you alway-There am I in the midst of them :" it is the same language, and what right can we have to explain the same language so very differently in the two passages? Nay, further than this; is it not said of every baptised and faithful Christian, that he is the temple of the Holy Ghost, the temple of God, in whom God dwelleth? Is not our Lord present there also? And does His presence render every believer an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Yet, if Christ's presence promised in one case ensures infallibility, why not in the other also, where it is promised even in more emphatical and solemn language? To such conclusions are we necessarily driven, conclusions that no one can admit, by straining the words of Scripture to prove what they cannot, to set up an infallibility which is not to be found in the children of men. Again, another passage of Scripture is sometimes adduced: "Thy teachers shall not be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers." But we cannot see how the promise that the teachers of the people shall never be removed again out of sight, can prove that their teaching will be infallible, much less that this infallibility shall reside in them when assembled in a particular way, of which the passage is entirely silent. The teachers shall never, indeed, be lost to the people of the spiritual Zion: this the text does assert; but that they shall never err, is not to be in found it. Again, the text, "If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican," contains no allusions whatever to councils, and refers not to matters of faith, but to disputes on secular affairs between private persons, to the decision not of the Church Catholic, but to the officers of any particular Church; and so is altogether foreign to the present question. The first council at Jerusalem could, indeed, say, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;" but this gives no claim of like divine authority to subsequent councils, unless it can be shown that they had the same inspiration present that this one confessedly had. And besides these passages we know of no others adduced. If, then, the silence of Scripture on the authority of the Papal See be a strong negative argument against the claims of that bishopric, if it be impossible to believe that if these claims were just ones Holy Writ could not but speak plainly on a subject so vitally important, the argument is no less strong-nay, even stronger, against the assertors of these claims of Universal Councils. In Scripture there is not a word-no, not so much as a hint or intimation of this doctrine-no, not even the semblance of a command to convoke councils at all, no regulations given for their direction when so assembled, no marks whereby we are to know the true from the false; and yet we are called on to believe that in these councils infallibility resides, that they are as the oracle of God-the unerring guide to all Christians. Let us hear what the martyr Ridley says: "But this it is, then, I am now about, that Christ would have the Church His Spouse in all doubts to ask council at the Word of His Father, written, and faithfully left and commended unto it in both Testaments, the Old and New. Neither do we read in any place that Christ hath laid so great a burden upon the members of His Spouse, that He hath com manded them to go to the Universal Church. Whatsoever things are written, saith Paul, are written for our learning; and it is true that Christ gave unto His Church some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers, to the edifying of the saints, till we all come to the unity of the faith. But that men should meet together out of all parts of the world, to define the Articles of our faith, I neither find it commanded of Christ, nor written in the Word of God." And this brings us naturally to the doctrine of our Church, of which this writer was a martyr and reformer. Now, where is the proof to be found that our Church looks to the decisions of Ecumenical Councils as her rules of faith, and her ultimate guides in the interpretation of Scripture? Not in her Liturgy-no, nor in her Articles, one of which expressly states that General Councils, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Words, one would have thought, could scarcely be plainer. But it is objected, that this is spoken not of Ecumenical or Universal Councils, but only of General ones, wherein the Church is but partially represented, and that it is not to be understood of those assemblies, which have the express promise of our Lord to be preserved from error. But we may observe that the reason given why such General Councils may err-namely, that they are composed of men whereof all be not governed by the Spirit of God, is no more applicable to General than to Ecumenical Councils, which it cannot be maintained contain none but those who are led by the Word of God. If, indeed, there be a Council, wherein those, who govern the same, are the lively members of Christ, and walk after the rule of His Word-there, indeed, these Councils do represent the Universal Church, and have a promise of the gift and guiding of His Spirit into all truth. This is what Ridley thought, and it is in exact accordance with the Article, which allows those councils to be good and valid, be they partial only, or be they universal, of which it may be declared, that what they ordain as necessary to salvation is taken out of Holy Writ. Again: another Article in the same spirit as this just cited, declares that the Nicene Creed ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for it may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. Yet was this Creed drawn by an Ecumenical Council, and received ever since by the orthodox or Catholic Church; but it is not for these reasons our Article would have it received, but only on this simple ground-that it may be proved by Holy Writ. We are, then, reduced to this alternative: either to believe that our Church meant by General Councils all Councils whatsoever, and so denied that any are of themselves free from error; or else, that while she believed that Universal Councils were exempted by Christ's promise from this liability to error, and that, therefore, they are infallible tribunals, to whose decision all must bend without questioning, a doctrine plainly of the very first moment, yet that she has been silent on this point in those very Articles, which were drawn up to set forward her true doctrine. If this latter be the case, it were, indeed, a silence on a matter where she ought to speak, nothing less than a reserve of God's truth, a keeping back of His will from her congregation. But it is not so while she arrogates no infallibility for herself, neither does she allow the same claim in other Churches, nor recognise it in the union of fallible Churches, or in the whole Universal Church; but Holy Scripture alone is received as the complete rule of faith and manners, the sole depository of unerring authority. But there is one argument left, to which we would briefly advert, as we believe it is often used in support of the doctrine now under con sideration. It is said, How can we think that our Lord would have left His Church, after the death of His apostles, without guide and direction, to be distracted and torn in pieces by diverse opinions, having no tribunal to which to have recourse for decision in matters of doubt and perplexity? But this argument, or rather presumption, for it plainly amounts to no more, will not at any rate prove more than that there should be such a tribunal, not that Ecumenical Councils are that tribunal any more than the Papal See. Nay, if it be true that the Church must have such an infallible arbitrator as is here supposed, it would seem more reasonable that that power should reside in a fixed and permanent sovereignty, as is that of the Pope, than in those Universal Councils, which, from their nature, cannot be more than periodical, depend necessarily on the will of temporal princes and governors, and, now that Christianity is spread over so vast and divided a universe, can hardly ever again be convoked. This is the Papal argument against their authority, and seems, so far as it goes, and for the purpose it is adduced, unanswerable. How, indeed, we can ever be certain that any Council is really Ecumenical, and so entitled to our Lord's promise, does not appear. If one diocese in any one part of the world be not there fairly represented, does it cease to be Ecumenical? If the temporal power exercises an undue influence over it, are its decisions thereby impaired? If in its debates there be found envy and partyspirit, strife and disunion, hatred and ill will-the fruits, not of the Spirit, but of the flesh, is Christ present there? And who that has read the history of these Councils of old, knows not what turbulent passions swayed these mighty assemblies? If the canons there drawn up are ambiguous, who is the infallible interpreter of them? So many are the plain and practical difficulties connected with this theory. But we may answer more directly to the presumption we are now considering, (which is in itself, let it be observed, an act of private judgement in those who adduce it,) that Christ has not left his disciples without guide. Without infallible guides He has: but is there nothing between an infallible guide and none at all, between spiritual tyranny and an unbridled liberty of the will and judgement? May not the Church be a witness though not a judge, a keeper of Holy Writ though not an interpreter, a help to the right understanding of it though bound herself also by its rules? And if we would search the Scriptures, go to the law and testimony, ask counsel of the living Word of God rather than of the dead, seek for instruction of that book which is written for that very purpose, there we shall find the promise of guidance into all truth given not to the Papal See, nor to Ecumenical Councils, nor to the visible Catholic Church, composed of evil as well as good, but to the humble and lowly disciple, working out his salvation with fear and trembling. It is wonderful how many passages of Scripture there are which contain this promise. If any one of them were written of Ecumenical Councils instead of the faithful believer, the case would, indeed, be altered. Familiar as they are to all of us, yet it can do no harm to place some of them together, that we may refresh ourselves with the comfortable assurance of what God has promised to us: "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will show them His covenant." "The secret of the Lord is with the righteous." "Evil men understand not judgement; but they that seek the Lord understand all things." "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." "He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." "Ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, ye shall abide in Him." Now, texts so numerous as these, and we have cited only the most remarkable, so clear and emphatic, must mean something; we may not explain them away; and what can they mean short of this? That if a Christian man will study the Scriptures in an humble and teachable spirit, with no other view but that of arriving at the truth, praying earnestly and patiently for the aid of God's Spirit, and at the same time be diligent in the performance of his practical duties, part of which, we willingly allow, consists in a hearty readiness to listen to the guidance of his Church as to his spiritual Mother-then has he the promise, not, indeed, of infallibility, but of being led into all saving truth, into the knowledge of all that it is needful for him individually to understand. And why is it that Holy Writ always connects religious knowledge with practice, but because, where there is not an enlightened, simple, humble, spiritual mind, notions and opinions are of very little consequence? We may, indeed, receive the decrees of Councils as matters in which we have no interest; we may submit to the decisions of the Church as to unmeaning formulas: but this can never be, if we search the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so; if we believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; if we prove all things, and so finally, by God's grace, hold fast that which is good. THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.* No. II. THE statement of the particular blessings constituting our regeneration, contained in the Twenty-seventh Article, is corroborated and explained by the answer put into the mouths of our young Christians in an early part of the Church Catechism; where, in reply to the question, "Who gave you this name?" the child is instructed to say, "My godfathers and my godmothers in my Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." "A member of Christ,” (i. e., of Christ's body, the Church,)† answers to that part of the Article in which it is said, that they who receive Baptism rightly are thereby "grafted into the Church :" "A child of God," corroborates the second particular blessing of regeneration stated in the Article; viz., that "the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed:" and "An inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven," is a legiti mate deduction from the second blessing mentioned as well in the Article as in the Catechism; for, "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." (Rom. viii. 17.) And these three blessings and privileges appropriated together by God's promise to the believer, do of course amount in him to that state of salvation to which, in the next answer, the child is instructed to thank God that he has been called: "I heartily thank our Heavenly Father that He hath called me to this state of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Saviour;" where no one, of course, supposes that anything is said about the final * Owing to the revises of the former article on this subject having arrived too late at the printer's, the following errata in it have to be corrected. 1st page of the article, line 13, for making, read marking. Page 573, foot-note, for objects, read object, and insert a comma after the word. Page 574, line 18 from bottom, dele that. Page 577, line 5, put a colon instead of period, and a small t at the word The. Page 578, line 7 from bottom, for on, read in. Ibid, 1st word of the Greek, for "Orot, read "Ooot. Ibid, 2d line from bottom, ponpac τnuevor to be made one word. Page 579, line 5, for advvarov, read advvarov: and in the next line, a ow to be made one word. Ibid, lines 9, 10, for that they are to live, read that they are able to live. Page 580, line 6, for Ewrng, read Σwing. Ibid, line 10, for earnestly, read carnally, Page 583, line 11 from bottom, for complimentary, read complementary. + 1 Cor. xii. 27. |