'
ESSAYS AND REVIEWS
CHIEFLY ON
THEOLOGY, POLITICS, AND SOCIALISM,
BT
O. A. BROWNSON, L.L. D.
NEW YORK:
D. & J. SADLIER & Co. 31 BARCLAY STREET.
BOSTON: 128 FEDERAL-STREET.
MONTREAL, C. E:
CORNER OF ST. FRANCIS XAVIKR AND NOTRE-DAMK STREETS.
1862
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1S52,
BY D. & J. SADLIER & CO.
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the
Southern District of New York.
Rc
<?
Stereotyped by VINCENT L
128 Fulton-street, N. Y
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
PREFACE, v
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH, 1
THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER VERSUS THE CHURCH, .. .. 69
THORNWELL'S ANSWER TO DR. LYNCH, (April, 1848.) .. 100
THORNWELL'S ANSWER TO DR. LYNCH, (October, 1848.) .. 168
PROTESTANTISM ENDS IN TRANSCENDENTALISM, .. .. 209
PROTESTANTISM IN A NUTSHELL, .. .. .. . 234
AUTHORITY AND LIBERTY, 262
POLITICAL CONSTITUTIONS, 293
WAR AND LOYALTY, .. .. 321
THE HIGHER LAW, 349
CATHOLICITY NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN POPULAR LIBERTY, 368
LEGITIMACY AND REVOLUTIONISM, 386
NATIVE AMERICANISM, .. .. 420
LABOR AND ASSOCIATION, .. .. .. .. .. 444
SOCIALISM AND THE CHURCH 479
PREFACE.
THE following essays and reviews are republished
from Brownson's Quarterly Review. They have been
subjected to a rigid revision, but are reproduced as
originally published, excepting a few verbal corrections,
the suppression of a few superfluous sentences, and the
omission of some paragraphs which have lost their
interest.
It is very possible that in selecting these articles
for republication, I have not chosen those which the
student of theology or philosophy would have recom-
mended, nor even those which I myself regard as the
least unworthy of my writings during the past seven
or eight years ; but essays of a somewhat abstruse and
metaphysical nature, though they may be tolerated in
a periodical where they appear along with others of a
less unpopular cast, will hardly find in these times read-
ers if published in a volume by themselves. I have
selected such articles as have seemed to me best adapted
to the tastes of the general reader, and the most likely
to be useful to the public at large, whether Catholic or
Protestant.
The reader must not expect too much from these
articles, and must be content to take them for what
they are, simply articles originally written for a Quar-
terly Review. They are by no means separate and
complete treatises on the several topics they discuss.
But, if read in connection, in the order in which I have
arranged them, they may, perhaps, be found to give a
VI PREFACE.
tolerably full view of the argument for the Church and
against Protestantism, of the origin and constitution of
Government, the principles of Authority and Liberty, /
the sacredness of Law, the duty of Loyalty, and the
madness and danger of modern Socialism.
If any one looks over this volume for something new,
original, or striking he will, most likely, be disappointed.
I have not labored to present novel or startling specula-
tions on theology, philosophy, ethics, or politics, but
simply to ascertain the principles and doctrines of the
Church of God, and to apply them to the great practi-
cal questions of the day. My aim has been to bring
up anew the old and too often forgotten truth, not to
bring out a novel theory. From first to last I think
and write as a man many centuries behind his age.
The articles before being printed in the Quarterly
Review were submitted to the revision of a competent
theologian, and I have no reason to suppose that they
contain anything not in accordance with Catholic faith
and morals ; but they are as a matter of course repub-
lished with submission to the proper authority, and I
shall be most happy to correct any error of any sort
they may contain the moment it is brought authorita-
tively to my notice. It is not my province to teach ;
all that I am free to do is to reproduce with scrupu-
lous fidelity what I am taught.
Religion is for me the supreme law ; it governs my
politics, not my politics it. I never suffer myself to
inquire whether such or such a religion favors or not
such or such a political order ; for if there is a conflict
the political must yield to the religious. I therefore
have not labored to show that the Church is favorable or
unfavorable to monarchy, to aristocracy, or to democ-
racy. I do not find that she erects any particular
PREFACE. Vil
form of Government into an article of faith, the mo-
narchical no more than the democratic, the democratic
no more than the monarchical. Any one of these par-
ticular forms may be legal government, and when and
where it is the good Catholic is bound to support it,
and forbidden to conspire to subvert it. The republi-
can order is the legal order here, and I owe it civil
obedience. I am the citizen of a republic, and there-
fore a republican citizen ; I am a Catholic, therefore a
loyal citizen, and no radical or revolutionist, either for
my own country or any other.
My Catholic friends, who have been frequently dis-
turbed by hearing it alleged that Catholicity is anti-
republican and incompatible with popular institutions,
will find no direct attempt to refute so silly, nay, so
absurd an objection. I respect my religion, and even
the great body of my own countrymen, too much to
undertake to do that. But they will find that I have
attempted, not unsuccessfully perhaps, to prove that
without the Catholic religion it is impossible permanently
to sustain popular institutions, or to secure their free
and salutary operations. Indeed no form of govern-
ment can be secure or operate well without the Church.
Without Catholicity you can have, in principle at least,
only despotism or anarchy. All that our countrymen
find in our institutions has been adopted from England,
and inherited from Catholic ancestors.
I seldom throw a sop to Cerberus. I have made
no attempt to propitiate popular opinion by pandering
to popular prejudice. I was not born to be a courtier,
either of king or people. I seek to enlighten public
opinion, not to echo it ; and I always say, in a plain,
straight forward way, what I am convinced ought to be
said, leaving popularity or unpopularity to look out for
Vli PREFACE.
itself. But if my language is free, bold, and some-
times severe, I would fain hope that it is never incon-
siderate, rash, or gratuitously offensive.
I shall be found to have seldom indulged in frothy
declamations about liberty, the rights of man, and the
dignity of human nature. There are enough others to
do that. I assert my liberty in my practice ; I exer-
cise my rights as a man, and I aim to show my respect
for the dignity of human nature in my deportment.
Liberty is, no doubt, threatened in this country, but
the danger comes chiefly from the side of license, and
is best averted, not by common place declamations for
the largest liberty, but by asserting and maintaining
the supremacy of Law.
I have shown no sympathy with the various classes
of fanatics with which the country teems, philanthro-
pists, reformers, as they call themselves. They have
become as troublesome as the frogs of Egypt, and are
far more dangerous. They strike at the root of all indi-
vidual liberty and manly independence of character,
and are doing their best to revive the absurd and des-
potic legislation of the early Colonial times of New
England. Of Christian Charity, that supernatural virtue
which loves God supremely and its neighbor as itself
for God's sake, we cannot have too much ; but of the
whimpering sentiment of philanthropy, which an unbeliev-
ing age substitutes for it, and which is the love of all
men in general and the hatred of every man in par-
ticular, unless a criminal, we cannot have too little.
Charity redeems the world, \nd gives us a heaven on
earth ; philanthropy effects no good, and tramples down
more good by the way in going to its object, than it
could possibly effect in accomplishing it.
Whatever the imperfections of these articles, and
PREFACE. IX
no one can be more sensible of their imperfections than
I am, there is this to be said in their favor, that they
are the production of no youthful aspirant seeking
notoriety by paradox and excentricity, nor of an old
man soured by disappointment, and seeking to vent his
gf)ite upon an unoffending world. I have lived in the
world, and shared its vicissitudes, but I have no wrongs
to complain of, no sense of injustice rankling in my
bosom. I have no mortified ambition, and have attain-
ed to more than in the most ardent dreams of my youth
I ever aspired to. I am contented with my lot in the
world, and have no desire to change it. Conviction,
not desperation, led me into the Church, and I have
found a thousand times more than I expected. It is
true, in my youth and early manhood I held and pub-
lished views very different from those set forth in this
volume, and this fact will have its weight against what-
ever I may now say. But it is no crime to grow wiser
with years, and to profit by experience or by the
grace of God. The deliberate convictions of a man of
mature age are worth more than the crude speculations
of impetuous and inexperienced youth. But there is
nothing in these essays and reviews that rests on my
personal authority; they are to be taken for what they
are worth, without any reference to the much or little
respect due to their author.
Much has been said first and last in the newspapers
as to the frequent changes I have undergone, and I am
usually sneered at as a weathercock in religion and
politics. This seldom disturbs me, for I happen to
know that most of the changes alleged are purely im-
aginary. I was born in a Protestant community, of
Protestant parents, and was brought up, so far as I
was brought up at all, a Presbyterian. At the age of
PREFACE.
twenty-one I passed from Prebyterianism to what is
sometimes called Liberal Christianity, to which, I re-
mained attached, at first under the form of Universal-
ism, afterwards under that of Unitarianism, till the age
of forty-one, when I had the happiness of being received
into the Catholic Church. Here is the sum total of
my religious changes. I no doubt experienced difficul-
ties in defending the doctrines I professed, and I shifted
my ground of defence more than once, but not the doc-
trines themselves.
I was during many years, no doubt, a radical and
a socialist, but both after a fashion of my own. I held
two sets of principles, the one set the same that I hold
now, the other the set I have rejected. I supposed
the two sets could be held consistently together, that
there must be some way, though I never pretended to
be able to discover it, of reconciling them with each
other. Fifteen years' trial and experience convinced
me to the contrary, and that I must choose which set
I would retain, and which cast off. My natural tend-
ency was always to conservatism, and democracy, in
the sense I now reject it, I never held. In politics, I
always advocated, as I advocate now, a limited govern-
ment indeed, but a strong and efficient government.
Here is the sum total of my political changes. I never
acknowledged allegiance to any party. From 1838 to
1843, I acted with the Democratic party, because dur-
ring those years it contended for the public policy I
approved ; since then I have adhered to no party. No
party as such ever had any right to count on me, and
most likely none ever will have. I do not believe in
the infallibility of political parties, and I always did
and probably always shall hold myself free to support
the men and measures of any party, or to oppose
PREFACE. XI
them, according to my own independent convictions of
what is or is not for the common good of my country.
But after all, this is not a matter worth taking any
notice of. I am not anxious to prove that I have al-
ways acted consistently, and have never changed my
opinions. Charges may be alleged against me that are
not true, but the public is not likely to believe any-
thing worse of my life before I became a Catholic than I
do myself. I was a Protestant, and had the virtues and
the vices of Protestants, and probably was not much
better nor much worse than the average of my class.
I was, of course, all unworthy to be a Catholic, and
in myself am now all unworthy of the confidence of
Catholics. There is no question of that ; and if the
truth or falsity of my writings depended on my own
merits or demerits, they would deserve not a moment's
consideration. I have referred to the subject only as
an act of justice to my Catholic friends, who have so
generously given me their hearts. But I certainly had
errors, gross and inexcusable errors, and I beg the
public to accept this volume as a slight token of my
sincere repentance, and of my earnest wish to do all
in my power to atone for them.
I respectfully lay this humble volume at the feet
of the Venerable Prelates and Clergy of the United
States, not as worthy of their patronage, or even of
their notice, but as a mark of filial reverence and sub-
mission, and of profound and lively gratitude for their
kind encouragement, and generous and uniform support
of my humble labors in the cause of Catholic truth.
I would also inscribe it to my Protestant country-
men. They will find in it many resons why I have
ceased to be a Protestant, but none I hope, for believ-
ing that I have lost any of my former interest in them,
x PREFACE.
or that their welfare here or hereafter is less dear to
me than ever it was. My sympathies with my fellow
men, which, perhaps, are livelier and deeper than some
suppose, have been quickened and expanded, not dead-
ened and contracted, by my conversion to Catholicity.
I have said nothing in the following pages in wrath ;
I have spoken only in love.
Placing this volume, though all unworthy, with de-
vout gratitude, and tender love, under the protection
of Our Blessed Lady, as I do myself and all my labors
and interests, I send it forth to the public, hoping that
it may contain a fit word fitly spoken for some earnest
mind struggling to emancipate itself from error, and to
burst into " the glorious liberty of the children of God."
THE AUTHOR.
MOUNT BELLINGHAM,
Maunday Thursday, 1852.
ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH*
APRIL, 1845.
THE Journal, the title of which we have here quoted, is the
ably conducted organ of the American Unitarians. As a peri-
odical, it is one in which we take no slight interest ; for it is
conducted by our personal friends, and through its pages, which
were liberally opened to us, we were at one time accustomed
to give circulation to our own crude speculations and pestilen-
tial heresies. We introduce it to our readers, however, not
for the purpose of expressing any general opinion of its charac-
ter, or the peculiar tenets of the denomination of which it is the
organ ; but solely for the purpose of using the article which ap-
peared in the January number, headed The Church, as a text
for some remarks in defence of the Church against No-Church-
ism, or the doctrine which admits the Church in name, but
denies it in fact, so prevalent in our age and community.
All Protestant sects, just in proportion as they depart from
Catholic unity, tend to No-Churchism ; and the Unitarians, who
* The Christian Examiner and Religious Miscellany, January, 1845.
Art. VI. The Church.
2 THE CHURCH AGAIN'ST NO-CHURCH.
are the Protestants of Protestants, and who afford us a practical
exemplification of what Protestantism is and must be, when and
where it has the sense, the honesty, or the courage to be con-
sequent, have already reached this important point. They can-
not be said, in the proper sense of the word, to believe in any
church at all. They see clearly enough, that, if they once ad-
mit a church at all, in any sense in which it is distinguishable
from no-church, they can neither justify the Reformers in se-
ceding from the Catholic Church, nor themselves in remaining
aliens from its communion. They have, therefore, the honesty
and boldness to deny the Church altogether, and to admit in
its place only a voluntary association of individuals for pious and
religious purposes ; in which sense it is on a par with a Bible,
Missionary, Temperance, or Abolition society, with scarcely any-
thing more holy in its objects, or more binding on its members
The Christian Examiner, in the article we have referred to
fully authorizes this statement ; and though it by no means dis-
cards the sacred name of Church, it leaves us nothing venerable
or worth contending for to be signified by it. The controversies,
for the next few year, it thinks, will, not improbably, revolve
around the question of the Church. " What, then," it asks, " is
the Church ? what is its authority ? what its importance ? what
its true place among Christian ideas or influences ? " These are
the questions ; and its purpose in the article under consideration
is to offer a few remarks which may indicate a true answer to
them, especially the last.
In answer to the question, What is the Church ? the writer
replies, " It is the whole company of believers, the uncounted
and wide-spread congregation of all those who receive the Gos-
pel as the law of Ife. It is coextensive with Christianity; it is
the living Christianity of the time, be that more or less, be it
expressed in one mode of worship or another, in one or another
variety of internal discipline. The Church of Christ compre-
hends and is composed of all his followers." pp. 78, 79.
The answer to the question, What is the importance of the
Church ? is not very clearly set forth. Perhaps this is a point
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 3
on which the writer has not yet obtained clear and distinct
views. It is, probably, one of those points on which "rrore
light is to break forth." The place of the Church amon^'
Christian ideas and influences also is not very definitely deter-
mined; but it would appear that the sacred writers had two
ideas, for they were not, like our modern reformers, men of
only one idea, and these two ideas were, one the Church, the
other the individual soul. We do not mean to say that the
writer really intends to teach that the Church is an idea, for a
" company of believers " can hardly be called an idea, nor can
the individual soul ; but he probably means to teach that the
sacred writers had two ideas, or rather two points of view, from
which they contemplated this company of believers, the one
collective, the other individual.
" They loved to collect in idea the members of Christ, as
they styled them, under one idea, and present them in this rela-
tion of unity to their readers. Thus viewed, the Church became
the emblem of Christian influences and Christian benefits. It
expressed all Christ had lived for, or died for. He had loved it,
and given himself for it. It was ' the pillar and ground of the
truth.' It was the 'body' of which he was the head." p. 79.
This unity, however, is purely ideal ; that is, imaginary. The
only unity really existing consists merely in the similar senti-
ments, hopes, and aims of the individual members. But
" There was another idea ^n which the Apostles insisted still
more strenuously, that of the individual soul. They taught the
importance of the individual soul. Around this, as the one ob-
ject of interest, were gathered the revelations and command-
ments of the Gospel. Personal responsibleness in view of
privileges, duties, sins, temptations was their great theme.
They preached the Gospel to the soul in its individual exposure
and want. It is the peculiarity of our religion, its vital pecu-
liarity, that it makes the individual the object of its address, its
immediate and its final action. Christianity divested of this
distinction becomes powerless, and void of meaning. It contra-
dicts and subverts itself." Ib.
4 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
Here, then, are two ideas, the idea of the company, and the
idea of the individual ; and the first idea is to be held subordi-
nate to the second ; which, we suppose, means that the end of
Christianity is the redemption and sanctification of the individ-
ual soul, and that the Church is to be valued only in so far as
it is a means to this end, a doctrine which we do not recol-
lect to have ever heard questioned. The place of the Church
is, therefore, below the individual, and being only the effect of
the operation of Christianity in the hearts of individuals, as the
writer tells us farther on, its importance must consist solely in
the reaction of the example of Christians on those not yet con-
verted, and in the aid and encouragement union among pro-
fessed Christians gives to one another in their strivings after the
Christian life. This, as near as we can come at it, is the Chris-
tian Examiner's doctrine.
The writer throws in one or two remarks, in connexion with
his general statement, to which we cannot assent. " It has been
maintained," he says, " that the Church is the principal idea in
the Gospel. It has been generally supposed that the individual
exists for the Church. Ecclesiastical writers have contended,
and the people have admitted, that the rights of the Church
were stronger than the rights of the members, that the pros-
perity of the Church must be secured at the expense of the be-
liever's peace and independence ; that, in a word everything
must be made to yield to the Church." p. 80. The writer
must have drawn on his imagination for his facts. Ecclesiastical
writers have never contended, nor have the people admitted,
any such thing. The doctors of the Church have always and
uniformly taught that the Church exists for the individual, not
the individual for the Church, and that she is to be submitted
to solely as the means in the hands of God of redeeming and
sanctifying the individual soul. This is wherefore Catholics so
earnestly contend for the Church, so willingly obey her com-
mands, and so cheerfully lay down their lives in her defence.
The question of a conflict of rights between the Church and
the individual, which the Christian Examiner regards as the
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. \j
great question of the age, is no question at all ; for there never
is and never can be a conflict of rights. It has never been held
by any one of any authority in the ecclesiastical world, that the
rights of the Church are stronger than the rights of the mem-
bers, and that the rights of the members must yield to those of
the Church. Rights never yield ; claims may yield, but not
rights. Establish the fact that this or that is the right of the
member, and the Church both respects and guaranties it ; but
where she has the right to teach and command, she does not
come in conflict with individual rights by demanding submis-
sion, for there the individual has no rights. To hold him,
within the province of the Church, to obedience, is only holding
him to obedience to the rightful authority. When the law
says to the individual, " Thou shalt not steal," it infringes no
right ; because the individual has not, and never had, any right
to steal.
But passing over this, we may say, the Christian Examiner
holds, that, in the usual sense of the term, our blessed Saviour
founded no church ; he merely taught the truth, and, by his
teaching, life, sufferings, death, and resurrection, deposited in
the minds and hearts of men certain great seminal principles of
truth and goodness, to be by their own free thought and affec-
tions developed and matured. The Church is nothing but the
mere effect of the development and growth of these principles.
" It is but a consequence " of the effect of Christianity upon
those who are " separately brought under its influence." These,
taken collectively, are the Church. These organize themselves
in one way or another, adopt for their social regulation and mu-
tual progress such forms of worship or internal discipline as are
suggested by the measure of Christian truth and virtue realized
in their hearts. This is all the church there is. If you ask,
What is its authority ? the answer is, " A fiction, a fiction which
has cheated millions and ruined multitudes, but a fiction still."
p. 83. This, in brief, is the church theory of Liberal Chris-
tians, in fact, the theory virtually adopted by the great body of
O THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
the Protestant world, and the only theory a consistent Protestant
can adopt, if not even more than he can consistently adopt.
The insufficiency of this theory it is our purpose in the fol-
lowing essay to point out, by showing that with it alone it is
impossible to elicit an act of faith. We shall begin what we
have to offer by defining what it is we mean by the Church,
and what are the precise questions at issue between us and
No-Churchmen. We do this, because the Christian Ex-
aminer and its associates do not seem to have any clear or
definite notions of what it is we contend for, when we con-
tend for the authority, infallibility, and indefectibility of the
Church, or what it is of which we really predicate these impor-
tant attributes.
The word church, it is well known, is used in a variety of
senses. The Greek txxhrjala, ecclesia, rendered by the word
church, taken in a general way, means an assembly, or congre-
gation, whether good or bad, for one purpose or another ; but
is for the most part taken in the Scriptures and the Fathers in a
good sense, for the Church of Christ. The English word church,
said to be derived from KVQIOC, and oi'xof, the Lord's house
would seem to designate primarily the place of worship ; but as
ot'xoc, like our English word house, may mean the family as
well as the dwelling or habitation, the word church may not im-
properly be used to designate the Lord's family, the worship-
pers as well as the place of worship ; in which sense it is a suf-
ficiently accurate translation of the Greek ixxlijaia, as generally
used by ecclesiastical writers.
1. By the Church we understand, then, when taken in its
widest sense, without any limitation of space or time, the whole
of the Lord's family, the whole congregation of the faithful,
united in the true worship of God under Christ the head. In
this sense it comprehends the faithful of the Old Testament,
not only those belonging to the Synagogue, but also those oiu
of it, as Job, Melchisedech, <fec., the blest, even the angels, in
heaven, the suffering in purgatory, and those on the way. As
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 7
comprehending the blest in heaven, it is called the Church Tri-
umphant ; the souls in purgatory, the Church Suffering ; believ-
ers on the way, the Church Militant ; not that these are three
different Churches, but different parts, or rather states, of one
and the same Church. But with the Church in this compre-
hensive sense we have in our present dscussion nothing to do.
The question obviously turns on the Church Militant.
2. The Church Militant is defined by Catholic writers to be
" The society of the faithful, baptized in the profession of the
same faith, united in the participation of the same sacraments,
and in the same worship, under one head, Christ in heaven, and
Iris Vicar, the Sovereign Pontiff, on earth." But even this is too
comprehensive for our present purpose, to indicate at once the
precise points in the controversy between us and No-Church-
men.
3. We must distinguish, in the Church Militant, between the
Ecclesia credens, the congregation of the faithful, and the Eccle-
sia docens, or congregation of pastors and teachers.
The Church, as the simple congregation of believers, taken
exclusively as believers, is not a visible organization, nor an au-
thoritative or an infallible body. On this point we have no con-
troversy with the Christian Examiner ; for we are no Congre-
gation alists, and by no means disposed to maintain that the su-
preme authority in the Church, under Christ, is vested in the
body of the faithful. The authority of the Church in this sense
we cheerfully admit is " a fiction," " a mischievous fiction," as
the history of Protestantism for these three hundred years of
its existence sufficiently establishes.
When we contend for the Church as a visible, authoritative,
infallible, and indefectible body or corporation, we take the word
church in a restricted sense, to mean simply the body of pastors
and teachers, or, in other words, the bishops in communion
with their chief. We mean what Protestants would, perhaps,
better understand by the word ministry than by the word
church, although this word ministry is far from being exact,
as it designates functions rather than functionaries, and, when
8 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
used to designate functionaries, includes the several orders of
the Christian priesthood, not merely the bishops or pastors,
who alone, according to the Catholic view, constitute the Eccle-
sia docens. Nevertheless, to avoid the confusion the word
church is apt to generate in Protestant minds, we shall some-
times use it, merely premising that we use it to express only the
body of pastors and teachers, by whom we understand exclu-
sively the bishops, in communion with their chief, the Pope.
Now, the question between us and No-Churchmen turns
precisely on this Ecclesia docens. Has our blessed Saviour es-
tablished a body of teachers for his Church, that is, for the con-
gregation of the faithful ? Has he given them authority to teach
and govern ? Has he given to this body the promise of infalli-
bility and indefectibility ? If so, which of the pretended Chris-
tian ministries now extant is this body ? These are the questions
between us and No-Churchmen, and they cover the whole
ground in controversy. There is now no mistaking the points
to be discussed.
I. We take it for granted that the writer in the Christian
Examiner admits, or intends to admit, the divine origin and
authority of the Christian religion, and that the name of Jesus
is the only name " given under heaven among men whereby we
must be saved." We shall take it for granted that he holds
the Christian religion to be, not merely preferable to all other
religions or pretended religions, but the only true religion and
way of salvation. We are bound to do so, for he is a Doctor
of Divinity, a professedly Christian pastor of a professedly Chris-
tian congregation, and it would be discourteous on our part to
reason with him as we would with a Jew, Pagan, Mahometan,
or Infidel. We are bound to assume that he holds, or at least
intends to hold, that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the
only law of life, without obedience to which no one can be
saved ; and, since he makes Christianity and the Church coex-
tensive, that out of the pale of the Church as he defines it,
there is no salvation. The Church, he says, comprehends and
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 9
is composed of all the followers of Christ. No one, then, who
is not in the Church is a follower of Christ. If the Gospel of
Christ be the only law of life, no one not a follower of Christ
can be saved. Consequently, no one not a member of the
Church of Christ can be saved.
To deny this is to reject Christianity altogether, or to fall into
complete indifferency/ If men can be saved, or be acceptable to
their Maker, in one religion as well as in another, wherein is one
preferable to another ? If the Christian revelation was not
necessary to our salvation, why was it given us, and why are
we called upon to believe and obey it ? why did God send his
only begotten Son to make it, and why was it declared to be
of such inestimable value to us ? If Jesus Christ taught that
salvation is attainable in all religions, or in any religion but his
own, why were the Apostles so enraptured with the Gospel, and
why did they make such painful sacrifices for its promulgation ?
If they had not been taught to regard it as the only way of sal-
vation, their conduct is unaccountable ; and if it be not the only
way of salvation, they and their Master can be regarded only as
a company of deluded fanatics, whose labors, sacrifices, and cruel
deaths may indeed excite our pity, but cannot command our
respect. We shall presume the writer in the Christian Ex-
aminer sees all this as well as we, and therefore shall presume
that he holds with us, that all mankind are bound to worship
God, that there is but one true way of worshipping God, and
therefore but one true religion, and that this true religion is the
Christian religion. He who does not admit this much can
by no allowable stretch of courtesy be called a Christian. This
premised, we proceed.
In order to be saved, to enter into life, or to become ac-
ceptable to God, one must be a Christian. To be a Christian,
one must be a believer. No one is a Christian who is not a
follower of Christ. Every follower of Christ, according to the
Christian Examiner, is a member of the Church of Christ.
But, according to the same authority, the Church is a company
of believers. Therefore a Christian must be a believer. He
10 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
who is a believer is a believer because he believes something.
Therefore, in order to be a Christian, it is necessary to believe
something.
The Christian Examiner must admit this conclusion; yet
some Unitarians have the appearance of denying it. A short
time since, we read an article in 'a Unitarian newspaper, writ-
ten by a distinguished Unitarian clergyman, in which the writer
maintains, that, although faith is indispensable to the Christian
character, belief is not ; yet he fails to define what that faith is
which excludes or does not include belief. The late Dr. Chan-
ning, in his Discourse on the Church, objects to all forms,
creeds, and churches, and declares that the essence of all religion
is in supreme love to God and universal justice and charity
towards our neighbour. Yet we presume he wishes this fact, to
wit, that this is the essence of all religion, should be assented to
both by the will and the understanding. But this is not a fact
of science, evident in and of itself. It depends on other facts
which are matters of belief, and therefore must itself be an object
of belief. Not a few Unitarian clergymen of our acquaintance
understand by faith trust or confidence (fiducia), and contend,
that, when we are commanded to believe in Christ, in God, &c.,
the meaning is, that we should trust or confide in him. To be-
lieve in the Son is to confide in him as the Son of God. But I
cannot confide in him as the Son of God, unless I believe that
he is the Son of God ; I cannot confide in God, unless I believe
that he is, and that he is the protector of them that trust him.
Where there is no belief, there is and can be no confidence.
Confidence always presupposes faith ; for where there is no be-
lief that the trust reposed will be responded to, there is no
trust ; and the fact, that the one trusted will preserve and not
betray the trust, is necessarily a matter of faith, of belief, not
of knowledge. Faith begets confidence, but is not it; confi-
dence is the effect or concomitant of faith, but can never exist
without it. So, however these may seem to deny the necessity
of belief, they all in reality imply it, presuppose it.
Moreover, all Unitarians hold, that, to be a Christian, one
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 11
must be a follower of Christ. Their radical conception of Christ
is that of a teacher, of a person specially raised up and commis-
sioned by Almighty God to teach, and to teach the truth. But
one cannot be said to be the follower of a teacher, unless he
believes what the teacher teaches. Therefore, to be a Christian,
one must be a believer.
This, again, is evident from the Holy Scriptures. " For
without faith," says the blessed Apostle Paul, " it is impossible
to please God." Heb. xi. 6. So our blessed Saviour : " He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that be-
lieveth not shall be condemned." St. Mark, xvi. 16. " He that
believeth in the Son hath eternal life ; but he that believeth not
the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on
him." St. John, iii. 36. This is sufficient to establish our first
position, namely, that, in order to be a Christian, it is necessary
to be a believer, w that is, to believe somewhat.
This somewhat, which it is necessary to believe, is not
falsehood, but truth. What we are required to believe is that
for not believing which we shall be condemned. But God is a
God of truth, nay, truth itself, and it is repugnant to reason to
assume that he will condemn us for not believing falsehood.
The belief demanded is also essential to our salvation ; for it is
said, " He that believeth not shall be condemned." But it is
equally repugnant to reason to maintain that a God of truth,
who is truth, can make belief in falsehood essential to salvation.
Therefore the belief demanded, as to its object, is truth, not
falsehood.
The truth we are required to believe is the revelation
which Almighty God has made us through his Son, Jesus
Christ, or in other words, the truth which Jesus Christ taught
or revealed. The belief in question is Christian belief, that
which makes one a Christian believer, a follower of Jesus, a
member of the " uncounted and wide-spread congregation of all
those who receive the Gospel as the law of life." But one can
be a Christian believer only by believing Christian truth ; and
Christian truth can be no other truth, if different truths there be,
12 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
than that taught by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, according to
the confession of Unitarians themselves, was a teacher of truth,
and a teacher of nothing but truth. Then all he taught was
truth. Therefore, to be truly a Christian believer, truly a fol-
lower of Christ, it is necessary to believe, explicitly or implicitly,
all the truth he taught. Hence, the commission to the Apos-
tles was to teach all nations, and to teach them to observe all
things whatsoever their Master had commanded them. St. Matt,
xxviii. 20.
The truth which Jesus Christ taught or revealed apper-
tains, in part, at least, to the supernatural order. By the su-
pernatural order we understand the order above nature, that is,
above the order of creation. All creatures, whether brute matter,
vegetables, animals, men, or angels, are in God, and without
him could neither be, live, nor move. But God has created
them all " after their kinds," and each with a specific nature.
What is included in this nature, or promised by it, although
having its origin and first motion in God, is what is meant by
natural. Supernatural is something above this, and superadded.
God transcends nature, and is supernatural ; but regarded solely
as the author, upholder, and governor of nature, he is natural,
and hence the knowledge of him as such is always termed
natural theology. But as the author of grace, he is strictly
supernatural ; because grace, though having the same origin, is
above the order of creation, is not included in it, nor promised
by it. It is, so to speak, an excess of the Divine Fulness not ex-
hausted in creation, but reserved to be superadded to it accord-
ing to the Divine will and pleasure. Thus God may be said
to be both natural and supernatural. As natural, that is, as the
author, sustainer, and governor of nature, he is naturally intelli-
gible, according to what Saint Paul tells us, Rom. i. 20. Invis-
ibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quce facia sunt
intellecta, conspiciuntur ; sempiterna quoque ejus virtus, et
divinitas : " For the invisible things of God, even his eternal
power and divinity, from the creation of the world, are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made." But as
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 13
supernatural, that is, as the author of grace, he is not naturally
intelligible, and can be known only as supernaturally revealed.
The fact that he is the author of grace, or that there is grace,
is not a fact of natural reason, or intrinsically evident to natural
reason. It, therefore, is not and cannot be a matter of science,
but must be a matter of faith. . Hence, the Apostle says again,
Heb. xi. 6, Credere enim, oportet accedentem ad Deum quia cst,
et inquirentibus se remunerator sit : " He that cometh to God
must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
seek him." That he is as author of nature, we know, but that
he is as author of grace, or that he is a rewarder of them that
seek him, we believe.
Now, the revelation of Jesus Christ is preeminently the reve-
lation of God as the author and dispenser of grace, and there-
fore preeminently the revelation of the supernatural. " The law
was given by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ." St.
John, i. IV. Hence, to believe the truth and all the truth
which Jesus Christ taught is to believe truth pertaining to the
supernatural order.
Unitarians, it is true, eliminate from the Gospel a great part
of the mysteries, and reduce it, so to speak, to a mere repub-
lication of the law of nature ; their theology is in the main na-
tural theology ; their faith in God is in him as the author of
nature, and the immortality they look for is merely a natural
immortality ; but the sounder part of them, do, nevertheless, to
some extent, admit that Jesus Christ revealed truths not natu-
rally intelligible, and which pertain to the supernatural order.
They admit that the Gospel is itself, in some sense, a revelation
of grace, and therefore a revelation of the supernatural. They
also admit the necesssity, in order to be Christian believers, of
believing in several particular things which pertain to the super-
natural order. Among these we may instance remission of sins,
the resurrection of the dead, and final beatitude, or the heavenly
reward. We are not aware that they question these ; and we
are sure no one can question them without losing all right to the
Christian name. But these all pertain to the supernatural order.
14 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
Remission of sin, whatever else it may mean, means at least,
remission of the penalty which God has annexed to transgres-
sion. The penalty is annexed by God either as author and
sovereign of nature, or as supernatural. If by God as super-
natural, the penalty must itself be supernatural ; and therefore
he who believes in its remission must believe in the superna-
tural, for no man can believe in the remission of a penalty
which he does not believe to have been annexed. If God an-
nexes the penalty as author and sovereign of nature, its remis-
sion must be supernatural. To assume that the order of nature
remits it, is to assume nature to be in contradiction with herself,
or to deny the remission by denying the existence of any
penalty to remit. Where the remission begins, there ends the
penalty. If the remission be in the order of nature, then the
order of nature imposes no penalty beyond the point where the
remission begins ; and then there is no remission, for nothing is
remitted. To say that God as author and sovereign of nature
remits what in the same character he imposes is to assume that
he imposes no penalty that goes farther than the commence-
ment of the remission. Then, in fact, no remission. The pen-
alty, in this case, would be exhausted, not remitted. Remission,
then, must be by God as supernatural, not as natural ; not as
author and sovereign of nature, but as author and dispenser of
grace. Remission is necessarily an act of grace, and therefore
supernatural. Then, whatever, view be taken of the penalty
itself, he who believes in its remission must believe in the super-
natural order.
So of the resurrection of the dead. We do not mean to say
that by natural reason we cannot demonstrate a future continued
existence, but that a fact answering to the term resurrection is
naturally neither cognoscible nor demonstrable. Resurrection
means rising again, and evidently pertains, not to the soul,
which never dies, but to the body, and implies that the same
body which died is raised ; for if not, it would not be a re-
surrection, but a simple surrection, or perhaps new creation.
Now, by no natural light we possess can we come to the know-
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 15
ledge of the fact that our bodies shall rise again. Yet we are
undeniably taught in the Gospel that such is the fact.
Moreover, the Apostle Paul tells us that the body shall not
only be raised, but it shall be raised in a supernatural condi-
tion. " It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."
It is to be made like to our blessed Saviour's glorious body.
But a glorified body does not pertain to the order of nature ;
because the natural body it is said, is to be " made like to the
body of his glory," which implies that it must be changed
from its natural to a supernatural condition, before it is a glori-
fied body. But by what natural powers we possess do we ar-
rive at the fact that there are glorified bodies, much more, that
our vile bodies shall be changed into glorified bodies ? And by
what process of reasoning, not dependent for its data on the
revelation, can we, now we are told it shall be so, prove that it
will be so I
So, again, as to our final destiny. The truth we are to
believe pertains to the supernatural order. St. Peter says, " By
whom (Jesus Christ) he hath given us very great and precious
promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the
divine nature," efficiamini divinice consortes natures. 2 Pet.
i. 4. That this is to partake of the divine nature in a superna-
tural sense, and not in the sense in which we naturally par-
take of it, in being made to the image and likeness of God, is
evident from the fact that the Apostle calls it a gift, and says it
is that which is promised. What pertains to nature is not a
gift, and what is already possessed cannot be said to be some-
thing promised. Therefore the participation of the divine na-
ture in question is not a natural, but a supernatural, participa-
tion. The blessed Apostle John tells us, "We are now the
sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be.
We know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, be-
cause we shall see him as he is." 1 John iii. 2. Here it is as-
serted that we are to be something more than sons of God in
the sense we now are; for we know not, even being sons of
God, what we shall be. But this we do know, that when he
10 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
shall appear we shall be like him. But this likeness is super-
natural, not that to which we were created ; otherwise it would
be a likeness 2iossessed, not to be possessed. How by the light
of nature learn this fact, that we are to become like God, par-
takers of the divine nature, in a supernatural sense ? Again,
the blessed Apostle in the same passage says, " We shall be
like him, because we shall see him as he is." So St. Paul,
1 Cor. xiii. 12 : "Now we see through a glass, darkly, but then
face to face ; now I know in part, but then I shall know even
as I am known." The fact here asserted, to wit, that our future
destiny is the beatific vision, that is, to see God as he is, and to
know him even as we ourselves are known, is not naturally in-
telligible, nor demonstrable by natural reason. Moreover, to
see God as he is exceeds our nature ; for naturally we cannot
see God as he is, that is, as he is in himself. The destiny,
then, which the Gospel reveals for them that love the Lord is
supernatural. For " It is written, The eye hath not seen, ear
heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what
things God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Cor. ii. 9.
Therefore, to believe the Gospel, or the truth which Jesus Christ
taught, it is necessary to believe not only truth supernatural ly
communicated, but truth pertaining to the supernatural order.
But we have already proved that it is necessary to salvation to
believe the truth and all the truth which Jesus taught. There-
fore it is necessary to believe truth which pertains to the super-
natural order.
The result thus far is, that, in order to be Christians, to bo
saved, to enter into life, to secure the rewards of heaven, it is
necessary to believe the truth which Jesus Christ taught, and
that we cannot believe this without believing in that which is
supernatural, and supernatural both as to the mode of commu-
nication and as to the matter communicated. The truth which
Jesus Christ taught is, in general terms, the Gospel, or Chris-
tian revelation; and the Christian revelation is a supernatural
revelation, and, in part at least, a revelation of the supernatural.
This revelation and its contents we must believe, or resign our
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 17
pretensions to the Christian name. To believe this revelation
and its contents is not, we admit, all that is requisite to the
Christian character far from it ; for there remain beside, faith,
hope and charity, and the greatest is charity. Moreover, faith
alone is insufficient to justify us in the sight of God ; for faith
without works is dead, and therefore inoperative. Nevertheless,
faith is indispensable. " For without faith it is impossible to
please God," and " He that belie veth not shall be condemned."
This much we conceive we have established ; and this much,
we presume, the Christian Examiner will concede.
II. Faith or belief, as distinguished from knowledge and
science, rests on authority extrinsic both to the believer and the
matter believed. In it there is always assent to something pro-
posed ab extra. That the sun is now shining, I know by my
own senses ; it is therefore a fact of knowledge ; that the three
angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, which I know
not intuitively, but discursively, is a fact of science. The first I
know immediately ; the second I can demonstrate from what it
contains in itself. But in belief the case is different. The
matter assented to is neither intuitively certain, nor intrinsically
evident. I am told there is such a city as Rome, which I have
never seen. Having myself never seen Rome, I have no intui-
tive evidence that there is such a city. The proposition that
there is such a city is not intrinsically evident, contains nothing
in itself from which I can demonstrate its truth. Its truth, then,
can be established to me only by evidence extrinsic both to my-
self and to the proposition, that is, by TESTIMONY. That there
is a God is a fact of knowledge ; for if it be said that we do
not know it intuitively, we know it at least discursively, since
from the creation of the world, even the invisible things of God
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, as says St. Paul, Rom. i. 20. But that God has des-
tined them that love him to the beatific vision is not a fact of
knowledge, or of science ; for it is neither intuitively certain,
nor internally demonstrable. It may be true ; but whether so
2*
18 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
or not can be determined only by testimony, that is, evidence
extrinsic both to the proposition and to myself. Hence St.
Paul says, Heb. xi. 1, "Faith is the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things that appear not ; " and St. Augus-
tine, " Faith is to believe what you see not." Tract 40 in Joan.
There may be matters contained in the Christian revela-
tion which are matters of knowledge or of science, but we are
concerned with it now only so far as it is a matter of faith. As
a matter of faith, its truth rests solely on extrinsic evidence, or
testimony. We cannot, then, as reasonable beings, believe it,
unless we have some extrinsic authority competent to vouch for
its truth, or some witness whose testimony is credible. But as
an object of faith, the Christian revelation, in part at least, is a
revelation of the supernatural. Now, this which is supernatural
cannot be adequately witnessed to or vouched for by any natu-
ral witness or authority. No witness is competent to testify to
that which he does not or cannot himself knew, either intui-
tively or discursively. But no natural being, how high so ever
in the scale of being he may be exalted, can know either intui-
tively or discursively the truth of that which, as to its matter, is
supernatural. The only adequate authority for the supernatu-
ral is the supernatural itself, that is, God. For though angels
or divinely inspired men may declare the supernatural to us,
yet they themselves are not witnesses to its intrinsic truth, and
have no ground for believing its truth but the veracity of God
revealing it to them. They may be competent witnesses to the
fact of the revelation, but not to the truth of the matter revealed.
The authority or ground for believing the supernatural mat-
ter revealed is, then, the veracity of God, and we cannot reason-
ably or prudently believe any proposition involving the super-
natural on other authority. We have no sufficient ground for
faith in such matters, unless we have the clear, express, testi-
mony of God himself. But the testimony of God is sufficient
for any proposition, in case we have it j because enough is
dearly seen of God, from the creation of the world, being un-
derstood by the things that are made, to establish on a scientific
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 19
basis the fact that he can neither deceive or be deceived ; for
we can demonstrate scientifically, from principles furnished by
the light of natural reason, that God is infinitely wise and good,
and no being infinitely wise and good can deceive or be de-
ceived. God is the first trutliprima veritas in being, in
knowing, and in speaking, and therefore whatever he declares
to be true must necessarily and infallibly be true. Nothing,
then, is more reasonable than to believe God on his word or
simple veracity ; for it is no more than to believe that infinite
and perfect truth, truth itself, cannot lie. Whatever God has
revealed must be true. Even the Christian Exminer would
admit the doctrine of the Trinity, if it were proved to be a doc-
trine of Divine revelation. The witness, ground, or authority
for believing the supernatural is the veracity of God, and this
all will admit to be sufficient, if we have it ; and none will ad-
mit, if they understand themselves, that a lower authority is
sufficient.
But, although the veracity of God is the ground or author-
ity on which we assent to the matter revealed, yet we cannot
believe without sufficient evidence of the fact of revelation, or, in
other words, without a witness competent to testify to the fact
that God has actually revealed the matter in question, made
the particular revelation to which assent is demanded. The
Christian Examiner is Unitarian, but it will tell us that it ought
to believe the doctrine of the Trinity, if God has revealed it.
Yet it demands, very properly, evidence of the fact that God has
revealed it or declared its truth. Reasonable or a well grounded
belief in the supernatural, then, requires two witnesses, two
vouchers ; one to the truth of the matter revealed, which is the
veracity of God revealing it ; the other to the fact of the revela-
tion, or that the matter in question has actually been divinely
revealed.
The revelation is made to intelligent beings, and must
therefore consist in intelligible propositions. We do not mean
that the truths revealed should be comprehensible; for every
supernatural truth, as to its matter, must be wholly incompre-
SO THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
hcnsible to natural reason ; but that the propositions to be be-
lieved must be intelligible. What is present to the mind, in
believing the revelation, are these propositions, which convey
the truth, but in an obscure manner, to the understanding. If
we should mistake the propositions actually contained in God's
revelation, or substitute others therefor, since it is only through
them that we arrive at the matter revealed, we should not be-
lieve the revelation which God has actually made, but something
else, and something else for which we cannot plead the veracity
of God, and therefore something for which we have no solid
ground of faith. Suppose you adduce a book which you say
contains the revelation God has made, and suppose you bring
ample vouchers for the fact that it really does contain such
revelation. In this case I should have sufficient ground for be-
lieving the book to contain the word of God ; but before I should
believe the word of God itself, I must believe the contents of the
book in their genuine sense. I must have, then, some authority,
extrinsic or intrinsic, competent to .declare what is this genuine
sense. What I believe is what is present to my mind when I
believe. What is present to my mind is the interpretation or
meaning I give to God's word. If this interpretation or mean-
ing be not the genuine sense, I do not, as we have said, believe
God's word, but something else. Faith in the supernatural re-
quires, then, in addition to the witness that vouches for the fact
that God has made the revelation, an interpreter competent to
declare the true meaning of the revelation.
The faith we are required to have is equally required of all men.
It is said, qui non credideret, that is, any one, without any
limitation, who believeth not, shall be condemned. Then there
must be no limitation of the essential conditions of faith. Then
the witness for the faith, and the interpreter of God's word,
must be present in all nations, and subsist through all ages,
Catholic in space and time. We who live in this country at
the present day need them just as much and in the same sense
as the Jews did in the age of the Apostles.
The witness to the fact of the revelation, and the inter-
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURDH. 21
preter of the word, must not only subsist through all ages and
nations, but must be unmistakable j and unmistakable not only
by a few philosophers, scholars, and men of parts and leisure, but
by the poor, the busy, the weak, the ignorant, the illiterate;
for all these are equally commanded to believe, and have a
right to have a solid ground of belief, which they cannot
have if they may, with ordinary prudence, mistake the true
witnessand interpreter, and call in a false witness and a mis-
interpreter.
The witness and interpreter must be infallible ; for, if fal
lible, it may call that God's word which is not his word, and
assign a meaning to God's word itself which is not the genuine
meaning. We may, then, be deceived, and think we are be-
lieving God's word when we are not. But where there is a pos-
sibility of deception, there is room for doubt, and where there is
room for doubt, there is no faith ; for the property of faith is to
exclude doubt. The Apostle says, " I know in whom I believe,
and am certain," and whoever cannot say as much has not yet-
elicited an act of faith.' Faith is a theological virtue, which con-
sists in believing, explicitly or implicitly, all the truths God has
revealed, without doubting, on the veracity of God alone. It re-
quires absolute certainty, objective as well as subjective. Where
there is belief without sufficient objective, certainly the belief is
not faith but mere opinion or persuasion. Mere subjective cer-
tainty, that is, an inward persuasion, even though it should ex-
clude all actual doubt, would not be faith, unless warranted by
evidence in which reason can detect no deficiency. It is a blind
prejudice, and would vanish before the light of intelligence. A
man may fancy that his head is set on wrong side before, and
be so firmly persuaded of it that no reasoning can convince him
to the contrary; but his internal persuasion is not faith. For
faith is primarily, though not exclusively, an act of the under-
standing, and must be reasonable, and he who has it must have
a solid reason to assign for it. The man has not faith, if he
doubts, or may reasonably doubt; and he may reasonably
doubt, if the evidence is not sufficient. He who has for his faith
22 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
only the testimony of a fallible witness, that may both deceive
and be deceived, has always a reasonable ground for doubt, and
consequently no solid ground for faith. If he reasons at all on
the testimony, if he opens his eyes at all to his liability to be
deceived, he cannot, however earnestly he may try to believe,
avoid doubting. Therefore, since, with a fallible witness, or fal-
lible interpreter, we can never be sure that we are not mistaken,
it necessarily follows, if we are to have faith at all, that we must
have a witness and interpreter that cannot err, that is, infallible.
We sum up again by saying, that it is necessary to believe
the truth Jesus Christ revealed, or, in other words, the Christian
revelation ; that to believe this is to believe truths which pertain
to the supernatural order ; and that, to have a solid ground for
believing truths pertaining to the supernatural order, we must
have, 1. The word or veracity of God ; 2. A witness to the fact
of revelation, and an interpreter of the genuine sense of what
God has revealed, infallible and subsisting through all ages and
nations, and, with ordinary prudence, unmistakable by even the
simple and unlearned. The first the Christian Examiner will
not deny us. We proceed to prove the second.
III. There must be such a witness and interpreter, or, in other
words, some infallible means of determining what is the word
of God, because God has made belief of his word the essential
condition of salvation. We know from natural theology, that
is, from what is evident to us of God by natural reason, that
he is, that he is just, and that he would not be just, should he
make faith the essential condition of salvation, and not provide
the necessary conditions of faith. He has made faith the condi-
tion of salvation, as we have proved, and as the Christian
Examiner must admit, unless it chooses to deny the Christian
revelation altogether. But the infallible witness and interpreter
alleged is a necessary condition of faith, as we have shown from
the nature of faith itself. Therefore, God, since he is just and
cannot belie himself, has provided us with the witness and inter-
preter required, or, what is the same thing, some infallible
THE CHURCH VGAINST NO-CHURCH. 23
means of determining what is the word he commands us to
believe.
There is, then, the witness and intepreter of God's word in
question. Who or what is it? To this question four answers
may be returned:!. Reason; 2. The Bible; 3. Private Illu-
mination : 4. The Apostolic Ministry, or the Church teaching.
