To test the validity of these claims of the Romish church, we may appeal to Scripture and history. If the Word of God contains nothing on which they may be based, or intimates that all such pretensions are false, then we must be at liberty to set them aside; and if history shows that they are incompatible with facts, no appeal to authority can avail her; and we are warranted in that case, as in the other, to proclaim her assumption groundless. In the present paper, we shall restrict ourselves to the argument from Scripture. The Rev. P. M'Lachlan, a Romish priest at Falkirk, asserts, that" if, in the sacred pages, there be any passages more clear than others, it is undoubtedly those in which Christ promises his continuing assistance (and by this phrase Mr P. understands, as the context shows, infallible guidance as a teacher) to his church."* It is therefore of importance to examine some of these, and see whether they give the slightest countenance to the popish doctrine of infallibility. We say the popish doctrine; for even supposing that it could be proved that they vouchsafe an infallibility, if it be not such as the Romish church claims, they afford her no support. Were we to follow the example of the papists, and throw the argument they use into a syllogistic form, it would run thus: The church of Christ is infallible; the Church of Rome is the church of Christ; therefore the Church of Rome is infallible. If the premises be admitted, the conclusion follows quite legitimately; but there is a number of questions which must be answered before we can grant the assertions on which it is based. We must know, in the first place, what is meant by the word church as used in the Scriptures, and see if it corresponds to the use which is made of the same word by the Romanists, in order to ascertain whether the promises which are given to the one can be rightly applied to the other. If we attend to this point, we see at once a difference which is fatal to the Romanist claims. The sense in which the word is used by Christ and his apostles is to denote those who profess the truth. Sometimes it embraces the whole of these, as in Acts xx. 28, "The church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood;" and sometimes particular congregations of the faithful, as is plain from Paul's Epistles," Salute the church which is in the house of Nymphas " (Col. iv. 15); and from Acts,—" Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified." But this sense is abjured by popish writers when they argue for infallibility. They affirm this sometimes of the "church representative, which is the chief pastor with a lawful general council;"† sometimes of a council alone; and sometimes of the Pope himself; for one writer has ventured to assert that by the church he understands the Roman Pontiff. With Romanists, "Reply to Rev. Dr R. Lee's Discourse on Papal Infallibility," p. 5. This production is marked by amazing arrogance, scurrility, and, we need hardly add, stupidity. Its logic is as discreditable as its spirit. The author, as many of our readers may possibly know, does not lack courage; but, unfortunately for himself and his church, he wants what is indispensable to a defender of the Romish faith, mental strength. Had he shown himself a more "doughty champion," it would have afforded us much pleasure to spend a little time in chastising him; but, in the present circumstances, to attempt this would only be spending our strength for nought. This is done by the Jesuit Mumford-a man singularly skilled in the art of perverting Scripture. Had he lived in the days of Pyrrho, he would have been an ornament to the School of the Sophists. "Per ecclesiam intelligimus Pontificem Romanum." Gretser, c. 10. Elliott's "Delineation," p. 62. The Pope is thus a sort of spiritual Aaron's rod, swallowing up the whole church! the word is thus like a fairy girdle, capable of expanding and contracting at pleasure; but by almost all the advocates of infallibility, it is never used to designate the whole body of the true followers of Christ, nor even all the members, lay and clerical, of the popish church. Whatever promises, therefore, are made to the church of the New Testament, Romanists have no right to appropriate them to councils and Popes, because these are never once referred to. Then, in the second place, supposing it were established that infallibility is promised to the church of Christ, it would have to be proved that the church of Rome is identical with it,-a point, we suspect, which will not be very easily established. But there is another inquiry which takes precedence of these. Is it true that there is anything in the Scriptures leading us to believe that the teachers in Christ's church, when deliberating on matters of faith and morals, will be preserved from all error? This must be answered in the affirmative before papists can expect to reap benefit. It is not enough to know that infallibility is somewhere; we must know where it is, otherwise it is a nullity to us. In proceeding to examine this matter, we pass over, without comment, the six texts which Mumford cites from the Old Testament, and which he twists with considerable ingenuity. We give the references,* and leave our readers to judge how far the passages go to prove that a Pope and council are guided by the Holy Ghost in their decisions. If any one can discover their bearing on this point, we will give him credit for possessing singular keenness of vision. It is not a little significant that Mr M'Lachlan does not bring forward these texts on which Mumford lays so much stress. His position had need of all the proofs he could muster; and his not imitating the Jesuit we can only account for on the supposition, that he really could not see how his argument would be one whit better were he to do so. The first text which Mumford cites from the New Testament is Matt. xvi. 18, "Thou art Peter," etc. This is always urged in favour of the Pope's supremacy; and Mr ML. professes to be not a little surprised that Dr R. Lee should have treated it as if it had had a reference to papal infallibility, and is very