Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	prove_v	scripture_n	tradition_n	4,648	5	9.5709	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40800	Of the infallibilitie of the Chvrch of Rome a discourse written by the Lord Viscount Falkland ...	Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643.	1645 (1645)	Wing F322; ESTC R40575	14,027	22

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