1. Reason may be taken in two senses : 1. The intellective fac-
ulty, as distinguished from the sensitive faculty ; 2. The discur-
sive or reasoning faculty. In the first sense, it is the faculty of
knowing intuitively, and is the principle of knowledge, in distinc-
tion from what is technically termed science. In this sense, rea-
son, in order to answer our purpose, to serve as the' witness and
interpreter proved to be necessary, must be able either to know
God intuitively, or to apprehend intuitively the intrinsic truth
of his word. Reason must see God face to face, know intuitively
that it is God who speaks ; or it cannot testify, on its own know-
ledge, to the fact that the speaker alleged is God. But reason
cannot see God thus face to face. We have and can have no
intuitive knowledge of God in this sense. Reason cannot be
the witness on the ground of its intuitive apprehension of God,
nor can it be on the ground of its intuitive perception or appre-
hension of the intrinsic truth of the matter revealed. Our natu-
ral reason or power of knowing cannot extend beyond the bounds
of nature. But the matter revealed, or the truths to be believed*
are supernatural, and therefore transcend the reach of the natu-
ral intellect. If the natural intellect could attain to them, they
would be, not supernatural, but natural. Moreover, if the intrin-
sic truth of the revelation could be apprehended, intuitively
known, it would be, not a matter of faith, but of knowledge ; for
faith is, to believe what is not seen, argumentum non apparen-
tium. Heb. xi. 1. But it is a matter of faith, as already proved,
and therefore not of knowledge. Therefore reason cannot appre-
hend the intrinsic truth of the revelation, and from the intrinsic
truth know it to have been divinely revealed. Therefore reason,
as the simple intellective faculty, or power of intuition, cannot
be the witness.
24 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
Reason, in the second sense, is discursive, the subjective prin-
ciple of science, in distinction from intuitive knowledge, the
faculty of deducing conclusions from given premises. If the
premises are true, the conclusions are valid. But reason cannot
furnish its own premises. They must be given it ; hence, they
are called data. These data must be furnished either by intui-
tion, or by faith. But in the case before us they can be fur-
nished by neither ; not by intuition, as we have just proved ;
and not by faith, because faith is the matter to be determined.
Proof by reason, in the sense we now use the term, is called
demonstration. The position assumed, when it is alleged that
the discursive reason is the witness of the fact of revelation, is,
that reason can find in the internal character of the revelation
itself, or what purports to be a revelation, the data from which
it can demonstrate that it is actually the word of God. But
this is possible only on condition that reason, independently of
all revelation, be in possession of so perfect a knowledge of God
as to be able to say a priori what a revelation from God will
and necessarily must be. But this is inadmissible ; 1. Because
it would imply that the revelation is intrinsically evident to
natural reason, and therefore that it is an object of science and
not of faith ; and 2. Because the revelation is of God as super-
natural, and reason can know God as supernatural, only through
the medium of supernatural revelation itself. The knowledge
which reason has of God prior to the revelation is simply what
is contained in natural theology, that is, knowledge of God sim-
ply as author, sustainer, and sovereign of nature. From this it
is, indeed, possible to obtain data from which we may conclude,
within certain limits, what a supernatural revelation cannot be,
but not what it must be. God, whether as author of nature, or
as author and dispenser of grace, that is, as natural or as super-
natural, intelligible or superintelligible, is one and the same being
and therefore cannot in the one be in contradiction to what he
is in the other. If, in what purports to be a revelation from
him, we find that which contradicts what is clearly seen of him,
from the creation of the .world, through the things that are
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 25
made, we have the right to pronounce it, a priori not his rev-
elation. But beyond this reason cannot go ; for it is not law-
ful to reason from nature to grace, from the natural to the
supernatural, from data furnished by natural science to super-
natural revelation. Reason, then, has no data from which it
can conclude what is the revelation. Therefore it cannot be the
witness demanded.
Moreover, if reason knew enough of God, independently of
the supernatural revelation, to be able, from the intrinsic charac-
ter of the revelation, to pronounce on its genuineness, not only
negatively, but affirmatively, it would know all of God the rev-
elation itself can teach. The revelation would then be super-
fluous, in fact, no revelation at all ; and the question of its
genuineness would be an idle question, not worth considering.
To assume the competency of reason, as the witness, would then
be to deny the necessity of the revelation and its value,
which, in fact, is what all our Rationalists do, and probably wish
to do.
But, in denying the competency of reason as the witness to
the fact of the revelation, we do not deny the office of reason in
determining whether a revelation has been made, nor that the
fact of revelation is, can, and should be, made evident to natural
reason. We merely deny that it is intrinsically evident. It is
not wtrinsically evident, but &rtrinsically evident ; not internally
demonstrable, but externally provable. It can be proved not
by reason, but to reason by testimony ; and of the credibility of
the testimony, reason may, and should judge.
Three things must always be kept distinct in the question
of supernatural revelation: 1. The ground of faith in the
truths revealed ; 2. The authority on which we take the fact of
revelation ; 3. The credibility of this authority. The first, as
we have seen, is the veracity of God, and is sufficient, because
God is the ultimate truth in being, in knowing, and in speak*
ing, and therefore can neither deceive nor be deceived. The
second we are seeking, and it is not a witness to the truth of
the matter revealed, but to the fact that God reveals it, and
2
26 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
can be competent only on condition of being itself supernatural
or supernaturally enlightened. The third is the crediblity of
the witness to the fact of revelation, and must be evidenced to
natural reason ; or there will be an impassable gulf between
reason and faith, and we can have no reason for our faith, and
therefore no faith.
The fact of revelation, we shall show in its proper place,
may be evidenced to natural reason through the credibility of
the witness, and therefore, that faith is possible. But because
reason is competent to judge of the credibility of the witness,
we must not conclude that it is itself a competent witness to the
fact of revelation. This, conceded, the first answer is inadmis-
sible, for the fact of revelation is neither intuitive nor demon-
strable.
2. The answer just dismissed is that of the Rationalists, and
is, in one of its forms, substantially the one which we ourselves
gave in all we preached and wrote on the subject while asso-
ciated with the Unitarians. The second answer is the Protes-
tant answer, and the one, if we understand him, adopted by the
writer in the Christian Examiner. This assumes that the Bible
is the witness ; that is, the Bible interpreted by the private
reason of the believer, availing himself of such aids, philological,
critical, historical, &c., as may be within his reach. But this
answer cannot be accepted, because, without an infallible author-
ity independent of the Bible, it is impossible, 1. To settle the
canon ; 2. To establish the sufficiency of the Scriptures ; 3. To
determine their genuine sense.
The Bible can be adduced as the witness only in the char:
actor of an authentic record of the revelation actually made ;
for, according to its own confession, as we may find on ex-
amining it, it was not the original medium of the revelation
itself. The revelation, according to the Bible itself, in great
part at least, was in the first instance made orally, and orally
published before it was committed to writing. This is especially
true of the Christian revelation, in so far as distinguished from
the Jewish. It was communicated orally to the Apostles, by
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 2*7
our Lord, and by them orally to the public ; and converts were
made, and congregations of believers gathered, before one word
of it was written. The writing was subsequent to the teaching
and believing, and evidently, therefore, the primitive believers
either believed without having any authority for believing, or
had an authority for believing independent of written docu-
ments. To them what we term the Bible was not the witness.
It, then, was not the original witness, or, as we have said, the
original medium of the revelation. Its value, then, must consist
entirely in the fact, that it faithfully records, in an authentic
form, what was actually revealed. It is, then, only as a record
that it can be adduced as evidence. But a record is no evidence
till authenticated. It cannot authenticate itself; for, till authen-
ticated, its testimony is inadmissible. It must be authenticated
by some competent authority independent of itself. This au-
thentication of the Bible as a record of the revelation made is
what we call settling the canon.
Now, it is obvious, that, till the canon is settled, we have no
authentic record, no Bible, to adduce. We may have a num-
ber of books bound up together, to which the printer has given
the title of The Bible ; but what we want is not the book called
the Bible, but authentic records to which we may appeal as
evidence; and if the book we call the Bible contains books
which are not authentic records, or does not contain all that
are, we cannot appeal to it as evidence ; for we may, in the one
case, take for revelation what is not revelation, and, in the other,
leave out what is revelation. This is evident of itself. "We
must, then, settle the canon. But where is the authority to
settle it?
The authority must be, 1. Independent of the Bible ; 2. In-
fallible. But the advocates of the answer we are considering
admit no infallible authority but that of the Bible itself. There-
fore the 7 have no authority by which to settle the canon, or to
determine what is Bible or what is not Bible.
It v/ill not do to say, the canon is all those books which have
been received by the Church as canonical ; because the advo-
28 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
cates of this answer deny the authority of the Church, and
stoutly contend that she may both deceive and be deceived. It
will not do to appeal to tradition ; for what vouches for the in
errancy of tradition ? And what right have Protestants to ap-
peal to tradition, whose authority they do not admit, and which
they contend may err and does err on many and the most vital
points ? Nor will it do to adduce the Fathers ; for they only
establish what in their time was the tradition or belief of the
Church, by no means the intrinsic truth of that tradition or
belief. Where, then, is the authority for settling the canon ?
There is no authority on Protestant principles, as is evident
from the fact that Protestants have no canon. They all exclude
from the canon established by the Church several books which
the Church holds to be canonical. As to the remaining books,
they dispute whether all are canonical or not. Luther rejects
the Catholic Epistle of St. James, which he denominates " an
epistle of straw," and also doubts the canonicity of several
others. Mr. Andrews Norton, a learned and leading Unitarian,
formerly a professor in the Divinity School, Cambridge, rejects
pretty much the whole of the Old Testament ; the Epistle to
the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, the second of
Peter, and the Apocalypse, in the New Testament ; casts sus-
picion on the canonicity of all the Pauline Epistles, strikes out
the first chapters of Matthew and Luke, and such portions of
the remaining books as are demanded by the conveniences of
his critical canons, or the exigencies of his dogmatic theology.
Not a few of our Unitarians restrict the canon to the four Gos-
pels. Several of the Germans strike from these the Gospel
according to St. John; while Strauss, Baur, and Theodore
Parker, regard the remaining Gospel narratives rather as a col-
lection of anecdotes illustrating the notions of the early Christian
believers, than as authentic histories of events which actually
transpired ; and the great body of Liberal Christians, who are
the Protestants of Protestants, agree that the Bible is so loosely
written, is so filled with metaphor and Oriental hyperbole, that
no argument, especially no doctrine, can be safely built on single
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 29
words, or even single sentences, however plain, positive, and
uncontradicted, or unmodified by other portions of Scripture,
their meaning may seem to be. It is evident from this state-
ment of facts, that Protestants have no canon ; that each private
man is at liberty to settle the canon according to his own judg-
ment or caprice ; and therefore that they have no authentic re-
cord to adduce as evidence of the fact of revelation. They
must agree among themselves what is Bible, what is inspired
Scripture, and authenticate the record, before they can legiti-
mately introduce it as an infallible witness.
But pass over the difficulty of settling the canon ; suppose
the canon to be settled according to the decision of the Church,
and that, by an inconsistency which in the present case cannot
be avoided, the authority of the Church to settle the canon is
conceded ; still there remains the question of the Sufficiency of
the Scriptures. The record, however authentic it may be, can
be evidence only for what is contained in it. If it does not con-
tain the whole revelation, it is not evidence for the whole. If
not evidence for the whole, it is not sufficient; for it is the
whole revelation, not merely a part, to which the witness is
needed to testify, since it is repugnant to the character of God
to suppose that he should reveal any truth but for the purpose
of having it believed.
That the Scriptures do contain the whole revelation is not to
be presumed prior to proof; because they themselves testify that
they are not, at least only in part, the original medium of the
revelation. If the revelation had been, in the first instance,
made by writing, and by writing only, then, if we had the en-
tire written word, we should have the right to conclude that we
had the whole revealed word. But since a part of the revela-
tion, to say the least, was communicated orally, taught and be-
lieved before the writing was commenced, we cannot conclude
from the possession of the entire written word the possession of
the entire revealed word, unless we have full evidence that the
whole revealed word has been written. The fact of the suf-
ficiency of the Scriptures is not, then, to be presumed from the
30 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
fact of their canonicity. It is a fact to be proved, not taken for
granted.
But tin's fact cannot be proved by tradition, by the authority
of the Church, or by the testimony of the Fathers ; for these all,
on Protestant principles, are fallible, and not to be depended
upon ; and, moreover, they all testify against the fact in ques-
tion. It cannot be proved by reason ; because reason takes
cognizance not of the fact of revelation, but simply of the mo-
tives of credibility. It must be proved by an authority above
reason, and, as already established, by an authority which can-
not err. But the Bible is asserted to be the only inerrable
authority. Therefore it must be proved from the Bible itself.
But the Bible proves no such thing, for it nowhere professes to
contain the whole revelation which has been made, but even
indicates to the contrary. Therefore the sufficiency of the Scrip-
tures cannot be proved, for the sufficiency of the Scriptures
must mean that they are sufficient to teach not only the whole
revelation of God, but the fact that they do teach the whole,
since without this no o*e can know whether he has the faith
God commands him ^ have, or not. But in failing to prove
their sufficiency, they fail to prove this fact ; therefore prove
their own insufficiency.
It may be replied, that, though the Scriptures may not con-
tain a full record of all that was revealed, they nevertheless con-
tain all that is necessary to be believed in order to be saved.
We reply, 1. That the command of God to us is not to believe
the Bible or the written word, but the revelation which he has
made ; and therefore we are not to presume that we have the
faith required, from the fact that we believe the whole written
word, unless we have first established the fact that the written
word is commensurate with the revealed word. 2. God, we
know by natural reason, cannot reveal what he does not re-
quire to be believed ; for the truth revealed while unbelieved, is
as if unrevealed, and its revelation has no sufficient reason.
But God cannot act without a sufficient reason. No suffi-
ficient reascn for the revelation of truth, but that it should be
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 31
believed, can be conceived, or possibly exist. God reveals it
that it should be believed. Then lie requires it to be believed.
No one can fail to do what God requires, without sin ; because
God cannot require what he does not make possible. If we
cannot fail to believe what God has revealed, without sin, we
cannot be saved without believing it. Therefore, it is necessary
to salvation to believe all that God has revealed.
God cannot make a revelation and require us to believe it
without making it so evident that we can have no intellectual
reason for not believing it. Unbelief, then, must be the result
of some perversity of the will, some moral repugnance, which
withholds us from the consideration of the truth revealed, and
blinds us as to the evidences of the fact of its revelation. But
this perversity of will, this moral repugnance, is a sin, and as
much so in the case of one truth revealed as in the case of an-
other. Therefore it is necessary to believe all that God has
evealed, in order to be saved. Therefore the Scriptures do not
contain all that it is necessary to believe for salvation, unless
they contain all that God has revealed.
3. But waiving these considerations, it is either a fact that
the Scriptures do contain all that is necessary to salvation, or it
is not. If it be a fact, it is a fact which must be proved, and
proved by a competent authority. The only competent au-
thority, on Protestant principles, is the Bible itself. If the Bible
asserts that it contains all that is necessary to be believed in
order to be saved, then it may be conceded that it does. If it
assert no such thing, then it does not. But the Bible nowhere
asserts that it contains all that is necessary to be believed in
order to be saved. Therefore, the Bible does not contain all
that is necessary to be believed ; for this fact itself, of the suffi-
ciency of the faith it does contain, is itself essential to that
sufficiency.
Finally, even admitting the Scriptures may contain the whole
revelation, it is not possible by private reason alone to be infal-
libly certain of their genuine sense. To believe that the Scrip-
tures contain the whole word of God is not to believe that
32 THE CHURCH AUAINST NO-CHURCH.
word itself. It is merely believing them to be authority v r e
which is indeed something, and, in this age of infidelity, ration-
alism, and transcendentalism, no doubt a great deal ; but is not
the faith required. The command is not to believe that the
Bible is an authentic record of the revelation, but to believe the
truths revealed, not the Bible, but what the Bible, rightly
interpreted, teaches. The truths revealed are the object, the
material object, of faith ; and these evidently are not believed,
unless the Bible be believed in its genuine sense, even assuming
the Bible to contain them all.
We insist on this point, because it is one on which there are
frequent and dangerous mistakes. The matter of faith is these
revealed truths, which are fixed and unalterable, universal and
permanent, and which must be carefully distinguished from our
notions or apprehensions of them, which are dependent on our
mental states or conditions, and change and fluctuate as wo
ourselves change or fluctuate. These notions are not the mat-
ter of faith, and to hold fast these is quite another thing from
holding fast the truths themselves. If these notions, which are
our interpretations or constructions of the truth, were the faith
required, the faith would be one thing with one man, another
thing with another, and one thing with the same man yester-
day, another to-day, and perhaps still another to-morrow. The
true faith is an undoubting belief of the TRUTH, not what a
man thinks to be the truth, but what really is truth ; otherwise
men could be saved so far as belief is necessary to salvation, under
one form of belief as well as another, for there is probably no
form of error which its adherents do not think is truth. Sin-
cerity in the belief of error cannot be the substitute for Christian
faith ; for we have tbund that the faith which is the condition
sine qua non of salvation is belief of truth and not falsehood,
and of that very truth which Jesus Christ revealed. But this
truth we do not believe, unless it lie in our interpretation as it
lies in the mind of Jesus Christ himself. If it do not so lie,
then we misinterpret it, and the misinterpretation of truth is
not truth, and to believe this misinterpretation is to believe not
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 33
the truth, but something- else. If, then, we do not believe tlio
revelation made in the Scriptures, in its genuine sense, in the
sense intended by Almighty God, we do not believe the reve-
lation at all.
Now, it is necessary not only that we seize, without any mis-
take, this genuine sense, but that we be infallibly certain that
we have seized it. Even admitting that with nothing but pri-
vate reason we could hit upon the genuine sense of Scripture, it
would avail us nothing, unless we had this infallible certainty ;
because without this infallible certainty we cannot have faith.
Will any man pretend that it is possible by private reason alone
to be infallibly certain that we have the genuine sense of the
Scriptures ? We may, perhaps, feel certain ; but this feeling
certain is not faith. Faith is a firm, unwavering, and unwaver-
able conviction of the understanding, as well as a cheerful as-
sent of the will. The mere feeling is worth nothing. Every
enthusiast, every fanatic, has the feeling; but he who has noth-
ing else is a mere reed shaken with the wind, or a wild beast let
loose in society, as unacceptable to God as unprofitable to him-
self or dangerous to his associates. It is not this Almighty God
demands of us, and it is not for the want of this that he places
us under condemnation and suffers his wrath to abide upon us.
No ; we must have certainty, an intellectual certainty, certainty
which the mind can grasp, and its hold of which all the crafti-
ness of subtle sophists, all the allurements of the world, all the
temptations of the flesh, and all the assaults of hell, cannot in-
duce it for one moment to relax. We must have a faith which
can be proof against all trials, come they from what quarter
they may ; for our life is a warfare, an incessant warfare, and
there come to all of us moments when nothing but a firm,
fixed, and unalterable faith can sustain us, moments when
feeling, when the dearest affections of the heart, when all that
can powerfully affect us as creatures of time and sense, conspire
against us, and we must stand up against them and even against
ourselves. O, in these terrible moments, in the sacred name of
34 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
Christian charity, mock us not with a faith that melts away into
mere feeling, and vanishes in mere fancy !
Now, it needs no words to prove that a faith which is not
grounded on the word of God, who can neither deceive nor be
deceived, will not answer our wants, will not be proof against
the many "fiery trials" to which it must needs in this world be
subjected. But we have no such faith merely because we have
the Bible in our possession, nor because the Bible contains the
word of God, nor because we read and study it and believe that
we believe it. We have such a faith only on condition of
knowing infallibly that what we take to be the meaning of the
Bible is God's meaning ; for the faith is belief of the truth as it
is in Jesus, not as it is in us. We ask again, Can private rea-
son give us this certainty ?
This is a serious question, and one which the Protestant must
answer, before he can have any solid reason for his faith. It
will not do to call upon us to prove the negative ; even if we
could not prove that it is impossible from the Bible and private
reason to become infallibly certain of the genuine sense of the
word of God, it would not follow that we can from them obtain
the infallible certainty without which there is no faith, and, if
no faith, no salvation. He who affirms the proposition must
prove it, not for the sake of meeting the logical conditions of
his opponent's argument, for that is an affair of small moment ;
but for himself, for his own mind, to have in himself and for
himself a well-grounded faith. Now, how will he prove this
proposition, that from the Bible and private reason alone he
can ascertain the genuine sense of the word of God, and know
infallibly that he has that sense ?
Will he prove this proposition from the Bible ? He is bound
by his own principles to do so ; for this is his rule of faith,
and his rule of faith should rest on Divine authority. But he
admits no Divine authority except the Bible. Then he must
prove it from the Bible, or admit that he has no sufficient au-
thority for it. Can he prove it from the Bible ? Not in ex-
press terms, for the Bible in express terms does not assert it,
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 35
as is well known. It ca*\ be proved from the Bible only by
means of certain passage? which are assumed to imply it. But
whether these do imply it or not depends on the interpretation
we give them. It can be proved from Scripture, then, only by
a resort to interpretation. But the interpretation demands the
application, the use of the rule, as the condition of establishing
it. But how determine that the interpretation which authorizes
the rule is not itself a misinterpretation, especially since it is an
interpretation which is disputed \ Can the rule be proved
from reason \ Not from reason, as the faculty of intuition ;
because the fact, that from the Bible and private reason alone
we can infallibly determine what it is that God has actually re-
vealed, is evidently not intuitively certain. From reason, as the
principle of reasoning \ From what data shall we conclude it \
It may be said, that God is just, that he has made a revelation,
commanded us to believe it, and made our belief of it the condition
sine qua non of salvation ; but he would not be just in so doing,
if this revelation were not infallibly ascertainable in its genuine
sense by the prudent exercise of natural reason. Ascertainable
by natural reason in some way, we grant ; but by private rea-
son and the Bible alone, we deny ; for God may have made
the revelation ascertainable only by a divinely commissioned
and supernaturally guided and protected body of teachers,
and the office of natural reason to be to judge of the credi-
bility of this body of teachers. From the fact that the reve-
lation is addressed to reasonable beings, and is to be believed
by such, and therefore must be made intelligible, it does not
necessarily follow that it must be intelligible from the Scriptures
and private reason alone. For this would imply that the Scrip-
tures were intendeed to be the medium and the only me-
dium through which God makes his revelation to men; the
very question in dispute.
Can it be proved as a matter of fact, from experience \ We
have before us the history of Protestant sects for the last three
hundred years. A three hundred years' experience ought to
suffice to demonstrate the possibility of their ascertaining the
36 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
sense of God's word, if it be thus ascertain able. Yet Protes-
tants during this long period have done little but vary their
interpretations, dispute, wrangle, divide, subdivide, and sub-
subdivide, on the question of what it is God has revealed.
They are now split up into some five or six hundred sects.
There is not a single doctrine in which they all agree ; not a
single doctrine has been asserted by one that has not been
denied by another. The writer in the Christian Examiner is
a conscientious and devout Unitarian, and yet how large a
portion of his Protestant brethren will not deem it an excess of
courtesy to treat him and his associates as Christian beLevers ?
The Gospel according to Dr. Channing has very little affinity
with the Gospel according to Dr. Beecher. Now, truth is one,
and can admit of but one true interpretation. Of these many
hundred Protestant interpretations, only one at most can be the
true interpretation; all the rest are false interpretations, and
their adherents are no true Christian believers. Can any Pro-
testant say with infallible certainty that his interpretation is the
true one ? If not, how can he elicit an act of faith, how, if
come to the use of reason, can he be a Christian ?
The writer in the Christian Examiner makes very light of
these different interpretations of the word of God, and thinks
difference of interpretation can do no great harm, because, in
his judgment, over it all " there may prevail a harmony of sen-
timent and a harmony of life." But he mistakes the end of
unity of faith. Unity of faith is essential because truth is one
and there can be but one true faith, and without this true faith
salvation is not possible. "Without faith it is impossible to
please God." And this must needs be the true faith, not a false
faith, which is no faith at all. Our Unitarian friend seems to
imagine that what we are required to believe is, not the truth,
but what we think to be the truth ; that is, we are required to
believe the truth not as it is in Jesus, but as it is in ourselves !
Does he find any proof of this convenient doctrine in the Scrip-
ture ? Can he adduce a " Thus saith the Lord" for it ? If not,
according to hiss own principles, it rests only on human au-
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 37
thority, on which he does not allow us to believe ; for he makes
it the duty of the believer to stand up firm against all human
dictation in matters of belief. In this he is right, and we must
have higher authority than his, before we can consent to regard
any man's constructions of the truth, unless we have infallible
authority for believing them the true constructions, as the truth
Almighty God commands us to believe, and without believing
which, we must lie under his wrath and condemnation.*
No argument can be drawn, it is evident, from experience, to
prove that from the Bible and private reason alone we can
determine with infallible certainty what is the revelation of God.
So far as experience throws any light on the subject, it warrants
the opposite conclusion, and makes it certain that without some-
thing else faith is out of the question. Protestants, in fact,
have no faith ; nay, so far from having any faith, nearly all of
them deny its possibility. They have, as we have seen, no au-
thority from the Bible, from reason, or from experience, for
their rule of faith ; and they cannot be such poor logicians as to
infer that they can have faith by virtue of a rule which is not
authorized. This is no doubt, a serious matter for them ; for,
ever must ring in their ears sine fide impossibile est placer e
Deo, qui non crediderit condemnabitur. We must, then,
either give up the possibility of faith, or seek some other than
the Protestant answer to the question, Who or what is the
witness to the fact of revelation ?
3. The insufficiency of this answer has been felt even by
Protestants themselves, and some of them have proposed a
third answer, which we may denominate Private Illumination,
because it is a revelation made for the special benefit of him
who receives it, and not a revelation to be communicated by
him for the faith or confirmation of the faith of others. It is
contended for, under various forms, but the more common form,
and the one with which we are principally concerned in this
discussion, is the Calvinistic, or what is usually denominated
Christian experience. This concedes the defectiveness of the
logical evidence of the fact of revelation, and pretends that it
38 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
is supplied by a certain interior illumination from the Holy
Ghost in the fact of regeneration, whereby the believer is
enabled to know by his own experience the truth of the doc-
rine he believes or is required to believe. The famous Jonathan
Edwards was a great advocate for this, and sets it forth with
considerable ability in his Treatise on the Affections, and espe-
cially in a sermon on The Reality of the Spiritual Light,
preached at Northampton in 1734. It is insisted on, we be-
lieve, by all the Protestant sects that claim to be Evangelical.
Indeed, this, in their estimation, constitutes the chief mark by
which Evangelicals are distinguished from Non-evangelicals.
That there is a Christian sense, so to speak, internal tradi-
tion, as it is sometimes called, to distinguish it from the exter-
nal, which belongs to Christians, and which makes them alto-
gether better judges of what is Christian truth than are those
who are not Christians, and that the just, those who belong to
the soul of the Church, have a clearer perception, a more vivid
appreciation, of the truth, beauty, grandeur, and work of Chris-
tian faith than have the unregenerate or the unjust, we of course
very distinctly and cheerfully admit. We also admit, and con-
tend, that " faith is the gift of God," not merely because it is
belief in truth which God has graciously revealed, as our Unita-
rian friends apparently maintain, but because no man can be-
lieve, even now that the truth is revealed, without the aid of
divine grace, that is to say, without grace supernaturally be-
stowed. Faith is a virtue which has merit ; but no virtue
possible without the aid of divine grace has merit, that is,
merit in relation to eternal life. The grace of faith is absolutely
essential to the eliciting of the act of faith.
But this considers faith in as much as it is divine faith, a gift
of God, and lying wholly in the supernatural order, not as sim-
ply human faith, in which it depends on extrinsic evidence or
testimony, and the obligation of a man under the simple law of
nature to believe, the only sense in which, in this discussion.
we consider it. Unbelief, in those to whom the Gospel has
been preached is a sin not merely against the revealed law, but
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 39
also against the natural law, which it could not be, if the Gospel
did not come accompanied with sufficient evidence to warrant
belief in every reasonable man. No man is to blame for not
believing what is not sufficiently evidenced to his understand-
ing, or for not taking, prior to his knowledge of his obligation
to do so, the necessary steps to obtain through grace the
faith that translates him from the natural order into the super-
natural kingdom of God. Sin is predicable of the will, not of
the intellect, and if the evidence were not all that can be justly
required to convince the intellect, there could be no sin in sim-
ple refusal of the will to believe. The sin lies in the refusal to
believe what is sufficiently evidenced ; for the refusal can then
proceed only from some moral repugnance to the truth, or some
propensity of the will, which restrains the man from duly con-
sidering the truth and weighing its evidence. Undoubtedly,
grace, to illustrate the understanding and to incline the will, is
necessary to enable a man to elicit the supernatural act of faith,
or to be a true Christian believer ; but it is not needed to sup-
ply the defect of the evidences objectively considered, because
simple natural reason itself is bound to assent to the truth of
the Gospel. The Gospel is addressed to man as a reasonable
being, and therefore must satisfy the reasonable demands of
reason, and it is because it does so satisfy them, that not to be-
lieve it is a sin under the natural law. Reason itself commands
us to believe it. Hence grace cannot be necessary, simply for
the purpose of supplying the defect of evidence, considered as
all evidence must be, as addressed to natural reason.
But the Calvinistic view is not that the private illumination,
or the grace of faith is simply necessary to translate one into
the kingdom of grace, and enable him to elicit an act of divine
)r supernatural faith, but to supply the defect of logical evi-
dence, for it is asserted as the witness to the fact of revelation;
The grace is bestowed in the fact of regeneration, and therefore
implies that prior to regeneration there is no sufficient evidence
for believing revelation. The moral obligation to believe cannot
begin till the evidence is complete, so the unregenerate are
40 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
under no obligation to believe, and in them unbelief is, an< ^n
be, no sin ! This is not the Christian doctrine, for God com-
mands all men to repent and believe in his Son, under pnin of
present wrath and eternal condemnation.
But according to the Evangelical doctrine regeneration con-
sists precisely in the gift of faith. There is, according to the
same doctrine, no amissibility of grace ; once in grace, always in
grace ; consequently, after regeneration unbelief is impossible,
and the regenerate can never contract the sin of unbelief. Before
regeneration unbelief is not a sin, consequently, there can never
be any sin of unbelief a most convenient doctrine to all mis-
believers and infidels. Yet the New Testament clearly teaches,
if it clearly teaches anything, that infidelity is a most grievous
sin. This Calvinistic view is therefore clearly inadmissible.
In another form, the doctrine of private illumination is made
to mean not merely the confirmation of the believer's faith in a
revelation previously made and propounded for his belief, but
the medium of the revelation itself. It regards all external
revelation, all that may be called historical Christianity, as un-
necessary, and teaches that each man has, by grace, the infalli-
ble witness in himself, that the Spirit of Truth, promised by
Christ to his Apostles to lead them into all truth is, and has
been, in every man born into the world, from Adam to the pres-
ent moment, and is in every man an infallible teacher, revealing
and confirming to him all the truth which concerns his spiritual
state, relations, and destiny. We say, by grace ; for we do not
here speak of the doctrine of our modern Transcendentalists,
which, though often confounded with the view we have given,
which is the Quaker view, is yet quite distinguishable from it.
The Transcendentalist doctrine excludes all grace, all that is
supernatural, and assumes, that man, by virtue of his natural
union with the Divinity, is able to apprehend intuitively all
spiritual truth. This, with a transcendental felicity of expres-
sion, has been denominated " Natural-supernaturalism." But
this is only another way of stating the doctrine refuted under
the head of the sufficiency of reason as the principle of intuition.
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 41
"Natural-supernatural" is a barbarism, and involves a direct
contradiction. Either the truths attained lie within the range
of our natural powers, or they do not. If not, the Transcen-
dental doctrine is false, for then the knowledge of them would
be supernatural. If they do, then they are not supernatural at
all. Transcendentalism, in point of fact, admits no supernatural
order. Its adherents, following the sublimated nonsense of
that profound opium-eater, and literary plagiarist, Coleridge, de-
fine supernatural to be supersensuous ; and because by science
we evidently can attain to what is not sensuous, they sagely in-
fer that we are able to know naturally the supernatural ! Just
as if what is naturally attained could be supernatural, either as
the object known, or as the medium by which it is known ? Just
as if nature could not include the supersensible as well as the
sensible, as if the soul were not as natural as the body, an angel
as a man ! But this " natural-supernaturalism " which makes
the fortune of Carlyle, Emerson, Parker, and we know not how
many German dreamers, is nothing but a Transcendental way
of denying all supernatural revelation, and its refutation does
not belong to the present discussion. It is intended to account
for the phenomena presented by the religious history of man-
kind, without the admission of the supernatural or gracious in-
tervention of Almighty God, and would deserve attention if we
were defending Christianity against unbelievers. We have no
concern with it now, for at present we are defending the Church
against heretics, not against infidels.
The Quaker view is theoretically, though perhaps not practi-
cally, distinct from this Transcendental natural-supernaturalism.
It does not assume that the supernatural is naturally intelli-
gible, nor that the supernatural is merely the supersensible. It
admits the supernatural order, and contends that the witness
in every man is distinct from human reason, and is in the
proper sense of the term supernatural. Now this witness, called
" the light within," either enables us to see intuitively the truth,
or it merely witnesses to the fact of revelation. If the first, it is
too much ; for it would imply that the truth is matter of know-
42 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
ledge and not of faith, contrary to what we have proved. More-
over, it would imply that man is blest with the beatific vision
in this life, and sees and knows God intuitively, as he is in him-
self, which is not true. If the second, then, to the fact of what
revelation does it witness ? To the revelation which God has
made us through his Son Jesus Christ ? Does it witness to this
by an inward perception of the truth of the matter revealed ?
or by simply deposing to the fact that God revealed it ? Not
the first,) because that would make the truth revealed a matter
of science* Then the second. But of this we demand proof.
Do you say, that the spirit beareth witness to the fact ? How
will you prove to me, or even to yourself, that it does so witness,
and that the spirit witnessing in you is veritably and infallibly
the spirit of God ? Do you allege, the spirit is in every man
testifying to the same fact, and proving itself to each man to be
really and truly the infallible spirit of God? I deny it, and
millions deny it with me. What have you to oppose to our
denial ? Do you admit our denial ? Then you abandon your
doctrine ? Do you say our denial is false ? Then, also, you
abandon your doctrine ; for you admit that we err, and there-
fore cannot have in us an infallible teacher. If I deny, I deny
by as high authority as you affirm ; and what reason, then can
you give why your affirmation must be received rather than my
denial ?
Again : How do you prove that every man has this infallible
witness ? From the external revelation, by passages from the
Holy Scriptures ? Then you reason in a vicious circle ; for you
take the inward witness to prove the Scriptures and then the
Scriptures to prove the witness. From immediate revelation to
yourself? Then you must prove that you are the recipient of
such revelation, which you can do only by a miracle, for a
miracle is the only proper proof of such a fact.
But do you abandon the ground that it is the external reve-
lation to which the witness deposes, and contend that it is rather
the medium of a revelation made solely to the individual, than
the witness to a revelation made and propounded for the belief
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 43
of all men in common ? Then it is nothing to the purpose.
Granting its reality, it can avail only each man separately ;
nothing to a, common belief, and be no ground for crediting a
common revelation, or for making a public or external profession
of faith. But the revelation to which we are seeking a witness
is not a new revelation, not a private revelation which Almighty
God may see proper to make to individuals, but a revelation
already made, and propounded for the belief of all men. This
is the revelation to be established ; and since your private reve-
lation does not establish this, or, if so, only by superseding it
and rendering it of no value (for it can prove it even to the in-
dividual only by its being seen to be identical with what the
individual receives without it), it evidently cannot be the witness
we are in pursuit of. And this is the common answer to the
alleged private illumination, whatever its form. It is valid, if
valid at all, only within the bosom of the individual, and can be
alleged in support of no common or public faith ; therefore can
be no witness in any disputed case. It may be a private benefit,
or may not be. It is a matter not to be spoken of, and a fact
never to be used, when the question relates to anything but
the individual himself. The faith we are required to have is
a faith propounded to all men, a public faith, and must be
sustained by public evidence, by arguments which are open to
all and common to all. We must, therefore, reject this third
answer, as inappropiate and insufficient.*
4. From what we have established it follows that the witness
to the fact of revelation is not reason, the Bible interpreted by
private reason, nor private illumination. No witness, then, re-
mains to be introduced but the Apostolic ministry, or Ecclesia
docens. We do not deny the possibility on the part of God^of
adopting some other method ; but he manifestly has not adopted
any other than one of the four methods we have enumerated.
The first three of these four we have proved he cannot have
* rr ^'\a. subject the reader will find still further discussed in the articles
whi**> fallow in reply to the Episcopal Observer, and Professor Thornwell.
44 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
adopted, because they are inadequate. Then, either the last
method is adopted, and the Apostolic ministry is the witness,
or we have no witness. But we have a witness, as before
proved. Therefore, the Apostolic ministry, or Ecclesia doccns,
is the witness.
This conclusion stands firm without any further proof, but
we do not intend to leave it without proving it by plain,
positive, and direct evidence. But before proceeding to do this,
we must, dispose of one or two preliminary difficulties. Accord-
ing to the principles we have laid down, the witness to the su-
pernatural is incompetent unless it be itself supernatural, or,
what is the same thing, supernaturally aided. But the Apos-
tolic ministry is composed of men, each of whom, taken singly,
is confessedly only human. The whole is only the sum of the
parts. Therefore the ministry itself is only human. If human,
natural. If natural, incompetent. Therefore the Apostolic min-
istry cannot be such a witness as is demanded.
This objection is founded on the supposition that the collec-
lective body of teachers are assumed to be the witness by virtue
of their natural powers or endowments, which is not the fact.
Left to their natural powers, the body of teachers, taken either
singly or corporately, would be altogether incompetent, however
learned, wise, or saintly. The competency of the body of
teachers is asserted solely on the ground that Jesus Christ is
with it, and supernaturally speaks in and through it ; and in
and through the body rather than the teachers taken singly,
because his promise, on which we rely, is made to the body, and
not to the individuals taken singly. The ministry is the organ
through which our Lord supernaturally bears witness to his
own revelation. If this be a fact, if our Lord really, by his
supernatural presence, be with the Ministry, if in its authorita-
tive teachings he makes it his organ and speaks in and through
it, its competency cannot be questioned ; for we then have in
it the supernatural witness to the supernatural. Whether thir
be a fact or not will be soon considered.
But it is still further objected, that, if the witness to the s*
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 45
pernatural must be itself supernatural, the supernatural can
never be witnessed to natural reason, and therefore man can
never have any good grounds for believing the supernatural,
unless he be himself supernaturally elevated above his nature.
For the competency of the supernatural witness is a supernatu-
ral fact which can be proved only by another supernatural wit-
ness, which in turn will require still another, and thus on, in in-
finitum, which is impossible. But we must distinguish be-
tween the competency of the witness to testify to the fact of
revelation and the motives of the credibility of the witness. The
competency of the witness depends on its supernatural charac-
ter; the motives of credibility being needed only by natural
reason, are such as natural reason may appreciate. The credi-
bility of the witness is supernaturally established to natural rea-
son by means of miracles. A miracle is a supernatural effect
produced in or on natural objects, and therefore connects the
natural and supernatural, so that natural reason can, in some
sense, pass from the one to the other. Since the miracle is
wrought on natural objects, it is cognizable by natural reason,
and natural reason is able to determine whether a given fact be
or be not a miracle. From the miracle the reason concludes
legitimately the supernatural cause, and the Divine commission
or ' authority of him by whom it is wrought. Having estab-
lished the divine commission or authority of the miracle-worker,
we have established his credibility, by having established the
fact that God himself vouches for the truth of his testimony.
The miracle, therefore, supersedes the necessity of the supposed
infinite series of supernatural witnesses, by supernaturally con-
necting the natural with the supernatural. It is God's own
assurance to natural reason, that he speaks in and by or through
the person by whom it is performed. Then we have the veracity
of God for the truth of what the miracle-worker declares, and
therefore infallible certainty ; for natural reason knows that God
can neither deceive nor be deceived.
The supernatural, it follows, is provable. Consequently the
character of the Apostolic ministry, as the supernatural witness
46 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
to the fact of revelation, is provable, that is, is not intrinsically
improvable. It becomes a simple question of fact, and is to be
proved or disproved in like manner as any other question of
fact falling under the cognizance of natural reason. The process
of proof is simple and easy. The miracles of our blessed
Lord were all that was necessary to establish his Divine au
thority to those who saw them ; for it was evident, as Nico-
demus said to him, "No man can do these miracles which
thou doest, unless God be with him." St. John iii. 2. These
accredited him as a teacher from God. Then he was necessarily
what he professed to be, and what he declared to be God's word
was God's word. This was sufficient for the eyewitness of the
miracles.
But we are not eyewitnesses. True ; but the fact, whether
the miracles were performed or not, is a simple historical ques-
tion, to which reason is as competent as to any other historical
question. If it can be established infallibly to us that the mira-
cles were actually performed, we are virtually and to all intents
and purposes in the condition of the eyewitnesses themselves,
and they are to us all they were to them. Then they accredit
to us, as to them, the Divine commission of Jesus, and authorize
the conclusion that whatever he said or promised was infallible
truth ; for whether you say Jesus was himself truly God as
well as truly man, or that he was only divinely commissioned,
you have in either case the veracity of God as the ground of
faith in what he said or promised.
Now, suppose it be a fact that Jesus appointed a body of
teachers, and promised to be always with them, protecting them
from error and teaching them all truth ; and suppose, farther,
that the appointment and promise are ascertainable by natural
reason, infallibly ascertainable, we should then have infallible
certainty that Jesus Christ does speak in and through this body,
that it is infallible in what it teaches, and therefore that what it
declares to be the word of God is the word of God ; for it is
infallibly certain that Jesus Christ will keep his promise, since the
promise is made by God himself, either directly, as we hold, or
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 47
through his accredited agent, as the Christian Examiner holds,
and it is impossible for God to lie, or to promise and not fulfil.
In this case, calling this body of teachers the Catholic Church,
we could make our act of faith without the least room for
doubt or hesitation. " my God ! I firmly believe all the
sacred truths the Catholic Church believes and teaches, be-
cause thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor
be deceived."
Taking the facts in the case to be as here supposed, the only
points in the process to which exceptions can possibly be taken,
or which can by any one be alleged to be not infallibly certain,
are, 1. The competency of natural reason from historical testi-
mony to establish the fact that the miracles were actually
performed ; 2. Admitting the facts to be infallibly ascertain-
able, the competency of reason to determine infallibly whether
they are miracles or not ; 3. The competency of reason to con-
clude from the miracle the Divine authority of the miracle-
worker ; 4. Its competency from historical documents to ascer-
tain infallibly the fact of the appointment of the body of
teachers, and the promise made them. These four points, un-
questionably essential to the validity of the argument, are to be
taken, we admit, on the authority of reason. Can reason deter-
mine these with infallible certainty? But, if you say it can,
you affirm the infallibility of reason, and then it of itself suffices,
without other infallible teacher ; if you say it cannot, you deny
the possibility of establishing infallibly the infallibility of your
body of teachers.
Reason is infallible within its own province, but not in regard
to what transcends its reach. To deny the infallibility of reason
within its province would be to deny the possibility not only of
faith, but of both science and knowledge, and to sink into abso-
lute skepticism, even to " doubt that doubt itself be doubt-
ing," which is impossible ; for no man doubts that he doubts.
Revelation does not deny reason, but presupposes it. The ob-
jection to reason is not that it cannot judge infallibly of some
matters, but that it cannot judge infallibly of all matters. But,
48 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
because it cannot judge infallibly of all matters, to say it can
judge infallibly of none is not to reason justly. As well say, I
am not infallibly certain that I see the tree before my window^
oecause I cannot see all that may be going on in the moon. It
is infallibly certain that the same thing cannot both be and not
be at the same time ; that two things respectively equal to a
third are equal to one another ; that the three angles of a trian-
gle are equal to two right angles ; that what begins to exist
must have a creator ; that every effect must have a cause, and
that every supernatural effect must have a supernatural cause,
and that the change of one natural substance into another natu-
ral substance is a supernatural effect ; that every voluntary
agent acts to some end, and every wise and good agent to a
wise and good end. These and the like propositions are all in-
fallibly certain. Reason, within its sphere, is therefore infallible ; '
but out of its sphere it is null.
Human testimony, within its proper limits, backed by cir-
cumstances, monuments, institutions which presuppose its truth
and are incompatible with its falsehood, is itself infallible. I
have never seen London, but I have no occasson to see it in
order to be as certain of its existence as I am of my own.
History, too, is a science ; and although everything narrated in
it may not be true or even probable, yet there are historical
facts as certain as mathematical certainty itself. It is infallibly
certain that there were in the ancient world the republics of
Athens, Sparta, and Rome ; that there was a peculiar people
called the Jews, that this people dwelt in Palestine, that they
had a chief city named Jerusalem, in this chief city a superb
temple dedicated to the worship of the one God, and that this
chief city was taken by the Romans, this temple burnt, and this
people, after an immense slaughter, were subdued, and dispersed
among the nations, where they remain to this day. Here are
historical facts, which can be infallibly proved to be facts.
Now, the miracles, regarded as facts, are simple historical
facts, said to have occurred at a particular time and place, and
are in their nature as susceptible of historical proof as any
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 49
other facts whatever. Ordinary historical testimony is as valid
in their case as in the case of Caesar's or Napoleon's battles.
Reason, observing the ordinary laws of historical criticism, is
competent to decide infallibly on the fact whether they are
proved to have actually occurred or not. Reason, then, is com-
petent to the first point in the process of proof, namely, the fact
of the miracles.
It is equally competent to the second point, namely, whether
the fact alleged to be a miracle really be a miracle. A miracle
is a supernatural effect produced in or on natural objects. The
point for reason to make out, after the fact is proved, is whether
the effect actually witnessed be a supernatural effect. That it
can do this in every case, even when the effect is truly mira-
culous, we do not pretend ; but that it can do it in some cases,
we affirm, and to be able to do it in one suffices. When I see
one natural substance changed into another natural substance,
as in the case of converting water into wine, I know the
change is a miracle ; for nature can no more change herself
than she could create herself. So, when I see a man who has
been four days dead, and in whose body the process of decom-
position has commenced and made considerable progress, re-
stored to life and health, sitting with his friends at table and
eating, I know it is a miracle ; for to restore life when extinct is
no less an act of creative power than to give life. It is giving
life to that which before had it not, and is therefore an act
which can be performed by no being but God alone. Reason,
then, is competent to determine the fact whether the alleged
miracle really be a miracle. It is competent, then, to the
second point in the process of proof.
No less competent is it to the third, namely, the Divine com-
mission of the miracle-worker. In proving the event to be a
miracle, I prove it to be wrought by the power of God. Now,
I know enough of God, by the natural light of reason, to know
that he cannot be the accomplice of an impostor, that he cannot
work a miracle by one whose word may not be taken. The
miracle, then, establishes the credibility of the miracle-worker.
3
50 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
Then, the miracle- worker is what he says he is. If he says he
is God, he is God ; if he says he speaks by Divine authority, -he
speaks by Divine authority, and we have God's authority for
what he says. The third point, then, comes within the province
of natural reason, and may be infallibly settled.
The fourth point is a simple historical question ; for it con-
cerns what was done and said by our Blessed Lord in regard
to the appointment of a body of teachers. It is to be settled
historically, by consulting the proper documents and monuments
in the case. It is not a question of speculation, of interpretation
even, but simply a question of fact, to which reason is fully
competent, and can, with proper prudence and documents, set-
tle infallibly.
These remarks accepted, it follows that the infallible cer-
tainty we demand is possible, that is, is not a priori impossible.
In passing from the possible to the actual, it is necessary to
establish, by historical testimony, the miracles of our Blessed
Lord, from which we conclude his Divinity or Divine com-
mission, and that he did appoint a body of teachers, commission
the Church teaching, with the promise of infallibility and inde-
fectibility. The first, the Christian Examiner concedes ; we
proceed, therefore, to the proof of the second.
The question before us, distinctly stated, is, Has Jesus Christ
commissioned a body of pastors and teachers, and given this
body the promise of infallibility and indefectibility ? If not,
faith, as we have seen, is impossible, and no man can have a
solid reason for the Christion hope he professes to entertain.
It is, then, worth inquiring, whether we have not sufficient
proof of the fact that he has commissioned such a body.
In settling this question, we shall use the New Testament,
but simply as an historical document. We do this because it
abridges our labor, and because the New Testament, so far as
we shall have occasion to adduce it, is admitted as good author-
ity by those against whom we are reasoning. It is their own
witness, and its testimony must be conclusive against them.
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 51
Moreover, its general authenticity, as a contemporary historical
document, would fully warrant its use, even if not adduced by
our adversaries.
It must not be objected to us, that, after what we have said
of the necessity of an infallible authority to authenticate the
canon, to quote the Bible to establish the commission in ques-
tion is to reason in a vicious circle. This is the standing Pro-
testant objection. "We do not admit it. For, 1. We do not
depend on. the Bible for the historical facts from which we con-
clude the commission of the Ecclesia docens, or body of pastors
and teachers ; for these facts we can collect from othet sources
equally reliable, and do so collect them when we reason with
unbelievers ; and 2. We do not, in this controversy, quote the
Bible as an inspired volume, but simply as an historical docu-
ment, and therefore not in that character in which the authority
of the Church is necessary to authenticate it.
Nor, again, let it be said, that, since, in quoting the Bible to
establish the point before us, we have only our private reason
for interpreter, we are precluded by our own principles from
quoting it at all ; for to be able from the Bible and private rea-
son alone to deduce the faith which is the condition sine qua
non of salvation is one thing ; to be able from the New Testa-
ment as an historical document to ascertain a simple matter of
fact which it records is another and quite a different thing.
Some things are clearly and expressly recorded in the Bible,
and some are not. Those which are not clearly and expressly
stated are not to be infallibly ascertained without an infallible
interpreter. But if we are to deduce our faith from the Bible
alone, we must be able by private reason alone to ascertain
these as well as the others; for we are not to presume that
Almighty God has revealed anything superfluous, or not es-
sential to the faith. That we can so ascertain all that is con-
tained in the Bible we have denied, and still deny ; and so must
every honest man who has ever seriously attempted the work
of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. But that there artf
some things in the Bible which may be infallibly ascertained,
52 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH,
we have not denied, nor dreamed of denying. What is clearly
and expressly taught in the Bible can be as easily and as infal-
libly ascertained as what is clearly and expressly taught in any
other book ; and if all in the book, were clear and express, we
should no more need any interpreter, but our own reason pru-
dently exercised, than we should for a decree of a council or
a brief of the Pope. It is the character of the book itself that
renders the interpreter necessary ; and the fact, that its charac-
ter is such as demands an interpreter to make obvious its con-
tents, is, to say the least, a strong presumption that Almighty
God never intended it as the fountain from which we are to
draw our faith by private reason alone. If he had so intended
it, he would have made it so plain, so express, so definite, that
no one, with ordinary prudence, could fail to catch its precise
meaning. But admitting the obvious insufficiency of private
reason to interpret the whole Bible and deduce from it the
faith we are required to have, we may still contend that by the
reason common to all men we are able to determine even infal-
libly some of its contents. No objection can, then, be urged
against our quoting it in the present controversy, especially
since we shall quote only what is clear, distinct, and express,
and what all must admit to be so.
