Read Ebook: An Essay on Papal Infallibility by Sinclair John

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 50 lines and 20118 words, and 1 pages

LONDON: GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.

AN ESSAY ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

BY THE VENERABLE JOHN SINCLAIR M.A. ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX, AND VICAR OF KENSINGTON.

LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE.

ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

EVERY reflecting Christian, as soon almost as he is capable of reflection, must have continual occasion to observe with sorrow and anxiety the multiplied varieties of opinion that divide the Church of Christ, on every point or article of Christian faith; the confidence with which every sect lays claim exclusively to the possession of saving knowledge, and the unqualified severity with which each party reprobates the other, as being implicated in unpardonable heresy. On hearing the fulmination of these mutual anathemas, we not only grieve for the state of dreadful peril in which, if we admit such principles, a large proportion of our neighbours, friends, and fellow Christians must be involved: but we grieve likewise on our own account. We are visited with doubts, misgivings, and apprehensions, lest we ourselves, through ignorance or prejudice, should have adopted unawares into our creed some article containing deadly error; or should have omitted something indispensable to salvation.

In this state of intellectual and spiritual perplexity, if we want the Christian industry and moral courage to work out for ourselves, by the help of God, this greatest of all problems, we are in a state of passive readiness to receive counsel from the first adviser. Among the multitude of counsellors who present themselves, none is more importunately obtrusive, or more dictatorially confident than the Romanist; and I propose, for the subject of this essay, to examine successively the remedies and expedients he suggests for calming our disquietude, and restoring our religious peace.

He informs us that our state of mind is the necessary consequence of adhering to a Protestant communion; and that we never can obtain repose and satisfaction until we enter the Catholic Church--until, with the other wandering sheep dispersed over the forbidden pastures of the earth, we return with humble penitence to the fold which we have left; until, in short, we renounce all dependence on the conclusions of uncertain reason, and establish our Faith for ever upon the dictates of infallibility. "That there must," he adds, "be some where upon earth an infallible living judge, an arbiter of religious controversy incapable of error, an authority from whose decision on points of faith there can be no appeal, is a plain and obvious principle, which, on proper reflection, you will find impossible to be rejected. Not to insist on arguments from Scripture, although sufficiently conclusive, and capable in themselves of proving that such an arbiter has been appointed, there are independent considerations in favour of infallibility which ought to satisfy every reasonable mind: for the wise Creator of man would never grant a revelation to his creatures, and then leave them to the direction of their own erring judgment in ascertaining the truths revealed. The benevolent Creator of man must know that man is fallible; that he needs indispensably a conductor; and that without some infallible conductor the benefits of revelation would be doubtful and precarious. But if infallibility exist at all in the Church, it must exist in the Papal communion, which alone makes the least pretension to the privilege. Therefore, only reconcile yourself to our infallibly directed Church, and you will no longer find occasion for uneasiness. You will be guided safely through all the mazes of theological disputation. Instead of being 'tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine' on a shoreless ocean of uncertainty and error, you will repose with comfort and unruffled calm in the quiet haven of infallibility."

But God has not fulfilled these expectations, though to all appearance highly reasonable. He has left both men and angels to the freedom of their own wills; and has created them not only capable of abusing that gift of freedom, but of involving themselves in sin and wickedness, and in everlasting ruin. He has afforded no infallible, no demonstrative evidence of his own existence and perfections; but has left mankind to ascertain these fundamental truths from principles of abstract reason, and by reflections on the works of nature and of Providence. He permits contending nations to decide their quarrels by an appeal to arms: and notwithstanding all the mischiefs consequent upon war, has not thought fit to make that effectual provision against this widely desolating source of evil, which our human wisdom, if appealed to, would probably have suggested; namely, the appointment of an unerring and authoritative arbiter. We are, therefore, not entitled to argue that God in his kingdom of grace must unquestionably have pursued a course, which, in his kingdom of Providence, He has not pursued; nor to maintain that to silence all religious controversies, He must indispensably have had recourse to an expedient which, in political disputes, He has neglected. We are not entitled to infer, that He must necessarily have determined, by the authority of an infallible judge, the less essential truths of religion; when He has left the fundamental truths of all, to be determined by our own erring reason. We are not entitled to infer, that the Creator of men must have made infallible provision against their falling into heresy or "believing a lie," and thus frustrating the means for their restoration to a state of holiness and happiness; when He made no provision of that kind against their fall.

