Post by Caillin on Mar 28, 2018 15:37:01 GMT -5
Controversial Catechism:
Or, Protestantism Refuted and Catholicism Established
3rd Edition, 1854
By Rev. Stephen Keenan
Chapter VI, PP. 70-86 (all italics in the original)
_________________
CHAPTER VI.
THE TRUE RULE OF FAITH.
SECTION I.
Q. What are the qualities of the Catholic rule of faith?
A. The Catholic rule is UNIVERSAL, CERTAIN, and CLEAR, or EASY.
Q. Why universal?
A. It is a rule for all, the learned as well as the ignorant; it relieves the former of all doubt and uncertainty, and spares the latter the trouble of a difficult inquiry and examination, for which they are in no way qualified.
Q. Why do you say it is certain?
A. Because it is no other than the Word of God, explained by God’s appointed organs, in the very sense, intended by the Holy Spirit; and, of course, God can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Q. Why do you say it is clear!
A. Because it tells, clearly, in what sense, every portion of God’s Word is to be understood.
Q. What are the peculiar advantages of the Catholic rule of faith?
A. In the first place, it banishes all doubt; secondly, it decides finally every dispute ; thirdly, it preserves unity. When an infallible judge decides, there can be no room, for doubt or division.
Q. What say you of those who would examine, personally, every controversial point, and abide by what, they in their wisdom think, the Scripture teaches?
A. That they adopt a rule which, for the great mass of mankind, is an impossibility; because, to form a proper judgment from the Scripture on any controverted point, one should know, in the first place, all the texts of Scripture, that are for or against such point; secondly, it would be necessary to compare these texts one with the other, to weigh their respective force, to illustrate the obscure, by others more clear; thirdly, to be absolutely certain, that all of them are understood in their true sense, and no other. Now, this is evidently a business, far beyond the reach, at all events, of the ignorant, who form the great mass of mankind.
Q. But may not the learned aid the ignorant in this inquiry?
A. Such is the absurdity to which error always reduces its votaries. You refuse to submit to the decision of the whole Church,—to the decision of all the learned, pious, and enlightened prelates of the Church, with the sovereign Pontiff at their head, men of all others the best qualified to judge of religious matters; you reject their opinion, whilst you would blindly follow the crude notions of one layman pretending to learning, of one Calvinistic or Lutheran minister, for the truth of whose opinions you have no security whatever.
SECTION II.
Q. Do Catholics depend on traditional doctrines, as well as on those that are scriptural or written?
A. Yes ; we believe that what Christ or his Apostles spoke is as true as what they wrote. It is clear, from what we have seen above, that they delivered, many truths by word of month, which are not written in the Scripture. These truths are considered authentic and divine, by Catholics, when it is found, that they have been believed, by all Christian nations, and in every age of the Church.
Q. Does the Scripture authorize this dependence on traditional doctrine?
A. In 2 Thess. ii. 15, we have: “ Hold the traditions you have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistle.” In 2 Cor. 3, it is said: “You are the epistle of Christ, not written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.” Here, what is not written, is called the epistle of Christ, written with the Spirit of the living God upon the heart, which, though only tradition, most certainly must be as true, as the written Word itself.
Q. Have you any other texts to the same effect?
A. 2 These. iii. 6 : “ Withdraw yourselves from every brother, that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received of us." See Rom. vi. 17 ; 1 Cor. xi. 2; Tim. vi. 20; Tim. i. 13, where it is said, “Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me.“ 1 Thess. 13: “When ye received the Word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as the word of men, but" (as it is in truth) “the Word of God."
Q. How can you distinguish true from false tradition?
A. As easily as, you can distinguish, a true from a false copy of Scripture. In both cases, you must depend on the uniform and universal testimony of Christian antiquity. You hold your Bible, to be the Word of God, because all Christian ages and nations have done so before you; and you have the very same testimony, for the traditional doctrines, held as divine by the Catholic Church. We have as much evidence, for the truth of universally-admitted traditional doctrine, as we have for the truth, and authenticity, and divinity, of the four Gospels.
Q. Does not our Saviour say: “ Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life?“ (John v. 39.)
A. Yes; but he does not say in them, ye have certainly eternal life. This argument would prove, that the Old Testament, without the New, was sufficient; for, at this time, not one word of the New Testament was written. In 2 Tim. iii. 15, we are told, that all Scripture is profitable, and that it maketh wise unto salvation; but what Catholic ever denied this? This text does not say, that the Scripture alone maketh wise, as to everything necessary. The book of Genesis makes men wise, but will this one book make men wise in every religious truth? St Paul praises Timothy, because he had tha the Scriptures from his youth; but then Timothy was a bishop, whose duty it was, not only to read, but to expound the Scripture.
Q. What say you to Dent. iv. 2: “ You shall not add to the word which I speak, nor take away from it?”
A. At this time nothing but the Mosaic law was written; hence, this passage in the mouth of a Protestant proves, that he believes the Mosaic law, sufficient as a rule of faith. But what will he say to the Prophets and Apostles, who afterwards added all the rest of the Old and New Testaments? It is not what is added by inspired men that is here condemned, but what is contrary to that which God had already revealed, for God does not condemn the good institutions of men. 2 Chron. xxx. 21, after the children of Israel, according to law, had kept the solemnity of Azymes seven days (ver. 23), the whole assembly took good counsel, to keep other seven days, and yet, though this was a human addition (ver. 27), “their prayer came to the holy habitation of heaven.” Thus, also, Christ himself (John 11. 22) keeps the feast of the dedication, mentioned in 1st Macchab. iv. 56, though this book is not admitted by Protestants, to be Scripture at all.
Q. Does not St John, at the end of Apocalypse, the last book of Scripture, say: “If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book ?" (Chap. xxii. 18.)
A. The Apocalypse, though placed last in order, was not last written. St John wrote his Gospel some years after his liberation from the Isle of Patmos, where the Apocalypse was composed; hence, as St John, according to the Protestant sense of the words above quoted, would himself incur the curse, it is evident that he merely threatens, with that curse any one who should dare to vitiate, by addition or subtraction, the book which he there concludes,-—that is, the book of the Apocalypse. He ends his Gospel by declaring (John xx. 25), that our Lord did much, that was not written; and surely the witnesses of these doings were not accursed for relating and believing what they had seen, or heard from the lips of Christ, although these things were never written. The Thessalonians had tradition (2 Thess. ii. 14); Timothy had a form of sound words (2 Tim. i. 13); and were they, or are we, to be visited by the plagues, because, in obedience to St Paul, we hold these traditions, in addition, to what God commanded to be written? It is therefore amere Protestant gloss, unauthorized by the text itself, and in contradiction to the rest of the Scripture, to assert, that we are to believe nothing except what is written.
SECTION III.
Q. What is the rule of faith adopted by Catholics?
A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly divine tradition, interpreted by the teaching body of the Church,—that is, by the pastors to whom Christ said, “Go, teach all nations." This teaching body, when taken collectively with the chief Pastor at their head, all Catholics believe to be infallible,— that is, that they cannot teach any error against faith or morals. Now, if this great fundamental truth, be clearly laid down in Scripture, then Catholics will be quite safe in following the teaching of their pastors; then the teaching body will be, to the taught, an infallible rule of faith. Mark well, we do not maintain that the pastors of the Church are, of themselves, infallible, but that God has made them so, for the benefit of his people, and that Christ himself teaches, by their lips.
Q. What proof have you to advance for all this?
A. In Isaiah ii. 3, Christ is represented as teaching the Church: “He will teach us his ways, and we shall walk in his paths.”* That Church must be infallible in its teaching, which has Christ as its director, and whose children walk in the paths of the Saviour.
