will be our progress; and proportioned to our progress, will be our
reward. Our anxieties, discouragements, and despondencies will be left
behind us. We shall go on our way rejoicing. We shall feel a personal
interest in the glorious system of Christian redemption. We shall enter
daily more and more with satisfaction upon the duty of examining
ourselves, “whether we be in the faith:” {37b} and the result of that
examination will more and more enable us to see distinctly within our
hearts the lineaments of the Christian character. All the tests from
Scripture of such a progress will have a clearer application to our
spiritual state. Love to God, charity to mankind, preference of divine
to merely human objects, fervency in prayer, frequency in meditation,
attachment to religious ordinances, self-control in the subjugation of
our appetites and passions; and in one word, likeness to Christ,
increasing from day to day—will assure us that to reach the gate of
salvation we have only to preserve the path which we have chosen. And
although, in this advanced state, enjoying “a full assurance of faith and
hope,” {38a} we relax nothing of our efforts, and, like St. Paul, “count
not ourselves to have apprehended the price of our high calling,” {38b}
yet we exclaim triumphantly with the same Apostle: “Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,
or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? In all these things we are
more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other
creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus our Lord.” {38c}
* * * * *
THE END.
* * * * *
* * * * *
GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John’s Square, London.
ADVERTISEMENT.
_By the same Author_.
I.
DISSERTATIONS vindicating the CHURCH of ENGLAND in respect to some
Essential Points of Polity and Doctrine.
II.
VINDICATION of the EPISCOPAL or APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
*** Extracted from the foregoing Work.
III.
MEMOIR of the LIFE and TIMES of the RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN SINCLAIR, Bart.
IV.
QUESTIONS ILLUSTRATING the CATECHISM of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.
V.
QUESTIONS on the ORDERS for MORNING and EVENING PRAYER.
VI.
An ESSAY on CHURCH PATRONAGE.
VII.
A CHARGE delivered to the CLERGY of the ARCHDEACONRY of Middlesex, in
1843.
VIII.
A CHARGE delivered in 1844.
IX.
A CHARGE delivered in 1849.
SIDE NOTES.
In the printed book Rev. Sinclair printed side notes in the margins to
explain the points he was trying to make. As these made the text itself
difficult to read, and added little value to the narrative, in this
transcription they are placed here, together with the pages on which they
occur, so that the development of the points can be seen in overview.
Side note Page
Diversity of religious opinions a source of anxiety 1
On account of others and on our own 1
Confusion from the number of guides 2
Motives of credibility for an infallible living arbiter 2
Fallacy and presumption of these _à priori_ arguments 3
Probable arguments at best are no ground of infallible 5
assurance
Argument for infallibility from the analogy of the Jewish 6
Church
. . . answered 6
Transmission of the Scripture no proof of infallible 8
interpretation
Three requisites to afford us infallible assurance 8
First requisite wanting. Organ of infallibility uncertain 9
Second requisite wanting in the Three Organs of 11
infallibility. The Pope singly
Pretensions of the Pontiff scripturally considered 11
Pretensions of the Pontiff traditionally considered 14
Pretensions of the Pontiff morally considered 18
Difficulties of ascertaining infallibly when the Pope 19
speaks _ex cathedrâ_
Papal inconsistencies and heresies 20
Second alleged Organ of Infallibility 21
A general council singly 22
Pretensions of a general council Scripturally considered 22
Difficulties of knowing what is a general council 25
Third organ of infallibility 25
Pope and general council in conjunction 26
Uncertainty of the Papal sanction to a council 26
Additional argument against Popes and Councils jointly 27
Third requisite to afford infallible assurance. This 28
requisite wanting
Theory of Development 31
Right path to saving knowledge 32
Difference of this Scriptural principle from the three 33
preceding
Rules for acquiring sound Christian knowledge 33
Concluding exhortation 37
FOOTNOTES.
{1} _Ut hæc quæ scripta sunt non negamus_, _ita ea quæ non sunt scripta
renuimus_.—Hieron adv. Helvid. oper. t. iv. pars ii. p. 141. ed. Ben.
{3a} Eph. iv. 14.
