provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
are not immediately inspired of God have sufficiently certain evidence in reason to the discerning and chusing of infallible guides that are immediately inspired § 15. Whether Infallibility admit of degrees and in what respect EVery truth is equally impossible to be false for all things that imply a contradiction are equally because utterly impossible All are alike infallible in that wherein they are infallible and therein they cannot be more infallible because therein it is utterly impossible that they should be deceived and so it cannot be more impossible than it is already Nevertheless there are different degrees of evidence for being infallible in such or such a matter Likewise there are different degrees of clear apprehension of being infallible and so the sure knowledg of being infallible admits of degrees That knowledg that is sufficiently certain may be advanced to be abundantly certain and that which is abundant may be advanced to yet more abundant Whereupon I conclude that though infallibility in its formal reason admits of no degrees yet there are different degrees of the evidence and the clear apprehension thereof Moreover infallibility is in a more noble and perfect state in one subject than in another And so the infallibility of a superior intellect as that of Angels is in a more perfect and excellent than the hypothetical and the unlimited than the limited In the same subject infallibility may be in a more perfect state at one time than another according to the rising or falling of the evidence thereof § 16. Of the Infallibility of Sense THAT which is agreeable to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be false and that which is repugnant to sence rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true For that the one should be false and that the other should be true implies a contradiction supposing the sensitive faculty to be true And if the sensitive faculties be not true it infers that impious and absurd opinion that God cannot or will not govern the material world but by falshood The Popish opinion of Transubstantiation is no deception of the sense but of the understanding for they that have persuaded themselves to believe it do not say they see or tast or feel Christs body and blood but acknowledg what they see feel and tast to be the accidents of the bread and wine which they say remains after Transubstantion Wherefore the imposing is not upon the senses but upon the understanding which ought to judg by sense of matters that are the proper objects of sense § 17. Of Infallibility of Reason IF Sense may be the subject of Infallibility why may not the Understanding be so which is a more excellent Faculty in the kind of perception or knowledg If the Understanding be the subject of Certainty why not also of infallibility in that limited sense as hath been before explained The proper object of Certainty is not that which may or may not be but that which must be or which is known to be such An indubitable Certainty is acknowledged and from an indubitable Certainty properly so called I think a good inference is made unto an infallible Certainty To be indubitable in a matter is to be sure that I am not therein deceived And I cannot rationally be sure that I am not deceived unless I am sure that it cannot be that the thing be otherwise than I apprehend And if I am sure that it cannot be otherwise than I apprehend I am as to that particular infallible Because men in their most confident persuasions are commonly deceived by prejudice from passion interest education and the like it follows not that none can be secure from deception that is to know that it cannot be that they should be deceived in such or such a matter Certainly an impartial and unbiassed judgment may be found § 18. Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusisions as well as Mathematical admit of demonstrative Evidence UPON the foregoing enquiries I judg it very disadvantageous to the cause of Religion to speak as some do of a lower evidence for it than demonstration and such as the matter is capable of whereas I suppose there is not surer and clearer Evidence for any thing than for true Religion Not only Mathematical but Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusions admit of demonstrative evidence Whereas some say the existence of God is not Mathematically demonstrable because only Mathematical matter admits such kind of evidence if it be meant of that special evidence that is in the Mathematicks it is nothing to the purpose but if it be meant of evidence in general as demonstrative as Mathematical evidence it is false for this Truth admits the clearest and strictest demonstration This Proposition That God is is demonstrative in the strictest sense by a demonstration a posteriori viz of the necessary cause from the effect it being evident that the existence of God is absolutely necessary to the existence of the World for that we cannot attribute the being of the Phanomena or visible things in the world to any other cause than such a Being as we conceive God to be but we must offer violence to our own faculties This Proposition That every word of God shall be fulfilled according to the true and full intent of it is demonstrative in the strictest sense a priori from the veracity of God it being as evident that God is true as that he is As the