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
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
it may be applied to the Persecution that was soon to break out in that day those who had true Notions generous Principles and suitable Practices would weather that Storm Whereas others that were entangled with weak and superstitious Conceits would then run a great risk though their firm believing that Jesus was the Messias would preserve them Yet the weakness and folly of those Teachers would appear their Opinions would involve them in such danger that their escaping would be difficult like one that gets out of a House that is all on fire round about him So that these words cannot possibly belong to Purgatory but must be meant of some signal discrimination that was to be made in some very dreadful appearances which would distinguish between the true and the false Apostles and that could be no other but either in the destruction of Ierusalem or in the persecution that was to come on the Church though the first is the more probable It were easy to pursue this Argument further and to shew that the Doctrine of Purgatory as it is now in the Roman Church was not known in the Church of God for the first six hundred Years that then it began to be doubtfully received But in an ignorant Age Visions Legends and bold Stories prevailed much yet the Greek Church never received it Some of the Fathers speak indeed of the last probatory Fire but though they did not think the Saints were in a state of consummate Blessedness enjoying the Vision of God yet they thought they were in a state of ease and quiet and that in Heaven St. Austin speaks in this whole matter very doubtfully he varies often from himself Aug. de Civit. Dâ—i l. 21. c. 18. ad 22. Enâ—â—â—r c. 67 68 69. Ad Dulcid 〈◊〉 primâ— he seems sometimes very positive only for two States at other times as he asserts the last probatory Fire so he seems to think that good Souls might suffer some grief in that sequestred state before the last Day upon the account of some of their past Sins and that by degrees they might arise up to their Consummation All these Contests were proposed very doubtfully before Gregory the Great 's days and even then some Doubts seem to have been made But the Legends were so copiously plaid upon all those Doubts that this Remnant of Paganism got at last into the Western Church Tertul. de Câ—r mil. c. â— de Ex. 〈◊〉 c. 13. â—â—prian 〈◊〉 34.37 〈…〉 75. l. 3. â—3 It was no wonder that the Opinions formerly mentioned which began to appear in the Second Age had preduced in the Third the practice of Praying for the Dead of which we find such full evidence in Tertullain and St. Cyprian's Writings that the matter of Fact is not to be denied This appears also in all the Antient Liturgies And Epiphanius charges Aerius with this of rejecting all Prayers for the Dead asking why were they prayed for The Opinions that they fell into concerning the State of departed Souls in the Interval between their Death and the Day of Judgment gave occasion enough for Prayer they thought they were capable of making a Progress and of having an early Resurrection They also had this Notion among them That it was the peculiar Priviledge of Jesus Christ to be above all our Prayers but that no Men not excepting the Apostles nor the Blessed Virgin were above the Prayers of the Church They thought this was an Act of Church-Communion that we were to hold even with the Saints in Heaven to pray for them Thus in the Apostolical Constitutions in the Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and in the Liturgies that are ascribed to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Dion de Eccl. Hierar Cap. 7. they offer unto God these Prayers which they thought their reasonable Service for those who were at rest in the Faith their Forefathers Fathers Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles Preachers Evangelists Martyrs Confessors Religious Persons and for every Spirit pâ—rfected in the Faith especially for our most Holy Immaculate most Blessed Lady the Mother of God the ever Virgin Mary Particular Instances might also be given of this out of St. Cyprian St. Ambrose Nazianzen and St. Austin Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 19. who in that famous and much cited Passage concerning his Mother Monica as he speaks nothing of any Temporal Pains that she suffered so he plainly intimates his belief that God had done all that he desired Thus it will appear to those who have examined all the Passages which are brought out of the Fathers concerning their Prayers for the Dead that they believed they were then in Heaven and at rest and by consequence though these Prayers for the Dead did very proâ—ably give the chief rise to the Doctrine of Purgatory yet as they then made them they were utterly inconsistent with that Opinion Tertullian who is the first that is cited for them says we make Oblations for the Dead Supra and we do it for that Second Nativity of theirs Natalitia once a year The Signification of the word Natalitia as they used it was the Saint's Days of Death in which they reckoned he was born again to Heaven So though they judged them there yet they offered up Prayers for them And when Epiphanius brings in Aerius asking Why those Prayers were made for the Dead Though it had been very natural and indeed unavoidable if he had believed Purgatory to have answered that it was to deliver them from thence yet he makes no such answer but only asserts that it had been the Practice of the Church so to do The Greek Church retains that Custom though she has never admitted of Purgatory Here then an Objection may be made to our Constitution that in this of praying for the Dead we have departed from the practice of the Ancients We do not deny it both the Church of Rome and we in another Practice of equal Antiquity of giving the Eucharist to Infants have made changes and let that Custom fall The Curiosities in the Second Century seem to have given rise to those Prayers in the Third and they gave the rise to many other Disorders in the following Centuries Since therefore God has commanded us while we are on Earth to pray for one another and has made that a main Act of our Charity and Church-Communion but has no where directed us to pray for those that have finished their Course and since the only pretence that is brought from Scripture of St Paul's praying that Onesiphorus might find mercy in the day of the Lord cannot be wrought up into an Argument for it cannot be proved that he was then Dead and since the Fathers reckon this of praying for the Dead only as one of their Customs for which they vouch no other Warrant but Practice since also this has been grosly abused and has been applied to support a Doctrine totally different from theirs we think that we have as good a Plea
