Page images
PDF
EPUB

divinity and mission, which for the most substantial reasons we never can do; yet would it prove nothing in favour of that infallibility which the Church of Rome professes to have derived from him. For if it did, then would it prove more than that Church desires, or is willing to allow. For if it proves that Peter was the foundation of that Church, and, as such, was infallible, having had the power of binding and loosing committed to him, then must it prove that all who stand in the same relation to the church, and have the same authority committed to them, are alike infallible. But all the Apostles and Prophets stand in the same relation to the church, it being "built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets." (Ephes. ii. 20.) And to them was given the power to bind and loose, as well as unto Peter: (Matt. xviii. 18 :) consequently they also were infallible. But if so, how comes the Church of Rome to arrogate this honour to herself exclusively? And how, without the greatest possible effrontery, can she anathematize every other church as schismatical and heretical? And with what truth can she say that no salvation can be had out of her pale, when every church founded by the Apostles is as infallible as herself?

But if the Church of Rome could make it to appear that Peter was infallible, which she never can do, how would this prove that Peter was to have an infallible successor, and has had one down to the present time? For as to any thing like evidence on these points, she adduces none; and that for the best of reasons, because she has none to adduce. What, however, she lacks of proof, she endeavours to supply by bold assertions. But if Peter had bequeathed any such power as this Church pretends to have derived from him, it is but reasonable to suppose that he would have specified the subject or subjects of it by name. And as no authority was given to Peter but such as was given to the rest of the Apostles; then for the very same reason that Peter has a successor still existing, they have their successors still in being, form

ing the infallible heads of so many infallible churches as they severally founded. But where shall we find them? There is not any one that lays claim to this honour, but the Church of Rome. Do they know that they are infallible, and modestly decline the claim? Or will it be said that Peter only, of all the infallible Apostles, acted infallibly, in delegating his authority to his successors? But how could he delegate a sole infallibility to his successors, when he had no such infallibility to transmit? And if Peter possessed the special privilege of communicating this prerogative to his successors, and acted on it, how is it that St. John, who was his surviver by many years, and who could not possibly have been ignorant of a circumstance of such importance, never once makes mention of it in the book he wrote after Peter's death? And how is it that he never once directs the Churches of Asia to avail themselves of Peter's successor, that living oracle, for the purpose of checking those heresies which were growing up among them? These considerations leave us no reason to think that Peter has transmitted any such thing as infallibility to any church. But even if we had reason to believe the contrary, by what process of reasoning will the Romish Church prove to us that this has been bestowed on her in preference to every other church? Why entrust so valuable a deposit to the Bishops of Rome, rather than to the Bishops of the mother-church in Je rusalem, or to the Bishops of one of her elder sisters? Say Antioch, Cesarea, &c. We know that Peter preached the Gospel in those places'; but it is not certain that he did this in Rome; much less that he founded its Church, and was its first Bishop. How is it then that the Pope of Rome claims to himself the singular privilege of being St. Peter's sole successor in all his glorious powers and pre-eminence? To these puzzling questions the Church of Rome deigns no other answer but that Peter died a martyr there; on which supposed fact, she founds the idle tale, that he was her illustrious

But if founder and first Bishop. from the testimony of some of the Fathers we were to admit that he did die a martyr there, we should require very different proof from that which is as yet given, that he was the infallible head of the Church which was founded there, and imparted that infallibility to his sucIf it cessors in the Papal chair. could be fairly argued from Matt. xvi. 18, 19, that Christ bestowed infallibility on Peter, and determined that it should descend in the line of the Popedom to the latest generations; then would it follow that the infallibility of the Romish Church is a fundamental article of the Christian faith, in which case it would be downright heresy to disbelieve it. But if so, what is to become of the Gallican and other Churches in the Roman communion, that disbelieve it? And how can we be accounted heretics for denying that which others deny as well as we, who are, nevertheless, considered to be good Catholics by the Romanists themselves?

