ture, reason, or universal tradition, be it
fundamental or not fundamental. Though
she may err in some things, vet she does
not err in wliat she proves, though it be



not fundamental. ]*rotestants believing
Scri])ture to be the word of GoD, may be
certain enough of the truth and certainty
of it. For what if they say the Catliolic
Church, much more themselves, may
possibly err in some fundamental points,
IS it therefore consequent they can be
certain of none such ? AVhat if a wiser
man than I may mistake the sense of some
obscure place of Aristotle, may I not,
therefore, without any arrogance or in-
consequence, conceive myself certain that I
understand him in some j)lain ])laces which
carry their sense before them ? We pre-
tend not at all to any assurance tliat we
cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty
that we do not err, but rightly understand
those things that are plain, whether fun-
damental or not fundamental. That GoD
is, and is a rewarder of them that seek
him; that, &c. These we conceive both
true, because the Scripture says so, and
truths fundamental, because they are
necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our
Saviour says, Qui non crediderit, dai/ina-
hitur.

" I do heartily acknowledge and believe
the articles of our faith to be in themselves
truths as certain and infallible as the very
common principles of geometry or meta-
physics ; but that there is required of us
a knowledge of them and an adherence to
them, as certain as that of sense or science ;
that such a certainty is required of us
under i)ain of damnation, so that no man
can hope to be in a state of salvation but
he that finds in himself such a degree of
faith, such a strength of adherence ; this
I have already demonstrated to be a great
error, and of dangerous and pernicious
consequence.

" Though I deny that it is required of
us to be certain in the highest degree, in-
fallibly certain, of the truth of the things
which we believe, (for this were to know
and not believe, neither is it possible unless
our evidence of it, be it natural or super-
natural, were of the highest degree.) yet
I deny not but we ought to be, and may
be, infallibly certain that we are to l)eheve
the religion of Christ. For, 1. This is
most certain, that we are in all things to
do according to wisdom and reason, rather
than against it. 2. This is as certain, that
wisdom and reason require that we should
believe those things which are by many
degrees more credible and probable than
the contrary. 3. Tliis is as certain, that
to every man who considers impartially

j what great things may be said for the
truth of Christianity, and what poor things

j they are which may be said against it,



390



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF HOME.



either for any other religion, or for none at
all, it cannot but appear by many degrees
more credible, that the Christian religion
is true, than the contrary. And from all
these premises, this conclusion evidently
follo^YS, that it is infallibly certain, that
we are firmly to believe the truth of the
Christian religion. There is an abundance
of arguments exceedingly credible, in-
ducing men to believe the truth of Chris-
tianity ; I say, so credible, that though
they cannot make us evidently see "vvhat
we believe, yet they evidently convince,
that in true wisdom and prudence, the
articles of it deserve credit, and ought to
be accepted as things revealed by GOD."
— JFa terland. Ch illing worth .

The Koman Church has no authorized
doctrine of infallibility, though its exist-
ence is practically assumed, and is bound
up with the whole catalogue of usurpations.
The Council of Trent defined many minute
and unimportant matters, yet on that which
involved so much, it published no defini-
tion at all ; neither pronouncing where the
gift is lodged, nor under Avhat conditions
it is exercised, nor to what subjects it ex-
tends ; nay, not even asserting that it
exists at all. Suarez says that the pope's
infallibility is a question of faith ; Bellar-
mine, that it is not ; and Stapleton, that,
though the denial of it is scandalous and
offensive, it is perhaps not heretical ; while
Gerson, with a very large and learned school
of Roman theologians, rejects the doctrine
altogether. And none of these opinions
have been censured.

Again, if we ask whether, in point of
fact, any pope has ever been a heretic, we
shall get nothing but inconsistent and
contradictory replies. Coster says, that
not one has ever taught heresy, or fallen
into error ; and he makes this an argument
for the doctrine itself. Pighius goes fur-
ther, and says, that the pope is so con-
firmed in the faith, that he could not fall
into error either publicly or privately, even
if he would ; while, on the other' hand,
there is a multitude of Roman ^Titers, who
fully admit the heresies of Liberius, Vigi-
lius, Honorius, and the rest; either con-
demning them absolutely, or extenuating
their acts on some special ground. The
Council of Pisa, A. D. 1409, in its sentence
of deposition against the rivals, pronounces
them both heretics. And so previous
councils have condemned former popes ;
yet the question is still in debate.