But granting to our Romanist adviser that his representations were as sound as they are fallacious; still they could only lead us to a probable, and never to an infallible conclusion. The strength of the building must be proportionate to the solidity of its foundation. If our faith in the supposed infallible arbiter is to be founded on the validity and force of the arguments and conjectures which have been stated; our faith in the decisions of that arbiter cannot be greater than our faith in the arguments and conjectures which support his infallibility. Since these proofs, at the very utmost, are any thing but demonstrations, and are only probabilities, we cannot under any circumstances have more than probability to guide us: and we therefore end as we began, and our disquietude even on our admission of an unerring judge, remains exactly as before. Our Romish advocate, however, is not discomfited. He proceeds to affirm that the pretensions of his Church are supported by analogy. He reminds us that the Church of God, under the Jewish dispensation, was directed by an infallible human authority; and that the same high privilege, being equally wanted, might be equally expected in the Christian oeconomy. He quotes for this purpose those magnificent assurances of God's peculiar favour and protection, to be found throughout the books of Moses and of the prophets; and relies especially on the remarkable rule established by the legislator of Israel to this effect: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, thou shalt come unto the Priests, the Levites, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die."

Besides, however encouraging the language of the Jewish Scripture respecting God's "everlasting kindness" to his "chosen people," we know on the authority of their own historians, that they went continually wrong. Even in the days of undoubted divine interposition we read that "the people corrupted themselves, and turned aside quickly out of the way which God commanded them." "Aaron" "made a golden calf, and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt:" again, we are informed concerning Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, that "he took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem, behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Further, it is recorded of Elijah, that he complained of the Church of Israel, as if it had entirely apostatized and disappeared from the earth. He exclaims in his address to God, "The children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only am left." We read of Ahab that he gathered his prophets together, about four hundred men, and that there was only one individual, Micaiah, "a prophet of the Lord." Jeremiah laments over his corrupt times, exclaiming, "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land: the Prophets prophesy falsely, and the Priests bear rule through their means; and my people love to have it so." Isaiah complains of the Jewish priesthood in his time, under the figurative name of "watchmen," that they were "blind," that they were all "ignorant shepherds that could not understand." But finally, to omit many less remarkable instances of error and apostasy, our blessed Saviour Himself was condemned by the Jewish Church and crucified. Since therefore the Jewish Church was not infallible, the argument from analogy, whatever value our Romish friend may attach to it, is all distinctly on our side. If previous to the Christian aera no unerring director was appointed, none may be appointed now.

The next resource of our ingenious disputant is to affirm, that unless the Church possessed infallibility we could have no certain nor infallible belief of the Scriptures, for which his Church is our authority. To this sophism we can easily reply, by corresponding cases. The copyists and librarians who have preserved to us the Greek and Latin classics are not, on that account, infallible expositors of classical antiquity. Supposing, therefore, that we are exclusively indebted to Romanism for transmitting to us the sacred oracles, it does not follow that Romanists interpret them infallibly. It happens also, that we are not indebted to any local tradition, such as that of the Church of Rome, for the preservation of the canonical books of Scripture; but to the universal tradition of Christendom. Perhaps we are more under obligation to the Greek than to the Latin Church; both because the writings of the New Testament were originally in Greek, and because the chief authorities to prove their genuineness and authenticity, as well as the earliest enumerations of them are not Romish, but oriental productions.

