Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

proved. Thus if a stranger has the public testimony that the persons who preside in one of our courts are the supreme judges of the state, this testimony is evidence for him of their authority.

Having this knowledge of their power, he observes their proceedings; he beholds them not only declare that certain books have legal authority, but he finds that they interpret certain passages of those books, as being good testimony in favor of their exercise of power; they never refer to the commission by virtue of which they sit, but they refer to the book, which their decision explains. Surely, no person would say that this court was guilty of a vicious circle, by claiming their power of decision from the book, and by their decision making the book to be authority. For it is obvious that their power of decision existed and was generally known, without the book: and the general tenor of the book might be known before their decision, and might be valuable before the decision; yet it was by the decision of what was the exact import of the passages, the application became precisely fixed.

It now rests with me to show that it is not from the Scriptures that Roman Catholics learn the infallibility of their Church, though it is from that Church they do learn the inspiration of the Scriptures. And, indeed, my friends, after deep and serious investigation, I hesitate not to avow, with one whom I should not name in the same line with myself, the great St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, "I would not believe the Gospel, were I not induced thereto by the authority of the Church."3

In order to view the case fairly, and without prejudice, we must go to its origin, in the mode of creating the ecclesiastical tribunal, and of getting from that tribunal the testimony of the inspiration of the Scriptures. We must then take the facts in their historical order. We, in such a case, have no Scriptures of either old or new law recognized as being inspired, and we go back to Judea at the time previous to the death of our Saviour. I know from history what I now assert. I know the facts, also, from documents and monuments of the highest character. The observant person would, at that time, have witnessed a vast number of miracles performed by the Saviour; from the evidence of the miracles, the truth of his doctrine, and his power to grant a commission, and to state what the extent of that commission should be, must result. He does teach doctrine, and gives his commission to some of his followers. He is put to death; he arises; this resurrection is proclaimed: miracles prove its truth. He sends the Holy Ghost upon those whom he commissions, they prove and confirm this fact by miracles. Their

Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas. Lib. contra Ep. Manich, chap. v, 6. Migne, vol. viii, col. 17.

commission is now evidently established, and they may be easily known. The commission is extended, and is to be still more extended and perpetuated, and the miraculous confirmation accompanies its extension and its continuance. No fact was ever more evident to any community, than was the commission of the early teachers to those who beheld them. That they were commissioned, amongst other things, to teach the doctrine of Christ to all men, and to provide for its continuance to the end of the world, and for its extension to every place, became also matter of evident notoriety. It was equally evident to the persons who lived with them, that one of the principal objects of Christ was, to preserve for all times that truth which he came from heaven to preach; and that the mode in which he provided for its preservation, was by establishing a tribunal from which it was to be learned; and that they who learned the doctrine, obtained their knowledge, not by philosophical disquisition, not by perusing documents which as yet had not been written, not by taking the opinions of what men though reasonable, or liberal, or becoming, or convenient, but simply by receiving from the commissioned body of teachers, the testimony of what was originally taught-and by resting upon their authority for its truth. It is plain, they could have had no other way of learning what Christ had taught. Did any one of those teachers differ from another in his testimony, the general body was consulted. History leaves not a shadow of doubt as to the fact; and reason exhibits the correctness of the mode; and the evidence derived from the general testimony of the body, led to the correction of the mistake of the individual. Those first Christians also knew, that the solemn injunction which had been given by Christ was, to receive unhesitatingly the testimony of the body of the Apostles and their associates; and that, in doing so, the people received the testimony of Christ himself. The miracles wrought by those persons confirmed the belief of those principles, and they themselves inculcated it as derived from Christ. It is a plain fact of history, that, when the members of this tribunal gave a doctrinal decision, they gave it in full accordance with this principle: for they declared that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, who descended upon the first teachers, and was communicated by them to their associates, joined in their assembly, presided over their meeting, and spoke in their decision. It is matter of historical evidence, that all those who refused to receive and to submit to such decision, were considered as opposed to revealed truth, and disobedient to the command of the Saviour, because they did not hear those whom he sent as their teachers, Thus, before the Scriptures were known to the Christians, they knew the Church; and they recognized its infallible authority in teaching the doc

trine which had been revealed, and of which it was made the witness and the depository. Thus, it was not by the Scriptures the first Christians proved the infallibility of the Church; but they proved it before the Scriptures existed, by the plain fact, that he who had proved his authority by miracles, had used authority in giving the power of teaching his doctrine, with infallible certainty of correctness, to this tribunal, which he created for that purpose. It is admitted by all persons, that the teaching of truth was one of the principal objects of commissioning the Apostles and their successors. It would be indeed beneath the wisdom and power of the Godhead to send teachers, evidently commissioned by heaven, to whom men respecting that commission ought to listen; and still, that this body commissioned by heaven were equally liable as any other body to teach error instead of truth!!! Of what value, then, would be their divine commission? If they led men to error, how were men to find those who would bring them back to truth? Even Mr. White himself admits the soundness of this Catholic principle. Doblado's Letters, page 296, volume ii, number five:

"I have often heard the question, how could such men as Bossuet and Fenelon adhere to the Church of Rome, and reject the Protestant faith? The answer appears to be obvious. Because, according to their undoubted principles on this matter, they must have been either Catholics or infidels. Laying it down that Christianity was chiefly intended to reveal a system of doctrine necessary for salvation, they naturally and consistently inferred the existence of an authorized judge upon questions of faith; otherwise the inevitable doubts arising from private judgment would defeat the object of revelation. Thus it is that Bossuet thought he had triumphantly confuted the Protestants, by merely showing that they could not agree in their articles. Like Bossuet, most Catholic divines (Mr. White might have written all) can see no medium between denying the infallible authority of the Church and rejecting revelation.