Existence so the Attributes of God have demonstrative Evidence unless you had rather call them indemonstrable principles as having the greatest self-evidence From the Essence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him Moral and Theological Truths of demonstrative evidence are inferred as touching Gods moral law the good of conformity and the evil of inconformity thereunto and a just retribution to men according to that difference § 19. Of the infallible knowledg of the truth of the Christian Religion and Divine Authority of the Scripture UPON the grounds here laid as the Existence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him and his obligations thence arising may be demonstrated so also that the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures are of God as the Author and that the contrary would involve a contradiction And I take this to have been demonstrated by learned men and need not here be largely insisted on Only I shall set down a little of that much that hath been written by Mr. Baxter We may infallibly know the Christian Doctrine to be of God by his unimitable image or impression which is upon it supposing the truth of the historical part Likewise the truth of the historical part namely that this doctrine was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and that those things were done by him and them which the Scriptures mention we may know infallibly The Apostles and other first witnesses knew it infallibly themselves by their present sense and reason with the concomitance of
Christianity Surely God requires of us no more than he hath given and that is to make use of the faculties wherewith he hath indued us How can we apprehend any doctrine or the sense of any written word but by our faculty of understanding And how can we make judgment thereof I mean a judgment of discretion but by making use of our own reason This is not to subject matters of Religion to a private Spirit but to refer them to the Divine Authority of Scripture to be apprehended in the right and due use of reason which is a publick and evident thing and lies open to the trial and judgment of all men § 21. What Certainty is necessary to the being of saving Faith THUS upon the grounds before laid we may have a natural infallible Certainty of the verity of the Christian Religion and the divine authority of the Scripture and of the sense of Scripture It remains to be considered Whether the having of this Certainty both of the Christian Religion and of the Scripture be necessary to the being of saving Faith Here let it be noted That a person may have some doubting of a matter whereof he sees no just cause of doubting And howsoever men may possibly argue against this assertion yet experience makes it good And there is sufficient reason for it in the infirmity of our minds contracted by the fall whereby oft-times we are confident of the things which we see we have just cause to doubt of or disbelieve and whereby we doubt of the things that we see we have just cause most firmly to believe I take this to be evident in that saying I believe Lord help my unbelief And against this it cannot be said here is an effect without a sufficient cause for tho there be no sufficient ground or reason of the doubt yet for it being a defect there is a sufficient cause namely the infirmity of the mind He that said to our Saviour I believe Lord help mine unbelief had saying faith And his faith that he professed and his unbelief that he complained of appears by the context not to relate to his interest in Christ but to Christ himself as able to help him And so from this instance it is evident that the not having of an infallible certainty of the object denies not the being of saving faith at least where a man is so far clear as to see no just cause of doubt tho he do somewhat doubt A man that sees not a sufficient evidence to be infallibly assured touching the firmness of the grounds for the receiving of the Christian Doctrine and yet sees no sufficient evidence for the rejecting of that doctrine may from the consideration of the importance of the things therein treated of and the probability of the truth of those things be induced intirely and heartily to imbrace that doctrine with purpose to live accordingly and to perform that purpose That this may be is evident for humane prudence doth strongly oblige a man in that case to make such a choice for himself and if he doth not make such choice he doth not act with the understanding of a man But if it be said that the corruption of humane nature would be too hard for humane prudence in the case I answer That God can give that assistance of his Grace whereby a mans will shall be inabled to make its choice according to prudence against its naturally corrupt inclination And God can give this assistance very congruously or agreeably to his holy Wisdom Whosoever in the case aforesaid doth make such a choice and live accordingly hath saving faith For his so doing doth imply an unfeigned love to and preferring of God and Christ and Holiness above all that is in the world and so must needs suppose faith unfeigned and God proceeding according to his Grace in Christ will not impute unto condemnation such a ones culpable defect of Certainty in the matters of Faith which doth not hinder his sincere trust in God through Christ and his intire and hearty love to him § 22. Of our Certainty of being