[see book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Jason Engwer is a prolific Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and webmaster of the site, Tribalblogue<\/em><\/a>. (where I have long since been banned). We used to dialogue, from 2000 to 2010. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is my reply to his article, The Church, Authority, And Infallibility:<\/a> (Part 1): Introduction<\/a> [3-21-10].<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/span><\/p>\n When considering issues about the church and its authority and infallibility, keep the following in mind:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Romans 2:8<\/strong> (RSV) but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth<\/span>, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 2:13<\/strong> And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths<\/span> to those who possess the Spirit.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 4:2<\/strong> We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God\u2019s word, but by the open statement of the truth<\/span> we would commend ourselves to every man\u2019s conscience in the sight of God.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 11:10<\/strong> . . . the truth of Christ<\/span> is in me . . .<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 13:8 <\/strong>\u00a0For we cannot do anything against the truth<\/span>, but only for the truth<\/span>.<\/p>\n Galatians 5:7<\/strong> You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth<\/span>?<\/p>\n Ephesians 1:13<\/strong> In him you also, who have heard the word of truth<\/span>, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (cf. 6:14)<\/p>\n Colossians 1:5<\/strong> because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth<\/span>, the gospel<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:10-13<\/strong>\u00a0 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth<\/span> and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth<\/span> but had pleasure in unrighteousness.\u00a0 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 2:4<\/strong> who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15<\/strong> if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 4:3<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 . . . those who believe and know the trut<\/span>h.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 1:13-14<\/strong> Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth<\/span> which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:18<\/strong> who have swerved from the truth<\/span> by holding that the resurrection is past already. . . .<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:25<\/strong> . . . God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth<\/span>,<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 3:7-8<\/strong> who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth<\/span>. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth<\/span>, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 4:4<\/strong> and will turn away from listening to the truth<\/span> and wander into myths.<\/p>\n Titus 1:1<\/strong> Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God\u2019s elect and their knowledge of the truth<\/span> which accords with godliness, (cf. 1:14)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2013 The concept of an infallible church can be defined in many ways. An argument for Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy in particular as the infallible church, for example, would require argumentation that leads to the specific organization in question. As I noted in my 2008 article that originated my exchange with Dave Armstrong, if Protestants are going to be asked to defend a specific canon of scripture, then those who argue for an infallible church should be expected to defend something comparably specific. What we\u2019ve gotten from Dave instead, as I\u2019ve documented, is a vague appeal to apple seeds or mustard seeds to justify the oak tree of Roman Catholicism. The same sort of reasoning by which he derives prayers to the dead from\u00a0Revelation 5:8\u00a0or his Catholic notion of apostolic succession from Papias is what leads him to his conclusions about church infallibility.<\/span><\/p>\n I have done this in many hundreds of articles on my Church<\/a>, Papacy<\/a>, Bible & Tradition<\/a>, Church Fathers<\/a>, Eastern Orthodoxy<\/a>, and Development of Doctrine<\/a> web pages. The statement here is so broad that I can\u2019t possibly reply to it. I can only appeal to several hundred articles related to the issue. Once Jason gets more specific, we can discuss it with a particular focus and specificity. But he hasn\u2019t replied to me since 2010, while I have continued to reply to him in many articles since 2020.