"^ \T v^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I Iii|2j8 |25 £ |j£ 12.0 111 I 141 Photographic Sciences Corporation 1.25 III ,.4 |j,6 ^ 6" ► 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. UStO (716)172-4503 I ^ ^.t^ } ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical l\Aicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachniquaa et bibliographiques The Institute has attemr ted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibiiographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D □ D n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur rn Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou peilicul^e |~~| Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gtographiques en couleur □ Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ RellA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure 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 ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas At6 filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6tA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. The) toth I I Coloured pages/ D TMs item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^coiortes, tachettes ou piqu4 The poss of th filmi Origi begii the sion, othe first sion, or illi Pages d^coiortes, tachettes ou piqutes Pages Pages d^tachtes Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Qualit^ inAgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materif Comprend du materiel suppMmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponibie I I Pages detached/ rri Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I 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 At6 fiim^es d nouveau de fa^on A obtenir la meilleure image possible. The shall TINL whic Mapt diffe entir begir right requi meth 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X lire details ues du ; modifier ger une filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanlce to the generosity of: IMational Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grflce d la g^nArositA de: Bibiiothdque nationaie du Canada Les images suivantes ont At4 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire f iimi, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies In printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. \6es Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont fiimds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sont filmte en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —»• (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V bignifie "FIN". re Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The fcilowing diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fllmfo A des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour 4tre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et do haut en has, en prenant le nombre d images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. y errata »d to nt ^e pelure, 9on A n 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 3S^^^>i* > \ X. ( ' ^? CLAIMS ./■>- OF "WE GlTHOLli CHURCH: ^ ■'1 A LETTER * • - ■ • TO THE, PABISHIWERS OF BATNT PAUL'S, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, ¥ , , .... - ■ r , ^ :?•.. ■ ■■■" . .. ■■: ■ ..:! BIT EDMUND lilATURIN, MA.,. (FOBWGRLT CPBATK OF THE PABIgH,)'- HAUFAX, N. S. 00i»T0N & BOWDEN,' PmNTERS. 1859. i'»imn..m ^' \ i '1 •**• 4- I '*'j ^^^ .«.*'. .-jij^^-iiiiitti.^',^ w^ o t' ■ d hi' IV > \. T I* ■ «. y J or TIIR CATHOLIC CHURCH: A LETTEH TO THE PARISHIONERS OF SAINT PAUL'S, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA. j BY EDMUND MATURIN, M. A., (FORMERLY CCKATE OP THB PARISH.) \ HALIFAX, N. S. COMPTON & BOWDEN, PRINTERS. 1859. ; VN. A A ^ » V. V •^i^'^^H^- ' ^ t'. "\ / V y ^ „, >tt**>^^ A LETTER, &o. •s My Dear FmEXDs,— You are all aware of the circumstaiice of my recent conversion to the faith of the Catholic Church, and I have no doubt that the intelligence has been received with much surprise among you, from your knowledge of my former views and principles as a Minister of the Gospel of Christ. Many of you will pro- bably think that, in taking that step, I Ikivo been under the influence of some extraordinary delusion ; and it will perhaps occur to you, that it can only be accounted for by supposing, either that I have been carried away by some sudden conviction of mind or excitement of feel- ing, or else, that I have been guilty of a long continued course of hypocrisy and dissimulation, while officiatinjr in the ministry of the Church of England. I trust I shah Si,; able to satisfy you that this explanation ivS incorrect ; and though it is not my object to vindicate myself so much as to defend the cause of truth, yet I feel that I cannot avoid some personal allusions to my own experience, and that, in justice to yourselves, as well as to me, I am bound to give you some account of my own mental trials, and of the long and painful course of discipline by which I have been led to embrace the communion of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ, AU Christians have their own peculiar trials — the \ \ *-v^ PERSONAL NARRATIVE. nature of which tlependa vorymnch on the mental con- stitution of in(livi(hiala, or their external circumslanoes in life. Some of them rehite chiefly to speculative difli- cultioa in religion, while those of most persons consist more in the ordinary temptations of the world. Mine have been to a great extent of the former description and especially with reference to the great controversy connected with the doctrines of the Protestant Ileforma' tion of the Sixteenth Century. And yet, all my connexions and associations of kindred and education were essentially Protestant. I was born of Protestant parents, instructed in Protestant principles, educated at a Protestant Univer- sity, ordained in a Protestant Church, and settled in Pro- testant Parishes, in co-operation with Protestant Clergy- men and Protestant congregations. My ancestors were Protestant Huguenots, expelled from France on account of their profession of the Protestant religion, and all my forefathers, in each successive generation, were Protestant ministers. Under these circumstances, you will perceive at once, that my Protestant prejudices might be reason- ably presumed to be deeply rooted in my nature, and that it must require a very strong and overAvhelming amount of evidence, applied by the Spirit of God to my heart, to enable me to see my way clearly through all the mists of darkness and error with which I was surrounded, to the light of God's everlasting truth, and to submit myself entirely to its heavenly guidance. And accordingly, I had completed my collegiate studies in the University of Dublin, before my mind was troubled with any doubts as to the true position of the Church of England, or the real character of the Protestant Reformation. In the year 1840, I succeeded in obtaining the highest Theological prize in the University, the Regius Professor's First Premium in Divinity; and the course of my studies on that occasion jvra L.V_ TnEOLOGICAL STUDIES. ftl con- •e difH- copsist Mine ription ovorsy L'fornia- lexioiis 3ntially tnicted [Jnivor- in Pro- Clergy- 8 were iccoiint 1 all my )testant erceive reason- nd that imount art, to [lists of to the myself ngly, I t^ersity doubt c4 he real 1840, prize mium casioD ji^r.adually prepared invmind for the more full and impartial invostipition of the claiiuH of the Catholic Church, 'riio proji^resa of conviction Hince thai time has boon very slow and gradual, but at the Hame time, sure and certain. 1 be- lieve it waH the study (d'KcclcHiastical History which first contributed to give a new direction to my thoughts, and materially tended to modify my former views on the sub- ject of religion. I confess that, till then, my ac((uaintance with the general facts of Church History had been very slight and sur)orlicial, and J was particularly careful to derive all mv information on the subject from the state- ments of Trotestant Divines, as I had no confidence in the representations of Catholic historians. I was soon brought to the conviction, that, whatever might be the errors of the Church of Rome, she was not so corrupt, even on Protestant principles, as she was generally repre- sented io be, and that, though she appeared to have made, in some way, many unscriptural additions to the Primitive Faith, yet she still maintained the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, though apparently distorted and obscured by their mixture with human Traditions. However, having been led to form this favorable opinion of the whole system, I was not quite satisfied witli this conclu- sion — Iifelt the inlmense importance of the subject, when I considered that the Church of Rome claims to be the onlj'' true Church of Christ, while Protestants themselves admitted that she still held the essential doctrines of the Gospel as the foundation of all her teaching. I thought it my duty, therefore, to pursue the inquiry further, and to examine attentively the whole controversy with all possible impartiality. I now wished to know what the Catholic Church really was, not from the accounts of her enemies, but according to her own representation of it — and I therefore procured and studied the principal i t' G MENTAL TniALS. staiidanl Aviuks which fcmtiiin tlie authorized fonuu- liirics of tlio Churchy both with lefureiico to Christian (loctriiK! ami puhh'c worship. Oi' those, tho most import ant, which eiij^aged my attuutioii, consisted ot'tliu Canons ami Decrees of the Council of Trent, together with the llouian Missal. These \V(!re my constant companions — a great part of them both was connuitted to memory — and though I conld not fully apjirove of all their state- ments, yet I felt that iiiy mind was now,, in u great mea- sure, divested of all its former prejudices — and from them, I derived a clear and comprehensive view of the Catholic system in all its proportions — which seemed more beau- tiful, when seen reflected from the light of Christian an- tiquity, to which my studies had previously been directed.. Yet, though I could not help admiring its beauty and consistency, still I was not prepared fully to submit m}- understanding and reason to its claims — it seemed to mo like some magnilicent structure erected without a sure- foundation — and though I could not easily account for its existence, I was not yot convinced of its divine origin as a Avhole — and therefore I thought it my duty still to remain in the profession of the Protestant religion,, till it should please God to give me clearer light on the subject. ►Such were the general impressions of. piy mind nearly eighteen years ago,, in the early part of the year 18-iU But my peace was broken — rny soul was restless — my mind was unhappy. I was visited with sickness, and 1 dreaded the thoughts of dying in a state of doubt and uncertainty. It pleased God to restore me to health — but my former difficulties still remained. I could find little comfort in the Protestant w^orship, and I earnestly longed for a mo^re settled faith and a more perfect assurance in the way of salvation. I was in possessioii of a copy of the first edition of the Rliemish Testa I me bn alti Btil my tho sati tha sib mg CATHOLIC IMPRESSIONS. I fonno- ''liristiaii : import 5 Canons IV i til the unions — L'nioiy — oir stute- -vat mou- oni tiieni Catholic xro boau- istian an- direetotl.. auty and bniit ni}- 3(1 to un> lit a sura ount fur lie origin still to> on^till it subject. nearly ir 18-ii. lass — my , and I «bt and lealth — nld find arnestly perfect jsessioli Testa nient of ir)8'2, with all the original Notes of that cele- brated version; and I well recollect that those Notes alternately perplexed an upi ilios to all the otlK-r (Joniiitiuns of the Church, ami especially to the Decroos of the Council of Trent, in opposition to the doctrinen of tlie Protestant Refonnors, wiiile the Chnrch has ever since condemned every heresy as it arose — thus zealously guarding the integrity of t!ic <^'ith(>lic faith against every innovation and perver- sion of Christian truth. As to the testimony of the Fathers, it would bo easy to select jKvssagea from their writings, apparently incon- sistent with the Catholic view of any doctrine, before it was clearlv defined by the Church, but we must take such passages as a whole, and in connexion with the particular circumstances of the writers, not by considering what these passages maf/ possibly mean, in the abstract — but what thoy must necessarily mean, when interpreted by fads in the history of the Church. It has been said, that the best interpretation o^ 2n^ophecy is the history of its fulfil- ment — and the same remark is equally applicable to the doctrines of Christianity. It is by appealing to the doc- trine of the Catholic Church in every age, that we have theories superseded by facts, and conjectures by certairdies. Thus, for instance, with reference to the Supremacy of the Pope, it formerly ai)peared to me, that the most striking passages in the early writers mi(jht be explained with reference to the Apostolical origin of the Roman Church, or the dignity of the Imperial City ; but I found such an hypothesis quite inconsistent with facts, and coIi^ sequently I was obliged to abandon it. And yet the same hypothesis is continually applied by Proteslaaats to explain the statements of the Fathers, even to the end of the Sixth Century. Thus the well known saymg of Pope Gregory the Great, in opposition to the ti-tle of " Univer-. sal Bishop," was much relied upon at the period of tho Reformation in England, and it is still frequently quotedi 20 PAPAL HUPREifACY. 'Oi' to prove that tlio holy Futlior was quite ignorant of tho idea of \\\n own spiritual Supremacy over the whole Chureh, though such an interpretation is directly con- trary to his own ads ami dahim, as tho successor ol' St. Peter. And I may hero state, that I was myself received into tho Catholic Church, not acconling to the usual i»r(>fes- sion of iaith, but according to the Pontifical form, which has been preserved by this same Pope (iregory the Great, as used by the African Bishops, at the recejjtion of Dona- tists into the Church, and which relates exclusively to this one {)oint of submission to tho Apostolic See, and com- munion with tho Roman Pont in", as the test of union with the Catholic Church. My own profession is thereioro more than 1000 years older than the Creed of Pope Pius IV., which is generally adopted on such occasions, but both are essentially the same, as the latter contains only a more complete explanation of Catholic principles and doctrines, which are virtually included, by anticipation, in the former. The truth is, that the Supremacy of tho Pope, as well as all other Roman doctrines, stand before us in a prominent view, as striking /ac^»f in the theological system of the ancient Church — and it is impossible to account for this general adoption of such a system on any other principle than that of its Divine and Apostolical origin. And thus, the whole subject forms an appropriate illustration of tho celebrated rule of St. Vincentius, with reference to the great test of Catholic doctrine, as what has been held " in all places, at all times, and by all persons." Surely the application of this rule is at onco decisive in favor of the Roman Church, and fatal to the claims of all others — and on this principle it is clearly impossible to suppose that the Protestant system of doc- trine can be uue, when we find it rejeded by all other Churches in the world, both in the East and in the West, I perpi I deci(. \ till I his rd (^FNKRAT. rONTLUSIONS. 