in the State of Grace IT may lastly be inquired What Certainty one may have of his being in the state of grace As for the Certainty of Salvation that is a different inquiry and depends on another question touching the Certainty of perseverance in a justified state which is not here to be medled with and we inquire not whether one may be certain of his being in the state of Grace by special revelation but in an ordinary way That any one ordinarily should have certain knowledg of his being in the state of Grace supposeth his certain knowledg of these two things 1. That God hath declared in his word that they which have such and such qualifications are in the state of Grace 2. That he himself is so qualified For it is the conclusion of these two premises the one whereof is the object of divine faith and the other of a clear and right self-knowledg The Certainty of the former viz. That God hath declared persons so qualified to be in the state of Grace none deny that acknowledg the Certainty of Christs Gospel The Certainty of the latter is the matter of debate whether it be possible and whether it ought to be had It is not inquired Whether the Certainty of the latter viz. Whether the person himself be so qualified be a Certainty of divine faith For the object of such Certainty is only what God hath revealed that this or that man hath faith and repentance but this is only a point of self-knowledg Here interpose we something of the doctrine of Protestants and Papists about the Certainty of this matter The Protestants in asserting that the Certainty of being in the state of Grace is a Certainty of divine faith do mean no more but that one of the propositions viz. Whosoever unfeignedly believes is justified rests solely on the Word of God and the other viz. I unfeignedly believe is known by internal sence and experience But whether the conclusion Therefore I am justified or in the state of Grace be rightly called a conclusion of divine faith I leave to others to judg not caring to strive about words when the thing it self is agreed upon And doubtless no sober Protestant will assert that the Certainty which we have of this conclusion is a Certainty of the same reason with that which we have of an article of faith either so firmness or necessity The Papists in denying the Certainty of Justification to be a Certainty of Divine Faith do not deny all Certainty thereof but mean that it is not of the same reason with the Certainty which we have of an Article of Faith Because tho one of the premises on which it is founded be an Article of Faith yet the other is known but by internal sence and the testimony of conscience As to the later of the premises which is known but by internal sence and
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
preservative and accumulative not destructive or diminutive The Church is Christs family and the magistrate is not the Lord but a member of it and cannot govern it at his pleasure but only as the Lord himself hath allowed and the state thereof requires In short the magistrate as well as the minister hath received his authority for edisication not for destruction The magistrate cannot make any new essential or integral part of religion either Doctrine of Faith or Divine Worship but he is as much bound up to the religion that is of Gods making as the meanest of his Subjects for he and they are Gods Subjects both alike But by his civil sanctions he may strengthen the true religion and enforce the observance of the Divine Laws so far as it is meet they should be inforced by Humane Laws and this is the most noble part of his work in matters of Religion The Magistrate may and must take care that sacred things be duly administred by sacred or spiritual officers and he may and must punish them for mal-administration He may and must restrain persons of impious principles from venting their wicked errors and from any open impious practice by a power formally civil tho objectively ecclesiastical He may convocate synods or councils of ecclesiastical persons to advise and conclude according to the Word of God how the Church being corrupt is to be reformed and how to be guided and governed when reformed And he ought to use his own judgment of discretion concerning the decrees and judgments of ecclesiastical persons in reference to his own act of political ratifying the same The Magistrate cannot maâ—e any new kind of sacred or spiritual office becâ—use he cannot institute any new sacred work and the work that Christ hath instituted â—ath an officer of his own institution already appointed for it also because a spiritual office is to be administred not in the Magistrates but in Christs Name yet he may make new offices for civil service about sacred things He cannot appoint any thing in religion that is forbidden by the divine laws nor forbid any thing appointed by the divine laws All his authority being from God cannot be against him And therefore such injunctions and prohibitions can lay no obligations of obedience upon the subject Hereupon he cannot forbid the preaching of the Gospel or the administring of Sacraments for then it were at his pleasure whether Christ should have a Church or Kingdom upon earth He cannot take one part of the Pastors office from him while he continues him the exercise of the other for that were to maim and marr the office He cannot deprive a Pastor of his Pastoral office or