The Churchman, No. 882; E reviewed, in our last number, the doctrines of the New York Churchman 1. on the subject of infallibility in general, and 2. in regard to the pretended infallibility of the reformed churches. It remains for us to examine the application which he makes of his views to the Roman Catholic church. This latter part of the question is still more important than the first,

and will not, it is hoped, be less satisfactorily settled on our side. It will complete what we have to say in answer to the Churchman, on the great question of church-infallibility. He opens the discussion under this new aspect, in the following manner:

"The Church of Rome also claims to be infallible: not infallible in the faith, but simply infallible: not infallible in virtue of her adhesion to the fundamentals VOL. VII.-No. 6.

26

Feb. 12, 1848; New York.

of faith, but so infallible that she may make a doctrine to be fundamental which before was not fundamental; not infallible on condition of her following the Holy Spirit, but necessarily and absolutely infallible, so that say or do what she may, what she says is the truth of God and what she does is righteous in His sight."

Were we to inquire of the Churchman, from what other source than preconceived and misled opinion he drew the above statement of the case, he would, very probably, be at a loss to answer. Who ever heard such propositions? "The church of Rome claims to be infallible, but not in the faith!" In what then does she claim infallibility? Did our opponent reflect, when he penned this assertion? Or was he ignorant of what the veriest tyro in history or theology knows, that doctrines of Christian faith and Christian morality are the very matters in regard to which the Roman church claims to be infallible, not, indeed, by taking an effect for the cause, not in virtue of an adhesion which must itself be the effect of infallibility, but in virtue of the promises of Christ? To a reflecting mind her claims must certainly appear to be very solidly grounded, since they cannot be better as

sailed than by such shallow statements and suppositions.

We should also be glad to learn from the Churchman what he means by fundamentals of faith, or by essential faith, as he calls it elsewhere. Would he have the kindness, 1. to give us an exact definition of what constitutes the fundamentals or essentials of faith; and 2. to point out what these fundamentals are in particular, and that, too, with accuracy and certainty, lest a mistake about any fundamental truth should itself be a FUNDAMENTAL mistake, and a sure way to eternal perdition.

In doubt whether the desired explanation will be given, we will confidently assert on our side, that the Protestant distinction between fundamentals and nonfundamentals of faith, is perfectly groundless. When Almighty God has spoken, he ought to be believed in all things, and as firmly on one point as on another. When he has once made known his revealed truths, all are so essential and fundamental, that not one can be rejected without offering a grievous insult to his divine veracity. In enjoining strict submission to his church, Christ did not say that she should be heard with regard to some articles, and not with regard to others; but he said, without the least restriction: "If thy brother will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican."+ In another place, far from allowing any distinction to be made between essentials and nonessentials, as Protestants would fain have it, he positively excluded it, by saying: "Teach all nations . . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." In fact, he could not have ordained otherwise, without denying his own wisdom and infallibility.

Our opponent is equally incorrect in

* Fifteen months ago the Churchman promised to controvert the testimonies that we would adduce in favor of the papal supremacy. See vol. vi of this Magazine, p. 61. We have yet to receive his answer to our article.-EDITOR. † Matt. xviii, 17. Matt. xxviii, 20.

supposing, as he does, that the Roman church claims to be infallible, in such way that she may at pleasure create new articles of faith. He might have saved himself the discredit of expressing such a rash judgment, had he taken notice that this church, on the contrary, professes to decide and propose nothing as an article of faith, but what was originally contained in the written or unwritten word of God, that is, in the holy Scripture or apostolic tradition. Such, and no other, is the principle which she has adhered to at all times, and never more so than in her last general council. For the right information of the Churchman, we refer him to the sessions of that council, in which doctrinal decrees were enacted: e. g. sess. 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, etc. He will find there all that is necessary to refute the unjust assertions of Calvin, which he has too easily adopted.

He

Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the end of his erroneous statements. proceeds to ask, "on what grounds does the church of Rome make her claim (of infallibility in religious matters)? What are the proofs of its validity?" After putting this question; as if he were afraid of receiving an answer from Catholics, he hastens to give the answer himself. It is this:

"She boasts of antiquity, but she does not rest her claim on ancient tradition. She boasts of Scripture, but gives us to understand that she refers to Scripture in condescension to those who are without her communion, and not for the satisfaction of her own members. She boasts of miracles, but the less said of them, as a foundation of this claim, the more agreeable to her champions."

Here it is difficult to say which is the more wonderful, the total opposition of these assertions to the truth, when we compare them with the real state of things, or the numerous contradictions which they display when considered in themselves. Let us begin with the latter, 1. According to our opponent, 66 the church of Rome boasts of antiquity, still

she does not rest her claim on ancient tradition."-Pray, how can the one be done without the other? how can the Roman church boast of antiquity, without resting her claim on ancient tradition? What difference is there between the words antiquity and ancient, except that, with the same meaning substantially, the one is a substantive and the other an adjective?

