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 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23 24 25. Cypr. Ep. 74 75. Firmil Con. Sard. C. 3 7. 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 Iulius 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 Con. Constant Can. 3. Con. Chalced C 28. 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 Eaâ—tern 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 Con. Sinuess An. 303. Tom. 1. Conc. 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 â—urrent 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
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 â—e 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 Debâ—â—e was still on foot and was 〈◊〉 among them in the very Night in which our Saviour was betrayâ—d 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 thâ—y thought there was any thing peculiarly given to S. Peter beyond the â—â—st 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. Iames 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 2 Pet. 1 1â— 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 pretâ—nded 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 Mat. 16. 16 17 18 19. 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 Eph. 2.20 Rev. 21.2 14. 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 Iewish Religion then did Or according to the Custom of the Iews of holding their
common and that openly and fairly For if every good Man that prays earnestly to God for the Assistance and Direction of his Spirit has reason to look for it much more may a Body of Pastors brought together to seek out the Truth in any point under debate look for it if they bring with them sincere and unprejudiced Minds and do pray earnestly to God In that case they may expect to be directed and assisted of Him But this depends upon the Purity of their Hearts and the Earnestness of their Endeavours and Prayers When any Synod of the Clergy has so far examined a Point as to settle their Opinions about it they may certainly decree that such is their Doctrine And as they judge it to be more or less important they may either restrain any other Opinion or may require positive Declarations about it either of all in their Communion or at least of all whom they admit to minister in Holy Things This is only an Authority of Order for the maintaining of Union and Edification And in this a Body does no more as it is a Body than what every single Individual has a right to do for himself He examines a Doctrine that is laid before him he forms his own Opinion upon it and pursuant to that he must judge with whom he can hold Communion and from whom he must separate When such Definitions are made by the Body of the Pastors of any Church all Persons within that Church do owe great respect to their Decision Modesty must be observed in descanting upon it and in disputing about it Every Man that finds his own thoughts differ from it ought to examine the Matter over again with much attention and care freeing himself all he can from Prejudice and Obstinacy with a just distrust of his own Understanding and an humble respect to the Judgment of his Superiors This is due to the considerations of Peace and Union and to that Authority which the Church has to maintain it But if after all possible methods of Enquiry a Man cannot master his Thoughts or make them agree with the Publick Decisions his Conscience is not under Bonds Since this Authority is not absolute nor grounded upon a promise of Infallibility This is a Tenet that with Relation to National Churches and their Decisions is held by the Church of Rome as well as by us For they place Infallibility either in the Pope or in the Universal Church But no Man ever dreamt of Infallibility in a particular or National Church And the Point in this Article is only concerning particular Churches for the Head of General Councils comes in upon the next That no Church can add any thing as necessary to Salvation has been already considered upon the Sixth Article It is certain that as we owe our hopes of Salvation only to Christ and to what he has done for us so also it can belong only to him who procured it to us to fix the Terms upon which we may look for it Nor can any Power on Earth clog the offers that he makes us in the Gospel with new or other Terms than those which we find made there to us There can be no dispute about this For unless we believe that there is an Infallible Authority lodged in the Church to explain the Scripture and to declare Tradition and unless we believe that the Scriptures are both obscure and defective and that the one must be helped by an Infallible Commentary and the other supplied by an Authentical Declarer of Tradition we cannot ascribe an Authority to the Church either to contradict the Scripture or to add necessary conditions of Salvation to it We own after all That the Church is the Dispositary of the whole Scriptures as the Iews were of the Old Testament But in that Instance of the Iews we may see that a Body of Men may be faithful in the Copying of a Book exactly and in the handing it down without corrupting it and yet they may be mistaken in the true meaning of that which they preserve so faithfully They are expresly called the keepers of the Oracles of God Rom. 3.2 And are no where reproved for having attempted upon this Depositum And yet for all that Fidelity they fell into great Errors about some of the most Important parts of their Religion which exposed them to the rejecting the Messias and to their utter ruin The Church's being called the Witness of Holy Writ is not to be resolved into any Judgment that they pass upon it as a Body of Men that have Authority to Judge and give Sentence so that the Canonicalness or the Uncanonicalness of any Book shall depend upon their Testimony But is resolv'd into this that such Successions and Numbers of Men whether of the Laity or Clergy have in a course of many Ages had these Books preserved and read among them so that it was not possible to corrupt that upon which so many Men had their Eyes in all the Corners and Ages of Christendom And thus we believe the Scripture to be a Book written by inspired Men and delivered by them to the Church upon the Testimony of the Church that at first received it knowing that those great Matters of Fact contained and appealed to in it were true And also upon the like Testimony of the succeeding Ages who Preserved Read Copied and Translated that Book as they had received it from the first The Church of Rome is guilty of a manifest Circle in this Matter For they say they believe the Scriptures upon the Authority of the Church And they do again believe the Authority of the Church because of the Testimony of the Scripture concerning it This is as false reasoning as can be imagined For nothing can be proved by another Authority till that Authority is first fixed and proved And therefore if the Testimony of the Church is believed to be sacred by virtue of a Divine Grant to it and that from thence the Scriptures have their Credit and Authority then the Credit due to the Church's Testimony is Antecedent to the Credit of the Scripture And so must not be proved by any passages brought from it otherwise that is a manifest Circle But no Circle is committed in our way who do not prove the Scriptures from any supposed Authority in the Church that has handed them down to us But only as they are vast Companies of Men who cannot be presumed to have been guilty of any Fraud in this matter it appeared further to be morally impossible for any that should have attempted a Fraud in it to have executed it When therefore the Scripture it self is proved by Moral Arguments of this kind we may according to the strictest Rules of Reasoning examine What Authority the Scripture gives to the Pastors of the Church met in lesser or greater Councils ARTICLE XXI Of the Authority of General Councils General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of
Princes And when they be gathered together forasmuch as they be an Assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may err and sometime have erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things Ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that they are taken out of the Holy Scriptures THERE are two Particulars setled in this Article The one is The power of calling of Councils at least an Assertion that they cannot be called without the Will of Princes The other is The Authority of general Councils that they are not Infallible and that some have erred And therefore the Inference is justly made That whatever Authority they may have in the Rule and Government of the Church their Decisions in matters necessary to Salvation ought to be examined by the Word of God and are not to be submitted to unless it appears that they are conform to the Scripture The first of these is thus proved Clergymen are Subject to their Princes according to these words Rom. 13.1 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers If they are then Subject to them they cannot be obliged to go out of their Dominions upon the Summons of any other their Persons being under the Laws and Authority of that Country to which they belong This is plain and seems to need no other Proof It is very visible how much the Peace of Kingdoms and States is concerned in this Point For if a Foreign Power should call their Clergy away at pleasure they might be not only left in a great destitution as to Religious Performances but their Clergy might be practised upon and sent back to them with such Notions and upon such Designs that chiefly supposing the Immunity of their Persons they might become as they often were in dark and ignorant Ages the Incendiaries of the World and the Disturbers and Betrayers of their Countries This is confirmed by the Practice of the first Ages after the Church had the Protection of Christian Magistrates In these the Roman Emperors called the First General Councils which is expresly mentioned not only in the Histories of the Councils but in their Acts where we find both the Writs that Summoned them and their Letters sometimes to the Emperors and sometimes to the Churches which do all set forth their being Summoned by the Sacred Authority of their Emperors without mentioning any other In calling some of these Councils it does not appear that the Popes were much consulted And in others we find Popes indeed supplicating the Emperors to call a Council but nothing that has so much as a shadow of their pretending to an Authority to summon it themselves This is a thing so plain and may be so soon seen into by any Person who will be at the pains to turn to the Editions of the first Four General Councils made by themselves not to mention those that followed in the Greek Church that the Confidence with which it has been asserted That they were summoned by the Popes is an Instance to shew us that there is nothing at which men who are once engaged will stick when their Cause requires it But even since the Popes have got this matter into their own hands though they summon the Council yet they do not pretend to it nor expect that the World would receive a Council as General or submit to it unless the Princes of Christendom should allow of it and consent to the Publication of the Bull. So that by reason of this Councils are now become almost unpracticable things When all Christendom was included within the Roman Empire then the calling of a Council lay in the Breast and Power of one Man and during the Ages of Ignorance and Superstition the World was so subjected to the Popes Authority that Princes durst seldom oppose their Summons or deny their Bishops leave to go when they were so called But after the scandalous Schism in the Popedom in which there were for a great while Two Popes and at last Three at a time Councils began to pretend that the Power of Governing the Church and of censuring depriving and making of Popes was radically in them as Representing the Vniversal Church So they fell upon Methods to have frequent Councils and that whether both Popes and Princes should oppose it or not for they declared both the one and the other to be fallen from their Dignity that should attempt to hinder it Yet they carried the Claim of the Freedom of Elections and of the other Ecclesiastical Immunities so high that all that followed upon this was That the Popes being terrified with the Attempts begun at Constance and prosecuted at Basil and Pisa took pains to have Princes of their side and then made Bargains and Concordates with them by which they divided all the Rights of the Church at least the Pretensions to them between themselves and the Princes Matters of Gain and Advantage were reserved to the See of Rome but the Points of Power and Jurisdiction were generally given up to the Princes The Temporal Authority has by that means prevailed over the Spiritual as much as the Spiritual Authority had prevailed over the Temporal for several Ages before Yet the Pretence of a General Council is still so specious that all those in the Roman Communion that do not acknowledge the Infallibility of their Popes do still support this Pretension That the Infallibility is given by Christ to his Church and that in the Interval of Councils it is in the Community of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and that when a Council meets then the Infallibility is lodged with it Acts 15.28 according to that It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Vs. The first thing to be settled in every Question is the meaning of the Terms So we must begin and examine what makes a General Council Whether all the Bishops must be present in Person or by Proxy And what share the Laity or the Princes that are thought to represent their People ought to have in a Council It is next to be considered Whether a General Citation is enough to make a Council General were the appearance of the Bishops ever so small at their first opening It is next to be considered Whether any come thither and Sit there as representing others and if Votes ought to be reckoned according to the Numbers of the Bishops or of the others who Depute and send them And whether Nations ought to Vote in a Body as Integral Parts of the Church or of every single Bishop by himself And finally Whether the Decisions of Councils must be Unanimous before they can be esteemed Infallible Or whether the Major Vote though exceeding only by One or if some greater Inequality is necessary such as Two Thirds or any other Proportion That there may be just cause of raising Scruples upon every one of these is apparent at first View
the subsequent Bull does instead of confirming their Decrees derogate much from them For to pretend to confirm them imports that they wanted that Addition of Authority which destroys the supposition of their Infallibility since what is Infallible cannot be made Stronger And the pretending to add strength to it implies that it is not Infallible Human Constitutions may be indeed so modelled that there must be a joint Concurrence before a Law can be made And though it is the last consent that settles the Law yet the previous consents were necessary steps to the giving it the Authority of a Law And thus it is not to be denied but that as to the Matters of Government the Church may cast her self into such a Model that as by a Decree of the Council of Nice the Bishops of a Province might conclude nothing without the consent of the Metropolitan so another Decree might even limit a General Council to stay for the consent of one or more Patriarchs But this must only take place in Matters of Order and Government which are left to the disposal of the Church but not in Decisions about Matters of Faith For if there is an Infallibility in the Church it must be derived from a special Grant made by Christ to his Church And it must go according to the Nature of that Grant unless it can be pretended that there is a Clause in that Grant empowering the Church to dispose of it and model it at pleasure For if there is no such power as it is plain there is not then Christ's Grant is either to a single person or to the whole Community If to a single Person then the Infallibility is wholly in him and he is to manage it as he thinks best For if he calls a Council it is only an act of his humility and condescension to hear the Opinions of many in different Corners of the Church that so he may know all that comes from all Quarters It may also seem a prudent way to make his Authority to be the more easily born and submitted to since what is gently managed is best obeyed But after all these are only prudential and discreet Methods The Infallibility must be only in him if Christ has by the Grant tied him to such a Succession Whereas on the other hand if the Infallibility is granted to the whole Community or to their Representatives then all the Applications that they may make to any one See must only be in order to the Execution of their Decrees like the Addresses that they make to Princes for the Civil Sanction But still the Infallibility is where Christ put it It rests wholly in their Decision and belongs only to that And any other Confirmation that they desire unless it be restrained singly to the Execution of their Decrees is a Wound given by themselves to their own Infallibility if not a direct disclaiming of it When the Confirmation of the Council is over a new Difficulty arises concerning the receiving the Decrees And here it may be said That if Christ's Grant is to the whole Community so that a Council is only the Authentical Declarer of the Tradition the whole Body of the Church that is possessed of the Tradition and conveys it down must have a right to examine the Decision that the Council has made and so is not bound to receive it but as it finds it to be conformable to Tradition Here it is to be supposed that every Bishop or at the least all the Bishops of any National Church know best the Tradition of their own Church and Nation And so they will have a right to re-examine things after they have been judged in a General Council This will intirely destroy the whole Pretension to Infallibility And yet either this ought to have been done after the Councils at Arimini or the second of Ephesus or else the World must have received Semi-Arianism or Eutychianism implicitly from them It is also no small prejudice against this Opinion That the Church was constituted the Scriptures were received many Heresies were rejected and the Persecutions were gone through in a course of Three Centuries in all which time there was nothing that could pretend to be called a General Council And when the Ages came in which Councils met often neither the Councils themselves who must be supposed to understand their own Authority best nor those who writ in defence of their Decrees who must be supposed to be inclined enough to magnify their Authority being of the same side neither of these I say ever pretended to argue for their Opinions from the Infallibility of those Councils that Decreed them They do indeed speak of them with great Respect as of Bodies of Men that were guided by the Spirit of God And so do we of our Reformers and of those who prepared our Liturgy But we do not ascribe Infallibility to them and no more did they Nor did they lay the stress of their Arguments upon the Authority of such Decisions they knew that the Objection might have been made as strong against them as they could put the Argument for them And therefore they offered to wave the Point and to appeal to the Scripture setting aside the Definitions that had been made in Councils both ways To conclude this Argument If the Infallibility is supposed to be in Councils then the Church may justly apprehend that she has lost it For as there has been no Council that has pretended to that Title now during 130 Years so there is no great probability of our ever seeing another The Charge and Noise the Expectations and Disappointments of that at Trent has Taught the World to expect nothing from one They plainly see that the management from Rome must carry every thing in a Council Neither Princes nor People no nor the Bishops themselves desire or expect to see one The Claim set up at Rome for Infallibility makes the demand of one seem not only needless there but to imply a doubting of their Authority when other methods are lookt after which will certainly be always unacceptable to those who are in possession and act as if they were Infallible Nor can it be apprehended that they will desire a Council to Reform those abuses in Discipline which are all occasioned by that Absolute and Universal Authority of which they are now possessed So by all the Judgments that can be made from the State of Things from the Interests of Men and the last Managemnt at Trent one may without a Spirit of Prophecy conclude That Christendom puts on a new Face there will be no more General Councils And so here Infallibility is at an end and has left the Church at least for a very long Interval It remains that those Passages should be considered that are brought to support this Authority Christ says Tell the Church and if he neglects to hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen Mat. 18.17 and a Publican
