the Character will be farr too short It is in you and onely you my Lord to set him out truely and to resemble him to the life and that will be by taking that Evangelicall Counsell Tu autem fac similiter Do like him live like him and pardon me if I add one thing more like him Love My Lord Your Lordships most humble and affectionately devoted Servant TRIPLET 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 his Will if he had assigned 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 whilst 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 be 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 affoon 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 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 necessitie to be subscribed unto Whether there were any surreption or force used and whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voices are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all required which never yet agreed Or whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synod A considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relalating the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes him give three reasons One That the Pope of Rome was not present The Second That most did not agree to it The third 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 end of the old Then if before a generall Councell have defined a Question it be lawfull to hold either way and damnable to do so after 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 this Doctrine That the Soules of the blessed shall see God before the day of Judgement and not be kept in secret Receptacles for without this the Doctrine of Prayers to Saints cannot stand and yet for denying this Bellarmine excuseth Pope John the 22 th because the Church he meanes I doubt not a generall Councell had not then condemned it I desire to know why he should not be condemned as well without one as many Hereticks that are held so by their Church yet condemned by none which if he make 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 other generall Councell at least why should not I be excused by the same reason though I beleeve not a Councell to be infallible since I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are so neither if it hath can we be bound by that decree unlesse first made certaine some other way that it selfe is so If you say we must beleeve it because of Tradition I answer Sometimes you will have the not beleeving any thing not declared by a Councell to have power enough to damne that is when against any of us at other times the Church hath not decreed unlesse a Councell have and their error is pardonable and they good Catholicks Next as I have asked before how shall an ignorant man know it For he in likelihood can speak but with a few from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Romes part do now and in past ages have beleeved it to be Tradition so certaine as to make it a ground of Faith unlesse he have some revelation that those deceived him not neither indeed can those that should inform him of the opinions of former times be certainely informed themselves For truely if the relation of Pappias could cozen so far all the prime Doctors of the Christian Church into a beleefe of the celebration of a thousand yeeres after the resurrection so as that no one of those two first ages oppose it which appeares plainly enough because those that after rise up against this never quoated any thing for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least two hundred and fifty yeares after Christ nay if those first men did not onely beleeve it as probable but Justine Martir saith he holds it and so
to be so are in all reason to give us plainlie evincent proofe that what you thus require God requires too for till then to returne you to another Axiome for yours praesumitur pro libertate whereas wee the burden of the Negative proofe not lying upon us if we bring probable Arguments we doe it ex abundanti and bring more then we need to bring And whereas you stand upon Customes having power in Law matters I answer that in all cases that is not of force for we hold that it must not prevaile against a Statute which shewes that they may be contradictorie and as Nullum tempus occurrit Regi is thought to be a good civill topicall Law so me thinkes Nullum tempus occurrit veritati is a good publique divinitie Law your owne Scripture too telling us that Truth is stronger then the King Besides where it is of force it is in such cases as the law hath appointed that it should be so and if you can prove out of Christs Law that there it is so appointed to be in matters of Divinity wee shall willinglie yeild but seeing that our law which allowes this force to custome sets downe also in how long time it is before it become of force and I have cause to thinke that Christ would have been as carefull as our law and have set down this too if he had had any such meaning and if it were setled to be a custome of such a standing as by Saint Austine sometimes is spoken of as that in no time it be known that ever it was otherwise in most of your affaires this would stead you a little though one side have burnt the evidences of the other to which in likeliehood you owe it if this stead you in any of questions whereof Scripture and Antiquitie are wholly silent or meerly speculative and unreducible unto act of which sort are the greatest between us or not concerning the lawfulnesse but the necessity of an Action to the first kind no ancient custome can belong nor other to the others then a custome of Interpretation of some text concerning it not enough to conclude upon besides that it is not that which you speake of since daily your men differ and defend their differing from all that went before them about more then many texts as Cajetane Salmeron and Maldonate shall beare me witnesse unlesse like Sampson you may breake those Ropes by which others must be bound And adding to all this that our custome may serve to shew the meaning of the law when our selves were Authors of it though not when