{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52759/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52759","id":"gutenberg_52759","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52759","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Protestant authors","Popes -- Infallibility"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1850 Francis & John Rivington edition by David\nPrice, email ccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                      GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,\n                            ST. JOHN\u2019S SQUARE.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    AN\n                                  ESSAY\n                                    ON\n                           PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                             BY THE VENERABLE\n                            JOHN SINCLAIR M.A.\n                         ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX,\n                         AND VICAR OF KENSINGTON.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                        FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON,\n               ST. PAUL\u2019S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE.\n\n                                  1850.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.\n\n\n    \u201cHoly Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that\n    whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to\n    be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of\n    the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.\u201d\u2014_Sixth\n    Article of Religion_.\n\n    \u201cAs we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those\n    that are not written.\u201d\u2014_Jerome_. {1}\n\n    \u201cThe Spirit of God, therefore, is the only infallible judge here; and\n    has declared as plainly as any successive judges can, in those things\n    that are necessary to life and salvation, what is to be believed and\n    to be done; which if we believe and practise in particular, and do\n    also in general, and implicitly believe and stand in a readiness to\n    obey the rest of the Scripture, when the sense thereof appears to us,\n    we are in a safe condition, and need not doubt but it will go well\n    with us in the other state.\u201d\u2014_Works of Henry More_, pp. 453, 454.\n\nEVERY reflecting Christian, as soon almost as he is capable of\nreflection, must have continual occasion to observe with sorrow and\nanxiety the multiplied varieties of opinion that divide the Church of\nChrist, on every point or article of Christian faith; the confidence with\nwhich every sect lays claim exclusively to the possession of saving\nknowledge, and the unqualified severity with which each party reprobates\nthe other, as being implicated in unpardonable heresy.  On hearing (and\nwho can escape hearing?) the fulmination of these mutual anathemas, we\nnot only grieve for the state of dreadful peril in which, if we admit\nsuch principles, a large proportion of our neighbours, friends, and\nfellow Christians must be involved: but we grieve likewise on our own\naccount.  We are visited with doubts, misgivings, and apprehensions, lest\nwe ourselves, through ignorance or prejudice, should have adopted\nunawares into our creed some article containing deadly error; or should\nhave omitted something indispensable to salvation.\n\nIn this state of intellectual and spiritual perplexity, if we want the\nChristian industry and moral courage to work out for ourselves, by the\nhelp of God, this greatest of all problems, we are in a state of passive\nreadiness to receive counsel from the first adviser.  Among the multitude\nof counsellors who present themselves, none is more importunately\nobtrusive, or more dictatorially confident than the Romanist; and I\npropose, for the subject of this essay, to examine successively the\nremedies and expedients he suggests for calming our disquietude, and\nrestoring our religious peace.\n\nHe informs us that our state of mind is the necessary consequence of\nadhering to a Protestant communion; and that we never can obtain repose\nand satisfaction until we enter the Catholic Church\u2014until, with the other\nwandering sheep dispersed over the forbidden pastures of the earth, we\nreturn with humble penitence to the fold which we have left; until, in\nshort, we renounce all dependence on the conclusions of uncertain reason,\nand establish our Faith for ever upon the dictates of infallibility.\n\u201cThat there must,\u201d he adds, \u201cbe some where upon earth an infallible\nliving judge, an arbiter of religious controversy incapable of error, an\nauthority from whose decision on points of faith there can be no appeal,\nis a plain and obvious principle, which, on proper reflection, you will\nfind impossible to be rejected.  Not to insist on arguments from\nScripture, although sufficiently conclusive, and capable in themselves of\nproving that such an arbiter has been appointed, there are independent\nconsiderations in favour of infallibility which ought to satisfy every\nreasonable mind: for the wise Creator of man would never grant a\nrevelation to his creatures, and then leave them to the direction of\ntheir own erring judgment in ascertaining the truths revealed.  The\nbenevolent Creator of man must know that man is fallible; that he needs\nindispensably a conductor; and that without some infallible conductor the\nbenefits of revelation would be doubtful and precarious.  But if\ninfallibility exist at all in the Church, it must exist in the Papal\ncommunion, which alone makes the least pretension to the privilege.\nTherefore, only reconcile yourself to our infallibly directed Church, and\nyou will no longer find occasion for uneasiness.  You will be guided\nsafely through all the mazes of theological disputation.  Instead of\nbeing \u2018tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine\u2019\n{3a} on a shoreless ocean of uncertainty and error, you will repose with\ncomfort and unruffled calm in the quiet haven of infallibility.\u201d\n\nOn the promulgation of these assurances our disquietude would at once be\ntranquillized, if we could but persuade ourselves that the promise of\ninfallible direction, would be as certainly fulfilled, as it is\nconfidently made.  But here lies the difficulty.  The assertions of our\nRomish counsellor are bold, but the principle from which he argues is\nfallacious.  The assumed principle, that the human mind is capable of\nprejudging what conduct the Creator must pursue towards his creatures, or\nof pre-determining what benefits he must bestow, is incompatible with our\nnature, and irreconcilable with experience. {3b}  We may perhaps admit,\nthat if infallibility be found at all in the Church, it must be found in\nthat branch which alone pretends to the privilege: but are we warranted\nto conclude that God must have granted this extraordinary privilege,\nmerely because we think it likely, or proper, or desirable, that He\nshould grant it?  Can we safely infer, in any case, that God _must_ have\ndone what we think it right that He should do; and make this inference\nindependently of all proof, that He has actually done so?  Is it not\ndictatorial, and hazardous in the last degree, to determine by abstract\nreasonings, what line of conduct it would be proper for an all-perfect,\nand all-wise Being to adopt, till evidence appear that He has really\nadopted it?  We may indeed rest assured, in general, that God will do\nnothing arbitrary or irrational; but how often and how fatally should we\nbe misled, did we venture to predict that a certain course of Divine\naction is alone rational, benevolent, and just\u2014and, therefore, _must_\nhave been the course actually followed by the Almighty!  If we admit this\nmode of reasoning, and hazard speculations of this kind, we should\ncertainly think it reasonable, that if God created sensitive beings, He\nwould make infallible provision against every error or mistake, which\nmight render them liable to fall from a state of holiness into a state of\nguilt and misery.  We should think it further reasonable for Him to cause\nthose most essential truths of religion, his own existence and\nperfections, to rest on evidence infallible and demonstrative; so as to\npreclude all doubt or hesitation in the most sceptical inquirer.  Or, (to\nsuppose another case,) in disputed questions of political importance\namong nations, since war and bloodshed cannot otherwise be prevented, we\nshould think it reasonable for Him to appoint some great judge of\ninternational law, by whom all differences might infallibly be\ndetermined, and the blessings of tranquillity and peace secured to all\nthe kingdoms of the earth.\n\nBut God has not fulfilled these expectations, though to all appearance\nhighly reasonable.  He has left both men and angels to the freedom of\ntheir own wills; and has created them not only capable of abusing that\ngift of freedom, but of involving themselves in sin and wickedness, and\nin everlasting ruin.  He has afforded no infallible, no demonstrative\nevidence of his own existence and perfections; but has left mankind to\nascertain these fundamental truths from principles of abstract reason,\nand by reflections on the works of nature and of Providence.  He permits\ncontending nations to decide their quarrels by an appeal to arms: and\nnotwithstanding all the mischiefs consequent upon war, has not thought\nfit to make that effectual provision against this widely desolating\nsource of evil, which our human wisdom, if appealed to, would probably\nhave suggested; namely, the appointment of an unerring and authoritative\narbiter.  We are, therefore, not entitled to argue that God in his\nkingdom of grace must unquestionably have pursued a course, which, in his\nkingdom of Providence, He has not pursued; nor to maintain that to\nsilence all religious controversies, He must indispensably have had\nrecourse to an expedient which, in political disputes, He has neglected.\nWe are not entitled to infer, that He must necessarily have determined,\nby the authority of an infallible judge, the less essential truths of\nreligion; when He has left the fundamental truths of all, to be\ndetermined by our own erring reason.  We are not entitled to infer, that\nthe Creator of men must have made infallible provision against their\nfalling into heresy or \u201cbelieving a lie,\u201d and thus frustrating the means\nfor their restoration to a state of holiness and happiness; when He made\nno provision of that kind against their fall. {5}\n\nBut granting to our Romanist adviser that his representations were as\nsound as they are fallacious; still they could only lead us to a\nprobable, and never to an infallible conclusion.  The strength of the\nbuilding must be proportionate to the solidity of its foundation.  If our\nfaith in the supposed infallible arbiter is to be founded on the validity\nand force of the arguments and conjectures which have been stated; our\nfaith in the decisions of that arbiter cannot be greater than our faith\nin the arguments and conjectures which support his infallibility.  Since\nthese proofs, at the very utmost, are any thing but demonstrations, and\nare only probabilities, we cannot under any circumstances have more than\nprobability to guide us: and we therefore end as we began, and our\ndisquietude even on our admission of an unerring judge, remains exactly\nas before.  Our Romish advocate, however, is not discomfited.  He\nproceeds to affirm that the pretensions of his Church are supported by\nanalogy.  He reminds us that the Church of God, under the Jewish\ndispensation, was directed by an infallible human authority; and that the\nsame high privilege, being equally wanted, might be equally expected in\nthe Christian \u0153conomy.  He quotes for this purpose those magnificent\nassurances of God\u2019s peculiar favour and protection, to be found\nthroughout the books of Moses and of the prophets; and relies especially\non the remarkable rule established by the legislator of Israel to this\neffect: \u201cIf there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, thou\nshalt come unto the Priests, the Levites, and unto the Judge that shall\nbe in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of\njudgment.  