IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) u lift ^^ 1.1 l.-^KS 11.25 1 ^ til ^1 w ■'I Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WIST MAIN STUIT WIBSTIR,N.Y. 145S0 (716) t73-4S03 '^^^*^ ^ ^^^ ^ v^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notea/Notat tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. or Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D □ D D D D D Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculie I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge inttrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: L'Institut a microfi';m6 le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 4t4 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibMographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage son indiqute ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured. ;i(tained or foxet Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ditachdes Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ ["71 Pages discoloured. ;i(tained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ rTyj Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ |~n Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X n/ 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« has b««n r«produe«d thanks to tha ganarosity of: Seminary of Quebec Library L'axamplaira filmi fut raproduit grica A la gAnArosit* da: Stminaire de Quebec Bibiiothique Tha imagas appearing hara »rm tha baat quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha origins ' -^opy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract spacif icationa. Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara filmad beginning with tha front covar and ending on tha laat page with a printad or iiluatratad imprea- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other originel copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printad or illuatrated imprea- sion, and ending on the laat page with a printad or illuatrated impreaalon. Tha laat recorded frame on each microfiche thail contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever eppliea. Lea imagea suivantes ont M* raproduites avac la plua grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at de la netteti de rexempiaire film*, at •n eonformiti avac lea conditions du contrat da filmage. Lea axempleires origlnaux dont la couverture en papier eet imprim4e sent fiimte en commenpant par la premier plot et en terminant soit par la darniire page qui comporte une amprainte d'Impreaaion ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le caa. Tous lea autras axampleirea origlnaux aont filmto an commen^ant par la premlire pege qui comporte une empreinte dlmproMlon ou d'illustration at an terminant par la derniire pege qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symbolea auivants apparattra sur la damlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le caa: le aymbole -^ signifle "A SUIVRE". le symbole ▼ signifie "FIN". IMeps. pletes. charts, etc.. mey be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Thoae too lerge to be entirely included in one expoaura are filmed beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to right and top to bottom, aa many framea ae required. The following diegrama illuatrata the method: Lee cartea, planchee. tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmte k dee taux de rMuction diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra raproduit en un seul clichi, 11 eet film* A partir de I'engle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bea. en prenent le nombre d'imagea nicessaire. Las diagrammes auivants illustiant la mAthode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^^y I* *^^. ^^::^ ' ^ k DEFENCE OF TUB CLAIMS OF THE CATTIOLIC CllUlUn, IN HE PLY TO Ml i Sf '"(? "^ Q^ J'lUMUND MATURIN, A. M. s ^ V PABT t i THE RULE OF FAITH, INCLl'DINU TIIR OENERAL PRINCIPLES OP RELKJION, ANI> Tim AUTHORITY OP TJIE CIJURClt. HALIFAX, N. S. • COMPTON & BOWDEN, PRINTERS. 1859. 1 A DEFENCE OF THE CLAIMS or THE CATHOLIC CHUECII, IN REPLY TO SEVERAL RECENT PUBLICATIONS. BY EDMUND MATURIN, A. M. i^^T/^X .■fM^J'j -• % 4k. f.i ■ HALIFAX, N.S. COMPTON * BOWDEN, PRINTERS. 1869. mmm \ A DEFENCE. &c, The object of the following Work is to explain anJ ''(.lofoiid the principles contained in a Letter which was addressed by me, a few months ago, to the Parishioners of St. Paul's, under the title of « The Claims of the Ca- tholic Church." I freely confess that my motive for pub- lishing that Letter was two-fold — first, to vindicate my own conduct in renouncing the profession of Protestantism, and joining the Catholic Church — and further, it was my principal aim to direct the serious attention of my former friends to the consideration of this solemn subject, with the view of persuading them to follow my example, in returning to the bosom of that Holy Church from which they have been separated by the events of the Refor- mation. It is evident, indeed, that true religion must always be ■diffmlve in its nature and influence, and that, wherever it really exists in the heart of any individual, ii .siust he accompanied with an earnest effort to extend its bless^ ings to others ; those who adhere to human systems of religion may be indifferent to the progress of their re- spective views, because they cannot be supposed to in- volve any important practical consequences; but the case must be very different with the members of a Church which professes to have received and tra^ismitted the only complete reveLaiion of the Gospel of Christ, which God has been pleacied to communicate from heaven for the salvation of the world. If there be really a conaci-^ 11 4 rnOTESTAXT PflEJUniCES. ontiou.s conviL'tion of the truth (»f itn chiliuH, it is 8urelv imposMiblo for any one wlio h>vc8 tho suuls of men to en tcrtain no anxious concern for the converHion of those whom ho believes to bo under a dangerous dehi- sion on tlie most important of all subjects relating to their present peace and everlasting happiness. I am well aware of tho great ditticulty (}f producing any deep impression on the minds of Protestants, with reference to the tJhuic auihority of tho Catholic Religion, wliicii they have long boon accustomed to regard as an ab- H\ird mixtiiro of Su[)erstitioii and Idolatry. I an» fully sen- sible of the powerful elVects produced by the prtvjudices of religious education, and early association, and national feeling, among those who have been trained in some of tho various Protestant donominations, whoso existence is founded on their opposition to tho Catholic Church ; and J believe that these feelings are increased by some peculiar circumstances coiniected with tho secular position of tlie Church in this Province, as well as generally in the British dominions. It is fully admitted, indeed, that the ancient Church of Christ is not fairly represented in these coun- tries, in the social and jjolitical situation of her children, while the weight of worldly rank, wealth, and influence is thrown entirely into the Protestant scale; and there can be no doubt that these and other disadvantages have operated very injuriously to the interests of tlie Church, by their tendency to promote the growth of that strange aversion with which she is generally regarded by those who have never examined the grounds of her spiritual claims, as the only true Church of Christ on earth. I am con- vinced that, in such a community as this, composed chiefly of intelligent and respectable Protestants, nothing could be more unpopular than to adopt the views, and embrace rlio communion, of a Church which ia almost entirelv un- . TTELiniOUa CONTHOVERflY. , surely II tt) eii- f tlu)SC dolu- ting to xluciiig tfi, witli :eligion, 19 an ub- lUv son- idicos of national in somo xistcnco rcli; and peculiar ^n of tlie British (incicnt so coun- liiklron, ifluenco i there es have Ciiurchy strange osewho I claims, am con- i chiefly g coutld embrace relv un- l:nown to them in her real charni'ter, oxce[>t through tin* ruluninics and misroprosentations of her cncniioH. And yet, with all those discouragements hoforo mo, I have ven- tured to submit a gcsneral account of my own grounds of faith, and motives of conviction, to the disj)!isHionate judg- inonL of all sincere and coiasciontious Protestants, because I am fully persuaded that there are ho dilhculties too groat to bo removed and overcome by the Almighty grace of God, who ah)ne can eflbctually onlighton the mind with the precious gift of faith, and touch the heart by the heavenly influence of His Holy !*pirit. It was my earnest desire, then, to attempt to promote a calm and serious in- quiry into this subject, without any controversial object in view; tliough of course I might expect that my Letter would he noticed, with hostile foolings, by those who, from their position and cliaracter, might think themselves called upon to undertake the defence of the Protestant religion. And 1 certainly do not moan to complain of this, as a personal attack on myself, or an invasion of the rights of conscience. Thougli naturally averse to all religious controversy, 1 am (piite prepared to defend the sacred cause of the Catholic Church against every objec- tion that can bo urged in opposition to her authority. I have perfect confidence of success, not in my own abilities, but in the truth of the Catholic Faith, as the only divine revelation which has ever boon given to man. I am not afraid of a full and free discussion of the wdiole vpiestion in all its various aspects. On the contrary, 1 would invito the most searching investigation into the entire system of the Catholic Church, with the most cer- tain conviction that the result will bo found to establish more firmly the solid foundation of eternal truth on which she rests, and the utter futility of every objection that can bo brought against her principles, doctrine, and tl-'gr-iplino. f-^ f REPTJIW TO rORMKR LETTElt. Willi thost» sontiin(Mits, thou, J hIjuII how procooJ t*> iijuke some oht»ervutionson tho conti!i»tH of Hovoral ruin|>li- lotH wliioli Imvo recently been pnblisliod;. in oppositiou to the viewrioxpi'eHHe«l in my Letter. I do not think it noceHsrtry to notice various mu>nytnou>t articles in tl>e NowHpupors, some of which I Imvo )>cver Hcen, but tlioio are otijer.<, which seem to re(|niro a more particu- lar consideration. A brief allusion to tliTs subject will be found in the Appendix to tho Charge of Bishop Binney — wliich, however, n>erely refers loscjmo general circum- stances, some of which are founded on misapprehension of niv own views, while the rest will bo occasionally referred to in the course of the following pages. There are, however, four other Replies, which have made their api)carance, each one of them being tho representative of a difterent Protestant denomination — three of them written by Clergymen of their various Churches, and tho fourth by a respectable Layman. The Authors of those Works are — Rev. Dr. Crray, (Church of P^ngland);- Rev. Dr. Cramp, CBaptist): Rev. Mr.TTuntor, (Free Church t>f K^cotland), and Judge Marshall, (Wesloyan Methodist.)* Ifowover widely the}' may differ from each other on im- portant points of doctrine, they have agreed to forget their differences for the present, and to unite in tho defence of their common Protestantism, while, in addition to this, Dr. Gray undertakes also to vincficato the charac- tor of the English Reformation. The 8u?)ject8 to which these publications relate include the whole range of tho • "A Letter to Moinbcis of tho Churoh of PJivilimcl, by I. W. P. Gray, I). !>., Rector of the Parish of St. John, N. B. In Reply to u Lettor ft-om E. Gray, I). !>., Fidinnnd Mii- 'Tho Claims of an Appendix." "ore the Protes- nt'a Answer to- i < 1 controversy, and it is ol)viously impORHiblc to cnt r into tho diHcurtsion o( every point of detail to which they re- tV'r, without far exceeding tho limits which I have prescri- I'cd to myself in these pages. I am not writing a regu- lar Treatise on Dogmatic Theology, but I shall endeavor to meet fairly the principal objections brought forward in those lleplies, whether of a theological or historical character. I wish to treat my opponents with all due respect, and therefore, if I should appear to express my- self strongly with reference to any particular statements, I trust that it will Fiot be ascribed to any as[)erity of feel- ing towards the learned gentlemen who have taken the <)p[)osite view of this great question, but to my anxiety to defend the character of the true Church of Christ from every charge that is advanced against her spiritual claims. I observe that my o[)ponent8 indulge freely in strong- assertions and general accusations against tho Church, which they fail to substantiate by reference to any authentic sourcefi of information. Indeed Mr. Hunter seems to think it quite unnecessary to quote any authorl- tle.H in proof of his statements — Dr. (iray and Dr. Cramp give us some occasional references — while Judge Mar- shall confines himself to a single authority, that (»f Mil- ner's Church History, to which he appeals in proof of »'very fact as an unquestionable standard*. Such, then, is the general character of the theological adversaries with whom I have now to contend for the defence of the faith of the Catholic Church. It has been commonly said, tliat Converts arc usually the most bitter of all the enemies of the religious system which they have renounced ; but certainly I must say, that 1 am not conscious of any such feelings towards Protest- * " Milner, ostiniable as lie was for his piety, produced a work wlilch merely proved how stranj^ely he was destitute of the information most indispoDsablo in I lie Eoclosiastioal Historian."— Dowliuts'a Introduction, p. 1%. 8 A convert's feelings. ' ants, and especially towards the members of the Church of England. If I know anything of my own nature, 1 can truly say that my heart breathes nothing but a spirit of love and of pra3'er for those from whom I am now separated ; and if any earthly motive could have induced me to hesitate in taking the final step, it would be the thought of grieving those to whom I am so deeply at tached, as well as the recollection ' f the hap[)y days oi religious communion wliich I have enjoyed among them, jind of the unmerited acts of kindness and aflection which I have so constantly received from them. And while I continuiilly remember them at the throne of grace and before the altar of God, I trust I am still, as ever, ready to promote their spiritual welfare in any ><'ay in which the Providence of God may grant me a proper opportunity in my present position. I am aware that several remarks of a personal nature have been made with reference to myself, which I would willingl}' pass over in silence, in accordance with the spirit, of the meek and judicious Hooker, who thus replied to the objections of his opponents — " Your next argument con- sii^ts of railing and of reasons ; to your railing I say nothing, to your reasons I say ivhat follows"* It may be sufficient to allude to one of these remarks, in whicli I am represented as having acted on a deliberate system of hypocrisy for many years, in continuing a Protestant Minister, while, it is said, I was secretly attached to the Church of Rome during all the time. Now I have little expectation of removing this impression from the minds of those who are determined to believe it ; and though 7 solemnly deny the truth of it, I feel deeply that human opinion is of very little importance to me, and I trust 1 I * Walton's Life of Hookor. Compare EocIoh. Pol. Book V. chap. xxx. answer Uiercforo to their ReatonB, ie No— to thoir Scofl'i*, Nothinq." ' Our CATHOLIC TENDENCIES. 1) Chiiroli laturc, 1 ; a spirit am now induced be the 3ep]y at days oi ig them, illection n. And of grace as ever, r A^-^ay in proper I nature I would he spirit , id to tlie cnt con- fer/ I say It ma\- n wliicli system otestant 1 to the ve littk; e minds though human trust 1 XX. ' Our have learned to live for a nobler object than to obtain the approbation of man, however highly I may regard it in its proper place. I have said, indeed, {Letter, p. 11) that "m// heart was essentially Catholic, while my nind ims accident- ally Protestant." This contrast, between the effects of nature and of grace, seems to have been understood *in opposite senses, though it is generally supposed to mean that I was in reality a Roman Catholic, while professing to be a Protestant. I thought I had sufficiently explained my- self on this point in my Letter, but it appears that I have been mistaken. I need scarcely sa3'^,that it never occurred to me, that such a meaning could be put on this brief sen- tence, and certainly it was never intended by me. In- deed it is evident from other statements in my Letter, that the name of " Catholic" was used by me, not in its strict orthodox sense, but in its 2^02mlar general signifi- cation, and though it may be dillicult to define the pre- cise ideas included in a term which is employed in such a latitude of interpretation, yet I suppose that it may be applied, in this extensive meaning, to all those Christians who are sincerely desirous to promote the true unity of the Church of Christ, in connexion with a spirit of deej) liumility, and entire submission to Ecclesiastical autho- rity, as well as the practical exercise of all those feelings of awful reverence and tender devotion, which are pro- perly said to be '-'essentially Catholic." Such, I trust, I was, in some degree, by the grace of God, even when 1 Avas a Protestant; and I thank God, that I did not resist His Iloly Spirit when I received a divine call to join the Catholic Church. I was determined to act according to the convictions which He had produced in my heart, with- out any delay or human calculation — and I bless His Holy Name that I feel more and more deeply persuaded that I have acted in perfect accordance with the will of God. RELTfJIODS IMPRESSIONS. 10 ' I It cannot be said that my resolution was adopted without mature deliberation ; for though my early doubts re- mained dormayd in my mind for several years, still an impression was produced which could never be entirely effaced, and which all my subsequent studies and reflec- tions tended to confirm, though I am not sure that I would have been fully justified in adopting this final step at an earlier period of my life, for want of a more full con- viction of the truth of the Catholic Religion. I trust I shall never be ashamed to confess and retract every error into which I may have fallen at .any time, from any feeling of in- tellectual or spiritual pride. I hope to be always learning something new in the School of Christ, as long as I live. [ know it is a rare gift to be a Catholic — it is all of grace — and I desire to give all the glory to God, while I feel tliat, conscious of the possession of a treasure of inesti- mable value, and having found, through the infinite mercy of God, the Pearl of great price, T wish to bo an honored instrument of imparting to otiiers a portion of those precious blessings which He has boon pleased to bestow upon me, according to the riches of His grace. It must be admitted that the evidence of Christianity in ijeneral, and of Cailiolicity in particular, is not of such an overwhelming nature as to produce irresistible conviction of its truth in the minds of men. Almighty God does not compel the will of any one to accept the gift of eternal life ; if this were the case, there would be no room for the ex- < rcise of moral probation, which constitutes sncli an im- portant part of spiritual discipline in this world, and thus Avc find that men of the highest intellectual abilities are fre- quently overlooked, while God chooses many others of inferior capacities, who are endued with the spirit of hu- mility, and calls them by His grace into the communion of His Holy Church on earth, and of his glorious king- ^ 10 u MISCONCEPTION OF VIEWS. d without loubts ro- rs, still an }e entirely md reflec- ire that I ! final step full con- rust I shall error into eling of in- 's learning ; as I live. II of grace hile I feel ! of inesti- le infinite ish to be a portion en pleased lis grace. stianity in of such an conviction 1 does not ernallife; or the ex- ch an iin- , and thus ics are fre- others of irit of hu- )Tninunion ous king- dom in heavey. I must remark, however, that Dr. Gray nnd others have totally misunderstood the state of my mind and the extent of my Catholic tendencies, while I was a Minister of the Church of England. He plainly in- timates, [Lelter, p. 22) that I was guilty of making a false profession to God at the period of my Ordinaition,.and that f ''continued from year to year without believing the Arti- cles to which 1 had subscribed." Now, I must say, that this statement is entirely incm^red, as I am certainly not con- scious of the slightest degree of insincerity in my religious ])rofessions, during the whole course of my publicministry. 1 feel that I can truly say Avith the Apostle, that " I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.'^ With all my imperfections in the discharge of the duties of tlie sacred office — with all my inconsistencies in the daily walk of the Christian life — my conscience docs not re- proach me with any ivant of truth or candor in my conduct as a Protestant Clergyman. 