and unity of his church. And because God is wise and good, he must have bestowed infallibility on the church, for the purpose of preventing disputes and of promoting unity. Or, as it is expressed in the canon law, Aliter Dominus non videretur fuisse discretus. "Otherwise our Lord had not seemed to be discreet." The following arguments will show that the argument for the necessity of infallibility is insufficient. (1.) This rather supposes what God should have done according to our fancy, than what he hath really done. Our Lord commands us to search his word; and Paul asks, "Why of your own selves judge ye not what is right?" The Church of Rome seems to differ from both, and says, if this liberty were permitted God had not seemed to be wise. Now such notions are only fanciful at best, are very suspicious, and are not to be justified by any criterion of truth. Men's fancy may dictate many plausible hypotheses concerning what was necessary to be done. Yet to such it may be said, as the apostle said on another occasion, "Who art thou, O man, that objectest against God?" It is an insecure way of arguing a priori in reference to the revealed truths of religion-that God has done what we suppose he must have done. It is much more modest and safe to receive God's truth as he hath plainly revealed it, without bounding the exercise of his glorious attributes by our own preconceived notions. (2.) A much more effectual way of preventing disputes and errors, and of promoting unity, would have been to have made every man infallible; and yet God hath not done this. (3.) The Jewish church was not infallible, for she denied our Saviour by following tradition. How then does it appear that the Christian church must necessarily be infallible? (4.) We might argue from the wisdom and goodness of God that sin would not enter into the world at all; or with the Universalians, that at least redemption would finally effect the salvation of all men; but certainly sin is in the world, and the Scripture plainly declares that all men will not be saved. Now if God has not prevented sin or secured the salvation of all, why should we wonder that he would not bestow infallibility on his church? (5.) If an infallible universal judge is necessary for the peace of the church, we must also conclude there is a universal infallible judge in temporal and civil matters, because this is necessary to the peace of the world. And men are as obstinate in matters of a temporal or political nature as in matters of faith. But it is evident there is no such judge, and men may, notwithstanding, live in peace and harmony. Yet an acute reasoner may argue very plausibly, that as God is wise and good, so he must have given infallibility to some person or persons, by which he or they might know how to govern the world with universal sway, in order to prevent confusion, controversy, and wrongs. And he could quote his, otherwise God would not be discreet, with as much show of truth as any person could, to prove the necessity of infallibility in religious matters. (6.) There is no need of such a judge to assure men in matters of religion, because men may be sufficiently certain without it. The doctrines and precepts revealed in Scripture, necessary to faith and practice, are sufficiently clear to all. They are certainly as intelligibly understood in the sacred text as they are in the canons and decrees of bishops and popes, and in the expositions of priests. And certainly Protestants better understand these truths from the Bible and their teachers, than Romanists do from the decisions of popes and their other clergy. (7.) An infallible judge, if there were one, is not a certain way to end controversies and preserve unity, unless three other things were also certain, viz., that there was such a one, who he is, and what is the extent of his authority. Until we are certain of these three things, the controversy must remain as it is. So there are three controversies, viz., one between Roman Catholics and Protestants, whether there be an infallible judge; and the other two among Romanists themselves, viz., who this judge is, and what is the extent of his authority. And not one of these two has yet been satisfactorily decided. (8.) There is no such absolute need as is pretended for determining all controversies. If men would divest themselves of prejudice as they ought, they would agree well enough about religious concerns of importance. And if they will be biased by evil passions, they would not hearken to an infallible judge, if there were one, for they would call his infallibility in question. In doubtful and small matters, charity and forbearance would make the church as happy and peaceable as ever it was designed to be in the present life. And to this agree the words of St. Paul: "Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." Thus, this charity or love is of more value than even all knowledge. If men were governed by it their broils and contentions would cease, for charity covers all sins. And whatsoever knowledge men may have, if their hearts be unrenewed, envy, malice, ill-will, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, unmercifulness, implacability, &c., will naturally spring up. But, alas! to a very great degree, the religion of Rome has substituted her infallibility and kindred doctrines in the place of the pure charity of the gospel. (9.) Were there not dissensions and divisions in the apostles' times? St. Paul says, "For there must be heresies or divisions among you. that they who are approved may be made manifest among you," 1 Cor xi, 19. The necessity of heresies is not absolute, or of God's