It thus appears that infallibility is not demonstrable by abstract reasonings and analogies, but must be proved, if it be proved at all, by direct evidence. To evidence of this latter description we readily give attention, and request our Romanist to inform us what he has to offer in the shape of an explicit promise from God to support the claims of the Romish Church. At the same time we give him warning, that before he can satisfy our minds, he must lay before us full and categorical information on the following particulars: namely,

Our desire of satisfaction on these points is not expressed in any captious spirit, but is suggested by the necessity of the case. For if we cannot infallibly discover in what person or persons infallibility resides; if the Romanist cannot prove to us by infallible arguments, that infallibility belongs to the person or persons for whom he claims it; and if further, we cannot obtain from our instructor in Romanism some infallible security that we shall understand the doctrines proposed to us: it plainly follows that the infallibility he so pertinaciously insists upon, must be to us a matter of indifference, attended with no one practical result. Our doubts and perplexities will continue unresolved, and we shall be compelled to seek some other guide to the peace and certainty we so anxiously desiderate.

This explanation is very far from satisfactory: for we thus perceive, our liability to continual mistakes and misapprehensions respecting the real quarter where infallible direction can be found. If we take a Pope or Council singly for our guide, we have no security for avoiding deadly heresy; for a Pope or Council singly may be heretical. On the other hand, if we study to avoid this danger by attaching our faith exclusively to a Pope and Council in conjunction, we fall into another danger, and may reject or omit some necessary doctrine, to which a Pope or Council singly has affixed the seal of infallibility.

This admitted uncertainty as to the quarter of the earth towards which we are to look for infallible guidance, is a ground of fair presumption, perhaps even of demonstration, that infallibility is in no quarter to be found. For the very object of infallibility is the removal of all doubt; but doubt can never be removed while the question, who is the remover of it, remains unfixed, and impossible to be decided. To receive assurances the most positive and solemn, that all our doubts shall be resolved; and yet to be told that the authority for resolving them is doubtful, is to use a cruel mode of trifling with our simplicity. For it has been long and painfully remarked, as the reproach of Romanists, that, on their principles, the greatest controversy among Christians is, how to fix the organ by which, or by whom, controversies shall be unerringly determined.

Finding ourselves disappointed that this great question, in what place the infallible oracle resides, remains still in agitation, we next entreat our Papal adviser to explain the grounds on which the several parties he has mentioned claim the lofty privilege ascribed to them. And since a living judge, sitting constantly in one spot, and therefore always ready to be consulted, is incomparably more desirable as the organ of unerring truth, than an assembly of divines, whom it is often difficult to call together; we are all attention, waiting eagerly to hear in the first place the claims of the Roman Pontiff, and to receive, if possible, such clear and convincing arguments for Pontifical infallibility, that henceforward we shall be able to rely upon it with infallible assurance.

In compliance with this request, our Papal guide adduces what he considers evidence from Scripture, and rests the Papal cause upon the following declarations of our Lord. First, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;" secondly, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven;" thirdly, "I have prayed that thy faith fail not;" and lastly, "Feed my sheep."

The declaration, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," is a text of very ambiguous meaning, and cannot therefore be the ground of infallible assurance. We have no means of clearly ascertaining whether our Lord refers to the person of St. Peter as a foundation for the Church, or to the confession of St. Peter made in the preceding verse. "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." A large proportion of the fathers, including Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Augustin, understood our Saviour's declaration as referring solely to the confession of Faith made so distinctly and so zealously by the Apostle. The text itself seems evidently to require the interpretation. To speak strictly, Christ Himself is the sole foundation of the Christian Church; and an Apostle could only be so in a secondary sense. In this secondary sense, however, the Church is not founded upon St. Peter only in particular, but on the Apostolic college in general; as St. Paul more than once affirmed. "Ye are built," he says to the Ephesians, "upon the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." "Other foundation," he says to the Corinthians, "can no man lay." And again, addressing the Church of Corinth, he does not mention St. Peter first, as nearer the foundation than any other member of the Apostolic college; but speaks of the whole body in the following general terms; "God hath set some in his Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers." The Revelations of St. John describe in like manner the wall of the holy city, as having "twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb."

