View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 1 – Part 2
Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHURCH of ROME. A Diſcourſe written by the Lord Viſcount FALKLAND.
Section 1 TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errors, they anſwer, that She hath none, for She never can have any. This being ſo much harder to believe than the firſt, had need be proved by ſome certaine arguments, if they expect that the belief of this one ſhould draw on whatſoever elſe they pleaſe to propoſe: Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes than thoſe by which we offer to prove ſhe hath erred: Which are, arguments from Scripture, Reaſon, and Antient Writers; all which, they ſay themſelves, are fallible; for nothing is not ſo, but the Church; which if it be the onelyonly infallible determination, and that can never be believed upon its owne authority, we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible: for theſe other waies of proof (they ſay) may deceive both them and us; and ſo neither ſide is bound to believe them.
Section 2 If they ſay, that an argument out of Scripture is ſufficient ground of Divine faith, why are they ſo offended with the Proteſtants for believing every part of their Religion upon that ground, upon which they build all theirs at once? and if following the ſame Rule with equall deſire of finding the truth by it, (having neither of thoſe qualities, which Iſidorus Peluſiota ſayes, are the cauſes of all Hereſies; foreign, pride and prejudication) why ſhould God be more offended with the one than the other, though they chance to erre?
Section 3 They ſay the Church is therefore made infallible by God, that all men may have ſome certain Guide; yet though it be infallible, unleſſe it both plainly appeare to be ſo, (for it is not certaine to whom it doth not appeare certaine) and unleſſe it be manifeſt which is the Church, God hath not attained his end; and it were to ſet a Ladder to Heaven, and ſeem to have a great care of my going up, whereas unleſſe there be care taken that I may know this Ladder is here to that purpoſe, it were as good for me it had never been ſet.
Section 4 If they ſay we may know it, for that generall and conſtant Tradition inſtructs us in it; I anſwer, that ignorant people cannot know this, and ſo it can be no Rule for them; and if learned people miſtake in this, there can be no condemnation for them. For ſuppoſe to know, whether the Church of Rome may erre, (as a way which will conclude againſt her, but not for her; for if She hath erred, certainly She may, but though She hath not erred hitherto, it followes not that She cannot erre) I ſeeke whether She have erred; and conceiving She hath contradicted her ſelfe, conclude neceſſarily, She hath erred, I ſuppoſe it not damnable though I erre in my judgement: becauſe I trie the Church by one of thoſe touch-ſtones her ſelf appoints me; which is, Conformity with the Antient. For to ſay I am to believe the preſent Church that it differs not from the former, though it ſeem to me to doe ſo, is to ſend me to a Witneſſe, and bid me not believe it.
Section 5 Now to ſay the Church is provided for a Guide of faith, but muſt be known by ſuch marks as the ignorant cannot ſeek it by, and the learned may chance not to find it by, though ſeeking it with all diligence, and without all prejudice, can no way ſatisfie me.
Section 6 If they ſay, God will reveal the truth to whoſoever ſeeks it in theſe wayes ſincerely; this ſaying both ſides will (without meanes of being confuted) make uſe of; therefore it would be as good that neither did.
Section 7 When they have proved the Church to be infallible; yet to my underſtanding they have proceeded nothing farther, unleſſe we can be ſure which is it; for it ſignifies onelyonly that God will alwaies have a Church which ſhall not erre; but not that ſuch or ſuch a Succeſſion ſhall be alwaies in the right; not that the Biſhop of ſuch a place, and the Clergy that adheres to him, ſhall alwaies continue in the true faith. So that if they ſay the Greek Church is not the Church, becauſe by its owne confeſſion it is not infallible; I anſwer, that it may be now the Church, and may hereafter erre, and ſo not be now infallible; and yet the Church never erre, becauſe before their fall from truth, others may ariſe to maintain it, who then will be the Church; and ſo the Church may ſtill be infallible; though not in reſpect of any ſet perſons whom we may know at all times for our Guide.
Section 8 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church, and not the Greeke, becauſe their opinions are conſonant either to Scripture or Antiquity, they run into a circle, proving their tenets to be true; firſt, becauſe the Church holds them, and then theirs to be the true Church, becauſe it holds the truth: which laſt, though it appeare to me the onelyonly way, yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination, without which, all they ſay beſides is nothing.
