility should be allowed even to an unanimous testimony of the Fathers; than to Pope, or Council, or both together, or the present Universal Church: All which our Adversaries grant may err in those things which they simply affirm or teach, and define not to be of Faith. It sufficeth not therefore, either that many Fathers deliver an opinion as of Faith; or that all should simply teach it, but not affirm it to be of Faith. Now if these two conditions be observed; How few Articles of Christian Faith shall we receive from Tradition? For the Fathers seldom all agree, and more rarely admonisheth us, that what they teach, is of Faith. So that if you take away all Articles, wherein either of these conditions is wanting; it may well be doubted, whether any one will remain. Certainly if our Controversial Divines should so far make use of this observation, as to reject all testimonies of the Fathers produced by our Adversaries against us, with which themselves will not be obliged, that is, such as are deficient in either of the conditions before laid down: They would be reduced to silence, and not have one authority left to boast of. From what hath been said, it appears that matters of Tradition and belief cannot be learned from the Fathers. Hence Aegidius Estrix 16 Est. Apol. Sect. 4. vehemently inveighs against Petervan Buscum a Divine of Gaunt; who in his Instruction had remitted young Divines to the Fathers to learn the Christian Doctrine from them. 17 Nuet. adv. Claud. de Eucharist. in praefat. And Nuetus the Jesuit likens those Writers of Controversy, who passing by the Scripture betake themselves to the Fathers, to Thiefs and Rogues, who deserting the Cities, flee into thick Woods, that they may more securely hid themselves. If the Fathers therefore teach not Tradition; there remains only the Church, whence it can be known. Whether the Church therefore hath that power, as to confer the desired Certainty upon what She pronounceth to be revealed and to be believed, is next to be inquired. Which, because our Adversaries here chief fasten their hold, easily giving up the former means of conveying Tradition; shall be somewhat more accurately discussed. CHAP. IU. That the Faith of Papists cannot be founded even upon the Definitive Judgement of the Church. First because it is neither evident, nor of Faith, that the Judgement of the Church is certain. BY the name of Church, whereon our Adversaries would have the Faith of all men to be founded, they are wont to design two things. First that visible Congregation of men, which consists of Pope, Clergy, and Laics; all professing the same Faith. Secondly that part of this first Church, whose office it is to Rule the rest, and prescribe Laws of acting and believing to them: Whether this part be the Pope, or a Council. The former they call the Universal, the latter the Representative or the Regent Church. To both they ascribe infallibility, but in a different way; to the first in believing, to the second in defining, or as they choose to speak, in proposing. So that whatsoever the Universal Church believeth, or the Representative proposeth to be believed, must necessarily be true, and revealed by God; and the denial of it, heresy. We shall examine each in order: But first of the Representative Church. Our Adversaries believe to have been instituted by God a living and visible Authority, whose office it should be to define matters of belief and practice, infallibly determine emergent Controversies, and judge of Heresy. That whatsoever this power, which some call the Chair, others more accurately the Tribunal, defineth, proposeth, or judgeth; may and aught to be received of all Christians as an Article of Faith: and that this is the ordinary and immediate foundation of the Faith of private Christians. Indeed in assigning this Tribunal, what and where it is, all do not agree. But that there is such an one, whatsoever it is, all do contend. Whether there be such an one, is a great question, and may justly take up another Discourse. But now we only consider, whether the judgement and definition of this Tribunal be such, as that whosoever relieth upon it, can or aught to be certain, that he doth not err, and that what he believes, is true. For it is not enough that this Tribunal be infallible, unless its infallibility be also manifest. Since if it had such a privilege, but either unknown or uncertain; he indeed, that acquiesced in its definitions, would not err, but could never be certain, that he doth not err, and might reasonably doubt, whether he doth or no. I inquire therefore, whether our Adversaries can be certain that the Church in defining cannot err. If the Papists have any certainty of the infallibility of the Church defining; it must be either Moral, or evident, or that of Divine Faith: For the rest we have excluded before. But it can be none of these. Not Moral, for that depends upon the testimony of another's senses: But the Infallibility of the Church cannot be perceived either by our own, or by another's senses. Nor indeed is it here pretended to by our Adversaries: No more than Evident Certainty, which they expressly acknowledge they have not herein. So Andrew du Val 1 Non potest firmiter & infallibiliter sciri nisi ex Divinâ Revelatione, Du Val in 2. 2. pag. 16. tells us The Infallibility of the Church can be certainly known only by Divine Revelation. Arriaga 2 Non est veritas per se nota, Arr. de Fide Disp 3. Sect. 1. that it is not a Truth known by itself, or self evident. Conink 3 Solâ Fide ex Scripturae testimonio constat; solos fideles dirigit. Con. de act. Cupern. Disp. 9 dub. 5. that it is known to us only by Faith from the testimony of the Scriptures, and serveth to direct only the Faithful. Ysambertus 4 Non potest sciri ab hominibus infallibiliter, nisi ex divinâ revelatione. Ysamb. de Fide Disp. 26. art. 2. that it cannot be known infallibly by men, otherwise than by Divine Revelation. Rhodius 5 Cognos●itur tantùm Fide divinâ. Rhod. de Fide quaest. 1. Sect 4. §. 4. that it is known only by Divine Faith. Lastly Antonius Arnaldus 6 Non est quid ex se evidens. Arn. Perpert. de la Foy, liv. 1. chap. 7. that it is not self evident. The whole matter therefore comes to this, whether the Infallibility of the Church be of Faith. That it is our Adversaries, as we see, pretend; that it is not, I prove many ways. First this seems to be the opinion of a man of great Name among them, Launoy, who every where oppugneth the infallibility of the Pope, and showeth that the Infallibility of a Council appears to him not to be of Faith; while he saith 7 Quamvis certum sit non errandi privilegium inesse Concilio; longè tamen certius est apud Theologos Ecclesiae inesse. Laun. Epist. ad Vallant. Tom. 2. that although it be certain the privilege of not erring is in a Council; yet that it is far more certain among Divines that it is in the Church: Which he would never have said, if he had believed the Infallibility of a Council to be of Faith. For then it would be no less certain than the Infallibility of the Church. Besides it is the common opinion of our Adversaries; that nothing is of Faith, of which Disputes are raised in the bosom of the Church, She being conscious of them. Thus Holden 8 Certum est illud non esse Fidei divinae & Catholicae dogma, cujus oppositum a plurimis piissimis & doctissimis Catholicis viris publicè sustentari vidimus, sciente nimirum & jacente Ecclesiâ universâ. Hold. Anal. fid. lib. 1. cap. 9 affirms, that is not an Article of Divine and Catholic Faith; whose opposite is publicly maintained by many pious and learned Catholics, the Universal Church knowing of it, and winking at it. To the same purpose Canus 9 Sunius aut paucorum opinatio non fuerit ab Ecclesiâ rejecta, tum plurimorum authoritas— nihil certum firmumque conficiet. Can. loc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. teacheth, that if the opinion of one or a few be not rejecsed by the Church; then the (contrary) authority of many will produce nothing firm or certain. There is extant among the works of the Fratres Valemburgii a Treatise called the Rule of Faith, written formerly in French by Veron, and translated into Latin by the Valemburgii, and so openly adopted by them, that whatsoever Veron writ of himself in the singular, they translate in the plural. So that whatsoever is contained in it, may be looked upon as the sense of all three Writers. Now the chief scope of this Book is to show, that not a few opinions taught by many of their Doctors, and by us affixed to the whole Church of Rome, are not of Faith, but may be safely denied. To the obtaining of this end they make use chief of two means, the silence of the Council of Trent, and the testimonies of Doctors of a contrary opinion: and Section 15. 10 Variae sunt hâc de re Doctorum sententiae; quod vel solum sufficit probando id non esse de fide Catholicâ. have these words, That the different judgement of the Doctors herein may aloné suffice to prove, that it is not of Faith. Upon this foundation proceed all those Divines; who maintain that the Pope is infallible, or superior to a Council. Thus the Valemburgii 11 Eâ solìen de causâ non affirmamus hanc propositionem fide Catholicâ esse tenendam; quòd Authores, qui contrarium sentiunt, nondum videamus ab Ecclesiâ damnatos pro haereticis. Val. Tom. 1. Tract. 1. Exam. 3. num. 111. write, that for this cause only, they will not affirm this proposition to be of Catholic Faith, because Authors of the contrary opinion are not condemned by the Church for Heretics. So Bannes 12 Bann. in 2.2. quaest. 1. art. 10. dub. 2. , Bellarmine 13 Bell. de Pont. lib. 4. cap. 2. , Vasquez 14 Vasq. in 3. disp. 137. cap. 1. , and Duval 15 Duval. in 2.2. p. 344. tells us, that they will not assert the contrary opinion to be heresy; because it is not yet condemned by Popes or Councils, and is tolerated in the Church. But Gillius 16 Quare rigida videtur censura, quâ Bannes oppositam notat (sententiam) vocans eam temerariam. Gill. de doctr. Sacrâ lib. 1. Tract. 7. cap. 4. goes farther, and reprehendeth Bannes for inflicting even a mark of rashness upon the opinion of one only sense of Scripture, since four Divines, Alensis, Albertus, Henricus, and Medina had defended it. This opinion of our Adversaries is grounded on a double foundation. The first Gillius declareth in express words, viz. that it is not credible that so many learned and pious persons should either not know what the Catholic Faith teacheth, or knowing it should oppose it. The Second is, that it would be a most unpardonable neglect of the Church to see the Faith torn in pieces by her Children, and be silent in so urgent an occasion. For by that connivance She should at least indirectly confirm heresy: it being a Rule of the Canon Law, 17 Error, cui non resistitur, approbatur, Dist. 83. that an Error, which is not resisted, is approved. If therefore I demonstrate, that not one or two, but many of the Roman Divines, and those the most celebrated, and by their merit preferred to the greatest dignities in the Church, were not only ignorant of, but also openly denied this Infallibility: I shall at the same time prove, that it is not of Faith. The former will easily be performed. For first, the most noble and learned Jo. Fr. Picus 18 Voluerunt multi Concilium si unâ cum Pontifice in iis quae ad essentiam fidei pertinent, sententiam ferat, nullo pacto errare posse. Restitêre alii, affirmantes errare posse Concilia, & jam errâsse— nec ad huc aliquid (quod sciam) promulgatum est, cujus vi ad alterutrum credendum obstringamur. Picus ad Theor. 4. Prince of Mirandula confesseth, that their Doctors and Canonists are divided in their opinions, whether a Pope and Council conjunctly defining matters of Faith can err or not: and that we are not obliged to believe either opinion. That Picus his testimony is true any one will be convinced, that considereth how many things repugnant to this Infallibility the greatest men of the Roman Church have taught. These may be reduced to four heads. First, the testimonies of those which teach that the Pope and Council (to whom alone this Infallibility is assigned) can err. Secondly, of those which deny that Church which is unerring and indesectible, to be so tied to the Clergy, that it may not wholly consist in others. Thirdly, of those who assert that the Faith of all men, one only excepted, may fail; and so the Church subsist in a single Laic or Woman. Fourthly of those who imagine that the Faith may perish in all adult persons, and so the Church consist only in baptised infants. For the first we shall produce Ockam, or at least them, whose opinions he relates. (For in his Dialogues he never speaks in his own person) 19 una sola est Ecclesia militans, quae contra fidem errare non potest.— Temerarium est dicere, quod Concilium Generale contra fidem errare non potest. Occam. Dial. part. 1. lib. 5. cap. 25. He therefore affirms, that it is rash to say a General Council cannot err against the Faith; that being the peculiar privilege of the Church Militant. That 19 Scripturae divinae, universali Ecclesiae, & Aposiolis absque allâ dubitatione in omnibus credendum. Nullis vero aliis, quantâcunque doctrinâ vel Sanctitate praepolleant,— It a quod nec in Concilio generali, si esset congregata universalis Ecclesia, nec Decretis Pontisicum, nec Doctorum dictis est necessario credulitas in omni dicto absque omni exceptione praestanda. Id. part. 3. Tract. 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. the Scriptures, the Universal Church and the Apostles are without hesitation to be believed; but none others how eminent soever in holiness and Learning, no not a General Council, although the Universal Church were gathered together in it, nor the Decrees of Popes, nor the Judgements of Doctors. Lastly 20 Si quaeratur, quis habet judicare, an Concilia suerint Catholicè celebrata, respondetur quod periti in Scriptures habent judicare per modum firmae assertionis, quod definita ab iis sunt Catholicè definita. Id. cap. 19 that it belongs to every man skilful in the Scriptures, with a firm assurance to judge whether Councils have been celebrated Canonically, or defined Catholickly. Peter de Alliaco 21 1. Concilium generale potest difformari legi Christi. 2. Ecclesia Romana, quae distinguitur a tot â congregatione sidelium, ut pars à toto, potest haereticari. 3. Tota multitudo Clericorum & Laicorum virorum potest à fide deficere. All. in quaest. vesper. art 3. Cardinal of Cambray, and one of the Precedents of the Council of Constance, layeth down these Three Assertions. 1. That a General Council can departed from the Law of Christ. 2. That the Church of Rome, which is distinguished from the whole Congregation of the Faithful, as the part from the whole, may fall into Heresy. 3. That the whole multitude of Clergy and Laity may apostatise from the true Faith. This Lecture opposed by a Parisian Doctor he afterwards largely defended in his Reply, which he Entitled de Resumptâ: Where among other things to this purpose he enquireth, what is to be done, when a General Council errs, and the State of Christendom is so depraved, that Heretics have all the Power, the Faithful being become few and contemptible: And in this case adviseth to make divers Appeals, commit themselves to the Divine Grace, and bear the injury with Patience. Waldensis 22 Non est ergo specialis Ecclesia, non Africana, nec utique particularis illa Romana, sed universalis Ecclesia, non quidem in generali Synodo congregata, quam aliquotiens errâsse percepimus. Sed est etc. Vald. doctr. Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 19 Paulo post. Quia nulla harum (Synodi Episcopalis, &c,) est Ecclesia Catholica Symbolica, nec vendicat sibi sidem dari sub paenâ perfidiae. Sed etc.— Nec movere quenquam debet, qued talem concordem professionem Patrum praeposui decreto generalis Concilu, etiamsi è toto orbe existentes convenirent Episcopi. Et cap. 27. Nec tamen alicui jam dictae (Ecclesiis Apostolicis, maxlmè verò Romanae, & authoritati Concilii Generalis) ita obediendum censeo, & tam pronâ fide, sicut primae fidei Scripturae, vel Ecclesiae Christi Symbolicae, sed sicut institutionibus Seniorum & monitioni paternae. teacheth, that the Church, which is the Infallible Rule of Faith, is neither Pope nor Council, which have sometimes erred; but the Series and Collection of all Doctors successively from the Apostles to our times. That neither an Episcopal Synod, nor the common decree of the Roman Church, nor yet a General Council of all the Bishops of the World, is that Catholic Symbolical Church, that can challenge assent upon pain of infidelity: But the Universal succession of the Holy Fathers throughout all Ages. That an unanimous consent of the Fathers is to be preferred before the Decree of a General Council, although all the Bishops of the World be therein. That Obedience is not so readily and entirely to be given to the dictates of any particular Church, or even to the authority of a General Council, as to the first Faith proposed by Scripture, or the Symbolical Church of Christ: The other being to be regarded only as the institution of the Elders, and paternal admonition. Cardinal Panormitan 23 Ideo in concernentibus sidem Concilium est supra Papam— Puto tamen quod si Papa moveretur melioribus rationibus & authoritatibas qudm Concilium, quod standum esset sententiae suae. Name & Concilinm potest errare, sicut aliâs erravit, &c— Nam in concernentibas sidem etiam dictum unius privati esser praeferendum dicto Papae, si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus N. & V. Testamenti quam Papa, Panorm. in Cap. Significâsti de electione. writeth, that in things indeed concerning Faith a Council is above the Pope. Yet if the Pope be moved with better reasons and authorities than the Council, we are to stand to his determination. For even a Council may err, and hath erred. That in matters of Faith the judgement even of one private man is to be preferred before the Sentence of the Pope; if he were moved with better Arguments drawn from the Old and New Testament, than the Pope. And much more to the same purpose. Antony 24 Ant. Summ. Theol. part. 3. Tit. 23. Cap. 2. §. 6. Archbishop of Florence hath transcribed this whole passage of Panormitan into his sum of Divinity without making the least mention of him; and delivers it as his own opinion. Cardinal Cusanus 25 Notandum est experimento rerum Concilium universale plenartum posse deficere; quomodo etiam varia Concilia talia fuerunt, quae judicando errârunt. Cusan. Concord. Cath. lib. 2. cap. 3. & 4. alloweth indeed Ecumenical Councils to be infallible: But to this End requireth so many conditions, that it is very difficult they should all be had, and impossible to be known when had. The fourth condition is, that the Council regulate itself by the Rules of the Holy Ghost laid down in Scripture, and the definitions of precedent Councils. Otherwise that, howsoever free and universal, they may be appealed from, and protested against. And at last concludes, that it is to be seen by experience, that a full General Council can err; as divers such Councils have been, which have erred in defining. Thus he of Councils; who hath much more about the errability of the Pope. Wherefore Bellarmine reckons him among the Parisians. Nicholas de Clemangis 26 Clem. in Disp. de Conciliis. expressly Disputes against the Infallibility of Councils. But because he preadmonisheth he affirms nothing, but only to dispute for finding out the truth: I shall not urge his Testimony. Cardinal Dominicus Jacobatius 27 Quia Concilium potest errare, ut patet in Conctlio Ariminen●i, Ephesino. 2. Africanâ Synodo tempore Cypriani, & in aliis multis. Nec obstat si dicatur, quòd Ecclesià non potest errare; quia intelligitur de Ecclesiâ universali. Sed Concilium repraesentatiuè dicitur Ecclesiâ; in Concilio enim verè non est universalis Ecclesia. Jacob. de Concil. lib. 6. pag. 239. asserteth, that when Popes and Councils disagree in defining; that judgement is to be preferred, which is consonant to the definitions of precedent Councils. If none of which have passed Sentence in this matter; then the Councils definition shall not be received, if the Popes be founded upon better reasons and authorities. For that a Council can err; as appears by that of Ariminum, the Second of Ephesus, that of afric under Cyprian, and many others. That the Infallibility of the Universal Church proves not the same to be in a Council: Since the Universal Church is not truly in a Council. That in the case of contrary definitions by the Pope and a Council, it is not yet defined, what is to be done or observed. That his Opinion however is, that he which should hold to and observe either part, should not therefore incur the danger of Damnation although he died in the observation of it. All these manifestly teach that both a Pope, and Council, to whom alone active Infallibility is attributed may err. Nor is it enough to say, that herein they deliver their judgements 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 Ecclesiastic order, but may consist of believers of whatsoever rank and order. This Petrus Alliacensis expressly affirms in the place by us above cited. So the Author of the Gloss 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, enquiring 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, etc. 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 Gloss— that is, to subvert it from the true faith. To which he subjoins. Whence is manifest that the Church consists not in men in respect either of Ecclesiastical or Secular Dignity; (for they have sometimes apostatised 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 Ecclesiastic or Laic, Man or Woman, and so the Church consist in that person alone. That the Church actually did so at the time of our Saviour's 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 Silvius 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 s●lâ Vin in stetit Ecclesia, in q●●d s●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 ●dmedum tempare mortis Christi tota siles Ecclesiae in B. Virgin remanebat. Non est ctiam credendum, etc. 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 Lord's 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. Name, etc. Et fortè hine dicit Glossa, qu●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 Gloss 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 Laics ought to be admitted into the Council; because the Faith may possibly remain in one simple Laic, as it did formerly in the Blessed Virgin. Clemangis 39 In soli potest mulierculâ per gratiam manere Ecclesia; sicut etc. Clem. disp. de Concil. asserts the Church may by grace remain in one single woman, as formerly in the Virgin. Jacobatius 40 Name & remansit sides in B. Virgin aliis deficientibus post passionem, ut astenderetur quid non possi: defi●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 the Universal. Lastly J. Fr. Picus M●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 entire 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 baptised infants, all adult persons apostatising 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 heresy? 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 Precedents of Councils, one (Antoninus Florontinus) Sainted and at this day Worstripped. Which surely would not have been done, if he had taught Heresy. But what is more express, and which cannot be eluded, is that Thomas Waldensis' 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. affirms 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 subjoined, 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 heresy 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 heresy. 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 . 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 alleged. 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, etc. quo pacto sunt authoritatis humanae & credendae fide acquisitâ, Atque hoc modo sumuntur, ad probandam, etc. 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 judgement 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 Christ's 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 wh●● he offers. First therefore his joining the provide. 〈…〉 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 Church's 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 and 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 lieth open to a thousand inconveniencies. For to omit ask where this prohibition of God is to be found; not to urge that hereby all their Arguments drawn from the nature of the thing concerning the uncerainty of any revealed Article without the supervenient Authority of the Church, are wholly destroyed; not to say, that hereby the controversy is turned from matter of Right into matter of Fact, and become a mere enquiry, whether God hath made any such prohibition: Laying aside I say all these things, I will insist upon this one Observation. It is not here enquired, whether Scripture and Tradition proposed by any other than the Pope oblige us to assent or not; but only whether any one, either obliged or not obliged, can receive them howsoever proposed and thence build his Faith upon them. If he can, than our Argument returns; and we may also believe with Divine Faith what we find taught in Scripture. If he cannot, I would fain know which way then Papists can admit Scripture and Tradition, and from them learn the Infallibility of the Church; since Amicus had before denied that it could be Learned, or aught to be believed for the testimony of Scripture and Tradition, as infallibly proposed by the Church. It is manifest therefore, the belief of the Infallibility of the Church cannot rest on Scripture or Tradition. But neither can it on the judgement of the Ruling Church. For besides that no such judgement is produced; if it were, it would be fruitless. For then, what was never granted, the Church will be judge and give sentence in her own cause: which Alphonsus a Castro 45 Si de Scripturâ ipsâ est quastio, non poterit ipsamet esse Judex: quia tunc erit abire in infinitum. In propriâ causà nallius restimonium est validum. Castr. de justâ baret. punit. lib. 1. cap. 5. denieth to Scripture; because that were to run in infinitum, and no testimony can be valid in its own cause. For imagine any one, that believed not the Church to be infallible now to begin to believe it: This first act of belief cannot be founded upon the judgement of the Church. For whosoever believeth any thing for the sake of the Church's judgement, did before believe that judgement to be certain; which destroyeth the supposition. This our Adversaries confess. So Conink 46 Judicium quo judicamus nobis credendum esse Ecclesiam habere infallibilem omnino authoritatem proponendi res fidei, debet aliis notis, sive alio fundamento niti. Conink. de actib. sup. disp. 17. dub. 3. . The judgement, whereby we judge that we are to believe the Church hath infallible authority of proposing matters of Faith, aught to be grounded upon other arguments or some other foundations So also Moeratius 47 Nemo potest credere hunc Articulum fidei nostrae, interveniente ad assensum hunc ipsâ Ecclesiae authorit●te, tanquam regulà res credendas infallibiliter proponente. Maerat. de fide disp. 17. Sect. 2. . None can believe this Article of our Faith (the Infallibility of the Church) the Church's authority itself intervening to this assent, as the rule infallibly proposing matters of belief. There remains therefore only the belief of the Universal Church, wherein this Faith of private Papists herein can rely. Many things might here be said: but because we shall handle that matter more fully at the end of this Treatise; we will not anticipate our arguments here. I shall only in a word observe the absurdity of it. Our Adversaries say, that private persons ought to believe the active infallibility of the Ruling Church; because they seeit believed by the Universal Church. But why doth the Universal Church believe it: truly for no other reason, but because She do believe it. For the Universal Church is nothing else, but the collection of all single believers. CHAP. V That it is uncertian, what are those Decrees of the Church, whereon Faith may rely. WHAT I said will be more manifest to him, who shall consider; that to make the Decrees of the Church a fit foundation for our Faith, it is not sufficient to know that the Church in defining cannot err; unless also we know, what are those definitions of the Church, which are placed beyond all danger of error. For our Adversaries all acknowledge, that the Church doth not always, nor in all things enjoy this privilege of Infallibility; but in many things may be mistaken, as in desining Philosophical questions: and in general whatsoever belongeth not to Religion. Some add Controversies of Fact; others Canonization of Saints; many all those things, which although belonging to Faith, are not yet proposed as of Faith, but only simply affirmed, or brought for the illustrating and confirming of some other matter. Since the Church therefore may be mistaken in so many things: we ought to be well acquainted, what those Decrees are, wherein Shecannot err. That this notwithstanding is most uncertain, two things evince. First that it appears not, what are the conditions, what the Character and Notes of a firm and valid Decree. Secondly, that although this should appear, it would not yet be known what are those particular Decrees, which have these Characters. The first again is manifest by two reasons: first in that it is uncertain whether these exceptions, wherewith the infallibility of the Church is limited, be all lawful; and then no less uncertain whether they be all, which can and aught to be assigned. For if both these things be not certainly known; we shall continually doubt, whether we do not for some unjust exception undeservedly reject some Decree of the Church, that aught to be obeyed; and received some other, which for some just exception not yet assigned aught to be rejected. But both on the contrary are uncertain. The first, concerning the lawfulness of the conditions already assigned is, because our Adversaries themselves do so irreconciliably differ in assigning them. Whatsoever one layeth down, some other removeth: So that nothing certain can be had thence. Nor can it be said these conditions are self evident, or of Faith. For what evidence is that which escapes the knowledge of so many Learned men? And our Adversaries grant, as we saw before, that nothing can be of Faith, whereof Catholic Divines dispute unregarded by the Church. Besides if it be of Faith, it must be revealed. But where is this revelation? In Scripture? Nothing either is or can be produced thence. In Tradition? That will afford perhaps two or three Testimonies of the Ancients, but which respect only one condition (that of excluding Controversies of Fact) and are themselves liable to many exceptions. But granting they are not, what shall become of the other conditions assigned, of no less moment: Or what will two or three Testimonies avail, wherein their Authors affirm not what they writ to be of Faith: Nor will the Regent Church give us any help herein. For She hath defined nothing in this matter; or if she had, it would be wholly vain. For it would still be enquired, whether that Definition were of Faith; and so in infinitum. As for the Universal Church, She can have no place here, as well for the reasons abovementioned, as because her dissent rather than consent is to he shown herein. There is no way therefore left, but to recur to Experience. They will say they have observed the Church to err, when she undertook to define in cases excluded by their exceptions; and that these exceptions therefore must necessarily be applied to those places of Scripture, which attribute infallibility to the Church. But then they will give us just reason to reply, that if experience giveth us a right to reject that sense of Scripture, which the words seem to imply, merely because it is repugnant to our Observations, and substitute another more congruous to them! Then we may most justly reject that sense of those Words, This is my Body, which our Adversaries assix to them, as contrary to the experience of all mankind, and assign another perfectly accommodated both to reason and experience. Besides there is nothing against which our Adversaries more sharply contend, than to judge and examine the Definitions of the Church by dumb and dead Rules, such as Scripture and Tradition are: yet this very thing is done by those men, who thence conclude the Church to be fallible in certain cases, because they have observed her to have been formerly mistaken in them. For this can be done no otherwise than by examining the Decrees of the Church, either by Scripture, or Tradition. Again, if experience giveth them a right to limit the infallibility of the Church by their exceptions; why may not we challenge the same privilege, and assign our exceptions likewise. We then lay down only that one, formerly proposed by Cusanus, which if admitted by our Adversaries, will soon put an end to all controversies, that is, that the Church never presume to define any thing but according to the Holy Scriptures, leaving undecided all things, wherein they are either silent or obscure. And so all our Controversies are reduced to this one point, whether this exception is to be added to those which our Adversaries have assigned. As often therefore as they oppose to us the judgement of the Church, we may with reason reject it, till they can show, that our exception is unjust, which they will never be able to do. On the contrary we can demonstrance the equity of it by experience, and show that the Church hath erred, as often as She observed not this exception. But let it be rejected. Who cantle, Whether no other is to be added? Certainly if the observation of the past Errors of the Church have given occasion to these Writers to form these exceptions; the observation of future errors will likewise produce new exceptions. Nay who will warrant, that nothing already past hath escaped the notice of these Observers, whence other exceptions might have been framed? And hence also appears what I undertook to prove in the second place, that although we were assured the exceptions are lawful and justly assigned; we cannot be certain they are all that are so, and whether others are not yet to be added. For since the exceptions are form only from experience; if the Authors of them made not a just observation of all the past errors of the Church, or had not in their eye all possible future errors of a different nature; there may be other exceptions, no less necessary and momentous, to be assigned. And how shall we be at last ascertained of the requisite diligence, sagacity, and prudence of these Observers? I shall illustrate all by a famous example. One of the chief exceptions, whereby the Papal power is limited, is that all those Decrees are excluded, which were not for some space of time affixed to the doors of St. Peter's Church and the Apostolic Chancery, and solemnly promulged by the Pope's Messengers in the wont places. This exception was made about an hundred years since merely to serve a turn; when they could by no other means elude the arguments of the Protestants against the Papal Infallibility drawn from Pope Clement VIII. his Bull, whereby he re-called Sixtus V his Edition of the Bible, and Preface prefixed to it. Then it was they forged this exception pretending that Sixtus his Bull, although printed and prefixed to his Bibles, had not been solemnly published by the Messengers. An exception, which had been never dreamt of, had not Sixtus erred; as appeareth hence, that the precedent Writers Cajetan, Canus, and Bellarmine make no mention of it, whereas of the subsequent Writers few forget it. Nor is there any doubt, but that if any Pope hereafter should commit some other mistake, which might wound his pretended Infallibility; some other Exception would be framed to salve his honour. If therefore our Adversaries, as we have proved, cannot certainly know what are the conditions and characters of the Infallible Decrees of the Church, they must necessarily be ignorant, which Decrees may be securely believed and obeyed. But granting they might be certain herein, and taking away all these scruples, they will be yet for ever uncertain which Decrees have, which want these conditions. For what will it avail to know that the Church, may err in matters Philosophical, or of Fact, or which are not proposed as of Faith; if we be uncertain what are Philosophical matters, what of Fact, and what proposed as of Faith? Yet that all these kinds of things are yet uncertain, will be easily evinced. For, First, since the School Divines have so intermingled Aristotle's Philosophy with Divinity, nothing is more difficult than exactly to distinguish them. Whence it frequently happens, that what one accounts merely Philosophical, another esteems matter of Divinity. So in the year 1666. when a certain Theatine 1 Apud Launoi Epist. part 5. Epist. 2. ad Berruer. at Paris had proposed these and such like Theses to be publicly disputed of, viz. That any knowledge in the Father was absolutely sufficient to beget the Son; so that if the Father had understood but any one object, suppose a Lily, he must be thereby supposed to have begotten the Son, that if both together had loved but any one object, as a Rose, yet would they thereby have spirated the Holy Ghost. That the unspeakable torment of Devils consists in this, that by hypostatical union the Devil is become fire, and fire become the Devil. These and the like Theses the proposer maintained to be Theological. Launoy contends they are Philosophical; others think, perhaps more truly, that they are foolish and profane. The Council of Constance defined the accidents in the Eucharist to remain destitute of any subject. The Cartesians deny this, and value not the definition, pretending that it is about a matter Philosophical. Others thereupon accuse their denial of heresy. Copernicus and Galilaeus their Systeme of the world were condemned at Rome. Some thereupon dare not embrace it, though otherwise inclined to believe it. Others more bold contend it is purely a matter of Philosophy. See therefore many learned and wise men divided about the application of the first exception. And if so, how shall more ignorant persons be able rightly to distinguish them, and thence certainly to know, to which of the Church's 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 etc. 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 virtue of the words, but the Blood not by virtue 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 choose 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 do●ere, prae, dicare, vel pertinaciter assirere praesumpserit, eo ipso excommunicatus existat. having enjoined that every one conscious of any mortal sin, should confess, before he communicates; subjoineth: 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 Heresy. 