33

II. ON THE RULE OF FAITH.

THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

In our first essay we seemed to have ascertained two things-that some Rule of Faith, or infallible guide to truth, is absolutely necessary; and that, practically, the Romish church furnishes its disciples with no such rule, either in the form of an authentic record. of tradition; an infallible commentary on the Scriptures; or a ministry divinely preserved from error. We argued, therefore, that the sort of infallibility which she assumed, being no where to be laid hold of, or brought to any sinner's aid, was a mere empty name, a downright soul-deceiving delusion. For, after tracking the Romish controversialists hither and thither, from popes to councils, from councils to fathers, from fathers to unwritten, indefinite, and undefinable tradition, we found at last, that the only rule of faith which could be distinctly described or laid down, on any competent Romish authority, was that which Dr. Milner himself thus describes: "All Catholics, if properly interrogated, will confess their belief in one comprehensive article, namely this:-I believe whatever the holy Catholic church believes and teach

es!"*

The Doctor, however, had not fully described even this simple rule; for when a Romanist was so interrogated, and had given, as Dr. Milner said he would, this general reply, he was next asked, "and what does the Catholic church believe?" His reply was, "the Catholic church believes what I believe." Once more it was demanded-" and what do both you and the Catholic church believe?" To which his final an

* End of Controversy, 18mo. p. 192.

swer was, "the Catholic church and I both believe the same thing!"

However, leaving this first objection, namely-that the Romish church, while it professes to be empowered to prescribe an infallible rule of faith, does, in fact, give no other rule of faith than that of a blind submission to any thing and every thing which may be taught by any and by all her ministers,-leaving this, let us proceed to consider that fundamental principle, or rather assumption, upon which this exorbitant demand on the credulity of men is based. That assumption is, that the whole Christian faith, and all the records of it, of every sort and description, are her exclusive property. That Protestants should have any rule of faith is declared to be impossible, for the very simple reason, that they do not rightfully possess even the Scriptures. A passage from Tertullian is quoted against them, which runs thus:

"If you live near Italy, you see before your eyes the Roman church; happy church! to which the apostles have left the inheritance of their doctrine with their blood! It is plain, as we have said, that heretics are not to be allowed to appeal to Scripture, since they have no claim to it. Hence it is proper to address them as follows: Who are you? Whence do you come? What business have you with my property? The estate is mine; I have the ancient, the prior possession of it. I have the title deeds, delivered to me by the apostles; they have made their will in my favour; while they disinherited and cast you off, as strangers and enemies."*

Now to this passage we might justly object, that it contains much of the intolerant assumption of later days, and that the Bible, which is God's gift to man, is improperly described when it is called the gift of the apostles to the church. But we shall not dwell on these minor points; preferring to come to the main question, which is, What right has the church. of Rome to assume to herself the exclusive posses

* End of Controversy, p. 126.

sion of the title of the Holy Catholic Church,-the Church, the spouse of Christ,-the successor of the apostles, that body to which alone belongs the Saviour's promise, Lo! I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.

It is upon this basis that her claim to be the only infallible guide rests; it is on this assumption that she grounds the dictum, that a true Catholic has nothing to do but "to believe whatever the church believes and teaches."

We ourselves admit,-all Christians, we believe, admit, that to be a true member of the Catholic church, of that church which is Christ's body, and which is to God himself as "the apple of his eye," is to be absolutely safe. To be within the pale of this church is indeed salvation; to be beyond or without that pale is the extremest danger. And, although the Scriptures ought to be placed before every man, yet we are willing to admit that the true and Catholic church has that peculiar property in them which a child may be supposed to have in his father's will,― an heir, in the title deeds of his estate. But the ques

tion for our present discussion is, What right has the bishop of Rome, with those that follow him, to declare, that the people of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, France, and three or four other countries, conjointly with some scattered adherents in other places, constitute this Catholic Church,-that they and they alone, are truly Christ's people;-and that the Christians of England, Scotland, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, America, and all the east, are nothing but outcasts, rebels, heretics, and opposers of Christ's authority! History affords no instance of arrogance more extraordinary, or pretensions more unfounded; and it is certainly worth while to inquire, with seriousness, upon what grounds so extraordinary a claim can be rested.

Dr. Milner has, indeed, a very short and easy way of resolving this question. He says, "In treating of this third mark of the true church, as expressed in our common creed, I feel my spirits sink within me,

and I am almost tempted to throw away my pen in despair. For what chance is there of opening the eyes of candid Protestants to the other marks of the church, if they are capable of keeping them shut to this! Every time they address the God of truth, either in solemn worship or in private devotion, they are forced, each of them, to repeat: 'I believe in THE CATHOLIC Church,' and yet if I ask any of them the question: 'Are you a CATHOLIC?' he is sure to answer me, 'No, I am a PROTESTANT!' Was there ever a more glaring instance of inconsistency and self-condemnation among rational beings?"*

This miserable piece of trickery, for it would be injustice to give it any better name, has never been so plainly brought to view, as by Dr. Milner. Most other controversialists, even among the Papists, would have feared to use so palpable a piece of sophistry. For what is it, but a mere play upon words? His church has been accustomed, for centuries, to call herself "the Roman Catholic church." Another body of religionists denominates itself "the Methodists;" and a third," the Unitarians." To each we give, in common conversation, that title by which they choose to distinguish themselves, neither admitting nor denying thereby, the correctness of the claim thus made. If we give to one sect the name of Methodists, we mean not in so doing to record our admission that they, and they alone, have any method or order in their religion. If we call another body "the Unitarians," we do not at all acknowledge, by that term, that they are a whit more firm or more orthodox than we, in the great fundamental doctrine of the unity of the Godhead. And so, when, in common parlance, we call the adherents of the pope what they choose to call themselves, Roman Catholics, or, for brevity, Catholics, we no more mean thereby, to acknowledge any peculiar title in them to that appellation, than we do when we indulge the Methodists or the Unitarians with that name to which they happen to have taken

* End of Controversy, 18mo. p. 279.

1

a fancy. Miserable work, indeed, is it, to build a serious argument in such a controversy as this, upon such a flimsy foundation! And worse than miserable;-for by thus directing our attention to mere words and phrases, we are obliged to retort upon the doctor his own accusation.

For Dr. Milner knew, when he chose to represent the Protestant as replying No! to the question, “Are you a Catholic?" that that very question as he had phrased it, was nothing more than a trick, a trap set to catch the unwary. He was well aware that any Protestant who was worthy of the name,-i. e. who knew what he protested against,-could not reply "No," to the question "Are you a Catholic?" without understanding the question itself to mean," Are you a Roman Catholic?" His negative could only apply to the Romish feature of the case, and that negative would not be uttered, except he fully understood that such was the purport of the question. To entrap such an one, therefore, into a reply which meant merely that he was not a Romanist, and then to use that answer, as if he had admitted his dissent from that Catholic or universal church to which he, in fact, professed to belong, was a manoeuvre well worthy of a disciple of Loyola...

Is

But the doctor talks of "self-condemnation." there nothing of "self-condemnation" about his own reasoning? He insists on the absolute necessity of the true church's being really Catholic or universal. This point is laboriously argued through a long chapter. And yet, when we turn to the title page of his volume, we find the author there denominating himself "a Roman Catholic divine!"

Now if "self-condemnation" was ever to be discerned, it is assuredly here. This is the very contradiction in terms which, by the wondrous providence of God, the Romish church has ever been made to carry about with her. "Roman Catholic!" The phrase, as far as meaning is concerned, is just as rational as it would be to talk of "the English universe." But enough of this-let us endeavour to find