An Essay on Papal Infallibility

rein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an

hat are written, so we refuse thos

on, what is to be believed and to be done; which if we believe and practise in particular, and do also in general, and implicitly believe and stand in a readiness to obey the rest of

nowledge, and the unqualified severity with which each party reprobates the other, as being implicated in unpardonable heresy. On hearing (and who can escape hearing?) the fulmination of these mutual anathemas, we not only grieve for the state of dreadful peril in which, if we admit such principles, a large proportion of our neighbours, frie

a state of passive readiness to receive counsel from the first adviser. Among the multitude of counsellors who present themselves, none is more importunately obtrusive, or more dictatorially conf

of faith there can be no appeal, is a plain and obvious principle, which, on proper reflection, you will find impossible to be rejected. Not to insist on arguments from Scripture, although sufficiently conclusive, and capable in themselves of proving that such an arbiter has been appointed, there are independent considerations in favour of infallibility which ought to satisfy every reasonable mind: for the wise Creator of man would never grant a revelation to his creatures, and then leave them to the direction of their own erring judgment in ascertaining the truths revealed. The benevolent Creator of man must know that man is fallible; that he needs indispensably a cond

likely, or proper, or desirable, that He should grant it? Can we safely infer, in any case, that God must have done what we think it right that He should do; and make this inference independently of all proof, that He has actually done so? Is it not dictatorial, and hazardous in the last degree, to determine by abstract reasonings, what line of conduct it would be proper for an all-perfect, and all-wise Being to adopt, till evidence appear p. 4that He has really adopted it? We may indeed rest assured, in general, that God will do nothing arbitrary or irrational; but how often and how fatally should we be misled, did we venture to predict that a certain course of Divine action is alone rational, benevolent, and just-and, therefore, must have been the course actually followed by the Almighty! If we admit this mode of reasoning, and hazard speculations of this kind

arrels by an appeal to arms: and notwithstanding all the mischiefs consequent upon war, has not thought fit to make that effectual provision against this widely desolating source of evil, which our human wisdom, if appealed to, would probably have suggested; namely, the appointment of an unerring and authoritative arbiter. We are, therefore, not entitled to argue that God in his kingdom of grace must p. 5unquestionably have pursued a course, which, in his kingdom of Providence, He has not pursued; nor to maintain that to silence all religious controversies, He must indispensably have had recourse t

any thing but demonstrations, and are only probabilities, we cannot under any circumstances have more than probability to guide us: and we therefore end as we began, and our disquietude even on our admission of an unerring judge, remains exactly as before. Our Romish advocate, however, is not discomfited. He proceeds to affirm that the pretensions of his Church are supported by analogy. He reminds us that the Church of God, under the Jewish dispensation, was directed by an infallible human authority; and that the same high privilege, being equally wanted, might be equally expected in the Christian ?co

connexion with matters of faith: it relates entirely to matters of civil government. The introductory words of the passage, if quoted fairly, and at full length, must satisfy every reader, that they apply only to secular litigation: that what is here enjoined by the Mosaic law is submission to the legal magistrate, not assent to any articl

Jerusalem, behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." [7c] Further, it is recorded of Elijah, that he complained of the Church of Israel, as if it had entirely apostatized and disappeared from the earth. He exclaims in his address to God, "The children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only am left." We read of Ahab that he gathered his prophets together, about four hundred men, and that there was only one individual, Micaiah, "a prophet of the Lord." [7d] Jeremiah laments over his corrupt times, exclaiming, "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land: the Prophets prop

ble expositors of classical antiquity. Supposing, therefore, that we are exclusively indebted to Romanism for transmitting to us the sacred oracles, it does not follow that Romanists interpret them infallibly. It happens also, (unfortunately for Romanist pretensions,) that we are not indebted to any local tradition, such as that of the Church of Rome, for the preservation of the canon

tter description we readily give attention, 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 Rom

infallible oracles o

to infallibility, as existing i

own fallible reason will not mistake nor misc

ments, that infallibility belongs to the person or persons for whom he claims it; and if further, we cannot obtain from our instructor in Romanism some infallible security that we shall understand the doctrines proposed to us: it plainly follows that the infallibility he

om being yet infallibly determined. Various are the conflicting authorities, the whole of which it would be needless, or perhaps impossible to enumerate. [9] Some learned Romanists are of opinion that infallibility p. 10is lodged in the Roman Pontiff, as successor to St. Peter: others of equal learning are inclined to place it in a general Council: a

