Writings of the Orthodox Doctors is as dubious and uncertain as the opinion of those Doctors is and that the doubts raised concerning it cannot be defined by Tradition it self In like manner George Rhodius 4 Neque scire potero Traditionem aliquam esse veram nisi vivens regula id definierit Rhod. de fide quaest 2. Sect. 5. § 1. affirms that no Tradition can be known to be true unless some living Rule shall so define it But that this matter being of no small moment may be the more manifest we may observe that our Adversaries require two things to make the testimony of the Fathers worthy to be relied on First that they consent and secondly that they do not meerly propose what seems most true to themselves but testifie moreover that what they teach was either delivered by Christ or is of Faith or which is all one the opposite of it heresie If either of these fail then their testimony is not secure The first condition is required by many and particularly by Alphonsus a Castro 5 Quarta est omnium SS Doctorum qui de re illâ scripserunt concors sententia Castr de justâ haeret pun lib. 1. cap. 4. who enquiring out the ways whereby a proposition may be convinced to be heretical in the fourth place assigns the unanimous consent of all the Fathers who have written upon that argument The latter condition is made necessary by many more Driedo 6 Non quia Hieronymus sic vel sic docei non quia Augustinus c. Dried de Eccles Dogm lib. 4. cap. 1. 6. tells us the authority of the Fathers is of no value any otherwise than as they demonstrate their opinion either from the Canonical Scriptures or the belief of the universal Church since the Apostles times and that they do not always deliver their sense as matters of Faith but by way of judgement opinion and probable reason Stapleton 7 Non enim omnibus eorum dictis haec authoritas datur sed quatenus vel Ecclesiae publicam fidem referunt vel ab Ecclesiâ Dei recepta approbata sunt Stapl de princip doctr lib 7. cap. 15. writeth that this authority is not allowed to all the sayings of the Fathers but either as they relate the publick belief of the Church or have been approved and received by the Church Gillius 8 Testimonium Patrum vel Doctorum Scholasticorum communiter asserentium ali pâ—id ad fidem vel Theologiam pertinens simpliciter tamen non indicando esse dogma fidei esse debet argumentum firmum Theologo sed citra infallibilitatem fidei Gill. de doctr Sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 13. lastly grants that the testimony of Fathers and Doctors unanimously asserting somewhat pertaining to Faith and Divinity if they simply assert it and do with all tell us it is an Article of Faith ought to be a firm Argument to a Divine but without Infallibity of Faith. Both conditions are required by Canus 9 Can. Loc. Theol. lib. 3. cap. 4. and Bannes 10 Bann in 2. quaest 1. art 10. Si quod dogma fidei Patres ab initio secundum suorum temporum successiones concordissimè tenuerunt hujusque contrarium ut haereticum refutârunt who laying down Rules whereby true Traditions may be discerned from false both assign this in the second place and in the same words If the Fathers have unanimously from the beginning all along the Succession of their times held any Article of Faith and refuted the contrary as heretical Bellarmine and Gretser 11 Bell. Grets de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9. give this for their fourth Rule When all the Doctors of the Church teach any thing by common consent to have descended from Apostolical Tradition either gathered together in a Council or each one a part in their Writings Suarez 12 Licet Patres vel Scholastici in aliquâ sententiâ conveniant non asserendo illam esse de fide sed judicium suum in eâ proferendo non faciens rem de fide quia semper manent intra mensuram authoritatis humanae Suarez de fide disp 2. Sect. 6. writeth that although the Fathers and Schoolmen agree in any opinion not asserting it to be of Faith But delivering their Judgment in it they will not make it to be of Faith because they remain always within the limits of humane authority Filliutius 13 quae unanimi consensu Patrum tanquam de fide proponuntur Fill. in Decal Tract 22. cap. 1. reckoning up the seven degrees of things pertaining to Catholick verity assigns the Sixth degree to those truths which by the unanimous consent of the Fathers are proposed to be of Faith. Martinonus 14 Certum est nullum ex S S. Patribus vel Doctoribus seorsim sumptum esse Regulam Fidei jam de eorundem simul sumptorum consensu distinguendum Vel enim loquuntur ex proprio sensu non asserendo rem tanquam de fide judicium suum de eâ proferendo sic non Regula Fidei Mart. de fide disp 8. Sect. 3. that none of the Holy Fathers or Doctors taken separately is the Rule of Faith nor all yet together conjunctly unless they assert their common opinion to be of Faith and not meerly propose their own judgment Lastly Natalis Alexander 15 Cum omnes Patres in eandem sententiam conspirant eamque propugnant ac proponunt ut Apostolicam doctrinam Ecclesiae dogma Catholi eâ fide credendum tunc eorum authoritas necessarium argumentum sacrae doctrinae subministrat Alex. saecul 2 p. 1022. affirms that when all the Fathers conspire in the same opinion defend it and propose it as Apostolick Doctrine and an Article of the Church to be believed by Catholick Faith Then doth their authority afford a necessary argument of Sacred Doctrine Thus far these Writers And that the rest do not disagree from them we shall soon be perswaded if we consider how unlikely it is that a greater infallibility should be allowed even to an unanimous testimony of the Fathers than to Pope or Council or both together or the present Universal Church All which our Adversaries grant may erre in those things which they simply affirm or teach and define not to be of Faith. It sufficeth not therefore either that many Fathers deliver an opinion as of Faith or that all should simply teach it but not affirm it to be of Faith. Now if these two conditions be observed How few Articles of Christian Faith shall we receive from Tradition For the Fathers seldom all agree and more rarely admonisheth us that what they teach is of Faith. So that if you take away all Articles wherein either of these conditions is wanting it may well be doubted whether any one will remain Certainly if our Controversial Divines should so far make use of this observation as to reject all testimonies of the Fathers