God is and that our generall custome arguing our united consent which onely gives force to our lawes may be as fit to bind as a law in civill cases and yet not in divine where the lawes proceed from a higher fountaine that such a rule may be good in civill resolutions which require but probable proofes and yet not in divine ones where according to the grounds of your Party which requires an undoubting assent to her doctrines as infallible infallible proofes are necessary especially this like other Topycall arguments having onely force caeteris paribus and againe good where it is not so necessary that the will of the Legislator be followed as that peace and quiet be preserved to which all alterations even to the better are enemies and yet not in these cases where we are to prefer the will of our Law-maker before any humane convenience or good if the custome past unquestioned when the Law was first promulgated but not if crept in after by negligence or plainely appearing to have been brought in by power all this perswading me not to be so farr swaied by your Rules as you would have me I suppose you have small hope that not being so I should find either in Scripture or the first Antiquitie either that Faith which your Church proposeth or these properties of Christs Church by which your Church proves or rather strives to prove that she it is Give me leave besides to aske you one Question and that is What we shall conclude when the Christian practice of severall places have ever differed as that of Greece from that of Rome which it may also do in more places then we are acquainted with the extent of Christianitie being unknown to us as are the customes of some remote Christian Countries which we know Of the Philosopher I exact to goe like a Philosopher and to search out the specificall differences of every Sect and when he hath found them if any one but the Catholique hath any rule of faith and good life which I remit to him to enquire but at least when he hath found the Catholicks to be this claime of Tradition before declared then if this doe not bring him as demonstratively as he knoweth any Conclusion in Philosophy and Mathematicks to the notice of this is the onely true Church of Christ for my part I shall quit him before God and Man I have examined the differences between all parts as you bid me and find the Protestants to have a sufficient rule of Faith and good life yea such a one as by Master Knotts confession Quem honoris causa nomino is as perfect as a writing can be And since a writing may containe all Doctrines and onely cannot give testimonie to it self nor be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have no reason to think it inferior to that of their adversaries Your claime of Tradition I see plainely enough and as plainely that it is but a claime many of your side overthrowing it and others not of your owne pretending to it Bishop Fisher confesseth that Scripture and Miracles brought in the Doctrine of Purgatory and that againe the doctrine of Indulgences Erasmus who though himself no Martyr yet one who may passe for a Confessor having suffered and long by the Bigotts of both Parties and a dear Friend both to Fisher and his Colleague in Martyrdome Sir Thomas Moore who were the Deucalions of learning in this our Country makes yet a larger confession Non obscurum est quot opiniones invectae sunt in orbem per homines ad suum Quaestum callidos conflictorum Miraculorum praesidio These reasons alone allowing for brevities sake that I had no more would make me believe not onely that what you say concludes not geometrically but perswades not probably and consequently you by your promise have quitted me which without it I doubt not but God would have done The Divine if he hath truly understood the Principles of Faith in the nature of a Divine I mean Trinity Incarnation Redemption Eucharist Beatitude the Creation and Dissolution of the World and hath seen the exact conformity of the deepest Principles of Nature with an unspeakable wisdome of the Contriver If he doth not plainely confesse it was above the naure of man to frame the Catholique Religion and seeth not that onely that is conformable to Nature and it self I say he
and all the rest upon Scripture and he shall see that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it and more then one cannot relie upon Tradition If all that relie upon Tradition be Catholicks you must admit the Eastern Churches into your Communion although you now account them both Scismaticks and Hereticks If all Catholicks do relie upon Tradition as their onelie grounds and Tradition be so sure and infallible and unmistakable a deliverer as you would perswade us how come so manie differences between you some ever counting those things matter of Faith which others do not which differences shew if they all relie on these Questions upon the ground you say they do that more then one may relie upon Tradition and neither can Tradition any more then Scripture draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it if either neither part do or either do not then Tradition is not the Common Tenure of Catholicks not onelie in different opinions but even in such as are most de fide and as both parts think nothing but a definition and some scarce that to make the Holders of the contrary to them Hereticks since if it were neither could one part of Catholicks relie upon any other then the Catholick ground neither is it to be doubted but that side which builds their opinion upon an Hereticall foundation against another beleeved upon a Catholick ground would long agone have been among you exploded and the Pope have been not onelie with so much paines perswaded but even of himselfe readie to have past his censure upon them if not for their superstructions yet for their foundation If I will be a Christian I must be of one side If you mean I must be of one side that is take one of these grounds I answer That I take both one from the other Scripture from Tradition though not from the present Tradition of a Part but from the Universall one of the first Christians