There is not a vestige therefore of scriptural evidence, much less an infallible demonstration, that the successors of St. Peter, whoever they may be, are possessed of infallibility. And supposing his successors to be infallible, there is not the slightest scriptural ground for believing that his successors are the Bishops of Rome. On this point, so vitally essential to the Papal cause, the sacred writings are wholly silent. They indeed inform us that this Apostle preached at Jerusalem, at Caesarea, at Joppa, and at Antioch, but they no where even intimate that he ever was at Rome: still less therefore can we expect them to affirm that he was local Bishop of that See; and least of all, that the Roman Bishops were heirs of his peculiar privileges; and along with other Apostolic privileges, inherited infallibility, while they lost the gifts of miracles and of tongues.

The absence of proofs from Scripture in favour of the Papal claims, is by no means compensated by a plenitude of evidence from antiquity. In ancient times the pretension to infallibility, instead of being universally acknowledged, was not even alleged. It was never so much as mentioned. Churches and Fathers, in the primitive age, on occasions of their dissenting from the Roman Pontiff, so far from yielding reverently and implicitly to his opinions, openly contested them like those of any other bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch. Nay, they even sometimes excommunicated their infallible superior. The Roman Pontiff, on the other hand, so far from crushing opposition by the verdict of infallibility, endeavoured always to support his doctrine by the authority of Scripture, of reason, or of antiquity. When appeals were made to him by disputants in a later age, it was never stated or imagined to be their ground of selecting him as their arbiter, that his decision would be infallible; but only that he merited such a tribute of respect, either in consideration of his private character, as a wise, just, and holy individual, or by virtue of his official rank as bishop of the imperial city.

When Byzantium was raised to the same imperial eminence, by the name of Constantinople, or New Rome, the Byzantine Patriarch was declared by the second general council held A.D. 381, to be of equal dignity with his Roman brother. Precedence only, or nominal priority, was reserved to the episcopate of the more ancient capital. This reservation was confirmed A.D. 451, by the fourth general council held at Chalcedon; in the decrees of which the reason given for this nominal priority of Old over New Rome is merely political, and has nothing to do with spiritual concerns. "The Fathers," say the members of this later council , "have justly assigned the eldership to the seat of elder Rome--on account of the kingly or imperial authority of that city , and they have assigned equal privileges to New Rome, rationally judging that the city which was honoured by the imperial power and by the residence of the Senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with Royal Rome, its elder sister, should, like her, be exalted in ecclesiastical rank."

That the Roman Bishops were never allowed to arrogate infallibility by the ancient Church is further evident from the fact, that they were not allowed even to claim supreme jurisdiction. The Patriarch of Rome had no ecclesiastical authority beyond certain provinces and churches termed suburbicary , including, at the most, certain districts of Italy, together with the adjacent islands. The other four Patriarchs were entirely independent of their Roman colleague, and of each other. When John, Patriarch of Constantinople, towards the close of the sixth century, put forth a claim to supreme and universal rule in the Church, encouraged in this insolent pretension by the residence of the emperor within the limits of his See--the Popes of that period, Pelagius and Gregory the Great, resisted with great energy his pretensions; not however as interfering with their own supremacy, but as being in themselves presumptuous and anti-Christian. "Pay no attention," says Pelagius, "to the power which he unlawfully usurps under the name of universality. Let no patriarch ever apply to himself so profane a title. You may foresee, my dearest brethren, the mischievous consequences from such beginnings of perverseness among the priesthood. For he is near, of whom it is written that he maketh himself king over all the sons of pride." "No one of my predecessors," says Gregory the successor of Pelagius, "ever thought of using so profane an appellation; for if one Patriarch assumes the title of universal, it is lost to all the others. But far, very far be it from the mind of a Christian, to grasp at any thing by which he may appear in any the slightest measure to derogate from the honour of his brethren." In another passage he thus energetically addresses his overbearing fellow patriarch; "What wilt thou say to Christ, the Head of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last judgment, who, by the appellation of Universal, dost endeavour to subject all his members to thyself? Whom, I pray, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but Him, who, despising the legions of angels, constituted in fellowship with Him, endeavoured to break forth unto the height of singularity, that He might both be subject to none, and alone be over all? Who also said, 'I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars.'--For what are thy brethren, all the Bishops of the Universal Church, but the stars of heaven, to whom, while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself, and to trample on their name in comparison with thyself; what dost thou say, but I will climb into heaven?" In other places he brands the titles which John had assumed, as "pompous," "foolish," "proud," "perverse," "wicked," and "profane:" as names of "singularity," "elation," "vanity," and "blasphemy." He insists that there was "one sole Head of the Church, viz. Christ," and sums up all with this strong prophetic denunciation: "I may confidently declare, that whenever any man styles himself, or desires to be styled, universal priest, such a man, by so exalting himself, becomes forerunner of antichrist, because by pride he sets himself above his brethren."

