66

GOODNESS, otherwise, THOU ALSO SHALT BE CUT "OFF!" Would this have been said to the Church of Rome, if the Apostle had wished it to be believed that that Church was to be infallible? I cannot think it. I am not now saying whether that Church be infallible or not; but I must think that this passage would lead no man to expect it; and might lead many to expect the reverse.

Look next to the Corinthian Church. "rebuking them very sharply,"

After

St. Paul even

bids them, in the last chapter, "to examine themselves "whether they were in the faith" at all. This was surely therefore no infallible Church. Neither was that of Galatia, whom the Apostle thus addresses at the very first chapter; "I marvel "that ye are so soon removed from him who called

you into the grace of Christ unto another Gos

pel!" The Colossian Church is especially warned of its danger (ch. ii.) from the heresies of the Gnostics and Essenes. To the Thessalonians the Apostle writes (chap. iii.) thus: "For this cause, when I "could no longer forbear, I sent to know your "faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain." And even among his beloved Philippians the same Apostle found some who were, as he expresses it,

46

"otherwise minded," and he exhorts them; "Do all things without murmuring and disputing," Phil. ii. 14. Thus far, then, I find no reason to think that any particular Church was then infallible, either in doctrine or practice; or was expected to be so. For none of the Churches mentioned in the Scriptures appear to have had any such attribute either in possession or in promise. It must therefore, at least, be confessed to be strange, that the infallibility of the Church, a matter of such importance, if true, was not even alluded to by the sacred writers.

In the Fathers of the first age there is the same lack of evidence in favour of this notion of Infallibility. Not one of the Apostolic Fathers-No Catholic Doctors before the fourth century — (I might say much later) said one word about it:And no single Church in all that time appears to have made any pretension to it, or to have thought it necessary. This again makes it still a stronger case against the supporters of Infallibility.' Some Churches were indeed exalted above others, by primitive purity, by gifts, and by Christian graces, and even by natural position. But we find that each Church confessed alike to agree with all the

See Note A.

rest, taken in a. CATHOLIC manner, and not with one in particular, as being sure of the truth. Of this the chief Fathers of those ages have left ample testimony.1

"We

Newly established Churches received their ministry and their standard of doctrine from any ancient and Apostolic branch of the Church Catholic, which might be near them; but no spiritual subjection ensued; they were henceforth on an equality, in respect of right and Christian privilege; and all confessed with one voice; "believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic "Church." It no where appears that any one Church, however ancient or pure, had, or exercised, over any other Churches, any acknowledged right of lordship, such as the attribute of Infallibility would doubtless have given.

But it may, perhaps, be argued by many, that even on our own principles, the very reason of the case would, after all, demand that we should have some certainty that the Church to which we belong is a safe guide to the truth; otherwise it would be hard to insist on the duty of obedience to the Church. To this we reply, in accordance with the principles laid down in our first Lecture, that the

1 See Note B.

criterion of the purity and truth of any particular Church is, its conformity with the general body of Apostolic communities, i. e. the Catholic Church from the beginning. And, though no Church is infallible, it must, in general, be safer to rely on a true branch of the Catholic Church, than on individual judgment. It may be said that this is a less certain test of truth than the simple one furnished by the Church of Rome; which, in one sense, may be indeed admitted; but, perhaps, for that very reason this test is better suited to moral agents; for whom it could hardly be fit, and certainly not profitable, to put a blind and lazy confidence in a Church professedly secure from all error (and it is certain, as we before hinted, that a belief in her own infallibility, instead of benefiting, has been the greatest snare to the Church of Rome herself, and the greatest hinderance to the detection and amendment of acknowledged evils). But, after all, But, after all, the question is not-Which is now esteemed the more certain test of truth-the Romanists' or ours?-the question is-Which was the admitted test-Catholicity? or, Infallibility ?-Which did the primitive Christians do? did they profess to believe in the truth of the Holy Catholic Church? or in the particular Infallibility of some one Church? Whoever

professes to think the latter, must do so in ignorance, or in defiance of fact. It has been examined with some care, and it does not appear that the notion of Church infallibility was ever derived from any words of Scripture, or entertained by any Christian Church, or defended by the Catholic Fathers for several hundred years; and until this does appear, and that, too, very plainly, no thinking man who wishes to be right in religion, will choose to rely on a foundation so weak and ill-supported.1

Bearing in mind, then, that the Catholic Christian world did not expect, and seem to have had no reason to expect, an Infallible Church to be set up, let us consider, even more minutely, the claim of Infallibility set up by the Church of Rome.

Her own opinion as to the nature of her Infallibility has not been authoritatively settled, and has singularly varied at different times. The notions of the Pope's Supremacy, and of the Church's In

1 The power at times assumed by Metropolitans in the early Church, may seem at first sight to give some colour to the pretensions of the advocates of Infallibility. It should, however, be borne in mind that the Popes did not assume any greater authority over the Bishops of an Italian province, than did the Patriarchs of Antioch or Constantinople, in their respective districts.—(See the example of St. Chrysostom and the Asiatic Bishops. Sozomen, lib. viii. cap. 6.) None of them, however, ever pretended to any necessary immunity from error. See Note A.