Chapter II: Part 2

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. {29b} 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, (in a strait betwixt the danger of profaneness on one hand and of idolatry on the other,) what kind of worship that doubtful phrase was intended to imply. {29c} It may be also noticed that there are several controverted points in religion, (the very points, in fact, most frequently contested among Protestants,) 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.

Nor will the force of our objections be evaded by the reply that _actual_ conformity of faith to the decisions of Popes and Councils is not required; that _intentional_ conformity will suffice; and that every man, whatever be his errors and misconceptions, is capable of salvation who is willing and inclined _to believe as the Church believes_. For if the Romanist is willing to believe as his Church believes, the Protestant is willing to believe as the Apostles and Evangelists believed. If then this willingness will suffice for the Romanist, why should it not be sufficient for the Protestant? If the one, when he falls into error, is held excused by intentional conformity to the Romish creed, why should not intentional conformity to the creed of the Apostles and Evangelists excuse the errors of the other? Let this be granted, and both parties are equally safe, equally infallible. {30}

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. {32a}

Besides the Romanist there are many other counsellors who, with undoubting confidence, offer to relieve our minds from all anxiety as to the soundness of our belief. Among these parties I may now particularly mention the Sceptic and the Mystic; because their systems, and that of the Romanist, however opposite in other respects, have one essential point of agreement. They all have a decided tendency to supersede our own exertions for the discovery of religious truth—the Sceptic by affirming that religious truth is unimportant; the Mystic by alleging that religious truth is passively received by the mind from divine illumination; and the Romanist by inculcating an unconditional acquiescence in the dictates of infallible authority. {32b} This remarkable coincidence suggests to us, that in respect to our employment of means and opportunities, the way of truth is the very opposite to the way of error; that the right path to saving knowledge does not consist in the _disuse_, but in the _strenuous exertion_ of our intellectual and moral faculties; that the inclination to improve our advantages for attaining spiritual information is designed to try our moral character; and that we have a full security from deadly heresy in the co-operation of Divine Providence, and of Divine grace with our own sincere endeavours after truth.

This principle, which pervades the whole of Scripture, {33} 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.

1. Our first rule is: to employ all the strength of our faculties in the study and investigation of natural religion: till we become impressed sincerely and practically with our awful responsibility, as reasonable beings, to our Creator, Benefactor, and Judge eternal.

2. To establish clearly in our minds the evidences and principles of Revelation; and to ascertain, by diligent inquiry, that the Scriptures “given for our learning,” are “given by inspiration of God; and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness.” {34a}

3. To acquire a persuasion (according to the principle asserted in the Scriptures, maintained by all antiquity, and revived at the Reformation,) that the pages of Revelation are not “a sealed book” to us; but that we are bound to “search the Scriptures,” {34b} to “prove all things,” {34c} and “to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us.” {34d}

4. To satisfy ourselves that, on points of Christian doctrine, our only real standard of faith is the Bible; and that tradition (however useful as its interpreter and guardian) is not, as Romanists contend, a co-ordinate authority with the sacred text. {34e}

5. To use in our interpretation of the inspired volume all the helps within our reach; whether spiritual or temporal; whether derivable from the living or from the dead. Among these helps, the most important and indispensable are prayer and a holy life. With respect to prayer, the promises in Holy Scripture, that guidance to the truth shall be given to him that asks it, are, as we have seen, numerous and indisputable. {34f} And as regards a holy life, or the labours of the humble and diligent individual, who, from desire to do the will of God, conscientiously exerts himself to know it, our Lord Himself expressly declares, “If any man will do (θέλει ποιεῖν, or is desirous to do) his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.” {34g} To these helps may be added others equally obvious, so far as they are consistent with the opportunities, station, or profession of the individual—such as familiarity with Scripture in the original, knowledge of history, and particularly of the manners, laws, customs, and opinions of antiquity, Jewish as well as Christian; joined to acquaintance with sound principles of Biblical interpretation, criticism, and translation.

But a point which more particularly seems, under this rule, to require illustration, is the _degree of value_ at which the conscientious inquirer after sound religious knowledge ought to estimate ecclesiastical antiquity. Many pious individuals (in their well-meant zeal against Romish errors) have thought themselves obliged to discard ecclesiastical antiquity, under a persuasion that by attaching any value to ancient writers, they would violate the great Protestant axiom of resting on the sole authority of God’s written word.

