-in- 
 
THE PATH 
 
 WHICH LED 
 
 A PROTESTANT LAWYER 
 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 BY 
 
 PETER H. BURNETT. 
 
 THOU UAST MADE US, O LORD, FOR THYSELF, AND OtTR HEARTS AEE RESTLESS UNTIL THEY 
 
 REPOSE IN THKE." St. Augustine. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION REVISED BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 NEW YORK AND CINCINNATI: 
 
 B E N Z I G E R BROTHERS, 
 
 PRINTERS TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE. 
 
 1872. 
 
REPLACING 
 
 3L ^ IS'o 5" 
 
 KNTKRKP, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1359, bv 
 
 D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 
 
 ID the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York. 
 
TO THE 
 
 MOST REV. JOHN B. PURCELL, 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OP CINCINNATI, 
 
 WHOSE ARGUMENTS LAID THE FOUNDATION OF 
 MY CONVERSION TO THE OLD CHUUCH, 
 
 THIS WOEK IS DEDICATED 
 AS AN EVIDENCE OF THE GRATITUDE OF 
 
 HIS SON IN 
 THE TRUE FAITH. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I WAS once a Protestant, and I became a Catholic. 
 The main reasons which led to this change will be found 
 substantially stated in the following work. There are sev- 
 eral topics that I have not noticed, for want of room. It 
 is also true, that several authorities are referred to, that 
 were not then read, and several that I read at the time 
 which are not noticed, because not now accessible. My 
 quotations of Scripture are generally from King James's 
 translation, mainly for the reason that this was the one 
 used by me in my pursuit of the true Church. 
 
 My parents were Baptists ; but until the age of thirty- 
 two, I was not a believer in the truth of Christianity. My 
 own observation of men and things, as well as the argu- 
 ments of others, at length satisfied me that the system was 
 divine ; and I at once acted upon my convictions, and 
 joined myself to the Disciples, in 1840. In 1843 I removed 
 with my family to Oregon. After my arrival, and while I 
 was temporarily located at Fort Vancouver, I attended 
 High Mass as a mere spectator, on Christmas, at midnight. 
 1 had never witnessed any thing like it before, and the pro- 
 found solemnity of the services the intense, yet calm fer- 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 vor of the worshippers the great and marked differences 
 between the two forms of worship and the instantaneous 
 reflection, that- this was the Church claiming to be the only 
 true Church, did make the deepest impression upon my 
 mind for the moment. In all my religious experience, I 
 had never felt an impulse so profound, so touching. I had 
 witnessed very exciting scenes in Protestant worship, and 
 had myself often participated, and was happy. But I had 
 never felt any impulse so powerful an impulse that thrilled 
 my inmost soul. I gazed into the faces of the worshippers, 
 and they appeared as if they were actually looking at the 
 Lord Jesus, and were hushed into perfect stillness, in His 
 awful presence. 
 
 But as I knew nothing of the reasons upon which the 
 Catholic theory assumes to rest, I soon thought I saw errors 
 that I could not sanction. And then there came a painful 
 revulsion in my feelings, as if the flowers of Paradise had 
 been almost within ray reach, and had been suddenly with- 
 drawn from sight, and I had found it to be but an illusion 
 and a mistake. But still I can never forget the holy im- 
 pulses of my soul at that deep moment. 
 
 My knowledge of the Catholic theory was exceedingly 
 general and indefinite. I had never read a work in its fa- 
 vor, and had never heard but two Catholic sermons, and 
 they were not upon controversial points. I knew that the 
 Old Church made what are called arrogant and intolerant 
 pretensions ; but in all my reading, in all my intercourse 
 with men generally, and among my own kin, I had scarcely 
 ever met with any thing in her favor. From my limited 
 opportunities, I had only learned that 
 
 " To love her was shame, to revile her was glory." 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 In the fall of 1844, a Baptist preacher settled in my 
 immediate neighborhood, who had the published Debate 
 between Campbell and Purcell ; and as the Catholic ques- 
 tion was often mentioned, and as I knew so little about it, 
 I borrowed and read the book. I had the utmost confi- 
 dence in the capacity of Mr. Campbell as an able debater. 
 But while the attentive reading of the Debate did not con- 
 vince me of the entire truth of the Catholic theory, I was 
 greatly astonished to find that so much could be said in its 
 support. On many points, and those of great importance, 
 it was clear to my mind, that Mr. Campbell had been over- 
 thrown. Still, there were many objections to the Catholic 
 Church, either not noticed by the Bishop, or not satisfacto- 
 rily answered ; and I arose from the reading of that discus- 
 sion still a Protestant. 
 
 But my thoughts continually recurred to the main posi- 
 tions and arguments on both sides, and the more I reflected 
 upon the fundamental positions of the Bishop, the more 
 force and power I found them to possess. My own reflec- 
 tions often afforded me answers to difficulties that, at first, 
 seemed insurmountable, until the question arose in my 
 mind, whether Mr. Campbell had done full justice to his 
 side of the question. Many of his positions seemed so ex- 
 treme and ill-founded, that I could not sanction them. All 
 the prejudices I had, if any, were in his favor. But I knew 
 that it was worse than idle to indulge prejudices when in- 
 vestigating any subject whatever. I was determined to be 
 true to myself ; and this could only be in finding the exact 
 truth, and following it, when known. 
 
 My mind was, therefore, left in a state of restless un- 
 certainty ; and I determined to examine the questions be- 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 tween Catholics and Protestants thoroughly, so far as my 
 limited opportunities and poor abilities would permit. In 
 the prosecution of this design, I procured all the works, on 
 both sides, within my reach, and examined them alter- 
 nately, side by side. This investigation occupied all my 
 spare time for about eighteen months. I observed substan- 
 tially the course of investigation pointed out in the intro- 
 duction, and followed the rules of construction therein 
 given. Besides this, I prayed humbly and sincerely, that 
 I might first know the truth, and then have the grace to 
 follow it wherever it might lead me. I examined care- 
 fully, prayerfully, and earnestly, until I was satisfied, be- 
 yond a doubt, that the Old Church was the true, and the 
 only true Church. 
 
 "And I said, if there's peace to be found in the world, 
 The heart that was humble might hope for it here." 
 
 And in this I was not mistaken. I found her, as holy 
 Cyprian of old had said, "The house of unity and peace." 
 I mean to live and die in her communion. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 FAGM 
 
 INI-RODUCTION 1 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE LAW OP CHKIST. 
 
 1. The law of Christ must form a rule of moral conduct and a standard of 
 
 faith 9 
 
 2. Of the different modes of publication, and of the advantages of a mixed 
 
 code 11 
 
 3. The same subject continued 13 
 
 4. Of Tradition as a medium of transmission 14 
 
 5. Of the inspiration and authenticity of the written law of Christ 17 
 
 6. Of the logical course of examination to ascertain the inspiration of the 
 
 authors of the New Testament 19 
 
 7. Of the unwritten law of Christ 22 
 
 8. The same matter further considered 25 
 
 9. Of the Scriptural view of the written and the unwritten law 28 
 
 10. Of the alleged incompatibility of the Bible and Tradition 32 
 
 11. The true theory 36 
 
 12. The testimony of the Ancient Fathers. 37 
 
 13. Of the rules to be observed in consulting the Fathers 40 
 
 14. Extracts from the Fathers. 43 
 
 15. Concluding remarks of this chapter 46 
 
 CD AFTER II. 
 
 OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 1. The organization of the visible Church must follow from the character 
 
 of Christ as a lawgiver 60 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 PAG* 
 
 2. The end and purpose of union is rightful success. 50 
 
 3. There is much -more Infidelity in the world than most teachers of Chris- 
 tianity helieve 53 
 
 4. Of the Scriptural proofs that Christ did organize such an institution, and 
 
 contemplate such unity. . .. 54 
 
 5. Extracts from Protestant writers 57 
 
 6. Extracts from a Catholic writer. 53 
 
 CHAPTER HL 
 
 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 1. That a visible association of men cannot continue to exist without 
 
 government 61 
 
 2. Christ must have placed the governing power somewhere in the Church 62 
 
 3. That succession must exist of necessity 65 
 
 4. The true office of reason 65 
 
 5. Testimony of Christ as to the governing power of the Church 68 
 
 6. Testimony of St. Paul 70 
 
 7. Further testimony of St. Paul..... 74 
 
 8. The powers of government bestowed upon the Apostolical Church, con- 
 tinuing 78 
 
 9. The power to teach was not personal to the apostles 80 
 
 10. Meaning of the phrase, "End of the world." 82 
 
 11. The persons appointed by the apostles exercised the powers conferred 
 
 by the commission 89 
 
 12. The same subject continued 94 
 
 13. Objections considered 97 
 
 14. Other objections considered 101 
 
 15. Certain positions of Mr. Breckenridge examined 104 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 1. All laws intended for the government of men should provide sorjc tri- 
 bunal to determine what the law is 108 
 
 2. Are these principles applicable to the Christian association? 110 
 
 6. There is the same necessity for such a tribunal in the Christian as in 
 
 political government 112 
 
 4. That, in reason, such tribunal, when established, must possess infallibil- 
 ity, either actual or judicial, according to the nature of the system... 114 
 
 5. That in political governments, judicial infallibility is found 116 
 
 6. That actual infallibility must be found in the Christian association 118 
 
 7. That the judicial power of the Church must extend to every violation 
 
 of the law.... .. 120 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 PAGB 
 
 8. The necessity of such a tribunal shown from the true charactei of 
 
 Scripture 122 
 
 9. The same subject further considered 125 
 
 10. Causes of obscurity of the Scriptures 128 
 
 11. That the right of revolution cannot exist in the members of the 
 
 Church 134 
 
 12. The duty of the judicial power 139 
 
 13. The judicial power was exercised by the Apostolic Church 143 
 
 14. The same judicial power still exists in the Church 148 
 
 15. Scriptural proofs of the infallibility of the Church examined 151 
 
 16. The tribunal under the old dispensation 161 
 
 17. Objections considered 165 
 
 18. Another objection considered 173 
 
 19. A passage from St. Peter examined 176 
 
 20. The visible Church is but a preparatory institution, through which 
 
 men must pass to reach the Church triumphant in heaven 179 
 
 21. Is not this theory intolerant ? 181 
 
 22. Testimony of the Fathers 185 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 /ffl PRIMACY OP ST. FETEB. 
 
 1. The executive power must exist in the visible Church 198 
 
 2. The Scriptural proofs of the primacy of St. Peter examined 200 
 
 3. The Scriptural proofs further considered 207 
 
 4. Objections considered 215 
 
 5.- Testimony of the Fathers 227 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 HAS GOD, BY MIRACLES, ATTESTED THE FAITH AND SANCTITY OF THE CATHOLIC 
 
 CHURCH ? 
 
 1. Preparatory remarks 231 
 
 2. The theory of the Infidel 232 
 
 3. Protestant theories 237 
 
 4. Protestant theories further considered 251 
 
 5. The Catholic theory 267 
 
 CHAPTER VEL 
 
 THESE BEING THE CHARACTERISTICS OR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHTOCfT, WHICH 
 OF THOSE CLAIMING TO BE THE TRUE CHURCH, IS, IN FACT, SUCH ? 
 
 1. Can the Protestant Churches, singly or combined, be the true Church ? 273 
 
 2. Have the promises of Christ failed ? . 279 
 
 3. Has the Catholic Church been uniform in her faith?.. 283 
 
 4. The same subject continued 288 
 
 4. The same subject further considered 298 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VHI. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 1. If private interpretation be sufficient for one purpose, is it not for all ? 306 
 
 2. Is the Catholic rule impracticable ? 312 
 
 3. The same matter further considered 318 
 
 4. The vicious circle 329 
 
 5. Can the Church decide her own cases ? 335 
 
 6 Has the Church mutilated the Scriptures? 338 
 
 7. The Church incapable of reformation 339 
 
 8. Wicked persons are sometimes found in the Catholic Church 345 
 
 9. That successors of the apostles must be successors in full 349 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS AND CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 1. Charges against the Jesuits 351 
 
 2. These charges examined 356 
 
 3. Charges against certain Popes 367 
 
 4. Could these disorders destroy the office of Pope? 379 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 WHAT HAVE BEEN THE EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM, IN THOSE MEMBERS 
 WHO HAVE FAITHFULLY REDUCED ITS TEACHINGS TO PRACTICE? 
 
 1. The saints have been found in the Catholic Church 385 
 
 2. Character of the Reformers 387 
 
 3. The Catholic clergy make much greater sacrifices than the Protestant. 390 
 
 4. The same subject continued 395 
 
 5. The piety of the different orders of the Church 400 
 
 6. Contemplative religion 404 
 
 7. The active orders of the Church 410 
 
 8. Charges against these orders considered 413 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 TUB DOCTRINE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION INCOMPATIBLE WITH ALL UNION 
 AND GOVERNMENT IN THE CHURCH. 
 
 1. The alleged right of appeal to the Day of Judgment 421 
 
 2. The position of Luther at the beginning 427 
 
 3. The ground assumed by Luther 432 
 
 4. The difficulties in using the same doctrines to tear down an existing in- 
 stitution, and to build up another in its stead 440 
 
 5. Protestant theories of the Church 446 
 
 6. Protestant ancestors the Vaudois 455 
 
 7. The Bohemian Brethren 459 
 
 g 8. The Albigenses 461 
 
CONTENTS. Xl 
 
 PAOH 
 
 9. Reflections 466 
 
 10. Mr. Campbell's theory of Protestant succession 470 
 
 11. Mr. Campbell's theory continued. 479 
 
 12. The new ground of Mr. Breckenridge * 489 
 
 13. The theory of Bishop Hoadley and Dr. Balguy 495 
 
 14. Reflections 499 
 
 15. Mr. Campbell's theory of Protestant union 502 
 
 16. Dr. Spring's theory of Protestant union 508 
 
 17. Reflections , 610 
 
 CHAPTER XH. 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 1. There were two main points in the discourse of our Lord 520 
 
 2. The same matter further considered 527 
 
 3. How did the hearers of our Lord understand Him? 531 
 
 4. Did they understand Him correctly? 532 
 
 5. Exceptions to the rules deduced from our Lord's conduct 535 
 
 6. Did our Lord confirm -the construction put upon His words by the Jews ? 541 
 
 7. Did His disciples understand Him in the literal sense? 543 
 
 8. How did the apostles understand our Lord? 547 
 
 9. Objections considered 549 
 
 10. The words of institution 554 
 
 11. The first class of alleged exceptions considered 558 
 
 12. The second class of alleged exceptions considered 560 
 
 13. The third class of alleged exceptions considered 561 
 
 14. Giving the name of the thing represented to the figure 564 
 
 15. The words of St. Paul 566 
 
 16. That it is a contradiction of our senses, and impossible 569 
 
 17. Reflections 577 
 
 18. Testimony of the Fathers discipline of the secret 583 
 
 19. Testimony of St. Ignatius 585 
 
 .20. Testimony of St. Justin and of St. Trenaeus 591 
 
 21. Testimony of the Fathers subsequent to the days of Irenaeus 595 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 PENANCE, PURGATORY, AND INDULGENCES. 
 
 1. The general nature of the Sacrament of Penance 612 
 
 2. Did Christ confer upon the apostles the powers to remit and retain sins ? 614 
 
 3. Did these powers descend to the successors of the apostles? 618 
 
 4. Views of some Protestant sects, and testimony of the Fathers 625 
 
 5. Satisfaction 631 
 
 C. Purgatory 636 
 
 7. Indulgences 645 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 OP THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 1 THEIR RELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 PAGt 
 
 1. The Invocation of Saints 651 
 
 2. The Blessed Virgin Mary 660 
 
 3. Relics and Images 670 
 
 4. Testimony of the Fathers 673 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 1. General misrepresentations of the Catholic doctrines... f 686 
 
 2. Causes of this system of misrepresentation 693 
 
 3. Reflections 700 
 
 4. How did these alleged errors get into the Church, and when ? 704 
 
 5. The same subject further considered.... 712 
 
 6. The same subject still further considered 723 
 
 7. The unity and sufferings of the Old Church. 731 
 
 88. Conclusion 737 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 "THE investigation of truth, the art of ascertaining that 
 which is unknown from that which is known," says the profound 
 and philosophic Starkie, " has occupied the attention, and con- 
 stituted the pleasure as well as the business of the reflecting 
 part of mankind in every civilized age and country." (Preface 
 to Starkie on Evidence.) And this has resulted, not only from 
 the ineffable beauty of the object sought, but also from the tran- 
 scendent importance of this knowledge to our happiness. But 
 inquiries into truth can in no case be so important as those that 
 relate to a knowledge of ourselves, our duty, and our destiny ; 
 for the knowledge of those truths which affect us in this life 
 only, can bear no greater proportion to those relating to our 
 future state, than does the limited period of human life to eter- 
 nity itself. 
 
 To form a clear, accurate, and just conception of a subject is 
 the legitimate end of all fair and honest investigation. And no 
 end can be attained, without the use of proper means, and no 
 correct solution of any question arrived at, but by adopting the 
 proper method. " The human mind is so limited," says Dr. 
 Johnson, "that it cannot take in all the parts of a subject; so 
 that there may be objections raised against any thing." This 
 being true of our limited capacity, it is only by confining our at- 
 tention to one particular at a time, and carefully estimating its 
 force, and then passing to others in succession, that we can ar- 
 rive at any clear conception of a subject. The mechanic who 
 constructs a chain, makes each link separately. 
 
 But it is not only absolutely necessary to use the proper 
 means, and pursue the proper method, but we should carefully 
 2 
 
2i INTRODUCTION. 
 
 remove all obstacles that may weaken the legitimate force of 
 any argument that may be presented to the mind. And nothing 
 is more important for this purpose than calm impartiality. All 
 prejudices should be manfully cast aside, arid no one should en- 
 ter upon the investigation of any subject with any preconceived 
 antipathies against it. He had better not investigate at all, for 
 then he will at least save his labor. 
 
 An ingenious mechanist, seeking to invent a machine for a 
 particular purpose, enters upon his project with a mind perfectly 
 open to conviction. He is ready to adopt a good suggestion 
 from any source. He knows that all his fond attachments to a 
 particular theory, if wrong, will avail nothing. All the world 
 may desire his success, and yet his machine will not go. He can- 
 not force the laws of nature. And equally inflexible are the laws 
 of truth they cannot be forced. And so it must be with the 
 inquirer after truth. He must be impartial, just, and deter- 
 mined, to be successful. 
 
 The great art of investigation is to begin at the beginning, 
 to keep our minds attentively fixed, in succession, upon the main 
 points in the controversy, (those essential elements that make 
 up its very essence,) and then impartially, and with just discrim- 
 ination, apply the leading principles of the system to cases as 
 they arise. In most controversies, there are certain great lead- 
 ing and essential principles, either conceded by the candid of 
 both parties, or satisfactorily proven, which, if fairly and legiti- 
 mately carried out, will lead, by a certain and sure process, to 
 the right conclusion, 
 
 It is a well-known fact to every jurist and lawyer, that al- 
 most every new, and at first perplexing case arising in our courts 
 of justice, (and which are not governed by statutory law,) is 
 decided at last by the legitimate extension and application of 
 well-known and familiar principles. The difficulty exists in the 
 extension and application of the principle to new predicaments 
 of fact ; and the judge who possesses discrimination and impar- 
 tiality in the highest degree, is most certain to arrive at the cor- 
 rect conclusion. The power to discriminate between a just and 
 a false application of a principle belongs to the highest order of 
 mind. 
 
 All the parts of every system of truth must be perfectly con- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 sistent with each other. All the facts, and series of facts that 
 have existed at any time from the beginning of the world to the 
 present age, were consistent and harmonious in every particu- 
 lar. The existence of one does not displace that of another. 
 They no more conflict with each other, than do the stars of 
 heaven. Each occupies its proper place in the vast chain of events. 
 And all the parts of a true system, as well as all facts, are not 
 only thoroughly consistent one with another, but they all bear 
 a certain relation to each other, more or less intimate. As all 
 the events that ever did occur were connected with certain other 
 events with some as their causes, with others as their effects 
 so, all the truths of a true system are, in the same way, connect- 
 ed with each other. If, then, in the investigation of a certain sys- 
 tem, we can find its leading principle, by a patient and honest 
 application and extension of this principle we shall be led, step 
 by step, to the discovery of other principles, and finally be ena- 
 bled to arrive at the whole truth. 
 
 Language is but a medium through which a writer or speak- 
 er conveys to his readers or hearers, such of the ideas existing 
 in his own mind as he intends to communicate to them. The 
 character of this medium, which is simply artificial and arbitrary, 
 is fixed by the existing usage at the precise time the words are 
 written or spoken. This usage may give to words a figurative 
 or literal meaning. 
 
 The object of every fair writer or speaker is to place, in the 
 minds of others, an exact copy of his own thoughts. In doing 
 this, he naturally selects words and phrases best adapted, in his 
 opinion, to accomplish the end intended. If the writer or speak- 
 er understands the existing usages of the language he employs 
 as a medium of thought, he selects those terms which will most 
 accurately convey his true meaning to others. For this reason, 
 the construction put upon the words of a writer or speaker by his 
 contemporaries, is generally the correct one. There are excep- 
 tions to this general rule, for the meaning may be misappre- 
 hended; but these exceptions are special cases, to be judged by 
 the special circumstances of each particular case. 
 
 The philosophic author of Hermes, as cited by Dr. Wiseman 
 in his lectures upon the Real Presence, has expressed his views 
 upon this subject in the following beautiful terms: 
 
i INTRODUCTION. 
 
 " For what is conversation between man and man ? 'Tis a 
 mutual intercourse of speaking and hearing. To the speaker, 
 'tis to teach ; to the hearer, 'tis to learn. To the speaker, 'tis 
 to descend from ideas to words; to the hearer, 'tis to ascend 
 from words to ideas. If the hearer in this ascent can arrive at 
 no ideas, then he is said not to understand : if he ascends to 
 ideas dissimilar and heterogeneous from the speaker's, then he 
 is said to misunderstand. What then is requisite that he may 
 be said to understand ? That he should ascend to certain ideas 
 treasured up within himself correspondent and similar to those 
 within the speaker. The same may be said of a writer and 
 reader." 
 
 1. The construction should be upon the entire Scriptures, taken 
 and construed together, so as to give force and effect to all 
 
 The rule at law for the construction of statutes and written 
 instruments, is substantially the same, with one exception, which 
 will be stated in its proper place. 
 
 " One part of a statute must be so construed by another, that 
 the whole may (if possible) stand. (1 Blackstone's Com., 89.) 
 
 " It is an established rule in the exposition of statutes, that 
 the intention of the lawgiver is to be deduced from a view of 
 the whole, and of every part of a statute, taken and compared 
 together." (1 Kent's Com., 461.) 
 
 "The construction ought to be upon the entire deed, and 
 not on any particular part of it. And such construction should 
 be given, that, if possible, every part of the deed may be opera- 
 tive." (16 Johnson's N. Y. Reports, 172.) 
 
 The reasons for this sensible rule are very simple. It is pre- 
 sumed that the lawmaker intended something by each and every 
 provision of the statute, and that he also intended to be consist- 
 ent with himself. But as a mere human legislator may, and 
 often does, contradict himself, the courts will only give force and 
 effect to the different provisions so far as possible. Such a lim- 
 itation will not apply to the divine law, which is consistent, and 
 not contradictory. Of course, this observation will apply only 
 to doctrines, as contradistinguished from a simple narrative of 
 facts. In the four Gospels there are some unimportant contra- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 dictions in the narrative of facts, constituting a mere " circum- 
 stantial variety." 
 
 There are many examples in the Scriptures which show the 
 necessity and propriety of this rule. In one place we are sub- 
 stantially told that we are saved by keeping the commandments 
 in another, by grace in another, by the blood of Christ in an- 
 other, by baptism in another, by faith. These different pro- 
 visions are not at all in conflict with each other, and may, there- 
 fore, be so construed together as to give force and effect to all. 
 The. correct construction would be, that we are saved by the 
 agency of all these requisites taken together. 
 
 The violation of this fundamental rule has, perhaps, led to 
 more errors than any other. We have a notable instance in the 
 temptation of our Lord by Satan, when he said : 
 
 " If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down ; for it is 
 written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in 
 their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash 
 thy foot against a stone." 
 
 This proposition was very acutely made, and the quotation 
 to sustain it seemed very appropriate. But the poor devil had 
 forgotten that another passage of Scripture must also be con- 
 strued with it, and, consequently, his learning was completely 
 put down by the reply of our Lord : " It is written again, Thou 
 shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." 
 
 2. All the texts relating to the same subject must be considered 
 as written by the same person, having a perfect knowledge of 
 all that had been written before, the reader making a fair 
 allowance for the difference in the style of each writer, and 
 the different character of the existing circumstances. 
 
 The rule of law which requires all statutes relating to the 
 same subject, though passed at different times, to be taken and 
 construed together, is substantially similar to the above rule. 
 Tke rule at law is based upon the presumption that the law- 
 giver was competent, and therefore acquainted with the state 
 of the law as it existed at the passage of the act, and had the 
 previous laws in his mind when framing the statute. 
 
 " These laws being in pari materia, and referred to in the 
 one giving us jurisdiction, must be taken as one law." (6 Peters, 
 720; see, also, 1 Kent, 483.) 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The framers of statutes may be, and are sometimes, ignorant 
 of the existing state of the law ; and this fact may possibly 
 render the rule subject to exceptions in special cases. But the 
 rule I have laid down in reference to the proper construction of 
 Scripture is not subject to such exceptions. The whole having 
 been dictated by the same infallible Spirit, must be held equally 
 entitled to our confidence. The prima facie presumption of 
 competency in a human, becomes conclusive when applied to a 
 Divine Lawgiver. 
 
 3. Words of unlimited meaning are yet to be restricted by the 
 
 general scope and intent of the system. 
 
 Among the examples to be found in the Scriptures, coming 
 within this rule, it will be sufficient to mention the one found in 
 the sixteenth chapter of St. John's Gospel, where our Lord tells 
 His disciples that " when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he 
 will teach you all truth.'' The phrase all truth is exceedingly 
 broad, yet it must be restrained by the general scope and intent 
 of the system Christ came to establish. It was no part of His 
 system to teach mere truths of science. The latter class of 
 truths cannot be embraced in the phrase all truth. 
 
 This rule is founded in the principles of sound interpretation. 
 At law it is substantially the same. A statute may contain very 
 broad and sweeping terms, and yet they are restrained to the 
 scope and intent of the act. (2 Con. Rep., 221.) So the pro- 
 visions of the seventh amended article of the Constitution of the 
 United States, which, in general terms, secures the right of trial 
 by jury, in all cases where the matter in controversy exceeds 
 the sum of twenty dollars, is confined to trials in the Federal 
 tribunals, and does not prevent the States from restricting the 
 right of trial by jury to controversies involving a larger sum 
 than twenty dollars. 
 
 4. When a general principle is laid down in general terms, and 
 without exceptions stated at the time, or in any other por 
 tions of the Scriptures, it must be taken in its widest sense 
 compatible with the general scope and intent of the system. 
 
 It is the practice of all lawgivers to state general principles 
 embracing a whole class of cases, in general terms, and then to 
 
INTRODUCTION < 
 
 state the exceptions to the general principle specially. The 
 form or manner of the statement of these exceptions is not at all 
 material. They are often stated expressly as exceptions, and 
 defined to be such ; but they are often stated simply as special 
 provisions in reference to special cases, without any express 
 statement that they are express exceptions. In either case thoy 
 limit the meaning of the general clause. There are some prin- 
 ciples embracing all cases, and without exception ; while there 
 are other principles that embrace only a great majority of cases, 
 and are, therefore, subject to some exceptions. In regard to 
 the latter class of principles, it is matter of convenience to first 
 state the general principle in general terms, and then after- 
 wards to state the exceptions specially. We will suppose that 
 the general principle would embrace ninety-eight out of each 
 hundred cases. It would then be very difficult to state each of 
 the ninety-eight cases separately, while it would be easy to state 
 the two cases as exceptions. 
 
 5. When suck exceptions to the general rule are stated in any 
 part of the Scriptures, they are to be taken out of the opera- 
 tion of the general principle as exceptions, leaving the gen- 
 eral principle to govern all other cases coming fairly within 
 its import. 
 
 This rule is properly but a branch of the fourth rule, but 
 will be found useful in practice. Both these rules are substan- 
 tially the same as those applied in similar cases at law. There 
 are often general statutes passed, embracing a great many cases, 
 and yet liable to exceptions. These exceptions are often stated 
 in the body of the act as exceptions they are often stated in 
 the same act, but not in the form of exceptions, but as provis- 
 ions for particular cases, and they are often found in separate 
 acts relating to special cases, which would otherwise come within 
 the general principle. These special acts, as a general thing, 
 have no express reference to the general act, but their provis- 
 ions in their very nature are special, and must be taken out of 
 the general principle, because they conflict with it. To state a 
 case in point : There was a general act passed by the Legisla- 
 ture, regulating the Practice at Law. In this act there was a 
 general provision requiring all process to be served upon the 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 defendant by reading the same to him. There were many dif- 
 ferent forms of action, and in reference to one form of action, 
 " Petition in Debt," there was a special act, and a clause in this 
 act requiring the process to be served by delivering a copy 
 of the writ to the defendant. There was no express reference 
 in this special act to the general Practice Act, and yet there 
 was no doubt as to the correct construction. In " Petition in 
 Debt " the process had to be served by copy, and in all the other 
 cases by reading. 
 
 Among similar examples in Scripture, it will be sufficient to 
 mention one or two as illustrative of these two rules. It is said 
 that we are saved through the merits of Christ. This is a gen- 
 eral principle without any exception. Again, it is said that 
 " all things are possible with God," but St. Paul says that " God 
 cannot lie." This is a case of exception to the general rule. 
 " Ask, and you shall receive." " You do not receive, because 
 you ask amiss." 
 
 6. The natural, simple, and literal construction is to be pre- 
 ferred, unless there be something, either in express words or 
 in the context, to show a figurative meaning. 
 
 The rule at law is substantially the same. 
 
 " The words of a statute," says the learned Commentator on 
 American Law, " are to be taken in their natural and ordinary 
 signification and import ; and if technical words are used, they 
 are to be taken in a technical sense." (l Kent, 463.) 
 
 The rule I have laid down is evidently founded upon the 
 grounds of reason and experience. That construction which is 
 most obvious, simple, and natural, is generally the most correct 
 in reference to any writer ; and before this rule should be de- 
 parted from, there should exist good reasons for such a depart- 
 ure. As every writer and speaker is supposed, in simple jus- 
 tice to himself, his subject, and his readers or hearers, to select 
 the most natural and simple terms, so the general rule must be 
 in accordance with that presumption. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 1. The law of Christ must form a rule of moral conduct, and 
 a standard of faith. 
 
 THE learned Commentator on the laws of England defines 
 municipal law to be, " A rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the 
 supreme power in a State, commanding what is right, and pro- 
 hibiting what is wrong." 
 
 When the learned Commentator says, " Commanding what is 
 right, and prohibiting what is wrong," he means, as judged by 
 the theory of municipal law, of which he was speaking. As 
 judged by the theory of civil government, and not by the law 
 of God, or of abstract justice, the civil law always commands 
 what is right, and prohibits what is wrong. 
 
 As the civil law is often unjust, when judged by the princi- 
 ples of morality, the law-making power in political government 
 could not rightfully require us to believe its enactments just. 
 And as no power in such a government can know the thoughts 
 and intents of the mind, unless manifested .by outward signs, 
 the civil law could only place crime in action. No mere inten 
 tion, however wicked, can constitute a crime under this theoi;y. 
 The intention is only one of the ingredients of crime. And as 
 the civil law leaves belief and intention untouched, it could 
 never form a moral code. It lacks the wisdom, power, and jus- 
 tice required ; and must, therefore, be exceedingly imperfect in 
 these respects. All that the law of the land can rightfully re- 
 quire us to do, is to comply with its provisions by our acts. 
 3 
 
10 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 But the infirmities necessarily incident to human legislation 
 are not found in the law of God. That sublime code can right- 
 fully require us to believe all its provisions to be just, because 
 they are so, in point of fact ; and we are only required to be- 
 lieve that which we may know is unerringly true. And for the 
 very reason that a fallible lawgiver could not rightfully assume 
 to govern faith and intention, an infallible lawgiver should regu- 
 late both ; otherwise, they would be left without government. 
 And if faith and intention be left without control, there can be 
 no pure morality, and no perfect obedience. The wicked inten 
 tion is the first element of moral wrong. To hold a free agent 
 responsible for this first voluntary act, is the most efficient, and 
 for that reason, the most merciful rule. To teach the party 
 governed, that he is responsible for his evil thoughts and crimi- 
 nal intentions, is to check vice in its inception. So, to teach 
 him that he must believe the truth is to secure his love and 
 reverence for it, and his more ready and hearty obedience to it ; 
 for obedience will always be more faithful to a law believed to 
 be just in itself, than to one whose justice is disputed. 
 
 We may safely conclude, that whatever revelation God 
 made to man, must have been just and true; and if just, it 
 must, for that reason, constitute a rule of moral conduct ; and 
 if true, it must, for that reason, be believed. A perfect law in 
 every particular, has a right to demand our perfect obedience, 
 in thought, belief, and act. It is reasonable that an Infinite law- 
 giver, like any other just legislator, should be just to Himself, 
 as well as to others; and for that reason, should have some eye 
 to His own rights, and the respect due to His real character. 
 
 The human legislator prescribes his law, and says to the 
 party governed : " I have given you the best law I could ; but 
 it is still imperfect. I do not, therefore, ask you to believe it 
 just; and if I did, my limited powers would not enable me to 
 reach your thoughts and intentions. But as the good of society 
 imperiously requires government, and government must, of ne- 
 cessity, require obedience, you must obey my law in act, what- 
 ever you may believe and intend." But an Infinite lawgiver 
 holds a different language, and says : " My statutes are just 
 and true in every particular. I, therefore, require you to think 
 right, intend right, and act right ; and I have tho right, the 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 11 
 
 knowledge, and the power, to enforce obedience in all these 
 particulars." 
 
 2. Of the different modes of publication, and of the advan* 
 tages of a mixed code. 
 
 The laws governing any associated body of men, either 
 civil or ecclesiastical, may be promulgated in different ways ; 
 and, therefore, may be either written or oral, or partly written 
 and partly traditional. "But the manner," says Blackstone, 
 "in which this notification is to be made, is matter of very great 
 indifference. It may be notified by universal tradition and long 
 practice, which supposes a previous publication, as is the case of 
 the common law of England. It may be notified, viva voce, by 
 officers appointed for that purpose, as is done with, regard to 
 proclamations, and such acts of parliament as are appointed to 
 be publicly read in churches and other assemblies. It may 
 lastly be notified by writing, printing, or the like ; which is 
 the general course taken with all our acts of parliament." 
 (1 Com., 46.) 
 
 As language, whether oral or written, is still but a sign or 
 medium, by and through which one intelligence communicates 
 ideas to another, the character of the law itself is not affected 
 by the mere manner of its publication. The will of the legislator 
 exists without any regard to the mode of publication ; and the 
 publication is only evidence of that will. The different modes 
 of publication only constitute different kinds of evidence to 
 prove the will of the legislator. The thing to be proven is, in 
 all cases, the same. 
 
 These two modes of publication have each their respective 
 advantages. A written code is more concise and portable, while 
 a traditional code is more full and complete. A mixed code 
 combines the advantages of both, and is most preferable in prac- 
 tice. The two parts of a mixed code mutually explain and il 
 lustrate each other. 
 
 The municipal law of England is divided into two kinds, the 
 unwritten, or common law, and the written, or statute law. (1 
 Blackstone's Com., 62.) The States of our Union, with one ex- 
 ception, have adopted the common law, and have, therefore, 
 
12 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 mixed codes of jurisprudence. And in speaking of the unwrit- 
 ten law, the learned commentator on the laws of England says : 
 " I would not be understood as if all those laws were at pres- 
 ent merely oral, or communicated from the former ages to the 
 present solely by word of mouth. But with us at present, the 
 monuments and evidences of our legal customs are contained in 
 the records of the several courts of justice, in books of reports 
 and judicial decisions, and in the treatises of learned sages of the 
 profession, preserved and handed down to us from the times of 
 highest antiquity. However, I, therefore, style these parts of 
 our law legis non scripta, because their original institution and 
 authority are not set down in writing, as acts of parliament are." 
 (1 Com., 64.) 
 
 " But here a very natural and a very material question 
 arises," says the same learned commentator, " how are these 
 customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity 
 to be determined ? The answer is, by the judges in the several 
 courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws, the liv- 
 ing oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are 
 bound by an oath to decide according to the law of the land. * 
 * And, indeed, these judicial decisions are the 
 principal and most authoritative evidence that can be given of 
 the existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the com- 
 mon law. The judgment itself, and all the proceedings previous 
 thereto, are carefully registered and preserved, under the name 
 of records, in public repositories set apart for that particular 
 purpose ; and to them frequent recourse is had when any criti- 
 cal question arises, in the determination of which, former pre- 
 cedents may give light or assistance. * * * For it 
 is an established rule to abide by former precedents when 
 the same points come again in litigation ; as well to keep the 
 scales of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with 
 every new judge's opinion, as also because the law in that case 
 being solemnly declared and determined, what before was un- 
 certain, and perhaps indifferent, is now become a permanent 
 rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to 
 alter or vary from, according to his private sentiments ; he be- 
 ing sworn to determine, not according to his own private judg- 
 ment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land ; 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 13 
 
 not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and ex- 
 pound the old one. Yet this rule admits of exception, when the 
 former decision is most evidently contrary to reason ; much 
 more if it be clearly contrary to the divine law. But even in 
 such cases, the subsequent judges do not pretend to make a new 
 law, but to vindicate the old one from misrepresentation." (1 
 Com., 69.) 
 
 3. The same subject continued. 
 
 To those who are engaged in the practical administration of 
 the law, the advantages of a mixed system will become apparent. 
 A written code can only conveniently embrace the leading prin- 
 ciples of a system, expressed in general terms. It cannot be so 
 full or complete as the unwritten law. In the application of a 
 written system to particular cases, where it is not aided and il- 
 lustrated by the unwritten law, the difficulties would seem to 
 be great. It is very doubtful whether any complete system of 
 written law, suited to the various wants of a civilized people, 
 could be formed and practically put in operation, without the aid 
 of the unwritten law. It would necessarily be either so concise 
 as to be defective, in omitting necessary provisions, or so volumi- 
 nous and minute, as to become inconvenient for ordinary cases. 
 
 It must be obvious to those who have well considered the 
 nature of all laws intended for the government of men, that a 
 comprehensive principle may be adopted in a very concise form, 
 and yet embracing a great number of cases under it ; or the 
 legislator may himself extend the principle out into its various 
 ramifications, so as to show its application to difterent classes 
 of cases. In the first instance, his law will be very brief in form, 
 while in the second, it will be very full. But whether the law- 
 maker adopt the concise or more detailed mode of enactment, 
 or a combination of both, the result must be substantially the 
 same in the end, or injustice must be done to the parties gov- 
 erned. Their wants are still the same, and those wants must be 
 provided for, either by the law itself in full, or by the construc- 
 tion of the courts. The particular cases must be decided either 
 by the specific provisions of the law, or by the extension of con- 
 cisely expressed general principles by the judgment of the courts. 
 Laws, as a general rule, can only lay down general principles, 
 
14 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 expressed in general terms ; and one general principle may em 
 brace a number of subordinate principles legitimately flowing 
 from it. The subordinate principles, when not developed in 
 the law itself, must be discovered and applied by the courts ; 
 otherwise there is a defect of justice. If, Then, a written code 
 be adopted, and the unwritten law excluded, the judges will 
 find it more difficult to practically administer such a system, and 
 they will be forced, either to pass by wrongs without a remedy, 
 or they must take the responsibility of extending the principles 
 of the statute to doubtful cases. 
 
 It would seem to be exceedingly difficult, in the nature of 
 things, to adopt an entire written code that will be sufficiently 
 full and complete, so as to embrace all the cases demanding re- 
 lief under civil government. It is by a combination of the two 
 parts of written and unwritten law that the most just, complete, 
 and convenient code can be formed. The statute law will then 
 embrace all new changes, and also the more ordinary, every-day 
 provisions, while the unwritten law will contain the more mi- 
 nute provisions necessary to be applied in critical cases. The 
 Romans, Spaniards, and Swedes had a common law. (1 Black- 
 stone's Com., 66, 74.) 
 
 As illustrative of this view I may refer to the experiment 
 made in France. 
 
 " Though the French codes," says Chancellor Kent, " di- 
 gested under the revolutionary authority, are distinguished for 
 sententious brevity, there are numerous volumes of French re- 
 ports already extant upon doubtful and difficult questions, aris- 
 ing within a few years after those codes were promulgated." 
 (1 Kent's Com., 468.) 
 
 The learned American commentator states, in a note, that 
 these reports had amounted, in 1818, to fifty volumes and up- 
 wards, and that " from the time of the French revolution down 
 to 1828, there were over one hundred volumes of statutory law 
 made in France." 
 
 4. Of tradition as a medium of transmission. 
 
 It has been often objected that tradition is an unsafe medium 
 of transmission ; and those who urge this objection usually illus- 
 trate it by referring to the uncertain nature of general reports, 
 
THE LAW OP CHKIST. 15 
 
 circulating in a community. That tradition is an uncertain me- 
 dium of transmission when used for the preservation of unim- 
 portant matters, in which no one is particularly interested, is 
 true ; and it is apprehended that writing would not be sufficient 
 to perpetuate the memory of that which no one cared to pre- 
 serve. Besides this, such unimportant matters are not commit- 
 ted to any particular depositary no one is specially charged 
 with their preservation and safe transmission. 
 
 But such is not the case with regard to laws. They are 
 matters too deeply important to be neglected or forgotten, for 
 the reason that they not only regulate the dearest interests of 
 society, but they are of daily application, and competent tribu- 
 nals are made the depositaries, as Blackstone says. That tradi- 
 tion, under such circumstances, and in reference to such im- 
 portant matters, is a safe, certain, and efficient means of trans- 
 mission, is demonstrated in the case of the common law of Eng 
 land ; for after all the changes that have been made in that sys- 
 tem, and all that may hereafter be needed, the great mass of its 
 provisions will most likely remain. And if we make a judicious 
 deduction for unadvised changes, which rashness and ignorance 
 have made, in the name of reform, we shall then be able to see 
 how little has been accomplished in the way of genuine improve- 
 ment upon that great traditional system of law. 
 
 The true character of laws is best seen and understood when 
 they are practically administered. As that military commander 
 is the most consummate chieftain whose plans work out most 
 beautifully upon the field of battle, so that system of law is the 
 best which produces the most practical good. And our great 
 iudges, our best law writers, from Lord Hale to Chief Justice 
 Marshall, and from Blackstone to Kent, are almost, if not quite, 
 unanimous in their admiration of the common law, and in thei: 
 condemnation of all hasty and crude changes in the system. If 
 we look into the numerous perplexing cases that have arisen in 
 courts of justice in modern times, we shall find that the most 
 difficult questions have been in reference to the construction of 
 statutes that the most uncertainty and confusion have been 
 produced by these frequent changes and that of the two, the 
 common law is the more uniform, consistent, and certain. 
 " And," says Blackstone, " it hath been_ an antient observation 
 
16 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 in the laws of England, that whenever a standing rule of law, 
 of which the reason, perhaps, could not be remembered or dis- 
 cerned, hath been wantonly broken in upon by statutes or new 
 resolutions, the wisdom of the rule hath in the end appeared, 
 from the inconveniences that have followed the innovation." (1 
 Com., 70.) 
 
 And Mr. Justice Cowen, in the case of Douglass v. Howard, 
 (24 Wendell's Rep., 45-47,) among other things, says : 
 
 " There is scarcely any branch of legal policy more worthy 
 of being enforced than that which aims to keep the laws of a 
 nation the same in all respects from one age to another, except 
 in points where change becomes absolutely necessary. Time, 
 says Lord Hale, is wiser than all the wits in the world, and the 
 law which has been tried by it has the highest possible evidence 
 in its favor. Time is the schoolmaster which teaches law most 
 effectually, and without which it cannot be generally known." 
 
 The same great judge calls this an "age when there is liter- 
 ally a mania for changing every law in some way." In this sen- 
 timent Chancellor Kent agrees when he speaks of " the rage for 
 bold, reckless, and presumptuous innovation, so prevalent at 
 this day, acting in contempt of the usages and wisdom of the. 
 common law." (l Com., 473, note.) And Lord Hale says, 
 " Such are the common laws of England ; namely, the pro- 
 duction of much wisdom, time, and experience." (Cited 1 
 Kent, 472.) 
 
 If, then, a great system of law, so nearly approaching per- 
 fection, and, as Sir Matthew Hale says, " is vast and compre- 
 hensive," and " consists of infinite particulars," has been trans- 
 mitted by tradition from age to age, in a form so fixed, certain, 
 and uniform, upon what ground can we say that such a medium 
 is unsafe in the transmission of laws, in the preservation of which 
 every member of the association is so deeply interested ? 
 
 The abstract objection against tradition as a medium of 
 transmission is not only shown to be unfounded by the historical 
 test in the case of the common law of England and other coun- 
 tries, but also by the history of the creation, and of God's early 
 dealings with mankind, which was transmitted by tradition from 
 age to age, for the space of two thousand years, until written 
 out by Moses ; speaking of which, Dr. Spring says : " Before hia 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 17 
 
 word was reduced to writing, these various communications 
 were narrated, treasured up in the memory, and became a tra- 
 ditionary revelation." (Dissertation 13.) 
 
 So far as abstract considerations go, they are not against the 
 position that the law of Christ is partly written and partly oral ; 
 but for the reasons already given, and others that will be here- 
 after stated, they would seem strongly to support it. And it 
 was well admitted by Dr. Spring, in reference to this law of 
 Christ, that " there is no absurdity in supposing it to be partly 
 oral and partly written, while both might be amplified and in- 
 terpreted by one another." (Dis. 12.) 
 
 5. Of the inspiration and authenticity of the written law of 
 
 Christ. 
 
 In the nature of things, before the mind can arrive at the 
 conclusion that the Bible is inspired, there must be sufficient 
 proof of this fact. This evidence must either be found in tradi- 
 tion, or in the book itself, or in both combined. If the point 
 to be proved is simply the historical existence of the Scriptures, 
 then the testimony of ordinary history will suffice. In other 
 words, it will be competent to prove that the separate books, 
 bearing the names of the writers, were in fact written by them ; 
 for ordinary history can show us that those books were in exist- 
 ence at a certain period, purporting to have been written by the 
 authors whose names they bear ; and this will, prima facie, 
 prove their authenticity and genuineness, as the same kind of 
 testimony would show the authenticity of the works of any other 
 writer. It will also prove, prima facie, the integrity of the 
 writers, for this must be presumed until the contrary is shown. 
 But when we prove the authenticity of the books of the New 
 Testament that they were in fact written by the persons whose 
 names they bear, and at the periods mentioned, we have not 
 established any thing more than the facts stated in each of the 
 books themselves. And if the fact of inspiration be not stated 
 in the books, we must, of necessity, resort to other testimony, 
 or admit the assumed fact without proof. In short, we must 
 look to proof outside the record. 
 
 It is, indeed, insisted that the inspiration of Scripture is, in 
 part, proven by evidence seen upon the face thereof, although 
 
18 THE LAW OP CHRIST. 
 
 not expressly stated in words. Thus the Rev. Hartwell Home 
 says : " The miracles related in the Old and New Testaments 
 are proofs that the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God." 
 (Introduction, vol. i., p. 204, 7th ed.) And Dr. Spring says : 
 " These books speak for themselves that they are not the work 
 of men." (Dis. 28.) 
 
 It would seem somewhat difficult to understand how the mir- 
 acles related in the Bible can be a proof of the inspiration of 
 the books in which they are simply recorded. We can well 
 understand how these miracles were proofs of the character and 
 capacity of the persons by whom they were performed, but it is 
 not so easy to see how they can constitute proofs of the inspira- 
 tion of books written long after they occurred. The facts re- 
 lated may constitute proofs. This inherent capacity, as proofs, 
 exists in the facts themselves, no matter when or by whom re- 
 lated, so they are duly authenticated. If, therefore, the same 
 facts are related in any other book, and their simple relation 
 proves the book inspired, then the history of Josephus is in- 
 spired, because true miracles are related therein. 
 
 It is not, then, the character or quality of the facts related 
 that proves the inspiration of the historian. These facts may 
 be related by an uninspired historian as well as any other class 
 of visible facts. And when Dr. Spring says the Scriptures " speak 
 for themselves that they are not the work of men," he does not 
 mean to say that they state so in express words ; but that the ex- 
 traordinary character of the facts and doctrines stated is proof 
 that the mind of man could not have originated the system there- 
 in recorded. But this relates only to the nature of the matter 
 recorded; and not to the inspired character of the record itself. 
 That which assumes to be a deposition may contain important 
 and true evidence, and yet this will not entitle it to be read. It 
 must have been properly taken. And I apprehend that if an 
 honest, yet uninspired historian, had been with Christ, and wit 
 nessed his miracles, and had, to the best of his ability, faithfully 
 recorded what he saw, and that this record had come down to 
 us, neither Dr. Spring nor Mr. Home could have pronounced as 
 to its inspiration, simply because of the character of the matte* 
 related. 
 
 It may well be conceded that the human mind is competent 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 19 
 
 to determine the extent of its own powers, and that, conse- 
 quently, the system recorded in the Scriptures could not have 
 originated with man. But this is not the only fact to be proven. 
 We wish also to know whether the Scriptures contain nothing 
 but the truth ; and when we reach the conclusion that the re- 
 cord is inspired, we are satisfied that it contains no falsehood. 
 The inspiration, when once established, is a conclusive guaranty 
 that the record is true. 
 
 But how can the human mind assume the capacity to deter- 
 mine, from the face of the record itself, that there have been no 
 additions or omissions f The capacity to decide upon the face 
 of the record, that no changes have been made, must be equal 
 to the capacity to originate. Suppose some texts omitted, and 
 some interpolated, would the human mind be able to restore the 
 mutilated text to its original form, f And with a copy of the 
 original Scriptures before him, would not the forger be able to 
 make so good an imitation as to defy detection by a simple com- 
 parison of the two, when it was unknown which was the genu- 
 ine record ? 
 
 6. Of the logical course of examination to ascertain the in* 
 spiration of the authors of the New Testament. 
 
 What, then, is the logical course of examination which will 
 lead an original inquirer to the conclusion that the New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures are inspired ? The point to be proven is that 
 these books are all, and each, of them inspired records, con- 
 taining only the truth, and written by the authorized agents 
 of God. 
 
 It is obvious that any being inspired by God for a given 
 purpose, must be His agent for the end intended. The prin- 
 cipal who, in virtue of his own nature, possesses a mass of 
 powers, may delegate them in smaller or larger portions, at his 
 pleasure. So, God can delegate inspiration and authority to 
 one or more individuals for one specific purpose only, or for sev- 
 eral specific purposes. In such cases, the inspiration and au- 
 thority will be confined to the specific purposes mentioned in 
 the commission. It is also obvious to common sense that when 
 power is delegated from a principal to his agent, that the prin- 
 cipal must himself give the evidence of that fact. It is true 
 
20 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 that the principal may appoint an agent, with power to appoint 
 sub-agents, but in that case the evidence of the original grant 
 of power must flow from the principal, and is shown by his act. 
 Power and inspiration could not flow from God without His 
 consent, and the evidence of such a delegation to another must 
 necessarily come from Him. His act alone can constitute such 
 evidence. And this evidence must be of such a character as to be 
 apprehended by the persons to be affected by the acts of the 
 agent ; otherwise, the fact of agency could not be known to them. 
 
 With these principles in his mind the inquirer takes up the 
 New Testament and any other history relating facts bearing 
 upon the question. He regards them all as placed upon the 
 same ground as simple, uninspired history. He considers the 
 New Testament writers as men, competent, without inspiration, 
 to state facts they witnessed, and relate discourses they heard. 
 The genuineness of their works, and the integrity of the 
 writers, are proved to him in the same way, and by the same 
 evidence, as the works and integrity of the other historians he 
 may consult. 
 
 The miracles of Christ were visible acts. So, His discourses 
 were delivered in human language, and could be recorded, as 
 any other discourses. The inquirer becomes satisfied, from the 
 testimony, that the miracles related were in fact performed by 
 Christ. From his knowledge of the more obvious and familiar 
 laws of nature, he knows they could not have been the acts of 
 men, and he draws at once the conclusion of Nicodemus, that 
 no man could do those things, except God be with him. The 
 performance of the miracles is established by the historical tes- 
 timony, and the miracles, when proven, establish the character 
 and capacity of Christ. 
 
 The inquirer is then prepared to believe Christ upon Hia 
 word : for if He be God, He cannot lie ; and if He be not God, 
 but only an inspired agent, still he cannot lie as to the facts of 
 his agency and inspiration. Whatever account, therefore, the di 
 vine or inspired person gives of his character and of his mission, 
 must be believed, because God, by His own act, has conclusively 
 established the veracity of the person, in reference to those 
 matters. Whenever such person assumes to act in his capacity 
 as such agent, he must be believed. Then as to what Christ 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 21 
 
 said, the same simple historical testimony relates it. Matthew 
 and John heard it, and have left their record. So, the historical 
 testimony equally proves the miracles, and discourses, and acts 
 of the apostles. The miracles performed by the apostles prove 
 them to have been veracious and competent witnesses, and their 
 testimony, as to facts, must be true. 
 
 From the testimony of the New Testament, he learns that 
 Christ said He would build His church, against which the gates 
 of hell should never prevail that He commanded His followers 
 to hear this church that He commissioned the eleven to teach 
 all nations that they did set up the kingdom, the church, and 
 put the law of Christ into practical operation. By the record 
 he is informed how the church was practically governed what 
 was its character, what were its powers as then exercised, and 
 that the whole deposit of faith was left by Christ with the church. 
 And his reason and common sense assure him that Christ, like 
 any other founder of a government, would necessarily make the 
 institution created by Himself, the depositary of the laws in- 
 tended for its own direction. He finds it historically related, as 
 a matter of fact, that long after the organization of the Church, 
 a difficult question arose among its rulers ; that to settle this 
 question the Council of Jerusalem was called ; that some of the 
 apostles, as well as other governors of the Church, participated ; 
 that this body rendered a final and conclusive decree, declaring 
 the law applicable to a particular case ; that this decree was the 
 act of the Church ; and that, upon its face, it assumed to be the 
 result of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He finds, upon the 
 face of the historical record of this decree, the evidence of Pe- 
 ter, Paul, and James, to the inspiration of the Church. He also 
 finds Paul stating that this Church was the pillar and ground of 
 the truth. 
 
 Having thus arrived at the knowledge of the fact that the 
 Church is an inspired witness, he finds, by examining her his- 
 tory, that she has attested the fact that the works of the New 
 Testament authors, including those of Mark and Luke, (who 
 were not apostles,) were the inspired Word of God, originally 
 deposited with the Church. In this way the inquirer arrives at 
 the conviction that the canon of Scripture is complete, contain- 
 im? *11 the inspired books, and only such. With him ordinary 
 
ZZ THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 history proved the miracles and discourses of Christ and His 
 apostles ; they proved the institution and character of the 
 Church ; and the Church proved the inspiration of the New 
 Testament writers : the chain of testimony is complete, and he 
 has supernatural or inspired testimony to the fact of the inspira- 
 tion of each writer, of each book, of the New Testament. 
 
 It would seem exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, upon any 
 other authority, to establish the inspiration of all the books com- 
 posing the New Testament, especially those of Mark and Luke. 
 These writers performed no miracles, so far as we are informed ; 
 and we have no testimony of Christ as to their inspiration, nor 
 do any of the apostles tell us they were inspired, nor do the 
 writers tKemselves claim any inspiration. So far from Mark or 
 Luke saying they were inspired historians, the latter, in his pre- 
 face, seems to write as an ordinary historian, as he states he re- 
 ceived the facts recorded from the witnesses who had delivered 
 them to him. And if they had stated they were inspired, such 
 a statement alone, made by persons whose veracity was not first 
 divinely attested, could not have proven it to be true, as it 
 would have been only that human testimony which any impos- 
 tor could have given, without the fear of direct contradiction. 
 To prove the performance of miracles, or the delivery of dis- 
 courses, which are external matters, cognizant by the senses, 
 and seen and heard by a number of witnesses, who are mutual 
 checks upon each other, the testimony of ordinary history is 
 amply sufficient. But when we come to prove the higher fact 
 of the secret and invisible communication of the Holy Ghost to 
 the minds of Mark and Luke, we must have testimony as high 
 as the fact to be proved that of miracles, or of persons whose 
 veracity has already been divinely attested. A man cannot 
 prove his own inspiration by his own testimony, independent oi 
 that of God. This secret inspiration could not be known to 
 others not inspired, and the ordinary historian could not give 
 evidence of that which, from its nature, could not be known to 
 him without the visible attestation of God. 
 
 7. Of the unwritten law of Christ. 
 
 From the simple history of the New Testament it is shown 
 that Christ appeared among men as a lawgiver that He pro- 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 23 
 
 mulgated His law orally, (for there is no evidence in the record 
 that He ever wrote any thing, except what he wrote with his 
 finger upon the ground ;) that He gave no command that His 
 laws should be reduced to writing, but having verbally instruct- 
 ed His apostles, He commissioned them, to act as His agents. 
 These inspired agents carried out the commission, and the king- 
 dom was governed for many years before any part of the law 
 was written. This unwritten law was the original law of the 
 Church. It was given and practically administered in that 
 form, and in that form was obligatory upon every member of 
 the association. 
 
 This being the original and established form of the code, to 
 substitute the written law for the unwritten, either in whole or 
 in part, would require the affirmative act, either of the law- 
 maker Himself or of His lawful agents. And only in so far as 
 the written law included the unwritten, can the former become 
 a substitute for the latter, except it be expressly so declared. 
 If, then, it be true that only a part of the original law of Chris- 
 tianity has been written, the entire code must consist of both 
 these parts, unless the unwritten portion has been expressly 
 repealed. 
 
 When God gave a law to the Jews, He expressly command- 
 ed it to be written, " And Moses wrote all the words of the 
 Lord." (Exodus xxiv. 4.) The tables upon which the law was 
 engraved, having been broken by Moses, they were renewed. 
 (Ex. xxxiv. 1-28.) The law was required to be read to all the 
 people at the end of every seventh year, at the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles. (Deut. xxxi. 10, 11.) 
 
 If our Lord intended that the law governing the Church or- 
 ganized by Him should become a written code, it would seem 
 very natural and reasonable that He should have made provision* 
 for that end, as was done in the case of the Old Law. It would 
 seem difficult to understand why God, intending to accomplish 
 the same end in both cases, should make express provision to 
 secure the end in one, and not in the other. But upon the 
 theory that He intended the code to be written in the one, and 
 not in the other, we can well understand why God acted differ- 
 ently in the two cases. 
 
 But we meet with no intimation, either in the words of 
 
24: THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 Christ or in those of His apostles, that any such intention ever 
 existed. And when we come to look into the books them- 
 selves, and consider their history, we shall see abundant reason 
 to negative any such idea. We find that these books were the 
 result, not of any direction by Christ, that they should be writ- 
 ten, but of casual circumstances. Matthew wrote for a specific 
 class of readers, and Luke wrote for a single individual. The 
 Epistles of Paul were evidently written to different churches 
 and individuals, whom he could not visit at the time, and for 
 the purpose of correcting some local corruptions or heresies. 
 The very form in which the books of the New Testament are 
 written, not being regular and methodical, shows they were not 
 intended by their authors to form a complete code of law. 
 Many of the most important doctrines mentioned by St. Paul 
 are very concisely stated, and introduced parenthetically, and 
 as illustrations. The apostles were expressly commanded to 
 preach, and that mode of teaching became obligatory. But as 
 to teaching by written instructions, there seems to have been 
 nothing determined by Christ ; but the adoption of that mode 
 was left discretionary, to be governed by circumstances. Hence 
 we find them resorting to that mode of communicating with 
 particular individuals or churches as often as convenience or 
 other circumstances rendered it advisable. While absent, or 
 in prison, this was the only available means they could use. 
 
 As the unwritten law was the first law of Christianity, and 
 the only law for many years ; before the written law could be- 
 come a part of the code, it would be requisite to establish its 
 validity by some affirmative act. And the mere fact that por- 
 tions of the law were subsequently written, would not, of itself, 
 show any intention to substitute those portions for the entire 
 code. If we go back to the earliest British statutes now extant, 
 the fact of their existence as written law, and the passage of nu- 
 merous statutes since, by parliament, will not afford the slight- 
 est evidence of any intention to abolish the common law, except 
 where it has been expressly superseded, or the statute is mani- 
 festly incompatible with it. But it may be justly said, that the 
 statutes themselves recognize the common law as a part of the 
 law of the realm. This is true ; but it would seem to be equally 
 true that the written expressly admits the existence of the un- 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 25 
 
 written law as part of the Christian code. Of this in another 
 place. 
 
 Those who insist that the written Word contains the entire 
 law of Christ, are bound, it would seem, by every rule of sound 
 interpretation, to show at least one of two things: 1. That the 
 written law contains all of the original unwritten law; or 2. 
 That admitting it not to contain all the original law of the king- 
 dom, it has been, by competent authority, expressly adopted as 
 an entire substitute for it. For unless one or the other of these 
 positions can be satisfactorily proven, the presumption of law 
 and right reason would always be, that the code consists of two 
 parts, the written and the unwritten. 
 
 V' 
 
 8. The same matter further considered. 
 
 As to the first position, that the written, includes all of the 
 unwritten law, there is no satisfactory proof; but the evidence 
 seems clearly to establish the contrary fact. It is true that St . 
 Luke says, in the preface to his Gospel, that he had " perfect 
 understanding of all things from the very first;" and in his 
 Acts of the Apostles he says, " the former treatise have I writ- 
 ten of all that Jesus began both to do and teach ; " yet these 
 general expressions are not only limited by his own statements 
 in other places, but by the statements of other New Testament 
 writers and by the facts recorded by them. For Luke himself 
 informs us that Christ was seen of the apostles forty days after 
 His passion, and speaking of the things pertaining to the king- 
 dom of God ; and this writer nowhere assumes to give these in- 
 structions of our Lord in full. Besides, Matthew, John, and 
 Mark record numerous facts and instructions of our Lord not 
 mentioned by Luke ; and St. John tells us that many other 
 things Jesus did, which he does not himself record, and says, in 
 strong hyperbolical language, that if they all should be written, 
 every one, the world itself, he supposes, could not contain the 
 books. And none of the subsequent books assume to contain 
 all the instructions of Christ or of His apostles. Indeed, this 
 position is so clear, that I am not aware of any writer who main- 
 tains the contrary. 
 
 In reference to this matter, Dr. Spring says : " The Saviour 
 appeared among men as a living teacher. We have no evidence 
 4 
 
26 THE LAW OF CHKIST. 
 
 that his personal instructions were delivered to the apostles re- 
 writing, or that the preaching of the apostles was in any other 
 way than orally. On the other hand, we do not deny that both 
 Christ himself, and his apostles, uttered many and important 
 truths that were never committed to writing." Again : " But 
 there is no evidence that any of them, (the instructions of Christ 
 and his apostles,) or even any of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, were written until years after his ascension into heaven." 
 (Dissertation 17.) 
 
 These are very important admissions, and while they concede 
 no more than the simple truth, they give rise to very serious 
 and interesting inquiries. 
 
 Was Christ a lawgiver ? As such, was He powerless, in- 
 competent, or frivolous ? In giving His law, did He so exhaust 
 His powers that He made no provision for the preservation and 
 perpetuation of His entire code f Or did He intend that the 
 Christians of the first age should be governed by a full and com- 
 plete code of law, while the Christians of all succeeding ages 
 should be governed by a mutilated code, robbed of " many and 
 important truths " ? Did he intend that the Church, in the 
 days of the apostles, should believe one system of faith, and his 
 followers, in after ages, should believe another ? Is not this 
 theory too humiliating to be true ? On the contrary, did not 
 Christ build but one Church, for the government of which He 
 gave but one law? And did He not intend that this entire 
 code, as He delivered it, should govern this one Church, from 
 the first even to the last period of her existence upon earth ? 
 Did not the Christians of the apostolic day live under the same 
 dispensation and under the same code of law as we of the pres- 
 ent ? Were they not required to believe the same things ? 
 
 Our Lord promised His apostles the Holy Ghost, who should 
 " teach them all things, and bring all things to their remem- 
 brance whatsoever He had said unto them." (John xiv. 26.) And 
 after making this inviolable promise, He gave them that impera- 
 tive command to "teach all nations to observe all things whatso- 
 ever I have commanded you." This command was the last one 
 given -was to take effect and be put in force on and after the 
 day of Pentecost, and, therefore, included all things Christ had 
 "before that day commanded the apostles to observe, except the 
 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 27 
 
 few commands specially limited to them, such as the command 
 to tarry in Jerusalem. The command in the commission is gen- 
 eral, and for a general purpose, and not limited by any other 
 text ; and, according to rule the fourth, must be taken in its 
 widest sense compatible with the general scope of the whole 
 system. The apostles executed this commission, for St. Paul 
 tells the elders of Ephesus : " I have not shunned to declare 
 unto you all the counsel of God." (Acts xx. 27.) And the same 
 apostle says to the Galatians : " But though we, or an angel 
 from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which 
 we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." And so im- 
 portant did St. Paul esteem this doctrine that he repeats it in 
 the next verse, almost in the same words. (Gal. i. 8.) Then 
 whatever requisites did compose the Gospel, as received by the 
 Apostles, they did teach. 
 
 If, therefore, the Gospel received and taught by the apos- 
 tles, was made up of certain requisites, no man is authorized to 
 preach any other Gospel made up of any other requisites, either 
 more or less ; for if such Gospel contain more or less constitu- 
 ents than the original, it is adulterated in the first, and mutilated 
 in the second case, and it cannot be the same, but must be 
 different. The identity in such case is destroyed. How, then, 
 can the Gospel which does not contain " many and important 
 truths uttered by Christ and his Apostles," as Dr. Spring ad- 
 mits, be the same gospel preached by the Apostles ? If we can 
 omit " many and important truths," and the identity of the 
 gospel be not destroyed, what limit can there be to such omis- 
 sions ? Would a mutilated statute, deprived of " many and im- 
 portant " sections, be the same as the original ? Suppose we 
 strike from the Constitution of the United States, " many and 
 important " provisions, would it still be the same constitution ? 
 
 As the law of Christ was originally promulgated orally, and 
 reduced to practice in that form, and for many years the entire 
 church was so governed and as the written law is conceded 
 not to contain " many and important truths " before we can 
 assume that the entire unwritten code has been repealed, the 
 proofs should be of the highest and most conclusive character. 
 The intention thus to mutilate a great system of law, given for 
 the government of the same perpetual institution, and given by 
 
28 THE LAW OF CimiST. 
 
 a Divine legislator, who could make His law perfect at the be- 
 ginning without the necessity of subsequent change, ought to 
 be shown by proofs remarkably clear and full ; for it would 
 seem a strange anomaly, that a lawgiver of such a character, 
 should so defectively arrange His government, that His code 
 should become incomplete in a very few years after its promul- 
 gation ; thus leaving the subsequent subjects of His kingdom 
 not so well governed as those at the beginning. Such^a result 
 might well happen from the imperfect system of a human legis- 
 lator, and contrary to his intention. But how the law of Christ 
 could be thus crippled, contrary to His intention, is most diffi- 
 cult to imagine. For we cannot conceive why the " many and 
 important truths " should have been uttered by Christ and His 
 apostles, unless it was intended they should be preserved ; nor 
 can we think that Christ and His apostles were idle or power- 
 less that they uttered truths to be forgotten enacted laws 
 not to be obeyed and that they promulgated important prin- 
 ciples, forming a part of one entire system of law, that they, 
 nevertheless, intended should be lost. 
 
 It is true that St. John says : " But these are written, that 
 ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and 
 that believing ye might have life through his name." But this 
 he spoke of his own gospel only, as can be seen in the pre- 
 ceding verse. If the apostle intended any thing exclusive in 
 this statement, so as to show that his gospel was alone necessary 
 and sufficient, independent of any other part of the law, then he 
 intended to exclude, as well the other Scriptures, even his own 
 Epistles and his Revelations, as the unwritten law itself. He 
 does not seem to have had that consequence in view ; and as 
 the text is general and not specific, we must also look to other 
 portions of the Scripture, which refer to this question, and con- 
 strue and apply all together, and give force and effect to all. 
 
 9. Of the Scriptural view of the written and the unwritten 
 
 Law. 
 
 St. Paul, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, seems to place 
 this subject in a clear light. He says : 
 
 " But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned. 
 
THE LAW OF CHEI8T. 29 
 
 and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned 
 them." 
 
 This passage, taken in connection with preceding passages 
 found in the First and Second Epistles to Timothy, especially 
 with those wherein St. Paul tells him to " hold fast the form 
 of sound words, 'Which thou hast heard of me," and "the 
 things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the 
 same commit thou to faithful men able to teach others also," as 
 well as those regarding the manner of St. Paul's teaching, incul- 
 cates upon Timothy the duty of continuing in the things which 
 he had learned of the apostle verbally, and to commit the same 
 to others in the same way. In other words, it is a commenda- 
 tion of tradition ; showing that the law thus conveyed to Timo- 
 thy was obligatory upon him and others in that form. 
 
 The apostle goes on to say, in close connection with this 
 passage : 
 
 " And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, 
 which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith 
 which is in Jesus Christ." 
 
 Now the Scriptures here spoken of were undoubtedly those 
 of the Old Testament, for Timothy had known them from a 
 child. These Scriptures are said to be able to make Timothy 
 wise unto salvation; but the apostle expressly qualifies this 
 language by adding, " through faith which is in Jesus Christ." 
 The substance of this passage, as I understand it, is an endorse- 
 ment of the Old Testament Scriptures; and, taken in connection 
 with the preceding verse, which is a part of the same sentence, 
 amounts to a statement, that these Scriptures and the system 
 taught by Christ, when taken together, were able to make Tim- 
 othy wise unto salvation. 
 
 The apostle, having thus far spoken of tradition and the Old 
 Testament Scriptures, commences a new sentence, and speaks of 
 the character of all Scripture, without distinction, in this way : 
 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profita- 
 ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
 righteousness : that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
 furnished unto every good work." 
 
 Now, when St. Paul says that all Scripture is profitable to 
 produce a certain end, does he mean to say that it is alone suffi- 
 
30 THE LAW OF CHEIST. 
 
 dent f Does he mean to say to Timothy, " the Scripture is the 
 only rule necessary, and that tradition which I have just com- 
 mended, you may cast aside " ? In other words, is there any 
 thing exclusive in the form of expression used ? I cannot so un- 
 derstand it. On the contrary, the term profitable gives to the 
 apostle's language a limited meaning, and shows that his inten- 
 tion was not to exclude tradition, but to include " all Scripture," 
 as being profitable to produce the end stated. Two or more 
 means may be profitable to produce the same given end, and 
 we may, therefore, speak of each one separately, and say it is 
 profitable for that purpose. The term, in this place, means use- 
 ful ; advantageous ; and to speak of the sole agent in producing 
 the indicated end, as being profitable, would seem not to be ac- 
 curate. The word able or sufficient would express such exclu- 
 sive meaning better. 
 
 And when we are told in Scripture, in one place, that we 
 are justified by grace ; in another, by faith; and in one, that we 
 are saved by hope ; in a second, by faith ; in a third, by confession 
 and faith ; in a fourth, by baptism ; and in a fifth, by keeping the 
 commandments, we cannot say that these expressions, though 
 much stronger than the word profitable^ intended to exclude all 
 agents in justification and salvation, except one only, in each of 
 the cases mentioned. On the contrary, we must understand 
 that all these agents form parts of one entire system, and all 
 combine to produce the result stated. So we understand St. 
 Paul, in the four verses under consideration, as including 1, Tra- 
 dition ; 2, the Old Testament ; and 3, all Scripture, as composing 
 but parts of the law, and all being profitable to qualify a min- 
 ister for every good work. And he certainly does inculcate all 
 these upon Timothy, and could not, therefore, have intended to 
 exclude any one or more of them. 
 
 But the language of St. Paul, in portions of his other epis- 
 tles, seems still more explicit. To the Corinthians he says : 
 
 " ISTow I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all 
 things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you." 
 (1 Cor. xi. 2.) 
 
 To the Thessalonians he says : 
 
 " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions 
 which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 31 
 
 " Now we command you, brethren, in the name of oui Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother 
 that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he 
 received of us." (2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6.) 
 
 These passages are very much to the point, and give rise to 
 very important reflections. 
 
 It must be conceded that the Thessalonians had been taught 
 the entire law of Christ ; and this entire law the apostle calls 
 " the traditions," whether taught by word or epistle. That 
 which was taught by word and that by epistle were equally 
 obligatory ; and they were both placed upon the same footing, 
 and entitled to precisely the same confidence and obedience. 
 The law, as taught to these brethren, consisted of two parts, 
 the written and unwritten, and, in these forms, was obligatory 
 upon them. Where have we any evidence that these oral teach- 
 ings were ever reduced to writing? There is none by Paul, 
 for the command to hold fast both, was given in his second 
 and last epistle to the Thessalonians. If these oral teachings 
 were so necessary to these Christians, why are they not so to 
 us ? The doctrines taught were true, and were the doctrines 
 taught by Christ. 
 
 Where, then, is the evidence in the Scriptures that the writ- 
 ten superseded the entire unwritten law ? The kingdom was 
 for many years governed by the unwritten law, and by that 
 only. And when the law was written, it was only in part, and 
 upon special occasions ; and we find St. Paul mentioning both 
 parts of the law, and commanding both parts to be held equally 
 sacred, for the reason that they were both the Word of God. 
 
 Now, in opposition to the general principle, that a body of 
 laws once obligatory in a certain form, cannot be abrogated in 
 that form, unless they are subsequently all written out, or part- 
 ly written, and those not written, expressly repealed ; and in 
 violation of the clear language of St. Paul, commanding his 
 brethren to stand fast and hold both, by what system of right 
 reason can we assume thus to mutilate a great and sublime code 
 of law, by leaving out " many and important truths " originally 
 belonging to it ? And if the apostles had so intended, would 
 they not have told us so in terms not to be mistaken ? Where 
 is that authoritative act recorded, which every principle of 
 
32 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 sound law, and of reasonable construction, requires to have been 
 performed, in order to set aside an entire system of unwritten 
 law, first authoritatively established and put in practical opera- 
 tion by Christ and His apostles ? 
 
 10. Of the alleged incompatibility of the Bible and Tradition. 
 
 In reference to this question, Dr. Spring has certain abstract, 
 summary positions, which I examined with care. He says : 
 
 " To ascribe infallibility to any other standard of truth than 
 the Bible, is itself casting the Bible into the shade. Two infalli- 
 ble standards of faith cannot be ; since, if they differ, one must 
 be wrong, and if they do not differ, they are the same thing." 
 (Dis. 72.) 
 
 The imagination cannot conceive, nor the tongue of man ut- 
 ter any encomium upon the Scriptures, as to their truth and 
 sublimity, that they do not merit, for the simple reason, they are 
 the Word of God. And, perhaps, nothing can add to the beauty 
 of the simple statement of St. Paul, that " All Scripture is given 
 by inspiration of God." As to their sacred character, there is 
 no question. 
 
 But is it true that the Scriptures contain the entire Word 
 of God ? And if they do not, how can it depreciate the written 
 Word, to put the unwritten Word of God upon the same foot- 
 ing ? Were they not both uttered by the same Infinite Law- 
 giver ? Are they not both infallibly true ? If so, how does it 
 wrong either to be just to each, and to both ? If we put the 
 two parts of a machine together, so as to make it complete, is 
 this a wrong to either ? And if you put the two parts of an 
 infallible code together, and thus make it complete, is this er- 
 ror ? is this confusion ? Or is it order " heaven's first law " ? 
 I confess that I could not understand how putting both parts of 
 a code together could depreciate either. It would seem that 
 they were both honored, and the true intent of each was accom- 
 plished. 
 
 And with due deference to the opinion of the learned Divine, 
 I submit that the whole is resolved into these two questions : 
 1. Does the Bible contain the entire code as originally delivered 
 by Christ and His apostles f 2. And if not, was that por* 
 tion of the unwritten law, not recorded in the Bible, repealed f 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 33 
 
 If the Bible does not contain the entire code now obligatory, 
 to say that it is the only rule, is to do it as clear injustice, as that 
 attempted towards Sts. Paul and Barnabas, when the people 
 wished to sacrifice to them as Gods. And such a course would 
 be equally unjust to Tradition, as withholding from it that 
 which is its just due. 
 
 And when the learned Divine says, " Two infallible stand- 
 ards of faith there cannot be," (alluding to Scripture and Tra- 
 dition,) he seems to overlook his own clear language, uttered in 
 a preceding page, where he says, as already quoted, speaking 
 of the Christian law : " There is no absurdity in supposing it to 
 be partly oral and partly written, while both might be amplified 
 and interpreted by one another." (Dis. 12.) And in making 
 another charge against the Catholic Church, he seems to me to 
 answer himself very fully, as to the supposed incompatibility of 
 Scripture and Tradition. 
 
 " Romanists," he says, " teach the doctrine that truth be- 
 comes truth because it is believed, and that it isfirst believed and 
 'hen true, whereas, independently of its being believed, it has 
 an unchanging and everlasting existence." (Dis. 22.) 
 
 If truth has an everlasting and unchangeable existence, then 
 all that Christ and His apostles did utter, whether written or 
 unwritten, is equally true, in both forms, and wholly consistent. 
 All the facts that ever did exist all the events that ever did 
 occur all the truths ever uttered by God or man, were con- 
 sistent with all the others, and harmonious in every particular. 
 How, then, can there be any contradiction or inconsistency in 
 the words of Christ and His apostles those " many and im- 
 portant truths," as the learned Divine admits, " that were never 
 committed to writing," and those that were so committed? 
 
 And when he says that if these standards " do not differ, 
 they are the same thing," I understand him ; but when he says 
 that " if they differ, then one must be wrong,'* I cannot see 
 " whereunto this must grow." He himself has told us that 
 " many and important truths uttered by Christ and His apos- 
 tles were never committed to writing ; " and of course these 
 truths " never committed to writing " must be different from 
 those written; and yet he admits they were truths, and if 
 5 
 
34: THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 truths, they must have an " everlasting existence," and, there* 
 fore, " must [not] be wrong." 
 
 Under the Catholic theory, the Scriptures and Tradition are 
 held to be but constituent parts of one whole system of law 
 each part containing nothing but the truth, and both parts, 
 taken together, only containing all the truth. There can be no 
 theoretical contradiction or inconsistency herein ; and there can 
 be none, in point of fact, unless truths have either been lost or 
 errors added to the system, by one or both of these parts. And 
 when Dr. Spring maintains that there must be an incompati- 
 bility, I must think him wholly mistaken ; or I must say, that 
 the first part of Scripture which was written, was itself incom- 
 patible with that portion of the truth not then recorded. 
 
 It is true, that in systems of civil law, composed of two 
 parts, written and unwritten, there is always a provision, that 
 where they conflict, the written law shall prevail, as being the 
 last will of the legislature. This provision is predicated upon 
 the ground that human legislation is imperfect that it maj 
 need amendment that the lawmaker is actually fallible, and 
 for that reason, may contradict himself. Hence such a provision 
 becomes necessary. But the same principle cannot apply to a 
 system of law made by Christ. The same liability to imperfect 
 legislation cannot exist. The nature and character of the Law- 
 giver, and, therefore, of His law itself, being as different from 
 human legislation, as fallibility and infallibility from each other, 
 this principle, so necessary to the fallible system, is, for that 
 very reason, inapplicable to the infallible. 
 
 And when the learned Divine asserts that " Romanists teach 
 the doctrine that truth becomes truth because it is believed, and 
 that it is first believed and then true," with due deference I 
 must say, that I never could find any verification of such a state- 
 ment. So far as I have been able to discover the true teaching 
 of the Catholic Church, he has precisely reversed her maxim, 
 for she holds, not that " truth becomes truth because believed," 
 but that it is believed, because it is truth. True, she lays down 
 this rule in substance, that the fact of a certain doctrine having 
 at all times been believed and taught by the Church, as a truth 
 coming down from the apostles, is conclusive evidence to show 
 that such a provision was proclaimed originally by Christ and 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 35 
 
 his apostles. And this belief of the Church is treated by Dr. 
 Paley as evidence of the truth of Christianity itself, as we shall 
 hereafter see. Blackstone says, as we have seen, that the judges 
 of the courts are the depositaries of the common law that they 
 determine what it is and that their decision is the most author- 
 itative evidence that can be given of the prior existence of such 
 a custom. But the learned commentator did not mean to say 
 that such a custom became a law because of these decisions ; for 
 the judges are not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to 
 declare and maintain the old one. The courts only declare the 
 law the legislative power makes it. The law was in existence 
 before the courts so declared it. So, with the Catholic Church. 
 Under her theory, she is the depositary of the entire law, not 
 delegated to pronounce a new law, but simply to declare and 
 expound the old one. In theory her decisions do not create a 
 law do not make that law which was not before such but are 
 simply evidence of the law " once delivered to the saints." 
 
 The fact being undeniable and conceded, that " many and 
 important truths uttered by Christ and His apostles were never 
 committed to writing ; " and, therefore, not to be found in the 
 New Testament, it is difficult, upon any system of sound logic, 
 to reject Tradition. Such a rejection leads to so much confu- 
 sion and contradiction, that I was wholly unable to find any 
 warrant, either in Scripture or common sense, to support it. It 
 is derogatory to Christ, as a lawgiver, and to the Church as an 
 institution founded by Him. 
 
 To maintain that God created any thing in vain, is to im- 
 pute to Him an infirmity, deeply disparaging to His character 
 as Creator. We may not be able to comprehend the exact use 
 for which portions of the universe were designed, but we can 
 see the purpose for which most portions of the visible creation 
 were made ; and the consistency and beauty of these portions 
 should satisfy us that nothing was made in vain, though it be 
 true that our limited intellects will not enable us to scan the en- 
 tire creation at a glance, and designate the precise purpose for 
 which each portion was made. So, if we say that Christ made 
 any portion of His code of law in vain, we impute to Him an 
 idle frivolity deeply disparaging to His dignity as a Divine 
 Lawgiver. 
 
36 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 11. The true theory. 
 
 It occurred to me that Christ would never make a system 
 of law, and permit it to be either mutilated or lost ; that He 
 never would have committed His law to the world at large to 
 aliens and strangers to take its chances of preservation, like 
 the teachings of mere philosophers ; that He would perpetuate 
 it entire, either by His special superintendence, or by deposit- 
 ing it with an inspired and protected guardian ; that the latter 
 method was not only most in accordance with reason and His 
 system of governing men, but with the express declarations of 
 Scripture ; and that if He adopted either of these methods, the 
 truths of the system, written or unwritten, would alike come 
 down to us as originally given, that we might enjoy, if we would, 
 the same advantages as the Christians of the early Church. And 
 I could not conceive why Christ should build a Church against 
 which the gates of hell should never prevail, and which St. Paul 
 declared to be the pillar and ground of the truth, and yet not 
 commit the very law intended for the government of this great 
 institution to its keeping. The idea that Christ, as a Divine Leg- 
 islator, should organize an institution, such as He and Paul de- 
 scribed it, and yet it be incapable of knowing its own faith, and 
 not a credible witness of the same thus creating an association 
 of living men, wide as the world, and durable as time, and yet 
 so frail and unreliable as not to deserve the respect and confi- 
 dence due even to ordinary civil institutions, would seem, upon 
 its face, to be wholly inadmissible. 
 
 But it did seem to me that those who reject Tradition, under 
 the idea of attaining greater certainty, did, indeed, increase the 
 uncertainty ; not only by destroying a part of the law itself, but 
 by attacking the credibility of the only proper and reliable wit- 
 ness to the inspiration and authenticity of the entire canon of 
 Scripture. By conceding that " many and important truths " 
 of the system have never been written, and must, therefore, be 
 lost, because the testimony of the Church is unworthy of belief, 
 the character of our Lord as a lawgiver, and of His Church as 
 a competent witness, is depreciated, and the whole subject left 
 in irremediable doubt. 
 
 In the Catholic theory, there is a combination of all the 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 37 
 
 proofs, as well as beauty, strength, and consistency. 
 motive of credibility and every proof is therein preserved. In 
 this theory "our Lord," as Mr. Campbell justly says, "antici- 
 pated the future in all his precepts, and spoke with an eye to it, 
 as well as to the men of his own time." (C. & P.'s Debate, 14.) 
 Knowing that the art of printing, would not be invented for four- 
 teen centuries, and that the great mass of men would always be* 
 unable to read ; and that, therefore, an entire written law inter- 
 preted by each individual for himself in the last resort, would 
 be impracticable, our Lord, for these and other reasons, adopt- 
 ed a method that must be practical everywhere, and at all 
 periods ; and, therefore, promulgated His law orally, and com- 
 manded His apostles and their successors to do the same thing, 
 leaving such portions of the law to be reduced to writing as 
 after circumstances might render prudent and advisable. And 
 as the different modes of promulgation and transmission of laws 
 by writing and tradition have each their advantages, a combi- 
 nation of both methods is most efficient and useful ; so, the apos- 
 tles and others, inspired by God, wrote parts of the history and 
 laws of the early Church, and committed the same to the 
 Church, as also the unwritten traditions, for safe transmission, 
 attestation, and practical administration. By this theory, the 
 Church is the inspired depositary, witness, and interpreter of 
 the entire code left by Christ and His apostles, so that no part 
 of the law can be lost, and the code remains entire, without 
 mutilation or change ; and the work of Christ, and the institu- 
 tion founded by Him, remain perfect and complete, and worthy 
 of the character of a Divine Architect. 
 
 12. The testimony of the Ancient Fathers. 
 
 In every examination regarding any question of fact connect- 
 ed with the history of the early Church, we must necessarily 
 consult the Ancient Fathers the historians and ecclesiastical 
 writers of that period. The Catholic Church does not esteem 
 each one of them as individually inspired. They are held to be 
 simple, but authentic witnesses to matters of fact, to wit : what 
 were the doctrines held, and the observances kept by the Church 
 in their day f If the Church held certain doctrines, and kept 
 
38 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 certain observances, then these are held to be true y. and as to 
 the historical fact, the testimony of the Fathers is heard. 
 In his debate with Bishop Purcell, Mr. Campbell said : 
 " Among Protestants, the reason and authority of religious 
 belief and practice is, ' Thus saith the Lord.' It is not important 
 to ascertain when any opinion or practice began, nor who in- 
 troduced it ; but if it be not in the Bible, no matter how an- 
 cient it may be, it wants apostolic sanction, for the apostles 
 sanction only what was written and ordained before their death. 
 St. Clement, and St. Ignatius, and St. Irenseus, and all the other 
 saints in the Roman calendar, were born too late to sanction 
 any article of faith or morals by their vote." (Debate, 277.) 
 
 In this extract, Mr. 0. assumes that the Bible contains all 
 the Word of God now obligatory upon us, and that, consequent- 
 ly, it is not important to know " when a practice or opinion be- 
 gan, nor who introduced it ; " and from this position it would 
 seem that the authority of all preceding ages, even as to questions 
 of mere construction of the written Word, is wholly unimpor- 
 tant ; for if the opinions and practices of former ages, especially 
 of the early Church, be of any authority and force as to the true 
 construction of Scripture, then it is important to know when 
 any opinion or practice began. If, on the contrary, the faith 
 and practice of the Church in the days immediately succeeding 
 the apostles be of no validity, when compared with the contra- 
 dictory Protestant constructions of the Scriptures, then Mr. C. 
 does take the consistent ground. For, when a question of con- 
 struction arises, if the authority of the ancient Church is to be 
 consulted at all, and it differs from Protestant construction, the 
 issue must be met, whether the united construction of the .early 
 Church, possessing all her superior advantages, and tried, as she 
 was, in the fires of persecution, is superior or inferior to the in- 
 dividual and contradictory constructions of those living so many 
 centuries later. Such a question must come up in the minds of 
 all sincere persons who seek the truth for its own sake. And, 
 admitting for the sake of the argument only, that there is no in- 
 fallibility in the Church, and that those alleged gross errors 
 could have been introduced into the early Church, and at the 
 same time created no disturbances, no divisions ; conceding all 
 this, still the question must arise, Whose disputed constructor 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 39 
 
 is most worthy of confidence Who had the best opportuni- 
 ties to know ? Who did most for Christianity ? Who suffered, 
 labored, and accomplished most ? Who gave the most conclu- 
 sive proofs of sincerity and heroic devotion ? Who spread 
 Christianity over the world, and who spread divisions ? If the 
 authority of the Fathers is to be admitted, even in questions of 
 construction, the sincere inquirer must ask and answer these 
 interrogations. 
 
 And as to the position of Mr. C., that the saints were born 
 too late to sanction any article of 'faith by their vote, he is right, 
 provided he means to say that they had no right to create and 
 make new additions to the law, and therefore could exercise no 
 legislative power as to matters of faith or morals. Whether 
 the vote he speaks of was to be given as legislators or as judi- 
 cial officers, I could not tell. 
 
 But in his debate with Mr. Rice, some years later, in speak- 
 ing of the Greek and Latin Fathers as visionaries, mystics, and 
 fond of old wives' fables, he says : " But I regard them as faith- 
 ful witnesses of facts. I receive their testimony as honest men." 
 (C. & R.'s Debate, 163.) And when speaking upon the propo- 
 sition that " Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins," 
 he quotes extensively from the Fathers, and says, among other 
 things, " If neither the Bible, nor the Confession, nor the Greek 
 and Latin Fathers are to be understood nor believed, when af- 
 firming that baptism is for the remission of sins, what kind of 
 evidence could satisfy him ? " (D. 456.) And Mr. Rice is equally 
 careful to call up the authority of the Ancient Fathers, when 
 they are on his side of the question. In the debate regarding 
 the baptism of infants, he says: 
 
 " For let it be distinctly understood, I appeal to the early 
 Christian Fathers, not for their opinions, but I call them up as 
 witnesses to a matter of fact, viz., that in their day, and so 
 far as they know to the days of the apostles, the baptism of 
 infants was universally practised." (D. 406.) 
 
 I could not but remark the gratification shown by each de- 
 bater when he found himself in company with these " visionaries 
 and mystics." Under such circumstances he failed not to 
 " breathe freer and deeper." 
 
40 THE LAW OF CHKIST. 
 
 13. Of the rules to be observed in consulting the Fathers. 
 
 The question whether a certain doctrine was held or a cer- 
 tain observance kept by the Ancient Church, is simply a ques- 
 tion of fact, and can be the subject of historical examination and 
 proof. If the ancient Church held a certain doctrine, is that 
 fact evidence that the doctrine is true ? If the infallibility of 
 the Church is conceded, there can be no doubt ; but if that be 
 disputed, the great difficulty of introducing such a doctrine into 
 the Church, under the received maxims she did then hold, and 
 the vigilance, sincerity, and means of detection then existing, is 
 certainly a most powerful and decisive proof with that Christian 
 who admits that the Church started right. 
 
 Protestant writers, in defending Christianity, assume the 
 ground taken by Dr. Paley, when he says : 
 
 " The success of a religion founded upon a miraculous history, 
 shows the credit which was given to the history ; and this 
 credit, under the circumstances in which it was given i. e., by 
 persons capable of knowing the truth, and interested to inquire 
 after it is evidence of the reality of the history, and, by conse- 
 quence, of the truth of the religion." (Ev. of Chr.) 
 
 The learned Divine was right. The credit given to such a 
 story by such persons is evidence of its truth. Applying the 
 same correct principle to the case in hand, it would seem to be 
 true that the success of certain doctrines and observances in the 
 early Church shows the credit that was given to them ; and this 
 credit, under the circumstances in which it was given i. e., by 
 persons not only capable of knowing the truth, but who did 
 know it, (because first well instructed,) and interested to pre- 
 serve it, and also vigilant in doing so is evidence of the reality 
 and truth of such doctrines and observances. For it seems to 
 me clear, that if persons were interested in inquiring into the 
 truth of this miraculous history in the first instance, then, after 
 they did believe it, they were the more interested in inquiring 
 mto and preserving the true faith just as delivered. 
 
 And as to the testimony of the Fathers, in reference to mat- 
 ters of fact, as distinguished from their individual opinions, 
 (when considered by persons inquiring for the true Church,) it 
 seems t< me that the following positions are just and reasonable : 
 
THE LAW OF CHKIST. 41 
 
 1. When a Father states a doctrine or practice without hesi- 
 tation, and without any statement that it is his private opinion, 
 he must be held to intend to give the faith or practice of the 
 Church, unless there is something in the context to show the 
 contrary. 
 
 2. That when a Father sanctions a doctrine or practice with- 
 out contradiction of any other Father, then such doctrine or 
 practice must be held as those of the Church, and the consent 
 of the others presumed from their silence. 
 
 3. That when a doctrine or practice is shown to be in the 
 Church, for instance, in the fourth or fifth century, it must be 
 presumed, prima facie, to have been in the Church from the be- 
 ginning, unless stated to be a new opinion or practice. 
 
 4. That though there may be seeming discrepancies in re- 
 gard to a few points where one or two Fathers are apparently 
 in conflict with the great majority ; still, the clear testimony of 
 the great body of the Fathers must prevail over the doubtful 
 language of the few. 
 
 In reference to the first rule, it would seem to be evident 
 that no Christian writer would express a Christian truth with- 
 out hesitation, when he meant only to be understood as giving 
 his individual opinion. Dr. Paley, in speaking of the character 
 of the testimony of the Fathers in reference to the New Testa- 
 ment, says : 
 
 " Whenever any thing now read in the Gospels is met with 
 in an early Christian writing, it is always observed to stand 
 there as acknowledged truth ; i. e., to be introduced without 
 hesitation, doubt, or apology." 
 
 If uttered " without hesitation, doubt, or apology," it stands 
 as " acknowledged truth /" that is, it shows the testimony of the 
 writer, that such was the received Scripture. 
 
 And as respects the second rule, it would seem to be clear. 
 It must be conceded that the rule of law, which says that one 
 affirmative witness is worth more than several negative wit- 
 nesses, is founded on common sense and general experience. 
 And this is especially true of the Fathers, who did not all write 
 upon the same, but upon different, subjects. As a matter of 
 course, they would generally speak only to the subject discussed. 
 
 In regard to the third rule, it may be remarked, that it 
 
4:2 THE LAW OF CHJBI8T. 
 
 would seem entirely unjust to suppose, that an honest historian 
 relating a doctrine or practice as then existing in the Church, 
 without hesitation as an acknowledged truth, and not stating it 
 to be new, or giving any date when it was introduced, is yet to 
 be held as intending to state so. The law presumes ever} 
 officer to do his duty, (Starkie on Ev., Part i., p. 79,) and surely 
 heresy is not to be presumed to be in the Church, contrary to 
 the promises of Christ. And the light presumption that pre- 
 ceding authors. would have mentioned such fact, had it been 
 true, is overcome by the overwhelming presumption, that when- 
 ever it was introduced, it would have caused such divisions as 
 must have been mentioned by some writer. We have the time, 
 place, and person given, in reference to the heresies of that day ; 
 and the acknowledged vigilance of the Church, taken in connec- 
 tion with the circumstances of the time, would always exclude 
 such a conclusion. 
 
 " Now omission," says Dr. Paley, " is at all times a very 
 uncertain ground of objection. We perceive it, not only in the 
 comparison of different writers, but even in the same writer, 
 when compared with himself. There are a great many particu- 
 lars, and some of them of importance, mentioned by Josephua 
 in his Antiquities, which, as we should have supposed, ought to 
 have been put down by him in their place in the Jewish wars. 
 Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, have all three written of the 
 reign of Tiberias. Each has mentioned many things omitted 
 by the rest, yet no objection is from thence taken to the credit 
 of their histories." 
 
 These, and other remarks, the learned author makes in an- 
 swer to the objection made by infidels, that the Gospels contra- 
 dict each other, because one mentions many of the most impor- 
 tant facts, omitted by all the others. For example, that 
 stupendous miracle of Christ, the resurrection of Lazarus, and 
 that most beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son, are each only 
 mentioned in one Gospel. 
 
 And in reference to the fourth rule, its justice would seem to 
 be plain. If a court or jury were to reject the testimony often 
 good witnesses, because of the doubtful contradiction of one, 
 then we might reject all history where there is a single historian 
 who may seem to dispute a single fact. As Dr. Paley very 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 43 
 
 justly says : " The usual character of human testimony is substai> 
 tial truth under circumstantial variety." The philosophic Star- 
 kie, and the accurate Greenleaf, have both adopted this position 
 as true, and every lawyer and jurist knows it to be so, from the 
 most ample experience. 
 
 " Dr. Middleton," says Dr. Paley, " contended that the dif- 
 ferent hours of the day assigned to the crucifixion of Christ, by 
 John, and by the other evangelists, did not admit of the recon- 
 cilement which learned men had proposed, and then concludes 
 the discussion with this hard remark : ' We must be forced, 
 with several of the critics, to leave the difficulty as we found it, 
 chargeable with all the consequences of manifest inconsistency.' 
 But what are these consequences ? By no means the discredit- 
 ing of the history as to the principal fact, by a repugnance 
 (even supposing that repugnance be not resolvable into different 
 modes of computation) in the time of day in which it is said to 
 have taken place.'' (Ev. Oh.) 
 
 The learned writer also notices several cases of apparent dis- 
 crepancy between the New Testament writers and Josephus 
 and the Roman historians, as also between the New and Old 
 Testaments ; such, for instance, as the " taxing," when Christ 
 was born, the statement in the third chapter of Luke, " Now in 
 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar," the case of 
 Theudas, Acts v. 36, and the case of Zacharias son of Barachias, 
 in Matt, xxiii. 34. 
 
 These discrepancies may be but apparent and not real ; but 
 at this day we are not in possession, perhaps, of the true expla- 
 nation. To reject, therefore, the great body of history, because 
 of a few apparent, or even positive contradictions, would seem 
 to be a very erroneous practice. And as in Scripture, so in the 
 Fathers, there may be apparent discrepancies in a few instances ; 
 but we must look to the particular circumstances under which 
 they wrote, in order to do them justice. 
 
 14. Extracts from the Fathers. 
 
 Of St. Ignatius, the holy martyr, and disciple of St. John, 
 Eusebius says : 
 
 " He warns them to be specially on their guard against the 
 heresies just then first springing up and increasing. He exhorts 
 
4:4: THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 them to hold firmly the tradition of the apostles, which, for se- 
 curity, he thought it necessary, as a witness, to confirm in writ- 
 ing." (H. E., 1. iii., c. 36.) 
 
 " So also Poly carp," says St. Irenseus, " who not only had 
 been instructed by apostles, and had conversed with many who 
 had seen the Lord, but was also appointed by apostles, bishop 
 of Smyrna, in Asia. Him we saw in our early youth. * * * 
 The things which he had learned from the apostles, those he 
 uniformly taught, which also he delivered to that church, which 
 alone are true. To these all the churches throughout Asia, and 
 they who to this day have succeeded Polycarp, bear testimony, 
 being a witness of truth more credible and more faithful than 
 Valentinius and Marcian, and the rest of the perverse thinkers. 
 * * * But the church also in Ephesus, founded indeed by 
 Paul, but with which John remained until the days of Trajan, is 
 a, veracious witness of the tradition of the apostles." (St. Ire- 
 nseus adv. Haeres., 1. iii., c. 3, n. 4, p. 175.) 
 
 " Therefore we ought to avoid them, but to cling with the 
 utmost care to whatever is of the church, and to hold fast to 
 the tradition of truth." (Adv. Hseres., 1. iii., ch. 4, p. 1789.) 
 
 " But when, on the other hand, we challenge them [heretics] 
 to that tradition which is from the apostles, which is preserved 
 in the churches, through the succession of presbyters, they are 
 adverse to tradition, saying, that being themselves not only 
 wiser than presbyters, but even than apostles, they have dis- 
 covered the genuine truth. * * * Thus it turns out that, at 
 last, they neither assent to the Scriptures nor tradition." (Id., 1. 
 iii., c. 2, n. 1, 2.) 
 
 " These dogmas are not in accordance with the church ; * * * 
 these dogmas the presbyters before us, and who shone together 
 with the apostles, delivered not to you." (Frag. Ep. ad Flavi- 
 num t. i., preserved in Eusebius H., 1. v., c. 20.) 
 
 And St. Clement of Alexandria, G. C., says, among many 
 other things, "Let him go to the real light to the truth, 
 which in what is written, indicates the things not written." 
 
 " But these were preserved the true tradition of the blessed 
 doctrine directly from Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, 
 the holy apostles, having received it in succession, the son from 
 the father," &c. 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 45 
 
 " There were some things delivered to the Hebrews without 
 writing." (Strom., 1. v., p. 682-5.) 
 
 "So he has ceased to be a man of God, and faithful to the 
 Lord, who has thrown aside the ecclesiastical tradition, and 
 plunged into the opinions of human heresies." (Id., 1. vii., p. 890.) 
 
 And Tertullian says : " For these and such like rules, if thou 
 requirest a law in the Scriptures, thou shalt find none. Tra- 
 dition will be pleaded to thee as originating, custom as confirm- 
 ing, and faith as observing them." (De Corona, p. 101-2.) 
 
 " That was different so it had been handed . down ; now, 
 that which has been handed down, that was true, as having 
 been handed down by those whose it was to hand down." 
 (De Carne Christi, n. 2, p. 308.) 
 
 These are taken from writers of the second century, and are 
 only a part of their testimony. To the same effect I might 
 quote St. Serapian, G. 0. ; Caius, L. C. ; Origen, G. C. ; St. 
 Hippolytus, G. C. ; Firmilian, G. C. ; and St. Cypiian, L. C., 
 all of the third century; and Eusebius, G. C. ; St. Julius, L. C. ; 
 Liberius, L. C. ; St. Hilary, L. C. ; St. Athanasius, G. C. ; St. 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, G. C.; St. Ephrem Syrus, G. C. ; St. Greg- 
 ory of Nissa, G. C. ; St. Gregory of Nazianzum, G. C. ; St. 
 Basil, G. C. ; St. Pacian, S. C. ; St. Damasus, L. C. ; Faustinus, 
 L. C.; St. Siricius, L. C. ; Theophilus of Alex., G. C. ; St. 
 Epiphanius, G. C. ; St. Ambrose, L. C., and St. Jerom, L. C., 
 of the fourth century; and I will make two extracts from 
 Origen, the learned Greek Father of the third century : 
 
 u We are not to credit these men, nor to go out from the 
 first and the ecclesiastical tradition ; nor to believe otherwise 
 than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to 
 us." (T. iii. Comm. in Matt., n. 46.) 
 
 " Which has neither been transmitted by the apostles, nor 
 manifested in any part of the Scriptures.*' (T. iii. Comm. in 
 Matt., 1. xiii. ex. Pamphil. Apolog.) 
 
 The testimony of the Fathers of the fifth century, is equally 
 full, to the same point. 
 
 Such seems to have been the faith of the ancient church in 
 the days of her mighty struggles to establish Christianity, when 
 she had received the deposit of faith fresh from the apostles, 
 
4:6 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 and when no one but heretics, such as Valentinius, Marcian, 
 and Cerinthus, disputed the authority of Tradition. 
 
 15. Concluding remarks of this chapter. 
 
 Of the ancient Fathers Dr. Spring says : 
 
 "The ancient fathers acknowledged the authority of the 
 apostolic traditions, unwritten or written ; but, as we shall here- 
 after show, they not only never pretended that the church must 
 blindly receive as apostolical traditions all that may be put upon 
 them as such, but urged the obligation of bringing them to the 
 test of the written revelation." (Dis. 17.) 
 
 According to the learned Divine, the principle of acknowl- 
 edging the authority of the apostolical traditions, both unwrit- 
 ten and written, was the faith of the ancient church ; but the 
 church was careful not to admit every thing that might claim to 
 be tradition, but brought them to the test of the written Word. 
 That the church was careful to admit only true traditions seems 
 clear, and that the Scriptures were used as well as other proofs 
 to show what were apostolical traditions, is no doubt true. But 
 that a tradition was rejected simply because it differed from, 
 while it did not contradict the Scriptures, is, I apprehend, an 
 error, if such position was intended to be advanced. It will be 
 seen at once, that the unwritten must have differed from the 
 written traditions the Scriptures ; and, to test them, therefore, 
 by the Scriptures, could only be done in so far as they were 
 alleged to be contradictory. Mere difference may not constitute 
 contradiction. Every contradiction is a difference; but every 
 difference is not a contradiction. If additional facts be pre- 
 served by tradition, these may not contradict the Scriptures, any 
 more than the additional facts stated by St. Luke, contradict 
 the Gospel of St. Matthew. It was only upon the ground that 
 these additional facts were preserved by tradition, that its au- 
 thority was admitted by the ancient church. There could have 
 been no satisfactory reason but this. 
 
 It was by Tradition that the Scriptures were attested, as a 
 single extract from Origen will show : 
 
 " As I have learned by tradition regarding the four gospels, 
 which are the only disputed ones in the church of God which ia 
 
THE LAW OF CHKIST. 47 
 
 under heaven that the first was written," <fec. (T. iii. Com. in 
 Matt., p. 440. Euseb. H., 1. vi., c. 25.) 
 
 So far as I have been able to learn, the Catholic Church has 
 never admitted, or contended that she must receive as apos- 
 tolical traditions all that may be sought to be put upon her, as 
 such ; but she has been exceedingly careful not to admit any 
 b it such as were well attested by the church in all ages, and 
 that she has always used both the unwritten and written law, to 
 amplify and interpret one another. She has ever held it to be 
 alike her duty to reject spurious traditions, as well as spurious 
 Scriptures. And as Blackstone well says, the common law of 
 England is not " at present merely oral, or communicated from 
 former ages to the present solely by word of mouth," so, the 
 traditions of the apostles are not at present merely oral, nor 
 were they communicated from former ages by word of mouth 
 only, but were reduced to writing soon after the days of the 
 apostles ; and are found hi the testimony of the Fathers, and in 
 the decisions of the church. Thus in the first extract regarding 
 St. Ignatius, martyred about 106, we see he had reduced a por- 
 tion of them to writing, as stated by Eusebius. 
 
 The learned Protestant Bishop Montague says : 
 
 " There are hundreds of particulars which have been insti- 
 tuted by God in point of religion, commanded and used by the 
 church, of which we own that the Scripture delivers or teaches 
 no such thing." (P. 396. Cited by Demetrius A. Galitzin, in " A 
 letter to a Protestant friend on the holy Scriptures," published 
 by F. Lucas, jr., Baltimore.) 
 
 I could never find the authority in the New Testament for 
 keeping the first, instead of the seventh day of the week as a 
 sabbath. The language of the Old law is most explicit that the 
 seventh day shall be kept. And not only is the language defi- 
 nite and certain, but the reason why God ordained that specified 
 day is given ; i. e., that the Creator Himself rested on the sev* 
 enth day, and blessed the seventh day. (Ex. xx. 8-11.) To 
 say, in the face of so clear a provision, that the observance of 
 any other day of the week, is a compliance with the law, is to 
 indulge a hazardous latitude with the explicit language of the 
 lawgiver. But Tradition informs us that the first was substituted 
 
4:8 THE LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 for the seventh day of the week, by the apostles, in honor of our 
 Lord's glorious resurrection. 
 
 It has been often objected against the traditions of the 
 church, that our Lord told the Scribes and Pharisees that they 
 had made void the law of God by their traditions. (Matt, xv.) 
 
 Our Lord certainly did condemn certain specified traditions ; 
 but how this condemnation of particular traditions can be con- 
 strued into a general condemnation of all tradition, is certainly 
 not quite obvious. If our Saviour had intended a general con- 
 demnation of all tradition as a medium of transmission, He 
 would not have used language specially confined to a particular 
 class of traditions then in existence. His language, in such case, 
 would have been general, so as to include the future, as well as 
 the past and present. As Christ expressly confined His con- 
 demnation to one class of tradition, by what rule of rational con- 
 struction can we make that general, which He chose only to 
 make special ? To expressly confine a provision of law to speci~ 
 fied cases, is to exclude the idea of generality. When a law- 
 giver specifies a single error, and denounces that, the denuncia- 
 tion cannot be extended to other matters not designated. If 
 we take it to be true, for the sake of the argument only, that 
 Christ meant simply to condemn the particular traditions al- 
 luded to, we cannot put into His mouth more appropriate words 
 to express such intention, or language more definite and certain, 
 unless we make Him resort to useless tautology, a thing not 
 usual with competent legislators. The quotation sustains the 
 Catholic view, and is against the Protestant.* 
 
 It would seem that our Lord did not intend to condemn His 
 own, and the subsequent acts of His apostles, in promulgating 
 and administering a traditional system of law. He did not in- 
 
 * The very fact that our Lord was careful to condemn only a certain class 
 of tradition, shows clearly that He did not intend to go beyond those men- 
 tioned. If He intended to make His condemnation general, then it was idle to 
 put it in a special form, and expressly confine it to certain specified traditions. 
 Were a lawyer to quote a special statute to confute a general principle, he 
 would be considered as establishing the general principle, and as confuting 
 himself. To show exceptions to a general rule, only goes to establish it. So, 
 to show that our Lord only condemned certain traditions, is to show that He 
 did not intend to condemn others not mentioned. 
 
 \ 
 
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 49 
 
 tend to give the Jews the occasion to say, with truth : " You 
 condemned all tradition, and then enforced your own system 
 in the same form." To say that because there were some false, 
 that there could be no true traditions, would seem about as 
 illogical as to say that we should reject all true history, and the 
 true Scriptures, because there have been false histories, and spu- 
 rious Scriptures. 
 6 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 1. The organization of the visible Church must follow from 
 the character of Christ as a lawgiver. 
 
 IP we concede that Christ was a lawgiver, then we must con- 
 cede that He would necessarily organize His followers into a 
 visible association. And as He was the sole founder of the system, 
 He would naturally establish a visible kingdom not a republic. 
 All lawgivers intend their codes to govern associated, not dis- 
 persed men. And each code of law is intended to govern one 
 association only. When a just legislator founds a system, he 
 always has in his eye the adaptation of his government to the 
 condition of men united. For it is only in that state that men 
 can be governed. And if Christ made a law to be practically 
 obeyed by men on earth. He must have instituted a government 
 HERE ; and this government could not exist without a visible 
 association of the parties governed. And if He did found any 
 system of government on earth, any kingdom, of course it must 
 have been practical, and justly adapted to the wants of human 
 nature, and possessed in itself the necessary elements of success. 
 Assuming that Christ was a lawmaker, the organization of the 
 visible Church must logically flow from that character. It 
 would seem equally clear that if He did organize a visible asso- 
 ciation of men called the Church, He must have intended that 
 there should exist in this association perfect unity of faith. 
 
 2. The end and purpose of union is rightful success. 
 It must be obvious that no great object is ever undertaken 
 without the union of numbers. From a small village debating 
 
CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 51 
 
 society, through every grade of organization, up to the mighti- 
 est civil government on earth, the first end to be secured is 
 union of effort. The truth of this position is shown by the fact 
 that if there be any great charitable, literary, or other object to 
 be attained, those who engage in it at once unite themselves 
 into a visible society, for the accomplishment of the end in- 
 tended. Success must lie through unity of design and unity of 
 effort. 
 
 If Christ intended the success of His system, He must have 
 left efficient means to attain it. If men who pretend to preach 
 the same system of religion differ widely among themselves re- 
 garding what the system is, it at once produces confusion among 
 all parties, both the teachers and the persons taught. It affords 
 one of the most obvious and ready arguments against the truth 
 of a system ; an argument always plied with great practical suc- 
 cess. All men seem to know, at a glance, that two contradic- 
 tory systems cannot both be true that truth is and must be, 
 one and indivisible. 
 
 But union is not only necessary to success, but it is espe- 
 cially necessary to rightful success. There was no unholy am- 
 bition in the bosom of Christ ; and the only success contem- 
 plated by Him was the success of the entire truth. The success 
 of a mutilated or corrupted form of Christianity was no part of 
 the Divine intention. Christ designed only the success of the 
 system as He established it. And to secure this success, con- 
 tinued unity in the same faith once delivered, was indispensable. 
 
 I was myself for many years a Deist, and remember the 
 weight the argument drawn from the divisions among Christians 
 had with me, and how often I heard it in the mouths of all scep- 
 tics. At that time I knew nothing of the Catholic system, and 
 nothing of the grounds upon which it assumed to rest. Had I 
 been well informed in regard to it, I do not think I should ever 
 have had much difficulty in believing the system of Christianity 
 to be true. 
 
 The celebrated Volney, in his " Ruins," has put arguments into 
 the mouths of the advocates of different systems of religion 
 in the world, the Christian, the Mohammedan, and Heathen, 
 each sustaining his own system, and attacking all others ; and 
 after he makes them exhaust themselves in a war against each 
 
52 CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 other, he concludes that they are all wrong. And such 
 conclusions result very naturally from man's impatience, and 
 from his disposition to reject whatever is contradictory and con- 
 fused. 
 
 The differences and consequent divisions among professed 
 Christians have made more infidels than all other causes com 
 bined. If the diversity of views regarding different systems of 
 religion found among mankind have the practical effect of re- 
 tarding the progress of Christianity in the world, how much 
 greater must be the effect of divisions among those who profess 
 the same system ! Most men who are infidels, neglect or refuse 
 to investigate. They satisfy themselves by the easy and off- 
 hand reflection that there must be something radically wrong 
 in Christianity itself, something not to be understood, or else the 
 professors of the system would agree as to what it is. Accord- 
 ing to the impressions they take up, they must first go through 
 the arduous labor of an investigation into the truth of the sys- 
 tem, and after they have arrived at that point, they must then 
 examine the still more complex question as to which of the five 
 hundred divisions in Christendom is right. 
 
 The Mohammedan says to the Christian : " First agree 
 among yourselves as to what your religion is, and when you 
 have done that, then come to me. If you, who have studied 
 this matter all your lives, do not understand it, how can you ex- 
 pect me to do so ? You Christians preach so many different 
 doctrines, and are split up and divided into so many parties, that 
 you do not know yourselves what is right, and you are not, 
 therefore, capable of instructing me. You had better confine 
 your arguments to yourselves, until you have come to some com- 
 mon conclusions as to what you shall teach others." 
 
 The force of this reasoning is very readily apprehended by 
 even ordinary minds, and makes a deep impression upon those 
 persons who are naturally inclined to doubt. We unhesitating- 
 ly, and at once, draw the easy and ready conclusion that there 
 must be some great defect in a system that has provided no 
 practical means of securing unity of faith, and about which there 
 exists so wide a difference of opinion among those who profeM 
 both to believe and to understand it. 
 
CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 53 
 
 3. There is much more infidelity in the world than most teach- 
 ers of Christianity believe. 
 
 Teachers of Christianity are excluded, by their position, from 
 the same opportunities to learn the sentiments of the great mass 
 of men, that are enjoyed by men of other professions, and who 
 are thus brought more in contact with the outside world. Many 
 men who will very readily admit to a known teacher of religion 
 that they believe the system, for the purpose of avoiding an ar- 
 gument, because they care nothing about the system itself, are 
 yet in a state either of great doubt or confirmed infidelity. You 
 will scarcely ever hear a public speaker on the stump or at the 
 bar say any thing against Christianity, and most of them will 
 pronounce eloquent eulogies upon it, when, in truth and in fact, 
 a very large majority of them are sceptical to the last degree. 
 Most of the editors of our daily and weekly political and literary 
 papers write beautiful articles in praise of Christianity, while 
 very few of them believe in it with any confiding faith. 
 
 As already stated, I was for many years a Deist, and being 
 sincere in my views, I was ready to admit them upon proper 
 occasions. In my conversations with those who were not pro- 
 fessors of religion, and while giving my reasons against it, I could 
 not but observe how readily they were received by nearly all 
 those who heard me. I found individuals, not members of any 
 church, who candidly admitted their belief in the truth of Chris- 
 tianity ; but these were few, and constituted exceptions only to 
 the general rule. It would seem utterly inconsistent for a man 
 to believe in Christianity, and yet not embrace it. His faith 
 must evidently be very weak. There are not many persons, 
 upon a subject of such unspeakable importance, that will act a 
 part so ruinous to themselves. Whenever any man becomes 
 sincerely convinced of the truth of a religious system, if he is 
 not a direct and positive enemy of himself, he will be very apt 
 to act, and put his convictions in practice. 
 
 And this infidelity, as a general thing, exists without any 
 systematic effort on the part of infidels to propagate their views, 
 for they have very few public speakers w r ho employ their time 
 for that purpose, and their publications do not extend half so far 
 as their opinions. You may go into many houses, where you 
 
54: CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 will find the Bible, and no infidel works ; and yet most of the 
 family will be infidels or sceptics, and show it most conclusively 
 by their acts. I was a Deist before I read a work upon the sub- 
 ject ; and this extended diffusion throughout society of unbe- 
 lief is mainly owing to the divisions and disputes among Chris- 
 tians. It is the ready and forcible argument drawn from this 
 most deplorable and melancholy state of things that has pro- 
 duced this result ; and I can safely appeal to every intelligent 
 man, at all conversant with the feelings and opinions of men, as 
 to the correctness of this position. 
 
 I speak of the practical effect of these divisions, and not of 
 the effect they should have, in right reason, upon the minds of 
 men. But the difficulty lies here. Most men are prone, from 
 motives of convenience, or feelings of indolence, or present in- 
 terest, to judge of things pertaining to the future by some sum- 
 mary method. They like to judge of such things in one mass, 
 and dispose of them in the same way. You must first almost 
 convince them of the truth of a system, before you can excite 
 them to investigation. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Mr. Rice, very truly says : 
 
 " The land is full of infidelity. - * * * * The reason 
 
 is, the gospel is blasphemed by the discords, the variances, 
 
 the hatred, and strife engendered by your partyism." (Debate, 
 
 905.) 
 
 4. Of the Scriptural proof s that Christ did organize such an 
 institution, and contemplate such unity. 
 
 It would seem, from a just and candid consideration of the 
 reasons stated, that Christ must have intended a visible organi- 
 zation of His followers ; and that if such organization was in- 
 tended, that continued unity in it must also have been designed 
 by Him. The last necessarily results from the former. If the 
 organization was designed to exist at all, and was necessary, in 
 the nature of the system and of the beings it was intended to 
 govern, it is clear that it was designed to continue so long as 
 the system itself should endure. 
 
 If we pass from this train of reasoning to the positive testi- 
 mony of Scripture, we shall find the position most clearly sus- 
 tained. Throughout the New Testament, when the general 
 
CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 55 
 
 terms " the Church " are used, without being qualified by other 
 words, or without being used in such a connection as to show 
 a limited meaning, it is applied to the one visible, universal 
 church. 
 
 In St. Matthew's Gospel Christ says : " tell the church " 
 " if he will not hear the church " " upon this rock I will build 
 my church." In the third chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to 
 Timothy, the church he speaks of is plainly the visible church. 
 In the second chapter of Isaiah, speaking of the future church, 
 we find the prophet using these words : 
 
 " And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the moun- 
 tain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the 
 mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations 
 shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, 
 and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of 
 the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways, and wo 
 shall walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and 
 the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." 
 
 Here the church is most beautifully compared to a house on 
 the top of, the mountains, exalted above the hills. There is 
 surely nothing contemplated in this sublime passage but a visi- 
 ble church, in which " the Lord will teach us of his ways," and 
 in which " we will walk in his paths." Connect this with the 
 fourteenth verse of the fifth chapter of Matthew, where Christ 
 says to his apostles : " Ye are the light of the world. A city 
 set on a hill cannot be hid." 
 
 That perfect unity in this visible organization was intended 
 by Christ, not only follows from the reasons given, but it is 
 shown by the written Word, by the testimony of the church 
 in all ages, and by the admissions of Protestant writers them- 
 selves. 
 
 " And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ; them 
 also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall 
 be one fold, and one shepherd." (Johnx. 16.) 
 
 " There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in 
 one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism." 
 (Eph. iv. 4, 5.) 
 
 " And he is the head of the body, the church." (Colos. i, 
 18.) 
 
56 CHRI6T DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 " The house of God, which is the church of the living God. M 
 (1 Tim. iii. 15.) 
 
 No comments could add any thing to the force of the extract 
 from St. John : " There shall be one fold, and one shepherd." 
 And St. Paul says : " There is one body, one spirit, one hope, 
 one Lord, one faith, one baptism." All these are closely connect- 
 ed in the same sentence, and have the same power : and as there 
 can be no divisions in the " one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one 
 faith, one baptism," neither can there be in the " one body," 
 (the church,) but there must be the most perfect unity in all, 
 or in none. Again, Christ is said to be " the head of the body, 
 the church," and if the head be not divided, can the body be ? 
 And Christ Himself laid down the general principle, that a 
 " kingdom divided against itself cannot stand ;" and the church 
 of Christ is His kingdom. (Dan. ii. 44 ; Luke i. 33.) Again, 
 could the church be the " pillar and ground of the truth," if in 
 her there was not perfect union ? And the " house" in which 
 Timothy was instructed to " behave" himself, must have been 
 one thing, and but one. There is nothing like the idea of divi- 
 sion or disunion conveyed in any of these quotations, nor in the 
 whole New Testament. The whole spirit of the system con- 
 templates union. The whole drift of the New Testament seems 
 to contemplate nothing less. 
 
 And for what purpose would disunion be desirable ? What 
 good, in proportion to the evil, could be accomplished by it ? 
 It is true, I have sometimes heard it suggested in private argu- 
 ment, that the divisions in Christendom were productive of 
 good in this way. They created a sort of rivalship among the 
 different parties, that naturally led to more industry, more re- 
 search, and more activity, and consequently more was done. 
 But such a state of things seems never to have been contem- 
 plated by the system. It was expected that Christians would 
 do their duty from love to the cause, without being driven to 
 it by party bitterness. The gentle and united system of Chris- 
 tianity never supposed that its followers would be guilty of the 
 madness of the Jews, when besieged in Jerusalem by Titus, 
 where they wasted their strength in destroying each other, in- 
 stead of uniting against the common foe. Surely no founder 
 of any government intended to so frame it as to produce divi- 
 
CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 57 
 
 sions ; on the contrary, it is the very evil that all law and all 
 government were intended to prevent. 
 
 It may be true, to some extent, that divisions, for a time, 
 may produce more activity and more exertion. But it is more 
 true, that they produce more prejudice, more bitterness, and 
 more hatred ; and the more of these the worse for the common 
 cause, for the reason that this activity and this exertion are 
 turned, not so much against the .common adversary as against 
 each other. Mutiny in an army does not conquer the enemy. 
 
 5. Extracts from Protestant writers. 
 
 I will now make a few quotations from Protestant writers, 
 to show the importance they attach to the union of the visible 
 church. 
 
 " On no principle," says Dr. Spring, " can the Protestant 
 Reformation be vindicated, or the reformers be held guiltless 
 of the most uncalled-for schism that ever rent asunder the vis- 
 ible church, if it be of minor consequence whether the oracles 
 >f God, or the decisions of Rome, be the rule of faith."* 
 
 " I agree with my fiiend Mr. C.," says Mr. Rice, " that the 
 union of all the disciples of Christ is an object greatly to be de- 
 sired. I go for Christian union upon Scriptural principles as 
 zealously as he, and so do evangelical denominations generally, 
 so far as I know. We differ not concerning the importance of 
 the object, but concerning the proper method of securing it." 
 
 * " Dissertation on the Rule of Faith," a lecture delivered in Cincinnati 
 and published in 1844. 
 
 In this treatise, the learned Divine has made many grievous and bitter 
 charges against the Catholic Church. It is not written in that spirit of char- 
 ity that should be found in every Christian writer. It is true, that while the 
 course pursued by Dr. Spring would be most satisfactory to the prejudiced 
 reader, it has involved him in many contradictions. It also contains many 
 misrepresentations of the Catholic faith. But while I am compelled to give 
 this as my view of the general character of the Lecture, I must cheerfully ad- 
 mit that there are many instances of candor displayed in different portions of 
 it. In the quotation above, there is a very incorrect statement of the issue 
 between the two parties. The Protestant rule of Faith he makes the " Oracles 
 of God," and the Catholic " the decisions " of the Church. In the Protestant, 
 he leaves out the construction of the Written Word, and in the Catholic he 
 leaves out the law itself. But in justice to Dr. Spring, I cheerfully admit that 
 in other places he has explained the Catholic rule more correctly. 
 7 
 
58 CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 " Concerning CHRISTIAN UNION, let me repeat, we are all 
 most decidedly in favor of it. What is the union of which the 
 apostle speaks ? It is the unity of the faith, and of the knowl- 
 edge of the Son of God." (Campbell and Rice's Debate, 
 770, 780.) 
 
 The writings of Mr. Campbell abound with many unan- 
 swerable arguments for union. In his debate with Mr. Rice, 
 there are many fine bursts of eloquence upon this theme, only a 
 few of which can be inserted here. 
 
 " In this sectarian and schismatic age," says Mr. Campbell, 
 " we have assembled for the purpose of discovering, if possible, 
 the roots of discord and the seeds of schism, which have unhap- 
 pily alienated and estranged us from each other, that we may, 
 peradventure, find some remedy for those wounds and griev- 
 ances which have so disgraced our holy faith, marred its beauty, 
 and impeded its progress in the world." 
 
 " But, my fellow-citizens, there is one point that cannot be 
 too deeply impressed upon your minds that the union of Chris- 
 tians is essential to the conversion of the world, both at home 
 and abroad." 
 
 " What is the state of the case ? We all see that Christen- 
 dom is at present in a distracted, agitated, disturbed condition, 
 cut up or frittered down into sects and parties innumerable, 
 wholly unwarranted by right reason, pure religion, the Bible, 
 the God of the Bible. Before the high, and holy, and puissant 
 intelligences of earth and heaven, this state of things is most 
 intolerable." (Id. 230, 783, 904.) 
 
 And Mr. Rice may well say that " the union of which the 
 apostle speaks, is the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge 
 of the Son of God." For the unity of the faith, and of the 
 knowledge of the Son of God, is the unity contemplated by the 
 system. And in reference to these distractions in Christendom, 
 Mr. Campbell's language is not less eloquent than true : " J9e- 
 fore the high, and holy, and puissant intelligences of earth 
 and heaven, this state of things is most intolerable." 
 
 6. Extract from a Catholic writer. 
 
 I shall close this chapter with the following beautiful ex- 
 tract from an eminent living Catholic writer, as it expresses my 
 
CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 59 
 
 own views in language far more beautiful and appropriate than 
 any I could select myself: 
 
 " Nothing can be more beautiful in the conception of a 
 Christian Church, than a perfect unity of belief. Such an idea 
 is beautiful to the imagination, because it is the consecration of 
 the first and most essential principles, whereon society is based. 
 For the social union tends to merge the feelings of each indi- 
 vidual in the general mass, and leads him to embrace mankind 
 rather than individual men. And in like manner does the prin- 
 ciple of religious unity tend to excite your love towards them, 
 no longer as brothers in the flesh, but as connected with you 
 by a holier and diviner bond, and assists towards inspiring every 
 member of the community with all that can be reciprocally felt, 
 in the nearest ties and connections of our nature. And if the 
 very idea of a republic, or government, in which men were 
 united by such real or ideal bonds, as that they fought side by 
 side, or contributed towards the common weal, did seem to 
 them of old so beautiful and heavenly, that the very conception 
 of such a state, embodied under outward symbols, should have 
 been deified and worshipped, what shall we say of that sacred 
 union which holds men together, not merely as constituents of 
 a community, but as members of one mystical body ; not ce- 
 mented together by the sense of mutual want, or strung one 
 unto the other by the ties of the flesh, or the interests of the 
 world, but firmly united by the headship of One, in whom* the 
 sublimest thought reposes, as in its proper sphere, and inly 
 communicating through the circulation of vital influences, pass- 
 ing from one unto the other ; not contributing to the common 
 stock the gifts or qualities of earth, but the fairest virtues, the 
 most precious ornaments of our nature ; not directed in their 
 views towards a wordly aggrandizement or a passing glory, nor 
 linked in battle-field by a bond of hatred against a human foe, 
 but looking upwards for their trophies and rewards to tlm 
 peaceful smile of heaven, after they shall have contended to- 
 gether in the gentle strife of mutual and universal love. 
 
 " Then add the reflection, how this influence stretches beyond 
 the reach of any other known sentiment among mankind ; for, 
 outstripping all the motives of sympathy among men of different 
 countries, it flies over mountains, and seas, and oceans, and nts 
 
60 CHRIST DID ORGANIZE A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 into the mouths of nations the most remote, and the most disarm 
 ilar, one canticle of praise, and into their minds one symbol of 
 belief, and into their hearts one sentiment of charity. And, 
 thus professing alike, they kneel in countless multitudes before 
 one altar, and from the soul of each proceeds the golden chain 
 which joins them unto it, which God joins unto the rest, which 
 He holdeth in His hand, for in Him is the centre towards which 
 the faith of all converges, and in His truth it is blended into uni- 
 formity and oneness of thought. Surely this is the idea which you 
 would wish to conceive, of the efficacy and of the effects of that 
 rule, which has been given by God, to produce unity of belief. 
 
 "But then also is this unity of faith subservient to another 
 great end, to the evidence of our blessed Saviour's true religion, 
 For He was pleased to declare that the unity observed among 
 His followers should be among the strongest evidences of His 
 heavenly mission. 'And not for them only,' He exclaimed, 
 ' do I pray, but for them also, who, through their word, shall 
 believe in me ; that they all may be one, as the Father in me, 
 and I in thee, that they also may be one in us^ that the world 
 may believe that thou hast sent me. 1 And that this unity is not 
 merely of the heart, through love, but also of the mind, in faith, 
 His blessed apostle hath abundantly declared. For, according 
 to him, if we wish to walk worthy of the vocation wherein we 
 have been called, it must be not only by ' humility, and mildness, 
 and patience, supporting one another in charity,' but we must 
 be ' careful to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of 
 peace,' so as to be ' one body ' as well as 4 one spirit,' and to 
 have ' one faith ' as much as ' one Lord and one baptism.' 
 
 " Not surely that charity, the beautiful and the perfect, steps 
 not beyond the circumscribing line of religious unity, or that 
 her genial influences, like a flower's sweet odor, spread not 
 abroad beyond the plant which first produces it ; but universal 
 as must be our love of men, this will be ever its noblest exercise, 
 to wish and to strive that all be brought to that closer union 
 and unity which is in and through faith." (Dr. Wiseman, Moor- 
 field Lectures, 77.) 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 1. That a visible association of men cannot continue to exist 
 without government. 
 
 As Christ did organize His followers into a visible body of 
 men, upon certain joint terms common to the association, and 
 with the intent to accomplish a joint purpose, it would seem to 
 follow that some sort of government must have been instituted 
 to keep the organization together. It may be safely assumed 
 as a correct principle, that any and all kinds of organizations 
 among men must come together for some common end, upon 
 some terms / and that there must, of necessity, be some power 
 in the association, placed somewhere, to settle disputes and ques- 
 tions respecting these terms. In other words, there must be 
 government in every association of men, to which a law is given. 
 And the learned commentator on the laws of England well re- 
 marks : 
 
 " For when civil society is once formed, government at the 
 same time results of course, as necessary to preserve and keep 
 that society in order." (1 Com., 48.) 
 
 And this same necessity exists in all associations, and must, 
 therefore, exist in the Church of Christ, as well as in all other 
 collective bodies of men. It is a necessity inherent in all organ- 
 izations, in every society. 
 
 And this invincible necessity results from the nature of man, 
 as an inferior being. Since it is the right and duty of the supe- 
 rior to govern the inferior, and the correlative duty of the infe- 
 rior to obey, that each may be kept in bis proper sphere, and 
 that order may exist, it follows that such government ought to 
 
62 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 possess the requisite powers to accomplish these ends. Ordei 
 must exist in the system of Infinite Wisdom, and in every 
 thing proposed by Him to us. If, then, Christ formed a visible 
 church, He must have given it the principles essential to its con- 
 tinued existence. We cannot, upon principles of reason or ex- 
 perience, conceive of a visible Church without government. 
 
 2. Christ must have placed the governing power somewhere in 
 the Church. 
 
 If, then, Christ instituted any government in His church, 
 He must have placed the governing power somewhere ; either 
 in the hands of a certain order of men, or in the hands of one 
 man, or in the church at large. 
 
 It is a fundamental principle, that whatever power has the 
 right to found a government at all, has the right to say in whose 
 hands the governing power shall be placed. Civil governments 
 are constituted by men, who, in the beautiful language of the 
 Declaration of Independence, are all " created equal," and the 
 just powers of civil government are immediately derived from 
 the " consent of the governed," though mediately from God. 
 
 The people of the United States had the political right, in 
 forming their Constitution, to frame their government in any 
 shape they pleased ; and they could have united, as they sepa- 
 rated, the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. But with 
 reference to the Christian government, it may be said, that 
 while it is derived, not from the consent of the parties to be 
 governed, but from Christ alone, it still possesses certain great, 
 leading, and essential features, common to every system of law, 
 intended for, and adapted to, the government of mere men. 
 
 When a mere fallible power founds a government, it would 
 be very unwise to attempt to frame a complete and full system 
 of laws in advance, and thus to leave out the legislative power; 
 for the plain and simple reason, that the founder of the govern- 
 ment could not foresee all the circumstances that might exist in 
 the future, requiring an enlargement or modification of his code. 
 Hence the fundamental or constitutional provisions of civil gov- 
 ernments are, from their nature, confined to the more general 
 principles of the system. But it is rational to suppose that an 
 Infallible Legislator should, at some period, form a full and 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 63 
 
 Complete system of laws, to operate through all coming time. 
 Now it would seem that Christ did form a complete code of 
 law at the beginning of the new dispensation, embracing all the 
 necessarily permanent portions of the system, and leaving no 
 legislative power in the Church, except as to matters of disci- 
 pline, in reference to which laws could not have been well made 
 at the beginning, since changing circumstances might require a 
 change in these mere disciplinary regulations. 
 
 But the other indispensable powers of government the ex- 
 ecutive and judicial could not, in the very nature and reason 
 of the powers themselves, have been exercised in advance. 
 Laws are rightfully prescribed (which means both to make and 
 publish) in advance of the commission of crimes ; commands 
 must be given before they can be obeyed or violated. But 
 there must be a violation of law, before the judicial power is 
 required to act ; and this power must be exercised as often as 
 cases may require, and must, therefore, continue in operation, 
 so lony as the Church itself shall exist in the world. The same 
 may >>e said of the executive power. The occasion must arise 
 before it is required to be used. 
 
 If these views be correct, it follows that one of two things 
 must be true ; either that Christ visibly presides on earth to 
 exercise the judicial and executive powers of the Church, or He 
 has delegated these necessary powers to others, to be exercised 
 by them as His agents or officers. Again it follows that if Christ 
 delegated this authority to others, He must have confided it to 
 one man, to an order of men, or to the whole church collec- 
 tively. In the latter case, each member of the church would 
 have equal power, as a part of the whole. 
 
 A Democracy is a government in which the governing power 
 is placed in the people ; and a pure Democracy, is where the 
 people meet themselves in council, and make the laws. A 
 representative Democracy, is where the people make and ad- 
 minister the laws through their agents. Now the Christian 
 government is not a Democracy of either kind. It does not de- 
 rive its just powers from the consent of the governed, nor is it 
 in any manner founded by them. It is called a " Kingdom," 
 not a Democracy. Christ was the sole founder of the system, 
 
64: THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 and had the right to institute it in such form as seemed to Him 
 best. 
 
 Now, as the church was intended for one united body, to 
 extend undivided over the whole earth, and to exist for all 
 coming time, the idea of placing the governing power in the 
 hands of all the members, would seem inconsistent with the 
 principles of government. That a lawgiver, supreme in virtue 
 of His own nature, should promulgate a positive and fixed law 
 for the government of a certain association of men, and at the 
 same time confide the governing power to all the members, 
 would seem evidently inconsistent with His rights as the founder 
 of the institution, and incompatible with the end intended. 
 
 We are, then, thrown upon the other two positions, that 
 Christ either delegated the governing power in the church to 
 one man, or to an order of men. It could not, I think, be sup- 
 posed that Christ would create but one office in His church, as 
 one office would be clearly insufficient for the duties to be per- 
 formed. It would, therefore, seem far more reasonable that 
 our Lord would create several offices, in due subordination to 
 each other, and confide the government of His church to them. 
 
 It may be proper to remark, that the officers of any govern- 
 ment among men, only exercise delegated authority. The proper 
 and only source from which this power flows, is the rightful 
 founder of the government. The officer acts, not for himself, 
 but he represents the sovereign power of the government, what- 
 ever that may be. If the people institute a civil government, 
 then, according to the theory of that government, the sovereign 
 power resides in them, in their collective capacity. And for the 
 same reason, if Christ instituted any government among men, 
 the sovereignty of the institution resides in Him, and every 
 officer of such government must represent Him and Him only. 
 It would, therefore, seem to follow, that, in delegating the neces- 
 sary powers to govern the church, it would be very unphilo- 
 sophical to suppose that Christ would confide these powers to 
 each and every member of the association the very parties, and 
 the only parties, to *be governed. 
 
 It then seems to me clear, that as Christ was a lawgiver, He 
 must have organized the church that when organized, govern- 
 ment in the church became inevitable that this government , 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHUKCH. 65 
 
 to be government at all, must be supreme, and have jurisdiction 
 over all questions arising under the law and that as Christ 
 does not visibly exercise these powers on earth, He must, of 
 necessity, have delegated them to others, who act as His agents, 
 
 3. That succession must exist of necessity. 
 
 If the church was intended by Christ to exist for a greater 
 period of time than the lives of those to whom the power to 
 govern the church was originally given, there must be a suc- 
 cession of officers, or there must be an end of the institution. 
 In other words, if certain OFFICES, having attached to them 
 certain powers, were created by Christ, in the Church, and cer- 
 tain persons placed therein, and these offices were intended to 
 continue, so long as the Church itself should exist, it is plain 
 that succession must follow. It is so in all governments. The 
 officers die while the offices live on. Government must be 
 based upon some practical principles. 
 
 A civil government most usually exists for several centuries, 
 and the Christian government is intended to continue to the 
 end of time. If certain permanent offices are necessary to the 
 existence of the church, then when one incumbent dies, another 
 must come to fill the position, and this constitutes succession. 
 So long as the officer must die, and the office must exist, so 
 long the principle of succession must be acted upon. There is 
 no other mode of continuing the institution. This is the case 
 in all political governments, and must be so in all governments 
 intended for men, where the offices are to be filled by men. 
 
 Whatever government Christ did adopt for His church, 
 must have been consistent with human nature. He could not 
 be supposed to form a government for men, that would only 
 answer for some other race of beings. Any government insti- 
 tuted by Christ must possess all the elements of a perfect sys- 
 tem, one part having a due dependence upon another, so as to 
 constitute a fitness and harmony in all its parts, that the com- 
 bined whole may be practical, simple, and efficient. 
 
 4. The true office of reason. 
 
 It must be conceded, that while Christ never intended to 
 suppress reason, the noblest attribute of man, He did intend to 
 
66 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 confine it within its legitimate limits, and to its appropriate ob- 
 jects. Like every other attribute belonging to inferior beings, 
 it must be subject to rules and restrictions. It could not, there- 
 fore, be a true guide in reference to every thing, and under all 
 circumstances. But, while it is limited and restrained, it must 
 be competent within those limits. And though all truth must 
 be strictly consistent and reasonable in itself, portions of it must, 
 in the nature of things, be above the powers of limited reason. 
 This faculty, when fairly exercised, must be competent to act 
 decisively upon some portions of truth ; otherwise it has been 
 given in vain. If not to be relied on in any case, it ceases to be 
 useful, and fails to accomplish the very purpose for which it 
 was given. 
 
 It would seem to be a just conclusion, that every system of 
 truth must possess some plain principles, readily comprehended 
 by the fair exercise of reason, and some more complex and dif- 
 ficult, either entirely beyond the reach of reason, or requiring 
 the utmost exertion of its power.* 
 
 The laws of nature have been open to the observation of 
 mankind from the beginning ; and while we can, and do know, 
 the plain and more familiar laws of nature, so that we can pro- 
 nounce with certainty that a particular effect or event, happen- 
 ing under a given state of circumstances, was a clear violation 
 or suspension of these laws ; yet we do not know, and may never 
 know, all the laws of nature, and could not, therefore, be compe- 
 tent to speak decisively as to the true character of some events 
 that have occurred, or that may hereafter occur. 
 
 The first principles of the science of mathematics, the most 
 certain of all the sciences, are so simple that they can be readi- 
 ly understood by the infantile mind ; yet the higher problems, 
 which are mathematically demonstrable, and are, therefore, 
 
 * The fair exercise of reason would lead us to suppose that in a supernat- 
 ural system, there would be mysteries necessarily above the comprehension of 
 reason. By the exercise of reason we can examine the proofs of Christianity, 
 because these are external matters, coming legitimately within the jurisdiction 
 of reason. From these proofs we can know the character of Christ ; and from 
 His Word we can ascertain the plain facts and principles of the system ; and 
 these will lead us to the institution founded by Him as tne competent guide 
 of all, in all things, mysteries included. 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 67 
 
 equally true, and equally capable of being conclusively shown to 
 be so, are so complex that it requires the utmost effort of the 
 best intellects to understand them. And we may well suppose 
 that there are mathematical truths that never will be known to 
 man. So, the first principles of the science of civil government 
 are pimple, and easily understood, while there are others exceed- 
 ingly difficult of practical application. The same observations 
 are applicable to most, if not to all, the sciences. If it were not 
 so, the powers and works of the Great Creator would be limited 
 to the entire comprehension of reason, and the creature would 
 be equal, at least in intelligence, to his Creator. It was well 
 said by the great Dr. Johnson, 
 
 " Whose prose was eloquence, by wisdom taught, 
 The graceful vehicle of virtuous thought," 
 
 that " the human mind was so limited, that it cannot take in all 
 parts of a subject." (Boswell's Life of Johnson.) 
 
 The same inseparable incidents must belong to Christianity. 
 Many of its truths are plain, simple, and easily understood, while 
 some are difficult, and hard to be understood. To establish the 
 truth of the system itself, the appeal must be made, in the first 
 instance, to reason in some form. We can only predicate our 
 faith upon testimony, and this must be fairly tested by reason, 
 founded upon experience, before we can believe it. Now, among 
 the matters that can be best known to man, is the true charac- 
 ter of human testimony. Men all possess the same essential na- 
 ture, and are in constant daily association and intercourse with 
 each other ; and, therefore, must be held competent to estimate 
 the force and value of the evidence given by themselves. The 
 gifted and accomplished young Judge Jones, upon his death- 
 bed, used this language : " I have never been an infidel. I had 
 examined the positive evidences for Christianity, and they great- 
 ly preponderated in favor of its truth ; and, taken in connection 
 with its appropriate fitness to man's wants and nature, it was, as a 
 lawyer would say, a plain case upon the face of the papers." And 
 Dr. Johnson has said that no honest man could be a deist, " after 
 a fair examination of the proofs of Christianity." (Boswell.) 
 
 Among the matters that must be within the legitimate sphere 
 of reason, and that must be well known and understood, are the 
 
68 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 plain, practical, and luminous principles of government those 
 foundations upon which society itself is based. Men have been 
 under government, in some form, from the earliest times, and 
 must, therefore, be competent to understand the plain principles 
 of that science, if there be any such in the system. Proceeding 
 upon this ground, it has been my object to show the considera- 
 tions, drawn from reason and experience, that naturally led me 
 to form some idea of the leading and most apparent features of 
 that government actually instituted by Christ. For it was plain 
 to my understanding, that while governments must differ from 
 each other in those respects that constitute them different gov- 
 ernments^ they must agree in those fundamental respects that 
 constitute government itself. 
 
 5. The testimony of Christ as to the governing power of the 
 
 Church. 
 
 In the last verses of Matthew's Gospel, before our Lord as- 
 cended into heaven, and while He was with the eleven disciples 
 in a mountain in Galilee, He said unto them : 
 
 " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go 
 ye. therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : 
 and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
 
 The first part of this wide commission is, " Go teach all na- 
 tions." 
 
 This commission was first addressed to the eleven disciples, 
 and constituted the office of teacher. They were to teach the 
 nations to observe ah 1 things that Christ had commanded them 
 to observe. 
 
 This right to teach is the most essential attribute bestowed 
 upon the governing power in the church. In the nature of 
 mere civil government, as I have attempted to show in a previ- 
 ous chapter, the legislator could not rightfully require faith in 
 the justice of his laws, for he would require a belief in what 
 might be a falsehood. But in a government constituted by 
 Christ, it is reasonable that faith should be required, as well as 
 simple compliance in acts / for obedience will be more perfect 
 when we believe in the unquestioned justice of a law ; and Christ 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 69 
 
 intended to create a closer union among the members of His 
 church than exists among the citizens or subjects of a civil gov 
 ernment, and faith was necessary for this purpose. If we obey 
 a law because we are forced to do so, whether we think it just 
 or unjust, we render but a reluctant and unwilling obedience. 
 This is not the kind of obedience that an infinite lawgiver would 
 require. He would rightfully require perfect obedience to a per- 
 fect law. 
 
 Faith, then, being required, the necessity of a power to 
 teach becomes evident. This commission plainly distinguishes 
 between two separate and distinct classes of men teachers and 
 persons taught ; for while one class is commanded to " teach," 
 the other class is commanded to " observe." In the reason and 
 nature of things, there could not exist teachers without persons 
 to be taught. The two classes must exist, or there could be no 
 employment for either. The only command here given to the 
 eleven was to " teach and baptize " the nations were to " ob- 
 serve." The disciples had been previously commanded to " ob- 
 serve " what they were now, in the commission, only command- 
 ed to "teach.'' The previous commands would secure their 
 observance, and the present command would secure their teach- 
 ing. The commission was addressed to them as teachers, con- 
 stituting a separate and distinct class of men, to whom the 
 power to teach and baptize was given ; and it was only as teach- 
 ers, and in the duties as such, that Christ promised to be " with 
 them to the end of the world." Christ first tells them, " Go 
 teach," &c., and then in the same sentence immediately adds, 
 " and lo, I am with you," only connecting His promised assist- 
 ance with their teaching. He does not, in this place, promise 
 to be with them in any other capacity, but as teachers. The 
 words " Go teach," first constituted them teachers, and all that 
 followed after those words was addressed to them only in that 
 capacity. 
 
 In the tenth chapter of St. Luke our Lord said to the sev- 
 enty disciples, " He that heareth you, heareth me ; and he that 
 despiseth you, despiseth me ; and he that despiseth me, despis- 
 eth him that sent me." 
 
 Now, although this is said to the seventy sent upon a special 
 mission, it shows one thing, and establishes one important princi- 
 
70 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 pie, that they were first invested with authority by Christ, and 
 when so invested, that they acted as His agents, and any insult 
 to them, in their capacity as His agents, was an insult to Him, 
 and to his Father who sent him. 
 
 6. Testimony of St. Paul. 
 
 St. Paul, in the tenth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, 
 says: 
 
 " How shall they call on him in whom they have not be- 
 lieved ? and how shall they believe in him, of whom they have 
 not heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher ? and 
 how shall they preach except they be sent ? >J 
 
 Although this language is in the interrogative form, yet un- 
 der a well-known rule of construction, there are four affirmative 
 facts asserted in this extract. The apostle having stated in the 
 preceding verse that " whosoever shall call upon the name of 
 the Lord shall be saved," assumes the four positions so distinctly 
 stated in the passage. It was clear that the preacher could not 
 preach unless he was sent that he could not send himself; and 
 it is equally clear that the party to hear and believe was not the 
 preacher sent. In other words, there were two classes teach- 
 ers and persons taught. St. Paul does not here give us any 
 statement as to the manner of sending preachers, or as to who 
 sends them. These matters are stated in other epistles. 
 
 The same apostle, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 chapter 12, verses 28 and 29, says : 
 
 " And God hath set some in the church, first apostles sec- 
 ondarily prophets thirdly teachers, Are all apostles? are 
 all prophets ? are all teachers ? " 
 
 /This is explicit as to the fact that, in St. Paul's time, a cer- 
 tain order of men had the right to teach, and that all had not. 
 
 St. Paul (Hebrews xiii. 7, 17) uses this clear and explicit 
 language : 
 
 " Remember them which have the rule over you, who have 
 spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith follow, consid- 
 ering the end of their conversation." 
 
 " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your- 
 selves : for they watch for your souls as they that must give 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 71 
 
 an account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief: 
 for that is unprofitable for you." 
 
 It is difficult to conceive of language more explicit and more 
 to the point than the foregoing extracts. The following points 
 seem most distinctly stated : 
 
 1 . That a certain order of men had the rule over the church. 
 
 2. That this order of men were those who " had spoken unto 
 em the word of God." 
 
 3. That the Hebrews were commanded to "follow the faith" 
 of them who " had the rule over them." 
 
 4. That they were commanded to obey those who " had the 
 rule over them," for the reason that those rulers " watched for 
 their souls, as they that must give an account." 
 
 Now it is evident that those who had the rule over the 
 church were one class, and those who were commanded to obey 
 were another and a distinct class. The rulers had the right to 
 rule, as to matters of faith, for those commanded to obey were 
 to "follow the faith" of those who had spoken unto them the 
 word of God. Now connect this with the commission " Go 
 teach," and it is plain that teaching was one of the leading pow- 
 ers of government bestowed upon the apostles and their suc- 
 cessors, as teachers, and that those who had the rule over the 
 church had the right to teach authoritatively, in Christ's name, 
 in matters of faith. And as those who have the rule over the 
 church have the right to teach faith, there is a great responsibil- 
 ity resting upon them, because they " watch for the souls " of 
 those over whom they have the rule, as " they that must give 
 an account." It is a just principle, universally adopted, that 
 where great powers are given great responsibility is imposed, 
 and the officer is held to a strict account. 
 
 St. Paul says to his Hebrew brethren " Remember," an ex- 
 pression always denoting great earnestness on the part of the 
 writer or speaker, and calling the particular attention of the 
 persons addressed to what follows. He then says, " Them 
 which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the 
 word of God, whose faith follow ; " that is, whose faith do you 
 follow. He first tells them to remember them who have the 
 rule over them, and then tells them how they are to remember 
 them, and that is by following THEIR faith. In the second ex- 
 
72 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHUECH. 
 
 tract he is equally emphatic. He first says, " obey them that 
 have the rule over you," and as if this was not sufficiently strong 
 and clear, he adds, " and submit yourselves," and then gives 
 them the reasons why they should obey and submit. 
 
 Now the terms rule, obey, and submit, can mean nothing in 
 this connection but government and obedience. The word 
 rule here means government ; and to govern is to " control the 
 will and actions of others, either by arbitrary power and au- 
 thority, or by established laws." (Webster.) The rule or gov- 
 ernment which those orders had over the Church, was only the 
 power to control the will and actions by established laws, and 
 not by arbitrary power. The word obey here means " to com- 
 ply with the commands, orders, or instructions of a superior ; " 
 and to submit is " to be subject ; to acquiesce in the authority 
 of another." (Webster.) 
 
 In the fourth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 we find this language : 
 
 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and 
 some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ; for the per- 
 fecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edify- 
 ing of the body of Christ ; till we all come in the unity of the 
 faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 
 man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ; 
 that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and 
 carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, 
 and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive ; 
 but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all 
 things, which is the head, even Christ : from whom the whole 
 body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every 
 joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the meas- 
 ure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edify- 
 ing of itself in love." 
 
 This is one of the most clear and distinct passages found in 
 the writings of St. Paul. It contains a great many particulars 
 in the same long sentence, all closely and beautifully connected, 
 and as consistent as that unity of the faith, and knowledge of 
 the Son of God, of which he speaks. 
 
 He first speaks of a certain order of men, consisting of sev- 
 eral grades apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pas- 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHUKCH. 73 
 
 tors all given for certain specific purposes, namely : "for the 
 perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the 
 edifying of the body of Christ," i. e., the Church ; and the im- 
 mediate end of this authoritative labor, this perfecting of the 
 saints, this work of the ministry, this edifying of the Church, 
 was, that the members of the church might " all come in the 
 unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God ;" and 
 this unity of faith and knowledge must be perfect, " unto the 
 measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ;" and the legiti- 
 mate result or effect of this unity in this perfect knowledge of 
 the Son of God is, that " we henceforth be no more children, 
 tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine," 
 " but speaking the truth in love, we may grow up into him in 
 all things, which is the head, even Christ ; " so that every part 
 of this body, the church, might be "fitly joined together and 
 compacted /" and thus, being fitly joined and compacted, the 
 " effectual working of every part " might make " increase of th : 
 body," thus answering the prayer of Christ for the unity of Jfif 
 followers, that the world might believe that the Father had sent 
 Him. 
 
 In this Epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle tells us that 
 there was a certain order of men given for certain purposes, and 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he tells us to " follow the faith of 
 those who have the rule over us," and these are they " who have 
 spoken unto us the word of God." Now put these passages 
 together, and do not these results inevitably follow? 
 
 1. That the " rule " or government of the church was given 
 to a certain order of men. 
 
 2. That among the powers granted, was especially the power 
 to " teach." 
 
 3. That this order of men taught authoritatively, for the 
 Hebrews were expressly commanded to obey and submit to them 
 by following their faith. 
 
 4. And by following implicitly the faith of this order of men, 
 as they were commanded to do, we can most readily understand 
 how the ancient Christians could come to the " unity of the 
 faith ; " and that while they followed the faith of those who had 
 the rule over them, they would be certainly guarded against 
 
 8 
 
74 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 being " tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of 
 doctrine." 
 
 5. That the legitimate result of all this would be the per- 
 fect and harmonious action of the Church, which would " make 
 increase " of its numbers, and edify " itself in love." 
 
 7. Further testimony of tSt. Paul. 
 
 The Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, were ad- 
 dressed to them in their capacity as Teachers. The whole drift, 
 spirit, and language of these Epistles show that Timothy and 
 Titus had " the rale " over their respective churches. To Tim 
 othy St. Paul says : 
 
 " As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went 
 into Macedonia, that thou niightest charge some, that they teach 
 no other doctrine." 
 
 " This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy." 
 
 Speaking of bishops, among other things he says : 
 
 " One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in 
 subjection, with all gravity, (for if a man know not how to rule 
 his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" 
 
 After mentioning many things, the apostle tells Timothy : 
 
 " These things " [do thou] " command and teach." 
 
 " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
 honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." 
 
 " Let no man despise thy youth." 
 
 " Neglect not the gift that is in thee." 
 
 " These things give in charge, that they may be blameless." 
 
 " These things teach and exhort." 
 
 Speaking of certain false teachers, the apostle says to Tim- 
 othy : 
 
 " From such withdraw thyself." 
 
 " O ! Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust," 
 &c. 
 
 " Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up 
 the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." 
 
 " Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard 
 of me, in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. That good 
 thing which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghost, 
 which dwelleth in us." 
 
THE GOVERNING POWEK OF THE CHURCH. 75 
 
 " And the things that thou hast heard of me among many 
 witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be 
 able to teach others also." 
 
 To his sou Titus, the apostle says : 
 
 " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set 
 in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
 city, as I had appointed thee." 
 
 " These things [do you] speak, and exhort with all author- 
 ity. Let no man despise thee." 
 
 " A man that is a heretic after the first and second admoni- 
 tion [do you] reject."* 
 
 Now these quotations show that Timothy and Titus, as min- 
 isters^ had the right to " command and teach " " with all author- 
 ity ;" and in thus doing, they would but carry out the original 
 commission given by Christ to His' apostles. St. Paul tells Tim- 
 othy " to charge some that they teach no other doctrine." The 
 term charge implies authority, and the apostle uses it in this sense 
 when he says, " this charge I commit to thee," &c. He compares 
 the ruling of a household to " taking care of the church." Now 
 to know what is meant by the phrase "taking care of," we 
 need only to refer to the seventeenth verse of the fifth chapter, 
 where he says, " Let the elders that rule well be counted wor- 
 thy of double honor, especially they that labor in the word and 
 doctrine." So that " to take care of the church " means to rule 
 the church ; as is still further shown from the fact that " taking 
 care of the church " is compared to ruling a family, where the 
 father does speak with authority. "These things command and 
 teach." The words " command " and " teach " imply nothing 
 but authority. If Timothy had the right to command and teach, 
 and it was made his express duty so to do, then it must have 
 been the duty of some one to obey. 
 
 Speaking of certain proud and perverse teachers, the apostle 
 tells Timothy, " From such withdraw thyself." Now it is plain 
 that Timothy was to decide who these teachers were. The 
 apostle gives him a description of such a class, in general terms, 
 but leaves Timothy to decide the question whether a particular 
 
 * These sentences being elliptical, I have put in brackets the words neces- 
 sary to fill them up. 
 
76 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 individual came within the definition. In other words, Paul, 
 the inspired apostle, as such, laid down the law to Timothy, 
 leaving Timothy to construe the law, and administer it in each 
 particular case as it arose. " Let no man despise thy youth." 
 
 The apostle, after stating to Titus that " there are many vair 
 talkers and deceivers," commands Titus to " rebuke them sharp- 
 ly, that they may be sound in the faith." He further com- 
 mands Titus : " These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke 
 with all authority.'' Now here was the most explicit authority 
 given Titus to " rebuke sharply," and then " with all authori- 
 ty /" and the object of these sharp and authoritative rebukes 
 was, that those thus rebuked might " be sound in the faith." 
 But the authority of Titus did not stop here. He was not only 
 to " rebuke, exhort, and speak with all authority," that those 
 thus rebuked, exhorted, and taught might " become sound in the 
 faith," but he was expressly commanded to " reject a heretic, 
 after the first and second admonition." These commands were 
 given to Titus as a minister, having the rule over the church at 
 Crete. He was first to decide who were the " vain talkers and 
 deceivers ;" he was then to " exhort and rebuke them sharply, 
 and with all authority," that they might become " sound in the 
 faith ; " but if they persisted after the first and second admoni- 
 tion, he was to reject them as heretics. Titus was the judge, 
 who was to decide whether certain opinions were heretical, and 
 he was to reject the heretic. He had the authority to rule or 
 govern. Paul says to him, "Let no man despise thee:" that 
 is, in the discharge of thy duties. In other words, let no man de- 
 spise thy authority. This is clear from the words going before, 
 as well as from the fact that the whole Epistle is addressed to 
 Titus in his capacity of teacher^ and regards him in that capaci- 
 ty, and not as an individual, having no oflicial authority. 
 
 Among the powers conferred upon Timothy and Titus were 
 the following : 
 
 1. The power to command and teach, rebuke and exhort, 
 with all authority. 
 
 2. To ordain elders. 
 
 3. To reject heretics. 
 
 And these powers were given them by the laying on ot the 
 hands of the apostle, and were to be exercised by them, and 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 77 
 
 not by the members of the church at large. These powers were 
 most full and ample. Putting all these passages together, as 
 well as taking the general drift and spirit of the whole system, 
 how readily we can see the manner and the means by which the 
 members of the church were brought to "the unity of the faith." * 
 The process was most simple and beautiful, efficient and ration- 
 al. Christ organized His followers into a visible Church, which 
 is a united body of living men. In this church He instituted a 
 certain order of men, unto whom He delegated the governing 
 power of the Church. According to the laws governing this in- 
 stitution, faith was required of each member. The power to 
 " teach " faith " with authority " was therefore necessary, and 
 was the principal power of government to be exercised by this 
 order of men. They taught as the agents and officers of Christ, 
 the founder of the institution. The members of the church were 
 required to " follow the faith " of these teachers, and to obey 
 them ; and when a member refused to do this, he was " rejected 
 as a heretic." 
 
 In this way " the unity of the faith " was kept pure in the 
 church. As often as a member became infected with improper 
 opinions, he was rebuked, exhorted, and admonished twice, and 
 if he still persisted, he was rejected. And this process was pur- 
 sued towards others as often as occasion might require. It is 
 obvious that there could be left in the church nothing but " the 
 unity of the faith " spoken of by St. Paul. There could be no 
 process more simple and efficient than this. It accords with all 
 the laws of reason, with human nature, and with the first and 
 most essential principles whereon all governments of law must 
 be based. 
 
 The power to expel for heresy is a necessary incident to the 
 power to teach, given by Christ in the commission ; and the 
 power to expel for heresy necessarily includes the power to de- 
 termine what heresy is, and what it is not. It is one of the 
 plainest principles of law, that when power is given to the agent 
 to do a certain thing, the means necessary to accomplish the 
 end are inseparable incidents ; otherwise, the grant of power 
 
 * How forcible and beautiful is that expression of St. Paul, " The unity of 
 tlw faith." 
 
78 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 would be idle. To say to the agent, " Do this," and yet give 
 him no means wherewith to do it, would be wholly useless. 
 Titus was commanded to admonish and to reject the heretic ; 
 and whatever may be the definition of heresy, it was a crime 
 against the law of Christ, and must be judged by that law. If 
 Titus was to reject the heretic, he must, of necessity, decide 
 what was heresy, as defined by the law making it criminal. In 
 other words, he must construe the law, and determine authori- 
 tatively the question arising under the law. 
 
 ISTow those who were commanded to admonish and reject her- 
 etics were those whose faith the early Christians were command- 
 ed to follow. And from the Scriptures alone, the mode of 
 teaching, the powers of the teachers, and the duties of the mem- 
 bers taught, may be stated concisely thus : 
 
 1. The lay members of the church were to " obey" "submit 
 to" and " follow the faith " of their teachers who had '' the rule 
 over them." This secured unity of faith between the teachers 
 and the persons taught. 
 
 2. In case of any serious difference among the teachers them- 
 selves, as to any point of faith to be taught, a council was called, 
 and the question therein settled, both by argument, and the aid of 
 the Holy Ghost. This secured unity in the college of teachers. 
 
 3. The united effect of both these was unity in the entire 
 body, the church. 
 
 8. The powers of government bestowed upon the apostolical 
 church, continuing. 
 
 This was the process of governing the church in the days of 
 the apostles. There was a certain order of men that had the 
 rule over the church. They taught, they ordained elders, they 
 expelled heretics, and they, in a word, exercised all the powers 
 necessary to govern the institution as it was then constituted. 
 The acts of government that we know were then exercised by 
 that order of men, were all that the nature of the institution 
 required. 
 
 The question then arises whether this order of men had suc- 
 cei.3ion, and still exists in the church. I must refer to previous 
 reuiarks, showing the necessity for succession of officers. There 
 can be nothing more plain and palpable than this, that if Christ 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 70 
 
 did organize any visible church, and institute any government 
 for it, and, therefore, did create OFFICES to be tilled by men, 
 and these offices were intended to continue so long as the church 
 itself should last, either the first incumbents were to live while 
 the church existed, or there must be a succession of officers. It 
 follows also that so long as the office remains unchanged, the 
 successor must have the same powers as his predecessor ; for it 
 is the office that gives power to the man, and not the man to 
 the office. 
 
 Christ organized and perfected the Christian government, 
 and made the permanent Christian code of laws for its guidance. 
 The system came from Christ and His apostles possessing cer- 
 tain characteristics or constituent principles. Either Christ 
 intended to institute some government in the Church, or He 
 intended to organize no visible Church at all. For I cannot 
 conceive of a continuing visible Church, the pillar and ground 
 of the truth, without government. If He did institute such 
 government, He must have placed the governing power some- 
 where in the Church / and, in doing this, He must have created 
 certain offices, to which were given certain official powers; and 
 those offices were intended to be filled by men, so long as the 
 association should continue to exist. If there were no offices 
 in the church, how could there exist any government ? And 
 how could offices exist without official power ? And how could 
 official power exist equally in each and every member of the 
 association ? In such case, who would govern and who would 
 obey? 
 
 The founder of any government has the right to establish 
 the offices necessary to its successful administration ; and this 
 right is usually exercised in reference to the more important 
 offices. It would have been a strange anomaly, indeed, if Christ 
 had created no offices for the government of His Church. It 
 would have left the system exceedingly imperfect. 
 
 That He did create certain offices, is shown from the extracts 
 already given, and from the language of St. Paul in his first 
 Epistle to Timothy, where he speaks of" the office of a bishop" 
 and " the office of a deacon ; " and the only question to deter- 
 mine is, whether those offices were intended to continue in the 
 church while the church itself should last. If Christ did create 
 
80 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 certain offices in the church, and there is no limitation put to 
 the duration of the office, either by the mere temporary nature 
 of the duty to be performed, or by the express words of the law 
 creating the office, then the intent would seem to be plain, that 
 the existence of the office would be commensurate with the ex- 
 istence of the system itself. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States organized a govern- 
 ment. It is not stated in the instrument how long the system 
 was intended to continue ; and yet it was intended to be per- 
 petual, for the reason that no limit is given. When a corpora- 
 tion is created, and no limit put to its existence, it must be held 
 to be perpetual ; for while the law will presume the death of a 
 natural person after the expiration of a certain period of time, 
 it will not presume the death of an artificial being which may 
 live on. 
 
 By the Constitution, the executive power is vested in a pres- 
 ident, and the judicial power in one supreme court, and such 
 inferior courts as Congress may establish. It is not stated in 
 express terms that the office of president shall exist so long as 
 the Constitution endures ; and yet this is the palpable intent, 
 because the office is created as a part of the system, and must 
 necessarily continue so long as the government itself shall last. 
 If an office be created in the organization of the government, 
 unless its duration be limited as before stated, the intent of the 
 founder is plain, that the office must continue as a part of the 
 system. 
 
 That our Lord did create certain offices, the duties of which 
 were not temporary but perpetual, and not limited in their du- 
 ration by express words, or by the acts of those who put the 
 system into practical operation, there would seem to be no 
 doubt. As knowledge cannot be inherited, but must be ac- 
 quired, each succeeding generation must be taught as was the 
 preceding one. For this reason the duty of teaching is perpet- 
 ual, because the system to be taught is so. 
 
 9. The power to teach was not personal to the apostles. 
 
 That the commission constituted the authority of the apos- 
 tles, and empowered and required them to teach all things 
 whatsoever Christ had commanded them to observe, cannot 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 81 
 
 be disputed. The only question is, whether the power thereby 
 conferred, was a power personal to them, and therefore tempo- 
 rary ; or whether, by this commission the office of teacher was 
 not created, and the power given to the office itself, and the 
 apostles merely appointed the first officers ; and their powers 
 were not, therefore, to cease at their deaths, but to continue 
 down to their successors in this office, through all coming time. 
 Was it intended here to create the office of teacher or not ? 
 And if Christ did create the office, did He intend it to be but 
 temporary ? If so, did He put any limits to its duration ? Was 
 there any necessity that the office should continue while the 
 church continues ? If so, the same reason that existed for the 
 creation of the office must exist for its continuance. 
 
 If this commission gives no authority but to the apostles, 
 upon whom it was supposed to be alone conferred, there could 
 be no successors under this commission, and no authority to 
 teach after the deaths of those to whom it was first given. So 
 far as this commission goes, upon this supposition, there is no 
 authority to teach vested in any one ; and it all ceased the mo- 
 ment the last apostle died. But, on the contrary, if it was in- 
 tended to create a perpetual office, there must be a succession 
 of officers having the same powers as their predecessors. 
 
 The command to teach, and the promise, " Lo, I am with 
 you alway, even unto the end of the world," are so closely con- 
 nected together, that the existence of the one must be com- 
 mensurate with the existence of the other. If Christ then com- 
 manded the apostles and their successors to teach, He equally 
 promised to be with them " alway, even unto the end of the 
 world ; " and He does not promise to be with them any longer 
 than they have authority to teach. If this promise extends to 
 the successors of the apostles, the command to teach does also. 
 
 The power to baptize is also given in this commission, and 
 forms a portion of the mass of inseparable powers bestowed 
 upon the apostles as teachers. The power to teach is, first given, 
 and then the power to baptize those taught, which is only car- 
 rying out the power to teach, and forming a part of it ; and, 
 therefore, the power to teach and baptize must stand or fall to- 
 gether. If, therefore, the power to teach did not come down 
 to the successors of the apostles, in virtue of the commission, 
 9 
 
82 THE GOVERNING POWKR OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 the power to baptize did not. Thus, in so far as the commission 
 is concerned, there is no power in the Church, since the days oi 
 the apostles, either to teach or baptize ; and we must look to 
 other portions of the Word of God for such authority, if it exist 
 in the visible Church at all. 
 
 10. Meaning of the phrase "end of the world." 
 Then what is the true meaning of the phrase " end of the 
 world," as it stands in the commission?* Does it mean the 
 term of a person's natural life ? There is not a single instance 
 in the New Testament, where this phrase has such a meaning. 
 It was a very common expression with our Lord ; and, when- 
 ever used by Him, has one invariable meaning. The only pas- 
 sage that can be brought to give plausibility to such a meaning, 
 is found in the twelfth chapter of St. Matthew, where our Lord, 
 speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost, says : " It shall not 
 be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to 
 come." Now, might not the word world in this connection 
 mean the period of a person's natural life, during which this sin 
 shall not be forgiven ? It cannot. The expression is general, 
 and the sentence is antithetic, having the same substantive world 
 in both members of the sentence, and the word must have the 
 same power in both. One is this world, and the other the 
 world to come. They both signify opposite states. The world 
 to come cannot signify the term or duration of a natural life, 
 but clearly signifies a future order or state of things. And there- 
 fore " this world " must signify the present or existing order.f 
 In every instance in the New Testament in which this phrase 
 
 * Mr. Rice, in his debate with Mr. Campbell, says : 
 
 " We know that the apostles were authorized and commanded to baptize and 
 teach. But this is not all ; the promise extends to the end of time." 
 
 This extract clearly supports the view I have taken. Mr. R. says, " the end 
 of time." 
 
 + The provision of the law is general, while one case is put for all. In the 
 contemplation of Christ, there are but two states, this world and the world to 
 come ; and He meant to lay down the general principle, that the sin against the 
 Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in either state. The practice of putting one 
 case for all, and of using the masculine for both the masculine and feminity 
 genders, was very common with our Lord, as it is with all lawmakers. " H<? 
 that believeth and is baptized, 1 ' &c. " Except a man be born of water," &c. 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 83 
 
 occurs, it means the end of the present state. In this sense it 
 occurs in the thirteenth of Matthew : " The harvest is the end 
 of the world." " So shall it be at the end of this world." This 
 phrase has the same meaning, where the disciples ask Christ 
 what shall be the sign of His coming, and of the " end of the 
 world." If, then, Christ promised to be with the eleven to the 
 end of the existing state of things, one of two things must be 
 true : either that the apostles were to live to the end of the 
 world, or the promise extends to their successors, and was so 
 intended.* 
 
 * Mr. Campbell says : 
 
 " For by every rule of interpretation, I must apply every word of the com- 
 mission to the apostles ; because it is addressed to them only." 
 
 He then quotes the commission, concluding it with, " and lo, I am with you 
 always, even to the conclusion of this state, or to the end of the age or world." 
 (Debate C. & P., 52.) 
 
 Now I understand Mr. C. to have meant by the phrase " conclusion of this 
 state " the end of the present state of existence or being. In other words, the 
 end of time. 
 
 Understanding him in this sense, I could never put these two positions to- 
 gether. Christ knew that His apostles would not live beyond the period of hu- 
 man life ; and, in the contemplation of this theory, the command and promise 
 contained in the commission were both personal to the apostles, and both expired 
 with them, and our Lord is, therefore, made to promise His infallible aid beyond 
 the period when it would be needed. I could never understand why oar Lord 
 should make an idle and gratuitous promise of assistance, when He only intended 
 to afford it for a very small portion of the time fixed by the promise itself. The 
 promise itself extends to the end of time, and yet the performance of it is limited 
 to the days of the apostles. How then could our Lord redeem His promise to be 
 with the apostles after they were dead ? The promise was to infallibly assist 
 them in the duty of teaching. The work to be done was to be accomplished in 
 this world, and the promised aid was to be given here. He did not permit them 
 to live to the limit fixed for the promised aid, and how did He keep His word 
 according to this theory ? 
 
 The different Protestant theories concerning the commission lead to irrecon - 
 cilable contradictions. 
 
 1. The theory of Mr. C., if I understand him correctly, makes Christ forfeit 
 His word for the mere purpose of doing an idle and vain thing. 
 
 2. Those who insist that the phrase " end of the world " does not mean the 
 end of this state, are forced to reject the sense in which Christ had always used 
 it, and to give to it a new and unheard of meaning, exceedingly unnatural and 
 awkward. 
 
 3. Those who concede that the promise extends to the end of the existing 
 
84r THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 But it may be contended that the use of the pronoun " you " 
 restricts both the commission and the promise to the apostles, 
 to whom our Saviour addressed Himself orally. But this con- 
 struction would be in direct conflict with the promise, if I have 
 
 state of things, and that Christ does keep His promise, are compelled to admit, 
 either that the aid of Christ fails to accomplish the end intended by Him, or that 
 there is now an infallible teaching authority in the church. 
 
 The Catholic theory, that Christ first constituted a college of teachers, and 
 then addressed His command and promise to them in that capacity, is the only 
 one compatible with the character of Christ as a Divine Lawgiver ; and the only 
 one commensurate with the scope and intent of such a system. 
 
 But conceding that I have misunderstood Mr. C., and that he only intended 
 to maintain that Christ promised His assistance during the lives of the apostles, 
 the difficulties of this theory are about as great as those of the other 
 
 The only things that Christ commanded the apostles to do, (in the commission,) 
 was to teach and baptize. The system established by Him was permanent, and, 
 therefore, required permanent teaching. The duty of teaching was continuing. 
 Each separate individual, in all coming time, had to be taught. Nothing of 
 faith or knowledge could be inherited. It is, then, most singular, that the first 
 teachers, instructed personally by our Lord Himself, should still require this in- 
 fallible assistance, while future teachers, teaching the same system, could do 
 without it. The duty to be performed was the same ; and yet assistance is given 
 in one case, and refused in the other. The teachers after the apostolic day could 
 not learn their duty more fully than the apostles did under the instructions of Christ 
 This infallible assistance, in the very nature of the system, was needed, and, there- 
 fore, promised, at all periods from the beginning to the end of the institution. 
 
 But besides this, the words, " I am with you," occur very often in both Tes- 
 taments ; and in no case, (so far as I am advised,) where the promise was per- 
 sonal, were the words added, " alway, even to the end of the world." And the 
 reason why they are not added in cases where the promise was confined to the 
 individual to whom it was made, would seem to be obvious. 
 
 If we take the theory to be true, for the sake of the argument only, that the 
 promise was personal to the apostles, then, all that Christ need have said was, 
 " Lo, I am with you." The command and promise always being commensurate 
 with each other, this would have expressed all the sense contended for by Mr. C., 
 and those who think with him. But is it not unaccountable that our Lord should 
 add words not required to express His meaning, but also use them in a sense 
 wholly contrary to the sense in which He Himself had always used them before ? 
 It would seem that the very reason why our Lord added to the promise, "I am 
 with you" the words " alway, even to the end of the world," was to qualify the 
 promise itself by showing that it was not personal, but continuing. Unquestion- 
 ably the duty of teaching was not personal to the apostles. They were simply 
 the first, but not the only, teachers. The command and promise must exist or 
 expire together. They are inseparable. 
 
THE GOVERNING POWEK OF THE CHURCH. 85 
 
 given the correct definition of the phrase " end of the 
 world." 
 
 It must be evident to the most casual reader of the New 
 Testament, that the larger portion of the instructions given by 
 Christ were given in terms personally addressed to the apostles 
 We read in the first chapter of Acts, that Christ was "seen of 
 the apostles forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to 
 the kingdom of God." Now these instructions were given to 
 them personally, so far as we can judge from what is said. The 
 instructions given by Christ, as recorded in St. John's Gospel, 
 from the thirteenth to the seventeenth chapters inclusive, were 
 given in terms personal to the apostles. u A new command- 
 ment I give unto you, that you love one another." At the last 
 supper, our Lord, addressing the apostles in terms personal to 
 them, said, "Do this in remembrance of me." The pronoun 
 you is here used in all these cases, and in many others, when 
 Christ was addressing His chosen apostles alone, no one being 
 present but them ; and are these commands applicable to the 
 successors of the apostles, or not ? Were succeeding Christians 
 required to love one another ? Were they required to " do 
 this in remembrance " of Christ ? If so, why are not those who 
 come after the apostles required to " go teach," as well as they ? 
 Why confine the meaning in one case, and not in the others ? 
 Was there no need of teachers after the apostles ? 
 
 The fact that the larger portion of the instructions given by 
 our Saviour was given in terms personal to the apostles, is evi- 
 dent ; and the fact that these instructions are applicable to us, 
 unless they are limited, either by express words or by the na- 
 ture of the command itself, is equally clear. Thus, for instance, 
 the command given to the eleven to tarry in Jerusalem until 
 the descent of the Holy Spirit, does not apply to us, for the 
 command was but temporary, and could not extend beyond the 
 event mentioned as its limitation. It was not a general continu- 
 ing command, but local and temporary, and could not be ful- 
 filled again, but expired by its own limited character. 
 
 And the reason and truth of this rule will be apparent, I ap- 
 prehend, upon a little reflection. Christ selected twelve apos- 
 tles to be with Him during His ministry. They saw all His 
 miracles heard all His discourses, which were mostly given in 
 
86 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 terms personal to them, and received His last instructions, and 
 saw him ascend into heaven. The last thing He said to them 
 was, " Go teach, <fec., teaching them to observe all things what- 
 soever I have commanded you " [to observe.] He had instruct- 
 ed them personally for more than three years, and now He com- 
 mands them to teach others to observe that which He had 
 previously commanded them to observe. This commission ajr 
 plied the teachings of Christ, given in terms personal to the 
 apostles, also to their successors. They were commanded to 
 " tarry in Jerusalem until they were endowed with power from 
 on high." When so endowed, they were to commence teach- 
 ing. The date, therefore, when the commission was to take 
 effect, was the day of Pentecost. Whatsoever Christ had, pre- 
 vious to that day, commanded them to do, they were to teach 
 others to observe. Now, on that day, one of the things Christ 
 had previously commanded the eleven to do, was to " teach all 
 things whatsoever he had commanded them ; " and this made 
 It their duty to teach others to teach what they had been them- 
 selves commanded to teach. In other words, the phrase " all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you," would embrace all 
 commands given before the time when this command was to be 
 put in force, and would include in the words " all things what- 
 soever " the command " Go teach." 
 
 The phrase " all things whatsoever " is exceedingly general, 
 and would include all commands. But according to the fifth 
 rule of construction I have given, a general rule may be limited 
 by a special clause. And it is upon this ground that I lay it 
 down as a principle of construction, that all commands given by 
 Christ in terms personal to the apostles, descend to, and are 
 obligatory upon us, unless they are limited by express words, 
 or by the temporary nature of the command itself. Unless the 
 general clause "all things whatsoever" be limited by some 
 other clause, or by the nature of the command itself, its mean- 
 ing remains unrestricted ; and " all things whatsoever " Christ 
 commanded His apostles to observe or do, are obligatory upon 
 Christians in all ages. And the limitations upon the general 
 clause will not restrict it only in so far as may be required by 
 these exceptions or limitations, leaving the remainder of the 
 slause to have its full effect. 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 87 
 
 But these commands are only obligatory upon future Chris- 
 ti.ins in the proper capacity ; namely : If Christ commanded the 
 eleven, in their capacity as teachers, to teach, then the same 
 duty would devolve upon their successors in the office of teacher, 
 and upon them only. If He commanded them, as individuals, 
 to love one another, then this command would be obligatory 
 upon all Christians, in all ages. If He commanded them, as in- 
 dividuals, to eat the Lord's Supper, and as ministers, to admin, 
 ister it to others, then their successors in these two different 
 capacities must obey the command, " Do this in remembrance 
 of me." 
 
 Whenever associated men are divided, as they must be, into 
 different orders, and the distinctions of those different classes 
 first separately and specifically pointed out, then any general 
 direction must, by every rule of construction, be applied to each 
 in his proper position. As a lawgiver, our Lord would consist- 
 ently begin with the first and simplest elements of His system. 
 And as all Christians, both lay and clerical, are still individual 
 members of the church, and bound, as such, to discharge all 
 the duties of that capacity, our Lord would first teach His 
 apostles their duties as simple Christians, and afterwards their 
 duties as officers. And He would logically give them the com- 
 mission in the close of His ministry, and in terms sufficiently 
 general to include all that had been embodied in His permanent 
 code. 
 
 It is a rule, that instructions from a superior to an inferior, 
 acting in a certain capacity, are necessarily confined to him in 
 that capacity, unless there be some express statement to the 
 contrary. For example : I may act in several different capaci- 
 ties, under several different superiors, or under one superior, 
 Who has the rightful supervision of different inferiors, acting in 
 different capacities. I may be agent for A. B., and also for C. 
 D., having the power to appoint sub-agents under me in both 
 cases. We will suppose that I appoint E. F. sub-agent for both 
 these parties, and that I write him letters of instruction in both 
 cases. In the first case I address my letter to him in this way : 
 "Mr. E. F., Sub-Agent of A. B. : 
 
 " You will," <fcc., giving him instructions, without again 
 mentioning the name of A. B. In the same way I address him 
 
88 TEE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHUECH. 
 
 as the sub-agent of C. D., and give him my instructions accord- 
 ingly. Now, it would be a violation of all rule and of all usage 
 for E. F. to do for A. B. what I had instructed him to do for 
 C. D. Having addressed him in a certain capacity, my instruc- 
 tions are confined to that capacity. And so it is with persons 
 filling official positions. One man may fill several offices, where 
 the duties are not incompatible with each other, and the same 
 superior officer may supervise the inferior in all these different 
 capacities ; and, in giving him instructions, would address him 
 at the beginning in the capacity for which the instructions are 
 intended. So it is in the commission. Christ addressed the 
 eleven in their capacity as teachers. He first constitutes them 
 such, and then the instructions and promise are applied to them 
 in that capacity only. 
 
 But there is another sufficient reason why the use of the 
 pronoun " you," in the commission, could not restrict the corn 
 mand and promise to the eleven apostles. Let us assume, for 
 the sake of the argument only, that our Lord, in the commis- 
 sion, created, for the first time, a body or college of teachers, 
 having perpetual succession ; and that He addressed them in 
 their collective capacity as teachers. Then, it is clear that the 
 use of the personal pronoun would have been proper in that 
 case. And we find such to be the usage of Scripture, as well as 
 at law, and in common practice. 
 
 In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verse 
 fifty-two, St. Paul, speaking of those Christians who are to be 
 living at the end of the world, says : " We shall be changed." 
 He says the same thing, in substance, in the fourth chapter of 
 his Epistle to the Thessalonians. The pronoun we is here ap- 
 plied to those Christians who shall live many ages after the 
 writer, although the pronoun is in the first person. But all 
 Christians, in all ages, in the contemplation of the theory of St. 
 Paul, constituted but one collective body or corporation, always 
 existing, and always present, from the beginning to the end of 
 the Christian era, and the use of the pronoun personal was 
 strictly proper. So, when he says, "till we all come in the 
 unity of the faith," he includes all the Christians of the future 
 as well as of the then present time. In the same way, and for 
 the same reason, when Christ constituted a perpetual college of 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 89 
 
 teachers, in the contemplation of His theory, this college was 
 then present, and would continue to be to the end of time, and 
 the use of the pronoun was strictly proper, and His promised 
 assistance to the end of the world was in just accordance with 
 it. When instructions are given to the proper organs of an arti- 
 ficial being, they are given to the being itself, through its or- 
 gans, and are applicable at all times, unless expressly limited in 
 words, or by their temporary character.* 
 
 It would then seem plain, that if Christ intended to limit the 
 commission to the apostles, He could appropriately use the pro- 
 noun you ; and that, on the contrary, if He constituted them a 
 college of teachers, having perpetual succession, He could have 
 used the same pronoun with the same propriety ; so that the use 
 of this pronoun is entirely compatible with either view. But it 
 is not so with the phrase " end of the world," which could not 
 be used in the sense required to limit the promise to the apostles 
 themselves, for the reasons already given. 
 
 11. The persons appointed by the apostles exercised the pow 
 ers conferred by the commission. 
 
 But there is another mode of deciding the question, whether 
 this commission extends to the successors of the apostles or not. 
 When we see how the apostles put the system into practical 
 operation, we may be able to arrive at a correct conclusion. 
 
 * But if we once admit that the promise extended beyond the apostles, then 
 we are forced to concede that the form of expression used can only he compati- 
 ble with the fact that our Lord first constituted them a college of teachers, and 
 then addressed them as such. The pronoun personal can only be applied to per- 
 sons real or artificial. You may well address the organs or members of a cor- 
 poration as you would the corporation itself. You may also address a permanent 
 college of teachers as a person destined to live throughout all coming time. This 
 is what our Lord did. He first created the college by addressing all the apostles 
 collectively, and imposing upon them duties which only the whole combined could 
 perform. They were to teach all nations all things which He had commanded. 
 For our Lord to say that He would always be with them to the end of the world, 
 and yet they not be members of a continuing college of teachers, destined to livo 
 us long as the promise itself was to continue, would seem to be entirely errone- 
 oua As the promise itself was continuing, and yet the pronoun personal was 
 used, there must have been a college of teachers then organized, the apostlei 
 being the first members of the college. 
 
90 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Now if Christ intended by this commission to create a certain 
 office, having attached to it certain powers and duties, and 
 this office was to continue while the church should exist, the 
 question of succession is very simple and plain. 
 
 Now what powers did Christ bestow upon the apostles by 
 the commission ? What powers did He give to them in their 
 capacity, as teachers f The power to " teach all things what- 
 soever I have commanded you," and the power to baptize. 
 Now what incidents does the power to teach necessarily in- 
 clude ? 
 
 1. The right to decide what construction they would give the 
 law in other words, what the law required, as of faith, and 
 practice. 
 
 2. The duty of those taught to obey. " He that believeth 
 not shall be damned.' 1 '' 
 
 3. The right to reject heretics. 
 
 These incidents are inseparable from the power to teach. 
 There would seem to be no question upon that point. Now if 
 we find that those who succeeded the apostles those whom the 
 apostles appointed to govern the church exercised the same 
 powers necessarily included in this commission, is it not clear, 
 that this commission was intended to extend to the successors 
 of the apostles f What result could possibly be more plain and 
 palpable than this ? It ought to be remembered that the power 
 belongs to the office, and not to the man that the man must 
 die, the office not that all officers, as such, act only from mere 
 delegated authority, and not of themselves they are but agents 
 and agency ceases with death. 
 
 Now what powers did those exercise, who succeeded the 
 apostles in the government of the church ? 
 
 We hear St. Paul say to the Hebrews 
 
 " Remember them which have the rule over you, who have 
 spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith follow, consider- 
 ing the end of their conversation." 
 
 " Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." 
 
 " Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your- 
 selves ; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give 
 account." (Heb. xiii. 7, 9, 17.) 
 
 Now from these passages it is plain that there were certain 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 91 
 
 persons who had the rule or government over the Hebrews 
 that these persons were they that had spoken unto them the 
 word of God ; that is, those persons who had obeyed the com- 
 mand " Go teach " and whose faith the Hebrews were com- 
 manded to "follow " that they might not be " carried about 
 with divers and strange doctrines." And again the Hebrews are 
 told to " obey them that have the rule over you, and submit 
 yourselves." 
 
 Those persons that had the rule over the Hebrews, certainly 
 did exercise all the powers given in the commission. They had 
 the right to teach, and when they taught, the Hebrews were 
 commanded to follow their faith / and if they did not follow 
 the faith of those teachers, these rulers must have had the neces- 
 sary power to reject ; for if they had no power to enforce their 
 teachings upon the members taught, they could have had no 
 rule over the Hebrews at all. 
 
 When Christ commanded the apostles to " Go teach," He 
 added, " he that believeth," <fcc., " he that believeth not," &c. 
 The persons taught were required to believe their teachers. 
 So, when St. Paul tells the Hebrews to " obey them that have 
 the rule over you and submit yourselves," he also tells them to 
 " follow their faith." How very similar is the command in the 
 commission to " believe " and in the Epistle to " follow the 
 faith." The hearers in both cases are substantially commanded 
 to do the same thing. Now were not those who were to be 
 believed in each case, invested with the same authority to teach 
 that which was equally required to be believed by the persons 
 taught ? It would certainly seem so. 
 
