Page images
PDF
EPUB

allowed from the beginning had a written code, for which provision was made essentially and fundamentally in their religion, that we should have a written code too, because they were referred to it? Does it follow, again, that therefore the Scriptures, which did not exist, were constituted as the infallible and only rule of faith? Can it be supposed even that there is an allusion to the New Testament? Impossible, for our Saviour could not have committed anything so foolish, if I may so say, as to tell men to go and seek for testimony of him, in works which were not then written. Therefore, could they, by the word Scripture, understand anything but the Old Testament? So the command to the Jews, to search in their own Scriptures, in order to find testimony to our Saviour, is strained to signify that other Scriptures should hereafter be written; and, that in the same manner as the Jews were told to search the older Scriptures, so all Christians should be obliged to search the Scriptures, and, that in searching, they should find all truth. For mind, our Saviour does not say, they are sufficient to salvation, in them is the whole of truth, but he says, "They give testimony of me." On one point the Scriptures were satisfactory; on one point the Old Testament afforded the Jews, who admitted it, a satisfactory demonstration to the truth; and, therefore, our Saviour cannot be supposed to intimate that the whole of truth was consequently found in the Old Testament Scriptures, much less to say, that the entire truth should be found in the New Testament Scriptures, which were not then even composed or designed.

Another text, and the strongest, is of precisely the same character; it is that in the second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, in which he says, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of; knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." From this text again it is inferred, that the Scripture, or the written word of God of the new law, contains within it all that is necessary to salvation-unto faith, and that men are appointed, consequently, to adopt it as their only rule of faith. Here, again, the same question presents itself, what are the Scriptures of which St. Paul speaks? Where those Scriptures which Timothy, had known from his infancy the books of the New Testament? Again, not a word about a written code of this new law; not a word about books which were to be written and collected together for the instruction of the faithful in the doctrines of Christ. Secondly, what was to be learned from this book-that is, from the Old Testament? For what purpose was Timothy to use it?

say

Was it to teach the whole system of Christianity? Assuredly not, for Christianity, as a system, did not exist in that Church. Will anybody that the Old Testament is the exclusive rule of faith? The object is precisely the same as in the former case. The Apostle says to the Jews, "You know that these Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ "-that is to say, through the train of evidence which they give, you are brought unto that salvation which is by the faith which is in Christ. It was thus that the Scriptures were able to make the men of those times wise, so far as to come into the faith of Christ. The knowledge of Scripture, consequently, here spoken of, is a knowledge preparatory to coming to Christianity; it is the knowledge which had to bring the Jews into an acquaintance with the divinity, and with the doctrines of Christ. In the next place, what is the most that is said concerning them? It is not said, that they are sufficient to make men perfect-that they are sufficient for teaching, for instruction, for reproof, that they are profitable, that they are useful. Does not the Catholic say precisely the same, that the Scripture is thus profitable, that it is thus conducive to every thing that is good; that it should be studied; that its precepts should be the guide of our lives? But is there not a wide difference between a book being profitable for a purpose, and being entirely sufficient, even if that sufficiency could have included in itself the faith of Christ, seeing it was only spoken of the books of the Old Testament? Thus then again not a word towards proving the exclusive sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith. Again, it is manifest that St. Paul is speaking of the Scriptures here used, not as it has to be read and used for the individual instruction and edification of all the faithful, but as it is to be observed by pastors-for observe what he says; he says, expressly, it is profitable for those purposes which are the exclusive function of the ministry, and not of others, for the learners, for the subjects of the Church of Christ; for he says, it is profitable for doctrine," that is, as the word means in its proper native sense, "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruct on in righteousness." Therefore, he is to hold fast the doctrines which St. Paul taught, remembering upon whose authority he received them— that is, the authority of the Apostles. He had been grounded from his infancy in the Old Testament, which is able to bring men to salvation through faith in Christ. The two grounds, consequently, upon which he is to found himself, is upon the authority of the Old Testament, bearing witness with the New. And then he is to know besides, that this Scripture is profitable for the practice of his ministry, for correcting, for reproving, for instructing. These are points not for individual improvement, not for each one's edification; but they are essentially acts for the ministry of the priesthood, for those who have to teach others; and, consequently, if this text prove anything regarding Scrip

66

ture, it only goes to prove that the pastors of the church should be familiar with it, and make use of it for the purpose of correcting, and edifying their flocks. In the last place, it is not spoken in the least of faith; it is only profitable for these things, for correction, for reproof, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to all good works. It is to be understood merely in the appointment, in the observance of the law of God, not in forming a system of faith. It is evident that it is for the purpose of giving a law to the faithful, showing men the way in which they should walk in the commandments of God, and not the manner in which they are to form and establish their belief.

Now these are, literally, the only two texts of Scripture which can be brought forward with any plausibility whatsoever, with any force from the word of God; that is to say, of the New Testament-which was not then written, and for whose writing, no provision was made in the constitution of Christ's religion—being the exclusive ground of faith; and I will put it to any one, if these two texts, with the reflections I have made upon them, contrasted. with those regarding the authority of the church itself, with the teaching, and the divine sanction permanently residing in it, can be of sufficient strength to overthrow the others, and to base religious faith upon the Scripture, as demonstrated by these passages, to be the only rule of faith?

