A letter on the secession to the Romish church

^f

^ 3Letter

ON THE

SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH.

BY

THE EEV. G. S. FIBER, B.D.

(Extracted from the " Christianas Monthly Magazine'^).

We are very happy to be able to lay before our readers a letter
from one long tried in the cause of truth, the Rev. G. Stanley Faber,
whose high standing and his perfect acquaintance with the Romish
controversy make his opinion so exceedingly valuable in the midst
of Tractarian defection to Rome. It would be impertinent in us to add
one word of comment. The letter has been forwarded to us by the
gentleman to whom it was addressed, together with a copy of the rea-
sons which were alleged for the meditated secession *. — Ed.

My dear Sir, Sherburn-house, Nov. 12, 1845.

Though it is somewhat arduous for me, at seventy-two, and only
just emerging from an indisposition of nine months' duration, to enter
upon the painful topic of your letter ; yet, in hopes that, through God's
mercy, your nephew may be stayed in his fatal career, I will readily
take up my pen to meet his paper.

* Copy of the original transmitted to the Rev. G. S. Faber.

" I have resolved to quit the Established Church, because I believe it to be a
" schismatical body, destitute of the notes of the true Church (which all holders of the
" creeds admit) ; so far from being one, that it is not united with any part of Christ-
" endom, nor yet within itself; so far from being holy, that during its existence it
* ' has not produced one saint or (apart from politics) one martyr ; so far from being
" Catholic, that it does not extend over the sister kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland ;
' ' so far from being apostolic, that it derives the mission of its bishops, at highest,
" from Queen Elizabeth.

" I have resolved to seek admittance into the Roman Church mainly upon this
" ground. Believing the Gospel, I believe the promises of our Lord to be un-
" doubtedly true. I believe, therefore, that He always has been and is with the
" Church, leading her into all truth by the Spirit of truth, whereby she always has been,

B

2 MR. FABER ON

The perusal of it fully convinces me, that it never could have been
written by any honest man, who had carefully studied the subject on
both sides. Now, as I acquit your nephew of all intentional dishonesty,
if the paper be really his production, it must have been written by him
purely on a one-sided view, and in consequence of his having implicitly
swallowed all that his Tractarian or Popish instructors have thought fit
to tell him ; for any other supposition involves a charge of deliberate
dishonesty, which I should be sorry to make against him. But, whoever
may have indited the paper, your nephew has plainly never read more
than on one side of the question ; and, from long and repeated expe-
rience, I am sorry to say, that, where the interests of their Church are
concerned, the priesthood of Rome are so entirely the reverse of being
scrupulous in regard to truth, that I have made it a rule never to re-
ceive any startling assertion of theirs without testing it ; and, certainly,
wherever their assertion was of an extraordinary nature, I have invari-
ably, upon examination, found them falsifying.

** and is, the pillar and ground of truth. The Church, therefore, is infallible. Now it
** seems absurd to maintain that this infallibility resides in divided bodies mutually
" anathematising one another ; because the Spirit of truth, through whom the Church
*' is infallible, is the Spirit likewise of unity, who maketh men to be of one mind in a
*' house ; and a house divided against itself shall surely fall, but against the Church
*' the gates of hell shall never prevail. The Church, being thus certainly one and
** absolutely infallible, and having always been so, it follows both, that the old
*' unreforraed Church is the true Church, and that all that the true Church holds
** is truth. Now, that the Roman Church is the old, and therefore the trae
*' Church, we know not more surely from history than from the notes of the
** Church, which she as clearly possesses, as every other religious body is evi-
** dently without, through which notes she has been and is a City set upon a
'' Hill, a Candle giving light to all that are in the House. Now, this Church
** declares unhesitatingly, that it is essential to the salvation of such as see and re-
'* cognise her, to be united to her communion. This, since I do see and recognise
*' her, it is my resolve to do. Again, a man left without an infallible guide must,
** being rational, choose his way for himself. Unless, therefore, he follows the true
" Church, he must walk by the light of his private judgment. Now I, if I take the
" latter alternative — no less than if I take the former — shall go without doubt to
*' Rome; since I judge the doctrines of Rome to be more rational and verisimilar
^* than any other doctrines whatever. Nor can any member of the Established
■** Church, which rests upon private judgment only, nor yet the whole estabUshment,
^* if it had any opinions, (which it has not, for as many ministers as it has, so many
^' voices has it), have any right in the world to pronounce a man wrong who in hia
*' conscience believes it necessary for his salvation to join the Church."