As a matter of doctrine, then, we have a
long line of the greatest theologians that
the Roman Church has ever produced,
denying in explicit terms that any gift of



infallibility at all was conveyed to the
bishops of Rome by the words of Christ.
And on the question of fact we find the
very chief defenders of the pope's preroga-
tives, admitting that he may deceive men
by his example, and lead them nito error ;
and that he may publish decrees, and
insert them in the body of canon law,
which yet contradict the tradition of the
Church and the truth of the gospel. The
claim of infallibility, which advances no
Scripture proof, except one perverted
text ; and which is maintained in the face
of all these hesitations and contradictions,
these disproofs on the one side, and in-
jurious admissions on the other ; can be
nothing else but a delusion and a fraud. —
S. Robins.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
OF ROME. (See Church of Rome, Pope-
ry.^ On this subject we give the follow-
ing remarks of Bishop Beveridge : — That
the Catholic or universal Church is infalli-
ble, so as constantly and finnly to maintain
and hold every particular truth delivered
in the gospel, in one place or other of it, I
think cannot well be denied ; but that any
particular Church, or the Church of Rome
in particular, is infallible, we have ex-
pressly denied and opposed in the Thirty-
nine Articles, it being there expressly
asserted, that " the Church of Rome hath
erred," and that " not only in their living
and manner of ceremonies, but even in
matters of faith."

Now to prove that the Church of Rome
hath erred, even in matters of faith, I
think the best way is to compare the doc-
trine maintained by them vrith the doctrine
delivered in these Articles. For whatso-
ever is contained in these Articles, we have,
or shall, by the assistance of God, prove
to be consonant to Scripture, reason, and
Fathers ; and, by consequence, to be a real
truth. And, therefore, Avhatsoever is any
way contrary to what is here delivered,
must needs be an error. And so that be-
sides other errors which the Church of
Rome holds, be sure, whereinsoever it dif-
fers from the doctrine of the Church of
England, therein it errs. Now to prove
that the Church of Rome doth hold such
doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine
of the Church of England, I shall not in-
sist upon any particular, though never so
eminent, persons amongst them that have
delivered many doctrines contrary to ours.
For r know, as it is amongst ourselves,
that is not an error of our Church which
is the error of some one or many particu-
lar persons in it; so also amongst them,
everything that Bellarniine, Johannes de



liNl-ALLlBILlTY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.



391



Turrecremata, Gregorius de Valentia, Al-
phonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees
of their Church, saitli, cannot be accounted
as an error of their Church if it be false ;
nor if it be true, as the truth of tlic Avhole
Church. A Church may be Catholic though
it hath many heretics in it ; and a Church
may be heretical though it hath many
Catholics in it. And therefore I say, to
prove the doctrine of their Church to be
erroneous, I shall not take any notice of
the errors of particular persons, but of the
errors deliberately and unanimously con-
cluded upon, and subscribed to, and pub-
lished as the doctrine of that Church, by
the whole Church itself met together in
council. For the doctrine delivered by a
council cannot be denied to be the doc-
trine of the whole Church there represent-
ed. As the doctrine delivered in these
Articles, because it was concluded upon in
a council of English divines, is accounted
the doctrine of the Church of England ; so
the doctrine concluded upon in a council
of llomish divines, cannot be denied to be
the doctrine of the Church of Home. And
of all the councils they have held, that
which I shall ])itch upon in this case, is
the Council of Trent, both because it was
the most general council they ever held,
and also because it was held about the
same time at Trent that our convocation
that composed these Articles was held at
London. For it was in the year of our
Lord 1562, that our convocation, that
concluded upon these Articles, was holden
at London ; and though the Council of
Trent was begun in the year of our Lord
1545, yet it was not concluded nor con-
firmed till the fifth year of Pope Pius IV.,
A. D. 15G3, as appears from Pope Pius III.'s
bull for the confii-mation of it. So that
our convocation was held within the same
time that that council Avas ; and so our
Church concluded upon truths here, whilst
theirs agreed upon errors there. Neither
need we go any further to prove that they
agreed upon errors, than by showing that
many things that they did then subscribe
to, were contrary to what our Church,
about the same time, concluded upon. For
all our Articles are, as we may see, agree-
able to Scripture, reason, and Fathers ; and
they delivering many things quite contrary
to the said Articles, so many of them must
needs be contrary to Scripture, reason, and
Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be
errors. And so in showing that the doc-
trine of the Church of Home is, in many
things, contrary to the Church of England,
I shall prove from Scripture, reason, and
Fathers, the truth of this proposition, that



the Church of Homo hath erred even in
matters of faith.