*Our Protestant brethren have only to refer to their own Bible, and note the titles of its chapters, to be satisfied, that this and the following passages, quoted from the OId Testament, have a direct reference to the Church of Christ, whose infallibility they foretell in the most explicit terms.
Q. What do we find in Isaiah liv. 17?
A. That no weapon, which is formed against the Church of Christ, shall prosper; and that every tongue which resisteth her in judgment, she shall condemn. Surely she must be infallible, if she triumph over every enemy, and have power from God to condemn, every tongue that opposes her decisions. In Isaiah 1x. 12, it is said, “that the nation and kingdom, that will not serve her, shall perish.” Now, could nations be compelled to serve the Church, if she could lead them astray, and teach them error?
Q. Do we find anything of importance to our purpose in Ezechiel xliv. 23?
A. “They” (the priests) “shall teach my people, what is, between a holy thing and a thing polluted, and the difference between clean and unclean, they shall show them; and when there shall be a controversy, they shall stand in judgment, and shall judge according to my judgments." The judgment of the priests of the Most High must then be infallible, since they are ACCORDING to the judgment of God himself.
Q. What have we in Psalm cxxxii. 13 ?
A. We have: “Our Lord hath chosen Zion: he hath chosen it for an habitation to himself. This is my rest for ever and ever: here will I dwell; because I have chosen it." Now, according to St Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 15, Christ‘s dwelling-place is his Church: “That thou mayest know how to converse in the house of God, the Church of the living God.” It must be manifest, then, that the Church of Christ is pure and free from error; for, were she the mother and mistress of idolatry, the pure God of heaven could never have chosen her for his dwelling-place.
Q. What says Isaiah liv. 4?
A. “Fear not,” says the Almighty, addressing the Church, “ for thou shalt not be ashamed, neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame.” If, as Protestants pretend, the Church became idolatrous, surely she must have been put to shame; and, in this case, the words of the Almighty are supposed false, which is evident blasphemy.
Q. Is there not a still more brilliant testimony to the infallibility of the Christian Church in the same Prophet, lx. 15?
A. Yes: “I will make thee an ETERNAL excellence.” Would the Church be an eternal excellence, if, after a few centuries’ duration, she had fallen into the depths of idolatry? And in verse 18: “Thou shalt call thy walls salvation; our Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light ,' thy sun shall go down no more, and thy moon shall be no more diminished." Now, could it be said of an idolatrous Church, that her walls were salvation,—-that the infallible Deity was her everlasting light,—that her sun should set no more, nor her moon withdraw her light? According to these texts, either the Church is perpetual, pure, and infallible, or God is a false prophet. In chap. lxii. 3, she is called “a crown of glory, the delight of the Almighty ;” and in' ver. 12, she is called, “a city sought for and not forsaken ;” and could she be either the one or the other, if she had, as Protestants pretend, fallen into idolatry and superstition?
Q. What says Ezech. xxxiv. 22?
A. “I will save my flock, and it shall be no more a spoil.” Could the flock be saved from spoil, if the Church teaching that flock were full of error, and buried in idolatry , for upwards of a thousand years, as Protestants contend? Surely that Church is infallible, in which God himself saves the flock from spoil.
Q. Is not this infallibility clearly laid down in Isaiah lxi. 8 ?
A. Yes, very clearly. “I will direct their work in truth,” says the Lord, of his Christian pastors, “and I will make an everlasting covenant with them,”-—for preserving this never-failing truth. Surely nothing could more explicitly point out the infallibility of the future Christian Church. Again, in xxxv. 5, it is said, that in the time of Christ’s Church, “the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the way of holiness,...so that fools shall not err therein.” Now, if the Church were idolatrous or superstitious, could she be called a way of holiness,—a way in which even fools could not err?
Q. Do we not find a very strong text in Isaiah lix. 20?
A. Yes; there the Almighty makes a covenant with his Church, which places her infallibility beyond all doubt. “There shall come," says he, “a Redeemer to Zion, and to them that shall return from iniquity in Jacob; as for me, this is my covenant with them: My Spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, from henceforth and for ever." Surely a Church, with the Word of God in her mouth, with the Spirit of God as her guide, and having the word of heaven that these shall remain with her for ever, must be infallible— can teach no error.
Q. What say you to the words of Jeremiah xxxii. 39,'where God says of his Christian Church: “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever; I will put ' my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me?“
A. Protestants should see here how false is the assertion, that after three or four hundred years’ duration, the Church of Christ fell into idolatry. That Church is to fear God for ever, and never to depart from God. In Ezec. xxxvii. 24, the Almighty says: “ They shall walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.“ We here ask any reasoning Protestant, if an idolatrous Church can observe God’s statutes; can He make an everlasting peace with such a Church; or can it be even imagined, that He could place his holy sanctuary in the midst of a mass of idolatry and superstition for evermore?
SECTION IV.
Q. Have you any arguments from the New Testament?
A. Yes, many.
Q. What do you observe on Matth. xviii. 17: “If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican?”
A. We ask, could a good God, who came to teach truth, and to save men by the belief of truth, give such a command as this, if the Church, which he appointed to teach, were an idolatrous Church? Suppose, for a moment, that Church teaching even one error; does not Christ, in the above text, command all to believe that error under pain of being as heathens and publicans, for whom there is no salvation? If this supposition be not blasphemous, I know not what is; and yet such is the language of every Protestant. By rejecting the infallibility of the teaching body of the Church, they evidently make the Saviour command his people to believe idolatry; as the Church, according to them, fell into it, and taught it, soon after Christ left the world.
Q. Have you any remark to make on the next verse—Matth. xviii. 18—where Christ says to the teachers in his Church: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven?"
A. If these teachers could err in loosing or binding, then Christ has sworn to err in ratifying; but the consequence is blasphemy, therefore the premises are untenable; hence the teaching Church can teach no error; hence she is infallible.
Q. Do you here suppose the teachers individually infallible, or that they are free, personally, from all sin and error?
A. By no means; philosophically speaking, if all the bishops of the Church, scattered over all the nations of the earth, all men of learning and probity, who have never seen one another,—who have had no means of combining to teach any particular doctrine,—and who have had no motive for such, do actually teach the very same truths, then we maintain, that their combined testimony to the existence of any doctrine infallibly proves its truth. This, however, is not what we contend for here: we maintain our teaching body to be infallible, because God has made them so; as in the Old Law he made the scribes and Pharisees, who were the public ministers of his Church (though often, no doubt, personally sinners), infallible, for the safety of those whom they taught. That these teachers of the ancient Church were infallible, is more than evident from Matth. xxiii. 1: “Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees; all therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe and do.” Were they not infallible teachers, even God could not command us to obey them; and surely no one would make the teachers of the better Christian Church inferior to these.
Q. Did not the Apostles and first Christians act on this teaching as infallible?
A. Yes; in Acts xv. 2, Paul and Barnabas, and certain others, went up to Jerusalem, to have a disputed question of religion, authoritatively decided. They had no Scripture to guide them , yet, after great disputation, they, as the teaching body, determined the point, declaring that their decision was the decision of the Holy Ghost: “It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us ;” and this decision was obeyed by all, as the infallible decree of heaven.
Q. Is it not manifest, from Gal. ii. 1, that the first Christians reposed no confidence in any authority but the Church leaching?
A. It is; even St Paul, after teaching and preaching fourteen years, goes up to Jerusalem. “I went up," says he, “according to revelation, and conferred” (compared) “ with them, the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." St. Paul does not take the Scripture here as his Only rule; no, no; he draws his light from the infallible teaching of the Church.
Q. Does not St Paul—Ephes. iv. 11—supply us with a very strong argument: “He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the unity of faith ?”
