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 controversie is turned from matter of Right into matter of Fact and become a meer 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 then 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 Infallibity of the Church since Amicus had before denied that it could be Learned or ought to be believed for the testimony of Scripture and Tradition as infallibly proposed by the Church It is manifest therefore the belief of the Insallibility of the Church cannot rest on Scripture or Tradition But neither can it on the judgment of the Ruling Church For besides that no such judgment 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 judgment of the Church For whosoever believeth any thing for the sake of the Churches judgment did before believe that judgment 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 judgment whereby we judge that we are to believe the Church hath infallible authority of proposing matters of Faith ought 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 authoritâ—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 Churches authority it self 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 relie 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 relie 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 errour For our Adversaries all acknowledge that the Church doth not always nor in all things enjoy this priviledge 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 ought 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 ought to be obeyed and received some other which for some just exception not yet assigned ought 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 Catholick 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 Antients 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 write 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
For among Catholicks some affirm it because there is no promise found of the contrary Others deny it because the whole Church would be otherwise in great danger of error To me neither seemeth sufficiently certain Yet it is probable that it becomes the Providence of Christ not to permit it In these words two things may be observed First That Suarez speaks of the Infallibility of Bishops not in believing but in teaching For he saith this in answer to an Objection That if all the Bishops could err then the other part of the Church the Laity might also err because they ordinarily follow the Doctrine of their Pastors and are bound to do it Now the People are bound to follow their Pastors not in what they think but in what they teach This also appears from the reason why some denied the consent of all Bishops in any error to be possible because if that should happen the whole Church would be brought into great danger of error But if Bishops should teach rightly although they thought erroneously there would be thence no danger of Error to the rest of the Faithful Secondly Of this Infallibility of Bishops in what they teach unanimously he saith three things 1. That some Catholicks deny it 2. That neither part seems certain to him 3. That it is probable All which singly prove That he thought it not to be of Faith. But who can imagine so great a Doctor could be ignorant of what was of Faith Theoph. Raynaudus differed not much from the Opinion of Suarez That the visible Head saith he 3 Vt seposito capite visibili membra omnia possint infici aliquo errore materiali vix potest contingere verisimillimum est Deo semper cordi futurum ne id accidat Si tamen accideret incont aminato capite nibil decederet de perpetuitate verae fidei in Ecclesiâ Rayn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punct 5. being laid aside all the Members should be infected with any material error could scarce happen and it is most probable God will take care it should not Yet if it should happen the Head being uninfected the perpetuity of true Faith in the Church would suffer no loss Where he determines not absolutely this cannot happen but looks upon the contrary only as most probable and denieth the Infallibility of the whole Church to depend thereon which is so much urged by the maintainers of the contrary Opinion Rhodius speaks more plainly who affirms 4 Mortuo pontifice non est in Ecclesiâ ulla infallibilis authoritas ad condenda fidei Decreta Nullam e◠tempore infallibilitatem actualem proximam habet Ecclesia Rhod. de fide qu. 2. Sect. 5. §. 5. That the Pope being dead the Church hath no Infallible Authority to make Decrees of Faith as having no actual and immediate Infallibility at that time Hence is manifest that we want little of a Confession from our Adversaries that the Infallibility of the Governours of the Church is not of Faith. And indeed it cannot be For no Foundation of such a Faith is to be found Not Scripture or Tradition For not to say that these to make any Article become of Faith ought according to our Adversaries most evidently to contain it which evidence even they will not deny to be here wanting It would be most absurd that Papists should believe this Infallibility of the Pastors of the Church for the Authority of Scripture and Tradition when they believe neither of these but for the Authority of the Pastors Take away their Testimony and they will deny it to be known whether Scripture or Tradition be the word of God or what is the sence of either The same may be said of the Decrees of the Church Representative For besides that no such express Decree of it can be produced the Infallibility