And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken\nunto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die.\u201d {6}\n\nTo this argument from analogy we may reply, that the alleged fact on\nwhich the analogy depends, is unfounded.  The Jewish Church was not\ninfallible.  The evidence adduced to prove it so is totally inadequate;\nand unanswerable evidence may be brought forward to prove it otherwise.\nWith respect to the text in question, it has not the remotest connexion\nwith matters of faith: it relates entirely to matters of civil\ngovernment.  The introductory words of the passage, if quoted fairly, and\nat full length, must satisfy every reader, that they apply only to\nsecular litigation: that what is here enjoined by the Mosaic law is\nsubmission to the legal magistrate, not assent to any article of Faith:\nthat the contumacy here forbidden under penalty of death, was not heresy\nbut rebellion; not obstinate error, but obstinate disobedience.  \u201cIf\nthere arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, _between blood and\nblood_, _between plea and plea_, _and between stroke and stroke_, _&c._\u201d\n{7a}\u2014an evident reference this to civil litigation.\n\nBesides, however encouraging the language of the Jewish Scripture\nrespecting God\u2019s \u201ceverlasting kindness\u201d to his \u201cchosen people,\u201d we know\non the authority of their own historians, that they went continually\nwrong.  Even in the days of undoubted divine interposition we read that\n\u201cthe people corrupted themselves, and turned aside quickly out of the way\nwhich God commanded them.\u201d {7b}  \u201cAaron\u201d (their supposed infallible\nguide) \u201cmade a golden calf, and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel,\nwhich brought thee up out of the land of Egypt:\u201d again, we are informed\nconcerning Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, that \u201che took counsel, and made\ntwo calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up\nto Jerusalem, behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the\nland of Egypt.\u201d {7c}  Further, it is recorded of Elijah, that he\ncomplained of the Church of Israel, as if it had entirely apostatized and\ndisappeared from the earth.  He exclaims in his address to God, \u201cThe\nchildren of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars,\nand slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only am left.\u201d  We\nread of Ahab that he gathered his prophets together, about four hundred\nmen, and that there was only one individual, Micaiah, \u201ca prophet of the\nLord.\u201d {7d}  Jeremiah laments over his corrupt times, exclaiming, \u201cA\nwonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land: the Prophets\nprophesy falsely, and the Priests bear rule through their means; and my\npeople love to have it so.\u201d {7e}  Isaiah complains of the Jewish\npriesthood in his time, under the figurative name of \u201cwatchmen,\u201d that\nthey were \u201cblind,\u201d that they were all \u201cignorant shepherds that could not\nunderstand.\u201d {7f}  But finally, to omit many less remarkable instances of\nerror and apostasy, our blessed Saviour Himself was condemned by the\nJewish Church and crucified.  Since therefore the Jewish Church was not\ninfallible, the argument from analogy, whatever value our Romish friend\nmay attach to it, is all distinctly on our side.  If previous to the\nChristian \u00e6ra no unerring director was appointed, none may be appointed\nnow.\n\nThe next resource of our ingenious disputant is to affirm, that unless\nthe Church possessed infallibility we could have no certain nor\ninfallible belief of the Scriptures, for which his Church is our\nauthority.  To this sophism we can easily reply, by corresponding cases.\nThe copyists and librarians who have preserved to us the Greek and Latin\nclassics are not, on that account, infallible expositors of classical\nantiquity.  Supposing, therefore, that we are exclusively indebted to\nRomanism for transmitting to us the sacred oracles, it does not follow\nthat Romanists interpret them infallibly.  It happens also,\n(unfortunately for Romanist pretensions,) that we are not indebted to any\nlocal tradition, such as that of the Church of Rome, for the preservation\nof the canonical books of Scripture; but to the universal tradition of\nChristendom.  Perhaps we are more under obligation to the Greek than to\nthe Latin Church; both because the writings of the New Testament were\noriginally in Greek, and because the chief authorities to prove their\ngenuineness and authenticity, as well as the earliest enumerations of\nthem are not Romish, but oriental productions. {8}\n\nIt thus appears that infallibility is not demonstrable by abstract\nreasonings and analogies, but must be proved, if it be proved at all, by\ndirect evidence.  To evidence of this latter description we readily give\nattention, and request our Romanist to inform us what he has to offer in\nthe shape of an explicit promise from God to support the claims of the\nRomish Church.  At the same time we give him warning, that before he can\nsatisfy our minds, he must lay before us full and categorical information\non the following particulars: namely,\n\n1.  By what organ the infallible oracles of Rome are delivered.\n\n2.  By what evidence the claim to infallibility, as existing in that\norgan, is established; and\n\n3.  On what security we can rely, that our own fallible reason will not\nmistake nor misconceive the doctrine propounded for our belief.\n\nOur desire of satisfaction on these points is not expressed in any\ncaptious spirit, but is suggested by the necessity of the case.  For if\nwe cannot infallibly discover in what person or persons infallibility\nresides; if the Romanist cannot prove to us by infallible arguments, that\ninfallibility belongs to the person or persons for whom he claims it; and\nif further, we cannot obtain from our instructor in Romanism some\ninfallible security that we shall understand the doctrines proposed to\nus: it plainly follows that the infallibility he so pertinaciously\ninsists upon, must be to us a matter of indifference, attended with no\none practical result.  Our doubts and perplexities will continue\nunresolved, and we shall be compelled to seek some other guide to the\npeace and certainty we so anxiously desiderate.\n\nBut unhappily in all these respects the promises of our Romish advocate,\nthe more they are examined, appear the more unstable and unsafe.  For\nfirst of all, when we inquire by what _organ_ the infallible oracles are\npromulgated; he is obliged to acknowledge, that this important point has\nbeen for ages a subject of much dispute, and a question very far from\nbeing yet infallibly determined.  Various are the conflicting\nauthorities, the whole of which it would be needless, or perhaps\nimpossible to enumerate. {9}  Some learned Romanists are of opinion that\ninfallibility is lodged in the Roman Pontiff, as successor to St. Peter:\nothers of equal learning are inclined to place it in a general Council: a\nthird party, not conceiving that a Pope or Council singly is infallible,\nascribe infallibility to both in conjunction: and fourthly, there are not\nwanting numerous and learned authorities who insist that even the decrees\nof a general Council, ratified by the Pope, are not to be accounted\ninfallible, until they have been received by the Church Universal.\n\nThis explanation is very far from satisfactory: for we thus perceive,\n(according to the avowal of Romanists themselves,) our liability to\ncontinual mistakes and misapprehensions respecting the real quarter where\ninfallible direction can be found.  If we take a Pope or Council singly\nfor our guide, we have no security for avoiding deadly heresy; for a Pope\nor Council singly may be heretical.  On the other hand, if we study to\navoid this danger by attaching our faith exclusively to a Pope and\nCouncil in conjunction, (that is, to the decree of a general Council\nratified by Papal sanction,) we fall into another danger, and may reject\nor omit some necessary doctrine, to which a Pope or Council singly has\naffixed the seal of infallibility.\n\nThis admitted uncertainty as to the quarter of the earth towards which we\nare to look for infallible guidance, is a ground of fair presumption,\nperhaps even of demonstration, that infallibility is in no quarter to be\nfound.  For the very object of infallibility is the removal of all doubt;\nbut doubt can never be removed while the question, who is the remover of\nit, remains unfixed, and impossible to be decided.  To receive assurances\nthe most positive and solemn, that all our doubts shall be resolved; and\nyet to be told that the authority for resolving them is doubtful, is to\nuse a cruel mode of trifling with our simplicity.  For it has been long\nand painfully remarked, as the reproach of Romanists, that, on their\nprinciples, the greatest controversy among Christians is, how to fix the\norgan by which, or by whom, controversies shall be unerringly determined.\n{10}\n\nFinding ourselves disappointed that this great question, in what place\nthe infallible oracle resides, remains still in agitation, we next\nentreat our Papal adviser to explain the grounds on which the several\nparties he has mentioned claim the lofty privilege ascribed to them.  And\nsince a living judge, sitting constantly in one spot, and therefore\nalways ready to be consulted, is incomparably more desirable as the organ\nof unerring truth, than an assembly of divines, whom it is often\ndifficult to call together; we are all attention, waiting eagerly to hear\nin the first place the claims of the Roman Pontiff, and to receive, if\npossible, such clear and convincing arguments for Pontifical\ninfallibility, that henceforward we shall be able to rely upon it with\ninfallible assurance.\n\nIn compliance with this request, our Papal guide adduces what he\nconsiders evidence from Scripture, and rests the Papal cause upon the\nfollowing declarations of our Lord.  First, \u201cThou art Peter, and upon\nthis rock I will build my church;\u201d secondly, \u201cI will give unto thee the\nkeys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth\nshall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall\nbe loosed in heaven;\u201d thirdly, \u201cI have prayed that thy faith fail not;\u201d\nand lastly, \u201cFeed my sheep.\u201d {11}\n\nWhen we learn that these quotations are brought forward as sufficient\ngrounds for establishing an infallible assurance of Papal infallibility,\nour first impression is of surprise: and our surprise increases into\namazement, the more we try to follow our guide, and to rest an infallible\nassurance upon reasons so uncertain and precarious.  There is throughout\nthe texts quoted, no mention of the Roman Pontiff whatever, nor any\ndistinct allusion to the subject of infallibility.  It therefore seems\nextremely difficult to comprehend how any reasoning man should thence\ninfer that the Pontiff is infallible.  But here we are next given to\nunderstand that his Holiness, as successor to St. Peter, inherits all the\nprivileges of St. Peter; and that what our Saviour promised to that\nApostle was not promised to him personally, but to his successors in all\nages.  Yet, on examining the authorities again, we find no warrant for\nthe conclusion asserted.  There is nothing to assure us infallibly,\nnothing which would even lead us to suspect that our Lord looked further\nthan to the Apostle himself, or conferred upon him any privilege not\nshared in common with his brethren.  Our Saviour\u2019s prayer that the faith\nof Peter might not fail, and his subsequent restoration of him to the\nApostolic office by the thrice repeated charge of \u201cFeed my sheep,\u201d have\nobvious reference to the character and conduct of that disciple\u2014at one\ntime an apostate, afterwards an accepted penitent.  They can relate to no\nother person, and to no other circumstances.  And \u201cit is absurd,\u201d as\nBishop Stillingfleet observes, \u201cto infer an impossibility in the Pope of\nfalling, from a promise to St. Peter of recovery\u201d and restoration. {12a}\nAgain, the promise, \u201cwhatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound\nin heaven,\u201d {12b} conveys no peculiar advantage or pre-eminence to St.