opposed by none but by them who were instantlie counted by the generallitie heterodox and as soon opposed as known If you mean that I must be of one side in points I whollie denie any such necessitie By falling on the one side I see my fortune in thousands who have gone before me to wit that I shall be to seek all my life time as I see they are and how greatlie they magnifie verie weak pieces On the other side I see everie man who followeth as farr as he followeth it is at quiet I see not but the greatest part of those who take the ground which you mislike are yet setled and confident enough in their opinion and if they continued alwaies seeking Truth for the love of it I know not why they should be the lesse likely to find Heaven Neither think I that you will say nay it is plaine by your own words that you will not say that Saint Austine had been damned if he had died in his search nor consequently any other in his case And whereas you say that all who follow the other are at quiet as farr as they follow it I answer So are all who fixedly beleeve themselves to follow an infallible although indeed a false Guide as the Mahumetans being led by their Mufty Which proves Quiet no sufficient caution for Truth nor Securitie for Safetie and that supposing yours the more easie and satisfying way it followes not that it is the more reasonable And for what you say of a mans duty to judge himself rigorously whether he seek as he ought I subscribe to that opinion and approve of your Councell Besides this he must have this care that he seek what the Nature of the subject can yeeld and not as these Physitians who when they have promised no lesse then immortality can at last onely reach to some conservation of health or youth in some small degree So I could wish the Author well to assure himself First that there is possible an infallibilitie before he be to earnest to be contented with nothing lesse For what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion because he could not get such a one as himself desired though with more then a mans wish What you now say I confesse is very rationall as indeed all you say is as much as your cause will suffer and I require you not therefore to prove your opinions to be infallible by infallible arguments as necessarie to be done in it self but as necessarie to be done by them of whose opinions their Churches infallibilitie is not onelie a part but a ground and that the chief if not the onelie one and of which an infallible certaintie is the first and main condition of their Communion and our want of it one of their maine Objections against us He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not Master in if he be deceived it is to be imputed to himself The Phrase commandeth us to believe every man in his Art he who knoweth and understandeth himselfe beleeveth not Therefore when wee see Masters in an Art we are not skild in oppose us we may beleeve we are in the wrong which will breed this Resolution in the Author of the discourse that if himself be not skild in all those waies in which he pursues his search he must find himself obleiged to seek Masters who be both well skilled and the matter being subject to faction also very honest and upright men or else he doth not quitt himself before God Truelie I am farr from being Master either in this or any other Art but if for this cause I ought to doubt and because much learneder persons oppose me I ought to beleeve my self in the wrong then so ought those of your part to do who are as Ignorant as I we having many much more learned then they who oppose them and take our part though therefore I think not of my self what Tully in a Complement would perswade one of his Friends that Nemo est qui sapientius mihi possit suadere meipso yet I dare not chuse as you would have me some Master to search for me and beleeve him blind-fold though if I would I see no cause why to chuse any from among you who have so many able Teachers at home for you confessing that the matters are subject to Faction and it being certaine that not onelie who are honest is impossible to be known but that eagernesse and desire to have what they think Truth prevaile makes even the honest men sometimes deviate from the line of exact honestie and lie for God which he not onelie needs not but forbids as is to be seen too frequentlie in the Quotations of both sides I conceive it the best way to follow my own Reason since I know I have no will to cozen my self as they may have to cozen me Especially since
acquit him One much prevailing argument which they make is this That whosoever leaves them sall into dissention between themselves whereas they in the mean while are allwaies at Unity I answer First In this whereof the Question is now they all assent Secondly When there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragg 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 fore-sight Which seemes to me as great as any between their Adversaries and in the latter the Jesuites have ancienter and generaller Tradition 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 think they have for the necessity of an infallible guide Yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Hereticks and must us If they say the Church hath not resolved it which signifies onely that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done so if uniformity to the Ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austine who is ever various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree wheresoever they do not agree is ridiculous for they cannot do both at once about the same point and if they say they mean by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I Answer First That they condemne some without any Councell and why not these Next I say the opinion of the diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of the representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for the first four hundered yeares taught any Cannon it is more Heresie to deny that then any Cannon of a Councell But may not howsoever any other Company of People