others, when his decisions are according to tradition and Scripture, which gives up the whole question; others again, when he speaks after mature deliberation, in which case no one can be absolutely certain that he has spoken infallibly; while another party hold, that it is when he teaches the church in faith and morals. But what say facts? Why they show that popes have contradicted popes, and that exemption from error is not gifted to the occupant of the papal chair. For example, Gregory I. says, "I confidently say whosoever calls himself the universal priest, or desires to be so called in his arrogance, is a forerunner of Antichrist;" but Gregory VII. (Hildebrand), that jackall of the popedom, declares, "that the Roman pontiff alone can be properly called universal." Moreover, popes have been convicted of heresy. Honorius was condemned by the fifth General Council for being a monothelite; while Eugenius was declared by the Council of Basil to be a "wanderer from the faith and a pertinacious heretic." So that the pope not only sins, as all admit, like a man, in conduct, but errs like a man, in judgment; and thus the Jesuit theory tumbles. If we turn now to councils, we shall find that their pretensions are equally hollow. "Never add any new article to the Nicene creed on the pain of our anathema," said the Council of Nice, A.D. 325; but all we ask, says the Council of Trent, as if forgetful of the anathema of Nice, or as if fully convinced that 66 curses like crows go home to roost," is, that you believe twelve new articles in addition to those of Nice. The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 574, condemned the use of images, and ordered that they should be removed from the churches; while the Council held at Nice, A.D. 787, decreed that image worship should be established. The first Council of Nice decreed in its sixth canon that the Bishop of Antioch and Rome should enjoy equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome; but this has been often contradicted. Infallibility, therefore, is not to be found in Councils. But do a Council and Pope ensure infallibility? If so, how do two fallibles make one infallible? But waiving this, how comes it to pass that the Councils of Constance and Basil contradict Pope Leo and the Lateran? The Council of Constance declared that "the synod lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost had power immediately from Christ, and that even the Pope was bound to obey in matters of faith;" and the Council of Basil alleged that "no wise man ever doubted that the pope was subject to the judgment of general councils in things concerning faith." But the fifth Lateran Council asserted that "it is necessary to obey the pope, and that whosoever does not obey must die the death." Moreover, how is it possible to reconcile with the precepts of the New Testament, the accursed decree of the fourth Lateran Council, which is contained in its third canon, and which authorises persecution to death for dissent ? We are thus forced to the conclusion that a pope and council are no more infallible when combined than either of them alone.* If we test now the church universal, the pagan aspect of her ceremonies and doctrines contrasts so strongly with the simplicity of the truth of the New Testament, that we cannot for a moment admit her to be the church of the apostles. The stains of blood which are upon her proclaim that she is not of him who came to preach peace and goodwill to men, and that she knows nothing of his spirit and teaching who said, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." The record of her barbarous per *For the extracts from popish writers we are indebted to Elliott's Delineations of Romanism, and Lees' Papal Infallibility. secutions, the looseness of the moral code of some of her recognised societies and most honoured saints, and the blasphemy of her pretensions, prove that so far from being the true church of Christ, she is the synagogue of the arch-enemy. He, therefore, who in the face of the evidence from all these sources so clearly proclaiming Rome's corruption, can yet believe her infallible, must have a mind whose greatness is not to be envied. But let us now look at the position in which the Romanists are. They tell us that without a living infallible judge controversy cannot be ended. But were this so, we may well reply, that with their living infallible judge, their controversies are not ended yet; for they are contending as to who he is, and where he is. And if they are in doubt on these two points, they can derive no benefit. If we did not know who the sheriff was, nor where he was, it would be very poor comfort to us with an important case for decision, to tell us that he was somebody and somewhere. This would be to make him virtually nobody. And this is precisely the case with the Romanists. They ridicule the use of private judgment, since they have surrendered theirs in order to be led by a guide, about the identity of whom nobody can agree. They have sold their birthright; they