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 looked ever so fair for it: but it will be an inconceivable 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 settled such a power in his pointed one, because he conceives a necessity of it. I could name a hundred privileges, that Mr. C. could conceive to be highly beneficial to the church, which yet God never granted to it; and if we may deduce infallibility from the necessity or convenience of it to secure us in our way to heaven, and decide our controversies, then why may we not conclude, that somebody else beside your pope and council is infallible? Is it not more conducive to these ends, that every bishop should be infallible? more still, that every preacher? and more yet, that every individual Christian? Would not these infallibly secure them from all danger of erring? Might not God send some infallible interpreter from heaven to expound all obscure and doubtful places of scripture? Might not the apostles have left us such a commentary? Might not God (if he had pleased) have spoken so perspicuously in scripture, that there should be no need of an infallible interpreter to make it plainer? But if from the advantage and use of these dispensations we should infer their actual existence, the conclusion would confute the premises. 2. The plea for an infallible guide, to secure us from wandering out of the way to heaven, is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way, which we cannot miss unless we will; so that he who will keep his eyes open, is in no more danger of losing his way than in the walks of his own garden; for we know the conditions which God hath made necessary to salvation are clear and easy, unless God should bind us upon pain of damnation fully to know and believe articles obscure and ambiguous, and so damn men for not believing that, the truth whereof they could not discover, which is highly repugnant both to his revealed goodness and justice. We, therefore, distinguish between points fundamental and points not fundamental, those being clearly revealed, and so of a necessary belief; to determine their sense, there is no more need of a judge, than for any other perspicuous truth. What need of a judge to decide whether scripture affirms that there is but one God? that this God cannot lie? that Jesus was crucified and rose again? that without faith and obedience we cannot come to heaven? These, and such like, are the truths we entitle fundamental, and if the sense of these need an infallible judge, then let us bring Euclid's elements to the bar, and call for a judge to decide whether twice two make four. Then for points not fundamental, their belief being not absolutely necessary to salvation, we may err about them, and not err damnably, and so this plea for an infallible judge is wholly evacuated. And with no more difficulty may we baffle the other, taken from its necessity to determine controversies; for if any man oppose fundamental doctrines, or any other evident truths, our church can censure him, without pretending to be infallible. What need of an infallible judge to convict him of heresy, that shall deny the resurrection of the dead? (which yet some of your own popes have not believed, if some of your own historians may be believed.) Therefore, doctrines not fundamental, being not clearly revealed, our church doth not take upon her to determine these, but if any disputes arise about such points, it is her work to silence and suppress them; and when she gives her judgment of that side she thinks most probable, though she doth not expect that all her children should be so wise as to be of her opinion, yet she expects they should be so modest, as not to contradict her, which is as effectually available to end controversies as is your pretended infallibility.' -[ED.] ART. XIX. ART. church, we must be distinctly directed to those in whose hands XIX. 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 publicly 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 stamped upon it. That is not pretended here: for though they study to persuade the world that miracles are still among them, yet they do not so much as say that the miracles are wrought by those with whom this infallibility is lodged, and that they are done to prove them to be infallible. For though God should bestow the gift of miracles upon some particular persons among them, that is no more an argument that their church is infallible, than the miracles that Elijah or Elisha wrought were arguments to prove that the Jewish church was infallible. Indeed the public miracles that belonged to the whole body, such as the cloud of glory, the answers by the Urim and Thummim, the trial of jealousy, and the constant plenty of the sixth year, as preparatory to the sabbatical year, seem more reasonably to infer an infallibility; because these were given to that whole church and nation.* But yet the Jewish * This line of argument, here alluded to by our author, is the most easy and satisfactory answer to the absurd pretence of the papal church to infallibility. They cannot urge any one scripture from the New Testament containing promises to the Christian church (which too they unwarrantably limit to themselves), to which the Jew cannot reply by the production of similar, and, in some instances, much more enlarged promises made to his church. If, for instance, the man who refuses to hear the church is to be accounted a heathen and publican, (Matt. xviii. 