{3b} The theologian will here observe, that the argument from “motives
of credibility,” as they are termed, is in this view more presumptuous
and objectionable than the claim so loudly and so vehemently objected
against Protestants. Surely there is more presumption in claiming a
right to prejudge what God _must_ have done, than in claiming the right
of private judgment to ascertain what God _has_ actually revealed.
{5} “But it is more useful and fit (you say) for deciding of
controversies, to have, besides an infallible rule to go by, a living
infallible judge to determine them: and from hence you conclude, that
certainly there is such a judge. But why then may not another say, that
it is yet more useful, for many excellent purposes, that all the
Patriarchs should be infallible, than that the Pope only should?
Another, that it would be yet more useful, that all the Archbishops of
every province should be so, than that the Patriarchs only should be so.
Another, that it would be yet more useful, if all the Bishops of every
diocese were so? Another, that it would be yet more available that all
the parsons of every parish should be so? Another, that it would be yet
more excellent, if all the fathers of families were so? And lastly,
another, that it were much more to be desired, that every man and every
woman were so? just as much as the prevention of controversies is better
than the decision of them; and the prevention of heresies better than the
condemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own very
consequence, that not only a general Council, not only the Pope, but all
the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Fathers—nay, all the men
in the world, are infallible? If you say now, as I am sure you will,
that this conclusion is most gross, and absurd, against sense and
experience, then must also the ground be false from which it evidently
and undeniably follows, viz., That that course of dealing with men seems
always more fit to Divine Providence, which seems most fit to human
reason.”—Works of Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 296.
{6} Deut. xvii. 8–14.
{7a} Deut. xvii. 8.
{7b} Exod. xxxii. 4–7.
{7c} 1 Kings xii. 28.
{7d} 1 Kings xxii. 6.
{7e} Jerem. v. 30, 31.
{7f} Isa. lvi. 10.
{8} See Tracts published by Bishop Gibson. Title iv. chap. i. vol. i.
p. 18.
{9} “For many of you hold the Pope’s proposal _ex cathedrâ_, to be
sufficient and obliging” (obligatory); “some a Council without a Pope;
some neither of them severally, but only both together; some not this
neither in matter of manners, which Bellarmine acknowledges, and tells us
it is all one in effect, as if they denied it” (to be) “sufficient in
matter of faith; some not in matter of faith neither think this proposal
infallible, without the acceptation of the Church universal; some deny
the infallibility of the present Church, and only make the tradition of
all ages the infallible propounder: yet if you were agreed what and what
only is the infallible propounder, this would not satisfy us; nor yet to
say, that all is fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him: for
though agreeing in this, yet you might still disagree whether such or
such a doctrine were propounded or not; or if propounded, whether
sufficiently, or only insufficiently. And it is so known a thing, that
in many points you do so, that I assure myself you will not deny
it.”—Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 118.
{10} See Evidence against Catholicism, by Rev. J. Blanco White, p. 94.
{11} Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Luke xxii. 32. John xxi. 17.
{12a} See Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 418.
{12b} The phrases “to bind and loose” were Jewish, and most frequent in
their writings. It belonged only to the teachers among the Jews to bind
and loose. When the Jews set any apart to be a preacher, they used these
words: “Take thou liberty to teach what is bound and what is
loose.”—_Strype’s Preface to the Posthumous Remains of Dr. Lightfoot_, p.
38. See Dr. A. Clarke’s commentary in loco.
{12c} Compare Matt. xvii. 18, with John xx. 22, 23.
{13a} _See manuscript volume by the Honourable Archibald Campbell_, _a
Nonjuring Bishop_, _first in Scotland_, _and afterwards in London_. Also
Bishop Horsley’s Sermons, vol. i. p. 293.
{13b} For a full exposition of this text, see Remarks by Granville
Sharp, Esq., cited by Dr. Adam Clarke in his commentary.
{13c} See Dr. Isaac Barrow’s Treatise on the Pope’s Supremacy, and Rev.
J. Fletcher’s Lectures on the Roman Catholic Religion, p. 94.
{13d} Eph. ii. 20.
{13e} 1 Cor. iii. 11.