have abjured the use of their reason, not, after all, to lean on one who is infallible, but on a priest. The ghostly confessor is the person who must settle the question of infallibility for his flock; and in a matter so perplexing, his private opinion must be the object of their implicit faith. The dictum of a priest thus becomes the authoritative rule of the people. This was painfully illustrated in the case of the Duke of Brunswick, who was perverted to popery. One of the reasons he assigned for his change was, that he had secured from the Romish priests what he had never been able to get from the Protestant ministers, viz., a guarantee on their part that should he happen to be damned by God for becoming a papist, they were to step in and take his place!* But Romanists tell us further, that without an infallible interpreter Scripture cannot be expounded. Suppose then we grant their assertion, what does it prove? That they are blessed? Nay, but cursed; for while they assert the necessity of such a guide, they are bewildered by a variety of opinions as to his residence. They have the Bible which, they believe, contains a revelation from God materially affecting their interests both in the present and the future life; but they know not where to find him who can give the proper exposition. They are thus kept, like another Tantalus, up to the chin in the water of life, and they cannot drink a drop. Rome is thus, with all her pretensions, the most miserable of comforters. But there is an aspect of the question which very much concerns ourselves, and to which it may not be inappropriate to advert. A church that boasts herself superior to the conscience is invariably the enemy of true freedom and real social progress. That Rome has always been at war with dissent, and that she has resorted to the severest measures to crush it, are assertions which do not now require formal proof. "Down with heresy," has been her watchword; and the faggot and sword have been her weapons. It is indeed true that in our country she addresses us with "bland demeanour;" but were she to gain the supremacy, we would be compelled either to abandon our faith, or lose our lives. The persecuting decree of the fourth Lateran Council is still uncancelled; the medal which commemorates St Bartholomew's massacre is still in the Vatican; and Romanists would soon give occasion for another being struck were circumstances to prove favourable. * Dr Brownlee's Popery an Enemy to Civil and Religious Liberty. What then is demanded of us? We profess to have only one rule of faith-the Holy Scriptures; and their divine authority and sufficiency we maintain against the usurpations of Rome. If, therefore, we would vindicate their rights, we must declare against her an unceasing war. Moreover, we profess to hold human liberty sacred; and this is an additional incentive to labour actively for the downfall of such an insidious foe. We claim as our inalienable right, exemption from all civil control in choosing our creed. We acknowledge no master save one- -Christ Jesus, and the right of no one to call us to account for our religious belief save him. But Rome would lord it over the conscience; she would make her word law, and enforce her will by the severest civil pains. If, therefore, we value our lives, our liberties, our religion, we must undermine this huge system of superstition and tyranny, by a skillful and persevering application of those weapons which are not carnal, but which are mighty through God to the pulling down of the strongholds of sin and Satan. "My country! wilt thou faithful be, Be thy watchword, 'WAR WITH ROME."" QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MINISTRY FOR OUR AGE. A. O. By the Rev. GEORGE JOHNSTON, Moderator of the United Presbyterian Synod. [From the Valedictory Lecture addressed to the Students of the United Presbyterian Church at the close of Session 1853,-published by J. Hogg, Edinburgh.] THE church and the age require a LEARNED MINISTRY. There are very few in the present day, like some small sects in England a century ago, and the Anabaptists in the days of Luther, who hold that learning is not needful to the Christian minister. It is, I believe, universally admitted now, that education of a higher order, at least, than that which is generally diffused among the mass of the population, is necessary for the right discharge of the ministerial function. But our demand is vastly greater than this. Every minister in our church ought to be able to read the sacred oracles in their original languages with almost as much ease and fluency as his own vernacular tongue; and would all our students adopt the practice of reading a portion of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, every day, even though they were but a few verses at a time, it would not be long ere every difficulty would be so far overcome as to render the exercise as pleasant, as it would be profitable. This practice I would earnestly urge upon every student in the Hall; and I would encourage