Paragraphs 19.1, 19.2

The Visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duely administred according to Christ’s Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

This Article, together with some that follow it, Relates to the Fundamental difference between us and the Church of Rome: They teaching that we are to judge of Doctrines by the Authority and the Decisions of the Church; whereas we affirm, That we are first to examine the Doctrine, and according to that, to judge of the Purity of a Church. Somewhat was already said on the Sixth Article relating to this matter: What remains, is now to be considered.

The whole Question is to be reduced to this Point, Whether we ought to Examine and Judge of Matters of Religion, according to the Light and Faculty of judging that we have; or if we are bound to submit in all things to the Decision of the Church? Here the matter must be determined against private Judgment, by very express and clear Authorities, other wise the other side proves it self. For we having naturally a Faculty of judging for our selves, and using it in all other things, this freedom being the greatest of all our other Rights, must be still asserted, unless it can be made appear, that God has in some things put a Bar upon it by his Supreme Authority.

That Authority must be very express, if we are required to submit to it in a Point of such vast Importance to us. We do also see that Men are apt to be mistaken, and are apt likewise willingly to mistake, and to mislead others: and that particularly in matters of Religion the World has been so much imposed upon and abused, that we cannot be bound to submit to any sort of persons implicitely, without very good and clear grounds that do assure us of their Infallibility: Otherwise we have just reason to suspect that in matters of Religion, chiefly in Points in which Human Interests are concerned, Men may either through Ignorance, and Weakness, or Corruption, and on Design, abuse and mislead us. So that the Authorities or Proofs of this Infallibility must be very express; since we are sure no Man nor Body of Men can have it among them, but by a Privilege from God; and a Privilege of so extraordinary a nature must be given, if at all, in very plain, and with very evident Characters; since without these, Human Nature cannot and ought not to be so tame as to receive it. We must not draw it from an Inference, because we think we need it, and cannot be safe without it, That therefore it must be so, because if it were not so, great Disorder would arise from the want of it. This is certainly a wrong way of arguing. If God has clearly revealed it, we must acquiesce in it, because we are sure if he has lodged Infallibility any where, he will certainly maintain his own Work, and not require us to believe any one implicitly, and not the same time preserve us from the danger of being deceived by him. But we must not persume from our Notions of things to give Rules to God. It were, as we may think, very necessary that Miracles should be publickly done from time to time, for convincing every Age and Succession of Men; and that good Men should be so assisted as generally to live without Sin: These and several other things may seem to us extreme convenient, and even necessary; but things are not so ordered for all that. It is also certain, That if God has lodged such an Infallibility on Earth, it ought not to be in such hands as do naturally heighten our Prejudices against it. It will go against the grain to believe it, though all outward appearances lookt ever so fair for it: But it will be an unconceivable method of Providence, if God should lodge so wonderful an Authority in hands that look so very unlike it, that of all others we should the least expect to find it with them.

If they have been guilty of Notorious Impostures, to support their own Authority, if they have committed great Violences to extend it, and have been for some Ages together engaged in as many false, unjust, and cruel Practices, as are perhaps to be met with in any History; These are such prejudices that at least they must be overcome by very clear and unquestionable Proofs: And finally, if God has setled such a Power in his Church, we must be distinctly directed to those in whose hands it is put, so that we may fall into no mistake in so important a Matter. This will be the more necessary, if there are different pretenders to it: We cannot be supposed to be bound to believe an Infallibility in general, unless we have an equal Evidence directing us to those with whom it rests, and who have the dispensing of it. These general Considerations are of great weight in Deciding this Question, and will carry us far into some Preliminaries, which will appear to be indeed great steps towards the conclusion of the matter.

There are Three ways by which it may be pretended that Infallibility can be proved: The one is, the way of Moses and the Prophets, of Christ and his Apostles, who by clear and unquestionable Miracles, publickly done and well attested, or by express and circumstantiated Prophecies of things to come, that came afterwards to be verified, did evidently demonstrate that they were sent of God: Wheresoever we see such Characters, and that a Miracle is wrought by Men who say they are sent of God, which cannot be denied nor avoided; and if what such Persons deliver to us is neither contrary to our Ideas of God, and of Morality, nor to any thing already revealed by God; there we must conclude that God has lodged an Infallible Authority with them, as long and as far as that Character is stampt upon it.

That is not pretended here: For though they study to persuade the World that Miracles are still among them, yet they do not so much as say, that the Miracles are wrought by those with whom this Infallibility is lodged, and that they are done to prove them to be Infallible. For though God should bestow the Gift of Miracles upon some particular Persons among them, that is no more an Argument that their Church is Infallible, than the Miracles that Elijah or Elisha wrought, were Arguments to prove that the Jewish Church was Infallible. Indeed the Publick Miracles that belong’d to the whole Body, such as the Cloud of Glory, the Answers by the Vrim and Thummim, the Trial of Jealousy, and the constant Plenty of the Sixth Year, as preparatory to the Sabbatical Year, seem more reasonably to infer an Infallibility; because these were given to that whole Church and Nation. But yet the Jewish Church was far from being Infallible all that while; for we see they fell all in a Body into Idolatry upon several occasions: Those Publick Miracles proved nothing but that for which they were given, which was, That Moses was sent of God, and that his Law was from God, which they saw was still Attested in a continuance of extraordinary Characters. If Infallibility had been promised by that Law, then the continuance of the Miracles might have been urged to prove the Continuance of the Infallibility; but that not being promised, the Miracles were only a standing Proof of the Authority of their Law, and of God’s being still among them. And thus though we should not dispute the Truth of the many Legends that some are daily bringing forth, which yet we may well do, since they are believed to be true by few among themselves, they being considered among the greater part of the knowing Men of that Church, as Arts to entertain the Credulity and Devotion of the People, and to work upon their fears and hopes, but chiefly upon their Purses: All these, I say, when confessed, will not serve to prove that there is an Infallibility among them, unless they can prove that these Miracles are wrought to prove this Infallibility.