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 ofttimes 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 judgement is infallible only in respect of the Heretical ones. The rest may with safety and truth be defended. It is of infinite 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, etc. Thus the Council of Constance 8 Quibus examinatis fuit repertum aliquos & plures ex ipsis fuisse & esse notoriè heretico, alios non Catholicos sed erroreos, alios scandalosoes & 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 'tis found, that many of them are notoriously Heretical, others not Catholic 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, etc. respectiuè 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 sigillati●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 Poison of Heresy lay hid; he began to read Baius' Book, having first asked leave. But when that would not do, he consulted Cardinal Toletus, whom the Pope had sent to Louvain, 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 Counselors, such as Canus and Toletus? Further it may very well be, that he which knoweth the particular propositions condemned of Heresy, may be ignorant wherein the Heresy 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 senses, 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 Heresy, 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 approved or condemned. That request being stisly denied by the Roman Consistory, who were resolved to condemn them in the gross: The Jansenists distinguished Three Senses of each Proposition, and placing the different senses in Three Columns offered them to the Examiner's, desiring they would admonish which of all those senses the Censure aimed at. But neither so could they obtain their End. Only afterwards when the Controversy grew hot, Pope Alexander VII. declared the Propositions were condemned in the sense intended by the Author. The Author had been now dead, before his Book was published, much less condemned. And so while the Pope's pretended to condemn the Author's sense; they said nothing else but that they condemned a sense; which neither they would, nor any body else could tell, what it was. And to this day it is disputed among them, what is that Heretical sense intended by the Author and condemned by the Popes. Thus much of the Third Exception. I might add another, which not a few of our Adversaries produce. For they require, that the Church proceed maturely, diligently, and Canonically in her judgement: Which certainly few or none can know. But because the consideration of this would take up too much time. I shall omit it: Having already sufficiently evinced, that nothing is more uncertain, than to know what are those Decrees of the Church, which may be securely believed; and consequently that Faith cannot be founded on them. CHAP. VI That it is uncertain, what is that part of the Universal Church, to which active Infallibility belongs. And First, that it doth not appear, whether it be in the Pope. IF we should after all this grant the knowledge of the Church's Infallibility, and of her Infallible Decrees, not to be impossible, this would contribute nothing to the establishing our Faith; unless it were likewise known, what is that Supreme Tribunal, whose Decrees are to be obeyed. For if this were uncertain, saith Arriaga, 1 Si enim incertum hoc esset; quicquid de judice controversiarum in Ecclesiâ ut certum de fidecreditur, esset planè ridiculum Arr. de Fide Disp. 7. Sect. 8. whatsoever is believed as of Faith concerning a Judge of Controversies in the Church, would be ridiculous. Now this thing is really uncertain, as I shall prove. There are three opinions concerning it among our Adversaries. For this Supreme and Infallible power is by most assigned to the Pope alone, by almost all the French and some few more to a Council alone, and lastly to Pope and Council together by some very few, so few, that I could never find one that expressly asserted this opinion, and but two or three that obscurely insinuate it. I begin with the Pope; and affirm, that unless his Infallibility be of Faith, his Decrees cannot be the foundation of Faith. No other certainty will here suffice, for as for Moral and Self evident, here is not the least shadow of them; and that of Theological Conclusions I before excluded. So that certainty of Faith is necessary. This our Adversaries confess, at least those of the first opinion. Caspensis 2 Nisi fide divinâ credamns ejusmodi Pontifices esse successores Petri, nihil est quod possumus fide divina credere. Casp. de fide disp. 2. Sect. 6. writeth that unless we believe by Divine Faith such Popes to be the Successors of Peter, there is nothing we can believe with Divine Faith. Martinonus 3 Pontifex non posset nos obligare ad credendum de jide id quod definit ut dictum a Deo; nisi de fide esset ipsum habere potestatem definiendi & infalibilem assistentiam Sp. S. Mart. de fide disp. 9 Sect. 6. that the Pope could not oblige us to believe as of Faith what he defineth to be revealed by God, unless it were of Faith, that he hath the power of defining, and infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. Rhodius 4 Si non esset de fide, quòd (Papa) sit infallibilis; ergo non est de fide quôd non fallatur. Rhod. de fide quaest. 3. Sect. 1. §. 3. that unless the infallibility of the Pope were of Faith; it would not be of Faith; that he is not actually mistaken. Is it therefore of Faith that the Pope is infallible? So indeed some of them maintain, as Suarez, Castrus, Palaus, Lud. Abelly, Ja. Vernautius, Fr. Macedo, Theoph. Raynaudus, Amicus Caspensis, Martinonus, Rhodius, and others. Yea Abelly 5 Veritatem religionis fundamentalem, articulum fidei ex praecipuis unum, cui innitantur caeteri omnes. Abelly apud Estrix Diat. ass. 47. affirms that it is a fundamental truth of Religion, a Prime Article of Faith, upon which the rest depend, and the contrary opipinion a capital heresy. Vernautius 6 Neminem posse sine crimine hereseos doctrinam tenere contrariam Pontificis fidei omnibus fidelibus propositae. Vern. apud eundem. concludeth that none without the crime of heresy can hold an opinion contrary to the belief of the Pope proposed to all the faithful. Macedo 7 Censeo qui absolutè negat insallibilem esse Papam— errare haud dubiè in fide, & si in errore obstinatus perseveret; haereticum fore. Mac. ibidem. thinks the denial of it to be an undoubted error in Faith, and if obstinately persisted in heresy. Lastly Raynaudus 8 Qui Pontifici eam infallibilitatem abrogant, a plerisque, sin minus ab omnibus trans Alps & Pyrenaeos habentur haeretici saltem materialiter. Rain. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct. 5. tells us, the deniers are by many, if not by all beyond the Alps and Pyrenaeans accounted heretics, at least materially. When he saith materially, he meaneth in the Language of the Schoolmen that the opinion of these Deniers is accounted in itself heretical, and wants only obstinacy in the defenders to make it downright and formal Heresy. Now this obstinacy is judged of, partly by the external Proposition of the Truth opposed to Heresy, partly by the internal disposition of mind. Now because the latter is known to God alone, and all truths are not sufficiently proposed to all; therefore those of whom Raynaudus speaks do wisely in laying down that limitation of material Heresy. But this Salvo will not serve the Learned disbelievers of the Papal infallibility. For since it is as clearly revealed to them, as it is to the believers of it: Either those are rank Heretics, whom a sufficient Proposition will not convince; or these fools, who assent to an opinion insufficiently proposed. Thus indeed these Writers: But others are of a contrary opinion, as Bellarmine, Vasquez, Tannerus, Duval, the Valemburgii, Gab. Boyvin, and others, who strenuously maintain the Infallibility of the Pope, and yet deny it to be of Faith. Duval 9 Duval. de potest. Pont. part. 2. quaest. 1. produceth three weighty reasons. 1. For that it hath been no where defined. 2. That the opposite Doctors, as Alliacensis, Gerson, etc. Were never condemned. 3. In that the Scripture 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 Bellarmine's 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 Heresy to deny it, as we saw some before asserting. Hadrianus Florentius therefore was an Heretic, (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 Heresy by his determination or decretal, and that many Popes have been Heretics.) and the Church will be a favouress of Heresy in that She afterwards promoted Hadrian to the Popedom without first requiring of him an abjuration of his Heresy. 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 heretics, that teach it: the Pope a favourer of heresy, who daily conferreth Abbeys, Bishoprics, and Cardinal's Hats on notorious Heretics, 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 heresy, part with the Communion of heretics, 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 Heresy 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 Pope's Infallibility. If so, than this dissension is very ancient in the Church; which if it toucheth Faith, than a pestilent Heresy hath for many Ages been connived at by the Church and Councils. But whatsoever becomes of Lupus his Calculation, certain it is this dissension 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 wont 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 duval 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 own assent and obedience. Canus, Bellarmine, Suarez, duval, 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 inquire, whether this be consonant to what they teach about the Controversy of the Aids of Grace. I only ask, whether what they allege 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 etc. 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 judgement, 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 authorising 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 su●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 wholly to his cognisance, and that all necessary diligence was abundantly used by himself, and the Cardinals and Doctors employed about the work; he prenounceth by that irrevocable Decree, with the consent and Counsel of his Brethren, of his own cortain knowledge, and the fullness of Apostolic power, that this is undoubtedly to be accounted that very Edition, which was made Authentic by the Council of Trent, and now approved by himself: And by the Apostolic power delivered unto him by our Lord, commandeth, that every where and in all cases it be received for true Legitimate, Authentic, and undoubted; and all suture Editions be corrected by this, and not the least syllable be changed, added or omitted upon pain of the greater Excommunication. This certainly, if any thing was a question of Faith and right, being concerning the true Rule of Faith, and pure word of God. Sixtus also omitted no words, whereby he might make his Decree valid. Yet Clement VII. a while after undid all, revoked his Predecessors decree, suppressed his Edition, and publisheth another of his own, wherein he maketh more than 2000 corrections of Sixtus his Edition, as our Learned Dr. James hath in a peculiar Treatise showed. To this so fatal an overthrow of the Papal Infallibility Tannerus 7 Tann. de fide Disp. 1. quaest. 4. dub. 6. the Jesuit replieth, that Sixtus his Decree was not Authentic, nor did oblige, because not promulged in the due form, that is not assixed, or at least not the whole due time, to the doors of St. Peter's Church, the Apostolic Chancery, and in Flora's Field: And this he proveth by the here say Testimonies of Bellarmine, and Ferdinandus Albertus the Jesuit: Although in the printed Copies of the Bull the Messenger's Names are found subscribed testifying that all the wont Solemnities of promulgation were observed. To this Launoy, 8 Laun. Epist part. 1 p. 144 rejoins that these are mere tricks to establish the authority of the Roman Court, and impose upon unwary men, if yet any can be found so foolish as to regard them. Hath Christ therefore appropriated the Infallibility, conferred on his Vicar, to Walls and doors, that his definitions cannot be infallible, unless these petty punctilios be observed: That these pretences of Tannerus. Vasquez, Bellurmine, and others, are madness and Foppery, frivolous impertinence, Deliramenta loquitur, Ibberas naenias sectatur, & frivola Siculis gerris vaniora Theologiaer, importat. Haec refer me pudet. and shameful nonsense. That promulgation signifies nothing to the Pope's Infallibility; nor addeth any truth or falsehood to the definition, but supposeth it in them. For if it be false the Promulgation will not make it true, although it be published by a thousand Messengers, and affixed to St. Peter's doors to all Eternity: That Sixtus in defining that, for which his Bull was abrogated, did plainly err; and that Clement in abrogating his Bull and suppressing his Edition ought himself to have believed this, at least gave others occasion to believe it. Thus Launoy. I might add it hath hitherto been believed that this Infallibility doth proceed from the Holy Ghost. But when should the Holy Ghost confer it? Surely, if ever, while the question is discussing and defining. Whereas now when the Pope hath done all that lay in his power, and nothing remains but only some petty circumstances of promulgation to be performed by servile and illiterate Messengers; then only, and not till then, doth this Infallibility exert itself; which makes the Pope fallible, and the Messengers infallible. For the first may pronounce somewhat false, the latter nothing but what is true. But passing by all these things, suppose this excuse well grounded. Yet have I obtained, what was to prove that there may be sometime wanting in the Pope that diligence which is necessary to define well. For this consists not in the circumstances of Promulgation, but in examining the question, enquiring the truth, and weighing the reasons. What if after all it be not duly published by Messengers: That concerns not my argument, nor hinders the precedent negligence of the Pope. Besides, if without these solemnities of Promulgation no Bulls be obligatory, the authority of the Decrees of all ancient Popes may be justly doubted of. For who can assure us that all these circumstances were then observed, when it is the height of folly to think they were so much as known. Either these therefore are not necessary, or the ancient Decretals are all void. But suppose they are necessary: That they are not wanting to this Bull of Sixtus the subscriptions of the Messengers do testify. I know it is pretended that they were added by anticipation only to hasten the Edition. But that serveth my purpose as well. For must every one, that receive a Bull, suspend his obedience, till he shall ride post to Rome, and consult the Registres? And hence appears the uncertainty of the second condition required to the Infallibility of any Papal Decree. For if the Testimony of the Bull itself be sometimes false, and we be forced to pick up the Truth from flying reports; how shall we be ever assured, that the Decree was duly Promulged? One thing more we may observe, that even by Tanner's confession some reported, that the Decree of Sixtus was really affixed in the due places, and taken down after his death. This Compton 9 Compt. in 2.2. Disp. 22. Sect. 5. also dares not deny, but leaves it to the Reader to be believed or rejected by him. But if the Bull was not taken down, till Sixtus died; then Sixtus erred as long as he lived, and promoted error as far as in him lay; and what is the chief of all, used not the necessary diligence to avoid error. CHAP. VIII. That it is not certain, whether the Pope defineth according to his own mind, or against his conscience: and that this latter case may happen, is proved by many examples. WE are not yet got rid of our doubts and perplexities. Those which we have already mentioned, are external, and obvious to the senses, if not of all, yet at least of some. Whereas here is one unknown and impenetrable to all but the Pope himself, to wit, his own Conscience. For to judge right it is required, that he pronounceth what he thinks is true, and not decree against his judgement for any fear or force. That the Pope notwithstanding hath not always such an assistance of the Holy Ghost, as constantly to withstand these attempts; I shall demonstrate by four examples, those of Marcellinus, Liberius, Paschal, II. and Eugenius IU. That Pope Mercellinus under Diocletian's persecution did deny the Faith, publicly sacrifice to Idols, and was for that reason deposed in the Synod of Sinuessa; is acknowledged by Pope Damasus, or whosoever be the Author of the Liber Pontificalis, by Nicolas I. Luitprandus, Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Gerson, Cusanus, Hosius, Platina, Papyrius Masso, Bellarmine in the first Edition of his Controversies, Baronius in the second Edition of his Annals, Amicus, Emanuel a Schelstrate, and many others. I know indeed that some deny it, relying on the silence of Eusebius, and testimony of St. Austin, who saith the Donatists objected this to Marcellinus, but could not prove it. Whether the fact be true or no, it is enough for me that Pope Nicolas I. and many others thought so. Baronius 1 Non tanti sumus ut de Marcellini lapsu opinionem ore omnium diffamatam antiquare possimus; quae & communi ferè omnium consensu appareat postea esse credita, Bar. ad An. 302 Edit. Plant. p. 800. insinuates this, when in the first Edition of his Annals, where he endeavours to elevate the Faith of this History, he excuseth himself, for opposing. the common and almost universal opinion. And Natalis Alexander 2 Nat. Hist. Eccl. Saec. 3. Dis. 20. observes, that the Roman Breviary favours this belief. Whence it is evident, that this thing seemed neither impossible nor improbable to the whole Roman Church: which shows that according to the opinion commonly received in her, the Popes may possibly be moved by some vehement perturbation of mind to betray the Faith. Bellarmine's 3 Non nisi actu externo ob●metummortis. Bell. excuse here will not avail, That Marcellinus taught nothing against the Faith, was no Heretic or Infidel, but in external act, for fear of death. For (to pass by the accusation of the Synod of Stnuessa, that he did it for the love of money) even this demonstrates what I was to prove, that a Pope may be induced by some perturbation of mind, as sear or covetousness, to violate his Conscience, and betray the truth. Liberius comes next, who after he had bravely a while resisted the threats of Constantius, either weared out with the hardship of his Exile, or moved with the desire of recovering his See possessed by Faelix; subscribed to the Arian Heresy, and the sentence against Athanasius, Bellarmine pleads much in his excuse: The sum of which is this, That Liberius his fault consisted only in condemning Athanasius, and communicating with Heretics; that himself neither taught Heresy, nor was an Heretic but in external action; lastly that the Confession, which he subscribed, was orthodox, although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were wanting; and that according to Sozomen before his departure from Sirmium he published a Confession, wherein he condemned the Heterousians. But this answer of Bellarmine's is wholly insufficient. For 1. Whereas he pretends Liberius was an Heretic only in external act, that no less serves our purpose, as manifesting that a Pope may be wrought by his passions to pronounce in matters of Faith against his own knowledge and judgement. 2. If he condemned Athanasius, it was not because he was by the false accusations of the Arians induced to believe Athanasius guilty, but only that he might free himself from the miseries of banishment, and the fears of death: As Athanasius 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Epist. ad Solit. witnesseth. In the first case he had only erred in matter of fact; but now he failed in constancy: Which also proves my assertion. 3. To communicate with known Heretics, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Liberius to have done, is to favour Heresy, and add authority to it. Christianus Lupus largely handles this ad praesoript. Tertulliani cap. 41. where he strongly urgeth the example of the whole Clergy of Rome, who separated themselves from the Communion of Pope Anastasius; merely because he had not denied Communion to a Deacon of Thessalonica of Acacius his party, who yet was far from an open Heretic. 4. Where Bellarmine denieth Liberius to have subscribed to an Heretical Confession of Faith; this is manifestly repugnant to the plain Testimonies of the Ancients. We shall produce some. Liberius 5 Vbi cognovi justè vos illum (Athanasium) condemnâsse; mox consensum meu●n commodavi sententiis vestris— Itap●e amoto Athanasio a Communione omnium di●o me cum omnthus vobis pacem & unanimitatem habere. Name— Dominus n●ster & frater communis, Demophilus, qui dignatus est fidem vestram & Catholicam exponere, quae Sirmii suscepta est,— Hane ego libenti animo suscepi, etc. Liber. Epist. 7. Me autem cum omnibus vobis Episc●pis Ecclesiae Catholicae pacem habere his literis s●ire debetis, fratres charissuni.— Quicun que autem a pace & concordiâ nostrâ dissenserit, s●iat se separatum a nostrâ communione. himself in his Epistle to the Eastern Bishops (who were Arians) tells them that he is convinced the Condemnation of Athanasius was just, whom therefore he looked on as Excommunicate, and would maintain Peace and Unanimity with them. That he subscribed at Sirmium their Catholic Faith expounded unto him by Demophilus (an Arian Bishop.) And in his Epistle to Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius (the heads of the Arrian party) saith, I profess to hold Communion with all you Bishops of the Catholic Church: And Excommunicate all those which shall descent from this our Blessed concord. St. Hillary 6 Anathema tibi a me dictum Liberi, & s●●iis tuis Iterum tibi Anathama, & tertio Praevaricato● Libeti, Hil in Fragm. Perfidiam apud Sirmium conscriptam, quam dicit Liberius Catholicam, a Demophilo sibi exp●sitam, Id. ibid. O te miserum, qui nescio utrum majori impietate relegaveris (Liberium) quàm remiseris, Id. lib. ad Constantium. denounceth a threefold Anathema against Liberius for this Subscription, and calls him a Prevaricator of the Faith, and in another place saith, the Heresy penned at Sirmium, which Liberius calls Catholic, expounded to him by Demophilus, etc. And tells Constantius, that he sent back Liberius to Rome with no less impiety, than wherewith he had before banished him; intimating, that he had made him an Heretic. St. Hierome 7 In hoc habetur detestabilis, quod Liberium primus sollicitavit ac fregit, & ad subscriptionem, haereseos impulit, Hier. in Fortunat. Liberius taedio victus exilii, & in haeretied pravitate subscribens, Romam quasi victor intraverat, Id. in Chron. in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, saith Fortunatianus is to be detested, for that he first broke the courage of Liberius, and persuaded him to subscribe to heresy: And in his Chronicle relates how Liberius worn out with the toils of banishment: and having subscribed to heretical pravity, entered Rome as a Conqueror. Auxilius takes it for a thing most certain. Who knows not, saith he 8 Quis nesciat, quod Liberius Arianae haeresi subscripserit? Aux. de Ordin. lib. 1. cap. 25. , that Liberius subscribed to the Arrian heresy? which he repeats in another place. 9 Lib. 2. cap. 1. The old Roman Breviany 10 Cùm doleret (Eusebius) Liberium Papam Arianae haeresi consensisse. Breviar. Rom. in the Festival of St. Eusebius the Confessor, saith; Liberius consented to the Arian Heresy: To these produced by Launoy I shall add three others. Philostorgius 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philost l. 4. c. 3. affirms that Liberius and Hosius subscribed against the Consubstantiality, and against Athanasius. Sozomen 12 Soz. lib. 4. cap. 15. saith that Constantius sending for Liberius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forced him to confess that the Son is not consubstantial to the Father: Where may be noted the disingenuous fraud of Valesius, who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only by caepit compellere, he begun (or went about to compel him. Lastly Peter Damian 13 Porro Liberius perfidiae deceptus errore Arianae haeresi subscripsisse dignoscitur.— Liberius itaque factus Apostata sex annorum spatia supervixit. Pet. Dam. Epist. Writes thus, Liberius is known to have subscribed to the Arian Heresy, deceived with the error of perfidiousness, and faith, that after he was become an Apostate, he lived yet six years. Many things might here be added to confute Bellarmine's Answer, which because they belong more immediately to the Controversy of the Papal Infallibility; I shall omit them. The third example is that of Pope Paschal II. All the World knows what quarrels were formerly between the Popes and Emperors about the Investiture of Bishops. The Emperors would suffer no Bishops in their Dominions, but what received Investiture from their hands: The Popes excommunicated both the Givers and Receivers of it. While the Controversy was yet hot, the Emperor Henry V takes Pope Paschal Prisoner, and extorteth from him a Privilege, whereby 14 Illam dignitatis praerogativam nos dilectioni tuae concedimus, praesentis privilegii paginâ confirmamus, ut regni tui Episcopis investituram virgae & annuli conferas. Si quis item etc. apud Marcam de Concord, lib. 8. cap. 20. the Pope yields and confirms to him and his Successors the Right of Investiture for ever; forbidding the Metropolitans to consecrate any Bishops or Abbots, but what have been first invested by the Emperor. Many then cried out the Faith was violated, and Heresy established by this concession, particularly Goffridus Vindocinensis, out of whom Christ. Lupus 15 Lup. diss. de laid Antist. invest. citys much to this purpose. And the whole Council of Vien, over whom Guido Archbshop of Vien, the Pope's Legate presided, writ thus to Pope Paschal in their Synodical Epistle 16 Privilegium, quod a vestrâ Majestate violenter extorsit, tractare diligenter curavimus.— Igitur dictante Sp. S. investituram omnem de manu laicâ haeresin esse judicavimus, & scriptum illud, quod Rex a vestrâ simplicitate extorsit, damnavimus. We have diligently examined the Privilege by the Emperor extorted from your Majesty (for so they call him) Therefore by the direction of the Holy Ghost we have defined laic Investiture to be Heresy, and condemned that Privilege. Nor did Paschal himself defend his action; but in a full Council recanted his Error, acknowledged his Fault, Scriptum illud, quod magnis necessitatibus coactus— feci,— sicut prauè factum cognosco, ita prauè factum confiteor, & omnino corrigi— desidero, etc. recalled his Privilege, and submitted himself to the censure and correction of the Council, pleading that he was compelled to that sin by great necessities, which being done, Girardus Bishop of Angoulesme stood up, (as the Acts of the Council published by Baluzius testify) and in the name of the Pope and Council, condemned, abrogated, Nos omnes in hoc S. Concilio coram D. Papâ congregati— judicio Sp. S. damnamus, etc. Et hoc ideo damnatum est, quod in eo continetur— quod est contra Sp. S. & canonicam institutionem. and excommunicated this privilege, declaring the reason to be, because elect Bishops were therein forbidden to be consecrated, before they had received Investiture, which (say they) is against the Holy Ghost, and canonical Institution. Now let the Reader judge, whether that can be defended, which the Pope himself confesseth to be prauè factum, wickedly done, and which the Council defineth to be against the H. Ghost and canonical Institution? If the Pope can by a solemn Decree permit wicked things, certainly he must be fallible, if not in Faith, yet in Manners, if not in the Credenda, yet in the Agenda of Religion. For what Lupus r Lup. loc. cit. pleads, that Paschal's fault was like that of St Peter carried away with the dissimulation of the Jews, Gal. 2. of which Tertullian saith, it was a fault of Conversation, not of Doctrine; that, I say, is wholly vain and frivolous. For St Peter's fault consisted wholly in withdrawing his conversation from the Gentile Converts. But who ever accounted Privileges a matter of Conversation? The one may be performed by every body, the other by none but persons in Authority. A privilege, saith Martin Bonacina f Privilegium ab eo conceditur, à quo lex ferri potest. Ita Azorius, etc. Ratio est, tum quia privilegium est quaedam lex; tum quia est quaedam dispensatio in lege. Bon. de legib. disp. 1. quaest. 2. §. 2. , is granted by him, who can make a law. So Azorius, Suarez, and Salas. The reason is, because a privilege is partly a Law, partly a Dispensation of the Law. Paschal therefore made a Law, which was to be for ever valid. St Peter neither said, writ, nor decreed any thing. What more unlike than these two! Nothing can here be said, but what Paschal himself pleaded, that he was constrained with great difficulties. This I do not deny: and it proves my assertion, viz. That Popes may be induced by fear to decree against their Conscience. The last example is that of Pope Eugenius IU. who having called the Council of Basil, a little after dissolved it, and removed it to Bononia. The Council would not obey, but continued to sit: and consequently according to the Principles of our Adversaries became thenceforward unlawful. Wherefore Leo X. t Conciliabulum seu potiùs Conventiculam, quae praesertim post hujusmodi translationem Concilium ampliùs appellari non merebatur. in the Council of Lateran calls it a False Counsel, or rather a Conventicle, which after that Translation deserved no longer to be called a Council: Yet Eugenius u Decernimus & declaramus praefatum generale Concilium Basileense à tempore praedictae inchoationis suae legitimè inchoatum fuisse & esse, etc. revoked his own dissolution, and pronounced the Council had, notwithstanding his Translation, been always Catholic and lawful. Now the Council of Basil after the Pope's dissolution was either lawful or unlawful. If lawful, Leo X. and the Lateran Council erred. If unlawful, Eugenius yet erred worse in legitimating a Council guilty of so great a Crime, as is Rebellion against the Head of the Church. For it cannot be said, the Council was really unlawful; but that Eugenius gave it that validity and authority, which it wanted, and purged away its Crimes. Eugenius himself professeth the contrary in his revocatory Bull of his Letters of Dissolution. Nothing therefore can be answered here, but what Duval x Respondeo Eugenium, cum haec scriberet: tunc à quibusdam Cardinalibus perterritum, & ni Bullas adhaesionis Concilio expediret, se ab eo omnes secessuros. duval. Anteloqu. ad Tract. de potest. Pont. allegeth, That this Bull was extorted by fear. The Cardinals threatening, that unless he expedited his Bulls of adhaesion to the Council, they would all forsake him. This answer grants to me, what I was to demonstrate, that Popes may be prevailed on by fear to decree against Truth and Right. So that this being granted, as it cannot be denied, no Decrees of Popes are to be received; before we be assured, that the Pope was forced by no Fear or Threats to publish them: which can very difficultly be known, if at all. Besides, if Fear can extort a false or unjust Decree from the Pope; why may not any other perturbation, as Hatred, Anger, or Covetousness, do the same? Well saith Canus y Qui metu frangitur, is cupiditate etiam frangatur necesse est. Can. loc. Theol. lib. 5. cap. 5. in a like Argument. He which will yield to Fear, must necessarily yield to Covetousness or any inordinate Desire. Nothing therefore is more uncertain than the Papal Decrees. For who can tell, what induced the Pope to decree this or that? * 1 Cor. two. 11. For what Man knoweth the things of a Man, save the spirit of Man which is in him? CHAP. IX. That it is not certain, whether he who calls himself the Pope, and is commonly accounted the Pope, be really such. THere remains yet another inextricable doubt. For suppose we have overcome all the precedent difficulties, and found some relief for so many uncertainties: It is yet to be inquired, whether he which makes the Decrees, and proposeth them to be observed by the Church, be the true and lawful Pope, as he is commonly esteemed. For while this be doubtful; we may justly doubt whether his Decrees be obligatory. Now this matter may by many ways become uncertain. As first it sometimes happens, that two or more do at the same time contend for the Papacy; all of which have their several Partisans, by whom they are accounted the lawful Popes. Many such Schisms have been in the Church, whereof one continued near 50 years. The knowledge of the true Pope was then so difficult: that duval and Maimburg observe two Ecumenical Councils, those of Pisa and Constance, dared not to examine and define the matter; but thought it more prudent to depose all of them, and create a new One. How then shall private men be able to know, what Councils themselves could not find out? But neither then also, when One only claims the Papacy, and possesseth the Throne, doth it certainly appear, whether he be a lawful Pope: and that for many reasons. For in the first place if he be an Heretic, a Schismatic, an Infidel, or an Atheist; he cannot surely be Pope. For as Turrecremata saith well, how shall he be Head of the Church, who is no Member of the Church? Gregory à Valentia a Val. tom. 3. disp. 3. quaest. 15. punct. 3. , and many with him, distinguish between an open Heretic or Infidel, and a secret one, asserting the first cannot be a Member of the Church or Pope, the latter may, for this reason chief, because otherwise Confusions and Dangers could not be avoided in the Church, if the actions of secret Heretics and Schismatics were ipso facto invalid. Yet he acknowledgeth in the same place, that the contrary Opinion is held by the greatest Men in the Church of Rome, Aquinas, Turrecremata, Sylvester (who affirms this to be the common Opinion of all the Doctors) Paludanus, Augustinus Anconitanus, Vlricus, Cajetanus (at least as to what concerns Heresy) and Alphonsus à Castro. Whence this at least is gathered, that Valentia's Opinion is not certain, and the contrary not improbable: which is sufficient for my purpose. For whether true on false, matters little in this case, provided nothing be certain on either side. Further those who imagine the Pope forfeits not his Dignity, unless he be an open Heretic, agree not among themselves. Some think him ipso facto deprived without expecting any sentence, some not till sentence is pronounced. But these latter herein shamefully betray the Pope's Superiority to a Council, which they had undertaken to defend. For if a Pope fallen into Heresy shall retain his Dignity, till he be judged and deprived by a Council; the Council will be thereby Superior to a true and undoubted Pope. Again how shall a Council condemn a Pope for Heresy; if it cannot certainly define what is Heresy; which according to these Divines cannot be done by a Council destitute of its Head, such as that Council must necessarily be, which deposeth the Pope for Heresy. But of that in another place. Bellarmin although far more wary and circumspect than duval, thought the Pope by manifest Heresy fell ipso facto from his Dignity; so that by a Council he is not so much deposed, as pronounced to be deposed. But since that is called manifest Heresy, which is declared by some outward sign as Words or Writing, nor doth it matter whether it be manifest to few or many; there will always remain a doubt, whether he who is accounted Orthodox, be not in his mind a Heretic, Infidel, or Atheist, and hath not revealed his Heresy to some of his intimate Friends and Confidents. For that once supposed he cannot be Pope. Nay Bannes b Bann. in 22. quaest. 11. art. 4. asserts, That he which speaks out his Heresy by words, although no man hears him, is not to be accounted a mere mental Heretic, but doth thereby incur the Sentence of Excommunication. If you ask, whether there were ever any such Popes: The most noble Jo. Fr. Picus Mirandula c Alium meminimus pontificem creditum & ordinatum, quem tamen praestantes viri putarent nec pontificem esse nec esse posse, utpote qui nullum Deum crederet, omne infidelitatis culmen excederet, etc. namque fassum eum affirmabatur demesticis quibusdam nullum se deum aliquando etiam dum pontificiam sedem teneret, credidisse. Et alium audivi pontificem, qui familiari cuidam asseruerat apud se animarum immortalitatem minimè creditam. Pic. Theor. 4. shall answer for me. We remember, saith he, another Pope so esteemed and ordained, whom good Men believed neither was nor could be Pope, as he which believed no God, and exceeded the utmost pitch of infidelity; as his Simony and infinite wickednesses did also testify. And it is affirmed he confessed to some of his Domestics, he believed no God; even then when he sat in the Papal Chair. And I have heard of another Pope, who affirmed to one of his Confidents, that he did not believe the immortality of the Soul. To this we may add the express Confession of Coster d Fatemur fieri posse, ut Petri successor idola colat, apud se fortè de fide non rectè sentiat, adeo● diabolicis artibus operam naver. Coster. Enchirid. Controu. c. 3. the Jesuit; We confess, saith he, the Successor of Peter may be an Idolater, a private Heretic, and in secret exercise Diabolick arts. Secondly, It may be that the reputed Pope be for some unknown reason incapable of that Dignity; as if he be not baptised, or hath not received Holy Orders. For the Council of Florence e Janua Sacramentorum. hath defined Baptism to be the door to the other Sacraments; and in the third Book of the Decretals, Tit. 43. it is commanded both by the Council of Compeign and by Innocent III. that if a Presbyter whom all accounted to have been baptised, shall afterwards appear not to have been baptised, he be first baptied, and then anew ordained. Wherefore if he be either not baptised, or not ordained, he cannot be Pope. But either or both may easily happen, since to the validity of those, as well as other Sacraments, our Adversaries require the intention of him that confers the Sacrament, which can be known to God alone. Thirdly, It may be that he who is commonly accounted Pope, may be unduly created, and for some Canonical impediment, manifest or occult, be uncapable of the Papacy. For, saith Lupus f Neque enim gravis canonica personae vitia per Papalem electionem sanantur. Lup. Scholar ad Conc. VIII. p. 1354. , all Canonical irregularities of the person are not taken away by Election to the Popedom. For which reason he there observeth Pope Constantine was justly deposed, as being of a Layman immediately made Pope; whereby he became irregular by the Canon of Sardica: and that, as is affirmed by approved Authors, Clement VII. dared not call a General Council against the Lutherans; because being a Bastard, he feared to be declared irregular. Fourthly, He who is elected Pope, may be ipso facto excommunicate, and so not capable of that Dignity. So Picus Mirandula g Pic. Theor. 