A. This, certainly, is a strong passage. Here the Bible is not employed to perfect the saints, to edify the body of Christ; but a body of living teachers are pointed out, and these must be infallible in their doctrine, otherwise they would neither perfect nor edify the body of Christ.
Q. What say you on Matt . xvi. 18: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (the Church) ?
A. In this passage, Christ is the architect or builder : “On this rock I will build my Church.” A rock is the foundation; and Christ declares, that even all the power of hell, shall never prevail against her. Who, then, will dare to assert, that this Church, with such a foundation, such an architect, and such a promise, is fallible,—that she may fall into idolatry? Either she cannot fail, or Christ is only a false and impotent prophet.
Q. Is not the infallibility of the Church clearly pointed out in Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20, where it is said: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth; going therefore, teach all nations,...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?”
A. Christ here sends his pastors to teach all nations, and to teach them until the end of the world. He knew well that his Apostles could not do this of themselves; for twelve mortal men could not teach every where and always until the consummation of the world. When, therefore, Christ sent these first teachers, he sent, with them all their chosen assistants and successors; for surely Christ did not come merely to secure safe teachers to those who lived in the time of the Apostles. Now, he says he has all power; therefore he can make his teachers infallible. He, the God of truth, sends them to teach all nations ; and surely he does not send them to teach error? He will be with them, he says, all days, and, beyond all doubt, he will be with them, to preserve them at all, times from teaching even the smallest error: for he could not be with an idolatrous Church. Hence, as Christ himself is the guide of the Church, and this in every age, she can obviously teach no error; hence she is infallible.
Q. What says St Paul—1 Tim. iii. 15?
A. He calls the visible Church, in which Timothy is a teacher, “THE CHURCH or THE LIVING GOD, THE PlLLAR AND GROUND or TRUTH.” What man will dare attempt to give these clear words even two probable explanations? She is, says an Apostle, the Church of the living God, therefore she can teach no error. She is the pillar and ground of truth,could she be so, if she taught idolatry or superstition?
Q. We admit, you may say, that the Church was infallible until the Scripture was written, but after that period the Scripture became the infallible rule?
A. Christ does not tell you, that his Church will be infallible, only for a time,—he declares, she will be so until the end of time; nor does St Paul say, that the Church will ever cease to be the pillar and ground of truth. The Scriptures are, beyond doubt, an infallible rule, to the extent of the revealed truth contained in them, but they are infallible only in themselves, and not with regard to us, unless we are prepared to say, that the meaning we give them is infalliby correct, and that this cannot be, we have only to consider how Protestants contradict one another in interpreting Scripture. The Bible, then, cannot be an infallible rule, unless your understanding of it be infalliby right; but of this you can never be certain, unless you have it interpreted for you, by an infallible judge; and this, as you must see, supposes the existence of an infallible Church.
Q. In Luke x. 16, what do we find?
A. “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me." He who heareth the teaching of Christ, heareth infallible teaching; but Christ, who cannot deceive, declares, that he who heareth his pastors, heareth himself; therefore their doctrine, being that of Christ, is infallible.
Q. Does not the Apostle—Gal. i. 8—assume, that the teaching of the pastors is infallibly correct?
A. Certainly; for he declares, that even an angel from heaven is not to be believed, if he teach a doctrine, contrary to that preached, by the pastors of the Church.
Q. Have we not a most conclusive passage in John xiv. 16, 17, and xvi. 13: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth...You shall know him, because he shall abide with you and in you; but when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth?
A. Here the teaching body of the Church are to be directed by the Spirit of truth, who is to teach them all truth, and for ever. They must then be infallible guides.
Q. Does not Christ call his Apostles the light of the world?
A. Yes; and upon these words we argue in the following manner. The light, sent by Christ to enlighten the world, could not lead into darkness or error; but the Apostles and their lawful successors were such light; therefore they could not lead mankind astray.
Q. We admit, say some of our reformed brethren, that the Apostles were infallible, but we cannot make the same admission as to the pastors who succeeded them?
A. You must, we reply, either admit the latter, or you must make Christ a respecter of persons, who gave to the first Christians infallible teachers in the Apostles, and lefi; all the rest of mankind to the direction of erring men. Christ surely makes us as secure as the first Christians; he loves us, as he loved them.
Q. Can you strengthen your cause by a reference to Ephes. chap. v? i
A. Yes. The Church is described there as the spouse of Christ; Christ has sanctified her, and loved her, and presented her to himself, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, and made her holy and without blemish. Now, this Church must be free from error, otherwise Christ could not sanctify her, nor could he love her, if she was idolatrous: her holiness, without spot or blemish, is a certain pledge of her infallibility. “Obey your prelates,” says St Paul, “for they watch, as being to render an account for your souls.” Now, how could the Almighty, by his Apostle, order us to hear and obey men, unless he knew that these men could teach us no error? “Take heed to yourselves,” says the same Apostle to the pastors of the Church, “and to your whole flocks, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God." Could the Holy Ghost subject his people in this world to the rule and direction of men, who might-end according to Protestants, did—teach error, idolatry, and superstition?
Q. Must not the rule of faith, given by the Almighty to mankind, have been an easy rule?
A. Yes ; because it was intended for the ignorant as well as the learned. Wherever the Christian Church existed, there were Christian pastors, for we cannot suppose a flock without shepherds; hence, the teaching of these living guides was always within reach of their people. The mode of acquiring instruction is a “path in which fools cannot err;" not so the Bible, about the interpretation of which even the most learned, dispute and differ, and which, until the invention of printing, fourteen hundred years after Christ, could not be, within the reach of the people at all; and to those, who were unable to read, could be no rule at all.
Q. Was the Jewish, as well as the Christian Church, infallible?
A. As long as it was the decree of heaven that the Jewish Church should exist, she was, by the teaching of her pastors, infallible, as a guide to her people. During the first two thousand four hundred years of the world, there was no Scripture: God’s people—Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Job, Melchizedic—were saved by the teaching, which must have been infallible, of the patriarchs. In Deut. xxxi. the Levites are ordered to read and expound the Scripture to the people; but the Scripture is not put into the hands of the people. In the same Book, chap. xvii., all are commanded, under sin of death, to have recourse to the pastors of the Church in every controversy. In 2 Paralip. (2 Chron. xix.) : “Amarias, your high priest, shall be CHIEF in the things which regard God." In Malac. 7, the people are commanded to seek the law from the lips of the priesthood. Now, surely these commands, to obey the pastors, or teachers, in the Jewish Church, evidently suppose that body to be infallible, for a good God could not command his people, under pain of death, to obey men who might lead them into error.
Q. Was the Church of Christ to be so universal, that all its children might be within reach of its teaching?
A. St John, Apoc. vi. 9, besides twelve thousand of every tribe of Israel, saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, tribes, people, and tongues. Ps ii. 8: “Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.’ Ps. xxii. 27: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and be converted to the Lord.” Ps. 7: “He shall rule from sea to sea,...yea, all the kings of the earth shall adore him, and all nations shall serve him.” And in the New Testament, the Church is represented as a city on the top of a mountain,——as a light which cannot be hid; whilst Christ commissions his Apostles to teach all nations. The teaching of the Church, then, is within reach of all, as the Church is visible to all; but no one in his senses will say the same of the Bible, whose existence, in the hands of the people, was an impossibility during most of the time, that has elapsed since the establishment of Christianity.
SECTION V.
Q. May not some reasoning Protestant here say: You have given a very plausible interpretation of these passages of Scripture in favour of the infallibility of the Church of Christ; but how are we to know that yours is the true interpretation,— that these texts mean exactly what you say?