Now, though there be many things
wherein the Church of Home did at that,
and so still doth at this, time disagree with
ours ; yet I shall pick out but some of
those propositions that do, in plain terms,
contradict these Articles.

As, first, we say, (Art. VI.,) " Scripture
is sufficient, &c., and the other books,
(viz. commonly called the Apocrypha,) the
Church doth not apply them to estal)lish
any doctrine." But the Church of Home
thrusts them into the body of canonical
Scriptures, and accounts them as canon-
ical as any of the rest ; saying, *' But this
synod thought good to write down to this
decree an index of the holy books, lest
any one should doubt which they are that
are received by this council. Now they
are the underwritten. Of the Old Tes-
tament, the five books of Moses, Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuterono-
my : Joshua, Judges, Huth, four books of
the Kings, two of the Chronicles, I-'sdras
the first and second, which is called Ne-
hemias, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psal-
ter of one hundred and fifty Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the "Wis-
dom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah,
Jeremiah with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel,
twelve Lesser Prophets, that is, Osee, &c.,
two books of the Maccabees, the first and
second. Of the New Testament, the four
Gospels, &c. as ours. But if any one doth
not receive all these books, with every
part of them, as they use to be read in
the Catholic (viz. the Homan) Church,
and as they are contained in the ancient
vulgar Latin edition, for holy and canoni-
cal, and shall knowingly contemn the afore-
said traditions, let him be anathema."

Secondly, we say that " original sin is
the fault and corruption of every man, none
excepted." (Art. IX.) But they say, " but
this synod declares it is not their intention
to comprehend the blessed and unspotted
Virgin Mary, the mother of God, in this
decree, where it treats of original sin."

Thirdly, we say, '* We are accounted
righteous before GoD only for the merit
of our Lord Jksus Christ bv faith, and
so justified by faith only." (Art. XI.) But
they say, " If any one say that a sinner is
justified by faith* only, that he so under-
stand that nothing else is required to
attain the gi'ace of justification, and that it
is no ways necessary that he should be
prepared' and dis])osed by the motion of
his own will, let him be anathema."

Fourthly, we say, " AVorks before justifi-
cation have the nature of sin." (Art. XIII.)



392



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.



But they, " If any one say, that all the
works which are done before justification,
howsoever they are done, are truly sins.
or deserve the hatred of GoD ; or by hoAv
much the more vehemently a man strives
to dispose himself for grace, by so much
the more grievously doth he sin, let him
be anathema."

Fifthly, we say, " Christ was alone
without 'sin." (Art. XV.) They say, that
the Virgin Mary also was. " If any one
say, that a man being once justified can
sin no more, nor lose his grace, and there-
fore he who falls and sins was never truly
justified ; or, on the contrary, that he can
avoid through his whole life all even venial
sins, unless by a special privilege from
God, as the Church holdeth concerning
the blessed Virgin, let him be anathema."

Sixthly, we say, " The llomish doctrine
concerning purgatory, pardons, worship-
ping, and adoration, as well of images as
relics, and also invocation of saints, is a
fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded
upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather
repugnant to the word of God." (Art.
XXil.) But they, " Seeing the Catholic
Church taught by the Holy Ghost out of
the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tra-
dition of the Fathers, in holy councils, and
last of all in this general synod, hath
taught that there is a purgatory, and that
souls there detained are helped by the suf-
frages of the faithful, but principally by
the sacrifices of the acceptable altar ; this
holy synod commands the bishops, that
they would diligently study, that the sound
doctrine concerning purgatory delivered
from the holy Fathers and sacred councils
be, by Christ's faithful people, believed,
held, taught, and preached everywhere."
And again, " This holy synod commands all
bishops and others, that have the charge
and care of teaching, that according to
the use of the Catholic and Apostolic
Church, received from the primitive times
of the Christian religion, and the consent
of the holy Fathers, and the decrees of
sacred councils, especially concerning the
intercession and invocation of saints, the
honour of relics, and the lawful use of
images, they diligently instruct the faith-
ful, teaching that the saints, reigning
together with Christ, do offer up their
prayers to GoD for men, and that it is
good and profitable simply to invocate or
pray unto them," &c. And that, "the
bodies of the holy martyrs, and others,
that live with Christ, are to be wor-
shipped," &e. And also, " that images of
Christ, the GoD-bearing Virgin, and other
saints, are to be had and retained, espe-