executing the many trifling performances to which Indulgences are granted has brought in among them such a Prostitution of Holy Things that either it must be said that those are publick Cheats and that they were so from the beginning or that their Vertue is now exhausted though the Bulls that grant them are perpetual Or else a Man may on very easy Terms presâ—rve himself and redeem his Friends out of Purgatory If the saying a Prayer before a priviledged Altar or the Visiting some Churches in the time of Jubilee with those slight Devotions that are then enjoined have such efficacy in them it is scarce possible for any Man to be in danger of Purgatory The Third Head rejected in this Article is the Worshipping of Images Here those of the Church of Rome complain much of the Charge of Idolatry that our Church has laid upon them so fully and so severely in the Homilies Some among our selves have also thought that we must either Renounce that Charge or that we must deny the Possibility of salvation in that Church and in Consequence to that conclude that neither the Baptism nor the Orders of that Church are valid For since Idolaters are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven they argue That if there can be no Salvation where Idolatry is committed by the whole Body of a Church then that can be no Church and in it there is no Salvation But here we are to consider before we enter upon the Specialties of this Matter that Idolatry is a general Word which comprehends maâ—y several Sorts and Ranks of Sins under it As Lying is capable of many Degrees from an officious Lye to the swearing falsly against the Life of an innocent Man in Judgment The one is the lowest and the other is the highest Act of that kind But all are Lying And yet it would appear an unreasonable Thing to urge every thing that is said of any Act in General and which belongs to the higest Acts of it as if all the Inferior Degrees did necessarily involve the Guilt of the highest There is another distinction to be made between Actions as they signify either of themselves or by the publick Constructions that are put on them by those who Authorise them and those same Actions as they may be privately intended by particular Persons We in our weighing of Things are only to consider what Actions signify of their own Nature or by Publick Authority and according to that we must Form our Judgments about them and in particular in the Point of Idolatry but as for the secret Thoughts or Intentions of Men we must leave these to the Judgment of God who only knows them and who being infinitely Gracious slow to Anger and ready to Forgive will we do not doubt make all the Abatements in the weighing Men's Actions that there is Reason for But we ought not to enter into that Matter we ought neither to aggravate nor to mollify Things too much We are to judge of Things as they are in themselves and to leave the Case of Mens Intentions and secret Notions to that God who is to Judge them As for the Business of Images we know that the Heathens had them of several Sorts Some they believed were real Resemblances of those Deities that they Worshipped Those Divinities had been Men and the Statues made for them resembled them Other Images they believed had a Divine Vertue affixed to them perhaps from the Stars which were believed to be Gods and it was thought that the Influences of their Aspects and Positions were by secret Charms called down and fastened to some Figures Other Images were considered as Emblems and Representations of their Deities So that they only gave them occasion to represent them to their Thoughts These Images thus of different Sorts were all Worshipped some more some less They kneeled before them they prayed to them and made many Oblations to them they set Lights before them and burnt Incense to them they set them in their Temples Market-places and High-ways and they had them in their Houses They set them off with much Pomp and had many Processions to their Honour But in all this though it is like the Vulgar among them might have gross Thoughts of those Images yet the Philosophers not only after the Christian Religion had obliged them to consider well of that Matter and to express themselves cautiously about it but even while they were in the peaceable Possession of the World did believe that the Deity was not in the Image but was only represented by it That the Deity was Worshipped in the Image so that the Honour done the Image did belong to the Deity it self Here then were two false Opinions The one was concerning those Deities themselves the other was concerning this way of Worshipping them and both were blamed Not only the Worshipping a false God but the Worshipping that God by an Image If Idolatry had only consisted in the acknowledging a false God and if the Worshipping the true God in an Image had not been Idolatry then all the Fault of the Heathenish Idolatries should have consisted in this that they Worshipped a false God but their Worshipping Images should not of it self have been an additional Fault But in opposition to this what can we think of those full and copious Words in which God did not only forbid the having of false Gods but the making of a graven Image Deut. 4.12 15 23. or the likeness of any thing in heaven in earth or under the earth The bowing down to it and the worshipping it are also forbid Where besides the copiousness of these Words we are to consider that Moses in the rehearsal of that Law in Deuteronomy does over and over again add and insist on this that they saw no manner of similitude when God spoke of them lest they should corrupt themselves and make to them a graven Image an enumeration is made of many different likenesses and after that comes another species of Idolatry their worshipping the host of heaven and therefore Moses charges them in that Chapter again and again to take heed Verse 23. Deut. 12.30 Levit. 26.1 Deut. 16â— 22. to take good heed to themselves lest they should forget the covenant of the Lord their God and make them a graven Image And he lays the same charge a third time upon them in the same Chapter A special Law is also given against the most Innocent of all the Images that could be made They were required not only not to have Idols nor graven Images but not to rear up a standing image or pillar nor to set up any image of stone or any carved stone such were the Baitulia the least tempting or ensnaring of all Idols They were not to bow down before it and the reason given is For I am the Lord your God The importance of those Laws will appear clearer if they are compared with the practice of those times and particularly in those symbolical