Testament answered 84 Concerning the various Readings 85 The nature and degrees of Inspiration 86 Concerning the Historical parts of Scripture 87 Concerning the Reasonings in Scripture 88 Of the Apocryphal Books 89 ARTICLE VII 91 NO difference between the Old and New Testament Ibid. Proofs in the Old Testament of the Messias 92 In the Prophets chiefly in Daniel 94 The Proofs all summed up 95 Objections of the Jews answered 96 The hopes of anotheâ— Life in the Old Testament 97 Our Saviour proved the Resurrection from the words to Moses 98 Expiation of Sin in the Old Dispensation 99 Sins then expiated by the Blood of Christ Ibid. Of the Rites and Ceremonies among the Jews 100 Of their Iudiciary Laws 101 Of the Moral Law Ibid. The Principles of Morality 102 Of Idolatry 103 Concerning the Sabbath Ibid. Of the Second Table 104 Of not coveting what is our Neighbours 105 ARTICLE VIII 106 COncerning the Creed of Athanasius Ibid. And the condemning Clauses in it Ibid. Of the Apostles Creed 107 ARTICLE IX 108 DIfferent Opinions concerning Original Sin Ibid. All men liable to Death by it 109 A Corruption spread through the whole Race of Adam Ibid. Of the state of Innocence 110 Of the effects of Adam's Fall 111 God's Iustice vindicated 112 Of the Imputation of Adam's Sin 113 St. Austin's Doctrine in this Point 114 This is opposed by many others Ibid. Both sides pretend their Doctrines agree with the Article 116 ARTICLE X. 117 THE true Notion of Liberty Ibid. The Feebleness of our present state 118 Inward Assistances promised in the New Covenant 119 The effect that these have on men 120 Concerning Preventing-Grace Ibid. Of its being efficacious or universal 121 ARTICLE XI 122 COncerning Iustification Ibid. Concerning Faith 123 The differences between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in this Point 124 The conditions upon which men are justified 126 The use to be made of this Doctrine 127 ARTICLE XII 128 THE necessity of Holiness Ibid. Concerning Merit 129 Of the defects of Good Works Ibid. ARTICLE XIII 131 ACTIONS in themselves good yet may be sins in him who does them Ibid. Of the Seventh Chapter to the Romans 132 This is not a total Incapacity Ibid. ARTICLE XIV 133 Oâ— the great extent of our Duty Ibid. No Counsels of Perfection 134 Many Duties which do not bind at all times Ibid. It is not possible for man to supererogate 135 Objections against this answered 136 The steps by which that Doctrine prevailed 137 ARTICLE XV. 138 CHrist's spotless Holiness Ibid. Of the Imperfections of the best men 139 ARTICLE XVI 140 COncerning Mortal and Venial Sin Ibid. Of the Sin against the Holy Ghost Ibid. Of the Pardon of Sin after Baptism 141 That as God forgives the Church ought also to forgive 142 Concerning Apostacy and sin unto Death 143 ARTICLE XVII 145 THE state of the Question 146 The Doctrine of the Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians Ibid. The Doctrine of the Remonstrants and the Socinians 147 This is a Controversy that arises out of Natural Religion Ibid. The History of this Controversy both in ancient and modern times 148 The Arguments of the Supralapsarians 152 The Arguments of the Sublapsarians 158 The Arguments of the Remonstrants 159 They affirm a certain Prescience 161 The Socinians Plea 164 General Reflections on the whole matter 165 The advantages and disadvantages of both sides and the faults of both 166 In what both do agree 167 The sense of the Article 168 The Cautions added to it Ibid. Passages in the Liturgy explained 169 ARTICLE XVIII 171 PHilosophers thought men might be saved in all Religions Ibid. So do the Mahometans Ibid. None are saved but by Christ 172 Whether some may not be saved by him who never heard of him Ibid. None are in Covenant with God but through the knowledge of Christ 173 But for others we cannot judge of the extent of the Mercies of God Ibid. Curiosity is to be restrained 174 ARTICLE XIX 175 WE ought not to believe that any are Infallible without good Authority Ibid. Iust prejudices against some who pretend to it 176 No Miracles brought to prove this Ibid. Proofs brought from Scripture 177 Things to be supposed previous to these Ibid. A Circle is not to be admitted Ibid. The Notes given of the true Church 178 These are examined Ibid. And whether they do agree to the Church of Rome 179 The Truth of Doctrine must be first settled Ibid. A Society that has a true Baptism is a true Church 180 Sacraments are not annulled by every Corruption Ibid. We own the Baptism and Orders given in the Church of Rome 181 And yet justify our separating from them Ibid. Objections against private judging 182 Our Reasons are given us for that end Ibid. Our Minds are free as our Wills are 183 The Church is still Visible but not Infallible Ibid. Of the Popes Infallibility 184 That was not pretended to in the first Ages Ibid. The Dignity of Sees rose from the Cities 185 Popes have fallen into Heresy Ibid. Their Ambition and Forgeries Ibid. Their Cruelty 186 The Power of deposing Princes claimed by them as given them by God Ibid. This was not a Corruption only of Discipline but of Doctrine 187 Arguments for the Popes Infallibility 188 No Foundation for it in the New Testament Ibid. St. Peter never clâ—imed it 189 Christ's words to him explained Ibid. Of the Kâ—ys of the Kingdâ—m of Hâ—â—vâ—n 190 Of binding and loosing Ibid. ARTICLE XX. 192 OF Church Power in Rituals Ibid. The Practice of the Jewish Church 193 Changes in these sometimes necâ—ssary Ibid. The Practice of the Ap stles 194 Sâ—bjâ—cts must obey in lawful things Ibid. But Superiâ—rs must not impose too much 195 The Church has Authority though not Infallible Ibid. Great Respâ—ct due to her Decisions 196 But no absâ—lute Submâ—ssion Ibid. The Church is the Depâ—sitary of the Scriptures 197 The Church of Rome run in a Circle Ibid. ARTICLE XXI 199 COuncils cannot be called but by the Consent of Princes Ibid. Tâ—e first were called by the Roman Emperors Ibid. Afterwards the Popes called them 200 Then some Councils thought on methods to fix their meeting Ibid. What makâ—s a Council to be General Ibid. What numbers are necessary 201 Hâ—w thâ—y must he cited Ibid. Nâ— Rules given in Scripture concerning their Constitution Ibid. Nazianzen's Complaints of Councils 202 Councils have been câ—ntrary to one another Ibid. Disâ—rders and Intriguâ—s in Councils Ibid. They judgâ— not by Inspiration Ibid. The Churches may examine their proceedings and judge of them 203 Concerning the Popes Bull confirming them Ibid. Thâ—y have an Authority but not absolute Ibid. Nâ—r do they need the Popes Bulls 204 The several Churches know their Traditions best Ibid. The Fathers do argue for the truth of the decisions but not from their authority Ibid. No prospect of another General Council 205 Popes are jealous of them Ibid. And the World expects little from them Ibid. Concerning the words
the Scriptures Ibid. The Form of Swearing among the Jews 394 Our Saviour's words and St. James's against all Swearing explained 395 When Oaths may be lawfully taken 396 The End of the Table of the Contents AN EXPOSITION OF THE XXXIX ARTICLES OF THE Church of England TITLE Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Archbishops and Byshops of both Provinces and the whole Cleargie in the Convocation holden at London in the yeare of our Lorde GOD 1562. according to the computation of the Church of Englande for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions and for the stablishing of consent touching true Religion Put forth by the Queens authoritie The INTRODUCTION THE Title of these Articles leads me to consider 1. The Time the Occasion and the Design of Compiling them 2 dly The Authority that is stampt upon them both by Church and State and the Obligation that lies upon all of our Communion to Assent to them and more particularly the Importance of the Subscription to which the Clergy are obliged As to the 1 st It may seem somewhat strange to see such a Collection of Tenets made the Standard of the Doctrine of a Church that is deservedly valued by reason of her Moderation This seems to be a departing from the Simplicity of the First Ages which yet we pretend to set up for a Pattern In those times the owning the Belief of the Creeds then received was thought sufficient And when some Heresies had occasioned great Enlargements to be made in the Creeds the Third General Council thought fit to set a Bar against all further Additions and yet all those Creeds one of which goes far beyond the Ephesine Standard make but One Article of the Thirty nine of which this Book consists Many of these do also relate to subtile and abstruse Points in which it is not easy to form a clear Judgment and much less can it be convenient to Impose so great a Collection of Tenets upon a whole Church to Excommunicate such as affirm any of them to be erroneous and to reject those from the Service of the Church who cannot Assent to every one of them The Negative Articles of No Infallibility No Supremacy in the Pope No Transubstantiation No Purgatory and the like give yet a further Colour to Exceptions since it may seem that it was enough not to have mentioned these which implied a tacit rejecting of them It may therefore appear to be too rigorous to require a positive condemning of those Points for a very high degree of Certainty is required to affirm a Negative Proposition In order to the explaining this matter it is to be confessed that in the beginnings of Christianity the Declaration that was required even of a Bishop's Faith was conceived in very general Terms There was a Form setled very early in most Churches This St. Paul in one place calls The Form of Doctrine that was delivered in another place The Form of Sound Words Rom. 6.17 1 Tim. 4.6 6 3. 2 Tim. 1.13 which those who were fixed by the Apostles in particular Churches had received from them These words of his do import a Standard or fixed Formulary by which all Doctrines were to be examined Some have inferred from them that the Apostles delivered that Creed which goes under their Name every where in the same Form of Words But there is great reason to doubt of this since the first Apologists for Christianity when they deliver a short Abstract of the Christian Faith do all vary from one another both as to the Order and as to the Words themselves which they would not have done if the Churches had all received one setled Form from the Apostles They would all have used the same Words and neither more nor less It is more probable That in every Church there was a Form setled which was delivered to it by some Apostle or Companion of the Apostles with some Variation of which at this distance of time considering how defective the History of the First Ages of Christianity is it is not possible nor very necessary for us to be able to give a clear Account For Instance In the whole Extent or Neighbourhood of the Roman Empire it was at first of great Use to have this in every Christian's mouth That our Saviour suffered under Pontius Pilate because this fixed the Time and carried in it an Appeal to Records and Evidences that might then have been searched for But if this Religion went at first far to the Eastward beyond all Commerce with the Romans there is not that reason to think that this should have been a part of the shortest Form of this Doctrine it being enough that it was related in the Gospel These Forms of the several Churches were preserved with that Sacred Respect that was due to them This was esteemed the Depositum or Trust of a Church which was chiefly committed to the keeping of the Bishop In the First Ages in which the Bishops or Clergy of the several Churches could not meet together in Synods to examine the Doctrine of every new Bishop the Method upon which the Circumstances of those Ages put them was this The New Bishop sent round him and chiefly to the Bishops of the more Eminent Sees the Profession of his Faith according to the Form that was fixed in his Church And when the Neighbouring Bishops were satisfied in this they held Communion with him and not only owned him for a Bishop but maintained such a Commerce with him as the state of that Time did admit of But as some Heresies sprung up there were Enlargements made in several Churches for the condemning those and for excluding such as held them from their Communion The Council of Nice examined many of those Creeds and out of them they put their Creed in a fuller Form The Addition made by the Council of Constantinople was put into the Creeds of some particular Churches several Years before that Council met So that though it received its Authority from that Council yet those Fathers rather confirmed an Article which they found in the Creeds of some Churches than made a New one It had been an unvaluable Blessing if the Christian Religion had been kept in its first Simplicity The Council of Ephesus took care that the Creed by which men profess their Christianity should receive no new Additions but be fixed according to the Constantinoplitan Standard yet they made Decrees in Points of Faith and the following Councils went on in their steps adding still new Decrees with Anathematisms against the contrary Doctrines and declaring the Asserters of them to be under an Anathema that is under a very heavy Curse of being totally excluded from their Communion and even from the Communion of Jesus Christ. And whereas the New Bishops had formerly only declared their Faith they were then required besides that to declare That they received such Councils and rejected such Doctrines together with such as favoured them who were sometimes meâ—tioned by
for mutual Condescension and Sympathy Upon all these grounds it is evident that the Holy Spirit is in the Scripture proposed to us as a Person under whose Oeconomy all the various Gifts Administrations and Operations that are in the Church are put The Second Particular relating to this Article is the Procession of this Spirit from the Father and the Son The Word Procession or as the Schoolmen term it Spiration is only made use of in order to the naming this Relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son in such a manner as may best answer the sense of the word Spirit For it must be confessed that we can frame no explicite Idea of this matter and therefore we must speak of it either strictly in Scripture-Words or in such Words as arise out of them and that have the same Signification with them It is therefore a vain Attempt of the Schoolmen to undertake to give a reason why the Second Person is said to be generated and so is called Son and the Third to proceed and so is called Spirit All these Subtilties can have no Foundation and signify nothing towards the clearing this matter which is rather darkned than cleared by a pretended Illustration In a word as we should never have believed this Mystery if the Scripture had not revealed it to us so we understand nothing concerning it besides what is contained in the Scriptures And therefore if in any thing we must think soberly upon those Subjects The Scriptures call the Second Son and the Third Spirit so Generation and Procession are words that may well be used but they are words concerning which we can form no distinct Conception We only use them because they belong to the words Son and Spirit The Spirit in things that we do understand is somewhat that proceeds and the Son is a Person begotten we therefore believing that the Holy Ghost is a Person apply the word Procession to the manner of his Emanation from the Father though at the same time we must acknowledge that we have no distinct Thought concerning it So much in general concerning Procession It has been much controverted whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from the Father and the Son In the first Disputes concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost with the Macedonians who denied it there was no other Contest but whether he was truly God or not When that was settled by the Council of Constantinople it was made a part of the Creed but it was only said that he Proceeded from the Father And the Council of Ephesus soon after that fixed on that Creed decreeing that no Additions should be made to it Yet about the end of the Sixth Century in the Western Church an Addition was made to the Article by which the Holy Ghost was affirmed to proceed from the Son as well as from the Father And when the Eastern and Western Churches in the Ninth Century fell into an humour of quarrelling upon the account of Jurisdiction after some time of Anger in which they seem to be searching for matter to reproach one another with they found out this difference The Greeks reproached the Latins for thus adding to the Faith and corrupting the Ancient Symbol and that contrary to the Decree of a General Council The Latins on the other hand charged them for detracting from the Dignity of the Son And this became the chief Point in Controversy between them Here was certainly a very unhappy Dispute inconsiderable in its Original but fatal in its Consequences We of this Church though we abhor the Cruelty of condemning the Eastern Churches for such a difference yet do receive the Creed according to the usage of the Western Churches And therefore though we do not pretend to explain what Procession is we believe according to the Article That the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son Because in that Discourse of our Saviour's that contains the Promise of the Spirit and that long Description of him as a Person Christ not only says That the Father will send the Spirit in his name but adds That he will send the Spirit Joh. 14.26 and though he says next who proceedeth from the Father yet since he sends him Joh. 15.26 and that he was to supply his room and to act in his Name this implies a Relation and a sort of Subordination in the Spirit to the Son This may serve to justify our adhering to the Creeds as they had been for many Ages received in the Western Church But we are far from thinking that this Proof is so full and explicite as to justify our Separating from any Church or condemning it that should stick exactly to the first Creeds and reject this Addition The Third Branch of the Article is That this Holy Ghost or Person thus proceeding is truly God of the same Substance with the Father and the Son That he is God was formerly proved by those Passages in which the whole Trinity in all the Three Persons is affirm'd But besides that the lying to the Holy Ghost by Ananias and Saphira is said to be a lying not unto men Act. 5.34 but to God His being called another Comforter his teaching all things his guiding into all truth his telling things to come his searching all things even the deep things of God his being called the Spirit of the Lord in opposition to the spirit of a man his making intercession for us his changing us into the same image with Christ are all such plain Characters of his being God that those who deny that are well aware of this That if it is once proved that he is a Person it will follow that he must be God therefore all that was said to prove him a Person is here to be remembred as a Proof that he is truly God So that though there is not such a variety of Proofs for this as there was for the Divinity of the Son yet the Proof of it is plain and clear And from what was said upon the First Article concerning the Unity of God it is also certain that if he is God he must be of one Substance Majesty and Glory with the Father and the Son ARTICLE VI. Of the Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salvation Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoevet is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation In the Name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books Genesis The First Book of Samuel The Book of Hester Exodus The Second Book of Samuel The Book of Iob Leviticus The First Book of Kings The Psalms Numbers The Second Book of Kings The Proverbs
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 Iewish 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 Iewish 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
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 Mat. 3.2 Mat. 4.17 By 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. Iohn 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 Rev. 3.7 Luk. 11.51 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 Iews 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 Ierusalem 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 himsâ—lf 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 Iewish 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 Luk. 22.31 John 21.15 16 17. 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 ARTICLE XX. Of the Authority of the Church The Church hath Power to decree Rights or Ceremonies and Authority in Matters of Faith And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation THIS Article consists of Two parts The first asserts a Power in the Church both to decree Rites and Ceremonies and to judge in matters of Faith The second limits this Power over matters of Faith to the Scriptures so that it must neither contradict them nor add any Articles as necessary to Salvation to those contained in them This is suitable to some Words that were once in the Fifth Article but were afterwards left out instead of which the first words of this Article were put in this place according to the Printed Editions tho they are not in the Original of the Articles signed by both Houses of Convocation that are yet extant As to the first part of the Article concerning the Power of the Church either with relation to Ceremonies or Points of Faith the dispute lies only with those who deny all Church-Power and think that Churches ought to be in all things limited by the Rules set in Scripture and that where the Scriptures are silent there ought to be no Rules made but that all Men should be left to their Liberty And in particular That the appointing new Ceremonies looks like a reproaching of the Apostles as if their Constitutions had been so defective that those defects
These words in themselves and separated from all that went before seem to speak out this matter very fully But when the occasion of them and the matter that is treated of in them are considered nothing can be plainer than that our Saviour is speaking of such private Differences as may arise among Men and of the Practice of forgiving Injuries and composing their Differences If thy Brother sin against thee first private Endeavours were to be used then the Interposition of Friends was to be tried And finally the matter was to be referred to the Body or Assembly to which they belonged And those who could not be gained by such Methods were no more to be esteemed Brethren but were to be looked on as very bad Men like Heathens They might upon such refractoriness be Excommunicated and Prosecuted afterwards in Temporal Courts since they had by their Perversness forfeited all sort of right to that Tenderness and Charity that is due to true Christians This Exposition does so fully agree to the Occasion and Scope of these words that there is no colour of Reason to carry them further The Character given to the Church of Ephesus in St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy 1 Tim. 3. That it was the pillar and ground of Truth is a Figurative Expression And it is never safe to build upon Metaphors much less to lay much weight upon them The Iews described their Synagogues by such honourable Characters in which it is known how profuse all the Eastern Nations are These are by St. Paul applied to the Church of Ephesus For he there speaks of the Church where Timothy was then in which he instructs him to behave himself well It has visibly a relation to those Inscriptions that were made on Pillars which rested upon firm Pedestals But whatsoever the strict Importance of the Metaphor may be it is a Metaphor and therefore it can be no Argument Christ's promise of the Spirit to his Apostles Jâ—h 16.13 that should lead them into all truth relates visibly to that extraordinary Inspiration by which they were to be acted and that was to shew them things to come so that a Succession of Prophecy may be inferred from these words as well as of Infallibility Those words of our Saviour with which St. Matthew concludes his Gospel Matth. 28.20 Lo I am with you always even to the end of the World infer no Infallibility but only a promise of Assistance and Protection Which was a necessary encouragement to the Apostles when they were sent upon so laborious a Commission that was to involve them into so much danger God's being with any his walking with them his being in the midst of them his never leaving nor forsaking them are Expressions often used in the Scripture 2 Cor. 6.16 Heb. 13.5 which signifie no more but God's watchful Providence Guiding Supporting and Protecting his People All this is far from Infallibility The Last Objection to be proposed is that which seems to relate most to the Point in hand taken from the Decree made by a Council at Ierusalem Act 15.28 which begins It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us From which they infer That the Holy Ghost is present with Councils and that what seems good to them is also approved by the Holy Ghost But it will not be easie to prove that this was such a Council as to be a pattern to succeeding ones to copy after it We find Brethren are here joined with the Apostles themselves Now since these were no other than the Laity here an Inference will be made that will not go easily down If they fate and voted with the Apostles it will seem strange to deny them the same privilege among Bishops By Elders here it seems Presbyters are meant and this will give them an Entrance into a General Council out of which they cannot be well excluded if the Laity are admitted But here was no citation no time given to all Churches to send their Bishops or Proxies It was an Occasional Meeting of such of the Apostles as happened to be then at Ierusalem who called to them the Elders or Presbyters and other Christians at Ierusalem For the Holy Ghost was then poured out so plentifully on so many that no wonder if there was then about that truly Mother Church a great many of both sorts who were of such Eminence that the Apostles might desire them to meet and to joyn with them The Apostles were Divinely Assisted in the delivering that Commission which our Saviour gave them in charge To preach to every creature and so were Infallibly Assisted in the Executing of it Mark 16.15 yet when other Matters fell in which were no Parts of that Commission they no doubt did as St. Paul who sometimes writ by Permission 1 Cor. 7.6 12. as well as at other times by Commandment Of which he gives notice by saying It is I and not the Lord He suggested Advices which to him according to his Prudence and Experience seemed to be well founded and he offered them with great Sincerity for though he had some reason to think that what he proposed flowed from the Spirit of the Lord ver 40. from that Inspiration that was Acting him yet because that did not appear distinctly to him he speaks with Reserves and says ver 25. he gives his judgment as one that had obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful So the Apostles here receiving no Inspiration to Direct them in this Case but observing well what St. Peter put them in mind of concerning God's sending him by a Special Vision to Preach to the Gentiles and that God had poured out the Holy Ghost on them even as he had done upon the Apostles who were Iews by Nature and that he did put no difference in that between Iews and Gentiles Acts 15.9 purifying the hearts of the Gentiles by Faith They upon this did by their Judgment conclude from thence That what God had done in the particular Instance of Cornelius was now to be extended to all the Gentiles So by this we see that those Words seemed good to the Holy Ghost relate to the Case of Cornelius and those Words seemed good to us import that they resolved to extend that to be a general Rule to all the Gentiles This gives the Words a clear and a distinct Sense which agrees with all that had gone before whereas it will otherwise look very strange to see them add their Authority to that of the Holy Ghost which is too Absurd to suppose Nor will it be easy to give any other consisting Sense to these Words Here is no Precedent of a Council much less of a General one but a Decision is made by Men that were in other things Divinely Inspired which can have no relation to the Judgment of other Councils And thus it appears that none of those Places which are brought to prove the Infallibility of Councils come up to the Point
