Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	authority_n	church_n	infallible_a	8,158	5	9.8158	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85082	Sir Lucius Cary, late Lord Viscount of Falkland, his discourse of infallibility, with an answer to it: and his Lordships reply. Never before published. Together with Mr. Walter Mountague's letter concerning the changing his religion. / Answered by my Lord of Falkland.	Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643.; Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643.; White, Thomas, 1593-1676.; Montagu, Walter, 1603?-1677.; Triplett, Thomas, 1602 or 3-1670.	1651 (1651)	Wing F317; Thomason E634_1; ESTC R4128	179,640	346

the Church in their positive tearmes Summus Pontifex cum totam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad Fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest We conceive he hath suffciently expressed the sence of the word Infallibility so that Infallibilis est nullo casu errare potest are to us the same thing It cannot therefore be the Word alone but the whole importance and sence of that word Infallibility which Mr. Cressy so earnestly desires all his Catholicks ever hereafter to forsake because the former Church did never acknowledge it and the present Church will never be able to maintaine it This is the great successe which the Reason Parts and Learning of the late Defendors of our Church have had in this maine Architectonicall Controversie And yet though the Church never maintained it though the Protestants have had such advantage against it though Mr. Cressy confessing both hath wished all Catholicks to forsake it yet will he not wholly forsake it himself but undertakes most irrationally to answer for it If the Church never asserted it if the Catholicks be not at all concerned in it to what end will Mr. Cressy the great mitigator of the rigor and defendor of the latitude of the Churches Decisions maintaine it If Mr. Chillingworth have had such good successe against it why will his old Friend Mr. Cressy endeavour to answer his arguments especially considering when he hath answered them all he can onely from thence conclude that Mr. Chillingworth was a very had Disputant who could bring no argument able to confute that which in it selfe is not to be maintained So unreasonable it is and inconsistent with his Concessions that he should give an answer at all but the manner of his answer which he gives is farr more irrationall For deserting the Infallibility he answers onely the authority of the Church and so makes this authority answer for that Infallibility from whence these three manifest absurdities must necessarily follow First When he hath answered all M. Chillingworth's arguments in the same manner as he pretends to answer them he must still acknowledge them unanswerable as they were intended by him that made them And no argument need to be thought good for any thing else if he which made it knew what he said as Mr. Chillingworth certainely did Secondly He onely pretends to answer those arguments as against the authority of the Church simply considered without relation to such an Infallibility which were never made against an authority so quallified And therefore whether the argument of his deare friend were to any purpose or no his answer manifestly must be to none Thirdly If hee intend to refute all opposition made to their Infallibility by an assertion of their bare authority then must he assert that authority to be as great and convincing which is fallible as that which is infallible that Guide to be as good which may lead me out of my way as that which cannot That Iudge to be as fit to determine any doubt who is capable of a mistake as he which is not And then I make no question but some of his own Church amongst the rest of their dislikes will put him in mind of that handsome sentence of Cardinall Belarmine Iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos ut non appellent ab eo Judicio quod erroneum esse potuit I once thought to have replied to those answers which he hath given to Mr. Chillingworth's arguments but his antecedent Concession hath made them so inconsiderable to me that upon a second thought I feare I should be as guilty in replying after my Objections as he hath been in answering after his Confessions Wherefore I shall conclude with an asseveration of min own which shall be therefore short because mine That the Reply of this most excellent Person Sola operarum summa praesertim in Graecis incuria excepta is the most accurate Refutation of all which can be said in this Controversie that ever yet appeared and if what hath already been delivered have had such successe upon so eminent an adversary then may we very rationally expect at least the same effect upon all who shall be so happy as to read these Discourses Which is the earnest desire of I. P. OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME A discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND TO him that doubteth whether the Church of Rome hath any errors they answer that she hath none for she never can have any this being so much harder to beleeve then the first had need be proved by some certainer Arguments if they expect that the beleefe of this one should draw on whatsoever they please to propose yet this if offered to be proved by no better wayes then we offer to prove by that she hath erred which are arguments from Scripture and ancient Writers all which they say are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church Which if it be the onely 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 