discharge him from fulfilling his Ministry because it is held from Christ and not from him He may not compel aminister to give the Sacraments to whom he pleases nor may he compel any to profess either in word or deed wha they believe not or to take that which God hath made the specia priviledg of Believers The accidental parts modes and circumstances of Religion which are necessary in general and left undetermined of God in particular the Magistrate hath power to determine according to the general rules of Gods Word Forasmuch as the Divine Law doth constitute more particulars and leaves less to humane liberty and God is more jealous and conscience more scrupulous in sacred than in common things it behoves the Magistrate to be wary humble and sober in his determinations about these matters He may regulate the preaching of the Gospel provided that regulation be for the furtherance not the hinderance thereof And that can be no part of due ordering that causeth the destruction or dangerous detriment of the thing ordered The Magistrate may not appoint that which is not simply forbidden of God if it be scandalous or mischievous in the consequents nor may he forbid that which God hath not appointed but left indifferent if the omission of it be scandalous or mischievous in the consequents because in such cases God hath forbidden the former and required the latter by his general command and because the Magistrate hath his authority as was said for edification not for destruction OF CERTAINTY and INFALLIBILITY § 1. Of Certainty in general I Begin the enquiry by taking notice of the common distinction of objective and subjective Certainty Objective Certainty or Certainty in the object is the immutable verity of the thing it self For that a thing is what it is is unchangeably true Subjective Certainty is the firmness of assent to a thing apprehended as it is It is this later which I enquire into and it presupposeth the former It must be supposed that our faculties are true that is that in their sound state and set in due circumstances they are adapted to discern things as they are indeed Otherwise the question of the nature of Certainty is out of dores there being no such thing in the world Certainty of Assent includes three things 1. That it be firm without staggering 2. That it be true and not erroneous 3. That it rest upon firm and sure grounds The first is evidently necessary because it is the very notation of the word Certainty the notion we mean thereby is not to doubt or stagger in our apprehension of a thing The second is as evidently necessary for Certainty is an affection of knowledg but an erroneous apprehension is not knowledg but ignorance a confident mistake cannot be certainty The third also is clear for if the grounds be either false or weak the knowledg built thereon cannot be sure Tho the assent be true in respect of the object yet it is not certain in this case because not judicious nor solid yea tho the apprehension be according to the thing yet as far as it rests upon a false or weak ground it is not knowledg properly so called but a casual confidence or presumption and when the insufficiency of the grounds shall appear the apprehension fails and vanisheth away Meer probability is not Certainty strictly so called it is indeed an affection or mode both of knowledg and of error which is a kind of ignorance for that which is only probable may either be or not be what it is apprehended to be and so the apprehension thereof may be either true or false either knowledg or error Yet the apprehending of a probable thing only as probable is always a right apprehension for whether the thing be or not be it is certainly true that it is probable The reason of probability lies in a sufficient evidence that a thing not only may be but is so indeed rather than not so as it is apprehended to be The reason of Certainty lies in a sufficient evidence that a thing must needs be as it is apprehended For if there be not such evidence then if we indeed consider the matter we presently apprehend that in regard the thing may be otherwise it is so for ought we know and that
they grant a kind of Certainty as the one by usurped authority impose upon mens belief in the matter of Religion which is mans highest concernment so the other take away or lessen that security of the mind which is reasonably required in so great a matter and give too great advantage to the pretenders on the other extream The term infallible may be taken first in a passive signification and then it is that which cannot be deceived And so it may be applied either to the propounder or to the believer of a truth It may also be taken in an active signification for that which cannot deceive and so it may be applied to the propounder as also to the truth it self proposed and â—o the evidence thereof as in our English Translation Act. 1.3 by many infallible proofs that is evidence that could not deceive Infallibility as ascribed to the propounder or believer of a truth is subjective infallibility as ascribed to the truth propounded or the evidence thereof it is objective infallibility which signifies no more than that the thing cannot be false and cannot objectively deceive Now if there may be objective there may be also subjective infallibility If there be truth and an evidence of truth that cannot be false then an understanding apprehending that truth as it is cannot be