We have seen that Scripture and antiquity are utterly irreconcilable with the pretensions of the Papal chair. We may now adduce the moral character of the Pontiffs themselves, as a fair ground of presumption that they have not the privilege of infallibility. If indeed we could be satisfied from history that they had all, or most of them, in long succession, been pious and holy and exemplary men, in a degree beyond the ordinary standard of Christian excellence; that they had been rich in faith and in good works; that they had been exalted models of disinterested beneficence, of real purity, and almost ascetic moderation; men whose affections were fixed unquestionably upon the glory and felicity of the heavenly state, to the exclusion of all concern for mere earthly interests, and the little vanities of secular ambition:--we might have been disposed to scrutinize with less distrust the claims of such truly virtuous and estimable Christian pastors. But since the Papal character has been acknowledged even by the ablest advocates of the Papacy, to have been in general the very opposite of what we have been describing, we have a strong presumptive argument that such men were not infallible.

To these various objections against the doctrine of Pontifical infallibility, our defender of the Roman Faith replies by a ready acknowledgment that the great majority of Romanists themselves are of our opinion: that much abler arguments have been urged by them than by Protestants against this pretension of the Pope: that by them infallibility is ascribed not to the Roman Pontiff, who "is liable to err, and who frequently has erred;" but to a general Council, representing the whole Church of Christ, and combining all its collective wisdom. On our inquiry by what Scriptural evidence infallibility is proved to lodge in a representative assembly thus constituted, we are desired to read the following texts:--

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."

"I will pray the Father; and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth."

"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."

"These things write I unto thee; that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Again, the injunction of our Lord to "tell the Church," if taken apart from, and not in connexion with the preceding context, might seem to have some distant bearing upon this question. But on examining the whole passage, we perceive that our Saviour makes allusion to secular, not to spiritual concerns; and is speaking only of private differences among his followers. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." Three successive steps are next recommended for effecting an accommodation: first a private interview; then the influence of mutual friends; and lastly, the authority of the Church to which the parties belong. The contumacious wrong-doer who could not by these methods be brought to reason, was no longer to be regarded as a Christian brother, but as a heathen. He was liable to excommunication, or expulsion from the society; and reparation of the injury committed might now be sought for in a court of law. We do not find in these directions the remotest allusion to infallibility.

The encouraging promise; "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," is not a grant of infallibility, but a promise of assistance, protection, and consolation; and was indispensably required, when our Lord delegated to his Apostles the perilous labour of propagating the Gospel in opposition to all the rulers of this world, sending them forth "as sheep among wolves."

His promise that the "Spirit of truth" should "guide them into all truth," relates entirely to the extraordinary gifts with which they were endowed, and is immediately connected with another promise, confessedly peculiar to the Apostolic age. "He" "shall show you things to come."

The words, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," in the decree of the first council at Jerusalem, have left no precedent for other councils to use the same language; unless on separate evidence it can be shown that those councils have the same authority of inspiration.

