^A ,'V^ v>.^^: .or« IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) / // V -^ 7 ^^ ^;.^ //m. -w % Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 mo CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut canadier de microreproductions historlques :\ i\ t^^ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the beat original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, which may alter any of the images In the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Instituf a microfilm^ le meille; r exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I — I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou peliiculie Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque D D D D D D D Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure 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 ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires; □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes v/ Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualitd indgale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire I — I Only edition available/ D Seule Edition disponible 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, unu pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Thi3 item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X »X 12X 16X / 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 3 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Seminary of Quebec Library L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce h la ginirositi de: Siminaire de Quebec Bibliothdque The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Las images suivantee ont tt6 reproduites avec le plus grend soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec las conditions du contrat de filnage. 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 iilustrsted impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever applies. ly^aps. plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction latios. 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 following diagrams illustrate the method: Lee exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sunt filmte en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, seion le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symboles suivants apparattra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE ". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Lee cartes, pianches. tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmte A dee taux de rMuction diff Arents. Lorsque la document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est filmi A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bee, en prenant le nombre d'images nticessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent !s m^thode. 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 If, L E T T E TO THE LOiiD BISHOP or fee IN BEPI.Y T S M E S T A 'J^ R ^\ E N T H IN ins RECENT CHARGE. BY EDMUND MATURIN, A. E, Professor of Classics and Arathenmtica in bt, Mnry'n Collego. Lato Curate of St. Paul's, Halifax ?<. S. And Scholar of Trinity CoHog.-e^ r»ultlii>, HALIFAX, N. S. COMPTON k BOWDEN, PRINTfiR8. 1859. [ I '■ i f e A L E T T E R TO THE LOED BlSlIOr OF FREDEEICTOX, IN l^EPLY T (3 8 ^I E S T A T E ]\I E X T S IN HIS RECENT CHARGE. BY EDMUND MATURIX, A. M., Professor of Classics and Mathematics in St. Mary's Culloso. Lato Curate of St. Paul's, Ilalifa.'c, N. S. And Scholar of Trinity Colloge, Dublin, HALIFAX, N, S. COJIPTO-N & LOWDEN, PIUNTURS. IS 5a. My ^J " Ch whi( you] on:^ prop an oi my c tures takes obsei assur your ter, a advo( bleof do no therel fectly to say free fr suade( eitber irritati with t] You fully ir myself A LETTER, &o. *\ My Loud— My attention has been directed to two x\umbers of the Church Witness", of the 9th and 16th of November which contain a portion of th« Charge lately delivered to your Clergy, under the title of the "Bishop of Fredericton on Mr. Maturin's Pamphlets". As you have thus thought proper to bnng this subject before public notice, on such an occasion as the Visitation of your Diocese, I feel it my duty to make some remarks on your Lordship's stric- tnres, with the view of correcting some important mis- takes into which you have fallen, in the course of your observations. At the same time, however, I be^ to assure you, that I entertain the most sincere respect for your Lordship, both in your personal ond official charac ter, as I believe you to be an earnest and conscientious advocate of the Church of England, and utterly incapa- ble of employing any argument in her defence, which you do not conceive to be strictly founded on truth. I wish therefore, to avoid every expression which is not, per' fectly consistent with Christian charity, though 1 -r^ret to say that your own tone of discussion is not entirely free from objections of this nature; and indeed I am per- suaded that the use of harsh, and offensive language, on either side, can only tend to cherish a spirit of mulual irritation, as well as to produce a feeling of sympathy with the injured party in every ingenuous mind. You profess that <' it is not your intention to enter fully into the controversy", and therefore I shall confine myself to a brief examination of certain passages in your i a •I 4 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Lorclsliiij'rf CliargG, in onln- to point out some instances oC inaccuracy of statement, or inconclusivcncss of reason- ing, witli reference to the principles of tlic Catholic Church. I do not think it necessary- to dwell at any length on your reflections witli regard to tlio narrative of my own mental conflicts ; for, however incorrect they may be in point of fact, it is not ray object to defend my own conduct, but to vindicate "the Church of the living God " against tlie attacks of calumny and misrepresenta- tion. It is sufficient to state that, at the period of my Or- dination, to which you refer, I was fully satisfied witli tlie validity of tlie claims of tlie Church of England ; llnuigli I must remind your Lordship, that I never promised '•that I stood in no doubt whatever", nor does the Church of England require such a promise, much less does she exact'aiiy vows of perpetual obedience to her authority for all time to come ; and consequently there is no pledge violated, when any of her Ministers, under con- viction of her errors, renounces his allegiance, and withdraws from her communion. Such an obliga- tion, indeed, would be contrary to all Protestant prin- ciples, which do not pretend to hold the necessity of absolute certainty, in believing all the doctrines of any one Church ; and therefore the position ^ which you imagine, however unsatistactory to the individual, is perfectly compatible with the spirit of cordial attachment 'to the Church of England. But it is not correct to say that I was "summoned by the Laity of the Church hi Halifax, to be their special champion against the Church of Rome"— as I never made such an engagement under any circumstances, having been ap- pointed as a Christian Minister, and not as a Protestant champion. And further, there is no truth in the state- ment, that I " resorted for secret help to its professed iistances f reaf^on- Catliolic 11 at any larrativo •ect they cfend my ;lie liviiJg ipresenta- of my Or- i witli the ] ; though promised does the much let^s ice to her ,ly there is under con- iance, and m obliga- ;stant prin- ecessity of Dctrmes of ion which individual, of cordial t it is not le Laity of [ champion \(\g such an g been ap- i Protestant in the state- is professed STATE OP THE CONTROVERSY. 5 enemica, and never to its many learned defenders"; iu:>r did I say, as your Lordsliip asserts, tliat " my conversion was owing to my witnessing the Funeral of the late Arclibisliop of Halifax". Indeed, this whole argument tends merely to show, that every one is hound to con- tinue in that religious profession in which lie was educated, however erroneous it may be — a plea which would etiually justify " all Jews, Turks, Lifidcls, and Heretics" in rejecting the claims of Christianity. I do not suppose, hidced, that your Lordship is seriously pre- pared to maintain such a view, but reall}'- I do not un- derstand how you can avoid this conclusion. I agree with you in regarding Bishop Gibson's " Pre- servative against Popery" as a " most valuable Avork", as it furnishes an almost inexhaustible supply of mate- rials to the Protestant controversialist, and indeed con- tains nearly all that can be said on that side of tlie question, "by the most eminent Divines of the Church of England". And, however highly I admire Dryden's con- troversial Poem on " the Hind and the Pantlicr", to which you refer, as setting forth the substance of my ovv'u Pamphlet, " with all the elegance of graceful verse", I cannot acknowledge my obhgations to tliat author, nor do I tlunk that the language of poetry is the most suitable vehicle for the exposition of a theo- logical argument. An <, xa to any change that has taken place in the general state of the controversy since 168"^, I rejoice with you, that " the Church of England has ex- hibited so many and striking evidences of internal life and holiness" which have ^afely conducted so many of her most devoted children into the bosom of the Holy Catholic Church ; while her " external development and progress" merely tend to illustrate her distinguishing feature, as a national Church, whose very existence is only SPIRIT OF DISCUSSIOX coinmcnsurato with the extent of tlio British clouiinions^ while she is totally deficient in the aspect of Universali- ty, which forms an indispensable characteristic of the true Church of Christ on earth. I confess, my Lord, that I am quite unable to detect any traces of that intolerant spirit, which you think you have discovered in my Pamphlet ; and indeed even a Pro- testant may freely admit the truth of the remark which you quote, that " there is no real alternative between the principle of Infallibility, and the principle of Infidelity", as it cannot bo denied that there must be Infallibility somewhere, whether in the Bible or in the Church, in order to constitute the very nature of faith. I need scarcely