A. Here we have a sensible person to reason with, and we request him to beg the Almighty to enlighten his mind; we beg him to solicit this grace through the all-powerful mediation of the incarnate and crucified God; we beseech him also to recollect, that there is a thick mist of long-fostered prejudice to be removed,—that the effects of early education are to be overcome,—pride and self-love to be curbed and repressed. Let him give these texts an attentive reconsideration, and then weigh, impartially, the following reflections.
1st, The following rule of criticism has been universally received : “Every explanation must be clearer than the thing explained." The texts, then, in question, by the chapter titles of the Protestant Bible, evidently refer to the Christian Church; on this head, therefore, there can be no dispute. These texts say, that, in the Christian Church, the Lord will teach us his ways, that our path shall be so plain that even fools cannot err in it, that God will never be wroth with his Church, that she shall be founded in justice, that her children shall be taught of the Lord, &c. &c. Now, what interpretation can be so clear as that which I gave these texts—that the Church, of which they were spoken, must be free from error? And what inference could be more forced and unnatural than this, which Protestants draw, that a Church, with these splendid and glorious attributes,—a Church which has God as her teacher, his Spirit her guide, and his Word ever in her mouth,—should be liable to teach error, or fall into idolatry?
The inference which I drew from the New Testament evidences is still more natural. I will build my Church upon a rock,—the gates of hell shall not prevail against her,—I will be with her all days even to the consummation of the world,— she is the pillar and ground of truth,—my Holy Spirit will teach her all truth for ever. Is not the interpretation of these passages, in favour of infallibility, easy, natural, and obvious; and would not any interpretation of them, in favour of fallibility, be forced, conjectural, and whimsical, and much less clear than the texts themselves?
2dly, Our next reason for the admission of the Catholic interpretation is this: We have, for this interpretation, the almost unanimous testimony and collective judgment of all ages, of all nations, of all Christian people; and surely this ought to be preferred, to the private interpretation of one fallible man; for this, in fact, is the Protestant rule,—each Protestant is bound to follow the interpretation he himself thinks best. If there is wisdom among many counsellors, and if Christ is in the midst of even two or three gathered together in his name, surely any interpretation, universally believed by the Catholic Church, spread over all nations, and existing in all ages, is preferable to the interpretation of any one individual, how learned soever he may be.
3dly, Our interpretation should be admitted, if I can prove, that t h Protestant mode of interpretation, ought to be rejected; truth lies between us: the one must be right; the other wrong. Now, that mode of interpretation is bad in theory, which its advocates are obliged to abandon in practice. But such is the Protestant mode; it supports the right of private judgment, as the great palladium of Gospel liberty. When, therefore, Protestant Churches interfere with, or restrain this liberty, they abandon their system in practice. But the Church of England excommunicates, the Church of Scotland excommunicates, for doctrinal errors. Now, is this reconcilable, with the right of private judgment? This right, they say, is from Christ; those who use it, are responsible only to Christ; and if so, no Protestant Church has a right to judge, of its use or its abuse, for that is the very power they deny to the infallible Church. Protestants authorize each man to interpret, and then excommunicate and depose him for doing what they authorize; hence, their principle is bad; they hold in theory, what they are obliged to abandon in practice. What, indeed, are their signatures to the thirty-nine articles and the Athanasian Creed—their denunciations of Dissenters and Unitarians,-—their suspensions of Pusey and others,—but a practical abandonment of the empty boast of Protestantism—the right of private judgment?
4thly, That mode of interpretation must be the correct one, which is sanctioned by the example of the Apostles, and practised by the primitive Church. But both these appealed, not to private judgment, but to the judgment of the teaching Church, for the truth of their doctrines. When certain teachers at Antioch disputed with Paul and Barnabas concerning the necessity of circumcision, did they appeal each to his private judgment, or to the Scripture privately interpreted? No; they sent a deputation with Paul and Barnabas to consult the pastors of the Church at Jerusalem. The Judeans and Antiochians, led by private judgment, believed circumcision necessary; Paul and Barnabas thought otherwise. The appeal, not to the Bible, but to the teaching body of the Church; and, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, the point is decided by this body. Now, if the Scripture alone were the only rule, the Antiochians were guilty of a heinous sin in abandoning that rule, and the Apostles were equally criminal in deciding by any other.
5thly, That mode of interpretation is true which was adopted during the first five centuries; during which period even Protestants admit that the Church was pure and free from error. Now, when Arius denied the Divinity of Christ, there was no appeal to private judgment; a general Council was called in the year 325, and thus was condemned, by the body of living teachers, the impious doctrine of Arius,—a doctrine which may be styled the first monster produced by the principle of private interpretation.
6thly, Such as the above, was the principle adopted all the Fathers of the first five centuries. St Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. L. iv. e. 45), who lived in the second century, says: “God appointed in his Church, Apostles, prophets, and doctors; where, therefore, the holy gifts of God are, there must the truth be learned.” And again, cap. lii. p. 355; “To this man all things will be plain, if he read diligently the Scriptures, with the aid of those who are the priests in the Church, and in whose hands rests the doctrine of the Apostles." Origen, of the third century, says, (Praef. Lib. i. Periarchon): “Many think they believe what Christ taught, and some of these differ from others;... all should profess that doctrine which came down from the Apostles, and now continues in the Church; that alone is truth which in nothing differs from what is thus delivered." St Hilary, in the fourth century, says, the ship from which Christ preached “is an emblem of the Church, within which is the word of life placed and preached." “I would not,” says St Augustine (Contra Epist. Fund.) in the fifth century, “I would not give credit to the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church induced me to it; for," says he, Contra Faust, “the authority of our sacred books is confirmed by the consent of nations, through the succession of Apostles, bishops, and councils."
SECTION VI.
Q. Does reason, which is the handmaid of Scripture, speak out clearly in favour of infallibility?
A. Yes; very clearly and decidedly.
Q. What does reason tell us of infallible Church?
A. That, as such a church may teach error, it is evidently unworthy of a good and merciful God.
Q. Does not our salvation depend on the truth of our faith, and the rectitude and purity of our morals?
A. Yes; without faith we cannot please God, and if we would enter into life, we must keep the commandments. Now, how can any one be certain either of the truth of his faith, or the purity of his morals, so long as he has only a fallible Church, which may teach error, as his guide?
Q. Can the child of a fallible church have true faith?
A. No; as he must ever doubt whether his Church teaches truth, and can have no certainty, as to any one article she teaches; so his faith, ever accompanied with doubt, can be only mere human opinion.
Q. Does not the idea of a fallible Church militate against the goodness and wisdom of God?
A. A good God, who has been so solicitous to save us, could not surely commit us, to the blind guidance of mere human reason or opinion; nor could such an uncertain mean for our safety, be devised by an all-wise Being.
Q. Is not this clear, even from the love God bears for us?
A. Yes; if he loves us so, as to have sent his only Son to die for us, surely, having done so much, he could not commit us to the blind guidance, of an erring, fallible teacher.
Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
A. That, to have true faith, we must have a teacher that cannot err; a fallible teacher of any kind may err; Christ does not teach us himself personally; his Apostles have long since left the world; the Scripture, privately interpreted, is made, as we see daily, to teach every absurdity. Therefore, the infallible teacher we so absolutely require, can be no other than the teaching body of the true Church of Christ.
Q. May it not be still urged that the Scripture is an infallible teacher?
A. We admit that the Scripture is an infallible teacher, if your interpretation of it be infallibly right; but until you have it explained by an infallible interpreter, you must remain in doubt as to its true meaning; consequently, though, in itself, the Bible is infallible, with regard to you, it is still a fallible rule, unless it be explained by an infallible interpreter; and an infallible interpreter supposes the existence of an infallible Church.
Or, Protestantism Refuted and Catholicism Established
3rd Edition, 1854
By Rev. Stephen Keenan
Chapter VI, PP. 70-86 (all italics in the original)
_________________
CHAPTER VI.
THE TRUE RULE OF FAITH.
SECTION I.
Q. What are the qualities of the Catholic rule of faith?
A. The Catholic rule is UNIVERSAL, CERTAIN, and CLEAR, or EASY.
Q. Why universal?
A. It is a rule for all, the learned as well as the ignorant; it relieves the former of all doubt and uncertainty, and spares the latter the trouble of a difficult inquiry and examination, for which they are in no way qualified.
Q. Why do you say it is certain?
A. Because it is no other than the Word of God, explained by God’s appointed organs, in the very sense, intended by the Holy Spirit; and, of course, God can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Q. Why do you say it is clear!
A. Because it tells, clearly, in what sense, every portion of God’s Word is to be understood.
Q. What are the peculiar advantages of the Catholic rule of faith?
A. In the first place, it banishes all doubt; secondly, it decides finally every dispute ; thirdly, it preserves unity. When an infallible judge decides, there can be no room, for doubt or division.
Q. What say you of those who would examine, personally, every controversial point, and abide by what, they in their wisdom think, the Scripture teaches?
A. That they adopt a rule which, for the great mass of mankind, is an impossibility; because, to form a proper judgment from the Scripture on any controverted point, one should know, in the first place, all the texts of Scripture, that are for or against such point; secondly, it would be necessary to compare these texts one with the other, to weigh their respective force, to illustrate the obscure, by others more clear; thirdly, to be absolutely certain, that all of them are understood in their true sense, and no other. Now, this is evidently a business, far beyond the reach, at all events, of the ignorant, who form the great mass of mankind.
Q. But may not the learned aid the ignorant in this inquiry?
A. Such is the absurdity to which error always reduces its votaries. You refuse to submit to the decision of the whole Church,—to the decision of all the learned, pious, and enlightened prelates of the Church, with the sovereign Pontiff at their head, men of all others the best qualified to judge of religious matters; you reject their opinion, whilst you would blindly follow the crude notions of one layman pretending to learning, of one Calvinistic or Lutheran minister, for the truth of whose opinions you have no security whatever.
SECTION II.
Q. Do Catholics depend on traditional doctrines, as well as on those that are scriptural or written?
A. Yes ; we believe that what Christ or his Apostles spoke is as true as what they wrote. It is clear, from what we have seen above, that they delivered, many truths by word of month, which are not written in the Scripture. These truths are considered authentic and divine, by Catholics, when it is found, that they have been believed, by all Christian nations, and in every age of the Church.
Q. Does the Scripture authorize this dependence on traditional doctrine?
A. In 2 Thess. ii. 15, we have: “ Hold the traditions you have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistle.” In 2 Cor. 3, it is said: “You are the epistle of Christ, not written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.” Here, what is not written, is called the epistle of Christ, written with the Spirit of the living God upon the heart, which, though only tradition, most certainly must be as true, as the written Word itself.
Q. Have you any other texts to the same effect?
A. 2 These. iii. 6 : “ Withdraw yourselves from every brother, that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received of us." See Rom. vi. 17 ; 1 Cor. xi. 2; Tim. vi. 20; Tim. i. 13, where it is said, “Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me.“ 1 Thess. 13: “When ye received the Word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as the word of men, but" (as it is in truth) “the Word of God."
Q. How can you distinguish true from false tradition?
A. As easily as, you can distinguish, a true from a false copy of Scripture. In both cases, you must depend on the uniform and universal testimony of Christian antiquity. You hold your Bible, to be the Word of God, because all Christian ages and nations have done so before you; and you have the very same testimony, for the traditional doctrines, held as divine by the Catholic Church. We have as much evidence, for the truth of universally-admitted traditional doctrine, as we have for the truth, and authenticity, and divinity, of the four Gospels.
Q. Does not our Saviour say: “ Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life?“ (John v. 39.)
A. Yes; but he does not say in them, ye have certainly eternal life. This argument would prove, that the Old Testament, without the New, was sufficient; for, at this time, not one word of the New Testament was written. In 2 Tim. iii. 15, we are told, that all Scripture is profitable, and that it maketh wise unto salvation; but what Catholic ever denied this? This text does not say, that the Scripture alone maketh wise, as to everything necessary. The book of Genesis makes men wise, but will this one book make men wise in every religious truth? St Paul praises Timothy, because he had tha the Scriptures from his youth; but then Timothy was a bishop, whose duty it was, not only to read, but to expound the Scripture.
Q. What say you to Dent. iv. 2: “ You shall not add to the word which I speak, nor take away from it?”
A. At this time nothing but the Mosaic law was written; hence, this passage in the mouth of a Protestant proves, that he believes the Mosaic law, sufficient as a rule of faith. But what will he say to the Prophets and Apostles, who afterwards added all the rest of the Old and New Testaments? It is not what is added by inspired men that is here condemned, but what is contrary to that which God had already revealed, for God does not condemn the good institutions of men. 2 Chron. xxx. 21, after the children of Israel, according to law, had kept the solemnity of Azymes seven days (ver. 23), the whole assembly took good counsel, to keep other seven days, and yet, though this was a human addition (ver. 27), “their prayer came to the holy habitation of heaven.” Thus, also, Christ himself (John 11. 22) keeps the feast of the dedication, mentioned in 1st Macchab. iv. 56, though this book is not admitted by Protestants, to be Scripture at all.
Q. Does not St John, at the end of Apocalypse, the last book of Scripture, say: “If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book ?" (Chap. xxii. 18.)
A. The Apocalypse, though placed last in order, was not last written. St John wrote his Gospel some years after his liberation from the Isle of Patmos, where the Apocalypse was composed; hence, as St John, according to the Protestant sense of the words above quoted, would himself incur the curse, it is evident that he merely threatens, with that curse any one who should dare to vitiate, by addition or subtraction, the book which he there concludes,-—that is, the book of the Apocalypse. He ends his Gospel by declaring (John xx. 25), that our Lord did much, that was not written; and surely the witnesses of these doings were not accursed for relating and believing what they had seen, or heard from the lips of Christ, although these things were never written. The Thessalonians had tradition (2 Thess. ii. 14); Timothy had a form of sound words (2 Tim. i. 13); and were they, or are we, to be visited by the plagues, because, in obedience to St Paul, we hold these traditions, in addition, to what God commanded to be written? It is therefore amere Protestant gloss, unauthorized by the text itself, and in contradiction to the rest of the Scripture, to assert, that we are to believe nothing except what is written.
SECTION III.
Q. What is the rule of faith adopted by Catholics?
A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly divine tradition, interpreted by the teaching body of the Church,—that is, by the pastors to whom Christ said, “Go, teach all nations." This teaching body, when taken collectively with the chief Pastor at their head, all Catholics believe to be infallible,— that is, that they cannot teach any error against faith or morals. Now, if this great fundamental truth, be clearly laid down in Scripture, then Catholics will be quite safe in following the teaching of their pastors; then the teaching body will be, to the taught, an infallible rule of faith. Mark well, we do not maintain that the pastors of the Church are, of themselves, infallible, but that God has made them so, for the benefit of his people, and that Christ himself teaches, by their lips.
Q. What proof have you to advance for all this?
A. In Isaiah ii. 3, Christ is represented as teaching the Church: “He will teach us his ways, and we shall walk in his paths.”* That Church must be infallible in its teaching, which has Christ as its director, and whose children walk in the paths of the Saviour.
*Our Protestant brethren have only to refer to their own Bible, and note the titles of its chapters, to be satisfied, that this and the following passages, quoted from the OId Testament, have a direct reference to the Church of Christ, whose infallibility they foretell in the most explicit terms.
Q. What do we find in Isaiah liv. 17?
A. That no weapon, which is formed against the Church of Christ, shall prosper; and that every tongue which resisteth her in judgment, she shall condemn. Surely she must be infallible, if she triumph over every enemy, and have power from God to condemn, every tongue that opposes her decisions. In Isaiah 1x. 12, it is said, “that the nation and kingdom, that will not serve her, shall perish.” Now, could nations be compelled to serve the Church, if she could lead them astray, and teach them error?
Q. Do we find anything of importance to our purpose in Ezechiel xliv. 23?
A. “They” (the priests) “shall teach my people, what is, between a holy thing and a thing polluted, and the difference between clean and unclean, they shall show them; and when there shall be a controversy, they shall stand in judgment, and shall judge according to my judgments." The judgment of the priests of the Most High must then be infallible, since they are ACCORDING to the judgment of God himself.
Q. What have we in Psalm cxxxii. 13 ?
A. We have: “Our Lord hath chosen Zion: he hath chosen it for an habitation to himself. This is my rest for ever and ever: here will I dwell; because I have chosen it." Now, according to St Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 15, Christ‘s dwelling-place is his Church: “That thou mayest know how to converse in the house of God, the Church of the living God.” It must be manifest, then, that the Church of Christ is pure and free from error; for, were she the mother and mistress of idolatry, the pure God of heaven could never have chosen her for his dwelling-place.
Q. What says Isaiah liv. 4?
A. “Fear not,” says the Almighty, addressing the Church, “ for thou shalt not be ashamed, neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame.” If, as Protestants pretend, the Church became idolatrous, surely she must have been put to shame; and, in this case, the words of the Almighty are supposed false, which is evident blasphemy.
Q. Is there not a still more brilliant testimony to the infallibility of the Christian Church in the same Prophet, lx. 15?
A. Yes: “I will make thee an ETERNAL excellence.” Would the Church be an eternal excellence, if, after a few centuries’ duration, she had fallen into the depths of idolatry? And in verse 18: “Thou shalt call thy walls salvation; our Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light ,' thy sun shall go down no more, and thy moon shall be no more diminished." Now, could it be said of an idolatrous Church, that her walls were salvation,—-that the infallible Deity was her everlasting light,—that her sun should set no more, nor her moon withdraw her light? According to these texts, either the Church is perpetual, pure, and infallible, or God is a false prophet. In chap. lxii. 3, she is called “a crown of glory, the delight of the Almighty ;” and in' ver. 12, she is called, “a city sought for and not forsaken ;” and could she be either the one or the other, if she had, as Protestants pretend, fallen into idolatry and superstition?
Q. What says Ezech. xxxiv. 22?
A. “I will save my flock, and it shall be no more a spoil.” Could the flock be saved from spoil, if the Church teaching that flock were full of error, and buried in idolatry , for upwards of a thousand years, as Protestants contend? Surely that Church is infallible, in which God himself saves the flock from spoil.
Q. Is not this infallibility clearly laid down in Isaiah lxi. 8 ?
A. Yes, very clearly. “I will direct their work in truth,” says the Lord, of his Christian pastors, “and I will make an everlasting covenant with them,”-—for preserving this never-failing truth. Surely nothing could more explicitly point out the infallibility of the future Christian Church. Again, in xxxv. 5, it is said, that in the time of Christ’s Church, “the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the way of holiness,...so that fools shall not err therein.” Now, if the Church were idolatrous or superstitious, could she be called a way of holiness,—a way in which even fools could not err?
Q. Do we not find a very strong text in Isaiah lix. 20?
A. Yes; there the Almighty makes a covenant with his Church, which places her infallibility beyond all doubt. “There shall come," says he, “a Redeemer to Zion, and to them that shall return from iniquity in Jacob; as for me, this is my covenant with them: My Spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, from henceforth and for ever." Surely a Church, with the Word of God in her mouth, with the Spirit of God as her guide, and having the word of heaven that these shall remain with her for ever, must be infallible— can teach no error.
Q. What say you to the words of Jeremiah xxxii. 39,'where God says of his Christian Church: “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever; I will put ' my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me?“
A. Protestants should see here how false is the assertion, that after three or four hundred years’ duration, the Church of Christ fell into idolatry. That Church is to fear God for ever, and never to depart from God. In Ezec. xxxvii. 24, the Almighty says: “ They shall walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.“ We here ask any reasoning Protestant, if an idolatrous Church can observe God’s statutes; can He make an everlasting peace with such a Church; or can it be even imagined, that He could place his holy sanctuary in the midst of a mass of idolatry and superstition for evermore?
SECTION IV.
Q. Have you any arguments from the New Testament?
A. Yes, many.
Q. What do you observe on Matth. xviii. 17: “If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican?”
A. We ask, could a good God, who came to teach truth, and to save men by the belief of truth, give such a command as this, if the Church, which he appointed to teach, were an idolatrous Church? Suppose, for a moment, that Church teaching even one error; does not Christ, in the above text, command all to believe that error under pain of being as heathens and publicans, for whom there is no salvation? If this supposition be not blasphemous, I know not what is; and yet such is the language of every Protestant. By rejecting the infallibility of the teaching body of the Church, they evidently make the Saviour command his people to believe idolatry; as the Church, according to them, fell into it, and taught it, soon after Christ left the world.
Q. Have you any remark to make on the next verse—Matth. xviii. 18—where Christ says to the teachers in his Church: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven?"
A. If these teachers could err in loosing or binding, then Christ has sworn to err in ratifying; but the consequence is blasphemy, therefore the premises are untenable; hence the teaching Church can teach no error; hence she is infallible.
Q. Do you here suppose the teachers individually infallible, or that they are free, personally, from all sin and error?
A. By no means; philosophically speaking, if all the bishops of the Church, scattered over all the nations of the earth, all men of learning and probity, who have never seen one another,—who have had no means of combining to teach any particular doctrine,—and who have had no motive for such, do actually teach the very same truths, then we maintain, that their combined testimony to the existence of any doctrine infallibly proves its truth. This, however, is not what we contend for here: we maintain our teaching body to be infallible, because God has made them so; as in the Old Law he made the scribes and Pharisees, who were the public ministers of his Church (though often, no doubt, personally sinners), infallible, for the safety of those whom they taught. That these teachers of the ancient Church were infallible, is more than evident from Matth. xxiii. 1: “Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees; all therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe and do.” Were they not infallible teachers, even God could not command us to obey them; and surely no one would make the teachers of the better Christian Church inferior to these.
Q. Did not the Apostles and first Christians act on this teaching as infallible?
A. Yes; in Acts xv. 2, Paul and Barnabas, and certain others, went up to Jerusalem, to have a disputed question of religion, authoritatively decided. They had no Scripture to guide them , yet, after great disputation, they, as the teaching body, determined the point, declaring that their decision was the decision of the Holy Ghost: “It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us ;” and this decision was obeyed by all, as the infallible decree of heaven.
Q. Is it not manifest, from Gal. ii. 1, that the first Christians reposed no confidence in any authority but the Church leaching?
A. It is; even St Paul, after teaching and preaching fourteen years, goes up to Jerusalem. “I went up," says he, “according to revelation, and conferred” (compared) “ with them, the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." St. Paul does not take the Scripture here as his Only rule; no, no; he draws his light from the infallible teaching of the Church.
Q. Does not St Paul—Ephes. iv. 11—supply us with a very strong argument: “He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the unity of faith ?”