The second sort of Proofs that they may bring, is from some Passages in Scripture, that seem to import that it was given by Christ to the Church. But though in this dispute all these Passages ought to be well considered and sanswered, yet they ought not to be urged to prove this Infallibility, till everal other things are first proved; such as, That the Scriptures are the Word of God; That the Book of the Scriptures is brought down pure and uncorrupted to our hands; and that we are able to understand the meaning of it: For before we can argue from the parts of any Book, as being of Divine Authority, all these things must be previously certain, and be well made out to us; so that we must be well assured of all those Particulars before we may go about to Prove any thing by any Passages drawn out of the Scriptures. Further, these Passages suppose that those to whom this Infallibility belongs, are a Church: We must then know what a Church is, and what makes a Body of Men to be a Church, before we can be sure that they are that Society to whom this Infallibility is given: And since there may be, as we know that in fact there are, great differences among several of those Bodies of Men called Churches, and that they condemn one another as guilty of Error, Schism, and Heresy; we are sure that all these cannot be Infallible; for Contradictions cannot be true. So then we must know which of them is that Society where this Infallibility is to be found: And if in any one Society there should be different Opinions about the Seat of this Infallibility, these cannot be all true, though it is very possible that they may be all false: We must be then well assured in whom this great Privillege is vested, before we can be bound to acknowledge it, or to submit to it. So here a great many things must be known, before we can either argue from, or apply those Passages of Scripture in which it is pretended that Infallibility is promised to the Church: And if private Judgment is to be trusted in the Inquiries that arise about all these particulars, they being the most important and most difficult matters that we can search into, then it will be thought reasonable to trust it yet much further.

It is evident by their proceeding this way, that both the Authority and the Sense of the Scriptures must be known antecedently to our acknowledging the Authority or the Infallibility of any Church. For it is an Eternal Principle and Rule of Reason, never to prove one thing by another, till that other is first well proved: Nor can any thing be proved afterwards by that which was proved by it. This is as impossible, as if a Father should beget a Son, and should be afterwards begotten by that Son. Therefore the Scriptures cannot prove the Infallibility of the Church, and be afterwards proved by the Testimony of the Church. So the one or the other of these must be first settled and proved, before any use can be made of it to prove the other by it.

The last way they take to find out this Church by, is from some Notes that they pretend are peculiar to her, such as the Name Catholick; Antiquity; Extent;¹ Duration; Succession of Bishops; Vnion among themselves, and with their Head; Conformity of Doctrine with former times; Miracles; Prophecy; Sanctity of Doctrine; Holiness of Life; Temporal Felicity; Curses upon their Enemies; and a constant Progress or Efficacy of Doctrine; together with the Confession of their Adversaries: And they fancy, that wheresoever we find these, we must believe that Body of Men to be Infallible. But upon all this, endless Questions will arise, so far will it be from ending Controversies, and settling us upon Infallibility. If all these must be believed to be the Marks of the Infallible Church, upon the account of which we ought to believe it, and submit to it, then two Enquires upon every one of these Notes must be discussed, before we can be obliged to acquiesce in the Infallibility: First, Whether that is a true Mark of Infallibility or not? And next, Whether it belongs to the Church which they call Infallible, or not? And then another very intricate Question will arise upon the whole, Whether they must all be found together? or, How many, or which of them together, will give us the entire Characters of the Infallible Church?

In discussing the Questions, Whether every one of these is a true Mark or not, no use must be made of the Scriptures; for if the Scriptures have their Authority from the Testimony, or rather the Decisions of the Infallible Church, no use can be made of them till that is first fixed. Some of these Notes are such as did not at all agree to the Church in the best and purest Times; for then she had but a little Extent, a short-liv’d Duration, and no Temporal Felicity; and she was generally reproached by her Adversaries. But out of which of these Topicks can one hope to fetch out an Assurance of the Infallibility of such a Body? Can no Body of Men continue long in the constant Series, and with much Prosperity, but must they be concluded to be Infallible? Can it be thought that the assuming a Name can be a Mark? Why is not the Name Christian as solemn as Catholick? Might not the Philosophers have concluded from hence against the First Christians, That they were by the confession of all Men, the true Lovers of Wisdom: since they were called Philosophers much more unanimously than the Church of Rome is called Catholick?

If a Conformity of Doctrine with former times, and a Sanctity of Doctrine, are Notes of the Church, these will lead men into Enquiries of such a nature, that if they are once allowed to go so far with their private Judgment, they may well be suffered to go much further. Some Standard must be fixed on, by which the Sanctity of Doctrine may be examined; they must also be allowed to examine what was the Doctrine of former times; and here it will be natural to begin at the first times, the Age of the Apostles. It must therefore be first known what was the Doctrine of that Age, before we can examine the Conformity of the present Age with it. A Succession of Bishops is confessed to be still kept up among corrupted Churches. An Union of the Church with its Head, cannot be supposed to be a Note, unless it is first made out by some other Topicks, That this Church must have a Head; and that he is Infallible: For unless it is proved by some other Argument, That she ought to have a Head, she cannot be bound to adhere to him, or to own him; and unless it is also proved that he is Infallible, she cannot be bound absolutely, and without restrictions, to adhere to him. Holiness of Life cannot be a Mark, unless it is pretended that those in whom the Infallibility is, are all holy. A few holy men here and there are indeed an Honour to any Body; but it will seem a strange Inference, That because some few in a Society are eminently holy, that therefore others of that Body who are not so, but are perhaps as eminently vicious, should be Infallible. Somewhat has been already said concerning Miracles: The pretence to Prophecy falls within the same Consideration: The one being as wonderful a Communication of Omniscience, as the other is of Omnipotence. For the Confession of Adversaries, or some Curses on them; these cannot signifie much, unless they were Universal. Fair Enemies will acknowledg what is good among their Adversaries: But as that Church is the least apt of any Society we know, to speak good of those who differ from her, so she has not very much to boast as to others saying much good of her. And if Signal Providences have now and then happened, these are such things, and they are carried on with such a depth, that we must acquiesce in the Observation of the wisest Men of all Ages, That the race is not to the swift, nor the battel to the strong:² But that time and chance happeneth to all things.

