Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

The practice and the principle are in strict accordance, and Mr. Fairclough's query can be provided with a very satis factory answer in few words. No principle of private judgement or private examination is violated by a statement of our opinions, and the exhibition of the best reasons which we can adduce in their support, addressed to the consideration of rational creatures, with whom it entirely remains, as an admitted and sacred right, to investigate their truth, and to receive or reject them as they themselves may freely determine.

Mr. Fairclough has an admirable method of determining the spuriousness or genuineness of a written document. Mr. Fletcher,' he says,ought to have known that St. Chrysostom had already composed one treatise on St. Matthew; there was 'therefore, no necessity for his composing a second.' Excellent! Dr. Barrow wrote one exposition on the creed; there was therefore no necessity for his composing another; therefore, the larger exposition is not the genuine production of the Dr.'s pen!-which is proof irresistible of its spuriousness! Mr. Fairclough, we think, might have found something better than this to allege against the opus imperfectum ascribed to Chrysostom. In the 14th and 15th pages, we have some supposed scriptural proofs of the Author's allegation, that the Romish Church is in possession of tradition as a rule of faith; testimonies which even Mr. Fletcher cannot but acknowledge. Here they are:

'St. Paul writing to his favourite disciple Timothy, admonishes him thus," Hold the form of sound words which thon hast heard from me"-"preserve this valuable deposite by the assistance of the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us." 2 Epis. c. 1-" Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus; and the things which thou hast heard from me before inany witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." Idem. c. 2.

Admirable testimonies! The things which Timothy had heard from Paul, are as remote from Mr. Fairclough's knowledge, and as much unknown to the Romish Hierarchy, as are the first words which Eve addressed to Adam. The passages which he has cited, certainly prove that Timothy had received instructions from the Apostle Paul. Mr. Fairclough, however, must reckon on a large share of credulity in his readers, in presuming to allege these passages as testimonies' to the existing traditions of his Church as a rule of faith. So much for the testimonies; now for argument.

We may rationally suppose, that Jesus Christ when he performed these miracles, mentioned by St John, took the opportunity of delivering some instructions relative to faith and morals, since we know that it was his regular custom, upon almost every occasion,

when he wrought the miracles which are recorded in Scripture. St. John, who certainly wrote the last of the divinely inspired writers, says in his second and third Epistles, having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink;" hence we may,' I think, fairly infer that many things were delivered by the Apostles, by word of mouth to their disciples, and by them to the universal church, without ever having been written." p. 15.

Mr. Fairclough excels as a dialectician: We may rationally 'suppose' We may, I think, fairly infer,' are master specimens of his art, Ask your opponent for proof positive, and then refute him by supposition! The Apostle John, anticipating an early interview with his friend Gaius, reserves himself for the occasion, and therefore writes the more briefly and what has this to do with proving the necessity of tradition as a rule of faith in the Church of Rome? Can Mr. Fairclough furnish us with the communications which the Apostle John made viva voce to his friend Gaius? We may, we think, fairly infer,' that he is profoundly ignorant of them.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Fairclough is quite an adept in the art of obtaining scriptural testimony and support to his propositions, be they what they may. The original import of the words which he cites, he does not care to ascertain, and he is equally indifferent to the limitations which bound their meaning and application. They are words of Scripture, and that is enough for him. They must bear the sense which he is pleased to give them, and must bend as his plastic hand shall mould them. See how skilful is his management.

• Catholics, in admitting Scripture and tradition, receive them from their pastors, interpreted according to the sense in which the universal church understands them. They well know that, in embracing this rule, they cannot err, since Christ has promised to remain, with his church till the end of time, and says to her," he that hears you, hears me; and he that despises you, despises me." p. 42:

These words were spoken by our Lord to the seventy disciples, in réference to the ministry which he appointed them to discharge; it is therefore a gross perversion of them to connect them, as the Author does, with either the church or the pastors of the church, as interpreters of Scripture and tradition. Jesus Christ, in connecting a result so important with the ministry of the seventy, furnished them with the means of asserting their claims, as his authoritative messengers and servants, in the miraculous powers which he conferred upon them; and when the priests of the Church of Rome prove to us, in the same way, that Christ is with them, they will effectually command our assent to their doctrine.

Mr. Fletcher had remarked, that in the writings of the primitive Fathers, not a single passage can be found on the sacrifice VOL. VIII.-N. S.

Ε

of the mass for the souls in purgatory, incense, chrism, holy water, wax lights, splendid garments, &c. &c; and that in the New Testament there is not the shadow of allusion to such things as these observances, which are in the Romish Church supported by the authority of Apostolic traditions. To this Mr. Fairclough replies,

The Liturgy, or public form of worship, which St. Justin describes as in common use among the Christians of his day, bears an exact resemblance to the magnificent liturgy seen by St. John in heaven. The Apostle gives us a lively representation of the peculiar and splendid garments of the ministers, and the rich ornamented apparatus round the throne of the Lamb. Will Mr. Fletcher say that here is not the shadow of allusion to the mode in which the sacrifice of the mass is now performed?' p. 30.

So much for the allusions in the New Testament. Your inquiry is directed to the forms and practice of Christian worship. on earth, and the figurative representations of the Apocalypse, which refer to the heavenly state, are adduced for your conviction! Now for the primitive Fathers.

[ocr errors]

There is not,' says Mr. Fletcher, a single passage in the Fathers, which mentions the sacrifice of the mass for the souls in purgatory." When Mr. Fletcher made this assertion, he must, I think, have presumed a little, either on the credulity or the ignorance of his readers. He may find in Tertullian mention made of the anniversary sacrifice of the mass for the souls of the departed.