A. This, certainly, is a strong passage. Here the Bible is not employed to perfect the saints, to edify the body of Christ; but a body of living teachers are pointed out, and these must be infallible in their doctrine, otherwise they would neither perfect nor edify the body of Christ.
Q. What say you on Matt . xvi. 18: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (the Church) ?
A. In this passage, Christ is the architect or builder : “On this rock I will build my Church.” A rock is the foundation; and Christ declares, that even all the power of hell, shall never prevail against her. Who, then, will dare to assert, that this Church, with such a foundation, such an architect, and such a promise, is fallible,—that she may fall into idolatry? Either she cannot fail, or Christ is only a false and impotent prophet.
Q. Is not the infallibility of the Church clearly pointed out in Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20, where it is said: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth; going therefore, teach all nations,...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?”
A. Christ here sends his pastors to teach all nations, and to teach them until the end of the world. He knew well that his Apostles could not do this of themselves; for twelve mortal men could not teach every where and always until the consummation of the world. When, therefore, Christ sent these first teachers, he sent, with them all their chosen assistants and successors; for surely Christ did not come merely to secure safe teachers to those who lived in the time of the Apostles. Now, he says he has all power; therefore he can make his teachers infallible. He, the God of truth, sends them to teach all nations ; and surely he does not send them to teach error? He will be with them, he says, all days, and, beyond all doubt, he will be with them, to preserve them at all, times from teaching even the smallest error: for he could not be with an idolatrous Church. Hence, as Christ himself is the guide of the Church, and this in every age, she can obviously teach no error; hence she is infallible.
Q. What says St Paul—1 Tim. iii. 15?
A. He calls the visible Church, in which Timothy is a teacher, “THE CHURCH or THE LIVING GOD, THE PlLLAR AND GROUND or TRUTH.” What man will dare attempt to give these clear words even two probable explanations? She is, says an Apostle, the Church of the living God, therefore she can teach no error. She is the pillar and ground of truth,could she be so, if she taught idolatry or superstition?
Q. We admit, you may say, that the Church was infallible until the Scripture was written, but after that period the Scripture became the infallible rule?
A. Christ does not tell you, that his Church will be infallible, only for a time,—he declares, she will be so until the end of time; nor does St Paul say, that the Church will ever cease to be the pillar and ground of truth. The Scriptures are, beyond doubt, an infallible rule, to the extent of the revealed truth contained in them, but they are infallible only in themselves, and not with regard to us, unless we are prepared to say, that the meaning we give them is infalliby correct, and that this cannot be, we have only to consider how Protestants contradict one another in interpreting Scripture. The Bible, then, cannot be an infallible rule, unless your understanding of it be infalliby right; but of this you can never be certain, unless you have it interpreted for you, by an infallible judge; and this, as you must see, supposes the existence of an infallible Church.
Q. In Luke x. 16, what do we find?
A. “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me." He who heareth the teaching of Christ, heareth infallible teaching; but Christ, who cannot deceive, declares, that he who heareth his pastors, heareth himself; therefore their doctrine, being that of Christ, is infallible.
Q. Does not the Apostle—Gal. i. 8—assume, that the teaching of the pastors is infallibly correct?
A. Certainly; for he declares, that even an angel from heaven is not to be believed, if he teach a doctrine, contrary to that preached, by the pastors of the Church.
Q. Have we not a most conclusive passage in John xiv. 16, 17, and xvi. 13: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth...You shall know him, because he shall abide with you and in you; but when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth?
A. Here the teaching body of the Church are to be directed by the Spirit of truth, who is to teach them all truth, and for ever. They must then be infallible guides.
Q. Does not Christ call his Apostles the light of the world?
A. Yes; and upon these words we argue in the following manner. The light, sent by Christ to enlighten the world, could not lead into darkness or error; but the Apostles and their lawful successors were such light; therefore they could not lead mankind astray.
Q. We admit, say some of our reformed brethren, that the Apostles were infallible, but we cannot make the same admission as to the pastors who succeeded them?
A. You must, we reply, either admit the latter, or you must make Christ a respecter of persons, who gave to the first Christians infallible teachers in the Apostles, and lefi; all the rest of mankind to the direction of erring men. Christ surely makes us as secure as the first Christians; he loves us, as he loved them.
Q. Can you strengthen your cause by a reference to Ephes. chap. v? i
A. Yes. The Church is described there as the spouse of Christ; Christ has sanctified her, and loved her, and presented her to himself, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, and made her holy and without blemish. Now, this Church must be free from error, otherwise Christ could not sanctify her, nor could he love her, if she was idolatrous: her holiness, without spot or blemish, is a certain pledge of her infallibility. “Obey your prelates,” says St Paul, “for they watch, as being to render an account for your souls.” Now, how could the Almighty, by his Apostle, order us to hear and obey men, unless he knew that these men could teach us no error? “Take heed to yourselves,” says the same Apostle to the pastors of the Church, “and to your whole flocks, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God." Could the Holy Ghost subject his people in this world to the rule and direction of men, who might-end according to Protestants, did—teach error, idolatry, and superstition?
Q. Must not the rule of faith, given by the Almighty to mankind, have been an easy rule?
A. Yes ; because it was intended for the ignorant as well as the learned. Wherever the Christian Church existed, there were Christian pastors, for we cannot suppose a flock without shepherds; hence, the teaching of these living guides was always within reach of their people. The mode of acquiring instruction is a “path in which fools cannot err;" not so the Bible, about the interpretation of which even the most learned, dispute and differ, and which, until the invention of printing, fourteen hundred years after Christ, could not be, within the reach of the people at all; and to those, who were unable to read, could be no rule at all.
Q. Was the Jewish, as well as the Christian Church, infallible?
A. As long as it was the decree of heaven that the Jewish Church should exist, she was, by the teaching of her pastors, infallible, as a guide to her people. During the first two thousand four hundred years of the world, there was no Scripture: God’s people—Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Job, Melchizedic—were saved by the teaching, which must have been infallible, of the patriarchs. In Deut. xxxi. the Levites are ordered to read and expound the Scripture to the people; but the Scripture is not put into the hands of the people. In the same Book, chap. xvii., all are commanded, under sin of death, to have recourse to the pastors of the Church in every controversy. In 2 Paralip. (2 Chron. xix.) : “Amarias, your high priest, shall be CHIEF in the things which regard God." In Malac. 7, the people are commanded to seek the law from the lips of the priesthood. Now, surely these commands, to obey the pastors, or teachers, in the Jewish Church, evidently suppose that body to be infallible, for a good God could not command his people, under pain of death, to obey men who might lead them into error.
Q. Was the Church of Christ to be so universal, that all its children might be within reach of its teaching?
A. St John, Apoc. vi. 9, besides twelve thousand of every tribe of Israel, saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, tribes, people, and tongues. Ps ii. 8: “Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.’ Ps. xxii. 27: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and be converted to the Lord.” Ps. 7: “He shall rule from sea to sea,...yea, all the kings of the earth shall adore him, and all nations shall serve him.” And in the New Testament, the Church is represented as a city on the top of a mountain,——as a light which cannot be hid; whilst Christ commissions his Apostles to teach all nations. The teaching of the Church, then, is within reach of all, as the Church is visible to all; but no one in his senses will say the same of the Bible, whose existence, in the hands of the people, was an impossibility during most of the time, that has elapsed since the establishment of Christianity.
SECTION V.
Q. May not some reasoning Protestant here say: You have given a very plausible interpretation of these passages of Scripture in favour of the infallibility of the Church of Christ; but how are we to know that yours is the true interpretation,— that these texts mean exactly what you say?