that would maintaine themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them would not those think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into diverse heresies to their not allowing their Infallibility to their not assenting to their Decrees and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in Question and to have all others in the place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professed that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the chief cause of separation between them Next They use much to object how could errors come into the Church without opposition and mention both of them and the opposition to them in History I answer They might come not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a Child or motion of a Clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next I say there are two sorts of errors To hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that is but profitable and probable Of the second sort that errors should come in it appears not hard to me 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 Schoole speculations onely when the authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath and so as Thucidides saith the Plague did in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the disease that first settled in the head EASILY passed through all the body considering how apt men are to desire that all men should think as they do and consequently to lay a necessity upon the receiving that opinion if they conceive that a way to have it received And then if it were beleeved generally profitable as confession who would be apt to oppose their calling it necessary for the same cause for which they called it so Besides If this error were delivered by some Father in the hot opposition of some Heretick it may be none would oppose it least the adversaries might take advantage by their dissention and he that disputed for the Orthodox side might lose by it much of his authority The word necessary it self is also often used for very convenient and then from necessary in that sence to absolutely necessary is no difficult change though it be a great one Then the Fathers use the word Hereticks sometimes in a larger sence and sometimes in a stricter and so differ in the reckoning them up some leaving out those that others put in though they had seen the precedent Catalogue and so the doubtfullnesse of the sence of these words might bring in error Names also as Altar Sacrifice Masse may have been used First in one sence and the name retained though the thing signified received change as it was once of an Emperour of Rome cui proprium fuit nuper reperta I leave out scelera priscis verbis obtegere whose property it was to cover things newly found 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 beleeve that if the Protestants beyond the Seas would have thought Bishops as good a word as Super-intendents and so in other such things many who understand nothing but names would have missed the scandale they have now taken These waies I think these things may have come without much opposition from being thought profitable to be done and probable to be beleeved to be thought necessary to be both and how things may have been by little and little received under old names which would not have been so at once under new ones it is not hard to conceive The first of these being no such small fault but that part of the Montanists Heresies was thinking uncommanded fasting daies necessary to be observed which without doubt might lawfully have been kept so that no necessitie had been imposed But my maine answer is that if to be in the Church without known precedent opposition be a certaine note of being derived from the begining let them answer how came in the opinion of the Chiliasts not contradicted till two hundred yeares after it came in To conclude If they can prove that the Scripture may be a certainer teacher of truth 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 Ancients If they can prove that the consent of Fathers long together is a stronger
Argument against us then against the Dominicans If they can prove though it be affirmed by the first of them that such a thing is Tradition and beleeved 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 beleeve it which were the more strange because Justin Martyr and Clements Alexandrinus among the Ancients and Erasmus and Ludovicus Vives among the Modernes beleeve some Pagans to be saved I will subscribe to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man vouchsafe to think either this or the Authour of it of value enough to confute the one and informe the other I shall desire him to do it with proceeding to the businesse and not standing upon any small slip of mine of which this may be full and with that temper 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 the loud wind and that Epiphanius excuseth himself if he have called any Hereticks in his anger Deceivers or Wretches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I request him also to help to bring me to the Truth if I be out of it not onely by his arguments but also by his Prayers which way if he use and I still continue on the part I am of and yet doe neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither am willfully blind nor deny impudently what I see then I am confident that he will neither have reason to be offended with me in this world nor God for that to punish me in the next AN ANSWER TO THE Lord FAULKLANDS DISCOURSE OF INFALLIBILITY CHAP. I. NAture being not able to perfect the work of humane kind which shee had begun and bursting at those throwes and springings which her timely child gave to see the light of eternall life whereof the distaste of all things experienced in this world and certain sparklings sowed in our soule had given it a dim notice expected from her mercifull Creator the aid whereof how much greater the wonder was to bee and the necessity now divers thousand yeers by lamentable experience was more deer so much the readier was he and it was to send from his eternall