For so great and so important a Matter as this is must be supposed to be either expresly declared in the Scriptures or not at all The Article affirming That some General Councils have erred must be understood of Councils that pass for such and that may be called General Councils much better than many others that go by that Name For that at Arimini was both very Numerous and was drawn out of many different Provinces As to the strict Notion of a General Council there is great Reason to believe that there was never any Assembly to which it will be found to agree And for the Four General Councils which this Church declares she receives they are received only because we are persuaded from the Scriptures that their Decisions were made according to them That the Son is truly God of the same Substance with the Father That the Holy Ghost is also truly God That the Divine Nature was truly united to the Human in Christ and that in One Person That both Natures remain distinct and that the Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine These Truths we find in the Scriptures and therefore we believe them We reverence those Councils for the sake of their Doctrine but do not believe the Doctrine for the Authority of the Councils There appeared too much of Human Frailty in some of their other Proceedings to give us such an Implicite Submission to them as to believe things only because they so Decided them ARTICLE XXII Of Purgatory The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God THERE are two small Variations in this Article from that published in King Edward's Reign What is here called the Romish Doctrine is there called the Doctrine of School-men The plain reason of this is that these Errors were not so fully espoused by the Body of the Roman Church when those Articles were first published so that some Writers that softened matters threw them upon the School-men and therefore the Article was cautiously worded in laying them there But before these that we have now were published the Decree and Canons concerning the Mass had passed at Trent in which most of the Heads of this Article are either affirmed or supposed though the formal Decree concerning them was made some Months after these Articles were published This will serve to justifie that diversity The second difference is only the leaving out a severe word Perniciously repugnant to the Word of God was put at first but perniciously being considered to be only a hard word they judged very right in the Second Edition of them that it was enough to say repugnant to the Word of God There are in this Article five Particulars that are all Ingredients in the Doctrine and Worship of the Church of Rome Purgatory Pardons the Worship of Images and of Relicks and the Invocation of Saints that are rejected not only as ill grounded brought in and maintained without good warrants from the Scripture but as contrary to it The first of these is Purgatory concerning which the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is that every Man is liable both to Temporal and to Eternal Punishment for his Sins that God upon the Account of the Death and Intercession of Christ does indeed pardon Sin as to its Eternal Punishment but the Sinner is still liable to Temporal Punishment which he must expiate by Acts of Pennance and Sorrow in this World together with such other Sufferings as God shall think fit to lay upon him but if he does not expiate these in this Life there is a State of Suffering and Misery in the next World where the Soul is to bear the Temporal punishment of its Sins which may continue longer or shorter till the Day of Judgment And in order to the shortening this the Prayers and Supererogations of Men here on Earth or the Intercession of the Saints in Heaven but above all things the Sacrifice of the Mass are of great Efficacy This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome asserted in the Councils of Florence and Trent What has been taught among them concerning the Nature and the Degrees of those Torments though supported by many pretended Apparitions and Revelations is not to be imputed to the whole Body and is indeed only the Doctrine of Schoolmen though it is generally preached and infused into the Consciences of the People Therefore I shall only examine that which is the established Doctrine of the whole Roman Church And first as to the Foundation of it that Sins are only pardoned as to their Eternal Punishment to those who being justified by faith have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. Rom. 5.1 There is not a colour for it in the Scriptures Remission of Sins is in general that with which the Preaching of the Gospel ought always to begin and this is so often repeated without any such reserve that it is a high assuming upon God and his Attributes of Goodness and Mercy to limit these when he has not limited them but has expresly said that this is a main part of the New Covenant Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12 that he will remember our sins and iniquities no more Now it seems to be a Maxim not only of the Law of Nations but of Nature that all offers of Pardon are to be understood in the full extent of the Words without any secret Reserves or Limitations unless they are plainly expressed An Indemnity being offered by a Prince to persuade his Subjects to return to their Obedience in the fullest Words possible without any reserves made in it it would be lookt on as a very perfidious thing if when the Subjects come in upon it trusting to it they should be told that they were to be secured by it against Capital Punishments but that as to all Inferior Punishments they were still at Mercy We do not dispute whether God if he had thought fit so to do might not have made this distinction nor do we deny that the Grace of the Gospel had been infinitely valuable if it had offered us only the Pardon of Sin with relation to its Eternal Punishment and had left the Temporal Punishment on us to be expiated by our selves but then we say this ought to have been expressed The Distinction ought to have been made between Temporal and Eternal and we ought not to have been drawn into a Covenant with God by words that do plainly import an intire Pardon and Oblivion upon which there lay a limited Sense that was not to be told the World till it was once well engaged in the Christian Religion Upon these Reasons it is that we conclude that this Doctrine not being contained in the Scriptures is not only without any warrant in them but that it is contrary to those full offers of
But we have not so learned Christ. We ought not to lie even for God much less for our selves or for any other pretended ends of keeping the World in awe and order therefore all the Advantages that are said to arise out of this and all the Mischief that may be thought to follow on the rejecting of it ought not to make us presume to carry on the Ends of Religion by unlawful Methods This were to call in the Assistance of the Devil to do the Work of God If the just Apprehensions of the Wrath of God and the Guilt of Sin together with the Fear of Everlasting Burnings will not Reform the World nor Râ—strain Sinners we must leave this Matter to the wise and unsearchable Judgments of God The next Particular in this Article is the condemning the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons That is founded on the Distinction between the Temporal and Eternal Punishment of Sin and the Pardon is of the Temporal Punishment which is believed to be done by a Power lodged singly in the Pope derived from those Words Feed my Sheep and To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven This may be by him derived as they Teach not only to Bishops and Priests but to the Inferior Orders to be dispensed by them and it excuses from Penance unless he who purchases it thinks fit to use his Penance in a medicinal way as a Preservative against Sin So the Virtue of Indulgences is the applying the Treasure of the Church upon such Terms as Popes shall think fit to prescribe in order to the redeeming Souls from Purgatory and from all other Temporal Punishments and that for such a number of Years as shall be specified in the Bulls some of which have gone to Thousands of Years one I have seen to Ten hundred thousand And as these Indulgences are sometimes granted by special Tickets like Tallies struck on that Treasure so sometimes they are affixed to particular Churches and Altars to particular Times or Days chiefly to the Year of Jubilee they are also affixed to such things as may be carryed about to Agnus Dei's to Medals to Rosaries and Scapularies they are also affixed to some Prayers the Devout saying of them being a mean to procure great Indulgences The granting these is left to the Pope's Discretion who ought to distribute them as he thinks may tend most to the Honour of God and the Good of the Church and he ought not to be too profuse much less to be too scanty in dispensing them This has been the received Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome since the Twelfth Century and the Council of Trent in a hurry in its last Session did in very general Words approve of the Practice of the Church in this Matter and Decreed that Indulgences should be continued only they restrained some Abuses in particular that of selling them yet even those Restraints were wholly referred to the Popes themselves So that this crying Abuse the Scandal of which had occasioned the first beginnings and progress of the Reformation was upon the matter established and the correcting the Excesses in it was trusted to those who had been the Authors of them and the chief Gainers by them This Point of their Doctrine is more fully opened than might perhaps seem necessary if it were not that a great part of the Confutation of some Doctrines is the exposing of them For though in Ages and Places of Ignorance these things have been and still are Practised with great assurance and to very extravagant excesâ—es yet in Countries and Ages of more Light when they come to be questioned they are disowned with an assurance equal to that with which they are Practised elsewhere Among us some will perhaps say that these are only exemptions from Penance which cannot be denied to be within the Power of the Church and they argue that though it is very fit to make severe Laws yet the execution of these must be softened in practice This is all that they pretend to justify and they give up any further Indulgences as an abuse of corrupt Times Whereas at the same time a very different Doctrine is Taught among them where there is no danger but much profit in owning it All this is only a pretence for the Episcopal Power in the inflicting abating or commuting of Penance is stated among them as a thing wholly different from the power of Indulgences They are derived from different Originals and designed for Ends totally different from one another The one is for the outward Discipline of the Church and the other is for the inward quiet of Consciences and in order to their future State The one is in every Bishop and the other is asserted to be peculiar to the Pope Nor will they escape by laying this Matter upon the Ignorance and Abuses of former Times It was published in Bulls and received by the whole Church So that if either the Pope or the diffusive Body of the Church are Infallible there must be such a Power in the Pope and the Decree of the Council of Trent confirming and approving the Practice of the Church in that Point must bind them all For if this Doctrine is False then their Infallibility must go with it For in every Hypothesis in which Infallibility is said to be lodged whether in the Pope or in Councils this Doctrine has that Seal to it As for the Doctrine it self all that has been already said against the distinction of Temporal and Eternal Punishment and against Purgatory overthrows it since the one is the Foundation on which it is built and the other is that which it pretends to secure Men from And therefore this falls with those All that was said upon the Head of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures comes also in here For if the Scriptures ought to be our Rule in any thing it must be chiefly in those Matters which relate to the Pardon of Sin to the quiet of our Consciences and to a future State Therefore a Doctrine and Practice that have not so much as Colours from Scripture in a matter of such Consequence ought to be rejected by us upon this single Account If from the Scripture we go to the Practice and Tradition of the Church we are sure that this was not thought on for above Ten Centuries all the Indulgences that were then known being only the abatements of the severity of the Penitentiary Canons But in the Ages in which aspiring and insolent Popes imposed on Ignorant and Superstitious multitudes a jumble was made of Indulgences formerly granted of Purgatory and of the Papal Authority that was then very implicitly submitted to and so out of all that mixture this arose Which was as ill managed as it was ill grounded The natural tendency of it is not only to relax all publick Discipline but also all secret Penance when shorter Methods to Peace and Pardon may be more easily purchased The vast Application to the
whether formally or substantially or some other way Some Schoolmen thought that the Matter of Bread was destroyed but that the Form remained to be the Form of Christ's Body that was the Matter of it Others thought that the Matter of the Elements remained and that the Form only was destroyed But that to which many inclined was the Assumption of the Elements into an Union with the Body of Christ or a hypostatical Union of the eternal Word to them by which they became as truly a Body to Christ as that which he has in Heaven Yet it was not the same but a different Body Stephen Bishop of Autun was the First that fell on the Word of Transubstantiation Amalric in the beginning of the Thirteenth Century denied in express Words the corporal Presence De Sacram Altaris c. 13. He was condemned in the Fourth Council of the Lateran as an Heretick and his Body was ordered to be taken up and burnt And in opposition to him Transubstantiation was decreed Yet the Schoolmen continued to offer different Explanations of this for a great while after that But in conclusion all agreed to explain it as was formerly set forth It appears by the crude Way in which it was at first explained that it was a Novelty And that Men did not know how to mould and frame it but at last it was licked into shape the whole Philosophy being cast into such a Mould as agreed with it And therefore in the present Age in which that Philosophy has lost its Credit great Pains are taken to suppress the New and freer Way of Philosophy as that which cannot be so easily subdued to support this Doctrine as the Old one was And the Arts that those who go into the New Philosophy take to reconcile their Scheme to this Doctrine shew that there is nothing that subtile and unsincere Men will not venture on For since they make Extension to be of the Essence of Matter and think that Accidents are only the Modes of Matter which have no proper being of themselves it is evident that a Body cannot be without its Extension and that Accidents cannot subsist without their Subject so that this can be in no sort reconciled to Transubstantiation And therefore they would willingly avoid this special Manner of the Presence and only in General assert that Christ is corporally Present But the Decrees of the Lateran and Trent Councils make it evident that Transubstantiation is now a Doctrine that is bound upon them by the Authority of the Church and of Tradition And that they are as much bound to believe it as to believe the corporal Presence it self Thus the going off from the Simplicity in which Christ did deliver the Sacrament and in which the Church at first received it into some sublime Expressions about it led Men once out of the way and they still went farther and farther from it Pious and Rhetorical Figures pursued far by Men of heated Imaginations and of inflamed Affections were followed with Explanations invented by colder and more designing Men afterwards and so it increased till it grew by degrees to that which at last it settled on But after all if the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence had rested only in a Speculation tho' we should have judged those who held it to be very bad Philosophers and no good Criticks yet we could have endured it if it had rested there and had not gone on to be a matter of practice by the Adoration and Processions with every thing else of that kind which followed upon it for this corrupted the Worship The Lutherans believe a Consubstantiation and that both Christ's Body and Blood and the Substance of the Elements are together in the Sacrament That some explain by an Vbiquity which they think is communicated to the Human Nature of Christ by which his Body is every where as well as in the Sacrament Whereas others of them think that since the words of Christ must needs be true in a literal sense his Body and Blood is therefore in the Sacrament but in with and under the Bread and Wine All this we think is ill grounded and is neither agreeable to the words of the Institution nor to the nature of things A great deal of that which was formerly set forth in defence of our Doctrine falls likewise upon this The Vbiquity communicated to the Humane Nature as it seems a thing in it self impossible so it gives no more to the Sacrament than to every thing else Christ's Body may be said to be in every thing or rather every thing may be said to be his Body and Blood as well as the Elements in the Sacrament The impossibility of a Bodies being without extension or in more places at once lies against this as well as against Transubstantiation But yet after all this is only a Point of Speculation nothing follows upon it in practice no Adoration is offered to the Elements and therefore we judge that Speculative Opinions may be born with when they neither fall upon the Fundamentals of Christianity to give us false Ideas of the Essential parts of our Religion nor affect our practice and chiefly when the Worship of God is maintained in its Purity for which we see God has expressed so particular a concern giving it the Word which of all others raises in us the most sensible and the strongest Ideas calling it Iealousie that we reckon we ought to watch over this with much caution We can very well bear with some Opinions that we think ill grounded as long as they are only matters of Opinion and have no Influence neither on Mens Morals nor their Worship We still hold Communion with Bodies of Men that as we judge think wrong but yet do both live well and maintain the Purity of the Worship of God We know the great design of Religion is to govern Men's Lives and to give them right Ideas of God and of the Ways of Worshipping him All Opinions that do not break in upon these are things in which great forbearance is to be used large Allowances are to be made for Mens Notions in all other things and therefore we think that neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation how ill grounded soever we take both to be ought to dissolve the Union and Communion of Churches But it is quite another thing if under either of these Opinions an Adoration of the Elements is taught and practised This we believe is plain Idolatry when an Insensible piece of Matter such as Bread and Wine has Divine Honours paid it when it is believed to be God when it is called God and is in all respects Worshipped with the same Adoration that is offered up to Almighty God This we think is gross Idolatry Many Writers of the Church of Rome have acknowledged that if Transubstantiation is not true their Worship is a strain of Idolatry beyond any that is practised among the most depraved of all the Heathens The only excuse that
withstood St. Peter to his Face when he thought that he deserved to be blamed and he speaks of his own line and share as being subordinate in it to none And by his saying that he did not stretch himself beyond his own Measure 2 Cor. 10.14 he plainly insinuates that within his own Province he was only accountable to him that had called and sent him This was also the Sense of the Primitive Church That all Bishops were Brethren Collegues and Fellow-Bishops And though the Dignity of that City which was the Head of the Empire and the Opinion of that Church's being founded by St. Peter and St. Paul created a great Respect to the Bishops of that See which was supported and encreased by the eminent Worth as well as the frequent Martyrdoms of their Bishops yet St. Cyprian in his time as he was against the suffering of any Causes to be carried in the way of a Complaint for Redress to Rome so he does in plain words say That all the Apostles were equal in Power De Unit Eccles. and that all Bishops were also equal since the whole Office and Episcopate was one entire thing of which every Bishop had a compleat and equal share It is true he speaks of the Vnity of the Roman Chureh and of the Union of other Churches with it but those words were occasioned by a Schism that Novatian had made then at Rome he being elected in opposition to the Rightful Bishop So that St. Cyprian does not insinuate any thing concerning an Authority of the See of Rome over other Sees but speaks only of their Union under one Bishop and of the other Churches holding a Brotherly Communion with that Bishop Through his whole Epistles he treats the Bishops of Rome as his Equals with the Titles of Brother and Collegue In the first General Council the Authority of the Bishops of the great Sees is stated as equal Conc. Nic. Can. 6. The Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch are declared to have according to Custom the same Authority over the Churches subordinate to them that the Bishops of Rome had over those that lay about that City This Authority is pretended to be derived only from Custom and is considered as under the Limitations and Decisions of a General Council Soon after that the Arian Heresy was so spread over the East that those who adhered to the Nicene Faith were not safe in their numbers Ep. 10. ad Greg. and the Western Churches being free from that Contagion though St. Basil laments that they neither understood their matters nor were much concerned about them but were swelled up with Pride Athanasius and other oppressed Bishops fled to the Bishops of Rome as well as to the other Bishops of the West it being natural for the oppressed to seek Protection wheresoever they can find it And so a sort of Appeals was begun and they were authorized by the Council of Sardica But the ill effects of this Con. Sard. Can. 3 7 Con. Constant Can. 3. if it should become a Precedent were apprehended by the Second General Council in which it was decreed That every Province should be governed by its own Synod and that all Bishops should be at first judged by the Bishops of their own Province and from them an Appeal was allowed to the Bishops of the Diocess whereas by the Canons of Nice no Appeal lay from the Bishops of the Province But though this Canon of Constantinople allows of an Appeal to the Bishops of every such Division of the Roman Empire as was known by the name of Diocess yet there is an express Prohibition of any other or further Appeal which is a plain repealing of the Canon at Sardica And in that same Council it appears upon what the Dignity of the See of Rome was then believed to be founded For Constantinople being made the Seat of the Empire and called New Rome the Bishops of that See had the same Privileges given them that the Bishops of Old Rome had except only the Point of Rank which was preserved to Old Rome because of the Dignity of the City This was also confirmed at Chalcedon in the middle of the Fifth Century Con. Chalced Can. 28. This shews that the Authority and Privileges of the Bishops of Rome were then considered as arising out of the Dignity of that City and that the Order of them was subject to the Authority of a General Council Conc. Afric cap. 101. 1â—5 Epâ—st ad Bonifac. Celâ—st The African Churches in that time knew nothing of any Superiority that the Bishops of Rome had over them They condemned the making of Appeals to them and appointed that such as made them should be excommunicated The Popes who laid that matter much to heart did not pretend to an Universal Jurisdiction as St. Peter's Successors by a Divine Right they only pleaded a Canon of the Council of Nice but the Africans had heard of no such Canon and so they justified their Independence on the See of Rome Great Search was made after this Canon and it was found to be an Imposture So early did the See of Rome aspire to this Universal Authority and did not stick at Forgery in order to the compassing of it In the Sixth Century when the Emperor Mauritius continued a Practice begun by some former Emperors to give the Bishop of Constantinople the Title of Universal Bishop Greg. Ep. Lib. 4. Ep. 32 34 36 38 39. Lib. 6. Ep. 24 28 30 31. Lib. 7. Ep. 70. Pelage and after him Gregory the Great broke out into the most Pathetical Expressions that could be invented against it he compared it to the Pride of Lucifer and said That he who assumed it was the forerunner of Antichrist and as he renounced all Claim to it so he affirmed that none of his Predecessors had ever aspired to such a Power This is the more remarkable because the Saxons being converted to the Christian Religion under this Pope's direction we have reason to believe that this Doctrine was infused into this Church at the first Conversion of the Saxons yet Pope Gregory's Successor made no exceptions to the giving himself that Title against which his Predecessor had declaimed so much But then the Confusions of Italy gave the Popes great Advantages to make all new Invaders and Pretenders enlarge their Privileges since it was a great accession of Strength to any party to have them of their side The Kings of the Lombards began to lye heavy on them but they called in the Kings of a new conquering Family from France who were ready enough to make new Conquests and when the Nomination of the Popes was given to the Kings of that Race it was natural for them to raise the Greatness of one who was to be their Creature so they promoted their Authority which was not a little confirmed by an Impudent Forgery at that time oâ— the Decretal Epistles of the first Popes in