And thus it appears, That these pretended Notes, instead of giving us a clear Thread to lead us up to Infallibility, and to end all Controversies, they do start a great variety of Questions that engage us into a Labyrinth, out of which it cannot be easy for any to extricate themselves. But if we could see an end of this, then a new set of Questions will come on: When we go to examine all Churches by them: Whether the Church of Rome has them all? And if she alone has them, so that no other Church has them equally with her or beyond her?

If all these must be discussed before we can settle this Question, Which is the true Infallible Church? A Man must stay long e’re he can come to a point in it.

Therefore there can be no other way taken here, but to examine first, What makes a particular Church? And then since the Catholick Church is an united Body of all particular Churches, when the true Notion of a particular Church is fixed, it will be easy from that to form a Notion of the Catholick Church.

It would seem reasonable by the Method of all Creeds, in particular of that called the Apostles Creed, that we ought first to settle our Faith as to the great Points of the Christian Religion, and from thence go to settle the Notion of a true Church: And that we ought not to begin with the Notion of a Church, and from thence go to the Doctrine▪

The Doctrine of Christianity must be first stated, and from this we are to take our measures of all Churches: and that chiefly with respect to that Doctrine, which every Christian is bound to believe: Here a distinction is to be made between those Capital and Fundamental Articles, without which a Man cannot be esteemed a true Christian, nor a Church a true Church: And other Truths which being delivered in Scripture, all Men are indeed obliged to believe them, yet they are not of that nature that the Ignorance of them or an Error in them, can exclude from Salvation.

To make this sensible; It is a Proposition of another sort, That Christ died for Sinners, than this, That he died at the Third or at the Sixth Hour. And yet if the Second Proposition is expresly revealed in Scripture, we are bound to believe it, Since God has said it, though it is not of the same nature with the other.

Here a Controversie does naturally arise, that wise People are unwilling to meddle with, What Articles are Fundamental, and what are not?

The defining of Fundamental Articles seems on the one hand to deny Salvation to such as do not receive them all, which Men are not willing to do.

And on the other hand, it may seem a leaving Men at liberty, as to all other particulars that are not reckoned up among the Fundamentals.

But after all, the Covenant of Grace, the Terms of Salvation, and the Grounds on which we expect it, seem to be things of another nature than all other truths, which though revealed, are not of themselves the Means or Conditions of Salvation. Wheresoever true Baptism is, there it seems the Essentials of this Covenant are preserved: For if we look on Baptism as a Foederal admission into Christianity, there can be no Baptism where the Essence of Christianity is not preserved. As far then as we believe that any Society has preserved that, so far we are bound to receive her Baptism, and no further. For unless we consider Baptism as a sort of a Charm, that such words joined with a washing with Water make one a Christian; which seems to be expresly contrary to what St. Peter says of it,³ That it is not the washing away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God that saves us: We must conclude, That Baptism is a Foederal thing, in which after that the Sponsions are made, the Seal of Regeneration is added.

From hence it will follow, That all who have a true Baptism, that makes Men Believers and Christians, must also have the true Faith as to the Essentials of Christianity; The Fundamentals of Christirnity seems to be all that is necessary to make Baptism True and Valid. And upon this a distinction is to be made that will discover and destroy a Sophism that is often used on this occasion. A True Church is, in one sense, a Society that preserves the Essentials and Fundamentals of Christianity: In another sense it stands for a Society, all whose Doctrines are true, that has corrupted no part of this Religion, nor mixed any Errors with it. A true Man is one who has a Soul and a Body that are the Essential Constituents of a Man: Whereas in another sense a Man of Sincerity and Candor is called a true Man. Truth in the one Sense imports the Essential Constitution, and in the other it imports only a Quality that is accidental to it. So when we acknowledge that any Society is a true Church, we ought to be supposed to mean no other, than that the Covenant of Grace in its Essential Constituent parts is preserved entire in that Body; and not that it is true in all its Doctrines and Decisions.

The Second thing to be considered in a Church, is their Association together in the use of the Sacraments. For these are given by Christ to the Society as the Rites and Badges of that Body. That which makes particular Men Believers, is their receiving the Fundamentals of Christianity; so that which constitutes the Body of the Church, is the Profession of that Faith, and the use of those Sacraments which are the Rites and Distinctions of those who profess it.

In this likewise a distinction is to be made between what is Essential to a Sacrament, and what is the exact observance of it according to the Institution. Additions to the Sacraments do not annul them, though they corrupt them with that adulterate mixture. Therefore where the Sponsions are made, and washing with Water is used with the words of Christ, there we own that there is a true Baptism: Though there may be a large Addition of other Rites, which we reject as Superstitious, though we do not pretend that they null the Baptism. But if any part of the Institution is cut off, there we do not own the Sacrament to be true: Because it being an Institution of Christ’s, it can no more be esteemed a true Sacrament, than as it retains all that, which by the Institution appears to be the main and essential parts of the Action.

Upon this account it is, That since Christ appointed Bread and Wine fo his other Sacrament, and that he not only blessed both, but distributed both, with words appropriated to each kind, we do not esteem that to be a true Sacrament, in which either the one or the other of these kinds is w ithdrawn.

But in the next place, there may be many things necessary in the way of Precept and Order, both with relation to the Sacraments, and to the other publick Acts of Worship, in which tho’ Additions or Defects are Erroneous and Faulty, yet they do not annul the Sacraments.

We think none ought to Baptize but Men dedicated to the Service of God, and Ordained according to that Constitution that was settled in the Church by the Apostles; and yet Baptism by Laicks, or by Women, such as is most commonly practiced in the Roman Church, is not esteemed null by us, nor is it repeated: Because we make a difference between what is Essential to a Sacrament, and what is requisite in the regular way of using it.

None can deny this among us, but those who will question the whole Christianity of the Roman Church, where the Midwives do generally Baptize: But if this Invalidates the Baptism, then we must question all that is done among them: Persons so Baptized, if their Baptism is void, are neither truly Ordained, nor capable of any other act of Church-Communion. Therefore mens being in Orders, or their being duly Ordained, is not necessary to the Essence of the Sacrament of Baptism, but only to the regularity of Administring it: And so the want of it does not void it, but does only prove such Men to be under some Defects and Disorder in their Constitution.

