Religion.

IS THE CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH TRUE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

I SHALL assume that I am arguing, not with infidels, but with persons who profess some form of Christianity. And that I may not be accused of begging the question, I would remind my readers that as much was granted to Protestants in the preceding debate. We pointed out the difficulties which a Protestant must encounter in proving his Rule of Faith; but allowed it to be taken for granted that the New Testament was a true record, so far as it went, of the sayings and doings of our Lord and His apostles. The inspiration of that book was not disputed; but we endeavoured to show that the grounds upon which a Protestant believes it were fallacious. It is worthy of remark, that the teaching of the Catholic Church is positive. She attacks nothing that has gone before, for the simple reason, that she dates the commencement of her creed centuries before that of any other church or sect. The heresies that have arisen have been condemned by her as soon as they appeared. Protestantism, on the contrary, is-as its very name imports-a protest against certain opinions which existed before it. The celebrated Edmund Burke has said that Protestantism is "a mere negation;" than which a truer description could not be given.

As some of the affirmative writers in the last debate do not appear to have read the negative articles with much attention; and as the writer of the first negative article in the present has quoted several texts which have been already refuted, I trust I shall be excused if, in my present article, I repeat some of the texts and arguments previously made use of.

The Catholic Rule has been described by "Ignatius" as consisting of the whole word of God; viz., Holy Scripture, and Divine tradition.

The term Church is usually understood to signify either a place in which Christians meet together for the worship of God,-a local association of Christians under proper government (as the Church of Ephesus, &c.), or the whole Christian society, the Head of which Jesus Christ.*

The existence of a body called Christians is a matter of history, notorious to the world. The Christians were well known, from the

"Theophylact" has confused the three meanings of the word most lamentably in his opening article.

time of their Founder, as believers in peculiar doctrines never before heard of; as offerers of sacrifices to a God, of whose name Rome was then ignorant; and were, under various emperors, the constant mark for cruelty and fanaticism. That they were believers in certain tenets, now branded by Protestants as corrupt, may be easily gathered from their own writings, the writings of their heathen enemies, and the records they have left us in the catacombs. That they had bishops to rule over them, priests to offer the eucharistic sacrifice, and to perform the various functions still exercised by the priesthood,-deacons to assist at the altar and in the church, and to distribute the alms; and that there existed at Rome a bishop who governed the whole Church,-appointed bishops, and sent forth missionaries, are all facts which history, whether Christian or pagan, will amply testify.

I shall, therefore, proceed to show that the authority upon which a Catholic believes in Christianity is founded upon truth; and that the Church, whose Rule of Faith we are now discussing, is the true Church, and, in consequence, teaches us the true faith.

In the previous debate we showed that Scripture alone is insuffi cient to direct us in matters of religion; and that those who profess to be guided by its dictates alone are, in reality, only following their own opinions, ostensibly based upon that book. That Scripture, by itself, is sufficient to direct us, if interpreted rightly, no one will pretend to dispute. The question is, What is the right interpretation? Who is to assure us that the meaning we put upon certain texts is correct? Protestants have no such guiding power among themselves, as their innumerable and irreconcilable divisions testify. The actual Protestant Rule of Faith is private interpretation, in contradistinction to the authoritative interpretation of the Catholic Church. The Church founds her interpretation upon the Holy Scriptures, and upon the true interpretation of them as delivered by the apostles to the fathers, who left the truth as a sacred deposit entrusted to the Church, which we believe to be immediately and constantly under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

I shall, therefore, point out some of the texts referring to the Rule of Faith, and the promises made for the perpetuity of it.

Before our Lord visited this earth as our Redeemer, the Almighty had made many promises of a church which was to take the place of the Jewish, and was to embrace not only the favoured nation, but all people. As the gorgeous magnificence of the temple was substi tuted for the beautiful but far inferior tabernacle, so the church which the Son of God was to found was, in turn, to supplant the entire Jewish dispensation. It was promised that Christ "should teach us His ways," and we should "walk in His paths."* No weapon formed against the Church should prosper; and every tongue which resisted her she should condemn;t and that the

* Isa. ii. 3.

† Isa. liv. 17.

66

66

nation and kingdom which would not serve her should perish.* "She was not to be ashamed nor confounded; for she should not be put to shame." And God further promises that He will make her an "ETERNAL excellence :"+ and in the same chapter He says, "Thou shalt call thy walls salvation; the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, thy sun shall go down no more, and thy moon shall be no more diminished" (ver. 18). Again, she is called "a crown of glory delight of the Almighty;"§ and a promise is made that God would direct their work in truth, and would make an everlasting covenant with them; || and added to these are the following:'There shall come a Redeemer unto Zion, and to them that shall return from iniquity in Jacob. As for me, this is my covenant with them: My spirit which is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, from henceforth and for ever. T I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore."** And that, in the time of Christ, "the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the way of holiness . . . so that fools shall not err therein."++ Now, it will be observed that in the Protestant Bible the above texts are, by the headings of the chapters, referred to the Church of Christ. In the Catholic Bible it is the same. How is it, then, that any difficulty arises in ascertaining what body, styling itself a Church, tallies most closely with the Church described in the prophecies? These texts undeniably point to some visible body, unmistakeably apparent to the eyes of all mankind. A Protestant Church" does not exist. Protestantism is a mere conglomeration of hostile elements. But there is a church claiming to be the only true one, which declares that those texts apply to her, and to her alone. The Catholic Church has always consistently affirmed that, besides her, there is no true church; that she alone is the depositary of the promises of the Founder, and that she alone can point with unfailing and undoubted certainty to the long line of teachers, from Peter downwards to Pius IX. She dates her existence, not from any "Reformation," nor does she claim for herself a heretical sect appearing now and then in the course of fifteen centuries. She has been a prominent object in the eyes of the world, whether in the days of Nero or Caligula, of Pepin or Charlemagne, of Henry VIII. or Victoria. Such as she is now, so was she in the first ages,-a visible Church,-never hidden, though often overclouded. When our Saviour came upon earth, He came "not to destroy" the dispensation which His Father had given to the Jews, but "to fulfil it." The Christian was to take the place of the Jewish law, but was to be a continuation and development of it,-not its

66

Isa. lx. 15. ** Ezek. xxxvii. 24.

