,transcribed from the #ahej ,francis ,john ,rivington edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4org ,,london3 ,,gilbert ,,rivington1 ,,printers1 ,,st4 ,,john',s ,,square4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,an ,,essay ,,on ,,papal ,,infallibility4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,by ,,the ,,venerable ,,john ,,sinclair ,m4,a4 ,,archdeacon ,,of ,,middlesex1 ,,and ,,vicar ,,of ,,kensington4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,,francis ,,john ,,rivington1 ,,st4 ,,paul',s ,,church ,,yard1 ,,and ,,waterloo ,,place4 #ahej4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,on ,,papal ,,infallibility4 8,holy ,scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation3 so that whatsoever is not read therein1 nor may be proved thereby1 is not to be required of any man1 that it should be believed as an article of the faith1 or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation40--,sixth ,article of ,religion4 8,as we deny not those things that are written1 so we refuse those that are not written40--,jerome4 #a 8,the ,spirit of ,god1 therefore1 is the only infallible judge here2 and has declared as plainly as any successive judges can1 in those things that are necessary to life and salvation1 what is to be believed and to be done2 which if we believe and practise in particular1 and do also in general1 and implicitly believe and stand in a readiness to obey the rest of the ,scripture1 when the sense thereof appears to us1 we are in a safe condition1 and need not doubt but it will go well with us in the other state40--,works of ,henry ,more1 pp4 #dec1 #ded4 ,,every reflecting ,christian1 as soon almost as he is capable of reflection1 must have continual occasion to observe with sorrow and anxiety the multiplied varieties of opinion that divide the ,church of ,christ1 on every point or article of ,christian faith2 the confidence with which every sect lays claim exclusively to the possession of saving knowledge1 and the unqualified severity with which each party reprobates the other1 as being implicated in unpardonable heresy4 ,on hearing 7and who can escape hearing87 the fulmination of these mutual anathemas1 we not only grieve for the state of dreadful peril in which1 if we admit such principles1 a large proportion of our neighbours1 friends1 and fellow ,christians must be involved3 but we grieve likewise on our own account4 ,we are visited with doubts1 misgivings1 and apprehensions1 lest we ourselves1 through ignorance or prejudice1 should have adopted unawares into our creed some article containing deadly error2 or should have omitted something indispensable to salvation4 ,in this state of intellectual and spiritual perplexity1 if we want the ,christian industry and moral courage to work out for ourselves1 by the help of ,god1 this greatest of all problems1 we are in a state of passive readiness to receive counsel from the first adviser4 ,among the multitude of counsellors who present themselves1 none is more importunately obtrusive1 or more dictatorially confident than the ,romanist2 and ,i propose1 for the subject of this essay1 to examine successively the remedies and expedients he suggests for calming our disquietude1 and restoring our religious peace4 ,he informs us that our state of mind is the necessary consequence of adhering to a ,protestant communion2 and that we never can obtain repose and satisfaction until we enter the ,catholic ,church--until1 with the other wandering sheep dispersed over the forbidden pastures of the earth1 we return with humble penitence to the fold which we have left2 until1 in short1 we renounce all dependence on the conclusions of uncertain reason1 and establish our ,faith for ever upon the dictates of infallibility4 8,that there must10 he adds1 8be some where upon earth an infallible living judge1 an arbiter of religious controversy incapable of error1 an authority from whose decision on points of faith there can be no appeal1 is a plain and obvious principle1 which1 on proper reflection1 you will find impossible to be rejected4 ,not to insist on arguments from ,scripture1 although sufficiently conclusive1 and capable in themselves of proving that such an arbiter has been appointed1 there are independent considerations in favour of infallibility which ought to satisfy every reasonable mind3 for the wise ,creator of man would never grant a revelation to his creatures1 and then leave them to the direction of their own erring judgment in ascertaining the truths revealed4 ,the benevolent ,creator of man must know that man is fallible2 that he needs indispensably a conductor2 and that without some infallible conductor the benefits of revelation would be doubtful and precarious4 ,but if infallibility exist at all in the ,church1 it must exist in the ,papal communion1 which alone makes the least pretension to the privilege4 ,therefore1 only reconcile yourself to our infallibly directed ,church1 and you will no longer find occasion for uneasiness4 ,you will be guided safely through all the mazes of theological disputation4 ,instead of being #8tossed to and fro1 and carried about with every wind of doctrine' #c;a on a shoreless ocean of uncertainty and error1 you will repose with comfort and unruffled calm in the quiet haven of infallibility40 ,on the promulgation of these assurances our disquietude would at once be tranquillized1 if we could but persuade ourselves that the promise of infallible direction1 would be as certainly fulfilled1 as it is confidently made4 ,but here lies the difficulty4 ,the assertions of our ,romish counsellor are bold1 but the principle from which he argues is fallacious4 ,the assumed principle1 that the human mind is capable of prejudging what conduct the ,creator must pursue towards his creatures1 or of pre-determining what benefits he must bestow1 is incompatible with our nature1 and irreconcilable with experience4 #c;b ,we may perhaps admit1 that if infallibility be found at all in the ,church1 it must be found in that branch which alone pretends to the privilege3 but are we warranted to conclude that ,god must have granted this extraordinary privilege1 merely because we think it likely1 or proper1 or desirable1 that ,he should grant it8 ,can we safely infer1 in any case1 that ,god must have done what we think it right that ,he should do2 and make this inference independently of all proof1 that ,he has actually done so8 ,is it not dictatorial1 and hazardous in the last degree1 to determine by abstract reasonings1 what line of conduct it would be proper for an all-perfect1 and all-wise ,being to adopt1 till evidence appear that ,he has really adopted it8 ,we may indeed rest assured1 in general1 that ,god will do nothing arbitrary or irrational2 but how often and how fatally should we be misled1 did we venture to predict that a certain course of ,divine action is alone rational1 benevolent1 and just--and1 therefore1 must have been the course actually followed by the ,almighty6 ,if we admit this mode of reasoning1 and hazard speculations of this kind1 we should certainly think it reasonable1 that if ,god created sensitive beings1 ,he would make infallible provision against every error or mistake1 which might render them liable to fall from a state of holiness into a state of guilt and misery4 ,we should think it further reasonable for ,him to cause those most essential truths of religion1 his own existence and perfections1 to rest on evidence infallible and demonstrative2 so as to preclude all doubt or hesitation in the most sceptical inquirer4 ,or1 7to suppose another case17 in disputed questions of political importance among nations1 since war and bloodshed cannot otherwise be prevented1 we should think it reasonable for ,him to appoint some great judge of international law1 by whom all differences might infallibly be determined1 and the blessings of tranquillity and peace secured to all the kingdoms of the earth4 ,but ,god has not fulfilled these expectations1 though to all appearance highly reasonable4 ,he has left both men and angels to the freedom of their own wills2 and has created them not only capable of abusing that gift of freedom1 but of involving themselves in sin and wickedness1 and in everlasting ruin4 ,he has afforded no infallible1 no demonstrative evidence of his own existence and perfections2 but has left mankind to ascertain these fundamental truths from principles of abstract reason1 and by reflections on the works of nature and of ,providence4 ,he permits contending nations to decide their quarrels by an appeal to arms3 and notwithstanding all the mischiefs consequent upon war1 has not thought fit to make that effectual provision against this widely desolating source of evil1 which our human wisdom1 if appealed to1 would probably have suggested2 namely1 the appointment of an unerring and authoritative arbiter4 ,we are1 therefore1 not entitled to argue that ,god in his kingdom of grace must unquestionably have pursued a course1 which1 in his kingdom of ,providence1 ,he has not pursued2 nor to maintain that to silence all religious controversies1 ,he must indispensably have had recourse to an expedient which1 in political disputes1 ,he has neglected4 ,we are not entitled to infer1 that ,he must necessarily have determined1 by the authority of an infallible judge1 the less essential truths of religion2 when ,he has left the fundamental truths of all1 to be determined by our own erring reason4 ,we are not entitled to infer1 that the ,creator of men must have made infallible provision against their falling into heresy or 8believing a lie10 and thus frustrating the means for their restoration to a state of holiness and happiness2 when ,he made no provision of that kind against their fall4 #e ,but granting to our ,romanist adviser that his representations were as sound as they are fallacious2 still they could only lead us to a probable1 and never to an infallible conclusion4 ,the strength of the building must be proportionate to the solidity of its foundation4 ,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 stated2 our faith in the decisions of that arbiter cannot be greater than our faith in the arguments and conjectures which support his infallibility4 ,since these proofs1 at the very utmost1 are any thing but demonstrations1 and are only probabilities1 we cannot under any circumstances have more than probability to guide us3 and we therefore end as we began1 and our disquietude even on our admission of an unerring judge1 remains exactly as before4 ,our ,romish advocate1 however1 is not discomfited4 ,he proceeds to affirm that the pretensions of his ,church are supported by analogy4 ,he reminds us that the ,church of ,god1 under the ,jewish dispensation1 was directed by an infallible human authority2 and that the same high privilege1 being equally wanted1 might be equally expected in the ,christian conomy4 ,he quotes for this purpose those magnificent assurances of ,god's peculiar favour and protection1 to be found throughout the books of ,moses and of the prophets2 and relies especially on the remarkable rule established by the legislator of ,israel to this effect3 8,if there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment1 thou shalt come unto the ,priests1 the ,levites1 and unto the ,judge that shall be in those days1 and inquire1 and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment4 ,and the man that will do presumptuously1 and will not hearken unto the ,priest1 or unto the ,judge1 even that man shall die40 #f ,to this argument from analogy we may reply1 that the alleged fact on