add, that Catholics hold hoth these sources of divine re^'elation to be equally infallible, while Protest- ants virtually reject the authority of the latter. You adopt, however, the title of one of Bishop Hall's Works, "No peace with Rome" — while you suppose that the motto of Rome herself is, " Delenda est Carthago" — with refer- ence to the destruction of all Protestant communities. Xow this is wQYy true, as far as regards the essential princi])les of Protestantism, though still there may be cases in which it cannot properly be extended to every Reformed Church in Europe. And I may be allowed to say, that, for my own part, I should deeply regret the overthrow of the present Established Church in England, unless her place could be supplied by a better and a purer Church,, which can only be done by a return to the ancient faith of Christendom. Had the Established Church been des- troyed in the middle of the last Century, I fear that, how- ever corrupt and degenerate she was, nothing but a sys- tem of avowed infidelity would have been substituted in her stead. This, indeed, is stated to have been the rea- son assigned by Bishop Butler for declining the Arch- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. bishopric of Canterbury, when, with his gloomy appre- hensions of her future prospects, he is said to have ex- claimed that " it was too late for him to try to support a falling Church". Yet the Protestant Church of England has survived the shock, and still continues after the lapse of 300 years from her foundation, and we cannot doubt that her prolonged existence is intended to be sub- servient to some important purposes of Providence in the preservation of true religion in the country. Following, then, the order of your remarks, you pro' ceed to lay down the position, in illustration of the in- tolerance of the Roman Catholic Church, that she denies the validity of Protestant Baptism — " she allows neither the validity of our Baptism, nor of our Orders, nor even of our Faith; we are treated simply as heathens". Now, my Lord, I confess that I am perfectly amazed at this statement. Are you really ignorant of the notorious fact, that the Catholic Chilrch acknowledges the validity of Baptism duly administered, with the proper intention, by any person whatever — Catholic or Protestant — Clergy- man or Layman — man or woman? Indeed, this principle is expressly asserted in the lstCano)i of the 4th Lateran Council, held in 1215, in which it is declared — " Sacra- mentum vero Baptismi .... a quocumqite rite collatum, proficit ad salutem."* And again, the Council of Trent itself has enacted the following Canon — " Si quis dixerit, Baptismum, qui etiam datur ah hcereticis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Splritus Sancti, cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, non esse verum Baptismum: anathema 8it."t But, my Lord, you seem to think that the Catho- lic Church has adopted the error of St. Cyprian and the African Bishops on this point, though it was rejected at * Catalan! SS. Concilia (Ecum. Tom. III. p. 239. t Concil. Trid. Sess. VII. (Do 13apt.) Can. iv. 8 CATHOLIC VIEW. that timo, and ever since, hy the See of Rome, which on tliis and every other doctrine, is always consistent witli herself. She never allows the practice of repeating the Sacrament of Baptism under any circumstances Vvdiat- ever, as she teaclies that it cannot be attempted witlu^nt sacrilege. It is true that Baptism is usually administered under the conditional form, on the occasion of the re- ception of converts into the Church ; but this is not founded on the opinion of the invalidity of their former Baptism, but simply on the doubts which generally exist as to whether it has been previously received at all, in its essential requisites, as to form, matter, and iMen- Hon ; and accordingly this precaution is not required, wdien there is unquestionable evidence that these C(jn- ditions have already been fulfilled. We hold that Bap- tism is the divinely appointed act of admission, not into any religious Sect, or human Society, but into the com- munion of the One Universal Church of Christ ; and therefore the Church regards all baptized persons as members of her own body, and partakers of all her spiritual privileges, until they are formally excluded fron) her communion, eitlier by public excommunication, o)- by their own act of rebellion against her authority, though they are still considered amenable to her juris- diction, whether this right bo recognised by themselves or not. So for, then, from '' treating them simply as heathens," the Catholic Church acknowledges all baptized Christians as members of her visible communion, in the sense just explained, while she holds that their baptized in- tants are, equally with those of Catholic parents, members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of heaven, and that they can never forfeit these blessings, except by their own wilful rejection of the grace of God. You reibr, my Lord, to the novelty of the Roman Creed I i NICENE CREED. 9 as compared with tlie Niceiie Creed, wliicli you de- scribe as " that ancient Creed, to Avhicli an (Ecumeni- cal Council forbid anjtliing to be a; Vied". You insinuate that I have now virtually abandoned " tliat ancient Creed", though it is the only one which is recited, to this day, in the public Service of the Catliolic Churcli, and though it is only in my present position that I can profess my full agreement witli it, when I declare that '• I believe One, Holy, Catliolic, and Apostolic Clmrcli" —an article which no member of tlie Church of England can consistently acknowledge. But, ray Lord, you must excuse me for saying that you are totally mistaken in asserting that the CEcu'- nical Council of Ephc .s (to which you allude) "forbios anything to bo added" to tlie Niceno Creed. The 7tli Canon of :hat Council merely prohibited the adoption of a new Creed, proposed l^y the iieretics of that time, under tlie name (^f " a different Faith, contrary to that defined by the holy Fathers, who were ii5sembled at Nice, with the assistance of the Holy Gliost."'^ And accordingly ^ve find that the fohowing (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon formally sanctioned the additions made to the Nicene Creed by the Second (Ecumenical Council* of Constantinople, together with the new definition of faith, which liad been subsequently decreed in opposition to the Nestorian and Eutycl-.ian heresies, while at the same time the assembled Fathers repeatc 1 the language of the Council of Epiiesus, in con- demnation of "any other Faith", and by these Acts directly recognised the principle of the progressive deve- lopment of the articles of the Creed, in opposition to tlie various heresies of each successive age. But, my Lord, if you are riglit in your interpretation of this Canon, let me ask you, how will you justify the * I3eTQridiio's Paml. Can, Tom. I, p. 103. ~ 10 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 11:1 It! .,-f ' MM Church of England for the addition of the Thirty-nine Articles to the ancient Creed of the Nicene Church? These were certainly not added by way of explanation of the faith of former times, like the Creed of Pope Pius IV., but in direct contradiction to that faith, and in asser. tion of the new doctrines of the 16th Century. Nay more — how will you vindicate the English Church for admitting an important addition to the Nicene Creed, on an article of faith which forms the only difference (besides the Supremacy) between the Greek and Latin Churches at the present day ? I refer, of course, to the word " Filioque", which asserts the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. It is well known that this article was not originally a part of the Nicene Creed, and that it was adopted by authority of Pope Nicholas I. in the 9th Century, confirmed by Pope Gre- gory X. and the Second General Council of Lyons in 1274— a period included within the term of " eight hun- dred years and more", during which it is affirmed in one of the Homilies of the English Church, that " the whole of Christendom was drowned in abominable Idolatry". And yet the Church of England, with strange inconsis- tency, receives an article of faith, relating to the Blessed Trinity, on tlie sole authority of the Church of Rome du- ring the long "dark ages" of her existence ! I cannot see, then, on what ground you can properly object to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, defined by the same authority. You refer to this point, as the clear- est proof of the innovations of the Roman Church, and cer- tainly it appears to be the most plausible objection which can be urged on that side. You affirm that it is a doc- trine which " the ancient Doctors and Martyrs expressly disavow", and which " the most eminent Romish writers of later date steadfastly deny". Those assertions, how. i VOICE OF THE CHURCH. n Gre- ever, hwe :■ real foundation in fact. K is true tliat there was no controversy on the subject till the 12th Cen- tury; though, even in the earlier ages, we meet with some remarkable intimations, which plainly show what was the ultimate tendency of the mind of the Church, guided by the illuminating wisdom of the Holy Ghost. Thus St. Ambrose, quite incidentally, speaks of Mary as " a Virgin, through gruce, free from every stain of siii:'^ In like manner, St. Augustine includes all under sin, " exccj^t the holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honor of our Lord, I wish no question at all to be raised, when the subject relates to sin."t In later times, however, we find an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of the general reception of the doctrine of the Inmiaculate Conception. The principal Universities of Europe (in- cluding those of Oxford and Cambridge) bound their members by a solemn oath to defend it. The most cele- brated religious Orders were unanimous in maintaining the same view, though there was a partial exception with respect to the Dominicans, among whom sojne indivi- dual Divines formerly entertained doubts on the subject. Even the scruples of St. Bernard, and St. Thomas, appear to have been rather of a physical than of a theological nature, while both of them entirely submitted their opinions to the judgment of the Roman Church. The doctrine itself was defined by the Council of Basil in 1439, but this decree was not regarded as binding on tho Church, owing to the absence of the Pope and his Le- gates from that Session. Indeed, it is a curious fact, that Luther himself, even after his separation from the Church, clearly held and taught tho doctrine, as appears from one of his Sermons, preached on the Feast of the Con- * S. Amlims. In Psnl. oxviii. Opp. Tom. I. p. 1255. ( Ed. Ben.) t S. August. Do Natura ct Oratia. o. 42. Ojjp. Tom. X, p. 144. (Ed. Ben.) 12 FINAL DEFINITION. ception of the Blessed Virgin*. Wlien, tlierofore, this piousbelief of the Church v/as filially promulgedas an arti- cle of faith, in the year 1854, it is evident that there was no new doctrine introduced into the Creed by this dogmatical Decree, as it had been previously held by the general concurrence of so many ages, and with tlie unanimous consent of all the Catholic Bishops in the world. In reply to the Pope's Encyclical Letter on the sulTJect, issued nearly five years previously, answers were received from upwards of Six Hundred Bishops, every one of whomexpressedhis firm belief inthe doctrine, while only JouY of them made any objection to its definition as an arti- cle of faith, ?ii\i\ fifty-two others merely suggested the ex- pediency of deferring the final decision of the ChurGh. to a future time.f It may be admitted, indeed, that, up to that period, the doctrine was, to a certain extent, an open ques- tion— its ahstrad truth was not affected by the definitioii of the Church— it was equally true hefore, as well as after it ; but the obligation to believe it was not the same in both cases, because it had not previously been authoritatively proposed to the faithful, as an article of divine revelation. In pronouncing judgment on this, and all otlier questions of doctrine, the Catholic Church merely exercised tiio spiritual prerogative which is claim- ed by the Churcli of England, inthe 20th Article, which de- clares that " the Church hath authority in controversies of faith". And it is evident that this principle may be applied to several other articles of foith, which are gene- rally held by Protestants as well as by Catholics. Take, forhistanco, the Canon of the New Testament. Itiscertain that, during the first four Centuries, there was no obliga- tion on Clu'istians to believe in the divine Inspiration * Luthori PostiUa), p. 300. (Ed. Argent. 1530.J t Dp. UUathomc oq tlio Immaculate Conception, p. 1C5. (Ed. Bait. 1355.) EXTREME UNCTIOX. IS cf several books now included in the Canon (among "wliicli Avere the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation), and we find that, in point of fact, some of tlie most eminent Fatliers were divided on their claims. But since that time they have been universal!}' received in the Catholic Church, not on the ground of any new evidence as to their genuineness, but on the divine au- iJiority of the Church, which has for ever settled the question by her final decision. Now, it is fully admitted tliat this decision did not make tliese books inspired, if tliey were not so before — it only declared, with infallible certaint3',that they were so ; and in like manner, the recent decision of the Church, on tlie doctrine of the Immacu- late Conception, did not alter the nature of the fact, but simply pronounced final judgment on a controversy which, though long since settled by tacit consent, had i>ever before been formally decided by the Church; and, indeed, if the silence of Scripture on this point be con- sidered a sufficient argument against it, the same argu- ment would be cquall}' valid against the Immaculate Con- ception of Our Blessed Lord Himself, which is never expressly declared in the NeAV Testament. Yon are pleased, ni}^ Lord, to observe that *' converts to Rome commonly indulge in an amazing recklessness of statement", and you point out a renarkable example of this in my own case, in which I refer to the authority of St. James as a Scriptural warrant for the practice of Extreme Unction. You say that '' it is notorious that tlie Unction to which St. James refers was connected with the miraculous healing of the sick". But I would ask, to lohom is this notorious? It is, indeed, notorious that this is the Protestant interpretation of the passage, but it is equally notorious that this interpretation is rejected by all other Commentators ; nor was it adopted by the- 14 TESTIMONY OF ST. IKEN^EUS. Church of England, even in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI., as appears from the Office of the Visita- tion of the Sick in the first Book of Common Prayer, and from the exposition of the passage in the Paraphrase of Erasmus*, which was received by public authority in the English Church at that time. Indeed, if this view of the passage be strictly adopted, it is not easy to understand why any Christians should ever die at aU, with such an unlimited promise of miraculous restoration to health under every sickness, as the language of the Apostle is of universal application to these cases. But St. James himself does not intimate that the practice had any peculiar reference to miraculous powers, or to tem- porary circumstances. Indeed, it is evident that this meaning of the text was not notorious to the Primitive Church. And so we find that St. Chrysostom, in the latter part of the 4th Century, quotes the whole passage of St. James, and applies it to the ordinary functions of the Christian Priesthood, in connexion with Baptism, thus plainly implying that they were both equally under- stood to be of perpetual obligation in the Churchf. I must confess, then, my Lord, that I cannot see any proof of such " amazing recklessness" as that which you im- pute to me, in preferring the old interpretation and practice of the Church to the new, though ingenious, views of modern expositors on this subject. But, my Lord, there is another charge, of a more serious nature, which you advance against me under this head, into which it will be necessary to enter at some length, as it relates to the true meaning of a very important pas- sage in the Works of St. Irena3us, with reference to the Supremacy of the Church of Rome. You refer to my Lee- Erasmus' Paraphrase on the Now Testament Vol. II. fol. xl. (Ed. 1649.) 1 8. Chrysost. De Saoerd. Lib. III. 0pp. Tom. I. p. 3&1. (Ed. Ben.) I I I CHURCH OF ROME. 15 ture on " the Origin of Christianity in England", and )^ou pronounce that, on this point, my " errors are of a graver kind", and that, while I quote this passage as the " splen- did testimony of St. Irena3us to the Primacy of the See of Rome", I am guilty of doing so " in perfect reliance on the ignorance of my readers". In order, however, to judge fa'rly on this subject, we must consider the pas- sage more particularly by comparing the Latin and Eng- lish Versions. St. Irenseus, having referred to '' the Church of Rome, the greatest, and most ancient, and most universally known, founded and constituted by the most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul", adds these re- markable words, which form the subject of the pre- sent discussion — " Ad banc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem conve- nire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea qu83 est ab Apostolis Traditio."* " For with this Church, on account of her more powerful principality, it is neces- sary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are on all sides, should agree, in which the Apostolical Tradition has been always preserved by those who are on all sides". You remark, my Lord, that " the translation is not very clear". I presume that you mean the English translation, and I admit that your remark is perfectly correct ; but the want of clearness applies equally to the Latin trans- lation, which is the only form in which we now possess the "Works of this Father, with the exception of a few detached Fragments of the Greek original, which have been chiefly preserved by Eusebius. The English trans- lation, however, is a faithful representation of the Latin, though I may be allowed to remark, that another Version, still more exactly literal, will be found in my " Defence * S. Iren. contra Hwr. Lib. III. Cap. iil. 2. p. 175. (Ed. Ben.) fi In PROTESTANT INTERPRETATION. ! i !l! » of tlio Clfxims of the Catliolic Church", (p. 190.) It lias been well observed by the learned Benedictine Editor of St. Irenasus, that " Protestants agree as little among themselves in explaining this passage, as they do in the dogmas of the faith". You propose to translate the Avords in the following paraphrase — '^ For to this Cliurch, by rea- son of its pre-eminence and power, the faitliful must flock from every quarter, as the motlier Church of all who reside in that part of the world, where the principal records are kept, by Avhiuh the question may be decided". You understand, then, tliat tlio passage merelj^ relates to the necessity by which all other Churches hi the neigh- borhood of Rome were obliged to resort, or undertake a journey, to that city, in a local or geographical sense, and that it does not imply the necessity of agreement in doctrine, on the part of all other Churches in the world, with the Church of Rome, in a spiritual or theological sense. And accordingly you remark that I have ''fallen into the grievous error of translating convenire aclEcde- siam, as if it had been consentlre cum Ecclesia, wliicli is the more unpardonable, because it is simply transferring into the text of S. Irena^us the vain efforts of his Com- mentator, Fevardentius, to make convenire signify the same with consent'ire^\ Now, my Lord, I cannot but express ray astonishment at the decisive tone of this lan- guage, Avhich implies that your oAvn view of the passage is quite a settled point among classical scholars ; and yet this " grievous, unpardonable error", to which you allude, is held by many of the most learned Protestant Critics and Divines to be the only legitimate interpretation of the words, while they regard your view as totally inad- missible, on the principle of grammatical construction as well as theological reasoning. Thus Salniasius, the learned Calvinist, strongly maintained that the words It lias i^ditor of 3 among !o in tae \Q words 1, by rea- List flock all wlio principal ecided". Blate.s to le neigli- idertake il sense, ment in e world, jological 3''fellcii ul EccU- wliicji is isferring iis Com- aify the not but this lan- passago and yet 11 allude, Critics :ation of lly iuad- truction sius, the 3 words CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION. I7 Will admit of no other sense than that of union with the Roman Church in matters of faith, and he expresses their meaning by saying-" necesse est omnem Ecclesiam con- venire et concordare in rebus Jidei ac doctrina cum Rc^ mana Ecdes^a:^* In like manner, it is remarked by Stieren, the latest Editor of St. Iren^us-- Recte Thier- schius explicate concordare cum ea, concinere reddendo TrTv . ^'^^'^^^'-'^ I need scarcely add, that all Catholic Commentators are fully agreed in this view. And I may remark, that your Lordship is mistaken in supposing that Fevardentius explains convenir^ by co^i. ^entire m which you were probably misled by Orabe : but the fact IS, that this Commentator does not use the latter term at all, and his paraphrase is-" ut membra cum capite convenire, nee latum unguem abejus communione •aiscedere"4 Now it is certain that the word itself may refer, either to intellectual agreement, or to a local assembly. Indexed the common Latin Dictionaries explain it as mean' ing— « 1, To come together, to assemble. 2. To agree harmonize in sentiment, be unanimous^-while the choice of these senses must depend chiefly on the context and general argument, and it appears to me that this point is clearly decided by the following considerations. In the first place, then, it is evident that the centre of «nity, to which St. Irena^us refers, is not the city of Rome, but the Church of Rome; for he is not speaking of the political importance of the Roman city, as a place of concourse, but of the spiritual pre-eminence of the Ro- man Church, as a standard of reference in matters of laith Indeed there is not the slightest allusion to any i^al^circumstancesih^ whole passage, as this ancient IiLJ""!.' "'"•■^' P- ^'^- (Bd.Lips. 18o3.) X Ibid. Tom. li. p. sjs. 2 18 CRITICAL ANALYSIS. li! I i writer dwells entirely on the Apostolical origin, Ec- clesiastical Supremacy, and continued succession of Bishops of the Church of Rome, as the subject of his dis- course. And surely the very idea of every Church being obliged to resort to this Church, as a spiritual body, cannot be understood merely oi their asscmhllng at Rome,, to consult the records of that Church, but must include the p'-inciple of their suhmission to her spiritual autho- rity. But, to evade the force of this statement, Pro- testant writers have generally endeavored to apply this language to the dignity of the Imperial City of Rome though this is a mere hypothesis, and contrary to the whole train of reasoning employed by St. Irentis^us. This riew appears to have been first proposed by Chamier*, in the early part of the 17th Century; and it was also maintained by Archbishop Laudf, though he seems ra- ther inclined to apply it to the Patriarchal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, and to admit the necessity of agreement in faith, within those limits. However, the politi- cal sense was afterwards defended by Bp. Stillingfleet|,and by Barrow||,and subsequently by Grabe§, who explained it as referring to a supposed Assembly of Delegates of the various Churches, sent to Rome to plead the cause of Christianity before the Emperors, and the same view has since been adopted by NeanderIF in our own times. Again, the Catholic interpretation is confirmed by the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church, as stated by S. IrencBus. Wiiat is the nature of this necessity ? Surely it cannot be a physical^ but a moral one. It cannot be su{> * Chamieri Panstratiio Catholieus, Tom. II. Lib. xiii. c. 22, n. 12. (Ed. Gon. 1G26.> t Laud'a Conferenee with Fisher.— Works, Vol. II. p. 202. (Ed. Oxf. 1810.) t StiUinsflect'a Vindication of Laud, Vol. II. p. 242. (Ed. Oxf. 1841.) II Barrow's Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy— Works, Vol. I. p. 057. (Ed, Lond. 1741.) ^S. Ircn. 0pp. p. 201. (Fol. Oxon. 1703.'> T Neander'a Church History, Vol, I. p. 284. (Ed. Lond. 1353.) PRINCIPLES OP INVESTIGATION. 19 i;in, Ec- ision of f his dis- ih being tl body, ,t Rome, include tl Jiutho- !«t, Pro- )ply tlii» if Rome ' to the IS. Thid lamicr*, was also eems ra- Lsdiction ssity of he pollti- dciXj and xplained ^•ates of :ie cause me view times. 1 by the ated by Surely t be sup- . Gon. 1026.) 1810.) 1.) , 057. (Ed, posed that St. IrenaEus means, that all the faitliful in every part of the world are obliged to make a pilgrimage to Rome, or to gi, there in person, in order to know what ig the Apostolical tradition of Christian doctrine. But, my Lord, you remark that "the undique fddes is not'tho faithful on all sides, uUque, but those who flock to Rome from every quarter". You thus intimate that uv- diqne is not to be confounded wlthuhique, though they are both translated by the term every lohere in the Latin Die- tionaries, and it is observed by Thiersch, that the two tonus were of equivalent force.— '' Yereor ne superfluum videatur momih^Q, undique ea aitate,qua) est interpretis, valere i. q. uUque:'-^ And it must be observed, that your translation is obviously incorrect, as the word " undique'' in the text is connected with "fideles", and not with "convenire", and there is not the slightest allusion to the idea of" flocking to Rome from every quarter". Furtlior, it is of great importance to consider the reaso7is for this necessity of conformity to the Church of Rome, assigned by St. Trena^us. One of them is, " prop- ter potentiorem", or (according to the Benedictine Edi- tion) " potiorem principalitatem", " on account of her more powerful principality", or " superior headship". On this expression you observe, that " in order to estab- lish Mr. Maturin's case, S. Irena3us should have said, that it was necessary to agree with the Roman Church on account of her InfaJUUHty, not on account of her more poioerfulprincijxdit)/'. But surely, my Lord, this is little better than a mere quibble abou. words, which might be equally employed to subvert every doctrine of Chris- tianity, on the ground of the omission of the technical language of modern Theology, though the same doctrine IS conveyed under another form of expression. Thus it i^well kno^vn that tbe InfallibiHty of the Church is strongly * Stioreu'8 Irctucus, Tgiu. 1. p. 439. ~~ 20 PRIMACY OE THE ROMAN CHURCH. h '■' liy nil Roman Catholics in the present day; and yet, I iin not awa* e that the term itself h ever employed in any of the authoritutive declaration* of the Church. Will any une seriously contend that the Catholic Church does not profess to be infallible, merely because she never adopts thin Jnrm in her own public documents? But, as to the precise ideaintei >dedto be conveyed by St. Ireneeus ^l is now impossible to letermine with certainty, in the absence of the original words. It is sufficient to remark that, in the opinion of Salmasius, Massuet, Thiersch, and Stieren, these words were most probably such as to express the idea of " Primacy" or "Supremacy", and indeed this sense is conveyed in the old meaning of the Latin word " principalitas", and is fully admitted by Grabe, though he applies it, without the slightest authority, to the temporal Supremacy of the Roman Emperors. As this theory, however, is utterly untenable, the expression must refer entirely to the pre-eminence of spiritual power, as the Roman Church had no temporal superiority whatever in the times of the heathen Emperors. But there is another reason assigned for the necessity of referring to the Church of Rome— because " the Tradition, which is from the Apostles, has been always preserved in it". I agree with you in the opinion that the words, " in qua", are to be applied to Rome, (that is, to the Church of Rome,) and not to " every Church", as some have supposed; and indeed Neanderhas shown that the relative must here refer to the remote and not to the immediate antecedent. But your explanation of this last clause, as importing that the faithful of -<3.pr < i.urches preserved the Apostolic Tradition " even in Rome itself", appears to reverse the order of the connexion between the Church of Rome and other Churches, as laid down in the . >rt, i.T\d indeed it scarcely conveys any intelligible mean- ARGUMENT QE ST. IREN^US. 21 ing. However, it must be admittetl that the words, " ab his," arc equally obscure on any other construction; and there seems to be mnoh probability in the conjecture of Gieseler, who supposes that the translator was mistaken in rendering the Greek dative by these words. In this case the clause would mean—" in which Church [of RomeJ the Apostolic Tradition has ever been preserved for the Christians of all countries in the world". Even No.uidor inclines to this view of the passage, though he thmks it necessary to add-'' not the slightest danger can accrue to the interests of Protestantism, which I profe8«» by recognising a high antiquity of the Roman Catholic element, both in general and in particular."* And finally, my Lord, ifyour interpretation be admit- ted, It IS evident that the reasoning of St. Iren^us would be totally inconclusive; for he states in the beginniig of the Chapter, that his object is to prove that the Ado toli- cal Tradition of the Faith was the same in all Clmrc hes in the whole world ; and his argument is, the necessity of their universal recourse to the Church of Rome, which therefore may be said to comprehend them all, not only by way of example, but as the centre and representative of a ;I others— whereas the mere circumstance of their " flockim:: to Rome" (even if that were possible) would not be sui" ficient to prove the unity of the faith in all Churches ; and yet St. Irenjcus himself regards his statement as per- fectly conclusive; for, having given a Catalogue of all the Bishops of Rome down to his own time, he ends this part of the Chapter by saying—" by this order and this suc- cession, the Apostolic Tradition in the Church, and the preacliing of the truth, has come down to us. And this IS the fullest proof; that it is one and the same vivifying * Neander'is Church Hist. Vol. I. p. 23§ 22 AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE. , i faith, wliicli has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and delivered in triith.^f On the whole, then,! think we mny safely come to the conclusion, that, whatever degree of obscurity there may be in particular expressions in this celebrated passage, which has reached us only through the medium of a barba- rous Latin Translation, it is a most remarkable testimony to the Prhnacy of Home in the Second Century, which can only admit of a satisfactory explanation, when interpreted by the facts of Church history, and viewed in the light of Catholic doctrine. And, indeed, the whole passage bears a striking resemblance to the language of St. Cyprian, in the fohowing Century, in which, ix^riting to Pope Cornelius, at a time when (to use your Lordship's expression) "Christianity was scarcely tolerated in Rome", he refers to that See, as '^tlie Chair of Peter, and the principal Church, from whence the sacoi-dotal unity derived its beginning".!— expressions wliich could only be applied to spiritual Supremacy, and not to tem- poral power in any sense. P»ut you assert that " the lloman r>ishop is not even ment'-oned" in this account of the Roman Church. Now this obj'ection miglit properly be made by a Presbyterian, but is certainly very inconsistent, coming from your Lord- Bhip, with whom the ideas of a Churcirand a Bishop are supposed to be inseparably connected. ]]ut the assertion itself is totally incorrect, as the " Supremacy of the Roman Bishop" forms the very foundation of the argu- ment of St. Irentcus; for, innnedlately before the words on which you have commented, he dwells particularly on the fact, that the Church of Rome was founded by SS. Poter and Paul, and on the succession of the Bishops 4 t S.tlron. oontra Ha>r. Lib, III. en p. 111. 3. p. I7G. VyVV. Epist. Iv.-Opp, Tuiu I. p. 153. (Ed. Wircob. 178,'.) SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY OF ROME. 23 from their time ; and immediately after it, he gives a Cata- Jogue of the names of all the Bishops of Rome (in a pas- sage which has fortunately been preserved in the original Greek) from Linus to Eleutherius. who held the See of Home in his own time, and was the 12th in succession from the Apostles. Indeed, the very objection which you urge against the Pope's Supremacy, derived from the persecuted condi- tion of the Church in primitive times, tends to prove the very reverse. You justly remark, " that the Roman Bishop, Avhen S. Iren;eus wrote, could not possibly h.tve hnd any jMterdhr 2^ruicipaU{as, imythiui; that could be called a dominion", during the reign of the heathen Em- perors. But this circumstance still more clearly illus- trates the argument in favor of the Church, as it shows that the Primacy, which St. Irenjcus ascribes to the Church of Rome, could have had no reference to secular power, but entirely to spiritual authority, Avhich was altogether independent of all temporal sovereignty, while the several appeals that were made to the Bishop of Rome in the early ages, from the most remote parts of the world, on various questions of doctrine and dis- cipline, furnish a striking incidental proof of the peculiar reverence which was always paid to the Apostolic See from the most ancient times. You remark, my Lord, on " the extreme confusion that seems to pervade my mind on the subject of Inspiration and Infallibility". 1 confess I am not aware of it ; and though I mike no pretensions to any peculiar clear- ness of intellectual vision, I must say that this is pre- cisely the defect which I observe in your own remarks on this subject. You appear to have fallen into the com- mon error of confounding Infallibility of doctrine with Inqjeccabilitij of life, with reference to the inspired 24 PREROGATIVES OF ST. PETER. instruments of divine revelation. You admit "that St. Peter was not always infallible" and that "■ St. Paul himself says so". But this statement^ surely, requires correction. St. Paul says that "he was to be blamed" for his conduct at Antioch. (Gal. ii. 11.) But to what does this censure apply ? Was there any difference of teaching be- tween the two Apostles ? Not the slightest. There was the most perfect harmony on every point of doctrine. The only apparent difference was on a matter of practi- cal prudence, in which St. Peter seemed to act incon- sistently with his own teachings and therefore he was justly reproved by St. Paul, who " withstood him to the face^' — an expression implying a certain degree of bold- ness in this act of an *n/eW(w, and thus indirectly refer- ring to his superio)' authority; but there is nothing whatever in this passage at variance with the perpetual Infallibility or the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of St. Peter. You refer also to our Saviour's rebuke of St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 23), as proving the same thing. But you forget that this incident took place before the day of Pentecost, when he was " filled with the Holy Ghost", and surely no one holds that the Apostles were inspired or infallible at an earlier date. But if St. Peter was not always infallible after that day, how are we to distinguish the occasions v/hen he tvas or was not ? Was he infal- lible only in luriting his Epistles, and not in teaching the doctrines of the Gospel ? If so, what ground is ther*^ for this distinction? It is certainly never drawn by him- self, or by any other of the Apostles. His claim to divine inspiration, In both characters, rests upon the general promises of Christ; and the particular instrument, whctiier written or unwritten, by which that inspiration was communicated and transmitted to us, rests upon the authority of theChurch. And in like manner, you refer to- ^w REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS. mit "that " St. Paul /, requires amed'' for t does this aching be- There was doctrine. of practi- *ct incon- re he was tiim to the )e of bold- ctly reier- 8 nothing perpetual St. Peter. St. Peter, But you the day of ly Ghost", e inspired Br was not Ustingulsh he infal- nchlng the [ is tXiQvii rn by him- claim to upon the istrument, iispiratiou upon the lU refer to 25 the examples of Moses,David,Jonah,and Balaam^and you pronounce that each of them was fallible, because he was guilty of some sin or neglect of duty, which has surely no reference to the question of Infallibility, either as to themselves, or the Apostles, or the spiritual rulers cf the Church at the present day. You repeat also the usual charges which have been ad- vanced against the Popes, the most serious of which are that "these several infallible heads have notoriously dif- fered from each other ", and that " some of them have denounced as heresy what others of them have pro- claimed as Christianity". Had your Lordship substanti- ated these general charges by referring to some particular instances in proof, there might have been some weight in this accusation ; but, as we utterly deny the truth of the statement, it cannot be expected that any impression should be produced on our minds, without an appeal to the authentic records of Ecclesiastical History. You refer to the supposed necessity for an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, as " arising from the weakness and ignorance of mankind, or from the obscu- rity of the Scriptures", and you argue that the same philological difficulties equally apply to the interpreta- tion of all other ancient documents. But, my Lord it must be remembered that the Scriptures themselves were not the documents in whicli the Chn'stian revelation was originally communicated to the world, nor do they pro- fess to contain a complete account of the doctrines of that revelation. They pre-suppose a certain amount of know- ledge of Christianity, on the part of their readers, as already acquired from another source of instruction, and indeed, without this, their language is frequently unintelli- gible. Pesides, they require t(^ have their own inspiration (ally established by divine authority, which can only be 26 RULE OF FAITH, done bythe Infallibility of the Church, wliich has delivered them to us, as the Word of God. Thus the necessity of an infallible interpreter is not merely the result ofany aj^ri- ori reasoning on the subject, but is the simple consequence of the fact of a divine revelation having been given to man. What, then, was the rule of faith to the primitive Christians before the New Testament was committed to writing? and before the Canon of Scripture was finally settled ? Was it not the doctrine or the tradition of the Apostles, committed to the Church? And is not the same rule of faith still sufficient for us, transmitted in all its integrity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and quite independent of any different interpretations of par- ticular texts of Scripture ? Surely the object of divine faith, from its very nature, must be definite and certain, and not founded on mere probabilities and deductions, which ultimately terminate in human opinion and private judg- ment. It is evident, indeed, that we have no knowledge of the way of salvation, except from the revelation of God ; and it is equally true, that we have no certainty of the particuliir doctrines of that revelation, except from the Church of God, to whom the revelation was originally entrusted by our Divine Redeemer, to be transmitted, in perpetual succession, to all future ages. Without this, it follows that there is now no divine Teacher in the world at all — the office of the Holy Ghost has ceased in the Church — every one is left to find it out for himself — every doctrine of Christianity is thus an open question — and consequently there is no real distinction between religious truth and error. But, my Lord, you refer to the analogy of the Jewish Church, as sufficient to justify the want of infallible authority at the present day. But, oven granting that the J elvish Church was not infallible before the coming ANALOGY OF THE JEWISH CHURCH. 27 IS delivered essity of an if any a pri- :)iisequence in given to B primitive mniitted to was finally tion of the is not the litted in all Spirit, and ions of par- fc of divine certain, and ions, which 'ivate judg- knowledge velation of certainty of pt from the originally ismitted, in ithout this, her in the s ceased in r himself — question — n between the Jewish f infallible anting that he coming of Christ (which is only supposed, not conceded), is there no diiror<3nce between the two J^ispensations? between the type and the anti-type, the shadow and the substance— the one declared to be but local and temporary, the other universal and everlasting? Whut mean tbo prophecies of the - New Covenant"-the -better Covenant, which was establi.;hed upon better promises", as explained by St. Paul, (TTeb. viii. G-13) ? What mean the promises of our blessed Lord ?-" I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", (^hitt. xvi. 18) — " I am with you al way, even unto the end of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20)-" I will pray the Father, and lie shall give yon another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever". (John xiv. lO.) Were thercany such promises given to the Church, of the Old Testament ? And if such pronn'ses may be applied to individuals, surely much more to the universal Church of Christ, as they have been always understood in that sense. Why then should we expect to find the g-ift of Infallibility referred to in the Epistles, in more "plain and unambiguous terras", when tliese Epistles do not refer to any other standard of fiiith than the constant teaching of the Pastors of the * Church in each successive age, and not to any collection of writings under the title of the New Testament, as a separate and independent rule of faith? Your next statement refers to the pcrpdultn of ^t- Peter's prerogatives, as transmitted to his successors in the See of Home. You intimate that the charge given . by our Saviour to St. Peter is unfairly " distoi^tod into the claim of a prerogative". I presume that yt)u refer to the threefold charge to feed the (loc-k of Christ, as re- corded in John xxi. lo— 17. I would ask, then, even on the ground of verbal criticism, what reason is there to doubt that our Lord thus intended to confer an important n 28 DIVINE COMMISSION. prerogative upon St. Peter? or by what other form of words do you suppose that such a prerogative couhl be conferred ? You are aware that right and duty are cor- relative terms; and if an obligation was thus imposed by our Lord upon St. Peter to feed His lambs and His sheep, what is this but the act of conferring upon him a most mcveiX prerogative, which was granted to none other of the Apostles? Certainly no argument against this interpretation can be founded on the use of the present imperative, instead of the future indicative, when we find that a similar mode of address is adopted by our Lord on other most solemn occasions, when He invested the Apostles with peculiar spiritual functions, as at the in. stitution of the Blessed Eucharist, " Do this in remem- brance of Me", (Luke xxii. 19)— of the Sacrament of Penance, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John xx. 22)— or in giving His great commission " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark xvi. 15). It is scarcely necessary to remark, that this charge has been constantly interpreted, by the voice of Catholic Tradition, as committing the pastoral care of . the Universal Church to St. Peter. Thus St. Cyprian, in discoursing on the Unity of the Church, quotes tlic pro- mise in Matt. xvi. 18, 19, as the foundation of St. Peter's prerogatives, after which he proceeds — "And again He says to him, after His resurrection, Feed My sheep. He builds His Church upon him alone, and commits to him the feeding of His shecp':^ St. Ambrose, too, after quoting our Lord's words to St. Peter in Luke xxii. 31, 32, adds this remark — "Peter is appointed over the Church, after he was tempted by the Devi!. And thus our Lord signifies beforehand what was meant by the circumstance, that He afterwards chose him to * S. Cypr. 0pp. Tom. I. p. 349. «. VIEWS OP THE FATHER8. 29 her form of vo could be ify are cor- lus imposed lbs and His upon him a ) none other against this tlie present hen we find our Lord on ivested the s at the in. s in remcm- icrament of m XX. 22)— ye into all y creature" emark, that ty the voice ;oral care of Cyprian, in ;e8 tlie pro- St. Peter's d again He shce^). He mits to him too, after L- in Luke ointed over )evi!. And was meant hose him to be Pastor of the Lord's Floch'\^ In like manner, St. Clirysostom asks the question—" For what purpose did Christ shed His blood? That He might purchase the sheep lohich He committed to the care of Peter and his sue- cessors'\\ fet. Augustine, among other motives of his attachment to the Catholic Church, mentions the unin- terrupted succession of the Roman Pontiifs- '• the suc- cession of Bishops in the See of the Apostle Peter, to ivhom the Lord, after His Resurrection, eommitted the feedimj of His sheej^'^ It must be remembered, too, that our blessed Lord had previously referred to Ilis Univer- sal Church, as composed of Jews and Gentiles, when He promised that ''there shall be one Fold, and one Shep- herd". (John X. IG.) It is evident that this passage re- kites to the Unity of the visible Church of Christ on earth, and the very idea of a visible Fold implies that of a visible Shepherd ; yet it is certain that this promise was not fulfilled till after His Ascension, and as He was Himself personally absent from His Church, it could only be accomplished by the appointment of that Apos- tie, to whom He gave the cliarge to " feed His sheep", as His substitute and representative. But, my Lord, you inform us that this prerogative "was never claimed by the Apostle". I suppose that the assertion rests on the ground, that we do not read of any such claim formally advanced by tlie Apostle, and directly recorded in the sacred history. But this surelv proves nothing. We do not find any mention of any claim formally made by St. Peter to the other promises of our Lord, (Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Luke xxii. 31, 32) which will be admitted to confer some peculiar preroga- * S. Ambroa. 0pp. Tom, I. p. 901. + 8. Chry.s().st Opp. Tom. I. p. 373. X S. August. Opp. Tom. VIII. p. 153. 30 TRANSMISSION OF THE PRIMACY. tives upon liim. It was surely unnecessary for tlie Apos- tle to make such claims, as these promises Avere given to him in the presence of the other Apostles, and it was unnecessary for the Evangelist to record such claims if made, as they had already been included in the Gospel narrative. We do not find that any of the Twelve Apostles ever formally claimed the divine commission which they had received, as far as we can collect from the Acts of tlie Apostles, though it appears that St. Paul fre- (piently did so, as his own case was of a peculiar and extraordinary nature, his Apostolical authority having been received, not from Christ on earth, but after His Ascension into heaven. But, in the case of the other Apostles, it is evident that their commission was claimed rather by acta than by words, and so we find St. Peter constantly taking his place as the chief of the Apostles, on evers' occasion, from the day of Pentecost till the Council of Jerusalem, so that the first half of St. Luke's narrative might more properly bo entitled the " Acts of St. Peter", rather than the " Acts of the Apostles''. You state, however, that I have '' added to this a claim which the text does not give, the continuance ot that power in the hands of the Bishops of Rome". You seem, then, to suppose, that this power was mo voly per- sonal, and that it expired with the death of St. Peter him- self. But, surely, on this principle, all spiritual power must have ceased in the Church at the death of the Apostles ; and consequently the Avhole doctrine of Apos- tolical Succession falls to the ground at once, as there is no express promise given to the successors of the Apostles, and therefore Pi'otestant Dissenters are fully justified, on the private interpretation of Scripture, in rejecting the Angh'can claims of Episcopacy. The same "A PERPETUITY OP THE PROMISES. 31 )r tlie Apos- ire given to 111(1 it was ch clrtim.s if tlie Gospel ;lie Twelve commission ;ct from tiic If this be the case, then it follows that no Protestant c n possess an infallible faith, on their own principles, for Mh Protestants aml^Catholics alike disclaim all preten- <: * Leslie's Case Stated.-Vv^ksTvi^lT'iriyrTEr^ a 84 SUFFICIEyCY OF SCRIPTURE. sions to inJiviilual infallibility on the part of private Christians, while both appeal to an infallible standard of divine revelation. ' Every objection of this kind may be fairly retorted on the Protestant rule of faith, and indeed it is applicable to it alone ; for it is obvious, on your (Avn showing, that we have at least the important advantage of a living, speaking authority, to explain the true doctrines of the Church, if any doubt should possi- bly arise ; and surely every written law, divine or hu- man, becomes a dead letter without the authorative decision of a living interpreter— whereas it is impossible to resolve any doubt, or terminate any dispute, on any ■article of faith, among those who reject the authority of ^n infallible Judge of controversy. But, my Lord, you attempt to prove the complete sufficiency of Holy Scripture from the testimony of St. Peter, taken in connexion with the declaration of St. Paul,in his Second Epistle to Timothy. Now, it is certain that St. Paul's language applies only to the Old Testament, as thire were no other Scriptures in existence at the time to which he refers. No part of the New Testament was written when Timothy was a child ; and consequent- Iv if this language were understood in the Protestant sense, as asserting the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone, it would evidently prove that the Old Testament is fully sufficient without the New, which must therefore be an unnecessary addition, though St. Paul makes no such statement, as he ouly asserts, with the Catholic Church, that " all Scripture is projitahk'', not sufficient, for all the purposes there described. Nor has St. Peter's testimony any direct bearing on the subject. It is well known that there is some ambiguity in the meaning of the passage (2 Pet. iii. 16).; as the words, " in which", do not relate to •f private andard of kind may faith, and 3viou.'<, on important xplain the )uld possi- ne or hu- uthorative impossible te, on any ithority of complete onv of St. on of St. t is certain Testament, nee at the Testament onsequent- Protestant ures alone, ent is fully fore be an !S no such lie Church, , for all the i testimony known that :he passage lot relate to TESTIMONT OF ST. PETER. 35 the Fpisiks of St. Paul (as the English Tr.n i r seem to imply) but to ihT^j- translation would Apostle, as is idontLhf'^^^^ "' *' '' ''' Oreekword.aceordL:rthr.:^^rtr^^^^ -aldbyrSt^--^--^-^ :^:;::^^^:s;;;:s^ of St. Paul's Epistles, though you sf.t.. ,!.,> T ° "fourteen in number", boeause t se 1 , , ^ """ possess. And yet we find that, s' P , "' '™ '""" tl.-e of his Epistles wh c t^t ^os rt^T'^^'f *" sinee been lost, (1 Cor v Q p , ?'■"'«%, long though these m, t h:;; been ifct,'", =*■ ^°'- '^ !«>' Epistles " referred to by St Pete t:,?";' """ "^ bo forgotten, that St. Peter's ScondE.T' ^'If "°' one of the last admitted into the C „ of ; ^V :';;:-^ ment, as there were considerable doubts a o it" T ticity in the primitive Church • and ^1 > n "■'"• only one of all the Fathers of' the W 1 ' T " "" who e.^.pressly refer, to ,t H,„ , '''''.*,""'^<= Centuries, .narks of approbat tn VLnT\ "*"" '"''""' Peter's authority relaiiv t S^ pS^r" '^^'^^'° ^*'- parity of reasoning, to the other plrts of' t 1:1 " f^ ment", you forget the important fee tha the r '"; the New Testament was not settled for IrTpr" after the time of St. Peter- w^ 1„ « Centuries ever in their own lang lag^ I "3^;:!,'^ "°*'"." -'-'■ ;;Ui3 evident, from the^ef^oi^;:/^ J^ " o";^? t_l-^alUliatwasknow„ as Holy Scripture, contained suffi: *Bobinson's Greek L^xi^^^r^^l^Z^^^^~~~~^ Sclheusner Lexicon in Nov. Test Vo L i.'p 400 ^Sd r "/''^ '"''■ A- y. i^o. (hd, Lond. ISi'X) ifm 36 TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP. ciently all things necessary to salvation, and tliat we are referred to no other source". You admit, indeed, '^ that the teaching of St. Panl, by word of month, was also able to make Timothy wise unto salvation"; but then yoii assort that " such oral instructions no longer exist"-which is merely assuming the whole question, m opposition to the uniform doctrine of the Church in a 1 ages, and the language of St. Paul to Timothy himself (2 Tim. i. 13, U and ii. 2) as well as to other Churches (1 Cor. xi. 2. 2 Thess. ii. U, and iii. C.) However, you assert, as before, that '' the possessors of this supposed infallibility of hiterpretation do not themselves agree", and you prove it by referring to the fact, that there have been various rival candidates for the Papal office, which has surely no connexion with any arti- cle of foith ; while you further state that " that which one Pope solemnly and repeatedly declares to bea mark of Anti- christ, another as unhesitatingly declares to be necessary to everlasting salvation". This allusion is, no doubt, to the case of Pope Gregory the Great, and his remarks on the title of" Universal Bishop" ; and it is certainly surpris- ing to find such an extraordinary misrepresentation of ail historical fact. Are you aware that Pope Gregory tbough he objected to this title in the sense in which it was assumed by the Patriarch of Constanti- nople, yet asserted and exercised, as strongly as any of his predecessors or successors, supreme spiritual juris- diction, as the successor of St. Peter, over the Universal Church of Christ ? Indeed we have the clearest evidence on this point, even from his own Epistles, in which we find iiim settling the affairs of the Church in every part of the world, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and particularly in England, to which he scut the first Missionary Bishop PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 37 among the Anglo-Saxons, and constituted liim tlie first Archbishop of Canterbury, comniitting all the British Bishops to his government, and dividing the country into new Dioceses, so that he is justly regarded as the Founder of the Church of England in Catholic times. He thought, however, that the title of "Universal Bishop" appeared to 'savour of pride, and to interfere with the ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops, though, at the same time, he asserts that every Bishop is subject to the Apostolic See* ; and thus he explains his own meaning, when he says that " the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter, and yet he is not styled the Univer- sal Apostle".t It is perfectly clear, then, that while the expression admits of different senses, it was virtually admitted by this Pope in its usual signification, and thus there is not the slightest real foundation for this olijec- tion, which you. regard as the strongest that can be brought in opposition to the doctrine of Papal Infelli- bility. I need not dwell upon your remark as to the " pre- cise seat of the inflillible power", as all Catholics are fully agreed that its source is the perpetual teaching of the Holy Ghost in the Church, according to the promises of Christ, and its channel is the voice of Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, whether acting with, or without, the assistance of a General Council. Still, however, you consider the modern Church of England as approximating most nearly to the standard of the primitive Church, and challenge us to " name one ancient Creed of the three first Centuries, which con- tains the doctrines now set forth bv us as nocossarv to salvation." Now, my Lord, you are surely fully aware. * S. Gresorii 5r. Opp. Ton. II. pp. '.Ml, 'Jro. (Ed. Ban.) t Ibid. Torn. II. p. r Id. 38 apostles' creed. that the pncient Creeds of tlie Church did not profess to contain a list of all the Articles of the Christian Faith ; and therefore their silence on any particular points of doctrine cannot be alleged as a proof that such doctrine was unknown to the Church in those times. The Creeds contained a concise summary of Christian doctrine, ex- pressing the general ijrinciplcs rather than the 'particular dogmas of the Faith, and Avere enlarged, from time to time, in opposition to the various heresies which arose in the Church. Indeed, almost the only " Creed of the first three Centuries" is the Apostles' Creed; and we there find an explicit profession of faith in "the Holy Catholic Church", equally clear and definite with that of faith in the Holy Ghost, with which it is immediately connected, as the visible organ of the invisible agency of the Spirit of God. This general profession, then, includes all particular articles of faith proposed by the authority of the Holy Catholic Church, and therefore the Apostles' Oeed virtually asserts the same principle with that now held by the Iloman Catholic Church. But where will you find any of the ancient Creeds, not only in the three first Centuries, but in the whole range of Christian an- tiquity, which contains any of the peculiar doctrines or principles held by the Protestant Churcli of England at the present day ? Still further, where will you find any of these Creeds, which contains all the doctrines which are held in common by Catholics and by Protestants ? The Apostles' Creed contains no allusion whatever to the existence of the Holy Scriptures, or to the doctrines of the Holy Trinity— the Divinity of Christ—the Divinity of the Holy Ghost ; or to the doctrines of Original Sin- Divine Grace — Justification— llcgen(M-ation, or to any of the Sacraments of the Gospel. If, then, the mere circum- ( INVOCATION OP THE BLESSED VIRGIN. 39 ( stance of the omission of these doctrines in the Creed is not sufficient to overthrow their truth, surely it must be allowed, that the same omission forms no valid objec- tion to other doctrines, which have been always held in the Catholic Church, though not explicitly enumerated in the Apostles' Creed. With respect to the peculiar veneration and devotion paid by Catholics to the Blessed Virgin, a few remarks will be sufficient, thougli I have already alluded to the subject of the Immaculate Conception, in a former part of this Letter. You profess to regard this practice, and the whole system of '^ modern Romanism" involved in it, as 'thoroughly uncatholic and unscriptural". Your only objection is the silence of the Epistles of the New Testament on this point. But this silence really proves nothing, whether we regard the New Testament as an historical record, or as a divine revelation. No one, surely, will assert that the New Testament professes to give a complete account of all the details of Christian worship, or to exhibit a systematic view of Christian doctrine and practice. Every existing denomination of Protestants, who hold that the Bible is the only rule of faith, must admit that they have some difficulty to get over, in order to reconcile every part of their own system with the statements of the Bible, and they have each some conjectural theory, by which they endeavor to accou..t for the omissions, apparent inconsistencies, and otherpeculiarities in the structureand contentsof the New Testament. These are, indeed, insurmountable objej- tions to the Protestant principles ; but tliey are no ob- jections at all to the Catholic principles, according to which the Bible is regarded as only one part of divine revelation, and to be interpreted by the authority of the 40 ANALOGY OP FAITH. Church. If, then, it can be clearly shown, what religious system the Bible does positively teach, it may then be admitted that there is some real force in the argument drawn from the silence of Scripture. We fully admit, indeed, that the Bible does not contain a systematic Exposition of Catholic Doctrine, and we maintain tliat it was never