of the Representative Church it self is believed by every single Papist only because they hear it taught by their Pastors As for the belief of the Universal Church that ought not be produced For that is the thing now inquired why the Universal Church believeth so Will our Adversaries therefore say they believe their Pastors cannot err in teaching unanimously what is of Faith because they so teach themselves This they must recurr to for they have no other reason left of believing so Yet nothing can be more absurd For first it is the constant Opinion of all Mankind and a received Law among all Nations that none should be Witness or Judge in his own Cause Secondly As we believe not any Man to be true and honest till we be assured of his veracity and honesty from some other Testimony than his own So it would be the highest imprudence to esteem those Infallible who challenge that privilege to themselves until their Infallibility be known to us from some other Argument than their own Testimony Certainly our Adversaries will not permit even the Scripture which is the word of God and hath so many illustrious Characters of a Divine Original to be believed for its own Testimony and Christ openly professed that if he bore Witness of himself his Witness was not credible Why then shall that be attributed to the Governours of the Church which Christ denied to himself and our Adversaries deny to the Word of God Thirdly The Question will return whence the Pastors of the Church know that they cannot err For they will not say they know it because the Faithful believe it since as Hallier 5 Non ideo vera docent Pastores quia vera credunt Auditores sed ideo vera credunt Auditores quia vera docentibus assentiuntur F. Hallier de Hierarch l. 4. c. 2. well saith The Pastors do not therefore teach truly because the Auditors believe truly but the Auditors believe truly because they assent to the Pastors teaching truly They cannot say that they know it from Scripture or Tradition For the truth of these without the Authority of the Church is no more known to learned than to unlearned persons Think not saith Bagotius 6 Cave existimes unumquenquam etiam Theologum Doctissimum posse quicquam eredere sine authoritate Ecclesiae independenter ab eâ Bagot Instit Theol. l. 4. c. 1. §. 1. that any one even the most learned Divine can believe any thing without the Authority of the Church and independently from it And Hosius 7 Hos cont Brent goeth so far that he maintains it to be the best way that even the most learned Men should recurr to implicit Faith and believe only in general as the Church believeth Shall the Pastors therefore believe that they cannot err for their own Testimony This is the natural consequence of our Adversaries Doctrine and that most absurd For first there is none of the Pastors which believeth so because he teacheth so but all teach so because all believe so Again The Question will recurr upon what Foundation do they teach so Here either nothing or only
any of our Adversaries have assigned a Conjectural Certainty to the perswasion which they have of the Truth of the Rules of their Faith. And surely such Certainty would be too mean and inconsiderable for this place Belonging to Opinion rather than Faith as Bellarmine well notes and not excluding distrust which is absolutely destructive of Divine Faith. A Moral Certainty is rarely made use of by our Adversaries in this case being such as take place only in matters of fact and not all those neither but only such as are perceived by the senses of other men and those so many and so clearly as take away all suspicion either of fraud or errour Whereas those parts of a Papists belief which have most need of being backed by certainty and are subject to the greatest difficulties are matters of right or at least such as fall not under the senses either of himself or others There are some things indeed which they would have to be manifest by this kind of certainty such as the knowledg of a lawful Pope or a Canonical Council what the present Church teacheth or to which Society belong the notes of a true Church c. We must consider therefore whether in these cases this certainty be sufficient It would suffice indeed if the opinions of Bagotius or Huetius were admitted Of whom the first equals the second prefers Moral Certainty to Metaphysical and even that which is acquired by demonstration But few approve these excesses Many on the contrary depress this certainty too low However all agree that it is inferior to that of Divine Faith. For which reason alone I might reject it but shall notwithstanding be content only then to do it when it is falsly pretended As for an evident certainty our Adversaries neither do nor can glory in it For if the foundations of Faith had that No previous motion of the will by the Divine influence no supernatural assistance of grace would be necessary which yet all require and none but fools and stupid persons could be disbelievers Besides that those things which are of positive right and depend upon the free Will of God cannot be taught by nature but must be known only by Divine Revelation But herein our Adversaries consent to us as we shall see hereafter and presume not to boast of evidence in the Objects of their Belief There remains therefore only the certainty of Divine Faith which they can pretend to Wherefore I shall chiefly consider that not neglecting yet the rest whensoever it can be imagined that they may be made use of by our Adversaries omitting only the