The position therefore, that general councils, as representing the Church of Christ, are infallible, labours under a total want of Scripture Evidence. There is not a single precept given for assembling them; not one solitary rule for determining their proceedings. As the learned Albert Pighius, an advocate of pontifical infallibility, very justly argues: "There is not a word about general councils in the canonical books of Scripture; nor did the primitive Church of Christ receive by Apostolical institution any special direction respecting them." This able writer represents the practice of summoning a general council in cases of ecclesiastical emergency, to be an expedient piously introduced by the Emperor Constantine for the purpose of composing the dissensions of the Church. But the same author insinuates a charge of great ignorance against the Emperor and his council, who in adopting this course, appeared not to know that the privilege of infallibility belonged to the Papal chair, and that Rome was the proper Delphos where he might receive the infallible oracles. This imperial ignorance is a remarkable admission by the advocate of the Papacy in his zeal against general councils. He succeeds in demolishing the latter; but acknowledges at the same time a fact which is fatal to the former. For if Constantine and the Bishops of his court were ignorant of the papal pretensions, it must be obvious that such pretensions either could not have been put forth at all, or could not at that time have been generally recognized.

Here we are informed by our pertinacious disputant, that the papal sanction is commonly regarded in the Church of Rome, as the essential distinction between a mere provincial synod, and a general council; that the decrees of an alleged general council, not ratified by the Pope, are not infallible; while the decrees of any council, after that ratification, must be looked upon as infallibly determined.

But our ingenuity must again be exercised in finding our way through this labyrinth: for, first of all, no Scriptural reason can be found, or is even pretended, for the limitation of infallibility to councils of the description mentioned. The authority, therefore, exists only in the well-stored imagination of our Romish friend. And in addition, we are perplexed to ascertain how two authorities, separately fallible, should become infallible by their conjunction. The council is fallible. The Pope is fallible. But unite these two fallibles, and you give them infallibility. If it be asked, Is the council liable to err which passes the decree?--Certainly, is the answer: for otherwise the council would, without the Pope, be all-sufficient. If it be further demanded, Is the Pope, also liable to err who confirms the decree?--Certainly, is again the answer: for he would otherwise be all-sufficient without the council. This is a strange dilemma: we must believe the decree to be infallibly determined, and yet must neither ascribe infallibility to the council which passes it, nor to the Pope who confirms it.

Another consideration is the uncertainty and arbitrariness of this papal act of confirmation. The Protestant must not take for granted that the eighteen Councils, acknowledged by the Church of Rome to be general, have the seal of St. Peter affixed to all their canons and decrees. In some cases a general council is partly confirmed and partly rejected ; in some cases neither confirmed nor rejected : in some it is pronounced uncertain whether the decrees are confirmed or rejected; and in others they are confirmed by one Pope, and rejected by another. Sometimes the general council did not proceed with due form , or did not proceed with due deliberation ; sometimes the questions to be determined were not stated with sufficient clearness , and sometimes there is a want of evidence whether the council was general or provincial. "All this," exclaims Bishop Taylor, "is the greatest folly and most prodigious vanity."

Again, we might observe, that if infallibility be granted to the Church through its representatives in a general council, the privilege has been for many centuries in abeyance, and is never likely to be renewed. And further, with respect to the reception of these infallible decrees by provincial Churches, we might bring forward the doubts which have prevailed among Romanists, whether the decrees are binding immediately on being passed, or only after they have been received. Next with reference to the doctrines which they inculcate, these are often grievously contradictory to reason and Scripture. Transubstantiation, for example, is contrary to reason. If therefore we believe the infallibility of general councils on grounds of reason, the reasons against transubstantiation must be fairly balanced in our minds with the reasons in favour of infallibility. And as examples of contradiction to Scripture, we might instance the adoration of the Blessed Virgin, the worshipping of images and relics, the invocation of saints and angels, purgatory, and the sacrifice of the mass. We might then go on to show that if the infallibility of general councils be Scripturally maintained, the texts adduced in support of infallibility are to be weighed against the numerous and explicit texts which oppose these corrupt doctrines and idolatrous practices. Lastly, we might contend that, in the primitive ages, when councils were continually assembled, neither those councils themselves, nor any one writer who defended their decrees, ever spoke of them as infallible. We need scarcely add that councils could not be infallible without knowing it; nor would hear their infallible decrees disputed without asserting their infallibility.