making, as they spring from the wickedness of man. Nor is the reason for their existence causal, as if the wisdom of God designed they should exist, that they who are approved might be made manifest, but rather eventual; as if the apostle had said, Whence it will come to pass that they who are approved will be made manifest. The apostle made no reference to an infallible judge in order to prevent or destroy heresy ; because he knew nothing of such judges as Rome, in modern times, contends for. 3. It is argued that the Catholic Church, which Romanists confine to those who are in communion with the pope, cannot err in her doctrines, because they have regularly descended to her, step by step, in an unbroken chain, from the apostles themselves, whose inspired infallibility was universally acknowledged. This is a modification of the well-known argument of prescription, employed by Irenæus and Tertullian in the second century with so much success. But what was a very good argument in their time, is a very lame one in ours, when we are not separated from the apostles by one or two links, but by fifty or sixty; and part of that time through a long night of ignorance and superstition. That some novelties have been introduced, and several apostolical customs disused, we have undoubted testimony. The argument from prescription, so far as it respects the nature of God and Christ, the doctrines especially referred to by Irenæus and Tertullian, is as strong now as in their days, because we still possess their writings, and consequently, for all controversial purposes, we occupy the same ground that they did. But this argument, in the hands of Romanists, is altogether futile, because they have introduced several novelties into their system, such as transubstantiation, sacrifice of the mass, worship of the host, purgatory, indulgences, auricular confession, and absolution, extreme unction, and many others. And what of these novelties we cannot point out the time when they did exist, we can determine the time when they did not exist, which answers every purpose sufficient to overthrow the argument under consideration. "Whatsoever is first is true; whatsoever is more recent is spurious." This sentiment may be employed very unfairly, and may tend to establish error. There are errors in the world far more ancient than Christianity itself. Is it fair reasoning to say that these errors are established truths, because of their antiquity? Still the argument may be applied with some advantage. But what then? Will this give sanction to the above named doctrines of the Latin Church of recent origin? Certainly not.* III. We shall now produce and examine the various opinions of Roman Catholics respecting the seat and extent of infallibility. 1. If infallibility belonged to the Church of Rome we would certainly infer that it would not be difficult to ascertain where it was, and who were the depositaries of it. For if the seat of it be a matter of doubt or uncertainty, the thing itself must be viewed as suspicious. If some place it in the hands of some, and others consider others to possess it, this produces difficulties much greater than among Protestants, inasmuch as there is no diversity of opinion among Protestants respecting the seat of infallible direction, viz., the Holy Scriptures. There is a variety of opinions among Romanists respecting where this infallibility exists. They will all say that it exists in the church, but when they come to fix on its seat they divide into at least four sects. Some place it in the universal church scattered over the world; some place it in the pope; others in a general council independent of the pope; while others assert that a general council with a pope at its head is infallible. 2. As our plan is to hear the standards of the Roman Church in declaring what her doctrines are, in like manner we quote the opinions of her doctors when we wish to give their true sentiments. In this article on infallibility we will pursue this course. The Jesuits and their followers maintain that the pope is infallible; that he is the source of that unlimited and universal power which Christ has granted to his church; that bishops and subordinate rulers derive their authority from him; that he is not bound by any laws of the church nor by any decrees of its councils; and that he is supreme * See Faber's Difficulties of Romanism, p. 54. lawgiver, whose decisions it is in the highest degree criminal to oppose or disobey. We give as follows the sentiments of the Jesuits as we find them in the Roman Catholic Du Pin, whose extensive knowledge and general honesty entitle him to respect and credit. The following thesis was maintained on the 12th of December, 1661, by one of the Jesuits in the college of Clermont, and strenuously supported by that fraternity afterward:-" Jesus Christ has granted to St. Peter and his successors, as often as they speak in the chair, (ex cathedrâ,) the same infallibility which he had himself." From whence he concluded, "That there is in the Roman Church an infallible judge of controversies, even excluding a general council, as well in questions of right as those of fact." A short time after the author of the thesis published an explanation of these propositions, wherein he declared:-" First, That he did not acknowledge in the pope the same personal infallibility which is in Jesus Christ, but only an infallibility of assistance, whereby the vicars of Jesus Christ are rendered infallible in their definitions. Secondly, Upon his having extended this infallibility to questions of fact, that he spoke only of facts joined to questions of faith."* But the popes themselves assert the absolute infallibility of their decisions and decrees; as will fully appear to any one who is conversant with the style and claims of their bulls. Pighius says: "Longe certius est unius apostolicæ sedis cum concilio domesticorum sacerdotum judicium, quam sine Pontifice judicium universalis concilii totius orbis terrarum."t "The judgment of the apostolic see, with a council of domestic priests, is far more certain than the judgment of a universal council of the whole earth without the pope." The Rev. T. Maguire, an Irish Roman Catholic, in his discussion with Rev. Mr. Pope, says: "The pope at the head of a council regularly convened, in their decrees regarding faith, are admitted to be infallible. That is one instance. Also, if the pope, with a few bishops assembled, should issue decrees touching the deposite of faith, and which are subsequently received by the church dispersed, we account them infallible."‡ Again he says: "The pope's infallibility is not a doctrine of mine, nor of any Catholic. There are differences on the subject between the French and Ultramontanists, (Italians,) but they are merely the private opinions of private divines. The church has pronounced no opinion on it. The church only pronounces on essentials." The Rev. Mr. Nolan, an Irish Roman Catholic priest, says: "Some Catholic divines, indeed, maintain that the pope, in his ministerial capacity, speaking ex cathedrâ, on matters of faith, is infallible; and there are others who do not hold this opinion. But all Catholics know and believe that the church is infallible, whether assembled in a general council of her bishops, with the chief pontiff at their head, or when dispersed throughout the world, her bishops receive and assent to the definitions of faith of the chief pastor. Every Catholic knows and believes this."§ Bishop Hay, in the "Sincere Christian," gives two systems of infallibility as the true doctrines of their church; he then gives two additional systems respecting the infallibility of the pope personally, and main * Du Pin, Ecc. Hist., cent. 17, p. 147. + Pighius de Hier., lib. 6. See Barrow on Supremacy, p. 395. Discussion at Carlow, Nov., 1824, p. 94. tains stoutly that his holiness cannot err, and comes very near placing his opponents in the list of heretics. The following are these systems: "Quest. In whom, then, does the infallibility properly reside? Ans. In the body of the pastors, joined with their head. Q. How so? A. In either of these two ways: (1.) When the pastors of the church are called together by the chief pastor, in a general council, to decide any thing about religion, whether regarding faith or manners, they are then infallible in their decisions, and their decrees are considered as dictated by the Holy Ghost. (2.) When the head of the church, without calling together the other pastors, publishes any decree concerning faith or morals, and this decree is accepted and received by the body of the pastors, either expressly or tacitly, it then becomes a decree of the whole church, and of the same infallible authority as if it had been made in a general council."* Here are two systems of infallibility, as it is claimed by the pope and the body of pastors. Then the other two systems follow, respecting the personal infallibility of the pope :"Quest. When the head of the church publishes any decree concerning faith or morals, to which he requires submission from all the faithful, is he himself infallible in what he teaches? Ans. This is not proposed as an article of divine faith, nor has the church ever made any decision concerning it. Great numbers of the most learned divines are of the opinion that in such a case the head of the church is infallible in what he teaches. Q. On what grounds do those divines form their opinion who believe that the pope himself, when he speaks to all the faithful, as head of the church, is infallible in what he teaches? A. On several very strong reasons, both from Scripture, tradition, and reason. Q. What proofs do they bring from Scripture? 4. These following." After adducing several inappropriate texts, the bishop "Whence it follows that St. Peter, as head of the church, and consequently his successors in office, shall never fail in faith nor teach false doctrine." He adduces proofs from tradition, or the ancient fathers, and then gives several reasons for the pope's infallibility, after which he concludes with the following assertion, which, in our opinion, contradicts what he had said just before:-" As this is a question in which faith is not concerned, because the church has never given any decision about it, one may believe it or not in his private opinion." We will have occasion again to consider the reasons for the pope's infallibility, and probably to quote them. says: Many Roman Catholics, especially the French, place infallibility in a general council lawfully assembled; and affirm that the pope, as distinct from the council, is liable to error. The following is a declaration of the faculty of divinity of Paris, made to the king, May 8, 1631, which expresses the true opinion of the then French church on this point: "That it is not the doctrine of the faculty that the pope is above a general council."† "That it is not the doctrine or opinion of the faculty that the pope is infallible when he has not the concurring consent of the church." In 1663, in consequence of the doctrine of * Sincere Christian, vol. i, p. 184. +"Doctrinam facultatis non esse, quod summus pontifex sit menicum." "Non esse doctrinam vel dogma facultatis, quod summus pontifex, nullo accedente ecclesiæ consensu, sit infallibilis." |