Part 2

When we learn that these quotations are brought forward as sufficient grounds for establishing an infallible assurance of Papal infallibility, our first impression is of surprise: and our surprise increases into amazement, the more we try to follow our guide, and to rest an infallible assurance upon reasons so uncertain and precarious. There is throughout the texts quoted, no mention of the Roman Pontiff whatever, nor any distinct allusion to the subject of infallibility. It therefore seems extremely difficult to comprehend how any reasoning man should thence infer that the Pontiff is infallible. But here we are next given to understand that his Holiness, as successor to St. Peter, inherits all the privileges of St. Peter; and that what our Saviour promised to that Apostle was not promised to him personally, but to his successors in all ages. Yet, on examining the authorities again, we find no warrant for the conclusion asserted. There is nothing to assure us infallibly, nothing which would even lead us to suspect that our Lord looked further than to the Apostle himself, or conferred upon him any privilege not shared in common with his brethren. Our Saviour’s prayer that the faith of Peter might not fail, and his subsequent restoration of him to the Apostolic office by the thrice repeated charge of “Feed my sheep,” have obvious reference to the character and conduct of that disciple—at one time an apostate, afterwards an accepted penitent. They can relate to no other person, and to no other circumstances. And “it is absurd,” as Bishop Stillingfleet observes, “to infer an impossibility in the Pope of falling, from a promise to St. Peter of recovery” and restoration. {12a} Again, the promise, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” {12b} conveys no peculiar advantage or pre-eminence to St. Peter; for the very same power is conveyed afterwards by our Lord Himself to the whole number of the Apostles. “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins _ye_ remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins _ye_ retain, they are retained.” {12c} In respect to the privilege with which that promise is introduced, “I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” if these words really have any meaning distinct from the power already mentioned of binding and loosing, they refer prophetically to St. Peter, as the person by whose instrumentality the gates of the Church would be opened to mankind. And accordingly with one key the Apostle, on the day of Pentecost, opened the gate of the Church to the believing Jews and proselytes, when by the sermon which he preached at Jerusalem he converted about three thousand souls; and with the other key he afterwards opened the gate of the Church to Cornelius and his friends, who were the first Gentile converts. {13a}

The declaration, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock {13b} I will build my church,” is a text of very ambiguous meaning, and cannot therefore be the ground of infallible assurance. We have no means of clearly ascertaining whether our Lord refers to the person of St. Peter as a foundation for the Church, or to the confession of St. Peter made in the preceding verse. “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.” A large proportion of the fathers, including Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Augustin, {13c} understood our Saviour’s declaration as referring solely to the confession of Faith made so distinctly and so zealously by the Apostle. The text itself seems evidently to require the interpretation. To speak strictly, Christ Himself is the sole foundation of the Christian Church; and an Apostle could only be so in a secondary sense. In this secondary sense, however, the Church is not founded upon St. Peter only in particular, but on the Apostolic college in general; as St. Paul more than once affirmed. “Ye are built,” he says to the Ephesians, “upon the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” {13d} “Other foundation,” he says to the Corinthians, “can no man lay.” {13e} And again, addressing the Church of Corinth, (when the same inspired writer reckons up the different gradations of Christian ministers,) he does not mention St. Peter first, as nearer the foundation than any other member of the Apostolic college; but speaks of the whole body in the following general terms; “God hath set some in his Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers.” {13f} The Revelations of St. John describe in like manner the wall of the holy city, as having “twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” {14a}

There is not a vestige therefore of scriptural evidence, much less an infallible demonstration, that the successors of St. Peter, whoever they may be, are possessed of infallibility. And supposing his successors to be infallible, there is not the slightest scriptural ground for believing that his successors are the Bishops of Rome. On this point, so vitally essential to the Papal cause, the sacred writings are wholly silent. They indeed inform us that this Apostle preached at Jerusalem, at Cæsarea, at Joppa, and at Antioch, but they no where even intimate that he ever was at Rome: still less therefore can we expect them to affirm that he was local Bishop of that See; and least of all, that the Roman Bishops (in preference to the Bishops in other churches of which he was the founder,) were heirs of his peculiar privileges; and along with other Apostolic privileges, inherited infallibility, while they lost the gifts of miracles and of tongues. {14b}