\nPeter; for the very same power is conveyed afterwards by our Lord Himself\nto the whole number of the Apostles.  \u201cReceive ye the Holy Ghost: whose\nsoever sins _ye_ remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever\nsins _ye_ retain, they are retained.\u201d {12c}  In respect to the privilege\nwith which that promise is introduced, \u201cI give unto thee the keys of the\nkingdom of heaven,\u201d if these words really have any meaning distinct from\nthe power already mentioned of binding and loosing, they refer\nprophetically to St. Peter, as the person by whose instrumentality the\ngates of the Church would be opened to mankind.  And accordingly with one\nkey the Apostle, on the day of Pentecost, opened the gate of the Church\nto the believing Jews and proselytes, when by the sermon which he\npreached at Jerusalem he converted about three thousand souls; and with\nthe other key he afterwards opened the gate of the Church to Cornelius\nand his friends, who were the first Gentile converts. {13a}\n\nThe declaration, \u201cThou art Peter, and upon this rock {13b} I will build\nmy church,\u201d is a text of very ambiguous meaning, and cannot therefore be\nthe ground of infallible assurance.  We have no means of clearly\nascertaining whether our Lord refers to the person of St. Peter as a\nfoundation for the Church, or to the confession of St. Peter made in the\npreceding verse.  \u201cThou art the Christ the Son of the living God.\u201d  A\nlarge proportion of the fathers, including Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret,\nTheophylact, and Augustin, {13c} understood our Saviour\u2019s declaration as\nreferring solely to the confession of Faith made so distinctly and so\nzealously by the Apostle.  The text itself seems evidently to require the\ninterpretation.  To speak strictly, Christ Himself is the sole foundation\nof the Christian Church; and an Apostle could only be so in a secondary\nsense.  In this secondary sense, however, the Church is not founded upon\nSt. Peter only in particular, but on the Apostolic college in general; as\nSt. Paul more than once affirmed.  \u201cYe are built,\u201d he says to the\nEphesians, \u201cupon the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being\nthe chief corner stone.\u201d {13d}  \u201cOther foundation,\u201d he says to the\nCorinthians, \u201ccan no man lay.\u201d {13e}  And again, addressing the Church of\nCorinth, (when the same inspired writer reckons up the different\ngradations of Christian ministers,) he does not mention St. Peter first,\nas nearer the foundation than any other member of the Apostolic college;\nbut speaks of the whole body in the following general terms; \u201cGod hath\nset some in his Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly\nteachers.\u201d {13f}  The Revelations of St. John describe in like manner the\nwall of the holy city, as having \u201ctwelve foundations, and in them the\nnames of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.\u201d {14a}\n\nThere is not a vestige therefore of scriptural evidence, much less an\ninfallible demonstration, that the successors of St. Peter, whoever they\nmay be, are possessed of infallibility.  And supposing his successors to\nbe infallible, there is not the slightest scriptural ground for believing\nthat his successors are the Bishops of Rome.  On this point, so vitally\nessential to the Papal cause, the sacred writings are wholly silent.\nThey indeed inform us that this Apostle preached at Jerusalem, at\nC\u00e6sarea, at Joppa, and at Antioch, but they no where even intimate that\nhe ever was at Rome: still less therefore can we expect them to affirm\nthat he was local Bishop of that See; and least of all, that the Roman\nBishops (in preference to the Bishops in other churches of which he was\nthe founder,) were heirs of his peculiar privileges; and along with other\nApostolic privileges, inherited infallibility, while they lost the gifts\nof miracles and of tongues. {14b}\n\nThe absence of proofs from Scripture in favour of the Papal claims, is by\nno means compensated by a plenitude of evidence from antiquity.  In\nancient times the pretension to infallibility, instead of being\nuniversally acknowledged, was not even alleged.  It was never so much as\nmentioned.  Churches and Fathers, in the primitive age, on occasions of\ntheir dissenting from the Roman Pontiff, so far from yielding reverently\nand implicitly to his opinions, openly contested them like those of any\nother bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch.  Nay, they even sometimes\nexcommunicated their infallible superior. {14c}  The Roman Pontiff, on\nthe other hand, so far from crushing opposition by the verdict of\ninfallibility, endeavoured always to support his doctrine by the\nauthority of Scripture, of reason, or of antiquity.  When appeals were\nmade to him by disputants in a later age, it was never stated or imagined\nto be their ground of selecting him as their arbiter, that his decision\nwould be infallible; but only that he merited such a tribute of respect,\neither in consideration of his private character, as a wise, just, and\nholy individual, or by virtue of his official rank as bishop of the\nimperial city. {15a}\n\nWhen Byzantium was raised to the same imperial eminence, by the name of\nConstantinople, or New Rome, the Byzantine Patriarch was declared by the\nsecond general council held A.D. 381, to be of equal dignity with his\nRoman brother.  Precedence only, or nominal priority, was reserved to the\nepiscopate of the more ancient capital.  This reservation was confirmed\nA.D. 451, by the fourth general council held at Chalcedon; in the decrees\nof which the reason given for this nominal priority of Old over New Rome\nis merely political, and has nothing to do with spiritual concerns.  \u201cThe\nFathers,\u201d say the members of this later council (referring to their\npredecessors), \u201chave justly assigned the eldership to the seat of elder\nRome\u2014on account of the kingly or imperial authority of that city (_\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd_), and they have assigned equal privileges\n(_\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1_) to New Rome, rationally judging that the city which\nwas honoured by the imperial power and by the residence of the Senate,\nand which enjoyed equal privileges with Royal Rome, its elder sister,\nshould, like her, be exalted in ecclesiastical rank.\u201d (_\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2_.) {15b}\n\nThat the Roman Bishops were never allowed to arrogate infallibility by\nthe ancient Church is further evident from the fact, that they were not\nallowed even to claim supreme jurisdiction.  The Patriarch of Rome had no\necclesiastical authority beyond certain provinces and churches termed\nsuburbicary (_ecclesi\u00e6 suburbicari\u00e6_), including, at the most, certain\ndistricts of Italy, together with the adjacent islands. {16a}  The other\nfour Patriarchs (of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem,)\nwere entirely independent of their Roman colleague, and of each other.\nWhen John, Patriarch of Constantinople, towards the close of the sixth\ncentury, put forth a claim to supreme and universal rule in the Church,\nencouraged in this insolent pretension by the residence of the emperor\nwithin the limits of his See\u2014the Popes of that period, Pelagius and\nGregory the Great, resisted with great energy his pretensions; not\nhowever as interfering with their own supremacy, but as being in\nthemselves presumptuous and anti-Christian.  \u201cPay no attention,\u201d says\nPelagius, \u201cto the power which he unlawfully usurps under the name of\nuniversality.  Let no patriarch ever apply to himself so profane a title.\nYou may foresee, my dearest brethren, the mischievous consequences from\nsuch beginnings of perverseness among the priesthood.  For he\n(_antichrist_) is near, of whom it is written that he maketh himself king\nover all the sons of pride.\u201d {16b}  \u201cNo one of my predecessors,\u201d says\nGregory the successor of Pelagius, \u201cever thought of using so profane an\nappellation; for if one Patriarch assumes the title of universal, it is\nlost to all the others.  But far, very far be it from the mind of a\nChristian, to grasp at any thing by which he may appear in any the\nslightest measure to derogate from the honour of his brethren.\u201d {17a}  In\nanother passage he thus energetically addresses his overbearing fellow\npatriarch; \u201cWhat wilt thou say to Christ, the Head of the Universal\nChurch, in the trial of the last judgment, who, by the appellation of\nUniversal, dost endeavour to subject all his members to thyself?  Whom, I\npray, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but Him, who,\ndespising the legions of angels, constituted in fellowship with Him,\nendeavoured to break forth unto the height of singularity, that He might\nboth be subject to none, and alone be over all?  Who also said, \u2018I will\nascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars.\u2019\u2014For what\nare thy brethren, all the Bishops of the Universal Church, but the stars\nof heaven, to whom, while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer\nthyself, and to trample on their name in comparison with thyself; what\ndost thou say, but I will climb into heaven?\u201d  In other places he brands\nthe titles which John had assumed, as \u201cpompous,\u201d \u201cfoolish,\u201d \u201cproud,\u201d\n\u201cperverse,\u201d \u201cwicked,\u201d and \u201cprofane:\u201d as names of \u201csingularity,\u201d\n\u201celation,\u201d \u201cvanity,\u201d and \u201cblasphemy.\u201d  He insists that there was \u201cone\nsole Head of the Church, viz. Christ,\u201d and sums up all with this strong\nprophetic denunciation: \u201cI may confidently declare, that whenever any man\nstyles himself, or desires to be styled, universal priest, such a man, by\nso exalting himself, becomes forerunner of antichrist, because by pride\nhe sets himself above his brethren.\u201d {17b}\n\nThe attempts which have been made to reconcile the indignant language of\nPelagius and Gregory, with the usurped prerogatives of their successors,\nby ingeniously exaggerating the pretensions of the Eastern Patriarch, are\nutterly ineffectual.  Indeed, if evidence were required to prove that the\nassumptions of the Papacy in the present day are not inferior to those of\nthe Patriarch of the East, we need not go farther in quest of such\nevidence than the Papal Brief of September last.  For we do not read that\nJohn of Constantinople ever ventured of his own will and pleasure to\nextinguish two ancient archiepiscopal sees, together with the whole\ndiocesan Episcopate of both provinces.  We do not read that John ever had\nthe hardihood to abolish all the Constitutions and Canons, however\nancient, of an independent National Church, and to substitute for them\nthe _jus commune_, or common law of Constantinople.  We do not read that\nJohn ever presumed to grant territorial designations, and titles of\nhonour, to his own nominees, contrary to the civil constitution of a\npowerful and independent kingdom, within which those titles and dignities\nwere to be assumed.  On the contrary, we know that John, so far from\nperpetrating aggressions on the prerogatives of foreign sovereigns, was\nentirely subordinate to the civil power of his own country, and depended\nsolely on the favour and authority of the emperor for the support of his\nassumptions.  And yet Pius the IXth ventures to do what John of\nConstantinople never even attempted; and has shut his eyes to the fact\nthat he has thereby exposed himself to the anathemas of his infallible\npredecessors.  Strong language has been used, (on some occasions too\nstrong,) by a justly indignant people in reprobation of his presumption;\nbut however strong that language may be, it has not as yet approached the\nacrimony of the expressions used by Pelagius and Gregory the Great on far\ninferior provocation.\n\nWe have seen that Scripture and antiquity are utterly irreconcilable with\nthe pretensions of the Papal chair.  We may now adduce the moral\ncharacter of the Pontiffs themselves, as a fair ground of presumption\nthat they have not the privilege of infallibility.  