<\/p>\n \u2013 If church infallibility is going to be defined as church perpetuity, meaning that the church won\u2019t cease to exist, then many Protestants can be said to believe in the infallibility of the church in that sense. There are characteristics that an entity must have in order to be the church. Saying that there will always be an entity with those characteristics isn\u2019t the same as saying that the church is sure to be correct on every issue or that it has Divine guidance in the specific manner claimed by a group like Roman Catholicism. Biblical and patristic passages on the perpetuity of the church are often cited in support of church infallibility, but such a concept of infallibility can be so broad as to include many Protestant views of the church. As I documented in\u00a0my series on apostolic succession<\/a>\u00a0earlier this year, men like Irenaeus and Tertullian believed that a core set of doctrines defined Christian orthodoxy, doctrines such as monotheism and the resurrection. They didn\u2019t include concepts like the veneration of images and the assumption of Mary. If somebody believes that there will always be a church that maintains such core doctrines, and that the church is infallible in the sense that it will always maintain those doctrines (otherwise it wouldn\u2019t\u00a0be<\/i>\u00a0the church), then such a concept of church infallibility isn\u2019t equivalent to what a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox wants us to accept.<\/span><\/p>\n Here Jason is talking about the concept of indefectibility<\/em>, which I have written about many times as well. See the section, \u201cThe Indefectibility of the Church\u201d on my Church web page<\/a>, and \u201cPapal Infallibility, Supremacy, and Indefectibility\u201d on my Papacy web page<\/a>. Many Protestant denominations have obviously defected from passed-down Christian orthodoxy (hence, they have defected), since they have adopted theological liberalism and rejected many traditional Catholic doctrines and moral teachings.<\/p>\n For example, virtually every Protestant denomination accepts contraception, whereas none did so before 1930, and Luther and Calvin both thought it was murder. Most have endorsed divorce. All of the mainline denominations have endorsed legal abortion, and are now rapidly \u201cnormalizing\u201d homosexual acts and so-called \u201cmarriages.\u201d And that is just the moral<\/em> issues. When we get to doctrine<\/em>, many traditional Protestant doctrines (and many held in common with Catholics) have been rejected as well. But Catholicism is what it has always been, and whatever has developed, has maintained the same essence from the beginning (development of doctrine is not evolution).<\/p>\n \u2013 We have to allow for the possibility that an early source, such as a church father, was mistaken or even inconsistent in his reasoning on the subject. For example, the patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly noted that Augustine had a concept of a visible church and a concept of an invisible church, and Kelly concluded that Augustine was inconsistent in defining the two and never fully reconciled the two concepts (Early Christian Doctrines<\/em> [New York: Continuum, 2003], pp. 416-417). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As J.N.D. Kelly notes (Early Christian Doctrines<\/em> [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 412), Augustine\u2019s dispute with the Donatists over their appeal to Cyprian represents three different ecclesiologies. Not only did Augustine and the Donatists define the church differently, but so did Cyprian. He partially agreed and partially disagreed with both sides of the dispute, which is why both Augustine and the Donatists appealed to him.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholics do not believe in \u201cpatristic infallibility.\u201d Individual Church fathers could be and were in fact wrong on any number of topics, as later determined by orthodoxy, as defined by the Catholic magisterium. When they reach a consensus on an issue, their words are highly authoritative and relevant. The Catholic Church decides which doctrines era true or false, through its ecumenical councils and popes. But given denominationalism, Protestants disagree on hundreds of issues and have no way to resolve these conflicts.<\/p>\n As for St. Augustine and the visible \/ invisible Church, it\u2019s a complex discussion (not given to brief summary), but nothing that Kelly describes about him in this regard contradicts Catholic teaching (or, I would argue, is even internal consistency<\/em> in Augustine). We, too, believe in an elect group of those who will be saved in the end (see mentions of that in the Catechism<\/a>). In the final analysis, it\u2019s clear that Augustine thoroughly disagrees with Protestant ecclesiology. Kelly himself referred to \u201cAugustine\u2019s solution\u201d which was that \u201cthis invisible fellowship of love\u2019 is only to be found in the historical Catholic Church\u201d (p. 416 in my HarperSanFrancisco 1978 edition). Kelly also wrote the following about Augustine\u2019s ecclesiology and rule of faith (I provide Kelly\u2019s full view of Augustine\u2019s view of Church authority, whereas Jason alludes to one snippet with no direct citations):<\/p>\n According to him, the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; . . . It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome . . . (Kelly, 412-413)<\/p>\n The three letters [Epistles 175-177] relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to Innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggested that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture. (Ibid<\/em>., 419)<\/p>\n According to Augustine [De doct. christ<\/em>. 