XIX.

VIIIth laid claim, was indeed contradicted. The other ART. point was, Whether thofe particulars for which Princes had been depofed, such as the giving the inveftiture to bishoprics, were herefies or not? This was much contested: but the power, in the cafe of manifeft herefy, or of favouring it, to depofe Princes, and transfer their crowns to others, was never called in queftion. This was certainly a definition made in the chair, ex cathedra: for it was addreffed to all their community, both Laity and Clergy: plenary pardons were beftowed with it on those who executed it: the Clergy did generally preach the Croifades upon it. Princes, that were not concerned in him that was depofed, gave way to the publication of thofe bulls, and gave leave to their fubjects to take the Cross, in order to the executing of them: and the people did in vaft multitudes gather about the standards that were fet up for leading on armies to execute them; while many learned men writ in defence of this power, and not one man durft write against it.

This argument lies not only against the infallibility of Popes, but againft that of General Councils likewife; and also against the authority of oral tradition: for here, in a fucceffion of many ages, the tradition was wholly changed from the doctrine of former times, which had been, that the Clergy were subject to Princes, and had no authority over them, or their crowns. Nor can it be faid, that that was a point of difcipline; for it was founded on an article of doctrine, whether there was fuch a power in the Popes or not? The prudence of executing or not executing it, is a point of difcipline and of the government of the Church but it is a point of doctrine, whether Chrift has given fuch an authority to St. Peter and his followers. And thofe points of fpeculation, upon which a great deal turns as to practice, are certainly fo important, that in them, if in any thing, we ought to expect an infallibility: for in this cafe a man is diftracted between two contrary propofitions: the one is, that he muft obey the civil powers, as fet over him by an ordinance of God; fo that if he refifts them, he fhall receive in himself damnation: the other is, that the Pope being Chrift's Vicar, is to be obeyed when he abfolves him from his former oath and allegiance; and that the new Prince fet up by him, is to be obeyed under the pain of damnation likewife.

Here a man is brought into a great ftrait, and therefore he must be guided by infallibility, if in any thing.

So the whole argument comes to this head; that we muft either believe that the depofing power is lodged by

$ 4

Chrift

XIX.

:

ART. Chrift in the See of Rome; or we must conclude, with the Article, that they have erred; and by confequence, that they are not infallible for the erring in any one point, and at any one time, does quite deftroy the claim of infallibility.

Before this matter can be concluded, we must confider what is brought to prove it: what was laid down at first must be here remembered, that the proofs brought for a thing of this nature must be very exprefs and clear. A privilege of fuch a fort, against which the appearances and prejudices are fo ftrong, must be very fully made out, before we can be bound to believe it: nor can it be reafonable to urge the authority of any paffages from Scripture, till the grounds are fhewn for which the Scriptures themfelves ought to be believed.

Those who think that it is in general well proved, that there must be an infallibility in the Church, conclude from thence, that it must be in the Pope: for if there muft be a living speaking judge always ready to guide the Church, and to decide controverfies, they fay this cannot be in the diffufive body of Chriftians; for these cannot meet to judge. Nor can it be in a General Council, the meeting of which depends upon fo many accidents, and on the confent of fo many Princes, that the infallibility will lie dormant for fome ages, if the General Council is the feat of it. Therefore they conclude, that fince it is certainly in the Church, and can be no where elfe but in the Pope, therefore it is lodged in the See of Rome. Whereas we, on the other hand, think this is a ftrong argument against the infallibility in general, that it does not appear in whom it is vefted: and we think that every fide does fo 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, feems as evident as any thing can poffibly be: it not appearing, that, after the words of Chrift to St. Peter, the other Apoftles thought the point was thereby decided, who among them fhould be the greateft. For that debate was ftill on foot, and was canvaffed among them in the very night in which our Saviour was betrayed. Nor does it appear, that after the effufion of the Holy Ghoft, which certainly infpired them with the full understanding of Chrift's words, they thought there was any thing peculiarly given to St. Peter beyond the reft. He was queftioned upon his baptizing Cornelius: he was not

XIX.

fingly appealed to in the great queftion of fubjecting the ART. Gentiles to the yoke of the Mofaical Law; he delivered his opinion as one of the Apostles: after which St. James fummed up the matter, and fettled the decifion of it. He was charged by St. Paul as guilty of diffimulation in that matter, for which St. Paul with ftood him to his face : and he juftifies that in an Epiftle that is confeffed to be writ by divine infpiration. St. Paul does alfo in the fame Epiftle plainly affert the equality of his own authority with his; and that he received no authority from him, and owed him no dependence: nor was he ever appealed to in any of the points that appear to have been disputed in the times that the Epiftles were written. So that we fee no characters of any fpecial infallibility that was in him, befides that which was the effect of the inspiration, that was in the other Apoftles as well as in him: nor is there a tittle in the Scripture, not fo much as by a remote intimation, that he was to derive that authority, whatsoever it was, to any fucceffor, or to lodge it in any particular city or fee.

The filence of the Scripture in this point feems to be a full proof, that no fuch thing was intended by God: otherwise we have all reason to believe that it would have been clearly expreffed. St. Peter himself ought to have declared this: and fince both Alexandria and Antioch, as well as Rome, pretend to derive from him, and that the fucceffion to thofe fees began in him, this makes a decifion in this point fo much the more neceffary.