4. tells us of a learned and sober man in his time, and he a Dignitary of the Church; who gave it for his opinion, that the then Pope was no Pope, because he had exercised the Office of Pope, before he had been elected by two parts of the Cardinals; whereas the Canons provide that such a man shall be so far from being Pope, that he shall be rendered uncapable of that Dignity, as lying under an Anathema. For the like cause it is reported the Jesuits were resolved not to acknowledge Clement VIII. for Pope, if he had condemned Molina, as he intended, because of some slaw in his Election. It is an established Rule of the Roman Conclave, That none be accounted duly elected, but who hath two third parts of the Cardinal's Votes: Cardinal Sanseverino had gained them, and thereby of right became Pope. But while they were giving their Votes in the Chapel, the dissenting Cardinals crowded in, disturbed those who were taking the Votes, and persuaded one of the other Cardinals to withdraw his Vote: whereby Sanseverino, although duly elected, miss the Chair; and Aldobrandino consecrated, who took upon him the Name of Clement VIII. But these perhaps are very rare instances. Those which follow are more frequent. It often happens, that the Election is not free, but extorted by force, threats, promises, bribes, factions, and the like arts. In which cases the Popes themselves have pronounced the Election to be null and irregular, and the elect Person an Antipope and Apostate. So Nicolas II. h Plat. in Nicol. II. decreed in a Lateran Council, That all Elections procured by money, or favour, or popular tumult, Non Apostolicus, sed Apostaticus. or military violence, should be null and void; and the Elect Pope accounted not Apostolical but Apostatical, to be anathematised by the whole Church as a Robber, and by any means deposed. But Julius II. i Sicut de verâ & indubitatâ haeresi. Tanquam Apostaticus, Simoniacus, Haeresiarcha, Magus, Ethnicus, & Publicanus vitari. Nec hujusmodi Simoniacè electus per subsequentem ipsius inthronizationem, seu temporis cursum, aut etiam omnium Cardinalium adorationem seu obedientiam ullo unquam tempore convalescat. Habetur apud Raynald. is much more rigorous, who with the consent of the Cardinals decreed and defined, That Simony was true and undoubted Heresy, and that in whatsoever Election that intervened by giving, receiving, or promising of money, or any other goods or Benefices, the Election should be ipso facto void; and the Elect, although he had the concurrent Votes of two thirds of, or even all the Cardinals, should be no Pope, but made for ever uncapable of that or any other Ecclesiastical Dignity, and be held and detested by all Christians as an Apostate, Simoniack, Haeresiarch, Magician, Heathen and Publican: and that the person thus Simoniacally elected shall never become regular, by any subsequent inthronization, or prescription of time, or even the adoration or obedience of all the Cardinals. Thus these Popes, truly and wisely. For Christ had said long before k John x. 1. , Verily, verily I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. And the Apostle after him l Hebr. v. 4. , No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Whosoever therefore obtain the Popedom by evil arts; and enter not by the Door, but leap into the Chair by wickedness, are no lawful Pastors, but Thiefs, and Robbers, and ravening Wolves. But you will say, Were there ever such Popes? I answer: why not? Certainly the very Constitutions of Nicolas, and Julius, and others, which might be added, prove it is possible, and insinuate it hath sometimes happened. For those things are not wont to be forbidden, which cannot be performed: and it is a received Maxim, That good Laws arise from bad Actions. Ex malis moribas bonae leges. But we want not frequent Examples. For to pass by what we before related out of Picus Mirandula, who knows not that Vigilius obtained the Popedom by three most heinous crimes, by the violent expulsion of his Predecessor Silverius, whom falsely accusing of Treason, he procured to be banished into the Island of Palmeria, and there starved him to Death, or as others say, assassinated him; by promising to the Empress Theodora, he would establish the Eutychian Heresy; and by notorious Simony, giving to Belisarius two Centenaries of Gold? These things are accurately described by Liberatus, and after him by Baronius. Nor doth what Baronius m Bar. ad ann. 540. , Binius n Bin. in Vigil. , Ferrandus o Ferr. Traite de l' Eglise chap. 3. , and others allege to obscure this matter, avail any thing, to wit, that Vigilius after Silverius his death resigned the Popedom, and would not resume it till he was canonically elected. For to omit the insufficiency of this excuse, since Vigilius and all his adherents were excommunicated by Silverius, and so even these pretended Canonical Electors became excommunicate; to pass by this, the pretence itself is false, being related by no one Writer of those or the following times. They produce only Anastasius saying that the See of Silverius was vacant six days. But this, say they, could not be while Silverius was alive, for he was all along the lawful Pope. Ergo, after his death Vigilius resigned, and was chosen anew. A worthy Argument! As if those who writ the lives of Popes, are not wont to assign to them only that time, wherein they quietly enjoyed their Dignities Papebrochius observeth this: Baronius, saith he p Baronius integrum quadriennium faciens durare Pontificatum Silverii, etc. Sed malumus juxta modum loquendi Catalogorum veterum jam alibi observatum plùs unâ vice solùm, id tempus numerare, quo Romae sedit; licèt, etc. Pap. Propyl. ad mens. Maium in Vigil. dissert. 13. , making Silverius his Popedom to last four years, deferrs his Death to the year 540. But we rather choose according to the usual style of the ancient Catalogues, more than once observed before, to reckon only that time while he sat at Rome; although he never ceased to be Pope by the injury he suffered. But to take away all pretence, I say, that Anastasius not only might respect the time of his deposition, and not of his death, but that also he really did so. For to whom doth Anastasius reckon the two years, or thereabouts, wherein according to Baronius, Vigilius possessed the See of Silverius yet alive? They say to Silverius, I say to Vigilius, and demonstrate it past all doubt. For if Anastasius had assigned those two years to Silverius; he would have given to him in all above three years, to wit, those two years, and the seventeen months, that he enjoyed his See quietly. Yet he reckons thus in the whole, q Sedit annum unum, menses quinque, dies undecim. Silverius sat one year, five months, and eleven days; assigning to him only that time which passed between his Election and Expulsion. The case is no less clear in Vigilius. Baronius computes, that almost eighteen years passed from the Ejection of Silverius to the death of Vigilius. Just so many doth Anastasius assign to Vigilius his Papacy. He sat, saith he r Sedit annos XVII. menses VI dies XXVI. , seventeen years, six months, twenty six days. 'Tis manifest therefore Anastasius assigns the time that Silverius survived his Expulsion, to the Popedom of Vigilius; and consequently that these six days of vacancy of the See, immediately sollowed not the Death, but the Expulsion of Silverius. So that this whole story of the Resignation and new Election of Vigilius is a mere Fable. Nor doth Papebrochius deny this, This Resignation, saith he s Sed gratis assenitur renunciatio minimè necessaria ei, cui causae non deerant in speciem justae ob quas poterat judicare ordinationem Silverii nullam fuisse, utpote contra Canones factam, nec per subsecutum Cleri consensum satis certo purgatam, cùm neque hic totus liber videretur, sed me●u extortus. Id. ibid. is asserted gratis, as not necessary for Vigilius, who could not want specious reasons to declare the Consecration of Silverius null, as made against the Canons, and not certainly enough purged by the subsequent consent of the Clergy, which seemed not wholly free, but extorted by fear. Thus he, whereby instead of one Example of Simony he hath given me two, of Vigilius whom he doth not sufficiently purge, and of Silverius. He doth not clear Vigilius; for whatsoever Silverius was, he ought not to have been falsely accused, oppressed, banished, and murdered by the procurement of Vigilius. Besides the promises made to Theodora, and the Money given to Belisarius make him guilty of Simony, although the See had been duly vacant, or Silverius dead. Now for what Papebrochius insinuates of Silverius his Simony, Liberatus writes that Theodatus King of the Goths by violence forced the Clergy to Elect him. So one Simoniack succeeded another; one Usurper followed another. But of this enough. Of the Popes of the X. Age let Genebrard speak. An Age, saith he t Seculum hoc uno infaelix, quòd per annós ferè CL. Pontifices circiter L.— à virtute majorum prorsus defecerint; Apotactici, Apostaticive potiùs, quàm Apostolici, quando non per ostium, sed per posticum, i.e. Imperatorum tyrannidem ingrediebantur. Genebr. Chron. ad an. 901. Istius temporis pontifices, ut intrusi ab Impp. potiùs quàm electi, monstraerant. Id. add an. 107. unhappy in this one thing, that for almost 150 years about 50 Popes together, from John VII. to Leo IX. degenerated wholly from the virtue of their Predecessors; and ought rather to be called Renegadoes and Apostates, than Apostolic; since they entered not in by the Gate, but by the back Door, viz. by the Tyranny of the Emperors. And in another place, The Popes of that time, as intruded rather by the Emperors, than chosen, were monsters. Or let Baronius u Quaetunc facies S. Romanae Eccl. siae? quàm foedissimae! cùm Romae dominarentur impotentissimae aequè ac sordidissimae meretrices, quarum arbitrio mutarentur sedes, darentur Episcopi, & quod auditu horrendum & infandum est, intruderentur in sedem Petri earum amasii Pseudo-Pontifices. Nunquam Cleri eligentis vel consentientis postea aliqua mentio: Canon's omnes pressi silentio; Decreta Pontificum suffocata; proscriptae antiquae traditiones, veteresque in eligendo pontifice consuetudines, sacrique ritus, & pristinus usus, prorsus extincti. Bar. add an. 908. be heard. What was then the face of the Church of Rome? how very ugly! when impudent and filthy Whores governed all at Rome; who changed Sees at their pleasure, disposed of Bishoprics, and what is dreadful to speak, intruded their Gallants into the See of Peter. No mention then made of the Clergy electing or consenting, the Canons were all trod under foot, Decrees of Popes despised, the Ancient Traditions turned out of Doors, and the Old Customs, Sacred Rites, and former use of Electing Popes wholly extinct. Hence at every turn he calls the Popes of these times Intruders and Usurpers, and at the year 897, saith, x Intrusus ab intruso. Boniface was driven out by Stephen, one Intruder by another. But to descend to particulars. Then was that infamous and scandalous Controversy about the Popedom of Formosus. John VIII. had deposed him from the Bishopric of Porto. Marinus restored him. Afterwards himself was Elected Pope, and held the Chair six years; in which time he held a General Council, and was acknowledged by the whole World. Yet after his death his Successor Stephen VI. calls a Council, abrogates all his Decrees, annuls his Ordinations, digs his Body out of the Grave, puts on it the Pontifical Robes, and set it in the Papal Chair, then solemnly deprives and degrades it, and having cut off his three fore-fingers (wherewith he performed Ordinations) cast it into Tiber. John IX. who comes next, calls a new Synod, annuls whatsoever Stephen had done; and restoreth the memory and Decrees of Formosus. Sergius a while after anathematised Formosus anew, and abrogated whatsoever had been done in his favour by John. This occasioned Auxilius a Writer of those times to compose his Dialogue against the intestine discord of the Church of Rome (to use Sigebert Gemblarensis' y Contra intestinam discordiam Romanae Ecclesiae, sc. de ordinationibus, exordinat. & superordinat. Romanorum Pontisicum, & ordinatorum ab eis exordinationibus & superordinat. Sigebert. de Script. Eccl. cap. 112. words) viz. concerning the Ordinations, Exordinations, and Superordinations of the Popes of Rome, and the Exordinations and Superordinations of those ordained by them And Baronius z Haec perpetrata ab intrusis & usurpantibus thronum Apostolicum, quae legitimi Pontifices sunt execrati. Bar. add an. 908. , is forced to say, These things were done by Intruders and Usurpers of the Apostolic Throne; which lawful Popes have detested. In the next Age the words of Platina deserve to be observed. The Papacy, saith he a Eo tum Pontificatus devenerat, ut qui plus largitione & ambitione, non dico sanctitate vitae & doctrinâ, valerét, tantum dignitatis gradum bonis oppréssis & rejectis obtaineret: quem morèm utinam aliquando non retinuissent nostra tempora. Plat. in vitâ Sylvestri III. , was come to that; that he who exceeded, not in Piety and Learning, but, in Bribes and Ambition, obtained that dignity, good Men being oppressed and rejected: which custom would to God our Ages had not sometimes retained. In latter Ages the Simony of Alexander in procuring the Popedom, partly by ready Money, partly by large Promises; is at length related by Onuphrius, and Volaterran, but especially Guicciardine. And Varillac b Varil. Hist. Franc. 1. Liv. 1. tells us, that Octavian Fregosius Duke of Genua procured the Election of Leo X. by the solicitation of his Emissaries among the Cardinals, and by detaining Prisoners in the mean while the Cardinals of the opposite Party; who hastening to Italy by Sea, touched at Genua in their Voyage. There would be no end, if I should produce all the Examples, which History suggests. And if the known instances be so many, what may we think of the secret Acts of Simony? For this is a Crime, whose chief art consists in keeping it secret, and hiding it from the Eyes of Men. However what we have alleged, proves this may sometimes happen; and consequently that we can never be certain the same hath not happened, even when it doth not appear. And from all, which hath been said, appeareth the impossibility of certainly knowing, whether he which possesseth the Papal Throne at any time, be a lawful Pope; and such, whose Decrees may be securely believed and obeyed. Our Adversaries are here brought into great straits. Duval c Duval. de Potest. Pont. par. 2. Sect. 5. confesseth, it is a great difficulty, and what hath excited no small stirs in some Universities. To solve this, they take different ways. Some deny it can ever happen, that an unlawful Pope should possess the Chair; and that it is of Faith to believe every particular Pope lawful. So Suarez, Valentia, Arriaga, Raynaudus, Caspensis, Martinonus, Rhodius, and others cited by them: and with reason. For if this be not of Faith; no Faith can be founded on their Decrees, as they invincibly argue. But on the other side, how can that be of Faith, which so many Examples prove to be false? Or on what foundation shall this Divine Faith be placed? Suarez and Martinonus answer upon the reception of the Church: and 'tis worth observing how they confirm that. Because if it should be once granted, saith Suarez d Si talis posset semel dari error in universali Ecclesiâ; nunquam esset verum illam habere certam & infallibilem regulam vivam fidei sibi loquentem Christi nomine. Suar. de fide, disp. 10. Sect. 5. , that an error of this nature can happen in the universal Church; it can be no ways true, that she hath a certain and infallible living Rule of Faith speaking to her in Christ's Name. The same saith Martinonus e Mart. de fide, disp. 5. Sect. 6. Nam is error aequiparatur errori in fide— muitò intolerabiliùs esset errare in viuâ fidei regulâ. jidem ibid. . Both add, that this error would be equal to an error in Faith: For, say they, if it be an intolerable error in the Church, when the whole Church believeth a Book to be Canonical, which is not; although that be but a dead rule of Faith; it would be much more intolerable to err about the living rule of Faith. That they reason sound, cannot be denied. For it is no less repugnant to absolute Infallibility to err about the living than about the dead rule. But this being admitted, I shall much more easily prove the Church can err about the dead Rule, than Suarez, that it cannot err about the living. That it cannot err about the dead Rule our Adversaries can never prove: that it can about the living, I will demonstrate. If ever any Pope was unlawful and irregular, surely Vigilius was. Yet he was owned and esteemed as lawful Pope by the fifth General Council, and by the whole World. Although he were banished, imprisoned, and publicly vilified by the Emperor for the refusing to condemn the Tria Capitula, and afterwards excommunicated by the Western Bishops for doing it; yet was he never denied to be true and lawful Pope. So in the ninth and tenth Ages those monstrous Popes were, by Baronius f At, quod mirandum est, isti (Pontifices) licèt tales fuerint, tamen eo honore & reverenitâ fideles omnes prosequebantur Romanam Eccl. ut quemcunque in eâ sedentem audirent nomine tenus Pontificem, eundem, mirum dictu! nullâ habitâ discussione ejus ingressûs, eum ut Petrum colerent. Bar. add an. 897. his confession, so honoured and reverenced by All the Faithful, that whomsoever they heard did preside in the Church of Rome, although indeed but a nominal Pope, never enquiring into the lawfulness of his Election, they respected no otherwise than St. Peter himself. In a word, all those whom I mentioned before, were generally obeyed by the Church. The Church therefore can err in this matter. But see how Suarez and the rest, by pretending the contrary, have destroyed their own darling Opinion. For if it be of Faith, that a Pope acknowledged by the whole Church, is a lawful one; then Stephen, Romanus, and Sergius, who condemned Formosus, and annulled his Acts as not being lawful Pope, erred; and so farewell all Papal Infallibility. For they erred in the Faith; if it be of Faith that Formosus was lawful Pope, as it must be according to these Divines; since Formosus, while he lived, was acknowledged and obeyed by the universal Church; whereas these three Popes his Successors defined, that he was no lawful Pope. Duval perhaps was ware of these inconveniencies, and therefore took another method. He maintains it matters nothing, whether he which possesseth the Popedom, be true Pope or no; and that his Decrees will not be at all the less infallible. We affirm, saith he g Dicimus talem Pontificem pro vero creditum nunquam erraturum— ne in Ecclesiam falsum pro vero obtrudatur, nunquam eum Deus errare sinet, & quidem secundum legem communem & ordinariam. duval. de potest. Pont. par. 2. qu. 5. , that such a Pope esteemed for true, can never err. For God, lest falsehood be obtruded upon his Church for truth, will never permit him to err, and that according to the common and ordinary Law: because the Pope is not for himself, but for the Church. But there is nothing solid in all this. For first his reason is vain. For if the Pope be not for himself, but for the Church; no more are any other Governors of the Church. Shall therefore whatsoever they do be valid, although they be neither baptised nor ordained? To think so, Suarez calls Heresy, nor will Duval allow it. Yet allow it he must, or else part with his Argument. Secondly, this is directly contrary to Julius II. his Decree. For Duval would have a Simoniack or irregular Pope to be obeyed and heard. Julius commands him to be looked upon as an Heresiarch and Magician, to be disobeyed, deprived, and driven out of his See. Thirdly, if we consult Scripture, that forbids us to hearken to these Invaders of Church Offices. For our Saviour, after he had said that those which enter into the sheepfold any other way, than by the door, are Thiefs and Robbers: adds h John x. 5. , And a stranger will they (the sheep) not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of Strangers. And in another place i Mat. seven. 15. , Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening Wolves. Now Simoniacs and Usurpers of Ecclesiastical Offices are these Thiefs and Robbers, and ravening Wolves. Now as for reason, that can never teach us, that we own the same reverence to unlawful, as to lawful Popes. For contrarily in the Civil Government every man is bound even to disobey a Tyrant and Usurper, who drives out the lawful Prince. Besides, since Infallibility is by our Adversaries annexed to the Popedom as an inseparable Privilege; he that is no Pope can have no right nor claim to it. So saith also Martinonus k Hujusmodi potestas & assistentia non datur Pontifici nisi vero, cui soli est promissa in Petro. Mart. de fide disp. 9 Sect. 6. expressly; This Power and Assistance is given to none but a true Pope, to whom only it was promised in Peter. And it seems indeed incredible to me, that any wicked man should extort that from God by his Crimes, which he had annexed to a lawful succession. As if by Wickedness he could obtain a right to the perpetual assistance of the H. Ghost; which had he been innocent, he had for ever wanted? Certainly the Ancient Pope's thought far otherwise. They never dreamt of purchasing the H. Ghost by Simony, but rather imagined that would obstruct his favour. So Innocent I. l Perfectionem Spiritùs quam acceperant, amiserunt. Nec dare ejus plenitudinem possunt, quae maximè in ordinatienibus operatur, quam per impietatis suae perfidiam perdiderunt. Innoc. 1. Epist. 18. cap. 13. speaking of Simoniacs, saith, They have lost that perfection of the H. Ghost, which they had received. Neither can they give the fullness of it, which exerts itself chief in Ordinations, having forfeited it by the perfidiousness of their Impiety. Gregory I. m Quia qui in templo Dei columbas vendere praesumpserunt, eorum Deo judice cathedrae ceciderunt: qui videlicet error in subditis cum augmento propagatur.— quia eum quem quis cum pretio ordinat, provehendo agit ut haereticus fiat. Greg. I. lib. 4. Epist. 50. They which in the Temple of God presume. to sell Doves (by which, as in the words immediately precedent appears, he means Simoniacs) their Bishoprics by the judgement of God are become void; which error is propagated with increase in those who are subject to them. For whom any one ordains for Money, by ordaining he makes him an Heretic. Which words he repeats more than ten times in his other Epistles John VIII. n Joann. VIII. Epist. 94. hath used the same Expressions in one of his Epistles. And Peter Damian tells us this was confirmed by a miracle. For a Simoniacal Bishop could never pronounce the Name of the H. Ghost: on which he makes o Meritò siquidem Spiritum S. dum emit, amisit. P. Dam. Oppose 19 cap. 6. this remark. For he deservedly lost the H. Ghost while he bought him. But to return to our Argument; what more incredible, than that an Atheist, Infidel, and profane person should be infallible? Who would not wonder at a Pope pronouncing and deriding Oracles at the same time? Infallible and ignorant of his Infallibility? Teaching with certainty what himself thinks to be false? Surely if things be so; an irregular and usurping Pope ought not in prudence to be deposed: Since his Infallibility, as well as that of any lawful Pope, will serve to direct the Faithful, and confound Heretics; and his Deposition cannot be attempted without the danger of Schism. Lastly I would know, whether when an unlawful possesseth the Throne of a lawful Pope; Infallibility belong to both, or only to the first. If to both, then in vain doth God dispense so great a gift to the injured Pope, whom no Body acknowledgeth as such. If only to the first, than the Privileges of an Intruder will be more and greater, than those of a lawful Pope; and Usurpation will confer, what Canonical Election cannot. To these add the Arguments, which Suarez p Suar. de fide disp. 10. § 6. produceth against this Answer: As, That it incurreth the same difficulties it is brought to solve. For it is not more certain that a reputed Pope hath the Privilege of Infallibility, than that he is a lawful Pope: Since both depend upon the common belief of the Church, and neither is revealed. Again, if he be only a Nominal Pope, he may be also only a Nominal Priest, and so cannot give Absolution, hath therefore no right to all the Privileges granted by Christ to St. Peter, because no share in the Power delegated to S. Peter in those words, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, etc. Farther that Answer is contradictory in assigning to the reputed Pope an inseparable property of the Papacy, (Infallibility) and yet denying him to be Pope, that is, truly so. It is manifest therefore, that this Answer is plainly false: But let it be true. What still if it shall be uncertain? It will be in the end the same thing; and we shall as easily obtain our design. For if I may doubt whether he be lawful Pope that possesseth the Chair; and also whether an unlawful Pope enjoyeth the Privilege 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 showed. That the latter is not certain, Our Adversaries will not deny. For if any, it must be the certainty of Faith; which duval will never grant, who denies even the Infallibility of a lawful Pope to be of Faith. If any one yet shall descent from duval, 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 Heresy. Lastly, He may be put in mind of Stephen, Romanus, and Sergius, who declaring Formosus to have been an unlawful Pope, did also annul 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 duval endeavours to elude whatsoever hath been hitherto said concerning the Pope. Dwall a Respondeo definitiones Pontificis non esse de fide, donec universalis Ecclesia, quam de fide est errare non posse, eas acceptaverit. duval. 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 duval hereby grants us all we desire, viz. that faith cannot be founded upon the definition of the Pope alone. Whether the Church's Authority adds certainty to it, I shall inquire 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, than 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 Pope's Decrees, till they be received and confirmed by the Church: this being very near the opinion of the Sorbonists, those great Enemies of the Pope's 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 judgement 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 parts, ejusque Decreta ad singula, Ecclesias pertinere; nec tamen irreformabile esse judicium, nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit. , That questions of Faith chief 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 Pope's 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 Pope's 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, aught to receive them without any precedent examination, or not till she hath accurately compared them with the Word of God. If the latter, than 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 entirely 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 Church's 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 authentic Revelations: and so this opinion would be repugnant to itself. For it supposeth Faith is not to be yielded to the Papal Decrees antecedently to the Church's reception; and yet requires the Church to receive them with a blind assent, that is, with Faith. Theophilus Raynaudus useth a not unlike Argument in disputing against this Answer of Duval, which is now before us. The definitions of the Pope, saith he * At hoc perabsurdum est, quia non est in potestate plebis fidelium facere, ut quod non est de fide sit revera tale. Raynaud. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, punct. 5. , in matters of Faith, are received by the People either as to be believed with Divine Faith, and so antecedently to the Reception of the Church; or not upon their own account, but for the sake of the Church's Reception. But this is very absurd; because it is not in the Power of the multitude of the faithful to make that be of Faith by their Reception; which was not really such before. For then many things would become of Faith, which are by no means such; as the Assumption of the B. Virgin, which not Christian doubts of, and yet none believe to be of Faith. He might have added other Examples: which we shall produce hereafter. It may be yet asked, Whether this Approbation of the Church required by duval, aught to be express, that is, whether the Pope's Decrees ought to be positively received by all, before they become Infallible: for if so, there are few or no Decrees, which have been thus received, certainly none, whose Reception of this kind is or can be manifestly known: or whether a negative Reception will suffice, and so those Decrees become certain, which are opposed by none. But neither can this be certainly known, until we be assured, that the Decree is taken notice of by all the faithful. Whereas how many Papal Decrees are there, which are unknown to the greatest part of Christendom? And no wonder: since St. Augustine himself was ignorant of that Nicene Canon, which forbade him to be associated in the Bishopric to Valerius yet alive. But that which is chief to be herein regarded, is that the certainty of this sufficiency of the negative Reception of the Church can never be demonstrated, and without that we are still at a loss. This consideration also is of no small moment: That if it be lawful to deny Credit and Obedience to the Pope's Decrees, before it shall be known they have been received by the Universal Church: hereby a wide gate is opened to Schisms and Dissensions. For then every contentious or capricious person may contemn and hinder the Execution of the most just Decrees; and so put an end to the Authority of this 〈◊〉 much boasted Monarchy. For suppose the Pope published 〈◊〉 Decree. Some admit, others reject it. Hitherto according to duval, it is not of faith, because not yet received by the Universal Church. What shall be done in this case? Must a Council be called? That Duval g Pessimè Deus Ecclesiae suae consuluisset; si viam hanc, quae rarò foeliciter desinit, tanquam expeditius malorum indies emergentium remedium reliquisset; quinimò Ecclesiam ad impossibile quodammodo obligâsset. duval. de Pot. Pont. part. 4 quaest. 1. himself acknowledgeth to be highly inconvenient, sometimes impossible, and for most part unsuccessful, That if God had left only that remedy for daily emergent doubts, he would in a manner have obliged his Church to impossibilities: since the calling and meeting of a Council depends upon the pleasure of secular Princes: who for reasons of State may prevent it; although the Pope and with him all the Bishops in the World desire it. But even if they meet, 'tis possible they may descent in their Opinions. If you say that part must be adhered to which the Pope favours; I ask how it is to be adhered to; whether with Divine Faith? For of that only we now dispute. This duval, I suppose, will not affirm. For if the Infallibility of the Pope alone be not of Faith, part of a Council adhering to him will not make his yet uncertain Decrees to become of Faith; since according to Duval nothing but the Reception of the Universal Church can do it; whereas in this case the Approbation even of the whole Representative Church is wanting. CHAP. XI. That neither can the Faith of Papists rely on the Decrees of Pope and Council consenting together. First, Because their Infallibility is not sufficiently certain. THUS have we dispatched the three first Foundations of a Papists Faith. The fourth succeeds, viz. an Ecumenical Council; which may be considered two ways, either as disjoined from the Pope, and destitute of his consent; or as confirmed by it. The Sorbonists hold the Infallibility of it the first way considered, The Monarchical Divines only the second. But that I need not dispute separately against the Sorbonists, appears for two reasons: First, Because their Opinion is easily confuted. For we need oppose to them no more than this, that the Infallibility of such a Council is not certain, at least it is not of Faith, as we before demonstrated it ought to be. For the Sorbonists can never prove this to be revealed by God. Scripture saith nothing at all of Councils, especially Ecumenical. They flee indeed to Tradition. But they cannot produce any Testimonies of the Fathers, that say this is of Faith; not any evident Decrees of Councils; not the consent of the Universal Church, for the greatest part of the Roman Church thinks otherwise. Besides, the Opposition it hath met with among many Divines of the Church undeniably proves it not to be of Faith. For if the dissent of a few Sorbonists can cause the Infallibility of the Pope not to be of Faith; certainly the opposition of a far greater number of Monarchical Divines will produce the same Effect, as to the Infallibility of a Council without the Pope. Secondly, Because it may be confuted with the same Arguments, wherewith I shall prove that the definitions of Pope and Council consenting together are no firm Foundation for our Faith. For if both together suffice not, a Council without the Pope will never be sufficient: Since the consent of the Pope may possibly add some firmness to the Decrees of a Council, but most certainly can take none from them. To supersede therefore any further Dispute of that matter, let us inquire whether the Faith of our Adversaries can rely on the Decrees of Pope and Council conspiring together. This many of them imagine. Bellarmin a Bell. de council. lib. 2. cap. 2. and duval b duval de Pot. Pont. part. 2. qu. 6. , glory there is no doubt of it among them; that it is unanimously taught by their Divines, and therefore is of Faith. But I deny both. For although the Monarchical Divines are of this Opinion, yet the Sorbonists descent: who maintain indeed the Infallibility of a General Council, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the Pope; but allow not this Prerogative to every Council, but only to a Council truly Ecumenical, lawfully constituted, Canonically proceeding, and wholly free. The Monarchical Divines acknowledge the necessity of those Conditions, yet differ from the Sorbonists two several ways. First, In that they interpret these Conditions 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 Ecumenical, the Sorbonists will not acknowledge either for lawful or Ecumenical; as that of Lions under Innocent IU. 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 ancient 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 trifle 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, merely 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 itself 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 Catholic 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 itself 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, than 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 easy Rule, ready to be consulted upon all occasions. But in truth this Infallibility of Pope and Council united is not where expressly revealed by God, or openly defined by the Church. For many places of Scripture, and Decrees of Councils are indeed alleged 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 council. 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 smoke. For who could assure us, that God had annexed so great a privilege 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, than 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 Ecumenical. 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 Ecumenical. 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. come. 3. disp. 1. quaest. 1. punct. 7. §. 45. proposeth his judgement in these two assertions. I. No Council hath of itself infallible authority of defining, laying aside the Authority of the Pope. II. The confirmation of the Pope being added, any Council is infallible: not so the Sorbonists, they require the Council be truly Ecumenical. The Sorbon, saith Richerius b Scholar Parisiensis soli Ecclesiae, & generali, non particulari, Concilio authoritatem infallibilem decernendi ascribit. Rich. Apol. pro Gers. ax. 22. , ascribes infallible authority of defining only to the Church, and a general, not particular, Council. So Holden c Primò, debet Concilium hujusmodi esse verè generale. Hold. Annal. fid. lib. 2. cap. 3. : Such a Council ought in the first place to be truly General. This therefore is first to be inquired, whether any Council obtruded on us for a Rule of Faith, be General. Now I assert two things: I. That there were never yet any such. II. That even if there had been, it would be yet uncertain, which were such. The first I will prove in this, the second in the following Chapter. That a Council be truly Ecumenical, one of these things may be thought necessary: either that all the Bishops of the World be present, or at least those who may sufficiently represent the absent. For who can otherwise imagine, that a few Bishops should authoritatively impose Laws upon the greater number not inferior in Piety and Learning, at least not necessarily inferior. Certainly by the consent of all, one equal hath no authority over another: and a few meeting together, do not by their conjunction obtain a right to prescribe Laws to the greater number, although disjoined in place, as a Learned man d Thornd. Orig. Eccles. cap. 22. hath well observed. We must therefore necessarily recur to one of these conditions. Yet although even the first should happen, which cannot be without infinite difficulty, I am not obliged to grant the whole Church to be represented in that Assembly. For not to say, that would suppose that blind obedience which is forbidden by the Scripture; it may happen that in a Diocese the Bishop be Heretical, and the inferior Clergy Orthodox. In which case the Bishop cannot represent the belief of his Church neither de facto nor de jure, unless we will say his Church was bound to follow him in his Heresy. But I will not insist on this. Suppose such an Assembly to represent the whole Church. Yet this cannot be denied, that such an Assembly never was, nor any Council in which so much as the twentieth part of the Episcopal College were present. And if such a Council were never held formerly, when the whole Christian World was subject to one Emperor: it cannot be hoped for in this present state of Christendom divided into so many Kingdoms and Commonwealths. Laying aside therefore this, let us consider the second way of holding a General Council. Those who are present in a Council can not otherwise represent absent persons, than if they come in their name, and by their command, which may be two ways. First, if they be expressly and by name delegated; as if Provincial Synods should be held every where before the General, and Delegates there chosen for the whole Province. Or secondly, if omitting all this, every Bishop absenting himself, should for that very reason be thought tacitly and interpretatively to transfer his Vote and Authority on those which go to the Council, Richerius and Holden seem to favour the first way, Salmeron the latter. For Richerius e Promptum & expeditum est ex singulis ordinibus aut gene ribus Ecclesiasticorum aliquos ex singulis provinciis & nationibus Christianis deligere. Rich. Apol. axiom. 