Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 1 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
More Particular Reflections upon that Priviledge of Infallibility which they aſcribe to the Church, and of its Authority.
ANy one may now ſee methinks, from what I have laid down, what Judgment ought to be made of that pretended Infallibility that the Latin Church aſcribed to it ſelf, and by what means they would ſhut our eyes, and reduce us to a ſlaviſh Obedience. We ſhall yet nevertheleſs make here ſome reflexions upon it, and ſee whether it has any ſolid Foundation, and any Juſtice in that claim.
1. But before we proceed farther, it will be neceſſary to know what they underſtand by that Infallible Church, and examine all the Sences that may be given to this Propoſition, that the Church cannot err. For our Adverſaries themſelves very differently underſtand it. In the firſt place then, if they would plainly ſay, That that which has been believ'd, and univerſally practis'd by all thoſe who have compos'd the Body of the viſible Church, throughout the extent of all Ages, is Infallibly true: I ſay that it is a very uſeleſs Principle, ſince, to ſpeak according to men, it is impoſſible to know that which has been ſo believ'd, and univerſally practis'd. So that one need ſay no more againſt it, but to ſend back thoſe men to an Infallibility of that nature. Who could make a ſearch ſo juſt, ſo clear, and ſo general as he ought, to aſſure himſelf of the unanimous conſent of all the particular Members, unleſs he could raiſe all that were dead, and underſtand them one after another? I acknowledge that we have the Books of the Antients; but all have not wrote, and who can warrant us that thoſe who have not wrote had the ſame Sentiments with thoſe that have? Who can warrant that the many Books that are loſt were not in very many points contrary to thoſe that are extant? Who can teach us nicely to diſtinguſh what thoſe Authors have wrote in Copying out of, or in imitating one another, from their true and natural Sentiments; and that which they have wrote on their own heads, from that which they have wrote as Witneſſes of the general Belief of their Ages? Who can aſſure us that they were not ſometimes deceived in taking for the general Belief or Practiſe of the Church, thoſe things which were not ſo? For the ſame Caſe happens in theſe very days, that as to thoſe things that ſeem ſo exceeding clear, there are yet a ſort of men who would perſwade us, that we do not very well and perfectly know, what the General belief of the Church of Rome is, and that we may very eaſily deceive our ſelves, and deceive others; how much more then heretofore, when thoſe things were by nothing near ſo clearly decided, and ſo manifeſt as they are now at this day? Who can exactly enough tell us what thoſe Articles were wherein all the Antients were univerſally agreed, and thoſe wherein they did not agree, ſince it has very often fell out that one and the ſame Author has wrote things very contrary upon one and the ſame Subject? Who can aſſure us that what three or four Antient Authors had wrote after an agreeable manner, was not one of thoſe particular deviations from the Truth, which one may often diſcover in them, which does not at all hinder, but that the contrary Opinion may be more received, and more general? In fine, there is nothing ſo vain and ſo fallacious, as that pretended Infallibility of the Church, if they reſtrain it to thoſe Doctrines which ſhall be found eſtabliſhed by the unanimous conſent of all Perſons and of all Ages.
Moreover, Such a kind of Infallibility, would not only have been no hindrance to our Fathers from entring on an examination of the matters of Religion; but it would alſo have obliged them to it. For they muſt always have known whether that which was taught and practis'd in the Church in their days, concerning Faith and Worſhip, had been confirm'd by the conſent of all the foregoing Ages, which they could never have known but by ſuch an examination. So that thoſe who in theſe days diſpute with us about the right of the Reformation, will never find any reaſon on their ſide. The Church of Rome muſt needs be very Infallible with them, but it can be ſo but in one reſpect; I would ſay, in thoſe matters wherein She agrees with the Church throughout all Ages, and with all thoſe Perſons who Compoſe it, which could not in the leaſt have taken away her poſſibility of erring in thoſe matters wherein ſhe ſhould withdraw her ſelf from the Antient Church, and by conſequence ſhe muſt ſubmit her ſelf, her deciſions, her Doctrines, and her Cuſtoms, to a Rule and an Authority that was ſuperiour, according to which they ought to be examined.
