teaches many things which are in direct opposition to popish traditions, he, nevertheless, does not speak always with that clearness and decision as to prevent his sentiments from being brought with an appearance of speciousness to favour some of the traditions of Rome. Cyril of Alexandria, who died in 444, says: "The Holy Scripture is sufficient to make those who are instructed by it wise and most approved, and furnished with most sufficient understandings." "That which the Holy Scriptures hath not said, by what means should we receive and account it among those things which are true?"† In the writings of Theodoret we meet with this kind of speeches: "By the Holy Scriptures alone am I persuaded." "I am not so bold as to affirm any thing which the sacred Scripture passeth in silence."|| "We ought not to seek those things which are passed in silence; but rest in the things that are written."§ 6. Fathers of the sixth century. Anastasius Sinaita, who died about the year 599, in giving instructions respecting a pious life, observes:-"We must be persuaded that the church has tradition about these things which are not in the Holy Scriptures. As, for instance, that one ought to be fasting when he receives the eucharist; that he should turn toward the east in the time of prayer; that the mother of Christ continued a virgin after she had brought forth a child; and that she brought forth Christ in a cave."¶ John Damascene, who was condemned by the Iconoclaust Council in 754, says: "We receive, and acknowledge, and reverence all things which are delivered in the law, the prophets, the apostles and evangelists, and we seek after nothing beyond these."** Toward the close of the sixth century the mystery of iniquity began to work, and human tradition and new ceremonies began to be in considerable request, so that from the sixth century till the reformation by Luther the church was burdened with loads of traditions and human institutions. We have above given a continued chain of testimony from the fathers of the first six centuries, which carries the evidence down from the apostolic age during the purest times of the church. And the united testimony is, that the Scripture alone is the rule of the Christian's faith; and that there is no adequate evidence to support Roman Catholic traditions, which are by the Church of Rome made equal to the word of God. There are as many as twenty-two fathers of the six first centuries quoted, and from these there are many quotations, which, when taken together, present an overwhelming amount of evidence against popish traditions. "Sufficit divina Scriptura ad faciendum eos qui in illâ educati sunt sapientes, et probatissimos et sufficientissimam habentes intelligentiam."-Cyril, lib. vii, Contra Jul. † “ Ὁ γουν ουκ ειρηκεν η θεία γραφή, τινα κατά τρόπον παραδεξαμεθα, και εν τοισ aknows Exovoι KATаhoуovμeba."-Cyril. Glaphyrarum in Gen. lib. 2. Η “ Εγω γουν μονη πείθομαι τη θεια γραφη.”Theod. Dial. i, Ατρεπτ. Ου γουν ούτως ειμι θρασυς ωςε φαναι τι σεσιγημενον παρα τῇ θεια γραφη.” Idem, Dial. ii, Aovyxut. 4 “ Ου δεί ζητειν τα σεσιγημένα ςεργειν και προσήκει τα γεγραμμενα.”Theod. in Gen. Qu. 45. ¶ Du Pin, Ec. History, sixth cent., vol. i, p. 563. ** « Παντα τοινυν τα παραδιδομενα ημιν δια τε νομου, και προφήτων, και αποςολων και ευαγγελιζων δεχόμεθα και γινοσκομεν, και σεβομεν ουδεν περαιτέρω τούτων FRIGHTOVVTES."-Johan. Damasc. De Fide Orthodox. lib. i, c. 1, tom. i, p. 123, infra. CHAPTER IV. INFALLIBILITY. I. STATEMENT OF THEIR DOCTRINE. Roman Catechism quoted. Council of Florence. It is their great boast.-II. THEIR PROOFS FOR IT EXAMINED. 1. Consideration of the texts brought to support it; (1.) Matt. xvi, 18, considered; (2.) Matt. xviii, 17; (3.) Matt. xxviii, 20; (4.) John xiv, 15, 16; (5.) The infallibility professed by the apostles confined to their own times; (6.) 1 Tim. iii, 16: 2. Their argument from the necessity of infallibility to decide controversies, considered; (1.) This argument would make men the judges of what God ought to do; (2.) It would suppose that all men are infallible; (3.) The Jewish church had no such guide; (4.) According to this argument sin must not have existed; (5.) It would suppose that an infallible judge must exist in temporal and civil matters; (6.) Such a judge is unnecessary; (7.) Nor could he end controversies; (8.) There is no absolute need for determining all controversies; (9.) There were dissensions in the apostles' times: 3. Their argument from prescription.-III. OPINIONS OF ROMAN CATHOLICS ON THE SEAT AND EXTENT OF INFALLIBILITY. 1. They differ in their sentiments respecting its seat and extent 2. Opinions stated. Sentiments of the Jesuits. Pighius cited. Maguire. Opinions of the French. Of the Hungarian Jesuits. Of Milner: 3. Four systems respecting the seat of infallibility, containing twelve cases.-IV. INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 1. Popes have contradicted popes: 2. Some have been heretics. Vigilius. Liberius. Honorius. Some were guilty of simony: 3. Some were unskilled in divinity: 4. There were anti-popes: 5. Some were grossly immoral: 6. The subject is involved in perplexity on account of the objects of infallibility.-V. INFALLIBILITY OF A GENERAL COUNCIL. 1. It is disputed what is a general council: 2. Councils have decided against councils. The Council of Nice in 325, and of Ephesus in 431, against Trent, on adding new articles. The Council of Laodicea in 360 or 370 against Trent, respecting the canon of Scripture. Constantinople in 754 against the second Council of Nice on images. The first Council of Nice, sixth canon, against several others on supremacy.-VI. INFALLIBILITY OF A POPE AND COUNCIL. 1. Two fallibles cannot make an infallible: 2. The Councils of Constance and Basil are against Leo and the Lateran: 3. Lateran II. in 1139 against Scripture in regard to matrimony: 4. The Lateran III., in 1179, against Scripture on persecution: 5. Lateran IV., in 1215, against Scripture and the primitive church or transubstantiation: 6. Lateran IV. against Scripture on the temporal power of the pope : 7. The Council of Trent against itself, also against Scripture.