But it should be considered, that to use ecclesiastical antiquity for interpreting the word of God, no more violates this axiom than to use any of the other universally admitted aids to interpretation already mentioned. Whatever means the Divine promulgator of Revelation has given to his Church for ascertaining the truths revealed, ought diligently and conscientiously to be improved. Among those means, the place of highest authority belongs unquestionably to the three primitive formularies of belief, the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds; and to the Canons of the first four general councils, which received the sanction of universal Christendom: and in which to his entire satisfaction the conscientious inquirer will find the leading truths of Christianity embodied. The same remark applies to the Episcopal constitution of the Church; for “it is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient authors, that from the Apostles there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” {35} But we cannot better explain how far ancient literature is to be rendered available to sacred purposes, than by a transcription of a canon set forth by the Church of England in the same year with its articles. “Preachers shall not presume to deliver any thing from the pulpit as of moment, to be religiously observed and believed by the people, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and collected out of the same doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and the Bishops of the ancient Church.” {36a} “A wise regulation,” observes the judicious and able Dr. Waterland, “formed with exquisite judgment, and worded with the exactest caution. The canon does not order that they shall teach whatever had been taught by the Fathers: no; that would have been setting up a new rule of faith; neither does it say that they shall teach _whatsoever_ the Fathers had _collected from Scripture_: no; that would have been making them _infallible_ interpreters, or infallible _reasoners_: the doctrine must be found first in Scripture, only to be the more secure that we have found it there: the _Fathers_ are to be called in, to be, as it were, constant checks upon the presumption or wantonness of private interpretation. But then again, as to _private_ interpretation, there is liberty enough allowed to it. Preachers are not forbidden to interpret this or that text, or hundreds of texts, differently from what the Fathers have done; provided still they keep within the _analogy of faith_, and presume not to raise any _new_ doctrine: neither are they altogether restrained from teaching any thing _new_, provided it be offered as opinion only, or as an _inferior_ truth, and not pressed as necessary upon the people. For it was thought that there could be no _necessary_ article of faith or doctrine now drawn from Scripture, but what the ancients had drawn out before from the same Scripture: to say otherwise would imply that the ancients had failed universally in _necessaries_, which is morally absurd.” {36b} The canon thus explained may be thought appropriate to preachers and ministers alone, exclusively of their people; but though the latter cannot, it is true, directly apply this regulation to themselves, they nevertheless may indirectly derive advantage from it. They will be prepared to perceive at once when any minister proposes to their acceptance some doctrine or exposition of Scripture, for which he can produce no ancient authority—and which he declares to be _new_, yet at the same time _important_—he declares himself, by this dangerous and un-canonical proceeding, unworthy of their confidence.

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, (far removed from the jealousies and the wranglings and the violences of factious controversy,) 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.” {37a}

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:” {37b} 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,” {38a} we relax nothing of our efforts, and, like St. Paul, “count not ourselves to have apprehended the price of our high calling,” {38b} 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.” {38c}

* * * * *

THE END.

* * * * *

* * * * *

GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John’s Square, London.

ADVERTISEMENT.

_By the same Author_.

I.

DISSERTATIONS vindicating the CHURCH of ENGLAND in respect to some
Essential Points of Polity and Doctrine.

II.

VINDICATION of the EPISCOPAL or APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

*** Extracted from the foregoing Work.

III.

MEMOIR of the LIFE and TIMES of the RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN SINCLAIR, Bart.

IV.

QUESTIONS ILLUSTRATING the CATECHISM of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.

V.

QUESTIONS on the ORDERS for MORNING and EVENING PRAYER.

VI.

An ESSAY on CHURCH PATRONAGE.

VII.

A CHARGE delivered to the CLERGY of the ARCHDEACONRY of Middlesex, in
1843.

VIII.

A CHARGE delivered in 1844.

IX.

A CHARGE delivered in 1849.

SIDE NOTES.

In the printed book Rev. Sinclair printed side notes in the margins to explain the points he was trying to make. As these made the text itself difficult to read, and added little value to the narrative, in this transcription they are placed here, together with the pages on which they occur, so that the development of the points can be seen in overview.