which they were represented as governing the World with an Universal and Unbounded Authority This Book was a little disputed at first but was quickly submitted to and the Popes went on upon that Foundation still enlarging their Pretensions Soon after that was submitted to it quickly appeared that the Pretensions of that See were endless They went on to claim a Power over Princes and their Dominions and that first with relation to Spiritual matters They deposed them if they were either Hereticks themselves or if they favoured Heresy at least so far as not to extirpate it From deposing they went to the disposing of their Dominions to others And at last Boniface the Eighth compleated their Claim for he decreed That it was necessary to every man to be subject to the Pope's Authority And he asserted a direct Dominion over Princes as to their Temporals That they were all subject to him and held their Dominions under him and at his Courtesy As for the Jurisdiction that they claimed over the Spirituality they exercised it with that Rigor with such heavy Taxes and Impositions such Exemptions and Dispensations and such a Violation of all the Antient Canons that as it grew insupportably grievous so the management was grosly scandalous for every thing was openly set to Sale By these Practices they disposed the World to examine the Grounds of that Authority which was managed with so much Tyranny and Corruption It was so ill founded that it could not be defended but by Force and Artifices Thus it appears that there is no Authority at all in the Scripture for this Extent of Jurisdiction that the Popes assumed That it was not thought on in the first Ages That a vigorous Opposition was made to every step of the Progress that it made And that Forgery and Violence was used to bring the World under it So that there is no reason now to submit to it As for the Patriarchal Authority which that See had over a great part of the Roman Empire that was only a Regulation made conform to the Constitution of that Empire So that the Empire being now dissolved into many different Sovereignties the new Princes are under no sort of obligation to have any regard to the Roman Constitution Nor does a Nation 's receiving the Faith by the Ministry of Men sent from any See subject them to that See for then all must be subject to Ierusalem since the Gospel came to all the Churches from thence There was a Decision made in the Third General Council in the case of the Cypriotick Churches which pretended that they had been always compleat Churches within themselves and Independent therefore they stood upon this Privilege Not to be subject to Appeals to any Patriarchal See The Council judged in their favour So since the Britannick Churches were converted long before they had any Commerce with Rome they were originally Independent which could not be lost by any thing that was afterwards done among the Saxons by men sent over from Rome This is enough to prove the First Point That the Bishops of Rome have no Lawful Jurisdiction here among us The Second is That Kings or Queens have an Authority over their Subjects in Matters Ecclesiastical In the Old Testament the Kings of Israel intermeddled in all matters of Religion Samuel acknowledged Saul's Authority and Abimelech though the High-Priest when called before Saul 1 Sam. 15.30.22.14 appeared and answered to some things that were objected to him that related to the Worship of God Samuel said in express words to Saul That he was made the Head of all the Tribes and one of these was the Tribe of Levi. 15.17 David made many Laws about Sacred Matters such as the Orders of the Courses of the Priests and the time of their Attendance at the Publick Service When he died and was informing Solomon of the Extent of his Authority he told him that the Courses of the Priests and all the People were to be wholly at his Commandment Pursuant to which 1 Chron. 23.6.28.21 Solomon did appoint them their Charges in the Service of God and both the Priests and Levites departed not from his Commandment in any matter He turned out Abiathar from the High-Priests Office 2 Chron. 8.14 15. and yet no Complaint was made upon it as if he had assumed an Authority that did not belong to him It is true both David and Solomon were men that were particularly inspired as to some things but it does not appear that they acted in those matters by virtue of any such Inspiration They were Acts of Regal Power and they did them in that Capacity Iehoshaphat Hezekiah and Iosiah gave many Directions and Orders in Sacred Matters 2 Chron. 17.8 9. chap. 19.8 to the End Chap. 26.16 17 18 19. But though the Priest withstood Vzziah when he was going to offer Incense in the Holy Place yet they did not pretend Privilege or make opposition to those Orders that were issued out by their Kings Mordecai appointed the Feast of Purim by virtue of the Authority that King Ahasuerus gave him And both Ezra and Nehemiah by virtue of Commissions from the Kings of Persia made many Reformations and gave many Orders in Sacred Matters Under the New Testament Christ by saying Render to Caesar the things which are Caesars did plainly show that he did not intend that his Religion should in any sort lessen the Temporal Authority The Apostles writ to the Churches to obey Magistrates Rom. 13.6 to submit to them and to pay Taxes They enjoined Obedience whether to the King as supreme or to others that were sent by him Ver. 1. 1 â—et 2.13 Every Soul without exception is charged to be subject to the higher Powers The Magistrate is ordained of God and is his Minister to encourage them that do well and to punish the evil doers If these Passages of Scripture are to be interpreted according to the common consent of the Fathers Churchmen are included within them as well as other Persons There was not indeed great occasion to consider this matter before Constantine's coming to the Empire for till then the Emperors did not consider the Christians otherwise than either as Enemies ot at best as their Subjects at large And therefore though the Christians made an Address to Aurelian in the matter of Samosatenus and obtained a favourable and just Answer to it yet in Constantine's time the Protection that he gave to the Christian Religion led him and his Successors to make many Laws in Ecclesiastical matters concerning the Age the Qualifications and the Duties of the Clergy Many of these are to be found in Theodosius and Iustinian's Code Iustinian added many more in his Novels Appeals were made to the Emperors against the Injustice of Synods They received them and appointed such Bishops to hear and try those Causes as happened to be then about their Courts In the Council of Nice many Complaints were given to the Emperor by
the Bishops against one another The Emperors called General Councils by their Summons they sate in them and confirmed their Decrees This was the constant Practice of the Roman Emperors both in the East and in the West When the Church came to fall under many lesser Sovereignties those Princes continued still to make Laws to name Bishops to give Investitures into Benefices to call Synods and to do every thing that appeared necessary to them for the good Government of the Church in their Dominions When Charles the Great was restoring those things that had fallen under much disorder in a course of some ignorant and barbarous Ages and was reviving both Learning and good Government he published many Capitulars a great part of them relating to Ecclesiastical matters nor was any exception taken to that in those Ages The Synods that were then held were for the greatest part mixt Assemblies in which the Temporalty and the Spiritualty sate together and judged and decreed of all matters in common And it is certain that such was the Sanhedrim among the Iews in our Saviour's time it was the Supreme Court both for Spirituals and Temporals In England our Princes began early and continued long to maintain this part of their Authority The Letters that are pretended to have passed between King Lucius and Pope Eleutherius are very probably Forgeries but they are antient ones and did for many Ages pass for true Now a Forgery is generally calculated to the Sense of the Age in which it is made In the Pope's Letter the King is called God's Vicar in his Kingdoms and it is said to belong to his Office to bring his Subjects to the holy Church and to maintain protect and govern them in it Both Saxon and Danish Kings made a great many Laws about Ecclesiastical matters and after the Conquest when the Nation grew into a more united Body and came to a more settled Constitution many Laws were made concerning these matters particularly in opposition to those Practices that favoured the Authority that the Popes were then assuming such as Appeals to Rome or Bishops going out of the Kingdom without the King's leave King Alfred's Laws were a sort of a Text for a great while they contain many Laws about Sacred matters The exempting of Monasteries from Episcopal Jurisdiction was granted by some of our Kings at first William the Conqueror to perpetuate the Memory of his Victory over Harold and to endear himself to the Clergy founded an Abbey in the Field where the Battel was fought called Battel-Abbey And in the Charter of the Foundation in imitation of what former Kings had done in their Endowments this Clause was put It shall be also free and quiet for ever from all subjection to Bishops or the dominion of any other Persons This is an Act that does as immediately relate to the Authority of the Church as any one that we can imagine The Constitutions of Clarendon were asserted by both King and Parliament and by the whole Body of the Clergy as the Antient Customs of the Kingdom These relate to the Clergy and were submitted to by them all Becket himself not excepted though he quickly went off from it It is true the Papacy got generally the better of the Temporal Authority in a course of several Ages but at last the Popes living long at Avignon together with the great Schism that followed upon their return to Rome did very much sink in their Credit and that stopped the Progress they had made before that time which had probably subdued all if it had not been for those Accidents Then the Councils began to take heart and resolved to assert the Freedom of the Church from the Papal Tyranny Pragmatick Sanctions were made in several Nations to assert their Liberty That in France was made with great Solemnity In these the Bishops did not only assert their own Jurisdiction independent in a great measure of the Papacy but they likewise carried it so far as to make themselves Independent on the Civil Authority particularly in the point of Elections This disposed Princes generally to enter into Agreements with the Popes by which the matter was so transacted that the Popes and they made a division between them of all the Rights and Pretensions of the Church Princes yielded a great deal to the Popes to be protected by them in that which they got to be reserved to themselves Great Restraints were laid both on the Clergy and likewise on the See of Rome by the Appeals that were brought into the Secular Courts from the Ordinary Judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts or from the Bulls or Powers that Legates brought with them A distinction was found that seemed to save the Ecclesiastical Authority at the same time that the Secular Court was made the Judg of it The Appeal did lye upon a pretence that the Ecclesiastical Judg had committed some Abuse in the way of proceeding or in his Sentence So the Appeal was from that Abuse and the Secular Court was to examine the matter according to the Rules and Laws of the Church and not according to the Principles or Rules of any other Law But upon that they did either confirm or reverse the Sentence And even those Princes that acknowledg the Papal Authority have found out distinctions to put such Stops to it as they please and so to make it an Engine to govern their People by as far as they think fit to give way to it and to damn such Bulls or void such Powers as they are afraid of Thus it is evident That both according to Scripture and the Practice of all Ages and Countries the Princes of Christendom have an Authority over their Subjects in matters Ecclesiastical The reason of things makes also for this for if any Rank of men are exempted from their Jurisdiction they must thereby cease to be Subjects And if any sort of Causes Spiritual ones in particular were put out of their Authority it were an easy thing to reduce almost every thing to such a relation to Spirituals that if this Principle were once received their Authority would be very precaâ—ious and feeble Nothing could give Princes stronger and juster Prejudices against the Christian Religion than if they saw that the effect of their receiving it must be the withdrawing so great a part of their Subjects from their Authority and the putting as many Checks upon it as those that had the Management of this Religion should think fit to restrain it by In a word all mankind must be under one Obedience and one Authority It remains that the Measures and the Extent of this Power be right stated It is certain First That this Power does not depend upon the Prince's Religion Whether he is a Christian or not or whether he is of â— true or false Religion or is a good or a bad man By the same Tenure that he holds his Sovereignty he holds this likewise Artaxerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 it as well as either
Holy Ghost it must be understood of the Father for when the Father is named with Christ sometimes he is called God simply and sometimes God the Father This Argument from the Threefold Salutation appears yet stronger in the Words in which St. Iohn addresses himself to the Seven Churches in the beginning of the Revelations Rev. 1.4 5. Grace and Peace from him which is which was and which is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his Throne and from Iesus Christ. By the Seven Spirits must be meant one or more Persons since he wishes or declares Grace and Peace from them Now either this must be meant of Angels or of the Holy Ghost There are no where Prayers made or Blessings given in the Name of Angels This were indeed a worshipping them against which there are express Authorities not only in the other Books of the New Testament but in this Book in particular Nor can it be imagined that Angels could have been named before Iesus Christ So then it remains that Seven being a Number that imports both Variety and Perfection and that was the Sacred Number among the Iews this is a Mystical Expression which is no extraordinary thing in a Book that is all over mysterious And it imports one Person from whom all that variety of Gifts Administrations and Operations that were then in the Church did flow And this is the Holy Ghost But as to his being put in order before Christ as upon the supposition of an Equality the going out of the common order is no great matter so since there was to come after this a full Period that concerned Christ it might be a natural way of Writing to name him last Against all this it is objected That the Designation that is given to the first of these in a Circumlocution that imports Eternity shews that the Great God and not the Person of the Father is to be meant But then how could St. Iohn writing to the Churches wish them Grace and Peace from the other Two A few Verses after this the same Description of Eternal Duration is given to Christ and is a strong Proof of his Eternity and by consequence of his Divinity So what is brought so soon after as a Character of the Eternity of the Son may be also here used to denote the Eternal Father These are the Chief Places in which the Trinity is mentioned all together I do not insist on that contested Passage of St. Iohn's Epistle There are great doubtings made about it 1 Joh. 5.7 The main ground of doubting being the Silence of the Fathers who never made use of it in the Disputes with the Arians and Macedonians There are very considerable things urged on the other hand to support the Authority of that Passage yet I think it is safer to build upon sure and undisputable grounds So I leave it to be maintained by others who are more fully persuaded of its being Authentical There is no need of it This matter is capable of a very full Proof whether that Passage is believed to be a part of the Canon or not It is no small Confirmation of the Truth of this Doctrine that we are certain it was universally received over the whole Christian Church long before there was either a Christian Prince to support it by his Authority or a Council to establish it by Consent And indeed the Council of Nice did nothing but declare what was the Faith of the Christian Church with the addition only of the Word Consubstantial For if all the other Words of the Creed settled at Nice are acknowledged to be true that of the Three Persons being of one Substance will follow from thence by a just consequence We know both by what Tertullian and Novatian writ what was the Faith both of the Roman and the African Churches From Irenaeus we gather the Faith both of the Gallican and the Asiatick Churches And the whole proceedings in the Case of Samosatenus that was the solemnest business that past while the Church was under Oppression and Persecution give us the most convincing Proof possible not only of the Faith of the Eastern Churches at that time but of their Zeal likewise in watching against every Breach that was made in so Sacred a part of their Trust and Depositum These things have been fully opened and enlarged on by others to whom the Reader is referred I shall only desire him to make this Reflection on the state of Christianity at that time The Disputes that were then to be managed with the Heathens against the Deifying or Worshipping of Men and those extravagant Fables concerning the Genealogies of their Heroes and Gods must have obliged the Christians rather to have silenced and supprest the Doctrine of the Trinity than to have owned and published it So that nothing but their being assured that it was a Necessary and Fundamental Article of their Faith could have led them to own it in so publick a manner since the Advantages that the Heathen would have taken from it must be too visible not to be soon observed The Heathens retorted upon them their Doctrine of a Man's being a God and of God's having a Son And every one who engaged in this Controversy framed such Answers to these Objections as he thought he could best maintain This as it gave the Rise to the Errors which some brought into the Church so it furnishes us with a Copious Proof of the common Sense of the Christians of those Ages who all agreed in general to the Doctrine though they had many different and some very Erroneous ways of explaining it among them I now come to the special Proofs concerning each of the Three Persons But there being other Articles relating to the Son and the Holy Ghost the Proofs of these Two will belong more properly to the Explanation of those Articles Therefore all that belongs to this Article is to prove that the Father is truly God but that needs not be much insisted on for there is no dispute about it None deny that he is God many think that he is so truly God that there is no other that can be called God besides him unless it be in a larger sense of the word And therefore I will here conclude all that seems necessary to be said on this first Article on which if I have dwelt the longer it was because the stating the Idea of God right being the Fundamental Article of all Religion and the Key into every part of it this was to be done with all the Fulness and Clearness possible In a word to recapitulate a little what has been said The liveliest way of framing an Idea of God is to consider our own Souls which are said to be made after the Image of God An attentive Reflection on what we perceive in our selves will carry us further than any other thing whatsoever to form just and true Thoughts of God We perceive what Thought is but
