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 Presidents of the Council of Constance layeth down these Three Assertions 1. That a General Council can depart 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 Heresie 3. That the whole multitude of Clergy and Laity may apostatize 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 Hereticks 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 c. 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 c. 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 Catholick Symbolical Church that can challenge assent upon pain of insidelity 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 intirely 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 Nam 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 judgment 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 Oecumenical 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 it self 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 diverse 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 expresly Disputes against the Infallibility of Councils But because he preadmonisheth he assirms 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 Ariminenâ—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 repraesentativè 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 judgment 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 erre as appears by that of Ariminum the Second of Ephesus that of Africk 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 erre
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 shews 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. Bellarmines 3 Non nisi actu externo obâ—metummortis Bell. excuse here will not avail That Marcellinus taught nothing against the Faith was no Heretick 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 mony 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 Heresie 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 Hereticks that himself neither taught Heresie nor was an Heretick 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 Bellarmines is wholly insufficient For 1. Whereas he pretends Liberius was an Heretick 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 knowledg and judgment 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 Hereticks as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Liberius to have done is to favour Heresie 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 seperated themselves from the Communion of Pope Anastasius meerly because he had not denied Communion to a Deacon of Thessalonica of Acacius his party who yet was far from an open Heretick 4. Where Bellarmine denieth Liberius to have subscribed to an Heretical Confession of Faith this is manifestly repugnant to the plain Testimonies of the Antients We shall produce some Liberius 5 Vbi cognovi justè vos illum Athanasium condemnâsse mox consensum meuâ—n commodavi sententiis vestris Itapâ—e amoto Athanasio a Communione omnium diâ—o me cum omnthus vobis pacem unanimitatem habere Nam Dominus nâ—ster frater communis Demophilus qui dignatus est fidem vestram Catholicam exponere quae Sirmii suscepta est Hane ego libenti animo suscepi c. Liber Epist 7. Me autem cum omnibus vobis Episcâ—pis Ecclesiae Catholicae pacem habere his literis sâ—ire debetis fratres charissuni Quicun que autem a pace concordiâ nostrâ dissenserit sâ—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 Catholick 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 Catholick Church And Excommunicate all those which shall dissent from this our Blessed concord St. Hillary 6 Anathema tibi a me dictum Liberi sâ—â—iis tuis Iterum tibi Anathama tertio Praevaricatoâ— Libeti Hil in Fragm Perfidiam apud Sirmium conscriptam quam dicit Liberius Catholicam a Demophilo sibi expâ—sitam Id. ibid. O te miserum qui nescio utrum majori impietate relegaveris Liberium quà m 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 Heresie penned at Sirmium which Liberius calls Catholick expounded to him by Demophilus c. 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 Heretick 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 perswaded him to subscribe to heresie And in his Chronicle relates how Liberius worn out with the toils of banishment and having subscribed to heretical pravity entred Rome as a Conquerer 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 heresie 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 Heresie To these produced by Launoy I shall add three others Philostorgius 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philost l. 4. c. 3. affirms that Liberius and
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 Oecumenical The Sorbon saith Richerius b Schola◠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 Oecumenical 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 inferiour in Piety and Learning at least not necessarily inferiour 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 disjoyned 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 Diocess the Bishop be Heretical and the inferiour 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 Heresie 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 Colledge were present And if such a Council were never held formerly when the whole Christian World was subject to one Emperour 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 no otherwise represent absent persons than if they come in their name and by their command which may be two ways First if they be expresly 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 Ecclesiastick but that the readiest way is to chuse some out of every Order and kind of Ecclesiasticks in every Province and Christian Nation Holden f Vt 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 hinderance or the permission of the Apostolick 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 conjoyned 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 c. 