you to it by affirming-what I know from my own experience to be true-that, if you begin with firm purpose, and persevere with uninterrupted constancy, you will soon find your reward in a thorough practical acquaintance with the oracles of truth, in those sublime and beautiful languages in which God spake to the men, and through them to us, whom he moved by the Holy Ghost. Such a knowledge, moreover, of the ancient Scriptures is absolutely necessary, as a preparative, for those higher studies which are connected with Biblical criticism; and with this branch of our subject you should also be, in some measure at least, acquainted. You may not all become a Kennicott or Westein, a Griesbach, a Tichendorff, or even a Davidson; but you should be acquainted with their labours, and with so much of the science as to be able to form an intelligent opinion on such import ant questions, as the distinctive features of the original languages of the Scriptures; the history of the text; the mode of its preservation; the various readings of different texts; the rules for deciding between different readings; what inspiration is; what books are inspired; and the general character, history, and style of the various books which compose the sacred volume. Having ascertained what constitutes the holy oracles, surely every minister ought to possess a thorough knowledge of the principles by which the contents of these oracles are to be interpreted. Hence Hermeneutics ought to engage his earnest study, Bible truth, the truth as revealed in the Bible; this truth understood and believed, in its meaning and evidence, is that which will make you wise scribes in the house of God, and fit you for bringing out of your treasures things both new and old. And the more directly you come to the Bible and draw the truth exclusively from it, the more blessed will yourselves be, and better fitted for preaching it to others. But I do not despise dogmatic theology. It, too, is also most important, and with the entire system, in its connected order, and the relation which one part bears to another and to the whole, should be carefully studied by all of you. Next in order comes the history of the different views which have been taken of the doctrines of the Bible in different ages by different individuals and classes of men,-a subject which has been, until very lately, much neglected in our theological schools; but which is now attracting more attention, but not more than its intrinsic importance imperatively demands, and the close study of which will amply repay all your efforts. It is a token for good to our church that all these branches of theological science are beginning to be appreciated, and more diligently studied, than some of them were fifty years ago. And let me remind you, that you have facilities for their study which even those who are of the same standing with myself did not possess when we were students. We had only one theological professor, and eminent, and revered, and accomplished as a divine, as he was, it was utterly impossible for him to attend to every branch: the utmost that it was in his power to do was to conduct us through a course of systematic divinity. You have five professors, to each of whom is committed specially one branch of the all-important subject. They are men on whom, if they were not present, I would pronounce the very highest eulogium; men of whom I will only say that they are worthy of the chairs which they occupy; each a princeps in his own department; and to whose instructions you do well to take heed. But let me remind you, that, with all their learning, eloquence, and zeal, they cannot force instruction on you. You must be willing and anxious to receive it. Nay, it is not very much that even they can communicate directly in the course of a two months' session; they can do little more than impart the knowledge of first principles,-give you the great landmarks of their respective territories, and direct you how to explore the intervening regions. You must labour; you must read and study; you must exert your own powers, and bend them with sustained and strenuous effort to the investigation of truth, and the acquirement of knowledge for yourselves. The materials for such study are ample, and within your reach. Not very many years ago, the student, in regard to many branches of his course, had to resort to learned and expensive works, which were often beyond his reach, or was obliged to resort to German sources for the purpose. But now, thanks to such men as Clark, of this city, all the materials for the study of Biblical criticism, Hermeneutics, and other cognate branches, are now available to all. Of Clark's "Biblical Cabinet," and his " Foreign Theological Library," together with "Davidson's Biblical Criticism," "Hermeneutics," and "Introduction to the New Testament," you should all endeavour to possess yourselves, and make them the subject of your diligent study. Of works on systematic theology I need make no mention. Our own Dick is incomparably the best in the