21. having defined a General Council to be an Assembly of the whole Clergy collected out of all the particular Provinces, tells us this is not to be understood of every single Ecclesiastic, but that the readiest way is to choose some out of every Order and kind of ecclesiastics in every Province and Christian Nation. Holden f tot variarum Ecclesiarum in diversis regnis & provinciis sitarum pars aliqua seu numerus Episcoporum deputetur & intersit. Hold. Anal. fid. lib. 1. cap. 9 requireth that some part or number of Bishops may be deputed out of divers Kingdoms and Provinces; and be present in the Council. On the contrary Salmeron g Qui legitimè impediti, vel ex permissu sedis Apostolicae non veniunt, jus suum totum in eos qui convenerunt censentur transtulisse. Salm. Tom. 12. Tract. 77. saith; Those who by a lawful hindrance or the permission of the Apostolic See come not (to the Council) are supposed to have transferred their right upon those which meet. Occam and John Brevicoxa Bishop of Paris seem to have conjoined both ways: whereof the first h Diversae personae gerentes authoritatem & vicem universarum partium totius Christianitatis, nisi aliqui noluerint cel non potuerint convenire. Vnde si aliquae provinciae nollent vel non possent, etc. Occam. Dial. l. 5. c. 8. requires in a General Council divers persons bearing the authority and places of all the parts of Christendom, unless some would not or could not come. Whence if some Provinces would not or could not delegate persons having their Authority and Votes, the Council would be no less General. The latter i Congregationem, in quâ diversae personae gerentes vicem diversarum partium & provinciarum totius Christianitatis ad tractandum de bono communi ritè conveniunt. Brev. apud Laun. epist. part. 8. ad Amel. defineth a General Council to be a Congregation, wherein divers persons bearing the Proxies of the divers Provinces of Christendom, meet Canonically to consult of the common good. To which he subjoins Ockam's Proviso concerning the absence of the Delegates of some Provinces. However it be, the first way of holding General Councils is not observed by our Adversaries. For immediately upon the Summons every Bishop, who intends to be present, sets forward without expecting the Delegation of their Comprovincial Bishops. Nay rather both the Historians of the Council of Trent, Father Paul, and Cardinal Palavicini, relate that when the Viceroy of Naples would have had four Bishops of that Kingdom chosen and sent to the Council in the name of all the rest; the Pope took it very ill, and most severely forbid it to be done. Which I question not to be the reason, why Canus and Bellarmine in assigning the conditions of a General Council, never mention this. This express and formal Delegation therefore is not necessary to constitute a General Council; unless they deny the Tridentine and other Councils, in which it was not used, to be General. But neither is it valid, if it were used. For Bishops may be delegated either with an absolute and unlimited Power of giving their Suffrages as they please; or restrained to certain Rules of Voting on this or that side. The first way, though tolerable in temporal affairs, the success of which is of no great moment, yet is not to be endured in matters of Faith and eternal Salvation. For suppose the Delegates vote Heresy; 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 tacitly assented? But to show 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 'tis 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 judgement 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; error would soon triumph over Truth, and Faith over Heresy. For our Adversaries confess, and Experience hath often proved, That the major part of Bishops in a Council may favour Heresy. 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 Error, all which advantages Arianisme formerly enjoyed in the East. If to these be added the right of representing absent Bishops, they may establish Heresy 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 tacitly 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 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 Ecumenical 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 Ecumenical Councils, it would be always uncertain which they were. THAT there is no truly Ecumenical 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 Ecumenical: 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. etc. 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 show 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 Ecumenical Councils appears from the discord of Authors in numbering 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, expressly 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 Sienna, 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 numbered 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, etc. Nat. §. 4. part. 1. p. 236. affirms to have been only a Synod of the Eastern Church, and Ecumenical 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 Ecumenical: which Valesius k Val. Not. ad Theod. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 3. doth not without cause wonder at, and observes the Western Church did not of a long while after esteem it Ecumenical. I find none which deny the 1. Ephesine Council to have been General. Yet if any one should do it, he would not want some foundation. For in the first Session, wherein Nestorius was condemned, not only the whole Oriental Diocese, subject to the Patriarch of Antioch, was absent, but also the Legates of the Western Bishops were not yet come. Cyrill indeed supplied the room of Pope Coelestin: bat Arcadius and Projectus were sent in the name of the other Western Bishops, as Lupus l Lup. diss. de Concil. Ephes. cap. 6. observeth. In the following Sessions the Oriental Bishops would not be present; but making a separate Synod in the same City, anathematised the other; which prevailed indeed in number and reason, and so may be called lawful, but cannot be Ecumenical. The Council of Chalcedon is acknowledged by all, yet as to the 13th Session (in which notwithstanding all the Canons of the Synod were made) it is rejected by Baronius, Lupus, and many others; because the Legates of Rome, and the Bishops of Egypt were then absent; whereas the Greeks and others contend it was wholly Ecumenical. The V Council under Justinian, which was the II. Constant inopolitan, is admitted for Ecumenical by all the present Greeks and Latins. Not so formerly; when the Africans, Italians, Spaniards, and gaul's rejected it. And certainly it was not Ecumenical. For Vigilius and the Western Bishops, although then at Constantinople, would not be present in it. The Council in Trullo is accounted General by some Greeks and Latins, as Innocent III. Gratian, Bellarmine, Barnes, and others; denied by Baronius m Bar. add an. 692. , Leo Allatius n Leo All. de perp. consensu. , and Bellarmin o Bell. de Pont. lib. 2. cap. 18. himself in another place. The II. Nicene is esteemed Ecumenical both by Greeks and Latins. Yet formerly Hincmar and even Theodorus Studita, that great Patron of Image-Worship, maintained it was only local; as Lupus p Lup. dist. de Concil. Nicaen. II. cap. 15. confesseth. Certainly it was denied to be Ecumenical by the ancient French, Germans, and English, and by the Synod of Franoford, who denied it could be called Ecumenical, when it was proposed to them, as Peter de Marca q Proposita est sacro conventui Synodus Nicaeae habita, quam illi Oecumenicam dici posse negârunt. Marc. de Concord. lib. 7. cap. 17. acknowledgeth. Yea, and in the Caroline Capitular, they call it an Heretical, Schismatical, Erroneous, and Presumptuous Synod, wondering at the impudence and vanity of its Bishops in ranking themselves with the six former General Councils. And justly might they wonder at it. For although the Roman Legates were present: Yet the Western were not either by themselves or by their Delegates. Not to say that the pretended Legatas of the three Oriental Patriarches were suborned by the Council, and had no Commission from those Patriarches. That the Council of Franoford was called General, Baronius r Bar. ad ann. 794. observes; Certainly Hinomar gave it that name. Nor doth Bellarmine oppose, although in another place s Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 8. he calls the TWO Nicene Synod more Universal. However it could not be General; since all the Greeks (who were not yet divided from the Western Church by Schism) were absent. The VIII. Synod the Latins call Ecumenical; the Greeks deny it, as the English, French and Germans did also formerly. The Greeks on the contrary reckon for the eighth General Council the Synod under Photius, which is rejected by the Latins. After these Bellarmine reckons eight other Councils eider than that of Constance, viz. four of Lateran, two of Lions, and those of Vien and Pisa. But the Council of Constance t In formulâ fidei Pontifici eligendo praescriptâ. admits only one of Lateran, one of Lions, and that of Vien: rejecting the other five. Clement VII. rejects yet more. For in his Bull of Privilege for the Edition of the Florentine Synod, he calls it the eighth General Council; whereby he proscribes all these eight, the Council of Constance itself, and the Constantinopolitan under Ignatius, which commonly bears the Title of the Eighth: of these eight, that of Lions under Innocent iv was one; wherein Frederick the Emperor was deposed. This Bellarmine, Onuphrius, and the Assertors of the Pope's deposing Power contend to have been General. Launoy and Widdrington deny it. Nor is this a late Controversy. This very thing was disputed in the Synod itself between the Pope and Thaddaeus the Emperor's Orator, Vid. Labbeanam Concil. editionem. who appealing to a future General Council, was rejected by the Pope upon pretext that the present Synod was Ecumenical. The Council of Constance is from the beginning to the end accounted General by the French; as the Cardinal of Lorraine n Apud Gallos' Constantiense Concilium in partibus suis omnibus ut generale habetur. Comm. ad Briton. Senat. expressly affirms, and the whole Clergy of France lately confirmed with a solemn Decree. The Monarchists deny it to have been General in the first Sessions; because of the three Obediences but one was present. So Cajetan, Canus, Bellarmine, Duval, and innumerable others. Bosius x Bos. de signis Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. and F. Cotton go farther; of whom the first reckons it not at all among the Ecumenical Councils, the second by the testimony of Richerius y Rich. Hist. Concil. lib. 2. cap. 3. , wiped it out of the List of them. That the Council of Basil was always held Ecumenical by the French, the Cardinal of Lorraine witnesseth. The same was the opinion of Eugenius IU. Bellarmine, Carranza, Labbé, and others. Duval z duval. de potest. Pont. in antelo su. vehemently opposeth it, and stiffly contends it was never General. The Council of Florence was never by the French esteemed either lawful or General, saith the same Cardinal a Conc. Florentinum perinde ac nec legitimum nec generale repudiatur. loc. cit. . On the contrary, the Italians and Spaniards extol it to the Skies. The Council of Lateran under Leo X. Fabulottus, Bellarmine, and many more, contend to have been Ecumenical. Yet Bellarmine confesseth that some doubt of it; and Duval b Quidam aiunt non fuisse verè & propriè generale, c●m ei vix C. Episcopi intersuerint. duval. de potest. Pont. part. 4. qu. 7. , That others affirm it not to have been truly and properly General, forasmuch as there were scarce an hundred Bishops present in itc. And himself a little after leaveth it uncertain, because of the paucity of Bishops: which reason might also exclude many Sessions of the Council of Trent. Thus therefore it manifestly appears, That there are many Councils, whose universality was and is still disputed of; the Latins agreeing neither with the Greeks, nor among themselves. And if so: what certainty can be founded upon their Decrees, to which the very first conditions of an infallible Council is wanting? To this may be opposed, there are some Councils, which none deny to have been Ecumenical; as the I. Nicene, that of Chalcedon in the first Sessions, the VI and the Tridentine. I own the consent of our Adversaries herein; and omitting many things, which might be replied, I will chiesly insist upon this, That this consent of our Adversaries is vain and destitute of all foundation, and would presently vanish, if they adhered to their own Hypotheses. For those conditions, which they require to make a Council Ecumenical, are not to be found in all these Councils; and besides, are such as create new scruples and perplexities. First therefore, Holden c tot variarum Ecclesiarum in diversis regnis sitarum, pars aliqua sen numerus Episcoporum deputetur ac intersit; qui conventum communem ad eum universitatis gradum convenientem assurgere faciat, ut improbarum conjurationum, etc. absit omnis suspicio, etc. Hold. Anal. sid. lib. 1. cap. 9 teacheth, that to constitute a General Council, it is necessary some Bishops out of so many divers Churches situate in distant Christian Kingdoms and Provinces, be deputed and be present, as may make the common Assembly arise to that degree of Universality, as may exclude all suspicion of fraudulent Conspiracies and Factions; so that no prudent or honest man may doubt it to be Ecumenical. Many things may be here observed; as first, how many Bishops soever be present, we can never be sure there is no Faction or Conspiracy in the Council, how well disposed, or from how different soever places they come. What hinders but they may be corrupted at the place of Council? The Councils of Milan, Ariminum, and Ephesus are eminent Examples of this; yea, and the Council of Trent itself: wherein F. Paul d Hist. Cont. Trid. lib. 6. relates, that the Spanish Bishops complained there were present more than forty Bishops obnoxious to and Stipendiaries of the Court of Rome; whereof some received thirty, others sixty Crowns a month. Again, that when it was reported at Rome, that the French Bishops were on their way to the Council, Pius IU. in a great fright called together the Bishops waiting then at Rome, told them how necessary their presence was at the Council, and persuading some with promises, others with gifts, hastily packed them away to Trent. The fear of this made the Councils of Constance and Basil to decree, That the Votes should be taken not singly, but according to the several Nations; It being not reasonable, saith Richerius eNihil causae est, cur in rebus ad fidem aut disciplinam Eccles. spectantibus una & sola natio Italica sibi plus assumat & arroget, quàm aliae nationes Christianae. Rich. Apol. ax. 8. , that in things pertaining to Faith and Discipline, the Italian Nation alone should assume and arrogate to themselves more than any other Christian Nations. The number of Bishops therefore affords no certain remedy against Factions. But suppose it doth: Is nothing else required to constitute a General Council but freedom from Factions? Then many National and Provincial Synods will become Ecumenical. Certainly Factions may be wanting in particular Councils, if many Bishops be present; and perhaps Ecumenical liberty, if but a few. If that liberty contributed any thing, it would be only to enable the Bishops to proceed Canonically if they would. But that is not the thing we now dispute of. For particular Councils have been often seen to proceed very well, and Ecumenical very ill. Secondly, Holden neither doth nor can define how many Bishops (or out of how many Provinces) must necessarily be present; but leaves the matter to common prudence; the judgements of which are infinitely various and uncertain, whence no certainty in this particular, upon which all the rest depend, can be had thence: especially if we consider that the Bishop's present in Councils are sometimes more, sometimes fewer. So the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. is said to have had above a thousand Prelates, that of Chalcedon six hundred; the I Constantinopolitan one hundred and fifty; the V Lateran one hundred; that of Trent in the first Sessions much fewer. So that Prudence can six no certain rule here, and if she be satisfied when a great Number is present; she cannot but he sitate, when but a few. Holden's Rule therefore is of no use to the knowledge of Ecumenical Councils. Lupus f Dico adesse oportere sedem Apostolicam, omnes Ecclesiae Orthodoxos Patriarchas, etc. Lup. Dissert. de Concil. CP. I. p. 306. comes somewhat nearer the truth; who requireth the presence of the Pope, all the Orthodox Patriarches, Primates, Metropolitans, and Bishops, if not corporally, at least by delegation, or express consent, whether previous or subsequent. The same saith Bosius g Bos. de signis Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. . But neither are they in the right, For if this were true; all Councils whose Decrees are received by the whole Church, would be Ecumenical, and so the Councils of Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Laodicea, Gangra, etc. (whose Canons were received both by the Greek and Latin Church, and confirmed by divers Popes and General Councils) would become Ecumenical. This Explication, saith the Author h Haec explicatio Concilii ideam confundit. Hâc enim ipsâ ratione non solum, etc. lib. 5. cap. 2. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, confounds the idea of a General Council; and by resolving the whole Authority of it into the subsequent acceptation of the Universal Church, raiseth National, Provincial, and even Diocesan Synods into the same rank with it. This also would follow, That Councils, how frequent and numerous soever, could not be Ecumenical, till they were received by the Universal Church, and so those Councils would have lied, which without expecting this subsequent Reception, entitled themselves Ecumenical; as almost all did, although many of them not received of a long while after, as the V VII. VIII. of which before. Nay Lupus observeth the Canons of the first Council of Constantinople were not received before Innocent III. For more than 800 years therefore according to Lupus, that Council must have been Particular; nay both General and Particular. For the Creed of it was admitted by both Churches, the Canons only by the Greeks. But laying aside these, Let us come to Bellarmin, who hath used more accuracy herein. He lays down four conditions of a General Council. First, i Prima est, ut evocatio sit generalis, ita ut innotescat omnibus majoribus Christianis provinciis. Bell. de Concil. lib. 1. c. 17. , That the Summons be General, and notified to all the greater Provinces of Christendom: For that this was always observed, and for default of it the Council of Constantinople against Images was declared void by the VII. Synod. But how shall we be assured, that this condition was not wanting to any one Council either Ancient or Modern, or that certain Intelligence was received in every Province of the indiction of it? Secondly, k ex Episcopis nullus excludatur undecunque veniat, modo constet eum esse Episcopum & non excommunicatum. Id. ibid. That no Bishop be excluded, whencesoever he come, provided he be known to be so, and be not excommunicated. That this again was always observed we cannot be assured. For not only those are to be esteemed excluded who are openly rejected; but those also, who privily by Threats, Promises, or any other way are forced to departed: as Paulus Vergerius, Bishop of Justinople, by public Writing complained he was from the Council of Trent. The third l adsint omnes Patriarchae vel per se vel per legatos. Id. ibid. condition is, That all the Patriarches be present either by themselves or by their Legates. But to this Bellarmin adds, That it is not very necessary; because the Council of Ephesus without the Patriarch of Antioch condemned Nestorius, and the Synod of Chalcedon concluded almost all things without him of Alexandria. And at this time, saith he m Non sunt necessarii, quia haeretici, vel certè schismatici. Id. ibid. , These Patriarches are not necessary, because Heretical, or at least Schismatical. But it doth not follow, That because one Patriarch may be absent, therefore the rest ought not to be present. Besides Bellarmin herein contradicts himself. For he demonstrateth the necessity of the presence of the Patriarches by this Argument among others, because the II. Nicene Council proves that the Council of Constantinople against Images was not Ecumenical from the absence of the Patriarches. If this Argument hold, the presence at least of some Patriarches will be necessary. And whereas he denies the presence of the Patriarches to be now necessary, because Heretical or Schismatical, this again creates new perplexities. For they deny themselves to be so, and 'tis at lest very uncertain whether they are so: So that this thing must be first searched out and determined, before a firm assent can be given to the Decrees of a Council wanting their presence. See new Difficulties, new Labyrinths Lastly, With Canus, duval, and others, he requires, That if not all Bishops be present in the Council, as they cannot all be; at least some out of all the greater Provinces meet there. If so, then must be wiped out of the Catalogue of General Councils the II. and V in which no Western, some of Lateran, and those of Vien, Constance and Trent, in which no Eastern Bishops were present. duval n duval. anteloq. ad lib. de potest. Pont. opposeth this reason to the Council of Basil; which may with equal reason be returned upon all the rest. Beside, when neither Bellarmine nor any other dare determine how many Bishops out of each Province must necessarily be present, or how many Provinces may safely be wanting in the Council; the whole matter cannot but remain uncertain. That also deserves to be observed which Bellarmine admonisheth, That it was always thought sufficient, that when a General Council is held in the East, a few, suppose one or two Western Bishops be present; or as few Eastern Bishops in a Council held in the West: as he proveth by divers Examples. But if two or three Bishops can sufficiently represent one entire part of the Universal Church; why may not as many more represent the other part? Which being admitted, a Meeting of four or five Bishops will constitute a General Council, which to me seems very absurd and ridiculous. Hence it appears therefore, that our Adversaries can produce nothing satisfactory in this matter: which will be yet more manifest; if to what we have observed already be added, that they talk much concerning it, but prove nothing. Whereas they should not tell us, what they thought requisite or sufficient to constitute a General Council, but also demonstrate it so to be, and that so clearly, that no doubt might remain. Otherwise we shall be ever uncertain, which are to be called Ecumenical Councils, and which not. Yet nothing of this is produced by them: themselves rather differ about the conditions; and what one thinks sufficient or necessary, another rejects as insufficient or unuseful. So Bellarmine thinks it sufficient that many be present in the Council, and none excluded. Lupus denies this to suffice, unless the absent Bishops, either before or after the Council, shall assent. Bellarmine holds this assent unnecessary. For speaking of the Lateran Council under Leo X. he hath these words: o Quod autem non fuerit receptum, saltem ab omnibus, parùm refert. Nam decreta Conciliorum non indigent approbatione populi, cùm ab co●uon accipiant authoritatem. Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. But whereas it was not received, at least by all, it matters little. For the Decrees of a Council need not the approbation of the people, since they receive not their authority from them. Fabulottus p Fabul. de potest. Papae super Concil. c. 5. and the Author q Vbi supra. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, maintain and at large prove the same things. Thus all things are uncertain among them, and hang upon a thread Martinonus was not ignorant of this: who to proceed more warily, flieth to the Pope and Council itself; and maketh them, especially the Pope, the only Judges of these preliminary Questions. To him, saith he r Pontificis est declarare, an congregatio sit generalis sufficienter, & an qui adsunt teneant locum sufficienter omnium aliorum. Mart. de fide, disp. 5. Sect. 7. , it belongs to declare whether the Assembly be sufficiently general, and whether those which are present, sufficiently represent all the rest. But neither doth this suffice. For as to a Council, since only a General can infallibly pronounce in matters of Faith, and the Universality of the Council pertains to Faith, before we can acquiesce in the determination of the Council concerning its own Universality, we must know whether it be general. Otherwise we cannot be assured, that it did not err in that very determination. Besides, if this Judgement of the Council itself sufficed; all those were to be admitted as general, which challenged that Title to themselves. But some of these the Monarchists reject, as the Council of Constance before the union of the three obediences, and that of Basil: others the Sorbonists, as the Florentine, and the Lateran under Leo X. The same may be said of the Pope. For every one of these four Councils were decreed to be General by some Pope, yet none of them acknowledged to be so by all. CHAP. XIV. That not all Ecumenical Councils are presently lawful: That it is very difficultly known which are lawful. THus have we considered the first condition of an Infallible Council, Universality. The second follows of no less moment, That, If it be lawful. Our Adversaries confess, that the H. Ghost is not indifferently present in all Councils, how numerous soever. They acknowledge even the most numerous to have defined erroneously. They require them to be rightly and canonically constituted, and every way lawful. Whence as often as we object to them the Errors of some Councils; they think it enough to answer such were Pseudo-Councils, Conventicles of no value, not lawful Councils, to which alone they allow the privilege of Infallibility. That the knowledge therefore of the lawfulness of Councils is very difficult, however necessary to give assurance to Faith relying on the Decrees of them, and that no true certainty is to be had therein, I here undertake to prove. And the difficulty of this knowledge may hence appear; That it is utterly unknown what are the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful. I never yet met with any one, who dare undertake to assign them, much less demonstrate them. Some things may be found scattered here and there in treating of other matters, but nothing delivered ex professo. Yet unless this knowledge were fixed, these conditions assigned, agreed on, and demonstrated, and their number exactly determined, so as we might be ascertained that neither more were required, nor fewer sufficed: in vain will Councils define, the Infallibility of their Decrees will be always uncertain. I doubt not, but if God had intended to tie our Faith to the Decrees of Councils; he would either have tied it to all indifferently, or provided that no unlawful Councils should ever be held, or given us plain and manifest Rules whereby to distinguish lawful from unlawful ones. For to permit divers unlawful Councils to be held, to command the faithful to adhere only to the lawful ones; and all this while to prescribe no certain conditions, assign no manifest Characters of a lawful Council, is highly repugnant to the Wisdom and Goodness of God. He might indeed justly have left this difficult inquiry to us; if it had been accommodated to our strength and capacity. But the discord of whole Churches in assigning the lawful Councils, and consequently the Error of some most Learned men, manifestly evince it to exceed both. So formerly adhered to the V General Council the whole Eastern and the Roman Churches; Africa, France, Spain, and the rest of Italy, openly and vigorously rejected it. Each of these Churches did then abound with most Learned and most Holy men; which proveth the thing to have been very doubtful and obscure, and difficult to be determined. The same may be said of the Council of Constance as to the first Sessions, Basil, Florence, and the V Lateran: whose Lawfulness is to this day disputed of. The difficulty of this matter can arise only from the ignorance of the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful. If these were fixed, the determination would be easy, unless the conditions themselves were intricate and imperceptible. The Monarchists, who assert those Councils to be lawful, which are called, presided over, governed, and confirmed by the Pope, all which are easily known; can scarce doubt which are lawful Councils; whence they all agree in numbering them. Not so the rest: who neither agree in assigning the conditions of a lawful Council, nor explain the necessity of each condition, nor demonstrate what they say to be true. For Example, the first condition given by the Monarchists, is, That the Council be called by the Pope. So also many of the Sorbonists: as Brevicoxa a Debet Concilium authoritate Pontificis congregari, nisi in casu in quo Papa esset notorius haereticus. Brev. apud Launoi. Epist. part. 8. ad Amelium. , who saith, The Council ought to be called by the Pope, unless he be a notorious Heretic: and Richerius b Est Summi Pontificis regulariter & ordinariè generalia Concilia indicere & convocare; it a si rogatus id facere detrectet, etc. Rich. Apol. axiom. 25. , who affirms, The calling of Councils ordinarily and regularly to belong to the Pope, unless he be distracted, or refuse to do it when desired. Launoy, on the contrary, thinks it matters not by whom the Council is called, so it decrees rightly when met. Therefore after a clear passage cited out of Maximus his Disputation with Theodosius Bishop of Caesarea, he c Igitur non à Synodorum convocatione, quae ab hoc vel illo fiat, sed à rectâ fide, quae in Synodis sancitur, Synodorum authoritas depromenda est. Laun. Epist. part. 6. p. 263. concludes the authority of Synods not to depend upon the calling of them, whether done by one or other, but upon the truth of their definitions. Nor without reason. For if no Councils were lawful, but what were called by the Pope; then the ancient Christians had no lawful ones; among whom all those famous and holy Councils were called only by the Emperors: as Launoy and others have abundantly demonstrated. The same may be said of the second condition assigned by the Monarchists, the Presidence of the Pope in the Council either by himself or by his Legates. Richerius d Rich. Apol. axe. 25. & 26. and Holden e Hold. Anal. fid. lib. 2. cap. 3. do not refuse it; of whom the first teacheth the Pope hath a Right to preside over Councils; the latter affirms him to be by Divine Right Head of all Councils. But Launoy in proving that the Pope presided not over the first Councils, showeth that he thinks not this condition necessary. The third condition is more difficult: which consists in this, That the Council be made up of those who have a right to be present; and none others. Who these are is not manifest. For first it is inquired, Whether Laics be comprehended in this number? This almost all deny; yet Peter de Monte f Ista jura suprà pro utraque parte producta reddunt hane materiam mirabiliter dubiam. Tract. de Monarchiâ. Bishop of Brixia, after he hath produced many places on both sides out of the Canon Law, thence concludeth this matter to be wonderfully doubtful. Certainly in the Council of Jerusalem, which many hold to have been Ecumenical, the first and the Pattern of all Councils, Laics were present, subscribed the Synodical Epistle together with the Apostles, and said equally with them: g Acts xv. It seemed good to the H. Ghost, and to us. But to exclude them, and admit only ecclesiastics; shall all ranks of these be admitted? This the Monarchists deny, and assert only Bishops to have ordinarily the Right of a definitive Suffrage, and Cardinals, Abbots, and Generals of Religious Orders by privilege. The same seems to be the opinion of Holden. Contrariwise Gerson h Gers. de potest. Eccl. confid. 12. , Lud. Alemanus i Apud Aeneam Silvium. Hist. Concil. Basil. l b. 1. Cardinal and Precedent of the Council of Basil, Almain k De sup. poorest. Eccl. , Richerius l Apol. ax. 21.34. , and Vigorius m Comm. cap. ult. , vehemently contend that Presbyters, at least Parsons bearing Cure of Souls, have a right to sit in Councils. This is indeed a great Question, upon which depends the validity of all Councils. There were some (as those of Basil, Constance, Pisa, and the Lateran, by the testimony of Alemannus an Eye-witness) in which Presbyters had a decisive Vote, but far more (even all the rest) from which they were excluded. If they have a right; all these last Councils are unlawful: if not, all the first. Concerning Abbots there arises another doubt. They have sat in Councils now for many Ages by Privilege. The first who obtained it, as Lupus n Lup. Tom. 1. p. 865. observeth, was that most wicked Barsumas, who made no small bawling in the Ephesine Latrocinium. But it is inquired, who had Power to give them such a Privilege. Certainly that Spirit which revealeth Truth, and as our Saviour tells us, bloweth where it listeth, cannot be obliged by any humane Grant to confer Infallibility on those, to whom he never promised it. The Monarchists themselves acknowledge the Pope cannot confer on his Legates the privilege of not erring. How then shall either Pope or Council give it to Abbots? But if they cannot; then are unlawful all those Councils wherein Abbots sat, those especially wherein they exceeded the Bishops in number, as the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in which (by Bellarmin's o Bell. de Con cil. lib. 1. cap. 5. & 7. computation) were present 1283 Prelates, of which only 473 Bishops; and that of Constance, which among a 1000 Fathers had no more than 300 Bishops. The same Question is moved concerning Procurators of Bishops. For 'tis justly doubted, whether Bishops can delegate that Power of defining matters of Faith without danger of Error, and transfer it upon others that are no Bishops. For if not, all those Councils will be invalid, wherein these Procurators were admitted. Now that they cannot, seemeth probable. For to omit that, the Monarchists affirm the Pope cannot communicate his Infallibility, and that Bishops should be able to do more than the Pope, seems incredible; I urge that this Procuration is not allowed even in temporal Causes. Judges are not permitted to substitute others who may give Judgement, and pronounce Sentence in their stead. And if this be thought inconvenient in judging the frail and momentany things of life; how much more will it be in defining matters that relate to eternal Salvation? Lastly, delegated Judges can never subdelegate another; unless the Delegant shall expressly grant Power of doing it. Let our Adversaries therefore either show where God hath given Bishops power to constitute Procurators to sit in Councils in their Name; or confess it to be uncertain whether those Councils are lawful, in which these Procurators sit. They will plead Prescription perhaps for this; and urge that it is not probable a Custom received and approved by so many Ages, should not be lawful. But they have no Right to make use of this Argument. For Widdrington p Aliud est facere de facto, aliud determinare quòd ita possit fieri de jure. Widd. contra Schulck. pag. 241. in replying to that Objection of the Assertors of the deposing Power, That Kings and Emperors have been deposed by the Church, and therefore may be so; answers out of Sylvester, That it doth no way follow, it being one thing to do within, another to determine that it may be done lawfully. And Richerius q Apol. ax. 38. freely reprehends many things observed in the Councils. Lastly, Holden r Theologi passim affirmant posse quodammodo errare Synodes omnes, etiam Oecumenicas, in legibus ad Eccles. disciplinae regimen spectantibus. Hold. Anal. fid. l. 2. c. 3. tells us, That all Synods, even Ecumenical, may in some measure err in matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline, as most Divines hold. If in those, then surely in things which they neither command nor define, but only tolerate. The Precedents of the Council of Trent were very much perplexed with this Question, and knew not well what to do in it. Cardinal Palavicini s Hist. Council Trid. lib. 21. cap. 1. relates how they consulted the Court of Rome and the ablest Canonists, and employed Learned men, Scipio Lancelottus and Michael Thomasius, to write concerning it. The Question proposed was, Whether to Procurators were of Right due a decisive Suffrage in the Synod? This they determined in the Negative; as well because it was not a matter of contract or private business, 〈◊〉 which these Procurators were employed, but the common concern of the whole Church; as because they bore not that Office in the Church, to which God had promised the assistance of the H. Ghost in Ecumenical Synods. But because the custom of the Church was contrary, and some show of Arguments appeared on the other side: the Legates thought not sit to determine this Question themselves, but expected to know the pleasure of the Court of Rome. Thus much for the third condition. Gelasius t Secundùm Scripturas, sec. traditionem Patrum, sec. Ecclesiasticas regulas, pro side Catholicâ & communione. 〈◊〉 ad Episc. Dard. epist. 13. assigns many together, while treating of the difference of lawful and unlawful Synods, he defineth a lawful Synod to be that which acteth. aocording to the Scriptures, Tradition of the Fathers, Ecc●●●astical Rules, and in defence of Catholic Faith and Communion; that to be unlawful which acteth contrary. I inquire not now, whether all these conditions be necessary. I only say that it will be very difficult this way to distinguish lawful from unlawful Synods. For how few can compare the Decrees of them with Scripture, Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Rules? Maximus requireth much fewer things. For he would have nothing else inquired, but only whether the Council decreed rightly. For to Theodosius Bishop of Caesarea objecting, That the Lateran Synod held at Rome under Pope Martin, was not received, because not held by the Emperor's Command, he thus replieth u Si Synodos quae sactae sunt jussiones Imperatorum firmant, & non sua fides, recipe Synodos, quae contra homoousion factae sunt, etc. Omnes enim has Imperatorum jussio aggregavit. Attamen omnes damnatae sunt propter impietatem infidelium dogmatum ab eis confirmatorum— illas novit sanctas & probabiles Synodos pius Ecclesiae Canon, quas rectitudo dogmatum approbavit— Et dixit Theodosius, It a est ut asseris; dogmatum quippe rectitudo Synodos roborat. Disp. Maximi cum Theod. inter Anastasii Collectanea à Sirmondo edita Paris. 