 The apostle, in these extracts, certainly speaks of others be- 
 sides the apostles, to whom the commission was first given. 
 The language is too general to admit of any other construc- 
 tion ; nor can we suppose the apostle would find it necessary to 
 command the Hebrews to obey the other apostles. 
 
 But the Epistles of St. Paul to his two sons in the faith, Tim- 
 othy and Titus, are still more explicit. The passages have been 
 already quoted. Only such will be repeated in this connection 
 as are esteemed most pointed. 
 
 The apostle, after stating that he had left Timothy at Ephe- 
 sus to " charge some that they teach no other doctrine," com- 
 
92 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 pares the rule of a bishop over the church to the rule of a parent 
 over " his house, having his children in subjection ; " and, after 
 mentioning many things as true, he says to Timothy : " These 
 things [do you\ command and teach." Is not this as strong 
 language as that used in the commission " Go teach" ? Christ 
 had first taught His disciples certain truths, as St. Paul had 
 taught Timothy ; and then both gave command to teach to 
 others the same things taught to them, and the things taught in 
 both cases were the same. And in his capacity, as a teacher, 
 Timothy was not only to teach the things mentioned in the 
 verses preceding the one containing this command, but he was 
 to teach the entire system of Christianity, as is shown by the 
 general drift of the two Epistles to him, but especially by the 
 fourteenth and succeeding verses of the third chapter of the sec- 
 ond Epistle, wherein the apostle speaks of the truths taught 
 orally, and those found in Scripture ; so that Timothy, as a 
 teacher, carried out the command " Go teach," as well as the 
 command of St. Paul, " these things command and teach." 
 
 The apostle, after stating that " there are many unruly* and 
 vain talkers and deceivers," commands Titus to " rebuke them 
 sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." He further com- 
 mands Titus : " These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with 
 all authority. Let no man despise thee."f " A man that is a 
 
 * What does this term unruly mean ? Webster says it means " ungoverna- 
 ble; licentious; disregarding restraint, turbulent." 
 
 f That large body of Protestant ministers who claimed the right to rebuke 
 Congress for passing the Nebraska bill a few years ago, adopted this, among 
 other resolutions : 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That the ministry is the divinely-appointed institution for the 
 declaration and enforcement of God's will upon all points of religious and moral 
 truth ; and that as such, it is their duty to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all 
 authority and doctrine." 
 
 The language of this resolution is certainly very clear and strong. The min- 
 istry is not only the "divinely-appointed institution for the declaration and enforce- 
 ment of God's will," but it is " their duty to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all 
 authority and doctrine" Of course, if it be their duty to declare and enforce 
 God's will, and with all authority, it would seem to be some one's bounden duty to 
 obey ; and that some means must exist for practically enforcing their decisions, 
 otherwise the power to declare and enforce amounts, at last, to no power at all, 
 txcept in mere name. How the powers claimed by these ministers can be rec- 
 onciled with the assumed right of private interpretation in the last resort, it is 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHDRCH. 93 
 
 heretic, after the first and second admonition [do you] reject." 
 Here was the most explicit authority given to Titus to do cer- 
 tain things in the church, and with all authority. The persons 
 mentioned as unruly, and vain talkers and deceivers, were here- 
 tics, because not " sound in the faith ; " and as to these Titus 
 was first to rebuke and exhort with all authority, and if these 
 rebukes did not have the proper effect, he was to reject the 
 heretic. Unless he had the power to reject or expel the here- 
 tic the vain talker and deceiver from the church, the right 
 to rebuke would have been wholly idle, because the evil would 
 have still remained in the Church, without any efficient remedy. 
 
 These directions were given to Titus as a minister. He him- 
 self was first to determine who were the " unruly and vain 
 talkers and deceivers ; " he was then to " exhort and rebuke 
 them sharply ; " but if they persisted, he was to reject them as 
 heretics. Titus was to decide the question whether certain 
 opinions were heretical. This being his right, it was the corre- 
 sponding duty of the persons rebuked and admonished, to obey 
 him who had the rule over them, and to submit themselves. 
 
 Now compare the powers exercised by Timothy and Titus 
 with those given in the commission, and are they not the same ? 
 
 most difficult to conceive, unless we hold, in plain contradiction to the powers 
 claimed, that this divinely-appointed institution is, after all, absolutely inferior 
 to the very persons reproved, and in reference to the very things for which the 
 reprorf was given. 
 
 The theory of these Divines is strangely mixed. God creates an institution 
 for the very purpose of declaring and enforcing His will ; and yet, in the contem- 
 plation of this same theory, God has done a very idle and useless thing, for each 
 member rebuked has only to appeal to himself to defeat the assumed judgment 
 of this "divinely-appointed" yet fallible institution. As the decision, in the con- 
 templation of the theory itself, is as fallible as the judgment of the person re- 
 buked, it cannot, of course, ask or demand any respect or obedience while the 
 institution is arbitrarily and painfully compelled, by duty, to assume and exer- 
 cise this frivolous authority. 
 
 But these ministers not only claim the right thus to rebuke the members of 
 their own churches, but they go beyond the Catholic theory, and claim this right 
 OYer aliens and strangers. St. Paul's directions to Timothy and Titus had refer- 
 ence to the members of the Church, and not to aliens from the kingdom, over 
 whom the Church had no jurisdiction to do any thing more than simply to de- 
 clare the truth, not to enforce it, and who would perish because they were out 
 of the Church, as the people perished because they were out of the ark. 
 
9-1 THE GOVERNING- POWER OF THE CHUKCH. 
 
 Were not they but carrying out the commission ? From whom 
 did they receive their powers, and by what means ? God, the 
 Father, constitutes the original fountain from which this stream 
 of authority flows. Christ says to his apostles : " As my Fa- 
 ther hath sent me, so send I you." " He that receiveth whom- 
 soever I send, receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me, receiv- 
 eth him that sent me." St. Paul received his authority from 
 Christ, and Timothy and Titus received their authority from 
 St. Paul. 
 
 12. The same subject continued. 
 
 After giving Timothy a description of the qualifications of 
 certain officers in his first Epistle, St. Paul, in the second, goes 
 on to say : 
 
 " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up 
 the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my 
 hands." 
 
 " That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep by 
 the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us." 
 
 " And the things that thou hast heard of me among many 
 witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be 
 able to teach others also." (2 Tim. i. 6, 13, 14 ; ii. 2.) 
 
 To Titus the apostle says : 
 
 " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set 
 in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
 city, as I had appointed thee." (Titus i. 5, 7, 9.) 
 
 The apostle also speaks of " a bishop " as the " steward of 
 God," " holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, 
 that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and con 
 vince the gainsay ers." 
 
 The " gift " mentioned in the first passage is the " good 
 thing " stated in the second ; and the " good thing committed " 
 to Timothy is the same which Timothy is commanded to " com- 
 mit to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also ; " 
 and these things committed by St. Paul to Timothy, and di- 
 rected by him to be committed by Timothy to others, were the 
 power to teach, and the things to be taught, contemplated in 
 the commission ; for we find that Timothy was only to commit 
 the same things he had heard of Paul to "faithful men," &c., 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 95 
 
 and that Titus was commanded to " ordain elders in every city." 
 It appears also that bishops were " as the stewards of God," 
 whose duty it was to teach others what they had themselves 
 been taught. 
 
 If we keep constantly in view the powers exercised by Tim- 
 othy and Titus, that they had received them by the ordination 
 of St. Paul, that they were directed, the one to " commit to 
 faithful men," and the other to " ordain elders," (which means 
 the same thing,) we can most readily understand how the power 
 passed down from the one to the other by succession. The 
 same things that Timothy had heard of St. Paul, he, in turn, was 
 to commit to "faithful men," who were also to teach the "same 
 things." 
 
 Could the commission, " Go teach all nations," be more 
 beautifully and faithfully carried out ? Here was a perfect sys- 
 tem, and perfect order. Here we have four links in the chain 
 of succession, and as all the links in the same perfect chain must 
 possess the same power, it is all that can be required. From 
 God to Christ, from Christ to St. Paul, from St. Paul to Tim- 
 othy and Titus, and from them to others, to whom they were to 
 commit the same things. As, in every treatise upon arithmetic, 
 we have the rule first given in words, and then a few examples 
 of the application of the rule in practice, and we are then left to 
 apply the principle to other questions, so it is here. The gen- 
 eral principle is given by Christ in the commission, a few exam- 
 ples in practice are given in the cases of Timothy and Titus, and 
 those they were commanded to ordain, and we are then left to 
 apply the general principle to other cases. 
 
 In the tenth chapter of St. John's Gospel, our Lord spoke 
 the parable of the Sheepfold, in which the door and the shej - 
 herd represent Himself, and the sheep His followers. In speak- 
 ing of the relation which the elders bore to the churches over 
 which they respectively had the rule, the apostles Paul and 
 Peter apply the comparison of an under-shepherd over the flock. 
 Thus St. Paul, addressing the elders of the church at Ephesus, 
 in their capacity as such, said to them : 
 
 " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock 
 over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed 
 the church of God," <fec. (Acts xx. 28.) The apostle also speaks 
 
96 THE GOVERNING, POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 of wolves not sparing the flock. The word overseer is defined 
 to be " a supervisor superintendent ; " and superintending is 
 defined as " care and oversight for the purpose of direction, and 
 with authority to direct." (Webster.) A mere spectator or 
 looker-on is not an overseer, nor is a mere equal, who inculcates 
 his views by argument alone.* 
 
 In this extract the Church is called the flock, and the elders 
 are commanded to feed the church. Although these elders are 
 here called overseers, those they superintended were called "the 
 flock ; " and the duties these elders were to perform were com- 
 pared to the feeding of a flock. 
 
 In the fifth chapter of the first Epistle of St. Peter, he ex- 
 horts the elders to " feed the flock of God which is among you, 
 taking the oversight thereof, * * * * and when the 
 chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory 
 that fadeth not away." 
 
 In this extract from St. Peter, the same idea is conveyed, 
 but more explicitly. Christ is here called the " chief shepherd," 
 and the church " the flock of God ; " and the relation that the 
 elders bore to the flock and to Christ, was that of under-shep- 
 herds. 
 
 Now what relation exists between the shepherd and the 
 flock, as shown in the parable ? The shepherd was to call His 
 sheep, to feed them, or lead them out to pasture ; to protect 
 them from wolves, and to lay down His life for the sheep ; and 
 the sheep were to know the shepherd, to hear His voice, and to 
 " follow Him." An under-shepherd is simply a shepherd subject 
 to the " chief shepherd," acting for Him, and discharging the 
 same duties, but in a subordinate capacity ; and as the under- 
 shepherd is only exercising authority delegated by the Chief 
 shepherd, and does not act in his own right, the sheep are to 
 " hear his voice," and also to " follow him," for " he that hear- 
 eth you heareth me," says Christ. 
 
 Now, if these elders of the ancient church, as well as the 
 apostles, bore the relation of under-shepherds to Christ and the 
 
 * Though the language of St. Paul, as translated, seems to confuse the figure, 
 as he is made to speak of "feeding the church" by " overseers," his meaning is 
 still clear. The elders addressed had the rule over the church at Ephesus, and ii 
 was their duty to exercise it. 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 97" 
 
 flock, then it would seem clear that they equally derived their 
 authority from Him ; and that, therefore, the laity were bound 
 to know them, to hear their voice, and to follow them. And 
 hence we hear Christ say : " Hear the church," which, being a 
 corporation, can only speak through its proper organs these 
 under-shepherds. And so also we hear St. Paul say, not to aliens, 
 but to his brethren, "know," " obey," " submit to," and "follow 
 the faith " of "them who have the rule over you, who have spoken 
 unto you the word of God," " who are over you in the Lord, and 
 admonish you." Christ says in substance : " My sheep know 
 me, hear my voice, and follow me ; " and St. Paul says to his 
 brethren in substance : " Know your under-shepherds, obey 
 them, and follow their faith." How similar is the language in 
 the two cases, showing that there is the same train of authority 
 and relationship running through both. 
 
 It is true, that the under-shepherds do not possess all the 
 power and authority of Christ. He was the door, as well as th' 
 shepherd. He exercised the legislative power, and only left tc 
 them that power which still remains to be exercised, so long as 
 the flock remains to be fed. 
 
 13. Objections considered. 
 
 I will now proceed to examine certain texts which may at 
 first seem to conflict with the view taken in the preceding sec- 
 tions. 
 
 1. " Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of 
 God." (Eph. v. 21.) 
 
 2. " The elders which are among you I exhort * * * * 
 feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight 
 thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, 
 but of a ready mind ; neither as being lords over God's heri- 
 tage, but being ensamples to the flock." 
 
 3. " Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. 
 Yea all of you be subject to one another, and be clothed with 
 humility." (1 Peter v. 1-5.) 
 
 4. " Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? to 
 his own master he standeth or falleth." (Rom. xiv. 4.) * 
 
 * In reading the Epistles of the apostles one cannot but be struck with the 
 kiudness of the form and manner of their instructions, even when giving the most 
 
98 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 In reference to the first and third extracts I will remark 
 that, in the places where these passages occur, the manner in 
 which we are required to submit to each other, is not fully 
 pointed out. We must, therefore, look to other portions of the 
 Scripture to see whether the manner in which these general 
 clauses are to be put into practical effect, is specially stated. 
 Keeping in our view the first, fourth, and fifth rules of con- 
 struction, I think it will be easy to find the true meaning of the 
 apostles. Both the apostles tell wives to submit to their hus- 
 bands, servants to their master, and Paul tells children to obey 
 their parents, and his lay brethren to obey, submit to, and fol- 
 low the faith of those who had the rule over them. Paul also 
 tells his brethren who are strong, to indulge the weak brethren 
 in reference to meats, and keeping certain days which were 
 matters indifferent. Now did these apostles, or either of them, 
 mean to say that husbands, masters, parents, and those who had 
 the rule over the Church, were, in their turn, to submit to their 
 wives, servants, children, and " the flock " ? And that this sub- 
 mission should be in reference to the same matters regarding 
 which those wives, servants, children, and lay brethren were 
 themselves specially charged to submit to, and obey, others re- 
 spectively ? Did Paul mean to say, husbands submit to your 
 wives, and wives to your husbands ? Did he mean to say to 
 his Hebrew brethren, obey and follow the faith of them that 
 have the rule over you and submit yourselves, and they, in turn, 
 shall obey you and follow your faith, and you, in that same re- 
 spect, shall have the rule over your rulers ? In other words, 
 were the higher official orders required to submit to the lower, 
 and in those very respects which constituted the difference in 
 
 positive and inflexible commands. St. Paul says : " I beseech you brethren that 
 you all speak the same thing" " that you submit yourselves to such." (1 Cor. 
 i. 10, xvi. 16.) " Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a brother." (1 Tim. 
 v. 1.) The under-shepherds were taught to use the same gentleness towards 
 all men, but especially towards the flock. " The servant of the Lord must not 
 strive; but be gentle," &c. (1 Tim ii. 24.) But while as to the mere manner 
 of teaching, they were to be as gentle as their Divine Master, they possessed act- 
 ual authority as He did, and were told to command and teach with all authority, 
 to rebuke sharply, to reject heretics, to withdraw from perverse teachers, and to 
 let no man despise them in the exercise of their authority. 
 
THE GOVERNING TOWER OF THE CHURCH. 99 
 
 the orders themselves ? If A be required to follow the faith of 
 B, and B to follow the faith of A, then, in so far as they differ, 
 it would be a mere exchange of faith. This could not have been 
 the meaning of the apostles. 
 
 These extracts are what are properly termed general clauses, 
 and are subject to be limited and applied by more specific and 
 special provisions. When therefore Paul tells wives to submit 
 to their husbands, children to their parents, servants to their 
 masters, the strong to the weak brother, and the lay members 
 to those who have the rule over them, these specific and special 
 directions, by every rule of construction, must have their full 
 force and application ; as they but point out in detail, and with 
 more minute accuracy, how, and in what manner, and in refer- 
 ence to what matters, we are to submit to one another. In this 
 way we can give force and effect to all the texts without any 
 conflict. If, on the contrary, we say that a superior order in 
 the church was as much required to obey as an inferior, then we 
 annihilate all rule over the church whatever. The specific and 
 special commands of St. Paul to obey, submit to, and follow the 
 faith of those who had the rule over the church, would be en- 
 tirely abrogated, by these merely general clauses. 
 
 The second extract was addressed by St. Peter to the elders 
 as such, and points out, not only what they were to do, but also 
 the manner of doing it. They were to " feed the flock, taking 
 the oversight thereof," and this they were to do, " not by con- 
 straint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 
 neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensample 8 
 to the flock." They were first told to feed the flock, and take 
 the oversight of it, which was clearly the exercise of authority ; 
 and does then the phrase " neither as being lords over God's 
 heritage " take away this authority ? Was this part of the 
 passage aimed at the existence of the authority of the elders, 
 or was it intended to apply simply to the manner in which it 
 should be exercised ? Clearly to the manner of its exercise ; 
 for the apostle tells these elders to take the oversight, willing- 
 ly, with a ready mind, and not by constraint, nor for filthy lucre, 
 nor as being lords over God's heritage, but as ensamples to 
 the flock. They, were not to act as lords over the heritage. 
 Who is the lord over a heritage ? The owner of it. " The 
 
100 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 lord of that servant." " The lord of the vineyard." The elders 
 were not to exercise their authority, which was but delegated, 
 as if they were the lords or owners of the heritage ; but they 
 were to exercise their powers, not as of their own right, but as 
 the " stewards of God," as St. Paul has it, and as under-shep- 
 herds, as St. Peter has it. 
 
 The fourth extract is taken from St. Paul's Epistle to the 
 Romans. The apostle first tells his Roman brethren to u receive 
 him that is weak, but not to doubtful disputations. For one 
 believeth that he may eat all things ; another, who is weak, eat- 
 eth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth 
 not ; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth ; 
 for God hath received him ; " and then follows the extract 
 given ; and in the fifth verse the apostle continues : " One man 
 esteemeth one day above another ; another esteemeth every 
 day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." 
 
 Now, it is clear that the passage quoted is confined to the 
 matters spoken of in the preceding two verses, and the verse 
 which follows ; for in the second verse of the chapter, the apos- 
 tle expressly commands those who eat and those who eat not, 
 neither to despise nor judge one another for eating or not 
 eating ; and he gives as a reason why they should not judge 
 one another, that these things were not evil in themselves, but 
 were only evil to those who thought them so. (Ver. 14.) So, in 
 like manner, in reference to keeping certain days, he says, " Let 
 every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." The act itself 
 being indifferent, and the sin, if any, consisting only in the be- 
 lief of the party that it was wrong at the moment of its commis- 
 sion, the rulers were very properly restrained from judging a 
 member in reference to such matters. But in reference to acts 
 that were wicked in themselves, or in regard to matters of faith, 
 did the apostle mean to say that members should not be judged ? 
 and that if they were fully persuaded in their own minds it was 
 right to walk disorderly, or be guilty of heresy, that therefore 
 they could be guilty of these offences, and yet be as innocent as 
 if they eat meat or not ? Did the apostle mean to say that 
 Timothy ought not to receive and try an accusation against an 
 elder, or that Titus ought not to reject a heretic, if in these 
 cases the accused would only say he thought he was in the 
 
THE GOVERNING TOWER OF THE CHURCH. 101 
 
 right ? And even if Timothy and Titus had possessed the power 
 to look into the secret hearts of men, and had been satisfied that 
 the accused was sincere, were they not bound to reject the mem- 
 ber, unless he repented in the one case and recanted in the 
 other ? Was mere sincerity ever held as a good excuse for the 
 wilful violation of a positive law commanding this and prohibit- 
 ing that ? and especially a positive rule requiring faith as well 
 as works ? Because, in reference to certain matters expressly 
 stated to be indifferent, members are not to be judged, does it 
 follow, that in other matters expressly stated to be material, 
 they are also not to be tried ? On the contrary, does it not 
 legitimately follow, that because in matters indifferent they 
 were not to be judged, that in matters material they should be 
 judged ? The manifest difference in the two cases leads to a 
 manifest difference in the treatment of each. " In matters es- 
 sential, let there be unity in matters non-essential, liberty 
 and in all things, charity," is one of the most noble, rational, 
 and Scriptural sentiments ever uttered. 
 
 14. Other objections considered. 
 
 St. Paul, in the first chapter of his first Epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians, says : 
 
 " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there 
 be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined to- 
 gether in the same mind, and in the same judgment." 
 
 This direction being given to the members of the church at 
 Corinth generally, and especially, in this case, to the lay mem- 
 bers, who are besought by St. Paul to speak the same thing, to 
 be of the same mind arid of the same judgment, does it not fol- 
 low that the persons addressed were to arrive at such unity of 
 faith from their own individual researches exclusively, and not 
 from any obedience to the elders of the church ? It does not. 
 
 The apostle would not have given this command to those 
 brethren if there had existed no means, by the fair and just use 
 of which they could have arrived at this unity of faith. But the 
 apostle states to his brethren what they are to arrive at, but 
 does not, in that place, point out the means or the manner, ex- 
 cept as to those special instances mentioned in the next verses. 
 
102 THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 If this passage stood alone in the New Testament, with no othei 
 text to point out the manner and the means by which they were 
 to arrive at this unity of faith, and we were, therefore, left to 
 infer them ourselves, then we would be, perhaps, justified in 
 concluding that, as the command was given directly to them, 
 they could arrive at the truth without following the faith of 
 those that had the rule over them. But this text must be con- 
 strued with reference to other texts relating to the same sub- 
 ject ; i. 6., unity of faith ; and such construction must be given 
 as will give harmonious force to all. When St. Paul tells his 
 brethren to " speak the same thing," he does not mean to con- 
 tradict other portions of this same epistle, nor his other epistles 
 to other churches. He intended to be consistent with himself. 
 
 After laying down the general principle that they must come 
 to the unity of the faith, the apostle, as one of their teachers, 
 goes on to point out, not in general terms, but in very precise 
 language, certain particular errors, which he condemns in ex- 
 press words. But the general principle he had laid down re- 
 lated to and embraced the necessity of unity, not only in refer- 
 ence to the questions specially mentioned, but to all other 
 material questions. In reference, then, to other questions that 
 might come under the general principle, the apostle did not say 
 to his brethren, in that place, you must arrive at the unity of 
 faith by this means or that means, or in this manner or in that 
 manner ; but leaves the means and the manner to be stated 
 elsewhere. Consequently, in the very same epistle, we find him 
 saying to these same brethren, in the same conciliatory lan- 
 guage : 
 
 " I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, 
 that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted 
 themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit your- 
 selves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and 
 luboreth." 
 
 Now it is plain that Stephanas, and " every one that helped 
 and labored with " St. Paul in the " ministry," had the rule 
 over these brethren in some respects, and that they were bound 
 to " submit themselves to such " in the same way they submit- 
 ted themselves to St. Paul, in his capacity as teacher ; not only 
 
THK GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 103 
 
 because they are expressly so commanded, but because these 
 men helped and labored with St. Paul in the same ministry. 
 
 Now in reference to the unity of the faith, were these 
 brethren not bound to submit to Stephanas and the others that 
 labored with St. Paul ? Does not that command to submit to 
 these men embrace all the preceding matters mentioned in this 
 epistle ? It would seem so. But supposing this not sufficiently 
 clear from this epistle, whatever we find in St. Paul's other 
 epistles, or in any other part of the Scripture, relating to the 
 same subject, must be taken and construed with these texts. 
 We must suppose that whatever part of the system had been 
 included in other epistles had also been intended for these breth- 
 ren, and that they had been well instructed. 
 
 St. Paul then tells these brethren, in substance, that they 
 must arrive at the unity of the faith. Of course, some adequate 
 means existed by which they could do this. What were these 
 means ? The same apostle very explicitly answers this question 
 when he says that some apostles, some prophets, some evan- 
 gelists, and some pastors and teachers, were given " for the per- 
 fecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edify- 
 ing the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith 
 and of the knowledge of the Son of God." 
 
 Now the ultimate end to be attained by the labors of these 
 different orders, was the arrival of Christians "in the unity of 
 the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God ; " the very 
 same end that St. Paul commanded his brethren at Corinth to 
 attain ; and he here tells his Ephesian brethren that it was for 
 this purpose Christ gave these different orders. These were 
 the means given to attain the end, and as to the manner in 
 which the brethren were to use these means, the same apostle 
 is not less explicit ; for he says to his Thessalonian brethren, 
 " Know them that labor among you, and are over you in the 
 Lord, and who admonish you ; " and to his Hebrew brethren, 
 " Remember them which have the rule over you, whose faith 
 follow," "obey them and submit yourselves;" and to Timothy 
 and Titus, " Command, teach, rebuke, and exhort with all au- 
 thority and doctrine, withdraw from perverse teachers, try 
 elders, expel heretics," and perform other duties of teachers. 
 
 Now put these together, and are not the means, and also the 
 
104r THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 manner in which they are to be used, for coming to " the unity 
 of the faith," ".the same mind and judgment," most distinctly 
 stated? If the Corinthian brethren obeyed them which had the 
 rule over them, and implicitly followed their faith, they would 
 certainly speak the same thing, and be of the same mind and 
 judgment ; and in this way most explicitly obey the command 
 of St. Paul. But if, instead of doing this, they had followed 
 their own faith, they would clearly have violated very plain and 
 repeated commands ; and not only so, but it is exceedingly dif- 
 ficult to see how they could, in this illogical way, have ever 
 come to the same conclusion. 
 
 15. Certain positions of Mr. JSrecJcenridge examined. 
 
 In reference to the ministerial authority of the Reformers, 
 Bishop Hughes, in his controversy with Mr. Breckenridge, asked 
 this question : 
 
 "Had the Reformers themselves, and if not, could they 
 transmit to their successors any MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY ? " To 
 which Mr. B. replied : " that whatever authority your church 
 possessed in this way, was imparted to them." Bishop H. an- 
 swered : " But our church recalled this authority, in their sus- 
 pension and excommunication, and a new supply was necessary." 
 To this Mr. B. replied : " The proper answer to this- question 
 turns on the settlement of a previous question, to wit : had the 
 Church of Rome the right or power, in this case, to withdraw 
 their ministerial authority ? " After giving some reasons, Mr. 
 B. takes this distinct ground : 
 
 "Then the principle is plain, that when a church deposes min- 
 isters of Christ for refusing to preach ruinous errors, and re- 
 fusing to submit to oppressive usurpations, the deposing act is 
 null and void. If a minister of Christ be deposed for refusing to 
 sin, the deposition is null and void." (Con. H. & B., 294, 443.) 
 
 This position of Mr. B., in its essence, and in its practical ef- 
 fect, denies all government in the Church. 
 
 It is true Mr. B. puts in a condition. The act of the Church 
 is only null and void when made for reasons not allowed by the 
 law of Christ. But of the sufficiency of these reasons, who is to 
 judge ? Is it the tribunal making the deposition, or the person 
 deposed f The question must be determined by some one be- 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 105 
 
 fore the conclusion can possibly be reached, that the deposition 
 is null and void. The power and right to determine this im- 
 portant question must rest somewhere. If this power resides in 
 the Church, it does not reside in the minister. It cannot equally 
 reside in both. The right of ultimate decision must remain with 
 only one of the two. Mr. B. gives this right and power, in his 
 theory, not to the Church, but to the person deposed. 
 
 What sort of theory is that which makes the decision of the 
 highest tribunal in the government practically null and void 
 upon the objection of the very person it tries and condemns ? 
 The Senate of the United States must try all impeachments. 
 Suppose that body should try an impeachment of the President, 
 find him guilty, and depose him from his office. And suppose 
 his counsel should then take the novel and bold ground that the 
 deposition was null and void, because contrary to law, and op- 
 pressive and tyrannical. In such case had not the counsel bet- 
 ter return to the study of his profession ? 
 
 And when the Supreme Court of the United States makes a 
 decision, who can declare that decision null and void, because 
 given upon grounds alleged not legal and just ? In the theory 
 of our government, that exalted tribunal is bound to decide ac- 
 cording to law, and in this same theory, it always does so decide. 
 That tribunal, in the contemplation of the Constitution, cannot 
 err. If the Legislature thinks that an Act of Congress has been 
 misconstrued, the Act may be amended ; and future cases will 
 come under the new act. If, in the opinion of the people, that 
 Court misconstrues the Constitution, they can amend that in- 
 strument, and make it plainer. Suppose A and B, having a con- 
 troversy, should go into a court of justice and say : " May it 
 please the Court, we have a matter we wish to submit to the 
 decision of this Court, upon the condition that the decision shall 
 suit us." The Court would promptly reply : " This Court cannot 
 sit here to receive idle and insulting propositions." 
 
 In another place Mr. B. says : 
 
 " We believe in a visible catholic (not Roman) church, to 
 
 which appertain the ministry, the oracles, and ordinances of 
 
 God, which is to continue to the end of the world ; to which 
 
 the Holy Spirit is promised as an abiding gift ; against which 
 
 11 
 
106 THE GOVERNING POWKK OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 the gates of hell shall not prevail; and which is at last to fill the 
 world." (Con. H. & B., 61.) 
 
 Now I-cannot put the two positions of the learned contro- 
 versialist together. They seem to be in direct conflict. He 
 holds a visible Catholic Church, which is to continue to the end 
 of time, to which all the powers of government are given, and 
 their exercise guarantied by the Holy Spirit ; and yet when this 
 divinely-protected Church ordains a minister, and afterwards 
 deposes him, that deposition may be null and void. Here is a 
 Church to which the Holy Spirit is promised as an x " abiding 
 gift," and against which the gates of hell " shall not prevail," 
 and which at last is to "Jitt the world," that cannot even depose 
 a minister without the liability of error a Church thus divinely 
 protected, that may still command her ministers " to preach 
 ruinous errors " and " to sin." It would seem a most singular 
 theory, that gives the Church the abiding gift of the Holy 
 Spirit, and guards her against the gates of hell at all times, and 
 yet deserts her in the exercise of her highest functions the very 
 and only end of her creation. Surely, if the Holy Ghost should 
 aid the Church at all, this aid should be effective ; and if effec- 
 tive, it must be in making her decisions, and in administering 
 the law of this kingdom. It was so in the Council of Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 But according to the theory of Mr. B. the Church ordains 
 a minister, and then, for causes judged sufficient by the ordain- 
 ing power, deposes him. Yet this sentence of deposition, though 
 made by the highest power in the Church on earth, is not final, 
 not conclusive, in the contemplation of his theory. The alleged 
 decision has no force, unless the deposed submits. He may say 
 it is null and void, and if he does say so, there is no power on 
 earth to decide that question against him. 
 
 Is there any government in a Church, whose alleged deci- 
 sions may be set aside by the party condemned ? or by any 
 other party ? What sort of government is that, whose assumed 
 decisions, in the contemplation of the theory of the government 
 itself, are entitled to so little respect, that they can be disre- 
 garded by its own citizens or subjects ? What practical pur- 
 pose can such decisions (if they deserve the name) accomplish ? 
 What practical good ? Is such an idea compatible with any 
 
THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH. 107 
 
 sort of government ? That which we call government is alone, 
 it would seem, predicated upon the idea of supremacy the 
 right to make a final and binding decision in each particular 
 case. Without this supreme and exclusive right placed some- 
 where in the governmental institution, there can be no govern- 
 ment at all ; and the organization is poweness, and must fail to 
 accomplish the very end and purpose of its creation. 
 
 And surely the theory of the learned Divine does make the 
 Church a most extraordinary institution a Church most mag- 
 nificent in name, and a beautiful nullity in fact. By this theory, 
 she is painfully forced to claim the most noble titles the most 
 glorious guaranties the most extended and protected empire ; 
 and yet, after making these supreme pretensions, and after be- 
 ing cruelly compelled to go through the solemn form of that 
 which is, in fact, but a mock trial and decision, she finds her 
 alleged judgments no binding decisions at all no evidence that 
 she is in the right ; and at last finds herself where she started, 
 and sees herself entitled to less respect, and worthy of less con- 
 fidence, according to her own theory, than the most insignificant 
 political government in the world. To be compelled, in theory, 
 to claim so much, and, by the same theory, to merit so little, is 
 the most humiliating position in which an institution could be 
 placed. 
 
 It may be that the theory of the learned Divine is suitable 
 to his own Church, and in strict accordance with her true char- 
 acter ; but I am wholly unable to find any intimation in the New 
 Testament that the Church of Christ was ever liable to these 
 painful infirmities, and that her decisions might be null and void. 
 I might as well expect to find such an intimation in the Consti- 
 tution of my country regarding the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States ; or in the British Constitution with 
 reference to the decisions of the House of Lords. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 1. All laws intended for the government of men should pro* 
 vide some tribunal to determine what the law is. 
 
 THE very idea of government supposes the organization of 
 some competent tribunal to determine what the law means. 
 Law being a rule prescribed by a superior to an inferior, and 
 which the inferior is bound to obey, there must, of necessity, be 
 a tribunal to declare and administer it. Man being competent 
 to live in society, the object of political government is to regu- 
 late his conduct while in that state ; and hence to secure the 
 peaceful union of a great number of individuals under one gov- 
 ernment, laws are made, and courts of justice instituted to de- 
 cide what the laws mean. 
 
 If we look around us through the world, we shall readily 
 find, that no great object is ever undertaken without the union 
 of numbers. From a small village debating society, through 
 every grade of organization, up to the mightiest civil govern- 
 ment on earth, the immediate end to be secured is union of 
 effort / and so sensible do men seem to be of the importance of 
 this union, that they never fail to make some provision, in the 
 constitution of every society, organizing some tribunal to decide 
 all matters of difference that may arise. All men seem to act 
 under the clear consciousness of the invincible necessity of some 
 judicial tribunal to decide what the law means ; for to what end 
 was any law given unless it is to be practically administered ? 
 And how can this be done without a judiciary ? 
 
 Among the great number of visionary schemes of govern- 
 ment put forth oy different writers, not one, to my knowledge, 
 ever advanced so wild a theory, as to dispense with the judicial 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 109 
 
 department, and make each individual governed the judge of 
 the law in his own case. A theory so extravagant, I presume, 
 was never even proposed anywhere ; and certainly never re- 
 duced to, and continued in, actual operation. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions 
 of the several States, distribute the powers of government 
 among three departments, namely : the Legislative, the Execu- 
 tive, and the Judicial. And the powers conferred upon each of 
 these three departments, are all equally necessary to the con- 
 tinued existence of the government. But whether this necessary 
 power be separated from the others or not, it does, and of 
 necessity must, exist in every government. The absolute mon-. 
 arch, either administers his own laws himself in person, or 
 through judges acting for him. 
 
 The very idea of law, presupposes this power to exist in the 
 government. The very idea of union among a number of indi- 
 viduals, cannot be rationally entertained without it. There can 
 be no continued union among men, without some competent 
 means to preserve it. All positive laws intended for the gov- 
 ernment of men must be construed / and as they constitute a 
 rule prescribed by a superior, they cannot, in the nature of the 
 case, be construed in the last resort by the inferior, the very 
 party to be governed. The power and right to make the laws 
 in the first instance, and construe them in the last resort, must 
 be placed in the hands of the superior. The right of ultimate 
 construction in the inferior, would defeat the entire purposes of 
 the legislator. 
 
 Every government must furnish* its own tribunal to admin- 
 ister its own laws. Every association of individuals must con- 
 tain, in itself, some competent power to determine controver- 
 sies, or it must become divided against itself. No association 
 can permit a foreign tribunal to administer its own laws over its 
 own members. Every society of men must have the power 
 lodged somewhere, to construe the law ; and that independent 
 of the individual opinion of any of the members. This vital 
 principle is necessary to the very existence of any sort of gov- 
 ernment among men. 
 
110 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 2. Are these principles applicable to the Christian association f 
 The question then arises, are these clear, luminous, and prac- 
 tical principles, which are inherent in the nature and necessities 
 of government, applicable to that " rule of moral conduct, and 
 measure of faith " prescribed by God to man ? Did God, in 
 making a positive law for mankind, intend to institute any sort 
 of government among them? Or did He intend there should 
 exist any union among those who obeyed His law ? If so, has 
 He provided any competent means to preserve this union? 
 Did He provide any efficient means to administer that govern- 
 ment through agents authorized by Him for that purpose ? 
 Or does He Himself visibly administer and construe His law, 
 from time to time, as occasion may require? Is there the same, 
 or even greater necessity, that men should know, with certainty, 
 the meaning of the law of God, as there is that they should 
 know the meaning of the " municipal law " ? And if so, must 
 there not be means efficient to produce that end ? 
 
 In making a comparison between the Divine and municipal 
 law, it is necessary to keep our attention steadily fixed upon 
 the point, whether the two systems agree substantially in those 
 respects, which render the establishment of some tribunal to de- 
 cide controversies indispensable ; and if they do, the conclusion 
 becomes invincible, that there must, in the nature of things, ex- 
 ist such a tribunal in that association brought and kept together 
 by the law of Christ. 
 
 In relation to the municipal law, it may be remarked, that 
 it is almost wholly taken from the Divine. There is scarcely a 
 crime prohibited by the first, that is not prohibited by the 
 second. All the great leading features of the municipal, are 
 borrowed from the Divine law : and no Christian, as such, can 
 violate the municipal, without violating the law of God, except 
 in those rare cases where the two conflict ; and this never hap- 
 pens, except where the powers of civil government are usurped, 
 or perverted from their legitimate ends. In the concise and 
 beautiful language of one of our earliest law books : " In every 
 law positive well made, is somewhat of the law of reason, and 
 of the law of God ; and to discover the law of God, and the law 
 of reason, from the law positive, is very hard." (Doctor and 
 Student, 1 Dialogue, 1. 4.) 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. Ill 
 
 The civil law is then based upon the Divine, and derives its 
 force and efficacy from the permission of the divine law to 
 establish political government ; and from the express command 
 in the Gospel, to obey those in lawful authority. 
 
 It must be obvious to common sense, that all laws must be 
 similar in those general respects requisite to constitute law 
 itself. There must be certain constituent principles to make up 
 every law. It could not be a law at all without constituent 
 principles. I, therefore, lay down these two positions as true : 
 
 1. All systems of positive law must agree in those essential 
 elements necessary to constitute law itself; otherwise, they 
 could not be laws at all. 
 
 2. They must differ in certain other respects; otherwise, 
 they would be the same. 
 
 These positions being true, in what great and essential re- 
 spects do the municipal and the Divine law resemble each 
 other ? 
 
 1. They are both based upon the fundamental principle that 
 gome government is indispensable to man's condition. 
 
 2. That there is some right to make laws, and some cor- 
 responding duty to obey, placed somewhere. 
 
 3. They are both positive laws, promulgated in human lan- 
 guage ; and both must, therefore, be construed and admin- 
 istered. 
 
 4. They are both intended for men, and have in view the 
 same immediate end the union of numbers, and the preserva- 
 tion of peace among those united. 
 
 5. They both have penalties attached.* 
 
 * The reason why God did not prescribe any positive form of political gov- 
 ernment, is that such government is a present necessity ; ana this necessity, 
 like the laws of nature, would practically vindicate itself. And as the effects of 
 political institutions are but temporary, men can create governments competent 
 to attain substantially the end intended, namely : the preservation of the race. 
 But, conceding the immortality of the soul, and the consequent existence of a fu- 
 ture state of rewards and punishments, the necessity of a direct revelation of 
 God's will to mankind, becomes at once apparent. We may well be able to bear 
 the evils incident to mere human institutions ; since, if we first fulfil the law of 
 God, these temporary evils are but trifling ; but to leave eternal consequences to 
 hang upon uncertainty, would be equally unjust to God and to man. 
 
112 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 They are, therefore, alike possessed of the essential princi- 
 ples that must constitute every positive law. 
 
 3. There is tJie same necessity for such a tribunal in the Chris- 
 tian, as in political government. 
 
 If it be indispensable for the just administration and success 
 of the municipal law, that there should be & living, speaking ju- 
 diciary, plainly accessible to all, whose duty it is to decide what 
 the law is, and what it means, is it not also plain and palpable 
 that there should be a like institution to determine the true con- 
 struction of the Divine Law, so as to preserve unity and peace 
 among those whom it governs, by keeping the construction of 
 the law always the same, throughout every part of the associa- 
 tion ? To my apprehension this conclusion must follow from a 
 just and fair consideration of the nature, end, and object of all 
 law, intended for the government of men on earth. 
 
 It is true that the Divine law is derived immediately, and 
 the municipal- but mediately, from God. But the mere source 
 from which a law immediately emanates does not, in and of 
 itself, divest the system of the very characteristics of all law. 
 The mere fact that the Divine law was put forth by God in the 
 form of a positive code, does not obviate the necessity for the 
 continued existence of some tribunal to determine what the law 
 means ; for the plain reason that this law is intended, like the 
 municipal code, to govern men, to unite men, is addressed to 
 men, in man's imperfect language, and must, therefore, be con- 
 strued by some one ; and there is thus the same, if not greater, 
 necessity for uniformity of decision, for peace in the association, 
 and for the success of the system. And the fact that this asso- 
 ciation was intended to embrace all Christians everywhere, in 
 all ages, under one law, in one united government, is the strong- 
 est possible reason for the organization of one tribunal of the 
 last resort. 
 
 It is one of the most forcible reasons why God should have 
 made a direct revelation to man, that He could not justly pun- 
 ish men, unless he first "prescribed" His law. From the same 
 reason it follows that it is the duty of the lawmaker to create a 
 competent tribunal to construe the law ; for without such a tri- 
 bunal, the publication of the law is very imperfect, and does 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUBCH. 113 
 
 not afford that reasonable means of certainty that every just 
 system should supply. 
 
 We will suppose a legislator to put forth a code of laws, 
 drawn up with all attainable accuracy, while we are forced to 
 convey our ideas through so changeable and imperfect a medium 
 as human language, and addressed to so frail a mind as that of 
 man, and that he should have constituted no tribunal to deter- 
 mine what he meant, and should leave the people to whom this 
 code was given for a great number of years, and should then re- 
 turn and call them up in judgment before him. What a strange 
 medley of opinions he would find regarding the construction of 
 his laws ! He would say to them : " You have misconstrued and 
 violated my laws, and_I must punish you." They would an- 
 swer : " That is a hard case. You did not treat us fairly. You 
 gave us no authorized tribunal to decide for us, whose decisions 
 from time to time would have settled difficulties, and upon which 
 we could have relied for a correct interpretation of your law. 
 You left each one to interpret for himself, at his own peril ; and 
 as we are so differently constituted, with different powers of 
 mind ; and as our opportunities of information were so widely 
 different, we could not but come to very different conclusions. 
 Immediately after you left, difficulties of construction arose, and 
 have been constantly arising ever since ; and had there existed a 
 tribunal, they could have been all settled from time to time, as 
 often as they arose. The idea of giving the same law to so great 
 a variety of persons as necessarily compose every community, 
 requiring each and all to think and act alike, without giving 
 them the same tribunal, equally competent to construe the law 
 for att the learned and the ignorant, the rich and the poor, the 
 high and the low is to our minds unfair, and we think you 
 ought not to punish us. One thing we do know, and that is this, 
 we have been wholly unable to agree in the construction of your 
 law, and you left no means to secure this agreement." 
 
 And to such unanswerable logic as this, what could the leg- 
 islator justly reply ? In vain would he say : " My law is plain, 
 simple, and easily understood. It scarcely needs construction." 
 They would reply : " Truly and verily, the wisest men among 
 us, while they declare it plain, differ most essentially as to what 
 it means. They cannot all understand "plain " alike. And as 
 
114 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 for most of us, we are plain, illiterate men, and the law is not 
 plain to us. The Greek language may be plain to him who un- 
 derstands it, but it is still Greek to us. And had it been your 
 deliberate purpose to so arrange your system as to involve the 
 very best of us in unwilling violations of it, you could not more 
 successfully have accomplished such a design, than you have 
 done by leaving us in the confused and destitute situation you 
 did." 
 
 Is it not, therefore, reasonable that the Divine law, which 
 comprehends the whole duty of man, should provide a tribunal 
 to construe it, and thus to settle all disputes in the association 
 respecting it ? If such a tribunal be necessary in political govern- 
 ment, is it riot even more so in the Christian system V If there 
 be truth in Christianity, it is surely more important to know its 
 law with certainty than to correctly understand the law of the 
 country. And can associated men remain united without some 
 competent authority to settle disputes ? If so, what sort of 
 union can it be ? Is there any living, perpetuating principle in 
 a system without such a tribunal ? Is there any thing like sys- 
 tem in a code which provides no court to decide what it is? Is 
 there, or can there be, any government at all in any association 
 of men, without a judiciary ? If so, what sort of government 
 is it? 
 
 It may be said that the ultimate end of the municipal law is 
 to produce temporal, and that of the Divine, eternal happiness ; 
 and, therefore, the necessity for such a tribunal which exists in 
 the former, does not arise under the latter system. But this 
 would seem to be no answer to the argument. 
 
 It is true that there is a vast difference between temporal 
 and eternal happiness ; but this fact only renders it the more ne- 
 cessary to understand the Divine law, and proves the greater 
 necessity of a competent tribunal to construe it in the last resort. 
 Besides this, it is still happiness, and happiness of the same be- 
 ing, that constitutes the ultimate end of both systems. Tem- 
 poral and eternal happiness differ in degree and duration. Gov- 
 ernment is only a means, and not an end. The immediate end 
 proposed by both systems is the practical and continued union 
 of men. It does not matter that the ultimate ends of these dif- 
 ferent systems are not the same in degree and duration, while 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 115 
 
 they are the same in substance. If the means used are substan 
 tially the same, these means must be subject to the same general 
 laws. If our Lord resorted to a visible association of men to 
 accomplish the union of His followers, and the united, and, there- 
 fore, successful spread of His system, this association of men 
 must, in itself, possess all the essential requisites that enter into, 
 arid constitute all associations, and render them practically effi- 
 cient to accomplish the purpose intended. To suppose that our 
 Lord would adopt means of a certain character, and yet take 
 from them the vital and inherent principles essential to render 
 such means efficient, would seem to be clearly unjust to Him. 
 When He used language as a medium of communication with 
 men, He did not rob it of its established character. 
 
 4. That in reason, such tribunal, when established, must pos- 
 sess infallibility, either actual or judicial, according to the 
 nature of the system. 
 
 As the municipal law only assumes to control our outward 
 acts, and does not reach our mere belief and intentions, a man 
 may believe all the falsehood, and intend all the wrong he 
 pleases, and still commit no offence against that code. But it 
 is not so in the perfect law of God, which controls us in belief, 
 intention, and act. 
 
 The fact that the law of Christianity goes so much further 
 than the municipal code, requiring so much more to be forborne, 
 believed, and done, and that its punishments and rewards are 
 so much greater and more enduring, renders it the more im- 
 portant that there should be union and peace in the Christian 
 association ; and that for this end, it is still more necessary that 
 some tribunal, perfectly competent to determine all controver- 
 sies, should be found in the Christian government. 
 
 If union among men be necessary for any given purpose, the 
 preservation of that union becomes equally important, so long 
 as that purpose continues to exist ; and this union cannot be ac- 
 complished unless some fair and adequate means be provided 
 for this end. It may be laid down as an unerring principle, that 
 union, in any association of men, cannot continue to exist with- 
 out peace ; and that peace cannot be preserved without compe- 
 
116 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 tent means to end disputes. The happiness that men expect to 
 obtain by entering into society cannot be enjoyed without peace, 
 and if peace cannot be had in any association, the end and ob- 
 ject of the association must fail. If the design of all law and of 
 all government be to form and secure the continued union of 
 men, and for this purpose to secure peace among the members 
 associated, and if it be necessary for these ends that a tribunal 
 be established to decide controversies, it follows, as a matter of 
 course, that the determinations of such tribunal must be full, 
 final, and conclusive, or the decision must fail to accomplish the 
 end intended, and thus amount to no decision at all. The de- 
 cisions of a court of last resort must be final ; otherwise they 
 amount to nothing, and end no dispute. 
 
 5. That in political governments, judicial infallibility is 
 found. 
 
 If we go into the appropriate apartment of the Capitol, at 
 Washington City, we shall find in session an august tribunal, 
 before whose bar the most learned and gifted men of the nation 
 display their reasoning eloquence. This great court is composed 
 of a very few judges, whose equals, if not superiors, in mental 
 and moral qualifications, are found among the great lawyers 
 who stand before it, and also among the learned judges who sit 
 in the State courts ; and yet its decisions are conclusive upon 
 all. Its adjudications not only control the course of decision 
 of the inferior Federal tribunals, but are binding upon the State 
 courts, and are competent to annul the acts of the President 
 and of Congress. 
 
 Before this lofty tribunal, honor, titles, wealth, and fame are 
 powerless ; and nothing but pure legal justice is presumed, in 
 contemplation of law, to govern and guide its conclusions. No 
 armed bands of soldiers throng its halls to protect it and enforce 
 its decisions, and yet this court settles questions involving the 
 dearest rights of millions of civilized and enlightened men. This 
 venerable tribunal is the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 and upon it the Constitution of our country has conferred judi- 
 cial infallibility. 
 
 The framers of that great instrument, the Constitution of 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 117 
 
 the United States, were men of pre-eminent ability,* and they 
 gave to it all the certainty attainable by them. And yet they 
 knew it would be idle to make a constitution and laws under it, 
 and not organize courts for their construction. They also knew 
 that it was useless to have courts, unless their decisions could 
 be made final; and for this purpose they provided for the or- 
 ganization of ONE SUPREME COURT, with appellate juris- 
 diction, and gave Congress the power to provide for the crea- 
 tion of inferior tribunals only. They had it not in their power 
 to confer upon the Supreme Court actual infallibility, for this 
 is an attribute belonging alone to God, and only communicated 
 by Him to whom He pleases. In the very nature of all govern- 
 mental or social institutions, such is the invincible necessity for 
 infallibility of some sort to reside in some one of their tribunals, 
 that when actual infallibility cannot be conferred, judicial infal- 
 libility is given. 
 
 In the contemplation of our Constitution, the Supreme Court 
 cannot err. There is no legal power anywhere to question its 
 decisions. AH must submit. It is not in the power of the 
 President, the Congress, and all the State courts combined, to 
 set aside one of its decisions. And yet it is generally conceded 
 that the Court has actually rendered incorrect decisions. That 
 court sustained the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition 
 Laws, which decision is now almost universally held to have 
 been erroneous. But admitting that the Court has not yet ac- 
 tually erred, it must be conceded that it may. The framers of 
 the Constitution were compelled to bestow upon this tribunal 
 judicial infallibility, because they could bestow no other, and 
 some sort of infallibility was indispensable. It is a much less 
 evil to submit to an occasional erroneous decision than to have 
 
 * The following beautiful lines are from the pen of our native poet, Bryant : 
 
 1. " Great were the thoughts and strong the minds 
 
 Of those who framed, in high debate, 
 The immortal league of love that binds 
 Our fair, broad empire, State with State. 
 
 2. " The noble race is gone the suns 
 
 Of sixty years have risen and set, 
 But the bright links those chosen ones 
 So strongly forged, are brighter yet." 
 
118 THK INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 no decision at all, so necessary is peace. In every government, 
 in every association of men who are to be governed at all, there 
 must be infallibility of some kind, placed somewhere, or there 
 can be no end of disputes, and no peace, and no union, and no 
 success of such an institution. 
 
 6. That actual infallibility must be found in the Christian, 
 association. 
 
 If there be any union required by the law of Christ, and any 
 tribunal to decide disputes, (thereby forming a necessary and 
 indispensable means of union,) is it not clear that such tribunal 
 must, of necessity, possess infallibility of some sort, or else the 
 institution be totally defective and insufficient ? If there be no 
 infallibility in the association of men, formed in accordance with 
 the law of God, then it is more defective than mere political 
 governments, and cannot possibly possess any living, perpetuat- 
 ing principle. For what purpose does a tribunal decide, if its 
 decision* is not final, or cannot be made final, by an appeal to a 
 higher court ? What is the object of a decision ? To end dis- 
 putes ; and if not final, it does not end the controversy, and is 
 simply idle. That which is not competent to make a final and 
 binding decision, cannot properly be called a judiciary. 
 
 And if God did establish such tribunal, could He, in reason, 
 give it mere judicial infallibility ? Would He make it as defec- 
 tive as mere human institutions, when He possessed the wisdom 
 and the power to make it perfect ? Does God do His work in 
 that way ? It is true, that if God implicitly required all the 
 members to submit to the decisions of such a tribunal, the asso- 
 ciation might continue, but it would not continue the same pure 
 association. The tribunal being actually fallible, and Qi&y judi- 
 cially infallible, must actually err, sooner or later, and God 
 would thus be requiring implicit submission to erroneous deci- 
 sions. The idea of a tribunal only clothed with mere jifdicial 
 infallibility, deciding finally upon a law dictated by actual infal- 
 libility, would seem to be clearly erroneous. And the idea of a 
 tribunal of the last resort deciding upon a law given in human 
 language, and such decision not being final, would seem equally 
 inadmissible. 
 
 Had the framers of political constitutions possessed the 
 
TIJK INFALLIBILITY OF THE C11UBCH. 119 
 
 power, they no doubt would have bestowed upon their judiciary 
 actual, instead of mere judicial, infallibility. They did the very 
 best they could. But as God possessed the power and the wis- 
 dom, and, therefore, did make a perfect law, would He not ne- 
 cessarily create a tribunal competent to construe such a law f 
 And is not a tribunal actually infallible, in the nature of things, 
 indispensable to construe a law made by the Divine Lawmaker ? 
 Could the great ends aimed at the mighty purposes intended 
 be accomplished without this ? 
 
 It is a just and generous mode of reasoning, to take the 
 theory under investigation to be true, for the sake of the argu- 
 ment only, and then submit it to a fair and impartial test, by a 
 legitimate extension of its principles into all their logical results. 
 For this purpose I will suppose that our Creator made man and 
 placed him upon the earth ; that He bestowed upon him the 
 faculty of reason, and its necessary incident, free will ; that He 
 gave to this free agent a direct and positive law, prescribed by 
 Himself; that the immediate end of this law was to bring all 
 men of good will into one association of pure faith and virtue, 
 to be governed by this one law ; *that this law was given in hu- 
 man language, and must be construed ; that God does not Him- 
 self visibly preside, in this collective body of men, for the pur- 
 pose of deciding controversies, but that for this end He has 
 organized a tribunal in this association, and delegated to it 
 power and authority to decide, with infallible certainty, all 
 questions regarding His law that may arise from age to age, and 
 in succession, as they arise ; that this body is a visible associa- 
 tion of men, to whom all men may join themselves, if they will ; 
 that communion with this association is a practical and sure test 
 of faith, and that this institution is but preparatory to that ep 
 during institution in heaven. 
 
 Is there any thing in this theory inconsistent, unjust, or un- 
 philosophical ? Is it incompatible with the attributes of Deity ? 
 On the contrary, is it not a rational theory, beautiful to the 
 judgment, and consolatory to the heart ? It would seem to 
 possess every element of a perfect system, harmonious, practi- 
 cal, and just, in every feature. 
 
120 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 7. That the judicial power of the Church must extend to every 
 violation of the law. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States organized a govern- 
 ment, possessing certain defined powers, and intended to accom- 
 plish certain great national objects. The instrument, in the 
 theory of the system, is the fundamental and unchangeable law, 
 until amended in pursuance of its own provisions. As the legis- 
 lative power, from the nature of mere human systems, and the 
 limited capacity of men, and the constantly varying circum- 
 stances of the people governed, could not all be beneficially ex- 
 ercised at the beginning, it is left, in part, in the government, 
 to be exercised, from time to time, within the limits prescribed 
 by the Constitution. The powers of this government are di- 
 vided between three departments, which, together, embrace all 
 the powers communicated to the system. The legislative de- 
 partment extends to all legislative questions, the executive to 
 all the executive powers, and the judiciary to all questions in 
 law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the 
 nation. In reference to the extent of the judicial power, Chan- 
 cellor Kent has said : 
 
 " The judicial power in every government must be coexten- 
 sive with the power of legislation. Were there no power to 
 interpret, pronounce, and execute the law, the government 
 would either perish through its own imbecility, as was the case 
 with the old Confederation, or other powers must be assumed 
 by the legislative body, to the destruction of liberty." (1 Kent, 
 296.) 
 
 While the legislative power in the Christian, government 
 could be exercised in advance, in reference to all ihe material 
 and permanent features of the system, the executive and judi- 
 cial powers, from their nature, could not, as already stated, but 
 must continue in the Church, and be exercised as often as occa- 
 sion may require. It would, therefore, seem plain that the 
 governing power left by Christ in the church must have juris- 
 diction over all cases embraced within the law governing the 
 institution. In other words, if Christ gave to His own institu- 
 tion a law for its government, " commanding what is right, and 
 prohibiting what is wrong ; " then, whatever governing power, 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 121 
 
 if any, He placed in the church, must embrace whatever is com- 
 manded or prohibited by the law. The code is mainly intended 
 for practical application in this world, and is, therefore, given 
 for a certain end ; and the governing power of the church is 
 intended to execute the law for the purpose had in view by the 
 law itself. And as there are two kinds of obedience required 
 by the system, instead of one only, and as they are both vitally 
 important to reach the end aimed at by the law-maker, whatever 
 power was left in the church to construe and apply the law, 
 must extend to both these particulars, or the institution must 
 44 perish through its own imbecility." 
 
 Every violation of the law is an offence, more or less aggra- 
 vated, according to its nature, as defined by the law itself. 
 Heresy, which may be defined as the wilful disbelief of an es- 
 sential article of faith, or the wilful belief of an essential false 
 doctrine, by one who professes to be a Christian, is, therefore, 
 an offence against the system, for the reason that the law re 
 quires correct faith, and prohibits a false one. Thus Christ 
 says : " He that believeth not shall be damned ;" and St. Paul 
 speaks of heresies as offences against the law of Christ, (1 Cor. 
 xi. 19;) and in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, 
 he says : 
 
 44 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these : 
 adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witch- 
 craft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, here- 
 sies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revilings, and such like ; 
 of which I tell you, as I have also told you in times past, that 
 they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of 
 God." 
 
 The language of the apostle is clear and explicit, that those 
 offences exclude the guilty party from the kingdom of heaven ; 
 and heresy is classed with idolatry, murder, and the other 
 offences mentioned. And if the judicial power of the Church 
 extends to any one of these offences, it must extend to all ; for, 
 to give to associated men a law, and a judiciary to construe this 
 law, and yet restrict its jurisdiction to only a part of the code, 
 would seem to be a solecism in government. 
 12 
 
122 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 8. The necessity for such a tribunal shown from the true char 
 acter of Scripture. 
 
 In the mind of Christ there was no confusion, but all was uri' 
 clouded intellectual day. But when He came to convey His 
 will through so imperfect and changeable a medium as human 
 language, addressed to so frail a mind as that of man, it would 
 seem that certainty could not possibly be attained, under the 
 circumstances, without an infallible interpreter.* And more 
 especially, as this law is the most extensive and wonderful code 
 ever given to man, expressed in very concise terms, and yet em- 
 bracing not only plain and simple truths, but truths of the most 
 sublime and abstruse character ; revelations of awful import ; a 
 code regulating, in the most perfect manner, all our duties in all 
 the multiplied relations of life, and our whole duty to God ; re- 
 vealing to us the nature of angels and spiritual existences ; giving 
 us glimpses of that heaven where the inspired Paul heard words 
 unspeakable, and requiring us, not only to understand and per- 
 
 * As to the imperfect and changeable character of language, all intelligent 
 writers are agreed. Its imperfections are most fully understood by statesmen, 
 jurists, and lawyers. Before Courts of justice, where the rules of investigation 
 are the most rigid, logical, and searching, the true character of this medium is 
 best understood. 
 
 " Such is the intrinsic imperfection of all human language, that it frequently 
 becomes impossible, from the mere words alone of any writing, to ascertain the 
 meaning of the parties." (Wheaton's Law of Nations, 3d ed., p. 77, 334.) 
 
 "But such is the imperfection of human language, and the want of technical 
 skill in the makers of the law, that statutes often give occasion to the most per- 
 plexing doubts and discussions, arising from the ambiguity that attends them." 
 (I Kent, 461.) 
 
 " The fluctuating use of words, which prevails in every language, gives rise 
 to frequent changes in their meaning." (Ernesti, as quoted by Mr. Rice in C. & 
 11 's Debate, 201.) 
 
 The learned Protestant Bishop Walton very justly says : 
 
 " The word of God does not consist in mere letters, whether written or print- 
 ed, but in the sense of it ; which no one can better interpret than the true church, 
 to which Christ has committed this sacred pledge." (Cited Milner's End of 
 Con., p. 56.) 
 
 " Let us be persuaded," says St. Augustine, " that the gospel consists not in 
 the words, but in the sense." (Cited id. 56.) 
 
 Mr. Justice Johnson, in his able opinion in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (J 
 Wheaton, 376,) said that " language is essentially defective in precision." 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 123 
 
 form all the duties enjoined, but to believe, with unfaltering 
 faith, all these high and holy words of mystery and truth.* 
 
 In the nature of a supernatural system, revealing to us truths 
 that we never could reach by the mightiest efforts of unaided 
 reason, and prescribing a perfect morality far above all our nat- 
 ural conceptions of justice, and embracing so many interests, 
 both temporal and eternal, we must expect to find many truths 
 and duties of a plain and simple character, and some most dif- 
 ficult. If the system be extensive, and assume to regulate many 
 interests, it must, of necessity, be more complex, or otherwise 
 it must be incomplete. A system of law requisite to govern a 
 wandering race of men may be very simple, for the reason that 
 they have few rights to protect. They have no merchants, and 
 they need no bills of exchange ; they have no lands, and need 
 no land law ; they have little or no property, and need no law 
 to protect that ; they have no mechanics, and need no law of 
 lien ; they have no steamboats, no railroads, no telegraphic lines, 
 and need no laws to regulate that which they have not. But 
 the moment a people take to a new branch of business, they 
 need, and must have, a law to protect it. And as their employ- 
 ments increase, their code of laws must also be extended, and 
 in proportion as the code is extended to new objects, so is its 
 complexity increased. Each new subject gives rise to a new 
 law, and each new law gives rise to some difficult questions. 
 The Legislature is therefore compelled, either to leave interests 
 unprotected, or to enact laws from time to time, as these inter- 
 ests increase. 
 
 * It is a very common error with many persons to suppose, that because all 
 truth, from its very nature, is consistent and but a unit, it must be very simple, 
 and easily understood. That truth is never confused, as error generally is, may 
 be assumed as an axiom. But it does not follow from this unity and consistency 
 of truth, that it is always easily understood, any more than it follows, that be- 
 cause the first mechanical powers are simple, and many machines are so, a clock 
 or a steam engine is not a complex machine. As in a perfect, but complex ma- 
 chiue, there is a combination of a great variety of mechanical contrivances, all 
 operating together in perfect harmony ; so, every great system of law, embracing 
 a multiplicity of subjects, must consist of many truths, all united by some lead- 
 ing, harmonious principle. 
 
 The truths of science are not all simple and easily understood. It has been 
 said by competent persons, that it requires a man of more than ordinary intel 
 lect to understand the discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton to their full extent. 
 
124: THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 When we examine the written word of God, we find many 
 things in it easy to be understood, and some things hard to be 
 understood. The narrative portions, as a general thing, are 
 plain and simple, but the doctrinal portions are more difficult. 
 Let any calm, sincere, and clear-headed reader examine th* 
 New Testament carefully, without any preconceived system oi 
 faith in his mind, and he must find some things hard to be under- 
 stood. He will find this fact apparent upon the face of the record. 
 
 For example, in the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew, 
 our Lord predicts the destruction of the Temple and many other 
 things, and then says in the twenty-fourth verse : " Verily I say 
 unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be 
 falfilled." The same obscurity may be found in the thirteenth 
 chapter of Mark. 
 
 " And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mam- 
 mon of unrighteousness; that when ye fail, they may receive 
 you into everlasting habitations." (Luke xvi. 9.) 
 
 This is put forth in the form of a command. 
 
 In the twenty-second chapter of Luke our Saviour commands 
 His disciples to sell their garments and buy swords, and they 
 brought two swords, and He said, "it is enough;" but when 
 Peter had used one of the swords, our Lord reproved him, say- 
 ing : " Put up again thy sword into his place ; for all they that 
 take the sword, shall perish by the sword." 
 
 The accounts of the genealogy of our Lord, as found in the 
 first of St. Matthew, and third of St. Luke, are difficult portions 
 of Scripture. 
 
 But when the reader has passed from the Gospels and the 
 Acts of the Apostles to their Epistles, he will find passages hard 
 to understand, especially in those of St. Paul, particularly in 
 that to the Romans. I have often read that Epistle attentively, 
 and I confess there are some things in it hard to understand, 
 even after all the explanations that have ever been given. In 
 the third, fourth, seventh, eighth, and ninth chapters, the apos- 
 tle seems to preach predestination, and justification by faith 
 only ; and especially when, in the ninth chapter, he compares 
 God to the potter, and man to the clay. 
 
 In the Old Testament many passages occur which are ob- 
 scure. The sixty-eighth Psalm and the last chapter of Eccle- 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 125 
 
 siastes are so. In the twelfth chapter of Exodus we are told 
 that the children of Israel " borrowed jewels of silver, and jew- 
 els of gold, and raiment, and spoiled the Egyptians." 
 
 These are only portions of the obscurities of Holy Writ. 
 They are undeniable, and no man among Protestants has more 
 clearly and forcibly expressed himself than Dr. Balguy, a learned 
 English Divine, of the established Church : 
 
 " But what will you reply is all this to Christians ? to 
 those who see, by a clear and strong light, the dispensation oi 
 God to mankind ? We are ' not as those who have no hope. 
 The day-spring from, on high hath visited us. The Spirit of 
 God shall lead us into att truth? To this delusive dream of 
 human folly, founded only on a mistaken interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, I answer in one word : open your Bibles ; take the firsl 
 page in either Testament, and tell me, without disguise, is there 
 nothing in it too hard for you to understand ? If you find al) 
 before you clear and easy, you may thank God for giving you a 
 privilege which He has denied to many thousands of sincere 
 believers." (Discourses, 133.) 
 
 9. The same subject further considered. 
 
 But while this learned and candid Divine makes these truth- 
 ful admissions, which militate so much against the entire theory 
 of Protestant individual interpretation in the last resort, Bishop 
 Porteus, ChiUingworth, Dr. Spring, Mr. Rice, and most other 
 Protestant writers, insist that the Bible is clear as to all matters 
 essential. 
 
 The position that Christianity is predicated upon a few sim- 
 ple facts and commands, and that the Bible containing these is 
 clear and plain, is indispensably necessary to sustain the funda- 
 mental principle of private interpretation. Christ certainly re- 
 vealed but one system of truth, intended to be believed and 
 practised by all ; and He made no distinctions in His code be- 
 tween one essential truth and another, but He commanded His 
 apostles to teach all things whatsoever He commanded them, 
 and then said that " he that believeth/' &c., and " he that be- 
 lieveth not," &c. Under a system of individual construction, 
 the inexorable laws of logic compel its advocates to reduce the 
 truths of faith to the fewest number, and those of the most gen- 
 
126 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 eral and simple character. The Scriptures, as a matter of course, 
 must also be held entirely simple, so as to be understood, in all 
 needful particulars, by all persons. 
 
 But in opposition to this levelling process, cannot the same 
 end be accomplished by elevating the judgment and capacity 
 of each individual by the aid of the same infallible interpreter, 
 able at all times to explain and apply all portions of the law, 
 whether plain, or hard to be understood ? This theory places 
 all persons of every grade of intellect upon the same footing, 
 elevating all to the same infallible standard of interpretation, 
 and to the same conceptions of the sublime truths of the sys- 
 tem, without violating any rule of logic, justice, or common 
 sense, and without being in conflict with the evident character 
 of the Scriptures, and their own express words. 
 
 It is true that we must first understand a proposition before 
 we can either believe or disbelieve it. But there is a marked 
 difference between understanding and comprehending. A man 
 may understand the point settled by a decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, and believe it just, simply upon the 
 ground of authority, without comprehending the reasons given 
 to sustain it. We know that we exist that we have the 
 power of voluntary locomotion that our mere will puts our 
 bodies in action ; but we cannot comprehend why this is so. 
 So, if the doctrine of the Real Presence be admitted for the 
 sake of the argument, the simplest capacity can understand the 
 simple proposition, " this is my body ; '' while the greatest in- 
 tellect cannot comprehend the nature of the mystery. As our 
 Lord required belief, and not comprehension, when we under- 
 stand simply the truth proposed and believe it, we fulfil the law, 
 whether we comprehend the reasons for it or not. 
 
 Dr. Spring says : " The Bible is a plain book, and easily un- 
 derstood." (Dis. 36.) 
 
 " We agree," says Mr. Rice, " that the Bible, especially on 
 all important points, is a plain book." (C. &R.'s Debate, 132.) 
 
 But is this true ? Is it compatible with reason the nature 
 of all law or the Bible ? 
 
 It is a little difficult, I apprehend, upon principles of sound 
 reasoning, for men to say that what they do not understand is 
 unnecessary to be understood. Professing to take their faith 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 and morals from the Scriptures in the sense each individual puts 
 upon the written law, and coming upon undeniable difficulties 
 they are forced to admit, they presume to make a distinction 
 between those portions that are material and those not mate- 
 rial ; and in doing this, each one makes his individual capacity 
 to understand or not to understand the Scriptures, the standard 
 by which to measure the materiality or immateriality of the dif- 
 ferent provisions of this inflexible and positive code of law. 
 And if the Scriptures contain the entire code now obligatory, 
 as assumed, it must have all been written, it would seem, with 
 the intent to be understood ; otherwise there was no necessity 
 for its being written. But conceding, for the sake of the argu- 
 ment, that portions of the Bible are idle and immaterial, it is 
 assuming an aw r ful responsibility to decide what portions are 
 material and what not. 
 
 But it must be apparent to every sensible reader of the 
 Bible, that the most difficult portions are those relating to doc- 
 trines that must be believed, and to moral duties that must be 
 put in practice. And w r e are not left alone to arrive at this 
 conclusion from the numerous instances of obscurity that exist 
 upon the face of the Scriptures ; but we are plainly told by the 
 apostle Peter, that such is the fact with reference to material 
 portions of the Written Word. The apostle, speaking of the 
 Epistles of St. Paul, says : " In which are some things hard to 
 be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable, 
 wrest, as they do the other Scriptures, unto their own destruc- 
 tion." (2 Peter iii. 15, 16.) 
 
 Dr. Spring says, " easily understood," and St. Peter says, 
 " hard to be understood." Which is right the apostle or ths 
 Protestant ? So, Mr. Rice says plain, while St. Peter says oth- 
 erwise. 
 
 If any portions of the Scripture are plain, they are the nar- 
 rative portions ; for the reason that a narrative of facts is the 
 most simple form of composition. Now the apostle here asserts 
 two simple facts : first, that there are some things in St. Paul's 
 Epistles hard to be understood / and second, that the unlearned 
 and unstable wrest these things hard to be understood, as they 
 do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. And these 
 things were not only hard to be understood, but they were 
 
128 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 important and necessary to be believed, because, if wiested 
 from their true meaning, they led to destruction, just in the 
 same way as did the misconstruction of other portions of Scrip- 
 ture. So far from the apostle making any distinction between 
 material and immaterial portions of Scripture, he does make a 
 distinction between those easy, and those hard to be understood, 
 and conclusively establishes the materiality of both. 
 
 That the great and overwhelming majority of men, in every 
 age and country, who rely alone upon their individual judgment, 
 belong either to the class of unlearned or unstable, would seem 
 to need no proof. If it did, it is conclusively shown among 
 Protestants, from the fact of so many different parties existing 
 among them, who can never understand the plain Bible alike. 
 Whatever may be their worldly and literary knowledge, they 
 are not learned and stable in the sense of the apostle ; other- 
 wise, there could not exist the five hundred different sects in 
 Protestant Christendom. And the more earnestly and emphat- 
 ically they contend that the Scriptures are plain and easily un- 
 derstood in all important points, the more powerfully do they 
 condemn themselves for those divisions so utterly inconsistent 
 with right reason and the united and consistent law of Christ. 
 
 10. Causes of the obscurity of the Scriptures. 
 
 There are many causes for the obscurity of the Scriptures. 
 
 1. The extent and sublime nature of the system of law there- 
 in contained. 
 
 2. The mysterious nature and uncertain language of proph- 
 ecy in general. 
 
 3. The peculiar customs and modes of speech common among 
 the Hebrews. 
 
 4. The peculiar style common with the sacred writers. 
 
 5. The absence of scientific arrangement, in the admixture 
 of simple narratives of fact, with statements of the most difficult 
 doctrines. 
 
 These causes of obscurity are mostly peculiar to the Scrip- 
 tures, and are not generally found in other writings. 
 
 But there exists a difficulty in the construction and applica- 
 tion of the Scriptures, that must, in the nature of things, exist 
 in every code of law, however extensive or limited it may be. 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 129 
 
 And this difficulty is greater in the Christian than in the civil 
 code, for the reason that the former embraces a much larger 
 sphere of duties, contemplates ends much more important and 
 enduring, and relates to objects more sublime, varied, and dif- 
 ficult. And this difficulty cannot be avoided by any possible 
 accuracy of language or scientific arrangement, although it may 
 be modified by such accuracy to some extent. But after all the 
 possible clearness and accuracy in the statement of the provi- 
 sions of such a code, and, indeed, of every code, . thece must 
 arise great and serious difficulties in the application even of the 
 most clear and familiar principles. The difficulty exists in the ap- 
 plication of the principle to cases that come up for adjudication. 
 The great leading principles of the law of the land are ex- 
 pressed in language as accurate and certain, as centuries of dis- 
 cussion and examination by the most acute and powerful minds 
 in the world, could possibly enable them to select ; and these 
 principles are as familiar to our courts as time, experience, and 
 study could make them. And yet it is a well-known fact, that 
 lew cases of the most perplexing character arise in our courts 
 every day, that are ultimately determined by the legitimate ap- 
 plication and extension of these old and familiar principles. And 
 this difficulty arises, not from the want of certainty in the state- 
 ment of a principle ; not from any avoidable ambiguity in the 
 language ; and not from ignorance of the principle itself; but 
 it arises from the uncertainty whether a given state of case 
 comes within the principle. Is a certain act, or a certain state 
 of case, a violation of a certain principle, or of several principles 
 combined ? This is the difficulty.* 
 
 * One of the most remarkable instances of the difficulty met in the applica- 
 tion of the provisions of a statute, drawn up with consummate ability and great 
 care, is to be found in the celebrated Statute of Frauds, passed by the British 
 Parliament in the reign of Charles II. It is a statute containing only a few sec- 
 tions, and one of the sections that has given rise to so much difficulty in its ap- 
 plication to cases coming under the principle, is as follows : 
 
 . " Sec. 17. That no contract for the sale of any goods, wares, and merchan- 
 dises, for the price of ten pounds sterling or upwards, shall be allowed to be good, 
 except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the 
 same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, 
 or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and 
 
 13 
 
130 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 And this difficulty arises from the nature of all law, the im- 
 perfection of the human mind, and the new and varied circum- 
 stances constantly arising in the progress of human affairs. Con- 
 stitutions and codes of law, from their nature, can only lay down 
 principles, and cannot specify the circumstances of each particu- 
 lar case. As a general thing, several classes of cases are em- 
 braced under each principle.* It often happens that a case must 
 be determined by the legitimate and harmonious application of 
 several different principles ; and although the principles them- 
 selves are clearly laid down and well understood, yet to apply 
 them to these new cases is, indeed, a very serious task. Statute 
 laws go more into detail than written constitutions. They are 
 more full and minute, but still they are at last confined to a mere 
 statement of principles, which the courts can only apply to cases 
 coming within the principles laid down in the statute. 
 
 For instance, the Constitution of the United States was 
 framed by men of the most eminent ability, and of the most un- 
 questioned integrity. They were great jurists, lawyers, and 
 statesmen, and they gave to the instrument all the certainty and 
 accuracy attainable by them. Yet, immediately after the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution, a very able work, the Federalist, was 
 written by Mr. Madison and others, for the purpose of render- 
 ing its provisions more clear. Since that day, discussions in 
 Congress, in the Supreme Court of the United States, and in 
 the courts of every State in the Union, and by the greatest 
 
 signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their agents thereunto 
 lawfully authorized." 
 
 The different questions arising under this section would surprise any one not 
 acquainted with legal proceedings, and the difficulty of applying very plain Ian - 
 guage to cases as they arise. My limits will not allow any notice of all the vari- 
 ous questions raised and decided under this section. What constitutes a signing 
 of the note or memorandum would seem to be the plainest question that could 
 arise under the section. Still, very difficult questions have arisen regarding the 
 signing. A memorandum in the defendant's handwriting, beginning " I, James 
 Crockford, agree to sell, &c.," but not subscribed by him, was held to be good 
 under the statute. " A bill of parcels, in which the name of the seller was print- 
 ed, and that of the purchaser written by the seller, was held a sufficient memoran- 
 dum to charge the seller.'' (Long on Sales, 37.) 
 
 * The Supreme Court U. S. decided that a Constitution, from its nature, deals 
 in generals, not details. (2 Con. Rep., 190.) 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 131 
 
 men of the country, have still left many questions in painful 
 doubt and uncertainty.* And this diversity of views has npt 
 arisen so much from any avoidable ambiguity in the language 
 of the Constitution, as from the difficulty of applying its provi- 
 sions to the new and complicated cases that have arisen from 
 time to time. 
 
 Among the many provisions of that instrument, which are 
 stated in language as definite and certain as any that could, per- 
 haps, be selected, and yet has given rise to many decisions and 
 conflicting opinions among legislators and jurists, is that part 
 of the tenth section of the first article, which provides that " no 
 State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." 
 The word contract, as a legal term, is very accurate, and well 
 understood.! And yet the Supreme Court of the United States 
 has been compelled to decide many acts of the Legislatures of 
 different States unconstitutional under this prohibition. New 
 questions arise under this provision and the Acts of the State 
 Legislatures continually, and will, most probably, for many years 
 to come. The varied cases arising under this single provision 
 of the Constitution, which apparently seems so clear and simple, 
 go to show, what every jurist and lawyer knows, that one of 
 the chief difficulties in the construction and administration of 
 law often arises in the application of a familiar principle. And 
 these new and difficult cases must continue to arise, with dimin- 
 ished frequency, so long as the government lasts. A new and 
 very perplexing case arose a few years since, if I remember cor- 
 rectly, in negotiating the treaty of Washington, in reference to 
 the power of the President and Senate to make a treaty affect- 
 ing the boundary of a State ; and it was thought at least more 
 safe to obtain the consent of the State whose boundary was in 
 question. 
 
 * Many thousands of pages have been written by the most eminent men of the 
 nation, to explain the meaning of a short instrument, filling some nine or ten 
 pages only. Mr. Justice Story's Commentaries upon the Constitution alone fill 
 some thirteen hundred pages. If the clearness of a code depended upon its con- 
 ciseness, then the Constitution would all be plain and easily understood. 
 
 f A contract is a voluntary agreement, between competent parties, for a good 
 consideration, to do or not to do a specified thing, which may be lawfully done 
 or omitted. 
 
132 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 If we take up the New Testament, and exclude the narrative 
 portions of the Gospels and the Acts, and the local and argu- 
 mentative portions of the Epistles, and all repetitions in each, 
 we shall find a very small space occupied by the provisions of 
 the written law of Christianity. Yet this code embraces much 
 more than any human system, and yet so concisely are its lead- 
 ing principles stated, that they occupy a very small space. If a 
 careful selection were made of all the doctrinal texts, and they 
 were all put together, it would be apparent that a very small 
 volume would contain a very extensive code. 
 
 If, then, the Christian code embraces a more extensive range 
 of duties than any municipal code ; and, like all other codes, 
 only lays down principles, and does not attempt to decide each 
 case in detail, it would seem reasonable that we must expect as 
 great, if not greater difficulties to arise in the application of its 
 great principles, than those we meet in the practical application 
 of the laws of civil government. We would naturally anticipate 
 that the pride, the ingenuity, the ambition of men, as well as 
 the honest mistakes of a zeal not according to knowledge, 
 would bring up many questions of the most perplexing charac- 
 ter, giving rise to a great variety of views, in the absence of 
 some common and competent tribunal to decide all questions 
 for all parties. 
 
 And if we take up, and carefully examine, the New Testa- 
 ment narrative, concise as it is, we shall find, that even at that 
 early day, difficulties arose at every step, in the application of 
 its principles. While the twelve were with Christ, we find our 
 Lord often upbraiding them for their want of faith, and their 
 slowness to understand. Repeated explanations were given by 
 our Lord to his apostles, who heard all his instructions, and 
 witnessed all His miracles. They did not even understand that 
 He was to rise again from the dead, until after the happening 
 of that event. We are surprised to find this proneness to un- 
 belief, and this dulness of apprehension, in the chosen apostles, 
 after all they had seen and heard ; and we are very naturally 
 inclined to pay ourselves the happy compliment to think that 
 we should have been, under such wonderful circumstances, much 
 more docile, confiding, and apt to understand. But in coming 
 to this conclusion we show a very imperfect appreciation of the 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 133 
 
 difficulties that must attend the individual investigation of a 
 system so mysterious and sublime ; and we exhibit a very inac- 
 curate conception of the weakness and frailty of the human 
 mind. For, after ages of experience, and after the greatest 
 critics have written more upon the construction of this small, 
 but wonderful volume, than upon any other one subject in the 
 world, the same difficulties in the way of individual examina- 
 tion still exist ; and not only so, but they increase with time ; 
 so that those who rely upon their individual construction, are 
 divided into more numerous parties than ever. 
 
 We find that notwithstanding the apostles were commanded 
 by Christ to " go teach all nations," as St. Matthew has re- 
 corded it, or " go into all the world and preach the gospel to 
 every creature," as St. Mark has it, it required a special inter- 
 position of Providence to induce St. Peter to admit Cornelius, 
 the Gentile, into the Kingdom of Christ. There were Jews 
 resident in every country in the known world, and the apostles 
 construed the commission as only extending to them ; and up 
 to the time of the conversion of Cornelius, although thousands 
 of Jews had embraced the faith, no uncircumcised person had 
 been admitted into the church. 
 
 The question that arose about circumcision, and led to the 
 Council of Jerusalem, was a judicial question, and the difficulty 
 existing in the case, was the application of admitted principles 
 and facts. None of the apostles assumed to have had any direct 
 and special inspiration in reference to the particular case. This 
 instance is one which shows that cases may often be decided by 
 logical conclusions, drawn from facts previously existing. Many 
 most important doctrines of Scripture are formed from a patient 
 and logical application and extension of several different princi- 
 ples. Thus, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity can only 
 be deduced from the comprehensive and harmonious interpre- 
 tation of different passages combined. We shall have occasion 
 to speak more at length of the decision of the Council of Jeru- 
 salem in another place. 
 
 We may remark here, that the conciseness of a code of law 
 will not render its construction easy, unless it embrace but a 
 very few subjects. As we have before stated in substance, 
 the extent of a just code of law, depends upon the number of 
 
134 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 rights protected, and interests regulated. However concise the 
 form, in which the code may be delivered, the wants of the 
 people governed will remain the same ; and, if these wants 
 be numerous, the more concise the form of the code, the more 
 difficult it must be to carry out in practice, as a general thing. 
 A radical principle may be laid down, embracing a number of 
 subordinate principles flowing from it ; and in such cases, this 
 principle must be extended in practice, to meet the circum- 
 stances of each particular case. Thus our Lord said that all the 
 law and the prophets hung upon two commandments ; yet other 
 commandments were necessary. 
 
 From these, and other examples, that may be found in the 
 New Testament, it is apparent, that in the days of the apostles 
 numerous difficult judicial questions arose at intervals, in the 
 application of conceded principles to particular cases, requiring 
 the decision of the governing power of the church to settle 
 them. And if we follow down the stream of events, after the 
 days of the apostles, we shall find new questions often arising, 
 from age to age, and requiring the application of the law to the 
 facts and circumstances of each new case, as it arose. We are 
 informed, that in the days of persecution, many of the early 
 Christians yielded to the tortures, and denied the faith. After- 
 wards they repented and wished to return to the church. Two 
 questions first arose under this new state of things : 1. Whether 
 they could be received again into the church under any circum- 
 stances. 2. Whether, if received, they were to be re-baptized. 
 Between that time and the Reformation, many other questions 
 arose for the first time ; and at, and after that event, many new 
 questions appeared, and many will most likely arise in the fu- 
 ture. All these multiplied questions must be decided by the 
 extension and application of pre-existing principles laid down in 
 the law. 
 
 11. That the right of revolution cannot exist in the members 
 of the church. 
 
 If it be conceded or proved, that whatever governing power 
 was left by Christ to be exercised by the officers of the church, 
 must embrace whatever was commanded or prohibited by the 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 135 
 
 law of this institution that certainty* as to the true construc- 
 tion of the code is indispensable that the Scriptures contain 
 obscurities peculiar to them, as well as those common to every 
 code of law and that those things hard to be understood must 
 still be understood does it not follow most logically that there 
 is the same necessity and propriety for the judicial power of the 
 church to be guided by the same infallible Spirit that guided 
 and controlled the legislative power necessary to complete the 
 code ? In other words, in constituting and administering a 
 government for a vast collective body of men, intended to em- 
 brace all nations, and kindreds, and tongues, and to exist in 
 perfect unity, in all ages and for all time to come, should not 
 the exercise of the legislative and judicial powers of government 
 be guided alike by the same Infallible Power ? 
 
 The people who found a civil government constitute the 
 sovereign power. They are the source from whence all the 
 powers of the institution immediately flow. Being the founders 
 of the government, they give to it such form and powers as in 
 their wisdom they deem best. When instituted, the govern- 
 ment is only their agent to act for them. In organizing the 
 same, they act in their collective capacity. The lawful and valid 
 acts of the government are the acts of the people, in their united 
 capacity. But laws are executed upon individuals, in their in- 
 dividual capacity. Hence an individual citizen or subject can- 
 not lawfully resist the execution of a law in his individual ca- 
 pacity. Nor can any number of individuals, separately or 
 combined, do this lawfully, so long as the system itself shall 
 last. The same power that created the government may amend 
 it, either in the mode pointed out by the fundamental law, or 
 they may do so by exercising the right of revolution in extreme 
 cases. But in both cases the right rests in the fact that the 
 sovereign power exists in the founders of the government ; and 
 they who created may destroy or change, when sufficient rea- 
 sons exist therefor, and of the sufficiency of these reasons they 
 have the political right to determine. The founders can resume 
 the powers they originally conferred upon their agent, whenever 
 there exists, in their opinion, :t sufficient cause for it. 
 
 * Dr. Spring has well said, " The human mind reluctantly rests short of cer- 
 tainty. Indeed, without this it does not rest at alL" (Dissertation.) 
 
136 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKOT. 
 
 But it follows, from this fundamental principle, that this 
 right of revolution does not and cannot exist in the Church. 
 Christ was the sole and only founder. It is compared to a 
 kingdom, not to a republic. The right to institute this govern 
 inent was not, therefore, derived from the consent of the gov- 
 erned. The consent of the governed can properly be required 
 only when the parties governed constitute the sovereign power. 
 In other words, when partners institute a government for them- 
 selves, the consent of a majority is requisite. But not so when 
 a government is instituted by a superior being for an inferior. 
 Whatever laws Christ gave His Church, and whatever powers 
 of government He bestowed upon her, must remain unchanged, 
 unless changed in pursuance of some provision of the law itself. 
 And if no such provision exists, then such change cannot be 
 made.* 
 
 * Civil government is properly a political partnership, in which each is equal 
 as a partner, and not equal as an independent individual. Partners are always 
 hound by the acts of each other in that capacity, and when they act as such 
 partners their acts affect their co-partners. When they act as partners they act 
 for the society. Hence, in the contemplation of the theory of political govern- 
 ment, the right to institute it resides with the majority as the organs of the 
 whole, and the minority must submit, whether they think it best to institute 
 government or not. Such is the theory, but in practice there are exceptions ; 
 for the law of force is often resorted to, and the minority constitute the govern- 
 ment and control it. 
 
 When civil government is formed, and offices created, the powers of the gov- 
 ernment are exercised, in the contemplation of the theory, by these officers, who 
 act independently of the will of individuals. Consequently, individuals, whether 
 many or few, so long as the government remains unchanged, must submit to th 
 decisions of the admitted tribunals. There is no such thing known in any sort 
 of government as the right of the individual governed to construe, in the last re- 
 sort, the law intended for his own government. Such a right in individuals at 
 once destroys all practical, as well as theoretical government. The two never 
 can coexist. I cannot form a conception of any possible system, in which individ- 
 uals can be governed, and yet construe the law for themselves in the last resort. 
 
 The relation that Protestants bear to each other, and to the law of Christian- 
 ity, under the logical application of their fundamental rule, is very different from 
 that which individuals sustain to each other, and to the laws, under civil institu- 
 tions. For if the relation was the same, the independent and personal right of 
 private interpretation in the last resort could not exist ; but the will of the law- 
 maker, as determined by the officers created by Him, would govern. And the 
 whole question, under any logical view of it, resolves itself into this : Was Christ 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 137 
 
 If, then, Christ left the governing power in the Church to 
 be exercised by mere fallible men not guided by the Holy 
 Ghost, and commanded His followers to obey these officers with- 
 out any condition or reservation, then the right of revolution 
 was left practically in the Church ; for these officers, who were 
 to be implicitly obeyed, would be liable at any time to err, and, 
 in the end, would err, and thus change the system in many of 
 its essential features. If, on the contrary, conditions and reser- 
 vations were supposed to have been made, to be judged of by 
 the parties governed, the same imminent practical power and 
 danger of revolution would exist in the institution. The liability 
 to err, and the danger of error, would, in the latter case, be 
 
 a lawgiver, and "did He organize a visible, perpetual, united, and universal church, 
 and give to it any law, and any powers Of government ? If so, those powers of 
 government must, of necessity, be supreme over individuals, and the right to 
 construe and apply the law must be among the powers given. 
 
 Most Protestants admit that there is a positive law given for the government 
 of Christians, and this admission, taken in, connection with their fundamental 
 rule, makes the relation they sustain to each other and to the law the same that 
 independent sovereignties bear to each other, under the law of nations. The 
 law of nations is a code admitted to exist in theory, by each civilized nation ; 
 but there being no common tribunal to construe and apply it, each sovereignty is 
 left to construe for itself. The insult is, as we might readily suppose, that while 
 in theory this code is admitted by all, there is no uniformity of decision, and the 
 code becomes necessarily powerless to settle disputes, and ceases to be a code of 
 law in fact. The main practical effect has been to mitigate the mode of war, not 
 to prevent it ; consequently, civilized, as well as semi-civilized and barbarous na- 
 tions, carry on war with each other, to the extent of their means and power. 
 War is an expensive game in blood and treasure ; and civilized nations have not 
 only warred to the extent of their existing means, but nearly all of them have 
 anticipated the means of posterity, and have, therefore, created burthensome 
 national debts, which they will leave entailed upon their successors. 
 
 Among Protestants, their theory being substantially the same, the practical 
 results have been the same. Their wars have generally been wars of words and 
 ill-feeling of discords and divisions the very kind of wars intended to be pre- 
 vented by the law of Christ among the professors of His system. Including all 
 the different sects, from the beginning of Christianity to the present time, more 
 than one thousand separate and distinct organizations, differing in doctrines and 
 discipline, have existed, when Christ designed but one. And to such a melan- 
 choly and deplorable extent have these ever-increasing divisions been carried, 
 that in the eloquent and indignant language of Mr. Campbell, u before the high 
 and holy, and puissant intelligences of earth and heaven, this state of things ia 
 most intolerable." 
 
138 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 only transferred from the fallible officers to the fallible parties 
 governed, if such could be called government at all. For ex- 
 ample, when Christ tells His followers to " hear the Church," 
 and St Paul, acting for Him, commands his brethren to " obey, 
 submit to, and follow the faith of them that had the rule over 
 them" if in these cases there were (though no express) yet 
 implied conditions and reservations to be judged of by the par- 
 ties who were themselves thus commanded to hear and obey 
 others, is it not clear that the right of revolution would practi- 
 cally exist in the lay members of the Church ? Did Christ 
 mean to be understood as saying, in plain language, " hear the 
 Church, so long as you think she speaks the truth " ? In other 
 words, "hear yourselves." And did St. Paul mean to say, 
 " obey, submit to, and follow the faith of them that have the 
 rule over you, if you think they are right " ? That is, obey 
 yourselves^ and follow your own faith. 
 
 The idea of this reserved right in the party governed to de- 
 cide whether the* officer placed over him by Christ and acting 
 solely as the agent of Christ, construes the law correctly or not, 
 is utterly incompatible with every principle of government. 
 For even in political government, the right of the citizen or 
 subject thus to decide in his capacity as the party governed, does 
 not exist. The whole people, or a majority of them, acting in 
 their sovereign collective capacity, may remodel or change the 
 government they themselves have created. But in the kingdom 
 of Christ, no lay member can act in any other capacity than that 
 of a party governed. He is under government, if there be any 
 in the Church at all. And the officers of the Church are equal- 
 ly under government in their individual capacities. For the 
 same reason, inferior officers are under government to their supe- 
 riors in their capacity of inferior officers. So, the Pope, as an 
 individual, is required to do all that any other individual mem- 
 ber is required to do. In our political theory, the President, as 
 an individual, is equally subject to the laws of the land.* 
 
 * I remember a striking illustration of the principle that an insult to the agent 
 or officer, is an insult to the power he represents. I was a practising lawyer at 
 the time, and the Judge who presided was an upright officer, and has since beerx 
 a member of the United States Senate. An ordinary man had taken a personal 
 dislike to the Judge for some imaginary cause, (as dislikes and enmities among 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 139 
 
 12. The duty of the judicial power. 
 
 It is the duty of the judicial power, in every government, to 
 construe the law, and apply it to particular cases. The legisla- 
 tive power makes the law, and the judicial power only construes 
 and applies it. The difficulties are about as great in the exer- 
 cise of one power as in that of the other, and it requires about 
 equal capacity to attain perfection in each. 
 
 What then is the necessity of a judiciary? and what are its 
 advantages ? - Cannot the lawmaker express his intentions as 
 clearly as a tribunal constituted by him for that purpose ? 
 
 That a lawmaker, possessing the same capacity, could use 
 language as correctly as the judge who decides the law, is clear, 
 and must be conceded. But the two are placed in very differ- 
 ent positions. There is a wonderful difference between making 
 a law in advance, and afterwards construing it ; a difference 
 that should be manifest, upon reflection, to every sensible and 
 candid person. 
 
 All laws are made in advance, and before any case can arise 
 under them. They are intended to govern future, not past ac- 
 tions. Hence it follows that law can only lay down principles, 
 but cannot apply them to particular cases, that arise after the 
 law is made. Law must, in the very nature of the fact, deal in 
 principles, embracing a variety of cases under each principle. 
 Law never speaks but once. It never changes its language, al- 
 
 men mostly arise from prejudice and imagination,) and therefore he committed a 
 contempt of Court by some insolent conduct, intended as an insult to the Judge 
 personally. He was arrested and brought before the Court. When he first ap- 
 peared before his Honor, he seemed to be quite stubborn and malicious. The 
 Judge addressed him briefly, but in very noble language. " You have, " said he 
 in substance, to the culprit, " insulted this Court, and not the Judge personally 
 I act not for myself. I am but an agent of the State. For myself individually 
 I ask no protection from insult, but I do ask it for my country for the sovereign 
 State, whose servant lam. You have not insulted me, but you have insulted 
 your fellow-citizens the people of the whole State, of which you are also a citi- 
 zen. You have insulted your country, and it is made my duty, by the laws of 
 the State, to protect her dignity and her honor from insult and contempt. But 
 as you have acted under a mistake as to the object of your contempt, the Court 
 will only impose upon you a small fine." 
 
 I never saw a man so mortified as the poor culprit For the first time in hi* 
 life he understood the distinction between an individual and an officer. 
 
140 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 though the meaning of its terms may be changed by usage. Un- 
 der any and all sorts of perversion, it says no more. It adopts 
 no new illustrations, suited to the particular question raised, and 
 the capacity of the party. It decides no particular case. All it 
 can do is to lay down principles. It cannot enumerate, in ad- 
 vance, the incidents that will make up each particular case that 
 may afterwards arise, and pronounce the proper judgment. 
 
 But it is not so with a living, speaking judiciary. A partic- 
 ular case comes up before it. The question is, does this particu- 
 lar case come within a certain principle ? The tribunal says 
 yea or nay. It does not leave the party to construe the law, 
 and by comparison and rational deduction to arrive at the in- 
 tent of the lawmaker, but says to him plainly, " in this case you 
 are wrong," or " you are right," as the case may be.* The 
 Court, as each new case arises, makes a construction of the law 
 hi reference only to that case. As all cases consist of a certain 
 number of incidents, when one case is decided in a certain way, 
 all cases afterwards arising, having the same incidents, come un- 
 der the principle settled. If the decision is misunderstood, the 
 Court is always in being, ready, able, and willing to correct any 
 misconstruction of its opinion. (10 Peters, 393 ; 12 Wheaton, 
 117, 124.) 
 
 Thus, in the great case of Col. Fremont, lately decided by 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, there were two ques- 
 tions raised as to the construction of the Mexican colonization 
 
 * Many of the disputed passages of Scripture are only subject to one of two 
 opposite constructions, one of which being condemned, the other must stand. 
 " This is my body " admits of but one of two opposite constructions. How easy 
 would it be for an authorized tribunal to settle the construction ! A tribunal 
 confines its decision to a single point at a time, and adapts its language to the 
 precise state of the particular misconstruction. Though it is the general charac- 
 ter of language, as a medium of thought, to be deficient in precision, there aro 
 still certain forms of expression too plain to be misunderstood. The tribunal 
 could take the very words of the proposition and say, " this is wrong.'' Suppose 
 we had the Council of Jerusalem still with us, could not that tribunal settle the 
 questions now in dispute as it did the one before it ? 
 
 The decisive advantages of a living, speaking tribunal are, 1. It decides after 
 the difficulty has arisen, and adapts its language to the precise state of the par- 
 ticular case. 2. It can repeat its explanations until it must be understood. 3. 
 It is always prepared to meet every new difficulty, as occasion may demand. 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 141 
 
 laws, aiid the Act of Congress organizing a Board of Land 
 Commissioners, and laying down the principles under which 
 land claims, in the State of California, should be decided. Ono 
 of the questions had arisen in many cases, and had been decided 
 adversely to the claimants by the Board, and by the United 
 States District Court. The Supreme Court reversed the deci- 
 sions of the inferior tribunals, and what, to them, was uncertain 
 before, has now become fixed and certain. Now all the cases 
 possessing the incidents of this case, and those incidents only, 
 must come under this decision. 
 
 Before this decision was made, the judges of the inferior 
 tribunals, and the attorneys, had labored with intense applica- 
 tion to find out the correct construction of the law. They had 
 before them all the laws. There was no difficulty as to the 
 identity of these laws. It was only a question of construction, 
 and no more. As to that question, they arrived at different 
 and precisely opposite conclusions. But the moment the su- 
 preme tribunal decided, there was one unanimous 'consent as to 
 what was the proper construction, and their labors, as to that 
 matter, were past. Now will any man say that the same una- 
 nimity could have possibly been attained, without such authori- 
 tative construction of the law ? If so, he must take a singular 
 view of things. 
 
 It is true, that while all must admit that this decision is le- 
 gally right and judicially infallible, many will doubtless think 
 that the decision ought to have been different. But suppose 
 that Court had possessed actual, instead of mere judicial infalli- 
 bility, what perfect unanimity would have resulted from such a 
 decision not only unanimity of submission, but also of belief. 
 In such case no man, admitting the existence of this actual infal- 
 libility, would ever question the correctness of the decision, in 
 argument or theory. All would have been perfect unanimity in 
 the two elements of act and belief. 
 
 The law of Christ has to contend against all the vices all 
 the local prejudices of nations and races all the changes and 
 novelties of each and every age and all the vicissitudes of 
 every condition in life. The duties to be performed and the 
 truths to be believed aiv "hard to flesh and blood." The 
 kingdom takes a wide sweep. It is only bounded by the limits 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 of the habitable earth, and includes the entire race, and ex 
 tends through all time. And the perfect sphere of its duties 
 includes all the virtues our race can possess, and the elevated 
 circle of its faith, the highest and sublitnest truths they can be- 
 lieve. Every thing morally good must be believed and prac- 
 tised, and every thing evil must be hated and avoided. The 
 Christian is to live for the bright future more than for the 
 tempting present. He must leave to God the revenge of his 
 wrongs and the reward of his merits. The man that injures 
 him, he must pray for that hates him, he must love. And not 
 only must all these things be believed and done, but the conse- 
 quences are as enduring as the system is boundless, and as eter- 
 nity is endless. A few short years of pleasure constitute not its 
 rewards, and the temporary terrors of the scaffold, not its pun- 
 ishments. 
 
 The perfection of the system the perfect faith and obe- 
 dience required render it still more necessary to know the 
 proper construction of its law. The truths are supernatural, 
 and therefore difficult enough to be believed, and the duties 
 difficult enough to be performed, when they are known with 
 infallible certainty. But how much more difficult would it be, 
 if each individual must construe the* entire code at his own 
 eternal peril, without the aid of any authorized interpreter ! * 
 
 * There are only, as I conceive, three possible ways in which Christ could 
 produce certainty in the construction of His law : 
 
 1. By an inspired personal revelation of the true construction to each indi- 
 vidual, as often as occasion should arise. 
 
 2. By the institution of an Infallible tribunal. 
 
 3. By enumerating, in advance, all the exact incidents of each particular 
 case, and pronouncing the proper judgment as to each. 
 
 By far the most simple, logical, and consistent method, is the second one. 
 The first is liable to many serious objections. It does away with the necessity 
 of teachers, and of all government in the church ; and besides, the inspired per- 
 sons might know themselves that they were right, but others would have no test 
 by which they could determine between the true and the pretending believer. 
 Each individual asserting, as a matter of fact, resting in his own individual 
 knowledge, and not, therefore, to be disputed, that his interpretation was in- 
 spired, the confusion produced would be endless. The third method would have 
 required an amount of labor at the beginning too extensive and difficult. 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 143 
 
 13. The judicial power was exercised by the Apostolic 
 
 Church. 
 
 Did the teachers of the early church exercise any judicial 
 power ? Did they construe and apply the law in the last re- 
 sort? or did each member of the church construe for himself? 
 
 In the first chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, verse ten, he lays down the principle of the unity of the 
 faith. He then goes on to construe the law of Christ, and ap- 
 ply it to particular individual cases of heresy then found in the 
 church at Corinth. No one could ever imagine that such ques- 
 tions would arise, and the apostle did not know it until informed 
 by "them of the house of Chloe.'' The apostle points out, in 
 detail, each particular heresy, and condemns each. And he 
 gives them the reason for his construction of the law, and as- 
 sumes, as a fundamental principle of the law already taught, 
 that Christ could not be divided ; and from this position, and 
 the fact that they were all baptized in the name of Christ, he 
 concluded that, under a proper construction of the law, they 
 could only be of Christ. 
 
 Now suppose the apostle had only laid down the point of 
 law in the tenth verse, requiring them to all believe the same 
 thing, and had not specified the particular heresies mentioned ; 
 would that have corrected these errors ? The tenth verse con- 
 tains doubtless but the restatement of a principle already under- 
 stood, for our Lord had prayed for the unity in faith of all 
 those who should believe on Him. This restatement was made 
 for the purpose of applying it to the particular cases mentioned. 
 If St. Paul had only made this restatement, which inculcated 
 only the necessity of unity, the further question as to which of 
 the four parties were wrong, would have been left whoUy un- 
 settled, and the brethren would have remained still divided, 
 just as the five hundred Protestant sects all admit, and insist 
 upon, the necessity of unity, while each as strenuously contends 
 that all the others are wrong in their construction of a conceded 
 law. The question not being determined, those of Paul would 
 have said not us, and so of all the others. 
 
 " Who shall decide when " members " disagree ? " St. Paul 
 said, in substance, I will decide this matter for you. You that 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 
 
 say you are of Apollos, of Paul, and of Cephas, are each and all 
 of you in the wrong; and you that say you are of Christ, are in 
 the right. This was explicit. No law, made in advance of the 
 existence of these particular errors, could have been so explicit, 
 without going into the full detail of all the circumstances of 
 each particular question. 
 
 The question as to the necessity of circumcision for the Gen- 
 tile converts already alluded to, is another noted instance of the 
 construction and application of the law to a particular case of 
 error. The facts and circumstances of that case were remarka- 
 ble. They have already been stated, in part. 
 
 The apostles, being the first incumbents, appointed to fill the 
 office of teacher, performed all the duties as such, until the dis- 
 ciples so multiplied that it became necessary for them to ap- 
 point other teachers. After their appointment they taught. 
 At Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers, among 
 whom were Barnabas and Saul. All these men are classed to- 
 gether as teachers and prophets, and when Paul and Barnabas 
 went upon a special mission, "they ordained them elders in 
 every church." Now it is plain that all the persons mentioned, 
 namely, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul, were all 
 teachers, and carried out the commission " Go teach." (Acts 
 xiii., xiv.) 
 
 Until the question regarding the circumcision of the Gentile 
 converts arose, it was not deemed proper or necessary to decide 
 it. And when it did arise, it was among the members of the 
 college of teachers ; and so wide was the difference of opinion, 
 that it became necessary to convene a council to consider of the 
 question. 
 
 The protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit had been 
 promised by Christ to the apostles and their successors in 
 their corporate capacity as a college of teachers. Hence "the 
 apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter." 
 When Peter speaks, he argues from certain admitted facts and 
 principles, that circumcision was not required. He contends 
 that, as God bestowed upon the uncircumcised Gentiles the 
 same gifts as on the Jews, and put no difference between them, 
 therefore it followed that circumcision could not be required. 
 If the same end could be attained without circumcision, then it 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY." OF THE CHURCH. 145 
 
 was clear that, under the system, it could not be necessary. 
 Peter having taken this ground, and referring to the case of 
 Cornelius, concluded by saying, " We believe that through the 
 grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they." 
 
 The arguments of Paul and Barnabas consisted of the simple 
 statement of the "miracles and wonders God had wrought 
 among the Gentiles by them." Peter had referred to the single 
 case of Cornelius, but Paul and Barnabas went into other and 
 more numerous cases and proofs to establish the same fact ; to 
 wit: that God made no difference between Jew and Gentile 
 between circumcision and uncircumcision all of which went to 
 show, by the most rational deduction, that circumcision could 
 not be required by the principles of the law, as already promul- 
 gated, when the end had in view by the law kself was fully ac- 
 complished without this rite. James argues upon the same 
 ground, as well as upon the additional ground that this had 
 been predicted by the prophets of the Old Law ; and that, 
 therefore, when the New Law came into existence, it extended 
 to the Gentiles ; and that, as it extended to them, it did not 
 require of them circumcision. 
 
 That this decision of the Council of Jerusalem was only the 
 judicial construction and application of the law (long before 
 that time promulgated) to this particular case of heresy, is not 
 only shown by the facts and reasons already given, but also by 
 the language used, and the names given to the decision itself. 
 They " came together to consider of this matter." The usual 
 form of a judgment is, " It is therefore considered by the court." 
 St. James calls his decision a "sentence," and the decision of 
 the whole council is called " decrees," which Paul, Silas, and 
 Timotheus delivered to the different churches to keep. They 
 were called " decrees which were ordained of the apostles and 
 elders which were at Jerusalem." Now these terms, t- sen- 
 tence " and " decrees," when both used to designate the same 
 thing, can only be applied to the judgment of a judicial tribu- 
 nal. The same idea is conveyed by the language of the Jews 
 to St. Paul, on a subsequent occasion, when speaking of the de- 
 cision of this council ; they say : 
 
 " As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written 
 and concluded that they observe no such thing." The words 
 14 
 
146 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 " we have concluded that they observe no such thing," can only 
 mean, in this connection, to have formed a final judgment; to 
 have ended. 
 
 It will be observed that none of the apostles claimed any 
 personal inspiration in reference to this particular question. No 
 one who spoke, attempted to put down the friends of circum- 
 cision, by the statement that Christ had ever expressly men- 
 tioned the subject, or that the law, as promulgated at and after 
 the day of Pentecost, had ever expressly made any provision 
 upon this exact point. We find nothing in the New Testament 
 history, previous to* this decision, that distinctly settled this 
 question. To determine it, required the authoritative judicial 
 application of the conceded principles and facts of the system 
 of law before that time promulgated, and for years put in prac- 
 tical operation. Had the question not been raised until after 
 the deaths of the apostles, would there have been no authority 
 in the church to settle it ? 
 
 It seems clear that there would have been such authority ; 
 and why ? 
 
 It is certain that the Council of Jerusalem was the organ of 
 the entire Church. It is certain their decrees bound all the 
 members of the association. It is equally certain that this 
 council was not held by the apostles alone. " The apostles and 
 elders came together to consider of this matter." The elders 
 participated in the discussions they formed part and parcel of 
 the council they united in the decrees and they were aided 
 by the Holy Ghost as well as were the apostles. The elders as 
 well as the apostles said : " For it seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost and to us." Then whatever was done in and by this 
 council, was done by the joint act of the apostles and elders, 
 each one participating in the act, and performing his appropriate 
 part of it. And the decisive conclusions that inevitably flow 
 from the simple facts recorded of the proceedings of this coun- 
 cil, are these : 
 
 1. That the judicial power of the church passed to the elders ; 
 and that they, together with the apostles, composed this coun- 
 cil, and with the apostles exercised the judicial power. 
 
 2. That the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised hi the 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CTirRCII. 147 
 
 commission descended also to the elders, and was not confined 
 to the apostles. 
 
 It cannot be said that this was a consultation, and no more. 
 A consultation is defined to be " deliberation of two or more 
 persons with a view to some decision." (Webster.) The con- 
 sultation had in this case resulted in a decision, so that there 
 were both a consultation and a decision. When a court is com- 
 posed of a plurality of judges, it is usual for them to consult 
 with each other, before the decision is made. The decision is 
 the binding act, and may or may not follow a consultation, and 
 may also be rendered without it. 
 
 It may be urged that the apostles and elders did not alone 
 compose the council, as it is said that " it pleased the apostles 
 and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men," &c., 
 and " the apostles and elders and brethren send greeting," &c. 
 (Verses 22 and 23.) 
 
 If these expressions stood alone, they would show, prima 
 facie, that the council was composed of apostles, elders, and 
 others. But taken in connection with other passages, and it 
 would seem plain, that the council was only composed of apos- 
 tles and elders. It is stated in verse second, that " they deter- 
 mined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, 
 should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about 
 this question ; " and in verse six it is stated that " the apostles 
 and elders came together to consider of this matter." The 
 question was agreed to be referred to the apostles and elders, 
 and these came together to consider of the matter ; and, in the 
 sixteenth chapter, verse four, it is said that the " decrees were 
 ordained of the apostles and elders." The apostles and elders 
 composed the ordaining power, because they ordained. No 
 doubt the decision gave satisfaction to the whole Church at Je- 
 rusalem, and they no doiivbt contributed the means to send the 
 messengers, and these facts constituted the reason for mention- 
 ing the facts stated. St. Paul commences several of his Epistles 
 in the joint names of himself and others ; as for example, 2 Cor., 
 Philip., Coloss., Thess., and Philemon. But in these same Epis- 
 tles, he afterwards speaks in the first person singular. 
 
 These are only two, among many instances in which the 
 law governing the Apostolic Church received a judicial con 
 
148 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 struction and application to particular cases of heresy, or other 
 violation of the law. 
 
 14. The same judicial power still exists in the Church. 
 
 From the simple narrative of the New Testament it appears 
 certain, that in the days of Christ, whenever His previous words 
 were misconstrued, He was ready to explain ; and that after 
 His ascension, the means were still left in the Church to reach 
 the same result. The disciples were not left to get at the proper 
 construction of the law the best way they could, according to 
 the learning, condition, and circumstances of each individual ; 
 but there existed in those happy days an infallible tribunal to 
 construe and apply the law in the last resort. Disputed con- 
 structions of the law were settled decisively, and controversies 
 ended. The disciples of that day saw that the Legislative and 
 Judicial powers of this government were guided by the same 
 Holy Spirit. These most fortunate disciples could well rejoice 
 for the consolation, when they read the epistle from the council. 
 They could dispense with the yoke sought to be imposed upon 
 them, without the slightest risk of being deceived. They had 
 the endorsement of the Holy Ghost. It was the voice of God, 
 speaking through His agents. There was no mistaking the de- 
 cision. It mentioned the particular heresy in the very words 
 of those who maintained it, and condemned it by the most ex- 
 plicit language, applied to that individual case alone. The im- 
 measurable distance between a fallible and infallible tribunal is 
 apparent to the simplest mind. Well may Mr. Campbell say : 
 
 " We sooner or later all discern, that between the fallible 
 and the infallible, there is a gulf, into which the universe might 
 be hurled, without at all reducing the chasm. Finities and falli- 
 bles are weak authorities, when heaven and immortality are at 
 stake."* 
 
 * C. & R.'s Debate, 764. Mr. C continues : " And the moment that B pro- 
 pounds his synopsis with the slightest air of authority, in the way of exacting 
 obedience, or acknowledgment, tha*t moment there is something in human na- 
 ture that whispers in A, Who is this brother B ? A fallible like myself! A 
 great man h may be ; but he is fond of his own opinions, and prides himselt 
 upon his superiority. I will not lay a victim upon his altar, nor burn incense at 
 his shrine ; I too am a man, and will yield to none the right to dictate to me." 
 
 But most unfortunately the theory of Mr. C. provides no remedy for the evJl 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 149 
 
 The practical superiority of such a tribunal may be shown by 
 a very simple but conclusive test. We will suppose that a 
 council could be called at a given time and place, fully empow- 
 ered to determine all controversies existing among Protestants, 
 with infallible certainty; and that Protestants conceded that 
 fact. How easy it would be to harmonize all differences, and 
 condemn all errors among them. There could exist not the 
 slightest difficulty in understanding the council. Each particu- 
 lar error could be enumerated and condemned. The decisions 
 could be made as plain as the decision of Paul, or that of. the 
 Council of Jerusalem. The council could take the definitions 
 of each particular error as made by the party maintaining it, 
 and say : " This we condemn," " this we approve." Adapting 
 the form of the decree to the error condemned, certainty could 
 be attained. 
 
 This was the course pursued in the Council of Jerusalem ; 
 for in their decree they say, among other things : 
 
 " Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out 
 from us have troubled you with words subverting your souls, 
 saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we 
 gave no such commandment." So, in the case of Luther, when 
 he submitted his work to the Pope, there were some forty-two 
 propositions stated by Luther in his own words. These propo- 
 sitions, as stated by him, were condemned by the Pope ; and 
 so plain was the decision that Luther at once understood what 
 was intended. 
 
 ne mentions. The supposed question between A and B was simply one of con- 
 struction of a conceded written law. A is most fully justified in rejecting the 
 fallible interpretation of brother B ; but while he does so, he only falls back 
 upon bis own equally fallible interpretation. He is just as apt to be fond of his 
 own opinions as brother B. True, it may be flattering to the pride of brother 
 A to that ' something in human nature " to be allowed to interpret for 
 himself in the last resort ; bu-t as his sole and only object should be to arrive at 
 the true will of the lawmaker, (whose system never did flatter human pride,) he 
 might rely, with just as much cliance of being right, upon the fallible interpreta- 
 tion of brother B, as upon his own equally fallible construction. So, after -all 
 the eloquent, the beautiful, the true language of Mr. Campbell, as to the differ- 
 ence between the fallible- and the infallible, he leaves his brother A still resting 
 alone upon " finities and fallibles," those " weak authorities when heaven and 
 immortality are at stake." 
 
150 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHTJKCH. 
 
 But according to Protestants no such tribunal can now ex 
 1st. Faith then rests in the fallible construction of each fallible 
 mind. The written code, by which alone they profess to be 
 guided, makes no further answer gives no further explanation 
 names no particular error. Under any and all sorts of per- 
 version, it is silent. Having once laid down general principles, 
 it ceased, and remains mute. Having once spoken, it speaks no 
 more. It allows no one to interpret its language with unerring 
 certainty, as it gives no infallible guide for such a purpose. If 
 this system of uncertainty be the true character of the govern- 
 ment of Christ, since the days of the apostles, we are truly un- 
 fortunate. It had been better for us to have been born in those 
 days of purifying persecution, but of absolute certainty. Better 
 to suffer any amount of temporal inconvenience, than thus be 
 
 left as mere 
 
 " restless wanderers after rest." 
 
 But is it true that Christ and His apostles exercised the ju- 
 dicial power during the short period of their lives, and yet in- 
 tended that this power, which, in its very nature, is a part of 
 the system, and should exist while the law is to be practically 
 enforced in this world, should then cease ? That therefore, the 
 Christians of that favored day should have and enjoy all the ad- 
 vantages of such a tribunal, and that all subsequent Christians 
 should be governed by a crippled system of law ? Was the ex- 
 ercise of the judicial power in the apostolic church idle and use- 
 less ? If so, why ? If useful, then why are we deprived of it ? 
 Why is a great system of law, made by an Infallible Lawmaker, 
 and purporting to be permanent, thus shorn of one of its most 
 consolatory and practical elements ? 
 
 It is a melancholy truth, if it be so. We cannot " rejoice 
 for the consolation," as did the Gentile converts. God now, if 
 this be true, speaks through no living agents. He has now no 
 agent on earth who can speak with any authority. Each indi- 
 vidual does that now for himself, which was then alone done for 
 all, by those who could say with authority, " it seemed good to 
 the Holy Ghost and to us." One of the most consolatory and 
 beautiful features and conservative powers of the early Church 
 has been lost, when it would seem to be as much needed now aa 
 at the beginning. Instead of possessing the perfection the in- 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 151 
 
 Ptitution did in the beginning, it has lost its infallible judiciary. 
 According to 'this levelling and destructive theory, it is now a 
 mock government, not possessing the genuine powers of govern- 
 ment, because its judiciary has no infallibility, either actual or 
 judicial, and can, therefore, make no final and binding decision. 
 A system without a parallel in any social institution. A law in- 
 tended to govern a UNITED people, and yet each individual GOV- 
 ERNED is to construe the law ALONE for himself in the LAST RE- 
 SORT. An association whose shadowy tribunals make decisions 
 in mere/orm, that no one is bound to obey ; for the reason that 
 they, in the contemplation of the theory itself, are no evidence 
 of the true construction of the code. They are idle, for they 
 settle no questions, as did the decisions of the Apostolic Church. 
 When she spoke through her organs, she was heard. When 
 she gave her construction of the code, it was final. She was, in 
 fact, a Church* 
 
 15. Scripture proofs of the infallibility of the Church ex- 
 amined. 
 
 But has this retrograding change come over the system ? 
 Is it true that we are now left without any infallible tribunal in 
 the Church ? Is it true that questions of construction can arise 
 from age to age, and accumulate from century to century, and 
 
 * The Protestant theory does leave the Church, since the days of the apos- 
 tles, in the most deplorable condition. She is still charged with all the duties of 
 teaching that devolved upon the apostles. She is required to teach the same 
 truths no more, no less. But while che is thus bound to construe and apply the 
 very same code of law, she is denied, by this theory, the very powers and quali- 
 fications found necessary, in the days of the apostles, in order to do the very same 
 tning. If the judicial power was necessary, and did exist, and was exercised in 
 the Apostolic Church, can any logical mind conceive or give any substantial rea- 
 son why the same power should not always exist ? If certain given powers and 
 qualifications were necessary to administer the law at one time, is it not so at all 
 Mines, when the same thing has to be done ? 
 
 It is true that the apostles acted in two perfectly distinct capacities. They 
 were witnesses and teachers. But it is equally true that they had the infallible 
 assistance of the Holy Spirit in loth. And as the duty of teaching is perpetual, 
 (and not temporary, as was the duty of witnesses,) there must, of necessity, be 
 the same powers and qualifications to teach in every age. Who can form any 
 conception of a system requiring a great duty always to be performed, and at the 
 same time lenyingthe necessary powers and qualifications to accomplish it? 
 
152 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 still remain undecided till the last day of the institution on earth, 
 for want of power in the Church to settle them ? Is the Church, 
 founded and built by Christ, so imbecile as that ? Is His own 
 work, His own institution, so unworthy of any confidence ? Is 
 this the best that a Divine Founder of an institution could do ? 
 But what were His promises to His Church ? What did His 
 chosen witnesses say of her ? Did they speak of her as weak 
 and sickly, tottering and mutable ? Did they give her a perish- 
 able, temporary character ? 
 
 But before we proceed to examine the texts in reference to 
 that institution which Christ called " his church," and the apos- 
 tle Paul " Tfte Church," it is necessary to inquire whether this 
 Church was visible or invisible. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive how an invisible church could exist 
 as a church at all. It can hardly fill Lindley Murray's definition 
 of a noun, for it seems not to be "the name of any thing that 
 exists, or of which we can form any notion." It is an intangible, 
 undefinable, and imaginary body, about which no distinct idea 
 can be formed, and for the existence of which no tolerable rea- 
 son can be given. And for what purpose, and to what end it 
 was instituted, it is difficult to divine. It being invisible, no 
 one can see it, and it cannot exercise any authority. 
 
 The powers of government given to the church, it is clear, 
 were given to the visible church. When Christ tells us to hear 
 the church, He certainly means the visible Church. And when 
 He speaks of one fold, He must refer to the visible Church. And 
 when we are told that the " Lord added daily to the church 
 such as should be saved," we are informed that they were add- 
 ed to the visible Church. And the Church in which Timothy 
 was to behave himself, was the visible Church, " the pillar and 
 ground of the truth." The duties inculcated upon Timothy and 
 Titus were to be discharged in the visible Church. The Council 
 of Jerusalem was held in the visible Church, and they issued 
 visible decrees. 
 
 It seems to be clear that whatever powers of government 
 Christ bestowed upon the church, were to be exercised by the 
 visible Church, and that the exercise of these powers was guided 
 by the Holy Ghost in the days of the apostles. Were those 
 powers and their infallible guidance to continue in the church 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 153 
 
 together to the end of time, as apart of the fundamental law of 
 the institution? If, on the contrary, those powers and this 
 guidance were intended to be temporary, and to last only for 
 the first few years of her existence, and then forever to cease ; 
 of course the exact limits of their duration are plainly marked ; 
 otherwise, it would be very difficult to determine, from the 
 Scripture, the period when they did cease, or whether they were 
 to cease at all. For if this visible institution was organized 
 with certain powers and promises, and we are told that the as- 
 sociation itself was to last until the end of time, and these pow- 
 ers and promises are not clearly marked and designated as tem- 
 porary, then it would seem extremely difficult and hazardous for 
 us to undertake to say they were so, and, therefore, had ceased. 
 But when no such limits are set, and we find the promises ac- 
 companied with expressions that refer to all coming time, the dif- 
 ficulty and peril become so great that we cannot, without the 
 utmost violence to the language, and the whole drift and spirit 
 of the system, decide them to have been temporary in their 
 character. 
 
 In the eighteenth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew our 
 Lord said : 
 
 " And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: 
 but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a 
 heathen and a publican." (Verse 17.) 
 
 When Christ tells us to hear the church, He speaks of but one 
 Church the Church He instituted. He says " THE CHURCH " 
 in the singular. He does not refer to " the church" as existing 
 in this or that age, in this or that country, but He refers to the 
 corporate institution as existing in all after ages. The Church 
 is viewed as an artificial person or corporation, that never dies, 
 and that can speak through her proper organs. He says " hear 
 the Church." It is the Church that speaks, not the individual 
 members in their own right. The teachers that speak, speak for 
 her, and as her organs only. What she does through her or- 
 gans, she does herself. 
 
 But not only does Christ say that the Church can speak, 
 but He commands us, without any reservation, to " hear the 
 church." There is no exception made. The command is gen- 
 eral and imperative. Would He command us to hear, without 
 15 
 
154 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 any reservation or exception, a mere fallible tribunal ? In sucfc 
 case we should be compelled to "hear the church," whether she 
 spoke the truth or not. 
 
 But our Lord says explicitly : " Upon this rock I will build 
 my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
 
 The church is here viewed in the light of a visible structure, 
 founded upon a rock, and that is the reason why St. Paul after- 
 wards calls this Church the " house of God." Now the phrase 
 " my church " the phrase " the church " and the phrase 
 "house of God," unquestionably refer to one and the same 
 thing precisely ; namely : the visible Church. 
 
 When, therefore, Christ tells us that the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against this Church, His promise regards the entire 
 Church of all ages, in the same way that the command to hear 
 the Church does. The promise is as general and unlimited as 
 the command ; and they both must stand or fall together. They 
 both regard the Church as existing through all coming time. 
 
 Christ establishes the Church as a decider of controversies 
 arising under the Christian law; and then says, in another 
 place, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. This 
 promise has relation to the command to hear the Church. As 
 the Church possessed the power to decide controversies, this 
 must be one end of its institution. The power was given for a 
 great and beneficial purpose. If she failed to exercise this power 
 correctly, she would so far fail to attain the end of her creation. 
 Nothing would seem more consonant with reason and Scripture 
 than this : that teaching the truth was the leading end to be 
 accomplished by the visible Church, and that the power and 
 duty of teaching must include the right and duty to determine 
 what shall be taught, and what is contrary thereto. And if the 
 Church failed in this "main purpose of her creation, that then the 
 gates of hell would prevail against her. For it must be evident, 
 that the moment the governing power of the church failed, she 
 must fail, and subvert the souls of those who are commanded to 
 hear her. What more could the gates of hell desire than that 
 this Church should fail to do her duty, and thus defeat the 
 mighty purpose of her creation ? 
 
 It would seem also clear, that the temporary errors of par- 
 ticular teachers, would not subvert the entire church, any more 
 than the errors of those who insisted upon the necessity of cir- 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 155 
 
 cumcision, or of those unruly teachers alluded to by St. Paul, 
 or the errors of inferior courts would subvert civil government. 
 They are spots upon the sun, and spots only. But when the 
 entire governing power of the church is subverted, (wherever 
 that power is held to be placed,) then the gates of hell would 
 surely prevail against her. Such a result would be in plain 
 violation of the promises of Christ.* 
 
 * Mr. Rice, in his argument to sustain infant baptism, quotes largely from 
 the Ancient Fathers to show the practice of the Church, and says : 
 
 " In conclusion I offer one more argument. It is this : if it should turn out, 
 that infant baptism is unscriptural, and that Mr. Campbell's views of immersion 
 as the only valid baptism are true, we are forced to the conclusion, that for sev- 
 eral centuries, there was no true church." Again : " We are then obliged to be- 
 lieve that the Saviour's promise has failed ; and the ' gates of hell ' did prevail 
 against his church." (C. & R.'s Debate, 421.) 
 
 I certainly cannot dispute the argument and conclusion of Mr. Rice. But 
 it would be very difficult to show any reason against applying the same argument 
 to the other alleged errors, charged to have been introduced into the Church. If 
 she failed because she taught the alleged error of infant baptism, (conceding it 
 to have been an error, for the sake of the argument,) then she equally failed 
 when she taught other doctrines which Protestants allege as errors, if in fact they 
 were such. I am constrained to think that the argument of Mr. Rice, when 
 fairly and legitimately carried out, would prove one of two things very clearly : 
 
 1. That these alleged errors were truths handed down from the apostles ; or 
 2. That the promises of Christ did fail His Church did fall and that there is 
 now no true Church in the world. 
 
 If we say that the Church has ceased, or will cease, to exist at any period 
 before her prescribed course has been run, then we must concede the failure of 
 the promises of Christ ; not only because such a failure would be in direct con- 
 flict with His clear and most explicit promises " lo, I am with you alicay, even 
 unto the end of the vjorld" " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" 
 but because the continued existence of the Church is necessary to accomplish the 
 great and beneficent purposes of His mission The Church, having been consti- 
 tuted by Him His teaching agent, it was but just to all ages, that this same 
 teaching authority should be always in existence, and always visible. If we re- 
 gard the Church as a visible corporation, (and we can form no conception of an 
 invisible corporation composed of visible men,) then her continued existence must 
 follow, or she must die to exist no more on earth. The promises of Christ to her 
 were unconditioned, and not conditional, as were His promises to individuals re- 
 garding matters of their own. Her unfailing existence and continued purity, as 
 a teaching agent, are absolutely necessary to accomplish the great ends contem- 
 plated in her creation. If we once concede that the Church can fail, then we 
 concede that Christ was fallible, weak, and impotent, and only created an insti- 
 tution like himself. 
 
156 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 But our Saviour not only commanded us to hear the church, 
 and pledged Himself for her continued purity and unfailing ex- 
 istence, but when creating the office of teacher, and appointing 
 the first members of the college, and commanding them what 
 they should do in that capacity, He also said that He would 
 be " with them alway, even unto the end of the world ; ' and 
 before that time He had promised them that the Father would 
 give them the Comforter to "abide with them forever." 
 
 Now what did our Lord mean by the expressions, I am with 
 you abide with you f These expressions, which mean the same 
 thing, are very often used by Christ, and in every case the 
 meaning is invariably the same ; namely : " I am with you to aid 
 you with my power." It always means that the persons to 
 whom the promise was given were to be guided and protected 
 by Him. The presence of the Holy Ghost did the same. Of 
 course our Lord could not be with them for a mere idle purpose, 
 and He could only be with them to enable them to accomplish 
 the end proposed. Therefore, the effect of this promise is al- 
 ways limited to the objects for which it was given. When 
 Christ constituted a college of teachers, and promised to be with 
 them to the end of the world, He only promised to be with 
 them in the office He created, and for the purposes of the office. 
 Hence we find the Holy Ghost abiding with the Council of Je- 
 rusalem, and guiding that tribunal to a correct construction of 
 the law.* 
 
 * It may be said by some, that as all men possess personal free agency, and 
 no one is compelled to be a Christian, it is possible that in some one or more ages of 
 the world, there would be no Christians on earth, and no Church ; and that Chris- 
 tianity might afterwards revive. It is true, that while such a state of case is ab- 
 stractly possible, our Lord did promise that the gates of hell should not prevail 
 against His Church. How, then, could He positively make this promise, and yet 
 leave the free agency of all men untouched ? If the gates of hell should prevail, 
 at any time, against the Church, the promise that this should never happen, would 
 fail. 
 
 The answer to this is very simple. Our Lord foresaw the future, and, there- 
 fore, adapted His system and promise to the actual state of things, and not to 
 bare possibilities. The personal free agency of all men He left untouched ; and 
 yet He could very safely promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against 
 1 i is Church. He foresaw that among the millions of human beings existing in 
 all ages, there would always be a sufficient number believing in His name to form 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 157 
 
 The words of St. Paul are very emphatic and clear. Speak- 
 ing of the visible Church, he calls it "the church of the living 
 God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Observe the certain- 
 ty and force of the expressions the church the pillar and (the) 
 ground of the truth the house the living God. There was 
 one God, one house, one church, one pillar, one ground, and one 
 system of truth referred to, and only one. 
 
 The apostle had ample reason for saying so. He had com- 
 manded his brethren to " obey, submit to, and foUow the faith 
 of them that had the rule over them," and had himself been at 
 the Council of Jerusalem, and had witnessed that tribunal guided 
 by the Holy Spirit to a final decision. He might well call the 
 Church the pillar and ground of the truth. Now as St. Paul re- 
 garded the Church, not only as the pillar, but also as the ground 
 of the truth, how could such an institution be any thing but in- 
 fallible ? The distance between the fallible and the infallible 
 being so great, as so eloquently described by Mr. Campbell, how 
 could such glorious things be affirmed of a mere fallible tribu- 
 nal ? Nothing, it would seem, could fill the description of the 
 apostle, but an infallible Church. How could a Church teach- 
 ing essential error be the pillar and ground of the truth f In 
 such case she would be the pillar and ground of error, and not 
 
 the Church. This Church, heing a continuing corporation, with numbers indefi- 
 nite and variable, and being His own institution, created as His own agent, He 
 had the right to control this artificial being while assuming to teach His own 
 law, and doing His own business. Although He had not the right to force any 
 one to join this Church, yet after they did so voluntarily, and while they volun- 
 tarily remained members, He had the right to control the collective whole while 
 that whole assumed to act for Him as His agent. Most errors in reference to the 
 Church will be found, when thoroughly examined, to be essentially based upon 
 the error of not distinguishing between individuals, acting for themselves, and the 
 corporation or Church, acting for Christ. When a man joins the Church, he acts 
 for himself, and not as the agent of Christ. In reference to his own business hi 
 free agency is untouched. The Church is not the individual, but the combined 
 whole. It is the corporation that our Lord infallibly aids, when she assumes to 
 teach as His agent, and in His name. He might well promise His unfailing pro- 
 tection and His overruling assistance to an institution which He foresaw would 
 always exist by the voluntary acts of His creatures. Knowing that there would 
 be believers in every age, who of their own free will become such, He could well, 
 upon this existing basis, predicate His promise that this existing institution 
 should always teach the truth as He delivered it, 
 
158 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 of truth. It could not be denied, except by the unbeliever, that 
 whatever Christ promised, He would perform. And it would 
 seem impossible for a Church, to which such magnificent prom- 
 ises were given, to be as fallible as mere human institutions. 
 
 If we consider the necessity, and the end and object of the 
 organization of the visible Church the perfect character and 
 unlimited power of its founder the nature of all governments of 
 law over associated bodies of men the inherent defects of all 
 language the obscurities peculiar to the Scriptures the diffi- 
 culty even in the application of well-understood principles to 
 particular cases the obstacles to be overcome by this great in- 
 stitution, arising from the extent of its empire, the long period 
 of its existence, the variety of races, manners, habits, and nation- 
 al prejudices the perfection of faith and practice required and 
 then see what Christ and His apostles did do how our Lord 
 first taught His disciples, and then appointed them as teach- 
 ers, and they in turn did the same thing, and commanded 
 those they appointed to appoint others how the teachers had 
 the rule over the Apostolic Church, and their faith was to be 
 followed, and they to be obeyed how our Lord commanded 
 His followers to hear the church, and promised to found it upon 
 a rock, and protect it against the gates of hell, and to be with 
 His teachers to the end of the world, and to send them the Holy 
 Ghost to abide with them forever and then see how Christ 
 carried out these promises by guiding the decision of the Coun- 
 cil of Jerusalem to infallible certainty, making the Church the 
 pillar and ground of the truth in fact and when, to use the 
 touching language of the noble apostle Paul, we " think on these 
 things" and sincerely, and without prejudice, calmly put them 
 all together, and fully appreciate the combined force of all, then 
 
 it is that 
 
 " Truth bursts upon us with resistless day ; " 
 
 and the conclusion becomes irresistible, that Christ was the Di- 
 vine Founder of a perfect system that the permanent code was 
 made perfect at the beginning, not only because He possessed 
 the power and the wisdom to make it so, but that all His 
 subjects, in all after ages, might be alike governed by the same 
 law that as the necessary judicial power to secure \his perma- 
 nent end, could not be exercised in advance^ He confided it to 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 159 
 
 His agents, whom He qualifies and guides from age to age, with 
 the same Infallible Spirit that dictated the node itself.* 
 
 It would also seem evident from the very nature of mere 
 delegated authority, that this protection from error only ex- 
 tended to the apostles and their successors in their official ca- 
 pacity, leaving them, in their personal capacity, as other indi- 
 vidual members of the church. As agents and officers of Christ, 
 
 * In reference to the infallibility of the Church, Dr. Spring says: 
 
 " We grant that there are promises of divine guidance made to the church, 
 but we do not grant that there are any promises of infallibility. That the true 
 and spiritual community of the faithful, have the promise of preservation from 
 essential and fundamental error, no one can question, because such preservation 
 is indispensable to its existex.ce as a true church." (Diss. 34.) 
 
 The distinction between infallibility and that " divine guidance " sufficient to 
 preserve the Church from essential error, is, I apprehend, not very apparent. I 
 suppose that infallibility may well be conferred upon a corporation for a certain 
 given purpose, and limited to that purpose, in the same way that limited juris- 
 diction may be conferred upon a particular court. The infallibility bestowed 
 upon the apostles was confined to Christianity. They were not any wiser as to 
 science. So, when divine personal protection was promised to St. Paul, it was 
 specially confined to that purpose. (Acts xviii. 10.) So, the infallibility prom- 
 ised the Church may well relate to faith and morals to the judicial construction 
 and application of the Christian code ; and if that infallibility embraces these 
 objects, and preserves the Church free from error, it does no more than the " di- 
 vine guidance " spoken of by the learned divine. The amount and measure of 
 aid to the Church is the same, producing the same effects, in both cases, and is 
 equally divine in both. The only difference, it seems, is this, that the Dr. con- 
 tends that this divine guidance was given to the invisible Church, which is, 
 therefore, the invisible pillar and ground of the truth and the invisible house of 
 God ; while I contend it was given to the visible Church, for the visible exercise 
 of its powers of teaching. It was certainly as easy to bestow it upon the visible, 
 as upon the invisible Church, and far more useful in practice. The writer states 
 on page 33 : " The true Church of Jesus ( hrist is a spiritual community. While 
 the church visible, may contain the church spiritual, they are by no means 
 identified." 
 
 The language of Mr. Rice, and that of Mr. Breckenridge, as already quoted, 
 stems clearly to give the promises to the visible Church. They seem too sensi- 
 ble to believe in that intangible and imaginary thing, called an invisible Church. 
 
 I could never find any evidence that Christ ever did build more than one 
 Churcli ; and as it is conceded that He did establish the visible Church, I never 
 could see any reason for the creation of any other. There certainly is only one 
 Church mentioned in the New Testament. Christ said, ' My church," and St, 
 Paul said, "The church." 
 
160 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 they were guided by the Hcfly Spirit, because their acts, in that 
 capacity, were HIS ACTS. When they assumed to act for 
 Him, He did not permit them to err in His name. If they had 
 the power to err as JEfis agents, then we could not know that 
 the facts stated by them as His chosen and inspired witnesses, 
 were infallibly true. Christ then guarantied their official, not 
 their personal, conduct. When they acted for themselves, as 
 individuals, their free agency was left in full force. It could 
 not have been otherwise, without a violation of the great prin- 
 ciple of personal free agency. Their official power was one 
 thing, and their personal virtue was another. They were not 
 compelled to become the agents of Christ ; and when they did 
 voluntarily become so, He had the right to control them in 
 reference to His "Father's business," as much as a man has the 
 right to control His own agent, in reference to his own busi- 
 ness. Hence, all the apostles personally sinned, while they 
 were with Christ, and under His immediate visible eye ; and 
 Peter and Paul were guilty of dissimulation long after the day 
 of Pentecost. What was true of the apostles was true of most 
 of the patriarchs, prophets, and priests of Aaron's line. Being 
 men, they sinned even after all they had seen and heard. Moses 
 was not allowed to enter the promised land, because of sin. 
 
 But these personal transgressions of the law did not render 
 void their official acts. Christ also spoke to the multitude and 
 to his disciples : 
 
 " Saying the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All 
 therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and 
 do ; but do not ye after their works : fqr they say and do not." 
 (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3.) 
 
 The case of Caiaphas is a remarkable illustration of this clear 
 principle, concerning which Mr. Campbell says : 
 
 " Even the wicked Caiaphas was vested with an oracle. 
 The spirit came upon him, and he prophesied, being High Priest 
 that year. He was then a good High Priest, although a wicked 
 man." (C. & R.'s Debate, 309.) 
 
 Zacharias was punished for not believing the angel Gabriel, 
 yet he was afterwards filled with the Holy Ghost and prophe- 
 sied. Even the thief and traitor Judas Iscariot, was sent with 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHTJKCH. 161 
 
 the other apostles to preach the gospel, heal the sick, and cast 
 out devils. (Luke i., Matt, x.) 
 
 16. The tribunal under the Old Dispensation. 
 
 In the debate with Mr. Campbell, Mr. Rice maintained this 
 position : 
 
 " The church then is the same under the Jewish and Chris- 
 tian dispensations." (P. 285.) 
 
 Under the Jewish dispensation there existed a tribunal to 
 determine all questions arising under the law of God. 
 
 "And behold Amariah the chief Priest is over you in all 
 matters of the Lord ; and Zebadiah, the son of Ishmael, the 
 ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king's matters : also the 
 Levites shall be officers before you." (2 Chron. xix.) 
 
 In the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy, these tribunals 
 are also spoken of. The sentence was final, for the Israelites 
 were told " not to decline from the sentence to the right hand 
 nor to the left." Josephus also states that the " High Priest 
 sacrifices to God before other priests, guards the laws, and de- 
 termines controversies." (Lib. 2 Contra Apionem.) 
 
 It will be perceived that there were two Presidents of the 
 Court, one the High Priest for ecclesiastical causes u matters 
 of the Lord ; " and the other for civil causes " the king's mat- 
 ters ; " and that the penalty of disobedience was death. The 
 code of law, which this ecclesiastical tribunal was empowered 
 and required to construe and administer, was given by God 
 himself. From its decisions no appeal could be taken, and all 
 the Israelites were to submit implicitly. The right of private 
 interpretation in the last resort, did not exist under that system. 
 There was conclusive authority in this court. It was limited, 
 however, in its jurisdiction and duration. 
 
 Now, was the infallibility bestowed upon this tribunal actual 
 or judicial? 
 
 From the fact that its decisions were not to be questioned, 
 and that it was its duty to expound and administer the express 
 law of God, it would naturally follow, that it possessed actual 
 infallibility. That God should communicate an express and 
 positive law to His chosen people, prescuibing the worship due 
 to Him, and at thp. same time direct them to obey implicitly a 
 
162 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 tribbuial created by Him, but still fallible and erring, would 
 hardly be in unison with the evident intent and object of giving 
 the law itself. This tribunal was intended to endure for many 
 ages, and if liable to err, would almost certainly depart from 
 the pure spirit of the law, sooner or later, and thus defeat the 
 intention of the lawmaker. 
 
 We know that the wicked Caiaphas was enabled to prophe- 
 sy, because he was High Priest that year. The gift was at- 
 tached to his official character. It is true, Christ reproaches 
 the Pharisees with having made void the law of God, in certain 
 specified respects, by their traditions. But this does not seem 
 to be directed against the decisions of this tribunal, (which our 
 Lord had expressly commanded His disciples to observe,) but 
 against the opinions of individuals. It is clear, that the opinions 
 of individuals could not destroy the character of the tribunal 
 itself. Christ Himself clearly distinguishes between the deci- 
 sions of this tribunal, and the acts of the Scribes and Pharisees, 
 " for they say and do not." 
 
 It is alleged that there was a tradition among the Jews, that 
 Christ would be a temporal sovereign. Was this ever so de- 
 cided by this tribunal? The existence of this tradition, or 
 opinion, among the mass of the nation, would not prove that 
 the tribunal had ever made any decision upon the question. 
 Again : Was the question regarding the true character of 
 Christ's then future kingdom upon earth, a matter material 
 to be understood and believed by the Jews ? The Pharisees 
 believed in the resurrection of the dead, and in the existence 
 of spirits; while the Sadducees rejected both. Had anyone 
 of these questions ever been decided by this tribunal ? I am 
 not aware that any such decision was ever made. 
 
 But if it. was a matter of faith with the Jews, that Christ's 
 kingdom should not be temporal, but spiritual, and it was mat- 
 ter of fact that this tribunal had decided to the contrary, then 
 it would follow, either that its decisions were not final, or that 
 God required the Jews to obey erroneous decisions. If the de- 
 termination was not final, then, who was to question it, and 
 how was it to be done ? Both the law and the tribunal for its 
 administration, were expressly made and organized by God 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 163 
 
 himself; and no human power could set them aside, but they 
 must be obeyed until their termination. 
 
 I ain therefore forced to conclude that this tribunal was in- 
 fallible in fact, and guided by God, who created it. I cannot 
 see any evidence that such was not the fact ; but on the con- 
 trary, every circumstance confirms this view. I know it is very 
 forcibly and justly said, that in rejecting Christ, as this tribunal 
 did in his condemnation, it clearly erred. Nothing can be 
 clearer than the fact that this tribunal did err in that case. 
 Now were the people bound to submit to its decision, and also 
 reject Christ ? Most clearly not. They were bound to reject 
 the decision. Then, if they were in this particular case, not 
 only at liberty to reject the decision, but bound to do so, upon 
 what ground can we claim infallibility of any kind, for this err- 
 ing tribunal ? Why should men be required to obey such a 
 tribunal ? And on the other hand, why should men have the 
 right, first to ask the decision of a tribunal, and then to set it 
 aside, if it happened not to suit them ? 
 
 There must be some fair and just way to settle and adjust 
 all these apparent difficulties. The very fact that the only con- 
 ceded error in the decisions of this tribunal occurred in the 
 close of its duration, if not afterwards, is conclusive proof to 
 iny mind, that it did possess actual infallibility up to the period 
 when this protection was withdrawn. When did this tribunal 
 err before this period? During the many ages of its existence, 
 under every variety of change and trial, if it did not err, then 
 it must have been protected. 
 
 In the law creating this tribunal, it was limited in jurisdic- 
 tion, and in duration. It was only to continue until the new 
 dispensation came in. Before Christ appeared, the only living 
 tribunal to expound the law of God, was the one created by 
 God Himself. The people could look to no other. But in the 
 very law itself, it was shown that Christ should come. This 
 tribunal had always so held. After our Lord appeared, they 
 were bound to know that this tribunal was superseded in all 
 things opposed to His teaching. Our Lord was then present 
 a living, visible teacher, to whom they could appeal. 
 
 As to the exact period at which this divine protection was 
 withdrawn, it is not material for us to know. From the com- 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 mand of Christ to His apostles, and the prophecy of Caiaphas, 
 it would seem clear that it was not withdrawn at the commence- 
 ment of our Lord's ministry. It may be that when our Lord 
 eat the passover for the last time, that He closed the law ; or it 
 may be, that as the period of our Lord's earthly ministry was 
 one of preparation for the incoming dispensation, and was a 
 period of transition, that this protection was gradually with- 
 drawn ; especially in reference to Christ and His then future 
 kingdom. 
 
 But conceding, for the sake of the argument only, that this 
 tribunal was never under the Divine guidance at any period of 
 its existence, the state of the case, and the natural result flowing 
 from it, would be this : That God had made an express law for 
 the government of His chosen people, intended to exist for 
 many ages, and had Himself created a tribunal for the adminis- 
 tration of His law, from whose decisions no appeal could be 
 taken ; and yet He left it as fallible as if it had been a mere 
 human institution ; but such was the invincible necessity for the 
 existence of some visible and accessible tribunal to construe and 
 administer the law, that even so fallible a court was much supe- 
 rior to the right of individual interpretation in the last resort 
 so necessary are uniformity and peace in every association of 
 men. If this position be correct, that the court possessed mere 
 judicial, and not actual, infallibility, this tribunal did make void 
 the law of God by its decisions ; and yet the people had no 
 right of appeal from its decisions, but wore bound to submit 
 implicitly. From which it would seem clear, that even a mere 
 fallible tribunal is better than no tribunal at all. 
 
 Why, then, does not this same Church under the new dis- 
 pensation, have also a tribunal to decide controversies arising 
 under the law of Christ ? If it be the same Church, as Mr. 
 Rice contends, it ought to possess equal privileges with the 
 Church under the old and mere preparatory dispensation. 
 
 But if the position be true, that this tribunal was protected 
 by the divine guidance up to the termination of its legal exist- 
 ence, then, by what process of reason can we arrive at the con- 
 clusion, either that our Lord left no tribunal in His Church, or 
 that its decisions can fail before its destined course is run? 
 While Christ was on earth, He was a present, living, and su 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. lf)5 
 
 preme Sovereign, to whom application could be made in all 
 case8 ; but since His ascension, if there be no tribunal in the 
 Church, there is no government, and no certain mode to termi- 
 nate any controversy. Now, either give us Christ present and 
 visible, or give us some tribunal to act for Him. Leave us not 
 in a worse condition than the Jews of old. The code of law 
 given to them, was certainly as plain and as easily understood, 
 as the law of Christ. If they needed a tribunal, even though 
 actually fallible, do we not also ? The end of the new dispensa- 
 tion has not yet arrived. Christ has not appeared the second 
 time. Before He does so appear, let us have some tribunal whose 
 judgments cannot fail. And if we cannot have an actually in- 
 fallible tribunal, let us have one that we may safely follow, (right or 
 wrong,) which would, at least, be much better than that confused 
 and illogical theory which requires unity, while it leaves us no 
 means to attain it, but makes every member of that which is called 
 a Church, the judge of the law in his own case in the last resort. 
 From Mr. Rice's position one of two things must follow : 
 either that the church under the new dispensation has such a 
 tribunal, or that she has lost a most important part of her con- 
 stitution, and is nothing now in unity, efficiency, and symmetry 
 to what she was of old. She has lost the great conservative 
 element that she possessed while confined to the Jews, now that 
 she embraces all nations, and for that very reason, seems to 
 need it most. 
 
 17. Objections considered. 
 
 But in this connection it will be necessary to examine cer- 
 tain texts and reasons, which are relied on by Protestant writ ers 
 to show, that even in the days of the apostles, the right of pri- 
 vate interpretation existed in each member independent of the 
 church, and not in subordination to it. If such right existed in 
 that day, as a matter of course it existed ever after. If, on the 
 contrary, it did not exist then, it never existed afterwards. 
 
 It is difficult upon principles of sound reasoning, to under- 
 stand how this right could exist in the individual members of 
 the church, when so many persons were forced by her decisions 
 to change their construction, and others were expelled because 
 they refused to do so. It is difficult, I apprehend, to reconcile 
 
166 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 
 
 the strong and clear commands of Christ, of St. Paul, and of the 
 Council of Jerusalem, with the alleged right of private inter- 
 pretation in the last resort. 
 
 The following passages are most usually relied on : 
 
 1. "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have 
 eternal life : and they are they which testify of me." (John v. 
 39.) 
 
 2. " These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in 
 that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and 
 searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." 
 (Acts xvii. 11.) 
 
 3. " Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether 
 they are of God." (1 John iv. 1, 7.) 
 
 4. " Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are 
 helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand." (2 Cor. 1. 24.). 
 
 5. " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giv- 
 eth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not ; and it shall be 
 given him." (James i. 5.) 
 
 6. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
 profitable," &c. (2 Tim. iii. 14, 16.) 
 
 The ground taken by Protestants is, substantially, that these 
 texts establish two points : 
 
 1. That individuals were allowed to read the Scriptures, and 
 were commended for doing so. 
 
 2. That as they were permitted to read, of course they were 
 permitted to construe. 
 
 If we take these and other texts and construe them together, 
 so as to give force and effect to all, we shall find but little diffi- 
 culty in arriving at a just conclusion. 
 
 It will be seen that the first two passages relate to persons 
 outside the Church to aliens from the Kingdom. They had 
 never come within the jurisdiction of the Church, and she could 
 not inflict upon them any ecclesiastical punishment. All she. 
 could do to persons in their lost state, was to place before them 
 the truth, which they could either accept or refuse. If the) 
 refused, she could do no more. No affirmative act, on her part, 
 was required to change the relation they sustained to her. They 
 simply remained where they were before. She had no power 
 or jurisdiction over them, any more than a political government 
 

 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 167 
 
 can have jurisdiction over aliens not within its territory. They 
 had never received any thing from the Church, had contracted 
 no obligations to her, and she had, of course, nothing to with- 
 draw. Therefore, the right of individual construction existed 
 in aliens from the Church, (in the same way that such right ex- 
 ists in aliens from political government,) because they were 
 such, and only acted and spoke as such. If they remained in 
 that state of alienage, they were the sufferers, not the Church. 
 
 But in reference to members, who bore another and a very 
 different relation to the Church, the rule was different. Hence 
 Christ said those of His fold the Church would hear His voice 
 and follow Him ; and He told members to hear the Church ; 
 and St. Paul commanded members to obey the rulers of the 
 Church ; and St. Peter exhorts his brethren to submit to theii 
 under-shepherds ; and Timothy and Titus were to rebuke and 
 expel members, not strangers. 
 
 But conceding, for the sake of the argument only, that the 
 teaching authority of the Church, in the days of the apostles, 
 permitted the lay members to read or hear read the Scriptures 
 as one means of instruction, then the essence of the objection is, 
 that the right of the Church to construe the law in the last re- 
 sort, is incompatible with the reading of the Scriptures by indi- 
 viduals. But is this true ? The true explanation is this : that 
 the individual construes in the, first instance, and the Church in 
 the last resort. These rights are perfectly compatible with each 
 other, and exist in every system of law. For the very reason 
 that the individual, under every system of government, is 
 allowed to construe in the first instance, he is not allowed to 
 construe in the last resort. 
 
 The object of the just lawgiver is to place in the mind of the 
 party governed a perfect knowledge of his will. The written 
 or traditional code the words of the legislator are mere evi- 
 dence of his will, which is the higher and ultimate object sought 
 by the party under government. Suppose that for this purpose 
 the lawmaker places in the hands of each one of his subjects, the 
 volume containing his law, and at the same time they are in- 
 tormed by him and by the book itself that there is a tribunal to 
 construe in the last resort ; is there any thing illogical or contra- 
 dictory in tliis ? If so, then all the great legislator) and jurists 
 
168 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 
 
 of every civilized country in the world have long acted upon a 
 very illogical system. 
 
 The great statesmen and jurists of the United States, from 
 the days of Washington to the present time, have all, with one 
 accord, urged every citizen to read and study the Constitution 
 of his country ; and yet the Constitution itself informs every one 
 that the right of ultimate construction rests with the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. The Senate of the United States 
 have had purchased, for gratuitous disposition, some thirty-five 
 thousand copies of Hickey's corrected copy of that instrument. 
 Now suppose an individual to whom Mr. Webster had sent a 
 copy, to have addressed him thus : " Sir, you have sent for my 
 perusal and study a number of Hickey's Constitution ; and yet 
 I find, upon examination of the instrument, that there is a judi- 
 ciary to construe the Constitution and other laws in the last re- 
 sort. Therefore, for what purpose have I read it ? since my 
 construction is but subordinate, and not final. Is it not absurd 
 to recommend a man to read and study an instrument which, at 
 last, will be construed by another tribunal, without any regard 
 to what he has done ? " 
 
 We can well imagine the surprise with which the great con- 
 stitutional expounder would have received this plausible, but 
 wholly erroneous objection. 
 
 The Constitution and laws of our country contain many plain 
 provisions, easily understood, and some hard to be understood, 
 as St. Peter says of St. Paul's Epistles. The reader, therefore, 
 can learn a portion, and this will be profitable to him. He can 
 learn those plain provisions that teach him he is under govern- 
 ment ; and that while he has the privilege to read and construe 
 the law in the first instance, the ultimate right of construction 
 is vested in the Judiciary. 
 
 If there can be any real incompatibility in the existence of a 
 subordinate right of construction in one party, and the superior 
 right of exposition in another, then it is most difficult to per- 
 ceive it. The Old Law was required to be read at the feast of 
 tabernacles to all the people, and yet they were implicitly bound 
 by the higher construction of the tribunal established by God 
 Himself. (Deut. xxxi. 9-12.) Now there is no difference, so 
 far as the point of present inquiry is concerned, in reading and 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 169 
 
 hearing read the law. In one case the words are conveyed by 
 sight, in the other by hearing, to the mind ; and in both the words 
 of the law must be construed. 
 
 Now if there be no incompatibility in permitting each citi- 
 zen to study the Constitution himself, while his construction is 
 but subordinate and not final, how then does it follow that the 
 ancient Christians could not read the Scriptures unless they, and 
 each of them, were allowed to decide the construction in the 
 last resort ? The passages quoted nowhere lay down any such 
 principle. They establish the proposition that individuals 
 were commended for reading the Scriptures. But cannot this 
 be true, and yet perfectly consistent with the ultimate right of 
 the Church to construe in the last resort ? The individual could 
 be profited and edified, and yet hear and obey the Church. 
 They but exercised a subordinate privilege, that exists in all gov- 
 ernments. These texts do not annul the clear and specific pro- 
 visions of the code, requiring us to hear the church, and to obey, 
 submit to, and follow the faith of them who have the rule over 
 us. 
 
 The practice of the apostles and elders of the Church in their 
 day, was perfectly consistent with this view. They intended to 
 make the system consistent with itself. They did not intend to 
 give commands that were not to be obeyed. When we look 
 into St. Paul's Epistles we find that a large portion of them is 
 taken up in giving his construction of the code, and his reasons 
 and proofs to sustain it ; and hence he refers often to the Old 
 Scriptures. In these Epistles we find him mentioning certain 
 particular errors in different churches, and distinctly condemn- 
 ing them. The brethren to whom he wrote had misconstrued 
 the law, and we find St. Paul overruling their construction. The 
 Corinthian brethren had erred in this way. * So, the Jewish 
 Teachers who insisted upon the necessity of circumcision for the 
 Gentile converts, had misconstrued the law, and the Council of 
 Jerusalem overruled their construction, just as a higher court 
 would the construction of an inferior tribunal. 
 
 Christ had appealed to His miracles as proofs of His charac- 
 ter ; but the Pharisees relied upon the Scriptures, and our Lord 
 referred them also to those Scriptures, at the same time telling 
 them, in substance, that they misconstrued them, and that if 
 16 
 
170 THE INFALLIBILITY O* THE CHURCH. 
 
 they would search and construe properly,, they would find that 
 these Scriptures testified of Him. But in thus referring to the 
 Old Testament, did our Lord intend to say to the Jews that His 
 miracles were no proofs of His mission ? He only referred to 
 additional, but not contradictory proofs. And when the noble 
 Bereans searched the Old Scriptures, they did not neglect the 
 proofs that Paul and Silas gave them, independent of these Scrip- 
 tures. So, when St. Paul said the Scriptures were profitable, 
 he did not mean to say : " You must not obey, submit to, or 
 follow the faith of them that have the rule over you." Nor did 
 lie intend, when he commanded Timothy and Titus to command, 
 teach, exhort, and rebuke with all authority, to ordain and try 
 elders, and reject heretics, that these persons, thus rebuked and 
 rejected, should construe the law for themselves, independent 
 of Timothy and Titus. These persons were in duty bound to 
 obey and submit, not to govern and decide themselves. And 
 when Christ told His followers to hear the Church, He did not 
 mean to say that they should construe the law independent of 
 her. 
 
 The quotation from St. John, where he tells his brethren to 
 " try the spirits whether they are of God," is far from being 
 against the view I have taken, but would seem to support it. 
 
 The apostle gives his brethren two rules, by which they were 
 to test the spirits, to know whether they were false teachers 
 or not, for many false prophets had gone out into the world. 
 
 1. Every spirit that confessed that Jesus Christ had come in 
 the flesh was of God, and every one that denied it was not of 
 God. 
 
 2. "He that knoweth God heareth us : he that is not of God 
 heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the 
 spirit of error." 
 
 The spirit that confessed Christ was a true spirit ; and the 
 test, as to whether a particular individual confessed Christ, was 
 the fact whether he heard the apostles or not. This was saying, 
 in substance, that the false prophets were they who refused to 
 hear the church ; for when they refused to hear the proper or 
 gans of the Church, they refused to hear the church itself. This 
 was a very simple test by which to detect these false prophets. 
 The apostle first tells his brethren what they must do, and then 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 171 
 
 tells them how they can do it. So the apostle Paul, when he 
 commanded the Corinthians to speak the same thing, and be 
 united in the same judgment, tells them to submit themselves to 
 those of the house of Stephanas, and to all such. 
 
 The fourth extract, where St. Paul says he had not dominion 
 over the faith of his brethren, was intended simply to state that 
 the apostle acted in a subordinate capacity, and not in his own 
 right. Dominion is defined to be " sovereign or supreme au- 
 thority." (Webster.) No one could have dominion over faith 
 but God. The right of a subordinate officer to decide the proper 
 construction of the law, and to say what was faith as defined by it, 
 does not give him dominion over the faith. To have dominion 
 over faith is to say what it shall be, not what it is. It is" the power 
 to create, not the power simply to declare. The Council of Jerusa- 
 lem did not claim any dominion over faith, but only the right to de- 
 clare what it was, as previously established by another and higher 
 power. So with St. Paul. It was so with Paul and Barnabas, 
 when the people wished to sacrifice to them as Gods. They de 
 clared they were not Gods that they did not act for themselves, 
 but were only subordinate agents. The apostle certainly did 
 not assume to create faith, while he as certainly did assume the 
 right to declare what was, and what was not, of faith. He did 
 not mean to say to these same brethren, whose errors of con- 
 struction he had expressly corfdemned in his first Epistle, that he 
 had usurped authority not granted to him. 
 
 In the fifth extract the apostle tells those of his brethren who 
 lack wisdom, how they can obtain it. 
 
 The prayer of faith is, no doubt, one means of obtaining 
 Christian wisdom ; but it is not the only means pointed out in 
 the law, and is not exclusive of those other means mentioned in 
 other portions of the Written Word. The existence of this 
 means is not incompatible with the existence of the others. It 
 is said in one place that we are saved by faith ; in another, by 
 baptism ; in another still, by grace. One does not exclude th,e 
 others. We must put them all together, and give force and ef- 
 fect to all, so that all may stand, and the will of the lawmaker 
 be consistently carried out in all things, as He unquestionably 
 intended to accomplish some good purpose by each and all. 
 The apostle James did not intend to contradict his own practice 
 
172 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 
 
 in the Council of Jerusalem, nor the command of Christ to hear 
 the Church, nor those of St. Paul to obey the rulers of the 
 Church, nor those of St. Peter to follow their under-shepherds, 
 nor the test given by St. John, that they who heard not the 
 rulers of the Church were false prophets. 
 
 But this wisdom was only promised to the prayer of faith 
 If the member did not pray with faith, he could not obtain the 
 desired wisdom. In that case, had the Church still no power to 
 expel him as a heretic ? And if the Church had such power, by 
 what test or standard was she to ascertain the fact ? She could 
 not see into his heart, and know his secret intentions, except 
 from the fact that he did not hold the proper faith. 
 
 If the failure to pray with faith only affected the individual 
 himself, and not the association in any material respect, then the 
 right to judge and expel him as a heretic would not be necessary 
 or useful. But one of the objects of expelling heretics was to 
 preserve the faith of others. Heresy is a crime that, in its very 
 nature, affects the integrity of the institution itself; for while 
 the party is allowed to speak as a member, and at the same time 
 to set the authority of the Church at defiance, his power of evil 
 is much greater than it is after he is condemned as a criminal, 
 and left only to speak as such. That theory cannot be true, 
 which permits each member to determine for himself, in the last 
 resort, whether he has prayed with faith, and has received the 
 requisite wisdom. If that theory be true, then how could Tim- 
 othy and Titus have tried and rejected those unruly and vain 
 talkers and deceivers those factionists, who created divisions 
 by preaching a false faith ? When called upon, each could have 
 said : " I have prayed for wisdom with faith, and have obtained 
 it." How could Timothy and Titus have determined whether 
 this statement was true or false, except by testing their faith by 
 the law, as construed by the proper authority? Using this 
 testy they could well say : " Your faith is not true, and, there- 
 fore, you could not have asked in faith for true wisdom." 
 
 In reference to the sixth passage, it will readily be seen that 
 it does not at all conflict with the ultimate right of the Church to 
 construe the code for all. The Scriptures may be profitable to 
 the individual reader, who is allowed to construe in the first in- 
 stance. A very large portion of them is taken up in the simple 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 173 
 
 relation of the most touching incidents connected \vith God's 
 early dealings with His chosen people of signal displays of mer- 
 cy, and the infliction of punishment. There are numerous bio- 
 graphical sketches, (or history teaching by example,) of re- 
 nowned and faithful servants of God. The New Testament 
 contains the simple narrative of the birth, life, death, and resur- 
 rection of our Saviour, and the history of the labors and suffer- 
 ings of the early saints. Besides the historical portions, there 
 are many plain and simple commands, and many edifying in- 
 stances of faith and humility. But after all the plain portions 
 of the Written Word, there are some things hard to be under- 
 stood that must still be understood. 
 
 18. Another objection considered. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the future way of holiness, 
 uses this language : 
 
 " And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be 
 called the way of holiness ; the unclean shall not pass over it, 
 but it shall be for those : the way-faring men, though fools, shall 
 not err therein." (Chap. xxxv. 8.) 
 
 Now, is it not evident that the way spoken of by the prophet 
 is plain, and so plain, that a fool shall not err therein ? And if 
 the Scriptures alone constitute this way, it follows that they 
 must also be plain, otherwise the way mentioned could not be 
 plain. But if the Scriptures are plain and easily understood in 
 all needful particulars, was not St. Peter plainly mistaken when 
 he plainly asserted the contrary ? How then shall we reconcile 
 these apparently contradictoiy passages ? Is there any neces- 
 sary contradiction ? May not the way itself be plain, and the 
 Scriptures still contain some things hard to be understood ? 
 There must be some way left to arrive at a just conclusion. 
 
 I suppose the path of duty may be plain to a citizen of the 
 United States, although the Constitution and laws of the coun- 
 try contain some things hard to be understood. And this path 
 is plain, for the reason that the same Constitution provides means 
 to make the application plain, of that which is not plain of it- 
 self. And may it not be so in reference to the Scriptures, con- 
 ceding, for the sake of the argument only, that they contain the 
 entire code now obligatory ? The law may not all be plain in 
 
174: TEE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECH. 
 
 itself, but the application of it may be made plain to the party 
 governed, by judicial decisions. 
 
 Now does not the theory that assumes the existence of an 
 infallible tribunal for the construction and application of the law, 
 perfectly reconcile these merely apparent discrepancies, and 
 leave all the passages in full and harmonious force ? And is it 
 not the only theory that does produce this result ? or that can 
 produce it ? The prophet did not assert that the Scriptures 
 were plain. He only asserted that the way was plain. 
 
 We have endeavored to show that the true character of 
 Scripture, as of every system of law, is simplicity in many things, 
 and obscurity in some. Among the most simple portions of 
 Scripture are the historical narratives, and some of the com- 
 mands and promises. If, then, these plain portions lead the 
 honest and diligent inquirer, aided by common sense, experience, 
 and natural reason, as well as by other proofs from history, to 
 the infallible guide provided by the system itself, the way is 
 plain, although the Scriptures are not entirely so. If the Scrip- 
 tures be plain in those respects which lead the inquirer to the 
 competent tribunal, then it is clear that the way is plain, whether 
 all the Scripture be plain or not. 
 
 Any way is plain with a competent guide. When the 
 Eunuch could not understand the Old Scriptures without a 
 guide, the way was made plain to him when he selected Philip 
 as his guide, and followed him. The way for the Corinthian 
 brethren was made plain by the aid of St. Paul, when he con- 
 strued and applied the law to the particular cases of error exist- 
 ing among them. He said to them plainly Paul is not the 
 way Cephas is not the way Apollos is not the way, but Christ 
 is the way. And when the Gentile brethren were so much dis- 
 tressed in regard to circumcision, the way was made plain to 
 them by the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. The Council 
 said plainly circumcision is not the way. 
 
 And it must be apparent, that the existence and authority 
 of this infallible guide, would fully carry out the prediction of 
 the prophet, and yet not contradict St. Peter. The guide be- 
 ing accessible to all, and equally competent to give the same 
 information to all, we can well understand how even a fool 
 should not err in this way. A way that is furnished with a 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 175 
 
 competent guide along its whole route, may well be called plain. 
 This guide places all travellers upon a perfect equality. They 
 have all the same means of finding the way. The differences in 
 the natural powers and opportunities of each, are all equalized 
 by this guide. 
 
 In reference to this guide, Bishop Porteus very confidently 
 says : " Romanists themselves own that men must use their eyes 
 to find this guide ; why then must they put them out to follow 
 him ? " Truly, they should not put them out at all ; but surely, 
 they should only employ them in following their guide. If one 
 needs a guide and finds him, he had better follow him. The 
 very idea of a guide, shows a man cannot, with his own eyes, 
 find the way. A man may be very competent to find a good 
 lawyer, a good physician, or pilot, without being himself com- 
 petent to discharge the duties of these professions. 
 
 It must be conceded by every candid mind, that the way of 
 Christian faith and duty should be plain to the inquirer who is 
 faithftil and true to himself; for, while he is true to himself, he 
 cannot be false to any other being, or to truth itself. If we 
 take the Scriptures as construed by each individual for himself 
 in the last resort, as the sole way, then the inexorable rules of 
 logic require us to assume, fthat the Scriptures are plain and 
 easily understood by all of every grade of capacity. But this 
 crippling and mutilating theory does the utmost injustice to 
 the lawgiver, by forgetting that his code must be complete, 
 while the way is plain. The system must attain the great, and 
 extensive, and perfect ends sought ; and this cannot be done by 
 a, code containing so few and so simple provisions, as to be per- 
 fectly plain to all unaided capacities, under all circumstances. 
 The code must be complete by containing all the provisions 
 necessary to reach the perfect ends sought ; and this cannot be 
 done except by the aid of an infallible tribunal. 
 
 To assume that a supernatural system should contain nothing 
 but plain truths, equally within the unaided reach of all, is sub- 
 stantially to assume that God could not reveal any high and 
 sublime truths to man, and that His revealed law could contain 
 no mysteries. On the contrary, it would seem plain to good 
 sense, that if God made any direct revelation to mankind, He 
 would reveal many truths of so sublime a character, as to fill 
 
176 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE GlIUiiUH. 
 
 and test the highest capacity of the human mind ; not only for 
 the purpose of giving us some idea of the character of Infinite 
 Wisdom, but some conception of the blessedness of that state 
 which is to come. 
 
 But the Catholic theory is the only one that makes the way 
 plain, while the code is left complete and full, in every particu- 
 lar. It makes the way plain, not by mutilating the law, but by 
 elevating the minds and judgments of all to the same infallible 
 standard of construction. This theory unites and combines, in 
 harmonious consistency, every element of a plain, but full, com- 
 plete, and perfect system, in every respect. 
 
 It seems from the reasons and authorities given in the pre- 
 ceding pages, that the Christians in the days of the apostles, 
 had the same means of arriving at the true interpretation of the 
 words in which the law of Christ had been promulgated, as the 
 citizens of the United States, and of all the civilized govern- 
 ments of earth, have of ascertaining the correct construction of 
 the laws of the country. When the Christians of those days 
 misconstrued the law, their construction was overruled by those 
 who had the rule over them ; and, when the misconstruction 
 arose among the teachers themselves, a council was called to 
 consider of the matter, and their error infallibly corrected. 
 Nothing could be more consistent and logical than this efficiert 
 process, founded and based, as it is, upon the simplest principles 
 whereon all society must rest. When a teacher of science is in- 
 structing his pupil, he puts into his hands a treatise upon the 
 science intended to be taught ; and yet he overrules all miscon- 
 structions of the student. And nothing could be more simple 
 and reasonable than the question asked by the Eunuch of Philip. 
 The latter had asked the former this question : " Understandest 
 thou what thou readest ? " The Eunuch answered : " How can 
 I, except some man should guide me ? " 
 
 19. A passage from St. Peter examined. 
 
 In this connection, it becomes necessary to notice a very 
 clear passage from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, which seems 
 to be a conclusive proof of the correctness of the position we 
 have taken ; namely : that the right of private interpretation in 
 the last resort, does not, and cannot, exist hi the Christian sys- 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 177 
 
 tern, any more than it does or can exist in any other system of 
 law. 
 
 The apostle, after telling his brethren that they would do 
 well to take heed to the sure word of prophecy, says : 
 
 " Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of 
 any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old 
 time by the will of man : but holy men of God spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost." 
 
 The prophecies to be interpreted were those of Scripture. 
 The word interpretation is one of the most definite and certain 
 in the language. When applied to prophecy, it is defined to be, 
 " the act of expounding or unfolding what is not understood or 
 not obvious." (Webster.) So, the word private in this connec- 
 tion, i. ., " private interpretation," is equally definite and cer- 
 tain, and must mean " individual ; personal ; in contradistinc- 
 tion from public or national." (Webster.) The phrase " pri- 
 vate interpretation " would seem too plain to be misunderstood ; 
 and, therefore, the apostle denies the right of interpretation to 
 ndividual members. 
 
 It cannot be said that the context shows another meaning ; 
 because we cannot resort t<^ the context, when the words are 
 clear and definite, and need no explanation. But when we look 
 to the context, we can see nothing to change the clear signifi- 
 cation of the terms used. 
 
 When we look into the whole spirit and drift of this second 
 Epistle of St. Peter, it will be seen that the great leading object 
 had in view by the apostle, was to strengthen the brethren in 
 the faith to point out the danger of heresy, the character of 
 those who would introduce it, and how it might be avoided. 
 For these purposes, he first speaks of the character of the true 
 faith and its blessed consequences, and then gives them the 
 proofs of its divine origin, by referring to the testimony given 
 of Christ from heaven on the Holy Mount, and also the testi- 
 mony of the holy prophets ; and that they might know how to 
 use this testimony properly, and to caution them against the 
 errors of those he afterwards describes, he tells them, " Know- 
 ing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private in- 
 t erpretation ; " and then gives them the reason why it is not 
 to, because it did not come by the will of man, but of God, and 
 17 
 
178 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 beino- His Word, was not the subject of private interpretation, 
 as if it were the word of man, but was subject to the interpreta- 
 tion of His authorized teachers, in the same way as the doc- 
 trines of the new dispensation, which the apostles and elders 
 taught. 
 
 Pursuing the same train of reasoning, he then tells them of 
 " false teachers, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies," 
 that they are "presumptuous and self-willed"" that "they 
 speak evil of the things that they understand not " that " they 
 allure those that were clear escaped from them who live in er- 
 ror " and " while they promise them liberty, they themselves 
 are the servants of corruption." How well this description ot 
 these false teachers agrees with that of St. Paul, where he 
 speaks of the " unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, whose 
 mouths must be stopped," in his Epistle to Titus. The apostle 
 Peter then goes on to say, that his object was to remind them 
 of the words of the holy prophets and of the " commandment 
 of the apostles " the teachers of the church ; and in the close 
 of his epistle, he gives them an instance of the evil of private 
 interpretation in those " unlearned and unstable " persons, who 
 wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. 
 
 But a friend has sent me the passage as quoted, if I am not 
 mistaken, from the translation of George Campbell, thus : 
 
 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any 
 private impulse, for never at any time was prophecy brought 
 by the will of man ; but holy men spake, being moved by the 
 Holy Spirit." 
 
 The difference between the two translations is most palpa- 
 ble. No two terms in the language could, perhaps, convey to 
 the mind more different ideas than those of interpretation and 
 impulse in the connection in which they stand. The first is the 
 act of the individual in expounding or unfolding prophecy ; the 
 second is not the act of the individual at all, but " force com- 
 municated" or "influence acting on the mind." (Webster.) 
 
 As to the merits of the different translations, I cannot 
 speak from any knowledge of the original. But I must say it 
 seems rather remarkable, that the Catholic, and nearly all the 
 Protestant translations, should agree in their rendering " pri- 
 vate interpretation," if this new translation be correct. This 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 179 
 
 passage as translated, has been relied upon by Catholic writers 
 from the beginning of the Reformation, and all Protestant 
 translators were fully aware of the force of the passage against 
 their theory of private interpretation ; and it is certainly re- 
 markable that the error in the translation of so decisive a pas- 
 sage, was not discovered before. Besides this, the translation 
 seems incorrect upon its face. If this new translation be cor- 
 rect, then it was intended by the apostle, in this part of the 
 passage, to put the phrase " private impulse " in contrast with 
 that of the Holy Ghost. The term private would not be accu- 
 rate, as it would not exclude public interpretation or public 
 impulse. The word "human," in that case, would only be 
 correct. 
 
 But this most material difference in the translation of so im- 
 portant, and it would seem, so plain a passage, must cause a 
 feeling of the most painful uncertainty in the mind of every sin- 
 cere believer, who trusts to his own interpretation, without any 
 guide, but that of translations so liable to err. Nothing could 
 more forcibly show the invincible necessity of some infallible 
 tribunal, than this very case of gross error. Or if it be not a 
 gross error, then of the extreme uncertainty of human language, 
 and of the extreme danger of relying alone upon a medium so 
 imperfect, when eternity is at stake. Our Lord and His apos- 
 tles promulgated the code in only one or two languages, when 
 the system was intended to embrace all kindreds and tongues 
 of all ages ; and if we must rely upon mere fallible and disputed 
 translations, and constructions of those translations, then we 
 lean upon a feeble reed. The mistranslation of a single word 
 may entirely change the sense of the most important passage. 
 The present case is a good illustration. 
 
 20. The visible Church is but a preparatory institution 
 through which men must pass to reach the Church triumph- 
 ant in heaven. 
 
 If the principle be correct, that Christ established but one 
 church, intending there should exist perfect unity in it as a ne- 
 cessary means of its purity of faith, and of its rightful success in 
 the world, and that He gave but one law for its government, 
 and one infallible tribunal for the interpretation and application 
 
J> iO THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKOH. 
 
 of the code, it follows, that this visible Church is but a prepara- 
 tory institution on earth, through which men must pass to the 
 church triumphant in heaven. It would seem plain that Christ 
 could not be the author of confusion, or the founder of an im- 
 becile institution ; and that truth must ever be a unit, and not 
 contradictory and confused, as error often is. Whatever sys- 
 tem He did establish must have been but one. The whole rea 
 son, drift, and spirit of the system, show its perfect UNITY OF 
 DESIGN. The Eternal Mind could never build a house divid- 
 ed against itself. 
 
 And when we turn from reason to the express testimonies 
 of Scripture, they are equally explicit. Our Lord speaking of 
 the Church, says, " One fold, one shepherd ; " so that the fold 
 must be one and only one as the shepherd is one and only one. 
 But He also prayed for those who should believe on Him " that 
 they might be one." And St. Paul says of the Church : " So 
 we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one mem- 
 bers of another." (Rom. xii. 5,) So, he also says : " One body, 
 one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 
 iv. 4, 5.) 
 
 But in addition to these explicit texts, when we come to 
 look at the practice of the apostles and other early teachers of 
 Christianity, we shall find it in perfect accordance with this sen- 
 timent. They gathered into the Church all whom they were 
 willing to call and treat as members of the true fold. And we 
 are told that the converts made on the day of Pentecost " con- 
 tinued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship;" 
 and that " the Lord added to the church daily such as should 
 be saved." (Acts ii. 42, 47.) These passages are very explicit. 
 Such persons as should be saved, were added to the Church. 
 Why does St. Luke couple salvation with addition to the 
 Church, if such addition was not material, and salvation could 
 oo found outside the Church ? 
 
 We also find the different apostles deploring divisions in the 
 Church as one of the greatest of evils, and St. Paul delivering 
 Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn 
 not to blaspheme. (1 Tim. i. 20.) The whole history of the 
 Apostolic Church, shows that it was ever regarded but as one, 
 and that they who expected to reach heaven, must do it through 
 

 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 181 
 
 this one Church. Christ said distinctly, after first commanding 
 all the truth to be preached, " He that believeth not shall be 
 damned ; " and St. Paul says as explicitly, " Without faith it is 
 impossible to please God ; " and he tells his Corinthian brethren 
 not to keep company or to eat with any man called a brother 
 who was guilty of certain offences mentioned ; and St. John, the 
 apostle of charity, forbids the faithful to receive him into their 
 houses, or even to bid him God speed, who bringeth not this 
 doctrine of Christ. (Mark xvi. 16, 1 Cor. v. 11, 2 John i. 10.) 
 
 21. Is not this theory intolerant? 
 
 But is not this theory intolerant ? Is it not illiberal ? It 
 may be so. But was there ever a system of just law, or of 
 truth, in the universe, that was not inflexible and intolerant f 
 Must that which is true yield to that which is false ? How 
 could Christ make any law but that which is just f And how 
 can He fail to execute a just law f Is He not bound by the ir- 
 resistible force of His own attributes to execute justice ? Has 
 He not pledged, in advance^ His eternal veracity, that not one 
 jot or tittle of the law should fail ? How can a lawgiver, after 
 he has said, " you must do this, and you must not do that, and 
 this shall be the consequence of your disobedience," fail to fulfil 
 his word, unless he is not to be believed ? For what purpose 
 is government instituted ? Is it to indulge and excuse men who 
 will not learn ? What sort of a system would it be, that had 
 so little truth in it, and so little claim to respect, that, after lay- 
 ing down positive rules in positive terms for both faith and act, 
 still did not require those rules to be believed and obeyed ? 
 The laws of civil government require every man to know the 
 law. " Ignorance of the law excuseth no man," is the fixed 
 maxim of the code. And if ignorance of the law did excuse a 
 man, who would care to know the law ? The law favors the 
 diligent and obedient, not the idle and disobedient. 
 
 And when we refer to the laws of nature, we find them 
 equally inflexible, except when God Himself pleases to suspend 
 ;>r overcome. If a man ignorantly violates the laws of nature, 
 ne must suffer. It is his duty, his interest, his business to 
 learn, and he has the means of doing so. He cannot expect to 
 
182 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 escape, when others do not. No man can lift himself above the 
 laws of nature or of truth, except at his own peril. 
 
 " Shall gravitation cease if you go by ? " 
 
 And with respect to that perfect law of Christ, why should 
 it not require the same implicit obedience ? For what noble 
 purpose was this law given, and why is it impossible without 
 faith to please God, if the law is not to be believed ? Heaven 
 being the free gift of God, He had the right to fix the terms 
 upon which it should be attained. He had the right to deter- 
 mine what acts and belief He would consider as merit, although 
 they were not meritorious in themselves, but only so when 
 judged by a system established and given through grace. 
 
 That it is but reasonable and just that God should govern 
 the universe, there would seem to be no doubt, unless we can 
 deny that He created it. And when He makes known His law, 
 and gives men sufficient evidence of the fact, and they refuse to 
 believe and obey, ought they to be rewarded for this ? It is 
 (if there be any difference in the two cases) a greater sin to say 
 to God, " I will not believe you," than to say, " I will not obey 
 you ; " for in the first case you impeach His veracity, while in 
 the second you deny His authority. So far as the government 
 of God is concerned, heresy is just as much a sin as any other, 
 though it may differ in degree. 
 
 And as to liberality, it is like taste. It is a thing not found 
 in law, which assumes to be predicated of justice, not of liberal- 
 ity. Liberality has no measure or limit but the ideal standard 
 of each individual. The infidel thinks it remarkably hard that 
 he cannot be permitted to enter heaven, when he believes the 
 system which promises it to be a cunningly devised fable. The 
 gay, the worldly-minded irich, the proud and vain, think any sys- 
 tem that requires any personal sacrifices of them in this life, and 
 in default of which debars them of heaven in the next, exceed- 
 ingly illiberal ; and especially do they think that system illiber- 
 al, which permits the suffering, humble, and pious poor to go 
 into heaven before them. They desire the best in this world 
 and the best in the next ; both of which may be very natural, 
 but not very just, and, therefore, not very likely to succeed with 
 the Just Judge. And so the Universalist thinks that it is ex* 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 183 
 
 ceedingly illiberal not to admit all men into heaven, sooner or 
 later. And so of every other class in the world. As the acute 
 Calhoun once said in the Senate of the United States, " there is 
 no accounting for taste in this world." The same is true of lib- 
 erality. It is a thing as undefinable as the ten thousand opinions 
 regarding it. All states and all heads can conceive something 
 concerning it, but no two heads can ever understand it in the 
 same way. " My doxy is heterodoxy with you, and your doxy 
 is heterodoxy with me." So long, then, as men make their ideas 
 of liberality the standard of truth, they never can arrive at any 
 unity of faith or belief. 
 
 There is no illustration more often used by latitudinarians 
 than this, that we are all travelling different roads to the same 
 point we all aim to get to heaven, and only go there by differ- 
 ent paths. But, unfortunately, there is but one way mentioned, 
 and he that climbeth up some other way is not entitled to enter, 
 because he is a thief and a robber. And there is not only but 
 one way, but that way is straight and narrow, and few there be 
 that find it. There cannot be two or more, as only one straight 
 way can exist between tsvo given points. From one place to 
 another, in this world, there may be many devious ways, 
 
 " But 'tis not so above." 
 
 God made both earth and heaven, and opened up the only way 
 that leads from the one to the other ; therefore, whoever reaches 
 that happy abode, must travel this provided way. 
 
 And is not that theory of mere apparent mercy, in itself, the 
 most delusive cruelty ? There is nothing, perhaps, in this world, 
 that has done more injury than mistaken mercy. The jury that 
 acquits the guilty culprit through mistaken 'sympathy, and turns 
 him again loose upon society, commits a cruel act. It is mercy 
 to the guilty, and cruelty to the innocent. It is a confusion of 
 all just distinctions, or rather, a reversal of all just distinctions. 
 
 To assume that the way to heaven is wider than it rt,atty is, 
 must be the greatest of all mistakes. It is certain that such as- 
 sumption, however flattering to our pride and vanity, will not 
 widen the way, in fact. It forever remains as narrow as be- 
 fore, and the same prediction still inexorably exists, few there 
 be that find it. And the more men are taught to believe that 
 
184 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Christianity consists mainly in good conduct, and not in both 
 faith and works, the more faith is degraded from its due impor- 
 tance in the system, and the more God is robbed of the homage 
 due to Him, and the more infidelity and disunion are encouraged 
 and propagated. It is a very flattering and insinuating, but de- 
 lusive thought, that Christian perfection consists mostly of good 
 conduct- that we can believe almost any thing that there are 
 numerous roads to heaven, suited to the convenience, prejudices, 
 and tastes of different travellers that God not only gave His 
 only Son to die for us, but has given us a wide latitude of belief, 
 and made so great a variety of ways to heaven that all can be 
 suited and not only so, but that these ways are easy, and lead 
 through the flowery vales of earth to the 
 
 " Sweet fields beyond the swelling flood." 
 
 But after all that has been, or can be said, it must be appa- 
 rent, at last, that every system must have some fundamental 
 principles that must, in the contemplation of the theory itself, 
 be inflexible, or else the theory must dispense with faith entire- 
 ly, and only require sincerity and good conduct. And the whole 
 matter resolves itself into two questions: 1. Was any faith re- 
 quired ? 2. If so, what in f 
 
 It must be obvious to the reflective mind, that if a system 
 of religion require faith at all, it is just as rational to require it 
 as to all, as to a part. The system depends entirely upon the 
 right and authority of him who founds it. When established 
 by God, His authority is conclusive. All we desire to know is 
 His will. This must be obeyed. It is, then, just as reasonable 
 that we should all be required to believe the same things, and 
 join the same Church, as to believe any other article of faith, or 
 do any other act required by the law. These requirements are 
 not unreasonable, but are logical and sensible in the very nature 
 of Christ's one kingdom. 
 
 The idea that there may be many visible Churches, each differ- 
 ing from all the others in doctrine, discipline, and church govern- 
 ment, and yet that salvation can be found in more than one, is, in 
 its practical results, a cruel and mistaken theory, for two reasons : 
 
 1. This assumed liberality will not, in point of fact, widen 
 the way. 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 135 
 
 2. But it leads to discords and divisions, and these impede 
 the progress of religion in the world ; and, in the end, actually 
 diminishes the aggregate number of its professors. 
 
 A logical, united, and exclusive system is more like truth, 
 will always produce the greatest ultimate results, and is, for that 
 reason, the best humanity at last. If a man can be made to be- 
 lieve that he can be saved almost anywhere, with almost any 
 sort of faith, he naturally becomes indifferent to a theory that is 
 indifferent to itself. He consults his tastes, and mere personal 
 partialities, and joins those whom he likes best as friends and 
 neighbors. Religion, with him, becomes a secondary consider- 
 ation. It sinks down in his estimation, and ceases to command 
 his genuine reverence and respect. A chameleon theory, and a 
 gum-elastic conscience, are equally inconsistent with truth and 
 j ustice. 
 
 Another reflection is this that wherever the limits are fixed, 
 they must, from the nature of this permanent system, have been 
 so fixed at the beginning, and must so continue unto the end. 
 Whatever was required to be believed at the beginning, must 
 be required to be believed now and at all future times. The 
 limits of faith cannot be extended or contracted, so as to suit 
 this or that one ; for if this were done from time to time, there 
 would soon be but the shadow, and not the substance of faith left. 
 
 This exclusive and rigid system is the Catholic. It is based 
 upon the idea that Christ never did establish but one Church, 
 and that the visible that more than one true Church never 
 was, and never could be required,, and was never contemplated 
 by the Divine Founder of the institution ; and that, as a general 
 rule, salvation must be found in that one Church. The theory 
 admits one exception, (made by the law itself,) in the case of 
 invincible ignorance, where a baptized person, without preju- 
 dice, and with true humility and perseverance, has faithfully 
 sought for the entire truth, and, for want of opportunity, has 
 failed to find it. 
 
 22. Testimony of the Fathers. 
 
 I will now quote from the earliest of the Ancient Fathers, 
 those only of the first and second centuries, in support of the 
 positions advanced in the preceding pages. 
 
186 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The first quotation is from the Holy Clement, bishop of 
 Rome. It is taken from his Epistle to the Corinthians, written 
 in' the first century, and during the life of St. John the Evan- 
 gelist. The occasion of this epistle, was a schism existing in 
 that church. 
 
 " It is shameful, my beloved, it is most shameful, and un- 
 worthy of your Christian profession, that it should be heard 
 that the most firm and ancient church of the Corinthians, on 
 account of one or two persons, is in a sedition against the 
 priests." 
 
 " Do ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, 
 submit yourselves to the priests, and be instructed unto repent- 
 ance. Bending the knees of your hearts, learn to be subject, 
 laying aside all proud and arrogant boasting of your tongues ; 
 for it is better for you to be found in the sheepfold of Christ, 
 little and approved, than, thinking yourselves above others, to 
 be cast out of His hope." 
 
 How very similar is this language to that of Paul, when the 
 apostle tells these same brethren to " submit themselves unto 
 such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboreth." And 
 the holy Bishop alludes to this very Epistle of Paul : 
 
 " Take up," says he, " the epistle of the blessed Paul the 
 apostle. What did he first write to you at the beginning of 
 the Gospel ? Verily he did by the Spirit admonish you, both 
 concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even 
 then ye had formed partialities amongst yourselves," &c. 
 
 The means pointed out both by the blessed apostle and the 
 holy bishop, for healing divisions, were the same submission to 
 them that had the rule over them. Unfortunately those brethren 
 had not all obeyed the command of the apostle, and had not 
 submitted to Stephanas and the others, and this departure from 
 his explicit commands led to further divisions, and these ren- 
 dered necessary this epistle of Clement, the disciple of Paul. 
 And the eifect of this epistle was to produce the unity contem- 
 plated by the gospel. 
 
 The following extracts are from the Holy Martyr and Bishop 
 Ignatius, the friend of Saints Peter and John, and the disciple 
 of the latter : 
 
 " It becomes you to concur in the mind of your bishop, as 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 187 
 
 also ye do. For your famous presbytery, worthy of God, is 
 knit as closely to the bishop, as strings to a harp." 
 
 " Let no man deceive you ; if a man be not within the altar, 
 he faileth of the bread of God." * * * " Let us take heed, 
 therefore, that we do not set ourselves against the bishop, that 
 we may be set under God." 
 
 " For whomsoever the Master of the house sendeth to his 
 own household, -we ought to receive, as Him that sent him. It 
 is plain, then, that we ought to look to the bishop, as to the Lord 
 Himself" (Ep. ad Eph.) 
 
 * * * but, as wise men in God, submitting to him [the 
 bishop] ; yet not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the 
 JBishop of all." 
 
 " For inasmuch as you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus 
 Christ, you seem to me to be living not according to man, but 
 according to Jesus Christ," &c. 
 
 " Guard against such men (heretics) ; and guarded ye will 
 be, if ye are not puffed up, nor separated from the God Jesus 
 Christ, and from the bishop, and from the regulations of the 
 apostles. He that is within the altar is pure ; but he that is 
 without, is not pure : that is, he who does aught apart from the 
 bishop and presbytery and deacon, he is not clean in conscience." 
 (Ep. ad Tralliaus.) 
 
 " Apart from the bishop do nothing : keep your flesh as the 
 temple of God : love unity : avoid divisions : be ye followers of 
 Jesus Christ, even as He is of his Father." (Ep. ad Phila- 
 delph.) 
 
 " Let that be esteemed a sure Eucharist, which is either un- 
 der the bishop, or him to whom he may commit it. Where the 
 bishop is, there let the multitude (of believers) be ; even as 
 where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church." (Ep. ad 
 Smyrna3os.) 
 
 " Give heed unto the bishop that God may hearken unto 
 you. My soul for the soul of those who are in subjection to 
 the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, and may my portion be 
 with them in the Lord." (Ep. ad Polycarp.) 
 
 " It is fitting that you should, by all means, glorify Jesus 
 Christ, who hath glorified you ; that by a uniform obedience ye 
 may be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the 
 
188 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 same judgment, and may all speak the same about the same 
 thing, and that being subject to the bishop and presbyters, ye 
 may be sanctified in all things." 
 
 " I exhort you that you would all concur in the mind of God ; 
 for Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father ; 
 like as the bishops, who have their stations at the utmost bounds 
 of the earth, are after the mind of Jesus Christ." (Ep. ad Eph.) 
 
 " Neither attempt ye any thing that seems good to your own 
 judgment ; but let there be, in the same place, one prayer, one 
 supplication, one mind, one hope, in love, in joy undefiled. 
 There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better. Where- 
 fore haste ye all together, as unto the temple of God, as unto 
 one altar, as unto one Jesus Christ, who proceeded from one 
 Father, and is in one, and to one returned." (Ad Magnes.) 
 
 " Be not deceived, my brethren ; whosoever followeth one 
 that createth schism, he inheriteth not the kingdom of God." 
 
 " Wherefore I did my part as a man fitted for the preserving 
 of unity. For where is division and wrath God dwelleth not. 
 The Lord forgiveth all who repent, if their minds be turned 
 unto God's unity and the council of the bishop." (Ep. ad 
 Philadelph.) 
 
 From these extracts the following points are, among others, 
 clearly established as the faith of the church in the days of 
 Ignatius, so far as his testimony could establish any thing : 
 
 1. That the bishops over the world held the same faith, and 
 that Jesus Christ was found in this Catholic church. 
 
 2. That these bishops were held as the servants or agents of 
 Christ, and were for that reason to be submitted to and obeyed, 
 according to the statement of Christ : He that despiseth you 
 despiseth me. He that heareth you heareth me. 
 
 3. That the means provided by Christ to produce the unity 
 of faith, was submission to the rulers of this Catholic church. 
 
 4. That nothing could be done without their consent. 
 
 5. That perfect unity must, and did exist, in the Catholic 
 church. 
 
 6. That in this church salvation was to be found. 
 
 7. That they who resisted the rulers of the church, were 
 heretics, and unless they repented and returned to the unity of 
 God, they could not be saved. 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 189 
 
 And one cannot but observe the strong resemblance between 
 the language of the old Martyr and that of St. Paul, in his first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter first. Ignatius exhorts his 
 brethren to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind 
 and in the same judgment," that they " all speak the same about 
 the same thing, and that being subject to the bishop and pres- 
 byters, they may be sanctified in all things." St. Paul uses the 
 same language in part, and inculcates the same subjection to 
 the household of Stephanas and others. 
 
 In these epistles of Ignatius, there is to be found nothing 
 like the principle of private interpretation independent of the 
 church. The duty of submission is as clearly and forcibly incul- 
 cated, as it could be done. The principle of government in the 
 church is distinctly and repeatedly asserted, in very strong lan- 
 guage, and the most powerful reasons given for it, because these 
 rulers were only the agents of Christ, and acting for Him, and 
 in His name. 
 
 And in reference to the succession of officers in the church, 
 St. Clement, bishop of Rome, says : 
 
 " Preaching through countries and cities, they (apostles) ap- 
 pointed their first fruits having proved them by the Spirit 
 bishops and deacons of those who were about to believe." 
 
 " So also our apostles knew, through the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 that contention would arise on account of the episcopacy. And 
 for this cause, having a perfect foreknowledge, they appointed 
 the aforesaid, (bishops and deacons,) and then gave direction in 
 what manner, when they should die, other approved men should 
 succeed them in their ministry." 
 
 And Ignatius says : 
 
 " I exhort you, that ye study to do all things in a divine 
 unanimity, the bishop holding presidency, in the place of God ; 
 and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles ; 
 and the deacons most dear to me, intrusted with the service of 
 Jesus Christ." (Ep. ad Magnesianos.) 
 
 And the holy martyr and bishop Polycarp, the disciple of 
 St. John, of whom St. Irena3us says " he was instructed by 
 apostles, and lived in familiar friendship with many who had 
 seen the Lord," says : 
 
 " In like manner, deacons blameless in the sight of His 
 
190 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 righteousness, as the ministers of God in Christ, and not of men 
 * * * * Wherefore it is necessary that ye abstain from all 
 these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons as unto 
 God and Christ." (Ep. ad Philipp.) 
 
 St. Justin, in commenting on Psalm xliv. 7, says : 
 
 " And these words also proclaim that the Word of God (ad- 
 dresses Himself) to those that believe on Him,- as being one 
 soul, and one synagogue, and one church, as to a daughter, to 
 the church, that is, which is derived from, and partakes of, His 
 name ; for we are all called Christians." 
 
 St. IrenaBus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. 
 John, a-mong others gives these testimonies : 
 
 " There being such proofs to look to, we ought not still to 
 look amongst others for truth, which it is easy to receive from 
 the church, seeing that the apostles most fully committed unto 
 this church, as unto a rich repository, all whatever is of truth, 
 that every one that willeth may draw out of it (the church) the 
 drink of life. For this is the gate of life ; but all others are 
 thieves and robbers. Therefore we ought to avoid them, but 
 to cling with the utmost care to whatever is of the church, and 
 to holdfast to the tradition of truth." 
 
 " An ordinance to which many of the barbarous nations who 
 believe in Christ assent, having salvation written, without paper 
 and ink, by the Spirit, in their hearts, and sedulously guarding 
 the old tradition." 
 
 "For before Valentinus there were no Valentinians, nor 
 Marcionites before Marcion, nor, in fact, any of the other malig- 
 nant sentiments enumerated above, before there arose inventors 
 and beginners of each perverse opinion." (Adv. Haeres., 1. Hi., c. iv.) 
 
 " Wherefore we ought to obey those presbyters who are in 
 the church, those who have a succession from the apostles, as 
 we have shown ; who, with the succession of the episcopate, 
 have received, according to the good will of the Father, the 
 sure gift of truth ; but the rest, who depart from the principal 
 succession, and assemble in any place whatever, we ought to 
 hold suspected, either as heretics, and of an evil opinion, or as 
 schismatics and proud, and as men pleasing themselves ; or, 
 again, as hypocrites doing this for gain's sake, and vain glory." 
 (Ibid., 1. iv., c. xxvi., n. 2.) 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 191 
 
 " And, indeed, the preaching (or, public teaching) of the 
 church, in which one and the same way of salvation is set forth 
 throughout the whole world, is true and firm. For to this 
 (church) has been intrusted the light of God, and on this ac- 
 count is the wisdom of God, through which He saves men, pro- 
 claimed in the gates ; in the streets she acts confidently." 
 'Ibid., 1. v., c. xx., n. 1.) 
 
 " Having, as I have said, received that preaching and this 
 faith , the church, though spread over the whole world, guards 
 (it) sedulously, as though dwelling in one house; and these 
 truths she uniformly holds, as having but one soul, and one and 
 the same heart / and these she proclaims and teaches, and hands 
 down uniformly, as though she had but one mouth. For though 
 throughout the world, the languages are various, still the force 
 of the tradition is one and the same. And neither do the 
 churches founded in Germany, nor those in Spain, in Gaul, in 
 the East, in Egypt, in Africa, nor in the regions in the middle 
 of the earth, believe or deliver a different faith ; but as God's 
 handiwork, the sun, is one and the same throughout the uni- 
 verse, so the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and en- 
 lightens all men that wish to come to the knowledge of the 
 truth. Nor does he who, amongst the rulers in the churches, 
 is more powerful in word deliver a different doctrine from the 
 above, (for no one is above his teacher ;) nor does he who is 
 weak in speech weaken the tradition. For the faith being one 
 and the same, neither he who has ability to say much concern- 
 ing it, hath any thing over, nor he who speaketh little, any 
 lack." 
 
 " The whole church has one and the same faith throughout 
 the whole world, as we have explained above. 1 " 1 (Adv. Hseres., 1. 
 i., c. x., n. 1-3.) 
 
 * * * * " but the public teaching of the church (is) 
 everywhere uniform, and equally enduring," <fec. (Ibid., 1. iii., 
 c. xxiv., n. 1.) 
 
 " But He will also judge all those who are out of the truth, 
 that is, who are out of the church. But He will be judged by 
 none." 
 
 " Therefore, in every church there is, for all those who would 
 fain see the truth, at hand to look unto, the tradition of the 
 
192 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 apostles made manifest throughout the whole world ; and we 
 have it in our power to enumerate those who were, by the 
 apostles, instituted bishops in the churches, and the successors 
 of those bishops down to ourselves ; none of whom were taught 
 or knew any thing like unto the wild opinions of these men. 
 For if the apostles had known any hidden mysteries, which they 
 apart, and privately taught the perfect only, they would have 
 delivered them, before all others, to whom they even intrusted 
 the very churches. For they 'sought that they whom they left 
 as successors, delivering unto them their own post of govern- 
 ment, should be especially perfect and blameloss in all things ; 
 whose upright discharge of their office would be of great profit, 
 as their fall would be a great calamity." 
 
 " By this order and by this succession, both that tradition 
 which is in the church from the apostles, and the preaching of 
 the truth, have come down to us. And this is a most complete 
 demonstration, that the vivifying faith is one and the same, 
 which, from the apostles, even until now, has been persevered 
 in, and transmitted in truthfulness." (Adv. Haeres., 1. iii., c. 
 iii., n. 14.) 
 
 " For everywhere is the church distinctly visible, and every- 
 where is there a wine-press dug ; for everywhere are those who 
 receive the Spirit." (Ibid., 1. iv., c. 30.) 
 
 " If a man believe in God * * * * he will first hold to 
 the head. (Coloss. ii. 19.) Then, afterwards, also every dis- 
 course will be clear to him, if also he read the Scriptures dili- 
 gently with those who are presbyters in the church, with whom 
 is the apostolic doctrine, as we have demonstrated." (Adv. 
 Haeres., 1. iv., c. xxxii., n. 1, 2.) 
 
 In these extracts, St. Irenaeus states substantially that " the 
 church was a rich repository, into which the apostles committed" 
 all the truth that all may learn this truth of this church, which 
 is the " gate of life" that the barbarous nations sedulously 
 guarded the old tradition, and held the true faith that the 
 brethren ought to obey those presbyters who have a succession 
 from the apostles, as they have received the sure gift of truth 
 that the public teaching of the church is the same throughout 
 the whole, world that to this church has been intrusted the 
 light of God, and on this account, the wisdom of God, through 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 193 
 
 which He saves men, is proclaimed that the church having re- 
 ceived the faith, though she was spread over the world, guards 
 it sedulously, as if dwelling in one house, as having but one soul 
 one heart, and proclaims and teaches as though she had but 
 one mouth that the whole church held one and the same faith 
 throughout all the world that her teaching was everywhere 
 uniform and equally enduring that God will judge those who 
 are out of the truth, that is, those who are out of the church 
 that the tradition was handed down by succession from the apos- 
 ties in truthfulness that the apostles delivered to those they 
 appointed their post of government that the church is every- 
 where distinctly visible and that if a man held to the head, 
 Jesus Christ, and then read the Scriptures diligently with the 
 presbyters in the church, every discourse would be clear, as with 
 these presbyters was the apostolic doctrine. In short, the saint 
 and martyr gives a most beautiful historical description of an 
 infallibly governed, and for that reason, a universal and united 
 church, in whose communion salvation was to be found. 
 
 And in reference to the universality of the church in his day, 
 St. Justin says : 
 
 " But there is no race of men whether of barbarians or of 
 Greeks, or, in fine, bearing any other name, whether because 
 they live in wagons, or are without a fixed habitation, or dwell 
 in tents, leading a pastoral life among whom prayers and eu- 
 charists are not offered to the Father and Maker of the uni- 
 verse, through the name of the crucified Jesus." (Dial, cum 
 Tryphane, n. 117.) 
 
 And St. Hegisippus says : 
 
 " But in each succession (of bishops) and in each city, it is 
 just as the law proclaims, and the prophets of the Lord." 
 
 He proceeds to name several heretics and their sects, as 
 Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus ; and observes : 
 
 " Each of these introduced of himself, and different from all 
 the rest, his private opinion. From these sprang false Christs, 
 false prophets, false apostles, who severed the unity of the church 
 with counterfeit teaching against God and His Christ." (Euse- 
 bius H. E., 1. iv., c. xxii.) And St. Clement of Alexandria gives 
 this testimony among others : 
 
 " The way of truth is one : but other streams run into it 
 18 
 
194 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 from various quarters, as into a perennial river." (Stromata, 
 Li.) 
 
 " The one church is then associated to the nature of the One ; 
 which church these men violently attempt to divide into many 
 heresies. In substance, in sentiment, in origin, in excellence, 
 we say the ancient and Catholic church is alone." * * * * 
 " But the excellence of the church, like the principle of every 
 thing concrete, is in unity, surpassing all other things, and hav- 
 ing nothing similar or equal to itself." (Ibid., 1. vi.) 
 
 " Christ looks upon His only church." (Id., 1. i.) 
 
 " And she remain's rejoicing unto all ages." 
 
 " It is called the kingdom of God, the heavenly assembly of 
 love, the holy church." (Ib., 1. ii.) 
 
 " The church on earth is the image of the church in heaven." 
 (Ib.,l.iv.) 
 
 " An excellent thing the city and the people * * * * 
 governed by law, as, by the Word, the church is governed, 
 which is a city on earth, impregnable, and free from oppression, 
 the divine will on earth, as (it is) in heaven." (Strom., 1. iv.) 
 
 Speaking of Marcion, and Prodicus, and other heretics, he 
 says : 
 
 " But it would have been well for them if they had been able 
 to hear the things which had been previously handed down." 
 * * * * p or j- oa j. t ne y made their human assemblages 
 later than the Catholic church, there needs not many words to 
 show." (Strom., 1. vii.) 
 
 " These things being so, it is manifest, that out of the 
 primordial and most true church, these after-born adulterate her- 
 esies have been formed, by innovation, as also those that, later 
 still, have come after them." (Id., Tertullian.) 
 
 " The apostles having obtained the promised power of the 
 Holy Ghost for miracles and utterance, first having throughout 
 Judea borne witness to the faith in Christ Jesus, and established 
 churches, next went forth into the world, and promulgated the 
 same doctrine of the same faith to the nations, and forthwith 
 founded churches in every city, from which (churches) the other 
 churches thenceforward borrowed the tradition of the faith, and 
 the seeds of doctrine, and are daily borrowing them that they 
 may become churches : and for this cause they are themselves 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 195 
 
 also accounted apostolical, as being the offspring of apostolical 
 churches. The whole kind must needs be classed under their 
 original. Wherefore these churches, so many and so great, are 
 but that one primitive church from the apostles, whence they all 
 sprang. Thus all are the primitive, and all apostolical, whilst 
 all being one, prove unity," &c. (De Prasscr., n. 20.) 
 
 " Now what the apostles preached, that is, what Christ re- 
 vealed unto them, I will here also rule, must be proved in no 
 other way than by these same churches which the apostles them- 
 selves founded ; themselves by preaching to them as well viva 
 voce, as men say, as afterwards by epistles. If these things be 
 so, it becomes forthwith manifest that all doctrine which agrees 
 with the apostolic churches, the wombs and originals of the 
 faith, must be accounted true, as without doubt containing that 
 which the churches received from the apostles, the apoetles from 
 Christ, Christ from God ; but that every doctrine must be 
 judged at once false, which savoreth things contrary to the truth 
 of the churches, and of the apostles, and of Christ, and of God." 
 (Ibid., n. 21.) 
 
 " To sum up, if it is certain that that is truest which is most 
 ancient, that most ancient which is even from the beginning, 
 that from the beginning which is from apostles ; it will in 
 like manner also be certain that that has been handed down by 
 the apostles, which shall have been held sacred by the churches 
 of the apostles." (Adv. Marcion, 1. iv., n. 5.) 
 
 "For although Marcion rejects his (John's) Apocalypse, 
 nevertheless, the succession of bishops, counted up to their ori- 
 gin, will stand by John as the author. Thus also is the noble 
 origin of the other churches recognized." (Ibid.) 
 
 " But if any (heresies) dare to place themselves in the midst 
 of the apostolic age, that they may therefore seem to have been 
 handed down from the apostles, because they existed under the 
 apostles, we say : let them then make known the originals of 
 their churches, let them unroll their line of bishops, so coming 
 down by succession from the beginning, that their first bishop 
 had for his author and predecessor some one of the apostles, or 
 of apostolic men, so he were one that continued steadfast with 
 the apostles. For in this manner do the apostolic churches 
 reckon their origin." (De Prescript. Heret.) 
 
196 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 To answer the plain and simple argument of Tertullian, the 
 separatists in his day took the ground that the apostles were not 
 fully instructed in all truth, alleging St. Paul's rebuke of St. 
 Peter ; and that the churches founded by them were not relia- 
 ble witnesses, because they were some of them rebuked by the 
 apostle Paul, as the Galatians and others. To this ground Ter 
 tullian replies, among other things : 
 
 " Well, then : be it that all have erred ; that the apostle also 
 was deceived in the testimony which he gave (in favor of some) ; 
 that the Holy Spirit had regard to no one of them (the church- 
 es) so as to guide it into truth, although for this sent by Christ, 
 for this asked of the Father, that he might be the Teacher of 
 truth ; that he, the Steward of God, the Vicegerent of Christ, 
 neglected his office, suffering the churches the while to under- 
 stand differently, to believe differently, that which he himself 
 preached by the apostles is it likely, that so many churches, 
 and so great, should have gone astray in one faith f Never is 
 there one result among many chances : the error in the doctrine 
 of the churches must needs have varied. But what is found 
 (one and the same) amongst so many, is not error, but tradi- 
 tion. Let any one, then, dare to say that they were in error 
 who delivered it." 
 
 Speaking of the general characteristics of heresy and here- 
 tics, he says : 
 
 " They huddle up a peace also with all everywhere. For it 
 makes no matter to them, although they hold different doc- 
 trines, so long as they conspire together in their siege against 
 the one truth. All are puffed up ; all promise knowledge. The 
 catechumens are perfect before they are taught." 
 
 " In these works alone do they act humbly, and smoothly, 
 and submissively ; but they know no reverence even towards 
 their own chiefs. And this is why there are commonly no 
 schisms amongst heretics; because, when there are any, they 
 appear not ; for schism is their very unity. I speak falsely if 
 they do not differ among themselves, even from their own rules, 
 seeing that each forthwith moulds, according to his own pleas- 
 ure, the things which he hath received, even as he, who deliv 
 ered them to him, framed them according to his own pleasure. 
 The progress of the matter is a confession of its nature, and of 
 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 197 
 
 the manner of its birth. The same thing was allowed to the 
 Valentinians as to Valentinus, the same to the Marcionites as to 
 Marcion to change the faith according to their own pleasure. 
 Finally, all heresies are found, when thoroughly examined, dif- 
 fering in many things from their own founders." (De. Prescript. 
 Haer. 217.) 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 1. The executive power must exist in the visible Church. 
 
 IF we concede that Christ was a Divine Lawgiver, who pre- 
 scribed a fundamental unchangeable law for the practical gov 
 ernment of men while in this state of being, we are then forced, 
 by the plainest and clearest principles whereon all governments 
 intended for men must rest, to concede that His subjects were 
 intended to be governed in unity, and not in discord. And the 
 moment we concede the character of Christ as the author of a 
 practical system, we are also forced to concede that in the gov- 
 ernment He instituted, there must exist those necessary ele- 
 ments, without which government itself cannot exist. 
 
 That the executive power must exist in every practical gov- 
 ernment, is as clear, as that the legislative and judicial powers 
 are required. We can as readily conceive of a government 
 without the legislative, as without the executive and judicial 
 powers. There cannot be a law prescribed without legislation, 
 nor can it be a law at all unless intended to constitute a rule for 
 the parties governed ; and it cannot be a rule, unless intended 
 to be practically administered ; and this practical administration 
 cannot be attained, unless the executive and judicial powers 
 both exist in the system. Without this practical application of 
 the law, the system would be clearly idle, and unworthy any 
 just legislator. That a Divine Lawgiver should organize a 
 visible association of men, and prescribe a positive code for its 
 government, and yet have no executive and judicial powers in 
 this great institution to enforce the law, would be plainly tc 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PMTKR. 199 
 
 defeat the very end and purpose of the system. And with all 
 proper deference for the opinions of others, I am constrained to 
 say, that, in my judgment, if there be any position in reference 
 to which human reason, fairly exercised, can form a just and 
 decisive conclusion, this is one. I cannot form a conception of 
 a visible association of men, governed by a positive unchange 
 able law, without the existence of the executive and judicial 
 powers placed somewhere in the institution. Nor can I con- 
 ceive of any practical and efficient system of government, where- 
 in the executive and judicial powers are not coextensive with 
 the actual exercise of the power of legislation. In other words, 
 where the executive and judicial powers do not have jurisdic- 
 tion to enforce, practically, all the laws intended for practical 
 application ; for if these powers exist in the system at all, then 
 for what purpose do they exist but to enforce all those portions 
 of the law intended to be put in practical operation? 
 
 If the position be true, that the executive power exists in 
 the system of Christ, that power must have been placed some- 
 where, either in the hands of an individual and his successors, 
 or in the hands of several. The Catholic theory holds that our 
 Lord conferred this power upon a single individual and his suc- 
 cessors. 
 
 " The idea of his supremacy," says Cardinal Wiseman, " in- 
 volves two distinct, but closely allied, prerogatives : the first is, 
 that the Holy See is the centre of unity ; the second, that it is 
 the fountain of authority. By the first is signified that all the 
 faithful must be in communion with it, through their respective 
 pastors, who form an unbroken chain of connection from the 
 lowliest member of the flock, to him who has been constituted 
 its universal shepherd. To violate this union and communion 
 constitutes the grievous crime of schism, and destroys an essen- 
 tial constitutive principle of Christ's religion. 
 
 " We likewise hold the Pope to be the source ot authority ; 
 as all the subordinate rulers of the Church are subject to him, 
 and receive directly, or indirectly, their jurisdiction from and 
 by him. Thus the executive power is vested in his hands for all 
 spiritual purposes within her ; to him is given the charge of 
 confirming his brethren in the faith ; his office is to watch over 
 the correction of abuses, and the maintenance of discipline 
 
2UO THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 throughout the Church ; in case of error springing up in any 
 part, he must make the necessary investigations to discover it 
 find condemn it ; and either bring the refractory to submission, 
 or separate them, as withered branches, from the vine. In 
 cases of great and influential disorder in faith or practice, he 
 convenes a general council of the pastors of the Church ; pre- 
 sides over it in person, or by his legates ; and sanctions, by his 
 approbation, its canons or decrees. * * * 
 
 " The supremacy which I have described is of a character 
 purely spiritual, and has no connection with the possession of 
 any temporal jurisdiction. The sovereignty of the Pope over 
 his own dominions is no essential portion of his dignity ; his 
 supremacy was not the less before it was acquired : and should 
 the unsearchable decrees of Providence, in the lapse of ages, 
 deprive the Holy See of its temporal sovereignty, as happened 
 to the seventh Pius, through the usurpation of a conqueror, its 
 dominion over the Church, and over the consciences of the faith- 
 ful, would not be thereby impaired." (Moorfield Lectures, 
 p. 226.) 
 
 2. The Scriptural proofs of the primacy of St. Peter, 
 examined. 
 
 The first passage which bears upon this question, is that 
 taken from the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, verse 42 : 
 " And when Jesus beheld him he said, thou art Simon the son 
 of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpreta- 
 tion, A stone." According to the Douay Bible, " thou shalt 
 be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." 
 
 In his work upon the Primacy of St. Peter, Bishop Kenrick 
 says that Cephas is a Syro-Chaldaic term, which signifies rock. 
 (P. 24.) 
 
 It had been a practice with God, on particular occasions, to 
 change the names of his servants when bestowing upon them 
 some signal preeminence. For example, when God made a 
 great covenant with Abram, He changed his name to Abraham, 
 and that of his wile from Sarai to Sarah. So, when Jacob 
 wrestled with the angel and refused to let him go without a 
 blessing, the angel blessed him and said: " Thy name shall be 
 called no more Jacob, but Israel ; for as a prince hast thou 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 201 
 
 power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." (Gen. 
 xvii. 5, 15 ; xxxiii. 28, 29.) The moment Christ saw Simon he 
 said, " thou shalt be called Cephas." 
 
 It is true, that our Lord surnamed James and John " Boan- 
 erges." (Mark iii. 17.) But it is equally true, that the history 
 of the labors of these apostles, is but sparingly given in the New 
 Testament. If we had this history in full, we should no doubt 
 be able to understand the reason for this change of name. But 
 "because the reason for the surname of these apostles does not 
 appear upon the face of the record, it will not justify us in re- 
 jecting the explanation therein given for the surname of Peter. 
 Christ was no idle lawgiver. He always had in His eye, His 
 Father's business, and what He did, ever tended to that end. 
 He did not give a surname to all the apostles. His practice was 
 not general, but special ; and special reasons must have existed 
 to justify special acts. In the nature of things there must exist 
 some good reason for a change of name. In civil governments 
 a man has no right to change his name without the consent of 
 -he government. It would seem clear that Christ had some 
 important object in view, when He gave Peter his name, which 
 is not mentioned at the time it was given. But it does not 
 matter when or where the reason for the change of name is 
 given, so it is given. 
 
 In the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel we have 
 the explanation : 
 
 " He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ? And 
 Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son 
 of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, 
 Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not 
 revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 
 I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven."* 
 
 * It will be observed that both the powers to bind and loose were conferred on 
 Peter. The one power without the other, would have been about as idle as the 
 
 19 
 
202 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 It must be conceded that this is one of the most emphatic 
 passages to be found in the four Gospels, and must teem with 
 meaning of the greatest importance. 
 
 The first question that gives rise to a difference of opinion, 
 is whether Peter was the rock upon which the Church was to 
 be founded. Many Protestant authors concede that he was, 
 while others contend that the truth revealed to Peter was allud- 
 ed to by our Lord as " this rock." All Catholic writers, whose 
 works I have read, insist that the clear meaning of the passage 
 is, as if written, " Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will 
 build my church." Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Bishop 
 Purcell, page 84, gives this reading : " Thou art stone, and upon 
 this rock (on this great truth which flesh and blood has not re- 
 vealed to thee) I will build my church."* 
 
 power to remit, without the power to retain, sins. And the power to open, with- 
 out the power to shut, the gates of the Kingdom, would have been equally idle. 
 If the power to loose, was the power to open the gates of the Kingdom ; then, 
 the corresponding power to bind, must unquestionably be the power to shut. It 
 cannot be said that the power to bind was the power to open. According to the 
 half complete theory of Mr. Campbell and others, (Deb. C. & P., 85,) the gates 
 were only to be opened by Peter once to Jews and Gentiles were always after 
 that to remain open and there is no more use for the keys. But when did Pe- 
 ter ever shut the gates ? At the time the keys were given to him, the gates 
 were closed ; and if, after being once opened, they were always to remain open, 
 the power to bind was wholly useless ; and our Lord is accused, by this theory, 
 of doing a very senseless thing, in conferring the power to bind on Peter, when 
 it was never to be used. 
 
 There are four facts that clearly distinguish Peter's case from that of the 
 other apostles : 
 
 1. He was the only rock foundation. 
 
 2. The power was separately delegated to him. 
 
 3. He was the only one to whom the whole flock was committed. 
 
 4. He was the only one to whom the keys that symbol of supreme com- 
 mand were given. 
 
 These facts are most important, and full of meaning. They are of a conclu- 
 sive character, when legitimately considered and applied. 
 
 * It is true, that our Lord, in the first sentence of His reply to Peter, alludes 
 to the truth confessed by the apostle : but He does not there designate that truth 
 as a rock, and if He did not call Peter a rock, how could He afterwards, with 
 any propriety, say this rock ? Had our Lord intended to make the truth con- 
 fessed, the rock upon which the Church should be built, He would have natu- 
 rally expressed Himself substantially in this form : " Blessed art thou, Simon 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 203 
 
 Of the merits of the different translations I am not compe- 
 tent to speak. But there are circumstances which seem clearly 
 to refute the interpretation of Mr. Campbell. 
 
 Our Lord had previously given Simon the surname of Peter, 
 without giving him any reason for it ; and now, in the com- 
 mencement of His reply, He simply calls him Simon Bar-jona, 
 and then gives him the reason why he is blessed, because the 
 Father had revealed to him this great truth. Then following 
 the blessing, and the reason given for it, our Lord uses that 
 most emphatic affirmation : " And I say also unto thee, That 
 thou art Peter." When our Lord first called him Cephas, His 
 language was not so emphatic. It was simply, " Thou shalt be 
 called Cephas." 
 
 Now for what purpose, and for what intent, did our Lord 
 use this emphatic language ? The phrase is too emphatic to be 
 idle and meaningless. Besides, our Lord never did an idle thing. 
 He must have had some end to signify. What was it ? I could 
 never find a Protestant writer who could give any plausible rea- 
 son for the use of that emphatic statement, " That thou art 
 Peter," and yet deny that he was the rock.* What conceivable 
 purpose could Christ have had in view, but to make that state- 
 ment the basis of that which immediately followed " and 
 upon this rock I will build my church ? " 
 
 Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
 which is in heaven ; and upon this truth I will build my church, and the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it ; " and would have put the promise to build, 
 in close connection with the foundation, in the place where the foundation is 
 first mentioned, and not in a distinct sentence Why our Lord should have given 
 Peter that most emphatic confirmation of his name immediately before His prom- 
 ise to build the Church, and closely connect the promise and the confirmation 
 together in the same sentence, when they had no relation to each other, it is 
 most difficult to conceive. According to the theory of those who deny that Pe- 
 ter was the rock, the promise to build is closely connected with what is not the 
 foundation, and disconnected from that which is ; thus reversing all the rules of 
 correct usage. 
 
 * Mr. Campbell does indeed intimate that the name Peter " was most prob- 
 ably occasioned by the fact that Daniel spoke of the kingdom of the Messiah 
 under the figure of a stone cut out of a mountain." (Debate C. & P., 112.) 
 But it is very difficult to understand how Christ could have intended to say to 
 Peter, in substance, " Thou art my Kingdom." 
 
204 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 The true and simple view of this passage would seem to be 
 this : Our Lord, at the beginning, gave Simon his surname, 
 without stating to him any reason for the act. God, the Father, 
 afterwards reveals to Peter the Divinity of Christ. Our Lord 
 called out the confession of Peter, not that he needed to be in- 
 formed of the facts inquired after, but for the purpose of afford- 
 ing Him a fitting opportunity of constituting Peter the founda- 
 tion of the Church. Peter had been favored by a special reve- 
 lation, and our Lord knew this fact. When Peter had confessed, 
 our Lord reaffirmed the name Peter, for the purpose of letting 
 him know that he was not only a rock, but the rock upon which 
 the Church should be built, and then He states the character of 
 the Church. 
 
 This view gives force and effect to every part of the reply 
 of our Lord to Peter, and does not leave that emphatic affirma- 
 tion " thou art Peter," to stand in such close connection with 
 " and upon this rock," &c., and yet be idle and meaningless. 
 The very reason why our Lord at first only called him Simon, 
 was to reserve the affirmation that he was Peter, for the pur- 
 pose of putting it in close and immediate connection with "this 
 rock." 
 
 The opposite construction cannot be true, because it breaks 
 the chain of unity running through the whole passage. Every 
 thing in it has a connection with Peter. He is first pro- 
 nounced blessed he is then told that he is Peter, and that the 
 Church should be built upon him, and then he is promised the 
 keys. That the promise to build the Church was connected 
 with Peter, is further shown from that which follows. Why 
 should our Lord continue his promises in this form, "And Twill 
 give unto thee the keys," &c., unless both promises related to 
 Peter f There are three sentences contained in our Lord's re- 
 ply to Peter, and they all relate to him and matters connected 
 with him. The first and third confessedly relate to Peter. Why 
 does not that in the middle have relation also to Peter ? If we 
 concede that the Church was founded on Peter, we can readily 
 see why Christ defined the character of the structure to be built 
 on Peter. The character of the Church necessarily qualified the 
 prerogative of the apostle. The promise to build would not be 
 definite, unless the character of the thing to be built was also 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 205 
 
 given. So, when our Lord promised the keys, He at once states 
 what they will enable Peter to do. 
 
 It was objected by Mr. Campbell, as well as others, that 
 Peter could not be the rock, because Christ said thou in the sec- 
 ond, and this in the third person. " To have addressed Peter 
 in the second and third persons as both present and absent, in 
 the same breath, is wholly unprecedented." (Debate C. & P., 
 94.) 
 
 But with all due deference to the opinion of the learned de- 
 bater, his objection seems more plausible than sound. Our Lord 
 first tells Peter that he is a rock, and after that, so long as He 
 speaks of Peter under that symbol, He very properly uses the 
 third person. But when He comes to speak of Peter, not as 
 the rock, but as the earthly head of the Church, holding the 
 keys, then our Lord uses the second person. I cannot see any 
 violation of correct usage in this ; but the use of the third per- 
 son in one case, and of the second in the other, was in strict ac- 
 cordance with the figure used by Christ. Having first declared 
 Peter a rock, so long as He kept that symbol in His eye, He 
 would regard him in that light, and speak of him accordingly. 
 The interpreter of a dream or parable first tells you that he will 
 give the interpretation, and after that he proceeds to use lan- 
 guage in a positive form " the reapers are the angels," " the 
 harvest is the end of the world." 
 
 " Bloomfield," says Bishop Kenrick, "a recent Anglican com- 
 mentator, observes that every modern expositor of note has 
 abandoned the distinction between Peter and rock as untenable. 
 Bishop Marsh, quoted by him, says that ' it would be a desper- 
 ate undertaking to prove that Christ meant any other person 
 than Peter.' Rosenmuller, the German rationalist, coincides in 
 this critical judgment : 'The rock/ says he, ' is neither the con- 
 fession of Peter, nor of Christ pointing out Himself by His finger, 
 or by a shake of the head, (which interpretations the context 
 does not admit,) but Peter himself." (The Primacy, 29.) 
 
 The learned author says on the next page : 
 
 " In ' Gerhard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism ' is contained 
 tne folio wing just observation Canon 511 : 'The most obvious 
 and natural sense is to be set aside only when it is absolutely 
 contradictory to something plainly taught in Scripture.' He 
 
206 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 then remarks, that 'the opposite way has been taken by all 
 sects;' and, quoting the 18th verse of the 16th chapter of St. 
 Matthew, observes : ' Building on Peter is explained, by some, 
 as contrary to the faith that Christ is the only foundation, (1 
 Cor. iii. 2,) and as favoring the succession of Peter and his suc- 
 cessors; but the connection shows that PETER IS HERE 
 PLAINLY MEANT.' Such is the language of this text-book 
 of so many Protestant colleges and theological institutions, 
 both in this country and in England." 
 
 Mr. Thompson of Glasgow, in his Monatessaron. concedes 
 that " Peter was the rock on which Christ said His Church 
 should be built." The same author states that " Protestants 
 have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have, therefore, used all 
 the HARDIHOOD OF LAWLESS CRITICISM in their at- 
 tempts to reason away the Catholic interpretation." (Cited in 
 The Primacy, 31.) 
 
 It has been often objected, as it was by Mr. Campbell, (De- 
 bate C. & P., 95,) that Peter could not be the rock upon which 
 the Church was built, because this would be a contradiction of 
 other portions of Scripture. In the third chapter of first Co- 
 rinthians it is said : " For other foundation can no man lay than 
 that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." And in the second chapter 
 of Ephesians the apostle says, alluding to the faithful : "And are 
 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
 Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." 
 
 The term foundation has several meanings, one of which is 
 " the basis of an edifice ; that part of a building which lies upon 
 the ground, usually a wall of stone which supports the edifice." 
 (Webster.) 
 
 It is evident that the apostle used the word with reference 
 to this sense, as he speaks of foundations as having been laid. 
 And were we to adopt the principles of 'criticism urged by Mr. 
 Campbell, we should make the apostle. contradict himself; be- 
 cause, in the first extract the apostle speaks of Christ as the 
 foundation, and does not mention that apostles and prophets 
 composed it in part, as he does in the second. I am not aware 
 of any text in which our Lord was ever spoken of as constituting 
 the foundation, in whole or in part, that does not speak with 
 reference to a foundation laid, not selected. 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 207 
 
 The term has another, and a wider signification, which is 
 " the basis or groundwork of any thing ; that on which any 
 thing stands and by which it is supported." (Webster.) A rock 
 is " a large mass of stony matter, either bedded in the earth, or 
 resting upon its surface." (Webster.) A rock, upon which a 
 building is based, is " bedded in the earth." It was with refer- 
 ence to this sense, that Peter was called the rock. Oui Lord 
 when he spoke of building His Church upon a rock, used the 
 word rock in the same sense He did when speaking of the 
 wise man, whose house " fell not : for it was founded on a 
 rock." That must be a foundation, upon which an edifice is 
 founded. 
 
 The different figures used in different portions of Scripture, 
 are all perfectly consistent with the Catholic view, and with 
 each other. The same thing may be a fit symbol to illustrate 
 different parts of the same system, when contemplated from 
 different points of view. Thus when St. Paul calls Christ the 
 spiritual rock, (1 Cor. x. 1-4,) he speaks of Him under the sym- 
 bol of a rock from which flowed the water that saved the 
 perishing Israelites in the desert. The rock of Horeb was in 
 the apostle's eye ; and the apostle did not intend, in this passage, 
 to compare Christ to a foundation ; but that Christ was the 
 rock from which the waters of salvation flowed. So, when God, 
 the Father, speaks Himself, as the builder, He says : " Behold, 
 I will lay in Zion for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious 
 stone, a sure foundation.'* The foundation here alluded to was 
 Christ. So, when our Lord spake as a builder, He said, " thou 
 art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." So, when 
 the everlasting firmness of Christ is represented, He is called 
 the rock of ages. 
 
 3. The Scriptural proofs further considered. 
 
 If we concede that Peter was the rock, then we concede that 
 he was superior to tne other apostles, who. were not the rock, 
 but only a part of the foundation as laid by Christ. In what 
 then did this superiority consist ? The Catholic theory holds 
 that superior official power was conferred on this great apostle. 
 This is denied by Protestants ; and the most plausible ground 
 that can be taken (after conceding that Peter was the rock) to 
 
208 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETEK. 
 
 defeat the Catholic construction, is that the promise to build 
 the church on Peter, was fulfilled by his being the first sent to 
 convert both Jews and Gentiles, so that in some sense, the 
 Church might be said to rise from him. 
 
 But this explanation would seem to be entirely too narrow, 
 and in conflict with the plain and obvious figure used by Christ. 
 It would seem to be about as erroneously restrictive, as that 
 narrow construction which sought to confine salvation alone to 
 the Jews, when the wide commission was, " Go teach all na- 
 tions " " Preach the Gospel to every creature." 
 
 The simple fact that Peter stood up with the eleven on the 
 day of Pentecost, and was the only one who spoke on that day, 
 and that he afterwards was the first to receive a Gentile into 
 the Church, does not show that he possessed any more official 
 power than others. The first President of the United States 
 had no more official power than the second. How then could 
 the first President, as such, be properly called the rock upon 
 which the political fabric rests ? According to the Protestant 
 view, Peter was only the first to exercise a power given alike 
 to all the apostles. How then can it be said with any propriety 
 that he was the rock upon which the Church stood, simply be- 
 cause he was one of eleven equals, who first exercised a power 
 belonging to all ? This was certainly a very meagre superi- 
 ority ; and would not seem to be in keeping with the magnifi- 
 cent promise of Christ. 
 
 The rock upon which an edifice is built, is contemplated as 
 continuing in the same permanent state it was in, at the precise 
 time when the building was erected.. If we say that our Lord 
 first created the office of Supreme Head of the Church on earth, 
 as He did the office of teacher in the commission, and afterwards 
 addressed Peter in his official capacity, then we can see how 
 Peter could be appropriately called the rock upon which the 
 Church was built. The power and effect of the office would al- 
 ways be the same as at the first, and the Church might well rest 
 upon it. The Church was regarded by Christ as a permanent 
 structure, and the rock or foundation upon which it is built, 
 must have been viewed by Him as equally continuing. The 
 permanency of one must have been commensurate with that of 
 the other. 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 209 
 
 That this is the correct view would seem to be clear from 
 the fact, that the stability of the Church is but the consequertce, 
 of this foundation. When our Lord said the foolish man built 
 his house upon the sand and it fell, we must conclude that it 
 fell because of the insecurity of the foundation. This conclusion 
 is shown to be correct from the fact, that when our Lord spoke 
 of the wise man who built his house upon a rock, He said " it 
 fell not : for it was founded upon a rock." (Matt. vii. 25.) 
 Here the cause of the stability of the house was its rock foun- 
 dation. So, when Christ says, " and on this rock I will build 
 my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," 
 the relation of the structure to the foundation is so close, that 
 we must say the stability of the building is the consequence of 
 the stability of the foundation. Christ made Peter the rock, 
 and the stability of the rock came from Christ, its Creator. 
 
 But how the mere personal privilege of being the first to ex- 
 ercise an official power, shared in common with other then ex- 
 isting equals, could give this permanent stability to the Church, 
 it is difficult to see. The cause is wholly inadequate to produce 
 the effect. There is no due proportion between them. 
 
 Our Lord gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom, and the 
 consequence of this possession of the keys of the entire kingdom 
 was the supreme power to bind and loose. In other words, the 
 power to bind and loose was but a consequence flowing from the 
 keys of the entire kingdom, and was a power supreme over all. 
 Observe the clear and explicit language of our Lord : " And I 
 will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and 
 whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
 heaven." 
 
 Mr. Campbell and others have insisted that the keys were 
 only given to Peter to enable him, once for all, to open the 
 gates of the Church to Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 But with all due deference, it seems to me that this explana- 
 tion is too narrow and diminutive. It is as objectionable as the 
 one regarding the effect of Peter's being the foundation whereon 
 the Church is built. 
 
 If I am correct in holding that the power to bind and loose 
 was but a result flowing from the possession of the keys, then 
 
210 THE PRIMACY OP ST. PETER. 
 
 this construction must be erroneous; for the reason, that the 
 power was not only to loose but also to bind to shut, as well 
 as to open. 
 
 But I have never been able to find any instance in which so 
 small a consequence could be given to such a symbol. The de- 
 livery of keys has always been a symbol of supreme command. 
 (See Rev. iii. 7.) In the 22d chapter of Isaiah, God, speaking 
 of His Son, says : "And I will commit my government into His 
 hands * * and the key of the house of David will I lay upon 
 his shoulder : so he shall open, and none shall shut ; and he 
 shall shut, and none shall open." So, in the first chapter of 
 Revelations, the keys mentioned in verse 18, were symbols of 
 supreme command. So, at law, where the delivery of personal 
 property is necessary to pass the title, the delivery of the key 
 of the warehouse in which the goods are stored, is a symbolical 
 delivery which is regarded as equivalent to an actual delivery, 
 and passes the command of the property to the purchaser/' 
 
 Our Lord used the symbol of the keys, in the same sense in 
 which His Father used it, when speaking of Him as the future 
 Messiah. The Father committed the government to His Son 
 by delivery of the keys of the house of David ; i. e., the Church : 
 and the Son committed the same to His servant, by delivery of 
 the same symbol. As the Father constituted Christ His agent, 
 so Christ constituted Peter His agent. God, the Father, con- 
 stitutes the original source of authority, and governs the king- 
 dom through His Son, Jesus Christ. All power in heaven and 
 earth was given unto our Lord, who, in turn, committed the 
 
 * So far as I am aware, this is so in the usage of all nations. In the very 
 nature of the symbol, it can mean nothing else. The delivery of the keys of a 
 fortress or walled city to a conqueror is a surrender of the same into his posses- 
 sion. This very act yields up the command of the place by one party, and 
 passes it to the other. When, therefore, our Lord gave Peter the keys of His 
 kingdom, what else could He mean, but to give him, to whom He committed 
 the keys, the supreme command? And that our Lord created an office by this 
 act, would also seem clear. His system itself was permanent. The gates and 
 keys of this kingdom were part of this permanent kingdom. There is no limita- 
 tion put to the duration of this power in this permanent kingdom, any more 
 than there is to the office of President of the United States, in our constitution. 
 But our Lord says, without any limitation as to time, " I will give unto thee the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven." 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 211 
 
 government to His subordinates, and governs through Hia 
 agent, Peter, and sub-agents, appointed by Peter. 
 
 By the delivery of this symbol, Peter had the power, not 
 only to loose, but to bind the power to shut, as well as to 
 open. This power to do both was necessary, as the Church 
 must be often opened to some, and shut against others. The 
 power was permanent from its very nature, and needed at all 
 times during the existence of the institution. The kingdom 
 meant is the visible Church, whose gates require to be often 
 opened, and often shut. Do the gates of a city, after being 
 opened for the first time, always stand open after that ? And 
 to all persons ? If so, of what use are the gates ? The very 
 idea of keys and gates, presupposes the utility of opening to all 
 who are entitled to enter, and of shutting against all who would 
 enter improperly. True, the keys were necessary to open the 
 gates for the first time ; but they are equally necessary to open 
 and shut, at intervals, through all coming time. The prophet 
 said Christ should open and no man should shut, and should 
 shut, and no man should open. Christ was to do both; and 
 what He does by His agent, He does Himself. 
 
 But those who concede that Peter was the rock, and yet 
 deny his supremacy, insist that the same power was afterwards 
 conferred upon all the apostles, thus making them all equals. 
 (Matt, xviii. 18.) But if this conclusion, drawn from conceded 
 facts, be true, why did Christ do an idle and vain thing in con- 
 ferring the power separately on Peter. Our Lord must have 
 had some motive in making this separate delegation of power 
 to Peter. What could it have been, but to give him superiority 
 over the others, so as to produce unity in all ? 
 
 The facts conceded, taken in connection with other examples 
 in the New Testament, constitute a very strong argument to 
 sustain the Catholic view. When our Lord conferred the 
 power to bind and loose upon all, He did not promise them the 
 keys, as He did separately to Peter. This is a marked and 
 most material difference in the two cases. But besides this dif- 
 ference, the other instances mentioned in the New Testament, 
 show what was intended. For example, our Lord required all 
 to fottow Him, (John viii. 12 ; x. 4. Mark viii. 38,) yet when 
 He addressed Peter, Andrew, and Matthew individually, and 
 
212 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 said " follow me," He required them to follow Him in a distinct 
 and peculiar manner. So, when it is said that John was the 
 beloved disciple, is it not clear that he was more beloved than 
 the others, although our Lord loved them all most tenderly ? 
 (Johnxiii. 1; xv. 12, 15.) So, the apostles were all commis- 
 sioned to teach all nations to preach to every creature yet 
 Sts. Paul and Barnabas were sent upon a special mission, and 
 St. Paul called himself the apostle of the Gentiles. Was there 
 nothing peculiar in the missions of Sts. Paul and Barnaoas? 
 Putting these examples together, and they show that our Lord 
 was not an idle lawgiver, but that when He conferred a power 
 separately upon a certain person, He intended, by the very act, 
 to give him a peculiar vocation, although the same power was 
 conferred upon others collectively, including the person upon 
 whom it was separately conferred. 
 
 But in the case of Peter, this is made clear, by the following 
 extract : 
 
 " So, when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Si- 
 mon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these ? He saith 
 unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He 
 saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the 
 second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? He saith 
 unto him, Yea, Lord ; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith 
 unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, 
 Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved be- 
 cause he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And 
 he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest 
 that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." 
 (John xxi.) 
 
 The expression " more than these " is elliptical. Mr. Camp- 
 bell construed it to mean : " Do you love me more than these 
 fish, or these victuals ? (Debate C. & P., 86.) The Catholic 
 interpretation is : " Do you love me more than these disciples 
 love me ? >' 
 
 In support of his view, Mr. C. insisted that Peter could not 
 have answered such a question, because he could not know how' 
 much his companions loved his Master. But this objection 
 seems more plausible than just. Whether or riot Peter loved 
 our Lord more than the other disciples loved Him, he certainly 
 
THE PKIMACY OF ST. PETER. 213 
 
 gave the most conclusive evidence that he did. In the very 
 chapter in which the passage occurs, the moment that he knew 
 it was our Lord, he cast himself into the sea, while the others 
 remained with the fish, and he only returned to them after 
 our Lord commanded to bring of the fish they had taken. 
 Besides, the construction of Mr. C. is shown to be erroneous by 
 the form of the answer of Peter ; for if the construction of Mr. 
 C. be correct, then Peter would have answered : " Lord, thou 
 knowest that I love thee more than I love these fish, or these 
 victuals." No motive of delicacy could have influenced him in 
 such a case. And no motive of delicacy could have influenced 
 our Lord, as such a feeling is not indulged by lawgivers at the 
 expense of truth. Our Lord knew the answer that Peter would 
 give ; and the form of the answer, shows that Peter was gov- 
 erned by motives of humility and delicacy, while our Lord was 
 not. In justice to the other disciples, we cannot suppose that 
 they would be hurt by the act of their Master, while they might 
 object to the act of Peter in determining that he loved their 
 Lord more than they loved Him. It was not necessary for Pe- 
 ter to state that he loved his Master more than the others, be- 
 cause our Lord knew the fact, as well without that statement, 
 as with it ; and Peter, in his answer, appeals to this knowledge. 
 Our Lord, hi His question, did not settle the matter as to the 
 one who loved Him most ; and Peter did not determine it, but 
 referred the question back to the knowledge of Christ. The 
 object of our Lord, in asking the question, was to make a fitting 
 opportunity to commit His whole flock to Peter. And in doing 
 this, our Lord Himself answered the question in the affirmative, 
 that Peter did love Him more than the rest. The answer of 
 Peter is not fully responsive to the interrogatory ; and when 
 given, he did not know what our Lord intended. His Master, 
 at that precise point of time, left the question, as to the one 
 who loved Him most, an open one. The humility of Peter, and 
 his knowledge that Christ knew all things, prevented him from 
 assuming to determine a question of delicacy, as between him 
 and his companions ; and, therefore, he simply answered that 
 he loved his Master who knew all things, and referred the 
 measure of this love, as compared with the love of his compan- 
 ions, back to his Lord. This view makes the conduct of Peter 
 
214 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 intelligible, and explains the reason why our Lord did not re- 
 prove him for an apparent evasion of His question. But upon 
 the theory of Mr. Campbell, Peter evaded the question pro- 
 pounded, without any reason for doing so. 
 
 But aside from this question, the passage, when fairly con- 
 sidered, is a very clear support of the primacy of St. Peter. It 
 is true that Mr. Campbell and others object to the interpretation 
 of sheep as bishops, and lambs as laity. But while they make 
 this objection, they do not help us any by informing us what 
 Christ did, in their opinion, mean by this distinction. He must 
 have meant something ; otherwise the distinction was idle and 
 useless. What then did He mean ? 
 
 In the tenth chapter of St. John's Gospel, when Christ speaks 
 of His entire flock, as separated from the world, He simply called 
 them sheep. But when He comes to speak of them as distin- 
 guished among themselves into two classes, He calls one class 
 lambs, and the other sheep. 
 
 That this meaning is correct, would seem plain when we con- 
 sider that Christ called Himself the shepherd, and St. Peter 
 afterwards calls Him the Chief shepherd. There cannot be a 
 chief shepherd without under-shepherds. The comparison of 
 the sheepfold is kept up by the apostles Peter and Paul, as we 
 have already seen. That the laity are meant by lambs would 
 seem clear from the fact that the lambs are accustomed to fol- 
 low the sheep ; and St. Paul tells his brethren to obey, submit 
 to, and follow the faith of them who had the rule over them. 
 
 But whether this distinction be correct or not, one thing is 
 clear, that the two classes, lambs and sheep, did comprise the 
 entire flock, and they were all committed separately to Peter. 
 And this being true, Peter bore to all the others the superior re- 
 lation of under-shepherd, next in authority to Christ ; and he 
 must, of necessity, have had superior jurisdiction over those who 
 bore to him the subordinate relation of sheep to their shepherd. 
 To say otherwise would destroy the unity of the whole figure ; 
 for the commission to feed is always a commission to govern and 
 direct, as may be conclusively seen, by an examination of the 
 texts referred to below.* 
 
 * 2 Kings (Sam.) v. 2 ; Ps. Ixxvii. 71,72; Ezech. xxxii. 1-10 ; Jer. iii. 15 ; 
 xxiii. 1, 2, 4; Nath. iii. 18 c. ; Is. xl. 11 : Mich. vii. 14; Ezech. xxxii. 10-23 ; 
 John x. 1 ; 1 Peter v. 4, 2 ; Acts xx. 28. 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 215 
 
 That the whole flock was committed to Peter, is further 
 shown by the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. 
 
 " And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to 
 have you, (in the plural,) that he may sift you as wheat ; but I 
 have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not : and when thou art 
 converted, strengthen thy brethren." In the Douay Bible, " con- 
 firm thy brethren." 
 
 It is conceded by all that the pronoun you referred to all the 
 apostles. Why then did our Lord pray separately for Peter, 
 and, when he is converted, he is charged to strengthen or con- 
 firm his brethren ? We are not informed that He prayed sep- 
 arately for any one or more of the others. 
 
 If this passage stood alone, it could, perhaps, be explained 
 upon some other hypothesis. But taken in connection with the 
 fact that Christ promised the keys to Peter, and afterwards com- 
 mitted His entire flock to him, both lambs and sheep, the most 
 simple and natural conclusion is that Christ used Peter as His 
 superior agent to confirm the others. 
 
 4. Objections considered. 
 
 1. It has been often objected, that after Christ had promised 
 to found His Church upon Peter, He said to him : " Get thee 
 behind me, Satan," <fcc. This text has been much perverted ; 
 but Mr. Campbell conceded that our Lord did not call Peter, 
 Satan, but simply opponent. " The word Satanas, signifies ad- 
 versary. Jesus calls him not ho satanas^ Satan, but simply op- 
 ponent. Stand aside, thou who opposest me in this matter. 
 Thou dost not understand these divine things." (Deb. C. & P., 95.) 
 
 The fact that Peter erred from his very love of his Master, 
 does not show that he was not afterwards qualified to be the Su- 
 preme Head of the Church on earth. On the contrary, Mr. 
 Campbell, while denying the existence of the office, clearly 
 proved his eminent fitness for such a position. (Debate C. & 
 P., 86, 87.) 
 
 2. It is stated in the eighth chapter of Acts, that the apos- 
 tles sent Peter and John to Samaria ; and it is objected that this 
 fact conflicts with the Catholic theory. Mr. Campbell thought 
 " this fact spoke volumes against the pretended successors of 
 Peter." (Debate C. <fc P., 97.) 
 
216 THE PRIMACY OP ST. PETEK. 
 
 But is this true ? Suppose we take the theory of Mr. Camp* 
 bell, that all the apostles were independent equals, to be true, 
 for the sake of the argument only, then how could all the apos- 
 ties together have the right to send a portion upon a mission 
 without their consent ? Equals have no right to command 
 equals. But if we say that Christ created a college of teachers, 
 making the college superior to each member, then we must con- 
 cede that this college was perpetual, and we are forced to admit 
 succession. 
 
 The fact is entirely reconcilable with the Catholic theory, 
 and in strict accordance with it. The act of sending was the 
 act of the college, including the Head, Peter. He, like any 
 other individual, could act in different capacities, under mere 
 delegated authority. In the Catholic theory, he was the equal 
 of the other apostles as teacher under the commission, " Go 
 teach," and superior to them under the separate delegation of 
 power in virtue of the keys ; therefore, the college, with Peter 
 at its head,- was superior to Peter in his capacity of teacher un- 
 der the commission. The act of the college was the concurrent 
 act of all, including Peter, and with his consent, he could well 
 be sent with John. As Peter filled different capacities, one su- 
 preme, and the others subordinate, he had, necessarily, the ex- 
 clusive right to determine, in the first instance, the capacity in 
 which he would act ; but when he had done this, and had con- 
 sented to act in a subordinate capacity, he was, in this capacity, 
 subject to the whole college, which included himself in his su- 
 preme capacity. The duty to be performed was one that apper- 
 tained, in its nature, to an inferior capacity. There was, there- 
 fore, nothing incompatible with the Catholic theory hi the act 
 of the college sending St. Peter with St. John. 
 
 But the same objection will lie against the theory of Mr. 
 Campbell. For example, the teachers who insisted upon the 
 necessity of circumcision were the inferiors of St. Paul ; and yet 
 we are told that " they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and 
 certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apos- 
 tles and elders about this question." (Acts xv. 2.) " They 
 determined." Who were they ? Is it not certain that the pro- 
 noun they included these teachers as well as Paul and Barnabas ? 
 How, then, will Mr. Campbell reconcile this fact with the prin 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 217 
 
 ciple upon which his objection is based ? These teachers were 
 inferiors to St. Paul. Yet they (including these teachers) de- 
 termined that Paul and others should go up. In other words, 
 they sent them. To determine that they should go up, was to 
 send them. And with due deference to the opinion of the 
 learned debater, I must say that " this fact " is more difficult of 
 reconciliation with his theory than with the Catholic. 
 
 3. After St. Peter had admitted Cornelius into the Church, 
 it is stated in the eleventh chapter of Acts, that "they that were 
 of the circumcision contended with him ; " and Mr. Campbell 
 thought this fact was " still more humiliating to the successors " 
 of Peter. 
 
 But was Mr. Campbell right ? The act of St. Peter, in ad- 
 mitting Cornelius into the Church, was an official act, performed 
 under the assumed authority of Christ ; but though an official 
 act, it was not performed by him in his capacity as head of the 
 Church, but in his capacity as teacher under the commission. 
 The act of admitting individuals into the Church could have 
 been performed by any other teacher. The thing done belonged 
 to an inferior capacity. Besides this, the question was new, 
 and had never been authoritatively determined ; and St. Peter 
 had acted without the knowledge of the other teachers. 
 
 But the objection proves too much. The fact is just as diffi- 
 cult to reconcile with Mr. Campbell's theory as with the Cath- 
 olic. These men were not apostles, and under any and every 
 theory, they were inferiors to St. Peter. And when well con- 
 sidered, it will be seen that under any theory, Catholic or Prot- 
 estant, we can only account for the conduct of these men upon 
 the ground that they admitted themselves to be inferiors, and 
 as such, they asked for the reasons for the act of their superior, 
 and St. Peter gave them the facts, as his justification. An infe- 
 rior may well contend with a superior without a violation of 
 duty, when the latter permits it to be done. It amounts to no 
 more than a statement that the inferior endeavored, by argu- 
 ment, to sustain his view before the superior. It is not an act 
 of disobedience. Conceding the Catholic theory to be true, St. 
 Peter might well permit these men to contend with him about 
 a new question, not before authoritatively settled. 
 
 4. It is insisted that the conduct of St. Peter, in the Council 
 
 20 
 
218 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 of Jerusalem, was inconsistent with the theory that he was the 
 Head of the Church on earth. 
 
 It does not appear from the narrative, as found in the fif- 
 teenth chapter of Acts, who called the council, or who presided. 
 The fact that Sts. Paul and Barnabas and other teachers " de- 
 termined to go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders 
 about this question," shows that all that they determined was that 
 they " would go up^ not that the council should be called 
 Whether the council was called by St. Peter or not, it is certain 
 that it was called by his consent, and this consent would give it 
 his sanction. Agency can be affirmed by the subsequent assent 
 of the principal, as well as created by his prior act. So, under 
 the Catholic theory, those at Antioch might well determine, 
 for themselves, to submit a question to the council ; but they 
 could not compel the council to sit. This was not at all in con- 
 flict with the authority of St. Peter, conceding he was Head of 
 the Church. 
 
 It is also certain that there had been much disputing in the 
 council until St. Peter spoke. But after he spoke, the friends 
 of circumcision were silent. Not a voice was afterwards raised 
 in support of this error. The fact that he spoke in the council, 
 is not at all inconsistent with the theory of his primacy. He 
 had the right to speak, conceding that he presided. So has the 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives the right to speak and 
 vote. The fact that St. James was the first to propose the ex- 
 act form of the decree, is in nowise contrary to the Catholic 
 theory. The Pope may or may not speak in council. He must 
 constitute a part of every council, either in person or by his le- 
 gates, and must himself sanction their decrees, to give them 
 effect. 
 
 It must be conceded that the history of the council is con- 
 cise, not full. We do not know from it that any one did, or did 
 not preside ; but it is most reasonable to suppose that some one 
 did preside ; and if any one did, it certainly is most probable 
 it was St. Peter. 
 
 These objections are based upon an inaccurate and confused 
 conception of the Catholic theory. One thing appears certain, 
 and that is : that St. Peter was always on hand, and always 
 most forward and prominent on all great occasions. And 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 219 
 
 whether he was constituted Head of the Church on earth or 
 not, his conduct was consistent with that character. 
 
 5. It has been objected that the conduct of St. Paul, in with- 
 standing St. Peter to the face, for a personal act of the latter, 
 was inconsistent with his alleged official superiority. But those 
 who make this objection, seem to forget that St. Peter was an 
 individual member of the Church, and as such, possessed per- 
 sonal free agency, and could sin, as others. In his private ca- 
 pacity he was no more than any other member ; and St. Paul 
 had the right to reprove him for his personal dissimulation, even 
 conceding the Catholic theory to be true. It would seem from 
 the statement of St. Paul, that St. Peter admitted his error, as 
 he made no reply to the objection. St. Paul himself seems af- 
 terwards to have fallen into the same error, when he purified 
 himself and was found in the temple. (Acts xxi.) 
 
 But if it be said that the error of St. Peter was official, and 
 not private, then it is difficult to understand why St. Paul had 
 the right to call in question the official act of an individually 
 infallible apostle. 
 
 6. It was objected by Mr. Campbell, that St. Peter, in his 
 two Epistles, nowhere expressly assumes to speak as Supreme 
 Head of the Church, and that this silence is inconsistent with 
 such a capacity. 
 
 But omission is a very weak argument. One affirmative 
 witness, is worth many negative ones. Omission is the main 
 ground upon which the Infidel relies to show contradictions in 
 the four Gospels ; and is one of the positions that Dr. Paley 
 confutes in his Evidences of Christianity. 
 
 It is true, that St. Peter simply calls himself an apostle an 
 elder a servant, but it is equally true, that he was all these, 
 and could have still been the Head of the College. St. John 
 writes his Epistles, simply calling himself an elder. In his Epis- 
 tle to Philemon, St. Paul simply calls himself a prisoner ; and in 
 his Epistle to the Hebrews, he does not mention the fact that 
 he was an apostle. St. James commences his Epistle by calling 
 himself a servant. Several of St. Paul's Epistles are commenced 
 as if written jointly with others. Now these omissions do not 
 prove that the several authors were only entitled to fill the po- 
 sitions mentioned, and no others. 
 
220 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 In fact, there is nothing in either Epistle that required St. 
 Peter to state, or to assume to act as if he was Supreme Head 
 of the Church, conceding that he was such. They were general, 
 not special. As the Head of the Church, the Pope rules the 
 Church through' his subordinates, \itliey fail to do their duty, 
 they can be reached directly by him. But the individual mem- 
 bers are primarily responsible to their immediate pastors, with 
 the right of appeal to the Pope. 
 
 Conceding the truth of the Catholic theory, for the sake of 
 the argument only, there is nothing inconsistent in the silence 
 of St. Peter, with this theory. All that he said he could well 
 say in another and a subordinate capacity. This being the fact ? 
 his admitted humility fully explains his silence. 
 
 " Peter's agency in the narrative of Mark is asserted by all 
 ancient writers, and is confirmed by the fact, that his humility 
 is conspicuous in every part of it, where any fact is or might be 
 related of him ; his weakness and fall being fully exposed, while 
 things which might redound to his honor, are either omitted or 
 but slightly mentioned." (GreenleaPs Ev. of 4 Evan., 45.) 
 
 It will also be observed, that St. Peter gives his testimony 
 to facts he had seen and heard as a chosen witness of Christ. 
 He also records certain prophecies made by him. Neither of 
 these capacities belonged to his office as Head of the College. 
 The apostles were the only chosen witnesses, and this fact made 
 it proper for him to state that he was an apostle, when giving 
 his testimony in his Epistles. He was also writing a part of the 
 Scriptures. The gift of prophecy, and the inspiration of a Scrip- 
 tural writer, were special gifts; because not confined to the 
 apostles. These special gifts did not belong to the office of Su- 
 preme Head of the Church ; and, therefore, there could have 
 been no propriety in his assuming to act in that capacity, when 
 writing his Epistles. 
 
 1. Mr. Campbell insisted that the office of Supreme Head 
 of the Church, being an important office, should have been 
 clearly defined in the Scriptures ; and its not being so specified, 
 was a strong argument against the existence of the office. 
 (Debate C. & P., 111.) In support of his position he read cer- 
 tain portions of the Constitution of the United States, relating 
 to the office of President. 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 221 
 
 This objection would be entitled to great weight if all of 
 these several things were true: 1. That Peter's superiority is 
 not plainly stated. 2. That the Scriptures contain all the code. 
 3. That they assumed to be regular and methodical. 4. That 
 the right of the Church to determine authoritatively all ques- 
 tions arising under the law, was not clearly stated. 
 
 If there be any things in the Scriptures plainly taught, the 
 power of the Church to decide all questions is, in my best judg- 
 ment, one of them. But Mr. Campbell's position proves too 
 much. If applied to other portions of the Scriptures, it would 
 be seen how unsound it is. There are many of the most im- 
 portant tenets not more plainly, if as plainly, taught. The au- 
 thority for observing the first, for the seventh day of the week, 
 is not very easily found in Scripture. The same may be said 
 of the authority for not washing feet, contrary to the command 
 of Christ, as stated in the twelfth chapter of St. John's Gospel. 
 It would seem that Mr. C.'s rule of criticism would ruin his 
 theory of Scripture alone. 
 
 That Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built, 
 seems very plain to my mind ; and this fact once conceded, his 
 supremacy follows, as a simple logical consequence. Mr. C. 
 seems to have been fully sensible of this result, as he put his 
 denials in the right place, to be apparently consistent. An en- 
 tire negation, however false, is still consistent with itself. Mr. 
 C., therefore, denied that Peter was the rock. But with all 
 due deference, it would seem that he did not deny quite enough. 
 He should have insisted that there were no gates and no keys ; 
 for the reason, that they were perfectly idle and useless, in the 
 contemplation of his theory. (Debate C. & P., 85.) They 
 were never used but once / and a simple opening in the wall, or 
 no enclosure, would have suited his theory better. The idea 
 of making a wall, constructing gates, and providing keys, to be 
 used but once, and that at the beginning, is not very intelli- 
 gible. 
 
 8. In the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, it is 
 stated : 
 
 " And there was a strife among them, which of them should 
 be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings 
 of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and they that ex- 
 
222 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 ercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall 
 not be so ; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the 
 younger, and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For 
 whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth ? 
 is not he that sitteth at meat ? but I am among you as he that 
 serveth." The same is substantially related in the twentieth 
 chapter of Matthew. 
 
 It has been often insisted that this passage is in conflict with 
 the Catholic theory. But is this true ? 
 
 It appears from the facts stated in other and subsequent 
 portions of the four Gospels, that at the time this strife occurred, 
 the apostles believed that the incoming kingdom of Christ 
 would be temporal. Hence their natural pride prompted them 
 to contend as to who should be the greatest in this earthly 
 kingdom. It was to correct this error of judgment, and to re- 
 prove their pride, that our Lord used the language quoted. 
 He states, in substance, that He did not come to establish such 
 temporal authority as the Gentiles exercised, and, therefore, in 
 that respect, they were not to be distinguished one above an- 
 other by His law. But to prevent them from construing this 
 general language into a prohibition of all distinction, He expressly 
 states that one should be the greatest, and should be chief; and 
 to restrain all pride in the exercise of this pre-eminence, He tells 
 them that the greatest shall be (not the younger) but as the 
 younger, and the chief, as he that serves ; and then compares 
 the state or position of that one with His oicn, saying that He 
 was among them as he that served. As our Lord was among 
 them as he that served, and yet He was the greatest in power 
 and authority ; so, the one that was to be chief, should be as 
 one that served. The example of the superior authority of 
 Christ, and the laborious and humble manner of its exercise by 
 Him, was expressly held up to them as a pattern for the one 
 that should be chief among them, after He was gone. If Christ 
 Himself could be among them as he that served, so the one that 
 would be chief, could be among them as he that served, and 
 still retain the chief authority, because he would be but the agent 
 of Christ, acting for Him, and in His stead. But this authority 
 was to be exercised by him, as laboriously and as meekly as his 
 Master had exercised the same authority before him. The 
 
TUK PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 223 
 
 office was to possess power; but power accompanied with the 
 greatest labor and humility. Now if Christ intended that such 
 an office should exist, these are the very features He would be- 
 stow upon it. He would unite power, labor, and humility. 
 This would be in harmony with the whole scope and spirit of 
 His system. Power was indispensable to enable the officer to 
 accomplish the great ends intended ; while labor and humility 
 were necessary checks upon pride and ambition. It was a 
 beautiful combination of all the efficient, yet safe, features of an 
 office. 
 
 So far from this passage being in conflict with the Catholic 
 theory, it is, when justly considered, a very strong support of 
 it. Had Christ ended by saying, in general terms, " But ye 
 shall not be so," then His meaning would not have been clear. 
 But He does not stop there, but goes on to point out expressly 
 another kind of distinction that should exist among them ; and 
 to fix clearly the character of that distinction, and the manner 
 of its exercise, He compares the situation of this " chief" with 
 His own. When a lawgiver first lays down a principle in gen- 
 eral terms, and then is careful to make an express exception, 
 this fact only shows more clearly his true intent. 
 
 9. The third proposition of Mr. Campbell in reference to the 
 Catholic Church was that " she is the Babylon of John, the 
 Man of Sin of Paul, and the empire of the Youngest Horn of 
 Daniel's Sea Monster." (Debate C. & P., 224.) 
 
 It must be conceded by calm and dispassionate men, that 
 the language of prophecy is obscure. There are good and suf- 
 ficient reasons why it should be so. It was not the intention 
 of God to touch the free agency of individuals, but to leave it 
 untrammelled. So, it was His purpose to keep His children 
 always vigilant and hopeful. To have made the prophecies in 
 clear and distinct language would have defeated the evident 
 purposes of Deity in making them. There maybe some exceptions 
 to this general rule ; but if so, they only prove it to be true. 
 
 Those who take the giddy and perilous position of Reform- 
 ers of the Christian world, are necessarily compelled to exhibit 
 some plausible ground upon which to justify their conduct. If 
 they can find nothing in the past or present, that will clearly 
 sustain their high pretensions, it is quite natural, if not a neces- 
 
224: THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 sity, for them to plunge into the unseen future, where the imag- 
 ination has ample room to revel. He who cannot rely, either 
 upon the past or present, to sustain his views, must necessarily 
 give them up, or draw upon the credit of the future. And so, 
 he, who cannot sustain his positions by the plain testimony of 
 Scripture, would necessarily retreat to the obscure language of 
 prophecy. It has been so with Protestants. Ever since the 
 days of Luther and Calvin, the prophecies of both Testaments 
 have constituted a most extensive field of labor among them. 
 
 Mr. Campbell put forth his interpretations of prophecy in 
 1837, but I did not read them until 1845. In the mean time the 
 celebrated Miller put forth his, which I read in the winter of 
 1842-3. Miller had put his views together in a very plausible 
 manner ; but the event did not transpire at the period predicted 
 by him. If I remember correctly, the world was to have been 
 destroyed in 1843, according to his theory. The theory and 
 illustrations of Mr. Campbell were plausible; but there were 
 several objections quite apparent. Like Miller, he was candid 
 enough to fix the time when, according to his interpretation, 
 the Catholic Church is to be destroyed. "The continuance of 
 the Little Horn," said he, "is therefore twelve hundred and 
 sixty years." The Man of Sin, he states, " was a young man 
 full-twenty-one " in 606. Putting these together, and the pe- 
 riod fixed by Mr. Campbell is 1866. Time, which is wiser than 
 all the wits in the world, as Lord Hale has it, and which, 
 
 "upon the far shores of Existence 
 
 Counts each wave-drop swallowed by the sand," 
 
 will soon give Mr. Campbell his proper position as an interpreter 
 of prophecy. 
 
 So confident was Mr. C. in the correctness of his interpreta- 
 tion, that he went on to say : " Such a catastrophe is even 
 feared at Rome itself." After giving some reasons in support 
 of this statement, he says : " It has been said by the most intel- 
 ligent in the internal affairs of Roman Catholic countries, that 
 it would not be the most unexpected event if the present in- 
 cumbent of the Papal chair should be the last of the Popes of 
 Rome." "(Debate C. & P., 233.) 
 
 It was in 1797 that Pius VI. was seized and taken a pris- 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 225 
 
 oner to France, where he died, after two years, at the advanced 
 age of eighty-t\vo. The city of Rome was in the hands of the 
 French, and the cardinals were so scattered, that there appeared 
 to be no possibility of their uniting to elect a successor. The 
 enemies of the Old Church everywhere said : " The Papacy is 
 destroyed ; another Pope can never be elected." But another 
 Pope was elected. So, Gregory, who was Pope when Mr. 
 Campbell spoke, had a successor. 
 
 Upon reading Mr. C.'s interpretation I could see some ob- 
 jections that seemed to me to upset his theory. The propheti- 
 cal number 666 was the number of a man, and the name given 
 by Mr. C. was improperly written, as he conceded. Then the 
 words " The Latin Empire," which in Greek agreed with the 
 number, was not the name of a man ; and much more probably 
 meant Pagan than Papal Rome. The name itself was that of 
 Pagan Rome. Besides, I found afterwards, that ingenious 
 Catholics had found that the Latin name of Martin Luther con- 
 tained this number. So of many other individuals. The Man 
 of Sin more probably referred to an individual. The prophecy 
 could not refer to the Catholic Church, because the Man of Sin 
 was to exalt himself above all that is called God or that is wor- 
 shipped. It seemed plain, that this character must claim supe- 
 riority over all, admitting his inferiority to none, because he 
 was to exalt himself. This he could not do, while he admitted 
 himself to be an inferior, and was himself a worshipper of one 
 higher than he. It is true that Mr. C., to get over this great 
 difficulty, insisted that God, in the passage, might mean a mag- 
 istrate or king. But this could not be, for the God there men- 
 tioned was clearly God Almighty, because the apostle says the 
 
 Man of Sin should exalt himself above all that is worshipped* 
 
 + 
 
 * Among the various interpretations which Protestant ingenuity has given 
 rise to, that of a Presbyterian minister in Kentucky, as related in Dr. Spalding's 
 Life of Bishop Flaget, page 258, is, perhaps, as much in point as any other : 
 
 " St. Paul says, < the mystery of iniquity already worketh ; ' but you know, 
 my friends, that Protestantism in its present form and shape did not exist 
 until many centuries after his time ; therefore, he must have meant the Catholic 
 Church, or ' popery,' by the ' mystery of iniquity.' " 
 
 The minister seemed perfectly willing to concede the non-existence of Prot- 
 estantism in the days of St. Paul, provided that, by doing this, he could annihi- 
 late the Catholic Church. 
 
 21 
 
226 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 But I could have no confidence in these interpretations fof 
 other reasons : 
 
 1. These numerous interpreters differed among themselves 
 most materially. 
 
 2. They also differed with that great test of truth, Time, 
 which had proved their interpretations to be false, in all cases 
 where the period fixed by them had expired. 
 
 3. Many of the most candid and enlightened Protestants 
 condemned these interpretations. 
 
 4. The most fanatical sects and individuals had generally 
 been the most ardent and expert at these interpretations. 
 
 5. In proportion as others failed, each new interpreter 
 seemed, if any thing, the more confident. They all agreed that 
 the Catholic Church was the thing foretold ; and as each pre- 
 ceding expositor failed, each succeeding one seemed to consider 
 his chances of success that much enhanced. 
 
 6. These continued failures in this line, proved the truth of 
 the remark of the great Bossuet, speaking of these false inter- 
 preters, " that they suffer themselves to be transported beyond 
 all bounds, and without enlightening the understanding, seek 
 only to kindle hatred in the heart." (His. Va., B. xiii. sec. 27.) 
 
 7. The inevitable tendency of this licentious abuse of the 
 Word of God, was to bring it into disrepute. 
 
 Any one who will calmly and dispassionately reflect upon the 
 monstrous abuses of private interpretation of the prophecies, 
 will see the wisdom of the statement of St. Peter, " that no 
 prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation," and that 
 they who licentiously violate this plain prohibition are but " blind 
 leaders of the blind." Mr. Campbell, near the close of his re- 
 marks upon these prophecies, said : 
 
 " I did not intend, indeed, I am sorry I proposed, an argu- 
 ment of this kind before such an assembly, limited as I am at 
 present to an hour or two at most, to complete it." (Debate C. 
 & P., 248.) 
 
 It certainly must be conceded that Mr. C. would have been 
 the wiser, had he kept his first resolution.* 
 
 * For a most masterly discussion of this question, the reader is referred to 
 Bossuet's History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, Book xiii., where 
 he will find tho subject very fully noticed. 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 227 
 
 5. Testimony of the Fathers. 
 
 It was well said by Mr. Allies, a late learned Protestant writ- 
 er of the established Church : " So long as the Church was en- 
 gaged in a fierce and unrelenting conflict with the Paganism and 
 despotism of the empire, she could hardly exhibit to the world 
 her complete outward organization." (Cited in the Primacy, 18.) 
 
 I shall only make a few extracts from the ancient Fathers, 
 referring the reader to the late able work of Dr. Ives, (Trials 
 of a Mind, 158,) for a full and clear statement of their testimony, 
 and a most able answer to the main objections of Protestant 
 writers. 
 
 The letters of St. Clement, bishop of Rome before the death 
 of St. John the Evangelist, and of St. Ignatius, his disciple, are 
 not without weight in considering this question, though their 
 testimony is not so positive and clear as that of St. Irenaeus. 
 Certain divisions existing in the Church at Corinth, even after 
 the two Epistles of St. Paul, an embassy was sent by St. Clement 
 to that Church. It is not certain that an appeal had been taken 
 to Rome, but it is certain that the embassy was sent from Rome, 
 for St. Clement says in his epistle : 
 
 " Those who have been sent to you by us Claudius Ephe- 
 bus, and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also send 
 back to us again, with all speed, in peace and with joy, that they 
 may the sooner acquaint us with your peace and unanimity so 
 much prayed for, and desired by us, so that we also may speed- 
 ily rejoice at your good order." (Ep. i. ad Cor., n. 59.) 
 
 In the Epistle of St. Ignatius, when addressing the Church 
 of Rome, there is a marked peculiarity, deserving of notice. 
 
 " Ignatius, which is also Theophorus, to the church which 
 hath found mercy in the majesty of the Father Most High, and 
 of Jesus Christ his only Son, (to the church) beloved and en- 
 lightened in the will of him who willeth all things, which are ac- 
 cording to the love of Jesus Christ our God, and which (church) 
 has foremost station (or presides) in the place of the Romans, 
 all-godly, all-gracious, all-blessed, all -praised, all-prospering, all- 
 hallowed, and having first place (presiding) in love, with the 
 name of Christ, with the name of the Father, which (church) I 
 greet in the name of Jesus Christ, &c." (Ep. ad Rom.) 
 
228 THE PKIMACY OF ST. PETER. 
 
 St. Irenseus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. 
 John, says : 
 
 " But as it would be a very long task, to enumerate in such 
 a volume as this, the succession of all the churches : pointing 
 out that tradition which the greatest, and most ancient, and 
 universally known church, founded and constituted at Rome, 
 by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, derives 
 from the apostles, and that faith announced to all men, which, 
 through the succession of (her) bishops has come down to us, 
 we confound all those who, in any way, whether through pleas- 
 ing themselves, or vain glory, or blindness, and perverse opin- 
 ion, assemble otherwise than as behoveth them. For to this 
 church, on account of a more powerful principality, it is neces- 
 sary that every church, that is, those who are on every side 
 faithful, resort, in which (church) always by those, who are on 
 every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from 
 the apostles." (Adv. Hseres., 1. iii., c. iii, n. 2.) 
 
 It will be seen how very explicit and clear the latter portion 
 of this extract is. It was necessary that every church resort to 
 that of Home on account of her more powerful principality, 
 and those who did so were faithful. 
 
 Tertullian. " Was any thing hidden from Peter, who was 
 called the rock whereon the church was to be built, who ob- 
 tained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of 
 loosing and binding in heaven and on earth ? " (De Prescript. 
 Hseret., n. 22.) 
 
 " Come now, thou who wilt exercise thy curiosity to better 
 purpose, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very 
 chairs of the apostles, to this very day, preside over their own 
 places, in which their own authentic writings (letters) are read, 
 echoing the voice, and making the face of each present. Is 
 Achaia near thee ? Thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from 
 Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast the Thessalonians. 
 If thou canst travel into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. But if thou 
 art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, whence we also have an au- 
 thority at hand. That church how happy ! on which the apos- 
 tles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood ; where 
 Peter had a like passion with the Lord ; where Paul is 
 crowned with an end like the Baptist's ; where the apostle 
 
THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 229 
 
 John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and 
 was afterwards banished to an island ; let us see what she hath 
 learned, what taught v what fellowship she hath had with the 
 churches of Africa likewise." (De Prescript. Hseret., n. 32-6.) 
 
 It has been objected that because salvation could be equally 
 had in all the churches referred to by Tertullian, that, there- 
 fore, they were all equal in authority with that of Rome. But 
 this does not follow. Two things like a third, are like each 
 other. Any number of churches resorting to the Church of 
 Rome, as Irenaeus has it, and in communion with her, would 
 necessarily have the same faith teach the same truth admin- 
 ister the same sacraments and of course, the truth and salva- 
 tion would be found equally in all, for the very reason, that 
 they would all speak the same thing, believe the same thing, 
 and be united in the same mind and judgment, as St. Paul hath 
 it. So, the very same law, with the same interpretation of it, 
 is administered in the District Courts of the United States in 
 Maine, in Florida, in Texas, and in California ; for the simple 
 reason, that they are each and all under the One Supreme Court 
 of the United States, at Washington. St. Cyprian, speaking 
 of Cornelius having been made bishop of Rome, says he was 
 made bishop " when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place 
 of Peter, and the rank (grade) of the sacerdotal chair, was va- 
 cant." (Ep. Hi. ad Antoni.) 
 
 " Moreover, after all this, a pseudo-bishop having been set 
 up for themselves by heretics, they dare to sail, and to carry 
 letters from schismatics and profane persons, to the chair of 
 Peter, and to the principal church, whence the unity of the 
 priesthood took its rise ; nor do they consider that the Romans 
 &re those whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apos- 
 tle to whom faithlessness cannot have access." (Ep. Iv. ad 
 Carnol, p. 182-3.) 
 
 Origen. "What in a previous passage (Matt. xvi. 19) was 
 granted to Peter alone, seems here (Matt, xviii. 18) to be shown 
 to be granted to all who have addressed their admonitions to 
 all sinners, in order that, if they be not listened to, they may 
 find on earth the person condemned to be as a heathen and a 
 publican, since such a one is bound in heaven. But, as it was 
 fit even though something in common was spoken of Peter, 
 
230 THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETEB. 
 
 and of those who should thrice admonish the brethren that 
 Peter should have something peculiar above those who should 
 thrice admonish, this was previously ordained separately re- 
 specting Peter; thus, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, before (it was said) and whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 on earth, and what follows / and truly, if we solemnly attend 
 to the evangelical writings, even in them we may discover 
 with regard even to those things which seem to be common to 
 Peter and to those who have thrice admonished the brethren 
 much difference and pre-eminence in the words spoken to Peter, 
 beyond those spoken to in the second place." (T. iii. in Matt., 
 Tom. xiii., n. 31.) 
 
 Origen evidently considers the giving of the keys to Peter, 
 before our Lord had said " and whatsoever thou shalt bind," 
 &c., gave him a pre-eminence over the others that the power 
 to bind was the power to expel from the church, a member 
 who had been admonished and who refused to submit. 
 
 St. Cyprian. " Peter, on whom the church had been built 
 by the Lord himself, one speaking for all, and replying with the 
 voice of the church, says, Lord to whom shall we go ? " (Ep, 
 Ix. ad Carnol.) 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 HAS GOD, BY MIRACLES, ATTESTED THE FAITH AND SANC- 
 TITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ? 
 
 1. Preparatory remarks. 
 
 As the whole system of Christianity is founded on miracles, 
 it must be conceded by every Christian, that the same power 
 to perform miracles is now possessed by the Almighty, as in 
 the days of the apostles ; and that consequently a miracle, in its 
 nature, is still a miracle, whether performed in this or that age, 
 how, when, or where. It must also be obvious to him who re- 
 flects, that one kind of miracle is just as easily performed by 
 God as another that the least miracle in the eyes of men, is 
 as great in the eye of God, as the most stupendous displays of 
 His power, as estimated by us. It is just as easy for God to 
 raise a dead man to life, as to resuscitate a dead fly : and both 
 are equally impossible with man. A miracle, then, in its nature, 
 is not more surprising, because it happens to-day, than would 
 be a miracle that occurred a thousand years ago. They are 
 still miracles ; and as such, are surprising and wonderful events. 
 
 The question asked at the head of this chapter, from the 
 very nature of the case, demands a careful consideration. 
 
 It is of the utmost importance, as showing one of two 
 very great results: either that miracles still continue in the 
 Church, or that the Church makes the most unfounded and ar- 
 rogant claim to that which she does not possess, and supports 
 this false claim by the greatest mass of unlimited fraud ever 
 found among mankind ; and especially among civilized men. 
 
232 MIRACLES. 
 
 For it may be said with truth, to be wholly unparalleled for its 
 extent, duration, and character, in the annals of the world. It 
 is, then, deeply interesting to the Christian, and to the philoso- 
 pher. For the result of such an investigation must satisfy the 
 candid and unprejudiced inquirer, either that God has performed 
 miracles as claimed by the Catholic Church, or that man is a 
 creature possessing a wonderful capacity to delude and be de- 
 luded, while he possesses but few powers of resistance, to pro- 
 tect himself from imposition. The result of such investigation 
 must teach the patient inquirer a great lesson of faith, or a 
 great lesson concerning human nature. 
 
 In prosecuting such an inquiry, it is necessary to make our- 
 selves acquainted with the grounds taken by Infidels, Protest- 
 ants, and Catholics. When we do this, we can then see clearly 
 the main leading features of all, wherein they all differ, and 
 whether these respective grounds agree in any thing, or whether 
 any two of them have any affinity in essence and substance. 
 
 2. The theory of the Infidel. 
 
 Those results legitimately flowing from the existing consti- 
 tution of nature, the Infidel admits. All alleged special inter- 
 positions of Providence, in violation of the established order of 
 nature, he rejects. 
 
 In support of these opinions, the most celebrated and acute 
 of the English Infidels, David Hume, has assumed this compre- 
 hensive position : 
 
 " A miracle," he says, " is the violation of the laws of na- 
 ture ; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established 
 these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of 
 the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can pos- 
 sibly be imagined." 
 
 The language of this proposition, if taken in its strict literal 
 sense, is stronger, perhaps, than Mr. Hume intended, and does 
 not convey his idea clearly. The assumption, as stated, that a 
 "firm and unalterable experience has established " the laws of 
 nature, is too broad, if taken strictly, for the reason that it illogi- 
 cally assumes the falsehood of the question in debate without 
 proof. His position, in effect, would then stand thus: " A mir- 
 acle is the violation of the laws of nature, and therefore, no 
 
MIRACLES. 233 
 
 man has over witnessed it." It assumes, in substance, that a 
 miracle is impossible, and of course it never happened. 
 
 He who takes the position that a miracle is impossible, must 
 assume one of two things to be true ; either, 1. That there is 
 no Creator ; or 2. That, admitting the existence of such a Cre- 
 ator, in creating the world and giving to it and its inhabitants 
 certain properties and laws, lie resolved in advance, never, for 
 any purpose, on any occasion, to interfere, in any manner, with 
 the legitimate effeets of this order. And in assuming the first 
 position, to avoid the possibility of any violation of this order, 
 the party must also assume the eternal existence of this order 
 of nature ; for if it be the result of chance at any time, this same 
 chance may certainly undo what it had done. If mere chance 
 could possibly originate a system of any kind, surely it could 
 modify or destroy. And the same may be said of God. If He 
 created, He surely can modify, destroy, or suspend, unless He 
 has resolved not to do so. If the second position be assumed, 
 that God has resolved, in Himself, not to interfere with the 
 regular operation of what we call the laws of nature, it being an 
 affirmative proposition, he who assumes, must prove it. 
 
 A miracle, abstractly speaking, is a violation of the laws of 
 nature ; but a miracle known to us, as such, must, in general, 
 be a violation of the known laws of nature. The exception to 
 this rule, is when we are assured by an inspired person, (whose 
 inspiration is first proven,) that a particular matter is a miracle 
 which we could not know to be such, from any knowledge of 
 our own. 
 
 It occurs to me as clear, that although our knowledge of the 
 laws of nature may be limited, and, therefore, not include a 
 knowledge of all ; yet we have a certain and positive knowledge 
 of some of these laws, or we have no certain knowledge of any 
 thing. If we have a certain and positive knowledge of the ope- 
 ration and effect of the more familiar laws of nature, under a 
 given state of circumstances, then we can determine, with cer- 
 tainty, when a sensible violation of these known laws of nature, 
 occurs under the same circumstances. There is, therefore, a 
 plain distinction between an event merely new, and one directly 
 in violation of a known law of nature. A miracle may not be 
 new in its kind, because a like miracle may have occurred be 
 
234 MIBACLE8. 
 
 fore, and may occur again. But I do not understand Mr. Hume 
 as intending to assert that miracles are impossible. His objec- 
 tion lies against the competency of the testimony offered. I un- 
 derstand him as assuming, substantially, that, as a miracle is a 
 violation of the laws of nature, and as the general uniform op- 
 eration of those laws has been proven by general experience, the 
 proof against a miracle is " as entire as any argument drawn 
 from experience." But does he intend to maintain that an ar- 
 gument, drawn from experience, is conclusive, and not, there- 
 fore, to be rebutted ? or only prima facie true, and therefore, 
 liable to be overcome by competent and sufficient testimony ? 
 
 Although the strong language he uses, (that a firm and un- 
 alterable experience had established these laws of nature, and 
 that the argument drawn from them is entire,) will bear the 
 construction often given to his words ; yet his illustrations, 
 taken in connection with the statement of his general proposi- 
 tion, seem to show a different intent, and that it was not his 
 purpose to assume an argument drawn from experience to be 
 conclusive. When a writer is ambiguous, and his language may 
 be construed in different ways, the honest and generous rule, 
 is to give his language that construction which will best support 
 the general scope and intent of his argument. Mr. Hume, then, 
 as I understand him, intended to assume this ground : that the 
 proof against miracles, drawn from experience, is prima facie 
 true / and that the testimony of men is not competent to re but 
 this presumption. 
 
 If, then, a miracle be possible, it may have occurred ; and if 
 so, it surely may be proved, in some way. The existence and 
 operation of these laws are proven by human testimony, founded 
 upon human experience ; and if this evidence is competent to 
 prove the existence and operation of a certain law of nature, 
 cannot the same class of testimony establish the fact of its vio- 
 lation ? It would seem that the same character of testimony, 
 given by the same beings, would be competent for both pur- 
 poses. As a miracle is possible, and may have happened, we 
 will suppose, for the sake of the argument only, that it has oc- 
 curred. How, then, would Mr. Hume have proven it, under 
 his theory ? To say that a visible and palpable fact may exist 
 and be known to men, and yet to say that reason and philoso- 
 
MIRACLES. 235 
 
 phy deny all competent evidence of such a fact, is to degrade 
 reason and philosophy, and would seem to be manifestly erro- 
 neous. 
 
 If it be said, that the testimony of all mankind has proven 
 the existence and effects of the known laws of nature, and that 
 the testimony of only the few goes to sustain the existence of 
 miracles and as the testimony of the few, is in necessary and 
 direct conflict with the testimony of the many; therefore, we 
 must believe the many, and disbelieve the few, for we must dis- 
 believe one or the other, I reply: that although we are not 
 compelled to believe the many, and disbelieve the few in all 
 cases ; still, in this case, the argument would be conclusive, if it 
 were true, that the testimony of the few, from the nature of the 
 case, was in necessary conflict with the testimony of the many. 
 But is this necessarily so ? Before we can say there must, of 
 necessity, be a conflict of testimony in such a case, we are com- 
 pelled to assume that miracles are impossible ; for if possible, 
 they may have occurred, and if they did occur, they can be 
 proved, % and if proved, the witnesses are certainly not in conflict 
 with any other true witnesses. Upon the hypothesis that mira- 
 cles may have existed, and, therefore, may bo susceptible of 
 proof, there can be no necessary contradiction in the two classes 
 of witnesses. One class proves the general rule, the other the 
 exception. And when Mr. Hume gives as a reason, in sub- 
 stance, that experience has proven the general uniform opera- 
 tion of the laws of nature, and the same experience has aiso 
 shown that men will sometimes lie ; therefore, it is more rea- 
 sonable to believe that men lie in regard to miracles, than that 
 these laws have been violated, I am constrained to say, that he 
 overlooks the fact, that God coald only make a revelation to 
 mankind through miracles that the probabilities and reasons 
 why miracles should sometimes occur, ar*e as great, if not 
 greater, than those against them. For, without going into the 
 subject at large, it occurs to me as the genuine dictate of pure 
 reason that as the properties infused into matter, and the in- 
 stincts given unreasoning animals, are so different from the laws 
 enacted for the government of rational free agents, they must 
 be communicated in a different manner ; and while the effects 
 of properties and instincts would be uniform, and, for that rea- 
 
236 MIRACLES. 
 
 son, not require any new and additional interference, the effects 
 of free agency would be variable, (though still confined within 
 the limited powers of the rational creature,) and, for that rea- 
 son, would require the special interposition of the Creator at 
 some period or other, and, perhaps, at different periods. Mr. 
 Hume also overlooks the fact, that, although experience has 
 shown that some men will lie, under the influence of certain 
 motives, others will not under any known temptation ; and that 
 human testimony, for that reason, may be credible to the high- 
 est degree of moral certainty. I believe that London exists, 
 and I believe it with the same certainty that I do any other of 
 the most certain facts. This I believe purely upon human tes- 
 timony. Now why should I adopt an arbitrary rule, and say 
 that a miracle may occur, but there can be no testimony to 
 prove it ? Did the laws of any country ever admit the possible 
 existence of important facts, and yet propose to reject all testi- 
 mony to prove them ? The facts had as well not exist at all. 
 
 Mr. Hume seems to have become so sensible of the arbitrary 
 and sweeping nature of his general position, that he puts in this 
 limitation. 
 
 " I beg," he says, " the limitations here made may be re- 
 marked, when I say that a miracle can never be proved so as to 
 be the foundation of a system of religion ; for I own that other- 
 wise there may possibly be miracles or violations of the usual 
 course of nature of such a kind as to admit of proof from hu- 
 man testimony." 
 
 Upon which the profound Starkie has these remarks : 
 
 " In what way the use to be made of a fact when proved, can 
 affect the validity of the proof; or how it can be that a fact 
 proved to be true, is not true for all purposes to which it is rele- 
 vant, I pretend not to understand." (1 Starkie on Ev.) 
 
 And Mr. Starkie is surely right. This limitation of Mr. 
 Hume cuts up his general position by the roots. All that he 
 had before said about " a firm and unalterable experience," and 
 the " entire " argument drawn from it against miracles, is at 
 once unsaid by admitting that a miracle may exist, and may be 
 proved by human testimony. His limitation is like a proviso 
 repugnant to the purview of the statute itself; as if a statute 
 
MIRACLES. 237 
 
 granted a piece of land to A, provided such person does not 
 exist. 
 
 The candor and manliness of Mr. Hume must be conceded, 
 because he conceals none of the consequences of his theory, but 
 lets us know distinctly the reasons which impel him to adopt his 
 arbitrary rule for the exclusion of human testimony. He recom- 
 mends his readers " to form a general resolution never to lend 
 any attention to the testimony, (for miracles in favor of religion,) 
 with whatever specious pretext it may be covered." The rea- 
 son he gives is because " those who are so silly as to examine 
 the affair by that medium, and seek particular flaws in the testi- 
 mony, are almost sure to be confounded." (Cited 2 Hay on 
 Miracles, 196.) 
 
 The extent of this concession is certainly very great. How 
 distressed must be the condition of that reasoner, who, to sus- 
 tain his position, is compelled to shut out all proof! But it 
 must be conceded that this system is effectual. It is as much so 
 as the maxim of pirates, that " dead men tell no tales." Mr. 
 Hume does not kill the witnesses. He only closes their mouths 
 by refusing to hear them. His means of suppressing testimony 
 may be more merciful, but fully as arbitrary and irrational. 
 
 The best result of my reason and reflection is this that a 
 miracle is possible, and, therefore, not incredible that the ques- 
 tion whether a particular miraculous event occurred, is purely a 
 question of fact, to be established by testimony that to prove 
 an event contrary to the order of nature, requires more testi- 
 mony, or stronger proof, than to establish an ordinary event ; 
 because it requires a greater weight of testimony to rebut and 
 overcome the prima facie presumption against miracles, than to 
 establish a general case, in the first instance. He who assumes 
 to overcome a prima facie presumption against him, must ne^ 
 cessarily bring a greater amount of proof than he would be re- 
 quired to produce, if no such presumption stood in his way. 
 
 3. Protestant theories. 
 
 The views of Protestants on this subject, as on many others, 
 have undergone great changes. Protestant writers generally, 
 if not entirely, up to the period of the publication of Dr. Middle- 
 ton's flippant " Free Enquiry," admitted the existence of mira* 
 
238 MIRACLES. 
 
 cles after the days of the apostles. They disagreed as to the 
 period of their cessation, some bringing it down as late as the 
 fifth century. In attempting to fix this period, these writers 
 were involved in great perplexity. Dr. Middleton, therefore, 
 assumed the hold ground that miracles ceased with the apostles. 
 Most Protestant writers since that period have followed Middle- 
 ton, so far as I am advised. This is now the more general Prot- 
 estant theory on the subject. 
 
 This ground, like that of an invisible true Church, avoids 
 old, but gives rise to many new difficulties. Those who assume 
 this ground must necessarily give some criterion, by the aid of 
 which we may distinguish between the miracles of the apostolic 
 day, and those alleged to have happened since. The Bishop of 
 Salisbury, Dr. John Douglass, published a treatise upon the sub- 
 ject, entitled u The Criterion, or Rules by which the true mira- 
 cles of the New Testament are distinguished from the spurious 
 miracles of Pagans and Papists, by John Douglass, D. D., Lord 
 Bishop of Salisbury." After this the celebrated Dr. Paley pub- 
 lished his " View of the Evidences of Christianity," in which he 
 cites Dr. Douglass frequently, as authority. The treatise of Dr. 
 Douglass I have not access to. I shall, therefore, confine my 
 attention mostly to the views of Dr. Paley. 
 
 In a professed treatise upon the evidences of Christianity, by 
 a Protestant, it was necessary and proper to lay down the marks 
 that are alleged to distinguish the true miracles of the New Tes- 
 tament from the alleged false Popish miracles, so called. In the 
 outset, the learned Divine lays down these propositions : 
 
 " I. That there is satisfactory evidence that many professing 
 to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their 
 lives in labors, dangers, and suffe rings, voluntarily undergone, 
 in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely 
 in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they 
 also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 
 
 " II. That there is not satisfactory evidence that persons pro- 
 fessing to be original witnesses of other miracles, in their nature 
 as certain as these are, have ever acted in the same manner in 
 attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and properly 
 in consequence of their belief of those accounts." 
 
 It will readily appear that these two propositions regard the 
 
MIRACLES. 239 
 
 competency of witnesses. They do not regard the sufficiency of 
 the testimony itself. In their terms they are confined solely to 
 the competency of the witnesses. The distinction between the 
 competency of a witness, and the sufficiency of the testimony, is 
 a very plain one. Competency regards the witness, while sul- 
 Bciency regards the testimony. If a witness be incompetent, he 
 cannot be heard his testimony is not to be considered. If he 
 is competent, he will be heard ; but the testimony he gives may 
 be sufficient or insufficient to prove the truth of the allegation. 
 The facts proven by a competent witness may not be sufficient 
 to prove the proposition sought to be established, for this rea- 
 son, they may not possess the power of proof required. 
 
 The requisites to constitute the competency of an original 
 witness of a miracle, as laid down by Dr. Paley in his first pro- 
 position, are distinctly these : 
 
 1. He must have " voluntarily passed his life in labors, dan- 
 gers, and sufferings." 
 
 2. These must have been undergone in attestation of the ac- 
 counts which he delivered, and solely in consequence of his belief 
 of these accounts. 
 
 3. That the witness submitted, from the same motives, to 
 new rules of conduct. 
 
 It is clear that the witness to be competent, under this rule, 
 must possess all and each of the requisites laid down. If he 
 lacks any one single requisite, he cannot be heard. This is con- 
 clusively shown by the terms of the second proposition, which 
 rejects the testimony of witnesses not possessing the same re- 
 quisites. 
 
 I shall examine these requisites separately. 
 
 The first requisite excludes all persons, however honest and 
 reliable, numerous and sincere, unless they have voluntarily 
 passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings. If, then, the 
 witness happen to live in an age and country where no persecu- 
 tion exists, he could not testify ; for the dangers and sufferings 
 intended by the learned Divine are not those ordinarily incident 
 to human life, but those additional ones incurred in attesting 
 the truth of the miracle itself. This seems conclusively shown 
 by his arguments in support of his first proposition, as well as 
 by the proposition itself. If, then, a miracle should happen in a 
 
240 MIRACLES. 
 
 country where no one would persecute the witnesses, and where 
 they could not incur the perils mentioned, how could such a 
 fact be proven under such a theory ? It is of no concern what 
 the number and character of the witnesses may be, this arbitrary 
 requisite excludes them all. 
 
 The second requisite is still more exclusive. These labors, 
 dangers and sufferings must have been undergone in attestation 
 of the accounts which the witness delivers. 
 
 It would seem not quite correct to say, that the apostles en- 
 dured the sufferings and incurred the dangers, in attestation of 
 the facts they proved. It is more proper to say, that they su 
 fered, not alone because of their attestation, but also because 
 they believed and taught the system of the Lord Jesus. For 
 instance, Peter and John were arrested, after healing the crip- 
 ple, as stated in the third and fourth chapters of Acts, because 
 the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, 
 were "grieved that they taught the people, and preached 
 through Jesus the resurrection from the dead." And when 
 they were examined and discharged they were " commanded 
 not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus." It was not 
 the simple fact alone, that they gave their testimony to the 
 miracles of Christ, that brought upon them the sufferings and 
 dangers. The Jews themselves attested the miracles of Christ, 
 but said they were performed by the aid of Beelzebub, and 
 they also conceded the miracle performed by Peter. But the 
 Jews did not draw the same conclusions from the facts admit- 
 ted. Had the apostles simply said, " We saw the miracles per- 
 formed by Christ we saw Him after He had risen from the 
 dead we are compelled to state these facts when asked con- 
 cerning them, but we do not pretend to know by what power 
 these were performed we draw no conclusions from what we 
 saw and heard we found no religion upon that basis ; " it is 
 apprehended that no persecution would have followed. Those 
 Christians who were not the original witnesses of Christ's mira- 
 cles, were also persecuted. In fact, all who believed the system, 
 and openly professed it, were persecuted. The apostles were 
 more persecuted than others, because they were the first teach- 
 ers, and claimed to have been commissioned by Christ Himself. 
 
 But the second branch of the second requisite, is by far the 
 
MIRACLES. 241 
 
 most important. This branch requires these voluntary dangers 
 and sufferings to have been undergone " solely in consequence 
 of the belief" of the witness in the testimony he gives. The 
 witness must not only undergo the sufferings and incur the 
 dangers, but this must be done from one motive only, i. e., the 
 belief of the particular facts related by him, as an original wit- 
 ness. This is to be his sole motive. If, then, the witness be a 
 Christian before he saw the miracle, he cannot testify, unless he 
 ceased to be such, and " submitted to new rules of conduct." 
 In other words, if his belief of the miracle changed his belief of 
 Christianity, and he, therefore, submitted to new rules of con- 
 - duct, he could be a witness under Dr. Paley's rule of evidence. 
 But if he remained a Christian, of course his mouth must be 
 closed. And this result is not only clear from the proposition 
 itself, but it is distinctly stated and insisted on, in considering 
 the second proposition. 
 
 The learned Divine, when he comes to consider his second 
 proposition, makes two distinctions : " those relating to tho 
 proof, and those which relate to the miracles." Under the first 
 division relative to the proof, he lays out several classes of cases 
 excluded by his first proposition, and his seventh class he gives 
 in these words : " We have laid out of the case, those accounts 
 which require no more than a simple assent ; and we now also 
 lay out of the case those which come merely in affirmance of 
 opinions already formed. This last circumstance is of the ut- 
 most importance to notice well." What an emphasis the learned 
 Divine lays upon " this last circumstance " ! 
 
 After further remarks in reference to this class of exclusion, 
 the learned author says : " No part of this description belongs 
 to the ordinary evidence of Heathen or Popish miracles. Even 
 most of the miracles alleged to have been performed by Chris- 
 tians, in the second and third century of its era, want this con- 
 firmation. It constitutes indeed a line of partition between the 
 origin and the progress of Christianity." If, therefore, a man 
 be a Christian before he witnessed the miracle in favor of Chris- 
 tianity, he cannot be a competent witness under this rule, al- 
 though he undergo the sufferings and dangers ; because, as the 
 Dr. says, " men may not only receive a miraculous account, but 
 may both act and suffer on the side and in the cause, which the 
 22 
 
24:2 MIRACLES. 
 
 miracle supports, yet not act or suffer for ihe miracle, but in 
 pursuance of a prior persuasion." May not suffer for the par- 
 ticular miracle, but in pursuance of a prior persuasion ! ! 
 
 That the learned Divine intended his two propositions as 
 fixing the competency of witnesses, is still further shown by his 
 subsequent remarks. As we have already seen, that, in treating 
 his second proposition, he lays out two classes excluded by the 
 first, and embraced under the second, proposition ; namely : 
 those relating to the proof, and those relating to the miracles 
 themselves. In laying out the cases embraced under his second 
 proposition, there is but one chapter employed ; and after lay- 
 ing out the cases mentioned by him, both as to the proof and 
 the miracles themselves, he closes the chapter with these re- 
 marks : 
 
 " I apprehend that, when we remove from the comparison, 
 the cases which are fairly disposed of by the observations that 
 have been stated, many cases will not remain. To those which 
 do remain we apply this final distinction : that there is not sat- 
 isfactory evidence that persons pretending to be original wit- 
 nesses of the miracles, passed their lives in labors, dangers, and 
 sufferings, voluntarily undertaken and undergone in attestation 
 of the accounts which they delivered, and properly in conse- 
 quence of their belief of the truth of those accounts." 
 
 And surely the learned Divine was right in his opinion, that 
 if he had erred in his enumeration of the different classes of cases 
 excluded by his first, and embraced by his second, sweeping 
 reposition, that a mere repetition of his second proposition 
 itself, would most effectually settle all those cases he might have 
 omitted. And after having placed all Christian witnesses to 
 miracles occurring in the progress of Christianity, in such a po- 
 sition that they could not possibly possess the requisites of com- 
 petency he lays down, he may well and safely say, " there is 
 no satisfactory evidence " that they did possess these impossible 
 requisites. 
 
 The third requisite excludes all those original witnesses to 
 miracles, who did not, from a simple belief of the particular 
 miracles they saw, "submit to new rules of conduct." If, 
 therefore, the miracle were performed in affirmance of Chris- 
 tianity, and the witness was a Christian at the time he saw it, 
 
MIRACLES. 243 
 
 of course he could not testify to the fact he saw, if he remained 
 a Christian. 
 
 The essence of Dr. Paley's two propositions, when taken and 
 considered together, is this : that no persons (however numerous, 
 honest, and reliable they may have been) who were Christians 
 at the time they saw the miracles performed, and remained 
 Christians afterwards, can be competent witnesses to prove the 
 facts they saw. 
 
 The laws of every civilized country require testimony to be 
 given by competent witnesses. Before a witness can speak, he 
 must possess the requisites to constitute competency. So, with 
 Dr. Paley. He puts forth certain requisites to constitute com- 
 petency ; and these requisites are of such a character that it is 
 impossible for witnesses who lived after the days of the apostles 
 to possess them. 
 
 The learned Divine was bound, from the nature of his sub- 
 ject, and his own views as a Protestant, to mark the dividing 
 line between the miracles of the Scriptures, and those not re- 
 corded therein. As he disbelieved the alleged Catholic mira- 
 cles, he was necessarily obliged to adopt some rule that would 
 effectually exclude them. If, therefore, he excluded the wit- 
 nesses to these miracles, and would not permit them to be 
 heard, as a matter of course, these alleged miracles could not 
 be proved. And it will be seen by the attentive inquirer, how 
 studiously his two propositions were framed to accomplish this 
 result. 
 
 And it must be conceded that his rules of competency wholly 
 preclude all investigation. Nothing certainly can place the ad- 
 vocates of Catholic miracles, more completely at fault. There 
 is not a spot of earth left to them, upon which to rest the soles 
 of their feet. They are only allowed room for their graves. 
 Their witnesses cannot testify, simply because they were Chris- 
 tians, and remained true to the faith. They are incompetent 
 witnesses, because they did right. They believed before they 
 had seen ; and although our Lord pronounced such blessed, 
 they are still to be rejected, for that reason. And is it the le- 
 gitimate effect of Christianity to destroy a man's integrity? 
 Are his senses prostrated ? Can he still not see ? 
 
 And when the learned author says, that most of the miracles 
 
244 MIRACLES. 
 
 of the second and third centuries, were given in affirmance of a 
 religion already established, he does not mean to admit that a 
 portion of them may be proved. " This description," he says, 
 " constitutes, indeed, a line of partition between the origin and 
 progress of Christianity." His first proposition regards " Chris- 
 tian Miracles ; " and his second, (which embraces all those ex- 
 cluded by the first,) includes all others. And " Christian Mira- 
 cles " are only those found in the Scriptures, as he says, in the 
 beginning of the first chapter, that " Christ, his associates and 
 immediate followers, acted the part which the first proposition 
 imputes to them ; " and that " they did so in attestation of the 
 miraculous history recorded in our Scriptures, and solely in 
 consequence of the belief of the truth of this history." And so, 
 when he says that "no part of this description belongs to the 
 ordinary evidence of Heathen or Popish Miracles," he does not 
 mean to say, that any of the so-called Popish miracles are not 
 rejected by his first proposition. When he uses these expres- 
 sions of seeming limited meaning, he does so in reference to 
 only one of the requisites he lays down ; and even in reference 
 to this, we cannot well see how any witnesses to miracles, alleged 
 to have occurred after the " origin of Christianity," could pos- 
 sess that requisite, except those who changed their faith by 
 ceasing to be Christians. 
 
 This sweeping rule of exclusion is very much like the as- 
 sertion of Bishop Watson, in his third letter in reply to Mr. 
 Gibbon. " We see," says he, " the pretensions of the Romish 
 priesthood to miraculous powers, and we know them to be 
 false." There is no disputing the assertion of a gentleman, 
 when he says he knows a thing, even although it be of a nega- 
 tive, that most difficult of all things to prove. Dr. Paley does 
 not use language quite so strong. He does not say, I know 
 the alleged Catholic miracles to be false, but " I deny that there 
 can, in the nature of the case, be any competent testimony to 
 prove them." 
 
 But with all due deference for the logic of Dr. Paley, is his 
 rule true f Does he mean to assume that miracles in affirmance 
 of Christianity are IMPOSSIBLE ? And if possible, does he mean 
 then to say, that there could be no competent witnesses to prove 
 such miracles ? And as they may have happened, we will sup 
 
MIRACLES. 245 
 
 pose they did occur. How then, under the Dr.'s first proposi- 
 tion, can they be proven ? It is impossible for the witnesses to 
 possess all the requisites he requires in an original witness of 
 miracles. Under his rule of competency, a stupendous fact may 
 exist, and which was performed by God for a great purpose ; 
 yet this purpose cannot be attained, simply because those who 
 witnessed the fact, were then believers in God Almighty' 1 s truth. 
 This is about as conclusive as the position of the Infidel, who 
 would not hear any proof of miracles from a Christian, because 
 his testimony would establish his own system and he would 
 not hear any from an unbeliever, because he was not honest ; 
 otherwise, he would have been converted by the miracle. So, 
 both classes of witnesses were incompetent, and he would not 
 hear testimony at all. 
 
 There are many instances where miracles were performed 
 during "the progress" of the Old Dispensation, simply "in 
 affirmance " of truths already revealed. (1 Kings xviii. xx. 
 2 Kings i. Id. xxiii.) How would Dr. Paley dispose of such 
 miracles under his theory ? 
 
 And are not the respective summary positions of David 
 Hume and Dr. Paley, based essentially upon the same funda- 
 mental ground ? Are they not both the embodiment of the 
 same radical error distrust of human veracity ? Are they 
 not both alike arbitrary ? Are they not both partial ? Is 
 not the effect of both the same to close the mouths of hon- 
 est and able witnesses? Do they not both exclude all in- 
 vestigation into alleged facts conceded to be possible ? What 
 essential difference is there between the Infidel and the 
 Protestant? Mr. Hume had so little confidence in human 
 testimony, that he would not receive it at all to prove a mira- 
 cle, " so as to be the foundation of a system of religion ; " and 
 Dr. Paley has so little, that he will only receive the testimony 
 of the men of one particular generation, and for one purpose 
 only. The only difference between the Infidel and the Christian 
 philosopher is, that the former rejects human testimony in the 
 origin, and the latter in the progress, of Christianity. Mr. 
 Hume set out to reject Christianity, and Dr. Paley to reject the 
 alleged Catholic miracles, and each accomplished the end in- 
 tended with about equal ability and success. And the remark 
 
246 MIRACLES. 
 
 of the learned Starkie, in reference to Mr. Hume's position, is 
 equally applicable to that of Dr. Paley. " Estoppels," he says, 
 " are odious, even in judicial investigations, because they tend 
 to exclude the truth ; in metaphysics they are intolerable." 
 
 But the reasoning of the learned Divine in support of this 
 excluding rule regarding witnesses, is based upon the ground 
 that men more readily receive accounts of facts which go to 
 confirm them in their existing opinions, than they do those 
 which require them to change. " The miracle," he says, " like 
 any other argument which only confirms what was before be- 
 lieved, is admitted with little examination. In the moral, as in 
 the natural world, it is change which requires a cause." 
 
 There can be no doubt of the truth of such a general princi- 
 ple in reference to the mass of mankind. But there are circum- 
 stances connected with the first witnesses, that must be taken 
 into the account. The learned author says : " This people, 
 (the Jews) with or without reason, had worked themselves into 
 a persuasion that some signal and greatly advantageous change 
 was to be effected in the condition of their country, by the 
 agency of a long-promised messenger from heaven." Afterwards, 
 in speaking of the belief and conduct of the apostles and early 
 Christians, he anticipates an objection, and answers it in this way : 
 
 " If it be said that the sure promise of a future state would 
 do all this ; I answer, that the sure promise of a future state, 
 without any evidence to give credit or assurance to it, would 
 do nothing. A few wandering fishermen talking of a resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, could produce no effect. If it be farther said, 
 that men easily believe what they anxiously desire ; I again an- 
 swer, that in my opinion, the very contrary of this is nearer to 
 the truth. Anxiety of desire, earnestness of expectation, the 
 vastness of an event, rather cause men to disbelieve, to doubt, to 
 dread a fallacy, to distrust, to examine. When our Lord's res- 
 urrection was first reported to the apostles they did not believe, 
 we are told, for joy. This was natural, and is agreeable to ex- 
 perience." 
 
 That the Jews expected and desired the advent of the Mes- 
 siah, there can be no doubt ; and that the time, in their opinion, 
 was at hand when Christ appeared, would seem equally clear. 
 Christ came, not to establish an entire new antagonistic system, 
 
MIRACLES. 24:7 
 
 but to fulfil and end the old one, and also to. establish the new, 
 in pursuance of the old dispensation itself. His miracles were, 
 therefore, both in affirmance of the old system, and the estab- 
 lishment of the new. The difference between Christ and the 
 Jews regarded not the fact that a new kingdom should be set 
 up, but the character of this new kingdom, and the identity of 
 its founder. 
 
 The desire of immortality, and the desire for the advent of 
 Christ, must have had some effect upon the minds of men. Dr. 
 Paley thinks it would naturally have the effect to make them 
 more cautious. I cannot quite agree with him in the form in 
 which he states it. My observation and experience lead me to 
 a modified conclusion. I believe the desire of immortality 
 would predispose the great majority of men, to a certain extent, 
 to believe a system promising what they wished. In other 
 words, I think the desire of immortality would induce the ma- 
 jority of men more readily to believe Christianity, than if they 
 did not desire immortality at all. So, I think that when men 
 desire the confirmation of their existing opinions, that such de- 
 sire would influence them to a certain extent. 
 
 It is only upon the ground that desire will, to some extent, 
 predispose men to believe a religion, that we can account for 
 the fact that the great mass of mankind have believed false re- 
 ligions without sufficient testimony. 
 
 But the effects of this desire upon the majority of men, in 
 ooth cases, is limited. It would not induce men blindly to re- 
 ceive the most extraordinary accounts of visible miracles, with- 
 out competent proof. And I also believe that while desire would 
 have the effect mentioned upon the majority, it would have a 
 contrary effect upon the minority the prudent and the cau- 
 tious. These would distrust and examine more carefully, be- 
 cause sensible of their wish. I have always observed such to be 
 the case with the most prudent and just persons, everywhere. 
 That the vastness of an event such as a miracle, would make men 
 more cautious than they would be in reference to inferior mat- 
 ters, I think there can be no question ; but I cannot understand 
 why this character of an event should have that effect more at 
 one time than at another. The Jews were just as well prepared 
 for miracles as the Christians in after times. They had the 
 
248 MIRACLES. 
 
 miraculous pool with them, and also their Scriptures, which were 
 full of miraculous accounts. 
 
 But the learned Divine makes a distinction between the ef- 
 fect of a desire to acquire something new, and a desire to preserve 
 that which is already possessed, and he assumes that the effects, 
 in the two cases, are precisely opposite. When the Jews de- 
 sired immortality, this made them more cautious and distrustful ; 
 but when the Christians, in after times, desired the same thing, 
 this made them more credulous. When the Jews desired im- 
 mortality, they were more distrustful of the ONLY system that 
 promised it to them ; and when the Christians desired the con- 
 firmation of the same system, this rendered them credulous and 
 incautious. The desire of immortality was the same in both 
 Jew and Christian. Now I cannot, I confess, see why, if the 
 wish was father to the thought in one case, it was not equally 
 so in the other. The events in both cases are equally vast and 
 important. 
 
 But I could not understand how all this could affect the wit- 
 nesses of miracles. The desire of immortality was equally strong 
 in the witnesses in one age as in another. Man is always the 
 same, and will desire the same good. But could such a desire 
 induce the witnesses to commit perjury ? Could they be so 
 blinded by this desire, either in the origin or progress of Chris- 
 tianity, as to lose the use of their senses ? I should think not. 
 And conceding, for the sake of the argument only, that men 
 would more readily believe a miraculous account, affirming a 
 system promising immortality, than they would the same ac- 
 count, establishing the same theory ; still, this would only af- 
 fect the hearers, and not the witnesses. It would only show 
 that impositions might be more easy in one case than in the other. 
 But this could not affect the competency of the testimony itself. 
 If, then, an unbeliever investigates this testimony, the relation 
 he sustains to the testimony establishing the first miracles of 
 Christianity, or those occurring afterwards, is precisely the same. 
 And it would seem it should be so with the Christian. 
 
 As to the competency of witnesses, the law lays down the 
 true rule. The witness must be both able and willing to state 
 the truth. He must know the facts, to be able ; and he must 
 be honest, to be willing. 
 
MIRACLES. 249 
 
 In reference to the witnesses of miracles, the only proper in- 
 quiry must regard these two points : is he able ? is he willing ? 
 If he be both able and willing, he must be a good witness. But 
 to prove his integrity, Dr. Paley lays down certain tests that no 
 witness can possess, except those who lived in the origin of 
 Christianity. These tests are local and partial, and confined, 
 from their nature, to the witnesses of the first miracles. For the 
 sake of illustration, I will suppose two witnesses, the first a wit- 
 ness of the original miracles, the second a witness of subsequent 
 miracles. If they are both equally honest and able, there must 
 be some means to show this in both cases. If not, of what 
 avail are the ability and integrity of the second witness ? The 
 facts to be proved are, in both cases, miracles. The sufferings 
 undergone by both witnesses for Christianity, we will suppose 
 equally great ; for the Christians in the ages subsequent to that 
 of the apostles suffered all the persecutions they did. These 
 two witnesses, then, give the same evidence of sincerity. If the 
 first witness testify falsely, he gains no immortality. His testi- 
 mony only establishes a false system, in which he can have no 
 interest in the future, and he incurs punishment in the present. 
 If the second witness testify falsely to affirm the system, he for- 
 feits heaven, and has, therefore, no more interest in sustaining 
 the system than the first had to establish it. 
 
 And were I going to lay down an arbitrary rule for the ex- 
 clusion of witnesses of miracles, I would exclude the first, and 
 admit the second, for these reasons : The first witness, suppos- 
 ing the system to be false, knew that fact. In giving his testi- 
 mony, he could not be influenced by any hope or fear of the fu- 
 ture. All he would have to dread would be the infliction of 
 punishment in this life. But the second witness, whether the 
 system be true or false, would give his testimony under the fear 
 of future, as well as present punishment, and the loss of future 
 reward. The second witness would then give his testimony un- 
 der three tests : 1. The fear of present punishment ; 2. The fear 
 of future punishment ; and 3. The loss of a happy immortality ; 
 while the first witness would give his evidence only under one 
 test, the fear of present punishment. 
 
 But far be it from me to lay down any such test of the com- 
 petency of witnesses to miracles. Christ has laid down none 
 23 
 
250 MIRACLES. 
 
 such. And after all the reflection I have been able to bestow 
 upon this subject, there is but one just and righteous rule, in 
 my opinion, namely : is the witness able and willing f And as 
 to his integrity, that may be shown, either by sufferings, ser- 
 vices, pious and exemplary conduct, or in any of the many ways 
 by which an honest man may prove his integrity, and establish 
 his character. And it does not matter what his particular views 
 may be, or what his religion, if he is honest, and the facts he 
 states are of such a character as to preclude reasonable ground 
 for mistake. 
 
 But this sweeping and summary position of Dr. Paley gives 
 rise to very serious and important reflections. 
 
 Is it possible that the proofs of the alleged Catholic miracles 
 are so direct and strong, and the miracles of such a conclusive 
 character in themselves, that an intelligible line of partition can- 
 not be made between them and the Scripture miracles, without 
 the adoption of a rule so extraordinary? Was the most learned 
 Divine compelled, from the inexorable necessity of his case, to 
 adopt a principle essentially the same with that of Hume ? Is 
 it, then, necessary to defeat the Catholic miracles, to impeach 
 the veracity, and reject the testimony of all men, except those 
 who lived at one single period of time ? Are men still men ? 
 Or have they degenerated to beasts ? Have they no integrity 
 left ? Was the natural effect of Christianity to make men more 
 the dupes of imposition ? Were they not expressly told to be 
 wise as serpents, while they were harmless as doves ? To mark 
 this line between the Scripture and Catholic miracles, are we 
 driven to the melancholy and miserable conclusion that truth, 
 integrity, and discretion, were only found at one period of man's 
 history ? That since the establishment of Christianity, men have 
 grown worse instead of better ? If so, it must be so. But it is 
 a most humiliating and painful conclusion. 
 
 Are we honest ourselves ? If so, can we know the fact ? 
 And if we can and do know it, is there no means by which we 
 can show it to others ? And if we are honest, can we not speak 
 the truth ? And when we do speak the truth, should w r e not 
 be believed ? And what we claim for ourselves, shall we not 
 accord to others ? Shall we do right ? Shall we be just ? 
 
MIRACLES. 251 
 
 4. Protestant theories further considered. 
 
 In reference to the views of Protestants before the time of 
 Dr. Middleton, he says : 
 
 " The prevailing opinion of Protestants, namely, of Tillotson, 
 Marshall, Dodwell, &c., is, that miracles continued during the 
 three first centuries. Dr. Waterland brings them down to the 
 fourth, Dr. Berriman to the fifth. These unwarily betrayed the 
 Protestant cause into the hands of its enemies : for it was in 
 these primitive ages, particularly in the third, fourth, and fifth, 
 those flourishing times of miracles, in which the chief corruptions 
 of Popery, monkery, the worship of saints, prayers for the dead, 
 the superstitious use of images and of sacraments were intro- 
 duced." " We shall find, after the conversion of the Roman 
 empire, the greater part of their boasted miracles were wrought 
 either by monks, or relics, or the sign of the cross, &c. : where- 
 fore, if we admit the miracles, we must admit the rites for the 
 sake of which they were wrought : they both rest on the same 
 bottom." " Every one may see what a resemblance the prince 
 pies and practices of the fourth century, as they are described 
 by the most eminent Fathers of that age, bear to the present 
 rites of the Popish church." " By granting the Romanists but 
 a single age of miracles after the times of the apostles, we shall 
 be entangled in a series of difficulties, whence we can never fair- 
 ly extricate ourselves, till we allow the same powers also to 
 the present age." (Cited Milner's End of Con., Letter xxiii.) 
 
 In reference to the opinions of Protestants, as to the period 
 when miracles are alleged to have ceased, Gibbon, in a note to 
 the fifteenth chapter of his Decline and Fall, says : " The con- 
 version of Constantine is the era most usually fixed by Protes- 
 tants. The more rational divines are unwilling to admit the 
 miracles of the IVth, whilst the more credulous are unwilling to 
 reject those of the Vth century." 
 
 It will be seen that Dr. Middleton takes the distinct ground 
 that no miracles have been performed since the times of the 
 apostles. And although, from his statement in the first extract, 
 we might infer that he did not intend to deny the alleged mir- 
 acles of the second century, as he specifies those particularly of 
 the third, fourth, and fifth, the last extract is very full to the 
 
252 MIRACLES. 
 
 point, and excludes all miracles after the days of the apostles. 
 And the reason is well assigned by Middleton, that the admis- 
 sion of miracles after the times of the apostles, involves the 
 Protestant theory in a series of difficulties. And such an ad- 
 mission certainly does. 
 
 But has not the theory of Dr. Middleton also its " series of 
 difficulties " f How will he get around the evidence of alleged 
 miracles since the apostolic times ? Dr. Paley adopts the arbi- 
 trary principle, that the witnesses are incompetent, while Dr. 
 Middleton takes the bold ground, that the testimony is false, 
 and the witnesses perjured. He says : " It must be confessed, 
 that the claim to a miraculous power was universally asserted 
 and believed in all Christian countries, and in all ages of the 
 church till the time of the Reformation : for Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory makes no difference between one age and another, but car- 
 ries on the succession of its miracles, as of all other common 
 events, through all of them indifferently to that memorable pe- 
 riod." " As far as church historians can illustrate any thing, 
 there is not a single point, in all history, so constantly, explicit- 
 ly, and unanimously affirmed by them, as the continual succes- 
 sion of those powers, through all ages, from the earliest Father 
 who first mentions them, down to the Reformation ; which 
 same succession is still further deduced by persons of the same 
 eminent character for probity, learning, and dignity in the 
 Romish church, to this very day : so that the only doubt which 
 can remain with us, is, whether church historians are to be 
 trusted or not : for if any credit be due to them in the present 
 case, it must reach to all or none : because the reason for be- 
 lieving them in any one age will be found to be of equal force 
 in all, as far as it depends on the character of the persons attest- 
 ing, or on the thing attested." " When we reflect upon the 
 surprising confidence with which the fathers of the fourth age 
 affirmed, as true, what they themselves had forged, or knew to 
 be forged, it is natural to suspect that so bold a defiance of 
 truth could not be acquired or become general at once, but 
 must have been gradually carried to that height by the ex- 
 ample of former ages." (Cited Milner's End Con., Letter 
 rdii) 
 
 It must be confessed that the language of Dr. Middleton is 
 
MIRACLES. 253 
 
 candid and emphatic, definite and certain. The meaning is pal- 
 pable. He does not seek to avoid a difficulty by an evasion of 
 his true position, but states it manfully, and takes the conse- 
 quences. He does not equivocate, as if 
 
 " Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike." 
 
 He admits, what no candid man, it would seem, can deny, that 
 the historians who record these alleged miracles were persons 
 of " eminent character for probity, learning, and dignity." He 
 does not quibble and say, their testimony is not direct and full 
 to the point. He admits that. He does not say they were de- 
 ceived that they were the dupes of others. But he does say 
 plainly, they were all liars and cheats from the first to the last 
 from the beginning to the end. He does not say these were 
 pious impositions, arising from an honest but mistaken zeal ; as 
 if there could be an honest rogue, or a pious cheat. He takes 
 the consistent ground that the "things attested" were matters 
 about which men could not be mistaken ; and that the "persons 
 attesting affirmed, as true, what they themselves had forged, or 
 knew to be forged." Bishop Watson, in his third letter to 
 Gibbon, takes the same ground. " We see the pretensions of 
 the Romish priesthood," he says, u to miraculous powers, and 
 we know them to be false ; we are conscious that they, at least, 
 must sacrifice their integrity to their interest or their ambition." 
 Mr. Breckenridge also takes the same ground ; and says, in 
 reference to the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church : 
 " and sustaining them by such barefaced impostures called mir- 
 acles." (Controversy H. & B., 332.) 
 
 Among the secondary causes assigned by Gibbon, in the fif- 
 teenth chapter of his Decline and Fall, for the rapid progress 
 of Christianity, he sets down, " the miraculous powers ascribed 
 to the primitive church ; " and in speaking of this cause, he 
 sa>s : 
 
 " But the miraculous cure of diseases of the most inveterate, 
 or even preternatural kind, can no longer occasion any surprise 
 when we recollect, that in the days of Irenaeus, about the end 
 of the second century, the resurrection of the dead was very far 
 from being esteemed an uncommon event ; that miracle was 
 frequently performed upon necessary occasions, by great fasting 
 
254: MIRACLES. 
 
 and the joint supplications of the church of the place, and that 
 the persons thus restored to their prayers, had lived afterwards 
 among -them many years." 
 
 " The Christian church, from the time of the apostles and 
 their first disciples, has claimed an uninterrupted succession of 
 miraculous powers, the gift of tongues, of vision and prophecy, 
 the power of expelling demons, of healing the sick, and of rais- 
 ing the dead." 
 
 Again he says : " Dr. Middleton observes that as this pre- 
 tension (the gift of tongues) of all others was the most difficult 
 to support by art, it was the soonest given up. The observation 
 suited his hypothesis." * * * " Every age bears testimony to 
 the wonderful events by which it was distinguished, and its tes- 
 timony appears no less weighty and respectable than that of 
 the preceding generation, till we are insensibly led on to accuse 
 our own consistency, if in the eighth or twelfth century we deny 
 to the venerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree 
 of confidence, which, in the second century, we had so liberally 
 granted to Justin or to Irena3us. If the truth of any of these 
 miracles is appreciated by their apparent use and propriety, 
 every age had unbelievers to convince, heretics to confute, and 
 idolatrous nations to convert ; and sufficient motives might al- 
 ways be produced, to justify the interposition of Heaven." 
 
 The facts attested and conceded, and the ground taken, are 
 certainly very important. In my investigations upon this sub- 
 ject, having always believed, because I found it always asserted 
 by Protestants, that the alleged Catholic miracles were spurious, 
 and because I had not known what were the alleged proofs, 
 these facts and this testimony did make a most powerful im- 
 pression upon my mind. I had been a lawyer for some years, 
 and had given much attention to the subject of human credi- 
 bility. I did not dream that the testimony to support the 
 alleged Catholic miracles was so strong direct certain long 
 continued so often repeated and by so many witnesses in 
 so many different places in so many continuous ages one after 
 another and these witnesses "persons of eminent character for 
 probity, learning, and dignity ^ as Dr. Middleton candidly ad- 
 mits, and as Gibbon testifies. Nor did I dream that, to over- 
 come this proof, Protestants were forced to adopt rules so arbi- 
 
MIRACLES. 255 
 
 trary, or so acrimonious. And when I looked into the matter 
 carefully, I found that Dr. Middleton had not admitted too 
 much, when he says: 
 
 " As far as church historians can illustrate any thing, there 
 is not a single point, in all history, so constantly, explicitly, and 
 unanimously affirmed by them, as the continued succession of 
 those powers, through all ages, from the earliest Father who 
 first mentions them, down to the Reformation." And that 
 " the claim to a miraculous power was universally asserted and 
 believed in all Christian countries, and in all ages of the 
 church," as Dr. Middleton asserts, (which must of course in- 
 clude the second, the days immediately succeeding the apostles,) 
 is clear, not only from his admissions, and the testimony of 
 Gibbon, but from the earliest records and monuments of the 
 church, and the testimony of Heathen writers themselves. And 
 these earliest church historians were most of them holy martyrs, 
 4 who sealed their faith, and their testimony, by their voluntary 
 blood. 
 
 The rule laid down by Dr. Middleton, and followed by most 
 Protestant writers since his day, gives rise to very momentous 
 reflections. It is certainly one of the most formidable and 
 extensive wholesale charges ever preferred against human na- 
 ture, and concedes all the Infidel could desire, to enable him to 
 defeat Christianity itself. The charges, upon their face, are, 
 indeed, most extraordinary. There is an amount of calm, dis- 
 passionate, cool, calculating, continued, successful forgery and 
 falsehood, joined to the most consummate and life-long hypoc- 
 risy, and in persons who gave the greatest possible proofs of 
 integrity, and under circumstances which insured it, that has, I 
 apprehend, no parallel among mankind. The mind sickens, and 
 staggers, and sinks, under such a mighty mass of unlimited 
 fraud. One cannot tell what to think of the vice and stupidity 
 of poor human nature, even in its best aspect ; nor can the 
 mind find where to rest. 
 
 This stupendous charge of human delinquency, involves,, 
 among others, these clear difficulties : 
 
 1. The combination is so extensive, embracing so many per- 
 sons, in places so widely separated from each other, and in so 
 many distant ages, and for so long a time, that one cannot con 
 
256 MIRACLES. 
 
 ceive how it could be possible. We know from dany proceed 
 ings in our courts of justice, that combinations of villains are 
 broken up every day that they cannot last long. Dishonest 
 men will fall out. Men without principle, change with chang- 
 ing circumstances. 
 
 2. But the combination is not only incredible, when consid- 
 ered with reference to numbers, places, and duration ; but the 
 false facts to be established by false proofs, were of such an ex- 
 traordinary character as to preclude the possibility of success. 
 They were plain, palpable, public facts, cognizant by the senses, 
 alleged to have been performed in the presence of numbers 
 subjected to every proper test, and were so fully proven, that 
 they were " universally asserted and believed." The most in- 
 veterate physical diseases are alleged to have been cured men 
 raised from the dead, and the patients in these cases remained 
 afterwards among those who knew them most intimately. 
 Many of these alleged miracles were performed in answer to 
 the prayers of whole churches, and were witnessed by great 
 numbers. And as to the character of these alleged miracles, 
 considered abstractly, they were just as various, and credible in 
 themselves, as the Scripture miracles. False miracles, it is true, 
 like false coin, have been asserted to have been performed ; but 
 they were confuted and exposed. And the very fact that false 
 miracles existed, is a proof that true miracles also existed. A 
 false coin is always but an imitation of the genuine. Had there 
 never been a genuine coin, there could not have been a coun- 
 terfeit. And the fact that false miracles have been detected 
 and exposed by proof, is a strong confirmatory evidence that 
 those not thus detected and exposed, are true. It marks the 
 dividing line between the false and the true. 
 
 3. But this ground is not only incredible, on account of the 
 character of the alleged combination, and the notorious and 
 visible nature of the false facts to be established by it ; but it 
 imputes vice and stupidity, of the most extraordinary character, 
 to the men of an age and reputation, where we should expect 
 the most heroic virtue, and the greatest Christian knowledge. 
 
 That vice of the most extensive and iniquitous kind should 
 be found among men of the most eminent character for probity, 
 learning, and dignity, as Dr. Middleton has it, is surely most 
 
MIRACLES. 5J.57 
 
 extraordinary. And that the immediate successors of the apos- 
 tles had among them so much fraud, and at the same time so 
 much stupidity, is also most astonishing. For this stupendous 
 system of fraud is alleged to have originated with those ap- 
 pointed by the apostles themselves, and was imposed upon 
 those they had themselves taught and converted by their own 
 labors. And not only so, but it had its origin in the days of 
 persecution, when it would seem that most men could not have 
 professed Christianity, but from honest motives. For we know, 
 if there be any truth in history at all, that persecutions, general, 
 bloody, and cruel, were oft repeated against the Christians from 
 the days of Christ, until A. D. 312. And these persecutions 
 were as cruel as human ingenuity could well make them. 
 Every description of insult and affliction awaited the Christian. 
 The Church had short intervals of rest, only to be followed by 
 renewed persecution. In the simple and beautiful language of 
 the author of Diognetus, who wrote about A. D. 130, and who 
 states that he " was a disciple of the apostle," the Christians 
 " loved all men and were persecuted by all ; they were unknown, 
 and yet were condemned." * * * " They were treated with dis- 
 honor, and by dishonor are made glorious ; their integrity is in- 
 sured by the insults they suffer ; when cursed, they bless, and 
 reproaches they pay with respect. When doing good they are 
 punished as evil-doers ; and when they are punished they rejoice 
 as men that are raised unto life. By Jews they are treated as 
 aliens and foes ; by Greeks they are persecuted ; and none of 
 their enemies can state a ground for their enmity." 
 
 " Their integrity was insured by the insults they suffered." 
 And is not this statement the most reasonable, upon its face, 
 that could be imagined ? For if we cannot find integrity among 
 the twelve millions of martyrs who suffered in those persecu- 
 tions, as also among those who incurred, but escaped the dan- 
 gers, where shah 1 we look for it ? Shall we seek it among those 
 who never gave any such proof of it ? 
 
 And these men of eminent character, who are alleged to 
 have committed these innumerable forgeries and frauds, who 
 were they f Were they Christians f Could they be such ? 
 Were they, under this supposition, any thing else but Atheists, 
 cheats, and liars ? What else can we justly call them ? Were 
 
258 MIRACLES. 
 
 they not hypocrites, who wore masks all their lives, and died 
 with them still on ? Did they not go about lying to teach vir- 
 tue f Did they not seal falsehood with their voluntary deaths ? 
 And the members of tLe Church who believed these things, who 
 were they f Were the/ not simple, stupid dupes, fit victims of 
 dishonesty ? Had they lc*t all their senses ? Were they hon- 
 est ? Did not all these thin^ happen in the most enlightened 
 age of Rome ? In the Augustan age of orators, poets, histo- 
 rians, and philosophers ? 
 
 But what adequate motives could have influenced these 
 men ? Men do not commit great crimes without great mo- 
 tives. Is it not a weary thing to wear a mask through life ? 
 How it goads the unnatural wearer ! How ill it fits ! And 
 what greater tests of sincerity did the apostles undergo, than 
 those endured in the second, third, and part of the fourth cen- 
 tury ? The persecutions were the same, the honors no more. 
 The Christians of those centuries had before their eyes the same 
 infamy, tortures, and death. In both cases their " integrity 
 was insured by the insults they suffered." And if the love of 
 fame could possibly be supposed to have produced such a result, 
 then Christ and His apostles had, if any difference, greater mo- 
 tives to put forth false statements than their immediate succes- 
 sors, for the reason, that there is more glory in founding an in- 
 stitution, than in sustaining it afterwards. 
 
 4. But besides these difficulties, the position of Dr. Middle- 
 ton impeaches the diligence and capacity of the apostles them- 
 selves. If miracles were to have ceased with the apostles, why 
 did they not tell us so ? Why did they not so inform those 
 they themselves taught ? Did they know it ? It was certainly 
 a most important matter; none scarcely more so. So far from 
 telling us so, they speak of miraculous powers, as they do of 
 any other permanent thing in the Church. If, on the contrary, 
 they did well instruct the bishops whom they appointed, as well 
 as the elders and members generally, and did inform them that 
 miracles should cease with their lives, where do we find the 
 slightest evidence of such a fact ? And these bishops and elders 
 must have been very incompetent and unworthy men. The 
 apostles must have made very bad appointments. And the 
 people they taught, must have been very poorly instructed. 
 
MIRACLES. 259 
 
 The idea that the whole Church, so widely diffused, and con- 
 taming such numbers in her communion, should unanimously, 
 in the days of stern trial, and immediately after the apostles, 
 and contrary to their express instructions, still affirm, and as- 
 sume to believe in, the continued existence of miracles, contrary 
 to the truth and the fact, is so unreasonable in itself, that I con- 
 fess I cannot believe it to be true. And the idea that the apos- 
 tles neglected to teach them properly, I cannot admit. Nor 
 can I understand how it could be possible to find, especially in 
 that honest and enlightened period, so much corruption and 
 stupidity in the Church. 
 
 5. But if such a combination were possible, and did take 
 place, and has continued in successful operation for about eigh- 
 teen centuries, so that the great and overwhelming majority of 
 professed Christians, in all ages, have been its dupes and vic- 
 tims ; is it not most remarkable that none of the thousand sects 
 of ancient and modern times have made and sustained any such 
 pretensions ? Why was this so ? They could not, each and 
 all of them, have been the true Church. They were often re- 
 proached because they could perform no miracles. Were they 
 all too honest to make such a pretension ? Were all the im- 
 postors in the Catholic Church ? Where was Marcion, who 
 mutilated the Scriptures to sustain his own views ? Was he 
 too honest to attempt a fraud so practical and easy, and so 
 much needed to support the pretensions of his theory ? Why 
 did not some other party try this successful experiment ? Suc- 
 cessful experiments never want imitators and competitors. The 
 originators are never " left alone in their glory." Others are 
 certain to " take up the tuneful lay." 
 
 And I am not aware that such a claim to a continued succes- 
 sion of miraculous powers, of the same or similar character, is 
 made by the adherents of any other religion in the world, Mo- 
 hammedan or Pagan. " Mohammed," Dr. Paley says, " did not 
 found his pretensions upon miracles properly so called ; that is, 
 upon proofs of supernatural agency, capable of being known and 
 attested by others." (Ev. Chr.) And the powers claimed by 
 the ancient magicians and the Eastern jugglers bear no compar- 
 ison, either with the Scripture or Catholic miracles. And as 
 Christianity is unlike any other religion in the world in regard 
 
260 MIRACLES. 
 
 to the time and proofs of its origin, so the claim of the Catholic 
 Church to so long a succession of such miraculous powers, is 
 without any parallel, I apprehend, in the history of mankind. 
 
 6. But if the " prevailing opinion of Protestants, that miracles 
 continued during the three first centuries," " unwarily betrayed 
 the Protestant cause into the hands of its enemies," as Dr. Mid- 
 dleton has it ; his position, I apprehend, when fairly and logi- 
 cally considered, "betrays the cause" of Christianity itself "into 
 the hands of its enemies." For this position of his assumes, as 
 true, a state of practical fraud and delusion, on the part of the 
 primitive Christians, that destroys all confidence in their discre- 
 tion and veracity. If true, the position undermines all confi- 
 dence in human integrity itself, and amply sustains Mr. Hume's 
 position, that men are not competent to prove a miracle for any 
 religious purpose. And the logical mind cannot understand 
 why we should believe miracles of one age upon the testimony 
 of witnesses, and refuse to believe the miracles of a subsequent 
 age, proven by the same kind of testimony, and miracles of the 
 same visible, palpable, public character, and established by a 
 succession of witnesses, more numerous, and equally credible. 
 Nor can the logical mind understand, if the alleged miracles of 
 the second, third, and fourth centuries were false, and still uni- 
 versally claimed as true, and received as such, when the Church 
 was so much more extended, and contained so many more mem- 
 bers, why the original miracles could not have been palmed 
 upon the converts of the apostles. 4 - For if all the ancient 
 Fathers," asks Dr. Milner, " and other writers are to be disbe- 
 lieved, respecting the miracles of their times, and those which 
 they themselves witnessed, upon what grounds are we to believe 
 them, in their report of the miracles which they had heard of 
 Christ and His apostles, those main props of the Gospel, and our 
 common Christianity ? Who knows but they may have forged 
 all the contents of the former, and the whole history of the lat- 
 ter ? " (End of Con.) And the reasoning mind will ask this 
 obvious question : " If these false pretensions to miracles as 
 great, visible, and public, as the alleged miracles of Christ and 
 His apostles, have been so successfully maintained and believed 
 by such numbers in all ages, why could not the early Christians 
 and others have been deceived by like false pretensions ? " 
 
MIRACLES. 26 J 
 
 And I cannot understand upon what rational ground Dr. 
 Middleton, as also all Protestant writers, in sustaining Christian- 
 ity against unbelievers, should quote and rely upon the testi- 
 mony of these " eminent " false witnesses. For the unbeliever 
 may well say : 
 
 " You cannot expect me to believe witnesses, that you admit 
 and insist are perjured. Surely you do not intend to mock my 
 understanding by asking me to believe the testimony of the very 
 witnesses whom you, yourselves, have been most careful to im- 
 peach f For if they would lie to sustain Christianity in one 
 way, surely they would in any other way that was practical and 
 efficient. And you have saved me the trouble of proving two 
 important points, namely : 
 
 1. Fraud and falsehood on the part of the leaders among the 
 early Christians. 
 
 2. Delusion on the part of their followers ; for you have, 
 indeed, assumed both. Nobody recorded your apostolical 
 miracles but Christians ; and you have given them just such a 
 character for fraud and delusion as would make them^ subjects 
 for impostors and victims." 
 
 And Mr. Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall, chapter fifteen, has 
 seen and stated the advantages the Protestant position gives the 
 infidel. In speaking of the period when miracles are alleged to 
 have ceased, he says : 
 
 " Whatever era is chosen for that purpose, the death of the 
 apostles, the conversion of the Roman empire, or the extension 
 of the Arian heresy, the insensibility of the Christians who lived 
 at that time will equally afford a just matter of surprise. They 
 still supported their pretensions after they had lost their power. 
 Credulity performed the office of faith ; fanaticism was permitted 
 to assume the language of inspiration, and the effects of accident 
 or contrivance were ascribed to supernatural causes. The re- 
 cent experience of genuine miracles should have instructed the 
 Christian world in the ways of Providence, and habituated their 
 eye (if we may use a very inadequate expression) to the style 
 of the divine artist." 
 
 And certainly there is great force in Mr. Gibbon's remarks, 
 if we take the Protestant position as true, for the sake of the ar- 
 gument only. It is surely very astonishing that the very men 
 
202 MIRACLES. 
 
 who were best acquainted with the true, should be the most 
 readily deceived by the false miracles. 
 
 And in vain will Dr. Paley insist upon his assumed distinc- 
 tion between the competency of witnesses of miracles performed 
 in the origin of Christianity, and those performed afterwards, in 
 affirmance of the same religion. It is a distinction without any 
 substantial difference. Every one must see that the end of all 
 tests is to show the ability and integrity of witnesses. As to 
 ability, their senses and opportunities will show that. And as 
 to their integrity, it does not matter by what means you prove 
 it, so they are satisfactory. Voluntary death and voluntary 
 sufferings are not necessarily evidence of the correctness of the 
 sufferer's religion, but they do prove his sincerity. If, then, the 
 religion itself, for which he thus voluntarily suffers, plainly teach- 
 es him that falsehood forfeits all its rewards, and incurs all its 
 punishments, he cannot die with a lie in his mouth. And it 
 may be assumed as certain, that no sincere Christian can give 
 false testimony as to facts, about which he cannot be mistaken. 
 We believe the apostles because their conduct and character 
 proved the sincerity of their belief in a system which promised 
 them no competent earthly rewards. We can find no adequate 
 motive, then, for perjury. And upon the same ground, we 
 should believe the testimony of witnesses, whose labors, suffer- 
 ings, and deaths, or other evidences, proved their sincerity in 
 the belief of the same system. It promised them no title in 
 this world, and threatened them with forfeiture and punishment 
 in the next, for the same kind of vice. It does not matter 
 whether Christianity be true or not, the witness who firmly be- 
 lieves it, whether in the beginning, or at any subsequent time, 
 must be equally honest, and equally credible. 
 
 If it be said that the works imputed to the Fathers of the 
 second and third centuries, were forged by those of the fourth, 
 and thus palmed upon the Christian world as true, this solution 
 creates new difficulties equally great. These various writers 
 were men of eminent character, and widely known. Their works 
 are referred to and quoted by each other in so many ways, that 
 such a forgery is impossible. If these works were forgeries, and 
 published, not as new works, but as works written when they 
 purport to have been written, how did they succeed in deceiving 
 
MIKACLES. 263 
 
 the world ? The first time these books appeared, they must 
 have created great astonishment. And if these numerous works 
 could be the forgery of a subsequent age, so could the Scrip- 
 tures, for the New Testament Scriptures are not referred to by 
 any single writer, Roman or Greek, until after the apostles were 
 dead. In fact, if this position be assumed, it at once answers 
 Leslie's celebrated " Short and Easy Method with the Deists." 
 The ground he takes would be completely answered by such a 
 position. And in reference to these writers, Dr. Paley very just- 
 ly says : 
 
 " It may help to convey to us some notion of the extent and 
 progress of Christianity, or rather of the character and quality 
 of many early Christians, of their learning, and their labors, to 
 notice the number of Christian writers who flourished in these 
 ages. Saint Jerome's catalogue contains sixty-six writers within 
 the first three centuries, and the first six years of the fourth ; 
 and fifty-four between that time and his own ; viz., A. D. 392. 
 Jerome introduces his catalogue with the following just remon- 
 strance : ' Let those who say the church has had no philoso- 
 phers, nor eloquent and learned men, observe who and what 
 they were who founded, established, and adorned it : let them 
 cease to accuse our faith of rusticity, and confess their mistake.' 
 Of these writers, several, as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Tertullian, Origen, Bardesanes, Hippolitus, Eusebius, 
 were voluminous writers." (Ev. Chris.) 
 
 As to the number of Christians in the primitive ages, Dr. 
 Paley says : 
 
 " Justin Martyr, who wrote about thirty years after Pliny, 
 and one hundred and six after the Ascension, has these remark- 
 able words : ' There is not a nation, Greek or Barbarian, or of 
 any other name, even of those who wander in tribes, and live in 
 tents 3 amongst whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered 
 to the Father and Creator of the Universe by the name of the 
 crucified Jesus.' Tertullian, who comes about fifty years after 
 Justin, appeals to the governors of the Roman Empire in these 
 terms : 4 We were but of yesterday, and we have filled your 
 cities, islands, towns, and boroughs, the camp, the Senate, and 
 \\IQ forum. They (the heathen adversaries of Christianity) la- 
 merit, that every sex, age, and condition, and persons of every 
 
264 MIRACLES. 
 
 rank also, are converts to that name.' I do allow, that these 
 expressions are loose, and may be called declamatory. But 
 even declamation has its bounds: this public boasting upon a 
 subject which must be known to every reader was not only use- 
 less but unnatural, unless the truth of the case, in a considerable 
 degree, correspond with the description ; at least, unless it had 
 been both true and notorious, that great multitudes of Chris- 
 tians, of all ranks and orders, were to be found in most parts of 
 the Roman empire. The same Tertullian, in another passage, 
 by way of setting forth the extensive diffusion of Christianity, 
 enumerates as belonging to Christ, besides many other countries, 
 the ' Moors and Gaetulians of Africa, the borders of Spain, sev- 
 eral nations of France, and parts of Britain, inaccessible to the 
 Romans, the Samaritans, Daci, Germans, and Scythians,' and, 
 which is more material than the extent of the institution, the 
 number of Christians in the several countries in which it pre- 
 vailed, is thus expressed by him : ' Although so great a multi- 
 tude, that in almost every ^ity we form the greater part, we 
 pass our time modestly and in silence.' Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 who preceded Tertullian by a few years, introduces a compari- 
 son between the success of Christianity, and that of the most 
 celebrated philosophical institutions : 4 The philosophers were 
 confined to Greece, and to their particular retainers ; but the 
 doctrine of the Master of Christianity did not remain in Judea, 
 as philosophy did in Greece, but it spread throughout the whole 
 world, in every nation, and village, and city, both of Greeks 
 and Barbarians, converting both whole houses and separate in- 
 dividuals, having already brought over to the truth not a few 
 of the philosophers themselves. If the Greek philosophy be 
 prohibited, it immediately vanishes; whereas from the first 
 preaching of our doctrine, kings and tyrants, governors and 
 presidents, with their whole train, and with* the populace on 
 their side, have endeavored, with their whole might, to exter- 
 minate it, yet doth it flourish more and more.' " (Ev. Ch.) 
 He also gives an extract from Origen to the same effect. 
 
 And when we come to consider the number and character 
 of the early writers and Church historians, as also the Christian 
 clergy of that day, and the members of every age, sex, condi- 
 tion, and capacity, are we prepared to say, that a large part of 
 
MIRACLES. 265 
 
 them were base and infamous impostors, and the remainder, 
 simple and stupid dupes ? If the whole Christian world could 
 BO deceive and be deceived, in that period when " kings and 
 tyrants, governors and presidents, with their whole train, and 
 the populace on their side, endeavored, with all their might, to 
 exterminate Christianity," who can believe any thing depending 
 upon human testimony ? Look at the amount of labor these 
 alleged impostors performed. Did they not conquer the world 
 for Christ ? Who but they, after the days of the apostles, put 
 down the idols and temples of the Heathens, and established 
 Christianity in every part of the Roman Empire, and even in 
 barbarous countries beyond it ? Should not impostors be made 
 of viler stuff? And is not that professed Christian in a most 
 melancholy and painful position, who concedes that miracles did 
 once happen that they are still possible, but who, to sustain 
 bis own particular views, is forced to accuse all the most holy, 
 eminent, and dignified Christians for the last eighteen centuries, 
 of an incredible combination to cheat and defraud all mankind :' 
 
 This most dark, gloomy, and terrible theory, even the bold 
 jmd reckless Middleton seemed to wish somewhat to mitigate 
 and soften, when he says, speaking of the Fathers of the fourth 
 century affirming as true, what they themselves had forged or 
 knew to be forged : " It is natural to suspect that so bold a de- 
 fiance of truth could not be acquired or become general at once, 
 but must have been gradually carried to that height by the ex- 
 ample of former ages." 
 
 But it is exceedingly difficult to see how this explanation 
 could help the matter, or be reconciled with the other state- 
 ments of the Doctor. It is true, it somewhat excuses the lying 
 Fathers of the fourth century, because they followed the exam- 
 pie of former ages ; and it somewhat excuses the lying exam pies 
 of these former ages, because they were not quite so general. 
 And if, as he asserts and admits, the claim to such a power was 
 universally asserted and believed in all ages, I cannot under- 
 stand how there could be less falsehood and imposition in these 
 former ages, than in the fourth, in proportion to numbers. The 
 claim was the same the imposition the same the delusion the 
 pame and there must have been the same " bold defiance of 
 truth " in these " former ages " as in the fourth century. 
 24 
 
266 MIRACLES. 
 
 This attempted explanation is about as effectual in softening 
 the charge, as for one person to say to another, with an exceed- 
 ingly polite air, " Permit me, sir, if you please, to call you a 
 liar." 
 
 But it may be asked, why, if the proofs of the Catholic mir- 
 acles are so strong, and full, have not all professing Christians 
 believed them ? In answer to this, it might well be inquired, 
 why have there been any heretics in the world ? And is it not 
 true that the great majority of professed Christians, in all ages, 
 have believed in the continuance of miraculous powers in the 
 Church ? The many have always believed, the few have disbe- 
 lieved. 
 
 The same objection is urged by Infidels against Christianity. 
 They allege the fact, that the majority of persons in the ages 
 and countries in which Christianity first appeared, rejected it. 
 They ask why all the Jews and Gentiles who witnessed the stu- 
 pendous miracles of Christ and His apostles, did not believe ? 
 They had ocular demonstration, and are said to have admitted 
 not one, but many miracles. Yet they were not converted. 
 
 Dr. Paley, in his Evidences of Christianity, notices this ob- 
 jection, and devotes a chapter to its confutation. He admits 
 the fact that a majority rejected Christianity in the apostolic 
 day, and he gives the most conclusive reasons why they did. 
 He divides his answer into two parts, one regarding the Jews, 
 and the other the Gentiles. In speaking of the latter he says : 
 " The infidelity of the Gentile world, and that more especially 
 of men of rank and learning in it, is resolved into a principle 
 which, in my judgment, will account for the ineificacy of any 
 argument, or any evidence whatever, viz. : contempt prior to 
 examination." Again he says : " This contempt prior to exam- 
 ination, is an intellectual vice, from which the greatest faculties 
 of the mind are not free. I know not, indeed, whether men of 
 the greatest faculties of mind, are not the most subject to it. 
 Such men feel themselves seated on an eminence. Looking 
 down from their height upon the follies of mankind, they behol 3 
 contending tenets wasting their idle strength upon one another 
 with the common disdain of the absurdity of them all. This habit 
 of thought, however comfortable to the mind which entertains 
 it, or however natural to great parts, is extremely dangerous ; 
 
MIRACLES. 267 
 
 and more apt, than almost any other disposition, to produce 
 hasty and contemptuous, and, by consequence, erroneous judg- 
 ment, both of persons and opinions." 
 
 And how true it is, that vanity and pride are often predomi- 
 nant in great minds, who " feel themselves seated on an emi- 
 nence," as Dr. Paley justly states. 
 
 And this most true and reasonable answer is just as applica- 
 ble to most of those who reject the Catholic miracles, as to those 
 who reject the miracles recorded in Scripture. And as to the 
 amount of contempt with which Protestant writers, in general, 
 speak of the Catholic miracles, any one can easily judge by the 
 harsh terms they use, and the general drift, tone, temper, and 
 spirit of their arguments. It is very seldom that you can find a 
 Protestant writer who will calmly, and in a gentle and courteous 
 spirit, examine this subject. Whenever they approach it, they 
 seem to repose, not upon " a bed of violets," but upon a bed of 
 thorns. Even the dignified and distinguished Dr. Paley was 
 forced to take most extraordinary ground to exclude what he 
 calls "Popish miracles." 
 
 5. The Catholic theory. 
 
 In reference to the Catholic theory of miracles, I shall quote 
 the language of Dr. Milner. (End of Con., Let. xxiii.) 
 
 " Methinks I hear some of your society thus asking me : Do 
 you then pretend that your church possesses the miraculous 
 power at the present day f I answer, that the church never pos- 
 sessed miraculous powers, in the sense of most Protestant writ- 
 ers, so as to be able to effect cures or other supernatural events 
 at her own pleasure : for even the apostles could not do this, as 
 we learn from the history of the lunatic child. (Matt. xvii. 16.) 
 But this I say, that the Catholic church, being always the be- 
 loved spouse of Christ, (Rev. xxi. 9,) and continuing at all times 
 to bring forth children of heroical sanctity, God fails not in this, 
 any more than in past ages, to illustrate her and them by un- 
 questionable miracles." 
 
 In reference to the case of the lunatic child, when the apos- 
 tles inquired why they could not cast out the evil spirit, Christ 
 told them, " because of your unbelief." But He also told them 
 that " this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." 
 
268 MIRACLES. 
 
 Nothing, perhaps, could show more fully the efficiency of 
 prayer and fasting than this case. No doubt this saying of our 
 Lord, as well as the practice of the apostles in so often praying 
 and fasting, gave rise to the practice in the Churches, of praying 
 and fasting when they asked the special interposition of heaven. 
 The case of Peter is an example. (Acts xii.) Dr. Paley, ii 
 treating his second proposition, and in laying out the cases ex- 
 cluded by his first, mentions those miracles that he calls tenta- 
 tive^ " that is," as he says, " where, out of a great number of 
 trials, some succeeded." 
 
 In support of this exclusion he says : " Christ never pro- 
 nounced the word but the effect followed." And certainly he 
 is right as to Christ, for it would have been wholly inconsistent 
 with His character as God, to have failed in a single instance. 
 But it was different with the apostles. They were only agents. 
 The miracle was the act of the Principal, and performed only 
 when He pleased. And I confess I cannot understand the jus- 
 tice or good sense of his exclusion of all tentative miracles. I 
 am compelled, with all due deference, to put in a demurrer to 
 his allegation. 
 
 The learned Divine admits that we can, at least in many 
 cases, determine whether events be miraculous or simply natu- 
 ral. The whole of his argument for Christianity, based upon 
 miracles, proceeds upon this ground. He first assumes, very 
 correctly, that God could not make a revelation except by mira- 
 cle. If we cannot know a miracle from an ordinary event in any 
 case, then miracles can form no proof for us. They would sim- 
 ply be idle, and fail to accomplish the very end intended. 
 
 If, then, we can judge as to the miraculous character of an 
 event, why should we reject a tentative miracle, simply because 
 the subordinate agent of Christ failed in some instances ? For 
 illustration, suppose a saint to have made many efforts to raise 
 the dead, and to have failed ; and then, upon further trial, to 
 succeed ; shall we reject this clear case because we cannot un- 
 derstand the hidden reasons of God for not answering the prayers 
 of His children in the other cases ? I apprehend not. If there 
 be one hundred failures, and one single clear case of a miracle, 
 what right have we to reject it, upon the ground that it is ten- 
 tative f True it is, there may be a case of doubtful character 
 
MIRACLES. 
 
 in itself, which may properly come under another class of exclu 
 sion mentioned by Dr. Paley. But his confessed ground of ex- 
 clusion in this case is this, and this only the miracles are tenta- 
 tive. It matters not how clear the case may be raising the 
 dead healing the leper opening the eyes of the blind, or any 
 other clear case, still, as the miracle is tentative, it must be 
 rejected for that reason only. 
 
 This objection gives rise to some important reflections re- 
 garding miracles. I suppose that every Christian will concede 
 that man is a little more capable of some things than of others. 
 He certainly can judge better of facts cognizant by his senses, 
 than he can of the designs of God. He certainly can judge bet- 
 ter as to the weight and credibility of the testimony of his own 
 species, with whom he is familiar all his life, and in daily inter- 
 course, than he can of the deep reasons of God. If, therefore, 
 he sees an event, or it is clearly proven, which he knows is mi- 
 raculous, if he knows any thing, by what sort of reason can he 
 reject his positive knowledge, for his mere conjectures f If a 
 miracle be performed the manner the time the agent are 
 all immaterial. It does not matter by whom, when, or where, 
 here, or there. If the event be established by satisfactory proof, 
 it is still a miracle. It is matter of fact, and can be proved. If, 
 therefore, a miracle be performed in answer to prayer and fast- 
 ing, or at the tomb of a saint, or by his relics, is it not equally a 
 niracle ? What right has any one to say that God must perform 
 His miracles in a particular manner ? True, the Jews sought 
 * sign from Christ, but He gave them none. The Devil chal- 
 lenged Him to cast Himself from the pinnacle of the temple, 
 but He refused. The Jews said, " if thou be the Son of God, 
 come down from the cross, and we will believe you." But 
 Christ heeded not their challenges. 
 
 And was it not reasonable that He should have thus acted ? 
 Could an Infinite Being be expected to consult a mere creature ? 
 Certainly not. It is true, Christ was bound to give proper and 
 sufficient evidence ; but the kind, the time, and the manner, and 
 the amount, were for Him to decide not for the party governed. 
 It is enough that He has done right, whether men think so or 
 not. 
 
 In reading the gospel history, we cannot but be struck with 
 
270 MIRACLES. 
 
 the fact that Christ generally, if not always, performed His 
 cures upon worthy persons, requiring them to have faith, and 
 in many instances granting the request of the applicant, because 
 of his faith. " Thy faith hath made thee whole." " Be it unto 
 thee according to thy faith." And we are told by Mark that 
 " he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his 
 hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." And Matthew 
 says in reference to the same matter : " And he did not many 
 mighty works there, because of their unbelief." And it was 
 also true of the apostles. Their miracles were usually performed 
 upon worthy objects, except in some cases to inflict punishment, 
 as in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas the sor- 
 cerer. 
 
 When I was a Deist, this conduct of Christ, in praising and 
 rewarding every confiding display of faith, was with me a se- 
 rious objection. I said : " This conduct is precisely such as we 
 must expect of an impostor, as faith is the very element of his 
 success." But reflection satisfied me that there was nothing in 
 this plausible objection. And in arriving at this latter conclu- 
 sion, I adopted a rule that I have uniformly followed, and one 
 that I conceive is just and true in itself. It is this : I first in- 
 quire if the proposition to be proved be possible. If possible, 
 then I take the proposition as true for the sake of the argument 
 only, and inquire if such conduct be compatible with the truth 
 of the proposition, and consistent with it, under the existing 
 circumstances. This rule forced me to admit, that if Christ 
 were a Divine teacher, He would naturally require faith in the 
 truths He taught ; and that such conduct was as natural in a 
 true, as in a false teacher ; and of itself, therefore, proved noth- 
 ing, for or against the truth of Christianity. 
 
 Another reflection is, that the gift of miracles was only 
 promised by Christ to true faith. The promise is conditional. 
 And it must also be conceded that a man may have faith at one 
 time, and not at another. The apostles could not heal the lu- 
 natic child for want of faith, and Peter sank in the waves be- 
 cause of doubt, and this doubt was produced by momentary 
 causes. It must also be admitted, that the frequency of mira- 
 cles must, in the nature of the case, depend upon the object for 
 which they are performed. Therefore, the simple fact that they 
 
MIRACLES. 271 
 
 are not so frequent at one time as another, is no objection. They 
 may not be as necessary at one time and place as at another. 
 Certainly Christ performed few miracles among his own kindred, 
 because of their unbelief. We are not competent to judge as 
 to when, how, or where, or upon whom, or by whom, God will 
 perform a miracle. No man hath known the mind of the Lord, 
 as St. Paul affirms. 
 
 Another reflection is, that the apostles were chosen witnesses 
 of God, as well as teachers. To prove their competency as in- 
 spired witnesses, frequent miracles were required. In the be- 
 ginning, when the only question was the truth of Christianity, 
 and not which is the true Church, no miracles could be required 
 to prove this latter fact. We have no instance mentioned in 
 the New Testament, where miracles were wrought by the relics 
 of departed saints ; but we are told miracles were wrought by 
 aprons and handkerchiefs taken from Paul, and by the shadow 
 of Peter, as also by the touch of Christ's garment. True, 
 these appertained to living persons ; but even upon abstract 
 reasoning, were that to govern us, it is difficult to say that 
 relics could not produce the same result, as the saint to whom 
 they belonged is only gone home, and still lives, but in a perfect 
 state. But in the case of the dead man brought to life by the 
 touch of the prophet Elisha's bones, (2 Kings xiii.,) we have a 
 positive example. 
 
 If, then, the object be to point out and illustrate the true 
 church, a miracle wrought by the relics, or at the tomb, of a 
 particular saint, would accomplish that purpose as efficiently 
 as if performed by the saint while living. Upon abstract prin- 
 ciples there can be no objection, it would seem. As to the 
 manner, or the agent by which a supernatural event is pro- 
 duced, there can be no difference. The alleged miracles per- 
 formed at the tombs, or by the relics of saints, are just as easy 
 of detection, as if performed in other modes. It is no more ob- 
 jection to such miracles than it would be to the miracle of Christ 
 in opening the eyes of the blind man with the spittle and clay, 
 or opening the ears of the deaf, by putting his fingers into them. 
 The modes used by Christ were various. When he wished a 
 piece of money to pay tribute, instead of creating it at once, he 
 sent Peter to cateh a fish, in the mouth of which he found it. 
 
272 MIRACLES. 
 
 Doubtless the Jews thought the ceremony of anointing the eyes 
 of the blind man with spittle and clay, exceedingly foolish and 
 vulgar. 
 
 But I apprehend such objections are not entitled to much 
 consideration. The satisfactory proof of one single miracle will 
 answer them ah 1 . Miracles aiford a fund of amusement and 
 ridicule to the unbelieving, the volatile, and the unfeeling. 
 But to the sober, sincere, and patient inquirer, they will wear 
 another aspect. The Scriptures are full of all sorts of miracles, 
 great and small, sublime and ridiculous, as judged by some. 
 Many were performed, apparently for very trifling purposes. 
 But we know not God's purposes. 
 
 In reference to Catholic miracles, Dr. Paley says : " It has 
 long been observed, that Popish miracles happen in Popish 
 countries ; that they make no converts." 
 
 I have often observed, that when some writers wish to state 
 a matter, for which they cannot vouch, and yet wish to get the 
 benefit of it, they introduce it in this way : " It is said or ob- 
 served." That it has been so said is no doubt true ; but the 
 saying itself is untrue. The statement is general, and simply 
 says : " Popish miracles happen in Popish countries ; " which 
 means they never happen elsewhere. It will be easily seen, 
 upon examination, whether this statement be true, in reference 
 to either particular. And in reference to the specifications and 
 historical proofs of the Catholic miracles, I must refer to Dr. 
 Milner's End of Controversy, Butler's Lives of the Saints, Dr. 
 Hay on Miracles, and the works of Bishop England, having al- 
 ready given to this subject all the space I can spare. In the 
 work of Dr. Milner, which is easily obtained, the reader will find 
 a condensed, but very able enumeration of Catholic miracles, 
 and the proofs in support of them, as well as a most masterly 
 exposure of the false theories, and misstatements of different 
 Protestant writers, upon the subject of miracles. The work of 
 Dr. Hay is a full and clear discussion of the whole subject. In 
 Butler's Lives of the Saints, the miracles performed by particu- 
 lar persons, are stated. In Bishop England's works, a statement 
 of recent miracles, and the proofs to sustain them, will be 
 found. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THESE BEING THE CHARACTERISTICS, OR MARKS OF THE 
 TRUE CHURCH, WHICH OF THOSE CLAIMING TO BE 
 THE TRUE CHURCH IS IN FACT SUCH? 
 
 1. Can the Protestant Churches, singly or combined, be the 
 true Church? 
 
 THE question embraced within the heading of this chapter, 
 has already been considered in part. A few additional consid- 
 erations will be submitted. 
 
 While Protestants deny that the true visible Church is infal- 
 lible, they generally concede that she is so protected by Divine 
 power, that she remains always the true visible Church, always 
 teaching the true faith. What difference there can be between 
 such certain and unfailing protection and infallibility, it is most 
 difficult to see. Nor can it be well seen, how the theory of a true 
 visible church, always teaching the truth, can be reconciled 
 with the right of private interpretation in the last resort. It 
 would seem that such a Church should be implicitly heard when 
 she speaks, as she always, in the contemplation of this theory, 
 speaks the truth. 
 
 We have already given the admissions of Dr. Spring, Mr. 
 Breckenridge, and of Mr. Rice, and shall give those of the early 
 Reformers. The principle is distinctly admitted, that when the 
 Church should teach error, the gates of hell would prevail 
 against her, and the promises of Christ would necessarily fail. 
 From this admission two conclusions necessarily follow : 
 
 1. That the true Church could never teach error. 
 25 
 
274: WHICH IS THE TRUE CHUKCH ? 
 
 2. That she must remain visible and teaching from her birth 
 to her final consummation. 
 
 It would then seem to be a very plain proposition, that 
 whatever existing party of professed Christians claims to be the 
 true Church, must show a continued line of ancestors to the 
 age of the apostles. Under the admissions of all parties, the 
 title to the true Church has always resided in some one. As 
 we cannot conceive of the continued fulfilment of the promises 
 of Christ, without the continued existence of the same Church, 
 always teaching the same faith, and united under one govern- 
 ment, as was the case in the days of the apostles, so, it follows, 
 that the party who claims this identity, must trace the title back 
 through the same continued and existing association. We can- 
 not conceive how, consistently with the nature and purposes of 
 the institution and promises of Christ, the Church could die, 
 and be buried, and afterwards arise from the dead, in another 
 age, and commence her interrupted career again. The Church, 
 in the days of the apostles, was unquestionably a visible, teach- 
 ing, governing, united association of living men. She possesses all 
 the vital elements of continued existence ; and, in the contempla- 
 tion of the theory of our Lord, is a glorious institution, which 
 
 " Spreads undivided operates unspent." 
 
 The parties have conceded certain things upon the record, 
 and, among them, are these : 
 
 1. That Christ did organize a perpetual, visible, and united 
 association of men, called " The Church." 
 
 2. That He gave to this Church a law for its government, 
 communicated in human language. 
 
 3. That He promised His unfailing protection to this Church, 
 hi fulfilling all the duties prescribed by the law. 
 
 4. That such protection has always been given, and such an 
 institution has always existed. 
 
 The concession of these facts is, in truth, a substantial settle- 
 ment of the whole question, as to the Protestant claims. 
 
 As each party claims the right to the same thing, and to be 
 now in possession of it, the weight, or onus of proof, will lie 
 equally upon each, in the first instance. But as the Catholic 
 Church is admitted to be older than any now existing party, 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 275 
 
 she has made out aprimafacie case, liable, it is true, to be dis- 
 proved ; but until disproved, must be held good, as against 
 them. She has, therefore, nothing to do until the title can be 
 shown, prima facie, to be in some other party, extending back 
 beyond the period of her admitted existence. As the title can 
 only exist in one party exclusively, when title is shown to be in 
 one, it, of necessity, excludes all others, until the proof is over- 
 come by other testimony. 
 
 But the Protestant sects, at the threshold, are met by a very 
 great difficulty. They must appear in some definite and certain 
 form. Their claim must be based upon something tangible and 
 consistent with itself. They can assume any form and shape 
 they please, so it is not multifarious and contradictory. But 
 when they do assume a certain shape, they must sustain it by 
 competent proof. Their allegations and their proofs must cor- 
 respond. They cannot allege one thing, and prove another. 
 They can make their alleged true Church consist of any con- 
 sistent requisites they please ; but their proofs must correspond 
 and show the continued existence of a church possessing these 
 requisites. 
 
 The question then arises, What requisites shall they claim, 
 as making up the true Church ? If each Protestant sect claims 
 to be the exclusive true Church, it necessarily rejects all the 
 others. If, on the contrary, two or more combine, the alleged 
 true Church is composed of multifarious, contradictory, and in- 
 dependent creeds ; and their allegations are confused and incon- 
 sistent. In what shape, then, shah 1 they appear ? And if the 
 Protestant Church, thus composed, is still claimed to be the one 
 true Church, what differences and discords could constitute 
 separate and antagonistic Churches ? 
 
 And if they conclude to combine two or more different 
 creeds in making up the Church, then what creeds shall be com- 
 bined ? 
 
 If we suppose that the first Protestant party is composed of 
 those sects, called by some Orthodox or Evangelical, such as 
 Lutherans, Presbyterians, Moravians, Methodists, Baptists, Epis- 
 copalians, and others, what a strange and singular true Church 
 this would be, as compared with the confessions of all parties ! 
 Different and contradictory doctrines separate, independent, 
 
276 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHUKCH ? 
 
 and distinct organizations, with no common governmental head, 
 composing the One united visible Church of the apostolic 
 day ! ! ! It might well be said of such an artificial being, that 
 it " was without form and void." 
 
 But the greatest difficulty would be this : As they say the 
 true Church is at present composed of these materials, so it 
 must have been originally, and at all times, from the days of the 
 apostles till the present era. Having assumed this distinctive 
 shape, made up and composed of certain contradictory doctrines, 
 and of many independent and distinct church governments, all 
 acting separately, each for itself alone, with no visible union or 
 dependence one upon another, or of each upon the whole, they 
 must find ancestors composed of like heterogeneous materials. 
 They must find a church, existing at all times, composed of par- 
 ties separately governed, professing the same contradictory 
 creeds. Where, then, can they find such a church ? No such 
 conglomeration of sects existed at the dawn of the Reformation, 
 or at any other period. 
 
 If, on the contrary, in opposition to the provisions of the 
 creeds themselves, we hold all their differences as only about 
 immaterial matters ; and that, in reference to such points, Christ 
 made no revelation at all, then we reduce the articles of faith 
 to a very small and insignificant number, and crowd the system 
 into very narrow limits, with the moral certainty of having soon 
 to remodel it again. And after we have done this, then they 
 must still find ancestors who held, at all times, the same doc- 
 trines that this new-modelled Church is now assumed to hold, 
 and composed of the same independent fragments, separated 
 from each other upon mere immaterial questions. Where, 
 then, could they be found? No such church existed at the 
 dawn of the Reformation, or before. 
 
 If we then take each Protestant party, as claiming to be the 
 exclusive true church, still the ancestors must be found. And 
 where can they be found ? The Vaudois held several funda- 
 mental tenets, that no Protestant sect could stand ; and, as we 
 shall see, the few that remained, when they joined the Calvin- 
 ists, had to renounce certain errors. So of the Bohemian Breth- 
 ren. And these two sects only extended back a small portion 
 of the way. About nine centuries remain to be filled up. And 
 
WHICH 18 THE TRUE CHURCH? 277 
 
 how can this be done ? Only by filling up the chasm according 
 to Mr. Breckenridge's new method of supplying the defective 
 records of history, by individual construction of the Scriptures. 
 
 And if there was any true Church in the world, at the time 
 of the Reformation, other than the Catholic Church, it was the 
 unquestioned duty of Luther and all Protestants to join that 
 Church, not reform it. Could they not find it ? If they could 
 not, how could others find it ? And if no one could find it, 
 what sort of a true, visible, universal Church was it ? They 
 found the Vaudois, but they could not endure their admitted 
 errors. What right had they, under the admissions of all par- 
 ties, to organize another true Church, when -one already exist- 
 ed ? If the errors of the Vaudois were trifling, why were they 
 required to recant ? And when jnen tell us, in one breath, that 
 the true Church must be visible and perpetual, and that at the 
 date of the Reformation, there did exist such a church some- 
 where, and that such was the Vaudois ; and then, in the next 
 breath, tell us they held doctrines never taught by the law of 
 Christ, and that their true Church needed reform itself; what 
 can we believe? How can we put these two contradictory 
 theories together ? If they had assured us that there was a 
 true false Church, we could have understood them just as well. 
 The man was a good honest fellow. True, he did steal six calves. 
 
 And truly did Luther say : " I stood alone." And if the 
 Catholic Church be not the true Church, then truly did the 
 Book of Homilies of the Church of England, say : " So that 
 clergy and laity, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and de- 
 grees of men, women, and children, of whole Christendom, (a 
 horrible and dreadful thing to think,) have been at once drowned 
 in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God, 
 and most damnable to man, and that by the space of eight hun- 
 dred years and more to the destruction and subversion of all 
 good religion universally." Book of Homilies, (Horn. 8, p. 261, 
 ed. of So. for Propagating Christian Knowledge,) pronounced, in 
 the 35th of the 39 articles, "to contain goodly and wholesome 
 doctrine, and necessary for these times." 
 
 And really this is candid and manly language. It is full, 
 definite, and certain. There is no studied ambiguity no cow- 
 ardly evasion. It does not " palter iu . double sense." It 
 
278 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 
 
 comes up to the precise point. It does not attempt to mock 
 and degrade your understanding, by pretending the existence 
 of true ancestors, that never could be found. It admits there 
 were none. It speaks boldly, and tells a plain story. There is 
 no concealment no prevarication. And truly, it was " a hor- 
 rible and dreadful thing to think " that Christ had forgotten 
 His promises. And truly, if Protestantism be true, it is based 
 upon " a horrible and dreadful " state of case. 
 
 The idea that there was a visible teaching Church, and yet 
 that such a Church could fail, would seem entirely inconsistent 
 with the purposes of its organization, with the character of 
 Christ as a Divine Lawmaker, and with His actual promises. 
 Such a supposition is based upon the incorrect idea, that it was 
 necessary for Christ to make a law and organize a Church that 
 having exhausted His powers in the effort, or become otherwise 
 employed, or for some other reason, He cast the Church upon 
 the earth, as a vessel in the middle of the ocean without a pilot ; 
 and having retired to His apartments, He said, " Let her travel." 
 
 And the idea that the true Church could teach any single 
 error and remain the true Church that she could be reformed 
 in matters of faith or that she could be composed of contra- 
 dictory creeds, and distinct, separate, independent antagonistic 
 organizations, would seem entirely illogical, and untrue in every 
 particular. And we could just as readily believe that mere 
 chance was the originator and projector 
 
 " Of all the wondrous worlds we see," 
 
 as that any union could continue to exist in any association 
 of men, under the Protestant principle of individual interpreta- 
 tion in the last resort. And as chance may undo to-morrow 
 what it has done to-day, such unity, if it should, by the merest 
 possible accident, exist at any one point of time, could never be 
 fixed and secure. 
 
 Taking the admissions of the parties as I find them, I am 
 forced to conclude, that the Protestant sects, taken separately, 
 or all combined, or in different combined parties, have each and 
 all wholly failed in showing any title to be called the true 
 Church. And before they can make any consistent case, they 
 must go back and amend their allegations begin again at the 
 
WHICH 18 THE TRUE CHURCH? 279 
 
 beginning withdraw their admissions deny that Christ was 
 any lawgiver that any visible, universal, teaching Church was 
 ever intended and insist that Christ promulgated no law, and 
 organized no Church, but that He merely discovered pre-exist- 
 ing truths, before undiscovered, and that, like any other phi- 
 losopher, He left the truths He discovered, to be taught by 
 those who pleased, and in the manner they pleased. This theo 
 ry would at least be consistent with itself. 
 
 And well may Mr. Campbell say : " Protestants have all 
 conceded too much in every age and period of this controversy." 
 (D. C. & P., 49.) 
 
 And this is true in one sense, and may not be true, in an- 
 other. They have certainly conceded too much for their cause, 
 and may have conceded too little for the truth. And while 
 Mr. Campbell endeavored to correct this error, and himself con- 
 ceded less, and disputed more, than other Protestants, he, too, 
 so far as I am competent to judge, " conceded too much." I 
 apprehend that iuture controvertists will say the same of him 
 that he said of his predecessors. When I first read the debate 
 between him and Bishop Purcell, this passage struck me with 
 great force. And in my investigations afterwards, I could well 
 see how true it was in the sense I have indicated. 
 
 2. Have the promises of Christ failed ' f 
 From the reasons and proofs heretofore given, the question 
 was reduced, in my judgment, to this have the promises of 
 Christ failed ? Is there any true Church now in the world ? 
 And if it cannot now be found in the only Church that can show 
 a continued and uninterrupted existence, extending back to the 
 days of the apostles, then it can surely be found nowhere on 
 earth. It is an institution that was, and is not. 
 
 It was a matter of the first importance, as I conceived, to 
 know what powers and prerogatives the Catholic Church had 
 always claimed; for to my mind it was clear that the true Church 
 must always know herself know her duty know her faith 
 know her rights and knowing them, must always claim and 
 assert them. I could not conceive how the true Church could 
 lie against herself, or against her Divine Founder, by denying 
 the truth in reference either to herself or to Christ. 
 
280 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 When I hear a Church admit that her creed has been re- 
 formed, I cannot understand how she can be the true Church. 
 If it be in regard to a matter of faith, it is quite clear that she 
 concedes that she cannot be such. Either she was right at first, 
 or wrong at last, or vice versa; and in either case she was not 
 the true Church at one period of her existence, and must fail in 
 her connection with the apostles. And when I hear a Church 
 not only admit that her creed has been reformed, but that it 
 may still need reforming, and under her theory may be so re- 
 formed, I cannot understand how she can be the true Church. 
 If she claim not infallibility, but only the promised protection 
 of Christ in another assumed form, making a distinction between 
 the two ; yet she ought to know when she is the true Church, 
 and when she has such protection. What sort of a true Church 
 is it, that cannot vouch for her faith that admits she may be 
 wrong, because she does not know the true faith does not 
 know herself cannot affirm that she has the promised protec- 
 tion of Christ can only give you the assurance of her present, 
 as opposed, certainly to her past, and will almost as certainly be 
 opposed to her future opinion, that she is now in a state of fixed 
 repose that she has at last, as she thinks, arrived at truth, 
 though the question is still unsettled ? 
 
 The Church having left the hands of the apostles, in posses- 
 sion of the true faith, and united in one government, it seemed 
 clear that the same Church, in all ages, must claim, not only a 
 continued succession from the apostles, but also to teach the 
 same doctrines at all times. If, then, I could find a Church ex- 
 tending back to the apostolic days, always visible, always teach- 
 ing, and always claiming to teach the doctrines once delivered 
 to the saints, this fact, of itself, would constitute a very power- 
 ful argument in proving that such Church was the true Church. 
 
 It being conceded that the Church left the hands of the apos- 
 tles, claiming only the faith delivered, and that teaching was the 
 end of its institution, the law of reason would always hold that, 
 prima facie, the Church had always done her duty. For it is a 
 plain principle of law, as well as of common sense, that an officer 
 is always presumed to do his duty ; and he who alleges the con- 
 trary, must prove it. The fact that officers do their duty, as a 
 
WHICH IS THE TKUE CHURCH? 281 
 
 general rule, throws the burthen of proof upon him who alleges 
 the contrary. 
 
 But in the case of the true Church, under the Christian the- 
 ory, the fact that the true Church must always teach, and claim 
 to teach, the true faith, is not a matter of simple presumption, 
 but of irrevocable promise, and must be so, if there be truth in 
 the promise itself. When, therefore, I find a church thus ex- 
 isting and claiming always thus to teach, I find a case made out 
 presumptively correct. It is a prima facie case ; and, unless 
 rebutted and overcome by opposing proof, must stand good. 
 
 That the Catholic Church has always claimed to be the true 
 Church, and to teach only the doctrines she received, in succes- 
 sion, from the apostles, is not denied by Protestants, during the 
 period of her admitted existence. So long as they admit her to 
 have existed, so long do they admit her to have claimed thus 
 to act. As to the alleged period when the Catholic Church 
 took its rise, Protestants are as much divided among themselves, 
 as they are about other important questions. In his debate with 
 Bishop Purcell, Mr. Campbell at first fixed this period at A. D. 
 1054, but subsequently fixed the time of the commencement of 
 the degeneracy of the Roman diocese, and the separation of the 
 true from the " grievously contaminated " Church about the 
 year two hundred and fifty. But in his debate with Mr. Rice, 
 some few years afterwards, Mr. C. further extended the exist- 
 ence of the Church of Rome to the second century. " Taylor 
 and others," he says, " have shown that all the abominations of 
 Popery were hatched in the second century." (Debate C. & R., 
 423.) Mr. Rice says : u During the first five centuries of the 
 Christian era, the church, though becoming gradually corrupt, 
 did not become Papists." (Id., 298.) Mr. Rice, I believe, gives 
 the Catholic Church about as late a beginning as any other Prot- 
 estant. By the admissions of all, she is at least a thousand years 
 older than any of the existing Protestant sects. She has, then, 
 an admitted visible existence for the period of thirteen, out of 
 the eighteen hundred years of the Christian era. But the cele- 
 brated Dr. Middleton, in his Free Enquiry, as the extracts I 
 have already given will show, at first contends that the chief 
 corruptions of Popery, as he calls them, were introduced in the 
 third, fourth, and fifth centuries. He says that those Protestant 
 
282 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 
 
 authors, as Tillotson, Marshall, Dodwell, Dr. "Waterland, Dr 
 Berriman, and others, who admit that miracles continued during 
 the first three centuries, unwarily betrayed the Protestant cause. 
 After stating that " every one must see what a resemblance the 
 principles and practices of the fourth century, as they are de- 
 scribed by the most eminent Fathers of that age, bear to the 
 present rites of the Popish Church," he says: " By granting the 
 Romanists but a single age of miracles, after the time of the 
 apostlsfi^ we shall be entangled in a series of difficulties whence 
 we can never fairly extricate ourselves, till we allow the same 
 powers also to the present age." (Cited Milner's End of Con- 
 troversy, Let. xxii.) 
 
 This, I must say again, is candid and manly language. The 
 renowned Dr. Middleton was a man of clear head, and too bold 
 not to say what was necessary to sustain his case, and make it 
 at least apparently consistent with itself. The admission is very 
 clearly made that it would not do to admit that miracles con- 
 tinued after the apostles, for the reason that it would be betray- 
 ing the Protestant cause to the Romanists. He insists that the 
 Romanists must not be granted " a single age of miracles after 
 the time of. the apostles." 
 
 But while Protestants deny that the Church of Rome y which 
 has had an admitted existence from between the second and the 
 sixth century to this time, extended back to the very days of 
 the apostles, they have all admitted the continued existence of 
 a Church visible and teaching, claiming to teach only the doc- 
 trines received from the apostles, and to be the true Church. 
 Thus the Church from which the ISTovatians separated in 250, 
 and the Donatists in 311, was that Church, and then contained 
 the overwhelming majority of all Christians. 
 
 The existence then of a Church, at so early a day after the 
 apostles, claiming thus to have received and thus to teach, and 
 to be the true Church, will make out &prima facie case, until 
 disproved. Those who deny that such a Church was the true 
 Church, and did so teach, must then show some other Church 
 that was this true Church ; for, since its existence is admitted 
 by all, and one party shows a Church existing at that early day, 
 and widely extended, claiming so to be, it throws the weight of 
 proof upon the party that disputes its claims. When, therefore, 
 
WHICH 18 THE TRUE CHURCH? 2S3 
 
 we are referred to the Novations and Donatists, who not only 
 separated without good cause, but perished and disappeared in 
 a few centuries, (as if the true Church could die,) we cannot say 
 the claim is at all disturbed, but we must say, it is strengthened, 
 from the failure of proof against it. The attempt thus to de- 
 feat the claims of the Church, having the great mass of Chris- 
 tians in her communion, by such testimony, is a substantiation 
 of her claim, as it shows no better can be brought against it. 
 
 If then the Catholic Church could not bring any testimony 
 to prove her continued existence, back to the days of the apos- 
 tles, except the admissions of her opponents, she would still 
 make out her case from them, and from their entire failure to 
 show where the true Church was before her admitted existence, 
 and afterwards. For under the admission of all parties, what- 
 ever true Church did exist at the death of the last apostle, 
 must continue to exist. Those, therefore, who say the Catholic 
 church was not the true Church, must show some Church exist- 
 ing continually, both before and after the alleged birth of that 
 Church. When, therefore, they attempt to do this, by referring 
 us to two sects that soon disappeared, they certainly fail. But 
 the advocates of the Catholic Church, bring in all the Christian 
 writers of the first five centuries, from St. Ignatius, the disciple 
 of St. John, to St. Gelasius in 492, and from these they bring a 
 mass of testimony, that seems entirely conclusive. These testi- 
 monies will be found in other places. 
 
 3. Has the Catholic Church been uniform in her faith f 
 
 The next and most important question that arose in this in- 
 quiry, was whether the Catholic Church had always been uni- 
 form in her faith. That she had always so claimed, there could 
 be no doubt. That the presumption, under the promises of 
 Christ, as well as under the principles applicable to all govern- 
 mental institutions, that they all accomplish the end intended, 
 and in the manner prescribed, would throw upon her adversa- 
 ries the burthen of proof to the contrary, was to my mind 
 equally clear. This position I understood to be substantially 
 conceded by Protestant controvertists. They, therefore, acting 
 upon this ground, make certain charges of alleged contradictions 
 in the creed of the Church, at different periods of her existence. 
 
284: WHICH IS THE TKUE CHURCH? 
 
 To examine impartially, and estimate justly, the force of 
 these objections, it becomes necessary to understand distinctly 
 what the Church herself holds to be faith, and what not. I 
 found, upon examination, that the Church herself makes these 
 several divisions : 
 
 1. There are articles of faith, which include those positive 
 truths, facts, and doctrines, which she holds Christ revealed to 
 the apostles, and commanded them and their successors to teach 
 to all nations, in all days, even to the end of the world. She 
 holds that the system of Christianity is made up of certain fun- 
 damental truths, facts, and doctrines, that must be believed by 
 all, in all places, and at all times that they are of such a char- 
 acter, as to be applicable to all persons, times, and places are 
 unvarying, certain, and fixed, and must ever so remain. She holds 
 that under the law of Christ, there are certain things that must be 
 believed that faith is required by the system, and that as re- 
 quired, it must exist. As regards faith, she claims infallibility. 
 
 2. Besides articles of faith, there is discipline, which is en- 
 tirely different from doctrine, and in regard to which no infalli- 
 bility is claimed, and no faith required, but only obedience in 
 act. Discipline consists in those minor practical regulations or 
 rules, which may vary with changing circumstances, and may 
 be adapted to different times. They consist of such regulations 
 as are deemed expedient to facilitate and carry out the practical 
 administration of the fundamental laws of the institution. They 
 are similar to the rules adopted by Courts, and liable to be 
 amended or changed at their pleasure, and which merely regard 
 the mode, time, and manner in which parties must proceed at 
 their bar. 
 
 3. Besides articles of faith and discipline, there are opinions. 
 These opinions regard questions concerning which Christ made 
 no positive revelation, and the apostles made no certain decla 
 ration. The members of the church are allowed to hold either 
 side, in reference to these questions, for the very reason, that 
 they are not matters of faith. This distinction is toot new : 
 The celebrated and beautiful saying of St. Augustine, so often 
 quoted by statesmen, as well as Catholics, alludes to it : " In 
 essentials, let there be unity in non-essentials liberty and in 
 all things charity." 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 285 
 
 4. There are besides these, local customs peculiar to differ- 
 ent countries and ages. These regard not faith. 
 
 These distinctions seemed to me to be based upon the na- 
 ture and reason of things. I could not conceive of any system 
 of truth, where faith was required, without these distinctions. 
 Faith must exist but must also have its limits. The practical 
 siiccess of every system, where faith is required at all, must re- 
 quire certain truths to be held as articles of faith, at all times.;., 
 and yet permit the existence of disciplinary regulations, suitable 
 to different times and circumstances. And as to opinions, we 
 have seen that St. Paul in his epistles clearly allows them to ex- 
 ist in reference to matters held indifferent, such as keeping cer- 
 tain days, eating meats, or living on vegetables alone. All he 
 requires, in reference to such matters, is, that each person shall 
 be sincere, and not, therefore, act against his own conscience, 
 and in that way commit a sin. 
 
 So far as I could ascertain, these distinctions are substan- 
 tially recognized by Protestants. Thus Mr. Campbell says, 
 speaking of the controversy of the Novatians in 250 : " It was, 
 indeed, a controversy about the purity of communion, and dis- 
 cipline, rather than about articles of doctrine." (Deb. C. & P., 
 66.) And in reference to the same subject, Mr. Rice says : 
 "Every system of truth has its fundamental principles, which 
 are essential to it, and minor points, in regard to which those 
 holding the same system, may differ." (Deb. C. & R., 885.) 
 
 The charges of Protestants against the uniformity of the 
 Catholic Church, may be classed as follows : 
 
 1. Those which relate to alleged divisions always existing in 
 the Church. 
 
 2. Those which relate to the alleged introduction of new ar- 
 ticles, never held before, being alleged additions to the faith. 
 
 3. Those which relate to alleged contradictory decisions of 
 the Church in reference to the same articles of faith. 
 
 The first objection coming under the first class, as divided 
 above, is that Catholics are not agreed as to where infallibility 
 is lodged. While they all agree that it resides in the Church, 
 there exists a difference of opinion as to what particular de- 
 partment of the Church it was committed. Some hold it as a 
 matter of opinion, that it resides with the Pope, and others that 
 
286 WHICH 18 THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 it is found with the Pope and a general council acting together , 
 or, what is the same thing in substance, with the Pope and a 
 majority of the Bishops, when united in the same judgment. 
 
 This objection is considered of great importance by Protes- 
 tants, while Catholics esteem it of very little force. 
 
 The objection, it will be at once seen, regards not the exist- 
 ence of infallibility in the Church, but simply its distribution. 
 It is a faculty or attribute admitted by all Catholics to belong 
 to the Church, and the only question is as to where it is placed. 
 So far as the decision of the Church has gone, this is left simply 
 as matter of opinion. The point of faith is the admission of its 
 existence in the Church, and not as to its distribution. In tol- 
 erating these different opinions relating to a matter of opinion, 
 (as considered by the Church,) she is not chargeable with any 
 contradiction to her own theory. She is only charged with not 
 defining a question that Protestants think of practical impor- 
 tance. They insist that infallibility, if given to the Church, must 
 have been given for practical exercise ; and, therefore, it be- 
 comes important to know through what organ it speaks, that its 
 voice may be obeyed when heard. The objection is more practi- 
 cal than theoretical. It is one that, in its nature, regards practice 
 more than faith. If there be no practical difficulty in tolerat- 
 ing these opinions as to the mere location of infallibility, there 
 can be no necessity for such a definition. If all the practical 
 ends contemplated by the system can be accomplished without 
 it, good sense does not require it. 
 
 It is a well-settled rule with courts of justice, founded upon 
 the obvious principles of good sense, never to decide cases not 
 before them. If a judge, in delivering the opinion of the Court, 
 upon a case then before it, gives his opinion upon a principle of 
 law outside the case, this opinion is called a mere dictum, and 
 is not regarded as of any authority. It is the mere exparte 
 opinion of the judge as an individual, and binds no one, not 
 even his own future action. It is so with the Church. She 
 only decides cases when they arise, and in reference to practical 
 matters, when a decision becomes of practical utility. 
 
 To make my meaning clear, I will give an illustration which 
 occurred to me in my reflections upon this subject. We will 
 suppose that A wishes to purchase a certain tract of land. He 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 287 
 
 finds it exclusively claimed by B, C, and D. He finds he can 
 purchase all their separate and adverse claims for a price, not 
 exceeding the value of the land, and he does so, taking a con- 
 veyance from each claimant. We will suppose that he takes 
 possession, and afterwards sells to E, taking E's note, upon 
 time, for the purchase money, and delivers E his bond for a 
 warranty deed, when the note is paid. E fails to pay the note 
 when due, and A sues him ; and E sets up, as a defence, and 
 says in his plea or answer, that A derived his title by separate 
 deeds from B, C, and D ; that he, the defendant, admits that 
 title was in some one of these persons at the time of the deeds 
 to A, but insists that A has not shown in which one of these 
 three persons the title resided ; and, therefore, A could not 
 make him a good title. Such a defence would not be heard, 
 and the Court would not inquire into the question of title, so 
 long as it was admitted that it resided in some one of the three 
 persons named, and that A had good deeds from all. 
 
 So, in the Catholic Church. Every definition of doctrine 
 and morals by a G-eneral Council, is conclusive, but no Council 
 is General without the Pope^s concurrence. Therefore, in the 
 decrees of every General Council, there is the concurrence of 
 all. He who thinks that infallibility resides in the Pope, must 
 submit, and so of all the others. So far, therefore, as these act 
 together, there can be no difficulty. What practical difficulty 
 can there be, in such a state of things ? Until the Church her- 
 self shall find the difficulty to exist, to such an extent, as to call 
 for such a definition, is there any force in such an objection? 
 She must judge of such a necessity ; and if her administration 
 can be practically carried on, and all Catholics united in all she 
 decides to be matter of faith, it cannot be said that Catholics 
 differ as to faith. 
 
 Questions of this character, as to the mere distribution of pow- 
 ers, are often discussed in governments having different de- 
 partments. They have occurred in England, and in the United 
 States. So long as the departments act together, the questions 
 are never determined. In the Treaty of Washington, as I have 
 stated, the question came up, whether the President and Senate 
 could make a treaty affecting the boundary of a State, without 
 her consent, and the consent of Maine was had, as being more 
 
288 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 
 
 safe, and the question left where they found it. Perhaps in all 
 coming time, such an occasion may not occur again ; and should 
 a similar occasion occur in the future, the difficulty may be again 
 avoided, by the like consent of all. To deny, therefore, either 
 that the power did reside in the government, or that it could 
 be practically exerted, because there was some difference of 
 opinion among individuals, as to its precise location, it occurs 
 to me, is to deny the positive practical results of experience, 
 and the evident dictates of reason. 
 
 Mr. Campbell says : " It is a serious question, Why is the 
 Roman church infallible in faith, and not in discipline ? " (De- 
 bate C. & P., 162.) 
 
 I must confess I cannot perceive the force of the objection. 
 Why did Christ reveal matters of faith, and not matters of dis- 
 cipline One must, for that reason, be believed, and the other, 
 for that reason, need not. And for that reason, in reference to 
 faith, infallibility should reside in the church ; but as to disci- 
 pline, it need not, as obedience in act, is all that is required. 
 As discipline depends upon circumstances, and is liable, there- 
 fore, to be changed, I cannot see any reason for infallibility in 
 reference to it, or how Christ could have well made any reve- 
 lation regarding it. The promises of Christ made in the Com- 
 mission, had reference to the truths revealed by Christ to His 
 apostles. The Church would not properly claim infallibility, 
 without a promise. 
 
 The fact that the Church claims infallibility in reference to 
 revealed truths, and not as to discipline, is, to my mind, no ob- 
 jection ; but on the contrary, is an argument in her favor. It 
 shows that her claim is founded in reason and good sense, and 
 makes a distinction that she must make, if her claim to infalli- 
 bility be true. In my reflections and inquiries upon this sub- 
 ject, I have found a greater portion of the arguments used by 
 Protestants against the Church, to be strongly for her, so far as 
 I was capable of estimating their legitimate force. The error 
 generally consists in drawing the wrong conclusion. 
 
 4. The same subject continued. 
 
 In reference to the second class of charges made by Protes- 
 tants against the uniformity of the Church, as regards faith, 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 289 
 
 (and which relate to supposed additions to her articles,) they 
 are alleged by Catholics to have arisen from confounding the 
 definition of the existing faith of the Church, with the creation 
 of new tenets not flowing from the legitimate extension and ap- 
 plication of admitted principles, but from the introduction of 
 entirely novel and unheard of principles. In other words, that 
 "they mistake the language of definition, for the words of crea- 
 tion." 
 
 In his late very able work, Dr. Ives says : " This reminds 
 me of an error which, in the course of my examination, showed 
 itself continually in Protestant statements, viz. : to date the 
 commencement of a doctrine or practice at the time, when from 
 some denial or neglect, such a doctrine or practice was made 
 binding by an explicit written decree, although it had always 
 existed in the church." (Trials of a Mind, 124, Note.) 
 
 The importance of these charges, especially the principles 
 involved, led me to make a careful examination of the matter, 
 so far as my opportunities would allow. I first inquired whether, 
 in any association of men, governed by a law promulgated in 
 human language, and in which there resided any judicial power 
 at all, these definitions would not, in the very nature and rea- 
 son of the case itself, most certainly occur, in the practical ap- 
 plication of the law, to different cases as they should arise, in 
 the course of ages. That is, whether these definitions, decrees, 
 or decisions, are not inseparable from all practical government, 
 over such intelligences as men ; and whether, from the nature 
 of the judicial power, such definitions could be avoided. 
 
 The people of the United States have, as their fundamental 
 law, a Constitution. By this instrument there is One Supreme 
 Court, whose duty it is to construe and apply the laws, consti- 
 tutional and statutory, to cases that come before it. Much dis- 
 cussion arose at an early period, as to the proper construction 
 of certain articles of the Constitution. These questions still 
 arise, and must, in the nature of things, arise, in all future time. 
 Events unforeseen, will bring up new questions from age to age, 
 so long as the government shall last. A very important amend- 
 ment to our Constitution was made in 1804 ; and was occasioned 
 by a very unexpected question that arose in the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, in the election of President in 1801. "The eleo 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 tion of 1801," says Chancellor Kent, "threatened the tranquil- 
 lity of the Union ; and the difficulty that occurred in that case, 
 in producing a constitutional choice, led to the amendment of 
 the Constitution on this very subject ; but whether the amend- 
 ment be for the better or for the worse, may well be doubted, 
 and remains yet to be settled by the lights of experience." 
 (1 Com,, 280.) 
 
 And a concurrence of circumstances may occur at the next 
 Presidential election, that will fully test, by " the lights of ex- 
 perience," the wisdom of this amendment to the Constitution, 
 and such a concurrence may not happen in ten centuries, and 
 may then arise. When, however, it does occur, it must give 
 rise to new definitions, or new amendments, or both. 
 
 And as regards questions of constitutional construction, they 
 must hereafter arise in our courts, as well as in our Congress. 
 Suppose, then, a new case should come up before the Supreme 
 Court, a thousand years hence, involving the construction of an 
 article of the Constitution, and that Court, by its solemn deci- 
 sion, should settle the construction of that instrument, could 
 any sensible man say that the Court, in the contemplation of 
 our system, had created a new part of the fundamental law, 
 simply by declaring what that law meant? And could any 
 man of fair mind and logical head, say, that the Constitution 
 had not always been what the Court declared it to mean ? In 
 other words, in the contemplation of our theory, would the 
 Constitution itself be abrogated, or changed in any particular, 
 because that august Court had given it a construction never 
 given before, but necessary to decide a new case, involving the 
 point in controversy? I apprehend not. On the contrary, it 
 would be admitted that the Constitution had always meant 
 \vhat it is declared to mean ; and that such had always been 
 the law. The power to declare what is the law the existing 
 law, is very different from the power to make a law. One is 
 judicial, and the other legislative one is the power to create, 
 and the other the power to construe that which is already 
 made. 
 
 If, then, there be any government at all in the Church, the 
 judicial power must reside in the institution and if it does 
 ^xist therein, must not these definitions occur, from time to 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 291 
 
 time, from the very nature of the power itself? Can any one 
 form a conception of an association of men kept in unity, and 
 governed by a law communicated in human language, through 
 a long course of centuries, and yet without any necessity for 
 such definitions ? I confess I cannot form such a conception. I 
 cannot possibly imagine what sort of association, unity, or gov- 
 ernment it could be. 
 
 Law, properly so called, is a rule of conduct (and in the 
 Christian system, of faith also) prescribed to free intelligent 
 agents; and as the parties governed possess these characteris- 
 tics, the law will be violated ; and not only so, but in a multitude 
 of instances, of the most complex character. This free agency 
 of the governed will enable them to violate the law, and their 
 intelligence will allow them to do so, in every variety of form, 
 and under every plausible pretence. Hence continued defini- 
 tions become inevitable, under any government of law. 
 
 And did not such instances occur in the days of the apostles ? 
 And have they not occurred at intervals ever since.? And 
 must they not occur in the future ? 
 
 A good while before the Council of Jerusalem was held, 
 Peter had admitted the Gentile Cornelius and his household 
 into the church. The true faith had been preached over a 
 great portion of the world, and churches formed at different 
 places. During all this time the question making circumcision 
 essential to salvation had not been raised. Had it been post- 
 poned a few years longer, it would have come up for decision, 
 after the death of the apostles. It was never decided, however, 
 until it did arise. When, however, it did come up, it was 
 finally decided, and the Council issued its decree, settling that 
 case. This decree, as I have already said in another place, was, 
 in my view, only the judicial construction and application of 
 the law to a particular case. And so, in reference to the dis- 
 sensions among the Corinthians, which were so unexpected, that 
 they were not known to the inspired Paul, until informed by 
 those of the house of Chloe. And so was the case of Hymeneus 
 and Philetus, mentioned by Paul in his second Epistle to Timo- 
 thy. These men believed in the resurrection of the dead, but 
 believed it was already past. In the latter particular they erred, 
 This was also a new case. 
 
292 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 
 
 After the days of the apostles, but at an early day, the ques- 
 tion was first raised, whether it was necessary to rebaptize those 
 who had apostatized, and then returned to the Church. Thig 
 question could not have arisen until some case brought it up. 
 The persecutions of the early Christians, long, bloody, and re- 
 lentless as they were, gave rise to this question. Those Chris 
 tians who had yielded under the terrors and pains of torture, 
 denied the iaith and sacrificed to idols, and afterwards repented 
 and wished to return. Must they be rebaptized ? The question 
 was raised for the first time, and for the first time it had to be 
 decided. Suppose this persecution had not arisen for five hun- 
 dred years afterwards, and then have come up. Those opposed 
 to rebaptizing could have said, " We have never rebaptized any 
 one in the church." The others could have answered, "True ; 
 but you never had such a case before. This is a new case now 
 first occurring in the Church. And under the legitimate inten- 
 tion of the law regarding the sacrament of baptism, must they 
 not be. rebaptized? It is true, that the apostles never rebap- 
 tized any one ; but it is equally true, that they never refused 
 to rebaptize any one. No one apostatized in their day, and af- 
 terwards offered to return to the Church. The case never arose 
 in their day that could bring up this question." 
 
 Now the question in such a case regards the application of 
 admitted principles to new cases cases different in their circum- 
 stances. All conceded that baptism was a sacrament. The 
 only question was, could it be twice administered to the same 
 person, under the circumstances stated ? And it was decided 
 by the Church, that rebaptizing was not required. 
 
 And so in regard to the Divinity of Christ. Until it was 
 denied, and the question raised, no express decision was made 
 by a Council. The moral and gifted Dr. Priestly, to whom 
 Pope ascribes 
 
 " Every virtue under heaven," 
 
 in his " History of Early Opinions," argues that the Divinity of 
 Christ, never held, as he insisted, in the days of the apostles, 
 " crept in " as an " opinion " a short time afterwards, spread 
 silently, became strong, until at last it was enacted into an ar 
 tide of faith, in the Council of Nice, A. D. 325. 
 
WHICH 18 THE TRUE CHUKCH ? 293 
 
 In reference to this point St. Augustine says : 
 
 " The dogma of the Trinity was not perfectly brought out 
 till the Arians declared against it ; nor was penance, until at- 
 tacked by the Novatians ; nor the efficacy of baptism, till ques- 
 tioned by rebaptizers. Nay, what regarded the unity of the 
 body of Jesus Christ was not discussed with minute exactness 
 until the weak being exposed to danger * * * compelled the 
 teachers of truth to examine those truths to the bottom. * 
 Thus the errors of heresy, instead of injuring the Catholic 
 Church, have really fortified it ; and those who thought wrong 
 were an occasion of ascertaining those who thought right. 
 WTiat had been but piously believed, became afterwards fully 
 understood." (Cited Trials of a Mind, 124.) 
 
 St. Paul had expressed the same consequences as flowing 
 from heresy, as did St. Augustine. " For there must be also 
 heresies among you, that they which are approved may be 
 made manifest among you." (1 Cor. xi. 19.) 
 
 And I confess that I could not see how it could be other- 
 wise. As I have insisted in a preceding page, law, from its 
 very nature, only lays down general principles, in general terms. 
 It cannot, in advance, state all the facts and circumstances that 
 go to make up each individual case. The general principles 
 must then, of necessity, be applied to these new cases, as they 
 arise. They cannot, with any practical propriety, be applied 
 before the cases arise. The cases may never occur, and the 
 definition would then be simply idle. 
 
 And it must be evident to every one who has any practical 
 knowledge of the application and extension of the principles of 
 law to new cases, that in proportion to the number and varied 
 character of these new cases, so, in proportion, will be the num- 
 ber and character of the discussions and decisions in reference 
 to the principle involved ; and so, in proportion, will the appli- 
 cation of the principle be the better understood. For the sake 
 of illustration, I will take the proposition mentioned by Dr. 
 Balguy, that " Christ is the author of eternal salvation." So long 
 as the members of the Church believed this proposition in its 
 natural sense that Christ was the author of eternal salvation, 
 because He bore our sins, in His own body, upon the cross it 
 would be wholly unnecessary to make any definition. There 
 
294: WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 could be no good sense in calling a council to define that which 
 had never been disputed, had always been believed and taught, 
 and which might never be disputed. But suppose, in the course 
 of time, certain persons raise the question whether Christ saves 
 us by the atonement, or simply by His example. The Church 
 would then call upon the parties and ask, " Do you believe that 
 Christ is the author of eternal salvation ? " They would all an- 
 swer " Yes." The Church would then ask, " In what sense ? " 
 They would answer, " By His example." Here is a new sense 
 given to the proposition ; and the Church must then determine, 
 whether the general proposition itself can tolerate such an ex- 
 tension and application of its principles. 
 
 And Protestants, while they make this objection, seem sensi- 
 ble of its entire unreasonableness ; and, in their own practice, 
 act upon the principle themselves, though contrary to their fun- 
 damental rule. The late divisions in the Methodist body in the 
 United States, into North and South, in consequence of the dif- 
 ferent views regarding slavery, may be mentioned as an illustra- 
 tion. I apprehend, that if no Methodist had ever been a slave 
 owner, the question would not have been determined, as to 
 whether slavery was a sin or not. They would have said : 
 " Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof; we will determine 
 that question when it comes up." 
 
 And Mr. Campbell seems also to act upon it. In reference 
 to " a roll some five feet long, charged 75 cents extra franking 
 privilege," and received from " one of his once much esteemed 
 friends and fellow laborers," containing the views of the writer 
 upon certain points, and asking the liberty of discussing them 
 in the pages of the Harbinger, Mr. C., after other remarks, 
 says : " May we not hence conclude, that there is yet need of 
 further investigation on these subjects, or of yet more clearly 
 ascertaining what may or may not be discussed, in Christian 
 communities, under the plea of Christian liberty, and freedom 
 of debate?" (Harbinger Extra, Dec. 1844, p. 616,617.) This 
 new case seems to have brought up very forcibly the necessity 
 " of yet more clearly ascertaining what may or may not be dis- 
 cussed in Christian communities." It satisfied Mr. C. that a 
 further definition was necessary. 
 
 When I first read this objection made by Mr. Campbell in 
 
WHICH 16 THE TRUE CHURCH? 295 
 
 his debate with Bishop Purcell, and so much relied upon by 
 him, as well as by all Protestant controvertists whose works I 
 have read, I could not but regard it as of very great importance, 
 either against or for the Catholic Church. The objection had 
 substance in it, in one way or the other. If, in the nature and 
 reason of the Christian system, such new definitions were not 
 required, but prohibited, then the objection was legitimate 
 against the Church. But on the contrary, if such new defini- 
 tions must occur from the nature of the system, and the parties 
 governed, then it was a most powerful argument for the Church, 
 as it would then show that she had, in fact, throughout the 
 long course of her history, always acted as the true Church 
 must have acted, under the same circumstances. 
 
 And in my reflections upon this subject, I could not under- 
 stand how the mere fact of a definition being made by the 
 Church at any tune, of any article of faith, could be the slight- 
 est proof, that such article was not always believed in the 
 church, until the occasion arose for its definition. On the con- 
 trary, every presumption of reason and law would hold it as 
 evidence, prima facie at least, that such a doctrine had so al- 
 ways existed. Like the decisions of the Supreme Court, all 
 these decrees of the Church assumed, upon their face, to be 
 only declaratory of not only the then existing belief of the 
 Church, but of that w r hich, at all times, had been such. To 
 say, therefore, that the express written definition of an article 
 of faith by the Church, was an evidence that such faith was new 
 in the Church, because for the first time defined, was to my 
 mind as erroneous, as to say, that every new construction or 
 definition of an article of our Constitution by our Supreme 
 Court, is the subversion of that instrument, in the contemplation 
 of our Federal theory of government. But to say that such 
 definition was at least prima facie evidence that the doctrine de- 
 fined w r as not new, was to my mind equivalent to saying, that 
 the true Church had always been vigilant, decisive, and prompt 
 in the discharge of her duties, and in the exercise of her legiti- 
 mate powers. For I could not form a conception of a visible 
 Church, without the necessity for the exercise of such a power ; 
 nor could I esteem a Church of any value at all, that had no 
 such power, or that had not the moral nerve to use it when re- 
 
296 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 quired. And the irresistible conclusion in my mind was this 
 that whether the Catholic Church be the true Church or not, 
 she did, in fact, act consistently as if she were; and as she 
 claimed to be such, her acts had been in perfect unison with her 
 professions in this respect. 
 
 And when I came to look into the history of these defini- 
 tions, I found most ample historical proofs to show their reason 
 and necessity that the statement made by the great St. Au- 
 gustine, in reference to certain questions defined before or in 
 his day, was true of the definitions made by the Church after- 
 wards. These definitions were made as often as cases arose re- 
 quiring them, and were only declaratory of the existing faith of 
 the Church. And this was shown, not only from the express 
 declaration of the decrees, in unison with the rule of the Church, 
 expressly recognized at all periods of her existence, that she 
 only taught the doctrine which came down to her without in- 
 terruption from the apostles, but it was affirmatively shown by 
 the express testimonies of the Fathers, and historians of the 
 Church, written at various times, in countries widely separated 
 from each other. 
 
 The statement made by Mr. Campbell, that " in the 9th cen- 
 tury, the doctrine of transubstantiation began to be talked of 
 commonly, but was made infallible by Pope Innocent III., 4th 
 Lateran Council," I found was not sustained by the facts of his- 
 tory. It was true, that the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, first 
 made the definition, and first used the word transubstantiation, 
 as best and most concisely expressing the faith of the Church ; 
 but it was equally true that this definition was brought about 
 by the denial of the doctrine by Berengarius, and that it had 
 been believed in all ages of the Church, as the testimonies of 
 the Fathers abundantly show. So long as the words " This is 
 my body, This is my blood " were understood in their plain lit- 
 eral sense, it was wholly unnecessary to define the faith of 
 the Church. When Christ says " This is my body," it is ob- 
 vious that these words, if taken literally in their plain sense, ex- 
 press the entire change of substance. And when these words, 
 in the opinion of the Church, are misconstrued, other words 
 must then be used to express the idea the Church decides is 
 conveyed by the language of Christ. There are some words 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 297 
 
 that can only be taken in one sense, and that sense is fixed and 
 determinate ; while other expressions may admit of different 
 senses. If the Church finds her doctrines impugned by those 
 who misconstrue the Scriptures, she is compelled, of necessity, 
 to use other than the Scripture language, (already miscon- 
 strued^ otherwise her decrees would settle nothing. Those 
 who had misconstrued the same language in the Scriptures, 
 would again misconstrue the same language in the decrees, and 
 insist that the Church had defined nothing, or that she had, in 
 fact, confirmed their views. No single term, perhaps, could be 
 found, so definite and certain as the word transubstantiation. 
 The words " This is my body " express the same idea, if taken 
 literally. For when one says " this is a certain thing," naming 
 it, he does not mean to say, it also contains another and a dif- 
 ferent thing. By this form of expression he speaks of a single 
 thing^ and not of two or more things existing together. This 
 single thing may be composed of separate parts, but cannot 
 consist of two separate and distinct things, like bread and 
 Christ's body.* 
 
 * The fact that a new name is given to a thing, under new circumstances, is 
 not at all surprising, hut is very common. It is very natural for men to seek a 
 single word, to express several ideas, when a frequent repetition is required, either 
 in spoken or written language. This tendency of common sense towards com- 
 mon convenience was very fully shown in California, in 1848, the year the gold 
 mines were discovered. At first, when a man went out to search for new gold 
 mines, they said he had gone " to hunt for new gold diggings ; " but as the same 
 answer, from the new circumstances existing, had to be made so often, some one 
 called the whole operation "prospecting^' and the term at once passed into gen- 
 eral use, and so continues. So, in theological controversy, it is matter of conven- 
 ience, to use one term as expressive of several ideas. It is also proper, in such 
 cases, to use a term that is alone applicable to the particular case, as it is more 
 certain. But the use of these new terms is not the slightest evidence that the 
 thing itself has changed, any more than the fact, that the disciples were first 
 culled Christians at Antioch, was evidence that they were different from what 
 they had been. For these reasons, I considered the argument of Mr. Campbell 
 and other Protestants, founded upon the name Roman Catholic, as entirely erro- 
 neous. And for the same reason, I considered the arguments of some Catholic 
 writers, based upon the term Protestant, as signifying only something negative, 
 and nothing affirmative, as equally erroneous. We must look to the circum- 
 stance under which the name is given to know what it means, in such cases. 
 
 The word Trinity nowhere occurs in the New Testament, and shall we hence 
 
 27 
 
298 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHUKCH i 
 
 And in reference to other alleged innovations in the faith ol 
 the Church, I found the same thing to be true ; to wit : that the 
 Church was compelled to define them, because assailed y and 
 that they had always existed in the Church from the beginning. 
 
 5. The same subject further considered. 
 
 In reference to those charges against the uniformity of the 
 Church, coming under the third division, being alleged contra- 
 dictions in doctrine, Mr. Campbell gives several instances. In 
 the first place, he gives several alleged contradictions in the de- 
 crees of the Popes ; but as the church does not hold the infalli- 
 bility of the Pope as an article of faith, therefore, whether those 
 alleged contradictions be true or untrue, does not touch the 
 question. In the second place, he alleges certain contradictions 
 in the decrees of different general councils, in reference to the 
 same matter. 
 
 The first allegation is that " the Council of Constance says 
 the church in old times allowed the laity to partake of both 
 kinds the bread and the wine in celebrating the eucharist. 
 The Council of Trent says the laity and unofficiating priests 
 may commune in one kind only. Here then we have Council 
 against Council. In the time of Pope Gelasius it was pronounced 
 to be sacrilege to deny the cup to the laity ; but now it is un- 
 canonical to allow it." (Debate C. & P., 179.) 
 
 conclude that the doctrine expressed by the term is not found therein ? All 
 such arguments are based upon a remarkably shallow foundation, though they 
 arc very often used It must be conceded that names are not given to things, 
 before the things have either a real or imaginary existence. When a new doc- 
 trine is put forth, there can seldom be found a short known term to express it. 
 The lawmaker, to make himself understood, must, of necessity, do one of two 
 things: 
 
 1. He must coin a new term, or take an old one, and in either case, He mast 
 first define the sense in which He uses the term. 
 
 2. Or, He must do the same thing in substance, by stating in tull the par- 
 ticulars that make up the doctrine, leaving others to give it a short name. 
 
 To convey to the mind the doctrine of the Trinity, before that term was de- 
 fined, a number of words was indispensable. After the doctrine is understood, 
 convenience will force parties, even the cavillers themselves, to adopt a short 
 term, expressive of all the ideas entering into and composing the thing under- 
 ttood 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 299 
 
 In regard to allowing both kinds to the laity, or only one, 
 the first question that arises, is it held by the Church a matter 
 of faith, or a matter of discipline ? As stated by Mr. Campbell 
 above, it will be seen there is no contradiction between the two 
 Councils of Constance and Trent, as the first says the laity were 
 anciently allowed both kinds, and the latter says, they may 
 commune in only one. But the idea intended to be conveyed 
 by Mr. C., as I understand it, was that anciently it was the 
 practice for the laity to receive in both kinds, and now it is the 
 practice to receive only in one. 
 
 The Church regards receiving in one or both kinds by the 
 laity, as only matter of discipline that it is not essential to the 
 administration of the sacrament that the command " drink ye 
 all of it " was given to the apostles as consecrating priests that 
 Christ is equally present, whole and entire, in both species, and 
 therefore equally received under both kinds. 
 
 The whole question resolves itself, as I understand it, into 
 the doctrine of the Real Presence. If that doctrine be true, 
 then it is clear that Christ is equally present and received un- 
 der both species alike ; since His blood can no more be shed, 
 and separated from His body. In the early ages of the Church, 
 it was most generally administered under both kinds ; but even 
 then it was frequently administered under only one kind. Ter- 
 tullian, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. 
 Chrysostom, and others, prove this to have been true. It has 
 always, therefore, been regarded as only a matter of changeable 
 discipline. Many Protestants, as Bishops Forbes, White, and 
 Montague, of the English church, not only admit the fact as to 
 the ancient practice of the church, but acknowledge that the 
 authority for giving under both kinds, is rather from tradition 
 than from Scripture. So also Cassander and Grotius. In the 
 Calvinistic Synod of Poictiers, in France, held in 1550, it was 
 declared that " the bread of the Lord's Supper ought to be ad- 
 ministered to those who cannot drink wine." The Acts of Par- 
 liament, which established communion under both kinds, made 
 it lawful to administer in one kind only, when required. (Con. 
 H. & B., 851.) 
 
 Communion under both kinds was not introduced by Luther, 
 but by Carlostadius, while Luther was concealed. This was in 
 
300 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 1521. Luther, in a letter he wrote on the reformation of Car- 
 lostadius, reproaches him " with having placed Christianity in 
 things of no account communicating under both kinds, taking 
 the sacrament into the hand, abolishing confession, and burning 
 images." (Bossuet's Va., B. ii., sec. 810.) 
 
 That the whole question, whether receiving under both 
 kinds by the laity, be matter of faith or discipline, depends 
 upon the truth of the doctrine of the Real Presence, seems to 
 be clear. Thus Mr. Breckenridge says : " We come next to 
 consider your defence of the Roman church for taking the cup 
 from the people in the Eucharist. Your first reason is that 
 Christ is present, whole and entire, under each of the species of 
 the sacrament. But the force of this depends, as you are aware, 
 on the truth of Transubstantiation." (Con. H. & B., 402.) 
 
 In reference to which Bossuet remarks : " And, indeed, if 
 there was reason to maintain baptism without immersion, be- 
 cause, in rejecting it, it would follow there had been no such 
 thing as Baptism for many ages, consequently no such thing as 
 a church, it being impossible for the church to subsist without 
 the substance of the Sacraments : no less impossible was it, with, 
 out the substance of the Supper. The same reason, then, sub- 
 sisted for maintaining communion under one kind, as for main- 
 taining baptism by infusion ; and the church, in maintaining 
 these two practices which tradition showed equally indifferent, 
 did nothing else but, according to custom, maintain against con- 
 tentious spirits that authority, whereon the faith of the people 
 reposed." (Bossuet's Va., B. xv., sec. 140.) 
 
 Receiving under one or both kinds, being a matter of change- 
 able discipline dependent upon circumstances, in the days of 
 St. Leo, the Manicheans were discovered by him, by their re- 
 fraining from receiving the cup ; and as they mixed with the 
 Catholics, and had the liberty, as all had, to receive under one 
 or both kinds as they preferred, it was exceedingly difficult to 
 detect them. It was for the purpose of rendering them wholly 
 distinguishable to the people, that an express requisition was 
 made for all to receive in both kinds. By this means the Ma- 
 nicheans stood manifest. And to show that this discipline was 
 not founded upon the necessity of always receiving under both 
 kinds, St. Gelasius grounds it in formal terms on this basis, 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 301 
 
 that those who refused the wine did it through a certain super- 
 stition. (Va., Book xi., sec. 12.) 
 
 The statement of Mr. Campbell that " in the time of Pope 
 Gelasius it was pronounced to be sacrilege to deny the cup to 
 the laity," was founded upon the state of case above stated, 
 and is not a fair and just statement of the matter of fact. For 
 the Manichean to deny that the wine was the blood of Christ, 
 was to contradict the words of Christ, " This is my blood," as 
 always understood by the Church, and was a denial of the whole 
 doctrine of the Real Presence. If they could deny that the 
 wine was the blood, they could deny that the bread was the 
 body of Christ. It was, therefore, heresy in them to refuse the 
 wine for heretical reasons. 
 
 As to the alleged contradictions in the Councils of the 
 Church, hi reference to communion under one or both kinds, I 
 could see none, unless Mr. C. had shown that one Council held 
 it a matter of faith to receive in both kinds. But I could find 
 no such proof. The Church had always held it as matter of 
 discipline. It depends upon the doctrine of the Real Presence. 
 If that doctrine be untrue, there would be an error of doctrine, 
 but not a contradiction, in the Church. 
 
 Exclude the authority of the Church, and of Tradition, and 
 it would seem difficult to sustain keeping the first for the sev- 
 enth day of the week, or for not enforcing the washing of feet. 
 But it is still more difficult to find any Scriptural authority for 
 setting aside the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, which 
 commanded the Gentile brethren to " abstain from meats offered 
 to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled," &c., say- 
 ing " it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon 
 you no greater burthen than these necessary things." 
 
 I confess it requires more discernment than I possess to find 
 any authority in the Scriptures for holding these explicit com- 
 mands temporary. They are not given in that form they are, 
 in their nature, such as might well be permanent they were 
 put forth without limitation as to time, and they are too ex- 
 plicit to be misconstrued. How any Protestant can avoid them 
 under his theory, I am wholly unable to determine. 
 
 In regard to the alleged change in the doctrine of the Church, 
 in reference to Transubstantiation, Mr. Campbell says : 
 
302 WHICH IH THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 "The fourth Council ot Lateran, A. D. 1215, says, with the 
 concurrence of Pope Innocent III., that the bread and wine in 
 the act of consecration suffer a physical change. Then we be- 
 gin to read of Transubstanliation. Coun. Lat. iv., Can. 1. * Did 
 the Church always maintain this doctrine ? ' Nay, verily, for a 
 host of fathers, nay the whole Church, for the first four centu- 
 ries, say ' the change is only moral' a sanctification, a separa- 
 tion to a special use. Here we might read a host of Fathers, 
 if we thought their testimony necessary." (Deb. C. & P., 179.)* 
 
 When I first read this statement, I was under the impres- 
 sion that Mr. C. had mado out a plain case of contradiction, as 
 I did not believe that he would make assertions so confidently, 
 without being able to sustain them. In his reply, Bishop Pur- 
 cell said : " No father of the Church, however, said, that the 
 consecration of the eucharist, is a mere ' separation,' or the 
 change only a ' moral change.' I defy him to the proof." 
 (Debate C. & P., 186.) 
 
 The issue was fairly joined. There was a direct affirmation 
 on one side, and a direct denial on the other. But I never 
 could find the proofs to which Mr. Campbell referred, either in 
 the debate in question, or in any other work. It did seem to 
 me that Mr. C. had made the strength of his assertion support 
 the absence of his proof. 
 
 The last alleged contradiction in the faith of the Church, 
 made by Mr, C., was in regard to the marriage of the clergy. 
 
 " Again," he says, " the second Council of Lateran, the 
 tenth oecumenical council, forbade the marriage of the clergy. 
 For 800 years the clergy were allowed to marry. For the first 
 600 years one-half the canons of councils were regulating the 
 clergy as to the affairs of matrimony and celibacy. The ancient 
 church had not yet learned to forbid marriage to the clergy \ 
 for with St. Paul, the clergy yet believed, that ' marriage was 
 honorable in all.' " (Debate C. & P., 179.) 
 
 In reference to the celibacy of the clergy, I found that the 
 
 * Mr. C. seemed to me to make assertions without due reflection. In this 
 extract he says: "Then (1215) we hegin to read of transubstantiation." In an- 
 other place he says : " In the 9th century, the doctrine of transubstantiation be- 
 gan to be talked of commonly," &c. (Debate C. & P., 277.) But I found thil 
 amended statement equally untrue. 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 303 
 
 Church never held it as a matter of faith that she had always 
 regarded it as matter of discipline, resting in her discretion, 
 and dependent upon circumstances and that she held celibacy 
 to be a more honorable state, which any one might, or might 
 not voluntarily enter into, at his own will and pleasure. As 1 
 understand the views of the Church, upon this subject, she holds 
 these distinct positions : 
 
 1. That marriage was a matter under the control of each 
 individual. 
 
 2. That it was no sin to marry, and no sin to refrain from 
 marriage. 
 
 3. That it was more honorable to refrain from marriage, 
 when the motive was the greater service of God. 
 
 4. That individuals, male and female, had the clear right by 
 a vow, voluntarily made, to dedicate themselves to the entire 
 service of God. 
 
 5. That having made this deliberate engagement, they could 
 not afterwards violate it without committing a grievous offence, 
 by lying unto God, and His Church. 
 
 6. That the Church has the undoubted right to select her 
 own ministers, and to judge of their qualifications. 
 
 7. That a body of clergy, who embrace celibacy, are more 
 able to give their entire time and thoughts to their duties, and 
 for that reason, are more devoted, more efficient, in proportion 
 to numbers, and having no families to support, are more eco- 
 nomical, and a less burthen to the church.* 
 
 8. That for these reasons, the church prefers those who 
 pledge themselves to celibacy; and so long as she can find 
 a number of such sufficient for her ministry, she has the 
 right to accept their services, in preference to those who are 
 married. 
 
 9. That when she does so select an individual, with the 
 pledge and distinct understanding, that he shall remain unmar- 
 ried, that he is bound, by all the rules of Christianity, to per- 
 
 * According to the statistics collected and published in a number of the Ci- 
 rilta Cattolica, the expense of the ministry of the Established Church in England 
 amounts to a tax of about eight shillings to each person, per annum, while in 
 France, the maintenance of the Catholic clergy amounts to one shilling to each 
 inhabitant per annum. 
 
304 WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH ? 
 
 form his promise faithfully ; and when he does not do so, she of 
 right excludes him from her communion.* 
 
 Now, whatever opinion may be entertained in reference to 
 this discipline of the Church, it is clear that there is no contra- 
 diction in her faith, and no violation of her infallibility. I could 
 not find any proof that she had ever held, at any period of her 
 existence, either the marriage or celibacy of the clergy, as a 
 matter of faith. Nor could I find any thing in the teaching of 
 Christ, or of His apostles, that made celibacy a sin, or that made 
 marriage obligatory upon individuals. 
 
 These several charges of a want of uniformity in the doc- 
 
 * In selecting His apostles, did Christ interfere with their free agency ? Did 
 He force them to become His apostles, against their consent ? Surely not. But 
 after they had voluntarily and deliberately undertaken the task assigned them, 
 and after having received our Lord's instructions personally, for more than three 
 years, could they, or any one or more of them, have withdrawn, without good 
 cause, from the duties attached to the position, and not have committed a griev- 
 ous sin? They could not, it would seem, violate their solemn engagement. 
 Was it not voluntary ? Was it not lawful ? and was it not binding ? Christ 
 fulfilled His part faithfully. Were they not obliged, by His law, to do the same ? 
 St. Paul was not forced to be a preacher of the gospel, but he voluntarily un- 
 dertook to be one, and he said : " Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel." 
 (1 Cor. ix. 16.) There was " a necessity laid upon him." 
 
 The very same principle applies to a person who voluntarily and deliberately 
 engages to perform the duties of a priest. The Church instructs him for years 
 to qualify him, as Christ did His apostles, for the work. These laborious in- 
 structions are given upon the distinct engagement to enter her ministry when 
 qualified, if still mutually satisfactory to both parties. The candidate has am- 
 ple time allowed him to make a deliberate choice, and may retract, at any time, 
 before his ordination ; of all which he is fully informed. Then, after the Church 
 has done all on her part, in good faith, shall the minister, without her consent, 
 violate his deliberate and lawful engagement, and still retain the position ? Is 
 there any common honesty in such an act ? The Church must be a very poor 
 and contemptible institution, altogether inferior to any civil government, if she 
 be incompetent to make a binding engagement, or when made, impotent to en- 
 force it. If a man voluntarily, of his own free will, enlist in the army, he is 
 bound to serve out his time. Is not this right ? If the true Church has not the 
 right to select her own ministers, what power and privilege has she ? Is she 
 not a very weak and feeble institution, when she is compelled to submit to the 
 opinions of outsiders who wish to force themselves into her ministry upon their 
 own terms ? The power and the right to select its own officers must belong to 
 the true Church. 
 
WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? 305 
 
 trines and teaching of the Catholic Church, wholly failed to sat- 
 isfy my mind that they were based upon any satisfactory foun- 
 dation. But the great and striking fact, that the Church had 
 existed for so many centuries had passed through so many 
 vicissitudes and yet, after all, had been so uniform in teaching 
 all that she herself ever held as essential faith, was calculated to 
 make the most serious impression upon the mind of the patient 
 and fair inquirer. For to my mind it did show, that she was 
 the most successful counterfeit of the genuine coin, that ever 
 did exist, if she were not the true coin itself. It is so difficult 
 always to wear a mask so difficult to wear it consistently and 
 for so many ages. How could this be ? Her history was won- 
 derful her success most unaccountable. In the absence of in- 
 fallibility, who can account for it ? What reasonable hypothesis 
 can be given ? 
 
 I found that at present her faith was taught in every land, 
 among every people that she had the same creed for the rude 
 Indian, the imaginative Asiatic, the dark African, the enlight- 
 ened European, and the practical American that between the 
 frigid zones of the North and South, and around the whole 
 world, she had only the same sacraments the same priesthood 
 and the same liturgical services and the same creed of faith. 
 In short, I found her ministers in every nook and corner of the 
 accessible earth, and her missionaries in every sea. Here in 
 California, where the varied races of the earth do congregate, 
 where more languages are spoken, than were found in Jerusa- 
 lem on the day of Pentecost, we find men of all classes, kindreds, 
 nations, and tongues, meet around the same altar, partake of 
 the same sacraments, and though unknown to each other, save 
 by the golden chain of faith, are each and all perfectly at home, 
 in the same house of the Lord. Is not this as it should be ? Is 
 not this union? Apostolic union ? If not, where, O where can 
 it be found ? 
 20 
 
CHAPTER V11I. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 1. If private interpretation be sufficient for one purpose, is it 
 not for all? 
 
 THE first objection I shall examine, is one which is consid- 
 ered by Protestants as of great importance. In the language 
 of Mr. Breckenridge : 
 
 " If private interpretation is sufficient to explain the whole 
 word of God, in order to find out the true church, why is it not 
 sufficient for the rest ? " (Con. H. & B., 151.) The same objec- 
 tion is made by Mr. Campbell, (Debate C. & P., 181,) and by all 
 Protestant controversialists whose works I have read. The ob- 
 jection, upon its face, appears to possess great plausibility, and 
 much force. It has already been substantially answered in pre- 
 ceding pages ; but as it is esteemed of so much importance by 
 those who urge it, some additional considerations will be sub- 
 mitted. 
 
 It will be readily seen, upon reflection, that the essence of 
 the objection is founded upon these positions : 
 
 1. That the Scriptures contain the only evidence of the true 
 Church. 
 
 2. That all portions of them are equally easy of interpreta- 
 tion; or, that those portions relating to the Church, are as 
 difficult as any other. 
 
 3. That an individual bears the same relation to the Church, 
 so far as the right of private interpretation in the last resort is 
 concerned, before he joins the Church, as he does afterwards. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 307 
 
 Each and all "of these positions must be true, or else the ob- 
 jection is not good. For if there be other testimony to point 
 out the true Church, then the original inquirer does not rely 
 solely upon his private interpretation of the Scriptures, but, in 
 part, upon other evidence. So, if it be true, that there are some 
 things in Scripture hard to understand, and many things easily 
 understood, and these hard things relate not to the Church, 
 then it is clear, that the inquirer may well be able to construe 
 the plain portions of the written Word, and be competent to 
 find the true Church his guide in the same way that a man 
 of good sense can be competent to choose a lawyer, although he 
 is not himself acquainted with all the law. And so, when a man 
 once becomes a subject of this visible kingdom the Church 
 his relation towards it may be very different; and while his 
 privileges may be increased, his responsibilities may be also in- 
 creased in a corresponding degree. 
 
 To illustrate my meaning, I will suppose an inhabitant of 
 another country to become convinced that he is not living un- 
 der a good government, and that he at once looks around the 
 world for a government that secures the greatest amount of in- 
 dividual freedom, consistent with order and protection. In this 
 search he fixes his attention upon our country. How is he to 
 know the leading features of our government? He may take 
 the practical operation of the government, as now existing, 
 claiming to possess certain powers, nnd to act under a constitu- 
 tion ; or he may examine the instrument itself, with or without 
 the aid of the commentaries of our great constitutional writers 
 and jurists and the decisions of our highest courts ; or he may 
 take all these together. But whether he use one or more of 
 these means, is a matter entirely for his individual consideration. 
 The government will not interfere with him. If he errs, he re- 
 mains an alien, and must bear the incidents belonging to that 
 state. The government has no jurisdiction over him. His mis- 
 construction of the laws, leads to no breach of the peace, to no 
 crime, and to no treason. 
 
 But suppose he becomes a citizen. His relation is entirely 
 changed. He enjoys the privileges, but also takes upon himself 
 the obligations incident to this new state. He can now hold 
 oflfice and vote at elections ; but he must also tight the battles 
 
308 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 of the country, and submit implicitly to the decisions of her 
 courts. He no longer construes any part of the law for himself 
 in the last resort. He now owes a paramount duty to his vol- 
 untarily adopted country. Next to his duty to God, his highest 
 duty is to her. He must sacrifice his life, not his soul, for hia 
 adopted country, if necessary. 
 
 And are not these plain principles applicable to the Church, 
 and to all associations of men ? All outside the Church are but 
 aliens from that kingdom, and must suifer whatever incidents 
 belong to that state. This kingdom is open to the oppressed of 
 every land. How shall the honest inquirer find out the true 
 Church ? He must make a choice ; and there are various means, 
 by the use of which, he may know which is this Church. 
 
 1 . He may take the testimony of history. This history he 
 will find in the Bible in part, and in part in the writings of other 
 historians. He will find the Bible, especially the New Testa- 
 ment, to difier from most other works, and to be composed of 
 two parts, historical and doctrinal / and he will find the former 
 much more easily understood than the latter. Persons of the 
 most ordinary capacity, even children, can relate facts most cor- 
 rectly, and also understand such relations. The most intelligent 
 and the most clear witness I ever heard testify in court, was a 
 poor girl, of the age of fourteen, who could neither read nor 
 write. Her statements were just as clear, logical, and consistent 
 as the simple facts themselves, and no cross-examination could 
 entangle her in the least. And it was the remark of Mr. Van 
 Buren, while Attorney-General of New York, that the most 
 competent witness he ever heard examined in court, was a 
 colored man of very ordinary mind, who was a witness in some 
 great criminal case in that State, in which Mr. Van Buren ap- 
 peared on the part of the prosecution. 
 
 If he take the simple historical narrative of the New Testa- 
 ment, he will find these matters of positive fact clearly established 
 that about eighteen hundred years ago, Christ organized a 
 visible association of men called " The Church " that all who 
 were regarded as His subjects, became members of this Church 
 that this institution was but one in both faith and govern- 
 ment, though spread over most of the habitable globe in the 
 days of the apostles that " the Lord added daily to this Church 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 309 
 
 such as should be saved " that there was government exercised 
 over this Church, and a law practically administered by officers 
 in the Church that all discords, schisms, and divisions, in this 
 association were most zealously opposed by the apostles them- 
 selves that this Church was the pillar and ground of the truth 
 that she received members, rejected heretics, and ordained 
 ministers that, in a word, she exercised all the powers of gov- 
 ernment necessary to keep in union and existence such a king- 
 dom and that there is not the slightest intimation given any- 
 where in the narrative, that this Church was temporary, or that 
 there could be any but the one. And he will find, that while 
 there were heretics in those days they were rejected, and that 
 the great and overwhelming majority of all those who ever 
 claimed to be Christians, were members of this Church. 
 
 If he will follow down the stream of history, from the days 
 of the apostles, he will find it historically true, that this same 
 Church continued, having the same faith, the same government, 
 always claiming the same, always saying we teach only that 
 which came down to us, we teach nothing new. He will find 
 the world full of her history. The medal, the coin, the sepul- 
 chral monument, " the stone in the wall," the written history 
 the tradition all cry out and attest a Church so united in 
 faith and government so spread over the world so comprising 
 in her communion the overwhelming majority of all, in every 
 age, who named the name of Jesus that as in the days of the 
 apostles, so at all subsequent periods of her history, she has ex- 
 pelled heretics, and when expelled, regarded them as heathens 
 and publicans, and at all periods has continually and consistently 
 claimed to be the sole true Church, one and indivisible. 
 
 2. If he go beyond the simple history, and take the simplest 
 commands, he will hear our Lord say " hear the Church," and 
 " the gates of hell shall not prevail against her," and St. Paul 
 telling his brethren, in the most explicit terms, that they were 
 under government to the rulers of the Church. If he will then 
 take the admissions of the different rival Churches, he will find 
 them generally agreeing that the true Church must be, as she 
 was in the days of the apostles, visible, perpetual, always teach- 
 ing, Catholic and united. True, he will find a few, who insist 
 that there was an invisible Church ; but he will see that such a 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 Church had no powers of government, and was, in fact, a modern 
 invention, to escape a difficulty. Then, taking these admissions 
 and the historical proofs together, and he will at once see, that 
 the Catholic Church is the only one now existing, that can pos- 
 sibly till the promises of Christ that all the Protestant sects 
 taken together, or any smaller number of them, or each one 
 separately, cannot tind any ancestors of their own faith or govern- 
 ment, extending back to the apostles that if they, or any one 
 or more of them, did ever exist before the 16th centuvy, then 
 history has wholly wronged them, and neglected to record the 
 fact that if he takes their assumed chain of succession, he will 
 find it so minute, so obscure, so discordant, so mixed and de- 
 formed, that he is forced to come to the conclusion, that either 
 Christianity has been a failure, or the true Church is found else- 
 where. 
 
 3. He may take the doctrines and acts of the Catholic Church, 
 and compare them together, and with Scripture, reason, history, 
 and experience, and he will see their consistency, one with the 
 other how they are intimately connected as the parts of one 
 whole must always be in every true system how taking away 
 one article of faith, like taking out one stone from a beautiful 
 building, destroys the harmony, and endangers the safety, of 
 the whole he may examine her acts, and see if they are not 
 consistent with the character of a true Church her invincible 
 firmness her never-tiring industry her vigilance her fruitful- 
 ness, and her wonderful tenacity of life, under the most trying 
 circumstances. 
 
 4. He may take all these together. 
 
 But whether he use one or more of these means, is a matter 
 for his individual consideration. He is an alien has not yet 
 come within the jurisdiction of the Church. He has made no 
 engagement with her, has taken upon himself no obligations as 
 a subject of this kingdom. If he errs in using the means placed 
 within his reach by the Founder of the Church, he will still re- 
 main an alien. He will be the principal sufferer. His miscon- 
 structions of the law his disregard of history his rejection of 
 the evidence arising from her unity and consistency, cannot in- 
 jure the Church, to any great extent. He is openly an alien 
 enemy. His true character is known. He speaks only in that 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 311 
 
 character. What he may sny cannot so well produce divisions 
 in the kingdom. His acts tend more to unite, than sever and 
 divide the members of the Church. 
 
 But if he becomes a member of the true Church, whether he 
 uses one, or all of the many means at his command, it does not 
 matter. St. Clement of Alexandria says : " The way of truth is 
 one ; but other streams run into it from various quarters, as into 
 a perennial river." (Strom. 1. i.) This is beautifully expressed. 
 So, the truth of Christianity may be proved by a thousand con- 
 verging rays of testimony ; and so, the true Church can be 
 found in many ways, all leading at last into the one stream. 
 
 Whenever he becomes a subject of this Kingdom, his state, 
 in the contemplation of the Christian theory, is entirely changed. 
 He now enjoys the privileges, but also incurs the obligations, 
 incident to this new state. He can hope for, and aspire to, that 
 peaceful heaven promised by the Founder of this Kingdom ; 
 but he must also fight the battles of the King. When he was 
 an alien, he was exhorted to believe, repent, and be baptized ; 
 but now he is commanded to " hear the Church," and to " obey 
 them that have the rule over him." Whatever may be his abil- 
 ities to construe the law, he cannot do it independent of the 
 Church. She is greater than he, great as he may be. It is not 
 now a question of ability alone, but a question of peace a ques- 
 tion of union a question of success a question of right. Now 
 that he is in the Church, were he allowed to err and still re- 
 main a member, he would be like a traitor in the camp, and 
 would be tenfold more dangerous than if he had never joined 
 the Church. And if he has this right of private interpretation 
 in the last resort, he cannot be expelled from the Church but in 
 mere form / for, in the contemplation of such a theory, it is not 
 an expulsion of an inferior, but a mere separation of equals. 
 
 If, then, it were true, that it was just as easy to construe the 
 whole law of Christ, as that portion which relates to the Church, 
 and that an individual is just as competent to do so in the one 
 case as in the other, and that there is no other evidence to point 
 out the true Church but the Bible alone ; still this right of pri- 
 vate interpretation in the last resort, could not exist in each 
 member, in the very nature of the institution itself, nor under the 
 explicit words of Christ and His apostles. For when a man be- 
 
312 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 comes a subject of Christ's Kingdom, his obligations regard not 
 himself alone. His first and highest duty is to Christ and His 
 Church. As the SUCCESS of this Kingdom depends essen- 
 tially upon the UNITY OF ITS SUBJECTS, he is bound to 
 regard that object with the greatest solicitude ; for it was dear- 
 est to his Master's heart, who died, not only to save him, but 
 also to save others, and who wishes, and has the right, to use 
 him as an instrument to save his fellow-beings. The whole 
 world is entitled to salvation as well as himself. He lives not 
 for himself alone ; but his highest and holiest interest, if he only 
 knew it, consists in his faithfulness to this Church. 
 
 He is the subject of a King, who seeks universal empire 
 over men ; and success lies alone through unity of faith and 
 effort. His Lord prayed for such unity, for the very purpose 
 " that the world might believe." When, therefore, he is guilty 
 of heresy, he not only commits a grievous wrong against him- 
 self, but a still more grievous wrong against the Church of 
 Christ, and against Christ Himself. And, as was said before, it 
 is not a question alone regarding ability of individuals to 
 construe the code in the last resort. If every citizen of the 
 United States possessed the legal ability, the justice, and im- 
 partiality of Chief Justice Marshall, they never could be allowed 
 that privilege. This right rests in the government, from the 
 necessity and reason of the thing. And so if every member of 
 the Church possessed the same qualifications as the ablest theo- 
 logian, this right must still exist in the Church, and not in him. 
 It has well been said : " With the talents of an angel, a man may 
 yet be a fool." 
 
 2. Is the Catholic rule impracticable f 
 
 The next objection is the alleged impracticability of the 
 Catholic rule. This objection I find made by Mr. Campbell, 
 Mr. Breckenridge, and by all Protestants whose works I have 
 read. 
 
 The Council of Trent, at its fourth session, decreed, " that 
 no one, relying on his own skill, shall in matters of faith or 
 morals, pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine- 
 wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses, presume to in- 
 terpret the said sacred Scriptures contrary to the sense which 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 313 
 
 holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense 
 and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth 
 hold ; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers." 
 
 The substance of this decree is given by Mr. Campbell, with 
 the exception that he uses the word manners instead of morals. 
 (Debate C. & P., 279.) Dr. Spring, after quoting it says : " The 
 scarcely less celebrated creed of Pope Pius IV. embraces the 
 same thought, and with almost the same precision of language." 
 (Dis. 5.) 
 
 Mr. Campbell says : "Our rule is the Bible alone. The Ro- 
 man Catholic rule contains one hundred and thirty-five large 
 folio volumes superadded to the Bible, and the Apocrypha." 
 (Debate C. & P., 168.) These, he states, consists of Fathers, 
 35 vols. ; Decretals, 8 ; Bulls of the Popes, 10 ; Decrees of 
 Councils, 31 ; Acts of Saints, 51 in all, 135. 
 
 Afterwards he says: " But the priesthood are sworn c to in- 
 terpret the Scriptures according to the unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers.' * * * * But how can they unless they examine all 
 these Fathers ? And what living man has read these 135 folios 
 with or without much care ? * * * * Here is a task which I 
 say never was, or can be performed by man." (Debate C. & P., 
 181.) 
 
 Again he says : " The Roman Catholic rule is exceedingly 
 unwieldy. It requires a whole Council to move it, and apply it 
 to a single opinion. Ours is at least portable." (Debate C. & P., 
 168.) 
 
 The first matter that arrested my attention was a miscon- 
 struction of the decree. It will be seen that the decree is nega- 
 tive that no one, relying upon his own skill, shall presume to 
 construe the Scripture contrary to the Church, or to the unani- 
 mous consent of the Fathers. If, then, a member of the Church 
 construe contrary to the Church, or to this unanimous consent, 
 then he violates the decree, and only then. But Protestant 
 controvertists have taken the ground, that under it, no article 
 of faith can be defined, unless there be a unanimous consent of 
 the Fathers in support of it. If, therefore, they say, one single 
 Father is found dissenting from all the others, the Church cannot 
 define that an article of faith, without a violation of this decree. 
 28 
 
314 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 But I must confess in all candor, I could not see " whero 
 unto this would grow." If ninety-nine Fathers state one thing 
 to have been the faith of the Church, and one state the contrary, 
 and that in relation to a matter not expressly defined by the 
 Church, and a member construe with the ninety-nine, and 
 against the one, he is clearly not guilty of any violation of the 
 decree, In case the Church has defined at all, then he must 
 not contradict her decree. That is the first negative. In case 
 she has not defined, then the member must not contradict the 
 unanimous consent of the Fathers. Both these negatives are 
 confined to faith and morals. 
 
 If we take the decree in its strict grammatical sense, as 
 Protestants assume to take it, it is only by a misconstruction, 
 that they can deduce the consequences they claim to flow from 
 it. The decree does not say, that the Church shall not define 
 an article of faith, because a few Fathers may dissent from the 
 overwhelming majority of all, if such a case should exist. Nor 
 does the decree say that individuals shall not construe contrary 
 to the sense of the few, and with the sense of the majority of 
 the Fathers. The decree, in its terms, relates to individuals, 
 and not to the Church. 
 
 If, on the contrary, we give the decree a more liberal con- 
 struction, and say that the word unanimous must be controlled 
 by the general scope and context, and is equivalent to the ex- 
 pression " general consent," then no such consequences would 
 follow, as contended. In either case, nothing but a miscon- 
 struction can lead to the consequences mentioned. 
 
 In reference, then, to the 135 volumes enumerated by Mr. 
 Campbell, and the duty of the Priesthood to interpret the Scrip- 
 tures, as well as tradition, according to these, Mr. C. thinks 
 there is very great difficulty, and insists that no man ever did 
 or can read these volumes, " with or without much care." It 
 did not seem to me to be an impossible task. Most lawyers, in 
 the course of their practice, read more volumes than these 135. 
 There are very few law libraries, that do not contain more than 
 this number. And why a carefully educated priest could not, 
 in the course of a few years, read these volumes, I could not see. 
 
 But while it may be necessary to the Catholic controvertist 
 to have read all contained in the 35 volumes of the Fathers in 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 315 
 
 reference to disputed points, and also all that refers to the same 
 matters in the Decretals, and the other volumes, it is not neces- 
 sary for every priest to have read them all, in order to know 
 the faith of his Church, so that he may know what to teach. 
 
 It must be obvious to any man of good sense, that the larger 
 portions of these volumes, from the nature of the case, must re- 
 late to matters once discussed, but long since defined by the 
 ohurch. The decrees of the Council of Trent, for instance, em- 
 brace much the larger portion of the questions discussed in the 
 Fathers. These decrees, with the reasons for them, make a 
 volume about as large as the New Testament. With the aid 
 of proper indexes, it is just as easy to find the portions applica- 
 ble to any particular point, as it is for a lawyer to consult his 
 library, often consisting of several hundred volumes. Besides, 
 there are compilations of the principal matters contained in the 
 Fathers. For example, there is the one of Messrs. Berrington 
 and Kirk of three volumes, so well arranged and indexed, that 
 in a few minutes' search, all of importance relating to any par- 
 ticular point, now in question, can be found. These 135 vol- 
 umes are intended for reference, like the numerous volumes of 
 Reports in a law library. If a student of law could be alarmed 
 at the number of volumes in any respectable law library, he 
 would at once conclude that to be a lawyer, was a task " which 
 never was, or can be performed." 
 
 But to any one who has any knowledge of method and sys- 
 tem, and how much the labor of search can be abridged by 
 them, such an argument seems like one addressed to ignorance, 
 and ought not to be found in the mouth of an educated man.* 
 By the aid of a beautiful arrangement, we can turn to Webster's 
 large Dictionary, and out of some thirty-five thousand words, we 
 can select any one we wish, and find its definition, in a single 
 
 * But one reflection arises in reference to Mr. C. himself. In his debates 
 and other productions, he has referred to, and quoted from, a much greater 
 number of volumes than these 135, and no one can tell from the manner ir. 
 which the quotations are made, whether he has read these works or not. It 
 would at first seem that he had. But we have a right to suppose that he has relied 
 upon the labor of others. Now why Mr. C. will not allow the Catholic clergy 
 to avail themselves of the labors of each other, when they are all aitthorizfi 
 teachers in the same Church, and all equally responsible, it is difficult to tell. 
 
316 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 moment of time. A lawyer, with a library containing a thou- 
 sand volumes, will be able, by the aid of his alphabetically ar- 
 ranged Digests and Indexes, to give you the authorities upon a 
 certain point of law, in a very short time. All professional men 
 avail themselves of the labors of each other. 
 
 And when I looked into the Protestant rule, I found the 
 case, as regarded myself, still worse. That theory told me to 
 trust nobody ; and yet necessity, stronger than this rule, told 
 me I must. Under the Catholic rule, I was allowed to take the 
 true construction of the entire law, written and unwritten, from 
 the authorized teachers of the Church. The labor was thrown 
 upon the clergy, a carefully and thoroughly educated class of 
 men. I was allowed to have confidence in some one. But un- 
 der the Protestant theory, I was not allowed to do so, without 
 a palpable violation of the fundamental rule itself. If I took 
 any thing upon trust, I gave up, so far, my right and duty. 
 God had made my mind the only tribunal for the construction of 
 His Word, according to this theory. This Word was originally 
 written in a few^ different languages. It was my duty not to 
 trust the judgment of any other person as to the meaning of 
 this Word. If I took the translations of others, I departed 
 from the theory. I knew translation must come before my pri- 
 vate construction. It seemed that the translator had to con- 
 strue both languages. And as I found so great a discrepancy 
 in the translations, showing great ignorance or unfairness in the 
 translator, or imperfection in the languages, or all together, 
 (and of which I was not competent to judge,) I could not trust 
 them, or any of them. Still I found that " without faith it was 
 impossible to please God." In the Catholic version I found, 
 " Hail Mary full of grace," and in the Protestant, " Hail thou 
 that art highly favored," conveying to the mind very different 
 ideas. This is only one of many instances. Who was right ? 
 There was great error somewhere. Mr. Campbell declared that 
 the " faults and imperfections of the common version, were 
 neither few nor small." (Debate C. & R., 160.) True, I was 
 assured by most Protestants, that the different translations were 
 substantially the same, in reference to all material matters. 
 But in all the discussions I read between Catholics and Protes- 
 tants, and between Protestants themselves, I found much dis- 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 317 
 
 agreement as to the fidelity of translations, and much discus- 
 sion about these differences. These parties considered them 
 material. I could not determine whether they were correct or 
 not, from any knowledge I had of the original languages. All 
 I could certainly say was, that they were very different. 
 And if I took the statements made on other occasions, that they 
 were substantially similar, contrary to my own judgment, that 
 they were substantially very different, I would be taking the 
 matter on trust, just like a Catholic. 
 
 But admitting I could find a translation that I knew was 
 correct, it had to be construed. But this, at first, would seem 
 to be an easy task. Mr. Campbell, Mr. Rice, Mr. Breckenridge, 
 Dr. Spring, and others say so. Still, after all that they could 
 say, and had said, in regard to the Bible being a plain book 
 and easily understood, I found, either that they were not men 
 of plain good sense, else they would not have differed so widely 
 from each other, or there was more difficulty in the construc- 
 tion of this wonderful volume than they seemed to understand 
 themselves. And I found Mr. Campbell (whatever might be 
 his abstract declarations) " eternally " acting as if he did not 
 think the Bible so plain, and as if he was well satisfied that he 
 could make it plainer ; for, in his efforts to do this, he had 
 written, spoken, and published matter enough to make many 
 large volumes ; not as many, however, as the 135, but certainly 
 approaching somewhat towards the 35 volumes of the Fathers. 
 All of which he thought useful to be read. And as for other 
 Protestant writers, they were equally convinced, that they could 
 improve upon the plainness of the Bible. So certain were they 
 of that fact, that the different sects had actually drawn up writ- 
 ten creeds, much plainer than the Bible. Mr. Rice himself 
 stated it as a matter of " fact ; viz. : it is impossible to know any 
 thing of a man's faith, from the mere fact of his saying that he 
 takes the Bible alone as his infallible guide." (Deb. C. & R., 774.) 
 
 And in my reflections upon this subject, I could not but rea- 
 son in this way : " This is a singular state of case a very anom- 
 alous state of things. Christ was the most important lawgiver, 
 and promulgated the most extensive code in the world ; for it 
 embraces more matter, and more people, than any other. Yet 
 it is solemnly alleged by one party, that this Infinite Lawgiver 
 
318 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 made no provision for any certain and authorized translations 
 and construction of His law. He left all in perfect chaos, if 
 chaos can be perfect. He made each one dependent upon him- 
 self, (for a supreme cannot be dependent,) and yet He placed 
 him in such a position, that inexorable necessity would force 
 each man to rely upon the equally uncertain and contradictory 
 translations of different parties, or choose between them, with- 
 out any guide or qualification. The sense of the most impor- 
 tant passage, might depend entirely upon the proper translation 
 of a single word. Was there ever so strange a system ? Did 
 a lawgiver ever promulgate a code, and organize no association 
 to be governed by it ? If he did so, did he not do a very idle 
 thing ? And if he did thus organize any association, was there 
 ever a case where he left no tribunal to construe his law ? Was 
 there, in short, such a strange anomaly as a lawgiver ever pro- 
 mulgating a code of law, that had no system in it ? no consist- 
 ency ? no efficiency ? And does not this theory make Christ 
 the weakest, the most confused, and incompetent of all lawgiv- 
 ers? What beauty, system, harmony, unity, or certainty, is 
 there in a theory, founded and based in suspicion and distrust 
 of everybody but yourself? And it does seem to me that the 
 Catholic theory honors Christ as a lawgiver, while the Protes- 
 tant theory degrades Him, as such, below the standard of mere 
 human legislators. Is it true, that our Lord did organize a vis- 
 ible Church, and yet leave no government in it ? If so, what 
 sort of a Church then is it ? A Church so poor, so little entitled 
 to respect, that the whole united association is absolutely infe- 
 rior to each separate individual member; so that no one is 
 bound to obey or believe her decision just, (in the contempla- 
 tion of the theory itself,) unless he, in his supreme judgment, 
 shall first sanction it. A theory that places the individual 
 above the association, and yet assumes -to call it a Church. 
 Where shall we go for any parallel, or for any imagined practi- 
 cal institution, that could be a parallel to this most anomalous 
 and contradictory theory ? " 
 
 3. The same matter further considered. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell says: 
 
 "It requires a whole council to move it (the Catholic rule) 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 319 
 
 and apply it to a single opinion." * * * * " Ought there not to 
 be a general council eternally in session ? " (Deb. C. & P., 168.) 
 
 This objection I found, upon investigation, to be based upon 
 an erroneous conception of the practical operation of the Cath- 
 olic system. 
 
 Every Catholic Priest is & subordinate organ of the Church. 
 They are carefully educated and instructed in her doctrine. 
 They undergo a rigid examination before they are ordained. 
 They are immediately responsible, each to his bishop, and each 
 bishop to the Pope. From the decision of the parish priest, an 
 appeal lies to the bishop, and from the bishop to the Pope. 
 These are the ordinary organs of the Church. 
 
 In the nature of all governments over men, under any sys- 
 tem of law practically administered, difficulties must arise, as 
 I have elsewhere stated, in the application of its principles to 
 new cases ; and these new cases will arise, at intervals, so long 
 as the government exists, but with diminished frequency. This 
 must be the general rule, to which there may be exceptions, 
 caused by particular circumstances. It may happen, indeed, 
 that a great number of new questions may be raised at the same 
 time, and that at a remote period from the origin of the govern- 
 ment. This was the case at the Reformation. 
 
 It is obvious that when a question is once determined by the 
 Church, that it is not necessary to call a general Council to re- 
 affirm it. It may be advisable, in reference to particular cases, 
 when the Council is assembled for other purposes, for the Coun- 
 cil to do so, in terms still more explicit. But under the Catho- 
 lic theory, a general Council can only be required for the purpose 
 of applying the principles of the law to new cases which come 
 up, and about which there may exist some doubt in the minds 
 of some members of the college of teachers. In regard to the 
 question determined in the Council of Jerusalem, the difference 
 of opinion arose among the teachers. Hence the necessity of 
 that Council. The result was harmony of sentiment, and unity 
 of effort. The object of calling general Councils is still the same. 
 
 For these reasons general Councils are not called except some 
 great question or questions require them to be convened. After 
 the commencement of the Reformation, the Council of Trent 
 was convoked. This Council went extensively into the various 
 
320 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 questions raised by the Reformers ; and the result of its labors 
 has been to settle, so far as Catholics are concerned, all the ma- 
 terial points involved in the controversy. Since that period, no 
 occasion has arisen that called for the convoking of a general 
 Council, in the judgment of the Church; 
 
 As all Catholics admit that the decrees of all general Coun- 
 cils, with the Pope's concurrence, and also the doctrinal decrees 
 of the Pope, approved by the Church at large, through the con- 
 sent of the great majority of the bishops, are infallible, it is not 
 necessary to call a general Council for the definition of every 
 article of faith. It is the solemn act of the Pope, with the con- 
 currence of the Church, that all admit to be infallible ; and 
 whether this concurrence be given in a General Council, or 
 through the bishops dispersed, is not material, as the concur- 
 rence is still given. There is still the same mind and judgment. 
 
 The reasons given by Mr. Campbell why, under the Catho- 
 lic theory, a general Council should be " eternally in session," 
 was that " every age has its errors and divisions, and every indi- 
 vidual has his doubts." (Debate C. & P., 181.) 
 
 Unless these errors and divisions arise in the Church, as a 
 matter of course she would take no cognizance of them. If they 
 arise among Protestants, they are outside of her jurisdiction. 
 Until her own communion is disturbed, she has no reason to act. 
 And as to the asserted fact that " every individual has his 
 doubts," it may be very true as regards Protestants, and may 
 not be true as applied to Catholics. They live under precisely 
 opposite theories. But if a Catholic has any doubts, he may 
 apply to his pastor, and from his decision he may appeal to his 
 bishop, and from him to the Pope. With the Catholic, there is 
 a very simple and conclusive method of solving doubts, while the 
 Protestant begins with inquiring, and ends still inquiring. I 
 could see no more necessity for a general Council to be " eter- 
 nally in session," than for the Council of Jerusalem to have been 
 continually in session during the lives of the apostles. 
 
 An objection occurred to myself as to the authority for Cai 
 dinals, Archbishops, and Metropolitans. Upon examination, I 
 found these were bishops or priests ; and that the additional 
 powers conferred upon them were part and parcel of the pow- 
 ers belonging to the Pope. In the Constitution of the United 
 

 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 321 
 
 States it is first provided that the " Executive power shall be 
 vested in a President ; " and yet, in the second section of the 
 same article, the President " may require the opinion, in writ- 
 ing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments." 
 These " executive departments " are but part and parcel of the 
 executive power, which is all placed in " a President." So it 
 is in the Catholic Church. The Pope has the right to control 
 allr bishops, priests, and deacons, and he has the right, there- 
 fore, to employ the aid of particular agents for that purpose. 
 When the duties of an Executive become too arduous for him 
 to perform alone, he has the right to employ assistants, who only 
 act as his immediate subordinates. The Pope, therefore, em- 
 ploys the aid of an Archbishop or Metropolitan, to supervise the 
 bishops within certain limits; and Cardinals are employed to 
 aid him by their counsel and advice. As our President has the 
 right to take the opinion of the heads of departments, so the 
 Pope has the right to take the advice of all Bishops, Archbish- 
 ops, Metropolitans, and Cardinals. The College of Cardinals is 
 the most accessible advisory body, because the members reside 
 at Rome, and are easily assembled. This right of the Pope is 
 an incident inseparable from all executive power. No execu- 
 tive power over any considerable body of men could be practi- 
 cally exercised without it. Almost every officer, under any sys- 
 tem, has the right to appoint deputies. 
 
 Mr. C., speaking of the Protestant rule of faith, says : " Ours 
 is at least portable." 
 
 If by this he means it is easily carried about, he is correct. 
 But I apprehend, from the connection in which the term is 
 found, that he does not use it in its ordinary sense. As I un- 
 derstand him, he means to say that it is much easier to read and 
 understand the Bible alone, than to understand it with the aid 
 of these 135 volumes. In other words, I understand Mr. C. to 
 take the ground that other Protestants take, that it is easier to 
 get at the correct construction of the Bible without, than with, 
 any external exposition, aid or assistance. For if this be not 
 the meaning, then there is no real or apparent force in the ar- 
 gument. If we go beyond the book itself in any case, it may 
 be advisable to read and study all the principal works OD both 
 sides of every Protestant controversy among themselves. For 
 29 
 
322 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 if the points of difference between them be of as much impor 
 tance as each party thinks they are, the inquirer ought to look 
 into all with due diligence. And on the other hand, if the book 
 alone be sufficient, one cannot quite so well understand the util- 
 ity of discussion as to different constructions. 
 
 It must be conceded that a code of law may be too concise, 
 or it may be too prolix. So may a discourse, or a dissertation. 
 The true medium is difficult to attain. He who can express the 
 greatest number of the most relevant thoughts, upon a given 
 subject, with precision and certainty, and in the fewest words, 
 has attained this medium. Some men are beautifully brief for 
 want of thought. Others are brief because they extract tho 
 substance, and leave out the proofs and reasons. 
 
 In regard to laws, every judge and lawyer knows that the 
 most difficult statutes to construe are those that are the most 
 concise, and, therefore, expressed in most general terms. Broad 
 principles are often laid down, embracing such a wide and va- 
 ried number of cases, that it becomes a very difficult matter to 
 apply these general principles to such a multitude of individual 
 cases. Had the statute been more full and explicit, its construc- 
 tion would have been more easy. In short, whoever reflects 
 upon this subject carefully and impartially will, I think, arrive 
 at these conclusions : that every system of law must embrace 
 all cases that need practical regulation, or it must be defective 
 in permitting injustice to exist without a remedy that this regu- 
 lation can be effected in one of three ways : 1. By the adoption 
 of a very concise code, expressed in general terms, and embrac- 
 ing only general principles. 2. By the adoption of a very full 
 and minute code, dealing more in details. 3. By the adoption 
 of a mixed code, containing general principles, and also minute 
 regulations. In all these cases it is assumed that the codes are 
 consistent in their principles one with another. The mixed sys- 
 tem is ours, both with reference to the Federal and State gov- 
 ernments. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States is a very short instru- 
 ment, and can be read in half an hour. One would suppose 
 that its construction would be very easy, if there be any thing 
 in brevity to make it so. Yet how many great men have ex- 
 hausted their powers of construction upon this concise fuuda- 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 323 
 
 mental law. Has there been no difficulty in this case ? Is the 
 proper construction of that instrument most certainly attained 
 by reading it alone ? or by taking the decisions of our courts, 
 the opinions of our jurists, and statesmen, together with the in- 
 strument itself ? 
 
 Suppose a lawyer, in addressing the Supreme Court, should 
 use this language: "May it please the Court. In this case 
 there is involved a very grave constitutional question, upon 
 which the whole case will turn. In preparing myself to argue 
 this point, and in giving advice to my client, I have only read 
 and studied the Constitution itself. I preferred to go to the 
 law itself to know what were the rights of my client. I pre- 
 ferred to go to the pure fountain head, and from that uncor- 
 rnpted source, to drink in the clear waters of constitutional 
 construction. I have not consulted at any time, either the vo- 
 luminous decisions of this court, or of the State courts, nor have 
 I ever read one word of what Story, Kent, Seargent, and other 
 voluminous writers have said upon this subject. I preferred 
 the shorter course, to look alone to the Constitution itself. I 
 have read it over a number of times in a day. To read Story 
 on the Constitution only once would have taken me several 
 days. And to read the decisions of this court, would have 
 taken a much longer time." 
 
 By the Court. " The court dislikes to interrupt any gentle- 
 man, but we hope you will proceed to the point at once. How 
 you prepared yourself, or how you obtained your views of the 
 Constitution, is not important. Lawyers prepare themselves as 
 they please." 
 
 Lawyer. " If the court please, I will then come to the point 
 at once. There are several acts of Congress, the first passed as 
 early as July 31, 1789, and others at different periods as late as 
 1799, giving to the United States priority of payment over pri- 
 vate creditors in cases of insolvency, and in the distribution of 
 the estates of deceased debtors. Now I hold that all these acts 
 are unconstitutional." 
 
 By the Court. " This court cannot hear argument upon 
 that question. It has been settled by repeated adjudications. 
 The court regrets to be compelled to stop an able argument, 
 but the question has already been argued by able men, and de- 
 
324 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 cided. Had you examined these arguments and decisions, 
 would have saved both yourself and your client. If there was 
 no difficulty in the construction of the Constitution, or if there 
 was but one distinguished man, and this court had made no de- 
 cisions, it might be well for this distinguished man to confine 
 his attention alone to the Constitution. But the case is differ- 
 ent. Besides, the court cannot see any necessity of hearing ar- 
 gument, if your position be correct ; for this court would scarcely 
 learn any thing from you if it be true that you could learn 
 nothing from others." 
 
 And is not this reasoning applicable to the Church? The 
 whole question, as I conceive, resolves itself into this, and this 
 only : Was Christ a lawgiver, and is there any Church f For 
 if there be a Church, there must be government in it. And if 
 there be government in the Church, there must, of necessity, 
 exist the executive and judicial powers. And if these powers 
 exist in the Church, they must be supreme, and her decisions 
 are, and of right ought to be, final and conclusive. And if her 
 jurisdiction extend to any part of the law, it must embrace all 
 questions arising under it that require to be determined in this 
 mode of existence. And if these positions be true, then it is 
 important to know what the Church has decided. 
 
 And it must be obvious that the number and character of 
 the decisions of any tribunal must be increased by certain cii 
 cumstances : 1. By the concise character of the code. 2. By 
 the extent and variety of subjects embraced in it. 3. By the 
 length of its duration. The conciseness of the New Testament 
 has been one of the main causes of the difference among Prot- 
 estants. But this conciseness occasions no difficulty under the 
 Catholic rule. The decisions of the Church extend the general 
 principles to all new cases as they arise. And whereas the 
 Protestant rule leaves every difficulty without any certain reme- 
 dy, the Catholic rule provides an efficient remedy for every dif- 
 ficulty. The most defective governments in the world are those 
 which provide no sufficient remedy for wrongs no corrective 
 for errors. And in proportion as proposed remedies are ineffi- 
 cient, so in proportion does the government approach the most 
 unhappy of ah 1 conditions anarchy. 
 
 And when we go from the officers of the Church to the 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 325 
 
 laity, the Catholic system is far more simple, certain, and prao 
 tical than the Protestant rule. The inquirer, under both rules, 
 must first be satisfied that Christianity is true. Having reached 
 that conclusion, under the Catholic rule, the inquirer has only 
 two points to determine ; namely : 1. Which is the true Church ? 
 2. Is he bound to hear her ? When he has decided these, all 
 others follow as logical consequences. Not so with the Prot- 
 estant. He must, under his rule, arrive by his individual ex- 
 amination at all the truths of the Scripture necessary to be be- 
 lieved. And if it be true, that the most simple historical proof 
 will point out the true Church, or that this proof, taken in con- 
 nection with the simplest commands and the most evident dic- 
 tates of reason, will accomplish this, then the difference is most 
 manifest. And even conceding, for the sake of the argument 
 only, that the two questions the inquirer must determine before 
 he enters the Church, be as difficult as those the Protestant 
 must decide, still the amount of individual investigation is 
 greatly less. The Protestant travels the whole journey alone / 
 while the Catholic finds his guide, and follows her. 
 
 Every true fundamental rule must, when once admitted, lead 
 to the certain solution of all difficulties. If it do not possess 
 this efficient and operative principle, it cannot be true. Upou 
 its face, it is defective ; and, therefore, untrue. In every system 
 of truth there are certain leading original principles, from which 
 all others legitimately flow, as logical extensions. In every sys- 
 tem of faith, the mind must first be committed to the original 
 principles ; and afterwards, to their legitimate extensions. 
 
 The process of admitting pev ons into the Church in the 
 days of the apostles, was based upon the Catholic rule. On the 
 day of Pentecost, St. Peter addressed the Jews, who themselves 
 knew of the miracles of Christ, as he states in verse 22. As to 
 the evidences of Christ's divine character, he addressed a pre- 
 pared audience. And not only so, but the stupendous miracle 
 of the cloven tongues was visible and palpable to all. The 
 quickness of conviction, regarding any truth, depends upon 
 both the weight and directness of the testimony. In courts of 
 justice we see this verified continually. In some cases the wit- 
 nesses are few, and testify directly to the point. In other cases, 
 they are numerous, and their testimony is not direct, but cir- 
 
326 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 cumstantial, and much more diffuse. But by putting all the 
 circumstantial facts together, the result is certain, and even 
 more certain than in many cases of direct evidence ; for a few 
 witnesses may be perjured, but a number testifying to a great 
 variety of circumstances, and all substantially consistent with 
 each other, cannot be mistaken or false. And the facts them- 
 selves cannot lie. 
 
 It is, then, not at all astonishing that on the day of Pente- 
 cost, with the precedent evidence in their minds, and the stu- 
 pendous miracles then before their eyes, that multitudes should 
 have believed in a single day, after hearing a single discourse. 
 The testimony was not only direct, (addressed to the senses,) 
 but of a conclusive character. And from what they thus saw 
 and heard, they were compelled to arrive at these conclusions : 
 1. That Peter was a true witness. 2. That Christ had risen 
 from the dead. 3. That the apostles were His agents, as they 
 alleged. 
 
 From these conclusions it resulted inevitably that they were 
 bound to believe whatever the apostles taught. The miracles 
 attested the veracity of the apostles and of Christ. Whatever 
 they stated, as witnesses, was true. And this is the reason why 
 they at once cried out, " what shall we do ? " They only asked 
 to know their duty, as pointed out by the Lawmaker, through 
 His agents. They were prepared to believe any thing, simply 
 upon His authority. They did not stop to inquire about the 
 nature of baptism, and how sins were remitted in it, or about 
 other matters, but they took all this upon the word of the Di- 
 vine Legislator. 
 
 And in the case of the eunuch it was the same. He inquired 
 for a guide. Philip acted as such. The eunuch believed that 
 Jesus was the Christ, and then submitted himself to Philip, as 
 His authorized agent. 
 
 In these cases, the mind stood committed to two radical prin- 
 ciples, from which every thing else followed. Whatever might 
 be taught afterwards, they must believej or unsay what they 
 had previously admitted. They were only taught those truths 
 that must be believed before baptism ; and these truths were of 
 such a character, that all others afterwards propounded by the 
 teaching authority must also be believed. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 327 
 
 It is possible that Peter and Philip may have taught all the 
 doctrines required to be believed at any time, as all they said is 
 not stated. But it is far more probable, from all the circum- 
 stances related, that they did not. In that portion of Peter's 
 discourse which is recorded, he said nothing about the resurrec- 
 tion from the dead, and many other doctrines. And as to 
 Philip's discourse, we know not what it contained, except that 
 baptism, and that Jesus was the Son of God, were mentioned. 
 But the converts, having committed themselves to the authority 
 of the Church, were bound afterwards to receive her teaching. 
 Consequently, Hymeneus and Philetus, after being admitted 
 injbo the Church, by rejecting her teaching, made shipwreck 
 of the faith. And as the cardinal principles of the system were 
 extended to new cases by the apostles, the members of the 
 Church were bound to believe these extensions, as well as the 
 original principles themselves. 
 
 The real difference in the two fundamental rules is this : 
 When the inquirer receives the Catholic rule as true, his labor 
 is at an end. He has only to follow his guide. But when he 
 receives the Protestant rule as true, his labor is but fairly begun. 
 
 And while all who admit the Catholic rule must come in the 
 unity of the faith and the bond of peace, it is precisely different 
 with the Protestant. The practical result has been, that the 
 Catholic rule has kept in unity the overwhelming majority of pro- 
 fessed Christians ; while the Protestant rule has severed and di- 
 vided those who held it into many discordant sects. One rule 
 must lead to unity, the other to division. And it is the great 
 beauty of the Catholic fundamental rule, that unity must follow 
 a concession of its truth, and that division cannot exist, until this 
 fundamental truth is denied. 
 
 Another objection which I found made by all Protestant 
 controvertists was this, to use the confident language of Mr. 
 Breckenridge : " But when you have got the decrees, confes- 
 sions, bulls, <fcc., of this infallible judge, are they better or 
 more clear than our Bible ? Can your judge be more lucid than 
 our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ? And after you have got- 
 ten these infallible judgments, do they not also need an inter- 
 preter as much as the Bible ? " (Con. H. & B., 13.) 
 
 I have already given my reasons why a lawgiver , however 
 
328 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 competent, could not make a law, in advance, as plain in each 
 particular case, as could a judicial tribunal, possessing the same 
 capacity, after the particular case had arisen. Were a "lawyer 
 to use such an objection in reference to the decisions of the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States upon the construction of the 
 Constitution, he would be considered as quite green ; and so 
 evident would be his verdancy, that he would be set down as 
 knowing very little of common sense, and less of his profession. 
 And what is very remarkable, is the fact that Mr. B. belonged 
 to a Church that had a creed, considered by her as more plain 
 than the Bible, or else there was no sense in making it. If the 
 creed could not give a more definite and certain exposition oj* 
 the faith of Presbyterians than the Bible, surely better not re- 
 fine upon that which is already as plain as possible. Conceding 
 the plainness of the Bible, it is exceedingly difficult to put the 
 two positions together, except upon the ground that the creed 
 and the Bible, though both equally plain, expressed very differ- 
 ent things. 
 
 " But men have misconstrued the language of the Bible to 
 such an extent," Mr. B. might well reply, as Mr. Rice assumed 
 in substance, " that it becomes indispensable to use other language 
 to make ourselves understood." True. And this reason ap- 
 plies as well to the Catholic Church as to any other ; and, there- 
 fore, makes her definitions not only necessary, but practically 
 efficient, in giving a clear idea of her faith. And from this I 
 conclude, that however plain we may take the Bible to be, it 
 still can be misconstrued ; and when so misconstrued, a judicial 
 decision upon this misconstruction can make the Bible still plain- 
 er, in reference to that particular case. And if the Catholic 
 idea be correct, that the Bible contains many things easy, and 
 some things hard, to be understood, then there is still more rea- 
 son and necessity for these definitions. 
 
 The fact is palpable that all parties understand that the Cath- 
 olic Church puts a very different construction upon the Scrip- 
 tures from that of Protestants. And Protestants also under- 
 stand the differences between them, while they do not find the 
 Bible so clear as their creeds. Somehow or other, all parties 
 have managed to make themselves understood, in most cases at 
 least ; while they have wholly disagreed as to the meaning of 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 329 
 
 the Bible. Luther had no difficulty in understanding the Pope, 
 when the latter condemned his propositions. 
 
 It is true that decrees and bulls need construction ; but, be- 
 ing decisions upon particular points after they arise, and made 
 with a single eye to them, they are, as a general thing, as easily 
 understood as the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem. And 
 when there is any difficulty in any case, there is always a living, 
 speaking, and accessible tribunal to explain these decrees, until 
 they are understood. Decisions of courts are sometimes mis- 
 construed. In such cases the court can set the matter right. 
 The Church is always as able to construe her decrees as she is 
 to make them. Her living organs have always this right. And 
 in the very few cases where any difficulty occurs among Catho- 
 lics, it is easily adjusted. 
 
 4. The vicious circle. 
 
 I come now to examine an objection made originally, as Dr. 
 Milner.says, by Dr. Stillingfleet, and repeated in all the Prot- 
 estant works I have read. It is so much esteemed by Protestant 
 writers, that Dr. Watts, in his Treatise on Logic, thus states it : 
 
 " A vicious circle is when two propositions, equally uncer- 
 tain, are used to prove each other. Thus Papists prove the au- 
 thority of the Scriptures by the infallibility of their church, and 
 then prove the infallibility of their church from the authority of 
 the Scriptures." 
 
 Some illustrate this definition by saying, " this is like John 
 giving a character to Thomas, and Thomas a character to John." 
 
 When I first read this position, it seemed to strike me as 
 expressed with the smoothness and sententious brevity of a mere 
 catch. And my subsequent reflections satisfied me that it was 
 so. As tho objection is so much relied upon, it will require 
 more examination. 
 
 The essence of this objection regards the competency of wit- 
 nesses, and not propositions of logic. 
 
 The distinct ground is substantially taken, that conceding, 
 for the sake of the argument only, the proposition to be true, 
 that Christ did create an infallible Church, and did commit His 
 Word to her keeping, still she cannot prove, by her testimony, 
 the authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, or either of 
 
330 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 these facts, although made the special depositary and guardian 
 of the Word y or if she do this, then she excludes herself from 
 all evidence contained in the Word in favor of her claims to in- 
 fallibility. This position certainly places the Church in a pre- 
 dicament. The proposition, if true, at once sweeps her from 
 existence. 
 
 If she should refuse to give her testimony, she would be at 
 once told that she could not be the true Church. " The reason 
 why you refuse to testify is evident. You do not know the 
 facts. You did not exist when they occurred. You are too 
 young. You cannot possibly be the true Church. She did 
 know the facts, because she lived when they took place. Christ 
 Himself was the Founder of the true Church, and committed 
 His law to her keeping for the very reason, He would not com- 
 mit it to aliens and strangers. And as He committed it to her, 
 He endorsed her credibility, and imposed upon her the duty of 
 testifying, because she alone knew the facts, and could testify as 
 to them. You are a contumacious witness, and the true Church 
 cannot be such. Even according to your own theory, you know 
 the truth, and have not the courage to do your duty. You can- 
 not, therefore, be the true Church." 
 
 But if the Church testify, then she is in no better position, 
 because she is at once met in this way : " You cannot use this 
 Word to prove that you are the true Church, because you have 
 proven its authenticity and inspiration. Therefore, as you can- 
 not use the Word to sustain your claims, and as we reject all 
 other testimony, it rather occurs to us that we have you." 
 
 And certainly this arbitrary rule for the exclusion of testi- 
 mony does overwhelm the true Church, wherever that Church 
 may be found. She cannot use the Scriptures without proof ; 
 and when she proves them, she is not allowed to use them. And 
 to find adequate proof outside the Church of Scriptures commit- 
 ted alone to her, is a difficulty equally great. Turn any way 
 she will, she is met by one or the other horn of this dilemma. 
 
 The essence of the objection consists in the rejection of testi- 
 mony, however credible and numerous the witnesses, simply upon 
 the ground that it is mutual. And, therefore, if John give 
 Thomas, and he give John, a good character, their testimony 
 must be rejected, though they both, being good men, did swear 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS 331 
 
 the truth. And if John the Baptist gave testimony of Christ, 
 and Christ of him, their testimony must be excluded, because 
 they both gave each other good characters. And if I have two 
 good, honest neighbors, who give each other good characters, 
 because they could not do otherwise and tell the truth, I must 
 discard their statements as false, simply because two good men 
 happen to know each other, and tell the truth accordingly. 
 
 Had Mr. Starkie or Mr. Greenleaf, in their profound trea- 
 tises upon the law of evidence, or if our courts of justice had laid 
 down a rule so arbitrary and sweeping, regarding the compe- 
 tency of witnesses, the consequences of such a rule would be 
 very speedily tested. Under it two good men never could tes- 
 tify for each other, although the knowledge of the facts rested 
 alone with them. The mere fact that two good men give each 
 other good reputations, is not the slightest evidence to show 
 that the testimony is false. And the fact that two men testify 
 for each other, in different cases, in reference to different mat- 
 ters, is no evidence that the witnesses are unworthy of credit. 
 To discredit the witnesses, you must show a fraudulent combi- 
 nation to testify for each other. The proof of this, when made 
 out from the admissions, conduct, and character of the witness- 
 es, will destroy their testimony. But if the witnesses be other- 
 wise worthy of belief, the circumstance of their mutually testify- 
 ing for each other will not destroy their testimony. When the 
 apostles, by their own testimony, proved the miracles and resur- 
 rection of Christ, and then, by His declarations, proved the 
 truth of the religion they preached, did this destroy their testi- 
 mony ? Surely not. All depended upon the credibility of the 
 witnesses. 
 
 But weak as this objection appeared to me, when applied to 
 single witnesses, it was still weaker when applied to associated 
 bodies of men. Who keeps the records of a nation but the gov- 
 ernment of that nation ? To whom will you apply for correct 
 copies of our Constitution, but to our own government ? * 
 
 * I find appended to Rickey's copy of the Constitution of the United States, 
 a fac-simile of the certificate of the Secretary of State, in these words : 
 
 " DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
 
 July 20/A, 1846. 
 " This edition of the Constitution and amendments has been critically com- 
 
332 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 Would you seek them among the enemies of the country ? And 
 when you want authentic copies of the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court, will you apply to strangers, or to the clerk who keeps 
 the records of the Court ? And if you wish to get at the true 
 decision of a Court, will you not go to its own records, kept by 
 itself? And why can we trust Courts, not only to keep their 
 own records, but to certify that they are true, and have been 
 faithfully kept? 
 
 The reason why all associated bodies of men, as well as all 
 courts and legislative bodies, must be trusted, is because they 
 have the knowledge of the facts have no interest to distort 
 them, for they are presumed to act conscientiously, and are com- 
 posed of so many different individuals cognizant of the same 
 facts, and belonging to the same body, that there is a security 
 against mistake and fraud not always found in the case of single 
 persons. Until all the members of such an association (knowing 
 the facts) can be either corrupted or deceived, a falsehood can- 
 not be put upon the record and kept there. We are compelled 
 to place confidence somewhere ; and if we cannot trust associ- 
 ated bodies of men, public tribunals, and legislative bodies, to 
 keep their own records, and prove their genuineness, whom can 
 we trust ? If there be any better security or testimony, I can- 
 not conceive where it can be found among men. And until 
 
 pared with the original in this department, and found to be correct in text, letter, 
 and punctuation. It may, therefore, be relied upon as a standard edition. (The 
 small figures designating the clauses are not in the original, and are added merely 
 for convenience of reference.) 
 
 "JAMES BUCHANAN, 
 
 " Secretary of State. 
 " By the Secretary, 
 
 "N. P. TRIST, Chief Clerk." 
 
 The government itself was made the depositary of the Constitution, and 
 through its own officers, gives its own testimony as to the existence of tho orig- 
 inal, and the correctness of the copy ; and then, by the instrument itself, proves 
 the extent and character of its own powers. Here we have the viciom circle 
 complete ; though I suppose the distinguished Secretary of State did not perceive 
 the very singular fact, that in following the universal practice of all governmental 
 institutions, he was violating a rule of logic, solemnly laid down as such, by 
 the acute Dr. Watts. What would the argument drawn from this imaginary 
 vicious circle be worth, in the estimation of an enlightened Court ? 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 333 
 
 some wise person shall suggest better evidence, we must follow 
 that sensible rule of law, and take the best the case allows. 
 
 And so it is with the Church. Christ committed His law to 
 her. He would hardly have committed it to His enemies, to 
 aliens, and strangers. This would have been a very idle act. 
 The law, then, being committed to the Church, to whom can we 
 apply for correct copies of the law but to her ? She has the cus- 
 tody she knows the facts. Shall we go to the enemies of the 
 Church for authentic copies of a law they always hated and op- 
 posed ? Shall we ask them to prove facts of which they know 
 nothing, and whose existence they deny ? Who can be a credi- 
 ble and able witness of the facts but the party who knows them V 
 
 And if we can trust civil governments, legislative bodies, and 
 judicial tribunals, why can we not trust the Institution of Christ? 
 Did He do His work so badly that His Church is the poorest, 
 and most unreliable of all institutions ? Surely, if Christ com- 
 mitted His Word to the Church, by that very act He did en- 
 dorse her veracity, and we are bound to believe her. And it 
 was one of the most weighty reasons for organizing a visible 
 and infallible Church, that our Lord might commit His law to 
 her keeping. 
 
 And is there the slightest reason for invalidating her testi- 
 mony, because in the Written Word we find a portion of the 
 proofs that she is the infallible Church ? Where should we find 
 those proofs, but in part in this Word ? Suppose the proposi- 
 tion to be true, for the sake of the argument only, that Christ 
 did organize an infallible Church, and that He did commit His 
 law to her keeping, to whom can we apply but to her ? She 
 alone had the custody she alone knows the facts. If we must 
 get the Scriptures from the true Church, (and where else, in 
 God's name, can we expect to find them ?) shall we reject all 
 the testimony of these Scriptures as to the true Church ? The 
 moment we concede that an infallible Church is possible, we can- 
 not, by an arbitrary rule of false logic, reject proper testimony 
 to prove the fact. How then can true copies of the Scriptures 
 be proven, and the true Church ascertained, but by the very 
 method adopted by the Catholic Church ? Whether she be the 
 true Church or not, must not the true Church act as she does? 
 Could the true Church do otherwise ? And until some wise 
 
334 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 wit will show us a more able and reliable witness than the true 
 Church of Christ, as to facts peculiarly within her own knowl 
 edge, we must, with all due deference, believe her. 
 
 But I could not see how the Protestant theory avoided the 
 supposed difficulty of the vicious circle, when they wished to 
 prove the authenticity of the Scriptures, and which was the 
 true Church, or any other fact relating to the Church. And 
 although Dr. Spring used this vicious circle as an argument 
 against the Catholic Church, he very unwittingly made admis- 
 sions that completely neutralized his argument. He first tells 
 us, in speaking of the New Testament Scriptures, that " copies 
 of them were circulated and compared with the originals, until 
 the evidence was satisfactory to the churches that they were 
 both authentic and genuine." (Dissertation 27.) 
 
 All these acts were done in the churches, the sufficiency of 
 the evidence was decided by them, and by whom then can we 
 prove the authenticity and genuineness of those copies but by 
 the Church ? In reference to the origin of the Scriptures he 
 says : " The divine origin of the sacred books is not proved 
 simply, nor principally, from historical testimony. Historical 
 testimony has its place, and it is no unimportant place in the 
 argument." (Dis. 28.) The learned Divine having referred us 
 to the Church for proof of the divine origin of the sacred books, 
 so far as the important part of historical testimony is concerned, 
 how does he propose to ascertain this true Church, HIS WITNESS 
 to prove the authenticity and genuineness of these Scriptures ? 
 He insists it must be proved by the Scriptures alone. 
 
 It will be readily seen that this arbitrary rule is based essen- 
 tially upon the same ground as those of David Hume and Dr. 
 Paley, for the exclusion of the only witnesses who could, from, 
 their position, know the facts. The Infidel and Protestant po- 
 sitions are in substance precisely the same, all having in view 
 the very same end ; viz. : the suppression of testimony; They 
 have both sought most diligently for some arbitrary and pre- 
 scriptive rule, by which they could effectually close the mouths 
 of all witnesses who testify to facts against their particular 
 views, 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 335 
 
 5. Can the Church decide her own cases f 
 
 Another objection is made, based essentially upon a very 
 gross misapplication of a principle only applicable to individuals^ 
 and not to associations of men. I will state it in the language 
 of Mr. Campbell : 
 
 "In all monarchies, save that of Rome and Mahomet, a 
 judge is not constitutionally a judge of his own case. But the 
 Roman judge of controversy is the whole church, says my 
 learned opponent, and her councils affirm with him. The whole 
 church judging then between what parties? Herself and the 
 heretics ! ! What a righteous and infallible and republican 
 fudge, is the supreme judge of controversy in the Catholic 
 church ! The controversy is between two parties the church 
 or the clergy on one side, and the heretics or the Reformers on 
 the other, as they may happen to be called ; say the church and 
 heretics. And who is umpire and who is supreme judge of 
 both ? One of the parties, indeed, the church herself! This is 
 the archetype the beau ideal of civil liberty, and republican 
 government in the Supreme Roman hierarchy." (Debate C. & 
 P., 280.) 
 
 This objection was originally made by the early Reformers, 
 as also by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort. It was also 
 made by Mr. Breckenridge. (Con. H. & B., 133.) And I find 
 it in most Protestant controvertists. 
 
 From the very emphatic and pointed language of Mr. Camp- 
 bell, and the extreme emphasis he puts upon the case, he must 
 have considered it a most unheard of usurpation for a state, 
 sovereignty, or church, to judge in her own case. 
 
 It is true, that the laws of all civilized countries lay down 
 the principle, that a man cannot be a judge in his own case. 
 But from all my reading, and from all ray intercourse with in- 
 telligent men, I never knew that this principle, intended only 
 for individuals, could be applied to States, or Churches, or to 
 any other associated bodies of men, until I read Mr. Campbell. 
 A father, by the laws of all countries, is allowed to decide be- 
 tween himself and his child, as to any disobedience of his com- 
 mands. And a State, Church, or association, bears the same 
 relation to those under its jurisdiction. The right to decide its 
 
336 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 own cases, I had always supposed, was an attribute of supreraa 
 cy, inherent in the very nature of every society. Every crim- 
 inal offence is committed against the peace and dignity of the 
 State is prosecuted in her name is determined by courts of 
 her own creation, and composed of judges appointed and paid 
 by herself, and who act only as her agents. And yet is this 
 tyranny ? Because an individual, when he has an adverse in- 
 terest against another, is not allowed to decide in his own case, 
 is there the semblance of reason to say, that the State is not an 
 impartial judge in her own cases ? What interest has the State 
 in convicting an innocent man ? Is she not the equal protector 
 of all? Can she ask any thing but what is just? Is it not de- 
 rogatory to her dignity, and to the people whom she governs 
 for her to oppress the poorest or meanest of her citizens ? It 
 certainly is, in the contemplation of the theory whereon all gov- 
 ernment is based. As a father is compelled, in justice to his 
 family, to inflict punishment, so, the State is compelled to exe- 
 cute justice upon individuals. 
 
 And is it not so with the Church ? And is it not so in all 
 associations of men ? What interest has the Church in unj ustly 
 expelling a member ? 
 
 She does expel members for just cause, but even then, with 
 great reluctance. If there be any sincerity in the church, (and 
 how can she exist without it ?) she must desire to increase her 
 fold. Nothing but a sacred regard to principle can induce her 
 to expel members. She is bound by every sacred obligation to 
 keep the faith pure. The spread of impure principles is no ob- 
 ject with her. The preservation of peace within her own flock 
 is her duty. She would be recreant to her mighty trust if she 
 did not do it. And that duty is to do equal and exact justice 
 to the faith, and to each member. She stands impartial. While 
 it is her wish to save the faith from contamination, it is equally 
 her wish to save souls. 
 
 What interest had St. Paul in delivering Hymeneus and 
 Alexander over to Satan, that made him a partial judge ? And 
 when Titus was commanded by him to reject heretics, was 
 Titus a partial judge? And as heretics must be expelled, I 
 should really like to know where we are to go for a tribunal. 
 Shall the Church call in strangers and aliens, to try her own 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 337 
 
 children f Was such a thing ever done ? Shall she call in he? 
 enemies ? If not, whom shall she call in ? Would not such a 
 system of church government be unheard of and impracticable ? 
 It would certainly be very troublesome to the outside world 
 who would be called on to try cases very often. 
 
 And what sort of a true Church would that be, that was so 
 much more defective than the constitution of any civil State 
 that possessed so little dignity and impartiality was entitled lo 
 so little respect was so feeble that there were " none so poor 
 to do her reverence " so that she must depend upon aliens, 
 strangers, and heretics to determine her own faith to decide 
 for her own children ? I cannot, I must confess, form a concep- 
 tion of such a Church, any more than I could of a sovereignty, 
 calling in the citizens or subjects of other States to judge her 
 own people. 
 
 But I could find no Protestant sect that did not, at least in 
 /orra, act upon this same condemned principle. The Synod of 
 Dort took the responsibility to try and excommunicate the Re- 
 monstrants, against their protest. So, the Methodists, Presby- 
 terians, Baptists, and all others, so far as they pretend to exer- 
 cise governmental power at all, even in mere form, assume and 
 act upon this principle, and never call for outside help. Even 
 in Mr. Campbell's Church, it was so. For each individual 
 church, " with its bishops and deacons, is the highest tribunal 
 on earth to which an individual Christian can appeal ; that who- 
 soever wih 1 not hear it, has no other tribunal to which he can 
 look for redress." " We know whom to exclude." " Such a 
 one has denied the faith, and we reject him." (Christianity 
 Restored, 122, 123. Cited C. & R.'s Debate, 804.) 
 
 This looks very much, I must say exactly, like trying its own 
 cases by each individual church. 
 
 I cannot conceive of a true Church, or even one claiming to 
 be such, that would consider itself so poor, weak, and ignorant, 
 as to call in outsiders, to ascertain its own faith. It would be 
 a most exquisite true Church ! And in considering these last 
 two objections, I was often reminded of William Law's answer 
 to Bishop Ho'adly's sermon : " Your Lordship tells Dr. Snape, 
 that he sayeth and unsayeth, to the great diversion of the Ro- 
 man Catholics." 
 30 
 
338 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 6. Has the Church mutilated the Scriptures f 
 
 Among the charges made by Dr. Spring is one, which, if 
 true, destroys her character as a trustworthy guardian of Scrip- 
 ture, and as a credible witness. He says : 
 
 " The Romanists have altered and amended, and so mistrans- 
 lated the Bible, as to render it conformable to their own stand- 
 ard." (Dis. 74.) 
 
 This charge I was wholly incompetent to determine myself. 
 It was of a character so serious, that a fair-minded man would 
 not lightly make it ; and it alleged the existence of a crime, 
 that required an overwhelming amount of turpitude to com- 
 mit. 
 
 But aside from the wholesale enormity of the alleged crime, 
 and the extreme difficulty of committing it with any success, 
 (dispersed as copies of the Scriptures were over the world,) and 
 based as such a charge was upon the supposition of an entire 
 apostacy in faith, honor, and integrity on the part of the Church, 
 the learned Divine made certain remarks afterwards, that left, 
 in my mind, no doubt of his mistake. After making the above 
 charge, he asserted that Catholics refused to disseminate their 
 own version, and then goes on to ask : " If they are willing that 
 their own copy of the Scriptures should be fully circulated 
 among their own population, will they tell us so ? We ask them 
 if they will throw no obstacle in the way of disseminating their 
 own version, without note or comment ? " (Dis. 76.) 
 
 I must confess, I could not well put these different positions 
 together. I could not well understand why the learned Divine 
 should wish to circulate, even among Catholics, a spurious ver- 
 sion of the Scriptures, " altered and amended, and so mistrans- 
 lated," he alleged, " as to render it conformable to their own 
 standards." He had before spoken of the Roman Church in 
 such strong terms of condemnation, calling her doctrines of 
 " Transubstantiation, the Mass, Penance, Extreme Unction, 
 Matrimony, Invocation of Saints, use of images," &c., " dis- 
 gusting " and without " foundation in Scripture ; " and then 
 having charged that Church with " altering and amending and 
 so mistranslating the Bible as to render it conformable to their 
 own standards / " and yet after all this, to desire the privilege 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 339 
 
 of circulating this " altered and amended and so mistranslated" 
 version, among deluded Catholics, still more establishing them 
 in their belief of those disgusting and unfounded tenets of their 
 Church, is what I could not so well comprehend. There seemed 
 to be a mighty screw loose somewhere, in the several discord- 
 ant and contradictory charges of the learned Divine. (Disser- 
 tation 52.) 
 
 But in the course of my investigations I found, that before 
 the art of printing was discovered, all copies of every book had 
 to be the labor of the pen ; and that in transcribing, it was al- 
 leged, some errors had been committed in some of the copies, 
 by the transcribers. These errors Catholics insisted were not 
 generally of importance, and the means of their correction ex- 
 isted in other manuscripts found in possession of the Church 
 herself. As the labor of copying the Bible was so great, as to 
 take an expert penman about one whole year's time, occasional 
 errors could not be avoided. But to charge the Church with a 
 deliberate and abandoned design of changing the sacred volume 
 for the purpose, and with the intent of sustaining her own doc- 
 trines, was certainly a very harsh accusation, and one that 
 ought to be sustained by the most ample proof, before it should 
 be believed ; and if not so proven must react upon those who 
 recklessly make it. 
 
 V. The Church incapable of Reformation. 
 
 I found it also objected to the Catholic Church, that she 
 was incapable of reformation. In the language of Mr. Breck- 
 en ridge : 
 
 " The very assumption of Infallibility, while persisted in, 
 renders all essential reform inconsistent and absurd ; unneces- 
 sary and impossible. Hence the corruptions of the church of 
 Rome in doctrine, morals, and essential worship, have been per- 
 petuated from age to age." (Con. H. & B., 224.) 
 
 This objection is also made by Mr. Campbell, and by most 
 Protestant writers. It seems to be considered by them gener- 
 ally, as a very strong argument. 
 
 It is very natural that Protestants and Catholics should dif- 
 fer about the character of the true Church. Their fundamental 
 rules lead to very different results. While the Catholic rule 
 
34:0 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 makes the Church always the same, " UNEEFOEMED AND CNEE 
 FOEMABLE, BOTH NOW AND FOEEVEE," (as Mr. Breckenridge de- 
 clares,) the Protestant rule, on the contrary, makes her the 
 precise opposite, EEFOEMED AND EEFOEMABLE, " BOTH NOW AND 
 FOEEVEE." One begins and ends with fixedness and certainty 
 the other begins and ends with inquiry and doubt. 
 
 I must confess that I love permanency and stability in all 
 institutions. I never found truth to waver. I found change 
 marked upon the face of error, but I never found it labelled 
 upon the brow of truth. Before I became a Catholic, and be- 
 fore I had made any investigation into the truth of that system, 
 I remember to have been told, in substance, by an eminent 
 Protestant, that he thought the stability of the Roman Church, 
 was her most admirable feature. It struck me, at the time, as 
 one of the most sensible positions I had heard. It was evidently 
 based upon sound sense, and pure philosophy. 
 
 And in my after investigations, among the truths I thought 
 I could find in the New Testament was the explicit fact, that 
 the true Church was not to change. I could not conceive 
 of a changeable church, and have any confidence in the prom- 
 ises of Christ. And besides, it did seem to me as just to man- 
 kind, that the same true Church, " unreformed and unreforma- 
 ble, both now and forever," should exist in every age, that all 
 might enjoy the same opportunities for heaven. I could not see 
 any object in the organization of a reformable Church. It 
 could guide no one. 
 
 " It leads to bewilder, and dazzles to blind." 
 
 We often hear men speak of making a virtue of necessity. 
 And it did seem to me that this objection against the stability 
 of the Catholic Church, and, by consequence, holding reforma- 
 ability in the true Church, as a virtue, was based upon that 
 ground. The Protestant principle had led to so many alleged 
 reforms, and there were still so many in prospect ; and as often 
 as one alleged reformation was made, another was needed, that 
 this inevitable necessity, under the rule, was at last esteemed as 
 a virtue in the theory of a Christian Church a Church alleged 
 to have been organized by Christ. It seemed to me there 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 34:1 
 
 ought to be, at least, one immutable institution in the world 
 some stable system by which men could be guided, 
 
 " Henceforward and forever.** 
 
 While all human systems, from the limited capacity of their 
 founders, and the changing circumstances of the world, would 
 necessarily be defective, and, therefore, perishable, it would 
 seem that a system founded by Christ should be stable for the 
 very opposite reason. 
 
 But while I could well understand the entire truth of the 
 position, that all reforms, under the Catholic theory, become 
 impossible in reference to faith and morals, there was a difficulty 
 arose in my mind, as to iiow these alleged errors and corruptions, 
 in faith and morals, got into the Church originally. If they 
 did get into the Church in violation of her established rule, 
 they could certainly get out again in the same way. The fact 
 that these alleged errors " have been perpetuated from age to 
 age," of itself speaks volumes in her favor. It proves the in- 
 flexibility and integrity of the Church. It shows her vigilance 
 her perseverance and her invincible firmness. And the very 
 principle that makes her perpetuate these alleged errors, would 
 have made her reject them at the beginning. 
 
 Whatever system Christ did establish, He intended it to last 
 through all coming time. It was not designed to meet the 
 whims of men the prevailing temper of the times or to ex- 
 cuse the errors of heretics. Christ being Infinite, the map of 
 the future lay before Him, as evident as that of the past ; and 
 He adopted a system applicable to all times, all places, and all 
 persons, and yet inflexible and unchangeable. His system, 
 when extended through all future ages, and legitimately carried 
 out, would save more men in the end, than an uncertain, flexi- 
 ble, and changeable theory, which, upon its very face, was sus- 
 picious, from the fact, that it claimed nothing, and asked for no 
 respect. If Christ organized any Church, no man has any right 
 to set up another. And if he does so, his act is void. 
 
 When we reflect upon the fact, expressly declared by our 
 Lord, and shown in all the Epistles, and admitted by Protes- 
 tants, and proved by common sense, that the SUCCESS of His 
 system depended upon the UNITY of His FOLLOWERS, and 
 
342 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 that all Christians did join this one Church in the days of the 
 apostles, we can then see the great END Christ had in view in 
 organizing ONE VISIBLE CHURCH. If the success of His 
 system had not required the united faith and efforts of His fol- 
 lowers, there would have been no reason for the existence oi 
 this one kingdom. The Christian army is like any other army. 
 Its success upon the field of battle depends upon its unity. It 
 must act like one man, ready, able, and willing to face a foe from 
 any quarter, at any moment. 
 
 Take, then, the two theories, and extend them through all 
 time, and by the legitimate and practical operation of which, 
 will you save most men in the end ? If one loses more than the 
 other in the aggregate, it does not matter to the Lawgiver, 
 when or where, here or there. It is the theory of error still. 
 And because Christ knew that the success of His system depend- 
 ed upon the unity of His followers, He organized His Church, 
 and gave it those magnificent promises of protection ; and im- 
 posed upon men the corresponding duty to hear this Church, 
 and of becoming members of this one fold. And having this 
 glorious end in view, was it not just as reasonable that He 
 should require all men to hear this Church, and believe in this 
 Church, as to believe any other truth He proposed ? And is it 
 not as easy, if men are properly disposed, to join the true, as a 
 false Church ? And is it not one of the greatest obligations 
 imposed upon men by Christ, that they should regard the suc- 
 cess of His kingdom, as they regard the King Himself? Christ 
 has promised us great rewards for our limited services. But 
 limited as they are, they must be performed. We must labor 
 for Him, and in the way He has appointed. The salvation of 
 others must be as dear to us as it is dear to Him. 
 
 " He sees with equal eye as God of all." 
 
 And so far as in us lies, we should imitate Him in His expanded 
 views. We should take in all times, all races, and all countries. 
 Local and temporary views are not found in world-wide Chris- 
 tianity. The poorest Indian wanderer, houseless and homeless, 
 ignorant and rude, has a soul immortal, and as bright and beau- 
 tiful, in the impartial eye of heaven, as the crowned and jew- 
 elled monarch on his throne. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 343 
 
 And I must say that I love a Church that claims to be the 
 sole true Church. She acts like the true Church. It is the kind 
 of Church we read of. She, at least, makes a consistent, ration- 
 al, and Scriptural case, in her declaration. Upon the face of 
 the papers, she makes out a good showing; not a wild and inco- 
 herent, mixed and multifarious claim, that contains so many in- 
 consistencies, that new ones start up in every line. But when a 
 Church comes to me and says : u I glory in having reformed 
 my creed, and in being always reformable ; " I cannot but say : 
 " You will, perhaps, always need it. Constitutional infirmities 
 are never cured. They ' lead but to the grave.' I can well un- 
 derstand how the members of the true Church could reform 
 themselves in their own conduct. But how the work of our 
 Lord t/ie Church herself could be reformed, I cannot con- 
 ceive. And I must ask, Who are you ? When did you take 
 your rise ? When and where did you find the theory of a re- 
 formable true Church f You claim no infallibility, for, mani- 
 festly, you have none. You claim no certain competency to 
 guide any one to glory, for your skill consists in making alleged 
 reformations in the work of Christ. You can claim no rest, for 
 a reformable Church is never at rest, but always inquiring after 
 new reformations. You claim no respect, either because you 
 are entitled to none, or because you are too modest to claim that 
 which is your right. This excessive modesty may be tolerable 
 in individuals, but certainly is intolerable in the true Church. 
 
 " And will you not always need reforming, until you cease to 
 be reformable ? And can that ever be, under your theory ? 
 And if so, when will that period arrive ? Can I possibly li ve 
 that long ? And if I could, what am I to do in the mean time ? 
 Must I be still inquiring ? Must I be still left in painful uncer- 
 tainty, 
 
 ' And hungry hopes regale the while. 
 On the spare diet of a smile ' ? 
 
 " I know you are liberal. You admit salvation can be found 
 in a great variety of Churches. But is it, in fact and truth, sal- 
 vation ? Is it that priceless jewel ? Are you sure of it ? From 
 the very fact that you are so willing to compromise, and admit 
 that salvation can be found even in the alleged Church of Anti* 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 christ, I fear your principles are too liberal to be true. I believe 
 in truth. I am content to find it. I think it the best mercy 
 the best humanity the best sense the best logic and it is 
 certainly the safest. I have known many men set up false 
 claims to property, and I never knew one yet, who was conscious 
 of the fact, but was willing to compromise. He could lose noth- 
 ing, and was certain to gain something. The terms were not 
 very material. He was always liberal. Like the woman that 
 falsely claimed the child before King Solomon, he was always 
 ready, able, and willing to ' divide it.' But not so with the 
 true owner the man conscious of his rights. It was matter of 
 principle with him. He always said ' all or none ' ' My God 
 and my right.' It seems it ought to be so with the true Church. 
 She ought to listen to no one but her Master. Let her be as 
 inflexible, stubborn, and intolerant as fact and truth always are. 
 Is she not the more beautiful ? the more lovely ? the more 
 merciful ? Is there any mercy but in the truth ? any charity 
 but in the fact ? You may possibly be in the right, but my 
 mind is so constituted as not to perceive it. Your theory is cer- 
 tainly very flattering. It raises my individual mind above your- 
 self. But I am after salvation not flattery. If I were not to 
 be judged hereafter by a severe Judge, who knows His own 
 rights has the ability to protect them and does not deal in 
 
 flattery, that 
 
 ' Medium of a knavish trade,' 
 
 then I would like your theory well. But I have my fears that 
 it will not do. I can have no confidence in a Church that has 
 none in herself that cannot assure me of any thing, because, 
 confessedly, she does not know. It does not seem to have been 
 so with the old Church. She possessed not that infirmity, but 
 lifted her mighty head above the shifting storms below. Like 
 a cloud-capped mountain peak, she aspired to the skies. Her 
 claims were as manifest as the snow-clad sierras. And like the 
 eternal hills, she stood firm and high. And while she held up 
 truth to the world, she never stooped to flatter. I would like 
 to find that Church that has actually ' seen the LordJ and for 
 that reason has not been reformed, and cannot be reformed / 
 BECAUSE SHE WAS SO CONSTITUTED IN THE BE- 
 GINNING AS NEVER TO NEED IT." 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 345 
 
 And if we were to admit that salvation may be found m 
 many different Churches, under the reformable-true-Church the- 
 ory, where shall we fix the limits? Faith must have some deter- 
 minate limits. If you adopt the theory of more than one Church, 
 where will you stop ? And wherever you do stop, are your 
 limits more intelligible more plain more just more certain 
 than the limits of the one-unreformable-Church theory ? Are 
 they more charitable or more consistent ? You must lay down 
 some sensible rule, some fixed limits, or your theory will not 
 have even the shadow of system in it. It will depend upon the 
 sliding scale of the times. And would that be Christianity ? 
 Would such a theory save souls ? 
 
 This difficulty has been great with Protestants. Whatever 
 limits they adopted in one age, needed extension in the next. In 
 the days of Luther, he and the Lutherans held the Sacramenta- 
 rians as heretics. The Calvinists, at the Synod of Dort, as also 
 those of France, held the Remonstrants as heretics. But in pro- 
 cess of time these limits were extended. The Socinians, so much 
 abhorred at the beginning, have grown into favor. The Armin- 
 ians have also ceased, with the Calvinists, to be considered out- 
 side the pale of salvation. The tendency is now to take in every 
 sect of every kind. The limits will then extend, as they have 
 extended, with the increase of sects. Matters of faith become 
 of no importance. Indifference inevitably succeeds. The cer- 
 tain result of such a theory is, that men cease to regard religion 
 as of supreme importance, until at last they have no faith 
 
 " For which they bear to live or dare to die." 
 
 8. Wicked persons are sometimes found in the Catholic 
 
 Church. 
 
 One of the charges made by Mr. Campbell against the Cath- 
 olic Church was, that wicked persons were sometimes members 
 of her communion. He quotes from Bellarmine this sentence : 
 
 " Wicked men, infidels, and reprobates, remaining in the 
 public profession of the Roman Church, are true members of 
 the body of Christ." 
 
 He then quotes from the notes of the Rheimish Testament : 
 
 " Every branch in me. <fcc. Christ hath some branches in 
 31 
 
34:6 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 his body mystical that be fruitless ; therefore, ill livers also may 
 be members of Christ's church." 
 
 This charge does not allege that the Church neglects to 
 teach the faith, and to urge it continually upon all her members, 
 but that she is too lax in her discipline,- and does not excommu- 
 nicate persons as readily as Protestants do, for alleged errors in 
 practice. 
 
 It must be manifest that no Church can certainly know who 
 are at heart good, and who are evil. No being but God, 
 " whose eye is on the heart," can determine this question. In a 
 visible Church, there must and will be members who are un- 
 worthy, and the Church cannot be held responsible for their in- 
 dividual vices. If we make the true visible Church responsible 
 for the acts of wicked members, we place her safety and exist- 
 ence entirely at the mercy of her enemies, who have only to 
 join, and then ruin her. And every member of the Church, 
 from the most elevated and upright down to the most un- 
 worthy, are sinners, to a greater or less extent. We are all 
 sinners. 
 
 " If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the 
 truth is not in us. If we say we have not sinned, we make him 
 a liar, and his word is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is 
 faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from 
 all unrighteousness." (1 John i. 8-10.) And St. Paul says of 
 himself: 
 
 "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, 
 lest that by any means, when I have preached unto others, I 
 myself should be a castaway." (1 Cor. ix. 27.) 
 
 As all members are sinners, and only differ in degree, the 
 question only regards the degree of misconduct that shall cut a 
 man off from the Church, and what time shall be allowed him 
 for repentance. 
 
 When Peter asked his Master how often he should forgive 
 his brother, " Jesus said unto him, I say not unto thee until 
 seven times: but until seventy times seven." (Matt, xviii. 21, 
 22.) And again our blessed Lord declares: "Take heed to 
 yourselves. If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him : 
 and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee 
 seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 347 
 
 thee saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him." (Luke xvii 
 3,4.) 
 
 This merciful rule was laid down by our Lord, who knew 
 full well the infirmity of human nature, and the frailty of man. 
 And we find in His own blessed apostles, the full proof of how 
 great this infirmity is. We hear the fervent and devoted Paul 
 say of himself, " I am carnal, sold under sin. * * * For the 
 good that I would, I do not ; but the evil which I would not, 
 that I do." 
 
 If then my brother trespass against me seven times in a day, 
 and seven times in a day return and say, I repent, I must for- 
 give him. And I must do this upon his saying I repent. 
 
 I cannot judge his heart I can know what he says. What 
 then can the true Church do, but follow the merciful commands 
 of her Master ? She cannot make a new law. She must for- 
 give as she has been commanded. If then a member returns 
 and says " I repent," the Church can only forgive him. 
 
 And when I came to examine into this subject, I found that 
 by the discipline of the Church, every member was required to 
 confess his sins, and receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at 
 least once a year, upon pain of excommunication. If he neglect 
 this duty, when in his power, he stands liable to be excommuni- 
 cated. If then he complies with this duty, how can the Church 
 refuse him her fellowship ? She allows him a certain period for 
 repentance and confession. If he obey, she must forgive. If 
 he disobey, he is not permitted to receive the sacraments. He is 
 not, however, excluded from the privilege of repentance. Nor 
 is he excluded, if he pleases, from assisting in the celebration of 
 her festivals, nor from attending her worship. All persons have 
 this privilege. She knows that many a wanderer has been called 
 home by kindness. And while she urges all to the strictest 
 obedience, and reproves all for their sins without distinction of 
 condition, and holds up before, their eyes the fatal consequences 
 of every sin, she at the same time remembers, that she is bound 
 by the command of her Master to forgive seventy times seven, 
 if her children return and repent. How many by this merciful 
 rule of our Lord, have been finally saved ! 
 
 But there is a marked distinction between the body and soul 
 of the Church. All who profess the true faith, assist at the same 
 
348 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 religious services, and comply with the rules of the Church, be- 
 long to the body of the Church, and are numbered among her 
 children. But to faith and exterior communion, must be added 
 hope and charity and the grace of God, that we may belong to the 
 soul of the Church. These two classes God alone can separate. 
 The Church can determine as to what is faith, what is heresy ; 
 and while it is her duty to teach all the truth, she cannot judge 
 the inward man. As Bishop Purcell beautifully expresses it : 
 " When Christ empowered the church to throw her nets into 
 the sea of human life, as the apostles did into the lake, she gath- 
 ered into it fishes, both good and bad ; when the nets are hauled 
 ashore, the good fish will be selected and the bad thrown back 
 into the sea. So will it be at the end of the world. The angels 
 of God will come forth and select the elect from the reprobate 
 they will gather the wheat into the garner, but the tares they 
 will burn with unquenchable fire." * * * " Hence, as long as 
 one of her members disqualifies not himself for the communion 
 of the faithful by flagrant impiety, notorious depravity, or scan- 
 dalous excess, she rejects him not ; but like that charity of 
 which St. Paul speaks, ' is patient, is kind, thinketh no evil, re- 
 joiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth, believeth 
 all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, with modesty 
 admonishing men, if peradventure God may give them repent- 
 ance.' " (Bishop Purcell. Debate C. & P., 71.) 
 
 There is such a thing as being too strict. We see it exhib- 
 ited in the conduct of the Pharisees. Christ was blamed be- 
 cause he eat with publicans and sinners, and because he was 
 their friend. His disciples were blamed for eating as they went 
 through the fields on the Sabbath day. And in the history of 
 the Church subsequent to the days of the apostles, we find the 
 same excessive strictness generally among heretics. The No- 
 vatians were condemned for their excessive severity. They 
 would admit of no repentance of no return to the church. 
 The Manicheans also claimed the most extraordinary piety, 
 while teaching the most ruinous doctrines. The Vaudois also 
 required their members to be poor and illiterate, making pov- 
 erty a requisite instead of a perfection, as Christ had done. 
 And if we look into the history of the difierent sects of con- 
 denmed heretics, we shall find the greater portion of them 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 349 
 
 always claiming the most rigid virtue, and placing the essentials 
 of religion in the counsels of perfection. 
 
 It is very natural that Protestants should regard excommu- 
 nication among them, if it can be so called, with much less cau 
 tion than it is regarded by Catholics. This grows out of their 
 theory. It springs necessarily from their rule. With them it 
 is not an expulsion, but a mere separation. It affects not the 
 party. It decides nothing. It does not show that he is a here- 
 tic. It is not the slightest evidence that he is so. It simply 
 shows the mere opinion of those who differ with him. In the 
 contemplation of the theory itself, their opinion is no better 
 than his. They are each independent equals. They then can 
 declare a separation without much danger of doing any injury 
 to the party, even if they are wrong. He can easily join some 
 other church, in which his chances for heaven will be, perhaps, 
 greater than they were in the Church he left. 
 
 But it is not so in the Catholic Church. In her theory ex- 
 communication still means something. It still has the effect it 
 did of old. For this reason the Council of Trent at its twenty- 
 fifth session, chapter third, required that excommunication 
 should be " used with sobriety and great circumspection." 
 
 9. That successors of the Apostles must be successors in full. 
 
 In his debate with Bishop Purcell, Mr. Campbell insisted 
 that the apostles, if they had .successors at all, must have suc- 
 cessors in full. He refers to the office of President, and says 
 truly, that each succeeding President has the same powers as 
 the first. This same objection is generally made by Protestant 
 controvertists. The essence of the objection is, that the infalli- 
 ble assistance of the Holy Ghost was given to each apostle in- 
 dividually, while it is conceded that each Catholic Bishop is not 
 personally infallible ; but this infallible assistance is claimed to 
 have been given to the college of teachers, as the organs of the 
 entire corporation, the Church. This college, in its collective 
 capacity, claims the same powers and qualifications to teach, as 
 did the apostles. It will be observed, that the question does 
 not regard the quantum of power, nor the extent of the divine 
 assistance, but solely the mode in which this assistance is given. 
 The power and ability to do the same things, that is, to teach 
 
350 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 the same truths, are now claimed by the organs of the Church, 
 as were claimed and exercised by the apostles themselves. 
 
 The apostles, being the first teachers, had necessarily, in the 
 beginning, to travel into different countries, and remain for 
 several years separated from each other ; and this personal in- 
 fallibility was required by the extraordinary circumstances in 
 which they were placed. But it is still clear, from the history 
 of the Council of Jerusalem, that the same infallible assistance 
 was also granted to the college of teachers, including others be- 
 sides the apostles. This infallible assistance came down in this 
 latter form, to the successors of the apostles. 
 
 Besides this, the apostles were chosen witnesses, as well as 
 teachers. The powers they exercised being but delegated, they 
 could act in two or more different capacities. The apostles 
 were to bear witness of Christ ; and one of the offices of the 
 Holy Ghost was to bring to their recollection all things that 
 Christ had said to them. (John xiv. 26.) Witnesses can only 
 act individually. Each can only state what he finds written 
 upon his own memory. He is only called upon to state what 
 he knows himself. Recollection is an individual act ; and the 
 promise that the Holy Ghost should bring all things to their 
 recollection was, in its nature, confined to the apostles, and the 
 fulfilment of this promise necessarily made them individually in- 
 fallible. Under the commission " Go teach," the infallible as- 
 sistance was promised to the college through all coming time ; 
 and under the special promise that the Holy Ghost should bring 
 all things to their recollection, this assistance was given to the 
 apostles individually, because they had more capacities to fill 
 than their successors under the commission. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE JESUITS AND 
 CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 1. Charges against the Jesuits. 
 
 AMONG other charges made against Catholics, by Mr. Camp- 
 bell, I found certain allegations against the Jesuits. Although 
 the cause of the Catholic church is not identical with this order 
 though she can stand alone without it and though at one 
 time it had many enemies among Catholics, yet, as it is an in- 
 fluential order in the church, I examined these charges, to the 
 best of my opportunity. The charges of Mr. C. were based 
 mainly upon " The Secreta Monita of the Order of Jesuits." 
 He states he was informed by the lady from whom he obtained 
 it, that it had been brought to the United States by the Secre- 
 tary of Lafayette. This Secretary was an Infidel and a Jacobin, 
 as Bishop Purcell stated. 
 
 "The Secreta Monita, then," says Mr. C., "is just as accu- 
 rate and fair a view of the spirit, design, and policies of that 
 order, as can be given. Such is our faith ; and on no mean tes- 
 timony either. 
 
 " We shall give some account of the discovery of this said 
 book: 
 
 " ' We are indebted for this terrible book of Jesuits' secrets, 
 to the Parliament of Paris. They passed the act to abolish the 
 Jesuits' society ; and the execution came on the Jesuit college 
 like a thunder stroke. Their palace was surrounded by troops, 
 and their papers and books, and these " Secret Instructions " 
 
352 CHARGES AGAINST THE JESLlits. 
 
 were seized before they had heard that the parliament had 
 taken up their cause ! ' 
 
 " The reasons which the parliament of France, in 1762, gave 
 for extirpating this order, which has been thirty-nine times pro- 
 scribed, speak volumes : 
 
 " ' The consequences of their doctrine destroy the law of na- 
 ture : break all the bonds of civil society : authorizing lying, 
 theft, perjury, the utmost uncleanness, murder, and all sins ! 
 Their doctrines root out all sentiments of humanity : excite re- 
 bellion : root out all religion : and substitute all sorts of super- 
 stition, blasphemy, irreligion, idolatry.' 
 
 "Other reasons for the suppression of this order will be 
 found in the following extract from their oath : 
 
 " ' In the presence of Almighty God and of all the saints, to 
 you, my ghostly father, I do declare that his holiness, the Pope, 
 is Christ's vicar-general, and the only head of the universal 
 church throughout the earth ; and that by virtue of the keys 
 given him by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to de- 
 pose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, and gov- 
 ernments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation; 
 and that they may safely be destroyed. Therefore I, to the ut- 
 most of my power, shall and will defend his doctrine, and his 
 holiness' rights and customs against all usurpers, &c. 
 
 " ' I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any 
 heretical king, prince, state, named Protestants, or obedience to 
 any of their inferior magistrates or officers. 
 
 " ' I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I 
 am dispensed with, to assume any religion heretical for the 
 propagation of the mother church's interest to keep secret and 
 private all her agents counsel, &c. 
 
 " ' All of which I, A B, do swear by the blessed Trinity, 
 and the blessed Sacrament, which I am now to receive. And I 
 call all the heavenly and glorious hosts above, to witness these 
 my real intentions, to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, 
 I take this most blessed sacrament of the eucharist, and set my 
 hand and seal.' " (Debate C. & P., 293.) 
 
 The Secreta Monita having been denied by Bishop Purcell 
 as genuine, and alleged to be a forgery, Mr. Campbell in reply 
 Bays : 
 
CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 353 
 
 " Knowing, my fellow-citizens, how much depends, in such a 
 discussion as that now in progress, on having authentic docu 
 ments, I determined, from the beginning, to rely on none which 
 could, on proper evidence, or with justice, be repudiated. I 
 know that in all debates so far back as the very era of the Ref- 
 ormation, this party have been accustomed to deny authorities, 
 to dispute versions, translations, <fcc., even of their own writers 
 who were so candid as to give a tolerably fair representation of 
 themselves." 
 
 After some further remarks of the same tenor, and in refer- 
 ence to the Jesuits, Mr. C. continues : 
 
 " Here is another document, not from the ashes of a monas- 
 tery. I do not know the writer of this article : but it is from 
 an Encyclopaedia." (Debate C. & P., 301.) 
 
 One would naturally suppose from this avowal of Mr. C. that 
 he was determined to quote from some authority that could not 
 be questioned. But the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 
 from which he quoted, was a very recent Protestant work, pub- 
 lished by Fessenden & Co. I afterwards consulted the work 
 myself. It seemed to be generally fair enough to the Protestant 
 sects, usually giving their tenets in the words of some leading 
 member of the particular church ; but in all that related to 
 Catholics, it was prejudiced and partial, as could readily be seen 
 by any one having any tolerable idea of the Catholic faith. Its 
 articles in reference to that church bear upon their face, to my 
 mind, the impress of one sided and partial statements. 
 
 I take so much of the extracted article as gives the essence 
 of the charges against the order. 
 
 " The essential principles of this institution, namely, that 
 their order is to be maintained at the expense of society at large, 
 and that the end sanctifies the means, are utterly incompatible 
 with the welfare of any community of men. Their system of 
 lax and pliant morality, justifying every vice, and authorizing 
 every atrocity, has left deep and lasting ravages on the face of 
 the moral world. Their zeal to extend the jurisdiction of the 
 court of Rome over every civil government, gave currency to 
 tenets respecting the duty of opposing princes who were hostile 
 to the Catholic faith, which shook the basis of all political al- 
 legiance, and loosened the obligations of every human law. 
 
354: CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 
 
 Their indefatigable industry, and countless artifices in resisting 
 the progress of the Reformed religion, perpetuated the most 
 pernicious errors of Popery, and postponed the triumph of tol- 
 erant and Christian principles. 
 
 " The evils of Jesuitism arise not from the violation of the 
 principles of the order ; on the contrary, they are the natural 
 and necessary fruits of the system ; they are confined to no age, 
 place, or person." (Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 
 685, as given by Mr. C.) 
 
 This indictment was certainly the most formidable I had ever 
 read. All the forms in the Criminal Precedents could not equal 
 it. It did not charge this abandoned order of men with certain 
 specified crimes only, but with every crime under heaven. And 
 not only so, but with every thing unclean, low, vile, and idola- 
 trous. There was no crime, no degrading practice, of which 
 they were not alleged to be guilty. They were alleged human 
 monsters. So unlimited were their alleged deformities, that 
 they had but one single virtue left, and that was indispensably 
 necessary to complete their alleged system of villany. They 
 were conceded to have consciences, upon which you could predi- 
 cate the obligation of an oath. These charges certainly con- 
 tained enough to satisfy any enemy. If the order had a bitter 
 and slanderous enemy in the world, he certainly could find food 
 enough in this indictment upon which to feast his enmity. He 
 could well say : " This is full, final, and complete. They are 
 charged with every thing. Nothing could be better, because 
 nothing can be added." 
 
 And how shall such unfortunate men be tried ? With such 
 charges impending over them, can they hope for justice in this 
 world ? They come into court crushed with a mass of such a 
 wild multiplicity of charges, that the court and jury instinctively 
 turn from these miserable beings, either guilty of, or unfortunate 
 enough to be charged with, such a total abandonment of all and 
 every moral principle. The very reading of such an indictment 
 is enough to overwhelm them, and to half convict them of its 
 most horrible charges. Ought men so unfortunate as to be 
 charged with such unlimited depravity, even though innocent, 
 to get justice in this world ? Why should they ? Are they not 
 like the alleged leper, though clean, still dreaded and shunned 
 
CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 355 
 
 everywhere ? Is it not better humanity to sacrince so unfor- 
 tunate an order of men, than io ^iice saclt a calumny ? Is it not 
 better to let the melancholy victims of slander go to their graves 
 in shame and ignominy, than to vindicate human nature itself 
 from such a libel ? Had we not better hang the principle on 
 high, that the bare making of such charges is conclusive evi- 
 dence of their truth, and thus put the reputations of all men at 
 the mercy of their enemies ? 
 
 But are not these Jesuits men ? Are they not our breth- 
 ren ? Are they not entitled to the rights of human nature ? 
 Ought we not to judge them as we would other men ? and not 
 believe them guilty of all the crimes possible against God and 
 humanity, without evidence full and satisfactory, and strong and 
 conclusive, in proportion as the crimes alleged are monstrous 
 and incredible ? In other words, shall we not judge them by 
 the same rules of charity by which we would be judged our- 
 selves, and under which alone human virtue can claim a home 
 upon this earth ? 
 
 And shall we permit the mere fact that these men have been 
 so frequently accused, by their enemies, of wrong and injury 
 against society itself, and especially of those vague and general 
 charges, behind which slander is wont to hide itself, to weigh 
 with us ? For is it not too true, that as the last refuge of dis- 
 comfited slander, she contents herself with accusing her victim 
 of some general meanness of some universal depravity of a 
 suspicion of being suspected ? And shah 1 we take the mere 
 clamor and vehemence of their enemies as evidence in such a 
 case? If we do so, we place the cause of truth in the power of 
 its enemies, for they can always raise a clamor ; and the less 
 proof they have, the more clamor they need, and, therefore, the 
 more naturally resort to it ; and if we reason upon that basis, 
 and take clamor as evidence, we shall reject Christianity itself ; 
 for we must remember that millions of Jews, by clamor, brought 
 Christ to the cross. Were they right ? Was He guilty ? And 
 when Paul met his Jewish brethren at Rome, they had naught 
 to say against the disciples of the Lord Jesus, but that the " sect 
 was everywhere spoken against." And we ought to remember 
 that for centuries the Christians were overwhelmed with a 
 mighty mass of accusations, imputing to them crimes the most 
 
356 CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 
 
 enormous, improbable, and unreasonable in themselves ; and in 
 almost all cases, alleged to have been committed in secret. And 
 as the mighty sum total o all their alleged iniquities, they were 
 charged with being " enemies of mankind ;" and so general was 
 the belief of their guilt, that when the tyrant Nero burned the 
 city of Rome, his first thought was to charge it upon the Chris- 
 tians ; a charge like all other wholesale charges, requiring noth- 
 ing but malice to make, and nothing but prejudice to believe. 
 Had we lived in that age, and had taken the clamor and vehe- 
 mence of the millions as evidence of the truth of their charges, 
 we could not have been Christians at all. And we ought further 
 to remember that Christ expressly foretold that His sincere fol- 
 lowers should be " hated of all nations for his name's sake." It 
 is one of the most beautiful proofs of the truth of Christianity, 
 that this prediction, made so long ago, has been so literally ful- 
 filled in all after ages. And were an intelligent and observant 
 stranger, just arrived from a distant land, called upon, with rev- 
 elation and reason as his sole guides, to select the true followers 
 of Christ, he would unhesitatingly fix upon that body of men 
 most distinguished for their energy, zeal, and devotion ; and 
 who especially were most violently abused and opposed by In- 
 fidels and discordant sects. 
 
 2. These charges examined. 
 
 This charge of universal depravity is expressly made against 
 the entire order. It is not limited to individuals. It includes 
 each and every member. They are all expressly alleged to take 
 the oath. They all concur in every thing. They all have the 
 secret instructions. And the sum total of this unlimited system 
 of vice is alleged to be comprised in this short sentence : " The 
 end sanctifies the means." I must say, that ingenious malice, 
 with the whole world for its range, and all time for its duration, 
 could not possibly have invented a charge more extended in 
 meaning, and more concise in words. This short sentence, of 
 only five omnipotent words, embodies a charge of every crime 
 under heaven ; and is so short that it can be repeated oft and 
 oft again ; and is yet so extensive in meaning, that as often as 
 it is repeated, it leaves the prejudiced and disordered imagina- 
 tion, in selecting the food it feeds upon, to revei, untrammelled, 
 
CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 357 
 
 in all the wide fields ot human iniquity. Like the charge against 
 the early Christians, of being " enemies of mankind," or like 
 that often made by malicious persons, " he is a mean man," it 
 has no limits ; and every thing may be included under it that 
 may suit the appetite of each individual. 
 
 But there are certain instincts in envy, malice, and preju 
 dice, that seem to have been provided by God Himself on pur- 
 pose to defeat the ends aimed at by these base passions. Envy 
 always depreciates superior merit / and when the act itself is 
 too good to be denied, never fails to impute an improper motive 
 to him who performed it; while malice, in its bitterness, is never 
 satisfied with imputing to its victim any thing short of the most 
 enormous and improbable crimes, and the more innocent the 
 victim, the more cordially it hates him, because the more unlike 
 itself; and prejudice could not claim its peculiar merit, if it be- 
 lieved reasonable charges, upon sufficient testimony, but must 
 out-suspect and out-guess every thing else. 
 
 One of the difficulties that occurred to me, in my reflections 
 upon this alleged oath, was the extreme folly of attempting to 
 bind men, by an oath, who had no conscience. To swear men 
 by "the blessed Trinity, and the blessed Sacrament," while 
 they called " all the heavenly and glorious hosts above to wit- 
 ness," that they would commit all the crimes possible, if neces- 
 sary, did seem to me the most futile and the most idle. What 
 ideas of the obligation of an oath could such men have ? They 
 are alleged to have had no virtue upon which conscience could 
 rest. Men who could deliberately go into such an association, 
 and then undertake to obey these secret instructions, could no 
 more be trusted, than rogues and murderers 
 
 When, for my own satisfaction, I was inquiring into the 
 truth of Christianity, I was struck with the peculiar force of one 
 argument. It was insisted that we could not account for the 
 conduct of the apostles, upon the supposition that they had 
 combined to assert a system of falsehood, and to palm it upon 
 the world that it was impossible to combine twelve men, and 
 send them out into all the world, to preach the same falsehoods, 
 and that all of them should remain faithful, on all occasions, 
 however painful the test, and not betray the secret. I could 
 well understand how such a union could be formed and kept 
 
358 OIUKGKS AGAINST THE JESUITS. 
 
 together, upon the basis of truth, but never upon that of false- 
 hood, when the same was known to the whole party. I knew 
 there were moments when the truth would come ; 
 
 " For e'en the rogue by fits is fair and wise * 
 
 that all men had an inward conviction and dread of future pun- 
 ishment, and in the honest hour of death, when the 
 
 " Scathing thought of execrated years," 
 
 brought up before the dying vision of the guilty culprit the 
 blurred and blotted page of the ignominious past that then 
 murder icould out. Some of them would tell it some would 
 let it out. 
 
 How then will this argument apply to the Jesuits as an order 
 of men, governed by certain rules applicable to the whole class ? 
 It is alleged in substance by their accusers, that they had one 
 set of rules for the public, which were good enough, and another 
 set of rules to be kept a profound secret, from all persons but 
 members of the order. These secret rules contained the horri- 
 ble sentiments charged, and were all alleged to be printed in a 
 book called " The Secreta Monita," and kept for the use of 
 all the members. 
 
 The order was intended to be perpetual, and its members were 
 expected, to become numerous, and to be scattered all over the 
 wide earth. And so they were. They numbered some ten 
 thousand members, at the date of their suppression. It was a 
 most extraordinary combination. The mind that originated it 
 must have been at one and the same time a giant and a pigmy 
 must have possessed grand and sublime ideas systematic 
 powers, and yet not a particle of principle, and not the slightest 
 knowledge of human nature. All the members of this body 
 must have had strange and singular views. Like other men, 
 they knew they must die that their ranks must be supplied 
 with new members that these would be induced to apply for 
 admission upon the basis of the published rules, which were 
 honest ; but that after they became members, they were to be 
 changed from pious, honest, and sincere men, to monsters of 
 crime ; and that so perfect was the logic of the order that h 
 never failed to make this conversion from honesty to villany ; 
 
ORAKQE8 AGAINST THE JESUITS. 359 
 
 PO that there was not one left to tell the story, that such infa- 
 mous principles and oaths had been proposed to him, and by 
 him rejected with scorn and indignation. In other words, they 
 must have thought that the most effectual way to organize a 
 band of abandoned reprobates, was to put forth a platform in 
 public, that would only invite the pious and good, but when 
 once in the order, that each new member, though deceived and 
 defrauded, would at once, by some extraordinary magic, aban- 
 don all his previous views, and submit willingly, kindly, to this 
 infamous deception, and work faithfully and continuously, in 
 upholding this same stupendous fraud. 
 
 Not only so, but they must have thought that the book con- 
 taining their secret rules, could never come to light by any of 
 the ten thousand accidents of life that although in the hands 
 of all Jesuits, scattered all over the world, that still when one 
 died his book would not be left behind him, to fall into the 
 hands of some one who might betray the mighty secret that 
 when one of their members committed murder by poison or as- 
 sassination, that no chemical test could be found to show the 
 existence of the deadly drug in the stomach of the deceased, 
 and the spilled blood of the assassinated would leave no stain 
 and when they went upon their midnight excursions of crime, 
 they would leave no trace, nor track, but flit through the air, 
 like wicked spirits, unseen, but felt. These men seem never to 
 have understood the one plain simple fact, that the introduction of 
 every new conspirator, only increased the danger of detection ; 
 but like some foolish people who tell their secrets to every- 
 body, that they may have good help to keep them, these men, 
 while utterly destitute of principle, still had unlimited confi- 
 dence in each other, and never once suspected, that men capa- 
 ble of, and pledged to commit, every possible crime, must cer- 
 tainly, sooner or later, fall out among themselves, and betray 
 the whole conspiracy. If these monstrous charges be true, 
 these men were extraordinary monsters, destitute alike of all 
 principle and of all common sense. If I could believe such 
 charges, then I should not only consider the Jesuits as the 
 greatest mass of conglomerated vice that ever disgraced hu- 
 manity, but as the greatest collection of fools that ever de- 
 graded human intellect. And I am willing to say, in the face 
 
300 CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 
 
 of all men, that I am one of those charitable, credulous crea- 
 tures (fools if you please) who believe that the great mass of 
 all churches, and of all the different orders of those churches, 
 are honest in their convictions ; and that, m the very nature 
 and reason of things, it could not be otherwise that honest 
 conviction, though erroneous, is the only basis upon which any 
 society of men can be held together from age to age and that 
 no man, or set of men, having the least claim to intellect, ever 
 did dream, or ever will dream of organizing a permanent order 
 of men, upon any other basis. As well might it be assumed, 
 that a resident and fixed community could be all rogues, who 
 would wear out the very property itself in stealing it continually 
 one from the other, and yet competition would not ruin the 
 trade, and destroy the union and peace of the society, as that 
 a numerous, widely-dispersed, and gifted body of religious men, 
 could be held together when even a majority are hypocrites 
 and villains ; much less when all are so. 
 
 But the history of the Jesuits, as well as the admissions of 
 candid men not of their religion, show that they are a most dis- 
 tinguished order of men distinguished for their profound and 
 varied erudition their indefatigable industry their zeal their 
 heroic devotion their untiring energy, and their unfaltering 
 and steady perseverance. These are noble traits fit compan- 
 ions of integrity. When I see the fervid and intrepid Paul 
 leave his own country, and go through strange lands, suffering 
 persecution and shame at every step, and wearing out his very 
 existence in preaching the mild gospel of the despised Nazarine, 
 I am compelled, in the innermost recesses of my heart, to admit 
 his motives were good his integrity unquestioned ; for I can- 
 not find any other adequate motive, upon any principle of reason 
 or charity, by which to account for such voluntary sacrifices. 
 And when I see the labors and sacrifices of the Jesuit fathers in 
 every land, among all nations how they composed the noblest 
 orations, the finest histories, the sublimest poems, and wrote the 
 ablest treatises on every branch of science, (even that of gun. 
 nery) when I see these devoted missionaries go 
 
 " Through foaming waves to distant shores," 
 visiting every people in the world, and like the sainted Xavier 
 
CHARfiKS AGAINST THE ESUITS. 361 
 
 * Whose lips were love, whose touch was power, 
 Whose thoughts were vivid flame," 
 
 leaving their worn-out or slaughtered bodies in every savage 
 ciime, and enduring toils and dangers, sufferings and privations, 
 second only to those of the apostles and earlier saints, I cannot 
 deny to these men holy and lofty motives ; for it seems not 
 more natural for the oak to grow from the acorn, than for noble 
 and virtuous deeds and heroic sacrifices, to spring from corre- 
 sponding motives. As certain acids are the sure tests of certain 
 metals, so great and voluntary sacrifices, without temporal 
 reward, are the never-failing criterions of sincerity. And when 
 I witness the perseverance, and patient and continued duration 
 of this body of men through calumny, hatred, and contempt, in 
 a cause in which they can have no greater personal interest 
 than others, I cannot see any other adequate motive than those 
 high and holy purposes that spring from a fixed conviction of 
 being in the right, in the noblest of causes. And I am com- 
 pelled to this conviction, notwithstanding all the clamor against 
 these men ; and why ? If it be true, as nearly all Catholics 
 think, and many others admit, that this order of men are the 
 most eminent for their knowledge, virtue, zeal, and devotion, of 
 all the orders in the Roman church or in the world, then from 
 the very reason and nature of things, this state of misrepresenta- 
 tion must follow ; for if there be any envy in rival orders of 
 their own Church, it would fix itself upon them, for envy always 
 seeks " higher game." And if there be any fear, malice, or pre 
 judice in the ranks of opponents, they would be mainly directed 
 against them ; for fear has an unerring instinct in apprehending 
 the most formidable danger, while malice is fertile in inventing, 
 and interested prejudice most ready in believing, charges against 
 the most distinguished men in the ranks of opponents. And 
 when we hear the writer in the Encyclopedia say, as I have 
 quoted above, that " their indefatigable industry, and countless 
 artifices in resisting the progress of the reformed religion, per- 
 petuated the most pernicious errors of popery," we have the 
 key to the motive that keeps* alive this denunciation. And 
 when we hear Mr. Campbell say, "The Jesuits, that standing 
 army of the Pope, are revived, and are inundating our country. 
 Other fraternities are but the militia ; but these are the trained 
 
362 CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 
 
 band life-guards of the papacy," (Debate C. & P., 301,) we can 
 readily see where the shoe pinches. When you go into an or- 
 chard, even months after the fruit is all gone, and you see them 
 a noble-looking tree, whose wide-spreading top is filled with 
 sticks, so that you know everybody has been "pitching into it," 
 you may know, with unerring certainty, that this tree produces 
 the best fruit in the orchard. 
 
 But the circumstances connected with the alleged discovery 
 of this Secreta Monita, upon their face, proved to my satisfac- 
 tion that it was a forgery. This event happened in the Infidel 
 times preceding the horrors that followed the French Revolu- 
 tion. It was the age of Voltaire and other distinguished Infi- 
 dels. Voltaire was accustomed to say that " he was tired of 
 hearing it said, that twelve men had been able to convert the 
 world from Paganism to Christianity, for that he would let it 
 be seen that one man was able to unchristianize it." At the 
 head of his letters to his Infidel conspirators against revelation, 
 he was accustomed to say, " Let us crush the wretch," meaning 
 Jesus Christ and his religion. In the private correspondence 
 of Voltaire and D'Alembert, it is acknowledged there was no 
 hope of success in destroying Christianity, unless the Jesuits 
 were first put down. This order of men, by their talents, in- 
 dustry, and zeal, were able to keep in check the attempts of the 
 Infidels, by refuting and exposing their sophistry. The Parlia 
 ment of France in 1762, notwithstanding all they say about re- 
 ligion, &c., was composed mostly of the disciples of Voltaire. 
 
 A parliament thus constituted could be readily imposed 
 upon. It required only a few conspirators to accomplish this. 
 It is a fact well shown by the testimony of history, that a legis- 
 lative assembly, from its constitution, is as readily deceived in 
 times of prejudice and excitement, as the same number of indi- 
 viduals taken promiscuously. Such assemblies are peculiarly 
 sensitive to outside clamor. They readily believe almost any 
 thing that they think is popular. This fact is shown by the 
 history of the English Parliament. This body was deceived to 
 such an extent as to believe the repeated perjuries of Titus 
 Gates and others and many innocent persons were sent to the 
 block in consequence. In 1666 the city of London was burned, 
 and the conflagration charged upon the Catholics. It was be- 
 
CHAUGBS AGAINST THE JESUITS. 363 
 
 lieved, and a monument erected and inscribed, commemorating 
 the supposed dark deed, of which Pope has this exoressive 
 couplet : 
 
 " Where London's column, pointing to the sicies, 
 Like a tall bully, lifts its head, and lies." 
 
 A few years ago the Corporation of London had the mag- 
 nanimity to have this inscription chipped off. 
 
 To accomplish the suppression of the Jesuits in France, the 
 Infidels knew could not be done by any outward attack of theirs. 
 They stood as declared enemies of religion. The plan was to 
 operate upon the Parliament. They knew from the examples 
 in the English Parliament how easy this could be effected, 
 when the prejudices of the members were appealed to. It was 
 easy to reproduce this forged Secreta Monita, originated by 
 some anonymous calumniator in 1616. All they had to do was 
 to palm it upon the parliament as the work of the Jesuits. That 
 was easily done. Ever since Joseph had the silver cup concealed 
 in the sack of Benjamin, this expedient was well known. It 
 was used by Joseph from a good motive, but it has been re- 
 sorted to by malicious persons in every age. No artifice is 
 more frequently practised, or is more easily accomplished. 
 Cases of the kind have often occurred in every country. Two 
 men were once partners, and had some difficulty in their settle- 
 ment. One became the violent enemy of the other, and perse- 
 cuted him on every occasion. The persecuted determined he 
 would leave the kingdom and emigrate to America to avoid his 
 implacable enemy. In preparing to make his departure he 
 went to London and took a room at a public house. His old 
 enemy met him in the streets, and watched him go into his 
 room. The next morning his enemy watched the room until 
 he saw him leave and go into the street. His enemy then went 
 to another room on the same floor, and . stole a watch, and se- 
 creted it in his victim's room. The owner of the watch missed 
 it, and gave the alarm. This man was by, and informed the 
 police that a very suspicious character lodged in a certain room. 
 Of course they searched the room and found the watch. The 
 victim was arrested, protested his ignorance of the whole mat- 
 ter, was tried, convicted, and executed. Years afterwards hia 
 
364: CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 
 
 murderer was brought up to receive sentence for some criminal 
 offence, and before the court, admitted that he had caused this 
 man's execution. 
 
 And the circumstances stated, show clearly, that such an 
 artifice was used upon the occasion of the alleged discovery of 
 this Secreta Monita. The very haste with which the parliament 
 acted in reference to so important a measure, shows they had 
 been informed that such a work would be found. Intimations 
 had been no doubt given out that if such a hasty measure was 
 adopted the insidious Jesuits would be caught. Having suc- 
 ceeded in procuring the passage of such an act, it was easy for 
 a single individual to carry with him the book concealed under 
 his dress, and when the apartments of the college were searched, 
 to place this book among the others found there. It required 
 but the act of a single individual one of the police, or any other 
 individual who was permitted to go there. 
 
 And how easy it is, if we depend upon such testimony, to 
 ruin any man's reputation, or the character of any body of men. 
 Such a system of reasoning places all good men at the mercy 
 of conspirators. And when the charge, upon its face, is so ut- 
 terly absurd and impracticable, and beyond all reason, such a 
 circumstance ought not to weigh as a feather against a body of 
 men so numerous so distinguished so much in the way of its 
 opponents and for whose suppression there existed so many 
 manifest motives. To ruin such a body of men, if sensible and 
 just men can believe such mighty charges upon such testimony, 
 requires nothing but a want of principle a small amount of 
 cunning and the adroitness of an ordinary rogue, in a single 
 individual. 
 
 Having succeeded in obtaining the suppression of the order 
 in France, the next step was to procure its suppression in other 
 States, and finally by the Pope himself. And if we examine 
 into the character and motives of the principal men who took 
 the leading part in these violent measures against the order, we 
 shall see that they were just the men to urge them onward. 
 They were generally either avowed or secret enemies of reli- 
 gion, and especially of the Catholic system. As a very candid 
 *'rotest?ant writer, speaking of the persecution of the Jesuits \>y 
 
CrtARttES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 365 
 
 me Portuguese government, and the destruction of their college 
 at Pernambuco, says : 
 
 "Reader, throw a veil over thy recollection for a little 
 while, and forget the cruel, unjust, and unmerited censures thou 
 hast heard against an unoffending order. This place was once 
 the Jesuits' College, and originally built by those charitable; 
 fathers. Ask the aged and respectable inhabitants of Pernam- 
 buco, and they will tell thee, that the destruction of the society 
 of the Jesuits was a terrible disaster to the public, and its con- 
 sequences severely felt to the present day." 
 
 " When Pambal took the reins of government into his hands, 
 virtue and learning beamed within the college walls. Public 
 catechism to the children, and religious instruction to all, flowed 
 daily from the mouths of its venerable priests. They were 
 loved, revered, and respected throughout the whole town. The 
 illuminating philosophers of the day had sworn to exterminate 
 Christian knowledge, and the College of Pernambuco was 
 doomed to founder in the general storm. To the long-lasting 
 sorrow and disgrace of Portugal, the philosophers blinded her 
 king, and flattered his prime minister. Pambal was exactly the 
 tool these sappers of every public and private virtue wanted. 
 He had the naked sword of power in his own hand, and his 
 heart was as hard as flint. He struck a mortal blow, and the 
 Society of Jesuits, throughout the Portuguese dominions, was 
 no more." (Wanderings in South America, &c. By Charles 
 Waterton, Esq. ; p. 82. Cited Con. H. & B., p. 461.) 
 
 The Pope was induced to suppress the order in 1773. In 
 the Brief of Clement XIV. he is careful not to say that he be- 
 lieved the charges to be true, but on the contrary, bases the 
 suppression upon the grounds of expediency and for the sake 
 of peace. The Parliament of Paris restored the order. In 1801 
 it was restored in Russia, and in 1814 in Sardinia, and in 1814, 
 by Pope Pius VII. The King of Prussia, though Protestant, 
 did not suppress the order in his dominions, but fostered it. 
 He did not believe the charges. 
 
 It has been the misfortune of this order to incur the hostility 
 of Infidels, and especially those of Europe. We see that an In- 
 fidel brought the Secreta Monita to the United States. Tho 
 distinguished novelist, the Infidel Eugene Sue, in his late work, 
 
366 CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS. 
 
 the Wandering Jew, has imputed to the Jesuits all the dark 
 and horrible traits of his own vitiated imagination. 
 
 This order is evidently a foe worthy of their steel, and in 
 their way. Unable to meet their arguments and exertions by 
 fair means, they resorted to forgery and base imposition to sup- 
 press the order. They succeeded for a time under a state of 
 clamor and excitement. But justice, though slow, is certain, and 
 Jie order has been restored. It had once many enemies among 
 Catholics, but these have dwindled to a very few. 
 
 That these charges against the entire order are absurd and 
 barefaced fabrications, I have no doubt. That individuals of 
 the order, as individuals of any and every body, have sometimes 
 erred, I have as little doubt. They would be more than men if 
 they had not. That the suppression of the order by Clement 
 XIV. was mainly produced by the exertions of Infidels in that 
 Infidel age, I have no doubt. And that the clamor is still at- 
 tempted to be kept up by persons whose interests or prejudices 
 render them capable of believing any charge, supported by even 
 the semblance of testimony, against their opponents in religion, 
 I have no doubt. 
 
 The charges, if made against individuals of the order, would 
 not affect the order itself, in the minds of just men; and when 
 made against the entire order, assume a shape so monstrous, un- 
 reasonable, and absurd, that I do not think any impartial and 
 well-informed man could be deceived into a belief of them 
 When I first read them, I was a Protestant, and all my sym- 
 pathies were with Protestantism ; but this charge of universal 
 and unmitigated depravity against so numerous a body of men, 
 was rather too heavy a draft upon my credulity. 
 
 It seems to me that every good man should be very careful 
 to be just to others. The rule of sweet charity is tho only one 
 under which human virtue can Jive. It is better to allow too 
 much merit to men than too little. Men are frail enough, and 
 their virtues are sufficiently scant ; but when we detract from 
 that little, and accuse them of monstrous crimes they never com- 
 mitted, we certainly commit a most grievous sin against them, 
 and especially against ourselves. If we err in imputing too few 
 sins to our fellow-creatures, we may be called weak, but not 
 criminal. We at least lean to the side of charity. But if wt 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. .367 
 
 impute to them crimes they never committed, we commit, our- 
 selves, a grievous fault ; for we are commanded to " Judge not, 
 that ye he not judged : for with what judgment ye judge, ye 
 shall be judged." It is a fearful thing for us to judge harshly 
 and unjustly, as we must expect to be judged by the same rule. 
 These considerations satisfied me that the Jesuits were an 
 eminent, devoted, yet misrepresented body of men. And when 
 I find what I take to be slandered merit, I hesitate not to avow 
 myself hi friend ; for I do not know what other rule a good man 
 can follow, than to do that which is strictly right in itself, and 
 trust in God and his country. Too many well-disposed men are 
 apt to flinch from a good, but unpopular victim ; but " ''tis not so 
 above." Innocence is purer when persecuted, 
 
 " And love is loveliest when embalmed in tears," 
 
 and virtue is never so beautiful as when calumniated and de- 
 spised. It was so in the beginning. It must always be so. And 
 I cannot but think that if any good and impartial man, who has 
 taken up an impression that such wholesale charges are true, 
 will re-examine the question calmly and dispassionately, he will 
 enjoy that sweet and generous pleasure which a just man feels 
 when he finds he has been mistaken in supposing that his brother 
 had been guilty of a crime. 
 
 3. Charges against certain Popes. 
 
 Among other charges made by Mr. Campbell, Dr. Spring, 
 Mr. Breckenridge, and other Protestant controvertists against 
 the Catholic church, is the wicked character of some of the 
 Popes. The instances can be seen in the debate of Campbell 
 and Purcell, and in the controversy of Hughes and Brecken- 
 ridge. 
 
 The most general and sweeping charges I found in the Dis- 
 sertation of Dr. Spring, on page 71, where the learned Divine 
 says: 
 
 " But it is a fact which no Romanist will deny, that the Popes 
 of Rome, as a body of men, have been a disgrace to the human 
 race." 
 
 This statement must have been made at random, for I found 
 it contradicted by every Catholic writer whose works I read at 
 
368 CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPHS. 
 
 the time and wince, who spoke upon the subject ut all. I have 
 not been able to find a Catholic writer who did not deny it, 
 when the subject he treated made it proper for him to notice 
 the charge. All those that I have read very cheerfully admitted 
 that the conduct of some individual Popes had been scandalous 
 and wicked, while they insisted that the great majority were 
 worthy of the station they filled, and many of them martyrs and 
 saints of the first character ; and that these wicked Popes did 
 not bear a greater proportion to the whole number, than Judas 
 did to the twelve. 
 
 These charges related to some of the Popes of the middle 
 ages. Those of the first ages of the Church are admitted to 
 have been saints ; while those of the later ages are admitted, by 
 Catholic and Protestant writers, to have been unexceptionable 
 in their moral deportment : as by the Protestant writer Ranke, 
 in his History of the Popes, as stated by Dr. Wiseman in his 
 Moorfield Lectures. (Lee. VIII.) 
 
 In making these and other charges against the Catholic 
 Church, both Mr. Campbelland Mr. Breckenridge quoted Du 
 Pin as an authentic Catholic historian. But his character as 
 such was denied by both Bishops Hughes and Purcell. 
 
 It appeared that Du Pin had a secret correspondence with 
 Amhbishop Wake, with a view to the union of the English and 
 Catholic Churches. His secret papers were examined on the 
 10th of February, 1719, at the Palais Royal in Paris and it was 
 found, as Lafitau testifies, that in his letter to Wake, he pro- 
 posed to give up Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Re- 
 ligious vows, the fast of Lent and abstinence, the Supremacy 
 of the Pope, and the celibacy of the clergy. He was also se- 
 cretly married, and after his death, his widow came publicly 
 forward to assert her right to his property. To support his au- 
 thority, Mr. Campbell read the certificates printed with the work, 
 and purporting to be the approbation of the Doctors of the Sor- 
 bonne. Two of these certificates purport to be signed by 
 "Blampton, Rector of St. Men-is ; and Hideux, Curate of St. 
 Innocents," and one by the former only. They approve the 
 work as containing "nothing contrary to the Catholic faith or 
 to good manners," but do not approve or disapprove the work 
 as authentic history. 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 369 
 
 The Doctors of the Sorbonne were appointed by the king. 
 The authority is not of the highest grade, though respectable. 
 Du Pin, at the time he wrote his history, was not suspected of 
 any hypocrisy. He was a very distinguished writer, and stood 
 very high with his associates. His work was voluminous, and 
 the hasty reading of an author of his standing, in an historical 
 work so extended, would not enable any one to judge properly 
 of its historical character. A work upon doctrine or morals can 
 be judged very soon by any competent divine, but a work on his- 
 tory, so extensive, would be far more difficult. It would require 
 time and patient investigation to detect its errors. Such appro- 
 bations are too often given hastily, the judge relying too much 
 upon the standing and character of the author. Besides, Du 
 Pin was a Jansenist, and was censured by Pope Clement XL, 
 even during his lifetime ; and Louis XIV. removed him from 
 the Sorbonne, which was approved by the Pope. (Debate C. & 
 P., 32, 37. Con. H. & B., 372.) 
 
 It may be possible that Du Pin was an authentic historian ; 
 but certainly he appears under circumstances most suspicious. 
 An honest man may be a member of a certain Church, and may 
 write its history, and that work may be good authority after he 
 has changed his faith, and left the Church. But when a man re- 
 mains a traitor in a Church, and seeks to betray it, and lives a 
 hypocrite while in it, there is no trusting him for any thing. A 
 man of distinguished ability, and yet a hypocrite, would natu- 
 rally seek, in the most insidious manner possible, to injure the 
 Church of which he was a member. He could but hate a 
 Church whose faith he could not believe ; and he could but have 
 some fell purpose when he believed one thing and told another. 
 Who can trust such a man ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell did indeed state that he relied upon him only 
 in so far as he is sustained by other historians ; but as he con- 
 tinued to quote from him, after objection was made by Bishop 
 Purcell, and after Mr. C. had read the objections of Bishop 
 Hughes, as he states himself, (Debate C. & P., 28,) I could not 
 well understand his reasons. If, as he asserted, Du Pin was 
 sustained by other historians, it certainly would have been more 
 satisfactory to have read entirely from them. 
 
 And herein I remarked a great and palpable difference be 
 33 
 
370 CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 tween the course of Catholic and Protestant controvertists. I 
 found the Catholics generally quoting from the most eminent 
 and reliable Protestant writers and historians, men of the most 
 unblemished character, private and public, while, on the con- 
 trary, I found Protestants generally quoting from the most un- 
 worthy and suspicious Catholics, such as Du Pin, Father Paul, 
 Thuanus, and others. The Debate between Elder Campbell 
 and Bishop Purcell is a proof of this. So is the Controversy 
 between Hughes and Breckenridge. And if any man of fair 
 mind will calmly watch both parties, he will soon see which 
 most relies upon unworthy authority. 
 
 Mr. Breckenridge quotes "Thuanus, Book 37, p. 776," as a 
 Catholic historian, to prove alleged corruptions at Rome. In 
 reference to whom, Bishop Hughes says : " The history of Thu- 
 anus has been condemned at Rome, by two public decrees ; 
 the one of November 9, 1609, the other of May 10, 1757, from 
 which fact the reader may see, with how little propriety he as- 
 sumes to be called a ' Roman Catholic historian.' ' He was,' 
 says a modern author, (Paquot,) ' an audacious writer ; the im- 
 placable enemy of the Jesuits ; the calumniator of the Guises ; 
 the copyist, flatterer, friend of the Protestants ; and was far 
 from being even just to the Holy See, the Council of Trent, or 
 any thing Catholic.' " (Con. H. & B., 372.) 
 
 But aside from these disputed and not trustworthy histo- 
 rians, from the testimony of Baronius and other authentic Catho- 
 lic historians quoted by Mr. C. and Mr. B., there can be nc 
 doubt of the scandalous lives of certain Popes, such as Stephen 
 VII., Vigilius, Alexander, and others. 
 
 The whole number of Popes has been nearly two hundred 
 and sixty. " Of these," says Bishop Purcell, " the first forty 
 were saints, or martyrs ; a small number only, not more than 
 twenty, can be called bad men ; the rest were remarkable for 
 eminent virtue, charity, zeal, learning, and patronage of letters." 
 (Debate C. & P., 146.) Mr. Breckenridge and Mr. Campbell 
 asserted that the number of bad Popes was greater than twenty, 
 and Mr. C. quotes Genebrard, who says, under the year 904, 
 " For nearly one hundred and fifty years, about fifty Popes de- 
 serted wholly the virtue of their predecessors, being apostate 
 rather than apostolical ; " but the accuracy of this statement as 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 371 
 
 to the number is disputed by Bishop Purcell. And, indeed, the 
 statement seems very loose and general. Such statements are 
 not often accurate. 
 
 As to the exact number of the Popes who disgraced their po- 
 sition, it is difficult, at this time, to determine. That injustice 
 has been done to some of them, there can be but little doubt. 
 It must seem obvious to sensible men, that the character of a 
 prominent man depends greatly upon the temper of the age in 
 which he lived. There are often many causes, and a peculiar 
 concurrence of circumstances, that involve a man's reputation 
 in doubt in some cases, and in ignominy in others, when his 
 motives were good, and when his measures, under the existing 
 circumstances, were the best that could have been adopted. 
 The bitter prejudice, or inveterate enmity, of a single able and 
 influential individual, in an age when books were few, (for the 
 reason that the art of printing was then unknown,) might do 
 the greatest injustice to the person whose history is sought. 
 Nothing but a patient and careful examination of the contempo- 
 rary manuscript documents on file in the various extensive li- 
 braries of Europe, can enable us to do any thing like justice to 
 the Popes of the middle ages. When I have been induced to 
 examine charges against individuals, I always go to them foi 
 their side of the question ; for I never could get all the truth 
 from their enemies. Most cases of the kind are overdone. Men 
 are prone to have victims of some kind. We see it often in 
 communities, in reference to particular persons. The public 
 must blame some one, and from some cause or other, it matters 
 not what it is, censure starts in a particular direction, and when 
 once under way, it is as difficult to stop as a mountain torrent. 
 It must run its course. Even good men are often swept along 
 with it. It is even so in business. All hands rusn into great 
 excesses at intervals. Human nature is prone to varied and 
 unsteady courses. 
 
 Most of these scandalous excesses of the Popes occurred in 
 a certain period, and about the tenth century. As several bad 
 Popes lived near each other, it is very natural for historians, a? 
 well as the people of that age, to confound both good and bad, 
 and place them in the same class. Poor Tray suffered for being 
 in bad comuany, and some of the Popes who lived in the Middle 
 
372 . CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 Ages, may have suffered from the misfortune of having governed 
 the Church at that period of time. Even the most pious and 
 candid writers, from their very detestation of vice, may, in their 
 melancholy moments, do great injustice to those who, though 
 guilty of some faults, are not guilty to the extent supposed. It 
 has become a habit to censure every thing done in those ages ; 
 and doubtless there was much to be blamed. But this habit, 
 like all other habits, may have misled even just men. Those 
 ages were not distinguished for great learning, and the people 
 of those times were encompassed with difficulties of the most 
 oppressive character. They have, therefore, few friends to do 
 them justice, and many disgusted and interested enemies to re- 
 proach their memory. The natural tendency of human opinion 
 is to elevate some favorite ages to the skies, and to depreciate 
 even the real merits of those that are despised and neglected. 
 
 But justice should be done. The genuine truth ought to be 
 known. And it appears that of late, a better spirit begins to 
 show itself. " Within the last ten years," says Dr. Wiseman, 
 (Moorfield Lee., L. viii.,) " a succession of works has been ap- 
 pearing on the continent, in which the character of the Popes 
 of the middle ages has been not only vindicated, but placed in 
 the most beautiful and magnificent point of view. And I thank 
 God that they are, as I just said, from a quarter w r hich cannot 
 be suspected every one of the works to which I allude being 
 the production of a Protestant. We have had, within these 
 few years, several lives, or vindications, of the Pontiff who has 
 been considered the embodying type of that thirst for aggran- 
 dizement which is attributed to the Popes of the middle ages. 
 I speak of Gregory VII., commonly known by the name of Hil- 
 debrand. In a large voluminous work, published a few years 
 ago by Voight, and approved of by the most eminent historians 
 of modern Germany, we have the life of that Pontiff drawn up 
 from contemporaneous documents, from his own correspondence, 
 and the evidence of both his friends and enemies. The result is 
 and I wish I could give you the words of the author that if 
 the historian abstract himself from mere petty prejudices and 
 national feelings, and look on the character of that Pontiff from 
 a higher ground, he must pronounce him a man of most up- 
 right mind, of a most perfect disinterestedness, and of the purest 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 373 
 
 zeal ; one who acted in every instance just as his position called 
 upon him to act, and made use of no means, save what he was 
 authorized to use. In this he is followed by others, who speak 
 of him with an enthusiasm which a Catholic could not have ex- 
 ceeded ; and of one, it has been observed, that he cannot speak 
 of that Pontiff without rapture." Of these other Protestant 
 writers Dr. Wiseman gives in a note the names of Eichhorn, 
 Luden, Loo, and Mailer. 
 
 " We have had, too, within the last two years, another most 
 interesting work, a life of Innocent III., one of the most abused 
 in the line of papal succession, written by Hurter, a clergyman 
 of the Protestant church of Germany. He again has coolly ex 
 aminecl all the allegations which have been brought against 
 him ; and has based his studies entirely on the monuments of 
 the age ; and the conclusion to which he comes is, that not only 
 is his character beyond reproach, but that it is an object of un- 
 qualified admiration. And to give you some idea of the feelings 
 of this work, I will read you two extracts applicable to my sub- 
 ject in general. Thus writes our author : l Such an immediate 
 instrument in the hands of God, for securing the highest wea) 
 of the community, must the Christian of these times, the eccle 
 siastic, and still more, he who stood nearest to the centre of the 
 church, have considered him who was its head. Every worldly 
 dignity works only for the good of an earthly life, for a passing 
 object ; the church alone for the salvation of all men, for an ob- 
 ject of endless duration. If worldly power is from God, it is 
 not so in the sense, and in the measure, and in the defmitiveness 
 in which the highest spiritual power of those ages was ; whose 
 origin, development, extent, and influence, (independently of all 
 dogmatical formulas,) form the most remarkable appearance in 
 the world's history.' 
 
 " In another passage he thus speaks : * Let us look forward 
 and backward from any period upon the times, and see how 
 the institution of the Papacy has outlasted all the other institu- 
 tions Of Europe ; how it has seen all other states rise and perish ; 
 how, in the endless changes of human power, it alone invariably 
 has preserved and maintained the same spirit ; can we be sur- 
 prised, if many look upon it as the rock which raises itself un- 
 shaken above the stormy waves of time? '" 
 
374 CHAKGK8 AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 I am satisfied myself, that the vices of those ages have been 
 much exaggerated. I admit most cheerfully that I am but par- 
 tially acquainted with the history of those times. My pursuits 
 have led me into other fields of inquiry. But my opinion is 
 formed upon general principles upon my ideas of the nature 
 of men and things. If the literature of an age happens to be in- 
 ferior, the scholar turns from it with indifference, if not with 
 disgust. In such case few, if any, will feel any interest in doing 
 justice even to the solid virtues and common sense of that age. 
 Their faults are narrated in harsh and severe terms, while their 
 virtues are not recorded in the glowing pages of polished eulo- 
 gy. I like to read the correspondence of men public and pri- 
 vate when I wish to understand their characters. In all my 
 experience in all my travels in different modes in cities at 
 taverns and in all other positions, the most just and certain 
 mode I could ever adopt to find out the true character of peo- 
 ple, was to let them tell their own story to state their own 
 principles, and then to watch, calmly and impartially, the gen- 
 eral drift and spirit of the narrative. Men will generally talk 
 of that which they love most. I never met an unprincipled 
 man, that I know of, except in one solitary instance, that did 
 not unduly elevate talent above integrity. Such men invariably 
 put forth some vicious principle, or applaud some smart, but 
 dishonest trick, in some one else. An unprincipled man, one 
 who is so habitually, will never fail to show it in his own state- 
 ments. There will be a vein of vicious principle found some- 
 where in his discourse. A man must be a supreme adept at 
 hypocrisy that can wear the mask always. He must be remark- 
 able for his patience and perseverance. 
 
 In estimating the character and conduct of the Popes of the 
 middle ages, we must place ourselves back in the circumstances 
 that then existed we must enter into the spirit of those times, 
 and take things as we find them. We must remember that 
 men, nations, and ages must be judged with reference to their 
 opportunities and positions. The middle ages succeeded the 
 fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and the terrible scourge 
 of the Saracens in the East and South. Literature, science, and 
 arts had suffered extensively by these devastations. It was em 
 phatically the period of misfortune. The very fact that nearly 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 375 
 
 all of the bad Popes existed at one period in this long line of 
 succession, is, of itself, almost conclusive proof, that the circum- 
 stances of the times mainly produced these sad delinquencies. 
 Making then every fair allowance, there seems to be no doubt! 
 that some twenty out of near two hundred and sixty Popes 
 have been wicked men. And their excesses have been freely 
 condemned by Catholics, whose histories record these vices. 
 These Popes followed each other by suecession. That in a long 
 course of ages, instances of personal misconduct would occur 
 even among the Popes, must be expected. 
 
 What then is the legitimate effect of these scandals upon the 
 Catholic system ? Are they abuses, or are they the natural re- 
 sult of the system ? Do they prove that the Papacy never ex- 
 isted ? that it could be thus forfeited ? or that the misconduct 
 of a few individuals, at intervals in the long line of her history, 
 has destroyed the true Church ? 
 
 In considering this matter, we must distinguish between per- 
 sonal and official misconduct. In personal matters, men act for 
 themselves in official matters, for others. In one case they ex- 
 ercise personal and inherent natural rights in the other they 
 are clothed with delegated powers. To confound these, is to 
 confound the most manifest distinctions distinctions which must 
 exist where government exists. 
 
 As I have elsewhere stated, I never understood that Christ 
 had guaranteed the personal virtue even of His apostles. He 
 left the personal free agency of all men untouched. But when 
 men act as His agents, and for Him, then I understand that He 
 did guaranty their official acts. Thus, Peter could personally 
 sin, and so could Paul, but they never could give false testimony. 
 A true prophet cannot lie. He is not permitted to do so. And 
 it is conceded as a plain principle of law, that the agent, from 
 the nature of the relation, is not free in reference to the business 
 of his principal, except when discretion is given. Christ did not 
 leave the apostles any discretion. They were bound to testify 
 and teach the whole truth, and only the truth. So, if Christ 
 guaranteed the integrity of the Church, then her official acts 
 must be right, as to all matters within the guaranty.* 
 
 * It so happened that onr Lord and St. Paul were placed in almost the same 
 situation. Paul had the advantage of his Master's previous example before him ; 
 
3T6 CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 The Popes, like all men at the head of great institutions, 
 were placed in a position where they had every incentive to do 
 good, and yet were exposed to very trying temptations. Many 
 persons who held the high-priesthood under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation disgraced the position, from Heli to Caiaphas, who was 
 a wicked man, and a good high-priest, as Mr. Campbell says. 
 Aaron made the golden calf. But all these sad instances of hu- 
 man infirmity did not destroy the office, nor forfeit the existence 
 of the institution. Is the Church then responsible for the per- 
 sonal vices of these Popes ? Could the Church take away their 
 free agency, and prevent their sins ? 
 
 But when we come to take a view of the general official con- 
 duct of these Popes, we find one of the most beautiful proofs of 
 the invincible stability of the Church. It is indisputable, and 
 now conceded by many, if not by most Protestant writers, that 
 the alleged errors of the Roman Church were introduced long 
 before the main portions of these disorders occurred, if they 
 were not in the Church at the beginning. It is true, some at- 
 tempts are still made by particular controvertists to prove that 
 at least a portion of them originated after these scandals com- 
 menced. But any one can easily see that this is untrue, by a 
 very slight examination of the proofs. It is also true, that in 
 the pontificates of some of these Popes, Christianity was extend- 
 ed by their exertions into several savage countries. In fact, 
 some of the greatest conquests made to religion occurred at 
 those periods. There were no new heresies introduced there 
 was no cardinal doctrine of faith lost. This showed unity this 
 showed diligence this showed integrity as to faith. 
 
 How then can we account for these great and illustrious re- 
 
 and it is interesting to see how differently they acted. When our Lord was he- 
 fore Ananias, " one of the officers struck him with the palm of his hand, saying. 
 Answerest thou the High Priest so ? " " Jesus answered him, If I have spoken 
 evil, bear witness of the evil : hut if well, why smitest thou me ? " This was the 
 forgiving answer of a God. But when Paul was smitten hy the order of the same 
 High Priest, he indignantly exclaimed : " God shall smite thee, thou whited 
 wall." And this was the indignant language of a man. And is not this differ- 
 ence a most beautiful evidence of the truth of Christianity ? Could this difference 
 in the conduct of our Lord and St. Paul, under circumstances so similar, have 
 been the result of a forged narrative ? Would such a circumstance have been 
 thought of? And yet is not the difference in the conduct of the two very great ? 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CEKTAIN POPES. 377 
 
 sulta, out upon the hypothesis that the faith of the Church \vas 
 protected by Christ, as He had promised? Looking to the age 
 the times the circumstances when these scandals existed, and 
 what other Church could have rode out the terrible storm ? 
 Could Protestantism (which has only existed for about three 
 centuries, and that in the most fortunate and enlightened period 
 of the world, and has yet severed and divided into so many frag- 
 ments) have withstood this trial ? 
 
 And when we look into the matter carefully, there is some- 
 thing wonderful in this history. For the Catholic says to him- 
 self: " As the old Church withstood all this, what can she not 
 withstand ? Is she not invincible under circumstances that have 
 crushed all existing institutions ? They died out like falling 
 stars she shone on. They were she was, and is, and is to be. 
 It was the glory of our Lord to stand alone. So it is with His 
 Church." 
 
 And the more the opposers of the Church urge these disor- 
 ders, the more they strengthen the conviction in the mind of 
 the Catholic, that it is impossible for the Old Church to have 
 sustained herself under such untoward circumstances, without 
 the help of Christ. What Christ has instituted, men cannot de- 
 stroy. They have power over the works of their own hands, 
 but here their power ends. And despite of the desolation of 
 the Goth and Vandal the ravages of the invincible Saracen 
 the trials and evils of the age and above all, the personal wick- 
 edness of some of her own Chief Pastors, the Old Church lal- 
 tered not, but kept the faith, preached the gospel to the world, 
 and actually extended the Master's Kingdom. She, of all the 
 institutions of the world, has lived unscathed through that day. 
 Amidst all the ruin, she alone held up her head. 
 
 " As some tall cliff, that lifts its awful form, 
 Swells from the vale, and midway leaves the storm, 
 Though round its hreast the rolling clouds are spread, 
 Eternal sunshine settles on its head." 
 
 And in my reflections upon this subject, I could not but con- 
 sider this triumph of the Church, under such circumstances, as 
 one of the most forcible and beautiful proofs of the truth of 
 Christianity. It did show that the Lord Jesus was to be trust- 
 
378 CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 ed. That even the personal misconduct of her own children 
 of her own chief officer, could not ruin the work of Christ. Ha 
 had said it should be so, and it was so. 
 
 And I could not but wish to put these questions to those 
 who exaggerate these personal sins of the Popes : " My friends, 
 the more you overdo these allegations, the more difficult, I ap 
 prehend, you make your own case. You say, in substance, that 
 there was no virtue in the Papacy. Where, then, was that won- 
 derful virtue that saved the Church ? Under your supposed 
 state of case, do give us some good reason for the wonderful 
 preservation of the Church. There was evidently great vitality 
 and virtue somewhere. Your alleged true Church had to change 
 its faith and features very often to live at all ; and in these try- 
 ing times, was not on the field of battle. Or if so, did nothing. 
 Was it ' buried beneath the darkness of those ages,' as Wad- 
 dington says ? If so, why did not that darkness overwhelm the 
 Catholic Church ? Was the Protestant true Church alone un- 
 able to hold up her head in the stern hour of trial, while the al- 
 leged false Church did all the good that was done ? And what 
 Church did save Europe from barbarism ? What Church saved 
 Christianity, if not the Catholic ? You have certainly much 
 fault to find with her. But who won the victory over the sav- 
 age and the Saracen, but her ? In short, who did any thing for 
 learning, virtue, civilization, and religion in those most perilous 
 times, but her ? * Her children had many vices, no doubt, but 
 
 * Speaking of those times, Mr. Wheaton says : 
 
 " The influence of the Papal authority, though sometimes abused, was then 
 felt as a blessing to mankind : it rescued Europe from total barbarism ; it afford- 
 ed the only asylum and shelter from feudal oppression." (Wheaton'* History of 
 the Laws of Nations, 33.) 
 
 And the Rev. John Lord, in his introductory essay to the Chronicles of Sh 
 John Froissart, says : 
 
 " Moreover, the Papacy was a great central power, needed to control the princes 
 of Europe, and settle the difficulties which arose between them. The Popes, 
 whatever may have been their personal character, were conservators of the peace. 
 They preserved unity amid anarchy, and restrained the impulses of passionate 
 kings. Again, the Papacy, in the best ages, is thought by many profound histo- 
 rians to have been democratic in its sympathies. It guarded the interests of the 
 people : it preserved them from the violence of their oppressors : it furnished 
 a retreat, in monasteries, for the contemplative, the suffering, the afflicted, and 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN Pol'l'S. 379 
 
 their trials were such as you have never witnessed. There are 
 many brave men, who have much theoretic, but very little actual 
 blood to shed upon the battle-field, who nevertheless complain 
 loudly of the alleged errors of those who won the victory. Had 
 they but been there, they could have done much better. But 
 they were not there ; and had they been there, the difficulties 
 might have been much greater than they appear in the distance. 
 Men are generally brave at a safe distance, and generally virtu- 
 ous, in the absence of temptation. It is easy to find fault. The 
 less we know of a matter, the more fault we can find, in many 
 cases. You have lived in the most favored age of the world, 
 after the great art of printing was invented in 1444, and Amer- 
 ica discovered in 1492, and the consequent revival of litera- 
 ture, and the arts, and the extension of commerce ; and you 
 have still committed many grievous errors. True, you can boast 
 of the number of your small and diversified Churches, as the fox 
 did of her numerous progeny, while the Catholic theory can 
 only boast of one ; but that is a lion." 
 
 4. Could these disorders destroy the office of Pope ? 
 
 In reference to the effect of these disorders of the Popes, 
 Mr. Campbell has a summary position as follows : 
 
 "3. That Christ gave no law of succession. 
 
 " 4. That if he had, that succession has been destroyed by a 
 long continuance of the greatest monsters of crime that ever 
 lived, and by cabals, intrigues, violence, envy, lust, and schisms, 
 so that no man can believe that one drop of apostolic grace 
 is either in the person or office of Gregory XVI., the present 
 nominal incumbent of Peter's chair." (Debate C. & P., 139.) 
 
 It will be seen that this language is sufficiently confident and 
 strong, to sustain any sustainable position. But with deference 
 
 the poor. The monks and nuns were taught, by their quiet and industrious Ufa 
 
 that 
 
 ' There exists 
 
 An higher than the warrior's excellence : 
 That vast and sudden deeds of violence, 
 Adventures wild, and wonders of the moment, 
 These are not they which generate 
 The calm, and blissful, and enduring mighty.' " 
 
380 CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 to the logic and opinion of the learned debater, there are some 
 reasons that seem to render doubtful the entire conclusivenesa 
 of his position. As to the position marked 3, I have already 
 spoken of it. It was only given to make clear the other desig- 
 nated as 4. 
 
 The essence of this bold assumption is, that an individual 
 officer could not only forfeit his right to the office, by his own 
 misconduct, but he could go further, and destroy the office itself. 
 In other words, the office created by Christ His own work 
 could be destroyed by the acts of individuals. This is a star- 
 tling proposition, and leaves all future generations at the mercy 
 of those which precede it. Under this theory, I cannot under- 
 stand how Christ could be a Divine Lawgiver, when He created 
 so poor an institution as to be within the power of men. 
 
 I had supposed that the continued existence of the Church, 
 with all the offices created by Christ, was dependent upon Sis 
 Witt, and not upon the personal virtues or vices of individuals. 
 It may be, that though our Lord did promise to protect the 
 Church against the gates of hell, He did not mean to bind Him- 
 self to protect her against the gates of men. I had thought 
 that both the creation of the office of Pope, and the consequent 
 continuance of the same, depended upon the will of the Founder 
 of the institution, and not upon the will of men. 
 
 I am aware that inferior corporations, which are but the 
 creatures of statutory enactments, may forfeit their charters by 
 nonuser or misuser ; because such is a part of the law of their 
 creation. The misuser is the act of the controlling majority of 
 the stockholders, and is, therefore, the act of all. 
 
 But this doctrine cannot apply to governments. Political 
 governments may be changed at the pleasure of the founders ; 
 but the act of making such change is the act of the sovereign 
 power. If it should happen that the President should commit 
 treason, this would only forfeit his right to fill the office, but 
 the office itself would remain unimpaired. The office was not 
 created by him was not his work was made by the Nation, 
 and the Nation alone can unmake or destroy. If twenty Presi- 
 dents in succession were to commit all the crimes possible, the 
 office would still remain. The People might be induced to 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CEKTAIN TOPES. 381 
 
 change the form of the government, but such change would be 
 their act, not the act of these Presidents. 
 
 And is it not so with the Church ? The Church is not an 
 inferior corporation, but a supreme government. Christ is the 
 head and founder of this kingdom, with subordinate officers 
 under Him. These offices were created by His act, and cannot 
 be destroyed by the vices of subordinates. The office of Pope, 
 if established at all, was created for some great and beneficial 
 purpose. The Christians of all ages are equally entitled to 
 these benefits, as subjects of the kingdom. They cannot be de- 
 prived of them by the personal vices of preceding Popes. It 
 would be unjust that they should. If Christ had been a mere 
 fallible lawgiver, and had made a mistake in creating the office, 
 He might be induced to abolish it ; but having had an eye, as 
 Mr. C. justly says, to all the future in all He did, such a suppo- 
 sition cannot be indulged. 
 
 And the idea that a perpetual office, created by Christ Him- 
 self, in His own Church, against which the gates of hell shall 
 never prevail, could be abolished by the vices of individual in- 
 cumbents, is a supposition too hard for me to understand. If 
 that office could be abolished by the vices of incumbents, every 
 other office in the Church could be destroyed in the same way, 
 and unless re-established by Christ, the Church itself must fail, 
 as no institution can exist without offices. And if the Church 
 is to be considered as an inferior corporation, and the office of 
 Pope could be destroyed, then the whole corporation must 
 fall. For such inferior corporations, by nonuser or misuser, do 
 not forfeit the right to a particular office, but they forfeit 
 their entire existence. The law would hardly mutilate and 
 cripple the corporation, and still expect it, after thus being 
 maimed, to perform the functions it failed to do, when whole 
 and entire. 
 
 In every view in which this summary position may be 
 considered, it certainly is an extreme assumption. That 
 Christ should organize an institution and create offices so per- 
 fectly defective that they may be entirely abrogated by in- 
 dividuals, is a position, I apprehend, too sophistical to be enter- 
 tamed. 
 
 The whole force of the argument against the existence of 
 
382 CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 the Papacy, upon the ground of the personal delinquencies of 
 individual Popes, at intervals in the long line of succession, is 
 based upon the essential error of confounding individual acts 
 with official duties. It is true, that a man may be a good 
 officer, and a bad man. And it is also conceded, that a bad 
 man is not so apt to be a good officer, as a good man. Official 
 errors may be wilful, or mistaken. When mistaken, they are 
 just as apt to be the act of a good as a bad man. 
 
 This distinction between personal and official conduct, I find 
 admitted by most Protestant writers on some occasions, and 
 then practically denied by the same individual on others. We 
 have seen the admissions of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Rice, when 
 arguing against each other. But when Mr. C. was debating 
 with Bishop Purcell, he had not then discovered that Caiaphas 
 could be a very good high-priest, though a bad man. Time 
 improved his views. 
 
 This confusion of personal with official capacity, is supported 
 by plausible cases, that are put forth with apparent earnestness, 
 and seem to be believed by those who use them. If not be- 
 lieved, then they were guilty of fraud, in so using them. Cer- 
 tainly an honest theologian will not knowingly use delusive ar- 
 guments. He may be mistaken. He could not be wilfully 
 guilty. 
 
 The case usually put, I find used by Mr. Breckenridge, who 
 seems to have been in earnest, as it was written, not spoken, by 
 him. He says : 
 
 " The moral of 4 bad man and good Pope ' reminds us of the 
 Archbishop (he was also a prince) who swore profanely in the 
 presence of a peasant; the peasant exclaimed, with surprise, 
 4 Archbishop, do you swear ? ' ' No,' he replied, 4 1 swear as a 
 prince.' ' Then,' said the peasant, ' when Satan comes for the 
 prince, what will become of the Archbishop?'" (Con. H. & 
 B., 65.) 
 
 This supposititious case is an instance of the mere play upon 
 words. By a very artful arrangement, the most clear and mani- 
 fest distinctions are confounded. The swearing was tlu act of 
 the individual ; and however often Satan might come for the per- 
 son called Archbishop, he would never get him until he died ; 
 
CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 333 
 
 and then, I apprehend, he would leave the office behind him ; 
 and being no longer Archbishop, Satan would only get the in- 
 dividual, after all. 
 
 When an officer fails to use his legitimate powers in proper 
 cases, or when he abuses or perverts them, or usurps powers 
 not belonging to the office, then he is a bad officer. His per- 
 sonal sins may injure his official usefulness indirectly, by reason 
 of the destruction of confidence in his official conduct. But in 
 the contemplation of the theory they are distinct, and are so, in 
 point of fact, in many cases. Official delinquency does not ne- 
 cessarily, though very apt to, follow from personal vices. The 
 reason of this is plain. Men have different views of things, and 
 there is a difference in criminality in different acts. A man may 
 commit one class, and not the other. All men commit some 
 sins ; and yet there are sins that few will commit. A man may 
 be guilty of many personal sins, and yet regard his official obli- 
 gations as sacred, because he considers that his personal vices 
 affect himself mostly, while his official misconduct would affect 
 others. And when we assume that the official acts of a wicked 
 clergyman are void, we certainly go beyond the truth. I knew 
 a most eminent preacher, who baptized many persons into Mr. 
 C.'s church, who has fallen away in California, giving pretty 
 conclusive evidence that he never was sincere. Was the 
 baptism administered by him void, in the contemplation 
 of Mr. Campbell's theory ? Or was the truth proclaimed 
 by him, void, because falling from his lips ? Is the true coin 
 vitiated, simply because it has passed through the hands of a 
 rogue ? 
 
 This supposititious case is about as plausible, but strictly as 
 irrelevant, as the argument by which the slave discomfited his 
 master. The slave was a Baptist, and the master a Methodist. 
 ; ' Massa, do you read de Scriptur ?" " Yes I do, Jim." "Den 
 you read of John de Baptist ? " " Yes I do." " But do you 
 read of John de Methodist ? " The master was silent. 
 
 I found in Protestant works many arguments of a similar 
 character. To the important question, "Where was your 
 Church before the days of Luther ? " it has been flippantly 
 asked in reply, " Where were you before I washed your face ? " 
 
 This was in character with the reply of a man who waa 
 
384: CHARGES AGAINST CERTAIN POPES. 
 
 mildly reproved by a sincere Baptist minister for profane swear- 
 ing. " My dear sir, there is no difference between us. I swear, 
 and mean no harm by it ; and you pray, and mean no good by 
 it." Of course, the minister had no reply to make to such a 
 false assumption of fact. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 WHAT HAVE BEEN THE EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYS- 
 TEM, IN THOSE MEMBERS WHO HAVE FAITHFULLY 
 REDUCED ITS TEACHINGS TO PRACTICE? 
 
 1. The saints have been found in the Catholic Church. 
 
 IN estimating the effects of any system of religion, the only 
 fair and just method would seem to be, to take those who hum- 
 bly receive, and faithfully reduce to practice, its faith and mor- 
 als, in their true spirit, as taught by the Church herself. It is 
 surely true, that individuals, under all systems, will err and come 
 short of their duty. But after making a fair allowance for these 
 cases, which no system can prevent, then take the best members 
 of each communion, and see which has produced the greater 
 number of saints, those noble and heroic souls, whose piety 
 most resembles the spirit and acts of the early Church. 
 
 What was Christianity in the beginning ? What works 
 what sacrifices were then required of Christians? How did 
 they bear themselves to the Church, to each other, and to the 
 world ? And was not Christianity intended as an unchangeable 
 system? As it was in the beginning, should it be now, hence- 
 forward and forever ? Is man the same still an inhabitant of 
 the same world still bound to die and still aspiring to the 
 same heaven ? If so, Christianity must be still the same re- 
 quiring the same humility the same devotion the same pa- 
 tience the same charity. 
 
 In considering this subject, there is a very remarkable fact, 
 that all the saints who are recorded as such in the Calendar of 
 34 
 
386 EFI-T.CT3 OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 the Church of England, with one exception, and in whose name 
 their churches are dedicated, lived and died strict members of 
 the Catholic Church, and earnestly attached to her doctrines 
 and discipline. " For example," says Dr. Milner, " in this cal- 
 endar we meet with a Pope Gregory, March 12th, the zealous 
 assertor of the Papal Supremacy, and other Catholic doctrines ; 
 a St. Benedict, March 21, the Patriarch of the Western Monks 
 and ISTuns ; a St. Dunstan, May 19, the vindicator of clerical cel- 
 ibacy ; a St. Augustine, Of Canterbury, May 26, the introducer 
 of the whole system of Catholicity in England ; and a venerable 
 Bede, May 27, the witness of this important fact. It is sufficient 
 to mention the names of other Catholic saints, for example, 
 David, Chad, Edward, Richard, Elphege, Martin, Swithun, 
 Giles, Lambert, Leonard, Hugh, Etheldreda, Remigius, and Ed- 
 mund ; all of which are inserted in the Calendar, and give names 
 to some of the other churches of the establishment. Besides 
 these, there are many of our other saints whom all learned and 
 candid Protestants unequivocally admit to have been such, for 
 the extraordinary purity and sanctity of their lives. Even Luther 
 acknowledges St. Anthony, St. Bernard, St. Dominic, St. Fran- 
 cis, St. Boneventure, &c., to have been saints, though avowed 
 Catholics, and defenders of the Catholic Church against the her 
 etics and schismatics of their times. But independently of this 
 and of every other testimony, it is certain that the supernatural 
 virtues and heroical sanctity of a countless number of holy per- 
 sonages of different countries, ranks, professions, and sexes, have 
 illustrated the Catholic Church, in every age, with an effulgence 
 which cannot be disputed or withstood. Your friends, I dare 
 say, are not much acquainted with the histories of these bright- 
 est ornaments of Christianity ; let me then invite them to peruse 
 them, not in the legends of obsolete writers, but in a work 
 which, for its various learning and luminous criticism, was com- 
 mended even by the infidel Gibbon ; I mean The Lives of Saints, 
 in twelve octavo volumes, written by the late Rev. Alban But- 
 ler, President of St. Omer's College. Protestants are accus- 
 tomed to paint, in the most frightful colors, the alleged deprav- 
 ity of the Church when Luther erected his standard, in order 
 to justify him and their followers, in their defection from it. But 
 to form a right judgment in this case, let them read the works 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 387 
 
 of the contemporary writers, an a Kempis, a Grisan, and Anto- 
 nius, &c., or let them peruse the lives of St. Vincent Ferrer, St. 
 Lawrence Justinian, St. Francis Paula, St. Philip Neri, St. Caje- 
 tan, St. Teresa, St. Francis Xaverius, and of those other saints 
 who illuminated the Church about the period in question. Or 
 let them, from the very accounts of Protestant historians, com- 
 pare as to religion and morality, Archbishop Cranmer with his 
 rival bishop Fisher ; Protector Seymour with Chancellor More;* 
 Anne Boleyn with Catharine of Arragon ; Martin Luther and 
 Calvin with Francis Xaverius and Cardinal Pole ; Beza with St. 
 Francis of Sales ; Queen Elizabeth with Mary Queen of Scots ; 
 these contrasted characters having more or less relation with 
 each other. From such a comparison, I have no sort of doubt 
 what the decision of your friends will be concerning them, in 
 point of their respective holiness." (End of Con., Let. xxi.) f 
 
 2. Character of the Reformers. 
 
 It is not my purpose, as the limits of my work would not al- 
 low me, to enter into a minute and full investigation of the char- 
 acter of the principal agents in bringing about the so-called Re- 
 formation, in point of that holiness, humility, and gentleness re- 
 quired by Christianity. I can only refer to the works of Dr. 
 Milner and others, who have treated this subject at large. I 
 gave the question the best examination that I could do under 
 the circumstances, and I must say, that the result was the con- 
 viction in my own mind, that the Reformers were not the best 
 
 * In reference to the great Sir Thomas More, Thompson has these beautiful 
 and just lines : 
 
 " Like Cato firm, like Aristides just, 
 Like rigid Cincinnatus, nobly poor, 
 A. dauntless soul, erect, who smiled on death." 
 
 f The only one of the Reformers recorded as a saint in the calendar of the 
 Church of England, is King Charles I., in reference to whom Dr. Milner says : 
 
 " I must except King Charles I., who is rubricated as a martyr on January 
 30 : nevertheless, it is confessed that he was far from possessing either the purity 
 of a saint, or the constancy of a martyr ; for he actually gave up Episcopacy and 
 other essentials of the established religion, by his last treaty in the Isle of Wight." 
 (Note to Let. xxi.) 
 
 His name, I believe, has, by a late command of the Queen, been stricken 
 from the calendar. 
 
388 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 models of Christian virtue. It seemed to me as. an eminently 
 just sentiment, that men who assumed to reform the entire 
 Church should have been the best models of piety. The apostles 
 were so. 
 
 But I could not find in the lives, conduct, or language of the 
 early Reformers, any prominent and continued displays of thai 
 humility and disregard of self, which surely do constitute the most 
 conclusive tests of personal piety, of the first order. I was much 
 struck, upon my first examination, with the remark of Dr. Milner, 
 that we had not the same reason to expect the same amount of 
 personal virtue in those officers who follow one another by suc- 
 cession as we had in Reformers. The account given by the 
 Duchess of York, of her own conversion, is one of the most 
 beautiful and simple statements I have anywhere met, and made 
 a deep impression upon my mind when I first read it. It bears 
 upon its face the sure marks of sincerity. It is found entire in 
 the Duke of Brunswick's Fifty Reasons. This eminent lady 
 says, among other things : " And first I do protest, in the pres- 
 ence of Almighty God, that no person, man or woman, directly 
 or indirectly, ever said any thing to me, (since I came out of 
 England,) or used the least endeavor to make me change my 
 religion. It is a blessing I wholly owe to Almighty God ; and, 
 I hope, the hearing of a prayer I daily made him, ever since I 
 was in France and Flanders. Where, seeing much of the de- 
 votion of Catholics, (though I had very little myself,) I made 
 it my continual request to Almighty God, that if I was not, I 
 might, before I died, be in the TKUE religion. I did not in the 
 least doubt but that I was so, and never had any manner of scru- 
 ple until November last, when I read a book called 'the history 
 of the Reformation, by Dr. Heylen,' which I had heard very 
 much commended, and had been told if ever I had any doubt in 
 my religion, that would settle me. Instead of which I found it the 
 description of the most horrid sacrileges in the world ; and could 
 find no reason why he left the church, but for these, the most 
 abominable ones that were ever heard of among Christians : 
 First, Henry VIII. renounces the Pope's authority because he 
 would not give him leave to part with his wife, and marry an- 
 other in her lifetime. Secondly, Edward VI. was a child, and 
 was governed by. his uncle, who made his estate out of church 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 389 
 
 lands. And thirdly, Queen Elizabeth, who, not being lawful 
 heiress to the crown, could have no way to keep it but by re- 
 nouncing a church that could never suffer so unlawful a thing to 
 be done by one of ner children. I confess I cannot think that 
 the Holy Ghost could ever be in SUCH counsels ; and it is very 
 strange, that if the bishops had no design (as they say) but re- 
 storing to us the doctrine of the primitive church, they should 
 never think upon it till Henry VIII. made the breach, upon so 
 unlawful a pretence." This lady afterwards says, in another 
 place : " After this I spoke severally to two of the best bishops 
 we have in England, both of whom told me there were many 
 things in the Roman church which it were much to be wished 
 we had kept, as confession which was no doubt commanded by 
 God. That praying for the dead was one of the ancient things 
 in Christianity : that, for their parts, they did it daily, though 
 they would not own it ; and, afterwards, pressing one of them 
 very much upon the other points, he told me that if he had been 
 a Catholic, he would not change his religion ; but being of an- 
 other church, wherein he was sure were all things necessary to 
 salvation, he thought it very ill to give scandal by leaving that 
 church wherein he received his baptism." The prelates referred 
 to were Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Blandford, 
 Bishop of Worcester. 
 
 In my examination of the history of the Reformation, I be- 
 came satisfied that if we exclude from our consideration the 
 opinions and conclusions of the most candid Protestant histori- 
 ans of the Reformation, and confine our attention to the main 
 and undeniable facts they themselves record, and from these 
 facts and our knowledge of men and things their motives, 
 passions, and actions we will be forced to draw these conclu- 
 sions: 1. That ambition, love of wealth, and thirst for distinc 
 tion, had more to do with that event than religion itself. 2. That 
 the bishops and clergy who joined the Reformation generally 
 followed the lead of others, and very seldom went before. 
 
 If we look to England, for instance, we shall find, that of 
 all the English bishops in the time of Henry VIII., the ven- 
 erable Fisher was the only one who loved his religion well 
 enough to die for it that even when the clergy, either during 
 his reign or afterwards, remonstrated against and opposed the 
 
390 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 proposed changes, their scruples were almost always overcome, 
 and they seldom resisted unto death. And if we look to the 
 continent, the same general result will follow. Luther, Melane- 
 thon, Bucer and others, granted the Landgrave of Hesse a dis- 
 pensation to marry another wife, while he did not even put 
 away the first. But when Henry VIII., who had been a zealous 
 defender of the Pope, solicited a dispensation to put away his 
 wife, and marry another, the Pope refused. And to the firm- 
 ness of the Pontiff in resisting such a demand, is the success of 
 the Reformation in England mainly to be attributed. 
 
 But if we also take in connection the Catholic historians of 
 that day, and put them also, side by side with the Protestant, 
 and take the great leading facts recorded by both, or sufficiently 
 proved by one, when either omitted or denied by the other, 
 there can be but little doubt, it occurs to me, as to the conclu- 
 sion that must follow. 
 
 3. The Catholic clergy make much greater sacrifices than the 
 Protestant. 
 
 But I did not confine my attention alone to the conduct of 
 both parties during the progress of the Reformation, in estimating 
 the effects of the two systems. I looked also to general causes. 
 
 I found, upon examination, that the Catholic clergy made 
 far greater personal and worldly sacrifices than the Protestant. 
 They dedicate themselves to the ministry exclusively they give 
 up all temporal hopes they debar themselves from marriage 
 they come under the commands of superiors they go to the 
 uttermost bounds of the earth when required and they dedi- 
 cate their whole lives to the single performance of their duties. 
 The Catholic clergy look upon celibacy, when voluntary and for 
 the greater glory of God, as a higher state than matrimony, and 
 that this is revealed in Scripture. For Christ did say : 
 
 " Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for forni- 
 cation, and shall marry another, committeth adultery ; and who- 
 so marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery. His 
 disciples say unto him, If the ca-se of the man be so with his 
 wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All 
 men cannot receive thig saying save they to whom it is given. 
 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their 
 
EFFECTS OF THK CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 391 
 
 mother's womb ; and there are some eunuchs, which were made 
 eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made them- 
 selves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He that is 
 able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. xix. 9-12.) The 
 Catholic translation has it " all men do not." And Catholic 
 writers insist that the Protestant is a plain mistranslation. But 
 it does not seem to me that the sense is at all affected. It re- 
 mains the same with either translation. 
 
 From this extract there would seem to follow certain plain 
 conclusions : 1. That there were two classes of persons men- 
 tioned by our Lord. 2. That the saying prohibiting a man 
 from putting away his wife, except for the cause stated, did not 
 apply to one of these classes. 3. That this excepted class was 
 the class mentioned in the second instance ; and that such per- 
 sons were allowed to put away their wives without any such 
 misconduct on their part as that mentioned. 
 
 The Christian, like other systems of law, has- provisions, both 
 mandatory and prohibitory. Whatever, therefore, is not pro- 
 hibited, may be done under any code. This provision of the 
 law is prohibitory, not mandatory. It says you must not do a 
 specified act, except for the cause mentioned. This provision 
 then only applies to the class to whom it was given ; and, there- 
 fore, leaves out the excepted class, who do not come within the 
 prohibition. The excepted class, not being prohibited from 
 doing the act specified, are not controlled by this provision, and 
 we must look to other portions of the law that apply, either spe- 
 cially to this excepted class, or to all classes, which of course 
 would include this. We must give all the provisions their full, but 
 harmonious force. They must stand and operate together, as the 
 intention of the Divine Lawmaker could not have been confused. 
 
 It is clear that eunuchs, being the excepted class, could put 
 away their wives without the misconduct mentioned. And if 
 the first two classes of eunuchs could do so, the third class could 
 also. If, then, a man makes himself chaste for the kingdom of 
 heaven's sake, and puts away his wife with her free consent, 
 when given under proper circumstances, does he not fill the 
 character spoken of by Christ ? Does he violate that saying of 
 our Lord, given in the ninth verse ? And does he, by this act, 
 violate any other prohibitory provision of the law ? If so, why 
 did Christ make him one of the excepted class ? 
 
392 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC 
 
 But this question arises : If the man who makes himself 
 chaste for the kingdom of heaven's sake, may put away his wife 
 without the general cause mentioned, may he not also marry 
 another, as no part of the prohibition applies to him ? I appre- 
 hend not. He belongs to the excepted class, because he makes 
 himself chaste from the motive stated ; and by marrying another 
 wife, he ceases to be chaste, at once forfeits his claim to be one 
 of the excepted class, and thus comes properly within the prohi- 
 bition. But it may be asked : If a man in the case supposed, 
 can put away his wife with her consent, why cannot he do so 
 without her consent, if it be true that this prohibition does not 
 apply to him ? Because, to put her away without her consent, 
 would be a violation of those general principles of the law 
 which apply to all classes, including this excepted class. For 
 whether we regard marriage as a contract, or both as a sacra- 
 ment and a contract, its duties cannot be avoided in the case 
 mentioned, without the mutual consent of both parties. Their 
 first engagement is to each other ; and the law of Christ does 
 not require or permit us to violate our honest and lawful en- 
 gagements, to fill a mere counsel of perfection. And the same 
 general principle would prevent the separation of husband and 
 wife, even when they had given their mutual consent from mo- 
 tives of piety, if it would materially interfere with the discharge 
 of their duties to their children or other dependents. 
 
 Unless the passage has this meaning, I cannot understand it 
 to mean any thing. That Christ does lay down the general 
 rule in the ninth verse, is not only clear from the general lan- 
 guage used, but from the nature of the subject matter itself, and 
 that He intends an exception to that rule in the twelfth verse, 
 would seem to be plain, for He says expressly, " all men cannot 
 receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." It could 
 not, then, have been given to all / and those to whom it was 
 not given, were certainly excepted. 
 
 Now were those who made themselves eunuchs [chaste] for 
 the kingdom of heaven's sake, to blame for doing so, or were 
 they worthy of commendation, in the eye of Christ ? It would 
 seem clear, that they were either blamable or commendable for 
 the act, and that it could not be merely indifferent. And that 
 this act was commendable seems clear, not only from the fact 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 393 
 
 that Christ mentions it without censure, but because the privi- 
 lege of putting away the wife, without the cause mentioned, wa& 
 extended to them, as well as the other kind of eunuchs spoken 
 of. The language of our Lord in the twenty-seventh verse, that 
 those who forsake wives shall receive certain rewards, makes 
 His meaning still more clear. By putting these considerations 
 together, the intent of our Lord to place celibacy above mar- 
 riage, as a more holy state, would seem to be undoubted. 
 
 But when we take the language of St. Paul in connection 
 with that of Christ, the intention would seem to be plain. For 
 the apostle, in the fifteenth chapter of his first Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, certainly does place celibacy above marriage, as a 
 more holy state. The only doubt as to the sentiments of St. 
 Paul regards the question whether his recommendation was 
 temporary or continuing. Whatever Christ intended could not 
 have been temporary, but continuing ; for it is given in a form 
 as permanent as the general rule itself, that a man shall not put 
 away his wife, save for the cause stated. So, if the general rule 
 be permanent, the exception is also permanent, for no distinction 
 is made between them in this respect. 
 
 If the language of our Lord, and that of St. Paul, relate to 
 the same matter, they both must be of the same import, and, 
 therefore, are either both temporary, or both continuing. It is 
 true, the apostle says in the twenty-sixth verse : 
 
 " I suppose therefore that this is good for the present dis- 
 tress. I say that it is good for a man so to be." 
 
 Now did this verse apply to aU the preceding matters in 
 this chapter ? If not, to what portion ? Many things are stated 
 in preceding verses, and to which of them did the apostle refer? 
 My own impression is, that he intended it as a limitation to the 
 wish expressed in the seventh verse : " I would that all men 
 were even as I myself." 
 
 But after the statement made in the twenty- sixth verse, and 
 TV hen he seems to speak of the two states generally r , without re- 
 gard to time, he says : " He that is unmarried careth for the 
 things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord : 
 but he that is married careth for the things of the world, how 
 he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a 
 wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things 
 35 " 
 
3i EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit : but 
 she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she 
 may please her husband." 
 
 If the apostle intended his recommendation as only tem- 
 porary, and not continuing beyond the then " present distress," 
 he gave, it would seem, some most illogical reasons for it rea- 
 sons that apply to all time, in support of a mere temporary mat- 
 ter. But these reasons are of such a character, that it seems 
 impossible that they could be intended to apply to a mere tern- 
 porary recommendation, arising solely from the then present 
 circumstances. For the apostle speaks of virgins being " holy 
 both in body and spirit / " and holiness in both these respects, 
 could not be possessed by the married woman. And is it not 
 clear, that holiness in both body and spirit, must be superior to 
 holiness in spirit only ? The apostle does say most distinctly, 
 44 there is a difference between a wife and a virgin," and he does 
 make this difference consist in the virgin being " holy both m 
 body and spirit," while the married woman was not holy in 
 both these respects, but only in one. And as there was an ex- 
 press difference, it was in favor of the virgin. And if this be 
 so, was there not good reason why this superior holiness should 
 be recommended by St. Paul for all coming time ? Or did the 
 apostle mean to say, that the virgin was holy both in body and 
 spirit only during the then present distress ? 
 
 I must confess, I cannot understand him as giving permanent 
 reasons for a temporary matter ; for permanent reasons cannot, 
 with any sort of truth or consistency, be given in such cases. 
 Temporary matters must arise from temporary causes. That 
 permanent causes could produce mere temporary effects, would 
 seem clearly erroneous. If a temporary practice is intended to 
 be inculcated, there can be no force in permanent reasons, when 
 applied to such a case. There is no connection between the 
 cause and the assumed effect. The answer of a witness must be 
 responsive to the question propounded; and the effect must 
 legitimately flow from the cause, and be as consistent with it as 
 the stream is to its fountain.* 
 
 * The following beautiful testimony to celibacy is from the late work of Dr. 
 Schaff, a distinguished Protestant divine, not less remarkable for his learning 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 395 
 
 4. The same subject continued. 
 
 But the Catholic clergy not only make greater sacrifices 
 than the Protestant in giving up so many privileges dear to hu- 
 man nature, and so highly esteemed by Protestant clergymen 
 generally ; but they take upon themselves a ministry far more 
 laborious, painful, and hazardous. They have the preaching of 
 the gospel to do as well as the Protestant ; and besides this, 
 they have, in addition, other duties to perform, still more ardu- 
 ous. The discipline of the Church to which they belong is far more 
 rig'id and strict than that of the Protestant, and far more rigidly 
 executed and enforced. For the Catholic clergyman is not only 
 under the strict supervision of his superior, but he is bound by 
 his vows to perform his duty regularly. 
 
 As Christ enjoins constant prayer, the Church requires all 
 her clergy, from the sub-deacon to the Pope, daily to say the 
 Seven Canonical Hours, consisting chiefly of Scriptural Psalms 
 and Lessons, which take up in the recital near an hour and a 
 half, in addition to their other devotions. In reference to 
 fasting, the Church of England in her Homily iv. uses this lan- 
 guage : " That we ought to fast is a truth too manifest to stand 
 in need of any proof." In pursuance of this sentiment, that 
 
 than for his love of antiquity, and for his temperate sentiments respecting the 
 Reformation : 
 
 " To Paul, who spent his life in missionary travel, and who was exposed to 
 all privations, hardships, and persecutions, the married state, with its temporal 
 cares, and all sorts of personal matters of attention, must have seemed rather a 
 hinderance to the fulfilment of his apostolic calling, and the single state more fa- 
 vorable to his activity in the service of his Redeemer. With him celibacy was 
 actually an elevation above all earthly cares, an entire devotion to the purest love 
 and the holiest interests, in anticipation of the vita Angelica. And who will deny 
 that such cases repeatedly occur ? Who does not know that the voluntary celi- 
 oacy of so many self denying missionaries, especially in times of wild barbarism 
 and dissolution, as at the entrance of the Middle Ages, was, in the hand of God, 
 a great blessing, in mightily promoting the spread of the Gospel among the rude 
 nations, and under numberless privations. Here Christianity deviated from the 
 old Jewish view, in which celibacy was a disgrace and a curse ; it can transform 
 this state into a charm, and use it for its own ends. Without the knowledge of 
 the peculiar value and manifold benefits of this virginity, which grew out of un- 
 reserved enthusiasm for Christ and his Gospel, it is impossible properly to under- 
 stand the history of the Church, especially before the Reformation." 
 
396 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 church enjoins in her Common Prayer Book the same days of 
 fasting and abstinence with the Catholic Church; that is to 
 say, the forty days of Lent, the Emby days, all the Fridays in 
 the year, &G. But who observes these rules ? Who keeps 
 these days ? And where is the Protestant, to be found who imi- 
 tates the example of Old Paul and the early Church, in their 
 frequent fastings ? And after all the ridicule which has been, 
 or can be, thrown upon the practice of fasting, is it not founded 
 in apostolic practice, in reason, truth, and right ? Is it not bene- 
 ficial, in and of itself? Is not man a creature that needs 
 discipline at every step of his existence ? Does he not need a 
 trial a test a sacrifice at all times ? If he never could for- 
 get his duty his dependence his end; in other words, if he 
 was perfect without the use of discipline, it might not be so. 
 And if the practice was not eminently beneficial, why did the 
 early Church observe it so much ? There must have been some 
 good reason for such a practice, in that day of light, certainty, 
 and devotion. 
 
 Among the regular and painful duties of the Catholic clergy- 
 man, may be mentioned that of hearing confessions. This duty 
 requires much time, labor, patience, study, and attention, as 
 well as the qualities of clear discrimination and mild firmness. 
 Those outside the Church hardly can know how great the labor 
 of the Confessional is, and the amount of true patience required 
 to discharge well its delicate and important duties. The Con- 
 fessor must not only hear the narration of the vices and sins of 
 each individual those painful errors so humiliating to human 
 nature but he must suggest a remedy for the ten thousand dis- 
 eases of distressed souls, who tell their sins, their mistakes, 
 and their shortcomings to him. He has to deal with every vari- 
 ety of character and disposition the selfish the obstinate the 
 reckless the passionate the wayward the idle the over- 
 scrupulous the imaginative and the timid. In short, with 
 every variety of character, from the repentant criminal to the 
 humble saint. That such duties are onerous and painful, as 
 well as laborious and responsible, would seem to require no 
 proof with the sensible and reflective mind. 
 
 But the most painful and arduous, because the most irregular, 
 the most sudden and dangerous, of the duties of the Catholic cler 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYeTEM. 397 
 
 gy, is the sick call. However poor, destitute, and unworthy the 
 sick person may be, it is the imperative duty of the priest to go 
 and see him. There can be no excuse short of the most insur- 
 mountable obstacle. The poor dying soul has a right to the last 
 sacraments of the Church. And the priest must go. It dees 
 not matter what may be the personal danger or inconvenience 
 to himself, he must go. Through the darkness of midnight, be- 
 neath the withering summer's sun, or facing the scathing blasts 
 of winter, through storm and calm, he must go. And when the 
 pestilence and famine rage, 
 
 " When nature sickens, and each gale is death," 
 
 he must still go. He has undertaken a sacred duty, and has 
 pledged his life to it. It must be discharged. He professed 
 himself a true under-shepherd of the flock, not a hireling, and 
 he must lay down his life for the sheep, and not desert his flock 
 in the hour of danger. His rigid Church permits no recreancy 
 in the discharge of such a trust. He cannot flee. He must 
 stand and die in the deadly breach. Did he not deliberately 
 and voluntarily undertake to drink this cup, and must he not 
 drink it ? In this ministry he meets with tears, and groans, and 
 agonies. He has no smile to greet him, but the sweet smile 
 upon the lips of the departing saint. 
 
 But besides these sacrifices and labors, the whole spirit of 
 the Catholic system tends to merge the importance of individ- 
 uals in that of the Church. She is every thing individual 
 fame and importance, comparatively, nothing. The Catholic 
 clergyman knows that the important functions performed by 
 him, are equally performed by others. He knows that the very 
 vestments he wears, while performing his official duties, belong 
 not to him, but to the Church. The only advantage he can 
 gain over others, is in the more faithful discharge of his duties ; 
 and this can only be attained by increased labor and devotion. 
 
 Before he becomes a minister in the Catholic Church, if he 
 is proud and vain of his own personal qualities and appearance, 
 he had better not enter her ministry, if he expects to indulge 
 these passions ; for he will find himself checked and mortified 
 at every step. If he has not the faith and moral nerve to face 
 death deliberately in the discharge of his duty, at every step, 
 
398 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 when required, he had better desist. If he is self-willed, head- 
 strong, obstinate, and fond of flattery, he had better not go 
 there. If he is like Demosthenes, whose brilliant orations only 
 elicited one response from the Athenians, " Let us rise and march 
 against Philip ; " but who, when Philip and his armies appeared, 
 was among the first to flee, he had better not undertake the 
 daily sacrifices to be found in this laborious and devoted min- 
 istry. 
 
 These sacrifices, labors, and dangers, are more conclusive evi- 
 dences of deep and abiding faith and devotion, than all the elo- 
 quent discourses ever delivered. These are the decisive tests 
 that cannot be disputed. They are simple, practical, and cer- 
 tain. In vain may the motives of such men be assailed. Such 
 grapes do not grow upon thorns. Men do not voluntarily live 
 poor, work hard, and die willingly, from improper motives. And 
 when I see the Catholic clergy always at their posts, ready to 
 die with the members of their suffering flocks, and so many of 
 them thus falling martyrs to their duty, while so many Protes- 
 tant clergymen, (with some noble exceptions,) so promptly act- 
 ing upon that saying, " A wise man foreseeth the evil, and fleeth 
 therefrom," I cannot but draw the conclusion that there is, and 
 must be, some great radical difference in the two theories. One 
 seems studiously adapted to keep alive and perpetuate the apos- 
 tolic spirit of self-abnegation, while the other is as studiously 
 adapted to suppress it. 
 
 If an aspirant to the Protestant ministry be self-willed, and 
 fond of his own opinions, among the five hundred sects in Prot- 
 estant Christendom, he will be very apt to find one to suit him ; 
 but if not, he can organize a new sect to suit himself, and the 
 older Protestant sects cannot consistently assail him upon the 
 ground of innovation. If they do, he has ample materials for 
 refutation and triumph. Let him join which one lie will, he is 
 ( free to settle where he pleases, and to stipulate for his salary. 
 If he be a man of talents, and a popular speaker, he can obtain 
 a much larger salary. The matter rests with him and the par- 
 ticular congregation. The church does not interfere. If he be 
 ambitious, and fond of public meetings, the oflices of the coun- 
 try are open to him, and hence we find them in our Legislative 
 halls, both State and Federal. 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 399 
 
 In short, the Protestant clergyman preaches as long as he 
 pleases to whom he pleases and if the ministerial duties do 
 n )t please him, and any thing preferable should offer, he is at 
 liberty to lay aside the clerical profession at his own election. 
 He lives as well, dresses as well, has all the comforts of horne,| 
 wife, children, and friends ; for the Protestant clergy, taken as 
 a class, enjoy as many of the comforts of life as lawyers, physi- 
 cians, and other professional men, while their labors are not more 
 arduous, if so much so. In short, they have all the privileges 
 of their lay brethren, and are required to make no more sacri- 
 fices. Such are the general facts with reference to the general 
 Protestant ministerial theory. But there are some exceptions 
 in reference to a portion of these particulars, in some of the 
 Protestant Churches. The Methodist clergy are under a more 
 rigid discipline than those of other Protestant sects. There may 
 be other exceptions as to some other parties. 
 
 These characteristics of the Protestant ministry have made 
 it a mere profession, sought as a means of making a living, like 
 other professions, in too many cases. It is a profession lucrative 
 to some, and comfortable to the great majority. It is true, that 
 the great majority of Protestant ministers cannot hope, if they 
 wished, to make a fortune ; but it is equally true that the great 
 majority of every calling and profession cannot expect to grow 
 rich ; and that most men are well satisfied if they enjoy the or- 
 dinary comforts of life, without being rich. And it is very nat- 
 ural that a theory of Christian ministry which requires very few, 
 if any sacrifices, affords comfortable livings, and imposes only 
 moderate labor, must necessarily contain a greater number of 
 venal and unworthy ministers. 
 
 Is it, then, at all surprising, that in the hour of extreme dan- 
 ger, when the rigid test of acts, and not of words, is applied, so 
 many Protestant ministers flee from their flocks, and leave them 
 to take care of themselves ? that when the sickly season ap- 
 proaches in New Orleans, the eloquent Mr. , the power- 
 ful Mr. , and the declamatory Mr. , should leave 
 
 their flocks for a pleasure trip to the North, and return with re- 
 turning frosts in the fall ? or that so many should have left Nor- 
 folk during the prevalence of the yellow fever there ? 
 
400 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 5. The piety of the different orders of the Church. 
 
 But in addition to the sacrifices made by the regular clergy 
 of the Catholic Church, those made by the numerous orders in 
 her communion constitute the most conclusive tests of faith and 
 humility. For after all the ridicule and contempt that has been, 
 or can be, poured out upon these orders ; and after all the cal- 
 umnies and aspersions that have been heaped upon them ; and 
 after all the occasional vices of individual members ; and despite 
 all the envy and misrepresentation of their enemies, the sublime, 
 simple, and inflexible fact will stand apparent^ that they do 
 make sacrifices, and exhibit proofs of devotion, that their ene- 
 mies cannot reach. And if there be truth in Christianity, there 
 is something beautiful and holy in the example of an humble fol- 
 lower of a rneek Saviour, voluntarily giving up all earthly pur- 
 suits and enjoyments, and dedicating his whole life to the entire 
 service of the crucified Redeemer. Like the poor widow men- 
 tioned by our Lord as casting all she had into the treasury, and 
 so much commended by Him, the act of giving up all for Chiist 
 is the most conclusive test of abiding faith in the truth of His 
 sublime system. One such example is worth more than the ex- 
 ample of a thousand frigid Christians. And such a dedication 
 is but the legitimate and logical result of a full, firm, and im- 
 plicit faith. 
 
 And that a life of holy poverty and entire devotion to Christ, 
 was by Him held as a more holy state, would seem most distinctly 
 and clearly stated by Himself. For we are told, in the nine- 
 teenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, that a young man came 
 to our Lord and asked, " What good thing he should do, that 
 he might have eternal life." And he was answered, " If thou 
 wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." The young man 
 having answered, " All these things have I kept from my youth 
 up : what lack I yet ? " our Lord made him this plain and ex- 
 plicit reply : " If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, 
 and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven ; 
 and come and follow me." And the young man would not do 
 this, but " went away sorrowing, for he had great possessions." 
 The young man unquestionably understood our Lord as recom- 
 
EFFKCTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 401 
 
 mending voluntary poverty, incurred for His sake, as a more 
 holy state ; otherwise, there was no cause for his sorrow.* 
 
 The language of our Lord already quoted is so plain and 
 
 * To illustrate my meaning, even at the risk of an apparent solecism, I will 
 suppose this young man to have pursued two different courses : 1. That he went 
 away, kept his money, married a wife, raised a virtuous family, and became a 
 most exemplary member of the Church of Christ. 2. That he went away, sold 
 his property, distributed the proceeds to the poor, took up his cross, and followed 
 Christ, dedicating his whole being to his Master's Kingdom, and became holy 
 " both in body mid spirit" Now let the honest and sincere, the meek and hum- 
 ble, put this question to their own hearts : Under the Law of Christ, as He Him- 
 self put it forth, which of these two state* was the more holy ? Can there be r. 
 doubt as to what the answer must be ? 
 
 It is true, that those who oppose celibacy, and, as a matter of course, holy 
 poverty, (for the second cannot well be recommended without the first,) have ad- 
 vanced many abstract general reasons that are true ; and yet they do not at all 
 touch the real question Among many other beautiful things said by Jeremy 
 Taylor, if I remember correctly, in favor of marriage, he says, in substance, that 
 " marriage peoples heaven itself with angels." This is true ; but it is equally 
 true that St Paul filled heaven with angels, although he was never married 
 And it is equally true, that he saved more souls in that holy state of celibacy than 
 he could have done with a family on his hands, for the reason, that he was thus 
 enabled to perform more labor for his Master. Suppose we take one hundred 
 ministers, of equal qualifications and sincerity, fifty of whom shall be married, 
 and fifty shall remain unmarried will not the fifty unmarried be able to perform 
 much more labor for the Church, at much less cost ? The superior efficiency and 
 economy of an unmarried clergy must be apparent. 
 
 If it was insisted that Christ had laid it down, as an inflexible law, that celibacy 
 and poverty were incumbent upon all, then these general objections would be 
 good. But when the ground taken is that Christ and St. Paul only put forth a 
 counsel of perfection, and not a law, these general objections cannot apply. Mar- 
 riage and property is the general rule celibacy and poverty, the exception. 
 
 Our Lord put forth a permanent system, adapted to all time, taken as one 
 whole. He knew (and so declared) that the great majority of men would never 
 be good and worthy members of his Church, for many should be called, and few 
 chosen. Those, of course, would not embrace his counsel. He also knew that 
 the great and overwhelming majority of Christians would never embrace His 
 perfect state. For these His saying was not intended. The recommendation 
 was then only intended, and only calculated, in its nature, for the few those 
 noble and heroic souls who could and would voluntarily embrace such a state. 
 
 It must be obvious to good sense, that while no state could exist in peace and 
 prosperity without marriage, no country can contain beyond a given number of 
 inhabitants ; and that the earth itself has its limits, as to its capacity to sustain 
 population. It is equally obvious that when a population attains a proper point 
 
402 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 explicit that it would seem to need no additional explanation ; 
 and if it did, it could be found in His language to His disciples 
 in reference to the same matter in succeeding verses. For 
 
 of density, that all excess beyond this becomes a burthen to the state, and to the 
 starving people themselves. And it must be equally clear, that if the marriage 
 of almost all persons in a thinly populated country will so increase the population, 
 that in a century or two, at most, the population will reach the proper point of 
 density, then it is equally clear that after it attains this point, under the same 
 cause, the population must become redundant, and, therefore, suffering and de- 
 pendent. With a redundant population, when commercial and manufacturing 
 affairs are prosperous, and the crops are good, the population can be sustained ; 
 but whenever a crisis occurs, either from commercial disasters, or short crops, then 
 numbers must perish. Of all the physical evils that waylay and beset the thorny 
 path of life, none is so great as that of starvation. It is not a sudden and desper- 
 ate onset upon the physical and mental powers ; but it is a desperate and con- 
 tinued assault, that undermines both body and mind ; and destroys both, inch 
 by inch. 
 
 From these considerations, it would seem evident to the political economist, 
 that while marriage is the general rule, celibacy is a useful exception, under 
 proper circumstances. And while the great majority of persons in every com- 
 munity should marry, there are persons who should not ; and by not entering the 
 marriage state, they act wisely for themselves, and also for the state. So far, 
 then, as general and abstract considerations go, they are not against the coun- 
 sel of celibacy and holy poverty in the few ; but would seem manifestly to sup- 
 port it. 
 
 It is true, it is said by some that celibacy is an unnatural state, and, there- 
 fore, cannot be supported with fidelity. But this is true in generals, and untrue 
 in particulars. St. Paul seems to have had a very different opinion ; for he most 
 clearly distinguishes between those who can remain chaste, and those who can- 
 not. Both St. Paul and St. John were able to remain in that state of holiness, 
 both in body and spirit. So, the great majority of respectable single persons of 
 both sexes, that either never marry, or marry at a late period of life, remain 
 chaste. These persons, without any religious vows, maintain their chastity ; and 
 why persons cannot do so who take a vow, and dedicate themselves to the sole 
 iervice of God, it is difficult to understand. Certainly they have additional and 
 more powerful motives, and are surrounded with additional checks. 
 
 This " necessity " of marriage was maintained by Luther ; but as he himself 
 only married at the age of forty-five, his case proved one of two things : 1, eithe* 
 that he had remained chaste through wild youth, and therefore was mistaken 
 about this necessity ; or 2, that he had himself been guilty of scandalous excesses. 
 The same sentiment I heard expressed by an unmarried man not long since, 
 whom I knew well, and who was about the age of thirty. He insisted that all 
 men possessed the like passions, and, therefore, did and must indulge them in the 
 same degree. From which he concluded there could be no chaste persons. I 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 403 
 
 when Peter had said, " Behold, we have forsaken all and fol- 
 lowed thee," our Lord answered, among other things ; " And 
 every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or 
 father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's 
 sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting 
 life." 
 
 From these passages it is plain, that our Lord did recom- 
 mend the young man to sell all his property and give to the 
 poor, and for thus doing, he should have treasure in heaven. 
 And it is equally clear, that Christ did offer rewards to those 
 who forsook either the property or the persons mentioned. If 
 then the more devoted Christians in all ages should follow the 
 example recommended by Christ to the young x man, do they 
 thereby sin ? On the contrary, do they not do precisely that 
 which the meek Saviour recommended, and to the performance 
 of which He did promise " treasure in heaven " ? Can all the 
 eloquent and polished sophistry in the world avoid the plain in- 
 tent of Christ ? Can all the whisperings of immediate self-inter- 
 est, (powerful as they are,) and all the deductions of sensual 
 pride, explain away this plain language ? And if we have not 
 sufficient faith and virtue of our own or if our circumstances 
 will not permit us to do as our Lord recommended, should 
 we envy and asperse those who do ? On the contrary, ought 
 we not to have the noble and manly candor to admire and love 
 those heroic souls who can and do attain superior virtue ? 
 
 The most difficult of all virtues to acquire and practice, is 
 that of sweet humility. It is the truest test of practical piety. 
 How hard it is to overcome the spirit of revenge, that natural 
 impulse of the human heart ! How hard to bear, with calm 
 resignation, the insults of others ! How difficult to withstand 
 
 was forced to reply to him, in substance, " That admitting all men did possess 
 the same passions, they did not possess them in the same degree, and they con- 
 trolled them hi a very different manner. And that he had the most evident mo- 
 tive for his conclusion, as it excused and sustained his own conduct, for there was 
 one, certain truth in his theory, that he himself was not chaste." I was once told 
 by a man that he did not believe there was an honest man in the world. I con- 
 cluded, that while I could not agree with him in whole, I did in part ; for it was 
 clear that he was not honest himself. 
 
4:04: EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 the finger of scorn the withering sarcasm the sallies of vil- 
 lanous wit and above all, 
 
 " The Godless look of earth " I 
 
 But this most difficult of all the practical virtues has been 
 attained in the greatest perfection by the great majority of 
 those who belong to these orders "those courageous souls, 
 who form the most absolute and efficacious purpose to pursue 
 the right road, in spite of every obstacle, and without examin- 
 ing whether they have to experience relief or disgust, pleasure 
 or pain, consolation or desolation * * * who go straight to 
 God, by an unconditional surrender and complete denial of 
 themselves, in the spirit of a profound humility, of a sweetness 
 of heart, and an equality of mind." 
 
 Among the most notable examples may be mentioned that 
 of St. Jane Francis de Chantal, who was descended from a no- 
 ble and wealthy family, and who was the widow of a wealthy 
 nobleman, but who gave up all for Christ. This eminently holy 
 person was the foundress of the order of The Visitation. The 
 misfortunes, the trials, the calumnies, contradictions, and insults 
 to which this devoted woman was subjected were certainly 
 most grievous, long-continued, and oft-repeated. She had to 
 endure every sort of test, short of that of actual personal vio- 
 lence. And under all these trials she was never known to re- 
 turn reproach for insult, nor a railing accusation to calumny. 
 For her noble and beautiful sentiment was, that " without solid 
 humility there can exist only shadows and phantoms of virtue. 
 Blessed is the soul that humbles herself before God, and uu- 
 feignedly accuses herself before creatures : she will recover 
 what she has lost by her own fault. Humility of heart, and sub- 
 mission of will and judgment, must ever be deemed the ground 
 of all perfection." 
 
 6. Contemplative religion. 
 
 In reference to contemplative religion, an eminent divine of 
 the Church of England has said : " In England, I could almost 
 say, we are too little acquainted with contemplative religion. 
 The monk, painted by Sterne, may give us a more favorable 
 idea of it than our prejudices generally suggest. I once trav 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 405 
 
 elled with a Recolet, and conversed with a Minim at his con- 
 vent ; and they both had that kind of character which Sterne 
 gives to his monk : that refinement of body and mind, that pure 
 glow of meliorated passion, that polished piety and humanity," 
 <fcc (Dr. Hay's Lectures on Divinity, vol. i. 364. Cited Mil- 
 ner's End of Controversy, Letter xxii.) 
 
 These are certainly most beautiful traits of the saint. Are 
 they offensive to heaven ? And if we find them so common 
 among the inmates of the cloister, is it not an evidence that 
 there is the nursery of these superlative virtues ? 
 
 " A poor monk of the order of St. Francis," says Sterne, 
 " came into the room to beg something for his convent. The 
 moment I cast my eyes upon him, I was predetermined not to 
 give him a single sous." After having refused the boon asked 
 by the monk, the writer continues : " ' But we distinguish,' said 
 I, laying my hand upon the sleeve of his tunic in return for his 
 appeal, 4 we distinguish, my good father, between those who 
 wish to eat only the bread of their own labor, and those who 
 wish to eat the bread of other people, and have no other plan 
 of life but to get through it, in sloth and ignorance, for the love 
 of God: " 
 
 There was bitter sarcasm in all that. We can well imagine 
 the contemptuous expression of Sterne's countenance, when he 
 said it. The reply itself imputed to the poor monk the most 
 despicable motives, as well as the most consummate hypocrisy. 
 Sterne was a great wit not always very chaste, and had no 
 particular humility to restrain him. The feelings of the poor 
 recluse were, therefore, in his power. So far as insult was con- 
 cerned, the monk was his prisoner. 
 
 To this bitter accusation Sterne says : " The poor Franciscan 
 made no reply : a hectic, for a moment, passed across his cheek, 
 but could not tarry. Nature seemed to have done with her re- 
 sentments in him ; he showed none, but letting his staff fall 
 within his arm, he pressed both his hands with resignation upon 
 his breast, and retired." 
 
 But to the honor of Sterne he repented for what he had 
 done, and candidly states it. 
 
 "My heart smote me," he says, "the moment he shut the 
 door. 4 Pshaw ! ' said I, with an air of carelessness, three sev- 
 
4:06 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 eral times but it would not do : every ungracious syllable I 
 had uttered crowded back into my imagination ; I reflected I 
 had no right over the poor Franciscan but to deny him ; and 
 that the punishment of that was enough to the disappointed 
 without the addition of unkind language. I considered his gray 
 hairs ; his courteous figure seemed to re-enter, and gently ask me 
 what injury he had done to me ? and why I could use him thus ? " 
 
 I do not know that this monk was the one to whom Dr. Hay 
 refers, as I have not now access to Sterne's Works, and have 
 taken these extracts from another book. But this incident is a 
 beautiful illustration of the influence of holy poverty upon the 
 Christian character. Here two very opposite characters were 
 contrasted, face to face. They were both members of different 
 Churches. One was a poor Catholic monk, the other a distin- 
 guished Protestant preacher. One could give an insult the 
 other could bear it in Christian silence and submission. " Na- 
 ture seemed to have done with her resentments in " the monk 
 "he showed none" made no reply crossed his hands with 
 resignation, and retired. This poor insulted and despised monk 
 possessed "that refinement of body and mind, that pure glow 
 of meliorated passion, that polished piety and humanity " so be- 
 fitting the character of the perfect Christian. We must admire 
 Sterne's candor in stating the facts of this incident, so much to 
 the advantage of the gray-haired and courteous monk. We 
 know not who he was. His name is not given. It has been 
 doubtless forgotten. But this incident will live, and warm the 
 hearts of the pious and the good. Who would not prefer to be 
 the poor monk, in preference to the witty and scornful Sterne ? 
 Is not pure piety that " holiness both of body and spirit," as 
 St. Paul has it more estimable and lovely, than all the wit and 
 sarcasm in the world ? And will it not pass better in heaven ? 
 Wit ends with earth ; but virtue lives on. One passes current 
 with men the other with God. 
 
 It seems to have been the opinion of Sterne, that the con- 
 templative orders had nothing to do, and lived in idleness and 
 ignorance. But this opinion resulted from an ignorance in 
 Sterne himself, of the discipline and devotions of these orders. 
 No doubt the courteous monk was as learned as Sterne himself, 
 perhaps even more so. But many men like to take a view of 
 
EFFKCTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 407 
 
 things at a distance, and to form their conclusions from some 
 general and sweeping assumption. We always blame that 
 which we do not understand ; and we never understand that 
 which we do not investigate with care and impartiality. 
 
 It seemed also to be the opinion of Sterne, that these con- 
 templative orders were of no practical use to religion. But 
 with all due deference to his opinion, I must say, he seems to 
 have overlooked the practical value of example. The single 
 touching incident of the poor Franciscan has done more for 
 Christianity pure, genuine, holy and gentle Christianity a 
 thousand-fold, than all that Sterne the wit, the scholar, and 
 the wag ever wrote, said, or did. That poor monk gained a 
 greater and more difficult victory than that of the orator, states- 
 man, or warrior. He conquered himself. The witty writings 
 of Sterne may excite the admiration of men ; but the noble ex- 
 ample of that poor monk excites the deep and intense love of 
 pure and holy hearts. And what tribute of praise can equal the 
 free, unbribed gushings of pure love ? And whatever may be 
 the opinio* of others, I unhesitatingly say for myself, that I 
 would rather be like that poor monk, than to attain all the glory 
 of all the wits who have ever left, or ever will leave, their names 
 to undying fame. O ! that I could gain such a victory over 
 myself. 
 
 But these holy contemplative orders have done more than 
 by their example. Who copied the Scriptures before the art 
 of printing was discovered ? Who preserved the learned works 
 of the Greek and Roman historians, statesmen, orators, and 
 poets ? Did they not do it ? And who have composed the no- 
 blest works of piety ever written, except the Divine Scriptures ? 
 Who composed those inimitable works, "The Imitation of 
 Christ " and " The Spiritual Combat," not to mention others, 
 but members of the monastic orders ? The authors of those 
 works were men who had also gained the great victory. They 
 had that " refinement of body and mind." The author of the 
 " Imitation of Christ " was severely slandered ; but he submitted 
 in patience, and asked, " What are words but words ? They 
 fly through the air, and hurt not a stone." * 
 
 * Charles Butler, in his account of the lite and writings of the Rev. Alban 
 
4:08 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 And what works have been composed by men mixing with 
 the world, that can equal these in deep Christian learning and 
 sweet humility ? The nearest approach to them by any Prot- 
 estant writer, so far as my knowledge extends, is the work of 
 
 Butler, who was esteemed the most learned man in Europe, and yet one of the 
 most humble and pious, says : 
 
 " Our author was not so warm on any subject as the calumnies against the 
 religious of the Middle Age : he considered" the civilization of Europe to be 
 owing to them. When they were charged with idleness, he used to remark the 
 immense tracts of land which, from the rudest state of nature, they converted to 
 a high state of husbandry in the Hercynian wood, the forests of Champagne and 
 Burgundy, the morasses of Holland, and the fens of Lincolnshire and Cambridge- 
 shire. When ignorance was imputed to them, he used to ask, what author of 
 antiquity had reached us for whose works we were not indebted to the monks. 
 He could less endure that they should be considered as instruments of absolute 
 power to enslave the people : when this was intimated, he observed that, during 
 the period which immediately followed the extinction of the Carlovingian dynas- 
 ty, when the feudal law absolutely triumphed over monarchy, the people were 
 wholly left to themselves, and must have sunk into a state of absolute barbarism 
 if it had not been for the religious establishments. These, he said, softened the 
 manners of the conquerors, afforded refuge to the vanquished, preierved an inter- 
 course between nations, and, when the feudal chiefs rose to the rank of mon- 
 sirchs, stood as a rampart between them and the people. He thought St. Thomas 
 of Canterbury a much injured character. He often pointed out that rich tract 
 of country, which extends from St. Omer's to Liege, as a standing refutation of 
 those who asserted that convents and monasteries were inimical to the populous- 
 ness of a country : he observed that the whole income of the smaller houses, and 
 two-thirds of the revenues of the greater houses, were constantly spent within 
 twenty miles round their precincts ; that their lands were universally let at low 
 rents ; that every abbey had a school for the instruction of its tenants, and that 
 no human institution was so well calculated to promote the arts of painting, 
 architecture, and sculpture, works in iron and bronze, and every other species of 
 workmanship, as abbeys or monasteries, and their appendages. ' Thus,' he used to 
 say, ' though the country in view was originally a marsh, and has for more than 
 a century wholly survived its commerce, it is the most populous country in Eu- 
 rope; and presents on the face of it as great a display of public and private 
 strength, wealth, and affluence, as can be found in any other part of the 
 world.' " 
 
 The libraries attached to these institutions were extensive. Thus Digby 
 says: 
 
 " The library of the Abbey of Cluny, before the Protestants pillaged and 
 burnt it in the sixteenth century, was deemed one of the wonders of the world ; 
 und, in fact, it equalled that of the emperors at Constantinople." (Ages of Faith 
 Book x., chap, ix.) 
 
EFFECTS OFF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 409 
 
 John Bunyan, " The Pilgrim's Progress ; " and if I remember 
 well, this was written in prison, while the author's mind and 
 soul were abstracted from the cares of earth. Who does not 
 feel the advantages, and even necessity, of such abstraction from 
 temporal cares, when writing upon such holy subjects ? 
 
 In these abodes of poverty and peace, the pious and con- 
 templative spirit can indulge her emotions undisturbed by the 
 warring elements of the outside world. The great Dr. Johnson 
 had some beautiful conceptions of the peace of such a state.* 
 
 * " Many," says Dr. Johnson, u are weary of their conflicts with adversity, 
 and are willing tp eject those passions which have long busied them in vain ; and 
 many are dismissed by age and diseases from the more laborious duties of soci- 
 ety. In monasteries the weak and timorous may be happily sheltered, the weary 
 may repose, and the penitent may meditate. These retreats of prayer and con- 
 templation have something so congenial to the mind of man, that perhaps there 
 is scarcely one that does not purpose to close his life in pious abstraction, with a 
 few associates, serious as himself.'' Again : " Whatever is done by the monks, 
 is incited by an adequate motive. Their time is regularly distributed ; one dutv 
 succeeds another, so that they are not left open to the distraction of unguided 
 choice, nor lost in the shades of listless inactivity. There is a certain task to be 
 performed at an appropriate hour ; and their toils are cheerful, because they con- 
 sider them as acts of piety, by which they are always advancing towards endless 
 felicity." (Johnson's Rasselas.) 
 
 It must be conceded by persons of experience and observant disposition, that 
 it often occurs that the spirits of individuals are totally broken by a concurrence 
 of misfortunes, until they are unfit for the active duties of life, and become tired 
 of the world. In such a case there is only one of two retreats offered a monas- 
 tery, or the modern remedy of suicide. The emotions with which the victim of 
 disappointment would retire from the world, were feelingly expressed by Wolsey : 
 " father abbot, an old man, broken by the storms of state, is come to lay his 
 weary bones among you ; give him a little earth for charity." 
 
 " A good society," says a French author, " provides for every thing, even for 
 the wants of those who detach themselves from it by choice or by necessity." 
 
 A great French philosopher lias also said : 
 
 " Let us grant to virtue that right of asylum which crime had f ormerly. 
 There are always upon earth men who are fatigued with life's journey, and nc 
 one can be sure that some day or other he will not be of their number." (Cited 
 Ages of Faith, Book x., c. iii.) 
 
 And Mabillon, as cited by the eloquent Digby, in his great work, " Ages of 
 Faith," has these beautiful remarks : 
 
 " For who is there that has a just sense of Christian piety, and who examines 
 the thing before God, but must esteem those men very useful to the Church who 
 endeavor to conform assiduously to the life of Christ ; wh > cultivate the worship 
 
410 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 7. The active orders of the Church. 
 
 But the contemplative orders are not the only orders of the 
 Church. There are many active and laborious orders, who give 
 their whole lives for the benefit of others, without any regard 
 to the religion, name, or class of the sufferers. And these ac- 
 tive orders, since the discovery of the art of printing, are greater 
 in proportion than they were formerly. Among the active 
 orders, I may mention the Jesuits, the Monks of St. Bernard, 
 and the Monks of La Trappe. Also the Sisters of Notre-Dame, 
 the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, the Sisters of Mercy, and the 
 Sisters of Charity. They have different disciplinary rules ; and 
 while some confine their attention mostly to teaching, others 
 are found in the hospital, by the side of the sick and dying. 
 
 The sublime and simple example of these orders, especially 
 those of the Sisters of Mercy and the Sisters of Charity, is 
 "far more touching than the outpourings of eloquence, however 
 lofty." And it is not only so, because their duties are the most 
 laborious and humiliating, the most gloomy and melancholy, 
 and the most dangerous, but because they are performed so 
 silently and unostentatiously. Silently they pray silently they 
 smooth the brow of death, and sweetly they point the dying 
 vision to the upper sky. They ask no meed of praise. They 
 seek no approving eye, but that of Him " whose eye is on the 
 heart." " They are more exposed to the world than members 
 of a religious order, having, in most instances, no other monas- 
 
 of God with all the devotion of which they are capahle, offering their body and 
 soul as a constant sacrifice of praise ; who retain the ancient vestiges and speci- 
 men of Christian penitence in the Church ; who opened public schools of virtue ; 
 who, by their labor, transmitted the monuments of ancient writing to posterity ; 
 who gave example to clerks to institute laudable societies ; who erected as many 
 hospitals for the poor as monasteries, in which diseases of the soul were cured, 
 in which baptismal innocence was preserved inviolate, or restored when lost, and 
 in which the wants of all the needy are supplied ? Monasteries are hostels, in 
 which not alone the cloistral flock, but, as Leodegavius testifies, the whole world 
 is delivered from the corruptions of the age. Finally, who can say that they 
 were useless to ths civil and Christian republic, who covered with towns and vil- 
 lages so many provinces before uninhabited and desert, adorned them with edi. 
 fices, enriched them with letters, and, by giving episcopal and pastoral institu- 
 tions, brought so many millions of pagans to the faith ? n (B. x., c. iii.) 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 411 
 
 tery than the houses of the sick or school-room, no other cell 
 than a rented apartment, no other chapel than the parish 
 church, no cloister but the public street or hospital, no inclo- 
 sure but obedience, no grate but the fear of God, no veil but 
 that of holy modesty." 
 
 These devoted Sisters know no race, no color, no creed, 
 and no condition in the objects of their labors. They know no 
 geographical lines but those of suffering humanity. Wherever 
 distress and suffering appear, there they are found. When the 
 craven minister flies from his afflicted flock when the brother 
 deserts his dying sister, and the father his plague-stricken child, 
 in their flight they meet the Sisters making their hasty way to 
 the abandoned scenes of death and sorrow. They seek those 
 melancholy scenes from which others flee. Their joy is to die 
 in the discharge of their duty. They heed not the aspersions 
 cast upon their faith. As they blush at fame, and shrink from 
 praise, like the " man of sorrows," they are silent under impu- 
 tations and calumnies. The praise they receive is voluntarily 
 bestowed upon the order by others. Their individual names, 
 as their individual deeds, are unknown. Each Sister wears out 
 her life in labors of charity lives at all times prepared to die, 
 and when death does come, 
 
 " Steals from the world, and not a stone 
 Tells where she lies." 
 
 Her name, her virtues, and her deeds are forgotten. And be- 
 cause no monument and no chronicle perpetuates her individual 
 deeds, we are not to suppose from this, that she possessed no 
 individual merits of the highest order ; for in this world, monu- 
 ments are " often raised without merit, and lost without a 
 crime." The unknown and unchronicled Sister, who sleeps in 
 an humble grave, possessed an intrepid soul, and 
 
 " A heart once pregnant with celestial fire." 
 Her virtues, though inflexible, were yet as gentle and beautiful 
 
 " As the ling'ring beam, that eve's decline 
 Will paint on the vanishing day." 
 
 But are not the devoted members of all these orders wild 
 
412 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM 
 
 enthusiasts? They are enthusiasts, but not wild enthusiasts. 
 It is the intense, yet calm, persevering enthusiasm of Christianity. 
 For it is one of the most beautiful and rational traits of the 
 Catholic Church, that the enthusiasm of her children is A REGU- 
 LATED ENTHUSIASM. It is not that ungovernable mountain t<3r- 
 rent that overflows the cultivated plain below ; but it is that 
 unfailing steady stream, which does riot rise too high with fresh- 
 ets, nor descend too low from droughts, but in its gentle course, 
 fertilizes, without deluging, the country through which it passes. 
 There is every motive in the Catholic Church to excite the zeal 
 of her children, and every thing to keep down fanaticism. The 
 most zealous souls in her communion are taught discipline and 
 humility. The great and voluntary sacrifices made by the 
 members of these orders are the legitimate results of the abid- 
 ing conviction they have of the truth of Christianity. For as 
 certain as Christianity is true, so certain is it that the saints in 
 glory will differ from each other as the stars of heaven, and that 
 this difference will be in proportion to the difference of their 
 course on earth. The perfect Christian must then inherit an in- 
 creased glory ; and this increase, is surely worth every possible 
 sacrifice that we can make on earth. Those holy souls who 
 give all their lives, not to the practice of display, but to the 
 practice of " solid virtues," as St. Jane Francis de Chantal has 
 it, without the intention of gaining personal fame or distinction, 
 must surely legitimately fill the counsels of perfection, if any 
 such were given. 
 
 In the Catholic Church all her children are under her disci- 
 pline. Whatever enthusiasm they may possess cannot go be- 
 yond the limits fixed by the Church. Their enthusiasm cannot 
 degenerate into fanaticism. But it cannot be so under the 
 Protestant rule of private interpretation. There are no limits 
 to the fanaticism of the Protestant enthusiast, but the mind of 
 the enthusiast himself. In vain will you prescribe limits, when 
 you have no right to prescribe. The enthusiast defeats you 
 upon your own principle. And it is mainly owing to this erro- 
 neous fundamental principle that Protestants cannot organize 
 and sustain any religious orders. Their charitable efforts are 
 undisciplined, unsteady, and limited for that reason! Under 
 such a principle there could not exist such an order as the Sis- 
 
EFFKCTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 4:13 
 
 ters of Charity, without a violation of the fundamental rule. 
 There could be no continued unity of effort, because there could 
 exist no obedience to one superior. 
 
 8. Charges against these orders considered. 
 
 In reference to the general charges of delinquency, so often 
 made by their enemies against these orders of the Catholic 
 Church, I could not believe them, after examination and reflec- 
 tion, for these reasons : 
 
 1. Assuming, for the sake of the argument only, that these 
 orders are as devoted and faithful as they are generally believed 
 to be by Catholics, such calumnies would naturally follow such 
 superior virtue. It is in the nature of Christian perfection, that 
 it should be envied, calumniated, and despised, by those who 
 cannot or will not attain it. 
 
 2. The sacrifices these orders are known to make, are so 
 much greater than those their enemies do make, that the only 
 possible plan of putting them upon any thing like an equality, is 
 to accuse the members of these orders of secret sins. When- 
 ever that most just and salutary principle of law, that a man 
 must be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty, is set 
 aside, then human virtue cannot be known to exist in this 
 world ; for no man can prove a negative, and show that he 
 never did commit any crime. He may sometimes do so, by 
 proving an alibi in reference to a particular charge of an act al- 
 leged to have been committed at a specified time and place. 
 But as to general charges, no one can prove a negative. Ifj 
 therefore, the mind can be induced to believe charges of secret 
 sins without proof, there is no limit to such belief but the preju- 
 dices, interests, and passions of men ; and these have few limits, 
 if any. 
 
 3. These charges were too wholesale, and therefore upon 
 their face the more incredible. And unless they were of this 
 wholesale character, they could not have any force, if true, 
 against the entire orders themselves. It became apparent to 
 me, that such gross and continued wickedness could not exist in 
 so large bodies of persons, without all knowing it who lived to- 
 gether in the same convent. And if all knew it, and it was 
 general in all the convents, it certainly constituted a wonderful 
 
414 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 example of the combination of the most degraded vices with the 
 most devoted and self- sacrificing virtues, in the same persons. 
 And what was most astonishing was this : that their published 
 rules and public practices, showing the labors and sacrifices the 
 members must endure, would certainly only attract the most 
 pious and heroic ; and how they could become so soon converted 
 from saints to vile prostitutes and debauchees, is what I could 
 not quite understand. In all my reading and observation, I had 
 never heard of prostitutes and debauchees loving poverty and 
 hard work, humility and danger. From Benedict Arnold down 
 to the meanest rogue, without scarcely an exception, all unprin- 
 cipled persons are fond of wallowing in luxury and dissipation. 
 And it may be said of all persons who look to this world alone 
 for their enjoyments, that they are devoted to the good things 
 of life. As the Infidel Mirabeau, on his death-bed, said, in sub- 
 stance : " Cover me with flowers smother me with sweet per- 
 > fumes and let me die amidst the strains of delicious music." 
 The almost only, if not the only exception, is the senseless miser, 
 who hoards without an object, and lives without an aim. That 
 base sensuality, that would make the Sisters prostitutes, and the 
 monks debauchees, would forever unfit them for the exercise of 
 those sublime virtues, and the exhibition of that noble courage 
 for the relief of others, that we do know them to possess. Can 
 these opposite traits be put together, and kept there ? 
 
 4. The ranks of these orders are continually filled, as is well 
 known, by great numbers of persons from the very best ranks 
 of society persons possessed of wealth, education, and of every 
 worldly advantage. These persons voluntarily forsake all for 
 the kingdom of heaven's sake. And can such be insincere? 
 Can such be vile ? If so, where can superior virtue be found ? 
 And what can be its evidence ? 
 
 5. The most candid and reliable, impartial and just Protes- 
 tant historians and theologians do not believe these wholesale 
 charges. For instance, Waddington the Protestant, quoted 
 with so much approbation by Mr. Campbell, says, among other 
 things : 
 
 " Of the more modern orders, there is also one which may 
 seem to require our notice that of the Ursulines. Its origin 
 is ascribed to Angela de Brescia, about the year 153*7, though 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 415 
 
 the saint from whom it received its name, Ursula Beiiincasa, a 
 native of Naples, was born ten years afterwards. Its character 
 was peculiar, and recalls our attention to the primitive form of 
 ascetic devotion. The duties of these holy Sisters were the 
 purest within the circle of human benevolence to minister to 
 the sick, to relieve the poor, to console the miserable, to pray 
 with the penitent. These charitable offices they undertook to 
 execute without the bond of any community, without the obli- 
 gation of any monastic vow, without any separation from society, 
 any renouncement of their domestic duties and virtues. And. 
 so admirably were those offices, in millions of instances, per- 
 formed, that had all other female orders been really as useless 
 and vicious as they are sometimes falsely described to be, the 
 virtues of the Ursulines had alone been sufficient to redeem the 
 monastic name. 
 
 " But it is very far from true, that these other orders were 
 either commonly dissolute or generally useless. Occasional 
 scandals have engendered universal calumnies." (Wadding- 
 ton's Church History, 325 ; N. Y. Ed., 1835.) 
 
 How concisely and beautifully Waddington states a great 
 truth. " Occasional scandals have engendered universal calum- 
 nies." 
 
 How true it is, that the prejudiced, the ignorant, and the 
 idle, are prone to draw wholesale conclusions, from single in- 
 stances. If one man is dishonest, all men must be so. If one 
 man may be bribed, all men may be bought. If one man can- 
 not or will not control his passions, of course all others must be 
 like him. It one will lie, all must lie. 
 
 But in reference to the Mendicant orders, the same historian, 
 among other things, said : 
 
 " It is not without reason that the Roman Catholic writers 
 vaunt the disinterestedness of the early Mendicants how assid- 
 uous they were in supplying the spiritual wants of the poor, how 
 frequent in prisons and in hospitals, how forward to encounter 
 the fire or the pestilence ; how instant on all these occasions 
 where the peril was imminent, and the reward not in this world. 
 They were equally distinguished in other, and not less righteous, 
 duty, the propagation of Christianity among remote and savage 
 nations." After alluding to different missions, the historian 
 
416 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 says : " It is certain that the number of Christians was not in- 
 considerable, both among the Chinese and Moguls, as late as 
 the year 1370, and they were still increasing, when they were 
 suddenly swept away and almost wholly exterminated by the 
 Mahometan arms. Howbeit, the disastrous overthrow of their 
 establishment detracts nothing from the merit of those who con- 
 structed it ; and it must not be forgotten, that the instruments 
 in this work were Mendicants, and, for the most part, Francis- 
 cans." (Wad. His., 547.) 
 
 There is a beautiful testimony to the devotion and courage 
 of the Catholic clergy, in Lieutenant Gibson's Report of his tour 
 through Peru, page 7. 
 
 " There is no part of Peru," he says, " which is more densely 
 populated than the valley of Juaga. There, close under the 
 mountains, on the east side, stands the town of Ocopa, with its 
 convents and schools. From that place missionaries have 
 branched off in different directions to the forests in the east, at 
 great risk of life, and loss of all its comforts, to teach the savage 
 red man how to change his manners, customs, and belief. Some 
 have succeeded, others have failed, and were murdered or 
 driven back by the battle-axe ; their settlements destroyed by 
 fire, and years of labor lost ; yet some never tire." 
 
 The eloquent Senator from Virginia, Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, 
 in a speech made in 1855, in Virginia, uses this chaste and 
 touching language : 
 
 " Deprive," said he, " the Catholics of all the offices, bar 
 them out from every avenue to political distinction, deny to 
 them the opportunities which you accord to Infidels and Athe- 
 ists ; and when you have done it all, when you have placed their 
 honest ambition to enjoy the honors and emoluments of political 
 preferment under the ban of a ruthless proscription, your work 
 is not yet finished. There will still remain offices for them. 
 Yes, my friends, the sweet offices of Christian love will still be 
 left, and in the midst of your persecutions, their bishops and 
 priests, as in the recent pestilence in your Southern cities, will 
 throng the hospitals and pest-houses, bringing succor and con- 
 solation to the poor victims of the plague. Aye, and their Sis- 
 ters of Charity will still brave the terrors of loathsome and in- 
 fectious disease, will still wioe the death damp from the suffering 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 417 
 
 brow, will still venture in where the courage of man shrinks 
 back appalled, and will point the dying gaze through the myste- 
 rious gloom of the Valley of the Shadow of Death, to the Cross 
 and the Crucified." 
 
 I will also quote from a late able and manly letter, written 
 by Judge Longstreet, a distinguished and worthy member of the 
 Methodist Church. Speaking to the Methodist preachers of the 
 Catholics, the Judge says : 
 
 " To hate their religion is to hate youc own religion, which 
 they adorn, just at this time, much more than you do. ' No 
 man that warreth,' says Paul, ' encumbereth himself with the 
 affairs of this life.' The Catholic priest obeys this precept 
 strictly. But where are you some of you, at least ? Candi- 
 dates for this, that, and the other office going from beat to 
 beat, and county to county, stumping it for votes haranguing 
 the multitude amidst thumps, and screams, and yells firing at 
 opposition, and almost coming to blows telling vulgar anec- 
 dotes suppressing truth encouraging, if not spreading false- 
 hood. These things are not done in a corner ; and yet, if any 
 Bishop, any Elder, any Deacon, any brother, any press of our 
 church, has raised a warning voice against them, except my 
 poor solitary self, and one old brother more, I have yet to learn 
 who, when, or where. From the holiest chamber of my soul, I 
 lift a prayer to God to have mercy upon us, and save our 
 church from degradation and ruin. Brethren, I am not near 
 done with you, but I must stop. My powers of calm discussion 
 are suspended. My heart and my eyes take up the cause of 
 my perilled church, in utterances which you might appre- 
 ciate, but which I cannot expose to the ridicule of an unfeeling 
 world." 
 
 There is a melancholy vein of truth and sincerity running 
 through this extract, that cannot be mistaken. But the state 
 of things so feelingly deplored by the Judge, must inevitably 
 flow from the theory of Protestantism, sooner or later. It is 
 one of the legitimate results. Let any one read the history of 
 the Protestant churches from the days of Luther down to this 
 time, and he will find the same decline of the apostolic spirit. 
 New Reformations will be constantly required. What Wesley 
 37 
 
418 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 did for the Church of England, some one else will have, sooner 
 or later, to do for the Methodists. 
 
 In reference to the great mass of Protestants and Catholics, 
 the difference between their observable conduct as Christians may 
 not be great, and may be very similar. I bear a most cheerful 
 testimony to the personal piety of great numbers of Protestants 
 with whom I have associated. So far as practical morality is 
 concerned that which regulates our conduct as citizens and 
 neighbors I have jiot found much difference among men of 
 any denomination. I have found the qualities of kindness, so- 
 briety, and integrity, among many unbelievers, in a great de- 
 gree of perfection. So far as the practice of that morality is 
 concerned which renders men happy in a state of society, and 
 prosperous as a community in this world, I apprehend there is 
 no very marked difference among professed Christians of differ- 
 ent denominations. 
 
 But the system of Christianity has a design beyond this. It 
 looks not alone to man's happiness here. Virtues that alone 
 produce an improved state of society, are not the principal ob- 
 jects of the system. Dr. Paley admits " that the teaching of 
 morality was not the primary design of the mission " of Christ. 
 In another place he says : " For however the care of reputation, 
 the authority of public opinion, or even of the opinion of good 
 men, the satisfaction of being well received, and well thought 
 of, the benefit of being known and distinguished, are topics to 
 which we are fain to have recourse in our exhortations ; the true 
 virtue -is that which discards these considerations absolutely, 
 and which retires from them all to the single internal purpose 
 of pleasing God." (Ev. Ch.) 
 
 This is certainly a beautiful Christian sentiment, a& oeauti- 
 fully and forcibly expressed. The temporal considerations al- 
 luded to are certainly such as may be urged upon men in socie- 
 ty, with equal force, whether Christianity be true or false. They 
 are worldly and temporal motives, addressed to present interest 
 and aspirations ; and are not calculated to inculcate the true 
 spirit of Christianity. Did Christ, or Paul, or Peter, ever urge 
 such motives ? In vain may we look in the New Testament 
 for any such reasons in support of the Gospel. And the great 
 truth stated by the lear.v^ divine, that Protestants are " fain U 
 
EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 419 
 
 have recourse in their exhortations" to such topics, is, to my 
 mind, a very great and serious objection to their theory, and 
 does show the inevitable worldly tendency of their fundamental 
 rule. And if we look into Protestant works their sermons, 
 addresses, and especially their arguments in support of their 
 theory we shall find the general drift and spirit of the great 
 majority of them conformable with these temporal considera- 
 tions. In a system like Christianity, where both faith and works 
 good motives as well as good actions are required ; to urge 
 such reasons upon men, and especially upon Christians, is to 
 lower and debase the system itself, and to ruin and destroy the 
 souls of men. " The single internal purpose of pleasing God," 
 and thus meriting the future rewards, and escaping the future 
 punishments, promised and denounced in the Gospel, should 
 constitute the true motive that actuates the humble Christian. 
 
 The blessed Paul said, that without charity he was nothing ; 
 and the same apostle also said, that without faith it was impos- 
 sible to please God. In the contemplation of Christianity a man 
 must not only do justice to his neighbor, but he must also have 
 faith and humility. Practical morality alone will never, there- 
 fore, constitute the whole Christian character. There must be 
 deep humility ; and this virtue is much more rare among Prot- 
 estants than Catholics, so far as my means of information have 
 enabled me to judge. 
 
 The Samaritans who adored in the mountain, where they 
 had their schisinatical temple, were distinguished for their hos- 
 pitality. So great was their character for hospitality, that a 
 Roman Emperor erected a statue in their city to the hospitable 
 Jupiter, in conformity, says an ancient historian, to the genius 
 of the nation. And so remarkable were they for their charity, 
 that when our Saviour wished to illustrate this great virtue, he 
 gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. But still, with all 
 their virtues, they were not good and complete models of the 
 true worshipper of God. For Christ did not hesitate to tell 
 the Samaritan woman at the well : " Ye worship ye know not 
 what : we know what we worship : for salvation is of the Jews." 
 (John iv. 22.) 
 
 No doubt these virtues of hospitality and charity were even 
 more prevalent among the Samaritans than among the Jews. 
 
420 EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 But with all their amiable characteristics, they never could pro- 
 duce such examples of holiness as Simeon, the prophetess Anna, 
 and others among the Jews. I suppose that if all the virtaes of 
 the Samaritans had been concentrated in a single person, that 
 such individual could not have compared with the holy Simeon 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION INCOM- 
 PATIBLE WITH ALL UNION AND GOVERNMENT IN THE 
 CHURCH. 
 
 1. The alleged right of appeal to the Day of Judgment. 
 
 WHILE inquiring for the true Church, I found the different 
 Protestant sects, each acting alone for itself, under separate and 
 independent organizations, and each assuming, at least in form, 
 to exercise certain powers of government over its own mem- 
 bers. They generally recognized the principle, that both faith 
 and works were required by the law of Christ. And in so far 
 as they assumed to exercise any powers of government, they 
 assumed to do so, in virtue of this law. They, therefore, pro- 
 fessed to enforce all .those provisions of this code, in reference 
 both to faith and works, intended to be reduced to practice in 
 this world. 
 
 In all cases where an individual is charged with any viola- 
 tion of law, there are necessarily two questions involved : 
 
 1. Did the accused commit the act, or hold the opinion 
 alleged ? This is simply a question of fact. 
 
 2. Is the act or opinion a violation of the law ? And this i^ 
 a question of law. 
 
 Every conceivable case, arising under any system of law, 
 must embrace these two questions. As to the first question, 
 the fact being peculiarly within the knowledge of the party, he 
 may concede it, and thus waive the necessity of proof . When 
 the charge involves the crime of heresy, the fact is gener- 
 
4:22 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 ally, if not always, conceded. The concession of the fact only 
 waives the necessity of proof to establish it. But the question 
 of fact is still involved, whether the fact be admitted or denied 
 As to the question of law, the admission of error by the accused 
 will not, of course, control the action of the tribunal. A crim- 
 inal court would not inflict the punishment of death upon a 
 criminal, contrary to law, simply because he preferred this pun- 
 ishment to that of imprisonment fbr life. 
 
 When a member is brought before a Protestant Church, the 
 tribunal which assumes to try him must, of necessity, ascertain 
 the fact, if denied, and construe the law for him ; otherwise, it 
 could not be a trial, even in mere form. If the accused be al- 
 lowed to settle the fact and law, or either of them, he could 
 readily escape by his own act. He would certainly get himself 
 out of the difficulty. The whole end and purpose of the trial 
 would be defeated, the moment the party accused is permitted 
 either to settle the fact or the law. 
 
 The result is that the Protestant tribunal, which ascertains 
 the fact, and construes the law for the individual member, does 
 most clearly violate the right of private interpretation, so far as 
 regards the punishment inflicted. To mitigate this palpable vio- 
 lation of the fundamental rule, they are compelled to concede 
 two points, which, in practical and logical effect, defeat the en- 
 tire end and purpose of the formal decision : 
 
 1. That the tribunal which determines the case is fallible and 
 may err ; and, therefore, its decision, in the contemplation of 
 the theory itself, is no evidence of the truth, does not settle the 
 question, and is entitled to no respect or obedience ; conse- 
 quently, the party formally condemned is not bound to abide 
 the decision, unless his supreme judgment concur in it. 
 
 2. That the punishment inflicted amounts to nothing ; as ex- 
 pulsion from the church, under the decision of a merely fallible 
 tribunal, does not affect the Christian standing of the party in 
 anyway ; and his chances of salvation must be conceded, by the 
 theory itself, to be as good out of, as in the Church. 
 
 As a matter of course, the party expelled could not be ex- 
 pected to yield up his private opinion, for the mere farcical de- 
 cision of such a tribunal ; because, in doing so, his chances of 
 safety would not be increased, and he would be violating the 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 423 
 
 fundamental rule itself, which constitutes his own mind the tri 
 bunal of last resort on earth. Were he to surrender his views 
 to such a decision, it would be the appellate court giving up its 
 judgment to the inferior tribunal. 
 
 The legitimate result is, that, as in the days of the apostles, 
 the Church did expel heretics, and exercise all the powers of 
 government necessary to execute that portion of the law obliga- 
 tory upon individuals in this world, the Protestant Churches are 
 compelled to go through the solemn farce of a trial in form. In 
 this way they make a formal compliance with the law. But to 
 save their fundamental rule at the same time, they are compelled 
 to allow the right of appeal from their decision to the supreme 
 individual judgment of the accused himself. They say to him, 
 in substance : " We must try you, and if you are found guilty, 
 in our opinion, we must expel you. But we concede, while do- 
 ing this, that we are j ust as apt to be wrong as yourself, and our 
 decision amounts to nothing but expulsion, and this, in our the- 
 ory, is just as apt to be wrong as right." The form of a trial 
 and decision is necessary to conform, in appearance, with the 
 actual practice of the Apostolic Church ; and the futility of the 
 decision, when made, is conceded, to save the fundamental rule. 
 The government exercised by these Protestant churches is but 
 the mere shadow, without the substance, of supremacy the 
 form, without the power ; and, of course, is entitled to no re- 
 spect or obedience, because the contradictory theory itself claims 
 none, and cannot possess that which it does not claim. 
 
 But it may be said that the Protestant theory is consistent 
 and true, if we hold that the decisions of the Church are subor- 
 dinate to that of Christ, in the day of Judgment ; and that, con- 
 sequently, the right of appeal from the decisions of the inferior 
 court below, will lie to the Supreme Court above. But can this 
 be true ? 
 
 The Church, being a visible continuing corporation, intend 
 ed to exist and exercise all her functions of government in this 
 world, the law given for the government of her members must 
 be practically administered here. All the acts of obedience, in 
 respect of both faith and works, must be performed by the par- 
 ties governed while they are in this mode of being. All that 
 they are required to do, must be done here. The future state is 
 
424: RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 simply and solely one of rewards or punishments of enjoyment 
 or suffering. All ends with death, so far as obedience is con 
 cerned. 
 
 If, then, the right of appeal exists from the decisions of the 
 Church to the general Judgment, this right would be wholly 
 nugatory, unless the appeal, when taken, suspended the execu- 
 tion of the judgment until the case could be heard above. The 
 right of appeal, without the effect of suspension, would be equiv- 
 alent to allowing an appeal after the prisoner was executed. 
 
 On the other hand, if this right of suspensive appeal exists 
 on the part of the individual condemned by the Church, then 
 the power to decide is wholly idle, for the plain reason, that the 
 decision remains suspended, and, therefore, for the time defeat- 
 ed, until the day of Judgment ; and it is then too late to inform 
 the inferior tribunal of its duty, or to benefit the defendant him- 
 self. Each individual condemned takes his appeal at once, and 
 the question then stands adjourned from the date of the decision 
 to the day of Judgment. And as cases arise continually, and 
 each one is appealed, the calendar of causes must increase from 
 age to age, without a decision in a single case to correct a single 
 error, until the end of time. The result is, that the inferior tri- 
 bunals labor and grope on in the dark, throughout all time, still 
 compelled to render farcical decisions, that no one is bound to 
 respect or obey. But after the institution itself has run its en- 
 tire course on earth, where alone the law could be practically ad- 
 ministered and obeyed, then comes a decision of the Supreme 
 Tribunal, correcting errors, when such correction is idle for all 
 beneficial purposes, so far as regards either the Church or the 
 appellant himself. This would be about as wise and efficient as 
 if the Constitution had organized a Supreme Court, with the 
 right of suspensive appeal from all inferior Federal tribunals ; 
 and yet only permitted that Supreme Court to sit once, and that 
 at the end of the existence of the government itself. 
 
 But it may be said, that there certainly will be a future day 
 of Judgment ; and this being true, for what purpose was that 
 day set apart, if not to hear appeals from the Church on earth ? 
 
 A little calm attention to the law of Christ, as He promul- 
 gated it, and a due consideration of the ends and purposes of 
 the system, will show the true theory upon this subject. As 
 
BE8ULT8 OF THE PROTESTANT THECKY. 425 
 
 our Lord appeared on earth a living, visible lawgiver, and as His 
 system requires both faith and works, and as He ascended into 
 heaven, and will not again visibly appear until the end of the 
 world, He left His law with His agents, whom He infallibly 
 guides in their administration of this law on earth. 
 
 The result of this theory is, that that portion of the code 
 which was required to be obeyed by individuals in this state, is 
 committed to the Church for final decision. The decision of 
 this infallible Church is but the decision of Christ Himself, act- 
 ing by and through His own Institution. And this is the reason 
 why our Lord said to His apostles, whatsoever ye shall bind or 
 loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven. This power 
 of binding and loosing was given for some great and beneficial 
 purpose, because the exercise of it was confirmed in heaven. It 
 was given by the Founder of the Institution, as a part of its 
 permanent constitution. On the day of Judgment there will be 
 no question to decide that has been decided by the Church. 
 The questions to be then determined, will be questions of fact, 
 regarding the " secrets of all hearts "which have not been con- 
 fessed and repented of in this world, as the law required ; and 
 in apportioning the rewards and punishments due to individuals. 
 The rewards and punishments promised and denounced by the 
 system could not, from their very nature, be enjoyed or suffered 
 in this mode of existence. For that reason, the administration 
 of this portion of the law was not committed to the Church, but 
 reserved to the future Judgment. And as individuals who hypo- 
 critically conceal their sins injure mainly but themselves, the in- 
 fallible knowledge of these individual facts was never given to 
 the Church, because not really essential to enable her to exe- 
 cute the law. 
 
 But the theory of private interpretation in the last resort on 
 earth, is a disastrous theory, when carefully and calmly consid- 
 ered. 
 
 It is extremely unjust to the Divine Lawgiver, because it de- 
 preciates the character .of His own work ; and, therefore, im- 
 pugns His justice and capacity. You may praise an architect 
 in words to any extent you please, while you depreciate his 
 work, and he never will appreciate this left-handed compliment. 
 It is also unjust to our Lord, because it defeats the beneficent 
 
426 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 purposes of His system. It leaves the difficulties inevitably aris- 
 ing in the practical administration and application of this perfect 
 and extended system of law, to accumulate and remain uncor 
 rected from age to age, throughout the entire course of the 
 Church on earth, and only proposes to settle them after the in- 
 stitution has closed its earthly existence, and after that portion 
 of the code intended for practical administration in this state of 
 being, has ceased to operate. It proposes to close the door, after 
 the steed is stolen. 
 
 But it is equally unjust, harsh, and ruinous to the parties 
 governed. The theory concedes that without faith it is impos- 
 sible to please God ; and, therefore, each person must believe 
 the truth, and the whole truth required by Christ to be believed. 
 It must, then, concede the right of ultimate construction of 
 the law, to reside in the Divine Lawmaker ; and, therefore, that 
 the construction of the individual will not save him, unless it 
 happens to be right. And whether this individual construction 
 be right or wrong, the individual has no certain means of know- 
 ing. He finds his individual construction opposed to the views 
 of the overwhelming majority of all professed Christians, in all 
 ages ; yet he must adhere to his private construction at his eter- 
 nal peril, or give up the theory. As often as new and difficult 
 questions arise, he must either pay no attention to them, or form 
 some judgment of his own, right or wrong. If wrong, he is 
 lost. If right, he does not know it. All he can say, under his 
 theory, is that he thinks he is right. The questions accumulat- 
 ing from generation to generation remain undetermined, except 
 by his own opinions. The previous construction of the Church 
 cannot be his guide, and can afford him no relief, because, under 
 the Protestant theory, " the act of contravention,'* as Professor 
 Greenleaf justly says, " remains a sin in the last transgressor as 
 well as the first." (Ex. Tes. Ev., 517.) He cannot rely upon 
 authority upon any thing but his own confessedly fallible con- 
 struction of the law. He is, therefore, placed in a position of 
 terrible individual responsibility, without any certain guide. 
 He must know and obey the will of the Great Lawgiver in all 
 material respects, or be lost. But at the same time that he must 
 arrive at a just solution of all difficulties, he is left in the most 
 painful state of destitution. He knows there are things hard tc 
 
.RESULTS OF THE PBOTESTANT THEORY. 427 
 
 be understood, that must still be understood. And yet ques- 
 tions that perplex his judgment must remain postponed until 
 the last day. True, when that day arrives, he will know wheth- 
 er his construction of the law has been right or wrong. If 
 wrong, he is condemned, and his knowledge comes entirely too 
 late. If he had only known the true construction of the law on 
 earth, he would have been saved. But there were no means af-' 
 forded him to attain this certain knowledge, and all that he 
 could do was to be " darkly wise " as to his Master's will. 
 
 2. The position of Luther, at the beginning of the Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 So long as the sentiment of Julius Caesar, that " he would 
 rather be the first man in a village than the second man in 
 Rome " shall find an echo in human ambition, so long will " lead- 
 ers rather than creeds make parties and keep them," as Mr. 
 Campbell very justly says, under any theory of private inter- 
 pretation in the last resort. Even if there were no great diffi- 
 culties in the construction and application of Scripture, as of 
 every other code, and conceding all men unprejudiced ; still, as 
 so few can be qualified and have the time to investigate and de- 
 cide the entire law for themselves, leaders, from motives of am- 
 bition, revenge, or a zeal not according to knowledge, would 
 always make parties and keep them, under such a theory. 
 
 If a law were given to only twenty men, all independent 
 equals, and each, therefore, bound to decide alone for himself, 
 it would be remarkable if even that limited number could agree. 
 If they disagreed, one could not, consistently with the rule, say 
 to the other, you are wrong. If every one of the twenty dif- 
 fered from all the others, they might deplore the differences 
 with all the fervor and zeal possible ; but still this lamentation 
 would not begin to settle the difficulty. Each must still abide 
 in his own judgment. And to say to men, under such a rule, 
 " Be united," would be about as efficient to produce the end de- 
 sired, as to say to the naked and hungry, " Be ye clothed and 
 fed." The necessity of unity, could not produce unity in fact. 
 
 The necessity of unity in action, may induce men to yield 
 up their judgments to others in temporal matters ; but when a 
 matter of faith and conscience is concerned, how can a man, 
 
428 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 acting upon the rule of private interpretation in the last resort, 
 give up his faith for that of any other mere fallible man ? He can 
 only yield when convinced, and to yield without this conviction, 
 would be sinful hypocrisy. This the honest and sincere mind 
 cannot do. The only possible plan for unity under this rule, is 
 the accidental agreement of so many different minds, in refer- 
 ence to so many different and difficult points. However sincere, 
 however meek, and however void of ambition and prejudice 
 men might be, they would have all to possess the same mental 
 organization, the same mental training, and be surrounded, sub- 
 stantially, by the same circumstances, before they could ever 
 arrive at the same judgment, in reference to so many different 
 matters. 
 
 And when we go from theory to facts, we shall find the truth 
 of this position most fully and conclusively shown. How has 
 the theory worked out in practice ? What has been the effect 
 among those who have confessedly acted upon the rule ? Have 
 they kept the unity of the faith ? Into how many parties are 
 they divided ? Who can tell ? And which of these various 
 parties is in the right, as judged by the theory itself? Who 
 knows ? Why do they not agree ? Is it because the rule is 
 erroneous ? Or is it because of prejudice ? Or is it because of 
 too much light ? Have they too much knowledge ? And is it 
 the inevitable result of knowledge, that men are more and more 
 incapable of arriving at truth ? And, therefore, the better men 
 are qualified to judge, the less apt they are to judge correctly ? 
 and the more they are prone to differ ? 
 
 Nothing can be more demonstrable of this impracticable 
 theory, when applied to law intended for the government of as- 
 sociated men, than a candid and fair study of the main features 
 of Protestant Christianity. It is not within the compass of my 
 design to speak of the varied divisions among Protestants, or 
 of the many fruitless, yet persevering, efforts to heal them. 
 They have divided and subdivided so often, that the most con- 
 densed statement of these separations, would occupy more space 
 than the limits of this work could spare.* 
 
 * The human mind, when rightly disposed, must ever love consistency, be- 
 itause truth is always consistent in every particular ; and truth is lovely and 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 429 
 
 But the reader must be referred to the works of others, who 
 nave treated this subject at large. After a careful examination, 
 the dispassionate observer will not fail to see how far Protestants 
 have departed from the faith of the early Reformers, who were 
 held, especially Luther, as instruments of God, raised up by 
 Him for that special purpose. Nor can the candid and impar- 
 tial inquirer fail to mark the incidents of this progress ; " how," 
 as Bossuet says, "they first separated themselves from the 
 Catholic Church, and afterwards from one another; by how 
 many subtleties, evasions, and equivocations, they labored to re- 
 pair their divisions, and to reunite the scattered members of 
 their disjointed reformation." * And by taking the opinions 
 
 worthy of admiration. Every system of truth must be harmonious, united, and 
 practical. If the fundamental principle of a theory be erroneous, the superstruc- 
 ture, if consistent with it, must of course be defective. But if inconsistent with 
 the fundamental principle, the superstructure cannot be secure, and there can be 
 no harmony in the theory. If the leading principle be practically nullified, there 
 must exist a continual war between profession and practice, and men must sooner 
 or later discover the discrepancy. When the mind is placed in the painful posi- 
 tion of self-contradiction, it can never rest in peace. 
 
 The history of these ever-varying and distressing changes, is one full of in- 
 struction and interest. It is the history of the most gigantic and persevering 
 struggles of the human mind, to erect a firm and consistent structure upon a 
 false foundation to make a theory logical and well-proportioned, which has, for 
 its fundamental rule, an impracticable basis. It has been one continued and 
 never-ceasing attempt to reconcile two irreconcilable elements the right of pri- 
 vate interpretation in the last resort, and the right of government in the Church. 
 These two principles, in their very nature, are radically and fundamentally op- 
 posed, and never can coexist. Like any two precise opposites, they never can 
 be put together. And union and peace, the legitimate results of rightful govern- 
 ment alone, can never be found where the right of private interpretation, in the 
 last resort, exists in each party governed. 
 
 * In considering this question, I was referred by Dr. Spring to the works of 
 Bossuet, speaking of which the Doctor says : 
 
 " The celebrated Bossuet, in his history of the variations of the Protestant 
 churches, (speaking of which, Hallam, in his History of Literature, says ' there is 
 nothing perhaps in polemical eloquence so splendid,') undertakes, with great re- 
 search, to show, that the difference in religious opinions in Pi otestant churches, 
 is a natural and necessary result of abjuring the supremacy of Rome." (Disser- 
 tation 58.) 
 
 In a note to page 14, the learned divine says : " For the best argument I 
 
4:30 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 and views of Protestants of the present day, and comparing 
 them with the doctrines of the first Reformers and their imme- 
 diate followers, he will be enabled to see how completely, in the 
 space of little more than three hundred years, they have veered 
 around to the opposite extremes, upon the most important 
 points. 
 
 When Luther contemplated the Reformation, he found him- 
 self placed in certain circumstances. No intellect or zeal, how- 
 ever great, can lift their possessor above the controlling influ- 
 ence of circumstances. 
 
 The law of Christianity itself was complete, and the legisla- 
 tive power of the kingdom had been all exercised as to all the 
 permanent features of the code, and the executive and judicial 
 powers only remained. It was, therefore, obvious, that the first 
 and most important matter must be the construction of the 
 law governing the Church. This law was positive, expressed 
 in human language, and must, of necessity, be construed by 
 some one. The article designating the tribunal to construe this 
 law in the last resort, was, for that reason, the first and para- 
 mount rule to be made. This would necessarily hold the first 
 place. It would constitute the principal basis, upon which the 
 whole theory must rest. 
 
 But from the invincible nature and reason of things, this 
 right to construe the law in the last resort, could only be placed 
 in one of two tribunals, namely : a tribunal deciding for others, 
 or each one deciding for himself. There was no other possible 
 theory but these. It was, in its essence, a question between 
 government and no government in the Church. Traced out, 
 and carried to its plain, logical results, it could possibly lead to 
 no other conclusion. But the Old Church was in possession of 
 the governing principle. She assumed the exercise of the ex- 
 ecutive and judicial powers. If Luther admitted the rightful 
 
 have seen in favor of the views of Romanists, the reader may be referred to the 
 controversial writings of that very learned and eloquent writer, Bossuet." 
 
 As I read the Dissertation of Dr. Spring, among other Protestant works, 
 when I was inquiring into the truth of the Catholic rule, and heing referred to 
 the works of Bossuet, I read them in the course of my examination, and they 
 certainly merited all the encomiums hestowed upon them. They are distin- 
 guished alike for candor and fairness. 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 431 
 
 existence of these powers in the Church, he would be himself 
 condemned, and could only make such a reformation as the gov- 
 erning power of the Church would sanction.* 
 
 He was, therefore, forced to assume the common ground held 
 by the various sects of heretics that preceded him. So far, ne- 
 cessity compelled him to build upon another man's foundation. 
 But he could not adopt the entire theory of any one of these 
 sects, for these reasons : 1. Their theories had been tried, and 
 failed. 2. He would be building entirely upon the foundation 
 of another. 3. He could not conscientiously sanction their con- 
 demned errors. Now whether all these reasons, or only a por- 
 tion of them, and which portion, induced him to discard all and 
 each of these condemned theories, must be left with each per- 
 son to determine for himself. My own impression is, they all 
 had their influence. 
 
 The principle of private interpretation in the last resort was, 
 therefore, forced upon Luther. It was either that or no Ref- 
 orm atiop. There was no possible middle course. Either the 
 right lo construe the law in the last resort resided in the Church, 
 or with each individual. It could not be divided between them. 
 Two supreme tribunals to execute the same law over the same 
 persons, could not exist under the same system of government. 
 We could just as readily conceive of two Supreme Deities, cre- 
 ating and governing the same universe. 
 
 The authority of the Church was the last restraint that Lu- 
 ther cast aside. It cost him much pain, as he himself relates. 
 " After," says he, " I had gotten the better of all the arguments 
 which were opposed to me, one remained still, which, with ex- 
 treme difficulty and great anguish, I could scarce conquer, even 
 
 * The Hon. Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, in a speech delivered in the House 
 of Representatives, February 12, 1859, in reference to the admission of Oregon 
 into the Union, said : 
 
 " When I was going to address the people at a particular place, meeting a 
 gentleman on the way, I asked him if he was going to the court-house ? He 
 said, ' No ; that I was going to speak, and that he only wanted to know what 
 side I was upon to be against it.' I said, * That is the reason you are always in 
 the minority ; you give me choice of sides upon all questions, and of course I 
 take the best.' " 
 
 So it was with the Old Church. She had choice of sides, and of course took 
 the true ono, leaving Luther the false. 
 
432 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 with the assistance of Jesus Christ ; namely, that we ought to 
 hear the Church." But it must be conceded that Luther may 
 have been mistaken in the supposed assistance of Jesus Christ. 
 He may have mistaken Christ's abandonment of him for His assist- 
 ance. Whether this be true or not, there was a very remarkable 
 circumstance connected with his rejection of the authority of the 
 Church. After having prevailed over his scruples, and in his 
 last struggle to shake off the authority of the Church, " he cries 
 out," says Bossuet, " like one set free from some irksome bond- 
 age, ' Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from 
 us.'" (Va. B. 1, n. 26.) 
 
 This quotation, made by Luther, is from the third verse of 
 the second chapter of Psalms, where it stands in this connec- 
 tion : 
 
 " 2. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers 
 take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anoint- 
 ed, saying, 
 
 " 3. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke 
 from us. 
 
 " 4. He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh : the Lord 
 shall have them in derision." 
 
 The Catholic thinks that Luther made a quotation precisely 
 suited to his position and the effort he was making. 
 
 3. The ground assumed by I/uther. 
 
 When Luther commenced his reformation, he assumed a 
 most grievous responsibility. He who sets himself up to reform 
 the entire Christian Church, in matters of fundamental faith, 
 ought to be very certain that he is in the right. No motives 
 of human pride or passion can excuse such a revolution. The 
 causes to justify such an extraordinary attempt ought to ha\ e 
 been primary, important, and certain, and palpable to the world. 
 
 To assume to have made any new discovery in science, the 
 domains of which are admitted by all to be yet imperfectly ex- 
 plored, is not extravagant or inconsistent with the recognized 
 basis upon which it assumes to rest. But to assume to reform 
 an institution like the Church of Christ, whose integrity is ad- 
 mitted to have been guaranteed by the immutable promises of 
 the Founder Himself, and which Church is conceded to be gov 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 433 
 
 erned by a perfect, positive, and unchangeable law, fully under- 
 stood and reduced to practice at the beginning, is certainly as- 
 suming the most lofty pretensions, while at the same time it lays 
 to the charge of preceding ages, the most grievous and criminal 
 delinquencies. In short, such a reformer must begin by con- 
 demning all others, and end by elevating himself j by contrast 
 with them, to the most perilous height. He ought, by all means, 
 to be very certain he is in the right. No mere probabilities could 
 justify such a position. 
 
 It may seem remarkable, that reformers are themselves gen- 
 erally the most impatient of contradiction. While assuming to 
 reform all others, they receive propositions to reform their own 
 theories with the utmost dislike. They never can see the wit 
 of such a joke. They are like those merciless wits, who rejoice 
 when they can inflict pain upon others, but who, themselves, 
 bear a keen cut with a remarkably ill grace. And yet nothing 
 is more natural than this conduct in a reformer. He assumes to 
 place himself in a very elevated and sublime position, 
 
 " like a star, 
 
 That from its incommunicable height, 
 Looks coldly on the feverish world below." 
 
 If, then, he cannot sustain these lofty pretensions, his posi- 
 tion becomes truly painful. When a proposition is made to re- 
 form his own reformed doctrine, the new reformer says to him, 
 substantially : " You have been plying around your all-destroy- 
 ing scythe, cutting and mangling all you met in your way ; and 
 yet you are yourself incompetent to reform what you attacked. 
 You have sense enough to see there is error, but not enough to 
 see where, or what it is, or how to cure it. I admit that reform 
 was needed, but you did not know how to accomplish it. You 
 did your work so badly, it must be done over again. You who 
 assumed to know so much, yet know so little, that you also need 
 reformation." 
 
 If the reformer have any pride or ambition in his heart, he 
 must feel keenly under such circumstances. And the proposi- 
 tion to reform Luther's doctrine, who claimed a special and ex- 
 traordinary mission, was certainly a very strong and direct impu- 
 tation of error in an assumed special agent of God. 
 38 
 
4-34 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 The fact that John Wesley, in his old age, and years after 
 he commenced his course, and before his leading associates, in a 
 public conference, admitted his Calvinistic and Antinomian er- 
 rors, is one of the most conclusive proofs of his sincerity and 
 humility. It is one (if not the only one) of the most noble 
 instances of humility ever displayed by one claiming to be a re- 
 former. 
 
 Luther seems to have had many fears of the principle of pri- 
 vate interpretation in the last resort, although it was the only 
 possible ground upon which he could consistently base his own 
 conduct. For this reason, we find he hedged it around with 
 many restrictions, inconsistent with the principle itself, and yet 
 necessary to prevent its weakness from destroying the whole 
 project. Hence, he held that the Church was visible, and that 
 ministers could not preach without vocation, either ordinary 
 or extraordinary. He, therefore, placed his own right and au- 
 thority upon the ground of an extraordinary mission, attested 
 by miracles. He assumed the position that all teachers must 
 derive their authority to teach Christianity from one of two 
 sources: 1. From the regularly constituted authorities of the 
 Church, who had the right to confer the power by regular or- 
 dination ; or 2. From the special call of God, attested by mira- 
 cles. For he insisted, with reason, that when God did depart 
 from the regular law of succession, as established by Him in 
 the Church, He would only do so for some special reason ; and 
 would, therefore, prove the authority of His special agent, by 
 the special attestation of miracles. 
 
 This ground was logical, considered in itself; for Luther 
 knew, that to trace his right through the Catholic Church, from 
 which he had been expelled, when by his excommunication the 
 Church had revoked his right to exercise the powers that she 
 had bestowed, would be a solecism in the science of government. 
 
 But in escaping one difficulty, he ran upon another. When- 
 ever God had, under the old dispensation, (which was but pre- 
 paratory to the new,) raised up a prophet, or lawgiver, or teach- 
 er, as His special agent, He never failed to attest the fact by 
 miracles, as Luther assumed ; but He also inspired and qualified 
 the person so chosen. In the very nature of a special mission, 
 this special qualification is required ; otherwise, the special agent 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 435 
 
 could not know how to perform the special duty enjoined upon 
 him. The permanent law of Christianity having been completed 
 during the life of Christ, could not be improved. The only in- 
 spiration, then, that Luther could claim, was that of interpreter 
 of the existing law. 
 
 This being true, wherefore did this necessity arise ? Christ 
 had surely promised that He would be with His visible Church 
 until the end of the world. If the promises of Christ had not 
 failed, there was no necessity for such a mission. If they had 
 failed, why should Christ have raised up Luther ? As he could 
 only live for a few years, and as after his death other questions 
 must still arise, requiring still further constructions of the law, 
 the same error would occur again, and it would be again neces- 
 sary to raise up other inspired expounders of the law from time 
 to time. Why not hold that the promises of Christ were im- 
 mutable and unfailing? Luther conceded the Church to be a 
 visible and continuing association of men, and to be the pillar 
 and ground of the truth ; and if so, for what purpose was his 
 special mission required ? If the promises of Christ had failed, 
 who could have any confidence in the mission of Luther ? It 
 was clear, that if the promises of Christ had once failed, that He 
 could not be trusted. But if His promises had not failed, who 
 could see the necessity of such a mission ? 
 
 But the necessity of such a mission would have been admit- 
 ted, had the assumed miracles referred to by him been apparent 
 and conclusive in their character. They were, however, not 
 like the miracles by which God was usually wont to attest the 
 extraordinary missions of His special servants. They were not 
 cognizant by the senses. They could readily be explained upon 
 natural grounds, and in accordance with the Scriptures, in an- 
 other way. He cured no diseases he raised no one from the 
 dead. His alleged miracles consisted only in visions in the 
 extraordinary success of his preaching, and in his own boldness. 
 All of which could be readily accounted for, upon other grounds 
 than that they were miracles. 
 
 * It seems never to have occurred to Luther and his disciples, that his success 
 and the number of his followers, could constitute no proof of his being sent of 
 God, for the reason, that St. Paul had expressly foretold the same result should 
 follow the heretics and seducers mentioned by him. " And their word will eat 
 
436 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THKOET. 
 
 In conformity with this claim to an extraordinary mission, 
 he did teach and decide as one having such authority. Being 
 the great leader of the alleged Reformation, that circumstance 
 alone would have given him great influence over his followers. 
 Besides these claims, his indomitable will and iron nerve even 
 his obstinacy were in character with his claims to an extraor- 
 dinary mission. If God had raised him up for a certain purpose, 
 of course He would have given him the necessary authority to 
 accomplish the end intended. Hence we find Luther generally 
 firm, and nearly always adhering to his first positions ; and even 
 when he did change, never admitting it, except in one instance, 
 and that in reference to his first books, wherein he admitted 
 there were some remnants of Popery, in regard to Indulgences. 
 (2 Va. App. to Book xiv., sec. 2.) 
 
 The Catholic theory which Luther attacked, possessed, in 
 itself, all the elements of certainty and consistency. The mind 
 that once adopted that theory, as true, relied with the same 
 certainty upon the infallible attestation and construction of the 
 code, as upon the perfection of the law itself. In other words, 
 in the contemplation of that theory, the mind which believed 
 it, had equal certainty as to the inspiration of both the Lawgiver 
 and the Law-interpreter. 
 
 As Luther was forced, from necessity, to adopt the principle 
 of private interpretation in the last resort, it followed very logi- 
 cally, that he should also adopt the doctrine of justification by 
 faith alone, and reject free will, and to assume, as he did, "that 
 God works the evil in us as well as the good," " that free will 
 was a vain title," and in his declamatory style, that "God 
 thunder-strikes and breaks to pieces all free will." (Va. B. i., 
 sec. 8, 9, 18. B. ii., sec. 17.) In lieu of the old system, it was 
 necessary to propose some other, which, when once adopted by 
 the mind as true, promised certainty. There was, therefore, a 
 more deep philosophy in his theory than would at first view ap- 
 pear. So there was in Calvin's, which was but a legitimate ex- 
 tension of Luther's leading principles. As every member must 
 construe for himself, there could be no certainty in the contem- 
 
 as doth a canker." (2 Tim. ii. 17.) "But evil men and seducers shaJ wax 
 worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Tim. iii. 13.) u But they shall 
 proceed i.o farther, for their folly shall he manifest unto all men." (2 Tim. iii. 9.) 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 437 
 
 plation of such a theory, unless other elements were mingled 
 with it. But by assuming that man's will was overruled by 
 God, each one who believed this, could rest content that he was 
 as sure of being in the right, as any one else holding the same 
 principle, whatever might be his want of capacity to construe 
 the Scriptures for himself. The theory that denies free will, is 
 certainly calculated, when once implicitly believed, to produce 
 repose and confidence. So, the idea that we are among the few 
 favored and predestinated, and that, too, by the sovereign act 
 of God alone for His own glory, is certainly flattering to the 
 mind which entertains it ; and if firmly believed, must produce 
 confidence and consolation. It being a partial theory, the fa- 
 vored ones would necessarily esteem it the more. It is natural 
 that they should.* 
 
 * The question regarding the merit of good works under the law of Christ, 
 has been, perhaps, perplexed by not observing the true character of the question, 
 and not keeping it distinctly in view. 
 
 The rewards and punishments bestowed and inflicted upon free agents, must 
 always depend upon the law by which these free agents are governed. As 
 judged by one system of law, a particular act may be a crime, while, as judged 
 by another code, the same act may be innocent. When we judge an act, we 
 must always keep in view the particular law by which we would estimate its 
 merits or demerits. The law, in its finished state, and just as it is, must always 
 decide the question. Whatever may have been the motives or reasons which 
 prompted the lawgiver to enact the law, whether in the view of abstract reason 
 they be thought sufficient or not, it is still the law, if passed by competent au- 
 thority, and must decide the question, whether a particular act, or class of acts, 
 be either commanded or prohibited. The motives and reasons leading to the 
 enactment of the law, may be well inquired into, when questions of construction 
 are considered; but the intention of the lawmaker, being once ascertained, 
 must govern. 
 
 When we consider the disproportion that exists between the reward of heaven 
 and the little we can do, we must at once admit, that we could never merit so 
 much, so long as we are judged by the law of abstract justice ; which law re- 
 sults from the relation we bear to God and the universe the natural relation 
 and fitness of things. But when we are judged by that system of mercy estab- 
 lished by Christ, we can merit. 
 
 The free grace of our Lord was shown in the adoption of a system, by 
 which acts are considered as meritorious that would not be so when judged 
 by the system of abstract justice. This merciful system, which considers that 
 as merit which, in itself, could not be such in the contemplation of any other sys- 
 tem, was the result of the voluntary action of Christ The origin and comple- 
 
438 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 Luther could not have well adopted any doctrines better 
 calculated, in their nature, to enable him to succeed, than those 
 of justification by faith alone, and the rejection of free will. 
 They are not so well suited to the calm reasoner, as to the de- 
 clamatory zealot. They suited the impetuous temperament and 
 the vehement eloquence of Luther. In times of excitement, 
 when positions are not examined with care, these tenets would 
 be well received. They are themes upon which an eloquent de- 
 claimer can dilate with eminent success. These doctrines made 
 the way of salvation easy, simple, and certain. A man had 
 only to believe, and he was safe. 
 
 The denial of free will in man is a necessary weapon to ena- 
 
 tion of the system, rest entirely with Him. It cost Him humiliation and 
 death. We had no right to ask it. We did nothing to advance it. But volun- 
 tary as the system was, and unmerited on our part, when it was once established, 
 it became a matter of covenant, and a matter of law. More correctly speaking, 
 it was a voluntary, but irrevocable, promise. It was a promise actually made, 
 without any consideration moving from us. But as a sealed instrument in the 
 law, from the solemn nature of the act, imports a consideration, and, therefore, 
 the question of consideration cannot be inquired into ; so, the voluntary promise 
 of Christ is irrevocable, having been sealed with His own blood. This voluntary 
 promise, owing to the character of Him who made it, has all the stability and 
 binding force of an irrevocable covenant. 
 
 Making the promise was, therefore, all free grace ; fulfilling it, only carrying 
 out a pre-existing engagement. The free grace was displayed in perfecting the 
 system. Whence it follows that every one owes our Lord gratitude, whether he 
 avail himself of the rewards of the system or not. Christ has still died for him 
 has still paid his debt, and has promised to reward him according to his faith 
 and works. 
 
 It is clear, that man has no cause to glory in what he does, although it is 
 considered merit, when judged by a system founded on free grace. For when a 
 man glories in the merits of his own acts, he can only properly do so, when they 
 are meritorious, as judged by the law of abstract justice. In the eye of this code, 
 he can do no act to merit heaven, or the forgiveness of his sins. All he cau 
 say is, that Christ has so loved him that He has pledged himself, in advance, to 
 call that merit which is not meritorious of itself. So that the original source 
 of all that we can merit, is the blood of Christ. And in the eye of abstract 
 justice, when Christ rewards us for our acts, He but crowns His own gifts ; for 
 the very merit He rewards is His own, though the act, to which the merit is at' 
 tached by Him, is ours. Therefore, in the contemplation of this abstract justice, 
 the act is voluntarily ours the merit is voluntarily Christ's. But in the contem- 
 plation of the system purchased with His blood, both the act and merit are ours. 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 439 
 
 ble a party to tear down an existing institution holding free 
 will. It was this element in the theory of Mahomet that mainly 
 produced that fanatical zeal and invincible valor displayed by 
 his followers, on so many trying occasions. (Ockley's History 
 of the Saracens.) Nothing but time can wear out the effects of 
 such a principle. Derogatory as it is to God's character as a 
 lawgiver, it is yet so flattering to the mind, that in seasons of 
 intense excitement, it is the principle always adopted with suc- 
 cess. Conquerors and other military heroes generally inculcate 
 it as always tending to make men more fearless of death, and 
 more cool in positions of extreme danger. 
 
 But, as Luther insisted that free will appertained to God 
 alone, it was extremely difficult to understand upon what 
 ground, and for what reason, God should give a positive law, 
 expressed in human language, " commanding what is right, and 
 prohibiting what is wrong," to a being who could neither obey 
 nor disobey it. We can well understand why any lawgiver 
 should make such a law, for the government of intelligent 
 agents, who could know, and free agents, who could either obey 
 or disobey the law, as they willed; but we cannot conceive 
 of any reason for giving a law for the government of the predes- 
 tinated, or of him who can have no will. Where the will is 
 overpowered by some other irresistible force, outside and inde- 
 pendent of the law itself, then the law must be entirely idle, be- 
 cause it can accomplish nothing. When the promulgation of 
 such a law cannot change the final result, in any way, it can 
 only be inconsistent with the object of all law. And it was well 
 said by one of the Yaudois leaders, speaking of the work of 
 Luther against free will : " But should all come to pass of ne- 
 cessity, as Luther says, and the predestinated not have it in 
 their power to turn reprobate, nor contrariwise, to what end so 
 much preaching and so much writing, since, every thing hap- 
 pening by necessity, matters never will be better or worse ? " 
 (Cited Va. B. xi., n. 119.) 
 
 But these doctrines of predestination and justification by faith 
 alone, led to such excesses of theory and practice, as to force the 
 larger portion of the Protestant world to reject them; although 
 they thereby gave an example of versatility and change, entirely 
 inconsistent with the claim of Luther to an extraordinary mission. 
 
4:4:0 .RESULTS OF THE PKQTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 The doctrines were not only indefensible upon the grounds of 
 reason, tradition, and Scripture, but they operated badly in 
 practice, when legitimately carried out. 
 
 4. The difficulties in using the same doctrines to tear down 
 one institution, and to build up another in its stead. 
 
 Although the followers of Luther, especially while they were 
 all immediately engaged in the process of destruction, more 
 than in building up, believed in his pretensions to an extraordi- 
 nary mission, they soon began to doubt as to the fact, at least 
 so far as regarded any special qualification he assumed to have. 
 The fundamental rule being common to every member, Stork, 
 the founder of the Anabaptists, soon disputed infant baptism, 
 and insisted that children would be saved out of the Church 
 without baptism, and like Calvin, extended Luther's doctrine 
 of the certainty of justification to the certainty of salvation, and 
 denied that grace could be lost, after justification. Soon after 
 Carlostadius and Zuinglius denied the doctrine of the Real Pres- 
 ence, and in a very short time Calvin followed with his extensions 
 of Luther's main principle of j ustification by faith alone. 
 
 The celebrated German Protestant writer, Henke, in speak- 
 ing of these divisions, remarks : 
 
 " Discord and schism among the Protestants were inevita- 
 ble. We can fancy to ourselves two periods in the formation 
 of their religious opinions: the first, their common struggle 
 with Catholicity, the protest and separation of all these new re- 
 ligious parties from the Catholic Church ; the second, their own 
 internal process of reconstruction. In the first, all was pulling 
 down ; in the second, building up : the first was revolution the 
 second, constitution or organization. But it also followed that, 
 in the one case, there was unity of purpose and community of 
 exertion, and, therefore, union ; in the other, diversity of pur- 
 pose, and, therefore, discord and separation. * * * As soon as 
 they seriously set about reconstructing the sole true edifice of 
 Christian faith as the architects were not of one mind, and 
 were self-opinioned and obstinate enough to wish each for his 
 own plans, models, and designs, in the erection and ornament- 
 ing of the edifice, although often they did not understand each 
 other's language confusion and strife at once became unavoid- 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 441 
 
 able : oftentimes, before any considerable part of the work was 
 done, they separated, each building a hut for himself, or taking 
 up some temporary lodging, until he ultimately returned to the 
 original dwelling. The expositions of Scripture, and the con- 
 clusions from it, which one party adopted, were rejected by 
 another ; and that, notwithstanding the claims of human au- 
 thority, which they determined not to allow. But, meanwhile, 
 although authority was driven out at one door, it was let in at 
 another, although in a new and more friendly shape. Before, it 
 had dictated as an arbitrary and infallible lawgiver ; now, it 
 spake merely as an unerring interpreter of the law. Instead of 
 the dogma prescribed without proof or warrant of Scripture, 
 proven and Scriptural tenets were now proposed ; but, unfortu- 
 nately, many now considered the proofs as worthless, and of as 
 little power as, before, all had deemed the authority of the 
 church from which they had seceded." * 
 
 There is certainly much truth, with some error, contained 
 in this extract ; and one must admire the candor of the cour- 
 teous author. He very properly describes the Church under 
 the figure of an edifice. The process of pulling down the 
 Church is properly called revolution, and the process of " recon- 
 structing the sole true edifice of Christian faith," is very prop- 
 erly called " constitution or organization." In reference to the 
 first, he says there was " unity of purpose and community of 
 exertion, and, therefore, union ; " but in reference to the second, 
 there was " diversity of purpose, and, therefore, separation." 
 
 Now, I am compelled to say, that it seems difficult to under- 
 stand this " diversity of purpose " in the reconstruction of but 
 one " sole edifice." The purpose was, as he states, first, to pull 
 down, and second, to reconstruct. There was then unity of 
 purpose in both cases. They were perfectly agreed as to the 
 necessity of pulling down and reconstructing this sole edifice ; 
 and they set about to accomplish both purposes, but each in its 
 natural order ; and, therefore, there was unity of purpose as to 
 both ; but as to the manner, and not the purpose, of this recon- 
 struction, there was a diversity of views among the architects. 
 
 * Henke, Allgem. Geschichte, der ch. Kirche. Th. iii. 276-9. Cited Bible 
 Question Fairly Stated. 
 39 
 
442 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 There was no diversity as to the end to be attained, but only as 
 to the manner in which this should be reached. As the lion and 
 other beasts of prey, in the fable of the partnership hunt, were 
 well agreed as to two purposes : first, to take the game, and 
 second, to dispose of it ; and as, in the pursuit, each beast was 
 left to run upon his own legs, and utter his own cry, in his own 
 way, there was no disagreement ; but when they came to dis- 
 pose of the game, adverse interests and views arose, and rival 
 plans for the disposition of the prey : So it was here. In pull- 
 ing down, each one acted in the attack as he pleased, and, con- 
 sequently, there was no discord, for no motive to disunion could 
 arise ; but when they come to build up again, one certain man- 
 ner and form must, of necessity, be adopted, for the one sole 
 true edifice ; and they must all agree ag to this plan, or sepa- 
 rate. 
 
 The figure selected by the learned author to represent the 
 Church, is the same used by our Lord, and by St. Paul, for the 
 same purpose. And no illustration could have been selected 
 more forcibly showing the radical defects of the fundamental 
 principle, upon which all Protestantism is ultimately based. 
 The architects were all master builders all independent equals. 
 There were no superiors no subordinates. There was no ad- 
 mitted head and no subordination among these men ; and how, 
 therefore, could there be unity of views ? Under the funda- 
 mental principle that each was to decide for himself, how could 
 each one be otherwise than " self-o pinioned and obstinate," in 
 regard to his own plans and models ? Each architect was re- 
 quired, by the rule, to decide conscientiously for himself, and to 
 rely upon his own convictions, as matter of conscience / conse- 
 quently, an honest man could not give up his views, when he 
 was not convinced, without admitting an authority in others 
 that could not exist under the rule. If he pretended to be con- 
 vinced, when he was not, then he was a hypocrite. In no view 
 of the case could these architects yield to each other their own 
 conscientious convictions. It would have been a palpable vio- 
 lation of the rule itself. The only ground upon which they 
 could yield up their different plans, was that of being convinced 
 by argument ; and among so many independent equals, this 
 could never happen. And well may the author say, that " con- 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 443 
 
 fusion and strife became unavoidable, * * * discord and schism 
 among the Protestants were inevitable." 
 
 The learned author says authority was driven out at one 
 door, in one shape, and let in at another door, in a different 
 shape. In one shape it spoke, as he states, as an infallible law- 
 giver, in the other as an unerring interpreter. In the first case, 
 he alludes to the Catholic Church ; in the second, to the Prot- 
 estant Churches. Now I cannot understand upon what ground 
 the author assumes that the Catholic Church spoke as an infalli- 
 ble lawgiver. She does speak as an infallible interpreter. She 
 assumes to make no law, but simply to explain and execute that 
 which is already made. Her functions are simply judicial as to 
 matters of faith, not legislative. The forms of her decrees, it is 
 true, are as positive expositions. This is in unison with her char- 
 acter as an infallible tribunal. In all courts of justice, the judg- 
 ment, which is the final and binding act of the court, is always in 
 form positive. So was the decree of the Council of Jerusalem. 
 The opinion giving the reasons for the judgment, is in a different 
 form, but the determination itself is always positive, and must, 
 in the nature of a judgment, be so. 
 
 And the fact stated by the author, (and so fully proven by 
 the events succeeding the advent of the alleged Reformation,) 
 that authority was driven out at one door, and was let in at an- 
 other, is but another proof of the incessant exertions made by 
 Protestants, to reconcile two precisely opposite principles. It 
 is true, this authority assumed to come in at the other door, in a 
 new and more friendly shape, but it was still the thing itself. 
 It wore another dress, as was supposed, or the same dress, turned 
 the other side out. It only assumed to be an unerring inter- 
 preter. But this claim, to be the unerring interpreter of Scrip- 
 ture, was wholly incompatible with the recognized right of pri- 
 vate interpretation. Private interpretation in the last resort 
 could not exist under the authority of an unerring interpreter. 
 it was, of course, the duty of all to hear this " unerring inter- 
 preter," and to follow this unerring interpretation : otherwise, for 
 what purpose was the power assumed ? If the unerring inter- 
 pretation of this interpreter were to be subject to the fallible 
 revision of each individual member, then it would make the cer- 
 tain yield to the doubtful. This would be reversing all the rules 
 
444 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 of logic and right reason. On the other hand, to admit this a* 
 thority, was admitting the infallibility of the visible Church. 
 This once conceded, the only inquiry would be, in which Church 
 can it be found ? And if conceded, it must be in virtue of the 
 promises of Christ ; and must, therefore, have always existed in 
 the Church. This would be at once giving up the fundamental 
 principle upon which the whole alleged Reformation was itself 
 based. Hence this assumed authority of unerring interpreta- 
 tion could not be sustained, and, as the author says, " many now 
 considered the proofs as worthless and of as little power as, be- 
 fore, all had deemed the authority of the Church from which 
 they had seceded." 
 
 The leading principle of Wesley's system has in it a deep 
 philosophy. It is better expressed in the words of Mr. Topham 
 in his letter to Dr. Milner. 
 
 " Is it possible," asks he, " to go against conviction and facts ? 
 namely, the experience that very many serious Christians feel, 
 in this day of God's power, that they are made partakers of 
 Christ and of the Holy Ghost, and who hear him saying to the 
 melting heart, with his still, small, yet penetrating and renovat- 
 ing voice : Thy sins are forgiven thee : Be, thou clean ; Thy 
 faith hath made thee whole If an exterior proof were want- 
 ing to show the certainty of this interior conviction, I might re- 
 fer to the conversion and holy life of those who have experienced 
 it." (Cited End of C., L. vii.) 
 
 Now, whether the conviction that this voice has been heard, 
 arises from a certain excited state of the imagination, and a cer- 
 tain warmth of sentiment, or from reality, the effect upon the mind 
 and conduct of him who entertains it, is still the same. He must, 
 so long as he entertains this conviction without doubt, be certain, 
 in his own opinion, of the correctness- of his faith, and of his ac- 
 ceptance with God. His construction of the law at the time he 
 had this conviction, must, under this theory, have been right, as 
 his faith could not make him whole, unless it were, in his view, 
 the true faith. And the intemperate zeal and boisterous joy 
 of the Methodist convert are but the legitimate effects of this 
 conviction. 
 
 So, too, the calm, confident, and abiding faith of the Catho- 
 lic, is the legitimate result of the leading principle of his system, 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 445 
 
 the infallibility of the Church. So long aa the mind entertains 
 firmly this conviction, there must be continued confidence and 
 peace. 
 
 And it cannot escape the attention of the patient inquirer, 
 how many efforts have been made, by the projectors of different 
 theories, to substitute something for the Catholic ^certainty. It 
 has ever been one continued struggle to find some principle that 
 would afford to the mind the same consolatory grounds of cer- 
 tainty, while at the same time the fundamental principle of pri- 
 vate construction in the last resort, could be sustained. Some 
 place it, as we have seen done by Luther, or as by Calvin, or by 
 Wesley, and others, in holding so few doctrines essential, that al- 
 most every one may be sure, under such a theory, that he be- 
 iieves all that is required. 
 
 But how hard it is to keep counterfeit coin always in circu- 
 lation. The different parties are each equally certain their dif- 
 ferent and contradictory substitutes are true. This cannot be. 
 And, therefore, all are left in doubt, sooner or later. Those who 
 hold to private inspiration have given such contradictory, yet 
 positive testimony as to this private spirit, that no one can tell 
 who is right. There is no test no tribunal to determine. 
 
 But this restless and continued struggle to attain, not only 
 infallible certainty in the making of the law itself but also in its 
 construction and application to particular cases, as they arise 
 from time to time, is a proof of its invincible necessity, in the 
 very nature of the human soul, and of every supernatural system 
 intended for men. There must be infallible certainty in the 
 construction of the law, as well as in its creation, or there can 
 be no fixed faith, and no consistency in the system. That there 
 should be an infallible tribunal to construe a perfect law, re- 
 quiring perfect faith of an imperfect creature, is a conclusion so 
 logical, simple, and consolatory, and so much needed by our 
 wants and frailties, that every man's heart and common sense 
 tell him it must be true ; and when it is rejected, there must be 
 at least some plausible substitute for it. 
 
 And well may the Protestant Professor Kohler say : 
 
 " In truth, the Catholic supernaturalism is the only consistent 
 scheme." (Send-schrieben an Prof. Hohn, s. 54.) 
 
 And also the German Protestant writer Reinhold : 
 
446 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 " If a religion contain mysteries if its path towards faith lie 
 over prodigies, the system of infallibility is the only possible 
 one. It is the only system recorded in history, which, in the 
 natural dependence and harmony of its parts, can be said to de- 
 serve the name." (Rienhold, ttber die Kantische Philosophic, 
 s. 197.) 
 
 " The Catholic faith, if we concede its first axiom, which 
 neither the Lutherans, nor the Reformed, nor even the followers 
 of Socinus denied, is as consistent and as consecutive as the books 
 of Euclid." (Gfrorer, Kristische Geschichte des Urchristen- 
 thums, Bd. i. Prf. p. 15-17.) 
 
 " We, Protestants as we are, when we take in at one view 
 this wondrous edifice, from its base to its summit, must acknowl- 
 edge that we have never beheld a system which, the foundation 
 once laid, is raised upon such certain and sure principles ; whose 
 structure displays, in its minutest details, so much art, penetra- 
 tion, and consistency ; and whose plan is so proof against the se- 
 verest criticism of the most profound science." (Marheinecke, 
 Symbolik, 1810, p. 705-6.) 
 
 The Calvinists were called " The Reformed," on the conti- 
 nent. The art, penetration, and consistency, mentioned by the 
 learned author, would necessarily be found in the work of Christ. 
 
 5. Protestant theories of the Church. 
 
 But in no respect have the changes among Protestants been 
 more marked and palpable, than those in reference to the con- 
 stitution and powers of the Church. The question, in its nature, 
 was of the greatest importance ; and some clear and definite 
 idea of her form, functions, mission, and duration, was indispens- 
 able to unity of design and success in any system, recognizing 
 the existence of any Church at all. It was palpable to common 
 sense, that in organizing the Church, our Lord must have de- 
 p signed the accomplishment of some great practical end ; and 
 that He would so frame His system that this end should not be 
 defeated. If He organized a visible Church, composed of living, 
 associated men, He would necessarily give a law for its govern- 
 ment, and bestow upon it certain powers of government, to pre- 
 serve unity in the association. As 'great practical results were 
 designed to flow from the existence of the Church, it could not 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 but be of the utmost importance to understand her powers and 
 duties, and the relation the faithful bear to her. 
 
 It was also manifest, that as the law was promulgated in hu- 
 man language, and committed to the Church, she must be visi- 
 ble and continuing. Her visible existence must be commensur- 
 ate with that of the visible law intended for her government, 
 and committed to her keeping. She must be capable of know- 
 ing and construing the law, made known by signs addressed to 
 the senses, and must, therefore, exist as a visible corporation. If 
 great practical results were to follow from the organization of a 
 Church at all, that Church must, in the nature of things, be vis- 
 ible and continuing. Whatever practical powers or functions 
 were bestowed upon such an institution, could only be given to 
 the visible Church. Such a Church could only speak she could 
 only be heard and obeyed. Men could only certainly join them- 
 selves to a visible Church. They could not know, except by special 
 inspiration, when they were joined to an invisible Church, if they 
 could join such an impalpable thing at all. It was only the visible 
 true Church that could answer the prayer of our Lord, that His 
 followers should be united, that the world might believe. An 
 invisible Church could never give evidence to the world of any 
 thing. 
 
 And the reason of this view is fully confirmed by Scripture. 
 All the powers bestowed upon the apostles were visibly exer- 
 cised by them in the visible Church. The Council of Jerusalem 
 made the decision of the visible Church. Every act of teaching 
 every act of government were always found in the visible 
 Church. " The Church " is often spoken of in the Scriptures. 
 In all places where the phrase " The Church " is used without 
 being confined to the Church at a particular place, as the Church 
 at Ephesus, at Corinth, &c., (which were only parts of the 
 Church, located at particular places, and subject, as branches of 
 the Church, to its government, in the same way that the Church 
 at Antioch, and all other branches, were subject to the decision 
 of the Council of Jerusalem,) the attributes assigned to the 
 Church show plainly that it could be heard, seen, and obeyed. 
 The general expression, the Church, must have had a different 
 meaning from the expression, for example, of the Church at 
 Corinth; and this being so, it could only mean the entire 
 
448 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 Church, as composed of all the branches. WTien converts were 
 baptized, they were baptized by officers of the visible Church, 
 and added unto her. The expression " the Church " can only 
 mean but one. The definite article only points to but one Church. 
 To that one Church are attributed all the powers and privileges 
 bestowed upon her. When, therefore, St. Paul says : " And he 
 hath set some in the church," he not only alludes to the one 
 Church, including all branches, but he evidently alluded to the 
 visible Church, and to that only. These apostles, prophets, 
 teachers, and evangelists, set in the Church, for certain purposes, 
 could only perform their functions in the visible Church. 
 
 Hence Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius, and their respective 
 followers, for the first hundred years succeeding the date of the 
 Reformation, held the Church to be visible. 
 
 The Diet of Augsburg was called by Charles V., Emperor 
 of Germany, in the month of June, 1530. Each party ap- 
 peared. The Lutherans presented their Confession of Faith, 
 drawn up by Melanchthon, in concert with Luther. The four 
 towns of the empire, Strasburg, Meiningen, Seidau, and Con- 
 stance, who opposed the literal sense, gave in their Confession, 
 drawn up by Bucer. Zuinglius, though not of the body of the 
 empire, also sent to the emperor his Confession of Faith. 
 Melanchthon drew up an Apology for the Augsburg Confession, 
 which was also received by the whole party, and presented to 
 the emperor. The Confession and Apology were both equally 
 important and authentic. (Va. B. iii., s. 1-6.) 
 
 In the Augsburg Confession, the Church is spoken of in this 
 way : " We teach that there is a holy Church which must eter- 
 nally subsist." "The Church is the assembly of saints, wherein 
 the Gospel is rightly taught, and the sacraments rightly admin- 
 istered." And in the Apology : " We have never dreamed that 
 the Church was a Platonic city not to be found on earth : we 
 say that the Church exists ; that in it there are true believers 
 and men truly just, spread over all the universe. We add to 
 this its marks, the pure Gospel, and the Sacraments, and it is 
 such a Church that is properly the pillar of the truth." Again r 
 " The Catholic Church is not an exterior of certain nations, but 
 is men dispersed over the universe, who have the same senti- 
 
RESULTS OF THE PKOTE8TANT THEORY. 449 
 
 ments with regard to the Gospel, who have the same Christ, 
 the same Holy Ghost, and the same sacraments." 
 
 Here the Church was admitted to be visible and perpetual, 
 and the pillar of the truth, having the Gospel rightly taught, 
 nnd the same sacraments rightly administered, all the members 
 having the " same sentiments with regard to the Gospel." 
 
 In the articles of Smalkald, the same view is taken. So also 
 in the Saxonic Confession, that of Wirtemberg, that of Stras- 
 burg in 1530, that of Basil in 1536, and of the same in 1532, the 
 same character of the true Church is substantially admitted. 
 
 The great and solemn Helvetic Confession of 1566, defines 
 the Church as that " which has been always, which is, and which 
 shall ever be, the assembly of the faithful, and of the saints who 
 know God, and serve him by the Word and the Holy Ghost ; " 
 " that lawful and true preaching is her chief mark, to which 
 must be added the sacraments, as God has instituted them." 
 
 This definition contemplates the Church as visible, perpetual, 
 and composed of pastors and people, with true preaching and the 
 right administration of the sacraments. 
 
 But it is remarkable that in this Confession we have the first 
 idea of an invisible Church to be found in any authentic creeds 
 of the Reformation. They subjoin "that God has had his 
 friends out of the people of Israel ; that, during the captivity of 
 Babylon, the people were deprived sixty years of the sacrifice ; 
 that, through a just judgment of God, the truth of his Word and 
 worship, and the Catholic Faith, are sometimes so obscured, 
 that it seems almost as if they were extinct, and no Church at 
 all subsisting, as happened in the time of Eli, and at other 
 times ; so that the Church may be called invisible ; not that the 
 men she is composed of are so, but because she is often hidden 
 to our eyes, and, being known to God alone, escapes from the 
 sight of men." 
 
 The cause of this invention is stated by the celebrated 
 French Calvinist minister, M. Jurieu, as follows : " That which 
 moved some reformed doctors, in their Confessions of Faith, to 
 cast themselves into the perplexity they were entangled in upon 
 their denying the perpetual visibility of the Church, was because 
 they believed, by owning the Church always visible, they 
 should find it difficult to answer the question which the Church 
 
1 50 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 of Rome so often asks us : Where was our Church a hundred 
 years ago ? If the Church be always visible, your Calvinist and 
 Lutheran Church is not the true Church, for that was not visi- 
 ble." The minister ought to have said, whole churches of the 
 Reformation, instead of " some reformed doctors." 
 
 The Church of England speaks ambiguously. " The visible 
 Church," says she, " is a congregation of faithful men, in which 
 the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly 
 ministered, according to Christ's ordinance." Nothing is said 
 as to whether she is always visible, or whether she is per- 
 petual. 
 
 In the Confession of Scotland, the Catholic Church is de- 
 fined the Society of all the Elect : " She is," they say, " invisi- 
 ble, and known to God only, who alone knows his elect ; " and 
 add, " that the true Church hath for its mark, preaching and the 
 sacraments;" "which is understood," say they, "not of the 
 universal Church just spoken of, but of the particular Church of 
 Ephesus, of Corinth, and so forth, wherein the ministry had 
 been planted by St. Paul." 
 
 In the Catechism of the French Calvinists, composed by 
 Calvin, they teach that the name " Holy Catholic Church," in 
 the Apostle's Creed, was given to her " to signify there is but 
 one head of the faithful, so all are to be united in one body ; so 
 that there are not many churches, but one only, which is dif- 
 fused all the world over." " There is indeed a visible Church 
 of God, conformable to the signs he hath given us to know her 
 by ; but in this place, (the Creed,) properly speaking, is meant 
 the society of those whom God hath elected for salvation, which 
 cannot be discovered fully to the eye ; " " that no man obtains 
 pardon of his sins, unless he be first incorporated with God's 
 people, and persevere in unity and communion with the body 
 of Christ, and so be a member of the Church ; " that " out of 
 the Church there is nothing but death and damnation ; and that 
 all those who separate themselves from the company of the 
 faithful, to make a sect apart, ought not, whilst divided, to hope 
 salvation." 
 
 It will be seen that in this Catechism the unity and univer- 
 sality of the Church are admitted, and that she has a twofold 
 union, interim and exterior, and both of them are necessary to 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 451 
 
 i 
 
 salvation. Making " a sect apart," is undoubtedly breaking the 
 exterior union of the Church ; so that this Church is visible in 
 her exterior, and known by the marks they speak of, and out of 
 which there is no salvation ; for which reasons they cannot say 
 we cannot see or hear her, but only that we could not see her 
 
 In the French Calvinist's Confession of Faith, presented to 
 Charles IX. in 1561, at Poissy, by the whole party, the Church 
 is only spoken of as visible, and no intimation is given of an in- 
 visible Church. They there teach as a fundamental point, that 
 " the Church cannot subsist, unless there be pastors in her that 
 have the charge of teaching ; " " that no man ought to with- 
 draw apart, nor rest on self-sufficiency, but should join himself 
 to some Church, and this in whatsoever place God shall have 
 established a true form of a Church." 
 
 They speak of the alleged errors of the Church of Rome, and 
 conclude : " We hold that all those who join in such deeds, and 
 communicate in them, do separate and cut themselves off from 
 the body of Jesus Christ." 
 
 Nothing could decide more clearly, that there is no salva- 
 tion in the Catholic Church. And this was conformable to Cal- 
 vin's sentiments, " that the essential doctrine of Christianity was 
 entirely forgotten by us." 
 
 In reference to the vocation of ministers, they say : " We be- 
 lieve, then, that no man may intrude himself, of his own proper 
 authority, into the government of the Church, but that this 
 ought to be done by election;" but they add an exception, 
 " which exception," they say, " we add expressly, because it 
 hath been necessary sometimes, nay, in our days, when the 
 state of the Church was interrupted, that God should raise men 
 in an extraordinary manner, to set up the Church anew, which 
 was fallen into ruin and desolation." " They could not denote," 
 says Bossuet, "in more clear and more general terms, the inter- 
 ruption of the ordinary ministry established by God, nor carry 
 it farther than to be obliged to have recourse to an extraordi- 
 nary mission which God himself despatches, and accordingly fur- 
 nishes with the particular proofs of his immediate will." 
 
 The entire omission of all allusion to an invisible Church in 
 this authentic Confession of Faith, created great difficulty 
 
452 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 among the French Calvinists, and accordingly the Synod of 
 Gap was held in 1603, to consider the propriety of changing 
 the twenty-fifth article ; " so much*the more," say they, u as our 
 belief, regarding the Church, whereof mention is made in the 
 creed, being to be expressed, there is nothing in the said Con- 
 fession that can be understood of any other than the Church 
 militant and visible ; " and a general command was given by 
 this Synod, "that all come prepared on questions concerning 
 the Church." The National Synod of Rochelle, held in 1607, 
 after all the provinces had thoroughly examined the question, 
 decided " not to add to or diminish any thing from the twenty- 
 fifth and twenty-ninth articles " the very same in which the 
 visibility of the Church was expressed most fully "nor to 
 meddle anew with the subject of the Church." 
 
 In reference to the vocation of the ministers, the Synod of 
 Gap, as in the Confession, referred it only to the " extraordi- 
 nary vocation whereby God interiorly stirred them up to this 
 ministry, and not to the small remains amongst them of that 
 corrupted ordinary vocation;" but the Synod of Rochelle, four 
 years afterwards, not satisfied with the Confession and the de- 
 cision of the Synod of Gap, modified it by saying, they must 
 principally have recourse to this extraordinary vocation. 
 
 This change, made by the Synod of Rochelle, was carried 
 farther by the two celebrated French Calvinist ministers, M. 
 Claude and M. Jurieu, who abandoned the extraordinary mis- 
 sion entirely, and put forth some new views in regard to the 
 true Church. M. Claude admits the visibility of the Church, ag 
 in the Confession, and the promises of Christ to her ; and in ex- 
 pounding the commission " Go teach," he approves this com- 
 ment thereon, " with you teaching, with you baptizing," and 
 concludes: "I acknowledge that Jesus Christ promises the 
 Church to be with her, and to teach with her, without interrup 
 tion, to the end of the world." 
 
 As M. Claude had abandoned the ground of an extraordinary 
 vocation claimed by Luther and Calvin, and their followers 
 generally, and relied upon ordinary vocation, he was compelled 
 to own that " this body in which the true faithful are nourished, 
 and this ministry whereby they received sufficient food without 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 453 
 
 subtraction of any part, was the body of the Church of Rome, 
 ind the ministry of her prelates." 
 
 This was expressly contrary to the Confession, to the Synods 
 of Gap and Rochelle, and to Calvin, when he says, speaking of 
 the Catholic Church, " that the doctrine essential to Christianity 
 was there buried, and she was nothing but a school of idolatry 
 and impiety." 
 
 The minister Jurieu is still more explicit. He holds " that 
 all Christian societies which agree in some tenets, inasmuch as 
 they agree, are united to the body of the Christian Church, 
 though they be in schism one against another, even to daggers 
 drawing." And he compounds " the body of the Church of all 
 that great heap of sects which make profession of Christianity 
 in all provinces of the world put together," so that they believe 
 " the fundamental articles." After mentioning the Greeks, the 
 Armenians, the Copts, the Abyssinians, the Russians, the Pa- 
 pists, and Protestants, he says, " all those societies have com- 
 posed the church, and therein does God preserve his fundamen- 
 tal truths." 
 
 In speaking of the two marks of the true Church, which are 
 found in all the Protestant Confessions of Faith ; to wit : " The 
 pure preaching of God's Word, and the administration of the 
 sacraments conformably to the institution of Jesus Christ," he 
 says : " We lay them down : we, that is to say, we Protestants ; 
 but, for my part, I would give the thing another turn, and would 
 say, that to know the body of the Christian and universal Church 
 in general, there is but one mark requisite ; viz., the confession 
 of the name of Jesus Christ, the true Messias and Redeemer of 
 mankind." 
 
 These ministers made a distinction between addition and 
 subtraction. If a church subtracted from the fundamental arti- 
 cles, she could not be the true Church. But if she only added 
 false tenets, even as matters of positive faith, she did not cease 
 to be the true Church, as " God applies to His elect what good 
 there is, hindering whatsoever of human institution from turn- 
 ing to their prejudice and destruction." 
 
 From which it would seem to follow that St. Paul was mis- 
 taken, in pronouncing a curse upon those who add to or take 
 away from the Gospel. So, too, the Council of Jerusalem was 
 
RESULTS OF THE PBOTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 mistaken, in condemning the heresy requiring the addition of 
 circumcision to the requirements of Christ's law, in order to 
 salvation. 
 
 The minister Jurieu attributes the origin of the doctrine of 
 the unity of the Church to the third century ; and ascribes it to 
 Firmilian and his bishops, from whom, he says, it passed into 
 Africa, where the great martyr, St. Cyprian, he says, embraced 
 it. And the minister gives this singular explanation, " that the 
 false idea of the unity of the Church was formed on the history 
 of the two first ages, down to the middle or end of the third. 
 We must not wonder," says he, " that the Church accounted 
 all the sects which existed during those times, as entirely sepa- 
 rated from the body of the Church, for that was true ; " and 
 he adds : u it was at that time, namely, in the two first ages, 
 down to the middle of the third, that they got a habit of believ- 
 ing that heretics did not in any manner appertain to the 
 Church." 
 
 It was, therefore, confessed, that, from the beginning of Chris- 
 tianity down to the middle or end of the third century, all the 
 heretics that were then expelled from the Church, " were en- 
 tirely separated from " her that this was the practice of the 
 Church ; but as it suited the theory of this minister, he insists 
 that those heretics denied what he calls the fundamentals of 
 Christianity, and for that reason, and not for the reason that all 
 heretics were considered as cut off from the Church when ex- 
 communicated, the ancient Church looked upon them as out of 
 the true fold. And certainly, in the days of St. Paul, all con- 
 demned heretics were held as not in any manner, appertaining to 
 the Church. If heretics at all, they were criminals in the eye 
 of the law of Christ, in the same way as murderers, fornicators, 
 and others, mentioned by the apostle. Heresy of every kind 
 excluded from the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 These views of the ministers were generally received by the 
 Calvinists of France, and introduced into the Lutheran Churches 
 hi Germany by Calixtus, one of the most learned men among 
 them, where they also prevail to a great extent. M. Jurieu 
 defines the Church to be " the body of those who make profes- 
 sion of believing Jesus Christ the true Messias ; a body divided 
 into a great number of sects." 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 4:55 
 
 6. Protestant ancestors the Vaudois. 
 
 In the Confession of Augsburg, and in the Apology, as late 
 as 1530, Luther and his followers insisted that they contended 
 for. nothing contrary to the Church of Rome that they only 
 opposed certain abuses which had crept into the Church, as 
 they alleged, without any certain authority ; and Luther, speak- 
 ing of this Church as late as 1534, stated, that "she is the true 
 Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, and the most holy 
 place." 
 
 But when the separation from the Catholic Church became 
 incurable, as the true Church was admitted to be perpetual and 
 visible, and that the promises of Christ were given to her, it be- 
 came necessary to seek a succession through some body of pro- 
 fessed Christians, other than the Church of Rome, up to the 
 days of the apostles. To do this, however, constituted the 
 great difficulty. There had been heretics existing in every age, 
 in some part of the world. Sect after sect, to the number of 
 about four hundred, had arisen, and most of them had vanished 
 before the time of Luther. Some continued longer than others. 
 As one went down, another rose ; and so they had succeeded 
 each other, from Simon Magus down to the alleged Reforma- 
 tion. Among so great a number and variety, it would seem, 
 there ought to have been no difficulty in finding good and wor- 
 thy predecessors. 
 
 But those sects were as different in their doctrines and prac- 
 tices, as they were different in the terms of their duration. 
 Their errors were both great and various, as admitted by Prot- 
 estants themselves. They not only differed so much from each 
 other, but they equally differed from all the Protestant parties. 
 And what increased the difficulty to an insurmountable degree, 
 was the fact, that those various sects, while they differed from 
 the Catholic Church upon certain points, still held the doctrines 
 generally denied by Protestants, and imputed by them to her 
 as errors. And not only so, but no one sect could be found, 
 that had existed during the whole period from the apostles to 
 Luther. To trace succession through several different and dis- 
 cordant heretical sects, with no single one of which any one of 
 the Protestant parties could agree, even in fundamental and 
 
456 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 material respects, would seem to have been a very illogical 
 attempt. 
 
 But the attempt was made. To say, in uncertain and gen 
 eral terms, that they traced their succession through those sects 
 who had renounced the authority of the Catholic Church, would 
 have been unbecoming sensible and candid men, and would have 
 admitted a fraternity with all. It therefore became necessary 
 to specify the particular sects through which this alleged suc- 
 cession was to be traced. Among the sects selected as ances- 
 tors, especially by the Calvimsts, was that of the Vaudois, or 
 poor men of Lyons, who took their rise under Peter Waldo, in 
 1160. Waldo was a merchant of that city, and was so much 
 affected by the sudden death of one of his brother merchants, 
 that he at once sold all his property, distributed the proceeds 
 to the poor, and afterwards led a life of poverty himself* Hence 
 their peculiar tenets have an affinity with the historical circum- 
 stances connected with their origin. Their leading tenets were : 
 
 1. That it was unlawful for the clergy to own any property. 
 
 2. That neither lands nor people ought to be divided. 3. That 
 every oath is a mortal sin. 4. That all princes and judges are 
 damned, because they condemn malefactors contrary to these 
 words : " Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord ; " and " Let both 
 grow together until the harvest." 5. That every lay person, 
 even a woman, ought to preach. 6. That the functions of min- 
 isters, and the validity of their acts, depend upon their personal 
 virtue. 7. They held the seven sacraments, except Orders. 
 8. They held Transubstantiation. 9. They knew nothing about 
 the doctrine of justification by faith alone, nor of the impossi- 
 bility of falling from grace, nor the doctrine of Luther and Cal- 
 vin denying free will. 
 
 As they made the ministry depend upon personal merit, and 
 required extreme poverty to constitute that merit, they repu- 
 diated the authority of the Pope and bishops, and held the See 
 of Rome as the harlot of the Revelations. They held that a 
 holy layman could administer the sacraments as well as a holy 
 priest. They rejected the Mass, Purgatory, and the Invocation 
 of Saints.* 
 
 * Va. B. xi., where the subject is very fully treated. 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 45? 
 
 But the difficulty of tracing succession for more than three 
 centuries, through this singular people, became very great when 
 they held so many doctrines condemned by both Protestants 
 and Catholics ; such as forbidding the clergy to hold any prop 
 erty, thus making poverty an essential of religion, when it was 
 only a counsel of perfection ; that property ought to be held in 
 common by the laity ; that oaths were sinful ; that the punish- 
 ment of death could not be inflicted, by the state, upon the 
 vilest offenders ; that all lay persons, even women, ought to 
 preach ; and that the validity of the sacraments did not depend 
 upon the virtue Christ had given them, but upon the personal 
 merits of the administrator. But, besides these errors, (con- 
 demned by both parties,) these people held Transubstantiation, 
 and six out of the seven sacraments held by Catholics. It 
 would seem to have been difficult to find any affinity between 
 the Calvinists and the Vaudois. Besides, the Vaudois knew 
 nothing of justification by faith alone, predestination, and final 
 perseverance. In claiming them as predecessors, the Calvinists 
 were compelled to overlook the grossest alleged errors, and also 
 to suppress their own cardinal doctrines. They claimed to be 
 the successors of a sect, that needed more reformation than the 
 Catholics, (from whom they separated,) according to their own 
 theory. 
 
 But the greatest difficulty lay in the undeniable fact, that 
 Peter Waldo, and all his followers, were mere laymen, who 
 preached without a vocation, either regular or extraordinary. 
 They had never claimed any extraordinary ministry. They per- 
 formed no miracles, nor claimed that any were performed, to 
 prove such an extraordinary mission. They claimed no regular 
 mission, for they denied its necessity. The Vaudois, then, ob- 
 tained their authority to preach in neither of the ways admitted 
 and required by the Lutherans and Calvinists. In claiming the 
 Vaudois as predecessors, the Calvinists, in violation of their own 
 theory, claimed to be engrafted upon a branch that did not con- 
 nect with the trunk itself. Besides, this sect only extended 
 back to the year 1160. How were they to get beyond that 
 period ? Efforts were made to trace the origin of the Vaudois 
 back to the time of Constantino the Great, but these efforts 
 
 failed. It was claimed that in the days of Sylvester I., wher 
 40 
 
458 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 that Christian emperor endowed the Church with temporal 
 revenues for ecclesiastical purposes, that one of the Pope's com 
 panions, called Leo, withdrew from his communion with his fol- 
 lowers, and abided in their poverty and simplicity of faith. 
 This error had been embraced by Leger, one of the Vaudois 
 Barbes, (as they called their pastors,) who was their most cele- 
 brated historian, though a very bold and ignorant man. But, 
 unfortunately, the ground upon which the alleged withdrawal 
 of Leo and his followers was based, could not be approved by 
 the Calvinists. And what was still more against the whole as- 
 sumption, was the fact that no historical proof could be found 
 among the writings of the ancient Fathers, nor in the proceed- 
 ings of any of the councils. "We have," says Bossuet, " in the 
 councils held in the communion of the Roman Church, anathemas 
 pronounced against an infinity of different sects : we have the 
 catalogues of heresies drawn by St. Epiphanius, by St. Austin, 
 and several other church authors. The most obscure and the 
 least followed sects those which appeared in a corner of the 
 world, as that of certain women called Collyridians, who were 
 to be met with in some part of Arabia ; that of the Tertullian- 
 ists or Ahelians, who were only in Carthage, or in some villages 
 near Hippo, and many others equally obscure did not escape 
 their knowledge. The zeal of pastors that labored to bring 
 back the strayed sheep, discovered all to save all : none but 
 those separatists on account of ecclesiastical revenues were un- 
 known to everybody." * 
 
 * V. B. x., n. 5. The authority of Waddington, the Protestant historian, 
 sustains this statement of Bossuet. 
 
 "In our journey back towards the apostolic times," says this author, " these 
 separatists conduct us as far as the beginning of the twelfth century; but when 
 we would advance farther, we are interrupted by a broad region of darkness and 
 uncertainty. A spark of hope is indeed suggested by the history of the Vaudois. 
 Their origin is not ascertained by any authentic record, and being immemorial, 
 it may have been coeval with the introduction of Christianity. 
 
 But since there is not one direct proof of their existence during that long 
 space ; since they have never been certainly discovered by the curiosity of any 
 writer, nor detected by the inquisitorial eye of any orthodox bishop, nor named 
 by any Pope, or council, or any church record, chronicle, or memorial, we are 
 not justiried in attaching any historical credit to their mere unsupported tradi- 
 tion. It is sufficient to prove that they had an earlier existence than the twelfth 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 4:59 
 
 7. The Bohemian Brethren. 
 
 Among the obscure sects existing at the beginning of the 
 Reformation, was that of the Bohemian Brethren. The Real 
 Presence had been impugned by the Manichean Heretics of Or- 
 leans in 1017, and by Beringarius in 1030, who recanted his 
 errors, and died in the Catholic Church. In the fourteenth 
 century, this doctrine was impugned by Wickliffe, as well as 
 other doctrines of the Catholic Church. Wickliffe also re- 
 nounced his doctrine, and died in the Catholic Church. Among 
 the disciples of Wickliffe was John Huss, who, however, dis- 
 agreed with Wickliffe about the Real Presence. The only two 
 points of Catholic doctrine disputed by Huss were, communion 
 under one kind, and the Pope. In other respects, he was a 
 Catholic. After his death two sects arose under his name, the 
 Calixtins and the Taborites. The Taborites were so cruel and 
 seditious, that they have been alike condemned by Catholics 
 and Protestants. The Calixtins, on the other hand, only objected 
 that the cup was withheld from the laity, and were willing to 
 recognize the authority of the Pope if this privilege were grant- 
 ed to them. These Calixtins, it was said, " romanized in every 
 thing but the cup." To reform them, the tradesmen placed at 
 their head one Kelesiski, a master shoemaker, who drew up for 
 them a body of doctrine, called the Forms of Kelesiski. After* 
 
 century ; but that they had been perpetuated through eight or nine centuries, 
 uncommemorated abroad, and without any national monument to attest their 
 existence, is much more than we can venture, on such evidence, to assert. Here, 
 then, the golden chain of our apostolic descent disappears ; and though it may 
 exist, buried in the darkness of those previous ages, and though some writers 
 have seemed to discern a few detached links which they diligently exhibited, 
 there is still much wanting to complete the continuity." (Page 554 of the His- 
 tory of the Church, from the earliest ages, by Rev. Geo. Waddington, A.M., Fel- 
 low of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary of Ferring, in the Cathedral 
 Church of Chichester: New York edition, 1835. Cited by Bishop Purcell, in 
 Campbell and Purcell's Debate, at Cincinnati, 1837, p. 24, 25.) 
 
 From this extract it appears that the most that Protestants can say in refer- 
 ence to the links necessary to complete their alleged chain of succession is, that 
 they " may exist buried in the darkness of those previous ages." When we have 
 so many Christian writers from the third to the sixth age, and yet no mention is 
 made of this sect, all we can certainly say is, that there is a bare possibility ot 
 the continued existence of such a sect. 
 
460 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 wards they chose themselves a pastor named Matthias Conraldi, 
 and openly separated from the Calixtins in 1467. In their 
 Apology of 1532, the Bohemian Brethren admit they were made 
 up " of the meaner sort, and some Bohemian priests in small 
 numbers, all put together but a handful of men, a small rem- 
 nant, and the despicable refuse left in the world by Johr> 
 Huss."* Their leading and distinctive tenets were 1. The 
 necessity of rebaptizing all those who joined them from other 
 churches. 2. That the efficacy of sacraments depends upon the 
 merit of the administrator. 3. They rejected the Mass. 4. They 
 rejected the authority of the Pope. 5. They rejected Transub- 
 stantiation. They agreed with the Catholics in the seven sac- 
 raments, in observing days of fast, in the celibacy of the clergy, 
 and the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. Luther re- 
 proached them for knowing nothing of the common foundation 
 of the Reformation, justification by faith, for they "placed it," 
 he said, "in faith and works together, as many fathers had 
 done ; and John Huss was wedded to this opinion." f As for 
 the doctrine of the Real Presence, it was matter of some doubt 
 whether they held it or not. Their language was confused and 
 uncertain upon this point. They were claimed both by the Lu- 
 therans and Sacramentarians. It seems, however, that they 
 held the doctrine, as they afterwards joined the Lutherans. 
 
 The Lutherans, in the Preface they placed before the Breth- 
 ren's Apology, and printed at Wittenberg in Luther's time, say 
 that in this small and ignorant body of men, " the Church of 
 God was preserved when she was thought entirely lost." J 
 
 At the beginning of their separation, they despatched three 
 deputations into Greece, in quest of other Christians holding the 
 same doctrines with them; but the search was fruitless, and 
 none could be found. 
 
 In reference to these Bohemian Brethren, Bossuet remarks : 
 u These are the men whom Protestants admire. Does the ques- 
 tion turn on condemning the Church of Rome ? They never 
 cease to upbraid us with the ignorance of her priests and monks. 
 Is the question regarding the ignorant individuals of these lat- 
 ter ages, who have set up for reforming the Church by schism ? 
 
 * V. xi. 170-4. f Id. 179. J Id. 176. 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 461 
 
 they are fishermen turned apostles, although their ignorance 
 stands eternally on record, from the first step they took." ( Va. 
 B. xi. 176.) 
 
 It was in this small sect, in one corner of Bohemia, that the 
 Church was preserved, as the Lutherans insisted, and through 
 this body they were willing to trace their succession. But 
 there were many difficulties in the way. The Bohemian Breth- 
 ren were only a small party, who had separated from another 
 small remnant of Hussites the Calixtins, the only Hussites in 
 existence at the time. They knew nothing of the cardinal doc- 
 trine of Justification. They believed in Works. Besides that, 
 they had no vocation ordinary or extraordinary. They were 
 mere laymen, who made their own minister. They went, ac- 
 cording to Luther, without being sent. They held the seven 
 sacraments celibacy of the clergy days of fast, and other 
 Catholic views so much opposed by the Lutherans. In addi- 
 tion, they held the tenet borrowed from the Manicheans, that 
 the validity of the sacraments depended upon the virtue of the 
 administrator, as if the virtue given them by Christ, could de- 
 pend upon such a circumstance. They also held invalid all bap- 
 tism conferred by any other church. This was assuming to be 
 the only true church. But the greatest difficulty in the matter 
 AV as that these Brethren were about as modern as the Lutherans. 
 They had only existed some fifty years when the Reformation 
 began. It would then be indispensable to find the True Church 
 in some other body of professed Christians, before the days of 
 Kelesiski, the founder of the Brethren. 
 
 Among the other sects claimed by the Protestants, at least 
 by the Calvinists, as their predecessors, were the Albigenses, 
 As Beringarius and Wickliffe organized no churches, and re- 
 canted their errors and died in the Catholic Church, they could 
 not be claimed as ancestors. Beringarius impugned but one 
 article, and Wickliffe advocated many confessed and manifest 
 errors, that all parties of the Reformation condemned no less 
 than the Catholics. However much, therefore, some of the 
 principles advocated and recanted by these men, especially 
 Wickliffe, were approved by the Calvinists, as well as others of 
 
462 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 the Reformation, when taken as a whole they could not but be 
 rejected. 
 
 But in claiming the Albigenses as ancestors, the Calvinists 
 admitted a fraternity with a sect that only extended back to the 
 eleventh age, and was far more objectionable in doctrine than 
 the Yaudois. The Albigenses, as proven by Bossuet in the 
 eleventh Book of his Variations, was but a branch of the Ma- 
 nicheans, and held their principal errors, with some superadded 
 tenets of their own. 
 
 The fundamental principles of Manicheism may be found in 
 Plato, and sprung from Paganism. Manes, a Persian, towards 
 the close of the third century, endeavored to engraft these prin- 
 ciples upon Christianity. The theory turned upon the origin 
 of good and evil. These being so precisely opposite in their 
 nature, must of course spring from different sources. In con- 
 formity with this idea, they held the existence of two Creators, 
 one the source of good, the other the source of evil. These 
 two Creators were enemies by consequence, and in their strife 
 one filled the world with good, the other with evil. All the 
 peculiar views of the Manicheans may be traced as logical con- 
 sequences drawn from these principles. 
 
 These heretics drew consequences from these principles no 
 less absurd than infamous. They held the creation of the world, 
 of men, of all animals, and of all things visible, as the work of 
 the evil principle, and Heaven, the human soul, and all things 
 invisible, as the w^ork of God, the infinitely good principle. Upon 
 these grounds they rejected the Old Testament, holding it as 
 the product of the evil principle. As Christ was the son of God, 
 they denied the incarnation, and held his body to have been but 
 a phantom, a body in appearance only. Our bodies being the 
 creation of the bad principle, and our souls of the good, it waa 
 not lawful to unite the good with the evil ; and therefore it was 
 wicked to beget children, and marriage was for that reason pro- 
 hibited. Every thing proceeding from generation proceeded 
 from the wicked principle, and was impure by nature, and there- 
 fore the use of all meats, as well as wine, was criminal. 
 
 These people made extraordinary pretensions to virtue, and 
 were exceedingly seductive in their discourses, in which they 
 covertly concealed the most glaring absurdities of the theory. 
 
RESULTS OF THK PROTESTANT THEORY. 463 
 
 They adopted a system of secrecy, consisting of several different 
 degrees. Those who were called auditors were not let into the 
 whole mystery, which was kept close from the probationers. 
 The elect only, after passing through several gradations, were 
 admitted to the whole secret. This secrecy was one of the 
 principal causes, not only of the wide-spread and long-continued 
 success of the sect, but also of the artifices and dissimulation 
 practised by the Manicheans. 
 
 Acting upon this principle, the Manicheans mixed with the 
 Catholics, attended their churches, acknowledged their doc- 
 trines, and dissembled their own, propagating them by degrees, 
 and as a secret, in secret corners and places. They assumed 
 the appearance of extraordinary piety and poverty. Faustus, 
 the Manichean, thus speaks to Catholics, as stated by St. Aus- 
 tin : " You ask me whether I receive the gospel ? you see I do, 
 inasmuch as I observe what the gospel prescribes ; of you I 
 ought to ask whether you receive it, since I see no mark of it in 
 your lives. For my part, I have forsaken father, mother, wife, 
 and children, gold, silver, meat, drink, delights, pleasures ; con- 
 tent with what is sufficient for life from day to day. I am poor, 
 I am peaceable, I weep, I suffer from hunger and thirst, I am 
 persecuted for justice' sake, and do you question whether I re- 
 ceive the gospel ? " 
 
 As this sect denied the existence of Christ's body, they of 
 course denied the Real Presence ; and as they refused the use 
 of wine, when they communed with Catholics they only received 
 the bread. They were detected by St. Leo from this circum- 
 stance, and that they might be distinguished, all were required 
 to receive in both kinds. 
 
 The sect grew strong in Armenia, a province bordering on 
 Persia, in the seventh century. They were there settled, or 
 confirmed by one named Paul, and hence took the name of 
 Paulicians. These Paulicians held a great aversion to the Im- 
 ages of Christ crucified, as they denied his crucifixion ; to the 
 Virgin Mary, as they held her not to have been the mother of 
 Christ ; and to the Eucharist. From Armenia they sent preach 
 ers to Bulgaria, where the heresy took deep root, and they 
 were hence called Bulgarians. About the year 1000, they first 
 made their appearance in the Latin Church. An Italian woman 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTEST ANT THEORY. 
 
 brought it into France, where it took root at Orleans. In Italy 
 they were called Cathari, that is to say, pure. It was intro- 
 duced into Italy from Bulgaria. It spread into Languedoc, 
 Toulouse, and especially into Gascony, where they were called 
 Albigenses, in token of the place they carne from, namely, from 
 Bulgaria. They also spread into Germany and England. Those 
 in England were from Gascony, and were called Poplicans or 
 Publicans. It was stated by Renier, who wrote about the year 
 1254, that in his time, when the sect was weakened, "the per- 
 fect Cathari did not exceed four thousand in all Christendom," 
 but that " the believers were innumerable, a computation which 
 several times had been made amongst them." The perfect Cath- 
 ari were those admitted to the highest secrets, while the be- 
 lievers were made up of all sorts of people. 
 
 These various branches of these heretics, though often 
 i hanging some of the doctrines of the sect, and often differing 
 from each other in many particulars, were yet always distin- 
 guished by the great leading principle of their origin. They all 
 rejected marriage, the Old Testament, and the use of meats. 
 They generally held oaths unlawful, opposed all ordination of 
 the clergy, held that the efficacy of the sacraments depended 
 upon the personal virtue of the administrator, and that all good 
 persons could administer the sacraments. They generally re- 
 jected baptism, the invocation of saints, oblations for the dead, 
 and the resurrection. 
 
 This very condensed statement of the leading features of 
 these heretics, is made up from Bossuet, to whom I must refer 
 for more full and accurate information. The distinguished au- 
 thor, in the close of his account, remarks : 
 
 " Such were the Albigenses, by the testimony of all their 
 contemporary authors, not one excepted. The Protestants 
 blush for them ; and all they can answer is, that these excesses, 
 these errors, and all these disorders of the Albigenses, are the 
 calumnies of their enemies. But have they so much as one 
 proof for what they advance, or even one author of those times, 
 and for more than four hundred years after, to support them in 
 it ? For our parts, we produce as many witnesses as have been 
 authors in the whole universe who have treated of this sect. 
 Those that were educated in their principles have revealed to 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 465 
 
 us their abominable secrets after their conversion. We trace 
 up the damnable sect even to its source ; we show whence it 
 came, which way it steered its course, all its characteristics, and 
 its whole pedigree, branching from the Manichean root." 
 
 One cannot but be astonished at the errors of this sect ; and 
 yet there is no cause for surprise. It is but another proof of the 
 truth of Christianity, as this sect was explicitly foretold by St. 
 Paul, in the fourth chapter of his first Epistle to Timothy : 
 
 " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times 
 some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, 
 and doctrines of devils ; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their 
 conscience seared with a hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and 
 commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to 
 be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know 
 the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to 
 be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving ; for it is sancti- 
 fied with the word of God and prayer." 
 
 The Fathers are unanimously agreed that this prediction had 
 reference to the Manicheans, whose tenets, and the reasons 
 they gave for them, taken in connection with their acts and 
 history, so completely fill up the picture drawn by St. Paul. 
 The apostle not only points out specifically the two false doc- 
 trines to be taught, but with wonderful brevity and accuracy 
 gives us the character of the teachers, the source of their doc- 
 trines, and the manner of their teaching. The teachers were " se- 
 ducing spirits" who taught the " doctrines of devils" by " speak- 
 ing lies in hypocrisy " with " seared consciences." The mode 
 of teaching adopted by these heretics their hypocrisy their 
 secrecy their enchantments their extraordinary pretensions 
 to superior piety every part of their conduct, pointed them 
 out as " seducing spirits, speaking lies in hypocrisy." And well 
 might St. Paul say they would teach the "doctrines of 
 devils," since they taught that God did not create the world 
 and the things therein, thus robbing Him of the honor due to 
 the Sovereign Creator of the universe, but giving it to the evil 
 principle ; thereby flattering the pride of the evil spirits, and 
 pampering their jealousy against God, and blaspheming the 
 Creator by imputing impurities to His works. 
 
 But the apostle not only points out the two doctrines that 
 
466 EESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 distinguished these heretics, and at the same time gives us the 
 character of the teachers, the source of their errors, and their 
 manner of teaching; but he is careful to defeat tbe very grounds 
 upon which they predicated these doctrines. For, whereas they 
 attributed the creation of the bodies of men and of animals to 
 the evil principle, and from thence deduced the conclusion that 
 the propagation of the human race, and the use of meats, were 
 criminal, St. Paul expressly alleged that " God created meats to 
 be received with thanksgiving ; " and not only so, but that 
 " every creature of God is go"od, and nothing to be refused, if 
 received with thanksgiving : for it is sanctified with the word of 
 God and prayer." Nothing could be more clear and explicit in 
 pointing out the teachers, their character, their manner of teach- 
 ing, the doctrines taught, the source from which they sprang, 
 being the " doctrines of devils ; " but also in anticipating and 
 confuting the false grounds upon which these doctrines of devils 
 were based, than those brief and accurate passages of the 
 apostle. That this sect filled up fully the entire picture of the 
 apostle, there would seem to be no possible doubt. Each and 
 every portion of the prediction, is completely fulfilled in their 
 character, doctrines, manner of teaching, and the grounds upon 
 which their tenets were based. 
 
 In considering the peculiar doctrines of the Yaudois, the 
 Bohemian Brethren, and the Albigenses, claimed as ancestors 
 of the early Protestant Churches, and especially by the Calvinists, 
 wnlle it is evident they differed in many great and leading re- 
 spects from each other, from the Catholic Church, and from each 
 and all the Protestant parties themselves, it must be conceded 
 that these sects did hold certain tenets in common. With many 
 of the sects of old, and with Wickliffe, they held that the validity 
 of the sacraments was lost if administered by wicked men, 
 although such wickedness was hidden in the heart, and could 
 only be known to God. 
 
 9. Reflections. 
 
 This seems to have been a common ground occupied by 
 many sects of heretics, before the Reformation, and was based 
 upon some great reason and necessity. In all ages those who 
 rejected the authority of the Church, were compelled, like 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 467 
 
 Luther, to adopt some theory having at least the appearance of 
 logical consistency in its fundamental principles. The Church 
 being in the prior possession of the governing principle of au- 
 thority, those who denied her power, were compelled to adopt 
 the Scriptures as the entire code, and the right of private interpre- 
 tation in the last resort, or renounce their opinions. The prin- 
 ciple that the virtue of the sacraments depended upon the per- 
 sonal character of the administrator, and not upon his official 
 powers, when legitimately extended, would necessarily set aside 
 all authority in the Church as a united and visible body of men ; 
 and would make the authority of teachers depend upon their 
 personal merits alone. If the sacraments necessarily lost their 
 validity wjien administered by a wicked, but regularly ordained 
 minister, then the only logical test required under this rule, 
 must be the personal virtue of the individual. This virtue was 
 the efficient test of the right to administer. And as this personal 
 virtue did not depend upon the Church in any way, and yet 
 constituted the only qualification required, of course the author- 
 ity of the Church could not exist in the contemplation of such a 
 theory. Hence these sects held that any good person could 
 preach and administer the sacraments. 
 
 In contemplating the character, tenets, and history of these 
 sects, one cannot but be struck with the great and perplexing 
 necessity that compelled the Reformers to admit a fraternity 
 with them. The Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zuinglians, had 
 all admitted, as fundamental truths, that the true Church was 
 visible, Catholic, and perpetual, and that the promises of Christ 
 appertained to her. As a part of this idea of the Church, they 
 insisted that ministers must have a vocation, either ordinary or 
 extraordinary. Having assumed these grounds, they were then 
 compelled to find a visible church always existing from the days 
 of the apostles down to the days of Luther. In attempting to 
 do this, they displayed extraordinary industry, talent, and re- 
 search. One cannot but admire their intense perseverance and 
 assiduity, as well as the great ability they exhibited. 
 
 But all the abilities in the world cannot annihilate the in- 
 flexible facts of history. Nor can any amount of ability recon 
 cile irreconcilable principles. Misguided abilities may mistake 
 and conceal, for a time, the facts of history, and, for the mo- 
 
468 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 ment, may render apparently consistent, inconsistent theories ^ 
 but time is certain, sooner or later, to expose the true state of 
 the case. The truth must and will stand revealed at some 
 period. Intrepid and right-minded men will, sooner or later, 
 carry out the main principles of a theory, in all their ramifica- 
 tions, to their logical and legitimate results. 
 
 In searching for the true visible Church before the Reforma- 
 tion, they were placed in a painful predicament. They denied 
 it to be the Church of Rome. If she had been the true Church, 
 they ought to have heard her. If she had been the true 
 Church, then there was no necessity or justification for destroy- 
 ing her, and reconstructing the alleged true Church upon her 
 ruins. When, therefore, they turned from her to seek for 
 another, where was it to be found ? The Vaudois* extended 
 only back to 1160, and the Bohemian Brethren only to 1467, 
 and the Albigenses were only a branch of the Manicheans, 
 holding their essential and fundamental errors in the main. If 
 the Albigenses were not Manicheans, and all the histories at- 
 testing that fact were false, still they only extended back- to 
 about the year 1000. If, on the contrary, they were Mani- 
 cheans, and therefore could be traced back to Marcian, in the 
 second century, who taught the existence of two principles, the 
 first one good and the other evil, and prohibited marriage, but 
 not the use of meats, then the line of succession would be al- 
 most long enough. But the abominable errors of these people 
 were too great. They could not be claimed as the true Church. 
 The only ground upon which the Albigenses were claimed was, 
 that the excesses charged against them were calumnies. But to 
 accuse so many authors, exhibiting every evidence of sincerity, 
 of such excessive calumny, were indulging a most captious and 
 suspicious spirit. 
 
 If the Manichean sect, whose beginning could be traced 
 clearly to the second century, if not to Simon Magus, in the 
 first, and which continued without interruption near, if not 
 quite, to the fifteenth century, and extending over the world so 
 far, and containing such numbers, could not be claimed as the 
 true Church on account of their manifest errors, then it was 
 clear that the true Church must be made up of various short- 
 lived, independent, and discordant sects, each differing from all 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 469 
 
 the others, as well as from Protestants, and never even claiming 
 any affinity with each other. This would compose the chain of 
 Christian succession of many dissimilar links, some deformed in 
 some respects, and some in others. But not only would the 
 links be so deformed, and yet so dissimilar even in deformity, 
 but the chain itself would be exceedingly small and diminutive. 
 Having rejected the great sects of the Manicheans, Arians, and 
 others, containing almost the entire mass of dissenters from the 
 Church of Rome, this theory reduced the true visible Church 
 to a few scattered fragments of different sects, dispersed up and 
 down the course of centuries, confined to a very small portion 
 of the earth at a time, and containing scarcely any members, 
 with a large mass of error. The members of the alleged true 
 Church were exceedingly few, while their errors were grievous, 
 many, and discordant. 
 
 This theory made Christianity a practical failure a system 
 of splendid promises and of meagre results the Church a " city 
 of magnificent distances " and few inhabitants. The Church, 
 the pillar and ground of the truth, according to this theory, 
 had held and taught the most discordant and fatal errors ; and 
 this Church universal was confined to one corner of the world. 
 And not only was the Church a failure at particular periods, but 
 this theory made it a failure almost throughout its entire course. 
 The Church of Rome had held in her communion, throughout 
 her entire history, the great and overwhelming majority of all 
 professed Christians ; but she was not the true Church. Nor 
 was the true Church found in the great sects that separated 
 from the Church of Rome. She was only found in the most 
 diminutive and obscure sects, each differing from all the others, 
 and, as Calvin said, " not seen fully." The kingdom of Christ 
 had dwindled so as scarcely to be seen. It was not quite, but 
 almost, invisible. 
 
 If the visible Church came from the hands of the apostles 
 united, and with a regular ministry ; and if, according to the 
 theory of the Reformers, all ministers must have a vocation, 
 either ordinary or extraordinary ; and if the expulsion from the 
 visible Church, according to the same theory, destroyed or 
 withdrew the ordinary vocation of the minister excommuni- 
 cated, and the true Church could only exist with authorized 
 
470 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 preaching and the right administration of the sacraments, as 
 they admitted, how did these sects get their authority to be the 
 true Church ? They claimed no extraordinary authority, for 
 they did not claim that any miracles attested it. If, then, they 
 had any authority, it must have been ordinary. But they were 
 mere laymen, claimed no ordinary vocation, and therefore de- 
 nied its existence. Their common principle, making the valid- 
 ity of the sacraments dependent upon the personal virtue of the 
 administrator, rendered every kind of vocation unnecessary. 
 How, then, could the Reformers claim these sects, or any one 
 of them, to be the true Church, according to their theory ? 
 
 But these sects were not united to each other either in the suc- 
 cession of ministers or doctrine. Nor did these sects, or anyone 
 or more of them, have any just claim to have succeeded others 
 in succession of doctrine or ministers, except the Albigenses, 
 who could rightfully claim as their ancestors the Manicheans. 
 
 10. Mr. Campbell's theory of Protestant succession. 
 
 In his debate with Bishop Purcell, the first proposition of 
 Mr. Campbell was this : 
 
 " 1. That the Roman Catholic institution, sometimes called 
 the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, is not now, nor was she 
 ever, catholic, apostolic, or holy ; but is a sect, in the fair import 
 of that word, older than any other sect now existing, not the 
 ' Mother and Mistress of all churches,' but an apostasy from the 
 only true, holy, apostolic Church of Christ." 
 
 In his argument to sustain this proposition, Mr. C. fixed 
 upon the day when the Church of Rome became a sect, and 
 separated from the true Church. He says : 
 
 " We have not time for this, as we are now, before we sit 
 down, to give you the day and date of the separation of the 
 Roman Church from the Greek Church, which must be regarded 
 as the day of her separate existence, when she became what she 
 now is, a schism, a sect." 
 
 " The Catholic body was not yet divided into two great 
 masses." 
 
 Mr. Campbell here speaks of the period of the contests be- 
 tween Pope Nicholas, in the ninth century, and Photius, Patri- 
 arch of Constantinople. He then goes on to quote from Du 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 471 
 
 Pin, to show that Pope Leo IX., through his legates, excommu- 
 nicated Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by a 
 bull, published in the church of St. Sophia, on the 16th of July, 
 1054. Mr. C. then says: "Tf, then, there be any truth in his- 
 tory, from that day the present sect of the Church of Rome be- 
 gan its existence." In his reply, Bishop Purcell said : " The 
 gentleman told us that he would put his finger upon the precise 
 day and date, as recorded in history, when the Roman Church 
 separated from the holy and ancient apostolic Church, but he 
 has not kept his word. I warrant that that pledge will never 
 be redeemed." (Mr. Campbell here explained that he had fixed 
 it at the 16th of July, 1054.) (Debate 38, 39, 40, 41.) 
 
 This was certainly very explicit, and did avoid the objection 
 so often made, that no date had been fixed upon when the Ro- 
 man separated from the alleged true Church. But in avoiding 
 one difficulty, Mr. C. very evidently ran upon others. Several 
 questions necessarily arise from this position : 
 
 1. If the Church before the separation was the Catholic 
 Church, as admitted, then, which was the true Church after the 
 separation, the Greek or Roman ? 
 
 2. If the Church before the separation was not the true 
 Church, then how did the Church of Rome become a schism, a 
 sect, for the first time in July, 1054 ? 
 
 3. If the Church, when composed of the Greek and Roman 
 churches united, was not the true Church, where was she ? 
 
 In answer to the new difficulties involved in this position, 
 Mr. Campbell says : 
 
 u The question was asked me yesterday evening, ' Where 
 was the true Church before the time of the Greek schism ? ' I 
 observed, this morning, that my having shown the Greek 
 Church to be the senior, as the original of the Roman, did not 
 necessarily involve the idea, that the Greek Church was, at the 
 time of the separation, the true Catholic Church." (Page 65.) 
 
 But I must confess that I could not perceive how this an- 
 swer avoided the difficulty. It is true that Mr. C.'s position, 
 that the Greek was the senior of the Roman Church, did not, 
 of itself, prove that the Greek was the true Church ; but taken 
 in connection with his first proposition, it did prove one of three 
 things : 1 . That the Greek was the true Church before the 
 
472 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 separation ; or, 2, that Mr. C. contradicted his first proposition 
 wherein he assumed that the Roman Church is a sect " older than 
 any other sect now existing ; " or, 3, that the Greek Church 
 does not now exist. Mr. C. had evidently involved himself in 
 " perplexities,'' as the Minister Jurieu has it. 
 
 Before the separation, there was no distinction between the 
 Greek and Roman churches, except as parts of one united whole. 
 Which of these two parts was first established, could be of no 
 moment as to jurisdiction, when both were united. If they 
 were both parts of one united Church, as Mr. C. admitted, 
 then this Church must have been the true Church before the 
 separation, or Mr. C. had failed to do what he promised, and 
 assumed that he had done, namely: to show when the Church 
 of Rome separated from the true Church. If this united Church, 
 before the separation, was not the true Church, then sJie was 
 but a sect and a schism, and Mr. C. ought to have gone further 
 back than the year 1054, to fix the date. If, on the contrary, 
 this united Church was the true Church up to the separation in 
 1054, then one party or the other must have continued the 
 true Church afterwards, unless we assume that the separation 
 destroyed both. And if the separation destroyed both, what 
 then became of the true Church ? And what became of the 
 promises of Christ ? Mr. C. had fixed the date of the Papacy. 
 " Thus in the year 606," he says, " two years after the death of 
 the saint, the first Pope was placed in the chair of the Galilean 
 fisherman, if indeed Peter had ever sat in a chair at Rome." 
 (Debate 30.) 
 
 From that year up to the Greek Schism in 1054, Mr. C. ad- 
 mitted that the churches of the West and East were united 
 under the Pope of Rome. If this Church, thus united with the 
 Pope, was not the true Church, it was clear that Mr. C.'s date 
 of 1054 amounted to no more than this: it showed when a sect 
 or schism had divided into two sects or schisms ; and it yet re- 
 mained to show where was the true Church, and what was the 
 origin of the Church of Rome. Mr. C. had claimed to have 
 done what yet remained to be done. And it was also clear, 
 that Mr. C.'s position, that the " Catholic body was not yet 
 divided into two great masses " in the ninth century, was incon- 
 sistent with the supposition that the Church, before the separa- 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 473 
 
 lion, was not the true Church. Mr. C. expressly admits the 
 truths of the Apostles' Creed, while he does not concede that it 
 was composed by them, and says : " All the Protestant world 
 believes this 4 apostles' creed,' as it is called, and are as uniform 
 in this faith as the Mother Church herself." (Debate 77.) 
 When, therefore, Mr. C. said the " Catholic body was not yet 
 divided," I understand him to mean that the Catholic Church 
 mentioned in the Creed, " I believe in the Catholic Church," 
 was the Catholic body to which he alluded, and that he intended 
 to maintain the position, that the Church in communion with 
 the Pope, before the Greek Schism, was the Church. 
 
 But the position admitting the Church, before the Greek 
 Schism, to have been the Catholic Church, involved too many 
 consequences. The Catholic doctrines held at the present day, 
 were held in the Church at that day. Hence Mr. C., as I must 
 think, abandoned that position, and sought the true Church else- 
 where. All that he had before said in reference to that position, 
 seemed to me set aside by other grounds taken afterwards. 
 
 On page 65 he continues : " We can, however, show that, 
 from the earliest times, there has existed a people whom no 
 man can remember, [number ?] that have earnestly and consist- 
 ently contended for the faith once delivered to the saints. If 
 he requires me to put my finger on the page of history on 
 which is described the commencement of the degeneracy of the 
 Roman diocese from the true faith, I will turn back to about 
 the year of our Lord 250. Then the controversy between Cor- 
 nelius and Novatian, about the bishopric of Rome, embraced 
 the points at issue, which separated the true Church from that 
 which was grievously contaminated with error and immorality. 
 It was, indeed, a controversy about the purity of communion 
 and discipline, rather than about articles of doctrine." " I hold 
 in my hand," he continues, " one of the latest and best historians 
 Waddington. * * The account he gives of these reformers 
 is sustained by Jones, and other ecclesiastical historians. I 
 prefer Waddington for his brevity and perspicuity. He says : 
 
 " ' We may conclude with some notice of the sect of the 
 Novatians, who were stigmatized at the time both as schis- 
 matics and heretics, but who may perhaps be more properly 
 considered as the earliest body of ecclesiastical reformers. They 
 
474 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 arose at Rome about the year 250 A. D., and subsisted, until the 
 fifth century, throughout every part of Christendom. Nova- 
 tian, a proselyte of Rome, was a man of great talents and learn- 
 ing, and of a character so austere that he was unwilling, under 
 any circumstances of contrition, to readmit those who had once 
 separated from the communion of the Church. And this sever- 
 ity he would have extended not only to those who had fallen by 
 deliberate transgression, but even to such as had made a forced 
 compromise of their faith under the terrors of persecution. He 
 considered the Christian Church as a society, where virtue and 
 innocence reigned universally, and refused any longer to ac- 
 knowledge as members of it those who had once degenerated 
 into unrighteousness. This endeavor to revive the spotless pu- 
 rity of the primitive faith, was found inconsistent with the cor- 
 ruptions even of that early age ; it was regarded with suspicion 
 by the leading prelates, as a vain and visionary scheme ; and 
 those rigid principles, which had characterized and sanctified 
 the Church in the first century, were abandoned to the profes- 
 sion of schismatic sectaries in the third.' 
 
 " This sounds a little like Protestantism." Truly it seems 
 so. But what is gained by the paternity ? If Protestantism 
 and ancient heresy be alike, is that any advantage to the for- 
 mer ? But I confess I could not see how Mr. C. had improved 
 his case. He proposed to show " the commencement of the 
 degeneracy of the Roman diocese from the true faith," and then 
 speaks of the contest which " embraced the points at issue which 
 separated the true Church from that which was grievously con- 
 taminated with error and immorality." After making these 
 promises regarding faith and the true Church, which he takes 
 to be the Novatians, he suddenly lowers his standard, and tells 
 us, " it was indeed a controversy about the purity of communion 
 and discipline, rather than about articles of doctrine." Mr. C. 
 also says : " I have here before me, Eusebius, the oldest of 
 ecclesiastical historians, who informs us that Novatus and his 
 party were called Cathari or Puritans. And, although he 
 appears greatly incensed against Novatus and his party, he can 
 record no evil against them, except their ' uncharitableness ' in 
 refusing to commune with those of immoral and doubtful char- 
 acter." (Debate 66.) 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THKORY. 475 
 
 The only ground, then, of separation, as insisted upon by 
 Mr. C. in his reference to Eusebius, is the sole one given by 
 Waddington, namely: "He (Novatian) was unwilling, under 
 any circumstances of contrition, to readmit those once separated 
 from the communion of the Church ; " even in cases where they 
 " had made a forced compromise of their faith under the terrors 
 of persecution." 
 
 Was Novatian right? Was his doctrine true? Who is 
 now prepared to sustain the same ground ? And when Mr. 
 Waddington says, so doubtingly, that the Novatians "may, 
 perhaps, be more properly considered as the earliest body of 
 ecclesiastical reformers," does he mean to take the clear and 
 distinct position that they were right in the only ground alleged 
 by them, and given by him as the cause of separation ? And 
 when he speaks of " this attempt to revive the spotless moral 
 purity of the primitive faith," does he mean to say that the 
 faith of the primitive Church was similar to that of Novatian 
 in this respect ? And when he speaks of " those rigid princi- 
 ples" of the Church of the first century, does he mean to say 
 that a person " once separated " from the Church at that early 
 day, would not have been readmitted " under any circumstan- 
 ces of contrition " ? And when he speaks of " the corruptions 
 even of that early age," does he mean by this the doctrine and 
 practice condemned by Novatian ? namely : readmitting into 
 the Church, after due repentance, those who had fallen. And 
 was this merciful doctrine and practice, heresy and corruption ? 
 And if Mr. Waddington did not intend to indorse the only 
 ground given by him as the one taken by Novatian, then what 
 did he mean ? Did he mean to condemn the treason, and yet 
 praise the traitor f Did he mean to say to Novatian in sub- 
 stance : " Sir, you are wrong in the only ground assumed by 
 you, and yet it is the true faith of the primitive Church " ? In 
 a word, did he mean to condemn the principles of Novatian, 
 and, at the same time, hold him to be a true reformer f Or 
 was the truth this, and this only : that the learned historian 
 could not sanction the ground taken by Novatian ; and yet such 
 was the inexorable necessity to find reformers, " even at thai 
 early age," that he must needs hold the Novatians such, when 
 they were unequivocally in the wrong ? And was he compelled, 
 
4:76 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 as a historian, to give the matter of fact truly, and yet, as a 
 Protestant, to give his opinion, indorsing admitted error ? Or 
 did he mean to hold every attempt at reformation, whether 
 right or wrong, as still commendable ? Or did he mean to take 
 the ground, that when there are alleged errors in a church, 
 that he who assumes to reform her, but who, in fact, only adds 
 other admitted errors to those already existing, is still entitled 
 to the appellation of a reformer ? 
 
 It is true, the historian, in the beginning of the extract, 
 speaks doubtingly, as he says "perhaps " the Novatians may be 
 properly called reformers ; but in the close he says expressly, 
 that " those rigid principles which had characterized and sanc- 
 tified the Church in the first century, were abandoned to the 
 profession of schismatic sectaries in the third." The principles 
 of the Church of the first century were abandoned to the Nova- 
 tians ! Then was not Novatian right, according to this explicit 
 statement ? 
 
 If it be a doctrine or principle of the first century, then it 
 ought to be sustained. But I never could find any satisfactory 
 evidence that such was the doctrine of Christ. When the 
 chosen all became offended and fled, and this after being spe- 
 cially warned by Christ, and after having made the most solemn 
 pledges of fidelity ; and when Peter had denied his Master, in 
 His immediate presence, and under His own eye, and affirmed 
 his denial with an oath, they were not so treated by our Lord. 
 Peter went out and wept bitterly, and was restored. The in- 
 cestuous Corinthian was not so dealt with by St. Paul. And in 
 the letter of the churches of Lyons and Yienne, giving an ic- 
 count of the martyrdom of many Christians at these places, in 
 the second century, as recorded by Eusebius, and published in 
 the first volume of the Oxford Tracts, it is stated, that many 
 Christians, under the terrors and pains of torture, at first denied 
 the faith ; but they subsequently repented, and died glorious 
 martyrs for the faith. " But," they say, " the mean time was 
 not fruitless to them, but through their patience the infinite 
 mercy of Christ appeared. For the dead members were en- 
 livened through the living, and the martyrs showed favor to 
 those who were not martyrs, and there was great joy to the 
 Virgin Mother, the Church, in receiving again, living, whom 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 477 
 
 she had cast away as dead and abortive. For by these good 
 men, the greater number of those who had denied Christ were 
 renewed, and reconceived and rekindled, and learned to con- 
 fess, and now, living and full of nerve, were brought before the 
 tribunal." * * * g u t Christ was greatly glorified in those 
 wh.j had denied before, but then confessed, contrary to the ex- 
 pectation of the heathen. For these were even separately ex- 
 amined, as on the idea that they were to be dismissed ; but, 
 confessing, were added to the number of the martyrs." 
 
 Now had Novatian been right in his " uncharitableness," 
 Christ would not have been glorified, and the Church re- 
 joiced by the return of these stray sheep, who so willingly and 
 gloriously, like Old Peter, at last laid down their lives for the 
 faith. One error of poor, weak human nature, was enough, with 
 this " austere man," to exclude from the Church forever. And 
 we of this distant day, who have never shed one drop of blood 
 for the faith, like raw recruits, who never smelt " villanous salt- 
 petre," or witnessed the battle's " magnificently stern array," are 
 over-confident that none of us would ever flinch, should the in- 
 vincible trial come. But like young eaglets, whose newly-fledged 
 pinions have only borne them in short gyrations around the 
 parent eyry, and which fix their confident gaze upon the sun, 
 and complacently conclude that they will soon be able to soar 
 to that luminary ; so we, at distance safe from harm, may con- 
 sole ourselves with the self-complimentary reflection, that had 
 we lived in the day of trial, we should never have fallen. 
 
 I supposed when Mr. C. asserted that the Novatians were 
 the true Church, and " earnestly and consistently contended for 
 the faith once delivered to the saints," and had, as he alleged, 
 separated from that Church " which was then grievously con- 
 taminated with error and immorality," that he was surely pre- 
 pared to sustain the ground assumed by Novatian, as the cause 
 of the separation. I was, however, mistaken, for Mr. C. after- 
 wards says : " They (the Novatians) had one fault, which we 
 both allow they were too severe in one branch of discipline 
 they could never receive those who had grievously fallen no 
 repentance would obtam re-admission, if the penitent had fla- 
 grantly sinned," (Debate 75.) 
 
 In this language Mr. C. puts in conditions not mentioned by 
 
4:78 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 Waddington, but contrary to them " very flagrantly sinned" 
 " grievously fallen." Waddington says in no case were they re- 
 admitted, even when they had compromised their faith under 
 the terrors of persecution. And I could not but observe how 
 Mr. C. had receded from his first position. He first assumes to 
 show " a people " who " have earnestly and consistently contend- 
 ed for the faith once delivered to the saints " he next spoke 
 of degeneracy from the " true faith " in A. D. 250 then of the 
 separation of the " true " from the " grievously contaminated " 
 Church then he makes the separation take place only upon the 
 grounds of " purity of communion and discipline," and not faith 
 then he disapproves of the very ground upon which this " true 
 church " did separate from the " grievously contaminated " 
 and, finally, winds up by saying : " They had other objections be- 
 sides this against the opposing party ; but this was sufficient for 
 a division." (Debate 76.) 
 
 But what those other grounds were, neither Mr. C. nor Wad- 
 dington informed us. And Mr. C. had taken good care to pre- 
 clude himself from any such a retreat ; for he said in the begin- 
 ning that the " controversy " which " separated the true church 
 from that which was grievously contaminated," " was about the 
 purity of communion and discipline, rather than about articles 
 of doctrine." Whatever points were involved regarded " purity 
 of communion and discipline," and not doctrine, as Mr. C. had 
 it. And when Waddington assumes to give the cause of the 
 separation, he gives only one. And Mr. C., when praising No- 
 vatian and his party, says Eusebius could "record no evil against 
 them, except their ' uncharitableness.' " Now, as Mr. C. says, 
 Eusebius " appears greatly incensed against them," and, of 
 course, agreed with the opposite party in their views ; had there 
 been other grounds alleged as existing, surely Eusebius could 
 have recorded them. 
 
 That there were other grounds, in the opinion of Mr. C., 
 there can be no doubt ; but Novatian did not think so. And 
 if he did think so, Mr. C. places him in a very awkward posi- 
 tion ; for while there were several causes alleged by Mr. C. to 
 have existed, he makes Novatian so perverse as to discard all 
 those that were true, and rely solely upon that one which was 
 false, and which Mr. C. himself is compelled to condemn at last, 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 479 
 
 Whatever other causes might possibly have existed, Novatian 
 thought so little of them that they were not even assumed as a 
 part of the grounds of separation. True, Cornelius, on his part, 
 urged against Novatian himself, certain personal faults, independ- 
 ent of his heresy ; but these did not constitute the cause which 
 Novatian assigned as the ground of separation. 
 
 Now I could not see in what possible respect Novatian had 
 reformed the Church. After all that had been so confidently 
 said, 
 
 " The whole amount of this stupendous fame " 
 
 was this, and this only : Novatian took with him all the doctrines 
 of the other party, as Mr. C. calls the Church, except that one 
 which he condemned, and in this Novatian was confessedly in 
 the wrong. So far, then, from improving, he had only added 
 error. He had, upon a false ground, separated from the Church, 
 set up for himself, excommunicated those who did not agree 
 with him in this false ground, and assumed a system of severity, 
 extreme, unscriptural, and cruel. But to my mind this case, as 
 well as that of the Vaudois, Manichcans, and others, proved the 
 truth of the assertion, that ancient heresy generally based its 
 pretensions upon the claim of extreme virtue. Some members of 
 the Church did not come up to their standard of personal piety, 
 and they, to improve individual members in virtue, assumed 
 to reform the entire Church in matters of faith. But their zeal 
 was not according to knowledge. 
 
 11. Mr. Campbell* s theory continued. 
 
 " These Puritans, or reformers," Mr. C. continues, " spread 
 all over the world, and continued to oppose the pretensions of 
 those who, from being the major party, claimed to be the Cath- 
 olic or only church. They continued under the name of Nova- 
 tians for more than two centuries ; but finally were merged in 
 the Donatists, who, indeed, are the same people under another 
 name. These Donatists were a very large and prosperous com- 
 munity. We read of 279 Donatist bishops in one African coun- 
 cil. Of these Donatists the same historian deposes : 
 
 i4 ' The Donatists have never been charged, with the slightest 
 show of truth, with any error of doctrine, or any defect in church 
 
480 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 government or discipline, or any depravity of moral practice : 
 they agreed in every respect with their adversaries, except one 
 they did not acknowledge as legitimate the ministry of the 
 African church, but considered their own body to be the true, 
 uncorrupted, universal church. 
 
 " ' It is quite clear that they pushed their schism to very 
 great extremities, even to that of rejecting the communion of 
 all who were in communion with the church which they called 
 false ; but this was the extent of their spiritual offence, even 
 from the assertion of their enemies.' " (Wad. His., p. 154.) 
 
 " The Donatists, in some two centuries, were amalgamated 
 with the Paulicians. They, too, were called Puritans. Jones, 
 who has been at the greatest pains to give their history, gives 
 the following account of them : 
 
 " 'About the year 660, a new sect arose in the east, under the 
 name of Paulicians, which is justly entitled to our attention. 
 
 " 'In Mananalis, an obscure town in the vicinity of Samosata, 
 a person of the name of Constantine entertained at his house a 
 deacon, who, having been a prisoner among the Mahometans, 
 was returning from Syria, whither he had been carried away 
 captive. From this passing stranger Constantine received the 
 precious gift of the New Testament in its original language, 
 which, even at this early period, was concealed from the vulgar 
 that Peter Siculus, to whom we owe most of our information on 
 the history of the Paulicians, tells us the first scruples of a Cath- 
 olic, when he was advised to read the Bible was, ' it is not law- 
 ful for us profane persons to read these sacred writings, but for 
 the priests only.' Indeed, the gross ignorance that pervaded 
 Europe at this time, rendered the generality of the people inca- 
 pable of reading that or any other book ; but even those of the 
 laity who could read were dissuaded by their religious guides 
 from meddling with the Bible. Constantine, however, made 
 the best use of the deacon's present he studied the New Tes- 
 tament with unwearied assiduity and more particularly the 
 writings of the apostle Paul, from which he at length endeavored 
 to deduce a system of doctrine and worship. ' He investigated 
 the creed of primitive Christianity,' *says Gibbon, 'and whatever 
 might be the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit 
 of inquiry.' The knowledge to which Constantine himself was, 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 481 
 
 under the divine blessing, enabled to attain, he gladly communi- 
 cated to others around him, and a Christian church was collect- 
 ed. In a little time several individuals arose among them, qual- 
 ified for the work of the ministry, and several other churches 
 were collected throughout Armenia and Cappadocia. It ap- 
 pears, from the whole of their history, to have been a leading 
 object with Constantine and his brethren to restore, as far as 
 possible, the profession of Christianity to all its primitive sim- 
 plicity." (Jones' Hist. Christian Ch., p. 239.) 
 
 Again : 
 
 " 4 The Paulician teachers,' says Gibbon, * were distinguished 
 only by their Scriptural names, by the modest title of their fel- 
 low pilgrims, by the austerity of their lives, their zeal and knowl- 
 edge, and the credit of some extraordinary gift of the Holy 
 Spirit. But they were incapable of desiring, or at least, of ob- 
 taining the wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy. Such 
 anti-Christian pride they strongly censured.' " (Id., p. 240.) 
 
 " I might read almost to the same effect from Waddington 
 and Du Pin. True, they are called heretics by those who call 
 themselves Catholics and us heretics; but what does that 
 prove ? 
 
 " Until the appearance of the Waldenses [Yaudois] and Albi- 
 genses, these Protestants continued to oppose the church of na- 
 tions in the east and in the west, until at one time they claimed 
 the title of Catholic. We read of hundreds of bishops attending 
 the different councils in which they met to oppose the violent 
 assaults of their enemies." (Debate 67, 68.) 
 
 The first point that I considered, was the statement of Mr. 
 C., that the Novatians, after more than two centuries, were 
 merged in the Donatists. 
 
 The Donatists arose in Africa, in A. D. 311. The election 
 of Cecilian to the episcopal see of Carthage, upon the death of 
 Mensurius, was disputed by Donatus and his supporters. In 
 313 a council held at Rome, before which Cecilian and Donatus 
 both appeared, each accompanied by ten bishops of his party, 
 decided in favor of the regularity of the ordination of Cecilian. 
 Again, in 314, a synod at Aries decided in the same way. 
 
 At the time of the separation from the same church from 
 which the Novatians had, sixty-one years before, separated, the 
 42 
 
482 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 only ground alleged was this one regarding the legitimacy of 
 the ministry of Cecilian. In every other respect, according to 
 Waddington, they agreed with their adversaries. Whatever 
 doctrines were held by the Church, were held by them. Do- 
 natists arose in Africa, and were confined to that continent, and 
 the Novatians arose at Rome. If, then, the Novatians ulti- 
 mately joined the Donatists, it was only by giving up all that 
 was peculiar to them, and recanting the only ground upon 
 which they separated from the Church originally. In joining 
 the Donatists, they lost all identity of organization and doctrine. 
 They in fact became members of another and a distinct sect. 
 There was not the slightest identity between these two parties, 
 except that they both stood opposed to the Church, but upon 
 different and antagonistic grounds. One merely died out, and 
 the other lived on a while longer. The former members of the 
 deceased Church may have joined, and become identified with, 
 another sect, holding the very doctrine which caused these No- 
 vatians to sever the Church in 250. It was a surrender, not 
 a compromise. 
 
 But I could find no evidence of any merger whatever, inde- 
 pendent of Mr. C.'s statement. The language of Wadding- 
 ton does not convey any such idea. That the Novatians con- 
 tinued until after the Donatist schism, was true. But this, of. 
 itself, did not prove any merger. And from the fact that their 
 doctrine was different from that of the Donatists, and that they 
 claimed to be exclusively the true Church, while the Donatists 
 did the same, there could have been no merger. 
 
 And I could not see any thing in the Donatists, that entitled 
 them to the claim of being the true Church. They divided the 
 . Church upon a question simply regarding the legitimacy of a 
 single bishop. " They pushed their schism to very great ex- 
 tremities," says Waddington. Was this any merit? If the 
 Church was "grievously contaminated with error," as Mr. 
 Campbell contends, these Donatists did not propose to remedy 
 these evils. What, then, was their peculiar merit? Was it 
 simply dividing the Church ? Was the act of simply protesting 
 upon right or wrong grounds, still a merit ? I could not see 
 any merit in mere schism. 
 
 "No heretic," says Waddington, p. 154, "was as likely as 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 483 
 
 the Donatist to lay claims to the name Catholic ; yet even the 
 Donatist, while he maintained that the true spirit and purity 
 were alone perpetuated in his own communion, would scarcely 
 have affirmed that that was bona fide the universal church, 
 which did not extend beyond the shores of Africa, and which 
 had not the majority even there." 
 
 Mr. Campbell says : " The Donatists, in some two centuries, 
 were amalgamated with the Paulicians." But I could find no 
 evidence of this alleged fact, other than the statement of Mr. C. 
 And several questions arise in regard to Mr. C.'s merger and 
 amalgamation : 
 
 1. He says the Novatians merged in the Donatists. Wad- 
 dington says the Donatists were confined to Africa. The No- 
 vatians arose at Rome. Now how did those Novatians out of 
 Africa merge in the Donatists ? 
 
 2. He says the Donatists, in some two centuries, amalga- 
 mated with the Paulicians. Jones says that the deacon left 
 the New Testament with Constantine in 660, and this was in 
 Armenia in the East. Then how did the Donatists, who were 
 confined to Africa, amalgamate with the Paulicians, who were 
 never on that continent ? And how did this amalgamation tak 
 place before the Paulicians existed ? 
 
 But as respects the Paulicians, Jones, the Protestant histo- 
 rian, gives us the circumstances of their origin, and his opinion 
 of the intention of Constantine to restore the primitive worship 
 of Christianity- in all its simplicity, which is always the object 
 avowed by all separatists of every age ; but he does not, hi the 
 extract, give us their peculiar doctrines the tenets that distin- 
 guished them from others. Jones himself speaks rather doubt- 
 ingly. True, he says Constantine " studied the New Testament 
 with unwearied assiduity," " from which at length he endeavored 
 to deduce a system of 'doctrine and worship." And the lan- 
 guage of Gibbon is still more equivocal : " whatever might be 
 the success." All that Gibbon could say was that the Protes- 
 tant would " applaud the spirit of inquiry." In the extract from 
 Gibbon, their peculiar tenets are not given, but he speaks of 
 their demeanor and practice of poverty, and their claim to 
 " some extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit," without saying 
 what it was. 
 
484 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 But the question arose in my mind, whether " studying the 
 Scripture with unwearied assiduity," with the intent to restore 
 primitive Christianity, and arriving at the wrong conclusion and 
 the wrong faith, could constitute the true Church. In other 
 words, whether any faith was required by the Christian law ; 
 and if so, whether it must not be the true faith. If mere sin- 
 cerity was required, the law laying down what was to be be- 
 lieved and done, must be simply idle. And I must confess I 
 could not understand what sort of true Church it could be with 
 a false faith. 
 
 And when I examined to see what the peculiar doctrines of 
 this sect were, I found them to be Manicheans in their leading 
 principles, as fully shown by Bossuet in his History, as already 
 stated. It is true, as stated by Mr. C., that they continued to 
 " oppose the Church of nations in the East and in the West," 
 until the times of the Waldenses and Albigenses. But these 
 Albigenses were also a branch of the same Manichean root. In 
 addition to the testimony of the historians quoted by Bossuet, 
 Waddington says, in speaking of the sects of Dauphine and 
 other errorists condemned at Arras in 1025 : "It is proper to 
 mention what these opinions really were, which were condemned 
 at Arras, lest it should be supposed that they were at variance 
 only with the Roman Catholic Church, and strictly in accord- 
 ance with apostolic truth." " It was asserted that the Sacra- 
 ment of baptism was useless, and of no efficacy to salvation 
 that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was equally unneces- 
 sary. It appears that the objections of the heretics on this 
 point went beyond the mere denial of the change of substance 
 that the sacred orders of the ministry were not of divine institu- 
 tion that penance was altogether inefficacious that marriage 
 in general was contrary to the evangelical and apostolical laws 
 that saint worship is to be confined to the apostles and mar- 
 tyrs, &c., &c., so mixed and various is the substance of these 
 opinions to which learned writers on this subject appeal with so 
 much satisfaction." Again : " They were all tainted more or 
 less deeply by the poison of Manicheism ; and since it is our ob- 
 ject to establish a connection with the primitive church, we 
 shall scarcely attain it through those whose fundamental princi- 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 485 
 
 pie was unequivocally rejected by that church, as irrational ana 
 impious." (P. 554, 555. Cited Debate 80.) 
 
 Mosheim, the Lutheran Church historian, says: "Among 
 the sects that troubled the Latin church this century, (the 12th,) 
 the principal place is due to the Cathari, or Catharists, whom 
 we have had already occasion to mention. This numerous fac- 
 tion, leaving their first residence, which was in Bulgaria, spread 
 themselves throughout almost all the European provinces, where 
 they occasioned much tumult and disorder. Their religion re- 
 sembled the doctrine of the Manicheans and Gnostics, on which 
 account they commonly received the denomination of the for- 
 mer, though they differed in many respects from the genuine 
 primitive Manicheans. They all agreed, indeed, in the follow- 
 ing points of doctrine, viz., that matter was the source of all 
 evil ; that the creator of this world was a being distinct from 
 the Supreme Deity ; that Christ was neither clothed with a real 
 body, nor could he be properly said to have been born, or to 
 have seen death ; that human bodies were the production of 
 the evil principle, and were extinguished without the prospect 
 of a new life. They treated with the utmost contempt all the 
 books of the Old Testament, but expressed a high degree of 
 veneration for the New." (Vol. i., p. 328.) 
 
 Speaking of the Waldenses, Mosheim says : " They commit- 
 ted the government of the church to bishops, presbyters, and 
 deacons, but they deemed it absolutely necessary that all these 
 orders should resemble exactly the apostles of the divine Sa- 
 viour, and be, like them, illiterate, &c., &c. The laity were di- 
 vided into two classes, one of which contained the perfect and 
 the other the imperfect Christians." (P. 332.) Of the Pasa- 
 ginians, Mosheim says : " They circumcised their followers, and 
 held that the law of Moses, in every thing but sacrifice, was 
 obligatory upon Christians." (P. 333.) The same historian 
 says of the brethren of the free spirit, that " they maintained 
 that the believer could not sin, let his conduct be ever so horri- 
 Kle and atrocious." (P. 428.) He also says: "A sect of fanat- 
 ics called Caputiati, infested Moravia and Burgundy, the dio- 
 cese of Auxerre, and several other parts of France, in all which 
 places they excited much disturbance among the people. They 
 declared publicly that their purpose was to level all distinctions, 
 
486 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 to abrogate magistracy, to remove all subordination among 
 mankind, and to restore that primitive liberty, that natural 
 equality, which were the inestimable privileges of the first mor- 
 tals." (P. 333. Cited Debate 80, 81.) 
 
 That the Oathari mentioned by Mosheim were the same 
 people called Paulicians, is certain. Mr. C. says the Paulicians 
 " were called Puritans," which is the English of Cathari ; and 
 he says, "these Protestants (Paulicians) continued to oppose* 
 the church of nations in the east and in the west, until," <fec. 
 
 Such were the doctrines to which Constantine and his follow- 
 ers attained by the unwearied study of the New Testament, 
 and the " divine blessing," as Jones has it. That they were 
 called heretics by the Catholics is true. So they are by Wad- 
 dington and Mosheim. And conceding the truth of that article 
 of the Apostles' Creed, " I believe in the Catholic Church," and 
 that the promises of Christ were given to .this visible Church, I 
 could not see any beauty or truth in this chain of succession. 
 It was strangely and singularly irregular, diminutive, deformed, 
 isolated, and broken. First, the ISTovatians separated from the 
 Catholic Church in A. D. 250, upon a specific, but false ground / 
 and although that distinctive characteristic which made them 
 Novatians was conceded to be wrong, still the true Church was 
 most inconsistently said to be with them. Then came the Do- 
 natists, who separated upon another and a mere local ground, 
 still retaining all the errors of that " grievously contaminated " 
 church they left, and who, therefore, repudiated the very error 
 that constituted the Xovatians and then the true Church is 
 alleged to have passed into the Donatists, while the only addi- 
 tional merit which they could claim over and above that "griev- 
 ously contaminated" church, was, that "they pushed their 
 schism to very great extremities," as Waddington says. But 
 the Donatists, now the alleged true Church, were destined soon 
 to perish, and the alleged true Church passed from the dead 
 body of this sect into that " new sect," as Jones called the Pauli- 
 cians. But this alleged new true Church, (full of Maniche^n 
 errors of the grossest character,) like its predecessors, was only 
 to continue until other sects, the Albigenses and Waldenses, 
 arose. With them, as with the others, this alleged true Church 
 was to have another temporary " local habitation and a name," 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 487 
 
 until the days of Luther. According to this theory, the true 
 visible Catholic Church had made several transmigrations, in 
 every case passing from one perishable sect into another, each 
 one differing from all its predecessors; as if the true, the Cath- 
 olic Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, was really in 
 pursuit of obscurity, variety, and endless change. 
 
 And well might Waddington say : " So mixed and various 
 is the substance of those opinions to which learned writers on 
 this subject appeal with so much satisfaction," * * * " and since 
 it is our object to establish a connection with the primitive 
 church, we shall scarcely attain it through those whose funda- 
 mental principle was unequivocally rejected by that church, as 
 irrational and impious." Nor could I see how Mr. Campbell 
 could be so fond of those errorists, who rejected baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper as useless, when Mr. C. always held that bap- 
 tism was for the remission of past sins. 
 
 And I confess I could not possibly understand how the fol- 
 lowing extract, made by Mr. C. from Waddington, in imme- 
 diate connection with the first extract from that author regard- 
 ing the Novatians, could help his case any : 
 
 " From a review of what has been written on this subject, 
 some truths may be derived of considerable historical import- 
 ance ; the following are among them : 
 
 "1. In the midst of perpetual dissent and occasional contro- 
 versy, a steady and distinguishing line, both in doctrine and 
 practice, was maintained by the early church, and its efforts 
 against those whom it called heretics were zealous and perse- 
 vering, and for the most part consistent. Its contests were 
 fought with the c sword of the spirit,' with the arms of reason 
 and eloquence ; and as they were always unattended by personal 
 oppression, so were they most effectually successful successful, 
 not in establishing a nominal unity, nor silencing the expression 
 of private opinion, but in maintaining the purity of the faith, in 
 preserving the attachment of the gr.eat majority of the believ- 
 ers, and in consigning, either to immediate disrepute, or early 
 neglect,all the unscriptural doctrines which were successively ar- 
 rayed against it." (D. 66.) 
 
 From this I understand Waddington to say, substantially, 
 that the early Church was known by a " steady and distinguish- 
 
4:88 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 ing line of doctrine and practice " that this early Church was 
 not the Novatians nor the Donatists, as Mr. C. contended, for 
 Waddington expressly held the latter as not composing the 
 true Church, as we have seen ; and while he seems to speak 
 doubtingly of the Novatians in the beginning of the first ex- 
 tract, he clearly, in this, places them among the heretics whose 
 doctrines were consigned by the Church to " disrepute or neg- 
 lect," for he speaks of the early Church as " preserving the at- 
 tachment of the great majority of the believers," which could 
 not be true of the Novatians, who constituted a very small par- 
 ty, nothing like so numerous as the Donatists, who themselves 
 were confined alone to Africa, and had not even a majority 
 there, as Waddington says. And if the early Church was thus 
 known by this " steady and distinguishing line, both in doctrine 
 and practice," and was " successful in maintaining the purity 
 of the faith," as this Protestant historian says, how did those 
 aUeged errors get into the Church, of which Mr. Campbell 
 speaks ? And how and when did this steady Church, which 
 preserved the "purity of the faith," lose " those rigid principles 
 that characterized and sanctified her before the days of Nova- 
 tian ? I confess my inability to put the positions, either of 
 Waddington or Mr. Campbell, together, and make them con- 
 sistent with themselves. In one place, this historian makes the 
 early Church abandon her principles to others, and, in another, 
 he makes her preserve them ; and Mr. Campbell quotes both 
 passages to show that she did abandon them. 
 
 Mr. Campbell placed much emphasis upon the fact, that the 
 Donatists and the Greeks each claimed to be the sole true 
 Church. The Novatians also claimed the same for themselves. 
 Mr. C. says : " Mark it. The Donatists considered their own 
 body to be the true, uncorrupted, universal church." (Debate 
 67.) In reference to the Greeks, he says : " The Greek church, 
 be it noted with all distinctness, did stand upon this point, that 
 she was the only true church ; and that no ordinance, baptism, 
 or the eucharist, was at all valid, unless administered by her au~ 
 thority:' (Debate 40.) 
 
 The fact that each of these sects claimed to be the sole true 
 Church, as did most, if not all, the sects before the Reforma- 
 tion, as well as did the Catholic Church from which they sepa 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 489 
 
 rated, went to prove this point, as I understand it ; namely : that 
 by consent of all parties heretics, schismatics, and Catholics 
 from the first to the sixteenth century, the doctrine that there 
 was but one sole true visible Church, in whose communion sal- 
 vation must be found, was universally believed and held to be 
 true / and that the doctrine that the true visible Church could 
 be composed of a conglomeration of separate and distinct an- 
 tagonistic organizations, differing in faith and discipline, and 
 excommunicating each other, is an after-thought, invented since 
 the Reformation. And the only possible other result that I 
 could see was this, that these conflicting claims would only 
 compel us to choose between them, without, in the slightest 
 degree, weakening the claim of the rightful proprietor. If 
 twenty men each claims to be the sole owner of an estate, by the 
 admission of all, there is but one exclusive owner, while the 
 nineteen false, but adverse claims, will never defeat him in 
 whom the true title is vested. A million counterfeits will never 
 disparage one dime of the genuine coin. 
 
 And when I considered this most strange and deformed 
 chain of alleged succession, I could not but wish to ask these 
 plain and pointed questions : " Is this really the best you can 
 do ? Is there no possible chance for a better showing ? If not, 
 had you not better 
 
 * Go and ' contend 'your family is young, 
 Nor own your fathers have heen fools so long ' ? 
 
 W^uld it not be better to concede, at once, that you have no 
 ancestors ? Why not take a bold, neat, clean ground ? Why 
 halt between two false opinions ? Had you not better take 
 that one which is, at least, consistent with itself? " 
 
 12. The new ground of Mr. Breckenridge. 
 
 In reference to that most important and difficult point, where 
 was the true Church before the Reformation, if it was not the 
 Church of Rome ? Mr. Breckenridge, in his controversy with 
 Bishop Hughes, takes a new position. Bishop Hughes had 
 made this distinct proposition : " Either the Protestant religion 
 is a religion differing from the religion of Christ, or else the 
 religion of Christ was not professed by any society of Christian* 
 43 
 
490 RE8ULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 previous to the time of Luther. To which of these alternatives 
 will you cling? One of them is inevitable." (Con. 254.) 
 
 In his first answer, Mr. B. claims the Waldenses, the Greek 
 church, the ancient Arminian church, the Jacobites, Syrians, 
 the Egyptian and Abyssinian Christians as Protestant ancestors, 
 and says : " How plain it is, then, from these testimonies, that 
 the Protestant religion was professed, not only before the daya 
 of Luther, but existed from the beginning, and descended for 
 centuries, even in your own church, until she corrupted it, and 
 made it an anti-Christian Papacy." (P. 278.) 
 
 To this very confident answer Bishop Hughes replied, 
 showing the tenets of the Waldenses, such as we have seen, 
 differing so widely from Protestants, and holding so many of 
 the alleged errors of the Catholics. (Con. 288.) 
 
 Mr. B., having again called the attention of the Bishop to 
 the Syrian Christians, page 405, the latter replied, on page 416 : 
 
 " About the year 1500, the Portuguese having doubled the 
 Cape of Good Hope, penetrated into India, and, to their amaze- 
 ment, those Christians of St. Thomas were found on the coast 
 of Malabar. This was reported in Europe, and gave rise to 
 much speculation ; but, unfortunately, it was made known that 
 their faith had been corrupted by the errors of Protestantism. 
 They were heretics, and the Reformers, who had just separated 
 from the faith of the church, and of the world, took it into their 
 heads that, of course, they were Protestants. La Croze, a 
 Protestant, wrote a treatise to maintain this supposition, under 
 the title of ' History of Christianity in India.' But Assen^ini 
 (Biblioth. Orient., Tom. 4, c. 7, 13) refuted La Croze's book, 
 and convicted him, as usual in such cases, of twelve or thirteen 
 gross misrepresentations. Their errors were condemned by the 
 Catholic Archbishop of Goa, but the denial of the real presence 
 was not among them. In their Liturgy, to which Mr. B. refers, 
 are found the following words : ' With hearts full of respect 
 and fear, let us approach the Mystery of the precious body and 
 blood of our Saviour * * * * and now, O Lord, that 
 thou hast called me to thy holy and pure altar, to offer unto 
 thee this living and holy sacrifice, make me worthy to receive 
 this gift with purity and holiness.' At the communion, the 
 Priest says : ' O Lord, my God ! I am not worthy, neither is it 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 4:91 
 
 becoming that I should partake of the body and blood of propi- 
 tiation, or even so much as touch them. But may thy word 
 sanctify my soul, and heal my body.' In thanksgiving, after 
 communion, he says : 4 Strengthen my hands which are stretched 
 out to receive the holy one. * * * * Repair, by a new 
 life, the bodies which have just been feeding on thy living body. 
 * * * God has loaded us with blessings by his living Son, 
 who, for our salvation, descended from the highest heavens, 
 clothed himself with our flesh, has given his own flesh, and mixed 
 his venerable blood with our blood, a Mystery of propitiation.' " 
 (Renaudot's Latin translation.) 
 
 These extracts conclusively proved that they held the doc- 
 trines of the Mass and Real Presence. 
 
 In reference to these Syriac Christians, the Bishop further 
 observes on page 418 : " But besides that, they venerated the 
 crucifix, made the sign of the cross, fasted from food on certain 
 days, and abstained from meat on others, celebrated festivals 
 in honor of the blessed Virgin, and prayed for the dead." (Le 
 Brun, Tom. iii., Dis. xi., Art. 15.) " They believed in the re- 
 mission of sins by the Priest's absolution, held three sacraments, 
 Baptism, Holy Order, and the Eucharist, and taught that in 
 Christ there were two persons, the divine and human : that the di- 
 vinity dwelt in Jesus, as in a temple." (P. 417.) On page 41 8 the 
 Bishop shows the doctrines of the Arminians, Jacobites, Egyp- 
 tians, and Abyssinians to be very different from that of Protes- 
 tants. 
 
 In reference to the Greek church the Bishop says : " The 
 Greeks believe in seven sacraments, in the real presence, in tran- 
 substantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers for the depart- 
 ed, and even the invocation of saints. * * * When the 
 patriarch, Cyril Lupor, was detected holding correspondence 
 with the leaders of the Reformation in Germany and Holland, 
 and it was ascertained that he had imbibed a partiality for their 
 novelties, the consequence was, that for this he was deposed and 
 disgraced. His successor summoned a council of twenty-three 
 bishops, including the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria, 
 in which Cyril and his Protestant doctrines were condemned hi 
 language as vigorous as that of Leo X. The same took place 
 in a subsequent council of twenty-five bishops, including the 
 
492 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 metropolitan of Russia. Again, in 16*72, Dositheus, patriarch 
 of Jerusalem, held a third council at Bethlehem, which express- 
 ly condemned the doctrine of Cyril Lupor and the Protestants* 
 (See Prepet. de la Far, vol. 4, liv. 8.)" 
 
 Mr. B. says, on page 405 : " It is also notorious that the 
 Christian churches in England and Ireland held the Protestant 
 doctrines in their essential purity, before and when the first emis- 
 saries of the Church of Rome invaded them, and began to pros- 
 elyte them to the Roman Hierarchy." 
 
 The same position, in substance, is asserted by Blackstone, 
 in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, (b. 4, c. 8, p. 105,) 
 that " the ancient British church, by whomsoever planted, was 
 i stranger to the Bishop of Rome and his pretended authority." 
 
 As these churches are acknowledged to have been in com- 
 munion with the See of Rome many ages before the days of 
 Luther, it is not a matter of so much importance as to what was 
 their early faith. But as to the matter of fact regarding the an- 
 cient British Church, Dr. Ives, in his able work, " Trials of a 
 Mind," has demonstrated that the learned divine and the distin- 
 guished commentator are both mistaken in their positions. This 
 he has done by a careful examination of contemporary testimony. 
 (P. 215-25.) 
 
 This brings me to the new position of Mr. B. 
 
 " The inquiry," he says, " as to the existence of Protestant- 
 ism before Luther, and when and where, (besides my previous 
 replies,) may thus be finally settled. You admit that the doc- 
 trines taught by the apostles, and recorded in the Bibla, are 
 true Christianity so do I. We both also allow that these doc- 
 trines have been, according to Christ's promise to his Church, 
 held and taught by the true Church ever since. Thus, if your 
 present doctrines contradict the Bible at every step, and if ours 
 harmonize \\ith it, it follows that we are the true Church, and 
 that our doctrines have been taught and held in every age. Bu-t 
 I have proved this at large, as to both faith and morals, and 
 worship." (P. 446.) 
 
 I must say that this position, whether true or false, is more 
 frank, bold, open and manly, than the attempt to prove, from his- 
 torical testimony, that the Protestant doctrines ever were held 
 and taught by any party, great or small, before the alleged Ref- 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 493 
 
 ormation. It does not seek to delude you with the confident 
 profession of ability to sustain such an historical fact, and then 
 utterly fail to do it. 
 
 The essence of this new ground is this : it makes the solution 
 of every question, as well historical as doctrinal, depend upon 
 the construction put upon the Scriptures by each individual. If 
 true, this position renders wholly unnecessary all the grounds 
 previously taken by Mr. B. It wholly excludes the necessity of 
 historical inquiry, so far as the Church is concerned. The set- 
 tlement of the question, what Church did exist during certain 
 ages before the alleged Reformation, is settled simply by decid- 
 ing, from individual construction, what Church ought to have 
 existed during those times. This position is one of those short, 
 pithy, but comprehensive grounds that go directly to the point. 
 Like the theory of an invisible Church, it avoids many old diffi- 
 culties, though it may have some new ones of its own. 
 
 It always occurred to me, that if we wish to prove the ful- 
 filment of an admitted promise, then the simplest and most sat- 
 isfactory mode was to show the historical fact, that it had been 
 so fulfilled. It also seemed to me, that if we wish to show the 
 continued identity and existence of a visible and universal 
 Church for and during the long period of fifteen centuries, then 
 the most logical aud certain mode of doing so was to produce 
 the direct historical proof of the simple matter of fact. As such 
 a Church is admitted to have been promised by Christ, its ex- 
 istence during that period could be proved, if true, from the sim- 
 ple records of history. 
 
 But Mr. B. proposes a different mode. He proposes to look 
 into Scripture, and from his own construction, to arrive at the 
 conclusion what doctrines, in theory, the true, visible Catholic 
 Church ought to teach, and from this verbal construction, to 
 assume the historical fact, that these doctrines have been taught 
 in every age. He proposes to supply the defective records of 
 history by construction ; and, in the same way, to refresh the 
 memory of past ages. 
 
 He who holds the doctrine of an invisible Church, when 
 naked what historical testimony he can produce to prove its ex- 
 istence, may very consistently reply that history could not at- 
 test the existence of that which was invisible. But Mr. B. as- 
 
494 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 sumes to prove, by verbal construction, the actual and positive 
 existence of a great visible Church that no one ever saw 
 a teaching Church that no one ever heard a universal or Cath- 
 olic Church that was never known to spread anywhere or if 
 this Church was seen, heard, and did extend over the earth, then 
 the negligent and ungenerous past forgot to record the fact 
 that while they recorded the existence of some four hundred 
 different, schismatical, contaminated, and apostate Churches, 
 they only forgot the true Church, visible and Catholic. Where 
 were the divines and writers of this alleged true Church, that 
 they never spoke of her, and have given her no place upon the 
 page of history? Where were her enemies, that they were si- 
 lent ? Or did the true Church have neither enemies nor friends ? 
 Was she a blank ? Was she neither good nor bad, and, there- 
 fore, unworthy of any notice whatever ? What sort of a true 
 Church was it, of which no one cared to speak ? Where were 
 her glorious martyrs ? Did they too pass away, 
 
 *' Unwept, tinhonored, and unsung " ? 
 
 In short, what sort of a visible universal Church was it that 
 existed for so long a time, of whose existence history saith not ? 
 Is it not much more rational to suppose, that Mr. B. may be 
 mistaken in his construction of the Bible, about which so many 
 men, equally learned, have so widely differed, than to suppose 
 all history at fault ? We have, as Bossuet says, the most full and 
 minute lists of the ancient heretics, and the peculiar tenets of 
 each party, and yet no mention is made of this assumed true 
 visible Catholic Church. 
 
 How the assumed facts of history will multiply, under this 
 most flexible position ! As Mr. B., by his construction, can 
 prove the historical existence of a Calvinistic Church, extending 
 irom the days of the apostles to the present time, so each of the 
 ,tive hundred existing sects in Protestant Christendom can do 
 the same, in the same way, and make themselves worthy ances- 
 tors, of the same faith with themselves. How the imaginary 
 ancient sects will rise from the dead, at the bidding of each in- 
 dividual ! Like the fabled men of Roderick Dhu, they rise and 
 fall as mystic shadows. 
 
 To form a new party under such a theory, all that need be 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 495 
 
 shown is, that in the opinion of individuals, the Scriptures have 
 been misconstrued. It is not necessary to show from history, 
 that such opinions were ever held in point of fact that there 
 ever was such a Church as the new one proposed ; nor will the 
 entire absence of any and all historical testimony, defeat the 
 claims of such an institution, under such a theory. The origi- 
 nator has only to say that it existed in the days of the apostles, 
 and whether it died out so suddenly and silently, and, like the 
 closing furrow of the ship as she glides through the waves, dis- 
 appeared so completely as to leave no historical trace behind, he 
 may still consistently contend that it visibly existed at one 
 time, and must have existed ever since, though " buried," as 
 Waddington says, " in the darkness of those ages," and still re- 
 mained buried at the alleged Reformation. 
 
 And is it not a curious and distressing state of necessity, 
 that compels learned men to stultify themselves by denouncing 
 certain tenets of the Catholic Church, as alleged monstrous er- 
 rors ; and yet, when they are called upon to select their ances- 
 tors, they choose, as their alleged true Church, those sects hold- 
 ing, in part, these same alleged errors f In a word, they con- 
 demn those tenets as heresies, and then insist that the true 
 Church can still teach them. And they compose their true 
 Church of sects, not only holding and teaching so many of the 
 very alleged errors they denounce, but also holding others, 
 equally objectionable to both Catholics and Protestants. 
 
 13. The theory of Bishop Hoadley and Dr. Balguy. 
 
 The theory concerning the Church, as devised by Bishop 
 Hoadley, and more clearly and fully developed by his distin- 
 guished disciple, Dr. Balguy, is still more latitudinarian than 
 that of the French Calvinist ministers, Claude and Jurieu. As 
 the Bishop did not agree with the views of his own Church, 
 whose creed he had subscribed and publicly acknowledged, in 
 reference to the Church question, as well as all other questions 
 connected therewith, it became necessary to give a definition of 
 his own. He accordingly defines a Church to be, " the number 
 of persons, whether great or small, whether dispersed or united, 
 who are sincerely and willingly subject to Christ alone, as to a 
 
496 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 lawgiver and judge, in matters relating to the favor of God and 
 eternal salvation." 
 
 According to this definition, neither the purity of doctrine, 
 nor the right administration of the sacraments, nor the unity of 
 its members, nor the succession of ministers, is at all requisite to 
 constitute the true Church. All that is required is, that the 
 members shall be "sincerely and willingly subject to Christ 
 alone, as to a lawgiver and judge," &c. From his definition, am 1 
 from his language in other places, it appears to be clear, that 
 the Bishop only required integrity of purpose to constitute a 
 Christian ; " as God's favor," he says, " cannot depend upon his 
 actual being or continuing in any particular method, (of re- 
 ligion,) but upon his real sincerity in the conduct of his con- 
 science." 
 
 The reason that induced this distinguished Bishop to adopt 
 this theory, was his struggle to free the Protestant fundamental 
 rule from the charge of cruelty and contradiction, and to sub- 
 stitute something for the Catholic certainty. To say that each 
 individual must construe the entire Code of Christ for himself 
 alone, and yet to hold that he must construe correctly, or be 
 finally lost, was to lay down a cruel and contradictory theory. 
 To avoid this plain logical result, the Bishop placed the safety 
 of the Christian " in his real sincerity in the conduct of his con- 
 science." If he failed to arrive at the true faith, in the exercise 
 of this sincerity, it was not his fault, and he would be saved as 
 well without, as with true faith. The Protestant fundamental 
 rule had placed a burthen upon the individual, too grievous to 
 be borne. It imposed upon him an individual responsibility, 
 evidently disproportioned to his capacity. 
 
 But this definition still contained some restrictions. The be- 
 liever had great latitude left him, it is true, but he was still 
 required to be subject to " Christ as a lawgiver and judge." 
 The Bishop made the Church universal, and then composed it 
 only of those persons who are " sincerely and willingly subject 
 to Christ alone." The tests of willingness and sincerity were 
 impracticable. These qualities being known to God only, the 
 Church could not determine the question, whether they did or 
 did not exist in oach individual member. The clear-headed Dr. 
 Balguy saw that a visible Church must contain members not 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 497 
 
 willing and sincere ; and yet these members must ostensibly 
 enjoy, in her communion, all the privileges enjoyed by others. 
 He also saw that a visible Church was the only one that could 
 be defined with any practical utility, and with which we could 
 make ourselves acquainted. Therefore, the tests of willingness 
 and sincerity, as applied to a visible Church, which must expel 
 heretics, were simply idle. No one could practically apply 
 them. 
 
 " The good must merit God's peculiar care, 
 But who but God can tell us who they are ? " 
 
 Besides this, Dr. Balguy could not see the consistency be- 
 tween the Bishop's definition of the Church, and his leading prin- 
 ciple of integrity alone. As God's favor to each individua 
 depended upon his " real sincerity in the conduct of his con- 
 science," it was difficult to see how, or why, he should be sub- 
 ject to " Christ alone as a lawgiver." In such a case, our Lord 
 must have been a most anomalous Legislator. To say that He 
 was a lawgiver, and had made and promulgated His Code in 
 a, positive form, expressed in human language, commanding and 
 prohibiting what He pleased, requiring this truth to be be- 
 lieved, and that error to be avoided, and this or that to be done 
 or omitted, and promising, in advance, certain rewards for 
 obedience, and denouncing certain punishments for disobe- 
 dience ; and, then, after all this labor, and all these pledges of 
 His veracity, that certain results should follow certain states of 
 faith and obedience or of disbelief and disobedience, to maki 
 our Lord's favor to depend, not upon the actual doing or omit- 
 ting that which was actually commanded and prohibited, but 
 simply upon the *' real sincerity in the conduct of each one's 
 conscience," was certainly making Christ do a very idle and 
 useless thing. It is just as easy to understand the logic and 
 good sense of a positive law for the predestinated, commanding 
 them to do or not to do certain specified things, which they 
 must do, or not do, as well without the law as with it, as to 
 understand the position of the Bishop. 
 
 It, therefore, became necessary for Dr. Balguy to improve 
 upon the definition of Bishop Hoadley. Unless a definition in- 
 elude all that is required, and no more, it lacks completeness 
 
498 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 and certainty two requisites necessary to constitute a good 
 definition. Dr. Balguy, therefore, defined a Church very 
 briefly and comprehensively, as follows : 
 
 " A Church is a number of persons agreeing to unite in pub- 
 lic assemblies, for the performance of religious duties." 
 
 This definition cannot be exceeded in some respects. It is 
 .is brief, comprehensive, and latitudinarian as possible. It can- 
 not be made shorter in words, or wider in meaning. It in- 
 cludes all of every religion Christian, Jewish, Mahometan, 
 and Pagan. It would seem that the learned divine was prede- 
 termined that no improvement should eve* Le made upon his 
 definition, by any Protestant of the latitadinarian school. In 
 that line he at once attained the su.nmit of excellence, and 
 stands without any rival, even am^ng those of his own school. 
 And it certainly is an improvement upon the Bishop's definition, 
 in the way of consistency. It is like some bills in Chancery, 
 framed with a double aspect, so as to meet every possible state 
 of case. It is wide enough to embrace every worshipper of 
 every kind. 
 
 But this definition is too wide for any man professing to be 
 a Christian. The only truly consistent Protestant creed, is the 
 fundamental rule itself. All being independent equals, every one 
 should have the right to preach who pleased, and to preach 
 what he pleased, and to baptize in any mode he pleased, and to 
 administer any sacrament he pleased. The right in all to preach 
 and baptize should be equal, and the actual exercise of that 
 right should depend upon the will of each one, and his power to 
 secure hearers. If he did not preach to suit others, they, being 
 equally free to hear or not to hear, to contribute or not to his 
 support, might leave him to preach to the forests and hills, or 
 be silent. There would be no necessity for any form of Church 
 government, no expulsion for heresy, as there would be a " sov- 
 ereign antidote against " it, as Mr. Campbell says. The theory 
 and practice would be consistent. All the privileges guaranteed 
 by the fundamental rule itself, would be practically secured, 
 Each one would be left to construe for himself, and to hold any 
 doctrine he pleased, so he referred it to the Bible alone. 
 
 And that Protestantism has been regularly approaching this 
 consistent creed, step by step, may be readily seen by any pa- 
 
RESULTS O THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 499 
 
 tient inquirer, who will examine into its history. The plan of 
 holding matters of difference as not material must, sooner 01 
 later, end in holding all immaterial, except the fundamental rule 
 itself. As all can agree as to that, this would form a basis of 
 practical union. And to Zuinglius is to be ascribed the first 
 step in this consistent, but latitudinarian path. In the Confer- 
 ence of Marpurg, after he found he could not convince Luther 
 in regard to the doctrine of the Real Presence, he then asked 
 Luther to tolerate the difference. The next step was taken by 
 the Calvinists in holding this doctrine immaterial. Then in 
 England, under Elizabeth, it was so held. Then came the 
 Hoadley School, which would tolerate almost, if not quite, every 
 thing. The Lutherans on the Continent degenerated into a veiled 
 Deism, if not downright infidelity. The Calvinists of Geneva 
 have also done the same. Without a professed change upon 
 the face of their creeds, they have, like the members of the 
 Church of England, departed from them in practice. And the 
 theory of Mr. Campbell is a decided and consistent step in that 
 direction, in reference to many tenets, though not in reference 
 to all. 
 
 Among some Indian tribes it is a practice, when two or more 
 of their warriors or chiefs have a dispute about a piece of prop- 
 erty, and the dispute is likely to result in serious consequences, 
 to destroy the property itself. If, for example, the dispute be 
 about a horse, they kill the animal. The cause of dispute being 
 removed, though injustice is done, peace is thereby restored. 
 This same result must follow when former articles of faith are 
 subsequently held immaterial. If once held immaterial, of course, 
 they can constitute no matters of serious difference among sen- 
 sible men. 
 
 14. Reflections. 
 
 In reference to Mr. Campbell's claims to be a reformer, Mr. 
 Rice remarks : 
 
 " I do not remember to have seen a man who pretended to 
 religion of any kind, who did not consider himself rather more 
 orthodox than others. This is a common weakness of human 
 nature. It displays itself everywhere, and especially in men 
 who imagine themselves to be great reformers, and believe all 
 
500 RESULTS OF THE PROTEST ANT THEORY. 
 
 but themselves in serious error. If it be true, as my friend evi 
 dently thinks, that of all the world, he only, and those who 
 agree with him, are in the light, whilst all Christendom grope in 
 midnight darkness ; it follows, as a necessary consequence, that 
 he is one of the most orthodox men. There can be no doubt 
 about it." (Debate 761.) 
 
 There is certainly great force and truth in this statement 
 But while it applies to Mr. Campbell, does it not equally apply 
 to Mr. Rice ? How stands the case with him ? Did not Luther, 
 his predecessor and head, make even greater pretensions than 
 Mr. Campbell ? Luther not only claimed that all " Christen- 
 dom groped in midnight darkness," but he claimed the right to 
 reform it, not only because he understood the Scriptures better 
 than any other man who then lived, or had lived during the 
 preceding thousand years, but also in virtue of an extraordinary 
 mission, attested by miracles. 
 
 But how natural it is for men to lay down one rule for them- 
 selves, and another rule for others. Even the man who steals 
 from others, complains bitterly if another steals from him. 
 W hen Luther claimed the right to reform the Church of Rome, 
 he denied the right to Zuinglius and others to reform his Church. 
 Calvin, who resisted Luther's pretensions to the entire right of 
 reformation, and claimed an equal right for himself neverthe- 
 less was instrumental in having Servetus burned for assuming 
 the same right. And in all cases, the older Protestant sects de- 
 claim loudly against all new-comers into the common domain of 
 Reformation. But in condemning others, they inevitably con- 
 demn themselves. 
 
 Mr. Rice says in another place : 
 
 " Reform is the, watchword of every demagogue and of every 
 fanatic." (Debate 842.) 
 
 This is surely a great truth a notable fact, and gives rise to 
 Borne very important and useful reflections. 
 
 All the bad and immoral men in Christendom are, at heart, 
 : ufidels. They all belong to that class. The natural instincts 
 of their conduct lead them there. There is something so ut- 
 terly inconsistent between the belief of Christianity and the 
 practice of gross immorality, that the two cannot be found to- 
 gether. Many men, however, who do not believe in Christian 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEOR1. 501 
 
 ity, are yet practically good men as citizens and neighbors. But 
 it is a great and gratifying fact, and a most powerful argument 
 in favor of Christianity, that ALL the bad and wicked men are 
 on ONE side, and at heart OPPOSED to it, whatever may be 
 their professions. 
 
 And so all the demagogues and fanatics in religion are Re- 
 formers, as Mr. Rice justly says. They are one and all the inces- 
 sant advocates of the principle of private interpretation in the last 
 resort. Demagogism and fanaticism in religion cannot, in the 
 very nature of things, be found in the Catholic system. They 
 cannot live there, There is no demagogical or fanatical oxy- 
 gen in that atmosphere. There is nothing there for them to 
 feed upon. Their necessary and indispensable food is found out- 
 side. There being nothing in the creed of that Church to re- 
 form, and nothing changeable in her infallible theory, such a 
 watchward is not permitted to be used with reference to her ar- 
 ticles of faith. It would be as logical to speak of reforming the 
 original law of Christ, as to speak of reforming a creed assumed 
 to be infallible. Whoever, therefore, embraces that creed, can- 
 not say reform in reference to the creed itself. It is a word un- 
 known to a stable religious system of faith. And it is a grati- 
 fying fact, and a strong argument in favor of the Catholic 
 system, that all the demagogues and fanatics in religion are op- 
 posed to it. They are invariably found ALL on ONE side, and 
 AGAINST it. 
 
 And while I cheerfully admit that all reformers were not dem- 
 agogues or fanatics, truth compels me to say that I think most 
 of tljem have been so. And, admitting that I may be mistaken 
 as to the proportion, yet it is clear that the Protestant principle 
 produces the very and only food upon which they can live. And 
 while it produces this food in superabundance, it provides no ef- 
 ficient and consistent check to its use. Under the fundamental 
 and supreme rule of individual and independent interpretation, 
 what was allowed to Luther must be allowed to the Lutherans '> 
 and what was allowed to Calvin and his colleagues, must be al- 
 lowed, under the same rule, to others. Mr. Campbell had, there 
 fore, the common right existing under, and guaranteed by, the 
 rule itself. What check, then, is there upon demagogism and 
 fanaticism in the Protestant theory ? Nothing but the opinion 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 and judgment of each individual. And in the war of contending 
 demagogues and fanatics, how shall they decide ? How hav6 
 they decided in the past f Let facts and history answer. 
 
 15. Mr. Campbell's theory of Protestant union. 
 
 In reference to the differences among Protestants, Mr. Camp- 
 bell says : 
 
 " There are one or two Protestant sects who differ in some 
 important matters, and are as repugnant to each other as are 
 Jansenists and Jesuits in the Roman church; but all Protestant 
 sects unite in several acts of religious worship, in acknowledg- 
 ment of the same code of morals, and in the positive institutions 
 of Christianity, such as the Lord's day, the Lord's supper, bap- 
 tism, prayer, praise, &c. Sects and differences exist which ought 
 not : but still they harmonize as much in their general and spe- 
 cial bonds of union, as do the Romanists themselves. What are 
 the Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jansenists, Jesuits, 
 <fec., but orders (or sects) called after the different saints f " 
 (Debate C. & P., 175.) * 
 
 The essence of this statement, if true, is based upon the 
 principle of compromise or compensation. Mr. C. says, in sub- 
 stance, if we are divided, so are you. If this were true, it 
 might well be asked, What, then, has your alleged Reformation 
 accomplished ? Has it produced any greater union ? 
 
 But are the assumed facts here stated, true f What does a 
 calm, fair, and dispassionate detailed examination of the differ- 
 ences existing among Protestants, show? Mr. C. says they 
 agree in " several " particulars. That is true ; but does, this 
 agreement in several things constitute that unity in speaking 
 the same things, and in being perfectly joined together in the 
 same mind and in the same judgment, as St. Paul has it ? All 
 Christians, as well as Jews and Mohammedans, agree in several 
 matters, but is this unity ? 
 
 What, then, constitutes the unity contemplated by the law 
 of Christ ? Certainly, the same agreement that existed in the 
 Apostolic Church. That Church was united in the SAME 
 
 * The Jansenists were not an order in the Church, but the teachers of oer* 
 tain errors of doctrine. 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 503 
 
 JUDGMENT in reference to ALL THINGS held material by 
 the CHURCH HERSELF, and in the same CHURCH GOV- 
 ERNMENT. And it must be obvious, that if there be a true 
 vi-ible Church, that she must know herself, and must also know 
 what requisites make up her faith ; and that, consequently, 
 wlun she decides that certain specified articles are necessary to 
 her creed, and condemns others as untrue, that she must be 
 right. On the contrary, if a Church determines certain arti- 
 cles as essential to faith, and certain other articles as not essen- 
 tial, if there be error in either case, that Church cannot be in 
 the right, and cannot, for that reason, be the true Church. If* 
 then, two or more Churches decide differently upon the same 
 matter, held by them to be essential to faith, it is clear, that 
 they cannot all be the true Church, or parts of the true Church. 
 For example, when Mr. Campbell and his Church hold that im- 
 mersion alone is baptism, and that infant baptism, in any mode, 
 is null and void, how can such a Church be a part or a branch 
 of a Church, which holds precisely the contrary ? And when 
 Mr. C. (as well as Mr. Breckenridge and other Calvinists) come 
 to speak of Transubstantiation, Confession, and Absolution, as 
 grievous errors of the Catholic Church, and make these tenets 
 a most material portion of the reasons assigned to justify the 
 alleged Reformation, how can they call the Lutherans, who 
 hold Consubstantiation, Confession, and Absolution, a part of 
 the true Church ? For every sensible man must see, that all 
 their objections against Transubstantiation apply to Consubstan- 
 tiation ; and that the latter, as the Sacramentarians insisted in 
 the days of Luther, is more inconsistent with the Scripture than 
 the former, conceding them both to be untrue. And how can 
 they claim the Church of England as part of this great, but dis- 
 cordant, alleged true Church ? She holds Confession and Ab- 
 solution. And when the great Synod of Dort, representing the 
 entire Calvinistic world, laid down those stern Calvinistic doc- 
 trines, and expelled the Remonstrants from their communion, 
 did both these parties belong to the same Church ? If so, how 
 did the Remonstrants bear the relation of " heathens and pub- 
 licans " to the Calvinists ? One party maintained predestina- 
 tion, election, and final perseverance, and the other the reverse ; 
 and the Synod held the Calvinistic doctrines as fundamental ar- 
 
504 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 tides of faith, and the opposite tenets as heresy. And the 
 Methodists, and all the other five hundred sects, differ from 
 each other in so many points deemed by them, and each of 
 them, so far material, that they cannot be induced to unite un- 
 der one system of church government, having one acknowledged 
 head; and how can they form parts of CXNE Church? The 
 Lutheran excommunicates the Calvinist the Calvinist the Ar- 
 minian the Baptist the Psedo-baptist the Trinitarian the 
 Anti-Trinitarian the Episcopalian the Independent the be- 
 liever in the Atonement the Unitarian the Methodist the Anti- 
 nomian ; and yet, under this confused theory, these different 
 parties, while they are thus excommunicating each other, are 
 held to be but parts of the true Church, as were the Churches 
 of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and other places but branches 
 of the Apostolic Church. A Church that does not know her- 
 self does not know her faith does not know the members of 
 her own body, is still the true Church, under this most latitudi- 
 narian theory. What assistance does Christ, the alleged head 
 of this confused Church, give to her, when she remains in this 
 state of profound ignorance of her own faith f Is confused 
 and contradictory ignorance an attribute of the one true Church 
 of Christ? And if, on the contrary, it be assumed that this 
 mongrel Church does know herself and her faith, then why is 
 she continually excommunicating her own children for immate- 
 rial errors of mere opinion f 
 
 But the Church of Christ is a Kingdom, and a visible King- 
 dom a united Kingdom. It has but one law for its govern 
 ment. This law requires uniform faith in certain fixed truths. 
 How, then, can this visible Kingdom have different govern- 
 ments, antagonistic to and independent of each other, and re- 
 quiring faith in precisely opposite tenets, so that there is one 
 faith for one part, and a different faith for another part ? Did 
 two or more communities, having entirely separate and hide- 
 pendent governments, each acting for itself alone, ever consti- 
 tute one government, because their citizens or subjects acciden- 
 tally agreed in race, language, customs, laws, and manners, and 
 hi the forms of government ? How can any associated body of 
 men exist, without having one government ? Do all the sover- 
 eign independent states of the civilized world constitute but one 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 505 
 
 government, simply because they are all sovereign, and agree, 
 substantially, in a great number of particulars ? Unity of faith 
 and unity of government must exist to constitute the one Church 
 of Christ. Separate organizations, each acting exclusively fot 
 itself, and teaching its creed as its own, and for itself alone, 
 never can form " The Church " spoken of so often by St. Paul. 
 
 But Mr. C. says that Protestants harmonize as much as Ro- 
 manists themselves, and asks, " What are the Augustinians, Do- 
 minicans, Franciscans, Jansenists, Jesuits, &c., but orders (or 
 sects) called after different saints ? " 
 
 When I first read this statement, I was under the impression 
 that these alleged differences among Catholics would compen- 
 sate or balance the undeniable discords among Protestants. 
 But there was one reflection which forced itself upon my mind 
 with great power : that if this assumed state of case was in fact 
 true, then it was clear that the true Church, if it existed at all, 
 was in the most wretched and disorganized state, very much 
 like a clean neat apostasy from the true original faith. For 
 my common sense assured me that this faith was an entirety 
 an indestructible whole, consisting of united parts and that 
 the moment one of these parts w r as lost, the identity of the 
 Church was at once destroyed, and the promises of our Lord 
 had clearly failed. And I could just as easily conceive of a 
 house with nothing but the foundation, or of a steam engine con- 
 sisting of nothing but the boiler, as of a true, visible, catholic, 
 and apostolic Church, which had either denied a single true 
 article of faith, or added a single false tenet to the true. If the 
 Church could err in one essential particular, and still be the 
 true Church, she could err in two or more ; and the limit once 
 passed, which was set by the inflexible, whole, and entire law 
 of Christ, there could be no bounds fixed beyond which she 
 could not go. Such an idea was utterly destructive of the 
 whole theory, that Christ was a Divine Lawgiver. I could not 
 understand how our Lord could ever have contemplated a mu- 
 tilated Church. I could not think that He ever intended that 
 one bone of her should be broken ; but that while she might be 
 wounded by her enemies for the moment, she would soon rise, 
 like her Master, still sound, though bcarred, and as triumphant 
 and beautiful as ever. 
 44 
 
506 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 But I inquired, Is it true, as Mr. C. states ? What are the 
 genuine facts ? 
 
 In reference to the Jansenists and Jesuits, I found that they 
 had discussed a theological question, taking different sides; and 
 that the Church condemned the Jansenists, and that ended the 
 matter with Catholics. 
 
 In reference to the Augustinians and other orders in the 
 Church, I found that they were not sects in the just import of 
 that word, but were only subordinate communities, organized 
 for different purposes, and having different disciplinary rules 
 for their own direction, in reference to matters peculiar to 
 each. I found that all the members of these different orders 
 were required to believe every article of the creed, in the same 
 way precisely that every member of the Church was required 
 to do. They had then the same faith, and were united in the 
 same judgment, as were all the members of the Church. And 
 not only so, but I found that not one of these orders could 
 exist, without the express act and consent of the Church that 
 the Church reserved the power to suppress them at any time, 
 and had exercised it in particular cases that the matters pecu- 
 liar to each order did not relate to faith at all, (which was a 
 matter they could not touch,) and that they were in every thing 
 subordinate to the Church. I found also that the questions 
 they were allowed to discuss were questions that all Catholics 
 were allowed to discuss, being questions outside the creed " 
 questions of expediency or of discipline, or questions which the 
 Church had not settled by any decision ; and that so soon as a 
 decision was made on any question, the matter was ended. 
 
 I must confess, that in these orders I could see no divisions 
 in the Church, any more than I could see divisions in the State, 
 because subordinate municipal, and other corporations, were 
 allowed to exist by express acts of the Legislature, prescribing 
 and limiting tneir powers to such matters only as do not inter- 
 fere or clash with the exercise of the legitimate powers of the 
 State herself. These corporations are the mere creatures or 
 agents of the State, deriving all their powers from her, existing 
 by her will and pleasure, and are not, therefore, divisions pro- 
 ducing discord in the government. And so with reference to 
 these orders. They derived their existence from the express 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 507 
 
 act of the Church, exercised all their powers subordinate to 
 her, and held their existence at her pleasure. These powers 
 had no relation to faith, were expressly limited to matters in 
 different, and were not allowed, in any way, to interfere with 
 the powers of the Church. They are merely subordinate limited 
 orders, organized for special purposes, and governed by disci- 
 plinary rules, first approved by the Church herself. I could see 
 no discord in these orders, nothing antagonistic to the Church, 
 unless I could see discord between a subordinate and his su- 
 perior. 
 
 But in reference to Protestant divisions, I found the case 
 far different in two great and essential particulars: 1. They dif- 
 fered as to matters of faith, holding precisely opposite views in 
 reference to the same matter. 2. They each had entire sepa- 
 rate and independent Church organizations, acting each alone 
 for itself, and acknowledging no common superior. In other 
 words, they were independent associations, having no visible 
 connection. The Methodists, for instance, formally decide all 
 questions of faith and practice for themselves, and from this de- 
 cision there is no appeal to any other power on earth. So of 
 all the others. They are no more connected in government (if 
 such a thing exists among them at all) than independent States. 
 Whatever similarity of views, in reference to some points, may 
 exist among them, arises not from their theories of organization. 
 Each association being separate and independent, there can be 
 no subordination among them, and no union. . 
 
 From his language in his debate with Bishop Purcell, one 
 would be compelled to infer, that these divisions were very 
 slight, except as to the "one or two Protestant sects" not 
 specified ; and even as to these, they were not greater than the 
 alleged divisions among Catholics. Among other things they 
 all united in, as stated by Mr. C., was baptism. But when we 
 look to his debate with Mr. Rice, and see the grounds he there 
 took, and the language there used, we begin to see the mighty 
 chasms that lie between the professed views of different Protes- 
 tant sects. And even in Mr. C.'s view, there are some things 
 so different from most other Protestants, that they constitute 
 a mighty wall of separation. In the debate with Mr. Rice, two 
 of the propositions maintained by Mr. C. were : " Baptism is 
 
508 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 for the remission of past sins," and immersion oi a proper sub 
 ject "is the only apostolic or Christian baptism." Putting 
 these two propositions together, and drawing therefrom the in- 
 evitable conclusion, the Church that practises sprinkling and 
 infant baptism, has no baptism, according to Mr. Campbell, and 
 her members who have been thus sprinkled, no remission of past 
 sins. How such could be saved, or how, consistent with his 
 view, he could call such a Church either the true Church, or 
 even a part of it, I am not able to perceive. And as the over- 
 whelming majority of Protestant sects were in this condition, 
 those left as parts of the true Church were certainly few, com- 
 paratively. And although Mr. C. did permit Dr. Fishback to 
 hold the negative of the proposition that " baptism is for the 
 remission of past sins," as matter of opinion, he never, so far as 
 I am advised, tolerated the difference in the mode. What sort 
 of Christians were they, in Mr. Campbell's view, who had never 
 been baptized ? and whose past sins were never remitted ? 
 And what sort of a Church was it, that was entirely composed 
 of the unbaptized? the unwashed? the unregenerate? And 
 where was Mr. C.'s true Church baptizing by immersion be- 
 fore the Reformation ? Did all those he claimed as the true 
 Church, baptize by immersion ? If they did not, then they had 
 no baptism, under his theory. And the Paulicians, who denied 
 baptism, were they the true Church ? 
 
 16. Dr. Springes theory of Protestant union. 
 
 In reference to the views of Protestants, Dr. Spring insists 
 " that there is a remarkable uniformity in the views of Protes- 
 tants on the great and fundamental doctrines of Christianity. 
 The thirty-nine articles of the Church of England the confes- 
 sion of faith of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster the 
 Savoy Confession, and the symbols of the Reformed churches in 
 Holland and France, as well as the published works of the con- 
 tinental, English, Scotch, and Dutch Reformers, and their fol- 
 lowers, in this and other countries, where the Reformed religion 
 obtains, present a coincidence of views, with which, for its ex- 
 tent arid importance, the boasted uniformity of Rome furnishes 
 no comparison." " The unity of the Papal Church is a unity 
 of the most jarring materials." (Dissertation 60, 63.) 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY, 509 
 
 In the Westminster Confession referred to by Dr. Spring, 
 and drawn up by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, in 
 1647, I find the following articles: 
 
 " To these (church officers) the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power to 
 retain and remit sins, to snut the kingdom against the impeni- 
 tent, both by the word and censure ; and to open it unto peni- 
 tent sinners by the ministry of the Gospel, and absolutions 
 from censures, as occasion shall require." (Chap, xxx., art. ii.) 
 
 " He (the civil magistrate) hath authority, and it is his duty, 
 to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, 
 that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blas- 
 phemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses 
 in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the or- 
 dinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For 
 the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call Synods, to 
 be present at them, and to provide that whatever is transacted 
 in them, be according to the mind of God." (Chap, xx., sec. 3.) 
 
 These extracts are given, not for the purpose of showing 
 that the Presbyterians in the United States hold these tenets, 
 (for they, in a General Assembly, held about the year 1783, 
 rejected these articles,) but to show what that "remarkable 
 umlormity" was which was spoken of by Dr. Spring. 
 
 In reference, then, to the symbols of the Reformed Churches, 
 to which the Doctor refers, it will be seen that they were made 
 by the Lutherans and Calvinists. As to the Calvinism of the 
 thirty-nine articles, there could be no doubt.* It has long been 
 said truly, that the Church of England had a Calvinistic creed 
 and an Arminian clergy. (See Milner's End Con., Let. ix.) It 
 will also be seen, that these confessions were generally made m 
 the first fifty years after the dawn of the alleged Reformation, 
 and before the Protestants were divided and subdivided into so 
 many parties. Besides, it will be seen that the differences be- 
 tween Lutherans and Calvinists were either most material, or 
 
 * Boswell states that he himself asserted that the Presbyterian " Confession 
 of Faith and the thirty-nine articles contained the same points, even the doctrine 
 of predestination." To which Dr. Johnson replied: "Why, yes, sir; predesti- 
 nation was a part of the clamor of the times, so it is mentioned in our articles, 
 but with as little positiveness as could be." (Boswell's Life of Johnson.) 
 
510 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 they themselves were mistaken in considering them so. So, it 
 will be seen that the Westminster divines thought it so impor- 
 tant " that the truth of God he kept pure and entire," that they 
 held that the civil magistrate had power to "call synods, to be 
 present at them, and to provide that whatever is transacted in 
 them, be according to the mind of God." In their theory they 
 placed the civil magistrate above the Synod in reference to the 
 mind of God. 
 
 But as to the materiality of these differences among Prot- 
 estants, and as to the statement of Dr. S. in substance, that 
 there is more uniformity among Protestants than among Catho- 
 lics, the learned divine himself has saved me the labor of any 
 further examination, by his own clear and distinct admissions. 
 As a Calvinistic minister, in the doctrinal portion of his sermon 
 will often insist upon the stern tenets of predestination, election, 
 and final perseverance ; and yet, in the close of his discourse, 
 when he comes to the last exhortation, will generally urge his 
 brethren to do their duty, and persevere in well-doing, as if he 
 did not believe in the doctrines just taught ; so, the learned 
 divine, after having insisted, in one portion of his Dissertation, 
 that Protestants were more united than Catholics, towards its 
 close says : 
 
 " Nothing has given Rome so much the advantage as the 
 disunion of Protestants. And nothing, under the favor of Al- 
 mighty God, would be so ominous of her overthrow as their 
 cordial union in the great truths of the Gospel, and the love of 
 the Spirit." (Dis. 100.) 
 
 I confess I could not put the different positions of the learned 
 author together. I could not understand how " Rome " could 
 have " so much the advantage " in consequence of the " disunion 
 of Protestants" in regard to " the great truths of the Gosjpel," 
 if it were true, as he alleged, that Rome was still more divided 
 that her " unity is a unity of the most jarring materials." 
 There appeared to me to be something quite "jarring " in these 
 different positions. 
 
 17. Reflections. 
 
 In connection with this subject, Dr. Spring assumed that 
 " the man who implicitly receives the Scriptures as the infallible 
 
RESULTS OF TUE PROTESTANT THEORY. 511 
 
 rule of faith, cannot doubt whether any of his religious opinions 
 are true." (Dis. 59.) 
 
 After all the confusion that has been thrown over this sub- 
 ject by loose and uncertain language, arising from confused 
 thought, or from a desire to avoid a difficulty, nothing can, it 
 occurs to me, be plainer than this ; that the Protestant in- 
 quirer, under his rule, must be certain of two points before he 
 can be certain that he is right : 
 
 1. He must be certain as to the identity of the code he 
 must know that the Bible is the written, and only, Word of 
 God. 
 
 2. He must know that he has correctly construed it. 
 
 If he does not know both these points with certainty, he 
 does not know his faith with certainty. How then can it be 
 true, as asserted by Dr. Spring, that " the man who implicitly 
 receives the Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith, CANNOT 
 
 DOUBT WHETHER ANY OF HIS RELIGIOUS OPINIONS ARE TRUE?" 
 
 Does the learned divine mean to assert the proposition, that he 
 who so implicitly receives the Scriptures cannot misconstrue 
 them ? Or does he mean to say, that while he does so misconstrue 
 them, that the simple fact of his so receiving the Bible, will 
 make him certain, even while he is in the wrong? Or does he 
 mean to take the clean, neat position, that, while all Protestants 
 profess to receive implicitly the Scriptures as their infallible 
 rule of faith, they only so receive them who properly construe 
 them f And if so, does he mean then to say, that all Protestant 
 sects but one, do not so receive them ? Or does he mean to 
 admit, that while numbers, or even the majority of each sect, so 
 receive the Bible, and yet give it such discordant constructions, 
 they cannot still doubt whether any of their religious opinions 
 are true ? In other words, that the simple fact of so receiving 
 the Scriptures is, in and of itself, efficient to remove all doubt, 
 from the minds of all those holders of opinions so contradictory ? 
 As if the fact that twenty different lawyers all agreed as to the 
 indentity of the statutes, would make each one certain that his 
 own construction of them was right, when different from that 
 of each of the other nineteen. 
 
 But if the position be true, that such a reception of the 
 Bible is efficient to produce such certain conviction, is it not 
 
512 BESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 clear that it does so without reason and against the truth ? 
 What sort of a rule is that which produces this fatal repose, 
 while believing the most contradictory tenets, and holding the 
 most opposite opinions ? " There is a way which seemeth to a 
 man right, but the end thereof is death." 
 
 And I cannot understand the proposition in any other sense. 
 The language is plain, clear, and certain. If a man implicitly 
 receives the Scriptures, he cannot doubt whether any of his re- 
 ligious opinions are true, whatever those opinions may be. 
 This is but another struggle to find a substitute for the Catholic 
 certainty. As the same learned divine had before said, " The 
 human mind reluctantly rests short of certainty. Indeed, with- 
 out this it does not rest at all," he was bound to propose 
 some rule which would produce this certainty, or leave his 
 readers in the dark. 
 
 When I first read the Dissertation of Dr. Spring upon the 
 Rule of Faith, I was a Protestant. His statement that the hu- 
 man mind does not rest at all without certainty, I could not but 
 admit as unequivocally true. But the rule he gave me to attain 
 it gave rise to the most serious reflections. After examination 
 and consideration, I became satisfied that his position was fatally 
 erroneous in one of two particulars ; namely : either it could not 
 produce that certainty ; or if it did, then this certainty was not 
 founded upon reason or truth, but was a mere temporary cer- 
 tainty, that might do to live upon, but would never do to die by. 
 
 While engaged in this examination, and during its progress, 
 my reflections ran substantially in this way : 
 
 " All Protestants profess to receive the Bible implicitly, as 
 Dr. S. requires : and yet I have no doubt it is true, as he states, 
 that 
 
 " Great multitudes, who have been religiously educated, and 
 more who have not been so, while they have a prevailing belief 
 that the Scriptures are a divine revelation, have by no means 
 the conviction of certainty on this great subject." But while I 
 must believe this, I am also compelled to believe that a large 
 portion of the members of the various Protestant parties are sin- 
 cere, and do implicitly receive the Scriptures, as the rule of Dr. 
 S. requires. And yet, while they do so receive i, they unequiv- 
 ocally disagree in its interpretation, and hold the most opposite 
 
RESULTS OP THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 513 
 
 doctrines. And although Dr. S. speaks of a remarkable uni- 
 formity in their views, where can this REMARKABLE uniformity 
 be found ? He has, indeed, referred me to the early creeds, 
 drawn up mostly within the first fifty years of the alleged Ref- 
 ormation, by only two parties of Protestants, Lutherans and 
 Calvinists, and before they had divided into so great a number 
 of sects as now exist ; and even in these creeds the discrepan- 
 cies were great and manifest, and were held material by the 
 parties themselves, at the time the creeds were made. The 
 Lutherans held the Sacramentarians as heretics, heathens, and 
 publicans, and not as brethren of the same Church. And the 
 Calvinists so held the Lutherans for many years, and then only 
 permitted them to communion about the time the theory vf an 
 invisible Church was invented. And when I look into their 
 creeds, these discordant views are held as doctrines of ,Vm}> 
 ture / and there is no marked distinction in each creed to show* 
 where the fundamental doctrines end, and the indifferent opin- 
 ions begin. And if I consider all the points of difference be- 
 tween Protestants, or between the principal sects, as matters 
 indifferent, and this contrary to their own creeds, how much will 
 there be left of fundamental Christianity ? For instance, can 1 
 say a man has free will, or that he has it not ? or that he will 
 certainly persevere because predestinated, or that he may fall 
 that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, or that He is not 
 that immersion alone is baptism, or that it is not that infant 
 baptism is valid, or that it is void and so of every other differ 
 ence, and yet all these views be held as matters indifferent f 
 Can I say that Christ has made no revelation upon these points 
 of difference ? And if I say He has, by what sort of logic can I 
 say His revelation is unimportant ? Why revealed, if not to be 
 believed f And how can a mere fallible interpreter mark the 
 line that separates the revealed fundamental, from revealed, 
 but immaterial, doctrines ? If, then, these various sects differ 
 in fundamental doctrines, it is clear they cannot all be right. It 
 is equally plain they cannot form parts of the true visible Church. 
 She ever must be a unit, with the same faith, and the same gov- 
 ernment. And if^ on the contrary, these sects agree in funda- 
 mentals as asserted, then why do they not unite ? What ex- 
 cuse can be given for ruinous divisions, so much deplored by 
 45 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 Dr. Spring himself, as well as other Protestants, when they only 
 differ about trifles ? Or is it in the wise and irrevocable pur- 
 pose of the Great Redeemer, that division and discord should 
 be written, in letters of living light, upon the front of every 
 sect that has ever separated from that Church which holds the 
 governing principle of authority, from the beginning of Chris- 
 tianity even to the present time ? 
 
 And despite the statement of Dr. Spring, is it not palpable 
 that, while Protestants have had great difficulty in implicitly re- 
 ceiving the Scriptures, they have had still greater difficulty in 
 their construction, as the five hundred sects in Protestant Chris- 
 tendom do most abundantly show ? Then, under the Protestant 
 fundamental rule, I must construe the Bible for myself. God, 
 according to the rule, has made my mind the only tribunal. If 
 I trust to the opinions of others, and believe upon their author- 
 ity, while my own mind does not itself understand the proof, 
 then I violate the will, of God, and become subordinate to an 
 independent equal. I can, therefore, take nothing upon author- 
 ity. I must examine, and be myself convinced in reference to 
 each particular point. And who am I ? I am a mere fallible 
 man. My judgment and my opinion I cannot rely upon, any 
 more than upon the judgment and opinion of any other man of 
 the same sincerity, diligence, opportunity, and capacity. It is 
 true, the rule itself compels me to rely upon myself; but so far 
 as correctness and certainty of construction are concerned, my 
 chance to be right would be just as great in following the judg- 
 ment of another person. The fact that it is my opinion, ought 
 not to give me any more assurance of its truth, than the fact 
 that it is the opinion of another individual. Unless I deceive 
 myself by self-love and personal vanity, this must be true. And 
 if I should so deceive myself, would that deceive the great and 
 just Judge ? And what have I to gain by self-delusion but my 
 own ruin? 
 
 But I am not only thrown upon my own judgment by the 
 Protestant rule itself, but by another overwhelming considera- 
 tion. For if I adopt the creed of any one Protestant sect, (and 
 I cannot adopt any two or more of them,) I find the overwhelm- 
 ing majority, even of Protestants, against me. And if I consult 
 all the sects that have separated from the Church of Rome, from 
 
RESULTS OF THE PR( TESTANT THEORY. 515 
 
 the days of Simon Magus to those of Luther, I find each and 
 every one, without one solitary exception, against me. And when 
 I go to the Catholic Church, I find the overwhelming majority 
 of all professed Christians, saints, and martyrs, of every age in 
 her exclusive communion and they too are all against me. 
 
 I am, then, invincibly thrown back upon my own individual 
 fallible judgment ; for if I rely upon authority at all, under the 
 Protestant rule, which admits of no infallibility, then I must 
 take the voice of the majority, and I cannot, upon any principle 
 .of common sense, prefer the authority of one, to that often per- 
 sons, all equals. I must stand unsupported, " solitary and 
 alone." When I heretofore looked into the Bible, my construc- 
 tion satisfied me that Mr. Campbell was right. I was always 
 told it was a plain book, easily understood. But after all, I 
 often thought I could see some things hard to be understood, 
 and yet that must be understood. And whether other Protes- 
 tants find these hard things to understand or not, the fact is pal- 
 pable, that they are always explaining and re-explaining this plain 
 Bible ; and what is still more surprising, they can never explain 
 it alike. They seem to explain the meaning quite away. And the 
 more loudly and the more unanimously all Protestants continue 
 to assert that the Bible is a very plain book, and easily under- 
 stood, the more utterly at a loss I am to understand why it is 
 they differ so much about so plain a matter as the construction 
 of so plain a book. There must be some deep, fundamental, and 
 efficient reason for this. There is a great and radical wrong 
 somewhere. Is it because Protestants are too learned ? Or is 
 it because they study the Bible too much ? 
 
 It is indeed true, that all Protestant writers I have ever 
 read, charge the Catholic Church with holding a very erroneous 
 maxim upon this subject Dr. Spring, Mr. Campbell, and others 
 the former of whom says : " Never was there a more palpable 
 error than the maxim of the Roman Church, that ' ignorance is 
 the mother of devotion.' " (Dis. 66.) 
 
 But if I understand the language of Dr. S., he does attempt 
 to show that the maxim is, in fact, true, as regards Protestants ; 
 for he says : 
 
 " Men of common honesty and common discernment cannot 
 fell to understand the great and fundamental truths God has re< 
 
51 # RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 vealed. They do understand them, and quite as well as the 
 more learned and philosophizing." By this I understand the 
 Dr. to put the two classes upon an equality. But when he comes 
 to speak of the trial of the faith of men, in which so many are 
 wrecked for eternity, he says : 
 
 " Most men, at one period of life or another, and especially 
 educated men, pass through this fiery ordeal, &c. * * * a 
 trial in which the faith and hopes of so many are consumed," 
 &c. (Dis. 37, 57.) 
 
 And by this I understand him to mean distinctly, that edu- 
 cated men, especially, are more exposed to this severe trial, and 
 more of them are lost, in proportion to numbers, than among 
 those of " common honesty and discernment." And is not this 
 giving the advantage, in point of fact, to the uneducated, and 
 saying, in substance, " ignorance is the mother of devotion " 
 among Protestants ? 
 
 And so Mr. Campbell, speaking of that passage, " there are 
 some things hard to be understood," says : 
 
 " Philosophers, as they love to be called, are generally the 
 most unteachable, and the greatest wresters and perverters of 
 the Scripture. Peter had those too wise to learn in his eye, 
 when he speaks of wresting the Scriptures ; and not the simple, 
 honest, and unassuming laity." (Debate C. & P., 266.) 
 
 Now if I understand Mr. C., he does say that, in point of 
 fact, there is more religious error among 'the learned than 
 among the " simple, honest, and unassuming laity." And is not 
 this making " ignorance the mother of devotion " among Prot- 
 estants ? * 
 
 But I find this charge denied by Catholic writers. And, in- 
 deed, I cannot see how it can be found in the Catholic theory. 
 That system assumes to put them all upon an equality. It has 
 
 * That I was right in my construction of Mr. C.'s language appears clear 
 from a passage in his debate with Mr. Rice, page 905. 
 
 " The land is full of infidelity. Your schools, your colleges, are full of skep- 
 ticism. The great majority of your educated men are infidels." 
 
 Now Mr. C. does distinctly state, as a matter of fact, that Skepticism and In- 
 fidelity are mostly found in the institutions of learning, and among educated men, 
 while Christianity is best understood by the " simple, honest, and unassuming 
 laity." 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 517 
 
 the same tribunal to construe for all ; and it equally requires 
 implicit submission from all. The poor and the rich, the high 
 and the low, the learned and the unlearned, are each and all 
 elevated to the same sublime faith the same exact construction 
 of the law. There is practical justice, beauty, reason, and logic 
 in this theory : 
 
 " All states can reach it, and all. heads conceive." 
 
 I am but a man. I am no wiser or better than others. I 
 cannot reasonably have any more confidence in my individual 
 judgment and construction of the Scriptures, than I can in those 
 of any other man of equal capacity, sincerity, and means of in- 
 formation. Certainty I must have, or I cannot rest. Where 
 then can I find it ? 
 
 " Plant of celestial seed if dropt below, 
 Say in what * blessed ' soil thou deign'st to grow." 
 
 Shall I be compelled to seek elsewhere than in any Protes- 
 tant communion for that consistency, system, and unity, that did 
 unquestionably dwell in the Church of Old ? Must I be driven, 
 at last, into the alleged " Man of Sin " the " Great Apostasy " 
 the best-abused Church in the world ? That Church against 
 which charges enough, and grievous, are made, if true, to sink a 
 universe ? The alleged false the base the corrupt the ve- 
 nal the cruel the apostate Church ? The oldest, and yet the 
 most unpopular the most hated the most suspected the most 
 despised of all the Churches of Christendom ? Is it possible 
 that I must go there to find that faith, and that certainty, that 
 will satisfy a hungry, but honest soul ? How can I endure the 
 thought of confessing my sins to a mere man ? My pride says I 
 cannot, but grace whispers " you caw, if truth requires you." 
 And so I will, if it is right. I resolve to follow truth, wherever 
 it may lead me. There's reason and sense in truth. There's 
 logic and honesty in it. There is certainty, and there is consist- 
 ency in it. Let me only know it. If it can be found in the 
 Old Church, I go there. The consequences I will take. If such 
 a step subjects me to censure, I will bear it. I would rather 
 suffer in this world than in the next. It may subject me tc 
 many evils for a long time, 
 
 " if long in life can be." 
 
518 RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 
 
 But what of that ? Unlimited space is wider than the world, 
 and eternity longer than life. Heaven, and all that Heaven 
 means, are worth a struggle a sublime and manly struggle. 
 Was Christianity ever designed to be popular with the mass of 
 evil in this world ? Does it indulge men's passions ? Does it 
 pamper pride ? Does it flatter men in any way ? Oh ! no. It 
 could never have cost so much if it did. He who wins Heaven, 
 must struggle. He must be prepared to resist the onset of 
 earth. He must expect its dire opposition. He must fight. 
 
 But are those manifold charges against the Old Church true ? 
 If so, she has been a hoary-headed sinner for many a long and 
 weary century. Who can then estimate the evil she has done ? 
 False and apostate from her early faith recreant to the heav- 
 enly trust of her Lord she has tilled the world with error and 
 misery. If this be true, she ought to be despised. 
 
 But it may be that these charges are untrue. Her faith, 
 after all this mighty mass of acrimonious and passionate accusa- 
 tion, may be the pure and holy faith once delivered to the saints. 
 She has always, and at all times, and in all places, for more than 
 fifteen hundred years, as conceded by many of her enemies, 
 claimed it to be true. It may be that her very firmness in re- 
 sisting all ambitious novelties, has brought upon her the unceas- 
 ing opposition of all sectaries, in every age and clime, of what- 
 ever tenets and character; and her very consistency, her beauty, 
 and invincible courage, may have brought against her all the 
 malice and ridicule of all infidels, past or present. Who knows ? 
 If we concede that she is the true Church, for the sake of the 
 argument only, (and she may be such, as the thing is possible,) 
 then would not the bitter and relentless opposition of all the 
 proud, the vain, the ambitious, be levelled against her ? Would 
 not every demagogue in religion every wild enthusiast every 
 man of a cold, suspicious disposition every self-willed individual, 
 , be against her ? Did not our Lord say, Woe unto you when 
 all men speak well of you : for so did their fathers of the false 
 orophets ? 
 
 There is something remarkable in the history of this venera- 
 ole Old Church, even as stated by her enemies. Mr. Campbell 
 gays she " is older than any other sect now existing." She is 
 older ! Her continued existence for so long a period, under this 
 
RESULTS OF THE PROTESTANT THEORY. 519 
 
 alleged accumulation of errors, is one of the most remarkable 
 circumstances in the world's history. And the more errors are 
 charged upon her, and the more bitterness there is displayed in 
 attempting to sustain these allegations, the more difficult it is to 
 account for this most remarkable moral phenomenon. If, in- 
 deed, she be the true Church, then her unfailing existence is 
 easily accounted for ; because the promises of that poor, despised 
 Nazarene never yet did fail. And slander never did make a 
 modest charge malice always lays it on thicker and thicker 
 and hatred forever overshoots the mark. And it seems as if 
 God, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, has given the true 
 Church this protection. 
 
 I will, then, look into these charges calmly and dispassion- 
 ately. I will endeavor to make a fair and just allowance for in 
 dividual human frailty. I will judge the past by the circum- 
 stances existing in the past. I will try to place myself back in 
 the olden time. I will interrogate the distant ages gone by. I 
 will commune with the venerable departed. I will judge them 
 by that charity wherewith I wish to be judged. At least so far 
 as my poor abilities will allow. I will then make up my mind, 
 and upon that conviction I will act. I will not halt between two 
 opinions. My face is set for the truth, and when I find, I mean 
 to follow it. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 TRAN8UB8TANTIATION. 
 
 1. There were two main points in the discourse of our Lord. 
 
 THE Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, and the Protes- 
 tant doctrine of the real absence of the body of Christ in the 
 Lord's Supper, are as much opposed to each other as any two 
 precise opposites can possibly be imagined. There can be no 
 medium between the two no possible middle ground. Christ 
 is either present or absent. If present, the Catholic is right if 
 absent, then the Protestant is right. 
 
 If the Catholic doctrine be true, it is a tender, sublime, and 
 awful dogma if false, a monstrous invention a pure fabrica- 
 tion. If not in the Church originally, and not among the doc- 
 trines once delivered, it must have been introduced as a whole, 
 and not in piecemeal. There could, from the very nature and 
 reason of the thing, have been no middle doctrine no shades 
 of opinion, gradually preparing the minds of Christians for the 
 reception of this great perversion of the true faith. It was one 
 bold leap from the well-understood and generally received doc- 
 trine of the real absence, to that opposite, so hard to flesh and 
 blood, the Heal Presence. 
 
 The first portion of Scripture relied upon by the Catholic, is 
 found in that wonderful chapter, the sixth of St. John. The 
 first twenty-five verses are taken up in giving a history of the 
 stupendous miracle of Christ in feeding the multitude, and His 
 subsequent occupations until the next day. On the second day, 
 the crowd again came around Him, and His discourse to them 
 commences at the 26th verse, and extends to the close of this 
 long chapter. 
 
 It was the practice with our Lord and His apostles to suit 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 52 1 
 
 their discourses to the circumstances in which they were placed.* 
 The Jews had witnessed the miracle of feeding the five thou- 
 sand ; and if our Lord ever intended to promise to give His 
 body and blood to His followers, there is no time mentioned in 
 the history of His labors more appropriate than the one men 
 tioned in this chapter. 
 
 In reference to the sense of this chapter, most Protestants 
 insist that it relates to faith in Christ, though several distin 
 guished writers, as Calixtus, Hackspan, and Groenenburg, out 
 of England, and Dr. Jeremy Taylor and Dr. Sherlock of Eng- 
 land, concede that the latter portion relates to the Eucharist, 
 though they deny the literal sense. Catholic writers contend 
 that about the 48th verse the Saviour passes to another topic, 
 by a very easy and natural transition. Dr. Wiseman has given 
 very conclusive reasons to prove that the transition commences 
 at the 48th verse. For myself, it seems to be true, that the 
 transition not only takes place at that verse, but that both the 
 main subjects of the discourse are clearly alluded to inverse 27. 
 
 The multitude who had been fedj declared, "this is of a 
 truth the prophet that is to come into the world ; " and such 
 was their admiration of our Lord, that they would have taken 
 Him by force, and made Him a King. (14, 15.) They seem to 
 have believed in Him as one eminently competent to be a tem- 
 poral sovereign ; and that, as the kingdom of the second Moses, 
 the Messiah, was to be a temporal kingdom, it would be one of 
 the vocations of Christ to furnish them with food, and for this 
 reason they sought Him, and not because they saw the miracles. 
 (26.) The Jews had a tradition among them, that the Messiah, 
 among other points of resemblance to Moses, was, like him, to 
 bring down manna from heaven. The Mildrasch Coheleth, or 
 exposition of Ecclesiastes, thus expresses it : " Rabbi Berechiah 
 said, in the name of Rabbi Isaac, As the first Goel, (deliverer,) 
 so shall the second be. The first Goel brought down manna, 
 as it is written, ' I will cause bread to reign upon you from 
 heaven.' So, likewise, will the later Goel cause manna to de- 
 scend." (Cited Wise. Lee. E., 42.) 
 
 The existence of this tradition, and its belief among the 
 
 * John iv. 10; v. 24 ; ix. 39 ; Acts iii. 6-16. 
 
522 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 Jews, is shown from the facts historically stated in this chapter 
 Theyjirst followed Him into the desert, "'because they saw the 
 miracles which He did on them that were diseased." (2.) Al- 
 though they had witnessed these miracles on them that were 
 diseased, they never once thought of making Christ a King, un- 
 til after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. But upon witness- 
 ing this peculiar miracle, they seem at once to have considered 
 Him as sent of God as a temporal sovereign, a part of whose 
 vocation would be to supply His people with food, as God had 
 done, through the ministry of Moses, in the wilderness. All 
 the circumstances taken in connection with the miracle they 
 saw, were doubtless the reasons that induced them to seek to 
 make Him a King, and to take shipping and follow Him to 
 Capharnaum, and not the expectation of obtaining another meal, 
 as some Protestant writers have supposed. Such a motive 
 would seem wholly inadequate to produce such a result ; and 
 such a position is inconsistent with the fact, that they so ardently 
 desired to make Him a King. 
 
 This tradition is the reason why the Jews referred to the 
 manna in the 31st verse. They ask Christ for a proof of His 
 commission, and then, without the slightest seeming reason, re- 
 fer to the manna in the desert. What connection this matter 
 could have with the question they asked, could not well be seen 
 without a knowledge of the existence of this tradition. 
 
 The Jews, under the influence of this opinion, and, no doubt, 
 still desiring to make Christ a King, that they might be fed by 
 His power and bounty, pursued Him the next day. Adapting 
 His discourse to the state of their opinions, (as St. Peter did, 
 when he told them to repent and be baptized, without mention- 
 ing faith, because they already believed,) it seemed that our 
 Lord had two main points to propound : 1. That He was the 
 Son of God, in whom they must believe. 2. That it was no 
 part of His mission to give them perishable food, but the imper- 
 ishable food of His own body and blood. Both these points are 
 stated in one verse and in one sentence. (27.) 
 
 It was natural and appropriate that our Lord should first in- 
 form the Jews that He understood their views and motives, 
 and that these were erroneous, before propounding His own 
 doctrines. After telling them that they sought him, not be- 
 
TRAtfSUBSTANTIATTON. 523 
 
 cause they had witnessed the miracles, but because they had 
 eaten of the loaves and fishes, He very naturally, at this place, 
 warns them not to labor for that meat which they so much re- 
 garded, but for that imperishable meat that He would give 
 them ; and then confirms His power to fulfil His promise with 
 that emphatic expression, "for him hath God the Father 
 sealed." 
 
 The first point to be discussed (though secondly stated) was 
 the proposition that He was the Son of God, and commissioned 
 by Him ; and that, as such, they were to believe in Him. When 
 He gave them sufficient evidence of His true character, they 
 were bound by the plainest principles of right reason to believe 
 Him upon His authority alone, and to receive every doctrine 
 propounded by Him, however hard that saying might be. The 
 only proper inquiry the Jews could make was that which they 
 did make in verse .30. That being answered and proved by 
 what they had seen and heard before and at that time, they 
 were bound to believe, without doubt, all that He might require 
 them to believe. If He was the Christ, then He was legiti- 
 mately entitled to unlimited confidence. And when He per- 
 formed the miracles before their eyes, He conclusively estab- 
 lished His character and veracity, and, therefore, His account 
 of Himself they must receive as infallibly true. 
 
 Our Lord, in verse 27, does not define what He meant by 
 meat that should endure to eternal life, except simply to state 
 its quality in contrast with perishable food.* He does not state 
 it in terms calculated to arouse prejudice in the beginning of 
 His discourse, and thus close the ears of His hearers against 
 His doctrines. He does not then say in what it shall consist. 
 He merely states the heads of His discourse in such a way as to 
 create no prejudice, and yet show what two main points would 
 come under discussion. The reader will observe, that in verse 
 27, our Lord promises that He will give this imperishable meat, 
 and that in verses 51 and 55, He says He will give His flesh, 
 and that His flesh is meat indeed. In both cases He speaks of 
 a future gift, which He Himself will give ; showing that the 
 same thing is alluded to in all these verses. 
 
 * Our Lord and his apostles were in the habit of putting opposites in contrast 
 (John vi. 63 ; Rom. vui. 1-14.) 
 
.524: TRANSUBSTANTIATTON. 
 
 It must be conceded, that the doctrine of the Real Presence 
 is a hard and revolting doctrine to flesh and blood, and espe- 
 cially so to the Jews, as we shall see. It was then proper in 
 itself that Christ should select an occasion when some miracle, 
 or other great event, would form the proper introduction to 
 this unpleasant topic. And not only so, but an occasion when 
 the Jews were well disposed towards him. On this occasion 
 all these circumstances concurred. The Jews, in multitudes, 
 had fed upon the miraculous food created by the Son of Man 
 they had hailed Him the day before as a prophet in their en- 
 thusiasm they had sought to make Him a King, by force; and 
 they followed Him beyond sea, and sought Him until they 
 found Him, and the respectful manner in which they addressed 
 Him, shows the state of their feelings towards Him. It is true, 
 they entertained erroneous views and opinions in reference to 
 the object of their admiration, but that was the very time to 
 correct these errors of opinion. In' justice to them, it was the 
 opportune moment. If they could not hear that hard saying at 
 this time, they never could hear it. No wonder, then, that 
 those disciples who could not hear that doctrine on this occa- 
 sion, " walked no more " with their deserted Lord. 
 
 As I take it, our Lord proceeds, from the 29th to the 47th 
 verses inclusive, to teach the great doctrine, that He is the Son 
 of the Father, and the general necessity of faith in Him, as such. 
 In answer to the allusion made by the Jews to the manna, and 
 after having previously told them, in verse 29, that the work of 
 God was to believe on Him whom He hath sent, He tells them 
 that His Father giveth them the true bread from heaven,* and 
 then proceeds to define the meaning in which He there used 
 the word bread, by saying, " For the bread of God is he which 
 cometh down from heaven." " I am the bread of life." The 
 Jews understood Him correctly, for they did not inquire "how 
 can this man be bread ? " but they did say, " How is it, then, 
 that he saith, I come down from heaven ? " (42.) They disbe- 
 
 * As the meaning of words (literal and symbolical) depends upon usage, the 
 figurative application of the words, bread or food, to wisdom and doctrines, waa 
 common among the Jews. This figure is used in the following passages : Is. iv. 
 1, 2; Jer. xv, 16; Amos viii, 11 ; Ecc. xv. 3; Proverbs ix. 5; iv. 17; Ecc. xx. 
 17, 18. 
 
TK AX SUBSTANTIATION. 525 
 
 lieved the assumed fact, that He came down from heaven, but 
 they did not misunderstand the sense of His words. 
 
 It will be seen that there are several marked differences in 
 the language of that part of our Lord's discourse, from the 29th 
 to the 47th verses inclusive, and that from verses 48 to 58 inclu- 
 sive ; and these peculiarities are such as show a change of 
 topic. 
 
 Our Saviour, after having explicitly defined the word bread 
 as figurative of Himself, proceeds to speak exclusively of faith 
 in the next fourteen verses; and it is very remarkable that in 
 this part of His discourse, He carefully avoids the use of the 
 phrase eating Him, and does not even use the expression to eat 
 the bread of life. This care in avoiding any reference to eating 
 Him, shows how clearly our Lord kept within the limits of the 
 first topic. From the moment that He begins to use literal 
 terms, He proceeds to speak of His doctrine under the phrases 
 " cometh to me," " believeth in me," (which mean the same 
 thing,) until verse 47, which is a complete summing up of that 
 part of His discourse. 
 
 But His language after this is very different ; for He not 
 only speaks of eating this bread, but of eating His flesh. It 
 was not unusual with our Lord to repeat the same thing a num- 
 ber of times in succession, and after each repetition, to intro- 
 duce new matter. In the tenth chapter of St. John's Gospel, 
 He repeats the phrase, " I am the door." So, in the fifteenth 
 chapter, the expression, " I am the true vine," and then says 
 His Father is the husbandman. And again, " I am the vine," 
 and then proceeds to say, " you are the branches." So, in the 
 23d chapter of Matthew, He repeats that withering phrase, 
 "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," seven or 
 eight times. In the chapter under consideration, He says, " I 
 am the bread of life," (35,) and then proceeds to speak of faith 
 in Him as the Son of God. Having summed up in verse 47, He 
 says again, " I am the bread of life." (48.) He then proceeds 
 to state the want of a living principle in manna, (49,) and then 
 puts in strong contrast with it the bread of life.* (50.) And 
 
 * If the Catholic doctrine be true, how beautiful is the contrast between the 
 qualities of manna and the flesh of our Lord. The Jews had a great reverence 
 for the manna, which was a miraculous and literal food : and if Christ intended 
 
526 TRANS INSTANTIATION. 
 
 He repeats again, (51,) in language more emphatic, "I am the 
 living bread," and proceeds to introduce new matter in these 
 words : " And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which 1 
 will give for the life of the world." 
 
 Our Lord, previous to verse 51, had asserted, that He was 
 the bread of life that He came down from heaven that a man 
 may eat of that bread and not die ; and all these propositions 
 are repeated in verse 51, preparatory to the definition He was 
 about to give of the new sense in which He used the word 
 bread, as figurative of His real flesh. In verse 32, He speaks 
 of the quality of the bread, calling it the " true bread," and then 
 defines what it is by saying : u For the bread of God is he 
 which cometh down from heaven." So here He speaks of the 
 quality of the bread, (50 and 51,) and then defines what it is in 
 language of very similar form. 
 
 " For the bread of God is he which " And the bread that I will give 
 
 cometh down from heaven." is my flesh." 
 
 Now the word bread, in both these extracts, is used in a 
 figurative sense, but not in the same figurative sense. There 
 are two separate and distinct definitions given the first, of 
 Christ as a Lawgiver or Teacher, and the second, of His real 
 flesh. These two definitions would be idle, if they meant the 
 same thing. And if these definitions give us different meanings, 
 it is clear that when the second one was given, there was a 
 change of topic. 
 
 It will also be observed, that in the first definition, the pro- 
 noun he, the nominative after the verb to be, is not a figurative, 
 but a literal expression ; so, the nominative <( 'fleshy in the 
 second, is not figurative, but literal. Our Lord could not be 
 supposed to use the same figurative word to represent Himself 
 literally in one portion of His discourse, and in another part of 
 the same discourse, to represent His flesh figuratively thus not 
 only using the same word under similarly constructed sentences 
 in a different sense, but using a figurative expression to repro 
 
 t > give us His literal flesh for food, to sustain our spiritual life, how appropriate 
 it was to contrast the two. in the strongest manner. One was living, the othei 
 perishable; but both were literal. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 527 
 
 sent a figurative substance. It would seem perfectly clear, that 
 the word flesh was used by our Lord literally. 
 
 If a speaker use words in any known sense, he is not bound 
 to define the sense in which he uses them, unless there be some 
 special circumstances requiring it. If, on the contrary, he use 
 known terms in unknown senses, he is compelled, by every con- 
 sideration of justice to himself and his hearers, to define the 
 new sense in which he uses the same. Our Lord seems to have 
 acted upon this just rule. Although it was common among the 
 Jews to use the words bread or food for wisdom or doctrines, it 
 was not so common to use these words for a lawgiver or teacher 
 of doctrines. Our Saviour was, therefore, careful to show the 
 exact sense in which He used the word, in the two different 
 figurative senses stated. 
 
 2. The same matter further considered. 
 
 It will also be observed, that in the first portion of our 
 Lord's discourse, while speaking of Himself under the image of 
 bread, He represents this as given by the Father ; but after 
 verse 47, He speaks of the food now described, as being given 
 by Himself. This marked difference in the giver, shows a dif- 
 ference in the gift. There could be no ground for this differ- 
 ence, if faith only is intended ; but if there be a transition to a 
 real eating, the whole is clear. While we contemplate Christ 
 as the object of our faith, and as the sent of God to redeem the 
 world, He is justly said to be given by His Father. "God so 
 loved the world," &c. But when we view Him as giving us 
 His own flesh to eat, it is more correctly said to be by His own 
 love to us. 
 
 But there is another difference between the language of the 
 two portions of our Lord's discourse, still more marked and 
 explicit. 
 
 That the same words, by usage, may have both a literal and 
 figurative meaning, must be conceded. That the meaning of a 
 speaker must be determined by the usage existing at the time, 
 and not by that existing afterwards, must also be clear. That 
 it is the duty of every honest speaker, who uses words or 
 phrases having a known signification, in a neic and unknown 
 sense, to define this new sense, must also be conceded. lij 
 
528 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 therefore, the phrase, to " eat the flesh " of any one, had any 
 tixed figurative as well as literal meaning, at the time it was 
 used by Christ, then the Jews and disciples could only under- 
 stand this expression in one or the other of those established 
 meanings. They could have no right to understand them in a 
 new and unknown sense, unless Christ had given an express defi- 
 nition, as He did of the word bread, or unless the context was 
 so clear as to leave no doubt. What right had they to put an 
 unknown sense upon a known phrase, with fixed meanings ? If 
 hearers could put such a construction upon the language of a 
 speaker, there would be no bounds to this licentious privilege. 
 Once beyond the control of the only rules governing the sense 
 of words and phrases, they are at sea without chart or compass. 
 
 If the phrase, to eat the flesh of any one, had, besides its lit- 
 eral, an established metaphorical sense, among the Jews, and 
 only one metaphorical sense, then how must the Jews have un- 
 derstood it ? If, on the contrary, it had more than one meta- 
 phorical meaning, how must they have understood it ? In the 
 first case, they could only understand it either in its literal 
 sense, or in the only metaphorical sense known to the language. 
 In the second, they could only understand it in its literal sense, 
 or in one of its metaphorical senses. 
 
 Now what was the metaphorical meaning of this expression ? 
 In all cases when used metaphorically, it meant to do a person 
 some grievous injury, principally by slander or false accusation. 
 The following are examples of its figurative meaning in Scrip- 
 ture : 
 
 '' While the wicked draw near against me to eat up my flesh." 
 (Ps. xxvii. 2.) " Why do you persecute me, and are not satis- 
 fied with (eating) my flesh?" (Job xix. 22.) " Who also eat 
 the flesh of my people." (Micheas iii. 3.) " The fool foldeth 
 his arms together and eateth his own flesh." (Ecc. iv. 5.) I 
 am not aware of any other passages in the Old Testament where 
 this expression is used in a figurative sense. In all the above 
 cases, the idea of inflicting upon the person a grievous injury is 
 clearly conveyed. 
 
 The following examples are found in the New Testament : 
 " Shall eat your flesh as it were fire." (St. James v. iii.) "But 
 if you bite and devour one another." (Gal. v. 15.) 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 529 
 
 Regarding the meaning of this phrase among the Arabs, and 
 in the language which our Lord spoke, Dr. Wiseman, in his 
 Lectures on the Eucharist, p. 73-81, has shown conclusively, 
 that it has only the same figurative meaning. 
 
 The differences between the language of the two portions 
 of our Lord's discourse, are so marked and clear that we are 
 forced to concede, not only a change of topic, but we are forced 
 to take the expression, " eat the flesh of the Son of man," in its 
 literal sense, or we must take it in the metaphorical sense of 
 calumniating our Lord. 
 
 The reason upon which this usage, among so many nations, 
 is founded, would seem to be plain. The metaphorical sense of 
 a term always comes after the literal ; and, for that reason, will 
 participate of its character. If the literal sense convey a harsh 
 meaning, the figurative will do the same. If one knows the lit- 
 eral meaning of a term, he can almost at once fix upon its meta- 
 phorical sense. To literally eat the flesh of a person, is natur- 
 ally a revolting idea. Therefore, when such an expression is 
 used metaphorically, it conveys the same harsh meaning. For 
 this reason, we find no examples, even among classical writers, 
 where a person is figuratively said to eat the flesh of another, 
 except those which convey the harsh idea of the literal sense. 
 (See Dr. Wiseman's Lee. E., 85.) 
 
 If we take the expression, To eat the flesh of Christ, in the 
 only figurative sense known at the time, and say that such was 
 His meaning, His words reduced to literal language would stand 
 about thus : " Except ye do some grievous injury to the Son of 
 Man, ye have no life in you." This interpretation must at once 
 be rejected ; and this being true, we are forced to take the ex- 
 pression in its literal sense, or in some new and unknown, and 
 undefined figurative sense. And what right have we to do the 
 latter ? 
 
 But there is another consideration of very great importance. 
 Our Lord certainly intended to be understood, otherwise He 
 would have been making an idle display of words. He was put- 
 ting forth an important doctrine, which He could not mitigate 
 or soften, however repugnant to human pride or prejudice. 
 He could not but state the truth ; and whether the truth was 
 acceptable or uot, His practice was always to state it. "If 1 
 46 
 
530 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 shall say that I know him not, I shall be like you, a liar. r 
 (John viii. 55.) While, therefore, our Lord would never soften 
 His doctrines, He would hardly resort to repulsive figures of 
 speech to inculcate pleasing doctrines. Faith in the death of 
 Christ is one of the most cheering doctrines of Christianity ; and 
 to inculcate this doctrine would our Lord say, " Except ye eat 
 the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life 
 in you," thus resorting to a revolting figure of speech, without 
 the slightest necessity ? 
 
 There are certainly some mutual rights existing between a 
 speaker and his hearers. The object of every just speaker is to 
 elucidate, not to confuse his subject to enlighten, not to in- 
 sult his audience. He will necessarily be led by this considera- 
 tion, to adapt his mode of instruction to the capacity and feel- 
 ings of his hearers. This was the uniform practice of St. Paul, 
 who was " all things to all men ; " and of St. Peter when he 
 said, " I know, brethren, that you did it through ignorance, as 
 did also your rulers." This was also the course of our Lord 
 Himself. 
 
 The question then arises, were the ideas of eating human 
 flesh and drinking blood revolting to the Jews ? If they were 
 so, then we cannot suppose our Saviour to resort to them as im- 
 ages of cheering doctrines ; nor can we suppose He used these 
 expressions at all, unless the doctrine He inculcated necessarily 
 compelled Him to use them for the purpose of propounding the 
 exact truth itself. If the literal sense given by "the Jews was 
 correct, then the use of these expressions was clearly necessary. 
 And to show that these expressions were revolting to the Jews, 
 I need only to refer to the texts cited below.* 
 
 It was doubtless this revolting idea which the Jews had of 
 eating human flesh and drinking blood, that induced many of 
 the disciples to " walk no more " with our Lord, and to disbe- 
 lieve the doctrine He taught. They considered it not only im- 
 possible, but contrary to the law of Moses. The law of Moses 
 having been given by God, and they not understanding its tem- 
 
 * Levit. iii. 17 ; vii. 26 ; xix. 26 ; Gen. ix. 4 ; Deut. xii. 16 ; xv 23 ; Levit. 
 xvii. 10; 1 Kings xiv. ; Ez. xxxiii. 25; Judith xi. 1.0-12; Wisdom xi. 7; I& 
 xlix. 26 ; Jer. xix. 8, 9 ; Acts xv. 29. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 531 
 
 porary character, and looking upon the literal doctrine of oui 
 Lord as conflicting with the law of Moses, they at once reject- 
 ed it. 
 
 But it may be said that our Lord did, on other occasions, 
 clothe His ideas in images almost, if not quite, as offensive to 
 His hearers. For example, He represents the necessity of pa- 
 tient suffering under the harsh image of carrying the cross. But 
 this case is not in point for two reasons : 1. The death of the 
 cross, though disgraceful, was often inflicted upon the innocent ; 
 while eating flesh and drinking blood was wicked in itself; and 
 to select such an example to inculcate a doctrine, was very dif- 
 ferent from referring to an example simply disgraceful. 2. The 
 doctrine of mortification is necessarily harsh in itself, requiring 
 a harsh figure to represent it truly. The figure selected by our 
 Lord was fit and appropriate, and had the advantage of His own 
 example. But the figure of eating flesh and drinking blood to 
 illustrate a pleasing doctrine has no parallel anywhere in Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 3. How did the hearers of our Lord understand Him f 
 
 The preceding remarks relate to the sense in which the hear- 
 ers of our Lord must have understood Him, according to the 
 then existing usage. It is now proper to inquire in what sense 
 they did, in fact, understand Him. 
 
 The construction put upon the language of a speaker by 
 those who hear him, is at least prima facie evidence of his true 
 meaning. This presumption becomes almost conclusive, when 
 the speaker is aware of the construction placed upon his lan- 
 guage, and does not object to it ; and it becomes entirely con- 
 clusive, when the speaker, by his acts or words, confirms the in- 
 terpretation of his hearers. It is true, that in regard to a point 
 of no importance, a speaker may well let his audience remain in 
 error, as that error would, in no material respect, influence their 
 determination. But if the error be material, it is the clear duty 
 of the speaker to explain, except in special cases, as where a fu- 
 ture event will give the hearers the true interpretation. In the 
 case under consideration, the error was most material. 
 
 That the hearers of Christ understood Him in the literal 
 sense, is scarcely denied by any writer. When our Lord said 
 
532 TKANSUBSTANTIATICXN. 
 
 " And the bread that I will give is my flesh," the Jews " strove 
 among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh 
 to eat ? " That they understood Him in the literal sense is ap- 
 parent from these considerations : 
 
 " First, that the Jews considered the expression just used as 
 totally different from those in the first portion of the discourse. 
 For if they had understood by eating his flesh, the same as hav- 
 ing him, the bread of life this having been already explained 
 by himself of believing on him they could not ask in what 
 manner this manducation was to take place. 
 
 " Secondly. We must conclude that the Jews understood 
 the transition to be the doctrine, literally expressed, of feeding 
 upon Christ ; for their objection supposes him to be teaching a 
 doctrine impossible to be practised ; ' How can this man give 
 us his flesh to eat ? ' Now no other but the literal significa- 
 tion could possibly give rise to this objection." (Wiseman's 
 Lee. Euc. 102.) 
 
 Thirdly. If nothing new was asserted by Christ, (as they 
 understood Him,) then there could have been no apparent cause 
 for the increased excitement. Nothing but understanding our 
 Lord in the literal sense, can be consistent with the intense ex- 
 citement that followed our Lord's declaration. 
 
 4. Did they understand Him correctly f 
 
 To arrive at a true answer to this question, in addition to 
 that which has already been advanced, we must inquire whether 
 Christ, by word or act, confirmed the interpretation put upon 
 His words by those who heard Him. To understand the mean- 
 ing of His conduct on this occasion, we must examine it on other 
 occasions, and ascertain what was His usual mode of action un- 
 der similar circumstances. 
 
 1. When He used words in a figurative sense, and His hear- 
 ers understood Him literally, and made objections, what was 
 His usual course f 
 
 When Christ said to Nicodemus, that " unless a man be 
 born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," he un- 
 derstood Him literally, and our Lord at once corrected the 
 error. So, when He said to His disciples, " Beware of the leaven 
 of the Pharisees and Sadducees," they understood Him literally, 
 
TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 533 
 
 and He at once explained His true meaning. So, when He 
 said, "I have food to eat that ye know not of," and they mis- 
 understood Him, He corrected the error. So, when He said, 
 " Lazarus our friend sleepeth," they understood Him in the lit- 
 eral sense, and He at once explained. In this case the explana- 
 tion was not so important, as no doctrine was propounded. So, 
 when He said, " Whither I go you cannot come," the Jews un- 
 derstood Him in a gross material sense, and asked, " Will he 
 kill himself?" Our Lord at once removed this absurd con- 
 struction by spying, " You are from beneath, I am from above ; 
 you are of this world, I am not of this world." (John viii. 21.) 
 When He said, " It is easier for a camel," <fcc., His disciples un- 
 derstood Him that a rich man could not be saved, and He at 
 once corrected their mistake. (Matt. xix. 24.) When He 
 spoke to the Jews of spiritual slavery, they understood Hiir 
 literally, and He at once corrected their misconstruction. (John 
 viii. 32.) When our Lord told the Jews that if they were the 
 children of Abraham they would do the works of Abraham, and 
 they understood Him to mean literally that they were not Abra- 
 ham's descendants, He explains by saying, " You are of your 
 father, the devil, and the desires of your father ye will do ; " 
 showing that He meant their spiritual, not natural descent. 
 (Id. 39.) And when His disciples said one to another, " What 
 is this that he saith, a little while ? We know not what he 
 speaketh ; " our Lord, in succeeding verses, explains His mean- 
 ing until He was properly understood. (John xvi. 17, 18.) 
 
 From these examples, it appears that our Lord acted upon 
 the just and generous rule which requires every speaker to ex- 
 plain his meaning when misunderstood; and that He was so 
 much in this habit, that He not only explained to His disciples, 
 but even to His most perverse and obstinate enemies. 
 
 2. When, on the contrary, He used words in their literal 
 sense, and Sis hearers understood Him correctly, and made 
 objections, what was then His usual course f 
 
 The following examples will form an answer to this ques- 
 tion : 
 
 When our Lord said to the sick of the palsy, " Son, be of 
 good heart, thy sins are forgiven thee," His hearers understood 
 Him correctly, and made objections, and our Saviour stood 
 
534 TEAN8UBSTANTIATION. 
 
 to His words. (Matt. ix. 2.) So, when He said to the Jews 
 " Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day : he 
 saw it and was glad." Those who heard Him understood Him 
 literally as saying that He was coeval with Abraham, and our 
 Lord at once stood to His position, notwithstanding that He 
 foresaw that personal violence would be the result of His course. 
 (John viii. 56.) This eighth chapter affords us marked exam- 
 ples of our Lord's method of acting in both cases. 
 
 In the very chapter under consideration we have an instance. 
 Christ having asserted that He came down from heaven, and 
 His hearers understanding Him literally, and making objections, 
 He stands to His position, and repeats the same assertion in 
 other parts of the chapter. (50, 51, 59.) 
 
 From these numerous examples we are forced to adopt these 
 two rules: 1. When His hearers misunderstood Him, and ob- 
 jected, He explained His true meaning. 2. When they under- 
 stood Him correctly and objected, He repeated His proposition. 
 
 And this course was in perfect accordance with reason, jus- 
 tice, and truth. Where a speaker uses words susceptible of 
 different meanings, and he is aware, as our Lord was, of the 
 construction placed upon his words, and he then repeats them 
 without explanation, he adopts, expressly, the construction of 
 his hearers, and makes it his own by his own most explicit act, 
 and the construction becomes conclusive. We can imagine a 
 case where a human speaker, under the influence of fear, or 
 some other extraordinary motive, might thus act, and not be 
 concluded by his conduct ; but we are at a loss to imagine a 
 case where a Divine Lawgiver could thus act, without fixing 
 the meaning put upon His words, by those who heard Him. 
 
 We will endeavor to apply these rules to the case in hand. 
 
 After our Lord had explicitly stated that the bread He 
 would give was His flesh, and the Jews had asked the question, 
 " How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? " our Lord makes 
 no explanation, but repeats the proposition in terms still more 
 emphatic, reaffirming the truth of the proposition He had just 
 before advanced. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye 
 eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have 
 no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 535 
 
 hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For 
 my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." 
 
 The case under consideration then falls plainly under the 
 latter rule. His words being correctly understood, in their lit- 
 eral sense, and His proposition itself being disputed, our Saviour 
 makes no explanation, but stands to His words, and repeats 
 them in six different forms, still more emphatic than before. 
 
 5. Exceptions to the, rules deduced from our Lord's conduct. 
 
 Let us now examine certain alleged exceptions to the two 
 rules we have deduced from our Lord's conduct. If we find 
 exceptions to either rule, let us carefully examine and see how 
 far, and how far only, such exception will limit the application 
 of the rule. In other words, let us see whether the exceptions, 
 if any such exist, establish or destroy the rule, or simply limit it. 
 
 There are only two cases found in the history of our Lord's 
 conduct, relied upon as conflicting with these rules. 
 
 The first case is that found in the fourth chapter of St. John, 
 in our Lord's conference with the Samaritan woman. This 
 case is only an apparent exception to the first rule. I say appa- 
 rent only, for, as I take it, the woman not only should have un- 
 derstood Him correctly, but did so understand Him ; and that 
 the whole circumstances and language, taken and considered 
 together, very clearly show it ; and that so far from constituting 
 an exception to the first rule, it is a case in support of it. 
 
 Our Saviour, in the tenth verse, in answer to her question as 
 to why He, being a Jew, would ask of her to drink, replies, " If 
 thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to 
 thee, give me to drink, thou perhaps wouldst have asked of 
 him, and he would have given thee living water." She evi- 
 dently understands Him in a literal sense, and shows this by her 
 answer. The language of Christ was simply " living water ; " a 
 phrase that might well be taken literally. Our Saviour, in the 
 13th and 14th verses, gives her an explanatory answer, defining 
 the qualities of the water He would give, and concluded by say- 
 ing, " But the water that I will give him, shall become in him 
 a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting." 
 
 This language is plainly metaphorical, and is so plainly so, 
 that no one reader, to my knowledge, ever understood it other- 
 
536 TEANSUB8TANTIATION. 
 
 wise. But the Samaritan woman still understood him literally ' 
 for the reason, that at this part of our Saviour's discourse, she 
 did not yet know who it was that spoke to her. A knowledge 
 of His character would at once give her the key to the true 
 meaning. Christ knew that she had correct conceptions of the 
 character of His mission. She tells Him, in the 25th verse, 
 that she knew that the Messias cometh, and when He is come 
 " he will " (not create a world, or wells, or streams of water, 
 but) " tell us all things / " or, in other words, teach us all truth. 
 Our Saviour, therefore, instead of giving her any further verbal 
 explanations, breaks off abruptly, and says, " Go call thy hus- 
 band, and come hither." This was evidently done to give Him 
 the opportunity to show her that He possessed divine power ; 
 and in the end, to tell her plainly, He was the Christ. The 
 effect of this information upon her mind is shown by the 28th and 
 29th verses. She left her water-pot, (a circumstance showing her 
 haste and her excitement,) and went into the city, and said to 
 the men there, u Come, and see a man who has told me all things 
 whatsoever I have done. Is not he the Christ ? " This, taken 
 in connection with the language of the men to her in the 42d 
 verse, shows plainly that she believed that He was the Christ, 
 and that she understood Him. 
 
 But our Saviour had other objects in view, as well as the 
 instruction of a single person ; and these objects were of para- 
 mount importance. " Upon perusing this interesting chapter," 
 says Dr. Wiseman, " it has often struck me as one of the most 
 beautiful instances on record of his (our Saviour's) amiable in- 
 genuity in doing good. He desired to make an opening for his 
 religion among the Samaritans. But had he presented himself 
 among them uncalled, had he commenced his preaching of his 
 own accord, he could have only expected to be rejected, to be 
 ill-treated as a Jew, and punished as a religious innovator. He 
 wishes, therefore, to be invited by the Samaritans themselves, 
 and he selects the most favorable moment and means for effect- 
 ing his purpose. He dismisses all his disciples to the city of 
 Sichem, and seats himself at the well, where he was sure to find 
 some of the inhabitants, and where the rules of hospitality in 
 the East would give him a right to enter into conversation. A 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 537 
 
 female accordingly comes, and he uses this right by asking her 
 for water." 
 
 The conversation which follows was all adapted to excite 
 her curiosity ; and the replies of our Lord, and the ingenious 
 manner in which He introduced the subjects, all go to show the 
 great leading object He had in view. After leading her from 
 one topic to another, and exciting her curiosity to its highest 
 pitch, and after showing her that He knew her most intimate 
 domestic relations, (a matter best calculated to excite the atten- 
 tion of a woman in her condition,) He tells her plainly, that He 
 is the Christ. The woman at once goes into the city, as Jesus 
 designed, and tells the men of the wonderful person she had 
 met, and invites them, in the most exciting and urgent man- 
 ner, to come and see Him, giving them the most extraordi- 
 nary reasons for the request she made. Our Saviour accord- 
 ingly did not go into the city, until they came to Him and 
 invited Him in, and desired Him to tarry with them. After 
 He was invited He remained with them two days, making many 
 proselytes. 
 
 An examination of the whole narrative, and a consideration 
 of the relation the Samaritans bore to the Jews and their reli- 
 gion, must convince any one that the principal object Christ 
 had in view, in His conference with this woman, was, at first, 
 more to excite than to gratify curiosity. For this reason, (al- 
 though He gives her an explanation of His meaning in verses 
 13 and 14, sufficiently clear to her when she was afterwards 
 informed of His true character,) He so manages His discourse 
 as to accomplish the great end had in view by Him. If she 
 had not finally have understood Him to speak of spiritual wa- 
 ters, instead of natural, she would naturally have said, after 
 " who has told me all things whatsoever I have done," " and has 
 promised to give us a fountain of water, more excellent than the 
 well of Jacob." 
 
 But putting the most extreme construction upon this inci- 
 dent, and thence concluding that the Samaritan woman never 
 did understand our Saviour otherwise than in the literal sense, 
 still the case is most clearly distinguishable from the one undei 
 consideration, in these most important particulars : 
 47 
 
538 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 1. He was not speaking of a doctrine that must be believed 
 upon pain of eternal death. 
 
 2. The woman still believed on Him, and was not lost for 
 want of an explanation. 
 
 3. She was not His disciple, who already believed on Him, 
 and was still permitted to go away forever, simply for want of 
 an explanation of one hard saying. 
 
 4. Christ did not tell her, when she simply misunderstood, 
 that she did not believe. 
 
 The second case relied upon is found in the second chapter 
 of St. John's Gospel. 
 
 When our Lord had driven out the money changers from 
 the temple, and the Jews had asked for a sign of His authority, 
 He answered : 
 
 " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 
 The Jews then said : Six and forty years was this temple in 
 building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days ? But he spake 
 of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen again 
 from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, 
 and they believed the Scriptures and the word that Jesus had 
 said." 
 
 Our Lord, in this case, had used language susceptible of two 
 meanings, and the Jews took the word temple in the wrong 
 sense, and He suffered them to remain in their erroneous con- 
 struction, without any explanation.* 
 
 Many commentators think that the " Jews did understand 
 Christ correctly, and that it was only malignity which made 
 them raise an objection to his words. They suppose that the 
 apostles fully understood them, as St. John only tells us that 
 they did not believe them, till after the resurrection." f 
 
 With all due deference for the opinions of those commenta- 
 tors, I must say, that I am forced to believe that neither the 
 Jews nor the apostles understood our Saviour correctly at the 
 time He made the prediction ; nor do I believe it was His in- 
 
 * It was a common practice to call the body a vessel, house, tabernacle, tem- 
 ple, among the Jews. St. Paul calls it a vessel, house, tabernacle, (2 Cor. iv. 7; 
 v. 1-4; 1 Thess. iv. 4,) and frequently a temple. (1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19; 2 
 Cor. vi. 1 6 ) See Is. xxxviii. 12. 
 
 f Wiseman's Lee., lift. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 539 
 
 tention that they should then understand Him correctly ; nor 
 can I see any necessity that they should so understand Him at 
 that time / but it does appear to me that there were the best 
 reasons why the meaning should be left in doubt, to be settled 
 by the event of His resurrection. 
 
 That the Jews put the most natural construction upon His 
 words, would appear from these reflections. He had driven out 
 the money changers from the temple, and told them not to make 
 the house of His Father a house of traffic. So far He spoke of 
 the temple. The Jews asked for a sign of His authority for 
 driving out those men from the temple, and our Lord, without 
 explanation, answered : " Destroy this temple," &c. The only 
 temple that had been spoken of was the Jewish temple, and the 
 Jews inquired for His authority in what He did in that temple, 
 and our Lord said, in reply, this temple. Suppose we strike 
 out verses 21 and 22, which contain the special explanation, (the 
 advantages of which the Jews had not at that time,) and ex- 
 clude from our consideration the resurrection of Christ in 
 other words, place ourselves precisely in the position of the 
 Jews, and what construction would we place upon the language 
 of our Lord ? Surely, the construction they did. 
 
 That this case constitutes an exception to the first rule, 
 must be conceded. Our Lord, though misunderstood, gave no 
 explanation. It is true, He did not repeat His statement, 
 thereby making their construction His own, but simply left 
 them without explanation. This is not, therefore, an exception 
 to the second rule. 
 
 In this case our Lord was only making a prediction, and not 
 putting forth a doctrine, which He required then to be believed ; 
 and this distinction is most material. The only object our Lord 
 had in making this prediction was to constitute it, when ful- 
 filled, evidence of His Divinity. This is shown by verse 22. 
 To accomplish all He intended, He had simply to make the pre- 
 diction. The act of making it did not constit* - 
 it was both the making and fulfil in 
 His words showed two things: 1. 
 foretold. 2. That it could be kno 
 
 Now was there any necessity f<l 
 could not be expected to do an i 
 
540 TRANSTTBSTANTIATION. 
 
 explained His true meaning ; would that have removed the un- 
 belief of the Jews ? It was just as great a miracle to raise His 
 own body from the grave, as to raise the temple. The event 
 fulfilling the prophecy would make all clear. Our Lord did not 
 wish to interfere with the personal free agency of the Jews, and 
 it was not His purpose to make His prophecy plain. The event 
 pvedicted, in fact, constituted a part of the prediction itself, for 
 &Q purpose of explanation. It is so in reference to prophecies 
 generally. They are purposely left obscure, for the best of 
 reasons, until their fulfilment makes them clear. 
 
 This being a conceded exception to the first rule, how far 
 does it affect that rule ? Does it not establish and sustain it, 
 rather than destroy it ? It being a special exception, for special 
 reasons, and the fact of its being an exception being EXPRESSLY 
 marked, does, indeed, strengthen the rule ; and why ? Because 
 +he same apostle who records the words and conduct of our 
 Lord in this special case, also records His words and conduct in 
 the sixth chapter ; and in reference to this special case, he puts 
 in himself an express explanation of our Lord's meaning, and 
 does not do so in the other. Why does he do this in one case, 
 and not in the other? The reason is palpable. Our Lord was 
 misunderstood in the one case, and as it was not proper for Him 
 then to give the explanation, St. John gives it afterwards. But 
 as to eating His flesh, He was correctly understood; and 
 therefore St. John purposely fails to give any explanation. 
 When a writer takes pains to point out certain exceptions 
 expressly, he, by this very act, negatives all idea of other ex- 
 ceptions, not so stated* So it is with respect to a statute. 
 If the lawmaker himself assumes to state exceptions to his 
 own general rule, he must be presumed to intend to finish his 
 work, and not leave it unfinished, like a man who attempts to 
 build a house, and fails. St. John was in the habit of making 
 these explanations in cases of obscurity; and, had our Lord 
 failed to make an explanation when misunderstood as to eating 
 
 * In the great case of Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall, in his opinion, 
 says : " It is a rule of construction, acknowledged by all, that the exceptions from 
 a granted power mark its extent ; for it would be absurd, as well as useless, to 
 except from a granted power that which was not granted that which the words 
 of the grant could not comprehend." (9 Wheaton, 191.) 
 
TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 54:1 
 
 His flesh, the apostle would no doubt have given it. Two ex- 
 planations occur in this very chapter, verses 6 and 71. Also one 
 in the last chapter. But we are nowhere told that the Jews 
 misunderstood Christ. No subsequent event explains His mean- 
 ing. On the contrary, as we shall see, subsequent events con- 
 firm the construction of the Jews. 
 
 6. Did our Lord confirm the construction put upon His words 
 by the Jews f 
 
 I have endeavored to show that the case under consideration 
 comes under the second rule ; namely, that our Lord was cor- 
 rectly understood, and "His proposition itself being disputed. He 
 repeated it again with increased emphasis. Is there a single 
 instance to be found, where His hearers misunderstood Him, 
 and, in reply to them, He repeated His words without explana- 
 tion ? Can any such a case be shown, either in the conduct of 
 Christ or in that of any other just speaker? 
 
 The Jews had made the objection that Christ could not lit- 
 erally give them His flesh to eat ; and in REPLY TO THIS 
 OBJECTION", " Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, Except, ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his 
 blood, ye have no life in you," &c. All that Christ said in 
 verses 53 to 58 inclusive, was said in the form of a reply to the 
 objection of the Jews. The language of the reply of our Lord 
 is most emphatic. If, therefore, the Jews simply misunderstood 
 Him, what possible purpose could He have had in making such 
 a reply f Or was His reply without a purpose, and simply idle ? 
 Was it meaningless? Can we impute such a weakness to 
 Christ, the Son of God ? We dare not do that. Then what 
 could He mean by this most emphatic reassertion of His propo- 
 sition itself, when that proposition had not been, in fact, dis- 
 puted by the Jews, in making their objection ? A proposition 
 cannot be believed, unless it is first understood ; nor can it be 
 disbelieved, unless first understood. We can believe or dis- 
 believe a proposition without comprehending it, but we can 
 do neither, without understanding the proposition. Now if the 
 Jews simply misunderstood Christ, their objection was not 
 aimed at the real proposition itself, but at an imaginary propo- 
 sition, never made. Therefore, for our Lord to repeat to them 
 
542 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 the same proposition, in substantially the same language, anel 
 without explanation, would have been about as idle and sense- 
 less an act as can well be imagined. What possible end could 
 the repetition, without explanation, of a misunderstood propo- 
 sition, accomplish ? Would such a repetition secure the recep- 
 tion of the real proposition ? On the contrary, would not the 
 repetition, without explanation, of a misunderstood proposition, 
 but defeat the very purpose the Speaker had in view, by ex- 
 pressly confirming His hearers in their mistake f When Christ 
 put forth His proposition, did He wish to be understood ? and 
 did He wish His proposition to be believed ? If He did not, 
 for what purpose did He put it forth ? He was not simply 
 making a prediction. He was propounding a doctrine. Did 
 He propound this doctrine without a purpose ? If He pro- 
 pounded a doctrine, it must have been true ; and if true, He 
 must have intended it to be believed ; and if so, He must have 
 intended then to be understood. 
 
 If we say the metaphorical sense is the true one, then we 
 make our Lord's conduct, on this occasion, the strangest anom- 
 aly, at war with His own uniform practice upon all similar occa- 
 sions, and that of every sincere speaker. And we do this with- 
 out any authority or example to sustain us. In all my reading, 
 observation, and experience, I have never met with an instance 
 where a speaker, having put forth a proposition which he wished 
 to be understood, and, where his proposition was misunderstood 
 by his hearers, simply repeated it in language still more em- 
 phatic, but without explanation. 
 
 But when the proposition is understood and disputed, it is 
 very natural and proper, that the speaker should repeat it, and 
 reaffirm it with increased emphasis. It was so with our Lord, 
 upon this occasion. It was so with Him upon other occasions. 
 The Jews disputed the truth of the understood proposition 
 itself, and our Lord at once replies, in substance, believe or per- 
 ish. When Peter said to his Master, " Thou shalt .never wash 
 my feet," our Lord at once replied, in substance, as He did to 
 the Jews, " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." In 
 both cases the language is strictly confirmatory of the words 
 used before. Is this language at all consistent with any but the 
 literal sense ? Peter understood our Lord in the literal sense. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 543 
 
 and objected ; and our Saviour at once held up before him the 
 penalty of the law. This was perfectly consistent with His 
 claim to the character of a Divine Lawgiver. And was not 
 this same line of conduct proper towards the Jews ? Peter as 
 little understood the reason why his Master should wash his 
 feet, as the Jews did, why He should give them His flesh to 
 eat and His blood to drink. Our Lord having given them, as 
 well as Peter, conclusive proofs of His divine character, had 
 the unquestioned right to demand implicit obedience. While it 
 is the clear duty of a Divine, as well as of a human Lawgiver, to 
 make His law understood, that it may be obeyed, it is not His 
 duty to make its reasons comprehensible. It is enough that 
 Christ did right, whether we comprehend His reasons for His 
 law or not. 
 
 For the reasons given, this conclusion seems to follow, that 
 the acts and language of our Lord are wholly irreconcilable 
 with the metaphorical sense, and cannot be explained, except 
 upon the hypothesis that the Jews did understand Him correctly 
 in the literal sense. _ 
 
 7. Did His disciples understand Him in the literal sense f 
 
 The verses from 59 to 65 inclusive, are taken up mainly in 
 relating what the murmuring disciples said, and in our Lord's 
 reply to them. The words " these things," in verse 59, refer to 
 the entire discourse ; while the words this and it, in verses 60 
 and 61, refer to only one thing; namely, that hard saying. 
 What was that hard saying ? It could be nothing but the state- 
 ment of our Lord that He would give them His flesh to eat. 
 In other words, the disciples murmured at the same thing that 
 caused the Jews to strive among themselves and ask : " How 
 can this man give us his flesh to eat ? " 
 
 The audience of Christ, on this occasion, consisted of the 
 admiring multitude who had followed Him into the wilderness, 
 among whom He had many disciples, " who believed on his 
 name." (John ii. 23 ; iii. 22.) There were no proud Pharisees 
 or cunning Sadducees there. They (the multitude) accounted 
 Him as a prophet. (14.) We are told that " the people took 
 shipping and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus." (2 i.) 
 From verse 25 to 35, inclusive, the historian uses the pronoun 
 
544: TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 " they " to designate the persons who asked Christ the ques- 
 tions, and to whom He gave the answers recorded. The inqui- 
 ries made were such, up to this point, that the whole multitude 
 could join in asking, as the questions themselves were not im- 
 proper. But in verses 41 and 42, we are told that the Jews 
 murmured, and asked the question, " How then saith he I came 
 down from heaven ? " Now it is clear that the disciples who 
 " believed on his name " did not join with the Jews in denying 
 that Jesus came down from heaven. They believed that propo- 
 sition, and did not murmur at it, as did the Jews. The first 
 and only thing they murmured at was that " hard saying," 
 which caused the Jews to strive among themselves. The word 
 strive is a very expressive term, and shows a more intense de- 
 gree of excitement than is expressed by the word murmur. 
 When our Lord said He came down from, heaven, the Jews 
 murmured, while the disciples believed. But when He put 
 forth another proposition, more difficult for them to believe, 
 the Jews " strove among themselves," and the disciples mur- 
 mured. It is clear that the term Jews is used by the historian 
 to distinguish those who did not, from those who did, believe 
 on Christ. 
 
 If, then, it be true, that Christ only continued to teach the 
 same doctrine He had taught in the first part of His discourse, 
 and which His disciples believed, and they still understood Him 
 correctly in the metaphorical sense, how could they have mur- 
 mured at it, and called it a hard saying ? Would they now 
 murmur at what they had before believed ? If so, why ? Such 
 a course as these murmuring disciples pursued is utterly incon- 
 sistent with any other hypothesis than the one, that, like the 
 Jews, they understood Christ in the literal sense. The whole 
 narrative is full and clear to this point. The historian states 
 that the murmuring disciples heard this hard saying, and asked, 
 " Who can hear it ? " St. John unquestionably refers to the 
 saying that gave so much offence to the Jews ; and, as he speaks 
 of these murmuring disciples asking a question substantially the 
 same with that asked by the Jews, he must mean that they (the 
 murmuring disciples) understood our Lord in the same literal 
 sense. 
 
 It being a proven position, that these murmuring disciples 
 
TRAtfSUBSTANTIATION. 5-15 
 
 understood our Lord in the literal sense, the question arises, 
 did they understand Him correctly ? 
 
 Let us, then, examine the language of our Lord, used by 
 Him in His reply to these murmuring disciples: " He said unto 
 them, Doth this offend you f " Is not this unaccountable lan- 
 guage in the mouth of a Speaker, whose hearers have simply 
 misunderstood, but have not, in fact, disputed His real proposi- 
 tion ? Did Christ mean to ask, " Does the imaginary proposi- 
 tion, which I did not make, offend you ? " That they were 
 offended is certain ; and if they simply misunderstood our Lord's 
 language, then they were only offended at an imaginary propo- 
 sition. They had simply misunderstood Him, and there was, 
 therefore, in their minds, no real cause of offence. 
 
 But such a question could alone be predicated upon the 
 fact, that the cause of offence was a real subsisting, and not a 
 mere imaginary, doctrine. And the efforts of Christ are, there- 
 fore, not directed to an explanation of His meaning, but to a 
 proof of the truth of His proposition. 
 
 In further sustaining His proposition, in His reply to these 
 murmuring disciples, who had heard His answers to the Jews, 
 our Lord adapted His arguments to the state of their minds and 
 predicated them upon the state of their previous belief. They 
 had believed and readily embraced His doctrine they had not 
 disputed the fact that He came down from heaven, and that 
 He was there before / but like those disciples represented by 
 the good seed falling into stony ground, (Matt. xiii. 20, 21,) 
 they now met a real, not an imaginary difficulty. Christ, there- 
 fore, said to them, " What and if ye shall see the son of man 
 ascend up where he was before. It is the spirit that quicken- 
 eth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak unto 
 you, they are spirit and they are life. But there are some of 
 you that believe not. Therefore said I unto you that no man 
 can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my 
 Father." 
 
 Now the meaning of Christ in these extracts would seem to 
 be clear, and perfectly consistent with the literal sense, and 
 wholly irreconcilable with the metaphorical. The substance 
 was this : 
 
 " You consider it impossible that I should give you my flesh 
 
54:6 TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 to eat ; you question my power : you did believe that I came 
 down from heaven ; if you see me ascend up where I was be- 
 fore, will that be more difficult than for me to have come down ? 
 and are not both as difficult as for me to give you my flesh to 
 eat ? The proposition is hard to the natural man ; it is the spirit 
 that quickeneth the mind to believe the flesh profiteth nothing 
 to this result : you must not rely upon yourselves alone, but 
 upon God, for I have told you already that no man can come 
 to me unless it be given him of my Father, and this you did 
 not dispute : my words are spirit and life, but there are some 
 of you that believe not the proposition I have propounded." 
 
 But we may give the words of our Lord, in reply to the 
 objection of these murmuring disciples, any construction we 
 please ; and still, one thing is clear ; they were solely directed to 
 sustain an understood and disputed proposition. If not, why 
 did our Lord say, " My words are spirit and life," when they 
 had simply been misunderstood ? To say that words are true, 
 when their true meaning has not been disputed, would be idle. 
 But besides this, our Lord makes a statement of a matter of 
 simple fact that could not possibly be true, unless these mur- 
 muring disciples did understand Him correctly. He tells them, 
 " But there are some of you that believe not." They had said, 
 " This is a hard saying, who can hear it ? " which means, who 
 can believe it? (John viii. 43 ; ix. 27.) And Christ tells them 
 that they do not believe. They could not disbelieve a proposi- 
 tion they never understood. The only thing they had disputed 
 was this hard saying, that He would give them His flesh to eat ; 
 and it was in reference to this proposition, and to this only, that 
 our Lord told them they " believed not." 
 
 If, then, these murmuring disciples simply misunderstood 
 our Lord's meaning, how could He tell them, " you believe not" ? 
 If the Protestant view be right, these disciples refused to believe 
 a proposition never advanced, and one that was not true. How 
 can you class men, who simply misunderstand a proposition, 
 with unbelievers of the proposition itself? What sort of logic 
 or truth is there in saying to a man, who simply misunderstands 
 you, and has a mere imaginary proposition in his mind, " Sir, 
 you believe not " ? Christ certainly intended to let these disci- 
 ples know that their error consisted in not believing. This could 
 
TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 547 
 
 not be true, if they simply misunderstood. There could be no 
 wrong in disbelieving a supposed untnte proposition. And 
 Christ not only tells these disciples that they did not believe ; 
 but the apostle himself classes them among genuine unbelievers 
 (64.) 
 
 But it may be said, that at the precise time when these 
 murmuring disciples said, " who can hear it," they did misun- 
 derstand our Lord ; but that His subsequent words, found in 
 verses 62 and 63, so explained His meaning as that they did cor- 
 rectly understand Him at the time He said, " you believe not." 
 This would be assuming facts outside the record, not only with- 
 out the slightest evidence, but contrary to the simple narrative 
 of the facts as stated in it. We are informed that Jesus knew 
 in Himself that the disciples murmured, (61,) but there is not 
 the slightest intimation anywhere, either by St. John, who puts 
 in several explanations of his own in this same chapter, or by 
 the words or acts of Christ, that He was misunderstood by any 
 one. On the contrary, we are expressly informed that these 
 disciples did dispute one proposition, and we are not informed 
 that they did dispute any other ; and, therefore, Christ could 
 only refer to that one that hard saying as they at first imder- 
 stood it. 
 
 8. How did the apostles understand our Lord f 
 
 Let us now ascertain how the twelve understood our Lord. 
 
 "We are told that many of His disciples left Him, and walked 
 no more with Him. It was then that our Lord put this mourn- 
 ful and solemn question to the twelve : " Will ye also go away ? " 
 And then the intrepid and ardent soul of Peter answered, 
 " Lord, to whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal 
 life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, 
 the Son of the living God." 
 
 Now, it is apparent that Christ's question to the twelve was 
 predicated upon the same state of facts as His question to the 
 murmuring disciples, " Doth this offend you ? " and upon the 
 ground that the twelve had the same inducements to disbelieve, 
 as these murmuring disciples who had left Him. If the twelve 
 understood Him in a different sense from the Jews and disbe- 
 lieving disciples, there could be no reason for asking such a 
 
54:8 TRANSUBSTANTIATED^. 
 
 question. The fervent and confiding answer of Peter shows 
 conclusively that the twelve also understood their Lord as the 
 others had understood Him ; that is, literally. The minds of 
 the twelve had to overcome the same difficulty that had wrecked 
 the faith of the many who abandoned their Lord. The reason 
 given by Peter was the most simple, logical, and rational. We 
 are sure you are that Christ, and have the words of eternal life. 
 This was enough, and they were compelled to believe any thing 
 that Christ propounded, whether they comprehended it or not. 
 The twelve then understood Him in a literal sense, and be- 
 lieved that which the others disbelieved. And if they at that time 
 believed the doctrine that Christ would literally give them His 
 flesh to eat, when and where did they ever change their opinion, 
 and where is that important fact recorded ? We find a part of 
 the disciples at one time disbelieving a certain doctrine, and 
 the chosen twelve believing the same thing at the same time ; 
 and if we can find no evidence of any change in the minds of 
 the twelve, what right have we to say, either that there was 
 such a change, or that they did not correctly understand the 
 meaning of our Lord's words ? At a given time we find, in the 
 minds of the apostles, a certain construction of our Lord's 
 words; we find this construction was not objected to by Him, 
 but was confirmed by word and act, that could not be reconciled 
 with any other construction ; and we find afterwards not the 
 slightest evidence to correct such an error, if error it was, and 
 upon what ground can we assume that these apostles were then 
 mistaken f It is true, there are several cases where it is stated 
 that the chosen apostles misunderstood our Lord's meaning at 
 the time His words were spoken ; but in these cases we are ex- 
 pressly informed of the fact, and of the further fact, that they 
 afterwards understood Him correctly, and we are also informed 
 what Christ did in fact mean. Now, in these instances, our 
 doubts are wholly removed by explicit explanations ; and yet, 
 in this important case, where a great doctrine was taught, upon 
 which hung eternal life and death, and where the misconstruc- 
 tion of our Lord's words was in reference to a most vitally es- 
 sential matter, and gave them a meaning precisely opposite to 
 the one intended ; and yet we have no explanation not one of 
 those so often put in by St. John, to make the meaning clear. 
 
TRANS INSTANTIATION. 54:9 
 
 9. Objections considered. 
 
 1. That the Eucharist was not then instituted, and, for that 
 reason, neither the Jews nor the disciples could correctly un- 
 derstand what our Saviour meant. 
 
 This is one of those abstract objections, founded upon our 
 preconceived views of things, which should be very carefully 
 considered, before we allow it any force against the obvious and 
 natural construction of words and phrases. Not only so, but as 
 I take it, the abstract position itself is wrong. 
 
 Was it then improper that our Saviour should promise a 
 sacrament, and teach the doctrine of the same, before its insti- 
 tution ? I think not. Our Saviour taught for more than three 
 years before His death, and preparatory to setting up His king- 
 dom. In the nature and reason of things, it was proper first to 
 teach His doctrines, and then to put them in force. And we 
 find this was His course. For instance, in His conversation 
 with Nicodemus, which was before the institution of baptism, 
 the necessity of it is taught. And I must say that there is a 
 wide difference between teaching the simple fact that baptism 
 is essential to salvation, and the mere manner of its administra- 
 tion a wide difference between teaching the simple fact of giv- 
 ing us His flesh to eat, and the manner in which it was to be 
 given. The first thing to be taught in both cases, is the neces- 
 sity and effects of the sacrament ; and as to the manner, this 
 would be better shown by its institution and practical adminis- 
 tration.* Our Lord only explained so far to Nicodemus as to 
 show him that He did not speak of a natural birth ; and that 
 He could not understand the spiritual birth ; but gave him no 
 explanation at all as to the manner of the birth by baptism. So, 
 in the sixth chapter of John, our Lord gives no explanation 
 of the mere manner. So, when He washed the feet of Peter, 
 He would give no explanation. In all these cases He required 
 submission upon His word and character, as Christ. The first 
 thing Nicodemus said to Him, was to acknowledge He was a 
 
 * I say better shown. As to the spiritual effects of a sacrament, they muat he 
 explained in words sooner or later, and, therefore, the proper time to explain 
 these effects is when the promise is giver, and hefore the actual institution. But 
 as to the manner of administering the sacrament, no description in words c< uld 
 be as satisfactory as the act of administering it. 
 
550 TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 teacher sent from God ; and upon this acknowledgment our Sa 
 viour at once announces to him the difficult doctrine of the ne\V 
 birth, and only^explains enough to make His words understood, 
 and then very properly required implicit belief. A mere fallible 
 teacher ought to be believed, when he proves the truth of his 
 proposition by facts, or reasons, or both; but an infallible 
 teacher has only to prove that he is such, and then his proposi- 
 tions are to be believed upon his assertion. " This discourse in 
 the sixth chapter of John stands in the same relation to the in- 
 stitution of the Eucharist, as the conference with Nicodemiis 
 does to the institution of baptism." (Wis. Lee., l7.) 
 
 But if there be any thing in this objection, it applies with as 
 much force to the metaphorical view. The Jews and disciples 
 could comprehend it as little when applied to feeding on Christ 
 by faith, as when applied to the Eucharist. " For to call bare 
 believing in Christ, eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, is 
 so remote from all propriety of speaking, and so unknown in 
 all languages, that to this day those who understand nothing 
 more by it but believing in Christ, are able to give no tolerable 
 account of the reason of the expression." * 
 
 2. That the literal construction proves too much ; for if we 
 give the language of verses 53 to 57 a literal construction, we 
 must say that those who do not eat the flesh shall all die, those 
 who do shall all live, and all abide in Christ ; in other words, 
 we must put in some restrictions, such as worthy and so far. 
 Now an interpretation clogged with restrictions is not to be 
 preferred (other things being equal) to one. having no restric- 
 tions. 
 
 This argument is much relied upon by many Protestant 
 writers. When a general principle is asserted in one place, and 
 the qualifications or exceptions stated in another, this does not 
 form the slightest ground for opposing the construction. Our 
 Saviour says, " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
 There is no restriction here, and yet, unless the act is performed 
 with the proper dispositions, there is no salvation. " Ask and ye 
 shall receive." No limitation here. But St. James says, " ye 
 
 * Dr. Sherlock, 364-3G7, cited Wiseman's Lee. E. I most cheerfully ac- 
 knowledge the great assistance I have received from the Lectures of Dr. Wiseman 
 on the Eucharist. 
 
TRAN8UBSTANTIATION. 
 
 do not receive, because ye ask amiss." In 
 tain effects are attributed to certain acts or 
 plied condition is always understood, that il 
 formed. But in reference to the Catholic construction, 
 not the slightest difficulty, for St. Paul tells us explicitly that 
 " whosoever shall eat this bread and (or) drink this cup of the 
 Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
 Lord." (1 Cor. xi. 27-29.) This must be taken and construed 
 with the language of our Lord in the sixth chapter of John, ac- 
 cording to the 4th and 5th rules of construction we have laid 
 down. Every thing said in Scripture upon the same subject 
 must be considered as part of the same discourse. If the Cath- 
 olic construction be correct, there is nothing inconsistent with 
 it in this objection. Another reflection that ought to have at 
 once satisfied these objectors, is this : that the question as to 
 the effects that Christ attributes to His doctrine, is not the 
 matter in dispute at all ; but we are inquiring, not as to what 
 effects are given to the doctrine, but as to what doctrine was 
 propounded. It is manifest that the effects Christ attributes to 
 His doctrine, would apply as well to the metaphorical as the 
 literal sense ; and that in either case there must be restrictions, 
 if they can be properly called such. 
 
 3. A third objection urged generally by ordinary controver- 
 sialists, but entirely given up by the best Protestant writers, is 
 founded upon the language of verse 63. " It is the spirit that 
 quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak 
 unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Our Lord is sup- 
 posed by these words to intimate that His language was to be 
 taken spiritually, and so to have intended this as a key to the 
 preceding part of the discourse. 
 
 It would seem at once that this language could not refer to 
 the mode of construing words, but to the difficulty of belief, and 
 the aids to it. I have already given what I considered the fair 
 interpretation of this language, taken in connection with what 
 immediately follows and precedes it. 
 
 Let us then examine the usage of Scripture, to see in what 
 sense the word " flesh " is used, when standing alone, and not 
 used to designate the flesh of a particular person or thing, and 
 especially when used with the article " the " before it, as in the 
 
TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 text. When it is used as in the text, there is no instance in 
 the Old or New Testament where it is used literally. Yet it 
 must have been used in the text in the literal sense, for us to 
 understand by the word spirit the figurative or spiritual sense. 
 If by the flesh we are to understand the material flesh of Christ, 
 then by the spirit we must understand His spirit. This can in 
 no way show us that His words are to be taken spiritually, for 
 it could not relate to construction of words at all. The asserted 
 fact that His spirit gives us life, would not relate to the manner 
 of construing His words. 
 
 But the terms flesh and spirit are contrasted with or op- 
 posed to each other in the text. The examples in Scripture 
 of this usage are very numerous, and in all the cases, these 
 words have one definite and unvarying meaning. A full expla- 
 nation of these terms may be found in the eighth chapter of 
 Romans. " For the wisdom of the flesh is death, but the wis- 
 dom of the spirit is life and peace." (See also Gal. v. 13-26 ; 1 
 Pet. iv. 6 ; Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Jo. iii. 6 ; Rom. vii. 5, 6, 25 ; 1 Cor. 
 v. 5 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Gal. iii. 3 ; iv. 8 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18. The origin 
 of the phrase will be further explained by Jo. viii. 15 ; Rom. 
 xiii. 14 ; Gal. ii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 10.) 
 
 Now, in all these cases, there is not the slightest intimation 
 given that the ideas conveyed by these phrases have any refer- 
 ence to the construction of language, but they show that two 
 different powers or states are meant. By the flesh we under- 
 stand the natural dispositions and corrupted thoughts of human 
 nature, and by the spirit, the opposite effect of grace upon man. 
 The qualities attributed to these powers or states are the same 
 as in the sixth of John. " The wisdom of the flesh is death." 
 " The flesh profiteth nothing." " The wisdom of the spirit is 
 life." " It is the spirit that quickeneth." 
 
 The Protestant writers, Kuinoel, Kappe, Sartorious, Stow, 
 Schmid, Bloomfield, Schleusner, and Home, agree with the 
 Catholic interpretation. Bloomfield says, " This translation (the 
 popular one) cannot be proved from the usus loquendi of Scrip- 
 ture." Mr. Home says : " The Holy Spirit is put for his effects. 
 (2 Cor. iii. 6.) Here, by the word letter, we are to understand 
 the law, written in letters on stone. * * * 
 
 " By the spirit is meant the saving doctrine of the gospel, 
 
TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 which derives its origin from the Holy S] 
 
 sense Jesus Christ says, Jo. vi. 63: 'The w 
 
 they are spirit and life ; ' that is, they are 
 
 God, and if received with true faith, will lead to etei~ 
 
 Now this view is manifestly a support to the literal sen. . 
 Our Lord had propounded a very difficult doctrine, to which 
 etern objections were made ; and how natural and appropriate 
 the sentiments expressed in this verse. As if He had said : " It 
 is the spirit (or effect of grace) that quickens the mind to be- 
 lieve ; the natural disposition and corrupted thoughts of men 
 are not profitable towards this result my words are from the 
 Spirit of God, and if believed with true faith, will lead to eter- 
 nal life." Thus reaffirming the truth of the proposition already 
 made, and not explaining the meaning of His words. 
 
 This long chapter is one of the most wonderful to be found 
 in Scripture. It is, in my view, the most clear and unequivocal 
 statement of the sublime doctrine of the Real Presence. It 
 would seem that a calm and attentive examination of its lan- 
 guage, taken in connection with the simple facts stated, could 
 leave no doubt. The Protestant construction gives rise to the 
 most distressing and palpable contradictions. For example, if 
 it be conceded that the murmuring disciples understood Christ 
 in the literal sense, then, to avoid the Catholic view, we must 
 hold that Christ was mistaken when He told those disciples that 
 they " believed not." And if we say that the twelve understood 
 Christ in the figurative sense, then we can see no possible rea- 
 son for our Lord asking them if they would also go away. If 
 He had proposed nothing new, and nothing hard to flesh and 
 blood, there was nothing to constitute a new and severe trial of 
 their faith. 
 
 In any and every view, it is a wonderful chapter, full of high 
 and holy truths. Like any other sincere speaker, our Lord 
 was never disposed to gain followers at the expense of truth 
 He taught His doctrines boldly, and sustained them with an 
 energy and power proportioned to the intensity of the opposi- 
 tion. His language, especially in reply to the Jews, is one of 
 the noblest specimens of Divine eloquence, and of unflinching 
 assertion of the truth, to be found in the history of His life. 
 48 
 
j54: TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 There is, perhaps, no portion of His discourses, more energetic 
 and emphatic. 
 
 10. The words of institution. 
 
 As the Catholic understands it, the Blessed Eucharist was 
 promised in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, leaving the 
 mere manner in which it was to be given, to be explained by 
 the institution of the Sacrament. 
 
 The history of this institution is given in the first three Gos- 
 pels, and in the Epistles of St. Paul. The narrations are sub- 
 stantially the same, though differing in some slight particulars. 
 In all, the words are given : " This is my body. This is my 
 blood." St. John, in his Gospel, says nothing about the institut- 
 ing of the Sacrament. 
 
 Our Lord says : " This is my body ; " and the Catholic re- 
 sponds : " Lord, I believe it to be thy body ; " while the Prot- 
 estant replies : " Lord, I believe it be a figure of thy body." 
 Who replies yea, yea, to our Lord's assertion ? Is it the Cath- 
 olic or Protestant ? 
 
 The Catholic maintains that the verb to be, in the passage, 
 is to be taken in its ordinary literal sense, and the Protestant 
 contends that it ought to be taken in a figurative sense, equiva- 
 lent to the word represents. 
 
 In the Old and New Testaments this verb is used many 
 thousands of times in its literal sense. These examples are too 
 numerous to require any specification. The literal sense of the 
 term is then the general rule. Those who oppose the literal and 
 simple construction are compelled to show two things : 
 
 1. That there are exceptions to the general rule. 
 
 2. 'That the verb to be, in this case, comes properly within 
 the exceptions. 
 
 Dr. Paley draws an argument in favor of the truth of Chris- 
 tianity, from the difficulty of arriving at the metaphorical sense, 
 from the words of institution. 
 
 " I think also," he says, " that the difficulty arising from the 
 conciseness of Christ's expression, 'This is my body,' would 
 have been avoided in a made-up story. I allow that the expla- 
 nation of these words, given by Protestants, is satisfactory ; but 
 it is deduced from a diligent comparison of the words in ques 
 
TRANS UBSTANTIATION. 555 
 
 tion, with forms of expression used in Scripture, and especially 
 by Christ on other occasions. No writer would have arbitrarily 
 and unnecessarily cast in his reader's way a difficulty, which, to 
 say the least, it required research and erudition to clear up." 
 
 But it would seem that the learned author might have made 
 his argument much stronger, had he taken the literal sense to 
 be correct. He might then have well insisted that the inven- 
 tion of such a doctrine was a task of superhuman difficulty 
 that nothing but the Divine Mind could have framed it, and 
 that no mere impostor would ever have " arbitrarily and unne- 
 cessarily cast " in the way of his followers a doctrine so much 
 at war with the pride of the human heart, and so difficult to be 
 believed by the proud human intellect a doctrine requiring so 
 much greater faith. 
 
 And it would seem, upon reflection, to be difficult to under- 
 stand the force of the argument, as stated by the learned divine. 
 It must be conceded, that the maker-up of a fictitious story 
 would not have " arbitrarily " thrown this " difficulty in his 
 reader's way ; " while, at the same time, it is exceedingly diffi- 
 cult to understand why Christ should have done so. Whether 
 Christ was an impostor or not, He must have equally desired 
 the success of His system ; and for that reason, He would not 
 have "arbitrarily and unnecessarily cast a difficulty" in the 
 way of His followers. If He was the true Messiah, it would 
 have been as much against His policy, and more against His 
 justice, to have done this arbitrary and unnecessary act, than it 
 would have been against the policy of the impostor. The thing 
 is improbable in both cases, but more improbable upon the hy- 
 pothesis that Christ was the true Messiah. 
 
 The honest and sensible Infidel can well understand^vhy 
 Christ should sometimes be misunderstood, when speaking of 
 high and supernatural truths, which, in their very nature, are 
 difficult, even when most minutely stated ; but he could never 
 understand why He should, in making His last Testament, and 
 instituting a most important sacrament, use language in its plain 
 literal form, which He yet designed should be understood in a 
 new and unknown figurative sense ; and this without any expla- 
 nation, when explanation would have been so easy, and with a 
 perfect foreknowledge of all the consequences of such " arbi- 
 
556 TRANS DBSTANTIATTON. 
 
 trary and unnecessary difficulty." The mere substitution of 
 one word for another, would have avoided all difficulty. I ap- 
 prehend that the honest inquirer could see nothing in this argu- 
 ment to prove that Christ was a Divine Lawgiver, who, in a 
 plain matter, is. in substance, alleged to have " arbitrarily and 
 unnecessarily cast in his reader's way a difficulty, requiring re 
 search and erudition to clear up." 
 
 In this extract the author admits that there is one " difficulty 
 requiring research and erudition to clear up ; " and, consequent- 
 ly, that the New Testament is not all plain and easily under- 
 stood, as generally alleged by Protestant writers when arguing 
 with Catholics. But this ground must be abandoned, when 
 they come to argue with Infidels. 
 
 From this admission of the author, as well as from the re- 
 spective positions of the two parties, the Catholic mode of in- 
 terpretation is the most simple and natural, and must be over- 
 come by the research and erudition of the Protestant. And 
 while, according to a well-known rule of evidence, we may take 
 Dr. Paley's admissions as evidence against himself, we are not 
 bound to believe his conclusions. 
 
 The first thing the Protestant must show, is, that there are 
 exceptions. To do this they bring forward a number of pas- 
 sages, which may be classed as follows : 
 
 1. Gen. xli. 26, 27 : "The seven good kine are seven years." 
 Dan. vii. 24 : "The ten horns are ten kings." Matt. xiii. 38, 39 : 
 " The field is the world," &c. 1 Cor. x. 4 : " And that rock 
 was Christ." Rev. i. 20: "The seven stars are the angels of 
 the seven churches." Gal. iv. 24 : ' These are the two cove- 
 nants." John x. 7 : "I am the door." 
 
 2. John xv. 1 : "I am the true vine." 
 
 3. Gen. xvii. 10: "This is my covenant." Exod. xii. 11: 
 "This is the Lord's Passover." 
 
 Some of these cases clearly establish the first point, that 
 there are exceptions to the general rule. The next and most 
 important point to prove, is, that the words " This is my body," 
 come within the exceptions. To do this the same passages are 
 relied upon. 
 
 In considering these texts, let us see how they are marked, 
 BO as to be known as exceptions. There must be some mark or 
 
TRANS INSTANTIATION. 557 
 
 distinction to point out exceptions; otherwise, we could not 
 know them to be such. The usages, habits, and practice of the 
 writer, considered hi connection with the usages of language, 
 will enable us to determine the exceptions. If we find that in 
 relation to a certain class or classes of cases, the verb to be is 
 used in a metaphorical sense, when it is generally used in its 
 literal sense, then all cases that come within such class or class- 
 es, constitute exceptions. But the existence of such exceptions, 
 thus marked and distinguished, is no evidence that other ex- 
 ceptions exist, which are not thus marked and distinguished. 
 So far from it, the existence of such exceptions, thus marked 
 and distinguished, is a clear proof that other cases, not thus des- 
 ignated, are not exceptions, but are intentionally left to be gov- 
 erned by the general rule. 
 
 It is perfectly clear that exceptions do exist that they are 
 so marked as to be distinguished from the general rule and 
 that we must distinguish between them. Before the words of 
 institution can be considered as an exception, it must be shown 
 that they belong to one or the other of the classes stated. In 
 other words, it must be shown that these passages are parallel 
 with the words of institution, otherwise they prove nothing. 
 
 Now what constitutes parallelism ? Two things ; namely 
 1. A similarity of words. 2. A similarity of things. 
 
 This is substantially the definition of the Protestant writer, 
 Mr. Home, and others. Mr. H. says : 
 
 " Whenever the mind is struck with any resemblance, in the 
 first place consider whether it was a true resemblance, and 
 whether the passages are sufficiently similar ; that is, not only 
 whether the same word, but also the same thing answers to- 
 gether, in order to form a safe judgment concerning it. It often 
 happens that one word has several distinct meanings, one of 
 which obtains in one place, and one in another. When, there- 
 fore, words of such various meanings present themselves, all 
 those passages where they occur are not to be immediately con- 
 sidered as parallel, unless they have a similar power." 
 
 To illustrate briefly this sensible rule, suppose I wish to 
 show the meaning of the phrase, " It is the spirit that quicken- 
 eth : the flesh profiteth nothing ; " I would refer to the cases 
 already given, wherein not only the same words are used, but 
 
558 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 where they are put in contrast, and where they refer to the 
 same thing. So, if I wish to illustrate the passage, " the seven 
 good kine are seven years," I would refer to that of " the field 
 is the world," and both these by " these are the two covenants," 
 for they all have the same words and relate to the same thing ; 
 namely: the explanation of symbolical instruction. 
 
 11. The first class of alleged exceptions considered. 
 
 How do we know that the passages in the first class stated 
 do constitute exceptions ? 
 
 In the first two cases we are expressly told that Joseph and 
 Daniel were interpreting dreams, and in the third, that our Lord 
 was interpreting a parable. In the fourth case, St. Paul first 
 says : " And did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they 
 drank of that spiritual Rock ; " and then tells us, " and that 
 Rock was Christ." The apostle, for the purpose of explanation, 
 first transforms the real rock of Horeb into a spiritual or ficti- 
 tious rock, and then says that spiritual rock was Christ. The 
 language of St. Paul, taken in connection with the historical re- 
 lation of the Israelites drinking the water flowing from the rock 
 of Horeb, leaves his meaning so clear, that no one has ever mis- 
 understood him. The case from the Apocalypse is equally clear. 
 "Write the things which thou hast seen. * * * The mystery 
 of the seven stars. * * * The seven stars are the seven angels." 
 Here the apostle John was explaining a mystery. So, in the 
 case from Gallatians, St. Paul is careful to inform us that he is 
 explaining an allegory. " Which things are an allegory, for 
 these are the two covenants." In reference to the last case, " I 
 am the door,"- our Lord was interpreting a parable. We are 
 first informed that Christ opened the eyes of the man blind 
 from his birth that Jesus had found the man after the Jews 
 had cast him out, and some of the Pharisees being present, and 
 making objections, our Lord commences the discourse in which 
 these words occur. (John ix. 141.) In the "tenth chapter He 
 continues the same discourse, and in the first five verses gives 
 in part the parable of the sheepfold. In verses 6 and 7 we are 
 told, " This parable spoke Jesus unto them, but they understood 
 not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then 
 said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATICXN. 559 
 
 am the door of the sheep." Our Lord goes on in succeeding 
 verses, still speaking of the same thing, and in verse 26 He tells 
 the Jews that they " believe not because ye are not of my sheep, 
 as I said unto you." 
 
 In all these cases we are clearly told that these passages are 
 explanations of symbolical instruction. Some are dreams, some 
 parables, some allegories, and some mysteries. They all have 
 the same character, and belong to the same class. 
 
 And the reason of this is plain. In symbolical instruction, 
 the symbolical characters are fictitious, and the characters rep- 
 resented are real. Hence, when we are first told that the sym- 
 bolical characters are fictitious, and the represented characters 
 are real, the usages of language allow the use of the verb to be 
 between two nominatives, (one fictitious and the other real,) in 
 a figurative sense. There is no more chance for mistake in the 
 explanation of a dream, parable, or allegory, because the form 
 of the expression is in the positive, than there is in the relation 
 of the same, when the language used is in the same positive 
 form. We are first told that it is symbolical in all the cases, 
 and this constitutes a key to the meaning. When we are once 
 so informed, the statement proceeds as if the facts were real. 
 " Behold a sower went forth to sow." 
 
 Now these cases constitute a class of exceptions, for tho 
 simple reason, that they were all cases of symbolical instruction, 
 in which the characters representing others were expressly stated 
 to be fictitious, not real. How can such cases apply to the 
 words, "This is my body"? Are we informed that there had 
 been any dream here ? any parable ? any allegory ? any mys- 
 tery ? or any explanation of any such things ? Not at all. 
 
 We find the exceptions of the first class so plainly marked 
 and distinguished, that no one ever yet had any difficulty in un- 
 derstanding them as such. But in reference to the words of 
 institution, we find no such distinction. And is this want of such 
 a character any reason why we should put them into the same 
 class with parables, dreams, allegories, and mysteries? The 
 very fact that they are different requires us to put them in dif- 
 ferent classes. If the writer intended that the words in this 
 case should be taken metaphorically, why did he not follow his 
 usual course, and mark them as exceptions ? Having marked 
 
560 TRANSTJBSTANTIATION. 
 
 all the cases that we know to be exceptions, why are we not 
 given here the same marks to aid us, as in the other cases ? 
 For the reason, that the words of institution constitute no ex- 
 ception, and are purposely left to come under the general rule 
 of literal interpretation.* 
 
 12. The second class of alleged exceptions considered. 
 
 The case given under this class is simply one of comparison, 
 and constitutes no exception to the general rule. 
 
 The words, " I am the vine," occur in a long discourse of 
 our Lord with the eleven. Our Lord institutes a comparison 
 between Himself and the vine. His meaning is, " I am as the 
 vine, ye are as the branches." This is clearly shown in verses 4 
 and 6. 
 
 In comparing two known and similar things together, it is 
 very common to omit explanatory terms, such as resembles, like, 
 as, similar. The reason is, because the known resemblance of 
 the two things compared together, renders the use of these 
 terms unnecessary. The tendency of all usage is towards brev- 
 ity. Every composition is full of elliptical sentences.f 
 
 * The imaginative French writer, Rousseau, objected to the practice of stat- 
 ing in fables that dumb beasts had conversations with each other, for fear that 
 children, seeing the positive form of the relation, would thence conclude that 
 animals had the power of speech. Cowper, in one of his fables, takes off this 
 writer very handsomely. He says, in substance, that a boy that could be led 
 into an error in this way, 
 
 " Must have a most uncommon skull." 
 
 But after all the witticism of Cowper, and the fact that no child was ever so 
 deceived, still there is a bare possibility that children may hereafter be deceived, 
 and there may be something in Rousseau's objection. If grown and learned men 
 can so far reason the meaning clear away, as at last to believe that the sense of 
 words used in the explanation of a dream, parable, or allegory, can be at all ap- 
 plicable to texts where no such thing exists, then why may not children be de- 
 ceived by the positive form of word.* in a fable ? 
 
 f There is not the slightest parallelism in the expressions, " I am the vine," 
 " This is my body." In the first, the sentence is simply elliptical, and you have 
 only to fill up the ellipsis to make the sentence complete. But in the case of 
 This is my body, if the Protestant construction be correct, you must first ex- 
 punge the verb to be ; and then, substitute, in its place, the verb represents, a 
 v/ord having a different meaning ; and so different, that the verb to be must be 
 struck out, to make room for the other, which, when siibstituted, entirely changes 
 the meaning. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 561 
 
 The words of institution cannot be put into the second class, 
 for the reason that no comparison was intended by Christ be- 
 tween bread and His body. No one, so far as I am advised, 
 has ever contended that any comparison was meant. 
 
 13. The third class of alleged exceptions considered. 
 
 The two cases stated in this third class constitute no excep- 
 tions to the general rule, but come strictly within it, and the 
 verb is used in its literal sense. 
 
 The first passage, " This is my covenant between me and 
 thee," has been made by a misconstruction to apparently sup- 
 port the metaphorical sense. And I must say, that I am at a 
 loss to understand how so plain a mistake could ever have been 
 committed. Had the question come up before a court of jus- 
 tice, this misconstruction, I think, could never have arisen. In 
 the chapter we are told that God appeared to Abraham, and en- 
 tered into a covenant with him and his posterity. From verse 
 second to eight, inclusive, the chapter is taken up with the con- 
 ditions, on the part of God. In verse nine, God tells Abraham 
 expressly that the covenant embraces him and his seed. In 
 verse ten, God gives Abraham that part of the covenant to be 
 kept by him and his posterity, on their part. " This is my cov- 
 enant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed 
 after thee. Every male child among you shall be circumcised." 
 The phrase, "This is my covenant," refers to the condition 
 mentioned in the same sentence to be kept by Abraham ; to wit : 
 " Every male child among you shall be circumcised." The 
 whole covenant is called God's covenant ; but when God comes 
 to speak of the part to be performed by Abraham, He designates 
 it by saying, " This is my covenant which ye shall keep," and 
 then gives that part of the covenant to be kept by Abraham. 
 And this form of expression is common and proper among all 
 men. The conditions constituting an agreement or covenant 
 may be put down first, and I may then properly say, " this is 
 my agreement ; " or I may say, " this is my agreement," and 
 afterwards give the conditions. In both cases the sense is the 
 same. 
 
 There are many instances in Scripture parallel to this. 
 " This is my covenant with thee, saith the Lord : my Spirit that 
 49 
 
562 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 is upon thee, and my words which I will put in thy mouth, shall 
 not depart out of thy mouth.'' (Is. lix. 21.) "And this is the 
 covenant which I will make with the House of Israel ; after 
 those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their interior," 
 <fco. (Jer. xxxi. 33.) In other passages, the conditions go be- 
 fore. (Exod. xvi. 16-23 ; Levit. xvi. 34 ; xvii. 7.) 
 
 It is true that God tells Abraham, in verse 11:" And ye 
 shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; and it shall be a 
 token of the covenant betwixt me and thee." Now what is it 
 that constitutes the token in this case ? Is it that part of the 
 covenant which requires circumcision ? Surely not. The cov- 
 enant was one thing, and the execution of it another, and a very 
 different thing. This part of the covenant could exist without 
 the execution of it. It was the execution of this part of the 
 covenant, that constituted the token of the entire covenant. 
 And we can well understand how the executed act could consti- 
 tute a token or record of the whole covenant ; but we cannot 
 well understand how a part of the conditions of a covenant could 
 form a token of the covenant itself. God did not mean to say, 
 " This my covenant is a token of my covenant." 
 
 The second passage in the third class, " It is the Lord's 
 Passover," is simply the name of the feast. 
 
 Before inflicting the tenth and last plague upon Egypt, the 
 Lord instituted the Passover. God promised Moses and Aaron 
 that He would pass over the houses of the Israelites harmless, 
 if they would keep the feast. The twelfth chapter of Exodus, 
 from the third to the eleventh verses, is taken up in prescribing 
 the manner in which the paschal lamb should be prepared and 
 eaten with bitter herbs ; and after giving those particulars, tho 
 eleventh verse ends with these words: "Ye shall eat it in 
 haste : it is the Lord's Passover." 
 
 The word Passover, in this place, refers to the feast itself 
 and not to the Lord's passage over the houses. The language 
 is very clear and simple : " Ye shall eat it (the lamb prepared 
 as just directed to be done) in haste : it (the same thing) is the 
 Lord's Passover." 
 
 In the close of the eleventh verse, God intended to give the 
 new feast a name, and to state that it was sacred to Him. The 
 feast never having existed before, it was necessary to give it a 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 563 
 
 name, and there was the proper place to give it. The name is 
 used for the first time in verse 11, and afterwards in verses 21 
 and 43, to designate the feast itself, and as a term already well 
 understood. It is so used in the New Testament. " Now the 
 feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, called the passover." 
 (Luke xxii. 1. See Matt. xxvi. 17.) 
 
 God often gave names to things. In the first chapter of 
 Genesis we are told that He named the heavens and the earth, 
 and in the second, that He sanctified the seventh day, and in 
 the twentieth chapter of Exodus, He calls it the Sabbath. So, 
 it is clear, from many examples in Scripture, that whatever is 
 sacred or dedicated to the Lord, is properly called " the Lord's." 
 Thus, in Exodus, chapter 20, the Sabbath is called " the Sabbath 
 of the Lord," or the Lord's Sabbath, and St. John calls it " the 
 Lord's day." (Rev. i. 10. See also Ex. xxxii. 5; x?ii. 12.) 
 That the Passover was sacred to the Lord is shown by the 14th 
 and 48th verses of the 12th chapter of Exodus. "Ye shall keep 
 it a feast to the Lord." " And when a stranger will keep the 
 passover to the Lord." 
 
 We have now finished the consideration of those alleged 
 cases of exception to the general rule ; and we have seen that 
 the only cases wherein the verb to be is used in a figurative 
 sense, are those cases where an explanation of symbolical in- 
 struction is given. I have endeavored to show that none of 
 these passages have any application to the words of institution. 
 They are not cases in point they are plainly marked and dis- 
 tinguished (in most of the cases in express words, and in all by 
 the clear context) as special cases not coming under the general 
 rule, but as clear exceptions to it and that the words of insti- 
 tution cannot be brought into this class of exceptions, for the 
 reason there was no dream no parable no allegory and no 
 explanation of any such thing in these words, nor in the circum- 
 stances attending their utterance. They were used in making 
 our Lord's last testament in the solemn institution of a sacra- 
 ment and at a time, and in reference to a subject, where the use 
 of words in n, new and unheard of symboh'cal sense, would have 
 been certainly as much out of place as we can possibly imagine. 
 
 And I must think that if the question of construction re- 
 garded the language of a human lawgiver or writer, and such 
 
564 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 examples, taken from the mere interpretation of dreams, para- 
 bles, and allegories, were brought forward by any party for the 
 purpose of interpreting language used in its plain form, and not 
 in application to dreams, parables, and allegories, that such party 
 would be considered as governed by some strange and most 
 singular delusion. And in reference to the interpretation of 
 Scripture, I must think that such a resort arises from the ex- 
 treme destitution of materials in the shape of parallel passages. 
 Nothing but the dry distress of writers could induce them to 
 bring forward such examples. 
 
 And with all due deference, I submit to the candor of my 
 readers, whether these cases of exception, being thus so clearly 
 marked and designated, as such, do not the more clearly show 
 the literal sense of the words of institution. He who seeks to 
 show an exception to the general rule of the plain ordinary lit- 
 eral sense, ought to make his case clear, by showing that the 
 passage is strictly within a particular class of exceptions. The 
 very fact that all conceded exceptions range themselves under 
 one class namely, the explanation of symbolical instruction, and 
 that they are thus clearly marked as such does strengthen the 
 general rule, by showing that no other exceptions are intended. 
 Is there, in the JBible, one solitary case, where, in the solemn in- 
 stitution of a sacrament, or in making of a last testament, lan- 
 guage is used in a new and unexplained symbolical sense ? 
 
 14. Giving the name of the thing represented to the figure. 
 
 This is one of the most popular objections against the literal 
 sense of the words, " This is my body." It is relied upon by 
 Protestant writers generally. The examples cited are, a pic- 
 ture, a map, or bust. If we point to a portrait or bust, and 
 say " this is " such a person, naming him, or if we point to a 
 map, and say " this is Europe," we are at once understood. 
 
 Portraits, busts, and maps are representations by resemblance. 
 They are but images of the things they represent. Symbol is 
 the very essence of their existence. They can only exist as 
 symbols. This fact is known to all. Common usage is always 
 founded upon common sense, and this never requires the doing 
 of an idle thing. Therefore, when we point to a picture, we 
 are not required to idly inform the person whom we address, 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 565 
 
 that it is a picture. His own senses assure him of that fact. 
 But as he does not know the person or thing represented, we 
 must inform him of this fact. 
 
 But the case under consideration is wholly different. Ac- 
 cording to the Protestant view, Christ was for the first time 
 constituting bread a symbol of His body. There being not the 
 slightest natural resemblance between the figure and the object, 
 and bread having an independent existence as a real object in 
 itself, arid not as a figure, it was just as necessary to inform us 
 of the fact that it was then made a figure, as to inform us of the 
 thing it represented. When an arbitrary figure is first consti- 
 tuted such, no one can know that it is a figure at all, unless so 
 informed. 
 
 If a speaker should use a known term in a new figurative 
 sense for the first time, he should give us a definition of this 
 new sense. Thus, when our Lord instituted the Sacrament of 
 the Last Supper, and, for the first time, made it commemora- 
 tive. He was careful to inform us of that fact. " Do this in re- 
 membrance of me." If, then, the bread was used for the first 
 time on that occasion to be a figure of the body of Christ, why 
 did He not so inform us ? Why inform us in one case, and not 
 in the other? Is not the fact that upon that occasion He did 
 so inform us in one case, and not in the other, a very strong 
 proof that the two cases are not alike f 
 
 This objection is founded upon the same basis as that drawn 
 from symbolical instruction. It is but an attempt to apply the 
 language used in the explanation of pictures, to the interpreta- 
 tion of positive forms of expression, not relating to any such 
 thing. The symbolical characters in mysteries, parables, allego- 
 ries, and dreams are all stated to be fictitious, and a picture is 
 known to be but an image, because it can be nothing else ; and 
 when we come to point out the thing represented, which has a 
 real, or assumed real, existence, usage allows us to use the verb 
 to be in a figurative sense, because we are speaking of things 
 first admitted to be figurative. But in reference to the bread, 
 we are not told that it was figurative there was no resem- 
 blance, such as a picture has to the thing represented how, 
 then, could we know it was a figure ? 
 
 Another objection which is sometimes made, is, that uo 
 
566 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 change could be admitted, because our Saviour called the con 
 tents of the cup, " the fruit of the vine." This difficulty is en 
 tirely avoided by the explanation of St. Luke, as referring- to 
 the cup before the institution of the Eucharist. It refers to the 
 paschal cup, and not to the sacramental. This is shown by the 
 simple narrative itself. Christ eat the passover to close the 
 sacrifice of the old law, and then, after supper, instituted the 
 Eucharist. 
 
 15. The Words of St. Paul. 
 
 St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, speaks in two 
 places of the Eucharist. As the two translations differ in one 
 material point, I shall give both. 
 
 1 Cor. x. 16. 
 
 " The cup of blessing which we " The chalice of benediction which 
 
 bless, is it not the communion of the we bless, is it not the communion of the 
 
 blood of Christ? The bread which blood of Christ? And the bread 
 
 we break, is it not the communion which we break, is it not the partak- 
 
 of the body of Christ ? " (King Jas. ing of the body of the Lord." (Douay 
 
 Tran.) Tran.) 
 
 1 Cor % xi. 27, 29. 
 
 " Wherefore, whosoever shall eat " Therefore, whoever shall eat this 
 
 this bread, and drink this cup un- bread, or drink the chalice of the 
 
 worthily, shall be guilty of the body Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the 
 
 and blood of the Lord. . . . For he body and blood of the Lord. . . . For 
 
 that eateth and drinketh unworthily, he that eateth and rlrinketh unwor- 
 
 eateth and drinketh damnation to thily, eateth and drinketh judgment 
 
 himself, not discerning the body of the to himself, not discerning the body of 
 
 Lord." the Lord." 
 
 " The communion of the body of Christ." The word com- 
 munion is here used in the sense of partaking, as shown by the 
 two succeeding verses. There is then a real partaking here, 
 and not a figurative eating. In the 6th of John the words " eat 
 the flesh of the Son of man," the Protestant says, means a 
 figurative eating, and in this extract it means an actual partak- 
 ing of the bread, and not of the body. In the sixth of John 
 the real flesh was meant, but not the real eating. Here the 
 real eating is meant but not the real body. The Catholic under- 
 stands that it was a real eating, and a real flesh and body, in 
 
TRAN8UBSTANTIATION. 567 
 
 both cases / and certainly this construction is the most simple, 
 natural, and consistent. 
 
 If the words body and blood are used in the first extract 
 from St. Paul in their literal sense, the Catholic is right. So, if 
 the sixth of John refers to the Eucharist, the word flesh being 
 used in its literal sense in verse 52, the equivalent word body 
 in the extract from St. Paul, should be used in the same literal 
 sense. For if the Scripture in these different places refers to 
 the same thing, the words should be taken in their literal sense 
 in both places. 
 
 Our Lord having instituted the Eucharist before St. Paul 
 wrote, there is nothing inconsistent with the Catholic view, in 
 the language of the apostle, as to "eating the bread" and 
 drinking " the cup ; " because the practice of still calling a 
 thing, after its change, by its former name, is very common in 
 Scripture. This would be particularly so, when the appearances 
 were still the same. When the sense is once settled, the term 
 will afterwards be used in that sense. Joseph was repeatedly 
 called the father of our Lord. (Luke ii. 41, 48.) And yet no 
 one was misled by this, because we are informed in preceding 
 places, that Joseph was only His foster-father. So, when the 
 water was changed into wine, it was still called water after the 
 change.* So, when the eyes of the blind man had been opened, 
 he was afterwards still called the "blind man." (John ix. 17.) 
 So, when Aaron's rod had been changed into a serpent, it was 
 still called a rod. (Gen. viii.) So, the angels that came to Lot 
 were called men in some places, and angels in another. They 
 were called men after they were stated to be angels. (Gen. xix.) 
 Things in Scripture are often represented according to their ap- 
 pearance. Joshua is represented as commanding the sun to 
 stand still, and the sun as obeying him. So the Catholic con- 
 tinues to call the elements bread and wine after consecration, 
 and yet he believes in the change. 
 
 But what will we do with the w r ord body in the first extract 
 from St. Paul ? If we construe it literally, and say that it was 
 
 * John ii. The word " draw " means the breaching of the water pots, after 
 the change. Our Saviour said to the servants after the change, and before they 
 drew out the wine, " draw out now," &c , and this is the only drawing mentioned. 
 " The servants which drew tho water knew." * 
 
568 TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 a literal partaking of a real body, then the sense is entirely con 
 sistent with the Catholic view. In the first extract the apostle 
 says " communion of the body," and in the second " guilty of 
 the body," "not discerning the body." Now if the word body 
 be used figuratively in one of these places, must it not be used 
 in the same sense in the other passages ? Is it not used in all 
 the three cases to designate the real body ? 
 
 " Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." What is the 
 meaning of this phrase, as shown by Scripture usage ? " He is 
 guilty of death ; " referring to the punishment. (Matt. xxvi. 66.) 
 " For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one 
 point, he is guilty of all." (St. James ii. 10.) This case from St. 
 James is the only parallel case in the New Testament. Here the 
 phrase is applied to the object against which the offence was 
 committed. In like manner the offence of an unworthy com- 
 munion is against the body of our Lord. So, if the body and 
 blood of Christ be present in the Eucharist, we can well see how 
 St. Paul could use the expression " guilty of the body and 
 blood." 
 
 " Not discerning the Lord's body." We are first told by 
 St. Paul, that the party is guilty of the body ; and then after- 
 wards we are told that he drinks judgment to himself, not dis- 
 cerning the body. If the body be not present, how could it be 
 discerned ? But if the body be present, and be received as pro- 
 fane food, then we can well understand how the unworthy com- 
 municant would not discern the body. 
 
 It would seem that the passages from St. Paul are not only 
 consistent with the Catholic view, but that the literal sense can 
 alone give them their legitimate force and effect. And when 
 the language of St. Paul is taken in connection with that of 
 Christ in the sixth of John, and in the subsequent words of in- 
 stitution, the unity, simplicity, and force of the Catholic view, 
 can be seen at once. We have one united and consistent view, 
 running through a number of passages, and harmonizing with 
 the whole, and forming one plain and simple system of interpre- 
 tation. The arguments in support of Christianity, when taken 
 and considered separately, are not so strong and conclusive as 
 when united. Like the ten thousand small streams, that, sepa- 
 rately considered, are insignificant, yet when united, form the 
 
TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 569 
 
 mighty river, r oiling its resistless volume to the ocean : so, the 
 arguments for Christianity, when taken separately may be in- 
 conclusive, yet when united and considered as a whole, they 
 pour their combined proof in one overpowering stream upon 
 the mind. In like manner, the proofs of that wonderful doc- 
 trine, the Real Presence, when taken separately, are not so con- 
 clusive as when combined and viewed in their concentrated 
 force. It is then that the harmonious and beautiful features of 
 that tender and sublime faith appear in their united consistency. 
 And so strong are the proofs from the most simple and un- 
 equivocal construction of the language of the Scriptures, that 
 if the doctrine was not so hard to flesh and blood, it would seem 
 that there never could have existed any doubt upon the subject. 
 
 16. That it is a contradiction of our senses, and impossible. 
 
 These objections are much relied upon by most Protestant 
 writers, such as Mr. Hallam, Dr. Clark, Mr. Home, Dr. Tom- 
 line, and others. Mr. Faber objects to this mode of treating 
 the subject and says: " Contradictions we can easily fancy, 
 when, in truth, there are none." Again : " The contradiction 
 may not be in the matter itself, but in our mode of conceiving 
 it." (Difficulties of Romanism, 54.) 
 
 This is certainly very candid and manly language, and one 
 well becoming every humble and firm believer in the truth of 
 Christianity. But notwithstanding this acknowledgment of the 
 learned and courteous author, it must be conceded that he has 
 given up the most effective of the arguments against the literal 
 sense. In saying effective, I do not mean an argument that 
 should be effective, but only one that is practically so. It is 
 an argument based upon the all-sufficiency of human reason to 
 judge of every thing ; and, therefore, is addressed to the pride 
 of the human heart, in which it finds an ever-ready echo. And 
 the fact of its being addressed to pride, should cause it to be 
 watched with the greatest care by the sincere and humble. 
 
 Mr. Home tells us that " whatever is repugnant to natural 
 reason cannot be the true meaning of the Scriptures." 
 
 In what essential particular does this assumption differ from 
 the very basis upon which the Infidel stands ? They are both 
 founded upon the supposed sufficiency of human reason to de- 
 
570 TKANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 termine the essential laws of matter, and the rules by which 
 God should govern the world, and the limits of His power. 
 The Infidel takes the Scriptures, and gives them what he thinks 
 a natural and proper construction, and he finds therein stated, 
 facts and doctrines at war with his reason and his experience ; 
 and he, therefore, rejects the entire system. But Mr. Home is 
 less clear, and not so consistent. He first admits that the 
 Scriptures are true that they reveal stupendous mysteries, 
 proven by stupendous miracles ; and after these admissions, 
 whatever construction, however plain, simple, and natural, which 
 evolves a doctrine " repugnant to natural reason," or what he 
 may consider such, he rejects. In other words, he prunes off 
 all absurd shoots from the tree of Christianity, until he brings 
 it to that form of abstract ideal beauty, existing in his own 
 mind. The Infidel, upon the basis of the sufficiency of his rea- 
 son to determine what is possible with God, and what sort of 
 government God ought to give to man, rejects the entire sys- 
 tem. Not so with Mr. Home. He admits the system, but 
 tears it into fragments, and then selects only such as may suit 
 his " natural reason." 
 
 There are certainly some things more properly within the 
 sphere of human reason. The weight and force of human testi- 
 mony is a matter coming peculiarly within the province of man's 
 intellect. He ought to know the habits, feelings, and character 
 of his own species, with whom he is identified in all his natural 
 powers, and with whom he is in constant intercourse. He may 
 also have a perfect knowledge of some of the laws of nature, 
 while he is ignorant of others ; and aided by his knowledge of 
 the more obvious and well-known laws of nature, he is compe- 
 tent to determine that a certain event is miraculous, and that 
 the person who performed it is gifted with supernatural power. 
 But when misled by the " meteor ray " of reason, he quits his 
 own sphere, and rushes " into the skies," and assumes to set 
 limits to the power of God, he deserves the severe language of 
 Pope: 
 
 " Go, wond'rous creature, mount where science guides ; 
 Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides. 
 Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule, 
 Then drop into thyself, and be a fool." 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 571 
 
 We shall proceed to examine these arguments at one view, 
 for they are all essentially based upon the same principle ; i. e., 
 the ground of physical impossibility. 
 
 We have already spoken of known miracles, as being viola- 
 tions or suspensions of the known laws of nature. We find, 
 as a part of the known laws of nature, that two substances 
 cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and that 
 the same body cannot occupy different spaces at the same 
 time. If we should see a single body occupy different spaces, 
 or two bodies the same space, at the same time, we are compe- 
 tent to say that it is a miracle. But while we could well say 
 that such an event was a miracle, could we undertake to say 
 that such an event is impossible There is an immeasurable 
 distance between the two ! In one we only undertake to deter- 
 mine what is consistent with the present known laws of nature; 
 but in the other, we assume to put limits to the Eternal. What 
 ideas have mere finite beings of Infinite Power ? Just in the 
 same proportion as finite to infinite as time to eternity. 
 
 The Protestant philosopher admits that God spoke the 
 world into existence from nothing that miracles are not only 
 Upossible, but have occurred yet when told that the same Infi- 
 nite Creator can suspend, modify, overcome, or change any of 
 the laws of nature, and can give to a body some of the proper- 
 ties of a spirit, he objects, upon the ground of impossibility. 
 He concedes that some of the laws of matter are within the 
 power of God, but insists that others are not. And such objec- 
 tion is simply based upon the results of his limited experience 
 of an existing system ; when he knows absolutely nothing of 
 mere possible systems / and could not, therefore, justly pretend 
 to form any accurate conception concerning them. 
 
 The properties of matter were given it by the Creator, when 
 He formed the universe from nothing. He who made, surely 
 can destroy, suspend, or change. If God can take from matter 
 one property, or overcome or suspend, for the time, its effect, 
 upon what principle of reason can we say that He cannot do so 
 in reference to another, or to several? We believe that God 
 created spirits. These we consider not subject to the laws of 
 matter. The Atheist rejects the belief in the existence of the 
 soul, because the eye and knife of the surgeon cannot detect its 
 
572 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 seat in the human brain. And he does this notwithstanding 
 he knows we have no accurate conceptions of the magnitude or 
 minuteness of organized bodies. He knows that minute insects 
 exist, with perfect organizations, hundreds of which can sport 
 in a single drop of water ; and that the flea, when examined by 
 a microscope, appears a horrid monster, of enormous size. The 
 Protestant believes that Satan is a created, but fallen spirit ; 
 that he tempts men in Europe, Asia, America, and Africa, at 
 the same time. Now, upon what principle of reason or philoso- 
 phy can we say that God has power over some of the properties 
 of matter, and not over all ? If God can create a spirit, could 
 He not impress a portion or the whole of its properties upon a 
 body, and overcome or suspend some or all of the properties of 
 matter, at the same time ? In other words, could riot God, by 
 His infinite power, take from a body, or overcome, for the 
 time, that property which prevents it from occupying two or 
 more places at the same time ? Who is that philosopher who 
 would venture to say that Christ, who raised His own body 
 from the grave, could not give that body the property in ques- 
 tion ? Can any man, with all his pride of intellect, have suffi- 
 cient confidence in his imaginary knowledge of mere possible* 
 systems, as to put it against the assertion of God ? * 
 
 If our knowledge of the existing laws of matter ought to 
 have any effect upon our ideas of physical possibility or impos- 
 sibility with God, then I must say, that the position of the 
 
 * There are metaphysical, but no physical, impossibilities with God. The 
 former result from the unchangeable character of His attributes. When the In- 
 fidel alleges truly that God could not make two hills without a valley between, 
 the impossibility is metaphysical, not physical. The valley is a, part of the two 
 hills, and it is metaphysically impossible for God to do and not to do, the same 
 thing at the same time. But all material things were created by God, and He 
 has, for that reason, perfect and unlimited physical dominion over them to do any 
 thing He pleases that is not, in its effects, contrary to His own natiire. The 
 presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist cannot be against the character of 
 God, and cannot be physically impossible. In Scripture, we are assured of 
 metaphysical impossibilities with God, but it would be difficult to find any inti- 
 mation that there could be any physical impossibility with Him. On the con- 
 trary, our Lord, when speaking of a supposed physical impossibility, declared that 
 " all things are possible with God." '1 here is no limit to this general declara- 
 tion, and no qualification of it, as applicable to the. das* of possibility our Lord 
 bad in Hia mind, when using these broad words. 
 
TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 578 
 
 Atheist is more consistent than that of those who first concede 
 that God can control some of the laws of matter, and then deny 
 His power over others. The Atheist lays down a consistent 
 rule, when he will admit of no interference with the laws of 
 matter. But the Protestant philosopher admits the power of 
 God over the subject matter, and then presumes to set limits to 
 the power itself. 
 
 That the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a most 
 incomprehensible mystery, and a most stupendous miracle, must 
 be conceded. It is like any other mystery. Human reason 
 cannot fathom mysteries. If it could, it could fathom every 
 thing. There could then be no limits to its power. We should 
 be as wise as our Creator. No man can comprehend the mys- 
 terious union of the human and Divine in Christ. Had I waited 
 until I could comprehend that mystery, I should never have 
 been a Christian. 
 
 There are many of the most familiar facts that we cannot 
 comprehend. How is it that a single spark will set on fire and 
 consume a whole city? How does the fire increase? How 
 is it that the simple will of a man will put into instant 
 motion all his muscular powers, and at once overcome some 
 of the cardinal laws of matter? How is it that the heart, 
 from our birth to our death, never ceases its pulsations day 
 or night? What power keeps it going? How is it that 
 the moment the mysterious principle of life is extinguished, our 
 bodies become like any other inert mass of matter ? I suppose, 
 if an individual was brought up on a solitary island, with no 
 opportunity to see or hear of a single instance of death, that at 
 the age of thirty, he would have no conception of death, and 
 would think it impossible, if suggested to him. Even with our 
 conclusive knowledge of the fact, people in health never feel 
 like dying, and most of them act as if they never expected to 
 die. The idea of death is not intuitive, but acquired. 
 
 How to explain the mystery of the Trinity I cannot tell. 
 But on the other hand, I cannot see how I can reject the belief 
 of this great mystery, without holding Christ to be a mere im- 
 postor. Nor can I understand how He could be either a Me- 
 diator or Redeemer, unless the doctrine of the Trinity be true. 
 The doctrine of original sin presents many difficulties ; but re* 
 
574 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 ject it, and then I cannot understand how Christ could be a 
 Redeemer at all, or what He had to redeem us from. Take 
 away any of these doctrines, and we have but the shadow of 
 Christianity left. The confident Socinian thinks that the ab- 
 surdity of the doctrine of the Trinity is mathematically demon- 
 strable. But all this, against the clear revelation of Jesus 
 Christ, does not amount to any thing. We find ourselves too 
 often mistaken in reference to abstract matters to rely with any 
 confidence upon our weak ideas of such things. 
 
 The evidence of some of our senses in receiving the Eucha- 
 rist, ought not, any more than our abstract ideas of possibility, 
 to influence us to doubt a revealed truth, especially a mystery. 
 It may be a theme for ignorant ridicule or senseless declama- 
 tion, but will hardly stand the test of theological or scientific 
 truth. Philosophy and experience teach us that some of our 
 senses at times deceive us. 
 
 We are told that the Holy Spirit descended upon our Lord 
 in the form of a dove. To the eye it was a dove, and had every 
 appearance of a dove ; and yet we believe it was not a dove. 
 So, the Jews rejected Christ upon the evidence of some of their 
 senses. They said, " Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose 
 father and mother we know? How is it, then, that he saith, I 
 came down from heaven ? " " In like manner Joshua thought 
 he saw a man, (Joshua v. 13,) and Jacob that he touched one, 
 (Gen. xxxii. 24,) and Abraham, that he eat with three men, 
 (Gen. xviii. 8,) when in all these instances there were no real 
 men but embodied spirits present, the different senses of those 
 patriarchs misleading them. Again : were not the eyes of the 
 disciples going to Emmaus held so that they should not know 
 Jesus? (Luke xxiv. 16.) Did not the same thing happen to 
 Mary Magdalen and the apostles?" (John xx. 15.) (Dr. Mil- 
 ner. End. Con., 234.) 
 
 After the resurrection of Christ, we are told that He ap- 
 peared twice to His disciples when the doors were shut for fear 
 of the Jews. (Jo. xx. 19, 26.) The circumstance of the doors 
 being shut, is mentioned to let us know that His sudden appear- 
 ance was miraculous. How did His body pass through the wall 
 or door ? It might be that He made an opening, and closed it 
 again after His entrance ; but this does not seem to be consist- 
 
. TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 575 
 
 ent with other circumstances. After travelling with the two 
 disciples to Emmaus, while their eyes were holden, He opened 
 them in the breaking of bread, and after their eyes were opened 
 and they knew Him, " he vanished out of their sight." (Luke 
 xxiv. 31.) He again appeared to many disciples, and from the 
 simple narrative, it would seem plain that the first they saw of 
 Christ, He was standing in their midst. "And as they thus 
 spake, Jesus stood in the midst of them." (36.) Not only this 
 language, but the circumstance of their terror, goes to show 
 that He was not seen until He was seen standing in their midst. 
 Now when He vanished out of the sight of the two disciples at 
 Emmaus, it is clear that they had their senses, and that Christ 
 rendered His body invisible. So when He appeared in their 
 midst. 
 
 It is true, that in the Eucharist, there are more senses than 
 one deceived ; and that in some of the cases mentioned, it was 
 equally so. The dove was only subjected to the test of sight. 
 But in the case of the angel that spoke and wrestled with Jacob, 
 and those that spoke and eat before Abraham, more than one 
 sense was deceived. So, in the case of the Jews regarding 
 Christ. And in regard to the two angels that appeared to Lot, 
 (Gen. xix.,) and spoke with him, and eat before him, and caught 
 hold of his hands, there were three senses deceived. They 
 looked like men, spoke like men, and felt like men ; so that 
 sight, hearing, and feeling were all deceived, as well as in the 
 case of the angel that wrestled with Jacob. What, then, is the 
 essential difference in the cases ? Why should the Christian 
 say one is possible, the other not ? 
 
 I would not dare to assert that it was impossible for God to 
 make known to us His will, even against the evidence of all 
 our senses. But in the Eucharist all the senses are not deceived. 
 If, therefore, God, as in the cases mentioned, deceived a portion 
 of our senses, and yet conveyed to us the truth through the 
 sense of hearing, why cannot this be true of the Eucharist ? I 
 most readily admit that I cannot perceive any difference in the 
 two cases. Such an objection is consistent in the mouth of an 
 Atheist, but out of place in the mouth of him who professes t > 
 believe in the Scriptures. 
 
 But should I think that such an objection had any reason in 
 
576 TRANSUBSTAOTIATION. 
 
 it, when applied to Christianity, (that wonderful system, founded 
 and based upon, and proved by, miracles of almost every kind 
 and form,) I should then be placed in a painful position, between 
 two difficulties ; for if I take the Protestant view, I am thrown 
 upon a difficulty, still more inconsistent with all my conceptions 
 of possibility and impossibility. In such a case I am forced to 
 attribute to our Lord a course of conduct and teaching not only 
 at war with all my ideas of what is just and proper in a law- 
 giver, not only to himself, but to his subjects ; but especially 
 inconsistent with all my conceptions of Christ as a Divine Legis- 
 lator. We are assured in Scripture that there are moral impos- 
 sibilities with God, for He cannot lie ; and I am forced to choose 
 between that which I cannot justify, upon any conceivable 
 ground of moral right, and that mere abstract objection to the 
 literal sense, founded upon our uncertain knowledge of what is 
 or is not a physical impossibility with God. Which difficulty 
 shall I choose ? If I take the Catholic view, and should be 
 mistaken, I only give to Christ more power and love than are 
 due to Him. But if I take the other view, and should be mis- 
 taken, I not only rob Him of the power and love due to Him, 
 but I place Him in a position as a teacher of truth, wholly at 
 war with all our conceptions of moral right. If I am to err at 
 all, O ! let me err on the side of faith and love. I would rather 
 give Christ too much than too little power. I would rather be- 
 lieve too much than too little. If I am to err, let my errors 
 " lean to virtue's side." If I take the Catholic view, I find a 
 great physical mystery, which I can believe, but which is incom- 
 prehensible. If I take the Protestant view, I find a moral mys- 
 tery, that my reason cannot justify or explain. 
 
 And were I to indulge my reason as to what a religion should 
 be, I would ask, what would religion be worth without myste- 
 ries? What heavenly principle is there in that proud faith that 
 refuses to believe in mysteries, because incomprehensible to 
 fallible reason ? And what reason is there in the supposition 
 that a fallible mind can comprehend the nature of mysteries ? 
 Were a being to appear to me for the purpose of teaching me 
 a religion, the first thing my reason tells me I have a right to 
 ask, is a sufficient proof of his character. As I am competent to 
 judge of testimony, and to determine from my knowledge of 
 
TRAN8UBSTANTIATION. 577 
 
 some of the laws of nature, whether a particular event be a 
 miracle or not, I could form a conclusion as to the fact whether 
 the messenger was sent of God, or whether he was an impostor. 
 When satisfied that he was divinely commissioned, I should be 
 prepared to believe him upon his word alone. Knowing my 
 own limited powers, I should expect him to reveal to me many 
 plain and simple facts and doctrines, regulating my conduct 
 towards my fellow-men on earth ; but in reference to the heav- 
 enly world, and the nature of the blessed spirits who inhabit it, 
 and the nature of God and His institutions, I should expect Him 
 to reveal to me some incomprehensible mysteries, which He 
 would rightfully require me to believe implicitly upon His word 
 alone. If He revealed to me no truth or mystery above my 
 finite comprehension, I should be tempted to doubt whether he 
 knew any thing supernatural, and whether he had come from 
 that heaven which even the learned, eloquent, and inspired Paul 
 would not attempt to describe. 
 
 17. Reflections. 
 
 And while I readily and cheerfully admit that there is a 
 mystery and a miracle in the Real Presence, and that I cannot 
 comprehend the mere manner of this mystery, I can see in the 
 institution itself the utmost reason, beauty, and love. In other 
 words, I can see the best reasons for its institution, the greatest 
 beauty in its doctrine, and the utmost display of love in its ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 Who ever has read the Bible, and has any tolerable knowl- 
 edge of God's dealings with His servants, must have been struck 
 with the fact, that He often tested their faith in the most severe 
 and conclusive form. These tests were not designed for the in- 
 formation of God, but for the benefit of His servants. It is 
 right and beneficent, in the nature of the relation of servant and 
 master, that the fidelity, of the servant should be submitted to a 
 conclusive test. It is good for the servant himself, especially 
 when his eternal welfare depends upon his strict fidelity. 
 
 Under the Old dispensation, when the Almighty appeared 
 
 to His prophets, at intervals, as occasion demanded, we find 
 
 different tests of faith adopted. Some of these were designed 
 
 to try the faith of only one person, while others were designed 
 
 50 
 
578 TRANSUBSTANTIATIONT. 
 
 to try the faith of a whole people. In the twenty-second chap- 
 ter of Genesis, we have the simple and affecting narrative of the 
 severe test of faith to which God subjected His servant Abra- 
 ham, when He commanded him to sacrifice his own son Isaac- 
 the son that had been born to him in his old age, by a miracle. 
 And we are informed with what fidelity the old patriarch com- 
 plied with the command of his Master, until prevented by an 
 angel from destroying his young son, while in the very act of 
 taking his knife to shed his blood. Here was an example of 
 pure and holy faith, worthy of all imitation. 
 
 In the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, we are informed that 
 the Israelites murmured in the wilderness of Sin, because they 
 had no bread, and that God sent them manna to prove them. 
 
 " And then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain 
 bread from heaven for you ; and the people shall go out and 
 gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether 
 they will walk in my law or no." 
 
 These are only two out of the many instances contained in 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 In the New Testament we find many instances in which our 
 Lord tested the faith of His disciples while He was with them, 
 among which it will only be necessary to mention a few. In 
 the sixth chapter of St. John, our Lord tried Philip by asking 
 him, " Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat ? " A 
 very affecting instance is given, (Jo. xi.,) where Christ subjected 
 the faith of Martha to a severe test, when He says to her : " He 
 that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live ; 
 and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die. Be- 
 lievest thou this ? " But perhaps the most affecting instance 
 mentioned in any of the four Gospels, is the case of the woman 
 of Canaan, found in the fifteenth chapter of Matthew. "And 
 behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and 
 cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son 
 of David ; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But 
 he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and 
 besought him, saying, Send her away ; for she crieth after us 
 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel. Then she came and worshipped him, 
 saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not 
 
T HANS INSTANTIATION. 579 
 
 meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs. And 
 she said, Truth, Lord ; yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which 
 fall from their master's table. Then Jesus answered and said 
 unto her, O woman, great is thy faith ; be it unto thee even as 
 thou wilt." What a beautiful instance of pure and humble 
 faith ! I can scarcely ever read this simple narrative without 
 the tribute of a tear, and a hearty wish that my heart had as 
 little pride in it as the heart of that poor woman. 
 
 The examples we find in the Old and New Testaments show 
 the utility of tests of faith. These tests all passed away with 
 the Old dispensation. As Christ left us a finished and universal 
 system, which is to endure unto the end of the world, and ap- 
 plicable to all nations, in all subsequent time, it would seem to 
 have been reasonable and just, in itself, that He should establish 
 a permanent test of faith, as enduring and uniform as faith itself. 
 And if any test" of faith was to remain, what could be more con- 
 clusive than the doctrine of the Real Presence? 
 
 That Christianity is a system founded upon miracles, must 
 be conceded. He who believes it must believe in wonderful 
 displays of supernatural power. He must believe all the mira- 
 cles of the Old and New Testaments, and must do so without 
 regard to the occasion or the nature of the miracle itself. He 
 must believe all, from the crossing of the Red Sea to the wid- 
 ow's cruse of oil. However great or small the miracle, he must 
 regard it as equally easy with God, and equally worthy of His 
 power. And this belief in the mind of the Christian must be a 
 living and continuing faith, not to be banished by the " God- 
 less look of earth," or the sneer of the proud and vain. 
 
 Now, it must be manifest that it requires a much greater 
 degree of humble faith to believe in the Real Presence of Christ 
 in the Eucharist, than in a mere symbolical presence. And this 
 is conclusively shown by the fact that most of those who believe 
 in the metaphorical sense, rely upon the testimony of their 
 senses, and upon their abstract ideas of possibility. When Dr. 
 Tomlin, Bishop Porteus, Dr. Clark, Mr. Home, Mr. Hallam, and 
 others, tell me that they believe it impossible for the body of 
 Christ to be present in the Eucharist, they tell me, in substance, 
 that if they were satisfied that such a doctrine was revealed in 
 Scripture, they would reject the entire system of Christianity 
 
580 TRANS CBSTANTIATIONT. 
 
 itself; for it is clear, that a man cannot believe that which he 
 considers impossible. 
 
 The man that sincerely believes in the doctrine of the Real 
 Presence has no seeds of infidelity in his mind. Such a man re- 
 lies with implicit and unfaltering faith upon the Word of God, 
 It is much easier, and requires a much less degree of faith, to 
 believe in the miracles of the dim, distant past, than in those 
 that are alleged to occur in our own presence, and in contradic- 
 tion to some of our senses. We may believe, upon the Word 
 of God, that the senses of Abraham and Lot, and others, were 
 deceived ; but when, upon the same Word of God, we are re- 
 quired to believe that our own senses are deceived in part, then 
 comes the genuine and living test of faith in the Word of God, 
 and the truth of the whole system. 
 
 In looking over the chapters of the New Testament, espe- 
 cially the Gospels, one cannot but be forcibly struck with the 
 great and paramount importance of faith. Our Saviour never 
 failed to reward this cardinal virtue. In some cases He went 
 out of the usual course of His ministry to reward it, as in the 
 case of the woman of Canaan. He never failed to express His 
 warm approbation of every confiding display of it. We find 
 Him often reproving His disciples for their want of faith. And 
 while our Lord was so careful to inculcate the absolute neces- 
 sity of this first fundamental principle, He was no less careful to 
 condemn that vice in the human heart which is the most deter- 
 mined enemy of faith. And if there be one human passion 
 against which Christ and His apostles warred more energeti- 
 cally than against any other, it 
 
 u Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools," 
 
 as Pope has expressed it. And the Gospel narrative will show 
 how often this evil principle was the mother of disobedience 
 and unbelief, in the chosen twelve, even after they had heard 
 the divine lessons of our Lord, and witnessed all His wonderful 
 displays of power for more than three years. We see it exhib- 
 ited in Peter, when he refused to let his Master wash his feet. 
 Now there is no doctrine that so forcibly inculcates simple and 
 unflinching faith as the doctrine of the Real Presence ; and 
 there is no doctrine that requires a greater disregard of the 
 
TRANS INSTANTIATION. 581 
 
 natural pride of the human mind. And this is shown by the 
 proud and contemptuous sneers of the majority of the writers 
 whom I have mentioned. 
 
 It was evidently the intention of Christ to keep the faith 
 pure and entire. In the nature of the system it could not ac- 
 commodate its truths to the views of men. It was, and ever 
 must be, one and inflexible. While our Lord and His apostles, 
 as to the mere manner of inculcating truth, were as kind and 
 gentle as could have been desired, they never softened the doc- 
 trines themselves, for the purpose of gaining converts. And 
 every attempt to extend the principles of the system, either by 
 latitudinarian construction, or by any other means, so as to 
 bring it down to the comprehension of natural reason, or the 
 loose opinions of men, is only so much injury to the purity of 
 the system itself. Like the idle attempt to increase the value 
 of the circulating medium by debasing the coin, every attempt 
 to shape this unchangeable system to suit the humors and ver- 
 satilities of men, must necessarily render the system less lovely 
 and beautiful, and, therefore, in the end, less attractive to the 
 really pious and virtuous. In this way the progress of the sys* 
 tern itself would be retarded. But by requiring a firm and im- 
 plicit belief in continued displays of Omnipotent power, and this 
 upon the once-delivered and unqualified Word of God, and in 
 opposition to some of our own senses, our Lord has given us, 
 not only one of the most practical and severe tests of faith, but 
 has given us a golden tie that binds us still more powerfully to 
 the cause of virtue. For what can more powerfully impress the 
 human soul than this awfully sublime and tender faith ? What 
 can more fully display, and continue to display, that invincible 
 love wherewith Christ has loved us ? When we look back over 
 His mortal career, and see how much He suffered, how many 
 most grievous insults He endured, and then reflect that all this 
 was purely voluntary, we cannot think that this great display 
 of His love, is unbecoming His unbounded mercy towards those 
 who love Him. 
 
 The legitimate and natural effect upon the mind of the hum- 
 ble and sincere believer in the Catholic view, cannot be well 
 described in words. It would seem manifest that such a belief 
 must fill the mind and soul with the most tender and fervent 
 
582 TRANSUBBTANTIATION. 
 
 impulses Well might the Infidel Voltaire say, " Behold the 
 man, who, amidst the awful ceremonies of the mass, receives 
 the holy communion. His whole soul is seized and strongly 
 affected. Hardly does he breathe. He is detached from every 
 earthly thing he is united to his God. God is incorporated 
 with his flesh and blood. Who will dare who possibly can, 
 after such an action, be guilty of any future relapses into sin ? 
 Is it possible to imagine a mystery that could bind men more 
 forcibly to virtue ? " 
 
 The following extract from a very recent work u Hilliard's 
 Six Months in Italy " describes the services of Christmas, at 
 St. Peter's, Rome : " High Mass was said by the Pope in per- 
 son, and the responses were sung by the choir. He performed 
 the service with an air and manner expressive of true devotion, 
 and though I felt that there was a chasm between me and the 
 rite which I witnessed, I followed his movements in the spirit 
 of respect, and not of criticism. But one impressive and over- 
 powering moment will never be forgotten. When the tinkling 
 of the bell announced the elevation of the Host, the whole of 
 the vast assemblage knelt or bowed their faces. The pavement 
 was suddenly strewn with prostrate forms. A silence like that 
 of death fell upon the church, as if some celestial vision had 
 passed before the living eyes, and hushed into stillness every 
 pulse of human feeling. After a pause of a few seconds, during 
 which every man could have heard the beating of his own heart, 
 a band of wind instruments near the entrance, of whose pres- 
 ence I had not been aware, poured forth a few sweet and solemn 
 strains, which floated up the nave and overflowed the whole in- 
 terior. The effect of this invisible music was beyond any thing 
 I have ever heard or expect to hear. The air seemed stirred 
 with the trembling of angelic wings, or as if the gates of heaven 
 had been opened, and a ' wandering breath ' from the songs of 
 seraphs had been borne to the earth. How fearfully and won- 
 derfully are we made ! A few sounds, which, under ordinary 
 circumstances, would have been merely a passing luxury to the 
 ear, heard at this moment, and beneath this dome, were like a 
 purifying wave, which, for an instant, swept over the soul, bear- 
 ing away with it all the soil and stains of earth, and leaving it 
 pure as in infancy. There was, it is true, a refluent tide ; and 
 
TRANSl'BSTANTLVnON. 583 
 
 the world, displaced by the solemn strain, came back with the 
 echo ; but though we ' cannot keep the heights we are competent 
 to gain,' we are the better for the too brief exaltation." 
 
 The eloquent Protestant has beautifully described his own 
 feelings ; but who shall adequately describe those of the humble 
 Catholic ? I cannot. Language is poor. There are some holy 
 things beyond its power. 
 
 18. Testimony of the Fathers Discipline of the Secret. 
 
 In order to understand the meaning of the Fathers, and to 
 explain certain passages of their writings, it is necessary to un- 
 derstand the practice of the early suffering Church, in reference 
 to the mysteries. For several centuries it was the general prac- 
 tice to hide, as far as practicable, the leading mysteries of the 
 Christian Religion from Pagans, and even from the catechumens. 
 A knowledge of these mysteries was generally communicated to 
 the baptized, or to the initiated, as they were called. This 
 practice was called the Discipline of the Secret. 
 
 St. Clement, of Alexandria, is the first writer who mentions 
 this Discipline, but he speaks of it without hesitation, doubt, or 
 apology, as a practice in the Church, and grounds it upon these 
 words of Christ : " Cast not your pearls before swine," <fcc. 
 
 " And since not this tradition alone," says he, " is made 
 manifest to him who has felt the greatness of the Word, 
 the wisdom spoken in a mystery, which the Son of God taught, 
 is to be concealed." " He (Christ) has permitted us to impart 
 the divine mysteries, and that holy light, to those who are able 
 to receive them." " We have performed our task in such a 
 manner as to render the discovery of the holy traditions no easy 
 task for any of the uninitiated." (Stromata, L. i., n. 12, p. 348. 
 Strom., L. i., n. 1, p. 323. Id. L. v., n. 12, p. 886.) 
 
 Tertullian, speaking of heretics, says : " In the first place it 
 is doubtful who is a catechumen, who a believer : they have all 
 access alike ; they hear alike ; they pray alike ; even if heathens 
 come in upon them, they will cast that which is holy unto dogs ; 
 and pearls, false though they be, before swine.' 1 
 
 Origen says : " Celsus frequently calls our doctrine hidden, 
 though the gospel of the Christians is, almost throughout the 
 whole world, better known than the opinions of philosophers. * * 
 
584: TRANS UBSTANTIATIO.N. 
 
 But there being, besides the exoteric doctrines, some things 
 which are not manifested to the crowd, is not peculiar to the 
 doctrines of Christians only, but was also amongst the philoso- 
 phers, amongst whom some discourses were exoteric, and some 
 also esoteric." (T. i., L. 1, Con. Cels., n. 7.) 
 
 St. Hypolitus: "But see that you do not confide these 
 things to unbelieving and blasphemous tongues, for the danger 
 is not slight, but intrust them to faithful men." 
 
 " And we are also ordered," says St. Cyprian, " to keep what 
 is holy within our own knowledge, and not expose it to be 
 trodden on by swine and dogs." (Lebn. ad Demetr. 423.) 
 
 "These mysteries," says Archelaus, "the Church now 
 unfolds to those who are passed from the class of catechumens ; 
 to the Gentiles it is not the custom to manifest them." (Disp. 
 cum Manete.) 
 
 Lactantius says : " Beyond the mere words, he cannot please 
 those who are ignorant of the sacrament, inasmuch as the 
 things that he has written are mystical, and purposely designed 
 to be understood by the faithful only." This is said in reference 
 to St. Cyprian's writings. (Divin. Justit., 1. v., c. i.) 
 
 One of the chapters of Eusebius is headed thus : " That it 
 beseems not to make known to all, the more venerable doctrines 
 of truth." (Prap. Evarig., 1. xii., c. 7.) 
 
 And St. Athanasius says: "As to the mystic cup, what was, 
 or when was it broken by Macarius? * * * Nor are they (the 
 Arians) ashamed to display publickly the mysteries before the 
 catechumens ; and what is worse still, before the heathens." * * 
 " For the mysteries ought not to be publickly exhibited to the 
 uninitiated, lest the Gentiles, who understand them not, scoff; 
 and the catechumens, becoming curious, be scandalized." (Apol. 
 Cant. Arian., n. xi., t. i., p. 105.) 
 
 I might add the testimony of St. Gregory of Myssa, St. 
 Basil, St. Philastrius, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. J. Chry- 
 sostom, and many others ; but it is unnecessary, as the fact 13 
 not disputed. 
 
 It has sometimes been denied that the Eucharist was had 
 among the mysteries. But the extracts from St. Athanasius 
 and Lactantius are clear that it was. So the testimony of St. 
 Gregory of Myssa is full to that point. If a mystery, it came 
 
TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 58& 
 
 under the general discipline which included all mysteries. And 
 St. Ambrose says : " The time admonishes us to treat of the 
 mysteries, and to proclaim the meaning of the sacraments." 
 And St. Augustine says : " If we say to a catechumen, 4 Dost 
 thou believe in Christ ? ' he will answer, ' I do believe,' and 
 sign himself: he already carries on his forehead the cross of 
 Christ, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord. So he has 
 believed in his name. Let us ask him : ' Durst thou eat the 
 flesh of the Son of man, and drink the blood of the Son of 
 man ? ' he knows not what to say, because Jesus has not trusted 
 himself to him." (T. iii. Trac. xi. in Joan. Ev., n. 3.) And St. 
 Paladius says : " And the evil stopped not here, but the Soldiers, 
 of whom some, as we have learned, were even uninitiated, en- 
 tering into where the holy things were deposited, saw every 
 thing that was within, and the most holy blood of Christ, so 
 great was the tumult, was spilt upon their dress." (De Yita. S. 
 J. Chrys. Dia., c. 2.) 
 
 St. Cyril, of Alexandria, says : " When he (the catechumen) 
 has joined his praise to that of the perfect (initiated), he with- 
 draws from the more secret mysteries, and is excluded from 
 Christ's sacrifice." (T. L, lib. xii., De Ador. in Sp. et Vir., p. 
 445.) 
 
 Theodoret also places the Eucharist among the mysteries. 
 And Tertullian, in his Apology, says : " It is the common law 
 of all mysteries to keep them secret." 
 
 If, then, we wish to correctly understand what were the sen- 
 timents of the early Church, we must look mainly to those in- 
 structions given to the initiated, and not so much to those in- 
 tended for the multitude without, in which the language used 
 is often obscure, in pursuance of the Secret Discipline. 
 
 19. Testimony of St. Ignatius. 
 
 The first Father who speaks of this doctrine, is Ignatius, 
 Bishop of the great Eastern city of Antioch for forty years, and 
 a holy martyr under the Emperor Trajan. This holy and dis- 
 tinguished person was the disciple and friend of the apostles ; 
 particularly of St. Peter and St. John. In A. D. 106, in his old 
 age, and about six years after the death of St. John, the perse- 
 cuting Romar Emperor came to Antioch, and had the holy 
 51 
 
586 TRANSUBSTANTIAT10N. 
 
 man brought before him. Ignatius " confessed and denied not," 
 and the Emperor " commanded that he be carried by soldiers in 
 chains unto the great city of Rome, there to be devoured by 
 wild beasts for the public gratification." " When the holy mar- 
 tyr," says the account of his martyrdom, " heard this announce- 
 ment, he cried out with joy : * I thank Thee, O my Master, for 
 that thou hast permitted me to show forth in the penalty 
 I am to suffer, the perfect love I have toward Thee ; and hast 
 associated me with thine Apostle Paul in these iron bands." 
 " From Syria," he says hi his Epistle to the Romans, " unto 
 Rome I carry forward my sufferings, by land and sea, night and 
 day ; enchained of ten leopards, which are the soldiers ranked 
 around me ; who by kindness are made harsher." 
 
 On his journey to Rome, he visited the Holy Poly carp, 
 Bishop of Smyrna, the " Angel " of Smyrna mentioned in Rev. 
 ii. 811. During his journey he wrote several Epistles to dif- 
 ferent churches, and one to Polycarp. While at Smyrna he 
 wrote several of them, especially that to the Romans ; and after 
 leaving them at Troas, he wrote his Epistles to Polycarp, and 
 the Church at Smyrna. His Epistles are seven in number, and 
 were separately addressed to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, 
 the Trallians, the Church at Smyrna, the Romans, the Phila- 
 delphians, and Polycarp, 
 
 In his Epistle to the Romans, he besought his brethren not 
 to interfere for his safety, in terms the most simple, touching, 
 and beautiful. " You can give me no better gift," says he, 
 " than my immolation to God, while yet the altar is ready." " I 
 long for the wild beasts that are prepared for me." " Fire and 
 the cross, the assaults of beasts, the rending of my bones, the 
 laceration of my limbs, the crushing of my whole frame, dire 
 tortures of Satan, let them come upon me, so that I but go to 
 Christ." " Have pity on me, my brethren." " Suffer me to 
 imitate the sufferings of my God." " If, when I come among 
 you, I claim of you to interfere for my preservation, yet listen 
 not to me. Keep faith rather with the terms in which I now 
 write to you. I live, but while I am writing to you, I long to 
 die. My affections are crucified." " This is no time for holding 
 peace ; when Christianity is hated of the world, it calls for high 
 exertions." " I have written to you in few words. Place con 
 
TRANS INSTANTIATION. 587 
 
 fidence in me. Surely Jesus Christ shall make this manifest to 
 you, that I have spoken truly." " Remember in your prayers 
 the Church that is in Syria, which hath God for its shepherd 
 instead of me. Its only Bishop now will be Jesus Christ, and 
 your love. I feel unworthy to bear the name of my flock. I 
 am the last among them." 
 
 Before he arrived at Rome, and after landing at a place 
 called Portius, a short distance from the city, " he was met by 
 certain brethren, whose minds were in a mingled state of fear 
 and joy." "To some of them he expressed a wish that they 
 should hold back from interference ; as in the ardor of their 
 feelings, they declared their intention of inducing the populace 
 to ask that this good man might not be killed. Knowing this, 
 he implored all, after saluting them, to show him a true love ; 
 expressing himself more largely on the point than in his Epistle ; 
 and entreating them not to injure the prospects of one who was 
 hastening to his Lord. And so, with all the brethren on their 
 bended knees, he besought the Son of God for the churches, 
 that he would remove from them this persecution, and confirm 
 the brotherhood in all mutual love." " He was thrown to the 
 wild beasts close to the temple." " We personally witnessed 
 every thing," say the writers of this account, " and passed the 
 following night within doors, in tears ; and often knelt we down, 
 and addressed to the Lord a prayer, that He would strengthen 
 that reliance in Him, which the event of the day had tended to 
 disturb." 
 
 We owe it to Polycarp that these important Epistles were 
 preserved to after ages. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he 
 says : " Obeying the bishop and the presbytery with an entire 
 mind ; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortal- 
 ity ; an antidote that we should not die, but live forever in Jesus 
 Christ." In his Epistle to the church at Smyrna, he speaks of 
 the Doceta, who denied that Christ had a real body, and says : 
 " He (Christ) suffered all these things for us, and for our salva- 
 tion ; and he verily su-ffered, as He in verity also raised himself 
 again ; and not, as some unbelievers say, that He suffered in ap- 
 pearance only, being themselves only an appearance ; and ac- 
 cording to their belief, so shall it be unto them, seeing that they 
 are Phantastics and Demoniacs." He further speaks of these 
 
588 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 heretics, and says : " But I forewarn you against beasts in ha- 
 man shape ; these you must not only not admit to your society, 
 but, if possible, not even come in their way. Only pray for 
 them, that if by any means they may repent." * * * " They (the 
 heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they 
 confess not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins, which the Father 
 in his mercy raised again. They, therefore, who deny the gift 
 of God, perish in their disputing. Well had it been for them 
 to make much of it, that they also might rise again." The same 
 sentiments are expressed in his Epistle to the Romans, and in 
 that to the Philadelphians. 
 
 This language of Ignatius is so plain, and the intention so 
 manifest, that I am not aware of any attempt to explain them 
 away by any Protestant writer. For he does state most expli- 
 citly, that the " Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ / " and then to make it still more clear and certain as to 
 what flesh he did mean, he says : " the flesh which suffered for 
 our sins, which the Father, in his mercy, raised again." And 
 he calls those heretics who denied this doctrine ; and ascribes 
 an efficacy to the Eucharist, which could only belong to it in 
 the view of one who held the Real Presence of Christ in this 
 Sacrament. He says : " Well had it been for them to make 
 much of it, that they also might rise again ; " clearly alluding 
 to the words of our Lord : " Whoso eateth my flesh, and drink- 
 eth my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the 
 last day." (John vi. 54.) 
 
 But, Old Martyr, what right had you to say so ? What 
 right had you to put forth that as a doctrine of the Church ? 
 You speak of it, in your Epistle to the church at Smyrna, over 
 which the sainted Poly carp then, and for many years afterwards, 
 presided as bishop, as a doctrine of the Church ; for you intro- 
 duce it <* without hesitation, doubt, or apology," as our Dr. 
 Paley has it. And where did you find this wonderful and vis- 
 ionary doctrine ? Were you the inventor ? Did your acute 
 and metaphysical mind originate it ? You were the disciple of 
 the apostles were instructed and appointed by them ^-and 
 claimed to have learned all you knew of Christianity from them. 
 Did you learn this doctrine from the author of St. John's Gos- 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATTON. 589 
 
 pel ? If not, you were in great haste to introduce heresy. This 
 was certainly very inconsistent in you. Did you not warn your 
 Magnesian brethren not to " be led astray by strange doctrine, 
 nor by old fables, which are unprofitable " ? Did you not urge 
 the Trallians " to use only the Christian nourishment, and to 
 abstain from, that strange herb, which is heresy"? And did 
 you not urge upon all the necessity of unity, and to " concur in 
 professing the name of one faith, and one Jesus Christ " ? And 
 did you not urge holy Polycarp to " be in all things ' wise as 
 the serpent and harmless as the dove ' " ? Did you not warn 
 him to " stand firm as the anvil under the stroke " ? How then, 
 in the face of all these expressions, could you introduce this 
 strange doctrine ? And how could you, on your very way to 
 martyrdom, after using the glowing, yet simple language, so 
 befitting the valiant martyr for the cause of Christ, put forth 
 such a doctrine ? Was all your firmness, all your devotion, all 
 your tenderness, but assumed, only to give force to your state- 
 ment of this alleged false and absurd doctrine? Did you die 
 with a falsehood in your mouth ? It would seem impossible, 
 old Christian hero, that you did. 
 
 But were you not deceived yourself? And how could this 
 be ? You were a leading man, eminent for talents, zeal, and 
 fidelity, and for many years bishop of the great city of Antioch ; 
 and your memory has ever been sweet to your brethren. Your 
 reputation for all the qualities that meet and mingle in the char- 
 acter of the eminent saint, was widely diffused. Your praise 
 was in all the churches. Your Epistles have been transmitted 
 to us of this distant day, and will doubtless go down to later 
 generations. They are full of words of sweet humility and holy 
 confidence, of resignation and hope. Who can read them with 
 a tearless eye ? Who can believe that you were either an im- 
 postor or a dupe ? And if you were a dupe, who made you so ? 
 How did you so soon forget the instructions of the apostles, who 
 converted and appointed you ? Was not this doctrine of such 
 an extraordinary character, as to arrest, at once, your attention, 
 and arouse your determined opposition, if untrue f Your " in- 
 tegrity was insured by the insults you suffered ; " and your 
 ability by the opportunities you enjoyed. How then could you 
 deceive, or be deceived ? 
 
590 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 But if this doctrine be untrue, how did you succeed in de- 
 ceiving the Ephesians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, and the 
 church at Smyrna, and its holy bishop and martyr, Polycarp ? 
 This holy man knew what was in your Epistles, for he preserved 
 them all. Why should he transmit to posterity, uncontradicted, 
 Epistles containing so gross an alleged error ? Was he a faith- 
 ful servant of his Master to do this ? Was he wise as the ser- 
 pent and harmless as the dove, and as firm as the anvil under 
 the stroke ? And is it not clear that he, and the churches to 
 which your Epistles were addressed, agreed with you in senti- 
 ment ? If any, or all of them, disagreed with you, why did they 
 not dissent ? And if they did dissent, why did they not pre- 
 serve and transmit that dissent with your erroneous Epistles to 
 after times ? Why send down the poison without the antidote ? 
 
 But, valiant and intrepid Old Martyr ! had you anticipated 
 what wise men would say of your doctrine in modern times, 
 would you have made the statement you did ? They speak of 
 it in very harsh, indignant, and contemptuous terms. Keen is 
 their ridicule, bitter their sarcasm, and stern their denunciation. 
 Could you have withstood all that ? 
 
 You did not live in an age of printing, steamboats, railroads, 
 and telegraphs. The world is now endowed with a sensibility 
 it never felt before. Had you lived in these bright days, you 
 could have been able to decide upon the truth or falsity of an 
 alleged Christian mystery, simply from its supposed absurdity ; 
 or scientific reasonableness, as apparent to improved human in- 
 telligence. But you seem to have acted upon a different prin- 
 ciple. You trusted to the positive instructions of the apostles, 
 for your faith in this great mystery. What they taught, you 
 were content to believe. You did not dispute upon abstract 
 grounds, as to such a mystery, but condemned those who did. 
 And after all our progress in the arts and sciences, it is still 
 somewhat doubtful whether our reasoning powers are much im- 
 proved, and very doubtful whether our memories, or our Chris 
 tian knowledge, have improved at all. And I must still think, 
 that had you foreseen all the hard things substantially said 
 against you by the wise and learned men of modern times, 
 that you would, nevertheless, have written what you did. You 
 evidently acted upon the example of the apostles, to tell the 
 
TRANSUBSTAN'J IATION. 591 
 
 truth and take the consequences. For I am told, in the history 
 of your martyrdom, that you withstood the mighty Roman Em- 
 peror to the face, and remained firm under all his frowns and 
 ridicule. You neither feared his power nor heeded his sarcasm, 
 when he pronounced against you this sentence : " We command 
 that Ignatius, who says that he carries about within him one 
 who has been crucified, be carried by soldiers in chains to the 
 great city of Rome, there to be devoured by wild beasts, for 
 the public gratification." 
 
 What, then, shall we think of you and of your testimony ? 
 You said to your Roman brethren, " Place confidence in me." 
 Old Soldier of the Cross, for one, I do. I respond to that re- 
 quest. I love your memory. I covet your company. I ask 
 your prayers. I can see nothing to prove you either a knave 
 or a fool either an impostor or victim. I have read your 
 Epistles. They are beautiful. They are full of ardent piety. 
 They speak in the strain of candor and humility. I can see no 
 vein of vice or deception peeping out at any point. If you in- 
 tended to conceal any cheat or imposition, most successfully 
 have you done it. I confess myself too weak to detect it. And 
 I iind nothing in your history to enable me to come to any 
 other conclusion than that you were both honest and intelligent. 
 As such I trust you, whatever wise wits may say, either of you 
 or of the doctrine you held. They may call you a " mystic," 
 a " visionary," and say you were fond of old wives' fables, (the 
 very thing you wrote against,) but it was by such mystics and 
 visionaries as you that Christ's Kingdom was built up ; and all 
 these arbitrary and unsupported assertions are more than over- 
 come by your exemplary life, your noble Epistles, and your 
 glorious martyrdom. 
 
 20. Testimony of St. Justin and of St. Trenceus. 
 
 The next Father who speaks upon this subject is the holy 
 Justin, the -philosopher and martyr, and usually called Justin 
 Martyr. He was born in Samaria, of heathen parents, and grew 
 up ignorant of Christianity. He was vigilant in the pursuit of 
 knowledge, and joined different sects of philosophers, and was 
 yet dissatisfied. One day he was wandering by the sea side, when 
 he met an oL' iran, who preached unto him Jesus, which led to 
 
592 TEANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 his conversion in A. D. 132, about thirty years after the death of 
 St. John. About eighteen years after this he fixed his residence 
 at Rome, where he composed several writings in defence of the 
 Gospel. He was also a distinguished preacher. Among the 
 works he composed was his Apology for the Christian Religion, 
 presented to the Roman Emperor, Antoninus Pius. In A. D, 
 167 he suffered martyrdom at Rome. He and his companions 
 were arrested, and brought before the Roman Prefect, Rusticu^ 
 who asked, " Art thou not, in short, a Christian ? " And Justin 
 answered, " Yea, I am a Christian." The other glorious mar- 
 tyrs also answered, each for himself, U I, too, am a Christian." 
 After in vain attempting, by threats and arguments, to induce 
 them to sacrifice to the heathen gods, and after they had told 
 the Prefect, " Do what thou wilt, for we are Christians, and do 
 no sacrifice to idols," he pronounced this sentence : " Let such 
 as refuse to do sacrifice to the gods, and to obey the decree of 
 the Emperor, be scourged, and then led away to capital punish- 
 ment, in pursuance of the laws." In accordance with this de- 
 cree, they suffered. 
 
 Justin says : " And this food is called amongst us eucharist : 
 of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes what 
 we teach is true, and has been washed in the laver (of baptism) 
 which is for remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who 
 so lives as Christ has delivered. For we do not receive these 
 things as common bread and common drink ; but in the (same) 
 manner as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, being made flesh by the 
 word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation ; even 
 so we have been taught, that the food over which thanksgiving 
 has been made, (eucharistized,) by the prayer of the word which 
 came from him, by which (food) our blood and flesh are nour- 
 ished by transmutation, is both flesh and blood of that same 
 incarnate Jesus. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by 
 them, which are called Gospels, have delivered, that Jesus gave 
 them this injunction : that, having taken bread, and given thanks, 
 he said, Do this in remembrance of me ; this is my body / and 
 that, in like manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, he 
 said, This is my blood ; and that he distributed (them) to these 
 alone." (Apol. i., n. 65, 66, p. 82, 83.) 
 
 The language of this extract is also so plain, and the mean- 
 
TRANS UB8TANTIATION. 593 
 
 ing so clear, that I am not aware that there has ever been a se- 
 rious doubt entertained of the true intention of the writer. He 
 states explicitly that they did not receive these things as com- 
 mon bread and common drink that Christ was made flesh by 
 the icord of God, and even so the food by the prayer of the 
 word which came from Christ, is both flesh and blood of that 
 same Jesus incarnate ; and then to confirm this sense he quotes 
 the words, Do this in remembrance of me: This is my body ; 
 2Viis is my blood. 
 
 It will be seen that Justin departed from the usual practice, 
 under the Discipline of the Secret, in revealing this mystery to 
 one outside the church. The reason why he did so would seem 
 to be this : In his Apology he assumed to set out the leading 
 tenets of his religion ; and as it was a professed statement of 
 those tenets, intended for the Emperor, the head and represent- 
 ative of the whole Empire, it was proper he should state the 
 facts plainly. There was a respect due to the head of the na- 
 tion, and to officers, not due to individuals, as such. In the 
 letter from the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Philome- 
 linm, giving an account of the martyrdom of the holy Polycarp, 
 which took place under the Roman Emperors, Marcus Aurelius 
 and Lucius Verrus, it is stated, that when the Proconsul had 
 urged the holy man to " swear by the fortune of Caesar," he re- 
 plied, " I am a Christian ; and if you wish to hear the Christian 
 doctrine, appoint me a time, and hear me." The Proconsul an- 
 swered, " Persuade the people." Polycarp replied, " To you I 
 thought it right to give account, for we have been taught to 
 give to rulers and the powers ordained of God, such fitting 
 honor as hurteth not our souls ; but them I deem not worthy, 
 that I should defend myself before them." 
 
 The third Father who mentions this subject is Irenaeus, 
 Bishop of Lyons in France, who was born about forty years 
 after the death of St. John, and who was the disciple of Polycarp. 
 He, and nineteen thousand of his flock, were martyred at Lyons, 
 by a mob, A. D. 202. Irenaeus says : 
 
 " But how shall they feel assured that that bread, over which 
 thanksgiving has been made, is the body of their Lord, and the 
 chalice of his blood, if they do not declare him the Son of th 
 World's Creator ? " " But how again do they say, that that 
 
f>!M TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 flesh which is nourished by the body of the Lord, and by Ma 
 blood, passes into corruption, and partakes not of the life ? " 
 (Adv. Haeres., 1. iv., c. 18, n. 4, 5, p. 251.) 
 
 "But if it (the flesh) is not saved, then neither did the Lord 
 redeem us by his blood ; nor is the chalice of the Eucharist the 
 communication of his blood ; nor is the bread which we break 
 the communication of his body." * * * "Since, therefore, both 
 the mingled cup and the created bread receive the Word of 
 God, and the Eucharist becomes Christ's body and blood, and 
 out of these the substance of our flesh increases and subsists, 
 how can they say that the flesh is not susceptible of the gift of 
 God, which (gift) is life eternal, that flesh which is nourished 
 by the body and blood of the Lord, and is his member?" 
 (Ibid., 1. v., c. 2, n. 2, 3, p. 293, 294.) 
 
 This language seems too plain to be misunderstood. 
 
 Between Irenseus and St. John, the apostle, there was only 
 one link, the martyr Polycarp. As we have seen, Polycarp 
 was the intfmate friend of Ignatius, and alike distinguished in 
 the church. He was then, doubtless, well acquainted with the 
 faith of Ignatius. The historical facts and circumstances relat- 
 ing to these persons all show that Ignatius and Polycarp held 
 the same faith. The fact that Irenaeus held this doctrine, and 
 he being the disciple of Polycarp, of whom and of whose faith 
 he speaks so plainly and confidently, is very conclusive proof 
 that Polycarp and the Church at Smyrna held this same faith. 
 Irenaeus also expressly declares, as we have seen, that the church 
 throughout the world held the same faith^ and was united in 
 the same government. The only exception was the heretics of 
 those days, who did hold doctrines that no one now can en- 
 dorse. Their heresy consisted in opinions that Protestants will 
 not maintain. Those heretics who denied that Christ had a 
 real body, of course were compelled to deny his Real Presence 
 in the Eucharist. 
 
 Ignatius was from Antioch, and wrote on his way to Rome. 
 Justin resided and wrote at Rome. Irenaeus was Bishop of 
 Lyons in France, and wrote there. These writers, and the 
 churches to whom they wrote, and in which they lived, were 
 widely separated, and yet they all agreed in this doctrine. If, 
 then, the fact be certain and sure, that the Catholic Church, in 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 595 
 
 the days of Irenaeus, was united while still spread over the whole 
 world, the church must have then held this doctrine. For it 
 would seem impossible to reconcile any other state of case with 
 the ciearly proved facts of history. First we have the explicit 
 testimony of Ignatius. We then have the testimony of Poly- 
 carp, and of the Churches to which Ignatius addressed his Epis- 
 tles ; for while they have not, in so many words, expressly en- 
 dorsed the sentiments expressed by Ignatius, they did so by 
 their explicit acts. Then we have the testimony of Justin, who 
 assumes to state, for the Roman Emperor, the faith of the Chris- 
 tian world. He must be presumed to have done what he ex- 
 pressly undertook to do ; for he gave the most conclusive proofs 
 that he was both competent and honest. Then comes Irenaeus, 
 who also states the faith of the Catholic Church, which he af- 
 firms was then spread in unity throughout the whole world. 
 And against the array of testimony as to the historical fact, that 
 the church, from the days of Ignatius in A. D. 106, down to the 
 time of Irenaeus in A. D. 178, did hold this doctrine, what is 
 there to oppose ? Who disputed it ? What divisions and con- 
 troversies did aiise ? Who denounced it, except those heretics 
 that all condemn ? Where were those who held the true faith, 
 if this was not? How, then, did this doctrine get into the 
 church, if not originally in it ? Why were other heresies de- 
 nounced, and this not noticed, if it was a heresy ? Who can 
 account for such a remarkable phenomenon under such a state 
 of circumstances ? What rational hypothesis can be assumed 
 for such a supposed case ? 
 
 21. Testimony of the Fathers subsequent io the days of 
 Irenceus. 
 
 In reference to the faith of the church after the days of 
 Irenaeus and down to the beginning of the sixth century, the 
 testimony of the Fathers regarding this point is so full, that I 
 can only quote a few passages from their numerous works. In 
 my examination of the authority of the early church writers, I 
 found Protestant controvertists, in many cases, claiming their 
 authority against this tenet. Of course they were obliged, by 
 every rule of right, reason, and justice, to specify the particular 
 Fathers, and quote from their works the passages, at. least in 
 
596 TRANSUBSTANTIATION". 
 
 part, that were alleged to be opposed to this doctrine. My 
 course was to take the passage from a particular writer, and 
 keeping in view the practice under the Discipline of the Secret, 
 and making a due allowance for the circumstances under which 
 the author wrote, and especially the precise point he was dis- 
 cussing, to compare it with other passages from the same author. 
 No author speaks with the same certainty in all places ; and it 
 is only by comparing all he says upon the same point that we 
 can hope to do him justice. In this way I found no serious diffi- 
 culty. I found Protestant writers neglecting the Discipline of 
 the Secret, and often quoting from those writings of the Fathers, 
 expressly intended for strangers; and, therefore, purposely 
 general, and not explicit as to the mysteries. In reference to 
 St. Clement, of Alexandria, certain Protestant writers have in- 
 sisted that this Father never interpreted the language of the 
 Sixth of John, in a literal sense, and to prove it, they quote 
 from his allegorical interpretation of that chapter. The fact 
 was, that this Father had interpreted this chapter in both a 
 literal and figurative sense, and after giving the literal sense, 
 then professedly declares the other interpretations allegorical. 
 
 St. Clement, of Alexandria, A. D. 190: " Eat my flesh, he 
 saith, and drink my blood. The Lord supplies us with these 
 befitting aliments, and gives flesh and pours forth blood ; and 
 nothing is wanting for the children's growth. Oh the incredi- 
 ble mystery." (Pasdag. 1. i., c. vi.) 
 
 Origen, 216 : " You who have been accustomed to be present 
 at the divine mysteries, know that when you receive the body 
 of the Lord, you take care, with all caution and veneration, lest 
 any part thereof, however small, should fall, lest any portion of 
 the consecrated gift should be lost. For if any part of it should 
 fall, through your negligence, you think yourselves guilty ; and 
 you think rightly." (T. ii. Horn. xiii. in Exod. n. 3.) 
 
 St. Cyprian, 248 : "The mouths sanctified with heavenly food, 
 after the body and blood of the Lord rejected the profane con- 
 taminations and the leavings of idols." 
 
 " The fallen against the upright, and the wounded against 
 the sound, utters threats ; and because he does not at once re- 
 ceive with defiled hands the Lord's body, or drink with polluted 
 month the Lord's blood, the sacrilegious is wrathful against the 
 priest's." (De Lapsis, p. 372, 377, 380-382.) 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 597 
 
 " Since, therefore, he says, that whosoever shall eat of his 
 bread shall live forever ; and as it is manifest that those live 
 who touch his body, and receive the eucharist by right of com- 
 munication, so, on the other hand, it is to be feared, and is mat- 
 ter for prayer, lest any of us, who while cut off is separated 
 from the body of Christ, remain far from salvation, according to 
 nis threat and word : Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of 
 Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (De 
 Orat. Dom., p. 420-1.) 
 
 St. Cornelius, 252 : " When he (Novatian) has made the ob- 
 lations, and is distributing a portion to each, at the time that he 
 gives it, instead of the blessing, he, seizing with both his hands 
 the hands of the communicant, leaves not hold until each pro- 
 nounces this oath (for I will give his own words) : ' Swear to 
 me, by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, never to 
 desert me, or to return to Cornelius.' " (Ep. Corne. ad Fabium 
 Episc. Antioch. ap. Euseb. H. E., 1. vi., c. 43.) 
 
 St. Dionysius, of Alexandria, 258: "An individual who had 
 been baptized by heretics, and seeing baptism administered in 
 the Catholic Church, was struck with the difference, and ap- 
 plied to St. Dionysius to be rebaptized. He, in his turn, writes 
 for advice to Pope Xystus : ' For I did not dare to renew from the 
 beginning one who had heard the eucharists, and joined in the 
 amen, and stood by the table, and stretched forth his hands for 
 the reception of the holy food, and had received it, and who 
 had partaken, for a considerable time, of the blood of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. But I bade him be of good courage, and with 
 firm faith and a good conscience to come to the participation of 
 the- holy things. But he ceases not from his grief, and trembles 
 to approach the holy table ; and can scarcely bear, even when 
 requested, to be present at the prayers.' " (Ep. ad Xystum, p. 
 163-5.) 
 
 Eusebius, 325 : " And they, who were according to Moses, 
 once in every year sacrificed the paschal lamb on the fourteenth 
 of the first month, in the evening ; but we, who are of the New 
 Testament, on every Lord's Day celebrating our passover, are 
 unceasingly filled with the body of the Lord, we unceasingly 
 partake of the blood of the Lamb." (Ex. Tract, de Paschate, t. 
 i., p. 253-7.) 
 
598 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 St. Theodore, 330 : " And let the catechumens who are in 
 the monasteries, and await the dread remission of their sins, 
 and the grace of the spiritual mystery, learn from you that it 
 behooves them to weep over and bewail their former sins, and to 
 prepare themselves for the sanctification of their souls and 
 bodies, so as to be able to endure the blood and body of the 
 Saviour Lord, to think of which is even terrible." (Ep. 12, t. iv.) 
 
 St. James of Nisibis, 340 : " But our Lord did this before 
 he was apprehended, and leaving the place where he made the 
 passover, and gave his own body that they might eat, and his 
 blood that they might drink, he went with his disciples to the 
 place where he was seized. As, therefore, his body had been 
 eaten, and his blood drank, he was reputed to be among the 
 dead. For our Lord, with his own hands, gave his own body 
 for food ; and though he was not yet crucified, he gave his own 
 blood for drink." (Serm. xiv. de Pash., n. 4-6.) 
 
 St. Liberius, Pope : " This is he, who with five loaves, and 
 two fishes, fed four thousand of the people in the desert. lie 
 could have fed more, had there been more. In fine, he has 
 called many to the nuptials, but now not bread from barley, but 
 a body is served out from heaven." (Or. in Consecr. Marcell. 
 soror. S. Ambrosii. n. i.) 
 
 St. Hilary, 356 : " If, then, Christ truly assumed the flesh 
 of our body, and the man that was born of Mary is truly Christ, 
 and if we truly receive the flesh of his own body under the mys- 
 tery, (and through this we shall be one, because the Father is in 
 him, and he in us,) how is it that a unity of will is asserted, 
 whereas the natural possession (of flesh) through a sacrament, is 
 a sacrament of perfect unity ? " 
 
 " For what we say concerning the natural verity (very 
 nature) of Christ in us, unless we have learned it from him, we 
 say it foolishly and impiously. For himself says, My flesh is 
 truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. He that eateth my 
 flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. 
 (St. John vi. 56-7.) Of the verity of the flesh and blood, there 
 is no room left for doubting. For now, both by the declara- 
 tion of the Lord himself, and by our faith, it is truly flesh and 
 it is truly blood ; and these being received and drunk effect 
 this, that both we are in Christ, and Christ in us. Is not this 
 
TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 590 
 
 the truth ? Let not this be the truth for those who deny that 
 Christ Jesus is true God. He is, therefore, himself in us by 
 means of flesh, and we are in him ; whilst with him, that which 
 we are, is in God." (De Trinitate, 1. viii., n. 13-17.) 
 
 Council of Nice, 325 : " Neither canon nor custom has 
 handed down that they who have not authority to offer, should 
 give the body of Christ to those who do offer." (Con. xviii.) 
 
 St. Athanasius, 362 : In his discourse to the baptized, this 
 great saint speaks thus : " Thou wilt see the Levites bearing 
 bread and a chalice of wine, and arranging the table : as long as 
 the supplications and prayers as yet take not place, there is 
 simply the bread and the cup ; but after that the great and 
 marvellous prayers have been completed, then the bread is the 
 body, and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 " Let us come to the perfection of the mysteries. This 
 bread and this cup are simply such, as long as the prayers and 
 supplications have not as yet taken place ; but after tliat the 
 great prayers and holy supplications have been sent on high, the 
 Word descends into that bread, and that cup, and it is his 
 body." (Mail Nov. Collect. Veter. Script. T. ix., p. 625.) 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 363 : Explaining to the newly bap- 
 tized the abjuration, " I renounce the devil and all his pomps," 
 he says : " Moreover things hung up at idol festivals, either 
 meat, or bread, or other such things which are polluted by the 
 invocation of the unclean spirits, are classed in the pomp of the 
 devil. For as the bread and wine of the Eucharist, before the 
 invocation of the adorable Trinity, was simple bread and wine, 
 whereas, after the invocation, the bread becomes Christ's body 
 and the wine Christ's blood, so in like manner such meats per- 
 taining to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature sim- 
 ple, become, by the invocation of the evil spirits, profane." 
 (Catech. Mystag. i. [xix.,] n. 7.) 
 
 In another catechetical instruction to the newly baptized, he 
 says, among other things : " He himself therefore having de- 
 clared and said concerning the bread, This is my body, who 
 shall dare to doubt henceforward ? And he himself having set- 
 tled and said, This is my blood, who shall ever doubt, saying, 
 This is not his blood ? " 
 
 " Wherefore do not contemplate the bread and the wine as 
 
600 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 bare (elements), for they are, according to the Lord's declara- 
 tion, Christ's body and blood ; for even though sense suggests 
 this to thee, yet let faith stablish thee. Judge not the thing 
 from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiv- 
 ing, that thou hast been vouchsafed Christ's body and blood." 
 
 "These things having learned, and being fully persuaded 
 that what seems bread is not bread, even though sensible to the 
 taste, but Christ's body ; and what seems wine is not wine, even 
 though the taste will have it so, but Christ's blood." (Catech. 
 Mystag. v. [al. 23,] p. 331-2.) 
 
 St. Ephrem, Syrus, 370 : " ' The lion shall eat straw like the 
 ox? (Is. xi. 7.) Because the just as well as sinners eat the 
 living body which is upon the altar." (T. ii. Part 2, Syr. Comm. 
 in Esai.) 
 
 * * * " The reality was by our Lord exhibited, when on 
 Mount Zion he broke his own body and distributed his blood, 
 saying, * Do this in commemoration of me.' " (Id.) 
 
 " The Jewish maidens placed their glory in their veils : in a 
 like veil also do we place our glory, Christ's blood, which is of 
 inappreciable value. The assemblies of those who have aban- 
 doned the right path, have not in their veils the blood of Christ ; 
 they who believe that Jesus has no body, have a figure of his 
 blood, for real blood will be found to be there, whence a real 
 body is not absent." (T. ii. Syr. Serm. xlvii. Adv. Ha3reses.) 
 
 " Become a blameless believer. Partake also of the spotless 
 body of the Lord with ah 1 faith, having a most full assurance 
 that thou sincerely eatest the very Lamb himself" * * * " But 
 that which the only-begotten Jesus Christ, our Saviour, has done 
 for us transcends every thing, both apprehension and words." 
 (T. iii. Gr. Adv. Scrutat.) 
 
 St. Gregory of Nyssa, 370 : " For as a little leaven, accord- 
 ing to the apostle, assimilates to itself the whole mass, so, wl^en 
 that body, which was by God smitten with death, is within our 
 body, it changes and transfers the whole to itself." (T. iii. Orat. 
 Catech. Magn., c. 37.) 
 
 " Again, the bread is, at one time, common bread, but, when 
 the mystery shall have made it sacred, Christ's body it is both 
 called and is." (T. iii. in Bapt. chr., p. 369-71.) " The ques- 
 tion, therefore, was, how the body of Christ in each man gives 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 601 
 
 life to the whole nature of those men in whom there is faith ^ 
 is shared amongst all, and is itself not lessened ? " (T. iii. Orat. 
 Catech. Magn., c. 3V.) 
 
 St. Gregory of Nazianzum, 370 : Speaking of Athanasius, he 
 says; " After being thus nurtured and tutored, as beseems men 
 who are now about to be set over the people, and to handle 
 the mighty body of Christ," &c. (T. i. Or. xxi.) 
 
 Speaking of the manner in which the Jews eat the Paschal 
 ^amb, and his application of that type to our Passover, he says : 
 " But on this occasion the law prescribes to thee the staff that 
 firmly supports, that thou mayest neither stagger in thy reason, 
 when thou nearest of the blood of God, and of -his passion and 
 death ; nor involve thyself in Atheism, in the attempt to play the 
 defender of God, but, without shame or doubt, eat the body, drink 
 the blood, if thou desirest life, neither disbelieving what is said 
 about flesh, nor affected rigorously by what is said of his pas- 
 sion." (Id. Or. xlii.) 
 
 St. Basil, 370 : " With what fear, with what full conviction, 
 with what disposition, should we partake of the body and blood 
 of Christ ? The fear is taught us by the apostle when he says, 
 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, &c. The faith of 
 Christ's words produces full conviction, seeing that he says, 
 This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a com- 
 memoration of me," &c. (Reg. Brev. Interrog. clxxii. T. ii. P. ii.) 
 
 " Rule the eighth. That we ought not to draw distinctions, 
 and to doubt of what is said by the Lord, but be fully per- 
 suaded Chat every word of God is true and possible, even though 
 nature repugn. For therein is the struggle of faith.'* As 
 examples he adduces Matt. xiv. 25-31; John vi. 53-4: The 
 Jews strove among themselves, saying, how can this man give 
 us his flesh to eat? &c. (Luke i. 13, 18-20; Rom. iv. 19-22 
 T. ii. P. i. Horn. Moralia.) 
 
 St. Macarius of Egypt, 371 : * * * "But the children whom 
 ho has begotten of his own seed, and whom he has made par- 
 takers of his grace, in whom the Lord has been formed, he 
 nurtures with a peculiar aliment and food and drink, differing 
 from that of the rest of men, and he gives himself to those who 
 have their conversation with their Father, according to that say- 
 52 
 
602 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 ing of the Lord, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood> 
 abideth in me, and shall not see death." (Horn, xiv., n. 4.) 
 
 B. Isaias, 372 : " If thou desirest to receive the body of 
 Christ, have care that thou bear not in thy heart either anger 
 or hatred against any individual." (Orat. Reg. ad Mon., n. 50.) 
 
 St. Pacian, 372: " One guilty of (taking) human life could 
 not be absolved : shall the violator of the body of the Lord 
 escape ? " (Param. ad Poenit., n. 7.) 
 
 B. Jerom, 385 : " Many also of those who live in the world 
 feel this energizing influence of the Holy Spirit ; I mean those 
 who assist at the altar, and those who approach to partake of 
 the mysteries of Christ, for of a sudden they are filled with joy, 
 and tears, and gladness. Wherefore the Christian is fully con- 
 vinced that he partakes not of mere bread and wine, but of the 
 body in verity, and the blood of the Son of God, sanctified by 
 the Holy Spirit." (Comment, util.) 
 
 St. Siricius, Pope, 386 : Speaking of apostates he says : 
 " Such we order to be cut off from Christ's body and blood, 
 with which, in times past, they were at the new birth redeemed." 
 (Ep. ad Himn., n, 4.) 
 
 Theophilus of Alexandria, 387 : " From this it is manifest 
 that Christ could not have been crucified for demons, lest de- 
 mons might be partakers of his body and blood." (Epis. Pash., 
 n. xi.) 
 
 St. Epiphanius, 385 : " For the only-begotten has come, 
 and so holds our mother the church, that tranquil harbor of 
 peace, our joy, she that breatheth of the cypress of the vine, 
 (cant. i. 14,) and she that beareth to us that grape-cluster of the 
 eulogy, and daily gladdens us with that care-dispelling drink, 
 Christ's blood, unmingled, true." (T. i. Adv. Haeres. [Expos. 
 Fid.] p. 1096-7.) 
 
 St. Ambrose, 385 : " Look to what thou art doing, oh priest, 
 and touch not Christ's body with a fevered hand." (T. ii., 1. i. 
 De Vid., c. x., n. 65.) 
 
 "Perhaps thou wilt say, 'Isee a different thing; how is it 
 that you assert to me that I receive the body of Christ ? ' Tt 
 yet remains for us to prove this also." 
 
 44 Now if human benediction availed so much to change na- 
 ture, what shall we say concerning the divine consecration itself, 
 
Tit AN SUBSTANTIATION. 603 
 
 where the very words of the Saviour operate ? For this sacra- 
 ment which thou receivest is effected by the word of Christ. 
 Now if the word of Elias so availed as to draw down fire from 
 heaven, shall not the word of Christ be of avail to change the 
 natures (species) of the elements ? Concerning the works of 
 the whole world, you have read He spake and they were made ; 
 He commanded and they were created ; the word, therefore, 
 of Christ, which could, out of nothing, make that which was 
 not, cannot it change those things which are, into that which 
 they were not ? " 
 
 " Why seekest thou here the order of nature in the body of 
 Christ, when the Lord Jesus himself was, contrary to nature, 
 born of a virgin ? Real, in truth, was Christ's flesh that was 
 crucified, that was buried ; therefore is this really the sacrament 
 of that flesh." (T. ii. De Mysteriis, c. viii.-ix.) 
 
 Marius Victorinus, 390 : * * * " For if what we receive is 
 the body of Christ, and Christ is life, we ask for supersubstan- 
 tial bread, for riches dwell in Christ bodily." (L. ii. Adv. Arian, 
 n. 8.) 
 
 St. Paulinus, 395. Describing the death of St. Ambrose, he 
 says : " Having come down, he (the priest) presented to the 
 saint the body of the Lord, which, when he had received and 
 swallowed, he gave up the ghost, taking with him a good viati- 
 cum, that his soul, being more refreshed by virtue of this food, 
 might now be gladdened with the companionship of angels, 
 whose life he led on earth." (Vita S. Ambros. [Int. ap. S. 
 Ambr.] n. 47. T. ii. p. xii.) 
 
 St. Jerom, 390 : " But let us understand that the bread 
 which the Lord broke, and gave to his disciples, is the body of 
 the Lord, the Saviour himself saying to them, Take, eat, this is 
 my body ; and that the chalice is that concerning which he 
 again spoke : Drink ye all of this ; for this is my blood of the 
 New Testament which shall be shed for many." (T. i. Ep. 
 cxx. ad Hedebiam, n. ii.) 
 
 "No one can understand the sacraments of the passion of the 
 Lord, and of his body and blood, according to the majesty of 
 the thing." (T. v., 1. xiii.) 
 
 "Besides, we already know that wine is consecrated into 
 the blood of Christ." (T. vii. Comm. in Galat.) 
 
604 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 St. John Chrysostorn, 387: "When you are about to ap- 
 proach to the dread and divine table, and the sacred mystery, 
 do it with fear ;md trembling, with a pure conscience, with 
 fasting and prayer. * * * Reflect, O man, what a sacrifice thou 
 art about to touch ; what a table thou art going to approach : 
 think that though dust and ashes, thou receivest Christ's bodj 
 and blood." (T. ii. In Divin. Nat. Jesu Christ, n. 7.) 
 
 " For whilst they were eating and drinking, having taken 
 bread, he brake, and said, This is my body which is broken for 
 you for the remission of sins. The initiated understood what is 
 said. And again the chalice, saying, This is my blood which is 
 shed for many for the remission of sins. And Judas was pres- 
 ent when Christ said this. This is that body which thou hast 
 sold, oh Judas, for thirty pieces of silver : this is that blood for 
 which, a little while since, thou hast made that- shameful bargain 
 with the impious Pharisees. Oh, the loving kindness of Christ ! 
 Oh, the folly, the madness of Judas ! for Judas sold him for 
 thirty pieces of silver ; but Christ, even after this, refused not 
 to give that very same blood that was sold, for the remission of 
 his sins that sold it, had he but wished it. Judas was present, 
 and was a sharer of that sacred table. * * * But it is at length 
 time to approach to this awful table. Wherefore let us come 
 unto it with becoming sobriety and watchfulness : and let no 
 one be any longer a Judas ; no one wicked ; no one envenomed ; 
 no one bearing one thing on his lips and another in his mind. 
 Christ is present, and now he that set forth that table, the same 
 sets forth this now. For it is not man that makes the things 
 that lie to open view become Christ's body and blood, but that 
 same Christ that was crucified for us. The priest fulfilling his 
 office, stands pronouncing these words : but the power and the 
 grace is of God. This is my body, he says. This word trans- 
 mutes the things that lie to open view. And as that word that 
 said, Increase and multiply and fill the earth, was pronounced 
 indeed but once, but through all time is actually operative on 
 our nature for the procreation of children ; so also, that word 
 uttered but once, makes from that time to this, and till his own 
 advent, the sacrifice perfect, at every table in the churches. 1 ' 
 (T. ii. Horn. i. de Prodit. Judge, n. 5, 6.) 
 
 " Wherefore let us on every occasion obey God, and gainsay 
 
TRANS INSTANTIATION. 605 
 
 nothing, even though what is said seem contrary to our reason- 
 JP^ and sight ; but let his word be more powerful than both, 
 than reasoning and sight. Even so let us act in the matter of 
 the mysteries ; not looking on the things laid out, but holding 
 fast his words. For his word is incapable of being deceived ; 
 but our senses are very easily deceived." (T. vii. Horn. 82, in 
 Matt. n. i. 4-6.) 
 
 St. Gaudentius of Brescia, 387 : " Wherefore that same 
 creator and Lord of nature, who, out of earth, produces bread, 
 out of bread again (for he is both able, and has promised) makes 
 his proper body; and he who, out of water, made wine, also 
 out of wine made his own blood." 
 
 "For when he was delivering the consecrated bread and 
 wine to his disciples, he thus says : This is my body ; this is 
 my blood. Let us believe, I beseech you, him in whom we 
 have believed. Truth cannot lie." (De Paschae Observ. Tr. ii. 
 T. v. Bib. Maxim.) 
 
 Fourth Council of Carthage : " That a deacon, if or- 
 dered, may, in the presence of a priest, administer the eucha- 
 rist of the body of Christ to the people, if necessity require 
 it." (Con. xxxviii.) 
 
 St. Augustine, 400 : " The Jewish sacrifice was formerly, as 
 you know, according to the order of Aaron, in victims of ani- 
 mals, and this in a mystery ; as yet the sacrifice of the body and 
 blood of the Lord was not, which the faithful, and they who 
 have read the Gospel, understand, which sacrifice is now diffused 
 throughout the whole world." 
 
 " But whence did he intrust to us his body and blood ? 
 Out of his humility. For unless he were humble, he would 
 neither be eaten nor drunk." 
 
 " And he was borne in his own hands. Now, how this can 
 be done by any man, who can understand ? For who is carried 
 in his own hands ? By the hands of others a man may be car- 
 ried, but by his own hands no one is carried. How it may be 
 understood literally in David himself we find not, but we do 
 find in Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands ; when 
 committing to us his own very body, he says, This is my body. 
 For he carried that body in his own hands." (T. iv. Enarr. in 
 Ps. xxxiii. Serm. 1, n. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10.) 
 
606 TK AN SUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 " The bread which you see on the altar, after being sanc- 
 tified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That 
 chalice yea, rather that which the chalice contains after be- 
 ing sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ." 
 (T. v. Serra. ccxxvii. ad Infantes, De Sacramentis, in Die. 
 Pashae, n. 1.) 
 
 St. Nilus, 448 : " Before, indeed, the prayer of the priest, 
 and the descent of the Holy Ghost, the things that lie to open 
 view are plain bread and common wine ; but after these awful 
 invocations, and the advent of the adorable, and vivifying, and 
 good Spirit, the things that lie upon the holy table are no longer 
 plain bread and common wine, but the precious and immaculate 
 body and blood of Christ the God of all, which (body and blood) 
 purify from every defilement those who partake thereof with 
 much fear and eagerness." (L. Ep. xliv.) 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, 428: * * * " The hypostatic wis- 
 dom of God the Father, that built for itself a temple not made 
 with hands, distributes its body as bread, and bestows its life- 
 giving blood as wine. Fearful mystery ! Oh, ineffable dispen- 
 sation ! Oh, humility incomprehensible ! Oh, goodness un- 
 searchable ! The Creator sets himself before the work of his 
 hands to be partaken of; the Self-existent gives himself to mor- 
 tals for food and drink." 
 
 "But if Christ's body be food, and Christ's blood be drink, 
 and he be, as they pretend, a mere man, why is he proclaimed 
 as being unto everlasting life, to those who draw nigh to the 
 sacred table ? And how does he dwell both there and every- 
 where, and is not made less ? A mere body is in no way the 
 source of life to those who partake of it." (T. v. Par. ii. Horn, 
 in Mystic. Coenam.) 
 
 I will close these extended extracts with the following beau- 
 tiful passage from Eusebius of the Latin Church: 
 
 " A victim veritably one and perfect, not to be estimated 
 by its appearance, but by faith ; not to be valued by the eye 
 of the outward man, but by inward affection. Hence does the 
 authority of heaven assure us, That my flesh is meat indeed, 
 and my blood is drink indeed. Away, then, with every doubt 
 of unbelief, seeing that he who is the author of the gift, is him- 
 self the witness of the truth. For the invisible priest, by his 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 607 
 
 secret power, converts, by his own word, the visible creatures 
 into the substance of his own body and blood, saying thus, Take 
 and eat, for this is my body, and after the sanctification has 
 been repeated, Take and drink, this is my blood. Therefore, 
 as at the nod of the commanding Lord, there at once sprang 
 into existence out of nothing, the lofty heavens, the deep waves, 
 the vast earth ; with equal potency does the power of the word 
 command, and the realized effect obeys." (De Pash. Horn, vii., 
 t. vi.) 
 
 I have passed over the testimonies of a number of Fathers, 
 and have given those of the more distinguished. It will be 
 seen, upon inspection, to be very explicit. They not only speak 
 of the literal view, " without hesitation, doubt, or apology," but 
 they often expressly say that the initiated understand what they 
 state that it is the faith of the church. They also, in many 
 cases, treat the doctrine as admitted by their opponents, (the 
 heretics,) and from it they make deductions in support of other 
 doctrines, particularly those of the Trinity and resurrection of 
 the dead. They also speak of the Eucharist as a great and aw- 
 ful mystery, and ascribe to it spiritual graces, wholly irrecon- 
 cilable with any other than the literal view. And they urge 
 the faithful to trust the Word of God, and not their senses. 
 They also quote the words, This is my body, and give them an 
 emphasis that could not belong to them, except when taken 
 literally. In short, the whole drift and spirit, as well as the ex- 
 press words of these holy and venerable Ancients, most clearly 
 do prove to my mind, that the doctrine was universally held by 
 the Church of their day; and not only by the Church itself, but 
 by many of the heretics of that time. For, when any of these 
 writers, in their controversies with heretics, assume this doctrine 
 as admitted, they not only assume to state the faith of the 
 Church, but also that of their opponents. When they treat it 
 as conceded ground, it could only be reconcilable with the fact, 
 that it was held by both parties. It was so held by the Nova- 
 tians and Donatists. In their catechetical instructions to the 
 newly baptized, the Fathers are explicit in stating when and 
 how the change occurs in the elements, and by whose word and 
 power it is produced. 
 
 It is true, that many of the Fathers, in imitation of Christ 
 
60S TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 and His apostles, give the same passage different interpretations, 
 but which are still compatible with each other. Examples oc- 
 cur in Scripture, where the passage or incident has two mean- 
 ings. The Fathers often gave both a literal and figurative 
 meaning to the same passage. This was the case with St. 
 Clement of Alexandria, and others. Protestant writers, in quot- 
 ing from the Fathers, have overlooked the Discipline of the 
 Secret, and also the circumstance now mentioned, and have, 
 therefore, produced passages seemingly confirmatory of the 
 figurative sense, or at most equivocal. In this way they have 
 often claimed the authority of certain Fathers, who most clearly 
 maintain the literal sense, such as St. Ambrose, St. John Chry- 
 sostom, St. Augustin, Theodoret, and others. In many cases the 
 quotations are against the figurative view, but are made to sup- 
 port it by a misconstruction. But when these doubtful passages 
 are collated with those that are clear and explicit, the intention 
 becomes so evident, that it would seem to admit of no doubt 
 whatever. 
 
 The only case that seemed to present any reasonable diffi- 
 culty to my mind, was that of Tertullian, A. D. 195. He is 
 claimed as an authority for both sides. In his works intended 
 for the faithful, he seems clearly to speak of the literal sense. 
 
 " The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that 
 the soul also may be fattened of God." (De Resurrect. Carnis., 
 n. 8.) 
 
 But when he is arguing against Marcian, who denied the 
 reality of Christ's body, and maintained that He had a body in 
 appearance only, Tertullian uses language, which, taken by 
 tself, would seem clearly to prove the figurative view. The 
 passage quoted by Protestants is this : 
 
 "The bread received and distributed to the Disciples, he 
 made it his own body, by saying, This is my body ; that is, a 
 figure of my body. But there would not have been a figure 
 unless there were a body of veritable reality." (Adv. Marcian, 
 1. v., n. 40-1.) 
 
 In the context this Father assumes that bread was an ancient 
 figure of the body of Christ, and quotes Jeremias to prove it. 
 The point of his argument being to prove the reality of Christ's 
 body, was as well maintained by holding the figurative as the 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 609 
 
 literal view of the words, This is my body. If either view be 
 true, Marcian was wrong. As the object of Tertullian was to 
 convince the Marcianites, while at the same time he did not ex- 
 pose this mystery to their contempt and ridicule, he may have 
 assumed the figurative sense, under the influence of the Secret 
 Discipline. The figurative sense would answer all the purposes 
 intended, without incurring any danger of injury. Whether he 
 assumed the figurative sense in obedience to the Discipline of 
 the Secret, or whether his meaning is explained by the context, 
 and shows him to have intended the literal sense, or purposely 
 to leave it doubtful, are questions that may admit of reasonable 
 controversy. 
 
 But there are considerations and circumstances, independent 
 of his language, which would seem to put the matter at rest. 
 That he was very strict in his observance of the Discipline of 
 the Secret, is shown by the extract already given from him, to 
 prove its existence in the Ancient Church. He afterwards be- 
 came a Montanist, and while his errors in that respect were con- 
 demned, I am not aware that he was ever accused of error in 
 regard to the Real Presence. By the church historians his real 
 sentiments were always held as those of the other Fathers, and 
 as sustaining the literal sense. The fact that no discussions 
 arose upon this point that no excommunications were made, is, 
 under the circumstances, a very strong proof that the Fathers 
 all held the same doctrine. 
 
 Another circumstance of a very clear character is the fact 
 that the ancient Christians, before and after the days of Ter- 
 tullian, were charged with feasting upon the flesh of infants. 
 St. Justin Martyr says in his Apology, " We are so far from com- 
 mitting any injustice or impiety (as implied in the charge of de- 
 vouring children), that we have learned that none but wicked 
 men expose infants when they were born." And Tertullian 
 says : " Oh ! how great the glory of that magistrate who should 
 hunt out one who has already eaten an hundred infants." 
 (Apol. n. 2.) " We are said to be the most accursed of men, as 
 touching a sacrament of child murder, and thereon to feast," 
 &c. (Apol. 1. c.) 
 
 This charge must have arisen from the doctrine of the Real 
 Presence, and from an erroneous conception of the nature of that 
 53 
 
610 TRANSU INSTANTIATION. 
 
 doctrine, and of the mariner of Christ's presence, as understood 
 by the Christians. And, the very fact that the Eucharist was 
 considered a mystery, can only be accounted for upon the 
 hypothesis that the doctrine of the Real Presence was held 
 to be true. Unless this doctrine was in fact held to bf true, 
 there could have been, it would seem, no sufficient reason 
 to place the Eucharist among the mysteries at" all, much 
 less to conceal it from the Pagans, and even from the catechu- 
 mens. 
 
 The language of Luther in regard to the consent and au- 
 thority of the Fathers in support of the literal sense, is very 
 forcible. 
 
 " That no one among the Fathers," says he, " numerous as 
 they are, should have spoken of the Eucharist, as these men do, 
 is truly astonishing. Not one of them speaks thus : There is 
 only bread and wine : or, the body and blood of Christ are not 
 present. And, when we reflect how often the subject is treated 
 by them, it ceases to be credible, it is not even possible, that 
 not so much as once, such words as these should have dropped 
 from some of them. Surely it was of moment that men should 
 not be drawn into error. Still, they all speak with such pre- 
 cision, evincing that they entertained no doubt of the presence 
 of the body and blood ! Had this not been their conviction, 
 can it be imagined that, among so many, the negative opinion 
 should not have been uttered on a single occasion ? On other 
 points this was not the case. But our Sacrament arians, on the 
 other hand, can proclaim only the negative or contrary opinion. 
 These men, then, to say all in one word, have drawn their no- 
 tions neither from the Scriptures nor the Fathers." (Defensio 
 verborum Coena3, T. viii., p. 391. Edit. Wittemb. 1557, cited 
 Con. H. &B. 317.) 
 
 And it certainly is most unaccountable that, while so many 
 Fathers have, beyond all question, maintained the literal sense, 
 in terms too plain to be misunderstood, that no one opposed to 
 such a view could ever be found to say in plain, explicit, nega- 
 tive terms, " The body and blood of Christ are not present." 
 Certainly, if those who did support the literal sense, did speak 
 in plain terms, those who did oppose it, if any, ought -to have 
 spoken in terms equally explicit. An explicit and plain affirrna- 
 
TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 611 
 
 live assertion of such a doctrine, would instantly produce as 
 plain and explicit a negative, if such was intended. A direct 
 negative must be the opposite of any direct proposition, and 
 would naturally be expressed in opposite terms, and, therefore, 
 be equally plain. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 PENANCE, PURGAT'ORY AN.D INDULGENCES, 
 1. The General Nature of the Sacrament of Penance. 
 
 THAT the great end and purpose of the mission of Christ, 
 was to rescue fallen man from sin, must be conceded by all who 
 really believe in His divine character. That the blood of Christ 
 was most ample to perfect the new law, and put it in a shape for 
 practical administration, in this present mode of our existence, 
 must also be conceded. As we have before insisted, the mercy 
 of Christ was displayed in perfecting the system itself, but when 
 it was once adopted it became a matter of irrevocable promise 
 a matter of law. As judged by this law, (which law is the re- 
 sult of free grace,) we can merit the forgiveness of sins. Our 
 obedience to this law will entitle us to apply the merits of Christ 
 to ourselves. He says, substantially : " If you will obey this 
 law, you may cah 1 my merit your own, and receive the reward 
 accordingly." 
 
 We shall assume that man, under the law of Christ, does 
 possess free agency that he can commit sins before baptism 
 that he can commit them afterwards and that he can obtain 
 forgiveness in both cases. 
 
 That baptism is for the remission of past sins, is clear from 
 the simple and explicit statement of St. Peter to the believing 
 Jews on the day of Pentecost. They cried out : " What shall 
 we do?" and St. Peter promptly answered: "Repent and be 
 baptized for the remission of sins." He did not tell them to 
 believe, because he saw that they did already believe ; and he, 
 therefore, did not do that which would have been idle. Now 
 it is clear that either baptism and repentance are both required 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 613 
 
 for the remission of sins, or that neither is. If we can take out 
 baptism, we can take away repentance. They are both closely 
 joined together by the copulative conjunction, and must form 
 requisites to remission of sins. The language is clear and ex 
 plicit. 
 
 When we look into the system of Christ, we see that He 
 instituted a visible association of men, to which He gave a code 
 of law for the government of each member, and of the whole 
 that He bestowed upon the officers of this visible continuing 
 corporation, all the necessary powers to enforce the practical 
 operation of His law in this world. We see that He used men 
 as His agents, for the application of the law to particular cases. 
 For this reason He instituted external visible ordinances or 
 sacraments, as channels of grace and remission. The adminis- 
 tration of these is committed to the officers of his own kingdom. 
 It could not, in the very nature of things, have been otherwise. 
 If we once concede Christ to have been a lawgiver at all, then 
 we must concede that a visible organization of those submitting 
 to His government would follow that visible sacraments must 
 exist in a visible Church ; and that where those sacraments do 
 exist, the only purpose they can exist for, must be as channels 
 of grace and remission. If a lawgiver, Christ must administer 
 His own law ; either directly by himself, or through His agents 
 or officers. 
 
 If, then, the visible external sacrament of baptism was given 
 for the remission of past sins, and this sacrament cannot be re- 
 peated, is it not necessary, in the very nature of Christ's beauti- 
 ful and harmonious system, that another visible sacrament 
 should exist for the remission of sins committed after baptism ? 
 Are not sins committed after baptism as great, if not greater, 
 than the same sins when committed before baptism, and equally 
 as difficult to remit ? Is not the sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
 intended for believers only ? 
 
 With regard to the faith of the Catholic Church in reference 
 to this sacrament, we shall quote the language of Dr. Wiseman, 
 as found in his Moorfield Lectures, vol. 2, p. 10 : 
 
 " We believe, therefore, that the sacrament of penance is 
 composed of three parts contrition, or sorrow confession, or 
 its outward manifestation and satisfaction, which, in some re- 
 
614: THE SAORAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 spects, is a guarantee of perseverance in that which we 
 promise." 
 
 By contrition the Catholic Church means all that any other 
 Church means by repentance. The Catholic Church, therefore, 
 not only requires all that any other Church does, but also the 
 additional requisites of confession and satisfaction. And all 
 those must be performed worthily, in order to obtain the grace 
 of the sacrament. 
 
 The practice and necessity of confession were required by 
 the old dispensation. We are told that the Lord commanded 
 Moses to " Speak unto the children of Israel, when a man or 
 woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass 
 against the Lord, and the person be guilty, they shall confess 
 their sin which they have done." (Numbers v. 6, 7.) And 
 they were not only required to confess, but to make satisfaction. 
 (Leviticus v., Numbers v.) So Joshua said to Achan : " My 
 son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and 
 make confession unto him ; and tell me now what thou hast 
 done ; and hide it not from me." (Josh. vii. 19.) "He that 
 covereth his sins shall not prosper ; but whoso confesseth and 
 forsaketh them shall have mercy." (Prov. xxviii. 13.) 
 
 It is perfectly natural that the proud should consider con- 
 fession as a burden, while it is equally natural that the humble 
 should esteem it as a privilege. The truly humble penitent will 
 naturally seek relief in confession. We see this proven by 
 general experience. The most penitent criminals are always 
 most willing to make a true confession of their crimes. The 
 tribunal of confession is a kind retreat for the truly sorrowing. 
 It was given by our Lord, in compassion to those who take up 
 their cross, and meekly follow Him, as He required. 
 
 2. Did Christ confer upon the Apostles the powers to remit 
 and retain sins f 
 
 After our Lord had risen from the grave, and before He 
 ascended into heaven, He said unto His disciples : 
 
 " Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit (in 
 the Douay Bible forgive) they are remitted unto them; and 
 whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John xx. 23.) 
 
 The sense is the same in both translations, as to remit and 
 
THE SACKAMKNT OF PENANCE. 615 
 
 forgive sins, mean the same thing. That an entire forgiveness 
 was meant, cannot be doubted. The language is general, and 
 not limited ; and must be as extensive in meaning, as the same 
 expressions used in other passages ; as for example in Luke vii. 
 47, 48 ; Matt. ix. 2. 
 
 From this plain and explicit passage, it is clear that our 
 Lord conferred upon the apostles the power to forgive or remit 
 sins. But ther^was also another power bestowed, the power to 
 retain sins. And not only were these powers bestowed upon 
 the apostles, but our Lord expressly pledged Himself that the 
 exercise of these powers should be ratified by Him, in the same 
 way that He pledged Himself to ratify in heaven, what they 
 should do under the power to bind and loose. (Matt, xviii. 18.) 
 
 In bestowing these important powers, did our Lord do an 
 idle and useless thing ? What did He intend by the very act 
 of conferring these powers ? Surely nothing else but that they 
 should be put into practical operation. They could not have 
 been given without intending to accomplish some great end. 
 The very act of conferring these powers was, in itself, a com- 
 mand to use them for the purposes intended. When the Con- 
 stitution of the United States confers certain powers upon the 
 different departments of government, it was intended that these 
 powers should be put into practical operation ; and the officer 
 who fails to do so, is guilty of a dereliction of duty. 
 
 If, then, these powers were given for practical application, it 
 follows invincibly, that the right to use all the means necessary 
 to carry them into full and complete operation, was also given, 
 as inseparable incidents of the powers themselves. To give the 
 powers, and, at the same time, to deny the use of all the means 
 necessary to carry them into execution, would have been en- 
 tirely idle ; because if would have defeated the very purpose 
 had in view, when giving the powers themselves. It is a plain 
 and fixed principle of the civil law, as well as of the law of com 
 mon sense and of pure justice, to confer the use of the necessary 
 means with the power itself. To give the power, and withhold 
 the means, would be about as sensible and efficient, as the ex- 
 hortation, u be ye clothed and fed." The incident must alwaya 
 follow the principal. Thus Chancellor Kent, speaking of a 
 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, says: 
 
616 THE SACKAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 " The powers given to the government imply the ordinary 
 means of execution ; and the government in all sound reason and 
 fair interpretation, must have the choice of the means which it 
 deems the most convenient and appropriate to the execution of 
 the power." (1 Kent, 252.) 
 
 It would seem impossible for any fair and logical mind, after 
 due consideration, to deny the truth of either of these two 
 propositions: 1. That the power to forgive an,d the power to 
 retain sins, were conferred upon the apostles ; 2. That with the 
 mam powers, were also given all the necessary incidents, to 
 enable the apostles to carry the powers into practical effect. 
 
 These two positions being true, it follows that remission of 
 sins committed after baptism, could only be had through the 
 exercise of this power by the apostles. For it will be observed, 
 that they had not only the power to remit, but also to retain 
 sins. Both powers were given at the same time ; and both 
 were equally intended for practical application to individual 
 cases. If the transgressor could obtain remission, without the 
 consent of the apostles, then their power to retain sins would 
 have been idle, because inefficient. Christ meant something 
 effectual in giving the power to retain sins ; and, therefore, He 
 could not have intended to confer a contradictory power upon 
 others. He would not give this power to the apostles, and re- 
 quire them to exercise it, and promise Himself to ratify their 
 acts, and at the same time give the party offending, the power 
 to escape the exercise of this function. He said explicitly, 
 "Whose soever sins ye retain they are retained; " and He could 
 not, therefore, violate this promise. If the party offending 
 could obtain remission of sins, without applying to the apostles, 
 who had the power to retain, as well as to remit ; then, as a 
 matter of course, he would not apply to them, for fear they 
 would retain his sins. In practical effect, the exercise of these 
 two most important powers would have been defeated, unless 
 we concede that, when given, they were intended as exclusive 
 and supreme. 
 
 The apostles, then, had the exclusive power to forgive and 
 rotnin sins. What is sin ? It is a violation of the law of 
 Christ. One violation of this law constitutes one sin, and two 
 or more violations constitute sins. Each transgression consti- 
 
THE SACRAMENT OP PENANCE. 
 
 tutes a separate and distinct offence. It is so in all laws defin- 
 ing crimes. If a man steal two different pieces of property, at 
 different times, he commits two separate and distinct offences. 
 
 The power to remit and the power to retain sins, were the 
 powers to remit or retain each particular transgression of the 
 law. How, then, could the apostles remit or retain sins unless 
 they knew what they were ? It was not intended that these 
 great powers should be exercised blindly. It could not have 
 been intended that they should have the powers to remit and 
 retain sin in one undistinguished mass ; because the authority 
 was to remit and retain sins, not sin. If they could remit and 
 retain sin, not sins, without distinguishing between different vi- 
 olations of the law, then the whole end and purpose of these 
 powers would have been substantially defeated. Such a view 
 would confound all distinctions between different sins, and dif- 
 ferent individuals ; and would, by this confusion of all just dis- 
 tinctions, render the exercise of these powers useless. How 
 could the apostles tell what sins to remit or retain, unless they 
 first knew what they were ? 
 
 That each separate and distinct offence was intended, is 
 shown by the command of St. James : " Confess your faults (in 
 the Douay Bible, sins) one to another." (James v. 16.) 
 
 Now here the term sins (in the plural) must mean different 
 transgressions. This is not only clear from the word itself, but 
 from the purpose of the provision. This confession of sins was 
 unquestionably a great duty ; otherwise it would not have been 
 imposed. It was not put upon us for a mere idle purpose. It 
 must have been intended to accomplish something important. 
 But if each individual was only required to confess the general 
 fact that he had sinned, (and not his sins, as the apostle com- 
 manded,) the whole purpose of this command would be defeat- 
 ed ; for the plain reason, that it places all upon the same foot- 
 ing^ the flagrant offender with the most circumspect. For a 
 man simply to say that he is a sinner, is simply to confess that 
 he is as bad as the apostles, for they sinned also. It would be 
 not the slightest humiliation to confess that which att must con- 
 fess. Such a confession is no check upon transgression, as all 
 must equally confess the same thing, and no more, whether they 
 sin much or little. What possible reason could there be in re- 
 
618 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 quiring only such a confession as that ? What good could it 
 accomplish ? What humility could it require ? Each and every 
 one would have plenty of company. Such could not have been 
 the intention of Christ, or of the apostle. 
 
 The right to acquire this knowledge of the particular sins 
 of each individual, must have been given with the delegation 
 of the powers to remit and retain sins, because essentially neces- 
 sary to give force and effect to the powers themselves. How, 
 then, did the apostles attain this knowledge of the sins of indi- 
 viduals ? Did they possess the power to see into the hearts of 
 all men, so as to know their secret thoughts ? If so, what proof 
 is there of this fact ? On the contrary, is it not clear that St. 
 Paul did not know of the divisions among the Corinthians until 
 informed by them of the house of Chloe ? So, a special vision 
 was required to inform him that he could remain safely in a 
 certain city. Arid is it not true, that many who " believed came 
 and confessed, and showed their deeds " ? (Acts xix. 18.) 
 
 The only way in which the apostles could know the secret 
 sins or deeds of individuals, was by their confession. As the 
 apostles had the right to remit or retain, they had the right to 
 know the sins committed ; and as the power, unless exclusive, 
 would have been idle, it was the duty of all to apply to them. 
 The facts being peculiarly within the knowledge of the party 
 committing the sins, it was his duty to state them. The power 
 given to the apostles to do certain things, imposed upon the 
 parties governed, the corresponding duty to obey the apostles 
 in respect to those things. As all sins are but transgressions of 
 the law, the Church has the right to know them for two rea- 
 sons: 1. Because her jurisdiction extends to all violations of the 
 law she was left to execute ; and her entire success and purity 
 require this knowledge ; 2. Because it is necessary for the safe- 
 ty of each individual member. 
 
 3. Did these powers descend to the successors of the Apostles ? 
 
 I have endeavored to show, in another place, that Christ did 
 create a permanent system ; and for that reason, the provisions 
 of His code were generally permanent. In other words, the 
 permanent provisions of any permanent code must constitute the 
 general rule, while the temporary provisions would constitute 
 
. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. (Jl 9 
 
 the exceptions. All the provisions of such a code are, therefore, 
 prima facie permanent ; and the exceptions must be so marked, 
 either by express words or by the nature of the power conferred 
 or command given, as to show that they are temporary only. 
 He who alleges exceptions to a general rule, or to & prima facie 
 case, must show them. This rule results from the plainest prin- 
 ciples of right reason. When we look into the Constitution of 
 the United States, (which organized a permanent system of gov- 
 ernment in the contemplation of the theory itself,) we find that 
 there is not, a single permanent provision expressly marked, as 
 such, while the temporary provisions are so marked. Where 
 permanent powers are conferred, they are given without any 
 limitation, as to time, as the power to collect taxes, borrow 
 and coin money, regulate commerce, declare war, &c. But the 
 temporary provisions are expressly marked, so as to be readily 
 distinguished from the permanent features of this instrument ; 
 as, for example, in clause 3, section 1, and in clause 1, section 9, 
 and in clause 2, section 3, of article 1, and in article 5. It is 
 much easier to expressly mark each of the few exceptions than 
 to expressly mark each of the numerous cases coming under 
 the general rule. 
 
 It would seem clear that this rule is equally as applicable to 
 the system of Christ as to that of any other lawgiver. That He 
 did organize a permanent system, is certain ; and that the great 
 and overwhelming mass of the provisions of His code are per- 
 manent and component parts of this system of law, is equally 
 certain. 
 
 But we are not left without express authority to sustain this 
 view. 
 
 These positions would seem to be true : 1. That the act of 
 conferring these powers upon the apostles was a command to 
 exercise them in proper cases ; 2. That the powers are such, in 
 their very nature, as may come down, through the Church, to 
 the end of time. 
 
 Now, in the commission, the apostles were expressly com- 
 manded to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever 
 they the apostles had been commanded to observe. As I 
 have elsewhere endeavored to show, this wide commission, by 
 its very express terms, carried forward to the successors of the 
 
620 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 apostles, in their proper capacities, all the powers, promises, and 
 duties incumbent on, or given to, the apostles themselves, except 
 those marked as temporary, either in express words, or by the 
 peculiar nature of the act to be performed.* The apostles hav- 
 ing been commanded to exercise these powers, and they, being 
 permanent in their nature, and nowhere marked as temporary, 
 must still reside in the Church, the permanent institution cre- 
 ated by Christ Himself. Those who once concede that these 
 powers were originally conferred upon the apostles, will find it 
 very difficult to escape this conclusion ; for if they can defeat 
 the present existence of these powers in this case, they can, 
 upon the same basis of reasoning, defeat all the powers of the 
 Church, and the entire system itself.f 
 
 But let us inquire into the purposes for which these powers 
 were originally delegated. They were certainly bestowed by 
 
 * That the apostles exercised powers of government over the Church in their 
 day, cannot be denied. That this exercise of power was supreme over the indi- 
 vidual members of the Church, must be true. That a portion of these powers 
 came down to their successors, must be admitted. How, then, shall we distin- 
 guish between those duties which were personal to the apostles and those not so ? 
 In other words, how shall we distinguish between the permanent and temporary 
 provisions of the code ? We must make the distinction. I cannot conceive of 
 any other possible and efficient rule than the one I have given. 
 
 f Bishop Porteus seems to have been aware of the decisive strength of this 
 position ; and, therefore, insisted that the words of Christ did not confer upon 
 the apostles any real power to forgive sins, but only "a power of declaring who 
 were truly penitent, and of inflicting miraculous punishments on sinners, as like- 
 wise the preaching the word of God," &c. (Cited End of Con., Part iii., p. 83.) 
 
 But how such a misconstruction of so plain a passage could have been tole- 
 rated by any learned man, is surprising. The text is exceedingly explicit, and 
 the two main words, remit and sins, upon which the sense depends, are remark- 
 ably definite and certain in their meaning. It so happens that these terms can 
 mean nothing else in that connection but the view I have taken. Lawgivers 
 are not wont to indulge in the use of mere surplus words. Their aim is to b 
 concise and certain. Now could Bishop Porteus, or any other man, select words 
 more concise and certain than those used by our Lord, conceding that He intend- 
 ed to confer the real power to forgive and retain sins ? What form of words 
 could be used in such a case more clear, without useless verbiage ? I cannot 
 conceive of terms more clear and concise. And if this be true that Christ did 
 use the most concise and certain terms possible, to confer a real power, then 
 what right have we to say He still did not intend to make such a delegation of 
 power ? It was our Lord's practice to use concise and certain terms. 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 621 
 
 our Lord for great and beneficial ends. It was not an idle 
 display of words only. Far from it. What, then, could these 
 purposes be ? It could not have been a mere personal privilege 
 given to the apostles alone. We cannot conceive of any practi- 
 cal ends to be accomplished by it, as such. Miracles were spe- 
 cial gifts. This gift of miracles was given to the apostles 
 individually, as proofs of their veracity as witnesses of the facts 
 they saw, and of the discourses they heard. The words of 
 Christ was the evidence of their commission as officers of the 
 Church, in the same way that these same words will constitute 
 the evidence of the authority of their successors to the end of 
 time. 
 
 But the power to remit, and the power to retain sins, were 
 not required as proofs of the veracity of the apostles as wit- 
 nesses, or of their being agents of Christ. For what purposes 
 were these powers given ? They were given for the safety of 
 the Church, and of each individual member, as already stated in 
 substance. What other purpose could our Lord have intended 
 to accomplish ? The exercise of these powers could constitute 
 no proofs of the truth of Christianity / for the truth of the 
 system had first to be conceded, before the exercise of these 
 powers would be invoked by the individual. If he did not first 
 believe in the existence of these powers, he could not ask for 
 their exercise. 
 
 The very same reasons that induced our Lord to confer 
 those powers upon the apostles at the beginning, would have in- 
 duced Him to continue them in the Church to the end of time. 
 That the actual and practical exercise of these powers was 
 merciful and beneficial to the members of the Church, in the 
 days of the apostles, must be conceded ; for after all the sug- 
 gestions of pride, and the cavils of prejudice, every humble 
 Christian must concede, at last, that such an institution is bene- 
 ficial. It may, then, be well asked, are we living under a muti- 
 lated and crippled code of law, which has lost some of its most 
 beautiful and consolotary features ? If the powers to forgive 
 and retain sins, and the corresponding duty of confession, were 
 confined to the apostolic day, how do we enjoy any benefits 
 from the same ? What good does it do us to know that the 
 apostles did forgive sins that the happy and favored Christians 
 
622 THE SACKAMENT OF PENANCE 
 
 of that day did enjoy the blessed consolation of this certain and 
 not mere inferrential forgiveness ? Could that have been the 
 intention of Christ ? Did He design His system to be perfect 
 at the beginning, and imperfect afterwards ? Did He intend to 
 make this great difference among Christians ? If so, why ? Is 
 there any reason for it any Scripture ? We are all living un- 
 der the same dispensation. What was necessary then, is neces- 
 sary now. As witnesses the apostles left their testimony with 
 the Church, and we enjoy the benefit of it at this day, as much 
 as our brethren did in their day. But if these great and im- 
 portant powers to remit and retain sins, be taken away, we are, 
 indeed, left in a state of destitution. This cannot be true. 
 Either Christ never gave these powers, or they yet remain in 
 the Church, and will continue there, with the other permanent 
 powers, to the end of time. 
 
 But there are the best reasons for the practice of confession. 
 Is not man a frail creature, that needs discipline and aid at every 
 step of his perilous journey through life ? And yet can any 
 thing defiled enter heaven ? The struggle for a seat in that 
 happy abode, is a great struggle. The rewards are unspeakable 
 in degree, and endless in duration. They are worth a life of 
 humility and labor. And for these reasons man needs a test of 
 his faith and practice at all times. His memory needs to be 
 refreshed. He needs these tests while he has time to amend, 
 if wrong. After death, it is too late. As the doctrine of the 
 Real Presence is a great test of faith in the truth of Christianity, 
 so confession is a great test of virtuous practice. The proud 
 cannot submit to it. Christ knew this, and He never intended 
 to reward the proud. He pronounced a sweet blessing upon 
 the poor in spirit ; but he had no blessing for the proud. Con- 
 fession strikes a fatal blow at pride. It humbles and corrects 
 self-conceit. It is a great check upon self-delusion. 
 
 There are some things that we can know with certainty ; 
 and among them is the fact, that we did do a certain thing, and 
 the motive with which we did it. These are facts within our 
 own knowledge, and are of so plain a character, that we cannot 
 be mistaken. There is no room for delusion. But when we 
 come to make up our judgment as to the character of the act 
 itself, then our self-love and our interest will be most apt to mis- 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 lead us. If we confess to God alone, we have no one to instruct 
 us as to the character of the particular act, or to cross-examine 
 us as to the circumstances attending the act itself. The whole 
 work we do ourselves, and we do not know whether we are 
 certainly forgiven or not. We historically relate the fact to 
 God, while we also construe the law as applicable to the act 
 itself. 
 
 But in confession it is different in some material respects. 
 The penitent not only gives a statement of all the acts he has 
 committed, that he himself esteems sinful, but he is subjected to 
 cross-examination, that powerful test of truth. Did the most 
 h onest witness ever state all the material facts he knew, without 
 cross-examination ? Such instances are exceedingly rare ; not 
 because the witness does not desire to tell the truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth ; but because he cannot cor- 
 rectly judge as to all that is material. He will almost cer- 
 tainly omit some circumstance of importance. But when we 
 are not only required to confess to God, but to man also, we 
 have two checks instead of one. Besides this, there arc many 
 persons of the most pious dispositions, that are often afflicted 
 with groundless scruples ; and these find a complete relief and 
 correction in confession. As every one has the right to select 
 his own confessor, he can have recourse to that one in whose 
 discretion and judgment he has the greatest confidence. 
 
 That God should select human agents to administer His law 
 among men, is entirely consistent with the nature and purposes 
 of His government. It was evidently the intent of our Lord to 
 honor human nature. He died for it. He deemed it worthy 
 to be trusted. His system, upon its face, shows the intimate 
 union and mutual dependence that Christians should sustain to 
 each other. His system is not based on universal suspicion. 
 
 The objection, based upon considerations of delicacy, is one 
 that is without any real foundation in reason or Scripture. We 
 are assured that one day our sins will be revealed to an assem- 
 bled universe. It is only a small question of time, to say the 
 least of it. The jurisdiction of the Church extends to all viola- 
 tions of the law, or to none. If Christ, by His law, prohibits 
 sins of every character, why should the Church pass any of them 
 over in silence ? Can a man escape responsibility, simply be- 
 
624: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 cause he takes care only to commit indelicate sins ? The crimi 
 nal law of the land defines and punishes a great variety of of. 
 fences, some of them of a very indelicate character ; and yet our 
 courts of law are compelled to execute justice upon offenders 
 openly by a public trial. No code of law could pass over these 
 indelicate offences without an abdication of justice, and the con- 
 sequent increase of these very crimes. 
 
 The rights of the Church, and the salvation of her children, 
 cannot be sacrificed to motives of mere delicacy. In the pure 
 and impartial eye of God, sins are obnoxious in proportion to 
 their turpitude. In a true legal, moral, and philosophical view, 
 the question of delicacy, does not affect that of jurisdiction, 
 but only the mode of investigation. The two are entirely dis- 
 tinct. And it was to avoid the scandals of public confession, 
 that secret sins are confessed as secret, and kept sacred by the 
 proper officer. In this way, the Church and the individual 
 members receive the benefits flowing from the sacrament, while 
 the injuries that might result from a public confession are 
 avoided. And one of the most powerful arguments in favor of 
 confession is the fact, that a priest was never known wrong- 
 fully to reveal any thing confided to him in the tribunal of pen- 
 ance. It does not matter whether he has subsequently become 
 an Athiest, or even a criminal, his lips are sealed in eternal 
 silence. 
 
 If the Church has any jurisdiction over offences at all, she 
 has the right to know of every violation of the law. She may 
 be defrauded of this right by the hypocrite to his own ruin, but 
 still she has that right, though it may be evaded. It is difficult 
 to understand that sort of morality that would hypocritically 
 conceal a violation of the law the Church was charged to 
 execute, and yet the party enjoy all her privileges and pro. 
 tection, and still hope to get to heaven through her communion. 
 If he is for the Church he ought to be for her ; if not, let him be 
 for the world. Let him be squarely and decidedly for one or 
 the other. 
 
 It is about as difficult to conceive a logical idea of a religious 
 system, requiring both faith and holiness, and promising forgive- 
 ness of sins committed after baptism, without confession, as it is 
 of a system of law without free agency in the party governed, 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 625 
 
 and without any tribunal to construe the law in the last resort, 
 If the powers to remit and retain sins, and the necessarily cor- 
 responding duty to confess them, do not reside in the Church, 
 the system is defective, to the best of my judgment. It is sim- 
 ply a question of government, or no government in the Church ; 
 and this again is a question simply of Church or no Church. 
 And the whole controversy, as I conceive, between Catholics 
 and Protestants is ultimately resolvable into one single question, 
 Was Christ a lawgiver or not f If he was, the Catholic is 
 right. If not, then the Protestant is nearer right. This is the 
 only point really at issue. It must come to that, sooner or 
 later. It is the only point that need be determined. All else 
 follows invincibly. 
 
 4. Views of some Protestant sects, and testimony of the 
 Fathers. 
 
 In the confession of Augsburg, and the Apology, it is held 
 that " particular absolution ought to be retained in confession :, 
 that to reject it is an error of the Novatians, and a condemned 
 error ; that this absolution is a true sacrament, and properly so 
 called ; that the power of the keys remits sins, not only in the 
 sight of the Church, but also in the sight of God." In the little 
 Catechism of Luther are these words : " In the sight of God we 
 must hold ourselves guilty of our hidden sins ; but with respect 
 to the Minister, we must confess those only which are known to 
 us, and which we feel within our hearts." The absolution given 
 by the confessor is in this form : " Do you not believe that my 
 forgiveness is that of God ? " " Yes," answers the penitent. 
 " And I," replies the confessor, " by the orders of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, forgive you your sins, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Cited Bossuet's Vari., 
 Book in., sec. 46, 47.) 
 
 In the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England, it is 
 ordained that when any minister visits any sick person, the " lat- 
 ter should be moved to make especial confession of his sins, if 
 he feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter ; after 
 which confession the Priest shall absolve him, if he humbly and 
 heartily desire it, after this sort : Our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly 
 54 
 
626 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 repent and believe in him, of his great mercy, forgive thee thine 
 offences ; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee 
 from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost, Amen." (Order for the Visitation of the 
 Sick.) 
 
 It will be observed that this duty is only imposed upon the 
 minister in cases of sickness. But it would seem to be exceed- 
 ingly difficult to understand the reason why a sick person needs 
 forgiveness, while a person in health does not, and why our Lord 
 could be held to have left power to absolve in the one case and 
 not in the other. The person in health may die suddenly. It 
 is an effort, on the part of the Church of England, to retain the 
 power in form, but to dispense with its exercise, except in par- 
 ticular cases. Did Christ ever make such exceptions ? Did 
 He, in bestowing the power upon the apostles, limit it to cases 
 of sickness ? It must be conceded that this practice of the 
 Church of England wears the appearance of a mere practical 
 evasion of the injunction of Christ. To concede that our Lord, 
 in general terms, did leave the power to absolve from sins with 
 His Church, and then to arbitrarily restrict it to sick persons, 
 would seem to be a perversion of the very purpose intended by 
 conferring the power itself. Thus to mutilate and cripple, limit 
 and restrict, a power of such a general character, would seem 
 to be an arbitrary act, unjustifiable by reason or Scripture. 
 
 In the Discipline of the Methodist Church, edition of 1835, 
 New York, may be found regulations of Band Societies, p. 83, 84. 
 The questions that must be put at every meeting are these : 
 " 1. What known sins have you committed since our last meeting? 
 2. What particular temptations have you met with ? 3. How 
 were you delivered ? 4. What have you thought, said, or done, 
 of which you doubt whether it be sin or not ? " 
 
 In reference to the testimony of the Fathers, I find the most 
 important passages collected by Dr. Wiseman in the tenth of 
 his Moorfield lectures. I avail myself of his labors, and take 
 the following from the passages he quoted : 
 
 St. Irenseus mentions some women who accused themselves 
 of secret crimes. Of others he says : " Some, touched in con- 
 science, publicly confessed their sins ; while others, in despair, 
 renounced their faith." 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 627 
 
 " Look," says Dr. Wiseman, u at this alternative ; some con- 
 fessed and others renounced the faith. If there had been any 
 other means of forgiveness, why should they have abandoned 
 their faith." 
 
 Tertullian says, among other things : " Of this penitential dis- 
 position the proof is more laborious, as the business is more 
 pressing, in order that some public act, not the voice of con- 
 science alone, may show it." Again : " If you still draw back, 
 let your mind turn to that eternal fire, which confession will ex- 
 tinguish ; and that you may not hesitate to adopt the remedy, 
 weigh the greatness of future punishment. And as you are not 
 ignorant that, against that fire, after the baptismal institution, 
 the aid of confession has been appointed, why are you an enemy 
 to your own salvation ? " The aid of confession has been ap- 
 pointed after the baptismal institution ; that is, for sins commit- 
 ted after baptism. 
 
 St. Cyprian, speaking of those who had thoughts of sacrific- 
 ing to idols, or of surrendering the Scriptures, says : " This they 
 confess, with grief and without disguise, before the Priests of 
 God, unburdening the conscience, and seeking a salutary reme- 
 dy, however small and pardonable their failing may have been." 
 Again : " I entreat you, my brethren, let all confess their faults, 
 while he that has offended enjoys life ; while his confession can 
 be received, and while the satisfaction and pardon imparted by 
 the priests are acceptable before God." 
 
 Origen of the Greek Church says : " There is yet a more se- 
 vere and arduous pardon of sins by penance, when the sinner 
 washes his couch with tears, and when he blushes not to dis- 
 close his sin to the priest of the Lord, and seek the remedy." 
 Again : " They who have sinned, if they hide and retain their 
 sin within their breast are greviously tormented ; but if the sin- 
 ner become his own accuser, while he does this he discharges 
 the cause of all his malady. Only let him carefully consider to 
 whom he should confess his sin, what is the character of the 
 physician ; if he be one who will be weak with the weak, who 
 will weep with the sorrowful, and who understands the disci- 
 pline of condolence and fellow-feeling so that, when his skill 
 shall be known and his pity felt, you may follow what he may 
 advise. Should he think your disease to be such that it should 
 
828 T1IE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 be declared in the assembly of the faithful, whereby others may 
 be edified, and yourself easily reformed this must be done 
 with much deliberation, and the skilful advice of the physician.'' 
 
 From this passage it is seen that the penitent had the right 
 to select his confessor that he should select a prudent and 
 skilful one that the confessor had a right to require a public 
 confession if deemed advisable for the edification of others and 
 the reformation of the penitent and that this public confession 
 followed the private confession, and presupposed its existence. 
 This passage is a proof that both private and public confessions 
 were practised in the ancient Church, the latter depending upon 
 the judgment of the confessor. Again, this Father says : " They 
 who are not holy die in their sins ; the holy do penance ; they 
 feel their wounds ; are sensible of their failings ; look for the 
 priest ; implore health ; and through him seek to be purified." 
 " If we discover our sins, not only to God, but to those who 
 may apply a remedy to our wounds and iniquities, our sins will be 
 effaced by Him who said: I have blotted out thy iniquities as 
 a cloud, and thy sins as a mist." (Isa. xliv. 22.) 
 
 This last passage shows the duty of confessing to both God 
 and His ministers. 
 
 St. Basil says : " In the confession of sins, the same method 
 must be observed, as in laying open the infirmities of the body. 
 For, as these are not rashly communicated to every one, but to 
 those only who understand by what method they may be cured, 
 so the confession of sins must be made to such persons as have 
 the power to apply a remedy." He tells us who those persons 
 are who can apply the remedy : " Necessarily our sins must be 
 confessed to those to whom has been committed the dispensa- 
 tion of the mysteries of God." Again : " That woman, guilty 
 of adultery, and who had confessed it, should not be made pub- 
 lic, agreeable to what the Fathers had appointed." 
 
 St. Gregory of Nyssa : " You whose soul is sick, why do you 
 not run to a physician ? Why do you not confess, and discover 
 your malady to him by confession 9 ***** Impart your 
 trouble to the priest, as to your Father ; he will be touched 
 with a sense of your misery. Show to him what is concealed 
 without blushing ; open the secrets of your soul as if you were 
 showing to a physician a hidden disorder ; he will take care of 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 629 
 
 your honor and of your cure." " Whoever secretly steals an- 
 other man's goods, if he afterwards discover, by confession, his 
 sin to the priest, his heart being changed, he shall cure the 
 wound : but then he must give to the poor, and thereby clearly 
 show that he is free from the sin of avarice." 
 
 St. Ambrose, speaking of those who do not make a full dis- 
 closure of their sins, says : " There are some who ask for pen- 
 ance that they may at once be restored to communion. These 
 do not so much desire to be loosed, as to bind the priest ; 
 for they do not unburden their own consciences, but they 
 burden his, who is commanded not to give holy things to dogs ; 
 that is, not easily to admit impure souls to the holy commu- 
 nion." 
 
 St. Pacianus says : " I address myself to you, who, having 
 committed crimes, refuse to do penance ; you, who are ashamed 
 to confess, after you have sinned, without shame. The apostle 
 says to the priest : Impose not hands lightly on any one ; nei- 
 ther be ye partakers of other metis sins. (1 Tim. v. 22.) What 
 then wilt thou do who deceivest the minister ? Who either 
 leavest him in ignorance, or confoundest his judgment by half 
 communications ? " 
 
 St. Jerome : " In like manner with us, the bishop or priest 
 binds and looses ; not those who are merely innocent or guilty, 
 but having heard, as his duty requires, the various qualities of 
 sins, he understands who should be bound and who loosed." 
 The priest must not be content simply to give absolution with- 
 out inquiring into the particular sins. 
 
 Pope Leo thus writes to the Bishops of Campania : 
 
 " Having lately understood that some of you, by an unlaw- 
 ful usurpation, have adopted a practice which tradition does not 
 allow, I am determined, by all means, to suppress it. I speak 
 of penance, when applied for by the faithful. There shah 1 be no 
 declaration of all kinds of sins, given in writing, and publicly 
 read ; for it is enough that the guilt of conscience be made 
 known to the priest alone, by a private confession. That confi- 
 dence, indeed, may be thought deserving of praise, which, on 
 account of the fear of God, hesitates not to blush before men ; 
 there are sins, the public disclosure of which must excite fear ; 
 therefore let this improper practice be put an end to, lest many 
 
630 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 be kept from the remedies of penance, being ashamed, as dread- 
 ing to make known to their enemies such actions as may ex. 
 pose them to legal punishment. That confession suffices that is 
 first made to God, and then to the priest, who will offer up 
 prayers for the sins of penitents. And there will more be in- 
 duced to apply to this remedy, when the secrets of the con- 
 fessing sinner shall not be divulged in the hearing of the 
 people." 
 
 This sacrament is more often assailed by sarcasm and ap- 
 peals to pride, than by earnest and respectful argument. It is 
 often spoken of by professed Christians in very harsh and in- 
 dignant terms. Thus Mr. Breckenridge says the " priest is 
 like a common sewer, the depository of all the sins of his peo- 
 ple." But Mr. B. would make the ear of God this " common 
 sewer." Did the learned controvertist intend his sarcasm for 
 the ordinance of God, which, in the old law, required confession 
 to the priest, and satisfaction for sin ? Was not the priest, in 
 that case, made this " common sewer," as Mr. B. has it, by God 
 Himself?* 
 
 * The learned controvertist also objects, in very strong terms, upon the ground 
 of indelicacy, to the table of sins found in Catholic Prayer Books, and designed 
 to aid the penitent in his examination cf conscience. But, with all due deference, 
 it would seem that this objection was not only captious, but very inconsistent, in 
 the mouth of a Protestant. 
 
 The language used in these tables is as delicate as could well be, to be intel- 
 ligible. It would seem to be one of the plainest dictates of reason, as it is cer- 
 tainly of all law, that the party governed should know what the law requires, 
 and what he may or may not do under the law by which he is governed. The 
 sole object in prescribing the law was to secure the obedience of the party gov- 
 erned. To be able to obey, he must know. And if it was not wrong to pre- 
 scribe the law itself, can it be wrong to administer it as given ? There may be 
 a choice of modes in which this should be done ; but I apprehend that no better 
 mode could be suggested than the one pursued by the Catholic Church. 
 
 Protestants seem to have taken up false ideas of true delicacy that delicacy 
 which is compatible with the law of Christ They seem to think that the con- 
 fessor must propound to all penitents all questions arising under the law. This 
 js a mistake. The course of examination is governed by prudence ; and Catho- 
 lic priests are most carefully instructed as to this duty. The penitent first makes 
 a statement of what he accuses himself as sinful. From this statement the con- 
 fessor can readily perceive the course pointed out to him. He will not inquire 
 into every possible offence in every case. There must first be some ground laid 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 631 
 
 5. Satisfaction. 
 
 This is the third part of the Sacrament of Penance. The 
 Catholic Church holds that, while the guilt and eternal punish- 
 ment due to sin are remitted in repentance, confession, and ab- 
 solution, there yet remains some duty to be performed by tho 
 penitent. In the accurate language of Dr. Wiseman : 
 
 " We believe that upon this forgiveness of sins, that is, 
 after the remission of that eternal debt which God in His jus- 
 tice awards to transgression against His law, He has been 
 pleased to reserve a certain degree of inferior or temporary 
 punishment appropriate to the guilt which had been incurred ; 
 and it is on this part of the punishment alone that, according to 
 the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can be made to God." (Moor- 
 field Lee., vol. 2, 35.) 
 
 The Council of Trent declared " that it is wholly false, and 
 foreign from the word of God, that the guilt of sin is never re- 
 mitted by God without the whole punishment being also par- 
 doned. For clear and illustrious examples are found in the 
 sacred writings, whereby, besides divine tradition, this error is 
 most manifestly evinced. And truly the nature of divine jus- 
 tice seems to demand that they who, through ignorance, have 
 sinned before baptism, should be received into favor in a differ- 
 ent manner from those who, having been once freed from the 
 servitude of sin and of the devil, and having received the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost, have not feared, knowingly, to violate the 
 temple of God, and to grieve the Holy Spirit. And it befits the 
 
 by the confession of the penitent himself, before the confessor will proceed to in- 
 quire as to the circumstances under which the offence was committed. 
 
 It must be conceded by all fair and just minds, that delicacy may be carried 
 to extremes. And it must also be admitted, that people often become really in- 
 delicate by an over-sensitiveness upon this subject. Some patients, under the 
 influenos of false delicacy, would rather die than reveal to their physician the 
 true character of their disease. 
 
 But I could not perceive how the Protestant proposed to avoid this objection, 
 or now he could consistently make it. He insists that the Bible (by which these 
 crimes are prohibited, and in which they are mentioned with no greater delicacy 
 of language) should be read by sill. How he avoids the very objection he makes 
 against the Catholic Church, it is most difficult to perceive. He insists upon 
 the reading of the law defining these crimes in detail, and yet objects to a state- 
 ment of them made for the benefit of a private examination of conscience. 
 
632 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 Divine clemency that sins be not pardoned without any satisfac- 
 tion, so that, taking occasion from thence, thinking sin less 
 grievous, and offering an affront to the Holy Ghost, we should 
 fall into more grievous crimes, treasuring up wrath against the 
 day of wrath. For doubtless these satisfactory punishments 
 greatly recoil from sin, and check as it were with a bridle, and 
 make penitents more vigilant and cautious for the future ; and 
 by acts of the opposite virtues, they remove evil habits acquired 
 by living ill." 
 
 In reference to the true source of the merit of these peni- 
 tential acts, the Council declare : 
 
 " But the satisfaction which we make for our sins is not so 
 ours, that it be not through Jesus Christ ; for we, who can do 
 nothing of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do all things, He co- 
 operating who strengthens us. Thus man has not wherein to 
 glory ; but all our glorying is in Christ : in whom we live ; in 
 whom we merit ; in whom we satisfy ; bringing forth fruits 
 worthy of penitence. Which fruits have efficacy from him ; by 
 him are offered to the Father ; and through him are accepted 
 by the Father." 
 
 In reference to the duty of confessors, it was declared, among 
 other things : 
 
 " Let them ever keep before their eyes, that the satisfaction 
 which they impose be not only for the preservation of a new 
 life, and the medicine of infirmity, but also for the avenging and 
 punishment of past sins." (Sess. xiv., c. viii.) 
 
 The above extracts, if attentively considered, will place be- 
 fore the mind of the reader a clear conception of the Catholic 
 faith, and the main grounds upon which it rests. 
 
 If there be any free agency in man at all, so that he can 
 obey or disobey the law of Christ at his own present election, 
 then it follows, necessarily, that he must voluntarily co-operate, 
 to some extent at least, with the assisting grace of God, in the 
 work of his own salvation. The only question is as to the 
 amount and extent of this co-operation. The Catholic theory re- 
 quires more, the Protestant theory less. This is the essence of 
 the difference between the two theories, in reference to the re- 
 mission of sins committed after baptism. And if we can do any 
 thing at all in the great work of salvation, when aided by the 
 
THE 8AORAMENT OF PENANCE. 633 
 
 grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, (always freely given to those 
 who rightly seek it,) there can be nothing more natural and 
 reasonable in itself than that we should suffer some temporal 
 punishment for our sins, not only as a partial atonement, but 
 also as a useful correction of evil habits, and as evidence of a 
 true repentance. 
 
 When we look into the Old Testament, and see the uniform 
 course pursued by God towards His servants, when transgress- 
 ing His law, we find abundant examples. When our first par- 
 ents had fallen, and were restored by repentance through the 
 merits of the future Messiah, the Almighty inflicted temporary 
 punishments upon them, and all their posterity ; and although 
 the guilt of original transgression is remitted in baptism, we 
 must all undergo the temporal punishments inflicted in the be- 
 ginning. When God had put away the sin of David, Nathan 
 said to him : " Because by this deed thou hast given great occa- 
 sion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is 
 born unto thee shall surely die." (2 Sam. xii. 14.) So, when 
 the same king had sinned in numbering the people, the Lord 
 gave him, upon his repenting, choice of one of three grievous 
 temporal punishments. (2 Sam xxiv. 10-15.) So the Lord 
 forgave the children of Israel in answer to the prayer of Moses, 
 but at the same time declared that they should not see the land 
 of promise. (Numbers xiv.) And the same temporal punish- 
 ment was inflicted upon Moses and Aaron after they had been 
 forgiven. (Numbers xx. 10, 29 ; Deut. xxxiv. 1-6.) And holy 
 Job, when he had exceeded in speech, repented in dust and 
 ashes. (Job xlii. 1-6.) The men of Nineveh, when the prophet 
 had proclaimed their destruction, observed a general fast for 
 three days, saying : " Who can tell if God will turn away from 
 his fierce anger, and we perish not ? " (Jonas ii. 9.) 
 
 It is true that this infliction of temporal punishment after 
 sins were forgiven, occurred under the old dispensation ; but it 
 is equally true, that they relied upon the same source of pardon 
 as we ; namely : the blood of Christ. They looked forward, and 
 we look backward, to the same atonement for sin, both original 
 and actual. There were many things in the old law, and espe- 
 cially those things which naturally flow from our relation to 
 God, which are contained in the new. Those temporary enact- 
 55 
 
634: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 ments, which were but the result of positive legislation, and 
 which were adapted to the then condition of things, are no 
 doubt laid aside. But the infliction of temporal punishment for 
 sin, flows from the permanent relation we bear to God under 
 both systems ; and was not, therefore, repealed by the new law. 
 This temporal punishment never had been prescribed by any 
 positive law, but was uniformly inflicted by God. Unless we 
 find in the new law some positive dispensation of this punish- 
 ment, we must suppose it to have been continued. It is only 
 upon the ground that God does inflict punishment upon men in 
 this world, that we can believe in the special interposition of 
 Providence. 
 
 We not only find no intimation in the New Testament op- 
 posed to the practice of penitential works, but we find very 
 clear evidence that they were continued. Our Lord expressly 
 says that His followers shall fast. (Matt. ix. 15.) And we find 
 it was the constant practice of the apostles and others in their 
 day. So, when our Lord reproached the then existing genera- 
 tion, He referred to the example of the men of Nineveh, not 
 only without censure, but with evident approbation. (Matt, 
 xii. 41.) 
 
 But the language of St. Paul is still more explicit : 
 
 " I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that 
 which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his 
 body's sake, which is the Church." In the Douay Bible, " those 
 things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh 
 for his body, which is the Church." (Coloss. i. 24.) 
 
 Upon this passage Dr. Wiseman remarks : 
 
 " What is wanting of Christ's sufferings ! And this to be 
 supplied by man, and in his flesh ! What sort of doctrine call 
 we this ? Is it in favor of the completeness of Christ's suffer- 
 ings as to their application ? Or rather, does it not suppose that 
 much is to be done by man, towards possessing himself of the 
 treasures laid up in our Saviour's redemption ? And that suf- 
 fering is the means whereby this application is made? " 
 
 The distinguished author makes this clear summary of the 
 Catholic faith : 
 
 " The doctrine which is thus collected from the word of God 
 is reducible to these heads : 1. That God, after the remission 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 635 
 
 of sin, retains a lesser chastisement in His power, to be inflicted 
 on the sinner. 2. That penitential works, fasting, alms-deeds, 
 contrite weeping, and fervent prayers, have the power of avert- 
 ing that punishment. 3. That this scheme of God's justice was 
 not a part of the imperfect law, but the unvarying ordinance of 
 His dispensation, anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and amply con- 
 firmed by Christ in the gospel. 4. That it consequently be- 
 comes a part of all true repentance to try to satisfy this divine 
 justice, by the voluntary assumption of such penitential works 
 as His revealed truth assures us have efficacy before Him." 
 
 The satisfaction already mentioned may be properly called 
 prospective, because it is intended to avert that temporal pun- 
 ishment which has been reserved for the sinner. But there is a 
 retrospective satisfaction of the most important character, with- 
 out which there can be no remission of sins in the sacrament of 
 penance. This consists in repairing, so far as in our power, the 
 injury we may have done to others. It is an essential act of 
 justice towards an injured fellow-being that must be performed ; 
 otherwise the absolution granted will avail nothing. The stolen, 
 or dishonestly obtained property, must be restored to its right- 
 ful owner ; and amends must be made to the person whose 
 character and feelings have been injured by slander or detrac- 
 tion. We very frequently see property restored to the true 
 owner, under the salutary influence of this doctrine, and its 
 practical application by the Catholic Church ; while such in- 
 stances are much more rare in other communions. 
 
 That this doctrine and practice of satisfaction was the faith 
 of the Church of the first four centuries, seems conclusively 
 shown from the testimony of the ancient Fathers. The whole 
 system called the penitential canons was founded upon this basis. 
 
 The first extract is from Hermas, who wrote in the first cen- 
 tury: 
 
 " I know that they do penitence with all their hearts. But 
 dost thou, therefore, think that their offences, who do penance, 
 are immediately blotted out ? No : they are not presently ; but 
 it is necessary that he who does penitence afflict his soul, and 
 show himself humble in spirit in all his affairs, and undergo 
 many and divers vexations." 
 
 Tertullian, of the second century, says : 
 
636 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 " For, by the afflicting of the flesh and of the spirit, we at 
 the same time both satisfy for things past, and build up before 
 hand a barrier against temptations to come." (De Baptismo, 
 n. 20.) This he said of those who were about to enter upon 
 baptism. 
 
 " What, then, is the working of patience in the body ? In 
 the first place, the afflicting of the flesh, an offering propitiating 
 the Lord by the sacrifice of humiliation," &c. * * * " This pa- 
 tience of the body commends our prayers, strengthens our en- 
 treaties for mercy ; this opens the ears of Christ our God, scat- 
 ters abroad his severity, draws forth his mercy." (De Patiencia, 
 n. 13.) 
 
 Origen : " Wherefore if any one be conscious to himself that 
 he has within him a mortal sin, and that he has not cast it off 
 from himself, through a penitence of the fullest satisfaction, let 
 him not hope that Christ will enter into his soul." (T. ii., Horn, 
 xii. in Levit., n. 3.) 
 
 St. Cyprian : " Do entire penance ; evince the contrition of 
 a sorrowing and grieving mind. That penance which may sat- 
 isfy remains alone to be done ; but they shut the door to satis- 
 faction who deny the necessity of penance." (De Lapsis, 192.) 
 
 St. Augustine : " It is not enough that the sinner change his 
 ways, and depart from his evil works, unless, by penitential sor- 
 row, by humble tears, by the sacrifice of a contrite heart, and 
 by alms-deeds, he make satisfaction to God for what he has com- 
 mitted." (Horn, i., T. x., p. 208.) 
 
 I have passed over the testimonies to the same effect of Lac- 
 tantius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. Pacian, St. Ambrose, 
 St. Jerome, St. J. Chrysostom, and others. 
 
 6. Purgatory. 
 
 The Council of Trent declared, as the faith of the Catholic 
 Church, " that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there de- 
 tained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but princi- 
 pally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." 
 
 This is all that is required to be believed. As to the kind, 
 and measure of the purifying punishment, the Church defines 
 nothing. 
 
 This doctrine has been very much misrepresented, and has 
 
PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 637 
 
 most generally been attacked by sarcasm and denunciation. But 
 is this a satisfactory method to treat a grave matter of faith, 
 coming down to us from the olden time ? 
 
 The doctrine of Purgatory is most intimately connected with 
 the doctrine of sacramental absolution and satisfaction, and 
 legitimately springs from it. That there is a distinction in the 
 guilt of different sins, must be conceded. All our criminal laws, 
 and those of all nations, are founded upon this idea. To say 
 that the smallest transgression, the result of inadvertence, is 
 equal in enormity to the greatest and most deliberate crime, is 
 so utterly opposed to the plain nature of all law, and to the 
 word of God, which assures us that men shall be punished or 
 rewarded according to their works, (Rom. ii. 6,) as not to re- 
 quire any refutation. Our Lord assures us that men must give 
 an account in the day of judgment for every idle word they 
 speak (Matt. xii. 36 ;) and St. John tells us that nothing defiled 
 shall enter heaven, (Rev. xxi. 27.) Then St. John says there is 
 a sin unto death, and there is a sin which is not unto death ; (1 
 John v. 16 ;) and he also tells us that "all unrighteousness is 
 sin : and there is a sin not unto death." So we are told by the 
 same apostle, that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just 
 to forgive us, (1 John i. 9.) 
 
 Now we must put all these texts together, and give them 
 their full, harmonious, and consistent force. We must carry 
 out the principles laid down to their fair and logical results. 
 Suppose, then, a man speak an idle word, and die suddenly, be- 
 fore he has time to repent and confess his sin, will he be lost 
 everlastingly ? Must there not, in the very nature of Christ's 
 system, be a middle state, wherein souls can be purged from 
 their lesser sins ? Was not the great Dr. Johnson right when 
 he said, speaking of the Catholic faith in reference to Purga- 
 tory? 
 
 " They are of opinion that the generality of mankind are 
 neither so obstinately wicked as to deserve everlasting punish- 
 ment, nor so good as to merit being admitted into the society 
 of blessed spirits; and, therefore, that God is graciously 
 pleased to allow of a middle state, where they may be purified 
 by certain degrees of suffering. You see, sir, there is nothing 
 unreasonable in this." (Boswell's Life of Johnson.) And in 
 
638 PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 reference to prayers for the dead, the Dr. also maintained, that 
 " if it be once established that there are souls in purgatory, it 
 is as proper to pray for them, as for our brethren of mankind, 
 who are yet in this life." * 
 
 It is clear that the practice of praying for the dead must 
 rest upon the basis, that there is a middle state. It would-be 
 useless to pray for those in heaven, who needed no relief; and 
 equally idle to pray for them who were beyond the reach of help. 
 
 It is related in the twelfth chapter of Second Machabees, 
 that the valiant Judas collected and sent 12,000 drachms of sil- 
 ver to Jerusalem " for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the 
 dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. 
 And because he considered that they who have fallen asleep 
 with godliness had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore 
 a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they 
 may be loosed from their sins." 
 
 It has been settled by the Catholic Church that this book 
 constitutes part of the canon of the Old Testament, while it is 
 not admitted by Protestants. But all must concede that it is 
 authentic history, and shows the faith of the Jewish Church one 
 hundred and fifty years before Christ. It is still the faith of the 
 Jews. Our Lord in his discourses to the Jews, knew what their 
 belief was. This fact is of no inconsiderable importance, for 
 the reason that He nowhere condemns this belief, while He did 
 condemn certain other practices of the Jews. Then again St. 
 Paul speaks of the practice of baptizing for the dead without 
 censure. (1 Cor. xv. 29.) 
 
 That there is a distinction of sins and their punishments is 
 clear from several texts besides those already referred to. 
 (Matt. v. 22 ; Luke xii. 43-48 ; Matt, xxiii. 23 ; xvi. 27.) But 
 our Lord, in speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost, says : 
 " It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in 
 the world to come." (Matt. xii. 32.) 
 
 * The Dr. was in the habit of praying for his deceased wife : 
 " And, Lord, so far as it may be lawful in me, I commend to thy fatherly 
 goodness the soul of my departed wife'; beseeching thee to grant her whatever 
 is best in her present state, and finally to receive her to eternal happiness." He 
 states that he spent March 22, 1 753, in prayers and tears in the morning ; and 
 in the evening he prayed for her conditionally. 
 
PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 639 
 
 Now our Lord meant to convey some idea by saying " neither 
 in this world, neither in the world to come." We cannot sup- 
 pose He used it without design. Then what else could He 
 mean, but to say that this sin was peculiar, and could not be for- 
 given in either state, while other sins might be forgiven in the 
 one or the other ? If no sin could be forgiven in the world to 
 come, then for what purpose did He say this sin could not there 
 be forgiven ? Why distinguish it from other sins, in this re- 
 spect, when no distinction, in fact, existed ? Did our Lord do I 
 an idle thing ? Those who deny that our Lord meant to say 
 that some sins could be forgiven in the world to come, should 
 do one of two things : either tell us what He did mean, or say 
 at once that He meant nothing. To object to our interpretation, 
 and then assume to give us nothing better, is certainly not mag- 
 nanimous. And if there be remission of sins in the world to 
 come, it follows that there must be a middle state, as this for- 
 giveness could not be in Heaven, or in the place of eternal pun- 
 ishment. 
 
 There is a passage in one of St. Paul's Epistles that has al- 
 ways been held by the Church (as will be seen by the quota- 
 tions that will be made from the Fathers) to relate to a middle 
 state of purgation. The passage is this : 
 
 " Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, 
 precious stones, wood, hay, stubble ; every man's work shall be 
 made manifest ; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be 
 revealed by 'fire ; and the fire shall try every man's work of 
 what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built 
 thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be 
 burned, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet 
 so as by fire." (1 Cor. iii. 12-15.) 
 
 There is a great deal more expressed in this passage, than 
 would at first appear. Suppose a man had built only gold, sil- 
 ver, or precious stones, or all together, then he would be en- 
 titled to a reward, without suffering any loss. But suppose he 
 had built only wood, hay, or stubble, or all these together, he 
 would be entitled to no reward, and could not be saved. It is 
 only in the case where the gold, silver, or precious stones have 
 been intermixed with the wood, hay, or stubble, that the builder 
 can be saved, while he suffers loss himself. The apostle does 
 
640 PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 not say that the party escaping is himself tried by fire, but he 
 escapes as if so tried comparing the ordeal through which he 
 himself must pass, to that of fire. If the apostle had not added 
 the words : " but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire," 
 we could only have concluded that he alluded to the test of the 
 work alone. But these words show that he first alludes to the 
 test of the work ; and, afterwards, to the ordeal through which 
 the builder himself must pass, because of his having built such ma- 
 terials upon the foundation Christ Jesus. To have intermixed 
 such gross materials with those that were suitable for a founda- 
 tion so precious, is a sin, for which the party must suffer loss, by 
 being, for the time, deprived of heaven, and undergoing the 
 punishment of purgation. 
 
 In reference to the testimony of the Ancient Fathers. I find 
 the passages from their works bearing upon this subject so well 
 arranged by Dr. Wiseman, that I extract his quotations and re- 
 marks upon them entire. (Moorfield Lee., vol. ii., p. 50, sec. xi.) 
 
 " Now nothing can be more simple than to establish the be- 
 lief of the universal Church on this point. The only difficulty is 
 to select such passages as appear the clearest. 
 
 " I will begin with the very oldest Father of the Latin Church, 
 Tertullian, who advises a widow ' to pray for the soul of her 
 departed husband, entreating repose to him, and participation 
 in the first resurrection, and making oblations for him on the 
 anniversary day of his death, which, if she neglect, it may be 
 truly said that she has divorced her husband.' (De Monogamia, 
 c. 10.) To make an oblation on the anniversary day of his 
 death ; to pray that he may have rest, is not this more like 
 our language and practice than those of any other religion in 
 England? And does not Tertullian suppose that good is done 
 to the faithful departed by such prayer ? And, moreover, does 
 he not prescribe it as a solemn duty, rather than recommend it 
 as a lawful practice ? 
 
 " St. Cyprian thus writes : c Our predecessors prudently ad- 
 vised that no heathen, departing this life, should nominate any 
 churchman his executor ; and should he do it, that no oblation 
 should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose ; of 
 which we have had a late example, where no oblation was made, 
 nor prayer, in his name, offered in the church.' It was consid- 
 
PURGATbRY AND PRATERS FOR THE DEAD. 641 
 
 ered, therefore, a severe punishment that prayers and sacrifices 
 should not be offered up for those who had violated any of the 
 ecclesiastical laws. There are many other passages in this Fa- 
 ther ; but I proceed to Origen, who wrote in the same century, 
 and than whom no one can be clearer regarding this doctrine : 
 4 When we depart this life, if we take with us virtues or vices, 
 shall we receive reward for our virtues, and shall those tres- 
 passes be forgiven to us which we knowingly committed ? or 
 shall we be punished for our faults, and not receive the reward 
 of our virtues ? ' That is, if there be in our account a mixture 
 of good and evil, shall we be rewarded for the good without 
 any account being taken of the evil, or punished for the evil, 
 without the good being taken into consideration ? This query 
 he thus answers : ' Neither is true ; because we shall suffer for 
 our sins, and receive the reward of our good actions. For if on 
 the foundation of Christ you shall have built, not only gold and 
 silver and precious stones, but also wood, and hay, and stubble, 
 what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the 
 body ? Would you enter into heaven with your wood, and hay, 
 and stubble, to defile the kingdom of our God ? or, on account 
 of those incumbrances, remain without, and receive no reward 
 for your gold, and silver, and precious stones ? Neither is this 
 just. It remains, then, that you be committed to the fire, which 
 shall consume the light materials ; for our God, to those who 
 can comprehend heavenly things, is called a consuming fire, 
 But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature 
 has himself built, wood, and hay, and stubble. It is manifest 
 that, in the first place, the fire destroys the wood of our trans- 
 gressions, and then returns to us the re ward of our good works." 
 (Homil. xvi., al xii. in Jerem., T. iii., p. 231, 232.) Therefore, ac- 
 cording to this learned Father, (two hundred years after Christ,) 
 when the soul is separated from the body, if there be smaller 
 transgressions, it is condemned to fire, which purges away those 
 light materials, and thus prepares the soul for entering into 
 heaven. 
 
 " St. Basil, or a contemporary author, writing on the words 
 of Isaiah, ' Through the wrath of the Lord is burned,' says that 
 the things which are earthly shall be made the food of a punish- 
 ing fire ; to the end that the soul may receive favor and be ben- 
 
PUKGATOKY AND PBATEKS FOB THE DEAD. 
 
 efited. He then proceeds ; ' And the people shall be as tfo 
 fuel of the fire: (Ibid.) This is uot a threat of extermina- 
 tion ; but it denotes expurgation, according to the expression 
 of the apostle: If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss ; 
 but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. (1 Cor. iii. 15.) 
 ISTow mark well the word purgation here used. For it proves 
 that our very term purgatory is not modern in the Church. St. 
 Ephrem of Edessa writes thus in his Testament : ' My breth- 
 ren, come to me, and prepare me for my departure, for my 
 strength is wholly gone. Go along with me in psalms and in your 
 prayers ; and please constantly to make oblations for me. When 
 the thirtieth day shall be completed, then remember me ; for 
 the dead are helped by the offerings of the living : ' the very 
 day observed by the Catholic Church, with peculiar solemnity, 
 in praying and offering mass for the dead. ' If, also, the sons 
 of Matthias,' (he alludes to the very passage I have quoted from 
 Machabees, 2 Machab. xii.,) ' who celebrated their feasts in 
 figure only, could cleanse those [from guilt] by their offerings, 
 who fell in battle, how much more shall the priests of Christ aid 
 the dead by their oblations and prayer ! ' (In Testament, T. ii., 
 p. 234.) 
 
 " In the same century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus expresses 
 himself: ' Thus (in the liturgy of the Church) we pray for the 
 holy Fathers and the Bishops that are dead ; and, in short, for 
 all those who departed this life in our communion ; believing 
 that the souls of those for whom the prayers are offered, re- 
 ceive very great relief while this holy and tremendous victim 
 lies upon the altar.' (Catech. Mystag. v., n. ix. x., p. 328.) St. 
 Gregory of Nyssa thus contrasts the course of God's provi- 
 dence in this world with that in the next. In the present life, 
 c God allows man to remain subject to what himself has chosen ; 
 that, having tasted of the evil which he desired, and learned 
 by experience how bad an exchange has been made, he might 
 again feel an ardent wish to lay down the load of those vicea 
 and inclinations which are contrary to reason ; and thus, in this 
 life, being renovated by prayers and the pursuit of wisdom, or, 
 in the next, being expiated by the purging fire, he might re- 
 cover the state of happiness which he had lost. * * * When 
 he has quitted his body, and the ^difference between virtue and 
 
PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAL 643 
 
 vice is known, he cannot be admitted to approach the Divinity 
 till the purging fire shall have expiated the stains with which 
 his soul was infected. That same fire in others will cancel the 
 corruption of matter and the propensity to evil.' (Orat. de De- 
 functis., T. ii., 1066-8.) St. Ambrose, throughout his works, 
 has innumerable passages on this subject, and quotes St. Paul's 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, (iii. 15,) which you have heard al- 
 ready cited by other Fathers : ' If any man's works burn, he 
 shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by 
 fire.' I will quote one passage out of many : u But he shall be 
 saved, yet so as by fire." He will be saved, the apostle said, 
 because his substance shall remain, while his bad doctrine shall 
 perish. Therefore he said, yet so as by fire ; in order that his 
 salvation be not understood to be without pain. He shows that 
 he shall be saved indeed ; but he shall undergo the pain of fire, 
 and be thus purified ; not like the unbelieving and wicked man, 
 who shall be punished in everlasting fire.' (Comment, in 1 Ep. 
 ad Cor., T. ii. in app., p. 122.) And in his funeral oration on 
 the Emperor Theodosius he thus speaks : ' Lately we deplored 
 together his death, and now, while Prince Honorius is present 
 before our altars, we celebrate the fortieth day. Some observe 
 the third and the thirtieth, others the seventh and the fortieth. 
 . Give, O Lord, rest to thy servant Theodosius, that rest which 
 Thou hast prepared for thy saints. May his soul thither tend 
 whence it came, where it cannot feel the sting of death, where it 
 will learn that death is the termination, not of nature, but of sin. 
 I loved him, therefore I will follow him to the land of the living ; 
 I will not leave him, till, by my prayers and lamentations, he 
 shall be admitted to the holy mount of the Lord, to which his 
 deserts call him.' 
 
 " St. Epiphanius, in the same century : ' There is nothing 
 more opportune, nothing more to be admired, than the rite 
 which directs the names of the dead to be mentioned. They 
 are aided by the prayer which is offered for them, though it 
 may not cancel all their faults. We mention both the just and 
 sinners, in order that for the latter we may obtain mercy? 
 (Hser. Iv. sive Ixxv., T. i., p. 911.) St. Jerome: 'As we be- 
 lieve the torments of the devil, and of those wicked men who 
 said in their hearts there is no God, to be eternal ; so, in regard 
 
644 PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 to those sinners who have not denied their faith, and whose 
 works will be proved and purged by fire, we conclude that the 
 sentence of the judge will be tempered by mercy.' (Comment, 
 in c. Ixv. Isai., T. ii., p. 492.) Not to be tedious, I will quote 
 only one Father more, the great St. Augustine : ' The prayers of 
 the Church,' he writes, ' or of good persons, are heard in favor 
 of those Christians who departed this life, not so bad as to be 
 deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to 
 immediate happiness. So, also, at the resurrection of the dead, 
 there will some be found to whom mercy will be imparted, 
 having gone through those pains to which the spirits of the 
 dead are liable. Otherwise it would not have been said of some 
 with truth, that their sin shall not be forgiven, neither in this 
 world nor in the world to come, (Matt xii. 32,) unless some sins 
 were remitted in the next world.' (De Civit. Dei, Lib. xxi., c. 
 xxiv., p. 642.) St. Augustine's reasoning is here precisely the 
 same as I have used, and as every Catholic man uses. In an- 
 other passage he quotes the words of St. Paul, as follows : 4 If 
 they had built gold and silver and precious stones, they would 
 be secure from both fires ; not only from that in which the 
 wicked shall be punished forever, but likewise from that fire 
 which will purify those who shall be saved by fire. But because 
 it is said, he shall be saved, that fire is thought lightly of, though 
 the suffering will be more grievous than any thing man can un- 
 dergo in this life.' 
 
 " These passages contain precisely the same doctrine as the 
 Catholic Church teaches ; and had I introduced them into my 
 discourse without telling you from whom they are taken, no 
 one would have supposed that I was swerving from the doctrine 
 taught by our Church. It is impossible to imagine that the 
 sentiments of these writers agreed, on this point, with that of 
 any other religion." 
 
 I will only add one extract to those given by the distin- 
 guished lecturer. It is the language of St. Monica, the mother 
 of the great Augustine, addressed to him by her while she was 
 on her death-bed. " Lay," she said, " this body anywhere ; let 
 not the care of it any way disturb you : this only I request of 
 you, that you would remember me at the altar of the Lord, 
 wherever you be." (T. i., L. ix. Confess., n. 27, col. 285.) 
 
INDULGENCES. 
 
 7. Indulgences. 
 
 No doctrine of the Catholic Church has been more misun- 
 derstood, or more distorted, than the article concerning Indul- 
 gences. The best method of correcting these misapprehensions 
 on the part of sincere persons, is to give a clear statement of the 
 doctrine itself. In the first place, an Indulgence has not the 
 slightest reference to future sin, and is not, therefore, any license 
 to commit it in any form. Nor is it a remission of either the 
 eternal guilt of sin, or of the eternal punishment due to it. It 
 is simply a remission, in whole or in part, of the temporary 
 punishment deserved for sins committed after baptism, or a com- 
 mutation of that punishment. 
 
 In the Catholic theory, as we have seen, the interior or eternal 
 guilt of sin, and the eternal punishment due to it, are both remit- 
 ted by contrition, confession, and absolution, except in that class 
 of cases wherein we have injured our neighbor, and wherein a fur- 
 ther act an act of just reparation must be performed before 
 the remission of the eternal guilt and punishment becomes com- 
 plete. But after the eternal guilt and punishment of sin have 
 been remitted in the sacrament of penance, God has reserved, 
 as we have seen in treating of the doctrine of satisfaction, a 
 certain degree of mere temporary punishment, proportioned to 
 the offence. The object of this temporary punishment is to 
 make a partial atonement for the sin committed, to correct the 
 evil habit, and to give evidence of a true repentance. The 
 power to relax this temporary punishment, or to substitute an- 
 other for it, as after-circumstances may justly require, is the 
 power to grant an indulgence. 
 
 The power to grant indulgences is but a legitimate conse- 
 quence resulting from the powers to bind and loose, to remit 
 and retain sins, originally conferred by Christ upon the Church. 
 These powers necessarily include the power and duty to deter- 
 mine the character of the particular sin committed after bap- 
 tism, and the weight of the circumstances attending it, and to 
 assess the amount, and designate the kind, of the temporary 
 punishment named by the law of God. It is strictly a judicial 
 power, applying the existing law to the facts and circumstances 
 of each particular case. If this right and duty of the Church 
 
646 INDULGENCES. 
 
 be conceded, then the right to mitigate this punishment, or to 
 substitute another for it, as subsequent circumstances may just- 
 ly require, must belong to the power that originally imposed 
 this temporary punishment. It will be seen at once, by the 
 calm and sensible reader, that, in the contemplation of the Cath- 
 olic theory, the granting of an indulgence cannot affect, in any 
 way, the eternal condition of the party to whom it is granted, 
 but only his temporary condition. 
 
 This power of pardon or commutation, after conviction and 
 sentence, is retained by ah 1 civil governments. The exercise of 
 it depends upon subsequent circumstances, unforeseen at the 
 time the punishment was assessed. The object of criminal pun- 
 ishment is expiatory, preventive, and reformatory. The good 
 conduct of the criminal during his imprisonment, may consti- 
 tute strong evidence of a real reformation. It often happens 
 that the executive of a state will pardon the convict at such a 
 time as to remit the punishment in part only. It is not uncom-r 
 mon for pardon to be granted upon conditions, or only a few 
 days before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed 
 by the sentence, so as to restore the prisoner to the rights of 
 citizenship. It is true this power of pardon may be, and often 
 has been, indiscreetly exercised. But still every civilized gov- 
 ernment in the world, so far as I am advised, retains it. 
 
 The case of the Corinthian who had his father's wife, is one 
 in which the power of granting an indulgence was exercised in 
 the Apostolical Church. In reference to this case the apostle 
 says : 
 
 " For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have 
 judged already, as though I was present, concerning him that 
 hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for 
 the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the 
 day of the Lord Jesus." 
 
 There are several important facts to be collected from this 
 passage : 1. The apostle had judged the party guilty of this 
 crime. 2. He commanded his brethren, in the name and with 
 the power of the Lord Jesus, publicly to deliver the guilty party 
 to Satan. 3. This punishment was temporary, as it was intend- 
 
INDULGENCES. 647 
 
 ed for the destruction of the flesh, and the ultimate safety of 
 the spirit. 4. The punishment was inflicted by the authority 
 of Christ. 
 
 The effect of this punishment was such as was anticipated. 
 The culprit was plunged into the deepest affliction ; and the 
 apostle in his second Epistle thus refers to this case : 
 
 " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was in- 
 flicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to for- 
 give him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be 
 swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech 
 you that you would confirm your love toward him. To whom 
 ye forgive any thing, I forgive also : for if I forgave any thing, 
 to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the -person 
 of Christ." 
 
 It will be seen by examining the two chapters from which 
 these extracts are taken, (1 Cor. v. and 2 Cor. ii.,) that the pun- 
 ishment was prescribed by the apostle himself, and the party 
 forgiven by him in the person of Christ. The Church at Cor- 
 inth only acted under the command of the apostle. The apos- 
 tle in his second Epistle refers to the severity of the punishment 
 inflicted by the whole congregation under his command ; and 
 tells his brethren that they ought to forgive and comfort the 
 member, " lest perhaps he should be swallowed up with over- 
 much sorrow." In the case of Hymenaeus and Alexander, the 
 apostle says he delivered them to Satan ; but it does not appear 
 that it was done publicly. (1 Tim. i. 20.) By his sorrow, the 
 offending member procured a mitigation of his sentence, and 
 was forgiven and restored to the full privileges of membership. 
 
 The temporary punishment for sin, inflicted by the ancient 
 Church, consisted in abstaining from all amusements, giving the 
 time of the sinner to prayer and good works, rigorous fasting, 
 and other penitential exercises, for and during a period of time 
 proportioned to the nature of the offence. Sometimes this pen- 
 ance only lasted a few days, sometimes for several years, and in 
 very extreme cases, during life. During the continuance of the 
 several persecutions which occurred in the first three centuries 
 of the Christian era, many believers denied the faith and sacri- 
 ficed to idols. The Council of Nice in 325 decreed that " those 
 who had fallen away without necessity, or without the taking 
 
64:8 INDULGENCES. 
 
 away of their goods, or without being in danger, or something 
 of this kind, as happened under the tyranny of Licinius, though 
 they were unworthy of indulgence, they should nevertheless be 
 dealt with mercifully. And as many, therefore, as truly repent, 
 shall pass three years amongst the hearers as believers, and dur- 
 ing seven years they shall be prostrators, and during two years 
 they shall communicate with the people in the prayers without 
 the oblation." (Can. xi., col. 33, t. ii., Lubbi.) In the next canon 
 it was decreed, among other things, as follows : " But in all 
 these persons it is proper to examine the purpose and appear- 
 ance of their penitence ; for as many as, in fear, and tears, and 
 patience, and good works, manifest their conversion indeed, and 
 not in appearance (only,) these having completed the appointed 
 time as hearers, may communicate in the prayers ; together with 
 authority to the bishop to determine something yet more indul- 
 gent respecting them. But as many as have borne (their sen- 
 tence) indifferently, and think the form of entering into the 
 Church sufficient for their conversion, must complete the whole 
 time." 
 
 It will be remembered that the Novatians separated from 
 the Church because she permitted the lapsed or fallen, as they 
 were called, to return to the Church, after undergoing due pen- 
 ance. This penance was called canonical, because of the canons 
 or rules adopted for its regulation. 
 
 The Council of Ancyra in 315, in its 5th canon, says, in ref- 
 erence to those who had fallen : " But the bishops have the 
 power, having considered the manner of their conversion, to 
 deal indulgently with them, or to add a longer period. But, 
 above all things, let their previous as well as their subsequent 
 life be inquired into, and so let the indulgence be measured out?* 
 
 One of the means of procuring this mitigation of the tempo- 
 ral punishment inflicted, was the recommendation of the holy 
 martyrs, given on the eve of their martyrdom. This practice 
 was but following the example of St. Paul, who forgave the in- 
 cestuous Corinthian for the sake of his brethren. In reference 
 to this practice, Tertullian says, before he became a Montanist : 
 
 " Let not the devil so prosper in his own kingdom, as to set 
 you at variance, but let him find you guarded and armed with 
 concord, because your peace is war against him, which peace 
 
INDULGENCES. 649 
 
 some not finding in the church, have been wont to entrtatof the 
 martyrs in prison." (Ad Martyr., n. 1, p. 137.) 
 
 After he became a Montanist he inveighed against this prac- 
 tice ; but his subsequent invectives could not destroy his testi- 
 mony as to the practice of the Church, while he was one of her 
 members. 
 
 St. Cyprian, in the third century, speaking of the same prac- 
 tice, and addressing the martyrs, says : 
 
 " And, therefore, I entreat you to specify by name in your 
 tickets, persons whom ye yourselves see and know, whose 
 penitence you behold approaching very near to satisfaction. 
 (Ep. x. ad Martyr, et Confess., p. 51-54.) 
 
 In his address to his clergy, speaking of the lapsed and fallen, 
 he says : 
 
 "Since I find that it will not be in my power to come 
 amongst you, I think that the cases of our brethren ought to be 
 met, so that they who have received tickets from the martyrs, 
 and who are helped by their privilege with God, if they arc 
 seized with any ailment, or danger of sickness, may, without 
 waiting for my presence, make confession of their sin before any 
 priest whatever ; * * * that they may go to the Lord with that 
 peace which the martyrs, by their letters unto us, have desired 
 might be granted." (Ep. xii. ad clerum, p. 55.) 
 
 I will add only one other testimony, and that from St. 
 Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote in 370 : " The canon law is this : 
 that they who have defiled themselves by fornication, shall be 
 utterly cast forth from prayer during three years : be allowed 
 to be hearers only for three further years. But, in favor of 
 those who, with special zeal, avail themselves of the (time of) 
 conversion, and in their lives exhibit a return to what is good, 
 it is in his power, who has the regulation of the dispensation of 
 the church for a beneficial end, to shorten the period of hearing, 
 and to introduce such men earlier to the (state) of conversion, 
 and further to lessen this period also, and to bestow communion 
 earlier, according as, from his own judgment, he comes to a de- 
 cision respecting the state of the person under cure." (T. ii., 
 Ep. Con. ad S. Letoiurn, p. 119.) 
 
 I have passed over the testimonies of St. Basil, St. Innocent, 
 
 56 
 
650 INDULGENCES. 
 
 and the decrees of the Council of Orange in 441, and 4th 
 Carthage in 398, in support of this doctrine. 
 
 I have included Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences in one 
 chapter, because they constitute, in fact, but portions of one sub- 
 ject. The limits of my work have not allowed me to notice more 
 than the main points ; and I must refer the reader, who desires 
 more full and detailed information, to the Moorfield Lectures of 
 Dr. Wiseman, who has treated these different heads with great 
 fulness and the most masterly ability. I will conclude this chap- 
 ter with his summary of the grounds upon which the doctrine 
 of Indulgences rests : 
 
 " From all I have said, you will easily conclude that our in- 
 dulgence, and that of the ancient Church, rest upon the follow- 
 ing common grounds : First, that satisfaction has to be made to 
 God for sin remitted, under the authority and regulation of the 
 Church. 2d. That the Church has always considered herself 
 possessed of the authority to mitigate, by diminution or com- 
 mutation, the penance which she enjoins ; and that she has al- 
 ways reckoned such a mitigation valid before God, who sanctions 
 and accepts it. 3d. That the sufferings of the saints, in union 
 with, and by virtue of Christ's merits, are considered available 
 towards the granting this mitigation. 4th. That such mitiga- 
 tions, when prudently and justly granted, are conducive towards 
 the spiritual weal and profit of Christians." 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS : THEIR RELICS AND 
 
 IMAGES. 
 
 1. The Invocation of Saints. 
 
 IN reference to the doctrine of the Catholic Church con- 
 cerning the Invocation of Saints, the Council of Trent declares : 
 
 * * * * "that the saints who reign with Christ, offer up to 
 God their prayers for men ; that it is good and profitable, sup- 
 pliantly to invoke them, and to fly to their prayers, help, and 
 assistance, for the obtaining of benefits from God through His 
 Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, who is alone our Redeemer and 
 Saviour." (Sess. xxv.) 
 
 It will be seen that this language is very clear and distinct. 
 The matters affirmed are simply these : 1 . That the saints in 
 glory offer up prayers for us. 2. That it is good and profitable 
 to invoke them. 3. That this is done for the obtaining of bene- 
 fits from God through His Son, who alone is our Redeemer and 
 Saviour. By this decree it is not declared to be essential, but 
 <;nly good and profitable, to invoke the prayers of the saints in 
 glory. It will also be observed, that the Giver of all the bene- 
 fits asked for, is God Himself, who bestows them, in and through 
 the merits of Christ ; and that the saints who pray for us, are 
 regarded simply as inferior petitioners in behalf of their own 
 brethren. 
 
 In the Apostles' Creed, conceded by most Protestants to 
 contain true doctrine, it is said : " I believe in the communion 
 of saints." What is meant by this communion of saints ? 
 
 When we concede that our Lord was a Divine Lawgiver, 
 and that He organized a visible Church, we concede that this 
 
652 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Church must be a continuing corporation. It is an artificial 
 person, composed of all the members belonging to it, in every age 
 and nation. These members or corporators, in the contempla- 
 tion of the theory, never die. They change their state ; but 
 they, in fact, die not. They quit earth, and reach Heaven ; but 
 they still live on. As never-dying members of one great corpo- 
 rate body, they are each and all interested in the success of the 
 corporation ; and as the aggregate rightful success of the whole, 
 ]s made up of the rightful success of each member, they are all 
 interested in the welfare of each, and are thus all constituted 
 " members one of another," as St. Paul says. 
 
 This apostle, in different passages, speaks of all Christians as 
 forming members of but one corporate body. When he speaks 
 of those Christians who will be alive at the second coming of 
 Christ, he says : " We that are alive," &c. So, when he speaks 
 of the resurrection of Christians, he says : " We shall be changed." 
 And to show the intimate relationship existing among Chris- 
 tians, he tells his brethren that they are come to the heavenly 
 Jerusalem, and to the spirits of just men made perfect. (Heb. 
 xvi. 22.) 
 
 But in the fourth chapter of Ephesians, and twelfth of First 
 Corinthians, he gives us the clearest statement. He therein calls 
 the entire Church the body of Christ ; and says that our Lord 
 gave certain orders to the Church. And these different orders 
 were given by Christ to the entire Church, not alone to the 
 Church of the Apostolic day. And as every member of the nat- 
 ural body must sympathize with every other ; so, every member 
 of this corporate body the Church must equally sympathize 
 with all the others. And as all the saints are immortal mem- 
 bers of the same enduring corporation, and are each and all in- 
 terested in the spiritual welfare of each, and of the whole com- 
 bined, they can assist each other ; and this sweet relationship is 
 fitly termed " the communion of saints." 
 
 That there is a connecting chain of sympathy and good 
 offices between the suffering saints on earth, and their own 
 brethren in heaven, would seem to follow, not only from the very 
 nature and purposes of the system of Christ, but from many 
 facts expressly stated in the Scripture. 
 
 In the dealings of the Almighty with His chosen people, an 
 
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 653 
 
 gels were often employed as instruments by God. The exam- 
 ples are too numerous to require any reference. "We are told 
 by Christ, that we shall be " as the angels of God in heaven." 
 (Matt. xxii. 30.) And our Lord also said : "Take heed that ye 
 despise not one of these little ones ; for I say unto you, that in 
 heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father 
 which is in heaven." (Matt, xviii. 10.) In this passage we are 
 not only told that those little ones* have their angels, but that 
 those angels always behold the face of God. And we are 
 warned not to offend those little ones, because it will offend 
 their guardian angels ; and those, being present with God, will 
 use their influence with Him to bring down punishment upon 
 us. St. Paul also tells us that angels are " all ministering spirits, 
 sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." 
 (Heb. i. 14.) And we are told by our Lord that there is joy in 
 heaven over one sinner doing penance. (Luke xv. 7-10.) And 
 St. John tells us that " another angel came and stood at the 
 altar, having a golden censer ; and there was given unto him 
 much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all 
 saints upon the golden altar, which was before the throne. 
 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of 
 the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand." 
 (Rev. viii. 3-4.) 
 
 In reference to these texts Dr. Wiseman has these clear and 
 forcible remarks : 
 
 " From all this it is proved that the saints and angels know 
 what passes on earth that they are aware of what we do and 
 suffer ; otherwise they could not rejoice in any good that we do, 
 nor resent any misfortune that befalls us. In the second place, 
 we have it sufficiently proved that the saints do more than bare- 
 ly know and interest themselves about us, for they actually pre- 
 sent our prayers to God, and intercede in our behalf with Him. 
 Here, then, is a basis, and a sufficient one, for the Catholic be- 
 lief, such a basis as surely should give rise to some doctrine 
 or other in the true religion. But where is this doctrine to be 
 found in those religious systems which reject and exclude all 
 intercession of the saints, all intercourse between those on earth 
 and their brethren in bliss ? Assuredly these texts prove some- 
 thing. For if all contained in the Word of God is true, and 
 
654: INVOCATION OF SAIN1 
 
 must form a rule of faith, such clear testimony as this, regard- 
 ing the connection between mankind and the blessed, must form 
 the subject of a doctrine. Where, then, is this found ? No- 
 where but in the Catholic belief, that prayers are offered for 
 us by the saints, and that, therefore, we may apply to them for 
 their supplications." (Moorfield Lee., vol. ii., 87.) 
 
 The moment we concede the existence of God and His su- 
 perintending care over us, that moment it becomes as natural 
 for us to pray as to breathe. And it is just as natural to pray 
 for those we love as it is to pray for ourselves. And by the 
 law of Christ, it is made our express duty to pray even for those 
 who persecute us. (Matt. v. 44.} 
 
 In the last chapter of the Book of Job, the Lord directed 
 Eliphaz to procure the prayers of His holy servant, saying : " My 
 servant Job shall pray for you : for him will I accept." Moses 
 often prayed for the children of Israel, and averted, by his pray- 
 ers, the threatened wrath of God. In the New Testament it is 
 shown to have been the universal practice for the saints to pray 
 for one another, and that St. Paul constantly prayed for his 
 brethren, and often asked their prayers for himself. And St. 
 James tells us that " the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous 
 man availeth much." (James v. 16.) This he says with refer- 
 ence to prayers for others. So plainly is this principle estab- 
 lished, that all professed Christians pray for each other. It 
 would seem that no man who admits the duty of prayer at all, 
 could deny the necessity of this practice. It is our duty to do 
 all the good we can ; and, therefore, we should aid others by 
 our prayers, as well as other good offices. 
 
 This duty and utility of prayer must rest upon some great 
 principle. As the practice is not an idle one, it must have its 
 foundation in some great fundamental truth. It must rest upon 
 the intimate connection between the seen and the unseen world 
 between the governing Creator and the governed creature- 
 upon the never-ceasing power and disposition of God to grant 
 us favors, at all times, when we need arid properly ask for them. 
 And our duty to pray for each other arises from our natural 
 relationship, and the duty we owe to our Lord, who desires 
 alike the salvation of all men. Are we not all brethren ? Are 
 
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 655 
 
 we not bound to extend our Master's kingdom by every just 
 means ? Is not this right ? 
 
 If, then, a saint, while on earth, can aid his brethren by his 
 prayers, upon what principle can we say that his power for good 
 ceases, when this same saint gets to heaven ? Can he not still 
 make known his wishes to God ? And has not the Almighty 
 still the same power and disposition to hear the devout and 
 humble petitions of His servants? Did the ardent Paul and 
 the intrepid old Peter cease to love their brethren the moment 
 they reached heaven ? Are we not assured that faith and hope 
 are swallowed up in absolute certainty in that blissful abode, while 
 charity, the ever-beautiful, still lives on ? And is not this sweet 
 virtue called the greatest, because everlasting ? Who can be- 
 lieve that the saints in glory forget to love their suffering breth- 
 ren on earth ? Is not such a theory one of the dryest and most 
 withering in the universe, and well suited, in its very nature, 
 to the coldest heart and the most perverted understanding ? 
 
 And if the saints in glory love us, this love must be active 
 and effectual. Of what value is a love that never does any good 
 for the object beloved ? Did our Creator implant in our hearts 
 and souls the desire of immortality, without any intention to 
 gratify so beautiful and so natural a wish ? And will our Lord 
 permit the saints in glory to love us, and of course to ardently 
 desire our good, and yet not permit this holy love to do us any 
 service ? Why is this holy love and desire permitted to exist, 
 if not for practical exercise ? Are there no sweet prayers of- 
 fered in heaven ? Have the saints in glory no wishes to gratify, 
 no favors to ask for their brethren in this tempting world ? Who 
 can believe that they love us not ? And if they love us, who 
 can believe that they never pray for us ? that while they love 
 us, they are still indifferent as to our condition ? that if they 
 do desire our good, they still dare not make these desires 
 known ? that if they do make them known, that still God will 
 not gratify them, in proper cases? And if. the saints in glory 
 love us, and aid us, in what way can they help us more effectu- 
 ally than by praying for us, as they did while still on earth ? 
 What sort of a communion of saints is that which is limited 
 alone to this poor earth ? What would Christianity itself be 
 worth if it did not look beyond the grave ? How can the im- 
 
b'56 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 mortal members of such a corporation as that of the Church, 
 ever cease to pray for their brethren, so long as there is one 
 left to suffer ? 
 
 If it be true that the saints in heaven love us, that this love 
 is active and efficient, and not merely passive and idle; and, 
 therefore, that they can and do pray for us, surely it can be no 
 wrong in us to ask their prayers, to fly to their help and assist- 
 ance. To ask of our own brethren the copartners of our joys 
 and sorrows to grant us a favor that they love to grant, and 
 that affords them pleasure to perform, cannot be justly held to 
 be erroneous. It would be a strange philosophy, and a still 
 more singular theology, that would make it a crime to ask of a 
 brother that which he had the power and the disposition to give ; 
 and which, in itself, was " good and profitable " to us, and no 
 .loss to him. 
 
 In fact, the objection to the invocation of saints, when calm- 
 ly and thoroughly considered, resolves itself, at last, into an ob- 
 jection against the duty and utility of all prayer. For it would 
 seem to be clear, that if we can pray for ourselves we can pray 
 for others ; that if our prayers can be effectual in the one case, 
 they can in the other ; that if we can pray for our brethren 
 while we are in this state of being, we can still do so in the next ; 
 that if we can, we must do so, unless we cease to love our breth- 
 ren ; that God must hear our prayers, as well in the one state 
 as in the other ; that if we can ask the prayers of our brethren 
 present with us, we can, upon the same principle, ask the pray- 
 ers of those who have gone before us. And the only consistent 
 ground upon which the invocation of saints can be denied, is, in 
 substance and effect, to deny the duty and efficacy of all prayer. 
 
 But it is insisted by most Protestant writers, as it was by 
 the Bishop of Durham, as quoted in Milner's End of Contro- 
 versy, that " it is blasphemy to ascribe to angels and saints, by 
 praying to them, the divine attribute of universal presence." 
 
 But is it true that, because the saints can know that we in- 
 voke their prayers, they must possess the " divine attribute of 
 universal presence " ? How do the saints know that a sinner 
 on earth does penance? Or do they rejoice without this knowl- 
 edge ? And if they can and do know this fact, upon what sem- 
 blance of reason can we say that they cannot know when their 
 
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 657 
 
 brethren invoke their prayers ? Is not the one fact as easily 
 known to them as the other ? The fact is certain that there is 
 joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance. The fact is also 
 certain that the guardian angels spoken of by our Lord " al- 
 ways behold the face of the Father," and that those angels do 
 know when we offend against those little ones placed under 
 their charge. God is able, instantaneously, to reveal to the 
 saints in glory every fact that occurs on earth. Unless we deny 
 the existence of this Almighty power, we must concede the 
 entire futility of this objection. 
 
 It was objected by Bishop Porteus, as it is still by many 
 Protestant writers, although the objection has been abandoned 
 by others, that this doctrine is inconsistent with the sole media- 
 torial power of Christ. St. Paul says : " There is one Mediator 
 between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. ii. 5.) 
 
 A mediator must always be the equal of both the parties be- 
 tween whom he interposes. One sovereign independent state 
 can interpose as a mediator between other sovereign independ- 
 ent states; but individuals, as such, however distinguished, 
 would never be permitted by sovereign states to mediate be- 
 tween them, because not their equals. When the chief executive 
 officer of a nation interposes as a mediator, he only does so 
 in his capacity as representative of the sovereignty of the en- 
 tire nation, and is, in fact, but the organ through whom the na- 
 tion speaks. For this reason it was necessary that Christ should 
 be both God and man, that He might be the mediator between 
 two of His equals. Whatever is said by a mediator is addressed 
 by him to both the parties, and as the equal and friend of both. 
 
 But the position of the saint who prays for his brethren, is 
 totally different from that of a mediator. The saint is only the 
 equal of one of the parties, and his prayer is solely addressed to 
 the other. He assumes not the position of a mediator, but that 
 of an inferior petitioner for favors for his own friend and equal. 
 The object of a mediator is not to ask favors from one party to 
 the other ; but to do equal and exact justice to both the parties. 
 When Christ interposed between God and men, He did so a," 
 the equal and friend of both. Justice was done to God, anu 
 the mercy displayed towards man, was shown by the Mediatot 
 He paid our debt to the Divine Justice by His own sacrifices' 
 ot 
 
658 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 and then gave us a law, under which we may cancel the debt 
 we owe to Him as the friend who voluntarily paid our debt to 
 God, the Father, and thus restored us to the state of freedom 
 from the old debt ; provided we comply with the terms of the 
 new law given by this Mediator. 
 
 But besides this, I could not possibly perceive how such an 
 objection could be valid ; for the plain reason, that if the prayer 
 of a saint in glory was inconsistent with the mediatorial power 
 of Christ, the prayer of the same saint, while on earth, must be 
 equally so. The interposition was the same precisely, and for 
 the same purpose, and by the same inferior. Why, then, the 
 mere change of state of the petitioner himself should make his 
 petition assume the form of a mediation, it was most difficult to 
 understand. Why precisely the same thing, done by the same 
 saint, could be a virtue in one instance, and a sin in the other, I 
 could never perceive. 
 
 " It requires optics mighty keen, I ween, 
 To see a thing that never can be seen." 
 
 The charge of idolatry which has often been recklessly made 
 by some Protestant writers, but which has been abandoned by 
 the more candid Protestant controvertists, is one requiring very 
 little notice. The charge is certainly a very grave one ; and 
 those who make it, in view of the awful responsibility they as- 
 sume, should be very certain they are in the right. It is an 
 extreme charge, which is at once confuted by a simple statement 
 of the Catholic theory. 
 
 This charge is not modern, but was originally made by the 
 unbelieving and persecuting Jews in the second century, from 
 whom it has been borrowed. 
 
 In the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna to the Church at 
 Philomelium, written about the year 169, and giving an account 
 of the glorious martyrdom of the holy Polycarp, the disciple of 
 St. John, the Evangelist, and the intimate friend of St. Ignatius, 
 the martyred Bishop of Antioch, we find this statement : 
 
 " Bur the envious and wicked Adversary of the generation 
 of tne i^hteous, when he saw the mightiness of his testimony, 
 aivH V? rlameless conversation from the first, and how that he 
 was now crowned with the crown of immortality, and had borne 
 
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 659 
 
 away a prize that could not be spoken against, contrived that 
 his poor body might not be obtained by us, though many much 
 desired to secure it, and to communicate over his holy remains. 
 For some suggested to Nicetus, the father of Herod, and 
 brother to Alee, that he should persuade the governor not to 
 give up his body, ' lestj said he, ' they leave the crucified and 
 take to worshipping this fellow? And these things they said, 
 as instigated and supported by the Jews, who even watched us 
 when some of us were about to take his body from the fire, for 
 they little knew how impossible it was for us either to forsake 
 the worship of Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the 
 whole world of them that be saved, or to pay worship to any 
 other. For to him truly we pay adoration, for as much as He 
 was the Son of God ; but the martyrs, as the disciples and fol- 
 lowers of the Lord, we revere as they deserve, for their incom- 
 parable loyalty to their King and Master, praying that we may 
 be made their patrons and their fellow-disciples." 
 
 The whole Epistle may be found in the first volume of the 
 Oxford Tracts, from which this extract is taken. 
 
 It will be seen that this extract gives a very clear statement 
 of that inferior respect the Catholic gives the saints for their 
 " loyalty to their King and Master," while he gives the supreme 
 honor to Christ. The same false charge was made by Faustus, 
 as St. Augustin states : 
 
 " That Faustus hence also slanders us, because we honor the 
 places dedicated to the martyrs, saying that herein we have 
 made an exchange of idols, does not so much move me to reply 
 to this slander, as to show that this Faustus, in his eagerness to 
 slander, has chosen to wander even out of the follies of Mani- 
 chseus himself," &c. (T. viii, lib. xx., n. 21. Contra Faustum.) 
 
 The Catholic doctrine may have been misunderstood, in 
 some instances, by not observing that the word worship has 
 several different meanings. Tn King James' translation it is 
 used in different senses. Thus in Luke xiv. 10, it is used to 
 express the lowest degree of respect. When used by Catholic 
 writers in reference to the honor due to the saints and their 
 relics, it is used in its subordinate sense. Worship, like love, 
 may be given to different objects, in different degrees. When 
 the lawyer asked Christ which was the greatest commandment, 
 
660 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 He answered : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." By this 
 our Lord did not mean to exclude all love of others, but only 
 required for God our supreme love ; for He immediately adds 
 " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matt. xxii. 35-9.) 
 As God requires our supreme love, so He requires our supreme 
 worship ; and as He does not prohibit us from loving others, 
 while we love Him supremely, so He does not inhibit that in- 
 ferior respect we pay to His saints, while we give to Him, and 
 to Him only, the supreme homage of our souls. The two are 
 entirely compatible with each other ; and no more conflict, 
 than do the powers of a subordinate with those of his superior. 
 And those who confuse the two, and refuse to distinguish be- 
 tween them, and upon that false basis say, that God is injured 
 by this subordinate respect paid to His holy servants, simply 
 because they were such, are about as much mistaken as the man 
 who abandoned his faithful wife for the sole reason that she 
 loved her mother. He could not see how his wife could love 
 her mother and at the same time love him. 
 
 2. The Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 " Virgin and mother of our dear Redeemer ! 
 All hearts are touched and softened at her name ; 
 Alike the bandit with the bloody hand, 
 The priest, the prince, the scholar and the peasant, 
 The man of deeds, the visionary dreamer, 
 Pay homage to her as one ever-present * * * * 
 So mild, so merciful, so strong, so good, 
 So patient, peaceful, loyal, loving, pure, 
 This were enough to prove it higher and truer 
 Than all the creeds the world had known before." LONOFEIXOW. 
 
 In the Letters Apostolic, issued by Pope Pius the Ninth, in 
 December, 1854, making a dogmatic definition of the doctrine 
 of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and 
 which has given so much satisfaction to the entire Catholic 
 world, it is declared : " that the doctrine which holds that the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by 
 A singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue 
 of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was pre- 
 served free from all stain of original sin, has been i sealed by 
 
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 661 
 
 God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by 
 all the faithful." 
 
 The hasty objection that this doctrine did not exist in the 
 Church until it was defined, is thus met by Dr. Bryant, in hi8 
 late beautiful work upon the Immaculate Conception : 
 
 " There be some, who absurdly affirm of any given doctrine, 
 that it did not exist before such and such a period, the date at 
 which it was solemnly defined. The fallacy of such an assertion 
 is sufficiently exposed by the following. The Canon of the 
 Sacred Scriptures was not defined until the time of the Council 
 of Hippo in the fourth century. Therefore, according to these 
 men, the Sacred Scriptures did not until then exist. Apply this 
 rule fco the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and to every 
 other, and words need not be multiplied or wasted in vindica- 
 tion of the Church in every case." (Preface, xiv.) 
 
 I have already substantially noticed this and similar objec- 
 tions, and given the reasons why, in the very nature of a system 
 of law, there must be definitions from time to time. This must 
 be so, or we must conclude that there is no judicial power in 
 the Church, and practically no Church. The Council of Jerusa- 
 lem is a clear example. Gentiles had been admitted into the 
 Church for some years without circumcision. The Council sim- 
 ply determined a judicial question ; namely: Whether the old 
 law, in this respect, was still obligatory. It is true, the Coun- 
 cil, when in session, went beyond this single question, and 
 adopted certain regulations in reference to other matters. But 
 it will be observed, that these had nothing to do with the ne- 
 cessity of circumcision. The Council first distinctly negatived 
 that proposition, and then made the regulations found in the 
 decree. Now, could any one say that the doctrine that circum- 
 cision was not necessary, did not exist in the Church until the 
 Council authoritatively determined the question ? Every one 
 must see that the law was the same before as after the decision, 
 but only that it had not been so judicially declared.* 
 
 * To some it may seem erroneous that the Church should require all her 
 children to believe a tenet, when once defined, while they were permitted to deny it 
 Conditionally before the definition was made. But this plausible objection will be 
 found without any weight when fairly and justly considered. St. Paul told Titus 
 to reject a heretic after the first and second admonition. It is the condemned 
 
662 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the result 
 which necessarily flows from facts and principles plainly laid 
 down in Scripture. It is but a true judicial extension of those 
 principles. 
 
 It is difficult, if not impossible, for us to form any adequate 
 conception of the greatness of the Incarnation of our Lord, 
 that awful and mysterious union of the human and divine. And 
 yet, if that doctrine be not true, there is no Christianity. It 
 does not fall within the scope of this work to discuss the great 
 doctrine of the Trinity. But I will say that the Scripture proofs, 
 when taken and considered together, and when the necessary 
 logical results are drawn from them, do conclusively establish it 
 in my view. The contrary doctrine is wholly incompatible with 
 clearly stated facts. When the people wished to offer saerifice 
 to Paul and Barnabas, (an act of supreme worship,) they rent 
 their clothes in order adequately to express their extreme oppo- 
 sition. So, when Herod permitted himself to be regarded as a 
 God, he was signally punished for the impious act. But when 
 the apostle Thomas cried -out, in the full fervor of faith, " My 
 Lord and my God," he was not rebuked by Christ. This su- 
 preme homage was received without objection ; and it must have 
 been deserved. 
 
 When our first parents had fallen, the Lord declared that 
 the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. Eve, 
 by whose act original sin was introduced, was created sinless, 
 
 heretic who is outside the Church. Those teachers who insisted upon the neces- 
 sity of circumcision, taught that which was, in itself, heresy. It was heresy, 
 because it assumed, as essential to salvation, that which the Divine Legislator 
 Himself did not require. This improper extension of the principles of the code 
 was a violation of the will of the Lawmaker. But those who did this at tho 
 same time submitted themselves to the lawful agents of Christ for correction. 
 They thus conceded a supreme principle of government that must lead to a cor 
 rect conclusion sooner or later. When the question was raised at Antioch, the 
 friends of circumcision were not at once expelled from the Church, for the rea- 
 son that they submitted themselves to her decision. Their belief was condition- 
 al, not final. It was subordinate, not supreme. It only assumed that inferior 
 form. Those who held it did not say, " We will hold this in defiance of. the 
 i hurch." Suppose one or more of them had died (and it is almost certain that 
 some who believed with them did die) before the decision of the Council, does 
 any one believe thev would have been lost ? 
 
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 663 
 
 and it was fit, in the nature c? God's system of redemption, that 
 Mary, the second Eve, should also be created sinless. John the 
 Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's 
 womb ; and Jeremias, the plaintive prophet, was sanctified be- 
 fore he was born. (Luke i. ; Jer. i. 5.) Whenever God created 
 an agent to accomplish some great purpose, He always bestowed 
 upon the person the necessary grace and power. And these 
 were always duly proportioned to the magnitude of the end to 
 be attained. When, therefore, Infinite Purity was about to be 
 united with the human, and to choose for Himself a mother, He 
 would necessarily make a fit habitation for Himself. That He 
 had the power, no one will question. " Who," asks St. Cyril, 
 " hath ever heard of an architect building for himself a house, 
 and yielding the occupancy and possession of it to his prime 
 enemy ? " And it has been well said by a learned writer : 
 
 " It is not permitted to other children to select a mother 
 according to their good pleasure ; but if this were ever granted 
 to any one, who would choose a slave for his mother, when he 
 might have a queen ? Who a peasant, when he might have a 
 noble ? Who an enemy of God, when he might have a friend 
 of God ? If, then, the Son of God alone could select a mother, 
 according to His pleasure, it must be considered as certain that 
 He would choose one befitting a God." 
 
 St. Bernard expresses the same sentiment when he says : 
 " The Creator of men, to be born of man, must choose such a 
 mother for Himself as He knew to be most fit." And it was 
 well said by an ancient Heathen writer : " Whenever you intro- 
 duce a God, let him act as a God." * And the eloquent Bryant 
 very appropriately asks : " Could it be otherwise, then, that a 
 pure and holy God would choose other than a pure and holy 
 
 * I have been often struck, in reading the New Testament, with the deeply 
 significant fact, that there is no express eulogy pronounced upon any of the per- 
 sons mentioned, not even upon Christ Himself. We are not told any thing of the 
 personal appearance of Christ, or of His apostles. No attempt is made to flatter 
 personal pride. No desire is anywhere evinced to elevate mere individuals. 
 The sacred writers seem to be wholly absorbed with the sublime subject they 
 treat. They forgot to give mere personal incidents. Would this have been sc 
 in a forged narrative ? Certainly the part assigned to each of the actors was ii 
 Btrict accordance with the character assumed 
 
664 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MART. 
 
 mother ? He knew not sin Himself, and in order to take of 
 her flesh, He must have created her without sin also." (The 
 Immaculate Conception a Dogma, 63.) 
 
 If the Blessed Virgin was not created without the stain of 
 original sin, then, during a portion of her existence, she was the 
 slave of sin, and a subject of the Evil Spirit, and unfit to be the 
 mother of our Lord. As the learned author from whom I last 
 quoted forcibly remarks: "To have united Himself to that 
 which had been thus polluted, would have been a violation of 
 His infinite sanctity : it would have been a union of Himself 
 with that which He abhors a body contaminated with sin ; 
 and it would have been an abnegation of Himself. (Ib. 47.) 
 
 When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, he said : " Hail 
 full of grace," according to the Douay Bible ; and u Hail thou 
 that art highly favored," as the translation of King James 
 has it. 
 
 There are many instances given in the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, where angels appeared to men ; but this is the only case 
 in which one of those blessed spirits ever saluted a human being 
 in this form. This is a deeply significant fact. When Christ 
 was arrayed in the purple rebe, the soldiers said to Him in 
 mockery : " Hail King of the Jews." After the resurrection 
 of our Lord, He saluted the occasion by the expression u All 
 hail." But there is no instance mentioned in Scripture where 
 the form of salutation used by Gabriel was ever employed by a 
 superior when addressing an inferior. When the same angel 
 appeared to Zacharias, he simply called him by his name. The 
 salutation hail was a form employed by an inferior when ad- 
 dressing a superior. And this is the reason why that lowly 
 maid the humblest of the humble " was troubled at his say- 
 ing, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should 
 be." Observe that she was affected by the manner of the salu- 
 tation. The angel had not then announced the object of his 
 visit. Her perfect humility was shocked, because an angel from 
 heaven had addressed her in that manner.* 
 
 * It is manifest, from the simple facts stated by St. Luke, that Mary was 
 determined to preserve her virginity ; and that when she asked the question, 
 " How shall this be ? " she did not doubt, hut siuiply inquired as to the manner 
 in which the promise should be fulfilled. When Zacharias asked the question, 
 
T1IE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 665 
 
 I then, the Blessed Virgin was superior to the angel sent 
 to her, is it not certain that she must have been sinless at every 
 period of her existence ? 
 
 The objection that Mary could not have been sinless in her 
 conception, because the Apostle Paul says in Adam all die, is 
 not applicable to her case, for the reason, that she was one of 
 the instruments employed by God in His great plan of redemp- 
 tion that she was the blessed among wonien-~-a,ud. her case was 
 an exception to the general rule. It is conceded by all that 
 Christ was perfect man, and by those who believe in the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, that He was also perfect God ; and yet it 
 is admitted that He was free from original sin. He could be 
 perfect man without bearing the taint of original transgression. 
 So could Mary, through the grace of God. 
 
 But it has been said by some Protestant writers, and is a 
 very common objection to be found in sermons, that our Lord 
 treated His mother harshly, especially at the wedding in Cana 
 
 " Whereby shall I know this ? " he was punished for his nnbelief. St. Ambrose 
 asks : " How would it have happened that Zachary should be struck dumb foi 
 his unbelief, and Mary, though not believing, should be honored by the infusion 
 of the Holy Spirit ? Her prerogative as mother, which doubtless deserved pecu- 
 liar deference, cannot explain this ; as her prerogative was greater, so must she 
 have been endowed with greater faith. She did not doubt of the event, but only 
 inquired into the manner of its accomplishment." 
 
 If we pause at the point where Mary asked the question, and consider wfiat 
 had been, up to that precise period, made known to her, we shall see that the 
 event predicted by the angel was then future that no definite time had then 
 been fixed for its accomplishment and that nothing had then been stated by 
 the heavenly messenger to show that her Son was to be divine. If we say that 
 Mary was to be married to Joseph and not to remain chaste, how could she have 
 asked such a question ? If she was not to remain a virgin after her marriage, 
 then nothing was more natural than that she should have a son. What sense 
 was there, under this theory, in her question ? The only hypothesis upon which 
 the Scripture narrative can be made consistent with itself is, that Mary and 
 Joseph were to remain chaste that as barrenness was a great reproach among 
 the Jews, the humility of Mary induced her to make a vow of chastity that 
 Joseph, being a just man, consented to her views and that she was willing to 
 marry him with this understanding in obedience to the wish of her parents. 
 This was the opinion of St. Gregory of Nyssa, (Orat. in Nat. Christi,) and of the 
 great St. Augustine. (De Virg. L iv.) See note to Bishop Kendrick's transla- 
 tion of the Four Gospels. 
 
(JG6 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 of Galilee. (John ii.) Before the truth of such a charge 
 should be believed, it should very plainly appear. 
 
 It is true, that such an inference might be drawn from a 
 hasty examination of the language of our Lord on that occa- 
 sion. But when we observe His general mode of addressing 
 His mother, we can see that it was usual with Him to call her 
 simply, woman. This expression He used when hanging on the 
 cross. He said to her, " Woman, behold thy son." Bloom- 
 field, the distinguished Protestant commentator, very justly 
 says : 
 
 " This word was a form of 5 address which implied nothing 
 of disrespect, and was employed by our Lord on the most affect- 
 ing of all occasions, and when He especially evinced His exqui- 
 site sympathy and tender regard for this very parent. This 
 being the case, it is scarcely necessary to advert to the classical 
 authorities which have been produced, from Homer to Dio Cas- 
 sius, in proof of the above position." (Cited in note to Ken- 
 drick's translation.) 
 
 The great St. Augustin gives one of the true meanings : 
 " The mother demanded a miracle ; but He, in divine opera- 
 tions, does not recognize maternal authority, and says, as it 
 were, Thou didst not bring forth my wonder-working power : 
 thou art not the mother of my divinity." When it is remem- 
 bered that our Lord was subject to His parents, and that His 
 time had not then arrived, we can see that He had two objects 
 to accomplish by what He said : 1. By the question He asked, 
 He intended to inform His mother that He could not be sub- 
 ject to her in divine things. 2. By the statement, " Mine hour 
 is not yet come," He intended to let her know that He would 
 perform the miracle, even before His time, at her request. The 
 purpose of our Lord was to place Himself right before His 
 mother, so that she would know the true ground upon which 
 He performed the miracle before His time had come. The 
 very fact that she at once said to the servants, " Whatsoever 
 he saith unto you, do it," shows conclusively that she under- 
 stood Him to promise a compliance with her wish. So far from 
 the conduct and language of Christ on this occasion, when taken 
 and considered together, showing any harsh treatment of his 
 mother, they show precisely the contrary. It would have been 
 
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 667 
 
 very strange that our Lord should have been harsh to His 
 mother. His conduct towards the humble Syrophonician wo- 
 man might be tortured, by misconstruction, into unkindness. 
 
 It only remains to show what was the doctrine of the An- 
 cient Church upon this subject. I find the authorities so well 
 stated in the work of Dr. Bryant, that I shall avail myself of 
 his labors, and select such as my limits will justify. But before 
 doing so, it may be useful to remark that all writers have the 
 right to use words and phrases in other than ordinary senses, 
 when they clearly specify the sense in which they are used. It 
 is also but just that a fair allowance must be made for the ar- 
 dent language of poetry and devotion. To find a clear and 
 exact definition of a doctrine, we must, of course, refer to works 
 which expressly speak of them as such. 
 
 The expression, " Mother of God," as applied to the Blessed 
 Virgin by Catholic writers, and especially by the Ancient Fa- 
 thers, as will be seen, and as found in Catholic books of devotion, 
 does not mean what many Protestants may suppose. As we 
 have just seen by the extract from St. Augustin, the Catholic 
 Church does not hold that our Lord derived His divine nature, 
 but only His flesh, from His mother. In the Christian theory, 
 the soul of each human being is created by God from nothing, 
 and is united to the body before birth ; and yet the mother is 
 said to be the mother of the compound being called man, al- 
 though he derived but one part of his being from his parents. 
 It is the Catholic faith, and, I believe, the faith of all Trinita- 
 rians, that while our Lord did not derive His divinity from His 
 mother, the two natures, human and divine, were united in 
 Him before His birth. And this is all that is meant when we 
 say that Mary was the mother of God. It is not intended to 
 convey the idea, by this expression, that God did not exist 
 prior to, and independent of her. He was her Creator she, 
 His creature. We find the language of Scripture, when put to- 
 gether, about as strong as the expression referred to. For ex- 
 ample, St. John says the Word was God that the Word was 
 made flesh and dwelt among us that Jesus Christ was the 
 Word and that Mary was His mother. It is very true, that 
 this is explained in other passages. So is the expression, 
 " Mother of God," as used by Catholics. 
 
668 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MAKY. 
 
 The ancient Liturgies, being public and established forms of 
 divine worship, constitute satisfactory evidence of the faith of 
 the early Church in regard to the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 1. The Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, as it is called, is 
 certainly very ancient, if it was not composed by him. This 
 Liturgy is quoted by St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, in A. D. 347. 
 This is the one in most common use among the Orientals. In 
 ^his the Blessed Virgin is called " Most holy, most glorious, 
 immaculate Mother of God, and ever Virgin." It also adds 
 the very marked expression, "In every respect out of the 
 range of sinful men." 
 
 2. In the Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist : " Most holy, 
 immaculate, and blessed Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary." 
 
 3. In that of St. John Chrysostom : " In every part wholly, 
 altogether untainted." 
 
 4. In that of St. Basil : " Chiefly with the most holy, spot- 
 less, above all blessed, our glorious Lady, Mother of God, and 
 ever Virgin Mary." 
 
 5. In the Alexandrian: "But chiefly of our most holy, most 
 glorious, immaculate, most blessed Lady, Mother of God, and 
 ever Virgin Mary." 
 
 6. In the Roman Liturgy of undoubted antiquity : " Most 
 glorious, most holy, immaculate Mother of God, and ever Vir- 
 gin Mary." 
 
 In reference to the duty of following the traditions of the 
 apostles, St. Hippolytus wrote : " These testimonies are suffi- 
 cient for believers who study truth ; as to unbelievers, they be- 
 lieve no one. Let us, therefore, blessed brethren, believe ac- 
 cording to the traditions of the apostles." (Contra Haeres. 
 Noet., n. 7.) 
 
 " There is a letter extant," says Dr. Bryant, " known to the 
 priests and deacons of Achia, which contains an account of the 
 martyrdom of the illustrious Apostle St. Andrew, and a dis- 
 course which he pronounced in presence of the proconsul Egeus, 
 just previous to his suffering. In this discourse the holy apostle 
 speaks thus : ' And, moreover, as the first man was created from 
 immaculate earth, it was necessary that from an Immaculate 
 Virgin should be born a perfect man, namely, the Son of God.' 
 This antistrophy, or reciprocal conversion of the terms immacu- 
 
THE BLE8SED VIRGIN MART. 669 
 
 late earth and Immaculate Virgin, exhibits the apostle as de- 
 claring Mary to be as immaculate in her conception as was 
 Adam when he issued perfect from the hand of his Maker. 
 The most ardent friend of the Immaculate Conception could 
 wish for no stronger testimony than this. 
 
 " This remarkable document was at first regarded by some 
 with suspicion, in consequence of the Latin copy only being 
 known. But since the Greek original has been found in the 
 Bodleian Library, and published by Charles Christian Woog, a 
 Protestant writer, all doubt has ceased. Baconius proves this 
 letter to be genuine ; and so does also N. Alexander, in his Ec- 
 clesiastical History, vol. 1. M. Edvoy, Professor of History 
 and Antiquities at Leipsic, follows the same opinion in some 
 learned dissertations which he published in 1748-51. Abdias 
 Babilonicus also adds the weight of his name to its authenticity ; 
 and the celebrated Marcelli has inserted it, as authentic and 
 true, in his Calendar of the Church of Constantinople, under 
 the date of November 30. 
 
 " St. Andrew suffered martyrdom in the year 96, and his dis- 
 course incontestably proves that the Immaculate Conception 
 was believed and professed in the Apostolic Age." (Ib. 77.) 
 
 In the second century, St. Justin Martyr calls her The Me- 
 diatrix between God her divine son, and our fallen race ; and 
 St. Irenseus, of the same age, says of her : " If Eve disobeyed 
 God, yet Mary was counselled to obey God ; that the Virgin 
 Mary might become the Advocate of the Virgin Eve. And as 
 the human race was bound to death through a virgin, it is saved 
 through a virgin ; the scales being equally balanced ; virginal 
 disobedience by virginal obedience." (Advers. Haeres., lib. v., 
 cap. xix,, p. 879.) 
 
 In the third century, St. Hippolytus calls her " Holy and 
 Immaculate," and Origen says : " She has not been tainted with 
 the breath of the venomous serpent." (Horn. 1 De B. V. Ma- 
 ria.) And St. Anselm of the same age says of her: " God hath 
 preserved the Angels from sin, among the others sinning : hath 
 He not been able to preserve the Mother pure from the sins oi 
 others ? " (Sermo. de Conceptione.) So St. Cyprian of the 
 same age says: "Neither did justice suffer that vessel of elec- 
 tion to be open to the common inquiries ; for being far exalted 
 
670 KELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 above others, she was a partaker of their nature, but not of 
 their sin." (Lib. 1 De Carne Christi.) 
 
 In the fourth age, St. Ephraim says : " Mary is immaculate, 
 and most remote from every taint of sin." (Tom. 5 ; Orat. ad 
 Dei Ge.) And St. Amphilochius says: "Who created the 
 first virgin perfect; He Himself created the second without 
 blemish and without sin." (Orat. 4, in S. Deip. et Simeone.) 
 So, Saint Ambrose calls her " a virgin through grace, preserved 
 from every stain of sin," (Sermo. 22, in Ps. cxviii.) 
 
 In the fifth age, St. Augustin, in confuting the error of Pe- 
 lagius, who taught that the children of baptized persons were 
 born free from original sin, says: "Except the Holy Virgin 
 Mary, concerning whom, for the honor of the Lord, I wish to 
 entertain no question, when sin is the subject of discussion ; 
 since we know that more grace hath been given to her to over- 
 come sin in every respect who was worthy to conceive and 
 bring forth Him whom it behooved to have no sin." (Lib. de 
 Natura et Gratia, cap. 23.) 
 
 I have passed over many of the passages quoted by Dr. 
 Bryant, and must refer to the work itself for the others. 
 
 3. Relics and Images. 
 
 In reference to the relics of the saints, the Council of Trent 
 declared : 
 
 " That the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now 
 living with Christ, which were the living members of Christ, 
 and the temple of the Holy Ghost, by him to be raised up, and 
 glorified, unto everlasting life, are to be venerated by the faith- 
 ful, through which many benefits are bestowed on men by God ; 
 so that they who affirm that veneration and honor are not due 
 to the relics of saints, or that such relics and other sacred monu- 
 ments are uselessly honored by the faithful, and that the places 
 dedicated to their memories are in vain visited for the sake of 
 impetrating their aid are absolutely to be condemned, as the 
 church has long since condemned, and now also condemns 
 them." (Sess. xxv.) 
 
 And in reference to the pictures and images of the saints, 
 the same Council decreed : 
 
 " That the images of Christ, of the virgin mother of God, 
 
RELICS AND IMAGES. 671 
 
 and of other saints, are to be had and retained especially in 
 churches, and that due honor and veneration are to be shown 
 them ; not that it is believed that any divinity or virtue is in- 
 herent in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped, 
 or that any thing is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be 
 placed in images, as of old was done by the Gentiles, who 
 placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is 
 shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent ; 
 so that through the images which we kiss, and before which 
 we uncover our heads, and fall down, we may adore Christ, and 
 venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear." (Sess. xxv.) 
 
 It is just as natural for all good men to entertain a profound 
 veneration 
 
 " For those who greatly think, or bravely die," 
 
 in a good and holy cause, as to love the beautiful cause itself. 
 And it is just as natural to respect the relics and images of 
 those we love, as to love the objects themselves. In fact, the 
 love of the relics and images of the great and good is but the 
 inevitable result of the love we bear the objects to whom these 
 appertain. If the sincere believer loves any thing, it must be 
 the sublime system of Christianity itself; and if he loves the 
 cause, he must love those who have done most to advance it. 
 And if there be in the mind and heart of the true believer any 
 an object most worthy of his love, it is the holy martyr for 
 the cause of Christ. And after all the frivolous and unfeeling 
 objections that have been, or may yet be urged against an im- 
 pulse so natural and innocent, the human heart will still tell us 
 that it is just and right in itself. The heart is as often right as 
 the head. The heart of Daniel Webster, in opposition to the 
 doubts of his head, assured him that the glowing sermon of 
 Christ on the mount was not the production of man ; and happy 
 would he have been had he followed this holy impulse of his 
 heart, which was as true as instinct itself. It is useless and 
 vain to coldly argue against the simplest and sweetest impulses 
 of the soul, as if we wished to banish from the heart all sympa- 
 thy for the good and great. 
 
 Is the love of the humble and true Christian for his breth- 
 ren, a sin or a virtue ? In that last and most mournful discourse 
 
672 RELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 delivered by the meek Saviour, just before His passion, He 
 Raid to His disciples : 
 
 " A new commandment 1 give unto you, That ye love one 
 another ; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." 
 And so important did our Lord consider this new command- 
 ment, that He repeated it three several times, in the same dis- 
 course. (John xiii. 34; xv. 12, 17.) And St. James, in refer- 
 ence to this command, says: "And this is his commandment, 
 That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, 
 and love one another as he gave us commandment." (James 
 iii. 23.) Should our love cease the moment the holy brother 
 dies ? And is this love confined alone to those of our own age ? 
 Are we of this day not to love the apostles and other martyrs 
 for Christ ? The Church is but one corporation, and we are all 
 members of it and of one another. We must, then, love the 
 saints of all ages and nations. Would it not be a narrow and 
 pitiful theory that would confine our love alone to the saints of 
 our own generation ? 
 
 And if we are bound to love the great and noble champions 
 of the cross, are we not bound to keep this love ever " green in 
 our souls " ? And if so, are we not allowed to use the means 
 best adapted to that end ? Strange, if we are not. The honors 
 paid to St. Paul and St. Peter, in their day, we may certainly 
 pay to their memory now. And we may surely use any inno- 
 cent means in doing this. 
 
 Pictures and images of Christ, of Mary, of the apostles, and 
 of the martyrs, are intended simply to excite devotion, by 
 bringing up before the mind a more concentrated and lively 
 history of the persons and scenes represented. Prose, poetry, 
 and painting, are only signs or mediums of thought and fact. 
 These different modes of representation have each their peculiar 
 advantages. It is by a combination of them all that the best 
 representation can be had in many cases. For this reason we 
 see works jf art and science, as well as of biography, constantly 
 illustrated by drawings, plans, and pictures. By the use of 
 prose a more exact and full description can be given, while that 
 of poetry is more vivid, and that of painting more touching. 
 When we look upon an image or painting of the crucifixion, it 
 at once brings to our recollection, by the power of the associa- 
 
RELICS AND IMAGES. 673 
 
 tion of ideas, all the remembered incidents of our Lord's pas- 
 sion. The word cross is but a sign, and only brings up the 
 same emotions as the image or picture of the same thing repre- 
 sented. 
 
 In the Old Testament we are told that the dead man was 
 instantly restored to life when he touched the bones of the 
 prophet. (2 Kings xiii. 21.) So, we are assured that miracles 
 were wrought by handkerchiefs and aprons from the body of 
 St. Paul. (Acts xix. 11, 12.) And we are also told that the 
 shadow of St. Peter and the hem of our Lord's garment had 
 this effect. (Matt. xix. 20 ; Acts v. 15.) From these examples 
 we see that God, of old, did make use of such means to show 
 His power and love, and He certainly may do so now. 
 
 4. Testimony of the Fathers. 
 
 I shall put the passages together that relate to the invoca- 
 tion of saints, their relics and images, leaving the reader to dis- 
 tinguish the one from the other. 
 
 In the account given of the martyrdom of the holy Ignatius, 
 Bishop of Antioch, and disciple of St. John, it is related : 
 
 " He was thrown to the wild beasts at a spot close to the 
 temple ; and so was speedily carried into effect the desire of 
 this holy martyr Ignatius, according to that which is written, 
 4 the desire of the righteous shall be granted.' For thus he was 
 a burthen to none of his brethren from the trouble of gathering 
 up his remains ; a consummation in correspondence with a 
 wish which he had previously expressed in his Epistle. The 
 harder parts were alone left, and these were gathered up and 
 carried to Antioch, where they were wrapped in a linen cloth, 
 and deposited with the brethren of that Holy Church a 
 treasure rendered invaluable by the Christian graces which had 
 adorned the martyr's life." 
 
 The same holy martyr, in his Epistle to the Trallians, says : 
 " My spirit saluteth you ; not now only, but when I shall have 
 gone to God." Observe how explicit this is. 
 
 In the letter of the Church of Smyrna, giving an account 
 
 of the martyrdom of holy Polycarp, they say : " And so we 
 
 afterwards gathered up his bones, more valued than stones of 
 
 much price, and purer than fine gold, and laid them in a fitting 
 
 58 
 
674 RELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 treasure-house. Thus assembling, as we may, in joy and tri 
 umph, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the birthday. of his 
 martyrdom, both to the remembering of them who wrestled 
 before in the cause, and the training and preparing of those that 
 shall come after." 
 
 That the Christians, who were themselves the disciples of 
 the apostles, were in the habit of meeting together and cele- 
 brating the martyrdom of a saint over his relics, (which they es- 
 teemed of so much value,) is not only shown by the foregoing 
 extract, but also by the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, 
 in which they say : 
 
 " And now we make known to you the day and time at 
 which this event occurred ; that at the season of his martyrdom 
 we may gather together, and collect a portion of the spirit 
 which animated this courageous champion and martyr of 
 Christ." It will be remembered that the bones of the holy 
 martyr had been deposited with that Church. 
 
 The foregoing extracts may be found in the first volume of 
 the Oxford Tracts. 
 
 St. Justin Martyr : " But both God, and the Son who came 
 from him, and taught us these things, and the host of other 
 good angels that follow and resemble (him, or them), and the 
 prophetic spirit, we venerate and adore, honoring in reason and 
 truth, and freely delivering to every one who wishes to learn, 
 even as we have been taught." (Apol. i., n. 6.) 
 
 The testimony of St. Irenaeus has already been given when 
 treating of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 
 St. Clement of Alexandria : " The perfect Christian also 
 prays together with angels, as being already the equal of angels ; 
 nor is he ever out of the holy guardianship ; even though he 
 may pray alone, he has the chair of the holy ones standing by." 
 (Strom., 1. vii., p. 879.) 
 
 Tertullian : " You may begin from parables : When is the 
 lost sheep sought for by the Lord, and carried back upon his 
 shoulders ? Let the very pictures of your chalices come forth, 
 if even in them the interpretation of that animal will clearly 
 shine forth, whether it portray the restoration of a sinner that 
 was a Christian, or a Gentile." (De Perdicit, n. 7, p. 559.) 
 
 From this authority it is clear that it was usual, in the time 
 
RELICS AND IMAGES. 675 
 
 of Tertullian, for images of Christ returning with the lost sheep 
 upon His shoulders, to be engraved upon the chalices used in 
 the celebration of the Eucharist. Eusebius also says : " And it 
 is no wonder that they of the Gentiles who were formerly bene- 
 fited by our Saviour, should have done this, when we have 
 learnt that the images also of the apostles, Peter and Paul, and 
 even of Christ Himself, are preserved in paintings." (H. E. L. 
 vii., c. xviii.) 
 
 These are testimonies of the second century. Another class 
 of testimony, of very ancient date, (certainly before the genernl 
 persecutions ceased in 315,) consists of the inscriptions upon the 
 tombs of the saints whose bodies repose in the Catacombs. 
 
 " Every part of Rome," says Bifhop Wiseman, " is under- 
 rained with catacombs, in which the bodies of saints and mar- 
 tyrs were deposited after their deaths. The tombs are even 
 some of them as yet sealed up and unbroken ; some with in- 
 scriptions on them, or perhaps a palm branch rudely sculptured, 
 to show that there repose the martyrs of Christ. We have 
 phials, adhering and fastened to the covers of the tombs, in the 
 walls of the catacombs, in which are sponges,- or sediment, still 
 tinged with the color of blood ; indeed, the very instruments 
 of martyrdom are constantly found in tombs. Certainly, these 
 were men who knew Christianity, who fully appreciated what 
 was due to Christ, for whom they died, who were fully con- 
 vinced that nothing on earth was to be preferred before Him, 
 and that no creature could pretend to one particle of the honor 
 reserved by Him to Himself! Surely we cannot want purer or 
 more satisfactory witnesses to what Christ instituted, than they 
 who shed their blood to seal its truth ; we cannot want teachers 
 better imbued with the spirit of His religion, than those who 
 were ready to lay down their lives to defend it ! Let us see 
 what was their belief regarding their brethren, when they de- 
 posited them in those tombs, and sealed them up, and inscribed 
 on them their regrets or their hopes. Nothing is more common 
 than to find on them a supplication, a prayer to the saints or 
 martyrs to intercede for the survivors with God." 
 
 I give only the English translations of the original Latin, as 
 given by the bishop, referring to the 13th of his Moorfield Lec- 
 tures for the originals : 
 
676 RELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 " Sabbatius, sweet soul, pray and entreat for thy brethren 
 and comrades." 
 
 " Atticus, thy spirit is in bliss ; pray for thy parents." 
 
 " Jovian us, may you live in God and pray." 
 
 " Anatolinus made this monument to his well-beloved son, 
 who lived seven years. May thy spirit rest well in God, and 
 thou pray for thy sister." 
 
 " Pray for us, because we know that thou art in Christ." 
 
 '" These are," says the Bishop, " most of them inscriptions 
 on the tombs of martyrs, whose bodies were deposited therein 
 during the very first centuries of Christianity, when men were 
 ready to die for the faith of Christ." 
 
 IN THE THIRD CENTURY. In the account of the martyrdom 
 of the saints, Perpetua and others, it is stated that Saturnus the 
 martyr asked of Perdeus " the ring on his finger, and having 
 plunged it in* his wound, returned it to him, leaving him that 
 pledge as an inheritance, and a memorial of his blood." 
 
 Origen, who wrote in A. D. 216 : " And no wonder if a 
 saint sanctify, by the word of God and prayer, the food of 
 which we partake, when even the very garments with which he 
 is clothed are holy. The handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul de- 
 rived so much holiness from his purity, that, when applied to 
 the bodies of the sick, they drove away diseases, and restored 
 health ; and of Peter what shall I say, the very shadow of 
 whose body leave with it so much holiness, that whomsoever, 
 not he, but his shadow only touched, was at once relieved from 
 every ailment." (T. iv., L. ix. Com. in Ep. ad Rom. 666.) 
 
 " But not the high priest (Jesus Christ) alone prays with 
 those who pray sincerely, but also the angels who rejoice in 
 heaven upon one sinner who is penitent, more than upon ninety- 
 nine just who need not penitence, as also the souls of the saints 
 who have already fallen asleep." 
 
 In this extract it is clearly stated that the angels, and the 
 saints who have fallen asleep, pray with those who pray sin- 
 cerely. Origen refers in proof to the Book of Tobias iii. 24, 
 and to 2 Mac. xv., and then refers to the New Testament in 
 this way : 
 
 " But one of the principal virtues, according to the Divine 
 Word, is charity towards our neighbor, which we must needs 
 
RELICS AND IMAGE8. 677 
 
 think is felt, by the departed saints, towards those who are 
 struggling in life, more exceedingly than by those who are yet 
 in human infirmity, and are but struggling together with those 
 who need aid. Not here only is it fulfilled in those who love 
 the brethren. If one member suffer, all the members suffer 
 with it and if one member be honored, all the members rejoice 
 with it, (1 Cor. xii.,) for it is also suitable to the love of those 
 who are out of this life to say : The care of all the churches : 
 who is weak, and I am not weak f Who is scandalized, and 
 I am not on fire ? (2 Cor. xi.) (T. i. De Oratione, n. xi.) 
 
 In this extract it is very clearly stated that the love of the 
 brethren spoken of by St. Paul is more perfect in the saints in 
 glory than it is in the saints on earth, and that it is suitable for 
 those in glory still to say with Paul, " The care of all the 
 churches," &c., is still on us. 
 
 " If we wish that there be a multitude of those whom we 
 desire to be kindly disposed towards us, that ten thousand times 
 a hundred thousand stand before him, and thousands of thou- 
 sands minister to him, (Dan. vii.,) who, regarding as relatives 
 and friends, those who imitate their piety towards God, co- 
 operate in the salvation of those who call upon God, and pray 
 sincerely, appearing to them, and thinking that they ought to 
 obey, and, as though by some compact, to come, for the benefit 
 and salvation of those who are praying to God, to whom they 
 also pray. For they are all ministering spirits, &c. (Heb. i. 
 14.) Jesus has taught us not to despise the little ones in the 
 Church, saying that their angels always see the face of my 
 Father who is in heaven." (T. i. Contra Celsus., 1. viii., n. 34, 
 p. 766, 767.) 
 
 St. Dionysius of Alexandria : " They who are about to strug- 
 gle in the sacred conflict of suffering for righteousness, have 
 angels bringing aid to them from heaven." (De Martyrio, 
 p. 40.) 
 
 St. Cyprian, who wrote about A. D. 248 : In a letter to Camil- 
 ius, who was then in exile, he says : " Let us be mutually mind- 
 ful of each other, of one heart and one mind, let us ever on either 
 side pray for each other, by mutual love lighten our burthens 
 and difficulties, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the 
 divine vouchsafement, depart hence the first, let our love con- 
 
678 RELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 tinue in the presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our breth- 
 ren and sisters cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father." 
 (Ep. Ivii. ad Cornel., p. 206.) 
 
 " Endure with courage, proceed spiritually, arrive happily ; 
 arid then remember us when virginity shall begin to be honored 
 in you." (De Habit. Yirg., p. 362.) 
 
 IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. Eusebius says : " For the 
 brethren there (at Jerusalem) venerating, according to a de- 
 rived custom, the throne, which has been preserved to this day, 
 of James, the first who received from Christ and the apostles 
 the episcopate of the Church of Jerusalem, point out clearly to 
 all, what veneration, both they of old and the men of our days, 
 preserved, and still preserve towards holy men, on account of 
 their love of God." (H. E. L. vii., c. xix.) 
 
 " Who can doubt that the places which have been honored 
 by the bodies of the martyrs, and have preserved the memory 
 of their glorious death, belong to the Church?" (In the Vita 
 Constant., 1. ii., c. xl.) 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "And let us not foolishly disbelieve, 
 as though this had not happened; for if handkerchiefs and 
 aprons, which are external, when they touched the bodies of 
 the sick, raised up the infirm, how much more should the 
 body itself of the prophet raise the dead." (Catech. xviii., 
 n. 16.) 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions : " Wherefore even the very relics 
 of those who live with God are not without honor. For even 
 Eliseus the prophet, after he was fallen asleep, raised up a dead 
 man who was slain by the pirates of Syria ; for his body touched 
 the bones of Eliseus, and he arose and lived again. Now this 
 would not have happened unless the body of Eliseus was holy." 
 (L. vi., n. 30.) 
 
 Martyrdom of St. Vincent : " There might you have seen 
 the multitude that had stood round, emulously kiss the feet of 
 the saint, touch with pious curiosity the wounds with which the 
 whole body was lacerated, receive in linen cloths the blood, as 
 with sacred veneration, to be a future benefit to their posterity." 
 (Pass. St. Vincent.) 
 
 St. Hilary of Poictiers : " We owe more to your cruelty, 
 Nero, Decius, and Maximinian, (than to Constantius,) for 
 
RELICS AND IMAGES. 679 
 
 through you we conquered Satan. Everywhere was the holy 
 blood of the martyrs received, and their venerable bones are a 
 daily testimony, while evil spirits halt at them, while mala- 
 dies are expelled, while wonderful works are seen." (Contr. 
 Const. Imp., n. 8.) 
 
 " So those that would fain stand, neither the guardianship 
 of saints, nor the defences of angels, are wanting." (Tract, in 
 Ps. Ixxiv., n. 5, 6, p. 454.) 
 
 " Not, therefore, the nature of God, but our infirmity needs 
 their intercession. For they are sent on behalf of those who 
 shall inherit salvation : not that God is ignorant of any thing we 
 do, but our infirmity stands in need of the ministry of spiritual 
 intercession in order to supplicate and to merit." (Tract, cxxix., 
 n. vii., 494.) 
 
 Eusebius : " Hence it is our custom also to go to their tombs, 
 and to offer up our prayers beside them, and to honor their 
 blessed souls, and those things are laudably practised by us." 
 (Pnep. Ev., L. xiii., c. xi., p. 663.) 
 
 * * * u o f wn ich may we be found worthy by the prayers and 
 intercessions of all the saints." (Comm. in His. in fine, t. ii., 
 Nov. Coll. Monte.) 
 
 Celsus : " Thus Job the just is exhibited as about to pray 
 and petition for the sins of his three friends, and the proof of his 
 fear and faith is sealed by the attesting voice of the Lord. 
 When, therefore, in the day of thy liberation, thou shalt first 
 present thyself before the face of Christ * * * by the mercy of 
 the Lord, then bear in mind thy child, Celsus." (Prref. de 
 Jud. Incud. ad Virgil., Ep. Galland., t. iv., p. 440.) 
 
 St. Ephraim Syrus : " God dwells in their relics ; thence 
 have they ability to work every kind of miracle. O God that 
 dwellest in the just, to thee be glory, and may thy mercy be 
 upon us." (T. ii., Gr. in Vit. B. Abra,, p. 19.) 
 
 " For the grace of the Holy Ghost, that performs all mira- 
 cles, is ever present with their holy relics." (T. ii., Gr. Encom. 
 in Glorios. M. M., p. 308.) 
 
 St. Gregory of Nazianzum : " Such is the veneration of 
 truth, that a little dust, or some small relic of old bones, or a 
 small portion of hair, or shreds of rag, or a stain of blood, are 
 
680 KELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 enough to have the same honor as the whole body." (T. ii., 
 Carm. Iamb xviii., p. 216.) 
 
 St. Basil : " It will be a good action on your part to send 
 martyrs' relics to this country, since, according to your ac- 
 count, the persecution in your parts, even now, makes martyrs 
 unto the Lord." (T. iii., P. ii., Ep. civ., p. 354.) 
 
 St, Ambrose : " Let others hoard up silver and gold, and 
 tear it from the hidden veins. We gather up the nails, and 
 these not a few, that have pierced the martyrs ; we gather up 
 their victorious blood, and the wood of the cross. These (relics) 
 we have not been able to refuse to the request of the pious 
 widow. Receive ye, therefore, those gifts of salvation which 
 now are deposited under the sacred altars." (T. ii. Exhort. 
 Virgin, 7-10, 15.) 
 
 In speaking of the discovery of the bodies of Saints Gervase 
 and Protase, St. Ambrose says : " Whilst we were translating 
 them, a blind man was restored to sight." (T. ii. Ep. xxii., 
 Class i., Soroii Sera3, col. 874-8.) 
 
 St. Siricius, Pope : " Very many of our brethren assembled 
 with us at the relics of the holy Apostle Peter, through whom 
 both the apostulate and espiscopate took its rise." (Epis. per 
 Afric., col. 1028, t. ii. Labb.) 
 
 St. John Chrysostom : " The place that received that 
 slaughtered body, small and confined as it is, is more revered 
 than ten thousand royal chambers, and more precious than 
 kings themselves. And his sepulchre shall be glorious. (Is. 
 xi. 10.) And what is more strange still, this has not befallen 
 him (Christ) only, but the very same has happened to his dis- 
 ciples. For the men that were dragged and led about, the men 
 that were despised and bound in fetters, the men that suffered 
 countless hardships, are, since their death, more honored than 
 kings. And how, learn hence. In that most regal city, 
 Rome, both kings, and consuls, and generals, leaving every 
 thing else, hasten to the tombs of the fisherman and the tent- 
 maker." (T. i. Contra Gent, et Jud. Quod Christus sit Deus, 
 n. 8, 9, 10, p. 695-8.) 
 
 St. Jerome : " You say that Virgilantius again opens his 
 fetid mouth, and casts his most vile filth against the relics of the 
 holy martyrs, and that he calls us, who admit relics, cinder- 
 
RELICS AND IMAGES. 681 
 
 worshippers and idolaters, who venerate dead men's bones. 
 The miserable man, whose state is to be bewailed with torrents 
 of tears. * * * * But we worship not, we adore not, I do not say 
 relics only, but not even the sun and moon, not angels, not 
 archangels, not the cherubim, not the seraphim, * * * * lest wo 
 serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for- 
 evermore. But we honor the relics of martyrs, that we may 
 adore him whose martyrs they are. We honor the servants, 
 that the honor given to the servants may redound to the Lord, 
 who says, He that receiveth you, receiveth me." (T. i., Ep. 
 cix. ad Reparium, n. 1,2, col. 719-21.) 
 
 Addressing Virgilantius, he asks : " Who, thou madman, 
 has ever adored the martyrs ? Who has thought man a God ? " 
 (T. ii. adv. Vigilant., n. 1, 4-6, col. 387-91.) 
 
 As we have seen, the first to charge the early Christians 
 with idolatry, because of the honor paid to the relics of martyrs, 
 were the unbelieving Jews, who witnessed the martyrdom of 
 holy Poly carp. In A. D. 380, the Sophist Eunapius made the 
 same charge. The charge was also made by Vigilantius, as the 
 above extract shows. It was also made by Faustus. It was a 
 common charge always found in the mouths of infidels and the 
 worst class of heretics. The extract from the great St. Jerome 
 exactly expresses the faith of the Catholic Church, and makes 
 the clear distinction between subordinate and supreme honor. 
 
 St. Athanasius : He says that we ought to recite and sing 
 the Psalms exactly as the words are written, " That the holy 
 men who have communicated the words as ministers, recog- 
 nizing their own words, may pray for us." (T. i., n. 31, p. 1001.) 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem : " We then commemorate also those 
 who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, 
 apostles, martyrs, that God, by their prayers and intercessions, 
 may receive our petitions." (Catech. Myst. v., n. ix., p. 328.) 
 
 St. Ephraim Syrus : " Accept, O Lord, the supplication of 
 thy servant, by the intercessions of the saints who have been 
 well pleasing unto thee." (T. i. Gr. de Poenit. [in fine] p. 153.) 
 
 " Blessed are they that suifer in the Lord, for the delights 
 of Paradise await them ; of which may we be all partakers by 
 the intercessions of all those who have been well pleasing to our 
 
 59 
 
682 RELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ." (T. i. Gr. Confess, sen Precat., p. 226, de 
 Virtute, cap. ix.) 
 
 St. Gregory of Nyssa : " And do thou (Ephraim) that art 
 standing at the divine altar, and art ministering with angels to 
 the life-giving and most holy Trinity, bear us all in remem- 
 brance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition 
 of an everlasting kingdom." (T. iii. De Vita Ephraim, p. 616.) 
 
 St. John Chrysostom : " We may then also be enabled to 
 become companions of the saints, by the prayers of those saints, 
 and by the grace and goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 (T. ii. Horn, S. Ign. M., n. 5, p. 716, 717.) 
 
 St. Gregory of Nazianzum : " I am persuaded that he (St. 
 Cyprian) now (guards the flock) more effectually by hi-s inter- 
 cession, than he did formerly by his teaching, by so much as he 
 is nigher unto God." (T. i. de St. Cypriano, p. 288.) 
 
 St. Basil : " Of the holy spiritual powers that have their 
 places in heaven, some are called eyes, from being intrusted to 
 watch over us ; others, ears, from receiving our prayers." (T. 
 i. Horn, in Ps. xxxiii., n. 11, p. 219.) 
 
 St. Epiphanius : " Holy indeed is the body of Mary ; but 
 she was no God." " Let no one make oblation unto her name, 
 for that ruins his soul ; nor, on the other hand, let him behave 
 madly by insulting the holy Virgin." " We are not to honor 
 the saints beyond what is due, but to honor their Lord." " But 
 neither Elias is to be adored, though still living ; nor John," 
 &c. * * * * " Be Mary in honor ; but be the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost adored : let no one adore Mary. * * * Though 
 Mary be most excellent and holy and honored, yet she is not to 
 be adored." (T. i. Adv. Haeres. Collyrid., p. 1061-5.) 
 
 These extracts related to an obscure sect of female heretics 
 in Arabia, called Collyridians, who offered a kind of twisted 
 cake in sacrifice to the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 St. Ambrose : " May Peter, who wept so effectually for 
 himself, weep for us, and turn towards us Christ's benignant 
 countenance." (T. i. HexsBm., 1. v., c. 25, n. 90, p. 114.) 
 
 " The angels who have been given to us for our protection 
 are to be invoked in our behalf; the martyrs whose patron- 
 age we seem to have a claim to by a*kind of pledge derived 
 
RELICS AND IMAGES. 683 
 
 from the body are to be invoked." (T. ii. De Yideris, c. ix., 
 n. 54, 55, p. 200.) 
 
 St. Jerome : " The day will come wherein thou wilt return a 
 conqueror to thy country, wherein thou wilt traverse the heav- 
 enly Jerusalem, the brave man crowned. Then wilt thou be a 
 fellow-citizen with Paul ; then for thy parents also wilt thou pe- 
 tition the rights of that same city. Then too wilt thou pray for 
 me, who spurred thee on to conqueror." (T. i. Ep. xiv. ad 
 Heliardor., n. 3, p. 29.) He also invoked the prayers of St. 
 Paula, in the close of his life of that saint. 
 
 St. Damasus, Pope : " Be favorable, I beseech thee, glori- 
 ous martyr, to the prayers of Damasus." (Carm. xx.) 
 
 IN THE FIFTH CENTURY. " Of the martyrs the justice is per- 
 fect," says the great St. Augustin, " because in their passion itself 
 they were perfected. For this cause prayer is not offered for 
 them in the Church. For the other faithful departed we pray, 
 for martyrs we do not pray ; for they departed so perfect, as 
 not to be our clients, but our advocates. Neither are they this 
 in themselves, but in him to whom they cleaved perfect mem- 
 bers of the head." (T. v. Serm. cclxxxv., n. 5, col. 1685.) 
 
 "A most delightful picture is this, when you behold St. 
 Stephen being stoned, you behold Saul holding the garments 
 of those who cast the stones. ***** With him whom thou 
 didst stone though reignest with Christ. You both there be- 
 hold each other ; you both hear my discourse ; both pray for 
 us." (T. v. Serm. cccvii., n. 5, col. 1689.) 
 
 " But the Christian people unite in celebrating, with re- 
 ligious solemnity, the memories of the martyrs, both to excite 
 to an imitation of them, and to be associated to their merits, 
 and aided by their prayers ; yet so that to none of the martyrs, 
 although in places dedicated to martyrs, do we raise altars. 
 For what prelate standing at the altar, in the places of their 
 holy bodies, ever said, we offer to thee Peter, or Paul, or 
 Cyprian ? but what is offered is offered to God, who crowned 
 the martyrs, in the places dedicated to their memory whom he 
 crowned ; that from the admonition furnished by those very 
 places a greater affection may arise, to make our love keener 
 both towards those whom we are able to imitate, and towards 
 him by whose help we have that ability. We, therefore, wor- 
 
684: EELICS AND IMAGES. 
 
 ship the martyrs with that worship of love and of fellowship 
 with which, even in this life, holy men are worshipped, whose 
 hearts we feel are ready to endure a similar death for evangeli- 
 cal truth. But the martyrs the more devotedly, as it is the 
 safer after their conflicts overcome : as also with more confident 
 praise do we exalt those who are already triumphant in a hap- 
 pier life than those who are still engaged in battle in this life. 
 But with that worship which in Greek is called Xarpeta (in 
 Latin it cannot be expressed in one word) as it is a kind of 
 service properly due to the Divinity, we neither worship, nor 
 teach to worship, other than the one God. But whereas to this 
 worship pertains the oblation of sacrifice whence they who 
 oifer this also to idols are declared guilty of idolatry we do 
 not in any wise offer, or teach to be offered, any thing of this 
 kind, either to any martyr, to any holy soul, or to any angel ; 
 and whoever falls into this error, he is reproved by sound teach- 
 ing, either that he may amend, or be avoided." (T. iii., lib. xx., 
 n. 21, Contra Faustum, col. 544-6.) 
 
 It will be seen, by the attentive examination of this extract, 
 that the distinctions now made by the Catholic Church were 
 made by this great writer. The first extract proves that 
 prayers were offered for the dead, but not for the martyrs who 
 needed them not. 
 
 I will close this list by the following extract from this great 
 and distinguished saint, than whom there perhaps never lived a 
 brighter example of piety and ability, since the days of the 
 apostles : 
 
 " We celebrate on this day the erecting of a place to the 
 memory of St. Protasius and St. Gervasius, the martyrs of 
 Milan : not the day whereon it was erected here, but we on 
 this day celebrate the day on which the death of his saints was, 
 through Ambrose, that man of God, precious in the sight of 
 God of the which great glory of the martyrs I also was a 
 witness. I was there ; I was at Milan ; I knew the miracles 
 done ; God testifying to the precious deaths of the saints; that 
 through those miracles that death might be not only precious 
 in the sight of God, but also in the sight of men. A blind man 
 very well known to the whole city received his sight; he ran; 
 he caused himself to be led : he came back without a guide* 
 
RELICS AND IMAGES. 685 
 
 * * * Not to all does God bestow health through the mar- 
 tyrs, but to all that imitate the martyrs does he promise their 
 immortality." (T. v. Serm. cclxxxvi., n. 4, 5, in Natal. M. M. 
 Pro. et Ger., col. 1689.) 
 
 Were these great and noble men impostors and idolaters ? 
 They are the witnesses upon whom Dr. Paley relied to prove 
 the truth of Christianity itself. 
 
 I have passed over many authorities for want of space. 
 That the Catholic doctrine was the universal doctrine of the 
 Church in the very first ages of Christianity, there would seem 
 to be no doubt. The fact is certain, that angels are ministering 
 spirits, as St. Paul says, and that the saints in glory are as the 
 angels, as we are told by Christ ; and as the angels are such 
 ministering spirits, it is very strange that they cannot aid us by 
 their prayers, while this assistance can be given us by our 
 brethren on earth. What substantial difference there can be 
 between the principle of the two cases, it is difficult to perceive. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 1. General Misrepresentation of Catholic Doctrines. 
 
 THAT fair and candid controvertists may often misconceive 
 each other's meaning, is not surprising. This arises from the 
 general poverty, and uncertain character, of language, and often 
 from a want of certainty and elearness in the statement of a 
 position. Writers, who have themselves confused conceptions 
 of the subject they discuss, or of the positions they lay down, 
 will necessarily use confused language. And in quoting from 
 an author, who did not himself understand distinctly what he 
 intended to state, or who uses inappropriate and loose language, 
 it may be very difficult to avoid the appearance of unfairness. 
 Quotations must have their practical limits ; and it is not al- 
 ways easy to know, in every case, where these limits are to be 
 found. So much of an author should be quoted as to show his 
 true position in reference to the single point regarding which 
 the quotation is made. It cannot be expected that the reasons 
 for his position can be quoted, unless those reasons are exam- 
 ined. If, therefore, he states a general principle, and then 
 states a qualification or limitation to be taken out of, or an- 
 nexed to, this general principle, the exception to the general 
 principle ought also to be given ; provided the point, to prove 
 which the quotation is made, requires it. If I quote an author 
 for a given purpose, I need only quote so much as that purpose 
 fairly requires. The quotation may also prove other matters, 
 not then under discussion ; but the just reader must keep in 
 view the matter the writer has in his mind's eye when making 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 687 
 
 the quotation. Every writer upon moral and philosophical 
 subjects must have learned the practical difficulty of sometimes 
 apprehending the true meaning of an author, and of represent- 
 ing him correctly. Mistakes of this kind are to be anticipated, 
 to a certain extent. It must also be conceded, that the fairest 
 and most impartial writers are sometimes improperly accused 
 of unfairness. 
 
 But after making every fair and just allowance for the gen- 
 eral poverty and uncertainty of language, and the natural frailty 
 of the human mind, I am compelled to say, that in all my read 
 ing and observation, I have never met with the same amount 
 of gross, bitter, and continued misrepresentation, as I have 
 found on the part of Protestant controvertists, when writing 
 upon the subject of the Catholic faith. That I am correct upon 
 this subject, and in this opinion, can readily be seen by any 
 calm, careful, and diligent reader, who will take the authors on 
 both sides, and fairly compare them together. 
 
 In reading Dr. Mimer's End of Controversy, I could not but 
 remark the amount and character of these misrepresentations. 
 The candid James Brown, in his letter to the author, says : 
 " The whole of your letters have again been read over in our 
 society, and they have produced important though diversified 
 effects on the minds of its members." In another place he 
 says : " With respect to certain other members of our society, I 
 am sorry to be obliged to say, that, on this particular subject 
 I mean the arguments in favor of your religion they do not 
 manifest the candor and good sense which are natural to them, 
 and which they show on every other subject. They pronounce, 
 with confidence and vehemence, that Dr. Porteus' charges are 
 all true, and that you cannot make any rational answer to them ; 
 at the same time that several of these gentlemen, to my knowl- 
 edge, are very little acquainted with the substance of them. In 
 short, they are apt to load your religion, and the professors of 
 it, with epithets and imputations too gross and injurious for 
 me to repeat, convinced as I am of their falsehood. I shall not 
 be surprised to hear that some of these imputations have been 
 transmitted to you by the persons in question, as I have de- 
 clined making my letters the vehicle of them ; it is a justice, 
 however, which I owe them, to assure you, reverend sir, that it 
 
688 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 is only since they have understood the inference of your 
 ments to be such as to imply an obligation on them of 
 ing their own respective religions, and embracing yours, thai 
 they have been so unreasonable and violent. Till this period, 
 they appeared to be nearly as liberal and charitable with re- 
 spect to your communion as to any other." 
 
 In his thirty-second letter, the learned divine mentions a 
 portion of these misrepresentations, and they are surely griev- 
 ous enough. And so strong is that feeling of violence and 
 prejudice exhibited by a portion of the respectable members of 
 the Society of New Cottage, that even in theological dictiona- 
 ries and other works, whose professed purpose is historically to 
 state the true tenets of different bodies of professed Christians, 
 we can very seldom find any thing like a fair statement of the 
 Catholic faith. The only theological dictionary compiled by a 
 Protestant, that did give a fair and just statement of the Catho- 
 lic faith, so far as my examination has gone, was one by an 
 English author, the just and impartial Bellamy. The Oxford 
 Tracts also give generally a fair representation of the particular 
 tenets of the Catholic Church, discussed by them. But the 
 Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, so confidently quoted 
 by Mr. Campbell as impartial, is one of the most inaccurate 
 works I saw, in all that relates to the Catholic system. No 
 man, I apprehend, can read the article upon the Catholic faith, 
 and from it form any tolerably accurate idea of its true char- 
 acter. 
 
 Among the Protestant writers whose works I examined, I 
 found Dr. Spring, in his Dissertation, to which I have often re- 
 ferred, one of the most extreme. He charges the Catholic 
 Church with a complication of evils enough to ruin any cause, 
 if true. He says, among other things : " Rome cannot endure 
 discussion. The only safety of her wicked system is to keep 
 the world in darkness." 
 
 As I read Protestant and Catholic writers together, I soon 
 found this charge denied by the latter. One of the works read 
 by me at the same time I read this Dissertation of Dr. Spring's, 
 was the volume containing the Moorfield Lectures of Dr. Wise- 
 man, in the thirteenth lecture of which I found this language, 
 page 110, vol. 2 : 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 689 
 
 " We are anxious not to shrink from inquiry, but to court 
 it ; we throw open our places of worship to all men ; we publish 
 our books of prayer and instruction before the world ; we sub- 
 mit the least of our children and their catechism to examination ; 
 we invite all to inspect our schools, and present the masters and 
 their scholars to their interrogation ; all that we write and read is 
 at the command of the learned; and, if in our power, we would 
 open our breasts, and ask them to look even into our hearts 
 for God knows we have nothing to shade, nothing to conceal 
 and then let them read our belief, as written on its tablets in 
 the simplest and plainest terms. No attack can any longer be 
 allowed by any sensible, reasonable, generous, or liberal-minded 
 man, except through calm and cool investigation, based entirely 
 on the correct statement of our doctrines, and conducted ex- 
 clusively, not by vague quotations from the Word of God, but 
 by arguments clearly and strongly addressed to his under- 
 standing." 
 
 The learned divine, Dr. Spring, goes on to say that " Ro- 
 manism is to a great extent the religion of Infidels." He 
 charges the Church with finding " fault with none, whose faith, 
 be it what it may, is sufficiently effective to reach their purses 
 in support of its claims." But in another place he says : " The 
 Faith of Rome must be received implicitly or not at all." " I 
 pity the poor Catholic. He believes he knows not what." 
 " But it is a fact which no Romanist will deny, that the Popes 
 of Rome, as a body of men, have been a dishonor to human na- 
 ture." " The Romanists have altered and amended, and so mis- 
 translated the Bible, as to render it conformable to their own 
 standard." " The religion of Rome is a cruel religion." " The 
 Romish Church is the bitterest foe of the people." " I do not 
 know a system of folly, or impiety, which, as a religious system, 
 can be compared with that which this prolific principle of error 
 has produced." 
 
 After making these and many other charges against the 
 Catholic Church, the learned author winds up with this bold 
 and indignant figure : 
 
 " But no ; it is the incarnate spirit of darkness roaming over 
 the world, seeking whom it may devour, laying waste its valleys 
 
090 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 and its hills, and drenching them with the blood of its slain." 
 (Dissertation 39, 50, 63, 71, 74, 86.) 
 
 But not only were the charges themselves most grievous, 
 and often contradictory, but some of the most revolting circum 
 stances that a prejudiced and diseased imagination could con- 
 ceive, are brought in to heighten the picture. " Her crimes," 
 he says, "are plotted at the altar of mercy." (Dis. 85.) 
 
 The first work I read, in the course of my investigations 
 into the truth of the Catholic system, was the debate between 
 Campbell and Purcell. I was a member of the same church 
 with Mr. Campbell, and had the utmost confidence in him. All 
 my partialities were in his favor. And yet I must say, I was 
 mortified when I read the debate in question, because of the ex- 
 treme bitterness of the charges he made, and the manner in 
 which he shifted his positions, and the objectionable character 
 of many of his main assumptions, inferences, and deductions. 
 The reading of the debate did not make me a Catholic, as I 
 thought I saw grounds of objection not met by Bishop Purcell ; 
 but I could not but see that Mr. Campbell had fought with all 
 sorts of weapons, and had addressed too many of his arguments 
 to mere ignorance and prejudice. 
 
 For example, he says in reference to the doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation : 
 
 " But the priest can bring down the divine Saviour from 
 heaven, and offer him body, soul, and divinity as often as he 
 pleases, and have the people adore both him and the miracle in 
 his hand ! ! " (Debate C. & P., 292.) 
 
 In this extract it is substantially assumed that, in the con- 
 templation of the Catholic theory, the change in the elements is 
 produced by the miraculous power of the priest, and that the 
 priest is adored as well as the miracle. In all my investigations 
 I could never find such a doctrine. The change is held to be 
 produced by the words of Christ, " This is my body," in the 
 same way that the words of Christ produced the effect intended 
 when He said, " Thy sins are forgiven thee " " Be thou clean " 
 "Thou art loosed from thine infirmity" "Lazarus, come 
 forth." The Catholic Church holds that Christ has promised, 
 that when these words are used in the administration of the 
 Eucharist, He Himself, by His own Word, will produce the 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 691 
 
 change. Aud that any adoration was allowed to the priest, I 
 could never find any proof, except the statement of Mr. Cainp. 
 bell. 
 
 It seemed a little remarkable that Mr. C. should have made 
 this misrepresentation, when his own Church had been the vic- 
 fim of one based upon a similar ground. Mr. C. maintains that 
 " Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins." (C. and 
 R.'s Debate, 47.) And as pardon is something done for a man 
 and not by him ; and as this pardon was a consequence that/b- 
 lowed baptism and as this baptism was administered by ail 
 Elder of Mr. C.'s communion, it might improperly be said that 
 this remission was the act of the administrator of baptism, and 
 not the act of Christ. So, if I promise to pay to another a 
 given sum of money, for doing a certain thing, and he does it, 
 and I pay him, the payment might improperly be said to be his 
 act, and not mine. 
 
 Now, if I remember correctly, it was erroneously objected 
 to the Disciples, that they claimed the power to remit sins in 
 baptism. They did not claim any such a power. They did, 
 and still insist, that upon the performance of certain precedent 
 specified conditions, Christ does remit sins in baptism. The 
 performance of these conditions is the act of men, and the re- 
 mission the act of our Lord. So, with regard to the Catholic 
 doctrine, in reference to the change in the elements. The pre- 
 cedent conditions are performed by the priest, and are his act, 
 and the change is the act of Christ. And the change in the 
 Eucharist, in the contemplation of the Catholic theory, is no 
 more the act of sovereign power than the remission of sins in 
 baptism. They are both held alike to fulfil the permanent pro- 
 visions of a pre-existing law. 
 
 A very common mode of misrepresentation among Protes- 
 tant writers, was the assumption of an historical fact, contrary 
 to the genuine tacts of history. A notable example of this may 
 be found in the late work of Dr. Edward Beecher, " The Papal 
 Controversy exposed." I have not seen the work, and quote 
 only from a review of it : 
 
 "The Pilgrim Fathers of New England, and the other 
 Protestant founders of this great nation, came to this Continent 
 soon after the Reformation had shaken the European world, to 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 lay the foundation of a new order of things, by erecting a neu 
 social system upon the great principles of civil and religious 
 liberty^ 
 
 If the Pilgrim Fathers and other Protestant founders, came 
 with the intention to lay the foundation of a new order of things, 
 and did so, embracing both civil and religious liberty, we are at 
 a loss to find any competent historical proof of that fact. But 
 all history of the times shows the contrary, even that of their 
 own historians. Charles Marshall, a Protestant, in his lecture 
 before the Irish Social and Benevolent Society of Baltimore, 
 delivered in 1855, very truly says : 
 
 " It was the settled principle of the English Constitution 
 that the government must take religion under its protection, 
 that the church established by law, was the only church that 
 good subjects should support, and that a refusal to conform to 
 the legalized religion of the land, was an offence against the 
 government, which the government might and should punish, 
 by the infliction of personal pains and penalties, or by a denial 
 of civil and political privileges. This idea was flourishing in 
 full vigof at the time of the settlement of America, and was one of 
 the abuses imported by the colonists. The right of government 
 to interfere with religious matters at all, was not questioned 
 even by the dissenters, who suffered most from its exercise. 
 They only maintained that government was giving its support to 
 the wrong form of worship, and that their peculiar dogmas were 
 those which deserved and should receive the fostering aid of 
 the law." 
 
 I mention this instance to show, that men occupying high 
 literary positions at the present day, are so careless or preju- 
 diced, as to misrepresent the facts of history, when they write 
 against the Catholic Church. I do not make the extracts for 
 the purpose of instituting any comparison between Protestants 
 and Catholics in respect to persecution, as they both have erred. 
 I believe the Puritan Fathers, and other Protestant founders of 
 our country, acted from honest, though mistaken views. And 
 I believe they were governed by these reasons, in brief: 1. 
 They believed their religion the only true form of Christianity. 
 2. They believed in the right and duty of civil government to 
 protect it, and prohibit others. 3. They believed religious error 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 693 
 
 and dissention a great evil. 4. They believed the dissenters 
 from them, if successful, would prohibit their form of religion. 
 5. They, therefore, thought that self-protection, and the best 
 humanity, required the suppression of dissent in its inception. 
 
 This system of general misrepresentation has been confessed 
 by many of the most candid Protestant writers. Thus the Rev. 
 Mr. Nightingale, in his Religion of All Nations, says : " From 
 diligent inquiry it has been ascertained that party spirit and 
 prejudice have thrown the most undeserved obloquy upon the re- 
 ligion and practices of the Roman Catholics ; in scarcely a single 
 instance has a case concerning them been fairly stated, or the 
 channels of history not grossly, not to say wickedly, corrupted." 
 (Page 65.) "Even the illiberal Mr. Ulix," says Archbishop 
 Hughes, "says that the Catholic religion is 'calumniated 
 cruelly? " " No religious system," says Nightingale, " is 
 treated so unjustly." And Hume declares that "Protestants 
 seemed to have thought that no truth should be told of the 
 Papists." The learned Grotius, reproaching the Protestant 
 ministers on this head, received for reply, " that they found it 
 necessary for the public good of the Reformed Religion." (Let- 
 ters to Vossius.) And Vossius himself, in the same corre- 
 spondence, writes, that when he reproved the ministers of Am- 
 sterdam, they admitted the iniquity of the proceeding ; " but," 
 added they, " if we leave off such language, our people will 
 soon leave us." 
 
 2. Causes of this System of Misrepresentation. 
 
 Several questions naturally arise under this state of fact. 
 What causes originally led to this system of general misrep- 
 resentation? What causes continue it even to the present 
 day ? Is it done with the calm and deliberate intent to create 
 and foster that " contempt prior to examination," which can 
 and will resist any amount of argument and proof whatsoever ? 
 Or does it continue from an ignorance of the Catholic doc- 
 trine ? 
 
 That this system of injustice had its origin mainly in a want 
 of integrity, I have no doubt ; and that, in many instances, it is 
 still continued from the same motive, I am forced to believe. 
 But in most cases its continuance arises from a real ignorance 
 
694: MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 of the Catholic faith and its history, and from such a prior dis 
 gust, as prevents a fair examination. 
 
 In the beginning and during the progress of what is called 
 the Reformation, many of the most unprincipled men, from a 
 variety of motives, put themselves at the head of that move- 
 ment. Such men are ever disposed to lead any new commotion 
 that promises them any gratification of their passions. 
 
 Alison, the distinguished Protestant historian, in his His- 
 tory of Europe, has this language : 
 
 " The great sin of the Reformation was the confiscation of so 
 large a portion of the property of the Church for the aggrandize- 
 ment of temporal ambition, and the enriching of the nobility, 
 who had taken part in the struggle. When that great convul- 
 sion broke out, nearly a third of the whole landed estates in the 
 countries which it embraced, was in the hands of the Roman 
 Catholic Church. What a noble fund was this for the moral 
 and religious instruction of the people, for the promulgation of 
 truth, the healing of sickness, the assuaging of suffering. Had 
 it been kept together, and set apart for such sacred purposes, 
 what incalculable and never-ending blessings would it have con- 
 ferred upon society. Expanding and increasing with the growth 
 of population, the augmentation of wealth, the swell of pauper- 
 ism, it would have kept the instruction and fortunes of the poor 
 abreast of the progress and fortunes of society ; and prevented, 
 in a great measure, that fatal effect, so well known in Great 
 Britain in subsequent times, of the national church falling be- 
 hind the wants of the inhabitants, and a mass of civilized 
 heathenism arising in the very heart of a Christian land. Al- 
 most all the social evils under which Great Britain is now labor- 
 ing, may be traced to this fatal, and most iniquitous spoliation, 
 under the mask of religion, of the patrimony of the poor, on the 
 occasion of the Reformation." 
 
 And the learned historian may well call this confiscation 
 "THE GREAT SIN" " this most iniquitous spoliation of 
 the patrimony of the poor, under the mask of religion." 
 
 From these great and unquestioned historical facts, two 
 conclusions plainly follow : 
 
 1. That they were truly the leaders to whom the plunder was 
 distributed. This is a test, simple and conclusive. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 695 
 
 2. That the love of plunder and pure intentions are never 
 found in the same breast at the same time. They are too in- 
 compatible to exist together. 
 
 It is well laid down in Starkie, and other writers upon the 
 Law of Evidence, that there are some circumstances conclusive 
 in their nature. For example, the body of a female was found 
 in her bed, and so disposed as to lead at once to the conclusion 
 that she had committed suicide. This was at first the impres- 
 sion of all, until they discovered the bloody print of a right 
 hand upon the back of her right hand. A father was found 
 dead in his bed, and suspicion attached to his blind son, until 
 it was observed that the murderer had left the bloody prints of 
 his hands on the wall, in feeling his way out of the room at 
 night. This could not have been the case with the blind man, 
 to whom day and night were alike. 
 
 It is, then, clear to my mind, that the motives of the leading 
 spirits who did, in fact, control and govern that movement gen- 
 erally, were interested and mercenary. And from this it is also 
 evident that the sincere who participated in it were forced to 
 yield to the bold, the forward, and the unprincipled. We see a 
 noted example of this, in the dispensation granted by Luther, 
 Melancthon, and others, to Philip, the Landgrave of Hesse, to 
 have two wives at once. 
 
 These being the characteristics and motives of the leaders 
 of the Reformation, they would necessarily labor to vindicate 
 and sustain themselves ; and, in doing so, the only question they 
 would ask, would be this : " How shall we do so the most suc- 
 cessfully f " Success, not right, would be, with them, the 
 leading impulse.* And not only so, but they would naturally 
 make up in bitterness, false accusation, and crafty evasion, what 
 they truly lacked in argument and fact. An act of gross in- 
 
 * It would seem that no one but an Atheist could consistently be a hypocrite, 
 for under every theory of a future state of rewards and punishments, hypocrisy 
 is considered a most grievous sin. Our Lord denounced it in the most severe 
 terms : " Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites." And Homer puts 
 into the mouth of one of his heroes, as translated by Pope, if I can quote him 
 orrectly, these strong lines : 
 
 " Who dares think one thing and another tell, 
 My soul detests him as the gates of hell." 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 justice is certain to be vindicated by calumny and slander. The 
 victim must be degraded, to justify the oppressor ; and this is 
 but the result of the " despairing necessities of falsehood." It 
 was very natural, therefore, to resort to this system of vindic- 
 tive and bitter crimination and crafty evasion. The taking of 
 property that did not belong to them, but really had, for ages 
 before, belonged to others, was so plain and palpable a violation 
 of the principles of eternal justice, that nothing could extenuate 
 it, even in appearance, but the utmost delinquency on the part 
 of the plundered victim. And the most vindictive, bitter, and 
 relentless animosity will always be found with those who them- 
 selves have grievously wronged others, from mercenary mo- 
 tives. 
 
 In this way the " channels of history," as Mr. Nightingale 
 truly says, were originally " grossly r , not to say wickedly, cor- 
 rupted." Or, in the language of another distinguished writer, 
 (if I can quote from recollection correctly,) " modern history 
 has been one grand conspiracy against truth." Speaking of 
 Bishop Burnet's History, Dr. Johnson said : " Burnet's History 
 of his own times is very entertaining. The style, indeed, is 
 mere chit-chat. I do not believe that Burnet intentionally lied ; 
 but he was so prejudiced, that he took no pains to find out the 
 truth. He was like a man who resolved to regulate his time by 
 a certain watch ; but will not inquire whether the watch is right 
 or not." (Boswell.) 
 
 This system of misrepresentation created in the minds of the 
 great mass of Protestants that sort of credulity which is the 
 sure and never-failing mark of prejudice, namely : a predisposi- 
 tion to believe any and every thing horrible and absurd in the 
 doctrines and practices of religious opponents, upon the mere 
 reiteration of bold assertion. This prejudice extended to all 
 classes ; and grew up with the ministers, as well as with the 
 members. The ministers and writers among Protestants have 
 preached and written for this class of hearers and readers gen- 
 erally. And it is a melancholy truth, that those preachers and 
 writers who have been most bitter and uncharitable. b.-ive gen- 
 erally been the most popular, and the most honored and patron- 
 ized. This tribute to prejudice and bitterness has naturally 
 called into prominent activity too many preachers and writers 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 697 
 
 of that reckless character ; and those again have reacted upon 
 their readers and hearers. 
 
 By such means, and such instruments, prejudice is still kept 
 up ; and prejudice is ever unreasonable. It always reverses the 
 rules of logic and reason, and loves a smart sophism much 
 better than a sound argument. In violation of that great rule 
 of law and right reason, as laid down by Starkie, in his treatise 
 on Evidence, that " the more atrocious the nature of the crime 
 is, the more repugnant it is to the common feelings of human 
 nature, the more improbable it is that it has been perpetrated 
 at all," this unfortunate state of mind will believe a charge the 
 more readily, because of its unnatural atrocity and absurdity, 
 and the improbability of its being committed by such numbers, 
 and under such circumstances. Consequently, when the Tales 
 of Maria Monk were published, they were read and believed 
 with eagerness by too many Protestants, and even by Protestant 
 ministers. Had such a mass of vilification been published 
 against any other body of professed Christians, no one would 
 have believed it. This eagerness to hear and believe such 
 stories and calumnies is the sure test of a diseased state of 
 mind. You may take two persons, one impartial, and the other 
 prejudiced, and you may inform them of a charge against the 
 members of an opposing party or Church, imputing very base 
 misconduct, and the impartial man will require proof, clear and 
 strong, in proportion to the enormity of the offence, and will 
 believe it with regret, while the dupe of prejudice will jump to 
 a conclusion of guilty, with a joy and alacrity in proportion as 
 the offence is grievous, and the evidence doubtful ; especially 
 when the charge is of some secret crime, that requires a smart 
 man to find it out. And I have often remarked, in the course 
 of my reading and observation, that charges of dark, secret, and 
 unnatural crimes are most readily believed by prejudiced per- 
 sons in every grade of life. 
 
 It is this prejudice on the part of too many Protestant 
 writers and readers which prevents them from examining Cath- 
 olic authorities for Catholic doctrines. They blindly follow 
 others who have gone before them. 
 
 But another reason which prevents even just and unpreju- 
 diced Protestants from consulting Catholic standards for Catho- 
 
C98 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 lie tenets, is the melancholy fact that these misrepresentations 
 of the Catholic system are too often found in the works of 
 Protestant writers of distinguished ability, of great personal 
 purity, and official dignity ; as if these eminent men had first 
 carefully built up such a reputation, that they might give the 
 more permanence and force to their misrepresentations. In 
 their eminent stations they had been scrupulously just and 
 gentle to all the world besides ; as if reserving all their injustice 
 and bitterness for one single object the Catholic Church. As 
 examples, I will mention two eminent Bishops of the Church of 
 England, Porteus and Watson, whose extreme and bitter mis- 
 representations of the Catholic faith were, indeed, surprising. 
 It is not at all strange, when such men make such statements, 
 that they should be implicitly believed. 
 
 That this general continuance of misrepresenting the Catho- 
 lic faith, and the history relating to it, is mainly the result of 
 a true ignorance of what they are, is not only shown to be true 
 by the fact that such misrepresentations exist too generally to 
 be the result of a calm and deliberate predetermination, among 
 the majority of Protestant writers of the present day, to commit 
 so grievous a moral wrong, not to say crime ; but is very con- 
 clusively proven by a circumstance stated by Bishop Hughes, 
 in his letter to Mr. Breckenridge, dated March 25, 1833. (Con. 
 H. & B., 70 :) 
 
 " Since your allusion to Bishop Kendrick has led me into 
 this episode, I may as well close it with a little incident which 
 occurred to myself last spring, and does not, therefore, depend 
 on ' information.' I happened to go into the session-room of 
 the ' General Assembly,' and found the * Bishops ' engaged in 
 settling a question which I soon discovered to be interesting 
 viz., 'whether baptism, administered by a Catholic priest, is 
 valid ! ' A committee, it seems, had been appointed to draw 
 up a report, which was being read when I entered. The com- 
 mittee had decided in the negative, and in support of this de- 
 cision, reported a variety of reasons, with two of which I was 
 particularly struck. One was that they (Catholic priests) bap- 
 tize in Latin ; as if infants were not quite as well acquainted 
 with this language as with any other. The second was, that 
 they (Catholic priests) baptize with oil a discovery reported 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 699 
 
 on the authority of a certain doctor, I think, of Maryland. It 
 was listened to with great but silent solemnity although there 
 were at the moment Jive baptismal founts, in as many Catholic 
 churches, within half a mile of where the Assembly was sitting ; 
 and though it is known to all the world that the Catholic bap- 
 tism is, and ever has been, with water, I retired from the pres- 
 ence of these l Teachers in Israel,' revolving in my mind the 
 words of our Blessed Redeemer : 4 If in the green wood they 
 do these things, what shall be done in the dry ? ' " 
 
 Another remarkable case occurred in Campbell & Purcell's 
 Debate. A Catholic priest had been excommunicated in Phila- 
 delphia some years before, and some mischievous wag had 
 copied the obscene curses found in Sterne's " Tristram Shandy," 
 and had them published in a newspaper as the curses pronounced 
 against the expelled priest. Mr. Campbell was deceived by 
 this trick, and seriously read Sterne's curses, as a grievous 
 charge against the Catholic Church. 
 
 I have said that in the beginning and during the progress 
 of the Reformation, many unprincipled men put themselves at 
 the head of that movement ; and that such men necessarily 
 adopted that line of self-justification which, in the nature of the 
 case, would be most successful. And while a greater propor- 
 tion of unprincipled men was found among the early writers of 
 the Reformation, it is undoubtedly true, that many of the same 
 character have lived and nourished since, and still live and 
 flourish. But there are also others, who, 
 
 " Without the care of knowing right from wrong, 
 Always appear decisive, clear, and strong ; 
 Where others toil with philosophic force, 
 Their nimble nonsense takes a shorter course, 
 Flings at your head conviction in a lump, 
 And gains remote conclusions at a jump." 
 
 Then, again, there is a large class of Protestants, who, while 
 they will not themselves positively and affirmatively propagate 
 these misrepresentations of the Catholic faith, will still wink at 
 them, and take no care, and make no effort, to prevent or cor- 
 rect the wrong. They are entirely passive, while they see the 
 grossest injustice done, and seem to satisfy their consciences, as 
 Pilate did his, when he washed his hands and declared himself 
 
700 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 innocent of the blood of Christ, But is such conduct just ? Is 
 it not the bounden duty of all good men to affirmatively oppose 
 falsehood, and prevent injustice, when in their power? Will 
 such morality stand the stern and rigid test of the great Judg- 
 ment? 
 
 3. Reflections. 
 
 But this system of misrepresentation of Catholic doctrines, 
 practices, and intentions, so general among Protestant writers, 
 gave rise, in my mind, to very serious questions. Why did 
 SUCCESS originally require such a line of argument ? Why 
 did truth require such a support ? Why was such a course pre- 
 ferred in support of an alleged true system ? And why is it 
 still necessary ? Are bad arguments more effective than good ? 
 Is misrepresentation better, in a good cause, than candor and 
 truth ? If the doctrines really held by Catholics were so false, 
 erroneous, and absurd, did they need exaggeration to cause 
 their rejection ? Does the grossest error, or error of any kind, 
 require to be darkened beyond its real demerits, to make it 
 hated and despised ? And is it necessary to prepare the human 
 mind for the reception of truth, that it should first be filled with 
 falsehood ? Do you sow weeds before you sow good grain ? Is 
 it necessary, to inculcate charity, that you should first give a 
 proof of its absence, in the party who inculcates it ? And if 
 you wish to put down falsehood, is it necessary, by your own 
 act, to show its utility and necessity ? True, it is a practical 
 rule with too many to use falsehood against alleged falsehood, 
 according to the common maxim, that you must oppose the 
 Devil with fire. But is this Christianity ? Is it true philoso- 
 phy ? On the contrary, is it not the doctrine of revenge ? the 
 practice of savages ? the chief maxim of morality among wolves 
 and tigers ? And if you wish to vanquish the Evil Spirit and 
 his bad cause, had you not better fight him with something the 
 opposite of that which he uses himself? Had you not better 
 oppose evil with good ? 
 
 But does not this NECESSITY arise from other causes ? Is 
 it because there is a unity, a force, a beauty, in the Catholic 
 system, that renders it logically impregnable ? Is it because it 
 is so conformable to the truth of Christianity, JUST AS IT IS, 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 701 
 
 and not as the passions, interests, and pride of men would make 
 it, that the Catholic theory is so much misrepresented and 
 despised? Why is it that every proud innovator upon a per- 
 manent system every wild fanatic every demagogue in reli- 
 gion every sect, and the broken fragments of every sect, from 
 Simon Magus to the present time, have one and all been down 
 upon the Old Church ? 
 
 It is true, it is an exclusive system. Every true system 
 must be so. It is a system of humility, of penance, and of self- 
 mortification and restraint. And these features are exceedingly 
 distasteful to human nature. The Catholic does claim to be 
 the sole true Church ; not a mere part and parcel of it. She 
 acts as if she was such. She is as exclusive as truth as stub- 
 born as fact. She has no compromise to make none to offer 
 none to accept. Like an immovable mountain, you must go to 
 her. She adapts not her faith to suit changing circumstances, 01 
 the whims of men, or the temper of the times. Her terms are the 
 same to all. If the great Napoleon sins at the head of his victo- 
 rious legions, he is excommunicated. If the mighty Henry the 
 VIHth did labor for her, and did great service in her cause, 
 and, therefore, did deserve her thanks ; and presuming upon 
 his claims and influence, asks a divorce from his lawful, injured, 
 and innocent wife, his request is peremptorily refused, whatever 
 may be the consequences. Gratitude does not demand the 
 sacrifice of truth. Her friends must be content with justice. 
 They can obtain no more. The true faith cannot and must not 
 be sacrificed for individuals, however great. She teaches that 
 Christianity cannot be improved that the Church, being the 
 work of Christ, cannot be reformed. If a man is proud, he can- 
 not go to confession. If he be fond of luxury, the fasts of the 
 Church will appear exceedingly absurd and oppressive. ID 
 short, if he enters her confines, he must make great present sac- 
 rifices. He must merge his individual religious importance in 
 that of the Church, as one whole. And this constitutes the 
 true distinction between the impulses of immediate self-interest 
 and holy love for the cause. She also teaches that salvation 
 and glory are found at the end of the journey, and not along 
 the path of travel. And she also teaches this alleviation, that 
 " He is worthy for whom we should do this ; " an'' that heaven 
 
702 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 is fully worth these sacrifices, and cannot be gained without 
 enduring great crosses. 
 
 And are not these characteristics of the Catholic Church the 
 true cause of that INEXORABLE NECESSITY which forces 
 her opponents to fight with any weapons they find most availa- 
 ble, and, therefore, to resort to this ungenerous system of mis- 
 representation and abuse ? True it is, she does claim superior- 
 ity over all others. And this claim would necessarily wound 
 their pride. This is natural. It was so of old. "Master, thus 
 saying, thou reproachest us also." You " intend to bring this 
 man's blood upon us." From the very nature of this exclusive 
 system, it must arouse this peculiar kind of resistance. It 
 stands opposed to too many darling wishes and impulses not to 
 incur this most bitter and unrelenting opposition. 
 
 And it was so with Christianity in the beginning. " Now 
 the first thing that strikes as," says Dr. Paley, " is, that the re- 
 ligion they carried with them was exclusive. It denied without 
 reserve the truth of every article of heathen mythology, the 
 existence of every object of their worship. It accepted no com- 
 promise ; it admitted no comprehension. It must prevail, if it 
 prevailed at all, by the overthrow of every statue, altar, and 
 temple in the world. It will not easily be credited that a de- 
 sign so bold as this could in any age be attempted to be carried 
 into execution with impunity." (Ev. of Chis.) 
 
 And while it must be readily confessed that Protestants and 
 Catholics hold more doctrines in common than did the Heathens 
 and Christians in the first ages of Christianity, still the Catholic 
 Church is equally exclusive. She cannot sanction a mixed the- 
 ory of truth and error. She requires the genuine, and refuses 
 the debased coin. She too "accepts no compromise" she 
 " admits no comprehension." And the fact that Protestants 
 consider themselves Christians, while they are regarded by the 
 Catholic Church as heretics, is, of itself, the more calculated to 
 produce this system of opposition. And this rigid and consist- 
 ent adherence to her faith this intolerance, as it is called, is 
 the ground of great complaint on the part of Protestants. 
 " The faith of Rome," says Dr. Spring, " must be received im- 
 plicitly, or not at all." (Dissertation 39.) And Dr. Spring is 
 right herein. Her faith must be implicitly received. I believe 
 
MI8CKLLANKOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 703 
 
 that is always the case with conscientious truth. If she is the 
 true Church, she is certainly right in this. If she is not the 
 true Church, and erroneously claims to be such, she still has the 
 sense to be consistent ; she has still one great and indispensable 
 mark of truth. 
 
 But Protestantism is not exclusive. Its leading principle, 
 from which all others logically and necessarily flow, is studiously 
 adapted to flatter individual pride, and indulge the will. Its 
 soft and flexible gum-elastic character admits of infinite modifi- 
 cations, without any efficient checks, and easily conforms itself 
 to the prevailing sentiment of each succeeding age. Progress 
 and Reform being its leading ends, it never finds rest, so long 
 as the human mind loves novelty, and seeks excitement in 
 change. This flexibility is ftdly shown by the great and con- 
 tinual shillings from the doctrines of the early Reformers. 
 Under such a theory it is very true, as Pope says : 
 
 " Manners with fortunes, humors turn with climes, 
 Tenets with books, and principles with times." 
 
 And is it not most wonderfully surprising that the Catholic 
 Church, with all her alleged superstitions, corruptions, errors of 
 faith, absurd doctrines, whimsical practices, and austere ob- 
 servances, with the superadded and accumulated mass of dis- 
 tortion and exaggeration of these alleged evils, still cannot be 
 put down cannot be confuted and will maintain her pre- 
 eminence in the Christian world ? There is something most 
 marvellous in all this. God must have concerned Himself in 
 this matter. And as Blanco White says : 
 
 " If the mass of Christians must submit to the decision of 
 another authority, by whatever name it may be called, the 
 Church of Home can fear no rival. You may raise doubts 
 against its supremacy. But how very few minds of a pious 
 character will not be overpowered by the pre-eminence of Home 
 in the Christian world f " (Cited in Fletcher's Notes to Fene- 
 lon's Letter on the Use of the Bible.) 
 
 And Mr. White, though a decided Protestant, might well 
 say what he did. True, you may " raise doubts " against any 
 thing. You may raise doubts against Christianity. The Chris- 
 tian religion is not so plain as to be wholly free from doubt in 
 
704: MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 unwilling minds. I cannot conceive what merit there could be 
 in faith, what room there would be left for the fair exercise of 
 humility, if the proofs of Christianity were so overwhelming as 
 to demonstrate its truth to all men. There is ample proof to 
 satisfy the honest, patient, and diligent inquirer, while there is 
 enough of doubt to perplex the proud and suspicious the dis- 
 honest and the selfish the thoughtless and the negligent and 
 especially those prevaricating 
 
 " Philosophers who darken and put out 
 Eternal truth, by everlasting doubt." 
 
 So it is with respect to the Catholic system. You may 
 raise doubts and cavils over many points ; and the less you 
 really know of the system, the more of these cavils you can 
 raise. You may interpose bold, brief, and sophistical positions, 
 inferences, and deductions; but, after all, they cannot weigh 
 against the clear, great, and decisive principles and facts which 
 sustain it. And after all the bitterness with which she hag 
 been assailed ; and after all the cavils and objections that human 
 wit, sharpened by interested animosity, or habitual prejudice, 
 has been able to raise, or may be yet able to raise, who would 
 not, at last, rather die in the communion of this old, calumni- 
 ated, suffering, and yet invincible Church ? Old House of God, 
 I love thee ! And the reason why, I have told, and will tell. 
 
 4. How did these alleged errors get into the Church, and 
 when f 
 
 One of the most deep and serious questions that arose in my 
 mind was this : How and when did these alleged absurd, un- 
 scriptural, and disgusting errors get into the Church ? 
 
 In my investigations I began at the beginning, and consid- 
 ered the Church as it came from the hands of the apostles. 
 By the consent of all parties, the apostles did their duty, and 
 taught all the truth, and no more. They left the Church in the 
 hands, and under the government, of those officers they them- 
 selves had personally instructed and appointed. That they 
 generally made good and worthy appointments, I had no doubt. 
 That those they appointed were properly instructed, I could 
 not question. The Church left by them needed no improve- 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 705 
 
 ment, and did certainly know what her faith was. In the con- 
 templation of the Protestant theory, each member had been 
 carefully taught the right of private interpretation in the last 
 resort, and each member knew that those most grievous errors, 
 as alleged, were contrary to the known faith, daring innovations 
 upon the truth, and degrading invasions of private rights. The 
 Church was spread over the entire Roman Empire ; and nu- 
 merous Churches existed as branches of THE CHURCH, in all 
 of which the faith, once delivered, had been carefully taught 
 and deposited. It was in the best days of Roman literature, 
 when those arts best calculated, in their nature, to develop 
 the reasoning faculties, were most fully cultivated, and most 
 generally diffused. And this state of things continued until the 
 destruction of the Roman Empire in the West, by the Goths, 
 Vandals, and other barbarous hordes in the fifth century. The 
 first three centuries were days of general persecution, with in- 
 tervals of rest ; while in the fourth, the Church was alternately 
 protected and oppressed by the Roman Emperors ; and in the 
 fifth, her sufferings were extreme. It was in those suffering 
 ages that the " seed took root amongst the stones and thorns, 
 and sprang beneath the axe, and blossomed in the blast " it 
 was then that " the Circus flowed with blood, but the immortal 
 Spirit walked the red surge and foam, and led the sinking to 
 eternal rest " and it was then that twelve millions of martyrs 
 laid down their lives, 
 
 " And lift their raptured looks on high, 
 As though it were a joy to die " 
 
 for the sublime faith of Christ. In short, the Church arose, and 
 continued for the first five centuries, in an enlightened country, 
 came well instructed, widely diffused, and yet perfectly united, 
 from the hands of the apostles. 
 
 In my investigations concerning the truth of Christianity 
 itself, I met with no line of argument more conclusive and un- 
 answerable than Leslie's " Short and Easy Method with the 
 Deists." The essence of that argument may be briefly stated 
 thus : 
 
 1. There now exists a certain book, which states that at a 
 time and place therein mentioned, certain great, notable, and 
 61 
 
706 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 visible public facts occurred ; and that at the same time and 
 place, a certain association of men was organized, and certain 
 visible observances instituted in this association to be known to, 
 and kept by all the members, and to continue from that time 
 forward. 
 
 2. This great association of men still exists, and these ob- 
 servances are still kept up, and we know the fact. 
 
 Now to prove the fact that these observances, and this or- 
 ganization began at the time and place mentioned, we will as- 
 sume that they were organized and instituted at some time and 
 place, for the association is now in being, and these ordinances 
 are now observed. The organization of this body, and the in- 
 stitution of those observances, are plain matters of historical 
 fact, and can be known ; and whenever they did take place, the 
 fact must have been known, from the very nature of the case. 
 Can any one show that this organization, and the institution of 
 these visible observances, were commenced at any other time ? 
 If they originated at one time, and the book stated they origi- 
 nated at another and a different time, then there would be a 
 positive contradiction, and the falsehood must be known. Sup- 
 pose this association did not exist, and the observances were not 
 instituted by the persons, and at the time and place stated, and 
 the book should have been forged at a later date, still stating 
 the pre-existence of those alleged notorious visible facts, would 
 not all men at once say? "This book is false upon the face of it ; 
 for it states as past events, things that no one ever heard of, 
 and all our own experience is in direct and palpable conflict 
 with the alleged facts recorded in this book. This whole thing 
 is new, and not old, as stated; and, therefore, must be false. 
 Where is the body of men that ever did keep these observances ? 
 Who has heard of them before ? Who has ever heard of this 
 book before ? These alleged facts were of such a character as 
 to attract the earnest attention of all men. Who can believe 
 that they could have existed, as alleged, and no one know it ? " 
 
 Inconsistency is a sure mark of falsehood, and is understood, 
 as such, by all men of every country, 
 
 " By saint, by savage, and by sage." 
 
 This knowledge, and the disposition to use it, are found in 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 707 
 
 the humblest minds, and at an early age, even in children. To 
 weigh and compare one part of a theory with another, is the 
 natural result of the faculty of reason. And if the inconsistency 
 be plain and palpable, it will never be overlooked, and never 
 sanctioned, unless some great motive exist to produce this re- 
 sult. If the inconsistency be merely theoretical, requiring a 
 process of laborious and rational deduction to detect it, or if it 
 be immaterial, then it may escape detection and exposure among 
 the great mass of men. 
 
 Dr. Paley, in his Evidences of Christianity, says : 
 " The success of a religion founded upon a miraculous his- 
 tory, shows the credit that was given to the history ; and this 
 credit, under the circumstances in which it was given, i. e., by 
 persons capable of knowing the truth, and interested to inquire 
 after it, is evidence of the reality of the history, and, by conse- 
 quence, of the truth of the religion, * * * * But it will be said, 
 if one religion could make its way without miracles, why might 
 not another ? To which I reply, first, that this is not the ques- 
 tion ; the proper question is not, whether a religious institution 
 could be set up without miracles, but whether a religion or a 
 change of religion, founding itself in miracles, could succeed 
 without any reality to rest upon. I apprehend these two cases 
 to be very different. * * * * One would imagine, to hear some 
 men talk, or to read some books, that the setting up of a relig- 
 ion by dint of miraculous pretences, was a thing of every day's 
 experience; whereas I believe, that, except the Jewish and 
 Christian religion, there is no tolerably well-authenticated ac- 
 count of any such thing having been accomplished." 
 
 It is evidently true, that the bare success of a religion, with- 
 out regard to the character of the proofs upon which it assumes 
 to rest, or the means used to attain this success, or the circum- 
 stances attending the propagation of the theory, is no evidence 
 of the entire truth of the system itself. All religions have pre- 
 vailed to a greater or less extent ; and the truth is undeniable, 
 that they assume to rest upon different grounds, appeal to dif- 
 ferent classes of proof, were propagated by different means, and 
 under different circumstances ; while they all agree in some 
 great leading features. These facts, when justly considered, 
 would seem to lead clearly to these conclusions : 
 
708 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 1. That man, by a law of his own nature, impressed upon him 
 by the Creator, is a religious being. From this law he knows 
 that he is a subordinate being that there exists a Supreme In- 
 telligent Cause and that the natural relation existing between 
 the Creating, and the created, Intelligence, entitles the former 
 to the adoration and obedience of the latter. This knowledge 
 of his duty, derived from this law of his nature, though limited 
 AS it is, is still sufficient to put him upon inquiry, and makes the 
 duty of further inquiry, obligatory. It is a well-known princi- 
 ple of law, applicable to certain classes of cases, that when a 
 party is entitled to notice of certain facts, and has not notice of 
 them in full, but has sufficient notice to put him upon inquiry, 
 by a reasonable use of which he may know all the facts he has a 
 right to know in reference to the alleged matter, then the law 
 presumes full notice, and treats the party accordingly. 
 
 2. That man, without a special revelation, could never know 
 his full duty, and 'his true destination. 
 
 If, then, a system of religion should be proposed, embracing 
 the first great truth above stated, it will necessarily attract the 
 attention of men, and lead to investigation. If the theory as- 
 sume to be only based upon reasoning, or secret miracles, the 
 efficient means of contradiction are not given by the theory it- 
 self; and where one exists, or another is proposed, at the same 
 time, the choice must rest between bald, desolate Atheism, or 
 cold, vague Deism, on the one hand, and the system already ex- 
 isting, or the one proposed, on the other. As man cannot, with- 
 out a direct revelation, arrive at all the features of the true 
 religion, he is compelled, from the nature of the case, to take the 
 best offered, or reject all. And as it must be a very bad relig- 
 ion, that is not better than infidelity, and that contains less of 
 truth in it, the natural religion of the human heart and mind 
 will generally take the lesser evil of the two. 
 
 But, on the contrary, if a new religion, or any material 
 change of a received religion, be proposed, and such religion or 
 change be based upon visible miracles, or upon any other simple 
 and easily understood basis, the natural law of consistency will 
 induce all to compare the system or change proposed with the 
 grounds assumed for it to rest upon. The means of detection 
 are given in both cases alike, and will be used in both. If, there. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 709 
 
 fore, the grounds, as given, be false, or the thing proposed be 
 inconsistent therewith, it must, and will, in most cases, be re- 
 jected. The human mind loves consistency ; this love is one of 
 its simplest impulses ; and when referred for proof to that which 
 is either plainly false, or clearly inconsistent with the theory to 
 be established, will uniformly turn away, and seek truth in some 
 other quarter, unless some other very powerful and tempting 
 motive overrule this natural result. 
 
 From the admissions of all parties from the language of the 
 Scriptures, and the testimony of the Fathers, the faith once de- 
 livered was to remain unchanged to the end of time. And no 
 sentiment is more often and continuously reiterated and affirmed 
 than this: that nothing new was to be added, and nothing 
 taken away. 
 
 The Church, as it came from the hands of the apostles, was 
 firmly grounded in this very plain and important fundamental 
 position, and not only grounded in the position itself, but each 
 member did know what was taught what were his recognized 
 and established rights what observances were in the Church 
 and uniformly kept by all and what doctrines, ordinances, and 
 practices, were CLAMED as coming from the apostles. And 
 with this plain and obvious rule in the mouths of all the teachers, 
 and of all the lay members, and with this knowledge in the 
 memories and minds of all, what a strange and unaccountable 
 falsehood it was, in the face of this plain principle, and of these 
 simple and known facts, to assert and insist that these new, ab- 
 surd, glaring, and unscriptural tenets, and oppressive ordinances, 
 had always existed in the Church had come down from the 
 apostles were old, and not new if it be true, as Protestants 
 contend, that these daring innovations upon an admitted un- 
 changeable faith, were introduced into the Church by fraud, 
 covin, and deceit. And if these alleged errors were introduced 
 into the true Church, in their true garb, as new, how perfectly 
 inconsistent they were with the known faith, and the plain es- 
 tablished rule ! 
 
 TJiat these alleged errors were of a character to arrest the 
 immediate attention of all, and to give the most serious shocks 
 to the entire system, is clear, not only from their own nature, 
 but from the strong and violent denunciations they receive from 
 
710 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDEKATIONS. 
 
 Protestants themselves. If errors at all, they were certainly 
 great and important. They made a change in the system, as 
 palpable and important, as can well be conceived: a change 
 that made as great a difference between the old and the new 
 theory, as is the difference between fallibility and infallibility 
 in the Church. And the alleged change was not only manifest 
 and plain, but the means of detection, confutation, and resist- 
 ance, were known to, and within the reach of, all the members. 
 
 Under the Protestant view, this well-instructed, widely-dif- 
 fused, and united suffering Church, went with rapid strides from 
 the pure faith once delivered, into the most grievous errors ; 
 and by the absurd change, invo Ived herself in still more intense 
 suffering and disgrace. She gave up the great fundamental 
 right of private interpretation in the last resort, without a strug- 
 gle ; and in lieu thereof admitted the wicked principle of actual 
 governmental infallibility in the Church. For a mere commem- 
 oration arid intelligible Eucharist, she received the absurd dog- 
 ma of the Real Presence. For Christian liberty, she obse- 
 quiously received humiliating and degrading confession. In 
 the place of rational religion, she prayed to saints, honored 
 their relics, and her children foolishly received the sacrament of 
 Extreme Unction when they died. And not only did she add 
 to the faith the most grievous errors, and oppressive and non- 
 sensical observances, but she actually mistook for permanent 
 powers, those mere temporary gifts intended tor the days of the 
 apostles alone. Consequently, when they departed, the Church 
 at once forgot their words, or the apostles forgot to tell her, 
 that Extreme Unction and Miracles were to cease. She seems 
 to have been suddenly seized and stupefied with a monomania 
 to assume doctrines, and powers, and practices, unwarranted by 
 the Scriptures, which all understood wholly incompatible with 
 her received teaching inconsistent with her plainest maxims 
 and oppressive upon her children. 
 
 And why did she do so? What unaccountable delusion 
 could so deceive her ? The same reasons existed then against 
 
 S 
 
 these errors, if errors at all, as exist now. The same permanent 
 code of law then existed as now, and the same objections would 
 have been urged. The Christians of those days had the same 
 impulses of human nature, and must have entertained the s-ime 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDE RATIONS. 711 
 
 opposition to injury and oppression. For Mr. Campbell has 
 well said : " And the moment that B propounds his synopsis 
 with the slightest air of authority, in the way of exacting obe- 
 dience or acknowledgment, that moment there is something in 
 human nature that whispers in A, who is this brother B ? A 
 fallible like myself! A great man he may be, but he is fond of 
 his own opinions, and prides himself upon his superiority. I 
 will not lay a victim upon his altar, nor burn incense at his 
 shrine; I, too, am a man, and will yield to none the right to 
 dictate to me." (C. & R.'s Debate, 764.) 
 
 And human nature, my old friend and ancestor, what have 
 you to say ? Are you guilty or not guilty ? Did you know 
 your rights ? Did you know the law ? Had you any instinct 
 any faith any moral courage ? Were you asleep ? or wak- 
 ing, did you willingly, and without a murmur, and against all 
 your impulses and your rights, surrender to brother B, or to 
 any other brother or brethren ? If so, why did you do it ? 
 Tell us, if you please, "old soldier, who put that knapsack on 
 your back ? " and how was it done ? Tell us, gentle bird, who 
 caught and caged you ? Tell us, pale and wasted prisoner, who 
 put those shackles upon your manly limbs, and that rope around 
 your neck ? Tell us, sighing patriot, who drove the iron of 
 despotism into your soul, and made you a slave ? And why 
 did you not resist and die in the last ditch ? Why did you not 
 cry aloud and spare not ? What commotion did you make ? 
 What resistance did you offer ? And if you did offer any, 
 where is the proof of that fact to be found ? Has history en- 
 tirely neglected you? Your delinquency has certainly been 
 very great, if these charges against you be true. You followed 
 dictation so blindly surrendered so easily abandoned your 
 rights, and those of truth, so promptly abjured your faith so 
 readily and suffered yourself to be bound and manacled, hand 
 and foot, with a spirit so craven, that you deserve no commis- 
 eration. "Who is there to mourn for Logan? Not one." 
 True it is, that some of your children, while they darkened 
 your memory and aspersed your character, waked up, after 
 some thirteen or fifteen centuries of sleep, and assumed to re- 
 assert your abandoned rights, 
 
 " And things unknown, proposed as things forgot." 
 
712 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 5. The same subject further considered. 
 
 Upon the basis that these alleged errors were truly such, 
 the Christians of that period, when they were introduced, had 
 less difficulties in their way than had modern Protestants. 
 They were in a good condition their path was plain their 
 skies were clear. To oppose these alleged errors, they were 
 not forced into the melancholy position of a practical abandon- 
 ment of Christ's promises to His Church. They were not forced 
 to admit, in effect, that the gates of hell had prevailed against 
 her. They were not bound to sustain their position by bring- 
 ing against their predecessors charges of high crimes against 
 God and His Christ. It was not necessary for them to assume, 
 that for eight hundred years and more, whole Christendom, 
 both clergy and laity, were drowned in idolatry and heresy. 
 They were relieved from the unavailing and fruitless search, 
 among the silent records of the past, for ancestors of their faith ; 
 and it was not incumbent upon them, either to abandon all 
 visible connection with the apostles, or to supply the defective 
 records of history, and refresh the memory of past ages, by 
 mere construction of the law, which had itself been promulgated 
 "before the alleged historical events are assumed to have hap- 
 pened. Their invention was not put to the torture, for the pur- 
 pose of discovering some new and plausible theory of the 
 Church, reconcilable with their anomalous position. And 'in 
 reference to the nature, powers, and purposes of this institution, 
 there was no necessity to assume so many contradictory and 
 perplexing theories. In short, they were not compelled to as- 
 sume that Christianity had been a practical failure that its 
 tendency and effect, as shown and attested by the experience 
 of a long series of ages, with scarcely a solitary exception, were 
 to stupefy the human mind to destroy human virtue and to 
 render its professors fit subjects for impostors and victims. 
 
 But they not only had no such difficulties in their way, but 
 they had advantages and plain, simple tests of truth, that the 
 Reformers had not. Until these alleged errors, or some of 
 them, were introduced into the Church, she was pure and un- 
 tainted. And she must have been aware of this state of case. 
 All preceding ages were with her in sentiment, from the begin 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 713 
 
 ning. The precedents of all the past sustained her. They were 
 for, and not against her. How, then, could a plain and griev- 
 ous innovation in faith or observances be introduced, and her 
 teachers not know it ? To condemn such an error, or such a 
 practice, it was only necessary to recur to their memories. 
 Their past and present experience the simple testimony of rec- 
 ollection was sufficient at once to mark the error. If new, it 
 vrsia false. And this act of memory was a test in possession of 
 all. It was simple and certain. Even a child can remember ; 
 and the most simple-minded individual can know what he has 
 seen and heard all his life. A man can also know whether he 
 believes a certain doctrine. He may not be certain that the 
 doctrine is true ; but among the simple matters of fact which 
 he can know, is the fact whether he believes it to be true. 
 
 It is upon this plain testimony of memory and experience, 
 that Leslie's argument in answer to the charge, that the Scrip- 
 tures were forged in ages after the rites were said to have been 
 instituted, is based. And he insists, with unanswerable power, 
 that the fabricators of this alleged forgery could never have 
 made the Jews " believe, in spite of their invariable experience 
 to the contrary, that they had received these books long before 
 from their fathers, had been taught them when they were 
 children, and had taught them to their own children ; that they 
 had been circumcised themselves, had circumcised their families, 
 and uniformly observed the whole minute detail of sacrifices 
 and ceremonies ; that they had never eaten any swine's flesh, 
 or other prohibited meats," &c. 
 
 And is not this line of argument equally applicable to the 
 case in hand ? In the case of the Jews, the difficulty was to 
 convince them, contrary to their positive experience, and the 
 simple testimony of their memories, that they had long pos 
 sessed a book, claiming to be ancient, but, in fact, then for the 
 first time introduced, and had long actually believed and prac- 
 tised the doctrines, and kept the observance therein mentioned. 
 And in the case of the alleged Catholic errors, the insuperable 
 difficulty was, to make the Christians believe that they had al 
 ways held doctrines then first promulgated and never heard of 
 before, and had always kept observances that no one in the 
 Church had ever seen performed. In such a case, the gray- 
 
714 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 haired and venerable members of the Church, in every part of 
 the world, would have risen up as one man, and said : "We 
 have been members of the Church for many years we never 
 heard of such a doctrine we never witnessed such a practice. 
 It is new, inconsistent, and false." 
 
 And for the sake of illustration we will take the doctrine 
 and practice of Confession. It is a doctrine not flattering to 
 human pride not palatable to human nature. The practice is 
 equally repugnant to that " something in human nature " re- 
 ferred to by Mr. Campbell ; and this practice is remarkably 
 plain, and easily understood and remembered. How, then, 
 were the Christians persuaded to submit to both the doctrino 
 and practice of that which was not only false in itself, but con- 
 trary to the universal and fundamental rule to reject all innova- 
 tions upon the known and established faith ? How were they 
 made to believe, contrary to their invariable experience, that 
 these things had always been in the Church ? How was human 
 nature so completely overcome ? That which shocked all com- 
 mon sense falsified all experience, and yet claimed to be old 
 and familiar that which was new, repugnant, arrogant, op- 
 pressive, and disgusting, was palmed upon the universal Church 
 without difficulty or resistance ! How could this be possible ? 
 If this could have been done, what could not have been done ? 
 Can we fix any limits at all to human imposition, or to human 
 credulity ? And because we of the present day know that we 
 possess some memory and mind, is that any reason why we 
 should substantially assume the entire oblivion of these faculties 
 in our Christian ancestors ? Suppose that all the Elders, with- 
 out exception, among the Disciples, were to rise up, and, with 
 one united voice and effort, endeavor to introduce Infant Bap- 
 tism among them, upon the ground that it had always, from the 
 beginning, been a practice with them and suppose that they 
 should each continuously assert this to the day of the death of 
 the last one of them, could they convince a single individual 
 that they were right ? If they sought to introduce it upon the 
 ground that it never had been the faith and practice of their 
 Church, but should have been, and that in this respect they had 
 before erred in construing the Scriptures, then they might per- 
 haps, even contrary to their former teaching, convince some 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 715 
 
 members. This would be consistent with the basis of private 
 interpretation in the last resort ; and, consequently, of the con- 
 tinued refbrmability of the Church. But you might as well at- 
 tempt to establish a religion assuming to found itself upon visi 
 ble miracles, when, in fact, there were no miracles, as to hope 
 to introduce new doctrines and observances as old and well 
 known. In both cases the thing proposed is wholly inconsistent 
 with the recognized basis upon which it assumes to rest, and in 
 direct contradiction to the plainest tests of truth the evidence 
 of all our senses in the one case, and of our memory and posi- 
 tive experience in the other. 
 
 There was another weighty reflection that forced itself upon 
 my mind, and which was this : That these alleged errors were 
 additions to the faith, not subtractions from it. In the view of 
 Protestants the following tenets are held to be pure ADDI- 
 TIONS to the faith once delivered ; namely : The Infallibility 
 of the Church, The Primacy of St. Peter, The Sacramerits of 
 Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Extreme Unction, and Holy 
 Orders, and the doctrines of Tradition, Transubstantiation, 
 Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Prayers for the Dead, and the 
 continuance of miracles in the Church. And in the view of 
 those who reject Infant Baptism, and baptism by pouring or 
 sprinkling, these were also pure additions. In reference to one 
 or two of the sacraments mentioned above, a portion of the 
 Protestant world agreed with the Catholic Church. This list 
 of alleged errors is certainly very formidable ; and the crimes 
 therein stated are grievous enough, and their alleged introduc- 
 tion sufficiently inconsistent in a Church always, at all times, 
 and in all places CLAIMING only to teach that which had al- 
 ways been received in one unbroken and continuous line of suc- 
 cession from the apostles. Such a mighty mass of imposition, 
 if imposition at all, is entirely, under the existing circumstances, 
 without any parallel in human history. 
 
 But I must say that the peculiar character of these alleged 
 errors (being mere alleged additions) made it the more difficult 
 to understand how they did get into the Church. The ad- 
 mitted and undeniable fact, that the Church had lost none of 
 the original deposit of faith that she had, at least, preserved 
 all, if she had added more, did, to my mind, prove her vigilance 
 
716 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 and integrity. For had she been either negligent or corrupt, 
 she would have lost some doctrines, particularly such as were 
 above human comprehension, and such as required humiliating 
 sacrifices. Her alleged innovations, however, did not run in 
 that line, but in that of vigilance. Ever wakeful and honest in 
 preserving all that was left to her, she is assumed, at the same 
 time, to have been equally wakeful and dishonest in the addi- 
 tion of absurd and false doctrines and oppressive ordinances. 
 There were in the Church, according to this theory, vigilance 
 and honesty to preserve, and, at the same time, vigilance and 
 dishonesty to innovate. 
 
 " In the moral, as in the natural world, it is change that re- 
 quires a cause. Men are easily fortified in their old opinions, 
 driven from them with great difficulty." So says Dr. Paley in 
 his Evidences of Christianity. And the learned divine might 
 have well added, that this change is still the more difficult 
 when produced by additions, than when the effect of mere neg- 
 ligence. Affirmative change is the more difficult. And when 
 this affirmative change is inconsistent with the plain and well- 
 understood basis upon which the system itself assumes to rest, 
 and when it is against, not only the old opinions and received 
 maxims of individuals, but also their interests, and their ac- 
 knowledged rights, then, indeed, the difficulty becomes insur- 
 mountable. If you ask a person to rise earlier, and do more 
 work in the day than he has been accustomed to, you will bo 
 apt to incur very strong opposition, and very forcible reasons 
 will be required to produce the change. But, on the contrary, 
 if you require less, you will scarcely offend him. He will most 
 readily sleep later, and do less work. 
 
 And if the Church could make any change in the faith, I 
 should always expect to find it in the negligent loss of Nome 
 mystery above reason, or of some humiliating doctrine; and 
 practice. It certainly is the impulse of human nature, to get 
 to heaven with as little sacrifice as possible. Whatever is above 
 reason, or apparently repugnant to it, and whatever is painful 
 to our pride, or asks a sacrifice of any kind, would be most apt 
 to be lost by either a corrupt or negligent Church. To omit 
 a doctrine or practice, requires no affirmative act. It requires 
 nothing but inaction* Negligence will bring this about. You 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 717 
 
 do not shock men by requiring them to believe and practise that 
 which they never did before. All you do is to let their faith, 
 by slow degrees, die out. 
 
 And when we look to the history of ancient heresy, we shall 
 find that it generally consisted in denials and rejections of re- 
 ceived doctrines. Hyraenaeus and Alexander denied all future 
 resurrection. The heretics mentioned by St. Ignatius, denied 
 the reality of Christ's body. The Arians denied His divinity. 
 The Novatians denied the efficacy of repentance. The Mani- 
 chaeans forbid marriage, and prohibited meats, and denied the 
 supremacy of the one God. 
 
 And when we look into the principal tenets of the Reform- 
 ers, we shall still find the same general characteristic. Their 
 alleged Reformation consisted in denials and rejections of re- 
 ceived doctrines and observances. There were very few, if any, 
 doctrines that they alleged had been lost. The Catholic Church 
 only required too much. And whether these denials and rejec- 
 tions by Protestants be heresy or not, they certainly do run in 
 the most natural and usual line of error. 
 
 But the most insuperable difficulty with me, was to under- 
 stand how a Church, so well instructed so well grounded in 
 the true faith always acting upon the plain principle that no 
 additions could be made to the faith, and nothing lost a 
 Church so vigilant that nothing was, in fact, lost could be so 
 far deluded and deceived, as not only to surrender her rights, 
 her faith, and her integrity, but to do so with such an entire and 
 easy unanimity, as to cause no dissensions in tJie Church. If 
 these alleged errors possess any thing like the enormity attrib- 
 uted to them by Protestant denunciation, then it is clear be- 
 yond a doubt, that they must have caused a mighty rent in the 
 Church, or she must have lost her integrity, and each and all of 
 her members must have been slaves before they were made so 
 by these alleged errors. 
 
 That the Church was vigilant to guard the deposit of faith, 
 is not only shown by the conclusive fact, that she lost none 
 originally given, but it is shown by the history of the Church 
 itself. St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, in the first century, by 
 his Epistles and messengers, healed the divisions at Corinth. 
 St. Ignatius says to the Trallians : "I exhort you, therefore, 
 
718 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 (yet not I but the love of Jesus Christ,) to use only the Chris- 
 tian nourishment, and to abstain from the strange herb, which 
 is heresy." And the works of the Fathers are full of proofs of 
 the vigilance of the Church. And we have the most full and 
 minute lists of heretics, including even the most obscure sects ; 
 and yet we never hear of any divisions caused by the introduc- 
 tion of this great mass of alleged error. The very animated 
 discussions in the Church, at an early day, as to the time of 
 celebrating Easter, shows her care and anxiety to preserve 
 unity, even in matters of discipline. The .time when each 
 heresy arose, by whom it was introduced, and its distinctive 
 characteristics, are all given. And what is still more remarka- 
 ble is the fact, that these sects agreed with the Catholic Church 
 in most of the doctrines condemned by Protestants, and sepa- 
 rated from the Church upon grounds conceded by Protestants 
 to have been erroneous. And the topics that were discussed, 
 and which led to divisions and heresies during the first five cen- 
 turies of the Christian era, were entirely different from the 
 questions arising between Catholics and Protestants of the 
 present day, except the fundamental right of private interpreta- 
 tion in the last resort, without which there could exist no 
 dissent. 
 
 " The three most ancient topics of controversy," says Dr. 
 Paley, " were the authority of the Jewish constitution, the 
 origin of evil, and the nature of Christ." (Ev. of Chris.) The 
 learned divine then gives us a short account of the heretics, to 
 show what these ancient topics were, and mentions the Basili- 
 cans in A. D. 120, the Yalentinians 125, the Carpocratians a 
 little later, the Sethians 150, the Montanists 156, the Marcasians 
 160, Hermogenes 180, Praxius 196, Artimon 200, Theodatus 
 200, Tatian 172, Paul of Samosata 246, the Sabellians 246, No- 
 vatians 251, the Donatists 328, the Arians about 300, the Pris- 
 cillianists 378, the Pelagians 405. The learned divine mentions 
 Origen 216, as the author of some new opinions, which were 
 condemned by the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria. And the 
 learned author goes on to say : " The Millennium, Novatianism, 
 the baptism of heretics, the keeping of Easter, engaged also the 
 attention and divided the opinions of Christians at and before 
 that time, (and, by the way, it may be observed, that such dis- 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 719 
 
 putes, though on some accounts to be blamed, showed how 
 much men were in earnest upon the subject.)" And in speak- 
 ing of the heretics of those times, Dr. Paley says : " I think 
 there is no reason to believe that the number of these bear any 
 considerable proportion to the body of the Christian Church." 
 
 There were, then, no disputes between the heretics of those 
 ages and the Catholics about the matters in difference between 
 Protestants and Catholics, with the exception of the Rule of 
 Faith ; and yet " men were in earnest upon the subject." We 
 then know the questions, and the persons who raised them in 
 the ancient Church ; and if, as Mr. Campbell says, " Taylor and 
 others have shown that all the abominations of Popery were 
 hatched in the second century," and that the " Nicene (creed) 
 was a symbol and exponent of the faith of the whole world at the 
 beginning of the fourth century," (C. and R.'s Debate, 423, 472,) 
 how shall we account for .the extraordinary insensibility of the 
 Christians of those days ? How such a moral phenomenon, and 
 such silence could exist, under such circumstances, I pretend 
 not to understand. 
 
 That the Catholic doctrines were held by the universal 
 Church of the first five centuries, and were not in general de- 
 nied even by those heretics, whose doctrines Protestants them- 
 selves cannot stand, (except as to the Rule of Faith,) would 
 seem to be clear beyond all reasonable doubt. But even those 
 who would deny the justice of this conclusion, must still con- 
 cede the unquestioned fact, that these Catholic doctrines, now 
 disputed by Protestants, were held and maintained by the great- 
 est and most widely-known Fathers and martyrs of those days, 
 as well as by the councils of the Church. Why, then, was 
 there no discussions, no divisions, no denials by others, if those 
 doctrines were new, disgusting, revolting, and false? We 
 know that Origen and others put forth certain opinions of their 
 own, upon a few points, and these were promptly resisted, and 
 put down. Why was this vigilance not exercised in resisting 
 the introduction of the alleged Catholic errors ? 
 
 And that the alleged introduction of those supposed errors, 
 caused no divisions in the Church, is equally clear from history. 
 St. Irena3us says in the second century : " And neither do the 
 churches founded in Germany, nor those in Spain, in Gaul, in 
 
720 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 the East, in Egypt, in Africa, nor in the regions of the middle 
 of the earth, believe or deliver a different faith." " The whole 
 Church has one and the same faith throughout the whole world, 
 as we have explained above." And for further proof I must refer 
 to the quotations from the Fathers already made, to show the 
 unity of the Church. How, then, did these alleged errors get 
 into this universal and united Church f 
 
 That a universal combination among all the clergy, so widely 
 scattered over the world, could have been entered into, cannot 
 be supposed, because utterly impossible. Every one of them 
 must have been, at the same time, without any integrity what- 
 ever. But supposing it possible, how did the well-instructed 
 laity come to yield up their Christian liberty, as well as the true 
 faith ? Had they all lost their memories ? To introduce these 
 alleged errors at once, was surely impossible ; and to introduce 
 them gradually, without producing, intense commotions and 
 divisions, would seem equally incredible. Dr. Priestly did con- 
 tend that the Divinity of Christ, never dreamed of, as he sup- 
 posed, in the days of the apostles, crept in as an opinion a short 
 time afterwards, waxed strong, until it was finally enacted into 
 an article of faith in the Council of Nice A. D. 325. 
 
 But I must confess I could not understand this silent and 
 gradual process. It was so silent and gradual as to awaken no 
 attention, and yet so efficient as to make you understand and 
 believe those false doctrines. It did not make you forget the 
 well-known universal rule, that nothing new was to be intro- 
 duced, but it made you entirely overlook the plain fact, that 
 these alleged errors were new additions, never heard of 
 before. By the magical and mysterious efficiency of this gradual 
 silent process, it is substantially assumed that the suffering, vigi- 
 lant, universal, and united Church, actually mistook those new 
 innovations for her old tenets, contrary to the simple testimony 
 of her memory. It was certainly a very remarkable oblivion 
 of memory, on the part of so many intelligent and sincere per- 
 sons, who " were," as Dr. Paley well says, " in earnest upon the 
 subject." 
 
 And how this process could be so silent as to entirely escape 
 detection, and, at the same time, so efficient as to introduce 
 successfully such alleged errors, I could not perceive. And how 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 721 
 
 the change could be so gradual as not only to escape notice, 
 while going on, but also to be unknown and unfelt after it was 
 accomplished, I could not tell. Can you cut a man's arm off so 
 gradually that he will not feel it ? Can you do this so imper- 
 ceptibly that he will not know, after it is done, that he has lost 
 an arm ? And can you make him believe that he never had 
 but one ? Can you introduce a viper into my house so secretly 
 that I will never know it ? and so gradually, that when I do 
 find him out, I will not know him ? And can you so gradually 
 change a man's views from Infidelity to Christianity, that he 
 will not perceive the change during its progress, and not know 
 it after his conversion ? 
 
 And as to introducing them first in the shape of opinions, 
 and then afterwards adopting them as articles of faith, I could 
 not well understand how this could be ; especially in reference 
 to those tenets contradictory of the existing faith. For exam- 
 ple, I could not understand how the Church, holding, as an ar- 
 ticle of faith, that Christ was not God, could tolerate even the 
 opinion that He was God. Certainly, if I am required to be- 
 lieve in the absence of all divinity in Christ, I cannot be allowed 
 to hold the precise opposite, even as an opinion. If it be the 
 established faith that Christ is not present in the Eucharist, I 
 cannot see by what semblance of reason the Church would per- 
 mit any member to believe the contrary. In short, I cannot 
 form any conception of that theory which would require mem- 
 bers to hold a certain doctrine as an article of faith, and, at the 
 same time, permit them to hold its opposite as an opinion. Nor 
 can I understand how the human mind could contain these op- 
 posites, and believe them both, at the same time. I can well 
 understand how, in reference to matters of discipline and specu- 
 lative opinions, the Church allows her children to hold either 
 side of the question, as matter of opinion ; but I cannot under- 
 stand how she could require her members all to believe one 
 thing as a matter of faith, and, at the same time, allow them to 
 disbelieve it. 
 
 And it would certainly be most surprising, that the intro- 
 duction of these alleged errors, even in the shape of opinions, 
 created no dissension or discussion in the Church ; and still 
 more surprising, that whe'i they were changed from that shape. 
 62 
 
722 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 all were required to believe, as faith, what before all had been 
 required to disbelieve as heresy ; and yet this state of case pro- 
 duce no discussions and no divisions. 
 
 This silent, creeping, and gradual process, if true, completely 
 answered and upset Leslie's line of argument ; and, il once con- 
 ceded to be practicable, did prove that all the doctrines and 
 practices of the Jews could have been so gradually introduced, 
 that they would not have known it. 
 
 But I could have no confidence in the solidity of this attempt- 
 ed explanation. It was too weak and doubtful to rely upon. 
 A Church starting right, and upon the basis of an unchangeable 
 faith, and remaining so vigilant as to forget nothing, could not 
 possibly be thus entrapped and deceived. If a few ministers 
 had attempted to introduce them at any time, all the other 
 clergy and all the lay members would have opposed them, and 
 they would have been either put down, or the introducers ex- 
 pelled from the Church. There could never have happened 
 such a universal and wholesale apostasy, so silently and smooth- 
 ly accomplished, that no one opposed it, and no divisions fol- 
 lowed. All could not have slept at their posts, nor could even 
 a majority. Nor could many have been dishonest in those 
 days of trial and suffering. " Their integrity was insured by 
 the insults they suffered." And so long as one single honest 
 and vigilant bishop, priest, or layman remained anywhere in the 
 Church, uhese alleged errors would have encountered his stern 
 opposition ; and his opposition would have aroused that of oth- 
 ers. We have accounts of many heresies, and it is most re- 
 markable we have none of these, if they be, in fact, heresies. 
 The Church would have felt and recorded the shock. Such a 
 mighty mass of error would have left certain and clear evidences 
 of their introduction and effects. The march of a mighty army 
 through a cultivated country leaves visible desolation behind. 
 The travel of a monster along a dusty road, or through a swamp, 
 will leave a visible track. In both cases the trail is plain, and it 
 can be easily followed. And the introduction of great and 
 grievous errors into such a Church, would always arouse oppo- 
 sition, too strong to be ever overlooked or forgotten. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 723 
 
 6. The same subject still further considered. 
 
 Another reflection arose in my mind as to the state of case 
 supposed by Protestants. The Church is conceded to have 
 started right. She then held the true faith, no more, no less, 
 in her widely-extended but united communion. She had hun- 
 dreds of thousands in her ranks, of all conditions, dispersed over 
 the wide world. She was particularly grounded in the plain 
 and intelligible principle, universally acknowledged and under- 
 stood, that nothing new was to be added to the faith of the 
 Church, and nothing lost. Whatever the faith was, it was one 
 and indivisible complete and entire a single unit and was 
 so to remain to the last day and the last man. 
 
 But this Church universal, united, and grounded in such a 
 fixed sentiment, is supposed to have become suddenly possessed 
 of the most daring and reckless spirit of innovation. The Apos- 
 tle John had scarcely been in his grave before the very men 
 appointed by the apostles, even the holy martyrs for the faith, 
 those valiant and devoted souls who faced a heathen world, 
 bearing the cross to the nations, and sealing their ministry, like 
 the apostles, with their voluntary blood, are supposed to have 
 been led away by this most strange and unaccountable delusion. 
 And while the Church was proclaiming everywhere " nothing 
 new," she was introducing these alleged errors ; and then, after 
 accomplishing the ruin of the faith and her own, like a sinking 
 ship, she settled down gave up all this fell spirit of innovation 
 insisted that her faith was unchangeable, as she had always 
 done ; with this difference, however, that before the faith was 
 supposed to have been corrupted, she was mistaken, but that 
 since that melancholy event happened, she is right in her asser- 
 tion of immutability, and the complaint now is, that she is not 
 reformable at all. So that she is at the same time accused of an 
 innovating spirit for evil, and a conservative spirit for the same. 
 Her creed is alleged to have been changeable enough for the 
 introduction of error, but wholly unchangeable for its correc- 
 tion. As if some great and far-seeing mind had deliberately 
 surveyed the Christian Church, when in its purity, and had 
 clearly perceived, in advance, what additions the system would 
 bear, and the members endure, and marked, with logical pre- 
 
724: MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 cision and consistency, the precise point to which these errors 
 could, with entire safety and success, proceed ; and, after having 
 maturely surveyed the whole ground, set about to accomplish 
 these mighty changes, and either did succeed himself, or his 
 successors and disciples did in his stead that when all this was 
 accomplished, the Church rested from her labor of innovation, 
 and stands thenceforward firm upon her usurped territory. 
 And it is one of the peculiarly aggravating circumstances in her 
 case, that she boldly and continually asserted that her faith was 
 fixed and unchangeable, while in the very act of changing it in 
 the most palpable and glaring respects ; and having hypocriti- 
 cally accomplished this, she, with wicked inconsistency, sancti- 
 fied and fixed these alleged changes permanently in the Church, 
 upon the very same ground of immutability. And not only so, 
 but while in the very act of making these alleged additions to 
 the faith, she was herself claiming an infallibility never heard 
 of before, and, at the very time, giving to all the most conclu- 
 sive proofs that she did not possess it. She was guilty, accord- 
 ing to the Protestant theory, of the gross inconsistency of de- 
 claring, with one and the same breath, that her creed was 
 unchangeable that she must change it and that she was in- 
 fallible in making changes in a fixed and immutable system. 
 
 And notwithstanding her alleged monstrous errors, her pal- 
 pable innovations, and her grossly inconsistent conduct, she has 
 succeeded in keeping in her communion the overwhelming ma- 
 jority of all professed Christians in all ages since she began ; 
 and so effectually has she covered up these alleged errors, and 
 concealed the existence of the supposed true Church, in past 
 ages, that the finger of time points not to them, and the page of 
 history is silent. And not only so, but she has succeeded in 
 making all her children, numerous as they are, and have ever 
 been, and widely dispersed, believe in her alleged pretence of 
 infallibility, and love and adhere to her in proportion as she is 
 supposed, by her enemies, to have been wicked, inconsistent, 
 and oppressive. And so intense is this love and this reverence, 
 that when her alleged errors are depicted in the vehement and 
 glowing colors of supposed light and truth, and her assumed 
 delinquencies are portrayed in strains of vindictive denunciation. 
 
 " And bung on high to poison half mankind," 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 725 
 
 her deluded children love her the more, and cleave to her as 
 the friends of old Paul did to him, only the more closely for 
 these things. For by some awful and mysterious influence by 
 some subtle logic she binds her children with cords too atten- 
 uated to be perceived, and too strong to be broken. And 
 truly, in the contemplation of the Protestant theory, she has 
 been, and is, 
 
 " The glory, jest, and riddle of the world." 
 
 And in proportion as Protestantism degrades the Old 
 Church, by these criminations, it claims for itself a position so 
 sublime, that the distance between the two is as great as human 
 delinquency on the one hand, and faith and fidelity on the other, 
 could well make it. For if the Old Church wantonly and wick- 
 edly corrupted the faith of Christ, under all the advantages she 
 possessed, and Protestants have restored it, under all the diffi> 
 culties in their way, the distance between the two must surely 
 be very great. There must, in the very nature of the alleged 
 fact, be the greatest criminality on the one hand, and the sub- 
 limest virtue on the other. And surely, Protestantism does 
 assume to occupy a " painful pre-eminence " a position which 
 must be attained through mighty crimination, and by wading 
 through the moral slaughter of the Christian world. 
 
 And after making these charges of errors so gross of wick- 
 edness so general of conduct so inconsistent arising from 
 motives so impure, Protestants complain loudly of the Old 
 Church, because she still insists, as she always insisted, that 
 Christ never did organize, or intend, but one Church ; and that 
 therefore she cannot abandon the faith by acknowledging any 
 of the Protestant communions as parts of the true Church 
 of Christ. Her intolerance, as it is called, in regarding them 
 as heretics, professing an erroneous faith, is bitterly condemned 
 by them. But under the state of case, I do not know what 
 else the Old Church could do. If not guilty of these diversified 
 and grievous charges, she could not, with any self-respect, or 
 with any regard to truth itself, plead guilty. If Protestants 
 have placed themselves in a false position by a denial of the 
 truth, they have no right to expect the Old Church to do the 
 same thing, and become false to her mighty trust, and to her 
 
726 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 uniform profession, out of mere kindness to them. And if she 
 be guilty, then she is wholly unworthy of the communion of 
 Protestants. For this plain alternative must ever come up in 
 the minds of all sincere and reflective persons : either the Cath- 
 olic Church was guilty of fundamental error, or there was no 
 just cause for the Reformation. And as one or the other al- 
 ternative must be true, there is grievous error somewhere. 
 
 Under such circumstances, can any fair and just man, upon 
 reflection, expect that the Old Church could make so gross a 
 sacrifice of the faith, (which she has so long maintained,) as to 
 acknowledge, as true sisters, those who thus lay charges so ex- 
 tensive and grievous at her door? Had she not better die the 
 death of Stephen? What self-respect what sincerity what 
 consistency could she claim, were she to sacrifice her ancient 
 faith in that way ? She cannot do it. The gates of hell would 
 at once prevail against her if she did. While she and her chil- 
 dren can hear and bear, with patience and charity, the oft reit- 
 eration of these charges, and pray for those who make them, 
 she cannot deceive them by pleading guilty, when innocent. 
 This would be betraying the cause of Christ, and ruining her- 
 self, without doing them the slightest good, except to afford 
 them a mere passing gratification. And there can be but one 
 of two courses for her to take. If she be guilty, she should ac- 
 knowledge the fact and abandon her errors. If not guilty, she 
 must maintain her integrity and her faith, and hold those aa 
 heretics who dispute them. 
 
 But another question arose in my mind : What adequate 
 and efficient motives could have existed to produce these al- 
 leged additions to the faith ? Men are not " wickedly wise " 
 without motive. And the motive must bear a due proportion 
 to the wickedness of the act, and the difficulties to be overcome 
 in its accomplishment. Protestants have been sensible of this 
 most reasonable position. Hence their controvertists impute to 
 the Catholic clergy the most ambitious, sordid, and unworthy 
 motives. But while their theory imputes to the clergy such a 
 mass of wickedness, it at the same time imputes to the laity 
 motives precisely opposed. So that the theory assumes this 
 exact state of case : unbounded ambition and corruption in the 
 and a base abandonment of their dearest and plainest 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 727 
 
 rights on the part of the laity. In short, the theory imputes 
 the most criminal delinquencies to all, both clergy and laity. 
 And while it imputes so much ambition and corruption to one 
 class, it wholly excludes these vices from the other, but assigns 
 to the laity other vices, equally fatal to the truth. 
 
 It must be obvious to the reflective mind, that ingenious, 
 active, restless malice, suspicion or prejudice, can impute a 
 plausible, improper motive, for every good and virtuous act. 
 There is scarcely a single virtuous act that man can perform, 
 that will not allow of this. And it arises from the plain fact, 
 that good and virtuous actions merit, and will receive, when 
 known, the admiration and applause of good men. And as the 
 love of fame is inherent in the bosoms of all men, to a greater 
 or less extent, such a motive, if no other, can always be assigned 
 with some plausibility to every action, however meritorious and 
 disinterested. 
 
 Protestant writers allege, in substance, that the Catholic 
 theory gives more importance to the clergy, in the government 
 of the Church, than the Protestant ; and that this constitutes 
 the motive which led to the- introduction of these alleged addi- 
 tions to the faith. It must be obvious that the wise founder of 
 any government will keep in his eye the necessary powers to 
 attain the end intended to be reached by its organization. If 
 he gives too little power, his government fails from weakness. 
 If he bestows too much, and that unchecked, it may lead to 
 abuses, and consequent suffering. After all that can be said 
 about liberty and tyranny, freedom and oppression, the just 
 conclusion must at last be reached, that a proper measure of 
 power and authority must be given to every government. To 
 accomplish a great end, proportionate powers must be con 
 ferred. 
 
 It must be conceded, that in the Catholic theory, the clergy, 
 as a collective body of men, are relatively more important than 
 in the Protestant ; and if this importance was not checked and 
 counterbalanced by other opposing influences, it might, with, 
 some plausibility, be said, that there did exist such a motive. 
 But while it might thus be said of the clergy, it must, at the 
 same time, be said of the Catholic laity, that they had an op- 
 posite motive, equally strong. The impossibility of introducing 
 
728 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 these alleged errors against the settled faith and maxims of the 
 Church, and the dearest rights and plainest impulses of the 
 laity, would be obvious. 
 
 But when we come to examine these alleged additions, and 
 calmly estimate their true character, it will be seen, that while 
 they, in themselves, abstractly considered, do increase the im- 
 portance of the clergy collectively, they, at the same time, im- 
 pose such additional sacrifices and labors as constitute a com- 
 plete counterbalance. A reward may be tempting, but the 
 sacrifice necessary to attain it may be proportionately discour- 
 aging. The law of evidence will not allow a witness to testify 
 in favor of the party who calls him, when the witness has a 
 direct and immediate interest in the result of the suit in favor 
 of the party whose witness he is. If, however, the witness be 
 interested both ways, so that if the party who calls him gain or 
 lose the case, the witness will still be substantially in the same 
 condition, the law holds his interest counterpoised, and permits 
 him to testify. If, then, these alleged errors offer inducements 
 on the one hand, and impose proportionate or greater sacrifices 
 on the other, where is the motive for their alleged introduction ? 
 And as to the laity, they had the most powerful motives to op- 
 pose, because the introduction of these alleged errors would di- 
 minish their privileges, and increase their burthens, while at the 
 same time, the true faith was sacrificed. 
 
 It would seem eminently just in itself, to suppose that Christ 
 intended to accomplish some great and mighty end by the or- 
 ganization of the Church ; and that great functions must, in the 
 nature of the case, have been bestowed upon the governing 
 power of the institution, while at the same time, such sacrifices 
 and labors would be imposed as would constitute efficient checks 
 to abuses. The honor of being regarded as the immediate and 
 chosen apostles of the Son of God, was certainly very great, 
 and did bring to the apostles, in the minds of their brethren, 
 the greatest love, veneration, and respect. " And they all wept 
 sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him. Sorrowing most 
 of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his 
 face no more." (Acts xx. 37.) 
 
 But while our Lord bestowed such powers and honors, He 
 at the same time imposed such labors, responsibilities, and perils, 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 729 
 
 as constituted a most overpowering motive on the other side, 
 if the system He established was untrue. The rose, indeed, 
 was sweet, but the thorns were sharp. And it would seem to 
 be the true theory of every government, to impose great re- 
 sponsibilities with great powers ; and that those to whom the 
 governing power of the Church is intrusted, should, in the na- 
 ture of the system, be required to make greater sacrifices, and 
 perform more arduous labors than the laity, would seem a sen- 
 timent just in itself. 
 
 And is this not so in the Catholic theory ? As we have 
 seen, the Catholic clergy make far greater sacrifices than the 
 Protestant. The difference between the two classes, in this re- 
 spect, is great and obvious. 
 
 But while I considered the alleged motives imputed to the 
 Catholic Priesthood, I also looked into those that could be 
 urged against the Protestant clergy. And I must confess that 
 I could not find any doctrine or practice which increased their 
 labors or sacrifices, or diminished their enjoyments, as compared 
 with the Catholic theory, except that of administering baptism 
 by immersion, which applied to but a very small proportion of 
 them, and was, in itself, but a slight increase of labor. And 
 while their labors and sacrifices were not increased by the Prot- 
 estant theory, they were relieved from the onerous duties and 
 sacrifices incumbent upon the Catholic clergy. 
 
 It is true, that while 4heir collective relative importance was 
 diminished by the theory, their individual privileges, and some- 
 times their individual importance, was increased in practice. 
 The only checks imposed by the fundamental rule were the dis- 
 cretion of the preacher and his ability to procure hearers and 
 followers ; and those obstacles could be readily overcome by 
 the ambitious and talented. Having been forced to adopt the 
 rule of private interpretation in the last resort, and, therefore, 
 to deny all government in the Church, they still insist upon the 
 possession, in mere form, of such powers. And while they 
 maintain the theory itself for the purpose of attack and self-jus- 
 tification, they, at the same time, awkwardly and inconsistently 
 endeavor to maintain the opposite principle of government in 
 the Church. 
 
 And in comparing the motives that could be plausibly al- 
 63 
 
730 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 leged to produce the two clerical and doctrinal theories, this 
 case occurred to me : Suppose a worldly-minded individual to 
 seek the ministry as a profession simply, and to have choice of 
 a place either in the Catholic or Protestant ministry; which 
 would he prefer ? That he would always prefer the Protestant 
 I could not doubt. So far, then, as worldly motives may bo 
 supposed to operate, I could have no hesitation in arriving at 
 the conclusion, that they are much more powerful in the Prot- 
 estant than in the Catholic theory. 
 
 That these alleged additions to the faith of the Church were 
 all held and universally believed in the Church of the first five 
 centuries, I could have no doubt. And even if this could possi- 
 bly be disputed, the same insuperable difficulties against their 
 supposed introduction, must have occurred, whenever they were 
 alleged to have arisen. And it did seem to me, that, as the at- 
 tempt to restore the alleged pure faith, and to abolish these 
 alleged errors, did lead to such palpable divisions and discus- 
 sions, at and since the alleged Reformation, the same must, 
 from the very nature of the case, have happened whenever they 
 were introduced. The widely-dispersed Church must have 
 powerfully felt the shock, and given us powerful demonstrations 
 of its sensibility. No other case, to my mind, was conceivable, 
 upon any rational basis whatever. And I could just as readily 
 believe that the Scriptures themselves had been forged, and that 
 they, and all the alleged notable and- miraculous facts, upon 
 which the system of Christianity assumes to rest, could have 
 been palmed upon the first Christians, as true, when they were, 
 in fact, false, as to believe that this mighty mass of alleged 
 error could have been imposed upon the universal and united 
 Church, contrary to her fixed and fundamental maxims. To 
 my apprehension, the Protestant theory, when calmly and 
 thoroughly examined, will be found to be a formidable at- 
 tack upon the truth of Christianity itself. Most of their leading 
 arguments to refute the Catholic theory, will be found in the 
 mouths of all Infidels. Put the main arguments of Protestants 
 and Infidels side by side, and examine them closely, and they 
 will be found to be based, essentially, upon the same erroneous 
 principles. Their logical and inevitable tendency leads, at last, 
 to the same result : a denial of the truth of Christianity itself. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 731 
 
 7. The Unity and Sufferings of the Old Church. 
 
 It has been said that the continued unity of the Catholio 
 Church constitutes but a flimsy argument in her favor. The 
 idea intended to be conveyed by this objection is, that the pro- 
 fessors of other religions, Mohammedan and Heathen, have con- 
 tinued united in their false theories ; and that, therefore, con- 
 tinued unity is no argument to prove the truth of any religion. 
 For if we say it does in one case, it does in the others, and this 
 would prove all true. I have put the objection in its strongest 
 and clearest form, to the best of my judgment. 
 
 This objection, at first view, would seem to be very plausible. 
 But conceding, for the sake of the argument only, that this unity 
 has continued to exist among the professors of other religions, 
 as well as among Catholics, and to the same extent ; what, then, 
 are the true and legitimate deductions from such conceded 
 premises ? I apprehend that these results must follow : 
 
 1. That, in the matter of religion^ men are so deeply and 
 vitally concerned, that among the great mass of its professors, 
 the faith once delivered, is always preserved, and safely transmit- 
 ted from generation to generation. And that, for example, the 
 Mohammedanism of to-day, is the Mohammedanism of the begin- 
 ning. It proves the safe transmission of religion, even though 
 false, as it was in its original state. 
 
 2. That the unity of the great body of professed Christians 
 in the Catholic Church proves, in the same way, the safe trans- 
 mission of the religion of Jesus, as it was by Him delivered ; 
 and, by consequence, is a most powerful argument to prove her 
 to be in the right. For whether a system of religion be true or 
 false in its origin, the fact that the great mass of its professors 
 have, for a long course of ages, continued united in the same 
 faith, is a very strong proof of their vigilance, sincerity, and con- 
 sistency ; and these qualities will be found in those who do safely 
 transmit a religious theory, purporting to be permanent in its 
 original form ; while these qualities will not always be found in 
 those who seek to vary or change such a system. If the theory, 
 as originally promulgated, assume to be incomplete, and, there- 
 fore, improvable and variable, changes in the system would be 
 compatible with its original basis. But where the system, as in 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 Christianity, assumes to be perfect and unchangeable from the 
 beginning, this unity does constitute one of the most powerful 
 arguments to prove which is the true Church. 
 
 It seemed to me that unity was one of the leading duties 
 of Christians. That it was not only an evidence, for that 
 reason, to show which is the true Church ; but that it was a 
 powerful argument, even with Infidels themselves. Our Lord 
 certainly so considered it, when He prayed so fervently for the 
 union of His followers, " that the world might believe that the 
 Father had sent Him." So did St. Paul and St. Peter, when so 
 earnestly warning their brethren against heresies and divisions. 
 I supposed that this continued unity was, at least, one very 
 powerful argument, for the explicit reason, that in the contem- 
 plation of Christ, this unity was always to be found in the true 
 Church. And if this continued unity was always to be found in 
 the true Church, its being found in the Catholic Church, as I 
 supposed, is surely one strong argument in her favor. This 
 conclusion was made overwhelming to my mind, by the fact, 
 that this unity, contemplated by the Divine Lawgiver, cannot 
 be found elsewhere ; for the reason, that those who have adopted 
 the opposite of her fundamental rule, in different ages since the 
 beginning of the Christian era, have as uniformly severed and 
 divided, until reforms became interminable. 
 
 As unity is an attribute of the true Church, and one of the 
 leading duties of Christians, were an intelligent stranger seeking 
 for the true Church, would he expect to find it among those who 
 do not possess this attribute, and have not done their duty in this 
 great and essential respect ? Would he expect to find a dis- 
 cordant true Church ? or a changeable true Church ? In his 
 examination, I suppose, he would begin at the beginning, and 
 firs^ examine the fundamental rule of each party ; and if he 
 found that one party, under its fundamental rule, was full of dis- 
 cords and variations, his common sense would tell him there 
 was something radically wrong there. And he would naturally 
 say to himself: " One of two things is true ; either Christianity 
 has changed, or the true Church is not here." But were he to 
 examine the other rule, and find that all who adhere to it do 
 possess this unity, and at all times have possessed it, he would 
 as naturally say : " One of two conclusions is true ; either thia 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 733 
 
 is the true Church, or the promises of Christ have failed. For 
 the true Church must always profess the true, and, therefore, 
 the same faith, and possess this same unity." 
 
 But the state of unity assumed, in reference to the professors 
 of false religions, is not borne out by the fa"cts of history. The 
 Mohammedans have long been divided into at least two parties. 
 Mohammed was not a very competent legislator, and left his sys- 
 tem very imperfect in some respects. But though these divisions 
 have occurred among them, they do not, in fact, bear any pro- 
 portion to the alleged changes in the Christian Church. They 
 are few in number, and different in character, as compared with 
 the mass of alleged errors imputed to the Catholic Church. 
 And not only so, but they have not been produced so silently 
 and gradually, as to leave no visible traces behind. The history 
 of those divisions, when and how they arose, and by whose 
 agency, is very well preserved. 
 
 So that the truth of history, as I understand it, is substan- 
 tially this : there has been a greater unity in the Catholio 
 Church than in the Mohammedan, or any other, so far as we 
 have the means of knowing ; while at the same time those divi- 
 sions have not been so great as the alleged divisions and errors 
 in the Catholic Church. In other words, the alleged inconsist- 
 ent changes in the faith of the Catholic Church have been 
 greater than those actually introduced into any of the anti- 
 Christian Churches of the world. 
 
 And we may take either view of the historical fact, and the 
 argument from the continued unity of the Catholic Church, is, 
 indeed, a very powerful one. If it be true, that one large por- 
 tion of mankind united in the profession of one religion, and an- 
 other large portion in the profession of a different theory, for 
 many ages together ; then it does show, that when a system is once 
 established, which purports upon its face to be permanent in the 
 same form, and to continue without addition or subtraction, it 
 cannot be changed by a wholesale addition of the most disgusting, 
 oppressive, and inconsistent errors, without incurring the most 
 strenuous resistance, and without leaving the most palpable his- 
 torical evidences of the struggle behind. 
 
 Macaulay, the brilliant English Protestant historian, has a 
 well-known passage, in which he speaks of the wonderful sagacity 
 
734 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 of Rome, and concludes that she is the masterpiece of human 
 wisdom. That she is a masterpiece of wisdom, there can be no 
 doubt ; and the only question is whether it is human or divine. 
 If human, it is the most wonderful of all human institutions. 
 But whether human- or divine, that wisdom is just what we 
 should expect to find in the work of Christ. We should natu- 
 rally expect the same unity, consistency, and durability, in any 
 true system. And where we do not find all these qualities, we 
 may safely conclude that the true Church is not there. 
 
 And there is certainly something most extraordinary in the 
 history of this venerable old institution. If she ever did possess 
 an innovating spirit, and did once taste the sweets of its novel- 
 ties, how completely has she cast it aside, and abandoned that 
 which was so bewitching to her at one period, and has ever been 
 so bewitching to her enemies ! How difficult for a Church, 
 once accustomed to change, to entirely abandon that habit for 
 the opposite one of permanency ! Has Protestantism done this ? 
 The very admission of the attribute of reformability in a Church, 
 makes reforms interminable. For how can truth be reforma- 
 ble ? And how can the true Church be reformable ? And how 
 can the true Church admit that she is reformable, contrary to 
 the fact ? Would she not admit a falsehood ? And to admit 
 that a Church may be the true Church, and yet not know it, 
 would be equally erroneous. What sort of a true Church 
 would that be that did not know herself? that did not know 
 the true faith? And whenever a Church concedes that she 
 can only say she thinks she is right, but if not right now, that 
 her theory permits her to reform her faith consistently with her 
 creed itself, she at once admits an infirmity that never did and 
 never can be found in the true Church. It would seem clear 
 that no Church that ever did change her faith, or that admits 
 it to be reformable at all, can be the true Church of Christ, the 
 pillar and ground of the truth. A reformable pillar and a change- 
 able ground of truth ! Who can form any conception of such a 
 thing ? 
 
 And upon the supposition that the Catholic Church is not 
 the true Church, how can we account for the fact that she has 
 withstood all the storms of time, while of the numerous sects 
 that arose before the Reformation, so few traces remain ? If 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. T35 
 
 she was false as well as they, why did she not share their fate ? 
 How did she happen to possess so much unity, so much wisdom, 
 and so much tenacity of life, while they, numerous as they were, 
 vanished, one after another, from the map of existence ? Why 
 could none of them possess the human wisdom mentioned by 
 Macaulay ? And those of them which composed the alleged 
 chain of Protestant succession the Novatians, the Donatists, 
 the Paulicians, and others why did they flourish and fall? 
 Did the true Church possess less wisdom, less permanency, less 
 tenacity of life, than false Churches ? And out of so many ene- 
 mies, how did it happen that the Roman Church still stands, 
 when they are gone ? She is found at all times, and in all 
 places ; but where are they ? They are among the things that 
 were : she is. 
 
 It is very true that the Old Church, during the long course 
 of her career, has had her enemies and trials, without and with- 
 in. And these enemies have been numerous and powerful, and 
 these trials so severe that it may be said that, to all appearance, 
 she was gone, and, in fact, almost gone. History tells many a 
 sad tale of her sufferings. But the most remarkable feature in 
 this sad but glorious history is, that these formidable, and to 
 human appearances, irresistible enemies, never could proceed 
 beyond almost, and never did reach entire, destruction. This 
 has always been the fate of the Church trials, sufferings, and 
 triumphs. It was so in the beginning. Judas betrayed his 
 Master, Peter denied Him, and the rest forsook Him and fled, 
 and He was crucified and buried. The religion of Jesus, the 
 despised Nazarine, was, to all human appearances, exterminated. 
 Even the apostles lost faith for the moment. The Jews thought 
 they had made sure work of it. They sealed the sepulchre, and 
 put a guard over it to prevent even the pretence of a resurrec- 
 tion. But Christ would, and did, rise again. 
 
 And so it has ever been with His Old Church. Her entire 
 destruction has often been threatened, but it has not yet been 
 accomplished. ^ The thing seems impossible. Her grave has 
 often been dug, in imagination, and her enemies have as often 
 supposed that she was dead and buried ; but still she would 
 rise again. At the very moment when she was thought to bo 
 the weakest, she was, in fact, the strongest. Wonderful vital- 
 
736 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 ity ! Glorious invincibility ! Her enemies could die. She 
 could not. 
 
 And since the alleged Reformation, her destruction has 
 been often threatened, but only threatened. It is always in the 
 power of her enemies to threaten. A few years after the dawn 
 of that event, the Turks made renewed and mighty efforts to 
 conquer Europe ; and Luther, at the time, advised his followers 
 to refrain from opposing the Turks, until the Papacy should be 
 destroyed. Under these circumstances, every thing seemed 
 suspended upon the fate of one battle. The great battle of Le- 
 punto was fought between the Mohammedans and Catholics, 
 and the Turks were vanquished. When the followers of Lu- 
 ther, under the Landgrave of Hesse, rebelled against the govern- 
 ment of Charles the Yth, the battle of the Elbe declared in favor 
 of the Emperor. Afterwards the great Gustavus, that thunder- 
 bolt of war, whose career threatened the entire destruction of 
 the Catholic Church, was slain at the battle of Lutzen, and the 
 Church again triumphed. Still later, and during the French 
 Revolution, it was thought the days of the Church were num- 
 bered, and the notes of triumph were already sounded. But 
 Napoleon appeared, and the Church rose again. And when 
 this great man oppressed the Church, others put him down. 
 And so it has ever been in the history of this Old, but invinci- 
 ble Church. Difficulty after difficulty trial after trial she 
 has always met and overcome. 
 
 And these stern and gloomy trials but glorious triumphs 
 only increase our faith in the stability of this mighty Old Church. 
 Is there any virtue without temptation ? Any fidelity without 
 a trial ? Any victory without a struggle ? Must not the true 
 Church fight, if she would reign ? And if she fights, must she 
 not bleed ? And if she expects to gain great victories, let her 
 trials be severe. So much the better. Let her " come up 
 through great tribulation," but let her come up. She has al- 
 ways done it. Will she not still do it ? Is she not able ? 
 
 These trials these threatened exterminations give Cath- 
 olics no uneasiness. They have faith unwavering faith in the 
 promises of Christ. If the Church be not protected by Christ, 
 let her fail. And if she had not been so protected, she would 
 have failed long ago. If the work of Christ, she must and will 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 737 
 
 live on, though her trials and sufferings be still more severe. 
 Let them come, so she but gain the victory. As her old mar- 
 tyr, the holy Ignatius, said : " Fire and the Cross, the assaults 
 of beasts, the rending of my bones, the laceration of my lirnbs, 
 the crushing of my whole frame, dire tortures of Satan, let them 
 come upon me, so that I but go to Christ." 
 
 And I confess that I love a Church that has overcome all 
 these trials. Her sufferings have been intense. So they should 
 be. Shall the true Church have a primrose path on earth, and 
 also a golden path in heaven f Will not her glory be in pro- 
 portion to her sufferings and trials ? And her victories in the 
 past but assure me of her victories in the future. The good 
 ship that has triumphantly rode out many a severe storm, and 
 is yet staunch and tight, is the more to be trusted. The vet- 
 eran soldier that has fought on many a battle-field, and wears 
 nonorable scars, and is yet strong and vigorous, is but the more 
 reliable. And the Church expects trials, and would not escape 
 them if she did not expect them. It is her vocation, her busi- 
 ness, to meet and overcome them. Let her fulfil her duty the 
 very purpose of her creation. 
 
 8. Conclusion. 
 
 In his debate with Mr. Rice, Mr. Campbell says : 
 
 " Catholic parents do their work more faithfully than most 
 of the Protestants, and the consequence is, it is generally more 
 difficult to convert a Romanist to any Protestant profession, 
 than a Protestant to the Roman persuasion." (Debate 317.) 
 
 If it be true, as stated, that " Catholic parents do their work 
 more faithfully than most of the Protestants," it does show their 
 greater sincerity, faith, and devotion. And these are most 
 commendable traits in the Christian character. The exertions 
 of a parent to instruct his children in the religion he himself be- 
 lieves, will bear a just proportion to the fixedness and import- 
 ance of his own faith. 
 
 But the greater difficulty of converting a Catholic than a 
 Protestant, does not arise solely, nor mainly, from the cause as- 
 signed by Mr. Campbell, but from others. The great Dr. 
 Johnson said : 
 
 " A man who is converted from Protestantism to Popery 
 
738 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 may be sincere ; he parts with nothing ; he is only superadding 
 to what he already had. But a convert from Popery to Prot- 
 estantism gives up so much of what he has held as sacred as 
 any thing that he retains ; there is so much laceration of mind 
 in such a conversion, that it can hardly be sincere and lasting." 
 (Boswell, A. D. 1769.) And the biographer himself adds: 
 "The truth of this reflection may be confirmed by many and 
 eminent instances, some of which will occur to most of my 
 readers." 
 
 And there certainly is a great deal of truth, though not the 
 whole truth, in this reflection. The convert from the Catholic 
 Church seems conscious that he is embracing an inferior and 
 lower grade of faith, and adopting a colder and more suspicious 
 estimate of human veracity. He cuts himself loose from the 
 holy ties that bound him to the suffering martyr-Church of old. 
 He severs all connection with the apostles, except that hidden 
 one, which is supposed to be buried in the darkness and silence 
 of the dim distant ages of the past. He leaves the sweet com- 
 rnunion of saints, which combines the children of the true faith 
 everywhere, in every age, in one holy brotherhood. What are 
 the heroic martyrs and saints of old to him ? They are now be- 
 come " mystics and visionaries." What to him is now the 
 great and universal Church of the mighty past ? " The Man 
 of Sin." Who were the clergy of the Old Church that Church 
 which won the world to Christianity ? To him they are now 
 become impostors, who betrayed the faith of Christ. And the 
 laity, who were they ? Simple dupes. In short, to him what 
 is the Christian past ? A blurred and blotted page for evil, 
 and a practical blank for good. It is a melancholy view of 
 Christianity a humiliating estimate of human veracity a 
 mighty accusation against humanity itself. No wonder it pro- 
 duces -so much " laceration of mind." 
 
 But it is not so with the convert to the Catholic Faith. He 
 is conscious that he has embraced a higher grade of faith, has 
 been brought into closer and holier communion with the unseen 
 world, and has adopted a more just and charitable estimate of 
 human veracity. He has taken a step towards the Celestial 
 City, from the low murky valleys of discord, where the fogs of 
 error do love to dwell. He shakes hands with the brethren of 
 
MISCKLLANUOU8 CONSIDERATIONS. 739 
 
 every kindred, name, and tongue. He worships with the peo 
 pie of every nation. He joins his prayers with those who speak 
 the varied languages of earth. On every shore, in every land, 
 beneath every sky, and in every city, he meets his brethren of 
 the universal Church. He is at home everywhere, and bows 
 down with the millions who have worshipped, and still worship, 
 at the same altar, and hold the same faith. 
 
 But not only so. He looks back over the pages of past his- 
 tory, and ascends by a plain, visible, and unbroken chain to the 
 apostolic day. He has no chasms to leap, no deserts to cross. 
 At every step in this progress he finds the same Old Church 
 the same faith the same worship still pre-eminent in the Chris- 
 tian world. He sees the rise and fall of empires and sects ; but 
 the same Old Church always pre-eminent. The records of the 
 past are with him. He has the sanction of antiquity. Time 
 tells for him a glorious story. He meets with myriads of breth- 
 ren all along the slumbering ages. The old martyrs and saints 
 are his brethren. He claims companionship with them. Their 
 memories are beloved by him. And Blandina, the poor slave, 
 but noblest of martyrs, was his sister. And old Ignatius, and 
 Polycarp, and Justin, and Irenaeus, are also his brethren. And 
 she, the humblest of the humble the purest of the pure 
 the stainless Virgin Mother of his Lord, whom all generations 
 call " blessed," is revered by him as the noblest of creatures. 
 And the old apostles the noble and the true the holy and 
 the just the despised and persecuted they, .too, are his breth- 
 ren. In short, the saints and martyrs of the olden time, held 
 the same faith, worshipped at the same altar, and used the same 
 form of worship, that he does. He venerates and loves their 
 memory, admires their virtues, calls them brethren, and asks 
 their prayers in heaven. He has no accusations to bring against 
 them no crimes to lay to their charge. 
 
 But besides all this, his faith is sustained by a logical power, 
 and a Scriptural proo that cannot be fairly met and confuted. 
 It is sustained by every plain and luminous principle upon 
 which society and government are founded. His reason, his 
 common sense, the best feelings of his nature, the holiest im- 
 pulses of his heart, all satisfy him beyond a doubt, that he is in 
 the right. 
 
74:0 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 It is not at all surprising, then, that it is so difficult to con- 
 vert a Catholic to Protestantism, even when in the vigor of life ; 
 and so difficult, that it never has been done, at the hour of 
 death. For there is no known instance where a Catholic changed 
 his faith upon a dying bed ; while thousands of Protestants have 
 done so. If a Catholic can live a faithful member of his 
 Church, he can always die in it. In that awful hour that 
 honest hour 
 
 " When all the blandishments of life are gone." 
 " When tired dissimulation drops her mask, 
 And real and apparent are the same ; " 
 
 when eternity, with all its mighty consequences, rolls up its 
 endless proportions before the dying vision Ah ! then, no 
 Catholic asks to change his faith ! Oh give me the last sacra- 
 ments of the Church ! Let me die in her holy communion ! 
 Let me be buried in consecrated ground ! Let my brethren 
 pi-ay for me ! 
 
 But there is still another most weighty consideration with 
 him. He examines carefully the doctrines of his Church. From 
 the first to the last article of faith, they are as consistent with 
 each other as truth itself could be. There is no discrepancy 
 no contradiction. The whole theory, in all its parts, is perfectly 
 consistent with itself. He finds few, if any, to deny this entire 
 consistency of parts with the whole. He knows that every part 
 of a true system must be consistent with each, and with all. 
 No one truth jars with another. There can be no enmity, no 
 discord, in a true system. But he knows it is exceedingly diffi- 
 cult to find this consistency and harmony in a theory of pure 
 error ; and still more difficult to find it in a mixed theory of 
 truth and error. And he cannot understand how the alleged 
 additions to the faith could have been made, and so nicely fitted 
 to the true system, as to be perfectly consistent with it. He finds 
 it conceded that his Church has the fundamental truths of Chris- 
 tianity, and that her faith is consistent throughout ; and he can- 
 not see how this consistency could be found between the alleged 
 added errors and the old truths ; and he is forced to conclude, 
 that a theory so consistent in all its parts and admitted to con- 
 tain many truths, must be true in every particular. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 741 
 
 I will close this work in the words of that distinguished 
 French writer, La Bruyere : 
 
 " If ray religion be false, it is, I must own, the most artful 
 snare that could possibly be devised. It is impossible to avoid 
 falling into it and being caught. What majesty, what magnifi- 
 cence, in its mysteries ! What coherency, what connection, in 
 all its doctrines ! What sound reason ! What candor ! What 
 innocence of morals ! What an invincible and overwhelming 
 body of evidence is given successively, and for three whole cen- 
 turies, by millions of the most learned and most considerate 
 persons then in the world, and whom the conviction of one and 
 the same truth supported in exile, in fetters, at the approach 
 of death, and under the most cruel torments." 
 
 THE END. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 FEB 
 
 ' 
 
 HOc'56jL| 
 REC'D LD 
 
 DEC 12 1956 
 
 23;,lar'59AJ 
 
 APR 2> 1959 
 
 R EC'D 
 
 MAR I 
 UNIV. OF CAUF 
 
 NOV 2 1995 
 
 :|RCUUTION DEPT. 
 
 LD 21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 
 
 LOAN 
 
 BERK. 
 
M5S5513 
 
 E SUPPLIED BY 
 >VEN BOOKHUNTERS 
 
 80X22, NEWYORKII.N.Y.