XVIII. John iii. 19. the Gospel is true, that must be also true, that they are un- ART. der condemnation, for having loved darkness more than light, when the light fhone upon them, and vifited them. But as for them whom God has left in darknefs, they are certainly out of the covenant, out of those promises and declarations that are made in it. So that they have no fœderal right to be faved, neither can we affirm that they fhall be faved: but on the other hand, they are not under thofe pofitive denunciations, because they were never made to them: therefore fince God has not declared that they fhall be damned, no more ought we to take upon us to damn them. Instead of stretching the feverity of juftice by an inference, we may rather venture to stretch the mercy of God, fince that is the attribute which of all others is the most magnificently fpoken of in the Scriptures: fo that we ought to think of it in the largest and most comprehenfive manner. But indeed the moft proper way is, for us to ftop where the revelation of God ftops; and not to be wife beyond what is written; but to leave the fecrets of God as myfteries too far above us to examine, or to found their depth. We do certainly know on what terms we ourselves fhall be faved or damned: and we ought to be contented with that, and rather ftudy to work out our own falvation with fear and trembling, than to let our minds run out into uncertain fpeculations concerning the measures and the conditions of God's uncovenanted mercies we ought to take all poffible care that we ourselves come not into condemnation, rather than to define pofitively of others who must, or who must not, be condemned. It is therefore enough to fix this according to the defign of the Article, that it is not free to men to choose at pleasure what religion they will, as if that were left to them, or that all religions were alike; which strikes at the foundation, and undermines the truth of all revealed religion. None are within the covenant of grace but true Chriftians; and all are excluded out of it, to whom it is offered, who do not receive and believe it, and live according to it. So, in a word, all that are faved, are faved through Chrift; but whether all thefe fhall be called to the explicit knowledge of him, is more than we have any good ground to affirm. Nor are we to go into that other queftion; whether any that are only in a ftate of nature, live fully up to its light? This is that about which we can have no certainty, no more than whether there may be a common grace given to them all, proportioned to their ftate, and to the obligations of it. This in general may be R 2 fafely XVIII. ART. fafely believed, that God will never be wanting to fuch as do their utmoft endeavours in order to the faving of their fouls: but that, as in the cafe of Cornelius, an angel will be fent, and a miracle be wrought, rather than fuch a perfon fhall be left to perish. But whether any of them do ever arrive at that ftate, is more than we can determine; and it is a vain attempt for us to endeavour to find it out. ARTICLE ARTICLE XIX. Of the Church. The Wiable Church of Chzilk is a Congregation of faithful Pen, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Chrift's Dzdinance, in all those things that of necellity are requisite to the fame. As the Church of Jerufalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so allo the Church of Rome hath ezzed, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. THIS HIS Article, together with fome that follow it, relates to the fundamental difference between us and the Church of Rome: they teaching that we are to judge of doctrines by the authority and the decifions of the Church; whereas we affirm, that we are firft to examine the doctrine, and according to that to judge of the purity of a Church. Somewhat was already laid on the fixth Article relating to this matter: what remains is now to be confidered. The whole queftion is to be reduced to this point, whether we ought to examine and judge of matters of religion, according to the light and faculty of judging that we have; or if we are bound to fubmit in all things to the decifion of the Church? Here the matter muft be determined against private judgment, by very exprefs and clear authorities, otherwife the other fide proves itfelf. For we having naturally a faculty of judging for ourfelves, and ufing it in all other things, this freedom being the greateft of all our other rights, muft be ftill afferted, unless it can be made appear that God has in fome things put a bar upon it by his fupreme authority. That authority muft be very exprefs, if we are required to fubmit to it in a point of fuch vaft importance to us. We do alfo fee that men are apt to be mistaken, and are apt likewife willingly to mistake, and to mislead others; and that particularly in matters of religion the world has been fo much impofed upon and abused, that we cannot be bound to fubmit to any fort of perfons implicitly, without very good and clear grounds that do affure us of their infallibility: otherwife we have just reafon to fufpect that in matters of religion, chiefly in points in which human interefts are concerned, men may either through XIX. ART. ignorance, and weakness, or corruption, and on defign, abuse and mislead us. So that the authorities or proofs of this infallibility must be very exprefs; fince we are fure no man nor body of men can have it among them, but by a privilege from God; and a privilege of fo extraordinary a nature must be given, if at all, in very plain, and with very evident characters; fince without thefe human nature cannot and ought not to be fo tame as to receive it. We must not draw it from an inference, because we think we need it, and cannot be fafe without it, that therefore it must be fo, because, if it were not fo, great disorders would arife from the want of it. This is certainly a wrong way of arguing. If God has clearly revealed it, we must acquiefce in it, because we are fure, 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 preferve us from the danger of being deceived by him. But we muft not prefume, from our notions of things, to give rules to God. It were, as we may think, very neceffary that miracles fhould be publicly done from time to time, for convincing every age and fucceffion of men; and that good men fhould be fo affifted as generally to live without fin: thefe and feveral other things may feem to us extremely convenient, and even necellary; but things are not fo ordered for all that. It is alfo certain, that if God has lodged fuch an infallibility on earth, it ought not to be in fuch hands as do naturally heighten our prejudices against it. It will go against the grain to believe it, though all outward appearances looked ever fo fair for it: but it will be an inconceivable method of Providence, if God fhould lodge fo wonderful an authority in hands that look fo very unlike it, that of all others we fhould the leaft expect to find it with them. If they have been guilty of notorious impoftures, to fupport their own authority, if they have committed great violences to extend it, and have been for fome ages together engaged in as many falfe, unjuft, and cruel practices, as are perhaps to be met with in any history; these are fuch prejudices, that at leaft they must be overcome by very clear and unquestionable proofs: and finally, if God has fettled fuch a power in his Church, we must be dif tinctly directed to those in whofe hands it is put, so that we may fall into no mistake in fo important a matter. This will be the more neceffary, if there are different pretenders to it: we cannot be fuppofed to be bound to believe an infallibility in general, unless we have an equal evidence directing us to thofe with whom it refts, and who who have the difpenfing of it. These general confidera- ART. tions are of great weight in deciding this queftion, and XIX. will carry us far into fome preliminaries, which will appear to be indeed great fteps towards the conclufion of the matter. There are three ways by which it may be pretended that infallibility can be proved: the one is the way of Mofes and the Prophets, of Chrift and his Apoftles, who by clear and unquestionable miracles publicly done and well attefted, or by exprefs and circumftantiated prophecies of things to come, that came afterwards to be verified, did evidently demonftrate that they were fent of God: wherefoever we fee fuch characters, and that a miracle is wrought by men who fay they are fent of God, which cannot be denied nor avoided; and if what fuch perfons 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 ftamped upon it. That is not pretended here: for though they study to perfuade the world that miracles are ftill among them, yet they do not fo much as fay 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 fhould beftow the gift of miracles upon fome particular perfons 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, fuch as the cloud of glory, the answers by the Urim and Thummim, the trial of jealoufy, and the conftant plenty of the fixth year, as preparatory to the fabbatical 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 fee they fell all in a body into idolatry upon feveral occafions: thofe public miracles proved nothing but that for which they were given, which was, that Mofes was fent of God, and that his law was from God, which they faw was ftill attefted in a continuance of extraordinary characters. If infallibility had been promifed by that law, then the continuance of the miracles might have been urged to prove the continuance of the infallibility; but that not being promifed, the miracles were only a ftanding proof of the authority of their law, and of God's being R 4 full |