Page images
PDF
EPUB

are

parts of the church. He has this passage: "Men," he says, exposed to error, because they turn not their eyes to the fountain of truth, nor is the head sought for, nor the doctrines of the heavenly Father upheld. Such things would end, if men would seriously ponder. No long inquiry would be necessary; the proof is easy. Christ addresses Peter, I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' He that does not hold this unity of the church, can he think that he holds the faith? He that opposes and withstands the church, can he trust that be is in the church of God?”—that church (as the preceding words sufficiently point out), that church which is in communion with Peterthat is, as appears from many other passages in his writings, as we may see on another occasion, that church which is in communion with the see of Rome. The principle, then, evidently is, whether followed not only in the private teaching, but in the more general teaching of the church that is to say, the declaration of the grounds on which they base their belief in Scripture, is evidently the same principle which we receive, namely, the infallible authority of the church, assisted by God. There is another point which I mentioned, relating to the more universal teaching of the church, if I may so express myself, the teaching of the whole church united together to define any doctrine of faith. Now nothing can be more certain, than that when any opinion, deemed to be erroneous, arose in the church, the only method that we find, was to collect the authority of preceding centuries, and to ground a definition of faith upon them, without allowing the adversaries of the dogma to be defended, even to argue upon it. They were called upon to subscribe the formulary of faith which was drawn up, and no alternative was permitted. We have the first and most signal example of this in the first general council, after the time of the apostles, which was convened against the heresy of Arius. It is extremely remarkable how, when that council is enacting canons or rules of discipline, it prefaces them by saying, "It has appeared to us proper to do so and so," but the moment they come to give the decree or the rule of faith upon the subject, they say, "The church of God teaches this"-not the word of God, not the Scripture-"the church of God teaches this doctrine;" and because, consequently, the church of God teaches it, then the doctrine must be true, and all the bishops over the world must subscribe to it. This principle, which was commenced on that occasion, was continued in every subsequent council of which we have any notice in ecclesiastical history. This principle again consequently supposes precisely the same ground as before. It supposes that the moment the opinions or traditions of the different churches were found to agree upon any one point of faith, that point must be necessarily true, and no appeal was to be allowed, no argument was to be admitted which seemed directed to set

aside that foundation of authority; and, consequently, you will find, that there were very few indeed in these first centuries who differed from the universal church, who did not attempt to show that they had tradition in their favour, and that the fathers of the century preceding had taught even as they had done. As early as the fourth and fifth centuries we begin to find the great doctors of the church itself taking the pains to collect the testimonies that were thus given before, and so to present their adversaries with a body of tradition upon the doctrines controverted.

Thus it would appear, that coming downwards from the time of the apostles, we find no other principle acted on by the church, either in the private, or in the more public, or in the still more universal definition of doctrines different from that which we already admit—that is, the existence of infallible authority in the church of Christ.

Now, after this, we come down to another and very remarkable period-a period, generally considered as one of darkness, and error, and superstition; the time, when many people suppose that all the doctrines of Christianity had been already obscured, that the church no longer could pretend to claim any part in the promise which our blessed Redeemer had made to his apostles. But it is remarkable as the great age of conversion; for any one conversant with ecclesiastical history will be aware that between the seventh and thirteenth centuries the greater part of northern Europe and several tracts of country in Asia were converted to the faith, and every one of these countries, almost without an exception-perhaps I may say, with one or two solitary exceptions, was converted by a missionary sent out by the church of Rome.

This will be a very interesting, and I will say, a very important application of the rule of faith-to see where this promise had been fulfilled, in other words, where the blessing of God has rested in regard to this important portion of the commission given to his apostles. But I consider it a matter of such very great importance-I consider it one which will admit of so many interesting details, that it is my intention to pass over the point at present, and to reserve for my discourse next Friday a minute examination of the methods followed by the two churches-that is, the Catholic and that collection of different churches or sects, collectively known by the name of Protestants-the different methods which have been followed in conversion, and the success which has attended the two. For the present, therefore, I pass over this important question, and I proceed to what I consider necessary to the full explanation and development of that matter which I have this evening in hand.

So far I may seem to have been only treating of the method pursued in the early church, as to instructing the faithful and preserving the faith. But an important question may arise in the minds of some: "Were not these methods totally unsuccessful?" The church may,

indeed, have from the beginning professed to have followed this principle; and it may be even that, during the first ages, whether, under this principle or any other, it mattered but little, since the seeds of Christianity which had been cast by the apostles, had sufficient energy and power in them to produce fruit, in spite even of worldly principles; it may, be, therefore, that, even in the first ages, this system may have been followed. But has not the consequence been, in length of time, that, under the excuse of tradition, the grossest errors have been introduced into the church of Christ? Is it not true, that the Church of Rome, in particular, has fallen away entirely from the faith into a state of dreadful apostacy, and has disgraced Christianity with many absurd and many impious doctrines?

Such is the view presented probably to many of you very frequently, and in every variety of popular form.

Now I was careful, in my opening discourse, to caution you against such a course of argument as this. I endeavoured to point out to you the necessity of discussing principles, and not so much facts, which, after all, must be referred to principles; that it was an assumption of the question in hand to maintain what are commonly considered abuses, to be such upon the grounds upon which they are so represented.