brest his only wisedome to recount us wonders and averre them under the seal of his immutable truth He knew all secrets and could not be touched with suspition of ignorance he was all goodness and free from all calumnie of jealousie or envie who knew him could not mistrust him for beside those great Verdicts alreadie expressed in his favour his works gave assurance of his words he fulfilling in deeds whatsoever he perswaded in words and working to himself what he wished unto others Lo here the high and sage Master of our faith whose Oracles we cannot mis-doubt so we be assured they are his and who hath in vain spent so much sweat and pains if after he passed from hence he hath left no meanes to assure mankind what it was hee taught and practised and for the teaching and practising of it eschewed not the stormie passage betwixt Bethlehem and Mount Calvarie but as in Bethlehem he multiplied the three drops of his Circumcision into the thousands of innocent Brooks so upon the Mount Calvarie he opened the great Source which hath now through 16. Ages irrigated the world with an infinitie of streames of proportionall examples of Blood and sufferance Now was his Legacie performed and hee from Mount Olivet triumphantly returned from whence he was come and the world left to be saved by faith that is by a constant perswasion of those things which he had taught The Conditions of this Faith were three First That it should be a means fitting for humane kind that is for learned and unlearned for yong and old for wise and fooles for Princes and peasants Rabbies and Ideots Secondly That it should be a tenent constant undoubted undisputable uncontroulable Thirdly That it should be a rule of our life and actions making but a passage of this present life to the following and teaching us to contemn the present and seen substance in hope of an unseen and absent fortune Certes a hard taske and which needeth to be well grounded and founded by God himself For who well considereth it cannot doubt it to be as great a miracle to make the whole Masse of mankinde to forsake what it seeth and take to obscure hopes or things it does not so much apprehend what they are as to force the strongest works of nature to hang the sea in the aire to alter the course of Moon and Starres and whatsoever else is strange and incredible in nature Besides that to make a way of knowledge common and indifferent to learned and unlearned to make the ignorant understand what the learned cannot reach unto and the learned die in defence of the truth he hath no other warrant for then because he hath learned it from an ignorant person was the work of him alone who framed them both and understood in what veins so different blouds doe run But done it was to be and how Those to whom during his life he had most fully declared his mind went and told it to others and all was done We cannot denie the way to have been fitting and expedient so it be found efficacious and powerfull to effect what the Author intended For if Faith must beleeve what Christ hath taught what better instrument to breed faith then who heard him speak If Faith must be common to learned and unlearned what better meanes then by hearing From which no unlearnednesse can excuse nor learnednesse be exempt Every man may have from whom to hear and learn if not a wiser then himselfe yet one who may have properties to be a better witnesse Children naturally beleeve what their parents tell them unlearned men what Doctors teach them absent men what those who were present doe report All this goeth very well so that this Expedient prove efficacious to the end intended But it hath the prejudice of humane fallibilitie for who for weaknesse that he doth not carry away what he hath heard who for vanity to seem to know more then his fellowes who to make some lucre of it or for some emulation to some other but seldome it hapneth that a multitude can carry away a thing all in the same manner and 1600 yeers are passed since so that it is not credible a Doctrine so delivered can persever incorrupted untill this day Yet if we look into the immediate progresse and joints of the descent we cannot finde where it can misse for the doctrine being supernaturall and not delivered by mans skill or
they went by such a Tradition since of that eighty so many persons from so many several Parts are witnesses beyond exception according to your own grounds and that their Infallibility is not thought to depend upon an Impossibility that in the matter of Fact what hath been taught under that Notion they should either deceive or be deceiv'd but upon an infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost which may be wanting to any company whereof the Pope is no part or of whose decrees he is no confirmer Now to return to my proofes that against the Arrians there was no such Tradition as you speak of at least that was the ground upon which they were condemned consider if you please that in that Epistle which Eusebius of Caesarea writ to some Arrians after the Councell of Nice he saith First that they assented to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantiall because also they knew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some eloquent and illustrious Bishops and Writers had us'd the Terme In which I note thatneither claim'dhe any such Verbal Tradition for this as you speak of and of that sort which he claim'd he names onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some as knowing too many had writ otherwise to give such a Tradition leave to be generall Secondly He saith they consented to Anathematize the Contradictors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hinder men from using unwritten words by which he saith and that truely that all confusion hath come upon the Church And if it be askt why the same reason made them not keep out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer That I believe or else he is not constant to his own reason that he meant onely those words to be unwritten which were in Scripture neither themselves nor equivalently whereas he