certainty of Theological Conclusions and that for the reasons beforementioned I shall now examine all the Foundations of Faith which our Adversaries are wont to produce beginning at the Holy Scriptures CHAP. II. That the Faith of Papists is not founded on Holy Scripture THAT the Scripture is most certain in it self and most fit to ground our Faith upon is our constant belief and profession But this cannot suffice our Adversaries unless they recede from their known Principles The Scripture may be considered and used for the establishing of our Faith two ways First as it is in it self and its own nature and Secondly as it is confirmed illustrated and assisted by the help of Tradition and the authority of the Church That Scripture the first way considered is not a fit foundation of our Faith our Adversaries not only freely confess but sharply contend maintaining that laying aside Tradition and the Church we cannot be assured either that Scripture is the Word of God or consists of such Books and Chapters or that they are delivered incorrupted to us or faithfully translated or that this or that is the sense of such a place Of these opinions and arguments their Authors are agreed their Books are full that should I recite but the names much more the testimonies of the maintainers of them I should become voluminous To this may be opposed that this is only the opinion of the School Divines and Controversial Writers that there are many in the Church of Rome who believe the authority of the Scripture independent from the judgment of the Church and dextrously use that method of arguing against Atheists as Hâ—etius in his Books of Evangelical Demonstration and the Anonymous Author of the Dissertation concerning the arguments wherewith the truth of Moses his Writings may be demonstrated that such as these may have a true and firm belief of those things which Scripture plainly teacheth which are all that are necessary to be believed Whilest I congratulate to the Church of Rome these more sober Prosylites and wish that by a general concurrence therein they would refute my Dissertation I observe first that there are very few among them of this opinion Secondly that it doth not appear that even these few are perswaded that their arguments suffice to found a Divine Faith upon the Scriptures demonstrated by them The Licensers and Approvers of the aforementioned Dissertation seemed to be afraid of this while they manifestly distinguish a perswasion arising from those arguments from true Faith. Lastly that it doth not appear whether they think that they can without the authority of the Church be obliged to believe either which are Canonical Books or what is the sense of those Books So that until they declare their mind herein they are not by us to be disjoined from much less opposed to the rest I may therefore take it for granted that according to our Adversaries the Faith of private men cannot relie upon the Scripture destitute of the assistance of Tradition since it is what themselves most of all contend for Now for what concerneth Scripture considered the latter way as it is fortified by the accedaneous help of Church and Tradition I might perhaps omit the handling of it here forasmuch as neither Church nor Tradition can confer a greater degree of firmness upon Scripture which that they have not themselves I shall in the proceeding of this Discourse more opportunely shew hereafter However because some few things occur not improper for this place I shall very briefly speak of them First then how little help there is for Scripture in Tradition appeareth hence that it can no otherwise teach what is the true sense of Scripture but by the unanimous consent of the Fathers which whether it be to be had in any one text of Scripture may be much doubted It was a hard condition therefore 1 Nec eam unquam nisi juata unanimem consensum patrum accipiam interpretabor which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in his Profession of Faith to all which desired admission into the Church of Rome and which may for ever silence all the Roman Commentators that they will never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Now I would fain know how this Law can be observed since I may confidently affirm that there is no one
place of Scripture explained the same way by all the Fathers For there are many places which none of them have touched and none which all have interpreted Nor will it suffice to say that they agree who have interpreted it and that the silence of the rest is to be taken for consent as if they must be supposed to consent who were ignorant of such interpretations or dead perhaps before they were made or as if the Antients were wont expresly to reject all interpretations different from their own or these might not be rejected or at least others proposed in those Books of the Fathers which are lost It is not enough therefore to have the consent of a few unless we be assured of the concurrence of the rest But granting that it is it cannot be denied that our Adversaries can collect nothing certain out of any place of Scripture if any one of the Antients have interpreted it otherwise Hence Alphonsus a Castro 2 Itaapertum indubitatum ut nullus ex sacris probatis Doctoribus illud in aliquo alio sensu interpretetur juxta quem non possit talis propositio per illud de haeresi convinci Castr de justâ haeret pun lib. 1. cap. 4. requireth that among the necessary qualifications of a Text of Scripture to be produced for the conviction of