careful to tell us that supremacy and infallibility are not synonymous :-information for which we thank him, and which we may be able to turn to some good account against his church. But he forgets that St Liguori argues, that if the rock be not infallible, the church built thereon may fall. Mr M'L.'s zeal has thus outrun his wisdom, which, by the way, is no difficult matter. He may conceive that the text does not establish the infallibility of the Pope. Mr M'Lachlan brings it forward, however, to prove the infallibility of the church, i. e., of the Pope in union with the episcopacy; but does he not see, that when others of his body are foolish enough to make a counter assertion, Protestants are compelled to expose their perversions? The meaning of the text, "Thou art Peter," etc., has been a subject of much controversy, even amongst Protestants; but it is important to observe, that if the passage did mean that the church was built on Peter, this could prove nothing in favour of his successors. To be built on apostles and prophets," cannot mean that a succession of both has been guaranteed, for this is not the fact; and therefore to be built upon Peter cannot mean that a successor has been provided who inherits his powers. If the contrary be argued, we establish, on the same principles of exegesis, that there are prophets in the church at the present day, and thus ruin the credit of the Scriptures by showing that they speak what is false. *The texts referred to are Isaiah ii. 2, 3; xxxv. 8; liv. ; lix. 20, 21; lx. 10; Dan. ii. 44. The critical observations which have been made on the words Peter and rock have not been of much service in throwing light on the passage. The proper mode of inquiry is, to ascertain what it was that did form the foundation of the church; and then we are sure that this was that which Christ said would form it. This course is certainly legitimate, and is likely to conduct us to a proper understanding of the passage; for the fact must be the fulfilment of the prophecy. 66 Now the central truth of the christian system is, that "Jesus is the Christ." This was the great doctrine which the apostles maintained against Gentiles and Jews. They who acknowledged it were accounted Christians; they who rejected it were branded as Anti-Christ. The proof of this is easy. The passages which support it are numerous; and of these we cite the following:- "These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing, ye might have life," i, e., the whole record of Christ's miracles and teachings was to establish this truth; Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God;" "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God:" "For we are labourers together with God; ye are God's husbandry; ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus." This last passage is peculiarly valuable in settling the point we are discussing. The church is spoken of under the same figure-that of a building—as in Matt. xvi. 19, and its foundation is distinctly declared to be Christ Jesus; nay, more, it is expressly stated, that no other foundation has been laid, and that no other can be laid. Now, "common sense and common candour alike demand that we carry this information back to the passage under consideration (Matt. xvi. 19); and assuming only that that on which Christ actually built his church was the same as that on which he predicted he should build it, i. e., taking for granted that our Lord's prophecy corresponds with the fact which his apostles have recorded, we cannot but conclude that the truth contained in Peter's confession was the rock on which Jesus said he should build his church; and that Simon was surnamed Peter, not because he himself, much less his pretended successors, was that rock, but because he first struck upon it, and distinctly announced that it was the true foundation. For this reason, all the apostles who proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ, and even the prophets, who spake beforehand of his coming, are called foundations; while Jesus himself is designated "the chief corner stone," because "the word began to be spoken by the Lord." On this view, which is the only one that can preserve the consistency of the writers of the New Testament, the promise that the "gates of hell " shall not prevail against the church, proves nothing in favour of the infallibility of Pope or council; for it was not made to Peter particularly, but to all who should build upon this great truth-that Jesus is the Christ. Nor does the bestowment of the keys upon Simon prove that he could not err. His history explains his powers. He was the first to break down the barriers of Judaism, and "to open the door of faith to the Gentiles,”—a work which *Dr R. Lee's "Papal Infallibility," p. 25. We have followed the line of argument which Dr Lee has adopted, because the most satisfactory. His work is very clear and able; and we commend it to the attention of all who wish to see the Pope's pretensions thoroughly demolished. he accounted it no mean honour to perform; but we never read of him exercising such power as Romanists claim for the pope. The power of binding and loosing admits of an equally satisfactory explanation. This power Peter had in common with the other apostles-Matt. xviii. 18; John xx. 23. The meaning is, that by their commission the apostles were to lay men under the restraints of the Gospel and free them from the bonds of Judaism. The phraseology, although somewhat novel to us, was perfectly understood by the Jews, as is evident from the numerous examples of a similar kind which have been produced from the writings of the Rabbis. In the Septuagint also, which was largely used, we have expressions of precisely the same import :-When a leper was brought before the priest and pronounced unclean, according to that translation, the priest was said to defile him; and, on his recovery, when he was pronounced clean, the priest was said to cleanse him,—nothing more being meant by these phrases than that the priest declared what the man's condition was. And this mode of interpretation, when applied to the words binding and loosing, receives confirmation from the fact that it expresses exactly what we find Luke saying Peter and the other apostles did. What We thus arrive at the conclusion that this text affords no valid argument either for the supremacy or the infallibility of the church. With far greater reason may Rome claim Cæsar as her foundation stone than Peter. would the fisherman think could he see Pio Nono with the triple crown, and hear him claim to be his lawful successor as well as heir of his spiritual and temporal power? What could he think but that Pio was an ecclesiastical buffoon, whose knavery preponderated considerably over his foolishness! Reference is also made to Matt. xviii. 