The absence of proofs from Scripture in favour of the Papal claims, is by no means compensated by a plenitude of evidence from antiquity. In ancient times the pretension to infallibility, instead of being universally acknowledged, was not even alleged. It was never so much as mentioned. Churches and Fathers, in the primitive age, on occasions of their dissenting from the Roman Pontiff, so far from yielding reverently and implicitly to his opinions, openly contested them like those of any other bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch. Nay, they even sometimes excommunicated their infallible superior. {14c} The Roman Pontiff, on the other hand, so far from crushing opposition by the verdict of infallibility, endeavoured always to support his doctrine by the authority of Scripture, of reason, or of antiquity. When appeals were made to him by disputants in a later age, it was never stated or imagined to be their ground of selecting him as their arbiter, that his decision would be infallible; but only that he merited such a tribute of respect, either in consideration of his private character, as a wise, just, and holy individual, or by virtue of his official rank as bishop of the imperial city. {15a}

When Byzantium was raised to the same imperial eminence, by the name of Constantinople, or New Rome, the Byzantine Patriarch was declared by the second general council held A.D. 381, to be of equal dignity with his Roman brother. Precedence only, or nominal priority, was reserved to the episcopate of the more ancient capital. This reservation was confirmed A.D. 451, by the fourth general council held at Chalcedon; in the decrees of which the reason given for this nominal priority of Old over New Rome is merely political, and has nothing to do with spiritual concerns. “The Fathers,” say the members of this later council (referring to their predecessors), “have justly assigned the eldership to the seat of elder Rome—on account of the kingly or imperial authority of that city (_διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην_), and they have assigned equal privileges (_τὰ ἴσα πρέσβεια_) to New Rome, rationally judging that the city which was honoured by the imperial power and by the residence of the Senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with Royal Rome, its elder sister, should, like her, be exalted in ecclesiastical rank.” (_πόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρα βασιλίδι Ῥώμης_.) {15b}

That the Roman Bishops were never allowed to arrogate infallibility by the ancient Church is further evident from the fact, that they were not allowed even to claim supreme jurisdiction. The Patriarch of Rome had no ecclesiastical authority beyond certain provinces and churches termed suburbicary (_ecclesiæ suburbicariæ_), including, at the most, certain districts of Italy, together with the adjacent islands. {16a} The other four Patriarchs (of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem,) were entirely independent of their Roman colleague, and of each other. When John, Patriarch of Constantinople, towards the close of the sixth century, put forth a claim to supreme and universal rule in the Church, encouraged in this insolent pretension by the residence of the emperor within the limits of his See—the Popes of that period, Pelagius and Gregory the Great, resisted with great energy his pretensions; not however as interfering with their own supremacy, but as being in themselves presumptuous and anti-Christian. “Pay no attention,” says Pelagius, “to the power which he unlawfully usurps under the name of universality. Let no patriarch ever apply to himself so profane a title. You may foresee, my dearest brethren, the mischievous consequences from such beginnings of perverseness among the priesthood. For he (_antichrist_) is near, of whom it is written that he maketh himself king over all the sons of pride.” {16b} “No one of my predecessors,” says Gregory the successor of Pelagius, “ever thought of using so profane an appellation; for if one Patriarch assumes the title of universal, it is lost to all the others. But far, very far be it from the mind of a Christian, to grasp at any thing by which he may appear in any the slightest measure to derogate from the honour of his brethren.” {17a} In another passage he thus energetically addresses his overbearing fellow patriarch; “What wilt thou say to Christ, the Head of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last judgment, who, by the appellation of Universal, dost endeavour to subject all his members to thyself? Whom, I pray, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but Him, who, despising the legions of angels, constituted in fellowship with Him, endeavoured to break forth unto the height of singularity, that He might both be subject to none, and alone be over all? Who also said, ‘I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars.’—For what are thy brethren, all the Bishops of the Universal Church, but the stars of heaven, to whom, while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself, and to trample on their name in comparison with thyself; what dost thou say, but I will climb into heaven?” In other places he brands the titles which John had assumed, as “pompous,” “foolish,” “proud,” “perverse,” “wicked,” and “profane:” as names of “singularity,” “elation,” “vanity,” and “blasphemy.” He insists that there was “one sole Head of the Church, viz. Christ,” and sums up all with this strong prophetic denunciation: “I may confidently declare, that whenever any man styles himself, or desires to be styled, universal priest, such a man, by so exalting himself, becomes forerunner of antichrist, because by pride he sets himself above his brethren.” {17b}

The attempts which have been made to reconcile the indignant language of Pelagius and Gregory, with the usurped prerogatives of their successors, by ingeniously exaggerating the pretensions of the Eastern Patriarch, are utterly ineffectual. Indeed, 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 East, we need not go farther in quest of such evidence than the Papal Brief of September last. For we do not read that John of Constantinople ever ventured of his own will and pleasure to extinguish two ancient archiepiscopal sees, together with the whole diocesan Episcopate of both provinces. We do not read that John ever had the hardihood to abolish all the Constitutions and Canons, however ancient, of an independent National Church, and to substitute for them the _jus commune_, or common law of Constantinople. We do not read that John ever presumed to grant territorial designations, and titles of honour, to his own nominees, contrary to the civil constitution of a powerful and independent kingdom, within which those titles and dignities were to be assumed. On the contrary, we know that John, so far from perpetrating aggressions on the prerogatives of foreign sovereigns, was entirely subordinate to the civil power of his own country, and depended solely on the favour and authority of the emperor for the support of his assumptions. And yet Pius the IXth ventures to do what John of Constantinople never even attempted; and has shut his eyes to the fact that he has thereby exposed himself to the anathemas of his infallible predecessors. Strong language has been used, (on some occasions too strong,) by a justly indignant people in reprobation of his presumption; but however strong that language may be, it has not as yet approached the acrimony of the expressions used by Pelagius and Gregory the Great on far inferior provocation.

We have seen that Scripture and antiquity are utterly irreconcilable with the pretensions of the Papal chair. We may now adduce the moral character of the Pontiffs themselves, as a fair ground of presumption that they have not the privilege of infallibility. If indeed we could be satisfied from history that they had all, or most of them, in long succession, been pious and holy and exemplary men, in a degree beyond the ordinary standard of Christian excellence; that they had been rich in faith and in good works; that they had been exalted models of disinterested beneficence, of real purity, and almost ascetic moderation; men whose affections were fixed unquestionably upon the glory and felicity of the heavenly state, to the exclusion of all concern for mere earthly interests, and the little vanities of secular ambition:—we might have been disposed to scrutinize with less distrust the claims of such truly virtuous and estimable Christian pastors. But since the Papal character has been acknowledged even by the ablest advocates of the Papacy, to have been in general the very opposite of what we have been describing, we have a strong presumptive argument that such men were not infallible. {19}

Other strong objections to Pontifical infallibility arise from the want of any certain rule for determining the validity of elections to the popedom, and for issuing the infallible decrees. Before these decrees can be infallibly relied upon, the following particulars must be infallibly ascertained: who are the persons divinely entitled to give a vote in the choice of a Pontiff? and how do those persons establish their Divine title? What proportion of the voters are required by Divine authority to be present, and what majority of numbers must decide? How far shall simony, or fraud, or force, vitiate the election? In case of two elections, how shall we infallibly distinguish between the claims of rival Pontiffs? between the real Pope, whom, under the penalty of condemnation, we are bound to obey, and the anti-pope, whom, under the same high penalty, we must abjure? When schisms rend the Church (and not less than twenty-six have rent the Church of Rome), how shall we discern the true communion from the schismatical? And since the Pope is supposed infallible only in his official, not in his personal capacity, how shall we decide infallibly when he speaks as an ordinary individual, and when as the successor of St. Peter? in other words, what solemnities exactly are requisite to be observed, for constituting a judgment _ex cathedrâ_ from the Apostolic chair? what councillors must be summoned? what mode of promulgation must be adopted? {20a} Such are some of the questions which every candid Romanist must be desirous to hear definitely answered, and which consequently must present themselves with much greater force to every Protestant mind. When a privilege so important as infallibility is understood to be granted, all the circumstances necessary for our direction in receiving and submitting to it, require to be distinctly and indisputably revealed to us. Unless these circumstances are fixed by the same authority that is supposed to make the grant, namely, by Christ Himself, we are as far removed from infallibility as ever; and in deciding these essential and fundamental particulars, we are left to mere argument and conjecture. {20b}