" This is my conviction, and I do not see how any member of the Established
" Church can question my right and my duty to follow it."
'November, 1845."

1

SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH. 3

In my *' Difficulties of Romanism" I have carefully, in the way of
historical testimony, examined both sides of the question. Has your
nephew read that work? and, if not, will he refuse to read it? Should
such be the case, it is vain to argue with him ; for a shallow and yet
determined one-side reader puts himself out of the pale of all legiti-
m .te discussion ; and I repeat it, had your nephew honestly studied the
subject, instead of building upon the unscrupulous assertions of the
Romish priesthood, he never could either have written the paper him-
self, or have been at all influenced by it, if received from another
person.

It is a mingled tissue of gratuitous assumptions and daring misrepre-
sentations, or rather, indeed, absolute falsehoods.

I. The real foundation upon which the entire paper rests is, the
claim of Infallibility on the part of the Church of Rome. If this
claim be valid, the discussion is obviously at an end. Your nephew,
therefore, as preparatory to his other statements, ought, assuredly, not
alone to have boldly asserted the infallibility of the Church of Rome,
but to have substantiated his assertion by some distinct and tangible
evidence.

1. Now he brings no proof whatever, either from Scripture or from
history, that the Church of Rome is infallible.

He does nothing more than loosely intimate, that " the Church is
'* infallible through the Spirit of truth."

Now, even if this unproved assertion were admitted, for the sake of
argument, it would not follow that the Church of Rome was infallible,
any more than the several Churches of Greece, and Antioch, and Jeru-
salem, and Alexandria, and Armenia.

But this is the usual sophism of Romish writers. They assume, that
the Church and the Church of Rome are synonymous terms ; and then,
as if this mere assumption could not be doubted, they boldly argue from
it as a point altogether incontrovertible.

2. Is there any proof from Scripture of the infallibility of the Church
of Rome ?

Not a syllable. If anywhere, we might expect to find it in the Epi-
stle to the Romans. But St. Paul, so far from saying a single syllable
about this pretended infallibility, actually cautions the Romans against
falling away from the faith. (Rom. xi, 18 — 22).

3. Is there any proof from history ?
Nothing of the sort. History exhibits Pope against Pope, Council

igainst Council, the Roman Church of one age against the Roman
Jhurch of another age.

' Where was infallibility, when, at one single time, there were three

B 2

i4 MR. FAEER ON

Popes, each claiming to be infallible, and each cursing the other as an
undoubted limb of Antichrist ?

Where was infallibility, when the present Pope, and a long line of his
predecessors, severally claimed to be universal bishops and the centre of
unity, while Pope Gregory I had actually declared, that the person,
who, in the elation of his heart, should call himself, or even desire to
be called Universal Bishop^ was the forerunner of Antichrist ? If Gre-
gory was right, what are we to think of his successors ? if wrong, what
becomes of infallibility ?

4. But not only does this infallible Church contradict itself; it like-
wise, again and again, contradicts and opposes and sets aside Scripture.
Now, Scripture we know to be infallible. Therefore, it is a palpable
contradiction in terms to assert, that this barefaced contradiction of
Scripture is also infallible.