In proof of our position, that Jesus Christ has appointed,
commissioned, a body of teachers with authority to teach, we
quote the well-known passage in St. Matthew's Gospel, xxviii.
18, 19, 20, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you ; and behold, I am with you all days unto the consumma-
tion of the world ;" also, St. Mark, xvi. 15, " Go ye into all the
earth, and preach the Gospel unto every creature ; " and,
Eph. iv. 11, "And some indeed he gave to be apostles, and
some prophets, and some evangelists, and others pastors and
teachers."
These are conclusive as to the fact that Jesus Christ did com-
mission a body of teachers, or institute the Ecclesia docens.
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 53
The commission is from one who had authority to give it, be-
cause from one unto whom was given all power in heaven and
in earth ; it was a commission to teach, to teach all nations, to
preach the Gospel to " every creature," equivalent, to say the
least, to all nations and individuals, and to teach all things
whatsoever Jesus Christ himself commanded. The commission
is obviously as full, as express, as unequivocal, as language can
make it, and was given by our Blessed Lord after ^as resur-
rection, immediately before his ascension.
That this was not merely a commission to the Apostles per-
sonally is evident from the terms of the commission itself, and
the promise with which it closes. It was the institution and
commission of a body or corporation of teachers, which begin-
ning with the Apostles and continuing the identical body they
were, must subsist unto the consummation of the world. For
they who were commissioned were commanded to teach all
nations and individuals, and in the order of succession as well as
in the order of coexistence ; for such is the literal import of the
terms. But this command the Apostles personally did not
fulfil, for all nations and -individuals, even using the term all to
imply a moral and not a metaphysical universality, have not
yet been taught ; they could not fulfil it, for during their
personal lifetime all nations and individuals were not even in
existence. Then one of three things ; 1. The Apostles failed
to fulfil the command of their Master ; 2. Our Blessed Lord
gave an impracticable command ; or, 3. The commission was
not to the Apostles in their personal character. We can say
neither of the first two ; therefore we must say the last.
But the commission was to the Apostles, and therefore the
body of teachers must, in some way, be identical with them, as
is evident from the command, " Go ye" indisputably addressed
to the Apostles themselves. But they can be identical with the
Apostles in but two ways : 1. Personally ; 2. Corporately.
They are not personally identical, for that would make them
the Apostles themselves, as numerical individuals, which we
have just seen they are not. Then they must be corporately
54 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
identical. Then the commission was to a corporation of teach-
ers. The commission gave ample authority to teach. There-
fore Jesus Christ did commission a body of teachers with ample
authority to teach, and, since commissioned to teach all na-
tions and individuals in the order of succession as well as of co-
existence, a perpetual or always subsisting corporation. Thus
the very letter of the commission sustains our position.
The w'omise with which the commission closes does the
same. "iBehold I am with you all days unto the consummation
of the world." They to Avhorn this promise was made, and
with whom the Saviour was to be present were identical with
the Apostles, for he says to the Apostles, " I am with you."
They were to be in time, that is, in this life ; for he says, I am
with you all days, naaag rdf ^fte^ag which cannot apply to
eternity, in which the divisions of time do not obtain. They
were not the Apostles personally, because our blessed Saviour
says again, " I am with you all days unto the consummation of
the world" which is an event still future, and the Apostles per-
sonally have long since ceased to exist as inhabitants of time.
But they were identical with the Apostles, and, since not per-
sonally, they must be corporately identical. Therefore the
promise was to be with the Apostles, as a body or corporation
of teachers, all days even unto the consummation of the world.
But Jesus Christ cannot be with a body that is not. Therefore
the body must remain unto the consummation of the world.
Therefore our Blessed Lord has instituted, appointed, com-
missioned a body or corporation of teachers, identical with the
Apostles, continuing their authority, and which must remain
unto the consummation of the world.
The same is also established by the blessed Apostle Paul in
the passage quoted from Ephesians, iv. 11, "And he indeed
gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evan-
gelists, and others to be pastors and teachers," taken in con-
nexion with 1 Cor. xii. 28, " And God indeed hath set some in
the Church, first, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers ;
after that miracles, then the graces of healings, helps, govern-
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 55
ments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches." These
texts, so far as we adduce them, clearly and distinctly assert
that God has set in the Church, or congregation of believers,
pastors and teachers as a perpetual ordinance. They prove
more than this, for which at another time we may contend ; but
they prove at least this, which is all we are contending for now.
" God hath set," " God gave to be." These expressions prove
the pastors and teachers to be of Divine appointment, and
therefore that they are not created or commissioned 6y the con-
gregation itself. They are set in the Church, given to be, as a
perpetual ordinance ; for the rule for understanding any pas-
sage of scripture, sacred or profane, is to take it always in a
universal sense, unless the assertion of the passage be necessarily
restricted in its application by something in the nature of the
subject, or in the context, some known fact, or some principle of
reason or of faith. But obviously nothing of the kind can be
adduced, to restrict the sense of these passages either in regard
to time or space. They are, therefore, to be taken in their plain,
obvious, unlimited sense. Therefore the institution of pastors
and teachers is not only Divine, but universal and perpetual in
the Church.
We may obtain the same result from the end for which the
pastors and teachers are appointed; for the argumentum ad
quern is not less conclusive than the argumentum a quo. If
the end to be attained cannot be attained without assuming the
authority and perpetuity of the body of pastors and teachers,
we have a right to conclude their authority and perpetuity ;
since they are appointed by God himself, who cannot fail to
adapt his means to his ends. For what end, then, has God in-
stituted this body of pastors and teachers ? The Apostle an-
swers, " For the perfection of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, unto the edification of the body of Christ, till we all
meet in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age
of the fulness of Christ ; that we may not now be children tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, in
56 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
the wickedness of men, in craftiness by which they lie in wait to
deceive ; but, performing the truth in charity, we may in all
thing's grow up in him who is the head, Christ." Eph. iv. 12-
15. This needs no comment. The end here proposed, for
which the Christian ministry is instituted, is one which always
and everywhere subsists, and must so long as the world re-
mains. But this is an end which obviously cannot be secured
but by an authoritative and perpetual body of teachers. There-
fore the body of teachers is authoritative and perpetual. There-
fore, GocF, or God in Jesus Christ, has appointed, commissioned,
a body of teachers, the Ecclesia docens, as an authoritative and
perpetual corporation, to subsist unto the consummation of the
world.
We have now proved the first part of our proposition,
namely, the fact of the institution and commission of the Ec-
clesia docens as an authoritative and perpetual corporation of
teachers. Its authority is in the commission to teach ; its per-
petuity, in the fact that it cannot discharge its commission with-
out remaining to the consummation of the world, in the pro-
mise of Christ to be with it till then, which necessarily implies
its existence unto the consummation of the world, and in the
fact that the promise is to it as a corporation identical with the
Apostles. The proof of this first part of our proposition neces-
sarily proves the second, namely, the infallibility of the corpo-
ration. The Divine commission necessarily carries with it the
infallibility of the commissioned to the full extent of the com-
mission. It is on this fact that is grounded the evidence of
miracles. Miracles do not prove the truth of the doctrine
taught ; they merely accredit the teacher, and this they do sim-
ply by proving that the teacher is Divinely commissioned. The
fact to be established is the Divine commission. This once,
established, it makes no difference whether established imme-
diately, by a miracle, or mediately, by the declaration of
one already proved by miracles, as was our Blessed Lord, to
speak by Divine authority. Jesus, it is conceded, spoke by
Divine authority, even by those who, with the Christian Ex-
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 57
aminer, deny his proper Divinity. Then a commission given
by him was a Divine commission, and pledged Almighty God
in like manner as if given by Almighty God himself directly.
The teachers were, then, Divinely commissioned. Then in all
matters covered by the commission they are infallible ; for God
himself vouches for the truth of their testimony, and must
take care that they testify the truth and nothing but the
truth.
Moreover, the command to teach implies the obligation of
obedience. The commission is a command to teach, and to
teach all nations and individuals. Then all nations and indi-
viduals are bound to believe and obey these teachers ; for au-
thority and obedience are correlatives, and where there is no
duty to believe and obey, there is no authority to teach. But
it is repugnant to reason and the known character of God to say
that he makes it the duty of any one to believe and obey a fal-
lible teacher, one who may both deceive and be deceived.
Were he to do so, he would participate in the same fallibility,
and be the false teacher's accomplice, which is impossible ; for
he is, as we have said, prima veritas in essendo, in cognoscendo,
et in dicendo, and therefore can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Therefore they whom he has commissioned, must be infallible.
We prove the promise of infallibility also from the express
testimony of the New Testament. "I will ask the Father,"
says the Saviour, addressing the disciples, " and he shall give
you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever,
the Spirit- of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it
seeth him not, nor knoweth him ; but ye shall know him, be-
cause he shall abide with you, and be in in you He shall
teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind whatso-
ever I shall have said to you When he, the Spirit of
Truth, shall come, he shall teach you all truth ; for he shall
not speak of himself, but whatsoever things he shall hear he
shall speak. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine
and declare it unto you." St. John, xiv. 16, 17, 26 ; xvi. 13, 14.
They to whom is here promised the Spirit of Truth are un-
3*
58 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
questionably the Apostles, who, we have seen, were commis-
sioned as teachers ; but to them nececessarily in their corporate
capacity, as the Ecclesia docens, not personally, because it is
said, the Paraclete shall " abide with you for ever" It is not to
a body of teachers in general, that is, to any body of teachers
which may claim to be Apostolic, that the promise is made, but
to that body which is identical with the Apostles, because it is
said, "he shall abide with you" that is, the Apostles. This
identifies, the subjects of this promise with the subjects of the
cominissi<*ri before ascertained. The promise is express, and
unmistakable. The Spirit of Truth was not only to abide with
the teachers for ever, but was to teach them all things, and
bring to their minds whatever Jesus may have said to them ;
in a word, to teach them " all truth" that is, all truth included
in the terms of the commission. If this be not a promise of
infallibility, we confess we know not what would be.
The infallibility of the teachers is, then, established. But, for
the special benefit of our Protestant readers, who are a little
dull of apprehension on this subject, we repeat, that we do not
predicate this infallibility of the body of teachers in their natu-
ral capacity, nor of their personal endowments. It in no way,
manner, or shape depends on their personal qualities or personal
characters, however exalted, whether for intelligence, learning,
sagacity, or sanctity. It is God speaking in and through
them ; God, who can choose the foolish things of this world to
confound the wise, weak things to bring to naught the mighty,
nay, base things, and things that are not, and out of the mouth
of babes and sucklings show forth his truth and perfect his
praise ; who can make the wrath of men praise him, and even
the wicked the instruments of his will and the organs of his
word ; and who does do so at times, that it may be seen that
his truth does not stand in human wisdom, nor his Church de-
pend on human virtue.
For the special benefit of the same class of readers, we re-
mark, also, that the infallibility claimed extends only to those
n/atters included in the terras of the commission. These are
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 59
to "teach all things whatsoever" Jesus commands. In relation
to those matters Jesus did not command, or concerning which
he gave no commandment, infallibility is not claimed, and could
not be established if it were. Nevertheless, from the nature
of the case, the Church teaching must be the judge of what
things Jesus has commanded her to teach, and therefore un-
questionably the interpreter of her own powers. To assume
to the contrary would be to deny her authority while seeming
to admit it. If she alone has received authority to teach, she
alone can say what she has authority to teach.
The indefectibility of the Ecclesia docens follows as a ne-
cessary consequence from what has been already established.
The commission is the pledge of its own fulfilment. Whatever
commission God gives must be fulfilled. This must be admit-
ted, because the commission pledges God himself. The com-
mission was not of a body of teachers, that is, of some body
of teachers who should always be found, but it was solely, ex-
clusively, and expressly to the Apostolic ministry. It was to
the identical body to whom Jesus himself spoke. He spoke to
the Apostles. It was to them, and to them only, the commis-
sion was given. But it was a commission the terms of which
imply that the commissioned must remain even unto the con-
summation of the world. But the Apostles none of them per-
sonally did so remain. Therefore, though given to them exclu-
sively, it was not given to them in their personal character, but
was given, as we have proved, to them as a corporation or body
of teachers, in which sense they may continue unto the consum-
mation of the world ; for one of the attributes of a corporation
is immortality, and, so long as the terms of its charter are ob-
served, it is perpetuated as the same identical corporation.
Now, as the commission was given to the Apostles as a corpo-
ration, it was given only to that identical corporation, continued
or perpetuated in space and time, which they were. But this
commission is a commission to this corporation to teach, and to
teach even to the consummation of the world. Then it must
exist as the identical corporation to the consummation of the
60 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
world. Then it can never fail to exist, or lose its identity.
The commission is a pledge of infallibility. Then it can never
fail, or lose its identity as an infallible body. If it fail in neither
of these respects, is is indefectible, so far as we have affirmed its
indefectibility ; for we have affirmed its indefectibility only as a
body of infallible teachers.
If there be any truth in the principles laid down, any reliance
to be placed on the promises of Almighty God made through
his Son Jesus Christ, it is infallibly certain that God has,
through his Son, established an infallible and indefectible, minis-
try, or Ecclcsia docens, commanded it to teach all nations and
individuals "all things whatsoever" he has revealed, and there-
fore commanded all nations and individuals to submit to it, to
believe, observe, obey whatsoever it teaches as the revelation of
God. The only remaining question for us is, Which of the
pretended Christian ministries now extant is the true Apostolic
ministry ; that is to say, which is the body of teachers that in-
herits the promises ? For if we find this one, we know then
that it has the promise of infallibility, and that whatever it de-
clares to be the word of God is the word of God. We can
know then in whom we believe, and be certain. We need
spend but a moment in answering this question. The ministry
must be the identical Apostolic ministry, the identical corpora-
tion to which the promises were made. It is the corporate
identity that is to be established. It is known already, that it,
at any period we may assume, is in existence ; for it is indefec-
tible, and cannot fail. We say, then,
It is the Roman Catholic ministry. It can be no other. It
cannot be the Greek Church. The Greek Church was for-
merly in communion with the Church of Rome, and made one
corporation with it. The Church of Rome was then the true
Church, Ecclesia docens, or it was not. If not, the Greek
Church is false, in consequence of having communed with a
false Church. If it was, the Greek Church is false, because
it separated from it. So, take either horn of the dilemma, the
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 61
Greek Church is false, and its ministry not the Apostolic min-
istry which inherits the promises. The same reasoning will
apply with equal force to any one of the Oriental sects not in
communion with the See of Rome, and a fortiori to all the
modern Protestant sects. Therefore the Roman Catholic min-
istry is the Apostolic corporation, because this corporation can
be no other.
You object, in behalf of the Greek Church, that Rome sep-
arated from her, not she from Rome. This we deny. It is
historically certain that the Greek Church, prior fy> the final
separation, agreed with the Church of Rome on the matters
(the Supremacy of the Pope and the Procession of the Holy
Ghost) which were made the pretexts for separation. In the
separation, the Greek Church denied what she had before as-
serted, while Rome continued to assert the same doctrine after
as before. Therefore the Greek Church was the dissentient
party. Prior to the separation, the Greek Church agreed with
the Roman in submitting to the papal authority. In the sep-
aration, the Greek Church threw off this authority, while the
Roman continued to submit to it. Therefore the Greek Church
was the separatist.
You insist, that, though the act of separation may, indeed,
have been formally the act of the Greek Church, yet the separa-
tion was really on the part of Rome, who had corrupted the
faith, and rendered separation from her necessary to the purity
of the Christian Church. But, if this be so, whatever the cor-
ruptions of the faith Rome had been guilty of, the Greek Church
participated in them during her communion with Rome. If
they vitiated the Latin Church, they equally vitiated the Greek.
Then both had failed, and the true Church, which we have seen
is indefectible, must have been somewhere else. Then the
Greek Church could become a true Church by separating from
the communion of the Latin Church only on condition of coming
into communion with the true Church. But it came into
communion with no Church. Therefore the Greek Church, at
any rate, is false.
62 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
The same reasoning applies to the before mentioned Oriental
sects, and a fortiori to Protestants. Protestants were once in
communion with Rome. They either were then in communion
with the Church of Christ, or they were not. If they were,
they are not now, because they have separated from it. If they
were not, they could come into communion with the Church of
Christ only by joining the true Church. But they joined none.
Therefore they are not in communion with the Church of
Christ, and their pretended ministries are none of them the
Apostolic ministry. Therefore, we say again, it is the Roman
Catholic ministry, because it can be no other, and must be some
one.
You object, that the true Church always subsists, indeed, but
not always as a visible body, and therefore may be neither one
nor another of the special church organizations extant, but in
point of fact be dispersed through them all. But this objection
is not pertinent ; for we are not considering the question of the
Church in the sense in which it is taken in this objection. The
objection takes the word church in the sense of the congregation
of the just, or persona called and sanctified ; we, in the ques-
tion before us, take it in the sense of the congregation of
Christian pastors and teachers, in which sense it can neither
be invisible nor dispersed. It is the witness to the fact of reve-
lation, and it is essential that the witness should be visible, that
its competency and credibility may be judged of. It is com-
manded to teach all nations and individuals, and all nations
and individuals are therefore commanded to believe and obey
whatever it teaches. But, if invisible, this command is imprac-
tible ; for we could never know where, when, or what it teaches,
and therefore whether we believed and obeyed its teachings,
or not. It cannot be dispersed through various communions,
because it is a corporation, and its dispersion would be its dis-
solution. It is a corporation of teachers. No man has a right
to teach, unless commissioned by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ,
as we have seen, commissions individuals only in and through
the commission of the body. Then one must be united to the
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
body, as the condition of receiving a commission to teach.
Therefore the teachers cannot be dispersed through different
corporations. The teaching body is infallible, and, if dispersed
through all communions, the truth must be infallibly taught in
all communions. But it is so taught only in one communion ;
because all communions differ among themselves, and could
not differ had they no error. As no two can be found that
agree, only one can have the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. Therefore the ministry in question is
only one, and not dispersed. It cannot be dispersed ; for, if it
were, it could not answer the end of its institution, which is to
maintain unity of faith, perfect the saints in the knowledge of
the Son of God, and prevent us from being children tossed to
and fro and carried about with every wind of 'doctrine ; for to
secure this end it must be public, recognizable, one, uniform,
and authoritative. Nor could the individual teacher ever verify
his commission, as a teacher sent from God, unless he can point
to the visible body of which he is a member, and which was
commissioned by Jesus Christ, and from him inherits the
promises. Therefore we dismiss this notion of the invisible
Church, and of an invisible body of true Christian teachers dis-
persed through various and conflicting communions. Such
teachers would be as good as none, for no one could distinguish
them from false teachers.
We repeat, then, the Roman Catholic ministry is the Apos-
tolic ministry, for this ministry can be no other. This conclu-
sion very few, perhaps none, would deny, if they admitted, what
we have proved, that Jesus Christ did institute such a ministry
as we contend for. If there be an infallible Church, authorized
by the Saviour to teach, all must say, it is indisputably the Ro-
man Catholic Church ; for all see it can be no other, and, in
fact no other even pretends to be it.
But we may prove our proposition not merely by the removal
or destruction of the negative, but by plain, positive, affirmative
evidence. The first method of proof is conclusive in itself; the
second is also conclusive in itself. All that is to be done to
64 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
prove the proposition affirmatively is, to identify the Roman
Catholic ministry, as a corporation, with the corporation Jesus
Christ instituted and commissioned in the persons of the Apos-
tles. The kind of evidence needed is the same as is requisite in
any case of the identification of a corporation. The identity is
established by showing that the corporation retains its original
name, and has regularly succeeded to the original corporators.
The name is not conclusive evidence, but is a presumption of
identity. In the present case, it is easy to prove that the min-
istry in question retains the Apostolic name. This name is
Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church bears it, and always
has borne it. It is and always has been known and distin-
guished by it, and no other corporation is or ever has been
known or distinguished by it. The old Donatists claimed it,
but could not appropriate it. They are known only as Dona-
tists. Some members of the English and American Episcopal
Church, now and then, put on airs, and with great emphasis
call themselves CatJwlics ; but the bystanders only smile, for
they see the long ears peering out from under the lion's skin.
While, on the other hand, go into any city in the world and
ask the first lad you meet to direct you to the Catholic Church,
and he will direct you without hesitation to the Roman Catholic
Church. This shows, that, by the common judgment and con-
sent of mankind, the distinctive appellation of the Church in
communion with the See of Rome is Catholic.
The regular succession of the Roman Catholic ministry to
the Apostolic is easily made out. We can establish the regular
succession of pontiffs from St. Peter to Gregory the Sixteenth,
the present Pope ; and this establishes the unity of the corpora-
tion in time, and therefore its identity. The regular succession
and unity of authority of the corporation can also be established
in the orders and mission of the pastors ; for the Catholic min-
istry has never been schismatic. This regular succession and
unity of authority establishes, of course, the identity of the cor-
poration. Then the Catholic ministry is identical with the
Apostolic ministry. The two points on which this conclusion
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 65
depends we leave, of course, without adducing in detail the his-
torical proof of them. Established historically, they warrant the
conclusion. They can be established by conclusive historical
proof. Therefore the conclusion stands firm.
"We establish our proposition, then, by showing that the
Apostolic ministry can be no other than the Koman Catholic,
and by showing that it is the Roman Catholic. Nothing more
conclusive than this double proof can be desired. Then we sum
up by repeating, that Jesus Christ has instituted and commis-
sioned an infallible and indefectible body of teachers, and this
body is the congregation of the Roman Catholic pastors in com-
munion with their chief. The Catholic Church, then, is the
witness to the fact of revelation. What its pastors declare to
be the word of God is the word of God ; what they enjoin as
the faith is the faith without which it is impossible to please
God, and without which we are condemned and the wrath of
God abideth on us. What they teach is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth ; for God himself has commis-
sioned them, and will not suffer them to fall into error in what
concerns the things they have been commissioned to teach.
The question of the Church as the congregation of believers
can detain us but a moment. We agree with the Christian
JZxaminer, that the Church in this sense embraces " the whole
company of believers, the uncounted and wide-spread congrega-
tion of all those who receive the Gospel as the law of life ; that
the Church of Christ comprehends and is composed of all his
followers." But who are these ? " My sheep," says our blessed
Lord, "hear my voice and follow me." We must hear his
voice, as the condition of following him, or being his followers.
But we cannot hear his voice where it is not, where it speaks
not. Where, then, speaks his voice ? In the Catholic Church,
in and through the Catholic pastors, and nowhere else. Then
we hear his voice only as we hear the voice of the Catholic
Church, and follow him only as we follow what this Church in
his name commands. Only they, then, who hear and obey the
Catholic Church are of the Church, only they who are in the
66 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
communion of this Church are in the communion of Christ. It
is time, then, to abandon No-Churchism, and to return to the
one fold of the one Shepherd, and submit ourselves to the
guidance of the pastors he has made rulers and teachers of the
flock.
We do not suppose this conclusion will be very pleasing to
our Protestant readers, and we do not suppose anything Ave
could say, conscientiously, would please them ; for we do not
see any right they have to be pleased, standing where they do.
There is the stubborn fact, that no man has God for his father
who has not the Church for his mother, which cannot be
got over ; and if we have not the true Church for our mother,
then " are we bastards and not sons." The presumption, to say
the least, is strongly against our Protestant brethren ; and they "
have great reason to fear, that, after all, they are only " children
of the bondwoman." They may try to hide this from them-
selves, and to stifle the voice of conscience by crying out
"Popery!" "Papist!" "Romanist!" "Idolatry!" "Super-
stition ! " and the like, but this can avail them little. They
may make light of the question, and think themselves excused
from considering it. But there comes and must come to the
greater part of them an hour when they feel the need of some-
thing more substantial than anything they have. They may use
swelling words, and speak in a tone of great confidence ; but
the best of them have their doubts, nay, long periods when they
can keep up their courage, and persuade themselves that they
hope, only by shutting their eyes, refusing to think, plunging
into religious dissipation, or giving way to the wild and destruc-
tive bursts of fanaticism and superstition. The great question
of the salvation of the soul must at times press heavily upon
them, and create no little anxiety. For it is a terrible thing to
be forced into the presence of God uncovered by the robe of the
Redeemer's righteousness, a terrible thing to have all the sins
of our past life come thronging back on the memory, and to feel
that they are registered against us, unrepented of, unforgiven ;
a terrible thing to feel that the number of these sins is daily
THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH. 67
and hourly increasing, that we ourselves are continually exposed
to the allurements of the world, the seductions of the flesh, and
the temptations of the devil, with no weapon but our own puny
arm with which to defend ourselves, and no strength but our
own infirmity with which to recover and maintain our integ-
rity. Alas ! we know what this is. We know what it is
to feel oppressed with the heavy load of guilt, to struggle
alone in the world, against all manner of enemies, without
faith, without hope, without the help of God's sacraments ; we
know what it is to feel that we must trust in our own arm and
heart, stand on the pride of our own intellect and conviction.
We know, too, what it is to feel all these defences fail, all this
trust give way ; for to us have come, as well as to others, those
trying moments when the loftiest are laid low, and the proud-
est, prostrate in the dust, cry out from the depth of their
spiritual agony, " Is there no help ? God ! why standest
thou afar oft'? Help, help, or I perish!" Alas! there are
moments when we cannot trifle, when we cannot lean on a
broken reed, when we must have something really Divine,
something on which we can lay hold that will not break, and
leave us to drop into everlasting perdition. It is a terrible
question this of the salvation of the soul, and no man can pru-
dently put it off. It must be met and answered, and the sooner
the better.
We urge this upon our Protestant brethren. They have no
solid ground on which to stand, no sure help on which to rely
Their own restlessness proves it ; their perpetual variations and
shifting of their creeds prove it ; the new and strange sects con-
stantly springing up amongst them prove it ; their worldly-
mindedness, their universal and perpetual striving after what
they have not, and find not, prove it ; the wide-spread infidelity
which prevails among them, and the still more destructive in-
differency prove it. Their spiritual strength is the strength of
self-confidence or of desperation. They cannot live so. There
is no good for them in their present state. Why will they not
ask if there be not a better way ? If they will but seek, they
68 THE CHURCH AGAINST NO-CHURCH.
shall find, knock, it shall be opened to them. There is that
faith which they deny, and that certainty which they ridicule.
But they will find it not in their pride. They will find it not,
till they learn to look on him they have despised, and to fly for
succour to him they have crucified. But we have been be-
trayed into remarks, which, though true, would come with a
better grace from one whose faith is less recent than our own.
Yet we have said nothing by way of vain-glory. If we have
faith, it is no merit of ours. We have been brought by a way
we knew not, and by a Power we dared not resist ; and His
the praise and the glory, and ours the shame and mortification
that for so many years we groped in darkness, boasting that
we could see, and holding up our farthing-candle of a mis-
guided reason as a light that was to enlighten the world !
We have been asked, " How in the world have you become
a Catholic ? " In this essay we have presented an outline, or
rather a specimen, of the answer we have to give. It is incom-
plete ; but it will satisfy the attentive reader, that not without
some show of reason, at least, have we left our former friends
and the endearing associations of our past life, and joined our-
selves to a Church which excites only the deadly rage of the
great mass of our countrymen. The change with us is a great
one, and a greater one than the world dreams of, or will dream
of. At any rate, it is a change we would not have made if we
could have helped it, a change against which we struggled
long, but for which, though it makes us a pilgrim and a
sojourner in life, and permits us no home here below, we can
never sufficiently praise and thank our God. It is a great gain
to lose even earth for heaven. If, however, we be pressed to
give the full reason of our change, we must refer to the grace
of God, and the need we felt of saving our own soul.
THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER VERSUS THE CHURCH 69
THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER VERSUS THE CHURCH.
THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER, VOL. I., NO. III. BOSTON.
MAY, 1845. MONTHLY.*
THIS periodical, the recently established organ of the Evan-
gelical division of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in its num-
ber for May last, contains an attempted refutation of the article
headed The Church against No-Church, in our last Review.
The writer after a preliminary nourish or two, says his " pur-
pose is to have the pleasure of refuting" us. We presume
from this that his purpose is to have the pleasure of refuting
the main position or leading doctrine of the article. That
position or doctrine, as we stated it, is, that, " with this theory
alone (the No-Church theory), it is impossible to elicit an act
of faith : " or, in other words, that it is not possible to elicit an
act of faith, unless we accept the authority of the Roman
Catholic Church as the witness and expounder of God's word.
Now, to refute this, it is not enough to invalidate our reasoning
in this or that particular, but it is necessary to prove positively
that an act of faith can be elicited by those who reject this au-
thority. But this the writer has not done, and, so far as we can
see, has not even attempted to do. He cannot, then, whatever
else he may have done, have refuted us. All he has done, ad-
mitting him to have done all he has attempted, is, to prove,
not that we were wrong in asserting the necessity of the author-
ity of the Church to elicit an act of faith, but that it is im-
possible for any one to elicit an act of faith at all, as we shall
soon have occasion to see.
But, in point of fact, the writer has not done what he at-
tempted ; he has not invalidated our reasoning in a single par-
ticular ; and if he has succeeded in refuting any one, it is him-
self. He begins by giving, professedly, a synopsis of our argu-
* July, 1845.
70 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
ment ; but his synopsis is very imperfect. It leaves out several
distinct positions we assumed and attempted to establish as es-
sential to the argument we were conducting. If this is by de-
sign, it impeaches the fairness and honesty of the writer ; if
unintentional, it shows that he did not comprehend the article
he undertook to refute, and impeaches his capacity.
Our readers will recollect that we begin our argument by as-
suming, that, in order to be saved, to be acceptable to God, to
enter into life, it is necessary to be a Christian. We then pro-
ceed to establish, 1. That, in order to be a Christian, it is neces-
sary to be a believer, to believe somewhat ; 2. That this some-
what is TRUTH NOT FALSEHOOD ; 3. That the truth we are to
believe is the truth Jesus Christ taught or revealed; and, 4.
That this truth, pertains, in part, at least, to the supernatural
order. Now, the second position, namely, that, in order to be a
Christian believer, it is necessary to believe TRUTH, NOT FALSE-
HOOD, the Observer entirely omits, and takes no notice of it, in
its attempted refutation of us. Why is this ? The Observer
cannot suppose we inserted this proposition without a design, or
that it is of no importance to our agument. The position is
both positive and negative, and asserts, that, to be a Christian
believer, it is necessary not only to believe truth, but truth with-
out mixture of falsehood. A very important position, and one
on which much of our subsequent reasoning depended, and
designed to meet the very doctrine contended for by the Ob-
server, namelvj that we have all the faith required of us, if we
believe Christian truth, though we believe it mixed with error,
in an exact or in a false sense.
After having established the four positions just enumerated,
we proceed, in the second division of our article, to state the
necessary conditions of faith in truths pertaining to the super-
natural order, or what we need in order to be able to elicit an
act of faith in a revelation of supernatural truth. Under this
division, we attempt to establish, 1. That faith demands an
authority on which to rest, extrinsic both to the believer and
the matter believed ; 2. That the only, but sufficient, authority
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 71
for the intrinsic truth of the matter of supernatural revelation
is the veracity of God ; 3. That a witness to the fact that God
has actually revealed the matter in question, that is, a witness
to the fact of revelation, is also necessary ; 4. That this witness
must be not merely a witness to the fact that God has made a
revelation, or to the fact of revelation in general, but to the
precise revelation in each particular case in which there may be
a question of what is or is not the revelation of God, there-
fore an interpreter, as we expressed ourselves, of the genuine
sense of the revelation ; 5. That this witness must be universal,
subsisting through all times and nations ; 6. Unmistakable,
with ordinary prudence, by the simple and illiterate ; and, 7.
Infallible.
Now, of these seven positions, the writer in the Observer ob-
jects expressly to the fourth, and, by implication, to the sev-
enth. But he takes no notice of our definition of- faith, namely,
that "it is a theological virtue, which consists in believing,
without doubting, explicitly or implicitly, all the truths Al-
mighty God has revealed, on the veracity of God alone," on
which, he must be aware, rests nearly the whole of our argu-
ment for the necessity of an infallible witness to the fact of rev-
elation ; for, if faith consists in believing without doubting, it is
obvious that it is impossible to elicit an act of faith on the au-
thority of a fallible witness. It can be possible only where
there is no reasonable ground for doubt as to what God has
actually revealed ; and there always is reasonable ground for
doubt, where the reliance is on a fallible witness, that is, a wit-
ness that may deceive or be deceived. Our conclusion, then,
that the witness must be infallible, or faith is not possible,
must be admitted, if our definition of faith is accepted. We
were not to be refuted, then, on this point, except by a refu-
tation of our definition of faith. But the writer in the Observer
does not refute this definition, for he does not even notice it.
How, then, can he claim to himself the " pleasure " of having
refuted us?
But the writer in the Observer objects strongly to the fourth
72 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
position of the second division of our article. He says we af-
firm that we need " an interpreter of the genuine sense of what
God has revealed, because God has made faith the condition
sine qua non of salvation ; and if we should mistake the propo-
sitions actually contained in God's revelation, or substitute
others therefor, since it is only through the proposition we ar-
rive at the matter revealed, we should not believe the revelation
God has actually made, but something else, and something for
which ive cannot plead the veracity of God, and therefore
something for which we have no solid ground of faith" The
portion of this sentence in Italics the writer discreetly omits in
his quotation. Our doctrine was this : The ground of faith in
the truth or matter revealed is the veracity of God revealing it.
But when we believe the matter revealed in a false sense, not in
its genuine sense, we do not, in fact, believe what is revealed,
but something else, and, therefore, something which God has
not revealed, and for the truth of which we have not his
veracity. Consequently, we need an interpreter, that is, some
means, or, as we say in the article, i( some authority, extrinsic
or intrinsic," to say what is or is not the revelation in its gen-
uine sense ; which is only saying, what is or is not the revela-
tion Almighty God has actually made. Is it not so ? Are we
not right in this? The writer in the Observer says no. He
objects to this, because we here, he says, assume " three things
which need a little looking after : 1. That God's revela-
tion to man is not intelligible. 2. That a human interpreter
can make it plain. 3. That, unless the nice theological shades
of meaning in God's word are appreciated, one cannot be saved.
In general terms, we deny all these propositions." So do we ;
and, moreover, we deny that we assume, or that our argument
implies, either one or another of them.
The Observer contends that God's revelation is made to us in
terms as express and as intelligible as human language can
make it. " Natural reason," it says, " teaches us enough of God
to know that he is infinitely wise, benevolent, and good. An
infinitely wise, benevolent, and good being, in making a revela-
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 73
tion to dependent and erring creatures, could not do otherwise
than adapt it, in the most perfect manner, to their condition."
Be it so; we said as much, more than once, ourselves. But
what is "the most perfect manner?" "A revelation," con-
tinues the Observer, " coming from such a being, would be con-
veyed in intelligible propositions, so expressed and arranged as
to be least liable to be misunderstood." In propositions intel-
ligible through the ministry of the Church teaching, we grant
it ; otherwise, we deny it, because he has not so conveyed, ex-
pressed, and arranged it. " Then, if a revelation have corne
from God, it must be as clear and intelligible as human lan-
guage can make it." Through the same ministry, we concede
it ; otherwise, we deny it, and for the same reason.
There was no occasion to assert the intelligibleness of divine
revelation against us, for that we conceded. The real question
at issue is not whether the revelation be intelligible, but whether
it be intelligible without the aid of the pastors of the Church.
The Observer was bound to show that no such aid is needed, or
else not secure the " pleasure " of refuting us. We knew before-
hand the only argument he could adduce, and that argument
we ourselves adduced and replied to. The Observer has merely
brought against us this objection, without noticing our reply to
it. We stated, " It may be said that God is just, that he has
made us a revelation, commanded us to believe it, and made
belief of it the condition sine qua non of salvation ; but that ho
would not be just in so doing, if this revelation were not infalli-
bly ascertainable in its genuine sense by the prudent exercise of
natural reason." Here is the argument of the Observer, taken
in connexion with what we had previously said of what natural
reason teaches us of God, as clearly and as forcibly put as the
Observer itself has put it ; and here is our reply : " Ascertain-
able by natural reason, in one method or another, we grant ; by
private reason and the Bible alone, we deny ; for God may
have made the revelation ascertainable only by a divinely com-
missioned and supernaturally guided and protected body of
teachers, and the office of natural reason to be to judge of the
4
74 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
credibility of this body of teachers" This reply is conclusive,
at least till shown to be inconclusive ; consequently the writer
in the Observer was precluded, by the most ordinary rules of
logic and morals, from insisting on the objection, till he had not
only noticed, but refuted, the reply. He has done neither. He
has taken an objection which we had anticipated and replied to,
urged it against us, without deigning to notice our reply, and
this he calls refuting us !
The writer in the Observer proceeds in his argument against
a position he says we assume but which we do not assume, on
the assumption that the revelation Almighty God has made to
us is made exclusively in the written word, and is made " in in-
telligible propositions, so expressed and arranged as to be least
liable to be misunderstood," " as clear and as intelligible as lan-
guage can make it." This assumption we met and refuted, or
attempted to refute, in our article ; but the Observer, according
to its custom, takes no notice of our refutation, or attempted
refutation. This assumption is provable only in two ways :
1. A priori, by reasoning from the known character of God;
2. A posteriori, by reasoning from the character of the revela-
tion actually made. The first method can avail it nothing, for
the reason we before assigned, and have just now repeated.
We adduced, in our article, several arguments and facts to show
that the second method can avail it just as little. These facts
and arguments it does not set aside, does not attempt to set
aside, for it does not even notice them, or make an effort to
show that its assumption may be true in spite of them. And
yet il purposed to have the " pleasure" of refuting us ! and we
are gravely assured by another Episcopal organ, The Christian
Advocate and Witness, that it really has refuted us, and in a
masterly manner turned our logic against us. Really, these
Episcopalians have queer notions of what constitutes a refutation
of an opponent.
But we deny the assumption of the Episcopal Observer, and
call upon the writer to reply to the facts and arguments we ad-
duced against it. Will he, in open day, maintain that the sev-
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 75
era! articles of Christian faith, even as he holds them, are ex-
pressed in the Sacred Scriptures in propositions as clear and in-
telligible as human language can make them ? He is an Epis-
copalian, and therefore believes, we are bound to presume, in
the Nicene creed. Will he tell us where in the Sacred Scrip-
tures the consubstantiality of the Son to the Father, or the pro-
cession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son,
Filioque, is expressed in terms as clear, as intelligible, and as
unequivocal as in the creed ? It will not be enough to adduce
passages which teach or imply one or the other of these doc-
trines, but he must adduce passages which teach them as ex-
pressly, in a manner as clear and intelligible, as they are taught
in the creed ; for his assumption is, that they are expressed in
the Sacred Scriptures in a manner as clear and intelligible as
they can be in human language. Adduce the passages, if you
please. You, as an Episcopalian, are bound to admit infant
baptism as an article of the Christian faith. Do you find this
expressed in the Bible in a manner " as clear and intelligible as
human language can make it ? " If so, why have you not been
able, long ere this, to settle the dispute with your Baptist
brethren, who have as much reverence for the Bible as you
have, are as learned, and no doubt as honest ? If the articles
of Christian faith be expressed in the Sacred Scriptures in pro-
positions as clear and intelligible as language can make them,
how happens it that men dispute more abaut their sense as
contained in the Sacred Scriptures than they do about their
sense as drawn out and defined in the creed? Is there an
article of faith held to be fundamental by the Episcopal Ob-
server that has not been disputed on what has been conceived
to be the authority of Scripture itself? Yet all is in Scripture
as clear and as intelligible as human language can make it !
Who is at a loss to know what the Catholic Church means by
her decisions ? Who questions the sense of the dogma as given
in her definition of it ? If she can define an article of faith so
as to end all dispute concerning its sense, so far as she defines
it, it follows that articles of faith can be expressed in language,
76 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
for her definitions are expressed in language, so afc to
preclude uncertainty as to their meaning. But this cannot
be said of the articles of faith as expressed and arranged in the
Sacred Scriptures, because men have doubted and disputed
from the first, and do now doubt and dispute, as to what
they are, as is proved by the number of ancient sects, and the
some five hundred or more Protestant sects still extant; and
also by the violent controversy, concerning what the writer in
the Observer must regard as fundamentals, now raging in his
own Church, both in this country and in England. Nay, the
Scriptures themselves are express against the rash assumption
of the Observer. " And account," says St. Peter, " the long-
suffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our most dear brother
Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you ;
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in
which there are certain things hard to be understood, which the
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scrip-
tures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. This is to
the point. The Scriptures, according to their own declaration,
do contain things hard to be understood, and which the un-
learned wrest to their own destruction ; aud these are not unes-
sentials, because their misinterpretation involves the destruction
of those who misinterpret them. Where is the intelligence,
where is the conscience, of this rash writer? Has he no
reverence for truth, no fear of God before his eyes, that he
hesitates not to give the lie to the Holy Ghost, and to affirm
what is so obviously untrue ? Let him show as much unanim-
ity among the aforesaid five hundred or more Protestant sects,
who all hold the Bible to be the word of God, and profess to
take it as their rule of faith and practice, concerning what he
himself holds to be fundamentals, as we can show him among
Catholics concerning the meaning of the articles of faith the
Church has defined, and we will listen to his assertion, that the
revelation of God, as contained in the Sacred Scriptures, for
this is his meaning, is " as clear and intelligible as human
language can make it ; " but till then, we recommend him to
VERSUS THE CHURCH.
moderate his tone, and meditate daily on the solemn fact that a
judgment awaits us, and we must all give an account for all
our thoughts, words, and deeds. An induction contradicted by
glaring and lamentable facts is inadmissible ; and such is his,
that the revelation of God, as expressed in the Sacred Scriptures,
is " as clear and intelligible as human language can make it."
We admit the revelation to be perfectly intelligible in the way
and manner, and by the means, intended by the Revealer ; but
in the way and manner asserted by the Observer, we deny its
intelligibleness, as must eveiy honest man who has seriously
undertaken to interpret the Holy Scriptures by the aid of pri-
vate reason alone.
The writer in the Observer asserts that we assume " that a
human interpreter can make it (divine revelation) plain." We
assume no such thing ; and moreover, if he is capable of un-
derstanding, in any degree, his mother tongue, and has read
our article through, he knows that we not only do not, but,
with our general doctrine, that we could not. Does he not
know, that, throughout the article, we are attempting, among
other things, to establish the utter incompetency of a merely
human interpreter ? Does he not know that we contend for
the competency of the Church to interpret or declare the reve-
lation of God, only on the ground that she has the promise of
the superhuman, the supernatural, guidance and assistance of
the Holy Ghost? Does he not know, that, according to all
Catholics, it is not the Humanity of the Church, but the Di-
vinity, whose Spouse she is, that decides in her decisions, and
in her interpretations is the interpreter ? Prove us wrong in
holding this, if you can ; but do not assert that we assume,
either consciously or unconsciously, that the revelation of God
can be made plain by a mere human interpreter. It was not
for a human interpreter we contended, but for a divine inter-
preter ; and our argument was to prove, that, without a divine
interpreter of divine revelation, it is impossible to elicit an act
of faith. Will the Episcopal Observer remember this ? The
folly and absurdity it ascribes to us, of contending for a human
78 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
interpreter, we leave to Low-Churchmen and their dearly be-
loved children and grandchildren, the No-Churchmen.
The Observer also charges us with assuming, " that, unless
the nice theological shades of meaning in God's word be ap-
preciated, one cannot be saved." There is little pleasure in
replying to an opponent who has yet to learn the simplest ele-
ments of the matters in debate, and on which he affects to
speak as a master. The writer in the Observer does not ap-
pear to have ever read a single elementary work on theology.
He appears to be wholly ignorant of any distinction between
faith and theology. We said not one word about " nice the-
ological shades of meaning;" we neither said, nor implied in
anything we said, that theology is at all necessary to salvation.
We spoke of faith as the condition sine qua non of salvation,
we admit, but not of theology ; and we contended that the faith
must be embraced in its purity and integrity, or one cannot be
saved : but not that one cannot be saved unless he appreciates
the nice distinctions of theology. Theology and its distinc-
tions belong to science, a science constructed by human reason
from principles derived from the light of nature and the super-
natural revelation made immediately to .faith. It is useful, be-
cause, in the ordinary course of divine providence, we cannot
have faith, propagate, preserve, and defend faith, without it;
for by it, as says St. Augustine, Fides saluberrima, quce ad
veram beatitudinem ducit, gignitur, defenditur, roboratur*
Theology is necessary or useful only as subservient to faith ;
but faith is indispensable to salvation, as says the blessed Apos-
tle, "Without faith it is impossible to please God;" and
whoso does not please God, we take it, is not in the way of
salvation. As to distinctions or nice shades of meaning in faith,
we said nothing about them, for we were not aware of their
existence. Faith is one, a whole, and must be embraced in its
purity and integrity, or it is not embraced at all.
" But it is derogatory to the character of God and the inter-
ests of religion," says the writer in the Observer, " to say that
* Lib. XIV. De Trin. Cap. 1
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 79
the exact mind of the Spirit must in every point in revelation
be fully seen and acknowledged, as the condition of being saved."
On what authority is this said ? Does he deny faith to be the
condition sine qua non of salvation ? Of course not, for we
assert it in our article, and he takes no exception to our asser-
tion. Must not this be faith in what the Holy Ghost has re-
vealed, that is, in the revelation Almighty God has made ?
Has not Almighty God made belief of this revelation a necessa-
ry condition of salvation ? If so, has he made it necessary to
believe the whole, or only a part ? In its exact sense, or in an
inexact sense ? If you say a part is not necessary to be believed,
will you tell us what part ? Will you be so obliging as to
favor us with a specification, on divine authority, of the portions
of revelation which we have the permission of the Holy Ghost
to disbelieve or not believe ?
That it is necessary to believe the whole revelation, as the
condition sine qua non of salvation, is evident from the very
definition we gave of faith, namely, that it is " a theological
virtue, which consists in belie \ingall the truths God has revealed,
on the veracity of God alone." Does the Observer deny this
definition of faith ? If it does, why has it not said so, and re-
futed it by refuting the arguments by which we attempted to
sustain it ? and, since its purpose was to have the pleasure of
refuting us, why did it not give and sustain a definition in op-
position to ours ? Was it a sufficient refutation of us for it to
pronounce, as it does, that, in that portion of the article in
which we give this definition, we " enter into a bog and floun-
der till we reach the opposite side ? " Was it afraid, if it fol-
lowed us, it would itself sink in the " bog," stick fast in the
" morass ? " or was it only the pleasure, not the pain, of re-
futing us it promised itself? If faith consist in believing all
the truths Almighty God has revealed, and dare the Observer
assert that it does not ? and if faith be, as the blessed Apostle
declares, the condition without which we cannot be saved, it fol-
lows necessarily that the whole mind of the Spirit, so far as
revealed, must be believed, as the condition of being saved.
80 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
Will the writer in the Observer deny this ? Let him do it,
and he may possibly find himself in " a bog " to which there
is no " other side."
But it may be the writer in the Observer does not mean to
assert, that " it is derogatory to the character of God and in-
jurious to the interests of religion" to say, that all the truths
Almighty God has revealed must be explicitly believed, as the
condition of being saved, but simply that it is derogatory, <fcc.,
to say they must be explicitly believed in their exact sense, as
they lie in the mind of the Holy Ghost, We say explicitly
believed, for this is what he must mean by being " fully seen
and acknowledged." What he means to object to is the as-
sertion, that the exact mind of the Spirit must be believed as
the condition sine qua non of salvation. " The exact mind of
the Spirit " must mean the entire revelation Almighty God has
made, in its exact sense, or, as we expressed ourselves, in its
genuine sense. Then we can understand by the exact mind
of the Spirit neither more nor less than " the pure word of
God." Then it is derogatory to the character of God and in-
jurious to the interests of religion to say, that the pure word of
God the revelation in its purity and integrity must be be-
lieved as the condition of being saved. Then, in order not to
derogate from the character of God, and not to injure the in-
terests of religion, we must say, the impure word of God, that
is, the word of God corrupted' by a greater or less admixture of
falsehood and error, is sufficient, all that it is necessary to be-
lieve, in order to be saved, or to have that faith without which
" it is impossible to please God !" Is the Episcopal Observer
prepared to adopt this conclusion ? It must adopt it. It will
not allow us to insist on the exact mind of the Spirit. But if
we do not take the exact mind of the Spirit, we must take the
inexact mind. The inexact mind, so far forth as inexact, is
not the mind of the Spirit at all, is not the word of God,
is not truth, but falsehood, and therefore of the Devil, who is a
liar from the beginning, and the father of lies. The inexact
mind of the Spirit is the impure or corrupt word of God, the
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 81
word of God and the words of the Devil combined. If it be
derogatory to the character of God and injurious to the inter-
ests of religion to insist on the necessity to salvation of faith in
the pure word of God, it must be honorable to the character
of God and advantageous to the interests of religion to contend
that belief of the impure word, the corrupt word, the word of
God combined with the words of the Devil, is sufficient as the
condition of being saved ! A very comforting doctrine to all
classes of errorists ; for they all hold the truth, or some portion
of truth, but mixed with error, that is, in an inexact, a false,
or a corrupt sense. The Observer's own church defines the
visible Church of Christ to be "a congregation of faithful men,
in the which the pure word of God is preached." Art. XIX.
