XIX.

ART. ignorance, and weakness, or corruption, and on design, abuse and mislead us. So that the authorities or proofs of this infallibility must be very express; since we are sure no man nor body of men can have it among them, but by a privilege from God; and a privilege of so extraordinary a nature must be given, if at all, in very plain, and with very evident characters; since without these human nature cannot and ought not to be so tame as to receive it. We must not draw it from an inference, because we think we need it, and cannot be safe without it, that therefore it must be so, because, if it were not so, great disorders would arise from the want of it. This is certainly a wrong way of arguing. If God has clearly revealed it, we must acquiesce in it, because we are sure, if he has lodged infallibility any where, he will certainly maintain his own work, and not require us to believe any one implicitly, and not at the same time preserve us from the danger of being deceived by him. But we must not presume, from our notions of things, to give rules to God. It were, as we may think, very necessary that miracles should be publicly done from time to time, for convincing every age and succession of men; and that good men should be so assisted as generally to live without sin: these and several other things may seem to us extremely convenient, and even necessary; but things are not so ordered for all that. It is also certain, that if God has lodged such an infallibility on earth, it ought not to be in such hands as do naturally heighten our prejudices against it. It will go against the grain to believe it, though all outward appearances 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 Church, we must be distinctly directed to those in whose hands it is put, so that we may fall into no mistake in so important a matter. This will be the more necessary, if there are different pretenders to it: we cannot be supposed to be bound to believe an infallibility in general, unless we have an equal evidence directing us to those with whom it rests, and

who have the dispensing of it. These general consider- ART. ations are of great weight in deciding this question, and XIX. 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 Church was far from being infallible all that while; for we see they fell all in a body into idolatry upon several occasions : 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

ART.

XIX.

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 to the Church: and if private judgment is to be trusted in the inquiries that arise about

XIX.

all these particulars, they being the most important and ART. 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.

1.4.

The last way they take to find out this Church by, is Bellar. from some notes that they pretend are peculiar to her, such Contr. as the name catholic; antiquity; extent; duration; succession of 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 a true mark, or not, no use must be made of the Scriptures; for if the Scriptures have their authority from the testimony, or rather the decisions of the infallible Church, no use can be made of them till that is first fixed. Some of these notes are such as did not at all agree to the Church

XIX.

ART. in the best and purest times; for then she had but a little extent, a short-lived duration, and no temporal felicity; and she was generally reproached by her adversaries. But out of which of these topics can one hope to fetch an assurance of the infallibility of such a body? Can no body of men continue long in a constant series, and with much prosperity, but must they be concluded to be infallible? Can it be thought that the assuming a name can be a mark? Why is not the name Christian as solemn as Catholic? Might not the Philosophers have concluded from hence against the first Christians, that they were, by the confession of all men, the true lovers of wisdom; since they were called Philosophers much more unanimously than the Church of Rome is called Catholic?

If a conformity of doctrine with former times, and a sanctity of doctrine, are notes of the Church, these will lead men into inquiries of such a nature, that if they are once allowed to go so far with their private judgment, they may well be suffered to go much further. Some standard must be fixed on, by which the sanctity of doctrine may be examined; they must also be allowed to examine what was the doctrine of former times: and here it will be natural to begin at the first times, the age of the Apostles. It must therefore be first known what was the doctrine of that age, before we can examine the conformity of the present age with it. A succession of bishops is confessed to be still kept up among corrupted Churches. An union of the Church with its head cannot be supposed to be a note, unless it is first made out by some other topics, that this Church must have a head; and that he is infallible: for unless it is proved by some other argument that she ought to have a head, she cannot be bound to adhere to him, or to own him; and unless it is also proved that he is infallible, she cannot be bound absolutely, and without restrictions, to adhere to him. Holiness of life cannot be a mark, unless it is pretended that those in whom the infallibility is are all holy. A few holy men here and there are indeed an honour to any body; but it will seem a strange inference, that because some few in a society are eminently holy, that therefore others of that body who are not so, but are perhaps as eminently vicious, should be infallible. Somewhat has been already said concerning miracles: the pretence to prophecy falls within the same consideration; the one being as wonderful a communication of omniscience, as the other is of omnipotence. For the confession of adversaries, or some curses on them; these cannot signify