5. Furthermore, if the Roman Church were infallible, it would be
easy to point out the organ by which the decrees of this infallibility are
communicated. Some declare it to be the Pope speaking ex cathedrd;
others, a general Council, concurrently with the Pope ; others, a General
Council, such as that of Constance, independently of the Pope, and
even opposed to him. Has your nephew ascertained the locality of that
infallibility, respecting which he speaks so confidently ; or, if he thinks
he has, why are we to prefer his alleged locality to the alleged locality
of another speculatist, unless he be himself personally infallible ?

6. This brings me to the last difficulty with which this ridiculous
absurdity is hampered.

Even if the Roman Church were infallible, and even if the organ of
its infallibility could be infaUibly determined by some infallible inves-
tigator, still when we had it, not the slightest use could we derive from
it in the way of what Dr. Milner very amusingly calls the end of con-
troversy ^ unless every Romish individual were himself \nid\\\\Ae like-
wise. Without this necessary personal infallibility, how can your
nephew be infallibly certain that he attaches its true sense to an infal-
lible decision of the infallible Church ?

Both respecting transubstantiation and the invocation of saints, and
the use of images, Roma locuta est; but not, therefore, causa fnita
est.

Can your nephew, or any Romanist, infallibly tell me, whether, in the
process of transubstantiation, the elements are annihilated, and the
body and blood, and divinity and soul, of Christ are substituted in their
placed or whether, in the same process, the elements are transmuted
into the body and blood, and divinity and soul, of Christ ? Unless he
can be infallibly certain how on this point he ought to understand t^

I

SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH. 5

infallible decision, he may, notwithstanding- the great benefit of eccle-
siastical infallibility, be himself a damnable heretic *.

Again, can he be infallibly certain, that he understands the infallible
decision touching the invocation and veneration and relics of saints and
sacred images, as given in the 25th Session of the infallible Council of
Trent ? Can he define infallibly the precise intended amount of the
legitimate use of images, or the precise intended extent of the due honour
and veneration which the infallible Council charges all good Christians
to pay to images ? Unless he can do this, he can never be infallibly
certain that he is not a heretic ; for, if he depart one tittle or one poor
scruple from the sense of the infallible Council, he falls into heresy.
The varying practice of Romanists themselves shews, that they are not
unanimous in their understanding the true import of the Council's deci-
sion. Such being the case, how are they the wiser for the infallibility
of their Church ? Clearly, they cannot benefit from it, unless every
single individual of them be himself personally infallible.

7. Your nephew may peradventure say, that we may be morally cer-
tain of the true sense of an infallible decision, just as we may be morally
certain of the true sense of Scripture.

If he says this, he at once cuts up Popery by the roots, and falls him-
self into a flat paralogism.

The constant language of Rome is, that we cannot be even morally
certain of the true sense of Scripture ; and, therefore, that we need
the infallible interpretation of that infallible Church. And this is plainly
the drift of your nephew's language. Yet here lies his gross paralogism.

We cannot, forsooth, be morally certain of the true sense of Scripture ;
but we may be morally certain of the true sense of an infallible decision
or interpretation !

Nor is even this the whole amount of the paralogism. Moral cer-
tainty is not infallible certainty ; and, unless your nephew be infallible,
he can never be more than morally certain as to the true sense of a
Romish decision. In other words, he can claim no higher certainty as
to the true sense of a pretended infallible decision, than we of the Eng-
lish Church claim as to the true sense of a really infallible text of Scrip-
ture. Under such circumstances, how does he profit more from the pre-
tended infallibility of the Romish Church, than from the real infallibility
of the Bible ; and how, in going over to Popery, will he gain a single

* The language of the Council of Trent bids the most fair for the latter theory :
)ut still it may be doubted, whether the alleged conversion of one substance into an-
)ther is effected by the process of annihilation, or the process of transmutation ; nor
lo I see how this knotty point can be infallibly settled, save by an infallibly under-
tood infallible definition of the QUOMODO.

6 MR. FABER ON

advantage as to infallible certainty, which he does not equally possess
already ?

Can your nephew explain intelligibly, either to himself or to anybody
else, what he proposes to gain, by going over to the Church of Rome,
in the way of infallible, as contra-distinguished from moral, certainty,
unless he himself be also personally endowed with infallibility ?

II. The utter absurdity of the Romish claim of infallibility being thus
sufficiently shewn, the remainder of the task will be not very difficult.

1. Your nephew builds upon the necessity of his going over to the
Roman Church in parficula?', because, in his opinion, the Church Ca-
tholic collectively is declared to be the pillar and ground of faith.

Here, again, we have the old stock assumption, that the Church col-
lectively and the Church of Rome are synonymous. Now, even if it were
declared that the Church collectively is the pillar and ground, this would
no more make the Roman Chu7'ch exclusively that pillar than the Churches
of Constantinople or Antioch or Alexandria or Armenia, all of which, by
the judgment of Rome herself, have lost the character of pillars. But
if your nephew will consult so very common a book as Griesbach's New
Testament, he will find, that, by the proper punctuation of the passage,
not THE Church even collectively, but, agreeably to the whole analogy
of the Christian faith, the great mystery of Godliness, is declared
to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. Yet, even if the col-
lective Church were intended, we shouldhave no proof of infallibility
in the Romish sense of the word ; and, accordingly, Rome herself being
judge,/ac^5haveshewn,that the Church collectively is wo^ infallible.

2. Still, however, under the travestied name of the Church, your
nephew contends^ that the Church of Rome is infallible ; and that, as
such, all she holds is truth; and, consequently, that she has never
varied in doctrine.

Doubtless, she herself declares, that the faith propounded by the
Council of Trent was always in the Church. Semper hcEC fides in
Ecclesid Dei fuit. But, in making this bold assertion, she asserts a
fact, and the documentary evidence of history shews the alleged
FACT to be a rank falsehood. Take only, as a single instance, her
doctrine of justification, defined, for the first time, by the Council fl^l
Trent, in the sixteenth century. Her doctrine is, by anticipation, d^P
rectly condemned by Clement of Rome, who maintains, as indeed the^,
whole succession of Fathers do, from Clement down to Bernard, th^H
precise doctrine, which Luther revived, after it had been smothered by
the schoolmen toward the close of the twelfth century, and which tl^Hj
blundering Tridentines, with most disgraceful ignorance, have actually™'
anathematised. Indeed, what is curious enough in an infallible Church,
which professes to have never varied in doctrine, in the very days of

SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH. 7

the Council of Trent, many Romanists, such as Cardinal Pole, Con-
tarini, and others, maintained a doctrine, so essentially identical with
the old doctrine revived by Luther, that, if Luther were a heretic, then
were they also heretics, as likewise Clement of Rome, Athanasius, Ber-
nard, and, in short, the whole succession of what are called Fathers.

3. But your nephew thinks, and thinks truly, that infallibility cannot
reside " in divided bodies mutually anathematising one another."

I never heard of Protestant Churches '* mutually anathematising one
another;" because, while (as their published confessions shew) they
fully agree in essentials, they may differ in subordinates ; but I have
heard much of the anathemas employed by the Romish Church, and I
have some recollection, that, when Rome was split into three divisions
under three rival popes, the heads of these three divisions " mutually
" anathematised one another," with abundance both of bitterness and
perseverance ; so that, if it be " absurd to maintain that infallibility
" resides in divided bodies mutually anathematising one another,"
wherein, par paranthese, I quite agree with your nephew, then, on his
own declared principle, it is " absurd" to look for infallibility in the
Church of Rome.

Nor is this all. Look at the differences between the Franciscans and
the Dominicans, between the Jesuits and the Jansenists, between the
Ultramontanes and the Cismontanes, and then determine how infalli-
bility can reside in these " divided bodies."