2. If they underſtand by it, That the Church in every Age cannot err, that is to ſay, for Example, That that which was believed and generally practis'd, and beyond all controverſy, in the Church in the days of our Fathers could not be otherwiſe then true and good, I ſay that they make this a Principle which cannot be to any purpoſe, and from which they cannot draw any advantage. For how could they aſſure themſelves that all thoſe who made up the Body of the Viſible Church a little before the Reformation, did well approve of the Doctrines that they then taught, and the Worſhip that was then practis'd, and how could they diſtinctly and preciſely affirm, that any ſuch thing had been generally received? For it cannot be imagin'd, under a pretence that ſome certain Opinions had been ordinarily taught in the Schools, or that certain Devotions had been commonly uſed, that they ſhould be brought into the publick Service, and ſpread over their Books under that ſame pretence; It cannot I ſay be imagin'd, that there had not been many in the World who diſapprov'd them, and look'd on them as errours and abuſes, altho' they did not forbear as yet to abide with the reſt in the ſame Communion. And it was certainly from thence, that as ſoon as our firſt Reformers had began to ſpeak openly againſt ſuch kind of things, their voice was heard, and their words receiv'd with the applauſes of, and being follow'd by a great part of Europe. For that was from no other reaſon, but becauſe they found all matters ordered ſo readily, and that for a long time they had vehemently breathed after Reformation. There is then nothing more ridiculous, then when they would ſend us back to an Infallibility which could never be found there, and of which they can give us no marks or ſure characters that may be had there. Beſides which, if the Church is not Infallible, but only in thoſe things that are generally believed and approved of without all diſputes, and if it may err in other matters, none can blame our Fathers for having entred on an examination of them, ſince it had formal oppoſitions to one part of the Church in a great many points, as in the oppoſition of the Berengarians, the Waldenſes, the Albigenſes, the Wicklefiſts, and the Huſſites. They will ſay that theſe were ſuch Hereticks as the Church had condemned. But this anſwer will be but a meer Fallacy; For if then when the Church was divided into two Parties, and that which was the weaker ſhould have been condemn'd by the ſtronger Part; they would treat all thoſe as Hereticks who ſhould have been condemn'd, to elude, under that pretence the weight of their oppoſition, and that they might ſtill attribute Infallibility to the ſtronger Party, in reſpect of thoſe very things that are conteſted, this is but to deceive our ſelves, to ſay at the ſame time, That the Church is not Infallible, but only in regard of thoſe things that all generally hold without Controverſie. They ought to change their Principle and to ſay the ſame of it that they affirm in the caſe of that Conteſtation, That their Infallibility follows the ſtronger ſide, and that thoſe who oppreſs the other by their Intrigues, by their Authority, by the force of their Arms, or otherwiſe, are the truly Infallible, ſince the oppoſition of the others ought not to be looked on but as the Inſurrection of Hereticks, and not as juſt oppoſition. It will always depend on the moſt powerful to make themſelves Infallible, by beating down all that oppoſe themſelves; for there will need no more for that purpoſe than to condemn them, and they are preſently Hereticks, excluded from all right in their oppoſitions; either this is that which I call a Fallacy, or there never was any ſuch thing in the world.
3. But if they will indeed change their Principle, and ſay, that that Infallibility is to be placed in the greater number, in the Ruling party, any one may convince them of the contrary, by the example of the Arrians, who had made themſelves Maſters of the Church, under the Succeſſors of Conſtantine. The greater part in the Council, were for them, the Pulpits were for them, the people followed them as they were lead either by their own humours, or by Conſtraint and Force, they Perſecuted the Orthodox, which evidently ſhews the falſneſs of this Propoſition, That the greater number, or that ſide that finds it ſelf the ſtronger, can never err. Jeſus Chriſt had never had any Defenders, if in the days of his fleſh, all had been perſuaded of the Truth of this Maxim.
4. This Experience of the Arrians makes it appear more evidently that Infallibility could not be attributed to that which they call the Church repreſentative, that is to ſay, to the whole Body of Paſtors, or as they ſpeak, to all the Clergy: For it is but too true, that the whole Body of Paſtors aſſembled in a very great number at the Council of Ariminum, gave way to the Arrian Infidelity, by rejecting the word of Conſubſtantial, which ſignified that the Son of God was of the ſame Eſſence with his Father, and declared only, That he was like to the Father, and that he was not a creature, as other creatures were, which ſuppoſed that he was a creature, altho different from others. They will ſay that it was not of their own motion that theſe Biſhops made that Arrian Confeſſion, but that they were forced to it by the Emperours Miniſters: That moreover, they were deceived by the Arrians, not taking notice that that clauſe that the Son was not a Creature as other Creatures, made him always a Creature, and in fine that they rejected the word foreign becauſe they did not throughly underſtand it. But all that is not of any advantage to their Cauſe, for if the whole Body of Paſtors, aſſembled in Council to decide matters of Faith, did determine of Hereſie, either out of weakneſs, or through ſurpriſe or ignorance, ſince they determine of it in effect, what does it ſignifie in what manner, or in what reſpect they determined it? Could they call thoſe men Infallible who were capable of making a Wicked and Infidel Confeſſion, in an Article ſo Fundamental as that of the Eternity of the Perſon of the Son of God is, in ſuch a manner, and by ſuch Principles as that came to paſs? We can never commit any faults, but that they muſt have ſome cauſe, but what cauſe ſoever they have, our faults are always faults, and certain Arguments that we are not Infallible.