Hereticks this be the chief that it be so plain and undoubted that none of the sacred and approved Doctors interpret it in some other sence according to which such a proposition cannot be thereby convinced of Heresie But if this be true how few places will there be of whose sense we may not doubt Certainly there are very few explained the same way by all antient Commentators This Christopher Gillius 3 Multa sunt in sacris literis quorum sententia neque ex Traditione neque ex Ecclesiae definitione habetur neque semper communis Sanctorum sententia reperitur vel quia diversa sentiunt vel quia pauci locum aliquem interpretati sunt Gill. de doctr sacrâ lib. 1. Tract 7. cap. 6. Professor of Conimbria acknowledgeth who affirms many places to be in Scripture whose sense can be had neither from Tradition nor from the Definition of the Church neither yet can a concurrent explication of the Fathers be found either because they were of different opinions or because few explained the place And the Anonymous Writer of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church 4 Pauca sunt Scripturae loca que S S. Patres varii variè interpretati non fuerint lib. 3. cap. 11. maintains that there is few places of Scripture which the Holy Fathers have not differently interpreted As will also manifestly appear to any one who shall consult those Interpreters that are wont to produce the expositions of the Antient Writers Hence the Readers may imagine to what a streight our Adversaries would be reduced if they were tied up to their own Laws and allowed to urge no other places of Scripture against us than what are unanimously interpreted by the Fathers A Specimen hereof may be found in Launoy where he weigheth the Texts of Scripture produced by Bellarmine for the Popes authority and shewing that they are diversly explained by the Antients concludeth thence that they are wholly ineffectual That the sense of Scripture cannot be learned from Tradition hence appeareth but neither is it taught any better by the Church At least She hath not yet taught it For how many Decrees of the Church is there about the true sense of Scriptures Decrees I say for not every simple explication or allegation of a Text is to be lookt upon as an authentick interpretation of it but only that which hath an Anathema affixed to the deniers of it or dissenters from it Of this kind I find but four or five in the Decrees of the Council of Trent and in those of elder Councils none at all For 1500 years the Church delivered not the sense of so much as one place whence may be judged both what a faithful Interpreter She is of the Holy Scriptures and how small an assistance we are to expect from her in obtaining the true sense of them CHAP. III. That Tradition is no better ground for the Papists Faith than Holy Scriptures THUS have we taken from our Adversaries the first and chief foundation of Divine Faith. The Second will be as easily removed I mean Tradition which may be considered two ways as well as Scripture either as it is in it self or as it is confirmed by the authority of the Church That it hath no force the first way considered Bellarmine 1 Scriptura Traditiones omnia planè dogmata nisi certissimi simus quae sit vera Ecclesia incerta prorsus erunt omnia Bell. de Eccles lib. 3. cap. 10. expresly acknowledgeth affirming that till we certainly know what is the true Church Scripture Tradition and all matters of belief are utterly uncertain That Bellarmin is in the right herein at least as to what concerns Tradition is manifest by these two reasons First that taking away the attestation of the Church it cannot be known that there is any Divine Traditions For laying aside that how shall we know that there is any unwritten Word of God derived down to us From Tradition that cannot be since we are now doubting whether there be any Tradition From Scripture That favours not Tradition but if it did it would avail nothing since as we shew in the foregoing Chapter Scripture according to our Adversaries cannot obtain belief till it be it self confirmed by Tradition and the Church Thus doth the truth of Tradition remain uncertain unless it be sustained by the Churches authority Gregory a Valentia 2 Sicut de authoritate ipsius Scripturae necesse per aliquam aliam certam authoritatem constare ita etiam de auctoritate Traditionis si ea quoque revocetur in dubium Val. Tom. 3. disp 1. quaest 1. punct 7. § 12. well knew this who puts Tradition into the same condition with Scripture neither being of authority when called in doubt unless confirmed by some other certain authority Secondly granting that it may be known that there are Divine Traditions it cannot yet without the authority of the Church be known which they are so many false dubious and suspected Traditions being carried about each of which pretends to the same Character of Divine Authority The testimonies of the Fathers will not help in this case since even their judgment is dubious and in many things it cannot easily be told what was their opinion Thus Valentia 3 Cum Traditio scriptis ferè Doctorum Orthod in Ecclesiâ conservetur quaestiones ac dubia moveri possunt de sensu illius sicut dubitatur saepe de sensu ac mente Doctorum Ejusmodi autem quaestiones per eandem ipsam Traditionem definiri satis non poterunt Val. loc cit confesseth that Tradition being conserved in the
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
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
