it is that of the Church of England': and of its soundness I see no reason to doubt. At all events, the texts are palpably insufficient to establish, on scriptural evidence, the infallible inerrancy of the Church of Rome 2. 2. Equally irrelevant are the passages adduced from the writers of the three first centuries. Scanty as those passages are in number, they are likewise altogether defective in point of efficiency: for they establish no such infallibility of the Roman Church, as that which Pope Gregory propounds and which every modern Latin so stoutly maintains. (1.) The passages from Ignatius, brought forward by the Bishop of Strasbourg, are altogether wide of the mark. They distinctly prove Ignatius to have been what is now called a high-churchman: but they contain not a hint even of Catholic, still less therefore of Roman, Infallibity. (2.) The passages from Irenèus and Tertullian and Clement turn altogether upon the argument from prescription. 1 Art. xix. • Mr. Berington additionally cites Acts xv. 1, 22, 23, 28, 29, 41. See his Faith of Cathol. p. 112, 113. I omit giving those texts at length, because I am totally unable to discover how they establish the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. So far as I can perceive, they have not the very slightest bearing upon the question. The curious inquirer, however, may read and judge for himself. This argument, however, though highly valuable when legitimately managed, is powerless, as we have already seen, unless the FACT, upon which it professedly rests, shall itself have been first substantiated. I may add, that the second passage from Tertullian sets forth the precise view of the question, which is taken by Protestants, and which is so well exhibited by that judicious Romanist Tostatus of Avila. (3.) The passages from Cyprian are totally silent on the topic of Infallibility. They merely propound, what in the abstract few will be disposed to controvert, the evils of schism and the benefits of unity'. 'Mr. Berington cites also a passage from Origen, who flourished about the middle of the third century. Faith of Cathol. p. 114. The statement, which it contains, is undoubtedly true: but it is nothing whatsoever to the purpose. I subjoin it in his own translation. Let him look to it, who, arrogantly puffed up, contemns the apostolic words. To me it is good, to adhere to apostolic men as to God and his Christ, and to draw intelligence from the Scriptures according to the sense that has been delivered by them—If we follow the mere letter of the Scriptures, and take the interpretation of the Law as the Jews commonly explain it, I shall blush to confess, that the Lord should have given such laws-But, if the Law of God be understood as the Church teaches, then truly does it transcend all human laws and is worthy of him that gave it. Orig. Homil. vii. in Levit. tom. xi. p. 224, 226. This passage exists only in the latin version of Ruffinus of Aquileia, who flourished in the fifth century. Mr. Berington III. It is urged, however, by the strenuous advocates of the Latin Church, that the Church of himself very truly remarks, that the Homilies of Origen, which are not extant in Greek, are thought to have been rather loosely translated by Ruffinus. Hence, as the latin version is confessedly paraphrastic and argumentative, we can only receive its testimony to doctrine or to practice, as the testimony of the fifth century. Faith of Cathol. p. 201. Such being the case, it will be foreign to my plan to notice in future any passages, which Mr. Berington may adduce from the latin version of Origen under the aspect of their containing evidence of the third age: and I must needs say, that he himself, even by his own shewing, ought to have arranged them, as the testimony of Ruffinus, not of Origen, As for the passage which I have here gratuitously given at length, it propounds nothing but what every member of the Church of England is quite ready to admit, though he will probably be unable to discover in it any attestation to the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. We Anglicans, who are no advocates for the wild licence of that arbitrary private interpretation which some have unskilfully misdeemed the very principle of Protestantism, receive, as our exclusive rule of Faith, Holy Scripture as understood by primitive Antiquity. Nos, et ex Sacris Libris, quos scimus non posse fallere, certam quandam Religionis formam quæsivisse: et ad veterum Patrum atque Apostolorum primitivam Ecclesiam, hoc est, ad primordia atque initia, tanquam ad fontes, rediisse. Apol. Eccles. Anglic. author. Johan. Juell. apud Enchir. Theol. vol. i. p. 340. Opto, cum Melancthone et Ecclesia Anglicana, per canalem Antiquitatis deduci ad nos dogmata Fidei e fonte Sacræ Scripturæ derivata. Alioquin, quis futurus est novandi finis? Casaub. Epist. 744. These are the words of soberness and right reason. Let Mr. Berington historically prove to us, that the theologians of his Rome, taken in the largest sense, is virtually equivalent to the Catholic Church: and the mode, in which they would establish this parodox, is through the medium of the assertion; that None are members of the Church Catholic save those who are in communion with and in subjection to the Roman Patriarch1. In proof of this large assertion, we might well ask: Where does Scripture declare communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the necessary test of Catholicity; and From which of the writers of the three first centuries do we learn, that none, save the spiritual subjects of that Prelate, are to be accounted Catholic Christians? But it matters little to ask for what can never be given. The testimony of history, even as adduced by the Romanists themselves, substantiates not the inerrancy of the Catholic Church in all its several branches: still less, therefore, does it establish the doctrinal infallibility and the perpetual inerrancy of any one mere provincial or national or patriarchal Church. We learn nothing communion draw intelligence from the Scriptures according to the sense that has been delivered by apostolic men: and he may then fairly bring to bear upon us the preceding passage from the latin version of Ruffinus. Without this antecedent proof, I really discern not the pertinence of his citation. It may not be useless to remark, that his Work abounds with quotations equally irrelevant. ' Quod Catholicus non habeatur, qui non concordat Romanæ Ecclesiæ. Dictat. Pap. Gregor. VII. in Epist. lib. ii. epist. 55. Labb. Concil. vol. x. p. 111. from it, save the existence of an authoritative declaration or prophecy that The essentials of Christianity should never become wholly extinct or should never be universally rejected. As for the historical establishment of Pope Gregory's decision, that The Roman Church never erred and never will err to all perpetuity; it is still, if I mistake not, a desideratum in latin theology. IV. Since the Romanists, however, are far more quick-sighted in discovering the proofs of their peculiarities than the somewhat undiscerning members of protestant communions, let us, for a moment, suppose, that the Infallibility of the Latin Church has been actually substantiated past all reasonable contradiction: still, before any particular use can be made of it in absolute practice, there is yet another point, which must be both distinctly enunciated and historically demonstrated. Even if Scripture itself, quite plainly, though in specialities indefinitely, had taught us, that The Church of Rome is infallible; we could, in the very nature of things, have derived no practical benefit from that declaration, unless the specific organ, through which that highly privileged Church should propound its unerring decisions, had likewise been precisely and unequivocally defined: for, without such authoritative definition of the specific organ, even though a matter should in point of fact have been infallibly propounded, we in point of self-application could never know with |