•fe^ ^>. o >> -^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) % . :/^=>:^ V^ .V 'V' '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14560 (716) 8'2-*503 ■ B .^ ^\ CIHM/tCMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for H'storica! IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1981 Technical bnd Bibliographic Noves/Notes techniques et bibiiographlques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best ori{:inal copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. r~Jf Coloured covers/ I I Couverture de couleur n □ □ □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou peHicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autro que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ □ Plariches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliuie serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves adc'ed during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutiies lors ri'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas et^ film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meillour exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 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 m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ i'>ages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es ^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es r~T/Pages detached/ I — 1 Pages detach^es r~7i Showthrough/ n Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materic Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary materia!/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dnssous. 10X MX 18X 22X 26X SOX 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possihl? considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. 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 th'H first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The iast recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichevsr applies. L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la gdndrositd de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, oompte tenu de la condition et de ia nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le ces. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par ia premidre page qui comporte unu empreinte d'impression ou d'illustretion et en terminant par la dernidra page qui omporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". 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 follovi/ing diagrams iliusttate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ciichd, il est film6 6 partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 t •H^ 1* V (^''^^^:J^^fc' I THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF THE A LECTURE gelhercd at i1{e gla.'ie of the §c.^*jwu of ih §re^htjtcrjiit( §o1h^c, ^auk^ith On the lt?i Aprff, /S73, By Rev. William AA.aclai\en, III which certain Staieimnts of PtEV. Father Damen, and Eev. Dr. O'Connor, ewe considered. OTTAWA: HENDERSON & CO., I', O K S E L L K I! S , 89 Spakks Stkeet. ---;-^>^ C^g^jS^-^^^ri, -V ^^1^^ E T" THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF FAITH EXAMINED. ♦«••♦ A L E C T U E if tffe^t^^- (Delivered at the Close of the Session of the (Presbyterian College, Montreal, On the Ji.th April, 7872, BY REV. WILLIAM MACLAREN, - >A^ITH AN APPENDIX, hi which ceiiain SUdements of Hev. Father Damen, and Eev. Dr. O Connor, are considered. OTTAWA: HENDERSON & CO., BOOKSELLERS, 89 Sparks Steekt. PREFACE. For the sake of readers at a distance, it may bo proper to make a prefatory statement in reference to the following Lec- ture. During the past season, more than ordinary attention has, in this City, been directed to the Romish controversy. In the' early part of the Winter an eloquent Jesuit Missionary, Bev. Father Damen, visited Ottawa, and assailed Protestantism in a course of Public Lectures, bearing in a very marked degree the characteristics of the Order to which he belongs. These Lectures were immediately published, and have done good service in arousing public attention to the system which they were intended to promote. Able discourses were preached and published by several Protestant Ministers of the City, animadverting upon those assaults on the truth. To one of these Sermons, viz. that preached by Eev. Wm. Stephenson, a length- ened and elaborate " Ecply " from the pen of Itev. John L. O'Connor, D.D., a resident Priest, made its appearance. Shortly after this second champion of Eomanism had entered the lists, the writer was invited to address a Public Meeting, on behalf of the French Canadian Missionary Society. Having taken no previous part in the discussion, he deemed the occa- sion suitable to examine the Eomish Doctrine of the Eule of Faith, which both these defenders of Eomanism had earnestly urged upon public attention. It seemed to him reasonable that Protestants, before they burn the boat in which they have so long sailed, should see that there are no rotten planks in the craft in which they are urged to embark. The address was received with much favour by the large audience who listened to it, and its publication was repeatedly I' IV. nvrM upon tho speaker. With these requests, it was not pos- sible to comply, inasmuch as the address was delivered from imperfect notes and had not been fully reported. The speaker, however, agreed to take the same subject as tl«e theme of a Lecture which he had been invited to deliver at the close of tho Session of the Presbyterian College, Montreal, and to reproduce as far as suitable for that occasion, the gene- ral train of the argument, and then to give it to the public through the Press. Such is the origin of the following Lecture. Its history may account for its assuming a less academic and more popular form than it might otherwise have taken. The writer, how- ever, is not aware that he has, in any instance, sacrificed accu- racy of statement, or correctness of argument to popular efleect. He is satisfied that enough will be found, within the small com- pass of this Lecture, to show how baseless are the pretensions put forth on behalf of Eomanism and its vaunted Eiile of Faith. In the Appendix certain additional points are referred to, which the limits of a single Lecture did not enable him to overtake. Ottaioa, 8th April, 1872. LECTURE ON THE BOMISH DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF FAITH. r^lll'^ll^i is no point on which Ronumists and Protestants (iitlcr more widely than on the Ilulo of Faith. On a V.aji ('' quGf^tion so vital, truth cannot be unimportant, nor error fail to be pernicious. The Scriptures teach, and all Christians hold, that faith is indispensiblo to salvation, "lie that be- lieveth not the Son shall not sec life.'' Romanists assert that without divine faith salvation is impossible, and that divine faith can only be attained where their Rule ol' Faith is embraced. A Jesuit Missionary recently stated, in Ottawa, and Romish divines generally agi-oe with him, that divine faith is, " To believe all that God has taught on the authority of God, and to believe withoutdoubting, with- out hesitating." We do not admit the correctness of this definition. It orrs by defect, and by excess. It includes too little and too much. (1.) It errs hj deject. It leaves out the essential element of personal trust in Christ, by which "we receive and rest upon Ilim alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel." The i'aith which saves is not the mere intellectual reception of certain propositions on any authority whatever. In tliis, there is nothing which devils do not exhibit, when they " believe and tremble." Their creed is most orthodox, and their faith is based on the authority of God. But while they believe th^ hate and disobey. (2.) It errs hy excess. It requires as essential to sal- vation, what many, recognised by Christ Himself as His true disciples, did not possess. He that fails to believe all that God has taught, and to believe without doubt or hesitation, we are assured, perishes everlastingly. No distinction is made between the more and less weighty matters of the law, between more • John iii. 36. t Father Damen's Lectures, page 1. 6 and I088 vital truth. JIo who errs as to the number of shoop which Noali had in tho ark, or the religious Higiiiticanco of kissing tho Pope's groat too, endangers his salvation, as much as if ho rojected tho Trinity, denied the Incarnation and Atone- ment of ('hrist, and hold that murder, lying and adultery aro cardinal virtues. Wo tind Christ repeatedly rcl>ulciiig His disciples for Iheir doubts and unbelief. Did the Apostle Thomas never doubt or hesitate? And what shall we say of errors into which tho whole twelve fell ? Was there not a strife among them " which of them should be accounted the greatest,"* and that too alter Christ h{Rl said "thou art Peter and on this Kock will 1 build my Church." These disciples evidently did not hold the pri- macy of Peter, when they regarded it as an open question which of them should be the greatest. They certainly did not believe, what Romanists i-egard as one of the most impor- tant truths, which Christ has taught. Bid they then believe a// that God has taught, — " without doubting, without hesitating " ? A detinition which errs so much by defect and by excess, and which would exclude from salvation all the Apostles of Christ, cannot bo accepted. Romanists, however, insist, in almost every conceivable form, upon the possession of the faith thus defined, as essential to salvation. It k\ because it is assumed that Protestants cannot attain to this absolute certainty and undoubting faith in all that God has taught, that their Rule of Faith is pronounced worthless, and a better one must bo discovered. And as nothing can be fairer than to try a doctrine by the tests which its chosen champions apply to an opposing system, we purpose in this Lecture, examining, by this touchstone, the pretensions put forth on behalf of the Romish doctrine of he Rule of Faith. The Rule of Faith, according to Romanists, consists of tne Scriptures and Tradition as interpreted by the Church ; or, as Dr. Milner expresses it, " The whole Word of God Written and Unwritten ; in other words. Scripture and Tradition, and these * Luke zxti. 24. propoundod and explained by the Catholic Church."