{13f} 1 Cor. xii. 28.
{14a} Rev. xxi. 14.
{14b} “Seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge, that he was Bishop
of Antioch, before he was Bishop of Rome; we require them to show, why so
great an inheritance as this, should descend to the younger rather than
the elder, according to the ordinary manner of descents? Especially,
seeing Rome hath little else to allege for this preferment, but only that
St. Peter was crucified in it: which was a very slender reason to move
the Apostle so to respect it.”—Extract from Archbishop Usher’s Speech in
the Castle Chamber, Dublin, Nov. 22, 1622. See Dr. Parr’s Life of Usher,
p. 23.
{14c} “What say you to the expunging the name of Felix, Bishop of Rome,
out of the Diptychs of the Church by Acacius, the Patriarch of
Constantinople? What say you to Hilary’s Anathema against Pope
Liberius!”—Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 408.
{15a} St. Jerome affirms, that a Bishop, in whatever diocese, whether of
Rome, of Eugabium, &c., is of the same power (_ejusdem meriti_) and of
the same rank in the priesthood (_ejusdem sacerdotii_) with his Episcopal
brethren. “For,” he adds, “they are all alike successors of the
Apostles.” This admission from the Secretary of Pope Damasus is very
remarkable.—Epist. ad Evag.
{15b} Vid. Lab. tom. iv. p. 817.—Grier’s Epitome of the General
Councils, pp. 61. 94.
{16a} Ruffinus, in his translation and abstract of the Nicene Canons,
gives the sixth of them in these words: “The ancient custom of Alexandria
and of Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care or
government of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary
churches.”—_Ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Româ vetusta consuetudo
servetur_, _ut vel ille Ægypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum
sollicitudinem gerat_. Ruffin. Hist. lib. i. c. 6.—See also Bingham’s
Antiquities, Book ix. chap. 1, sec. 9.
{16b} _Universalitatis nomen quod sibi illicitè usurpavit nolite
attendere_:—_nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam
utatur_.—_Perpenditis_, _fratres carissimi_, _quid e vicino subsequatur
cum et in sacerdotibus erumpunt tam perversa primordia_. _Quia enim
juxta est ille de quo scriptum est_; _Ipse est rex super universos filios
superbiæ_.—Pap. Pelag. ii. epist. 8.
{17a} _Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti
consensit_: _quia videlicet si unus patriarcha universalis dicitur_,
_patriarcharum nomen cæteris derogatur_. _Sed absit_, _hoc absit à
Christianá mente id sibi velle quenquam arripere unde fratrum suorum
honorem imminuere ex quantulâcunque parte videatur_!—Pap. Gregor. i. lib.
iv. epist. 36.
{17b} _Ego vero fidenter dico_, _quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem
vocat_, _vel vocari deciderat_, _in elatione suâ Anti-christum
præcurrit_; _quia superbiendo_, _cæteris præponit_.—Pap. Gregor. i. lib.
vi. epist. 30. Attempts have been made to reconcile the language of
Pelagius and Gregory, with the assumption, by their immediate successors,
of the very supremacy which those two Popes so strongly reprobate. The
utter futility of such attempts, the reader will see thoroughly
established by Stillingfleet in his “Vindication,” part ii. chap. vi.
{19} “I would fain know whether there be any certainty that every Pope
is a good Christian, or whether he may not be (in the sense of the
Scripture) of the world? If not, how was it that Bellarmine should have
cause to think that such a rank of them went successively together to
perdition?”—Chillingworth’s Works, vol. iii. p. 359.
The same learned Cardinal whom Chillingworth here refers to, is very
zealous throughout his works in defending Papal infallibility, and even
ventures to affirm (Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. lib. iv. cap. 5, in fine),
“If the Pope could or should so far err, as to command the practice of
vice, and to forbid virtuous actions, the Church were bound to believe
vices to be good, and virtues to be bad.” The Pontiffs, whatever they
may have thought of this extraordinary theory, seem in _practice_, by the
Cardinal’s own account, to have availed themselves, in a considerable
degree, of the privilege which he claims in their behalf.—See also Works
of Henry More, p. 450.