21 it of tho JO wholo ctly con- ;or ut" St. ' received lul jtroles- 111, which ;he Great, 1 oi' Doim- ely to tliis and com- iiion with theroloro Pope Pius sions, but itains only ciples and ticipation, acy of tho uid before ;heok)gical )08sible to system on Apostolical ppropriato ntius, with lie, as what and by all is at onco atal to tho is clearly em of doc- ry all other 1 the West, in anriont and inixk'in linuM. It is evident, then, that no conehisivo argnnieiit can hit drawn O'/ainfit any part of tho (Catholic system, from the v'fuU "i" direct testimony to it in ]n'im'itice writers — whih< there [" nt evidence to the coiitrarv, it mav hav<" alwav^i boon h^'ld bv tho ('hurch, though not exprc^ly stated liy any of those wlitjse works have come down to ii>!, ami this dtdect is occiisionally supplied i)V the ex[)ress hinlorivnl state- ments of httcr writers on tiio subject ; but it is eu'^y to account for tho Ions of primitive records, tlu/Ugli it is not easy to account for tho loss of a Churches fdth — even without taking into consideration its divine authority — and it must be admitted that, as far as the evidence goes, it is decidedly in favor of the Catholic system, and in opposition to tho Protestant ; and that, in fact, the modern system of Protostiiutism stands directly oi)posed to his- torical Christianity in every age of the Church. Sucli were the conclusions to which I was brought from a general view of tho facts of tho case — but now, my mind was directed, more especially, to tho examina- tion of the gr Qiit jirincijjles of Catholic Unity and Church authority, in connexion with the principles of the English Reformation. Feeling the questions involved in this inquiry to bo of tho most vital importance, I was deter- mined not to relin(iuish it, until I had arrived at a final decision. It was the subject of my constant study. Night and day, my thou g] its flowed mainly in tho same channel, — my mind was completely absorbed in it, and although I sought and found a temporary relief in the active duties of tho ministry, still the same questions perpetually recurred to mo, and demanded from mo a decided answer. I felt that Grod would give me no peace till I was fully prepared to embrace the whole system of his revealed truth. His Spirit had long been striving '^W'^ •>o ENGLISH REFORMERS. ■ U i H ■ i 5 t !! h L;! i with my heart, but 1 feared thjit 1 liad hocn endeavoring to siknieo His voiee witliin nie, and to provoki^ iiini to leave mo to myself, and thus 1 only plunged myself deeper in distress and perplexity. ^My heart was sad and depres- sed, and every thing around me wore a dark and gloomy aspect. I tried to persuade njyself that it was only a temptation of Satan — I wished to satisfv my mind with my former exeuses — but I could not. I felt happy when 1 resolved to yield to conviction, but whenever 1 began to resist and to doubt, all mv former dilliculties returned again. I had long endeavored to obtain an exact view of the real doctrines of the Knglish Kefonners as stated in their own writings — and for this purpose, I carefully ex- amined Cranmer's celebrated ''Answer to Cardiner,"' (in the original Edition of 1551,) and I was much struck with the inconclusive reasoning, perverted quotations, and abusive language, em[)loyed by that unha]>py man in the refutation of his op})onent. A similar unfavor- able impression, though not so strong, was produced by the perusal of Ridley\> brief "Treatise against Transub- stantiatiou," in which the argmnent chielly consists in (fdached passagcji from the Fathers, (nu>stly spurious or doubtful,) produced in opposition to the clctw and e^c- pirt^ii statements of the mine writers in offtcr passages, as well as the general consent of other ai»cient writers, and the e.stahUs'hed doctrine of the Universal Churi'h. Tho same remarks apply to the Avritings t)f tJewel and tho other Reformers, who labor to establish Mco>-/V.v instead of facts', and to found upon their own ItderpretatlonFt of some ambiguous expressions in the Fathers, a system of religious doctrine, and a sketch of Church histori/, which never ex- isied but in their own imagination. ]iut why talk of tho Protestant Divines of this period, and tho etVect of their I MOOCTN CONTUOY KIISY. uloavoring ko him to sclftloopcr uul tlopros- 11(1 i^loomy was only si miiul with apjiv when ■ 1 l>o;j;"au to s roturnecl iow of tho i stated in ire fully ex- •tlineiv' (in iieh struck quotations, happy man ivr uuHivor- •oilneed by it Traiisub- consists in ■spurious or (W and ex- vissag'es, as vritors, and nreh. Tho A and tho vs instead of >nfi of some ^freligioiis ;h tiever ex- talk of tho ect of their 'ffl works on public opinion, when it is notorious that such a oause had so little to do witlithe proj^ress of the Kiij^lish !\elbra»ati(»n, which was accomplished, not by the spiritual Nveapousof thooloj»;ical discussion, butby the strong- aiin uf thi» civil power? There is no doubt, indeed, that a j:;reat improvemeat took place in the ji^eneral tone of l*rotestanl controversy in the follow iuj:i: ajije, as exhibited in the works of Ussher, Laud, (Miil!in«:;wortlu Taylor, Uarrow, StiIliiJj;Heet, and others, who certainly endeavored to meet the Cathtdic ariruments in a aio) ,' tliir and candid spirit of t\is(!Ussion. l>ut to pass on to more recent puU licatious on the other side. I studied ap;ain, and with in- iMCMscd bcnetit, the work from wiiich I had derived so nuich information manv vears beibre, Caniinal Wisema!i*s Lectures, and found them nn)re and more instructive and conclusive. I w^as pjreatly assisted by Dr. Ives' personal narrative of tho "'J'rials of a ^Jiud in its progress to Catho- licisn),"' — in which I was deeply interested, from the close reseml)lan(;e between the Author's experience and my own. Nor must 1 omit, after all their years of service, lM)ssin'l's 'vllistt)rv of tho Variations of the I'rotestant Churches," ijor iMiluer's w^ell known ^' Knd of JJeligions Contro- versy. ■' And I nnist also exj)ress my obligutitms to the abk,' report of the ^* llammersniith Oiscussioa" — together M'itii Manning's *' Shortest Way to end Disputes about relij^'iou,'' and Dr. Newman's celebrated ^' Essay oii tlie Development of Christian J)octrine," and his •'Sermons addressed to Mixed Congregations." — 'i'hese woiks, to- gether with the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Fathers, formed the principal subjects of my studies and njeilita- tions (hiring that eventlul period, and through them, under the blessing of (iod, 1 was led to the conviction, that it is my duty to renounce all connexion with IVo- festmitismj lujd to tnmsfer my uJlegimjice to tho Cytholic I : 24 OBJECTIO^■S ANTICIPATED. ^t Church. For this purpose^ I resolved to proceed to Eiigbind, and to announce my intention to His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishoi^ of Westminster, as head of the Catholic Church in the mother country, and this plan, after much deliberation, I have at length been permitted to accomplish, tln*ough the mercy of God. It may be said, indeed, tliat in all this process of in- quiry, I was acting on the very principle of private judg- ment, which I hold to be so dangerous to the interests of true religion. And yet, surely I was fully justified^ on Pro- testant principles, in the exercise of such a right, though it might lead me to a dillereut conclusion from other Pro- testants. Still, however, it must be observed, that there is a wide diflerence between the exercise ofjjersonal vcspo}i- sihiUty and private judgment, though they are often con- founded together. Catholics strongly hold the one, while they utterly deny the other. The former relates to the duty of every individual, by which he is bound to examine the grounds of his faith, and the evidences of religion, with the sincere desire of joining that Church whicli he believes i I his conscience, to have the strongest claims to divine authority, with a deep sense of his accountability to God for his decision, while the latter means the right of every one to form his religious opinions from his own interpretation of the meaning of Holy Scripture, (which he supposes to contain all the doctrines of Christianity), without submitting his opinions to the authority of the Church. It may be thought, however,, very strange and incon- sistent, that I should seriously think of such a step,, while still engaged in the service of the English Church, and supposed to hold and teach her Evangelical doctrines in all their scriptural purity. Now, I certainly did not think myself justified in holding or teaching " all Roman doc- I I EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE. Toceed to Eminence ead of the this plan, permitted !ess of in- ivate judg- ntorests of ed^ oij Pro- lit, though other Pro- lat there is mal rcsjjon- ofteii con- one^ whilo to the duty amine tlio n, with the e believes to divine ity to God i right of n his own re, (which ,'istianity),, ity of the md iiicon- tep,. while lurch, and ctriiies in not think )mau doc- trine/' or any part of it, wliile occupying my former position, tliough I miglit feel strongly inclined to it as a matter of private opinion, but not as an article of faith till I was fully prepared to adopt the whole system. It is certainly true, that I felt a strong sympathy with Ciiristians of every denomina'tion, and earnestly desired to promote the fulfilment of the prayer of our Divine Re- deemer, " that they all may be one." And this sympathy was especially directed toAvards the most ancient branch of the Church of Christ, though I feared that union with her was quite impossible, on account of her supposed cor- ruptions. In the mean time, therefore, I thought it suffi- cient to profess and teach those doctrines and pi-actices which were equally professed both by Catholics and by Pro- testants, and to avoid all further controversy on the sub- ject. But I must observe that this whole objection is chiefly founded on a total misapprehension of the real cha- racter of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. It is, in- deed, one great advantage which Protestants have in sub- mitting to the Catholic Faith, that they bring with them the whole system o^ positive doctrine which they held before, so that they are not required to give up any article of their former belief, but to receive, in addition to it, the articles of the Catholic Creed, together with the Catholic principles which form the foundation of faith. For it is necessary to remind you, that the Protestant religion is entirely a combination of negatives; it does not properly consist in hclievinijy but in disbelieving] it receives, perhaps, some particular articles of the faith which it has borrowed from the Catholic Church, and it rejects the rest, which it chooses to call additions, but which Catholics regard as integral parts of the Christian Faith. It is evident, then, that Catholics believe all that Protestants helieve, but they believe a great deal more, and on a totally diflerent prin- •r 26 CATHOLIC SYSTEM. ri |i cljjle, the one resting on a divine revelation made to the Churcli, and secured by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, while the other rests on the private opinion of each individual as to the meaning of the won 3 of a printed hook. But, still, the point to which I now refer is the Evangelical character of Catholic doctrine, which is so often misrepresented by Protestants ; and yet I can bear witness from my own experience to the peculiarly Evangelical tone of doctrine which I have generally ob- served in all the sermons which I have heard from Catho- lic pulpits, indeed much more truly Evangelical than many of those vrhich are frequently heard from Protestant pulpits ; and it has frequently occurred to me, while listening to such sermons, that these are the very doc- trines of grace which we loved to hear from the faithful preachers of the Gospel in the Church of England. But the difference is, that in the Catholic teaching, they form apart of a harmonious system, in connexion with all the other means and instruments which God has mercifully ap- pointed for our salvation, while in the Protestant teaching, they are held in an isolated and mutilated form, and conse- quently one class of the means of grace is entirely dwelt upon, to the exclusion or denial of another class, which is equally of divine appointment. Now, I thank God that I still hold all the doctrines (not indeed negatively but posi- tively) which I held and taught while I was a Protestant Minister in the Church of England, but I hold them now in all their fair proportions and full developments, as a part of that glorious system of Sacramental grace, which God has been pleased to deposit with His Church for the salva. tion of mankind. And after all, it must be observed that the proper test of orthodoxy or heresy does not consist so much in particular doctrines as in general principles. The great question is hoiwoQii i\\Q principle of Church GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 27 ide to th(j ce of the le ojnnioii 3i\ 3 of a w refer is which is yet I can pecuHarly erally ob- om Catho- ;han many ^rotestant me, while very doc- le faithful md. But they form ith all the ci fully ap- teaching, ,nd conse- ely dwelt , which is rod that I but ^osi- *rotestant sm now in as a part hich God the salva. rved that >t consist winciples. f Church authority and tho 2)ruicqjle of prw«^cy?ff?r/me/j^; in other words, between the principle of faith and the principle of infidelity, — between divine revelation and human opinion, — between humble, implicit submission to the Word of Grod, and proud, wilful contempt of it, — the one, tho source of all truth, the other, the source of all error. In fact, all the other controversies may be easily reduced to this one fundamental principle. It is a mere accident, and the result of particular circumstances, whether a per- son holding his own private opinion will hold the true doctrine on any given subject or not, but any one who fully holds the Churclrs divine right of teaching all truth is in possession of a principle which will preserve him secure from all error on every subject. ]}ut I must now proceed to speak more directly of the grounds and evidences of the Catholic Faith, as distin- guished from that of all Protestant denominations. We are required to be " ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear, having a good conscience," and in this spirit I desire to enter upon the explanation of my reasons for joining the Catholic Church. It is true that the motives which induce different individuals to join the Church are infinitely various, as acting on different minds under different circumstances, but they all meet at last in the common centre of Catholic unity and Divine infallibility. I do not propose to enter upon a full discussion of this question, but merely to state some general considerations applicable more immediately to my own case. I have already, indeed, anticipated this subject, in some measure, in the pre- ceding part of my narrative, but it requires to be ex- plained in a more distinct and argumentative form. For, if the Protestant Reformers of the 16th Century were 28 THE TWO SCHISMS. ■X \Vi 3 ! guilty of tlie double sin of scJnstn and heresy, first, in fieparatiiKj from the communmi, and then in renouncing the doctrine of the One True Church of Christ, it follows as a necessary consequence, that we are partakers of their sin while we refuse to return to tlie nnity of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith. Now, there are two points of view on which this subject may be con- sidered, the one historical, and the other theological. In the one case, we appeal to the facts and events connected with the history of the Reformation, and in the other case, to the fundamental ijrincijjlcs and doctrines of the Christian Religion. Among all the schisms which have divided the Church since the days of the Apostles, there are two which have been particularly remarkable for their extent and their duration — the Oreeh schism, and the Protestant schism. Their effects continue, and are deeply felt, to the present day. Numerically speaking, it is stated on good autho- ritv, that at this moment the Catholic Church includes about two-thirds of the whole number of professing Christians in the world. Of the remaining one-third, about two-thirds belong to the Greek and Russian Church- es, while the other one-third, or one-ninth of the whole, consists of Protestants of every class and name. Again, there are at present about 1,100 Christian Bishops in the world, of whom nearly 800 belong to the Catholic Church, 200 to the Greek Church, and more than 100 to the Anglican Church in all its branches. One thousand years ago, the whole Christian Church was visibly united under one Chief Pastor, the successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome — the Eastern Church having, till then, agreed with t}>e Western in holding the same views on the two great points of difference since that time, the Supre- macy of the Pope, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Li ui w o 8"i GERMAN REFORMATION. 