labyrinth: for, first of all, no Scriptural reason can be found, or is
even pretended, for the limitation of infallibility to councils of the
description mentioned. The authority, therefore, exists only in the
well-stored imagination of our Romish friend. {26} And in addition, we
are perplexed to ascertain how two authorities, separately fallible,
should become infallible by their conjunction. The council is fallible.
The Pope is fallible. But unite these two fallibles, and you give them
infallibility. If it be asked, Is the council liable to err which passes
the decree?—Certainly, is the answer: for otherwise the council would,
without the Pope, be all-sufficient. If it be further demanded, Is the
Pope, also liable to err who confirms the decree?—Certainly, is again the
answer: for he would otherwise be all-sufficient without the council.
This is a strange dilemma: we must believe the decree to be infallibly
determined, and yet must neither ascribe infallibility to the council
which passes it, nor to the Pope who confirms it.
Another consideration is the uncertainty and arbitrariness of this papal
act of confirmation. The Protestant must not take for granted that the
eighteen Councils, acknowledged by the Church of Rome to be general, have
the seal of St. Peter affixed to all their canons and decrees. In some
cases a general council is partly confirmed and partly rejected (_partim
confirmatum_, _partim reprobatum_); {27a} in some cases neither confirmed
nor rejected (_neque approbatum neque reprobatum_): in some it is
pronounced uncertain whether the decrees are confirmed or rejected; and
in others they are confirmed by one Pope, and rejected by another.
Sometimes the general council did not proceed with due form
(_conciliariter_), or did not proceed with due deliberation (_re
diligenter examinatâ_); sometimes the questions to be determined were not
stated with sufficient clearness (_satis apertè_), and sometimes there is
a want of evidence whether the council was general or provincial. “All
this,” exclaims Bishop Taylor, “is the greatest folly and most prodigious
vanity.” {27b}
Again, we might observe, that if infallibility be granted to the Church
through its representatives in a general council, the privilege has been
for many centuries in abeyance, and (considering the aspect of
Christendom) is never likely to be renewed. And further, with respect to
the reception of these infallible decrees by provincial Churches, we
might bring forward the doubts which have prevailed among Romanists,
whether the decrees are binding immediately on being passed, or only
after they have been received. {27c} Next with reference to the
doctrines which they inculcate, these are often grievously contradictory
to reason and Scripture. Transubstantiation, for example, is contrary to
reason. If therefore we believe the infallibility of general councils on
grounds of reason, the reasons against transubstantiation must be fairly
balanced in our minds with the reasons in favour of infallibility. And
as examples of contradiction to Scripture, we might instance the
adoration of the Blessed Virgin, the worshipping of images and relics,
the invocation of saints and angels, purgatory, and the sacrifice of the
mass. We might then go on to show that if the infallibility of general
councils be Scripturally maintained, the texts adduced in support of
infallibility are to be weighed against the numerous and explicit texts
which oppose these corrupt doctrines and idolatrous practices. Lastly,
we might contend that, in the primitive ages, when councils were
continually assembled, neither those councils themselves, nor any one
writer who defended their decrees, ever spoke of them as infallible. We
need scarcely add that councils could not be infallible without knowing
it; nor would hear their infallible decrees disputed without asserting
their infallibility.
3. Having now vainly endeavoured to procure conclusive and satisfactory
information on two of the essential points indispensable for our
conversion to Romanism; namely, first, by what _organ_ the infallible
oracles are delivered, and, secondly, by what _evidence_ the claim to
infallibility is established; we proceed to the third and last topic of
investigation, and inquire on what _security_ we can rely, that we shall
not misunderstand the doctrine propounded to our belief?
We have already seen that the Romanist is unable to decide with certainty
in what person or persons infallibility resides; and that he cannot prove
the person or the persons for whom he claims it, namely, a Pope or
Council, jointly or severally, to be infallible. Let us next consider,
in conclusion, (and the consideration need not occupy us long,) whether
he is more successful in establishing the third particular, which we
began by laying down as necessary to the tranquillization of our minds;
whether, in short, it can be proved to us incontestably, that we shall
comprehend with clearness and practical certainty the bulls and canons
promulgated for our guidance to the truth.
Security on this point is obviously indispensable. The inspired volume
is allowed by all Christians to contain unerring rules of faith and
practice. But our erring reason, we are told, is liable to misconceive
them. Hence the supposed necessity for another guide. But the very same
liability to error which exposes us to mistake in interpreting the
Scriptures, exposes us to mistake also in interpreting the bulls of a
Pope, or the canons of a general council. God Himself inspired his
chosen servants to write the Scriptures “for our learning.” God
nevertheless is misunderstood. Neither Pope nor Council, therefore, is
secure from being so. Their decisions, jointly or separately, may be
misinterpreted through our weakness of apprehension. We consequently
need a new interpreter for expounding their interpretation. But the
expositions of this new interpreter may, like those of his unerring
predecessors, be erroneously understood; and thus we should require an
infinite series of infallible guides, and at the end of this elaborate
process we should not be nearer to infallibility than we found ourselves
at the beginning. {29a}
Accordingly, we read, without surprise, that there are disputes among
Romanists in regard to the right construction of their infallible decrees
and canons; disputes as constant and as vehement as those unhappily
subsisting among Protestants, in regard to the meaning of our inspired
Scriptures. {29b} In the celebrated Council of Trent, the last, and by
the Romanists regarded as the greatest ever held, many points of doctrine
which had called forth the most violent and argumentative disputation
were purposely expressed with ambiguity in the canons, that the consent
of all parties might be obtained. Even on that all-important article of
faith, respecting the proper object of religious adoration, the
Tridentine Fathers were satisfied with a vague declaration, that “due
worship should be given to images,” without informing the conscientious
worshipper, (in a strait betwixt the danger of profaneness on one hand
and of idolatry on the other,) what kind of worship that doubtful phrase
was intended to imply. {29c} It may be also noticed that there are
several controverted points in religion, (the very points, in fact, most
frequently contested among Protestants,) on which no unerring oracle has
yet pronounced a decision, and on which variations of opinion may be
discovered in the papal Church analogous to those prevailing throughout
Protestant communions. I allude to the numerous questions connected with
election, foreknowledge, predestination, grace, free-will, and the
perseverance of the Saints.
Nor will the force of our objections be evaded by the reply that _actual_
conformity of faith to the decisions of Popes and Councils is not
required; that _intentional_ conformity will suffice; and that every man,
whatever be his errors and misconceptions, is capable of salvation who is
willing and inclined _to believe as the Church believes_. For if the
Romanist is willing to believe as his Church believes, the Protestant is
willing to believe as the Apostles and Evangelists believed. If then
this willingness will suffice for the Romanist, why should it not be
sufficient for the Protestant? If the one, when he falls into error, is
held excused by intentional conformity to the Romish creed, why should
not intentional conformity to the creed of the Apostles and Evangelists
excuse the errors of the other? Let this be granted, and both parties
are equally safe, equally infallible. {30}
Thus we find that in all respects the Romish system fails to afford the
religious comfort and security we are endeavouring to acquire. Our
Romanist adviser has promised what he proves himself incompetent to
perform. He has held out to us the enjoyment of an infallible assurance
that we have attained to sound doctrine, if we will only profit by the
unerring oracles of his Church; but he cannot point with certainty to the
proper organ of infallibility, nor establish on credible evidence the
claim of that organ to be infallible; nor give any positive security that
we shall understand infallibly the oracular truths proposed to our
assent. On the contrary, we have seen abundant reasons for being morally
certain, that the incapability of error which he speaks of has no
existence.
We have now sufficiently considered all the topics proposed for
discussion at the commencement of this essay; but before concluding we
must advert to one further point, too important to be overlooked, which
could not before be conveniently introduced, viz., the newly-devised
Theory of Development. We request our Romish counsellor to inform us,
whether in his judgment the doctrines of modern Rome have the sanction of
primitive antiquity, and can be proved by the writings of the early
Fathers? He replies, that up to a very recent period he would at once
have answered in the affirmative; but that he is now obliged to hesitate.
“From time immemorial,” he says, “the doctors of our Church unanimously
insisted, and the Council of Trent infallibly declared, that every
article of our Creed was sanctioned by the concurrent testimony of the
Fathers, as many as were of the true Church of Christ.” “But,” he
proceeds, “within the last few years a party has arisen among us who take
a different view. Treatises have been widely circulated and favourably
received, in which it is maintained, that the position of which we always
boasted as our stronghold is, after all, untenable; that antiquity must
be abandoned; that, in primitive times, our present doctrines were
absolutely unknown or imperfectly discovered; that Christianity, in the
days of the Apostles and for several centuries afterwards, was merely in
an embryo, rudimental state; that it has since been infallibly developed;
that St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, were only partially
acquainted with many truths which have since been canonically evolved and
explained; and that, consequently, the sanction of antiquity to any
doctrine of modern Rome may be as easily dispensed with as the authority
of Holy Scripture.” As an example of development, our Romish guide
refers to the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin—“a doctrine,”
he observes, “in primitive times utterly unheard of; in the middle ages
vehemently opposed; in later times gradually matured; and now at last, in
the nineteenth century, fully and pontifically established under penalty
of everlasting condemnation.”