out proceeding either from ignorance malice or partiality But both of ancient and later Councils this is chiefly to be considered That the conditions necessary to make them infallible are of that nature that one cannot supply the defect of another It sufficeth not to have some of them nor even all the rest if any one be wanting This Council must at the same time be Oecumenical Lawful Free and proceed rightly If any one of these Conditions or any part of them be wanting all the rest are of no value the Council becomes fallible Whence many Councils at least Decrees of Councils have been rejected that were desicient but in one Condition Hence it may be concluded First That the Sorbonists have no firm foundation for their Faith having nothing to oppose to so many just doubts and reasonable exceptions For they think not sufficient the Judgment of the Pope declaring any Council to have wanted no necessary conditions of Infallibility and reject many in favour of which he hath so declared They take their Judgment from the sole consideration of the Council it self and what was acted in it Secondly That the Sentence of Pope and Council together is no more certain than that of Pope alone and that those therefore err who make not the Judgment of either separately but of both conjunctly to be a firm Foundation for Faith and Certainty This might be perhaps with some colour of Truth defended if either all Councils agreeing with the Pope were admitted as infallible or it were certainly known what are those Councils which conjoin'd to the Pope obtain that privilege But both are false For all our Adversaries which acknowledge not the Infallibility of Pope alone allow it not also to him when united to a Council not Oecumenical or not lawfully constituted or not rightly proceeding Now what Councils are Oecumenical what lawfully constituted and what rightly proceed we have proved that none can know Unless the Pope therefore hath Infallibility no certainty can accrue from his Judgment by the addition of any Council Which is also hence confirmed that the Sentence whereby the Pope pronounceth a Council to have been Oecumenical Lawful c comes from his sole Authority For although the Council should pronounce the same thing together with him their Sentence would be of no value as being pronounced in their own Cause So that the Decree of the Pope alone can not be of any efficacy in this matter which if it cannot afford certainty neither will the Decree of Pope and Council together at least no more certainty than that of Pope alone Turn therefore the Authority of Pope and Council on all sides take it separately conjunctly divided united no certainty no sirmness no foundation for Divine Faith will be ever obtained One thing only our Adversaries may pretend that the Decrees of Councils become then certain when the Universal Church shall have received them I have not indeed yet met with any who alledge this But I doubt not that many forced by the precedent Arguments will take refuge there and will therefore before I proceed any farther demonstrate the vanity and salseness of this pretence And first I oppose to it what I before observed That hereby Particular are equalled and put into the same condition with General Councils contrary to the sence of all Christians both Ancient and Modern who constantly give the greatest deference to General Councils Not to say that since hereby firm assent cannot be given to a General Council not received by the Church nor denied to a particular one received by her it would be foolish and absurd to call a General Council with infinite trouble and difficulty when a particular one may Define and Decree with the same Authority Secondly If the Church reject some Councils admit others there must be some reason of this different Judgment This reason must be taken either from the Condition necessary to the Councils Infallibility as Universality Freedom and the rest or from the matters decreed in the Council their conformity or repugnance to the rules of Faith. If from the first all the difficulties which we proposed in the soregoing Chapters will take place For whether such a Council were Occumenical or rightly constituted or did rightly proceed being all Matters of Fact the Universal Church may err in judging of them and so by her judgment manifested in the reception or rejection of the Council can neither add to nor take away any certainty from it Besides I have shewn that the conditions of an infallible Council cannot be known even by the Church when they are fulfilled and when not For if the Bishops present cannot know it much less those divided by great distance of place Can the Americans or Chinese know whether no bribes no sollicitation of votes or making of parties was used at Trent The existence of such a Council they know only by uncertain rumours In vain is a certain knowledge hoped for However it be to determine a thing of this nature and moment requireth an accurate and