3,2], its [Scripture\u2019s] doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by \u2018the rule of faith\u2019; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes [C. ep. Manich<\/em>. 6: cf. De doct. christ<\/em>. 2,12; c. Faust Manich<\/em>, 22, 79] guaranteed its veracity. (Ibid<\/em>., 47)<\/p>\n For Augustine the authority of \u2018plenary councils\u2019 was \u2018most healthy\u2019, [Ep. 54, 1] (Ibid<\/em>., 48)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff adds that Augustine:<\/p>\n adopted Cyprian\u2019s doctrine of the church, and completed it in the conflict with Donatism by transferring the predicates of unity, holiness, universality, exclusiveness and maternity, directly to the actual church of the time, which, with a firm episcopal organization, an unbroken succession, and the Apostles\u2019 Creed, triumphantly withstood the eighty or the hundred opposing sects in the heretical catalogue of the day, and had its visible centre in Rome. (History of the Christian Church<\/em>, vol. 3, Chapter X, section 180, \u201cThe Influence of Augustine upon Posterity and his Relation to Catholicism and Protestantism,\u201d 1019-1020)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As I noted earlier with regard to Irenaeus, it\u2019s understandable why he would have thought highly of the Roman church and other churches in his day. The churches had been largely faithful to apostolic teaching to that point in time, and they had been especially faithful on the core doctrines Irenaeus was emphasizing in his disputes with the Gnostics and other heretics. But,<\/span>\u00a0as I documented<\/a>, people writing shortly after Irenaeus (Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc.) began noting some significant problems with some of the churches Irenaeus had referred to, including the Roman church in particular, even on matters they considered foundational to Christianity. If somebody is anticipating the church\u2019s\u00a0future<\/i>\u00a0status partly or entirely on the basis of its\u00a0past<\/i>\u00a0status, but we know from later church history that its status significantly changed over time, then we have to take that later history into account. If somebody like Irenaeus hasn\u2019t experienced the Arian lapse, the rise of the veneration of images, or some other widespread contradiction of his theology that would occur in future generations, then his judgment might be distorted by what he had experienced. Maybe his judgment wasn\u2019t distorted, and maybe he was allowing for the possibility of such widespread errors in the future (or would accept those later beliefs as corrections of his own beliefs), but we have to consider the possibility that he made a misjudgment based on his own experience. We can\u2019t just assume, without evidence, that every church father who commented on a subject related to church authority or infallibility agreed on the subject and was passing down what had always been believed. We have to allow for the possibility of diversity of belief and the possibility that other factors influenced what these sources believed, as historians do when considering the history of other ideas as well. Just as we today can reach some false conclusions based on personal experience, the popular ideas of the culture of our age, or some other factor, so could the church fathers and other people who lived in earlier times.<\/span><\/p>\n Here, Jason plays his notorious, habitual \u201cdeath by a thousand qualifications \/ cuts\u201d and what I have called the \u201ccoulda woulda shoulda\u201d card. In a nutshell, or bottom line, he argues that St. Irenaeus did not<\/em> hold to a position of Catholic indefectibility, or else that if he did, we can\u2019t know for sure, or know that he wouldn\u2019t have changed his mind (because he lived prior to the Arian crisis, etc.). It\u2019s Jason\u2019s way of rationalizing when a Church father clearly differs with his Protestant ecclesiology. He starts questioning him up and down and being hyper-skeptical. Well, in my Chapter One of my book, Catholic Church Fathers: Patristic and Scholarly Proofs<\/a><\/i>(Nov. 2007 \/ rev. Aug. 2013), entitled \u201cThe Bible, the Church, Tradition, and Apostolic Succession,\u201d I devote 21 pages to St. Irenaeus\u2019 views in this respect.<\/p>\n J. N. D. Kelly described St. Irenaeus\u2019 view:<\/p>\n Indeed, the Church\u2019s bishops are on his view Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed \u2018an infallible charism of truth\u2019 (charisma veritatis certum<\/em> [Ib<\/em>. 4, 26, 2; cf. 4, 26, 5] ) (p. 37)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is literally a statement of infallibility and indefectibility (both quite contrary to the Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptur<\/em>a). Let\u2019s look up the exact citations:<\/p>\n Wherefore it is incumbent to\u00a0obey\u00a0the\u00a0presbyters\u00a0who are in the\u00a0Church\u00a0\u2014 those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the\u00a0apostles; those who, together with the succession of the\u00a0episcopate, have received<\/em> the certain gift of truth<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0[charisma veritatis certum<\/em>], according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. (IV, 26, 2<\/a>; my bolding and italics)<\/p>\n Such\u00a0presbyters\u00a0does the\u00a0Church\u00a0nourish, of whom also the\u00a0prophet\u00a0says:\u00a0 \u2013 We know that different patristic sources defined the church in significantly different ways, as I\u2019ve documented in some of my earlier responses to Dave. The papacy, a foundational ecclesiological issue that separates Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and other groups to this day, is an example. Robert Lee Williams writes:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIrenaeus, in attacking Gnostic claims to spiritual, but not episcopal, authority, assumed the orthodoxy of bishops in Rome (Haer<\/em>. 3.3.3). In the Refutation (9.12.15), however, the author [often thought to be Hippolytus] was confronted with [the Roman bishop] Callistus\u2019s claim to episcopal authority without doctrinal orthodoxy. Appraising this situation, he declares that Callistus only \u2018supposed\u2019 that he had episcopal authority. In fact, he was \u2018an imposter and knave\u2019 with his \u2018strange opinions.\u2019 The decade preceding the writing of the Chronicle [of Julius Africanus] found presbyter-bishops in significant debate over acceptable beliefs for both \u2018faith\u2019 and \u2018life.'\u201d (Bishop Lists<\/em> [Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2005], p. 175)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Anglican scholar Leighton Pullan<\/a> (1865-1940) wrote about the conflict between Pope St. Callistus I and St. Hippolytus:<\/p>\n When Pope Callistus, A.D. 218, offered to grant absolution to those who repented of adultery or fornication, he was bitterly criticised by Hippolytus and Tertulian. The Montanists, in particular, regarded absolution for such sins as a shameless condescension to human weakness. Callistus and his supporters appealed with great fitness to the action of St. Paul at Corinth, to Christ\u2019s forgiveness of the adulteress, and to the parable of the prodigal son. Callistus had no intention of condoning sin, or even of granting absolution\u00a0twice<\/em> to the Christian who had fallen into such gross sins. (Early Christian Doctrine<\/em><\/a>, New York: Edwin S. Gorham \/ Church Missions House, 3rd edition, 1905, p. 81<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hippolytus was simply wrong, and Pope Callistus was right. Hippolytus, Tertullian, and others had fallen into the error of legalistic rigorism, which was contrary to the biblical teaching on related mercy and forgiveness and absolution, as Pullan rightly points out. As I noted above, individual Church fathers can be wrong about many things. The current task is to determine what the correct teaching \u2014 according to biblical guidelines \u2014 ought to be, which would apply both to patristic times and our own era (being timeless moral issues). People can always be found, who disagree with it. Forgiveness of a repentant sinner is, I submit, a no-brainer, and something where most Protestants and Catholics can \u2014 and ought to \u2014 agree.<\/p>\n \u2013 Church infallibility is considered an issue of major importance to Protestants because groups like Catholicism and Orthodoxy are so different than Protestantism. If a Protestant were to accept the infallibility claims of Catholicism, for example, then he would have to make many changes in faith and practice.<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly! That\u2019s why many refuse to even study Catholicism due to this fear that it may be right, which would require changes in their beliefs and practices. This was one of my own biggest objections to Catholicism. I thought the claim was patently absurd. It\u2019s much easier to simply follow the truth where one believes that it leads (we converts to Catholicism did that, in good conscience), and to not live in fear and avoidance. As I contended above, Church infallibility is a biblical<\/em> teaching, before we even get to the Church fathers and the legitimate task of determining where the one true Church resides. Any denomination that spurns infallibility is already<\/em> highly suspect on biblical grounds.<\/p>\n But what if we were to conclude that there\u2019s an infallible church like the church referred to by Irenaeus and Tertullian, for instance? <\/span><\/p>\n Then the only feasible choices are Catholicism and Orthodoxy: not any form of Protestantism.<\/p>\n What if the church is to always be correct on core doctrines like monotheism and the resurrection, but can err on other matters? <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s one of the games that Protestantism plays: this notion of primary and secondary doctrines, which is also unbiblical. See:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The Protestant \u201cNon-Quest\u201d for Certainty\u00a0<\/a>[3-15-06; abridged and links added on 7-12-20]<\/span><\/p>\n Bible\u00a0vs.\u00a0Denominationalism and Against \u201cPrimary \/\u00a0Secondary\u201d Doctrines<\/a>\u00a0[8-18-06]<\/p>\n Radically Unbiblical Protestant \u201cQuest for Uncertainty\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[2-12-14]<\/p>\n \u201cReply to Calvin\u201d #4: \u201cPrimary\u201d & \u201cSecondary\u201d Doctrines<\/a>\u00a0[4-3-17]<\/p>\n The fact that so much is at stake in the dispute between Protestants and Catholics doesn\u2019t prove that every concept of church infallibility would have such significant implications for a Protestant.