-VII. INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME, OR THI UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 1. Not in the church diffusive: 2. Nor in the Church of Rome, as she teaches false doctrines: 3. It is involved in perplexity: 4. Infallibility of the Protestant rule.-VIII. ARGUMENTS AGAINST INFALLIBILITY. 1. Its title, at best, is doubtful: 2. The primitive churches did not pretend to it: 3. By it men are prevented from exercising their reason: 4. It depends on a false theory: 5. It produces error and sin: 6. It fails to accomplish what it proposes. It does not decide controversies, nor explain Scripture: 7. It presents greater difficulties than the Protestant plan 8. Their plan would require all men to be infallible: 9. It shuts the door against reformation. I. THE Latin Church, and those in communion with her, claim for themselves the high prerogative of infallibility in doctrine and rules of morality. They say that this prerogative was given by Christ to the church, or Catholic Church, and that they are that church. They also pronounce all other churches as sunk in the most pernicious errors. "But as this one church, because governed by the Holy Ghost, cannot err in faith and morals, it necessarily follows that all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, because guided by the spirit of darkness, are sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral."* This virtually includes the infallibility of the pope. Indeed, the following decision of the Council of Florence, on the 5th of * Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 100. July, 1439, will include something equivalent to this :-"The pope of Rome hath the supremacy over all the earth; that he is the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the head of the church, the father and teacher of Christians; and that Jesus Christ hath given him, in the person St. Peter, the power to feed, rule, and govern the Catholic Church as it is explained in the acts of œcumenical councils and in the holy canons."* Infallibility is their great boast. And indeed if their church be truly infallible we ought all to bow to its decisions. But on the most careful examination of Scripture, as well as every other evidence that can be offered, to us Protestants it does appear that this claim is unscriptural, indeed, against Scripture; that it is a novelty in the church; it is insufficient to answer the purposes for which it is employed; it is attended with far more and greater difficulties than those it proposes to remedy; and it is followed by a great number of bad consequences. II. Let us examine the proofs on which the Romanists found their claims to infallibility. They not only quote Scripture for the purpose of proving the infallibility of their church, but they present us with several arguments drawn from reason, which, they say, establish this as a privilege belonging to the Church of Rome. 1. We shall first take a survey of those texts of Scripture which are commonly quoted to establish the infallibility of the Church of Rome. We may premise on this subject, that if infallibility be a doctrine of Scripture, and so important a doctrine as the Romanists say it is, then certainly it must be clearly revealed in Scripture, as well as the place where it is to be found. We assert, however, that it is not a doctrine taught by Scripture, and that the texts brought to prove it do not confer it; or, if they do, they concern none but the apostles themselves. (1.) To prove the church's infallibility, the following words of our Saviour to Peter are urged: "I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," Matt. xvi, 18. The greatest advocates and writers of the Church of Rome acknowledge that this is a principal text for infallibility. It is not controverted between them and us whether Christ is the great foundation of his church, for in this all are agreed; but the controversy lies in this, whether the term rock refers to Peter or to Christ. The construction of the original plainly distinguishes between Peter and the rock. If it were written επι τέτω τω Πετρφ, upon this Peter, there might be some ground to think Peter and the word rock the same. But it is not so : the words of Christ are, Συ ει Πέτρος, και ERI TAUTY Tη RETPA, Thou art Peter, (a stone,) and upon this petra, a rock, which thou hast confessed, &c.; petros being in the masculine gender, and petra in the feminine. The Latin Vulgate speaks the same lanquage: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock," the one being masculine and the other feminine. That the word Peter signifies a stone, we have our Saviour's testimony: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a STONE," John 1, 42. Christ, or the doctrines of Christ, seem plainly then to be the rock mentioned in the text. This view is supported by several texts of Scripture. Peter says, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, VOL. I.-9 * Du Pin, Ec. Hist., vol. iii, p. 35. (rock, ver. 8,) elect, precious, and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded," 1 Pet. ii, 6. Here we have, first, Christ the foundation, or rock; secondly, his church, or believers in him; and, thirdly, they shall not be confounded, or the gates of her shall not prevail, &c. Peter also calls Christ the stone which was et at naught by the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Add to this, the ancient fathers viewed the passage in the same light, making Christ, or rather his doctrines, confessed by Peter, the foundation or rock. Thus we have the construction of the original, the testimony of the fathers, and corresponding texts of Scripture in favour of our views on this text. Indeed, it is absurd to suppose that Christ built his church on Peter personally, or on his personal profession of faith; inasmuch as Peter afterward denied Christ, and stood in need of repentance and conversion. But the faith which Peter