diligent inquisition and examination of all circumstances Such an examination neither ever was nor can be made by the Universal Church For that would require a judiciary kind of process which the Church out of a Council cannot observe For our Adversaries ascribe to the Universal Church only a passive infallibility in believing not an active in defining But grant she can judge of this matter Did she ever do it Was the Council of Trent thus examined by her What witnesses were heard What inquisition made either by all Bishops or any other The Acts of it were always kept secret and are to this day held Prisoners in the Vatican far from being submitted to the examination of the Universal Church The Canons are indeed promulged But if any one should examine them by himself whether to be admitted or rejected as the Gallican Church rejected all those Canons which concern Ecclesiastical Discipline that respects only the matter of the Council viz. The Truth or Falseness Justice or Injustice of its Decrees but not the form of it viz. The Legality Right Constitution and Proceeding of it of which only we are now treating So Lupus 1 In Concil Tom. 1. p. 742.7.44 tells us that the reason why almost all the Western Bishops rejected the V. Council was not any defect in the form of it but their respect to the Ancient custom of the Church of Gondemning no man after his Death that died in Catholick Communion Honour to the Memory of Theodorus of Mopsuestia so Famous over all the East and Reverence to the Canons of Chalcedon whose Authority they thought infringed by the Decrees of this Council So the Ancient French and English rejected the Seventh and Eighth Synods only for the falseness of their Decrees and defining the Lawfulness of Image worship which the others looked upon as Idolatry and contrary to the Faith because they had defined otherwise than the Orthodox Doctors had defined
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 conferr 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. Duvall 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 c. Rhod. de fide qu. 1. Sect. 4. §. 4. The last of these affirms there is a two-fold 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 then it would follow that Faith were Natural Fallible c. 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 slee to the Scriptures and enquire thence which is the true Church Stapleton 13 Dicimus ergo libentissimè dicimus cum Augustino in Scriptur 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. chiefly 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 perswaded 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 enquires 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
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 Catholick 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 rely'd upon at least according to our Adversaries Hypotheses and then 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 it self 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 it self for that would be to prove the same thing by it self 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 requir'd 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 chiefly 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 intitle it self 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. Duvall 4 Duvall in 2. 2. p. 120. and Martinonus 5 De fide disp 7. Sect. 1. among many others expresly 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 then 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 shewed 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 perswade probably If so I have gained what I was to prove For then 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 Judgment 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
to the Universal Lastly J. Fr. Picus Mâ—randula 41 Christi tempore desicientibus in side Apostolis integra omnino persectissima fides in solae Virgine Domini matre remansit Pic. Theor. 13. saith that in the time of Christ the Apostles falling away from the Faith it remained intire and perfect in the Virgin alone The fourth Classis exhibits only Jandovesius of Minorca who by the relation of Banncs 40 Bann Comm. sus in 2.2 quaest 1. art 10. dub 1. taught about the year 1363. that in the time of Antichrist the Church should consist only of baptized infants all adult persons apostatizing from the Faith. Thus far these testimonies which occurred to me in a hasty search If I had time or opportunity to turn over the Writings of the XIII XIV and XV. Ages I doubt not but I should find many more However any one may see how utterly repugnant these which I have produced are to the Infallibility of Pope and Council Yet there is no sentence pronounced against these Writers no mark set upon them not the least censure inflicted on them How can this be if they had taught right down heresie Nay this opinion is not only not condemned but also many ways approved First in that the Defenders of it have been preferred to the greatest dignities of the Church some made Cardinals others Presidents of Councils one Antoninus Florontinus Sainted and at this day Worstripped Which surely would not have been done if he had taught Heresie But what is more express and which cannot be eluded is that Thomas Waldensis's work whence he produced the clearest passages was solemnly approved by Pope Martin V. This Trithemius 42 Quod Martinus Papa V. examinatum authoritate Apostolicâ confirmavit Trithem in Vald. assirms telling us that Martin V. examined this work and confirmed it by Apostolical authority The Bull of approbation also may be seen presixed before the third Volume with the Examination subjoyned which lasted above a month when the work