29 /, first, in enouncimj it follows •takers of ty of the there are '■ be con- "jlcal. In jonnectcd the other les of the e Church lich have mcl their it schism. e present )cl autho- includes rofessing )ne-thircl, I Chiirch- le whole, Again, shops in Catholic n 100 to hoiisand y united 3r in the ill then, '^s on the z Supre- Y (jrhost. Then came the separation of the Greek Church from the Latin, the former attempting to establish a new centre of unity, by human authority, in the city of Constantinople, while the latter adhered to the divinely appointed Rock of the Clinrch. A little more than 300 years ago, another great schism took place in the Latin Church, connnencing, like the former, with the rejection of the authority of the Holy See — but at the same time holding other principles tending to the subversion of all religion. This was the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Here, then, we come to the common, but unanswerable ques- tion, addressed to Protestants, with reference to the existence of their religious system before the time of Luther. It was not in the visible Church, for it was universally rejected by it ; it Avas not in the invisible Church — for there was no such Church in existence ; and it Avas not in the Bible — for the Church never found it there during all that time, and without immediate inspiration, it was impossible for any individual to lay claim to such a discovery. It is, then, an incontroverti- ble fact, that up to the year 1517, there was no such thing as Protestantism in the world — for fifteen hundred years together such a system was unknown in the Church — ajid yet there was no new revelation of Christianity made at that time, nor did the Reformers themselves profess to act by such an authority. Let us, then, take a general view of the origin and progress of the Reformation in Germany. We must briefly refer to the circumstances connected with Luther's famt)us quarrel with Pope Leo X., when he boasted of having " stood alone" against the Universal Church, in 'lis arrogant presumption. We need not stop to show how it w^as originally a mere j^^^'sonal dispute, in which the pride of the Augustinian monk was deeply wounded. 30 CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG. ■I \y i!i i( ! and notwithstanding his solemn profession of obedicneo to the decision of the Church, he rebelled against that decision when it condemned his views, and then endea- vored to justify his conduct by applying to the Church his own interpretations of Prophecy, while he proclaimed the Pope to bo the Antichrist of Scripture, and the Church of Home the Babylon of the Apocalypse. And it may bo remarked that the same view of Antichrist was afterwards generally adopted by all the Keforraed Churches in Europe, inserted in their public Formularies, and alleged as the ground of their separation from Home, and therefore those Protestants, who find a difficulty in preferring Luther's opinion lO the interpretation of all the Fathers, or in reconciling it with the fulfilment of Pro- phecy, are acting inconsistently with the principle of the Reformation, and have evidently mistaken their position in the Church. This announcement was made by Luther in the memorable year of 1520. Having been excommuni- cated from the Church "nothing remained for him," says Mosheim, " but to attempt to found a new Church oppo- sed to that of Rome, and to establish a system of doc- trine consonant to the Holy Scriptures." And yet it is re- markable that during the ten years that elapsed from this time, he seemed quite unable to define how far his own system of doctrine differed from that of Rome, or whether there were any real difference at all, and even fourteen years afterwards, with strange inconsistency, he still main- tained that the Church of Rome was the true Church of Christ. In the year 1529, the name of " Protestants" was first given to those German States who protested against the Decree of the Diet of Spires, in favor of the ancient worship, and some explanation of their views was now ex- pected from the Protestants. Accordingly, in the Confes- sion of Augsburg, presented to the Emperor Charles Y., in I LUTHERAN TARIATIOJJS. 31 obctlienco xinst that en ciidea- G Cliurcli rocluiiiied and tliG ise. And Antichrist Reformed rraularies, )m Home, fieiilty in of all the t of Pro- pie of the osition in Luther in Jommiini- im," says 'ch oppo- of doc- t it is re- from this his own whether fourteen till main- lurch of its" was against ancient now ex- Confes- es y., in 1530, tliey stated that " they dilTered in no article of faith from the Catholic Ciiurch, nor from the Church of Ivome," but only desired the correction of certain abuses in mat- ters of discipline. Among other particulars, they clearly assorted their belief in the doctrine of the Heal Presence; and the Sacrifice of the Mass, which, they declared, "was celel)rated among them with the greatest reverence." ]Jut another ton years passed away, and the C'onfession of Augsburg (which had previously received an important chaijge in 1531), was completely altered as to the doctrine of the Eucharist, and the theory of Consubstantiation de- fined to be tlie Lutheran view, while the Adoration of the Host seems to have been still admitted in the worship of the German Protestants. But I need not dwell on the painful differences between Luther and the other Keforni- ers, involving, in their opinion, the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, in which they found it impossible to agree. And were these men invested with a divine commission to reform the doctrines of the Church of Christ? What are we to think of new Creeds and new Confessions, con- tinually published, all differing from each other, and all professing to contain the true doctrines of the Gospel? Can the Spirit of God be the Author of such confusion and varieties of contending sects, all distinguished by those two leading characteristics — their intolerant opposition to each other — and their bitter hostility to the Catholic Church ? It is quite evident, indeed, that the first Reformers did not clearly understand either their own principles, or the legitimate consequences to which they must lead. They were engaged in a mighty revolution,, and they did not stop to reflect on its ultimate effects uspon the world. They certainly acted on the right of private judgment for themselveSj but they had no idea of extending the ■lit ibioni i ll 1. i 1 1 J ' •> ii' \ 32 PROTKSTANT TENDENCIES. samo riglit io oihers, much less of perpetuating the piin- c'ii)li', or allowiiirj its practical a[>plication in future ages. Their successors, however, did ni>t think proper to stop nt the precise point where they had stopped. Having rejected the authority of the uifaU'ihh Church, they had no intention of suhmltt'uKj to a fallible one. Having laid hold of the principle, they were determined to carry it out consistently, and accordingly wo find that there is not a single doctrine of Christianity which has not been denied, one after another, by the most distinguished theologians of the Lutheran Church, the Rationalistic Divines of Germany, the fatherland of the Protestant Reformation. It was truly said in the old adage, that " Luther only uncovered the roof while Calvin levelled the loalh, but Soeinus destroyed the foundation" of tho Catholic Church, and all acted consistently on the sumc irrinciple, however differing in doctrine. It cannot bo denietl that the Protestantism of the 19th Century is quite a dilferent thing from the Protestantism of the IGth Century ; a second Reformation has tacitly taken place in all the Reformed Churches, and especially dr ring the last Century. And this is now publicly demanded by a numerous party in the Established Church of England, to be effected, as on former occasions, by authority of Parliament. Protestantism appears to be in a transition state at present. It cannot stop where it is. It is contrary to its nature. Ever restless and unsettled, it must advance in its progress, either to Infidelity or to Catholicism. It is evident that no security can be given for the permanent continuance of any one Christian doctrine, on Protestant principles. It contains within itself the elements of its own dissolution, and it is only by violating its own fundamental principle of private judgment, and restraining it within arbitrary limits, that ENCLISn REFORMATION. •S 7 tlio prill- itiirc ages, icr to Kstop 1. Having , tliov had raving laid ;o carry it it tliere is iS not 1)CLM1 ^tingnislied ationalistic Protestant fidage, tliat 'in levelled on" of tho n the same cannot be Century is ofthelGth en place in ng the last ded by a f England, thority of transition is. It is unsettled, ifidelity or ity can be e Christian ins within it is only of private imits, that it can iiuiiiitaln its existence in the world as a svstom ol Christian truth. This, indeed, was the siini)le and con- clusive argUMieiit of Ihtssuet, that '' Protestants have fre- quently c/uuKjcd tiieir doctrines, therefore their religion cannot be trne.^' It was this which convinced the intellec- tual mind of Gibbon, the historian, and induced hiin to profess the Catholic Faith, and yet afterwards, when his proud reason led him to reject its mysteries, he rejected Christ iit II iff/ along with Catholicism, and rapidly passed through r rotedantism to Lijidditt/, tlius illustrating the close connexion that exists between the two systems. Surely, then, this cannot be the work of Ood ! A Church which is continually changing her doctrines, cannot be the true Church of Christ, while the Catholic Church has proved hor divine origin by the uninterrupted uniti/ ot doctrine, and the perfect consistency of all its parts with each other, which she has constantly maintained at every period of her existence. She can never, never, alter or reconsider any one point of Christian doctrine that she has authoritatively defined for the last 1800 years. Like her Divine Author, she is " tlie same yesterday, and to- day, and for ever." Let us now look at the Established Church of England, as founded, or reformed, under Henry VIIL, Edward YL, and Queen Elizabeth. There can be be no difficulty in proving that each of those Sovereigns was merely infiu- cnced by a ^7erso?i«Z motive in promoting the progress of the Reformation. What had the Church to do with these measures ? Nothing whatever. Was she ever con- sulted about them ? No, never. Was her consent re- required in introducing a new religion ? Certainly not. Who, then, were the authors of these changes? The English monarchs, with the assistance of a servile Par- liament. It is surely unnecessary to detail the well 34 HENRY VIII, ' 4 i [1 1 known liirttory of tliis dcplorablo scliisin, liow it com- inoiiood with a private quarrel between King Henry VIII. and Popo Clement VII., wliicli ended with a total rupture with the Apostolic Sec, in conHeiiuence of the Pope'd refusal to sanction the King's divorce from his lawful wife, in order to form an adulterous connexion- — and how the King immediately proclaimed the indepcmleacc of the national Church, and trannferred to himself the Papal prerogatives, as Supreme Head of the Church of England and Ireland, by the substitution of the national Empire for the Universal Church, while at the same time ho retained every other article of the Catholic creed, witlujut even the miserable excuse of any alleged corrup- tion of doctrine in the Catholic Church. The Act of sub- mission of the Clergy, (25 lien. VIII., c. 19) which con- tinues in force to this day, established the subjugation of the Church to the king, while the suppression of the monas- teries, and the confiscation of Church property, aftbrded a rich recompence to those avaricious courtiers who took part in those sacrilegious measures. The English nation, though with some reservation, was at last intimidated into a passive acquiescence with the will of the tyrant, though many of its members, including those illustrious martyrs, Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More, preferred to lay down their lives in defence of Catholic unity. But further changes were reserved for the times of his son and successor, Edward VI., or rather the Council that managed the affairs of the kingdom during his minority. This reign, indeed, is generally regarded as the real com- mencement of the Protestant Reformation in England. It was stated by King Charles I. that " no man who under- stands the English Reformation, will derive it from Henry VIII. It was his son who began, and Queen Elizabeth who perfected it." This statement may be true with regard Th IT) Wll F.DWAnn VI. 85 w it coin- oiiryVITI. ;jil rupture tlio Pope'tJ hi.s liiwtul )xu)n — and dependence h'umelf tho Clmrcli of ;he national samo time lolic creed, ^•ed corrup- Act of sub- whicli con- tjugation of f the moiias- [ty, aftbrded 8 Avho took isli nation, intimidated the tyrant, illustrioua , preferred unity, imes of his ouncil that s minority, le real com- n England, who under- rom Henry zabeth who ith regard ffj \o (7ovtrhic.9,\)\\t certainly not with rcgnnl to jirhidjihs. The Book of Conunon IVayer was Hrst produced in 151!), and afterwards, witli hnportant alterations, in 1552, while in the following year the Forty-two Articles were published with additional variatit>ns of doctrine, none of tJte^e form hIk tics lun'itnj recctvnl Ihc sandlvn oj'ihf Church in Convoidtion, whil rigorous measures were adopted with the F?ishops and (Mergy who refused to acknowledge the validity of these changes. The celebration of the Catholic services was strictly ))rohibited, the sacred mysteries of religion derided, and tho usurpation of tho Crown completed by the api)ointment of the Royal Visitors and other Lay Commissioners, who entirely superseded all Episcopal authority throughout the kingdom. After the death of Edward, tlie Catholic Religion was restored for a short time during the reign of Mary, and thus we come to that memorable period when Viie Reformed (Mmrch of England was legally estab- lished on its present foundation, by Queen EHzabeth, in the year 1559. This was etlected by the enactment of those two fiimous Statutes, the Act of Supremacy, and the Act of Uniformity. In the mean time, the Convocation was prohibited by the Queen from enact- ing any Canons that might be unfavorable to those measures, under pain of premunire. Notwithstanding all the efforts that were made to procure the return of a Parliament favorable to the Queen's interests, these Ecclesiastical Laws were with difficulty carried through the two Houses. The bill for the Liturgy was passed by a majority of six in the House of Commons, and three in the House of Lords, (the latter majority being obtained by the imprisonment of two Catholic Bishops, and the creation of five new Protestant Peers,) having gone through all the stages in both houses within the short space of 10 days. 36 QC'EKiV ELIZA CETff. I If Every Disliop in the upper lioiisc voted against ft. The Clergy, assembled in solemn eonvoeation, together ivith the two Universities, ])rotestecl against tho change of Religion hy an Act of rarliameiit. Jt was carried, how- ever, and forced upon the nation, after an inelVectnal re- aistanee on the part oi the Chnrch, every Catholic Bishop having l)een deprived of his See, with the exception of one, Avho had always conformed with every change. And by wliom were those changes made ? By the Qneen and Parliament, that is, h// the State iu opj)0.sitio)i to the Church, by the Laity in rebellion against the Clergy. As yet, however, no Protestant test of t/'jc/!r' Bishops of le Province )n on which •incs of the le exclusion id thus tlie 1 England.- this? The I of Homo ginning of lie Bishop, the usual though the ho will of hev illcgiti f w •i •i •mate, and <7/Vy, while it maybe regarded as a 7'eUgloits movement on the part of a considerable luimber of mktjnuUd men, who endeavored to subvert the ancient religion of the country by the intnxluction of a new system of doctrine derived from the continental reformers, but the truth is, that the Church htrfielj) (u a spiritual ho(f//, had mJfhing to do icith it. And thus Eng- land is separated, for tho last oOO years, from the com- Tuunion of tho Catholic Church, and all simply as one of tho government measures of the day, with a view to further the selfish objects of human iiolicv. Wiiere is the hand of God in all this? What right has such an establishment to be properly called the Church of Eng- Ifiiad ? What possible claim can she have to the religious 38 ENGLISH" SCHISM. :'li J obedience of tlie people of England? How else m sTie to be regarded but as part and parcel of the State ? — the (freation of man, and not of God, founded and governed by the authority of tlifO Queen and Parliament, and not of Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit. But all this, it may be said,, relates only to the legal es- tahUshmeiii of the Church of England,.and does not affect her claims to be considered the representative of the true ChmvJi of Christ in these dominions. On what ground, then, in a religioids point of view, can she main- tain her claim to this title ? We have seen that the old ( lurch of Englund protested against tlie usurpation of her rights, by lier new and powerful rival. Which of the two Churches is to be regarded as the tnie Church of Christ in that country? Here we enter upon the Thedoylcal view of tho subject,. which is the most impor- tant part of our inquiry, and demands our mo&t serious attention. There is evidently an irreconcileabie difference i>etween the two Churches. And further,, there was clearly a sejm- ratlon of the Church of England from the Church oiRoiiie'^ and ihh mparation must be an act of sc7u's>h,. unless it can be proved that that separation was lav:ful. It is surely unnecessary to dwell upon the historical ficti^on of the Independence of the Ancient British Churches on the See of Rome — the best refutation of which is the foct of its modern invention. It was never heard of till after the Reform*ition, and there is not the slightest foundation^ for it in the genuine records of Ecclesiastical history. It is evident tliat tlie only way in. which the sepa- ration can be justified,, is by proving that the- Catholic Church had fallen into dangerous corruptions of doctrine f. which required her system to be thoroughly imrijied by the work of the Reformation* But it was well, remxirkec^ by caJ foil en It a grt fori M GRADUAL CORRUPTION 39 dIsg is^ she tate ? — tlie I governed it, and not he legal e, iion that the whole system of doctrine held by the Church now has always been held from the beginning of Christi- anity. We go back to the earliest ages — we examine the writings of the Fathers, and the Decrees of Councils — and we find manifest traces of the same general system, as far as the evidence extends. The burden of proof 40 PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS. ■>m clearly lies on the otJier side; for the Catholic Church was already in possession of her title, and can justly claim a 2wescriptive right from immemorial usage, and it must require very strong and convincing evidence to disprove the valisi m ■S I I 42 PROTESTANT ALLEGATION. the time of the First General Council of Nice, when she defined tlie great doctrine of the Divinity of our Lord on the ground of tradition, against the Arian heresy. It was long a popular view that the Papal period in the history of tlie Cliurch began with Pope Boniface III. in the com- mencement of the seventh century, and in connexion with the Universal Supremacy — otlier Avriters have dated the beginning of the reign of Antichrist from the time of Pope Gregory 11. in the Eighth Century, in connexion with the Iconoclastic controversy — while others, unwilling to admit so early a date as that of Nice, in connexion, too, with such a doctrine, and yet unable to find any intermediate period of suflicient importance, have brought down the time to the last General Council of Trent, when the Church defined the whole Catholic system against all the heresies of the age ; and thus, between tlie two extremes, extending over a period of more than 1200 years, from the 4th to the 16th century, the proof entirely fails, and the disagree- ment between the witnesses tends fully to establish the innocence of the Catholic Church. It is asserted, indeed, that the Primitive Church was really Protestant in doc- trine, that Roman Catholic errors were afterwards gradually introduced, and that the design of the Refor- mation was to restore the Church to her original purity, according to the standard of the Bible. But surely we have a right to expect some iwoof of all this, whereas the evidence is entirely on the other side, and "we may fairly defy any Protestant to prove that there ever was a period since the beginning of Christianity, in which any one doctrine of the Roman Church was not held by the whole Church of Christ on earth. It is said, indeed, that these doctrines are not contained in the Bible, and further, that they are contrary to the Bible, but the foriner of these objec- tions is founded on the principle, that all the doctrines of "^>l PRINCIPLES 01 REFORMATION. la , when she ur Lord o)i n with tlio iig to admit , with such iate period time to the ch defined sies of the Qding over Ml to the disagree- abh'sh the d, indeed, nt in doc- ifterwards ;he Refor- al purity, urely we lereas the nay fairly s a period any one ;he whole hat these ther, that ese objec- ct^'ines of '~M Clnistiaiiity are contained in the Bible, wlu'ch is as-sumhuj- thc^vhole subject of controversy, and the ?los ot'tlic necessarily re generally s. It is the tide of the ntaineth all ever is not lot to bo re- as an article sary to sal- stants seem for granted [possible to ition to con- i, and how 1 two ways, ov external laration of ation and 'xistence of ture assert ine revela- whicli de- contained hout hesi- o refer to li relate to ortant pas- iii. 15-17. ;eive that 'he first is criptures, and they fire they ^vliicli testify of mo." Now what dues tl:is pas- >?aft'e prove ? Simply, that the tScrii)tures testify of Christ. Hmely this is not the same with aaying that they contain all that God has revealed to man. But again, What are the Scri[)tures of which onr Havionr speaks? Not certainly the Nevj Testament^ which was not written at the time — bnt the Old Testa- ment, which was then in the hands of the Jews. If, then, this passage proves anything conclusive on this i)oint, it evidently proves too much, and therefore proves )iothuig; for if it proves that the Old Testament was a sufficient nde of faitli, then the New Testament must 1)0 quite unnecessary^ which will surely not be ad- mitted by any Christian. For according to this mode of reasoning; it is argued that because the unbelieving Jews were required to search their own Scriptures for the proof oi one specific truth relating to the Messiah, whom they rejected — therefore the same principle is to be applied and extended to other Scriptures which were ngi then in existence, and that each individual Christian is obliged to search those other Scriptures, in order to find out, not one, hut every truth in theni; as the sole and infal- lible rule of faith. Surely such an inference cannot be fairly drawn from our Saviour's words by any unpreju- diced mind. Suppose a pious book were recommended to us on this gi'ound, that " it testifies of Christ," would any one seriously think that such a recommendation im- plied that it contained every doctrine of Christianity on every subject ? And yet such is precisely our Saviour's recommendation of the Old Testament. But it is said that those Scriptures contain eternal life. This, however^ is only the opinion of the Jews, on which our Lord pro- nounces no decision — and even if He did, the words can only be understood, consistently with his own explana- p '^ i ■I ^ FAILURE OF PROOF. |:1 IT ■ n 4\ tion, in this sense, that the study of the ivr'itten word formed an excellent i)reparation for receiving the unwrit- ten Word, or divine instructions of Christ, who was tho great subject of all the writings of Moses and tho Pro- phets. And the other passages referred to are precisely of tt similar character. In tlie passage in the Acts, wo have simply a historical illustration of our Saviour's rule, with regard to the study of the Old Testament, as preparing tho Jewish mind for the reception of Christianity. We are told that the Bcrean Jews '^ searched the Scriptures daily," in order to compare the predictions of the Pro* phets with the statement of the Apostle with reference to the sulferings of Christ, and being thus convinced o( the truth of the facts of the Gospel history, "many of them believed" the t'cstimony of St. Paul, and embraced all the other doctrines taught by him, not because they were written in the Scriptures, but because they were ^delivered to them on the authority of a teacher sent from Ood. And it is exactly on the same principle that Catholics still act in reasoning with Protestants, when they appeal to the New Testament, and exhort them to ^' search the Scriptures," which testify of the divine in- stitution of the Church of Christ, and then to submit their minds to the teaching of that Church in every article of iaith proposed to them on divine authority. And once more, the Apostle Paul reminds his beloved Timothy, that " from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, throuarh faith which is in Christ Jesus." Here again, there is cei^ tainly no proof, that, because young Timothy, in point of fact, was instructed in the Old Testament, and thus pre- pared to receive the doctrines of the Gospel which were a/tenoards to botrevealed, therefore the general prin- ciple is established, that every Christian is required by his llESULT OF EVIDENCE. 47 written word g the unwrit- who was the iiK-l the Pro- e precisely of Lcts, we have r's rule, with as preparing tianity. AVe ic Scriptures I of the Fro- th reference !onvinced o( y, "many of id embraced ecause they 3 they were er sent from inciple that stants, when ort them to divine in- to submit ery article )rity. And d Timothy, Scriptures, 3n, throuarh lere is cei^ in point of i thus pre- I'^hich were leral prin- ired by his own personal examination, to find nil the artldcs of the Christian Faith in the New Testament, which was cifteV' terwards to tte wrlUvn. For even supposing that the statement mny include, prosjjectively, the Scrijxturcs of the New Testament, does the Apostle assert the prin- ciple of their comjditc snlftvlcncy for salvation ? Does he not say, as the Catholic Church teaches, that they are projitahlc and useful, not that they are cxchish'chj sii^d- ent for all saving i)urposes? Indeed he clearly asserts the inHU^vienv.y of Scripture in the very context of this passage, in which he refers to his own oral teaching as the foundation of faith, and as distinctly supplemental to the teaching of Scripture, which Timothy hud learned in his youth. Such is the evidence of these three passages, every one of which, 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 Chris- tian Faith, quite distinct from, and in addition to the testimony of Scripture. And yet these are by far the strongest texts which seem, in any degree, to favor the Protestant view. But surely, they are applied far bej'^ond their legitimate interpretation, when employed to establish this principle, and especially when we take into consideration that there are other texts in which such an interpretation is clearly disclaimed, and another rule of faith laid down in Scripture itself, for it is evident that Holy Scripture bears testimony to its own insufficiency as a complete revelation of the will of God, however sufficient and perfect it may be with reference to all the purposes for which it was given. Thus the Apostle Paul exhorts the Thessalonian Christians (2 Thes. ii. 15.) "Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle." It is perfectly clear 48 AI'OSTOLIC TRADITION. 4 ;1€ that tlie Apostlo Iilmo refers to doclruus, or arlifles ot faith delivered to hin coiwartH, purtlt/ hy oral tcitrhiiKj i\nd partly by wrUlcn Lpistle, and it is inaiiil'estly (issumiiuj the (luestion to assort, Avith Protestants, that the whole doctrine of the Apostles was afterwards connuit- ted to writing in their Epistles, and that their lunorittcn traditions are all induded in their written letters which have come down to us. This is to take for granted what can never be proved, and what is contrary to their own statements, as well as to the whole tradition of tho Churcli from the beginning. Thus, again, tho same Aj)oritle com- mends the Corinthiai s for their attention to the wamo rule of faith, (1 Cor. xi. 2.) "I praise you, brethren, that yo remember mo in all things, and keep the ordinances {traditions) as I delivered them to youP And so he writes to Timothy, (1 Tin^ vi. 20.) " Timothy, keep that wdiich is committed to thy trust,^^ d'c. Tho Apostle does not refer to the doctrhies of Christianity as contained in any ivritten documents, but as delivered by his own immediate instruction, not to each individual member of tho Church, nor to the entire congregation, but to one individual, who was appointed to preside over it, as responsible for tho souls committed to his charge. And thus he addresses him again, (2 Tim. i., 13, 14:, "Hold fast the form of sound words lohicJi thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thoo keep by the Holy Ghost ivhich dwelleth in us.'^ Here is the very principle of Catholic unity, the divine authority of the Church, teaching under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost, according to the original standard of Christian doctrine, through the constant succession of Bishops and Pastors. For wo observe that shortly after he had laid down this principle, he extends it to future ages, when he says,' (2 Tim. ii., 2,) "Til witn| ehall here ,Test| tho (| spin TESTIMONY OP SCIIIPTURE. 49 articles of carh i II (/i\i\d y (tssiuii'uKj , that the '(k coiniiiit- r lunvrittcn tens wliich unted what I their own the Churcli poritlo cora- le Ktinio rule en, thut yo ordinancoa io lie writes I that wliich e does not lined in any 1 irnmcdkitc ho Church, idual, who )lo for tho addresses 3 form of iuith and ing which ■host ivhich )f Catholic ling nnder wording to rough the For we principle, 'im. ii., 2,) "The things whicli thou hast heard of mo among many witnesses, the same connnit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to tench others also^ We have no roferenco hero to his own Epistles, or to any other part of tho New Testament, as forming tho foundation of docxrino. It ia the oral teaching of the Church, not by any private in- spiration, but by tho perpetual presence of the Holy Spirit, which is every where declared to be the true test of Apostolical doctrine, and thus we are exhorted to "con- tend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to tho faints," not in the ivrUings of the New Testament, which was not completed at that time, but in the infallible teaching of tho Apostles, as preserved in the constant tradition of the Catholic Church. Thus we see that tho independent existence of Ajrx)stoUcal Tradition, as a rule of faith, is clearly recognised, even in Holy Scripture itself, and consequently that tho idea of the Bible being the only rule of faith, was altogether unknown to tho primitive Church. Protestants often argue as if the Catholic Church founded her doctrines on some parti- cular texts of Scripture, which they think are capable of a different interpretation, whereas the truth is, that the Catholic doctrine was in existence long before those , then, What was this primi- tive doctrine? and on this point we have the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, confirmed by hlstoric^iil evi- dence, and proved by divine anthi>rity, that the doetrino of the Primitive Church was the same as the doctrine of tlie Catholic Church in the present day, and thereibrt.' the only true interpretation of the words of institutioii is that which agrees with the doctrine of the Church :b» held from the beginning. The Catholic Faith is derived, not directly from the wrt- ihvjs of tlie Apostles, but from their tcucl iiiy, delivered and preserved by the infallible guidance of tho Iloly Ghot't. nnd therefore, when Catholics appeal to ^'criptnre, it i.