The Organs of the GhurcKs Infallibility. 4. As to the organs of the Church in its infalHble teaching, there are two theories, the Episcopal and Papal, or, as they are designated from their principal advocates, the Gallican and the Transmontane. According to the former, the bishops, in their col- lective capacity, as the official successors of the Apostles, are infal- lible as teachers. Individual bishops may err, the body or college of bishops cannot err. Whatever the bishops of any age of the . Church unite in teaching, is, for that age, the rule of faith. This concurrence of judgment need not amount to entire unanimity. The greater part, the common judgment of the episcopate, is all that is required. To their decision all dissentients are bound to submit. This general judgment may be pronounced in a council, representing the whole Church, or in any other way in which agreement may be satisfactorily indicated. Acquiescence in the decisions of even a provincial council, or of the Pope, or the sev- eral bishops, each in his own diocese, teaching the same doctrine, is sufficient proof of consent.
Tlie Transmontane Theory.
According to the Papal, or Transmontane theory, the 'Pope is the organ through which the infallible judgment of the Church is__ pronounced. He is the vicar of Christ. He is not subject to a general council. He is not required to consult other bishops before he gives his decision. This infallibility is not personal, but official. As a man the Pope may be immoral, heretical, or infidel ; as Pope, when speaking ex cathedra, he is the organ of the Holy Ghost. The High-Priest among the Jews might be erroneous in faith, or immoral in conduct, but when consulting God in his official ca- pacity, he was the mere organ of divine communication. Such, in few words, is the doctrine of Romanists concerning the Rule of Faith.
In the recent Ecumenical Council, held in the Vatican, after a protracted struggle, the Transmontane doctrine was sanctioned. It is, therefore, now obligatory on ail Romanists to believe that the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra, is infallible.
§§ 5j 6, A.] EXAMINATION OF TRADITION. 113
§ 5. Examination of the Romish Doctrine. Hundreds of volumes .have been written in the discussion of the various points included in the theory above stated. Only a most cursory view of the controversy can be given in such a work as this. So far as Romanists differ from us on the canon of Scripture, the examination of their views belongs to the department of Bibli- cal literature. What concerns their doctrine of the incompleteness and obscurity of the written word, and the consequent necessity of an infallible, visible interpreter, can better be said under the head of the Protestant doctrine of the Rule of Faith. .The two points to be now considered are Tradition, and the office of the Church as a teacher. These subjects are so related that it is difficult to keep them distinct^ Tradition is the teaching of the Church, and the teaching of the Church is tradition. These subjects are not only thus intimately related, but they are generally included under the same head in the Catholic Symbols. Nevertheless, they are distinct, and involve very different principles. They should, there- fore, be considered separately.
§ 6. Examination of the Doctritie of the Church of Rome on Tradition.
A. Difference hettoeen Tradition and the Analogy of Faith.
1. The Romish doctrine of tradition differs essentially from the Protestant doctrine of the analogy of faith. Protestants admit that there is a kind of tradition within the. limits of the sacred Scrip- tures themselves. One generation of sacred writers received the whole body of truth taught by those who preceded them. There was a tradition of doctrine, a^traditiaiiaryijugMg loquendijixsu]x^i^QXkz— ary figures, types^^and symbols. The revelation of God in his Word begins in a fountain, and flows in a continuous stream ever increasing in volume. We are governed by this tradition of truth running through the whole sacred volume. All is consistent. One part cannot contradict another. Each part must be interpreted so as to bring it into harmony with the whole. This is only saying / that Scripture must explain Scripture. y
27 Agajn, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninter- rupted tradition of truth from the prdtevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse, so there has been a stream of traditionary teach- ing flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pente- cost to the present time. This tradition is so far a rule of faith
114 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. V. — R. C. R. of Faith.
that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed. They constitute one body, having one common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts,, is the rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty to^reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian. They acknowledge the au- thority of this common faith for two reasons. First, because what all the competent readers of a plain book take to be its meaning, must be its meaning. Secondly, because the Holy Spirit is prom- ised to guide the people of God into the knowledge of the truth, and therefore that which they, under the teachings of the Spirit, agree in believing must be true. There are certain fixed doctrines among Christians, as there are among Jews and Mohammedans, which are no longer open questions. The doctrines of the Trinity; of the divinity and incarnation of the eternal Son of God ; of the ■ personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit ; of the apostasy and sinfulness of the human race ; the doctrines of the expiation of sin through the death of Christ and of salvation through his merits ; of regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Ghost ; of the for- giveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and of the life ever- lasting, have always entered into the faith of every recognized, historical church on the face of the earth, and cannot now be legit- imately called into question by any pretending to be Christians.
Some of the more philosophical of the Romish theologians would have us believe that this is all they mean by tradition. They in-^ sist, they say, only on the authority of common consent. Thus Moehler, Professor of Theology at Munich, in his " Symbolik, oder T)arstellung der Dogmatischen Gegensatze," says, " Tradition, in the subjective sense of the word, is the common faith, or conscious- ness of the Church." ^ " The ever-living word in the hearts of believers." ^ It is, he says, what Eusebius means by the iKKXrjcnacr- TLKov 4>p6rr]fjLa ; and what Vincent of Lerins intends by the eccle- siastica intelligentia, and the Council of Trent by the universus eceiesice sensus. " In the objective sense of the word," Moehler says that " Tradition is the common faith of the Church as pre- sented in external, historical witnesses through all centuries." "In this latter sense," he tells us, "tradition is commonly viewed when spoken of as a guide to the interpretation of the rule of faith." ^ He admits that in this sense " Tradition contains nothing 1 Page 356. « Page 357. « Page 358.