When St. Peter writ his fecond Epiftle, in which he mentions a revelation that he had from Chrift, of his approaching diffolution, though that was a very proper occa fion for declaring fuch an important matter, he fays nothing that relates to it, but gives only a new atteftation of the truth of Chrift's divine miffion, and of what he himfelf had been a witness to in the Mount, when he faw the 2 Pet. i. 17. excellent glory, and beard the voice out of it. He leaves a provifion in writing for the following ages, but says nothing of any fucceffion or fee: fo that here the greatest of all privileges is pretended to be lodged in a fucceffion of bishops, without any one paffage in Scripture importing it.

Another fet of difficulties arife, concerning the perfons who have a right to choose these Popes in whom this right is vefted, and what number is neceffary for a canonical election: how far fimony voids it, and who is the competent judge of that; or who fhall judge in the cafe of two different elections, which has often happened.

We

ART. We must also have a certain rule to know when the XIX. Popes judge as private perfons, and when they judge infallibly with whom they muft confult, and what folemnities are neceffary to make them fpeak ex cathedra, or infallibly. For if this infallibility comes as a privilege from a grant made by Chrift, we ought to expect, that all thofe neceffary circumftances to direct us, in order to the receiving and fubmitting to it, fhould be fixed by the fame authority that made the grant. Here then are very great difficulties: let us now fee what is offered to make out this great and important claim.

The chief proof is brought from these words of our SaMatth. xvi. viour, when upon St. Peter's confeffing, that he was the 16, 18, 19. Chrift, the fon of the living God; he faid to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of bell fhall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of beaven; and whatfoever thou shalt bind on earth fhall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou fhalt loofe on earth fhall be loofed in heaven. This begins with an allufion to his name; and difcourfes built upon fuch allufions are not to be understood ftrictly or grammatically. By the Rock upon which Chrift promises to build bis Church, many of the Fathers have understood the perfon of Chrift, others have understood the confeffion of him, or faith in him, which indeed is but a different way of expreffing the fame thing. And it is certain that, ftrictly fpeaking, the Church can only be faid to be founded upon Chrift, and upon his doctrine. But in a fecondary sense it may be faid to be founded upon the Apostles, and upon St. Peter as the first in order; which is not to be difputed.

14.

Now though this is a fenfe which was not put on thefe words for many ages; yet when it fhould be allowed to be their true fenfe, it will not prove any thing to have been granted to St. Peter, but what was common to the Eph. ii. 20. other Apoftles; who are all called the foundations upon Rev. xxi. which the Church is built. That which follows, of the gates of bell not being able to prevail against the Church, may be either underflood of death, which is often called the gate to the grave; which is the fenfe of the word that is rendered bell and then the meaning of thefe words will be, that the Church, which Chrift was to raise, fhould never be extinguished, nor die, or come to a period, as the Jewish religion then did : or, according to the custom of the Jews, of holding their courts and councils about their gates, by the gates of hell may be underflood, the defigns and contrivances of the powers of dark

nefs,

XIX.

nefs, which fhould never prevail over the Church to root ART. it out, and deftroy it; for the word rendered prevail, does fignify an entire victory; this only imports, that the Church fhould be ftill preferved against all the attempts of hell, but does not intimate that no error was ever to get into it.

By the words kingdom of beaven, generally through the whole Gofpel, the difpenfation of the Melias is underftood. This appears evidently from the words with which both St. John Baptist and our Saviour began their preaching, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at band: Mat. iii. 2. and the many parables and comparisons that Chrift gave ofiv. 17. the kingdom of heaven, can only be understood of the preaching of the Gofpel. This being then agreed to, the moft natural and the leaft forced expofition of those words muft be, that St. Peter was to open the difpenfation of the Gofpel. The proper ufe of a key is to open a door: and as this agrees with thefe words, he that hath the key of the Rev. iii. 7. boufe of David, that openeth and no man fbutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth; and with the phrafe of the key of Luke xi. 52. knowledge, by which the lawyers are described; for they had a key with writing-tables given them, as the badges of their profeffion: fo it agrees with the accomplishment of this promife in St. Peter, who first opened the Gospel to the Jews, after the wonderful effufion of the Holy Ghoft and more eminently when he firft opened the door to the Gentiles, preaching to Cornelius, and baptizing him, and his household, to which the phrafe of the kingdom of heaven feems to have a more particular relalation. This difpenfation was committed to St. Peter, and feems to be claimed by him as his peculiar privilege in the council at Jerufalem. This is a clear and plain fense of these words. For thofe who would carry them further, and understand by the kingdom of heaven our eternal happiness, muft ufe many diftinctions; otherwife, if they expound them literally, they will afcribe to St. Peter that which certainly could only belong to our Saviour himself. Though at the fame time it is not to be denied, but that, under the figure of keys, the power of difcipline, and the conduct and management of Chriftians, may be understood. But as to this, all the paftors of the Church have their fhare in it; nor can it be appropriated to any one perfon. As for that of binding and loofing, and the confirming in heaven what he fhould do in earth, whatever it may fignify, it is no fpecial grant to St. Peter: for the fame words are spoken by our Saviour elsewhere to all the Apostles: fo this is given equally to them all.

The