- not so much fin* t\\o jrrtxif ^^ ^'^^^' ^^^^ canji rmat km of dot^ trine ahrudi/ proved by Divine Tmdition. For the Bible- is not the book in which these doctrines were origimdly reveukd and delivered to the Church, but it is a collec- tion of inspired documents, containing u series of authen- tic records illustrating the external progress of Chris- tianity in the world, and including frequent tdlusions t*) the intenial doctrines of our lioly religloiu This is not a mere opinion, but a. plain /cui-, which it is impossible Ui deny. And the whole system of Christianity would have been prcciscli/ fJie same at the present day, i/' tin: New Testament had never been wrUicn at alL This is, indeed, exactly the case supposed by St. Irenccus in the lattot part of the 2nd century, in opposition to tlie heresies of his time, and we find the modern Catholic lino of argu* nient fully adopted by him, and a few years afterwards by Tertullian, in which they both appeal to tho constani Tradiiion of the Church, and tho unbroken euccej^^ion o/ rriiMTnTE tradition. #* st AViis not ti- ll iiniopeiideiit of our DIviiK 'as this primi- be concurroiit iistoriail ovj. L llio dootn'iio !ie doctrine of iiid thorelbre of institution :lie C'lnrcli il-j from the Wi-t- delivered and Holy Ghobf. :-ripture, it ir- uifio}i of doo tV.r the Bible re origimilh^ is a cc)Ilee^ OS of autheii- 'S of Chrit^ alhisions to This is net nipossible Ui would havo s is, indei'd, 1 the latter heresies of uo of argil* :or\vards by iG constant ica^'ion of hliiiioi'i^ frcni the Apostles, in refutation t>f tlio doctrines of Iiereties, wlu) ulways appealed to ilicu' own i/tfcrjn'e- iation of SiTijtan\ in opposition \o the dodnne of the. Cdt/tolic Church-, It is often said, indeed, that oral tnidi- ttion is a very uncertain ground of faith, as beinj^so liable to corruption and misai)[>rohension, an Apostles wort> arujinaVy ddivercd to the Church, and suItsvqueutUj rvconkd. by the Fathers and Councils. These arc not the soutvch, but the chunnchi of Apf.'stulicid doctrine — the source itself is divine revelation, and M'c> rely upon the promises of infaUU*le ijuidane^, by ^ which the Church is eifectually preserved from all error. * and thereforo wo receive all t/w doeirineji taught by hor. whether writt-cu or unwritt^^n, iis of divine authorit}', ir ' tvhntiTer way tb.oy may have boon frnt communicated tc; the Church, or in whatever depository of tnith thoy may noio hvi c<^intaine4. It is tlic oflioo of the Church to pre- ecrve !iiid to ti^ach theui witti infolliUe eertainty, and for this office slio is fully quulitied by tlie divine jirescnc^i of the II()ly Ghost, and tiierefore wo believe these doctrines. not l>ec;iuse tlio i'\itliers, or Councils, or Popes in their ImmiW) cajxicity, taxi'th them as credible wUnejiscs to a faef.^ but JjeeaiLfH', Chd teaeJiej} t-hem by Ilis own voice speaking t4> ns in Ilis Church, The (jnnind of our faitli is not human testimony, Imt divine authority. It is, tlien. a plain matter of fact, that our blessed Lord laid tho foundation of Ilie Chtircb on earth by the preach- 4 NEW TESTAMENT. ing of the Apostles, iu accordance with His own com. mand — '-'Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature," — " teaching them to observe aU things whatsoever I have commanded you" We find from the Acts of the Apostles, that they proceeded to fulfil their commission, and thus the unwritten Word was certainly theirs/ rule of faith to the primitive Christians, and when the written Word was afterwards added to it, it cannot surely be maintained that the authority of the former was superseded or merged into the latter — and both together continued to exist in perfect haimony with each other, the former including the latter, but the latter not including the former. It must be remembered that our blessed Saviour gave no directions to his Apos- tles about writing a book at all, and therefore it is not to be expected that a complete collection of the doctrines of Christianity was to be found in any book, written by the Apostles themselves. But let us briefly analyse the contents of the New Testament. That Sacred Book consists of four parts — the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. Now, in which of these parts might we ex- pect to find a full account of Christian doctrine and prac- tice ? Not in the Gospels or memoirs of our Saviour's life and death, for our blessed Lord did not reveal the whole system of Christianity to his Apostles during his personal ministry on earth, but reserved it for the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost entered upon His oflBce as the Divine Teacher of the Church ; and besides, we know that the Gospels contain but a small portion of our Saviour's instructions, as we are in- formed by St. John. Nor is such an account to be found in the Acts of the Apostles, which consist chiefly of historical fragments, without professing to contain any new statement of doctrine. And surely we cannot loolj alml in t] fepi| do tiai Bev< His own com. ch tliG Gospel ) observe all f"" We find proceeded to ten WordvfQ.% ive Christians, wadded to it, 'tJwrity of the le latter — and bai-mony with but the latter embered that to his Apes- i*e it is not to ihe doctrines c, written by y analyse the bcred Book Epistles, and aight we ex- ine and prac- iir Saviour's )t reveal the s during his for the day ;ered upon ]urch J and but a small we are in- ount to be sist chiefly to contain we cannot APOSTOLICAL EPISTLES. ik| look for it in the Book of Revelation, which consists almost entirely of a prophetical vision of future events in the history of the Church. There remain only the fepistles, chiefly written by St. Paul, and what place Ho they hold among the inspired records of Chris- tianity? We find, indeed, that the Apostles wrote several Epistles to dificrent Churches and individuals, as occasion required — some of these Epistles have have been lost, while others have been preserved, — and in them we find various incidental allusions to the principal doctrines of the Gospel, as well as other directions, some of a local and personal nature, others of a general and permanent character — but surely the very circumstances of the case preclude the expectation of a direct and for- mal statement of the whole system of Christian truth, as these letters were not written for the purpose of teach- ing the doctri:] - of religion for the first time, but with the view of uL -i'Vig instruction and edification on vari- ous points of faith and practice to those who already believ- ed them. There is not the slightest intimation that these in- spired writings profess to treat oi every article of the Chris- tian Faith, that they contain a complete Body of Divinity, or that any doctrine is to be rejected merely because it is Twt to be found in them. They evidently presuppose a full acquaintance with the doctrines of Christianity on the part of the persons to whom they are addressed, and without a previous knowledge of these doctrines, the Bible is really like a text without a context — having noth- ing to explain or elucidate its meaning. It is generally assumed, without any proof whatever, that all the doc- trines of Christianity were afterwards committed to writing by the Apostles. This, however, is a mere gra- tuitous hypothesis — and like all such speculations, ought to be fairly tested on philosophical principles. One of ^- DIVINE TRADITION. i '■■?■ \m tlio morit important of these tests is, that the propose il Tradition, .'ered to us the form of )s of Cln-is- gh all the that the ily rulo of Id by the ys of the lors speak the vakie, )s; but it 3sion3 are inorely of a relative nature, as asserting llie infinite ex- celloncy of the inspired writings ubuve all books of human composition, and cannot be ujiderstxjod as exclu- ding any other source of divine revelation, or as affirnv |ng the complete sufficiency of the written Word for tl»« guidance of the Church, m.uch less of individual Chris- tians. And thiit such was the real meaning of theso ^statements, is evident from the fact, that those very Fa- thers who most highly commend the Sacred Scriptures fvro frequently those wl!(> most strongly assert the nece^ eity of Tradition as a divine rule of faitl), not (>nly for tlie right interpretation of Scripture, but as a distinct eource of doctrine and practice, thus showing that while tli'-y held (as the Church always holds) that nothing is to be belie.ved that is contrary to Scripture, they did not liold (as Protestants now hold) that nothing is to be be- lieved, that is ')wf cohtaiuedin Scripture, as they expressly declared that tho Traditions of tho Apostles are to be received as of e<|ual authority with their Writings. Such was tho general language of the Christian Church in every age — and it was not till the sixteenth century that ft new principle was announced as the foundation of taitli, when it was declared that "Holy Scripture con- taineth all things necessary to salvation." And it is cer- tainly an unquestionable historical fact, that the iirst Christian Churches were founded and organized by the Apostles, in complete possession of all the doctrines of Christianity, before a hIikjU line of the New Testament was ever coitimitMl to loritimj — nothing is more clear than this, that the Church, and itot the Bible, was the rule of faith to these Christian:? — no addition was made to their faith by the comjildion of the Canon of Scripture — it was cer- tainly not true, hcforc tho New Testament was written, (and yet this is tho period to which all tho texts alleged 56 CANON OP SCBIPTUBB. in proof of it refer) that all saving truth is contained in Scripture, for then Christianity would have been use- less — it was not true, even on Protestant principles, while the New Testament was in progress, or before all its books were written, for these contained only a part of the Christian Revelation, and it remains to be shown, at what period this proposition did become true, or how it could be tmie at one time, if it were 7iot true at another time. Besides, it is impossible to deny that, after all, the Canon of Scripture can only be settled by infallihle aiir thority, for if it rests on private opinion, or on any human authority, we cannot be sure that we have the authentic, infallible Word of God. And yet this was certainly not done by the Apostles, nor for a considerable time after the death of all the Apostles. Where, then, did wo get the Bible, and on what authority do wo receive it? We got it from the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us the Holy Scriptures, together with the Divine traditions of the Apostles — yet Protestants accept the one (in a mutilated form) while they reject the other, though both resting on the same authonty of the Church. It is well known that the several parts of Scripture were not collected into one volume in early times, and therefore we find that various books were received by some of the Churches and rejected by others, before the Catholic Church had pronounced any decision on their respec- tive claims; but it does not appear that the Canon of Scripture was fixed and defined by the Church till the close of the fourth century, and afterwards finally confirmed by the Decree of Pope Gelasius and the Council of Rome, in the end of the fifth century. This is all the authority that Protestants now have for the Inspiration of the New Testament, and thus they tacitly admit the Infallibility of the Church, at a period when, tl tl *)iii8»*- J contalnod in ive been use- iit principles, or before all 3 only a part > be shown, at ue, or how it ue at another , after all, the ■ infallille aic- n any human he authentic, certainly not le time after hen, did we wo receive i, which has ]er with the stants accept '■ct the othevy the Church. ipture were id therefore ome of the Q Catholic leir respec- |the Canon 'hurch till rds finally and the .ry. This e for the ley tacitly lod when, PROTESTANT INCONSISTENCY. 57 according to their own admission, all the elements of Roman doctrine wore gouorally prevalent in the Chris- tian world. It is quite plain, then, both in principle and in fact, that tlie Bible is founded on the Church, and not the Church on the Bible — the Bible derives all its autho- rity from the sanction of the Church, without which it is of no authority whatever as a standard of religious doc- trine. The faith of Protestants is professedly founded on the Inspiration of Scripture, but this does not determine what booJcs are to be regarded as the component parts of Scripture — and yet the Canon of Scripture is certainly founded on the Infallibility ol the Church, which is therefore the ultimate ground of all faith. For if we receive the Canon of Scripture on the authority or testi- mony of the Church of England, and if the Church of England receives it again on the authority or testimony of the ancient Church, or of ancient Ecclesiastical wri- ters, then it follows, that the Canon of Scripture rests, on Protestant principles, merely on a human, historical, and consequently, fallible authority or testimony, and there- fore there can bo no certainty as to the Inspiration of the looh itself, much less of the private interpretation of that book, which forms the ground of Protestant doctrine, so that Protestants reject the foundation, while they retain only a part of the superstructure, held together by such loose materials, that the entire building is in constant danger of falling to the ground. The great St. Augustine has left us an enumeration of the books of Scripture, which includes the same catalogue as that now re- ceived by the Catholic Church, and ho elsewhere em- phatically declares — " I. would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church had persuaded me" — thus asserting this one principle, as the foundation of all faith. And it follows that we have just the same autho- 58 HISTORICAL SKETCH. ritij for reccivincj tJic- Council of Trent, as for rcccivlnrj the Canon of Scrijdtire — the interval of timo makes no mato rial dilforeuce, for both events took placo long after tho (loath of the inspired Apostles, und both rest entirely on the divine authority of tho Church- — indeed tho iirgu- Tiient h much stronger in tho former case than in tho laiter, as ap})lied to tho Protestant Canon — for it is an important fact, that tho Protestant Canon does not agree, ill all its parts, with tho PacreJ Books enumerated by any ono ancient Council or Father of tlio Christian Church- — it h composed of a fusion of materials, derived from Jew- ish and various Christian sources, finally settled by the authority of Luther, (though at first ho rejected the Ei)istlc of St. James, and probably also the Apocalypse) while tfeo Catholic or Trideutino Canoa is precisely the same with that previously defined in tho General Council of Florence in 1-489, and contains the same books which had been adopted by the Third Council of Carthage in 397, which wore afterwards gene- rally received by the Universal Church for nearly 1200 years before the adoption of tho Canon of Luther. In- deed the Canon of Scripture was not settled by the Church of England till the year 15G3, when the list of Canonical Books was first inserted in the 6th Article. It is evident that, till this period, there was no distinction made between these books and those now called Apocry- phal, and accordingly wo find that tho latter are fro- (piently quoted in tho nomilies as inspired Boripture, and one of its books expressly described as " the infal- lible and undeceivable Word of God" — and yet the 35th Article approved of these Homilies as containing a " godly and wholesome doctrine," while the 6th Article con- demns the doctriyie taught by them on this subject. These books, then, were considered as Canonical by tho NKCKK8TTY OF TRADITION. 59 Prutcstant Church ol" Mii^-laiRMuring tlio reign of I-Mward VI., and tlio oarly part of tlio roign of Queoii Kh'zal)otIi, but liavo slrico boon planed ou adinereiit list,aiid this diller- e.noo accounts fur tho circunistanoo of tlioir appointment ftvs Lcissons to 1)0 read in Clmrclies on several occasions, in the Book of Common Pruyor. All tliese ai>pointment3 wore made within the perit)d liero referred to — tlio last selection of Apocryplial LowSsourf having been introduced into the Prayer Book in the year 15r)0, before the publi- cation of tho Thirty-nine Articles, and the final settlement of the Protestant Canon of Scripture. -Thus we find that tho rule of faiLli laid down by our Lord Himself, tho prac^tice of the Apostles, the structure of the New Test^ament, the assertions of Scripture itself, and the constant teaching of the Church — all internal and external evidence — tend to overthrow the principle, that the Bible is the solo foundation of all Christian doc- trine. And wo may observe that, in point of fact., tlioro is no Protestant Church or sect whatever, which h.'is consistently applied this principle, and foumlod its system of doctrine on Scripture alone. Tho Church of England, indeed, adopts tho principle in ilicory, but is unwilling to apply it in prcu^tice. Take, for instance, the case of Infant Bajdisni. AVhere is there any command or example of this nsituro to be found in the New Testa- ment ? It is vain to insist upon tho analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, with those who totally deny its existence — it is vain to insi.^t upon the necessity of Regeneration, with those who deny the instrumentality of Baptism for this purpose — it is vain to insist upon the probability of Infants being included in tho house- holds baptized by the Apostles, when we have no direct proof of the fact — and it is vain to insist upon the universal practice of the Church, when the appeiU is made to Scrip. 60 PARTICULAR INSTANCES. ture alono Tho truth is, that, on this principle, the Bap- tists have clearly tho best of the argument, while all Protestant Pedobaptists are evidently inconsistent with their own rule. In the Rubric at the end of the Bap- tismal Office in tho Prayer Book, it is declared that " it is certain by God's Word, that children which are bap- tised, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubt- edly saved." This is, indeed, an extraordinary state, ment, with reference to tho authority on which it is founded. Of course it is perfectly true, in the Catholic sense of " God's Word" as including Apostolical Tradi- tion, but if this expression he used in the Protestant sense, as referring to Holy Scripture, it is evident that there is no real foundation for it, as there is no allusion whatever to such a doctrine in the Bible. — So it is, again, with the observance of the first day of the week, instead of the Jewish Sabbath. What authority have we for the change, in the New Testament ? None whatever. We read, indeed, cf the Christians meeting together on that day, and of a certain collect ion appointed to be made on that day, and we read that St. John " was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day." But what have these allusions to do with the observance of the Sabbath? It is said, however, that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week. This is certainly the fact — but we want to know by what authority this change was made, and on this point, as well as the fact itself. Scrip- ture is entirely silent. No satisfactory reason can be given, on Protestant principles, why the seventh day is not still to bo kept holy, according to the Commandment of God, or why any other day should be observed in its place, if the Jewish Sabbath has been abolished by the Gospel of Christ. Whatever, then, may be the au- thority for the change, one thing is certain, that there is PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. 61 no foundation for it in the Bible. — "Wo may further take the case of Episcopacy, as an example of the same kind. It may bo said, tliat this can bo clearly proved from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and it must be admitted that there are some traces of it to be found in those Epistles. iJut, however clear this may be to English Churchmen, it is not so to Presby. terians and other Dissenters, all of whom think they can find their own system described there. The truth is, that whatever intimations of these practices there may be in the New Testament, to those who have already learned them from other sources, they are not really founded on Scripture at all, but on the divine authority of the Apostolical Traditions, on which ground they are received by the Catholic Church. It is impossible, in- deed, on Protestant principles, to settle many important questions which are not clearly decided in Scripture, especially those relating to the temporary or permanent obligation of various practices. For instance, why do Protestants reject the practice of Extreme Unction, en- joined by St. James? (ch 5, v 14.) (It was indeed autho- rised by Parliament in the 1st Book of Edward VI., but repealed in the 2nd Book.) Or that ofivashing one anoth- er's feet, enjoined by our Lord himself? (John xiii. 14.) — or the prohibition of the use of blood, decreed by the Apos- tles, (Acts XV. 29.) — or of water, forbidden by St. Paul, (1 Tim. V. 23.) — or the unlaiofulness of an oath, forbidden by our Lord and St. James, (Matt. v. 34, James v. 12.) — or the community of goods, practised by the first Chris- tians, (Acts ii. 44.) — or the salutation with a kiss of cha- rity, enjoined by the Apostles, (Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Peter v. 14.) — or the gift of miraculous powers, as possessed by the Primitive Church? (Mark xvi. 17, 1 Cor. xii. 10.) And again, why do Protestants generally retain Baptism rnELiniXAnv qualifications. am! tlio Euchariid, and «omo of tlioin, Con/irniat'ion ? Aihj tlioso 8acniinunt<^ Jicccjisari/ to milcatioa, vv not? Why do they not adiniuisk^r tho Eucfuirist um wcsll an Bajdlsm tu Infaxts, as tho Grock Church still doos^V How can thoy pn>vo that Baptism U only to bo adniinistorod once, and tiro KuchariHt frequontlf/, to tho naini^ pursons? Wliy do they 6till preBurvo tho Order of MiniMi'VH in their congrogjv- tioijrt? and why do they ImiUl ClDtrcli'CA at all for public worship? There is no iScnj>- tostants, by tlieir very inconsistency, tacitly admit the nooossity of some other r^jle than that vi Scnjftureahytw, while, instoapirit of OoiL All this, and much moi-e,is neoe;iSLiry ihr every individual who is reso]vesiug him tii to ijnifco capti- bio of assuming this rosponsibility, wliore h tl.o oxorcifio i)i faith in all this menbd process? Faith iabeliciiiig God, {md " without f.dth it is impossible to ple.ise Gi>d. ' What, then, Is tlio ofy'cd of faith ? Not, surely, tho moi-«.i fe-jct or Idtct^ of Sciiptui*o, wliich is only the c^-lerftal form of expression^ but the true doctrine o-v im-aniiuj lif Hcnip- turc, wliich is involved in the text. But how can any one be sure tliat he has ascertained the trim meaning of Scripture, unless every private Christian m pirrfi-.-nnVrj mfalliUe ; and how is (t possible to reconcile tU-j) certainty of faith with the right of irlvato juiJAjment .' 'I'her < ma}', indeed, bo human opinion, and conjectui't- oryj ^n'ohaJyllit-y, but there cannot bo divine faiUh \\\ :'uc]i o principle, Recording to which ImrDfm reaeor. 1& tlie only judge of divine revelation, and tho fiD{U ooort of appeal from the decisions of tho Church in every subject of controvers)'. Divine trutli is recognised, only as it appoai*a to tho mind of each individual, not as it exists in tho mind of God. And yet it ia evident that every fefgnment in favoi* of 64 INTERPRETATION OP SCRIPTURE, private judgment is capable of an infinitely stronger appli- cation in favor of Chv.rch authcrity in lie interpretation of Scripture, for if a single 'ndlvidval be supposed capa- ble of undertaking this lask successfnUy, by virtue of his superior learning and piety, how much more confi- dence is justly due to the result of the collective wisdom of a learned and pious body of men, when applied to the same subject, even without considering the promises of Divine guidance by the teaching of the Holy Ghost ! And, with these promises, are we not fully justified in placing the most unlimited confidence in the teaching of the Church? Which, then, is the sa/esi course ? Which has the least difficulties ? to trust the guidance of an infallible Teacher, or of our own fallible opinion in matters of reli- gion ? And, even supposing there may be any possi- bility of doubt as to the Infallibility of the Church, we ask, What advantage is gained by rejecting the assist- ance of the Church of God, and assuming that each individual is wiser than the whole body ? None, surely, but the liberty of erring, and the danger of falling into some fatal heresy. And such have always been the lamentable consequences of private opinion, applied to the Word of God. It cannot be otherwise, from the very constitution of the human mind. There never can be " one faith" in the Church, without an absolute sub- mission to divine authority. The inevitable tendency of Protestant principles, both in theory and practice, must always be to Socinianism and Infidelity, and it is utterly impossible, on these principles, to refute any heresy what- ever. For surely one man's opinion, in the abstract, is quite as good as another^ s, and where there is a differeTKX of opinion as to the meaning of Scripture, how is it possible to, decide the question between them without the appointment of an Infallible Judge ? With- HUMAN FALLIBILITY. C5 out this, every doctrine of the Bible is an open question, tliere is no real diflerence between truth and error, nil relij:,ion is a mere matter of opinion, and consequently a mere matter of indilference, which must lead to universal scepticism. It is strange, indeed, that Protestants should allow themselves to be deceived with such palpable soph- istry as that which is involved in the appeal to Scriftture. for it is not Scripture itself, but the intcrjretatio)i of Scrip- ture which forms the ground of this appeal, and how can any human fnllUih ihtcrprdiitioit of Scrii)ture be regarded as an article of faith? Still, it is said, that some doctrines of Scrii)ture are necessary to salvation, and others are not. But what right have we to reject any part of God's revealed truth, and to draw our own distinctions on the subject ? And, after all, granting tliis principle, the ques- tion is, who is to apply it, and to distinguish between things essential and non-cssoitiaVi T^et any number of Protestants try the experiment of drawing up a list of such doctrines, and it will be seen at once, how \videly thev differ from each other, while thev stake their eter- nal salvation on such a principle. One man reads tlu- Bible, and sees there the doctrine of the Trinity, while another cannot see it — one man sees the doctrine of Tran- substantiation there, but another cannot see it — one man sees Seven Sacraments there, another sees only yko, while another sees none at all. Is then the imperfect vision of each individual the only standard in matters t)f faith ? Can it be really believed, that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity depends, in any degree, on the genuincMiess of the Codex Montfbrtianus (in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin) the only important one containing the celebrated Greek text, 1 John v. 7, 8? Or that the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ depends on the high magnifying powers of the microscope applied to the Codex Alexan- drinus (in the British Museum) in order to determine the 66 DIVINE RULE. original reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in that ancient MS., and which it is now impossible to ascertain ? And how can any Protestant make an act of faitli in divine revelation, when each one maintains his own interpretation of Scripture to be the only trne one, though directly contrary to all others ? Surely there must be something essentially wrong in such a principle which can lead men into such differ- ent conclusions on the fundamental doctrines of religion, and which has always been the fruitful source of a i heresies in every age of the Church. From all these considerations, then, we must come to the conclusion, that there is no real foundation for the opinion, that the Bible is the only source of revelation, or the only rule of faith to Christians. We find that the passages of Scripture alleged in proof of it are totally insufficient to establish the principle, while the existence of a definite system of Christian doctrine, distinct from Scripture, in every successive period, is a fact which is utterly irre. concileable with it, and consequently it must be regardcl merely as a human tradition, unsupported by Scripture, and contrary to all historical evidence. The rule of faith prescribed by our blessed Eedeemer was the authoritative teaching of a perpetual succession of Pastors in his Church ; and it is evident that this rule has never since been altered or modified by any subsequent rule, that it was not intended to be of a local or temporary nature, to continue in force till the publication of the New Testa- ment, but of universal and permanent obligation, " till the end of the world." And yet this rule, appointed by the Divine Head of the Church, is virtually rejected by Protestants, and another rule, which is never mentioned by Him, is substituted in its place. For it is perfectly clear, that the New Testament was not the cause but the effed of Christianity, which had been previously estab- lish o ; by the preaching of the Apostles ; and though our FOUNDATION OF FAITH. C7 to knowledge of the facts of sacred history may be derived from these written documents, yet our faith in the doc- trines contained in them must be founded on the same divine authority on which we receive the New Testament as an inspired book — the authority of tl'.c Church of Christ acting under the guidance of the H. »ly Spirit. What, then, is the true fouyidation of faitk^ according to the Catholic Church ? It is the Word op God, con- taining the wliole revelation of His will, whether commit- ted to tvriting by the Apostles, or delivered by their teacldng to the Universal Church. All that God has re- vealed is the proper object of faith, without reference to the modt of communication, but to the divine authority on which it is founded. Whether it be ivritten or un- written^ whether it be uttered by a voice from Heaven, or under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or by a direct vision or revelation from above, or by the message of an Angel, or in any other possible way, — if God has spoken^ it is quite enough. It is usual, however, for the sake of perspicuity, to consider the tchole Word of God as consisting of two parts — the one ivritten, and the other unwritten, that is to say — Scripture and Tra- dition. It is a common mistake among Protestants, to suppose that Tradition relates to something of human origin, w^hereas nothing is received by Catholics, as an article of faith, but what is revealed by God, and pro- posed by the Church to all her members. Much confu- sion, indeed, has arisen from the various senses in which the word is employed. Sometimes it is used with refer- ence to doctrities, and sometimes to ceremonies. Sometimes it relates to the source from whence the doctrine is de- rived and sometimes only to the channel through which it is transmitted. Traditions are generally divided by The- ologians into three classes — Divine, Apostolical, and Eccle- siastical — the. two former relating to doctrines^ and the C8 COUNCIL OF TRENT. latter to co'emonies only. Divine Tnidi'tiona are those taught by our Lord himself — Apostollml Traditiona are those taught by His Apostles. But as both classes, though originally delivered in a separate form, were committed to the Church by the Apostles, they are both usually in- cluded under the name of Apostolical. We find this dis- tinction recognized by the Council of Trent, in its remark- able " Decree on the Canonical Scripturep," (Fourth Ses- sion) in which the whole Rule of Faith is clearly defined in the following language: — " This Sacred, Gilcumeaiical, and General Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, and presided over by the three Legates of the Apostolic See, having this object perpetually in view, that, errors being removed, the real purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church ; which, promised aforetime by the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first proclaimed tcUh His 01011 mouth, and then commanded to be preached hy M& Apostles to every creature, as the source of all saving trutli and moral instruction — knowing also, tlifat this truth and instruction are contained in the loritten hoolcs, and in the unwritten traditions, which, having been received from the mouth df Christ Himself by the Apostles, or from the Apostles themselves under the dictatitDn of the Holy Spirit have been handed down and transmitted to us — following: the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and vene- rates with equal sentiments of piety and reverence, all the books, both of the Old and New 2'estament since one God was the Author of them both, and also the Traditions them- selves, relating both to faith and to morals, inasmuch as they have been orally delivered by Christ, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in continual succession in the Catholic Church." This is the public declaration of t he Church in her last General Council. But, although the wo hinds of Traditional doctrine are thus technically di:* ter ad dit Cc MEANING OF TRADITION. G9 tion as to the nature of divine Tradition, which relates solely to the doctrines taught by Christ and his Apos- tles, which, though not written by thera, have been always preserved in the Church with the same care as that bestowed on the preservation of the writings of the Apostles, and both resting on the same authority. There is, indeed, an erroneous impression, tliat the name of Tradition is of a very vague and indefinite w UNWRITOEN DOCTRINES. nature, and that it may be applied to all sorts of doc- trines which the Church may choose to establish, under so comprehensive a description. But this is totally in- correct. The Church utterly disclaims all power of in- troducing any new articles of faith, or of making any additions to the ancient Creeds, beyond her legitimate office of defining all controversies of faith, and deciding between the opposing claims of existing doctrines. She professes to hold nothing but what was always held, in principle at least, if not in actual development, by the Clmrch from the beginning, and therefore the whole system of Traditional doctrine, interpreted by the Church is equally clear and definite with that of Scripture itself, interpreted by the same authority. Still, however, it may be said, that our blessed Lord condemns the Tradi- tions of the Jews, as opposed to the Word of God. But what does this prove ? Simply that there are false Traditions as well as true ones, — that 8ome Traditions are contrary to the Word of God, and that those of the Pharisees, particularly referred to, were of this descrip- tion ; but surely there is no general principle here laid down on this subject, applicable to Christian as well as Jewish Traditions, and it is evident that this language conveys no indiscriminate censure of aU Traditions, even those taught by Himself and his Apostles, for the same argument would equally prove that (dl iniei^re- tations of Scripture must be false, merely because our Lord condemns one erroneous interpretation of one of the Ten Commandments, as contrary to the Divine Law. And thus the Catholic believes all that God has reveal- ed to His Church by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, while the Protestant believes all that appears to his own judgment to be contained in Scripture. Catholics hold that Scripture and Tradition are both equally divine, and that both equally need an infallible interpreter, whereas PROTESTANT OBJECTIONa. 71 the vital principle of Protestantism is the rejection of Tradition as a rule of faith, and the substitution of pri- vate interpretation of Scripture. It is therefore declared in the Roman Creed, " I admit Holy Scripture acconling to that sense which Holy Mother Church has held and does hold, to whom it belongs to Judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and I will never receive nor interpret it but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." It may be said, indeed, that there are spurious Traditions as well as genuine, and that some doctrines have come down to us under the name of Tradition, which are erroneous and cor- rupt. This is certainly the case, and yet surely this forms no valid argument against Tradition as a source of doctrine, any more than against Scripture itself, for we know that there were Apocryphal Writings published under the name of Scripture, and how were they to be distinguished ? By the infallible authority of the CImrch, and by the same authority the same distinction has been made between true and false Traditions, and thus the whole body of Christian doctrine has been perpetually preserved in its original integrity. Here, then, we come to the great question of Church authority, and the principle on which it rests. But, before we proceed, we must briefly refer to the assertion so fre- quently made, — that in appealing to the New Testament for evidence on this subject, we are guilty of the sophism of reasoning in a vicious circle, by attempting to prove the Infallibility of the Church from the Inspiration of Scripture, and the Inspiration of Scripture from the In- fallibility of the Church. This is the popular Protestant objection ; and it is utterly unfounded in fact ; besides, if it were true, such a mode of argument cannot con- sistently form any ground of objection, as the Inspira- tion of Scripture, at least of the New Testament, is pro- n SOPHISTICAL ARGUMENT. feasedly admitted, on whatever grounds, by Protestaiita as well as by Catholics. Our proofs, then, even on this supposition, are derived from a source which is common to us both, and equally recognised as a divine standard of faith. The truth is, however, that in order to establish the great principle of Church authority, we do not refer to the Bible as an inspired book at all, but simply as an historical record of facts, it is not necessary to assume the Insj)iration of Scripture, but only the divine origin of Ciiristianity, and the divine authority of Christ Himself, as principles held by all professing Christians, and quite independent of any theory Avhatever with reference to the Church or the Bible. We hold that our blessed Lord was the Divine Founder of a new religion on earth — this is an incontrovertible fact in the history of the world; we believe that all his promises were infallibly true. This is fully admitted by all who call themselves Christians. We advance a step further, and we maintain that He gave certain powers to His Apostles, which guaranteed the perpetual existence of an Infallible Church — tliat some of these promises were afterwards recorded in the Gospels, although they would have been equally valid, if they had been contained ni any other authentic document, or if they had never been written at all ; and having thus established the divine authority of the Church from the promises of Christ, we are enabled .to prove the Inspiration of the Canon of Scripture on the ground of the Church's authority, by which it has been fixed and defined. There is, therefore, no real foundation for the objection, that the Infallibility of the Church is merely founded on the private interpretation of certain passages of Scripture — as the truth is, that it is founded on the promises of Jesus Christ, as they were always understood by Christians as well as proved by the absolute necessity of such a gift, for the exercise of diviuo CHURCH AUTHORITY. 78 faitli, and for the preservation of trutli and iinily in the Church. Tliis great question it! for ever settled in the words of the memorable pronn'se of our liO d to the Apostle Peter, (Matt. xvi. 18.), "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Without entering further upon the doctrine of the Primacy of Peter or the Supremacy of the Po{)e, as involved in this j)assnge, ^\e may observe that we have here the great charter of the Church^ a perjjetnU)/ awMnfallUdlity, granted by her Divine Founder to all future generations. The Church of Christ is a divine Society — divine in its origin and 2)reserva- tion — divine in its authoritv and constitution, and no power on earth has any right to interfere with the divine character of this spiritual society. It is not a human iiwtitutlon, but a divine creation. Our Lord Jesus Christ has founded a visible Church on earth, to continue for over, with the full exercise of all the spiritual powers which He conferred upon it. We must insist upon it, as an incontrovertible flict in the history of the New Tes- tament, that our blessed Lord has not merely founded a religion, but a Churcli, on earth, and that He has not only revealed certain doctrines to be believed, but has also established an external society of Pastors and Teach- ers, whom all the faithful are bour.d to hear and obey. And therefore, we must not allow ourselves to be i)erplex- ed with the various definitions which have been given of the Church by Protestant writers, or with the idea, that the true Church of Christ is an invisible body, consisting of all the elect people of God. Whatever degree of truth there may be in this view, we must observe that this is not the real question at issue. It is simply this — Has Jesus Christ appointed a visible body of Hving men, with perpetual authority to teach and to govern the Universal 74 DIVINE COMMISSION ; Cliurcli in every ago of the worM? — and on this point tlio evidence of .Scripture is perfectly clear and decisive. To this Church He gave an unlimited commission to preach His Gospel among all the nations of the earth, and promised His perpetual presence, when Ho })r()- nounced these solemn words, (Matt, xxviii. 20.,) " Lo 1 I am with you alway, even to tho end of the world." Tills promise is certainly in full operation at the present moment — it has been so, and shall be so, at every })ori()d of tho Church's past and future history," from the day of Pentecost till the Second Advent 'of Christ from Heaven. The promise is absolute and uncon- dUioiiol, — it was not given to tho Apostles in connexion with their ivrUings, as inspired authors, but to the Apos- tles and their successors for ever, in connexion with their office as a teacliing Church in every age till the end of time ; and thus it secures the Universal Church from tho possibility of error, by the Divine Presence of her Invisi- ble Head. " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but tho words of Christ shall not pass away." And how is the Church to bo thus continually preserved from all error ? By the infallible guidance of God tho Holy Ghost, accord- ing to the promises of Christ, (John xiv. 16, 26. xvi. 13.) " I will pray tho Father, and Ho shall give you another Comforter, that Ho may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth — He shall teach you all things, — He will guide you into all truth," lo Jud.i^o of ControvorHioH, for wo cannot snroly l»o coinniandud to hdifxc, /, uliat has hoooino of thr proniisurf of Christ ? Js thoro any tliin<;' in thoiu of a temporary nature, limited tu [)ar- tienlar times and cireumstances? What mean the wordn "for (>ver ■' — " alway, even to the cinl of the world"? And has not the Church alwavs und^.. -^tood them in thia seHise? And how else is it i)0ssil»le to preserve the iiiitli in its primitive integrity, free from all human corruption? JJut if the IJoly Ghost is ni'dl in the Church on earth, where is that Clwirch now to he found, to wiiiih t!io })romises of Christ belong? I'/icre is only one (liuieh wJdch rhiinis ihein in their full sense, professing to bo infallibly guided by the Holy Ohost, and this alono might be sunicient to docido tho point. She alono ha.4 remained a?tt'o.?/.9 the same from the begiiming.the genuine representative of tho Infallible Church founded »*n the day of l*enteco3t. She alone has never separated from aiii/ other Church on earth, while all other Churches have separated from her, some of which continue to this day, while other sects, in earlier times, such as the Ari- ans and Donatists, (the latter of which bears so striking a resemblance to the modern English Church) though forming numerous and ])owerful bodies in opposition to the Catholic Church for a length of time, have long since ceased to exist in their collective capacity. But Protes- tant conununitics do not, and cannot, claim this infallible guidance — their very existence is founded on the denial of it. And thus Protestantism begins with the rejection of the greatest blessing that ever was given to man, the blessing of an Infallible Church, which is superseded by the exercise of private judgment. It begins, as it 78 genehal apostacy. wcro, with extinguishing the h'ght of tho Sun in the heavens, and then bidding us use our eyes in tlie dark. So comj)letcly is tiiis inestimable gift of (?od rejected, that the Church of England not only expressly denies the In- fallibility of General Councils, in her Articles, but de, liberately asserts tho total iiiilnre of tho pronu'ses of Christ by the universal corruption of the Church Air several centuries. We refer especially to the well known passage in tho Homilies, which states that " laity and clergy, learned and unlearned — all ages, sects, and degrees ofnu'u, women, and children, of ivhole Christe/ufom {nii horrible and most dreadful thing to think) have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God, and most damnable to man, and that by the space of EKJiiT miNDUKi) ykaus and mouk." This period extends from the 8th to the KUh century, during which the very existence, even of an Invisible Church, seems to be entirely denied in this sweeping language, Craumer himself however appears to have reduced this period within 500 years before the Reformation, in order to reconcile it with his views of Pro{)hecy and the interpre- tation of the Apocalypse. Accordingly, he held that tho commencement of the Apostacy in the Church took place after the expiration of tho Millennium, in the 11th century, and consequently ho dated this event from tho time of Pope Nicholas H., and his condemnation of the errors of Berengarius in the doctrine of tho Eucharist. He says — " the open Church is now of lato years fallen into many errors and corruption, and tho holy Church of Christ is secret and unknowMi, seeing that Sit(tn these 500 j/ears hath /nicn let loose, and Antl- chi'ist ,ei^'^(^^^^^' That power is reserved tu Her Majedy in Coitncil, as the prerogative of tlie Royal Supremacy established by King Henry YIII., and Queen EHzabeth. This power is not professed to be founded on dii'ine authority, but on the political connexion between Churcli and State in Kngland- It cannot, thereft)re, bo held to bind the conscience in matters o 'I'aitli, and no Chri?!tiau can be supposed tc regard its decisions with any degree of relitjlous obedience. And accordingly, when the Anglican Church attemi)ted to force her decisions on the Protestant people of England, they rebelled against her authority, and pleaded the rights of conscience — having herself separated from the Mother Church, and having nothing left to support her but human power, her chil- dren refused to obey, and defended their conduct by her own example, and thus the Established Church, which at first included the whole population, now consists of little APPLTCATIOM OV RULE. Bl of iTfiOto than ono-tliird part of the people of England, as ap- pears by the Report of the last Census of the country. We have seen, then, that the llule of Faith cannot be the Bible, interpreled by every one for fnmseJf, for such a rule must only lead to human, fallible, and contrary opinions incon- sistent with di-vine faith. And it certainly was not the rule in early times, nor in the history ot the conversion of nations to Christianity in later times. Besides, it is utterly inapplic.