XIX. necessary to the essence of the sacrament of baptism, but only ART. to the regularity of administering it: and so the want of it does not void it, but does only prove such men to be under some defects and disorder in their constitution. Thus I have laid down those distinctions that will guide us in the right understanding of this Article. If we believe that any society retains the fundamentals of Christianity, we do from that conclude it to be a true church, to have a true baptism, and the members of it to be capable of salvation. we are not upon that bound to associate ourselves to their communion for if they have the addition of false doctrines, or any unlawful parts of worship among them, we are not bound to join in that which we are persuaded is error, idolatry, or superstition. If the sacraments that Christ has appointed are observed and ministered by any church as to the main of them, according to his institution, we are to own those for valid actions: but we are not for that bound to join in communion with them, if they have adulterated these with many mixtures and additions. Thus a plain difference is made between our owning that a church may retain the fundamentals of Christianity, a true baptism, and true orders, which are a consequent upon the former, and our joining with that church in such acts as we think are so far vitiated, that they become unlawful to us to do them. Pursuant to this, we do neither repeat the baptism, nor the ordinations, of the church of Rome: we acknowledge that our forefathers were both baptized and ordained in that communion: and we derive our present Christianity or baptism, and our orders, from thence: yet we think that there were so many unlawful actions, even in those rituals, besides the other corruptions of their worship, that we cannot join in such any more. The being baptized in a church does not tie a man to every thing in that church; it only ties him to the covenant of grace. The stipulations which are made in baptism, as well as in ordination, do only bind a man to the Christian faith, or to the faithful dispensing of that gospel, and of those sacraments, of which he is made a minister: so he who, being convinced of the errors and corruptions of a church, departs from them, and goes on in the purity of the Christian religion, does pursue the true effect both of his baptism, and of his ordination vows. For these are to be considered as ties upon him only to God and Christ, and not to adhere to the other dictates of that body in which he had his birth, baptism, and ordination. The great objection against all this is, that it sets up a private judgment, it gives particular persons a right of judging churches: whereas the natural order is, that private persons ought to be subject and obedient to the church. This must needs feed pride and curiosity, it must break al XIX. ART. order, and cast all things loose, if every single man, according to his reading and presumption, will judge of churches and communions. P. cxix. 18, 35. 1s. liv. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33, 34. On this head it is very easy to employ a great deal of popular eloquence, to decry private men's examining of scriptures, and forming their judgments of things out of them, and not submitting all to the judgment of the church. But how absurd soever this may seem, all parties do acknowledge that it must be done. Those of the church of Rome do teach, that a man born in the Greek church, or among us, is bound to lay down his error, and his communion too, and to come over to them; and yet they allow our baptism, as well as they do the ordinations of the Greek church. Thus they allow private men to judge, and that in so great a point, as what church and what communion ought to be chosen or forsaken. And it is certain, that to judge of churches and communions is a thing of that intricacy, that if private judgment is allowed here, there is no reason to deny it its full scope as to all other matters. God has given us rational faculties to guide and direct us; and we must make the most of these that we can: we must judge with our own reasons, as well as see with our own eyes: neither can we, or ought we to resign up our understandings to any others, unless we are convinced that God has imposed this upon us, by his making them infallible, so that we are secured from error if we follow them. All this we must examine, and be well assured of it, otherwise it will be a very rash, unmanly, and base thing in us, to muffle up our own understandings, and to deliver our reason and faith over to others blindfold. Reason is God's image in us; and as the use and application of our reason, as well as of the freedom of our wills, are the highest excellencies of the rational nature; so they must be always claimed, and ought never to be parted with by us, but upon clear and certain authorities in the name of God, putting us implicitly under the dictates of others. We may abuse the use of our reason, as well as the liberty of our will; and may be damned for the one as well as the other. But when we set ourselves to make the best use we can of the freedom of our wills, we may and do upon that expect secret assistances. We have both the like promises, direction to the like 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. David prays that God may open his eyes,' as well as that he may make him to go in his ways.' The promises in the prophets concerning the gospel dispensation carry in them the being taught of God, as well as the being made to walk in his ways; and XIX. 'the enlightening the mind, and the eyes of the mind' to ART. know, is prayed for by St. Paul, as well as that 'Christ may dwell in their hearts.' true. Eph. i. 18. Since then there is an assistance of the Divine grace given iii. 17. 