intended for such a purpose, as it consists, chiefly, of various occasional pieces, written for the direction of Christians who were already instructed in the truthiS of the Gospel, to which tliere are frequent incidental allusions, though very few of a formal or dog- matical character, as the sacred Avriters invariably sup- pose their readers to be well acquainted with these sub- jects from other sources of information. In fact, the evidence on this point is precisely similar to that relating to other important points of Christian practice, as re- ceived by the Church of England. Such, for instance, is the example of Inflint Baptism. Your own remarks on the Veneration of the Blessed Virgin may be fully applied to this subject. There is certainly no direct authority for it in Scripture, and scarcely any historical evidence in its favor during the first four Centuries. It is not till the 5th Century, that we have a full recog- nition of the practice, as well as of the doctrine of Origi- nal Sin, on which it is founded, in the Writings of St. Augustine. The two cases are precisely analogous to each other, and it is certain that the objections of the Baptists against this practice of the Church of England, are quite as strong as the objections of the Protestants against the practice of the Catholic Church. The truth is that these objections are generally connected with unsound views of the doctrine of the Incarnation; and accordingly we find that it was in this connexion that SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE. 41 the third General Council of Ephesus, in 431, pronoun- ced anathema against those who deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, which was the beginning of the heresy of Nestorius-". Altliough, in the scanty remains of the primitive ages, we meet only with such brief notices on this point, as may be considered to form the germ of the Catholic practice ; yet wlien Ave come to the 4th Century, we find in the Works of tlie Fatiier-* (and particularly of St. Ephraim Syrus) the language of direct Invocation of the Mother of God, and confidence in her Intercession, quite as strong as any expressions which occur at this day in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin, or in the " Salve Hegina-', or even in the devo- tions of St. Liguori, to which you particularly refer. It is true that we do not meet with such language in the New Testament, nor do we ever meet with a single in- stance of the direct Invocation of the Holy Si)irit, and scarcely ever, of our Blessed Lord, in the Sacred Volume. The silence of the Scriptures is surely no conclusive argument in the one case, and why should it be in the other? Both practices were but the legitimate develop- ment of the respective offices sustained by the Persons of the adorable IVinity, and by the Virgin Jllother of our Lord Jesus Christ in the economy of redemption, and both of them rest on the same divine authority of the Church, which forms the only true foundation of all the other doctrines and practices of Christianity. I have thus ventured, my Lord, to offer the preceding observations on this portion of your Charge, though I am aware that I have but sliglitly touched on some im- portant topics to which you have adverted, as I have en- tered more fully into these subjects in my former publica- tions. I need scarcely remark, that I have long since at- tentively considered the various objections which you * Catalanl SS. Concil. Gicum Tom. 1. p. 105. 42 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. have stated— indeed, they formed some of the principal reasons which prevented me from joining the Catholic Church, for many years ; but I am well convinced, that, though they may still be regarded as speculative or his- torical difficulties, they are entirely of a nerjative cha- racter, and are entitled to no real weight whatever, in opposition to the positive proofs of the divine origin and infallible authority of tlie Catholic Church, and of the whole system of Christian doctrine founded upon her teaching. Indeed, the same mode of reasoning, derived from the silence or apparent contradictions of primitive testimony, might plausibly be employed against the fun- damental principles of the Church of England, as well as against every particular doctrine of Christianity ; and thus w^e should arrive at the conclusion, that universal Scepticism is but the legitimate result of Trotestantism. This, indeed, is the inevitable consequence of denying the principle, that the Church of God is the only autho- rised keeper and interpreter of her own public docu- ments, consisting of the Holy Scriptures and the Works of the Fathers ; and while each separate communion, or private individual, is supposed to be invested with the right of examining and reversing the decisions of the I'niversal Church, by applying their own views of the evidence of those documents in refutation of her doc- trines, it is utterly impossible to establish the truth of Christianity on a solid foundation, unless we are prepared to maintain tlie proposition, that though God has given us a revelation from heaven, lie has not revealed to us what are the precise doctrines of this revelation, which are therefore to bo discovered by personal investigation. And here, my Lord, I may be allowed to submit to , your consideration the following series of questions, which formed the subject of my own anxious delibera- tions, while I was yet a Minister of the Church of Eng- ( DIFFICULTIES OF PROTESTANTISM. 43 ( land. They were written by me, as they occurred to my own mind, with a view to further inquiry, more than a year ago, and are ntered among my private papers under the title of the '' Difficulties of Protestantism". 1. To vindicate the Reformed Churches from the charge of heresy and schism, in separating from the Church of Rome, 2. To prove that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. 3. To prove, on Protestant principles, the divine In- spiration of the Scriptures, annd of eacli particular book contained in them. 4. To reconcile the certainty of faith with the right of private judgment. 5. To prove that the Church of Rome in the 19th Century, is essentially different, in doctrine, from the Church of Rome in the 1st Century. 6. To reconcile the supposed general corruption of Christianity, during several Centuries, with the promises of Christ's perpetual presence with His Church to the end of the %vorld. 7. To account for the general reception of Roman Catholic doctrines in the ancient Church, on the suppo- sition of their human origin. 8. To decide at what period of history the Church of Rome departed from the Primitive Faith, and intro- duced new doctrines into her system, so as to justify a separation from her Communion. 9. To decide at what period of history the Reformed Church of England is to be considered the true Church of Christ in that country. 10. To reconcile the principle of the obligation of the English Prayer Book in the reign of Elizabeth, with the fact of its rejection by all the representatives of the English Clergy. 44 SERIES OF QUESTIONS. 11. To refute the objection, that the English Reforma- tion was established by the authority of the State, in op- position to that of the Church. 12. To prove that the Royal Supremacy,in the Church of England, is consistent with the divine authority of the Church of Christ. 13. To prove, from Scripture alone, the perpetual obligation of the Christian Sacraments, Ministry, and pub- lic worship. 14. To prove the temporary continuance of various practices recorded in the New Testament, viz., Extreme Unction, Washing one another's feet, miraculous powers, community of goods, prohibition of oaths, prohibition of blood, &c. 15. To prove the Scriptural authority for Episcopacy; Infant Baptism, and the Christian Sabbath. 16. To prove that the Eucharist, as well as Baptism, is not to be administered to Infants. 17. To distinguish between doctrines essential and non-essential to salvation. 18. To refute the objection, that the inevitable ten- dency of the Protestant principles, both in theory and in practice, is to Socinianism and Infidelity. 19. To account for the fact, that the Protestant sys- tem of doctrine is rejected by all other Churches in the world, both in the East and West, in ancient and modern 20. To prove that the Church of England has any religious claims, which do not equally belong to any other Protestant denomination. 21. To reconcile the divided state of the Protestant Churches with the belief in " One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." , On the other hand I drew up a paper, which I need not here insert, containing a similar statement of CONCLUDING REMARKS. 45 ■ tlio " fifficulties of Romanism," for tlio purpose of comparing them together, and weighing tlicm against each other, in the balance of the Sanctuary ; and having solemnly resolved to decide for eternity, according to my sincere convictions, and in view of the judgment seat of Christ, I cannot entertain the slightest doubt that f was acting under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit, in em.- bracing the communion of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Churcli. In conclusion, I am deeply convinced that all the efforta of human reasoning, on the subject of religion, are but pre- paratory to the work of divine grace in the soul. All that we can do is, to assist in removing the intellectual difficulties which obstruct the entrance of truth into the understanding, but it belorgs to God alone to enlighten the mind with the precious gift of faith, and to produce such a degree of supernatural conviction on the heart as may lead to a public profession of the Catholic Faith, and a full appreciation of the inestimable blessings which are to be enjoyed in union with that one mysterious Society, which has ever continued tlie faithful represen- tative of Christ's Holy Catholic Church on earth. I pray that God would grant us, by the light of ilU Holy Spirit, to have a right judgment in all things,— and I remain, my Lord, with much esteem. Yours very faithfully, EDMUND MATURIN. Halifax, Nova Scotia, December 10, 1S59.