We suppose they who preach the pure word of God preach it
because they hold its belief to be necessary as the condition of
being saved. The Church of Christ, then, inasmuch as it
preaches, and, we presume, insists on, the pure word of God,
or the exact mind of the Spirit, as necessary to salvation, does
that which is " derogatory to the character of God and injurious
to the interests of religion !" Happily, however, for the writer
in the Observer, his church is not obnoxious to this charge ; for
it is unquestionably innocent of the sin of preaching the pure
word of God.
After all, this is rather a singular doctrine for a Protestant to
avow, however consistent it may be for him to entertain it. The
charge against the Church of Rome by the pseudo-reformers
was not that it did not hold the word of God, but that it had
ceased to hold it in its purity. It had corrupted the word of
God, not the written word, not the text, but the sense, the doc-
trine, that is, " the mind of the Spirit," and therefore had be-
come a corrupt church, in the bosom of which salvation had be-
come impossible, or, at least, exceedingly doubtful. On this
ground they pretended to separate from its communion, and on
this ground their children have generally attempted to vindicate
their separation. But the Episcopal Observer, it seems, aban-
dons this ground, and gives the Reformers a very unfilial blow.
4*
82 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
According to this modern Protestant, the fact that a church has
corrupted the word of God, and preaches not the pure word, but
the impure word, is rather to its credit, and should be a motive
for seeking or remaining in its communion, instead of a motive
for separating from it. The only good ground of separation,
if we accept his doctrine, would be the fact that the Church
preaches the pure word of God, and commands belief in the
exact mind of the Spirit, as the condition of salvation. From
such a church it must be one's duty to separate, because such a
church derogates from the character of God, and injures the
interests of religion. Perhaps it was on this ground, after all,
that the Reformers separated from the communion of the Holy
See, and on this ground that Protestants generally remain sep-
arate from that communion.
But the Observer not only protests against the necessity of
belief in the exact mind of the Spirit, but it contends that the
exact mind of the Spirit cannot possibly be communicated to
us. " Thoughts may be communicated," it says, " by a written
or spoken language ; but perfectly, entirely, unmistakably, by
neither. To this rule the thoughts of God form no exception.
When communicated to erring men, they come clothed under
the guise of the erring representative, human language ; and of
necessity, therefore, are liable, in some of their shades, to be
misconceived." So Almighty God himself cannot, if he will,
teach us the exact truth, nor make to us. a revelation of his will
which we may believe without mixture of error ! The truth as
it is in God cannot be communicated to us ; we can never re-
ceive what God is pleased to reveal, "perfectly, entirely, unmis-
takably ;" but must always misconceive it to a greater or less
extent, and substitute, for the mind of the Spirit, our own mind,
for the word of God, our own words, or the words of the
Devil ! And yet, the Observer tells us, the revelation God has
made us is so easy of comprehension, " that the wayfaring man,
though a fool, shall not err therein" Nevertheless, Almighty
God himself cannot make a revelation that can be perfectly re-
ceived, that can be embraced without mistakes and misconcep-
VERSUS THE CHURCH.
It is a convenience, sometimes, when we wish to secure
the '* pleasure " of refuting an opponent, to have short mem-
ories and flexible principles.
But, according to the Observer, we can never, even by the
help of Almighty God, embrace the word of God in its purity
and integrity ; for, coming to us " clad in the defectible exterior
of human language," it must, " by a law of necessity, be un-
derstood differently by different minds." We can never know
precisely what it is God requires us to believe, and we never
can believe what he requires us to believe, without mixing with
it more or less of error and falsehood. Be it so. Will the Ob-
server oblige us, then, by telling us how far we may combine
with the word of God, or substitute for it, our own words, or
those of the Devil, without danger to the soul? Will he tell
us, on divine authority, where is the exact boundary, on one
side of which mistakes and misconceptions, errors and false-
hoods, are harmless, and on the other side of which they are
destructive? Will he give us some rule by which we may
always know whether we are on the right side or the wrong
side ? The rule is important, and we pray this Protestant the-
ologian, who proposes to himself the very great pleasure of re-
futing us, to give us the slight pleasure of furnishing us this
rule, so that we may not only know whether he really has re-
futed us, but also whether we have more or less error than we
may with safety entertain.
But if we cannot receive the revelation of God without mis-
taking or misconceiving it, how is it possible for us to know
whether we have the faith Almighty God requires of us or not ?
If we mistake on one point why may we not on another?
And if we are always liable to err, if even Almighty God can-
not set us right, because he can speak to us only through hu-
man language, which is always and necessarily a distorting me-
dium, where is faith, or even the possibility of faith ? Faith is
to believe without doubting, and is possible only where there is
absolute certainty. But where there is a liability to err, nay,
a necessity to mistake and misconceive, there is and can be no
84 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
absolute certainty, but is and necessarily must be doubt, and,
therefore, no faith. If the Observer is right in its doctrine, faith
is impossible. It clearly shows, then, that, on its premises, faith,
properly so called, is impossible, the very conclusion to which,
we stated, in advance, we intended to force it and all who reject
the authority of the Catholic Church as the witness and ex-
pounder of God's word. Yet it claims " the pleasure" of having
refuted us !
We can understand now, why, in his synopsis of our argu-
ment, the writer in the Observer leaves out our definition of
faith, and our position that what we are to believe is truth, not
falsehood. If faith be to believe without doubting, it is not
possible without absolute certainty, and absolute certainty is
possible only in the case of absolute truth ; and absolute truth
he foresaw he was not likely to get, without going to Rome ;
for, without going to Rome, he knew he could, at best, have
only truth mixed with falsehood. To controvert our definition
of faith, or to refute the arguments by which we sustained our
position, that what we are to believe is " truth, not falsehood,"
was no easy matter, and not safe to be attempted ; and yet he
must have the pleasure of refuting us.
The whole controversy between Catholics and Protestants
tunas on the questions here involved. Catholics say that Al-
mighty God has made us a revelation, and commanded us to
believe it, without doubting, in its integrity and genuine sense,
as the condition sine qua non of salvation. Protestants also say
God has made us a revelation, and commanded us to believe
it without doubting, as the condition sine qua non of salvation,
but, virtually, if not expressly, that he does not command us to
believe it in its integrity and genuine sense, but only so much
of it as commends itself to our own minds and hearts, and in
the sense in which it pleases us to understand it. They are
obliged to say this, or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic
Church, and condemn themselves, as not having that faith with-
out which they cannot be saved.
The presumption, to say the least, is in favor of the Catholics
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 85
for we cannot reasonably suppose that the Holy Ghost reveals
what he does not require us to believe, nor that he can consent
that we should believe his word in any sense but his own.
The Protestants are, then, presumptively in the wrong, and
consequently, the onus probandi rests on them. They can
justify themselves only by producing, on divine authority, a
specification of the portions of God's word they have the per-
mission of the Holy Ghost to disbelieve or not believe, according
to their own caprice ; and also the permission of the Holy Ghost
to believe his word in their own sense, rather than in his. God
has made us a revelation ; this they admit, as well as we. He
has commanded us to believe it ; this they admit as well as we.
He has made belief of it a necesssary condition of salvation ; this
they dare not deny. What, then, is the fair presumption from
these premises ? Is it not, that God commands belief in his
revelation in its purity and integrity as the condition of salva-
tion? Unquestionably. Then, unless you have his authority
for saying that he neither requires you to believe all he has
revealed, nor to believe what you do believe in its true sense,
you are convicted of not having the faith he commands, unless
you actually believe his whole revelation, and in its true sense.
Moreover, the ground on which you are to believe this reve-
lation is the veracity of God alone. Now, this ground is suf-
ficient ground of faith in all that God has revealed, and you
can with no more propriety refuse to believe one portion of it
than another. To refuse to believe this revelation is to make
God a liar, and you make him a liar in refusing to believe one
article, as much as you would in refusing to believe the whole-
You must, then, believe the whole, or you make God, in your
own mind, a liar ; and are you prepared to maintain that he
who charges God with falsehood, which is to blaspheme the
Holy Ghost, is in the way of salvation ?
So must you also believe the revelation in God's sense ; for
it is only in his sense that it is his word. If you put a mean-
ing upon my words different from the meaning I put upon
them, they cease to be my words, and become yours. So, when
86 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER.
you put a meaning upon God's word different from the meaning
he puts upon it, it ceases to be his word, and becomes your
word, and you believe then the truth not as it is in God, but
as it is in you. You must, then, believe the revelation in its
true sense, or you do not believe the revelation Almighty God
has made. Is it not remarkable that Protestants seem never to
be aware of this ?
Again, God commands faith in his revelation. But faith is
to believe without doubting, and is, as we have seen, possible
only on condition of infallible evidence, which leaves no room
for doubt, but gives absolute certainty. The certainty of faith,
though different in kind, must be equal in degree to the cer-
tainty of knowledge, or it is not faith. But this certainty is not
possible in case of error or falsehood. Error or falsehood can-
not be infallibly evidenced ; for, if it could, it would not be error
or falsehood, but truth. It follows, therefore, that the requisite
degree of evidence to elicit faith is possible only in the case of
absolute truth. But the revelation of God, when misinterpreted,
when taken not in its exact sense, is not absolute truth, and
therefore cannot be so evidenced to the mind as to elicit faith.
But we must have faith, or be eternally damned. Then you
must take the revelation in its exact sense, or not be saved.
Do you reply, that faith, in this sense, is impossible, because
it is impossible to have infallible certainty of the exact mind of
the Spirit? This is a plain begging of the question. Impos-
sible, on your ground, we admit ; but not, therefore, necessarily,
on every ground. Your objection merely proves that you can-
not, as Protestants, elicit an act of faith, which is what we con-
tend ; but when you say therefore we cannot elicit faith at all,
you assume that your ground is the true and only ground,
which is what we deny, and what it is your business to prove.
Because you cannot elicit faith, it does not follow that faith can-
not be elicited. God has commanded it, as you yourselves dare
not deny ; but God cannot command what is impossible ; therer
fore faith is possible. Then the fact that it is not possible,
on your ground, only proves that you are wrong.
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 87
One of the objections we brought against the Bible, as the
witness to the fact of revelation, was, that, without an infallible
authority, distinct from the Bible, it is impossible to prove the
sufficiency of the Scriptures. We contended, for several rea-
sons, which we gave, that they who take the Bible, as inter-
preted by private reason alone, for the only and sufficient rule
of faith, are bound to prove that their rule is sufficient from the
Sacred Scriptures themselves. But this they cannot do, for
the Scriptures nowhere assert their own sufficiency. The Ob-
server contends that they are not bound to prove the sufficiency
of the Scriptures, but that we are bound to prove their insuffi-
ciency ! But it nowhere takes up or replies to our objections,
and nowhere shows on what principle we are bound to prove a
negative. Doubtless, if we deny a proposition, we are bound to
justify our denial by adducing a good reason for it ; but in most
cases it is sufficient to allege the fact that the affirmative propo-
sition is not proved. Protestants assert the sufficiency of the
Scriptures ; it is their business to prove that sufficiency, and by
divine authority, too, a thing they never have done, and a
thing they know perfectly well, if they know anything of the
subject, they never can do. By what right do they assume a
position, without offering a single particle of evidence appropri-
ate in the case to prove it, and then call upon us to disprove it ?
Is rational culture so neglected among Protestants, and even
Protestant theologians, that they have no more sense of sound
reasoning than this implies ?
But we went further, and disproved the sufficiency of the
Scriptures, which was more than our argument required. Faith
is to believe, without doubting, all the truths Almighty God
has revealed, and, therefore, is possible only on condition that
we have absolute certainty that what we receive as the revela-
tion of God is his revelation, and the whole of his revelation, as
we proved before and have now proved again. The witness,
to be adequate, sufficient, must, then, testify to the fact that
the matter believed or to be believed is the revelation, and the
whole revelation, Now, to this last fact, namely, that they
88 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
.
contain the whole revelation, or the whole word of God, the
Scriptures do not testify. Therefore, they are insufficient, for
this very reason, if for no other. This is the argument ad-
duced in our article, and, certainly, before the Observer can
legitimately claim the pleasure of having refuted us, and the
right to assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures, it is bound to
set this argument aside. But it does not even notice it.
The Observer, we apprehend, does not understand what a
witness to the fact of revelation means. He seems to reason
on the supposition, that, when we contended for a witness to
the fact of revelation, we meant merely that we must have a
witness to the fact that God has made a revelation. We as-
sure him this was not our meaning. We mean by the fact of
revelation, not simply the fact that God has made a revelation,
but that he has revealed this or that is a faqfr^ and we mean by
a witness to the fact of revelation, not merely a witness to rev-
elation in general, but to each particular point of the revelation.
Assume, for instance, that the mystery of the Trinity is the
point in question. The ground of faith in this mystery is the
veracity of God revealing it. But before we can know that
we have God's veracity for the truth of this adorable mystery,
we must know that God has revealed it, that is, the fact that
he has revealed it. Now, the witness we demand is a witness
to this fact, and to the like fact in every other case ; and un-
less we have such a witness an infallible witness, too in
each particular case, we have and can have no faith. Does
the Observer understand this ? Will it deny that a witness,
and an infallible witness, in the sense here defined, is the con-
dition sine qua non of faith ? Can it say that God has re-
vealed this or that article of faith, if it have no witness to the
fact that God has revealed it ? Can it say it with absolute
certainty without an infallible witness ? and if it cannot say
with infallible certainty that God has revealed it, can it be-
lieve, without doubting, that he has revealed it ? No man has
faith, till he can say with St. Augustine, " O God, if I am de-
ceived, Thou hast deceived me," and this, too, in every single
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 89
article of faith. Who can say this, unless he has infallible
evidence that the particular article, which is in question, is act-
ually God's word ?
We must, then, have the witness, or faith is impossible.
What is this witness ? We stated that it must be, 1. Reason ;
2. The Bible ; 3. Private illumination ; or, 4. The Apostolic
ministry, or Ecclesia docens. We demonstrated that it could
not be the first three, and, therefore, inferred that it must be the
fourth, or we have no witness. The Observer nowhere meets
our arguments ; but merely cavils at one or two collateral
points. It does not bring out, clearly and distinctly, any doc-
trine of its own ; but, so far as we can understand its loose
statements, it assumes that the witness is the Bible, interpreted,
not by private reason, but by private illumination, or what he
calls " the internal monitor." We prove by historical testi-
mony that the Scriptures contain the revelation of God, and
by the internal monitor we ascertain its sense.
But, 1. We cannot, by historical testimony, prove that the
Bible contains the whole revelation of God ; and yet, assum-
ing a revelation to have been made, and belief of it enjoined
as the condition of being saved, we can demonstrate, as we
have shown, by reason, that it is necessary to believe, and to
know that we believe, the whole.
2. There are many false prophets gone out into the world,
and we are not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits if
they be of God. 1 St. John, iv. 1. There must, then, be
some criterion by which we may distinguish the true from the
false. This cannot be the internal monitor, because that is pre-
cisely what we are to try. What is this criterion ? The bless-
ed Apostle tells us. " We are of God. He that knoweth
God heareth us. He that is not of God heareth not us. By
this we know the spirit of truth from the spirit oi error."
Ib. 6. If you have the spirit of truth, you hear the Apostles,
that is, abide in the Apostolic doctrine and communion. You
must, then, prove that you abide in the Apostolic doctrine and
THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
communion, before you have proved your right to follow your
" internal monitor."
3. We are commanded to give a reason to them that ask us
of the hope that is in us. But, according to the Observer it-
self, this inward witness is authority only for the individual him-
self, and, therefore, no reason to be assigned to others.
4. All men are required to believe the revelation God has
made, on pain of eternal condemnation. To believe the reve-
lation is to believe it in its integrity and genuine sense. But
it must be propounded to those who are as yet unbelievers in
this sense, as the condition of their believing it. Now, it must
be propounded with infallible evidence that it is the revelation
of God, or without it. If without it, unbelievers are justifia-
ble in rejecting it, which no Christian can admit. But if the
sense is to be ascertained only by the inward monitor of the
individual, it cannot be propounded with the infallible evidence
required, for this evidence must be evidence to the revelation
in its genuine sense, since otherwise that which is evidenced
would not be the word of God, but something else, the
words of man, or of the Devil.
5. The internal monitor is the Holy Ghost. Is the Holy
Ghost given to unbelievers ? If you say yes, we demand the
proof, which the Observer admits cannot be given. If you say
no, then, we ask, where is the sin of unbelievers in that they
are unbelievers ? The revelation is not credible, save in its true
sense. They who are not privately illuminated by the Holy
Ghost know not and cannot know it in its true sense. Then
they cannot believe it. Yet they are, by all Christian theology,
declared sinners in consequence of their unbelief. Is a man a
sinner for not doing what he has not the ability to do ?
6. But lastly, the practical effects of this doctrine prove that
it is not of God. It paves the way for lawless enthusiasm, and
the introduction of all manner of false doctrines. Every en-
thusiast may allege that he has the Holy Ghost, and though
what he teaches is as false as hell and wicked as the Devil, you
have no means of convicting him. He speaks by the Holy
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 91
Ghost ; would you shut the mouth of the Holy Ghost ? He
follows the Spirit ; would you resist the Spirit ? Each man is
the Ecclesia docens, and professes to speak with infallible au-
thority. What will you do ? What will you say ? Your
mouth is shut. Does not the Spirit witness to itself? What
right have you to oppose your Spirit to his ? Has he not as
high authority as you have ? You say, No ; he says, Yes ;
and how are you to prove your no is above his yes ? What is
to decide between you ? The Bible ? Not so fast. Your
rule of faith is the Bible interpreted by the internal monitor.
He appeals to the Bible, as well as you ; and the question is
not, whether the Bible be or be not the word of God, but
whether he or you have its genuine sense. What does the
Bible mean ? You, on the authority of what you call the Holy
Ghost, say it means this ; he, on what he alleges to be the
same authority, says it means that. Which of you is right ?
What is to decide ? Nothing. You cannot convict him, nor
he you. There you are, eternally at loggerheads, and the most
damnable heresies are rife in the land, and ruining the people,
both for this world and for that which is to come. This is one
of the glorious effects of your " glorious Reformation !" Can a
doctrine, leading to such disastrous consequences, be a doctrine
from God ? And has Almighty God provided no safer rule for
the instruction of his children in that faith he requires them to
believe as the condition of being saved ? Out upon the foul
blasphemy ! Say it not, but rather go and sit in sackcloth and
ashes at the foot of the cross, look on him ye have crucified, and
weep in silence over your folly and wickedness.
The Observer complains of us, that we assumed, in our ar-
gument, that Protestants admit that God has made us a revela-
tion, and that we did not reason with them as if they were Jews,
Mahometans, or infidels. Perhaps we were wrong in this, but
it will do us, we hope, the justice to acknowledge, that we did
not assume them to be believers in the revelation of God ; we
only assumed that they profess to believe it, at least, some por-
tions of it. We have known Protestants too long and too in-
92 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
timately to be guilty of the folly of inferring their belief from
their profession. We hope this explanation will satisfy the
Observer, and induce it to withdraw its complaint. We as-
sumed that Protestants admit that God has made us a revela-
tion, and that the Scriptures, so far as we had in our argument
occasion to appeal to that revelation, contain an authentic rec-
ord of it. This they profess ; and in reasoning with them, we
supposed it would be more respectful to take them at their pro-
fession than it would be to go behind it for their actual belief
or want of belief. If, however, they object to this, prefer to
have us reason with them as if they were infidels, and really
believe that this would be more in accordance with truth, we
will hereafter do our best to accommodate them.
On one point the Observer seems really to believe that it has
caught us in a difficulty, and its antics on the occasion are quite
diverting. We contended that we cannot elicit an act of faith
without an infallible witness to the fact of revelation, and that
this witness cannot be reason, the Bible, nor private illumina-
tion, but is and must be the Apostolic ministry. On this, the
Observer breaks out : " We have, then, no proof of the
fact of revelation, unless we can find it in the testimony of the
Apostolic ministry. Very well, Mr. Brownson, as the first
important matter is the fact that we have a revelation, bring
forward the witness. The witness ! the witness ! we must
have the witness !" With all my heart, dear Mr, Observer ;
only contain yourself a moment. You call for a witness to the
fact that God has made us a revelation, and to this fact you im-
ply that we have no witness to produce but the Apostolic min-
istry. With your leave, this is a mistake. There is a wide
difference between what we call the fact of revelation, and the
fact that God has made us a revelation. To the fact of reve-
lation, that is, to prove what is or is not the revelation Almighty
God has made, the Apostolic ministry is to us the only com-
petent witness ; but to the fact that Almighty God has made a
revelation, it is not, nor did we pretend or imply that it is, the
only witness. To this fact we adduce as the witness HISTORICAL
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 93
TESTIMONY, by which we prove that there was such a person as
Jesus Christ, and that he wrought miracles which prove him to
have spoken by divine authority. Here is the witness you
demand. Do you object to its testimony ? Bring forward,
then, your objections, and we will reply to them when we come
to defend the Church against infidels. *
If the Observer had read our article from page 45 to page
50, it would, perhaps, have suspected that we could extricate
ourselves more easily from the difficulty it has conjured up,
than it appears to have imagined. It is often a convenience
to understand your opponent, before attempting to refute him,
though sometimes an inconvenience, we admit, if one is
resolved beforehand, come what will, to have the " pleasure"
of refuting him. The Apostolic ministry, existing, as it has,
in uninterrupted succession through eighteen hundred years, is
itself, by the very fact of its existence, a proof of the fact that
Almighty God has made us a revelation ; but we did not ad-
duce it, nor are we obliged, by the logical conditions of our
argument, to adduce it, in proof of this fact ; for we prove this
fact independently of its authority, by the historical testimony
by which we establish the authenticity of the Scriptures as
historical documents.
The Observer accuses us of reasoning in a vicious circle,
because we assert that the Apostolic ministry is the only com-
petent witness to the fact of revelation, and yet appeal to the
Scriptures in proof of the fact that a revelation has been made,
and to determine the commission of the ministry. We con-
fess we can detect no vicious circle in this. The fact that a
revelation has been made was evidenced to those who lived in
the age in which it was, made by miracles, which accredited
those by whom it was made, as we showed in our article. We
appeal to the Scriptures, in the first instance, not to ascertain
what this revelation is, but as a simple historical record of the
miracles and other facts, which prove that a revelation has been
made, or that God has really spoken to man. " It is perfectly
legitimate to say, the Apostolic ministry is the only witness
94 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
competent to say what it is God has or has not spoken, and
yet appeal to the Scriptures as historical doctrines to prove
that he has spoken. Here is no vicious circle.
Nor do we reason in a vicious circle when we assume the
Apostolic ministry to be the only witness to the fact of revela-
tion, and yet adduce the Scriptures as historical documents in
proof of the commission of the ministry. Because we do not
first assume the authority of the ministry as the only proof of
the Scriptures as historical documents, and then adduce the
Scriptures in proof of the commission which authorizes it to
testify to that authenticity. We take the Scriptures, already
proved to be authentic historical documents, so far forth as his-
torical in their character, at least, so far forth as we have occa-
sion to use them in the argument, to prove one simple historical
fact, namely, the commission which Jesus Christ gave to his
Apostles ; and then we take the ministry, proved, through the
commission of the Apostles, to be Apostolic, as the witness to
the fact and the expounder of revelation, whether contained in
the Scriptures or deposited elsewhere. Here is no vicious cir-
cle, and we say so on the authority of the Observer itself. We
accused the advocates of private illumination with reasoning in
a vicious circle, when they take the witness to prove the Scrip-
tures, and then the Scriptures to prove the witness. Not at
all, says the Observer : " For while we take the Scriptures to
prove the witness, we do not take the witness to prove the
truth of the Scriptures, but their sense. The establishment of
the fact of their existence, as the record of God's revealed will,
is antecedent to their use to prove the witness, and independ-
ent of his testimony." This, though not a complete reply to
us, because, as a matter of fact, the establishment of the exist-
ence of the Scriptures as the record of God's revealed will is
not antecedent to their use to prove the witness, since the fact
that they are the record of the revealed will of God in its purity
and integrity is one of the facts to which the witness is to testify,
is nevertheless a valid distinction, and a complete refutation
of the Observer's charge against us. For, while we take the
VERSUS THE CHURCH.
95
Scriptures as historical documents, to prove the conmmission of
the Apostolic ministry, we do not take the Apostolic ministry
to prove that the Scriptures are authentic historical documents,
but to prove what is or is not the word which Almighty God
lias spoken. The establishment of the fact of their existence
as authentic historical documents is antecedent to their use to
prove the commission of the Apostolic ministry, and independ-
ent of its testimony. The blunder of the Observer comes from
confounding the fact of the existence of the Scriptures as au-
thentic historical documents with the fact of their authority as a
record of revelation.
The Observer, however, is not to be so easily balked of the
"pleasure" of refuting us.
" We want no easier task than to establish false religions on
the principle here laid down. There would be no difficulty to
get the appointment of a body of pastors and teachers, and then
to find witnesses to testify to the/actf of the appointment. And
then, if this body of teachers were allowed to say that such and
such books contained the record of a revelation from God, we
could not only have as many false teachers as we wanted, but a
correspondent number of spurious Bibles. If the lying ' witness '
swear to a false revelation, the untrue revelation would of course
vouch for the appointment of the witness. It is easy enough,
then, to bring historical testimony to the appointment of a wit-
ness ; but the authority of the witness is it from heaven, or
of men I If you say, of men, then, why believe the testimony ?
if from heaven, then it is a revealed fact, and on your principles
cannot be known but by the testimony of the ' witness.' Bishop
Sherlock, in his day, fell in with just such reasoners as Mr.
Brownson. and pushed them around the circle after this man-
ner : ' The Scriptures are very intelligent to honest and diligent
readers, in all things necessary to salvation ; and if they be not,
I desire to know how we shall find out the Church ; for certainly
the Church has no charter but what is in the Scriptures ; and
then, if we must believe the Church before we can believe or
understand the Scriptures, we must believe the Church before
we can possibly know whether there be a church or not ! If we
prove the Church by the Scriptures, we must believe and under-
stand the Scriptures before we can know the Church. If we
believe and understand the Scriptures upon the authority and
9
6
THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
interpretation of the Church, considered as a church, then we
must know the Church before the Scriptures. The Scripture
cannot be known without the Church, nor the Church without
the Scripture, and yet one of them must be known first ; yet
neither of them can be known first, according to these princi-
ples ; which is such an absurdity, as all the art of the world can
never palliate.'
" That Mr. Brownson may have no ground to say he is treat-
ed unfairly in this matter, we give him leave to hang upon just
which horn of the dilemma he may choose ; but as for hanging
upon both, we insist that he shall do no such thing." pp. 138,
139.
With the Observer's permission, we will, at present, hang on
neither horn. To the extract from Bishop Sherlock we reply,
that the Scriptures, as authentic historical documents, are logic-
ally, though not chronologically, in our argument, before the
Church as a divinely commissioned body ; but the Church, as
the divinely commissioned witness and expounder of the word
of God, is both logically and chronologically before the Scrip-
tures, for, as a matter of fact, the Church is older than the Scrip-
tures.
The divine authority of the commission is inferred from the
fact that it was given by Jesus Christ, proved, by the miracles
he performed, to speak by divine authority. The fact that he
wrought miracles, and the fact that he gave the commission, are
both historical facts, and provable by historical testimony, with-
out our being obliged to appeal to the authority of the witness.
But the authority of the commission, if of God, is a revealed
fact. If revealed, it can be proved only by the authority of
the Apostolic ministry, because that is the only witness we ac-
knowledge to the fact of revelation. Then we must assume the
divine authority of the commission as the condition of proving
it, which is absurd ; or we must admit some other witness than
the Apostolic ministry, and then we contradict ourselves, and
our whole reasoning falls to the ground. This objection was
urged against us by the Christian World, one of the organs
of the Unitarians. The reply is simple and easy. The Apos-
tolic ministry is nothing- but the continuation of Christ's own
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 07
ministry while lie \vas on the earth ; and the Church teaching,
which we have called the Apostolic ministry, was, while he
was on earth, in him. But in him its authority to teach is not
established by the commission to the Apostles, but by the
miracles he wrought. We take the authority of the Church
teaching in him while he was on earth, proved by miracles to
be of God, to establish the Divine authority of the commission
to the Apostles. Consequently, we neither deny the Apostolic
ministry to be the only witness, nor do we fall into the absurdity
of assuming the divine authority of the witness as the condition
of proving its divine authority. Will the Observer tell us on
which horn of his imagined dilemma we now hang ?
The commission to the Apostles created no new ministry, but
simply provided for the continuance, unto the consummation of
the world, of the visible ministry our blessed Saviour had him-
self exercised while on the earth. "As my Father hath sent
me, so send I you." When he was on earth the witness was
visible in him, now it is visible in the body of the pastors and
teachers of the Roman Catholic Church, but, though visible
under other conditions, it is one and the same ; " For, behold,"
says our blessed Saviour, "I am with you all days unto the
consummation of the world." He is the witness, and testifies
through them. Does the Observer ask a better witness ? If it
does, it must find him, for we never pledged ourselves to produce
a better.
One point more we notice, and then take our leave of this
Episcopal Observer, till we hear from him again. Our readers
will recollect the argument we used to identify the Ecclesia do-
cens, or Church teaching, with the Roman Catholic ministry.
" It is the Roman Catholic ministry. It can be no other. It
cannot be the Greek Church. The Greek Church was formerly
in communion with the Church of Rome, and made one corpo-
ration with it. The Church of Rome was then the true church,
Ecclesia docens, or it was not. If not, the Greek Church is
false, in consequence of having communed with a false church.
If it was, the Greek Church is false, because it separated from
it. So take either horn of the dilemma, the Greek Church is
5
98 THE EPISCOPAL OBSERVER
false, and its ministry not the apostolic ministry which inherits
the promises. The same reasoning will apply with equal force
to any of the Oriental sects not in communion with the see of
Rome ; and, a fortiori, to all the modern Protestant sects.
Therefore, the Roman Catholic ministry is the Apostolic corpora-
tion, because this corporation can be no other."
Upon this the Episcopal Observer remarks :
" It is one of the easiest things in the world to make out a
false conclusion, if one can be allowed to slip a false premise into
the process of induction. There are so many violations of the
rules of logic in the above paragraph, that the reader would
hardly have patience to follow us in their exposure. Precisely
the same reasoning, in the same words, with only a slight inter-
change of terms, will best show its absurdity.
"'It is the ministry of the Greek Church. It can be no
other. It cannot be the Roman Catholic ministry. The Ro
man Catholic Church was formerly in communion with the
Greek Church, and made one corporation with it. The Greek
Church was then the true church, JEcclesia docens, or it was not.
If not, the Church of Rome is false, in consequence of having
communed with a false church. If it was, the Church of Rome
is false, because it separated from it. So, take either horn of
the dilemma, the Church of Rome is false, and its ministry not
the Apostolic ministry which inherits the promises,' &c."
p. 141.
Now, will it be credited that we anticipated this retort and
replied to it ? Yet such is the fact. Here is what we said :
"You object, in behalf of the Greek Church, that Rome
separated from her, not she from Rome. This we deny. It is
historically certain, that the Greek Church, prior to the final
separation, agreed with the Church of Rome on the matters
(the Supremacy of the Pope and the Procession of the Holy
Ghost) which were made the pretexts for separation. In the
separation, the Greek Church denied what she had before as-
serted, while Rome continued to assert the same doctrine after
as before. Therefore the Greek Church was the dissentient
party. Prior to the separation, the Greek Church agreed with
the Roman in submitting to the papal authority. In the separ-
ation, the Greek Church threw off this authority, while the
Roman continued to submit to it. Therefore the Greek Church
was the separatist.
VERSUS THE CHURCH. 99
"You insist, that, though the act of separation may, indeed,
have been formally the act of the Greek Church, yet the separ-
ation was really on the part of Rome, who had corrupted the
faith, and rendered separation from her necessary to the purity
of the Christian Church. But, if this be so, whatever the cor-
ruptions of the faith Rome had been guilty of, the Greek Church
participated in them during her communion with Rome. If
they vitiated the Latin Church, they equally vitiated the Greek.
Then both had failed, arid the true Church, which we have seen
is indefectible, must have been somewhere else. ^Then the
Greek Church could become a true Church by separating from
the communion of the Latin Church only on condition of coming
into communion with the true Church. But it came into com-
munion with no Church. Therefore, the Greek Church, at any
rate, is false."
Yet the Observer nowhere notices the fact that we had thus
replied in advance, nor even that we were aware of the objec-
tion. It has not noticed these replies, express to its objection,
and yet it claims to have refuted us ! Yes, it has refuted us,
by urging the objections we ourselves brought, but without no-
ticing our answers ! This may be a refutation in the Protestant
sense, but, thank God ! it is not in the Catholic sense. The con-
duct of the Observer, in this respect, we shall not trust ourselves
to characterize as it deserves, nor shall we suffer it to surprise us.
Deprived, as the writer is, by the simple fact that he is a Protest-
ant, of the ordinary means of divine grace, nothing better was
to be expected of him. He has a cause to maintain, which does
not admit of candor and truthfulness, honesty and fair dealing,
and we should be more surprised to find him exercising such
virtues than we are by finding him sinning against them.
It is worthy of note that this Episcopal writer has passed over
the articles in our Review against his own church, and, church-
man as he professes to be, has entered the lists only against an
article the main design of which was to defend the Church
against No-Church. It is also worthy of note, that the objec-
tions he has brought against us were nearly all brought pre-
viously in the Christian Register and Christian World, the two
weekly organs of the No-Church Unitarians. What does this
100
indicate ? Are Unitarians and Episcopalians acting in concert ?
or are we to infer that a common dread of Catholicity is com-
bining all the various Protestant sects against the Catholic
Church ? This last seems to us not improbable. The signs of
the times seem to indicate that the several tribes of Goths, Van-
dals, Huns, and other barbarians, are forming a league for a new
invasion of Rome. Well, be it so. "He that dwelleth in
heaven shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall deride them."
The Episcopalians may read their destiny in that of the old
Donatists, whom, in many respects, they resemble ; and all the
Protestant sects combined are not so formidable to the Church
as were, at one period, the old Arians. The Church triumphed
over the Arians ; she will triumph over the Protestants. A
union whose principle is hatred will not long subsist, but will
soon break asunder. Protestantism is doomed. The Devil may
be very active and full of wrath, and utter great swelling words,
for a season, because he knows that his time is short ; but Prot-
estantism must go the way of all the earth. The Lord will
remember mercy, and will not much longer afflict the nations,
but will recall them to the bosom of his Church.
THORNWELL'S ANSWER TO DR. LYNCH *
APRIL, 1848.
SOMETIME in 1841, Mr. Thorn well, a Presbyterian minister,
and " Professor of Sacred Literature and the Evidences of Chris-
tianity in the South- Carolina College," published, anonymously,
in a Baltimore journal, a brief essay against the divine inspira-
* The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament proved to be Corrupt
Additions to the Word of God. The Arguments of Romanists from
the Infallibility of the Church and the Testimonies of the Fathers in
Behalf of the Apocrypha discussed and refuted. By JAMES H.
THORNWELL. New York : Leavitt, Trow, & Co. Boston : Charles
Tappan. 1845. 16mo. pp. 417.
*
TO DR. LYNCH, 10f
tion of those books of the Old Testament which Protestants
exclude from the canon of Scripture. To this essay, as subse-
quently reprinted with the author's name, the Rev. Dr. Lynch,
of Charleston, S. C., replied, in a series of letters addressed to
Mr. Thornwell, through the columns of The Catholic Miscel-
lany. The volume before us is Mr. Thornwell's rejoinder to Dr.
Lynch, and contains, in an Appendix, the original essay, and the
substance of Dr. Lynch's reply to it. The rejoinder consists of
twenty-nine letters, which cover nearly the whole ground of
controversy between Catholics and Protestants, and, though
written in a Presbyterian spirit, they are respectable for ability
and learning. The work, though nothing surprising, is, upon
the whole, above the general average of publications of its class.
The purpose of the essay was to "assert and endeavor to
prove that Tobit, Judith, the additions to the Book of Esther,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah,
the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susannah, the
Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the First and Second Books
of Maccabees are neither sacred nor canonical, and of course of
no more authority in the Church of God than Seneca's Letters
or Tally's Offices." (pp. 339, 340.) In the present work, the
author attempts to maintain the same thesis, and to refute the
objections urged by Dr. Lynch against it. He professes on his
very title-page to have proved the books enumerated " to be
corrupt additions to the word of God," and to have discussed
and refuted " the arguments of Romanists from the infallibility
of the Church and the testimonies of the Fathers in their
behalf." The question very naturally arises, Has he done this ?
Has he proved that these books are uninspired, as he must have
done, if he has proved them to be corrupt additions to the word
of God; and has he refuted the arguments of Catholics, or
rather of Dr. Lynch, in their behalf ?
The arguments which Dr. Lynch adduces for these books are
drawn from the infallibility of the Church and the testimony of
the Fathers. If the Church is infallible, the testimony of the
Fathers is of subordinate importance, for the infallibility alone
102 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
suffices for the faithful ; if the Church is not infallible, it is of
still less consequence what the Fathers testify ; for then all faith
is out of the question, both for Catholics and all others. We
may, therefore, waive all consideration, for the present, of the
argument for the deutero-canonical books drawn from the testi-
mony of the Fathers, and confine ourselves to that drawn from
the infallibility of the Church. The argument from infallibility
must, of course, be refuted, before the author can claim to have
refuted Dr. Lynch, or to have proved his general thesis, that
the books in question are " corrupt additions to the word of
God."
The Catholic Church, undeniably, includes these books in
her canon of Scripture, and commands her children to receive
them as the word of God. This is certain, and the author
concedes it; for he adduces it as a proof of her "intolerable
arrogance." If she is infallible in declaring the word of God,
as all Catholics hold, these books are certainly inspired Scrip-
lure, and rightfully placed in the canon. This is the argument
from infallibility; and it is evident to every one who under-
stands what it is to refute an argument that it can be refuted
only by disproving the infallibility, or, what is the same thing,
proving the fallibility, of the Church. To prove the Church
fallible, moreover, it is not enough to refute the arguments by
which Catholics are accustomed to prove her infallibility; for
a doctrine may be true, and yet the arguments adduced in
proof of it be unsound and inconclusive. It will, therefore,
avail the author but little to refute our arguments for the in-
fallibility, unless he refutes the infallibility itself; for so long
as he is unable to say positively that the Church is fallible, he
is unable to refute the argument from her infallibility. It may
still be true that she is infallible, and if she is, the books are
not uninspired compositions, but infallibly the word of God.
Mr. Thornwell, who regards himself as an able and sound
logician, appears to have some consciousness of this, and in-
deed to concede it. Accordingly, he devotes a third of his
whole volume to disproving the infallibility of the Church, or
TO DR. LYNCH. 103
rather, to proving her fallibility. "I have insisted," he says
in his Preface, "largely on the dogma of infallibility, more
largely, perhaps, than my readers may think consistent with the
general design of my performance, because I regard this as
the prop and bulwark of all the abominations of the Papacy."
(p. S.)
But to prove the fallibility of the Church, or to. disprove her
infallibility, is a grave undertaking, and attended with serious
difficulties. The Church cannot be tried except by some stand-
ard, and it is idle to attempt to convict her on a fallible au-
thority. If the conviction is obtained on a fallible authority,
the conviction itself is fallible, and it, instead of the Church,
may be the party in the wrong. The Professor cannot take a
single step, cannot even open his case, unless he has an infalli-
ble tribunal before which to summon the Church, some infal-
lible standard by which to test her infallibility or fallibility. But
before what infallible tribunal can he cite her ? What infallible
authority has he on which he can demand her conviction ?
The only possible way in which the fallibility of the Church
can be proved is by convicting her of having actually erred on
some point on which she claims to be infallible. But it is evi-
dent, that, in order to be able to convict her of having erred on
a given point, we must be able to say infallibly what is truth or
error on that point. Clearly, then, the Professor cannot com-
mence his action, much less gain it, unless he has an authority
which pronounces infallibly on the points on which he seeks to
convict her of having actually erred. But what authority has
he ? Unhappily, he does not inform us, and does not appear to
have recognized the necessity on his part of having any author-
ity. He sets forth, formally, no authority, designates no court,
specifies no law, lays down no principles. This is a serious
inconvenience, and affects both his legal and his logical attain-
ments. His argument, let him do his best, must be minus its
major proposition ; and from the minor alone we have always
understood that it is impossible to conclude any thing.
Mr. Thornwell denies the infallibility of the Church, and he
104
recognizes no infallible authority in any one of the sects, includ-
ing even his own. He has, then no authority which he can al-
lege, but the authority of reason, and his own private judgment.
His own private judgment is of no weight, and cannot be ad-
duced in a public discussion. The authority of reason we ac-
knowledge to be infallible in her own province ; but her pro-
vince is restricted to the natural order, and she has no jurisdic-
tion in the supernatural order, to which the Church professes to
belong. The Church has the right to be tried by her peers.
Reason is not, and cannot be, the peer of the supernatural, and
is totally unable, in so far as the Church lies within the super-
natural order, to pronounce any judgment concerning her infalli-
bility one way or the other.
Reason, undoubtedly, knows that God is, and that he can
neither deceive nor be deceived. It knows, therefore, if he ap-
points the Church, commissions her, as his organ, to declare his
word, that she must declare it infallibly ; for then it is he him-
self that declares in her declaration, and if she could either de-
ceive or be deceived, he himself could either deceive or be de-
ceived. If, then, reason finds sufficient or satisfactory grounds
for believing that God has appointed or instituted the Church to
declare his word, to teach all nations to observe all things what-
soever he has revealed, it pronounces her infallible, and acknowl-
edges its obligation to receive, without any questioning, what-
ever she teaches.
Reason, again, knows that God cannot be in contradiction
with himself, and therefore, since both the natural order and the
supernatural are from him, that he cannot establish principles in
the one repugnant to those established in the other. On the
authority of reason, then, we may always assert that he cannot
teach one thing in the natural order and its contradictory in the
supernatural order. If, then, it be clearly established, that the
Church, on matters on which she claims to teach infallibly,
teaches what is in contradiction either to the supernatural or the
natural order, it is certain that she is fallible. But as reason
cannot go out of the order of nature, we can on its authority
TO DR. LYNCH. 105
establish the fallibility of the Church only on the condition of
convicting her of having actually contradicted some law or prin-
ciple of the natural order. If the Church, in other words, con-
tradict reason, reason is competent to conclude against her, but
not when she merely transcends reason ; for what is above rea-
son may be true, but what is against reason cannot be.
It follows from this that the authority of reason in the case
before us is purely negative, and that the Professor can conclude
from it against the Church only on condition that he proves
that she actually contradicts it. But it is necessary even here
to bear in mind that the natural can no more contradict the
supernatural than the supernatural the natural. When the
motives of credibility have convinced reason that the Church
teaches by supernatural authority, her teaching is as authorita-
tive as any principle of reason itself, and may be cited to prove
that what is alleged against her as a principle of reason is not a
principle of reason, with no less force than the alleged principle
itself can be cited to prove that she contradicts reason. The
Professor must, then, in order to prove her fallibility, adduce a
case, not of apparent contradiction, but of real contradiction,
a case in which what she teaches must evidently contradict an
evident principle of reason, so evident that it is clear that to
deny it would be to deny reason itself.
The position, then, which the Professor must take and main-
tain, in order to establish his thesis, is, that the Church, in her
teaching on matters on which she claims to teach infallibly, has
taught or teaches what contradicts an evident and undeniable
principle of reason. This he must do before he can prove the
fallibility of the Church, and he must prove the fallibility of the
Church before he can refute the argument drawn from it for the
books enumerated. Has he proved this ? Unhappily, he does
not appear to have understood that this was at all necessary, or
to have suspected that it was only by proving the Church to be
against reason that he could conclude her fallibility. He does
not appear to have known that there are and can be no ques-
tions debatable between Catholics and Protestants but such as
\
06
pertain exclusively to the province of reason. He labors under
the hallucination, that he has something besides the reason com-
mon to all men which he may oppose to us, that he has the re-
velation of Almighty God, and that he is at liberty to attempt
to convict the Church, not on reason alone, but also on the word
of God. This would be ridiculous, if the matter were not so
grave as to make it deplorable. He has no word of God to
cite against us, and if he cites the Holy Scriptures at all, he
must cite them either in the sense of the Church, or as simple
historical documents ; because it is only in the sense of the
Church that we acknowledge them to be inspired. We can
cite them as inspired Scripture against him, as an aryumcntum
ad hominem ; for he holds them to be inspired Scripture as in-
terpreted by private judgment. But he cannot against us ; for
the argument would not be ad hominem, unless cited in the
sense of the Church, since it is only in that sense, that, on our
own principles, they are the word of God.
The fact is, Mr. Thornvvell from first to last forgets in his
argument that we are as far from admitting his authority as he
is from admitting ours. He writes under the impression, that
he has the true Christian doctrine, and is invested with ample
authority to define what is, and what is not, the word of God.
He assumes his Presbyterianism to be true, and when he has
proved that Catholicity contradicts it, he concludes at once that
Catholicity is false. But Presbyterianism is only his private
judgment, and therefore of no authority. By what right does
he erect his private judgment into a criterion of truth and
falsehood, assume that it is infallible, and proceed to pronounce
ex cathedra on the revealed word of God ? We cannot recog-
nize his authority as sovereign pontiff, unless he brings us
credentials from heaven, duly signed and witnessed. His as-
sumption we cannot admit. He is confessedly fallible, and his
decisions we cannot even entertain. He does not come to us
duly commissioned by Almighty God to teach us his word ; he
is simply a man, with no authority in the premises which may
not be claimed and exercised by every other man as well as by
TO DR. LYNCH. 107
himself. In an argument with Catholics 'he can be only a man,
and is at liberty to adopt no line of argument that would not
be equally proper in the case of a pagan, Mahometan, or any
other infidel.
Protestant controversialists are exceedingly prone to forget
this. They assume that they have the word of God, that they
know and believe what God has revealed, and that they have in
their opinions a standard by which to try the Church. Yet they
claim to be reasoners, and tell us that we have surrendered our
reason ! But whether the Church be or be not commissioned
to declare the word of God, it is certain that they are not.
Certain is it, that, if she is not authorized to declare it, no one
else is ; and equally certain is it, that no one not so authorized
has any right to adduce in an argument any thing he takes to
be the word of God, save by the sufferance or consent of his
opponents. It is a grave mistake to suppose that there is any
other common ground between us and our adversaries than that
of reason. It will not do for our adversaries to suppose, that,
because we hold to the inspiration of the Scriptures, they may
allege them in their own sense against us ; for we admit their
inspiration only on the authority, and in the sense, of the Church.
On her authority, and in the sense in which she defines their
doctrines, we hold them to be the word of God ; but in no
other sense, and on no other ground. Independently of her
authority and interpretations, there are no inspired Scriptures
for us. This fact must never be lost sight of, and it would save
Protestants an immense deal of labor, if they would keep it in
mind, and govern themselves accordingly. If they cite the
Bible against us, on any authority or in any sense but that of
the Church, it is not for us the word of God, but simply their
private opinion, by which we are not and cannot be bound.
Among ourselves, who admit the authority of the Church, and
therefore the inspiration of the Scriptures, it is lawful, on a point
on which the actual teaching of the Church is matter of inquiry,
to appeal to the written word, as also to the Fathers and Doctors
of the Church, and also to the analogies of faith ; but it is never
[08
THORNWELL'S ANSWER
lawful for those out of the Church, denying her authority, to
make a like appeal against us ; for the authority to which we
appeal is resolvable into the authority of the Church, which
they deny.
The rule we here insist upon is that of common sense and
common justice, and rests for its authority on the principle,
that no man has the right to assume in his argument the point
that is in question. We ourselves cite the Scriptures against
our adversaries, but always either ad hominem, because they,
though we do not, admit their inspiration independently of the
authority of the Church, or as simple historical documents,
whose authenticity and authority as such documents, but not as
inspired writings, reason is competent to determine. But we
never assume our Church and her definitions as the authority
on which to convict those without of error ; for to do so would
be a sheer begging of the question. Undoubtedly, if our Church
is right, all her adversaries are wrong. It needs no argument
to prove that. We, therefore, take our stand in the argument,
either on what our adversaries concede, or on the common rea-
son of mankind, and attempt to prove from the one or the
other, or both, that every one is bound to believe and obey the
Church. Protestants must not expect us to allow them more
than we claim for ourselves. They may need more in order to
make out their case ; but we are not aware that they have any
right to special privileges, or to exemption from the common
obligations of reason and justice. As there are no concessions
of ours which can avail them, they must in their controversies
with us take their stand on the reason common to ah 1 men, and,
since common to all, alike theirs and ours. They must bring
their action at common law, not on a special statute. Then they
must restrict themselves to those questions which come within
the jurisdiction of reason, and which she is competent to decide
without appeal. Then they must waive all questions which
pertain to the subject-matter of revelation ; for these all unde-
niably lie in the supernatural order, and therefore without the
province of reason.
.
TO DR. LYNCH. 10
We frankly concede that Mr. Thornwell lias proved that
Catholicity is not Presbyterianism, and that, if Presbyterianism
is the revelation of God, Catholicity is not. But this amounts
to nothing ; Presbyterianism is neither proved nor conceded to
be Christianity. He cannot, therefore, assume it against us.
We concede him not one inch of Christian ground on which to
set his foot. We demur to every argument he adduces or at-
tempts to adduce from the convictions or prejudices of his sect,
or from his own conceptions of the word of God. We listen to
no arguments, we entertain no objections, we plead to no char-
ges, not drawn from the common reason of mankind. We must,
therefore, beg him to descend from his tripod, and meet us as
a man with no authority but that which belongs to the reason
of every man.
We must, in view of this state of the case, eliminate from
Mr. Thornwell's arguments against infallibility, as not to be en-
tertained, all that he urges on the authority of his own religious
convictions or prejudices, and confine ourselves simply to what
he adduces on the simple authority of reason. These last, all
that is legitimately adduced, consist of an attempted refutation
of Dr. Lynch's argument for the infallibility of the Church, and
certain philosophical, historical, and moral objections alleged
against the Church.
We might well pass over Mr. Thornwell's attempt to refute
Dr. Lynch's argument for infallibility, because, if successful, it
would accomplish nothing to his purpose. The argument he has
to refute is the argument from the infallibility of the Church,
not the argument for it ; for the question is not on believing
that infallibility, but on denying it. It may, as we have said,
be true, and yet the arguments by which we attempt to prove
it be unsound and inconclusive. The defect of proof is a good
reason for not believing, but it is not always an adequate reason
for denying. The thesis the Professor seeks to maintain requires
him to deny the infallibility of the Church, or to assert her falli-
bility, and therefore the burden of proof devolves on him. He
asserts that the disputed books are corrupt additions to the word
.
of Go
foci, which he cannot possibly prove without disproving the
infallibility of the Church, which declares them to be inspired
Scripture. But he claims to have won a victory over Dr.
Lynch, and his friends have bound the laurel around his brows.
We are, therefore, disposed to subject his claim to a slight exam-
ination, and to inquire if his shouts have not been a little pre-
mature, and if, after all, the victory does not remain with his
opponent. If he has succeeded, he has gained nothing for his
thesis ; but if he has failed, we can conclude against it at once,
at least so far as he is concerned.
Mr. Thornwell states Dr. Lynch's general argument for the
disputed books to be,
" Whatever the pastors of the Church of Rome declare to be
true must be infallibly certain :
" That the Apocrypha [the books enumerated] were inspired,
the pastors of the Church of Rome declare to be true :
" Therefore it must be infallibly certain."
This is slated in Mr. Thornwell's language, not in Dr. Lynch's,
and is by no means so well expressed as it might be ; but let
that pass. Substituting the names of the books alleged by Mr.
Thornwell to be corrupt additions to the word of God for the
term Apocrypha, we are willing to accept it. To this argument,
which he has shaped to suit the objections he wishes to bring
against it, Mr. Thornwell's first objection is, that it is " vitiated
by the ambiguity of the middle." The words " pastors of the
Church," may be'understood either universally, particularly, or
distributively, to mean the whole body of the pastors, some of
them, and every one individually.
Ambiguity of the middle is where the words are taken in one
sense in the major, and in another sense in the minor; but
where they are taken in the same sense in both the premises,
although in themselves susceptible of several meanings, there is
no ambiguity of the middle. In the argument as stated, the
words, pastors, &c., are, in themselves considered, susceptible of
the senses alleged, but as used in the argument they are tied
down to one sense. The rule of construction is, to understand
TO DR. LYNCH.
,
all words used in a general or universal sense, unless there be
some reason, expressed or implied, in the context or the nature
of the subject, for not doing so. There is, in the present case,
no such reason in either premise, and therefore we must take
the words generally, or universally, in both, for the whole body
of pastors. If so, there is no ambiguity of the middle.
But Mr. Thornwell asserts that Dr. Lynch does use the words
in the three different senses mentioned. He accuses him of
meaning by them, at one time, the whole body of pastors col-
lected or assembled in council, at another time, a part only, and
finally, every one individually ; and alleges as proof, the fact,
that in his Letter he predicates infallibility, 1. of the whole body
of pastors in their collective capacity, 2. of the Council of
Trent, in which only a part were personally assembled, and 3. of
each single teacher or missionary.
1. That Dr. Lynch, when he predicates infallibility of the
body of pastors in their collective capacity, means the whole
body, takes the words, pasters, &c., universally, is conceded, but
that he means the whole body assembled in council we deny.
He speaks of them as a body of individuals in their collective
capacity, not as a collected or congregated body ; and that he
does not mean the body of pastors assembled in council is evi-
dent from the fact, that he contends that the pastors of the
Church had decided the question of the inspiration of the books
in dispute long before the Council of Trent, since, to do so, they
did not need to assemble in a general council. Thus he says
expressly, "The doctrines of the Catholic Church can be
known from the universal and concordant teaching of her pas-
tors, even when her bishops have not assembled in a general
council and embodied those doctrines in a list of decrees." (pp.
370, 371.) It is evident, then, that Dr. Lynch holds the pas-
tors of the Church to be a body of individuals, to have a collec-
tive capacity, and the faculty of teaching infallibly in that capa-
city, even when not congregated. If Mr. Thornwell had recog-
nized a difference between collective and collected, or congregated,
,.
THORN WELL 8 ANSWER
he would easily have surmounted this part of his difficulty, with-
out any foreign aid.
2. The acts of the Holy Council of Trent, touching faith and
morals, Dr. Lynch unquestionably holds to be infallible, not be-
cause he predicates infallibility of a part of the body of pastors,
but because they were the acts of the whole Church represented
in it, or at least made so by subsequent adoption, as is evident
enough from his language. The proof, therefore, that he takes
the words in a partitive sense, is inadequate.
3. That each single pastor teaches infallibly in his collective
capacity, as " member " of the body of pastors, is conceded, but
that he does so individually or in his individual capacity is de-
nied ; for in his individual capacity he cannot teach at all. Dr.
Lynch speaks of his teaching infallibly only in his capacity as
member of the body. As member of the body, the only sense
in which he is a teacher at all, he participates of its infallibility
and teaches by its authority, and infallibly, not because he is in-
dividually infallible, but because it is infallible. Consequently
in representing the single teacher as teaching infallibly, Dr.
Lynch does not use the words pastors, &c., in a distributive
sense.
Mr. Thornwell is unfortunate in his proofs, notwithstanding he
had shaped his statement of the argument with special reference
to them. He fails to substantiate his objection of " ambiguity
of the middle," and consequently all that he says, which is
founded on it, falls to the ground. The beautiful argument he
had constructed to prove that a Catholic can never know when
and where to find the infallible authority on which he had ex-
pended so much labor, and lavished so many rare ornaments,
falls to pieces through default of a foundation. Decidedly, it is
an inconvenience to build without any thing to build with or to
build on. It is worse than being compelled to make bricks with-
out straw.
Mr. Thornwell, after his objection to the form of the argument,
proceeds to deny and to refute its major, namely, the infallibility
of the Church. His first effort is to refute Dr. Lynch's argu-
TO DR. LYNCH.
ment for it. Dr. Lynch contends that " we cannot be called on
to believe any proposition without adequate proof;" that " when
Almighty God designed to inspire the works contained in the
Holy Scriptures, he intended they should be believed to be in-
spired ;" and that " therefore there does exist some adequate
proof." Thus for all is evident enough, and the Professor brings
no objection to what is alleged. We may presume it, then, as
conceded, that there does exist some adequate proof of their
inspiration, that is to say, some authority competent to declare
the fact. What is it ? " It must be," says Dr. Lynch, " a body
of individuals to whom, in their collective capacity, God has
given authority to make an unerring decision on the subject."
It must be such a body, because it can be nothing else. This
body is composed of the pastors of the Catholic Church. There-
fore the pastors of the Catholic Church have authority to make
an unerring decision, that is, have infallible authority to declare
the word of God.
Mr. Thornwell does not deny, that, if such a body exists, it
is the pastors of the Roman Catholic Church. On this point
he raises no question, and we may regard him as conceding
it. He denies the necessity of any such body as Dr. Lynch
asserts. He objects, first, to the form of the argument by which
Dr. Lynch undertakes to prove it. The argument, he says, sins
by an imperfect enumeration of particulars. It is a destructive
disjunctive conditional, which must contain in the major all the
suppositions which can be conceived to be true, and in the minor
destroy all but one. But Dr. Lynch has not included all such
suppositions in his major, and therefore, conceding that he ha*
destroyed in the minor all he has enumerated save one, he is not
entitled to his conclusion. Dr. Lynch has enumerated four
methods : 1. Every individual, on the strength of his own
private examination, is to decide for himself, private judgment ;
2. Every individual, is to receive books as inspired, or reject them
as uninspired, according to the decisions of such persons as he
judges qualified by their erudition and sound judgment to deter-
mine the question, the judgment of the learned ; 3, We must
THORNWELL'S ANSWER
take the inspiration of Scripture from some individual whom
God has commissioned to announce this fact to the world ; or
4. From a body of individuals to whom, in their collective capac-
ity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision on
the subject. But a fifth supposition is possible, says the Profes-
sor, namely, " God himself by his Eternal Spirit may condescend
to be the teacher of men, and enlighten their understandings to
perceive in the Scriptures themselves infallible marks of their in-
spiration. " This supposition Dr. Lynch has " entirely overlook-
ed, " " strangely suppressed," and therefore cannot even by de-
stroying the first three suppositions conclude the fourth.
But Dr. Lynch has not "entirely overlooked," "strangely
suppressed," this fifth supposition, but expressly mentions it, and
gives his reason for not including it in the number of supposable
methods. Mr. Thornwell has generously furnished us the evi-
dence of this. After enumerating the four methods stated, Dr.
Lynch says (Appendix, p. 359) : " I might perhaps add a fifth
method ; that each one be informed what books are inspired by
his private spirit. But I omit it, as, were it true, it would be
superfluous, if not a criminal intrusion on the province God
would have reserved to himself, to attempt to prove or disprove,
when our duty would be simply to await in patience the revela-
tion to each particular individual. You are not a member of the
Society of Friends, and your essay is not an expose of the teach-
ings of your private spirit, but an effort to appeal to argument. "
With this passage before his eyes, we cannot understand how
the Presbyterian minister could assert that Dr. Lynch entirely
overlooked this fifth method, for undeniably the Catholic Doctor
means by the private spririt precisely the same thing the Pres-
byterian does by God condescending to teach men by his Eternal
Spirit. Moreover, the reasons assigned by Dr. Lynch for not
including it in the list of supposable methods are conclusive, at
least till answered. These reasons are two : 1. That, if assum-
ed, all argument would be forclosed, either as superfluous or as
criminal ; and 2. Mr. Thornwell evidently rejects it, because he
appeals to argument, and therefore against him it cannot be
TO DR. LYNCH.
...
necessary to include it. These are solid reasons, and Mr. Thorn-
well should have met them before accusing Dr. Lynch of having
entirely overlooked the method of interior illumination, and es-
pecially before insisting upon its being supposable.
Mr. Thorn well is apparently disposed to maintain that this
fifth method is the one actually adopted, but this he is not at
liberty to do. The method is private, not public, and cannot be
appealed to in a public debate. In a public debate, the appeal
must always be to a public authority, that is, to an authority
common to both parties. If the authority to which the appeal
is to be made is private, there can be no public debate ; if pri-
vate, interior, immediate, as must be the teachings of the spirit,
there can be no argument. Argument in such a case would be
superfluous and even criminal. When, therefore, a man resorts,
on a given question, to argument, and to public argument, he
necessarily assumes that the authority which is to determine the
question is public, and denies it to be private. Mr. Thornwell
in his essay made his appeal to argument, and wrote his essay
to prove that the question he raised is to be settled, not by the
private spirit, but by public facts, arguments, and authority.
He therefore cannot fall back on the private spirit. Having
elected public authority, he must abide by it. If he cannot
now fall back on the private spirit, he cannot allege it as a sup-
posable method ; and if he cannot so allege it, he cannot accuse
Dr. Lynch's argument of sinning by an imperfect enumeration
of particulars, because it omits it.
Mr. Thornwell, furthermore, is very much affected by Dr.
Lynch's supposed temerity in restricting the number of suppo-
sable methods to the four enumerated. He grows very eloquent,
and manifests no little pious horror at what he calls an effort to
set bounds to Omnipotence. All this is very well, but he him-
self excludes the method of private teaching, by writing his
book to prove, on other grounds, that the books in question are
uninspired, and he does not even attempt to suggest an addi-
tional method. Nobody, unless it be himself, seeks to limit Om-
nipotence ; nobody, to our knowledge, denies that Almighty
God might have adopted the private method, if he had chosen to
do so. The question is not, as is evident from the whole train of
Dr. Lynch's reasoning, on abstract possibilities, but on what is or
is not possible in hac providentia. Nobody pretends that the
private spirit is not supposable because it is metaphysically im-
possible, but it is not supposable because incompatible with
other things which we know must be supposed, and which Mr.
Thormvell undeniably does suppose.
The alleged fifth method not being supposable, unless Mr.
Thormvell chooses to condemn himself for attempting to argue
the question, and to confess that all his arguments are senseless
and absurd, nay, profane and criminal, the objection raised to
Dr. Lynch's major falls to the ground ; and as he does not pre-
tend that the conclusion is not logical, he must grant the con-
clusion or deny the minor. But he cannot grant the conclu-
sion without conceding the infallibility of the Church, which
he seeks to disprove. He therefore asserts that " the minor is
lame, and can at best yield only a lame and impotent conclusion. "
The minor is proved only by removing or destroying the first
three suppositions. But this is not done ; for the arguments
by which Dr. Lynch seeks to do it apply with equal force
against the fourth, which he must retain. But the legitimacy
of this reply is questionable. One of the four suppositions
must be true, for some adequate proof does exist. If the ob-
jections adduced are in themselves considered sufficient to re-
move the three, they cannot be urged against the fourth, for
that would prove too much, namely, that there is no adequate
proof. If insufficient, they must then be shown to be so on
other grounds, or else we can always reply, one supposition
is true, apd it must be the fourth, because it cannot be one
or another of the first three.
We deny the assertion, that the arguments against the three
apply with equal force against the fourth. We begin with Dr.
Lynch's argument against the first supposition, that every
individual is to decide for himself on the strength of his own
examination. This is utterly impossible ; for the bulk of man-
TO DR. LYNCH.
,
kind want the ability, the leisure, and the opportunity to acquire
the amount of science and erudition necessary to enable them
to come to an absolutely certain conclusion on the subject of the
inspiration of the Scriptures. This is evident to every one who
considers, 1. The controversies which have obtained respecting
the canon ; 2. The nature of the questions to be settled, and
what it needs to enable one to decide respecting the fact of the
inspiration of ancient books on intrinsic grounds ; 3. That every
one is required to believe the truth on the subject, not only after
a life of inquiry, and historical and scientific investigation, but
from the moment of coming to years of discretion ; and 4. The
actual condition of the generality of mankind in relation to sci-
ence and erudition. These considerations are amply sufficient
to disprove the first supposition ; for every one is commanded to
believe, and the proof, to be adequate, must be adequate in the
case of every one, of the ignorant slave and rude savage, as
well as of the learned and gifted few, of the boy or girl in
whom reason has just dawned, as well as of the scientific vete-
ran or the grey-haired scholar.
The Professor replies : The learning asserted to be necessary, if
necessary at all, must be so because the fact of inspiration in gen-
eral is not determinable without it, and therefore must be as
necessary in the body supposed as in the individual deciding for
himself. But the body must acquire it either by investigation
or by inspiration. If by investigation it has no advantage over
the individual, and whatever proves his inability applies with
equal force against its ability. If by inspiration, then it must
have the same learning to be able to determine the fact of its
own inspiration, and the people who are to receive its decision
must also have it in order to be able to judge of its inspiration.
Hence the Professor sums up triumphantly, " AVhen you shall
condescend to inform me how the Fathers of Trent could decide
with infallible certainty upon the Scriptures, without the learning
which is necessary, in your view, to understand the evidence, if
they themselves were uninspired", or how, if inspired, they could
without this learning, either be certain themselves of the fact, or
118 THORN WELL'S ANSWER
establish it with infallible certainty to the people, who, without
your learning, must judge of the inspiration of the Holy Coun-
C il 5 when, consistently with your principles, you resolve these
difficulties, one of the objections to your argument will cease. "
(p. 51.)
This is the argument in all its force. Its substance is, what-
ever difficulties there may be in the way of the method of pri-
vate judgment, precisely the same difficulties are in the way of
the body of individuals supposed, and can no more easily be
overcome by it than by the individual himself. This is the
common Protestant reply to our objections against the method
of private judgment, and is tantamount to saying, that a man
has just the same difficulties to overcome in simply declaring
what he believes and always has believed as in determining by
personal inquiry and examination what he ought to believe ; or
that it is as easy to ascertain and verify the truth we are igno-
rant of as it is merely to express with precision the truth we
already possess and always have possessed from the first mo-
ment of our existence !
But let us examine this famous argument, which, in one form
or other, is the great, and virtually the only, argument by which
Protestants seek to evade the force of the objections of Catho-
lics to their scheme of proof. Dr. Lynch asserts that a certain
amount of science and erudition is necessary to enable an indi-
vidual, on the strength of his own examination, to come to an
absolutely certain decision on the fact of the inspiration of an
ancient writing, whose inspiration is determinable, not on ex-
trinsic, but mainly on intrinsic grounds. Then, says the Profes-
sor, the same amount is necessary to enable an inspired indi-
vidual to judge of the evidence of his own inspiration. But this
conclusion can follow only from the assumption, that the evi-
dence of inspiration must be the same for the inspired and the
uninspired. If you make the evidence mediate in the uninspir-
ed, you must also make it mediate in the inspired ; and if im-
mediate in the inspired, then also immediate in the uninspired.
But it is not mediate in the inspired ; for, unquestionably, he
TO DR. LYNCH. 119
who inspires immediately evidences the fact to the one he in-
spires. How, then, contend for mediate evidence in the unin-
spired ? Grant this reasoning, and the author condemns him-
self. The evidence is immediate, and yet he has written a book
to settle the question by argument and erudition, both of which
are mediate. He has, on this hypothesis, evidently proved
nothing ; for he has offered inappropriate evidence, and must be
mistaken when he says that he has proved the books enumer-
ated to be " corrupt additions to the word of God. "
Again ; the Professor asserts, that, if the learning alleged be
necessary in the particular case, it is so because the fact of in-
spiration is determinable in no case without it, that is, that a
thing cannot be true in the particular unless it be true in the
universal, as if one should say, some men cannot be black,
because all men are not black; or, some are black, therefore
all men are black 1 We presume Mr. Thornwell's servant is a
black man ; therefore, he himself is a black man. The prin-
ciple the Professor adopts is, not only that what is true of the
genus must be true of the species, but, also, that what is true
of the species must be true of the genus. Thus, man is an ani-
mal ; but a goose is an animal ; therefore, man is a goose ;
or, a goose is an animal ; but man is an animal ; therefore, a
goose is a man. But the principle, if adopted, carries us farther
yet. It is the denial of all differentia, the fundamental error
of Spinozism or pantheism. Thus, under the genus substance,
God is substance ; but a moss is substance ; therefore, God is a
moss, or reverse it, and a moss is God ! Is this a principle to
be adopted by a Professor of " the Evidences of Christianity "
in so respectable an institution as the South Carolina College ?
Has the Professor yet to make his philosophy, as well as his
theology ?
But, evidently, there is a difference of species ; for the Pro-
fessor would take it as unkind, nay, uncivil, in us, if, because
he comes under the genus animal, as does every man, we should
insist on including him in the species goose. It cannot there-
fore, follow, that, because a thing is true in the particular, it
120 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
must be true in the universal. Consequently, Dr. Lynch may
assert that a certain amount of science and erudition is nec-
essary to decide on a particular fact by a particular agent,
on particular grounds, and yet not be obliged to concede that
the same amount 13 necessary in every case, whoever the agent,
and whatever the grounds on which he is to decide. The
amount alleged to be necessary may not be necessary in the
case of the inspired themselves to determine the fact of their
own inspiration ; it may not be necessary in the case of the
eyewitnesses of the miracles by which the inspired evidence the
fact that God speaks to and by them ; it may not be necessary
to those who receive the fact immediately from the inspired
themselves, or on the authority God himself has commissioned
to declare it ; and yet be indispensable in the case of a single
individual who has, on the strength of his own examination, to
decide whether a book written some two or three thousand
years ago is or is not an inspired composition ; as it needs no
argument to prove.
The knowledge, be it more or be it less, necessary in the case,
to determine what books are and what are not inspired, must be
possessed by the body supposed, as well as by the individual, we
concede ; and if that body is destitute of it and has it to learn,
it must learn it either from investigation or inspiration, we also
concede ; otherwise we deny it. But the body asserted in the
hypothesis is, by the very terms of the supposition, already in
possession of the truth, and of all the knowledge necessary to
declare it, and, in deciding the question, has only to declare
solemnly what it already holds and has held from the moment
of its institution. Therefore, it has to acquire the knowledge
neither by investigation nor by inspiration ; for it has not to ac-
quire it at all. Unless, then, the Professor chooses to maintain
that to declare what one already holds directly from our Lord
or his Apostles is the same thing as for an individual ignorant
of it to learn it by the examination of historical documents and
scientific investigation, he must concede that the parity he seeks
to establish between every individual deciding the fact of inspir-
-
TO DR. LYNCH. 121
ation on the strength of his own examination, and the Church,
or body of teachers supposed, doing it on the authority of our
Lord and his Apostles, from whom it received it immediately,
has no foundation except in his own fancy, and that the conclu-
sions whicli depend upon it fall to the ground.
The Professor's reasoning is vitiated by his supposing a body
of individuals totally different from that supposed in the hypoth-
esis he is arguing against. The body he supposes is no body
or corporation at all ; but a simple aggregation of individuals
who at any given time compose it. Between such a body and
the Apostles there must needs be all the distance of time and
space, that there is between the Apostles and the individuals
themselves. It would and it could possess only what the indi-
viduals composing it should bring to it, and they could bring to
it only what they acquire in their individual capacity. " The
mere fact of human congregation," as the Professor rightly con-
tends, could confer no power, beyond the aggregate power of the
individuals congregated. Hence the aggregate body, or collec-
tion of individuals, as well as the single individual, would need
to obtain, either by investigation or inspiration, the knowledge
necessary to come to an infallible decision. It needed no learned
professor to tell us all this, which is by no means beyond the
reach of any man of ordinary sense. Indeed, we feel humbled
when we find learned men bringing such objections to us, hum-
bled for ourselves, that they can think so meanly of our under-
standings as to suppose us capable of holding any thing against
which objections so obvious even to a child may be urged, and
humbled for them, that they should imagine, that, in bringing
such objections, they are telling something recondite, or that it
is possible that such objections can have any power to demolish
that lofty and spacious edifice, the Church, founded upon the
rock, firmly built and cemented, which has withstood all the
assaults of wicked men and devils for eighteen hundred years,
and against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, not even
to loosen a single stone or to detach a single tile.
But this body, this aggregate of individuals, is not the body
6
122
supposed by Dr. Lynch, and to prove that this has no advantage
over the individual is nothing to the purpose, for nobody cer-
tainly no Catholic, denies it. The Professor's argument is a sheer
paralogism, of that species which consists in proving what is not
supposed in the question, and which is not denied by the adver-
sary, a sophism for which the learned Professor has a peculiar
fondness, and into which he falls with remarkable facility. The
body supposed by Dr. Lynch is the Church teaching ; for he says,
" the pastors of the Catholic Church claim to compose it." But
the Catholic Church, as a body or corporation, the only sense in
which it is alleged to have any teaching faculty at all, is not an
aggregation of individuals who at any given time compose it,
a body born and dying with them ; but the contemporary of
our Lord and his Apostles, in immediate communion with them,
and thus annihilating all distance of time and place between
them and us. She is, in the sense supposed, a corporation, and,
like every corporation, a collective individual possessing the attri-
bute of immortality. She knows no interruption, no succession
of moments, no lapse of years. Like the eternal God, who is
ever with her, and whose organ she is, she has duration, but no
succession. She can never grow old, can never fall into the past.
The individuals who compose the body may change, but she
changes not ; one by one they may pass off, and one by one be
renewed, while she continues ever the same ; as in our own bod-
ies, old particles constantly escape, and new ones are assimilated,
so that the whole matter of which they are composed is changed
once in every six or seven years, and yet they remain always iden-
tically the same bodies. These changes as to individuals change
nothing as to the body. The Church to-day is identically that
very body which saw our Lord when he tabernacled in the flesh.
She who is our dear Mother, and on whose words we hang with
so much delight, beheld with her own eyes the stupendous mir-
acles which were performed in Judea eighteen hundred years
ago ; she assisted at the preaching of the Apostles on the day
of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended upon them in
cloven tongues of fire ; she heard St. Peter, the prince of the
TO DR. LYNCH. 123
Apostles, relate how the Spirit descended upon Cornelius and his
household, and declare how God had chosen that by his mouth
the Gentiles should hear the word of God and believe ; she list-
tened with charmed ear and ravished heart to the last admo-
nition of " the disciple whom Jesus loved," " My dear children,
love one another ; " she saw the old Temple razed to the ground,
the legal rites of the old covenant abolished, and the once chosen
people driven out from the Holy Land, and scattered over all
the earth ; she beheld pagan Rome in the pride and pomp of
power, bled under her persecuting emperors, and finally planted
the cross in triumph on her ruins. She has been the contem-
porary of eighteen hundred years, which she has arrested in
their flight and made present to us, and will make present to all
generations as they rise. With one hand she receives the de-
positum of faith from the Lord and his commissoned Apostles,
with the other she imparts it to us. Such is the body supposed,
between which and the individual Mr. Thornwell must establish
the parity he contends for, or not establish it at all. What has
this body to do, in order to decide what books are, and what are
not, inspired 1 Merely to declare a simple fact which she has
received on competent authority, merely what our Lord or his
Apostles have told her. What needs she, in order to do it with
infallible certainty ? Simply protection against forgetting, mis-
understanding, and misstating ; and this she has, because she
has, according to the hypothesis, our Lord always abiding with
her, and the Paraclete, who leads her into all truth, and " brings
to her remembrance " all the words spoken to her by our Lord
himself personally, or by his inspired Apostles, keeping her
memory always fresh, rendering her infallible assistance rightly
to understand and accurately to express what she remembers to
have been taught. Here are all the conditions requisite for an
infallible decision ; and all these must be supposed, because they
are all asserted in the hypothesis.
Now we demand what parity there is between such a body,
which has only to state what it believes and always has believed
on the inspiration of Scripture, and which has the supernatural
24 THORN WELL'S ANSWER
assistance of tlie Holy Ghost to state it infallibly, and an indi-
vidual who has nothing but certain writings before him, and who
has to determine, by the examination of documents and scien-
tific investigation of the intrinsic evidences, whether they are
inspired or not, a fact which, since it is supernatural, lies out
of the order of nature, and is therefore only extrinsically prov-
able. Who so blinded by passion, by pride, by prejudice, or
ignorance, as to pretend, that such a body, supposing it to exist,
can no more come to a certain conclusion, is in no better con-
dition for coming to a certain conclusion, on the fact of the in-
spiration of the Holy Scriptures, than an ignorant slave on our
plantations, or a rude savage of our forests ? Who is he ? In-
deed, it is the learned Presbyterian minister, the " Professor of
Sacred Literature and the Evidences of Christianity in the Soutli
Carolina College ! " It is evident to any man of ordinary sense,
that such a body can decide the question infallibly, and equally
evident that the ignorant slave or the rude savage cannot.
To the dilemma, therefore, in which the Professor affects to
have placed his Catholic opponent, we reply : The Council of
Trent could, uninspired, but simply assisted by the Holy Ghost,
decide with infallible certainty upon the inspiration of the Scrip-
tures, without the learning necessary in the case of the individual
deciding for himself on the strength of his own examination, be-
cause it had only to give an authoritative expression to the actual
faith of the body of pastors it represented, and it could estab-
lish the infallibility of its expression to the people who were to
receive it, because, to do so, it had only to establish that it did
express the universal faith of that body, easily collected from its
being received by the whole body as soon as made known. The
other part of the dilemma falls of itself. We do not assume,
nor are we obliged to assume, that the Fathers of Trent were
inspired. Inspiration is needed only where the truth to be pro-
mulgated is unknown and has to be revealed : where nothing is
to be done but infallibly state the truth already revealed and
believed, the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, without
inspiration, suffices.
TO DR. LYNCH. 125
We have here shown that the difficulties suggested are r*>
solvable on Catholic principles; the Professor must therefore
concede, according, to his promise, that one objection to Dr.
Lynch's argument ceases. But this one objection is his only
objection to that argument, so far as it bears against the first-
named method ; and since this is removed, the argument, thus
far, is not refuted. If not refuted, it, at least against the Pro-
fessor, is sound, and, then, the first method is destroyed, and
Dr. Lynch is entitled to his conclusion against it.
There remain to be considered the second and third supposi-
tions. The second, that of relying on the judgment of the
learned, the Professor passes over in profound silence, and
therefore yields it up as indefensible. It is remarkable, how-
ever, that Mr. Thorn well should do so ; for it is really the
method actually adopted by the majority of Protestants, and
abandoning it is virtually abandoning Protestantism itself. Un-
doubtedly, Protestants assert private judgment ; but the private
judgment on which they actually rely is not the private judg-
ment of each individual, but the private judgment of those
assumed to be learned and wise and prudent. Protestantism
must never be taken at its word ; for one of its essential prop-
erties is, to profess one thing and to do another, or to give us
the name without the thing, the sign without the thing signi-
fied. Whoever knows Protestants at all knows that they take
their opinions, not on their own private judgment, but on the
authority of their masters. Whenever they do not do so, we
find them becoming downright Rationalists, or absolute apos-
tates from Christianity ; and it is never, only as grouped around
some leader, swearing by the words of some master, that we
see them retain anything of the form of religion, or present any
compact appearance. The people are aware of their own ina-
bility to decide for themselves what they ought to believe, and
they only decide what heresiarch they will follow, what master
they will have. Thus they say, " So said Martin Luther, so
said John Calvin, or George Fox ; so teach Edwards and
Dwight, Owen and Gill, Wesley and Swedenborg, Murray and
126
Ballon, Charming and Fourier, Emerson and Parker." It is not
in himself the poor Protestant confides, but in some leader who
seems to him, for his learning, wisdom, and sound judgment,
worthy of confidence. If here and there a bold, energetic indi-
vidual starts up with perfect confidence in his own judgment,
arid has the courage or the audacity to proclaim, as the truth
of God, his own personal conceits or convictions, he either
founds a new sect, or a new party or faction in the sect, to
which he pertains ; as we see in the instance of Muncer and
George Fox, Brown ancl Sandeman, Wesley and Whitefield,
Erskine and Irving, Southcote and Pusey, Campbell and Bush-
nell, Channing and Parker. If each judged for himself, we
should see no sects, parties, or groups ; each would stand
alone, on his own two feet, acknowledging no master, and no
fellow, saying always 7, never able to say we.
This must needs be. How, except by relying on such men
as Mr. Thornwell, could the great body of Presbyterians, for
instance, come to any conclusion on the question discussed in
the volume before us ? In fact, they do not attempt to ob-
tain a conclusion by any other means. "Mr. Thornwell is a
godly man ; he is a great and learned man ; he has investigated
the subject ; he wont deceive us ; and we will believe what he
says." Here is the fact, disguise it as you will, and Mr. Thorn-
well knows it as well as we do. We must, therefore, regard his
passing this method over in silence as a tacit confession that in
his judgment Protestantism is not defensible.
Nevertheless, we cannot be much surprised that Mr. Thorn-
well passes this method over in silence. It is not a method to
be avowed. Protestant ministers would have a short lease of
their power, if they were to avow it. They would be pressed
with a multitude of questions, which it would be very incon-
venient to answer. " After all, " the justly indignant people
whom they have led might say, " this private judgment you
preached was only a pretext, a bait to catch gudgeons. You
never meant it ; you only meant that we must submit our judg-
ments to yours ! Is it true that you monopolize all the learning,
TO DR. LYNCH. 127
all the wisdom, all the judgment, in the world? What guaran-
ty can you give us, fallible men as you confess yourselves, that
you yourselves are not deceived, nay, that you are incapable
of deceiving us ? You deceived us, when you promised us
the right of private judgment. What reason have we to sup-
pose you do not deceive us in other things also ? " Such ques-
tions might be put, and, if put, it is obvious that it would be
very inconvenient to answer them.
The first method is disproved ; the second is abandoned ; only
the third remains. This, that of a single individual duly com-
missioned by Almighty God to announce the fact of inspiration
to the world, the Professor does not attempt to defend as true,
or as one which he does or can hold ; but he maintains, that^
on Catholic principles, it is probable, and therefore Dr. Lynch
is entitled only to a probable conclusion, not sufficient for his
purpose, because he must conclude with absolute certainty. The
Professor concludes, that, on Catholic principles, this hypoth-
esis is probable, from the fact, that, on Catholic principles, it
is a probable opinion that the Pope is infallible. But his argu-
ment involves a transition from one genus to another, and there-
fore concludes nothing. The single individual asserted in the
hypothesis is commissioned in his individual capacity to an-
nounce the fact, and it is in this capacity that he is to do it.
But such a commissioned individual is not the Pope, or Sov-
ereign Pontiff. No Catholic holds the Pope in his individual
capacity to be infallible. He is infallible, as we hold, and as
we presume Dr. Lynch also holds ; but only in his capacity
of Supreme Head of the Church, in which sense he is included
in the fourth hypothesis, as joined to the body of individuals
asserted, inseparable from it, and essential to it. Concede, then,
the infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff, nothing is conceded in
favor of the third method ; for in the sense in which he is infal-
lible he is the Church, or essentially included in the fourth
method ; since the head is not without the body, nor the body
without the head.
The third method, then, is not the method. Then no one
128
of the first three. Then the fourth is ; because some method
of proof does exist, and it can be no other. Mr. Thornwell,
therefore, has not refuted Dr. Lynch's argument. If he has
not refuted it, against him, it stands good. Then the method
of proof is the body supposed. But this body has author-
ity to make an unerring decision on the subject of inspiration,
that is, to declare unerringly what is or is not the word of
God, therefore infallible in declaring the word of God. But
this body is composed of the pastors of the Catholic Church.
Therefore the pastors of the Church are infallible in declaring
the word of God, the proposition Dr. Lynch undertook to prove.
It would seern from this, that the learned and logical Professor's
shouts of victory were decidedly premature. It is- clear, also,
since we are not considering what is or is not possible in the
abstract, but in hac providentia, that the whole controversy
turns between the first method and the fourth ; for the private
spirit is not admissible, and the Professor does not defend the
second, and cannot, and would not if he could, defend the third.
It is, then, either private judgment or the Catholic Church. So
the Professor virtually concedes or maintains. What, therefore,
he further adduces in his Fourth Letter, namely, that it is as easy
to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the infallibility of
the Church, cannot be entertained. There does exist some ade-
quate proof; this is conceded. It evidently cannot be the
method of private judgment ; for it is absolutely impossible for
a field slave, for instance, ignorant of letters, and with no time
or ability to learn, to be able to decide for himself, on his own
examination, whether Tobias or JEcclesiasticus is or is not an
inspired composition. But, if not private judgment, it must be
the infallible Church, and therefore the Church and its infalli-
bility follow from the necessity of the case. This necessity
overrides every possible objection. Bring as many objections
as you please, and we dismiss them, as proving, if any thing,
too much, and therefore nothing. Quod nimis probat, nihil
probat.
Thus far we have confined ourselves, after stating the ques-
TO DR. LYNCH. *29
tion> to showing that the Professor has not refuted Dr. Lynch &
argument for the infallibility of the Church. This has-been
perfectly gratuitous on our part, for the burden of proof is on
the Professor. But having vindicated Dr. Lynch's argument
for the infallibility of the Church, we are now able to conclude
it against Mr. Thornwell from the necessity of the case, the
strongest argument that it is possible to use. Infallibility over-
rides all objections ; and consequently, the Professor, let him do
his best, cannot prove the fallibility of the Church. Here, then,
we well might rest ; but we find our author rather an amusing
companion, and we should be sorry to part company with him
so soon. We hope, therefore, to be able, in an early number,
to consider the direct proofs of the fallibility of the Church,
which he has attempted to bring. In the meantime, we recom-
mend him, since he must hold his logical reputation dear, to
make himself acquainted with Catholicity, before attempting
again to write against it, and review also his logic, before he
again asks his opponent to reason in syllogisms.
THORNWELL'S ANSWER TO DR. LYNCH.*
JULY, 1848.
MR. THORNWELL begins his argument against the Church
(Letter IV.) by asserting, in substance, that we are unable to
prove her infallibility, or if able, only by a process which super-
sedes the necessity of an infallible church to determine what is
or is not the word of God. " It is just as easy," he says, " to
prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the infallibility of
* The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament proved to be Corrupt
Additions to the Word of God. The Arguments of Romanists from
the Infallibility of the Church and the Testimony of the Fathers in
Behalf of the Apocrypha discussed and refuted. By JAMES H.
THORNWELL. New York : Leavitt, Trow, & Co. Boston : Charles
Tappan. 1845. 16mo. pp. 417.
130 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
any church." The evidence for both " is of precisely the same
nature/' The infallibility of the Church "the inspiration of
Rome," as he improperly expresses it " turns upon a promise
which is said to have been made nearly two thousand years ago ;
the inspiration of the New Testament turns upon facts which are
said to have transpired at the same time. Both the promise
and the facts are to be found, if found at all, in this very New
Testament." You must prove its credibility, or you cannot prove
the promise ; and if you prove its credibility, you prove the facts.
Therefore " you cannot make out the historical proofs of Papal
infallibility without making out at the same time the historical
proofs of Scriptural inspiration." Consequently, if you contend
that the proofs are insufficient for the inspiration, you deny their
sufficiency for the infallibility, and then cannot assert your infal-
lible Church ; if you say they are sufficient for the infallibility,
you concede their sufficiency for the inspiration, and then do not
need your infallible Church to determine what is or is not the
word of God. (pp. 57-65.)
But Dr. Lynch proves, as we have seen in our former article,
and as is sufficiently evident without proof to every one of ordin-
ary reflection, that it is morally impossible to determine, with
absolute certainty, what Scriptures are or are not inspired, except
by the infallible Church. To assert, after this, that the infallible
Church itself is provable only by proving Scriptural inspiration,
is only asserting, in other words, that no adequate proof of what
is or is not inspired Scripture exists. But some adequate method
does exist, as Dr. Lynch proves, and Mr. Thornwell concedes.
This method, if not private judgment, is the infallible Church,
as he also virtually concedes ; for private illumination is not a
method of proof, since, if a fact, it is not a fact that can be ad-
duced in evidence ; and the other two methods supposed, namely,
the judgment of the learned, and the single individual commis-
sioned by Almighty God to announce the fact of inspiration to
the world, he either abandons or cannot assert. The method,
then, is either the infallible Church, or private judgment. It
cannot be private judgment, if the objections urged against it be
TO DR. LYNCH. 131
conceded. To attempt, without answering these objections, to
show that equal objections bear against the Church, is, for the
purposes of the argument at least, to concede them, and there-
fore to prove, if any thing, that no adequate method of proof
exists, which is not allowable. As long, then, as private judg-
ment remains unrelieved of the objections which declare it an
impossible and therefore an unsupposable method, the argument
proves too much for the Professor as well as for us, and conse-
quently nothing.
This answers sufficiently Mr. Thornwell's reasoning, as far as
it is intended to bear against Dr. Lynch's argument for infalli-
bility from the necessity of the case. But we have a higher
purpose in view than the simple vindication of Dr. Lynch, or the
formal refutation of Professor Thorn well, and will therefore waive
this reply and meet the reasoning on its intrinsic merits. Mr.
Thornwell's conclusion rests on two assumptions : 1. That in
order to establish the infallibility of the Church, Catholics are
obliged to establish the credibility of the New Testament ; and
2. That the credibility of the New Testament, when established,
is all that is needed to establish Scriptural inspiration, that is,
to settle the question what Scriptures are and what are not in-
spired. Both of these assumptions we deny.
1. In order to establish the infallibility of the Church, it is
not necessary to establish the credibility of the New Testament.
All that is needed to establish the infallibility is the miraculous
origin of the Church. If she had a miraculous origin, she was
founded by Almighty God ; for none but God can work a mir-
acle. If founded by Almighty God, she is his Church and
speaks by his authority ; therefore infallibly ; for God can au-
thorize only infallible truth. In order to make out the miracu-
lous origin of the Church, we are not obliged to recur to the
New Testament at all ; we can do it, and are accustomed to do
it, when arguing with avowed unbelievers, without any reference
to the authority of the Scriptures, either as inspired or as simple
historical documents. We do it by taking the Church as we
find her to-day, existing as an historical fact, and tracing her up,
132
step by step, through the succession of ages, till we ascend to
her original Founder. The extraordinary nature of her claims,
uniformly put forth, and steadily acted upon from the first ; her
various institutions, professing to embody facts, which could not
in the nature of things have sprung from no facts, or from facts
pertaining exclusively to the natural order ; the external history
which runs parallel to hers ; the relation held to her from the
beginning by the Jewish and pagan worlds, and by the various
heresies in each succeeding age from the Gnostics down to the
followers of the Mormon prophet ; all these combined prove
in the most incontestable manner her supernatural character,
and triumphantly establish the fact that her Founder must have
had miraculous powers, and she a miraculous origin.
Undoubtedly, the infallibility of the Church turns, in the argu-
ment, upon a promise made nearly two thousand years ago ; but
it is not true that the promise must necessarily be found only in
the New Testament. A promise may be expressed in acts as
well as in words, in the fact as well as in its record. The prom-
ise we rely upon is expressed in the miraculous origin of the
Church, and is concluded from it on the principle, that the effect
may be concluded from the cause, if the cause be known. In
the natural order, God, in giving to a being a certain nature,
promises that being all that it needs to attain the end of that
nature. So in the supernatural order, in creating a supernatural
being, he promises it all the powers, assistance, means, and con-
ditions necessary to enable it to discharge its supernatural func-
tions, or to gain the supernatural end to which he appoints it.
In supernaturally founding the Church to teach his word, he
therefore promises her infallibility in teaching it: because the
function of teaching the word of God cannot be discharged with-
out it.
2. But even if we were obliged as we are not and cannot
be to assert the credibility of the New Testament in order to
make out our historical proofs, it would not be that credibility
which would suffice to establish Scriptural inspiration, nor should
we be obliged to make out any facts from which Scriptural inspir-
TO DR. LYNCH. 133
ation could be immediately concluded. As all we have to make
out is the miraculous origin of the Church, and as this is made
out, if the fact of the miracles of our Lord is established, all that,
in any case, we could need to do, in regard to the credibility of
the New Testament, would be to make out its credibility so far
as requisite to establish this fact. We do not want the New
Testament to prove the miraculousness of the facts, for that fol-
lows from the facts themselves ; nor to accredit as teachers or
witnesses those by or in favor of whom Almighty God performs
the miracles, for that follows from the miraculousness ; we can,
at most, need it only for the purpose of proving that the miracles,
in their quality of simple historical facts, actually occurred. For
this simple historical testimony is sufficient, and consequently
the simple historical credibility of the New Testament, as far as *
needed to authorize us to assert that the miracles actually took
place, is all that it can even be pretended that we must make
out. The New Testament is not one book, but a collection of
books by different authors, each resting on its own independent
merits, and the proof of the credibility of one does by no means
establish the credibility of the rest. The most we can need for
our purpose is the historical credibility of one of the Four Gos-
pels, say the Gospel according to St. Matthew ; for that Gospel
records all the facts necessary to establish the miraculous origin
of the Church. Consequently, all the credibility of the New
Testament we can, in any case, be required to establish, is the
historical credibility of St. Matthew's Gospel.
This Gospel may be perfectly credible as an historical docu-
ment, without being inspired. The facts to be taken on its author-
ity, though supernatural as to their cause, are within the natural
order as to their evidence, and as easily proved as any other class
of historical facto. They fall under the senses, and require in
their witnesses only ordinary sense and ordinary honesty. To
the trustworthiness of their historian, who, in recording them,
has only to give a faithful narrative of what has transpired be-
fore his eyes, or what he has collected from the testimony of
eyewitnesses, nothing beyond the ordinary human faculties can
134 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
be requisite. Hence, many Protestants maintain the credibility
of the Evangelical History, and yet deny the inspiration of the
Gospels. We have by us a learned and elaborate work, in
which the author, who, for learning and ability, ranks second to
no Protestant theologian in the country, maintains, on the author-
ity of the Pentateuch, the inspiration of Moses, and the divine
origin of the Mosaic law, and yet denies the inspiration of the
Pentateuch itself. Indeed, if none but inspired documents could
be cited as credible authority for historical facts, human history
would need to be closed at once, and Mr. Thornwell would find
himself shut out from all means of establishing the historical
objections he urges with so much zest, in the volume before us,
against the Church ; for undeniably, he can cite no inspired
Scripture for them. It is not prudent for an author to take a
ground which must prove more fatal to himself than to his op-
ponent.
This fact, namely, that we need only the historical credibility
of the New Testament at most, seems not to have sufficiently
arrested Mr. Thorn well's attention ; or if it has, he must have
too hastily concluded that the same order of credibility which is
sufficient for the miracles is also sufficient for the inspiration.
He proceeds, apparently, on the assumption, either that simple
historical credibility is sufficient to establish the inspiration
of the Scriptures, or that we need supernatural credibility to
establish the miracles. Thus, he asks :
" If the books of the New Testament are to be received as credi-
ble testimony to the miracles of Christ, why not on the subject of
their own inspiration ? Are you not aware that the great his-
torical argument on which Protestants rely in proving the inspir-
ation of the Scriptures presupposes only the genuineness of the
books and the credibility of their authors ? They assert it
[their own inspiration], and [if credible] are to be believed
I had thought that the only difficulty in making out the external
proofs of inspiration was in establishing the credibility of the
books which profess to be inspired. It had struck me, that, if
it were once settled that their own testimony was to be received,
the matter was at an end. But it seems now that . . . . it is still
TO DR. LYNCH. 135
doubtful whether, in the way of private judgment, a man could
ever be assured that credible books are to be believed on the
subject of their origin :" pp. 62, 63.
This reasoning involves a transition a specie ad speciem.
Credible books are certainly to be believed within the order of
credibility which they are proved or conceded to possess, but
not within an order which transcends or rises above it ; for nothing
can transcend itself, and the conclusion must be in the order of
the premises, or the argument is a fallacy. The credibility of
the New Testament which we assert, or which it is contended we
are obliged to assert, is simply historical credibility, or credibility
in the natural order ; but the credibility the Professor needs, to
establish the inspiration, is credibility in the supernatural order ;
for inspiration pertains, undeniably, to the supernatural order,
both as to its cause and as to the medium of its proof. There-
fore we may receive the books as credible testimony to the
miracles, and not on the subject of their own inspiration.
Mr. Thorn well evidently reasons on the assumption, that we
cannot assert the credibility of the New Testament in relation
to the miracles without asserting it in relation to the inspiration.
That is, a witness cannot be credible at all, unless he is univer-
sally credible, and he who receives his testimony in one order
binds himself to receive it in every order ; if he receives it in one
respect, he must in every respect ; in matters of fact, then also
in matters of opinion ! But this is too extravagant for any man
in his sober senses seriously to maintain. If this were once
admitted, there would speedily be an end to human testimony,
and our Presbyterian friend would find himself in a sad plight ;
for his sole dependence is on private judgment, and he can pre-
tend to nothing better than human testimony for his religious
belief. No witness, unless absolutely omniscient, is or can be
universally credible ; and as no man is absolutely omniscient, it
follows, if no one can be credible under one relation without
being credible under every relation, that no one can in any
respect be credible at all. But we cannot concede this. Every
day, in every court of law, in all the practical affairs of life in
136 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
which there is an appeal to human testimony, we act, and are
obliged to act, on the supposition, that a man may be credible
in relation to some things without being credible in relation to
all things.
Every body knows that a witness may be perfectly credible in
testifying to facts which fall under the observation of his senses,
and yet be deserving of no credit in relation to his opinions, his
judgments, his views, or his explanations of the causes of the
facts to which he testifies. Nothing hinders, then, a man from
being a credible witness to the facts recorded in the New Testa-
ment, even though he should assert and believe himself inspired
when in point of fact he was not ; for in testifying to the facts
he testifies to what has come under his senses, while in assert-
ing his inspiration he is merely giving an opinion, or offering an
explanation of certain facts or phenomena of his own internal
experience. The erroneous opinion or explanation does not im-
pair his credibility as a witness to the facts, if his error is one
which he may innocently entertain. That a man can innocently
believe himself divinely inspired when he is not can hardly admit
of a doubt. A man so believing is, by the very terms of the
supposition, uninspired. He is then, since inspiration is a super-
natural fact, necessarily ignorant of inspiration, unacquainted
with its phenomena, and destitute of the necessary criterion for
determining what it is or what it is not. What more natural,
then, than that he should mistake certain phenomena of his
own experience, otherwise inexplicable to him, for those of in-
spiration, and thus honestly believe himself inspired, when in
reality he is uninspired ?
The Professor argues on the assumption, common to all en-
thusiasts, that no man can honestly mistake the origin or cause
of the phenomena of his own internal experience, and therefore,
that, when one says he is inspired, we must believe either that
he actually is inspired or that he is a liar, a wilful deceiver,
whose word is to be received on no subject whatever. There is
no reason for this assumption. He who is inspired, undoubted-
ly, knows the fact, and is as incapable of being deceived in
TO DR. LYNCH. 137
relation to it as he is of deceiving others ; but from this it by no
means follows that a man who is not inspired must always
know that he is not. Inspiration is, sometimes, at least, neces-
sary to enable us to determine what is not inspiration, as well as
to determine what is. He is little versed in the natural history
of enthusiasm, who has yet to learn that honest men, men of
rare gifts and inflexible principles, whose word on any subject
.within the range of sensible observation we would not hesitate
a moment to take, not unfrequently labor under the impression
that they hold immediate intercourse with the Almighty, are
inspired, or divinely illuminated, when such is far from being
the fact. Witness, for instance, Jacob Boehmen, George Fox,
and Emanuel Swedenborg. These men are not inspired, nor
are they liars. They do not intend to deceive, and are not even
deceived themselves as to the facts of their internal experience,
from which they infer their inspiration ; they are deceived only
in their opinions, their judgments of those facts, the explanations
of them which they adopt, or the origin and cause which they
assign them. Who dare pretend that this destroys their credi-
bility in relation to simple matters of fact, evident to their senses ?
They do not mistake, they only misinterpret, the facts of their
own consciousness ; and who may not do as much ? All men,
however trustworthy they may be as witnesses to sensible facts,
unless supernaturally protected from error, are liable, as is well
known, to err in their judgments, in their explanations of phe-
nomena, in relation to the origin and causes of things, and in
relation to the origin and causes of their own internal experience
as well as of other things.
The Professor falls into the common mistake of Protestants ;
that the inspiration of a genuine book, by an author proved to
be historically credible, may be concluded from its own declara-
tion. We say he falls into this mistake ; for we cannot suppose
that he falls into the still grosser one of supposing that we can
prove the miracles only by a supernaturally credible witness,
since that would deny that Christianity itself can be proved,
nay, that any thing supernatural is or can be provable, and
138 THORN WELL'S ANSWER
therefore that man is or can be the subject of a supernatural
revelation. If the miracles cannot be proved without a super-
naturally credible witness, the supernatural credibility of the
witness will in turn demand another supernaturally credible wit-
ness to establish it, and this another, and thus on ad infinitum.
We should need an infinite series of supernatural witnesses in
order to establish the supernatural. But an infinite series is an
infinite absurdity.
As we cannot suppose the Professor ignorant of the absurdity
into which he would fall, if he contended for the necessity of
any thing more than ordinary historical credibility to establish
the miracles, we must suppose him to hold that ordinary his-
torical credibility is sufficient to establish the inspiration of the
Scriptures, in case they declare their own inspiration. But the
inspiration of a genuine book, historically credible, cannot be
concluded from its own declaration ; because inspiration, being
a supernatural fact, falling in no sense, as do the miracles, within
the natural order, can be proved only by a supernaturally cred-
ible witness, which a merely historically credible witness is not.
Before, from the declaration of the book, the Professor can
conclude its inspiration, he must prove its author a credible wit-
ness to the supernatural. But no witness is a credible witness
to the supernatural, unless he is himself inspired or divinely
commissioned. The witness is not credible, unless competent.
In ordinary cases, a witness may be competent, and not credible ;
but in no case can he be credible, if incompetent. No witness,
unless inspired or divinely commissioned, is competent to testify
to the supernatural. The witness is not competent, unless he
can intellectually attain to or take cognizance of that to which
he is to testify. But no witness can intellectually attain to or
take cognizance of the supernatural, which, by the fact that it
is supernatural, transcends all natural intellect, without some-
thing more than natural intellect ; that is, without supernatural
illumination or assistance, precisely what is meant by being
inspired or divinely commissioned. Therefore the Professor
cannot conclude the inspiration from the mere historical cred-
TO DR. LYNCH. 139
ibility of the witness, and must prove the author to be inspired,
or divinely commissioned, before, from its own declaration, he
can conclude a given book is inspired Scripture.
Now, since in making out our historical proofs the most which
it can be pretended that we must do is to make out the histori-
cal credibility of the books of the New Testament, or the credi-
bility of their authors, in their quality of author, merely in rela-
tion to the natural order, it is not true, even in case we must
appeal for our facts to the New Testament, that we cannot make
out the historical proofs of the infallibility of the Church, with-
out making out at the same time the historical proofs of the
inspiration of the Scriptures ; for we are not obliged to assert
the credibility of the New Testament in relation to the super-
natural, the sense in which it must be asserted in order to be
credible authority for its own inspiration.
Nor, waiving this, do we, in making out the credibility which
we are supposed to be under the necessity of making out, es-
tablish any facts from which the inspiration of the New Testa-
ment can be immediately concluded. The Professor himself
says the Protestant argument "presupposes the genuineness of
the books and the credibility of their authors." In addition,
then, to the credibility of the authors, it is necessary, in order
to establish the inspiration, to establish the genuineness of the
books ; that is, that they were actually written by the persons
whose names they bear, and have come down to us in their pur-
ity and integrity. Now this, even if we must make out the cred-
ibility of the New Testament, we are not obliged to make out.
An historical document may be authoritative without being gen-
uine. If it contains a faithful narrative of facts as they occured,
it is sufficient for the ordinary purposes of history. That the
Gospel according to St. Matthew, for instance, does contain such
a narrative, is provable, without proving its inspiration, in the
usual way of authenticating historical documents, by the nature
of the narrative itself, the quality of the facts recorded, the cir-
cumstances under which it was published or first cited, the esti-
mate in which it was held by those best qualified to judge of its
140
authority, the manner in which it was treated by those who had
an interest in discrediting it, and by reference to various con-
temporary or subsequently existing monuments, especially public
institutions implying, founded upon, or growing out of, the facts
which it professes to record. In this way we could accredit this
Gospel as an historical document, even if it had come down to
us without the author's name. Indeed, ancient historical works
in general derive but little authority from the names of theii
authors, and, other things being equal, the works of Herodotus,
Livy, and Tacitus would have no less authority than they now
have, even if they had been anonymous productions. As the
genuineness of the book is an essential element in any method
of proof of its inspiration, except that by the infallible Church,
and as we are under no necessity, prior to the Church, of prov-
ing it in the case of a single one of the books of the New
Testament, it follows that we are not obliged, in making out
the historical proofs of the infallibility of the Church, to make
out at the same time the historical proofs of the inspiration
of the Scriptures.
We can now easily expose the fallacy of Mr. Thorn well's
pretended dilemma. Assuming what we have just disproved,
he says to Dr. Lynch, in his peculiarly sweet and delicate
manner :
" Now, Sir, one of two things must be true ; either the credi-
bility of the Scriptures can be substantiated to a plain, unletter-
ed man, or it cannot. If it can be, there is no need of your
infallible body to authenticate thejr inspiration, since that matter
can be easily gathered from their own pages. If it cannot, then
your argument from the Scriptures to an Indian or negro in
favor of an infallible body is inadmissable, since he is incapable
of apprehending the premises from which your conclusion is
drawn. You have taken both horns of this dilemma, pushing
Protestants with one, and upholding Popery with the other, and
both are fatal to you. Now, as it is rather difficult to be on
both sides of the same question at the same time, you must ad-
here to one or the other. If you adhere to your first position,
that all human learning is necessary to settle the credibility of
the Scriptures, then you must seek other proofs of an infallible
TO DR. LYNCH. 141
body than those which you think you have gathered from the
Apostles A circulating syllogism proves nothing ; and
if he who establishes the credibility of the Scriptures by an
infallible body, and then establishes the infallibility of the body
from the credibility of the Scriptures, does not reason in a circle,
I am at a loss to apprehend the nature of that sophism. If you
adhere to your other position, that the accuracy of the Evangel-
ists can be easily substantiated, then your objections to private
judgment are fairly given up, and you surrender the point, that
a man can decide for himself, with absolute certainty, concern-
ing the inspiration of the Bible. Take which horn you please,
your cause is ruined ; and as you have successively chosen both,
you have made yourself as ridiculous as your reasoning is con-
temptible." pp. 64, 65.
This argument evidently involves a transition from one genus
to another. The Professor confounds in the first part of his
fancied dilemma the historical credibility, and in the second the
accuracy of the Evangelists in their account of the miracles,
with the inspiration of the Scriptures, and then concludes as if
they were all facts of the same order ; which is a sad blunder,
and little creditable to the " Professor of Sacred Literature and
the Evidences of Christianity in the South Carolina College."
Dr. Lynch does not say that it requires " all human learning to
settle the credibility of the Scripturers " in any sense in which
he can need their credibility prior to the Church ; he simply
maintains that all human learning, and perhaps more too, is
necessary to settle, with absolute certainty, by private judgment,
on intrinsic grounds, the inspiration of ancient writings, which
is a generically distinct proposition. The " accuracy of the
Evangelists," which he asserts can be substantiated to the Indian
or negro, is not the inspiration or the supernatural credibility
of the Scriptures ; but their accuracy as historians of the mir-
acles, or that the miracles which they record actually transpired.
As this accuracy does not presuppose or necessarily imply the
inspiration or the supernatural credibility of the Scriptures, noth-
ing hinders Dr. Lynch from adhering to both of the positions
he has assumed, " pushing Protestants with one, and uphold-
142
ing Popery with the other," however inconvenient it may be to
his Presbyterian adversary.
" He who establishes the credibility of the Scriptures by an
infallible body, and then establishes the infallibility of the body
from the credibility of the Scriptures, reasons in a circle," if the
credibility in both cases be taken in the name sense, we concede ;
if in different senses, we deny. But Dr. Lynch does not estab-
lish the infallibility of the Church from the credibility of the
Scriptures at all ; or if he does, it is not from their credibility in
that sense in which he contends that their credibility can be
proved only by the infallible body. The only sense in which he
can be said to establish the infallible body from the credibility of
the Scriptures is their simple historical credibility ; the sense in
which he asserts the infallible body as necessary to prove their
credibility is their credibility as inspired writings. As they can
have the former without having the latter, we may, without any
vicious circle, take the facts we need to prove the infallible body
from their historical credibility, and then take the infallible body
to prove their inspiration, or supernatural credibility, although
we are, as we have shown, under no necessity of doing so.
Does the Professor deny that we can do so ? Does he contend
that this would be to reason in a vicious circle ? What, then,
shall we say of his own reasoning for the inspiration of the New
Testament ? If he denies the distinction we have made, the
historical credibility of the New Testament and its inspiration
are one and the same thing, convertible terms. Then we re-
tort his argument. He says the infallibility of the Church
" turns upon a promise which is said to have been made nearly
two thousand years ago, the inspiration of the New Testament
turns upon facts which are said to have transpired at the same
time. Both the promise and the facts are to be found, if found
at all, in this very New Testament. " Here it is positively as-
serted that the facts which prove the inspiration can nowhere be
found but in the New Testament itself. Then they must be
taken on its credibility. But credibility and inspiration, accord-
ing to him, are one and the same thing, convertible terms.
TO DR. LYNCH. 143
Then he must take the inspiration of the New Testament to
prove the facts, and then the facts to prove the inspiration. If
this be not to reason in a circle, we are " at a loss to apprehend
the nature of that sophism."
Now one of two things must be true ; either this reasoning is
valid, or it is not. If it is, Mr. Thornwell cannot make out the
inspiration of the Scriptures ; for " a circulating syllogism proves
nothing." If it is not, he fails to refute Dr Lynch, and then is
refuted by him, as we proved in our former article. In either
case, he is refuted. " Take which horn you please, your cause
is ruined." Although the Professor says " it is rather difficult
to be on both sides of the same question at the same time," yet
he contrives to surmount the difficulty. He assumes that this
reasoning is not valid, by urging, in spite of it. his own argu-
ment for Scriptural inspiration, and that it is valid, by urging it
against Dr. Lynch. We may, then, reply to him in his own
choice language : " Take which horn you please, your cause is
ruined ; and as you have successively chosen both, you have
made yourself as ridiculous as your reasoning is contemptible."
But even this is not the worst. Mr. Thornwell's conclusion
rests on the assumption that the Scriptures declare their own
inspiration, that their inspiration " is a matter " which " may
be easily gathered from their own pages." " They assert," he
maintains, " their own inspiration, and, if credible, are to be
believed." But, granting that they declare their own inspira-
tion, we have shown that it does not necessarily follow that they
are inspired, because, to render their own testimony sufficient for
that, they must be proved to be supernatu rally credible, since
inspiration is a supernatural fact, provable only by a supernat-
ural ly credible witness, and the only credibility, if any, which the
Professor can claim for them is simple historical credibility. He
binds himself to reason from our premises, because he says we
cannot make out the historical proofs of the Church without
making out at the same time the historical proofs of inspiration.
Consequently, since the historical credibility of the Scriptures ia
all that we, at most, can be obliged to make out, it is all the
144
Professor can have as the principle from which to reason against
us. This is conclusive against him. But waiving this, waiving
the objection to the order of credibility, and giving what we do
not concede that we must make out the genuineness of the
books it is pretended we must cite, still he cannot conclude
Scriptural inspiration, because no one of the books whose histori-
cal credibility we need or can need declares its own inspira-
tion. We have shown, that for our purpose it suffices, in any
case, to establish the credibility of one of the Four Gospels as
an historical document. But no one of the Four Gospels de-
clares or intimates that it is inspired Scripture, or even asserts
the inspiration of any other of the Scriptural books. Conse-
quently, the Professor has not even its own declaration for the
inspiration of Scripture, and must be mistaken in saying that
Scriptural inspiration is a matter which " may be easily gathered
from " the pages of the Scriptures themselves.
But, adds the Professor, " you [Dr. Lynch] have yourself ad-
mitted that the teaching of the Apostles was supernaturally pro-
tected from error, and if their oral instructions were dictated
by the Holy Ghost, why should that august and glorious Visit-
ant desert them when they took the pen to accomplish the same
object when absent, which, when present, they accomplished by
the tongue ? " (p. 62.) The question is irreverent and imper-
tinent. We have no right to demand of the Holy Ghost the
reasons of what he does or does not do. It is competent for
him, if such be his pleasure, to inspire men for one thing and
not for another, to inspire them to teach and not to write, to enable
them to accomplish a given object by one method and not by
another method ; and the Professor cannot say that he does not,
because he sees no reason why he should. The Holy Ghost
may have reasons not known to the learned Professor of Sacred
Literature, <fec., in the South Carolina College.
Dr Lynch admits that the teaching of the Apostles was su-
pernaturally protected from error, and we must prove that it was,
or not prove the infallibility of the Church ; but that it there-
fore necessarily follows that they were inspired as authors, or
7
TO DR. LYNCH. 145
even as teachers, we neither admit nor are bound to admit. To
be inspired, is, undoubtedly, to be supernaturally protected from
error, but to be supernaturally protected from error is not neces-
sarily to be inspired. Every Catholic believes his Church super-
naturally protected from error ; but no one believes her to be
inspired. As all Catholics make this distinction, Dr. Lynch's
admission is no admission of inspiration even in the teaching of
the Apostles. Inspiration is necessary only when the mission is
to reveal truth ; when the mission is simply to teach a revelation
already consummated, supernatural assistance, without inspir-
ation, is all that is needed. If the mission of the Apostles wa?
simply to teach a revelation which they had received through
their personal intercourse with their Master, while he was yet
with them in the flesh, and prior to the Church, this certainty
is all that we can be required to establish, they had no need
of inspiration, either as teachers or as writers, in order to be
supernaturally protected from error. To concede or to assert
such protection, then, is not to concede or assert their inspiration.
We certainly cannot be required to make out for the Apostles
any thing more than we claim for the Church, and since all we
claim for her is supernatural protection from error in teaching a
revelation already consummated, this is all that we can be obliged
to make out for them.
Nor does the inspiration of the Apostles or of their writings
follow immediately from the facts on which we must rely in order
to prove the infallibility of the Apostles, or their supernatural
protection from error. The facts on which we do and must rely
are the miracles. These do not of themselves prove the inspir-
ation, but simply the divine commission of him by or in favor
of whom Almighty God works them, on the principle asserted
by St. Nicodemus : " Rabbi, we know thou art come a teacher
from God ; for no man can do the miracles which thou doest,
unless God be with him." The divine commission follows neces-
sarily from the miracles, and the supernatural protection from
error, or the infallibility, follows necessarily from the divine com-
mission. But the inspiration does not, because the teacher may
146
be commissioned to teach, and may teach infallibly, without being
inspired. Even Apostolic inspiration, then, cannot be immedi-
ately concluded from the facts on which we must rely ; then a
fortiori, not the writings of the Apostles. We say immediately,
for to say it can be mediately is nothing to the purpose. We
ourselves hold that the inspiration both of the Old Testament
and the New can be mediately proved, that is, through the teach-
ing of the Church, proved by the miracles to be supernaturally
protected from error.
But the Professor continues, " The Apostles themselves de-
clare their writings possessed the same authority with their oral
instructions. Peter ranks the Epistles of Paul with the Scrip-
tures of the Old Testament, which were confessed to be inspired ;
and Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions
they had received from him, either by word or epistle." (p. 62.)
That the Apostles anywhere declare their writings possess the
same authority with their oral instructions, we have not found in
any of the writings attributed to them with which we are ac-
quainted ; and if they did, it would not be sufficient, for the
question at this moment relates, not to the authority, but to the
inspiration, of the Scriptures, and it is not yet proved that even
the oral instructions of the Apostles were inspired.
The Epistles of St. Peter and of St. Paul are not admissible
testimony, because they are not included in that portion of the
New Testament whose credibility we can, in any case, be obliged
to make out. We can have no occasion for their testimony,
prior to the Church ; and as the Professor binds himself to the
testimony we must use, or to what necessarily follows immedi-
ately from it, he cannot use it. The question now before us is,
not whether he can or cannot, without the Church, prove the
inspiration of the Scriptures, but whether he can prove it from
the facts which we must prove in order to prove the infallibility
of the Church.
St. Paul was not one of the twelve ; his vocation was subse-
quent to the establishment of the Church ; and in no case can
it be necessary for us even to establish his divine commission in
TO DR. LYNCH.
147
order to establish the miraculous origin of the Church, from which
her infallibility immediately follows. But even if the Professor
could cite the authority of St. Paul, he would be obliged to make
out, before his citation would avail him any thing, 1. That St.
Paul's oral instruction was inspired ; 2. That the Epistle to the
Thessalonians is genuine ; 3. That the Epistle to which he refers
in it was the Epistles which we now have under his name ; and,
4. That these Epistles are possessed by us precisely as he wrote
them. Here are four facts not easy to make out, and which the
Professor must make out for himself; for we are under no obli-
gation to make them out for him, and they do not follow neces-
sarily from any thing we are bound to make out.
The divine commission of St. Peter as one of the Apostles,
we, of course, are obliged to make out ; but ubi Petrus, ibi
Ecclesia when we have done that, we have, in fact, made out
our infallible Church. Let this, however, pass for the present.
Though we are obliged to make out the divine commission of
St. Peter as one of the twelve, we are not obliged to make out
his inspiration, or the authenticity or genuineness of the Epistles
attributed to him. The Epistle the Professor cites is no author-
ity till its authenticity and genuineness are proved, and it hap-
pens to be precisely one of those books of the New Testament
whose authenticity and genuineness Protestant theologians, at
least many of them, call in question. But granting its genuine-
ness, it avails nothing till the Professor proves that the Epistles
of St. Paul to which it refers are those we now have, and that
we have them as St. Paul wrote them ; for the Professor is not
merely to prove that there were inspired writings, but he is to
prove what writings now possessed by us are or are not to be
received as inspired Scripture. But even suppose this done, it
does not follow that these Epistles are inspired. St. Peter does
not, as the Professor asserts, " rank them with the Scriptures of
the Old Testament, which were confessed to be inspired," but
simply with " the other Scriptures." What Scriptures these
were, whether inspired or uninspired, the Professor may or may
not have some means of knowing, but St. Peter, in the writings
148 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
attributed to him, nowhere informs him. That the Scriptures
of the Old Testament were confessed to be inspired, we know
from tradition and the Church, but not from the New Testament.
From the New Testament alone we can prove neither that the
books of the Old Testament were inspired, nor of what books
the Old Testament consisted. St. Paul tells us, indeed, that " all
Scripture divinely inspired is profitable," &c., but he nowhere
tells us what books or portions of books are divinely inspired
Scripture. It is not true, then, that the inspiration of the Scrip-
tures can " be easily collected from their own pages." Then the
whole argument of the Professor falls to the ground ; for even
if their own testimony were to be received, it would still be nec-
essary to have the infallible body to prove their inspiration, since
they themselves do not assert it.
We are not surprised that Mr. Thornwell should strive earn-
estly to convict his Catholic opponent of reasoning in a vicious
circle. He must, as a Protestant, do so. Protestantism would
abnegate herself, should she once concede that it is possible for
us to prove the infallibility of the Church, without having re-
course to the supernatural authority of the Scriptures. It is
with the Protestant, therefore, a matter of life and death. If
he fails, it is all over with his cherished Protestanism. Her
friends must follow her in long and sad procession to her final
resting-place, howl their wild requiem, and leave the night-shade
to grow over her grave, and return to their desolate hearths,
with none to comfort them. What, indeed, is the essential prin-
ciple of Protestantism, in so far as she pretends to be dis-
tinguished from the open and total rejection of all supernatural
religion ? What is it, but the assertion that the Bible is the
original and only source or authority from which Christianity is
to be taken ? Every body knows that this is her essential, her
fundamental principle, in every sense in which she can even pre-
tend to be a religion. To admit it to be possible for us to estab-
lish the infallibility of the Church without the Scriptures, or
without their supernatural authority, would be to surrender this
TO DR. LYNCH. 149
principle, and with it Protestantism herself, as far as she can
claim to be distinguishable from infidelity.
All Protestants know this, and hence they always assert that
we do and must reason in a vicious circle. It would be so con
venient, it is so necessary, for them, that we should, they have
for so long a time so uniformly and so confidently asserted that
we do, that it is hard for them now to admit, or even to believe,
that we do not and need not. Like inveterate story-tellers, they
appear to have come at last, by dint of long and continued re-
petition, to believe their own falsehoods, the last infirmity of
the credulous and the untruthful. Indeed, we can hardly doubt
that the great body of Protestants really do labor under the
hallucination, that we must, in order to establish the Church,
first establish, in the usual Protestant way, the authority of the
Scriptures as inspired documents ; and as we contend that the
infallibility of the Church is necessary to prove their inspiration,
that we must prove the inspiration by the Church, and the
Church by the inspiration, a manifest vicious circle. But as a
circle proves nothing, they think they may well say, that in
proving the Christian religion we have and can have no advan-
tage over them. Grant, say they, we must prove the credibility
of the Scriptures before we can conclude their inspiration, from
which we take our faith, you must prove the same credibility
before you can conclude the infallibility of the Church, from
which you are to take yours, and you have and can have, prior
to the Church, no means of proving that credibility which we
have not.
When the credibility is once established, our difficulties are
ended, for the inspiration is easily collected from the express
declaration of the Scriptures themselves ; but the infallibility of
the Church is not. We have the express authority of the di-
vinely accredited witness, but you have only your own interpret-
ations or constructions of certain texts, in which you may err ;
and if you do not, you cannot assert that yours is the church
intended, without making a full course of universal history for
eighteen hundred years. How much simpler is our method than
150 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
yours ! With how many difficulties you encumber yourselves
from which we are free ! You have to make out all that we
must make out, and in addition the fact of an infallible church,
and the further fact that yours is it.
You may tell us that we may mistake the sense of Scripture,
that our method is encumbered with difficulties, that it does not
give us absolute certainty, and that something easier and surer
is desirable. Be it so, what then ? You have nothing to say,
for you have nothing better to offer us. Suppose the Church ;
what do you gain ? You must take it from the Scriptures, and
the Scriptures themselves from the same authority that we do,
that is, private judgment. You must take it also from the
Scriptures by your private interpretation of them ; and you
must take the fact that yours is the Church from your private
interpretations of history. Every step in your process of proof
must be taken by private judgment, and we should like to know
how private judgment is more certain in your case than in ours,
why it is to be condemned in us, and commended in you.
Be it that it does not yield absolute certainty ; what then ?
Absolute certainty, who can have it ? What presumption for
such frail and erring mortals as we are to pretend to it ! We
do not need it. It is not in accordance with the intentions of
Providence, nor compatible with our moral interest, that we
should have it. " The true evidence of the Gospel is a growing
evidence, sufficient always to create obligation and assurance,
but effectual only as the heart expands in fellowship with God,
and becomes assimilated to the spirits of the just Our
real condition requires the possibility of error, and God has
made no arrangements for absolutely terminating controversies
and settling questions of faith, without regard to the moral sym-
pathies of men." (pp. 74, 75.) With such certainty as we have
we study to be satisfied. It is not the characteristic of wisdom
to aim at impossibilities, or of honesty to profess to have what
it has not.
Thus they reason, and must reason, wise and honest souls !
who assert that the Bible is the original and only source of
TO DR. LYNCH. 151
Christian doctrine, and who define faith, with Professor Stuart
of Andover, to be a species of probability, more certain, perhaps,
than mere opinion, but less certain than knowledge, or ring the
death-knell of their own system. If it be possible in the nature
of things or the providence of God to bring an unbeliever to
Catholicity without first converting him to Protestantism, they
must for ever shut their mouths, or open them only to give vent
to their mortification and despair. But, happily for us, the rea-
sonings which demand the principle of universal skepticism for
their postulate are not apt to convince, and the assertions of men
who deny all infallible authority, and confess to their own falli-
bility and want of certainty, are not absolutely conclusive. It
is possible, after all, that these learned Protestants are mistaken,
nay, laboring under "strong delusions," and that we poor
benighted Papists have the truth. At worst, the authority on
which we rely can be no more than fallible, while that on which
they rely must be fallible at best. At worst, then, we are as
well off as they can be at best.
But are these Protestants, who would have us regard them as
full-grown men, strong men, the lights and support of the age,
aware, that, in all this argumentation on which they pride them-
selves, and which they hold to be our complete refutation, they
are merely reasoning against us from their own principles, and
not from any principles common to them and us ? Their rea-
sonin.g, undeniably, rests on the assumption of the Bible as the
original and only source, under God, of Christian doctrine, a
fundamental principle of Protestantism, and which we no more
admit than we do the other fundamental principle of Protestant-
ism, namely, private judgment. They are very much mistaken,
if they suppose that we merely object to their rule of private
judgment, if they suppose that they and we occupy common
ground till we reach the limits to which the Bible extends, and
that our only controversy with them, as far as the Bible goes, is
one of simple exegesis, and after that merely a controversy in
relation to certain points of belief not to be found in the Bible.
Our main controversy with them is prior to the Bible, and relates
152 THORN WELL'S ANSWER
to the origin or fountain and authority from which the faith is
to be drawn.
Protestantism, taking it according to the professions of its
most distinguished doctors, is resolvable into two principles, if
principles they can be called, namely, 1. The Bible is the orig-
inal and only source of Christian faith ; and, 2. The Bible is to
be taken on and interpreted by private judgment. These are
its two rules. It is nothing to us whether these two rules are or
are not compatible one with the other, and we do not inquire
now whether the latter does or does not necessarily and in fact
absorb the former, and reduce Protestantism to sheer Transcend-
entalism in principle, for that is a matter which we have already
sufficiently discussed elsewhere ; but we say, what every body
knows, that Protestantism professes these two rules as funda-
mental, and that they are essential to its very existence, and one
of them as much as the other. Now we, as Catholics, reject
and anathematize both of these rules, as Protestants ought to
know. Consequently, for them to urge an argument against us
which assumes either as its principle is a sheer begging of the
question, or an assumption of Protestantism as the principle from
which to conclude against Catholicity. Yet this is precisely the
method of argument adopted in the brief summary of their rea-
soning which we have given.
This is not lightly said. Mr. Thornwell's whole reply to Dr.
Lynch is a striking illustration and proof of it. Dr. Lynch
states certain objections to private judgment; Mr. Thornwell
replies, You cannot urge those objections, because, whatever their
weight, they bear as hard against the Church as against us.
What is the proof of this ? You must take the Church from
the Scriptures, or not take it at all ; and if you take it from
them, you must do so by private judgment, for you cannot use
your Church before you get it ; and as you can get your Church
only subsequently to the Scriptures, you must take the Scriptures
themselves on private judgment, or use a circulating syllogism,
which proves nothing. But the proof that we must take the
Church from the Scriptures ? Why you must take it from the
TO DR. LYNCH. lD*
Scriptures because you have nothing e.se to take it from. But
the proof that we have nothing else to take it from ? The Pro-
fessor has no possible answer, but the assumption of the Bible
as the original and only source of Christian faith. Consequently,
at bottom, whether he knows it or not, he simply assumes one
principle of Protestantism as the principle of his answers to ob-
jections urged against the other. That is, if we consider Prot-
estantism in its unity, he attempts to prove the same by the
same ; if in its diversity, he reasons in a vicious circle, proving
private judgment by his Bible rule, and his Bible rule by pri-
vate judgment ! And yet Mr. Thornwell has the simplicity to
accuse Dr. Lynch of using a circulating syllogism.
Undoutedly, it is very convenient for Protestants, when hard
pressed as to one of their principles, to resort to the other ; but
as both rules are denied, and are both directly or indirectly called
in question in every controversy they have or can have with us,
they would do well to bear in mind that the arguments they thus
adduce are as illegitimate and worthless as if drawn from the very
principle they are brought to defend. We really wish that our
Protestant friends would study a little logic, at least make them-
selves acquainted with the more ordinary rules of reasoning and
principles of evidence. It would save us some trouble, and them-
selves from the ridicule to which they expose themselves, when-
ever they undertake to reason. It is idle to attempt to convince
a man by arguments drawn from the principle or system he is
opposing, or to pretend to have refuted him by reasons which
derive all their force from principles which he neither admits nor
is obliged to admit. In reasoning, each party must reason from
principles admitted by the other, or from principles proved by
arguments drawn from principles which the other does not or
cannot deny. Our Protestant friends ought to know this ; for
Mr. Thornwell very considerately informs us (p. 72) that they
are not " prattling babes and silly women," but " bearded
men."
Protestants seem to have inquired how it would be convenient
for them that we should reason, and to have concluded, because,
154 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
if we should reason in a given manner, it would be just the
thing for them, that we of course do and must reason in that
manner. If we admitted their doctrine as to the Bible, we un-
doubtedly should be obliged to reason in the manner they allege.
If the road from unbelief to Catholicity lay through Protestant
territory, if we could convert the unbeliever to the Church only
by first converting him to Protestantism, as Mr. Thornwell vir-
tually contends, we should, of course, be obliged to make out
the divine authority of the Scriptures, if at all, in the way in
which Protestants attempt to do it, and then many of the objec-
tions we now urge and insist upon against private judgment we
should be obliged to meet as well as they ; but, surely, some
other proof that such is the fact should be brought forward than
this, that, if it be not so, then Protestantism must be false ; for
the conclusion is not one which we are not able to concede. In
reasoning with Protestants, we are generally civil enough to take
them at their word ; and as we find them professing to hold the
divine authority of the Scriptures, we draw our arguments
against them from the Scriptures, because it is always lawful to
reason against a man from his own principles ; but in reasoning
against unbelievers, we make no appeal to the Scriptures, unless
it be sometimes as simple historical documents, proved to be such
by general historical criticism, in which character we can legiti-
mately appeal to them. The assertion, that we are obliged, by
the nature of the case, to take the Church from the Scriptures,
is altogether gratuitous, and even preposterous. It rests, as we
have seen, on the assumption, that the Bible is the original and
sole authority for Christian faith. This is what Mr. Thornwell
holds, what as a Protestant he must hold. The Bible, then, oc-
cupies the same place in his system that the Church does in ours ;
for this is precisely what we say of the Church. The Bible is
for him the original and sole depositary of the faith, its keeper,
witness, teacher, and interpreter. He must, then, establish the
divine authority of the Scriptures, as we the divine authority of
the Church ; for only a divine authority is sufficient for Christian
faith. To do this, as we have already established, he must have
TO DR. LYNCH. 155
a supernaturally credible witness. Prior to and independently
of the supernatural authority of the Scriptures, then, he must
obtain such witness. This he can do, or he cannot. If he can-
not, he cannot establish the divine authority of the Scriptures.
If he can, then we also can ; for prior to the Scriptures, we stand,
at least, on as good ground as he. But such a witness is all we
need for the divine authority of the Church. Then either the
Professor cannot establish the divine authority of the Scriptures,
or we can establish the divine authority of the Church without
the Scriptures. Where now are the Professor's assumption, and
his triumph about reasoning in a circle ?
Again. The divine authority of the Scriptures is itself .an
article of faith, because a supernatural fact, and a revealed fact,
if a fact at all. This can be proved without the Scriptures, or
it cannot. If it cannot, then it cannot be proved at all, for the
Scriptures can authorize no article of faith till their own divine
authority is established. If it can, it is false to say the Scrip-
tures are the original and only authority for faith, for here is an
article of faith not taken from them, but from some other source
and authority. Or in another form : Either the supernatural
witness supposed can be obtained, or cannot. If the Professor
says the latter, he abandons his Protestantism, by confessing to
his inability to establish th.e divine authority of the Scriptures,
from which alone he is to take it. If he says the former, he
also abandons his Protestantism ; for then he .concedes the pos-
sibility of another authority for faith than the Scriptures, which
Protestantism does and must deny, or deny itself. The Profes-
sor may take which alternative he pleases ; in either case, he
must surrender his Protestantism, as far as at all distinguishable
from sheer infidelity.
Thus easy is it to overthrow the strongest positions of Prot-
estants, and we confess that our only practical difficulty in refut-
ing Protestantism lies precisely in its weakness, nay, its glaring
absurdity. Our arguments against it fail to convince, because
too easily obtained, and because they are too obviously conclu-
sive. People doubt their senses, and refuse to trust their reason.
156
They think it impossible that Protestantism, which makes such
lofty pretensions, should be so untenable, so utterly indefensible,
as it must be, if our arguments against it are sound. We
succeed too well to be successful, and fail because we make out
too strong a case. Indeed, Protestantism owes its existence and
influence, after its wickedness, to its absurdity. If it had been
less glaringly absurd, it would long since have been numbered
with the things that were. Fuit ilium. But many people find
it difficult to believe it to be what it appears ; they think it must
contain something which is concealed from them, some hidden
wisdom, some profound truth, or else the enlightened men among
Protestants would not and could not have manifested so much
zeal in its behalf, forgetting that Socrates ordered just before
his death a cock to be sacrificed to JEsculapius, that Plato ad-
vocated promiscuous concubinage, and that Satan, notwithstand-
ing his great intellectual power, is the greatest fool in the uni-
verse, a fool whom a simple child saying credo outwits and
turns into ridicule. But they may be assured that it is not one
whit more solid than it appears, and that the deeper they probe
it, the more unsound and rotten they will find it.
Protestants would do well to study the Categories, or Predi-
caments, and learn not to contemn proper and necessary distinc-
tions. They should know that they cannot conclude the super-
natural from the natural ; and that the historical credibility of
the Scriptures does not, of itself, establish their divine authority
in relation to the supernatural order. Historical credibility suf-
fices for the miracles ; and miracles accredit the teachers, but not
immediately the teaching, whether oral or written. The teach-
ing is taken on the authority of the accredited teacher. Conse-
quently, between the miracles and the divine authority of the
Scriptures the authority or testimony of the teacher must inter-
vene, and whether it does intervene in favor of the Scriptures or
not is a question of fact, not of reason.
Hence it is easy to detect the falsity of Mi. Thornwell's gen-
eral thesis, that " it is just as easy to prove the inspiration of the
Scriptures as the infallibility of any church." The inspiration
TO DR. LYNCH. 157
of the Scriptures and the divine authority or infallibility of the
Church are both supernatural facts, and therefore provable only
by evidence valid in relation to the supernatural. In order to
prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Professor must prove
their divine authority ; for he is to take their inspiration from,
their own testimony, which is not adequate, unless supernatural ly
credible. But to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures,
he must prove the divine commission of the Apostles. The
supernatural is provable in two ways, by miracles, and by
divinely accredited or commissioned teachers. The miracles ac-
credit or prove the divine commission of the teachers, but, as we
have just seen, not the divine authority of the writings. This
must be taken on the authority of the teachers themselves, and
the Apostles are the only teachers supposable in the case ; be-
cause all, whether Church or Scriptures as a matter of fact,
comes to us from God through them. Consequently, the Pro-
fessor must establish, in some way, their divine commission, or
not establish the divine authority of the Scriptures, and there-
fore the supernatural credibility of their testimony to their own
inspiration.
This we also must do, or not be able to assert the infallibility
of the Church. The divine commission is a point common to
us both ; both must make it out, he without the authority of
Scripture, and we without the authority of the Church. If he
can make it out, we can, and if we can make it out, he can ; for
we both, in relation to it, stand on the same ground, have the
same difficulties, and the same, and only the same, means with
which to overcome them.
The divine commission of the Apostles is made out, if at all
by the miracles historically proved to have actually occurred.
These, thus proved, accredit the teachers, that is, the Apostles,
as teachers come from God, therefore commissioned by him ; and
if commissioned by him, what they teach, as from him, must be
infallibly true, because he cannot authorize the teaching of what
is not infallibly true. Thus history proves the miracles, the mir-
acles prove the divine commission, and the divine commission
158 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
proves the infallibility. Thus far, we and the Professor travel
together. But and this is the point he overlooks when we
have gone thus far, and obtained the divinely commissioned
Apostles, we have got the infallible Church; for they are it, in
all its plenitude and in all its integrity. Has the Professor got his
inspired Scriptures ? No. He has not yet got even their divine
authority, and does not as yet even know that there are any
Scriptures at all, much less what and which they are ; and he
can know only as these divinely commissioned Apostles inform
him, that is, as taught by the infallible Church, precisely what
we have always told him, and what he ought to have known in
the outset.
Does the Professor answer, that we have not yet proved the
present existence of the infallible Church, and that ours is it ?
Be it so. We must, of course, establish the fact of communion
between us and the Church of the Apostles, or not be able to
assert the infallibility of our Church. But the Professor has
also to establish the fact of his communion with the same
Church, before he can assert the divine authority of the Scrip-
tures ; for he is to assert it on her authority, and this he cannot
do until he proves that he has her authority. The simple ques-
tion, then, between us is, whether it is as easy for him to estab-
lish the fact of the communion in his case, as it is for us to
establish it in ours. He must prove, not only that it is possible
in his case, but that it is as easy in his as in ours, or abandon
his thesis.
As yet, the Professor has only the point in common with us
of the divine commission, or infallible Church, of the Apostles.
The authority of this Church he must bring home to the sacred
books with absolute certainty, and with so much exactness as to
include no uninspired and to exclude no inspired Scripture. He
must bring it home, not merely to some books, but to all whose
inspiration is to be asserted ; and this not in general only,, but
also in particular, to each particular book, chapter, verse, and
sentence. This, in the nature of the case, he can do only by
proving the genuineness of the Apostolic writings, and the iden-
TO DR. LYNCH. 159
tity, purity, and integrity of all those books which, though not
written by the Apostles themselves, are to be received as inspired
on their authority. This he must do before he can establish the
divine authority of the Scriptures, and be able to conclude their
inspiration from their own testimony, in case he has it.
This is what the Professor has to do, in order to make out
the fact of Apostolic communion in his case ; but all we have to
do, in order to establish it in ours, is to prove historically the
continuance in space and time of the Church of the Apostles,
and its external identity, or its identity as a visible corporation
or kingdom, with our Church. Now ^which is the easiest ? Is
it as easy to prove the authenticity, purity, and integrity of some
sixty or seventy ancient books, written in different languages,
and transcribed perhaps a thousand times, subject to a thousand
accidents, as to establish the external identity of a visible corpo-
dtion or kingdom, extending over all nations, the common cen-
tre around which, in one form or another, revolve all the signifi-
cant events of the world for eighteen hundred years, and no
more to be mistaken than the sun in the cloudless heavens at
noonday ? We are to prove, we grant, the external identity of
our Church with the Church in the days of the Apostles, a
thing, in its very nature, as easy to be done as to establish the
continuance and identity of any civil corporation, state, or em-
pire, ancient or modern. But the Professor has to do as much
as this, and more too, in the case of the Bible, and of each
separate book, chapter, and sentence in the Bible, a thing
morally impossible to be done, as all the attempts of Protestants
to establish the divine authority of the Scriptures sufficiently
prove.
But even if this were done, the Professor would not have
established the inspiration of a single sentence of Scripture, as
Scripture. The divine authority of the Scriptures does not prove
their inspiration, unless they themselves declare it ; for the Pro-
fessor must gather their inspiration from their own pages. He
can assert no book to be inspired, unless, if it be a genuine
Apostolic writing, it clearly and unequivocally asserts its own
160 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
inspiration, and if it be not an Apostolic writing, unless it is
clearly and unequivocally declared to be inspired by some book
whose divine authority is established. And even this would not
be enough for his purpose ; for he must not only make out the
inspiration of certain books, but he must establish by divine
authority what books are, and what are not, to be received a?
inspired Scripture. He must bring divine authority to say
These, and these only, are to be so received. This last is impos
sible, for it is well known that Scripture nowhere draws or pro
fesses to draw up a list of the inspired books. This of itself is con-
clusive against the Professor. The former, also, is impossible, for
none of the Apostolic writings, unless it be the Apocalypse, whose
authenticity many Protestants deny, assert their own inspiration,
and, with this exception, and some portion of the prophetic
books, what is received as Scripture is nowhere in Scripture
asserted to be inspired. Hence there are amongst us Protestant
Doctors of Divinity, who, while professing to acknowledge the
authority of our Lord and his Apostles, and the general historical
fidelity and authority of the Bible, deny entirely its inspiration.
The Professor, therefore, must be decidedly mistaken in say-
ing that, "it is just as easy to prove the inspiration of the
Scriptures as the infallibility of any church." His meaning is,
that, i" the nature of the case, it must be as easy to prove the
insp' .don as the infallibility, which we see is by no means the
fa<~ , because, on no hypothesis, can he prove the inspiration of
' 3 Scriptures without first proving the infallible Church, and the
nistorical identification of the Church in space and time is a
thing infinitely easier to make out than the authenticity, identity,
purity, and integrity of ancient writings. The latter can be done,
if at all without a continued infallible authority, only with ex-
treme difficulty, and by a few gifted individuals, who have ample
opportunities and learned leisure for the purpose. The other is
a thing easily done. It is, making allowance for the greater
lapse of time between the two extremes, as easy to prove that
Pius IX. is the successor of St. Peter in the goverment of the
Church, as that James K. Polk is the successor of George Wash
TO DE. LYNCH. 161
ington in the Presidency of the United States; and the fact of
the succession in the former case as much proves that the Church
of which Pius IX. is Pope is the Church of St. Peter, that is,
of the Apostles, as the succession in the latter case proves that
the United States of which Mr. Polk is President are the same
political body over which George Washington presided. Even
the allowance to be made for lapse of time dwindles into insig-
nificance, the moment we consider the more important part in
the affairs of the world performed by the Church than by the
United States, or by any temporal state or kingdom of ancient
or modern times.
To identify and to establish the purity and integrity of an
ancient book, which has been subject to all the accidents of two
or three thousand years, is by no means an easy task ; but the
identity in space and time of an outward visibly body, " a city
set on a hill," the common centre of nations, and spreading itself
over all lands and conducting the most sublime and the most
intimate affairs of mankind, everywhere with us, at birth, bap-
tism, confirmation, marriage, in sickness and health, in joy and
sorrow, in prosperity and adversity, in life and death, taking us
from our mother's' womb, and accompanying us as our guardian
angel through life, and never leaving us for one moment till we
arrive at home, and behold our Father's face in the eternal habit-
ations of the just, is the easiest thing in the world to establish
through any supposable series of ages. You may speak of its
liability to corruption ; but far less liable must it be, even hu-
manly speaking, to corruption than the Scriptures, and indeed,
after all, it is only from its incorruptness and its guardian care,
that even you, who blaspheme the Spouse of God, conclude the
purity and integrity of the Scriptures. Far easier would it be
to interpolate or mutilate the Scriptures, without detection, than
for the Church to corrupt or alter her teachings, always diffused
far more generally, and far better known than their pages. If
publicity, extent, and integrity of the Christian people are to be
pleaded for the purity and integrity of the sacred text, as they
162 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
must be, then a fortiori for the purity and integrity of the
Church's teaching.
But passing over all this, supposing, but not conceding, that
the Professor could make out the inspiration of Scripture, it would
amount to just nothing at all ; for the real matter to be deter-
mined is, what is or is not to be received as the word of God,
and till this is determined, or an. unerring rule for determining
it is obtained, nothing is done of any practical moment. To
prove that the Scriptures are inspired, and therefore contain the
word of God, is only to prove where the word, or some portion
of the word, of God is, not what it is. Between where and what
there is a distance, and, unless some means are provided for
bridging it over, an impassable gulf. We are not told what the
word of God is, till we are told it in the exact sense intended
by the Holy Ghost, and this is not told us by being told that
the word of God or some portion of it, is contained in a certain
book. How will the Professor tell us this ?
The controversy turns on the means of evidencing the word
of God to the Indian or negro. Suppose the Professor goes to
the Indian or negro, with his copy of the Holy Scriptures ; sup-
pose, per impossible, that he succeeds in proving to him that
the several books were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and in the
exact state in which he presents them. What is this to him ?
He cannot read, and the book is to him a sealed book, as good
as no book at all. What shall be done ? Shall the Indian or
negro wait till he has learned to read, and to read well enough
to read, understandingly, the Bible, which is out of his power,
and also till he has read it through several times, and some five
or six huge folios besides, to explain its unusual locutions, and its
references to strange manners and customs, and to natural and
civil history, before hearing or knowing what is the message sent
him by his Heavenly Father ? What, in the mean time, is he
to do? Is he to remain a heathen, an infidel, an alien from the
commonwealth of our Lord ? If he needs the Gospel as the
medium of salvation, how can he wait, as he must, on the low-
est calculation, more than half the ordinary life of man, without
TO DR. LYNCH. 163
peril to his soul ? If he does not need it, what do you make
the Gospel but a solemn farce ? Suppose he does wait, suppose
he does get the requisite amount of learning ; what surety have
you, even then, that he will not deduce error instead of truth
from the book, and instead of the word of God embrace the
words of men or of devils ?
The pretence of Protestants, that they derive their belief, such
as it is, from the Bible, is nothing but a pretence. If not, how
happens it that, as a general rule, children grow up in the
persuasion of their parents, that the children of Episcopalians
find the Bible teaching Episcopalianism, Presbyterian children
find it teaching Presbyterianism, Baptist children Baptist doc-
trine, Methodist children Methodism, Unitarian children Unita-
rianism, Universalist children Universalism ? Why is this ? The
Professor knows why it is, as well as we do. He knows it is so,
because their notions of religion are not derived from the Bible,
but from the instructions of their parents, their nurses, their Sun-
day-school teachers, their pastors, and the society in the bosom
of which they are born and brought up, and that, too, long be-
fore they read or are able to read the Bible so as to learn any
thing from its sacred pages for themselves. He knows, too, that,
when they do come to read the Bible, which may happen with
some of them, they read it, not to learn what they are to be-
lieve, not to find what it teaches, but to find in it what they have
already been taught, have imbibed, or imagined. All Protest-
ants know this, and it is difficult to restrain the expression of
honest indignation at their hypocrisy and cant about the Bible,
and taking their belief from the Bible, the Bible, the precious
word of God. The most they do, as a general rule, is to go to
the Bible to find in it what they have already found elsewhere,
and it rarely happens that they find any thing in it except what
they project into its sacred pages from their own minds.
To hear Protestants talk, one would think they were the
greatest Bible-readers in the world, and that they believed every
thing in the Bible, and nothing except what they learn from it.
It is no such thing. Who among them trusts to the Bible alone ?
164 THORN WELL'S ANSWER
Where is tlie Protestant parent, pretending to any decent respect
for religion, who leaves his children to grow up without any re-
ligious instruction till they are able to read and understand the
Bible for themselves ? Has not every sect its catechism ? A
catechism ? What means this ? With " the Bible, the whole
Bible, and nothing but the Bible" on their lips, have they the
audacity and the inconsistency to draw up a catechism and teach
it to their children ? Why do they not follow out their princi-
ple, and leave their children to " the Bible, the whole Bible, and
nothing but the Bible ? " Do you shrink, Protestant parents, as
well you may, from the fearful responsibility of suffering your
children to grow up without any religious instruction ? Why
not shrink also from the still more fearful responsibility of teach-
ing them your words for the word of God ? You tell us the
Bible is your sole rule of faith, that there are no divinely ap-
pointed teachers of the word of God, and you sneer at the very
idea that Almighty God has provided for its infallible teaching ;
and yet you, without authority, fallible by your own confession,
draw up a catechism, take upon yourselves the office of religious
teachers, and do not hesitate to teach your own crude notions,
your own fallible, and, it may be, blasphemous opinions, training
up your children, it may be, in the synagogue of Satan, keeping
them aliens from the communion of saints, and under the eter-
nal wrath of God ! How is it that you reflect not on what you
are doing, and for your children's sake, if not for your own, you
do not tremble at your madness and folly ? Who gave you
authority to teach these dear children ? Who is responsible to
their young minds and candid souls for the truth of the doc-
trines you instil into them ? O Protestant father, thou art mad ?
Thou lovest thy child, art ready to compass sea and land for him,
and yet, for aught thou knowest, thou art doing all in thy power
to train him to be the eternal enemy of God, and to suffer for
ever the flames of divine vengeance !
But the catechism. Who gave to you authority to draw up
a catechism ? Would you teach your children damnable here-
sies ? Would you poison their minds with error and their
TO DR. LYNCH. 165
hearts with lies ? What it is you do when you draw up and
teach a catechism ? You deny the authority of the Church
to teach, yet here you are, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Bap-
tists, Methodists, Ranters, Jumpers, Dunkers, Socinians, Unita-
rians, Universalists, all of you, doing what you make it a crime
in her to do, drawing up and teaching a catechism, the most
solemn and responsible act of teaching that can be performed ;
for in it you demand of confiding childhood simple and un-
wavering belief in what you teach ! But the catechisms, you
say, are for the most part drawn up in the language of the
Holy Scriptures. Be it so. Who gave you authority to teach
the Holy Scriptures ? What infallible assurance have you, that,
in teaching the words of Scripture, you are teaching the sense
of Scripture ? Is it a difficult thing either to lie or to blaspheme
in the words of Scripture ?
We confess that we can hardly observe any measure in our
feelings or in our language, when we regard the profession and
the practice of Protestants, when we consider how they lie unto
the world and unto themselves, and how many precious souls,
for whom our God has died, they shut out from salvation. One
must speak in strong language, or the very stones would cry out
against him. The Professor, whom we have supposed going
with his Bible in his hands, and holding it out to the rude
savage or poor slave, ignorant of letters, saying, " Read this, my
son, and it shall make you wise unto salvation," would he
wait, think ye, till his tawny son or black brother had learned
to read and become able to draw his faith from the Bible for
himself, before instructing him ? Be assured, not. He would
hasten to instruct him without delay in his Presbyterian Cate-
chism, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Five Points of
the Synod of Dort, or some modification of them. Never would
he trust him to the Bible alone. So it is with all Protestant
missionaries, and so must it be. No matter what they profess,
in practice none of the sects place or can place their dependence
on the written word to teach the faith without the aid of the
living preacher. They all know, or might know, that they use
166 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
the Bible, not as the source from which the simple believer is
to draw his faith, but as a shield to protect the teachers of one
sect from those of another ; and that they assert its authority
only as enabling each preacher to find some plausible pretext for
preaching whatever comes into his own head. They place their
dependence, not on a dead book, which when interrogated can
answer never a word, which lies at the mercy of every interpreter,
but, nolens volens, on the living teacher, and do without author-
ity, and against their avowed principles, what they condemn us
for doing, and what we do at least consistently, and in obedience
to our principles.