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 our will in order to the obeying of it. And though this may have very ill consequences, it does not follow from thence, that it is not No consequences can be worse than the corruption that is in the world, and the damnation that follows upon sin; and yet God permits it, because he has made us free creatures. Nor can any reason be given why we should be less free in the use of our understanding, 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, than it is to commit sins. The wrath of God is as much denounced against men that 'hold the truth in un- Rom. i. 18. righteousness,' as against other sins: and it is reckoned among 24, 26. the heaviest of curses, to be given up to 'strong delusions, to 2 Thess. ii. believe a lie.' Upon all these reasons therefore it seems clear, that our understandings are left free to us as well as our wills; and if we observe the style and method of the scriptures, we shall find in them all over a constant appeal to a man's reason, and to his intellectual faculties. If the mere dictates of the church, or of infallible men, had been the resolution or foundation of faith, there had been no need of such a long thread of reasoning and discourse, as both our Saviour used while on earth, and as the apostles used in their writings. We see the way of authority is not taken, but explanations are offered, proofs and illustrations are brought to convince the mind; which shews that God, in the clearest manifestation of his will, would deal with us as with reasonable creatures, who are not to believe but upon persuasion; and are to use our reasons in order to the attaining that persuasion. And therefore upon the whole matter we ought not to believe doctrines to be true, because the church teaches them; but we ought to search the scriptures,' and then, according as we find the doctrine of any church to be true in the fundamentals, we ought to believe her to be a true church; and if, besides this, the whole extent of the doctrine and worship, together not only with the essential parts of the sacraments, but the whole administration of them and the other rituals of any church, are pure and true; then we ought to account such a church true in the largest extent of the word true; and by consequence we ought to hold communion with it. Another question may arise out of the first words of this Article, concerning the visibility of this church; Whether it must be always visible? According to the distinction hitherto made use of, the resolution of this will be soon made. There seem to be promises in the scriptures, of a perpetual duration 11. ART. XIX. Matth. 18. of the Christian church: "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world:' and, The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.' The Jewish religion had a period xxviii. 20. prefixed, in which it was to come to an end: but the propheMatt. xvi. cies that are among the prophets, concerning the new dispensation, seem to import not only its continuance, but its being continued still visible in the world. But as the Jewish dispensation was long continued, after they had fallen generally into some very gross errors; so the Christian church may be visible still, though not infallible. God may preserve the succession of a true church, as to the essentials and fundamentals of faith, in the world, even though this society should fall into error. So a visible society of Christians in a true church, as to the essentials of our faith, is not controverted by us. We do only deny the infallibility of this true church, and therefore we are not afraid of that question, Where was your church before Henry the Eighth? We answer, It was To confound the two questions (the falling of a church from its being and its visibility), is as absurd as to maintain that the stars fail every day, and the sun every night. Some churches may fall from their purity, but yet not from their being or visibility. Some may so fail as to fulfil the threat, I will remove thy candlestick out of its place,' and there be left not so much as the name of a Christian church. With us in these kingdoms the church for a time fell from its purity, but not from its being or visibility, for even in the most corrupt ages there were many true Christians, who too frequently were called to seal their testimony with their blood. In order then to entangle us in any difficulty by the question, Where was your religion before Henry the Eighth? Romanists ought to prove that England was obliged, not merely by the bonds of love which ought to bind all pure churches together, but, jure divino, to communicate with the papal see; and to receive, with brutish submission, all its degrading additions to Christianity, as the 'true catholic faith out of which no man can be saved.' Henry VIII. resisted and overturned the pope's usurped authority over these dominions. The church then, being delivered from her oppressor, ceased to teach the papal additions and novelties, and returned to the primitive truth, by continuing to teach what popery herself is compelled to acknowledge as the catholic faith. This is simply and powerfully stated by Sir H. Lynde, in his Via Tuta,' in reply to the question, Where was your religion before Luther?' . He then that shall question us, where our church was before Luther? let him look back into the primitive church; nay, let him look into the bosom of the present Roman church, and there he shall find and confess, that, if ever antiquity and universality were marks of the true church, of right and necessity they must belong to ours. Look into the four creeds, which the church