But those who contend so strenuously for the infallibility of the Church of Rome should tell us what they mean by the church, whether the Pope exclusively; or the Pope and dignitaries of the Priesthood; or the Pope and the whole of the Clergy; or the Pope, Clergy, and laity, that profess faith in Christ, taken together. This is the more necessary, as the Romanists are any thing but agreed among themselves on this point. That the Pope, apart from his Cardinals and Councils, does not constitute the infallible church, we have ample proof in the history Some of the of the Pontificate. Popes have erred from the faith. Thus Pope Honorius was a Monothelite, and condemned as such by the third Council of Constance. Pope Liberius was an Arian. (See Howel's History of the Pontificate, page 43) Marcellinus sacrificed to idols; (Idem;) while Alexander VI. was a practical Atheist, and a monster of iniquity. (Idem.) And as a further proof that the Popes, considered by themselves, are not infallible, we have not unfrequently had

two and even three of these infallible
successors of St. Peter occupying
the Papal chair at the same time,
and fulminating their anathemas
against each other as schismatics,
and as infamous heretics. Thus Bene-
dict XIII. and Gregory XII. were
pitted against each other; and so also
were Eugene IV. and Felix V.; and
so were Martin V. and Clement VII.

And if the Pope, apart from a
General Council, is not infallible; so
neither is he when connected with
and directing one. For in the fourth
session of the Council of Constance,
held A. D. 1414; and in the second
session of the Council of Basil, held
A. D. 1431; the infallibility and su-
premacy of the Church are declared
to be in a General Council; whereas
Leo and the Lateran Council assert
that it is requisite that all Christ's
faithful people should be subject to
the Bishop of Rome, who has autho-
rity over all Councils. (See Smith's
Errors of the Church of Rome,
page 67.) In the second and third
Lateran Councils, it is declared, that
the ordination of schismatic Bishops
is null and void. (Dupin's Biblio-
thèque, Cent. 12th, page 207.) Where-
as in the Council of Trent, the con-
trary is declared. (Paul's History of
the Council of Trent, page 592, &c.)
So that either the Lateran Councils,
or the Council of Trent, must have
erred. Now, if neither the Pope
alone, nor yet the Pope in General
Council, is infallible, it surely will
not be pleaded, that a General Coun-
cil without the Pope is infallible.
The first Council of Pisa, the Coun-
cil of Constance, and that of Basil,
pronounced a General Council to be
above the Pope; whereas the fifth La-
teran Council declared this opinion to
be heretical. Thus we find Popes have
been opposed to Popes, Popes in
Council to Popes in Council, and
Councils themselves to one another.
What then shall we say of this
boasted infallibility? What? why,
that it is an idle fiction, invented
and maintained to prop the merce-
nary and malignant power of an
For if those
ungodly Priesthood.
who pretend to it refer us to the
holy Scriptures for the proof of their
possessing it, instead of demon

[ocr errors]

strating the fact by the production of incontestable evidence, how are we to ascertain the correctness of their interpretations of Scripture on these points? If they say that the sense of holy Scripture is so clear on this head as to require nothing more than an impartial consideration of what it teaches, to discern its meaning; will it not follow, that possibly, and very probably, they are as clear on all other points that concern us, as they are on this? And if so, what necessity can there be for an infallible judge or interpreter of so intelligible and plainlyspoken a book? But if we cannot know the meaning of holy Scrip ture on these and other points, unless we have a visible and an infallible judge to show it to us, then are we reduced to the necessity of argu. ing in a circle; that is to say, we must believe that there is an infalli

ble judge existing somewhere, be cause the Scriptures which we are required to believe are affirmed to say there is; and we must believe that the Scriptures say there is such a judge existing somewhere, because this infallible judge tells us that they say so. In short, we must take this pretended judge to be infallible on his own testimony. Whereas the truth of the matter is, we must learn from the Scriptures themselves what the essential doctrines and precepts of Christianity are, before we can know what is meant by the Christian church, and who they are that can justly pass for members of it. Consequently, if the Roman creed be true, we must have the more important knowledge without an infallible judge, in order that we may attain that which is less important by one. J. B. YORK, March 7th, 1840.

REVIEW.