We have already seen that the Romanist is unable to decide with certainty in what person or persons infallibility resides; and that he cannot prove the person or the persons for whom he claims it, namely, a Pope or Council, jointly or severally, to be infallible. Let us next consider, in conclusion, whether he is more successful in establishing the third particular, which we began by laying down as necessary to the tranquillization of our minds; whether, in short, it can be proved to us incontestably, that we shall comprehend with clearness and practical certainty the bulls and canons promulgated for our guidance to the truth.

Security on this point is obviously indispensable. The inspired volume is allowed by all Christians to contain unerring rules of faith and practice. But our erring reason, we are told, is liable to misconceive them. Hence the supposed necessity for another guide. But the very same liability to error which exposes us to mistake in interpreting the Scriptures, exposes us to mistake also in interpreting the bulls of a Pope, or the canons of a general council. God Himself inspired his chosen servants to write the Scriptures "for our learning." God nevertheless is misunderstood. Neither Pope nor Council, therefore, is secure from being so. Their decisions, jointly or separately, may be misinterpreted through our weakness of apprehension. We consequently need a new interpreter for expounding their interpretation. But the expositions of this new interpreter may, like those of his unerring predecessors, be erroneously understood; and thus we should require an infinite series of infallible guides, and at the end of this elaborate process we should not be nearer to infallibility than we found ourselves at the beginning.

Accordingly, we read, without surprise, that there are disputes among Romanists in regard to the right construction of their infallible decrees and canons; disputes as constant and as vehement as those unhappily subsisting among Protestants, in regard to the meaning of our inspired Scriptures. In the celebrated Council of Trent, the last, and by the Romanists regarded as the greatest ever held, many points of doctrine which had called forth the most violent and argumentative disputation were purposely expressed with ambiguity in the canons, that the consent of all parties might be obtained. Even on that all-important article of faith, respecting the proper object of religious adoration, the Tridentine Fathers were satisfied with a vague declaration, that "due worship should be given to images," without informing the conscientious worshipper, what kind of worship that doubtful phrase was intended to imply. It may be also noticed that there are several controverted points in religion, on which no unerring oracle has yet pronounced a decision, and on which variations of opinion may be discovered in the papal Church analogous to those prevailing throughout Protestant communions. I allude to the numerous questions connected with election, foreknowledge, predestination, grace, free-will, and the perseverance of the Saints.

Thus we find that in all respects the Romish system fails to afford the religious comfort and security we are endeavouring to acquire. Our Romanist adviser has promised what he proves himself incompetent to perform. He has held out to us the enjoyment of an infallible assurance that we have attained to sound doctrine, if we will only profit by the unerring oracles of his Church; but he cannot point with certainty to the proper organ of infallibility, nor establish on credible evidence the claim of that organ to be infallible; nor give any positive security that we shall understand infallibly the oracular truths proposed to our assent. On the contrary, we have seen abundant reasons for being morally certain, that the incapability of error which he speaks of has no existence.

