A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

“The ground of your error here is, your not distinguishing between actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geometricians are not infallible in their own science; yet they are very certain of what they see demonstrated: and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

“Though the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in everything she says; yet I can and must believe her in everything she proves, either by Scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it fundamental or not fundamental. Though she may err in some things, yet she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental. Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of God, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say the Catholic Church, much more themselves, may possibly err in some fundamental points, is it therefore consequent they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not, therefore, without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive myself certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them? We pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamental. That God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him; that, &c. These we conceive both true, because the Scripture says so, and truths fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our Saviour says, Qui non crediderit, damnabitur.

“I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith to be in themselves truths as certain and infallible as the very common principles of geometry or metaphysics; but that there is required of us a knowledge of them and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science; that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in a state of salvation but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence; this I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence.

“Though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain, of the truth of the things which we believe, (for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest degree,) yet I deny not but we ought to be, and may be, infallibly certain that we are to believe the religion of Christ. For, 1. This is most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and reason, rather than against it. 2. This is as certain, that wisdom and reason require that we should believe those things which are by many degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. 3. This is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christianity, and what poor things they are which may be said against it, either for any other religion, or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that the Christian religion is true, than the contrary. And from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of the Christian religion. There is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity; I say, so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince, that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God.”—Waterland. Chillingworth.

The Roman Church has no authorized doctrine of infallibility, though its existence is practically assumed, and is bound up with the whole catalogue of usurpations. The Council of Trent defined many minute and unimportant matters, yet on that which involved so much, it published no definition at all; neither pronouncing where the gift is lodged, nor under what conditions it is exercised, nor to what subjects it extends; nay, not even asserting that it exists at all. Suarez says that the pope’s infallibility is a question of faith; Bellarmine, that it is not; and Stapleton, that, though the denial of it is scandalous and offensive, it is perhaps not heretical; while Gerson, with a very large and learned school of Roman theologians, rejects the doctrine altogether. And none of these opinions have been censured.

Again, if we ask whether, in point of fact, any pope has ever been a heretic, we shall get nothing but inconsistent and contradictory replies. Coster says, that not one has ever taught heresy, or fallen into error; and he makes this an argument for the doctrine itself. Pighius goes further, and says, that the pope is so confirmed in the faith, that he could not fall into error either publicly or privately, even if he would; while, on the other hand, there is a multitude of Roman writers, who fully admit the heresies of Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, and the rest; either condemning them absolutely, or extenuating their acts on some special ground. The Council of Pisa, A. D. 1409, in its sentence of deposition against the rivals, pronounces them both heretics. And so previous councils have condemned former popes; yet the question is still in debate.

As a matter of doctrine, then, we have a long line of the greatest theologians that the Roman Church has ever produced, denying in explicit terms that any gift of infallibility at all was conveyed to the bishops of Rome by the words of Christ. And on the question of fact we find the very chief defenders of the pope’s prerogatives, admitting that he may deceive men by his example, and lead them into error; and that he may publish decrees, and insert them in the body of canon law, which yet contradict the tradition of the Church and the truth of the gospel. The claim of infallibility, which advances no Scripture proof, except one perverted text; and which is maintained in the face of all these hesitations and contradictions, these disproofs on the one side, and injurious admissions on the other; can be nothing else but a delusion and a fraud.—S. Robins.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. (See Church of Rome, Popery.) On this subject we give the following remarks of Bishop Beveridge:—That the Catholic or universal Church is infallible, so as constantly and firmly to maintain and hold every particular truth delivered in the gospel, in one place or other of it, I think cannot well be denied; but that any particular Church, or the Church of Rome in particular, is infallible, we have expressly denied and opposed in the Thirty-nine Articles, it being there expressly asserted, that “the Church of Rome hath erred,” and that “not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but even in matters of faith.”

Now to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of faith, I think the best way is to compare the doctrine maintained by them with the doctrine delivered in these Articles. For whatsoever is contained in these Articles, we have, or shall, by the assistance of God, prove to be consonant to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and, by consequence, to be a real truth. And, therefore, whatsoever is any way contrary to what is here delivered, must needs be an error. And so that besides other errors which the Church of Rome holds, be sure, whereinsoever it differs from the doctrine of the Church of England, therein it errs. Now to prove that the Church of Rome doth hold such doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, I shall not insist upon any particular, though never so eminent, persons amongst them that have delivered many doctrines contrary to ours. For I know, as it is amongst ourselves, that is not an error of our Church which is the error of some one or many particular persons in it; so also amongst them, everything that Bellarmine, Johannes de Turrecremata, Gregorius de Valentia, Alphonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees of their Church, saith, cannot be accounted as an error of their Church if it be false; nor if it be true, as the truth of the whole Church. A Church may be Catholic though it hath many heretics in it; and a Church may be heretical though it hath many Catholics in it. And therefore I say, to prove the doctrine of their Church to be erroneous, I shall not take any notice of the errors of particular persons, but of the errors deliberately and unanimously concluded upon, and subscribed to, and published as the doctrine of that Church, by the whole Church itself met together in council. For the doctrine delivered by a council cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the whole Church there represented. As the doctrine delivered in these Articles, because it was concluded upon in a council of English divines, is accounted the doctrine of the Church of England; so the doctrine concluded upon in a council of Romish divines, cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. And of all the councils they have held, that which I shall pitch upon in this case, is the Council of Trent, both because it was the most general council they ever held, and also because it was held about the same time at Trent that our convocation that composed these Articles was held at London. For it was in the year of our Lord 1562, that our convocation, that concluded upon these Articles, was holden at London; and though the Council of Trent was begun in the year of our Lord 1545, yet it was not concluded nor confirmed till the fifth year of Pope Pius IV., A. D. 1563, as appears from Pope Pius III.’s bull for the confirmation of it. So that our convocation was held within the same time that that council was; and so our Church concluded upon truths here, whilst theirs agreed upon errors there. Neither need we go any further to prove that they agreed upon errors, than by showing that many things that they did then subscribe to, were contrary to what our Church, about the same time, concluded upon. For all our Articles are, as we may see, agreeable to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and they delivering many things quite contrary to the said Articles, so many of them must needs be contrary to Scripture, reason, and Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be errors. And so in showing that the doctrine of the Church of Rome is, in many things, contrary to the Church of England, I shall prove from Scripture, reason, and Fathers, the truth of this proposition, that the Church of Rome hath erred even in matters of faith.

Now, though there be many things wherein the Church of Rome did at that, and so still doth at this, time disagree with ours; yet I shall pick out but some of those propositions that do, in plain terms, contradict these Articles.