There is no use in multiplying words or making wry faces
about the matter. Whatever men may pretend, 'f they have
any form of belief or of unbelief, their reliance is oil the living
teacher to preserve and promulgate it. The thing is inevitable.
And since it is so, it is absolutely necessary, if we are to know
and believe the word of God, that we have teachers duly author-
ized, divinely appointed to teach that word, so that we may not
believe for the word of God the words of fallible men or of
devils. Therefore, even if we could establish the inspiration of
the Scriptures, as we cannot without the Church, the Church
would still be indispensable, for without her we should still have
no infallible means of knowing what is the word of God.
We have here refuted the Professor's thesis in all its parts.
We have shown him that he has no logical right to urge it ;
that if he is allowed to urge it, he cannot prove it, but that we
can easily prove the contrary ; and, finally, that if he could
prove it, it would avail him nothing. We hope this will be
satisfactory to him and his friends. He has been, even his
friends must confess, singularly unsuccessful ; but the fault has
not been altogether his own. He has done as well as any Prot-
estant could do. But it is an old and expressive proverb, if a
homely one, that " nobody can make a silk purse out of a sow's
ear." Nobody can make any thing out of Protestantism, and
her defence must needs baffle the finest intellects. She is utterly
indefensible. No man can construct an argument in her favor, or
TO DR. LYNCH. 167
against the Church, that is not at bottom a mere fallacy. Logic
as well as salvation is on the side of the Church, not with her
enemies, and Protestantism is as repugnant to sound reason as
she is to the best interests of man. Whoever espouses her must
needs render himself an object of pity to all good men and good
angels. Mr. Thornwell has naturally respectable abilities, even
considerable logical powers, and some vigor of intellect. He
wants refinement, grace, unction, but he has a sort of savage
earnestness which we do not wholly dislike, and manifests a zeal
and energy, which, if directed according to knowledge, would
be truly commendable. But all these qualities can avail him
nothing, for Protestantism at best is only a bundle of contra-
dictions, absurdities, and puerilities. How a man of an ordinary
stomach could undertake its defence would be to us unaccount-
able, did we not know to what mortifications and humiliations
pride compels its subjects to submit. Pride cast the angels,
which kept not their first estate, down from heaven to hell, and
perhaps we ought not to be surprised that it degrades mortal
men to the ignoble task of writing in defence of Protestantism.
The refutation of the Professor's thesis gives us the full right
to conclude the infallibility of the Church with Dr. Lynch from
the necessity of the case, and therefore to assert it, whatever
objections men may fancy against it; because the argument for
it rests on as high authority as it is possible in the nature of
things to have for any objection against it. Nevertheless, we
will examine in our next Review the Professor's moral and his-
torical objections to the Church, and dispose of them as well as
we can, we hope to his satisfaction.
168
THORNWELL'S ANSWER TO DR. LYNCH *
OCTOBER, 1848.
IN the articles already devoted to Mr. Thornwell's book, we
have vindicated Dr. Lynch's argument drawn from the necessity
of the case for the infallibility of the Church, and proved, un-
answerably, if any thing can be so proved, that without the
infallible Church, the Protestant is utterly unable to prove the
inspiration of the Scriptures. Since he concedes, that, if the in-
fallible Church exists at all, it is the Catholic Church, Mr. Thorn-
well must .Jjien, either acknowledge its infallibility, or give up
the Christian religion itself. Having done this, which has been
wholly gratuitous on our part, we proceed to the consideration
of the Professor's direct arguments for the fallibility of the
Church, or his direct attempts to prove that she is not infallible.
We have shown in our first essay, that the nature of the
argument the Professor is conducting does not permit him, even
in case we should fail to prove the infallibility, to conclude the
fallibility of the Church. He denies that she i*> infallible, that
is, asserts that she is fallible, and it is only by proving her fallible
that he can maintain his thesis, that the books which he calls
apocryphal are " corrupt additions to the word of God." The
question is not now on admitting, but on rejecting, the infalli-
bility of the Church, and the. onus probandi, as a matter of
course, rests on him. He is the plaintiff in action, and must
make out his case by proving the guilt, not by any failure on our
own part, if fail we do, to prove the innocence, of the accused ;
for every one is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty.
* The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament proved to be Corrupt
Additions to the Word of God. The Arguments of Romanists from
the Infallibility of the Church and the Testimony of the Fathers in
Behalf of the Apocrypha discussed and refuted. By JAMES H.
THORNWELL. New Yor* : Leavitt, Trow, & Co. Boston ; Charles
Tappan. 1845. 16mo. pp. 417.
TO DR. LYNCH. 169
We have also shown, that in attempting to prove the falli
bility of the Church, Mr. Thorn well must confine himself to such
arguments as an infidel may consistently urge. We have already
disloged him from every position he might be disposed to occupy
on Christian ground. He has no magazine from which he can
draw proofs against the Church, but the reason common to all
men. He can prove the Church fallible only by proving that
she has actually erred ; and he can prove that she has actually
erred only by proving that she has actually contradicted some
principle of reason. It will avail him nothing to prove by rea-
son that she teaches things the truth of which reason cannot
affirm ; for reason does not know all things, and things may be
above reason, and yet not against reason. Nor will it avail him
to prove that she contradicts his private convictions, or the teach-
ings of his sect ; for neither he nor his sect is infallible. Noth-
ing will avail him but to prove some instance of her contradiction
of a truth of reason, infallibly known to be such truth. The
simple question for us to determine, then, in regard to what he
alleges, is, Has he adduced an instance of such contradiction ?
If he has, he has succeeded ; if he has not, he has failed, and
we, since the presumption, as we say in law, is in our favor,
may conclude the infallibility of the Church against him.
1. Mr. Thorn well's first alleged proof that the Church is not
infallible is, that Catholics differ among themselves as to the seat
of infallibility. It is uncertain where the infallibility is lodged.
Then it is not apparent ; and if not apparent, it does not exist ;
for de non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. But
this, supposing it to be true, though a good reason why we can-
not assert the infallibility as a fact proved, is not a good reason
for asserting that it does not exist. A thing may exist and yet
not appear to us. Otherwise the stars would not exist when the sun
shines, nor gems in the mine before being discovered. The point
to be established is not the non-appearance of the infallibility,
but its non-existence ; and if the Professor does not show that
non-existence, he fails, for his own maxim then bears against
him, de non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio.
8
170
But what is alleged is not true. Catholics do not disagree as
to the seat of infallibility. Mr. Thorn well is mistaken, when he
says (p. 76), " There are no less than three different opinions
entertained in your Church as to the organ through which its
infallibility is exercised or manifested." He confounds the three
different modes in which Catholics hold that the infallibility is
exercised with three different opinions as to its organ, evidently
supposing that they who assert one of them must needs deny
the other two. All Catholics agree, and must agree, for it is dt
fide, that the pastors of the Church, that is, the bishops in union
with the Pope, their visible head, are infallible in what they
teach, both when congregated in general council and when dis-
persed, each bishop in his own diocese ; and the great majority
hold that the Pope alone, when deciding a question of faith or
morals for the whole Church, is also infallible. The only differ-
ence of opinion amongst us is as to the fact, whether the Pope
is or is not infallible, when so deciding. But as there is no dif-
ference of opinion as to the other two modes, whatever difference
there may be as to this, it is not true that there are " three
different opinions in. our Church as to the organ through which
its infallibility is exercised or manifested."
2. The Church cannot be infallible, because she requires a
slavish submission of all her members, bishops, priests, and laity,
to the Pope. "The system of absolute submission runs un-
checked until it terminates in the Sovereign Pontiff at Eome,
whose edicts and decrees none can question, and who is therefore
absolute lord of the Papal faith," (p. 77.) We can see nothing
unreasonable in making the Pope, under God, the " absolute
lord of the Papal faith." As to the submission, if the Pope
has authority from God as the supreme visible head of the
Church, it cannot be a slavish submission ; for slavery is not
in submission, but in submission to an authority which has no
right to exact it. Reason teaches that we are bound to obey
God, and to obey him equally through whatever organ it may
please him to command us, or to promulgate his will. If he has
commissioned the Pope as his vicar in the government of the
...
TO DR. LYNCH. 171
Church, there is nothing repugnant to reason in submission or
obedience to the Pope. The Professor must prove that the Pope
is not divinely commissioned, before, from the fact that the
Church obliges us to obey him, he can conclude that she errs or
is liable to err. But this he has not proved.
3. The Church makes the Pope greater than God, II papa
e piu che Dio per noi altri. and cannot assert his supremacy
without asserting his infallibility. But if she asserts the infalli-
bility of the Pope, she denies that she is an infallible Church ;
for, during the first six centuries, there was no Pope. (p. 78.)
Where the Professor picked up his scrap of Italian, he does not
inform us ; but if any one has made him believe that Catholics
hold the Pope to be greater than God, he may be sure he has
been imposed upon. How can we hiold the Pope to be greater
than God, when we believe him to be simply the vicar of Jesus
Christ, receiving all that he is and has from God? Grant that
Papal supremacy necessarily carries with it Papal infallibility,
a doctrine we by no means dispute, the conclusion is not sus-
tained ; for it is not proved that during the first six centuries
there was no Pope. What the Professor alleges as proof is not
conclusive. His statements are either false or irrelevant. What
he says that is true is not to his purpose ; what he says that is
to his purpose is not true. He alleges, 1. Till the seventh
century, at least, the bishops of the Church, not excepting the
bishops of Rome, were regarded as officially equal ; 2. Accord-
ing to St. Jerome, wherever there is a bishop, he is of the same
merit and the same priesthood, and, according to St. Cyprian,
the episcopate is one, and every bishop has an undivided portion
of it ; 3. St. Cyprian says to the African bishops in the great
council at Carthage, that none of them makes himself a bishop
of bishops, and that it belongs solely to our Lord Jesus Christ to
invest them with authority in the government of his Church, and
to judge them ; and, 4. St. Gregory the Great disclaimed the
title of "Universal Bishop." (pp. 78, 79.)
To the first we reply, that, not only as late as the seventh
century were all the bishops of the Church, not excepting the
172 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
bishops of Rome, regarded as officially equal, but they are, as
bishops, so regarded even now ; and as the fact that they are
now so regarded does not prove that there is now no Pope, the
fact that they were so regarded during the first six centuries can-
not prove that there was no Pope then. The equality of all
bishops is a doctrine of the Church. The Pope, as simple
bishop, is only the equal of his brethren ; he is superior only as
bishop of Rome, of which see the primacy is an adjunct, or pre-
rogative. "Thus, a Roman council, in 378, says of Pope Dam-
asus, that he is. equal in office to the other bishops, and surpasses
them in the prerogative of % his see."*
To the second we give a similar reply. The unity of the
episcopate, and that each bishop possesses an undivided por-
tion of it, that is, that the bishops possess or hold it in solido,
according to the felicitious expression of St. Cyprian, is held by
the Church now, and believed as firmly by all Catholics as ever
it was. As the belief of this doctrine is not now disconnected
with the belief in the Papacy, it cannot follow, from its having
been entertained in the time of St. Cyprian, that there was then
no Pope. This reply disposes of the citation from St. Jerome,
as well as of that from St. Cyprian. But the Professor argues,
that, if the episcopate be one, and the bishops possess it in soli-
do, there can be no Pope. We do not see that this follows.
Unity is inconceivable without a centre of unity, and how con-
ceive the bishops united in one and the same episcopate without
the Pope as their centre of union ?
To the third we reply, that, according to the fair interpretation
of the language of St. Cyprian, in reference to its occasion and
purpose, it has nothing to do with the subject. But let it be
that St. Cyprian intended to deny, and actually does deny, the
Papal authority, what then ? Before the Professor can conclude
that there was no Pope down to St. Cyprian's time, he must
prove either that St. Cyprian is a witness whose testimony we
as Catholics, are bound to receive, or that he is one who could
* Ep. v. Apud Constant, T. I. col. 528, cited by Kenrick, Primacy
of the Apostolic See, p. 106, 3d edition.
TO DR. LYNCH. 173
not err. As Catholics, we are bound to receive the testimony
of single fathers or doctors only so far as their teaching is coin-
cident with that of the Church. The infallibility attaches to the
Church, and to single doctors only in so far as they teach her
doctrine. Never, then, can we be bound to receive the testimo-
ny of any father or doctor which conflicts with her teaching.
The Testimony of St. Cyprian does thus conflict, if what it is
alleged to be. Therefore we are not bound to receive it, and it
cannot be urged against us, as an argumentum ad hominem.
Then the Professor must prove that St. Cyprian did not err.
But, from the nature of the case, this he can do only by prov-
ing that he could not err. This he does not do, and cannot pre-
tend ; for he admits no infallible authority but that of the writ-
ten word. (p. 84.) Consequently, let the testimony of St. Cy-
prian be what it may, it is not sufficient to prove that there was
no Pope down to his time.
Moreover, if the alleged testimony of St. Cyprian refers to
the Papal authority at all, it refers to it only inasmuch as it de-
nies the right of St. Stephen, his contemporary, whom Mr.
Thornwell himself calls the Pope, to excereise that authority.
If St. Cyprian's language does not express resistance to the Pa-
pal authority, it contains no reference to it. But resistance to
an authority proves its existence. There was, then, in the time
of St. Cyprian, an actual Pope, that is, a Pope claiming the right
to exercise the Papal authority ; and the position of the Profes-
sor, that there was no Pope, is contradicted by his own witness.
" But not according to the constitution of the Church." That
is a question, not of reason, but of authority, and therefore not
debatable. The simple question, stated in the terms most favor-
able to the Professor, resolves itself into this, whether St. Cyp-
rian is to be believed against St. Stephen, who claimed to be
Pope, and the Church, who admitted his claim. To assume
that he is, is to beg the question. The Professor must, then,
give us a valid reason for believing St. Cyprian rather than St.
Stephen and the Church, or he proves nothing by St. Cyprian's
testimony, be it what it may. But he has given us no such
1*74 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
reason. St. Cyprian was fallible, and fallibility is not sufficient
to set aside the claim of infallibility.
To the fourth we answer, that St. Gregory the Great Disclaimed
through humility, as savoring of pride, the title of " Universal
Bishop," we grant, but this is nothing to the purpose. The
Professor must prove that he disclaimed the Papacy and the
Papal authority, or he does not prove his position. But this he
does not and cannot do ; for St. Gregory the Great, as is well
known, on numerous occasions, asserted and exercised that au-
thority ; nay, it was in the exercise of it that he rebuked
John Jejunator, Patriarch of Constantinople, for arrogating to
himself the title of " (Ecumenical Patriarch," a title which
even the Bishop of Rome, though Sovereign Pontiff, forbore to
assume.
The Professor, it is evident from these replies, fails to prove
that during the first six centuries there was no Pope. His ob-
jection, founded on the assumption that there was none, falls,
therefore, to the ground ; and if it were required by our present
argument, we could and would, prove an uninterrupted succes-
sion of Popes from St. Peter to Pius the Ninth.
4. The Professor, taking it for granted that he had proved
that the infallibility of the Church, if lodged with the Pope^
could not be asserted, proceeds to show that it cannot be main-
tained, if lodged either with general councils or with the Eccle
sia dispersa. But these three ways are all the possible suppo-
sitions, and if in no one of these the Church can be infallible,
she cannot be infallible at all. But he has not, as we have
seen, disproved her infallibility through the Pope, and, for aught
he proves, she may be infallible through her Sovereign Pontiffs.
Consequently, as far as the argument to disprove her infallibility
is concerned, it is no matter whether she is infallible in either
of the other two modes or not.
But she cannot be infallible, if the infallibility be lodged with
the general councils ; for full two hundred years elapsed from
the death of the last of the Apostles before such a council was
asseirbled. (p. 79.) If her infallibility is expressed only through
TO DR. LYNCH. 175
general councils, we concede it; but this is no Catholic doc-
trine ; for we all, while we hold the general councils to be infal-
lible, hold also that the bishops of the Church in union with
their chief, the Pope, teach infallibly when dispersed, each in his
own diocese, as well as when congregated in council.
But the councils cannot be infallible, because the early coun-
cils attributed the authority of the canons they settled to the
sanction of the Emperor, (p. 80.) As this is asserted without
any proof, it is sufficient for us simply to deny it. That the
civil effect of the canons, or their authority as civil laws, de-
pended on the sanction of the Emperor, we concede, for the
Church never assumes to enact civil laws; but that they de-
pended on that sanction for their spiritual effect, or their author-
ity in the spiritual order, we deny, and some better authority
than that of one Barrow, an Anglican minister, which is no au-
thority at all, will be needed to prove it.
The infallibility of the Church, continues the Professor, can-
not be maintained, if lodged with the pastors of the Church
dispersed each in his own diocese ; because it would then depend
on unanimous consent, and the unanimous consent of all can
never be ascertained, (p. 81.) This unanimous consent could
not be ascertained, if the pastors of the Church were so many
independent and unrelated individuals, like Protestant ministers,
we concede ; but, whether congregated or dispersed, Catholic
pastors are ONE BODY, hold the episcopate in solido, and
through the Pope, the centre of unity and communion, they all
commune with each, and each with all. Each is bound for all,
and all for each, and each by virtue of this communion can give
the unanimous faith of all. All that we need know is that the
particular pastor to whom we are subjected is in communion
with the Pope ; for if he is, we know he is in communion with
the head, then with the body, and then with the members. If
thus in communion with the head, with the body, and with the
members, what he gives as the unanimous faith of the whole
must be the unanimous faith of the whole, or that which has the
unanimous consent of all.
176 THORN WELL'S ANSWER
5. But the Church cannot be infallible, because she has con-
tradicted herself. " Popes have contradicted Popes, councils
have contradicted councils, pastors have contradicted pastors,
&c." (p. 83.) This argument is good, if the fact be as alleged.
But the fact of contradiction must be proved, not taken for
granted. Does the, Professor prove it? Let us see. The first
proof he offers is, that " the Council of Constantinople decreed
the removal of images, and the abolition of image-worship, and
the Council of Nice, twenty-three years after, re-established
both." (p. 84.) But, unhappily for the Professor, no Council
of Constantinople, or of any other place, recognized or received
by the Church as a council, ever decreed any such thing. There
may have been, for aught we care, an assembly of Iconoclasts
at Constantinople, collected by an Iconoclastic emperor, which
made some such decree ; but that no more implicates the Church
than a decree of a college of dervishes or of a synod of Presby-
terian ministers.
" The second Council of Ephesus approved and sanctioned the
impiety of Eutyches, and the Council of Chalcedon condemned
it." (ib.) But there was only one Council of Ephesus, and that
.was held before the rise of the Eutychian heresy ! There was
an Ephesian Latrocinium which approved the heresy of Euty-
ches, but it was no council, and its doings were condemned,
instantly, by the Church.
"The fourth Council of Lateran asserted the doctrine of a
physical change in the Eucharistic elements, in express contra-
diction to the teachings of the primitive Church, and the evi-
dent declarations of the Apostles of the Lord." (ib.) The Pro-
fessor is not the authority for determining what was the doctrine
of the Apostles or of the primitive Church, and cannot urge his
notions of either as a standard by which to try the Church. He
must adduce, on the authority of the Church herself, the teach-
ings of the primitive Church contradicted by the decree of the
fourth Council of Lateran, before he can allege that decree or
assertion as a proof of her having contradicted herself. This
he has not done.
TO DR. LYNCH. 177
"The secoTicl Council of Orange gave its sanction to some of
the leading doctrines of the school of Augustine, and the Coun-
cil of Trent threw the Church into the arms of Pelagius." (ib.)
Here no instance of contradiction is expressed. But it is not
true, and the Professor offers no proof, that the Council of Trent
threw the Church into the arms of Pelagius ; and as a matter
of fact, that council defines the doctrines of grace, which con-
demn the Pelagian heresy, in the very words of St. Augustine.
The Professor would do well to set about the study of ecclesias-
tical history
" Thus, at different periods, every type of doctrine has pre-
vailed in the bosom of an unchangeable Church." (ib.) Not
proved, and would not be, even if the foregoing charges were
sustained. False inferences and unsupported assertions are not
precisely the arguments to disprove the infallibility of the Church.
We beg the Professor to review his logic.
" The Church has been distracted by every variety of sect,
tormented by every kind of controversy, convulsed by every
species of heresy." If this means that she has sanctioned every
variety of sect and every species of heresy, we simply reply, that
the Professor has not proved it ; if it means, that, first and last,
she has had to combat every variety of sect and species of heresy,
we concede it. But to adduce this as a proof of her having con-
tradicted herself is ridiculous in logic, and monstrous in morals.
You might as well argue that the Church was once Lutheran,
because she condemned Lutheranism, Calvinistic, because she
condemned Calvinism, that St. John was a Gnostic, because he
wrote his Gospel to condemn Gnosticism, or that Mr. Thornwell
himself is a Catholic, because he anathematizes Catholicity ; nay,
that the judge, who, in the discharge of his judicial functions,
condemns the crime of murder, must needs be the murderer,
and that the eleven were guilty of the treachery of Judas, for
they no doubt condemned it. Is this Protestant logic, and
Protestant morality ?
The Church " at last has settled down on a platform which
annihilates the word of God, denounces the doctrines of Christ
178
and his Apostles, and bars the gates of salvation against men."
(ib.) Indeed ! How did the Professor learn all that ?
Here is all the Professor adduces to prove the fact of the
Church having contradicted herself, and it evidently does not
prove it. Then the argument founded on it against the infalli-
bility of the Church must go for nothing. For aught that yet
appears, the Church may be infallible. It is certainly a great
inconvenience not to know ecclesiastical history when one wishes
to reason from it.
From these objections, which the Professor calls "historical
difficulties in the doctrine of Papal infallibility," we proceed to
consider another class, in his Sixth Letter, which we may term
philosophical difficulties. The charge under this head is, that
the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church Papal infallibility,
as the Professor improperly expresses it leads to skepticism,
(p. 89.) The proofs assigned, as nearly as we can get at them,
amidst a mass of speculations sometimes correct enough, but
illustrating, when considered in relation to the argument, only
the ignorantia elenchi, a favorite figure of logic with the
author, are two, namely, the Church enjoins dogmas which
contradict reason, and holds that doctrines may be philosophi-
cally true, and yet theologically false.
1. The instance adduced to prove that the Church requires us
to believe what contradicts reason is the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation. It is a principle of reason that we believe our senses.
But this doctrine denies the testimony of our senses, and there-
fore contradicts reason. " Upon the authority of Rome we are
required to believe that what our senses pronounce to be bread,
that what the minutest analysis which chemistry can institute is
able to resolve into nothing but bread, what every sense pro-
nounces to be material, is yet the Incarnate Son of God, soul,
and body, and Divinity, full and entire, perfect and complete.
Here Rome and the senses are evidently at war ; and here the
infallible Church is made to despise one of the original principles
of belief which God has impressed upon the constitution of the
TO DR. LYNCH. 179
mind." (p. 93.) What is here said about the minutest analysis
chemistry can institute, &c., amounts to nothing, makes the case
neither stronger nor weaker ; for chemical analysis, however
minute or successful, can give us only sensible phenomena. It
never attains to substance itself. The simple assertion is, that
the doctrine of Transubstantiation contradicts reason, because it
contradicts the senses. But is this true ?
There is no contradiction of the senses, unless the doctrine
requires us to believe that what is attested by the senses is false.
What is it the senses attest ? Simply the presence in the Sacred
Host of the species, accidents, or sensible phenomena of bread.
This is all ; for it is well settled in philosophy, that the senses
attain only to the phenomena, and never to the substance or sub-
ject of the phenomena. Does the doctrine of Transubstantiation
deny this ? Not at all. It asserts precisely what the senses
assert, namely, the presence in the Sacred Host of the species,
accidents, or sensible phenomena of bread. Then it does not
contradict the senses.
" But it is a principle of human nature to believe, that, where
we find the phenomena, there is also their subject ; that, if in the
Sacred Host all the sensible phenomena of bread are present,
the substance of bread is also present." Undoubtedly, if rea-
son has no authority, satisfactory to herself, for believing the
contrary. In ordinary cases, reason has no such authority, and
we are to believe that the sensible phenomena and their subject
do go together. But reason cannot deny that God, if he chooses,
can, by a miraculous exertion of his power, change the subject
without changing the phenomena, and if in any particular case
it be certified infallibly to her that he actually does so, she her-
self requires us to believe it. In the Most Holy Eucharist, it is
so certified to reason, if the Church be infallible, and therefore,
in believing that the sensible phenomena of bread are there
without their natural subject, we are simply obeying reason, and
of course, then, do not contradict it. It is no contradiction of
reason to believe on a higher reason what we should not and
could not on a lower reason. In trjis doctrine, we are simply
180 TIIORNWELL'S ANSWER
required to suspend the ordinary reason at the bidding of an
extraordinary reason, which is not, and never can be, unreason-
able. Consequently, there is in the doctrine nothing contrary
to reason, and the Church, in enjoining it, does not enjoin a dog-
ma which contradicts either reason or the senses, though she un-
questionably does enjoin a dogma which is above reason. The
first proof, therefore, that the doctrine of infallibility " leads to
skepticism," must be abandoned, as having no foundation for
itself.
2. The second proof is no better. That certain infidel or
paganizing philosophers, in the latter part of the fifteenth and
early part of the sixteenth century, maintained that proposi-
tions may be philosophically true, yet theologically false, we con-
cede; that this was the doctrine of the Schoolmen, or that it
was ever for a moment countenanced by the Church, we deny.
Indeed, Leo X., in Concilii Lateranensis Sess. 8, 1513, con-
demns it, by declaring every assertion contrary to revealed faith
to be false, and decreeing that all persons adhering to such erro-
neous assertions be avoided and punished as heretics, tanquam
hcereticos. It would not be amiss, if the Professor would bear
in mind that proofs which are themselves either false or in want
of proof prove nothing, however pertinent they may be.
We cannot follow the Professor in his declamatory specula-
tions in support of his charge. His reasoning is all fallacious.
He starts with the assumption, that the Church is fallible, has
no authority from God to teach, and then charges her with con-
sequences which would follow, no doubt, if she were fallible, if
she had no divine commission ; for they are the precise conse-
quences which do follow from the teaching, or rather action, of
the Protestant sects. If the Church were fallible, a mere human
authority, arrogantly claiming to teach infallibly, we certainly
should not defend her, or dispute that her influence would be
as bad as Mr. Thornwell falsely alleges ; but we do not recog-
nize his right to assume the fallibility of the Church as the basis
of his proofs that she is not infallible ; and we cannot accept as
facts mere consequences deduced from an hypothesis which we
TO DR. LYNCH. 181
deny, and which is not yet proved, far less receive them as proofs
of the hypothesis.
There are in Catholic countries, no doubt, many unbelievers ;
but before this can be adduced as evidence 'that the Church, by
claiming to be infallible, leads them into unbelief, it is necessary
to prove that she is not infallible. If infallible, she cannot have
a skeptical tendency ; because what she enjoins must be infalli-
ble truth, and skepticism, when it does not proceed from malice,
results always, not from truth being present to the mind, but
from its not being present. But it is worthy of remark, that
the objections to Christianity on which unbelievers chiefly rely
are not drawn from the distinctive teachings of the Catholic
Church, nor from the Scriptures as she interprets them. They
are nearly all drawn from the Scriptures as interpreted by pri-
vate judgment, and hence, as we should expect, infidelity abounds
chiefly in Protestant countries. Protestant Germany, England,
the United States, are, any one of them, far more infidel than
even France ; and our own city cannot, in religious belief, com-
pare favorably with Paris, infidel as Paris unhappily is. Modern
infidelity is of Protestant origin ; Giordano Bruno sojourned in
Protestant England; Bayle was a Protestant, and resided in
Holland ; Voltaire, the father of French infidelity, did but trans-
port to France the philosophy of the Englishman Locke, and the
doctrines and objections of the English deists, Herbert of Cher-
bury, Tindal, Toland, Chubb, Morgan, Woolston, and others.
Indeed, to England especially belongs the chief glory, such as it
is, of infidelizing modern society. France and Germany are
nothing but her pupils. Rightly do Protestants regard her as
the bulwark of their religion ; for in the war against the Church,
against the revelation of Almighty God, she, with her sanctimo-
nious face and corrupt heart, has the chief command. It
were easy to show, that, aside from the internal malice of unbe-
lievers, the chief cause of infidelity in modern society is Protest-
antism, which asserts the divine authority of the Scriptures, and
then leaves them to be interpreted by private judgment ; but it
is unnecessary. It is becoming every day more and more obvious,
182 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
that, the more Protestants circulate the Bible, the mere do they
multiply scoffers and unbelievers.
In Letter VII. we come to another class of objections, which
we may term moral objections. These are summed up in the
assertion, The Church cannot be infallible, because her " infalli-
bility is conducive to licentiousness and immorality." (p. 105.)
The proof of this is, first, the unproved assertion, that the doc-
trine of the infallibility of the Church leads to skepticism ; and,
second, the allegation that Catholicity and Jesuitism are on 3 and
the same thing. The first assertion we dismiss, for we have just
shown that the Professor does not sustain it. As to Jesuitism,
we hardly know what to say ; for we do not know, and the au-
thor does not inform us, what is meant by Jesuitism. For aught
that appears, the identity asserted may be conceded without pre-
judice to the Church. The Society of Jesus is composed of
Catholic priests, and we are not aware that these have any pe-
culiar doctrines, either of faith or morals. Indeed, they could
not have ; for if they were to have any, they would be obliged
to leave the Order and the Church. The notion among some
Protestants, that the Jesuits are a sect in the bosom of the
Church, professing certain dogmas of faith or certain principles
of morals different from those professed by other Catholics, is a
ridiculous blunder. The Church enjoins the same faith and the
same principles of morals upon all her children, and no person,
or class of persons, would be suffered to teach in her commu-
nion, who should add to or take from them. The Jesuits are
Catholics, neither more nor less, and it is fair to presume that in
faith and principles of morals they agree with all Catholics, and
profess what the Church teaches.
But that the Jesuits teach, or ever have taught, doctrines fa-
vorable to licentiousness or immorality is a matter to be proved,
not taken for granted. What is the proof the Professor offers ?
Here is all we can find : " These three cardinal principles of
intention, mental reservation, and probability cover the whole
ground of Jesuitical atrocity." (p. 115.^ The Professor labors
TO DR. LYNCH. 183
long and hard to identify Catholicity and Jesuitism. He must,
therefore, concede that these three principles cover the whole of
what he holds to be atrocious in Catholicity. Catholicity, then,
is " conducive to licentiousness and immorality," because it con-
tains the three principles of " intention, mental reservation, and
probability." But what is the meaning the Professor attaches
to these principles ? Unhappily, he gives us no clear and expli-
cit answer ; for he writes with his head full of false assumptions.
" The detestable principles," he says, " of the graceless order
[the Jesuits] may be found embodied in the recorded
canons of general councils. That the end justifies the means,
that the interests of the priesthood are superior to the claims of
truth, justice, and humanity, is necessarily implied in the decree
of the Council of Lateran, that no oaths are binding that to
keep them is perjury rather than fidelity which conflict with
the advantage of the Church. What fraud have the Jesuits
ever recommended or committed, that can exceed in iniquity the
bloody proceedings of the Council of Constance in reference to
Huss ? What spirit have they ever breathed more deeply im-
bued with cruelty and slaughter, than the edict of Lateran to
kings and magistrates, to extirpate heretics from the face of the
earth ? The principle on which the sixteenth canon of the third
Council of Lateran proceeds covers the doctrine of mental re-
servations. If the end justifies the means, if we can be per-
jured with impunity to protect the authority of the priesthood,
a good intention will certainly sanctify any other lie, and a man
may always be sure that he is free from sin, if he can only be
sure of his allegiance to Rome and his antipathy to heretics.
The" doctrine of probability is in fall accordance with the spirit
of the Papacy, in substituting authority for evidence, and making
the opinions of men the arbiters of faith. And yet these three
cardinal principles of intention, mental reservation, and proba-
bility, which are so thoroughly Papal, cover the whole ground
of Jesuitical atrocity." pp. 114, 115.
It would seem from this, that the Professor understands by
the principle of intention, that the moral character of the actor
is determined by the intention with which he acts ; by that of
mental reservation, that no one can bind himself by oath to do
that which conflicts with the advantage of the Church ; and by
184
that of probability, the substituting of authority for evidence,
and making the opinions of men the arbiters of faith. If this
is not his meaning, we are unable to divine what it is.
That Catholicity teaches that the moral character of the ac-
tor is determined by his intention, or, in other words, that a
man is to be judged according to his intention, may be true
but this must be morally wrong, or it cannot be adduced as a
proof that the teaching of the Church is " conducive to licen-
tiousness and immorality." That this is morally wrong, the Pro-
fessor does not prove, or even attempt to prove. For ourselves,
we are not now called upon to prove that it is right. It is for
the Professor to prove that it is wrong. But we own, that, from
our boyhood, we have always supposed it a dictate of reason that
the man is to be praised or blamed according to his intention.
If I really intend to do a man evil, my unintentional failure to
do him evil does not exonerate me from guilt ; if I really intend
to do him good, but, in attempting to do him good, unintention-
ally do him evil, I am not guilty. If I have killed a man in
self-defence, the law excuses or justifies me ; and it does not
hold me guilty of murder, unless the killing has been done with
a felonious intent. He who takes the life of a fellow-being
through private revenge is a murderer ; the public officer who
does it in pursuance of a judicial sentence is no murderer, and
does but a justifiable act. Whence the difference, if not in the
difference of intention ? That no act, in relation to the actor, is
blameworthy unless done from a malicious intention, or praise-
worthy unless done from a virtuous intention, we have always
supposed to be the teaching of reason, and we must have high
authority to convince us that we have been wrong.
" But on this ground the Church erects her doctrine, that the
end justifies the means." We cannot concede this ; first, because
the Church has no such doctrine ; and second, because the prin-
ciple does not imply it. The assertion, that the Church teaches,
that any Catholic doctor teaches, or ever did teach, that the end
justifies the means, is made without the faintest shadow of a
reason, and the reverse is what she does teach, as every man
TO DR. LYNCH. 185
knows who knows anything of her teaching. The doctrine of
intention objected to implies nothing of the sort. The Church
teaches, indeed, that the act for which we are accountable is the
act of the will ; but she teaches that no act is done with a good
intention that is not referred to God as the ultimate end, and
that every one of our acts is to be so referred. Now, in choosing
the means, we as much act as we do in the choice of the end,
and therefore must be, as to the means, bound by the same law
which binds us as to the end ; and then we can no more choose
unjust means than we can unjust ends, and therefore can be
allowed to seek even just ends only by just means.
The Professor says that " the Jesuit Casnedi maintains in a
published work, that at the day of judgment God will say to
many, * Come, my beloved, you who have committed murder,
blasphemed, &c., because you believed that in so doing you were
right.' " But he takes good care not to give us a reference to
the work itself, and we hazard nothing in saying that no Jesuit
ever published such a sentence, unless it was to condemn it, as
containing a Protestant heresy. That invincible ignorance, if
really invincible, excuses from sin, is, no doubt, a doctrine of the
Church ; for she teaches that no one can sin in not doing that
which he has no power to do. No doubt, involuntary mistakes, if
unavoidable, springing from no malice in the will, from no cul-
pable neglect of ours, are excusable ; but no Catholic divine ever
taught that invincible ignorance can extend to the great precepts
of the natural law, to such as forbid murder, blasphemy, <fec. ;
for they are engraven on the heart of every man, and are evident
to every man by the light of natural reason. The Professor has
been misled, by relying on the authority of Pascal, and other
writers of his stamp. He refers us to Pascal's Provincial Letters
" for a popular exposition of the morality of the Jesuits." He
might as well refer us to Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary
for a popular exposition of the morality of the Gospel. Pascal
was a Jansenist, and Jansenists are heretics, not Catholics. The
Provincial Letters are witty, but wicked, a tissue of lies,
forgeries, and misrepresentations, from beginning to end, as has
186
been amply proved over and over again. If Mr. Thormvell is
ignorant of this fact, he will have to search long before he will
find a Catholic or a Jesuit doctor that will permit him to hold
that his ignorance is excusable.*
* In ordinary times, what we have said in the text is all that would
need to be said in reference to the Society of Jesus ; but now, when the
Society is suffering a severe persecution, even in Catholic countries, we
are unwilling to pass the subject over without bearing our testimony,
feeble as it is, in favor of the children of St. Ignatius. We do this the
more willingly, because we are conscious that we have ourselves fre-
quently done them injustice, both in our thoughts and in our words.
It is hard, when we hear a body of men widely and constantly decried,
not to be more or less prejudiced against them ; and nothing is more
natural than, when under the influence of this prejudice, to exaggerate
beyond all reasonable bounds the slight imperfections we may observe
in here and there an individual member, and to generalize them into
characteristics of the body itself. Few persons have been more preju-
diced against the Society of Jesus than we ourselves. But having taken
some pains to find a basis for the unfavorable judgment we had formed,
we hardly know when or how, we confess that we have been entirely
unsuccessful. There may have been individual Jesuits whose conduct
we could not approve, but we are satisfied, after studying the history of
the Order, that it needs no other defence than a simple statement of
facts, and no other eulogium than the recital of its deeds.
Every body knows the popular meaning attached to Jesuitical. Tak-
ing the word in this meaning, there are no men so little Jesuitical as
the Jesuits. Their whole history proves them to be remarkable for their
simplicity of heart, singleness of purpose, and straightforwardness of
conduct No man can take up a work in defence of the Order, written
by a member, without being fully convinced that the Jesuit is the anti-
thesis of the character commonly ascribed to him. We have heard
many charges, and grave charges, against him ; but we have not heard
one that we have not seen refuted. Jesuits are men, and, of course,
suffer more or less the infirmities common to all men; but we should
like to be shown a body of men, of equal numbers, placed in the try-
ing circumstances in which they have been, who have shown less of
human infirmity, or been more true to the motto, Jld major em Dei
G/oriam. There is no field of science or art which they have not culti-
vated with success; no department of literature which they have not
enriched with their contributions ; scarcely a nation to which they have
not preached the cross ; and hardly a land which they have not conse-
crated with the blood of their martyrs.
TO DR. LYNCH. 18 Y
1. The principle of mental reservation happens to be no
Catholic doctrine. Protestants would, no doubt, be pleased to
find that the Church teaches that lying is sometimes justifiable,
for such a doctrine is one they stand very much in need of; but
Even the present persecution of the Society is to its glory. If the
Jesuits had been political demagogues, if they had been violent radi-
cals, ready to sacrifice liberty to license, order to anarchy, religion to
politics, heaven to earth, our ears would not have been stunned with
maddened outcries against them; the world would have owned them
as her children, and the age would have delighted to honor them. We
know it is pretended that they are the enemies of liberty and the friends
of despotism, but it needs only a slight knowledge of facts to know that
this is mere pretence. Liberty has more than once found her noblest
champion in the Jesuits, and the hostility a year or two since manifested
to them in France was because they demanded the freedom of educa-
tion, a right guarantied by the Charter itself. They may not be, in
these days, foremost among those who stir up rebellions and revolutions ;
they may not regard the fearful events which have recently taken
place in Europe, as sure to bring back the golden age of the poets;
they may hold their mission to be spiritual, rather than political, and
believe it more important to convert individuals and nations to God
than to one political creed or another ; but if so, it does not follow that
they are wrong, or that for this very reason they are not all the more
worthy of our respect and confidence.
The Society of Jesus was instituted, not for political, but for religious
purposes, and its members, by their profession, are devoted to preaching
the Gospel, hearing confessions, and educating youth, and that not for
one country only, but for all countries. These ends are the same and
of equal importance everywhere and under all forms of government.
If the Jesuits were to adopt a political creed, and become its propagan-
dists, how could they devote themselves to the ends of their institute,
alike under the monarchy of Europe and the democracy of America?
What course would or could be proper for them, but to abstain from
declaring themselves in favor of any particular form of government,
and to content themselves with simply inculcating upon all citizens to
obey the legitimate government of their country, whatever its form or
constitution ?
The charge against the Jesuits of being in favor of this or that form
of government arises from their refusal to declare themselves in favor
of one or another, from the fact that they have no political creed, and
make it a point of duty to stand aloof from politics, and to confine them-
selves to the discharge of their spiritual functions. They obey the
188
she teaches nothing of the sort. She does not command her
children at all times and on all occasions to speak all the truth
they may happen to know, but she does command them never
to speak any thing but the truth ; and she teaches them, that,
powers that be, and comport themselves as loyal subjects to the author-
ity of the country, whether it be autocracy, as in Russia, constitution-
alism, as in France and Great Britain, or republicanism, as in America.
What more could we ask of them ? If tyrants denounce them because
they will not turn defenders of tyranny, if revolutionists denounce them
because they will not join in the war against legitimate authority, whose
fault is it ? Are we to condemn the Jesuits because tyrants and revolu-
tionists wrong them ?
Wherever the Jesuits are permitted to establish themselves, they are
a blessing. It is not easy to estimate the value to this country of their
services as instructors of our youth. It would be difficult to find a sub-
stitute for them as educators. In every part of the country, they are,
for the pure love of God, founding colleges, and training up our child-
ren in the way they should go. Is this nothing ? These colleges are
but of yesterday, yet have they already done great service, as we our-
selves can personally testify, and who have peculiar reason to thank
Almighty God for raising up and moving the good fathers to devote
themselves to the important work of education. But as yet they have
really done nothing, in comparison with what they will do. They
now rank among the best in the country, and in a few years they will
place education with us at least on a level with what it is in the most
favored countries of the Old World. And can we count this small
service ?
Worldings may despise the Jesuits, infidels and heretics may calum-
niate them; misguided Catholics, whose faith is but a dead faith, may
distrust them ; but the world needs them, our own country needs them,
and though the Church is dependent on no religious order, they are
not the least efficient of her servants. Protestants, in their estimation
of the Jesuit, betray only their ignorance or their malice, or both. The
character they ascribe to the Jesuit they will find in its perfection in
their own ministers, and the best definition of Jesuitical, in the popu-
lar acceptation of the term, is a Presbyterian minister, the antithesis
of a Jesuit. Mr. Thornwell illustrates and accepts, in the book be-
fore us, every element of what he calls Jesuitism. No man can have
been brought up among Presbyterians without, knowing that the prin-
ciple, the end justifies the means, is the one on which they generally
act, whether they avow it or not. No one can read one of their books
against the Church without perceiving that the principle of mental
TO DR. LYNCH. 189
when they use words which by their natural force convey a false
sense, they speak falsehood, whatever may have been their secret
meaning, and that knowingly and intentionally to use language
which is naturally calculated to deceive the hearer, to convey to
him a false meaning, or a meaning different from that in the
mind of him that uses it, is to lie, to sin against God. All who
are acquainted with Catholic morality know that this is her
teaching, and whoever asserts the contrary is guilty of the very
offence he would fasten upon her, and has no excuse for his con-
duct. For if he is ignorant of her doctrine, he speaks rashly ;
if he is not ignorant, he is guilty of a wilful falsehood.
2. The facts which the Professor alleges, granting them to be
facts, do not prove the principle of mental reservation. We
presume the Professor wishes to maintain that the Church
teaches that it is lawful for her children to take oaths which
conflict with her advantage, but that they must take them with
the mental reservation, not to keep them ; and that if so taken,
it is no sin to break them. This is what he needs in order to
make out his case. But this he does not prove. Granting that
reservation, or, in plain terms, the right to lie for the purpose of ad-
vancing Protestantism, is a principle which they practically adopt, and
hold in constant requisition ; and whoever will read a Presbyterian dog-
matical work will see that to higher certainty than probability its au-
thor does not aspire, and that to substitute authority for evidence, and
to make the opinions of men the the arbiters of faith, is his boast.
Nothing is more ridiculous than for a Presbyterian minister to accuse
Jesuits of a want of principle, of candor, of honesty, or to charge them
with fraud and cruelty. Who ever heard of a Presbyterian minister
that was not, officially, the very impersonation of pride, cant, hypoc-
risy, bigotry, and cruelty ? If such a one there ever was, we may be
sure that he did not live and die a Presbyterian. We know something
of Presbyterianism ; it was our misfortune to have been brought up a
Presbyterian. We know what are its secret covenants, the pledges it
exacts of its adherents, and the measures it takes to prevent the least
ray of light from penetrating their darkness. Take a Protestant's ac-
count of Catholicity or Jesuitism, change the name, and it is a faithful
picture as far as it goes, of proud, arrogant, bigoted, cruel, and perse-
cuting Presbyterianism. There is not a charge brought against us by
Presbyterians that is not substantially true of them.
190
he has rightly stated the doctrine of the Council of Lateran, he
does not tell us which council, all he proves is, that the Church
teaches that no oath taken to her prejudice is binding; but he
does not prove that she teaches that the reason why it is not
binding is because it was taken with a mental reservation not to
keep it in case it conflicted with her advantage. For aught that
appears, the reason why the Church declares that such oaths do
not bind is because she holds them to be unlawful oaths, oaths
which no man has a right to take, and which therefore are void
ab initio. The Professor will hardly maintain the morality of
robbers and cutthroats, that a man who has taken an unlawful
oath is bound to keep it. He will hardly pretend that he who
should swear to assist in a plot for blowing up the Presbyterian
Assembly when in session, for instance, would be bound to keep
his oath, or to refrain from revealing the plot, simply because he
had sworn not to do so. The whole sum and substance of the
charge, then, is, that the Jesuits and the Church teach that un-
lawful oaths do not bind. Does this conflict with reason ? Is
this " conducive to licentiousness and immorality ? " Is it im-
moral to teach that no man can bind himself to do wrong ?
But in this the Church teaches that " the interests of the
priesthood are superior to the claims of truth, justice, and hu-
manity ; for she holds that all oaths which conflict with her
advantage are unlawful." The conclusion is not necessary, for
it may be that her interests, her advantage, are identical with the
claims of truth, justice, and humanity ; or that it is only by pro-
moting her interests and seeking her advantage that it is possible
to vindicate the claims of truth, justice and humanity. If she
be what she professes to be, this must be so ; and that she is
what she professes to be the Professor must presume till he has
proved the contrary. If she be the Church of God, any oath
to her prejudice is an oath against God, and no man can be mad
enough to say that an oath against God can bind, or that the
claims of truth, justice, or humanity can be prejudiced by not
keeping it. But the Professor cannot assume that she is not the
Church of God, for that she is not, is the very point he is to
TO DR. LYNCH. 191
prove, and he cannot prove this by assuming it, and making the
assumption the principle of his arguments to prove it. Such a
procedure would simply beg the question. Granting, then,
that the Church does teach that oaths to her prejudice are un-
lawful, and therefore do not bind, nothing proves that she is not
right in so doing, and therefore nothing proves that in doing
so she favors " licentiousness and immorality." To condemn the
Church, on the ground the Professor assumes, would be to assert
the doctrine opposite to hers ; namely, unlawful oaths are to be
kept, that, if I have been foolish or wicked enough to swear to
do wrong, I am bound in conscience to keep rny oath and do the
wrong, a monstrous doctrine, which strikes at the foundation
of all morals. It h strange what blunders Protestants commit,
in trying to get an argument against the Church. It would seem
as if it never occurred to them to examine the principle of the
objections they urge. They seem to say, if the Church should
favor licentiousness and immorality, then she would not be the
Church of God ; therefore she does favor licentiousness and
immorality. The Church forbids unlawful oathes.
3. The Professor, evidently, is ignorant of the principle of
probability, or probabilism, as understood by Catholic theolo-
gians. That principle, if he did but know it, is very nearly the
contrary of what he supposes, and is little else than the well-
known maxim of the Common Law, that, if there is a reasonable
doubt, the accused is entitled to its benefit. But the principle,
as the Professor defines it, is not embraced by the Church, nor
defended by a single Catholic divine. He says, the Church sub-
stitutes " authority for evidence, and makes the opinions of men
the arbiters of faith ; " but this, in principle, at least, is a mis-
take ; for the Church teaches that God alone is the arbiter of
faith, and that nothing but his word, declared to be his word,
by himself through his divinely appointed organ, can be of faith.
His word divinely declared to be his word is the highest evi-
dence reason can demand or receive ; and if the Church is
proved to reason to be his organ for declaring his word, reason
has the highest evidence possible for believing that whatever
192 THOBNWELL'S ANSWER
she teaches as the word of God is infallibly true. She asserts
that reason has the right to demand this evidence, and has no
right to dispense with it. In principle, then, she denies the
principle of probability as set forth by the Professor. If she is
what she claims to be, she denies it in her practice, and cannot
possibly do as alleged. That she is what she professes to be
the Professor is bound, as we have already shown, to presume
till he makes the contrary appear ; which he does not do.
The Professor identifies Jesuitism with Catholicity, and re-
solves all that is atrocious in Jesuitism into the three principles
enumerated, and therefore all that is atrocious in Catholicity.
But the first of these principles is a simple dictate of reason,
and contains nothing atrocious. Then all that is atrocious in
Catholicity, or all the atrocity that can be charged upon Catho-
licity, is resolvable into the other two principles, namely, mental
reservation and probability. But these are not Catholic princi-
ples, and, however atrocious they may be, their atrocity cannot
be charged to her. Therefore no atrocity can be charged to her,
even according to the Professor's own argument. But to be
"conducive to licentiousness and immorality" is undeniably
atrocious. Therefore the Church is not conducive to them. So
the Professor does not sustain his assertion, that " Papal infalli-
bility is conducive to licentiousness and immorality." Assuredly,
the Professor is ignorant of the laws of evidence.
The next proof offered against the infallibility of the Church
is, that "it is the patron of superstition and will-worship."
(p. 116.) This is a singular objection. How infallibility can
patronize superstition and will-worship, that is, we//-worship, or
the worship of wells, conceding them to be wrong, is more than
we are able to conceive. Infallibility can be the patron of noth-
ing wrong, and the Professor, if he should prove his thesis, would
prove that superstition and will-worship are right, not that the
Church is fallible. Can he mean that the assertion of her in-
fallibility is the patron of superstition and will-worship ? But
this he would be troubled to prove, even if he should prove the
TO DR. LYNCH. 193
existence of superstition and will-worship in the Church ; for
they undeniably exist out of the Church, in communities which
lay no claim to infallibility. Does he mean that the Church is
not infallible, because she is the patron of superstition, &c. ?