17, "If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” To show the bearing of this upon the subject of discussion, we shall quote Mumford's application. He says, "No man is secure in conscience, or innocent in the sight of God, who refuses to hear or obey the church. Hence follows (1), That this church cannot err damnably, for so a man in conscience might be found to follow a damnable error. (2), Hence follows, that she cannot err in any small matter belonging to faith, for all men being bound to hear her and follow what she teaches, and it being impossible any man should in conscience be bound to hold the least falsity as an article of faith revealed by God, it follows that it is impossible the church should ever deliver any small error for an article of faith."* "And here the question occurs," says Mr M'Lachlan, "Would Christ have made it imperative on man to hear the church, if by any possibility the church could call on them to hear and to receive what was not true." Now let us apply the principle on which these writers reason, and see what beautiful consequences will follow. In Romans xiii. 1, we read, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers," -i. e., the magistrates, as the context shows. There is no word intimating that these are to be priests invested with civil authority. The apostle does not restrict the word; and therefore it must be held to refer to all rulers, whether Christian or heathen. Hence it follows (to imitate Mumford's method), first, that a magistrate cannot err damnably; for so a man in conscience might be bound to act in conformity with a damnable precept; and secondly, that a magistrate cannot err in any small matter of government, for all men being bound to hear him and obey what he commands, and it being *"Question of Questions,"-Ques. 3, Sect. 15. impossible that any should in conscience be bound to do what is wrong, even in the smallest matter, it follows that a magistrate cannot err! Would God have made it imperative to hear him if he could? And if this be true, why the vile clamour of Irish priests against English rule? The argument just proves too much; and therefore proves nothing for the papists' purpose. The passage to which we are adverting, and which Romanists have perverted so much, is very plain. If we read the context, we see that it is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine, which is referred to. "If thy brother trespass against thee," is the ground on which, after certain steps, the church is to be informed. Now it is the duty of the offending brother to hear him whom he had offended; but that will not prove the offended brother infallible. It is his duty likewise to hear the two or three witnesses; but that will not prove them infallible. It is his duty to hear the church (i. e., the congregation); but by a parity of reasoning, that will not prove the church infallible."* In this case, as in the other, the Romanist can find no support. It is authority, not infallibility, that is maintained here; and these two words, Mr P. M'Lachlan has told us very plainly, are different in their meaning. -- Another argument is based on Matt. xxviii. 20,-" Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." It is inferred from this that the church will be guided infallibly in her teaching through all ages; but it is overlooked that, whatever the peculiar kind of presence promised may be, it is made to depend on the condition,- "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Has the Church of Rome fulfilled this condition? Did Christ command the paying of dulia to saints and angels, and hyperdulia to the Virgin? Did he enjoin the observance of that blasphemous abomination, the Mass? Did he lay down that doctrine so clearly untrue-the doctrine of supererogation? We trow not; and if so, the last church on the face of the earth that can claim the blessing in the promise, is the Church of Rome. It is also attempted to found an argument, in favour of infallibility, on the promises which Christ made to his disciples. Previous to his departure, he assured them he would send the Comforter who would guide them into all truth, and bring to their remembrance what things He had told them. The terms of the promise thus clearly indicate that it was confined to the disciples alone. Nor does the phrase, "abide with you for ever," give it any greater latitude. For ever does not in this connection mean to the end of the world, but only perpetually, and was meant to intimate that the Spirit would not stay only for a short time with them as Christ did, but as long as they lived. In proof of this interpretation, we refer to Exodus xxi. 6, in which we find it said, in reference to the servant's relation in peculiar circumstances, " He shall serve him for ever," i.e., so long as he lives; and also to Philemon 15, in which Paul says: "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season that thou shouldst receive him for ever.” So that the inference which Romanists draw, viz., that the promise extends to those who should come after the apostles, falls to the ground. With an equal want of success they appeal to 1 Tim. iii. 15. In that passage of Paul's epistle we read, "But if I tarry long, 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." At the time when this was written Timothy was overseer of the Church at Ephesus, and * Blakeney's Manual of Romish Controversy, p. 16. |
