infallibility of the Pope. It would not, however, follow that by proving the Church's infallibility, the infallibility of the Pope could thence be enforced. And as according to Cardinal Manning the Church is infallible because the Pope is infallible, therefore if the Pope's infallibility cannot be proved, then, neither can the Church's infallibility be established. Again, as the absolute certainty for the infallibility of the Pope must rest on the absolute certainty absolute certainty "that Pius IX. is the successor of St. Peter, by legitimate election," and that "St. Peter was Bishop of Rome," therefore no proofs will be sufficient unless they include those propositions. If a single link in the chain of evidence is wanting, Rome's cause is lost.

25.-INFALLIBILITY: What do we mean when we speak of infallibility?

A few words on this may be desirable before the discussion of the question as to the infallibility of Church or Pope.

Dean Sherlock states the matter with great clearness and precision. He says:-"First, then, I observe that infallibility belongs to persons, not to things. A proposition cannot be fallible, or infallible, but true or false; for fallible signifies that which can be deceived, infallible that which cannot be deceived, and therefore can be applied only to intelligent beings, who are capable of either." "Secondly, perfect infallibillity is nothing else but an universal certainty of knowledge; as, for instance, God only is infallible by nature." +

Sherlock goes on to to show that God's infallibility arises from His infinite knowledge. That, as He knows all things, He cannot make a mistake. That infallibility and certainty in God are one and the same thing, and the difference between the certainty of creatures and the infallibility of God is, that the one is a finite, and the other an infinite knowledge. That, a finite knowledge which does not extend to everything may in some things be deceived, but that, as far as it extends, it may be certain, and that a fallible * Vatican Council.

+ Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversies. Gibson's Preservative against Popery, vol. iv. p. 304, London, 1848.

being is not one who can never be certain, but one who has not a natural knowledge of all things, and, therefore, may be deceived in those things outside the sphere of his knowledge.

26. This leads us to an enquiry as to the nature of the evidence required to prove the infallibility of the Church and Pope. As this doctrine is now made an article of Divine faith, it can only be proved by such evidence as produces an absolute certainty in the mind. That this is a principle recognized, nay asserted, by Rome will appear from the following extracts from Keenan.

Q.-" Can Protestants have Divine faith?

A. "NO: because Divine faith is incompatible with doubt, and the faith of a Protestant must ever be accompanied by doubt." He then speaks of the qualities of Divine faith, and says they are found "only amongst Catholics." He asks: Q.-" Is not the written Word of God alone a sufficient rule of faith ?"

A. "No; because it is susceptible of different senses, and the interpreter may give it a wrong sense. Hence, that it may be to us an infallible rule of true faith, we must be absolutety certain that we understand the disputed passages correctly."

Q.-" Have Catholics on this head any certainty ?"

A.—“Their certainty is entire, because they receive from the Church, which they prove to be infallible, the exposition of the Scriptures."

Q.-"Have not Protestants this same certainty ?"

A.-"No; for each Protestant explains the Scripture according to his own particular light, or fancy, or prejudice. Hence, he never can be certain that he is right, as he can never be absolutely certain that he is not deceived in his interpretation." *

27. ABSOLUTE AND MORAL CERTAINTY.-Here, then, is a plain distinction made between absolute, or, as he sometimes expresses it, infallible certainty and moral certainty. Absolute certainty is necessary for Divine faith. Moral certainty is insufficient. Romanists have the former, Protestants the latter only. Hence, the Romanist has Divine faith-the Protestant has not. The Romanist is absolutely certain that he is right; the Protestant "can never be certain that he is right." In the next answer, Keenan particularises certain important points, on which, as he alleges, Protestants have no real certainty :

* Controv. Cat. p. 46.

Q.-" Show us why those who are not Catholics can have no other than a doubting, or vacillating faith?"

A." It is because there are three essential points upon which they have no real certainty. They have no real certainty as to the canon of Scripture; they have none as regards their versions, or translations, of Scripture; and they can never be certain that their interpretations are the genuine meaning of God's Word" (p. 47).

In another chapter I shall show the utter baselessness of Keenan's assumptions regarding the certainty which Protestants have with regard to the canon, versions, translations, and interpretations of Scripture. I shall also prove that the position in which he endeavours to place Protestants is precisely that which he himself, the four bishops who have endorsed his statements, and all other Romanists, are compelled to occupy. At present I content myself with drawing attention to the fact that, in the case of the Romanist, he is bound to show that he has absolute certainty of the entire conclusiveness of the proof on which he grounds the infallibility of the Church and Pope. This I shall press again and again, as I examine the arguments in detail.*

* Moral Certainty Sufficient to Prove the Protestant Rule."But against the Protestant rule, Mr. Brown has argued that, whatever presumptive evidence may be adduced in favour of it, yet we must remember that presumptive evidence is never sufficient. It only, he says, produces moral certainty, not actual demonstration. Allow me to reply by saying that we are believing and acting every day of our lives upon moral certainty, and we do not refuse our assent to things simply because they are capable of being proved in the way of mathematical demonstration. A philosopher of great celebrity said, some things are incapable of demonstration,' yet they are as fully believed to be true as if they could be actually demonstrated. How do we know, for example, the genuineness and authenticity of any book-take any ancient historian, or any of the poets-or how do we know—(suppose none of us in this place have ever been in India)—how do we know, I say, that there is such a place? We have no actual demonstration that there is, nor have we actual demonstration of the authenticity of any ancient book. Why do we, then, believe that there is such a place as India, or that such a book is authentic? Simply on the ground of moral certainty, arising from a species of evidence which we deem worthy of credit. Therefore, presumptive evidence, upon this principle, may, in the present case, be admitted as a valid kind of argument."-Rev. E. Tottenham, Downside Discussion, p. 56.

CHAPTER VII.

INFALLIBILITY.

SYNOPSIS.

1. Argument from Reason for infallibility. Keenan cited.

2. Answer. On the same principle we ought to be ourselves infallible. Chillingworth's answer given in a note.

3. On the same principle there ought to be an infallible judge to keep us from sin in practice. Any Church could plead the necessity as well as the Church of Rome.

4. Argument against, from the analogy of the State to the Church.

5. If there is absolute certainty for the argument from reason, then absolute certainty for an article of faith can be had without the Church. If there is no absolute certainty, the argument cannot prove infallibility.

6. Keenan supposes an objection to the above. Answered on his own principle of reasoning.

7. The mode of reasoning by which Romanists prove the Divine authority of the Scriptures. "The vicious circle." The Church proves the authority of the Scriptures, and, vice versa, the Scriptures prove the authority of the Church.

8. If the Romanist proves the Scripture by evidence, this leads to (1) absolute, or (2) moral certainty. If to absolute certainty, it can be had without the Church; if to moral certainty, the Protestant has the

same.

9. Illustration of the Romish principle, requiring absolute certainty. 10. The certainty of the judge's decision cannot be greater than that of his infallibility. Chillingworth, note.

11. Argument from infallibility of the Jewish Church. Jewish teachers were to be obeyed, therefore they were infallible.

12. Answer. On the same principle the civil magistrates are infallible, Rom. xiii. 1, 2; masters are infallible, Eph. vi. 5; husbands are infallible, Eph. v. 22, &c.

13. The Jewish Church proved to be fallible, Isaiah lvi. 10, 11, ch. i. 3, 4 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 1-8.

14. The argument from Mal. ii. 7, "The people commanded to seek the law from the lips of the priesthood" (Keenan). The Jewish Church fell into idolatry.

15. The Jewish Church rejected our Saviour.

16. The Jewish Church excluded the apocryphal books from the canon. If it was right, Rome is wrong.

17. The infallibility of the Jewish Church would not imply the infallibility of the Church of Rome.

18. Reason why Keenan is so often referred to. Romish proofs from Old Testament, Isaiah ii. 3. Answer. This does not refer to Rome at all, &c. If it proved infallibility, it would also prove impeccability. 19. Isaiah liv. 17; Isaiah lx. 12. Answer. No reference to Rome, or to infallibility. These texts explained.

20. Ezek. xliv. 23. Answer. The preface to this chap. in the Douay Bible applies the whole passage to the Jewish priesthood. Psal. cxxxii. 13; Isaiah liv. 4.

21. Isaiah lx. 15 and 18. Answer. The note in the Douay Bible refers the passage, verse 18, to the Church triumphant in heaven.

22. Ezek. xxxiv. 22; Isaiah xxxv. 5, ch. lxi. 8. Answer.-All these texts refer to the Church of Christ, and not to the Church of Rome. 23. Isaiah lix. 20. Answer.-If this proves infallibility, it also proves impeccability, and also of each member of the Church. St. Paul refers this verse to the general restoration of the Jews, &c.

24. Jer. xxxii. 39; Ezek. xxxvii. 24. Answer.-Keenan garbles the passage in Ezek. It refers to the Jewish Church subsequent to its conversion to Christianity. 25. Deut. xvii. 8-12. Note in Dr. Troy's Bible. Dens quotes this text to show that heretics ought to be put to death. Adduced at Carlow Discussion by Rev. Mr. O'Connell. Reply of Rev. Mr. Pope.

ROMISH ARGUMENTS FOR INFALLIBILITY STATED AND Refuted.

1.—Argument from reason.

Romanists attempt to prove infallibility from reason. Keenan urges the argument as follows:

Q.-" Does reason, which is the handmaid of Scripture, speak out clearly on infallibility ?"

A.

Yes, very clearly and decidedly.

Q.-" What does reason tell us of a fallible Church ?"

A. That as such a Church may teach error, it is evidently unworthy of a good and merciful God."

Q.-" Does not the idea of a fallible Church militate against the goodness and wisdom of God?"

A." A good God who has been so solicitous to save us could not surely commit us to the blind guidance of mere human reason or opinion; nor could such an uncertain means for our safety be devised by an All Wise Being.

Q.-"Is not this clear, even from the love God bears to us?"

A. Yes, if He loves so as to have sent His only Son to die for us, surely, having done so much, He could not commit us to the blind guidance of an erring, fallible teacher."

Q.-" What inference do you draw from all this?"

A. "That to have true faith we must have a teacher that cannot err." "The infallible teacher we so absolutely require can be no other than the teaching body of the true Church of Christ." *

* Controv. Cat. p. 85.