Thus I have laid down those distinctions that will guide us in the right understanding of this Article. If we believe that any Society retains the Fundamentals of Christianity, we do from that conclude it to be a true Church, to have a true Baptism, and the Members of it to be capable of Salvation. But we are not upon that bound to Associate our selves to their Communion: For if they have the Addition of false Doctrines, or any unlawful parts of Worship among them, we are not bound to join in that which we are persuaded is Error, Idolatry, or Superstition.

If the Sacraments that Christ has appointed are observed and ministred by any Church as to the main of them, according to his Institution, we are to own those for valid Actions: But we are not for that bound to join in Communion with them, if they have Adulterated these with many Mixtures and Additions.

Thus a plain difference is made between our owning that a Church may retain the Fundamentals of Christianity, a true Baptism, and true Orders, which are a consequent upon the former, and our joining with that Church in such acts as we think are so far vitiated, that they become unlawful to us to do them, Pursuant to this, we do neither repeat the Baptism, nor the Ordinations of the Church of Rome: We acknowledge that our Fore-fathers were both Eaptized and Ordained in that Communion: And we derive our present Christianity or Baptism, and our Orders from thence; yet we think that there were so many unlawful Actions, even in those Rituals, besides the other corruptions of their Worship, that we cannot join in such any more.

The being Baptized in a Church does not tie a Man to every thing in that Church; it only ties him to the Covenant of Grace. The Stipulations which are made in Baptism, as well as in Ordination, do only bind a Man to the Christian Faith, or to the faithful dispensing of that Gospel, and of those Sacraments of which he is made a Minister: So he who being convinced of the Errors and Corruptions of a Church, departs from them, and goes on in the Purity of the Christian Religion, does pursue the true effect both of his Baptism, and of his Ordination Vows. For these are to be considered as ties upon him only to God and Christ, and not to adhere to the other Dictates of that body in which he had his Birth, Baptism, and Ordination.

The great Objection against all this is, That it sets up a private Judgment, it gives particular persons a right of judging Churches: Whereas the Natural Order is, That private persons ought to be Subject and Obedient to the Church.

This must needs feed Pride and Curiosity, it must break all Order, and cast all things loose, if every single Man according to his Reading and Presumption, will judge of Churches and Communions.

On this Head it is very easy to Employ a great deal of popular Eloquence, to decry private mens examining of Scriptures, and forming their judgments of things out of them, and not submitting all to the judgment of the Church. But how absurd soever this may seem, all Parties do acknowledg that it must be done.

Those of the Church of Rome do teach, That a Man born in the Greek Church, or among us, is bound to lay down his Error, and his Communion too, and to come over to them; and yet they allow our Baptism, as well as they do the Ordinations of the Greek Church.

Thus they allow private Men to judge, and that in so great a Point, as what Church and what Communion ought to be chosen or forsaken. And it is certain, That to judge of Churches and Communions, is a thing of that Intricacy, that if private judgment is allowed here, there is no reason to deny it its full scope as to all other Matters.

God has given us rational Faculties to guide and direct us: And we must make the most of these that we can: We must judge with our own Reasons, as well as see with our own Eyes: Neither can we, or ought we to resign up our Understandings to any others, unless we are convinced that God has Imposed this upon us, by his making them infallible, so that we are secured from Error if we follow them.

All this we must examine and be well assured of it, otherwise it will be a very rash, unmanly, and base thing in us, to muffle up our own Understandings, and to deliver our Reason and Faith over to others blindfold. Reason is God’s Image in us; and as the Use and Application of our Reason, as well as of the Freedom of our Wills, are the highest Excellencies of the Rational Nature; so they must be always claimed, and ought never to be parted with by us, but upon clear and certain Authorities in the Name of God, putting us implicitly under the Dictates of others.

We may abuse the Use of our Reason, as well as the Liberty of our Will; and may be damn’d for the one as well as the other. But when we set our selves to make the best use we can of the freedom of our Wills, we may and do upon that expect secret affistances. We have both the like promises, Direction to the like Prayers, and Reason to expect the same Illumination to make us see, know, and comprehend the Truths of Religion, that we have to expect that our Powers shall be inwardly Strengthened to love and obey them.⁴ David prayes that God may open his Eyes, as well as that he may make him to go in his ways. The Promises in the Prophets concerning the Gospel-Dispensation, carry in them the being Taught of God, as well as the being made to walk in his ways;⁵ and the enlightening the mind, and the eys of the mind to know, is prayed for by St. Paul, as well as that Christ might dwell in their hearts.

Since then there is an Assistance of the Divine Grace given to fortify the Understanding, as well as to enable the Will, it follows that our Understanding is to be imployed by us in order to the finding out of the Truth, as well as our Will in order to the obeying of it. And though this may have very ill consequences, it does not follow from thence that it is not true. No consequences can be worse than the Corruption that is in the World, and the Damnation that follows upon sin; and yet God permits it, because he has made us free Creatures: Nor can any reason be given why we should be less free in the use of our understanding, than we are in the use of our Will; or why God should make it to be less possible for us to fall into Errors, than it is to commit Sins. The Wrath of God is as much denounced against Men that hold the Truth in unrighteousness, as against other Sins;⁶ and it is reckoned among the heaviest of Curses, to be given up to strong delusions, to believe a lye. Upon all these reasons therefore it seems clear, that our Understandings are left free to us as well as our Wills; and if we observe the Stile and Method of the Scriptures, we shall find in them all over, a constant Appeal to a Man’s Reason, and to his Intellectual Faculties.

If the mere dictates of the Church, or of Infallible Men, had been the resolution or foundation of Faith, there had been no need of such a long Thread of Reasoning and Discourse, as both our Saviour used while on Earth, and as the Apostles used in their Writings. We see the way of Authority is not taken, but Explanations are offered, Proofs and Illustrations are brought to convince the Mind; which shews that God in the clearest Manifestation of his Will, would deal with us as with reasonable Creatures, who are not to believe but upon Persuasion; and are to use our Reasons in order to the attaining that Persuasion. And therefore upon the whole matter we ought not to believe Doctrines to be true, because the Church teaches them; but we ought to search the Scriptures, and then according as we find the Doctrine of any Church to be true in the Fundamentals, we ought to believe her to be a true Church; and if besides this, the whole Extent of the Doctrine and Worship, together not only with the essential parts of the Sacraments, but the whole Administration of them and the other Rituals of any Church are pure and true; then we ought to account such a Church true in the largest Extent of the word true; and by consequence we ought to hold Communion with it.