5. There are ſome of them that ſay, that Councils are not Infallible but when they are approved by the Popes. But that neither has any ſolid ground, for how can an approbation which ordinarily paſſes after the ſeparation of a Council, poſſibly confer any Infallibility on it? has that any Retroactive vertue, and can that change the ſtate of a thing already paſt? They will ſay, that the Pope does not confer any Infallibility on it, but only acknowledges it, and makes it to be acknowledged by others, and that his approbation is as the Seal and Impreſſion that denotes that ſuch a Council ought to be held Infallible. But if the Pope himſelf is not Infallible, as the ſounder part of the Gallican Church holds that he is not, what certainty can his approbation give us? May he not err in approving thoſe things which he ought not to approve, and in taking for Infallible a Council, which was really deceived? And let not any one ſay that I produce the opinion of the Gallican Church to the prejudice of all the others, for after what manner ſoever it be, it ſeems to me that one may very well affirm, without offending any perſon, that it is not an Article of the Faith of the Church of Rome to believe that the Pope muſt needs be Infallible, for otherwiſe the Gallican Church would be guilty of Hereſie. And from that only it follows, that one could have no ſuch aſſurance as one ought to have to ſettle the Mind and Conſcience in quiet, if it were poſſible for him to err in approving a Council, and by Conſequence, his approbation could not be a certain character of the Infallibility of that Council.
But why do we uſe Arguments in a matter, in which experience has ſufficiently inſtructed us? The Fifth Council aſſembled at Conſtantinople, on occaſion of three Books publiſhed, the one of Ibas Vide Baronium in Juſtiniano & Vigilio, Tom. 7, & ſirmundum praefat. in ſaecund.Biſhop of Edeſſa, the other of Theodorus of Mopſueſta, and the other of Theodoret Biſhop of Cyrus, was it not held in ſpight of all the oppoſitions of Pope Vigilius, did not that Council condemn thoſe Writings as Heretical, againſt the expreſs prohibitions that Vigilius had made, by a publick Decree to Condemn them, and yet notwithſtanding was not that very Council in the end approved by the Succeſſours of Vigilius, and in fine received throughout all the Church for a True and Holy Oecumenical Council? Thoſe Approbations therefore are only a juggle, which wholly depend on the capricious humours of the Popes, on their different Intereſts, on their good or ill humours. One Pope diſapproves of a Council, and makes it void, to advance all that he does; by that the Council is remote enough from Infallibility, and ought not to be held for Infallible: another Pope comes, and receives and approves of it, and behold on a ſudden that Council changes its condition and becomes Infallible.
Beſides that, did not Pope Liberius approve an Arian Council held at Sirmium, in ſubſcribing an Heretical Confeſſion that had been drawn up, and which Saint Hilary calls the Arian perfidiouſneſs, the Hereſie ſprung from Sirmium, for which he pronounced an Anathema againſt Liberius. For what elſe was that Subſcription Hilar. In fragment.in Conſequence of which Liberius embraced the Communion of the Arians, but a Ratification and real Approbation of the Act of an Erroneous Council? and it ſignifies nothing to ſay, That Liberius was in Exile when he committed that Error, for without alledging here what he himſelf declared to the Eaſtern Arian Biſhops, That he was in Peace and Unanimity with them, and all their Provinces, in good earneſt, and that he had received that Catholick Faith with all his heart, that he had never in the Apud Hilar. ibid.leaſt contradicted it, that he had readily given his conſent, that he followed and held it; his Exile and Concern to get away from them, does not hinder but that it ſhould be true, That he did approve an Infidel Confeſſion, nor by Conſequence, letting us ſee, that it might very well happen, That the Popes did Authorize the Acts of wicked Councils, and that it ought not to be pretended that their Approbation makes Councils Infallible, nor that it has any certain ground for declaring them to be ſuch.
6. That Example of Liberius encounters alſo all thoſe who aſcribe that Infallibility to the Popes; for behold one in whom by the Teſtimony of St. Hilary, and St. Jerom, that Priviledge had no effect. But as that Opinion is not generally received in this Hilar. ubi ſupra.Kingdom, and we need not to fear objections from any here, ſo it is needleſs to refute them. I ſhall only ſay, that that Diſpute that Hieron. in Chron.is in the Church of Rome about thoſe to whom this Infallibility belongs, whether to the Pope only, or a Council only, or to a Council approved by the Pope, or to the Pope as the Head of the Council, lets us ſee that that pretence in general has no ground; for if in truth the Latine Church had that Priviledge, it would never be ſo uncertain as they have made it, but it would have been known a little more clearly where it reſided.