Section 9 Nay, ſuppoſe they had evinced, that ſome ſucceſſion were infallible, and ſo had proved to a learned man that the Roman Church muſt be this, becauſe none elſe pretends to it; yet this can be no ſufficient ground to the ignorant, who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beliefe, that the Church of Greece pretends not to the ſame; and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall argument, becauſe if any other company had likewiſe claimed to be infallible, it had overthrowne all ſo proved.
Section 10 Nay, it is but an arbitrary Argument, and depends upon the pleaſure of the adverſary; for, if any ſociety of Chriſtians would pretend to it, the Church of Rome could make uſe of it no longer.
Section 11 The chiefeſt reaſon why they diſallow of the Scripture for Judge, is, becauſe when differences ariſe about the interpretation, there is no way to end them; and that it will not ſtand with the goodneſſe of God, to damne men for not following his will, if he had aſſigned no infallible way how to find it. I confeſſe this to be wonderfull true, foreign, and let them excuſe themſelves that think otherwiſe. Yet this will be no argument againſt him, who believes that to all who follow their reaſon in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and ſearch for Tradition, God will either give his grace for aſſiſtance to find the truth, or his pardon if they miſſe it: and then this ſuppoſed neceſſity of an infallible Guide, with this ſuppoſed damnation for want of it, fall together to the ground.
Section 12 If they command us to believe infallibly the contrary to this, they are to prove it falſe by ſome infallible way, (for the concluſion muſt be of the ſame nature, and not conclude more then the premiſſes ſet downe,) now ſuch a way, Scripture and Reaſon, or infuſed faith cannot be, (for they uſe to object the fallibility of them to thoſe that build their Religion upon them) nor the Authority of the Church, for that is part of the queſtion, and muſt be it ſelfe firſt proved, and that by none of the former waies, for the former reaſons.
Section 13 The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith, being it ſelfe no neceſſary part of the faith; (& we can be no ſurer of any thing proved, then we are of that which proves it) and if he be fallible, no part is the more infallible for his ſideing with them. So if the Church be divided, I have no way to know which is the true Church, but by ſearching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity, and ſo judging accordingly. (But this is not to ſubmit my ſelfe to her opinions as my guide, which they tell us is neceſſary.) Which courſe if they approve not of as a fit one for a Learned man, they are in a worſe caſe for the ignorant, who can take no courſe at all, nor is the better at all, for this Guide, the Church; whileſt two parts diſpute which is it, and that by arguments he underſtands not.
Section 14 If I granted the Pope, or a Counſell by him called, to be infallible, yet I conceive their Decrees can be no ſufficient ground (by their owne axiomes) of Divine faith. For firſt (ſay the moſt) No Councell is valid not approved by the Pope, (for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum) & a Pope choſen by Symony is ipſo facto no Pope. I can then have no certainer ground for the infallibility of thoſe Decrees, and conſequently for my beleife of them, then I have that the choice of him was neither directly nor indirectly Symoniacall; which to be certain of, is abſolutely impoſſible.
Section 15 Secondly, ſuppoſe him Pope, and to have confirmed the Decrees; yet that theſe are the Decrees of a Councell, or that he hath confirmed them▪ I can have but an uncontradicted atteſtation of many men, (for if another Councell ſhould declare theſe to have been the Acts of a former Councell, I ſhould need againe ſome certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councells) which is no ground (ſay they) of faith, I am ſure not ſo good and generall a one as that Tradition by which we prove that the Scripture is Scripture, which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them.
Section 16 Thirdly, for the ſence of their Decrees, I can have no better expounder to follow then Reaſon; which if, though I miſtake, I ſhall not be damned for following, why ſhall I for miſtaking the ſence of Scripture? Or why am I a leſſe fit interpreter of one, then of the other, where both ſeeme equally cleare? And where they ſeem ſo (I meane equally cleare) and yet contradictory, ſhall I not as ſoon believe Scripture, which is, without doubt, of at leaſt as great authority?
Section 17 But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Queſtions; for ſuch they cannot be, if they beget more, and men have cauſe to be in greater doubts afterwards (none of the former being diminiſhed) then they were at firſt.