Another question may arise out of the first words of this Article, concerning the Visibility of this Church; Whether it must be always Visible? According to the distinction hitherto made use of, the resolution of this will be soon made. There seem to be Promises in the Scriptures, of a perpetual Duration of the Christian Church: I will be with you always,⁷ even to the end of the world: And, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church. The Jewish Religion had a Period perfixed, in which it was to come to an end; but the Prophecies that are among the Prophets, concerning the new Dispensation, seem to import not only its Continuance, but its being continued still Visible in the World. But as the Jewish Dispensation was long continued, after they had fallen generally into some very gross Errors; so the Christian Church may be Visible still, though not Infallible. God may preserve the Succession of a true Church as to the Essentials and Fundamentals of Faith, in the World, even though this Society should fall into Error. So a Visible Society of Christians in a true Church, as to the Essentials of our Faith, is not controverted by us. We do only deny the Infallibility of this true Church: And therefore we are not afraid of that Question, Where was your Church before Henry the Eighth? We Answer, It was where it is now, here in England, and in the other Kingdoms of the World: only it was then corrupted, and it is now pure. There is therefore no sort of Inconvenience in owning the constant Visibility of a constant Succession and Church of true Christians; true as to the Essentials of the Covenant of Grace, though not true in all their Doctrines. This seems to be a part of the Glory of the Messias, and of his Kingdom, That he shall be still visibly worshipped in the World by a Body of Men called by his Name. But when Visibility is thus separated from Infallibility, and it is made out that a Church may be a true Church, though she has a large Allay of Errors and Corruptions mixed in her Constitution and Decisions; there will be no manner of Inconvenience in owning a constant Visibility, even at the same time that we charge the most eminent part of this Visible Body with many Errors, and with much Corruption.

So far has the first part of this Article been treated of: From it we pass to the second, which affirms, That as the other Patriarchal and Apostolical Churches, such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so the Church of Rome has likewise erred, and that not only in their living, and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

It is not questioned but that the other Patriarchal Churches have erred; both that where our Saviour himself first taught, and which was governed by two of the Apostles successively, and those which were founded by St. Peter in Person or by Proxy, as Church History represents Alexandria and Antioch to have been. Those of the Church of Rome by whom they are at this day condemned both of Heresy and Schism, do not dispute this. Nor do they dispute that many of their Popes have led bad and flagitious Lives: They deny not that the Canons, Ceremonies, and Government of the Church are very much changed by the Influence and the Authority of their Popes: But the whole question turns upon this, Whether the See of Rome has erred in matter of Faith, or not? In this those of that Communion are divided: Some by the Church or See of Rome, mean the Popes personally; so they maintain, That they never have, and never can fall into Error: Whereas others, by the See of Rome mean that whole Body that holds Communion with Rome, which they say cannot be tainted with Error; and these separate this from the Personal Infallibility of Popes; for if a Pope should err, they think that a General Council has Authority to proceed against him, and to deprive him: And thus though he should err, the See might be kept free from Error. I shall upon this Article only consider the first Opinion, reserving the Consideration of the second to the Article concerning General Councils.

As to the Popes their being subject to Error, that must be confessed, unless it can be proved that by a clear and express Privilege, granted them by God, they are excepted out of the common condition of Human Nature. It is further highly probable that there is no such Privilege, since the Church continued for many Ages, before it was so much as pretended to; and that in a time when that See was not only claiming all the Rights that belong’d to it, but challenging a great many that were flatly denied and rejected: Such as the right of receiving Appeals from the African Churches; in which reiterated Instances, and a bould Claim upon a Spurious Canon, pretended to be of the Council of Nice, were long pursued; but those Churches asserted their Authority of ending all matters within themselves. In all this Contest Infallibility was never claimed; no more than it had been by Victor, when he excommunicated the Asian Churches for observing Easter on the Fourteenth Day of the Moon, and not on the Lord’s-Day after according to the Custon of the Roman, as well as of other Churches.

When Pope Stephen quarrelled with St. Cyprian about the rebaptizing of Hereticks,⁸ Cyprian and Firmilian were so far from submitting to his Authority, that they speak of him with a freedom used by Equals, and with severity that shewed they were far from thinking him Infallible. When the whole East was distracted with the Disputes occasioned by the Arian Controversy, there was so much Partiality in all their Councils, that it was decreed, That Appeals should be made to Pope Julius, and afterwards to his Successors; though here was an occasion given to assert this Infallibility, if it had been thought on, yet none ever spoke of it. Great Reverence was paid to that Church, both because they believed it was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, and chiefly because it was the Imperial City; for we see that all other Sees had that degree of Dignity given them, which by the Constitution of the Roman Empire was lodged in their Cities: And so when Byance was made the Imperial City, and called New Rome, though more commonly Constantinople, it had a Patriarchal Dignity bestowed on it; and was in all things declared equal to Old Rome, only the point of Rank and Order excepted. This was decreed in two General Councils, the Second and the Fourth,⁹ in so express a manner, that it alone before equitable Judges would fully shew the Sense of the Church in the Fourth and Fifth Century upon this Head. When Pope Liberius condemned Athanasius, and subscribed to Semi-Arianism, this was never considered as a New Decision in that matter, so that it altered the the state of it. No use was made of it, nor was any Argument drawn from it. Liberius was universally condemned for what he done; and when he repented of it and retracted it, he was again owned by the Church.

We have in the Sixth Century a most undeniable Instance of the Sense of the whole Church in this matter. Pope Honorius was by the Sixth General Council condemned as a Monothelite; and this in the presence of the Popes Legates, and he was anathematized by several of the succeeding Popes: It is to no purpose here to examine whether he was justly or unjustly condemned; it is e nough that the Sense both of the Eastern and Western Church appeared evidently in that Age upon these two Points; That a Pope might be a Heretick, and that being such he might be held accursed for it:¹⁰ And in that time there was not any one that suggested, that either he could not fall into Heresy, since our Saviour had prayed that St. Peter’s Faith might not fail; or that if he had fallen into it, he must be left to the Judgment of God; but that the Holy See (according to the Fable of P. Marcellin) could be judged by no body. The Confusions that followed for some Ages in the Western Parts of Europe, more particularly in Italy gave occasion to the Bishops of Rome to extend their Authority.