Side note Page Diversity of religious opinions a source of anxiety 1 On account of others and on our own 1 Confusion from the number of guides 2 Motives of credibility for an infallible living arbiter 2 Fallacy and presumption of these _à priori_ arguments 3 Probable arguments at best are no ground of infallible 5 assurance Argument for infallibility from the analogy of the Jewish 6 Church . . . answered 6 Transmission of the Scripture no proof of infallible 8 interpretation Three requisites to afford us infallible assurance 8 First requisite wanting. Organ of infallibility uncertain 9 Second requisite wanting in the Three Organs of 11 infallibility. The Pope singly Pretensions of the Pontiff scripturally considered 11 Pretensions of the Pontiff traditionally considered 14 Pretensions of the Pontiff morally considered 18 Difficulties of ascertaining infallibly when the Pope 19 speaks _ex cathedrâ_ Papal inconsistencies and heresies 20 Second alleged Organ of Infallibility 21 A general council singly 22 Pretensions of a general council Scripturally considered 22 Difficulties of knowing what is a general council 25 Third organ of infallibility 25 Pope and general council in conjunction 26 Uncertainty of the Papal sanction to a council 26 Additional argument against Popes and Councils jointly 27 Third requisite to afford infallible assurance. This 28 requisite wanting Theory of Development 31 Right path to saving knowledge 32 Difference of this Scriptural principle from the three 33 preceding Rules for acquiring sound Christian knowledge 33 Concluding exhortation 37

FOOTNOTES.

{1} _Ut hæc quæ scripta sunt non negamus_, _ita ea quæ non sunt scripta renuimus_.—Hieron adv. Helvid. oper. t. iv. pars ii. p. 141. ed. Ben.

{3a} Eph. iv. 14.

{3b} The theologian will here observe, that the argument from “motives of credibility,” as they are termed, is in this view more presumptuous and objectionable than the claim so loudly and so vehemently objected against Protestants. Surely there is more presumption in claiming a right to prejudge what God _must_ have done, than in claiming the right of private judgment to ascertain what God _has_ actually revealed.

{5} “But it is more useful and fit (you say) for deciding of controversies, to have, besides an infallible rule to go by, a living infallible judge to determine them: and from hence you conclude, that certainly there is such a judge. But why then may not another say, that it is yet more useful, for many excellent purposes, that all the Patriarchs should be infallible, than that the Pope only should? Another, that it would be yet more useful, that all the Archbishops of every province should be so, than that the Patriarchs only should be so. Another, that it would be yet more useful, if all the Bishops of every diocese were so? Another, that it would be yet more available that all the parsons of every parish should be so? Another, that it would be yet more excellent, if all the fathers of families were so? And lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired, that every man and every woman were so? just as much as the prevention of controversies is better than the decision of them; and the prevention of heresies better than the condemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own very consequence, that not only a general Council, not only the Pope, but all the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Fathers—nay, all the men in the world, are infallible? If you say now, as I am sure you will, that this conclusion is most gross, and absurd, against sense and experience, then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows, viz., That that course of dealing with men seems always more fit to Divine Providence, which seems most fit to human reason.”—Works of Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 296.

{6} Deut. xvii. 8–14.

{7a} Deut. xvii. 8.

{7b} Exod. xxxii. 4–7.

{7c} 1 Kings xii. 28.

{7d} 1 Kings xxii. 6.

{7e} Jerem. v. 30, 31.

{7f} Isa. lvi. 10.

{8} See Tracts published by Bishop Gibson. Title iv. chap. i. vol. i. p. 18.

{9} “For many of you hold the Pope’s proposal _ex cathedrâ_, to be sufficient and obliging” (obligatory); “some a Council without a Pope; some neither of them severally, but only both together; some not this neither in matter of manners, which Bellarmine acknowledges, and tells us it is all one in effect, as if they denied it” (to be) “sufficient in matter of faith; some not in matter of faith neither think this proposal infallible, without the acceptation of the Church universal; some deny the infallibility of the present Church, and only make the tradition of all ages the infallible propounder: yet if you were agreed what and what only is the infallible propounder, this would not satisfy us; nor yet to say, that all is fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him: for though agreeing in this, yet you might still disagree whether such or such a doctrine were propounded or not; or if propounded, whether sufficiently, or only insufficiently. And it is so known a thing, that in many points you do so, that I assure myself you will not deny it.”—Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 118.