Section 18 Now I conceive there ariſe ſo many out of this way, that the Learned cannot end all, nor the Ignorant know all. As (beſides the forenamed conſiderations) Who is to call them, the Pope, or Kings: Who are to have voices in them; Biſhops only, or Prieſts alſo: Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour; and the laſt need the approbation of the firſt, debated among themſelves: Whether any Countries not being called, or not being there (as the Abiſſines, to great a part of Chriſtianity, and not reſolvedly condemned by them for Heretiques, were abſent at the Councell of Trent) make it not generall: Whether if it be one not every where received (as when the Biſhops ſent from ſome places have exceeded their Commiſſion, as in the Councell of Florence) it be yet of neceſſity to be ſubſcribed to: Whether there were any ſurreption uſed or force, and Whether thoſe diſanull the Acts: Whether the moſt voyces are to be held the Act of the Councell, or thoſe of all are required, (as Canus ſaith, All the Councell cannot erre, the moſt may; which never yet agreed) or Whether two parts will ſerve (as in the Tridentine Synode,) a conſiderable doubt,foreign. Tom. 2. pa. 272. becauſe Nicephorus Calliſtus relateing the reſolution of a Councell at Rome againſt that of Ariminum makes them give three reaſons. One, That the Biſhop of Rome was not preſent. The ſecond, That moſt did not agree to it. Thirdly, That others thither gathered were diſpleaſed at their reſolutions: which proves, that in their opinions, if either moſt not preſent agree not to it, or, all preſent be not pleaſed with it, a Councell hath no power to bind. All theſe doubts, I ſay, perſwade me that whatſoever brings with it ſo many new queſtions, can be no fit ender of the old.
Section 19 In thoſe things in which, before a Generall Councell have defined, it is lawfull to hold either way, and damnable to doe ſo after; I deſire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church, to define any thing, and ſo beſtow upon the Devil one path more for us to walke in to him?
Section 20 If the infallibility of a Generall Councell be a point of faith, I deſire to know why it is ſo? Scripture and Tradition ſeem to me not to ſay ſo: But if they did, ſo, I ſuppoſe, you will grant they do of this doctrine, [That the ſoules of the bleſſed ſhall ſee God before the day of judgment, and not be kept in ſecret Receptacles:] For, elſe the doctrine of prayer to Saints cannot ſtand: and yet for denying this, doth Bellarmine excuſe Pope John 22. (of which beliefe they know he was not alone) becauſe the Church (he means, I doubt not, a Generall Councell) had not then condemned it. I deſire to know, why ſhould not he be condemned as well without one as many Heretiques that are held ſo by their Church, yet condemned by no Generall Councell? which if he makes to be the rule of Hereſie, it had been happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice, when no opinion had been damnable, but ſome againſt the Apoſtles Councell at Hieruſalem, becauſe there had yet been no Generall Councell:
Section 21 At leaſt, why ſhall not I be excuſed by the ſame reaſon, though I believe not a Councell to be infallible, ſince I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are ſo? Neither, if it have, can we be bound by that Decree, unleſſe made certaine ſome other way that it ſelfe is ſo.
Section 22 If you ſay, we muſt believe it becauſe of Tradition; I anſwer, ſometimes you will have the not believing any thing, though not declared by a Councell, to have power enough to damne; (that is, when it makes against us) at other times the Church hath not decreed, unleſſe a Councell have, and their errour is pardonable, and they good Catholiques.