The Emperors at Constantinople, and their Exarchs at Ravenna, studied to make them sure to their Interests, yet still asserting their Authority over them. The new Conquerors studied also to gain them to their side; and they managed their matter so dextrously that they went on still increasing and extending their Authority, till being much straitned by the Kings of the Lombards, they were protected by a new Conquering Family that arose in France in the Eighth Century; who to give Credit both to their Usurpation of that Crown, and to the extending their Dominions into Italy, and the assuming the Empire of the West, did both protect and enrich them, and enlarged their Authority; the greatness of which they reckoned could do them no hurt, as long as they kept the Confirmation of their Election to themselves. That Family became quickly too feeble to hold that Power long, and then an Imposture was published, of a Volume of the Decretal Epistles of the Popes of the first Ages, in which they were represented as acting according to those high Claims to which they were then beginning to pretend. Those Ages were too blind and too ignorant, to be capable of searching critically into the truth of this Collection; it quickly passed for current; and though some in the beginning disputed it, yet that was soon born down, and the Credit of that Work was established. It furnished them with Precedents that they were careful enough not only to follow, but to outdo. Thus a Work which is now as universally rejected by the Learned Men of their own Body as spurious, as it was then implicity taken for genuine, gave the chief Foundation during many Ages to their unbounded Authority: And this furnishes us with a very just Prejudice against it, That it was managed with so much Fraud and Imposture; to which they added afterwards much Cruelty and Violence; the two worst Characters possible, and the least likely to be found joined with Infallibility: For it is reasonable enough to apprehend, that if God had lodged such a Privilege any where, that he would have so influenced those who were the Depositaries of it, that they should have appeared somewhat like that Authority to which they laid Claim; and that he would not have forsaken them so, that for above Eight hundred Years the Papacy, as it is represented by their own Writers, is perhaps the worst Succession of Men that is to be found in History.

But now to come more close, to prove what is here asserted in this part of the Article. If all those Doctrines which were established at Trent, and that have been confirmed by Popes, and most of them brought into a new Creed, and made parts of it, are found to be gross Errors; or if but any one of them should be found to be an Error, then there is no doubt to be made but that the Church of Rome hath erred: So the Proof brought against every one of these, is likewise a proof against their Infallibility. But I shall here give one Instance of an Error which will not be denied by the greater part of the Church of Rome. They have now for above Six hundred Years asserted, That they had an Authority over Princes, not only to convict and condemn them of Heresy, and to proceed against them with Church-Censures, but that they had a Power to depose them, to absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and to transfer their Dominions to such Persons as should undertake to execute their Sentences. This they have often put in execution, and have constantly kept up their 〈…〉 it to this day. It will not serve them to get clear here, to say, That these were the violent Practices of some Popes: What they did in many particular Instances may be so turned off, and left as a Blemish on the Memories of some of them. But the Point at present in question, is, Whether they have not laid Claim to this, as a Right belonging to their See, as a part of St. Peter’s Authority descended to them? Whether they have not founded it on his being Christ’s Vicar, who was the King of kings, and Lord of lords;¹¹ to whom all power in heaven and in earth was given? Whether they have not founded it on Jeremy’s being set over nations and kingdoms, to root out, pluck down, and to destroy, and on other places of Scripture; not forgetting, that the first Words of the Bible are, In the beginning, and not In the beginnings; from which they inferred, That there is but one Principle, from whence all Power is derived: And that God made two great lights, the Sun to rule by day; which they applied to themselves.

This, I say, is the Question: Whether they did not assume this Authority as a Power given them by God? As for the applying it to particular Instances, to those Kings and Emperors whom they deposed, that is indeed a personal thing, Whether they were guilty of Heresy, or of being favourers of it, or not? And whether the Popes proceeded against them with too much Violence or not?

The Point now in Question, is, Whether they declared this to be a Doctrine, that there was an Authority lodged with their See for doing such things, and whether they alledged Scripture and Tradition for it?

¹²Now this will appear evident to those who will read their Bulls: In the Preambles of which those Quotations will be found, as some of them are in the Body of the Canon Law: And it is decreed in it, that the belief of this is absolutely necessary to Salvation.

This was pursued in a Course of many Ages. General Councils as they are esteemed among them, have concurred with the Popes both in General Decrees asserting this power to be in them, and in special Sentences against Princes: This became the universally-received Doctrine of those Ages: No Vniversity nor Nation declaring against it; not so much as one Divine, Civilian, Canonist, or Casuist writ against it, as Card. Perron truly said.¹³ It was so certainly believed, that those Writers whom the deposed Princes got to undertake their defence, do not in any of their Books pretend to call the Doctrine in General in question.

Two things were disputed: One was, Whether Popes had a direct power in Temporals over Princes; so that they were as much subject to them as Feudatory Princes were to their Superior Lords? This, to which Boniface the 8th laid claim, was indeed contradicted: The other Point was, Whether those particulars for which Princes had been deposed, such as the giving the Investitures to Bishopricks, were Heresies or not? This was much contested: But the power, in the case of manifest Heresy, or of favouring it, to Depose Princes, and Transfer their Crowns to others, was never called in Question. This was certainly a definition made in the Chair, ex Cathedra: For it was addrest to all their Community, both Laity and Clergy: Plenary Pardons were bestowed with it, on those who executed it: The Clergy did generally preach the Croisades upon it. Princes that were not concerned in him that was deposed, gave way to the publication of those Bulls, and gave leave to their Subjects to take the Cross in order to the Executing of them: And the People did in vast Multitudes gather about the Standarts that were set up for leading on Armies to Execute them, while many Learned Men writ in defence of this Power, and not one Man durst write against it.