English language with which I am acquainted. Let me only add, in this department, that to all this you ought to unite, at least, a general knowledge of the sciences and the literature of your country. This I regard as absolutely necessary in the present day. There is a very decided advance in the general intelligence of the population, and a Christian minister ought not only to keep pace with the improvement of the age-he should be in advance of it, and, when necessary, be prepared to direct it. I cannot stop to show you why all this high scholarship is needed in the present day. Many reasons may be given, but I cannot even hint at them. The battle of our faith must be fought again both on the side of Infidelity and the Man of Sin. An infidel spirit is abroad, and it is active, and subtle, and determined. It has assumed an entirely new form, and in its presence, the old weapons against the enemy fall pointless to the ground. It is only those men who possess the knowledge and logical acumen of the author of the "Eclipse of Faith," who are prepared to meet, and overthrow the infidelity of the present day. But I must hasten to remind you that the most accomplished scholarship is not all that is necessary to the Christian minister. You may possess all the knowledge of sacred literature of which I have spoken, and yet not be a Christian, nor a right Christian minister. You may know all that the Bible contains; you may even be able to expound its truths lucidly and impressively, and yet not be an ambassador of Christ; and hence I observe, that DEEP PIETY is imperatively required by the church and this age in the Christian ministry. It is needed by you as men; for "what will it profit a man though he gain the whole world, and lose his soul? or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" You need each of you salvation for yourself. Your soul is a lost soul, estranged from God, guilty and depraved, under the terrible curse, in danger of everlasting banishment from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. And, oh! it is the most solemn and dreadful of all thoughts, that a man may preach the gospel to others, and be himself a castaway; may press the remedy upon his fellow-men, and refuse it himself; may rouse others, and yet be dead himself,—dead in trespasses and sins. This may happen. It is my solemn conviction that it often does. And ministers are in peculiar danger, if not converted men before, of remaining unconverted through, it may be, the busy official labours of a protracted life. Our very familiarity with the themes of religion, and study of them, for the benefit of others, is but too apt to make us forget our own deep personal interest in them. What a thought is it, that we may be conversant with the truth, which forms the substance of our preaching, without ourselves being under its saving influence. Let the possibility of a condition so fearful stimulate each of you to seek now, and seek with all your heart, a personal interest in the Lamb of God, and that personal holiness, “without which no man shall see the Lord.” But PIETY is necessary for you as CHRISTIAN MINISTERS. How any man can submit to the drudgery of preaching the Gospel, when he does not himself believe it, is to me an inexplicable mystery. How can he invite sinners to flee from a wrath of which he does not believe the existence? How can he urge sinners to flee to a Saviour whom he himself despises? How can he exhort them, by the terrors of hell, or by the happiness of heaven, to escape from the one, and secure the other, while he lives himself in total disregard of both? How can he beseech men to hate and avoid sin, and to cultivate and practise holiness, while he himself loves the former, and hates the latter? It is difficult to understand how such a man can be a successful minister of Jesus Christ. Let it never be forgotten, that we should be able to say to our hearers, "Be ye followers of us, as we are of Christ." We should preach, because we believe. Out of the fulness of our heart we ought to speak. In other words, every Christian minister ought to be a man of deep piety, both for his own sake and for the sake of his ministry. Am I asked, How is this piety to be attained? I answer in the dying words of the late beloved, and revered Dr Balmer, to two young friends in whose welfare he was deeply interested:"You are the children of many prayers of many prayers; but that will avail you little unless you pray for yourselves. Read your Bible often, and pray much. You see me here a poor stricken man; but I am in perfect peace. I found that peace, where alone you, or any one else, will find it, in my Bible, and on my knees."* So say I to you. If you would be deeply pious, read your Bible much, and be much upon your knees. Read your Bible, not as a text-book. Read it, not merely for the purpose of becoming acquainted with its revelations, that you may expound them to others; but read it as a revelation of God to you, * Memoir prefixed to "Lectures and Discourses," vol. i. p. 64. |