proofe may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to beleeve them If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine Faith why are they offended with the Protestants for beleeving 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 Isid Pelus saith are the cause of all Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudication why should God be more offended with the one then with the other though they chance to erre 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 never had been set If they say we may know for that generall 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 I seek whether she have erred and conceiving she hath contradicted her self conclude necessarily she hath erred I suppose it not damnable though false because I try the Church by one of the touch-stones which herself appoints me Conformity with the Ancients For to say I am to beleeve

the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to do so is to send me to a witnesse and bid me not beleeve it now to say the Church is provided for a guide of Faith but must be known by such markes as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not find it by can no way satisfie me If they say God will reveale the Truth to whomsoever seeks it these waies sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did 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 onely that God will have a Church alwaies which shall not erre but not that such or such a succession shall be in the right so that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its own 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 maintaine 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 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greek Church because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquitie they run into a Circle proving their Tenets to be true First because the Church holds them And then theirs to be the Church because the Church holds the Truth Which last though it appears to me the onely way yet it takes away its being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Nay suppose that they had evinced that some succession were Infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Chruch 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 beleefe 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 overthrown all The chiefest reason why they disallow of 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 Ins Will if he had assigncd no infallible way to find it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise yet this will be no Argument against him that beleeves that to them who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures God will either give his Grace for assistance to find the Truth or his pardon if they misse it And then this supposed necessitie of an infallible Guide with the supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground If they command us to beleeve 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 down Now such a way Scripture and Reason and infused Faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of these to those that build their Religion upon them nor the authority of the Church for this is part of the Question and must it self be first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons The Popes Infallibility can be no infallible ground of Faith being it self no necessary part of Faith and 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 siding with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquitie and so judging accordingly but this is not to submit my self to her opinions as my Guide which they tell us is necessarie which course if they approve not of as fit for a learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is he the better at all for his Guide the Church whilft two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not If I grant the Pope or a Councell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their decrees can he no sufficient grounds by their own axioms of divine Faith For first of all no Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum and a Pope chosen by Simony is ipso facto no Pope I can have then no certainer grounds for the infallibility of those decrees and consequently for my beleefe of them then I have that the choice of him is neither directly nor indirectly Simoniacall Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed their decrees yet that these are the decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have'but an uncontradicted confession of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of another former Councell I should need againe some certain way of knowing how this declaration is a Councell which is no ground say they of Faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as we have that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Thirdly For the sence of their decrees I can have no better expounder then reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of the Scripture or why am I a lesse fit Interpreter of the one then of the other and when both seeme equally cleare and yet contradictory shall not I assoon beleeve Scripture which is without doubt of as great authority But I doubt whether Councells are fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men are in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at ffrst 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 fore-named considerations who is to call them the Pope or Kings who are to have voices in them Bishops onely or Priests also whether the Pope or Councell be superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated amongst themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines so great a part of Christianitie and not resolvedly condemned by them for Hereticks were absent at the Councell of Trent make it