which the analogy depends1 is unfounded4 ,the ,jewish ,church was not infallible4 ,the evidence adduced to prove it so is totally inadequate2 and unanswerable evidence may be brought forward to prove it otherwise4 ,with respect to the text in question1 it has not the remotest connexion with matters of faith3 it relates entirely to matters of civil government4 ,the introductory words of the passage1 if quoted fairly1 and at full length1 must satisfy every reader1 that they apply only to secular litigation3 that what is here enjoined by the ,mosaic law is submission to the legal magistrate1 not assent to any article of ,faith3 that the contumacy here forbidden under penalty of death1 was not heresy but rebellion2 not obstinate error1 but obstinate disobedience4 8,if there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment1 between blood and blood1 between plea and plea1 and between stroke and stroke1 c40 #g;a--an evident reference this to civil litigation4 ,besides1 however encouraging the language of the ,jewish ,scripture respecting ,god's 8everlasting kindness0 to his 8chosen people10 we know on the authority of their own historians1 that they went continually wrong4 ,even in the days of undoubted divine interposition we read that 8the people corrupted themselves1 and turned aside quickly out of the way which ,god commanded them40 #g;b 8,aaron0 7their supposed infallible guide7 8made a golden calf1 and they said1 ,these be thy gods1 ,o ,israel1 which brought thee up out of the land of ,egypt30 again1 we are informed concerning ,jeroboam1 the son of ,nebat1 that 8he took counsel1 and made two calves of gold1 and said unto them1 ,it is too much for you to go up to ,jerusalem1 behold thy gods1 ,o ,israel1 which brought thee up out of the land of ,egypt40 #g;c ,further1 it is recorded of ,elijah1 that he complained of the ,church of ,israel1 as if it had entirely apostatized and disappeared from the earth4 ,he exclaims in his address to ,god1 8,the children of ,israel have forsaken thy covenant1 thrown down thine altars1 and slain thy prophets with the sword2 and ,i1 even ,i only am left40 ,we read of ,ahab that he gathered his prophets together1 about four hundred men1 and that there was only one individual1 ,micaiah1 8a prophet of the ,lord40 #g;d ,jeremiah laments over his corrupt times1 exclaiming1 8,a wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land3 the ,prophets prophesy falsely1 and the ,priests bear rule through their means2 and my people love to have it so40 #g;e ,isaiah complains of the ,jewish priesthood in his time1 under the figurative name of 8watchmen10 that they were 8blind10 that they were all 8ignorant shepherds that could not understand40 #g;f ,but finally1 to omit many less remarkable instances of error and apostasy1 our blessed ,saviour ,himself was condemned by the ,jewish ,church and crucified4 ,since therefore the ,jewish ,church was not infallible1 the argument from analogy1 whatever value our ,romish friend may attach to it1 is all distinctly on our side4 ,if previous to the ,christian ra no unerring director was appointed1 none may be appointed now4 ,the next resource of our ingenious disputant is to affirm1 that unless the ,church possessed infallibility we could have no certain nor infallible belief of the ,scriptures1 for which his ,church is our authority4 ,to this sophism we can easily reply1 by corresponding cases4 ,the copyists and librarians who have preserved to us the ,greek and ,latin classics are not1 on that account1 infallible expositors of classical antiquity4 ,supposing1 therefore1 that we are exclusively indebted to ,romanism for transmitting to us the sacred oracles1 it does not follow that ,romanists interpret them infallibly4 ,it happens also1 7unfortunately for ,romanist pretensions17 that we are not indebted to any local tradition1 such as that of the ,church of ,rome1 for the preservation of the canonical books of ,scripture2 but to the universal tradition of ,christendom4 ,perhaps we are more under obligation to the ,greek than to the ,latin ,church2 both because the writings of the ,new ,testament were originally in ,greek1 and because the chief authorities to prove their genuineness and authenticity1 as well as the earliest enumerations of them are not ,romish1 but oriental productions4 #h ,it thus appears that infallibility is not demonstrable by abstract reasonings and analogies1 but must be proved1 if it be proved at all1 by direct evidence4 ,to evidence of this latter description we readily give attention1 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 ,church4 ,at the same time we give him warning1 that before he can satisfy our minds1 he must lay before us full and categorical information on the following particulars3 namely1 #a4 ,by what organ the infallible oracles of ,rome are delivered4 #b4 ,by what evidence the claim to infallibility1 as existing in that organ1 is established2 and #c4 ,on what security we can rely1 that our own fallible reason will not mistake nor misconceive the doctrine propounded for our belief4 ,our desire of satisfaction on these points is not expressed in any captious spirit1 but is suggested by the necessity of the case4 ,for if we cannot infallibly discover in what person or persons infallibility resides2 if the ,romanist cannot prove to us by infallible arguments1 that infallibility belongs to the person or persons for whom he claims it2 and if further1 we cannot obtain from our instructor in ,romanism some infallible security that we shall understand the doctrines proposed to us3 it plainly follows that the infallibility he so pertinaciously insists upon1 must be to us a matter of indifference1 attended with no one practical result4 ,our doubts and perplexities will continue unresolved1 and we shall be compelled to seek some other guide to the peace and certainty we so anxiously desiderate4 ,but unhappily in all these respects the promises of our ,romish advocate1 the more they are examined1 appear the more unstable and unsafe4 ,for first of all1 when we inquire by what organ the infallible oracles are promulgated2 he is obliged to acknowledge1 that this important point has been for ages a subject of much dispute1 and a question very far from being yet infallibly determined4 ,various are the conflicting authorities1 the whole of which it would be needless1 or perhaps impossible to enumerate4 #i ,some learned ,romanists are of opinion that infallibility is lodged in the ,roman ,pontiff1 as successor to ,st4 ,peter3 others of equal learning are inclined to place it in a general ,council3 a third party1 not conceiving that a ,pope or ,council singly is infallible1 ascribe infallibility to both in conjunction3 and fourthly1 there are not wanting numerous and learned authorities who insist that even the decrees of a general ,council1 ratified by the ,pope1 are not to be accounted infallible1 until they have been received by the ,church ,universal4 ,this explanation is very far from satisfactory3 for we thus perceive1 7according to the avowal of ,romanists themselves17 our liability to continual mistakes and misapprehensions respecting the real quarter where infallible direction can be found4 ,if we take a ,pope or ,council singly for our guide1 we have no security for avoiding deadly heresy2 for a ,pope or ,council singly may be heretical4 ,on the other hand1 if we study to avoid this danger by attaching our faith exclusively to a ,pope and ,council in conjunction1 7that is1 to the decree of a general ,council ratified by ,papal sanction17 we fall into another danger1 and may reject or omit some necessary doctrine1 to which a ,pope or ,council singly has affixed the seal of infallibility4 ,this admitted uncertainty as to the quarter of the earth towards which we are to look for infallible guidance1 is a ground of fair presumption1 perhaps even of demonstration1 that infallibility is in no quarter to be found4 ,for the very object of infallibility is the removal of all doubt2 but doubt can never be removed while the question1 who is the remover of it1 remains unfixed1 and impossible to be decided4 ,to receive assurances the most positive and solemn1 that all our doubts shall be resolved2 and yet to be told that the authority for resolving them is doubtful1 is to use a cruel mode of trifling with our simplicity4 ,for it has been long and painfully remarked1 as the reproach of ,romanists1 that1 on their principles1 the greatest controversy among ,christians is1 how to fix the organ by which1 or by whom1 controversies shall be unerringly determined4 #aj ,finding ourselves disappointed that this great question1 in what place the infallible oracle resides1 remains still in agitation1 we next entreat our ,papal adviser to explain the grounds on which the several parties he has mentioned claim the lofty privilege ascribed to them4 ,and since a living judge1 sitting constantly in one spot1 and therefore always ready to be consulted1 is incomparably more desirable as the organ of unerring truth1 than an assembly of divines1 whom it is often difficult to call together2 we are all attention1 waiting eagerly to hear in the first place the claims of the ,roman ,pontiff1 and to receive1 if possible1 such clear and convincing arguments for ,pontifical infallibility1 that henceforward we shall be able to rely upon it with infallible assurance4 ,in compliance with this request1 our ,papal guide adduces what he considers evidence from ,scripture1 and rests the ,papal cause upon the following declarations of our ,lord4 ,first1 8,thou art ,peter1 and upon this rock ,i will build my church20 secondly1 8,i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of ,heaven2 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven1 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven20 thirdly1 8,i have prayed that thy faith fail not20 and lastly1 8,feed my sheep40 #aa ,when we learn that these quotations are brought forward as sufficient grounds for establishing an infallible assurance of ,papal infallibility1 our first impression is of surprise3 and our surprise increases into amazement1 the more we try to follow our guide1 and to rest an infallible assurance upon reasons so uncertain and precarious4 ,there is throughout the texts quoted1 no mention of the ,roman ,pontiff whatever1 nor any distinct allusion to the subject of infallibility4 ,it therefore seems extremely difficult to comprehend how any reasoning man should thence infer that the ,pontiff is infallible4 ,but here we are next given to understand that his ,holiness1 as successor to ,st4 ,peter1 inherits all the privileges of ,st4 ,peter2 and that what our ,saviour promised to that ,apostle was not promised to him personally1 but to his successors in all ages4 ,yet1 on examining the authorities again1 we find no warrant for the conclusion asserted4 ,there is nothing to assure us infallibly1 nothing which would even lead us to suspect that our ,lord looked further than to the ,apostle himself1 or conferred upon him any privilege not shared in common with his brethren4 ,our ,saviour's prayer that the faith of ,peter might not fail1 and his subsequent restoration of him to the ,apostolic office by the thrice repeated charge of 8,feed my sheep10 have obvious reference to the character and conduct of that disciple--at one time an apostate1 afterwards an accepted penitent4 ,they can relate to no other person1 and to no other circumstances4 ,and 8it is absurd10 as ,bishop ,stillingfleet observes1 8to infer an impossibility in the ,pope of falling1 from a promise to ,st4 ,peter of recovery0 and restoration4 #ab;a ,again1 the promise1 8whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven10 #ab;b conveys no peculiar advantage or pre-eminence to ,st4 ,peter2 for the very same power is conveyed afterwards by our ,lord ,himself to the whole number of the ,apostles4 8,receive ye the ,holy ,ghost3 whose soever sins ye remit1 they are remitted unto them2 and whose soever sins ye retain1 they are retained40 #ab;c ,in respect to the privilege with which that promise is introduced1 8,i give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven10 if these words really have any meaning distinct from the power already mentioned of binding and loosing1 they refer prophetically to ,st4 ,peter1 as the person by whose instrumentality the gates of the ,church would be opened to mankind4 ,and accordingly with one key the ,apostle1 on the day of ,pentecost1 opened the gate of the ,church to the believing ,jews and proselytes1 when by the sermon which he preached at ,jerusalem he converted about three thousand souls2 and with the other key he afterwards opened the gate of the ,church to ,cornelius and his friends1 who were the first ,gentile converts4 #ac;a ,the declaration1 8,thou art ,peter1 and upon this rock #ac;b ,i will build my church10 is a text of very ambiguous meaning1 and cannot therefore be the ground of infallible assurance4 ,we have no means of clearly ascertaining whether our ,lord refers to the person of ,st4 ,peter as a foundation for the ,church1 or to the confession of ,st4 ,peter made in the preceding verse4 8,thou art the ,christ the ,son of the living ,god40 ,a large proportion of the fathers1 including ,hilary1 ,chrysostom1 ,theodoret1 ,theophylact1 and ,augustin1 #ac;c understood our ,saviour's declaration as referring solely to the confession of ,faith made so distinctly and so zealously by the ,apostle4 ,the text itself seems evidently to require the interpretation4 ,to speak strictly1 ,christ ,himself is the sole foundation of the ,christian ,church2 and an ,apostle could only be so in a secondary sense4 ,in this secondary sense1 however1 the ,church is not founded upon ,st4 ,peter only in particular1 but on the ,apostolic college in general2 as ,st4 ,paul more than once affirmed4 8,ye are built10 he says to the ,ephesians1 8upon the ,apostles and ,prophets1 ,jesus ,christ himself being the chief corner stone40 #ac;d 8,other foundation10 he says to the ,corinthians1 8can no man lay40 #ac;e ,and again1 addressing the ,church of ,corinth1 7when the same inspired writer reckons up the different gradations of ,christian ministers17 he does not mention ,st4 ,peter first1 as nearer the foundation than any other member of the ,apostolic college2 but speaks of the whole body in the following general terms2 8,god hath set some in his ,church1 first ,apostles1 secondarily prophets1 thirdly teachers40 #ac;f ,the ,revelations of ,st4 ,john describe in like manner the wall of the holy city1 as having 8twelve foundations1 and in them the names of the twelve ,apostles of the ,lamb40 #ad;a ,there is not a vestige therefore of scriptural evidence1 much less an infallible demonstration1 that the successors of ,st4 ,peter1 whoever they may be1 are possessed of infallibility4 ,and supposing his successors to be infallible1 there is not the slightest scriptural ground for believing that his successors are the ,bishops of ,rome4 ,on this point1 so vitally essential to the ,papal cause1 the sacred writings are wholly silent4 ,they indeed inform us that this ,apostle preached at ,jerusalem1 at ,csarea1 at ,joppa1 and at ,antioch1 but they no where even intimate that he ever was at ,rome3 still less therefore can we expect them to affirm that he was local ,bishop of that ,see2 and least of all1 that the ,roman ,bishops 7in preference to the ,bishops in other churches of which he was the founder17 were heirs of his peculiar privileges2 and along with other ,apostolic privileges1 inherited infallibility1 while they lost the gifts of miracles and of tongues4 #ad;b ,the absence of proofs from ,scripture in favour of the ,papal claims1 is by no means compensated by a plenitude of evidence from antiquity4 ,in ancient times the pretension to infallibility1 instead of being universally acknowledged1 was not even alleged4 ,it was never so much as mentioned4 ,churches and ,fathers1 in the primitive age1 on occasions of their dissenting from the ,roman ,pontiff1 so far from yielding reverently and implicitly to his opinions1 openly contested them like those of any other bishop1 metropolitan1 or patriarch4 ,nay1 they even sometimes excommunicated their infallible superior4 #ad;c ,the ,roman ,pontiff1 on the other hand1 so far from crushing opposition by the verdict of infallibility1 endeavoured always to support his doctrine by the authority of ,scripture1 of reason1 or of antiquity4 ,when appeals were made to him by disputants in a later age1 it was never stated or imagined to be their ground of selecting him as their arbiter1 that his decision would be infallible2 but only that he merited such a tribute of respect1 either in consideration of his private character1 as a wise1 just1 and holy individual1 or by virtue of his official rank as bishop of the imperial city4 #ae;a ,when ,byzantium was raised to the same imperial eminence1 by the name of ,constantinople1 or ,new ,rome1 the ,byzantine ,patriarch was declared by the second general council held ,a4,d4 #cha1 to be of equal dignity with his ,roman brother4 ,precedence only1 or nominal priority1 was reserved to the episcopate of the more ancient capital4 ,this reservation was confirmed ,a4,d4 #dea1 by the fourth general council held at ,chalcedon2 in the decrees of which the reason given for this nominal priority of ,old over ,new ,rome is merely political1 and has nothing to do with spiritual concerns4 8,the ,fathers10 say the members of this later council 7referring to their predecessors71 8have justly assigned the eldership to the seat of elder ,rome--on account of the kingly or imperial authority of that city 7 71 and they have assigned equal privileges 7 7 to ,new ,rome1 rationally judging that the city which was honoured by the imperial power and by the residence of the ,senate1 and which enjoyed equal privileges with ,royal ,rome1 its elder sister1 should1 like her1 be exalted in ecclesiastical rank40 7 47 #ae;b ,that the ,roman ,bishops were never allowed to arrogate infallibility by the ancient ,church is further evident from the fact1 that they were not allowed even to claim supreme jurisdiction4 ,the ,patriarch of ,rome had no ecclesiastical authority beyond certain provinces and churches termed suburbicary 7ecclesi suburbicari71 including1 at the most1 certain districts of ,italy1 together with the adjacent islands4 #af;a ,the other four ,patriarchs 7of ,constantinople1 ,antioch1 ,alexandria1 and ,jerusalem17 were entirely independent of their ,roman colleague1 and of each other4 ,when ,john1 ,patriarch of ,constantinople1 towards the close of the sixth century1 put forth a claim to supreme and universal rule in the ,church1 encouraged in this insolent pretension by the residence of the emperor within the limits of his ,see--the ,popes of that period1 ,pelagius and ,gregory the ,great1 resisted with great energy his pretensions2 not however as interfering with their own supremacy1 but as being in themselves presumptuous and anti-,christian4 8,pay no attention10 says ,pelagius1 8to the power which he unlawfully usurps under the name of universality4 ,let no patriarch ever apply to himself so profane a title4 ,you may foresee1 my dearest brethren1 the mischievous consequences from such beginnings of perverseness among the priesthood4 ,for he 7antichrist7 is near1 of whom it is written that he maketh himself king over all the sons of pride40 #af;b 8,no one of my predecessors10 says ,gregory the successor of ,pelagius1 8ever thought of using so profane an appellation2 for if one ,patriarch assumes the title of universal1 it is lost to all the others4 ,but far1 very far be it from the mind of a ,christian1 to grasp at any thing by which he may appear in any the slightest measure to derogate from the honour of his brethren40 #ag;a ,in another passage he thus energetically addresses his overbearing fellow patriarch2 8,what wilt thou say to ,christ1 the ,head of the ,universal ,church1 in the trial of the last judgment1 who1 by the appellation of ,universal1 dost endeavour to subject all his members to thyself8 ,whom1 ,i pray1 dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word1 but ,him1 who1 despising the legions of angels1 constituted in fellowship with ,him1 endeavoured to break forth unto the height of singularity1 that ,he might both be subject to none1 and alone be over all8 ,who also said1 #8,i will ascend into heaven1 and will exalt my throne above the stars4'--,for what are thy brethren1 all the ,bishops of the ,universal ,church1 but the stars of heaven1 to whom1 while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself1 and to trample on their name in comparison with thyself2 what dost thou say1 but ,i will climb into heaven80 ,in other places he brands the titles which ,john had assumed1 as 8pompous10 8foolish10 8proud10 8perverse10 8wicked10 and 8profane30 as names of 8singularity10 8elation10 8vanity10 and 8blasphemy40 ,he insists that there was 8one sole ,head of the ,church1 viz4 ,christ10 and sums up all with this strong prophetic denunciation3 8,i may confidently declare1 that whenever any man styles himself1 or desires to be styled1 universal priest1 such a man1 by so exalting himself1 becomes forerunner of antichrist1 because by pride he sets himself above his brethren40 #ag;b ,the attempts which have been made to reconcile the indignant language of ,pelagius and ,gregory1 with the usurped prerogatives of their successors1 by ingeniously exaggerating the pretensions of the ,eastern ,patriarch1 are utterly ineffectual4 ,indeed1 if evidence were required to prove that the assumptions of the ,papacy in the present day are not inferior to those of the ,patriarch of the ,east1 we need not go farther in quest of such evidence than the ,papal ,brief of ,september last4 ,for we do not read that ,john of ,constantinople ever ventured of his own will and pleasure to extinguish two ancient archiepiscopal sees1 together with the whole diocesan ,episcopate of both provinces4 ,we do not read that ,john ever had the hardihood to abolish all the ,constitutions and ,canons1 however ancient1 of an independent ,national ,church1 and to substitute for them the jus commune1 or common law of ,constantinople4 ,we do not read that ,john ever presumed to grant territorial designations1 and titles of honour1 to his own nominees1 contrary to the civil constitution of a powerful and independent kingdom1 within which those titles and dignities were to be assumed4 ,on the contrary1 we know that ,john1 so far from perpetrating aggressions on the prerogatives of foreign sovereigns1 was entirely subordinate to the civil power of his own country1 and depended solely on the favour and authority of the emperor for the support of his assumptions4 ,and yet ,pius the ,i,xth ventures to do what ,john of ,constantinople never even attempted2 and has shut his eyes to the fact that he has thereby exposed himself to the anathemas of his infallible predecessors4 ,strong language has been used1 7on some occasions too strong17 by a justly indignant people in reprobation of his presumption2 but however strong that language may be1 it has not as yet approached the acrimony of the expressions used by ,pelagius and ,gregory the ,great on far