1620. p. 161, 162. : If the Commands of the Emperor, and not their holy Faith, makes Synods valid, then must you receive the Synods held by the Command of Princes against the Doctrine of Consubstantiality, as those of Tyre, Antioch, Seleucra, etc. For all they were called by the Emperors, but all condemned by reason of the impiety of the heretical Doctrines confirmed in them. For the pious Rule of the Church acknowledgeth only those for holy and lawful Synods, which the truth of their Decrees have approved. To which Theodosius rejoined: So it is as you affirm: for the truth of their Doctrines makes Synods valid. So they, and with them Launoy above cited. Which if it be admitted, the Controversy is at an end. None of us will deny those Councils are to be assented to which have decreed rightly. But how shall we know, whether they have decreed rightly. Here lieth the difficulty, our Adversaries, especially being Judges, who are averse to all discussion, and affirm it to be above the capacity of the people. Which way soever therefore they turn themselves, they cannot deny it to be very difficultly known which are lawful Councils, and consequently which, although confirmed by the Pope, can afford certainty and firmness to our Faith. CHAP. XV. That tt is uncertain whether any Councils have been Free. FReedom is so necessary to the being of an infallible Council, that all assign it as a condition, none omit it: and herein those two great Antagonist Edmund Richerius and Andrew Duval agree; of which the first makes this his XXII. axiom a Libertatem ferendi suffragii esse conditionem essentialem ad celebrationem Synodorum penitus necessariam, etc. : That the Liberty of Voting is an essential condition wholly necessary to the Celebration of Synods, and so necessary, that without it the H. Ghost presides not over ecclesiastics met in Council. For the Apostle b 2 Cor. three 17. saith, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty: and an Anonymous Author c Numerosissima Concilia, qualia fuêre, etc. propter hanc libertatis carentiam illegitima sunt pronunciata. of a Tract offered to the Assembly of the French Clergy, saith, That most numerous Councils, such as those of Ariminum and the II. of Ephesus for want of this liberty have been pronounced unlawful. On the other side Duval d Caruit libertate Conciliis necessarià. duval. de potest. Pont. part. 4. quaest. 6. speaking of the Council of Ariminum, saith, It wanted the Liberty necessary to Councils, and afterwards of the II. Ephesine Council, that although lawfully called, yet it proceeded unlawfully, being overawed by violence of Dioscorus, in like manner as the Council of Ariminum had been by Constantius. The same saith Melchior Canus e Can. Loc. Theol. & lib. 5. cap. ult. . The Ancients consent hereto. St. Hilary f Incipio definitio Catholica habita ab omnibus Catholicis Episcopis, priusquàm per terrenam potestatem territi haereticorum consortio sociarentur. Hil. in fragm. giveth this Inscription to the first Decree of Ariminum; This is the Catholic definition composed by all the Catholic Bishops, before that terrified with the Secular Power, they were joined to the Society of Heretics. And St. Athanasius having rejected g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. Epist. ad Episc. Afric. the Decrees of this Council of Ariminum, because extorted by contention and force, and desiring a lawful Council, Let an Ecclesiastical Synod, saith he h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Epist. ad Solit. , be held far from the Palace, where neither the Emperor is at hand, nor his Commissioner intrudes himself, nor any Judge threatens; but where the sole fear of God and institution of the Apostles sufficeth. St. Basil i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. Epist. 52. ad Athan. thought the mere relation of the violence used in the Council of Ariminum enough to invalidute all the acts of it. Lastly, Facundus k Nusquam coactum concilium nisi falfitati subscripsit; sicut in Arimino, etc. Fac. lib. 12. cap. 3. saith, Never did any forced Council subscribe to any thing but Error, as happened in those of Ariminum and Ephesus. That a lawful Synod therefore aught to be free, is on all sides confessed. But we are not to imagine that this freedom is taken away only by Stripes, Imprisonment and the like. There are other more secret and no less efficacious means to obtain the same end. Among these Canus and Richerius reckon threats; St. Ambrose the favour of Princes; when he saith l Dum Imperatoris gratiam sequuntur, Dei gratiam perdiderunt; qui cum placere potentibus aucupantur, maledicto se perpetuo subdidere. Ambr. in Luc. 6. of the Fathers of Ariminum, That seeking the favour of the Emperor, they lost the favour of God, and desiring to please great Men, subjected themselves to a perpetual curse. Richerius m Vi aut minis, vel aliis studiis aut fabricis, & prensationibus immoderatis, vel gratiâ, pecuniâ aut pretio, vel rebus pecuniâ aestimabilibus. Rich. Apol. axiom. 22. asserts this liberty is hindered by force, threats, or other Factions and Plots, by immoderate making of Parties, favours, giving of Money or any other Gifts. Card. Perron n Du Perron Repliq. liv. 1. chap. 28. saith, the desire of pleasing hath often crept in among Princes, and spoiled and corrupted the judgement of Synods. Holden o Absque suffragiorum ambitu aut sollicitâ prensatione. Hold. Anal. fid. lib. 2. cap. 3. requireth that all things be maturely discussed in the Synod without any begging of Votes, or solicitous making of Parties. Lastly Estrix p Haec illi, inquies, vi & terrore compulsi. Fateor: sed qui terrore compelli potuerunt ad approbandam haeresin, quidui potuissent delabi eodem aliis rationibus aut ●●piditate prauâ impellente? Estr. Diat. assert. 43. having said, that the Bishops of the II. Ephesine Council were forced by the violence of Dioscorus to subscribe to Heresy, hath these words: But you will say, this they did, compelled by Force and Terror. True: but those who can be compelled by Terror to approve Heresy; why may they not be induced to the same by other Reasons, or any inordinate Desire? From what hath been said, I gather four things: I. That liberty in voting is a condition absolutely necessary to a lawful and Infallible Council. II. That this liberty is infringed not only by open force, but also by threats, promises, gifts, soliciting of Votes, or any other secret Arts. III That this may not only be, but hath actually been done, and that more than once. iv That these things are so certain, that they are acknowledged by our Adversaries, both Sorbonists and Monarchists. But if these be true, as most certainly they are; we can never safely assent to the Decrees of a Council, till we be assured that no methods of Violence or Corruption, either manifest or secret, were used to infringe its liberty. But since none can know this but God alone, it is thence most evident, that we are not only not obliged to a blind assent to the Definitions of any Council, but that it would be a most gross folly and manifest danger of Error to do it: because none but free Councils are Infallible; and no man can possibly know which are free. Melchior Canus q Ita ●re●, 〈◊〉 nullius Synedi explorata authoritas habeatur. Can. loc. Theol. l. 5. c. saw this, who having produced the Example of the II. Ephesine Synod adds, That if a true and a lawful Synod can err through fear, than Heretics may pretend that all the rest were subservient to the Lusts of Popes and Emperors: and so the Authority of no one Synod will be left certain. Nor indeed is this fear of Canus vain. For long since many both Heretics and Catholics have complained of the violated liberty of Councils. So Eusebius, Theognis and Maris, repenting of their having subscribed in the Council of Nice, came to the Emperor; and told him, We have done wickedly, O Emperor, in that being terrified by you we subscribed to Heresy: As Philostorgius r Apud Nicetam, Thes. lib. 5. cap. 8. relateth. So Ibas in his famous Epistle to Maris the Persian complaineth, the Fathers of the I. Ephesine Council were corrupted by cyril's Gold. The Legates of the Roman See made the like complaint in the Council of Chalcedon, Lucentius f Concil. Chalced. Act. 16. telling the Precedents in open Council that the Bishops were circumvented, and forced to subscribe to Canons, to which they had not assented. In the V Synod Lupus t In hâe Synodo Justinianus Diocletianum induerat; ejus affectibus serviebant omnes Graecorum Episcopi. Lup. tom. 1. p. 737. saith that Justinian became a Diocletian, and all the Greek Bishops were Servants to his inclinations; and relateth the words of Eustathius the Presbyter, who affirms that nothing was therein done without violence, necessity, partiality, and affection. Richerius u Ita ut vix ullus contramussare auderet: quae forma Conciliorum habendorum viguit à seculo Gregorii VII. ad tempora Synodi Constantiensis. Rich. Apol. ax. 38. saith, that from the times of Gregory VII. to the Council of Constance for 340 years, the Popes were wont arbitrarily to impose Laws upon the Church; and having form Canons and Definitions at home, to call Synods, and imperiously to propose them, where none dared so much as to mutter against them: and in another place x Hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ita ut hoc stante regimine omnino impossibile videatur liberum haberi Concilium. tells us, That Gregory VII. contrary to the custom used in the Church for more than a thousand years, introduced that order, that all Bishops should swear Obedience to the See of Rome; whence, saith he, the liberty of all subsequent Councils was taken away: but much more by the Pope's arrogating to himself the collation of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices: so that as long as his Government in the Church continueth, it seemeth altogether impossible to have a free Council. duval y duval. Anteloq. ad lib. de potest. Pont. evinceth the Council of Basil was not free, from Aeneas Silvius, who relates that the Eugenian party being terrified with threats, all rose up together, and cried out in the Council, Liberty, Liberty is taken away from us. How is it that the Patriarch threatens he will break, our heads? The Greeks returning home protested against the force put upon them in the Council of Florence, and therefore would not stand to the Decrees of it. As for the Council of Trent, Richerius z Colore quidem impediendae confusionis, sed revera ut omnis occasio liberius disputandi de necessitate Ecclesiae reformandae in Capite & in membris patribus Concilii tolleretur. Et hae sunt artes eximiae; quibus Curia Romana suam absolutam sulcit Monarchiam, ne dicam tyrannidem. Rich. Apol. ax. 22. & in Epilogo. Si hodie celebrentur Concilia, Episcopi non sunt Judices, etc. Item liberam sententiae dictionem non habent in Synodis, quoniam potestas infallibilis & voluntas absoluta Papae pro omni Synodo, deliberatione, consensa, lege, Canone, & communione Sanctorum coli servariq●e debet, ex quo etium, etc. assures us, That the Essential Liberty of Councils (which giveth to the Bishop's full power of proposing what they please) was wholly taken away; while none were permitted to propose any thing but the Pope's Legates, upon pretext indeed of avoiding confusion, but really that all occasion of disputing freely concerning the necessity of reforming the Church both in Head and Members might be taken away from the Fathers of the Council. And these are the fine arts, wherewith the Court of Rome upholds her absolute Monarchy or rather Tyranny. That in modern Councils Bishops are not fudges and Legislators, as they ought to be, but only Counsellors to the Pope, and cannot freely give their Suffrages in the Council; because the Infallible Power and absolute Will of the Pope, must now adays be received and observed instead of all Synod, Deliberation, Consent, Law, Canon, and Communion of Saints: whereby the Church is become the Bondslave of the Pope, as Cajetan a A polop. part, 1. cap. 1. impiously and flatteringly calls her. But the intolerable oppression of Liberty and various Arts used in the Council of Trent, F. Paul amply relates in his History of that Council. You will say, perhaps, these are false, and calumnies. But how doth this appear? Other Historians perhaps deliver contrary accounts. But how shall we be ascertained they tell truth? If the first Historians be disbelieved; why may not these also? How ever it be, possible it is the first relation may be true; and until they be proved false, we can never be certain they are not true, can never esteem those Councils free, and consequently not Infallible. For that the irregularity of a Council is not manifest, sufficeth not to found our Faith upon its Decrees; but to that end the perfect regularity of it must be known and evident: which cannot be, while the freedom of it is uncertain. But this is not all, Canus and Estrix before truly observed, That herein no more account is to be had of Fear, than of any other perturbation of the mind: and that he who can be forced by threats to decree against his Conscience, may no less vehemently be shaken and drawn from the truth by Hatred, Anger, Hope, Desire, or the like. Certainly the efficacy of these Passions is no whit less; and if the H. Ghost defends not Bishops in Council from the impressions of Fear, neither will he from the temptations of other Affections. Suppose therefore we be assured no force was used to infringe the Liberty of the Council, which we can never be; yet this will not suffice, unless we be at the same time ascertained that the Bishops were corrupted with no Passions, led by no Affections, and served no Interest in giving their Suffrages. Till than we must suspend our assent to the Decrees of any Council; as justly doubting, whether that may not have undergone the same unhappiness, which hath attended some former Councils. So Lupus accuseth the Fathers of the I. Constantinopolitan Council of envy against the Western Bishops, but especially the Church of Rome. Liberatus relates, That Theodorus Ascidas, Favourite to the Emperor Justinian, in revenge of the Condemnation of his admired Origen, projected the design of the V Council, and thereby extorted from the whole World the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula. Duval, That the Council of Basil was blinded with hatred against Pope Eugenius. What happened to these, might as well to other Councils, and who can assure us it did not? But no Liberty seemeth more requisite to the establishment of Truth; than that which purgeth the Mind from preconceived Opinions, and addicts it wholly to Truth. For it cannot be hoped, that they who are infected with Error, should define rightly; and immediately upon their entering the Council, from Patrons of Heresy become Champions of Faith. This Experience hath often taught. For why did the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus; and Chalcedon desine rightly, but because they consisted of Orthodox Bishops? Why the African under Cyprian, and all the Arrian Councils erroneously; but because they were made up of Bishops favouring those Errors? Why the Council of Sardica both rightly and erroneously, well at Sardica, ill at Philippopolis; but because the Orthodox Bishops stayed at Sardica, the Heretical went to Philippopolis? How comes it to pass therefore, that in assigning so many conditions of an Infallible Council, this one should be forgotten, the most necessary of all, that it consist only of Orthodox Bishops? Wisely then did the Popes, Leo and Vigilius, who laboured hard, that only an equal number of Greeks and Latins might be admitted into the iv and V Councils, the one fearing the Eutychians, the other the Enemies of the Tria Capitula. However it be, if Threats and Promises, if Fear and Desire can hinder Orthodox Bishops from defining truly; much more will preconceived Opinions hinder Heretical ones from decreeing rightly: Since the first are drawn to favour Error unwillingly, and act in it coldly; the latter promote it with their utmost Zeal and greatest Vigour. Lastly, I do not see, how if a Council be placed beyond all danger of erring by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, Fear, or any other Passions can so far prevail in it, as to divert the Fathers of it from the right way. This might indeed be, if Councils were infallible in their Nature, but in their Hypothesis, who ascribe their Infallibility only to the external direction of the Holy Spirit, it is highly absurd and irrational. For cannot the Holy Ghost invincibly arm the minds of those, in whom he dwells, against the terrors of Threats or Temptations of desire? Why then is the Hymn, Veni Creator Spiritus, sung before every Session of Councils? Why is it expressly said, Accende lumen sensibus; Infunde amorem cordibus; Infirma nostri corporis virtute firmans perpeti? Why is he called the Living Fountain, Fire, Charity, and Spiritual Unction? Why the finger of God's Right Hand, but to design his powerful Assistance against all the defects of Nature, and infirmities of Mind? This assistance therefore is desired. If it be obtained, in vain are Threats, Bribes, Promises, and other Frauds: they can never corrupt the Council. If it be not, who can assure us the other part of the Petition is granted, viz. Illumination of Mind to discern and dispel the Sophistry of Heretics. But why do I insist on this? If we consider those Holy Men, in whom the Holy Ghost is thought to have dwelled, and armed with his Graces for the defence of Truth, as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustin, and the rest; we shall find that they were impenetrable to fear or flattery, and constantly despised both the threats and promises of Arian Princes. If the Holy Ghost therefore presides over Councils, neither the force nor fraud of Enemies can obstruct the Infallibility of it; and we may much more justly and truly, than Richerius did before, apply those words of St. Paul to them, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. For he alleged them to prove that Liberty is a Condition pre-required to the presence of the Holy Ghost in a Council: whereas the construction of them manifests it to be rather an effect of this presence: according to that of our Saviour: 2 John. VIII. 36. If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed: and 3 Ibid. v. 32. the Truth shall make you free. For the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ; so that what is done by the one, may be well attributed to the other. But to make an end. Our Adversaries found the Infallibility of Councils upon the promises of the assistance of the Holy Ghost made to the Apostles by our Saviour in those words, The Spirit of Truth shall guide you into all truth; I will send another Comforter, etc. which they maintain to have been spoken not only to the Apostles, but to their Successors also to the World's end. If so, then must necessarily be conferred on both an Infallibility of the same kind and quality. But were the Apostles preserved by the assistance of the Holy Ghost from involuntary Errors, and left unarmed to the assaults of Threats and Promises? Certainly no. Christ both promised and gave to them his assistance against all kind of Temptations and Corruptions, whereby they might be drawn to betray the Truth. Either Councils therefore have the same assistance, or can pretend no share in these Promises. Two several ways therefore is the Authority of Councils overthrown by the Doctrine and Concessions of our Adversaries about the necessity of their Liberty; both in that it is certain they may be drawn from Truth by any other means as well as defect of Liberty, and uncertain whether there was ever any free Councils. The Sorbonists can oppose nothing to this: but the Monarchists think they can. They pretend that when a Council is thus corrupted, yet the Rock of the Church, the Pope, remains unshaken, whom no force can move, as for whom Christ prayed, that his Faith should never fail. For first, the Sorbonists deny this; which sufficeth for me, as proving that pretended Privilege of the Pope not to be of Faith, and so not able to give certainty to the Decrees of a Council, whose Liberty is suspected. But then this invincible Constancy of the Pope is demonstrated to be false by the Examples of Marcellinus, Liberius, Paschal II. and Eugenius iv to which we may add a fifth, that of Pope Vigilius, from whom the Emperor Justinian, after he had extorted by force and threats the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula from the fifth Council, extorted an Approbation of the Council's Decree by the same Method: as he did afterwards in like manner from his Successor Pelagius. Lupus 4 Vigilius aerumnis lassus & libertatis ac sedis recuperandae amore victus, tandem consensit in Synodum.— Pelagius Romani Episcopatûs amore ad recipiendam Synodum est inflexus. Lup. in Concil. Tom. 1. p. 737. acknowledgeth both, saying, that Vigilius, overcome with hardships, and the desire of recovering his Liberty and See; and Pelagius, corrupted with desire of the Papal Chair, both consented and approved the Synod. Pope's therefore as well as Councils may be drawn to decree against their Consciences. No where is to be found invincible Constancy; no where the desired Certainty. CHAP. XVI. That it cannot be known, whether the Intention of the Fathers of the Council be right. AS Lawfulness and Liberty are necessary to the constitution of an Infallible Council; so is a right proceeding in it, when constituted. This consists in three things; a good Intention, an accurate Examination of the Question to be defined, and a Canonical Conclusion. Every one of these beget new scruples and perplexities; of which in their Order. First therefore it is required, that the Bishops, laying aside all Worldly Interests, seek only the finding out of Truth, the Glory of God, and Edification of the Church. For they cannot define Truth, unless they know it: Know it they cannot, but either wholly by their own Sagacity and Industry, or by the Assistance and Illumination of the Holy Ghost. The first way must be and is acknowledged to be fallible by our Adversaries, who therefore fly to the second, and impute all the certainty of Conciliar definitions to the direction of the Holy Ghost. Hence the Mass of the Holy Ghost, and the Hymn Veni Creator Spiritus, is wont to precede every Session of Councils; and this Title presixed to their Decrees, The Holy Universal Synod Lawfully Assembled in the Holy Ghost; and oftentimes that other, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; which supposeth the Council to be directed and assisted by the Holy Ghost. But can we imagine that Holy Spirit illuminates their Minds, whose Hearts he doth not sanctify, and inflame with love of Truth and zeal of Divine Glory? He inspireth not Souls defiled with Sin, and addicted to worldly Considerations. So the Author of the Book of Wisdom: 1 Sap. I. 4, 5. For into a malicious Sold Wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto sin. For the Holy Spirit of Discipline will flee Deceit, and remove from Thoughts that are without Understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in. Our Saviour promiseth the knowledge of his Truth only to those, who by Piety and the Love of Heavenly things, have sitted their Minds for the reception of it. So he tells the believing Jews, 2 John VIII. 31, 32. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. And in another place, 3 John XIV. 21. He that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and manifest myself to him. The like saith David, 4 Psal. XXV. The meek will he guide in judgement; and the meek will he teach his way. And a little after, The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his Covenant. And St. Paul speaking of them that received not the love of Truth, that they might be saved, saith, 5 2 thief. II. 11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie. And in another place 6 1 Tim. I. 19 asserteth, that some having put away a good Conscience, made shipwreck in the Faith. These places cannot be eluded by saying, they speak of a Practical and not a Speculative Knowledge of the Truth. For besides that this can by no means be applied to the two last places, I cannot see with what appearance of reason God can be said to promise Knowledge of Truth to those that love him, fear him; and to the meek, who by being such, must be supposed to have had it before. A Theoretical therefore, or more clear and distinct knowledge of the Truth is to be understood to be here promised to Virtuous and sincerely Pious Persons. Whence it cannot be supposed the same by the ordinary Law of Divine Government is granted to profane and wicked Bishops in a Council, if there be any such, as none denieth such may be. This St. Chrysostom asserts, when upon those words, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them; he saith, 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Matth. Homil. 60. What then? are not two or three gathered together in his name? Yes, but very rarely. For he doth not only mention a Meeting (a Synod) or require that alone, but together with that requireth others Virtues, and that with great exactness, and in the first place. Nicholas de Clemangis 8 Illos quomodo audiat aut visitet, aut illustret, qui sibi adversantur, illumque cum in se n●n possint, in ●liis extinguere nituntur, qui pro igne charitatis ardore sunt ambitionis indammati? Clem. in disp. cum Scholar par. proveth the same thing largely and accurately. He affirms, the first four Councils were for no other reason had in so great Honour, than because they consisted of holy and pious Men; and denieth that wicked Men are directed by the Holy Ghost. For how should he hear, visit, or illustrate them, who resist him, and endeavour to extinguish him in others, when they cannot in themselves, who instead of the fire of Charity are inflamed with the heat of Ambition? He observeth also, That the Fathers of Ancient Councils used to begin their Sessions with Fast, Prayers, and Tears; Which would have been unnecessary, saith he, if they had been certain they could not err, nor be deceived in their Undertake, nor be defrauded of their desire for want of due preparation and disposition. The Precedents of the Council of Trent were persuaded of the truth of this. For in the beginning of the Council they penned an Admonition, which they commanded frequently to be read, wherein they exhorted the Fathers to be touched with a true and lively sense of the Sins that occasioned so many Evils; 9 Nisi haec bene cognita & perspecta fuerint, frustra intramus in concilium, frustra invocamus Spiritum Sanctum, etc. Haec sunt quae contristant & repellunt quem invoca●imus Sp. S. sine quo nihil omnino facere poterimus, quod ad bonum & pacem Ecclesiae cedat. that otherwise in vain was the Council celebrated, in vain the Holy Ghost invocated: For that he, how greatly soever entreated, would not be present: That Repentance and Reformation of Life was absolutely necessary to obtain the assistance of that Holy Spirit, who had formerly refused to give any Answer to the Jews consulting him in the Prophet Ezekiel, because of their Abominations; that they must necessarily abstain from those things which are wont to corrupt the love of Truth, and deprave the Judgement; as all Passions and perturbations of the Mind, Anger, Hatred, Favour, or the like. For these are the things which grieve and drive away the Holy Ghost, whom we have invoked; without whom we can do nothing that may tend to the good and peace of the Church. Hence may be noted the shameless folly of Cardinal Palavicini's pretence, who would make his Readers believe, That the Precedents by all this meant no more, than that Repentance and amendment of Life was necessary, not to defining rightly, but to the successful execution of their Definitions, and happy extirpation of Heresy. Consonantly to the Admonition of the Precedents, Didacus Payva Andradius, who was present in the Council, teacheth, 10 Two verò in Christi nomine congregari dicuntur, quos non privata commoda inducunt, non honoris aura, etc. Nam qui ut privatis rationibus consulant, contentionibus serviant, miserosque homines specioso Concilli nomine decipiant, cocunt; minime quidem in Christi nomine convenire, nec Ecclesiasticos sed mortiferos conventus agitare dicendi sunt. Andr. def. Concil. Trid. Lib. 1. That those only may be said to meet in the name of Christ, whom not any private interests, not Ambition, Hatred, Envy, or the like; but Charity, and the love of Peace, Truth, and Piety actuates and inflames. For they who meet to serve their own Interest or Party, or to deceive Mankind with the specious name of a Council; meet not in the name of Christ, nor are to be called Ecclesiastical, but pestilent Assemblies. Lastly, Duval 11 Sepesitis humanis assectibus, & solâ sibi propositâ veritate. Duval de potest, po●t. part. 4. qu. 6. Vbi nemini su fraus, vis, aut injuria, nullusque adstantium animi motu aut passione praepeditur, sed omnes veritatis amore ducuntur. Id. qu. 10. absolutely requireth that the Bishop's act in the Council, Laying aside all Humane Affections, and proposing to themselves only the finding out of Truth. And in another place, That no fraud, force, or injury be offered to any, that none of those present be prepossessed with any Passion or Commotion of Mind, but that all be led with the love of Truth. It is manifest therefore both from Reason and the Confession of our Adversaries, That Truth cannot infallibly be defined in a Council, unless the Bishops bring with them Minds truly desirous of it, and animated with Zeal for the Honour of God; and moreover, cordially implore the Divine Assistance. But since this escapeth the knowledge of Man, and is perceived by God alone, the searcher of Hearts; whatsoever depends upon so dubious and obscure a condition, must necessarily be uncertain. For who can certainly tell, whether all the Bishops of any Council were prepared and disposed and that nothing was indulged therein to Flesh and Blood? Neither can you say, that this is indeed necessary, but never deficient; that God takes care by his Providence the Bishops be rightly disposed, and fully perform their duty. For first, God hath no where promised this; and then Experience hath proved the contrary. This vigilant care of God had no place in the 2d. Ephesine Council, none in the two Constantinopolitan Synods against Images under Leo Isaurus and Constantine Copronimus, if our Adversaries speak true; none in the Council of Basil, where the Bishops were blinded with hatred against Eugenius, if we believe the partisans of the Court of Rome, who are wont abundantly to vilify all Councils, that decreed contrary to their liking. But they are neither the first nor the only Persons, that have complained of these abuses. All know what Gregory Nazianzen 12 Naz. Querel. de Episcopis & hominum ingratitudine. writes of the Fathers of the I. Council of Constantinople; whom he calls a tumultuous Rabble, a factious Assembly, composed of ignorant and vile fellows newly taken from the Plough, the Oar, the Army, and the Chain, of the posterity of the Collectors, who thought of nothing but falsifying their accounts, of mean Mechanics newly started out of their shops, some of them mere Rascals and fit to be placed in Houses of Correction. Flagriones & pistrinis digni. Yet this is the second of the four most ancient and most famous Councils; which Gregory I. and with him many others profess to reverence equally with the four Gospels. These irregularities made Nazianzen resolve never to be present in any more Synods, 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Naz. Carm. X. de divers. vitae gener. where nothing but Strife, Contentions, and exposing of one another's faults, and thence mortal hatred on each side were to be observed. Isidore Peleusiota 14 Isid. Epist. 310. writes to Cyril of Alexandria, Precedent of the first Ephesine Synod, that many of those, who were present in Ephesus accused him, that seeking the Revenge of a private injury, he did not Orthodoxly inquire after the things of Christ. And in another place he exhorts him to leave off contention, and not take revenge of the Church for his private injuries, and sow eternal Discord under pretext of Piety. Of Pelagius Legate, afterwards Pope of Rom, and Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, whereof one procured Origen, the other Theodorus of Mopsuestia to be condemned, and so occasioned the fifth Synod, Liberatus 15 Illud liquere omnibus credo per Pelagium, etc. hoc scandalum in Ecclesiam fuisse ingressum; quod etiam publicè ipse Theodorus clamitavit se & Pelagium, vivos incendendos, per quos hoc scandalum intravit in mundum. Liberat. Brev. cap. ult. saith, it is manifest that by those two this scandal entered into the Church, which Theodorus also publicly Confessed, crying out that he and Pelagius deserved to be burned alive for introducing that scandal. And Garnerius 16 Etsi negotium hoc vesano partium study, infensisque incredibiliter animis susceptum est. in his notes upon that place, confesseth the thing was undertaken with a furious partiality, and incredibly embittered minds. Not to say that Lupus in a passage above cited makes Justinian in this whole business a Partisan of Theodorus, and all the Greek Bishops Slaves to him. Lastly an Eminent Writer, Claudius' Saints, 17 Nusquam praesentiori numine afflatus est, quàm cum venire isthuc noluisti. Nullus enim dubito, quin prae dolore mortuus esses, si ea vidisses, quae ad eludendam reformationem infanda patrantur. Cl. Sanct. epist. ad Espenc. who went with the other French Divines to the Council of Trent, relates what he observed there in these words, speaking to Espencaeus. Never were you more plainly inspired by God, than when you refused to come hither. For I doubt not, but you would have died with grief, if you had seen those wicked Arts, which are put in practice to elude a Reformation. If any one shall suspect the like of any other Council, he will have no mean Authors for his Leaders in it. However that the Fathers of any Council were better inclined, must appear to us otherwise than from the Universality of it; since Learned Men have long since observed, that many in Ecumenical Councils have sought any thing rather than the Glory of God. Yet is that the only way, that is or can be offered for our assurance therein. CHAP. XVII. That it seldom appears, whether a 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 itself. The Bishop of a Council must carefully inquire 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 & study 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 Authority 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 Error, the assistance and favour of God, the diligence and study of Men conspiring together. And then from the Examples of the Councils of Jerusalem 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. duval 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 uraye 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 agate: 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 soliciting 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, etc. 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 Heretics 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 Error. 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, than 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. Name in IU. & 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 Disputation or Disquisition preceded; no Learned Men were chosen to dispute and treat of those things that were to be defined in Faith. The same thing is acknowledged by Richerius of the great Council of Lateran under Innocent III. wherein Transubstantiation and the Deposition of Heretical Princes were decreed. We learn, saith he, 6 Ex Matthaeo Par. discimus nihil quicquam actum in illa Synodo conciliariter ex more aliorum Concili●rum, nimirum communibus votis atque suffragiis Patrum sigillatim discussis, perpensis & collectis— Cùm ergò aliud sit aliquarecitare capitula in Concilio, aliud, etc. Rich. Apol. ax. 38. out of Matthew Paris, that nothing was acted conciliarly in that Council after the manner of other Councils, the common Votes and Suffrages of the Fathers not being singly discussed, weighed, and collected. When therefore 'tis one thing only to read a few Articles in a Council (and so shuffle them up, for no more was done) another thing to examine and decree them Synodically and Canonically, using due diligence. In vain doth Bellarmin labour to palliate the Business. So Maimbourg 7 Maimb. de bello sacro lib. 11. ad an. 1215. observeth that the Ancient Councils were far more diligent than the Modern; and for an example of this degeneracy brings this very Council of Lateran; wherein the weightiest Matters of Faith, Manners, and Discipline were defined, and (which took up most of their time) Peace and War treated of; and all concluded in three weeks. The same Author in another place 8 Ibid. add an. 1245. wonders how the Council of Lions under Innocent IU. wherein many things, the least whereof would require a long and tedious discussion, were decreed, could be finished in three Sessions. But neither in Elder times was due diligence always observed. Whosoever shall read the Canons of the Council of Sardica, will easily perceive how hastily they were made. Hosius propounded what he thought fit. He asked the Bishops whether it pleased them. They cried out, It did; nothing more was done: his Propositions immediately became Canons. So in the Council of Chalcedon in one Session, or rather end of a Session, when the Pope's Legates and Emperor's Commissioners were gone out, thinking the Session was ended, suddenly XXVIII Canons were clapped up; whereof every one deserved a long Consideration. Neither can you say that greater care and diligence is wont to be used in defining Matters of Faith. Here also it is often wanting. For where should we rather expect to find it, than in weighing the Arguments on both sides, consulting the rule of Faith, and searching out the sense of Scripture? yet nothing is more frequent in the Decrees of Councils, than to find trifling Reasons, false Glosses upon Scripture, and impertinent Allegations. Upon such sandy and weak Foundations are their Definitions often built. Canus, Bellarmin, Valentia, and many others confess this. I will produce now only Holden and duval. Holden 9 Nequaquam habent virtutem definitions. Hold. Anal. fid. lib. 2. cap. 3. saith, that the Presaces, Reasons, Arguments, and Illustrations of conciliar Decrees have not the virtue of a definition. duval: 10 Audacter asserimus maximam partem actorum ad sidem non pertinere.