7 never held or taught a single nrticle of the Roman Creed during that time — on the con- trar}'^, I was cordially attached to the doctrine and discip* line of tlio Church of England, which I sincerely believed to be founded on the Word of God, and I always endea- vored faithfully to teach and apply them as settled on the broad and comprehensive jn'inciples of the English Refor- inati on j\y'\t\\ovit adopting the views of any \acQni parties in tlie Church, whether Tracfarian or Evangelical. My rule of ("iiith was the Bible, interpreted hy the Prayer i?ooA^, accord- ing to the Articles and Liturgy of the English Church. At the same time, I confess that, in the ai>stracf, I had little regard for any ol those modern distinctions which liavo divided the Universal Church of Christ. I trust it was my highest object to live and to act as a Christian, and not as a Prottstant ; and I regret to say that^ from my own observation and experience in my ua- ^SS,!f^ 12 EELKnOUS DOUBTS. I! 1 tivG couiktry, I have generally found tliut the best Protest- ants were tlio worst Cliristiam — whoso ideas of religion seemed to consint entirely in hatred of Popery, and attachniont to the principlei; of the "glorious Revolution'' of 1G88, which was usually regarded by them as the sole test of ProtestantiBui. I)r. Gray thinks (p. G) that '' prejudices arising from de- scent and early education do not always require any great amount of evidence to overcome them." I believe there are few who will agree with him in this position, and certainly I have ample proof to the contrary in the his- tory of my own life. He appears also-to suppose that the existence of religious doubts in the mind is quite ineomi)a- tible with the honest profession of any decided o_pinions on the subject. This may be the case on Catholic principles, but evidently not on those of Protestantism, according to whicli a state of doubt is almost inseparable from all reli- gious in(|uiry, as it is generally held to be impossible to at- tain to any absolute ccrtainti/on the doctrines of Scripture. It is true that I had doul»ts in early life, and occasional doubts at a later period, but they had not arrived at such a degree as to produce decided conviction, and therefore I did not regard it as inconsistent to remain in my former profession as a member of a Protestant Communion. 1 considered these doubts merely as temporary dilHcultios of a speculative nature, which would have no practical clTect on my future plans of life, and accordingly, from the time of my Ordination, I tried to banish them alto- gether from m^' mind, and while engaged in active duties and involved in domestic cares, I vainly hoped that I was forever free from any further interruption to a life of {)rivate ha})piness and public usefulness. But that inter- ruption did come at last at an unexpected time, and with it came the responsibility of obeying or resisting t1 h o iV ■mm FINAL CRISIS. 13 >esi Protest- or religion opery, and devolution'' as the sole ng from tU-- c uny great I believe s position, y in the his- »se that the ;e ineonipu- opinioiis on principles, ;cortling to om all reli- ssible toat- Scripturc. occasional ed at such therefore my former munion. 1 dilHcultios practical ngly, from them alto- ive duties that I was a life ol' that inter- time, and resisting the voice of God, who was calling mo to renounce all human systems of religion, and to return to the unity of His Holy Church. Dr. Gray says (p. 17) that I have not explained what were the " providential circumstances" which led me to the re- consideration of the whole controversy with Rome. Noav I have no objection to state the particular occasion, though it may appear comparatively trifling to those who do not reflect on the mysterious constitution of the human mind, with reference to the means of reviving the connexion haiween p)(i^t associations QXiA present convictions. That occasion was the Funeral of the late Archbishop of Hali- fax, which took place on the 14th of August last, and to which I can distinctly trace those deep impressions which finally led me to the conviction of the divine origin of the Catholic Church. I am fully aware that the effect of such scenes must depend chiefly on the previous j)re^a- ration which has taken place in the minds of the specta- tors. Some persons have been converted to the faith by the mere act of entering a Church, and witnessing the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, while others have had their j^w^MfZ/ccs increased by the same act. The diflier- ♦Mice was not in the objects which they observed, but in the state of mind which was brought to bear upon them. And so it is with reference to the Catholic Service per- formed at the Burial of the Dead. All the external inci- dents connected with it — the slow and solemn procession — the long train of Ecclesiastics — the chanting of the I'salms — the fragrance of the incense — the lighted tapers — the elevated Cross — and all the other ceremonies, will be regarded with perfect indifference by those whose hearts are insensible to the beauties of holiness, whose minds are occupied with sectarian pride and ignorance, and who see nothing in all this but the vain pageant of EXTERNAL IMPRESSIONS. 14 n an empty show, and the sad proofs of a melancholy su* poratition. But to those who are fully alive to the gi at realities of eternity, who know the power of Christian sympathy between the living and the dead, Avho have felt the consoling sweetness of that blessed " Commu- nion of Saints," and who possess an intelligent ac- quaintance with the spiritual meaning of the rites of the Catholic worship — such scenes will suggest holy thoughts of a very different nature, as they exhibit such a vivid illustration of the practical influence of those Christian hopes relating to the invisible world of departed spirits, which are realised in the Catholic Church alone. It is true that these events are not the predisposing, though they may be the exciting^ causes of an inquiry which ends in implicit submission to the Church of God — just as a spark of fire when applied to a heap of combustible ma- terials, may produce an instant conflagration, so it is with the effect of some slight external event on a mind already prepared to receive its influence. And such was the case with rao, when all my former Catholic associations were completely revived, and I was determined, noio or never, to decide on the great question which had so long engaged my attention. I was fully resolved to act in the sp' ^ of the Apostle, who "was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision." I had no need again to commence the study of a subject, with which I had long been per- fectly familiar. But I determined to look at every diffi- culty fully in the face, and not to evade the force of facts and principles which were totally irreconcileable with the fundamental doctrines of Protestantism. Several weeks, indeed, elapsed before I arrived at a final conclu- sion. So far from a disposition to yield at once, as has been supposed, I struggled Irnrd to retain my former position, and nothing would have given me more com- i u ilancholy su* to the gi at. of Christian d, who have id " Commu- telligent ac- ! rites of the oly thoughts such a vivid jse Christian irted spirits, ilone. It is sing, though y which ends od — just as a ibustible ma- , so it is with mind already uch was the associatitns lined, noiv or \ had so long- to act in the edient unto o commence ig been per- every difti- brce of facts ileable with Several final conclu* once, as has my former e more com* 15 VOYAGE TO ENGLAND. n plete relief and more heartfelt satisfaction, than the disco- very, that modern Protestantism was not a human corrup- tion, but the genuine Christianity of the Apostolic times. I had made arrangements to proceed to England, partly for the benefit of my health, but chiefly with the view of joining the Catholic Church, and without any fixed intention of returning to this Province. And yet 1 did not fully announce this plan, because I thought it quite possible tluit something might yet occur, which would enable me to defer, if not altogether to relinquish, this purpose. 1 knew very well that no advantage could be derived from any conference with my Protestant breth- ren, although I made a partial disclosure of my difiicul- ties in one instance, which was kindly received — but it failed to produce any satisfactory result. Nor did T com- municate my intentions to any of my fellow passengers on board the steamer to England, though I had a good deal of interesting conversation with several of them on religious subjects. We had, indeed, a Catholic Bishop on board*, who was on his way to Rome, and though I had frequent interviews with him on the leading subjects of controversy, I did not intimate the state of my mind to him, as I was still in the position of an inquirer, and not of a convert. We had Divine Service, morning and evening, on Sunday, the lOtli of October, according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and I officiated on both occasions, with much interest, nor is there any thing which I taught then, which I could not with equal consistency teach now, as a Catholic Christian. We arrived at Liverpool on the next Sunday morning, just in time for Church, and I was happy to have the opportunity of hearing two Sermons from the Rev. Dr. McNcilc, who is so well known as an eloquent preacher * Right Aor. Maurioo De St. Palais, D. D., Disliop of VioMnnes, (Indiana, VM.) 16 SCENES AT OXFORD. and a violent controversialist. I liarl hopctl that a favor- able impression, on the side of Protestantism, mi^lit even yet bo produced by the persuasive arguments and tho fascinating language of this gifted orator, but, however highly I admired his expositions of Scripture, his allusions to the subject of the Royal Supremacy and tho political aspect of PJngland with reference to the See of Home, only tended (like Dr. Gray's remarks on tho same sub- ject) to confirm my former conclusions on these points. On the following day I proceeded to Oxford. Dr. Gray thinks (p. 42) that I might afford to " shed a single tear over the tombs of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley." I beg to assure him that I have anticipated his wishes, and have literally complied with his suggestion — not so much from a feeling of siimpatliy with the principles of those men, as of deep emotion at the awful events of tho times in which they lived and died. The first place which I visited on my arrival at Oxford was tho " Martyrs' Memo- rial"; and I well remember, that on arriving at the fatal spot, which is marked by a transverse stone in the cross- way of Broad Street, opposite the Master's door of Balliol College, though it was a wet and stormy night, I fell on my knees on the ground, and offered up a prayer to the God of Saints and Martyrs, that lie would mercifully strengthen His servants for every trial, and preserve His Church in tho purity of the Christian Faith. It was in the ancient city of Oxford, in the Cathedral of Christ Church, in the midst of a Protestant University, now in possession of the venerable Colleges, Halls, and Chapels of Catholic times, that my former plans were fully matured, and on the following Sunday, the 24th of Octo- ber, I attended the Services of the Catholic Church in London. The month of November came, and at that holy season 4 rUIlLTCATTON OF LETTl'U. r tliat a favor- , niiglit oven ints and the ut, however liis allusions the political 30 of Rome, 3 same sub- liese points, xford. Dr. lied a single d Ridley." I liis wishes, Ion — not so principles of vents of the )lace whichi tyrs' Memo- at the fatal in the cross- lor of Balliol ht, I fell on rayer to the mercifully cserve His 'athcdral of University, !, Halls, and s were fully :th of Octo- Church in holy season at wliinh tlio Church celobratos tlio memory of " All Saiiitn" who have gone before ns, I had tho inestimable privilege of being admitted into tho " Communion of Saints" in tlie "Holy Catholic Church." My return to this place was unexpected, and I tliought it right to niiiko some explanation to my Protestant friends, wliich 1 dill in tlie form of a Letter, which has occasioned the present controversy. Dr. Gray says (p. 23) that this pamphlet '^ had no doubt passed under the revision of Cardinal \Vis(>man, as it did subsequently under that of IJishop Connolly." In this, however, ho is mistaken, as neither of these distinguished Prelates had ever seen aline of it before its publication, and the only Bishop to whom J had su1.)raitted the Manuscript, was the Protestant Bishop of Nova Scotia, though I cannot say that it met with his Lordship's cordial approbation. Such, then, were tho circumstances relating to the publication of this document. But there is another point, to which I must briefly allude. It has been thought that I Iiave drawn an invidi- ous comparison between tho piety of the lives of Catholics and Protestants ; and this has been even construed into an ungrateful rellection on tho Parishioners of St. Paul's. It is true that contrasts of this kind do not alwavs come within the sphere of observation of those who are most deeply interested in them. But no one, surely, can lor a moment imagine that I intended any allusions of a local or personal nature in any of the particulars there enume- rated, which were stated solely with reference to tho general effects of religion in different countries, and the visible influence produced by the Catholic Church, as tending to illustrate the earnest tone of piety which usually characterizes her members, as distinguished from tho religious a].aticn, though the original term was precisely the same in both classes of passages.* Most of these have, indeed, b 'nee been corrected, though not till after they had produceo the intended eflfoct; but there are some traces of this distinc- tion still to bo observed in the present Translation, and thus the very sound of the word was intended to express an ofiensive idea to the mind of the English reader. Now the word " Tradition," in its most comprehensive * In every Engllih Veriton of the New Testament, made by Protestants during the I6tli Century, the word trauition was exclusively adopted wherever the passni^o referred to some religious coredption, but wliere the same Greek word was applied to some trvb doctrine, it yta» changed into another form by using on' of the English terras, "ordinance," "instruction," or "institution." TliO word "tradition" was also auiuotlmes introduced, where there was no oorrcs- ponding term in the orit;inal, in connexion with some praetice reproved by the Apostles— as for instance, in Col. il. iO, which was translated, "Why are ye led," (or " bunloiied," in the Uonovan Version) " with Traditions T" Indeed this prinoiplu was fully admitted by Fulke, in his Confutation of the Rhcmii''' Twitiu»ient, in which lie says—" We do avoid the term of Traditions, to distinguislt ib< >rdinanou8 and doctrine delivered by the Apostles, ftrom the tradi- tions ot men wiiieh out Saviour Christ oondomneth." (Text of the New Test, fol. 347. Lend. LVM.) Thus the Protestant intisrpretatioh of the Bible was introduced into the TaijrsLATiuN oi the Sacred Text itself. 22 APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE; ; i? J* li^ t i sense, properly means whatever i& delivered from one per' son to another, whether written or unwritten, and the par- ticular character of the Tradition depends entirely on the nature of the subject, or the sowce from which it is de- rived. Thus there are various Jcmds of Traditions — divine and human — true and false — Jewish and Christian — doctrines and ceremonies — the same general narne being employed with reference to subjects of the most different and opposite nature. It is necessary therefore to ex- plain that when we speak of Tradition an a. rule of faith, we refer solely to the doctrine taught hy Christ and His Ajms-^ ties, which is therefore of Divine authority, and of Apos- tolical origin. As used by Catholics in this sense, Divine or Apostolical Tradition simply means the whole Gospel of Christ, delivered hy the Apostles to the Church. It fol- lows, of course, that Tradition, in the proper sense of the word, includes Scripture itself although, merely with a view to perspicuity of arrangement. Scripture and Tradi- tion are generally distinguished as the two component parts of divine revelation. In this limited signification,, then, Tradition is regarded as supplemental to Scripture,, and each of them as incomplete without the other. It is not meant, however, that the one is independent of the other, beyond the simple fact that they have been trans- mitted to us in a different mode, while descending in sepa- rate streams from the same divine fountain of Eternal Truth. And here, it is important to observe, for the in- formation of some who appear really to have mistaken the meaning of the term, that when wo speak oii\\ii unwritten Word of God, we do not mean that this part of revealed truth has never been written at all, but only that it was not written by the inspired authors themselves in the Canonical Books of Scripture. Many Protestants seem to tliinli that Tradition is something of an uncertain and CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT RULES. aa iiidejinitc nature, which requires to be constantly defined and explained by the Church to the faithful, as admitting of the most cotivoniont latitude, by which it is capable of being adapted to any addition or alteration in tlie Ca- tholic Creed. But nothing can be more erroneous than such a view. For while, according to Protestant prin- ciples, the language of Scripture may be understood in every variety of meaning, according to the mind of each individual reader, the Tradition of the Catholic Church, on the contrary, is fixed and unchangeahle, as depending not on opinions but on fads^ not on any ambiguous form of words, which may be interpreted in different senses, but on the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles, " the fliith which was once delivered" (by tradition, as the origi- nal word implies) ''to the .Saints," transmitted in unbroken succession from the beginning, and guarded against the possibility of misapprehension and corruption, by the living, speaking voice of the Church, guided by the in- fallible teaching of the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church rejects with abhorrence all human Traditions and inven- tions of men in the religion of Christ, and has always most carefully preserved the sacred deposit of divine truth committed to her trust, in all its original integrity, against every error and iiniovation, both within and with- out her own Communion. We may, then,brielly sum up this statement by saying that the CatJiolic Hide of Faith is the Word op God, interpreted by the IIot.y Spirit in the Cijuiicii OF Christ — :;nd the Protestant Ride of Faith is the BiRLE, interpreted hy the Holy Spirit, or by human REASON, in each individual Christian, or in each par- ticular Denomination of the Reformed Churches. It will be observed, then, that I am not now arguing this point, or drawing any inferences from received opinions, but simply endeavoring to convey a faithful 4 ■'S 24 DIVINE COMMISSION. representation of the real principles professedly Iteld on both sides of this great controversy.* Now, in order to test the soundness of these principles, it must be admitted that the only important question for our consideration is this — What was the Rule of Faith laid down hy Oun Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles for the perpetual guidance of the Ghurchi The answer to this question is perfectly clcnr and decisive, and it is contained in a book which is believed by Protestants as well as by Catholics to be of the highest authority, and therefore we may safely appeal to the New Testament, as a record of historical documents, independently of its Divine inspiration. For this purpose we shall now refer to the great commission given to the Apostles by our Divine Redeemer, shortly before His Ascension into Heaven. We read in the 28th Chapter of St. Matthew s Gospel, that '-'■ Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo ! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." The same commission is more briefly expressed in the IGth Chapter of St. Mark's Gospel, in the following language — " And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and ^reacA the Gospel to every creature. He that bolieveth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here, then, we have the Divine Rule of * Dr. Cramp says (p. 53) that I have quoted tho Dcoroo of the Council of Trent "in order to piiove that Scripture and Tradition united constitute the divine rule of faitliand praotioo"— and thus have been guilty of the fallacy of a "petitio principii" l)y appealing to tho authority of the Church as a conclusive demon- stration. Now there is not the slightest foundation for this accusation, as it is evident that I referred to this document, not as a proof for tho conviction of Pro- testants, but simply for the purpose of stating thk (jukstion on tlio real doctrine of the Catholic Church, aa expressed in hor own authentic declaration. CHURCH AUTHORITY. 25 edly lield on , in order to be admitted onsideration loion hy Our he perpetual s question is ed in a book by Catholics '0 ma}' safely jf historical ration. For commission iner, shortly 1 in the 28th IS came and 1 unto me in \ all nations, \ of the Son, ve all things m with you The same Gth Chapter age — " And , and preach veth, and is th not shall ne Rule of ouncil of Trent tuto tho divine oy of a "petitio iclusive domon- i.sation, as it is nvictlon of Pro- lio real doctrine tion. Faith proposed by our Blessed Saviour, the authoritative teaching of His Apostles and their successors for ever, de- fined by Himself, and enforced with the most awful sanctions, in the language of Him who has declared — • " the word that I have spoken the same shall judge you in the last day." Now it is evident that this commission is still in fall force, that it never has aird never will be superseded by any other, for it was to last " alivay, even unto the end of the loorld,^- and yet the Apostles themselves are dead for nearly 1800 years; it cannot therefore relate to them personally, but officiolly, as existing still on earth in their representatives and successors in every age. It has been said, indeed, that this promise may be applied, not to any living representatives of the Apostles, but to their own inspired writings contained in the New Testa- ment. But this interpretation is only an attempt to make the word of God of none effect by the traditions of men, and to substitute a /mmari theory for Divine authority; for our blessed Lord gives no instructions whatever to His Apostles, with regard to any loritten documents, but only with regard to their oral teaching. He does not tell them to ivrite a book, but to -preach the Gospel, and thus he declares the foundation of all divine faith to be the tradition of the Apostles, or the unwritten word of God. Had our Saviour really intended that his religion should be fully recorded in a hook, which all persons might con- sult and explain for themselves, as a complete collection of Christian doctrines, we might surely be justified in the expectation that Ho Himself would have committed some portion of it to writing, or at least, that Ho would have given some directions to His Apostles on a point of such vital importance, and made some reference to such written documents as the only directory of the Church in all future ages. Yot we find that He makes no provision 9e TEACHING OP THE APOSTLES. ( i whatever for such a mode of instruction, and it is obvious- ly impossible to account for His silence on this subject, consistently with Protestant principles. He evidently proposes quite a different Rule of Faith, and there is not the slightest intimation given in the New Testament, — indeed it is directly contrary to the words of our Lord —that this rule was only intended to be of tempo- rm-y obligation, that it was to cease when the Canon of Scripture was completed, or that any other rule was ever to be substituted for it after the death of the Apostles. And we find that the uniform practice of the Apostles was in perfect accordance with our Saviour's directions. Such was the language of St. Paul to the Corinthians — " I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto yoic.'