inferior provocation4 ,we have seen that ,scripture and antiquity are utterly irreconcilable with the pretensions of the ,papal chair4 ,we may now adduce the moral character of the ,pontiffs themselves1 as a fair ground of presumption that they have not the privilege of infallibility4 ,if indeed we could be satisfied from history that they had all1 or most of them1 in long succession1 been pious and holy and exemplary men1 in a degree beyond the ordinary standard of ,christian excellence2 that they had been rich in faith and in good works2 that they had been exalted models of disinterested beneficence1 of real purity1 and almost ascetic moderation2 men whose affections were fixed unquestionably upon the glory and felicity of the heavenly state1 to the exclusion of all concern for mere earthly interests1 and the little vanities of secular ambition3--we might have been disposed to scrutinize with less distrust the claims of such truly virtuous and estimable ,christian pastors4 ,but since the ,papal character has been acknowledged even by the ablest advocates of the ,papacy1 to have been in general the very opposite of what we have been describing1 we have a strong presumptive argument that such men were not infallible4 #ai ,other strong objections to ,pontifical infallibility arise from the want of any certain rule for determining the validity of elections to the popedom1 and for issuing the infallible decrees4 ,before these decrees can be infallibly relied upon1 the following particulars must be infallibly ascertained3 who are the persons divinely entitled to give a vote in the choice of a ,pontiff8 and how do those persons establish their ,divine title8 ,what proportion of the voters are required by ,divine authority to be present1 and what majority of numbers must decide8 ,how far shall simony1 or fraud1 or force1 vitiate the election8 ,in case of two elections1 how shall we infallibly distinguish between the claims of rival ,pontiffs8 between the real ,pope1 whom1 under the penalty of condemnation1 we are bound to obey1 and the anti-pope1 whom1 under the same high penalty1 we must abjure8 ,when schisms rend the ,church 7and not less than twenty-six have rent the ,church of ,rome71 how shall we discern the true communion from the schismatical8 ,and since the ,pope is supposed infallible only in his official1 not in his personal capacity1 how shall we decide infallibly when he speaks as an ordinary individual1 and when as the successor of ,st4 ,peter8 in other words1 what solemnities exactly are requisite to be observed1 for constituting a judgment ex cathedr from the ,apostolic chair8 what councillors must be summoned8 what mode of promulgation must be adopted8 #bj;a ,such are some of the questions which every candid ,romanist must be desirous to hear definitely answered1 and which consequently must present themselves with much greater force to every ,protestant mind4 ,when a privilege so important as infallibility is understood to be granted1 all the circumstances necessary for our direction in receiving and submitting to it1 require to be distinctly and indisputably revealed to us4 ,unless these circumstances are fixed by the same authority that is supposed to make the grant1 namely1 by ,christ ,himself1 we are as far removed from infallibility as ever2 and in deciding these essential and fundamental particulars1 we are left to mere argument and conjecture4 #bj;b ,to disprove ,papal infallibility much more will scarcely be expected by our readers2 but we will add one concluding observation on the erroneousness and inconsistency of the supposed infallible decrees4 ,if ,popes really were infallible1 their doctrine would never vary1 but would remain1 from age to age1 unalterably the same3 the judgment of one ,pope would never differ1 on the same subjects1 from the judgment of another2 and least of all would it be credible that any ,pope should be convicted of heresy4 ,we know1 however1 from unquestionable documents of history that this was not the case4 ,two ,popes in the second century 7,eleutherius and ,victor7 were encouragers of the heretical fanaticism of ,montanus4 #ba;a ,another ,pope 7,stephen7 of the third century was heretical on the subject of baptism3 #ba;b ,pope ,liberius condemned ,athanasius1 and subscribed his name to the semi-,arian heresy3 ,pope ,honorius was by a general council condemned as a ,monothelite4 #ba;c ,and 7not to multiply particular examples7 we may remark1 once for all1 that a long line of ,popes promulgated1 ex cathedr1 a doctrine which1 in the present age1 is abandoned by ,rome itself1 and is rejected universally as impious and extravagant2 the doctrine1 namely1 that the ,roman ,see is vested with the ,divine right of temporal jurisdiction over all the kingdoms of the earth2 and that the ,pontiff1 as ,vicar of ,jesus ,christ1 and delegate of ,him who is ,king of kings and ,lord of lords1 may call civil magistrates to account1 and may depose kings and emperors1 on the charge of heretical depravity4 #ba;d ,to these various objections against the doctrine of ,pontifical infallibility1 our defender of the ,roman ,faith replies by a ready acknowledgment that the great majority of ,romanists themselves are of our opinion3 that much abler arguments have been urged by them than by ,protestants against this pretension of the ,pope3 #bb;a that by them infallibility is ascribed not to the ,roman ,pontiff1 who 8is liable to err1 and who frequently has erred20 but to a general ,council1 representing the whole ,church of ,christ1 and combining all its collective wisdom4 ,on our inquiry by what ,scriptural evidence infallibility is proved to lodge in a representative assembly thus constituted1 we are desired to read the following texts3-- 8,thou art ,peter1 and upon this rock ,i will build my ,church1 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it40 #bb;b 8,if he neglect to hear the ,church1 let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican40 #bb;c 8,lo1 ,i am with you alway1 even unto the end of the world40 #bb;d 8,i will pray the ,father2 and he shall give you another ,comforter1 that he may abide with you for ever1 even the ,spirit of truth40 #bb;e 8,for it seemed good to the ,holy ,ghost and to us1 to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things40 #bb;f 8,these things write ,i unto thee2 that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of ,god1 which is the ,church of the living ,god1 the pillar and ground of the truth40 #bb;g ,our endeavours to extract out of these texts infallibility for the ,romish ,church are as much in vain as in the preceding inquiry for supporting the ,papal claims4 ,a general council seems to have as little warrant from ,holy ,scripture to assure us that it is infallible1 as the ,roman ,pontiff himself4 ,the first quotation refers to the perpetual continuance of the ,christian society4 ,christ assures us that1 to the end of time1 the gates of hell shall not prevail against his ,universal ,church2 or1 in other words1 that a community called by his name1 and retaining the essentials of ,christianity1 will never cease to be4 ,but this consolatory promise gives us no security that any one particular ,church1 or any meeting of ,church officers1 shall be infallible4 ,on this subject we cannot forbear transcribing the judicious comment of a learned ,romanist1 ,tostatus of ,avila1 who flourished in the fifteenth century3 8,the universal or ,catholic ,church never errs1 because it never errs in all its branches4 ,the ,church of ,rome 7ecclesia latinorum7 is not the ,catholic ,church1 but only a certain branch of it2 and1 therefore1 although the whole of that branch should have erred1 the whole ,church could not be said to err4 ,because the genuine ,catholic ,church remains in the unerring branches1 whether they be more or fewer than the branches which err40 #bc ,again1 the injunction of our ,lord to 8tell the ,church10 if taken apart from1 and not in connexion with the preceding context1 might seem to have some distant bearing upon this question4 ,but on examining the whole passage1 we perceive that our ,saviour makes allusion to secular1 not to spiritual concerns2 and is speaking only of private differences among his followers4 8,if thy brother shall trespass against thee1 go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone40 ,three successive steps are next recommended for effecting an accommodation3 first a private interview2 then the influence of mutual friends2 and lastly1 the authority of the ,church to which the parties belong4 ,the contumacious wrong-doer who could not by these methods be brought to reason1 was no longer to be regarded as a ,christian brother1 but as a heathen4 ,he was liable to excommunication1 or expulsion from the society2 and reparation of the injury committed might now be sought for in a court of law4 ,we do not find in these directions the remotest allusion to infallibility4 ,the encouraging promise2 8,lo1 ,i am with you alway1 even unto the end of the world10 is not a grant of infallibility1 but a promise of assistance1 protection1 and consolation2 and was indispensably required1 when our ,lord delegated to his ,apostles the perilous labour of propagating the ,gospel in opposition to all the rulers of this world1 sending them forth 8as sheep among wolves40 #bd;a ,his promise that the 8,spirit of truth0 should 8guide them into all truth10 relates entirely to the extraordinary gifts with which they were endowed1 and is immediately connected with another promise1 confessedly peculiar to the ,apostolic age4 8,he0 7the ,holy ,ghost7 8shall show you things to come40 ,the words1 8,it seemed good to the ,holy ,ghost and to us10 in the decree of the first council at ,jerusalem1 have left no precedent for other councils to use the same language2 unless on separate evidence it can be shown that those councils have the same authority of inspiration4 ,the position therefore1 that general councils1 as representing the ,church of ,christ1 are infallible1 labours under a total want of ,scripture ,evidence4 ,there is not a single precept given for assembling them2 not one solitary rule for determining their proceedings4 ,as the learned ,albert ,pighius1 an advocate of pontifical infallibility1 very justly argues3 8,there is not a word about general councils in the canonical books of ,scripture2 nor did the primitive ,church of ,christ receive by ,apostolical institution any special direction respecting them40 #bd;b ,this able writer represents the practice of summoning a general council in cases of ecclesiastical emergency1 to be an expedient piously introduced by the ,emperor ,constantine for the purpose of composing the dissensions of the ,church4 ,but the same author insinuates a charge of great ignorance against the ,emperor and his council1 who in adopting this course1 appeared not to know that the privilege of infallibility belonged to the ,papal chair1 and that ,rome was the proper ,delphos where he might receive the infallible oracles4 ,this imperial ignorance is a remarkable admission by the advocate of the ,papacy in his zeal against general councils4 ,he succeeds in demolishing the latter2 but acknowledges at the same time a fact which is fatal to the former4 ,for if ,constantine and the ,bishops of his court were ignorant of the papal pretensions1 it must be obvious that such pretensions either could not have been put forth at all1 or could not at that time have been generally recognized4 ,but if the ,scripture1 instead of being totally silent on the subject1 had plainly and categorically declared1 that general councils are infallible1 