Why, then, did he not say so ? If this is his meaning, his argu-
ment is valid, if the fact be as alleged. But, unhappily for his
cause, the fact is not as alleged.* Catholics pay divine honors to
God alone, as every one knows who knows any thing of Catholic
worship. That we keep relics, pictures, and images, and pay
them a relative honor as memorials of departed sanctity, we
admit ; that we venerate the Saints, especially the Ever-blessed
Virgin, the Most Holy Mother of God, we also admit ; but that
this is superstition or will-worship we deny, and the Professor
must prove, or not assert it.
The last proof of the fallibility of the Church which the Pro-
fessor attempts to offer is, that she is not infallible, for " she is
hostile to civil government." (p. 143.) His argument is, when
reduced to form, the church that claims and exercises temporal
authority is hostile to civil government ; but the Roman Catho-
lic Church claims and exercises temporal authority; therefore
she is hostile to civil government. The church that is hostile
to civil government is fallible ; but the Roman Catholic Church
is hostile to civil government ; therefore, the Roman Catholic
Church is fallible, that is, not infallible.
The church that claims and exercises supreme temporal autho-
rity is hostile to civil government, if she has received from Al-
mighty God no grant of that temporal authority, we concede ;
if she has received the grant, we deny. No church which pos-
sesses, by the Divine grant, temporal authority, can be hostile
to civil government by claiming and exercising it, because she is
herself, under God, the civil government. But the Roman
Gatholic Church, if she has received the grant, does thus pos-
sess the temporal authority. Therefore, if she claims and exer-
cises that authority, she is not hostile to civil goverment.
* The reader will find this objection replied to at length in Brown-
son's Quarterly Review for January, 1848, pp. 101-116.
194
The church that is hostile to all government in civil affairs is
fallible, we concede ; for the necessity of government in civil
affairs is clearly evinced from reason ; the church that is hostile
only to distinct and independent civil government is fallible, we
deny, for it may be that God has vested the government of civil
as well as spiritual affairs in the same hands. The denial of
civil government distinct from and independent of the Church
is a proof of fallibility only on the supposition that such civil
government exists by divine right. But if all government, civil
as well as spiritual, is vested in the Church, it does not so exist.
Therefore its denial is no proof of fallibility. Moreover, the
Roman Catholic Church, as we have seen, cannot be hostile to
civil government, even if she claim and exercise the supreme
temporal authority, if she has received it as a grant from God,
the Supreme Ruler. But it is not proved that she claims or ex-
ercises it without such grant. Therefore it is not proved that
she is hostile to civil government ; and therefore, again, it is not
proved that she is fallible. The Professor labors to prove, that,
according to Catholicity, " the Pope is the vicar of the Omnipo-
tent God, invested alike with temporal power and ecclesiastical
authority." (p. 147.) If so, the Pope is the vicar of God in
both orders, and is invested with the supreme authority in both.
Then he is by divine appointment the temporal sovereign. But
for the temporal sovereign to claim aud exercise temporal autho-
rity is not to be hostile to the civil government, but to assert and
maintain it.
But the claim of the Church to "secular authority merges
the state in the Church. Kings and emperors, nations and com-
munities, become merely the instruments and pliant tools of
spiritual dominion. " (page. 153.) What if the spiritual do-
minion be legimate ? All power is of God, and there is no legit-
imate authority not from him. Kings, emperors, nations, com-
munities, have no right to exercise temporal authority, save as
vicars of the Omnipotent God, and it is only for the reason that
they are such that we are under any obligation to obey them.
If Almighty God has made the Pope his sole vicar in both
TO DR. LYNCH. 195
orders, obedience is due to him by all both in church and state,
and then it is no objection to the Church that she exacts the
submission of kings, emperors, nations, communities, for they
can, in such case, have no authority not derived from God
through the Pope. The Professor, if he grant that the Pope is
the vicar of Almighty God in the temporal and in the spiritual
order, cannot urge his objection, because in doing so he would
resist the authority of the vicar of God, and therefore of God
himself.
Again, if the Pope be the vicar of God in both orders, the
claim and exercise of the supreme temporal dominion do not
merge the state in the church, for then the Church is both church
and state. The Church could merge the state in herself by
claiming and exercising temporal power, only on condition that
she had received no special grant of temporal power, and claimed
to exercise it solely by virtue of her grant of spiritual authority.
But if she teaches, as the Professor contends, that in the Pope
she has been invested with temporal as well as with spiritual
authority, she does not do this, that is, does not claim the tem-
poral as incidental to the spiritual. Therefore, even granting
that she claims the supreme temporal authority, she does not
and cannot merge the state in the Church as a spiritual author-
ity, which is the sense intended. This is evinced from the in-
stance of the Papal states. The Pope in regard to them is su-
preme in both temporals and spirituals, but they exist as a state,
as a civil government, as much so as Tuscany or Sardinia.
The Professor does not appear to understand the question he
wishes to discuss. The spiritual order is undeniably superior to
the temporal, and nothing can be legitimately concluded from
the temporal to the prejudice of the spiritual. No man who
has any knowledge of even natural morality can pretend that it
is the prerogative of the temporal order to define or give law to
the spiritual. It is not according to reason that the lower should
rule the higher, the body the soul, for instance, or the state the
Church. To object to the Church that she subjects the whole
temporal order to the spiritual order, or that she makes the spir-
196
itual dominion supreme, is to make an objection which reason
disavows, because it would be in principle the same as to deny
the right of reason to rule the flesh, nay, the same as to deny
reason itself. The Church, if she is God's Church, if she has
received plenary spiritual authority as the vicar of the Omnipo-
tent God, must needs be superior to the state, and the state can
have no authority to do aught she declares to be sinful or mor-
ally wrong, and must be bound to do whatever she declares to
be required by the law of God. To allege that she subjects kings,
emperors, <fec., to her dominion is, then, to allege nothing against
her.
The Professor does not state the question properly. He be-
gins with an assumption which he has no right to make. He as-
sumes, that, if the Church claims any authority in the temporal
order, she is a usurper, and therefore cannot be infallible. He
takes it for granted, then, that, if he proves that she has claimed
such authority, he has disproved her infallibility. But we de-
mand the proof from reason, that she has no authority in tem-
porals. Till he proves this, he cannot conclude, from the fact
that she claims it, that she is a usurper, and therefore fallible.
It is certain from reason, since all power is of God, and there is
and can be no rightful authority to govern in any order not de-
rived mediately or immediately from him, that he can make the
Pope his sole vicar on earth in both orders, if such be his will
and pleasure. If he does so, then it is also certain that the Pope
has the right to exercise the supreme authority in both orders,
and then that, so far from his temporal authority being usurped,
all authority not derived from God through him is usurpation.
What the Professor has to prove, then, in case he contends that
the Church claims the supreme temporal authority, is, not that
she claims it, but that she claims it without having received it
from God. If she asserts that she has received it, since the
legal presumption is in her favor, and the argument is not to
prove, but to disprove, her infallibility, he can prove that she
has not received it only by proving that she has in the exercise
of it violated some principle of natural justice.
TO DR. LYNCH. 197
We are far from conceding that the Church has ever claim-
ed or exercised temporal authority in the sense intended ; but
pass over that. Let it be supposed for the present that she
has. What is the evidence that she has ever violated any prin-
ciple of natural justice ? You can arraign her only on the law
of nature, before the bar of natural reason. Produce, then, the
precept of the law of nature which she has violated or contra-
dicted. We have looked carefully through all that the Pro-
fessor has urged, and we can find nothing that is immoral or
unjust. All his proofs are reduced to this, that she claims and
exercises temporal authority. Grant all this, what then ? Where
is your evidence that she has not rightfully claimed and exer-
cised it ? You offer none, and only work yourself up into a vio-
lent passion against her, because she has claimed and exercised
it. Where is your evidence that the exercise you fancy you have
proved has been contrary to the law of nature ? You offer only
two things ; first, what you call the Jesuit's oath, and, second,
the prohibition of duelling by the Council of Trent. The oath
ascribed to the Jesuits is a forgery. The Jesuits have no such
oath, for as Jesuits they take no oath at all. The Council of
Trent condemns duelling, we grant ; but is it the condemnation
of duelling, or duelling itself, that is contrary to the precepts of
justice ? Which is easier to defend, duelling, or the Church
in condemning it ? And who is in the wrong, the Church in
condemning, or you in defending, the base, cowardly, and detest-
able practice of single combat ?
But the Church does more than condemn it. According to
the statute of the Council of Trent, in its twenty-fifth session,
" the temporal sovereign who permits a duel to take place in his
dominions is punished not only with excommunication, but with
the loss of the place in which the combat occurred. The du-
ellists and their seconds are condemned in the same statute to
perpetual infamy, the loss of their goods, and deprived, if they
should fall, of Christian burial, while those who are merely spec-
tators of the scene are sentenced to eternal malediction." (p. 152.)
Well, what then? What then? Why, this proves that the
198 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
Church claims the right to exercise civil authority, nay, to inflict
civil punishments ; for such are the forfeiture of goods, and the
loss of the place where the combat occurs. Yes, as you cite the
statute, but not as it was passed by the Council of Trent.* But
let that pass. If so, it is nothing to your purpose, unless the
punishment prescribed is in itself unjust. Will you maintain
that ?
" In a conflict of power between princes and Popes, the first
and highest duty of all the vassals of Rome is to maintain her
honor and support her claims." (p. 153.) Suppose a conflict
of power between the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States and the civil authorities of the
country, which party would the Professor, as a Presbyterian min-
ister and member of that church, support ? The civil author-
ities ? Then he either condemns his church, or raises the tem-
poral order above the spiritual, which he expressly repudiates.
Would he side with his church, and maintain the independence
of the spiritual order ? Then he would recognize and act on the
principle he objects to us, and we retort his objection. Suppose
a conflict between an infallible church and a fallible civil govern-
ment, we demand which of the two ought to yield. " But the
Church is not infallible." That is for you to prove. If she is
infallible, she must be in the right, and then we are bound in
reason to support her ; if she is not infallible, we deny that we
are bound to support her at all, for then she is not God's Church.
" Hence the Jesuit in his secret oath renounces all allegiance
to all earthly powers which have not been confirmed by the
Holy See." (ib.) The Jesuit has no secret oath, and renounces
no allegiance to the civil government. The charge is false.
" The Romish Church, too, sets her face like a flint against
the subjection of her spiritual officers to the legal tribunals of
the state." (ib.) Well, what if she does ? Where is the proof
that in this she is wrong ? She " has positively prohibited the
intolerable presumption of laymen, though kings and magis-
trates, of demanding oaths of allegiance from the lofty members
* Vide Cone. Trident. Sess. 25, cap. xix.
TO DR. LYNCH. 199
oi her hierarchy." (ib.) In case they hold nothing temporal
of them, conceded ; but what then ? Will the Professor be good
enough to demonstrate the right of the temporal authority to
demand from a minister of religion an oath of allegiance in
spirituals ?
La Fayette is reported to have said, that, " if ever the liber-
ties of this country should be destroyed, it would be by the
machinations of the Romish priests." (p. 154.) Therefore the
Church is fallible ! La Fayette is reported, by whom ? When ?
Where ? What if he did say so 1 Was La Fayette infallible ?
And does it follow that the thing must be so, because La Fayette
thought so ? If he did once think so, it is possible that he
changed his mind, for it is reported that he became reconciled to
the Church and died a Catholic, and it is well known that he
was, when dying, exceedingly anxious for the services of a " Ro-
mish priest." He had probably had enough of French philoso-
phism during his lifetime, without wishing to carry any with
him into eternity.
" They are all of them [ Catholic priests] sworn subjects of
a foreign potentate." (ib.) Not true. The authority of the
Church is Catholic, not national, and can be no more foreign
here than at Rome.
" There are peculiar principles in the constitution and polity
of Rome which render it an engine of tremendous power."
(p. 159.) Who has more power than God? Because, if we
admit the existence of God, we must admit his omnipotence,
are we to be atheists ? If the Church be not God's Church, she
cannot possess the authority we claim for her, without danger,
we concede ; if she is his Church, and the Pope is his vicar,
what have we to fear from her power more than we should have,
if it were exerted immediately by God himself? We defend
the Church as God's Church, and attempt no defence of her on
the supposition that she is not his Church. Prove to us that he
has not instituted her, and we will abandon her ; but remember
that proving that she has a tremendous power is no proof to us
that he has not instituted her ; for it belongs not to us to say
200
how much or how little power it is proper for him to delegate to
her. The claim of similar power for a human or man-made
church, like the Presbyterian, would unquestionably be danger-
ous, and has proved itself so in the whole history of Protestant-
ism. But that it is dangerous in a divinely commissioned
church, we know, and so does every man of common sense, is
not and cannot be true ; for God himself becomes our surety for
the right exercise of the power, and that is sufficient.
" The doctrine of auricular confession establishes a system of
espionage which is absolutely fatal to personal independence,
and from the intimate connection between priests and bishops,
and bishops and the Pope, all the important secrets of the earth
can be easily transmitted to the Vatican." This is ridiculously
absurd. No priest can communicate to any person living the
secre*ts of the confessional, and he can no more do it to his
bishop or to the Pope than he can to James H. Thorn well. He
cannot speak, out of the confessional, of what has been told him
in the confessional, even to the penitent himself. No instance
of the secrets of the confessional having been betrayed has ever
occurred. Even the vilest apostates have never been known to
disclose what they had received under the seal of the confess-
ional. The Catholic clergy do not record the confessions of
their penitents in a book, making them a part of the records of
the Church, as did the former Puritan ministers of New Eng-
land, as we had occasion ourselves to know from the inspection
of the records of some of their churches, over which it was our
misfortune to be settled as pastor.
As to the system of espionage, we all know that it was car-
ried on to its perfection in the Congregational churches of New
England ; and it still existed in full vigor a few years ago in the
Presbyterian churches in the Middle States, as we had personal
means of knowing. In most Calvinistic churches, especially the
Congregational, the Presbyterian, and the Methodist, the mem-
bers are bound by a solemn covenant, a covenant frequently
renewed, to watch over one another, which means, practically,
that they shall be spies one upon another ; and who that has
TO DR. LYNCH. 201
had the misfortune to be brought up a Presbyterian has not
felt that he was under perpetual surveillance, that every member,
it might be, of the particular church to which he belonged was
on the look-out to catch him tripping ? We have ourselves had
ample opportunities of learning the degree of personal independ-
ence allowed by Presbyterianism, and we never knew the mean-
ing of personal independence till we became a Catholic. There is
no comparison, in this matter of personal independence, between
Catholicity and any form of Protestantism we are acquainted
with, and that is saying much, if what is alleged concerning our
frequent changes be not altogether untrue. Catholicity provides
us all the helps we need in order to attain to Christian perfec-
tion ; she exhorts, she entreats us to avail ourselves of them,
and to attain to that perfection ; but she throws the responsi-
bility on our own individual consciences. Catholics, also, usually
mind their own business, and attend rather to their own con-
sciences than to those of their neighbors. Hence, you find
among them very little hypocrisy. Their conduct is free, frank,
natural, and, as far as we have had opportunities of observing,
they generally wear their worst side outward. It needs a close
and intimate acquaintance with them to know, or even to sus-
pect their real piety and worth. This indicates any thing but
the want of personal independence, and the presence of the sys-
tem of espionage alleged. Indeed, the Professor in bringing
this charge must have argued against us from what he knows
to be true of his own sect ; but this is to pass from one genus to
another, not allowable in logic. Servility, slavishness, the want
of personal independence, the fear to say that our souls are our
own, though unquestionably characteristics of the Presbyterian,
are no characteristics of the Catholic. There is a total difference
between the mild and parental authority exercised by our clergy
over us, and the harsh and severe tyranny notoriously exercised
by Presbyterian ministers over their flocks ; and it would take
much to make Catholics believe it possible for a people to stand
in such awe and dread of a minister of religion as Presbyterians
do of their ministers. Our children are delighted to see a priest
202 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
come into the house ; we, when a boy, if we saw a minister
coming, used to run and hide in the barn.
The Professor has mentioned several other points, but they
involve no principle not already met and disposed of. The
great question of the mutual relation of the temporal and spir-
itual powers we have not discussed, for it has not lain in our
way. In these essays we have not been laboring to establish
the claims of the Church, but to test the validity of the objec-
tions urged by the Professor. We have shown that he has
offered nothing that disproves, or tends to disprove, her infal-
libility. This is all that was required of us. That the Church
is hostile to civil government we deny, and could easily prove,
if it were necessary. But the burden of proof is on the Pro-
fessor, and we are not disposed to assume it for ourselves. The
Church represents the spiritual order, and has exclusive jurisdic-
tion under God, for her own children, of all questions which
pertain to that order ; but as the Church, she has never enacted,
or attempted to enact, civil laws. She asserts, undoubtedly,
the independence, and if the independence, the supremacy of
the spiritual order, because the spiritual order embraces every
moral question, and the state is as much bound to obey the
moral law as the individual ; but as long as the civil govern-
ment seeks the public good without violating any precept of
that law, she leaves it, within its own province, free to adopt
and carry out the economical or prudential policy it judges
proper or expedient.
The Professor alludes to the struggles which have at times
occurred between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, and takes
it for granted that in these struggles the civil power was always
in the right, and the Church in the wrong. It is singular how
readily Protestants, when they wish to deny the infallibility of
the Church, assume it for individuals and for civil government.
But civil government is confessedly fallible. The simple fact of
a conflict between the two powers is, therefore, no evidence that
the right is against the Church. Indeed, the conflict itself is a
TO DR. LYNCH. 203
presumption that the state is in the wrong ; because the pre-
sumption is always in favor of the superior order. Do our Prot-
estant friends ever reflect on the distrust which they manifest of
their own pretended churches, when they assume that right
must needs be, in every contest, on the side of the temporal
authority ? Do they remark that they prove themselves thus
to be either courtiers or infidels ? Even if the Church were
only a human institution, it would not follow that she would not
be in the right in warring against political tyrants. We certainly
have no respect for Presbyterianism, and yet, if we should find
the state, by virtue of its own authority, attempting to suppress
it, we should side with Presbyterianism against the state ; for
we hold the utter incompetency of the state in spirituals, and
we no more concede its right to sit in judgment on Presbyteri-
anism than we do its right to sit in judgment on Catholicity.
The question is one which belongs to the spiritual authority,
and the state, in its own right, has and can have nothing to do
with it.
It perhaps has never occurred to the Professor that it might
be profitable to investigate those struggles which afford him so
much matter of virulent but foolish declamation against the
Church. In fact, the Popes, in their contests with the civil
powers, need no apology. Judged even as a human power, they
were always in the right, on the side of justice and humanity,
defending the cause of the oppressed, and putting forth their
power only to vindicate the rights of conscience, to succor the
weak, to console the afflicted, and to protect the friendless. We
said all this, and even more, while yet in the ranks of Protest-
ants and far from dreaming that we should one day be a Catho-
lic. We grant that the Pope has excommunicated princes and
nobles, deposed kings and emperors, and absolved their subjects
from their allegiance ; but in this he has only done his duty as
the Spiritual Father of Christendom, and what was required by
humanity as well as religion. These princes were his spiritual
subjects, amenable to his authority by the law of the Church
which they acknowledged, and by the constitution of their own
204
states. He was their legal judge, had the right to summon
them before him, and to cut them off, if he saw proper, from
the communion of the faithful, and excommunication of itself
worked virtual deposition. In absolving subjects from their
allegiance, he usurped no authority, for he was the legal judge
in the case ; for whether the allegiance continued or had ceased
presented a case of conscience, of which, as Sovereign Pontiff,
he had supreme jurisdiction, and because he was by all parties
the acknowledged umpire between princes and their subjects.
But he never absolved from their allegiance the subjects of infi-
del princes, or of any princes not Catholic, or bound to be Catho-
lic by the constitution of their states, as the kings and queens
of Great Britain are bound, since 1688, to be Protestant.
But what, in fact, was the absolution granted, and in what
cases has the Pope exercised, or claimed, the right to grant it ?
Has the Pope ever claimed the right to absolve from their alle-
giance the subjects of a legitimate prince, who reigns justly,
according to the laws and constitution of his state ? Never. In
every such case he impresses upon his spiritual children the duty
of obedience. But the obligation between prince and subject is
reciprocal. If the subject is bound to obey the prince, the prince
is bound to protect the subject. This is implied in the very
nature of the social compact. The people are not for the prince,
but the prince is for the people. The authority of the prince is
not a personal franchise or right, but a trust, and he is bound
to exercise it according to the conditions on which it is commit-
ted to him. Government exists, nor for the good of the govern-
ors, but for the good of the governed. The true prince is the
servant of his subjects. Government is instituted for the com-
mon good, and the moment it ceases to consult the common
good, or the public good, it forfeits its rights. The tyrant, the
oppressor, has and can have no right to reign, and therefore no
right to exact obedience. His subjects cease to be subjects to
him, and are free in a lawful manner to resist, and even de-
pose him ; for resistance to tyrants, if the manner of the resist-
ance be just, is obedience to God. When a prince becomes a
TO DR. LVNCH. 205
tyrant, when he oppresses his subjects, and tramples on the rights
of our common humanity, he breaks the compact between him
and his subjects, and by so doing releases them from their alle-
giance. Hence our Congress of 1 776 after having alleged George
the Third to be a tyrant, conclude, " Therefore these
United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and inde-
pendent states ; and they are absolved from all allegiance to the
British crown." Now suppose the subjects of a prince, feeling
themselves aggrieved, oppressed, complain to the Holy Father,
the judge recognized by both parties in the case, that their prince
has broken the compact, violated his oath of office, and become
a tyrant ; suppose the Holy Father entertains the complaint, and
summons both parties to plead before him, and, after a patient
hearing of the cause, gives judgment against the prince, declares
him to have forfeited his rights, and that his subjects are absolv-
ed from their allegiance, what would there be in all this to which
reason could object ? Well, this is precisely the kind of abso-
lution the Popes have granted, and never have they deposed a
prince or absolved his subjects, except in cases precisely similar
to the one here supposed. He merely declares the law, and
applies it to the facts of the case presented. The absolution
itself simply gives a legal character to a fact which already exists.
The necessity of some such authority as that which Protestants
complain of in the Popes is' widely and deeply felt in modern
society, and various substitutes for it, such as a congress of
nations, have been suggested or attempted, but without any
favorable results. Having rejected the Pope as the natural and
legal umpire between the prince and his subjects, we find our-
selves reduced to the dilemma, either of passive obedience and
non-resistance to tyrants, or of revolution, which denies the right
of government, renders order impracticable, and resolves society
into primitive chaos. To deny the right to resist the tyrant is
to doom the people to hopeless slavery ; to assert it, and yet
leave to each individual the right to judge of the time, the
means, and the mode of resistance, is disorder, no-governmentism,
the worst form of despotism. In the " dark ages," men were
206 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
able to avoid either alternative. By recognizing the Pope as
umpire, who, by his character and position, as head of the Church'
which embraced all nations, was naturally, not to say divinely,
fitted to be impartial and just, they practically secured the right
of resistance to tyranny, without undermining legitimate author-
ity. It will be long before modern nations will be wise enough
to recognize how much they have lost by what they call their
progress.
For ourselves, we thank God that there was formerly a power
on earth that was able to depose tyrants, and to step in between
the people and their oppressors. We are not among those who
are afraid to glory in the boldness and energy of those great
Popes who made crowned heads shake, and princes hold their
breath. Our heart leaps with joy when we see St. Peter smite
the oppressor of the Church or of his people to the earth, and
if we have ever felt any regret, it has been at the slowness of
the Holy Father to smite, or at his want of power to smite with
more instant effect. Even when a Protestant, we learned to
revere the calumniated Hildebrands, Innocents, and Bonifaces,
those noble and saintly defenders of innocence, protectors of the
helpless, and humblers of crowned tyrants and ruthless nobles.
0, how slow even we Catholics are to do them justice ! How
little do we reflect on the deep debt of gratitude we owe them !
O, dumb be the tongue that would rail against the Popes or
apologize for their firm resistance to the usurpation of the tem-
poral authorities ! Alas ! how often in the history of modern
Europe have we seen them, under God, the last hope of the
world, the only solace of the afflicted, the sole resource of the
wronged and downtrodden ! Alas ! it is precisely because of
their noble defence of religion and freedom, of their fidelity to
God and to man, that they have been calumniated, and the
world has been filled with the outcries of tyrants, and their
minions and dupes, against them.
That the interposition of the Sovereign Pontiffs in temporal
affairs often occasioned much disturbance, and even civil wars,
we are not disposed to deny ; but on them who made the inter-
TO DR. LYNCH. 207
position necessary must rest the responsibility. In this world,
it often happens that right cannot be peacefully asserted and
maintained, and tyranny proves a curse, not only while it is un-
resisted, but even when resisted, and successfully resisted. We
cannot permit a band of depredators to go unresisted, because
we must disturb them by resisting them. Injustice, iniquity,
can never be redressed, the tyrant can never be deposed and the
legitimate sovereign restored, without a combat, and often a
long and bloody one. Even our Lord himself told us to think
not that he had come to send peace on the earth, but a sword
rather. But shall we, therefore, make no efforts to right the
wronged, to save justice and humanity from utter shipwreck ?
Let no man who glories in the revolutionary principle, who boasts
of being a lover of freedom and the progress of mankind, pre-
tend it. We are no revolutionists ; we hold ourselves bound in
conscience to obey the legal authority ; but we acknowledge no
obligation to obey the oppressor, and let the competent author-
ity but declare him an oppressor and summon us to the battle-
field, and we are ready to obey, to bind on our armor, rush in
where blows fall thickest and fall heaviest, let the disturbance
be what it may. We are, thank God, Roman Catholics, and
therefore love freedom and justice, and dare not, when called
upon, to shrink from defending them against any and every
enemy, at any and every sacrifice.
The Professor contends that the Church is hostile to civil
government ; we would respectfully ask him if he has reflected,
that, without her, civil government becomes impracticable. How,
without her as umpire between government and government,
and between prince and subject, and without her as a spiritual
authority to command the obedience of the subject and the jus-
tice of the prince, will he be able to secure the independence of
nations, and wise and just government ? Will he learn from
experience ? Let him, then, read modern history. The age in
politics discards the Church. Protestantism for three hundred
years has been the religion of nearly a third, and, in politics, of
the whole of Europe. Three hundred years is a fair time for an
208 THORNWELL'S ANSWER
experiment. Well, what is the result ? DESPOTISM on the one
hand, and ANARCHY on the other. There is not, at this mo-
ment, a single well-organized civil government on the whole
Eastern continent, and only our own on the Western. The
government of Great Britain may seem to be an exception for
the Old World, but it is a perfect oligarchy ; it fails to secure
the common weal ; enriches the few and impoverishes the many ;
and its very existence is threatened by a mob which the ever-
increasing poverty of the industrial classes hourly augments, and
grim want is rendering desperate. Our own government is sus-
tained solely by the accidental advantages of the country, con-
sisting chiefly in our vast quantities of unoccupied fertile lands,
which absorb our rapidly increasing population, and form a sort
of safety-valve for its superfluous energy. Strip us of these
lands, or let them be filled up so that our expanding population
should find its limit, and be compelled to recoil upon itself, our
institutions would not stand a week.
Here in the present state of the world, hardly to be paralleled
in universal history, when old governments are either all fallen
or tottering ready to fall ; when all authority is cast ofT, and law
is despised ; when the streets of the most civilized cities run with
the blood of citizens shed by citizens, and the lurid light of
burning cottage and castle gleams on the midnight sky ; when
saintly prelates bearing the olive-branch of peace are shot down
by infuriated ruffians ; when murder and rapine hardly seek eon-
cealment, and all civilization seems to be thrown back into the
savagism of the forest, here we may read the wisdom of those
who discard the Church, and denounce her as hostile to civil
government, the wisdom of the doctrine which a scoffing and
unbelieving age opposes to the truth which Almighty God has
revealed, and to the lessons of universal experience. Alas ! how
true it is, that God permits strong delusions to blind the impious
and the licentious, that they may bring swift destruction upon
themselves !
But it is time to bring our remarks to a close. We have
examined the principal arguments which Mr. Thornwell has
TO DR LYNCH. 209
brought forward to prove the fallibility of the Church, and we
leave our readers to judge for themselves whether we have not
proved, that, in every instance, they are either unsound in prin-
ciple or irrelevant, proving nothing but the Professor's own malice
or ignorance. The Professor has made numerous assumptions,
numerous bold assertions, but in no instance has he done better
than simply to assume the point he was to prove. He has de-
claimed loudly against the Church, he has said many hard things '
against her, but he has harmed only himself and his brethren.
We now take our leave of him. We have done all we proposed.
We have vindicated the Catholic argument for the disputed books
drawn from the infallibility of the Church, which is enough,
without the testimonies of the Fathers, although we have even
these. We regvet that the task of answering the Professor had
not been assumed by Dr. Lynch himself, who would have ac-
complished it so much better than we have done. Yet it was
hardly fitting that he should have assumed it. He could not,
with a proper respect for himself and his profession, have replied
to such a vituperative performance as Mr. Thorn well's book.
We were brought up a Presbyterian, and have been accustomed
from our youth to the sort of stuff we have had to deal with,
and therefore have been able to reply without feeling the
degradation we should have felt, had we all our lifetime been
accustomed to the courtesy and candor of Catholic controver.
sialists.
PROTESTANTISM ENDS IN TRANSCENDENTALISM.*
JULY, 1846.
WE have no intention of reviewing at length the book the
title of which we have just quoted. Indeed, we have read it
only by proxy. We have heard it spoken of in certain literary
* Margaret, a Tale of the Real and Ideal, Blight and Bloom, includ-
ing Sketches of a Place not before described, called Mons Christi
Boston : Jordan & Wiley. 1846. 12mo. pp. 460.
210 PROTESTANTISM ENDS
circles as a remarkable production, almost as one of the won-
ders of the age. The Protestant lady who read it for us tells
us that it is a weak and silly book, unnatural in its scenes and
characters, coarse and vulgar in its language and details, wild
and visionary in its speculations ; and, judging from the portions
here and there which we actually have read, and from the source
whence it emanates, we can hardly run any risk in indorsing our
Protestant friend's criticism. The author is a man not deficient
in natural gifts ; he has respectable attainments ; and makes, we
believe, a tolerably successful minister of the latest form of Prot-
estantism with which we chance to be acquainted ; though,
since we have not been introduced to any new form for several
months, it must not be inferred from the fact that we are ac-
quainted with no later form, that none later exists.
So far as we have ascertained the character of this book, it
is intended to be the vehicle of certain crude speculations on re-
ligion, theology, philosophy, morals, society, education, and mat-
ters and things in general. The Mons Christi stands for the
human heart, and Christ himself is our higher or instinctive
nature, and if we but listen to our own natures, we shall at once
learn, love, and obey all that our Blessed Redeemer teaches.
Hence, Margaret, a poor, neglected child, who has received no
instruction, who knows not even the name of her Maker, nor
that of her Saviour, who, in fact, has grown up in the most bru-
tish ignorance, is represented as possessing in herself all the ele-
ments of the most perfect Christian character, and as knowing
by heart all the essential principles of Christian faith and morals.
The author seems also to have written his work, in part at least,
for the purpose of instructing our instructors as to the true
method of education. He appears to adopt a very simple and
a very pleasant theory on the subject, one which cannot fail to
commend itself to our young folks. Love is the great teacher ;
and the true method of education is for the pupil to fall in love
with the tutor, or the tutor with the pupil, and it is perfected
when the falling in love is mutual. Whence it follows, that it is a
great mistake to suppose it desirable or even proper that tutor and
IN TRANSCENDENTALISM. 211
pupil should both be of the same sex. This would be to reverse
the natural order, since the sexes were evidently intended for
each other. This method, we suppose, should be called " LEARN-
ING MADE EASY, OR NATURE DISPLAYED," since it would enable
us to dispense with school-rooms, prefects, text-books, study, and
trie birch, and to fall back on our natural instincts. These two
points of doctrine indicate the genus, if not the species, of the
book, and show that it must be classed under the general head
of Transcendentalism. If we could allow ourselves to go deeper
into the work and to dwell longer on its licentiousness and blas-
phemy, we probably might determine its species as well as its
renus. But this must suffice ; and when we add that the author
Sterns to comprise in himself several species at once, besides the
whole genus humbuggery, we may dismiss the book, with sin-
cere pity for him who wrote it, and a real prayer for his speedy
restoration to the simple genus humanity, and for his conversion,
through grace, to that Christianity which was given to man from
above, and not, spider-like, spun out of his own bowels.
Yet, bad and disgusting, false and blasphemous, as this book
really is, bating a few of its details, it is a book which no Prot-
estant, as a Protestant, has a right to censure. Many Protest-
ants affect great contempt of Transcendentalism, and horror at
its extravagance and blasphemy ; but they have no right to do
so. Transcendentalism is a much more serious affair than they
would have us believe. It is not a simple " Yankee notion," con-
fined to a few isolated individuals in a little corner of New Eng-
land, as some of our Southern friends imagine, but is in fact the
dominant error of our times, is as rife in one section of our com-
mon country as in another ; and, in principle, at least, is to be
met with in every popular Anti-Catholic writer of the day,
whether German, French, English, or American. It is. and has
been from the first, the fundamental heresy of the whole Prot-
estant world ; for, at bottom, it is nothing but the fundamental
principle of the Protestant Reformation itself, and without as-
suming it, there is no conceivable principle on which it is possi-
ble to justify the Reformers in their separation from the Catholic
212 PROTESTANTISM ENDS
Church. The Protestant who refuses to accept it, with all its
legitimate consequences, however frightful or absurd they may
be, condemns himself and his whole party.
We are far from denying that many Protestants, and, indeed,
the larger part of them, as a matter of fact, profess to hold many
doctrines which are incompatible with Transcendentalism ; but
this avails them nothing, for they hold them, not as Protestants,
but in despite of their Protestantism, and therefore have no right
to hold them at all. In taking an account of Protestantism, we
have the right, and, indeed, are bound, to exclude them from its
definition. Every man is bound, as the condition of being ranked
among rational beings, to be logically consistent with himself;
and no one can claim as his own any doctrine which does not
flow from, or which is not logically consistent with, his own first
principles. This follows necessarily from the principle, that of
contradictories one must be false, since one necessarily excludes
the other. If, then, the doctrines incompatible with Transcend-
entalism, which Protestants profess to hold, do not flow from their
own first principles, or if they are not logically compatible with
them, they cannot claim them as Protestants, and we have the
right, and are bound to exclude them from the definition of
Protestantism. The man cannot be scientifically included in the
definition of the horse, because both chance to be lodged in the
same stable, or to be otherwise found in juxtaposition.
The essential mark or characteristic of Protestantism is, un-
questionably, dissent from the authority of the Catholic Church,
in subjection to which the first Protestants were spiritually born
and reared. This is evident from the whole history of its origin,
and from the well known fact, that opposition to Catholicity is
the only point on which all who are called Protestants can agree
among themselves. On every other question which comes up,
they differ widely one from another, and not unfrequently some
take views directly opposed to those taken by others ; but when
it concerns opposing the Church, however dissimilar their doc-
trines and tempers, they all unite, and are ready to march as one
man to the attack. As dissent. Protestantism is negative, denies
IN TRANSCENDENTALISM. 213
the authority of the Catholic Church, and can include within its
definition nothing which, even in the remotest sense, concedes or
implies that authority. But no man, sect, or party can rest on
a mere negation, for no mere negation is or can be an ultimate
principle. Every negation implies an affirmation, and therefore
an affirmative principle which authorizes it. He who dissents
does so in obedience to some authority or principle which com-
mands or requires him to dissent, and this principle, not the ne-
gation, is his fundamental principle. The essential or funda-
mental principle of Protestantism is, then, not dissent from the
authority of the Catholic Church, but the affirmative principle
on which it relies for the justification of its dissent.
What, then, is this affirmative principle ? Whatever it be, it
must be either out of the individual dissenting, or in him ; that
is, some external authority, or some internal authority. The
first supposition is not admissible ; for Protestants really allege
no authority for dissent, external to the individual dissenting,
have never defined any such authority, never hinted that such
authority exists or is needed : and there obviously is no such au-
thority which can be adduced. In point of fact, so far from dis-
senting from the Church on the ground that they are commanded
to do so by an external authority paramount to the Church, they
deny the existence of all external authority in matters of faith,
and defend their dissent on the ground that there is no such
authority, never was, and never can be.
But some may contend, judging from the practice of Protest-
ants, and what we know of the actual facts of the original estab-
lishment of Protestantism in all those countries in which it has
become predominant, that it does recognize an exteraal author-
ity, which it holds paramount to the Church, and on which it
relies for its justification. Protestantism, as a matter of fact,
owes its establishment to the authority of the lay lords and tem-
poral princes, or, in a general sense, to the civil authority. It
was, originally, much more of a political revolt than of a strictly
religious dissent, and its external causes must be sought in the
ambition of princes, dating back from Louis of Bavaria, and in-
214 PROTESTANTISM ENDS
eluding Louis the Twelfth of France, rather than in any real
change of faith operated in the masses ; and its way was prepared
by the temper of mind which the temporal princes created in
their subjects by the wars they undertook and carried on osten-
sibly against the popes as political sovereigns, but really for the
purpose of possessing the patrimony of the Church, and of
subjecting the Church, in their respective dominions, to the
control of the secular power. The Reformers would have ac-
complished little or nothing, if politics had not come to their
aid. Luther would have bellowed in vain, had he not been
backed by the powerful Elector of Saxony, and immediately
aided by the Landgrave Philip ; Zwingle, and (Ecolampa-
dius, and Calvin would have accomplished nothing in Swit-
zerland, if they had not secured the aid of the secular arm, and
followed its wishes ; the powerful Huguenot party in France
was more of a political than of a religious party, and it dwind-
led into insignificance as soon as it lost the support of great
lords, distinguished statesmen and lawyers, and provincial par-
liaments. In Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, the Reform was
purely the act of the civil power ; in the United Provinces, it
was embraced as the principle of revolt, or of national independ-
ence ; in England, it was the work, confessedly, of the secular
government and was carried by court and parliament against
the wishes of the immense majority of the nation ; in Scotland,
it was effected by the great lords, who wished to usurp to them-
selves the authority of the crown ; m this country, it came in
with the civil government, and was maintained by civil enact-
ments, pains, and penalties. We might, therefore, be led, at
first sight, to assert the fundamental principle of Protestantism
to be the supremacy in spirituals of the civil power. But this
would be a mistake, because it did not recognize this supremacy
unless the civil power was Anti-Catholic, and because the asser-
tion of this supremacy of the civil power in spirituals was itself
a denial of the authority of the Church, and therefore could
not be made without making the act of dissent. There is no
question but the Protestants did, whenever it suited their pur-
IN TRANSCENDENTALISM. 215
pose, assert the supremacy of the state in spiritual matters ; and
it must be conceded that it is very agreeable to its nature to do
so, as is evident from the fact, that even now, and in this conn-
try, it opposes the Catholic Church chiefly, and with the most
success, on the ground that Catholicity asserts the freedom of
religion, or, what is the same thing, the independence of the
spiritual authority. Still this cannot be its ultimate principle.
The Church taught and teaches, that, though the independence
of the civil power in matters purely temporal is asserted, its au-
thority in spirituals is null. To deny this is to deny the Church,
and as much to dissent from her authority as to deny her infalli-
bility, her divine authority, or any article of the creed she teaches ;
and this must be denied before the supremacy of the civil power
in spirituals can be asserted. Therefore, if Protestantism did
openly, avowedly, assert the Erastian heresy of the supremacy
of the civil power in spirituals, it would not justify her dissent
by an external authority, unless she could make this assertion
itself on some external authority acknowledged to be paramount
to the Church. But for this she has no external authority, since
the Church denies it, and the authority of' the state is the mat-
ter in question. She can, then, assert the supremacy of the
state only on the authority of some principle in the individual
dissenting, and therefore only on some internal authority.
Whatever authority, then. Protestentisra. may ascribe to the
civil power, it is not an external authority, because the authority
asserted is always of the same order as that on which it is assert-
ed, and can never transcend, it.
Others, again, rr.ay think, since Protestants, and especially
those among them denominated Anglicans and Episcopalians,
occasionally appeal to Christian antiquity and talk of the Fa-
thers, and sometimes even profess to quote them, that they have,
or think they have, in Christian antiquity an authority for dis-
sent, virtually, at, least external to the individual dissenting. But
Christian antiquity, unless read with a presumption in favor of
the Church, save on a few general and public facts manifestly
against Protestants, decides nothing. Understood as the Church
216 PROTESTANTISM ENDS
understands it, aad it evidently may, without violence to its let-
ter or spirit, be so understood, it condemns Protestantism with-
out mercy. To make it favor Protestantism even negatively, it
is necessary to resort to a principle of interpretation which the
Church does not concede, and the adoption of which would,
therefore, involve the dissent in question. If we take with us
the canon, that all the Christian Fathers are to be understood in
accordance with the Church when not manifestly against her,
Christian antiquity will be all on the side of the Roman Catho-
lic Church ; if we take the canon, that all in the Christian
Fathers is to be understood in a sense against the Church, when
not manifestly in her favor, Christian antiquity may, on some
important dogmas, leave the question doubtful ; though even
then it would, in fact, be decisive for the authority of the Church,
and therefore implicitly for all special dogmas. But, be this as
it may, it is undeniable that it is only by adopting this latter
canon that Protestantism can derive any countenance from Chris-
tian antiquity. But on what authority do they, or can they, adopt
such a canon ? Protestants call themselves reformers ; they are
accusers, dissenters, and therefore all the presumptions in the
case are manifestly against them, as they are against all who
accuse, bring an action or a charge against others ; and they
must make out a strong prima facu case, before they can turn
the presumptions in their favor. This is law, and it is justice.
Till they do this, the presumption is in favor of the Church ;
and then it is enough for her to show that the testimony of an-
tiquity may, without violence, be so understood as not to im-
peach her claims. Till then, nothing will make for Protestants
which is not manifestly against her, so clear and express as by
no allowable latitude of interpretation to be reconcilable with
her pretentious. That is to say, the Protestant must impeach
the Church on prima facie evidence, before he can have the
right to adopt that canon of interpretation without which it is
manifestly suicidal for him to appeal to Christian antiquity.
Take, as an illustration of what we mean, the testimony of St.
Justin Martyr to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. It
IN TRANSCENDENTALISM. 217
is clear to any one who reads the passage, that the words in a
plain and easy sense confirm the Catholic doctrine ; and yet, if
there were an urgent necessity for interpreting them otherwise,
we are not certain but, without greater deviation from the literal
sense than is sometimes allowed, they might be so understood
as not to be inconsistent with the views of the Blessed Eucharist
which some Protestant sects profess to entertain. But by what
authority, because they may be so interpreted, are we to say
they must be ? In truth, it is nothing to the Protestant's pur-
pose to say they may be, till he establishes by positive authority
they must be, for it is obvious they also may not be. Now,
what and where is this positive authority ? .Manifestly not in
Christian antiquity itself ; and yet it must be had, before Chris-
tian antiquity can be adduced as authorizing dissent from the
Catholic Church. This authority, as we said before, must be
either external to the dissenter or internal in the dissenter him-
self. It cannot be external ; for, after the Church, there is no
conceivable external authority applicable in the case. It must,
then, be internal. Then the authority of Christian antiquity, as
alleged against the Church, is only the authority there is in the
dissenter himself, according to the principle already established,
that the authority asserted is necessarily of the same order as
that on which it is asserted.
Finally, it will, perhaps, be alleged, inasmuch as all Protest-
ants did at first, and some of them do now, appeal to the written
word, or the Holy Scriptures, in justification of their dissent,
that they have in these a real or a pretended authority, external
to and independent of the dissenter, distinct from and paramount
to that of the Church. But a moment's reflection will show,
even if the Scriptures were not in favor of the Church, that this
is a mistake. The Holy Scriptures proposed, and their sense
declared, by the Church, we hold with a firm faith to be the
word of God, and therefore of the highest authority ; but, if not
so proposed and interpreted, though in many respects important
and authentic historical documents, and valuable for their excel-
lent didactic teachings, they would not and could not be for us
218 PROTESTANTISM ENDS
the inspired, and, in a supernatural sense, the authoritative,
word of God. To the Protestant they are not and cannot be an
authority external to the dissenter ; because, denying the un-
written word, the Church, and all authoritative tradition, he has
no external authority to -vouch for the fact that they are the in-
spired word of God, or to declare their genuine sense. If there
be no external authority to decide that the Bible is the word of
God, and to declare its true sense, the authority ascribed to it in
the last analysis, according to the principle we have established,
is only the authority of some internal principle in the individual
dissenting ; for, in that case, the individual, by virtue of this in-
ternal principle, decides, with the Bible as without it, what is
and what is not God's word, what God has and has not revealed ;
and therefore what he is and what he is not bound to believe,
what he is and what he is not bound to do.
It is, moreover, notorious that Protestants do really deny all
external authority in matters of faith, and hold that any external
authority to determine for the individual what he must believe
would be manifest usurpation, intolerable tyranny, to be resisted
by every one who has any sense of Christian freedom, or of his
rights and dignity as a man. Even the Anglican Church, which
claims to herself authority in controversies of faith, acknowledges
that she has no right to ordain any thing as of necessity to sal-
vation, which may not be proved from God's word written ; and
by implication at least, if she means any thing, leaves it to the
individual to determine for himself whether what she ordains is
provable from the written word or not ; and, therefore, abandons
her own authority, by making the individual the judge of its
legality. No one will, furthermore, pretend that Protestants
even affect to have dissented from the Catholic Church, in which
they were spiritually born and reared, in obedience to an exter-
nal authority ; that is to say, another Church, which they held
to be paramount to the Roman Catholic Church. If they had
admitted that there was anywhere an authoritative Church, they
would have agreed that it was this Church, and could have been
no other. In denying the authority of the Roman Catholic
IN TRANSCENDENTALISM. 219
Church, they denied, and intended to deny, in principle, all ex-
ternal authority in matters of faith ; and the chief count in the
indictment of the Church, which they have drawn up, and on
which they have been for these three hundred years demanding
conviction, is, that she claims to be such authority, when no such
authority was instituted, or intended to be instituted. We may,
then, safely conclude that the affirmative principle on which
Protestantism relies for the justification of its denial of Catholic
authority is not some authority external to the individual dis-
senting, and held to be paramount to that from which he dis-
sents.
Then the principle must be internal in the individual himself
and this is precisely what Protestantism teaches ; for by her own
confession, nay, by her own boast, her fundamental principle is,
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. This was the only principle which, in the
nature of the case, she could set up as the antagonist of Catholic
authority ; and it is notorious the world over, that it is in the
name of this principle that she arraigns the Church, and com-
mands her to give an account of herself. We see, even to-day,
emblazoned on the banners borne by the motley hosts of the so-
called "Christian Alliance," this glorious device, THE RIGHT
OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. This is their battle-cry, as Deus Vult
was that of the Crusaders. It is their In hoc siyno vince. " We
want no infallible pope, bishops, or church, to propound and ex-
plain to us God's word, to lord it over God's heritage, and make
slaves of our very consciences. No ! we are freemen, and we
strike for freedom, the glorious birthright of every Christian to
judge for himself what is or what is not the word of God ; that
is, what he is or is not to believe." There is no mistake in this.
If there is any thing essential, any thing fundamental, in Pro-
testantism, any thing which makes it the subject of a predicate
at all it is this far-famed and loud-boasted principle of PRIVATE
JUDGMENT.
In saying this, we of course are not to be understood as as-
serting that Protestants always, or even commonly, respect, in
their practice, this right of private judgment. Practically, every
220 PROTESTANTISM ENDS
Protestant says, " / have the right to think as I please, and you
have the right to think as I do ; and if you do not, I will, if I
have the power, compel you to do so, or confiscate your goods,
deprive you of citizenship, outlaw you, behead, hang, or burn
you; at least, imprison you, flog you, or bore your ears and
tongue." In point of fact, Protestants, we grant, have very gen-
erally violated the principle of private judgment, and have prac-
tised, in the name of religious liberty, the most unjust, tyranny
over conscience, unjust, because, on their own principles, they
have received from Almighty God no authority to dictate to
conscience, and because they also concede, what is unquestion-
ably true, that conscience is accountable to God alone. Every
attempt of any man, set, or class of men, not expressly commis-
sioned by Almighty God, so expressly that the authority exer-
cised shall be really and truly his, to exert the least control
over conscience is a manifest usurpation, an outrageous tyranny,
which every man, having a just reverence for his Maker, will
resist even unto death. The Catholic Church, indeed, claims
plenary authority over conscience ; but only on the ground, that
she is divinely commissioned, and that the authority which speaks
in her is literally and as truly the authority of God, as that of
the representative is that of his sovereign. If per impossibile,
she could suppose herself not to be so commissioned, and there-
fore not having the pledge of the divine supervision, protection,
and aid which such commission necessarily implies, she would
concede that she has no authority, and should attempt to exer-
cise none. We cheerfully obey her, because in obeying her we
are obeying not a human authority, but God himself. In sub-
mitting to her we are free, because we are submitting to God,
who is our rightful sovereign, to whom we belong, all that we
have, and all that we are. Freedom is not in being held to no
obedience, but in being held to obey only the legal sovereign ;
and the more unqualified this obedience, the freer we are. Per-
fect freedom is in having no will of our own, in willing only
what our sovereign wills, and because he wills it. If the Church,
as we cannot doubt, be really commissioned by God, the more
IN TRANSCENDENTALISM. 221
absolute her authority, the more unqualified our submission, the
more perfect is our liberty, as every man knows, who knows any
thing at all of that freedom wherewith the Son makes us free.
But in yielding obedience to a Protestant sect, it is not the same.
When any one of our sects undertakes to dictate to conscience,
it is tyranny ; because, by its own confession, it has received no
authority from God. It is tyranny, even thou