In the first place, I will observe, that nothing is more open to misrepresentation than this portion of our inquiry; that is to say, an important distinction is constantly overlooked by those who speak and write against us, the distinction between doctrine and discipline: that is to say again, that many practices which the Church may have introduced at one time, and which it could alter to-morrow, if it pleased, are considered as matters of faith, as matters defined and sanctioned, not from any expediency, but under the pretence of coming from the apostles or divine tradition; and these being, in many instances, not discoverable as connected even with the doctrines of antiquity, they are considered as proofs that the Church, under the pretence of following tradition, has introduced erroneous doctrines. To give a familiar instance, for example, the celibacy of the clergy is held up as one of the great corruptions introduced by the Church of Rome, as a most tyrannical injunction, whereby she seems to set at defiance some of the most important moral doctrines delivered by the apostle St. Paul. That is considered as a matter of faith, as a matter which the Church has unalterably upheld, and yet every Catholic knows perfectly well that it is a matter of the purest discipline; that if the Roman Pontiff were to please to-morrow to alter that law, it could not be said that he therein violated any. essential precept of Catholic doctrine; that however we might think that such an innovation of discipline was exceedingly dangerous and imprudent, that yet we could not presume for a moment to say, that it was an error; and if a general council, particularly, were, judging from

expediency, to alter the present practice, we should instantly submit, because we know it is not a matter of faith, and because churches, united with us in full communion in every thing regarding faith differ from us in this matter of discipline. I might go through many others, such as the use of the cup, or of one language rather than another. All these things are quoted as perversions of faith, as departures from Scripture, while they are only things which we consider purely of local and temporary interest, subject to such modification as the Church shall think in its prudence meet. This, therefore, becomes a great and important distinction, always to be borne in mind.

Whenever you

hear of the corruptions of the Catholic Church, whenever you hear of immense abuses, whereby the faith has been lost, ask and insist upon the proof that these are doctrines of faith with the Catholic Church. Insist upon proof that the Church teaches them upon the same ground on which she teaches, for instance, the doctrine of the Eucharist, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the incarnation; and, if you cannot find that express proofs can be brought to show that the Church considers it a part of her code of faith, you must not allow an argument to be brought as a proof of the Church having lost the deposit of faith which was originally given to her.

In the second place, there is, as I before remarked, an assumption of the matters in dispute, because now mark what is the method generally pursued. It is said, that the doctrine of confession, for instance, is not to be found in the Scripture, and therefore the Church has erred, and therefore it has admitted a doctrine contrary to the faith. Are you not there assuming, as the basis of your reasoning, the very point which we are discussing? Are you not endeavouring to prove that the rule of tradition is not sufficient, inasmuch as it is liable to corruption, upon the very ground that tradition is not the rule, but that Scripture alone is to be the rule of faith? Are you not assuming, that whatever is not in Scripture is not to be believed or practised; and, reasoning from that, therefore, that the doctrine which teaches it must be erroneous? Thus you see therefore, that in almost every instance in which this reasoning is followed, there is a violation of the very first sound and honest principle of religious discussion. The fact is, the whole of the questions of difference between any other church and us must rest upon this one pivot, must turn on this one point, Has Christ constituted in his Church an authority to teach; and has he warranted the preservation of truth in the hands of that authority to the end of time? And if that point be made good, then you must receive whatever that Church teaches, and then you must believe that it cannot have erred from the beginning; and, following the stream of time, you must be confident that there is not one moment in which she departed from the truth, and in which, consequently, separation from her could be justified. On the

contrary, if, on the other hand, you do find a rule as explicit and clear as that which I have proved, and texts so strong, and a system so connected and fairly based, step by step, and a rule is found which excludes church authority, and making the individual examination of Scripture a rule of faith, then you may suppose us to have been corrupted in every single point we teach. Upon these two alone must our controversy turn, and if we prove our point, then, whoever differs from us, however difficult, however extraordinary the doctrines may be, in rejecting them he is rejecting the authority of Christ.

Let us, my brethren, examine this point. The Church of Rome, it is said, fell into grievous corruption, and it was necessary to reform it, or perhaps even to separate from it. Now there comes a very important consideration. It would seem that in Christianity due provision should have been made for its most essential wants. You saw that in the Old Testament there was an order of prophets established from the time of Moses; for God expressly foretold that he would, from time to time, send prophets to amend and correct his people, and he gave them a rule by which those prophets were to be judged; he made provision, consequently, against the prevalence of error, he made a provision for reforming any dreadful or important abuses which would creep into his kingdom. Now, if you exclude the principle of infallible authority in the church of Christ: if, in other words, you reject the course of reasoning which was pursued on another occasion, to show you how the Catholic principle of Christ's teaching in the church exactly corresponds to the institution of prophecy: if you do not admit any institution for the preservation or removal of error, you undoubtedly place Christianity on a lower scale of perfection than the ancient law: you leave Christianity unprovided with what was necessary for the old law, and what must have been equally necessary at present? Can you conceive the Almighty establishing a religion, which was to be the last and only revelation which men were to have till the end of time: and can you suppose that he took no means whatsoever, that he made no provision whatsoever, for the removal of error, if it ever should creep into the church? Can you conceive that it was intended, in the way of his providence, to permit that the whole of Christianity should fall into a state of absolute corruption, and yet that he never should have pointed out the way whereby this corruption was to be cured, whereby men were to be perserved from falling into it? Now look into the New Testament, and tell me where we find any provision for this important end? And if you can conceive that it entered into the prospects of Christianity, that it was to be in that state of degradation and moral corruption, which has been described and supposed by so many writers, can you conceive it possible that, at the same time, there was not some resource reserved for the church, that there was no pointing out of a method that

« PreviousContinue »