2. "She boasts of Scripture, but gives us to understand that she refers to Scripture in condescension to those that are without her communion, and not for the satisfaction of her own members." Suppose this to be granted, what would follow from it, except that the Roman church, having a variety of proofs at her command for the support of her claim, has no need of adhering exclusively to any one of them for the instruction of her children? She may as well satisfy their minds, by placing before them the signal, evident and constant marks of God's favor in her regard, as by crowding their memories with scriptural passages more or less difficult to remember; exactly as St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Barnabas, in the Council of Jerusalem, showed as plainly the abolition of the Jewish observances by the prodigies which accompanied their labors, as St. James did by adducing the testimony of the ancient prophets.*

This is plain enough; but the Churchman would intimate that the church of Rome is deficient in scriptural proofs, and that she cannot adduce any in behalf of her claim, that are really capable of affording satisfaction to her children. This

is quite false; but supposing it to be true, these scriptural texts would be still less capable of giving satisfaction to her adversaries. It would be her interest, in this case, 1. to abstain altogether from citing the Scripture against the latter, not to give them an opportunity of attack and easy triumph; and 2. to reserve all scriptural quotations for her children, who would be inclined to receive them with greater See Acts, ch. xv.

docility. Yet according to the Churchman, she does exactly the reverse. Who will believe it, besides himself?

3. "She boasts of miracles, but the less said of them, as a foundation of this claim, the more agreeable to her champions." This is the third contradiction implied in a statement which consists of only three sentences. If the Roman church boasts of miracles, how can it be that her champions are afraid to mention them and speak of them? and on the other hand, if they speak as little as possible on this subject, how can it be said that there is in the Roman church a boasting about miracles?

But is it true, that our church 1. does not rest her claim to infallibility on ancient tradition; 2. that she does not refer to Scripture for the satisfaction of her own members; and 3. that her champions are not disposed to say much about the miracles of which she boasts, as a foundation of that claim? Alas for the New York Churchman; these assertions, far from being true, are utterly at variance with the truth, as every one may learn by consulting the large folio volumes of our principal divines, or even our elementary treatises on theology or controversy, and books of instruction for the faithful, such as Milner, Challoner, etc. If in these or other controversial works miracles are not so much insisted upon as proofs drawn from Scripture, tradition, the decrees of councils, and the like, the reason is chiefly because our opponents, aware of their utter destitution and our overwhelming advantage, prudently endeavor to avoid this field of battle, and prefer to sneer at miraculous events, than to attempt a reply to the unanswerable argument which they afford to the Catholic cause. According to the fashionable notions of the day, there may have been miracles in former times; but, whether Christ is unmindful of his promise,* or his power has been curtailed, miracles certainly have not taken place in these * Mark xvi, 17, 19; John xiv, 12.

latter ages of progress and light! These are the views, directly or indirectly, of all our dissenting brethren, and this is the reason why Catholics write and speak much less on that subject than they would do, if their adversaries would afford them a better opportunity, and patiently listen to their arguments. Let the Churchman try the experiment. Let him open his columns to a fair discussion on the subject of miracles in general and the miracles of the Roman church in particular, and he will see whether Catholic writers will be wanting to respond.

After the extraordinary assertions already quoted, he closes the paragraph by a no less extraordinary question. "On what then," says he, "does the church of Rome rest her claim to absolute infallibility? On the promise of Christ that He would be with His church always; that the gates of hell should not prevail against her?" etc. Truly admirable question and answer. As if the promise of Christ were not contained in the Scripture; or as if the Churchman had destroyed, not by any proof, but with a dash of his pen, all the other evidences of the Catholic church, and her claims to active infallibility! But so it goes: our opponent lays down principles without foundation, makes assertions without proofs, draws conclusions which are not contained in his premises, and then triumphantly advances, as if nothing had been wanting to his argument.

The following is another instance of this convenient mode of reasoning. After mentioning in a very queer way, some of the scriptural passages which contain the promises of Christ to his church, the Churchman exclaims:

"How do Romanists know that the books containing these passages are authentic and canonical? Or supposing them authentic, how do they know that they have the true meaning of these passages? They are perpetually telling us that we have no other proof of the Books of Scripture being authentic and canonical than the word of their own Church:

and that the Scriptures are a dead, senseless letter, of which their own Church alone can express the sense. The prooftexts, then, which they offer of their Church's infallibility rest on her own word: i. e. on their word; so that they themselves come under the same category with private reasoners,' whose only foundation of faith is their own word or opinion.

"But let us admit them by courtesy to the ground which the Reformed Churches occupy, but to which they have forfeited all right."

Of all the specimens of ludicrous assurance united with laughable assertion we have ever seen, this is certainly the most curious. The Roman church, then, the only existing church whose origin is identified with that religion; the church against which all the powers of hell have fought to no purpose, and all the billows of the sea have dashed in vain; the church of all ages, as well as of all countries by the extent of her spiritual dominions, and the mother of all the saints; the church without which Christianity would have long since disappeared from the earth; in a word, the only church whose pontiffs, councils and fathers have transmitted to us the various parts, the canon and the genuine sense of Scripture: such a church not knowing what are the inspired and canonical books! Such a church being in ignorance of their true meaning! Such a church having forfeited all right to the use of them; and that right being transferred to churches of a novel origin; to churches which have never agreed about faith and government; to churches whose founders were distinguished by characteristics the most opposite to those of a divine mission and true sanctity; to churches, in fine, whose defenders are put to the rack when asked to prove the inspiration or canonicity of the Bible, who cannot as Protestants prove it to be a revealed doctrine and an object of divine faith, and cannot even claim it as an object of moral certainty, except by inconsistency and a striking deviation from their own principles !*

*See what has already been said on this subject in the preceding number.