being presented to the Pope it was by him confirmed in full Consistory So that after this strict examination and solemn approbation to imagine heresie is contained in this Book will draw the Pope who approved it and the whole Church which never opposed this approbation into the suspicion of heresie I have done with the first argument The second shall be drawn from the silence of the Council of Trent which alone proveth that they thought it not an Article of Faith since they condemned not the Protestants on that account although no less vigorously impugning it than any other Article of their Church This argument is so much the stronger in that our Adversaries frequently urge the silence of the Council of Trent to prove Articles by us objected to them not to be of Faith. So Veronus and the Valemburgian Brethren in the book above-mentioned So the Bishop of Meaux in that Famous Book which hath illuded so many If they reasoned well herein why may not we use the same Arguments And then the Infallibility of the Church cannot be of Faith because wholly pretermitted by the Tridentine Council Lastly that it is not of Faith may be proved hence that no soundation of such a Faith can be alledged For if any were it must be either Scripture or Tradition or some decree of the Ruling Church or the consent of the Universal Church That Scripture and Tradition cannot be produced in this Case we have already demonstrated for this reason especially because the certainty of both depends upon the testimony of the Church Yet Amicus 43 Sumi possunt Traditio Scriptura primo modo ut approbatae infallibili judicio ipsius regulae animatae quo pacto sunt authoritatis divinae credendae fide insusâ Hoc autem modo a nobis non sumuntur ad probandam infallibilem authoritatem regulae animatae Secundo modo sumi possunt ut testatae signis rationibus humanis ut qued c. quo pacto sunt authoritatis humanae credendae fide acquisitâ Atque hoc modo sumuntur ad probandam c. Amic de Fide disp 6. n. 52. slieth thither who after he had objected our argument to himself answers that Scripture and Tradition may be taken either as approved by the infallible judgment of the living Rule and so of divine authority and to be believed by infused Faith. That thus considered they cannot be produced to prove the authority of the living Rule Or they may be taken as only testified and confirmed by humane reason and so of humane authority and to be believed by acquired Faith That this way considered they are produced to prove the living Rule wanting indeed infallible divine authority but having such humane authority as by the accession of Christs Providence over his Church becomes infallible I wish the Jesuit in writing this had first objected to himself our whole Argument For that is drawn not only from the impossibility of knowing according to our Adversaries the Divinity of Scripture or Tradition without being first assured of the infallibility of the Church but also from hence that they teach it cannot be known which are the Canonical books whether received by us uncorrupted or faithfully Translated and is the true sense of them without the same previous assurance If he had objected all this to himself he must either have departed from all the rest of their Divines and denied their so much boasted of arguments or have yellded herein Yet let us examine whâ—â— he offers First therefore his joyning the provid 〈…〉 the yet human authority of Scripture and Tradition is 〈◊〉 and absurd For of that we are assured no otherwise then by Faith and consequently it cannot be a foundation to Faith. Now this being taken away the other Arguments of the Truth of Scripture and Tradition according to the Jesuits argumentation become fallible and so no sit foundation for infallible Faith. Besides I would know whether this acquired Faith carrieth with it indubitable Truth and be of the same certainty with Divine or infused faith or at least sufcient to found Divine Faith upon For if it be not our argument returns If it be why may we not have without the assistance of the Churches authority a Divine Faith of those things which Scripture or if you will Tradition also clearly and plainly teach at least as clearly as they are thought to teach that infallibility of the Church But Amicus hath a reserve for this He pretends 43 Ibid. num 49. that although the human Arguments of the Truth of Scripture and Tradition be self evident avd sufficient to create a Divine Faith yet that we are forbidden by God to believe them with a Divine Faith till his Vicar the Pope shall have confirmed them A miserable refuge which lyeth open to a thousand inconveniencies For to omit asking where this prohibition of God is to be found not to urge that hereby all their Arguments drawn from
H. Ghost is not indifferently present in all Councils how numerous soever They acknowledge even the most numerous to have defined erroneously They require them to be rightly and canonically constituted and every way lawful Whence as often as we object to them the Errours of some Councils they think it enough to answer such were Pseudo-Councils Conventicles of no value not lawful Councils to which alone they allow the priviledge of Infallibility That the knowledge therefore of the lawfulness of Councils is very difficult however necessary to give assurance to Faith relying on the Decrees of them and that no true certainty is to be had therein I here undertake to prove And the difficulty of this knowledge may hence appear That it is utterly unknown what are the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful I never yet met with any one who dare undertake to assign them much less demonstrate them Some things may be found scattered