* To tho Old Testament also, Komanistn atld the books, usually known as tho Apocrypha, books which were never admitted by the Jews into their Canon, and which were never recognized by Christ or His Apostles, and have been steadily rejected by the majority of Christians down to the i)renent day. Tradition, it should be added, is now found scattered throui^h :tll the writings of tho Fathers and tho acts and sayings of the Saints and a vast amount of religious literature, to say nothing of what has floated down in oral channels from generation to generation. The Protestant Rule of Faith, in its divine simplicity, stands forth in striking contrast to the cum- brous and inaccessible Rule which Romanists hold.f It con- sists in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. "The Bible and the Bible only is tho religion of Protestants." We regard the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith because they are given by inspiration, and their teachings are characterized by infal- lible truth and divine authority. We hold that the Bible alone is the Rule of Faith, because the world now possesses no other teachings, or writings vhich are infallible and divine. When Christ and His Apostles were on earth, the Church was not dependent on a book lor unerring guidance, but since our Lord's ascension, and the removal by death of the last of His Apostles, we have no other source of infallible wisdom to which we can resort, than the Sacred Volume, where we find the lessons which Christ and His inspired servants deemed necessary for the Church in succeeding ageg. We reject Tradition as an element in ae Rule of Faith, because Christ has discountenanced it,I and because it is always uncertain, and often contradictory, silly and absurd, and, moreover, because we have no means by which we • End of Controv. Page 125. t"The Protestant Rale iB the Scriptnro. To tho Scripture the Roman Catholic adds (1) the Apocrypha; (2) Traditions; (8) Acts and decisions of the Church, ombrftcing eight folio Volumes of the Pope's Bulls; ten folio Volumes of Decretals; thirty-one folio Volumes of Acts of Councils; flfty-one folio Volumes of Acta Sanctorum or the doings and sayings of the Saints; (4) Add to these at least thirty-flve Volumes of tho Greek and Latin Fathers, in which he says is to be found, the unanimotis consent of the Fathers; (6) To ail these one hundred and thirty-flve Volumes folio, add the chaos of vntoitten traditions which have floated to ns down (torn the Apostolic times."— £lUott*s Delia, of Romanism. Pago 18. t Matt. XV. 1-8. 8 can separate the atoms of truth which may float in the stream I'rom the old \rives' fables with which they are hope- lessly intorminglcu. Did Protestants believe that God had constituted the Church a living infallible teacher, they would, at once, submit cheerfully to all its ascertained teachings. Its utterance.', would come to them with all the weight of divine revelations, and would partake of the natureof Holy Scripture. We would regard its voice as do Romanists as " the proximate and sutiicl';nt ground of faith for the people." In stating the Protestant Rule of Faith, Romani.sts inva- riably misrepresent it, and in such a manner, as is peculiarly titted to conceal one of the weak points of their own. They represent the Protestan"" Rule to be the Bible as interpreted by every one's private jiu'gment.* Thoughtless persons, listening tc Ltiis statement, hvq apt to imagine that Church interpretation holds the same relation to the Bible imd Tradition, in the Romish system, that private interpretation sustains to the Bible, in the Protestant system, and conse- quently that Romanists escape from all the errors and uncer- tainties of private interpretation. There could be no greater mistake. Every Church interpretation, in the Romish syytem, is virtually an (ulditiou to Scripture, which, as much requiies to bounderstood and interpreted by each member of the Romish Church, as does the Bible by the Protestant. All Romanists admit that Church interpretation is an element in their Rule of Faith, but no intelligent Protestant imagines that his private judgment as to the sense of Scripture is any par*^ of his Rule of Pdilli. A rule is one thing, and the use made of it is anoihe.'. The Jiible is the Protestant's Rule of Faitli. . 'rivate interpre- tation is the use made of it. A trader may have a measure wlJch i-> perfectly con'oct, but the correctness of the measaring done, depends on the urn, p. 45. Daiuen, p. & 9 I. We may safely lay it down as an axiom that no doctrine or s;y'stem can be stronger than the foundation on which it rests. It is said, that according to Hindoo Cosmogony, the earth rests on an elephant, the elephant on a tortoise, and the tor- toise on a cloud. The arrangement is, at first, no doubt, vor}'- promising, but it scarcely bears examination. It might be supposed, however, that Eomish divines, in constructing their doctrine of the Rule of Faith, had taken lessons from a Hindoo pundit. Private judgment, we are assured, is shifting and un- certain as a cloud-bank. Nothing which rests upon it is secure. Their grand objection to the Protescant Rule of Faith is that it makes each man's belief rest, ultimately, on his own private judgment as to what is Scripture, and what Scripture means. No man wlio depends on his priv^ate judgment, can, we are told, ever feel assured that he believes all that God has taught upon the authority of God, and he can never believe without doubt- ing or hesitating. Our Romish brethren evidently dream that they can escape from all the perplexities and uncertainties of private judgment, by introducing the authority of a living in- fallible Church, just as the Hindoo supports his earth by his elephant, and his elephant by his tortoise. But the question arises, how can I know that there is a living infallible Church, or, knowing that there is one, how can I discover which it is ? It is evident that unless each Christian has a private revelation from heaven, he must ascertain the Church by the exercise of his natural powers, his private judg- ment. And if private judgment is uncertain and shifting as a ciouc', the whole fabric of the Romanist's faith rests on a cloud- bank. Nothing can be more secure than the foundation on which it rests. It will not do to appeal to the Scriptures to ascertain the Church, and then to the Church to ascertain the Scriptures. This may l>e Romish logic, but it is not common sense. For if the Scriptures are not known to be infallil)le, their test.mony to the Church cannot bo decisive. And if the Church is not known to be infallible, its testimony to the Scriptures is not B 10 decisive. The very thing which requires to be proved must be assumed. The logic resolves itself into a vicious circle. It is no doubt, the most convenient thing in the world to make an infulliblo Bible prove an infallible Church, and then to muko an infallible Church repay the compliment by proving an infallible Bible. The misfortune is, the method is so con- venient, that anything under the sun can be proved by it. Had this admirable logic been recognised in a recent famous lawsuit, how delightfully and quickly might the whole case have ended. Mr, Francis Baigent would have sworn that the plaintiff was, to his certain knowledge, the genuine Sir Eoger Tich borne, and the genuine Sir Eoger Tich borne would have sworn that Mr. Francis Baigent was known to him as a witness in whom the Court might place implicit confidence. And so to the entire satisfaction of the mutually complimentary witnesses, the whole case would have terminated, and a gentleman accom- modated at public expense in Newgate, would now be rejoicing in the possession of one of the old baronial Halls of England. Dr. Challoner, a leading champion of Romanism, in his v.'ork on " The unerring authority of che Catholic Cnurch,"^ seeks to escape from the charge of reasoning in a vicious circle. " When," says he, " we argue with Protestants that we could not know what is Scripture and what is not, without the authorify of the Church ; we do not mean b}'' the authority of the Church, her infallihility (at least not as proved from Scripture) but we mean the authority which she has, as an over illustrious Society recommended by antiquity, celebrity, sanctity, miritcles, &c., which autltwity though it be not the proper motive of divine faith (which must be immediately groundeil on divine revelation alone) yet it is a necessary con- dition and introtluctory to divine faith." On this change of basis, we remark, i. That by similar evidence the Mahometan claims to establish the Koran as a Rule of Faith. Its divinity is certified by the authority of an illustrious Society which has existed over since the days of the prophet of Mecca, a Society which is • Page 119. 11 m ms to rtified ixisted lich is said to be recommended by antiquity, celebrity, sanctity, miracles, &c. ?4. It is therefore evident, that before any one can reason- ably accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, on the authority of the Church of Eome, he must enter into lengthened histori- cal investigations to ascertain what measure of weight is due to the claims of antiquity, celebrity, sanctity and miracles, put forth on its behalf. Tiiis investigation becomes much more complicated and difticult from the fact that ])recisely similar claims are put forth on behalf of the Greek, Nestorian, Arme- vvan, Syrian, Coptic and Abyssinian Churches, each of which declares itself to be the true Church of God, which holds the Apostolic faith and practice. It should also be noted, that while all these Churches call in question the claims of the Church of Eome, they unite with her in handing down all the books which are found in the Protestant Canon of Scripture, while they unite in rejecting the Apocryphal books which the Council of Trent foisted into the Eomish Canon of Scripture. But leaving out of view, for the moment, the claims of these Churches to be what Dr. Challoner would have us believe the Eomish Church alone is, let us consider what an unlearned man must accomplish before he can rationally accept the Scriptures on the testimony of the illustrious Society called the Church of Eome. He must examine and weigh all its recommendations. He must not only ascor<^ain the antiquity of the Society, but he must make sure that it has not degenerated and changed its character, and how he can do this without comparing it with the original records of Christianity, the Holy Scriptures, it is not easy to perceive. He must enquire whether the celebrity of a Society which contains only a minority of professing Christians is such as to override and set aside the voice of the majority of Christians who reject the Apocrypha. He must weigh carefully' the quality of the sanctity exhib- ited in the actual history of the Society, and see that it meets the demands of a correct moral standard. Ho must ascertain the measure of confidence which ohould be inspired by the sanctity of an illustrious Society, which furnishes such an un- [Iff 12 due proportion of the population of our gaols and penitentia- ries, and finds its fitting embodiment in the lives of such mon- sters as Popes John XXIII and Alexander VI, and in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the obscene questionings of the Confessional and the fiendish deeds of the Inquisition. Probably most impartial thinkers will consider that the least said about the mrracles of Ilomanism, the better for the authority of the illustrious Society which pretends to work them. This, however, will not excuse the enquirer for neglect- ing to weigh, in the scales of historical truth, with all due sobriety, the wonders wrought by holy coats, and winking Madonnas, and the marvellous achievements of the relics of the Apostles and Saints. This may lead an unlearned man int(» a very extensive field of enquiry, as those departed worthies are believed to have manifested, since their death, a remarkable talent for multiplying themselves. The full miraculous energy of the Saint dwells, in all its plenitude, in each of his bones, and the number of bones is by no means limited by the artificial rules of modern anatomy. Indeed it is well known that many of the Saints, and most of the Apostles, have each two or three bodies, equally potent, not to mention the supernumerary skin of St, Bartholomew, preserved at Pisa.* It maj' be doubted, if any man who goes fully and impar- tially through this investigation will come out of it with much respect for the authority of the Church of Home, But whether he comes out of it with much respect, or little, the result at which ho arrives is the product oj his private judgment. Dr. Challoner, therefore, escapes from the charge of reason- ing in a circle, only by making the authority of the Church and of the Scriptures depend on private judgment. The Scrip- tures depend on the authority of the Church, and the authority of the Church depends on an investigation of her recommenda- tions, made by each man's private judgment. The earth rests on the elephant, and the elephant, without even an intervening tortoise, rests on the cloud ! Wherein then does Dr. Challoner differ from the Protestant? \ He differs in two points : (1) The case which he appeals to private judgment, for final decision, is> • Vide Calvin on Relics. 13 fifty-fold more difficult than that which the Protestant subniits. For, while there are at least seven ancient rival Churches which assail, and seek to overthrow each other's claims to be regarded as the true primitive Church, all these rival Churches, with one consent, bear witness to those books which constitute the Pro- testant Canon of Scripture. (2) He ditfers also from Protest- ants, in a second point no less important. He rests the entire fabric of his faith, ultimately, on the historical evidences of the antiquity, celebrity, sanctity and miracles of the Romish Church, while no intelligent Protestant rests his faith in Scripture merely on historical evidences. He takes into account those in- ternal evidences which spring from the characters of divinity which are everywhere stamped on the sacred page. But the believer reaches the full persuasion and assurance of the infal- lible truth and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, in a way that Romanist utterly refuses to recognize, '' from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."^ As we cannot base the authority of Scripture on the authority of the Church, without either reasoning in a circle, or appealing to private judgment, and that too in a question more difficult and complicated than the divinity of the Bible, what must a man do before he can reasonably accept any Church as a living infallible teacher ? We reply, he must ascertain, 1. That the Scriptures are a divine revelation. This is the first step towards the discovery of the true Church. 2. That Christ has established a Church on earth. The mere existence of Societies, called Churches, does not prove whether they are divine, human, or Satanic in their origin. On these two jioints all Christians are at one. But the seeker for a livinjjf infallible Church soon finds himself in "tn debateable ground. He must ascertain, 3. What is the nature of the Church. Is the sense in which the word Church is employed in Scripture one, or manifold i Roinanists usually take for granted • WestmlnBter Conf. Faith, ch. 1. 6. Vide also 1 John, li, 20, 27 ; 1 Oor. li. 10-12. 14 *% that the Church moans what the necessities of their argument demands, and, when they define the term, their definition is not drawn from the use of the word in Scripture, but from what the Church of Kome now is. Belhirmine defines it thus : " The Church is a Society of men on earth, united together by the profession of one and the self-same Christian faith, and the communion of the same sacraments under the government of hiwf id Pastors, and especially of the Roman Pontiff."* This definition suits exactly the Church of Kome, but it never could have been drawn, by any legitimate process, from Scri])ture. It is evidently most essential that the enquirer should know whether this is the true idea of the Church, as brought before him in the Scriptures. Is it a visible Society, made up indiscriminately of good and bad men, who make a certain profession of faith, enjoy certain sacraments, and live under a defined government, or is it the true body of Christ, composed of the saints, and faithfnl in Christ Jesus, of all who have been, of all who are and of all who shall be gathered into one in Christ ? Which of these definitions describes the Church to which Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ? This is a vital question, ibr, if we apply to a cor- rupt visible organization, like the Church of Laodicea, the pro- mises made to the mystical body of Christ, we shall find ourselves holding that an Apostate Society, which our Lord has spued out of His mouth, is the true spouse of Jesus Christ. This careful discrimination is all the more necessary, be- cause the Apostle Paul has foretold distinctly a great apostasy in the visible Church, whose leaven was working even in his days, and he has given us the marks by which we may rec:)g- nize it. And the Apostle John has indicated that this apostasy 8hr/il be as like the true Church as a harlot is to an honest womaiLf But let that be granted, which certainly can iiever be proved, viz: that the Eomish idea of the Church is the Scrip- tural one, the next step which must be taken is to discover, •DeEccl Ltb. lil. c. 11. 1 2 Thess. li. 3-11 ; 1 Tim. Iv. 1-3 ; Eev. xil. 1-C and Eev. xvil. 1-6. 15 4. Which of all existing Churches is the true Church? EomanistB discussing the Eiile of Faith, dwell with pecu- liar unction on the number of Protestant Churches, but they always forget to mention the Greek, Nestorian, Syrian, and other Oriental Churches, They are silent on the fact that tlie Syrians claim Peter ao the Bishop of Antioch and whatever dignity and authority that may l)ring them.^ They are con- veniently oblivious also of the antiquity of the Waldensian Church, which claims to have preserved in its Alpine Valleys, the purity of God's Truth from the earliest Christian ages. The Churches fall into three great divisions, (1) the Romish Church with 170,000,000 of adherents ; (2) the Protestant Churches with about 115,000,000, and (3) the Oriental Churches with 85,000,000. Stanley estimates the Oriental Churches at 100,000,000,t but we prefer the lower figure. According to this estimate, there are 30,000,000 more professing Chris- tians, living outside of the Church of Pome, than are to be found within its pale. It is true that we cannot ascer- tain truth by a popular vote, but certainly it is not reasonable to take for granted that the minority is right, and that the majority has erred utterly from the way of life. The claims then of all these Churches require to be examined separately by the man who will not venture to go to God in ','hrist, save as a Church takes him by the hand and leads hini. lie who does this thoroughly will find it no small undertaking. If he enters upon the examination with the conviction that the Church of Rome is infallibly right, and all the rest infallibly wn-ong, he can make short work of it; for if facts do not square with his theory, so much the worse for facts. Others will not find the question so easily settled. But we shall suppose that guided by the light of our private judgment w^o have, in the study of God's Word, discov- ered that the Church of Rome is the true Church. Have we assured ourselves of a living infallible teacher to guide us into the certain knowledge of the truth? By no means. We are still far from this land of promise. Htiiiiley Kastcni Ch., p. 94, + Eastern Ch., page 89. 16 5. We must ascertain whether Christ has made His Church a living infallible teacher. This the Romanist affirms, and the Protestant and the majority of Christians deny. The Romanist points to the declaration "On this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Protestant replies that this language no more proves that the Church shall be preserved entirely from error, than kept completely from sin. They maintain that all that the language teaches is that Christ shall always have on earth a faithful people, who shall not fall into fatal error, or habitual sin. They point to even stronger language used in reference to every believer. They cite the words which John addressed to each imlividual Christian, " But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." " But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man ♦each you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."* And the Protestant maintains that the one passage no more proves the infallibility of the Church, than the other establishes the infallibility of private judgment. Let us, however, suppose this point settled in a sense satis- factory to the Romanist. We have not yet done all that ])rivate interpretation must accomplish, before we can enjoy the guidance of a living infallible teacher. 6. We must discover ivhere this Infallibilitj^ resides, or ascertain the organ through which it speaks for the instruction of mankind. We cannot assemble the whole 170,000,000 of the Romish Church and decide what is truth by a majority vote. We cannot go to individual priests or bishops, for they are liable to error. Where then shall we find Infallibility? On this vital question all manner of views are advocated among Romanists. Almost every conceivable shade of opinion has been maintained by Romish divines of the highest authority. Bossuet and Bellarraine, Dollinger and Manning are here wide * 1 John, ii, 20, 2T. 17 Is Church I and the ts to the , and the 'rotostant 3 Church tmpletely ;eaches is )ple, who point to believer, ndividuiil One, and ye have any man ou of all th taught naintains y of the f private snse satis- all that an enjoy jsides, or struction Eomish .te. We ire liable On this 1 among ■nion has uthority. lere wide as the poles asunder. Gallicans and UUramontanes have for ages taken antagonistic )ositions on this question. 8oine divines maintain that Infallibility resides in the Pope )>erson- ally, others that it dwells in a Clencral Council, others still that a Po]XJ and General Council combined are the genuine mirror of Infallibilit}^, while others say that it dwells in the Church, witliout attempting to define very clearly how its guidance niiiy Ijc secured. It needs no demonstration to prove that infallibility in the Church can be no practical 'guitle to u. , until we know lohevi to lind it, and until we discover hoio to rerotjuize its voice. Let us imagine a case strictly parallel. It has been announced, wc shall suppose, on good authority, that Canada, is blessed with a living infallil/lo guide in all matters political, but his exact whereabu.its remains uncertain. There is an oracle by which all the abstruse questions which perplex .statesmen can be cleared uj) ; but one says that it is found in the Governor General personally, another in the Governor in Council, and others in the houses of Parliament. There are those again who maintain that the real rulers of the nation are the leaders of political parties. One of this class swears by the Knight of Kingston, a second by the Great Toronto Oracle; and a third, more maritime in his proclivities, declares that the Member for Hants is the man, It needs no argument to show that it may make all the difference in the world to which of these fountains of political wisdom we applj^ for guidance. The Jesuit missionary who recently- visited Ottawa, was at pains to impress on the minds of his Protestant hearers, what we all fxjlieve, that sincerity will not save us. And he had a pleasant illustration to enforce it. "Let us suppose," says the disciple of Loyola, "a man in Ottawa, who wants to goto Chicago, but takes the car for New York. The conductor asks for his ticket, and at once says, * You are in the wrong car your ticket is for Chicago, but you are going to New York.' * Well, what of that,' says the passenger, ' I mean well.' '■ Your meaning will not go well with you in the end,' says the conduc- tor, ' for you will come out at New York instead of Chicago.' " * * Damea, p. 21, 18 The illustration is excellent, and wo thank the Jesuit for it. It admits, however, of improvement. Wo shall suppose that His Holiness, in order to escape the pressing attentions of liis alt'ectionatu Italian sul)jects, finds it necessary, once more, to leave liomo. And turning Ins back on the Tiber, and his face towards the setting sun, ho determines to make iiis home in America, and rear for himself a new Vatican in the commer- cial mctro])()lis of tho (ireat West. In ti)C lapse of time it becomes necessary to convoke another Council, and New York is selected as the place of meeting. At this juncture there resides in Ottawa a devout Roman Catholic who has long been anxious to tlnd a sure solution for religious difliculties, lie has been studying Bossuet and Eellarmine until his mind has become unsettled, and ho knows not wliero to go for sure guidance. At one time he is ready to ap])ly to the Council, arid the next day he thinks he should go to the Pope. But being a Frenchman, he inclines to the views of his country- man, and hopes t lat in the multitude of counsellors there will be safety, so he tahes the cars for New York! Will it come out well with him in the end ? In this })arablc the Romish Church may read no small part of its own history. ;:\V]ion the General Council of Con- stance, in 1414, not only asserted in words its superiority to the Roman Pontilf, but deposed two infallible Popes, compelled a third to resign and elected another to the vacant chair of St. Peter, was not this the whole lioynan Catholic Church talciug the cars for New York? In 1G82, a reiiresentative assembly of the French clergy, convoked by Louis XIY, not oniy rejected the Infallibility of the Pope, but declared a General Council superior to him. Was not this the whole French Church tak'uKj the cars for New York 1 And no longer since than 1870, devout Roman Catholics wore quite uncertain where to look for Infallibility. W^hen the test vote was taken in tho Council of Rome on the dogma of Infallibilit}', 88 bishops voted non placet, or nay ; 62 bishops voted jdacei juxta onodum, or yea, according to (he manner in which you understand it; while upwards of 70 bishops, who were in Rome at the time^ shirked the vote altogether.* In a council of less than 600 * Letters of Quirlnus, page 79T. 19 3suit for SU1)]K)S0 itioiis of more, and his hornoin ojnmer- timo it i\v York ■e tlicro ng been }s. He lincl has or sure '^111 I If I I But ounci 9. jountr}'- lere will it como 10 small of Con- or! ty to mpclled (;hair of h taking ssembly ot only General French er since n where 1 in the bisiiops modum, tand it; he time han 600 bishops, there are 158 who cannot bring themselves to recog- nize the Pope as personally infallible, while there are ('>2 wIk) can only give a modilied approbation to the dogma ; and after all the etlorts of the Pope and his party in i{r)me to break down oj)))osilion, there are 88 who boldly vote a direct nega- tive to the dogma. Indeed down to the late Council, which decided in favor of the personal infallibility of the Pope, it has been quite cus- tomary i'ov JJomish Controvei-sialists, in Pi-otcstant countries, to deny that the Pope's Infallibility was a doctrine of their Church. The writers who opposed Mcdavin 54 years ago did so.=f« Dr. Challonei- speaks of the Iniallibilitj^ of the Pope as noarticleof iaith.f The Controversial Catechism of Raw Stei)hen Keenan, is a work in high rej)ute amoi g English speaking llomanists. It has been recommended to the faithful by two Pomish digni- taries in Scotland, by the late Archbishop Hughes, of New York, and by the Tablet, the organ of Archbishop Planning. In ii copy novv in my possession, printed in Edinbiu-gh in 1851, the following question and answer occur, which have, we und-^r- stand, been omitted in those jirinted since 1870 : " Q. Must not Catholics believe the Poiie in himself to be iniallible? '' A. This is a Protestant invention. It is no article of the Catholic Faith ; no decision ol his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the J3ishops of the Church." Now as it would be uncharitable to suppose that these wri- ters wished to deceive Protestants, two conclusions are forced upon us, (1) that these authors and all who endorsed and circu- lated their writings did not know ivhere Infallibility was to be found, and (2) that the Church of Eome has so changed, that what was a rrote^tant invention in 1851, became a Catholic vrity in 1870. It is then quite evident that down to the time of the Coun- cil in Home, in 1870, Eomanists did not know where to look for a living infallible teacher, and if such a teacher is absolutely necessary, our Eoman Catholic brethren must have been for 'III... ~— — — —^ t * ProtestnnL Vol. I. p. ?4. t Unerring Auth., page 25C. '20 ,'f 1800 yenrs in a deplorable condition. Wo eannot say (liat wo are suri)ri.solant its tortoise on such an airy cloud as that on which the whole fabric of Roman- ism rests ? II. We must now take another step in our argument. Wo shall suppose, what only a man prepared to shut his eyes to contradictions, can maintain, viz. : that the Pope is Ini'allible, when ho speaks ex Cathedra, and that there is a criterion by which, ex Cathedra decisions can be surely recognized. From this living Infallible teacher, we learn, what books constitute the Bible, and the sense whi(di we are to attach to its words. Have we now escaped from the uncertainties of private inter- pretation? This is su})posed to bo one of the peculiar excellen- cies of the Eomish Rule of Faith ? How does tho case really stand ? 23 ) by his ibly, ex ndering, investi- gs upon the pro- e uncer- nfalliblc at Scrip- •riptures I Church ci'ipture, .1 lurches and what tterancG ; ■e Infalli- .>st do, by bio guide judgment t endless fa living I to judg- i such a )rtotse on f Roniun- ciit. We s eyes to nfallible, tcrion by I. From onstitute ts words, ate inter- excellen- ase really If God hns constituted the Pope a living Infallible teacher, his decisions, as we have seen, partake of the nature of Scrij> tu]'e. They are, for all practical purposes, additions to the Holy Scriptures, They are characterized by the same Infalli- ble truth and divine auth.ority. The fact that they are suppo- sed *o be interpretaiions of Scripture and tradition, does not change their essential natui-e. Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is no less Scripture, because it contains interpre- tations of statements made in the First ijpistle. And certainly it is no less in need of intei'pi-etaiion, than other portions of the Sacred Volume. If then, Church interpretations arc piossessed of the same characteristics as Scripture, they require, like Scripture, to be interpreted, and the only intei'prcter that can come after the Church, is private Judgment. Wherein then, have we escaped from the uncertainties of private judgment? If God lias inspired or guided Popes to write Infallible Bulls, or Letters, He has not inspired us to un- derstand them. And in Papal writings, as in Paul's I>j)istlcs, there are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable may ])ossibly wrest to their own destruction. x\.nd if an unlearned man cannot understand the Scriptures, written in the simple language of every -day life, how shall he comprehend the writings of thePoi)es, couched iu the hiird and technical language of the Schools? We nre told that mankind generally, are utterly unable to understand the writings of some thirty men, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and it is gravely proposed, by way of mending nuitters, to give them, to say nothing of the Decretals -md Acts of Councils sanctioned by JJoniish Pontitfs, the dogmatic writiiigs of 250 Popes, be the same more or less, which they must interpret without mistake, and believe without reserve. And, although the writings of the 250 infallibilities afoi'es'id, havr never been fully collected and publislied, nor seen by one in ton tliousand of the faithful, they have the pleasing assurance addctl, tliat if they do not believe all tliat these Popes have taught, and " believe without doubting and hesitating," they shall be undone ibr over. So far then, is the Eomish Bale of Paith, from deliverin '10f* 24 us from the uncortainties of private judgment, in the matter of interpretation, that it a(/(/ravates the evil and extends its area. Even when one Pope explains the writings, or decisions of another, and his own are in turn explainoa by some later Pon- tiff, who is to explain the decision of the last? Must not the private Christian interpret for himself? It is only a new version of the old story : the earth resting on the elephant, ai.^ the elephant on the tortoise, but all at last must rest on the cloud of private interpretation. It is true that the tendency of Eomanism is to discourage thought among its votaries, and lead them to render a blind subiiiission, to a Priesthood acknowledged to be fallible. But such blind submission, to, he knows not what, is not faith. A man may shut his eyes, and cease to think, he may make his mind a vacuum, and call it faith, but it is not faitii, it is sheer emptiness. Faith implies a grasp of the object of faith. And the moment a Romanist attemjits to attach any meaning to the words or teachings of his Rule of Faith, that instant he begins CO exercise his private judgment, as much as does the Protest- ant, when he reads his Bible, to learn from it the mind of God. When the believer in Papal Infallibility, seeks to ascertain whether his Church has sanctioned the views of Manning, or i)ol linger, or the doctrines of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, he is betaking himsrl-'^o private interpretation, no less than the Protestant, who searches the Scriptures «^o sec whether they teach Calvinism, or Armenianism, and, we may add, that he is quite as Mablo to error. III. We are now prepared to take another step in advance. We can now show, that, as might be expected, all the leading objections urged by Romanists against Ihe Protestant view of the Rule of Faith, hokl with increased force against their own. We can only touch on the more prominent. 1. It is objected that it was a long time before the Protest- ant Rule of Faith was in existence, and therefore it cannot be our guide. Many -nges had passed away before any part of the Old Testament vras written. The New Testament was not com- ■;l 25 matter of i its area. icisions of uter Pon- t not the :h resting lut all at iscourage • a blind ble. But faith. A make his t is sheer th. And ing to the he begins B Protest- id of God. ascertain lining, or minicans, loss than ther they that he is 1 advance. le leading t view of heir own. e Protest- jannot be f the Old not com- monced for several years after Christ's ascension, and John A aT "".7 "'I '' '"' '^"'^'-'^'^ y'^'-' ^''^^' tl-^t event. And they tell us, farther, that the Canon of the Ne^y Testament was so unsettled until the fourth century, that Christians did not know what books to acknowledge as divine. ^ We reply, (1) That no Protestant ever asserted that the >\ hat they maintam is, that these Scriptures, being Infallible and divine, are a rule now. (2) The Eomish Eule of Faith nad no existence during any portion of the old dispensation Xo one can pretend that there was a living infallible teacher in the world, from Adam until Christ. And if this is essential to salvation, now, why should it not be then ? (8) Thai . the statements which Romanists make, in reference to the uncer- tainty of the ^ew Testament Canon, until the fourth century were true, which they are not,H^ it would be quite enough to reply that there was no living Infallible Pope recognized in the Church until more than six hundred years after Christ. W hen the Council of Constantinople, in A.B. 680, anathematised Pope Honorius as a heretic, they certainly had not discovered that the Pope is a living Infallible teacher. Indeed we have seen that high Romish authorities have, in our day, branded it a. '' a Protestant invention." It is not yet two years, since the Council of Rome decided where this living Infallible teacher whose voice is the most important element in the Eomish Rule of I^aith, IS to be found. And men have gone to heaven the SIX thousand years they did not possess the Romish Rule of ^ aith apparently just as well, as they have during the two years tiiat It has been knoAvn to mankind. ^ 2. It is objected that the Protestant Rule does not secure unity in faith among Protestants. We reply (1) That in essentials there is unity of faith among ' all true Christians. They all trust in Christ for salvation, and seek to serve Him according to the light they enjoy, and none of them consciously rejects any truth which Christ has revealed (2) That the differences among Protestants, are not greater than those which obta in between Jansenists and Jesuits, Domin- * Fidfl Appendix A. ~ 20 i ii icans and Franciscans, Gallicans and Ultramontanes, who are all t'oiind nestling together in the bosom of the Church of Rome. (3) That if the difi'erences were as great as they are repre- sented, the Protestant Hule of Faith is not to blame, but those who do not follow it. Romanists cannot pretend that their Rule of Faith prevents all who acknowledge it from going astray. Have not some of them been excommunicated for their heresies? Have not others of them bo erred that Vt^hen they died, they wont to Purgatory ? And have not others erred still more, and, dying in mortal sin, gone where neither priestly masses, nor well-filled purses can bring them help? It is evi- dent that no Rule of Faith, Protestant or Romish, can save from error those who acknowledge it. The rale may be right, and the use made of it wrong. 3. It is objected, that before the invention of the art of printing, the Bible was so expensive, that it could not have been designed for a Rule of Faith. One Romish divine esti- mates the price in these olden times as equal to $3,650.00, and another, more iiodest, puts down the figure at $500.* Wo reply, (1) That no Protestant has ever dreamed that in order to salvaaon, a man musc own a Bible. When any one asks " What must I do to bo saved ? " the Protestant answer always has been, not, " buy a Bible," but, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." He may learn what he is to believe, in order to salvation, either by going directly to the Holy Scriptures, or from the teachings of others, whose knowledge came originally from that fountain. To constitute the Scriptures a Rule of Faith, it is not necessary that every man should possess a copy of them, though, for many reasons, it is very desirable that they should be in the hands f all. It is enough that they are the ultimate standard of appeal. It is not necessary that every man should possess a copy of the Statutes of Canada, or, even that ho should be able to purchase them, in order that they may be to him a rule of life, in his civil relations. We reply, (2) That it was always easier, and loss costly, to get access to a Bible, than to go to Rome and consult the * Damen'B Lectures, page 8, and Rev. Dr. O'Connor's Reply, page 9. '*( kvho are f Rome, e reprc- it those it their n going :'or their en they •red still priestly it is evi- ;iin save )e right, art of lot have ino esti- ».00, and icd that any one answer the Lord what he ectly to s, whose institute at every reasons, fall. It il. It is Y of the purchase e, in his s costly, isult the 27 Pope. No poor man can leave his family, and go on an expen- sive pilgrimage to the Eternal City. Yet there," if tlie ilomish doctrine is correct, he must go, ])rovided he desires to believe all that God has taught, "without doubting, without hesita- ting." He must learn directly, from the lips of the livino- Infallible teacher. For, if he goes to a priest, he knows the priest may err. Martin Luther was a priest. If he applies even to a bishop, he knows the bishop may err. Did not eighty-eight bishops vote against the Pope's Infallibility ? To the Pope himself he must go, otherwise doubt is inevitable in every reflecting mind. Now let us suppose the Pope to devote twelve hours daily to teach the faithful, how long would it take him to give even fifteen minutes instruction to each of the 170,000,000 who o\vn him as their spiritual guide? It would require not less than 9,300 years. As it is therefore, manifestly impossible, for each of the faithful, even once in his lifetime, to consult the Eishoi) of Rome, it is absolutely essential for every man, who desires to believe all that God has taught, without doubting, to possess, not a Bible, but a living Pope for his private use. 4. It IS objected, ihaiunlenmed men cannot know whether the Protestant Bible is translated correctly into their own lan- guage. They can never believe, with a divine fbith, a mattei- so uncertair. Unfortunately, this olvjection, if it is worth any- thing, proves too much for the Romanist. The Pope usually writes in Latin. And if the Pope is Infallible, he has not yet declared himself omniscient. He cannot translate his Bulls and ex Cathedra decisions, into all languagos, for he does not know them. And it is exceedingly difficult to believe, " with- out doubting or hesitating," that his Infallibility can enable him to certify the correctness of translations into languages which he does not understand. The Romanist's liability "to uncer- tainty and error from translations, is just as much greater than that to which the Protestant is exposed, as the Acts of Conn- cils and the decrees and writings of 250 Popes are more bulky than the Bible. But what assurance have Romanists, that even their Scrji)- tures are translated correctly ? They were translated, not by i! 28 Popes, but by men acknowledged to be just as liable as others to make mistakes. It is true that Sixtus V. tried his hand at the work, but his success vas not such as to inspire much con- fidence, oven in Popes, as translators. The edition which he sent forth, corrected by his own hand, and supported by a Bull denouncing an anathema against any one who should dare to change it, even in the smallest particular, was found so full of mistakes and errors, that it had to be re-called, and a new edition, revised and corrected by Bellarmine and others, sent forth in its place. This revised edition has been found by actual comparison, made by Dr. James, to differ in more than 2,000 places, from that of the Infallible Sixtus V. Now when a fallible Cardinal undertakes to correct the work of an infallible Pontiff, can the ignorant and unlearned believe, with a divine faith, that the Cardinal is right and the Pontiff wrong ? It is true the work of Bellarmine was Banctioned by Clement VIII., but this does not remove the difficulty. It is usually supposed that when doctors differ, laymen may doubt, but when the doctors are infallible, doubt is damnable. There is nothing for it, but for all the fnithful to believe that Sixtus and Clement were both infallibly right. Let not heretics grin I All that is demanded of the faithful is, that they should believe, with " a divine faith, without doubting, without hesitating," two tJioiisand contradictions 1 ! We must now close our examination of the Eomish doc- trine of the Eule of Faith. VV^e have weighed it in the balances and it is found wanting. Its boasted certainty depends on a vicious circle, cr rests on the repudiated authority of private judgment. On this basis reposes the whole fabric of Romanism. Were this a merely speculative question, we might laugh, as indeed we are often forced to do, at the folly which builds such a superstructure on such a foundation. But the recognition of the Eomish doctrine of the Rule of Faith, and the Papal Infal- libility as an essential element of it, carries with it consequen- ces which should fill our hearts with sadness. It puts it into the power of a man, as erring as we are, to IS others hand at uch con- hi he sent Y a Bull dare to JO full of d a new lers, sent found by loro than ow when infallible a divine rl It is snt VIII., supposed Arhen the )thing for Clement 111 that is , with " a ) tlwusatid naish doc- 3 balances mds on a )f private m. Were as indeed Is such a gnition of ipal Infal- sonsoquen- 29 take the place of God, on earth. It clothes him with authority to take from us, or close that book which God has given as a lamp to our feet and a light unto our path. It sends the sinner to the Church, instead of the Saviour, who cries, "Come unto Me all ye who labor and are heavy hidon, and I will give you rest." It stereotypes and binds on the consciences of men the entire system of error and superstition which Popes have sane- tioned. Progress, save from ba! to worse, becomes impossible. Civil and religious liberty disappear in its presence, and perse- cution becomes sacred. The only liberty which remains to man, is liberty to believe what the Pope teaches, and do what he commands. ->-o->o— «f- we are, to 30 APPENDIX A. The alleged xincertaxnty of the Canon until the Jftli Century. It scorns dosirnMe for the sake of those who hav not paid attention to this question to correct the reckless assertions of Father Damcn. I. Jn reference to the extenl of this uncertainty he says, — • "Even the learned themselves were disputing whether preference should be piven to the Gospel of Simon or that of Matthew, to the Gospel of Mary or that of Lnke, tlie Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus or the Gr)spel uf St .Jolin. And so it was in regaril to the epistles : then; were manv spurious epistles written, and the people were at a loss for over three hundred years to know which Gospel was false or spurious, or which inspired," &c. Had such language come from the lips of an avowed infidel it would have excited less surprise, but coming from the mouth of a professed teacher of Chrintianity, one knows not whether he should wonder most at the re cklessness of the statements, or at the infatuation of the man who, to gain a fancied advantage over an opponent, makes assertions which, if true, go far to overturn the very foundations of every form of Christianity. How do the facts stand ? The New Testament is made up of twenty-seven books, containing 7,959 verses. Of these there are twenty books, containing 7,059 verses, or eight-ninths of the entire New Testament, which, there is the clearest evi- dence for asserting, were received in the Christian Church without question, from the time they were written. The Apocryphal books, like the Gos- pel of Simon, to which Father Damen refers, were never regarded, even by a respectable minority of Christians, as of divine autliority, and those who were inclined to respect them did not bring them forward, as the Jesuit insinuates, in competition with the four genuine Gospels which were uncontronerted. There are five short and late epistles, containing 222 verses, or one thirty-sixth part of the New Testament, in regard to which, for a time, a certain measure of hesitation was felt. These five, viz. : 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, 2nd Peter and James, Eusebius informs us, were received by the majority of Christians, but were questioned by others. No such uncer- tainty a3 Father Damen ascribes to the four Gospels and the whole New Testament could be said to have existed even in reference to this small portion of it. The majority of Churches and Christians always regarded them as of divine authority. * Page 7. 31 ^eutury. ud attention r preft-reiice a tlio Gospel K tho GoKpol i were manv or over three J8, or which idel it would f a professed >nder most at he man who, ms wliich, if Christianity. , containing 59 verses, or clearest evi- oiit question, ke the Gos- garded, even ty, and those ward, as tlie aspels which irscs, or one for a time, a 2ud and 3rd received by such uncer- whole Now this small ays regarded The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were received atflr«t, and for a considerable period without reserve, but were afterwards, for doctrinal reasons, called in question by a section of the Church for a season. And it is specially noteworthy, that the portion of the Church wliich was most gtiilty of controverting the Canonical authority of these Books is tliat which we are now asked to bulieve is their infallible guardian. The Epistle to the Hebrews is repeatedly quoted by Clement of Rome as canonical, and was received by the entire Eastern Church from tho beginning. It is even recognised apparently in 2 Peter, iii, 15. It was only in the third century, when it began to bo quoted in support of the views of tho Montanists and Novationists, that its canonical authority began to be questioned in the West and especially in Rome. The Apocalypse, written almost at the close of the first century, was recognized by all the leading Fathers of the second century, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Melito, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Theophilu.s, and others. It was first assailed by Caius, a Presbyter of Rome, in the third cen- tury, on account of the countenance which it was supposed to give to Millenarianism. And, although he was answered by Hippolytus, doubts continued to be entertained for a century and a half, in the West, especially in Rome, respecting it. But so decided was the conviction throughout the Church, of the divine authority, both of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, that Eusebius, writing in 324, before the Council of Nice, classed both of these books among the Homoloytumena^ or uncontro- veried Scriptures. Origin, who wrote 100 years before the Council of Nice, gives a list of the Books of the New Testament, which answers exactly to that which we now have. He accepted neither more nor fewer Books than we now hold as Canonical.