cially in churches, and that due honour
and veneration be given to them." And
presently, " But if any one teach or think
anything contrary to these decrees, let
him be anathema."

Seventhly, we say, " It is a thing plainly
repugnant to the word of GoD, and the
custom of the primitive Church, to have
public prayer in the church, or to adminis-
ter the sacraments, in a tongue not under-
standed of the people." (Art. XXIV.)
But they, *' If any one say, that the cus-
tom of the Church of Home, whereby part
of the canon and the words of consecration
are uttered with a loud voice, is to be
condemned, or that mass ought to be
celebrated only in the vulgar tongue, or
that v/ater ought not to be mixed with
the wine that is to be offered in the cup,
for that it is contrary to Christ's institu-
tion, let him be anathema."

Eighthlv, we say, "There are but two
sacraments." (Art. XXV.) They, " If any
one say, that the sacraments of the new
law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ
our Lord, or that there are more or less
than seven, to wit, baptism, confirmation,
the eucharist, penance, extreme unction,
orders, and matrimony, or that any of these
seven is not truly and properly a sacra-
ment, let him be anathema."

Ninthly, we say, " Transubstantiation
is repugnant to the Scripture, and over-
throweth the nature of a sacrament."
(Art. XXVIII.) But they, " But because
Christ our Redeemer said, that that which
he offered under the shape of bread was
truly his -body, therefore it was always
believed in the Church of God ; and, last
of all, this holy synod doth noAv declare it,
that, by the consecration of bread and
wine is made the changing of the whole
substance of the bread into the substance
of the body of Christ our Lord, and of
the whole substance of wine into the sub-
stance of his blood ; which change is fitly
and properly called, by the holy Catholic
Church, transubstantiation."

Tenthly, we say, " The sacrament of our
Lord's supper is not to be worshipped.'*
(Art. XXVIII.) But they,_ "There is
therefore no place of doubting left, but
that all the faithful of Christ, according
to the custom always received in the Ca-
tholic Church, should give to this most
holy sacrament, in the adoration of it, that
Avorship of service which is due to the
true God."

Eleventhly, we say, " The cup of the
Lord is not to be denied to the lay-peo-
ple." (Art. XXX.) But they, " If any
one say, that, from the command of God



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.



393



and the necessity of salvation, all and
every believer in Christ ought to receive
both kinds of the most holy sacrament of
the eucharist, let him be anathema."

Twelfthly, we say, " The sacrifices of
the mass are blasphemous fables and dan-
gerous deceits." (Art. XXXI.) But they,
" If any one say that in the mass there is
not a true and proper sacrifice oft'cred to
God, or that to be oft'cred is nothing else
but for Christ to be given to us to eat, let
him be anathema."

There are many other things wherein
the doctrine established by tlie Church of
Rome contra dicteth ours ; but these may
be enough to show both the falseness of
the calumny that ignorant people put
upon our Church of England, as if it Mas
returning to Popery, whereas the doctrine
established by our Church doth, in so
many and plain terms, contradict the
established doctrine of theirs ; and also it
shows the truth of this part of our doctrine,
that some i)art of theirs is false. For
seeing whatsoever is here set down as the
doctrine of our Church, is grounded upon
Scripture, consented to by reason, and de-
livered by the Fathers, it cannot but be
true doctrine ; and seeing theirs do so fre-
quently contradict ours, it cannot but in
such things that are so contradictory to
ours be false doctrine. And therefore we
may Avell conclude, that even the Church
of Rome too hath erred, yea, in mat-
ters of faith, and that if she denies it, she
must add that to the rest of her errors. —
JBeveridf/e.