here and there in treating of other matters but nothing delivered ex professo Yet unless this knowledge were fixed these conditions assigned agreed on and demonstrated and their number exactly determined so as we might be ascertained that neither more were required nor fewer sufficed in vain will Councils define the Infallibility of their Decrees will be always uncertain I doubt not but if God had intended to tie our Faith to the Decrees of Councils he would either have tied it to all indifferently or provided that no unlawful Councils should ever be held or given us plain and manifest Rules whereby to distinguish lawful from unlawful ones For to permit divers unlawful Councils to be held to command the faithful to adhere only to the lawful ones and all this while to prescribe no certain conditions assign no manifest Characters of a lawful Council is highly repugnant to the Wisdom and Goodness of God. He might indeed justly have left this difficult inquiry to us if it had been accommodated to our strength and capacity But the discord of whole Churches in assigning the lawful Councils and consequently the Errour of some most Learned men manifestly evince it to exceed both So formerly adhered to the V. General Council the whole Eastern and the Roman Churches Africa France Spain and the rest of Italy openly and vigorously rejected it Each of these Churches did then abound with most Learned and most Holy men which proveth the thing to have been very doubtful and obscure and difficult to be determined The same may be said of the Council of Constance as to the first Sessions Basil Florence and the V. Lateran whose Lawfulness is to this day disputed of The difficulty of this matter can arise only from the ignorance of the conditions necessary to make a Council lawful If these were fixed the determination would be easie unless the conditions themselves were intricate and imperceptible The Monarchists who assert those Councils to be lawful which are called presided over governed and confirmed by the Pope all which are easily known can scarce doubt which are lawful Councils whence they all agree in numbring them Not so the rest who neither agree in assigning the conditions of a lawful Council nor explain the necessity of each condition nor demonstrate what they say to be true For Example the first condition given by the Monarchists is That the Council be called by the Pope So also many of the Sorbonists as Brevicoxa a Debet Concilium authoritate Pontificis congregari nisi in casu in quo Papa esset notorius haereticus Brev. apud Launoi Epist part 8. ad Amelium who saith The Council ought to be called by the Pope unless he be a notorious Heretick and Richerius b Est Summi Pontificis regulariter ordinariè generalia Concilia indicere convocare it a si rogatus id facere detrectet c. Rich. Apol. axiom 25. who affirms The calling of Councils ordinarily and regularly to belong to the Pope unless he be distracted or refuse to do it when desired Launoy on the contrary thinks it matters not by whom the Council is called so it decrees rightly when met Therefore after a clear passage cited out of Maximus his Disputation with Theodosius Bishop of Caesarea he c Igitur non à Synodorum convocatione quae ab hoc vel illo fiat sed à rectâ fide quae in Synodis sancitur Synodorum authoritas depromenda est Laun. Epist part 6. p. 263. concludes the authority of Synods not to depend upon the calling of them whether done by one or other but upon the truth of their definitions Nor without reason For if no Councils were lawful but what were called by the Pope then the ancient Christians had no lawful ones among whom all those famous and holy Councils were called only by the Emperours as Launoy and others have abundantly demonstrated The same may be said of the second condition assigned by the Monarchists the Presidence of the Pope in the Council either by himself or by his Legates Richerius d Rich. Apol. ax 25. 26. and Holden e Hold. Anal. fid lib. 2. cap. 3. do not refuse it of whom the first teacheth the Pope hath a Right to preside over Councils the latter affirms him to be by Divine Right Head of all Councils But Launoy in proving that the Pope presided not over the first Councils sheweth that he thinks not this condition necessary The third condition is more difficult which consists in this That the Council be made up of those who have a right to be present and none others Who these are is not manifest For first it is inquired Whether Laicks be comprehended in this number This almost all deny yet Peter de Monte f Ista jura suprà pro utraque parte producta reddunt hane materiam mirabiliter dubiam Tract de Monarchiâ Bishop of Brixia after he hath produced many places on both sides out of the Canon Law thence concludeth this matter to be wonderfully doubtful Certainly in the Council of Hierusalem which many hold to have been Oecumenical the first and the Pattern of all Councils Laicks were present subscribed the Synodical Epistle together with the Apostles and said equally with them g Acts xv It seemed good to the H. Ghost and to us But to exclude them and admit only Ecclesiasticks shall all ranks of these be admitted This the Monarchists deny and assert only Bishops to have ordinarily the Right of a definitive Suffrage and Cardinals Abbots and Generals of Religious Orders by priviledge The same seems to be the opinion of Holden Contrariwise Gerson h Gers de potest Eccl. confid 12. Lud. Alemanus i Apud Aeneam Silvium Hist Concil Basil l b. 1. Cardinal and President of the Council of Basil Almain k De sup porest Eccl. Richerius l Apol. ax 21.34 and Vigorius m Comm. cap. ult vehemently contend that Presbyters at least Parsons bearing Cure of Souls have