RULE OF FAITH.

333

May there not be

But, if genuine,

I swallow it, you must answer these questions: How do you know that this is correctly translated, or correctly printed? How do you know that the Latin is genuine? omissions or interpolations? who composed it? The Pope, a fallible man. When?In the sixteenth century, fifteen hundred years too late. By what authority?—His own. Where did he get that authority?—It is founded on Scripture. How do you know it is founded on Scripture ?-By examining certain passages that establish it.* .Yes; according to your private judgment. Well! I see we have come back to the main point again. I will now grant you the inspiration of the Bible, though I might call on you to prove it; and we shall see whether your opinion of these passages is sound, and, therefore, a fit foundation to build an infallible church upon. Mind, you cannot now avail yourself of notes, because they have no authority; nor can you trust your own translation, because it gives no certain sense to difficult passages. speak this advisedly, and here is my authority:

I

"Because this speech is subject to divers senses (could not the infallible authority tell which was the right one?), we keep the words

*See a masterly analysis of the Rule of Faith in Dr. Urwick's most valuable Centenary Sermons, p. 51.

of our text, lest by turning it into any English phrase, we might straighten the Holy Ghost's intention to some certain sense, either not intended, or not only intended; and so take away the choice and indifferencie from the reader, whereof (in Holy Scripture specially) all translators must beware." -Note on John ii. 4, Rheimes Edition, 1582.

What! is it possible that the Roman Catholic reader has a choice and indifferency, as to the meaning he is to attribute to the Word of God! I thought he should interpret every passage according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. If there be such a thing, why did not the Annotors refer to it here? Alas! they had no such thing to refer to, and they tell you candidly they do not understand the passage; and that they leave it to your "choice and indifferencie," to take what meaning you please out of it. O infallible tribunal, where art thou? Why not come to the aid of the Rhemish Doctors in their sore perplexity, to lighten their darkness, and obviate the necessity of making this humiliating confession?

Well, Sir, if, in the exercise of private judgment, you may exercise your choice on difficult passages, you may surely exercise it on those which are plain. Let us, then, refer to Matt, xvi.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

335

18, 19. Now, suppose I grant that these words confer a supremacy on Peter, what is that to the Bishop of Rome? There is no proof from Scripture, and very doubtful evidence from history, that Peter was Bishop at Rome. But if he were, the apostles had no successors, as such. We challenge proof on this point. Besides, the presence and teaching of Peter did not keep the church at Antioch from falling: the churches of Asia, planted by Paul, and even the mother church at Jerusalem, have long since perished. The Church of Christ has moved from place to place through the earth, like the pillar of fire in the wilderness; when persecuted in one city, fleeing to another; and, therefore, any promise of infallibility to that church cannot be pleaded in favour of any particular community. Can you produce any promise of infallibility to the Church of Rome? Not one in the whole Bible. But we can produce a threat of destruction. That church is exhorted, Rom. xi. 20-22, not to be "high-minded, but fear," lest she should "be cut off." a vengeance!

She has been high-minded with We believe the curse has been upon her for ages, and that she is no longer a branch of the olive tree. "Boast not against the branches," says the apostle, "but if thou boast thou bearest not the root, but the root

thee." She never was, therefore, the mother of all churches. She could not bear the root.

But we deny the supremacy or infallibility of Peter. I return to Matt. xvi. 18. I have not room for a lengthened exposition of this passage. But we may bring the matter to a short issue. These words cannot be so understood as to contradict other texts that are quite plain. For instances, in Matt. xx. 25–28, our Lord expressly forbids all assumption of authority on the part of any of the apostles. In Eph. ii. 20, the church is said to be built on the foundation of "the apostles and prophets,"* no pre-eminence being assigned to Peter above the others. Peter was sent by the apostles to Antioch (Acts viii. 14); and, doubtless, the greater is not sent by the less. Paul says he was not a whit behind him; and on one occasion he withstood him to the face. (2 Cor. xi. 5, and Gal. ii. 11.) Jesus conferred on all the apostles, without any distinction, the power of the keys. John xx. 22, 23, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted them," &c. This passage explains "I will give unto thee the keys," &c. This gift of the keys is the privilege of all faithful pastors, and, without a

* See page 239.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

337

figure, means simply authority (of which keys were anciently the emblem) to preach the Gospel, which is a proclamation of pardon to the penitent, and to administer discipline in the church.* As to the Rock, it is sufficient to quote the explanation of St. Augustine. "Jesus," says he," said not, thou art the Rock, but thou art Peter. The Rock was CHRIST, whom Simon confessed." This interpretation, and one substantially the same, or at least equally at variance with the sense ascribed to the passage by the modern Church of Rome, have been supported, according to the Roman Catholic authors Du Pin and Calmet, by fifteen Popes, thirteen: Roman saints, thirty-seven Fathers and Doctors, and four Councils, besides many modern Roman Catholic writers.†

Here, then, is a powerful array of authorities against the modern Roman Catholic interpretation, which is urged with such confidence by See pp. 185-190.

This interpretation is sanctioned by the General Councils of Nice. Constantinople, Basil, and Trent. Labbeus viii. 770-1268, and x. 529, and xvii. 692, 821, and xx. 332. Canisius iv. 469. Among the authorities referred to in the text, I may mention, Popes-Celestin, Innocent, Pius, Felix, Gregory, John, Urban. Hilary, Ambrose, Cyril, Basil, Cyprian, Jerome, AugusLine.

Saints