the revenue to arise therefrom, within the electorate of Saxony, to his sister Magdalen, married to Cibo, natural son of Pope Innocent VIII., who, in consequence of that marriage, had made Leo a cardinal at fourteen years of age. Magdalen, anxious to make her brother's gift as profitable as possible, appointed Aremboldi, then a layman, but subsequently created archbishop of Milan, to manage the business for her, who intrusted the collection of the indulgences to the highest bidders. These collectors, says Fra. Paoli Sarpi, the Catholic historian already quoted, caused much scandal by their immoral lives and debaucheries; spending in taverns and elsewhere, in gaming, and other things not fit to be mentioned, what the people saved from their necessary expenses to purchase indulgences."

These were the holy fathers who could sell the plenary remission of sins to whole nations, that their bastard children might be endowed with princely revenues. Very fit and proper heads they were of a church which was confessedly so corrupt as to be beyond the possibility of reformation; for the argument of Cardinal Soderini must remain in full force while the church of Rome exists. She cannot reform, for that would be to admit that she needed reformation, which would justify the complaints of the heretics, and destroy her own infallibility. She must therefore go on from evil to worse, till she be ripe for destruction, which will overtake her at the time appointed.

It is a pretty generally received opinion, that the church of Rome is not so wicked now as she was in former ages. I confess I am of a different opinion. I believe her wickedness is greater now than ever it was, and that it will continue to increase to the end. It is true, she does not now exhibit, in general, such gross immoralities as we read of in her history. We do not hear, for instance, that the present pope farms out indulgences, as a provision for his own or his predecessor's natural children. The knowledge that is now diffused over Europe will not permit things to be done which were openly practised in the days of darkness. But the existence of this knowledge aggravates the wickedness of those who shut their eyes against it: and what are apparently less enormities committed in the present day, may be greater sins than greater enormities were in former days; for sins committed against knowledge are greater than sins of ignorance. Christ tells the scribes and Pharisees, that if he had not spoken to them they had not had sin; they had been comparatively guiltless: they would not have had the sin of rejecting him, which was the greatest of which they could be guilty.

This applies to the members of the church of Rome, especially such of them as live in Protestant countries. Some apology may be made for those who lived in the darker ages, and even for those who live at this day in the heart of Spain, where the dense atmosphere of a cruel superstition will not allow one ray of heavenly light to reach the benighted understanding. What can poor sinners do, in these circumstances, but trust implicitly to their ghostly fathers, whose interest it is to keep them in darkness? They are sinners, no doubt; and they must perish in their sins, unless divine mercy shall find them out, in spite of their priests, and discover to them the way of salvation. But the wickedness of these is not to be compared with the wickedness of those

who live within the sphere of divine illumination, and who shut their eyes against the light.

Rome itself cannot altogether exclude the light that now shines in our hemisphere. But Rome will not come to the light, lest her deeds should be reproved. Rome loves the darkness, and not the light, because her deeds are evil. Light has come, light is shining all around; but Rome will not have it; she prefers the darkness; her language is, "Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. Accordingly, the pope has prohibited the formation of Bible societies, and the circulation of the word of God. This is greater wickedness in him than it would have been in the popes of the dark ages, because the dispensations of divine Providence, and the enlightened state of the public mind, should have taught him better. Maintaining the old superstitions and idolatries, while the light of divine truth is shining around, while the gospel of the grace of God is urged upon them, the Papists of the present day are more wicked than their fathers; the church of Rome is filling up the measure of her iniquities, until the wrath come upon

her to the uttermost.

I know that PAX and AMICUS VERITATIS will call this bigotry, and uncharitableness, and what not. A bigot let me be, if I shall be the means of convincing them of their error, of showing them that they are in the way of destruction, of leading them to renounce all dependance upon fellow creatures, and to trust in Christ alone for the salvation of their souls. Why will they trust in their priest, who is a sinner like themselves? Why will they trust in the Virgin Mary, or any of the saints, when Jesus Christ, the only Saviour, presents himself for their acceptance; and makes them welcome to come to him, directly and immediately, as the only refuge from the storm of divine wrath which must fall upon the heads of the ungodly? What interest can they have, unless they are priests, in propping up the crazy fabric of Romish superstition, which is well known to be an enemy to every social and personal comfort? It is a system that holds both the souls and bodies of men in bondage; and, wherever it prevails, thick darkness covers the people. They must see, that in Glasgow, and over the whole kingdom, the state of society is more comfortable, the intellectual and moral condition of the people more respectable, than in popish countries. To what is this owing, but to the general diffusion of knowledge? Popery is hostile to this. He, therefore, who supports the popish system, is an enemy to the temporal as well as the eternal welfare of his fellow creatures; and he brings the displeasure of God upon himself.