If we take a Pope or Council singly for our guide, we have no security for avoiding deadly heresy; for a Pope or Council singly may be heretical. On the other hand, if we study to avoid this danger by attaching our faith exclusively to a Pope an

but doubt can never be removed while the question, who is the remover of it, remains unfixed, and impossible to be decided. To receive assurances the most positive and solemn, that all our doubts shall be resolved; and yet to be told that the authority for resolving them is doubtful, is to

ascribed to them. And since a living judge, sitting constantly in one spot, and therefore always ready to be consulted, is incomparably more desirable as the organ of unerring truth, than an assembly of divines, whom it is often difficult to call together; we are

st, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;" secondly, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth sh

rted. 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 con

h 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,

hops 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 C?sarea, 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 t

elding 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 p. 15Roman 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

ld 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 (δι? τ? βασιλε?ειν

fully 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 p. 17a 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

e 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 sub

9in 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 va

fs? 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 cathedra from the Apostolic chair? what councillors must be summoned? what mode of promulgation must

er, 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 l

e been urged by them than by Protestants p. 22against 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, represe

ill build my Church, and the gates of h

h, let him be unto thee as an he

way, even unto the en

u another Comforter, that he may abide with y

nd to us, to lay upon you no greater bu

oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Chu

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 p. 23be infallible. On this subject we cannot forbear transcribing the judicious comment of a learned Romanist, Tostatus of Avila, who flourished in the fift

ng 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

of assistance, protection, and consolation; and was indispensably required, when our Lord delegated to his Apostles the perilous la

extraordinary gifts with which they were endowed, and is immediately connected with another promise

at Jerusalem, have left no precedent for other councils to use the same language; unless on

pecial direction respecting them." [24b] This able writer represents the practice of summoning a general council in cases of ecclesiastical emergency, to be an expedient piously introduced by the Emperor Constantine for the purpose of composing the dissensions of the Church. But the same author insinuates a charge of great ignorance against the Emperor and his council, who in adopting this course, appeared not to know that the privilege of infallibility belonged to the Papal chair, and that Rome was the proper D

ned by the numbers present, or the portion of the Christian world represented by them. The orthodox Athanasius was condemned successively by councils representing the Eastern and the Western Church. Various councils condemned by the Church of Rome for heresy, were as numerously and respectably attended, as more orthodox conventions. The Council of Milan consisted of 300 Bishops. At Ariminum not less than 400 Bishops were assembled. The Council of Ephesus included 10 Metropolitans and 130 Bishops. The Council of Constantinople inclu

ntial distinction between a mere provincial synod, and a general council; that the decrees of an alleged general council, not ratified b

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-suffic

ted (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 (concilia

often grievously contradictory to reason and Scripture. Transubstantiation, for example, is contrary to reason. If therefore we believe the infallibility p. 28of 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 infallibili

ism; namely, first, by what organ the infallible oracles are delivered, and, secondly, by what evidence the claim to infallibility is established; we proceed

tly 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 nece

o 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 cons

posely 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 impl

nclined 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?

llible 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, p. 31nor establish on credible evidence the claim of that organ to be i

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; tha

uity, and whether it is a new or an old religion, may be regarded as a climax to the difficu

overy 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

y 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,

ining 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 w

tigation of natural religion: till we become impressed sincerely and practically with our

n, by diligent inquiry, that the Scriptures "given for our learning," are "given by inspiration of God

formation,) that the pages of Revelation are not "a sealed book" to us; but that we are bound to "search the Scriptures," [34b] to "pr

of faith is the Bible; and that tradition (however useful as its interpreter and guar

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 (θ?λει ποιε?ν, 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 othe

ought to estimate ecclesiastical antiquity. Many pious individuals (in their well-meant zeal against Romish errors) have thought themselves obliged to discard ecclesiastical a

hurch 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 p. 36doctrine 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 hundred

iptures, 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 s

from Scripture of such a progress will have a clearer application to p. 38our 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

nd