therefore to such Arguments as may be well insisted upon and maintained The Canon of the New Testament as we now have it is fully proved from the Quotations out of the Books of the New Testament by the Writers of the First and Second Centuries such as Clemens Ignatius Iustin Irenaeus and several others Papias who conversed with the Disciples of the Apostles is cited by Eusebius in confirmation of St. Matthew's Gospel which he says was writ by him in Hebrew Lib. 3. Hist. c 39. c. 25. He is also cited to prove that St. Mark writ his Gospel from St. Peter's Preaching which is also confirmed by Clemens of Alexandria not to mention later Writers Irenaeus says St. Luke writ his Gospel according to St. Paul's Preaching Eus. l. 2. Hist. c. 15. which is supported by some Words in St. Paul's Epistles that relate to Passages in that Gospel yet certainly he had likewise other Vouchers those who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word though the whole might receive its full Authority from St. Paul's Approbation St. Iohn writ later than the other Three so the Testimonies concerning his Gospel are the fullest and the most particular Lib. 3. cap. 11. Irenaeus has laboured the Proof of this matter with much Care and Attention He lived within an Hundred years to St. Iohn and knew Policarp that was one of his Disciples After him come Tertullian and Origen who speak very copiously of the Four Gospels Tert. l. 4. cont Mar. cap. 1. Orig. apud Eus. lib. 6. cap. 25. and from them all the Ecclesiastical Writers have without any doubting or Controversy acknowledged and cited them without the least shadow of any Opposition except what was made by Marcion and the Manichees Next to these Authorities we appeal to the Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament that are given us in the Third and Fourth Centuries by Origen a Man of great Industry and that had examined the State of many Churches by St. Athanasius by the Council of Laodicea and Carthage Athan. in Synops. Conc. cap. 60. Carth. 3. c. 47. and after these we have a constant Succession of Testimonies that do deliver these as the Canon universally received All this laid together does fully prove this Point and that the more clearly when these Particulars are considered 1. That the Books of the New Testament were read in all their Churches and at all their Assemblies so that this was a Point in which it was not easy for men to mistake 2 dly That this was so near the Fountain that the Originals themselves of the Apostles were no doubt so long preserved 3 dly That both the Iews as appears from Iustin Martyr and the Gentiles Dial. cum Trypho as appears by Celsus knew that these were the Books in which the Faith of the Christians was contained 4 thly That some question was made touching some of them because there was not that clear or general knowledge concerning them that there was concerning the others yet upon fuller enquiry all acquiesced in them No doubt was ever made about Thirteen of St. Pauls Epistles because there were particulaâ— Churches or Persons to whom the Originals of them were directed Tertul. de Presc cap. â—6 But the Strain and Design of that to the Hebrews being to remove their Prejudices that high one which they had taken up against St. Paul as an Enemy to their Nation was to be kept out of view that it might not blast the good Effects which were intended by it yet it is cited oftner than once by Clemens of Rome And though the Ignorance of many of the Roman Church who thought that some Passages in it favoured the Severity of the Novatians Orig. Ep. ad African Orig. Exhort ad Martyr Eusec Hist. lib. 6. c. 20. Hieron Ep. ad Dardan Cyr. Catech 4. that cut off Apostates from the hopes of Repentance made them question it of which mention is made both by Origen Eusebius and Ierome who frequently affirm that the Latin Church or the Roman did not receive it yet Athanasius reckons both this and the Seven General Epistles among the Canonical Writings Cyril of Ierusalem who had occasion to be well informed about it says that he delivers his Catalogue from the Church as she had received it from the Apostles the Ancient Bishops and the Governors of the Church and reckons up in it both the Seven General Epistles and the Fourteen of St. Paul So does Ruffin and so do the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage Apud Hieron Tom. 4. the Canons of the former being received into the Body of the Canons of the Universal Church Can. 60. Can. 47. Irenaeus Origen and Clemens of Alexandria cite the Epistle to the Hebrews frequently Some question was made of the Epistle of St. Iames Iren. l. 3. c. 38. Orig. l. 3. 7. con Cels. Dial. con Marc. Ep. ad Afric Clem. Alex. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephe. Orig. Hom. 13. in Genes Eus. Hist. l. 2. c. 22. l. 3. c· 24 27. Hieron Pref. in Ep. Jac. Orig. cont Marcion Firmil Ep. 75. ap Cypr. Eus. Hist. l. 3. c. 3. the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. Iohn and St. Iude's Epistle But both Clemens of Rome Ignatius and Origen cite St. Iame's Epistle Eusebius says it was known to most and read in most Christian Churches The like is testified by St. Ierom. St. Peter's Second Epistle is cited by Origen and Firmilian and Eusebius says it was held very useful even by those who held it not Canonical But since the First Epistle was never questioned by any the Second that carries so many Characters of its Genuineness such as St. Peter's Name at the Head of it the mention of the Transfiguration and of his being an Eye-witness of it Iren. l. 1. c. 13. Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. Tertul. de Carne Chr. c. 24. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 24. Tertul. de cultu faem are evident Proofs of its being writ by him The Second and Third Epistles of St. Iohn are cited by Irenaeus Clemens and Dennis of Alexandria and by Tertullian The Epistle of St. Iude is also cited by Tertullian Some of those General Epistles were not addressed to any particular Body or Church that might have preserved the Originals of them but were sent about in the nature of Circular Letters so that it is no wonder if they were not received so early and with such an Unanimity as we find concerning the Four Gospel's the Acts of the Apostles and Thirteen of St. Paul's Epistles These being first fixed upon by an unquestioned and undisputed Tradition made that here was a Standard once ascertained to judge the better of the rest So when the matter was strictly examined so near the Fountain that it was very possible and easy to find out the Certainty of it then in the beginning of the Fourth Century the Canon was settled and universally agreed to
Testimony that Christ and his Apostles gave to those Books as they were then received by the Iewish Church to whom were committed the Oracles of God Now it is not so much as pretended that ever these Books were received among the Iews or were so much as known to them None of the Writers of the New Testament cite or mention them neither Philo nor Iosephus speak of them Iosephus on the contrary says they had only 22 Books that deserved belief but that those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes were not of equal credit with the rest And that in that Period they had no Prophets at all The Christian Church was for some Ages an utter Stranger to those Books Melito Bishop of Sardis being desired by Onesimus to give him a perfect Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament took a Journey on purpose to the East to examine this matter at its Source And having as he says made an exact Enquiry he sent him the Names of them just as we receive the Canon of which Eusebius says that he has preserved it Euseb. hist l. 4. c. 26. because it contained all those Books which the Church owned Origen gives us the same Catalogue according to the Tradition of the Iews who divided the Old Testament into 22 Books In Psal. 1. according to the Letters of their Alphabet Athanasius reckons them up in the same manner to be 22 and he more distinctly says that he delivered those In Synop. as they had received them by Tradition In Eppasch and as they were received by the whole Church of Christ because some presumed to mix Apocryphal Books with the Divine Scriptures And therefore he was set on it by the Orthodox Brethren in order to declare the Canonical Books delivered as such by Tradition and believed to be of Divine Inspiration It is true he adds That besides these there were other Books which were not put into the Canon but yet were appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who first come to be instructed in the way of Piety And then he reckons up most of the Apocryphal Books Here is the first mention we find of them as indeed it is very probable they were made at Alexandria by some of those Iews who lived there in great Numbers Both Hilary and Cyril of Ierusalem give us the same Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament and affirm that they delivered them thus according to the Tradition of the Ancients Cyril says That all other Books are to be put in a Second Order Catech. 4. Gregory Nazienzen reckons up the 22 Books and adds that none besides them are genuine The words that are in the Article are repeated by St. Ierom in several of his Prefaces And that which should determine this whole matter is Can. 59. and 60. That the Council of Laodicea by an express Canon delivers the Catalogue of the Canonical Books as we do decreeing that these only should be read in the Church Now the Canons of this Council were afterwards received into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church so that here we have the concurring sense of the whole Church of God in this matter It is true the Book of the Revelation not being reckoned in it this may be urged to detract from its Authority But it was already proved that that Book was received much Earlier into the Canon of the Scriptures so the design of this Canon being to establish the Authority of those Books that were to be read in the Church the darkness of the Apocalypse making it appear reasonable not to read it publickly that may be the reason why it is not mentioned in it as well as in some later Catalogues Here we have four Centuries clear for our Canon in Exclusion to all Additions It were easy to carry this much further down and to shew that these Books were never by any express definition received into the Canon till it was done at Trent And that in all the Ages of the Church even after they came to be much esteemed there were divers Writers and those generally the most learned of their time who denied them to be a part of the Canon At first many Writings were read in the Churches that were in high reputation both for the sake of the Authors and of the Contents of them though they were never lookt on as a part of the Canon Can. 47. Such were Clemens's Epistle the Books of Hermas the Acts of the Martyrs besides several other things which were read in particular Churches And among these the Apocryphal Books came also to be read as containing some valuable Books of Instruction besides several Fragments of the Iewish History which were perhaps too easily believed to be true These therefore being usually read they came to be reckoned among Canonical Scriptures For this is the reason assigned in the Third Council of Carthage for calling them Canonical because they had received them from their Fathers as Books that were to be read in Churches And the word Canonical was by some in those Ages used in a large sense in opposition to spurious so that it signified no more than that they were genuine So much depends upon this Article that it seemed necessary to dwell fully upon it and to state it clearly It remains only to observe the Diversity between the Articles now Established and those set forth by K. Edward In the latter there was not a Catalogue given of the Books of Scripture nor was there any distinction stated between the Canonical and the Apocryphal Books In those there is likewise a Paragraph or rather a Parenthesis added after the words proved thereby in these words Although sometimes it may be admitted by God's faithful People as Pious and conducing unto Order and Decency Which are now left out because the Authority of the Church as to matters of Order and Decency which was only intended to be asserted by this Period is more fully explained and stated in the 35 th Article ARTICLE VII Of the Old Testament The Old Testament is not contrary to the New For both in the Old and New Testament Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the Old Fathers did look only for Transitory Promises Although the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian Men nor the Civil-Precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any Commonwealth yet notwithstanding no Christian Man whatsoever is free from the Obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral THIS Article is made up of the Sixth and the Nineteenth of King Edward's Articles laid together Only the Nineteenth of King Edward's has these words after Moral Wherefore they are not to be heard which teach that the Holy Scriptures were given to none but to the
Reflections upon that Doctrine It was at first received by the whole Iesuit Order so that Bellarmine formed himself upon it and still adhered to it But soon after that Order changed their Mind and left their whole Body to a full liberty in those Points and went all quickly over to the other Hypothesis that differed from the Semi-pelagians only in this that they allowed a Preventing-Grace but such as were subject to the Freedom of the Will Molina and Fonseca invented a new way of explaining God's foreseeing future Contingents which they called a Middle or Mean Science by which they taught That as God sees all things as possible in his knowledge of simple Apprehension and all things that are certainly future as present in his knowledge of Vision so by this knowledge he also sees the Chain of all Conditionate Futurities and all the Connexions of them that is whatsoever would follow upon such or such conditions Great Jealousies arising upon the Progress that the Order of the Jesuits was making these Opinions were laid hold on to mortify them so they were complained of at Rome for departing from St. Austin's Doctrine which in these Points was generally received as the Doctrine of the Latin Church and many Conferences were held before Pope Clement the Eighth and the Cardinals where the Point in debate was chiefly What was the Doctrine andTradition of theChurch The Advantages that St. Austin's Followers had were such that before fair Judges they must have triumphed over the other Pope Clement had so resolved but he dying though Pope Paul the Fifth had the same Intentions yet he happening then to be engaged in a Quarrel with the Venetians about the Ecclesiastical Immunities and having put that Republick under an Interdict the Jesuits who were there chose to be banished rather than to break the Interdict And their adhering so firmly to the Papal Authority when most of the other Orders forsook it was thought so meritorious at Rome that it saved them the Censure So instead of a Decision all sides were commanded to be silent and to quarrel no more upon those Heads About Forty years after that Iansenius a Doctor of Louvain being a zealous Disciple of S. Austin's and seeing the Progress that the contrary Doctrines were making did with great Industry and an equal Fidelity publish a Voluminous Systâ—m of St. Austin's Doctrine in all the several Branches of the Controversy And he set forth the Pelagians and the Semipelagians in that Work under very black Characters and not content with that he compared the Doctrines of the Modern Innovators with theirs This Book was received by the whole Party with great Applause as a Work that had decided the Controversy But the Author having writ with an extraordinary Force against the French Pretensions on Flanders which recommended him so much to the Spanish Court that he was made a Bishop upon it all those in France who followed St. Austin's Doctrine and applauded this Book were represented by their Enemies as being in the same Interests with him and by consequence as Enemies to the French Greatness so that the Court of France prosecuted the whole Party This Book was at first only prohibited at Rome as a Violation of that Silence that the Pope had enjoined afterwards Articles were pickt out of it and condemned and all the Clergy of France were required to sign the Condemnation of them These Articles were certainly in his Book and were manifest Consequences of St. Austin's Doctrine which was chiefly driven at though it was still declared at Rome That nothing was intended to be done in prejudice of St. Austin's Doctrine Upon this pretence his Party have said That those Articles being capable of two Senses the one of which was strained and was Heretical the other of which was clear and according to St. Austin's Doctrine it must be presumed it was not in that second but in the other sense that they were condemned at Rome and so they signed the Condemnation of them But then they said that they were not in Iansenius's Book in the sense in which they condemned them Upon that followed a most extravagant Question concerning the Pope's Infallibility in Matters of Fact It being said on the one side That the Pope heving condemned them as Iansenius's Opinions the belief of his Infallibity obliged them to conclude that they must be in his Book Whereas the others with great Truth affirmed That it had never been thought that in Matters of Fact either Popes or Councils were Infallible At last a new Cessation of Hostilities upon these Points was resolved on yet the Hatred continues and the War goes on though more covertly and more indirctely than before Nor are the Reformed more of a piece than the Church of Rome upon these Points Luther went on long as he at first set out with so little disguise that whereas all Parties had always pretended that they asserted the Freedom of the Will he plainly spoke out and said the Will was not Free but Enslaved Yet before he died he is reported to have changed his Mind for tho he never owned that yet Melancthon who had been of the same Opinion did freely retract it for which he was never blamed by Luther Since that time all the Lutherans have gone into the Semipelagian Opinions so entirely and so eagerly that they will neither tolerate nor hold Communion with any of the other Persuasion Calvin not only taught St. Austin's Doctrine but seemed to go on to the Supralapsarian way which was more openly taught by Beza and was generally followed by the Reformed only the difference between the Supralapsarians and the Sublapsarians was never brought to a decision Divines being in all the Calvinists Churches left to their freedom as to that Point In England the first Reformers were generally in the Sublapsarian Hypothesis But Perkins and others have asserted the Supralapsarian way Arminius a Professor in Leyden writ against him Upon this Gomarus and he had many disputes and these Opinions bred a great distraction over all the Vnited Provinces At the same time another Political matter occasioning a division of Opinion Whether the War should be carried on with Spain or if Propositions for a Peace or Truce should be entertained It happened that Arminius's followers were all for a Peace and the others were generally for carrying on theWar which being promoted by the Prince of Orange he joyned to them And the Arminians were represented as Men whose Opinions and Affections leaned to Popery So that this from being a Doctrinal Point became the distinction of a Party and by that means the differences were inflamed A great Synod met at Dort to which Divines were sent from hence as well as from other Churches The Arminian Tenets were condemned but the difference between the Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians was not medled with The Divines of this Church though very moderate in the way of proposing their Opinions yet upon the main adhered to St.
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 Bellar. Contr. Tom 2. l. 4. 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 Curâ—es 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 Eccl. 9.11 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
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 Rom. 1.18 24 26. 2 Thes. 2.11 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 Matth. 28.20 Matth. 16.18 even to the end of the world And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church The Iewish 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 Iewish 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 Ierusalem 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
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 Tâ—is 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 Dict Papâ—e l. 1. Ep. Greg. 7. Post Ep. 55. Extravag de Major Obâ—d c 1. to whom all power in heaven and in earth was given Whether they have not founded it on Ieremy'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 Conc. Lat. 3. cap. 27. Conc. Lat. 4. Can. 3. Con. Lug. Now 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 assâ—rting 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 Ciâ—â—â—lian Canonist or Casuist writ against it as Card. Perron truly said Câ—rd Perron Harangueau tiers estat 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
ought to maintain the Unity of the Body and the Decency and Order that is necessary for Peace and mutual Edification Therefore since there is not any one thing that Christ has enjoined more solemnly and more frequently than Love and Charity Union and Agreement amongst his Disciples since we are also required to assemble our selves together Heb 10.25 to constitute our selves in a Body both for worshipping God jointly and for maintaining of Order and Love among the Society of Christians we ought to acquiesce in such Rules as have been agreed on by common Consent and which are recommended to us by long Practice and that are established by those who have the lawful Authority over us Nor can we assign any other Bounds to our Submission in this Case than those that the Gospel has limited We must obey God rather than Man Acts 5.29 Matth. 22.21 and we must in the first place render to God the things that are God's and then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's So that if either Church or State have power to make Rules and Laws in such matters they must have this Extent given them That till they break in upon the Laws of God and the Gospel we must be bound to obey them A Mean cannot be put here either they have no Power at all or they have a Power that must go to every thing that is not forbid by any Law of God This is the only measure that can be given in this matter But a great difference is here to be made between those Rules that both Church and State ought to set to themselves in their enacting of such matters and the Measures of the Obedience of Subjects The only question in the point of Obedience must be Lawful or Unlawful For Expedient or Inexpedient ought never to be brought into question as to the point of Obedience since no Inexpediency whatsoever can balance the breaking of Order and the dissolving the Constitution and Society This is a Consideration that arises out of a Man's apprehensions of the fitness or usefulness of things in which though he might be in the right as to the antecedent fitness of them and yet even there he may be in the wrong and in common modesty every Man ought to think that it is more likely that he should be in the wrong than the Governors and Rulers of the Society yet I say allowing all this it is certain that Order and Obedience are both in their own nature and in their Consequences to be preferred to all the particular considerations of Expediency or Inexpediency Yet still those in whose Hands the making of those Rules is put ought to carry their Thoughts much further They ought to consider well the Genius of the Christian Religion and therefore they are to avoid every thing that may lead to Idolatry or feed Superstition every thing that is apt to be abused to give false Ideas of God or to make the World think that such Instituted Practices may balance the Violation of the Laws of God They ought not to overcharge the Worship of God with too great a Number of them The Rites ought to be grave simple and naturally expressive of that which is intended by them Vain Pomp and indecent Levity ought to be guarded against and next to the Honour of God and Religion the Peace and Edification of the Society ought to be chiefly considered Due regard ought to be had to what Men can bear and what may be most suitable to the present State of the whole and finally a great Respect is due to Ancient and Established Practices Antiquity does generally beget Veneration and the very changing of what has been long in use does naturally startle many and discompose a great part of the Body So all Changes unless the Expediency of making them is upon other Accounts very visible labour under a great prejudice with the more staid Sort of Men for this very Reason because they are Changes But in this matter no certain or Mathematical Rules can be given Every one of these that has been named is capable of that Variety by the diversity of Times and other Circumstances that since Prudence and Discretion must Rule the use that is to be made of them that must be left to the Conscience and Prudence of every Person who may be concerned in the Management of this Authority He must Act as he will Answer it to God and to the Church for he must be at liberty in applying those general Rules to particular Times and Cases And a Temper must be observed We must avoid a sullen adhering to things because they were once settled as if Points of Honour were to be maintained here and that it look'd like a reproaching a Constitution or the Wisdom of a former Age to alter what they did since it is certain that what was wisely ordered in one Time may be as wisely chang'd in another As on the other hand all Men ought to avoid the Imputations of a desultory Levity as if they loved Changes for Changes sake This might give occasion to our Adversaries to triumph over us and might also fill the Minds of the weaker among our selves with Apprehensions and Scruples The next particular Asserted in this Article is That the Church hath Authority in Matters of Faith Here a Distinction is to be made between an Authority that is absolute and founded on Infallibility and an Authority of Order The former is very formally disclaimed by our Church but the second may be well maintained tho' we Assert no Unerring Authority Every single Man has a Right to search the Scriptures and to take his Faith from them yet it is certain that he may be mistaken in it It is therefore a much surer way for Numbers of Men to Meet together and to Examine such Differences as happen to arise To consider the Arguments of all Hands with the Importance of such Passages of Scripture as are brought into the Controversy and thus to enquire into the whole Matter in which as it is very natural to think that a great Company of Men should see further than a less Number so there is all Reason to expect a good Issue of such Deliberations if Men proceed in them with due Sincerity and Diligence If Pride Faction and Interest do not sway their Councils and if they seek for Truth more than for Victory But what abuses soever may have crept since into the publick Consultations of the Clergy the Apostles at first met and consulted together upon that Controversy which was then moved concerning the Imposing the Mosaical Law upon the Gentiles They ordered the Pastors of the Church to be able to convince Gainsayers Titus 1.9 3.10 and not to reject a Man as an Heretick till after a first and a second Admonition The most likely method both to find out the Truth and to bring such as are in Error over to it is to consult of these Matters in
