SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

BY

CHARLES HODGE, D.D.,

PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY.

LONDON AND EDINBURGH:

PUBLISHED BY THOMAS NELSON AND SONS.

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER AND CO.

_____________________

1873.

§ 7. Office of the Church as a Teacher.

A. The Romish Doctrine on this subject.

Romanists teach that the Church, as an external, visible society, consisting of

those who profess the Christian religion, united in communion of the same sac-
raments and subjection to lawful pastors, and especially to the Pope of Rome,
is divinely appointed to be the infallible teacher of men in all things pertaining
to faith and practice. It is qualified for this office by the plenary revelation of
the truth in the written and unwritten word of God, and by the supernatural guid-
ance of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed to the bishops as official successors of the
Apostles, or, to the Pope as the successor of Peter in his supremacy over the
whole Church, and as vicar of Christ on earth.
There is something simple and grand in this theory. It is wonderfully adapted
to the tastes and wants of men. It relieves them of personal responsibility. Eve-
rything is decided for them. Their salvation is secured by merely submitting to
be saved by an infallible, sin-pardoning, and grace-imparting Church. Many
may be inclined to think that it would have been a great blessing had Christ left
on earth a visible representative of himself clothed with his authority to teach
and govern, and an order of men dispersed through the world endowed with the
gifts of the original Apostles, men everywhere accessible, to whom we could
resort in all times of difficulty and doubt, and whose decisions could be safely
received as the decisions of Christ himself. God’s thoughts, however, are not as
our thoughts. We know that when Christ was on earth, men did not believe or
obey Him. We know that when the Apostles were still living, and their authority
was still confirmed by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the
Holy Ghost, the Church was nevertheless distracted by heresies and schisms. If
any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible

1
teachers would be a blessing, all must admit that the assumption of infallibility
by the ignorant, the erring, and the wicked, must be an evil inconceivably great.
The Romish theory if true might be a blessing; if false it must be an awful curse.
That it is false may be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all who do not wish it
to be true, and who, unlike the Oxford Tractarian, are not determined to believe
it because they love it.

B. The Romish definition of the Church is derived from

what the Church of Rome now is.

Before presenting a brief outline of the argument against this theory, it may
be well to remark that the Romish definition of the Church is purely empirical.
It is not derived from the signification or usage of the word ekklesia in the New
Testament; nor from what is there taught concerning the Church. It is merely a
statement of what the Church of Rome now is. It is a body professing the same
faith, united in the communion of the same sacraments, subject to pastors (i.e.,
bishops), assumed to be lawful, and to the Pope as the vicar of Christ. Now in
this definition it is gratuitously assumed,—
1. That the Church to which the promise of divine guidance is given, is an
external, visible organization; and not the people of God as such in their per-
sonal and individual relation to Christ. In other words, it is assumed that the
Church is a visible society, and not a collective term for the people of God; as
when it is said of Paul that he persecuted the Church; and of Christ that He loved
the Church and gave himself for it. Christ certainly did not die for any external,
visible, organized Society.
2. The Romish theory assumes, not only that the Church is an external organ-
ization, but that it must be organized in one definite, prescribed form. But this
assumption is not only unreasonable, it is unscriptural, because no one form is
prescribed in Scripture as essential to the being of the Church; and because it is
contrary to the whole spirit and character of the gospel, that forms of govern-
ment should be necessary to the spiritual life and salvation of men. Moreover,
this assumption is inconsistent with historical facts. The Church in all its parts
has never been organized according to one plan.
3. But conceding that the Church is an external society, and that it must be
organized according to one plan, it is a gratuitous and untenable presumption,
that that plan must be the episcopal. It is a notorious fact that diocesan episco-
pacy did not exist during the apostolic age. It is equally notorious that that plan
of government was gradually introduced. And it is no less notorious that a large
part of the Church in which Christ dwells by his presence, and which He in
every way acknowledges and honours, has no bishops until the present day. The
government of the Church by bishops, Romanists admit, is one of the institu-
tions which rest not on Scripture, but on tradition for their authority.
4. But should everything else be conceded, the assumption that subjection to
the Pope, as the vicar of Christ, is necessary to the existence of the Church, is
utterly unreasonable. This is the climax. There is not the slightest evidence in
the New Testament or in the apostolic age, that Peter had any such primacy
among the Apostles as Romanists claim. There is not only the absence of all
evidence that lie exercised any jurisdiction over them, but there is abundant ev-
idence to the contrary. This is clear from Peter, James, and John, being men-

2
tioned together as those who appeared to be pillars (Gal. ii. 9), and this distinc-
tion was due not to office, but to character. It is moreover clear from the full
equality in gifts and authority which Paul asserted for himself, and proved to
the satisfaction of the whole Church that he possessed. It is clear from the sub-
ordinate position occupied by Peter in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.), and
from the severe reproof he received from Paul at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11-21). It is
a plain historical fact, that Paul and John were the master-spirits of the Apostolic
Church. But admitting the primacy of Peter in the college of Apostles, there is
no evidence that such primacy was intended to be perpetual. There is no com-
mand to elect a successor to him in that office, no rules given as to the mode of
such election, or the persons by whom the choice was to be made; and no record
of such election having actually been made. Everything is made out of the air.
But admitting that Peter was constituted the head of the whole Church on earth,
and that such headship was intended to be continued, what evidence is there that
the Bishop of Rome was to all time entitled to that office? It is very doubtful
whether Peter ever was in Rome. The sphere of his labors was in Palestine and
the East. It is certain he never was Bishop of the Church in that city. And even
if he were, he was Primate, not as Bishop of Rome, but by appointment of
Christ. According to the theory, he was Primate before he went to Rome, and
not because he went there. The simple historical fact is, that as Rome was the
seat of the Roman empire, the Bishop of Rome aspired to be the head of the
Church, which claim after a long struggle came to be acknowledged, at least in
the West.
It is on the four gratuitous and unreasonable assumptions above mentioned,
namely, that the Church to which the promise of the Spirit was made is an ex-
ternal, visible organization; that a particular mode of organization is essential to
its existence; that that mode is the episcopal; and that it must be papal, i.e., the
whole episcopacy be subject to the Bishop of Rome;—it is on these untenable
assumptions that the whole stupendous system of Romanism rests. If any one
of them fail, the whole falls to the ground. These assumptions are so entirely
destitute of any adequate historical proof, that no reasonable man can accept
them on their own evidence. It is only those who have been taught or induced
to believe the extant Church to be infallible, who can believe them. And they
believe not because these points can be proved, but on the assertion of the
Church. The Romish Church says that Christ constituted the Church on the pa-
pal system, and therefore, it is to be believed. The thing to be proved is taken
for granted. It is a petitio principii from beginning to end.

C. The Romish Doctrine of Infallibility founded

on a Wrong Theory of the Church.

The first great argument of Protestants against Romanism concerns the theory
of the Church.
God entered into a covenant with Abraham. In that covenant there were cer-
tain promises which concerned his natural descendants through Isaac, which
promises were suspended on the national obedience of the people. That cove-
nant, however, contained the promise of redemption through Christ. He was the
seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. The Jews came to
believe that this promise of redemption, i.e., of the blessings of the Messiah’s
reign, was made to them as a nation; and that it was conditioned on membership

3
in that nation. All who were Jews either by descent or proselytism, and who
were circumcised, and adhered to the Law, were saved. All others would cer-
tainly perish forever. This is the doctrine which our Lord so pointedly con-
demned, and against which St. Paul so strenuously argued. When the Jews
claimed that they were the children of God, because they were the children of
Abraham, Christ told them that they might be the children of Abraham, and yet
the children of the devil (John viii. 33-44); as John, his forerunner, had before
said, say not “We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is
able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matt. iii. 9.) It is
against this doctrine the epistles to the Romans and Galatians are principally
directed. The Apostle shows, (1.) That the promise of salvation was not confined
to the Jews, or to the members of any external organization. (2.) And therefore
that it was not conditioned on descent from Abraham, nor on circumcision, nor
on adherence to the Old Testament theocracy. (3.) That all believers oi ek pisteos
are the sons, and, therefore, the heirs of Abraham. (Gal. iii. 7.) (4.) That a man
might be a Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, circumcised on the eighth day, and
touching the righteousness which is of the law blameless, and yet it avail him
nothing. (Phil. iii. 4-6.) (5.) Because he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; and
circumcision is of the heart. (Romans ii. 28-29.) (6.) And consequently that God
could cast off the Jews as a nation, without acting inconsistently with his cove-
nant with Abraham, because the promise was not made to the Israel kata sarka
but to the Israel kata pneuma (Rom. ix. 6-8.)
Romanists have transferred the whole Jewish theory to the Christian Church;
while Protestants adhere to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Romanists
teach, (1.) That the Church is essentially an external, organized community, as
the commonwealth of Israel. (2.) That to this external society, all the attributes,
prerogatives, and promises of the true Church belong. (3.) That membership in
that society is the indispensable condition of salvation; as it is only by union
with the Church that men are united to Christ, and, through its ministrations,
become partakers of his redemption. (4.) That all who die in communion with
this external society, although they may, if not perfect at death, suffer for a
longer or shorter period in purgatory, shall ultimately be saved. (5.) All outside
of this external organization perish eternally. There is, therefore, not a single
element of the Jewish theory which is not reproduced in the Romish.

Protestant Doctrine of the Nature of the Church.

Protestants, on the other hand, teach on this subject, in exact accordance with
the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles: (1.) That the Church as such, or in its
essential nature, is not an external organization. (2.) All true believers, in whom
the Spirit of God dwells, are members of that Church which is the body of
Christ, no matter with what ecclesiastical organization they may be connected,
and even although they have no such connection. The thief on the cross was
saved, though he was not a member of any external Church. (3.) Therefore, that
the attributes, prerogatives, and promises of the Church do not belong to any
external society as such, but to the true people of God collectively considered;
and to external societies only so far as they consist of true believers, and are
controlled by them. This is only saying what every man admits to be true, that
the attributes, prerogatives, and promises pertaining to Christians belong exclu-
sively to true Christians, and not to wicked or worldly men who call themselves

4
Christians. (4.) That the condition of membership in the true Church is not union
with any organized society, but faith in Jesus Christ. They are the children of
God by faith; they are the sons of Abraham, heirs of the promise of redemption
made to him by faith; whether they be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free; whether
Protestants or Romanists, Presbyterians or Episcopalians; or whether they be so
widely scattered, that no two or three of them are able to meet together for wor-
ship.
Protestants do not deny that there is a visible Church Catholic on earth, con-
sisting of all those who profess the true religion, together with their children.
But they are not all included in any one external society. They also admit that it
is the duty of Christians to unite for the purpose of worship and mutual watch
and care. They admit that to such associations and societies certain prerogatives
and promises belong; that they have, or ought to have the officers whose quali-
fications and duties are prescribed in the Scriptures; that there always have been,
and probably always will be, such Christian organizations, or visible churches.
But they deny that any one of these societies, or all of them collectively, consti-
tute the Church for which Christ died; in which He dwells by his Spirit; to which
He has promised perpetuity, catholicity, unity, and divine guidance into the
knowledge of the truth. Any one of them, or all of them, one after another, may
apostatize from the faith, and all the promises of God to his Church be fulfilled.
The Church did not fail, when God reserved to himself only seven thousand in
all Israel who had not bowed the knee unto Baal.
Almost all the points of difference between Protestants and Romanists de-
pend on the decision of the question, “What is the Church?” If their theory be
correct; if the Church is the external society of professing Christians, subject to
apostle-bishops (i.e., to bishops who are apostles), and to the Pope as Christ’s
vicar on earth; then we are bound to submit to it; and then, too, beyond the pale
of that communion there is no salvation. But if every true believer is, in virtue
of his faith, a member of that Church to which Christ promises guidance and
salvation, then Romanism falls to the ground.

The Opposing Theories of the Church.

That the two opposing theories of the Church, the Romish and Protestant, are
what has been stated above is so generally known and so unquestioned, that it
is unnecessary to cite authorities on either side. It is enough, so far as the doc-
trine of Romanists is concerned, to quote the language of Bellarmine,1 that the
marks of the Church are three: “Professio verae fidei, sacramentorum com-
munio, et subjectio ad legitimum pastorem, Romanum Pontificem. Atque hoc
interest inter sententiam nostram et alias omnes, quod omnes aliae requirunt
internas virtutes ad constituendum aliquem in Ecclesia, et propterea Ecclesiam
veram invisibilem faciunt; nos autem credimus in Ecclesia inveniri omnes vir-
tutes,—tamen ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars verae Ecclesiae,—non pu-
tamus requiri ullam internam virtutem, sed tantum externam professionem fidei,
et sacramentorum communionem, quae sensu ipso percipitur. Ecclesia enim est
coetus hominum its visibilis et palpabilis, ut est coetus Populi Romani, vel reg-
num Galliae aut respublica Venetorum.” The Lutheran Symbols define the
Church as, “Congregatio sanctorum.”2 “Congregatio sanctorum et vere creden-
tium.”3 “Societas fidei et Spiritus Sancti in cordibus.”4 “Congregatio sanctorum,

5
qui habent inter se societatem ejusdem evangelii seu doctrinae, et ejusdem Spir-
itus Sancti, qui cords eorum renovat, sanctificat et gubernat; “ and5 “Populus
spiritualis, non civilibus ritibus distinctus a gentibus, sed verus populus Dei
renatus per Spiritum Sanctum.”6
The Symbols of the Reformed Churches present the same doctrine.7 The Con-
fessio Helvetica says, “Oportet semper fuisse, nunc esse et ad finem usque se-
culi futuram esse Ecclesiam, i.e., e mundo evocatum vel collectum coetum fi-
delium, sanctorum inquam omnium communionem, eorum videlicet, qui Deum
verum in Christo servatore per verbum et Spiritum Sanctum vere cognoscunt et
rite colunt, denique omnibus bonis per Christum gratuito oblatis fide partici-
pant.”8 Confessio Gallicana: “Affirmamus ex Dei verbo, Ecclesiam esse fi-
delium coetum, qui in verbo Dei sequendo et pura religione colenda consentiunt,
in qua etiam quotidie proficiunt.”9 Confessio Belgica: “Credimus et confitemur
unicam Ecclesiam catholicam seu universalem, quae est sancta congregatio seu
coetus omnium fidelium Christianorum, qui totam suam salutem ab uno Jesu
Christo exspectant, abluti ipsius sanguine et per Spiritum ejus sanctificati atque
obsignati. Haec Ecclesia sancta nullo est aut certo loco sita et circumscripta, aut
ullis certis personis astricta aut alligata: sed per omnem orbem terrarum sparsa
atque diffusa est.”10 The same doctrine is found in the answer to the fifty-fourth
question in the Heidelberg Catechism. In the Geneva Catechism to the question,
“Quid est Ecclesia? “ the answer is, “Corpus ac societas fidelium, quos Deus ad
vitam aeternam praedestinavit.”11
Winer in his “Comparative Darstellung,”12 thus briefly states the two theories
concerning the Church. Romanists, he says, “define the Church on earth, as the
community of those baptized in the name of Christ, united under his Vicar, the
Pope, its visible head. Protestants, on the other hand, as the communion of
saints, that is, of those who truly believe on Christ, in which the gospel is purely
preached and the sacraments properly administered.”

Proof of the Protestant Doctrine of the Church.

This is not the place to enter upon a formal vindication of the Protestant doc-
trine of the nature of the Church. That belongs to the department of ecclesiology.
What follows may suffice for the present purpose.
The question is not whether the word Church is not properly used, and in
accordance with the Scriptures, for visible, organized bodies of professing
Christians, or for all such Christians collectively considered. Nor is it the ques-
tion, whether we are to regard as Christians those who, being free from scandal,
profess their faith in Christ, or societies of such professors organized for the
worship of Christ and the administration of his discipline, as being true
churches. But the question is, whether the Church to which the attributes, pre-
rogatives, and promises pertaining to the body of Christ belong, is in its nature
a visible, organized community; and specially, whether it is a community orga-
nized in some one exclusive form, and most specially on the papal form; or,
whether it is a spiritual body consisting of true believers. Whether when the
Bible addresses a body of men as “the called of Jesus Christ,” “beloved of God,”
“partakers of the heavenly calling;” as “the children of God, joint heirs with
Christ of a heavenly inheritance;” as “elect according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father, through sanctification and sprinkling of the blood of Christ;” as
“partakers of the like precious faith with the Apostles;” as “those who are

6
washed, and sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the
Spirit of our God;” as those who being dead in sin, had been “quickened and
raised up and made to sit together in heavenly places with Christ Jesus;” it
means the members of an external society as such, and because such, or, the true
people of God? The question is, whether when to the men thus designated and
described, Christ promised to be with them to the end of the world, to give them
his Spirit, to guide them unto the knowledge of the truth, to keep them through
the power of the Spirit, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against them,
he means his sincere or his nominal disciples,—believers or unbelievers? These
questions admit of but one answer. The attributes ascribed to the Church in
Scripture belong to true believers alone. The promises made to the Church are
fulfilled only to believers. The relation in which the Church stands to God and
Christ is sustained alone by true believers. They only are the children and heirs
of God; they only are the body of Christ in which He dwells by his Spirit; they
only are the temple of God, the bride of Christ, the partakers of his glory. The
doctrine that a man becomes a child of God and an heir of eternal life by mem-
bership in any external society, overturns the very foundations of the gospel,
and introduces a new method of salvation. Yet this is the doctrine on which the
whole system of Romanism rests. As, therefore, the Apostle shows that the
promises made to Israel under the Old Testament, the promise of perpetuity, of
extension over the whole earth, of the favour and fellowship of God, and all the
blessings of the Messiah’s reign, were not made to the external Israel as such,
but to the true people of God; so Protestants contend that the promises made to
the Church as the body and bride of Christ are not made to the external body of
professed Christians, but to those who truly believe on him and obey his gospel.
The absurdities which flow from the substitution of the visible Church for the
invisible, from transferring the attributes, prerogatives, and promises which be-
long to true believers, to an organized body of nominal or professed believers,
are so great that Romanists cannot be consistent. They cannot adhere to their
own theory. They are forced to admit that the wicked are not really members of
the Church. They are “in it” but not “of it.” Their connection with it is merely
external, as that of the chaff’ with the wheat. This, however, is the Protestant
doctrine. The Romish doctrine is precisely the reverse. Romanists teach that the
chaff is the wheat; that the chaff becomes wheat by external connection with the
precious grain. Just so certain, therefore, as that chaff is not wheat; that nominal
Christians, as such, are not true Christians; just so certain is it that no external
society consisting of good and bad, is that Church to which the promise of
Christ’s presence and salvation is made. It is as Turrettin says,13 “proton pseu-
dos pontificiorum in tota controversia est, ecclesiam metiri velle ex societatis
civilis modulo, ut ejus essentia in externis tantum et in sensus incurrentibus con-
sistat, et sola professio fidei sufficiat ad membrum ecclesiae constituendum, nec
ipsa fides et pietas interna ad id necessario requirantur.”

D. The Doctrine of Infallibility founded on

the False Assumption of the Perpetuity of the Apostleship.

As the first argument against the doctrine of Romanists as to the infallibility

of the Church is, that it makes the Church of Rome to be the body to which the
attributes, prerogatives, and promises of Christ to true believers belong; the sec-
ond is that it limits the promise of the teaching of the Spirit, to the bishops as

7
successors of the Apostles. In other words, Romanists falsely assume the per-
petuity of the Apostleship. If it be true that the prelates of the Church of Rome,
or of any other church, are apostles, invested with the same authority to teach
and to rule as the original messengers of Christ, then we must be bound to yield
the same faith to their teaching, and the same obedience to their commands, as
are due to the inspired writings of the New Testament. And such is the doctrine
of the Church of Rome.

Modern Prelates are not Apostles.

To determine whether modern bishops are apostles, it is necessary in the first

place to determine the nature of the Apostleship, and ascertain whether modern
prelates have the gifts, qualifications, and credentials of the office. Who then
were the Apostles? They were a definite number of men selected by Christ to
be his witnesses, to testify to his doctrines, to the facts of his life, to his death,
and specially to his resurrection. To qualify them for this office of authoritative
witnesses, it was necessary, (1.) That they should have independent and plenary
knowledge of the gospel. (2.) That they should have seen Christ after his resur-
rection. (3.) That they should be inspired, i.e., that they should be individually
and severally so guided by the Spirit as to be infallible in all their instructions.
(4.) That they should be authenticated as the messengers of Christ, by adherence
to the true gospel, by success in preaching (Paul said to the Corinthians that they
were the seal of his apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 2); and by signs and wonders and
divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost. Such were the gifts and qualifica-
tions and credentials of the original Apostles; and those who claimed the office
without possessing these gifts and credentials, were pronounced false apostles
and messengers of Satan.
When Paul claimed to be an apostle, he felt it necessary to prove, (1.) That
he had been appointed not by man nor through men, but immediately by Jesus
Christ. (Gal. i. 1.) (2.) That he had not been taught the gospel by others, but
received his knowledge by immediate revelation. (Gal. i. 12.) (3.) That he had
seen Christ after his resurrection. (1 Cor. ix. 1 and xv. 8.) (4.) That he was in-
spired, or infallible as a teacher, so that men were bound to recognize his teach-
ings as the teaching of Christ. (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) (5.) That the Lord had authenti-
cated his apostolic mission as fully as he had done that of Peter. (Gal. ii. 8.) (6.)
“The signs of an apostle,” he tells the Corinthians, “were wrought among you
in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” (2 Cor. xii. 12.)
Modern prelates do not claim to possess any one of these gifts. Nor do they
pretend to the credentials which authenticated the mission of the Apostles of
Christ. They claim no immediate commission; no independent knowledge de-
rived from immediate revelation; no personal infallibility; no vision of Christ;
and no gift of miracles. That is, they claim the authority of the office, but not its
reality. It is very plain, therefore, that they are not apostles. They cannot have
the authority of the office without having the gifts on which that authority was
founded, and from which it emanated. If a man cannot be a prophet without the
gift of prophecy; or a miracle-worker without the gift of miracles; or have the
gift of tongues without the ability to speak other languages than his own; no
man can rightfully claim to be an apostle without possessing the gifts which
made the original Apostles what they were. The deaf and dumb might as rea-
sonably claim to have the gift of tongues. The world has never seen or suffered

8
a greater imposture than that weak, ignorant, and often immoral men, should
claim the same authority to teach and rule that belonged to men to whom the
truth was supernaturally revealed, who were confessedly infallible in its com-
munication, and to whose divine mission God himself bore witness in signs and
wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost. The office of the
Apostles, as described in the New Testament, was, therefore, from its nature
incapable of being transmitted, and has not in fact been perpetuated.
There is no command given in the New Testament to keep up the succession
of the Apostles. When Judas had apostatized, Peter said his place must be filled,
but the selection was to be confined to those, as he said, “which have companied
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning
from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us.”
(Acts i. 21, 22.) The reason assigned for this appointment was not that the
Apostleship might be continued, but that the man selected might be “a witness
with us of his resurrection.” “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon
Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.” And that was the
end. We never hear of Matthias afterward. It is very doubtful whether this ap-
pointment of Matthias had any validity. What is here recorded (Acts, i. 15-26),
took place before the Apostles had been endued with power from on high (Acts
i. 8), and, therefore, before they had any authority to act in the premises. Christ
in his own time and way completed the number of his witnesses by calling Paul
to be an Apostle. But, however this may be, here if ever exceptio probat regu-
lam. It proves that the ranks of the Apostles could be filled, and the succession
continued only from the number of those who could bear independent witness
of the resurrection and doctrines of Christ.
Besides the fact that there is no command to appoint apostles, there is clear
evidence that the office was not designed to be perpetuated. With regard to all
the permanent officers of the Church, there is, (1.) Not only a promise to con-
tinue the gifts which pertained to the office, and the command to appoint suita-
ble persons to fill it, but also a specification of the qualifications to be sought
and demanded; and (2.) a record of the actual appointment of incumbents; and
(3.) historical evidence of their continuance in the Church from that day to this.
With regard to the Apostleship, all this is wanting. As we have seen, the gifts of
the office have not been continued, there is no command to perpetuate the office,
no directions to guide the Church in the selection of proper persons to be apos-
tles, no record of their appointment, and no historical evidence of their contin-
uance; on the contrary, they disappear entirely after the death of the original
twelve. It might as well be asserted that the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the twelve
Caesars of Rome have been continued, as that the race of apostles has been
perpetuated.
It is true that there are a few passages in which persons other than the original
twelve seem to be designated as apostles. But from the beginning of the Church
until of late, no one has ventured on that account to regard Barnabas, Silas,
Timothy, and Titus, as apostles, in the official sense of the word. All the desig-
nations given to the officers of the Church in the New Testament, are used in
different senses. Thus, “presbyter “ or “elder,” means, an old man, a Jewish
officer, an officer of the Church. The word “deacon,” means, a domestic, some-
times a secular officer, sometimes any minister of the Church; sometimes the
lowest order of church officers. Because Paul and Peter call themselves “dea-
cons,” it does not prove that their office was to serve tables. In like manner the

9
word “apostle” is sometimes used in its etymological sense “a messenger,”
sometimes in a religious sense, as we use the word “missionary; “ and some-
times in its strict official sense, in which it is confined to the immediate mes-
sengers of Christ. Nothing can be plainer from the New Testament than that
neither Silas nor Timothy, nor any other person, is ever spoken of as the official
equal of the twelve Apostles. These constitute a class by themselves. They stand
out in the New Testament as they do in all Church history, as the authoritative
founders of the Christian Church, without peers or colleagues.
If, then, the Apostleship, from its nature and design, was incapable of trans-
mission; if there be this decisive evidence from Scripture and history, that it has
not been perpetuated, then the whole theory of the Romanists concerning the
Church falls to the ground. That theory is founded on the assumption that prel-
ates are apostles, invested with the same authority to teach and rule, as the orig-
inal messengers of Christ. If this assumption is unfounded, then all claim to the
infallibility of the Church must be given up; for it is not pretended that the mass
of the people is infallible nor the priesthood, but simply the episcopate. And
bishops are infallible only on the assumption that they are apostles, in the offi-
cial sense of the term. This they certainly are not. The Church may make priests,
and bishops, and even popes; but Christ alone can make an Apostle. For an
Apostle was a man endowed with supernatural knowledge, and with supernatu-
ral power.

E. Infallibility founded on a
False Interpretation of the Promise of Christ.

The third decisive argument against the infallibility of the Church is that
Christ never promised to preserve it from all error. What is here meant is that
Christ never promised the true Church, that is, “the company of true believers,”
that they should not err in doctrine. He did promise that they should not fatally
apostatize from the truth. He did promise that He would grant his true disciples
such a measure of divine guidance by his Spirit, that they should know enough
to be saved. He, moreover, promised that He would call men into the ministry,
and give them the qualifications of faithful teachers, such as were the presbyters
whom the Apostles ordained in every city. But there is no promise of infallibility
either to the Church as a whole, or to any class of men in the Church. Christ
promised to sanctify his people; but this was not a promise to make them per-
fectly holy in this life. He promised to give them joy and peace in believing; but
this is not a promise to make them perfectly happy in this life,—that they should
have no trials or sorrows. Then, why should the promise to teach be a promise
to render infallible. As the Church has gone through the world bathed in tears
and blood, so has she gone soiled with sin and error. It is just as manifest that
she has never been infallible, as that she has never been perfectly holy. Christ
no more promised the one than the other.

F. The Doctrine contradicted by Facts.

The fourth argument is that the Romish doctrine of the infallibility of the
Church is contradicted by undeniable historical facts. It therefore cannot be true.
The Church has often erred, and therefore it is not infallible.

10
 Protestants believe that the Church, under all dispensations, has been the
same. It has always had the same God; the same Redeemer; the same rule of
faith and practice (the written Word of God, at least from the time of Moses),
the same promise of the presence and guidance of the Spirit, the same pledge of
perpetuity and triumph. To them, therefore, the fact that the whole visible
Church repeatedly apostatized during the old economy—and that, not the peo-
ple only, but all the representatives of the Church, the priests, the Levites, and
the elders—is a decisive proof that the external, visible Church may fatally err
in matters of faith. No less decisive is the fact that the whole Jewish Church and
people, as a church and nation, rejected Christ. He came to his own, and his own
received him not. The vast majority of the people, the chief priests, the scribes
and the elders, refused to recognize him as the Messiah. The Sanhedrim, the
great representative body of the Church at that time, pronounced him worthy of
death, and demanded his crucifixion. This, to Protestants, is overwhelming
proof that the Church may err.
Romanists, however, make such a difference between the Church before and
after the advent of Christ, that they do not admit the force of this argument. That
the Jewish Church erred, they say, is no proof that the Christian Church can err.
It will be necessary, therefore, to show that according to the principles and ad-
missions of Romanists themselves, the Church has erred. It taught at one time
what it condemned at another, and what the Church of Rome now condemns.
To prove this, it will suffice to refer to two undeniable examples.
It is to be borne in mind that by the Church, in this connection, Romanists do
not mean the true people of God; nor the body of professing Christians; nor the
majority of priests, or doctors of divinity, but the episcopate. What the body of
bishops of any age teach, all Christians are bound to believe, because these bish-
ops are so guided by the Spirit as to be infallible in their teaching.

The Arian Apostasy.

The first great historical fact inconsistent with this theory is, that the great
majority of the bishops, both of the Eastern and Western Church, including the
Pope of Rome, taught Arianism, which the whole Church, both before and af-
terwards, condemned. The decision of three hundred and eighty bishops at the
Council of Nice, ratified by the assent of the great majority of those who did not
attend that Council, is fairly taken as proof that the visible Church at that time
taught, as Rome now teaches, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. The
fact that some dissented at the time, or that more soon joined in that dissent; or,
that in a few years, in the East, the dissentients were in the majority, is not con-
sidered as invalidating the decision of that Council as the decision of the
Church; because a majority of the bishops, as a body, were still in favor of the
Nicene doctrine. Then, by parity of reasoning, the decisions of the two contem-
porary councils, one at Seleucia in the East, the other at Ariminum in the West,
including nearly eight hundred bishops, ratified as those decisions were by the
great majority of the bishops of the whole Church (including Liberius, the
bishop of Rome), must be accepted as the teaching of the visible Church of that
age. But those decisions, according to the previous and subsequent judgment of
the Church, were heretical. It has been urged that the language adopted by the
Council of Ariminum admits of an orthodox interpretation. In answer to this, it
is enough to say, (1.) That it was drawn up, proposed, and urged by the avowed

11
opponents of the Nicene Creed. (2.) That it was strenuously resisted by the ad-
vocates of that creed, and renounced as soon as they gained the ascendancy. (3.)
That Mr. Palmer himself admits that the Council repudiated the word “consub-
stantial” as expressing the relation of the Son to the Father. But this was the
precise point in dispute between the Orthodox and semi-Arians.
Ancients and moderns unite in testifying to the general prevalence of Arian-
ism at that time. Gregory Nazianzen says,14 “Nam si perpaucos exceperis, . . . .
omnes (pastores) tempori obsecuti Bunt: hoc tantum inter eos discriminis fuit,
quod alii citius, alii serius in eam fraudem inciderunt, atque, alii impietatis duces
antistitesque se praebuerunt.” Jerome says: “Ingemuit totus orbis terrarum, et
Arianum se esse miratus est.”15 He also says:16 “Ecclesia non parietibus consis-
tit, sed in dogmatum veritate, Ecclesia ibi est ubi fides vera est. Ceterum ante
annos quindecim aut viginti parietes omnes hie ecclesiarum haeretici (Ariani)
possidebant, Ecclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi vera fides erat.” It is here asserted
that the whole world had become Arian; and that all the churches were in the
possession of heretics. These statements must be taken with due allowance.
They nevertheless prove that the great majority of the bishops had adopted the
Arian, or semi-Arian Creed. To the same effect Athanasius says “Quae nunc
ecclesia libere Christum adorat? Si quidem ea, si pia est, periculo subjacet? . . .
. Nam si alicubi pit et Christi studiosi (sunt autem ubique tales permulti) illi
itidem, ut Prophetae et magnus ille Elias, absconduntur, . . . . et in speluncas et
cavernas terrm sese abstrudunt, aut in solitudine aberrantes commorantur.”17
Vincent of Lerins18 says: “Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam
quamdam, sed gene orbem totum contaminaverat, adeo ut prope cunctis Latini
sermonis episcopis partim vi partim fraude deceptis caligo quaedam mentibus
effunderetur.” To these ancient testimonies any number of authorities from
modern theologians might be added. We give only the testimony of Dr. Jackson,
one of the most distinguished theologians of the Church of England: “After this
defection of the Romish Church in the bishop Liberius, the whole Roman em-
pire was overspread with Arianism.”19
Whatever doubt may exist as to details, the general fact of this apostasy can-
not be doubted. Through defection from the truth, through the arts of the domi-
nant party, through the influence of the emperor, the great majority of the bish-
ops did join in condemnation of Athanasius, and in subscribing a formula of
doctrine drawn up in opposition to the Nicene Creed; a formula afterwards re-
nounced and condemned; a formula which the Bishop of Rome was banished
for two years for refusing to sign, and restored to his see when he consented to
subscribe. If, then, we apply to this case the same rules which are applied to the
decisions of the Nicene Council, it must be admitted that the external Church
apostatized as truly under Constantius, as it professed the true faith under Con-
stantine. If many signed the Eusebian or Arian formula insincerely, so did many
hypocritically assent to the decrees of Nice. If many were overborne by author-
ity and fear in the one case, so they were in the other. If many revoked their
assent to Arianism, quite as many withdrew their consent to the Athanasian doc-
trine.

The Romish Evasion of this Argument.

In dealing with this undeniable fact, Romanists and Romanizers are forced to
abandon their principle. Their doctrine is that the external Church cannot err,

12
that the majority of the bishops living at any one time cannot fail to teach the
truth. But under the reign of the Emperor Constantius, it is undeniable that the
vast majority, including the Bishop of Rome, did renounce the truth. But, says
Bellarmine,20 the Church continued and was conspicuous in Athanasius, Hilary,
Eusebius, and others. And Mr. Palmer, of Oxford says,21 “The truth was pre-
served under even Arian bishops.” But the question is not, whether the truth
shall be preserved and confessed by the true children of God? but, whether any
external, organized body, and specially the Church of Rome, can err in its teach-
ing? Romanists cannot be allowed, merely to meet an emergency, to avail them-
selves of the Protestant doctrine that the Church may consist of scattered believ-
ers. It is true as Jerome teaches in the passage above quoted, “Ubi fides vera est,
ibi Ecclesia est.” But that is our doctrine, and not the doctrine of Rome.
Protestants say with full confidence, “Ecclesia manet et manebit.” But whether
in conspicuous glory as in the time of David, or in scattered believers as in the
days of Elias, is not essential.

The Church of Rome rejects the Doctrines of Augustine.

A second case in which the external church (and specially the Church of
Rome) has departed from what it had itself declared to be true, is in the rejection
of the doctrines known in history as Augustinian. That the peculiar doctrines of
Augustine, including the doctrine of sinful corruption of nature derived from
Adam, which is spiritual death, and involves entire inability on the part of the
sinner to convert himself or to cooperate in his own regeneration; the necessity
of the certainly efficacious operation of divine grace; the sovereignty of God in
election and reprobation, and the certain perseverance of the saints; were sanc-
tioned by the whole Church, and specially by the Church of Rome, cannot be
disputed. The eighteenth chapter of Wiggers’ “Augustinianism and Pelagian-
ism,” is headed, “The final adoption of the Augustinian system for all Christen-
dom by the third ecumenical council of Ephesus, A.D. 431.” It is not denied that
many of the eastern bishops, perhaps the majority of them, were secretly op-
posed to that system in its essential features. All that is insisted upon is that the
whole Church, through what Romanists recognize as its official organs, gave its
sanction to Augustine’s peculiar doctrines; and that so far as the Latin Church
is concerned this assent was not only for the time general but cordial. It is no
less certain that the Council of Trent, while it condemned Pelagianism, and even
the peculiar doctrine of semi-Pelagians, who said that man began the work of
conversion, thus denying the necessity of preventing grace (gratia preveniens),
nevertheless repudiated the distinguishing doctrines of Augustine and anathe-
matized all who held them.

G. The Church of Rome now teaches Error.

A fifth argument against the infallibility of the Church of Rome is that, that
Church now teaches error. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt, if the Scrip-
tures be admitted as the standard of judgment.
1. It is a monstrous error, contrary to the Bible, to its letter and spirit, and
shocking to the common sense of mankind, that the salvation of men should be
suspended on their acknowledging the Pope to be the head of the Church in the
world, or the vicar of Christ. This makes salvation independent of faith and

13
character. A man may be sincere and intelligent in his faith in God and Christ,
and perfectly exemplary in his Christian life, yet if he does not acknowledge the
Pope, he must perish forever.
2. It is a grievous error, contrary to the express teachings of the Bible, that
the sacraments are the only channels of communicating to men the benefits of
redemption. In consequence of this false assumption, Romanists teach that all
who die unbaptized, even infants, are lost.
3. It is a great error to teach as the Church of Rome does teach that the min-
isters of the gospel are priests; that the people have no access to God or Christ,
and cannot obtain the remission of sins or other saving blessings, except through
their intervention and by their ministrations; that the priests have the power not
only of declarative, but of judicial and effective absolution, so that those and
those only whom they absolve stand acquitted at the bar of God. This was the
grand reason for the Reformation, which was a rebellion against this priestly
domination; a demand on the part of the people for the liberty wherewith Christ
had made them free, the liberty to go immediately to him with their sins and
sorrows, and find relief without the intervention or permission of any man who
has no better right of access than themselves.
4. The doctrine of the merit of good works as taught by Romanists is another
most prolific error. They hold that works done after regeneration have real merit
(meritum condigni), and that they are the ground of the sinner’s justification
before God. They hold that a man may do more than the law requires of him,
and perform works of supererogation, and thus obtain more merit than is neces-
sary for his own salvation and beatification. That this superfluous merit goes
into the treasury of the Church, and may be dispensed for the benefit of others.
On this ground indulgences are granted or sold, to take effect not only in this
life but in the life to come.
5. With this is connected the further error concerning Purgatory. The Church
of Rome teaches that those dying in the communion of the Church, who have
not in this life made full satisfaction for their sins, or acquired sufficient merit
to entitle them to admission into heaven, do at death pass into a state of suffer-
ing, there to remain until due satisfaction is made and proper purification is ef-
fected. There is no necessary termination to this state of purgatory but the day
of judgment or the end of the world. It may last for a thousand or many thou-
sands of years. But Purgatory is under the power of the keys. The sufferings of
souls in that state may be alleviated or shortened by the authorized ministers of
the Church. There is no limit to the power of men who are believed to hold the
keys of heaven in their hand, to shut and no man opens, and open and no man
shuts. Of all incredibilities the most incredible is that God would commit such
power as this, to weak, ignorant, and often wicked men.
6. The Romish Church teaches grievous error concerning the Lord’s Supper.
It teaches, (1.) That when consecrated by the priest the whole substance of the
bread and the whole substance of the wine are transmuted into the substance of
the body and blood of Christ. (2.) That as his body is inseparable from his soul
and divinity, where the one is there the other must be. The whole Christ, there-
fore, body, soul, and divinity, is present in the consecrated wafer, which is to be
worshipped as Christ himself is worshipped. This is the reason why the Church
of England in her Homilies pronounces the service of the Mass in the Romish
Church idolatrous. (3.) That Church further teaches that the body and blood of
Christ thus locally and substantially present in the Eucharist are offered as a true

14
propitiatory sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin, the application of which is de-
termined by the intention of the officiating priests.
7. Idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but in the worship
of the true God by images. The second Commandment of the Decalogue ex-
pressly forbids the bowing down to, or serving the likeness of anything in
heaven above or in the earth beneath. In the Hebrew the words used are,
shackanah and (xxx). In the Septuagint the words are, ou proskuneseis autois,
oude me latreuseis autois. In the Vulgate it reads, “Non adorabis ea neque
coles.” The precise thing, therefore, that is forbidden is that which the Church
of Rome permits and enjoins, namely, the use of images in religious worship,
prostration before them, and doing them reverence.
8. Another great error of the Church of Rome is the worship of saints and
angels, and especially of the Virgin Mary. It is not merely that they are regarded
as objects of reverence, but that the service rendered them involves the ascrip-
tion of divine attributes. They are assumed to be everywhere present, able to
hear and answer prayer, to help and to save. They become the ground of confi-
dence to the people, and the objects of their religious affections. They are to
them precisely what the gods of the heathen were to the Greeks and Romans.
Such are some of the errors taught by the Church of Rome, and they prove
that that Church instead of being infallible, is so corrupt that it is the duty of the
people of God to come out of it and to renounce its fellowship.

H. The Recognition of an Infallible Church incompatible

with either Religious or Civil Liberty.

A church which claims to be infallible, ipso facto, claims to be the mistress

of the world; and those who admit its infallibility, thereby admit their entire
subjection to its authority. It avails nothing to say that this infallibility is limited
to matters of faith and morals, for under those heads is included the whole life
of man, religious, moral, domestic, social, and political.
A church which claims the right to decide what is true in doctrine and oblig-
atory in morals, and asserts the power to enforce submission to its decisions on
the pain of eternal perdition, leaves no room for any other authority upon earth.
In the presence of the authority of God, every other disappears.
With the claim to infallibility is inseparably connected the claim to pardon
sin. The Church does not assume merely the right to declare the conditions on
which sin will be forgiven at the bar of God, but it asserts that it has the prerog-
ative to grant, or to withhold that forgiveness. “Ego to Absolvo,” is the formula
the Church puts into the mouth of its priesthood. Those who receive that abso-
lution are saved; those whom the Church refuses to absolve must bear the pen-
alty of their offences.
An infallible church is thus the only institute of salvation. All within its pale
are saved; all without it perish. Those only are in the Church who believe what
it teaches, who do what it commands, and are subject to its officers, and espe-
cially its head, the Roman pontiff. Any man, therefore, whom the Church ex-
communicates is thereby shut out of the kingdom of heaven; any nation placed
under its ban is not only deprived of the consolations of religious services, but
of the necessary means of salvation.
If the Church be infallible, its authority is no less absolute in the sphere of
social and political life. It is immoral to contract or to continue an unlawful

15
marriage, to keep an unlawful oath, to enact unjust laws, to obey a sovereign
hostile to the Church. The Church, therefore, has the right to dissolve marriages,
to free men from the obligations of their oaths, and citizens from their alle-
giance, to abrogate civil laws, and to depose sovereigns. These prerogatives
have not only been claimed, but time and again exercised by the Church of
Rome. They all of right belong to that Church, if it be infallible. As these claims
are enforced by penalties involving the loss of the soul, they cannot be resisted
by those who admit the Church to be infallible. It is obvious, therefore, that
where this doctrine is held there can be no liberty of opinion, no freedom of
conscience, no civil or political freedom. As the recent ecumenical Council of
the Vatican has decided that this infallibility is vested in the Pope, it is hence-
forth a matter of faith with Romanists, that the Roman pontiff is the absolute
sovereign of the world. All men are bound, on the penalty of eternal death, to
believe what he declares to be true, and to do whatever he decides is obligatory.

FOOTNOTES
1 De Ecclesia Militante, III. Disputationes, edit. Paris, 1608, vol. ii. p. 108, d.

2 Augsburg Confession, art. 7.

3 Ibid. art. 8.

4 Apol. A. C., art. 4, pp. 144, 145, Hale.

5 Ibid. p. 146.

6 See Hase, Libri Symbolici.

7 See Niemeyer, Coll. Confess.

8 II. cap. 17, p. 499, Niem.

9 Art. 27, p. 336, ibid.

10 Art. 27, p. 379, ibid.

11 Page 135, ibid.

12 Page 165.

13 Locus XVIII. ii. 12.

14 Orat. xxi. t. i. p. 387, edition Paris, 1609.

15 Dialogus contra Luciferanos, 19, vol. ii. p. 172 c., edit. Migne, Paris, 1845.

16 Comment. on Ps. cxxxiii., vol. vii. p. 1223 a, edit. Migne.

17 “Ad Solitariam Vitam Agentes Epist.,” Works, p. 846, edit. Paris, 1627.

18 Comm. I. iv. p. 642, Vol. 1. Migne. Patrol., Paris, 1846.

19 On the Church, p. 160. Edited by W. Goode. Philadelphia, 1844.

20 De Eccclesia, lib. iii. c.16.

16
21 On the Church, vol. ii. p. 187.

17