But so far, then, we have conducted our inquiry to this point, to the establishment of a system of faith, such as the Catholic church supposes, and the exclusion of that which allows each one the particular formation of his code of faith from the written Word of God. We have, in other words, come to the conclusion that Christ appointed a church with full authority to teach, and with a full guarantee from himself, that it should not fall into error.

But a question will immediately present itself: Upon what grounds does the Catholic church arrogate to itself to be this one church? Why does it not reside in the church of England, which also lays claim to authority? Why not in the Greek church-why not in every other church—why not in the whole collection of these churches together? This, therefore, is the point to which I must now proceed; and I shall endeavour to do it in a very summary manner.

Last Wednesday I spoke at length upon what is considered by us, the supreme authority in God's church; and incidentally I went into some remarks upon the constant and uninterrupted succession of the pastors in that church. Upon a former occasion, I showed you likewise-I read even some extracts from learned divines of the church of England, to show that it was acknowledged—that even up till a very late period, the Catholic church was, as we call it, was essentially the TRUE church of Christ; that it is impossible to fix a period when it lost that title.

Some have taken the time of the Reformation-that is, the Council of Trent; others, however, I showed you, put the period of defection much farther back. But here, however, we have two important facts— that is, first, we have a prior existence. They consider us as essentially connected with the foregoing and perfect state of the church of Christ, and the only question with them is, when we lost our right and title. So far as external connexion goes, nobody can deny that the series of our bishops is completely uninterrupted in the See of Rome. We can name, almost without one single doubt, the exact order of succession, and the appointment and duration of each Pontiff. In a great many other churches, also, we can show an uninterupted succession also, from the very first foundation of the respective seas. Many of the churches of Italy, France, Spain, and of Germany, can show a succession of bishops from the first that held those sees to the present day. Now, therefore, it requires positive argument to drive any one from a possession, the right to which he can prove by uninterrupted links. It requires strong legal proof, on the other side, to show, that we have forfeited our title, which we had from the beginning, to be considered the legitimate, the only legitimate,, and undisputed possessors of these sees, as representing the church of Christ. It is admitted, that when these Episcopal sees were founded, they were certainly founded by the true Christian church; the bishops have continued in them since, till this moment, and it must be proved that they have fallen away-that they have lost their right to be considered as continuators of that portion of the church, which is acknowledged by all to have been perfect in its doctrine.

If you came to look, for instance, at the Greek church, you find a manifest separation; they were in communion up to a certain time, and they, by a formal act, removed their allegiance from the original church, and created themselves into an independent one. In all this we do not stir; we remain upon the same ground; we maintain the same position the year after as we did the year before. They left us, and they consequently must have acquired new claims, or else they forfeited those which they had before.

Coming down to later times, it is acknowledged, that the Church of England separated from that of Rome. Reasons are brought to prove that the separation was lawful, and that she was justified in the grounds on which she proceeded. Still there is an acknowledgment of separation; there is an acknowledgment that a change of state has taken place. We stand in possession, therefore, of whatever rights we had before, and we want positive argument to show us, why we are not the church of Christ, and we cannot be called to bring reasons why we are. We stand on the same ground on which any dynasty claims the succession to the throne of its ancestors; on the same ground by which any member of the aristocracy of this country claims possession to the

property he holds; that is, it was legitimately given to the one from whom he has inherited it; and whatever branches of his family may have separated from it-whatever others may have accepted for their claims, and their dominions, it cannot possibly shake the title which he has by a right line of succession to his estates.

But without entering farther into the development of this argument, which would lead to a great many secondary considerations, I am content to stake the question upon common ground—at least upon ground admitted by the very great majority of Christians in this country-I mean the common symbols of faith, the creeds, as they are called, which are used in the different churches. Now, in them all we read the acknowledgment, the belief in "one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." I would stand upon this simple ground. It might occupy an exceedingly long time-perhaps it would prove tedious, and it might be even difficult, in some respects, to enter into a comparison of the claims of the Catholic, and of other churches to these respective qualifications; but there is one very simple way of demonstrating which has a right to them by showing which alone claims the right. If we find that all others give up all right and title to this denomination, to these distinctive titles, it follows, of course, that they can have no pretension to the qualities which they represent; and if we find that one only assumes them as characteristic, assuredly we have all that we can require, to prove that that one is in possession of the substance so designated.

Now, for instance, with regard to UNITY. This church is represented as one; it is believed to be one by all Christians who say that creed; they profess, at least, to have a belief in this one church. But the Catholic church is the only one that requires unity, absolute unity of faith among its members; and not only so, but coming to the principle on which alone I wish to try the question, the Catholic church is the only one that lays down a principle of faith, essentially supposing unity as the most necessary quality of the church. That church lays down, as a principle of faith, that all mankind must believe whatever she decides with the assistance of the Holy Ghost-a principle necessarily directed to bring all men's minds into one and the same way of thinking. The principle, therefore, of the church, the very sole of it, that which gives it individuality, is the principle of unity, the necessity of unity. It is a principle securing necessarily—be it right or be it wrong-it is a principle securing essentially, and in fact, unity. The principle of the Protestant church is, that each one is to think for himself; that each one is to judge for himself; that each one is to make out his own system of faith. It is a system of dispersion; it is a system of dissension; it is a system of variety. Certainly, the very essence of this church, supposes variety and not unity; and this is throughout the case. Leslie, for instance, in his treatise on Private

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »