NDER the title "Catholic: the Name and the Thing" Dr. Charles Augustus Briggs has flung into the arena of controversy an article that will rise many times in years to come to perpetuate the discord that has torn the peace of modern Protestantism. The learned scholarship of the author and the judicial courage with which he approaches every knotty problem of theology will give a hearing to his views on any religious question; but if we mistake not, the learned doctor will discover that many Protestants, who patiently heard him when he only opposed one branch of Protestantism against another, will be restless and irritable when he requests their consideration of his argument against all Protestantism and in favor of the Catholic Church. When we remember how the so-called "Catholic party" in the Episcopal Church rebelled against the admission of Dr. Briggs to their fold, we cannot help but see a grim humor in the bitter arraignment of that party in this article, when he charges them with being the most perverse of all Protestants. He says: "Still others would insist upon all the chief dogmas and institutions characteristic of the Western Church before the Reformation, and undo all the work of reform except the single item of separation from the jurisdiction of Rome. But it is difficult to see how any one who has gone so far should not take the final step. For it were mere wantonness to separate from the Church for no other motive

*Catholic: The Name and the Thing. By Charles Augustus Briggs. Journal of American Theology, July, 1903.

THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE IN THE STATE
OF NEW YORK, 1903.

than ecclesiastical independence. It is mere perversity not to return to Rome if the conscience is convinced that Rome is right in all her great controversies with Protestantism."

It is a delicious revenge, but it will only increase their determination to destroy him, and, indeed, he has put weapons in their hands by which the task will be made easy, for even the Episcopal Church at large comes in for a share of his severest criticism. He says: "Nothing has so much injured the Church of England in the past as her arrogant exclusiveness as a national church. That has brought her into the present crisis of her history, torn by faction and reproached by a multitude of enemies. Her daughter, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, has too often exhibited this baneful temper, and so repelled multitudes who would otherwise have gladly united with her. If she arrogate to herself the name Catholic,' which is regarded as the common inheritance of Christianity in some sense by all who use the Apostles' Creed, no one will recognize her right to it but herself; a multitude of her own clergy and people will be ashamed of their church, and she will become the mock of historical critics."

One can imagine the sensation these words will create when they become generally known among Episcopalians. Fortunately, it may be that no central body exists in the Episcopal Church with power to place the learned doctor on trial, as existed in the Presbyterian Church, but there may be a strong hint that he should "move on" once more, and if so, the reader of this article finds it easy to see that his next resting place will be the same that gave rest to Cardinal Newman and other great minds who wearied of the unrest outside of the True Church-the Roman Catholic Church.

But let us turn to pleasanter themes and congratulate Dr. Briggs on the accurate definition he has been able to discover for the word Catholic. No Catholic theologian could ask a Protestant to admit more than Dr. Briggs freely concedes after his investigation of Christian history. He quotes from Catholic writers with approval, to show the antiquity of the word Catholic; to show that it stood for "(1) Vital unity of the Church in Christ. (2) The geographical unity of the Church extending throughout the world. (3) The historical unity of

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch; Hermas, the Roman prophet Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, and many other ancient Fathers. He concedes the authority of the church to define creed. "Moreover, the church was inhabited by the Divine Spirit, the great teacher, counsel, and guide, in accordance with the promises of Jesus, and the experience as well as the teachings of the Apostles. This deposit (of faith) was used by the church under the guidance of the Divine Spirit when it was needed in the unfolding of its knowledge and of its life. It soon became necessary, after the death of the Apostles, and of their immediate successors, to collect in definite form the essential things of this deposit (of faith). It was certainly the work of the second Christian century to give us the consensus of the church in a canon-the creed known as the Apostles' Creed.

The old Protestant view that the church of the second century declined from the apostolic faith as expressed in the New Testament, is historically impossible and incredible." And, as showing the continuous power of the church to regulate the faith of her children, he says: "If, moreover, we recognize that the first council may define the Catholic faith by limiting orthodoxy to one of several views hitherto prevailing, and may so divide the Christian Church into sections, of which only one can be called Catholic, there is no valid reason why we should stop with that council, or, indeed, with any council, for it establishes the principle that to be and remain Catholic one must accept as final the decisions of the Catholic Church. on any question, in any and in every age until the end of the world. And this is quite easy so soon as the principle is recognized."

He concedes that "There can be no doubt that at the close of the third Christian century Roman' and 'Catholic'

so closely allied that they were practically identical." He quotes from Harnack to show:

(1) That the Apostles' Creed is essentially a Roman symbol.

(2) That it was in Rome that the canon of Holy Scripture first began to be fixed.

(3) That the list of bishops, with the doctrine of apostolic succession, appears first in the Roman Church.

(4) That Rome became the normal constitution for all the

(5) That the Primacy of Rome was recognized in the second century, in a sense.

And last, but not least, "There can be no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church of our day is the heir, by unbroken descent, to the Roman Catholic Church of the second century, and that it is justified in using the name Catholic' as well as the name 'Roman'." Further quotations might be made from this remarkable article, but enough has been shown to indicate the unmistakable trend of the doctor's mind. He is not ready "as yet to adopt the inevitable and logical result of his admitted facts. He hesitates on the brink by a subtle discussion in his mind of two distinctions in the realm of faith, the ethical and the religious. He salves his troubled doubts by charging the Church of Rome with erring in her ethics. He says: "If only the Roman Church had maintained her preeminence in love, no one would ever have denied her primacy. If Rome would renew her first love, the reunion of the Catholic Church would be assured." This is the cry of a pure heart. It has been the cause of many seditions in the church from Tertullian to the present day. It is a snare of Satan, who transforms himself into an angel of light that he may deceive the unwary. If the minds of men were so darkened when our Lord was on the earth that he was called Beelzebub, the prince of devils, while he lived a life in which no one could find a spot, it is not strange that learned critics can find matter for criticism in a church holy in her doctrine but very human and faulty in her members-especially when they are taught hostility to her almost with their mothers' milk. Let us not be uncharitable. Let us remember John Henry Newman, who said that even when he knew he was on the road to Rome, yet remained in the Church of England, because the time was not ripe: "I am as a man who is on his road to a city which he sees in the distance. I am going there, but I am yet on the road and must take many steps before I reach it!"

Dr. Briggs is on the road. He sees the City of God in the distance. But there are many steps yet to take. Who can think that the light that has led him almost to the gate will fail him now?