To disprove Papal infallibility much more will scarcely be expected by our readers; but we will add one concluding observation on the erroneousness and inconsistency of the supposed infallible decrees. If Popes really were infallible, their doctrine would never vary, but would remain, from age to age, unalterably the same: the judgment of one Pope would never differ, on the same subjects, from the judgment of another; and least of all would it be credible that any Pope should be convicted of heresy. We know, however, from unquestionable documents of history that this was not the case. Two Popes in the second century (Eleutherius and Victor) were encouragers of the heretical fanaticism of Montanus. {21a} Another Pope (Stephen) of the third century was heretical on the subject of baptism: {21b} Pope Liberius condemned Athanasius, and subscribed his name to the semi-Arian heresy: Pope Honorius was by a general council condemned as a Monothelite. {21c} And (not to multiply particular examples) we may remark, once for all, that a long line of Popes promulgated, _ex cathedrâ_, a doctrine which, in the present age, is abandoned by Rome itself, and is rejected universally as impious and extravagant; the doctrine, namely, that the Roman See is vested with the Divine right of temporal jurisdiction over all the kingdoms of the earth; and that the Pontiff, as Vicar of Jesus Christ, and delegate of Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, may call civil magistrates to account, and may depose kings and emperors, on the charge of heretical depravity. {21d}

To these various objections against the doctrine of Pontifical infallibility, our defender of the Roman Faith replies by a ready acknowledgment that the great majority of Romanists themselves are of our opinion: that much abler arguments have been urged by them than by Protestants against this pretension of the Pope: {22a} that by them infallibility is ascribed not to the Roman Pontiff, who “is liable to err, and who frequently has erred;” but to a general Council, representing the whole Church of Christ, and combining all its collective wisdom. On our inquiry by what Scriptural evidence infallibility is proved to lodge in a representative assembly thus constituted, we are desired to read the following texts:—

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” {22b}

“If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” {22c}

“Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” {22d}

“I will pray the Father; and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth.” {22e}

“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” {22f}

“These things write I unto thee; that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” {22g}

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 claims. A general council seems to have as little warrant from Holy Scripture to assure us that it is infallible, as the Roman Pontiff himself. The first quotation refers to the perpetual _continuance_ of the Christian society. Christ assures us that, to the end of time, the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Universal Church; or, in other words, that a community called by his name, and retaining the essentials of Christianity, will never cease to be. But this consolatory promise gives us no security that any one particular Church, or any meeting of Church officers, shall be infallible. On this subject we cannot forbear transcribing the judicious comment of a learned Romanist, Tostatus of Avila, who flourished in the fifteenth century: “The universal or Catholic Church never errs, because it never errs in all its branches. The Church of Rome (_ecclesia latinorum_) is not the Catholic Church, but only a certain branch of it; and, therefore, although the whole of that branch should have erred, the whole Church could not be said to err. Because the genuine Catholic Church remains in the unerring branches, whether they be more or fewer than the branches which err.” {23}

Again, the injunction of our Lord to “tell the Church,” if taken apart from, and not in connexion with the preceding context, might seem to have some distant bearing upon this question. But on examining the whole passage, we perceive that our Saviour makes allusion to secular, not to spiritual concerns; and is speaking only of private differences among his followers. “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” Three successive steps are next recommended for effecting an accommodation: first a private interview; then the influence of mutual friends; and lastly, the authority of the Church to which the parties belong. The contumacious wrong-doer who could not by these methods be brought to reason, was no longer to be regarded as a Christian brother, but as a heathen. He was liable to excommunication, or expulsion from the society; and reparation of the injury committed might now be sought for in a court of law. We do not find in these directions the remotest allusion to infallibility.

The encouraging promise; “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” is not a grant of infallibility, but a promise of assistance, protection, and consolation; and was indispensably required, when our Lord delegated to his Apostles the perilous labour of propagating the Gospel in opposition to all the rulers of this world, sending them forth “as sheep among wolves.” {24a}

His promise that the “Spirit of truth” should “guide them into all truth,” relates entirely to the extraordinary gifts with which they were endowed, and is immediately connected with another promise, confessedly peculiar to the Apostolic age. “He” (the Holy Ghost) “shall show you things to come.”

The words, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” in the decree of the first council at Jerusalem, have left no precedent for other councils to use the same language; unless on separate evidence it can be shown that those councils have the same authority of inspiration.