Section 23 Next, (as I have asked before) how ſhal an ignorant man know it? for he, in likelyhood, can ſpeak but with a few, from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Rome's part doe now, and in paſt Ages have believed it to be Tradition ſo certainly as to make it a ground of Faith, (unleſſe he have ſome revelation that thoſe deceive him not.) Neither indeed can thoſe that ſhould enforme him of the opinions of former times be certainly enformed themſelves; for truly if (as they would perſwade us) the relation of Papias could coſen ſo farre all the Prime Doctors of the Chriſtian Church into the belief of the doctrine of the Millenaries, ſo as that no one of thoſe two firſt Ages oppoſed it, (which appears plain enough, becauſe thoſe that after roſe up againſt this opinion, never quoted any for themſelves before Dionyſ: Alexandrinus, who lived at leaſt 250 yeares after Chriſt.) Nay, if thoſe firſt men did not onelyonly believe it as probable, Dial. cum Tryph. pag. 307. lib. 5. cap. 33.but Juſtin Martyr ſaies he holds it, and ſo do all that are in all parts Orthodox Chriſtians, foreign. Irenaeus ſets it down directly for a Tradition, and relates the very words that Chriſt uſed when he taught this; (which is plainer than any other Tradition is proved, or ſaid to be (out of Antiquity) by them.) If (I ſay) theſe could be ſo deceived, why might not other of the Antients as well be by others deceived in other points? And then, what certainty ſhall the Learned have, when after much labour they thinke they can make it appeare that the Antients thought any thing Tradition, that indeed it was ſo? And that either the folly, or the knavery of ſome Papias deceived them not? I confeſſe it makes me think of ſome that Tully ſpeaks of, who (arcem amittunt, dum propugnacula defendunt) loſe the fort, whilſt they defend the out-works; for, whilſt they anſwer this way the arguments of Tradition for the opinion of the Chiliaſts, they make unuſefull to them the force of tradition to prove any thing elſe by. For which cauſe it was rather wiſely than honeſtly done of them, who before Fevardentius ſet him forth, left out that part of Irenaeus which we alledge (though we need it not much, for many of the Fathers take notice of this belief of his:) Yet he juſtifies himſelf for doing it by a worſe blow to them than this it ſelf, which is, ſaying, that if they leave out all Errours in the Books they publiſh, (that is, I ſuppoſe, all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome) bona pars Scriptorum Patrum Orthodoxorum evaneſceret, a good part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers muſt vaniſh away.
Section 24 But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients (ſince their witneſſing may deceive us) hath much leſſe ſtrength when they argue onelyonly thus: Sure ſo many would not ſay this is true, and joyne in opinions, if there were no tradition for them. I would have you remember they can deliver their opinion poſſibly, but either before the controverſie ariſe in the Church (upon ſome chance) or after. If before, it is confeſt that they write not cautiouſly enough; and ſo they anſwer all they ſeem to ſay for Arius and Pelagius his faith, before themſelves, and ſo conſequently their controverſie (though it may be not their opinion) aroſe. If after, then they anſwer often (if any thing be by them at that time ſpoken againſt them) that the heat of diſputation brought it from them, and their reſolutions to oppoſe Heretiques enough; I deſire it may be lawfull for us to anſwer ſo too, either one of theſe former wayes; or that it is (as often they ſay too) ſome Hyperbole, when you preſſe us in any thing with the opinions of Fathers. At leaſt, I am ſure if they may deceive us with ſaying a thing is a Tradition, that is not, we may be ſooner deceived if we wil ſay and conclude it for a Tradition, when they ſpeake it onelyonly as a Truth, and (for ought appeares) their particular Opinion.
Section 25 For beſides, if when Salvian, comparing the Arians with evill Livers, (and that after they were condemned by a Councell) extenuates, (by reaſon of their beleiving themſelves in the right) with much inſtance the fault of the Arians, and ſayes, How they ſhall be puniſht for it in the day of Judgement, none can know but the Judge. If (I ſay) they confeſſe it to be his opinion, they muſt alſo confeſſe the doctrine of their Church to be different from that of Salvian's times; becauſe he was allowed a Member of that for all this ſaying; whereas he of the Church of Rome that ſhould ſay ſo of us would be accounted Seſqui haereticus, a Heretique and a half: Or elſe they muſt ſay (which they can only ſay and not prove) that he was ſo earneſt againſt ill men, that for the aggravation of their crime he leſſened that of the Heretiques, and ſaid, what at another time he would not have ſaid; which if they doe, will it not overthrow wholly the authority of the Fathers? Since we can never infallibly know what they thought at all times, frō what they were moved to ſay by ſome collateral conſideration.