^ (1 Cor. xi. 23.) Here is the source and the channel of Apostolical Tradition, received from Christy and delivered by the Apostles to the churches, not in their tvriiten works, but in their public teaching, as the foun- dation of Christian doctrine. And again, in another remarkable passage in the same Epistle, he says — "J deli- vered unto you first of all, thai ivhich I also rcceived,\\o\y that Christ died for our sins, according to the ScripturesJ^ (1 Cor. XV. 3.) Here we have an instructive instance of the connexion between direct revelation and Scripture testis mony. He appeals to the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment, not as the exclusive source of his own doctrine, but as fully harmonising with it, and confirniiiig the truth of what he had received by immediate communication with Christ. He does not profess to give any new revelation to the Church in writing, but simply to explain and en- force what he had delivered to them before in the course of his previous teaching. And I may hero refer to a passage contained in my Letter (p. 50) in which I re- marked that " the whole system of Christianity would STRUCTURE OP THE NET' TESTAMENT. 21 have been j97*ecise?«/ the same at the present day, if the Neto Testament had never been written at all.'" Some of my opponents have strongly objected to this statement, but I confess I am quite a loss to understand on what grounds. It is difficult to conceive how it can be denied by any Christian. Is it supposed that the Apostles communica- it d any new system of Christian doctrine in their writings^ which they bad omitted to deliver to the Churches in their personal teaching ? Then it will follow that they must have instructed their converts very imperfectly in the truths of the Gospel, though St. Paul could confident- ly appeal to the Ephesian elders on this point when ho Bays — " I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" — and again, to the Galatians — " Though we, or, an angel from Heaven, preach aiiij other Gospel unto you than that which ive have preached unto you, let him he accursed." It is evident, indeed, from the whole tone and structure of the Apostolical Epistles, that they were never intended to convey any neio revelation of tlie doctrines of Christianitv, in addition to those whicli had been already delivered by the Apostles to the Churches, in the course of their public ministrations. Their lan- guage is constantly to this effect, as reminding them of the doctrines Avhich they had previously taught among them. Thus St. Paul says — ^^Bememher ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2 Thess. ii. 5.) St. Peter says — " I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of those things, though ye know ihem.'^ (2 Peter i. 1 2.) St. John says — '^ Brethren, Iivrite no new comvumdment unto you, but an old commandment lohich ye had from the hegimdng." (1 John ii. 7.) Such are their general statements, and we may fairly invite any Pi'otestant to prove that there was any one article of faith taught in the Writings of the Apostles, which had PRIMITIVE RULE. not been already taugM by their oral instructions in the Church — or to prove that everi/ article of faith which the Apostles delivered to the Church was aftenoards particu- larly explained in their Writings, and that we are fully justified in rejecting it, unless we are satisfied that it was distinctly taught in the loritten Epistles, as well as the oral instructions, of the Apostles. We ask then, What was the Rule of Faith held by the Primitive Church in the beginning of Christianity ? It was certainly not the New Testament, for it was not written at the time. And yet, hero were Christians fully instructed in all the doc- trines of the Gospel, and perfectly united together in the faith of Christ, which they had received from the Apostles and other zealous Missionaries. The foundation of their faith was Apostolical Tradition, or the Gospel preached by the Apostles, to which no addition was ever made by the completion of the Canon of Scripture, and the same foundation has continued ever since in the Church, and will continue to the end of the world, accord- ing to the word of Christ. This, then, was the general argument to which I refer- red in my Letter — not as founded on any theory whatever, but on a plain matter of fact in the ea,rly history of Chris- tianity. The Church of Christ was in existence long be- fore the New Testament was written, and therefore it follows that the Church could not possibly have been founded on the statements of a book which was not in existence at the time of its foundation. The first Chris- tian Church on earth was established at Jerusalem by the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, whereas the first part of the New Testament, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not published for severalyears afterwards, and the Church was extended over a great part of the world before the New Testament was completed by the publication of St. SCRTPTURAL APPEAL TO THE CHURCH. 29 ctions in the ith which the lards parti cii- we are fully id that it was well as the ^ then, What e Church in ;ainly not the e time. And n all the doc- togcther in ed from the le foundation r the Gospel ion was ever cripture, and since in the ?orld, accord- k^hich I refer- ry whatever, ory of Chris- ence long he- therefore it y have been I was not in first Chris- salem by the reas the first Gospel, was I the Chursh 1 before the ;ation of St. I ■«te John's Gospel. Consequently, it is perfectly clear that the New Testament was not the original authority on which the first preachers of the Gospel acted in the pro- pagation of Christianity, and that they were possessed of a divine commission, quite independent of any ivritten documents wliatover. This commission was derived from Christ Himself, and not from the New Testament, and it is on this principle that the Church has always acted, in perfect accordance with the directions of Scripture itself. For we find that in every question of doctrine or practice, the New Testament invariably refers us to the authority of the Church, and not to its own declarations, as the foundation of all faith; it is the living voice of the Pastors, and not the indefinite statements of a ivritten book, by which all controversies were appointed to be finally de- cided. Take the following passages as examples of this principle — " Tell it unto the Church, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let hira be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall hind on earth, shall be hound in heaven, and what- soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven^ (Matt, xviii. 17, 18.) ''He that heareth you heareth J/e, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me, and he that de- spiseth i!/e despiseth Him that sent 3Ie" (Luke x. 16.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that receiveth whomr soever I send receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me re- ceiveth Him that sent MeJ' (John xiii. 20.) " Now I be- seech you, bretln-en, mark them that cause division and offences contrary to the doctrine ivhich ye have learned, and avoid them." (Romans xvi. 17.) "But if any man seem to be contentious, loe have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. And the rest will I set in order when Icome.^' (1 Cor. xi. 16, 34.) "He gave some. Apostles, and some. Prophets ; and some. Pastors and Teachers, for 80 FALLACY OP PROTESTANT ARGUMENT. II ( the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all comeinthe unit?/ of the faith." (Eph. iv. 11-13.) " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." (Hub. xiii. 17.) It may be thouglit, perliaps, that the reference to Church authority is not so exphcit or so frequent as migljt have been expected, but w. must remember that the primitive Christians did not require to be constantly reminded of the duty of submission to an authority which was never denied by any of them, and which was continually before their eyes in its practical exercise. But if these texts are comparatively few, we ask, on the. other hand, can Protestants bring forward a7iy texts at all which ever refer to the New Testament as the only standard of doctrine ? is it not an extraordinary omission, that there is not the slightest allusion to this collection of inspired documents, in all the Sacred Writings? and how is it possible to ac- count for their total silence on the subject, if it was really the intention of the Apostles to substitute the Neto Testament for Church authority, after their own death ? Of course it was held then, as well as now, that nothing can be decided by the Church, contrary to Scripture, and the office of the Church could only apply to those cases in which no decision was recorded in Scripture, or in which its language was capable of different interpreta- tions; and these cases, it must be confessed, include almost the whole range of Christip-n doctrine. v- ... Here, then, we must perceive at once the absurdity of every attempt that is made to prove the complete suffici* ency of Scripture by an appeal to any particular texts of Scripture. The doctrines of Christianity are generally supposed, by Protestants, to be fully recorded in the New Testament. But there is not a single text of Scrip- AMBIGUITY OP LANGUAGE. 31 'the ministry, all come in the n that have the ratch for your Elub. xiii. 17.) ice to Church ks migljt have the primitive r reminded of icli was never inually before f these texts er hand, can ich ever refer of doctrine ? sre is not the d documents, ossible to ac- ect, if it was tute the Neto own death ? that nothing hripture, and those cases ipture, or in it interpretor icludo almost absurdity of iplete suffici* mlar texts of re generally rded in the ext of Scrip- ture which contains any reference to the existence c 'he New Testament, — and much less, there is not a single text of Scripture which ever asserts that all the doctrines of the Oospel are to he found loritten in the New Testament. How is it possible, then, to prove from Scripture the comjdete- ness of a rule which is 7iever mentioned in Scripture? la it not strange, that an appeal should be made to Scrip- ture in proof of the sufficiency of the New Testament, w' '^i i\\GVQ h not a ivord m Scripture about the Now Tescamcnt at alVl * This simple fact, then, immediately disposes of every plausible argument that can be founded on any particular statement of Scripture, and shows that the whole process of reasoning is a mere sophism. The object is to prove the sufficiency of Scripture, and various texts are alleged which are supposed to relate to this subject. Ihit it is not defined what is meant by " Scrip- ture," and conso(iuently the term is used in one sense in the premisses, ;ind in ano^Aer sense in the conclusion. For all the texts quoted relate to the Jewish Scriptures or the Old Testament, while Protestants apply them to the Christian Scriptures or the Neio Testament, to which they have no reference whatever in the language of the sacred writers. We conclude, then, that it is utterly impossibfe to establish the Sufficiency of Scripture by an appeal to Scrijj/- ture itself — and that for two reasons — because it is neces- sary first to prove the Inspiration of Scnpture itsdf before we can found any argument on it as a book of Divine authority — and further, because, in point of fact, Scrip- ture makes no statement whatever, with reference to the existence or authority of the New Testament. * It is scarcely necessary to remark, that there is no reference to any inspired collection of Whitings in tlioso passages which speak of the Nbw T£Staubnt (Matt. xxvi. 28., Mark xiv. 21., Luke xxli. 20., 1 Cor. xi. 25., 2Uor. iii. 6.,Heb. ix. 15.) as this oxj)re6siou evidently refers to the Chbistian Dispensation as distin- guished &om the j£wiun Covenant, ^ 88 EXTERNAL AUTHORITY NECESSARY. It cannot bo doniod that tho insjjiration of Scripture must bo proved by somo authority external to itself, as it is manifost that no booh can prove its own insipiration, until that book is /rs< proved to bo ins2)ired, and besides, tliero is not one of the sacred writers wlio over directly asserts his own inspiration. Now wo all know that the Malionictans appeal to the Koran as an inspired book, and the only proof of its inspiration to which they refer is tho assertion of tho l>oo]c itself, which declares that none but God could have composed it, and that tho Koran itself is a perpetual miracle."'^ Why do wo reject this proof? Because it is not supported by any extet rial evidence which can bo traced to Divine authority. It ,h well known that Mahomet himself expressly disclaimed ali pretensions to miraculous powers, and, like tho Reformers of the IGth Century, rested solely on tho internal evidence of the Divine origin of tho Koran. Wo all see the absurdity of this mode of proof as applied to a false reli- gion, and yet tho same principle is often employed in proof of the inspiration of tho Sacred Scriptures. Now, in order to possess tho Bible as a DivinehooJc, it is necessary that we should have received it from God, and that God should have declared Himself the Author of it. But how can the Divine origin of the Bible be established on Pro- testant principles, which do not acknowledge the exist- ence of any divinely appointed medium of communication with God ? It is certain that we have not received the Bible directly from God — it has corao to us indirectly, through the hands ol others, and we must therefore de- pend on somGexternal authority in proof of its inspiration. Even if the Bible itself directly assorted it, this would not be sufficient. To attempt to prove the inspiration of the Bible by its own cmthority, and its authority by its tn aT Ol in mi mi in bo no o * Palcy's Evidences, Part II. chap. xl. sect, 3. CATHOLIC PROOF OF SCRIPTURE. of Scripture to Uncl/\ as it I iiippirution, and besides, )ver directly ow that the od book, and ' refer is the mt none but oran itself is this proof? rial evidence . well known I pretensions mers of the al evidence all see the I a false reli- employed in es. Now, in is necessary nd that God But how led on Pro- e the exist- imunication jceived the indirectly^ icrefore de- inspiration, this would inspiration ority by its infipiration, is merely an example of a "vicious circle" in argument. Its divine authority must first be established on independent grounds — it must be declared by the infallible decision of the Word of God, before we can make an appeal to it for the proof of any doctrine. There must therefore be some external institution, on whose infallible testimony we receive the Bible as a divine book. Without this testimony, it is evident that we can- not make an act of faith in the Bible, or in the dcctrines ot the Bible, as we have otherwise no proof of its divine origin, but what is founded on our own imagination. To say that we receive the Bible on the ground of its own insjnration, or on the testimony of the Spirit of God, in to assume the very thing to be proved, and of which we have no evidence, but what is founded on the divine attes- tation of a visible society instituted by Christ, which is fully recognised by all Catholics as " the Church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth." It is evident, then, that we cannot make any use of the Bible as a rule of faith, until we have first clearly settled tohat books are entitled to be admitted into the Bible; and it is obviously impossible to ascertain this point from the Bible itself, because it is entirely sileni on the subject, and gives us no information as to the names or number of the books to be received into the Canon of Scripture; and this circumstance forms an insuperable objection to the opinion of the complete sufficiency of Scripture, as it does not even profess to define the extent of its own authority, or the constituent parts of which it is com- posed.* It is often said, indeed, that i\\Q genuineness of the *Tht8 point is Hilly admitted by Hooker, in his oontrovorsy witti ttio Puritans " It may bo notwithstandijig and ortentimes hath boen domandod, how tho books of Holy Scrtvre, and the office of preaching, from the Poi'e; otherwise wo must go and make a new Scrlptttre."-KDe Captir. Babylon, cap. il.) However, the learned Lutheran, Professor Miohaolis, in the last Century, maintained that " no Protestant can appeal on this subject to the testimony of the Church."— (Introduction to N. T.— Marsh's Trans, Vol. I. p. 76. 4th Ed.) The modern German School has consistently applied this principle, and, acting on the right of private Judgment, has ended in rejecting, not only tho Canon, but even the Inspiration of Scripture. Such is the progress of the Reformation In that country, which was the first to reject the autho- rity of the Church, the legitimate consequence of which is tho rejection of the authority of Scripture.— See Rose's "State of Protestantism la Germany," p. 106 2n4 Ed. * Butler's Analogy, Part 11, Chap, ii, . «CRTPTURAL AUXnORITV OF TRADITION. 35 18 of ancient 1 buing tliu» 'ration is tlie But, even if I it that wo the works of viJonco and ased to con- ion. On the divine book, Cthc Church thority itscl/' divino acts, niiraclo was of the Now ion itself, as racle, which But it is )n has ever 'j,i'e, while it sitions have is not the Word ink it Ilia Word, till THAT Sorip- Tiptare to give con to rest our fncknowledged, iOLK 8CRI1>T«RE, nud niako a now hcran, Profesaor appeal on this -Marsh's Trans, >ly applied this led in rejecting, ia the progress jeot the autho- -ejection of the rmany," p. io& boon ri-oqncntly i^/ven in proof of tho divint aafhoriiy oj the Church, which lb therefore tho ultimate foMndatiou of all religion. It is obviouwly unroasonable, then, even on Protestant principles, to appeal to Scriptui'o (Jtloi\A in proof of every article of faith, since the very Canon of Scripture itself prcsnpposeH tho existence of anoVier autiiority in the CImrcli, which is generally understood by the name of Tradition. But JuJgo Marshall inquires (p. 11) "Where is tho text or authority in Scripture for the assertion that the oral teaching of the Apostles was to be delivered and pi'oserved by Tradition in the Church?" Now, though this question involves a pctitio pi'incipii, as it assumes that direct Scriptural authority is necessary for every point of faith, still I have no objection to meet him on this groujid, and I beg to refer the learned Judge to the following texts — Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Mark xvi. 15. Luke xxiv. 47. Acts i. 8. Rom. x. 14, 15. 1 Cor. xi. 2. 2 Thess. ii. 15. 2 Tim. i. 13., ii. 2., iii. 14. I hope that these texts will be found satisfactory, as they all relate to the testimony of Scripture in favor of the perpetual authority of Apostoli- cal Tradition. But surely, I may be allowed to retort the question, and propose the inquiry — " Where is the text or authority in Scripture for the assertion ihoXall the doc- trines of the Gospel were to be delivered and preserved in the New Testament '/^^ I confess I do not expect to receive a satisfactory answer to this question, as it is impoBsible to allege a single text to this effect, for there is no authorUyi in Scripture for such an assertion. But it is said, if this bo the case, " what need at alt could there have been for these sacred records being made ?" Certainly we admit that they never coul^ have been intended as an independent rule of faith, becauge all the doctrines contained in them had beeh alveady deli- 36 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. I'crec? to the Church. But still they were of the moat im- portant practical use for the perpetual ediBcation of the Church of God, as the writings of all holy men, in every age, are in an inferior degree, though they do not profess to contain a complete development of the system of Chris- tianity. See John xx. 30, 31. 2 iZov. i. 13. Phil. iii. 1. Heb. xiii. 22. 2 Peter iii. 1. 1 John i. 4. Jude 3. But the Judge remarks, that " as to the sayings of some Fathers on the point, the writer has not told us who they are, or when they flourished," and accordingly he wishes to have further information on the subject. I shall proceed, then, to quote some of their testimonies, in the order of time in which they flourished. 1. Tertullian, (A.D. 200)." Let us then inquire, whether no Tradition should be admitted, uvless it be ivritten. I will allow that it should not, if no examples of other prac- tices can be adduced, which we maintain on the sole (froiind of Tradition and the force of custom, without the smallest written autJiority. Of these ahd other usages, if you ask for the written authority of the Scriptures, none will be found. They spring from Tradition, which prac- tice has confirmed and obedience has ratified."* 2. Origen, (A.D.230)."TheChurch6y2Va(/i7ion received from the Apostles the practice of administering Baptism to Infant8."t 3. St. Basil, (A. D. 370). " Among the points of be- lief and practice in the Church, some were delivered in writing, while others were received by Apostolical TVor dition in a mystery, that is, in a hidden manner, but hoih have an eg'woZ efficacy in the promotion of piety.":}: 4. St. Epiphanius, ( A. D. 370). " We must look also to Tra- dition for all things cannot be learned from the Scriptures. * Do Corona MiMtis, cap. 111. iv — Tom. IV , p. 340, 341, (Kd Seinlor.) f Horn, in C»p. »J. ad Rom.— Tom. II., p. 543. (Bd. \U,6. 1571.) % De Splrittt Baneto, cap. xxtU.— Tom. III., p. M. (Ed. Ben.) m 'ii AUTHORITY OP THE FATHERS, 37 most ira" n of the in every t profesiS of Chris- liil. iii. 1. 3. 1 of some who they le wishes 1 proceed, ho order , whether ritten. I ther prac- i the sole lithout the usages, if ires, none lich prac- 1 received Baptism nts of be- ivorcd in lical Tror but hoih Iso to Tror Scriptures. For which reason the holy Apostles loft some things in writing, and others not."* 5. St. Chrysostom, (A. D. 400). " Hence it is plain that' all things were not delivered iw ivriting, but many with- out writing, yet the latter are to be believed in like man- ner as the/ormer ; therefore, let us hold fast to the Tra- ditions of the Church."f 6. St. Augustine, (A. D. 400). "With respect to divine authority, whatever the whole Church observes, which was not decreed by Councils, but always retained^ is justly believed to be oi Apostolical origin." % We have here a few examples of the doctrines held by the Fathers on this subject. But the Judge is " fully warranted in not admitting their authority as infallible." Most certainly — no one ever thought otherwise. The Fathers were fallible men like ourselves ; but we hold it as an article of faith, that the Church of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, is infallihle in all its definitions of doctrine, accordhig to the promise of Christ. We do not refer to the Fathers for the proof of any doctrine, but for i\\Q proof oi the/rtc/ that such doctrine was held by the Church in their time. We do not rel}' upon their au- thority so much as their testimony. We appeal to them as witnesses, not as Judges of controversy. We do not assume the Infallibility of the Church in arguing with Protestants. We allege the testimonies of the Fathers on ' this and all other subjects of controversy, simply for the purpose of showing, by historical evidence, that the doc- trines now hold by the Catholic Church have always been lield by the Christian Church from the beginning, while the doctrines now held by Protestants are modern inno- vations, totally unknown to the ancient Church in its * Ilicr. xli., (ftivo Ixi.)— Tom. I. p. 511. (Ed. Col. 1G82.) t Uora. In '.> Thesis.— Tom. XI. p. r.:w. (,Ed. Bon.) . , , ■-■' icoutra Donattst. Lib. IV., cap. 21.— Tom. IX. p. 140. (Ed. Ben.; ' ' ""*' "^ 38 HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY. first, and best, and purest days. We ask, then, even on the low ground of human probability — which is it most Kkely that the whole Church was mistaken for so many hundred years in some of the most important doctrines of Christianity — or that the opinions of a small minority of professing Christians in the present day are founded on error ? For it must be remembered, that Christianity ia a great historical /ad, which has now been before the world for the last 1800 years, and not merely a collec- tion of abstract, opiwio/js, founded on the conclusions of Theological speculation. If it be said, that we are now capable, by the private study of the Scriptures, ol making discoveries of religious doctrines which were unknown to the ancient Church, and of rejecting those which were universally held in former times, then it fol- lows that the originaK revelation must have been of a most incomplete and indefinite character — we are adopt- ing the principle of the " development of Christian doctrine " in its most objectionable form, and our theories of divine truth will appear to consist, not merely in new imterpretations of Scripture, but also in new revelations of doctrine. But it is said, that the Scriptures are divine, while the works of the Fathers are only human. Granted ; but the Vrotoslant inte7'pretation of the Scriptures is only human, and it is presumed that the Catholic Church has at least an equal claim. Protestants have, at the best, nothing but their own private judgment to guide them in ascertaining the meaning of Scripture, while Catholics have, at the oorst, the same advantage — with the further assistance of an infallible authority to preserve them from all error in doctrine. It is said, however, that the Scriptures are so very plain, that no one who is not wilfully blind can mistake their meaning on any important subject. If this be true, why, ii. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 39 ven on tlie s it most • 80 many doctrines I minority e founded hristianity before tlie y a collec- onclusions lat we are •iptures, of rhich were ting those then it fol- e been of a ^ are adopt- Christian iir theories 'cly in new revelations are divine, Granted ; iires is only ic Church lave, at the t to guide ture, while 1 — with the 3 preserve NQvy plain, stake their ! true, why, then, do Protestants contradict each other in their inter- pretations of Scripture, involving the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity? Why do they found different and opposite doctrines on the same teodsl* It is evident, that fads refute this theory, while every heresy that has arisen in the Church appeals to Scripture in proof of its origin in the inspired Word of God. Thus it was re- marked by St. Hilary, in the 4th Century — " Recollect that there is not one of the heretics who does not now impudently assert that all his blasphemies are derived from the Scriptures. Thus all urge the Scriptures with- out any knowledge of them, and without faith talk of their faith. For it is not merely hy reading, but by com- prehending the sense, that the Scriptures are to be weighed."! This artifice is thus referred to by St. Vin- centius, in the 5th Century — " It may be asked," he says, "do heretics appeal to the testimony of the Scriptures ? Yes, certainl}'- they do, and with great vehemence, for you may see them running through all the books of the divine law, in Moses, in the Kings, in the Psalms, in the Apostles, in the Gospels, in the Prophets, they almost never allege anything of their own, which they do not pretend to shadow by the words of Sacred Scripture." "And if any one demand of any of these heretics. How do you prove and convince me that I ought to forsake the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? immediately he replies, because it is written ; and at once he will allege you a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities, out of the Law, out of the Psalms, out of the Apostles, out of the Prophets, by which, interpreted after an evil fashion, he would * Thus, an old writer enumerates 200 interpretations of Matthew xzvi. 26, and Winer, the Uerman critic, atllrms that there are no less than 250 diflbrent expla- nations of tial. iil. 20. t S. Hilar. Piotar. 0pp. Ad Constant. Lib. ii. p. 1230. rical, while phetieal, as prediction. 5sed to the »t that they Christians IS Christ as 'eceive the I', and our idplea, and «i refers them to their own Scriptu.ds for evidence on this point. But ho\/ does this prove that every revealed uoctrine of Christianity is cont-^ined in the New Testa- merit, of which there was not a word written at the time ? And even if such a reference were possible, where is the proof? Suppose a question arose about any particular point of law, and the suggestion were made to the parties — " Search the Statutes, and you will find the required information in them" — would any one really infer from this suggestion, that it was the duty of every person to search the Statutes for full directions on every other subject of inquiry ? And yet such is the general nature of the argument founded on our Saviour's advice to the Jgw^ or this occasion. We find that He lafers to four differr v testimonies of His divine mission. 1. The voice of God the Father, (v. 32, 37.) 2. The evidence of John the Baptist, (v. 33.) 3. That of his own mira- cles, (v. 3fi.) 4. That of the Scriptures, (v. 30.) Now, certainly, if this expression proves the sufficiency of Scripture alone, it equally proves the sufficiency of each one of the other three testimonies, for Scripture is only described as one of the four, and our Saviour applies the same precise terms to them all, when he says "they tes- tify of Me." Besides, it has been thought, from the use of parallel forms of expression, that our Saviour's words, " in them ye think ye have eternal life," imply some disapprobation of this opinion of the Jews; but, even in the ordinary sense of the English term, there is nothing whatever inconsistent with the Catholic view, in this language. But it is curious to observe the expansion of the system, which Mr. Hunt, r founds on this simple de- claration. He says, (p. 33) " these words of our Lord to the Jews will be found to contain a most striking re- buke of Home and her tradition." And again, (p. 34) 44 SECOND TEXT — ACTS XVII. 11,12. " Ho establishes conclusively that no Church gives au- thoriiy to Scripture, hut that the Bible is the Supreme Judge as to the teaching of any Church — that all Tradi- dition is subject to the written. Word — must be tried by it — received or rejected i)y it." There is certainly a development of meaning hero discovered, which no plain reader could have elicited from the text ; but as this ex- planation has not the advantage of an infallible interpre- tation, we may be allowed to question the soundness of the exegetical principles, by which it is deduced from the words of our Divine Redeemer, in opposition to the doctrine of the Church. 2. The second of these texts is Acts xvii. 11,12. " Thoy received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so; there/ore many of them believed.^^ Now we do not find any thing in this account of the Beroan Jews to warrant the inference which has frequently been drawn from it. Mr. Hunter saj-s, (p. 35) "It is most certainly not on this principle that Romanists act in reasoning with Pro- testants." But St. Paul was not reasoning with Pro- testants, who ^jvo^Qf&ii, to be Christians, but with Jews, who do not profess to be Christians, and Catholics do adopt the very same mode of argument still with Jews, in pro- ving that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah. And moreover, it is on this principle that Catholics act in rea- soning with Protestants, in proof of the divine authority of the Church, which they reject. But Mr. Hunter adds, " They do not test every fad, every doctrine taught them by their Church, with the touchstone of Scrip- ture." This is fully admitted, and when Mr. Hunter can show that St. Paul proved every doctrine — the Trinity, Baptism, Eucharist, and other Sacraments — to theBerean Jews from the Old Testament, then, and not till then, he 'may St. Pan circ aase APPEAL TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 45 irch gives au- tlio Supreme that all Tmdi- t be tried by iH certainly a liiuh no plain Hit as this ox- lihle interpre- soundness of educed from isition to tho 1,12. "They r mind, and things were e do not find s to warrant iwn from it. linly not on ig with Pro- ig with Pro- h Jews, who ic8 do adopt ews, in pro- ssiah. And s act in rea- 10 authority unter adds, rlae taught e of Scrip- Hunter can he Trinity, the Berean ill then, he may venture to draw a parallel between tho teaching of St. Paul, and that of Protesitants. We know that St. Paul constantly adapted ' . mode of teaching to the circumstances of his audience. In addressing a heathen . assembly, as at L'-'stra and Athens, he would, of course, make no allusion ^o the Scriptures which they did not acknowledge ; but in reasoning with a Jewish congre- gation, as at Thessalonica and Berea, he would strongly appeal to those Sacred Books, which they received as divine, in confirmation of the doctrine which he de- livered to them. They " searched tho Scriptures" of tho Old Testament with earnest attention, to examine whether the passages quoted by St. Paul were really contained in tho Writings of tho Prophets, and having been fully satisfied on this point, and being enlightened by the grace of God, the consequence was, that " many of them believed." But iy/m< did they believe? Was it only what tho Apostle was able to prove to them from the Old Testament ? If this were the case, they could not even have believed his fundamental doctrine, that Jcsua was the Christ, for it was not loritten there at all; and yet they received it and every other Christian doctrine taught by the Apostle, not because they found them in ; the Bible, but because they believed in tho divine mission of St. Paul, and consequently in the divine authority of all tho doctrines which he taught. It is evident that the Bereans " searched the Scriptures" in a very diffe- rent manner from that now recommended by Protestants, for they were not yet Christians at this time, and there- VKfore were bound to investigate all the evidence that was ^brought before them, including that of the'r own Scrip- tures, and being fully convinced that St. Paul was a teacher sent from God, they implicitly submitted to hie 3;^ instructions on every article of religion. Certainly the » 4G ST. PAUL'3 teaching. Scriptures were, (as Dr. Gray says, p. 55) " the rule of faith with those men," but they were not the only rule of faith, otherwise it would have been quite unnecessary to believe any additional doctrines which were taught by St. Paul. It cannot bo said that they believed nothing but what was already in their own Bible, for if so, they would have rejected the principal mysteries of the Christian Faith, which were not revealed in the Old Tes- tament. Dr. (xray (p. 54) takes exception to the statement, that St. Paul's reference to Scripture related only to the sufferings of Christ. But surely this was the great sub- ject of his preaching in every place — " Jesus Christ and Ilim Crucified" — and especially among the Jews, as we find in the context of this passage, just before, at Thos- salonica, that St. Paul " reasoned with them out of the Scriptures', opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts xvii. 2, 3.) Indeed the very expression about " those things," evidently relates to the subject of this passage. But I do not lay much rtress on this point, except to show that if he instructed them fully in the Gospel of Christ, he must have taught them many things that were not to be found in their own Scriptures, and that he commenced by teaching them the true meaning of those things that were to be found in them. The Jews veri- fied his quotations, and " many of them believed " the doc- trine of St. Paul on the ground of the fulfilment of pro- phecy — they were convinced on this ground, as others were on the ground of the miracles performed by the / postle, for there were other occasions on whjch St Paul did not appeal to Scripture at al", in reasoning with the Gentiles — and yet they believed on other grounds, and exercised the principle of divine faith in the Word ing t VARIKTV OF MOTIVES. — UNITY OF FAITH. 47 " the rule of ihe only rule unnecessary were taught ioved nothing ir if so, they jries of the the Old Tea- he statement, d only to the ho groat sub- 8 Christ and Jews, as we ore, at Thos- n out of the t must needs id, and that hriat." (Acts tout " those his passage, nt, except to he Gospel of things that res, and that ling of those Jews veri- ed " the doc- nent of piro- id, as others rmed bv the •n which St. isoning with er grounds, the Word of God, without any rcfurcnco to Scripture. We find that, in the same Chapter, St. Paul quotes " one of their own poets," in addressing the Athenian philosophers, and it is said that " certain men believed" — in each cawe adopt- ing the same principle with our Lord Himself, in arguing from facts and documents admitted on both sides. Scripture, then, was one ground of conviction to unbe- lievers, as to the Jews at Uerea — miradea were anotlicr, as to the heathen at Philippi — and even philosophy was another, as to the learned men at Athens — and thus each class of persons was influenced and persuaded by dijfeixnt motives, acvoiding to their previous opinions and circumstances, while the object of faith was the same with tluuu all, as founded upon the doctrine delivered to them by St. Paul, which is known by the name of Apostolical Tradition. It must bo remembered that St. Luke is not laying ^own any general rules in this passage, but merely stating /ac^s which occurred in the propagation of Chris- tianity. And yet this simple remark of the sacred his- torian is converted into a proof of the complete suffici- ency of tlio Scriptures, independently of Apostolical Tra- dition, and of the right of every private Christian to ex- amine every doctrine of Christianity proposed to them by the Church, and to judge of its truth or falsehood according to the standard of their own opinions as to the meaning of Scripture. But what connexion is there be- tween the text and the Protestant commentary upon it ? While therefore this passage may be taken as a proof that St. Paul's doctrine was "according to the Scriptures,'" it is impossible to infer from it, that all his doctrine was contained in the Scriptures, as the Apostles were sent into the world, not merely to interpret the Scriptures, but to announce a new revelation from God, including the most important doctrines which wore not contained in the Scriptures. "-:>*■ 48 Timil) TKXT— 2 TIMOTHY, 111. 15—17. 3. But the third of tlioHO texts is 2 Tim. iii. 15 17. " From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which aril able to make titer, wise unto salvation, through faitli which is in (>hrist Josus. Ml Scripture is coRt«irv part of tho Bible, as it is the only part of it > aich di~tinctly reveals to us the way (.tfsalva- li«>n. Does St. Pan', then, mean to say that tho Old Tes- 7. WANT OP AITLICATION. 49 iii. 15 17. Scriptures, '.on, through e IS ijivcn by trino, for re- ;htoou8neH8, ily lurniMliod ■ tho Htrong- tlie Protes- 8t tlie only any countc- urtordiiig an 3, (p. 36) "It 's regarding bnko of tho t impossible lus tho ques- provod that gly opposed ) aro tfiorious Paul is not cnso of tlie n about tho Ifoly Scrip- )d, consisted as no other ask, then, Is istruct na in I Testament tod by every t is an india- is the only ivay cf aalva- tho (M Tes- tament is vomphUly unffivicrU, and consequently, that tho Kcio Tostauiunt \h i\inti} unncc(H.sary? No Christian can fur a mouHMit suppose that this is his real ujoaning. And yet tho words aro capable of no oilier nioaniug, if tho Pi'otestaiit interi)retati()n of his expressions bo correct. Is not this, then, enough to show that Ihero I'lust bo sonio serious mistake in supposing that St. Paul intended to tea(;h such a d,: ked, that the expression " all Scripture" docs not Tuoan the whole collection of Scrijjture, but every part of Jioripture, or each separate book of the Old Tes- tament. That this is its true meaning is certain, both on grammatical and critical grounds of interpretation*. But will any one maintain that every particular booh of the Bib:e '• containeth all things necessary to salvation" ? Can this be true, for instance, of tho Book of Esther, which never mentions the name of God, nor makes the slightest allusion to any religious doctrine whatever? *SeoMiddletonon thoUrock Artiole, pp. 137, 5G7. (Ed. 1803.) 50 PARALLEL PASSAGE. ( If not, then the whole argument founded on this passage falls to the ground at once. But further, the word " profitable'^ conveys a very different meaning from that oi " su^cient" or "necessary." St. Paul does not say that Scripture alone is sufficient, but that it is profitable and useful, not as an indispensable requisite, but as affor- ding additional instruction and edification to the " man of God," who has already been taught the doctrines of the Gospel from another source, which is presupposed in the words of the text.* But Dr. Gray actually denies (p. 57) " that there was anything in St. Paul's oral teach- ing, that is not contained in Scripture," and asserts that " such an intimation would be a contradiction to his own words," in proof of which, he refers to his language before Agrippa — " saying none other things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come," (Acts xxvi. 22) which he understands to mean that St. Paul taught nothing but what was contained in the Jew- ish Canon of Scripture. But this cannot be the Apostle's meaning, otherwise he would have omitted some of the most essential doctrines of Christianity, which could nof. be proved from the Old Testament. St. Paul specifies thi'ee of the doctrines which he taughf — the death and resurrection of Christ, ajid the conversion of the Gentiles^ — which he declares had been foretold by Moses and the Prophets, and consequently, he asserts that his teaching on these points was in perfect accordance with the Jewish Scriptures ; but, surely, he cannot mean to say that it was * Tlius Hooker saya— "When the Apostle therefore afllrineth unto Timothy that the Old (Testament] was able to make him wise to salvation, it was not his meaning that the Old alonk can do this unto us whiuli live sithence the publi- cation of the New. For he speaketh with i'bksui'I'OSAl ok tub dootrink of Christ known also unto Timothy, and thoreforo first it is said— "Continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and art pursualod, knowing of whom thou ha?t been taught them." His words concerning tlie books of ancient Scrip- ture do not take place bnt with presupposal of tuu Gospel of Cubist em- braced.'* (fk^oleg. Pol. Book I. chap, ziv.) Pk % FAILURE OP PROOF. 