reasons abovementioned as because her dissent rather than consent is to he shewed herein There is no way therefore left but to recur to Experience They will say they have observed the Church to erre 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 meerly 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 priviledge 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 judgment of the Church we may with reason reject it till they can shew 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 shew that the Church hath erred as often as She observed not this exception But let it be rejected Who cantell Whether no other is to be added Certainly if the observation of the past Errours 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 formed only from experience if the Authors of them made not a just observation of all the past errours 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 cheif 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. Peters Church and the Apostolick Chancery and solemnly promulged by the Popes Messengers in the wonted places This exception was made about an hundred years since meerly to serve a turn when they could by no other means clude 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 Aristotles Philosophy with Divinity nothing is more difficult than exactly to distinguish them Whence it frequently happens that what one accounts meerly 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 publickly 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 Lilly 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 prophane 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 heresie 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
doubt whether he be lawful Pope that possesseth the Chair and also whether an unlawful Pope enjoyeth the Priviledge of Infallibility I may then justly doubt whether I ought to assent to the Decree of every single Pope and can never be certain of it That the first is uncertain I have already shewed That the latter is not certain Our Adversaries will not deny For if any it must be the certainty of Faith which Duvall will never grant who denies even the Infallibility of a lawful Pope to be of Faith. If any one yet shall dissent from Duvall and contend that it is of Faith he may be convinced by the same Arguments which we produced against the rest He may be asked where God revealed it or the Church defined it He may be told that Defenders of the contrary Opinion were never yet accused or condemned of Heresie Lastly He may be put in mind of Stephen Romanus and Sergius who declaring Formosus to have been an unlawful Pope did also annull his Decrees But I need not insist upon refuting that which no man maintains So that we may conclude there is no certainty to be had in this matter and therefore that Faith cannot safely rely on the Pope's Sentence CHAP. X. Wherein is prevented an Evasion whereby Duvall endeavours to elude whatsoever hath been hitherto said concerning the Pope DVvall a Respondeo definitiones Pontificis non esse de fide donec universalis Ecclesia quam de fide est errare non posse eas acceptaverit Duvall de potest Pont. part 2. qu. 5. oppressed with so many Difficulties takes refuge in saying The Definitions of the Pope are not of Faith before he Church whose Infallibility is of Faith hath received them I might justly rest here ince Duvall hereby grants us all we desire viz. that faith cannot be founded upon the definition of the Pope alone Whether the Churches Authority adds certainty to it I shall enquire hereafter In the mean while that the Truth maybe on all sides more manifest and because many things now occur not proper for another place I will more accurately consider Duval's argument And first Duval hereby is not consonant to himself For if the Pope's Decrees be not of Faith till received by the Church then the Pope alone is not a Rule of Faith but an aggregate of Pope and Church together when as Duval in another place b Id. in 22. pag. 62. teaches there are five Rules of Faith the Church Scripture Tradition Council and Pope whereof every one is so independent and sufficient that whatsoever it shall propose is most firmly to be believed not to say that hereby the perfections of a Rule of Faith will appear much more eminently in the Church than in the Pope since the Church can direct our Faith without the Pope but not the Pope without the Church whereas Duval c Ibid. p. 215. teaches the quite contrary Herein therefore he is neither consonant to himself nor to the other Patrons of Papal Infallibility while he denies obedience to be due to the Popes Decrees till they be received and confirmed by the Church this being very near the opinion of the Sorbonists those great Enemies of the Popes Infallibility For the Faculty of Divinity d Facultatis dogma non est quòd summus Pontifex nullo accedente Ecclesiae consensu sit infallibilis proposed their opinion in the year 1663. in these words It is not the judgment of this Faculty that the Pope is infallible without the consent of the Church And the Clergy of France in the year 1682. determined e In quaestionibus fidei praecipuas Summi Pontificis esse partes ejusque Decreta ad singula Ecclesias pertinere nec tamen irreformabile esse judicium nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit That questions of Faith chiefly pertained to the Pope and that his Decrees concerned all Churches yet that his sentence was not irreformable unless the consent of the Church had supervened How little doth Duval's opinion differ from this who maintains that the