confessed, i. e., that Christ was the Son of the living God, was the foundation on which the church was built. There is no doubt, however, but our Lord intended to bestow something special on Peter. Accordingly he bestows on him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the honour of first preaching the gospel among the Jews and Gentiles. As stewards of great families bore a key or keys in token of their office, the phrase of giving a person the keys, means, raising him to power or authority, as steward. See Isa xxii, 22. Now whatever was meant by the keys was equally bestowed upon all other apostles, (Matt. xviii, 18; John xx, 23,) and, therefore, the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles, or over the whole church of Christ, has no foundation in this passage. That the use of a key being to open a door or gate, Christ here promises to Peter that he should be the person who would first open the kingdom of heaven, or gospel dispensation, to both Jews and Gentiles. Acts ii, 14; x; XV, 7. But then it is evident that both James and John exercised this office independently of Peter, in converting those of the circumcision as well as he. And St. Paul was, by way of excellence, and by virtue of his mission, the apostle of the Gentiles, and opened the kingdom of heaven to far more Gentiles than ever Peter did. Peter could not have a successor in his peculiar privilege of the keys, because this would involve the absurdity, that the door of faith is still to be opened to Jews and Gentiles. The use of the keys, therefore, means to declare authoritatively the laws of the gospel and the terms of salvation, as also to exercise discipline in the church, viz., to refuse admission into it to all those who did not comply with these terms, and to exclude from it all who should violate those laws. Accordingly, the power of binding and loosing, added to the power of the keys, may be considered as partly explanatory of that power. To bind and loose were words made use of by the Jewish doctors to signify the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things, as is proved by many able writers. The power of binding or loosing, therefore, referred to the power of declaring the gospel terms of salvation, by which they bound men with every proper obligation of righteousness, and loosed them from every unnecessary or temporary ceremony or institution. And as they acted under the influence of the Holy Spirit, their decisions were ratified in heaven. The apostles did not enjoy this high power in its full extent till the day of pentecost, when they received 1 9* the Holy Ghost in the plenitude of his gifts. After this their decisions, in points of doctrine and duty, being all given by inspiration, were infallible definitions, and ratified in heaven. But to establish from this passage the supremacy of Peter and of his pretended successors, or their infallibility, is contrary to its proper meaning. "The gates of hell ('ade, hades) shall not prevail against it." The expression, gates of hades, as used by the ancient Greeks, Jewish writers, and the seventy interpreters, is not employed to signify the power of heresy, schism, sin, or Satan, but is constantly used by them to signify the state of the dead, whether righteous or wicked, or else the entrance into that place. See this proved by Whitby on the text. Its import, therefore, seems to be that even death itself should not prevail against the genuine members of Christ's church. For if the words, gates of hades, never signify, in any ancient writer, or any eastern language, heresy or error, to interpret them of a security from error promised to the church, must be to wrest them from their proper meaning. Christ did not, therefore, in this text, promise infallibility, but only perpetuity to the church. He did not say that his church should never err, but that it should never perish. Besides, were the gates of hell or the powers of darkness never to prevail against the Church of Rome, how was it that the Protestant Reformation was effected, the principles of which differ so materially from those of the Church of Rome? How came the religion of Rome and Papal authority to be expelled from so many states that became Protestant? How is it that she has not retained the superiority which she once enjoyed, or how does it come to pass that she does not now number one half of the nations of the earth which once composed her empire? We can solve the difficulty: we do not expect that the powers of hell shall fully prevail against the Church of Rome, but we confidently believe that the powers of heaven are prevailing, and shall finally triumph over it. If, by the gates of hell, sin be meant, then the prevalence of sin over the Church of Rome has been very great. She tells us of twenty-seven mortal sins, any one of which corrupts and destroys the soul; that whoever, whether clergyman or layman, allows himself in act or desire to practise any of these, is not of Christ or his church, but is of the synagogue of Satan. Such sometimes is the language of some of the Roman doctors. How much have these sins prevailed against the members of the Church of Rome? Yet they are still continued members of the church as if nothing was the matter, and no breach of any of God's commandments is considered so great as to neglect the vain superstitions and traditions of the church, by which she has made the commandments of God of none effect. And however bravely some of her sons have resisted immorality, yet it has borne down the great mass of her clergy and people. But if the expression, gates of hell, means error in point of faith, then the case of the Church of Rome is equally desperate. The Roman Catholic doctors reject the imputation of novelty; but this appears to be nothing more than an artful flourish in order to keep the vulgar in awe. They teach that should the church believe or teach any doctrine contrary to those which Christ taught, the gates of hell would prevail against it. We would ask, then, did Christ or his apostles ever teach |