took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in the Scripture in the latter sence And that by written he meant in the Scripture onely appeares by what followes that no divinely-inspired writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using the Arrians Phrase it was neither fitting to say nor teach them Neither can you say that Eusebius being himself a secret Arrian prevaricated herein for Theodoret makes this Epistle an Argument against them which he would not have done if either it had seem'd to him to say any thing contrary to the Catholique doctrine or not to have oppos'd the contrary by a Catholique way at least without giving his leader some Caution concerning it All which reasons move me to think that the generality of Christians had not been alwaies taught the contrary to Arrius's doctrine but some one way others the other most neither as having been onely spoken of upon occasions and therefore me thinks you had better either say with the Protestants that the Truth was concluded as Constantine said it should be by Arguments from Scripture or as some of your own say of other points that before the Councell it lay in Archivis Ecclesiae in the Deskes of the Church then claime such a Tradition for it as appeares it can never be defended that it had Let us consider but two opinions more That Infants are not to receive the Eucharist is now both the doctrine and practise of the Roman Church but six hundred yeeres the Church us'd it Saint Austine accounted it necessary at least in some sence of the word if not absolutely which last is most likely because from the necessity of that which could not be receiv'd but by them who had received Baptisme he and Innocentius a Pope prove the necessity of Baptisme and an Apostolicall Tradition If therefore both these Ages had gone by your Rule how comes this difference between their opinions the Sacrament being the same it was and the Children the same they were This I may consider and see if the same way that this Doctrine hath been altered whether any other might not have received change Next that Saints are invocable you must say is Tradition taught from Father to Sonne as deriv'd from the Apostles if you will be constant to your own principle now though I might disprove this first by the many Fathers that beleeved the Just not to be admitted to the Beatificall vision before the day of judgement for upon this your side now grounds that but to be kept in secretreceptacles and by the long time which pass'd before this doctrine was condemn'd Secondly by the beginning of it which was particular Doctors Hipotheticall prayers with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such conditionall clauses And thirdly by Nicephorus Calistus his Relation who in this is a believable witnesse because he allowes of your opinion that prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the publick Liturgie by one Petrus Gnapheus a Heretick about five hundred yeares after Christ yet I will rather chuse to confute this by the confession of Sancta Clara out of Horantius who to this objection that sub Evangelio which must mean when the Gospel was preacht no such precept is extant not onely denies it not but gives this reason for it least the Pagans should-think themselves brought againe to the worshipping of Men instead of Gods If upon this or any other reason this were not then taught then have not all your Doctrines such a Pedigree as you suppose but allow it were yet howsoever it followes that some at least of the learned of your Church have not been taught that they have or consequently that it is necessary they should have Though it seemes to me little less then Montanisme to believe that any since as it were a Paraclet should perfect the doctrine which then was delivered by the Apostles Neither can you answer that they speake onely of such a Precept and of being extant whereas they might teach it lawfull without giving any Precept and they might have given such a Precept although not extant for I should readily reply that the reason they give why there is none such extant shewes that they mean there was none at all neither Precept nor allowance since the Pagans would have been scandaliz'd at its being accounted lawfull to worship men instead of Gods although it were not commanded and not a whit the lesse whether that in after times were extant or not which they could not foresee The onelie answer which I am able to invent in your behalfe is this that though some of your particular doctrines have not such a Tradition yet there being a Tradition that the Churches definitions are infallible whatsoever she at any time defines is then to be believed upon the strength of such a Tradition and before did latere in causis as Flowers do in Winter Yet to this I may reply by desiring you to enter with me into some few considerations First If this were so and that so much of Christian Religion depends upon the definitions of the Church and our Reception of them upon knowing alwaies which is she and that such is her authority can you perswade your selfe that Christ
of his and their Collection passe for his Doctrine which shewes the great advantage which we have by Gods Word being written since if it had not we could not alwaies have gone to a new examination of the very words which Christ or his Apostles taught and consequently a consequence of them spread in the place of them would have been more incurable then now it is I will also desire you to look in the five hundered eighty fourth Page of the Florentine Councell set out by Binius and there you will find that the Latines confesse that they added the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to the Creed because the contrary opinion seemed to them by consequence contrary to a confessed Tradition of Christs eternall Divinity to which yet it will appear out of what Cardinall Perron hath excellently showne though upon another occasion that it doth not contradict but that this consequence was ill drawne which may have been in other points too and have brought in no small multitude of Errors