ART bound to believe it: nor can it be reasonable to urge the XIX. authority of any passages from scripture, till the grounds are shewn for which the scriptures themselves ought to be believed. Those who think that it is in general well proved, that there must be an infallibility in the church, conclude from thence, that it must be in the pope: for if there must be a living speaking judge always ready to guide the church, and to decide controversies, they say this cannot be in the diffusive body of Christians; for these cannot meet to judge. Nor can it be in a general council, the meeting of which depends upon so many accidents, and on the consent of so many princes, that the infallibility will lie dormant for some ages, if the general council is the seat of it. Therefore they conclude, that since it is certainly in the church, and can be nowhere else but in the pope, therefore it is lodged in the see of Rome. Whereas we, on the other hand, think this is a strong argument against the infallibility in general, that it does not appear in whom it is vested and we think that every side does so effectually confute the other, that we believe them all as to that; and think they argue much stronger when they prove where it cannot be, than when they pretend to prove where it must be.* : No * So far from the church of Rome, which, if we believe its own testimony, is most united, being agreed in this matter, the very seat of infallibility, the only means according to them of preserving unity, is itself the great cause of strife and division. When they are urged to point out where this infallibility may be found and consulted, they are at their wits' end. One says that it is lodged in the pope when he speaks ex cathedra. No, says another, who is entangled in this inextricable difficulty-that popes have contradicted popes, and that too while professing to speak in the full plenitude of their authority. Another will have it to be in general councils; but the same difficulty meets us here. Another asserts that it is vested in councils when confirmed by popes; but we are not more fortunate here, for councils confirmed by popes have taught and decreed contrary to councils confirmed by popes. wonder then that Chillingworth should exclaim-' I, for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only (the Bible). I see plainly and with mine own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age,' and, he might have added, the church of the council of Trent diametrically opposite to the word of God. If therefore Romanists themselves cannot agree as to the seat of this infallibility, it is too much to ask Protestants to submit to such an uncertain authority. But indeed it is quite evident that Romanists themselves have not been able to find out this infallible tribunal, for notwithstanding all their boasting, what advantage do they possess over the members of any other church? They have not preserved themselves from internal divisions; for no communion was ever more distracted. If they say, our divisions are about non-essential points,' we may reply, according to Chillingworth, that those who differ from us, do so in points fundamental, or they do If they If in points fundamental, they cannot possibly belong to our church. differ from us in points not fundamental, why may not we have our differences as well as you? But how can that communion be undivided when, as we have said, the centre or seat of unity is itself the cause of strife? not. Again, the church of Rome has not furnished its members with an infallible exposition of the word of God, which, to any reasonable mind, would appear to be the The reader should furnish himself from history with some facts proving each of the positions above mentioned. This, in the point now in hand, concerning the pope, seems ART. as evident as any thing can possibly be: it not appearing, that, XIX. after the words of Christ to St. Peter, the other apostles thought the point was thereby decided, who among them should be the greatest. For that debate was still on foot, and was canvassed among them in the very night in which our Saviour was betrayed. Nor does it appear, that after the effusion of the Holy Ghost, which certainly inspired them with the full understanding of Christ's words, they thought there was any thing peculiarly given to St. Peter beyond the rest. He was questioned upon his baptizing Cornelius: he was not singly Acts xi. 2 appealed to in the great question of subjecting the Gentiles to -18. the yoke of the Mosaical law; he delivered his opinion as one of the apostles: after which St. James summed up the matter, and settled the decision of it. He was charged by St. Paul as Acts xv. guilty of dissimulation in that matter, for which St. Paul with- 19. stood him to his face: and he justifies that in an Epistle that is 14. & i. confessed to be writ by divine inspiration. St. Paul does also 1, 12 17. in the same Epistle plainly assert the equality of his own authority with his; and that he received no authority from him, and owed him no dependence: nor was he ever appealed to in any of the points that appear to have been disputed in the times that the Epistles were written. So that we see no cha great end for which such a privilege as that of infallibility would have been bestowed 'Again, Why does your church thus put her candle under a bushel, and keep her talent of interpreting scripture infallibly, thus long wrapt up in napkins? Why sets she not forth infallible commentaries or expositions upon all the Bible? Is it, because this would not be profitable for Christians, that scripture should be interpreted? It is blasphemous to say so. The