{20a} “It were heartily to be wished, if he” (the Pope) “should once
happen to be _in cathedrâ_, he would infallibly determine what is to be
_in cathedrâ_ ever after; for it would ease men’s minds of a great many
troublesome scruples, which they cannot, without some infallible
determination, get themselves quit of.”—Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p.
114.
{20b} For Bishop Stillingfleet’s argument to prove that no Pontiff has
been canonically elected since the times of Sextus the Fifth, see his
Vindication, part i. p. 116.
{21a} _Romanus Pontifex per literas Montanistis communionem impertiit_,
_quas_, _errore cognito_, _revocare coactus est_.—Dupin de Antiq. Eccl.
Dis. 5. p. 346. La Pape les Montanistes reçu dans sa communion, ce qui
montre que le Pape _n’étoit pas infallible_.—Basnage, Hist. tom. i. p.
360.
{21b} He maintained against Cyprian, of Carthage, that baptism, though
performed by heretics, ought not to be repeated: but the heretics of that
period baptized only in the name of the Father, and sometimes not even in
his name: a kind of Baptism which no Roman Catholic would now admit to be
valid.—See Grier’s History of the Councils, p. 17.
{21c} See this case argued by Bishop Stillingfleet in part iii. chap. 2,
pp. 512, 513, of the Vindication; and for others equally opposite, see
Grier’s History passim. See also Burnet on the Nineteenth Article.
{21d} See Evidence against Catholicism by the Rev. Blanco White, p. 33:
and the Bishop of Exeter’s Letters to Charles Butler, Esq. Letter xiv. p.
271.
{22a} The writers of the Gallican Church are here alluded to, all of
whom oppose the Papal claims.
{22b} Matt. xvi. 18.
{22c} Matt. xviii. 17.
{22d} Matt. xxviii. 20.
{22e} John xiv. 16.
{22f} Acts xv. 28.
{22g} 1 Tim. iii. 15.
{23} _Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota
errat_.—Tostat. Abulens. præfat. in Matt, quæst. xiii.
_Ecclesia latinorum non est Ecclesia universalis sed quædam pars ejus_:
_ideo_, _etiamsi tota ipsa errasset_, _non errabat ecclesia universalis_:
_quia manet Ecclesia universalis in partibus illis quæ non errant_, _sive
illæ sint numero plures quam errantes_, _sive non_.—Ibid. quæst. iv. in
Matt. ad proleg. 2.
{24a} “For my part, I should think it did more concern our Lord Jesus,
by virtue of this promise, to make his Church _impeccable_, than
_infallible_. My meaning is, that it is a much more desirable thing to
secure his ministers and people from the danger of _sin_, than from the
danger of _error_. But the former He hath not done, and therefore I much
doubt of the latter.”—Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. viii.
{24b} _In Scripturis canonicis nullum de iis verbum est_: _nec ex
Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa
primitiva Christi Ecclesia_.—Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. lib. vi.
cap. 1, quoted in that masterly work, “The Difficulties of Romanism,” by
the Rev. G. S. Faber, book 1, chap. ii. p. 36.
{26} “The low Romanists who are distinguished by the name of Cisalpines,
(for serious differences exist, it appears, even in the very bosom of
privileged inerrancy,) not only deny the personal infallibility of the
Pope, but hold also that for heresy or schism (to both of which, we find,
the alleged fallible head of an infallible body is actually liable,) he
may be lawfully deposed by a general council. Such being the case, they
must, on their own principles, inevitably hold the infallibility of a
general council even when _not_ sanctioned by the papal confirmation: for
it is quite clear, on the one hand, that no _prudent_ Pope, at least,
would ratify the sentence of his own deposition, or confirm the decree
which pronounced him to be a schismatic or a heretic; and it is equally
clear, on the other hand, that no general council could infallibly
pronounce the Pope to be a heretic or schismatic, himself all the while
stiffly denying, as of course he _would_ deny, the offensive allegation,
unless such general council, _independently_ of any papal ratification,
were _itself_ constitutionally infallible.”—_Faber’s Difficulties of
Romanism_, p. 247, 248.