If indeed we could be\nsatisfied from history that they had all, or most of them, in long\nsuccession, been pious and holy and exemplary men, in a degree beyond the\nordinary standard of Christian excellence; that they had been rich in\nfaith and in good works; that they had been exalted models of\ndisinterested beneficence, of real purity, and almost ascetic moderation;\nmen whose affections were fixed unquestionably upon the glory and\nfelicity of the heavenly state, to the exclusion of all concern for mere\nearthly interests, and the little vanities of secular ambition:\u2014we might\nhave been disposed to scrutinize with less distrust the claims of such\ntruly virtuous and estimable Christian pastors.  But since the Papal\ncharacter has been acknowledged even by the ablest advocates of the\nPapacy, to have been in general the very opposite of what we have been\ndescribing, we have a strong presumptive argument that such men were not\ninfallible. {19}\n\nOther strong objections to Pontifical infallibility arise from the want\nof any certain rule for determining the validity of elections to the\npopedom, and for issuing the infallible decrees.  Before these decrees\ncan be infallibly relied upon, the following particulars must be\ninfallibly ascertained: who are the persons divinely entitled to give a\nvote in the choice of a Pontiff? and how do those persons establish their\nDivine title?  What proportion of the voters are required by Divine\nauthority to be present, and what majority of numbers must decide?  How\nfar shall simony, or fraud, or force, vitiate the election?  In case of\ntwo elections, how shall we infallibly distinguish between the claims of\nrival Pontiffs? between the real Pope, whom, under the penalty of\ncondemnation, we are bound to obey, and the anti-pope, whom, under the\nsame high penalty, we must abjure?  When schisms rend the Church (and not\nless than twenty-six have rent the Church of Rome), how shall we discern\nthe true communion from the schismatical?  And since the Pope is supposed\ninfallible only in his official, not in his personal capacity, how shall\nwe decide infallibly when he speaks as an ordinary individual, and when\nas the successor of St. Peter? in other words, what solemnities exactly\nare requisite to be observed, for constituting a judgment _ex cathedr\u00e2_\nfrom the Apostolic chair? what councillors must be summoned? what mode of\npromulgation must be adopted? {20a}  Such are some of the questions which\nevery candid Romanist must be desirous to hear definitely answered, and\nwhich consequently must present themselves with much greater force to\nevery Protestant mind.  When a privilege so important as infallibility is\nunderstood to be granted, all the circumstances necessary for our\ndirection in receiving and submitting to it, require to be distinctly and\nindisputably revealed to us.  Unless these circumstances are fixed by the\nsame authority that is supposed to make the grant, namely, by Christ\nHimself, we are as far removed from infallibility as ever; and in\ndeciding these essential and fundamental particulars, we are left to mere\nargument and conjecture. {20b}\n\nTo disprove Papal infallibility much more will scarcely be expected by\nour readers; but we will add one concluding observation on the\nerroneousness and inconsistency of the supposed infallible decrees.  If\nPopes really were infallible, their doctrine would never vary, but would\nremain, from age to age, unalterably the same: the judgment of one Pope\nwould never differ, on the same subjects, from the judgment of another;\nand least of all would it be credible that any Pope should be convicted\nof heresy.  We know, however, from unquestionable documents of history\nthat this was not the case.  Two Popes in the second century (Eleutherius\nand Victor) were encouragers of the heretical fanaticism of Montanus.\n{21a}  Another Pope (Stephen) of the third century was heretical on the\nsubject of baptism: {21b} Pope Liberius condemned Athanasius, and\nsubscribed his name to the semi-Arian heresy: Pope Honorius was by a\ngeneral council condemned as a Monothelite. {21c}  And (not to multiply\nparticular examples) we may remark, once for all, that a long line of\nPopes promulgated, _ex cathedr\u00e2_, a doctrine which, in the present age,\nis abandoned by Rome itself, and is rejected universally as impious and\nextravagant; the doctrine, namely, that the Roman See is vested with the\nDivine right of temporal jurisdiction over all the kingdoms of the earth;\nand that the Pontiff, as Vicar of Jesus Christ, and delegate of Him who\nis King of kings and Lord of lords, may call civil magistrates to\naccount, and may depose kings and emperors, on the charge of heretical\ndepravity. {21d}\n\nTo these various objections against the doctrine of Pontifical\ninfallibility, our defender of the Roman Faith replies by a ready\nacknowledgment that the great majority of Romanists themselves are of our\nopinion: that much abler arguments have been urged by them than by\nProtestants against this pretension of the Pope: {22a} that by them\ninfallibility is ascribed not to the Roman Pontiff, who \u201cis liable to\nerr, and who frequently has erred;\u201d but to a general Council,\nrepresenting the whole Church of Christ, and combining all its collective\nwisdom.  On our inquiry by what Scriptural evidence infallibility is\nproved to lodge in a representative assembly thus constituted, we are\ndesired to read the following texts:\u2014\n\n\u201cThou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates\nof hell shall not prevail against it.\u201d {22b}\n\n\u201cIf he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man\nand a publican.\u201d {22c}\n\n\u201cLo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.\u201d {22d}\n\n\u201cI will pray the Father; and he shall give you another Comforter, that he\nmay abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth.\u201d {22e}\n\n\u201cFor it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no\ngreater burden than these necessary things.\u201d {22f}\n\n\u201cThese things write I unto thee; that thou mayest know how thou oughtest\nto behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living\nGod, the pillar and ground of the truth.\u201d {22g}\n\nOur endeavours to extract out of these texts infallibility for the Romish\nChurch are as much in vain as in the preceding inquiry for supporting the\nPapal claims.  A general council seems to have as little warrant from\nHoly Scripture to assure us that it is infallible, as the Roman Pontiff\nhimself.  The first quotation refers to the perpetual _continuance_ of\nthe Christian society.  Christ assures us that, to the end of time, the\ngates of hell shall not prevail against his Universal Church; or, in\nother words, that a community called by his name, and retaining the\nessentials of Christianity, will never cease to be.  But this consolatory\npromise gives us no security that any one particular Church, or any\nmeeting of Church officers, shall be infallible.  On this subject we\ncannot forbear transcribing the judicious comment of a learned Romanist,\nTostatus of Avila, who flourished in the fifteenth century: \u201cThe\nuniversal or Catholic Church never errs, because it never errs in all its\nbranches.  The Church of Rome (_ecclesia latinorum_) is not the Catholic\nChurch, but only a certain branch of it; and, therefore, although the\nwhole of that branch should have erred, the whole Church could not be\nsaid to err.  Because the genuine Catholic Church remains in the unerring\nbranches, whether they be more or fewer than the branches which err.\u201d\n{23}\n\nAgain, the injunction of our Lord to \u201ctell the Church,\u201d if taken apart\nfrom, and not in connexion with the preceding context, might seem to have\nsome distant bearing upon this question.  But on examining the whole\npassage, we perceive that our Saviour makes allusion to secular, not to\nspiritual concerns; and is speaking only of private differences among his\nfollowers.  \u201cIf thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him\nhis fault between thee and him alone.\u201d  Three successive steps are next\nrecommended for effecting an accommodation: first a private interview;\nthen the influence of mutual friends; and lastly, the authority of the\nChurch to which the parties belong.  The contumacious wrong-doer who\ncould not by these methods be brought to reason, was no longer to be\nregarded as a Christian brother, but as a heathen.  He was liable to\nexcommunication, or expulsion from the society; and reparation of the\ninjury committed might now be sought for in a court of law.  We do not\nfind in these directions the remotest allusion to infallibility.\n\nThe encouraging promise; \u201cLo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of\nthe world,\u201d is not a grant of infallibility, but a promise of assistance,\nprotection, and consolation; and was indispensably required, when our\nLord delegated to his Apostles the perilous labour of propagating the\nGospel in opposition to all the rulers of this world, sending them forth\n\u201cas sheep among wolves.\u201d {24a}\n\nHis promise that the \u201cSpirit of truth\u201d should \u201cguide them into all\ntruth,\u201d relates entirely to the extraordinary gifts with which they were\nendowed, and is immediately connected with another promise, confessedly\npeculiar to the Apostolic age.  \u201cHe\u201d (the Holy Ghost) \u201cshall show you\nthings to come.\u201d\n\nThe words, \u201cIt seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,\u201d in the decree of\nthe first council at Jerusalem, have left no precedent for other councils\nto use the same language; unless on separate evidence it can be shown\nthat those councils have the same authority of inspiration.\n\nThe position therefore, that general councils, as representing the Church\nof Christ, are infallible, labours under a total want of Scripture\nEvidence.  There is not a single precept given for assembling them; not\none solitary rule for determining their proceedings.  As the learned\nAlbert Pighius, an advocate of pontifical infallibility, very justly\nargues: \u201cThere is not a word about general councils in the canonical\nbooks of Scripture; nor did the primitive Church of Christ receive by\nApostolical institution any special direction respecting them.\u201d {24b}\nThis able writer represents the practice of summoning a general council\nin cases of ecclesiastical emergency, to be an expedient piously\nintroduced by the Emperor Constantine for the purpose of composing the\ndissensions of the Church.  But the same author insinuates a charge of\ngreat ignorance against the Emperor and his council, who in adopting this\ncourse, appeared not to know that the privilege of infallibility belonged\nto the Papal chair, and that Rome was the proper Delphos where he might\nreceive the infallible oracles.  This imperial ignorance is a remarkable\nadmission by the advocate of the Papacy in his zeal against general\ncouncils.  He succeeds in demolishing the latter; but acknowledges at the\nsame time a fact which is fatal to the former.  For if Constantine and\nthe Bishops of his court were ignorant of the papal pretensions, it must\nbe obvious that such pretensions either could not have been put forth at\nall, or could not at that time have been generally recognized.\n\nBut if the Scripture, instead of being totally silent on the subject, had\nplainly and categorically declared, that general councils are infallible,\nwe should only be involved in fresh perplexities: for the question would\nimmediately arise, _what is a general council_?  How do we know a\nspurious from a genuine council?  Councils have been assembled by\nopposite parties on purpose to give opposite decrees; and how shall we\ndistinguish the fallible and heretical, from the orthodox and infallible\nassembly?  This vital question cannot be determined by the numbers\npresent, or the portion of the Christian world represented by them.  The\northodox Athanasius was condemned successively by councils representing\nthe Eastern and the Western Church.  Various councils condemned by the\nChurch of Rome for heresy, were as numerously and respectably attended,\nas more orthodox conventions.  The Council of Milan consisted of 300\nBishops.  