CHAPTER VII.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE CONSIDERED. THAT DEDUCED FROM LUKE XXII. xxx, xxxI. COMMENTS OF LEO, AUGUSTINE, AMBROSE, CYPRIAN, AND BERNARD. POPISH ANSWER TO GALATIANS II. XI-XIV. ARGUMENT FROM THE DATE OF PETER'S FIRST EPISTLE FROM BABYLON. ARGUMENT FROM JOHN XVI. XVII. ARGUMENT FROM LUKE V. III. ARGUMENT FROM MATTHEW XVI. XVIII,

XIX. RIDICULOUS STORY OF PETER AT ROME.

SATURDAY, August 29th, 1818. Ar first view, one is apt to think that such a fabric as that of popish infallibility and supremacy must have some solid ground to stand upon. This, however, is by no means the case; and, indeed, for the purposes of error and superstition, the slighter the foundation on which the structure is built, the better. There is then greater scope for the exercise of human ingenuity, and the imagination is in less danger of being obstructed in its career by any troublesome truth.

In some of my late numbers I have, I think, proved the fact, that the infallibility of the pope is a doctrine generally held by the church of Rome; and that the pope claimed supremacy over persons and kingdoms in all matters, temporal as well as spiritual. In the present number, I shall consider the arguments by which Papists maintain this infallibility and supremacy.

By the kindness of a friend, I am favoured with the use of the Rhemish translation of the New Testament into English, Fulke's edition, 1601, with the then authorized English version in parallel columns, with marginal notes and annotations. This, I believe, is the first version, in the mother tongue, which the church of Rome gave to her members in England; and it is given professedly as an antidote to the poison of other translations, which they could not prevent being made into English: not that they by any means thought it necessary, or even proper, in all cases, for the common people to have the word of God in their own language. And they took very good care that this translation of theirs should be rendered as useless to common people as possible; for, besides making it a large and expensive volume, they have perverted, and even smothered the sacred text by their notes and annotations.

66

They deduce the infallibility of the pope from Luke xxii. 30, 31, which, in their translation, is as follows: And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath required to have you, for to sift as wheat: BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE, that thy faith fail not and thou once converted confirm thy brethren." One should think it is not easy to find the pope at all in this passage, not to say his infallibility. Our Saviour, who knew the hearts of all men, saw the secret working of self-confidence in the mind of his disciple. He foresaw the melancholy fall to which this would lead him; and, as an antidote against that despair which might be the natural consequence of such guilt, and which should actually overwhelm another disciple, he told Peter that he had prayed for him, that Satan should not finally prevail against him, that though his faith might be shaken, or even suspended for an hour in its exercise, the divine principle should not

be destroyed. Peter was quite ignorant, at the time, of what Christ referred to, as is evident from the confident reply which he made: of course the words of his Lord could be no encouragement to the commission of the sin of which he was afterwards guilty. But when he found himself guilty of denying his Lord and Master, in the hour of darkness, when overwhelmed with a sense of his crime; instead of being driven to despair, he would remember the kindness of his Master, who had prayed for him,—he would believe and trust in him anew.

