[1] Ut hÆc quÆ scripta sunt non negamus, ita ea quÆ non sunt scripta renuimus.—Hieron adv. Helvid. oper. t. iv. pars ii. p. 141. ed. Ben.[3a] Eph. iv. 14.[3b] The theologian will here observe, that the argument from “motives of credibility,” as they are termed, is in this view more presumptuous and objectionable than the claim so loudly and so vehemently objected against Protestants. Surely there is more presumption in claiming a right to prejudge what God must have done, than in claiming the right of private judgment to ascertain what God has actually revealed.[5] “But it is more useful and fit (you say) for deciding of controversies, to have, besides an infallible rule to go by, a living infallible judge to determine them: and from hence you conclude, that certainly there is such a judge. But why then may not another say, that it is yet more useful, for many excellent purposes, that all the Patriarchs should be infallible, than that the Pope only should? Another, that it would be yet more useful, that all the Archbishops of every province should be so, than that the Patriarchs only should be so. Another, that it would be yet more useful, if all the Bishops of every diocese were so? Another, that it would be yet more available that all the parsons of every parish should be so? Another, that it would be yet more excellent, if all the fathers of families were so? And lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired, that every man and every woman were so? just as much as the prevention of controversies is better than the decision of them; and the prevention of heresies better than the condemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own very consequence, that not only a general Council, not only the Pope, but all the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Fathers—nay, all the men in the world, are infallible? If you say now, as I am sure you will, that this conclusion is most gross, and absurd, against sense and experience, then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows, viz., That that course of dealing with men seems always more fit to Divine Providence, which seems most fit to human reason.”—Works of Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 296.[6] Deut. xvii. 8–14.[7a] Deut. xvii. 8.[7b] Exod. xxxii. 4–7.[7c] 1 Kings xii. 28.[7d] 1 Kings xxii. 6.[7e] Jerem. v. 30, 31.[7f] Isa. lvi. 10.[8] See Tracts published by Bishop Gibson. Title iv. chap. i. vol. i. p. 18.[9] “For many of you hold the Pope’s proposal ex cathedrÂ, to be sufficient and obliging” (obligatory); “some a Council without a Pope; some neither of them severally, but only both together; some not this neither in matter of manners, which Bellarmine acknowledges, and tells us it is all one in effect, as if they denied it” (to be) “sufficient in matter of faith; some not in matter of faith neither think this proposal infallible, without the acceptation of the Church universal; some deny the infallibility of the present Church, and only make the tradition of all ages the infallible propounder: yet if you were agreed what and what only is the infallible propounder, this would not satisfy us; nor yet to say, that all is fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him: for though agreeing in this, yet you might still disagree whether such or such a doctrine were propounded or not; or if propounded, whether sufficiently, or only insufficiently. And it is so known a thing, that in many points you do so, that I assure myself you will not deny it.”—Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 118.[10] See Evidence against Catholicism, by Rev. J. Blanco White, p. 94.[11] Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Luke xxii. 32. John xxi. 17.[12a] See Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 418.[12b] The phrases “to bind and loose” were Jewish, and most frequent in their writings. It belonged only to the teachers among the Jews to bind and loose. When the Jews set any apart to be a preacher, they used these words: “Take thou liberty to teach what is bound and what is loose.”—Strype’s Preface to the Posthumous Remains of Dr. Lightfoot, p. 38. See Dr. A. Clarke’s commentary in loco.[12c] Compare Matt. xvii. 18, with John xx. 22, 23.[13a] See manuscript volume by the Honourable Archibald Campbell, a Nonjuring Bishop, first in Scotland, and afterwards in London. Also Bishop Horsley’s Sermons, vol. i. p. 293.[13b] For a full exposition of this text, see Remarks by Granville Sharp, Esq., cited by Dr. Adam Clarke in his commentary.[13c] See Dr. Isaac Barrow’s Treatise on the Pope’s Supremacy, and Rev. J. Fletcher’s Lectures on the Roman Catholic Religion, p. 94.[13d] Eph. ii. 20.[13e] 1 Cor. iii. 11.[13f] 1 Cor. xii. 28.[14a] Rev. xxi. 14.[14b] “Seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge, that he was Bishop of Antioch, before he was Bishop of Rome; we require them to show, why so great an inheritance as this, should descend to the younger rather than the elder, according to the ordinary manner of descents? Especially, seeing Rome hath little else to allege for this preferment, but only that St. Peter was crucified in it: which was a very slender reason to move the Apostle so to respect it.”—Extract from Archbishop Usher’s Speech in the Castle Chamber, Dublin, Nov. 22, 1622. See Dr. Parr’s Life of Usher, p. 23.[14c] “What say you to the expunging the name of Felix, Bishop of Rome, out of the Diptychs of the Church by Acacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople? What say you to Hilary’s Anathema against Pope Liberius!”—Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 408.[15a] St. Jerome affirms, that a Bishop, in whatever diocese, whether of Rome, of Eugabium, &c., is of the same power (ejusdem meriti) and of the same rank in the priesthood (ejusdem sacerdotii) with his Episcopal brethren. “For,” he adds, “they are all alike successors of the Apostles.” This admission from the Secretary of Pope Damasus is very remarkable.—Epist. ad Evag.[15b] Vid. Lab. tom. iv. p. 817.—Grier’s Epitome of the General Councils, pp. 61. 94.[16a] Ruffinus, in his translation and abstract of the Nicene Canons, gives the sixth of them in these words: “The ancient custom of Alexandria and of Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care or government of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary churches.”—Ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Rom vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Ægypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat. Ruffin. Hist. lib. i. c. 6.—See also Bingham’s Antiquities, Book ix. chap. 1, sec. 9.[16b] Universalitatis nomen quod sibi illicitÈ usurpavit nolite attendere:—nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur.—Perpenditis, fratres carissimi, quid e vicino subsequatur cum et in sacerdotibus erumpunt tam perversa primordia. Quia enim juxta est ille de quo scriptum est; Ipse est rex super universos filios superbiÆ.—Pap. Pelag. ii. epist. 8.[17a] Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit: quia videlicet si unus patriarcha universalis dicitur, patriarcharum nomen cÆteris derogatur. Sed absit, hoc absit À ChristianÁ mente id sibi velle quenquam arripere unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulÂcunque parte videatur!—Pap. Gregor. i. lib. iv. epist. 36.[17b] Ego vero fidenter dico, quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari deciderat, in elatione su Anti-christum prÆcurrit; quia superbiendo, cÆteris prÆponit.—Pap. Gregor. i. lib. vi. epist. 30. Attempts have been made to reconcile the language of Pelagius and Gregory, with the assumption, by their immediate successors, of the very supremacy which those two Popes so strongly reprobate. The utter futility of such attempts, the reader will see thoroughly established by Stillingfleet in his “Vindication,” part ii. chap. vi.[19] “I would fain know whether there be any certainty that every Pope is a good Christian, or whether he may not be (in the sense of the Scripture) of the world? If not, how was it that Bellarmine should have cause to think that such a rank of them went successively together to perdition?”—Chillingworth’s Works, vol. iii. p. 359.

The same learned Cardinal whom Chillingworth here refers to, is very zealous throughout his works in defending Papal infallibility, and even ventures to affirm (Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. lib. iv. cap. 5, in fine), “If the Pope could or should so far err, as to command the practice of vice, and to forbid virtuous actions, the Church were bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be bad.” The Pontiffs, whatever they may have thought of this extraordinary theory, seem in practice, by the Cardinal’s own account, to have availed themselves, in a considerable degree, of the privilege which he claims in their behalf.—See also Works of Henry More, p. 450.[20a] “It were heartily to be wished, if he” (the Pope) “should once happen to be in cathedrÂ, he would infallibly determine what is to be in cathedr ever after; for it would ease men’s minds of a great many troublesome scruples, which they cannot, without some infallible determination, get themselves quit of.”—Stillingfleet’s “Vindication,” p. 114.[20b] For Bishop Stillingfleet’s argument to prove that no Pontiff has been canonically elected since the times of Sextus the Fifth, see his Vindication, part i. p. 116.[21a] Romanus Pontifex per literas Montanistis communionem impertiit, quas, errore cognito, revocare coactus est.—Dupin de Antiq. Eccl. Dis. 5. p. 346. La Pape les Montanistes reÇu dans sa communion, ce qui montre que le Pape n’Étoit pas infallible.—Basnage, Hist. tom. i. p. 360.[21b] He maintained against Cyprian, of Carthage, that baptism, though performed by heretics, ought not to be repeated: but the heretics of that period baptized only in the name of the Father, and sometimes not even in his name: a kind of Baptism which no Roman Catholic would now admit to be valid.—See Grier’s History of the Councils, p. 17.[21c] See this case argued by Bishop Stillingfleet in part iii. chap. 2, pp. 512, 513, of the Vindication; and for others equally opposite, see Grier’s History passim. See also Burnet on the Nineteenth Article.[21d] See Evidence against Catholicism by the Rev. Blanco White, p. 33: and the Bishop of Exeter’s Letters to Charles Butler, Esq. Letter xiv. p. 271.[22a] The writers of the Gallican Church are here alluded to, all of whom oppose the Papal claims.[22b] Matt. xvi. 18.[22c] Matt. xviii. 17.[22d] Matt. xxviii. 20.[22e] John xiv. 16.[22f] Acts xv. 28.[22g] 1 Tim. iii. 15.[23] Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat.—Tostat. Abulens. prÆfat. in Matt, quÆst. xiii.

Ecclesia latinorum non est Ecclesia universalis sed quÆdam pars ejus: ideo, etiamsi tota ipsa errasset, non errabat ecclesia universalis: quia manet Ecclesia universalis in partibus illis quÆ non errant, sive illÆ sint numero plures quam errantes, sive non.—Ibid. quÆst. iv. in Matt. ad proleg. 2.[24a] “For my part, I should think it did more concern our Lord Jesus, by virtue of this promise, to make his Church impeccable, than infallible. My meaning is, that it is a much more desirable thing to secure his ministers and people from the danger of sin, than from the danger of error. But the former He hath not done, and therefore I much doubt of the latter.”—Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. viii.[24b] In Scripturis canonicis nullum de iis verbum est: nec ex Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva Christi Ecclesia.—Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 1, quoted in that masterly work, “The Difficulties of Romanism,” by the Rev. G. S. Faber, book 1, chap. ii. p. 36.[26] “The low Romanists who are distinguished by the name of Cisalpines, (for serious differences exist, it appears, even in the very bosom of privileged inerrancy,) not only deny the personal infallibility of the Pope, but hold also that for heresy or schism (to both of which, we find, the alleged fallible head of an infallible body is actually liable,) he may be lawfully deposed by a general council. Such being the case, they must, on their own principles, inevitably hold the infallibility of a general council even when not sanctioned by the papal confirmation: for it is quite clear, on the one hand, that no prudent Pope, at least, would ratify the sentence of his own deposition, or confirm the decree which pronounced him to be a schismatic or a heretic; and it is equally clear, on the other hand, that no general council could infallibly pronounce the Pope to be a heretic or schismatic, himself all the while stiffly denying, as of course he would deny, the offensive allegation, unless such general council, independently of any papal ratification, were itself constitutionally infallible.”—Faber’s Difficulties of Romanism, p. 247, 248.[27a] Bellarm. de Cone. lib. i. cap. 8.[27b] See Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophecy, sect. 6. vol. viii. of his works, p. 41.[27c] “That the authority of general councils was never esteemed absolute, infallible, and unlimited, appears in this, that before they were obliging (obligatory) it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them, Concurrenti universali totius ecclesiÆ consensu, &c., in declaratione veritatum quÆ credendÆ sunt, &c. In this way, as observed by Gerson, the decrees of councils became authentic, and turned into a law: and till they became so their decrees were but a dead letter.”—See Heber’s Bishop Taylor, vol. viii. p. 50, 51, remarking on St. Augustin, b. 1. cap. 18. de Bapt. contra Donat.[29a] See Works of Leslie, vol. i. p. 497.[29b] For an example, see Blanco White’s Evidence, p. 39.[29c] See Bishop Burnet on the Twenty-second Article.[30] It may here be not inapposite to introduce the well-known example of implicit faith, recorded by various writers, and which has met with different degrees of Roman Catholic praise and of Protestant censure. An ignorant collier of the Romish persuasion was asked, what it was that he believed, and answered, “I believe what the Church believes.” The questioner rejoined: “What then does the Church believe?” He replied: “The Church believes what I believe.” The other, anxious for particulars, resumed his interrogatories: “Tell me, then, I pray you, what is it that you and the Church both believe?” To which the collier could only give this answer: “Why, truly, sir, the Church and I both believe the same thing.”—Campbell’s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 259.[32a] The true theory of development is ably stated by Bishop Butler in his Analogy, part ii. chap. 3, and may be usefully contrasted with the newly-devised dogma of Popery.[32b] “Certainly every man considering that his eternal salvation lies upon it, will be enforced to apply sincerity and care in his own behalf; whereas if others interpret for him, they may do it more remissly, or more fraudulently.”—Works of Hen. More, p. 454.

“As the case stands in religion, according to the Roman Catholic doctrine, reason, and thinking, and studying, and examination, and industry, and search, though they be necessary tools to be made use of for the putting a man into good hands, yet after he is in those hands, he is to throw all these things away, and never after to make use of them. Doth this look like a doctrine of God? No, certainly.”—Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. vii. p. 29.[33] Psalm xxv. 14; xxxii. 8; xxv. 8, 9; xv. 12, 13. Prov. li. 1–5; iii. 5, 6; x. 30, 31. James i. 5. Matt. vii. 12. John vii. 17.[34a] 2 Tim. iii. 16.[34b] John v. 39.[34c] 1 Thess. v. 21.[34d] 1 Pet. iii. 15.[34e] For proofs and illustrations of this point, drawn from IrenÆus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome, Basil, and Augustin, see Faber’s “Difficulties of Romanism.”[34f] See note p. 33.[34g] John vii. 17. Sermons of Bishop Taylor, vol. vi. p. 402.[35] Book of Common Prayer.[36a] Imprimis vero, videbunt (Concionatores) ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiosÈ teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinÆ veteris aut novi testamenti: quodque ex ill ips doctrin Catholici Patres et veteres Episcopi collegerint.—Sparrow, Collect, p. 238. It is scarcely necessary to observe that this canon is not included among those of 1603.[36b] See chap. vii. of Dr. Waterland’s Treatise on the Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity; where the use of ecclesiastical antiquity is discussed with his usual masterly erudition and ability. Similar observations in an abridged form may be found in his introduction to a review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. See vol. vii. of his Works, edited by Bishop Van Mildert.[37a] James iii. 17.[37b] 2 Cor. xiii. 5.[38a] Heb. vi. 11; x. 22.[38b] Phil. iii. 13.[38c] Rom. viii. 35–39.