{10} See Evidence against Catholicism, by Rev. J. Blanco White, p. 94.

{11} Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Luke xxii. 32. John xxi. 17.

{12a} See Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 418.

{12b} The phrases “to bind and loose” were Jewish, and most frequent in their writings. It belonged only to the teachers among the Jews to bind and loose. When the Jews set any apart to be a preacher, they used these words: “Take thou liberty to teach what is bound and what is loose.”—_Strype’s Preface to the Posthumous Remains of Dr. Lightfoot_, p. 38. See Dr. A. Clarke’s commentary in loco.

{12c} Compare Matt. xvii. 18, with John xx. 22, 23.

{13a} _See manuscript volume by the Honourable Archibald Campbell_, _a Nonjuring Bishop_, _first in Scotland_, _and afterwards in London_. Also Bishop Horsley’s Sermons, vol. i. p. 293.

{13b} For a full exposition of this text, see Remarks by Granville Sharp, Esq., cited by Dr. Adam Clarke in his commentary.

{13c} See Dr. Isaac Barrow’s Treatise on the Pope’s Supremacy, and Rev. J. Fletcher’s Lectures on the Roman Catholic Religion, p. 94.

{13d} Eph. ii. 20.

{13e} 1 Cor. iii. 11.

{13f} 1 Cor. xii. 28.

{14a} Rev. xxi. 14.

{14b} “Seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge, that he was Bishop of Antioch, before he was Bishop of Rome; we require them to show, why so great an inheritance as this, should descend to the younger rather than the elder, according to the ordinary manner of descents? Especially, seeing Rome hath little else to allege for this preferment, but only that St. Peter was crucified in it: which was a very slender reason to move the Apostle so to respect it.”—Extract from Archbishop Usher’s Speech in the Castle Chamber, Dublin, Nov. 22, 1622. See Dr. Parr’s Life of Usher, p. 23.

{14c} “What say you to the expunging the name of Felix, Bishop of Rome, out of the Diptychs of the Church by Acacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople? What say you to Hilary’s Anathema against Pope Liberius!”—Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 408.

{15a} St. Jerome affirms, that a Bishop, in whatever diocese, whether of Rome, of Eugabium, &c., is of the same power (_ejusdem meriti_) and of the same rank in the priesthood (_ejusdem sacerdotii_) with his Episcopal brethren. “For,” he adds, “they are all alike successors of the Apostles.” This admission from the Secretary of Pope Damasus is very remarkable.—Epist. ad Evag.

{15b} Vid. Lab. tom. iv. p. 817.—Grier’s Epitome of the General Councils, pp. 61. 94.

{16a} Ruffinus, in his translation and abstract of the Nicene Canons, gives the sixth of them in these words: “The ancient custom of Alexandria and of Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care or government of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary churches.”—_Ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Româ vetusta consuetudo servetur_, _ut vel ille Ægypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat_. Ruffin. Hist. lib. i. c. 6.—See also Bingham’s Antiquities, Book ix. chap. 1, sec. 9.

{16b} _Universalitatis nomen quod sibi illicitè usurpavit nolite attendere_:—_nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur_.—_Perpenditis_, _fratres carissimi_, _quid e vicino subsequatur cum et in sacerdotibus erumpunt tam perversa primordia_. _Quia enim juxta est ille de quo scriptum est_; _Ipse est rex super universos filios superbiæ_.—Pap. Pelag. ii. epist. 8.

{17a} _Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit_: _quia videlicet si unus patriarcha universalis dicitur_, _patriarcharum nomen cæteris derogatur_. _Sed absit_, _hoc absit à Christianá mente id sibi velle quenquam arripere unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulâcunque parte videatur_!—Pap. Gregor. i. lib. iv. epist. 36.

{17b} _Ego vero fidenter dico_, _quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat_, _vel vocari deciderat_, _in elatione suâ Anti-christum præcurrit_; _quia superbiendo_, _cæteris præponit_.—Pap. Gregor. i. lib. vi. epist. 30. Attempts have been made to reconcile the language of Pelagius and Gregory, with the assumption, by their immediate successors, of the very supremacy which those two Popes so strongly reprobate. The utter futility of such attempts, the reader will see thoroughly established by Stillingfleet in his “Vindication,” part ii. chap. vi.