See, now, how the Rhemists find the infallibility of the pope in this passage: Simon, Simon.] Lastly, to put them out of doubt, he calleth Peter twice by name, and telling him the devil's desire to sift and try them all to the uttermost, (as he did that night,) saith that he hath especially prayed for him, to this end that his faith should never fail, and that he, being once converted, should after that for ever confirm, establish, or uphold the rest in their faith. Which is to say, that Peter is that man whom he would make superior over them and the whole church. Whereby we may learn, that it was thought fit, in the providence of God, that he who should be the head of the church should have a special privilege, by Christ's prayer and promise, never to fail in faith, and that none other apostle, bishop, or priest, may challenge any such singular or special prerogative, either of his office or person, otherwise than joining in faith with Peter, and by holding of him. The danger (saith St. Leo) was common to all the apostles, but our Lord took special care of Peter, that the state of all the rest might be more sure, if the head were invincible: God so dispensing the aid of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gave to Peter, might redound by Peter to the rest of the apostles.' St. Augustine also: Christ praying for Peter, prayed for the rest, because, in the pastor and prelate, the people is corrected or commended.' And St. Ambrose writeth, that Peter, after his tentation, was made pastor of the church, because it was said to him, Thou being converted, confirm thy brethren. Neither was this privilege of St. Peter's person, but of his office, that he should not fail in faith, but ever confirm all others in their faith. For the church, for whose sake that privilege was thought necessary in Peter, the head thereof, was to be preserved no less afterward than in the apostle's time. Whereupon all the fathers apply this privilege of not failing, and of confirming others in faith, to the Roman church, and Peter's successors in the same. To which (saith St. Cyprian) infidelity or false faith cannot come.' And St. Bernard saith, writing to Innocentius, pope, against Abailardus the heretic, We must refer to your apostleship all the scandals and perils which may fall, in matters of faith specially. For there the defects of faith must be holpen, where faith cannot fail. For to what other see was it ever said, I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith do not fail? So say the fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine, or writings; but that they cannot, nor shall not, ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic faith, in their consistories, courts, councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations, kept for decision and determination of such controversies, doubts, or questions of faith, as shall be

proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protect them therein for confirmation of their brethren. And no marvel that our Master would have his vicar's consistory and seat infallible, seeing even in the old law the high priesthood and chair of Moses wanted not great privilege in this case, though nothing like the church's and Peter's prerogative. But, in both, any man of sense may see the difference between the person and the office, as well in doctrine as life. Liberius in persecution might yield; Marcellinus for fear might commit idolatry; Honorius might fall to heresy; and, more than all this, some Judas might creep into the office: and yet all this without prejudice to the office and seat, in which (saith St. Augustine) our Lord hath set the doctrine of truth. Caiaphas, by privilege of his office, prophesied right of Christ, but, according to his own knowledge and faith, knew not Christ. The evangelists and other penmen of holy writ, for the execution of that function had the assistance of God, and so far could not possibly err; but that Luke, Mark, Solomon, or the rest, might not err in their other and private writings, that we say not. It was not the personal wisdom, virtue, learning, or faith of Christ's vicars that made St. Bernard seek to Innocentius the third; St. Augustine, and the bishops of Africa, to Innocentius the first, and to Celestinus, ch. 90, 92, 95; St. Chrysostom to the said Innocentius; St. Basil to the pope in his time, ch. 52; St. Hierom to Damascus, ch. 57, 80; but it was the prerogative of their office and higher degree of unction, and Christ's ordinance, that would have all apostles and pastors in the world, for their confirmation in faith and ecclesiastical regimen, depend on Peter. The lack of knowledge, and humble acceptation of which God's providence, that is, that one is not honoured and obeyed of all the brotherhood, is the cause of all schisms, and heresies, saith St. Cyprian. A point of such importance, that all the twelve being in apostleship, like Christ, would yet, for the better keeping of unity and truth, have one to be head of them all, that a head being once appointed, occasion of schism may be taken away, saith St. Hierom, lib. I. adv. Jovi nian, c. 14."

Fulke has a long note upon this annotation, in which he goes over and refutes the errors and absurdities contained in it; but it appears to me that any reader of common sense may refute it for himself, if he will be at the pains to read the passage in the gospel of Luke, in connexion with the history of Christ's sufferings, and the defection of Peter. They must be doctors of more than ordinary acuteness who can find in the words addressed to that apostle, in reference to his fall, a proof that he was infallible; and it must require still more acuteness to find, in these words a proof of the infallibility of the pope, who, they say, sits in the chair of Peter.

That Peter was infallible in all that he preached and wrote, as an apostle of Christ, is not denied, but firmly maintained. He was not, however, more so than the other apostles; and Paul who was afterwards added to their number, speaks of himself as not a whit behind Peter, or any of them. He certainly did not hold his faith of Peter. The gospel which he preached, he received not from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ; and, as if to set aside any claim of superiority over the other apostles, which might be made on behalf VOL. I.-12