This Argument lies not only against the Infallibility of Popes, but against that of General Councils likewise: And also against the Authority of Oral Tradition: For here in a Succession of many Ages, the Tradition was wholly changed from the Doctrine of former times, which had been, That the Clergy was subject to Princes, and had no Authority over them or their Crowns. Nor can it be said, That that was a Point of Discipline, for it was founded on an Article of Doctrine, Whether there was such a power in the Popes or not? The Prudence of Executing or not Executing it, is a Point of Discipline and of the Government of the Church: But it is a Point of Doctrine, Whether Christ has given such an Authorityto St. Peter and his followers? And those Points of Speculation upon which a great deal turns as to practice, are certainly so important, that in them, if in any thing, we ought to expect an Infallibility: For in this case a Man is distracted between two contrary Propositions: The one is, That he must obey the Civil Powers, as set over him by an Ordinance of God; so that if he resist them, he shall receive in himself Damnation: The other is, That the Pope being Christ’s Vicar, is to be obeyed when he Absolves him from his former Oath and Allegiance; and that the new Prince set up by him, is to be obeyed under the pain of Damnation likewise.

Here a Man is brought into a great strait, and therefore he must be guided by Infallibility, if any thing.

So the whole Argument comes to this Head, that we must either believe that the Deposing Power is lodged by Christ in the See of Rome, or we must conclude with the Article, that they have Erred: and by Consequence, That they are not Infallible: For the Erring in any one Point, and at any one Time, does quite destroy the Claim of Infallibility,

Before this Matter can be concluded, we must consider what is brought to prove it: What was laid down at first must be here remembred, That the Proofs brought for a thing of this Nature must be very express and clear. A Privilege of such a sort, against which the appearances and prejudices are so strong, must be very fully made out, before we can be bound to believe it: Nor can it be reasonable to urge the Authority of any Passages from Scripture, till the Grounds are shewn for which the Scriptures themselves ought to be believed.

Those who think that it is in general well proved, That there must be an Infallibility in the Church, conclude from thence, that it must be in the Pope: For if there must be a living speaking Judge always ready to guide the Church, and to decide Controversies, they say this cannot be in the diffusive Body of Christians, for these cannot meet to judge: Nor can it be in a General Council, the meeting of which depends upon so many accidents, and on the consent of so many Princes, that the Infallibility will lie dormant for some Ages, if the General Council is the Seat of it. Therefore they conclude, That since it is certainly in the Church, and can be no where else but in the Pope, therefore it is lodged in the See of Rome. Whereas we on the other hand, think this is a strong Argument against the Infallibility in general, That it does not appear in whom it is vested: And we think that every side does so effectually Confute the other, that we believe them all as to that; and think they argue much stronger when they prove where it cannot be, than when they pretend to prove where it must be.

This, in the Point now in hand, concerning the Pope, seems as evident, 〈◊〉 thing can possibly be. It not appearing, That after the words of Christ 〈…〉 the other Apostles thought the Point was thereby decided, Who 〈…〉 should be the greatest? For that Debate was still on foot and was 〈◊〉 among them in the very Night in which our Saviour was betrayed. Nor does it appear, That after the Effusion of the Holy Ghost, which certainly Inspired them with the full understanding of Christ’s words, that they thought there was any thing peculiarly given to S. Peter beyond the rest. He was questioned upon his Baptizing Cornelius: He was not singly appealed to in the great Question of Subjecting the Gentiles to the Yoke of the Mosaical Law: he delivered his Opinion as one of the Apostles: After which St. James summed up the Matter, and setled the Decision of it. He was charged by St. Paul as guilty of dissimulation in that matter, for which St. Paul withstood him to his Face: And he justifies that, in an Epistle confessed to be writ by Divine Inspiration. St. Paul does also in the same Epistle plainly assert the equality of his own Authority with his: And that he received no Authority from him, and owed him no Dependance: Nor was he ever Appealed to in any of the Points that appear to have been Disputed in the times that the Epistles were written. So that we see no Characters of any special Infallibility that was in him, besides that which was the effect of the Inspiration, that was in the other Apostles as well as in him: Nor is there a Tittle in the Scripture, not so much as by a remote Intimation, that he was to derive that Authority, whatsoever it was, to any Successor, or to lodge it in any particular City or See.

The Silence of the Scripture in this Point, seems to be a full proof, that no such thing was intended by God: Otherwise we have all reason to believe that it would have been clearly expressed. St. Peter himself ought to have declared this: And since both Alexandria, and Antioch, as well as Rome pretend to derive from him, and that the Succession to those Sees began in him this makes a decision in this Point so much the more necessary.

When St. Peter writ his 2d. Epistle, in which he mentions a Revelation that he had from Christ, of his approaching dissolution, though that was a very proper occasion for declaring such an important Matter,¹⁴ he says nothing that relates to it, but gives only a new Attestation of the truth of Christ’s Divine Mission, and of what he himself had been a witness to in the Mount, when he saw the excellent glory, and heard the voice out of it. He leaves a Provision in Writing for the following Ages, but says nothing of any Succession or See: So that here the greatest of all Privileges, is pretended to be lodged in a Succession of Bishops, without any one Passage in Scripture importing it.

Another set of difficulties arise, concerning the Persons who have a right to chuse these Popes in whom this Right is Vested, and what number is necessary, for a Canonical Election? How far Simony voids it, and who is the competent Judge of that; or who shall judge in the Case of two different Elections, which has often happened? We must also have a certain Rule to know when the Popes judge as private Persons, and when they judge Infallibly? With whom they must consult, and what Solemnities are necessary to make them speak ex Cathedra, or Infallibly? For if this Infallibility comes as a Privilege from a Grant made by Christ, we ought to expect, that all those necessary Circumstances to direct us, in order to the receiving and submitting to it, should be fixed by the same Authority that made the Grant. Here then are very great difficulties: Let us now see what is offered to make out this great and important Claim.

The chief Proof is brought from these Words of our Saviour, when upon St. Peter’s confessing, That he was the Christ, the Son of the living God;¹⁵ He said to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. This begins with an Allusion to his Name; and Discourses built upon such Allusions are not to be understood strictly or Grammatically. By the Rock upon which Christ promises to build his Church, many of the Fathers have understood the Person of Christ, others have understood the Confession of him, or Faith in him, which indeed is but a different way of expressing the same thing. And it is certain that, strictly speaking, the Church can only be said to be founded upon Christ, and upon his Doctrine. But in a Secondary sense it may be said to be founded upon the Apostles; and upon St. Peter as the first in order; which is not to be Disputed.

