66

we expect the assistance of God to aid us in the attempt. Thus, too, we have the same promises, direction to the same prayers, and reason to expect the same illumination, to make us see, know, and comprehend the truths of religion, that we have to expect that our powers shall be inwardly strengthened to love and obey them. Thus David prays, that God may open his eyes," as well as that he may, " make him go in the path of his commandments." (Ps. cix. 18, 35.) And the "enlightening the eyes of the understanding" is implored by St. Paul, no less than that" Christ may dwell in their hearts by faith." (Eph. i. 18, iii. 17.) Since, therefore, an assistance of the divine grace is given to fortify the understanding, as well as to enable the will, it follows, that our understanding is to be employed by us, in order to the finding out of the truth, as well as the will, in order to the obeying of it. And though this may have very bad consequences, it does not follow from thence, that it is not true. No consequences can be worse than the corruption that is in the world, and the damnation that attends sin; yet God permits it, because he has made us free creatures. Now, no reason can be assigned why we should be less free in the use of our understandings, than we are in the use of our will: or why God should make it to be less possible for

us to fall into errors of judgment, than into sins of the heart.

(4.) It is evident from the tenor of Scripture. If we observe the style and method of the Scriptures, we shall find in them a constant appeal to man's intellectual faculties. Had the mere dictates of the Church, or infallible men, been the foundation of faith, there had been no need of such continued reasonings, as our Saviour used, while on earth, and as the Apostles adopted in their writings. We see, that explanations are offered, and proofs adduced, to convince the mind. Whence it is evident, that God, in this, the clearest manifestation of his will, desired to deal with us, as with reasonable creatures, who are not to believe, but upon persuasion, and are to use our reason, in order to the attaining that persuasion.

A question still remains, which it will be necessary to explain, whether the Church of Christ must be always visible? On this subject we may observe 1. The constant visibility of the Christian Church is promised. Thus, "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world," (Matt. xxviii. 20;) and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church." (Matt. xvi. 18.) 2. Visibility does not imply infallibility. We have seen, that a society, which retains the essential doctrines of Christianity is a true Church. God, therefore, may preserve the succession of a

true Church in the world, even though that society should fall into error. Hence we may see the absurdity of that question, "Where was

your Church before the time of Henry VIII?" We answer, Where it is now, in England, and in the other kingdoms of the world, with this difference, that it was then corrupted, and it is now pure.b

II. The Article asserts, that particular Churches have erred. "As the Church of Jerusalem, "Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the "Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in 66 matters of faith."

с

It is admitted that the Church of Jerusalem, where our Saviour taught, and the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch, which were founded by St. Peter in person, or by proxy, have erred. It is also admitted, that many of the Popes of Rome have led wicked lives, and that their in

a There is a peculiar absurdity in the doctrine of those Roman Catholics, who hold the personal fallibility of the Pope. They think, that heretics do not belong to the Church of Christ; yet the Pope may err in a point of faith; that is, he may be a heretic, and still be a member of the Church. Thus, we are not of the Church, because heretical; yet the same cause does not produce the same effect in him.

b See Hooker's Eccl. Pol. B. 3. sec. 1.

St. Peter is said to have made Mark bishop of Alexandria, and to have been himself bishop of Antioch.-See Theod. Ep. 86.

Р

fluence and authority have materially changed the canons, ceremonies, and government of the Church. The only question is, whether the See of Rome has erred in matters of faith? And, on this subject, there is no difference among those of her communion, except as to what constitutes the See of Rome. Some, by the See of Rome, understand the Popes personally; for they say, since it is necessary that infallibility should be lodged somewhere in the Church, it cannot be in the diffusive body of Christians, who can never be collected; nor in a council, whose assembling depends on various circumstances. It must, therefore, be vested in a living judge, that is, in the Pope. Whereas others think the whole body, which holds communion with Rome, is infallible, for though a Pope should err, a General Council has authority to proceed against him; and thus, though he should fall into error, the See might preserve its infallibility. From these controversies, however, we derive an argument against the existence of infallibility in general; since, if it existed, it were natural to know where it is lodged. The latter opinion we shall consider hereafter; the former we shall now discuss. And, with respect to it, we assert

that,

1. The Primitive Church did not acknowledge the claim of infallibility.

If infallibility belonged to the See of Rome,

- it is unaccountable that the Church should continue for many ages without its being pretended to, even in times when that see was not only claiming all the rights that belonged to it, but demanding many that were rejected. That such is the fact, however, appears from numerous instances: (1.) They claimed the right of receiving appeals from the African Churches, and founded this claim on a canon falsely quoted from the council of Nice. In this contest they were opposed by those Churches, without ever asserting their infallibility.

a

(2.) Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches for observing Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, instead of the Lord's day after

a

Apiarins, a presbyter of Sicca, was deposed by Urbanus the Bishop of his diocese, in consequence of some irregularities of which he was guilty. He immediately appealed to Zosimus Bishop of Rome, who restored him to his office. When this information was brought to the African Bishops, they unanimously exclaimed against the interference of Zosimus, as contrary to the canons of their Church, which forbid any minister who had been deprived by one Bishop from being restored by another. Zosimus, however, to support his claim, had two canons copied from the council of Sardica, and sent his legates to the council assembled for the purpose at Carthage, A. D. 419, with orders to assert that these canons were contained in those made at Nice. The African Bishops having never heard of them, sent to Cyril of Alexandria, and others, for authentic copies of the council of Nice, and when these arrived the forgery was discovered. See Bower's Lives of the Popes, v. 1. p. 370.