51 18 passage the word from that 38 not say profitable ut as affor- the "man )ctrine8 of resupposed ally denies oral teach- ,sserts that to his own ! language than those lid come," n that St. ri the Jew- Apostle's ome of the could nofi specifies death and GentileSf es and the caching on le Jewish that it was unto Timothy it was not his noe tlie publi- K DOCTKINK OF 'Continue tliou owing of whom ancient Sorip- ur CuHiST em- ■A -It txcLUHwely derived from the Scriptures, as he appeals, in the context, to an additional revelation which he had him- self received from Christ, as the source of his own com- mission : just as the Catholic Church now asserts that her doctrines are in perfect accordance with the Scrip- tures, but not exclusively derived from them, as she appeals to the additional revelation which she has received from Christ, in the beginning of Christianity. Such, then, is the evidence of these three important passages of the New Testament, and I do not hesitate to repeat my former conclusion, (Letter, p. 47) that "every one of them, in its immediate context, overturns the Protestant rule, because it refers to the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles, as the true ground of Christian Faith, quite distinct from, and in addition to the - testi- mony of Scripture." They are, almost literally, the only texts that can be alleged ag seeming to favor the Protestant view, but such an appearance is at once dispelled by an attentive examination of the passages themselves. And we may be allowed to ask, how is it possible that, if this was the real meaning of these texts, it was never discovered by any one before the Sixteenth Century ? for we have no hesitation in asserting that there is not a single Christian author among all the Com- mentators on the Scriptures, for 1500 years after Christ, who ever held such an interpretation of these passa- ges. It is now little more than 300 years since a new system of religion was introduced into the world, which, when reduced to some degree of consistency, professed to be founded on the principle of rejecting every doctrine of Christianity which could not he proved, to the satis- faction of each individual, to be contained in certain pri- mitive documents, which had been collected and published by the Church under the title of " The New Testament." 52 UNWRITTEN TRADITION. The Protestant Reformers regarded these texts, inter- 2)reted by themselves, as sufficient to establish this prin- ciple, in opposition to the authority of the Church, though such an interpretation was contrary, not only to the doctrine of the Church in every age, but to the express assertions of the Apostles themselves, in their own Epistles. In my former Letter, (p. 47) I referred to St. Paul's exhortation to his converts — " Stand fast, and hold the Traditions luhich ye have heen taught, whether by ivord, or our . JEpisile." (2 Thess. ii. 15.) Is not this, then, a Scriptural proof of the existence of unwritten Traditions in matters of faith ? But Dr. Gray (p. 59) denies that these Traditions were doctrines or articles of faith, and he thinks that " the context proves that they were directions about some matters of practice." This is certainly a new interpretation, and the canon by which it is established is equally new. He refers to the next Chap)ter for an explanation of this term, where it is applied to a point of discipline, and he seems to regard this demonstration as perfectly conclusive, that " it has nothing ivhatever to do with what the Romish Church styles aHicles of faith, and which they profess to found upon Apostolical Traditions, so that the very corner-stone of the whole fabric crumbles as soon as you come to examine it." But again I assert, without fear of refu- tation, that the context proves the very contrary. For what is the subject of the whole Chapter in which this expression occurs ? It begins with a reference to future events connected with the Second Advent of Christ — the great Apostacy, and the coming of Antichrist — for a more full account of which, the Apostle refers them to his own 07'al teaching among them, (verses 5 and 6), and then, in the verses immediately preceding this celebrated passage, he adds these memorable words, (v. 13, 14) — EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE. texts, inter- 3h this prin- the Church; , not only to but to the ves, in their referred to ind fast, and wliether by Is not this, )f univritien fray (p. 59) r articles of es that they s." This is n by which to the 7iext v^hero it is 3 to regard bat "it has ish Church !s to found orner-stone u come to ar of refu- •ary. For which this 3 to future yhrist — the rist — for a ■8 them to nd 6), and celebrated , 13, 14)— 1= i. ti ' God hath, from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, whereunto he called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." Does this language relate to doctrine, or not ? There can be no doubt of it. And yet it is from these doctrines that he immediately draws the inference — " therefore, brethren, stand last and hold the Traditio7is," &c. What has this to do with the direction " not to eat the bread of others," to which Dr. Gray contends that the Apostle refers, by quoting a totally different part of the Epistle, and con- founding one kind of Tradition with another? Equally strange is Dr. Gray's confusion between two of St. Paul's Epistles, in which he denies (what no one r.fti ^ that these Traditions wore delivered exclusively t( '• w .thy, and in order to prove this, refers (p. 59) not to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy himself, but to a passage in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he says nothing about Timothy, but addresses them as a collective body, witliout reference to any particular individual. But Dr. Gray denies (p. GO) " that these Traditions tvere anything different from or more than ice have recorded in the written fVordJ^ How does he prove this ? We presume it will be admitted, that the burden of "proof foils upon those who reject the received doctrine of the Church to assign satisfactory reasons for their rejection. We are re- ferred, indeed, to Bishop Marsh's "ComparativeView," the 4tli Chapter of which relates to this subject, but its rea- soning is entirely founded upon Si ^ietitioprincijni, and in- deed it does not profess to establish anything beyond the bare possibiliti/ that all the Traditional doctrines of the Apostles might afterwards have been recorded in their AVritings, or to the supposed imp)rohahHity of their being transmitted to us through any oilier medium. But 54 MODE OP REVELATION. :«'^ M I surely the meve possibtlity of a tiling is no proof of the /ac^y and we cannot admit it without the warrant of divine autho- rity. It is certainly the highest act of presumption in ri8 to dictate to the Almighty as to the proper mode of making His revelation to man, or to refuse to believe Him, unless Ihe whole revelation is delivered to us in writing by the inspired Apostles. It is well remarked by Bishop Butler^ with reference to another class of objections, that " we are not in any sort able to judge, whether it were to have been expected, that the revelation should have been committed to writing.^^^' Archdeacon Paley says — " I re- member hearing an unbeliever say, that if God had given a revelation. Ho would have written it in theskics.^^\ Is it, then, a suflScient reason to reject any part of divine revelation, because it does not come to us exactly in that way which ive might have anticipated from natural rea- son, or even expected from some general intimations of Scripture itself? It may be asked, then, on what authority do we receive the unwritten Traditions of the Apostles ? We answer, on the same authority as that on which wo receive their written Traditions contained in the Canon of Scrijpture — that is, the divine authority of the Church. The Canon of Scripture itself, or List of Canonical Books, is only one of these Apostolical Traditions. Both the wriiten and unwritten Traditions have come down to us on the same ground, and if private judgment is exercised in rejecting the one, the foundation of the oilier will also be undermined. - ' But Dr. Gray maintains, not only that the Bible is per- fectly sufficient, but (p. 61 ) that "any one of the four parts * Butler's Analogy, Part II. Chap. III. The title of the Chapter is very in- structive— "Of our incapacity of judging, what wore to be expected in a Revela- tion ; and the credibility, IVom analogy, that it must contain things appearing liable to objections." t Paley '3 Evidences, Part III. Chap, vi. Sect. 1. I of U col SUFFICIENCY OP SCRIPTURE. 55 of of the /act,. :Jivine autho- )tion in ViS to ?c of making Him, unless 'iting by the ihop Butler, 3, that " we it were to i have been lays — " I re- f God had 1 tf^.e skies." f rt of divine »ctly in that latural rea- imations of it authority Apostles ? 1 which we the Canon he Church. ical Books, Both the lown to us I exercised 'r will also ihle is per- four parts iCr is very in- 1 in a Rovola- igs appearing of the New Testament may, under the blessing of God, conduct a man to salvation." We admit the possibility of it, in the same sense as that in which Timothy was made wise unto salvation by the Old Testament, not as containing all necessary truth, but as preparing the mind for the reception of it from the proper source of instruc- tion. In any other sense we deny it. Take, for instance, the Acts of the Apostles. Where will he find, in this book, any statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, In- carnation, Original Sin, or other essential truths of the Gospel ? Are these fundamental points, or not? If they are, then it cannot be true that a book which omits them contains all things necessary to salvation. If they are not, then it must be confessed, that there is no fundamen- tal point of faith in Christianity. However, Dr. Gray seems to think his position proved by a reference to John XX. 31. " These are loriften that ye might believe" &c. Now what is the subject of this passage ? It is evident from the preceding verse, that St. John is only referring to the miracles of our Lord, as the proof of His divine mission, and not to the doctrines which are recorded in his Gospel or in any other part of Scripture. In fact, if this argument proves anything, \i proves too much, for St. John here speaks of his own Gospel, as distinguished from tlie others, and declares that its design was to afford sufficient evidence for believing in Christ and His doc- trines. Does St. John's Gospel profess to contain a full account of those doctrines? There is nothing expressly mentioned in it about the Birth or Ascension of Christ, about Original Sin or the Atonement, about Baptism or the Lord's Supper. These and other doctrines are im- plied or presupposed, but not directly asserted in it. And is it sufficient to eternal life to " believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God "? Certainly it is, in the 56 INCONCLUSIVE heasoning. true sense of the words. But is it not evident that these and other comprehensive expressions are frequently used in Scripture, as inchiding the ivhole Christian character, by referring to its vital iwinciple of faith in Christ? And it may be added, that St. Augustine's remark upon this t ^ (quoted by Dr. Gray in the note) exactly harmo- r, f with this view, as he is referring solely to the mi- rncles of our Lord, in connexion with the resurrection of Lazarus, as proving His divine mission, and he makes no statement whatever with regard to the doctrines contained in St. John's Gospel.* Dr. Cramp, like Dr. Gray, comes to the conclusion, (p. 5G) " that the Scriptures, and the Scriptures only, are the rule of faith and practice." This principle is evidently assumed without proof, and made the founda- tion of every objection to Catliolic doctrine. But he adds that " no one Jcriows whether the Apostles delivered any instructions to the Churches, designed to be of perpe- tual obligation, which are not embodied in their writings." He seems to admit, then, that there is no proof to the contrary, though he thinks that "the presumption is in the negative." This " presumption" is established by the following considerations. " We are warranted in the conviction that the Holy Spirit guided them in writing, as He did in speaking." Most certainly — and what follows from this ? that all their doctrines, both written and spohen, are of perpetual obligation, as having proceeded from the same Holy Spirit. This is the logical inference, but it is not the one drawn by Dr. Cramp, for he finishes the sentence with this conclusion — " .so that the New Testament constitutes a complete and sufficient body of Christian law." But where is the connexion between the premises and the conclusion ? the former contain a pro- * S. Aug. Opp. Tom. III. Pars il. p. 018. (Ed. Beu.) m poi del re Th by on Sp tri ful ev( me of tia an( 21 p to wii pile as gu ne wl Si su di je sc p< tl w a TENDENCY OP CHURCH PRTNCII'LES. 67 it that tlieso [uontly used n cliuracter, :!hrist? And k upon this ictly liarmo- y to the mi- irrection of 10 makes no ;s contained conchision, »turo8 only, principle is the founda- tut ho adds ivcred any ) of perpe- • iV7'iting8." iroofto the ption is in lilislied by ited in the in ivntlng, lat follows ritten and proceeded inference. 10 finishes ' t/ie Neiu it body of tAvcen the in a pro- position relating to the ?y/ioZe doctrine of the Apostles, delivered in writing and in speaking, whereas the latter rolatea only to the written j9a»-^, the New Testament. f This is surely an instance of sophistical reasoning, by malcing a part equal to the whole. And yet he goes on to argue on the same principle, that because the Spirit was given to the Apostles to guide them into all truth, there/orG their writings contain all that is " need- ful for the wants of tlie Church'^s." He appears, how- ever, to be conscious of the inconclusivencss of this argu- %f ment, and therefore he discloses to us the true secret of his opposition to the principle of Apostolical Tradition. " We are convinced that if we should appeal to Chris- tian antiquity, on the supposition that Apostolic plans and usages had been handed down from the beginning, ?k principle would be admitted which would lead us straight to .liome.y Very true — this is just tlie conclusion he wishes to avoid, and therefore ho objects to the princi- piles which lead to it, not so much for their unsoundness, as for their tendency. " For who" he asks, " can distin- guish between the presumed Apostolic custom and the new invention^ We answer, the Church of Christ, whose office it is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to distinguish between truth and error on every subject, and without which there is no possibility of distinguishing between them, except from mere con- jecture and private opinion, which can never satisfy the soul that is really desirous to find the way of truth and peace. Dr. Gray argues (p. G2) like Bishop Marsh, against the supposed doctrine, " that an all-wise Providence would have committed these things to so precarious a a vehicle as tliat of oral Tradition." But it must be remembered that we have the ^rowiisc (^ CAn'si for the 58 BELLARMINE S FIVE R'TLES. porpotual preservation of His trutlj in the Church, quite independent of any particular medium ; further, these Tra- ditional doctrines have been committed to writing from the earliest ages, though not recorded in the Works of the Ajiostles themselves; besides which, they are attested by the external monuments which still remain from the most ancient times, while even the heresies which have arisen at different periods have only served to exhibit more clearly the true doctrine of the Church by its dogmatic dejinitions in opposition to them. It has been said, that the principle of Apostolical Tradition opens a door for the admission of further corruptions of doc- trine under this venerable name ; but the same objection equally applies to Scripture, as there have been spurious writings frequently circulated under the name of Scripture ; yet still wo believe that there are true Scriptures as well as true Traditions, and both of them separated from false Scriptures and/afee Traditions by the same authority, which Chrigt has established in His Church. It may be here remarked, that the following rules are laid down by Cardinal Bellarmine, for ascertaining the genuine Apostolical Traditions of the Church, and dis- tinguishing them from all spurious imitations. Such a doctrine is to be esteemed true — "1. When the «y/iO?e Church embraces any thing as a dogma of faith, which is not found in the Sacred Scriptures. 2. When the lohole Church observes any thing which no one could ap- point hut God, and which is not found in the written Word. 3. What has been observed in the whole Church, and in all past times, although it is of such a nature, that it migld have been appointed by the Church. 4. When all the Doctors of the Church teach with common con- sent, whether assembled in a General Council, or w| hi CANON OP SCRIPTURE. 59 Church, quite er, tlieso Tra- writing from tho Works of ' are attested lain from the s which have 3d to exhibit hurch by its It has been dition opens 'ions of doc- nc objection have been or the name ere are true th of them mditions by shed in His >g rules are 'taining the ch, and dis- na. Such a II tho ivhole T'ith, which Wiien the e could aj> he written le Church, ature, that 4. When nmon con- >uncil, or fwriting separately in books, that any particular article mas come down from Apostolical Tradition. 5. Vv liatever lis regarded as an Apostolical Tradition in those. Churches in which there is a coiriijlete and continued succession from the A2)ostles"^ It is obvious, however, that these rules are merely intended to point out the general principles on which the Church has acted in tho definition of Chris- tian doctrine, and cannot be supposed to be of practical application to private individuals; as evert/ article of the Catholic Faith is clearly ^'►cec? and settled by the voice of Tradition, and is briefly comprehended in the Creed of the Roman Church, commonly called the Creed of Pope Pius IV. while every douht that can arise as to the true interpretation of these doctrines on any points of con- troversy is continually decided by the living voice of the chief Pastor of tho Universal Church. I shall now proceed to offer some observations on the other great division of the Catholic Rule of Faith, relating to the Canon of Scripture, and the foundation of the distinction between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old and New Testament. It is evident, in fact, that this distinction presupposes the divine authority of Apostolical IVadition, independently of the Bible. For, surely, the Canon of Scripture is an article of faith, and faith can rest only on the Word of God — yet there is nothing about the Canon of Scripture in the written Word, and consequently it must be founded on the unwrit- ten Word, by which alone we can have any satisfactory proof of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. It is clear, then, that Protestants are obliged to admit the necessity of Tradition for proving this one point, while they deny its application in any other, and yet in this ad- mission they act contrary to their own fundamental prin- * BcUarm- De Controv; Tom. I. p. 76. (Ed. Col. Agr. 1615.) 60 WHAT I!^ THR IUHLE? ciplo, tlitif, Scnpture (tJone is auffkient ; besides wliieh, it must 1)0 observed, tbat if Tniditioii is a sufFioient warrant for receiving tlio Canon of Scripture, it must surtjly bo sunicieiif for receiving any ofJicr doctrines wiiicli havo been i)roi)08ed by the same authority. It is, then, a very important subj<'ct to considor — What is the Rible? of \\\\\\t hooks is it composed? and liow may its irisjnrallon bo i)roved ? Protestants often speak on this subject as if tho Biblo were a book Avliich had fallen down directly from heaven, in its present English Version, as the only faithful representative of tho origi- nal. It is a connnon thing to speak of tho New Testa- ment, as if it wore as old as Christianity itself; whereas it is certain that, though various parts of it were univer- sally received at an earlier period, still it was not in ex- istence, as a collection of inspired writings, for 400 years after the commencement of Christianity. It is thoreforo necessary to remember that the Biblo is not, strictly speaking, one book, but consists of a great number of separate productions, which havo been collected and arranged, and finally printed and bound together in ono Volume, under this convenient title, by which it is dis- tinguished from all other books in tho world. By what nufhoritij, then, was this collection made, and how do Ave know that it contains, neither more nor less than, tho ivhole Canon of l^cripture? It should be observed, that tliero are two distinct ques- tions relating to this subject, which, though they rest on different grounds among Protestants, are inseparably con- nected on tho principles of tho Catholic Church. Ono of these relates to tho doctrine of Divine Inspiration, and tho other to the Canonical Books of Scripture. The first of these is general, and tho second is particular. The one means, How do we know that any book in the world is] kil is' foi ■w onj ifil roi en ci PROOF OF LVSPIRATiON. CI o translation of tho Latin Vul'4jv to and otlser ancient VerHious, and was adopted by all tlio old English Protestant VcrtjionH, Wielif's, Tyndale's, Coverdalo's, and Crannicr's } and has been approved by several Protestant Commentatora i so that tho Btatement of the Apostlo has no ruforenca whatever to tho scttlomout of the Canon of Scripture. 