we should only be involved in fresh perplexities3 for the question would immediately arise1 what is a general council8 ,how do we know a spurious from a genuine council8 ,councils have been assembled by opposite parties on purpose to give opposite decrees2 and how shall we distinguish the fallible and heretical1 from the orthodox and infallible assembly8 ,this vital question cannot be determined by the numbers present1 or the portion of the ,christian world represented by them4 ,the orthodox ,athanasius was condemned successively by councils representing the ,eastern and the ,western ,church4 ,various councils condemned by the ,church of ,rome for heresy1 were as numerously and respectably attended1 as more orthodox conventions4 ,the ,council of ,milan consisted of #cjj ,bishops4 ,at ,ariminum not less than #djj ,bishops were assembled4 ,the ,council of ,ephesus included #aj ,metropolitans and #acj ,bishops4 ,the ,council of ,constantinople included #cch ,bishops4 ,and when the rival ,councils of ,sardica and ,philippopolis fulminated mutual anathemas1 the latter1 which was heretical1 consisted of #id ,bishops1 while their orthodox opponents amounted only to #gf4 ,as most of these councils were convened by imperial authority2 represented large portions of ,christendom2 and included men of the greatest learning and ability1 there seems nothing to distinguish them from other synods1 which are acknowledged to be general and infallible--nothing1 if we except the sanction of the ,roman ,pontiff4 ,here we are informed by our pertinacious disputant1 that the papal sanction is commonly regarded in the ,church of ,rome1 as the essential distinction between a mere provincial synod1 and a general council2 that the decrees of an alleged general council1 not ratified by the ,pope1 are not infallible2 while the decrees of any council1 after that ratification1 must be looked upon as infallibly determined4 ,but our ingenuity must again be exercised in finding our way through this labyrinth3 for1 first of all1 no ,scriptural reason can be found1 or is even pretended1 for the limitation of infallibility to councils of the description mentioned4 ,the authority1 therefore1 exists only in the well-stored imagination of our ,romish friend4 #bf ,and in addition1 we are perplexed to ascertain how two authorities1 separately fallible1 should become infallible by their conjunction4 ,the council is fallible4 ,the ,pope is fallible4 ,but unite these two fallibles1 and you give them infallibility4 ,if it be asked1 ,is the council liable to err which passes the decree8--,certainly1 is the answer3 for otherwise the council would1 without the ,pope1 be all-sufficient4 ,if it be further demanded1 ,is the ,pope1 also liable to err who confirms the decree8--,certainly1 is again the answer3 for he would otherwise be all-sufficient without the council4 ,this is a strange dilemma3 we must believe the decree to be infallibly determined1 and yet must neither ascribe infallibility to the council which passes it1 nor to the ,pope who confirms it4 ,another consideration is the uncertainty and arbitrariness of this papal act of confirmation4 ,the ,protestant must not take for granted that the eighteen ,councils1 acknowledged by the ,church of ,rome to be general1 have the seal of ,st4 ,peter affixed to all their canons and decrees4 ,in some cases a general council is partly confirmed and partly rejected 7partim confirmatum1 partim reprobatum72 #bg;a in some cases neither confirmed nor rejected 7neque approbatum neque reprobatum73 in some it is pronounced uncertain whether the decrees are confirmed or rejected2 and in others they are confirmed by one ,pope1 and rejected by another4 ,sometimes the general council did not proceed with due form 7conciliariter71 or did not proceed with due deliberation 7re diligenter examinat72 sometimes the questions to be determined were not stated with sufficient clearness 7satis apert71 and sometimes there is a want of evidence whether the council was general or provincial4 8,all this10 exclaims ,bishop ,taylor1 8is the greatest folly and most prodigious vanity40 #bg;b ,again1 we might observe1 that if infallibility be granted to the ,church through its representatives in a general council1 the privilege has been for many centuries in abeyance1 and 7considering the aspect of ,christendom7 is never likely to be renewed4 ,and further1 with respect to the reception of these infallible decrees by provincial ,churches1 we might bring forward the doubts which have prevailed among ,romanists1 whether the decrees are binding immediately on being passed1 or only after they have been received4 #bg;c ,next with reference to the doctrines which they inculcate1 these are often grievously contradictory to reason and ,scripture4 ,transubstantiation1 for example1 is contrary to reason4 ,if therefore we believe the infallibility of general councils on grounds of reason1 the reasons against transubstantiation must be fairly balanced in our minds with the reasons in favour of infallibility4 ,and as examples of contradiction to ,scripture1 we might instance the adoration of the ,blessed ,virgin1 the worshipping of images and relics1 the invocation of saints and angels1 purgatory1 and the sacrifice of the mass4 ,we might then go on to show that if the infallibility of general councils be ,scripturally maintained1 the texts adduced in support of infallibility are to be weighed against the numerous and explicit texts which oppose these corrupt doctrines and idolatrous practices4 ,lastly1 we might contend that1 in the primitive ages1 when councils were continually assembled1 neither those councils themselves1 nor any one writer who defended their decrees1 ever spoke of them as infallible4 ,we need scarcely add that councils could not be infallible without knowing it2 nor would hear their infallible decrees disputed without asserting their infallibility4 #c4 ,having now vainly endeavoured to procure conclusive and satisfactory information on two of the essential points indispensable for our conversion to ,romanism2 namely1 first1 by what organ the infallible oracles are delivered1 and1 secondly1 by what evidence the claim to infallibility is established2 we proceed to the third and last topic of investigation1 and inquire on what security we can rely1 that we shall not misunderstand the doctrine propounded to our belief8 ,we have already seen that the ,romanist is unable to decide with certainty in what person or persons infallibility resides2 and that he cannot prove the person or the persons for whom he claims it1 namely1 a ,pope or ,council1 jointly or severally1 to be infallible4 ,let us next consider1 in conclusion1 7and the consideration need not occupy us long17 whether he is more successful in establishing the third particular1 which we began by laying down as necessary to the tranquillization of our minds2 whether1 in short1 it can be proved to us incontestably1 that we shall comprehend with clearness and practical certainty the bulls and canons promulgated for our guidance to the truth4 ,security on this point is obviously indispensable4 ,the inspired volume is allowed by all ,christians to contain unerring rules of faith and practice4 ,but our erring reason1 we are told1 is liable to misconceive them4 ,hence the supposed necessity for another guide4 ,but the very same liability to error which exposes us to mistake in interpreting the ,scriptures1 exposes us to mistake also in interpreting the bulls of a ,pope1 or the canons of a general council4 ,god ,himself inspired his chosen servants to write the ,scriptures 8for our learning40 ,god nevertheless is misunderstood4 ,neither ,pope nor ,council1 therefore1 is secure from being so4 ,their decisions1 jointly or separately1 may be misinterpreted through our weakness of apprehension4 ,we consequently need a new interpreter for expounding their interpretation4 ,but the expositions of this new interpreter may1 like those of his unerring predecessors1 be erroneously understood2 and thus we should require an infinite series of infallible guides1 and at the end of this elaborate process we should not be nearer to infallibility than we found ourselves at the beginning4 #bi;a ,accordingly1 we read1 without surprise1 that there are disputes among ,romanists in regard to the right construction of their infallible decrees and canons2 disputes as constant and as vehement as those unhappily subsisting among ,protestants1 in regard to the meaning of our inspired ,scriptures4 #bi;b ,in the celebrated ,council of ,trent1 the last1 and by the ,romanists regarded as the greatest ever held1 many points of doctrine which had called forth the most violent and argumentative disputation were purposely expressed with ambiguity in the canons1 that the consent of all parties might be obtained4 ,even on that all-important article of faith1 respecting the proper object of religious adoration1 the ,tridentine ,fathers were satisfied with a vague declaration1 that 8due worship should be given to images10 without informing the conscientious worshipper1 7in a strait betwixt the danger of profaneness on one hand and of idolatry on the other17 what kind of worship that doubtful phrase was intended to imply4 #bi;c ,it may be also noticed that there are several controverted points in religion1 7the very points1 in fact1 most frequently contested among ,protestants17 on which no unerring oracle has yet pronounced a decision1 and on which variations of opinion may be discovered in the papal ,church analogous to those prevailing throughout ,protestant communions4 ,i allude to the numerous questions connected with election1 foreknowledge1 predestination1 grace1 free-will1 and the perseverance of the ,saints4 ,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 required2 that intentional conformity will suffice2 and that every man1 whatever be his errors and misconceptions1 is capable of salvation who is willing and inclined to believe as the ,church believes4 ,for if the ,romanist is willing to believe as his ,church believes1 the ,protestant is willing to believe as the ,apostles and ,evangelists believed4 ,if then this willingness will suffice for the ,romanist1 why should it not be sufficient for the ,protestant8 ,if the one1 when he falls into error1 is held excused by intentional conformity to the ,romish creed1 why should not intentional conformity to the creed of the ,apostles and ,evangelists excuse the errors of the other8 ,let this be granted1 and both parties are equally safe1 equally infallible4 #cj ,thus we find that in all respects the ,romish system fails to afford the religious comfort and security we are endeavouring to acquire4 ,our ,romanist adviser has promised what he proves himself incompetent to perform4 ,he has held out to us the enjoyment of an infallible assurance that we have attained to sound doctrine1 if we will only profit by the unerring oracles of his ,church2 but he cannot point with certainty to the proper organ of infallibility1 nor establish on credible evidence the claim of that organ to be infallible2 nor give any positive security that we shall understand infallibly the oracular truths proposed to our assent4 ,on the contrary1 we have seen abundant reasons for being morally certain1 that the incapability of error which he speaks of has no existence4 ,we have now sufficiently considered all the topics proposed for discussion at the commencement of this essay2 but before concluding we must advert to one further point1 too important to be overlooked1 which could not before be conveniently introduced1 viz41 the newly-devised ,theory of ,development4 ,we request our ,romish counsellor to inform us1 whether in his judgment the doctrines of modern ,rome have the sanction of primitive antiquity1 and can be proved by the writings of the early ,fathers8 ,he replies1 that up to a very recent period he would at once have answered in the affirmative2 but that he is now obliged to hesitate4 8,from time immemorial10 he says1 8the doctors of our ,church unanimously insisted1 and the ,council of ,trent infallibly declared1 that every article of our ,creed was sanctioned by the concurrent testimony of the ,fathers1 as many as were of the true ,church of ,christ40 8,but10 he proceeds1 8within the last few years a party has arisen among us who take a different view4 ,treatises have been widely circulated and favourably received1 in which it is maintained1 that the position of which we always boasted as our stronghold is1 after all1 untenable2 that antiquity must be abandoned2 that1 in primitive times1 our present doctrines were absolutely unknown or imperfectly discovered2 that ,christianity1 in the days of the ,apostles and for several centuries afterwards1 was merely in an embryo1 rudimental state2 that it has since been infallibly developed2 that ,st4 ,cyprian1 ,st4 ,chrysostom1 and ,st4 ,athanasius1 were only partially acquainted with many truths which have since been canonically evolved and explained2 and that1 consequently1 the sanction of antiquity to any doctrine of modern ,rome may be as easily dispensed with as the authority of ,holy ,scripture40 ,as an example of development1 our ,romish guide refers to the immaculate conception of the ,blessed ,virgin--8a doctrine10 he observes1 8in primitive times utterly unheard of2 in the middle ages vehemently opposed2 in later times gradually matured2 and now at last1 in the nineteenth century1 fully and pontifically established under penalty of everlasting condemnation40 ,this inability of the ,romanist to determine whether ,romanism is or is not supported by antiquity1 and whether it is a new or an old religion1 may be regarded as a climax to the difficulties and perplexities in which1 as we have already seen1 his whole system is involved4 #cb;a ,besides the ,romanist there are many other counsellors who1 with undoubting confidence1 offer to relieve our minds from all anxiety as to the soundness of our belief4 ,among these parties ,i may now particularly mention the ,sceptic and the ,mystic2 because their systems1 and that of the ,romanist1 however opposite in other respects1 have one essential point of agreement4 ,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 unimportant2 the ,mystic by alleging that religious truth is passively received by the mind from divine illumination2 and the ,romanist by inculcating an unconditional acquiescence in the dictates of infallible authority4 #cb;b ,this remarkable coincidence suggests to us1 that in respect to our employment of means and opportunities1 the way of truth is the very opposite to the way of error2 that the right path to saving knowledge does not consist in the disuse1 but in the strenuous exertion of our intellectual and moral faculties2 that the inclination to improve our advantages for attaining spiritual information is designed to try our moral character2 and that we have a full security from deadly heresy in the co-operation of ,divine ,providence1 and of ,divine grace with our own sincere endeavours after truth4 ,this principle1 which pervades the whole of ,scripture1 #cc is not to be confounded with the fallacies above adverted to4 ,we do not call it infallibility1 because we readily admit that rectitude of opinion may exist1 in various degrees1 among persons1 all of whom are in the path of salvation4 ,it differs from infallibility as maintained by ,romanists1 because we do not consider any individual1 nor any number of individuals1 to be incapable of error4 ,it differs from the infallibility of the enthusiast1 because we lay no claim to exemption from mistake3 we insist only that1 using faithfully the means at our disposal1 we shall escape unpardonable heresy4 ,it differs1 thirdly1 from the infallibility of the sceptic1 because he conceives all doctrines equally excellent1 provided their operation in society adapts itself to his confined notions of moral duty4 ,whereas our method implies that one doctrine differs materially1 as to truth and excellence from another1 and that we are therefore bound to select the best4 ,to make this selection of what is best1 must be the paramount desire of every rightly-disposed mind3 and it now only remains for us1 before concluding this essay1 to give some rules1 as briefly as we can1 for determining our choice4 ,error and misconception on this subject are so lamentably common1 that even our few imperfect suggestions may not be useless nor unacceptable4 ,we shall only premise that the spiritual exercises which we recommend are arranged in the order here given them1 with a view to convenience and clearness2 and not from an impression that any of our readers can have occasion to begin from the commencement of the series4 #a4 ,our first rule is3 to employ all the strength of our faculties in the study and investigation of natural religion3 till we become impressed sincerely and practically with our awful responsibility1 as reasonable beings1 to our ,creator1 ,benefactor1 and ,judge eternal4 #b4 ,to establish clearly in our minds the evidences and principles of ,revelation2 and to ascertain1 by diligent inquiry1 that the ,scriptures 8given for our learning10 are 8given by inspiration of ,god2 and are profitable for doctrine1 for reproof1 for correction1 and instruction in righteousness40 #cd;a #c4 ,to acquire a persuasion 7according to the principle asserted in the ,scriptures1 maintained by all antiquity1 and revived at the ,reformation17 that the pages of ,revelation are not 8a sealed book0 to us2 but that we are bound to 8search the ,scriptures10 #cd;b to 8prove all things10 #cd;c and 8to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us40 #cd;d #d4 ,to satisfy ourselves that1 on points of ,christian doctrine1 our only real standard of faith is the ,bible2 and that tradition 7however useful as its interpreter and guardian7 is not1 as ,romanists contend1 a co-ordinate authority with the sacred text4 #cd;e #e4 ,to use in our interpretation of the inspired volume all the helps within our reach2 whether spiritual or temporal2 whether derivable from the living or from the dead4 ,among these helps1 the most important and indispensable are prayer and a holy life4 ,with respect to prayer1 the promises in ,holy ,scripture1 that guidance to the truth shall be given to him that asks it1 are1 as we have seen1 numerous and indisputable4 #cd;f ,and as regards a holy life1 or the labours of the humble and diligent individual1 who1 from desire to do the will of ,god1 conscientiously exerts himself to know it1 our ,lord ,himself expressly declares1 8,if any man will do 7 1 or is desirous to do7 his will1 he shall know of the doctrine1 whether it be of ,god40 #cd;g ,to these helps may be added others equally obvious1 so far as they are consistent with the opportunities1 station1 or profession of the individual--such as familiarity with ,scripture in the original1 knowledge of history1 and particularly of the manners1 laws1 customs1 and opinions of antiquity1 ,jewish as well as ,christian2 joined to acquaintance with sound principles of ,biblical interpretation1 criticism1 and translation4 ,but a point which more particularly seems1 under this rule1 to require illustration1 is the degree of value at which the conscientious inquirer after sound religious knowledge ought to estimate ecclesiastical antiquity4 ,many pious individuals 7in their well-meant zeal against ,romish errors7 have thought themselves obliged to discard ecclesiastical antiquity1 under a persuasion that by attaching any value to ancient writers1 they would violate the great ,protestant axiom of resting on the sole authority of ,god's written word4 ,but it should be considered1 that to use ecclesiastical antiquity for interpreting the word of ,god1 no more violates this axiom than to use any of the other universally admitted aids to interpretation already mentioned4 ,whatever means the ,divine promulgator of ,revelation has given to his ,church for ascertaining the truths revealed1 ought diligently and conscientiously to be improved4 ,among those means1 the place of highest authority belongs unquestionably to the three primitive formularies of belief1 the ,apostles'1 the ,nicene1 and the ,athanasian ,creeds2 and to the ,canons of the first four general councils1 which received the sanction of universal ,christendom3 and in which to his entire satisfaction the conscientious inquirer will find the leading truths of ,christianity embodied4 ,the same remark applies to the ,episcopal constitution of the ,church2 for 8it is evident unto all men diligently reading the ,holy ,scriptures and ancient authors1 that from the ,apostles there have been these orders of ministers in ,christ's ,church1 ,bishops1 ,priests1 and ,deacons40 #ce ,but we cannot better explain how far ancient literature is to be rendered available to sacred purposes1 than by a transcription of a canon set forth by the ,church of ,england in the same year with its articles4 8,preachers shall not presume to deliver any thing from the pulpit as of moment1 to be religiously observed and believed by the people1 but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the ,old or ,new ,testament1 and collected out of the same doctrine by the ,catholic ,fathers and the ,bishops of the ancient ,church40 #cf;a 8,a wise regulation10 observes the judicious and able ,dr4 ,waterland1 8formed with exquisite judgment1 and worded with the exactest caution4 ,the canon does not order that they shall teach whatever had been taught by the ,fathers3 no2 that would have been setting up a new rule of faith2 neither does it say that they shall teach whatsoever the ,fathers had collected from ,scripture3 no2 that would have been making them infallible interpreters1 or infallible reasoners3 the doctrine must be found first in ,scripture1 only to be the more secure that we have found it there3 the ,fathers are to be called in1 to be1 as it were1 constant checks upon the presumption or wantonness of private interpretation4 ,but then again1 as to private interpretation1 there is liberty enough allowed to it4 ,preachers are not forbidden to interpret this or that text1 or hundreds of texts1 differently from what the ,fathers have done2 provided still they keep within the analogy of faith1 and presume not to raise any new doctrine3 neither are they altogether restrained from teaching any thing new1 provided it be offered as opinion only1 or as an inferior truth1 and not pressed as necessary upon the people4 ,for it was thought that there could be no necessary article of faith or doctrine now drawn from ,scripture1 but what the ancients had drawn out before from the same ,scripture3 to say otherwise would imply that the ancients had failed universally in necessaries1 which is morally absurd40 #cf;b ,the canon thus explained may be thought appropriate to preachers and ministers alone1 exclusively of their people2 but though the latter cannot1 it is true1 directly apply this regulation to themselves1 they nevertheless may indirectly derive advantage from it4 ,they will be prepared to perceive at once when any minister proposes to their acceptance some doctrine or exposition of ,scripture1 for which he can produce no ancient authority--and which he declares