— Item rationes quibus Patres in decernendis conclusionibus nituntur. Duval. Anteloq. We confidently assert, that the greatest part of the Acts (of Councils) pertain not to Faith: also the Reasons which the Fathers rely upon in decreeing their Conclusions. To prove this, he brings the Example of the VII. Synod; which defined Angels might be painted, because they are corporeal; and of the Synod of Eliberis, which forbade Candles to be lighted in Churchyards, lest the Souls of the Dead should be disturbed. To these he might have added many more Examples, and particularly out of the II. Council of Nice; where for the sake of Images, Scripture, Fathers, and Logic are most shamefully abused; so as may create Indignation and Laughter together. Now I ask, whether those can be said to have examined the matter in hand diligently, used the Rule of Faith rightly, and considered the Arguments of both sides maturely; who obtrude such impertinent trifles for solid foundations of their Decrees? Nay, even in the Council of Trent, where they disputed so sharply and copiously, too much haste was sometimes made in their proceed. Certainly when they decreed the vulgar version to be authentic; in whatsoever sense that be understood, they must have decided an infinite number of things at the same time. For thereby the Synod pronounced there was no verse in it which was not the pure Word of God, at least contained nothing false. How great and how accurate an Examination did this require? Yet none at all used, the Version not so much as read before them; but the thing defined, as if it were self-evident. Rashly therefore; and if rashly, why not falsely? In a word, this condition is neither always fulfilled; nor can it be known, but by a very few, when it is so. From what hath been said, appeareth how rashly and untruly Canus affirmed necessary diligence to be never wanting to Councils. Richerius therefore having related our Objection and the Answer of Canus, pronounceth thus. 11 Sic difficultatem non solvit, sed potiùs involvit atque incrustat, ut saepè solet. Rich. Hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 9 By this means he solves not the difficulty, but rather involveth it, and dawbs it over, as he is wont to do. He promiseth a better solution, and having cited a passage of Peter de Alliaco, wherein he saith, that Infallibility is only a Privilege of the Universal Church, that it may be piously believed Councils do not err if they be guided by Scripture, otherwise they have erred, answers, 12 Censeo hîc moralem & probab●lem consecturam, qualem rebus agendis sapientes impendere consueverunt, sufficere; at que ubi constat Concilium fuisse liberum, & Patres diligentiam adhibuisse necessariam, planè acquiescendum esse, nisi fortè aperte constaret aliquid contra fidem esse patratum. Id. Ibid. That in this case a moral and probable conjecture, such as wise men make use of in actions of Life, is sufficient; and when it is manifest that the Council be free, and the Fathers have used necessary diligence, we must acquiesce in their Decrees, unless they be clearly repugnant to Faith. How near to truth doth the good Doctor approach? For first, he rejects not the Opinion of the Cardinal; which if admitted, will soon put an end to the Controversy. Secondly, by the last clause of his Answer he confesseth that a Council free, and using requisite diligence, may pronounce contrary to the Faith. Otherwise the exception would be vain, if the Case could never happen. Lastly, when he flieth to a probable conjecture, he doth thereby plainly acknowledge, that certainty cannot be had; which sufficeth for me. For if our Adversaries confess they want certainty, I shall not envy them their probability. CHAP. XVIII. That it is uncertain, whether plurality of Suffrages ought to overcome, or whether perfect unanimity be required. That in both Cases no small Difficulties occur. THere remains the last part of a Lawful Proceeding, the Conclusion; whereby the Precedent of the Council, when he hath heard the Suffrages of the Fathers, solemnly pronounceth Sentence. Concerning this is no small Controversy, viz. Whether the Precedent of the Council, whosoever he be, aught 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 Heretics ten Egyptian Bishops, who would not acquiesce in the Judgement 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, quàm & 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, than 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 Rustic, 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, etc. Gerard de exam. doctrine. 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 believed. 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 Controversy 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, etc. Can. loc. Theol. lib. 5 cap. 5. that in matters of Faith the Judgement of the major part ought to be followed. For we do not here as in Humane Judgements, 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 Wisemen are few, but Fools innumerable. Four hundred Prophets lied 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 Heretics, even although fewer in number in the whole Church, may, incited by a perverse Zeal, flock to the Council in greater numbers than the Catholics. 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 Vigilius, desire before the iv and V Councils, that an equal number of Western and Eastern Bishops might be present in them. For the like cause Richerius 12 Rich. Hist. Concil. lib. 14. cap. ult. Novam & inauditam rationem procedendi. complaineth, That in the Council of Trent there were more Italian Bishops, than of all other Nations together: And this he makes to be the cause of the exorbitant Power of the Pope in all latter Councils, and of introducing a new and unheard of way of proceeding into them; the Italian Bishops being almost all the Pope's Creatures and obnoxious to him. Thus he computes out of the Acts of the Council, that from the beginning to the end of it there were present 187 Italian Bishops, but out of other Nations no more than 80. Further, our Adversaries do not deny, that a Council gathered out of one half of the Christian World may totally err; as for example, The Council of Constantinople under Copronymus consisting of 338 Bishops, who decreed Images were to be abolished. To make this Council Ecumenical there wanted only the presence of two or three Western Bishops. Suppose them present, and opposing the Decree of all the rest. How must the Precedent then have pronounced, if with the major part, an Ecumenical Council would have erred, and the Decree would have been Heretical in the Opinion of our Adversaries? Moved with these Reasons, some of our Adversaries, as well Monarchists as Sorbonists, deny, that plurality of Votes ought to overcome in Councils, and account only those Decrees certain, which are established by the unanimous consent of all. This was the Opinion of Cusanus 13 Ecce concordantiam maximè in iis quae fidei sunt requiri: & quanto major est concordantia, tantò infallibilius judicium.— Vnde licèt in Synodis universalibus plura necessaria sint, maximè tamen communis omnium sententia. Cus. Concord. Cath. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. which he proveth from the Eighth Synod, and then adds; See how consent chief in those things which are of Faith is required: and by how much the greater this consent is, so much the more infallible is the Decree. Whence, although in Universal Synods many things be necessary, yet most of all is the common consent of all. So Holden: 13 Imò tametsi plurimorum fuerit in Concilio congregatorum testimonium, nisi universum & Catholicum sit, traditionis certitudinem perfectam non habet. Hold. Anal. fid. lib. 1. cap. 9 Although it be the Testimony of the major part of a Council, if it be not universal and general, it hath not the perfect certainty of Tradition. Richerius 14 Rich. Apol ax. 22. seemeth to be of the same mind, although he speaks not so plainly. Nor do Stapleton 15 Stapl. de princip. lib. 7. cap. 9 or duval 16 Duval. Anteloq. dister from it. But neither doth this Opinion want its inconveniencies. For, first, hereby Councils are in a manner rendered useless. For it cannot easily be imagined, unless some Factious Conspiracy should intervene, that all should think the same thing, especially if they be many. And indeed we have few examples of Councils, wherein the Bishops were unanimous. In that of Nice were some Arians, at Sardica more, at Ephesus many Nestorians, at Chalcedon not a few Eutychians; and so of the rest: which according to this Hepothesis must be all expunged out of the number of lawful Councils. Secondly, The Infallibility of Councils will hereby become unuseful; for they could never pronounce Sentence. There would be always two or three Heretics present in the Council, who to prevent the condemnation of their Heresy, need do no more than speak their Minds, and descent from the Votes of the rest. Thus the Power of the Universal Church shall be overthrown, and all methods of extinguishing Heresy eluded by the stubbornness of two or three Heretics. However it be, the Council of Basil, which the Sorbonists so much extol, thought far otherwise, and particularly the Precedent of it, Lewis Cardinal of Arles. For when, in treating of defining three Assertions that raised a Council above the Pope, the major part voted the affirmative, although many Fathers, and among them the famous Canonist Panosmitan, dissented, and even protested against it; yet the Precedent pronounced Sentence in the affirmative, and that Sentence was held valid; as Aeneas Silvius 17 Hist. Concil. Basil. lib. 1. largely relates. Whichsoever Opinion therefore our Adversaries embrace, they involve themselves in inextricable difficulties. But I will not any further urge them. It sufficeth, what none will deny, that it is not certain, whether the major part must take place, or unanimity be required. Both may be defended, and neither is self-evident, nor revealed by God, nor defined by the Church; as all acknowledge. If this than be uncertain, it will be also uncertain what Decrees of Councils were lawfully concluded, and consequently what command and deserve belief. CHAP. XIX. That it cannot be known from the subsequent Approbation of the Church, which were lawful Councils. FRom what hath been hitherto said concerning Councils, it is most evident both from the Reason of Things, and the Principles of our Adversaries, that the Infallibility of Councils is a mere Phantasm; that if there were any Infallible Councils, they must be such as are Ecumenical, free, lawful, and rightly proceeding; that it cannot be yet certainly known, whether all these Conditions be singly necessary, and whether all together suffice: That if that were stated, it were unknown, what is required to make a Council Ecumenical, what Free, and so in the rest; and much more uncertain, which or whether any were so; that the lawfulness, freedom, right intention, necessary diligence, and other conditions of an Infallible Council can never be certainly applied to any particular Synod. Many of these things are of that nature, that they cannot be known even by the Bishops of the Council themselves. They can tell for example, whether themselves have a right Intention, and be corrupted with no Interest or Passion; but to know whether all the rest be equally sincere, is wholly impossible. They no less than others must be uncertain what are the Conditions necessary to constitute an Infallible Council; which neither God hath revealed, the Church defined, nor the consent of Doctors determined. If these things cannot be known by the Fathers of a Council, how shall they by the other Bishops far distant in the remote parts of the World? How by every one of the common People, by Mechanics, Husbandmen, and Women, whose Judgement is so small, and Notions so obscure? Again, if not of the present and later Councils, how of the first and ancient ones, which length of time hath involved in darkness, and left to be known only by Conjectures? How shall the most learned Men be assured of the freedom, legality, and all other necessary conditions of these Councils, perhaps from the testimony of one or two Historians: as if infinite errors of Historians were not daily found out, proceeding either from ignorance, malice, or partiality. But both of ancient and later Councils, this is chief 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 Ecumenical, 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 Judgement 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 Judgement from the sole consideration of the Council itself, 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 Judgement 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 conjoined 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 Ecumenical, or not lawfully constituted, or not rightly proceeding. Now what Councils are Ecumenical, 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 Judgement by the addition of any Council. Which is also hence confirmed; that the Sentence, whereby the Pope pronounceth a Council to have been Ecumenical, 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 lest 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 allege 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 sense 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 Judgement. 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 foregoing Chapters, will take place. For whether such a Council were Ecumenical, 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 judgement manifested in the reception or rejection of the Council, can neither add to, nor take away any certainty from it. Besides, I have shown that the conditions of an infallible Council cannot be known even by the Church when they are fulfilled and when not. For if the Bishop's present cannot know it, much less those divided by great distance of place. Can the Americans or Chinese know whether no bribes, no solicitation 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 Council. 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 Catholic 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 before them, saith Ademarus Cabanensis 2 De imaginibus adorandis aliter quàm Orthodoxi Doctores antè definierant, statuerunt. Adem. apud Marcam de Concord. l. 6. c. 15. : Because they Decreed many things inconvenient and contrary to the true Faith, saith Hoveden 3 Multa inconvenientia & verae sidei contraria. Hoveden ad ann. 792. . Lastly, that the Church in admitting Councils respects the matter, not the form of them, may be hence proved; because the Church sometimes approveth the Decrees of unlawful Councils, as of Antiochia, which 4 Ad An. 341. Baronius accounts unlawful, because Celebrated, while the Indiction of the Synod of Rome was yet depending: and did certainly act unlawfully in Condemning Athanasius, and substituting to him Eusebius a Laic, and when he refused George the Cappadocian, a man unknown to the Church of Alexandria. Yet the Canons of this Synod were afterwards received, as also the Decrees of the V Council; which Baronius and with him not a few think to have proceeded Unlawfully. There remains then to the Church only the latter way of examining Councils, that is from the Matter of them, by examining the truth and salseness of its Decrees, admitting the one and rejecting the other. This Examination we not only admit, but also pray that it may obtain. But then in it supposeth the fallibility (in the first place) of a Council: otherwise why are her Decrees examined? why not all promiscuously and reverently received? Secondly, hereby not a Council; but the Universal Church will be the Supreme and Ultimate Tribunal, as judging and irrevocably giving Sentence upon the Decrees of the Council, which may be either approved or abrogated by her. Thirdly, hence it will also follow, that the Decrees of a Council must not be assented to, till received by the Church, because not till then certainly known to be true: contrary to the constant practice of our Adversaries, by whom the Decrees are admitted immediately after Sentence pronounced, at least immediately after the Pope's Confirmation. Fourthly, Councils themselves plainly show that they are of a contrary Opinion by denouncing anathemas against the Opposers of their Decrees, or Disbelievers of their Definitions, not staying till the Universal Church shall have approved both, which demonstrateth that they believe a supreme and Authority to reside in themselves: And this very argument is made use of by Bellarmine to prove that Councils are Supreme in which the Pope's Legates are present. Lastly hence it will follow that the Decrees of a Council ought never to be assented to. For the Universal Church is nothing else but the Collection of Christians. If therefore all single Persons expect till the Universal Church receive the Decrees, the Universal Church itself must expect; and so no body shall ever begin to receive and assent to them. Further, it may be observed, that to make this approbation of the Church of any weight, it were necessary that this Opinion should be generally received, at least not opposed by any Bishop. For then immediately after the Promulgation of the Decrees, all Bishops would betake themselves to examine them by the Rules of Faith. If after this Examination they received them; then an Approbation of the Universal Church might with some colour be pretended. But now when all, at least almost all, are of a contrary Opinion, and look upon the Decrees, when once confirmed by the Pope, as Infallible; they receive them without any precedent Examination; whereby this Reception becomes of no value, as grounded upon a preconceived Opinion, which we have proved to be false. This may be illustrated by what an Anonymous Author 5 Les desseins des Jesuits representés a lassemblée du Clergé. p. 43. of the Sorbonists party saith. He denieth those Subscriptions are to be accounted of; whereby many assent to the Pope's Constitutions when transmitted to them; that they are not to be compared with the Decrees of Councils; because the Bishop's act not therein as Judges, nor examine what they subscribe. If this Reason be valid in that case, it will be much more in the confirmation of Councils by the subsequent reception of the Church. For much fewer doubt of the Infallibility of a Council confirmed by the Pope, than of the Infallibility of the Pope alone. He subjoineth another Reason of the Invalidity of these Subscriptions; because they are commonly extorted by threats and fear of being deposed from their Bishoprics, if they should Dissent. But hath not this happened in urging the Reception of a Council. Certainly Baronius 6 Siquidem illi qui damnationem trium Capitulorum non reciperent, Imperatoris jussu in exilium agebantur. Bar. add an. 553. largely relateth how the Emperor Justinian deprived and Banished those Bishops, who would not admit the Decrees of the Fifth Council, and condemn the Tria Capitula. Lastly, it is certain there are very few Councils, if any, to which all Christians, and consequently the Universal Church subscribed. This was showed before and might be further proved. Whence among many other things these two may be concluded: First, that all Christians never thought the Approbation of the Universal Church to be the only Rule of admitting or rejecting Councils; since there is none, which although rejected by the rest, many did not receive. Secondly that the Unanimous approbation of the whole Church is no sufficient and ready means to discern those Councils to which Obedience is due. For how should it be such, when it is very rarely to be had? Now if this means be not sufficient; either some other must be pointed out, which joined or substituted to it may afford this so necessary knowledge to the Faithful; or it must be acknowledged, that it is often unknown to which Councils assent is due. But it seemeth incredible to me that God should give to Councils so great and so admirable a privilege, as is absolute Infallibility, and this to extinguish Heresies, compose Controversies, and direct the Faithful in the way of truth; and all this while should give no certain or easy Sign, whereby Infallible Councils, from which alone we were to receive so great happiness, might be destinguished from deluding Conventicles. For this were to violate his own precept, and hid the brightest candle in the Church under a bushel. Yet hath he given none. At least this approbation of the Church, of which alone we now dispute cannot be here alleged; since our Adversaries have many Councils to which they pretend obedience due, that were not thus approved by the whole Church. CHAP. XX. That it cannot be learned from the consent of Doctors what is to be believed. I. Because it doth not appear who those Doctors are, II. because those Doctors, whosoever they are, do not always agree. DRiven from Pope and Council, our Adversaries fly to the Faith of the Universal Church. Whether herein they have sure refuge, is next to be enquired. The Faith of the Universal Church may be taken two ways, either as it is taught by the Pastors, or as it is believed, by all the Faithful, both Clergy and Laity. Either way taken our Adversaries contend it is a certain Rule of Faith to all private Christians; for that nothing false can either be taught by a common consent of all the Pastors, or be believed by all the Faithful. But since it is one and the same Faith, which is taught by the Pastors and believed by the Faithful, it might suffice to consider either of them only, and thence demonstrate that neither can be a Rule of Faith. Yet that our adversaries may not complain any thing is omitted: I will treat separately of each; and first that Faith cannot be founded upon the common consent of Doctors. This may be evinced many ways. First, because it doth not appear, who are those Doctors whose consent is required. The whole foundation of this is thought to be a place of St. Paul, 1 Ephes. iv where he asserts that Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and teachers (Doctors) for the edifying of the Body of Christ, etc. But who these Pastors and Doctors are, is uncertain. It is enquired, first, whether the same be Pastors that are Doctors. St. Hierom, St. Augustin, Isidorus Clarius, Ben. Justinianus, and Lud. Cellotius thought them the same; Hilarius Diaconus, Estius, and Corn. à Lapide, different. Next who are designed by the word Pastors. Many understand thereby Bishops, and those only; Cellotius 2 Rectè igitur Theodoretus pastors & Doctores eos dicit, jui incivitate & in pago erant deputati & segregati. Cell. de Hier. l. 8. c. 6. Parsons only, and citys Theodoret for his opinion. Estius 3 Di●iprecipuè signisicari Episcopos nomine Pastorum: nam generaliter hue etiam Parochi pertinent. Est. in loc. understands both, who also citys Theophylact. Now these questions are of great moment. For if Pastors be the same with Doctors, and by both names Bishops only be designed; they only must be attended. But if the Apostle understands Parsons too, it is not enough to know what Bishops teach: we must also inquire what Parsons teach. Again, if Professors of Divinity, and Preachers be to be added; we must further search out their Doctrine. For if God annexed this privilege of infallibility to the four Orders of Bishops, Parish-Priests, Professors, and Preachers taken all together; we must not so follow one Order, as to neglect the other. For upon that supposition any one, nay any three of them may err, and truth remain only with the fourth. However it be, it is manifest that both ancients and modern differ in this point; and that therefore nothing certain can be had therein, much less what is of Faith; which yet is necessary to assure us that we have an infallible Rule of Faith in the Governors of the Church. But neither would that suffice, if it were of Faith. Somewhat else would be yet necessary, viz. to know certainly whether to give assent to the Doctrine of these Pastors and Doctors, whosoever they be, it be required that all should consent in their Doctrine, every one of them, which they call All Mathematically; or whether the consent of All Morally, that is, almost all, will suffice: again, who they are exactly that may be called All Morally, and how great a part of the whole may descent without prejudicing the infallibility of the rest, whether the third, or the fourth, or the tenth, or the hundredth, etc. Who shall desine this? If All Mathematically must consent, God would have appointed a Rule, which never existed: For so absolute a consent never was among the Governors of the Church. But he which shall say, it sufficeth that almost all consent, ought not only to affirm, but also to prove that he says. But how shall so obscure a thing be proved? Or what certainty can be had in it? Yet grant it can be had; it is still to be defined, when almost all can be said to have consented; for that hath a certain Latitude, wherein some Men will think that number to be included, which others hold excluded. But not to seem too scrupulous, let our Adversaries define this as they please, and almost all be accounted to have consented, when only a tenth, twelfth, or twentieth part shall descent. Let all this be as certain, as it is indeed doubtful and uncertain. I ask, whether that consent, which it shall have pleased our Adversaries to define necessary, is always to be had? If any one think so, he must be a stranger to all Ecclesiastical History; and never have heard of the prevailing Heresies of Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, not to mention others. But you will say, they were Heretics, whereas we require only the consent of Catholics. Right; but it did not sensibly appear they were Heretics; rather that was then the Question, Who were Heretics, and who Orthodox. For the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians took to themselves the name of Catholics, and branded the rest with the imputation of Heresy. Now if this Question, which was certainly a matter of Faith, was to be determined only from the consent of Doctors, it could never have been determined to the world's end; since that consent was never to be found. But to deal liberally with our Adversaries, have not those often dissented, whom themselves acknowledge Catholic? In the second and third Age the asiatics dissented from the Europeans about the celebration of Easter. In the third Age, all the Africans, and many of the asiatics, from the rest, about the rebaptisation of Heretics. In the fourth Age, the followers of Theophilus, Epiphanius, and St. Hierom, from the favourers of Origen about his Condemnation. In the fifth Age, the Greek from the Latin Church, upon account of the Quarrels between the Roman and Constantinopolitan Sees. In the sixth Age, the Africans, Dalmatians, and Italians, from the Greeks and Romans, concerning the Condemnation of the Tria Capitula. In the eight and ninth Ages, the English, French, and Germans, from the Greeks, and many of the Italians, about Image-worship. The Eastern hath dissented from the Western Church now for many Ages about some points of Faith and Discipline. The Western Church hath been divided for these three last Ages about the Power of Pope and Council. And all these Dissensions proceeded even to breaking of Communion, and pronouncing anathemas against one another, except the last, which also did no less in the fifteenth Age. Now as often as this happens, to which part can the Faithful securely adhere? Think not that the most are then to be followed; for besides that there are not always more Patrons of Truth than Error; and that Canus 4 Nego, cùm de fide agitur, sequi plurimorum judicium oportere. Can. loc. Theol. l. 5. c. 5. and Bannes 5 Non negamus, quin multi, immò plures Sacerdotes & pastors possint errare. Bann. In 2.2. qu. 1. art. 10. dub. 3. expressly deny it: It is impossible to number Suffrages, and know which Party is most numerous. They might be numbered 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 Governors of the Church descent about any matter of Faith, the Faithful must suspend their assent, while the Controversy 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 herself. To this I answer, First, that this grants us all we desire. For we dispute here only of explicit Faith, maintaining that our Adversaries have no certain Foundation for that. If they flee to implicit, they thereby forsake explicit Faith. Secondly, almost all our Adversaries confess that there are some Articles, which even the most ignorant Christians are bound to believe with explicit 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 explicit Faith, not only because commanded to be so; but because the explicit belief of them is also the means, without which Salvation cannot be obtained. Wherefore Hosius 7 H●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 explicit 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 Controversy raised about doing somewhat, which God in the Scripture expressly commands to be done, such as we contend to be Communion under both kinds, reading of the Scripture, etc. What is then to be done? Must all action be suspended? This were to deny obedience to God. We must therefore choose one part, and so reject the pretence of implicit Faith. Again, implicit Faith is thus expressed, I believe what the Church believeth. It therefore supposeth the Faith of the Church. Of what kind? not implicit 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 sense, 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 herself 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 duval 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 Heresy, 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 explicit Faith of the Church, which serveth as a Foundation to implicit Faith? So it ought to be, and so I doubt not but our Adversaries will say it is. But in this case, wherein the Governors of the Church descent about an Article of Faith, it cannot be. For that which the Church explicitly believes, is no desinite Opinion, but a mere Contradiction repugnant to itself, and destroying itself. For one part of the Church believeth the Opinion, whereof the Controversy is raised, to be true, wholesome, 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 join both parts of the Contradiction together: and so the Church believeth that Opinion to be true and false, wholesome 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 Governors 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 Governors 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 Heresy 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 easy to be applied. This duval 1 Secunda conditio, eaque pariter essentialis, est perspicuitas. Nam si hee regula obseurè sidei mysteria proponeret, regula fidei non foret. duval 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 show it could not be given by God for a Rule of Faith. To which end, Gr. à Valentia 2 Sententiam ejus authoritatis, cujus de rebus omnibus sidei judicium est, apertam oportet esse, ut ab omnibus fidelibus commodè possit intelligi. Nam si non ita perspicuè & planè authoritas illa doceat, non ad eam rem valebit. Val. tom. 3. disp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7. §. 4. layeth down this Axiom, which he afterwards applieth to the Scripture. The Sentence of that Authority which is to judge of all matters of Faith, aught to be manifest, that it may be easily understood by all the Faithful. For if that Authority doth not teach perspicuously and plainly, it will be of no use to that end. So he, and with him many others. If therefore I shall show, that the consent of Pastors about matters of belief is so obscure and difficult to be known, that even the most learned, much more illiterate men cannot avoid Error in searching it out; I shall thereby prove, that it could not be given to us by God as a common Rule of things to be believed. This obscurity and difficulty ariseth from three Causes. The first is the amplitude of the Church diffused throughout the whole World; which permits not the Faith of all Pastors to be known, unless we travel through all those Regions, wherein they are dispersed. For it sufficeth not to consult a few. They may be mistaken. The Opinion of all must be asked, the consent of all appear. But how shall they be all singly consulted? Who ever learned the Christian Faith this way? Yet this way Card. Richlieu 3 Method. liv. 1. chap. 14. points out to us. He saith, the uniformity of the Church is manifest to sense; that all parts of the Church may be surveyed by one man at divers times, or by divers men at one time. True; but to reduce this to practice, every single man must take so many Journeys, send out so many Intelligencers; that this Method cannot be persuaded but in jest. Valentia 4 Fatendum est rarò accidere posse, ut quae sit doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscatur. Va. ubi supr. §. 46 the Jesuit is more ingenuous, who confesseth, that it can rarely happen that it may be sufficiently known what is the Opinion in Religion of all. Doctors living at the same time. And this he understands in respect of the Pope himself, as appears from what follows these words. If then the consent of Doctors can rarely be known by the Pope, who hath his Nuncio's and Emissary's in all places, how shall it ever be known by private Men? Tanner 5 Si opus esset, ut plebeii seirent evidenter in totâ Ecclesiâ sic credi; quot anni laberentur, dum istam evidentiam acquirerent, quam neque periti semper habent? Tann. apud Mart. de fide disp. 3. Sect. 4. saith the same thing, as he is cited by Martinonus. If it were necessary, saith he, that all private men should know evidently what is believed in the whole Church, how many years must be spent in acquiring that Evidence, which even learned men have not always? And Martinonus 6 Certò & facilè potest consuli Pontifex, non sic tota Ecclesia, ne quidem omnes illius pastors. Mart. de fide disp. 9 Sect. 9 saith, The Pope may be certainly and easily consulted, not so the whole Church, no, not all her Pastors only. This may be proved by many Examples, of which I will produce some few. Bellarmine 7 Bell. de amiss. Stat. lib. 5. c. 6. and Valentia 8 Val. tom. 4. disp. 11. qu. 1. punct. 1. §. 3. omnes Theologi, universa Theologorum Schola. assert, that all Divines agree concerning the punishment of Infants dying without Baptism, and think it only poena damni undergone in that which they call the Limbus puerorum. Yet is this Opinion falsely by them ascribed to all, even Modern Divines (for among the Ancients St. Fulgentius is known to have taught the contrary.) Florentius Conrius, Titular Archbishop of Tuam, published a Book, wherein he endeavoured to prove the contrary, approved by fourteen Doctors of Divinity; whereof one Fr. Silvius testifieth Conrius his Opinion is the common Doctrine of the School of Douai: Another, James Pollet, professeth, that for thirty years, wherein he had been conversant in the Divinity Schools, he had never heard any other Opinion taught by the Professors, than that unbaptized Infants are condemned to the eternal Torments of Hell. A third, H. Rampen 9 Quam S. Augustani sententiam verissimam semper judicavi, desendi & decui tanquaman tiquioribus Ecclesiae decioribus conformem, & semper hueusque ab excellentissimis quibusdam edoctam, utpote Scripture is magis innixam & Conciliis. , Professor of Douai, saith, That he had always judged that Opinion, being St. Augustine 's, to be truest, defended and taught it as more consonant to the ancient Doctors, and always even to this day taught by some most excellent Persons, being founded upon Scripture and Councils. Of Indulgences our Adversaries teach chiefly three things. I. That there is a Treasure of the Satisfaction of Christ and the Saints, which may be applied to persons liable to suffer the punishment of their sins, after the guilt of them is remitted in the Sacrament of Penance; and that this Treasure is actually applied by Indulgences granted by the Pope. II. That the Souls in Purgatory may be helped by these Indulgences. III. That by them is remitted not only the punishment enjoined in Penance, and decreed by the Canons of the Church, but also that which is due at the Tribunal of God. These three things Bellarmin and Valentia affirm to be taught by all Divines. Although the first, Bellarmin confesseth, was doubted of by Mairo and Durandus, who thought the Satisfaction of Saints have no part in that Treasure; but the contrary, saith he 10 Communls aliorum Theologorum tum antiquerum tum recentiorum omnium sententia. Bell. de Indulg. lib. 1. cap. 2. Res certissima, & apud Catho licos indubitata. , is the common Opinion of the other Divines, as well Ancient, as of all the Modern, and was confirmed by a Decree of Clement VI The Second he acknowledgeth was denied by Hostiensis and Gabriel; but saith, the latter corrected his Error, and that it is a thing most certain, and undoubted among Catholics. So Valentia 11 Val. tom. 4. disp. 7. qu. 20. punct. 5. saith, it is the assertion of all the Orthodox. As for the Third, Valentia affirms the contrary Opinion is exploded as erroneous by all the Orthodox. Who could imagine after all this, there were any doubt concerning these points among them? Yet Holden 12 Caetera omni 1 dub a sunt, & a Theologis in utramque partem agitata. Hold. Anal. fid. lib. 2. cap. 6. teacheth that this only is certain and undoubted, that the Governors of the Church can and ought sometimes to indulge something, and mitigate the severity of the Canons in each Tribunal. All the rest are doubtful, and disputed of by Divines on both parts, to wit, whether there be a Treasure, of which the Pope and other Pastors of the Church are dispensers, etc. where he largely shows that all these Propositions are many ways doubted of, and wholly uncertain among Divines. If it be enquired, whether the Church can put Heretics to death? Valentia 13 Ex side certum est Ecclesiam licité & convenienter id facere posse. Val. tom. 3. disp. 1. qu. 11. punct. 3. answers, That 'tis not only certain, but of Faith, that the Church can lawfully and conveniently do it. Holden 14 Nunquam fuit religionis Christianae & Ecclesiae Christianae dogma Carholicum. Nec omnes etiam piiss●mi & doctissimi Catholici inquisitionis usum & rationem approbant. Hold Anal. fid. l. 1. c. 9 on the contrary maintains, That to inflict death upon convicted, relapsed, or even the most obstinate Heretics, was never an Opinion of the Christian Religion and the Universal Church. Neither do all, even the most Pious and Learned Catholics, approve the use and methods of the Inquisition. The like saith Richerius 15 Rich. Hist. Concil. l. 1. c. 10. . If again it be enquired, whether the corruption of humane nature, introduced by sin, consists only in the loss of supernatural Graces, or also includes somewhat positive, whereby the Soul is vitiated? Rhodius 16 Ita contra sectarios omnes docent Orthodoxt omnes Theologi. Rhod. de piece. dis. 4. qu. 2. Sect. 3. answers in the first sense, and affirms, That all the Orthodox Divines so teach against all the Sectaries. Bellarmin 17 Omnes communi consensu docent. Bell. de great. primi hom. cap. 5. : That it is taught by the common consent of all. Yet Vasquez 18 Vasq. 1.2. disp. 132. cap. 4. & 5. attributes the contrary Opinion to many Divines of great name, as Holcot, Greg. Ariminensis, Gabriel, Henricus, Gulielmus Parisiensis, Autissiodorensis, Driedo. It is a Famous Question, whether the Pope, besides the Spiritual Power, commonly attributed to him, hath a power over Temporals, either direct or indirect, whereby he deposes Princes for Heresy, or any other Crime, and absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance. There are three Opinions about this. The first is, that the Pope hath, jure divino, a direct and absolute Power over the whole World, as well in Temporals, as in Spirituals. The Second, that the Pope, as Pope, hath no Temporal Power, nor any Authority to deprive Princes. The Third, that the Pope, as Pope, hath not directly any Temporal, but only Spiritual Power; yet that by means of that Spiritual, he hath indirectly a Supreme Power even in Temporals. Bellarmin 19 Bell. de Pont. lib. 5. cap. 1. , who relateth these three Opinions in these very words, attributes the first to many of the Canonists: the third he makes the common Opinion of Catholic Divines: The second he saith is not so much an Opinion as an Heresy, and therefore he ascribes it only to Calvin, P. Martyr, Brentius, and the Magdeburgenses: And in another place, under the feigned name of Adolphus Schulkenius, he teacheth the same thing, where he enveigheth 20 Contra S. literas doctrinam conciliorum & summorum pont. unanimem consensum p●●lrum & dociorum haereti●is schismaticisqae se jungit. Apud Widd. contra Schulk. §. 