their Fathers as from the Apostles a direct contrary Tradition to his doctrine If he did how could he think the Pope either possibly to be ignorant of it or excuseable it he stood against it If not then he thought our Age beholding to our Fathers for finding out some truths which had no such line to come down by nay which the Apostles either taught not or but obscurely and so as needs Arguments to deduce it out of their writings at least not so generally but that a Pope and many more chiefe Doctors of the Church knew not they had done so although you often put us in minde that Tertullian tels us how in that Church which he governed the Apostles poured out all their doctrines with their blood and in his time Fathers taught not their children so And this objection lyes against you as often as any of your side confesse any of the Ancients accompted Orthodox to have delivered any doctrine contrary to that of the now Church of Rome which many of them often confesse and your selfe doe not deny for that they could not have done if an uninterrupted verball Tradition had been then the onely rule of true doctrine and they had known it to be so for then they had a way of information which you must confess easie since they might soon have known whether generally Christians had been taught the contrary under such a Notion and in such a degree as you speak of or the Church of Rome had not since either deviated from the tradition of one part or introduced on the other But because you knew that the claime of Tradition could not serve your Churches turne if any other different from yours made the same you therefore affirme that none doth and prove it because two cannot doe it and in this you must give me leave to say that you imitate the Philosopher who made Arguments against Motion though one walked before him for though we see that the Greek Church does it as much as the Romane though apt to be deceived in the doing it by the same wayes yet you hope to perswade us beyond our eyes by a reason which indeed ends in an assertion for I pray why may not two companies of Christians both pretend to such a Tradition though opposing each other as well as the Asian Churches and the Roman did long together about the celebration of Easter But not onely that it may be so but that it is so you may find by Hieremy Nilus and Barlaam who professe to stand to the Scriptures the ancient Tradition of their Fathers and the seven first generall Councels and they can be disprov'd no way but by the same you may be so too over and above the confessions of your own men But suppose you did pretend and alone pretend to such a Tradition yet you might falsely doe it for I desire you to remember that the Apostles delivered as well Writings as verball Doctrine and whatsoever the first ages thought to be contained there that they might as well deliver to their posterity as taught them by the Apostles as what they received by word of mouth since we use to say I learnt this of such a man when we mean from his book and though you strive to joyne verball Tradition in commission with Scripture yet sure none of you can desire to thrust Scripture out quite from being at least a part of the Rule Now that they might erre in interpreting their writings and an error in the cheifest then might easily cause a generall one since I think you will not deny especially since to say that they left by Tradition every place of Scripture interpreted would be an evidently false assertion for how could the Fathers then have written upon it such differently-expounding Comments Secondly How shall it appeare that there were not once two contrary Traditions claimed by two Parts as the Asian Church and the Roman whereof both it seemes claim'd a direct verball Tradition because one pretended to have received theirs from Saint John and the other from Saint Peter whereof there is no word in their workes and that the erring Part did not prevaile We know out of the fifth of Eusebius History that the fore-runners laid claime to Tradition and nam'd the very Pope that had chang'd the doctrine at Rome which claime how impudently soever yet shewes that men might joyne to deceive their Posterity as pretending to a Tradition when there was no such for if you say those were but few I answer both that you are not certaine of their number and since so many may joyn I pray what number is it cannot Thirdly Since you must and doe confesse that some Doctrines which were not once generally witnessed to have been delivered by the Apostles are now Doctrines of Faith as the Epistle to the Hebrewes was rejected by the Roman Church in Saint Hierom's time though to her yee use to say that Iraeneus would have every Church agree and though Saint Hierom whom you would prove to have thought Damasus infallible when it is known that he thought Libertius a Heretick received it for all that because you say that these doctrines had so much Tradition as was exceptione major beyond exception though the Church of Rome thought not so then doth not this rest upon the Logick of those Ages to conclude what Testimony is so which might easily deceive them especially since you confesse also that particular Traditions may be false as you instance in the Chiliasts and yet the same reason which perswaded some to receive them may perswade more and more in