Now though this is a Sense which was not put on these Words for many Ages; yet when it should be allowed to be their true sense, it will not prove any thing to have been granted to St. Peter, but what was common to the other Apostles; who are all called the Foundations upon which the Church is built. That which follows, of the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the Church, may be either understood of Death,¹⁶ which is often called the gate to the grave: Which is the sense of the Word that is rendred Hell: And then the meaning of these Words will be, That the Church which Christ was to raise, should never be extinguished, nor die, or come to a period, as the Jewish Religion then did: Or according to the Custom of the Jews, of holding their Courts and Councils about their Gates, by the Gates of Hell may be understood, the Designs and Contrivances of the Powers of Darkness, which should never prevail over the Church to root it out, and destroy it; for the Word rendred prevail, does signify an intire Victory: This only imports, That the Church should be still preserved against all the Attempts of Hell, but does not intimate that no Error was ever to get into it.

¹⁷By the words Kingdom of Heaven, generally through the whole Gospel, the Dispensation of the Messias is understood. This appears evidently from the words with which both St. John Baptist and our Saviour begun their Preaching, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand: And the many Parables and Comparisons that Christ gave of the Kingdom of Heaven, can only be understood of the Preaching of the Gospel. This being then agreed to, the most natural, and the least forced Exposition of those words must be, that St. Peter was to open the Dispensation of the Gospel. The proper use of a Key is to open a Door: And as this agrees with these words, He that hath the Key of the House of David, that openeth and no man shutteth,¹⁸ and shutteth and no man openeth; and with the Phrase of the Key of Knowledge, by which the Lawyers are described; for they had a Key with Writing-Tables given them, as the Badges of their Profession: So it agrees with the accomplishment of this promise in St. Peter, who first opened the Gospel to the Jews, after the wonderful Effusion of the Holy Ghost: And more eminently when he first opened the Door to the Gentiles, preaching to Cornelius, and Baptizing him, and his Houshold, to which the Phrase of the Kingdom of Heaven, seems to have a more particular relation. This Dispensation was committed to St. Peter; and seems to be claimed by him as his peculiar Privilege in the Council at Jerusalem. This is a clear and plain sense of these words. For those who would carry them further, and understand by the Kingdom of Heaven our Eternal Happiness, must use many distinctions, otherwise if they Expound them literally, they will ascribe to St. Peter that which certainly could only belong to our Saviour himself. Though at the same time it is not to be denied, but that under the figure of Keys, the power of Discipline, and the Conduct and Management of Christians may be understood. But as to this, all the Pastors of the Church have their share in it; nor can it be appropriated to any one Person. As for that of binding and loosing, and the confirming in Heaven what he should do in Earth, whatever it may signify, it is no special Grant to St. Peter. For the same words are spoken by our Saviour elsewhere to all the Apostles: So this is given equally to them all. The words binding and loosing, are used by the Jewish Writers, in the sense of affirming or denying the Obligation of any Precept of the Law that might be in dispute. So according to this common Form of Speech, and the sense formerly given to the words, Kingdom of Heaven, the meaning of these words must be, That Christ committed to the Apostles the Dispensing his Gospel to the World, by which he Authorized them to dissolve the Obligation of the Mosaical Laws; and to give other Laws to the Christian Church, which they should do under such visible Characters of a Divine Authority, impowering and conducting them in it, that it should be very evident, that what they did on Earth was also ratifyed in Heaven. These words thus understood, carry in them a clear sense, which agrees with the whole Design of the Gospel. But whatsoever their sense may be, it is plain that there was nothing given peculiarly to St. Peter by them, which was not likewise given to the rest of the Apostles. Nor do these words of our Saviour to St. Peter, import any thing of a Successive Infallibility, that was to be derived from him with any distinction beyond the other Apostles: Unless 〈◊〉 were a Priority of Order and Dignity; and whatever that was, there is 〈◊〉 so much as a hint given, that it was to descend from him to any See or Succession of Bishops.

As for our Saviour’s praying that St. Peter’s Faith might not fail: And his restoring him to his Apostolical Function, by a thrice repeated charge, Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, that has such a visible Relation to his fall,¹⁹ and to his denying him, that it does not seem necessary to enlarge further on the making it out, or on shewing that these words are capable of no other Signification, and cannot be carried further.

The Importance of this Argument, rather than the Difficulty of it, has made it necessary to dwell fully upon it: So much depends upon it, and the Missionaries of the Church of Rome are so well Instructed in it, that it ought to be well considered; for how little strength soever there may be in the Arguments brought to prove this Infallibility, yet the colours are specious, and they are commonly managed both with much Art, and with great Confidence.

Footnotes

1. Bellar. Contr. Tom 2. l. 4. ↩

2. Eccl. 9.11. ↩

3. 1 Pet. 3.21. ↩

4. Psal. 119.18, 35. ↩

5. Ephes. 1 18.3.17. ↩

6. Rom. 1.18, 24, 26. 2 Thes. 2.11. ↩

7. Matth. 28.20. Matth. 16.18. ↩

8. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23, 24, 25. Cypr. Ep. 74, & 75. Firmil. Con. Sard. C. 3, & 7. ↩

9. Con. Constant. Can. 3. Con. Chalced. C 28. ↩

10. Con. Sinuess. An. 303. —Tom. 1. Conc. ↩

11. Dict Papae l. 1. Ep. Greg. 7. Post Ep. 55. Extravag. de Major & Obed. c 1. ↩

12. Conc. Lat. 3. cap. 27. Conc. Lat. 4. Can. 3. Con. Lug. ↩

13. Card. Perron Harangueau tiers estat. ↩

14. 2 Pet. 1.17. ↩

15. Mat. 16. 16, 17, 18, 19. ↩

16. Eph. 2.20. Rev. 21.2 14. ↩

17. Mat. 3.2. Mat. 4.17. ↩

18. Rev. 3.7. Luk. 11.51. ↩

19. Luk. 22.31. John 21.15, 16, 17. ↩