Your nephew may say, that they differ only upon open questions. I
might retort, if I pleased, that, notwithstanding Bossuet's hyperbolical
Variations, the same also is the difference among Protestant Churches,
though I never heard of their anathematising one another. But here I
may justly raise a question against Popery, which he cannot raise
against Protestantism. If the Church of Rome be infallible, why does
she not beneficially use her infallibility, by turning, through an infallible
decision, these open questions into close questions ? If she cannot give
a decision, she confessedly is not infallible ; and, if she will not give a
decision, she at once dissolves her boasted pretence of unity, by a deli-
berate encouragement of disunion among her jarring members.

4. He asserts, that we know from history, that " the Roman Church
"is the old and therefore the true Church."

If, by old, he means, comparatively to all other Churches, the oldest^
history teaches us the very opposite. And, if by old he means simply
reaching hack to the Apostolic age, history teaches us, that many other
Churches have a distinct pedigree quite as long. In either case, oldness
is no more a proof that Rome is " therefore the true Church," than that
Antioch, or Jerusalem, or Alexandria are severally " the true Church."

The simple fact is, that Rome, without a shadow of claim, arrosratinff

8 MR. FABER ON

to herself exclusively the character of the Catholic Church, thence com-
pendiously pronounces, to the entire satisfaction of your unhesitating
nephew, that " every other religious body is evidently without ; " whence
he rapidly jumps to the conclusion, as quite indisputable, that, since
" this Church declares unhesitatingly, that it is essential to salvation to
" be united to her communion," therefore, without a shadow of
proof, we must devoutly believe the truth of such declaration.

That every other religious body is evidently without the Church of
Rome, is a mere truism ; but, before we can admit your nephew's hasty
conclusion, that therefore every other religious body is without the
Catholic Church of Christ, we must have proof, which (so far as my own
reading extends) has never yet been given, that the Catholic Church of
Christ is confined within the limits of the particular Church of Rome.
The Romanists, as we all know, assert this ; and your nephew, ap-
parently without a vestige of inquiry, admits their assertion, and abso-
lutely professes his resolution to act upon it ; yet, I believe, most sober
persons doubt, whether bold assertion and clear proof be precisely
identical.

5. I conclude, that your nephew, if he has at all sought for proof,
will fancy that he has found it in that declaration of our Lord, which
the Romanists confidently interpret to mean, that the Church is built
upon the rock Peter and his alleged successors in the paramount bishop-
ric of Rome.

In this case, he must be ignorant, that no such interpretation of our
Lord's assertion occurs in any of the writers antecedently to the Coun-
cil of Nice, nor yet (J believe) in any writer even considerably posterior
to that famous council. The rock is variously understood to mean,
Peter s corfession, or the divinity of Christ declared in that confession,
or the individual Peter himself as having made such a confession; but
NEVER, Peter and the succession of Roman bishops *. Some such claim
was first preferred by the then Roman bishop at the end of the second
century ; but TertuUian, who mentions it, mentions it only to laugh at
its mingled impudence and absurdity.

Accordingly, the first Council of Nice, which sat in the year 325,
when confirming the independent jurisdiction of the four great patri-
archates, merely gives to Rome a barren precedency ; and that, not on the
score of the Roman bishop being the inheritor of a pretended authorita-
tive primacy of St. Peter, but purely on the secular basis of Rome

* It has, I think, been abundantly shewn, that no such sense can be legitimately
extracted from the often- cited language of Cyprian. He speaks of the Church being
built upon Peter, but not upon Peter and Peter^s alleged successors conjointly. The
oldest interpretation is that preserved by Justin, about a.d. 150 ; and he makes the
foundation of Christ's Church to be, not Peter himself, but Peter's confession.

SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH. 9

being the ancient metropolis of the empire, all grounds of doubt being
effectually removed by the adjudication of the second place to the
Patriarch of Constantinople, on the parallel basis of Constantinople
being new Rome and the existing capital *. Nothing, therefore, (even
to pretermit the stubborn fact, that, according to Irengeus, Peter never
was Bishop of Rome), nothing can be more absurdly idle, than the
claim set up through an interested, and comparatively modern gloss
upon Matt, xvi, 18, 19.