Isa. lxii. 3. tt Isa. xxxv. 5.

I have only selected the above texts from a vast number I had marked for

quotation, as I have no desire to trespass on the Editor's kindness.

*

destroyer. The priesthood and the sacrifice were not to be swept away, but the offering was to be that which they had before only offered in type. The altars were still to stand in the magnificent temple, and He himself set us the example of frequenting the Church at stated hours for prayer. He speaks of His own Church several times. He declares that it is "to be founded upon a rock,” which name He bestows upon the disciple who was to be the head and key-stone of it, and that "the gates of hell should not prevail against it." He compares it to a city set upon a hill, which could not be hid; it is the light of the world; a grain of mustard-seed growing up to an immense tree; and His promises to sustain it are many and frequent. He bestows upon His apostles the office of teachers; He gives to them powers second only to His own; He sends them forth into the world armed with His Spirit, and renders them invincible by His own might.

The apostles were chosen by our Lord from among the rest of mankind. Their number was peculiar-twelve-agreeing with the number of the Jewish tribes. To them were made certain promises, viz., that our Lord "would be with them all days, for ever;"† that when He was no more visible to them, He "would send the Paraclete, who should abide with them for ever;"‡ and they are sent forth by our Lord to "teach all nations."

When Judas, by his sin, lost his apostleship, the remaining eleven met together and elected a successor in his place. This, be it remembered, was after the ascension of our Lord. As these promises of the perpetual presence of Christ were made to those whom he sent to teach, the practice of the apostles in appointing successors shows clearly that they conceived the promises as extending to the chief teachers of the church, call them apostles, bishops, patriarchs, or whatever name you will. The promises were that He would be with them for ever. As they were not to live for ever, the words are unintelligible, unless they refer also to those who were to succeed them. That the apostles understood it in this sense may be inferred from the fact of their appointing bishops, to whom the care of the new churches was committed. When, then, a point of doctrine was disputed, reference was made to the bishops, who decided the matter for the Church. Thus, when a dispute once arose upon the subject of circumcision, a conference of bishops was held at Jerusalem, where the matter was settled.§ We do not read that the Bible was referred to; but as the decree of the Council declared that the Holy Ghost concurred in its decisions, we may safely conclude that the promise to be with the apostles extended also to their successors, for we are distinctly told that S. Paul, Titus, and Barnabas, were there, and the promise was not given to each of them personally.||

*It will be remembered that the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple was in consequence of the Jews' rejection of our Lord. See S. Luke xxi.; S. Matt. xxiii., &c. † S. Matt. xxviii. 20.

§ Gal. ii.

S. John xvi. 16.

Acts xv. 24; Gal. ii. 1.

The teachers were sent by the apostles to the early churches, precisely as our Lord sent the apostles, only the apostles were not sent to any special place. These teachers were set over the churches, as in the case of Titus, the first Bishop of Crete,* and of Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus. The Hebrews are told to "obey their prelates, and submit themselves to them, as they watch for their souls, as they that must give account;" and S. Paul tells the bishops of the Church of Ephesus to take heed to themselves, and to the whole flock, whence the Holy Ghost had placed them bishops to rule the Church of God.§

66

If, then, a succession of teachers be proved, and it be admitted that the promises, which were to last for ever, were intended to extend to the bishops of the nineteenth century, as well as those of the first, it necessarily follows that to those bishops we must have recourse in matters of doubt upon any point of our faith. They alone are able to settle the canon of Scripture;-they alone can inform us of the true interpretation of it and they alone can tell us what is necessary for salvation. And these things they do tell us; and it rests with ourselves to accept or reject their teaching. If the Church, which these bishops represent, be the true Church of Christ, it will possess the fourfold work of Unity, Catholicity, Holiness, and Apostolicity.

I. And is it not one? Has Christ's earnest desire that His Church "might be one, even as He and His Father are one," come to nought? Is it no longer necessary for Christians to "continue in one mind," as in the days of the apostles ? Are we no longer to "avoid them that cause divisions contrary to the faith we have learned from" apostolic teachers ?** S. Paul adjures the Corinthians to speak the same thing, and to have no divisions among them, but to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. Does the one faith" which S. Paul puts on an equality with "one Lord, and one God and Father over all," ++ no longer exist? Is there no longer one fold and one Shepherd ?" or are there Wesleyan, Independent, and Baptist folds possessing separate shepherds P

66

66

Protestants are certainly forced to strange extremes, when they fly in the face of Scripture itself, and declare unity of no importance. The Catholic Church, the unfailing object of the attacks of her enemies, constantly holds before the face of her children the necessity of remaining in one mind, and of holding fast "the faith once delivered to the saints," and to avoid all novelties in religion, whether propounded by Luther, Voltaire, or Joe Smith.

*Titus i. 6.

+ Tim. i. 3.

Heb. xiii. 17. Although "prelates," in the Protestant version, is translated, "Them that rule over you," it does not destroy the meaning, which is sufficiently demonstrated by the context.

S. John xvii. 21.

tt 1 Cor. i. 10.

VOL. IV.

§ Acts xx. 28. ** Rom. xvi. 17.

Acts iv. 32.