Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

"truth, and in the doctrines and writings of our church." (p. 11.) Then-" what I must denominate Catholic Truth." Then-" a "system irreconcileable with many great, grand, Catholic truths." (p. 13.) Then-" Opposed to this is the general view of the Church, which has been held in all ages by the Church as a "church." (p. 13.) Then-" all Catholic commentators admit." (p. 20.) Then-" the Church of England holds the Catholic doc"trine." (p. 27.) Then-"The general, contemporaneous, resur"rection of the dead,"- -" is one of those great Catholic doctrines "which have been held by the universal Church from the begin"ning." (p. 32.) Then-" to call upon us to give up the great "Catholic doctrine of holy scripture and of the Church of God in "all ages, "-"and to ask the universal Church to make a Catho"lic doctrine bend." (p. 47.) And, at the close, "Such views may teach us to depart with caution from Catholic truth." (p. 123.)

Thus, while Mr. Close begins with resting upon what is Scriptural, he soon turns aside to what is Catholic; and makes this appeal so often, and so confidently, that one is forced to suppose, that he means to rest upon it. Let us ask, then, whether this constant reference to what is " Catholic," is meant as an argument; or merely as what the lawyers call" an observation?" |

If Mr. Close makes his appeal to Catholic consent, and rests upon it, then he is, we trust only for a moment,-gone from us, and joined either to Mr. Faber, or to Mr. Palmer. He either holds with Mr. Faber, that Scripture alone is insufficient, and that we must have "the recorded consent of Primitive Antiquity" before we can maintain any doctrine: Or else, with Mr. Newman of 1842, and Mr. Palmer now, he maintains the dogma of Vincentius,-the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, as the test of sound doctrine.

But perhaps Mr. Close may refuse to take up either of these positions, may aver that he remains a Protestant still;-adheres to Scripture alone as the sole Rule of Faith; and merely used these phrases, concerning "Catholic Truth,"-" the Catholic Faith," and the like, as observations,-passing remarks,—meant to influence the reader's mind, without committing the writer to the Popish error which they seem to imply.

If this be all the meaning which Mr. Close attaches to the phrases in question, then we most sincerely wish that he had

1

Lawyers, who conduct their controversies according to certain definite rules, always distinguish between an argument, or precedent, which must affect the decision; and a remark or observation, which can only affect the favour or disfavour with which the case is viewed.

avoided the use of this illegitimate weapon. It is true that in newspapers and magazines this sort of device is in daily use, but it should be banished from the pulpit. The newspaper declaimer protests that "the People demand," or "expect" or "rely on " such or such a concession. The meaning is, such of the people as think as he does;-all others being, for the nonce, treated as if non-existent. The man of science, in his journal or review, will just as bravely declare, that "all competent judges,—all men of discernment, have long since agreed on such or such a point,' meaning as before, such as think with him,-and dismissing all opponents as if unconscious of their existence. And so,-if these phrases are not meant argumentatively,—so does Mr. Close here quietly assume, Mine is the Catholic Faith,-mine is the orthodox belief,-all others are heterodox, or at best, " mere private opinions."

[ocr errors]

We can hardly imagine that Mr. Close used these phrases as mere polemical missiles with which to pelt his opponents. We fear that he did, for the moment, quit the Protestant citadel, and adopt the belief that what was "the catholic doctrine of the Church of all ages," must be the true one. Let us, if this be his notion, use one of his own arguments, and remind him, that "there is one "kind of testimony against this notion left in the authorized "documents of our church; and that is a negative testimony." "In vain do we search through" the standards of our Church, for such a word or such an idea, as "the faith of the universal church of all ages."

It has been remarked,-and there is great weight in the observation, that when the Church, in her VIIIth Article, formally adopts the Three Creeds, she carefully avoids the reason which was most obvious, and which any Roman Catholic would instantly have given," because they have been universally received in the "Church,”—and adduces, as the real ground of her reception of them, not, that they contain "the faith which has been held in all ages," but that, "they may be proved by most certain warrant "of holy Scripture."

And, so far from treating" the faith of all ages" as something sacred, she broadly asserts, in her XIXth Article, that Rome and Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, have all erred, not only in ceremonies," but also in matters of faith." While, of General Councils she declares, that they "may err" and "have erred," and that their decisions have no authority, except they be "taken out of holy Scripture."

No countenance, then, can Mr. Close obtain from his own Church, for his appeal to "the faith of the Catholic Church in all

ages." On the contrary, the Homily for Rogation-Week thus speaks;-"We see what vanity the school-doctrine is mixed with, "for that in this word they sought not the will of God; but rather "the will of reason, the trade of custom, the path of the Fathers, "the practice of the Church!"

II. But our next topic of objection to Mr. Close's tract is this: That the whole of his appeal to Antiquity is founded on a most unaccountable blunder. He would fain put the Millennarians out of court at once, by such broad assertions as these, "Opposed to "this is the general view of the Church, which has been held in "all ages by the Church as a church." (p. 13.) "We are met "by a variety of interpretations, hostile, as we humbly believe, to "the faith of the Catholic or universal Church in all ages." (p. 10.)

Now Mr. Close is a man of reading; and surely must have read Chillingworth's well-known argument on this very topic. Strange, however, that he should have forgotten such a piece of reasoning, from so famous a writer; being one, too, which wholly annihilates his own statement.

Chillingworth's argument (at the end of his Conference with Mr. Lewgar) runs thus: The Church of Rome, or the Church in general, cannot be infallible :-for she held in the ages next the Apostles, the doctrine of the Millennarians to be true and catholic; whereas she now holds it to be a heresy. Therefore, either she was in error, then: or else, she is in error, now.