62 MTRAPI.Efl AND PROPHECIES. it (locHnotdofiuo wlmt Scriptut'C is, ruirdocido ivhatbooh aro inclmlod under the iiurno of Scri[)ture, jvnd therefore the Canon must be previouialy settled, before wo can apply these words to any particular book, ofipocially as it does not appear that tlioy refer to the New Testament at all. Indeed, the only Scriptural allusion to any part of the Now Testament occurs in the Second Epistle of St. Peter, (chap. iii. 15, 16) in which the Apostle refers to St. Paul's Epistles in general terms, and classes them among the " other Scriptures ;"f but wo cannot suppose that even this part of the New Testament could have been fixed by the authority of this passage, as there is no cnumeralion of St. Paul's writings given here, and besides, this Epistle of St. Peter itself was one of the last admitted into the Canon of Scripture. It might bo supposed, indeed, that such an important question as the Canon of Scripture, would have been settled by the Apostles themselves ; but we know that such is not the fact, as it is never mentioned in Scripture, and it is contrary to all historical evidence on this sub- ject. ITow, then, do wo know what Jmoks aro divinely inspired, and what books are not ? Some writers appeal to the miracles and prophecies recorded in tho various books of Scripture as a proof of their inspiration. This is the ground usually taken by the authors of works on tho Evidences of Christianity. But there are several books admitted to be inspired, which contain no such record ; and besides, it is obvious that there is a wide diflference between the divine mission of a person who pyroves his authority by miracles and prophecies, and the divine inspiration of a hook which merely rdcUes the facts. The one does not include tho other. A book is not inspired t It Is pos&lble, howoTur, that 1 Tim. v. 18 may refer to Luke z. 7. 3i(lo tvhat f)ooh ftnd thoroforo •eforo wo can Jspocialiy as it ' TestHrnont nt to any part of ul KpiHtle of the Apostlo 8, and classes it we cannot ^tainent could «igo, as thcro von hero, and no of the last in important i hiivo boon 3 know that in Heripturo, on this 8ub- aro divinely ■itors appeal tho various ion. This is orks on the veral books ich record ; • difFeronco ' iy>'ov€8 his the divive acts. The ot inspired INTEnXAL EVmRNCE. 03 morely bcciuian it contiiinH a true account of tho lifo aud actiourt of an iiis[)iro(l person. Tlio Lifo of our Jilossod Saviour lias boon written by a multitude of authon^, but "furoly it caruiot bo iiifurrod, from this circumstanoo, that all Huch books aro diviuoly inspired. Ilis Lifo has boon written by tho Pour l'iVangolists,but none of them pw/'ases to bo inspired, and none of thorn even aftixos his name to tho (tospol written by him. It is true tiiat tho Apostlos received a divine cominisyion from our Blessed Lord, but two of the Evangelists wore not Apostloi- ; and besides, 'this commission docs not necessarily extend to the divine inspiration of all thoir ivrltitujH, as our S>tviour y<\vo them no cominiuul on this subject. Others rest their belief in tho inspiration of Scripture on some internal evidence derived from sublimity nf doc- trine, or majesty of style, in tho sacred write) s, /rom which they argue that it is impossible to suppose that such persons could have boon enthusiasts or impostors. Hut this is altogether another question, as there is a wide difTorenco between tho divine origin of Chrintianity , and tho divine origin of tho H''ritiri(js in which its doctrines aro recorded; the authen- ticity of the facts is quite distinct from the authority of the hook itself, and it must be remembered also, that the claim to inspiration forms no part of to pretensions of these writers themselves* Closely connected with this idea, is the method adopted by others, who appeal to their own personal consciousness, or internal persuasion, as a sufficionb ground of conviction, * Thus Miohaolis attempts to prove tho Inspiration of the Writings of the Apos- tles, irotn tho general promises of Christ {;iron to tliom ; but this attempt must bo regarded as a total tiiilurc, as tlto proof lias no real connexion with tlie subject. Dosidcs, as the promises were given to the ArosTLKS only, he consistently limits tho (/anonicul authority of tiio Now ToHtamoiit to those Books written by the Apostles themselves, and accordingly rejects tho inspiration of St. Mark and St. Luko. (Introd. to N. T. Vol. I. p. 78-07.) 64 HISTORICAL TESTIMONY. which they believe to be the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, bearing testimony both to the Inspiration and to the Canon of Scripture/'^* But, how- ever strong this internal feeling may be as a proof to the persons themselves, it can be no proof to otliers, and unless supported by a direct revelation, it may be merely a rehgious delusion. Yet this is the proof of Inspiration adopted by the Presbyterians, in opposition to the autho- rity of the Church, and taught in the Westminster Confes- sion and in the Larger Catechism.f And it seems to be the ground chiefly taken by Dr. Gray, (p. 04) and by Dr. Cramp, (p. 87) as well as by pious Protestants, generally, in the present day. Still, however, there are others who attempt to settle the question by an appeal to historical evi- dence, or the testimony of the ancient Church, and we must, therefore, examine this mode of proof more particu- larly, though it must be remembered that, whatever may be the result of an investigation conducted on this prin- * Micliaelis lionostly declares— "With respect to that inward 8en3ation, I must confess that I liavo never experienced it in the whole course of my life; nor aro those persons wlio have felt it, cither deserving of onvy, or nearer tlie truth, sinco the Muhammedan feels it as well as the Christian." (Introd. to N. T. Vol. I. p. 78.) f We find the following question and answer in this Catechism. " Q. 4. IIow doth it ap])car that tlie Scriptures aro the Word of God ? "A. The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; hy the consent of all tlio parts, and the scope of tlio wliole, wliich is to give all gloiy to God; b3' tlieir light and power to convince and convert sin- ners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation-, but tl.o Spirit of God bearing witness i)y and with tlio Scriptures in the heart of man, is alouo able fully to per.=u!ide it that tlicy aro the very Word of God." Now we fully admit^hat these circumstances afford a strong puactioal confir- mation of the Inspiration of Scripture to those who aro alukauv convinced of it on OTHER GnorxDS— but wo utterly deny that they constitute any satisfactory PROOFS in tlieuiselves. Indeed the former part of this answer applies to all pious (Writings, of human composition, and forms no evidence of tlio iNSi'iuATiON of tho book, as those cfTects are produced by tho doctrinls of Christianity, and not by the BOOKS in whicli tlioy are contained. Tiie latter part of tlie answer, relative to " the witness of the Sjjirit," is totally inapplicable to the Canon of Scripture, as the texts, which are quoted in tlio Catechism, have no rei'oronoe whatever to this subject. CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 65 ciple, historiajH evidence is not infcdliMe authority, which must be admitted to be necessary to establish this point of faith on a firm foundation. This is evidently the ground taken by the Church of England, as it is explained in the 6th Article — "In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose autho- rity was never any doubt in the Church." It should be remarked, that this was not originally a part of the Article, as it was drawn up in the time of Edward VI. which contained no Catalogue of the Canonical Books of Scrip- ture, the whole of this portion having been added in the time of Elizabeth*, and this particular clause was taken verbatim from the Lutheran Confession of Wirtemburg compiled by John Brentz, and presented to the Council of Trent in the year 1552t. Bishop Burnet undertakes to prove 4he Canon of the New Testament from two souices — 1. The quotations made from it by Christian Writtsrs of tlie First and Second Centuries. 2. The Catalogues of these Books, published in the Third and Fourth Centuries|. Granting, however, the sufficiency of this mode of proof, it must be remarked, that both these grounds are, in point of fact, utterly inconclusive for we find that several Books are entirely omitted in these quotations, and the Catalogues do not agree among themselves, as we shall presently see more fully. It need hardly be added, that Burnet's account of the quotations of particular books in the Works of the early Fathers is extremely inaccurate, as may be seen at once by comparing the passages supposed to be cited (which will be found in any good Index of their Works) with the original texts of Scripture. Now the difficulty involved in the * Soo Sparrow's Collection, pp. 42, 92. (Ed. 1675.) t Lo Plat, Monuin. Conoll. Trident. Tom. iv. p. 452. . . - ^ fiurnot'3 Exposition of tlie Articles— Art. vi. 66 SIXTH ARTICLE. statement of tlie 6th Article has been felt by all the Expositors of these Formularies, but it has been only evaded, as it is impossible to remove it. The difficulty is this, that it is not true that there was never any contro- versy in the Church about the Canonical authority of the Books received by the Church of England, and thus the former part of the Article is contradicted by the latter, which declares that " all the Books of the New Testa- ment, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical" — though it is well known that several of these Books were doubted awA rejected in the Church in early times ; and if the Church of England had acted consistently with this rule, she would have rejected those Books from the Canon of Scripture. She has accepted the Canon of the New Testament, as ratified by the authority of Pope Innocent I. in the beginning, and afterwards, of Pope Gelasius I. in the end, of ^the Fifth Century, and yet she has rejected the Canon of the Old Testament, ratified by the same authority, though they both rest on the same historical evidence, as to their reception in the Christian Church. Dr. Gray refers (p. 70) to six Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament in the Fourth Century, which exactly agree with our present Canon, but he does not mention the fact, that there are six other Catalogues of these books in the same Century, of equal respectability, which do not agree with our Canon. These are the Catalogues of Eusebius of Ca)sarea*, St. Cyril of Jeru- salemf, St. Gregory Nazianzen|, St. Gregory Nyssen |I, Philaster of Brixia§, and the Council of Laodicea, all of * Euaeb. Hist. Ecolcs. Lib. III. cap. xxv. p. 181, (Ed. 1822.) t S. Cyril. Catech. Lib. iv. § 30.— 0pp. p. C9, (Ed. Don. ) X S. Greg. Naz. Carm. xxxiii.— 0pp. Tom. ii. (Ed, Par. 1810.) _ . „ II See Marsh's Miohaelis, Vol. IV. p. 490. , ■ . v - i^* > § Philastr. Do Uujres. 87. (Blbl. Max. Patr. Tom. v.) . S:,.,~^-.^ '-. J^ j^^ -. CRITERIA OP INSPIRATION. 67 !5 which omit tlie Apocalypse, while one of them also omits the Epistle to the Hebrews, and another of them classes five other Epistles among the disputed books. It is evi- dent, then, that there was no universal agreement in the Church of the Fourth Centurj^, as to the Canon of Scrip- ture. ' ■ Dr. Cramp says (p. 22) that " we receive the New Testament, not on the authority of the Council of Car- thago, or of any other Council, but on independent grounds." ITo then proceeds to describe the nature of these grounds — " Wo are satisfied that the books of which it is composed wore written by those whose names they bear, and that they wrote iis they were moved by the IToly Ghost." Very well — so are we; but we have here no intimation of the groimds on which " we are satisfied " of these truths. As to " those whose names they bear," the greater part of the New Testament (as well as of the Old) is entirely anonymous, and bears the names o^no authors Avhatever. We have no information from the hoolcs thsmsdvcs, as to the names of the persons who wrote the Four Gosptls, Acts of the Apostles, and several of the Epistles. We only know it from Tradition, and if this Tradition be perfectly correct, it does noc prove that they were all inspired to write those books. There is no good reason, on this grovmd, why tlio writ- ings of St. J3arnabas and St. Clement""^ should not be admitted into the Canon, as well as those of St. Mark and St. Luke. It cannot bo decided from history who wrote tlio Epistle to the IFebrews, so that the Canonical autho- rity of these books does not depend on the names of the * Arcliliisliop Wako regarded them and tlie other Apostolical Futliors as i}% SPIKED men, (Soo his Prelim. Disc. Clmi). x. § 11, ^D) though their Writings were not of Canonicaf. authority. The learned Whiston, however, admitted them all into the Canon of tho Now Testament, together with the Apostolical Constitu UoD!), and other books. 1.1 ;;| i 68 CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. I*!^'! authors. There is no internal evidence that " they wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." They do not say so themselves. St. Peter, indeed, uses this expression with reference to the Prophets of the Old Testament, hut he does not apply it tc any other Sacred Writings, and it is evidently assuming the whole question to include any others in this desci'ption*. How, then, do we know that they were inspired, and that we have their genuine Writings? Because the Church of Rome has so decided hi/ divine authority, and Protestants themselves have no other grounds of faith in the inspiration of the New Tes- tament. But there is another proof adduced by Dr. Cramp- He says that ".the Canon of the New Testament has been abundantly confirmed and honored by the Holy Spirit," because " it contains the truth by which the Spi- rit operates on the hearts of sinners in conversion, and sanctifies and sustain-^ believers " ; from which he con- cludes that " it is manifestly God's Word, and challenges our most hearty submission." But, however correct this conclusion certainly is, the reasoning itself is evidently founded on a mistake. For »uch supernatural eilects are not produced by the Canon of the New Testament, but by its doctrines applied to the heart by the Spirit of God, ;and therefore they can form no proof of the divine origin of the hook itself, but of the saving truths which it con- iains, for if these spiritual effects were a sufficient proof of inspiration, the same mode of proof might surely be applied to every pious book, and to every zealous preach- .-er of the Gospel, who always aims at producing the same effects. • Mr. Hunter, however, assorts (p. 11) that St. I'ctcr himself was not infalli- ble. If so, tlien it foUows that his Writings were not infalliblo -, and if hk was not infaUihle, It cannot surely 1)0 supposed th.at AyyoTiiKiiof the Apostles wns infallible, and oonsequently their Writings could not have been infklllble. Such a principle, then, tends directly to scbvebt Ihe Infikllil)iUty or inspiuation qk THE BCRii'tURKB of the Now Teetauient. QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. C9 Dr. Cramp refers (p. 25) to tlie high respect for Scrii> ture entertained by tlie primitive Christians, as evinced by the frequent quotations of tiie Hacred Writings in the Works of the early Fathers, from which he seems to infer that they were regarded by them as the only Rule of Faith.''*' The fact alleged is certainly correct, but how does it warrant the conclusion which has been founded upon it? Surely the reference to one part of revelation does not exclude another part, and especially when we have their own explanations to correct such a view. Every true Catholic loves and venerates the Sacred Scrip- tures as one of the most precious gifts of God to His Church, but he is fully convinced that the whole Word of God is entitled to his grateful obedience, as well as that part of it which was committed to writing ; and there- fore he knows that it would be an act of injury to the integrity of God's Word to attempt to exalt one part of it by depreciating the other. It is one of the highest privileges bestowed upon the Catholic Church, that to her, as to the Jews of old, " were committed the oracles of God" ; and we shall now proceed to consider, more * In Illustration of this statument, Dr. Craistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Kevelation of St. John, together with the following portions — ^lark xvi. 9 — 20; Luke xxii. 43, 44; John viii. 1 — 11 ; and 1 John v. 7, 8. Both these lists of sacred books are received by Catho- lics ; but the former are irjecfed, whilst the latter are accepted, hy Protestants. Now the only Council quoted by Protestant divines in support of their Canon of the Old Testament, is that of Laodicea, supposed to be held about the middle of the Fourth Century"^' ; but even this * The exact (latf of tliia Counoil is unknown. It Is assigned to various years, from 31 1 tiU 399. Baronius refers it to tlie former year, but Beveridge i)laec8 it in ;J6r). Paley remarks—" Probably the Decree of this Council rather declared than w Hi OBJECTIONS FROM THE FATHERS. 71 as to the -'staiit ob- <>y < 'itho- >v aii-M- i' m iiH to ic sake of Tlic first ">' ncknoiv- !oC\'!ion, vs of tlje ie"otlier ' Eiig-lish tistants — Books of ^t iiiclud- Ijooks in e to the '^|ust!e of oliii, the i- -iolm, • 9—20; i V. 7, 8. r Catho- ffer are (luotod I of the bo Ijeld 'en tin's )us years, l)laces it iirod than Council expressly includes Baruch, and the Epistles of Jeremiah, which are rejected by Protestants. In like manner, as to individual Avricers, wo find that lyfolito, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzcn, omit the Book of Esther, while the first of them seems to include tlie Book of Wisdom, and the second maintains the inspiration of the History of Susanna. But I must briefly allude lo the two strongest testimo- nies of the Fathers that can be adduced in favor of the Protestant Canon. They are the statements of two Pres- byters of the Latin (Jhurch, at the end of the Fourth Century — the one, St. Jerome, author of the Yalgate Translation of the Bible — and the other, (his intimate friend and afterwards his bitter enemy) Rufinus, of Aqui- leia. My opponents have not failed to enlist them on their side — the former being quoted by Dr. Cramp, (p. 9), and the latter by Dr. Gray, (p. 82.) It is difiicult, indeed, to ascertain the precise views of St. Jerome on this subject. But it may be remarked, that much con- fusion has arisen from the want of attention to the mean- ing of" Canonical " Scripture, as used by ancient Christian writers, in distinction from " Apocryphal " writings. The former term is employed simply with reference to those books which were placed in the Canon of the Church, while it is by no means intended to deny that the latter were divine or inspired, but merely that the Church had not formally pronounced x\\)on i\\eiv c\'A\mQ, It has been thought, indeed, that St. Jerome only meant to assert that these books were not in the Jeiuish Canon of Scripture* ; but even admitting that he referred to rcsulatod tlio publio ju(l|riiieiit, or, more properly speaking, the jutli;mciit of somo neighboring Churches; the Council itself consisting of no more than 30 or 40 Bishops of Lydiaand the adjoining countries. Nor does its authority seem to liave extended furtlier."— (Evidences of Cliristianity, Part I. Chap. ix. 6.) ,^ * Dixon's latroduetLon to S.S. Vol. I. p. 40. (Am. Ed.) 72 ST. JEROME AND IIUFINUS. the Canon of the Church, it will not follow that he regard- ed them merely as human writings. Even his testimony, quoted in the 6th Article, evidently places them on a very different ground. And further, we find that he him- self quotes some of them as the other Scriptures among his own works, and he states that the Book of Judith is said to have been placed on the Canon of Scripture by the Council of Nice.* Moreover, it seems strange, indeed, that his testimony, if it were really contrary to the present Canon, should be prefixed to all the modern printed editions of the Latin Vulgate, and circulated by the Catholic Church with her own authorised copies of the Bible. Rufinus divides the Sacred Books into three classes— Canonical, EcclesiasticaljandApocryphal.f In the ^rst class he places those books which are now called Proto- Canonical ; in the second class,immcdiately after the passage quoted by Dr. Gray, the Deutero- Canonical, which, he expressly states, were appointed to be publicly read in the CI lurches \ while in the third class he enumerates some spurious^ r'lim^^., which were universally rejected, and forbidden to be read in the Churches. But there is a ren^cirkable circumstance, which more clearly explains his views on this o.iibject. It appears that he strongly censured St. Jerome for omitting some of the books of the second class in his Edition of the Scriptures, and charges him with pillaging the deposit of the Holy Ghost, which the Apostles had delivered to the Churches, and whic! he states particu- larly, St. Peter had delivered to the Church of Rome during the time of his Episcopatej". Now he surely could not have advanced such a charge, if he had sup- posed them destitute of inspired authority, while St. * Prsef. in Judith. t Expos, in Symbol. Apostol. fInterOpp. S. Cypriani, Tom. II. p. 336. Ed. 1782.) i Invecfciv. in Hicron. Lib. II. (Intor 0pp. 8. Illeron. Tom. IV. c»l. 410. Ed. Bun.) APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 73 Jerome's own apology throws further h'ght on their opiiHons, as he declares that in that part of his work, ho expresses the sentiments of the Hebrews, and not Ms oivn* It is evident, then, that the word "Canonical" is not used by these writers in the same sense as in modern times, and, that they considered other books as entitled to the highest veneration, though they had not yet been finally sanctioned by tlio authority of the Church. It is plain, also, that the word "Apocryphal" is used by St. Jert)me and by Ilufinus in a different sense — by the former, as distinguished from Canonical^ by the latter, as distinguished both from Canonical and Ecclesiastical — and thus we find that St. Jerome describes these books as Apocryphal, while Ilufinus expressly distinguishes them from Apocryphal. And as to the testimonies of the Fathers, we find those books (quoted like the other Scrip- tures, long beloro St. Jerome's time, by St. Barnabas, St. Clement of Rome, St. Iren^eus, St. Clenjent of Alex- andria, TertuUian, Origcii, and especially by St. Cyprian, (who cites more than 100 passages from them) while in modern times they are received as (canonical Scripture by the Greek Church, and even by the Protesttint Church of England until the reign of Elizabeth. Indeed Bishop Cosin, while defending the Protestant Canon, expressly asserts that " the ancient Fathers have often cited these controversed books, some under the name of Divine Scriptures, and others under the title of Prophetical Writings."