"The Father's own words will, perhaps, not be unacceptable; "Caro abluitur ut anima emaculetur, caro ungitur ut anima consecretur, caro signatur ut anima muniatur, caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima Spiritu Dei illuminetur, caro corpore and (et) sanguine Christi vescitur ut et anima de Deo saginetur. The body is washed, that the soul may be cleansed? the body is anointed, that the sou! may be consecrated; the body is signed with the sign of the cross, that the soul may be fortified; the body is overspread by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated by the spirit of God: the flesh partakes of the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be filled with God. Lib. de resurrectione, c. 8. p. 33.

Whether the charge of presuming a little on the credulity, or the ignorance of his readers,' be just in its imputation to Mr. Fletcher, or to his opponent, will, we apprehend, be settled without much difficulty or hesitation by a sober reader. Is there a single syllable in the quotation from Tertullian, which speaks of the souls in purgatory? Mr. Fairclough betrays his own conviction that it is entirely silent on this point; for though he pledges himself to the proof of it, he feels himself over-ruled by the words of the Father, and substitutes the souls of the de'parted,' the terms in his conclusion for-the souls in purgatory," which are those of the proposition he engages to demonstrate

his citation. The passage in Tertullian is just as decisive a proof of the antiquity of Thomas á Becket's shrine, as it is of the sacrifice of the mass for the souls in purgatory; and till Mr. Fairclough can dig out of Tertullian some passage that shall be more to his purpose, he must stand humbled in the view of all impartial men.

In the next page (31) Mr. Fairclough states, that 'St Justin was contemporary with the Apostles themselves' He can perhaps explain in what sense a man can be contemporary with sons who were all dead before the date of his own birth.

per

"It is to be observed," says Mr. Fletcher, " That many traditions of the Church of Rome are directly contrary to the declaration of the sacred volume. What can be more explicit than the prohibition of images in religious worship, and yet, in opposition to the divine law, the Church of Rome has declared that the use of them is supported by tradition, and that whoever condemns them is accursed." (page 85.) But let me ask Mr. Fletcher, is not the prohibition, "thou shalt not kill," equally explicit? Yet I suppose he will not condemn every magistrate, as guilty of a breach of the fifth commandment, when he is under the necessity of sentencing criminals to be punished by death."" p. 35.

We have here another specimen of Mr. Fairclough's skill in argument, or rather of the manner in which he can substitute sophistry in the place of reasoning. The prohibition is, in English, "Thou shalt do no murder; which as completely saves Mr. Fletcher's consistency, as it demonstrates the flimsy texture of his opponent's sophism.

This is the first of a series of pamphlets, which Mr. Fairclough intends publishing in reply to the Author of the "Lectures on the "Principles and Institutions of the Roman Catholic Religion." His objects are to prove the insufficiency of Scripture as the rule of faith; and to establish the doctrine of the Romish Church, that Scripture and Tradition constitute the proper rule These, heimagines, he has effected in the present publication, and in the next we are to witness his achievement in determining the question-To whom belongs the exclusive right of judging in matters of religion? Whether Mr. Fletcher will notice this reply, is unknown to us. The principal point in dispute is not, however, fully disclosed in the pages of Mr. Fairclough's present pamphlet; for though the rule of faith assumed by Protestants on the one hand, and the professors of the Roman Catholic religion on the other, are different, it is the power challenged by the latter of authoritatively pronouncing on the question, and of defining and bounding the principles of religious faith, that constitutes the essential difference between the advocates of the Romish hierarchy and the supporters of religious liberty. Is religion a concern of exclusive individual obligation, or are any persons vested with au

thority to dictate its principles and its duties? That is the hinge of the whole controversy between the professsors of Roman Catholicism and Protestants.

6

[ocr errors]

Now it is indisputably the pretension of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that to their Church belong an exclusive authority and power of dictating religion to the consciences of mankind; that it behoves them to receive the doctrines and customs which this Church shall prescribe; the whole human race therefore have a demand made upon them for the perfect surrender of their consciences to the laws of this Church. With whom then is this power lodged, which is so imperious and absolute? What is this Church, and on what ground does its high authority rest? Both these questions must be answered. We must know the party which requires such a surrender to its dictates; and we must know the reasons on which it grounds such powers. The Romish Church comprises numerous persons who officiate in the services of its altars, and others who attend their ministrations. When the Church is spoken of in the writings and discourses of Roman Catholic professors, are both these classes of persons included in the defininition, or only one of them? If the class by which the ministrations of their altars are not conducted, be excluded from the definition, for what reason are they so excluded? If the class to which the name,' the clergy,' is appropriated, constitute the Church, in what manner do they obtain their admission as members; and is it only when they are assembled together in their collective capacity that they constitute the Church? If the Church be otherwise constituted, who are the persons essential to its formation? These are the essentials of the inquiry, which can only be satisfied by a clear exposition of the several points which it includes. We can assure ourselves most strongly, and most certainly, that wherever and whatsoever this Church may be, its existence and constitution would be explicitly described to us, if it were the will of God that we should submit to its authority. But is not the fact palpable, that the Church, the infallibility and authority of which are maintained by the Romanists, is a pure fiction? For when was the whole number of Christian professors ever assembled together; or when was the whole number of Christian pastors ever met in congregated form? Is it necessary to appeal to history for the proof of impossibilities? The only assemblies of the members of the Church, which even the Romanists themselves adduce, are the ecclesiastical councils; and the composition and proceedings of these bodies, the management by which they were convened, the arts by which their conduct was regulated, and the influence which controlled them, are so notorious, and form so strong a case, as invalidates every pretension of their sanctity and Christian authority. We require from Mr. Fairclough an expli

« ForrigeFortsæt »