{19} “I would fain know whether there be any certainty that every Pope is a good Christian, or whether he may not be (in the sense of the Scripture) of the world? If not, how was it that Bellarmine should have cause to think that such a rank of them went successively together to perdition?”—Chillingworth’s Works, vol. iii. p. 359.

The same learned Cardinal whom Chillingworth here refers to, is very zealous throughout his works in defending Papal infallibility, and even ventures to affirm (Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. lib. iv. cap. 5, in fine), “If the Pope could or should so far err, as to command the practice of vice, and to forbid virtuous actions, the Church were bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be bad.” The Pontiffs, whatever they may have thought of this extraordinary theory, seem in _practice_, by the Cardinal’s own account, to have availed themselves, in a considerable degree, of the privilege which he claims in their behalf.—See also Works of Henry More, p. 450.

{20a} “It were heartily to be wished, if he” (the Pope) “should once happen to be _in cathedrâ_, he would infallibly determine what is to be _in cathedrâ_ ever after; for it would ease men’s minds of a great many troublesome scruples, which they cannot, without some infallible determination, get themselves quit of.”—Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 114.

{20b} For Bishop Stillingfleet’s argument to prove that no Pontiff has been canonically elected since the times of Sextus the Fifth, see his Vindication, part i. p. 116.

{21a} _Romanus Pontifex per literas Montanistis communionem impertiit_, _quas_, _errore cognito_, _revocare coactus est_.—Dupin de Antiq. Eccl. Dis. 5. p. 346. La Pape les Montanistes reçu dans sa communion, ce qui montre que le Pape _n’étoit pas infallible_.—Basnage, Hist. tom. i. p. 360.

{21b} He maintained against Cyprian, of Carthage, that baptism, though performed by heretics, ought not to be repeated: but the heretics of that period baptized only in the name of the Father, and sometimes not even in his name: a kind of Baptism which no Roman Catholic would now admit to be valid.—See Grier’s History of the Councils, p. 17.

{21c} See this case argued by Bishop Stillingfleet in part iii. chap. 2, pp. 512, 513, of the Vindication; and for others equally opposite, see Grier’s History passim. See also Burnet on the Nineteenth Article.

{21d} See Evidence against Catholicism by the Rev. Blanco White, p. 33: and the Bishop of Exeter’s Letters to Charles Butler, Esq. Letter xiv. p. 271.

{22a} The writers of the Gallican Church are here alluded to, all of whom oppose the Papal claims.

{22b} Matt. xvi. 18.

{22c} Matt. xviii. 17.

{22d} Matt. xxviii. 20.

{22e} John xiv. 16.

{22f} Acts xv. 28.

{22g} 1 Tim. iii. 15.

{23} _Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat_.—Tostat. Abulens. præfat. in Matt, quæst. xiii.

_Ecclesia latinorum non est Ecclesia universalis sed quædam pars ejus_: _ideo_, _etiamsi tota ipsa errasset_, _non errabat ecclesia universalis_: _quia manet Ecclesia universalis in partibus illis quæ non errant_, _sive illæ sint numero plures quam errantes_, _sive non_.—Ibid. quæst. iv. in Matt. ad proleg. 2.

{24a} “For my part, I should think it did more concern our Lord Jesus, by virtue of this promise, to make his Church _impeccable_, than _infallible_. My meaning is, that it is a much more desirable thing to secure his ministers and people from the danger of _sin_, than from the danger of _error_. But the former He hath not done, and therefore I much doubt of the latter.”—Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. viii.

{24b} _In Scripturis canonicis nullum de iis verbum est_: _nec ex Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva Christi Ecclesia_.—Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 1, quoted in that masterly work, “The Difficulties of Romanism,” by the Rev. G. S. Faber, book 1, chap. ii. p. 36.

{26} “The low Romanists who are distinguished by the name of Cisalpines, (for serious differences exist, it appears, even in the very bosom of privileged inerrancy,) not only deny the personal infallibility of the Pope, but hold also that for heresy or schism (to both of which, we find, the alleged fallible head of an infallible body is actually liable,) he may be lawfully deposed by a general council. Such being the case, they must, on their own principles, inevitably hold the infallibility of a general council even when _not_ sanctioned by the papal confirmation: for it is quite clear, on the one hand, that no _prudent_ Pope, at least, would ratify the sentence of his own deposition, or confirm the decree which pronounced him to be a schismatic or a heretic; and it is equally clear, on the other hand, that no general council could infallibly pronounce the Pope to be a heretic or schismatic, himself all the while stiffly denying, as of course he _would_ deny, the offensive allegation, unless such general council, _independently_ of any papal ratification, were _itself_ constitutionally infallible.”—_Faber’s Difficulties of Romanism_, p. 247, 248.