deceived therein nor can deceive in propounding the same to others Besides objective infallibility is an insignificant thing in reference to an understanding uncapable of infallibility An object is denominated infallible with respect to the understanding to which it is or may be propounded as not to be deceived in it § 12. Of Infallibility which is hypothetical and limited and that which is absolute and unlimited INFALLIBILITY therefore denoting an impossibility of being deceived and of deceiving inquire we into the subject to whom it doth belong Some say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding We must distinguish between an impossibility of being deceived that is absolute and unlimited and that which is hypothetical and limited I grant that an absolute impossibility of being deceived belongs not to a finite understanding And no asserter of infallibility in the creature intended the former but the latter kind Hypothetical and limited impossibility of being deceived may belong to a finite and in particular to a humane understanding and it is that which supposeth a full revelation natural or supernatural to the subject in whom it is and is limited to the truth so revealed and this hypothetical infallibility doth not rest barely upon the perfection of the humane nature but upon this principle That God is true in his revelations both natural and supernatural and that he doth not govern the world by falshoods Now this is proper infallibility For upon this principle I am not only sure that I am not deceived but also that I cannot be deceived as to the particular truths so evident to me or to speak it plainer it cannot be that I am therein deceived for it were a contradiction Moreover that which is certain is so upon necessary grounds and therefore cannot be false And he that knows it to be certain knows it upon those necessary grounds and consequently that it cannot be false and this is to know it infallibly If we know nothing infallibly we know nothing either as necessary or as impossible whether absolutely or hypothetically § 13. Of stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but pro tempore IT hath been shewed that an understanding that is not absolutely or by the perfection of its nature infallible may be secured from possibility of mistake and an understanding that is not universally infallible may be secured from possibility of mistakes and so be infallible in certain cases and to certain intents Now it is further to be noted That there may be a stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but temporary The former did belong to the established Prophets of the Lord in their declarations to his people and to the Apostles of Christ in matters pertaining to their Apostolical Commission for establishing the Religion and Churches of Christ Also upon supposition of the Saints perseverance it belongs to all true Christians as to the Essentials of Christianity The temporary Infallibility belongs to such persons as receive the Visions of God or are divinely inspired not statedly but occasionally at some particular time or times as among holy men Zacharias John Baptists Father Gideon the Parents of Sampson among the unholy Balaam in his Prophesies before Balaac and Saul who sometime was found prophecying § 14. The Infallibility of a finite Vnderstanding further cleared IT is granted by the deniers of Infallibility That that which is true is not possible to be false And thence I infer If I know it to be true I know it is not possible to be false and so I infallibly know it And my assent to a truth as for instance to the Christian Faith cannot possibly be false Some that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure that he is not And I infer thereupon that he cannot be deceived in that particular assent I mean not that he cannot simply but in that state and circumstances wherein he is put he cannot be deceived therein and that he knows he cannot because he knows it implies a contradiction that he should be deceived in that wherein he is sure that he is not deceived For if I may be deceived in such an apprehension or assent not only simply but all circumstances being put I cannot be sure that I am not deceived therein Likewise those that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that a man cannot be deceived in that thing with the belief whereof God inspires him and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false Now this is a concession of hypothetical and limited insallibility to humane understanding For it is here acknowledged that there may be such evidence of divine inspiration as cannot be false And indeed I take it for a repugnancy in nature that God should inspire the belief of a falshood Nevertheless a man divinely inspired is not simply infallible in his apprehension of divine inspiration for he may sometime be deceived in thinking he is so inspired when he is not Thus it being evident that an understanding that is not simply infallible in a matter may in the state and circumstances wherein he is put be therein infallible I think it better to explain and limit the term and notion of infallibility in the humane understanding than wholly to reject it But howsoever they that reject or dislike it do grant and contend for a sufficiently certrin evidence of truth and I will not quarrel if that will serve for infallibility And they will also grant that they who