! As to the Deutero-Cunoiiical [tortions of the New Tes- tament, it is well known that they are now received by all cla -ics of professing Christians, and therefore Protes- tants are very inconsistent in rejecting similar portions * Contra Rufin. Lilt, II. (Opp. Tom. IV. col. 431.) t Coaiu's Canon of Scripture, p OJ. (Ed. 1683.) a»iflT- .aaa aMtMa idlHUMMMIi 74 CATALOGUES OF OUKJKN AND KUflKHIUS. iiiii of tlio 01(1 TostunKuit on tho gronntl oi' early doubts iu tho Chnreli, w'lcn those doiihtri a])i)ly to tlio one as well aw to tlm ot/ter. 'J'lio ojirliost Ciit!il(>.u;uo of Books in tho Canon (if tho New ToHtiinuMit is coutiiinod in sevenil of tho lost works of Origon, (A.I). 2oO) from win'eh, however, (though it IS Incom)^lote,) sovno extracts liavo been pro- servod by EuHohius*, wliich will bo roforred to under tho rospoctivo books. 'i'iio next Catalogue is that Kuse- bius himsoH" (A.T). o2()) who Ims given us a most valnabio List of t!io Jlook.^ of tho New Testan)ont, as received in his own time. He says — " First, we are to place tho Four Gospels, which are fol- lowed b}' the Acts oi tho Apostles. After this, wo are to enumerate the Epistles of Paulf, then the First E[)istlo of John, and also that of Foter. After these Avoare to add, if it should seem proper, tho Revela- tion of John, concerning which we shall state tho vari- ous ojtinions in another place. So nuich, then, for those that are . Ill.Cap.iii.i). IJI. X Iljifl- I'll). VI. Cap. XX. p. 'V27. , II Coinnuintary on Jlebrcwf, p. 0(1. JDavidson'sIntrod. toN.T. Vol. III. Pp. lC3-2o9 '• . ffr. JAMES AST) ax. PETKR. IJut tlicso (lonl)tri ui)|)l)' inowt strongly to the K[)iMtlo of St. .lutnrs and to tlio Socond Kpistlo of St. Potor. Among all the nuinei'ous(|m)tations iVorii tho Now ToHtarnent to ho found in tlio writings of tho Piiniitivo Fatiiers, Origun is the only orio who refers to either of tiieso E[»istles. lie quotesasingle passage from St. James in his "Commenta- ries," witluUmbtful marks of approbation, while there are also a few references to it in his " Iiwmilies," as pr(}served in tho Latin Translation of Rufinus, though we cannot place mudi reliance on this part of tho evidence, as it is well known that tho Translator frecpiently took great liberties with the original, by introducing his own views with those of tho author. And yet it is only through this suspicious channel that any reference to St. Peter's Second Epistle is to be found in tho Works of Origen. But in his List of Books of tho New Testament, the Epistle of St. James is entirely omitted, while the Second of St. Peter is referred to witli great doubt. His words are these — " Peter, upon whom tho Church of Christ was built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, loft behind him an Epistle, of which we are certain. Let it be granted that lie left another, but this is controver- ted."* Eusebius himself says that St. James's Epistle was considered spurious, though he admits that it was publicly read in most Churches.f As to the Second of St. Peter, ho says " he understood it was not in the New Testament," but lie adds, " as it has appeared to many to be profitable, it has been studied with the other Scrip- tures.":!: If, then, the Canon of tho New Testament depended only on historical evidence, these Epistles have not the slightest pretensions to a place in tho Sa- * Orii4'on, apud Euseb. Eocles. Ilitt. Lib. VI. Cap. xxv. p. 434. t Euseb. Lib. II. Cap. xxiv. p. 121. t Ibid, Lib. III. Cap. iii. p. 134. HT. JOHN, ST. jrJDK, ANT) RKVELATION. TT crcd Volutno, and it is \yr\\ known that tho Kpiritlo of St. JamoH wiirt rcjoctod by Lutlior as "an Epistle of straw" — not H(t nnich on oxtornal ovidonco, as on tho ground of itn opposition to his own dortrino of .Instificii- tion. Thoro in, hownvor, one ini{)ortiint ovidonrjo in favor of St. .lamps' Episth), and that is, its iiiHortion iu tho Syrian Vi'rsion, thttu^^h this ovidcnco is wantiii" in favor of St. Poior's Second Epistlo.* Tho Second and Tliinl EpiHtk!s t)f St. Jolni, with tliat of St. JinUi, are scarcely noticed hy primitive writers, and they are omitted in tlio Syriac Version. St. Jiide's E[)istle is omitted in Origon's List, though ho (luotes it iu other parts of his Works.f Tho Book of Revelation is also omitted in tho Syriao Version, and it is well known that its Canonical authority was a frcrpient suliject of controversy in ancient times. It appears thatC-'aius, of Rome, maintained that it wtis a forgery of Cerinthus, the her(>tic, while Dionysiu?, of Alexandria, denied that it was written by St. .fohn tljo Apostle. It is omitted in Six Lists of Canonical Rooks in tho 4th Century, (as(|Uotedbefore,p.(56) as Avell as in tho Ai)ostolical Canons and Apostolical Constitutions, and St. •leromo says that " the Greeks do not receive it among tho Canonical Scri[>tures."| Even in the beginning of the 5th Century, it is never quoted nor referred to in all tho voluminous Writings of St. Chrysostora. Among the Protestant Reformers, wo find that Luther is vehem- ent and decided in opposition to it. lie says — '• I regard this book as neither Apostolical nor Prophetical, and cer- * Urotlus, the loarncd ProtcBtant Coinrncntator, supposed this Epistle to have been written by Simeon, Blsiiop of Jerusaleui. t The two former of tliese Kpistlun were aaoribed l)y Grotlui' to anotlier John tho Presliyter, and tho latter to anotlier Jude, Bishop of Jciusalciu, iu tho middle of tho i2nd Century. t Epist. ad Dard— Tom. J. Col. n05. ./. i 78 SETTLEMENT OF CANON. tainly I cannot seo tlmt it proceeded from tlisHoly Spirit. Many of the Fathers, too, rejected it long ago, and it is reason enough for me wliy I should not esteem it very highly, that Christ is neither taught nor acknowledged in it."* As to the disputed portions in the Gospels of St. Mark and of St. John, the learned Professor Davidson, after a full review of all the evidence, pronounces against their genuineness — that of St. Luke he thinks probably/ gcnnine,f — while the text in the First Epistle of St. John has only tlie support of a single Greek MS. of modern date 4 It cannot be denied, then, that mere private judgment as distinguished from infallible Church authority, even when it is founded on historical evidence and Ecclesiasti- cal testimony, must, on Protestant principles, bo most unfavoi'able to the integrity of the Canon of the New Testament. It is evident, however, that in the primitive ages of Christianity, the settlement of the Canon of Scripture was not regarded as a question of vital importance, as it is generally considered in modern times. There was no doctrine involved in the question. The doctrine of the Christian Church was derived from Apostolical Tradition, and not from the New Testament. The truih of our holy religion does not depend either on the inspiration or genuineness of these books. It was just as true before they were written as after they were written, though it may be admitted ^hat, on Protestant principles, the proof of its truth is necessarily involved in these considera- tions. But these arc two very different things, which * Prefaces to tho Apocalypse, (Ed. 1522.) . r t Introil. to N. T. Vol. I. Pp. 171, '222, S.'.O. X Tli» Codujc Montfyrtianus, now in tlio Library of Trinity College, Dublin. a^ tl 79 Spirit, id it is t very ledged must not be confounded together. If, indeed, the Chris- tian revehition had been originally made in tlie New Testament, and in it alone, then we might conclude that we possessed the ivhole Christian revelation in the New Testament. The ivritten Word of G od would have then been co-extensive with the revealed Word of God. But a? the revelatit)n was made by oral teaching in the Jirst instance, before any part of it was committed to writing, it follows that this conclusion is perfectly gratuit<3us, and that the sufficiency of Scripture cannot be proved from the mere fact of its Canonical authority. In early times, these books were not collected into a single Volume, as they are now, and the consequence was, that various books were received by some Christian Churches or individuals, and rejected by others, without any breach of faith or charity — it was quite an open question, before the decision of tlie Catholic Church, and on this, as well as on all other subjects of controversy, the Church pro- nounced her judgment simply by deciding authoritatively between the conflicting claims of various documents, not by making those Canonical, which had not been so before, but by declaring, with infallible certainty, the true mean- ing of the divine Tradition as to the real character of these books. Here, then, we see the manifest absurdity of the lan- guage which is often held by Protestants on this subject. It is frequently said — " Wo do not receive the Bible, be- cause the Church, the Pope, or the Councils have decided it to be Canonical Scripture, but because it is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit." This is perfectly true, but the question is — Flow do we knoto it to be inspired, unless from the declaration of God Himself? and except each individual reader hns received a direct revelation from heaven, it is impossible to prove the inspiration of >* .ft 1 I m 80 THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. any pari of the Bible in any other way than from the testimony of tlie Holy Spirit in the Church, and from the same testimony alone, we can ascertain the true foundation of faith, and the proper use of the written Word of God. Yet still many persons satisfy them- selves with saying — " We have the Bible, and that is enough" — " it is the Word of God, and therefore it must be sufficient" — without reflecting that the fad, itself is founded upon the decision of the Church, whose authority they reject, while the inference drawn from it is merely a human opinioti, and derives no support from Scripture, unless it can be proved that the Bible contains the whole Word of God, and that their own interpretation of it is infallibly true. It is evident, then, that in admitting the Inspiration of the Now Testament, and especially of the Deutero-Cano- nical books, Protestants have fallen into two inconsisten- cies — 1. In admitting, as a matter of faith, what cannot be proved from Scripture. 2. In admitting an import- ant point of doctrine, the proof of which implies the admission of the Infallibility of the Church. There is, indeed, an extraordinary confusion of ideas on this subject in the minds of many persons ; and this confusion relates chiefly to three points, which may be regarded as the sources of all other errors relating to the respective claims of the Bible and of the Church. The first is the confusion between the Bible and the Word of God ; tiie second is the confusion between the Bible and the Interpretation of the Bible ; and the third is the con- fusion between the Bible and the Translation of the Bible. Every Catholic fully holds, as an article of faith, that the Bible is the Word of God; but he also holds, on the same ground, that it is only a part of divine revelation. INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 81 and does not contain the whole "Word of God" delivered by the Apostles to the Church. And let us ask, where is the Bible ever called by the name of the " Word of God " in the Scripture itself? Let any one take a good Con- cordance, and he will find that there is not a single text in which it is exclusively applied to the wriiten Word, and never, in any sense, to the New Testament, which ia the principal subject of controversy. Thus it is said, (Rom. X. 17) that " faith coraeth by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God," that is, as the Apostle explains in the context, by the Gospel of peace 'preached by those who are divinely sent for this purpose. In like manner, in 1 Thess. ii. 13, the Apostle speaks of the Gospd preached by him, " not as the word of men, but, as it ia in truth, the Word of God" delivered by human instru- mentality, but with divine authority. But further, the private interpretation of Scripture by fallible men, is not itself the Word of God, and yet this is all the authority Protestants can claim for the doctrines which they profess to derive from Scripture. When they appeal to Scripture, they simply appeal to tlieir own opi- nions as to the meaning of Scripture, and therefor > rhe contrast is not between the Scripture and the Church, but between their own interpretation of Scripture and the Churches interpretation of Scripture. Even if Scripture were the only Rule of Faith, it does not foiiow that every one is competent to judge of the true meaning of Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture does not neces- sarily involve the right of private judgment. The Church of England holds the former principle, but is ' entirely silent as to the latter, except in condemnation of it, as applied in opposition to Ecclesiastical Traditions, accord- in/j to the 34th Article. She lays down her own Rule of Faith, but she does not determine who is to 6 POPULAR EBBOfiS, apply it, and hence there is a constant collision between the supposed rights of the Church and of her individual members, in the application of this rule. It is absurd, then, to draw a contrast between the Infallibility of the Church and the Infallibility of the Bible, as the term itself, properly speaking, is only applicable to persons, and not to things ; it does not refer to the Bible, but to the Author, or Interprettr, of the Bible, and therefore such a mode of stating the question can lead to nothing but interminable confusion, while, under pretence of exalting the Word of God, the practical effect is to cherish a spirit of pride and self-sufficiency, by confounding the views of each individual reader with the true interpretation of Scripture, and thus investing every one'rt private fancy with the attribute of divine Infallibility. Let it be clearly understood, then, that there is no question whatever watli respect to the supreme authority of Scripture in all mat- ters of controVv-M sy. Both Catholics and Protestants fully admit that its decisions on all points are to be received with implicit submission. But the question is, what is the true meaning of Scripture? and who is the authorised interpreter of it ? And surely it is evident that the autho- rity of the Church no more interferes with the Supremacy of Scripture, than does the right of 2)rivate judgment. The authority of the Judge does not interfere with the supre- macy of the Law ; no private individual is allowed to act upon his own interpretation of the Law, in opposition to the decision of the Judge, and yet it is not considered that the authority of human Laws is impaired by this restric- tion, though, by some strange process of reasoning, this inconsistency has been supposed to exist iu the appli- cation of the same principle to the interpretation of tho divine Law. It is a mere abuse of language, and only serves to keep the real question out of view, to repre- CONFUSION or TERMS. 83 sent tho Bible, hs is frequently done, at once as the Rule of Faith, tlie Indilliblo Interpreter, and the Judge of Controversy. We have a curious instance of this con- fusion of ideas expressed in the Westminster Confession. After enumerating the Books of Scripture, it adds the statement — •' All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." But who is to interpret this rule ? " The in/alUble rule of interpretoiion of Scrip- ture is the Scripture itself J^ And who is to jad(je of the true interpretation of Scripture and of the controversies of faith ? " Tho Supreme Judge, by which all controver- sies of religion are to be determined, and all Decrees of Councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sen- tence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'''* This explanation, however, leaves the real difficulty just where it was before, while there is an air of mystification thrown over the whole subject by the use of ambiguous language and pious phraseology.t For surely the Holy Spirit cannot con- tradict Himself which must be the case, if every private Christian is at liberty to act upon these principles, and to adopt his oivn conclusions as the infallihle decision of the Holy Spirit in tlw Scrij^dures. Every one is thus made a Church to himself, and all divine authority in tho Church is superseded by the exercise of private judg- ment in each individual. But, even on Protestant prin- ciples, this language is wholly inaccurate, as it confounds * Confession of Faitb, uhap. I. ii. ix. x. t iMllncr, the Clnirch Historiar', adopts tho samo principle, when, after giving an acoountof the First Uonoral Council of Nice, he adds the remarlt — "It behoves every one, wlio is desirous of knowing siiujily tho mind of God from llis owa Word, to DKTKiiMiNE FOK HiMSKLK how fak' tlioir interpretation of Scripture waB tr«e."— (Church History, Vol. II. p. 59. Ed. 1810.) Uow different tho language of St. Athanasius— " Tho Wokd of tiik Loud, delivered by tho General Council of Nice, endurcth for ever." (Kpist. ad Afros.— 0pp. Tom. I. p. 930. Ed. Tar. 1027.) J. B4 OFHCE OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. the distinction between the offices of a Rule, a Judge, and an Interpreter ; and it is obviously incorrect to speak of the Bible as being the only Judge of controversy, or the Bible being its own interpreter, both of which offices belong to the Holy Spirit alone, these terms being only applicable to a living authority who is fully competent to resolve every doubt that may arise in the application of a Rule. It cannot, therefore, be supposed to be deroga- tory to tho Inspiration of Scripture, when we speak of it an incapable of deciding the present controversies on account of its silence or obscurity, as the fact is certain- ly uuIo over to firrive iit a aati.-'fHC- tory conclusion. Printed Editions ditVor from each other — there is the same difference umonp^the most ancient MHS. Versions, and ([uotatiours — tJiere is an immense number of Various Headings, and every hereay takes refuge uiKhjr the convenient shelter of these Variotis Readings, or various interpretations, and thus contrives to evade the force of the strongest texts under pretence of interpolation, and then maintains tliat the rest are too few or too am- biguous to form the foundation of doctrine, wliile plausi- ble pretexts are easily allegtMl for the denial of every objectionable doctiine by means of some new system of punctuation, on some figurative allu&ioiis, or some obscurity of language in the sacred writers. It is not the design of the Church to interfere with the province of IJiblical Criticism, and therefore she has never interposed her authority in fixing the original Text of the Sacred Scriptures. She has, however, de- cided in the 4th Session of the Council of Trent, that '' the ancient Vulgate Edition, which has been approved in the Church by the long use of so many ages, be regarded as authentic in public Lectures, Disputations, Sermons, and Expositions'' — not as superseding the study of the original languages, Init as containing anoMthorised Version of the liible to be used on all public occasions, as the English Protestant Version is ''' appointed to be read in Churches." The Council further deciiled that an Edition of the A^ilgate i^ible should bo printcil as cor- rectly as possible, nnd accordingly this task was com- menced by I'ope Pius IV. and Unished by Po]te Hixtua V. in the year 15!)0. Thf lirat Edition, however, contained several typographical erldlH, and, as the 88 SIXTIXE AND < LKMKNTINE EDITIONS. Pope was not Hati.sfiod w itli tliiw iinproMHidii, lie ordor- ed it to bo iignin pi; linhod in i\ revised and cor- rected fonu.* lie did not Vi\%, hovvever, to ace this work completed, but it was iinully aeconiph'shod by Popo Cleniont VIIl. in 151)2, of wliich another Edition wa8 publinlied with Home farther alterations in 1593, and this is the standard Edition of the Latin Vul- gate at the present day, the title of which is — " Biblia Sacra Vulgatic Editionis, Sixti V. Pontilicis Maxiini, jussu recognita, et dementis VIII. auctoritate edita." Protestants have endeavored to found upon this dilloroiico an argument against the Papal Infallibility, but the Infal- libility of the Church was never supposed to extend to the Infallibility of the A'^ulgate, and much less to the Intallibility of the Printers who were engaged in tho publication of this Edition. This attack was commenced by Thomas James, who published his •* Bellum Papale" in the year 1000, in which ho einimerated about 2000 variations between (he Sixtine and Clementine Editions. The same argunM>u!. u^. in Ken up by Dr. Gray (p. 8-t), Dr. Cramp (p. 33), and Mr ITunter (p. 4.0), the latter of whom remarks that " Pope Sixtus V. found this Vulgate, approved by an Infallible Council, so incorrect that he published a new Edition." Mr. Hunter has strangely coni'ounded the Valyate itself with the various Editions of it, and hence he imagines that the Popo acted in oppo- sition to the Council of Trent in pubtit hing a new Edition of it. It is necessary, therefore, to inform him that it was the CoiDicil ilHel/' which ordered this now Edition, (in the same Decree which declared the Vulgate to be the authentic Version), in order to produce a uniform text of the Bible, and this circumstance is referred to in the very * This 18 tho oauae assloncd in the "PrKfatioftd Lectorem," which Is preJlxod to the present Editions of tiio Vulgate, and whicli was written by tho famous Bol- larmiae. Vide Le Lung, Pars II. vol. iiL p. 246. PROTESTANT OBJECTIONS. 