6. Your nephew, by asserting that the Church of England is destitute
of the notes of the true Church, of course asserts also, that the Church,
which he purposes to join, does possess them.

He alludes, I suppose, to the four notes of Unity, Sanctity,
Catholicity, and Apostolicity, as given by Dr. Milner. Now, I
will venture to say, that the English Church possesses all these four
notes in «^ least as high a degree as the Roman Church,

(1). If, by Unity, he means Unity within itself ^ the English Church
is quite as much internally united as the Roman Church. As for the
Tractarians, they are mere Papists under a different name, dishonestly
holding English preferment, when they can get it, with Romish doc-
trines. They, consequently, as not belonging legitimately to the Eng-
lish Church, must obviously be thrown out of the reckoning, Rome is
heartily welcome to such tamperers with Mammon ; and, the sooner the
whole set go out from among us, for they are not of us, the better.
This being premised, any subordinate differences among ourselves are
not a jot greater than those which notoriously exist in the Roman
Church ; consequently, in this sense of the word, we possess Unity as
much as Rome.

If, on the other hand, by Unity, he means communion with other
independent Churches^ England has quite as much of this sort of unity
as Rome. And well she may; for Rome, notoriously, has no commu-
nion out of her own pale ; and, so far from possessing Catholic unity,
she is a complete theological Ishmael, her hand against every man, and
every man*s hand against her. As for asserting that she herself exclus-
ively constitutes the Universal Church, this is a pure begging of the
question. She is a member, indeed, though a wofully diseased mem-
ber of the Church Universal ; but to call her on that account the
Catholic Church is the same as to call a diseased leg the whole body.

(2). Next comes the note of Sanctity. How this note belongs

* The same is repeated in the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451.
It adjudges to the two Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople equal jurisdictions.
TO. la a TTpiij^tia.

10 MR. FABER ON

specially to Rome, and does not belong to England, your nephew
would do well to inquire. Does he rest the claim for Rome on the
abominations of the Confessional, or on the principles of the Jesuits, so
admirably exposed by Pascal, and now open to the whole world in the
published Secreta Monita ?

But the English Church, it seems, " so far from being holy, has not,
" during its existence, produced one saint."

If, by sainty your nephew means one who has been dubbed a saint by
the silly process of a Romish canonisation^ it is true enough, that not a
single saint of that very ambiguous stamp has been produced by our
Reformed Church. But we have yet to learn, that no saints exist save
those of the Pope's somewhat questionable manufactory.

Neither again, says your nephew, has the English Church produced a
single martyr, " apart from politics ;" MaKapt^cu aTrXoTqra, as old Thucy-
dides would say. Where can he have studied the familiar History of
England ?

(3). Next we have Catholicity. This your nephew claims for
Rome, and denies to England ; remarking, that, so far from being Ca-
tholic, the English " Church does not extend over the sister kingdoms
" of Scotland and Ireland."

If this be sound reasoning, then neither can the Roman Church
claim Catholicity ; for, to adopt the gentleman's own illustrative phra-
seology, the Roman Church, " so far from being Catholic, does not
" extend over more, at the very most, than a moiety of Christendom."
But, in truth, some Romish priest, or some discontented Tractarian, has
evidently gulled him by the ambiguity of the word Catholic. In the
sense of the Catholic Church, neither the Church of Rome, nor any
other provincial Church, is Catholic. But, in the sense of a Catholic
Church, the Church of England, as a sound branch of Christ's Universal
Church, is, at the least, as Catholic as a palpably unsound branch, like
Rome. Before your nephew decides so peremptorily, he would do well
to give definitions, and study precision of language.

(4). But our unfortunate England cannot claim the note of Aposto-
LiciTY, because your nephew has learned from history, that " she de-
" rives the mission of her bishops, at the highest, from Queen Eliza-
'' beth."