{27a} Bellarm. de Cone. lib. i. cap. 8.

{27b} See Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophecy, sect. 6. vol. viii. of his works, p. 41.

{27c} “That the authority of general councils was never esteemed absolute, infallible, and unlimited, appears in this, that before they were obliging (obligatory) it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them, _Concurrenti universali totius ecclesiæ consensu_, &c., _in declaratione veritatum quæ credendæ sunt_, &c. In this way, as observed by Gerson, the decrees of councils became authentic, and turned into a law: and till they became so their decrees were but a dead letter.”—See Heber’s Bishop Taylor, vol. viii. p. 50, 51, remarking on St. Augustin, b. 1. cap. 18. de Bapt. contra Donat.

{29a} See Works of Leslie, vol. i. p. 497.

{29b} For an example, see Blanco White’s Evidence, p. 39.

{29c} See Bishop Burnet on the Twenty-second Article.

{30} It may here be not inapposite to introduce the well-known example of implicit faith, recorded by various writers, and which has met with different degrees of Roman Catholic praise and of Protestant censure. An ignorant collier of the Romish persuasion was asked, what it was that he believed, and answered, “I believe what the Church believes.” The questioner rejoined: “What then does the Church believe?” He replied: “The Church believes what I believe.” The other, anxious for particulars, resumed his interrogatories: “Tell me, then, I pray you, what is it that you and the Church both believe?” To which the collier could only give this answer: “Why, truly, sir, the Church and I both believe the same thing.”—Campbell’s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 259.

{32a} The true theory of development is ably stated by Bishop Butler in his Analogy, part ii. chap. 3, and may be usefully contrasted with the newly-devised dogma of Popery.

{32b} “Certainly every man considering that his eternal salvation lies upon it, will be enforced to apply sincerity and care in his own behalf; whereas if others interpret for him, they may do it more remissly, or more fraudulently.”—_Works of Hen. More_, p. 454.

“As the case stands in religion, according to the Roman Catholic doctrine, reason, and thinking, and studying, and examination, and industry, and search, though they be necessary tools to be made use of for the putting a man into good hands, yet after he is in those hands, he is to throw all these things away, and never after to make use of them. Doth this look like a doctrine of God? No, certainly.”—Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. vii. p. 29.

{33} Psalm xxv. 14; xxxii. 8; xxv. 8, 9; xv. 12, 13. Prov. li. 1–5; iii. 5, 6; x. 30, 31. James i. 5. Matt. vii. 12. John vii. 17.

{34a} 2 Tim. iii. 16.

{34b} John v. 39.

{34c} 1 Thess. v. 21.

{34d} 1 Pet. iii. 15.

{34e} For proofs and illustrations of this point, drawn from Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome, Basil, and Augustin, see Faber’s “Difficulties of Romanism.”

{34f} See note p. 33.

{34g} John vii. 17. Sermons of Bishop Taylor, vol. vi. p. 402.

{35} Book of Common Prayer.

{36a} _Imprimis vero_, _videbunt_ (Concionatores) _ne quid unquam doceant pro concione_, _quod a populo religiosè teneri et credi velint_, _nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinæ veteris aut novi testamenti_: _quodque ex illâ ipsâ doctrinâ Catholici Patres et veteres Episcopi collegerint_.—Sparrow, Collect, p. 238. It is scarcely necessary to observe that this canon is not included among those of 1603.

{36b} See chap. vii. of Dr. Waterland’s Treatise on the Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity; where the use of ecclesiastical antiquity is discussed with his usual masterly erudition and ability. Similar observations in an abridged form may be found in his introduction to a review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. See vol. vii. of his Works, edited by Bishop Van Mildert.

{37a} James iii. 17.

{37b} 2 Cor. xiii. 5.

{38a} Heb. vi. 11; x. 22.

{38b} Phil. iii. 13.

{38c} Rom. viii. 35–39.