since neither was their Logick certaine to conclude better nor were they lesse apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that I doubt not but whosoever shall have received satisfaction in the discourse past will also have received in the point we seek after that is in being assured both that Christ hath left a Directory in the World and where to find him there being no doubt but it is his holy Church upon Earth Nor can there be any doubt which is his Church since there is but one that doth and can lay claime to have received from hand to hand his holy Doctrine That which makes you expect that your Reader should have received satisfaction by what you have said is that since Christ hath a great care of his Elect he must consequently most strongly of any thing have rooted his Church Now I having shewed that by your own confession men may be of his Elect that are out of your Church I seemed to my selfe to have likewise proved that there is no necessity of any Churches being their Director I know you generally think this the more convenient way to have left such a guide that because otherwise Dominus non fuisset Discretus or in Epicttus his Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you conclude that he hath but we though indeed in such cases where our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Notions concerning God teach us that such a Thing were contrary to Gods maine Attributes to do some of us conclude upon that ground that this he hath not done in these cases which onely concerne convenience of which we have much lesse certaintie begin at the other end and considering first what he hath done conclude that to be sufficiently convenient and so finding no infallible guide by him instituted suppose it convenient that there should be none Truely if convenience were the measure and our Understandings the measurers we should resolve that God hath made every Particular man at least every Pious man Infallible and so to need no outward guide which yet it is plain that he hath not done Though in my opinion in some sence he hath made every man who pleaseth Infallible in respect of his journys end though not of all Innes by the way certaine to find Heaven though he may misse many Truthes in Divine matters For the beliefe which God requires of being to be thought true of his word and that man be ready to believe and obey what he saies as soon as it shall appear to him that he hath said it and every man being able according to his meanes to examine what he hath said It followes unlesse God should damne a man for weaknesse of understanding which were as strange as if he should damne him for a weak sight or afeeble arme that every man is Infallible in his way to Heaven so he lay no blocks in it himself at least is undoubtedly secur'd of any danger of Hell For if they neither desire to avoide the trouble of enquiry through unwillingness to find that to be true which is contrary to what he now thinks and so to hazard either the affection of deare Friends or the favour of great Friends or the feare of some other humane Inconvenience as want of present meanes Improbability to get more or of that disparagement so terrible to flesh and blood of descending to confesse that they have so long erred like Frobenius qui potuisset vivere nisi puduisset aegrotare who might have lived but that he was ashamed to confesse himself sick If I say none of these or the like things either keep him from seeking what is Gods will or from daring to professe it when he hath found it then such an Error having no reference to the will which is the onely fountaine of sin cannot by a just God be punished as a sin and the proofe of the necessity of an Infallible Director drawn from Gods care of his Church for his Elects sake is easily avoided But say you if there be a director it must be the Church and againe because you know that all congregations of Christians pretend to that Title in some sence as even the worst men call themselves by better Names then they deserve as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I may mistake our enemies Camp for our friends and serve against Christ whilst I think I fight under his Banner though even then I beleeve I should have a share in that prayer of his to whom none is denied Father forgive them for they know not what they doe unlesse you gave me some certaine marks to know the Church by you therefore say what you have before said that yours is it because that alone pretends to Tradition to which I answer what I before answered that the Greeks serve me to disprove the sufficiency of this Mark who professe that they hold the constant Tradition and that under that Notion they have both received what you deny and not received what you propose Let us consider in her Presence or Visibility Authority Power As for the first her multitude and succession make the one that she is ever accessible ever knowne What you now say is not to prove your Church a Directresse but having as you think and I think not proved that already you now mean to shew that she hath the Conditions requisite in a Directresse But this I deny for neither is her presence or Visibility for all her multitude and succession such as were in a Directresse required For she besides that she must bring notice and proofes with her to prove that she is instituted by God to direct men and those plain and evident if she require meerly but our assent but if she require us to assent Infallibly then those Infallible which yours cannot do must also be so visible as to be known to all men if not as