Popes Sentence is indeed infallible before the reception of the Church but appears not so to be till then For if so whether fallible or infallible it signifies not in matter of practice it will be the same and assent will be equally denied to the Popes Decrees until they shall have been admitted by the Church In the next place this Answer accuseth of rashness and imprudence the far greater part of the Church of Rome which without expecting the approbation of the universal Church blindly receives the Papal Decrees howsoever yet uncertain But that is of less moment This I would gladly know whether the Church whose reception makes the Papal Decrees to become of Faith ought to receive them without any precedent examination or not till she hath accurately compared them with the Word of God. If the latter then we have no definition on which Faith can rely For I dare confidently affirm there is none which the Church hath thus examined and approved Few undergo that labour most blindly follow the Dictates of the Pope Not to say that this is intirely repugnant to that profound submission wherewith the Decrees of the Head of the Church ought to be received or that according to this Principle the Pope ought together with his Decree to transmit to several Bishops the reasons of it since without the knowledge of these they cannot be duly examined or that the Pope is highly unjust who without being first certified of their universal approbation excommunicates and punisheth the contemners of them I will only urge that by this means the supreme Power is translated from the Pope to the Church as which passeth the last and peremptory Sentence not only on things to be believed but even on the Decrees of the Popes themselves How this will agree with the Doctrine of our present Adversaries let them see to it Certainly Raynaudus and the Author f De Lib. Eccles Gall. lib. 7. cap. 17. of the Treatise of the Liberties of the Gallican Church think far otherwise of whom the latter bestows a whole Chapter to prove this very Proposition That the Papal Decrees are not therefore to be obeyed because confirmed by the Churches consent but therefore consented to by the Church because antecedently infallible But if the Pope's Decrees are to be received by the Church with a blind assent and without any previous examination I do not see of what weight such a reception can be which according to this supposal must be granted to false Decrees as well as true Besides such reception would not differ from Divine Faith such as is given to the most authentick Revelations and so this opinion would be repugnant to it self For it supposeth Faith is not to be yielded to the Papal Decrees antecedently to the Churches reception and yet requires the Church to receive them with a blind assent that is with Faith. Theophilus Raynaudus useth a not
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 Churches 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 no 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 Duvall ought 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 forbad him to be associated in the Bishoprick to Valerius yet alive But that which is chiefly 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 Popes 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 Duvall 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 Duvall 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 't is possible they may dissent 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 Duvall 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 Papist's Faith. The fourth succeeds viz. an Oecumenical Council which may be considered two ways either as disjoyned 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 Oecumenical 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 enquire 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 concil lib. 2. cap. 2. and Duvall b Duvall 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 dissent 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 Oecumenical lawfully constituted Canonically proceeding and wholly free The Monarchical Divines acknowledge the necessity of those Conditions yet differ from the Sorbonists two several wayes First In that they interpret these Conditions
might be numbred perhaps if the Church were included in one Province But now that it is diffused throughout the whole World no mean is left of knowing what is the Opinion either of all or most Our Adversaries I suppose will say that when the Governours of the Church dissent about any matter of Faith the Faithful must suspend their assent while the Controversie endureth and content themselves by an implicit Faith to believe in it what the Church believeth not enquiring in the mean while what the Church believeth but leaving that to be enquired by the Church her self To this I answer First that this grants us all we desire For we dispute here only of explicite Faith maintaining that our Adversaries have no certain Foundation for that If they flee to implicite they thereby forsake explicite Faith. Secondly almost all our Adversaries confess that there are some Articles which even the most ignorant Christians are bound to believe with explicite Faith and Connink 6 De actib sup disp 4. dub 9. asserts the contrary Opinion of some Canonists to be held erroneous and even heretical by the other Doctors Further all consent there are some points of Faith necessary to be believed by all with explicite Faith not only because commanded to be so but because the