At Ariminum not less than 400 Bishops were assembled.  The\nCouncil of Ephesus included 10 Metropolitans and 130 Bishops.  The\nCouncil of Constantinople included 338 Bishops.  And when the rival\nCouncils of Sardica and Philippopolis fulminated mutual anathemas, the\nlatter, which was heretical, consisted of 94 Bishops, while their\northodox opponents amounted only to 76.  As most of these councils were\nconvened by imperial authority; represented large portions of\nChristendom; and included men of the greatest learning and ability, there\nseems nothing to distinguish them from other synods, which are\nacknowledged to be general and infallible\u2014nothing, if we except the\nsanction of the Roman Pontiff.\n\nHere we are informed by our pertinacious disputant, that the papal\nsanction is commonly regarded in the Church of Rome, as the essential\ndistinction between a mere provincial synod, and a general council; that\nthe decrees of an alleged general council, not ratified by the Pope, are\nnot infallible; while the decrees of any council, after that\nratification, must be looked upon as infallibly determined.\n\nBut our ingenuity must again be exercised in finding our way through this\nlabyrinth: for, first of all, no Scriptural reason can be found, or is\neven pretended, for the limitation of infallibility to councils of the\ndescription mentioned.  The authority, therefore, exists only in the\nwell-stored imagination of our Romish friend. {26}  And in addition, we\nare perplexed to ascertain how two authorities, separately fallible,\nshould become infallible by their conjunction.  The council is fallible.\nThe Pope is fallible.  But unite these two fallibles, and you give them\ninfallibility.  If it be asked, Is the council liable to err which passes\nthe decree?\u2014Certainly, is the answer: for otherwise the council would,\nwithout the Pope, be all-sufficient.  If it be further demanded, Is the\nPope, also liable to err who confirms the decree?\u2014Certainly, is again the\nanswer: for he would otherwise be all-sufficient without the council.\nThis is a strange dilemma: we must believe the decree to be infallibly\ndetermined, and yet must neither ascribe infallibility to the council\nwhich passes it, nor to the Pope who confirms it.\n\nAnother consideration is the uncertainty and arbitrariness of this papal\nact of confirmation.  The Protestant must not take for granted that the\neighteen Councils, acknowledged by the Church of Rome to be general, have\nthe seal of St. Peter affixed to all their canons and decrees.  In some\ncases a general council is partly confirmed and partly rejected (_partim\nconfirmatum_, _partim reprobatum_); {27a} in some cases neither confirmed\nnor rejected (_neque approbatum neque reprobatum_): in some it is\npronounced uncertain whether the decrees are confirmed or rejected; and\nin others they are confirmed by one Pope, and rejected by another.\nSometimes the general council did not proceed with due form\n(_conciliariter_), or did not proceed with due deliberation (_re\ndiligenter examinat\u00e2_); sometimes the questions to be determined were not\nstated with sufficient clearness (_satis apert\u00e8_), and sometimes there is\na want of evidence whether the council was general or provincial.  \u201cAll\nthis,\u201d exclaims Bishop Taylor, \u201cis the greatest folly and most prodigious\nvanity.\u201d {27b}\n\nAgain, we might observe, that if infallibility be granted to the Church\nthrough its representatives in a general council, the privilege has been\nfor many centuries in abeyance, and (considering the aspect of\nChristendom) is never likely to be renewed.  And further, with respect to\nthe reception of these infallible decrees by provincial Churches, we\nmight bring forward the doubts which have prevailed among Romanists,\nwhether the decrees are binding immediately on being passed, or only\nafter they have been received. {27c}  Next with reference to the\ndoctrines which they inculcate, these are often grievously contradictory\nto reason and Scripture.  Transubstantiation, for example, is contrary to\nreason.  If therefore we believe the infallibility of general councils on\ngrounds of reason, the reasons against transubstantiation must be fairly\nbalanced in our minds with the reasons in favour of infallibility.  And\nas examples of contradiction to Scripture, we might instance the\nadoration of the Blessed Virgin, the worshipping of images and relics,\nthe invocation of saints and angels, purgatory, and the sacrifice of the\nmass.  We might then go on to show that if the infallibility of general\ncouncils be Scripturally maintained, the texts adduced in support of\ninfallibility are to be weighed against the numerous and explicit texts\nwhich oppose these corrupt doctrines and idolatrous practices.  Lastly,\nwe might contend that, in the primitive ages, when councils were\ncontinually assembled, neither those councils themselves, nor any one\nwriter who defended their decrees, ever spoke of them as infallible.  We\nneed scarcely add that councils could not be infallible without knowing\nit; nor would hear their infallible decrees disputed without asserting\ntheir infallibility.\n\n3.  Having now vainly endeavoured to procure conclusive and satisfactory\ninformation on two of the essential points indispensable for our\nconversion to Romanism; namely, first, by what _organ_ the infallible\noracles are delivered, and, secondly, by what _evidence_ the claim to\ninfallibility is established; we proceed to the third and last topic of\ninvestigation, and inquire on what _security_ we can rely, that we shall\nnot misunderstand the doctrine propounded to our belief?\n\nWe have already seen that the Romanist is unable to decide with certainty\nin what person or persons infallibility resides; and that he cannot prove\nthe person or the persons for whom he claims it, namely, a Pope or\nCouncil, jointly or severally, to be infallible.  Let us next consider,\nin conclusion, (and the consideration need not occupy us long,) whether\nhe is more successful in establishing the third particular, which we\nbegan by laying down as necessary to the tranquillization of our minds;\nwhether, in short, it can be proved to us incontestably, that we shall\ncomprehend with clearness and practical certainty the bulls and canons\npromulgated for our guidance to the truth.\n\nSecurity on this point is obviously indispensable.  The inspired volume\nis allowed by all Christians to contain unerring rules of faith and\npractice.  But our erring reason, we are told, is liable to misconceive\nthem.  Hence the supposed necessity for another guide.  But the very same\nliability to error which exposes us to mistake in interpreting the\nScriptures, exposes us to mistake also in interpreting the bulls of a\nPope, or the canons of a general council.  God Himself inspired his\nchosen servants to write the Scriptures \u201cfor our learning.\u201d  God\nnevertheless is misunderstood.  Neither Pope nor Council, therefore, is\nsecure from being so.  Their decisions, jointly or separately, may be\nmisinterpreted through our weakness of apprehension.  We consequently\nneed a new interpreter for expounding their interpretation.  But the\nexpositions of this new interpreter may, like those of his unerring\npredecessors, be erroneously understood; and thus we should require an\ninfinite series of infallible guides, and at the end of this elaborate\nprocess we should not be nearer to infallibility than we found ourselves\nat the beginning. {29a}\n\nAccordingly, we read, without surprise, that there are disputes among\nRomanists in regard to the right construction of their infallible decrees\nand canons; disputes as constant and as vehement as those unhappily\nsubsisting among Protestants, in regard to the meaning of our inspired\nScriptures. {29b}  In the celebrated Council of Trent, the last, and by\nthe Romanists regarded as the greatest ever held, many points of doctrine\nwhich had called forth the most violent and argumentative disputation\nwere purposely expressed with ambiguity in the canons, that the consent\nof all parties might be obtained.  Even on that all-important article of\nfaith, respecting the proper object of religious adoration, the\nTridentine Fathers were satisfied with a vague declaration, that \u201cdue\nworship should be given to images,\u201d without informing the conscientious\nworshipper, (in a strait betwixt the danger of profaneness on one hand\nand of idolatry on the other,) what kind of worship that doubtful phrase\nwas intended to imply. {29c}  It may be also noticed that there are\nseveral controverted points in religion, (the very points, in fact, most\nfrequently contested among Protestants,) on which no unerring oracle has\nyet pronounced a decision, and on which variations of opinion may be\ndiscovered in the papal Church analogous to those prevailing throughout\nProtestant communions.  I allude to the numerous questions connected with\nelection, foreknowledge, predestination, grace, free-will, and the\nperseverance of the Saints.\n\nNor will the force of our objections be evaded by the reply that _actual_\nconformity of faith to the decisions of Popes and Councils is not\nrequired; that _intentional_ conformity will suffice; and that every man,\nwhatever be his errors and misconceptions, is capable of salvation who is\nwilling and inclined _to believe as the Church believes_.  For if the\nRomanist is willing to believe as his Church believes, the Protestant is\nwilling to believe as the Apostles and Evangelists believed.  If then\nthis willingness will suffice for the Romanist, why should it not be\nsufficient for the Protestant?  If the one, when he falls into error, is\nheld excused by intentional conformity to the Romish creed, why should\nnot intentional conformity to the creed of the Apostles and Evangelists\nexcuse the errors of the other?  Let this be granted, and both parties\nare equally safe, equally infallible. {30}\n\nThus we find that in all respects the Romish system fails to afford the\nreligious comfort and security we are endeavouring to acquire.  Our\nRomanist adviser has promised what he proves himself incompetent to\nperform.  He has held out to us the enjoyment of an infallible assurance\nthat we have attained to sound doctrine, if we will only profit by the\nunerring oracles of his Church; but he cannot point with certainty to the\nproper organ of infallibility, nor establish on credible evidence the\nclaim of that organ to be infallible; nor give any positive security that\nwe shall understand infallibly the oracular truths proposed to our\nassent.  On the contrary, we have seen abundant reasons for being morally\ncertain, that the incapability of error which he speaks of has no\nexistence.\n\nWe have now sufficiently considered all the topics proposed for\ndiscussion at the commencement of this essay; but before concluding we\nmust advert to one further point, too important to be overlooked, which\ncould not before be conveniently introduced, viz., the newly-devised\nTheory of Development.  We request our Romish counsellor to inform us,\nwhether in his judgment the doctrines of modern Rome have the sanction of\nprimitive antiquity, and can be proved by the writings of the early\nFathers?  He replies, that up to a very recent period he would at once\nhave answered in the affirmative; but that he is now obliged to hesitate.\n\u201cFrom time immemorial,\u201d he says, \u201cthe doctors of our Church unanimously\ninsisted, and the Council of Trent infallibly declared, that every\narticle of our Creed was sanctioned by the concurrent testimony of the\nFathers, as many as were of the true Church of Christ.\u201d  \u201cBut,\u201d he\nproceeds, \u201cwithin the last few years a party has arisen among us who take\na different view.  Treatises have been widely circulated and favourably\nreceived, in which it is maintained, that the position of which we always\nboasted as our stronghold is, after all, untenable; that antiquity must\nbe abandoned; that, in primitive times, our present doctrines were\nabsolutely unknown or imperfectly discovered; that Christianity, in the\ndays of the Apostles and for several centuries afterwards, was merely in\nan embryo, rudimental state; that it has since been infallibly developed;\nthat St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, were only partially\nacquainted with many truths which have since been canonically evolved and\nexplained; and that, consequently, the sanction of antiquity to any\ndoctrine of modern Rome may be as easily dispensed with as the authority\nof Holy Scripture.