Concerning the pretended infallibility
of the Church of Rome, the celebrated Bi-
shop Bull observes, " We Protestants pro-
fess and prove, by most evident arguments,
that the Church of Rome hath in sundry
points erred, and is guilty of innovation.
The patrons of that Church, not able to
answer those arguments of ours, tell us
this cannot be ; that the Church of Rome
is infallible, and cannot possibly be guilty
of such innovation. Is not this an ad-
mirable way of reasoning and disputation?
Can the Romanists produce arguments to
prove that their Church cannot err, so
clear and evident as these alleged by us to
demonstrate that she hath erred ? Surely
no. To make this plain, if I can be in-
fallibly certain that my senses, rightly
disposed, and all due requisites to sensation
supposed, are infallible, and cannot be
deceived about their proper objects (and if
I cannot be assured of this, the apostles had
no infallible assurance of that which is the
foundation of the Christian faitli, the resur-
rection of Christ, which was evidenced to



them by their testimony of sense, and that
testimony i)ronounced infallible, Acts i. 3 ;
1 John i. 1, 2); then I may be infallibly
certain that the Church of Rome is not in-
fallible, yea, that she hath grossly erred in
her doctrine of transubstantiation, teaching
the bread and wine, after the words of
consecration, to be turned into the very
flesh and blood of Christ, which yet all
my senses assure me to remain still the
same in nature and substance, that is,
bread and wine. If I can be infallibly
certain that Christ himself is infallible,
that he would not, could not, ai)i)oint an
institution that should be dangerous and
scandalous to his Church, viz. of receiving
the holy eucharist in both kinds ; if I can
be infallibly certain that the whole Church
of Christ, that was under the guidance
and direction of the apostles, were not
grossly deceived, and engaged by the
apostles themselves in a practice dangerous
and scandalous (and of this I may be as
infallibly sure as I am of the truth of the
gospel itself) ; then I may be infallibly
certain that the Church of Rome not only
may err, but hath grossly erred in that
determination of hers, whereby she rejects
(in the Council of Constance) communion
in both kinds, as a dangerous and scan-
dalous practice. And in the same manner
we might proceed to show the falsehood of
divers other determinations of the Church
of Rome, if this paper would pemiit ; but
these are sufficient to any person that
shall consult his serious reason. Indeed,
I look upon it as a wonderful both just
and wise providence of God, that he
hath suffered the Church of Rome to fall
into such gross errors, (which otherwise it
is scarce imaginable how men in their
Avits, that had not renounced not only the
Scriptures, but their reason, yea, and
their senses too, could be overtaken with,)
and to determine them for articles of faith.
For hereby a person of the meanest ca-
pacity (so he be sincere, and not under the
prejudice of education) may evidently dis-
cern with what a strange kind of im})u-
dence that Church arrogates to herself an
infallibility in all her determinations. And
for such of our Church that have been
informed of these things, and yet shall
leave our communion, and follow the
guidance of that Church ujjon the account
of her infallibility, I fear they are in the
numl)er of those miserable persons de-
scribed by the apostle, (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12,)
M'ho are given up to strong delusion, that
they may believe a lie, Ace. That which
foUoMs in the text I dread to mention ;
God avert it from them !"



394



INFANT BArTISM.



INQUISITION.



INFANT BAPTISM. (See Baptism,
Infant.)

INFIRMAIIIAN. An officer in a mon-
astery, who had the care of the sick and
infirm. A dignitary in Nice cathedral
•was so called. — Jehb.

INFINITY. An attribute of God. The
idea of injinity or immensity is so closely
connected with that of self-existence, that,
because it is impossible but something
must be infinite, independently and of it-
self, therefore it must of necessity be self-
existent : and because something must of
necessity be self-existent, therefore it is
necessary that it must likewise be infinite.
A necessarily existent being must be every-
ichere as well as aiirays unalterably the
same. For a necessity, which is not every-
where the same, is plainly a consequential
necessity only, depending upon som.e ex-
ternal cause. WhateA-er therefore exists
by an absolute necessity in its own nature,
must needs be infinite, as well as eternal.
To suppose a finite being to be self-exist-
ent, is to say, that it is a contradiction for
that being not to exist, the absence of
which may yet be conceived without a
contradiction ; which is the greatest ab-
surdity in the world.

From hence it follows, that the infinity
of the self- existent Being must be an in-