of Rome professes, (the Apostles', the Nicene, the Athanasian, and the creed of pope Pius IV.) and you shall find that three of those creeds are taught and believed by our church; and these, by our adversaries' confession, were instituted by the apostles, and the fathers of the primitive church, not created by Luther. Look into the seven sacraments, which the church of Rome holds, and you shall acknowledge that two of these sacraments are professed by us; and these, by our adversaries' confession, were instituted by Christ, not broached by Luther. Look into the canon of our Bible, and you shall observe, that the books of canonical scripture which our church allows, were universally received in all ages, and are approved at this day by the church of Rome for canonical scripture, not devised by Luther. Look into our book of Common Prayer, and compare it with the ancient liturgies, and it will appear that the same forms of prayer (for substance) were read, and published in a known tongue, in the ancient churches, not broached by Luther. Look into the ordination, and calling of pastors, and it will appear, that the same essential form of ordination, which at this day is practised in our church, was used by the apostles and their successors, and not devised by Luther. If therefore the three creeds, the two principal sacraments of the church, the books of canonical scripture, the ancient liturgies, the ordination of pastors: if, I say, all these were an1 XIX. where it is now, here in England, and in the other kingdoms ART. of the world: only it was then corrupted, and it is now pure. There is therefore no sort of inconvenience in owning the constant visibility of a constant succession and church of true Christians true as to the essentials of the covenant of grace, though not true in all their doctrines. This seems to be a part of the glory of the Messias, and of his kingdom, that he shall be still visibly worshipped in the world by a body of men called by his name. But when visibility is thus separated from infallibility, and it is made out that a church may be a true church, though she has a large allay of errors and corruptions mixed in her constitution and decisions; there will be no manner of inconvenience in owning a constant visibility, even at the same time that we charge the most eminent part of this visible body with many errors and with much corruption. So far has the first part of this article been treated of: from it we pass to the second, which affirms, that as the other patriarchal and apostolical churches, such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so the church of Rome has likewise erred, and that not only in their living, and manner of ceremoines, but also in matters of faith. It is not questioned but that the other patriarchal churches ciently taught, and universally, in all ages, in the bosom of the Roman church, even by the testimonies of our adversaries themselves, is it not a silly and senseless question to demand of us, where our church was before Luther? The positive doctrine which we teach, is contained in a few principal points, and those also have antiquity, and universality, with the consent of the Roman church. The points in controversy, which are sub judice and in question, are, for the most part, if not all, additions obtruded upon the church, and certainly, from those additions and new articles of faith, the question, truly and properly, results upon themselves: where was your church (that is, where was your Trent doctrine, and articles of the Roman creed, received de fide) before Luther? If, therefore, our doctrine lay involved in the bosom of the Roman church (which no Romanist can deny), if I say, it became hidden, as good corn covered with chaff, or as fine gold overlaid with a greater quantity of dross, was it therefore new and unknown, because popery sought, by a prevailing faction, to obscure it? Was there no good corn in the granary of the church, for many years' space, until Luther's days, because it was not severed from the chaff? No pure gold, because our adversaries would not refine it by the fire of God's word? If the chaff and dross be ours, or if our church savour of nothing but novelty and heresy (as some of these men pretend), let them remove from the bosom of their own church, that new and heretical doctrine, which they say was never heard of before Luther; and tell me if their church will not prove a poor and senseless carcass, and a dead body without a soul. Take away the three creeds, which we profess, our two sacraments, the books of canonical scripture, and tell me, if such light chaff and new heresies (as they now style them) were removed, whether their twelve now articles, their five (improperly called) sacraments, their Apocryphal scriptures, their unwritten verities and traditions, will be able to make a true visible church? Nay, more; the church of Rome does not only acknowledge those things which we hold, but the most ingenuous members of it are ashamed also of those ADDITIONS of theirs, which we deny. As for instance, we charge them with the worship of images (contrary to Exod. xx. 4, 5): they deny it, or at least excuse their manner of adoration; but they condemn not us for not worshipping. We accuse them for praying in an unknown tongue (contrary to 1st Cor. xiv.). they excuse it, that God knows the meaning of the heart; but they do not condemn us for praying with the spirit, and with the understanding. We condemn them for adoring the elements of bread and wine in the sacrament, because it contradicts God's word, and depends upon the intention of the priest: they excuse it, that they adore upon condition, if the consecrated bread be Christ; but they do not condemn |