\u201d  As an example of development, our Romish guide\nrefers to the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin\u2014\u201ca doctrine,\u201d\nhe observes, \u201cin primitive times utterly unheard of; in the middle ages\nvehemently opposed; in later times gradually matured; and now at last, in\nthe nineteenth century, fully and pontifically established under penalty\nof everlasting condemnation.\u201d\n\nThis inability of the Romanist to determine whether Romanism is or is not\nsupported by antiquity, and whether it is a new or an old religion, may\nbe regarded as a climax to the difficulties and perplexities in which, as\nwe have already seen, his whole system is involved. {32a}\n\nBesides the Romanist there are many other counsellors who, with\nundoubting confidence, offer to relieve our minds from all anxiety as to\nthe soundness of our belief.  Among these parties I may now particularly\nmention the Sceptic and the Mystic; because their systems, and that of\nthe Romanist, however opposite in other respects, have one essential\npoint of agreement.  They all have a decided tendency to supersede our\nown exertions for the discovery of religious truth\u2014the Sceptic by\naffirming that religious truth is unimportant; the Mystic by alleging\nthat religious truth is passively received by the mind from divine\nillumination; and the Romanist by inculcating an unconditional\nacquiescence in the dictates of infallible authority. {32b}  This\nremarkable coincidence suggests to us, that in respect to our employment\nof means and opportunities, the way of truth is the very opposite to the\nway of error; that the right path to saving knowledge does not consist in\nthe _disuse_, but in the _strenuous exertion_ of our intellectual and\nmoral faculties; that the inclination to improve our advantages for\nattaining spiritual information is designed to try our moral character;\nand that we have a full security from deadly heresy in the co-operation\nof Divine Providence, and of Divine grace with our own sincere endeavours\nafter truth.\n\nThis principle, which pervades the whole of Scripture, {33} is not to be\nconfounded with the fallacies above adverted to.  We do not call it\ninfallibility, because we readily admit that rectitude of opinion may\nexist, in various degrees, among persons, all of whom are in the path of\nsalvation.  It differs from infallibility as maintained by Romanists,\nbecause we do not consider any individual, nor any number of individuals,\nto be incapable of error.  It differs from the infallibility of the\nenthusiast, because we lay no claim to exemption from mistake: we insist\nonly that, using faithfully the means at our disposal, we shall escape\nunpardonable heresy.  It differs, thirdly, from the infallibility of the\nsceptic, because he conceives all doctrines equally excellent, provided\ntheir operation in society adapts itself to his confined notions of moral\nduty.  Whereas our method implies that one doctrine differs materially,\nas to truth and excellence from another, and that we are therefore bound\nto select the best.\n\nTo make this selection of what is best, must be the paramount desire of\nevery rightly-disposed mind: and it now only remains for us, before\nconcluding this essay, to give some rules, as briefly as we can, for\ndetermining our choice.  Error and misconception on this subject are so\nlamentably common, that even our few imperfect suggestions may not be\nuseless nor unacceptable.  We shall only premise that the spiritual\nexercises which we recommend are arranged in the order here given them,\nwith a view to convenience and clearness; and not from an impression that\nany of our readers can have occasion to begin from the commencement of\nthe series.\n\n1.  Our first rule is: to employ all the strength of our faculties in the\nstudy and investigation of natural religion: till we become impressed\nsincerely and practically with our awful responsibility, as reasonable\nbeings, to our Creator, Benefactor, and Judge eternal.\n\n2.  To establish clearly in our minds the evidences and principles of\nRevelation; and to ascertain, by diligent inquiry, that the Scriptures\n\u201cgiven for our learning,\u201d are \u201cgiven by inspiration of God; and are\nprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in\nrighteousness.\u201d {34a}\n\n3.  To acquire a persuasion (according to the principle asserted in the\nScriptures, maintained by all antiquity, and revived at the Reformation,)\nthat the pages of Revelation are not \u201ca sealed book\u201d to us; but that we\nare bound to \u201csearch the Scriptures,\u201d {34b} to \u201cprove all things,\u201d {34c}\nand \u201cto be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a\nreason of the hope that is in us.\u201d {34d}\n\n4.  To satisfy ourselves that, on points of Christian doctrine, our only\nreal standard of faith is the Bible; and that tradition (however useful\nas its interpreter and guardian) is not, as Romanists contend, a\nco-ordinate authority with the sacred text. {34e}\n\n5.  To use in our interpretation of the inspired volume all the helps\nwithin our reach; whether spiritual or temporal; whether derivable from\nthe living or from the dead.  Among these helps, the most important and\nindispensable are prayer and a holy life.  With respect to prayer, the\npromises in Holy Scripture, that guidance to the truth shall be given to\nhim that asks it, are, as we have seen, numerous and indisputable. {34f}\nAnd as regards a holy life, or the labours of the humble and diligent\nindividual, who, from desire to do the will of God, conscientiously\nexerts himself to know it, our Lord Himself expressly declares, \u201cIf any\nman will do (\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, or is desirous to do) his will, he shall know\nof the doctrine, whether it be of God.\u201d {34g}  To these helps may be\nadded others equally obvious, so far as they are consistent with the\nopportunities, station, or profession of the individual\u2014such as\nfamiliarity with Scripture in the original, knowledge of history, and\nparticularly of the manners, laws, customs, and opinions of antiquity,\nJewish as well as Christian; joined to acquaintance with sound principles\nof Biblical interpretation, criticism, and translation.\n\nBut a point which more particularly seems, under this rule, to require\nillustration, is the _degree of value_ at which the conscientious\ninquirer after sound religious knowledge ought to estimate ecclesiastical\nantiquity.  Many pious individuals (in their well-meant zeal against\nRomish errors) have thought themselves obliged to discard ecclesiastical\nantiquity, under a persuasion that by attaching any value to ancient\nwriters, they would violate the great Protestant axiom of resting on the\nsole authority of God\u2019s written word.\n\nBut it should be considered, that to use ecclesiastical antiquity for\ninterpreting the word of God, no more violates this axiom than to use any\nof the other universally admitted aids to interpretation already\nmentioned.  Whatever means the Divine promulgator of Revelation has given\nto his Church for ascertaining the truths revealed, ought diligently and\nconscientiously to be improved.  Among those means, the place of highest\nauthority belongs unquestionably to the three primitive formularies of\nbelief, the Apostles\u2019, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds; and to the\nCanons of the first four general councils, which received the sanction of\nuniversal Christendom: and in which to his entire satisfaction the\nconscientious inquirer will find the leading truths of Christianity\nembodied.  The same remark applies to the Episcopal constitution of the\nChurch; for \u201cit is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy\nScriptures and ancient authors, that from the Apostles there have been\nthese orders of ministers in Christ\u2019s Church, Bishops, Priests, and\nDeacons.\u201d {35}  But we cannot better explain how far ancient literature\nis to be rendered available to sacred purposes, than by a transcription\nof a canon set forth by the Church of England in the same year with its\narticles.  \u201cPreachers shall not presume to deliver any thing from the\npulpit as of moment, to be religiously observed and believed by the\npeople, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New\nTestament, and collected out of the same doctrine by the Catholic Fathers\nand the Bishops of the ancient Church.\u201d {36a}  \u201cA wise regulation,\u201d\nobserves the judicious and able Dr. Waterland, \u201cformed with exquisite\njudgment, and worded with the exactest caution.  The canon does not order\nthat they shall teach whatever had been taught by the Fathers: no; that\nwould have been setting up a new rule of faith; neither does it say that\nthey shall teach _whatsoever_ the Fathers had _collected from Scripture_:\nno; that would have been making them _infallible_ interpreters, or\ninfallible _reasoners_: the doctrine must be found first in Scripture,\nonly to be the more secure that we have found it there: the _Fathers_ are\nto be called in, to be, as it were, constant checks upon the presumption\nor wantonness of private interpretation.  But then again, as to _private_\ninterpretation, there is liberty enough allowed to it.  Preachers are not\nforbidden to interpret this or that text, or hundreds of texts,\ndifferently from what the Fathers have done; provided still they keep\nwithin the _analogy of faith_, and presume not to raise any _new_\ndoctrine: neither are they altogether restrained from teaching any thing\n_new_, provided it be offered as opinion only, or as an _inferior_ truth,\nand not pressed as necessary upon the people.  For it was thought that\nthere could be no _necessary_ article of faith or doctrine now drawn from\nScripture, but what the ancients had drawn out before from the same\nScripture: to say otherwise would imply that the ancients had failed\nuniversally in _necessaries_, which is morally absurd.\u201d {36b}  The canon\nthus explained may be thought appropriate to preachers and ministers\nalone, exclusively of their people; but though the latter cannot, it is\ntrue, directly apply this regulation to themselves, they nevertheless may\nindirectly derive advantage from it.  They will be prepared to perceive\nat once when any minister proposes to their acceptance some doctrine or\nexposition of Scripture, for which he can produce no ancient\nauthority\u2014and which he declares to be _new_, yet at the same time\n_important_\u2014he declares himself, by this dangerous and un-canonical\nproceeding, unworthy of their confidence.\n\nBut perhaps the greatest and most alarming mistake to be avoided by all\ninquirers, ecclesiastical or laical, is the application of their minds to\nreligious researches rather for the sake of curious information and\nphilosophical entertainment, than for purposes of saving knowledge, and\nof sure, efficacious, practical direction.  The Holy Scriptures, no\ndoubt, are written for our learning, not however merely for such learning\nas consists in literary, critical, and speculative exercises of our\ningenuity; but for our advancement in the school of Christian wisdom, of\nthat wisdom from above which unites and perfects all the higher\ncapacities of our nature, moral, intellectual, or spiritual\u2014that wisdom\nwhich, (far removed from the jealousies and the wranglings and the\nviolences of factious controversy,) is anxious only for the interests of\ntruth and virtue\u2014that wisdom which is \u201cfirst pure, then peaceable,\ngentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without\npartiality, and without hypocrisy.\u201d {37a}\n\nIn this course of wise and holy discipline, according to our diligence,\nwill be our progress; and proportioned to our progress, will be our\nreward.  Our anxieties, discouragements, and despondencies will be left\nbehind us.  We shall go on our way rejoicing.  We shall feel a personal\ninterest in the glorious system of Christian redemption.  