80 If .,„ cor- isliod otiior ■)ns in Viil. Jiblirt Mini, Jita." titlo-papjo of tlio Book.f Hnt it is olijocted tlmt l»otli thoHO Editions, which oxhihit ho many variufions from eacli other, are oquully Hanctioned by Papal authority. This objoctiiiM, howovor, is founded upon a rninlako as to tho dcsi^qi of this mnv Edition of the Vulgato. It never was tho profesnod object of tho Council, or the Pope, to prochico a perfectly accurate Version of the Bible, or to settle the ieai of Scripture by infalV^>^ ntho- rity. The authority claimed for the Vulgate >. proved Edition of it, was never intomled to j ideaof its Inspiration, norwastholnfallibility oft, n ever KU[)po8ed to extend to a question of fact, wloch could only bo determined by a critical examination of ancient SISS. Tho design was sim})ly to secure unifor- n>'ty by the pid)lication of a correct standard text, sanctioned by tho approbation of the highest authority in the Church, and not merely of particular Divines, or private Printers, as liad formerly been the case. That object was secured by the Edition of Sixlus or of Clement, the only design of the Decree prefixed to these Editions being to prohibit the public use of any other Editions, but by no means d(;])riving themselves or their successors of tho liberty of submitting these Editions to a future revision, so that it is fully competent for the present Pope, without any prejudice to his predecessors, to order a new revision of the Vulgate, if it should be thought necessary. Had these Popes declared that each of their Editions contained the only genuine texts of the Vulgate, then there would have been a contradiction between them, but there was n(3t the slightest pretension to any exercise of infallihllity in the decision of this question. Dr. Grey gives an account of the Bull of Pope Sixtus V. t "Blblia Saerti Vuly;ata3 Editionis, ad Concilii Tridentiiii praescripfcum emon- dftta, ct aSixto V. P. M. rooognita et ivpprobata. Lu Lous^, Bibliotlieca Snora, Pars II. vol. ill. p. .239. (Ed lialue, irSJ.^ I It' ^'^'V ^f^:^' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 ■ii tu m u u ^ mm 1^ 12.0 1.25 1 1.4 1.6 < 6" ► (?>^ ^ vl / Hiotographic Sdaices Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STREIT WiUTM.N.Y. MSeO (716)872-4503 <\ 90 READING OP THE SCRIPTURES. m H ■' wliicli,however, is purely fictiticMis. I have attentively read the whole of that document, and I am unable to discover any foundation for his statement. It certainly prohibited any alteration in the text by private authority, but it made an express exception, with reference to any new Edition, in favor of the Apostolic See. The Coun- cil of Trent had ordered a similar revision of the Roman Missal and Breviary, and this arrangement was afterwards carried into effect by thrfee different Popes, St. Pius V. Clement VIII. and Urban VIII. without the slightest disparagement to the labors of each other ; and on the same principle it is well known that various Edi- tions ot the English Bible and Book of Common Prayer, widely different from each other, have been published and authorised from time to time in the Church of Jlngland, and each of them superseding the former Editions. I must now say a few words on a subject which has been greatly misunderstood — I mean, the discipline of the Church as to the reading of the Scriptures by the Laity in the Vulgar tongue. Dr. Cramp sa^^s (p. 43) that the Catholic Church is "anxious to prevent h. ' children from becoming familiar with Scripture, lest they should learn to undervalue the autliority of the Church." He quotes the 4th Rule of the " Congregation of the Index," together with some other documents, in proof of this position, which is indeed the common misrepresentation of the Catholic practice on this point. As usual, he con- founds Scripture with the indiscriminate reading of Scrip- ture, and states the contrast to be that of " Tradition versus Scripture," whereas it is really between divine authority and human interjjretations of Scripture. Now the truth is, that the Church has never formally prohibi- ted the study of the Scriptures among any of her chil- dren, but, on the contrary, has strongly encouraged it, DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 91 3ly read iscover hibited but it ny new Coun- of the 3nt was Popes, )iit the r; and ns Edi- Prayor, led and ngland, ions, ich has e of the 3 Laity hat the hildren should He ndex," of this itation e con- Scrip- dition divine Now ohibi- r chil- :ed it, when it is performed with tlie proper dispositions of humility and submission to divine authority, though she does not regard it as essentially necessary for Chris- tian faith and piety. The practice was highly recommen- ded by several of the ancient Fathers, and we do not find any authoritative interference on the subject on the part of the Church till the 13th Century, when the Pro- vincial Council of Tholouse, held in the year 1229, pub- lished a Decree on this subject, in opposition to the wild heresies and revolutionary doctrines of the Albigenses and other sects, which were founded on the corrupt inter- pretation of Scripture. No General Council, however, has ever thought it necessary to legislate on this point, and it is left entirely with the wisdom of the Church to make such regulations as may seem proper for preser- ving the faithful from the dangers to which they are ex- posed bv the abuse of this sacred privilege. Even the Rule of the Index, though sanctioned by the Pope, is not always strictly enforced, and in these countries it is well understood that there is no restriction whatever on the perusal of the English Version which is in general circu- lation among the Catholics of the British Empire. If, indeed, the Scriptures are read with the idea that they contain the whole Word of God, or that every reader is qualified to interpret them, without submitting his opinion to the Church, then we are fully justified in believing that the practice may be attended with danger, not as ari- sing from any defect in the Sacred Scriptures, but from the temerity of human pride. Thus the Catholic Church, like a prudent motlier, neither absolutely prohibits nor absolutely enforces the practice of the private study of Scripture among her members, as she is convinced that a wise discretion is necessary to bo exercised accor- ding to different circumstances, though in all ordinary I ft': If If 92 CATHOLIC ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. cases, she permita and recommends it to her obedient children*. It should be observed, then, that there is no formal restriction imposed by the Church, as this regu- lation is merely a bye-law, intended to counteract the circulation of corrupt Translations and dangerous per- versions of the Scriptures; and further, that this restric- tion was never intended to apply to the study of the original texts, or to ancient versions, of the Bible, but only to preserve the ignorant and obstinate from an im- proper use of that blessed Book. It is necessary, there- fore, that the Translation used should have been made by a Catholic author, and that it should have received the sanction of the Ecclesiastical authorities. It is well known that the English Version in general use among Catholics is that commonly called the Douay Bible, as the Translation of the Old Testament was first published in the English College of Douayf, though the New Testa- ment had been previously issued from the English College of Rheims:}:, both of which, however, have since under- gone extensive alterations. These Editions are usually accompanied with Notes, or Expositions of difficult passages, which, however, are not to be considered as the authoritative interpretation of the Church the approbation given to them is only understood tv. imply * Tims Pope Pius VI. writes to Archbishop Martini, with '•oforeuce to his Italian Translation of tlio Bible—" You judge exceedingly wei^, that the faithful SHOULD BE EXCITED TO THE READING OF THE IIOLY SCttlPTURKS, I'or thCSC are til* most abundant sources, which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are so widely disseminated in these corrupt times. Thi? you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the Sacred Writings in the languaqb op yotjb country, suitable to every one's capacity— especially where you show and set forth, that you have added Explanatory Notes, which, being extracted ftom the Holy Fathers, preclude every possible danger." t2 Vols. 4to. Douay, 1609—10. The Notes were written by Dr. Thomas Worth ington. t4to. Rhemes, 1.W2. Notes by Dr. Richard Bristow. Both translations were chiefty made by Dr. Gregory Martin. (Dodd'e [Ecoles. Hist. Vol. II. p. 121. Fol. BrusB. 1739.) CATHOLIC FOREIGN TRANSLATIONS. 93 the imply that they contain nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as to faith and morals. It is a com- mon opinion, but it is altogether erroneous; that the Scriptures were first translated into the vernacular lan- guages of modern Europe by the Protestant Reformers. Thus we find that a Catholic German Translation of the Bible was published in the very infancy of printing, the first Editions of which are without date, subsequently printed at Augsburg in 1477, before Luther was born, and fre- quently reprinted in Germany before the commencement of the Reformation. The first Catholic French' Bible was planted at Paris in 1488, while an Italian Version was printed (probably at Venice) in 1471, a Spanish Version at Valencia in 1478*, and a Dutch Bible at Delft in 1477t, and in all these, and various other European languages. Catholic Versions have since been frequently published with the full approbation of the highest Ecclesiastical authorities. > But it is often said that the Church has no right to impose any conditions or restrictions whatever on the indiscriminate circulaiion of the Bible " without note or comment." Now, in answer to this objection, we affirm that there is no divine precejjt imposing on the laity the obligation of reading the Scriptures, and consequently that the Church is at perfect liberty to lay down her own regulations on this subject. It is usually said, indeed, that our blessed ^a.\'iovLr commands us to "search the Scriptures," and this is regarded as a positive proof of the point. But from the remarks on this text made before (pp. 41-44), it is e/ident that no authority can be derived from it. Besides, it is well known that there is an ambiguity in the grammatical construction of the pas- * Dixon's Introduction, Vol. I. pp. 134—141. (Am. Ed ) t Dibdln'B Bibliothcca Spenoeriana, Vol. I. p. 68. «: i 94 "search the SClilPTURES." I ¥' ri sago, and it is impossible to ascertain whether the words are to be understood in the indicative or imperative mood. Many Protestant critics prefer the former view, and sup- pose that the true meaning is, "Ye search the Scrip- tures." If so, it is plain that no argument whatever can be founded on this passage. But if it be a command, we must recollect that it was addressed to the Jews — not to the common people, but to the learned men of the nation, and there is not the slightest reason to believe that it was intended as a general direction to all Christians in future times. Indeed, it might almost as well be said that St. Paul's direction to Timothy, " drink no longer water," was of universal obligation, merely because there is no limitation expressed in the passage. It is not, however, our object by any means to discourage this pious practice, but only to vindicate the discipline of the Catholic Church from the charge of its opposition to Scripture, gn the ground of its opposition to the Protes- tant Translation. We are well aware that the Church is commonly represented in the most virulent terms as directly hostile to the Bible, and afraid of allowing it free circulation, because she is opposed to Protestant views and Protestant interpretations of the Bible, which are thus confidently assumed to bo identical with the doctrines of the BiUe itself. But the Catholic Church entertains too much respect for the blessed Book of God, and too tender a regard for the spiritual welfare of her children, to allow their faith to be exposed to all the dangers of pri- vate judgment in the interpretation of the Sacred Scrip- tures, and therefore she imposes a salutary restraint upon '•the liberty of erring," by confining their views of Scrip- tural interpretation within the limits prescribed by her divine wisdom, and regulating them "according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." It is, indeed, our ardent desire to have the Sacred Scriptures placed 3 words e mood, nd sup- ) Scrip- ver can and, we -not to nation, ) that it tians in bo said • longer se there is not, ige this e of the Uion to Protes- liurch is )rms as g it free it views are thus brines of ains too ) tender Iren, to 1 of pri- i Scrip- ut upon )f Scrip- by her ling to indeed, I placed LITERARY QUALIFICATIONS. 95 in the hands, and cherished in tlie hearts, of all our Catho- lic families and individuals ; and wo are fully persuaded that, if used with the right dispositions of humility and prayer, the study of them would be moat conducive to their advancement in piety, and their attachment to the faith of the Catholic Church. But we do not regard it as a matter of indispensable importance, as the teaching of the Church is fully sufficient for all practical purposes, and comparatively few are capablp of deriving unmixed benefit from any other source of instruction than that which our Saviour has furnished for the guidance of Christians. And yet tlie Protestant, wlio denies the authority of any other Rule of Faith but the Bil)le, must consistently deny that any true grounds of faith can be possessed by those who are unable to read or to under- stand the Bible, as there can be no rea] faith, according to their principles, in believing those doctrines which they cannot prove to bo founded on the Bible — and tlius the uneducated Protestant must take his religion entirely on the testimony of others, and conseciuently he has nothing but human authority for the foundation of his faith, while the simple, illiterate Catholic, who rests satis- fied with the divine authority of the Church, can make an act of faith in all her doctrines, as firmly and devoutly as those who are possessed of the highest intellectual abili- ties and mental cultivation, i, - And what an immense amount of learning is necessary for every one to have, on Protestant principle, before he can make a simple act of faith ? He must take nothing' on trust from others, if he acts consistently with these principles. He must satisfy himself by personal research of the genuineness, authenticity, integrity, inspiration, and canonical authority of every part of the Bible— he must be profoundly learned in ancient languages in order to be sure that he has a correct translation— he must be I 96 DIFFICULTIES OF PROTESTANTISM. possessed of the higliost intellectual and religious quali- fications, in order to decide on the right interpretation of Scripture on every point of doctrine and practice ; but all these are not sufficient — he must be infallible, in order to bo certain of his faith. And yet this is often described as the perfection of Christian simplicity, to adopt the Protestant Rule of Faith, by making the profession — " / believe all that is in the BiUe" — without considering all the processes of human reason involved in this profession, or that it may be conscientiously made by those who reject every doctrine of Christianity. On the other hand, when a Catholic says — '' I believe lohat the Church believes-^ — ho not only includes the former profession, but also every positive doctrine of Christianity, not as expressed in the ambiguous language of Protestantism, but in the full and comprehensive definition of the Catholic Church. The one is fixed and definite, while the other is vague and uncer- tain. Thus, suppose a Protestant were convinced that God has given us an infallible guide in religion, ho has no further difficulty on the subject. There is only one Church in the world which answers to this description, and therefore his duty is to join this Church at once. But suppose a Catholic were convinced of the truth of Protestantism, his difficulties are only commencing — he he is perplexed and distracted by the conflicting claims of some hundreds of Protestant sects, all professing to follow the Bible as their only Rule of Faith — he is per- fectly bewildered in the choice of a religion, and though he may, through accidental circumstances, connect him- self with some one of them, yet, if he acts consistently with the principle, he must hold them all equally right in their views, or renounce the very profession of Christi- aiiity. But if the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith, we must be sure, not only that we have all that are now in LOST PORTIONS OF SCRIPTUnE. 70 IS quali* :ation of ce; but in order )8cribed opt the ion—" / g all the sion, or o reject id, when ;es'' — he lo every in the full and 1. The duncer- !ed that , ho has 3nly owe jription, at once, truth of ing — he ; claims asing to is per- though ct him- istently right in Christi- lith, we now in existence, but all that wore ever written by divine inspi- ration. But how is it possible to arrive at any certainty on this point, oven with regard to tho New Testament? Were all tho writings of tho Apostles, on religious sub- jects, divinely inqnred? Can it bo supposed that they never wrote any Works but those which are still pre- served? What is become of the lost Epistles of St. Paul to tlio Corinthians and to the Laodiceans, and of St. John's Epistle to the Churches, to which they themselves refer? (See 1 Cor. v. 9. Col. iv. IG. 3 John 9.) And how do we know that even the controverted doctrines of the Church are not expressly taught in these and other Works, which are now no longer in existence ? And where are we now to find tho passages of tiio Old Testament quoted by inspired Apostles from the Prophets and other Scrip- tures*, as well as by early Christian writers from Davidf, Jeremiah:):, and Ezra§ ? * Seo Matt. II. 'ii. Eph. v. 14. Jtimos iv. 5. Judo 11. t "Tho Lord reigned from tho wood" of tho Cross. (Psalm sovl. 10.) This paa- sajio is quoted by Justin Martyr (Dial, cum Try ph. p. 179. Ed. Ben.) with the remark that tho latter i>art of it had boon erased from tho te.xt by tho Jews- It Is also ultod by St. Ambrose, St. Auj^ustino, St. Loo, St. Gregory tho Uroat, and others. Tlicro is a curious allusion to it in tho ancient /lymn of tho Church— *' Voxilla Rogis"— in tlio Roman Breviary— "Implota sunt, qure concinit David lldeli carmine, Diccndo nationibus, Rkgnavit a lio.no Deus." % "And the Lord God of Israel romemborod His doad, which slept in tho land of the grave, and descended unto tliem to preach unto tliem His salvation." Those words are also produced by Justin Martyr (ut supra) with tho same remark. They are quoted sliortly afterwards by St. Irenajus, in trro passages, (Contra User. Lib. III. cap. XX. p. 214. Kd. Bon. and Lib. IV. cap. x.vii. p. ao9.) in the former of which he ascribes them to Isaiah, and in tlio latter to Joromiali; also iathroo otlior passa- ges anonymously (pp. 270, 273, 330.) See Pearson on the Creed, p.242. (Ed. 1669.) '§''And Ezra said unto tho people, Tliis Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge, and if you can fuel a Arm persuasion that wo are about to humble and degrade Him in this sign, and afterwards should place our sui-e trust and Lope in Him, then this place sluvU never bo made desolate, saith the Lord of Hosts : but if you do not believe in Him, nor listen to that which lie shall announce, ye shall bo a derision to all nations." Tiiis extraordinary passage is also quoted by Justin Martyr, (ut sapra, p. 178) and for tlio same purpose. It is liltewiso referred to by Laotantius, (Instit. Divin. Lib- IV cap. 18. p. 372. Ed. 1684.) Soo Archbishop Magoo's Note on this passage, (Atonement and Sacriftoe, Vol. I; p. 299. 5th Ed.) 7 M •If 98 IMrERPECTION OP PROTESTANT RULE. • ii It! Those arc some oftlio questions wlilchmiiRt bo ButiHfac- torilyjinsworcdby ProtoHtants, before tlioycnn venture to assert, even on their own principles, that they have now the ivliole written Word of God in tlio present collec- tion*; it is another question, whether they have the true interpretation of that Word, and a still further question, of the greatest importance, whether the wliole revealed Word is contained in the written Word, and thus it ap- pears, from an attentive consideration of the subject, that there is not tho slightest foundation for the usual objection, that the Catholic doctrine is founded upon the traditions of men instead of the Word of Godf, and that this objection can only be sustained by denying tho divine authority of the unwritten doctrines of the Apos- tles, and making tho opinion of each individual the only standard of appeal from tho decision of the Church. Dr.Crampadvances a series of objections to the Catholic Rule of Faith, which he arranges under seven heads of argument. They are certainly not remarkable for per- spicuity, as to the order in which they are placed, or the proofs by which they are supported, and the substance of them may be expressed in the following summary. 1. "The first is, its opposition to Scripture" (p. 15.) The proof is the private interpretation of certain texts of Scripture, which Lave been already considered * Professor Stuart, tlie learnod American Baptist DlTine, candidly remarks— "I do not protend that there Is nothing mysterious in the dispensations of Provl- denoo, wliioh have permitted some of the sacred books to perish, and others to have been in some slight rospocts marred, in the course of transcription. I am well aware that a perpetual miracle in order to prosorve the Scriptures has not nnnrequontly been assumed, and zealously maintained. But facts contradict this. It isof no use to close our eyes against these. We shall neither convince our- selves nor any one else, by such a process. But if I reject the ScnirTURKS as a revelation from Ood on this account, I must reject the Chuhch as a divine Institution on the like account." (Old Testament Canon, p. 177. Davidson's Ed.) t It may be remarked, that the Anglican Bishop Montague ftiUy admits that "TiiADiTiONS from the Apostles have equai. authority with their WRiTmas, and no Protestant in his senses will deny that the Apostles spoke mvch more than is .WRITTEN." (Gagger gagged, p.4I.) REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS. 09 (pp. 40-50.) 2. Tho 800011(1 is the novaUy of tliiH rule, (p. 28.) Tho proof its tho Humo as tlio lust — "lacking the authority of Scripture, it must of noccssity be novel," — and of course it admits of tho saino answer. 3. " Tho theory now under discussion is altogether unaalis/adory in its operation" (p. 31.) I ask, unsatisfactory