amongst those who parted from us for although to day they agree there is no bond or tie why to morrow they may not disagree These two things we brag of and I think the Author will not denie it For he confesseth that we all agree in that the Church is an infallible Mistresse Then it is evident that if in any controversie she interposeth her judegment the controversie is ended He likewise confesseth that who part from us have no such definitive authority amongst them and that Scripture whereon they rely hath no such vertue to take up Controversies clearely Supposing that we agreed much lesse then you yet a little all in earnest that is unforced is more considerable then much constrained and so peradventure much of that much but in appearance Besides that you all agree in those points wherein if any disagree he becomes none of you is no more then is so common to all Religions that even the very Anabaptists may say as much for themselves For either all the Parts of them remaine of assent insomuch that they are all still of the same Religion and so agree as well as your Dominicans and Jesuites or else their differences are such as to make them of severall Religions and then why is want of Unity objected to them any more then it is to Christians in generall among whom are so many divisions and yet not the whole but the faulty party taxed And truely in my opinion some Questions among your selves are as great not onely as any among your adversaries but as any between you and them I but you answer we have a way of being agreed we reply is it a way sure to lead to Truth as well as to Unity or else so might we have by going to most at three throwes and resolving to stand to that Besides if you have and make no more use of it it seemes there is no such need that Questions be ended as for that purpose to introduce a necessitie of an Ender But say you neither are all suits in the Common-wealth ended We reply that yet truely those Judges who should make no more haste to end them then your Judge doth these would deserve to loose his place but this they do as fast as the nature of the thing will permit which being or depending upon matter of Fact cannot be known erough to be judged before examination of witnesses and the like be ended and if they willingly deferre the ending they are confess'd to be in fault by all men but those who hold Perjury to be none But you seem to conceive our grounds faulty as not leading even to a possible Unity whereas to a possible one I am sure they do since what is concluded out of them by many may be by all nay indeed am confident that all who receive the Scripture for the onely rule and believe what is there plain to be onely necessarie would if they truely beleeved what they professe and were not lead aside either by prejudice or private ends or some Popish relicks of holding what they have long been taught or following the authority of some by them much esteemed persons either alive or dead soon agree in as much as is necessarie and in concluding no necessity of agreeing in more there being no doubt but it would soone appear plainly what is plaine Besides if no grounds be sufficient for Unitie which produce not the effect then it seemes the grounds of your grounds those Arguments by which you prove that there is a Judge and a generall Councell is it are insufficient since they are not able to make all Christians about this question Again although a Judge and this Judge be received yet this is still an insufficient ground for Unitie since the Greek Church agree thus farre with you which is as farre as you agree with one another and yet are not so bound by it to any universall Unitie with them but that they esteem you Hereticks and are esteemed so by you and if you say that it is not because the grounds upon which the Infallibilitie of the Church are built lead not sufficientlie to Unitie that we joyne not with you in beleeving them to be infallible not because the determination of generall Councels is not a sufficient meanes of Unitie that the Greek Church admitting their authoritie admits not of your opinions but it is the fault of us and of them hardening our hearts against the truth then we may as well say that some of those who agree in our grounds yet disagree from our doctrine not that the grounds lead not to Unitie but that our Adversaries will not be lead or if as you doe and some others of you sometimes you confesse that they through an innocent error dissent from you and doe this without any imputation in this respect to your grounds I hope it will be lawfull for us to allow the same possibilitie without any disadvantage or prejudice to ours Besides say you though we agree to day yet we may not to morrow which to prove were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paines whollie lost we confesse For though Tully make it an expression of his contempt to Piso in an Epistle to Atticus Ita nihil est ut plane quid erit nesciat yet I take it to be a true saying of man in generall who knowes little of present things and nothing of future but this is common to us both for if we change not our opinions we shall agree as we doe and if you change yours you shall not which is possible for not onelie that opinion of the Infallibilitie of your judges decrees may it self be altered which holdeth together all the rest but some of you may holding that ground like the Greek either change their opinions concerning the authority of such or such a Councell as beleeving it unduelie called factiouslie carried or not generall as is pretended or not so consenting as is requisite or differ from the rest concerning the sence of the decrees for whereas you say you agree that the Church is an infallible Mistresse and when she interposeth her judgement the controversie is ended I answer that first some of you with whom I have spoken my selfe hold that the Churches authoritie in defining extends no further then to such points whereof Tradition is of one part as in many controverted there is I beleeve no such and that this rule she may transgresse and so erre Secondlie Neither the Dominicans nor their Adversaries are very readie to remain in suspence to await her decision but define all readie concerning her definitions Cum utraque pars tenax contendat suam non aliam posse definiri sententiam either part tenaciouslie urging that the contrarie opinion cannot be defined which if they did to fright the Pope from defining least the condemned partie being even before should after make a Schisme they obtained their end Thirdlie What are you the nearer to Unitie for your Infallible Mistresse the Church when