An Essay on Apostolical Succession: being a Defence of a genuine Protestant Ministry, against the exclusive and intolerant Schemes of Papists and High-Churchmen; and supplying a general Antidote to Popery. Also, a Critique on the Apology for Apostolical Succession, by the Honourable and Reverend A. P. Perceval; and a Review of Dr. W. F. Hook's Sermon, c. By Thomas Powell, Wesleyan Minister. Second Edition. Third Thousand. Carefully revised, and much enlarged. 8vo. pp. 322. T. Ward and Co.

so,

WE are glad to see that Mr. Powell's volume is come to a second edition, not only because we have thus the assurance, that the important information which it contains has already been extensively circulated, and is likely to be yet more but likewise, because the opportunity has been afforded him, and he has not neglected to avail himself of it, of noticing some of the principal animadversions which it has called forth. Their authors, indeed, appear to be as perfectly satisfied of the cogency of their arguments, as Mr. Powell is with those employed by himself. In the present case, the reason is plain. The parties go upon different principles; and if we adjulge the victory to Mr. Powell, it is because we believe he has adopted

the right, that is to say, the scriptural, principle. At the same time, it is only due to him to acknowledge that, in one part of the case, he has pressed on his adversaries very powerfully, by taking advantage of one of their inconsistencies, and employing it, very properly, against them. According to their statements of Episcopal power, the Bishop has to do something besides ordaining Presbyters and Deacons. The governing, as well as the ordaining, power is inherent in the Episcopal office. But the argument of the Successionists requires that one of these powers shall be considered as perfectly valid, and the other as perfectly invalid. In virtue of the governing power, certain canons are prescribed for the

regulation of the exercise of the
ordaining power. And yet, in point
of fact, ordinations are to be consi-
dered as valid, even when the rules
for its government are directly con-
travened. At one time, the validity
of the Bishop's act depends on its
rightness; at another, the act is to
be considered as valid in itself, sim-
The un-
ply as performed by him.
righteous excommunication is inva-
lid; the unrighteous ordination is
valid. And why? Plainly, because
nothing like a succession can pos-
sibly be made out, unless to the
Bishop's ordaining power, such
transcendent and unalterable effi-
cacy be ascribed, as that it shall
exercise
not be affected by the
of other branches of the power,
assumed, nevertheless, to be equal-
ly inherent in the office. But we
have long been convinced that he
had need be a bold arguer who ac-
cepts a brief in behalf of the doc-
trine of what is usually called
"the regular apostolical succession."
And bold its champions frequently
are; but, with all their boldness,
they do not appear willing to state
their case fully, in all that belongs to
it, if it be really true. They content
themselves with stating, generally,
that our Lord ordained the first
Bishops, giving them power to or-
dain their successors; and then,
still keeping to the same generali-
ties, they give catalogues of per-
sons, by name, holding what is
termed "the Episcopal office;" and
then they triumph as though the
argument were resistless, and the
demonstration complete. The truth
is, when all this is done, nothing is
done to the purpose. Identity of
name, after the lapse of many cen-
turies especially, does not prove
identity of office. And if it did,
then another question, in the pre-
sent case a very awkward question,
arises: Is the original power of ap-
or unlimited?
pointment limited

And if limited, have the limitations
been observed? Or, are the limita-
tions merely prudential directions,
making the power of appointment no-
minally limited, but, in practice and
effect, unlimited, and without any
real qualifications? Of course, ad-

mitting our Lord Jesus Christ to be
the supreme Head of his church,
we admit the supreme authority of
What is plainly
the written word."
written there, is to be received and
obeyed. Where there is a direct
decision, sufficiently intelligible to
every honest mind, that decision is
But yet, in
to settle the case.
questions of interpretation, the com-
parison of texts must not be over-
looked. There is a true, as well as
a spurious, rationalism: the ration-
alism of honest and humble faith,
as well as of proud and questioning
The latter, indeed,
scepticism.