We have now sufficiently considered all the topics proposed for discussion at the commencement of this essay; but before concluding we must advert to one further point, too important to be overlooked, which could not before be conveniently introduced, viz., the newly-devised Theory of Development. We request our Romish counsellor to inform us, whether in his judgment the doctrines of modern Rome have the sanction of primitive antiquity, and can be proved by the writings of the early Fathers? He replies, that up to a very recent period he would at once have answered in the affirmative; but that he is now obliged to hesitate. "From time immemorial," he says, "the doctors of our Church unanimously insisted, and the Council of Trent infallibly declared, that every article of our Creed was sanctioned by the concurrent testimony of the Fathers, as many as were of the true Church of Christ." "But," he proceeds, "within the last few years a party has arisen among us who take a different view. Treatises have been widely circulated and favourably received, in which it is maintained, that the position of which we always boasted as our stronghold is, after all, untenable; that antiquity must be abandoned; that, in primitive times, our present doctrines were absolutely unknown or imperfectly discovered; that Christianity, in the days of the Apostles and for several centuries afterwards, was merely in an embryo, rudimental state; that it has since been infallibly developed; that St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, were only partially acquainted with many truths which have since been canonically evolved and explained; and that, consequently, the sanction of antiquity to any doctrine of modern Rome may be as easily dispensed with as the authority of Holy Scripture." As an example of development, our Romish guide refers to the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin--"a doctrine," he observes, "in primitive times utterly unheard of; in the middle ages vehemently opposed; in later times gradually matured; and now at last, in the nineteenth century, fully and pontifically established under penalty of everlasting condemnation."

This inability of the Romanist to determine whether Romanism is or is not supported by antiquity, and whether it is a new or an old religion, may be regarded as a climax to the difficulties and perplexities in which, as we have already seen, his whole system is involved.

This principle, which pervades the whole of Scripture, is not to be confounded with the fallacies above adverted to. We do not call it infallibility, because we readily admit that rectitude of opinion may exist, in various degrees, among persons, all of whom are in the path of salvation. It differs from infallibility as maintained by Romanists, because we do not consider any individual, nor any number of individuals, to be incapable of error. It differs from the infallibility of the enthusiast, because we lay no claim to exemption from mistake: we insist only that, using faithfully the means at our disposal, we shall escape unpardonable heresy. It differs, thirdly, from the infallibility of the sceptic, because he conceives all doctrines equally excellent, provided their operation in society adapts itself to his confined notions of moral duty. Whereas our method implies that one doctrine differs materially, as to truth and excellence from another, and that we are therefore bound to select the best.

To make this selection of what is best, must be the paramount desire of every rightly-disposed mind: and it now only remains for us, before concluding this essay, to give some rules, as briefly as we can, for determining our choice. Error and misconception on this subject are so lamentably common, that even our few imperfect suggestions may not be useless nor unacceptable. We shall only premise that the spiritual exercises which we recommend are arranged in the order here given them, with a view to convenience and clearness; and not from an impression that any of our readers can have occasion to begin from the commencement of the series.

But perhaps the greatest and most alarming mistake to be avoided by all inquirers, ecclesiastical or laical, is the application of their minds to religious researches rather for the sake of curious information and philosophical entertainment, than for purposes of saving knowledge, and of sure, efficacious, practical direction. The Holy Scriptures, no doubt, are written for our learning, not however merely for such learning as consists in literary, critical, and speculative exercises of our ingenuity; but for our advancement in the school of Christian wisdom, of that wisdom from above which unites and perfects all the higher capacities of our nature, moral, intellectual, or spiritual--that wisdom which, is anxious only for the interests of truth and virtue--that wisdom which is "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy."

In this course of wise and holy discipline, according to our diligence, will be our progress; and proportioned to our progress, will be our reward. Our anxieties, discouragements, and despondencies will be left behind us. We shall go on our way rejoicing. We shall feel a personal interest in the glorious system of Christian redemption. We shall enter daily more and more with satisfaction upon the duty of examining ourselves, "whether we be in the faith:" and the result of that examination will more and more enable us to see distinctly within our hearts the lineaments of the Christian character. All the tests from Scripture of such a progress will have a clearer application to our spiritual state. Love to God, charity to mankind, preference of divine to merely human objects, fervency in prayer, frequency in meditation, attachment to religious ordinances, self-control in the subjugation of our appetites and passions; and in one word, likeness to Christ, increasing from day to day--will assure us that to reach the gate of salvation we have only to preserve the path which we have chosen. And although, in this advanced state, enjoying "a full assurance of faith and hope," we relax nothing of our efforts, and, like St. Paul, "count not ourselves to have apprehended the price of our high calling," yet we exclaim triumphantly with the same Apostle: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet