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 wayes for the former reasons The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith § 13. 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 judgeing 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 If I granted the Pope § 14. or a Councell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their Decrees can be no sufficient ground by their own 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 and 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 certaine of is absolutely impossible § 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 beene the Acts of a former Councell I should neede againe some certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councels 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 Thirdly for the sence of their Decrees § 16. 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 were both seeme equally cleare And where they seeme so I meane equally cleare and yet contradictory shall I not as soone beleive Scripture which is without doubt of at least as great authority But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Questions § 17. 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 Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way § 18. 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 Preists also Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour the last neede the approbation of the first debated among themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines so great a part of Christianity not resolvedly condemend 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 voyees are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all are required As Canus sayth 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 because Nicephorus Callistus relateing the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes them give three reasons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom 2 pag. 172. 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 binde All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new questions can be no fit ender of the old In those things in which § 19. before a Generall Councell have defined it is lawfull to hold either way and damnable to do so after I desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define any thing and so bestow upon the Divell one path more for us to walke in to him If the infallibility of a Generall Councell be a point of faith I desire to know why it is so § 20. Scripture and Tradition seeme 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 judgement 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 beleife they know he was not alone because the Church he meanes 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 beene happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice when no opinion had beene damnable but some against the Apostles Councell at Hierusalem because there had yet beene no Generall Councell At least why shall not I be excused by the same reason § 21. though I beleive 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 If you say we must beleive it because of Tradition § 22. I answer sometimes you will have
OF THE INFALLIBILITIE OF THE CHVRCH OF ROME A Discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND Now first published from a Copy of his owne hand OXFORD Printed by H Hall Printer to the UNIVERSITY M.DC.XLV OF THE INFALLIBILItie of the Church of ROME TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errours they answer § 1. that She hath none for She never can have any This being so much harder to beleive then the first had need be proved by some certaine arguments if they expect that the beleife of this one should draw on whatsoever else they please to propose Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes then those by which we offer to prove she hath erred Which are arguments from Scripture Reason and Ancient Writers all which they say themselves are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church which if it be the onely infallible determination and that can never be beleived upon it's owne authority we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible for these other wayes of proofe they say may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to beleive them If they say § 2. that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine faith why are they so offended with the Protestants for beleiving 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudication why should God be more offended with the one then the other though they chance to erre They say § 3. the Church is therefore made infallible by God that all men may have some certaine 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 seeme 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 beene set If they say we may know it § 4. 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 self conclude necessarily She hath erred I suppose it not damnable though I erre in my judgement because I try the Church by one of those touch-stones her self appoints me which is Conformity with the Ancient For to say I am to beleive the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seeme to me to doe so is to send me to a witnesse and bid me not beleive it Now to say the Church is provided for a Guide of faith § 5. but must be knowne by such markes as the ignorant cannot seeke 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 satisfy me If they say § 6. God will reveale the truth to whosoever seekes it 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 When they have proved the Church to be infallible § 7. yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther unlesse we can be sure which is it for it signifies onely that God will allwaies have a Church which shall not erre but not that such or such a Successiion shall be all waies in the right not that the Bishop of such a place and the Clergy that adheres to him shall all waies continue in the true faith So that if they say the Greeke Church is not the Church because by it's 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 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 § 8. and not the Greeke because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity they runne into a circle proving their tenets to be true first because the Church holds them then theirs to be the true Church because it holds the truth which last though it appeare to me the onely way yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing § 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 beleife 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 Nay it is but an arbitrary argument § 10. 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 The cheifest reason why they disallow of the Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them § 11. 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 finde it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that thinke otherwise Yet this will be no argument against him who beleives 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 finde 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 If they command us to beleive infallibly the contrary to this § 12.
the not beleiving 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 Next § 23. as I have asked before how shall an ignorant man know it for he in likely hood can speake but with a few from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Rome's part do now and in past ages have beleeved it to be Tradition so certainely 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 certainely enformed themselves for truly if as they would perswade us the relation of Papias could cousen so farre all the Prime Doctours of the Christian Church into the beleife of the doctrine of the Millenaries so as that no one of those two first ages opposed it which appeares plaine enough because those that after rose up against this opinion never quoted any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least two hundred fifty yeares after Christ Nay if those first men did not only beleeve it as probable Dial. cum Tryph p. 307. lib. 5. cap. 33. but Justin Martyr layes he holds it and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus sets it downe directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainer then 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 Ancients 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 Ancients 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 thinke of some that Tully speakes of who arcem amittunt dum propugnacula defendunt loose the fort whilest they defend the out-workes for whilest 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 then honestly done of them who before Feuardentius 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 beleife of his Yet he justifies himselfe for doing it by a worse blow to them then this it selfe which is saying that if they leave out all errours in the bookes 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 But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients since their witnessing may deceive us hath much lesse strength when they argue only thus § 24. 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 cantiously enough and so they answer all they seeme to say for Arrius 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 resolution 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 will say and conclude it for a Tradition when they speake it only as a Truth and for ought appeares their particular Opinion For besides if when Salvian § 25. comparing the Arrians 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 Arrians 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 Salvians 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 halfe Or else they must say which they can onely 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 from what they were moved to say by some collaterall consideration Next to this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome § 26. which averseth me from it next comes their putting all to death or at least paines that do 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 beleive all to be damned whom they damne but I conceive all to be killed whom they kill I am sure if you looke upon Constantine's Epistle written to perswade concord upon the first disagreement between Alexander and Arrius you will find that he thought if the Bishops of his time had at first thought otherwise he would have beene 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 thinke they had beene fallen out at Spurn-point or Ketle-pins he adds Niceph. Tom. 1. p. 555. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that which is necessary is one thing that all agree and keepe 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 Tom. 2. p. 206. That he did ill to refuse it before he knew what his faith was Answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The banishing of Bishops