\ble to the circumstances of mankind, "and especially before the invention of the art of printing ^nd the dilTu&ion of Education; and even in tlie present day, there are comparatively few who are intellectually or morally capable of applying such a rule. And yet "Christianity is a universal religion, intended for every one, and therefore its rule of faith must be clear and obvious, as well as certain and perfect, in order to be suited to the capacity of every one. Further, this rule oannot be the Bible, interpreted by the Church, unless that Church be hifallible, for otherwise it mav lead us into errors, and therefore cannot be an object of faith, €ven though its decisions may be final and absolute. The Church of England, indeed, is generally understood to maintain this principle, but it is quite inapplicable to practice. She professes to rest upon the inter- pretation of the Prhnltlve Church, and much stress has been laid upon the Canon of 1571, which lays down such a rule for the doctrine of Preachers, and which provides — ^^'that they shall teach nothing to be religiously he)<' and believed by the ;people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected from the same." But this appeal to the Prim.uve Church is a mere shadow, for we have no direct means of ascertain ing what interpretations of Scripture were generally held 82 JUDGE OF CONTROVERSY. in those time?, as these are the very matters in controversy at tlic present day ; and if the rule be fairly applied, it must be fatal to the claims of the Anglican Church, rracticaliy, however, this rule must refer, not to the Primitive, but to the Anglican Church herself, as a '' par- ticular or National Church," according to tlie 3J:th Article, and the question still arises, on what authority are we to receive her interpretations of Scripture? Not on any divine and infallible authority, for she does not assert this, and if not, it must bo only on the ground of a rtsped- ful deference, which has no power to hind the conseient-es of her meml)ers. But, in fact, the law has decided that this power belongs to the Queen, and not to the Church, so that all furtlier question as to the spiritual authority of tlie CI lurch is at an end, and it is finally settled that the Church of Emjland has no 2J0icer, not only to enact Canons in Convocation, but to decide controversies on matters of faith. And, indeed, it seems probable that from the beginning of the present lieligioi^s Establish- ment, '' the Church'' in the 20th Article really meant "the Queen" of E::gland. For, as to "rites and cere- monies," the Cliurcli, as a spiritual body, had no such • power, this right being expressly reserved by the Act of Uniformity to Queen Elizabeth " with the advice of her Commissioners or ^Metropolitan," and afterwards exercised by the "Advertisements" of 15C4; and as to "controver- sies of faith," this power also belonged to the High Com- mission Court, appointed Ijj the Act of Supremacy, from whose decision there was no appeal, but with the reserva- tion of leaving the determination of any future controver- sies in relicion to Parliament, with the consent of convo- cation. And it is well known that all Ecclesiastical juris- diction in England was derived entirely from the Sove- reign, thus practically illustrating the nature of the lloyai Supremacy, as a blasphemous usurpation of the rights of CI KXTEXT OF SUPHEMACY. 83 Christ and of His Vicar on Eartli. This was distinctly as- sorted by the Knglisli Sovereigns, and fully aihnitted l»y the English Prelates of the Reformed Church. Thus Crannier says: " A JJishop may make a Priest by the Scripture, a/j(/ so may Pi-inces and ^ro w/v^or.s' also, and that by the author- ity of (Jod conniiitted to them." Tin? form of the Bishop's fjcjtters Patent, in the time of Edward VJ., runs thus: *• We napu^ make, create, constitute and declare N., Bishop t)f N., to have and to hold to himself the said Bishopric during tlie time of his natural life, if for so long a time he behave himself well therein, and ive empower him to confnv orders, (tc, (f-c, d'c, iit jiJace of lis, in our name, a)«l hy our royal authorify:' And, in conformity with these views, the Act (I Edward W. c. iii.) declares that " all aidltorily o{ jurisdictions, .spiritual aneals to the Bible in ivmof of the Divinity of Christ, while the Unitarian appeals to tise same authority in denial of it — each maintains his own interpretation to be the true one — there is no Infallible Judge to decide between them, and both are equalb/ rijht, on their own principles. There is no real alternative, thi^n, between the ijrhwqUe of InfallibUUy and the irrineipk of Injidelitij. For if the Holy Spirit be not in the Church at this moment, infal- libly guiding her in ew^ry doctrine, aud if all Christians are not bound to submit tluur faith to the decision of this Infallible Church, tlii^n we are thrown back upon human teaching and human authority, and the conse([uence of the denial (jf this princi[>le is the rejection of all divine faith, aud the susbtitution of probable opinion f()r infal- lible certainty. But the English Churchman \v'\\\ say, that the Church is the judge of controversy. What Church? The Church oi' J'J/ujIand ? By what (lathor'dy? Is she Infallible ? No. Then she may be loromj in her judgment. SIio is only a part (let this be granted) of the Universal Church, in oj)[)Osition to the rest of it, and cannot therefore justly claim the promises, which belong to the whole body. On irlud., then, does her authority rest ? On her Apostolic Succession ? But this alone is not sufficient, supposing her to be in possession of it ; as other Churches, in ancient and modern times, have the same succession, and yet are in a state of Schism. Others will defend her authority as the Estidjlished Church, or as a reji'jious Sociefi/, but these are merely human dis- tinctions, and have no real force in religion. The Presbvterians form an Established Church in Scotland, 86 THE TRUE CIIURCIT. ami yot siiroly wo are not bouiid to join llicm on tliis account. But it is said that Dissent from tlio Kstab- lislied Churcli is inconsistent with true all(^<;"iance to tlio Sovereign, as the Head of the Church. Talk oi'a divided allegiance indeed Yes ! it is divided between timpond and spiritnal autliority — just in the same sense as it was divided l)y our blessed Lord, between " the things that are deiar's, and the things that are God's." — And yot, in another sense, it is undivided too — for wo acknowledge an undivided temporal allegiance to the Queen of Eng- land, and an undivided spiritual allegiance to the Vicar of Christ. It is needless to dwell on the claims of a re- ligious Hociety, as i.o one will maintain that this alone has any authority over any except its own members, who choose to submit to its rules, while they disclaim any obedience to an exclusively divine right on the part of their Society. And such is the true position of the Church of England, notwithstanding her political privi- leges in the mother country — she cannot bo regarded otherwise than as a voluntary association, like any other Protestant sect, and possessing no spiritual authority over the consciences of the peoi)le. The conclusion then, is — that there must be one Infallible Church on earth, or else there is no certainty of Divine truth at all. Which, then, is the true Church of Christ ? There is no other Church on earth which can come into competi- tion with the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, founded by our Lord upon the Prince of the Apostles, and preserved from every schism and heresy in its origi- nal unity, with an uninterrupted succession of Pontiffs from St. Peter down to Pope Pius IX. She alone pos- sesses all the marks of the true Churcli laid down n\ the Creed — " I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." She is one in principle, in doctrine, in wor- ship, united in one communion with one visible Head il rxiTY OF THE mrnriT. 87 v^vor all tlio world, and it in surdy an r)l»vit)us trnlh, tliat if tlio riinrch of Christ bo a divino institution, she must 1)6 one, fur there cannot bo two or more Churches, bold- inj:; different and op[)osite doetriiuis, and all claiiuiufj; to be the true Ciuirch. There is " one Lord, one Faith, one Biiptisni.'' says the Apostle Paul. So says S^ Cyprian — " There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one See founded bv the voice of the Lord npon IVter." In primitive times, "the multitude of believers were of one heart arul one soul,*' all united to- gether in one holy hoiid of faith and love — and so they are Btill in the Catholic Church. Those who have separated from her liave never been able to unite amouved brethren, I must conclude this Letter. Tlic sacred connexion that has subsisted between us during the last eight years, is now at an end forever. I am grieved to think that I must separate from you. I have loved you well, and I love you still. I am bound to you by the strongest ties of affection and gratitude, and I feel that it is the sorest trial to part with those from whom I have in^ ariably received the greatest kindness and atteMtit)n, and many of whom I know to be earnest and zealous in the cause of religion, according to their views of it^i nature. And I, too, have felt strongly attached to that religious system in which I was educa- ted, and which is so closely connected with all my early associations, and with all my tender recollections of for- mer timo!^. My heart still fondly clings to the memory 04 PERSONAL CONVICTIONS. of the past, and to tlio happy years of Christian friend- ship which I have enjoyed, while engaged in tho active duties of tho ministry among you, and in my native country. Yes ! I feel that the Church of England has the strongest claims upon my veneration and obedience — except the one thing needful — that of divine authority. But I know that mere attachment to any system is quite a different thing from a conviction of its truth, and we must not allow our religious faith to be regulated by our private feelings. I know well, by experience, the diffi- culty of shaking off the effects of early prejudice and pre- conceived views on religion. It has taken me nearly lialfmylife to emancipate myself from the bondage of human opinions and Protestant traditions, and to submit myself entirely to divine teaching and Catholic truth. I have long been engaged in the search of truth, and, through divine grace, I have found it at last in " the Church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of truth." I am well aware of the deep solemnity and the awful responsibility of the step which I have taken — it lias not been adopted without mature deliberation — it is the result of many a long year of anxious thought and earnest prayer — I have counted the cost, and I am pre- pared to incur it, with the help of God. I have fully looked at the consequences of such a step on the temporal prospects of myself and my family, and I am ready to undertake the risk for the sake of Christ and of his truth. I am deeply sensible that religious convictions are en- tirely independent of all worldly interests and private affections, and when they are really sincere, no earthly motive can be allowed to interfere with them. I trust that I have not so learned Christ, as to shrink from shame and contempt, and poverty, for his sake. The Cross may be heavy to bear, but the comfort of my Saviour's love and sympathy is sufficient to *support me under it. I OBJECT OF LETTER. 05 %. v. have left all to follow Ilim, and I enjoy the consolation of the precious promise that " He will never leave mo nor forsake me." But thou{;h I have no doubt that you will give me credit for sincerity, you Avill think me sadly mistaken in my views. I have here attempted, though very feebly and imperfectly, to explain them, and the grounds of thern, and the attempt is an appeal to yourselves. If they are true for me, they are equally true for you. It ia because I love your souls, that I wish to be instrumental in saving you from the dangerous delusions that abound in the Christian world, and in leading you to consider, witii all seriousness and humility, the claims of the true Church of Christ, as the only sure guide to eternal sal- vation. And I wish it to be distinctly understood, that my object is not to excite religious controversy, but to direct serious enquiry into the true character of the Ca- tholic Church. Oh ! it is too sacred a subject to be ap- proached with any other feelings but those of solemn atten- tion and earnest prayer, with a realising sense of the pre- sence of God and of the value of eternity. I think I need hardly say that I cannot possibly have any personal motive for doing so, and nothing but a deep conviction of the truth could ever have induced me to separate from those to whom I am so strongly attached, and for whom I shall ever entertain the warmest sentiments of respect and affection. I have therefore ventured to lay before you, a portion of my own religious history, and to sug- gest a train of thought which has long taken possession of my own mind, on the most important subject that can engage the attention of any human being. But I am fully persuaded that no success can be expected from any con- troversy, unless the mind is in a proper disposition, to receive the evidence of Divine truth. No one can be a true Catholic without a proper spirit of humility and sub- ^e CONCLtSlON. \.. mission to Bivme authority ; and so long as pride anii self-will form a part of corrupt human nature, there caU be no difficulty in accounting for the origin and progress of Protestantism in the world. 1 am quite aware that it is not fashionable to be a Catholic — the profession of it is not generally associated with worldly rank and rospec* .-■ tability, in these countries — and perhaps not with that high degree of intellectual cultivation and mental refinement which exist in the Catholic countries of Europe. But this is merely an accidental circum- stance, and has no connexion with the truth of the Catholic religion. True Catholics are not of the world, even as Christ was not of the world. We must go back to the beginning — we must commence our lessons in Christianity with the teaching of the Apostles, and not of the Reformers,— and thus returning to the Primitive faith, we shall soon discover that the Protestant system is merely founded on human tradition, while the Catholic system is founded on divine revelation. There is no safety but in submitting entirely to the teaching of God's Holy Spirit in His Church, and in the complete surrender of human reason to the divine rule of faith which He has appointed for the perpetual preservation of His truth on earth. For my own part, my choice is finally made^ — it is fixed and sealed for eternity. lam done for ever with all the doubt and uncertainty of Pro» testant principles. I have embraced the whole system of God's revealed truth with all my heart and soul ; and I am firmly resolved, by the grace of God, to live and to die in the bosom of His Holy Catholic Church. I remain, my dear Friends, Your faithful Servant in Jesus Christ, EDMUND MATURIN. i >