OF THE Incurable Scepticism OF THE CHURCH OF ROME IMPRIMATUR Hic Liber Cui Titulus Of the Incurable Scepticism of the Church of ROME Octob. 20. 1687. GVIL. NEEDHAM LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Church yard MDLXXXVIII PREFACE AMong the manifold accusations with which the Papists are wont to defame our most holy Religion there is none which they oftner alledge or more seriously endeavour to evince or confirm with more plausible arguments than that whereby they pretend that we utterly overthrow all certainty in divine matters and consequently Faith it self This is the constant subject of their Writings and Discourses this is of late their only argument To obviate therefore these importunate clamours I resolved throughly to examin the whole Argument and inquire whether there be any truth in those things which many obtrude for most certain Having then with some diligence considered the matter I soon found first that those things are false and and frivolous which are commonly opposed to us and then that our Adversaries themselves are manifestly guilty of that crime wherewith they asperse us and can by no Arts be purged from it For both that celebrated infallibility of the Church and of her Governours upon which the whole System of Popish Faith relies is easily proved to be null and feigned and that even if it were true it could yet produce no assurance of Faith no certainty of belief To evidence and evince all this I thought not unfit and therefore have undertaken to demonstrate these three things I. That it is most false what is pretended with so much confidence that the Church at least in the sence by them understood cannot erre II. That granting the Church cannot erre this her Infallibility is of that nature that both it self labours with inextricable difficulties and can confer certainty upon nothing else III. That our Faith relieth upon far more firm foundations and that nothing is believed by us which is not both certain in it self and such as the certainty of it cannot be unknown by us Of these three Propositions which may in time God willing be demonstrated I have now undertaken the Second because that may be comprehended in a much shorter Discourse than the rest I will shew therefore in this Treatise that the least assurance of those things which are believed is wanting to the Popish Religion and that all things are there doubtful all things uncertain and nothing firm This altho it be most true in the Agenda also of their Religion yet to avoid prolixity I confined my self to the Credenda only and even in these omitted many things which might perhaps seem not inconsiderable to many For not one or two ways only doth the Roman Religion overthrow the firmness of Faith It doth it upon many accounts principally by their Doctrine of the Eucharist which introduces an universal Scepticism into the whole System of Christian Religion Not to say that their Divines in teaching that the very Existence of God is not so much known as believed manifestly betray to Atheists the Cause of Religion But I omit these things as not properly belonging to the matter by us undertaken What I offer in this Discourse may perhaps seem to some too much embarassed with Schâ—lastick Terms and Disputes Nor indeed do I wholly deny it But I desire those Persons to consider whether this could possibly be avoided For only to propose our Arguments and not vindicate them by examining what is opposed to them by our Adversaries seemeth to me the least part of an accurate Disputation Which whosoever shall peruse even with the greatest diligence and attention cannot nor ought not to give sentence because they have not yet heard the other party whose defence cannot be without injustice neglected Those defences indeed are become nauseous in this Age and not undeservedly But however they could not be justly passed by and dissembled by us Yet in these I have endeavoured to propose them as clearly and perspicuously as I could and accommodate them to the capacity of all persons Whether I have gained my intent experience must declare OF THE INCURABLE SCEPTICISM OF THE CHVRCH of ROME CHAP. I. Wherein is laid down the Design of this Treatise and some things are premised for the better understanding of the whole IT is acknowledged by all that the perfection of that Faith which the Schoolmen call Inform we Historical consists in three things that it be plenary pure and firm that is that it believeth all which God hath revealed and that without any mixture of errour or admittance of doubt That the Faith of Papists is neither plenary nor pure many have demonstrated That it is not firm or unshaken I here undertake to prove and to shew that admitting their Hypotheses a Papist cannot with a certain and firm Faith be perswaded of the truth of any thing not only not of those Articles which Rome hath added to the Divine Revelation but not even of those which were truly revealed by God. For since Objects of Faith are inevident of themselves and deserve assent no otherwise then as it shall appear that they have been revealed by God and Revelation it self not a whit more evident there is necessarily required one or more Rules whereby things Revealed may be distinguished from not Revealed We have only one such Rule the Holy Scriptures The Papists many that so what they want in goodness they may make up in number For to Scripture they have added Tradition Decrees of Popes Constitutions of Councils and consent of Pastors not only those who have successively ruled the Church from the first foundation of it but of those also who govern at any determinate time and lastly the belief of the whole Church Now that by the means of any Rule our Faith may become firm two things are necessary First that the Rule it self be true containing nothing false or not revealed And then Secondly that what we believe manifestly agree with this Rule If either of these conditions fail our Faith must be uncertain Nor is it only requisite that a Papist be ascertained both of the truth of the Rules of his Faith and the conformity of what be believe unto them But also that he be as firmly perswaded of the truth of these things as he is of the truth of any Article of his Faith. For since the Faith of Papists depends wholly upon these Rules and is sustained only by them How can it be that the perswasion of the truth of those things which they believe meerly for the sake of these Rules should be more firm than the perswasion of the truth of the Rules themselves or of the conformity of what they believe unto those Rules It being impossible that an Effect should have more in it than the Cause can give it A Conclusion stronger than the Premises or a House firmer than the Foundations Nor do our Adversaries deny this Holden 1 Quamcunque enim
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
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
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
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