"No proposition in Euclid could convey a stronger conviction to my mind than I found in this dilemma. Let me but prove, said I to myself, that there exists a single flaw in the system, and it will all crumble into dust," and so forth.

Thus, if Mr. White believed that a principal object of our Saviour was to reveal to the world a system of doctrine, the belief of which would be necessary for salvation, naturally and consistently, he must infer from this, the infallibility of the Church. From Mr. White's denial of this infallibility, we must naturally and consistently infer, that Mr. White does not believe a principal object of the Saviour was to make a belief

of his doctrines necessary for salvation. What says Bishop Kemp now to Mr. White's principles of faith? If it be a matter of indifference, so far as regards salvation, what system of doctrine man is to believe, why did those good gentlemen separate from the Catholic Church? Why not come back to us now? Why use such pains to correct our "errors of Popery?" Why collect so much money to convert Heathens? Why keep separate Churches from each other? Why will not the Bishop, and the Presbyterian, and the Methodist, meet together, and proclaim to their people that it matters not, so far as concerns salvation, to which flock they are attached? Why not proclaim to them that they might as well be Roman Catholics? I promise you, my friends, Mr. White will turn the tables upon those who brought him forward to annoy us.

Then, it is plain, that the first Christians believed that a principal object of their divine teacher was to reveal a system of doctrine, which was so necessary to salvation, that he commanded them to lay down their lives sooner than desert it; and all its teachers gave them, not only such injunctions, but confirmed the injunctions by their example. They shed their blood sooner than deny one article of faith! Mr. White might have left his Indian story of the world resting upon the elephant, and the elephant upon the tortoise, for some more appropriate subject; because, in the first place, it is no exemplification of a vicious circle, and next, the first Christians believed naturally and consistently from the nature of their doctrine, as Mr. White shows, that the Church was infallible; and I have shown that history will prove it to have been necessarily one of the first principles which they received, years before any of the evangelists began to write his gospel. And when the Church was deluged with several foolish, spurious, ridiculous, and blasphemous productions, purporting to be inspired Scriptures, the distinction between what was really inspired, and what was not, could never have been drawn with certainty, unless by a tribunal whose decisions must be infallibly correct: because, if it were possible for the tribunal which made the selection of what was inspired, from the mass, to err, we may without absurdity or irreligion suppose that it really did err, in giving to us this one book. Without an infallible guide, how shall we now know how to discern this from amongst the others? What then becomes of the certainty of faith? How shall we now know the books of God from the production of a fanatic? A Roman Catholic knows, without the Scripture, that the Church must be and is infallible, in giving to him the doctrines which God revealed, and amongst these, the mighty portion of that doctrine which the sacred volume contains. His knowledge of

the infallibility of his Church, and of the inspiration of the sacred volume now co-exist, and have for ages co-existed; he has by traditionary documents, by authentic records, by standing monuments, by a thousand proofs which his Church has always preserved and exhibited, obtained the knowledge of both together; but, formerly, at its proper time, one did precede the other; the Church existed before the New Testament, as the Jewish Church existed before the Old Testament. We received them all together: the Christian Church brought the Old Testament from the Jewish Church; she testified the New when it appeared; she kept both from corruption; and at this day, I stand as much in need of her testimony, to assure me that the book which I receive is unchanged, as my predecessors did, to know that the book given to them was inspired. Deprive me of the testimony of the Church, and how shall I discern if the book which I read is the production of an inspired writer, or of a fanatic? Though I should know that the evangelists were inspired, how shall I know that what I read is their production? Deprive me of the witness given to the world before the book existed, and which testified the nature of the book to my predecessors, and which was commissioned as the witness of all ages, and I shall be now, as they would have been, without the testimony. This is no vicious circle, nor will it become one, though the book thus proved should contain testimonies in confirmation and in support of what was believed upon sufficient proof before the book itself was proved or even written.

You must also, my friends, observe what an egregious contradiction there is, between the several accounts which this unfortunate man gives of the process which led to his infidelity. I have frequently examined those who fabricated; but such a constant and yet varying adherence to falsehood, I do not think ever struck me in any other as in Mr. White.

As Bishop Kemp has kindly undertaken the patronage of this charge of the vicious circle, I think he ought now, in common justice, to give to the world his mode of ascertaining, how any portion of the Scripture is the result of inspiration. I will point out but one chapter, and if he will prove its inspiration, or even its authenticity, without having recourse to the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, I shall give him more credit than I am at present inclined to bestow. Let him signify his intention, and I shall point out the chapter, in the Bible which he receives; and I am much mistaken if I shall not in that event be able to afford to my fellow-citizens, a good specimen of the world, the elephant and the tortoise, exemplified.

My friends, I shall continue my examination.

[blocks in formation]
« PoprzedniaDalej »