Section 26 Next to this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome, which averſeth me from it; comes their putting all to death, or at leaſt paines, that are ſo, where they have power: which is an effect, though not a neceſſary one, of the firſt opinion; and that averſeth me yet more; for I doe not believe all to be damned whom they damne, but I conceive all to be killed whom they kill. I am ſure if you look upon Conſtantine's Epiſtle, written to perſwade concord upon the firſt diſagreement between Alexander & Arrius, you will find that he thought (and if the Biſhops of his time had at firſt thought otherwiſe, he would have been ſure better informed) that neither ſide deſerved either death or damnation, (and yet ſure this queſtion was as great as ever roſe ſince:) For having ſpoken of the opinions as things ſo indifferent, that the Reader might almoſt think they had been fallen out at Spurn-point or Ketle-pins, he adds,Niceph. Tom. 1. pag. 555. foreign, For that which is neceſſary is one thing, that all agree and keep the ſame faith about divine providence. I am ſure in the ſame Author, Moſes, a man praiſed by him, refuſing to be made Biſhop by Lucius becauſe he was an Arrian, and he anſwering, That he did ill to refuſe it before he knew what his faith was; Anſwered,Tom. 2. p. 206. foreign, The baniſhing of Biſhops ſhews ENOUGH your faith. So that it is plaine he thought puniſhing for opinions to be a marke which might ſerve him to know falſe opinions by.
Section 27 I believe throughout Antiquity you will find no putting any to death, unleſſe it be ſuch as begin to kill firſt, (as the Circumcollians or ſuch like) I am ſure Chriſtian Religions chief glory being that it increaſed by being perſecuted, and having that advantage of the Mahumetan (which came in by force) me thinks, eſpecially ſince Syneſius hath told us, and reaſon told men ſo before Syneſius, that foreign,De Regno. Every thing is deſtroyed by the contrary to what ſetled and compoſed it. It ſhould be to take ill care of Chriſtianity, to ſeek to hold it up by Turkiſh meanes: at leaſt, it muſt breed doubts, that if the Religion had alwaies remained the ſame, it would not be defended by waies ſo contrary to thoſe by which it was propagated.
Section 28 I deſire recrimination may not be uſed: for though it be true that Calvin hath done it, and the Church of England a little, (which is a little too much) for, Negare manifeſta non audeo, & excuſare immodica non poſſum, yet She, confeſſing She may erre, is not ſo chargeable with any fault as thoſe which pretend they cannot, (and ſo will be ſure never to mend it:) and beſides, I will be bound to defend no more than I have undertaken, which is, to give reaſons why the Church of Rome is fallible.
Section 29 I confeſſe this opinion of damning ſo many, and this cuſtome of burning ſo many, this breeding up thoſe who know nothing elſe in any point of Religion, yet to be in readineſs to crie, To the fire with him, and, To Hell with him, (as Polybius ſaith in a certaine furious Faction of an Army of ſeverall Nations, and conſequently languages, foreign, All of them underſtood onelyonly this word, Throw at him) this I ſay in my opinion was it chiefly which made ſo many ſo ſuddenly leave the Church of Rome, that indeed, to borrow the Authours phraſe, foreign— They needed not perſwaſion to doe it, but onelyonly newes that others had begun: For, as this alone, if believed, makes all the reſt be ſo too; ſo one thing alone miſ-liked, overthrowes alſo all the reſt.
Section 30 If it were granted that, becauſe it agrees not with the Goodneſſe of God to let men want an infallible Guide, therefore there muſt be one; and that the Church of Rome were that one; yet if that teach any thing, to my underſtanding, contrary to Gods Goodneſſe, I am not to receive her doctrine, for the ſame cauſe for which they would have me receive it, (it being as good an argument: This Guide teaches things contrary to Gods goodneſſe, therefore is not appointed by God; as to ſay, It is agreeable to his goodneſſe there ſhould be a Guide, therefore there is one.) And ſure it is lawfull to examine particular doctrines, whether they agree with that principle which is their foundation; and to that (me thinks) to damne him that neither with negligence nor prejudication ſearcheth what is Gods will, though he miſſe of it, is as contrary as the firſt can be ſuppoſed.
Section 31 I would know whether he that never heard of the Church of Rome ſhall yet be damned for not believing her infallible. I have ſo good an opinion of them, as to aſſure my ſelf they will anſwer, he ſhall not. I will then aske, whether he that hath ſearched what Religions they are, and finds hers to be one, and her infallibility to be part of it, if his reaſon will not aſſent to that, ſhall he be damned for being inquiſitive after truth? (for he hath committed no other fault greater then the other) and Whether ſuch an ignorance (I mean after impartiall ſearch) be not of all other the moſt invincible?
Section 32 Nay, grant the Church to be infallible, yet, me thinks, he that denies it, and imployes his reaſon to ſeeke if it be true, ſhould be in as good caſe as he that believes it, and ſearcheth not at all the truth of the propoſition he receives: for I cannot ſee why he ſhould be ſaved, becauſe, by reaſon of his parents beliefe, or the Religion of the Country, or ſome ſuch accident, the truth was offered to his underſtanding, when had the contrary been offered he would have received that; and the other damned that beleeves falſhood, upon as good ground as the other doth truth; unleſſe the Church be like a Conjurers circle, that will keep a man from the Devill though he came into it by chance.
Section 33 They grant that no man is an Heretique that believes not his Hereſie obſtinately; and if he be no Heretique, he may ſure be ſaved. It is not then certain damnation for any man to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church: but for him onelyonly that denies it obſtinately, and then I am ſafe; for I am ſure I doe not.
Section 34 Neither can they ſay, I ſhall be damned for Schiſme, though not for Hereſie, for he is as well no Schiſmatique, though in Schiſme, that is willing to joyne in communion with the true Church, when it appeares to be ſo to him; as he is no Heretique though he hold Hereticall opinions, that holds them not obſtinately, that is (as I ſuppoſe) with a deſire to be informed if he be in the wrong.
Section 35 Why, if it be not neceſſary alwayes to believe the truth, ſo one believe in generall what the Church would have believed, (for ſo they excuſe great men that have held contrary opinions to theirs now, before they were defined, or they knew them to be ſo) why (I ſay) ſhall not the ſame implicit aſſent to whatſoever God would have aſſented to (though I miſtake what it is) be ſufficient? When indeed to beleeve implicitly what God would have believed, is to believe implicitly likewiſe what the Church teacheth, if this doctrine be within the number of thoſe which God commands to be believed.
Section 36 I have therefore the leſſe doubt of this opinion, that I ſhall have no harme for not beleeving the infallibilitie of the Church of Rome, becauſe of my being ſo farre from leaning to the contrary, and ſo ſuffering my will to have power over my underſtanding, that if God would leave it to me which Tenet ſhould be true, I would rather chooſe that that ſhould, then the contrary. For they may well beleeve me, that I take no pleaſure in tumbling hard and unpleaſant bookes, and making my ſelfe giddy with diſputing of obſcure queſtions & dazled foreign, Section 37 If I could believe, there ſhould alwayes be (whom I might alwaies know) a ſociety of men,Coeſarius. whoſe opinions muſt be certainly true, and who would foreign,Syneſius. labour to diſcuſſe & define all ariſing doubts ſo as I might be excuſably at eaſe, and have no part left for me but that of obedience, which muſt needs be a leſs difficult, and ſo a more agreeable way then to endure endleſſe volumes of commentaries, the harſh Greeke of Evagrius, and the as hard Latine of Ireneus, and be pained by diſtinguiſhing betweene different ſenſes and various lections, and he would deſerve not the loweſt place in Bedlam that would preferre theſe ſtudies before ſo many, ſo much more pleaſant, that would rather imploy his underſtanding, then ſubmit it; and if he could thinke God impoſed upon him only the reſiſting temptations, would, by way of addition, require from himſelfe the reſolving of doubts. I ſay not that all theſe bookes are to be read by thoſe who underſtand not the languages, for them, I conceive, their ſeeking into Scripture may ſuffice. But if I have, by Gods grace, skill to look into them, I cannot better uſe it then in the ſearch of his will, where they ſay it is to be found, that I might aſſent to them if there I finde reaſon for it; or if I doe not, they may have no excuſe for not excuſing me.
Section 38 For whereas they ſay, it is pride makes us doubt of their infallibility; I anſwer, that their too much lazineſſe and impatience of examining is the cauſe many of them doe not doubt.
Section 39 Next, what pride is it, never to aſſent before I find reaſon for it, (ſince they, when they follow that Church as infallible, pretend reaſon for it, and will not ſay they would, if they thought they found none) and if they ſay, we doe find reaſon but will not confeſſe it, then pride hinders not our aſſent, but our declaration of it; which if it do in any one, he is without queſtion, foreign, condemned by himſelfe, and it muſt be a very partiall advocate that would ſtrive to acquit him.
Section 40 One much prevailing argument which they make, is this, that whoſoever leave them, fall into diſſention betweene themſelves, whereas they in the meane while are alwayes at unity. I anſwer, firſt, in this whereof the queſtion is now, they all conſent. Secondly, when there is fire for them that diſagree, they need not bragge of their uniformity who conſent. Thirdly, they have many differences among them (as whether the Pope be infallible; Whether God predeterminate every action; Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foreſight;) Which ſeeme to me as great as any betweene their adverſaries; and in the latter the Jeſuits have Ancienter and more generall Traditions on their ſide; then the Church of Rome hath in any other queſtion; and as much ground from reaſon for the defence of Gods goodneſſe, as they can thinke they have for the neceſſity of an infallible guide; yet theſe arguments muſt not make the Dominicans Heretiques, and muſt us.
Section 41 If they ſay, The Church hath not reſolved it (which ſignifies only, that they are not agreed about it, which is that we object) I anſwer, It ought to have done, if conformity to the ancient Church be required; in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Auſtin (who is very various I confeſſe in it) delivered the contrary to the Dominicans, as not doubtfull; and to ſay, it is lawfull for them to diſagree whenſoever they doe not agree, is ridiculous: for they cannot doe both at once about the ſame point.
Section 42 And if they ſay, they meane, by the Churches not having concluded it, that a Councell hath not, I anſwer, that they condemne ſome without any, and why not theſe? Next, I ſay that the opinion of the Diffuſed Church is of more force then the concluſion of a Repreſentative (which hath its authority from the other) and therefore if all extant for foure hundred years teach any thing, it is more Hereſie to deny that, then any Canon of a Councell.
Section 43 But may not howſoever any other company of People (that would maintain themſelves to be infallible) ſay as much, that all other Sects differ from one another, and therefore ſhould all agree with them? Would thoſe not (think they) aſcribe all other mens diſſentions, and learned mens falling into divers Hereſies to their not allowing their infalibility? to their not aſſenting to their Decrees? and not ſuffering them, foreign, to ſit as teachers of thoſe things that come in queſtion, and to have all others in that place of Diſciples obedient to them? which is that which Nilus, a Greek Biſhop, profeſſeth, that becauſe the Greeks would not allow the Romans, was the only cauſe of ſeperation between them.
Section 44 They uſe much to object, How could errours come into the Church without Oppoſition and mention both of that oppoſition in Hiſtory? I anſwer, they might come in not at once, but by degrees; as in the growth of a child, and the motion of a clock, we ſee neither in the preſent, but know there was a preſent when we find it paſt. Next, ſo many Authors being loſt, who can make it certaine to me that from none of thoſe, we ſhould have had notice of this oppoſition, if they had come to us? Next, I ſay there are two ſorts of errours, to hold a thing neceſſary that is unlawfull and falſe, or that is but profitable and probable: Of the ſecond ſort that errours ſhould come in, it appears not hard to me, and eſpecially in thoſe ages where want of Printing made books, and conſequently learning not ſo common as now it is; where the few that did ſtudy buſied themſelves in School-ſpeculations only, when the Authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath, and ſo (as Thucydodes ſaith, the Plague did in his time, foreign, the diſeaſe that firſt ſetled in the head eaſily paſſed through all the body) conſidering how apt all men are to deſire that all men ſhould think as they doe, and conſequently to lay a neceſſity upon thee reciving that opinion, if they conceived that a way to have it received: And then if it were beleeved generally profitable, (as for example, Confeſſion) who would be apt to oppoſe their calling it neceſſary, for the ſame cauſe for which they called it ſo? Beſides, if this errour were delivered by ſome Father in the hot oppoſition of ſome Heretique, it may be none of his ſide would oppoſe it, leſt they might take advantage by their diſſention, and he that diſputed for the Orthodox ſide, might loſe by it much of his authority.
Section 45 The word [neceſſary] it ſelfe is often uſed for very convenient; and then from neceſſary in that ſenſe to abſolutely neceſſary, is no difficult change, though it be a great one. The Fathers uſe Heretiques ſometimes in a large ſenſe, and ſometimes in a ſtricter, and ſo differ in the reckoning them up; Some leaving out thoſe that others put in (though they had ſeene the precedent Catalogue:) The doubtfulneſſe of the ſenſe of thoſe words might bring in errour. Names, as an Altar, Sacrifice, Maſſe, may have been uſed firſt in one ſenſe, and the name retained, though the thing ſignified received change; which may have been the art of the Church of Rome, as it was once of an Emperour of Rome, Cui proprium fuit nuper reperta (I leave out S…lera) priſcis verbis obtegere, whoſe property it was to cover things newly found out with ancient tearmes. And the ſame Author tells us, that the ſame State was as it were cheated out of her liberty, becauſe there did remaine, Eadem Magiſtratuum vocabula, The ſame titles of Magiſtrates; and I believe that if the Proteſtants beyond the Seas would have thought Biſhops as good a word as Superintendents, (and ſo in other ſuch things) many, who underſtand nothing but names, would have miſſed the Scandall they have now taken.
Section 46 Theſe waies (I thinke) things may have come, without much oppoſition, from being thought profitable to be done, and probable to be believed, to be thought neceſſary to be both: and how many things little by little may have been received under old names, which would not have been ſo at once under new ones? (the firſt of theſe being no ſuch ſmall fault but that part of the Montaniſts hereſie was thinking uncommanded faſting-daies neceſſary to be obſerved, which without doubt might lawfully have been kept.)
Section 47 But my maine anſwer is, that if for an opinion to be in the Church without known precedent oppoſition, be a certain note of being received from the beginning, let them anſwer, how came in the opinion of the Chiliaſts not contradicted till two hundred years after it came in.
Section 48 To conclude, if they can prove that the Scripture may be a certainer teacher of truths to them then to us, ſo that they may conclude the infallibility of the Church out of it, and we nothing; If they can prove the Churches infallibility to be a ſufficient Guide for him that doubts Which is the Church, and cannot examine that (for want of learning) by her chiefe marke, which is conformity with the Ancient; If they can prove that the conſent of Fathers long together (if they had it) is a ſtronger argument againſt us, then againſt rhe Dominicans; If they can prove that though the firſt of them affirme that ſuch a thing is Tradition, and believed by all Chriſtians (and this aſſertion till a great while after uncontradicted) yet they are not bound to receive it, and, upon leſſe grounds, we are; if indeed any can prove by any infallible way the infallibility of the Church of Rome, and the neceſſity under paine of damnation for all men to believe it, (which were the more ſtrange, becauſe Juſtin Martyr, and Clemens Alexandrinus among the Ancients, and Eraſmus and Ludovicus Vives among the Modernes, beleive ſome Pagans to be ſaved) I will ſubſcribe to it, And
Sophoc.foreign
foreign.
Section 49 If any man ſhall vouchſafe to think either this, or the Author of it, of value enough to confute the one, and enforme the other, I ſhall deſire him to doe it with proceeding to the buſineſſe, and not ſtanding upon any ſmall ſlip of mine, (of which ſort this may be full) and with that Civility which is fit to be uſed by men that are not ſo paſſionate as to have the definition of reaſonable Creatures in vaine; (remembring that truth, in likelyhood, is where her Author God was, in the ſtill voice, and not in the loud winde; And that Epiphanius excuſeth himſelfe if he have called any Heretiques in his anger, Deceivers, or Wretches, foreign) and I requeſt him alſo to bring me to the Truth, (if I be out of it) not only by his Arguments, but alſo by his Prayers: which wayes, if he uſe, and I ſtill continue on the part I am of, and yet doe neither foreign, nor foreign, neither am wilfully blind, nor deny impudently what I ſee, then I am confident that neither he will have reaſon to be offended with me in this world, nor God in the Next.
FALKLAND.