{27a} Bellarm. de Cone. lib. i. cap. 8.
{27b} See Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophecy, sect. 6. vol. viii. of
his works, p. 41.
{27c} “That the authority of general councils was never esteemed
absolute, infallible, and unlimited, appears in this, that before they
were obliging (obligatory) it was necessary that each particular Church
respectively should accept them, _Concurrenti universali totius ecclesiæ
consensu_, &c., _in declaratione veritatum quæ credendæ sunt_, &c. In
this way, as observed by Gerson, the decrees of councils became
authentic, and turned into a law: and till they became so their decrees
were but a dead letter.”—See Heber’s Bishop Taylor, vol. viii. p. 50, 51,
remarking on St. Augustin, b. 1. cap. 18. de Bapt. contra Donat.
{29a} See Works of Leslie, vol. i. p. 497.
{29b} For an example, see Blanco White’s Evidence, p. 39.
{29c} See Bishop Burnet on the Twenty-second Article.
{30} It may here be not inapposite to introduce the well-known example
of implicit faith, recorded by various writers, and which has met with
different degrees of Roman Catholic praise and of Protestant censure. An
ignorant collier of the Romish persuasion was asked, what it was that he
believed, and answered, “I believe what the Church believes.” The
questioner rejoined: “What then does the Church believe?” He replied:
“The Church believes what I believe.” The other, anxious for
particulars, resumed his interrogatories: “Tell me, then, I pray you,
what is it that you and the Church both believe?” To which the collier
could only give this answer: “Why, truly, sir, the Church and I both
believe the same thing.”—Campbell’s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 259.
{32a} The true theory of development is ably stated by Bishop Butler in
his Analogy, part ii. chap. 3, and may be usefully contrasted with the
newly-devised dogma of Popery.
{32b} “Certainly every man considering that his eternal salvation lies
upon it, will be enforced to apply sincerity and care in his own behalf;
whereas if others interpret for him, they may do it more remissly, or
more fraudulently.”—_Works of Hen. More_, p. 454.
“As the case stands in religion, according to the Roman Catholic
doctrine, reason, and thinking, and studying, and examination, and
industry, and search, though they be necessary tools to be made use of
for the putting a man into good hands, yet after he is in those hands, he
is to throw all these things away, and never after to make use of them.
Doth this look like a doctrine of God? No, certainly.”—Archbishop
Sharpens Sermons, vol. vii. p. 29.
{33} Psalm xxv. 14; xxxii. 8; xxv. 8, 9; xv. 12, 13. Prov. li. 1–5;
iii. 5, 6; x. 30, 31. James i. 5. Matt. vii. 12. John vii. 17.
{34a} 2 Tim. iii. 16.
{34b} John v. 39.
{34c} 1 Thess. v. 21.
{34d} 1 Pet. iii. 15.
{34e} For proofs and illustrations of this point, drawn from Irenæus,
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome,
Basil, and Augustin, see Faber’s “Difficulties of Romanism.”
{34f} See note p. 33.
{34g} John vii. 17. Sermons of Bishop Taylor, vol. vi. p. 402.
{35} Book of Common Prayer.
{36a} _Imprimis vero_, _videbunt_ (Concionatores) _ne quid unquam
doceant pro concione_, _quod a populo religiosè teneri et credi velint_,
_nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinæ veteris aut novi testamenti_:
_quodque ex illâ ipsâ doctrinâ Catholici Patres et veteres Episcopi
collegerint_.—Sparrow, Collect, p. 238. It is scarcely necessary to
observe that this canon is not included among those of 1603.
{36b} See chap. vii. of Dr. Waterland’s Treatise on the Importance of
the Doctrine of the Trinity; where the use of ecclesiastical antiquity is
discussed with his usual masterly erudition and ability. Similar
observations in an abridged form may be found in his introduction to a
review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. See vol. vii. of his Works,
edited by Bishop Van Mildert.
{37a} James iii. 17.
{37b} 2 Cor. xiii. 5.
{38a} Heb. vi. 11; x. 22.
{38b} Phil. iii. 13.
{38c} Rom. viii. 35–39.