<\/span><\/p>\n Protestants can choose to go their own way and be radically individualistic, or follow the actual biblical teachings and course of Church history, incorporating apostolic succession and an authoritative sacred tradition and Church. Any form of Protestantism, in my opinion, though all contain much truth, run into inexorable difficulties with Scripture and Church history (meaning, primarily, patristic teachings).<\/p>\n \u2013 What\u2019s said of the church, or a church, is often said of other entities in other places in scripture or elsewhere in the church fathers. The fact that the church has a role like upholding the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) doesn\u2019t imply that it\u2019s infallible in that role, much less that it\u2019s infallible in the specific manner claimed by a group such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Ah, but it does<\/em>, as I argued (I think, rather strongly) in my article on this verse, linked above.<\/p>\n The Israelites had a role as God\u2019s witnesses (Isaiah 43:10), every believer has a role as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-14), the state has a role as a minister of God (Romans 13:4), etc., yet we don\u2019t conclude that they\u2019re infallible in those roles in a way similar to how the Roman Catholic Church claims to be infallible.<\/span><\/p>\n The prophets<\/a> were certainly infallible. In fact, if they erred, it was under a penalty of death. That tended to identify and \u201cweed out\u201d the false prophets rather effectively.<\/p>\n Not only do Catholics and other advocates of church infallibility not apply their reasoning consistently to these other entities, but they aren\u2019t even consistent in applying their reasoning to the church. In scripture and elsewhere, believers are often referred to as members of the body of Christ, yet a group like Catholicism will define church infallibility in such a way that it involves the actions of a particular church leader or group of church leaders acting without the approval, even without the knowledge, of believers in general. Why should references to the church in scripture and other sources be thought to be referring to the hierarchy of a particular denomination, but not to believers in general or even church leaders in general?<\/span><\/p>\n Because the Bible itself teaches a Church hierarchy, in, for example, the Jerusalem Council, in references to bishops and other church offices, and in how St. Peter<\/a> is presented as the leader of early Christianity and first pope.<\/p>\n Often, a passage like Matthew 28:20 will be cited in support of church infallibility, as if the concept is implied by Jesus\u2019 promise to be with His disciples. But no such interpretation is applied to God\u2019s promise to be with Israel (Isaiah 43:1-7) or His promise to be with all believers (Hebrews 13:5). How do we get from Jesus\u2019 promise to be with His original disciples to the conclusion that Roman Catholic clergymen are infallible under the specific circumstances in which they claim to be infallible? . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n When God promised that Israel would never be destroyed (Jeremiah 30:11,\u00a031:35-37), was that promise kept by means of an organization like Roman Catholicism? What if God\u2019s promise that His name would be in Jerusalem forever (2 Chronicles 33:4) had been said of Rome? What would Catholics make of such a promise? Ask yourself whether Catholics are being consistent in their interpretations.<\/span><\/p>\n I gave several related arguments above. As to Old Testament analogies, I wrote about that in one of my articles, too:<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/10\/Cover-555-x-835-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI will give your rulers in peace, and your\u00a0bishops\u00a0in righteousness.<\/q>\u00a0Isaiah\u00a060:17<\/span>\u00a0Of whom also did the Lord declare,\u00a0
Who then shall be a faithful steward (actor<\/em>), good and wise, whom the Lord sets over His household, to give them their meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He comes, shall find so doing.<\/q>\u00a0Matthew\u00a024:45-46<\/span>\u00a0Paul\u00a0then, teaching us where one may find such, says,\u00a0
God\u00a0has placed in the\u00a0Church, first,\u00a0apostles; secondly,\u00a0prophets; thirdly, teachers.<\/q>\u00a01\u00a0Corinthians\u00a012:28<\/span>\u00a0Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the\u00a0truth<\/strong><\/em>, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the\u00a0Church\u00a0which is from the\u00a0apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve<\/strong> this\u00a0faith\u00a0of ours<\/em> in one God who created all things; and they increase that\u00a0love\u00a0[which we have] for the\u00a0Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the\u00a0Scriptures\u00a0to us without danger<\/strong><\/em>, neither\u00a0blaspheming\u00a0God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the\u00a0prophets.(IV, 26, 5<\/a>; my bolding and italics)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n