I would advise him to read Father Courayer's Work on the English
Orders ; and I would refer him to the plain explanatory declaration of
our 37th Article ; which, if he has read it at all, he cannot have read
with even moderate attention.

Meanwhile, I would remind him, that the best Apostolicity is a sound
following of the doctrine of the Apostles, which the English Church

SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH. 11

possesses, and which the Romish Church undoubtedly does not possess ;
and I would tell him, which probably he and sundry other Tractarians
do not know, that Archbishop Laud answers Fisher, the Jesuit, on this
very point, by denying the least value to Apostolical succession of orders
without the concomitance of a possession of Apostolical succession of
doctrine. Hence, I venture to think, that the Church of England pos-
sesses true Apostolicity, while, with Laud, I deny it to the Church of
Rome.

7. Your nephew, finally, is sure, that all who decline walking by the
infallibility of Rome must "walk by the light of their own private
" judgment."

In the first place, I would ask him, how a man is to walk by an infal-
libility which itself hdi's, no existence ?

And, in the next place, I would ask him, where he learned that the
Church of England teaches all her members to walk by the light of their
own private judgment ? Certainly, I read it not in the book. The
Church of England, as in many of my works I have repeatedly quoted
the statements of that Church and her friends, explicitly disavows all
walking by insulated private judgment; but then she very rationally
refers us, instead of our insulated private judgment, 7iot to the day-
dream of ever-shifting Romish infallibility, but to the historical testi-
mony of the ancient fathers and doctors of the really primitive and
early Church. Nay, that very Elizabeth, to whom he idly ascribes the
mission of our bishops, will set him right touching hi§ egregious mistake
on the point of private judgment. I shall give her own words, in reply
to the Emperor and other Popish sovereigns of the day, as they are pre-
served by Camden.

" Nee causam subesse uUam cur concederet, cum Anglia non novam
" aut alienam amplectatur religionem ; sed eam, quam Christus jussit,
" prima et Catholica Ecclesia coluit, et vetustissimi Patres una voce
" et mente comprobarunt." Camden. Rerum Anglican. Annal. par. i.
p. 28.

Your nephew, without any due examination, has implicitly swallowed,
and simply retailed, the old stock falsehood of the Popish controver-
sialists.

I believe I have now noticed the whole of his paper. You are at
perfect liberty to make whatever use you please of this letter, either
private or public ; and, as I am not in the habit of writing anonymously,
I shall subscribe myself, for all whom it may concern,

Yours, very truly,

G. S. Faber.

1*2 MR. FABER ON

Letter to the Editor of the " Christian's Monthly/ Magazine."
THE ROMANIST APPEAL TO ECCLESIASTICAL ANTIQUITY .

Sir,

I am inclined to think, that a peculiarity, respecting the professed
GROUND on which the decisions of the Council of Trent have been
made to repose, has not, either generally or sufficiently, been noticed.

The common idea seems to be, that the decisions of that Council
are purely dogmatical^ resting upon nothing save a gratuitously as-
sumed infallibility. Whence it would follow : that, while the Papists
receive them on the score of their being nakedly infallible declarations,
from which lies no appeal, Protestants reject all those which disagree
with their own creed, on the broad ground that infallibility is (what,
indeed, abstractedly is true enough) a mere impudently ridiculous
figment.

But this idea is altogether incorrect. By a sort of what really seems
like a judicial infatuation, the individuals, who constituted the Council
of Trent, do not rest their decisions upon the ground of an asserted
Conciliar or Papal Infallibility y but upon the entirely different ground
of a confident appeal to Ecclesiastical Antiquity from the very beginning,
and therefore to an antiquity which commences with and includes the
New Testament.