15. against Widdrington (a defender of the second Opinion) as opposing the H. Scriptures, the Doctrine of Councils and Popes, and the unanimous consent of Fathers and Doctors, who all with one Mouth teach the Pope's Supreme Power in Temporals; and thereby ranking himself with Heretics and Schismatics, while he pretends to be a Catholic. Thus Bellarmin. Now on the other side, De Marca and Launoy contend this Opinion was always unknown in France. The whole Sorbon in the Exposition of their Judgement published in the Year 1663. testify, That not only they never received this Opinion, but always refisted it with their utmost power. Not to say, that the Kings of France, and Parliaments of Paris by their Edicts and Arrests often condemned it, and forbidden it to be held or taught, particularly in the Years 1561, 1594, 1595, 1610, 1614, etc. I might produce many more examples; but these suffice to show, That the greatest Doctors mistake in imagining some Opinions to be approved by all the Divines of their Communion, which yet are freely disputed of on both sides. And if this happens to Doctors, who employ their whole time in matters of learning, what shall we think of poor and illiterate Men, who know little beyond the providing for the necessities of this life? Again, If the Judgement of only those Doctors, who commit their Opinions to Writing, and are very few in comparison of the rest, is not certainly known; how shall we know the Judgement of those who teach their Flocks viuâ voce? Lastly, If their Opinion be true who would have the Judgement not only of Bishops, but also of Parsons, Professors of Divinity, and Preachers to be accounted of? what hope is there, that the Opinion of so many Men should ever be known to any one Man, or to any but God alone? The second Reason of the difficulty of knowing the common consent of other Doctors, is, the obscure Knowledge which is in the Church, of some points, concerning which no Disputation hath been yet raised. For nothing is more true, than that Opinions are illustrated by Controversies. So St. Augustin 21 Multa ad fidem Catholicam pertinentia dum haereticorum callidâ inquietudine agitantur, ut adversum eos defendi possint, & considerantur diligentius, & intelliguntur, clarius & instantius praedicantur, & ab adversario mota quaestio existit discendi occasio. August. de Civit. Dei, lib. 16. chap. 20. saith, Many things pertaining to Catholic Faith, while they are disputed of by the cunning perverseness of Heretick●, that they be defended against them, are considered more diligently, understood more clearly, and preached more earnestly; the Question moved by the Adversary becoming an occasion of learning. This he proves in another place 22 In Psalm 34. by the Doctrines of the Trinity, Penance and Baptism, not sully handled before the Controversies started in them by the Arians, Novatians, and Rebaptizers: And therefore Valentia 23 Val. tom. 3. disp. 1. quaest. 1. punct. 6. Et fortasse latent adhuc in Ecclesia aliquae. affirms, It belongs to the Church, as necessity shall require, to deliver anew to the Faithful more explicitly, and by an Infallible Authority, as it were draw out of darkness those truth of Faith, which were indeed at first delivered by the Apostles; but now either by the negligence or perversity of Men lay hid. And perhaps, saith he, some do yet lay hid in the Church. An eminent example of this appeared in the Council of Trent; when they were seeking out an essicacious remedy against the inconveniencies of clandestine Marriages. Some advised the declaring them void for the future; and these were the major number. Fifty Bishops, and among them the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and two of the Legates, Card. Hosius and Simonetta, opposed it, saying, That was not in the power of the Council. Morone the Legate, and many others suspended their Votes. The Disputations grew high; at last they agreed to refer all to the Pope. He answered, the Council had Power to make such a Decree, and that it ought to be made. Hereupon clandestine Marriages were declared void; and an Anathema added to the Decree against all those who should thenceforth deny the Church hath power to make Constitutions of that nature. See a Power residing in the Church now become an Article of Faith, which was vehemently impugned by a Patriarch, two Legates, fifty Bishops, and doubted of by many others. And shall those now be heard, who maintain there is always in the Church a clear and distinct knowledge of all things revealed? We proceed to the third Reason, which consisteth in this, That some Opinions are often divulged in the Church as revealed by God, and approved by the Church, and are taught, which at last are found out and known to be false. Monsieur Pajon 24 Rép. aux prejugès part. 2. chap. 2. produceth three eminent Examples of this Observation; the first taken from the decisions of the Canonists, the second from the form of Condemnation of the V Jansenian Propositions; the third from the Prohibition of reading the Bible; which because he largely and accurately pursueth, I will not here urge; much less will add other Examples before pointed out in this Chapter. However, from what hath been said, it appears, that it is obscure and difficult to be known wherein the Doctor's consent. This will be more manifest, if we consider, that it is far more difficult to know certainly what all the present Doctors teach, than what the former Doctors taught. For the Opinions of these we have in their Books, which we can read at home; but to know the Judgement of the others we must travel through the whole World. Valentia supposeth this very thing, where he giveth the reason why the Pope in desining rather maketh use of dead than living Doctors: Because, saith he, 25 Qui proinde omnes nec facilè congregari nec interrogari possunt quid sentiant. Val. Tom. disp. 1. quaest. 1. punct. 7. §. 46. the Opinion of these latter can very rarely be sufficiently known. For being dispersed through the whole Church, they cannot all easily be either assembled, or asked what they think; whereas the ancient Doctors are more famous, and are not so many. If this be true, how dissicult must it be to know the Judgement of the present Church; since the most learned Men can very hardly obtain the Sense of the Ancient Church? Few or none can search all the Monuments of Antiquity, pry into the most secret Recesses of it, and turn over the Writings of sixteen Ages; and in all this long Journey make no slips, commit no errors: Yet is all this easier in the Judgement of Valentia, than to inquire and find out the Opinion of the Doctors living at any one time; which yet must be done by them, who lay the Foundation of their Faith upon their consent. I have not yet seen any of our Adversaries, who offereth the least solution of any one of these difficulties, except Cardinal Richlieu; who when he had objected to himself, That blind Men hear neither all Preachers and Doctors, nor learn from those, which they do hear, what the others teach, which is our very Argument, except that what he saith only of Blinde-men, we justly apply to all Men; he ansewers, 26 Method. liv. 2. chap. 8. That as for a Philosopher to conclude all Fires to be hot, it is not necessary that he experiments all the Fires in the World, the common consent of Philosophers sufficing: so to know certainly, whether any Doctrine be the Doctrine of the Church it abundantly sufficeth, that Blinde-men hear it proposed by divers Doctors of the Church, and that it cannot be shown there are others who teach the contrary. But many things may be here observed. First, Those things do not always suffice in matter of Faith, with which we are contented in disputing. There we often argue from Concessions, which we own to be false: Here nothing is to be produced but what is true and certain. Wherefore if no body oppose those Doctrines which seem true to us, it doth not follow that we ought to admit them, unless they be both certain of themselves, and appear so to us: And if no body points out to us any maintainers of the contrary Doctrine, it doth not ●●●refore follow, that there are none; whence the Doctrine proposed, obtains not thence any certainty, any motive of Faith. Secondly, Philosophers themselves admonish, great diligence is to be used in making Arguments of Induction, such as this is; and that an insufficient enumeration of particulars is the great fountain of Errors; while a few, or even many, are reckoned up, and thence a conclusion made of all. Wherefore he reason's not well, who argues th●●, Such and such teach thus; nor doth any appear who opposeth, Therefore all teach the same For it may easily be that many may teach otherwise, unknown to him who reasons thus, but well known to others. In the next place, it were to be desired the Cardinal had explained his mind more clearly, and told by whom he means it cannot be shown that other teach the contrary; whether by the blind Man himself, or by other blind or ignorant Men like himself, or by one Learned Man whom he should consult, or by all Learned men every where dispersed. If he means the first or second, than he greatly errs in thinking it sufficient that the blind Man or other ignorant Persons of his acquaintance cannot name any, who teach a contrary Doctrine to their Parish-Priest or those Doctors whom they hear. For all the Husbandmen, Labourers, and Mechanics of the Parish may be easily ignorant, that a contrary Doctrine, and that more true, is taught in America or India or even the next Province; and so the blind Man shall be obliged to believe a falsity. But if the Cardinal means it suffice, that the blind Man consult some learned Man to know, whether none teacheth contrary to his Parson; I would ask, whether our Adversary requireth it as necessary? If so, than all the common sort of the Faithful are guilty of rashness and imprudence. For I dare swear that none of them ever puts this in practice. If he saith it is not necessary; he deserts the cause. For upon what foundation shall their Faith rely, who do not that which he confesseth not necessary to be done, and yet think sufficient to confirm their Faith? But what if the Doctor, who is consulted, be in the same error with the Parish-Priest, as none will deny 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 show the Parson teacheth what is repugnant to others, I can never be induced to believe, since a more foolish sense 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 show 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 Governors 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, than he is not certain, and therefore hath not Faith. For Faith must be certain. CHAP. XXII. That it doth not suffice it be known that any thing is taught unanimously by the Governors 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 Governors 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 than may be reckoned among those things which all Pastors propose to their flocks, not as pertaining to Faith, but as true and wholesome. 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 not 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 Governors 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 agreeing with Divine Revelation; but very rarely to admonish whether what they teach be of Eaith, or a consequent of Faith, whether expressly revealed, or coherent 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 affirms there are much fewer Articles of Divine and Catholic 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 easy 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 descent in those things, which are of Theological, not Divine right, and belong rather to the Schools than to the Pulpit, without either the knowledge or the damage of the People; but cannot descent in matters of Faith, unless their dissensions be presently known, because disputations, strifes and Schisms presently arise from them, which occasion either the Decree of a Pope or the calling of a Council to extinguish the dissension, and cast the heretical part out of the Church. That every Laic therefore, both may and aught to be persuaded of the truth of those things, which his Pastor teacheth to be of Faith, while he seethe none opposing him; although himself doth not inquire, whether others teach the same thing. So Suarez 5 De fide disp. 5. Sect. 1. . But here many things are supposed which cannot be granted. First, it is not necessary, that as often as a Doctor proposeth any thing to be of Faith, which is not so, some others should rise to oppose him. We daily see the contrary not only in Parishes, but even in Universities, where the Wits of Men are more easily excited to controversy: yet there some affirm, others deny many matters to be of Faith, without any subsequent Schisms or Animosities. Secondly, if any Disputation, or Opposition should arise herein; it is not necessary it should ever come to the ears of the common People. Every one knows how hot the Controversy about the Pope's Infallibility hath for some Ages been, especially in France, where are many Defenders of each Opinion. Yet some Years since, when I was in that Country, talking with a Priest, and him no ordinary Person, but a man famous in the neighbourhood, and Doctor of Divinity, when I said the Pope's Infallibility was denied by many, and particularly by the Sorbon, he grew very angry, said it was most false, and confidently maintained that no Catholic Divine ever doubted of it. Nor could I free the Man from his error, whatsoever I then offered to him. See another example more remarkable. I was present at Paris in an Assembly of Learned Men, who met weekly to treat of matters of learning. They then disputed of the Pope's Infallibility, which a Priest said was lately rejected by the Gallican Clergy in their Synod. At that an Abbot who presided over the Assembly, and had the repute of a very Learned Man, was not a little moved, and denied any such thing was ever done by the Clergy. He acknowledged indeed that the Pope could err, whensoever he gave his opinion as a Private Doctor, and that the Clergy meant no more than this: but that there was no Catholic, who did not hold his judgement Infallible, whensoever he pronounced ex cathedrâ: and whatsoever the Priest could say, he would not be persuaded that there was any dissension among Divines in this matter. If this Learned Abbot could be ignorant of so notorious a thing; what shall we think of illicerate Christians? Thirdly, it is not necessary, that as often as dissensions arise in matters of Faith, Schism should thence immediately be produced, and occasion a Decree of the Pope, or calling of a Council. How many things did Theodorus of Mopsuestia teach against the Faith, which yet were not canvassed of many Years after his Death? All acknowledge the number of Canonical Books of Scripture, the necessity of the Eucharist, and state of the Dead to be of Faith: Yet none will deny the Ancients differed in judgement as to all these things; and all know that no Schisms, Disputes, or anathemas of Councils arose therefrom. But not to departed from this very question: What can be more of Faith, than the Rule of Faith itself, and the most essential condition of that Rule, Infallibility? Many Doctors of the Church denied this in the XIV. and XV. ages, as we before proved; yet no Schism, no Decree of the Church was occasioned thereby. But to show the sophistry of this objection more evidently, it may be observed, that there are five sorts of things, which, although not belonging to Faith, may be in the Church proposed as of Faith. I. Things true, but not revealed. II. Neither true nor revealed, but not repugnant to Revelation. III. Repugnant to things revealed, but such, as it is not manifest that they were revealed. IU. Repugnant to things manifestly revealed, but so as that repugnance is obscure and remote, not clear and immediate. V Clearly repugnant to things manifestly revealed. Concerning matters of the last rank this objection might have some force, but not much: since the contrary may be shown in some examples. But for the four first Classes it hath no colour of truth. They may be all taught as of Faith, and that, daily, yet be observed and regarded by none, much less violently opposed by any. The want of apparent opposition therefore sufficeth not to make what any one Doctor proposeth as of Faith, to be so. The consent and concurrence of all in teaching the same to be of Faith, must be ascertained. Otherwise assent to it will be foolish and rash, at least uncertain. CHAP. XXIII. That it is not certain those things are true, which are unanimously taught by all Pastors. THat it is uncertain, what the Governors of the Church unanimously teach, we have proved; yet grant it certain: Can we securely believe this their unanimous consent? What if they may all err? This our Adversaries will say they cannot. But is that certain and undoubted? If not, in vain is it alleged. They will perhaps say it is; nay, and of Faith, so as it cannot be denied without open Heresy. So duval 1 In 2. 2. p. 106. , and many others. And indeed, if it be not of Faith that all the Pastors consenting cannot err, Faith cannot rely upon their Authority. Yet is this most false; for we before proved these two Propositions. I. That nothing is of Faith, whose contrary is held and taught by Catholic Divines, the Church knowing and not censuring their Opposition. II. That the greatest Divines of the Roman Church, Doctors, Bishops, and Cardinals taught; 1. That the whole Clergy might be infected with Heresy. 2. That the Church, to which Infallibility was promised, might consist in one Laic, or one Woman, the rest apostatising from the Faith. This was the Opinion of Alensis, the Author of the Gloss upon the Decretals, Lyra, Occam, Alliaco, Panormitan, Turrecremata, Peter de Monte, S. Antoninus, Cusanus, Clemangis, Jacobatius, J. Fr. Picus. But who can imagine so many, and so great Men, either not to have known what is of Faith, or wilfully to have taught the contrary? This moved Suarez to esteem the Infallibility of the Pastors thus consenting uncertain. It is asked, saith he 2 Petitur an omnes Episcopi Ecclesiae possint convenire in aliquo errore. Nam inter Catholicos quidam affirmant, quia non invenitur promissio. Alii negant, quia, etc. Mihi verò neutrum videtur satis exploratum probabile autem est ad providentiam Christi pertinere, ut id non permittat. Suar. de fide disp. 5. Sect. 6. , whether all the Bishops of the Church can agree in any error? For among Catholics, some affirm it, because there is no promise found (of the contrary:) Others deny it, because the whole Church would be otherwise in great danger of error. To me neither seemeth sufficiently certain. Yet it is probable, that it becomes the Providence of Christ not to permit it. In these words two things may be observed. First, That Suarez speaks of the Infallibility of Bishops not in believing, but in teaching. For he saith this in answer to an Objection, That if all the Bishops could err, than the other part of the Church, the Laity, might also err, because they ordinarily follow the Doctrine of their Pastors, and are bound to do it. Now the People are bound to follow their Pastors, not in what they think, but in what they teach. This also appears from the reason why some denied the consent of all Bishops in any error to be possible, because, if that should happen the whole Church would be brought into great danger of error. But if Bishops should teach rightly, although they thought erroneously, there would be thence no danger of Error to the rest of the Faithful. Secondly, Of this Infallibility of Bishops in what they teach unanimously, he saith three things. 1. That some Catholics deny it. 2. That neither part seems certain to him. 3. That it is probable. All which singly prove, That he thought it not to be of Faith. But who can imagine so great a Doctor could be ignorant of what was of Faith? Theoph. Raynaudus differed not much from the Opinion of Suarez: That the visible Head, saith he 3 . seposito capite visibili, membra omnia possint infici aliquo errore materiali, vix potest contingere; & verisimillimum est Deo semper cordi futurum ne id accidat. Si tamen accideret, incont aminato capite, nibil decederet de perpetuitate verae fidei in Ecclesiâ. Rain. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct. 5. , being laid aside, all the Members should be infected with any material error, could scarce happen; and it is most probable God will take care it should not. Yet if it should happen, the Head being uninfected, the perpetuity of true Faith in the Church would suffer no loss: Where he determines not absolutely this cannot happen; but looks upon the contrary only as most probable; and denieth the Infallibility of the whole Church to depend thereon, which is so much urged by the maintainers of the contrary Opinion. Rhodius speaks more plainly, who affirms 4 Mortuo pontifice, non est in Ecclesiâ ulla infallibilis authoritas ad condenda fidei Decreta.— Nullam e● tempore infallibilitatem actualem & proximam habet Ecclesia. Rhod. de fide qu. 2. Sect. 5. §. 5. , That the Pope being dead, the Church hath no Infallible Authority to make Decrees of Faith, as having no actual and immediate Infallibility at that time. Hence is manifest, that we want little of a Confession from our Adversaries, that the Infallibility of the Governors of the Church is not of Faith. And indeed it cannot be. For no Foundation of such a Faith is to be found: Not Scripture or Tradition. For not to say, that these, to make any Article become of Faith, aught, according to our Adversaries, most evidently to contain it; which evidence even they will not deny to be here wanting: It would be most absurd, that Papists should believe this Infallibility of the Pastors of the Church for the Authority of Scripture and Tradition; when they believe neither of these, but for the Authority of the Pastors. Take away their Testimony, and they will deny it to be known whether Scripture or Tradition be the word of God, or what is the sense of either. The same may be said of the Decrees of the Church Representative. For besides that no such express Decree of it can be produced, the Infallibility of the Representative Church itself is believed by every single Papist, only because they hear it taught by their Pastors. As for the belief of the Universal Church, that ought not be produced. For that is the thing now inquired, why the Universal Church believeth so? Will our Adversaries therefore say, they believe their Pastors cannot err in teaching unanimously what is of Faith; because they so teach themselves? This they must recur to; for they have no other reason left of believing so: Yet nothing can be more absurd. For first, it is the constant Opinion of all Mankind, and a received Law among all Nations, that none should be Witness or Judge in his own Cause. Secondly, As we believe not any Man to be true and honest, till we be assured of his veracity and honesty from some other Testimony than his own: So it would be the highest imprudence to esteem those Infallible, who challenge that privilege to themselves; until their Infallibility be known to us from some other Argument than their own Testimony. Certainly our Adversaries will not permit even the Scripture, which is the word of God, and hath so many illustrious Characters of a Divine Original, to be believed for its own Testimony; and Christ openly professed, that if he bore Witness of himself, his Witness was not credible. Why then shall that be attributed to the Governors of the Church; which Christ denied to himself, and our Adversaries deny to the Word of God? Thirdly, The Question will return, whence the Pastors of the Church know that they cannot err? For they will not say, they know it because the Faithful believe it; since as Hallier 5 Non ideo vera docent pastors, quia vera credunt Auditores; sed ideo vera credunt Auditores, quia vera docentibus assentiuntur. F. Hallier de Hierarch. l. 4. c. 2. well saith, The Pastors do not therefore teach truly, because the Auditors believe truly; but the Auditors believe truly, because they assent to the Pastors teaching truly. They cannot say, that they know it from Scripture or Tradition. For the truth of these, without the Authority of the Church is no more known to learned than to unlearned persons. Think not, saith Bagotius 6 Cave existimes unumquenquam, etiam Theologum Doctissimum, posse quicquam eredere sine authoritate Ecclesiae & independenter ab eâ. Bagot. Instit. Theol. l. 4. c. 1. §. 1. , that any one, even the most learned Divine, can believe any thing without the Authority of the Church, and independently from it. And Hosius 7 Hos. count. Brent. goeth so far, that he maintains it to be the best way, that even the most learned Men should recur to implicit Faith, and believe only in general as the Church believeth. Shall the Pastors therefore believe, that they cannot err for their own Testimony? This is the natural consequence of our Adversaries Doctrine, and that most absurd. For first, there is none of the Pastors which believeth so, because he teacheth so; but all teach so, because all believe so. Again, The Question will recur upon what Foundation do they teach so? Here either nothing, or only this must be answered, That they teach so because they believe so. Then if you ask why they believe so? no other answer can be given, than because they believe so; which is so foolish, as that I need not urge it any farther. CHAP. XXIV. That the Faith of all single Christians cannot rely upon the Faith of the Universal Church; because, first, it appears not who belong to that Church, which is thought Infallible. THus far have we considered the Faith of the Universal Church, as it is taught by the Pastors or Clergy. It remains that we treat of it as it is believed both by Clergy and Laity; which is the last refuge of our Adversaries. Here I undertake to prove, That there is nothing whereon the Faith of all private Christians can less rely; and that for three reasons. 1. Because it doth not appear what is that Universal Church, whose Faith is to be the Rule of ours. 2. Because it is not known what is the Faith of that Church. 3. Because it is not manifest whether the Faith of any Church assignable, be true. The first is evinced two ways. For first, it is uncertain what is the true Idea or Definition of the Church, what is required to constitute it, whether only an external profession of the true Faith, or also internal Faith and Piety: And then although this were certain, it would be yet unknown, whether the Roman, Greek, or any other, were that true Church. As for the first, our Adversaries would persuade us, That they agree in the notion of a true Church. Yet nothing is more manifest than their discord in this matter. There are chief three Opinions of them herein: For if we should make an exact enumeration of them, we should find many more. The first teacheth, That the Church is made up of all persons baptised, and outwardly professing the true Faith, and adhering to the Pope of Rome, whether they be truly Faithful, or secretly Insidels. The second to an External Profession, requires Internal Faith, at least in form, to be added as necessary; and thereby excludes all secret Insidels and Heretics. The third requireth Charity to be added to these two, and leaveth no place in the Church, but to those who are truly just, and free from Mortal Sin. The first Opinion is defended by many, particularly Canus, Bellarmin, duval, and almost all the later writers of Controversy, especially the French. The second is taught by many: For all those seem to favour it, who desine the Church to be the Congregation of the Faithful; of whom Launoy 1 Laun. Epist. Tom. 8. ad Gattin. reckons up a very great number. But it is openly and manisestly taught by Alensis, Clemangis, Turrecremata, and Jacobatius; while in the places formerly cited they assert, That the Church may be reduced to one only Woman, as it actually was at the time of our Saviour's Passion. The University of Cracow produced by Launoy 2 Vbi supra. , defined 3 Est Ecclesia Corpus mysticum, organicum, side Chrisli animatum,— Ex quo fit quod omnes baptizati, habentes fidem Christi sive informem sine formatam, constituunt Ecclesiam militantem. the Church to be a Mystical, Organical Body, animated by the Faith of Christ, constituted by all baptised persons, having the Faith of Christ either in form or formal. The same Opinion is accurately and largely defended by Suarez 4 Suar. de fide disp. 9 Sect. 2. , Arriaga 5 Arr. de fide disp. 7. Sect. 2. , and Caspensis 6 Casp. de fide disp. 2. Sect. 2.9. among the Moderns. The third Opinion seemeth to be favoured by Bannes 7 Catechumeni simpliciter pertinent ad Ecclesiam invisibilem; siquidem sunt membra Christi per Charitatem; sed ad Ecclesiam visibilem secundùm quid, viz. per votum & desiderium. Bann. in 2.2. qu. 1. art. 10. p. 47. , while he saith, The Catechumen simply belong to the Invisible Church, as being members of Christ through Charity; but to the Visible Church only in part, viz. in wish and desire. But he inclineth more to the second, in these words 8 Ecclesia licet sit Respublica quaedam visibilis, requirit tamen aliquid invisibile, sc. fidem. Haeretici ergo extra eam sunt, cum fidem non habeant. Id. comm. fus. in art. 10. p. 90. , The Church, although it be a visible Commonwealth, requireth somewhat invisible, to wit, Faith. Heretics therefore, as wanting that, are out of the Church. And in another place 9 Fideles peceatores sunt verè partes Ecclesiae militantis. Id. Comm. brev. p. 47. , The Faithful which are Sinners, are truly parts of the Church Militant. But to omit Bannes, the third Opinion is openly maintained by Hugo à Sancto Victore, whose words are these 10 Ecclesia habet lapides, sc. fideles; qui sicut per caementum lapis jungitur lapidi, sic per charitatem junguntur sibi. Hug. lib. C. Serm. Serm. 3. : The Church hath Stones, to wit, the Faithful, who as one Stone is joined to another by Cement, are joined to the Church by Charity. And in another place 11 Ecclesia sancta corpus est Christi uno spiritu vivificata, & unita fide unâ, & sanctificata.— Hoc itaque nomen significat membra Christi participantia Spiritum Christi. Id. de Sacr. part. 2. cap. 2. , The Holy Church is the Body of Christ, quickened by one Spirit, and united by one Faith, and sanctified. This word therefore signifieth the Members of Christ partaking of the Spirit of Christ. Antoninus of Florence, after he had said, The Church is sometimes taken for the General Collection of the Faithful, subjoins these words 12 Secundo modo sumitur Ecclesia pro congregatione bonorum fidelium, qui sunt per charitatem Christo incorporati. Haec est Ecclesia, quae regitur à Sp. S. corpus Christi mysticum, quod vegetatur spiritu ejus, pro quâ Christus oravit, ne fides desiceret. Ant. Summ. Theol. part. 3. tit. 12. c. 1. , In the second place the Church is taken for the Congregation of Good Believers, who are incorporated into Christ by Charity. This is that Church which is governed by the Holy Ghost, the Mystical Body of Christ, which is animated by his Spirit, for which Christ prayed, that her Faith should not fail. The same saith Cusanus 13 Manifestum est hoc corpus Ecclesiae, quod ita se habuit, ex praedestinatis tantùm constitui— Existentes in gratiâ praesentis justitiae solum de Ecclesiâ esse censentur. Cus. Concord. lib. 1. cap. 4. , It is manifest that this Body of the Church, which is thus disposed (which adhereth to Christ in Spirit, in which the Spirit dwells, quickening the whole Body) is made up only of Predestinate Persons. Only those persons therefore, who continue in the Grace of present Righteousness are accounted to be of the Church. Dionysius Carthusianus 14 AEdificabo & confirmabo Ecclesiam meam, id est, congregationem fidelium, 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 Catholic Church, which comprehendeth all men of a right and Apostolic 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, etc. if our Argument consisted in the truth of this Opinion. It sufficeth to show 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 Infallibility, 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 Baptised 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 incur 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 chief 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 Church cannot be by this way known by our Adversaries: They freely grant it, urge it, and labour to demonstrate it. The second Method is used by many; who contend that the Church may be known independently from the Word of God by the help of Notes and Characters perceived by Natural Reason, such as are Miracles, Sanctity, Antiquity, Amplitude, and the like. But they withal admonish that the Church cannot this way be known, as it hath annexed to it the Privilege of Infallibility by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and consequently as it is the certain Rule of Faith. They deny this can be any other way found out than by Faith relying on the Promises of Christ and the other testimonies of Scripture. But that the Authority, which these Notes confer, is Humane, Fallible, and a Foundation only of humane and acquired, not of divine and infused Faith. So among infinite others teach Canus 2 Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. , Bannes 3 In 2.2. qu. 1. art. 1. dub. 4. , Suarez 4 De fide disp. 3. Sect. 10. , duval 5 In 2. 2. p. 10. , Conink 6 De actib. sup. disp. 17. n. 68 , Arriaga 7 De fide disp. 3. Sect. 1. , Ysambertus 8 De fide disp. 26 art. 2. , Gillius 9 De doctr. sacrâ l. 1. tract. 7. c. 9 , Amicus 10 De side disp. 2. Sect. 5. , and Rhodius 11 Duplex est authoritas Ecclesiae, alia est purè humana, prout sc. eam probant miracula, prophetiae, & alia hujusmodi: alia est divina, prout ex assistentiâ Sp. S. est infallibilis. Neutra potest esse objectum formale fidei. Non prima, sequeretur enim sidem esse naturalem, esse fallibilem, etc. Rhod. de fide qu. 1. Sect. 4. §. 4. : The last of these affirms, there is a twofold Authority of the Church; the one purely Humane, as it is proved by Miracles, Prophecies, and such like; the other Divine, as it is Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Neither can be the formal Object of Faith. Not the first; for than it would follow that Faith were Natural, Fallible, etc. Certainly it is absurd to imagine that the Church of Christ, redeemed and governed by him, and animated by his Spirit, can be known by the sole light of Nature without Revelation. Nature might discover somewhat admirable and excellent in it; but nothing more than humane, or exalted beyond humane Infirmities. But this is not that we seek for. We are enquiring a Method of knowing the Church as it is the Rule of Faith, and Infallible: which since this Method cannot perform, it cannot be produced in this place. For these Reasons our Adversaries sly to the third Method; and endeavour to demonstrate the Church from Notes, which they pretend to be assigned in Scripture. So Driedo 12 De Eccl. dogm. l. 2. c. 3. l. 4. c. 4. from hence, that Christ is not now present, nor teacheth with his own mouth in the Church, nor attesteth the Preaching of others with Signs and Miracles, concludes, We must necessarily slay to the Scriptures, and inquire thence which is the true Church. Stapleton 13 Dicimus ergo, & libentissimè dicimus cum Augustino in Scripture is quaerendam esse Ecclesiam, i. e. quae sint notae, dotes & proprietates Ecclesiae ex S. Scripturae oraculis, non ex humanis document is investigandum esse. De princip. dectr. lib. 1. cap. 24. : We say therefore, and willingly acknowledge with St. Augustine, that the Church is to be sought for in the Scripture; that is, what are the Notes, Privileges, and Properties of the Church, is to be found out from the Oracles of Holy Scripture, not from Humane Arguments. The same say the Popish Disputants in the Conference of Ratisbon 14 Tantummodo igitur ex Scripturis Religionem Christionam cognoscimus; quia tantummodo ex notis in Scripturâ declaratis, & non ex aliis cognoscimus, quae sit vera Ecclesia. Colloq. Ratisb. Sess. 8. . We know the Christian Religion only from the Scriptures; because from the Notes only declared in Scripture, and from no others, we know which is the true Church. This way also Card. Richlieu 15 Meth. liv. 1. Chap. 8. chief follows. But there are many things inconsistent to be found in it: As first, that it supposeth the Scripture to be acknowledged for the Word of God. For no man can believe the Notes of the Church laid down in the Scripture to be true and certain, till he be first persuaded that all things contained in it are true and Divine. But how shall he, who hath not yet known the Church (for such is he who inquires after it) be assured of the Divinity of Scripture, if it be true what our Adversaries so often inculcate, That the Scripture to us is of no Authority, till attested and confirmed by the Church? Thus a manifest Circle will be committed, Scripture received for the Authority of the Church, and the Church for the Authority of Scripture. Card. Richlieu confesseth this a great difficulty; but contendeth it may be solved by saying, The Church is known independently from the Scripture by the help of Notes, which Natural Reason suggesteth can agree to none but the true Church. But if the Church can be known before the Scripture, what need the Scripture be consulted to find Notes whereby we may be brought to the knowledge of the Church? To what end these Labyrinths and fruitless toil to search out a thing already known? Not to say, that this Method is coincident with the second before mentioned, and is therefore for the same reasons to be rejected. Besides it manifestly contradicts our Adversaries Hypothesis concerning the obscurity of Scripture. Every one knows how much they exaggerate this obscurity, and Richlieu himself, within a few pages of this place, maintains it is obscure, both as to the sense, and as to the letter; and that not only to the Reprobate, but even the Elect; to the Faithful and Doctors themselves. Who after all this can believe that he speaks sincerely and in earnest, when he undertakes to demonstrate out of this Book, so obscure and impenetrable to the greatest Wits, the Characters of the true Church, not to a Doctor or a Believer, but to an Infidel: For this he pretends, about his Conversion is the Dispute raised. The Cardinal therefore in that undertakes a most difficult matter. But the obscurity of Scripture is not all the difficulty of this undertaking. For how shall it be demonstrated those things are by Scripture assigned for the Notes of the Church, of which Scripture is wholly silent, nay, teacheth the contrary to some of them; as might be evidently proved, if the intended brevity of this Dissertation would permit it? But suppose the Scripture attributes to the Church whatsoever our Adversaries would have to be so many Notes of it: This avails not, unless it appear that those Notes are not only true, but also the only Notes, and that no other is assigned in Scripture. This the Cardinal himself admonisheth. It is to be observed, saith he 16 Method. liv. 1. chap. , that although it doth not follow that Society which hath one of the Notes of the true Church, is the true Church; yet it follows, that Society which wanteth one of these Notes, is not the true Church. Valentia had gone before him. These are the Notes, saith he 17 Non sunt notae Ecclesiae sigillatim sed conjunctim, quia fieri possit ut una harum & altera aliis conveniat. Val. Anal. fid. lib. 6. cap. 7. , which we urge, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. These are not the Notes of the Church singly, but conjunctly; because it may be that one or two of them may agree to others. And indeed it cannot be denied that the Greek Church hath many of these Notes. If therefore from one or more of them we might argue affirmatively, the Greek must be granted to be a true Church. To conclude therefore that the Roman, or any other, is the true Church, it is necessary that no note of the true Church be wanting to it, and that it be evident no other note is assigned in Scripture besides those wherein she already glorieth. While this is uncertain, nothing can be securely concluded from any Notes whatever. That an Infidel therefore be rightly instructed, it is required, that he read over the whole Scripture from one end to the other, accurately weigh and examine all places, that he may be ascertained none of those Notes have escaped his diligence. But this besides, that it is long and tedious, and apt rather to discourage and deter than allure an Infidel to the Christian Religion, is impossible, if our Adversaries Doctrine of the obscurity of Scripture be admitted. For who can promise himself that nothing hath escaped his most sagacious enquiry, amidst so much darkness and intricacy, as our Adversaries pretend to be in Scripture? Much less can an Infidel be assured of this, whose Understanding is yet clouded with Errors, and his Eyes with Blindness. Yet if he be not certain that no one Note of the Church is unknown to him, how many soever he hath by his search observed, in vain doth he sweat: since even, according to our Adversaries, many Notes contribute nothing to that Society, to which any one is wanting. And this is so much the more difficult, because our Adversaries are not agreed about the number of the Notes. Valentia and many others assign four, Driedo six, Medina ten, Sanders and Pistorius twelve, Bellarmin fifteen, Bosius an hundred. In so great variety of opinions what certainty can be expected? But what if in this diligent reading of Scripture many things shall occur, whereby the Catechumen will be induced to believe there are many other Notes beside those which our Adversaries point out, and those such as will divert him from embracing the Communion of the Church of Rome? He will in the first place observe those words of Christ. 