We shall enter\ndaily more and more with satisfaction upon the duty of examining\nourselves, \u201cwhether we be in the faith:\u201d {37b} and the result of that\nexamination will more and more enable us to see distinctly within our\nhearts the lineaments of the Christian character.  All the tests from\nScripture of such a progress will have a clearer application to our\nspiritual state.  Love to God, charity to mankind, preference of divine\nto merely human objects, fervency in prayer, frequency in meditation,\nattachment to religious ordinances, self-control in the subjugation of\nour appetites and passions; and in one word, likeness to Christ,\nincreasing from day to day\u2014will assure us that to reach the gate of\nsalvation we have only to preserve the path which we have chosen.  And\nalthough, in this advanced state, enjoying \u201ca full assurance of faith and\nhope,\u201d {38a} we relax nothing of our efforts, and, like St. Paul, \u201ccount\nnot ourselves to have apprehended the price of our high calling,\u201d {38b}\nyet we exclaim triumphantly with the same Apostle: \u201cWho shall separate us\nfrom the love of Christ?  Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,\nor famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?  In all these things we are\nmore than conquerors through him that loved us.  For I am persuaded, that\nneither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor\nthings present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other\ncreature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in\nChrist Jesus our Lord.\u201d {38c}\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 THE END.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n        GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John\u2019s Square, London.\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\n                          _By the same Author_.\n\n                                    I.\n\n    DISSERTATIONS vindicating the CHURCH of ENGLAND in respect to some\n                 Essential Points of Polity and Doctrine.\n\n                                   II.\n\n         VINDICATION of the EPISCOPAL or APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.\n\n                  *** Extracted from the foregoing Work.\n\n                                   III.\n\n MEMOIR of the LIFE and TIMES of the RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN SINCLAIR, Bart.\n\n                                   IV.\n\n      QUESTIONS ILLUSTRATING the CATECHISM of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.\n\n                                    V.\n\n         QUESTIONS on the ORDERS for MORNING and EVENING PRAYER.\n\n                                   VI.\n\n                      An ESSAY on CHURCH PATRONAGE.\n\n                                   VII.\n\n  A CHARGE delivered to the CLERGY of the ARCHDEACONRY of Middlesex, in\n                                  1843.\n\n                                  VIII.\n\n                       A CHARGE delivered in 1844.\n\n                                   IX.\n\n                       A CHARGE delivered in 1849.\n\n\n\n\nSIDE NOTES.\n\n\nIn the printed book Rev. Sinclair printed side notes in the margins to\nexplain the points he was trying to make.  As these made the text itself\ndifficult to read, and added little value to the narrative, in this\ntranscription they are placed here, together with the pages on which they\noccur, so that the development of the points can be seen in overview.\n\n                         Side note                              Page\nDiversity of religious opinions a source of anxiety                  1\nOn account of others and on our own                                  1\nConfusion from the number of guides                                  2\nMotives of credibility for an infallible living arbiter              2\nFallacy and presumption of these _\u00e0 priori_ arguments                3\nProbable arguments at best are no ground of infallible               5\nassurance\nArgument for infallibility from the analogy of the Jewish            6\nChurch\n. . . answered                                                       6\nTransmission of the Scripture no proof of infallible                 8\ninterpretation\nThree requisites to afford us infallible assurance                   8\nFirst requisite wanting.  Organ of infallibility uncertain           9\nSecond requisite wanting in the Three Organs of                     11\ninfallibility.  The Pope singly\nPretensions of the Pontiff scripturally considered                  11\nPretensions of the Pontiff traditionally considered                 14\nPretensions of the Pontiff morally considered                       18\nDifficulties of ascertaining infallibly when the Pope               19\nspeaks _ex cathedr\u00e2_\nPapal inconsistencies and heresies                                  20\nSecond alleged Organ of Infallibility                               21\nA general council singly                                            22\nPretensions of a general council Scripturally considered            22\nDifficulties of knowing what is a general council                   25\nThird organ of infallibility                                        25\nPope and general council in conjunction                             26\nUncertainty of the Papal sanction to a council                      26\nAdditional argument against Popes and Councils jointly              27\nThird requisite to afford infallible assurance.  This               28\nrequisite wanting\nTheory of Development                                               31\nRight path to saving knowledge                                      32\nDifference of this Scriptural principle from the three              33\npreceding\nRules for acquiring sound Christian knowledge                       33\nConcluding exhortation                                              37\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{1}  _Ut h\u00e6c qu\u00e6 scripta sunt non negamus_, _ita ea qu\u00e6 non sunt scripta\nrenuimus_.\u2014Hieron adv. Helvid. oper. t. iv. pars ii. p. 141. ed.  Ben.\n\n{3a}  Eph. iv. 14.\n\n{3b}  The theologian will here observe, that the argument from \u201cmotives\nof credibility,\u201d as they are termed, is in this view more presumptuous\nand objectionable than the claim so loudly and so vehemently objected\nagainst Protestants.  Surely there is more presumption in claiming a\nright to prejudge what God _must_ have done, than in claiming the right\nof private judgment to ascertain what God _has_ actually revealed.\n\n{5}  \u201cBut it is more useful and fit (you say) for deciding of\ncontroversies, to have, besides an infallible rule to go by, a living\ninfallible judge to determine them: and from hence you conclude, that\ncertainly there is such a judge.  But why then may not another say, that\nit is yet more useful, for many excellent purposes, that all the\nPatriarchs should be infallible, than that the Pope only should?\nAnother, that it would be yet more useful, that all the Archbishops of\nevery province should be so, than that the Patriarchs only should be so.\nAnother, that it would be yet more useful, if all the Bishops of every\ndiocese were so?  Another, that it would be yet more available that all\nthe parsons of every parish should be so?  Another, that it would be yet\nmore excellent, if all the fathers of families were so?  And lastly,\nanother, that it were much more to be desired, that every man and every\nwoman were so? just as much as the prevention of controversies is better\nthan the decision of them; and the prevention of heresies better than the\ncondemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own very\nconsequence, that not only a general Council, not only the Pope, but all\nthe Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Fathers\u2014nay, all the men\nin the world, are infallible?  If you say now, as I am sure you will,\nthat this conclusion is most gross, and absurd, against sense and\nexperience, then must also the ground be false from which it evidently\nand undeniably follows, viz., That that course of dealing with men seems\nalways more fit to Divine Providence, which seems most fit to human\nreason.\u201d\u2014Works of Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 296.\n\n{6}  Deut. xvii. 8\u201314.\n\n{7a}  Deut. xvii. 8.\n\n{7b}  Exod. xxxii. 4\u20137.\n\n{7c}  1 Kings xii. 28.\n\n{7d}  1 Kings xxii. 6.\n\n{7e}  Jerem. v. 30, 31.\n\n{7f}  Isa. lvi. 10.\n\n{8}  See Tracts published by Bishop Gibson.  Title iv. chap. i. vol. i.\np. 18.\n\n{9}  \u201cFor many of you hold the Pope\u2019s proposal _ex cathedr\u00e2_, to be\nsufficient and obliging\u201d (obligatory); \u201csome a Council without a Pope;\nsome neither of them severally, but only both together; some not this\nneither in matter of manners, which Bellarmine acknowledges, and tells us\nit is all one in effect, as if they denied it\u201d (to be) \u201csufficient in\nmatter of faith; some not in matter of faith neither think this proposal\ninfallible, without the acceptation of the Church universal; some deny\nthe infallibility of the present Church, and only make the tradition of\nall ages the infallible propounder: yet if you were agreed what and what\nonly is the infallible propounder, this would not satisfy us; nor yet to\nsay, that all is fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him: for\nthough agreeing in this, yet you might still disagree whether such or\nsuch a doctrine were propounded or not; or if propounded, whether\nsufficiently, or only insufficiently.  And it is so known a thing, that\nin many points you do so, that I assure myself you will not deny\nit.\u201d\u2014Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 118.\n\n{10}  See Evidence against Catholicism, by Rev. J. Blanco White, p. 94.\n\n{11}  Matt. xvi. 18, 19.  Luke xxii. 32.  John xxi. 17.\n\n{12a}  See Stillingfleet\u2019s \u201cVindication,\u201d p. 418.\n\n{12b}  The phrases \u201cto bind and loose\u201d were Jewish, and most frequent in\ntheir writings.  It belonged only to the teachers among the Jews to bind\nand loose.  When the Jews set any apart to be a preacher, they used these\nwords: \u201cTake thou liberty to teach what is bound and what is\nloose.\u201d\u2014_Strype\u2019s Preface to the Posthumous Remains of Dr. Lightfoot_, p.\n38.  See Dr. A. Clarke\u2019s commentary in loco.\n\n{12c}  Compare Matt. xvii. 18, with John xx. 22, 23.\n\n{13a}  _See manuscript volume by the Honourable Archibald Campbell_, _a\nNonjuring Bishop_, _first in Scotland_, _and afterwards in London_.  Also\nBishop Horsley\u2019s Sermons, vol. i. p. 293.\n\n{13b}  For a full exposition of this text, see Remarks by Granville\nSharp, Esq., cited by Dr. Adam Clarke in his commentary.\n\n{13c}  See Dr. Isaac Barrow\u2019s Treatise on the Pope\u2019s Supremacy, and Rev.\nJ. Fletcher\u2019s Lectures on the Roman Catholic Religion, p. 94.\n\n{13d}  Eph. ii. 20.\n\n{13e}  1 Cor. iii. 11.\n\n{13f}  1 Cor. xii. 28.\n\n{14a}  Rev. xxi. 14.\n\n{14b}  \u201cSeeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge, that he was Bishop\nof Antioch, before he was Bishop of Rome; we require them to show, why so\ngreat an inheritance as this, should descend to the younger rather than\nthe elder, according to the ordinary manner of descents?  Especially,\nseeing Rome hath little else to allege for this preferment, but only that\nSt. Peter was crucified in it: which was a very slender reason to move\nthe Apostle so to respect it.\u201d\u2014Extract from Archbishop Usher\u2019s Speech in\nthe Castle Chamber, Dublin, Nov. 22, 1622.  See Dr. Parr\u2019s Life of Usher,\np. 23.\n\n{14c}  \u201cWhat say you to the expunging the name of Felix, Bishop of Rome,\nout of the Diptychs of the Church by Acacius, the Patriarch of\nConstantinople?  What say you to Hilary\u2019s Anathema against Pope\nLiberius!\u201d\u2014Stillingfleet\u2019s \u201cVindication,\u201d p. 408.\n\n{15a}  St. Jerome affirms, that a Bishop, in whatever diocese, whether of\nRome, of Eugabium, &c., is of the same power (_ejusdem meriti_) and of\nthe same rank in the priesthood (_ejusdem sacerdotii_) with his Episcopal\nbrethren.  \u201cFor,\u201d he adds, \u201cthey are all alike successors of the\nApostles.