This inability of the Romanist to determine whether Romanism is or is not
supported by antiquity, and whether it is a new or an old religion, may
be regarded as a climax to the difficulties and perplexities in which, as
we have already seen, his whole system is involved. {32a}
Besides the Romanist there are many other counsellors who, with
undoubting confidence, offer to relieve our minds from all anxiety as to
the soundness of our belief. Among these parties I may now particularly
mention the Sceptic and the Mystic; because their systems, and that of
the Romanist, however opposite in other respects, have one essential
point of agreement. They all have a decided tendency to supersede our
own exertions for the discovery of religious truth—the Sceptic by
affirming that religious truth is unimportant; the Mystic by alleging
that religious truth is passively received by the mind from divine
illumination; and the Romanist by inculcating an unconditional
acquiescence in the dictates of infallible authority. {32b} This
remarkable coincidence suggests to us, that in respect to our employment
of means and opportunities, the way of truth is the very opposite to the
way of error; that the right path to saving knowledge does not consist in
the _disuse_, but in the _strenuous exertion_ of our intellectual and
moral faculties; that the inclination to improve our advantages for
attaining spiritual information is designed to try our moral character;
and that we have a full security from deadly heresy in the co-operation
of Divine Providence, and of Divine grace with our own sincere endeavours
after truth.
This principle, which pervades the whole of Scripture, {33} is not to be
confounded with the fallacies above adverted to. We do not call it
infallibility, because we readily admit that rectitude of opinion may
exist, in various degrees, among persons, all of whom are in the path of
salvation. It differs from infallibility as maintained by Romanists,
because we do not consider any individual, nor any number of individuals,
to be incapable of error. It differs from the infallibility of the
enthusiast, because we lay no claim to exemption from mistake: we insist
only that, using faithfully the means at our disposal, we shall escape
unpardonable heresy. It differs, thirdly, from the infallibility of the
sceptic, because he conceives all doctrines equally excellent, provided
their operation in society adapts itself to his confined notions of moral
duty. Whereas our method implies that one doctrine differs materially,
as to truth and excellence from another, and that we are therefore bound
to select the best.
To make this selection of what is best, must be the paramount desire of
every rightly-disposed mind: and it now only remains for us, before
concluding this essay, to give some rules, as briefly as we can, for
determining our choice. Error and misconception on this subject are so
lamentably common, that even our few imperfect suggestions may not be
useless nor unacceptable. We shall only premise that the spiritual
exercises which we recommend are arranged in the order here given them,
with a view to convenience and clearness; and not from an impression that
any of our readers can have occasion to begin from the commencement of
the series.
1. Our first rule is: to employ all the strength of our faculties in the
study and investigation of natural religion: till we become impressed
sincerely and practically with our awful responsibility, as reasonable
beings, to our Creator, Benefactor, and Judge eternal.
2. To establish clearly in our minds the evidences and principles of
Revelation; and to ascertain, by diligent inquiry, that the Scriptures
“given for our learning,” are “given by inspiration of God; and are
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in
righteousness.” {34a}
3. To acquire a persuasion (according to the principle asserted in the
Scriptures, maintained by all antiquity, and revived at the Reformation,)
that the pages of Revelation are not “a sealed book” to us; but that we
are bound to “search the Scriptures,” {34b} to “prove all things,” {34c}
and “to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a
reason of the hope that is in us.” {34d}
4. To satisfy ourselves that, on points of Christian doctrine, our only
real standard of faith is the Bible; and that tradition (however useful
as its interpreter and guardian) is not, as Romanists contend, a
co-ordinate authority with the sacred text. {34e}
5. To use in our interpretation of the inspired volume all the helps
within our reach; whether spiritual or temporal; whether derivable from
the living or from the dead. Among these helps, the most important and
indispensable are prayer and a holy life. With respect to prayer, the
promises in Holy Scripture, that guidance to the truth shall be given to
him that asks it, are, as we have seen, numerous and indisputable. {34f}
And as regards a holy life, or the labours of the humble and diligent
individual, who, from desire to do the will of God, conscientiously
exerts himself to know it, our Lord Himself expressly declares, “If any
man will do (θέλει ποιεῖν, or is desirous to do) his will, he shall know
of the doctrine, whether it be of God.” {34g} To these helps may be
added others equally obvious, so far as they are consistent with the
opportunities, station, or profession of the individual—such as
familiarity with Scripture in the original, knowledge of history, and
particularly of the manners, laws, customs, and opinions of antiquity,
Jewish as well as Christian; joined to acquaintance with sound principles
of Biblical interpretation, criticism, and translation.