to be new1 yet at the same time important--he declares himself1 by this dangerous and un-canonical proceeding1 unworthy of their confidence4 ,but perhaps the greatest and most alarming mistake to be avoided by all inquirers1 ecclesiastical or laical1 is the application of their minds to religious researches rather for the sake of curious information and philosophical entertainment1 than for purposes of saving knowledge1 and of sure1 efficacious1 practical direction4 ,the ,holy ,scriptures1 no doubt1 are written for our learning1 not however merely for such learning as consists in literary1 critical1 and speculative exercises of our ingenuity2 but for our advancement in the school of ,christian wisdom1 of that wisdom from above which unites and perfects all the higher capacities of our nature1 moral1 intellectual1 or spiritual--that wisdom which1 7far removed from the jealousies and the wranglings and the violences of factious controversy17 is anxious only for the interests of truth and virtue--that wisdom which is 8first pure1 then peaceable1 gentle1 and easy to be entreated1 full of mercy and good fruits1 without partiality1 and without hypocrisy40 #cg;a ,in this course of wise and holy discipline1 according to our diligence1 will be our progress2 and proportioned to our progress1 will be our reward4 ,our anxieties1 discouragements1 and despondencies will be left behind us4 ,we shall go on our way rejoicing4 ,we shall feel a personal interest in the glorious system of ,christian redemption4 ,we shall enter daily more and more with satisfaction upon the duty of examining ourselves1 8whether we be in the faith30 #cg;b and the result of that examination will more and more enable us to see distinctly within our hearts the lineaments of the ,christian character4 ,all the tests from ,scripture of such a progress will have a clearer application to our spiritual state4 ,love to ,god1 charity to mankind1 preference of divine to merely human objects1 fervency in prayer1 frequency in meditation1 attachment to religious ordinances1 self-control in the subjugation of our appetites and passions2 and in one word1 likeness to ,christ1 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 chosen4 ,and although1 in this advanced state1 enjoying 8a full assurance of faith and hope10 #ch;a we relax nothing of our efforts1 and1 like ,st4 ,paul1 8count not ourselves to have apprehended the price of our high calling10 #ch;b yet we exclaim triumphantly with the same ,apostle3 8,who shall separate us from the love of ,christ8 ,shall tribulation1 or distress1 or persecution1 or famine1 or nakedness1 or peril1 or sword8 ,in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us4 ,for ,i am persuaded1 that neither death1 nor life1 nor angels1 nor principalities1 nor powers1 nor things present1 nor things to come1 nor height1 nor depth1 nor any other creature1 shall be able to separate us from the love of ,god1 which is in ,christ ,jesus our ,lord40 #ch;c 99 99 99 99 99 ,,the ,,end4 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,,gilbert ,,rivington1 ,printers1 ,st4 ,john's ,square1 ,london4 ,,advertisement4 ,by the same ,author4 ,i4 ,,dissertations vindicating the ,,church of ,,england in respect to some ,essential ,points of ,polity and ,doctrine4 ,,ii4 ,,vindication of the ,,episcopal or ,,apostolical ,,succession4 999999 ,extracted from the foregoing ,work4 ,,iii4 ,,memoir of the ,,life and ,,times of the ,,right ,,hon4 ,,sir ,,john ,,sinclair1 ,bart4 ,,iv4 ,,questions ,,illustrating the ,,catechism of the ,,church of ,,england4 ,v4 ,,questions on the ,,orders for ,,morning and ,,evening ,,prayer4 ,,vi4 ,an ,,essay on ,,church ,,patronage4 ,,vii4 ,a ,,charge delivered to the ,,clergy of the ,,archdeaconry of ,middlesex1 in #ahdc4 ,,viii4 ,a ,,charge delivered in #ahdd4 ,,ix4 ,a ,,charge delivered in #ahdi4 ,,side ,,notes4 ,in the printed book ,rev4 ,sinclair printed side notes in the margins to explain the points he was trying to make4 ,as these made the text itself difficult to read1 and added little value to the narrative1 in this transcription they are placed here1 together with the pages on which they occur1 so that the development of the points can be seen in overview4 ,side note ,page ,diversity of religious opinions a source of anxiety #a ,on account of others and on our own #a ,confusion from the number of guides #b ,motives of credibility for an infallible living arbiter #b ,fallacy and presumption of these priori arguments #c ,probable arguments at best are no ground of infallible #e assurance ,argument for infallibility from the analogy of the ,jewish #f ,church 4 4 4 answered #f ,transmission of the ,scripture no proof of infallible #h interpretation ,three requisites to afford us infallible assurance #h ,first requisite wanting4 ,organ of infallibility uncertain #i ,second requisite wanting in the ,three ,organs of #aa infallibility4 ,the ,pope singly ,pretensions of the ,pontiff scripturally considered #aa ,pretensions of the ,pontiff traditionally considered #ad ,pretensions of the ,pontiff morally considered #ah ,difficulties of ascertaining infallibly when the ,pope #ai speaks ex cathedr ,papal inconsistencies and heresies #bj ,second alleged ,organ of ,infallibility #ba ,a general council singly #bb ,pretensions of a general council ,scripturally considered #bb ,difficulties of knowing what is a general council #be ,third organ of infallibility #be ,pope and general council in conjunction #bf ,uncertainty of the ,papal sanction to a council #bf ,additional argument against ,popes and ,councils jointly #bg ,third requisite to afford infallible assurance4 ,this #bh requisite wanting ,theory of ,development #ca ,right path to saving knowledge #cb ,difference of this ,scriptural principle from the three #cc preceding ,rules for acquiring sound ,christian knowledge #cc ,concluding exhortation #cg ,,footnotes4 #a ,ut hc qu scripta sunt non negamus1 ita ea qu non sunt scripta renuimus4--,hieron adv4 ,helvid4 oper4 t4 iv4 pars ii4 p4 #ada4 ed4 ,ben4 #c;a ,eph4 iv4 #ad4 #c;b ,the theologian will here observe1 that the argument from 8motives of credibility10 as they are termed1 is in this view more presumptuous and objectionable than the claim so loudly and so vehemently objected against ,protestants4 ,surely there is more presumption in claiming a right to prejudge what ,god must have done1 than in claiming the right of private judgment to ascertain what ,god has actually revealed4 #e 8,but it is more useful and fit 7you say7 for deciding of controversies1 to have1 besides an infallible rule to go by1 a living infallible judge to determine them3 and from hence you conclude1 that certainly there is such a judge4 ,but why then may not another say1 that it is yet more useful1 for many excellent purposes1 that all the ,patriarchs should be infallible1 than that the ,pope only should8 ,another1 that it would be yet more useful1 that all the ,archbishops of every province should be so1 than that the ,patriarchs only should be so4 ,another1 that it would be yet more useful1 if all the ,bishops of every diocese were so8 ,another1 that it would be yet more available that all the parsons of every parish should be so8 ,another1 that it would be yet more excellent1 if all the fathers of families were so8 ,and lastly1 another1 that it were much more to be desired1 that every man and every woman were so8 just as much as the prevention of controversies is better than the decision of them2 and the prevention of heresies better than the condemnation of them2 and upon this ground conclude1 by your own very consequence1 that not only a general ,council1 not only the ,pope1 but all the ,patriarchs1 ,archbishops1 ,bishops1 ,pastors1 ,fathers--nay1 all the men in the world1 are infallible8 ,if you say now1 as ,i am sure you will1 that this conclusion is most gross1 and absurd1 against sense and experience1 then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows1 viz41 ,that that course of dealing with men seems always more fit to ,divine ,providence1 which seems most fit to human reason40--,works of ,chillingworth1 vol4 i4 p4 #bif4 #f ,deut4 xvii4 #h-ad4 #g;a ,deut4 xvii4 #h4 #g;b ,exod4 xxxii4 #d-g4 #g;c #a ,kings xii4 #bh4 #g;d #a ,kings xxii4 #f4 #g;e ,jerem4 v4 #cj1 #ca4 #g;f ,isa4 lvi4 #aj4 #h ,see ,tracts published by ,bishop ,gibson4 ,title iv4 chap4 i4 vol4 i4 p4 #ah4 #i 8,for many of you hold the ,pope's proposal ex cathedr1 to be sufficient and obliging0 7obligatory72 8some a ,council without a ,pope2 some neither of them severally1 but only both together2 some not this neither in matter of manners1 which ,bellarmine acknowledges1 and tells us it is all one in effect1 as if they denied it0 7to be7 8sufficient in matter of faith2 some not in matter of faith neither think this proposal infallible1 without the acceptation of the ,church universal2 some deny the infallibility of the present ,church1 and only make the tradition of all ages the infallible propounder3 yet if you were agreed what and what only is the infallible propounder1 this would not satisfy us2 nor yet to say1 that all is fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him3 for though agreeing in this1 yet you might still disagree whether such or such a doctrine were propounded or not2 or if propounded1 whether sufficiently1 or only insufficiently4 ,and it is so known a thing1 that in many points you do so1 that ,i assure myself you will not deny it40--,chillingworth1 vol4 i4 p4 #aah4 #aj ,see ,evidence against ,catholicism1 by ,rev4 ,j4 ,blanco ,white1 p4 #id4 #aa ,matt4 xvi4 #ah1 #ai4 ,luke xxii4 #cb4 ,john xxi4 #ag4 #ab;a ,see ,stillingfleet's 8,vindication10 p4 #dah4 #ab;b ,the phrases 8to bind and loose0 were ,jewish1 and most frequent in their writings4 ,it belonged only to the teachers among the ,jews to bind and loose4 ,when the ,jews set any apart to be a preacher1 they used these words3 8,take thou liberty to teach what is bound and what is loose40--,strype's ,preface to the ,posthumous ,remains of ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #ch4 ,see ,dr4 ,a4 ,clarke's commentary in loco4 #ab;c ,compare ,matt4 xvii4 #ah1 with ,john xx4 #bb1 #bc4 #ac;a ,see manuscript volume by the ,honourable ,archibald ,campbell1 a ,nonjuring ,bishop1 first in ,scotland1 and afterwards in ,london4 ,also ,bishop ,horsley's ,sermons1 vol4 i4 p4 #bic4 #ac;b ,for a full exposition of this text1 see ,remarks by ,granville ,sharp1 ,esq41 cited by ,dr4 ,adam ,clarke in his commentary4 #ac;c ,see ,dr4 ,isaac ,barrow's ,treatise on the ,pope's ,supremacy1 and ,rev4 ,j4 ,fletcher's ,lectures on the ,roman ,catholic ,religion1 p4 #id4 #ac;d ,eph4 ii4 #bj4 #ac;e #a ,cor4 iii4 #aa4 #ac;f #a ,cor4 xii4 #bh4 #ad;a ,rev4 xxi4 #ad4 #ad;b 8,seeing the ,romanists themselves acknowledge1 that he was ,bishop of ,antioch1 before he was ,bishop of ,rome2 we require them to show1 why so great an inheritance as this1 should descend to the younger rather than the elder1 according to the ordinary manner of descents8 ,especially1 seeing ,rome hath little else to allege for this preferment1 but only that ,st4 ,peter was crucified in it3 which was a very slender reason to move the ,apostle so to respect it40--,extract from ,archbishop ,usher's ,speech in the ,castle ,chamber1 ,dublin1 ,nov4 #bb1 #afbb4 ,see ,dr4 ,parr's ,life of ,usher1 p4 #bc4 #ad;c 8,what say you to the expunging the name of ,felix1 ,bishop of ,rome1 out of the ,diptychs of the ,church by ,acacius1 the ,patriarch of ,constantinople8 ,what say you to ,hilary's ,anathema against ,pope ,liberius60--,stillingfleet's 8,vindication10 p4 #djh4 #ae;a ,st4 ,jerome affirms1 that a ,bishop1 in whatever diocese1 whether of ,rome1 of ,eugabium1 c41 is of the same power 7ejusdem meriti7 and of the same rank in the priesthood 7ejusdem sacerdotii7 with his ,episcopal brethren4 8,for10 he adds1 8they are all alike successors of the ,apostles40 ,this admission from the ,secretary of ,pope ,damasus is very remarkable4--,epist4 ad ,evag4 #ae;b ,vid4 ,lab4 tom4 iv4 p4 #hag4--;,grier's ,epitome of the ,general ,councils1 pp4 #fa4 #id4 #af;a ,ruffinus1 in his translation and abstract of the ,nicene ,canons1 gives the sixth of them in these words3 8,the ancient custom of ,alexandria and of ,rome shall still be observed1 that the one shall have the care or government of the ,egyptian1 and the other that of the suburbicary churches40--,ut apud ,alexandriam et in urbe ,rom vetusta consuetudo servetur1 ut vel ille gypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat4 ,ruffin4 ,hist4 lib4 i4 c4 #f4--,see also ,bingham's ,antiquities1 ,book ix4 chap4 #a1 sec4 #i4 #af;b ,universalitatis nomen quod sibi illicit usurpavit nolite attendere3--nullus enim ,patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur4--,perpenditis1 fratres carissimi1 quid e vicino subsequatur cum et in sacerdotibus erumpunt tam perversa primordia4 ,quia enim juxta est ille de quo scriptum est2 ,ipse est rex super universos filios superbi4--,pap4 ,pelag4 ii4 epist4 #h4 #ag;a ,nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit3 quia videlicet si unus patriarcha universalis dicitur1 patriarcharum nomen cteris derogatur4 ,sed absit1 hoc absit ,christian mente id sibi velle quenquam arripere unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulcunque parte videatur6--,pap4 ,gregor4 i4 lib4 iv4 epist4 #cf4 #ag;b ,ego vero fidenter dico1 quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat1 vel vocari deciderat1 in elatione su ,anti-christum prcurrit2 quia superbiendo1 cteris prponit4--,pap4 ,gregor4 i4 lib4 vi4 epist4 #cj4 ,attempts have been made to reconcile the language of ,pelagius and ,gregory1 with the assumption1 by their immediate successors1 of the very supremacy which those two ,popes so strongly reprobate4 ,the utter futility of such attempts1 the reader will see thoroughly established by ,stillingfleet in his 8,vindication10 part ii4 chap4 vi4 #ai 8,i would fain know whether there be any certainty that every ,pope is a good ,christian1 or whether he may not be 7in the sense of the ,scripture7 of the world8 ,if not1 how was it that ,bellarmine should have cause to think that such a rank of them went successively together to perdition80--,chillingworth's ,works1 vol4 iii4 p4 #cei4 ,the same learned ,cardinal whom ,chillingworth here refers to1 is very zealous throughout his works in defending ,papal infallibility1 and even ventures to affirm 7,bellarm4 de ,pontifice ,rom4 lib4 iv4 cap4 #e1 in fine71 8,if the ,pope could or should so far err1 as to command the practice of vice1 and to forbid virtuous actions1 the ,church were bound to believe vices to be good1 and virtues to be bad40 ,the ,pontiffs1 whatever they may have thought of this extraordinary theory1 seem in practice1 by the ,cardinal's own account1 to have availed themselves1 in a considerable degree1 of the privilege which he claims in their behalf4--,see also ,works of ,henry ,more1 p4 #dej4 #bj;a 8,it were heartily to be wished1 if he0 7the ,pope7 8should once happen to be in cathedr1 he would infallibly determine what is to be in cathedr ever after2 for it would ease men's minds of a great many troublesome scruples1 which they cannot1 without some infallible determination1 get themselves quit of40--,stillingfleet's 8,vindication10 p4 #aad4 #bj;b ,for ,bishop ,stillingfleet's argument to prove that no ,pontiff has been canonically elected since the times of ,sextus the ,fifth1 see his ,vindication1 part i4 p4 #aaf4 #ba;a ,romanus ,pontifex per literas ,montanistis communionem impertiit1 quas1 errore cognito1 revocare coactus est4--,dupin de ,antiq4 ,eccl4 ,dis4 #e4 p4 #cdf4 ,la ,pape les ,montanistes reu dans sa communion1 ce qui montre que le ,pape n'toit pas infallible4--,basnage1 ,hist4 tom4 i4 p4 #cfj4 #ba;b ,he maintained against ,cyprian1 of ,carthage1 that baptism1 though performed by heretics1 ought not to be repeated3 but the heretics of that period baptized only in the name of the ,father1 and sometimes not even in his name3 a kind of ,baptism which no ,roman ,catholic would now admit to be valid4--,see ,grier's ,history of the ,councils1 p4 #ag4 #ba;c ,see this case argued by ,bishop ,stillingfleet in part iii4 chap4 #b1 pp4 #eab1 #eac1 of the ,vindication2 and for others equally opposite1 see ,grier's ,history passim4 ,see also ,burnet on the ,nineteenth ,article4 #ba;d ,see ,evidence against ,catholicism by the ,rev4 ,blanco ,white1 p4 #cc3 and the ,bishop of ,exeter's ,letters to ,charles ,butler1 ,esq4 ,letter xiv4 p4 #bga4 #bb;a ,the writers of the ,gallican ,church are here alluded to1 all of whom oppose the ,papal claims4 #bb;b ,matt4 xvi4 #ah4 #bb;c ,matt4 xviii4 #ag4 #bb;d ,matt4 xxviii4 #bj4 #bb;e ,john xiv4 #af4 #bb;f ,acts xv4 #bh4 #bb;g #a ,tim4 iii4 #ae4 #bc ,ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat4--,tostat4 ,abulens4 prfat4 in ,matt1 qust4 xiii4 ,ecclesia latinorum non est ,ecclesia universalis sed qudam pars ejus3 ideo1 etiamsi tota ipsa errasset1 non errabat ecclesia universalis3 quia manet ,ecclesia universalis in partibus illis qu non errant1 sive ill sint numero plures quam errantes1 sive non4--,ibid4 qust4 iv4 in ,matt4 ad proleg4 #b4 #bd;a 8,for my part1 ,i should think it did more concern our ,lord ,jesus1 by virtue of this promise1 to make his ,church impeccable1 than infallible4 ,my meaning is1 that it is a much more desirable thing to secure his ministers and people from the danger of sin1 than from the danger of error4 ,but the former ,he hath not done1 and therefore ,i much doubt of the latter40--,archbishop ,sharpens ,sermons1 vol4 viii4 #bd;b ,in ,scripturis canonicis nullum de iis verbum est3 nec ex ,apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva ,christi ,ecclesia4--,albert4 ,pigh4 ,hierarch4 ,eccles4 lib4 vi4 cap4 #a1 quoted in that masterly work1 8,the ,difficulties of ,romanism10 by the ,rev4 ,g4 ,s4 ,faber1 book #a1 chap4 ii4 p4 #cf4 #bf 8,the low ,romanists who are distinguished by the name of ,cisalpines1 7for serious differences exist1 it appears1 even in the very bosom of privileged inerrancy17 not only deny the personal infallibility of the ,pope1 but hold also that for heresy or schism 7to both of which1 we find1 the alleged fallible head of an infallible body is actually liable17 he may be lawfully deposed by a general council4 ,such being the case1 they must1 on their own principles1 inevitably hold the infallibility of a general council even when not sanctioned by the papal confirmation3 for it is quite clear1 on the one hand1 that no prudent ,pope1 at least1 would ratify the sentence of his own deposition1 or confirm the decree which pronounced him to be a schismatic or a heretic2 and it is equally clear1 on the other hand1 that no general council could infallibly pronounce the ,pope to be a heretic or schismatic1 himself all the while stiffly denying1 as of course he would deny1 the offensive allegation1 unless such general council1 independently of any papal ratification1 were itself constitutionally infallible40--,faber's ,difficulties of ,romanism1 p4 #bdg1 #bdh4 #bg;a ,bellarm4 de ,cone4 lib4 i4 cap4 #h4 #bg;b ,see ,bishop ,taylor's ,liberty of ,prophecy1 sect4 #f4 vol4 viii4 of his works1 p4 #da4 #bg;c 8,that the authority of general councils was never esteemed absolute1 infallible1 and unlimited1 appears in this1 that before they were obliging 7obligatory7 it was necessary that each particular ,church respectively should accept them1 ,concurrenti universali totius ecclesi consensu1 c41 in declaratione veritatum qu credend sunt1 c4 ,in this way1 as observed by ,gerson1 the decrees of councils became authentic1 and turned into a law3 and till they became so their decrees were but a dead letter40--,see ,heber's ,bishop ,taylor1 vol4 viii4 p4 #ej1 #ea1 remarking on ,st4 ,augustin1 b4 #a4 cap4 #ah4 de ,bapt4 contra ,donat4 #bi;a ,see ,works of ,leslie1 vol4 i4 p4 #dig4 #bi;b ,for an example1 see ,blanco ,white's ,evidence1 p4 #ci4 #bi;c ,see ,bishop ,burnet on the ,twenty-second ,article4 #cj ,it may here be not inapposite to introduce the well-known example of implicit faith1 recorded by various writers1 and which has met with different degrees of ,roman ,catholic praise and of ,protestant censure4 ,an ignorant collier of the ,romish persuasion was asked1 what it was that he believed1 and answered1 8,i believe what the ,church believes40 ,the questioner rejoined3 8,what then does the ,church believe80 ,he replied3 8,the ,church believes what ,i believe40 ,the other1 anxious for particulars1 resumed his interrogatories3 8,tell me1 then1 ,i pray you1 what is it that you and the ,church both believe80 ,to which the collier could only give this answer3 8,why1 truly1 sir1 the ,church and ,i both believe the same thing40--,campbell's ,lectures1 vol4 ii4 p4 #bei4 #cb;a ,the true theory of development is ably stated by ,bishop ,butler in his ,analogy1 part ii4 chap4 #c1 and may be usefully contrasted with the newly-devised dogma of ,popery4 #cb;b 8,certainly every man considering that his eternal salvation lies upon it1 will be enforced to apply sincerity and care in his own behalf2 whereas if others interpret for him1 they may do it more remissly1 or more fraudulently40--,works of ,hen4 ,more1 p4 #ded4 8,as the case stands in religion1 according to the ,roman ,catholic doctrine1 reason1 and thinking1 and studying1 and examination1 and industry1 and search1 though they be necessary tools to be made use of for the putting a man into good hands1 yet after he is in those hands1 he is to throw all these things away1 and never after to make use of them4 ,doth this look like a doctrine of ,god8 ,no1 certainly40--,archbishop ,sharpens ,sermons1 vol4 vii4 p4 #bi4 #cc ,psalm xxv4 #ad2 xxxii4 #h2 xxv4 #h1 #i2 xv4 #ab1 #ac4 ,prov4 li4 #a-e2 iii4 #e1 #f2 x4 #cj1 #ca4 ,james i4 #e4 ,matt4 vii4 #ab4 ,john vii4 #ag4 #cd;a #b ,tim4 iii4 #af4 #cd;b ,john v4 #ci4 #cd;c #a ,thess4 v4 #ba4 #cd;d #a ,pet4 iii4 #ae4 #cd;e ,for proofs and illustrations of this point1 drawn from ,irenus1 ,tertullian1 ,hippolytus1 ,cyprian1 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 ,athanasius1 ,jerome1 ,basil1 and ,augustin1 see ,faber's 8,difficulties of ,romanism40 #cd;f ,see note p4 #cc4 #cd;g ,john vii4 #ag4 ,sermons of ,bishop ,taylor1 vol4 vi4 p4 #djb4 #ce ,book of ,common ,prayer4 #cf;a ,imprimis vero1 videbunt 7,concionatores7 ne quid unquam doceant pro concione1 quod a populo religios teneri et credi velint1 nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrin veteris aut novi testamenti3 quodque ex ill ips doctrin ,catholici ,patres et veteres ,episcopi collegerint4--,sparrow1 ,collect1 p4 #bch4 ,it is scarcely necessary to observe that this canon is not included among those of #afjc4 #cf;b ,see chap4 vii4 of ,dr4 ,waterland's ,treatise on the ,importance of the ,doctrine of the ,trinity2 where the use of ecclesiastical antiquity is discussed with his usual masterly erudition and ability4 ,similar observations in an abridged form may be found in his introduction to a review of the ,doctrine of the ,eucharist4 ,see vol4 vii4 of his ,works1 edited by ,bishop ,van ,mildert4 #cg;a ,james iii4 #ag4 #cg;b #b ,cor4 xiii4 #e4 #ch;a ,heb4 vi4 #aa2 x4 #bb4 #ch;b ,phil4 iii4 #ac4 #ch;c ,rom4 viii4 #ce-ci4