\u201d  This admission from the Secretary of Pope Damasus is very\nremarkable.\u2014Epist. ad Evag.\n\n{15b}  Vid. Lab. tom. iv. p. 817.\u2014Grier\u2019s Epitome of the General\nCouncils, pp. 61. 94.\n\n{16a}  Ruffinus, in his translation and abstract of the Nicene Canons,\ngives the sixth of them in these words: \u201cThe ancient custom of Alexandria\nand of Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care or\ngovernment of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary\nchurches.\u201d\u2014_Ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Rom\u00e2 vetusta consuetudo\nservetur_, _ut vel ille \u00c6gypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum\nsollicitudinem gerat_.  Ruffin.  Hist. lib. i. c. 6.\u2014See also Bingham\u2019s\nAntiquities, Book ix. chap. 1, sec. 9.\n\n{16b}  _Universalitatis nomen quod sibi illicit\u00e8 usurpavit nolite\nattendere_:\u2014_nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam\nutatur_.\u2014_Perpenditis_, _fratres carissimi_, _quid e vicino subsequatur\ncum et in sacerdotibus erumpunt tam perversa primordia_.  _Quia enim\njuxta est ille de quo scriptum est_; _Ipse est rex super universos filios\nsuperbi\u00e6_.\u2014Pap. Pelag. ii. epist. 8.\n\n{17a}  _Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti\nconsensit_: _quia videlicet si unus patriarcha universalis dicitur_,\n_patriarcharum nomen c\u00e6teris derogatur_.  _Sed absit_, _hoc absit \u00e0\nChristian\u00e1 mente id sibi velle quenquam arripere unde fratrum suorum\nhonorem imminuere ex quantul\u00e2cunque parte videatur_!\u2014Pap. Gregor. i. lib.\niv. epist. 36.\n\n{17b}  _Ego vero fidenter dico_, _quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem\nvocat_, _vel vocari deciderat_, _in elatione su\u00e2 Anti-christum\npr\u00e6currit_; _quia superbiendo_, _c\u00e6teris pr\u00e6ponit_.\u2014Pap. Gregor. i. lib.\nvi. epist. 30.  Attempts have been made to reconcile the language of\nPelagius and Gregory, with the assumption, by their immediate successors,\nof the very supremacy which those two Popes so strongly reprobate.  The\nutter futility of such attempts, the reader will see thoroughly\nestablished by Stillingfleet in his \u201cVindication,\u201d part ii. chap. vi.\n\n{19}  \u201cI would fain know whether there be any certainty that every Pope\nis a good Christian, or whether he may not be (in the sense of the\nScripture) of the world?  If not, how was it that Bellarmine should have\ncause to think that such a rank of them went successively together to\nperdition?\u201d\u2014Chillingworth\u2019s Works, vol. iii. p. 359.\n\nThe same learned Cardinal whom Chillingworth here refers to, is very\nzealous throughout his works in defending Papal infallibility, and even\nventures to affirm (Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. lib. iv. cap. 5, in fine),\n\u201cIf the Pope could or should so far err, as to command the practice of\nvice, and to forbid virtuous actions, the Church were bound to believe\nvices to be good, and virtues to be bad.\u201d  The Pontiffs, whatever they\nmay have thought of this extraordinary theory, seem in _practice_, by the\nCardinal\u2019s own account, to have availed themselves, in a considerable\ndegree, of the privilege which he claims in their behalf.\u2014See also Works\nof Henry More, p. 450.\n\n{20a}  \u201cIt were heartily to be wished, if he\u201d (the Pope) \u201cshould once\nhappen to be _in cathedr\u00e2_, he would infallibly determine what is to be\n_in cathedr\u00e2_ ever after; for it would ease men\u2019s minds of a great many\ntroublesome scruples, which they cannot, without some infallible\ndetermination, get themselves quit of.\u201d\u2014Stillingfleet\u2019s \u201cVindication,\u201d p.\n114.\n\n{20b}  For Bishop Stillingfleet\u2019s argument to prove that no Pontiff has\nbeen canonically elected since the times of Sextus the Fifth, see his\nVindication, part i. p. 116.\n\n{21a}  _Romanus Pontifex per literas Montanistis communionem impertiit_,\n_quas_, _errore cognito_, _revocare coactus est_.\u2014Dupin de Antiq. Eccl.\nDis. 5. p. 346.  La Pape les Montanistes re\u00e7u dans sa communion, ce qui\nmontre que le Pape _n\u2019\u00e9toit pas infallible_.\u2014Basnage, Hist. tom. i. p.\n360.\n\n{21b}  He maintained against Cyprian, of Carthage, that baptism, though\nperformed by heretics, ought not to be repeated: but the heretics of that\nperiod baptized only in the name of the Father, and sometimes not even in\nhis name: a kind of Baptism which no Roman Catholic would now admit to be\nvalid.\u2014See Grier\u2019s History of the Councils, p. 17.\n\n{21c}  See this case argued by Bishop Stillingfleet in part iii. chap. 2,\npp. 512, 513, of the Vindication; and for others equally opposite, see\nGrier\u2019s History passim.  See also Burnet on the Nineteenth Article.\n\n{21d}  See Evidence against Catholicism by the Rev. Blanco White, p. 33:\nand the Bishop of Exeter\u2019s Letters to Charles Butler, Esq. Letter xiv. p.\n271.\n\n{22a}  The writers of the Gallican Church are here alluded to, all of\nwhom oppose the Papal claims.\n\n{22b}  Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n{22c}  Matt. xviii. 17.\n\n{22d}  Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\n{22e}  John xiv. 16.\n\n{22f}  Acts xv. 28.\n\n{22g}  1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\n{23}  _Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota\nerrat_.\u2014Tostat. Abulens. pr\u00e6fat. in Matt, qu\u00e6st. xiii.\n\n_Ecclesia latinorum non est Ecclesia universalis sed qu\u00e6dam pars ejus_:\n_ideo_, _etiamsi tota ipsa errasset_, _non errabat ecclesia universalis_:\n_quia manet Ecclesia universalis in partibus illis qu\u00e6 non errant_, _sive\nill\u00e6 sint numero plures quam errantes_, _sive non_.\u2014Ibid. qu\u00e6st. iv. in\nMatt. ad proleg. 2.\n\n{24a}  \u201cFor my part, I should think it did more concern our Lord Jesus,\nby virtue of this promise, to make his Church _impeccable_, than\n_infallible_.  My meaning is, that it is a much more desirable thing to\nsecure his ministers and people from the danger of _sin_, than from the\ndanger of _error_.  But the former He hath not done, and therefore I much\ndoubt of the latter.\u201d\u2014Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. viii.\n\n{24b}  _In Scripturis canonicis nullum de iis verbum est_: _nec ex\nApostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa\nprimitiva Christi Ecclesia_.\u2014Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. lib. vi.\ncap. 1, quoted in that masterly work, \u201cThe Difficulties of Romanism,\u201d by\nthe Rev. G. S. Faber, book 1, chap. ii. p. 36.\n\n{26}  \u201cThe low Romanists who are distinguished by the name of Cisalpines,\n(for serious differences exist, it appears, even in the very bosom of\nprivileged inerrancy,) not only deny the personal infallibility of the\nPope, but hold also that for heresy or schism (to both of which, we find,\nthe alleged fallible head of an infallible body is actually liable,) he\nmay be lawfully deposed by a general council.  Such being the case, they\nmust, on their own principles, inevitably hold the infallibility of a\ngeneral council even when _not_ sanctioned by the papal confirmation: for\nit is quite clear, on the one hand, that no _prudent_ Pope, at least,\nwould ratify the sentence of his own deposition, or confirm the decree\nwhich pronounced him to be a schismatic or a heretic; and it is equally\nclear, on the other hand, that no general council could infallibly\npronounce the Pope to be a heretic or schismatic, himself all the while\nstiffly denying, as of course he _would_ deny, the offensive allegation,\nunless such general council, _independently_ of any papal ratification,\nwere _itself_ constitutionally infallible.\u201d\u2014_Faber\u2019s Difficulties of\nRomanism_, p. 247, 248.\n\n{27a}  Bellarm. de Cone. lib. i. cap. 8.\n\n{27b}  See Bishop Taylor\u2019s Liberty of Prophecy, sect. 6. vol. viii. of\nhis works, p. 41.\n\n{27c}  \u201cThat the authority of general councils was never esteemed\nabsolute, infallible, and unlimited, appears in this, that before they\nwere obliging (obligatory) it was necessary that each particular Church\nrespectively should accept them, _Concurrenti universali totius ecclesi\u00e6\nconsensu_, &c., _in declaratione veritatum qu\u00e6 credend\u00e6 sunt_, &c.  In\nthis way, as observed by Gerson, the decrees of councils became\nauthentic, and turned into a law: and till they became so their decrees\nwere but a dead letter.\u201d\u2014See Heber\u2019s Bishop Taylor, vol. viii. p. 50, 51,\nremarking on St. Augustin, b. 1. cap. 18. de Bapt. contra Donat.\n\n{29a}  See Works of Leslie, vol. i. p. 497.\n\n{29b}  For an example, see Blanco White\u2019s Evidence, p. 39.\n\n{29c}  See Bishop Burnet on the Twenty-second Article.\n\n{30}  It may here be not inapposite to introduce the well-known example\nof implicit faith, recorded by various writers, and which has met with\ndifferent degrees of Roman Catholic praise and of Protestant censure.  An\nignorant collier of the Romish persuasion was asked, what it was that he\nbelieved, and answered, \u201cI believe what the Church believes.\u201d  The\nquestioner rejoined: \u201cWhat then does the Church believe?\u201d  He replied:\n\u201cThe Church believes what I believe.\u201d  The other, anxious for\nparticulars, resumed his interrogatories: \u201cTell me, then, I pray you,\nwhat is it that you and the Church both believe?\u201d  To which the collier\ncould only give this answer: \u201cWhy, truly, sir, the Church and I both\nbelieve the same thing.\u201d\u2014Campbell\u2019s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 259.\n\n{32a}  The true theory of development is ably stated by Bishop Butler in\nhis Analogy, part ii. chap. 3, and may be usefully contrasted with the\nnewly-devised dogma of Popery.\n\n{32b}  \u201cCertainly every man considering that his eternal salvation lies\nupon it, will be enforced to apply sincerity and care in his own behalf;\nwhereas if others interpret for him, they may do it more remissly, or\nmore fraudulently.\u201d\u2014_Works of Hen. More_, p. 454.\n\n\u201cAs the case stands in religion, according to the Roman Catholic\ndoctrine, reason, and thinking, and studying, and examination, and\nindustry, and search, though they be necessary tools to be made use of\nfor the putting a man into good hands, yet after he is in those hands, he\nis to throw all these things away, and never after to make use of them.\nDoth this look like a doctrine of God?  No, certainly.\u201d\u2014Archbishop\nSharpens Sermons, vol. vii. p. 29.\n\n{33}  Psalm xxv. 14; xxxii. 8; xxv. 8, 9; xv. 12, 13.  Prov. li. 1\u20135;\niii. 5, 6; x. 30, 31.  James i. 5.  Matt. vii. 12.  John vii. 17.\n\n{34a}  2 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n{34b}  John v. 39.\n\n{34c}  1 Thess. v. 21.\n\n{34d}  1 Pet. iii. 15.\n\n{34e}  For proofs and illustrations of this point, drawn from Iren\u00e6us,\nTertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome,\nBasil, and Augustin, see Faber\u2019s \u201cDifficulties of Romanism.\u201d\n\n{34f}  See note p. 33.\n\n{34g}  John vii. 17.  Sermons of Bishop Taylor, vol. vi. p. 402.\n\n{35}  Book of Common Prayer.\n\n{36a}  _Imprimis vero_, _videbunt_ (Concionatores) _ne quid unquam\ndoceant pro concione_, _quod a populo religios\u00e8 teneri et credi velint_,\n_nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrin\u00e6 veteris aut novi testamenti_:\n_quodque ex ill\u00e2 ips\u00e2 doctrin\u00e2 Catholici Patres et veteres Episcopi\ncollegerint_.\u2014Sparrow, Collect, p. 238.  It is scarcely necessary to\nobserve that this canon is not included among those of 1603.\n\n{36b}  See chap. vii. of Dr. Waterland\u2019s Treatise on the Importance of\nthe Doctrine of the Trinity; where the use of ecclesiastical antiquity is\ndiscussed with his usual masterly erudition and ability.  Similar\nobservations in an abridged form may be found in his introduction to a\nreview of the Doctrine of the Eucharist.  See vol. vii. of his Works,\nedited by Bishop Van Mildert.\n\n{37a}  James iii. 17.\n\n{37b}  2 Cor. xiii. 5.\n\n{38a}  Heb. vi. 11; x. 22.\n\n{38b}  Phil. iii. 13.\n\n{38c}  Rom. viii. 35\u201339.","title":"An Essay on Papal Infallibility","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":15075}