17.) the man that did presumptuously, and would not hearken to the Jewish priest, was commanded to be put to death. (Deut. xvii. 12.) The same argument will hold good in all the other scriptures advanced by the papal church in her behalf. Now, although they have no right to appeal to scripture until the authority and infallibility of their church be first proved, since, according to their doctrine, it is the peculiar province of the Roman church to, in the first place, decide what is church was far from being infallible all that while; for we see ART. they fell all in a body into idolatry upon several occasions: scripture, and in the second, what is the meaning or sense of any particular verse or passage yet, giving them full permission to make use of that book which they are so prone to insult by calling it obscure, insufficient, and a dead letter-what do they prove? The infallibility of the Jewish church! For if,' writes Dr. Whitby, Roman Catholics conclude from these ambiguous and obscure places for the infallibility of councils, or the major part of the church-guides concurring with the pope in any sentence or decree, although these places do not speak one syllable of any pope or major part of the church-guides, and much less of the Romish prelates, and less of their infallible assistance; what ovations and triumphs would they have made, had it been said expressly of their cardinals and councils, as it is said of Jewish priests, that they were set for judgment and for controversy? had God fixed his glorious presence at Rome, as he did at Jerusalem, and settled there a seat of judgment, and a continual court of highest judicature, as was that Sanhedrin, which in Jerusalem was settled? had he dwelt in St. Peter's, as he dwelt in the temple? had he left with them, as he did with the Jewish priests, a standing oracle, a Úrim and a Thummim, to consult with upon all occasions? So that this plea being much stronger for the infallibility of the superiors of the Jewish church, than for the infallibility of the whole western church, or any of its councils, the Roman doctors must acknowledge, either that they fallaciously urge it against Protestants, or must confess that it stands also good against the Christian, and is a confirmation of all those traditions which were condemned by our Saviour, and a sufficient plea for all those errors and corruptions, which, as the prophets do complain, were generally taught and practised by the church-guides in the declining ages of the Jewish church for if these arguments be good now, they were so then; and if they were good then, for aught that I can see, the high-priest, and the major part of the church rulers of the Jews, were always in the right; and Christ, and his apostles, with the holy prophets, must be in the wrong.'t To avoid the force of this argument, which so completely turns the weapons of the papacy against itself, some of that party have devised this reply-more ingenious than solid or satisfactory: That the Jewish church was infallible, but that its infallibility disappeared and centred in the Lord Jesus Christ, the greater authority, when he appeared on earth. To this argument, if it can be called one, of which the Editor has known, indeed heard, priests of the Roman church avail themselves, the answer is easy, and more than ever shews the difficulties in which they, who use it, are placed. 1st. The Jewish church did sin in matters fundamental before the coming of Christ- They err in vision, they stumble in judgment,'' and the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means,' was the testimony of God concerning the church-guides. Apostacy from the truth and idolatry were sins of the Jewish church. But, 2d., if they were infallible until the appearing of the Saviour on earth, which the Bible proves that they were not, how were the people assured of the departure of this high privilege from their own church-guides (whom they were to obey under pain of death), and of its lodg ment in the Lord Jesus? This is the point. How did the Saviour convince them? By his doctrine and by miracles. The former was an appeal to their private judgment-the latter to their senses; and if these be allowed, the papal system against the right of private judgment, and in favour of transubstantiation, is demolished. Thus they cannot evade the force of this argument against infallibility without destroying their own building. We cannot but conclude this article in the words of Whitby: If this be truly the result of the most specious pretences of the Roman party to draw our souls into their deadly snares, if all their fairest pleas do make for Judaism, more naturally than they do for popery; if what they urge, to prove the Protestant divines to be deceivers of the people, doth more strongly prove our blessed Jesus a deceiver, which is the highest blasphemy; I hope that no true lover of this Jesus will be much tempted by such pleas to entertain a good opinion of the Romish faith: it being certainly that faith, which cannot be established but on the ruins of Christianity, nor embraced by any Protestant, but with the greatest hazard, if not the ruin, of his soul.'-[ED.] Whitby Sermon on John vii. 47-49, which every student ought not merely to read, but well digest. It is to be found in his Commentary, at the end of the gospel of St. John. XIX. XIX. ART. those public 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 answered, yet they ought not to be urged to prove this infallibility, till several 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, those cannot be all true, though it is very possible that they may be all false: we must be then well assured in whom this great privilege 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 ART. to the church: and if private judgment is to be trusted in XIX. 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. tom. 2. The last way they take to find out this church by, is from Bellar. some notes* that they pretend are peculiar to her, such as the Contr. name catholic; antiquity; extent; duration; succession of 1.4. bishops; union 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 inquiries 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 be all 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 In order to the full understanding of this point, the reader must refer to Gibson's Preservative against Popery, vol. 1, in which the notes of the church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmine are examined and confuted.' This examination of the notes, &c., may also be found in a small quarto, published in 1687, entitled A brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church, with some Reflections on Cardinal Bellarmine's Notes. The quarto edition contains also two papers not found in Gibson's collection; 'A vindication of the discourse concerning the Notes ;' and A defence of the confuter of Bellarmine's second note of the church, Antiquity, against the cavils of the adviser.'-[ ED.] |