We will quote a few passages:

"The doctrine of the Millennaries was, 'That before the world's "end Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years, and "that the saints should live under him in all holiness and happi"ness.' That this doctrine is by the present Roman Church held "false and heretical, I think no man will deny.

"That the same doctrine was, by the Church of the next age after "the apostles, held true and catholic, I prove by these two reasons. "The first reason, Whatsoever doctrine is believed and taught "by the most eminent fathers of any age of the Church, and by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned, that is to be "esteemed the catholic doctrine of the Church of those times.

"But the doctrine of the Millennaries was believed and taught "by the eminent fathers of the age next after the apostles, and by none of that age opposed or condemned.

[ocr errors]

"Therefore it was the catholic doctrine of the Church of those "times."

"That the doctrine which was believed and taught by Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, the disciple of the apostles' disciples (ac

[ocr errors]

"cording to Eusebius), who lived in the times of the apostles; "by Justin Martyr, Doctor of the Church and Martyr: by "Melito bishop of Sardis, who had the gift of prophecy, wit"ness Tertullian, and whom Bellarmine acknowledges a saint: by "St. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons and martyr; and was not opposed or condemned by any one doctor of the Church of those times :“That doctrine was believed and taught by the most eminent fa"thers of that age next to the apostles, and opposed by none." Seeing therefore it is certain, even to the confession of the "adversaries, that Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenæus, "the most considerable and eminent men of their age, did believe "and teach this doctrine and seeing it has been proved as evidently as a thing of this nature can be, that none of their con"temporaries opposed or condemned it;-it remains according to "Cardinal Perron's first rule,—that this is to be esteemed the doc"trine of the Church of that age.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

:

My second reason I form thus. Whatsoever doctrine is "taught by the fathers of any age, not as doctors but as witnesses "of the traditions of the Church (that is, not as their own opinion, "but as the doctrine of the Church of their times), that is undoubt"edly to be so esteemed; especially if none contradicted them in "it. But the fathers above cited teach this doctrine, not as their own private opinion, but as the Christian tradition, and as the "doctrine of the Church, neither did any contradict them in it. "Ergo, it is undoubtedly to be so esteemed.

[ocr errors]

"The major of this syllogism, is Cardinal Perron's second rule " and way of finding out the doctrine of the ancient Church in any age and if it be not a sure rule, farewell the use of all " antiquity."1

[ocr errors]

Such is Chillingworth's argument,-not meant, be it observed, to establish the doctrine of the Millennium, but merely to prove, that the phrase" the faith of the universal Church in all ages,"which Mr. Close is so fond of using,-is no better than nonsense.

But the case does not rest upon Chillingworth's testimony. Most other Church historians of note give the same evidence. Dupin, for instance, was no millennarian, yet he thus writes :—

Of Justin Martyr:-" He believed, according to the opinion of "the most part of the primitive Christians, that the just, after "the resurrection, shall remain for a thousand years in the city of "Jerusalem." (Cent. ii. p. 54.)

he

Of Origen, who first opposed what had been the general opinion, says, that "he admits of two resurrections; " but " rejects the opinion of the millennaries,"" believing that all men, even the Chillingworth's Addit. Discourses, fo. pp. 36, 37.

most holy, shall pass through the fire." Thus we see, that as the primitive doctrine began to be opposed by such philosophizing Christians as Origen, the errors of Romanism were sure to creep in.

66

Of the doctrine of the Church in the primitive times, Dupin says, "The Fathers of the first three centuries "" almost universally believed that Jesus Christ was to reign a thousand years upon earth; but they never asserted that opinion as a matter of "faith." (vol. i. p. 180.)

[ocr errors]

Dupin's testimony, therefore, substantially agrees with that of Chillingworth.

Mosheim's account of the matter is as follows:-
:-

"That the Saviour is to reign a thousand years among men "before the end of the world, had been believed by many:" "In this century (iiid) the millennarian doctrine fell into disrepute, through the influence especially of Origen, who opposed it because it contravened some of his opinions." (vol. i. 254.) To which Mr. Soames, the recent editor, adds this note :

[ocr errors]

"The first open opposer that we meet with, was Caius, a "teacher in the Church of Rome, towards the end of the second "century. He denied that the Apocalypse was written by St. "John, and ascribed it rather to Cerinthus."

So that we find "the first open opposer" appearing a century after the days of the apostles, and beginning by denying the genuineness of the Apocalypse: while the second, Origen, is a writer of known heterodoxy, who condemns the doctrine, because it contravenes his own heresy of a purgatorial fire. And these are the earliest and chief opponents of the millennarian scheme!

But perhaps the most complete and faithful view of the whole matter, is that given by Dr. Todd, in his recent volume. Utterly rejecting, as we do, his system of interpretation, we may yet admit Dr. T. to be a competent witness to a plain historic fact. He says, in that volume:

"There exists, however, very distinct and unquestionable evi"dence, that at the beginning of the third century, a change began in the popular interpretations of the Apocalypse; and that "opinions, which had been commonly derived from it, and which "had been adopted as the undoubted testimony of the Scripture, by Irenæus, by Tertullian, by Justin Martyr, were then for the "first time questioned, and ultimately ceased to hold the place "which once they had occupied in the tradition and teaching of "the Church." (p. 13.)

[ocr errors]

To this brief statement, Dr. Todd adds the following important note :

« PreviousContinue »