may generally be detected by this,-
that the object of its inquiry is, what
God ought to have said; whereas,
the former only seeks to ascertain
And
what God really has said.
though it may be not only very easy,
but very common, for the mind to
dignify some favourite scheme of doc-
trine by the term "analogy of faith;"
yet, on the other hand, there is an
analogy of faith; and though we may
not always be able to perceive it, yet
we may be sure, that there is a real
consistency in the entire system of
revealed truth, and a consistency and
proportion between all the parts,
and the whole. It behoves, indeed,
the theological student to be exceed-
ingly cautious in applying this fact
for the purposes of interpretation.
Acknowledging the full authority
of holy writ, we again say, that
when the Scripture plainly decides
a case, that ought to be enough for us.
The doctrine so taught is consistent
with the analogy of faith, whether
we perceive it or not. And here
all will rest who believe that all

Scripture is given by inspiration of God." But in really doubtful cases-in what are honestly questions of interpretation-where the mind of God, as declared in Scripture, is piously sought, then, most certainly, the diligent collation of texts must be resorted to, and the analogy of faith, especially in the more obvious portions of Christian doctrine, must be carefully applied.

Now, in the present case, what is the analogy of faith in reference to the general nature of personal religion? Does the New Testament

unequivocally declare that it consists, primarily, in external observances, which, by degrees, are to work the whole mind into conformity with their own visible character? Does it unequivocally declare, that what it terms "fellowship with God" is primarily and principally by means of certain visible rites appointed for that purpose; so that he who attends duly to the rite has, in virtue of that attention, that communion with God to which he is called? Is he who is baptized brought, by the baptizing act, into newness of spiritual life? Is he who receives the sacrament of the Lord's supper brought, thereby, into real communion with the body and blood of Christ? Is he who is a member of the church, thereby a member of Christ? Is this the view of religion plainly given us in the New Testament? We know it is one that was taken very early; and we know, too, that it is one which is taken very easily. Outward observances, even of the most painfully-austere character, are far less difficult,—and, to human nature as it is, far less objectionable,-than

"

those efforts which are decidedly spiritual. It is plain, from the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, that, among those who first heard the Apostles, there were those who placed religion essentially in outward observances. With them, the kingdom of God was meat and drink; and the federative rite of religion, primary and fundamental. Now, certainly, if the New Testament confirms these views, it would at once be felt that the doctrine of the uninterrupted succession," as it is termed, is altogether in harmony with them. If he that hath the church hath life, then is it right that, in the constitution of the church, on which so much depends, there should be a visible principle of regularity like that of authoritative appointment. And so again, if he that hath the sacraments hath life, it seems fitting that a regular, visible, external appointment should mark the persons with whom so precious (because life-giving) a deposit is entrusted. And, because

of this agreement, we find that, for the most part, the advocates of this doctrine are likewise the advocates of the religion of primary externalism. While, on the other hand, where other notions of religion prevail, other views of the ministerial office are generally adopted. Generally adopted, we say; for the fact cannot be overlooked that, in the English Episcopal Church, there are many whose views of religion are, for the most part, correct, and who yet appear to hold views on the apostolic-succession question, substantially the same as those which are held by a very different school. We have often regretted the fact, but we do not think it would be diffi cult to explain it. To believe ourselves to be right exclusively, is a state of mind to which we are all prone; and no advocate of spiritual religion can deny the fact, that there have too often been Ministers in the English Establishment who, except on the principle that Episcopal authority is, substantially, the proper and original source of ministerial power, were not Christian Ministers at all. A Church of England periodical, generally presenting views of religion both just and important, once intimated, that none condemned the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, but they who were conscious they did not possess it; but to this it might be replied, that, on the other hand, none ever contended for it as a sine qua non to the Christian ministry, but those who were conscious that, if this were taken away, and a higher qualification required, it would at once appear that the entire disciplinary administration of the community with which they were connected, had been not only defective, but even criminally so.

We have often thought it a favourable circumstance that there should be nothing in the official documents, the established formularies, of the Church of England, directly and unequivocally asserting this doctrine. The twenty-third Article (the title of which is," Of ministering in the Congregation") is expressed in these general terms: It is not

« PreviousContinue »