scripture itself tells us, All scripture is profitable. And the scripture is not so much the words as the sense. And if it be not profitable, why does she employ particular doctors to interpret scriptures fallibly? unless we must think, that fallible interpretations of scripture are profitable, and infallible interpretations would not be so!' But again; this infallible tribunal has not furnished even an authorized version of the Bible! There were so many disagreeing editions of the Vulgate, which the council of Trent decreed should be held as authentic, that, in order to remedy this confusion, Sixtus V., in the year 1590, published an edition which he declared to be the authentic Vulgate, which had been the object of search by the council of Trent; and pronounced an anathema against any who should presume to alter it, etiam minima aliqua particula. Notwithstanding this, his successor Clement VIII., in less than three years, caused it to be suppressed, and published another authentic edition, which differs from that of Sixtus V.+ in only two thousand places! Upon these infallibility-destroying changes and contradictions, Dr. James thus writes:There is a great controversy between us and the papists concerning the version + The reader may see this question of the variations of the Vulgate and the several editions, &c. &c., treated in the Editor's letters to a Romish priest.-See Page's Three Letters to a Romish Priest,' pp. 43-49. S Gal. ii. 11 ART. racters of any special infallibility that was in him, besides that ΧΙΧ. which was the effect of the inspiration, that was in the other apostles as well as in him: nor is there a tittle in the scripture, not so much as by a remote intimation, that he was to derive that authority, whatsoever it was, to any successor, or to lodge it in any particular city or see. The silence of the scripture in this point seems to be a full proof that no such thing was intended by God: otherwise we have all reason to believe that it would have been clearly expressed. St. Peter himself ought to have declared this: and since both Alexandria and Antioch, as well as Rome, pretend to derive from him, and that the succession to those sees began in him, this makes a decision in this point so much the more necessary. When St. Peter writ his second Epistle, in which he mentions a revelation that he had from Christ, of his approaching dissolution, though that was a very proper occasion for declaring such an important matter, he says nothing that relates to it, but gives only a new attestation of the truth of Christ's divine mission, and of what he himself had been a witness to 2 Pet. i.17. in the mount, when he saw the excellent glory, and heard the voice out of it.' He leaves a provision in writing for the following ages, but says nothing of any succession or see: so of Jerome. That Jerome was learned, and that he put forth a version, is received -which believed?'§ Thus, it is evident that, in all things, the Romanist, although deceived by this ignis fatuus of infallibility, is cast upon a sea of uncertainty, and can find no rest but in the adoption of the principles of our church. For whether we consider the notes of the church-these he must examine and judge of by his private reason: or the seat of his church's infallibility--this likewise he must search for by his private judgment, amongst the many and distracting controversies to which it has given rise: or does he search for an infallible commentary? he has no such thing-no way of ascertaining the meaning of scripture but that which is common to us: or for even an authorized version of the word of God? his church has here likewise forsaken him, and by decreeing the Vulgate to be the authentic, without authorizing any edition of the same, has consigned him to either ignorance or despair. We may then indeed conclude with Burnet, that Romanists argue much stronger, when they prove where it (infallibility) cannot be, than when they pretend to prove where it must be,' or what it has done for its deceived votaries.[ED.] Ş Bellum Papale. XIX. that here the greatest of all privileges is pretended to be ART. lodged in a succession of bishops, without any one passage in scripture importing it. Another set of difficulties arise, concerning the persons who have a right to choose these popes in whom this right is vested, and what number is necessary for a canonical election: how far simony voids it, and who is the competent judge of that; or who shall judge in the case of two different elections, which has often happened. We must also have a certain rule to know when the popes judge as private persons, and when they judge infallibly: with whom they must consult, and what solemnities are necessary to make them speak ex cathedra, or infallibly. For if this infallibility comes as a privilege from a grant made by Christ, we ought to expect, that all those necessary circumstances to direct us, in order to the receiving and submitting to it, should be fixed by the same authority that made the grant. Here then are very great difficulties: let us now see what is offered to make out this great and important claim. The chief proof is brought from these words of our Saviour, when upon St. Peter's confessing, that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God;' he said to him, 'Thou art Matt. xvi. Peter, and upon this Rock* I will build my church, and the 16, 18, 19. gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou *But, for as much as they seem to make greatest account of these words of Christ, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," therefore, for answer hereunto, understand thou good Christian reader, that the old Catholic fathers, have written and pronounced, not any mortal man as Peter was, but Christ himself, the Son of God, to be this rock. Gregorius Nyssenus saith, "Tu es Petrus," &c. &c. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." He meaneth the confession of Christ: for he had said before, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." So saith St. Hilary," Hæc est una felix fidei Petra, quam Petrus ore suo confessus est."—"This is that only blessed rock of faith that Peter confessed with his mouth." Again he saith, "Upon this rock of Peter's confession is the building of the church." So Cyrillus, "Petra nihil aliud est, quam firma et inconcussa discipuli fides.""The rock is nothing else, but the strong and assured faith of the disciple." So likewise Chrysostome, "Super hanc petram, id est, in hac fide, et confessione ædificabo ecclesiam meam."" Upon this rock, that is to say, upon this faith and this confession I will build my church.' Likewise St. Augustin, "Petra erat Christus super quod fundamentum etiam ædificatus est Petrus."-" Christ was the rock, upon whose foundation Peter himself was also built." And addeth further besides, "Non me ædificabo super te, sed te ædificabo super me. "Christ saith unto Peter, I will not build myself upon thee: but I will build thee upon me." All these fathers be plain, but none so plain as Origen; his words be these: "Petra est, quicunque est discipulus Christi: et super talem petram construitur omnis ecclesiastica doctrina. Quod in super unum illum Petrum tantum existimas ædificare totam ecclesiam, quid dicturus es de Johanne filio Tonitrui, et apostolorum unoquoque? Num audebis dicere quod adversus Petrum unum non prevalituræ sint portæ inferorum? Au soli Petro dantur a Christo claves regni cœlorum ?"-"He is the rock, whosoever is the disciple of Christ: and upon such a rock all ecclesiastical learning is built. If thou think that the whole church is built only upon Peter, what then wilt thou say of John, the son of the thunder, and of every of the apostles? shall we dare to say, that the gates of hell shall not prevail only against Peter? or are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given only unto Peter ?" By these few it may appear, what right the pope hath to claim his authority by God's word, and, as Mr. Harding saith, De jure divino.' Jewell's reply to Harding.—[ED.] ART. shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever XIX. thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' This 14. begins with an allusion to his name; and discourses built upon such allusions are not to be understood strictly or grammatically. By the Rock upon which Christ promises to build his church, many of the fathers have understood the person of Christ, others have understood the confession of him, or faith in him, which indeed is but a different way of expressing the same thing. And it is certain that, strictly speaking, the church can only be said to be founded upon Christ, and upon his doctrine. But in a secondary sense it may be said to be founded upon the apostles, and upon St. Peter as the first in order; which is not to be disputed. Now though this is a sense which was not put on these words for many ages; yet when it should be allowed to be their true sense, it will not prove any thing to have been granted to St. Peter but what was common to the other Eph.ii. 20. apostles; who are all called the foundations upon which the Rev. xxi. church is built.' That which follows, of the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the church, may be either understood of death, which is often called the gate to the grave; which is the sense of the word that is rendered hell: and then the meaning of these words will be, that the church, which Christ was to raise, should never be extinguished, nor die, or come to a period, as the Jewish religion then did: or, according to the custom of the Jews, of holding their courts and councils about their gates, by the gates of hell may be understood, the designs and contrivances of the powers of darkness, which should never prevail over the church to root it out, and destroy it; for the word rendered prevail does signify an entire victory: this only imports, that the church should be still preserved against all the attempts of hell, but does not intimate that no error was ever to get into it. By the words kingdom of heaven, generally through the whole gospel, the dispensation of the Messias is understood. This appears evidently from the words with which both St. Matt. iii. 2. John Baptist and our Saviour began their preaching, Rev. 17. and pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand and the many siii. 11, 19, parables and comparisons that Christ gave of the kingdom of 24-48. heaven, can only be understood of the preaching of the gospel. This being then agreed to, the most natural and the least forced exposition of those words must be, that St. Peter was to open the dispensation of the gospel.* The proper use of a * And in relation to this promise of our Lord, as well as the completion of it by the conversion of the Gentiles, it seems to be that this apostle doth, in the synod met at Jerusalem, speak thus, " Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago, åø' ñμrgŵv ágxaíwr, God chose me out among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word." (Acts xv. 7.) He therefore was assuredly the person who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles, and by doing so opened the kingdom of heaven to them: he was the person chosen by Christ to perform this work. Nor is this exposition any new fancy of my own; it is as ancient |