severall times and so no age need to joyne as you suppose and so a false Tradition may grow a generall one as it seemes that of the Chiliasts if it be one did so generall that Justin Martyr sayes in his time all Orthodox Christians held it Besides in those things which were beleeved very convenient and which yet it was fear'd that unlesse men thought them necessary they would be backward to practise in respect of the contrariety of them to their dispositions as confession how easie was it for them to be after taught under paine of more danger then at first they were delivered with as Physitians often tell their Patients unlesse they take such a Potion from which they are very averse they must unavoidably die though the not taking of it even in their own opinions would but make them lesse likely to recover Some of great authority moved by a good meaning might thus deceive others these thus deceived might deceive others till being generally spread other good men being loath to oppose them for the same reason for which others desir'd to spread them as we saw Erasmus who beleeved your confession not to have been instituted by the Apostles yet would not reprehend them that said so thinking it an error that would increase Piety they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles without contradiction Indeed all the waies

by which I shewd in that paper which you vouchsafed to answer which I desire not to repeat to avoid both your being wearied and my own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that errors might come to be generall all those are waies by which the same errors might come to be thought to have proceeded from Tradition Saint Austin and Tertullian agreeing in the sence of the sentence which we read in the latter PLACE = marg n = * De Corouâ Si legem nusquam reperio sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit habiturum quandoque apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis and it is the more strange that Tertullian should allow any custome the authority of comming from the Apostles since in the same place he gives any man leave to beginne a custome so it be good which depends upon his reason as the reception of it does upon theirs that follow him and so make it a custome in these words Annon putas licere omni fideli concipere constituere duntaxat quod Deo congruat quod disciplinae conducat quod saluti proficiat dicente Domino cur non vobis ipsis quod justum est judicatis By which it seemes he was willing more should be beleev'd then was first taught and when that way had brought in any thing for there is the same reason of opinion as of actions and made it common then the former Rule serves to rivet it in under the false Notion of comming from the Apostles or having at least equall authority neither can you except against this as said by him when he was a Montanist since your side useth to brag of this and the like places as making for them To explaine my meaning the fuller give me leave to consider one question which shall be the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin In the first ages it is a thing granted that many Fathers beleeved her not onely not free from Originall sinne but not even from Actuall Wadd Pag. 271 after this second question came to be more considered and this first to be defin'd but yet those of the Amrmative opinion cannot but grant to those of the Negative that many Fathers sided with them or else they were impudent Quoters who claim three hundred nay Wadding p. 124. even in Saint Thomas his time they confesse that the Negative opinion was the more common doctrine and yet see I pray how things are altered We have now a History of some Treaties of two Kings of Spaine with two Popes by two Embassadours to perswade them to define the Affirmative The History is written by one Wadding an Irish-man his Secretary there I find that the Bishop of Carthage having Order from the Embassadour his Master to desire to presse nay almost to tear a Definition from his Holinesse about it tells him and not falsely that those who hold the Negative are Inter Catholicos soli pauci unius instituti viri Page 97. unus alter ab ill is edocti but a few of one onely Order and one or two of their Disciples His Master bids him urge for the contrary The opinion and subscription of so many Prelates Orders Page 90. and Universities the universall acclamation of the People the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals Page 400. nay saith he many Universities suffer none to take Degrees without making a Vow for the Defence of the Immaculate conception and for the Oppugners Page 57. Constat eos sentire aliter quàm universa docet Ecclesia they differ from the Doctrine of the Universall Church If then an opinion for which nothing is to be said out of Antiquitie and much against it which was even lately the lesse common opinion could grow to be held by so great a multitude in so high a degree in so short a time that the much greater part of the Church should now presse to have it defin'd and that so earnestly that to remove the opposing Fathers out of the way they make a confession very advantagious to us Hereticks that many things have been defin'd by their Church against many Fathers Page 127. you may easily see that Opinions may grow very generall nay grow to claim Tradition in one Age that were unknown in another for that they claim and prove only because of the the general reception in all Apostolicall Churches not of any such uninterrupted testimony of Fathers to their Children that so it hath been taught in all Ages You may see then that all your Church goes not upon your grounds since if they did so many of it that stand for the Affirmative must pretend to them and if they doe then sure the Pope must have confessed them to be witnesses beyond exception and would accordingly have defin'd if they doe not then this certain way of yours cannot keep false opinions out of a Church which makes not that their Rule You may also see that opinions first unknown after but particular may come not onely to be generall and to have Tradition claim'd for them but even to be defin'd since if a Generall Councell should now meet about this point it is plain without Gods immediate working to the contrary of nay I am confident that as it is observed of the Romans that they were twice as long in first conquering Italy as after all the world and as my Lord Bacon tels us of one who was wont to say That he had first with much paines gotten a little estate and after with little a great one so it is a much more short and easie work to bring this to a Definition then it was before to bring it thus far on the way towards one Which if it were brought it being already almost defined and ready to topple into a Doctrine necessary to salvation the contrary being forbidden to be either printed or publikely taught then if you forsake not your Religion you must forsake the Principle and joyn with Turnball who tells us That the Churches supreme definition of matters of Faith is the infallible word of God and together with the ancient Revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles makes up one Object which is to be held by the Catholike Faith By which it is plain he thinks more may be reveal'd and then must be held then was to the Apostles and by consequence could be delivered by them which is contrary to what you now say And indeed the current of Writers of your own side either knew not this opinion and Argument of yours or consideringly balk it else they might save themselves and their Readers the labour of writing and reading such infinite Quotations for though they speak often of Tradition yet they thinke themselves bound to prove it better then by the pretence of your present Church they pretend to receive it from the Ancient Writers not say they that Verball Tradition hath in all Ages been taught to all men to teach it their children

almost all their doctrine in the subjection enjoyn'd to the Church taught some certaine markes by which men might at all times know her though you pretend to none hut such as the Greeke Church as much claime which is enough to scruple the ignorant and rightly too as the Roman as Antiquity Succession Miracles c. excepting onely communion with the Pope and splendor whereof neither are proper markes of the true Church that is such as can never be absent from her since the Heresie of a Pope which hath been and is not by your owne whole Church held impossible may take away the one way and a generall Persecution the other It appeares also by what you speake of the immediate join es of the descent that you suppose if any errour come in some one Age must joyn to teach it which by no meanes followes no more then one Age of them at Rome joyn'd to teach their Posterity Italian instead of Latine but some may have taught a Doctrine to be probable in one Age more then in the second and all in the third according to Seneca's observation The error of few especially when Notable Persons begetting the error of a multitude and againe the authority of a multitude deceiving Particular men and so by degrees it may be thought from Probable True from true fere de Fide from that absolutely a part of Faith and consequently to have come from Tradition whilst the contrary opinion being first believ'd the more improbable next false from false Temerary from temerary Haeresi proximum and from that absolutely Hereticall hath by almost insensible degrees met with a mighty change and is arriv'd at Hell before it almost misdoubted it And that these progresse-Doctrines have travel'd it is easie for any man to see who hath been but a little conversant in your own Books and whosoever denies it may as well deny that their is any green in Summer when there is hardly any thing else And for the Case you put that the wisest and best of the Townes where Doctrines were delivered should have met c. I both suppose that the controversie of who were best and wisest would not it self have been easily ended but allowing that it might have been easily done and would have been most usefully done yet it never was and so suppose the way never so good it was yet like a Medicine which be it never so Soveraigne can never cure if it be never taken Councells there have been call'd Ancient because lesse Modern and generall because lesse particular for the first was not till more then three hundred yeeres after Christ nor to the largest appeares it that ever any were summon'd from beyond the bounds of the Ancient Roman Empire though Christianity were much farther extended Some lesse meetings or Conciliabula there were indeed before but none of these accounted infallible by your selves though me thinks they should by your grounds and indeed it would go ill with your own infallibility if you should for of the two most notable the one defended Rebaptization and the other condemned Samosatenus and in doing so taught as plain Arrianisme if we might know mens meaning by their words which if we cannot all arguing especially from what any Authors say is ended as even Arrius himself was condemned for at Nice If these intended to discusse the Controversie out of the Principle you speak of and yet miss'd Tradition when they meant to have followed it then so might your best and wisest men have done too if they did not intend it then it seemes it hath not been held needfull alwaies by Catholikes to try Doctrines by that Criterium which you now prescribe Object Who can be ignorant what he was taught when he was a child as the ground and substance of his hopes for all Eternity Resp Truely the ordinary sort more then most easily For because either their mind wanders or their Teachers descend not to their capacities they commonly goe away both from publique Sermons and private Catechismes as if they had receiv'd instructions in a language as strange to them as that wherein they say their prayers Besides their own Fathers teach them little or nothing because that is as much as they have learnt themselves esperially in ignorant places and times their Ghostly Fathers teach them most but that much more concerning life then opinions so that though they were not ignorant of all they were taught yet they are absolute strangers to the greatest part of what your Church teaches And it now no more of their Religion be delivered by Verball Tradition what was then when many points which are now often taught though not constantly and in all places but upon occasions were not thought of in many yeeres Suppose that about the Question of what makes a Priest a convocation of men had met I mean of such who knew not what was taught in Bookes before Luthers time and what I say would be true in somewhat a lesse degree of this more instructed Age what account could they have given what they had been taught when they were Children Truely they could have said we know it to be the custome for our Bishops to make Priests and some of us have heard he onely is to make them what is done and taught in other places we know not Very far would they have been from all agreeing that they were taught when they were Children as part of the ground of their hopes for all Eternity by their Fathers as receiv'd from theirs as come down from the Apostles that he is no Priest to whom in expresse tearmes Commission is not given to offer for the living and the dead which now being objected to the Clergy of England perswades me that your Church teacheth more then generally men are taught when Children or indeed at any time by any Verball Tradition For not onely the Ordinary sort but even your most learned men knew not what is Tradition if that be still your Rule of Faith for they disagree among themselves whether some things be of Faith or no as for Example Whether the Pope can erre in the Cannonization of a Saint Wadd Pag. 30. for if all Questions were that way to be ended and such Traditions were evident as if they were such as you speak of they must be all your side must be soone resolv'd both in this and all other such Questions And if you say that indeed all Particular Doctrines are not taught by such a Tradition but that by so much as all are taught they know their Judge and Director concerning them and so are taught them implicitely I answer that the Vulgar although they are generally told that the Church is infallible yet I doubt whether they be either taught that this Doctrine hath had any such generall and uninterrupted a delivery or have heard much concerning those meanes by which she her-selfe is to he known or those Circumstances by which we are to know when she

Lib. Con. Reg. Iac. Pag. 892. Cardinall Perron Of the worship of Images I shall speake hereafter Praying to Saints may have come in upon consequences drawne out of mistaken places of Scriptures or others which inducing the opinion that they enjoy'd the beatificall vision before the day of judgement some might conclude that then they saw all in it and at first pray to them but conditionallie till their number increased and with it the degree in which they held the opinion till now to deny it is accounted Heresie though I know no Father which justifies our invocating of them although they speake of their interceding for us before Nazianzene whose example alone being of so great authoritie might spread it much though I pray remember who as saies Nicephorus Calistus it was that brought it first into the publick Liturgie Object It is not possible that any materiall point of Christian Faith can be changed as it were by obreption whilst men are on sleep but it must needs raise a great scandall and tumult For suppose the Apostles had taught the world it were Idolatry to pray to Saints or use reverence to their Pictures how can we imagine this honour brought in but by a vehement conflict and tumult in a people which did so greatly abhorre Idolatry as the Apostles and Disciples did Resp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I spoke cheiflie not of changing a point of Faith but of creating one not of contradicting a doctrine delivered from the Apostles but of introducing one of which they were wholly silent either as theirs at first as yee must say Pappias did or onely as True till being rooted and spread it be beleeved Apostolicall upon Tertullian's Argument that else how could so many Churches errare in unam fidem erre into the same beleife which because lesse time had then been allowed error to disperse it selfe in was then though no concluding proofe yet a better then it was the next Age and so still grew the worse for the wearing till now it is worth just nothing But as Himerius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say t is most easie to answer that which is not imputed for I am so farre from saying that the Apostles taught these two things to be Idolatrie since on my Conscience they spake not of them directlie at all that I my selfe will not say they are For Prayer to Saints set aside your Idolatrie-like Expressions seeming to beg that of them which you professe you meane onely to have them beg for you I suppose the Question to be but this whether they heare us or no which Martyrs might possiblie doe and yet no other how holy and canoniz'd soever because many Fathers held that none else see God yet If they doe I beleeve you may as well or better because you are more sure of their being in favour with God desire them to intercede for you as you may desire the Prayers of any living Friend but if they doe not then I will not say in Chrysostomes phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Thunder-bolts doth it not deserve but how unreasonable is it to cast men out of the Church and send them out of the world for not assenting to an opinion which you cannot prove For reverence to the Pictures of Saints if you meane onely some outward civill respect to testifie the great honour and love which you beare the Prototypes It is I beleeve no more Idolatrie then keeping off our hats in the Presence-Chamber to the Cloth of Estate Yet this I am so farre from esteeming necessarie that I thinke they had better never come in then have occasion'd so much un-christian turmoile about so indifferent a thing The first and purest Ages did well enough without these Pictures we heare onely of a Parabolicall one of Christ in a Chalice after they came to be made Tertul. after to be set in Churches after to be prayed before nay at last they are come to so great an excesse that not onely against Scripture but all Antiquitie they are now come to picture God the Father himselfe Upon a Popes Letter to an Emperour wherein he defends the picturing of Saints and Christ and speakes improbablie of the Antiquitie of their Pictures and addes the reason why they pictured not God the Father Baronius saies in the Margent Yet it hath after happened that they pictured him as he hath appeared a way which the Church of that time could easily have found out had they thought it lawfull as it is plaine Saint Austine did not De fide Symb. unlesse Nefas est be an Approbation This alone may serve to shew that beleifes may come in even contrarie to that of former time and yet we not know when they entered unlesse you will oppose a superficiall reason that a thing cannot be to a plaine example that it is and force me to answer with Barlaam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you tell me it is impossible for him to die whose Corse I look upon Object We remember in a manner as yet how change came into Germanie France Scotland and our own Country let these be a signe to us what we may think can be the creeping in of false doctrine Resp This is but a continuance of the same Paralogisme For at this time in these places a setled Religion being contradicted the case is very different from an Opinions prevailing in the mindes of men when they were yet white Paper and not filled with any doctrine to the contrarie either because though once the contrarie had been taught yet it had slept a good while or because nothing had before been spoken concerning it We know that nothing makes Noise but Opposition and Resistance and if that be not much it will not last long and the memorie of it as little Besides most of these points making for the power and wealth of the Clergie you must not expect that there should have been as great an out-crie and hubbub when they were introduced at first as when expelled after long prevailing it being a worke both more short easie and secret to plant an Acorne then to cut down or remove an Oake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although those men which governe the rest were not in this case so much interessed Object There is no point of doctrine contrary to the Catholicke Church rooted in any Christian Nation that the Ecclesiasticall History doth not mention the times and combats by which it entered and tore the Church in peices Resp The combats wherein it tore the Church peradventure it doth but of the times wherein many entered they are altogether silent All take notice of Arrius his words when by reason of Alexander's hot opposition there grew divisions but of what the Orthodox-counted Authors which we have before the Councell of Nice said though aske Perron and he will tell you how like Arrianisme they look no Ecclesiasticall Historie makes any mention because they made no bounce like the other and so

answers that ever I could meet to this Objection I repeat no more these places being so positive to our point This confession of Invisibilitie in our Church for so many ages did much perplex me it seemed to me even to offend Naturall reason such a derogation from Gods power or providence as the sufferance of so great an Ecclipse of the light of this true Church and such a Church as this is described to be seeming to me repugnant to the maine reason why God hath a Church on Earth which is to be conserver of the Doctrine Christs precepts and to conveigh it from age to age untill the end of the world Therefore I applyed my study to peruse such arguments as the Catholicks brought for the proofe of a continuall visibility of the true Church down from the Apostles time in all Ages and apparance of Doctors teaching and administring the Sacrament in proofe of this I found they brought many provisoes of the Scripture but this text most literall of the fourth of the Ephesians Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints till we meet in the Unity of the Faith and next the discourse upon which they inferre this necessary visible succession of the Church seemed to me to be a most rationall and convincing one which is to this effect Naturall Reason not being able to proportion to a man a cause that might certainly bring him to a state of supernaturall happinesse and that such a cause being necessary to mankinde which o herwise would totally faile of the end it was created for there remained no other way but that it must be proposed unto us by one whose authority we could not doubt of and that in so plaine a manner as the simplest may be capable of it as well as the learned This work was performed by our Saviour from whose mouth all our Faith is originally derived but this succeeding age not being able to receive it immediate from thence it was necessary it should be conveyed unto them that lived in it by those that did receive it from Christs own Mouth and so from Age to Age untill the end of the world and in what Age soever this thred of doctrine should be broken it must needs be acknowledged for the reason above mentioned that the light which should convey makind through the darknesse of this world was extinguished and mankind is left without a Guide to infallible ruine which cannot stand with Gods providence and goodnesse which Saint Austine affirmes for his opinion directly in his book de Util. Cred. Cap. 16. saying If divine providence doe preside over humane affaires it is not to be doubted but that there is some authoritie constituted by the same God upon which going as upon certaine steps we are carried to God nor can it be said he meant the Scriptures onely by these steps since experience shewes us the continuall alteration about the right sence of severall of the most important places of it that what is contained there cannot be a competent rule to mankind which consisteth more of simple then learned men and besides the Scriptures must have been supposed to have been kept in some hands whose authority must beget our acceptance of it which being no other thing then the Church in all Ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved the Scriptures free from all corruption then that it hath maintained it selfe in a continuall visibility which Saint Augustine concludeth to be a marke of the true Church in these words in his book Cont. Cecill 104. The true Church hath this certaine signe that it cannot be hid therefore it must be known to all Nations but that part of the Protestants is unknown to many therefore canno be the true no inference can be stronger then from hence that the concealement of a Church disproves the truth of it Lastly not to insist upon the allegation of the sence of all the Fathers of the Church in every severall Age which seemed to me most cleare that which in this cause weighed much with me was the confession and testimony of the approved Doctors themselves of the Protestant Church as Hooker in his Book of Eccles Pol. pag. 126. God alwaies had and must have some visible Church upon Earth and Doctor Field the first of Eccles cap. 10. It cannot be but those that are the true Church must be known by the profession of truth and further the same Doctor sayes How should the Church be in the world and nobody professe openly the saving truth of God and Doctor White in his defence of the Way chap. 4. pag. 790. The providence of God hath left Monuments and Stories for the confirmation of our faith and I confesse truly that our Religion is false if a continuall descent of it cannot be demonstrated by these monuments down from Christs time this appeareth unto me a direct submission of themselves to produce these apparent testimonies of the publique profession of their faith as the Catholiques demand but this I could never read nor know of any that performed for Doctor White himselfe for want of proofe of this is faine to say in another place in his Way to the Church pag. 510. The Doctors of our faith hath had a continuall succession though not visible to the world so that he flies from his undertaking of a conspicuous demonstration of the monuments of his faith to an invisible subterfuge or a beleife without apparance for he saith in the same book in another place pag. 84. All the eternall government of the Church may faile so as a locall and personall succession of Pastors may be interrupted and pag. 403. We doe not contest for an externall succession it sufficeth that they succeed in the doctrine of the Apostles and Faithfull which in all ages did imbrace the same Faith so as here he removeth absolutely all externall proofe of succession which before he consented to be guided by I cannot say I have verbally cited these Authors because I have translated these places though the Originall be in English yet I am sure their sence is no way injured and I have chosen to alledge Doctor Whites authority because he is an Orthodox Professor of the Protestant Church the reflection of the state of this question where I found the Protestants defend themselves onely by flying out of sight by confessing a long invisibility in their Church in apparance of Pastors and Doctors the same interpretation left me much loosened from the fastnesse of my professed Religion but had not yet transported me to the Catholique Church for I had an opinion that our Divines might yet fill up this vacancy with some more substantiall then I could meet with so I came back into England with a purpose of seeking nothing so intentively as this satisfaction and to this purpose I did covertly under another mans name send this my scruple to one whose learning and sufficiency I had