But a point which more particularly seems, under this rule, to require
illustration, is the _degree of value_ at which the conscientious
inquirer after sound religious knowledge ought to estimate ecclesiastical
antiquity. Many pious individuals (in their well-meant zeal against
Romish errors) have thought themselves obliged to discard ecclesiastical
antiquity, under a persuasion that by attaching any value to ancient
writers, they would violate the great Protestant axiom of resting on the
sole authority of God’s written word.
But it should be considered, that to use ecclesiastical antiquity for
interpreting the word of God, no more violates this axiom than to use any
of the other universally admitted aids to interpretation already
mentioned. Whatever means the Divine promulgator of Revelation has given
to his Church for ascertaining the truths revealed, ought diligently and
conscientiously to be improved. Among those means, the place of highest
authority belongs unquestionably to the three primitive formularies of
belief, the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds; and to the
Canons of the first four general councils, which received the sanction of
universal Christendom: and in which to his entire satisfaction the
conscientious inquirer will find the leading truths of Christianity
embodied. The same remark applies to the Episcopal constitution of the
Church; for “it is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy
Scriptures and ancient authors, that from the Apostles there have been
these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons.” {35} But we cannot better explain how far ancient literature
is to be rendered available to sacred purposes, than by a transcription
of a canon set forth by the Church of England in the same year with its
articles. “Preachers shall not presume to deliver any thing from the
pulpit as of moment, to be religiously observed and believed by the
people, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New
Testament, and collected out of the same doctrine by the Catholic Fathers
and the Bishops of the ancient Church.” {36a} “A wise regulation,”
observes the judicious and able Dr. Waterland, “formed with exquisite
judgment, and worded with the exactest caution. The canon does not order
that they shall teach whatever had been taught by the Fathers: no; that
would have been setting up a new rule of faith; neither does it say that
they shall teach _whatsoever_ the Fathers had _collected from Scripture_:
no; that would have been making them _infallible_ interpreters, or
infallible _reasoners_: the doctrine must be found first in Scripture,
only to be the more secure that we have found it there: the _Fathers_ are
to be called in, to be, as it were, constant checks upon the presumption
or wantonness of private interpretation. But then again, as to _private_
interpretation, there is liberty enough allowed to it. Preachers are not
forbidden to interpret this or that text, or hundreds of texts,
differently from what the Fathers have done; provided still they keep
within the _analogy of faith_, and presume not to raise any _new_
doctrine: neither are they altogether restrained from teaching any thing
_new_, provided it be offered as opinion only, or as an _inferior_ truth,
and not pressed as necessary upon the people. For it was thought that
there could be no _necessary_ article of faith or doctrine now drawn from
Scripture, but what the ancients had drawn out before from the same
Scripture: to say otherwise would imply that the ancients had failed
universally in _necessaries_, which is morally absurd.” {36b} The canon
thus explained may be thought appropriate to preachers and ministers
alone, exclusively of their people; but though the latter cannot, it is
true, directly apply this regulation to themselves, they nevertheless may
indirectly derive advantage from it. They will be prepared to perceive
at once when any minister proposes to their acceptance some doctrine or
exposition of Scripture, for which he can produce no ancient
authority—and which he declares to be _new_, yet at the same time
_important_—he declares himself, by this dangerous and un-canonical
proceeding, unworthy of their confidence.
But perhaps the greatest and most alarming mistake to be avoided by all
inquirers, ecclesiastical or laical, is the application of their minds to
religious researches rather for the sake of curious information and
philosophical entertainment, than for purposes of saving knowledge, and
of sure, efficacious, practical direction. The Holy Scriptures, no
doubt, are written for our learning, not however merely for such learning
as consists in literary, critical, and speculative exercises of our
ingenuity; but for our advancement in the school of Christian wisdom, of
that wisdom from above which unites and perfects all the higher
capacities of our nature, moral, intellectual, or spiritual—that wisdom
which, (far removed from the jealousies and the wranglings and the
violences of factious controversy,) is anxious only for the interests of
truth and virtue—that wisdom which is “first pure, then peaceable,
gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without
partiality, and without hypocrisy.” {37a}