could they offer at it in a plain contradiction to such Principles as are consistent with the Christian Religion if the Doctrine of the Roman Church is true Here then we have not only the Scripture but Tradition fully of our side Some pretended Christians it is true did very early Worship Images but those were the Gnosticks held in detestation by all the Orthodox Irenaeus Epiphanius and St. Austin tell us Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Epiph. Haeres 27. August de Haeres cap. 7. that they Worshipped the Images of Christ together with Pythagoras Plato and Aristotle Nor are they only blamed for Worshipping the Images of Christ together with these of the Philosophers but they are particularly blamed for having several sorts of Images and Worshipping these as the Heathens did and that among these there was an Image of Christ which they pretended to have had from Pilate Besides these Corrupters of Christianity there were no others among the Christians of the first Ages that Worshipped Images This was so well known to the Heathens that they bring this among other things as a reproach against the Christians that they had no Images Which the first Apologists are so far from denying that they answered them That it was impossible for him who knew God to Worship Images But as human Nature is inclined to visible Objects of Worship so it seems some began to Paint the Walls of their Churches with Pictures or at least moved for it In the beginning of the Fourth Century this was condemned by the Council of Eliberis Can. 36. It pleases us to have no Pictures in Churches lest that which is Worshipped should be Painted upon the Walls Towards the end of that Century we have an account given us by Epiphanius Epiph. ep ad Joan. Hieros of his Indignation occasioned by a Picture that he saw upon a Veil at Anablatha He did not much consider whose Picture it was whether a Picture of Christ or of some Saint he positively affirms it was against the Authority of the Scriptures and the Christian Religion and therefore he tore it but supplied that Church with another Veil It seems private Persons had Statues of Christ and the Apostles Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 18. Aug. in Psal. 113. de Moribus Eccl. Cath. c. 34. which Eusebius censures where he reports it as a remnant of Heathenism It is plain enough from some passages in St. Austin that he knew of no Images in Churches in the beginning of the Fifth Century It is true they began to be brought before that time into some of the Churches of Pontus and Cappadocia which was done very probably to draw the Heathens by this piece of conformity to them to like the Christian Worship the better For that humour began to work and appeared in many Instances of other kinds as well as in this It was not possible that People could see Pictures in their Churches long without paying some marks of respect to them which grew in a little time to the downright worship of them A famous instance we have of this in the Sixth Century Serenus Bishop of Marseilles finding that he could not restrain his People from the Worship of Images broke them in pieces upon which Pope Gregory writ to him blaming him indeed for breaking the Images Greg. Epist. l. 9. Ep. 9. but commending him for not allowing them to be worshipped This he prosecutes in a variety of very plain Expressions It is one thing to worship an Image and another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped He says they were set up not to be worshipped but to instruct the Ignorant and cites our Saviour's Words Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve to prove that it was not lawful to worship the work of mens hands We see by a fragment cited in the Second Nicene Council that both Iews and Gentiles took advantages from the Worship of Images to reproach the Christians soon after that time The Iews were scandalized at their Worshipping Images as being expresly against the Command of God The Gentiles had also by it great advantages of turning back upon the Christians all that had been written against their Images in the former Ages At last in the beginning of the Eighth Century the famous Controversy about the having or breaking of Images grew hot The Churches of Italy were so set on the worshipping of them This is owned by all the Historians of that Age Anastasius Zonaras Câ—drenus Glycâ—s Theophanes Sigebert Otho Pris. Urspergensis Sigonius Rubens and Ciaâ—â—nius that Pope Gregory the Second gives this for the reason of their Rebelling against the Emperor because of his opposition to Images And here in little more than an Hundred Years the See of Rome changed its Doctrine Pope Gregory the Second being as positive for the worshipping them as the first of that Name had been against it Violent Contentions arose upon this Head The breakers of Images were charged with Iudaism Samaritanism and Manicheism and the worshippers of them were charged with Gentilism and Idolatry One General Council at Constantinople consisting of about Three hundred and thirty eight Bishops condemned the Worshipping them as Idolatrous but another at Nice of Three hundred and fifty Bishops though others say they were only Three hundred asserted the Worship of them Yet as soon as this was known in the West how active soever the See of Rome was for establishing their Worship a Council of about Three hundred Bishops met at Francfort under Charles the Great which condemned the Nicene Council together with the Worship of Images The Gallican Church insisted long upon this matter Books were published in the Name of Charles the Great against them A Council held at Paris under his Son did also condemn Image-worship as contrary to the Honour that is due to God only and to the Commands that he has given us in Scripture The Nicene Council was rejected here in England as our Historians tell us because it asserted the Adoration of Images which the Church of God abhors Agobard Bishop of Lions and Claud of Turin writ against it the former writ with great vehemence The Learned Men of that Communion do now acknowledge that what he writ was according to the sense of the Gallican Church in that Age And even Ionas of Orleans who studied to moderate the matter and to reconcile the Gallican Bishops to the See of Rome yet does himself declare against the Worship of Images We are not concerned to examine how it came that all this vigorous opposition to Image-worship went off so soon It is enough to us that it was once made so resolutely let those who think it so incredible a thing that Churches should depart from the received Traditions answer this as they can As for the Methods then used and the Arguments that were then brought to infuse this Doctrine into the World Acta Con. Nic. 2. Action 4 5 6
7. he who will read the History and Acts of the Nicene Council will find enough to incline him to a very bad Opinion both of the Men and of their Doctrine though he were ever so much inclined to think well of them Aquin. To. 1. quaest 25. dispuâ— 54. Sect. 2. After all though that Council laid the Foundation of Image-worship yet the Church of Rome has made great Improvements in it since Those of Nice expressed a detestation of an Image made to represent the Deity they go no higher than the Images of Christ and the Saints whereas since that time the Deity and the Trinity have been represented by Images and Pictures and that not only by connivance but by Authority in the Church of Rome Bellarmine Suarez and others Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. Suarez M. 3. Ysambert de Mist. Incarn ad quaest 25. dis 3. Vasquez in 3 Aquin. disp 103. c. 3. Cajetan in 3. Aquin. quaest 25. A. 3. prove the Lawfulness of such Images from the general practice of the Church Others go further and from the caution given in the Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the Images of God do infer that they are allowed by that Council provided they be decently made Directions are also given concerning the use of the Image of the Trinity in Publick Offices among them In a word all their late Doctors agree That they are lawful and reckon the calling that in question to be not only rashness but an error and such as have held it unlawful to make such Images were especially condemned at Rome December 17. 1690. The varieties of those Images and the boldness of them are things apt to give horror to modest Minds not accustomed to such Attempts It must be acknowledged that the Old Emblematical Images of the Egyptians and the grosser ones now used by the Chineses are much more instructing and much less scandalous Figures Con. Nic. 2. Act. 7. Act. 6. As the Roman Church has gone beyond the Nicene Council in the Images that they allow of so they have also gone beyond them in the degrees of the Worship that they offer to them At Nice the Worship of Images was very positively decreed with Anathema's against those who did it not A bare Honour they reckoned was not enough They thought it was a very valuable Argument that was brought from those words of Christ to the Devil Câ—n. Nâ—c Act. 5. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve that here Service is only appropriated to God but not Worship Among the Acts of Worship they reckon the Oblation of Incense and Lights and the reason given by them for all this is because the Honour of the Image or Type passes to the Original or Prototype So that plain and direct Worship was to terminate on the Image it self Durâ—n in Sâ—nâ—en l. 3. 〈◊〉 9. qu. 〈…〉 15. And Durandus passed for little less than a Heretick because he thought that Images were worshipped only improperly and abusively because at their presence we call to mind the Object represented by them which we worship before the Image as if the Object it self were before us The Council of Nice did plainly assert the direct Worship of Images but they did as positively declare That they meant only that it should be an honorary Adoration and not the true Latria which was only due to God And whatever some Modern Representers and Expositors of the Roman Doctrine may say to soften the harshness of the Worship of Images it is very copiously proved both from the Words of the Council of Nice Con. Nic. Act. 2. and from all the Eminent Writers in that Communion ever from the time of Aquinas Aquin. 3. p. q. 25. Art 3. See to the same purpose Alex. Hales Bonaventure Ricardus de Media villa palud Almans Bâ—el Summa Angelica and mâ—ny more cited by Bishop Stilligfleet 's Defence of the Charge of Idolatry Part. 2. Chap. 2. and of the Modern Schoolmen and Writers of Controversy that direct Worship ought to be offered to the Image it self This reserve of the Latria to God being an evident proof that all inferior Acts of Worship were allowed them But this reserve does no way please the later Writers for Aquinas and many from him do teach that the same Acts and Degrees of Worship which are due to the Original are also due to the Image they think an Image has such a relation to the Original that both ought to be worshipped in the same Act and that to Worship the Image with any other sort of Acts is to Worship it on its own account which they think is Idolatry Whereas others adhering to the Nicene Doctrine think that the Image is to be worshipped with an inferior Degree that otherwise Idolatry must follow So here the danger of Idolatry is threatned of both sides and since one of them must be chosen thus it will follow that let a Man do what he can he must commit Idolatry according to the Opinion of some very Subtile and Learned Men among them The Council of Trent did indeed decline to give a clear Decision in this Matter Con. Trid. Sess. 25. and only decreed that due Worship should be given to Images but did not determine what that due Worship was And though it appears by the Decree that there were Abuses committed among them in that Matter yet they only appoint some Regulations concerning such Images as were to be suffered and that others were to be removed but they left the Divines to fight out the Matter concerning the due Worship that ought to be given to Images They were then in hast and intended to offend no Party and as they would not justifie all that had been said or done concerning the Worship of Images so they would condemn no part of it See Bishop Stillingfleet ut Supra yet they confirmed the Nicene Council and in particular made use of that Maxim of theirs that the Honour of the Type goes to the Prototype Pont. Rom. Ordo ad Recip Imper Rubri and thus they left it as they found it So that the Dispute goes on still as hot as ever The Practice of the Roman Church is express for the Latria to be given to Images and therefore all that write for it do frequently cite that Hymn Crux Ave spes unica auge piis justitiam In benedictione novae Crucis Rogamus te Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens sempiterne Deus ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum Crucis tuae ut sit Remedium Salutare generi humano sit Soliditas fidei profectus bonorum operum Redemptio animarum sit Solamen protectio ac tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum Per Dom. Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Patris Filii Spiritûs sancti benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta Salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut
not err in discharging their Commission and the Terms of the Covenant of Grace being thus settled by them all who were to succeed them were also empowered to go on with the Publication of this Pardon and of those glad Tidings to the World So that whatsoever they declared in the Name of God conform to the Tenor of that which the Apostles were to settle should be always made good We do also acknowledge that the Pastors of the Church have in the way of Censure and Government a Ministerial Authority to remit or to retain Sins as they are Matters of Scandal or Offence tho' that indeed does not seem to be the meaning of those Words of our Saviour and therefore we think that the power of pardoning and retaining is only declaratory so that all the exercises of it are are then only effectual when the Declarations of the Pardon are made conform to the Conditions of the Gospel This Doctrine of ours how much soever decried of late in the Roman Church as striking at the Root of the Priestly Authority yet has been maintained by some of their best Authors and some of the greatest of their School-men Thus we have seen upon what reason it is that we do not conclude from hence that Auricular Confession is necessary in which we think that we are fully confirmed by the Practice of many of the Ages of theChristian Church which did not understand these words as containing anObligation to Secret Confession It is certain that the Practice and Tradition of the Church must be relied on here if in any thing since there was nothing that both Clergy and Laity were more concerned both to know and to deliver down faithfully than this on which the Authority of the one and the Salvation of the other depended so much Such a Point as this could never have been forgot or mistaken many and clear Rules must have been given about it It is a thing to which Humane Nature has so much repugnancy that it must in the first forming of Churches have been infused into them as absolutely necessary in order to Pardon and Salvation A Church could not now be formed according to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome without very full and particular Instructions both to Priests and People concerning Confession and Absolution It is the most intricate Part of their Divinity and that which the Clergy must be most ready at In Opposition to all this let it be considered that though there is a great deal said in the New Testament concerning Sorrow for Sin Repentance and Remission of Sins yet there is not a Word said nor a Rule given concerning Confession to be made to a Priest and Absolution to be given by him There is indeed a Passage in St. Iames's Epistle relating to Confession but it is to one another not restrained to the Priest James 5.16 as the Word rendred Faults seems to signify those Offences by which others are wronged in which case Confession is a degree of Reparation and so is sometimes necessary but whatever may be in this it is certain that the Confession which is there appointed to be made is a thing that was to be mutual among Christians and it is not commanded in order to Absolution but in order to the procuring the Intercessions of other good Men and therefore it is added and Pray for one another By the words that follow that ye may be healed joyned with those that went before concerning the Sick it seems the Direction given by St. Iames belongs principally to Sick Persons and the conclusion of the whole Period shews That it relates only to the private Prayers of good Men for one another The effectual fervent Prayer of a righteous man availeth much So that this place does not at all belong to Auricular Confession or Absolution Nor does there any Prints appear before the Apostacies that happened in the Persecution of Decius of the Practice even of confessing such heinous Sins as had been publickly committed Then arose the famous contests with the Novatians concerning the receiving the lapsed into the Communion of the Church again It was concluded not to exclude them from the hopes of Mercy or of Reconciliation yet it was resolved not to do that till they had been kept at a distance for some time from the Holy Communion at last they were admitted to make their Confession and so they were received to the Communion of the Church This time was shortned and many things were past over to such as shewed a deep and sincere Repentance and one of the Characters of a true Repentance upon which they were always treated with a great distinction of Favour was if they came and first accused themselves This shewed that they were deeply affected with the Sense of their Sins when they would not bear the load of them but became their own Accusers and discovered their Sins There are several Canons that make a difference in the degrees and time of the Penance between those who had accused themselves and those against whom their Sins were proved A great deal of this strain occurs often in the Writings of the Fathers which plainly shews that they did not look on the necessity of an Enumeration of all their Sins as commanded by God Otherwise it would have been enforced with Considerations of another nature than that of shortning their Penance The first occasion that was given to the Church to exercise thisDiscipline was from the frequent Apostacies into which many had lapsed during the Persecutions and when these went off another sort of Disorders began to break in upon the Church and to defile it Great numbers followed the Example of their Princes and became Christians but a mixed Multitude came among them so that there were many Scandals amongst that Body which had been formerly remarkable for the purity of their Morals and the strictness of their Lives It was the chief business of all those Councils that met in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries to settle many Rules concerning the degrees and time of Penance the Censures both of the Clergy and Laity the Orders of the Penitents and the Methods of receiving them to the Communion of the Church In some of those Councils they denied Reconciliation after some sins even to the last though the general Practice was to receive all at their Death Dallaeus de Confessione Morinus de Poenitentia but while they were in a good state of Health they kept them long in Penance in a publick Separation from the Common Priviledges of Christians and chiefly from the Holy Sacrament and under severe Rules and that for several Years more or fewer according to the Nature of their Sins and the Characters of their Repentance of which a free and unextorted Confession being one of the chief this made many prevent that and come in of their own accord to confess their sins which was much encouraged and magnified Confession was at first made