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 subjoyns 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 Heresie shall the Delegators be bound to confirm their Suffrages The second way of delegating destroys the liberty of the Council For the present Bishops would by this means be no Judges of the Controversies proposed and all disputation or examination of the Question in hand would be wholly vain The first way therefore of Representation is useless Let us now consider the second I affirm that the absent Bishops cannot be said to have committed their suffrages to the present For first Although this may with some colour be said of those which have been lawfully and sufficiently summoned yet it cannot be applied to them who either are not summoned at all or not by him who hath the lawful Authority to do it Who this is is yet undetermined Besides what if the absent Bishops shall openly protest they will not be obliged by what the others shall decree as the French did at Trent Shall they be also supposed to have tacitely assented But to shew the vanity of this pretence more clearly I will prove that tacit delegation which in other cases may be allowed to have here no place First it doth not appear what is the peculiar Office to be performed by the Bishops in a Council Holden makes them only Witnesses of revealed Truths Others rather think them to be Judges But Judges they cannot be unless also Witnesses For how shall they define an Opinion to have been revealed or not unless they know it to be so and be Witnesses of the Revelation or at least Tradition Yet 't is certain that Proxies in witnessing are not wont to be allowed or if they be that a tacit delegation will not suffice I add if it were a matter of more external Discipline or what concerns only the Bishops themselves those who absent themselves might perhaps be supposed to quit their right and submit themselves to the judgment of the rest which meet in the Council But to imagine such a thing in a matter of Faith and Truth is most absurd Shall those Bishops who might have born Witness to the Truth be thought to have forfeited or deserted their right only because either voluntarily or by force they were absent from the Council If this were admitted errour would soon triumph over Truth and Faith over Heresie For our Adversaries confess and Experience hath often proved That the major part of Bishops in a Council may favour Heresie For suppose the heretical Bishops nearer to the place of the Council or supported by the favour of the secular Prince or mightily zealous in the propagation of their Errour all which advantages Arianisme formerly enjoyed in the East If to these be added the right of representing absent Bishops they may establish Heresie in the Church for ever and oblige the absent Bishops for a punishment of their negligence to subscribe to erroneous Definitions of Faith. Lastly If the absent Bishops tacitely delegate their suffrages to the present there is no number of Bishops so small which may not constitute a General Council nay although they be all of one Province provided the Summons were directed to all the Provinces as being interpretatively invested with the Authority of all the absent Bishops Which yet is not allowed by our Adversaries and Bellarmine k Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui adveniant Bell. de Concil lib. 1. cap. 17. himself requires as the fourth condition of a General Council that some Bishops come from at least the greatest part of the Provinces of Christendom Let the Reader now judge how that can stand which Richerius l Maximè propriè perfectissimè Rich. Apol. axiom 21. so positively affirms That an Oecumenical Council represents the whole Church most properly and perfectly On the contrary what I have already offered proves that the Church is not at all much less most perfectly represented thereby CHAP. XIII That although there were Oecumenical Councils it would be always uncertain which they were THAT there is no truly Oecumenical Councils I have proved in the precedent Chapter But grant there is We shall gain but little unless we undoubtedly know which they are that deserve that Name For the Papists will not have their Faith rely upon a Council indefinitely but upon such or such a Council as for Example upon that of Constance or Trent But their Faith cannot rely on these unless they were certain they were Oecumenical which that they can never be I shall prove in this Chapter I might perhaps supersede this labour as being already performed by Learned Men even of the Church of Rome Launoy a Laun. Epist part 8. ad Ames and the Author b de lib. c. lib. 5. cap. 2. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church although with a different intention For the first seems to have undertaken it only for the love of Truth the second that he might shew the necessity of depending wholly and absolutely upon the Pope But because both of them have omitted many things it will not be perhaps unuseful to add mine to their Observations First therefore The difficulty of knowing Oecumenical Councils appears from the discord of Authors in numbring them Bellarmine reckons 32 which distributing into 4 Classes he makes 18 of them to have been approved 7 condemned 6 partly approved and partly condemned and 1 the Pisan neither manifestly approved nor manifestly condemned Bosius c Bos de signis Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. numbers 18 expresly denying the rest to have been General Bannes d Ban. Catal. Concil praemisso Tom. 3. in Thom. 15 or at most 17. But all omit that of Siena although acknowledged to have been General by the Council of Basil e Concil Basil in quâdam resp datâ 3. Id. Maii 1436. Again of those numbred by Bellarmin some are by other Writers expunged out of the List Let us view them in order After the 1. Nicene Council of whose Universality none doubts comes that of Sardica which is thought to be General by Bellarmin Baronius Perron Lupus Natalis Alex. Maimbourg denied by the Africans Photius and Auxilius f Apud Lupum Diss de Concil Sardic among the Ancients by Richerius g Rich. de Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. and Peter de Marca h Marca de Concord lib. 7. cap. 3. among the Moderns The first Constantinopolitan Council Natalis i Orientalis duntaxat Ecclesiae Concilium istud fuit nec Oecumenicum nisi ex post facto quatenus c. Nat. §. 4. part 1. p. 236. affirms to have been only a Synod of the Eastern Church and Oecumenical only ex post facto inasmuch as the Western Church in the Roman Synod under Pope Damasus approved it Yet in the year after the Council the Eastern Bishops meeting at Constantinople and writing to the Roman Synod call their former Council Oecumenical which Valesius k Val.