explicite belief of them is also the means without which Salvation cannot be obtained Wherefore Hosius 7 Hâ—s contra Prol. Brent lib. 3. in relating the known story of the Collier saith he did not make that Answer of believing as the Church believeth before he had entirely repeated the Apostles Creed and professed his adherence to it Now suppose the Bishops differ about some Article necessary to be believed with explicite Faith as happened in the times of Arianism Certainly the Faithful cannot at that time sulpend their assent if they do not together suspend their hopes of Salvation But not to insist upon that Example suppose a Controversie raised about doing somewhat which God in the Scripture expresly commands to be done such as we contend to be Communion under both kinds reading of the Scripture c. What is then to be done Must all action be suspended This were to deny obedience to God. We must therefore chuse one part and so reject the pretence of implicite Faith. Again implicite Faith is thus expressed I believe what the Church believeth It therefore supposeth the Faith of the Church Of what kind not implicite surely For that would be absurd in the highest degree Certainly then the Church could not justly be accounted the Keeper of Tradition which is nothing else in our Adversaries sence but that Doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apostles they to their Successors until it was derived down to us If this be true the Church of every Age must of necessity distinctly and explicitly know that Doctrine Otherwise it cannot faithfully and accurately deliver it to the succeeding Church Then how shall this Faith of the Church her self be expressed It can be by no other Form than this I believe what I believe than which nothing can be more absurd But I need not refute a Folly which our Adversaries do not espouse as appears from the words of Duvall 8 Quamvis aliqua successu temporis suerint in Ecclesiâ desinita de quibus antea eitra haeresin dubitabatur certum tamen est illa fuisse semper à nonnullis praedicata declarata Quòd autem ab aliis non crederentur istud tantùm vel ex oblivione vel ex ignorantiâ Scripturae aut traditionis proveniebat Duval in 2.2 p. 111. Although some things were in process of time defined by the Church which were before doubted of without the Crime of Heresie yet it is certain they were always preached and declared by some But that they were not believed by others arose either from the forgetfulness or from the ignorance of Scripture or Tradition Is it therefore this explicite Faith of the Church which serveth as a Foundation to implicite Faith So it ought to be and so I doubt not but our Adversaries will say it is But in this case wherein the Governours of the Church dissent about an Article of Faith it cannot be For that which the Church explicitly believes is no desinite Opinion but a meer Contradiction repugnant to it self and destroying it self For one part of the Church believeth the Opinion whereof the Controversie is raised to be true wholsom and revealed by God the other part believes it false pernicious and suggested by Men. Now to have the belief of the whole Church you must joyn both parts of the Contradiction together and so the Church believeth that Opinion to be true and false wholsom and pernicious revealed by God and suggested by Men. But this is not Faith but a deformed Monster consisting of contrary and repugnant parts CHAP. XXI That the consent of Doctors even when it can be had is more difficult to be known than that we can by the help of it attain to the knowledge of the Truth TO what we observed in the precedent Chapter our Adversaries may perhaps answer That when the Governours of the Church differ about a matter to be believed then indeed the Faith of private Christians cannot rely upon their Authority but that this dissent is not perpetual that they oftentimes consent in delivering the Doctrine of the Church and then at least may be securely believed in what they teach To this I reply First that hereby they must grant they have no certain and sixed Rule of Faith for many great and weighty points of Religion contrary to their continual boasts of the abundance of Rules whereby God hath provided for all the necessities of his Church Secondly the Governours of the Church have now for many Ages differed about some matters upon which according to our Adversaries depend the hopes of eternal Salvation For Example whether the true Church is to be found among the Greeks or among the Latins For of the five Patriarchates of the Church four are divided from the Church of Rome and accuse her of Heresie and Schism both which Accusations she retorts upon them Now this is a matter of great moment which may be justly doubted of and can never be determined by the consent of Doctors But to omit that this consent if it could be had is not so manifest and obvious as a Rule of Faith ought necessarily to be which by the confession of all must be clear evident and easie to be applied This Duvall 1 Secunda conditio eaque pariter essentialis est perspicuitas Nam si hee regula obseurè sidei mysteria proponeret regula fidei non foret Duvall in 2.2 p. 207. assigns for an essential condition of a Rule of Faith and acknowledgeth that if a Rule obscurely proposeth the Mysteries of Faith it would thereby become no Rule And for this reason our Adversaries so much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture that they may thereby
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