one Wife He adds upon that this is a great Mystery That is from hence another Mystical Argument might be brought to shew that Iew and Gentile must make one Body for since the Church was the Spouse of Christ he must according to that Figure have but one Wife and by consequence the Church must be One Otherwise the Figure will not be answered unless we suppose Christ to be in a State answering a Polygamy rather than a single Marriage Thus a clear Account of these Words is given which does fully agree to them and to what follows But I speak concerning Christ and the Church This which is all the Foundation of making Marriage a Sacrament being thus cleared there remains nothing to be said on this Head but to Examine one Consequence that has been drawn from the making it a Sacrament which is that the Bond is Indissoluble And that even Adultery does not void it The Law of Nature or of Nations seems very clear that Adultery at least on the Wife's part should dissolve it For the end of Marriage being the ascertaining of the Issue and the Contract it self being a mutual transferring the Right to one anothers Person in order to that End the breaking this Contract and destroying the End of Marriage does very naturally infer the Dissolution of the Bond And in this both the Attick and Roman Laws were so severe that a Man was Infamous who did not Divorce upon Adultery Our Saviour when he blamed the Iews for their frequent Divorces Matth. 5.32 Matth. 19.9 Mark 10.11 Luke 16.18 established this Rule that whosoever puts away his Wife except it be for Fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery Which seems to be a plain and full Determination that in the Case of Fornication he may put her away and Marry another It is True St. Mark and St. Luke repeat these Words without mentioning this Exception so some have thought that we ought to bring St. Matthew to them and not them to St. Matthew But it is an universal Rule of expounding Scriptures that when a Place is fully set down by one inspired Writer and less fully by another that the Place which is less full is always to be expounded by that which is more full So tho' St. Mark and St. Luke report our Saviour's Words generally without the Exception which is twice mentioned by St. Matthew the other two are to be understood to suppose it for a general Proposition is true when it holds generally and Exceptions may be understood to belong to it though they are not named The Evangelist that does name them must be considered to have reported the matter more particularly than the others that do it not Since then our Saviour has made the Exception and since that Exception is founded upon a natural equity that the Innocent Party has against the Guilty there can be no reason why an Exception so justly grounded and so clearly made should not take place Both Tertullian Basil Chrysostom and Epiphanius allow of a Divorce in case of Adultery Tertul. lib. 4. cont Marcion c. 34. Basil. Ep. ad Amphil c. 9. Chrysos hom 17. in Matth. Epiph. haeres 59. Cath. Conc. Elib c. 65. Conc. Arel c. 10. Conc. Affric c. 102. Causa 32. q. 7. In decr Eug. in Conc. Flor. Erasm. in 1. Ep. ad Cor. 7. Cajetan in Matth. 19. c. 9. Cathar in 1. Ep. ad Cor. 7. l. 5. Annot. and in those days they had no other Notion of a Divorce but that it was the Dissolution of the Bond the late Notion of a Separation the Tie continuing not being known till the Canonists brought it in Such a Divorce was allowed by the Council of Elliberis The Council of Arles did indeed recommend it to the Husband whose Wife was guilty of Adultery not to Marry which did plainly acknowledge that he might do it It was and still is the constant practice of the Greek Church and as both Pope Gregory and Pope Zachary allowed the Innocent Person to Marry so in a Synod held at Rome in the Tenth Century it was still allowed When the Greeks were reconciled to the Latins in the Council of Florence this matter was past over and the care of it was only recommended by the Pope to the Emperor It is true Eugenius put it in hisInstruction to the Armenians but tho' that passes generally for a part of the Council of Florence yet the Council was over up before that was given out This Doctrine of the Indissolubleness of Marriage even for Adultery was never settled in any Council before that of Trent The Canonists and Schoolmen had indeed generally gone into that Opinion but not only Erasmus but both Cajetan and Catharinus declared themselves for the Lawfulness of it Cajetan indeed used a Salvo in case the Church had otherwise Defined which did not then appear to him So that this is a Doctrine very lately settled in the Church of Rome Our Reformers here had prepared a Title in the new Body of the Canon Law which they had Digested allowing Marriage to the Innocent Party And upon a great occasion then in Debate they declared it to be Lawful by the Law of God And if the Opinion that Marriage is a Sacrament falls the conceit of the absolute Indissolubleness of Marriage will fall with it The last Sacrament which is rejected by this Article that is the Fifth as they are reckoned up in the Church of Rome is Extreme Vnction In the Commission that Christ gave his Apostles among the other Powers that were given them to confirm it one was to cure diseases and heal the sick pursuant to which St. Mark tells Mark 6.13 that they anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them The Prophets used some Symbolical actions when they wrought Miracles so Moses used his Rod often Elisha used Elijah's Mantle our Saviour put his Finger into the deaf Man's Ear and made Clay for the blind Man and Oil being upon almost all occasions used in the Eastern Parts the Apostles made use of it But no hint is given that this was a Sacramental Action It was plainly a Miraculous Virtue that healed the Sick in which Oil was made use of as a Symbol accompanying it It was not prescribed by our Saviour for any thing that appears as it was not blamed by him neither It was no wonder if upon such a president those who had that extraordinary Gift did apply it with the use of Oil not as if Oil was the Sacramental Conveyance it was only used with it The end of it was Miraculous it was in order to the recovery of the sick and had no relation to their Souls though with the cure wrought on the Body there might sometimes be joined an operation upon the Soul and this appears clearly from St. Iames's words James 5.14 15. Is any sick among you let him call for the elders of the church and let him pray over him anointing him with
among themselves one to another but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death Insomuch that to such as rightly worthily and with faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation or the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be Proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up and Worshipped In the Edition of these Articles in Edward the VIth's Reign there was another long Paragraph against Transubstantiation added in these words Forasmuch as the Truth of Man's Nature requireth that the Body of one and the self-same Man cannot be at one time in divers places but must needs be in one certain place therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places And because as Holy Scripture doth teach Christ was taken up into Heaven and there shall continue unto the end of the World a Faithful Man ought not either to Believe or openly Confess the Real and Bodily Presence as they term it of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper WHEN these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign this Paragraph was made a part of them for the Original Subscription by both Houses of Convocation yet extant shews this But the design of the Government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the Body of the Nation to the Reformation in whom the old Leven had gone deep and no part of it deeper than the belief of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so particular a Definition in this matter in which the very word Real Presence was rejected It might perhaps be also suggested that here a Definition was made that went too much upon the Principles of Natural Philosophy which how true soever they might not be the proper subject of an Article of Religion Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this Paragraph though it was a part of the Article that was Subscribed yet it was not published but the Paragraph that follows The Body of Christ c. was put in its stead and was received and published by the next Convocation which upon the matter was a full Explanation of the way of Christ's Presence in this Sacrament that he is present in a heavenly and spiritual Manner and that Faith is the mean by which he is received This seemed to be more Theological and it does indeed amount to the same thing But howsoever we see what was the Sense of the first Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign it differed in nothing from that in King Edward's Time And therefore though this Paragraph is now no Part of our Articles yet we are certain that the Clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the Truth of it we are sure it was their Opinion Since they subscribed it though they did not think fit to publish it at first and though it was afterwards changed for another that was the same in Sense In the treating of this Article I shall first lay down the Doctrine of this Church with the Grounds of it and then I shall examine the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which must be done copiously For next to the Doctrine of Infallibility this is the most valued of all their other Tenets this is the most Important in it self since it is the main Part of their Worship and the chief Subject of all their Devotions There is not any one thing in which both Clergy and Laity are more concerned which is more generally studied and for which they pretend they have more plausible Colours both from Scripture and the Fathers and if Sense and Reason seem to press hard upon it they reckon that as they understand the Words of St. Paul every thought must be captivated into the obedience of Faith 2 Cor. 10.5 In order to the expounding our Doctrine we must consider the Occasion and the Institution of this Sacrament The Iews were required once a Year to meet at Ierusalem in remembrance of the deliverance of their Fathers out of Egypt Exod. 12.11 Moses appointed that every Family should kill a Lamb whose Blood was to be sprinkled on their Door-posts and Lintels and whose Flesh they were to eat at the sight of which Blood thus sprinkled the destroying Angel that was to be sent out to kill the First-born of every Family in Egypt was to pass over all the Houses that were so marked And from that passing by or over the Israelites the Lamb was called the Lord's passover as being then the Sacrifice and afterwards the Memorial of that Passover The People of Israel were required to keep up the Memorial of that Transaction by slaying a Lamb before the Place where God should set his Name and by eating it up that Night They were also to eat with it a Sallet of bitter Herbs and unleavened Bread and when they went to eat of the Lamb they repeated these Words of Moses That it was the Lord's Passover Now tho' the first Lamb that was killed in Egypt was indeed the Sacrifice upon which God promised to pass over their Houses yet the Lambs that were afterwards offered were only the Memorials of it though they still carried that Name which was given to the First And were called the Lord's Passover So that the Iews were in the Paschal-Supper accustomed to call the Memorial of a thing by the Name of that of which it was the Memorial And as the Deliverance out of Egypt was a Type and Representation of that greater Deliverance that we were to have by the Messias the first Lamb being the Sacrifice of that Deliverance 1 Cor. 5.7 John 1.29 Compare Matt. 26.26 Mark 14.22 and the succeeding Lambs the Memorials of it so in order to this new and greater Deliverance Christ himself was our Passover that was sacrificed for us He was the Lamb of God that was both to take away the Sins of the World and was to lead Captivity Captive To bring us out of the Bondage of Sin and Satan into the Obedience of his Gospel He therefore chose the time of the Passover that he might be then offered up for us And did Institute this Memorial of it while he was celebrating the Iewish Pascha with his Disciples who were so much accustomed to the Forms and Phrases of that Supper in which every Master of a
apprehended but by such as have been at the pains to go through one of the ungratefullest pieces of Study that can be well imagined and have read the Productions of those Ages The understanding the Scriptures or Languages or History were not so much as thought on Some affected Homilies or Discantings on the Rituals of the Church full of many very odd Speculations about them are among the best of the Writings of those Times They were easily imposed on by any new Forgery witness the Reception and Authority that was given to the Decretal Epistles of the Popes of the first Three Centuries which for many Ages maintained its credit tho' it was plainly a Forgery of the Eighth Century and was contrived with so little Art that there is not in them colour enough to excuse the ignorance of those that were deceived by it As it is an easie thing to mislead ignorant multitudes so there is somewhat in Incredible Opinions and Stories that is suited to such a state of Mankind and as Men are apt to fancy that they see Sprights especially in the Night so the more of darkness and unconceivableness that there is in an Opinion it is the more properly calculated for such times The Ages that succeeded were not only times of Ignorance but they were also times of much Corruption The Writers of the Fourth and Fifth Century give us dismal Representations of the Corruptions of their times and the scandalous unconstancy of the Councils of those Ages is too evident a proof of what we find said by the Good Men of those days But things fell lower and lower in the succeeding Ages It is an amazing thing that in the very Office of Consecrating Bishops Examinations are ordered concerning those Crimes the very mention of which give horrour De Coitu cum Masculo cum Quadrupedâ—bus The Popes more particularly were such a Succession of Men that as their own Historians have described them nothing in any History can be produced that is like them The Characters they give them are so monstrous that nothing under the authority of unquestioned Writers and the Evidence of the Facts themselves could make them credible But that which makes the Introduction of this Doctrine appear the more probable is that we plainly see the whole Body of the Clergy was every where so Influenced by the management of the Popes that they generally entred into Combinations to subject the Temporalty to the Spiritualty and therefore every Opinion that tended to render the Persons of the Clergy Sacred and to raise their Character high was sure to receive the best entertainment and the greatest incouragement possible Nothing could carry this so far as an Opinion that represented the Priest as having a Character by which with a few words he could make a God The Opinion of Transubstantiation was such an Engine that it being once set on foot could not but meet with a favourable reception from those who were then seeking all possible colours to give credit to their authority and to advance it The numbers of the Clergy were then so great and their contrivances were so well suited to the credulity and superstition of those times that by Visions and wonderful Stories confidently vouched they could easily infuse any thing into weak and giddy Multitudes Besides that the Genius of those Times led them much to the love of Pomp and Shew they had lost the true Power and Beauty of Religion and were willing by outward Appearances to balance or compensate for their great Defects But besides all those general Considerations which such as are acquainted with the History of those Ages know do belong to them in a much higher Degree than is here set forth There are some Specialities that relate to this Doctrine in Particular which will make the Introduction of it appear the more Practicable This had never been condemned in any former Age for as none condemn Errors by Anticipation or Prophesy so the Promoters of it had this Advantage that no formal Decision had been made against them It did also in the outward sound agree with the Words of the Institution and the Phrases generally used of the Elements being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ Outward sound and appearance was enough in Ignorant Ages to hide the Change that was made The step that is made from believing any thing in General with an indistinct and confused Apprehension to a determined way of explaining it is not hard to be brought about The People in General believed that Christ was in the Sacrament and that the Elements were his Body and Blood without troubling themselves to Examine in what Manner all this was done So it was no great step in a dark Age to put a particular Explanation of this upon them And this Change being brought in without any visible Alterations made in the Worship it must needs have passed with the World more easily For in all Times visible Rites are more minded by the People than speculative Points which they consider very little No Alterations were at first made in the Worship the Adoration of the Host and the Processions invented to Honour it came all afterwards Greg. Doâ—râ—t Lib. â— Tit. 42. cap. 10. Honorius IV. who first appointed the Adoration does not pretend to Found it on ancient Practice Only he commands the Priests to tell the People to do it And he at first enjoined only an Inclination of the Head to the Sacrament But his Successor Gregory IX did more resolutely Command it and ordered a Bell to be rung at the Consecration and Elevation to give notice of it that so all those who heard it might kneel and join their Hands and so Worship the Host. The first Controversy about the Manner of the Presence arose incidentally upon the Controversy of Images The Council at Constantinople decreed that the Sacrament was the Image of Christ in which the substance of Bread and Wine remained Those at Nice how furiously soever they fell upon them for calling the Sacrament the Image of Christ yet do no where blame them for saying that the substance of Bread and Wine remained in it For indeed the Opinion of Damascene and of most of the Greek Church was That there was an Assumption of the Bread and Wine into an Vnion with the Body of Christ. The Council of Constantinople brought in their Decision occasionally that being considered as the setled Doctrine of the Church whereas those of Nice did visibly Innovate and Falsify the Tradition For they affirm as Damascene had done before them that the Elements weâ—e called the Antitypes of Christ's Body only before they were consecrated but not after it Which they say none of the Fathers had done This is so notoriously False that no Man can pretend now to justify them in it since there are above twenty of the Fathers that were before them who in plain words call the Elements after Consecration the Figure and Antitype of Christ's
this was one that they came among the Assemblies of the Christians and did receive the Bread but they would not take any Wine this is mentioned by Pope Leo in the Fifth Century Leo Serm. 4. in Quadrag Decret de Consecr dist 2. upon which Pope Gelasius hearing of it in his time appointed that all Persons should either communicate in the Sacrament intirely or be intirely excluded from it for that such a dividing of one and the same Sacrament might not be done without a heinous Sacriledge In the Seventh Century a practice was begun of dipping the Bread in the Wine and so giving both kinds together This was condemned by the Council of Bracara as plainly contrary to the Gospâ—l Christ gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles distinctly the Bread bâ— it sâ—lf Decret de Consecr dist 2. and the Chalice by it self This is by a mistake of Gratian's put in thâ— Canon-Law as a Decree of Pope Iulius to the Bishops of Egypt It is probable that it was thus given first to the Sick and to Infants but tho' this got among many of the Eastern Churches and was it seems practised in some parts of the West yet in the end of the Eleventh Century Pope Vrban in the Council of Clermont Decreed That none should communicate without taking the Body apart Concil Claramont Can. 28. and the Blood apart except upon necessity and with caution to which some Copies add and thâ—t by reason of the Heresie of Berengarius that was lately condemned which said that the Figure was compleated by one of the kinds We need not examine the Importance or Truth of these last words it is enough for us to observe the continued practice of Communicating in both kinds till the Twelfth Century and even then when the Opinion of the Corporal Presence begot a Superstition towards the Elements that had not been known in former Ages so that some drops sticking to Mens Beards and the â—pilling some of it its freezing or becoming sowr grew to be more considered than the Institution of Christ yet â—or a while they used to suck it up through small Quills or Pipes called Fistulae in the Ordo Romanus which answered the Objection from the Beards In the Twelfth Century the Bread grew to be giâ—en generally dipt in Wine The Writers of that time tho' they justifie this practice yet they acknowledge it to be contrary to the Institution Ivo of Chartres says the People did Communicate with dipt Bread not by authority but by necessity for fear of spilling the Blood of Christ. Pope Innocent the Fourth said that all might have the Chalice who were so cautious that nothing of it should be spilt In the Antient Church the Instance of Serapion is brought to shew that the Bread alone was sent to the Sick Eus. Hist. l. 6. c. 44. which he that carried it was ordered to moisten before he gave it him Iustin Martyr does plainly insinuate that both kinds were sent to the absents Just. Mart. Apol. 2. so some of the Wine might be sent to Serapion with the Bread and it is much more reasonable to believe this than that the Bread was ordered to be dipt in Water there being no such Instance in all History Paulinus in vita Ambros. whereas there are Instances brought to shew that both kinds were carried to the Sick St. Ambrose received the Bread but expired before he received the Cup This proves nothing but the weakness of the Cause that needs such supports Nor can any Argument be brought from some Words concerning the Communicating of the Sick or of Infants Rules are made from ordinary and not from extraordinary Practices The small Portions of the Sacrament that some carried Home and reserved to other Occasions does not prove that they communicated only in one kind They received in both only they kept out of too much Superstition some Fragments of the one which could be more easily and with less Observation saved and preserved than of the other And yet there are Instances that they carried off some Portions of both kinds The Greek Church communicates during most of the Days in Lent in Bread dipt in Wine and in the Ordo Romanus there is mention made of a particular Communion on Good-Friday some of the Bread that had been formerly Consecrated was put into a Chalice with unconsecrated Wine This was a Practice that was grounded on an Opinion that the unconsecrated Wine was sanctified and consecrated by the Contact of the Bread And though they used not a formal Consecration yet they used other Prayers which was all that the Primitive Church thought was necessary even to Consecration it being thought even so late as Gregory the Great 's time that the Lord's Prayer was at first the Prayer of Consecration These are all the Colours which the studies and subtilties of this Age have been able to produce for justifying the Decree of the Council of Constance that does acknowledge that Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds Conc. Constan. Sess. 11. and that the faithful in the Primitive Church did receive in both kinds Yet a Practice being reasonably brought in to avoid some Dangers and Scandals they appoint the Custom to continue of consecrating in both kinds and of giving to the Laity only in one kind Since Christ was entire and truly under each kind They established this Practice and ordered that it should not be altered without the Authority of the Church So late a Practice and so late a Decree canot make void the Command of Christ nor be set in â—pposition to such a clear and universal Practice to the contrary The Wars of Boheme that followed upon that Decree and all that Scene of Cruelty which was acted upon Iohn Hus and Ierom of Prague at the first Establishment of it shews what Opposition was made to it even in dark Ages and by Men that did not deny Transubstantiation These prove that plain Sense and clear Authorities are so strong even in dark and corrupt Times as not to be easily overcome And this may be said concerning this Matter that as there is not any one Point in which the Church of Rome has acted more visibly contrary to the Gospel than in this so there is not any one thing that has raised higher Prejudices against her that has made more forsake her and has possessed Mankind more against her than this This has cost her dearer than any other ARTICLE XXXI Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone Wâ—erefore in the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of Pain and Guilt were blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits IT