18 John VIII. 31, 47. X. 27. If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my Disciples indeed. He that is of God, heareth God's words. My Sheep hear my voice. Hence he will conclude that the truth of Doctrine, and its conformity to God's word, is the most certain Note of the true Church. But our Adversaries will never permit, that he should make use of this Note to find out the Church. For that would introduce the first method so much hated by them: and it were to be feared, that the Catechumen comparing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome with the Scripture, would find a manifest repugnance in many things. Another Note of the Church he would find to be the observation of the Divine Precepts from the same places. For he cannot be said to hear the voice of Christ, that obeys it not. And in other places Christ saith: 19 John VIII. 10, 14. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my Love. Ye are my friends if ye do what soever I command you. God also foretold by his Prophets that under the new Covenant he would write his Laws in the hearts of Men, and make them to walk in his statutes. But can the Catechumen find this observation of the Divine precepts in the Church of Rome, where the Cup is taken from the Laity, Prayers performed in an Unknown Tongue, and many other things used expressly contrary to the Divine Commands? The Scripture ofttimes calls the Church the most chaste Spouse of Christ. Now this Chastity consists in keeping her Faith to God, and transferring no part of the Divine Worship due to him upon any other objects. Otherwise God will implead her of adultery, and give her a bill of divorcement. Will the Catechumen then from this Note conclude the Church of Rome to be the Spouse of Christ; by whom he perceiveth so many Creatures, Saints deceased, their Relics, the Cross, Images, and the Host, to be worshipped and adored? Meekness and Gentleness is also a note of the Church, when her Children are frequently in the Scriptures called Sheep, Lambs, Doves, Turtles. Isaiah foretold all cruelty should be far from the Church of Christ. 20 Isai. XI. 9 & LXIII. 25. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my Holy Mountain. Christ left his Peace to his Disciples, and said to them: 21 Matth. XI. 29. Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your Souls. Who can then imagine the Church of Christ to be that Society, which persecutes all dissenting from her with fire and sword, and scarce useth any other arguments than Racks and Gibbets? Of the same nature, with this Note is another laid down by David. He calls 22 Ps. CX. 3. the Church a willing People: who are not retained in the Communion of their Saviour by force and fear, but by a most free and that most fervent Love. Hence her most excellent Pastor is said 23 Zach. XI. 7. to govern her with two staves, one called Beauty, and the other Bands: but that you may not mistake, those bands are 1 Hos. XI. 4. the cords of a Man, and the bands of Love. Is Rome therefore this Church of Christ, which wheresoever she commands, hath no stronger bands to retain her People than the detestable Tribunal of the Holy Inquisition? To these two last Notes is conjoined a sixth: That she be free, and not a Servant of Men, especially of Pastors. This the Scripture teacheth in many places, particularly, Gal. IU. 25, 26. John VIII. 32.36. 2 Cor. I 24. III. 17. iv 5. 1 Pet. V 3. Ja. I. 25. That therefore is not the Church of Christ, which serveth the Pope, whose Slave Cajetan expressly calls her. Is that Church free, upon which the Pope imposeth arbitrary Laws, which none must call in question? Can he be denied to be Lord of the Church, who as the Canon Law 2 Decret part. 1. dist. 40. can. Si Papa. tells us, although he should carry innumerable People by troops as Slaves to Hell, to be with himself for ever tormented; yet no mortal must presume to reprehend his faults, because he is to judge all, to be judged of none? Who, not to mention obsolete Stories, but lately commanded all to believe, there is five heretical propositions in Jansenius; and yet, although humbly entreated by many Doctors, would not declare in what part of Jansenius his Book they might be found? What is this but to account Christians as most vile Slaves? The seventh Note of the Church consists in this, 3 John IU. 23. That she worship God in Spirit and in Truth. The ancient Church of the Jews indeed used a gross and sensible kind of Worship, and was employed about the mean and beggarly Elements of the World: but it is the peculiar glory of the Christian Church, to worship God in a way most consentaneous to the simplicity of his being and the holiness of his nature. Not so the Church of Rome, which observeth so many divers and difficult ceremonies; that in comparison of them the Mosaic Rites are both few and easy. This you will soon acknowledge, if you compare the fourth or at most the third part of the Pentateuch (for no more is taken up with ritual matters) with so many vast volumes, the Ceremonial, Pontifical, Ritual, Missal, Gradual, and others; which prescribe the external part of the Roman Service. Lastly, the true Church is that which neither usurpeth nor disturbeth the civil Government. Therein imitating Christ her Master; who offered heavenly things to all, earthly to none; professed his Kingdom was not of this World; withdrew himself unto the Mountains, when sought for by the multitude to be made a King; and refused to be a Judge in a matter of inheritance. The true Church observeth the Apostles precept 4 Rom. XIII. 1. of being subject to the higher Powers: And that other 5 Ibid. v. 7. of rendering to all their due, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. Not so the Church of Rome, whose Head, the Pope, deposeth Kings at his pleasure, absolveth their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, and pretends to a Sovereign Dominion over the whole World. I might produce many other like Notes of the Church out of Scripture; but these suffice to show how great danger they expose the Church of Rome to, who out of those Holy Writings permit a judgement to be form of her Truth and Purity. I will now proceed briefly to demonstrate that not even from those Notes which the Church of Rome assigns, can it be known that she is the true Church. Card. Richlieu assigns four, Antiquity, Amplitude, Perpetuity, and Succession. Amplitude shall be considered afterwards; the other three I will now briefly touch. Antiquity consists solely or chief in this, that the Church which is called Ancient, have preserved the same Faith, Worship, and Religion from the beginning. While the Church of Rome therefore glorieth in Antiquity, she meaneth that she now professeth the same Faith which Christ formerly instituted, and his Apostles taught. But to know this there is no other way than to compare the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome with the Ancient Monuments of Christian Religion, of which Scripture is the Chief. Now this in nothing differeth from the first method, which we only approve, and our Adversaries reject. If then the Church cannot be known by that method, neither can it by that which our Adversaries propose. The discussion of perpetuity is yet more difficult. For therein is to be proved not only that the present is the same with the first and original Doctrine, but also that it was so in every Age, and that this profession of the old Religion was never once interrupted. Now how vast and unexhausted a knowledge of antiquity doth this require? No ancient monument must be neglected; infinite Volumes both Printed and Manuscript must be read through. This few Men can attend to; or if they could, one Age would not suffice. Yet this according to Richlieu's method must be done by any Infidel who is a Candidate of Christianity. The same may be said of Succession. That is twofold, of Doctrine, and of Persons. The first is coincident with antiquity and perpetuity: the second in Gretser's judgement is of little moment. Without Truth of Doctrine, saith he, 6 Sine veritate doctrinae successio Pastorum est exigui ponderis. De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 9 Succession of Pastors is of small weight. But suppose it of the greatest moment. What is more laborious and difficult, to say no more, than to prove that in a long series of Succession continued through XVI. Ages there never happened the least interruption. Thus much of the Notes singly. As for all taken together, it is manifest that even in our Adversaries opinion they cannot be certain; since they are found in the Greek Church. The Cardinal denies that of Antiquity, because the Church of Constantinople cannot demonstrate her claim of being founded by St. Andrew. Let it be. Certainly the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Athens, which are parts of the Greek Church, were founded by Apostles, and the first even by Christ himself. Again the Cardinal denieth the Succession of the Greek Bishops; because their Patriarches were heretical. But first, it matters not what the Patriarches are, if the other Bishops be Orthodox. Secondly, this very thing may be brought against the Succession of Popes: for some of them have been condemned by General Councils. Lastly, if heresy interrupts succession; it will be no more certain that the Succession of Popes was never interrupted, than that no Pope was ever an Heretic. But how shall this be ascertained, especially to an Infidel, of whom we now treat, who may consider that many in the Church of Rome openly teach the contrary? To this may be added, That it is absurd in this case to pretend Heresy against the Succession of any Church. For that is the very thing now inquired by this Infidel, which Society of Christians is the true Church, and consequently, which of them are Heretics or Schismatics? This method therefore, can never certainly teach us, That the Church of Rome is the true Church. CHAP. XXVI. That it is uncertain, what the Universal Church believeth. IF after all this we should grant, That our Adversaries may certainly know which is the true Church; it were yet to be inquired what this Church believeth. But how shall this be known? For first it doth not suffice to know what the greater or lesser part of the Universal Church believeth, unless we know what is the Faith of the whole. For our Adversaries confess, That the greater part of it may err. So Tostatus answering to those, who from the Universal corruption of the translations of the Bible before S. Hierom's time argued, That the whole Church then erred, replied, That all the Copies indeed of the Latin Church were corrupted, but in the Greek Church were preserved entire. Now, saith he, 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 errand, five illa fint plures numero quàm errantes, sine non. Tost. in 2. Prol. Hier. in Matth. qu. 4. the Latin Church is not the Universal Church, but only a part of it. Therefore, although that had wholly erred, the Universal 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 Catholic 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 Heresy. 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 administered the Eucharist to Infants; That she worshippeth particular Relics of Saints, and prayeth for the Souls of particular Men in Purgatory, although it be not of Faith that those Relics 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 Catholic Opinion; he would find very few who could comprehend the Sense 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 Diocese. CHAP. XXVII. That it may justly be doubted, whether all those things be true, which the Universal 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 is known by Faith. But to this I oppose the Opinion of those Divines, who hold, That all Christians may fall from the Faith, except one single Woman. Hence I conclude, That the Infallibility of the Church cannot be of Faith, because repugnant to the Opinion of these Catholic Divines. Certainly we, who deny the Infallibility of the Church, go not so far as they. We believe that God preserveth to himself even in the most difficult times, a remnant according to the election of Grace: and that there always remains at least an Invisible Church, whose name being collective, cannot consist, and be restrained to one person. Our Adversaries therefore cannot pretend their Opinion, as it is at this day proposed, to be of Faith: And so much the less, because they can assign no Foundation of this Faith. Not Scripture, Tradition, Decrees of Popes, Definitions of Councils, or Consent of Pastors. For first, I have proved in the preceding Discourse, That none of all these can be relied upon, at least according to our Adversaries Hypotheses; and than it is the constant Doctrine of Papists, That the Church is not believed for them, but they for the Church. Again it is certain, that the Infallibility of the Church cannot be beieved for the Authority of the Church itself. For that would be a manifest Circle; and he that doubteth whether the Church can err, doth for that very reason doubt whether she doth not err, when she thinks that she cannot err. Therefore Bannes 1 Non potest reduci ad authoritatem ipsius Ecclesiae hoc enim esset idem per idem confirmare. Bann. in 2. 2. qu. 1. art. 1. dub. 4. said truly, That the Church is the Infallible rule of proposing and explaining truths of Faith cannot be reduced to the Authority of the Church itself; for that would be to prove the same thing by itself. Why then is it believed? Our Adversaries commonly answer, That it is a thing before all others to be believed, and not for any other Rule; for then the same Question would return about that Rule: And because they commonly require three things to make up an Act of Faith. 1. The Testimony of God revealing, as the formal Reason and principal Foundation. 2. A Rule whereby this Revelation of God may be manifested. 3. Motives of Credibility which may induce us to be willing to believe; they think the first is here present, and the third abundantly to be had in the Notes of the Church, which are perceived and dictated by Natural Reason; but the second wanting, which they pretend not to be necessary in a matter of first belief, such as this is. But first, if a Rule be not required in forming this first Act of Faith: Why is it necessary in others? Why may not all the other Articles be believed for the Authority of God by the inducement of Motives of Credibility, with which the Christian Religion is abundantly furnished? Secondly, Which is chief to be regarded, it is absurd to boast of a Testimony of God revealing, which no way can be known. The Infallibility of the Church, or any other Article of Belief can never be proved to have been revealed by God, but by some Rule either living or dead, whereby things revealed may be distinguished from not revealed; otherwise the most foolish Opinion may entitle itself to Revelation, and then cannot be rejected. Here they fly to Motives of Credibility, and by them undertake to supply their defect of a Rule, and manifest the Revelation. But if these Motives can confer upon the Church so sufficient an Authority, that what she proposeth as revealed by God, must be believed: Why may not the like Motives give the same Authority to the Scripture, and assure us of the Divine Original of it? And that such Motives are not wanting to the Scripture. Bellarmin 2 1 De verbo Dei, ib. 1. cap. 2. , Suarez 3 De fide disp. 5. Sect. 2, 3. , duval 4 duval in 2. 2. p. 120. , and Martinonus 5 De fide disp. 7. Sect. 1. among many others expressly confess. Why may we not then by these Motives first be satisfied of the Authority of Scripture, and from thence learn all things necessary to Salvation, which are clearly contained in it; and be so saved without recurring to the Church? Further, How is it gathered from these Notes and Motives of Credibility that the Church cannot err; whether evidently, certainly, and necessarily; or only obscurely, probably, and contingently? The first our Adversaries will never say; for than it would necessarily follow, That Faith is evident; which they all contend to be false; insomuch as Bellarmin 6 Ante approbationem Ecclesiae non est evidens aut certum certitudine fidei de ullo miraculo quòd sit verum mir aculum. Et quidem quòd non sit evidens patet, quia tunc fides esset evidens. Bell. de Eccles. l. 4. c. 14. disputing of Miracles, the chief of these Motives, hath these words, Before the Approbation of the Church it is not evident nor certain with the certainty of Faith of any Miracle, that it is a true one. And that it is not evident is manifest; for then Faith would be evident. Besides, if these Notes evidently prove the Church cannot err, it would be most false, what our Adversaries before delivered with so great consent, that by these Notes the Church is not known as it hath an Infallible, but only as it hath an Humane and Fallible Authority. Lastly, They acknowledge, as we before shown, That a manifest and convictive Argument cannot be deduced from one or more of these Notes, although fortified by the Authority of Scripture, if any one be wanting. How then will they afford evidence, when perceived by the sole light of Nature, and are much fewer? For they allow more Notes to be pointed out by Scripture, than taught by the light of Nature. Do these Notes then only persuade probably? If so, I have gained what I was to prove. For than it will be only probable that the Church cannot err; and the Faith of Papists will have no certainty, as not exceeding probability. For whatsoever they believe, they believe either for the Testimony or for the Judgement of the Church; and so cannot be more certain, or evident than is the Infallibility of the Church in testifying and judging. Some to elude this, make a twofold evidence, Physical and Moral; and grant the Arguments of the Infallibility of the Church not to be Physically evident, but contend they are Morally. So especially Aegidius Conink 7 De actib. sup. disp. 2. dub. 2. num. 46. collat. cum dub. 3. num. 71, 72. . But here in the first place, this manifest absurdity occurrs; That when they acknowledge these Arguments to be only Morally certain, they yet maintain Faith, which is founded solely upon them, to be Physically certain; for that degree of certainty all attribute to Divine Faith. Besides it hence also appears, that this Moral Certainty doth not suffice; because it is more than Morally, even Physically evident, that those things are false, which the Church of Rome teacheth about the Eucharist: For that the Eucharist after Consecration is still Bread and Wine, is proved by innumerable Arguments of Physical Evidence, which consequently can never be counterweighed, much less out weighed by Arguments of Moral Evidence, brought to prove the Infallibility of that Church which teacheth a contrary Opinion. However it will not be amiss to examine, whether the Arguments drawn from these Notes of the Church be morally evident, as is pretended. But first we must remove the Equivocation which lieth hid in this term. For it is used by the Schoolmen in a threefold Sense. First therefore, many call that Morally Certain, which is so probable, that many Arguments persuade it, but nothing insinuates the least suspicion of the contrary. Secondly, Those things are called Morally Certain; which to use Bellarmin's words, are confirmed by so many Signs and Conjectures, as may exclude all Anxiety, but not all Distrust. Thirdly, Those things are most properly said to be morally certain, which are known by the common and unanimous testimony of a great multitude witnessing a thing by them seen, which Testimony none contradicts; as Conink 8 Quae ex communi & concordi magnae multitudinis rem visam testantis testimonio, cui nemo contradicit, noscuntur. De actib. sup. disp. 11. dub. 1. num. 44. defines them. If our Adversaries say the Arguments take from the Notes of the Church are morally certain in the first or second Sense; in the first place I deny it: For those things only are morally certain in those Senses, against which no contrary Arguments can be produced. For if any such occur, the Mind fluctuates, and can obtain no certainty. Now none can deny, that there are many at least probable Arguments which persuade, That the Church of Rome is not the true Church. Secondly, I assert, That neither of these Certainties will suffice. For they cannot, but in a lose and improper Sense, be called Certainty. They are indeed mere probability, which may suffice in matters of Life and Action, where greater certainty cannot be had, but not in matters of Belief and Salvation, where the greatest is required; whereas these may possibly be false, as is manifest in the Cases of an Infant whether Baptised, or an Host whether Consecrated, which are commonly produced for Examples of the first and greatest of the two kinds of Moral Certainty. For both the Baptism of an Infant, and the Consecration of an Host, depending upon the Intention of the Priest, can never be certainly known to have been duly performed. For no Man can be ever speculatively certain of those things which can be false. There remains then the third Sense; which I deny not to be sufficient, although it be not wholly consonant to the Doctrine of our Adversaries. But to pass by that, it is manifest, That here is no place for this kind of certainty; since it depends upon the Testimony of others so framed and circumstantiated, that it is altogether, at least morally impossible to deceive, or be deceived; as that Caesar and Alexander formerly existed, as Rome and Constantinople do now; whereas Arguments drawn from Antiquity, Amplitude, Sanctity, etc. are of another kind, as being wholly artificial, and consequently most different from those which beget this Moral Certainty. Besides, there is none of these Notes, wherein the Greek Church may not equally glory with the Latin. Sanctity, Amplitude, Antiquity, and constancy of Martyrs none can deny to her. As for Miracles, the Greeks by the confession of the Latins have somewhat admirable, which is not to be found in the Roman Church. For Lupus 9 In Concil. tom. 5. p. 543. relates out of Chr. Angelus and Leo Allatius, that it is at this day most frequent among the Greeks, that the dead Bodies of Excommunicate Persons immediately after death, grow black, swell, and become very hard, nor can be dissolved before the Bishop gives them Absolution, which being once pronounced, they are reduced into Dust: The Divine Goodness, saith Lupus, by these 10 Captivos sub Turcicâ tyrannide Christianos divina bonitas consolatur per talia miracula & in Evangelicâ fide confirmat. Miracles comforting and confirming in the Faith, the poor Christians oppressed with the Turkish Tyranny. In this Miracle four things may be observed. 1. That it is not only boasted by the Greeks, but also acknowledged by the Latins. 2. That it is an ordinary, and almost daily Miracle. 3. That it is annexed to the Episcopal Dignity, so as their Excommunication and Absolution hath a sensible and supernatural effect. 4. That it serveth not only to favour the Christian Religion professed by the Greeks, but also their private error. For as Lupus observeth, They imagine the Absolution given after death to be valid, and to deliver from the Torments of Hell itself; which seemeth to be confirmed by the sensible effect that immediately follows the Absolution. What have the Latins like to this? Their pretended Miracles are not acknowledged by their Adversaries, but rather convinced of falsity by them, and even by many of their own Communion; they are rare, not ordinary, nor annexed to any Ecclesiastical Dignity; and such as, if they were true, serve to confirm only the Christian Religion in general, not their own particular Tenets. It is manifest therefore, That those Arguments are not certain, which are deduced from the Notes of the Church; since, if they were so, they would demonstrate, what our Adversaries think to be false, That the Greek is the True and Infallible Church. This might be evidently evinced, if we considered each Note singly. But besides that it is already accurately performed by our Reverend B. Morton. Jo. Gerardus and others, it seems not very necessary in this place. Here therefore I finish, and in one word conclude, That the Papists, who boast of having so many immovable Foundations of their Faith, have not so much as one which is solid; and that what they believe, they do it pertinaciously indeed, but neither certainly nor firmly. FINIS. Books Printed for, and Sold by Richard Chiswell. Dr. CAve's Lives of the Primitive Fathers, in 2 Vol. Folio. Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time. fol. Hooker's. Ecclesiastical Polity. fol. Sir John Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion. fol. The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits, Seminary Priests, Recusants, the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, explained by divers Judgements and Resolutions of the Judges; with other Observations thereupon. By Willim Cawley Esq fol. Dr. Towersons Explication on the Creed, the Commandments, and Lord's Prayer, in 3 Vol. fol. Bishop Nicholson on the Church-Catechism. 40. Mr. John Cave's seven occasional Sermons. 40. Bishop Wilkin's Natural Religion. 80. — His Fifteen Sermons. 80. Mr. Tanner's Primordia: Or, the Rise and Growth of the First Church of God described. 80. Spaniard's Conspiracy against the State of Venice. 80. Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity, in three parts. 80. Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon, in Arguments Civil, Moral, Natural, etc. with a large account of all his Works. By Dr. Tho. Tenison. 80. Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts. 80. Mr. Seller's State of the Church in the three first Centuries. Dr. Burnet's Account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester. 80. — Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England. 80. — History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-lands. 80. — Relation of the present state of the difference between the French King and the Court of Rome; to which is added, the Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy, and their Protestation, published by Dr. Burnet. 80. Dr. Cumber's Companion to the Altar. 80. Dr. Sherlock's Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies. 80. — Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation. 80. — A Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, in answer to Mr. Baxter. and Mr. Job about Catholic Communion. 80. Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha, or natural Power of Kings. 80. Bishop Wettenhall's Method and Order for private Devotion. 12 s. Valentine's Private Devotions. 40. Dr. Spencer de Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus & earum Rationibus. fol. Dr. John Lightfoots' Works in English, in 2 Vol. fol. Sir Tho. Brown's Vulgar Errors, with all the rest of his Works. fol. Patris Sim●nii Disquisitionis Criticae de Variis per diversa Loca & Tempora Bibliorum: ● Editionibus. Accedunt Castigat. Opusc. Is. Vossi de Sibyllinis Oraculis. 40. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered. 40. Two Letters betwixt Mr. R. Smith, and Dr. Hen. Hammond, about Christ's Descent into Hell. 80. Dean Stratford's Dissuasive from Revenge. 80. Dr. Hez. Burton's first Volume of Discourses; of Purity and Charity; of Repentance, and of seeking the Kingdom of God. Published by Dean Tillotson. 80. — His second Volume of Discourses on several Practical Subjects. Octavo. Sir Thomas More's Utopia, newly made English by Dr. Burnet. 80. Mr. Seller's Devout Communicant; assisted with Rules, Meditations, Prayers and Anthems. 12 s. Dr. Towerson of the Sacraments in General. — Of the Sacrament of Baptism in particular. 80. The History of the COUNCIL of TRENT: in which, besides the Ordinary Acts of the Council, are declared many notable Occurrences which happened in Christendom for 40 Years, and particularly the Practices of the COURT of ROME to hinder the Reformation of Their Errors, and to maintain Their Greatness. Written by Father Paul of the SERVI. To which is added, the Life of the Author, and the History of the Inquisition. Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell. Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England, in 2 Vol. Fol. A Collection of Sixteen several Tracts, and Discourses. Written in the Years, from 1678, to 1685. inclusive, by Gilbert Burnet, D. D. To which are added, A Letter written to Dr. Burnet, giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's Secret Powers. The History of the Powder-Treason, with a Vindication of the Proceed thereupon. An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits dying Speeches, who were Executed for the Popish Plot, 1679. 40. A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church: more particularly of the Encroachment of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees. By WILLIAM CAVE, D. D. Octavo. An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's [Sure Footing in Christianity] concerning the Rule of Faith: With some other Discourses. By WILLIAM FALKNER, D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England; in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove the Nullity of our Orders. By GILBERT BURNET, D. D. Octavo. An Abridgement of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England. By GILB. BURNET, D. D. Octavo. The APOLOGY of the Church of England; and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury: Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bishop: Collected and written by the same Hand. Octavo. The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL, D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland. Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth, (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil) in Matters of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience, Octavo. The Decree made at ROME the second of March, 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits, and other Casuists. Quarto. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Quarto. First and Second Parts. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue. Quarto. A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented.] Quarto. An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.] Quarto. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome. With an Answer thereunto. By a Protestant of the Church of England. 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented: being an Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papist Misrepresented and Represented;] and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM, truly representng the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. Quarto. The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. Quarto. The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholic Missionaries. 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto. A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS cocerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto. Mr. Chillingworth's Book, called [The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation] made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests, but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants, or defends the Church of England, with an exact Table of Contents; and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before Printed, viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, Transubstantiation, Tradition, etc. And an account of what moved the Author to turn Papist, with his Confutation of the said Motives. An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the Church of Rome, touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Wherein is made appear, That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH, This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 40. The Protestant's Companion: Or an Impartial Survey, and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established, with the main Doctrines of Popery. Wherein is showed, that Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fathers and Councils; and that proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years, and the Confession of the most Lerned Papists themselves. 40. The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Treatise showing that the Roman Church falsely claims to be That Church, and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, Chap. 3. Vers. 15. 40. The People's Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted. 40. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines, in Answer to a late Pamphlet entitled, [Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs]. 40. An Answer to a late Pamphlet, entitled, [The Judgement and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative, viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws. 40. A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host; in answer to the Two Discourses lately Printed at Oxford on this Subject. To which is perfixed a Large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument. Two Discourses; Of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead. The Fifteen Notes of the Church, as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin, examined and confuted. 40. With a Table of the Contents. Preparation for Death: Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France, in a dangerous Distemper of which she died. By W. W. 120. The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in opposition to a late Book, entitled, An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome. A PRIVATE PRAYER to be used in Difficult Times. A true account of a Conference held about Religion at London, Sept. 29. 1687, between A. Pulton, Jesuit, and Tho. Tenison, D. D. as also of that which led to it, and followed after it. 40. The Vindication of A. Cressener, Schoolmaster in Long-Acre, from the Aspersions of A. Pulton, Jesuit, Schoolmaster in the Savoy; together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith. A Discourse showing that Protestants are on the safer side, notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgement of their Adversaries; and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven. 40. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist, wherein is showed, That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion. A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction; with an account of the occasions and beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts. With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom. The Pamphlet entitled, Speculum Ecclesiasticum, or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass, considered in its False Reasonings and Quotations. There are added, by way of Preface, two further Answers, the First, to the Defender of the Speculum; the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences. A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exposition of Mons. de Meaux, late Bishop of Conâom, and his Vindicator. The FIRST PART. In which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition is fully vindicated; the distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted; and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in Point of Image-worship, more particularly considered. 40. The Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome. By the Author of the [Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist.] 40. Mr. Pulton Considered in his Sincerity. Reasonings, Authorities: Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto Published in his True Account; his True and full Account of a Conference, etc. His Remarks; and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T's Rule of Faith. By Tho. Tenison, D. D. A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist, wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church, and inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation. Being a sufficient Confutation of CONSENSUS VETERUM, NUBES TESTIUM, and other Late Collections of the Father's pretending to the contrary. 40.