A. Here we have a sensible person to reason with, and we request him to beg the Almighty to enlighten his mind; we beg him to solicit this grace through the all-powerful mediation of the incarnate and crucified God; we beseech him also to recollect, that there is a thick mist of long-fostered prejudice to be removed,—that the effects of early education are to be overcome,—pride and self-love to be curbed and repressed. Let him give these texts an attentive reconsideration, and then weigh, impartially, the following reflections.
1st, The following rule of criticism has been universally received : “Every explanation must be clearer than the thing explained." The texts, then, in question, by the chapter titles of the Protestant Bible, evidently refer to the Christian Church; on this head, therefore, there can be no dispute. These texts say, that, in the Christian Church, the Lord will teach us his ways, that our path shall be so plain that even fools cannot err in it, that God will never be wroth with his Church, that she shall be founded in justice, that her children shall be taught of the Lord, &c. &c. Now, what interpretation can be so clear as that which I gave these texts—that the Church, of which they were spoken, must be free from error? And what inference could be more forced and unnatural than this, which Protestants draw, that a Church, with these splendid and glorious attributes,—a Church which has God as her teacher, his Spirit her guide, and his Word ever in her mouth,—should be liable to teach error, or fall into idolatry?
The inference which I drew from the New Testament evidences is still more natural. I will build my Church upon a rock,—the gates of hell shall not prevail against her,—I will be with her all days even to the consummation of the world,— she is the pillar and ground of truth,—my Holy Spirit will teach her all truth for ever. Is not the interpretation of these passages, in favour of infallibility, easy, natural, and obvious; and would not any interpretation of them, in favour of fallibility, be forced, conjectural, and whimsical, and much less clear than the texts themselves?
2dly, Our next reason for the admission of the Catholic interpretation is this: We have, for this interpretation, the almost unanimous testimony and collective judgment of all ages, of all nations, of all Christian people; and surely this ought to be preferred, to the private interpretation of one fallible man; for this, in fact, is the Protestant rule,—each Protestant is bound to follow the interpretation he himself thinks best. If there is wisdom among many counsellors, and if Christ is in the midst of even two or three gathered together in his name, surely any interpretation, universally believed by the Catholic Church, spread over all nations, and existing in all ages, is preferable to the interpretation of any one individual, how learned soever he may be.
3dly, Our interpretation should be admitted, if I can prove, that t h Protestant mode of interpretation, ought to be rejected; truth lies between us: the one must be right; the other wrong. Now, that mode of interpretation is bad in theory, which its advocates are obliged to abandon in practice. But such is the Protestant mode; it supports the right of private judgment, as the great palladium of Gospel liberty. When, therefore, Protestant Churches interfere with, or restrain this liberty, they abandon their system in practice. But the Church of England excommunicates, the Church of Scotland excommunicates, for doctrinal errors. Now, is this reconcilable, with the right of private judgment? This right, they say, is from Christ; those who use it, are responsible only to Christ; and if so, no Protestant Church has a right to judge, of its use or its abuse, for that is the very power they deny to the infallible Church. Protestants authorize each man to interpret, and then excommunicate and depose him for doing what they authorize; hence, their principle is bad; they hold in theory, what they are obliged to abandon in practice. What, indeed, are their signatures to the thirty-nine articles and the Athanasian Creed—their denunciations of Dissenters and Unitarians,-—their suspensions of Pusey and others,—but a practical abandonment of the empty boast of Protestantism—the right of private judgment?
4thly, That mode of interpretation must be the correct one, which is sanctioned by the example of the Apostles, and practised by the primitive Church. But both these appealed, not to private judgment, but to the judgment of the teaching Church, for the truth of their doctrines. When certain teachers at Antioch disputed with Paul and Barnabas concerning the necessity of circumcision, did they appeal each to his private judgment, or to the Scripture privately interpreted? No; they sent a deputation with Paul and Barnabas to consult the pastors of the Church at Jerusalem. The Judeans and Antiochians, led by private judgment, believed circumcision necessary; Paul and Barnabas thought otherwise. The appeal, not to the Bible, but to the teaching body of the Church; and, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, the point is decided by this body. Now, if the Scripture alone were the only rule, the Antiochians were guilty of a heinous sin in abandoning that rule, and the Apostles were equally criminal in deciding by any other.
5thly, That mode of interpretation is true which was adopted during the first five centuries; during which period even Protestants admit that the Church was pure and free from error. Now, when Arius denied the Divinity of Christ, there was no appeal to private judgment; a general Council was called in the year 325, and thus was condemned, by the body of living teachers, the impious doctrine of Arius,—a doctrine which may be styled the first monster produced by the principle of private interpretation.
6thly, Such as the above, was the principle adopted all the Fathers of the first five centuries. St Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. L. iv. e. 45), who lived in the second century, says: “God appointed in his Church, Apostles, prophets, and doctors; where, therefore, the holy gifts of God are, there must the truth be learned.” And again, cap. lii. p. 355; “To this man all things will be plain, if he read diligently the Scriptures, with the aid of those who are the priests in the Church, and in whose hands rests the doctrine of the Apostles." Origen, of the third century, says, (Praef. Lib. i. Periarchon): “Many think they believe what Christ taught, and some of these differ from others;... all should profess that doctrine which came down from the Apostles, and now continues in the Church; that alone is truth which in nothing differs from what is thus delivered." St Hilary, in the fourth century, says, the ship from which Christ preached “is an emblem of the Church, within which is the word of life placed and preached." “I would not,” says St Augustine (Contra Epist. Fund.) in the fifth century, “I would not give credit to the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church induced me to it; for," says he, Contra Faust, “the authority of our sacred books is confirmed by the consent of nations, through the succession of Apostles, bishops, and councils."
SECTION VI.
Q. Does reason, which is the handmaid of Scripture, speak out clearly in favour of infallibility?
A. Yes; very clearly and decidedly.
Q. What does reason tell us of infallible Church?
A. That, as such a church may teach error, it is evidently unworthy of a good and merciful God.
Q. Does not our salvation depend on the truth of our faith, and the rectitude and purity of our morals?
A. Yes; without faith we cannot please God, and if we would enter into life, we must keep the commandments. Now, how can any one be certain either of the truth of his faith, or the purity of his morals, so long as he has only a fallible Church, which may teach error, as his guide?
Q. Can the child of a fallible church have true faith?
A. No; as he must ever doubt whether his Church teaches truth, and can have no certainty, as to any one article she teaches; so his faith, ever accompanied with doubt, can be only mere human opinion.
Q. Does not the idea of a fallible Church militate against the goodness and wisdom of God?
A. A good God, who has been so solicitous to save us, could not surely commit us, to the blind guidance of mere human reason or opinion; nor could such an uncertain mean for our safety, be devised by an all-wise Being.
Q. Is not this clear, even from the love God bears for us?
A. Yes; if he loves us so, as to have sent his only Son to die for us, surely, having done so much, he could not commit us to the blind guidance, of an erring, fallible teacher.
Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
A. That, to have true faith, we must have a teacher that cannot err; a fallible teacher of any kind may err; Christ does not teach us himself personally; his Apostles have long since left the world; the Scripture, privately interpreted, is made, as we see daily, to teach every absurdity. Therefore, the infallible teacher we so absolutely require, can be no other than the teaching body of the true Church of Christ.
Q. May it not be still urged that the Scripture is an infallible teacher?
A. We admit that the Scripture is an infallible teacher, if your interpretation of it be infallibly right; but until you have it explained by an infallible interpreter, you must remain in doubt as to its true meaning; consequently, though, in itself, the Bible is infallible, with regard to you, it is still a fallible rule, unless it be explained by an infallible interpreter; and an infallible interpreter supposes the existence of an infallible Church.