express in this matter as is possible The whole Constitution of their Worship and Discipline shews it Their Worship concluded always with the Eucharist Such as were not capabl e of it as the Catechumens and those who were doing Publick Penance for their Sins assisted at the more general parts of the Worship and so much of it was called their Mass because they were dismissed at the Conclusion of it When that was done then the Faithful staid and did partake of the Eucharist and at the conclusion of it they were likewise dismissed from whence it came to be called the Mass of the Faithful The great Rigor of Penance was thought to consist chiefly in this That such Penitents might not stay with the Faithful to communicate And though this seems to be a Practice begun in the Third Century yet both from Iustin Martyr and Tertullian it is evident that all the Faithful did constantly communicate There is a Canon among those which go under the name of the Apostles Can. 9. Aâ—ost against such as came and assisted in the other parts of the Service and did not partake of the Eucharist The same thing was decreed by the Council of Antioch Con. Antioch Can. 2. Const. Apost l. 8. cap. 11. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Eph Lib. 2. And it appears by the Constitutions That a Deacon was appointed to see that no man should go out and a Subdeacon was to see that no Woman should go out during the Oblation The Fathers do frequently allude to the Word Communion to shew that the Sacrament was to be common to all It is true in St. Chrysostom's time the Zeal that the Christians of the former Ages had to communicate often began to slacken so that they had thin Communions and few Communicants against which that Father raises himself with his Pathetick Eloquence in words which do shew that he had no Notion of Solitary Masses or of the Lawfulness of them And it is very evident that the Neglect of the Sacrament in those who came not to it and the Prophanation of it by those who came unworthily both which grew very scandalous at that time set that Holy and Zealous Bishop to many Eloquent and Sublime Strains concerning it which cannot be understood without making those Abatements that are dâ—e to a copious and Asiatick stile when much inflamed by Devotion In the succeeding Ages we find great Care was taken to suffer none that did not communicate to stay in the Church and to see the Mysteries There is a Rubrick for this in the Office mentioned by Gregory the Great Dialog Conc. Mogunt Can. 43. The Writers of the Ninth Century go on in the same Strain It was decreed by the Council of Mentz in the end of Charles the Great 's Reign That no Priest should say Mass alone for how could he say The Lord be with you or Lift up your hearts if there was no other Person there besides himself This shews that the practice of Soâ—itary Masses was then begun but that it was disliked Walafridus Strabus says That to a lawful Mass it was necessary that there should be a Priest Walaf Strab. de rebus Eccles c. 22. together with one to answer one to offer and one to communicate And the Author of Micrologus who is believed to have writ about the End of the Eleventh Century does condemn Solitary Communions as contrary both to the Practice of the Antients and to the several parts of the Office So that till the Twelfth Century it was never allowed of in the Roman Church as to this day it is not practised in any other Communion But then with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Transubstantiation mixt together the saying of Masses for other Persons whether alive or dead grew to be considered as a very meritorious thing and of great Efficacy Thereupon great Endowments were made and it became a Trade Masses were sold and a small Piece of Money became their Price So that a prophane sort of Simony was set up and the holiest of all the Institutions of the Christian Religion was exposed to Sale Therefore we in cutting off all this and in bringing the Sacrament to be according to its first Institution a Communion have followed the Words of our Saviour and the constant Practice of the whole Church for the first Ten Centuries So far all the Articles that relate to this Sacrament have been considered The variety of the Matter and the Important Controversies that have arisen out of it has made it necessary to enlarge with some Copiousness upon the several Branches of it Next to the Infallibility of the Church this is the dearest piece of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and is that in which both Priests and People are better instructed than in any other Point whatsoever and therefore this ought to be studied on our side with a Care proportioned to the Importance of it That so we may govern both our selves and our People aright in a matter of such Consequence avoiding with great Caution the Extremes on both hands both of excessive Superstition on the one hand and of Prophane Neglect on the other For the nature of Man is so moulded that it is not easy to avoid the one without falling into the other We are now visibly under the Extreme of Neglect and therefore we ought to study by all means possible to inspire our People with a just Respect for this Holy Institution and to animate them to desire earnestly to partake often of it and in order to that to prepare themselves seriously to set about it with the Reverence and Devotion and with those Holy Purposes and Solemn Vows that ought to accompany it ARTICLE XXXII Of the Marriage of Priests Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the Estate of Single Life or to abstain from Marriage Therefore it is lawful for them as well as for all Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judg the same to serve better to Godliness THE first Period of this Article to the word Therefore was all that was published in King Edward's time They were content to lay down the Assertion and left the Inference to be made as a Consequence that did naturally arise out of it There was not any one Point that was more severely examined at the time of the Reformation than this For as the irregular Practices and dissolute Lives of both Seculars and Regulars had very much prejudiced the World against the Celibate of the Roman Clergy which was considered as the occasion of all those Disorders so on the other hand the Marriage of the Clergy and also of those of both Sexes who had taken Vows gave great Offence They were represented as Persons that could not master their Appetites but that indulged themselves in Carnal Pleasures and Interests Thus as the Scandals of the Unmarried Clergy had alienated the World much from them so the
delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme And he ordered that the incestuous person at Corinth should be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus Certainly a Vicious indulgence to Sinners is an encouragement to them to live in Sin whereas when others about them try all methods for their Recovery and Mourn for those Sins in which they do perhaps Glory and do upon that withdraw themselves from all Communication with them both in Spirituals and as much as may be in Temporals likewise this is one of the last means that can be used in order to the reclaiming of them Another Consideration is the Peace and the Honour of the Society S. Paul wished that they were cut off that troubled the Churches Gal. 5.12 Great care ought to be taken that the Name of God and his Doctrine be not blasphemed and to give no occasion to the Enemies of our Faith to reproach us as if we designed to make Parties to promote our own Interests and to turn Religion to a Faction Excusing such as adhere to us in other things though they should break out into the most scandalous Violations of the greatest of all the Commandments of God Such a behaviour towards Excommunicated persons would also have this further good Effect It would give great Authority to that Sentence and fill mens minds with the Awe of it which must be taken off when it is observed that men converse familiarly with those that are under it These Rules are all founded upon the Principles of Societies which as they associate upon some common designs so in order to the pursuing those must have a power to separate themselves from those who depart from them In this Matter there are Extremes of both hands to be avoided Some have thought that because the Apostles have in general declared such persons to be accursed 1 Cor. 16.22 or under an Anathema who preach another Gospel and such as love not the Lord Iesus to be Anathema Maranatha which is generally understood to be a total cutting off never to be admitted till the Lord comes that therefore the Church may still put men under an Anathema for holding such unsound Doctrines as they think make the Gospel to become another in part at least if not in whole and that she may thereupon in imitation of another practice of the Apostles deliver them over unto Satan casting them out of the protection of Christ and abandoning them to the Devil Reckoning that the cutting them off from the Body of Christ is really the exposing them to the Devil who goes about as a Roaring Lion seeking whom he may devour But with what Authority soever the Apostles might upon so great a matter as the changing the Gospel or the not loving the Lord Iesus denounce an Anathema yet the applying this which they used so seldom and upon such great occasions to every Opinion after a Decision is made in it as it has carried on the Notion of the Infallibility of the Church so it has laid a Foundation for much Uncharitableness and many Animosities It has widened Breaches and made them incurable And unless it is certain that the Church which has so decreed cannot err it is a bold assuming of an Authority to which no fallible Body of men can have a Right That delivery unto Satan was visibly an act of a miraculous Power lodged with the Apostles For as they struck some blind or dead so they had an Authority of letting loose Evil Spirits on some to haunt and terrify or to punish and plague them that a desperate Evil might be cured by an extreme Remedy And therefore the Apostles never reckon this among the Standing Functions of the Church Nor do they give any Charge or Directions about it They used it themselves and but seldom It is true that S. Paul being carried by a just zeal against the Scandal which the incestuous person at Corinth had cast upon the Christian Religion did adjudg him to this severe degree of Censure But he judged it and did only order the Corinthians to publish it as coming from him with the power of our Lord Iesus Christ That so the thing might become the more publick and that the effects of it might be the more conspicuous The Primitive Church that being nearest the Fountain did best understand the Nature of Church-Power and the Effects of her Censures thought of nothing in this matter but of denying to suffer Apostates or rather scandalous persons to mix with the rest in the Sacrament or in other parts of Worship They admitted them upon the profession of their Repentance by an imposition of Hands to share in some of the more general parts of the Worship and even in these they stood by themselves and at a distance from the rest And when they had passed through several Degrees in that state of Mourning they were by steps received back again to the Communion of the Church This agrees well with all that was said formerly concerning the Nature and the Ends of Church-Power Which was given for edification and not for destruction 2 Cor. 10.8 This is suitable to the designs of the Gospel both for preserving the Society pure and for reclaiming those who are otherwise like to be carried away by the Devil in his snare This is to admonish Sinners as Brethren and not to use them as Enemies Whereas the other method looks like a power that designs Destruction rather than Edification especially when the Secular Arm is called in and that Princes are required under the Penalties of Deposition and losing their Dominions to extirpate and destroy and that by the cruellest sort of Death all those whom the Church doth so Anathematize We do not deny but that the form of denouncing or declaring Anathemas against Heresies and Hereticks is very Antient. It grew to be a Form expressing horror and was applied to the Dead as well as to the Living It was understood to be a cutting such Persons off from the Communion of the Church if they were still alive they were not admitted to any Act of Worship if they were dead their Names were not to be read at the Altar among those who were then commemorated But as heat about Opinions encreased and some lesser matters grew to be more valued then the weightier things both of Law and Gospel so the adding Anathemas to every point in which men differed from one another grew to be a common practice and swelled up at last to such a pitch that in the Council of Trent a whole Body of Divinity was put into Canons and an Anathema was fastened to every one of them The delivering to Satan was made the common Form of Excommunication an Act of Apostolical Authority being made a Precedent for the standing practice of the Church Great Subtilties were also set on foot concerning the force and
doing that may draw others who have not such clear Notions to do it after his Example they being still in doubt as to the Lawfulness of it then he gives Scandal that is he lays a stumbling-block in their way if he does it unless he lies under an Obligation from some of the Laws of God or of the Society to which he belongs to do it In that case he is bound to obey and he must not then consider the Consequences of his Actions of which he is only bound to take care when he is left to himself and is at full liberty to do or not to do as he pleases This explains the Notion of Scandal as it is used in the Epistles For there being several doubts raised at that time concerning the Lawfulness or Obligation of observing the Mosaical Law and concerning the Lawfulness of eating Meats offered to Idols no general Decision was made that went through that matter the Apostles having only decreed that the Mosaical Law was not to be imposed on the Gentiles but not having condemned such as might of their own accord have observed some parts of that Law Scruples arose about this and so here they gave great Caution against the laying a Stumbling-block in the way of their Brethren Ver. 13. But it is visible from this that the fear of giving Scandal does only take place where matters are free and may be done or not done But when Laws are made and an Order is settled the fear of giving Scandal lies all on the side of Obedience For a man of weight and Authority when he does not obey gives Scruples and Jealousies to others who will be apt to collect from his Practice that the thing is unlawful He who does not conform himself to settled Orders gives occasion to others who see and observe him to imitate him in it and thus he lays a Scandal or Stumbling-block in their way and all the sins which they commit through their excessive Respect to him and imitation of him are in a very high degree to be put to his account who gave them such occasion of falling The Second Branch of this Article is against the Unalterableness of Laws made in matters indifferent and it asserts the Right of every National Church to take care of it self That the Laws of any one Age of the Church cannot bind another is very evident from this That all Legislature is still entire in the hands of those who have it The Laws of God do bind all men at all times but the Laws of the Church as well as the Laws of every State are only Provisions made upon the present state of things from the fitness or unfitness that appears to be in them for the great Ends of Religion or for the Good of Mankind All these things are subject to alteration therefore the Power of the Church is in every Age entire and is as great as it was in any one Age since the days in which she was under the Conduct of men immediately Inspired So there can be no unalterable Laws in matters indifferent In this there neither is nor can be any Controversy An obstinate adhering to things only because they are antient when all the ends for which they were at first introduced do cease is the limiting the Church in a point in which she ought still to preserve her Liberty She ought still to pursue those great Rules in all her Orders of doing all things to Edification with Decency and for Peace The only question that can be made in this matter is Whether such general Laws as have been made by greater Bodies by General Councils for instance or by those Synods whose Canons were received into the Body of the Canons of the Catholick Church whether these I say may be altered by National Churches Or whether the Body of Christians is so to be reckoned one Body that all the Parts of it are bound to submit in matters indifferent to the Decrees of the Body in general It is certain that all the Parts of the Catholick Church ought to hold a Communion one with another and mutual Commerce and Correspondence together but this difference is to be observed between the Christian and the Iewish Religion that the one was tied to one Nation and to one place whereas the Christian Religion is universal to be spread to all Nations among People of different Climates and Languages and of different Customs and Tempers and therefore since the Power in indifferent matters is given the Church only in order to Edification every Nation must be the proper Judg of that within it self The Roman Empire though a great Body yet was all under one Government and therefore all the Councils that were held while that Empire stood are to be considered only as National Synods under one Civil Policy The Christians of Persia India or Ethiopia were not subject to the Canons made by them but were at full liberty to make Rules and Canons for themselves And in the Primitive Times we see a vast diversity in their Rules and Rituals They were so far from imposing general Rules on all that they left the Churches at full liberty Even the Council of Nice made very few Rules That of Constantinople and Ephesus made fewer And though the Abuses that were growing in the Fifth Century gave occasion to the Council of Calcedon to make more Canons yet the number of these is but small so that the Tyranny of subjecting particular Churches to Laws that might be inconvenient for them was not then brought into the Church The Corruptions that did afterwards overspread the Church together with the Papal Usurpations and the New Canon Law that the Popes brought in which was totally different from the old one had worn out the remembrance of all the Antient Canons so it is not to be wondred at if they were not much regarded at the Reformation They were quite out of practice and were then scarce known And as for the Subordination of Churches and Sees together with the Privileges and Exemptions of them these did all flow from the Divisions of the Roman Empire into Dioceses and Provinces out of which the Dignity and the Dependances of their Cities did arise But now that the Roman Empire is gone and that all the Laws which they made are at an end with the Authority that made them it is a vain thing to pretend to keep up the Antient Dignities of Sees since the Foundation upon which that was built is sunk and gone Every Empire Kingdom or State is an entire Body within it self The Magistrate has that Authority over all his Subjects that he may keep them all at home and hinder them from entring into any Consultations or Combinations but such as shall be under his Direction He may require the Pastors of the Church under him to consult together about the best methods for carrying on the Ends of Religion but neither he nor they can be bound to stay for
Tell the Church Ibid. Hâ—w the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth 206 Christ's Promise I am with you alway even to the end of the world Ibid. Of that It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Ibid. Some Generâ—l Councils have ereed 207 ARTICLE XXII 217 THE Dâ—ctrine of Purgatory Ibid. Sins once pardâ—ned are not punished 218 Vnlâ—ss with chastisements in this life 219 No state of satisfaction aftâ—r death Ibid. No mention made of that in Scripture 220 But it is plain to the contrary 221 Different Opinions among the Ancients Ibid. The Original of Purgatory 222 A pâ—ssâ—ge in Maccabees considered Ibid. A pâ—ssâ—ge in the Epistle to the Corinthians câ—nsidered 223 The prâ—gress â—f the â—elief of Purgatory 2â—4 Prayers for the dead among the Ancients 225 Endâ—wments for redeeming out of Purgâ—toâ—y 226 Whether these ought to be sacred or nâ—t 227 The Doctrine of Pardons and Indulgences 228 It is only the excusing from Penance 229 Nâ— Foundation for it in Scripâ—ure Ibid. General Rules concerning Idolatry 230 Of the Iâ—olatry of Hâ—athens 231 Laws given to the Jews against it Ibid. The Expostulâ—â—ions of the Prophets 232 Concerning the Golden Calf Ibid. And The Calves at Dan and Bethel 233 The Ap stles opposed all Idolatry Ibid. St. Paul at Athens and to the Romans 334 The sense of the Primitive upon it 235 The first use of Images among Christians Ibid. Pictures in Churches for Instruction 236 Were afterwards worshipped Ibid. Contests abâ—ut that Ibid. Images of the Deity and Trinity 237 On what theWorship of Images terminates 238 The due Worship settled by the Council at Trent Ibid. Images consecrated and how 239 Arguments for worshipping them answered Ibid. Arguments against the use or worship of Images 240 The worship of Relicks 241 A due regard to the Bodies of Martyrs Ibid. The progress of Superstition Ibid. No warrant for this in Scripture 242 Hezekiah broke the Brazen Serpent Ibid. The memorable passage concerning the Body of St. Polycarp 243 Fables and Forgeries prevailed Ibid. The Souls of the Martyrs believed to hover about their Tombâ— 244 Nothing of this kind objected to the first Christians Ibid. Disputes between Vigilantius and St. Jerom 245 No Invocation of Saints in the Old Testament 246 The Invocating Angels condemned in the New Tâ—stament 247 No Saints invocated Christ only Ibid. No mention of this in the three first Ages 248 In the Fourth Martyrs invocated Ibid. The progrâ—ss that this made 249 Scandalous Offices in the Church of Rome Ib. Arguments against this Invocation 2â—0 An Apology for those who begun it Ibid. The Scandal given by it 251 Arguments for it ansâ—ered 252 Whethâ—r the Saints see all things in God Ib. This no part of the Communion of Saints 253 Prayers ought to be directed only to God Ib. Revealed Religion designed to deliver the World from Idolatry 254 ARTICLE XXIII 255 A Succâ—ssiâ—n of Pastors ought to be in the Church Ibid. 〈◊〉 was settlâ—d by the Apostles 256 And must continue to the end of the World Ibid. It was settlâ—d in the first Age of the Church 257 The danger of mâ—ns taking to themselves this Authority without a due Vocation Ibid. The difference between means of Salvation and precâ—pts for orders sake 258 What is lawful Authority Ibid. What may be done upon extraordinary occasions 259 Necessity is above Rules of Order Ibid. The High Priests in â—ur Saviour's time 260 Baptism by Women 261 ARTICLE XXIV 262 THE chief end of worshipping God Ib. The Practice of the Jews 263 Rules given by the Apostles Ibid. The Prâ—ctice â—f the Church 264 Arguments for Worship in an unknown Tongue answered Ibid. ARTICLE XXV 266 DIfference between Sacraments and Rites Ibid. Sacraments do not imprint a Character 267 But are not mere Ceremâ—nies 268 What is necessary to constitute a Sacrament 269 That applied to Baptism Ib. And to the Eucharist 270 No meâ—tion of seven Sacraments before Peter Lombard Ibid. Confirmation no Sacrament Ibid. How practised among us Ibid. The use of Chrism in it is new 271 Oyl early used in Christian Rituals Ibid. Bishops only consecrated the Chrism 272 In the Greek Church Presbyters appliâ—d it Ibid. This used in the Western Church but condemned by the Popes Ibid. Disputes concerning Confirmation 273 Concerning Penance Ibid. The true Notion of Repentance Ibid. Confâ—ssion not the matter of a Sacrament 274 The use of Confession Ibid. The Priâ—st's Pardon Ministerial 275 And restrained within bounds Ibid. Auricular Confâ—ssion not necessary 276 Not commanded in the New Testament Ibid. The beginnings of it in the Church 277 Many Canons about Penance Ibid. Confession forbid at Constantinople 278 The ancient Dâ—scipline slâ—ckâ—n'd Ibid. Confâ—ssion may be advised but not commanded 279 The good and bad effâ—cts it may have Ibid. Of Contrition and Attrition 280 The ill effects of the Doctrine of Attrition Ibid. Of doing the Penance or Satisfaction 281 Concerning sorrow for sin Ibid. Of the ill effects of hasty Absolutions 282 Of Fasting and Prayer Ibid. Of the Form I absolve thee 283 Of Hâ—ly Orders 284 Of the ancient Form of Ordinations Ibid. Of delivering the Vessels 285 Orders no Sacrament Ibid. Whether Bishops and Priests are of the same Order 286 Of Marriage Ibid. It can be no Sacrament 287 Intention not necessary Ibid. How Marriage is called a Mystery or Sacrament 288 Marriage dissolved by Adultery Ibid. The Practice of the Church in this matter 289 Of Extreme Vnction Ibid. St. James's words explained 290 Oyl much used in ancient Rituals 291 Pope Innocent's Epistle considered Ibid. Anointing used in order to Recovery 292 Afterwards as the Sacrament of the dying 293 The Sacraments are to be used Ibid. And to be received worthily 294 ARTICLE XXVI 295 SAcraments are not effectual as Prayers are Ibid. Of the Doctrine of Intention 296 The ill consâ—quences of it 297 Of a just Severity in Discipline Ibâ—d Particularly towards the Clergy 298 ARTICLE XXVII 299 COncerning St. John's Baptism Ibid. The Jews used Baptism Ibid. The Christian Baptism 300 The difference between it and St. John's Ib. The necessity of Baptism 301 It is a Precept but not a Mean of Salvation Ibid. Baptism unites us to the Church 302 It also saves us Ibid. St. Peter's words explained 303 St Austin's Doctrine of Baptism Ibid. Baptism is a Foederal Stipulation 304 In what sense it was of more value to preach than to baptize Ibid. Of Infant-Baptism 305 It is grounded on the Law of Nature Ibid. And the Law of Moses and warranted in the New Testament Ibid. In what sense Children can be holy 306 It is also very expedient Ibid. ARTICLE XXVIII 308 THE change made in this Article in Queen Elizabeth's time Ibid. The Explanation of our Doctrine 309 Of the Rituals in the Passover Ibid. Of the words This is my Body 310 And This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Ibid. Of the horror the Jews had at Blood 311 In what sense only the Disciples could understand our