However it be, it plainly appears that the Latine Church does not pretend to it, as a Law of Nature, for ſhe is compoſed of no different blood from the reſt of men, nor as a right joyned to the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, nor as a meer quality of a Church, for in that caſe the Greek and other Churches would have the ſame advantage, but that ſhe pretends to it as a peculiar priviledge, whereby they were diſtinguiſhed from other Churches, as the Greek and Armenian, &c. It appears that they would not ſet this Prerogative before us, as a firſt Principle, which is evident of it ſelf, without needing any proof: for in fine, it is not ſo clear that the Latin Church ſhould be Infallible, as it is that one and one make two, and that the whole is greater than any of its parts. It is then, certainly, but very reaſonable to demand that they would give us the proofs and grounds of ſo important a right. I mean other proofs than thoſe that are commonly taken from the ſame Authority of that Church. For it will not be enough to confirm that Infallibility, for her only to ſay, I am ſo; every Church may ſay the ſame, and yet not be believed. They ought to produce proofs, and proofs that come from Heaven, ſince there is none beſides God that can confer ſo great a Right, and they ought to ſhew them to us, to the end we may judge of them and weigh their Cogency and Truth. That being ſo, I affirm that our Fathers were bound to uſe all ſorts of Rational methods to examine that Queſtion, whether the Church of Rome was Infallible or no? And to look to both ſides to ſettle themſelves in a good Judgment. This is that, which, in my opinion, none will conteſt. But from thence theſe things will clearly follow. 1. That our Fathers had right to examine one of the Tenets of the Latin Church, which is that of her Infallibility. 2. That they had right to judge of it according to the Nature of thoſe proofs which preſented themſelves for, or againſt it. 3. That they might lawfully reject it as falſe, if in their examination of it▪ it appeared to be falſe. 4. That it is neither abſurd nor raſh to maintain, that every one has right to examine a Tenet of the Church and to judge of it. 5. That all thoſe General Objections which they have hitherto made againſt that Truth are falſe and frivolous, ſuch as theſe, that if one give All, that Liberty of examining, every one may make a Religion of his own. That there is no other way to keep men in the Unity of the Faith. That he who examines, makes himſelf a Judg above the Church. That it is the ready way to bring in a private Spirit, and other ſuch like things, all which are refuted by that one Example in the Point of Infallibility. 6. That if it is no ways abſurd that every one ſhould have right to examine a Tenet of the Church that cannot be proved otherwiſe than by the Scriptures, it is not alſo abſurd to ſay, that that right of ſearching out the true ſence of Scripture belongs to every Chriſtian. 7. That it is not abſurd to ſay, that a Believer is Maſter of his own Faith, by depending only upon God, and independant on men. 8. That if every Chriſtian has right to examine one of the chief Articles of Religion, it is no ways inconvenient to ſay that he has right to examine all, for there is not leſs danger, nor leſs conſequence, for all than for one. 9. In fine, it will alſo follow from thence, that our Fathers were bound upon that pretence of the Latin Church to examine all the Points of that Religion. For firmly to aſſure themſelves of the Truth of that Priviledge, it was not enough to conſider it in its Grounds and its Cauſes which are thoſe Proofs that they call a Priori, they ought further to look on it in its effects, that is to ſay, to ſee it in the Doctrines of that Church, in its Maxims, in its Voice, and diligently to take notice whether they may ſee all the Characters of Infallibility reſplendent in it, or whether they may not diſcover ſome Error. It was after this manner that the Diſciples of Jeſus Chriſt acknowledged and cleaved to him. I have given unto them, ſays he, the words which thou gaveſt me, and they have received John 17.them, and have known ſurely that I came out from thee. To whom ſhould we go? Said they to him, Thou haſt the words of Eternal Life: Our Fathers had ſo much the more reaſon, to uſe John 6.theirs alſo, when all the prejudices of Corruption which we have taken notice of in the foregoing Chapters, preſented themſelves to their ſight. They obſerved there all the Characters of humane Weakneſs, of Ambition, Covetouſneſs, Intereſt, Negligence, of plotting Contrivances, and of the Spirit of the World, and all the other marks of Fallible men, who can then blame them for holding ſo circumſpect a courſe to come to the full and clear knowledge of the Truth? So that that pretence of Infallibility was ſo far from driving our Fathers from the examining of thoſe Doctrines which were taught in their days, that the very ſame thing neceſſarily engaged and led them to it.