Now such an appeal is plainly a direct assertion of an historical
FACT. Consequently, like the assertion of any other historical fact, it
must be tested by an examination of history itself. If history, com-
mencing with the New Testament, substantiates the asserted fact :
then, no doubt, we must receive it. But, if history, commencing with
the New Testament, either negatively refuses to substantiate, or posi-
tively and explicitly contradicts, the asserted fact : then, according
to the simple dictate of merely plain common sense, we must reject it.
Unless this be admitted, there is an end to the value of Historical Testi-
mony : and it is quite nugatory to appeal to it, as the Tridentines pro-
fessedly do, unless the Romanists will be bound by an appeal delibe-
rately made by the strictly official members of their own Communion.

I, After this exordium, it will, of course, be only fair and proper to
exhibit some specimens of the appeal : in order that, so, the professed
ground of the Tridentine Decisions may be indisputably evident even
to the most careless inquirer.

1. The Council assures us : that certain traditions, appertaining both

SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH. 13

to faith and morals, either orally delivered by Christ or dictated by the
Holy Spirit, have been preserved, through a continual succession, in the
Catholic Church : whence they are to be received with the same rever-
ence as Scripture itself. Concil. Trident, sess. iv, pp. 7, 8. Edit.
Antwerp, a. d. 1644.

Can these assurances be verified by history ?

2. The Council professes to deliver that sound doctrine respecting
the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Catholic Church, instructed
by Christ and his Apostles and the Holy Spirit, has always [semper]
held. Sess. xiii, p. 122.

Does history, sacred and ecclesiastical, substantiate this profession ?

3. Respecting the doctrine of Transubstantiation as defined by itself,
the Council declares : that this Faith was always in the Church of God.
Semper haec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit. Sess. xiii, c. 3, p. 124.

Can the truth of this declaration be proved by the testimony of
history ?

4. The Council asserts that: the Universal Church always [semper]
understood complete confession of sins to a priest to have been insti-
tuted, as a point of necessity, by our Lord Himself. Sess. xiv, c. 5, p.
148.

Can this assertion, respecting the auricular confession of the Romish
Church, be verified by history, either scriptural or ecclesiastical ?

5. Notwithstanding the full satisfaction made for sin by Christ, the
Council declares : that the doctrine of man's being able and bound to
make satisfaction for his own sins was, through the whole course of
time past [perpetuo tempore], recommended, to Christian people, by
our fathers. Sess. xiv, c, 8, p. 156.

Is this declaration supported by the testimony of history ?

6. The Council asserts : that the sacrament of Extreme Unction was
instituted by our most clement Saviour. Sess. xiv, c. 1, pp. 159,
160.

Is the adduction of the language of St. James (Epist. v. 14, 15) by
the Council any valid historical proof of the assertion : seeing that the
language of the Apostle, and the Romish doctrine of Extreme Unction,
differ, toto coelo, from each other ?

7. The Council declares : that no Divine command requires either the
Laity or the non-officiating Clergy to receive the Eucharist in both kinds :
for, although (it goes on to pronounce) Christ established and delivered
to his Apostles this sacrament under the species of bread and wine ; yet
neither that institution, nor the tradition of it, requires, that all the
faithful are bound to receive the Eucharist in both kinds. Sess. xxi,
c. 1, p. 203.

d6 MR. FABER ON SECESSION TO THE ROMISH CHURCH.

only The Lord's Table or The Communion Table : and, from this usage
of the word Altar by the venerable primitive Father, he, curiously, on
the principle of development, proves, that the Eucharist was always
(as the Tridentines speak) held to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the
sins of both the quick and the dead. The proof, no doubt, is very
ingenious : but its satisfactoriness, I fear, will be considerably abated
by this same mischievous Syriac version, from which it appears, that the
alleged Altar of the primeval Ignatius is nothing more respectable
than a mere interpolation. Probably with sundry other extraordinary
matters which all turn out to have been interpolated, it was introduced
into the Greek text during the fourth or fifth century, when the glaring
heresy associated with it had, no doubt, crept into the then rapidly apo-
statising Church.

G. S. Faber.
Sherhurn-home, November 26th, 1845,

LONDON:
w. m'dowall, printer, pemberton row, GOUGH SaUARE,

I