* The Peschito Syriac version is the oldest translation of the New Tes- tament in existence, ^t was made towards the end of the first century, or early in the second. It has been used in the public services of all tho Syrian Churches, down to the present day. Does this earliest of versions contain any trace of these Apocryphal Books which Father Damen would have us believe were almost as highly esteemed, for three hundred years, as the Books we hold as Canonical? Not one of them has found a place in this version. But tho four Gospels, the Acts, the fourteen Ki)istles of Paul, 1st John, James, and Ist Peter, are all there. The Apocalyiise. which possibly was not written when this version was made is a-wanting So also are 2nd Peter, Jude, and 2nd and 3rd John, which were all written at a late period, and possibly had not then been sufiiciently authenticated in that part of the Church where this version was made. But with these • Vide Ottuasen, pugo 27; and Eascbius liccl. II Ist. book IV. c '2ft. Ki 82 exceptions, the entire New Testament was recognized in the early part of the second contiiry, exactly as we have it. So much for the sweeping BtatementH of the Jesuit, in reference to the ez(i:nt of the uncertainty. II. In reference to the meam by which the measure of uncertainty, which did exist was removed, Father Damen is even farther from the mark. He says, "It was not until the fourth century that the Pope of Rome the Head of the Church, the successor of Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world, in a Council, and there in that Council it was deci- ded that the Bible, as we Catholics have it now, is th»5 word of God, and that the Gospels of Simon, Nicodemus, Mary, the Infancy of Jesus, and Barnabas, and all these other Epistles were spurious, or, at least, unau- thentic," &c. We may safely assert, that it would be exceedingly difficult to dis- cover a sentence in which a greater amount of pure fabrication is to be found. It is fiction from btginiiiiig to end. Glance at the facts, as known to every student of history. 1. There were only two General Conncils held in the fotirth century, viz.: Nice, A.D. 325, and Constantinople, A.D. 381. Neither of these Councils was called by the Pope of Rome. They were convoked by the reigning Emperor, without even consulting the Pope beforehand.* The Pope did not preside over these Councils. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, in Spain, presided at Nice, and the Bishop of Rome was not even represented at the Council of Constantinople. The pretended confirmation of the Nicene decrees by Poj;? Silvester, is one of the well-known forgeries by which the Papacy has sought to bolster up a usurped authority, which has no foundation in Christian antiquity. These Councils, moreover, did not pass any decree, in reference to the Canon of Scripture. In their decisions, which have come down to us, there is not one word as to the books which should, or should not be regarded as canonical. The Council of Nice, instead of pretending to give authority to the Holy Scriptures, expres.sly bases its decrees on Scripture. It introduces its creed with a preamble, in these words : " As we have learned from the divine Scriptures, this is our creed : I believe in one God, the Father Almighty," &c. f 2. There were two small Provincial Councils, held in the fourth cen- tury, which dealt with the books which were to be read'm Christian assem- blies, viz., Laodicea and Carthage. But these Councils were not called or presided over by the Bishop of Rome. The decrees of the Council of Laodicea, held 364 A. D., were afterwards confirmed by the General Coun- cil of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and were regarded as binding throughout the ancient Church. Does then the Catalogue of the Canonical books given by the Council of Laodicea and accepted by the General Council of • Janus, p. t Vide QauBsen, page 44. early part of 10 sweeping ainty. uncertainty, er from the pe of Rome together the it was deci- of God, and F Jesus, and least, unau- icult to dis- ion is to be ts, as known irth century, ler of these oked by the iand.« The Cordova, in represented ition of the forgeries by y, which has ver, did not ;ir decisions, books which ncil of Nice, ;s, expressly preamble, in 8, this is our 1 fourth cen- stian assem- not called or Council of !neral Coun- oughout the books given 1 Council of 83 Chalcedon, agree with that of RomanlstH ? /, .,... ,„, ,, ,.,„^,„ ^,„j „„ the Apocryphal books which the Ch.,rcl, of Roum- in the K.th (V,.t,„ v t rust ,nto the Old T...stamont ; and agrees in every rlsp. .t with ' , ^ .' of hcr.pfun. as now received by the I'rote.tant «„d Urn k ChurHK.- save that the book of Revelation is omitte.l. This ..,ni.si„a ,l,>es not ' 1 v! over, imply that they regarded it as uncanonieal, b„t onlv .ha't tl-.y deemed ,t too mysterious to be read in the rcguhn- lessons in Christian assembhes. Of the decrees of the Council of Carthage, we need not npe k as they were not confirmed by any General Council. ' No Council attempted to settle the Canon of Serij.ture authoritativelv unilsome 50 bishops, assembled at Trent in the J.ith (Vntu.y ha.i the audacity to c all themselves a General Council, and to essay to ..o so The •luestion of the Canon was left to settle itself, by the ordinary laws of literary and historical evidence, without the decree of any Council. The entire statement, therefore, of Father Damen, in all its parts is an impudent fabrication, unredeemed by a single element of trntlu ' 34 APPENDIX B. ;<);■ The Chdvi'h of Rome and the liiuidviij of the Scriptures in the vulyar totic/tie. On thi.s qtujstion Romi«h divines preHcnt two faces. Wlicn 3'ou urpe upon tlicm^tlio necesKity of giving the Scriptures to the people, they tell yon that it is a very obscure book to which atiy meatiing cnn be attached, and that in the hands of the people it is an exceedingly dangerous work, wliich is more likely to do harm th.-m good to tlios" who read it. Dr O'Connor does not hesitate; to ascribe to it all th dare peruse so dangerous a volume ? When, however, you accuse the Romi.sh Church ot denying the Rible to the people, they reply that it is a gross cammny, a complete misrepre- sentation. '• Oo," says Father Damrove. Indeed many of these versions were mere abortive attempts at translation, which were quite unfit for general use. As regards the early German versions, JJiehebt observes from S(rck- endorf, " that they wt-re n< itlur suited for nor allowed to the people. *jVec k(/i periniltebanttir,nfc ob styli ettyporum horridatem satisfacere pote- rant.'"» 3. That the list is in n)any respects unreUnhh and derepfive. We can only give a few specimens by which the reader can judge of the credit due to this un-named author, whom Dr. O'Connor follows. The very first version on his list is one printed so early that it has m ither date nor name of platre on it ; and had the writer been candid, he would have added that the aulhor, whether Turk, Catholic or hen tic, is unknown, and that were he known, it would probably be seen that the Komish Church had just as little to do with his version as with the discovery of the art of printing. His second version is one, said to have been printed by Faust, in 1472, of the existence of which we can find no indication. And as Faust is believed to have died in the plague of Paris in 14G(J, he can hardly have printed a Catholic version in 1472, unless Dr. O'Connor has private in- formation that his old business was carried on by the printer in the inter- mediate slate. A Bohemian version of 1488 does duty in the learned Doctor's cata- logue. But the only Bohemian version of that date of which I can find any trace is one issued by the United Brethren of Bohemia. Does Dr. O'Connor imagine that because the Church of Rome with all her persecu- tions fiiiled to exterminate these Brethren, that she has a right to confis- cate their translation of the Scripture and claim the honor to herself.f ♦ Vide E. B. Elliott Horae Apoc. li., 92. ~ t Vide E. B. Elliott Home Apoc. ii., 671 ; and iiook and its Story, page 170. 36 The translation of Jacques Le Fcvre (incorrectly t^iven in his list as .lacqiUis C. F-vrc,) is claimed as a Romi ih version, with how much fairness the f.ilhtwinjj: facts v/ill show. Le Fovre v/as one of the most active iiistiuiiiriits in piomntiuK the Reformation in its oa?'lIer stages in France. Itwas from liis lips that the jjcreat Reformer, Farel, firot heard the doctrines which he afterwards taiiJ^ht with such success in Geneva. Le Fevre taught JMstificatiu.i by faith before Luther had proclaimed that article of a stand- iiifj: or falling Chuvch. He rejected the Apocryphal books from tlie Canon, and freely censur^'d the Vulgate Version. And although his natural timidity kept him from breaking entirely with Rome, his sympathies were so completely with tiie Refoimei'S thattiie Romish partyiu Paris, where he held a l*rof'-ssorship, made him the ol)j,'ct of siieh bitt^ r persecution that he was comp •llt'd to leave the city and seek a (]nirt retn-at ••Isewhere. In 152(5 tiie "ailiament, urged on by the Romish i)arty, took active measures to counteract the w(>rk of Le Fevre, and issued a proclamation in Paris and the leading cities of the kingdom, whicli declar;d, " All persons are f()ri)idden to put u;i to sale, or translate from Latin into French, tlie Epistles of St Paul, (as Le Fevre had done in 1512,) the Apocalypse and other l"jok\i'^* And this is the ver.sion which Dr. O'Connor modestly asks * V'iilu (iiiussi'U, p. C4l. DWiiliiLrni'S Hisu Kff. Cilviii, pages 842 iind 3(W. US to credit to the Church of Rome! ! ! From this specimen, and it is only a specimen, the reader can judge of the co!ifidente which should be placed in this list. Had Dr. O'Connor proved tliat Roman Catholics print and circulate one Bible for twenty that are sent forth by Protestants, he would have done .something that would have come nearer to the point. Rut there aii two ways by which we can jiulge of the position of the Church of Rome in relation to the circulation of the Scriptures in the vernacular, without the aid of the Doctor's deceptive list, and which even tl;at list cannot set aside. We can ascertain it (1) from the authoritative decisions of her rulers, and (2) from her deeds. These are cz-^Vem in which there is no deception. To these we appeal. Pope Pius IV., in his Bull sanctioning the Index and the accompany- ing Rules, prohibits the violating of the Rules under pain. " of mortal sin and severe punishment, at the discretion of the Bishops." The fourth Rule reads as follows, viz. : " Inasmiich, as it is manifest from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated intv' the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the Bishop or Inquisitors who may, by the advice of the Priest or Confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be raigmented, and not injured, by it ; and tliis permis- sion they must have in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to , his list as ch fairness lost active in France, le doctrines evre taught of a stand- the Canon, lis natural latliies were is, wlu-re he ition that he uwhere. In re nii'asurcs ion in Paris persons are French, tlve caiypse and lodestly asks ud 3(i'J. [er can judf^e 3r. O'Connor twenty tliat ,' that would sition of the tures in the wliich even .uthoritative leriu in which |acconipany- )f mortal sin is manifest Igar tongue, will cause ;rred to the Ivice of the Ld into the th and piety tliis pcrniis- Isumption to 37 read or possess it without any such written permission, he shall not receive absolution until he sliall lirst have (kilivcred up sucli Bible to the Ordinary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell or otherwise dispo.se of Bibles in the vulgar tongue, to any person not having sucli permission, shall forfeit the value u( the books, to be applied by the Bishop to some pious use ; and be subjected by the Mishop to such other penalties as the Bishop shall judge proper, accoi-ding to the quality of the offence. But regulars shall neither read nor purchase such B'bles wi'^^hout a special license from their superiors." From this Rule it is evidentthat no Romanist can road even a Roniisii translatJt)n with notes, without incurring " mortal sin," unless he has a H-ritten pc.nnixsion from his /Jix/iop or Im/i/isitor, and that can only h':. given by the advice of his Conf ssor; and no bookseller may sell uuch a Bible to any not hf -ng a permission in writing to buy. This is the unr,.ieale(l law of the Cliurch of Uame to this day. It is true that she finds it impossible to enforce fully such a tyrannical enactment in Protestant countries, but it is the law all the same. Dr. O'Connor is pleased to say in refv.rence to this Rule, that <' Pius IV, did indeed, after the close of the Council of Trent, impose restrictions of a temporary and local character 0"^ the indiscriminate reading of the Bible in the vaiiacular tongues, in that pcjriod of religious vertigo, which followed the outbreak of the Reformation," &c. What evidence is there that this Rule is merely Aifmjiornry and local restriction ? There is nothing in the langu'vge to suggest that it was intended for one age or country. Does Dr, O'Connor sujiply any other evidence, save his own tp'-e dixit? Like Father Damen, he refers to the letter of Pius VI., in 177S, in which he gives his approbation to the Italian translation of Anthony Martini. He reminds us that this letter is printed on the first page of every Ro'.nish Bibb;. ]>ut he does not tell his readers, tiiat in t)ie Admon- ition which precedes it in the same page, it is stated that " it was judged necessary to forbid the reading of the Scriptures in the vul;iar languages without the ndvic(r and |)ermission of the Pastors and spiritvuil (luidea wlumi God has apiHiinted to govern his Church." And in the Admoni- tion there is no hint that this rrle has ever been repealed. So that, after all, the approbation of Martini's version applies only whiiro i\ permission in writing has been obtained from a Bishop or Inquisitor. But this is not all : Martini's translation is not merely a version, it is also a commentary of ponderous dimi:nsions, published originally in 23 vols., 4to; and afterwards at Turin in 1818, in 31 vols. ; and H is expressly approved by Pope Pius VI., " especially because it added explanatory notes from the Fathers. Thus," adds I.is Holiness, " you have not swerved either from the Laws, of the Coiiijrer/alion of the Index, or the Constitution 38 published on this subject by Benedict XIV.," &c. Yet in face of all this, Dr O'Connor brings forward this very letter to show that one of the most important of the Laws of the Congregatii n of tlie Index has been swerved from by the whole Church of Rome I Pius VI. did really recommend these 23 volumes, where the Scripture bears much the same relation to the Commentary that a grain of wheat does to the peck of chaff in which it is buried I Was it not kind of him? How admirably adapted these 23 vols., 4to, were for circulation among the people, provided they could get a permission in writing, from a I'ishop or Inquisitor to read them I But Dr. O'Connor's memory is still farther in fault respecting Martini's version. He forgets to mention that when in 1813 this very translation of the New Testament, which is recommended on the first page of every Romish Bible, was stereotyped in London, and published in a shape more likely to reach the mass of tlie people, it was, along with the edition of Livorno (Leghon./ 1818, and that of Italia 181 Y, put in the Index of Books prohibited to be sold, by a decree dated January 13th, 1820 ! * Long after this letter of Pius VI., by which Dr. O'Connor imagines he can delude us into the notion that the unrepealed 4th Rule of the Index, is a mere temporary regulation i oquired at the period cf " religious vertigo which followed the outbreak of the Reformation," and ^vhich has ceased to be binding, Pope Pius VII. in his Bull of 1816, and Pope Leo XII. in his circular letter of 1824, quote with approbation tne language of tills very 4th Rule. Which is the better authority, two Popes in Rome, or two priests in Ottawa ? The famous dogmatic Bull Unigenitus, published against Quesnel by Pope Clement XI., in 1713, condemns as " false, rash, perniciou.s, heretical and impious," &c., &c , the following propositions, viz.: 79th. " It is useful, at ull times, in all places and for all sorts of pes- rons, to study the Holy Scripture and to know its spirit, devotion and mysteries." 80th. " The obscurity of God's Word is not a reason for laymen to dispense with reading it." These and many similar propositions are condemned as /«/.v? and heretical, and all bishops and inquisitors are enjoined to punish all who hold them, " calling in, if mcessary, the assistance of the secular arm."' We presume that even Dr. O'Connor will not venture to affirm that either heresy or this Bull can be temporary or local, yet he thinks it becoming to charge those with " slander " who represent the Church of Rome as opposing the free circulation of the Scriptures in the vernacular, and even contrives to get up a very respectable display of indignation at those who at, Bible Society Meetings, are constantly letting in the light upon the conduct of the Romish priesthood. * Uornc's Introd., vol. ii., Appendix 45. all this, :he most Kwerved Scripture of wheat 1 of him ? an among a I'isihop ; Martini's islation of ! of evory lapa more edition of nof Books imagines ,ule of the " religious ^vhic•h has Pope Leo language in Rome, iuesnel by heretical rts of pes- otion and aymen to fai..- and i\\ all who liar arm." hat either becoming f Rome as and even at those "light upon 30 We cannot agree with Dr. O'Connor that this Rule is temporary. Deeds which speak louder than words, proclaim the contrary. And we cannot agree with him that this opposition to the free circulation of the Scrip- tures has any direct conr^ectlon with " the religious vertigo which fol- lowed the outbreak of the Reformation." Three centuries before the Reformation, this " religious vertigo" was as much dreuded by the Church of Rome as since. In 1229, the Council of Toulouse absolutely prohibited the laity from possessing the Scrip, lures.* And the very houses of those who had the Scriptures were ordered to be utterly destroyed. Sismodi tells us that in these days " the first indication of heresy was considered to be the citation of either the Epistles or Gospels." Pope Innocent III. in the 13th century assailed the circulation of the Scriptures in the vernacular with all his energy. In 1410, the Decree of Pope Alexander V. condemned all translations into the vulgar tongues. f This "religious vertigo" discovered itself in all its power three hundred years before the Reformation, and it is as bad as ever, wherever Romanism reigns uudisturbed. It appears in a milder type in England, Scotland, Germany, the United States, and wherever Protestantism pre- vails. It has alwaj's been very bad in Ireland. It has been severe in France and, until recently, in Austria, where a few years ago the traveller had to'leave his Bible behind when he crossed the frontier. Until the other day, they suifered from the most malignant form of this " religious verti- go" in Spain and Italy, but in no place did it show such alarming 8)'mptoms as in Rome. In proportion as any country is thoroughly under the sway of the Papacy does this opposition to the free circulation of the Bible manifest its power. In Brazil, the Rev. J. Spaulding, in 1837, found the Bible to an aF^"^n)rtaing and almost incredible extent, an unknown or nuw book, a real < ; ■/ Rome are HENDEKSON & CO'S 3e O O 3E^ 3L, i: Ml «nri. \jf - ♦ • «. . — _____.^ >S-efecmns from mefr Current 6\(ock. B'airtiaiin'H Iiiipoiial Bible Dictionary Chambcre' E„,y„|„p,cdi„, h,df.c„lf and ,.m Hollands RecolIeci:ons of Past Life Forster'« T ;fn ^ ,n ! ^' apt. Hall's Life with the Esq.n-maux. Lady BaW, .-. T n- ac,u.nzie's Ten Vears North of the Oran^ R^" ' ^ '""^""'^ ^^'^"*- nuysh..'.s Red Hivor Expedition. Cassell's Household Guide, and World of Wonders Ingraham's^ Prince of the House of David. ' Throne of David and Pillar of Fire Ronar's Light and Truth, 3 series McDutts Curfew Chimes, Thoughts of God. - Kings of Israel and Judah —^ «?::«;:;;:: ''"''"' '-" '■*■" ^»-"- - I'he Shephi rd and His Flnt-h in. it x -n>i,..a.. * Ho„.;„„. .i. „fr4;::,t; „?«:: s: "°" ^^■'""" "'■"-<■ Candhsh on The Atonement Barnes' & Kyle's Notes on the Gospels, &c Lady of Provence, by A. L E I icKci.ttith s \ esterday, To-day and Forever. The Daisv r-l.ni Heir of Kedclyffe. Hannah, hy Miss Alulock 'H r, ,1 Almost a Nun. Gold Foil VVilf. !? ; , ''"^"'^ ^'•■°««- uoldloil. VViIh-idCumhermede. Studies for Stories. HENDERSON & Co. • '>/> S/jarks Stfcet, Otiuica,