tered to an inconvenient construction. Sir, the word of God has but one meaning, and that meaning is eternal truth, and its perfection would be fettering the expression to the display of that and only that; to effect this, Sir, would be to rid the world of those evils of which you affected to complain when you wrote.

thority which would fetter the minds and the consciences of her members." If it does not bind the mind, it is no authority regarding faith, for faith is a mental act, not an external profession. Let us suppose a case. The Church is about to decide a controversy of faith: you and your friend, Rev. Mr. Whitaker, appear before her. You both say she has authority to judge and to determine; "Had it been always thus interpreted, notthat is, you say, "Our Saviour taught that he withstanding the varieties in the structure of was co-equal God with his Father." Rev. the human mind, the Christian world would Mr. W. says, "Our blessed Saviour taught not have been called to witness so many divithat he was not co-equal God with hissions and sub-divisions, modifications and reFather." You both state your reasons: the modifications of doctrinal incorrectness. Nor Church decides that she has full evidence would the Bible itself have been insulted, by that the Saviour taught your proposition. being given as the authority for so much that You call upon Mr. Whitaker to submit. He is absurd in theory, or demoralizing in practical answers, "I cannot, for this would be giving tendency.” the Church authority to fetter the mind and conscience." If he may lawfully thus answer, of what value is her authority to judge and to decide your controversy? Rev. Sir, it would be much better to do as Mr. Whitaker does, to deny altogether the existence of any ecclesiastical tribunal, than to be thus increasing your difficulties, and making your positions ridiculous. If she has authority, say so, and obey it; if she has not, boldly say so at once, but never speak again of such a thing as an ecclesiastical tribunal.

But at least, though she has not authority to fetter Mr. Whitaker's mind and conscience, he ought to pay external respect to a constituted tribunal by giving an open profession of doctrine, though his mind and his conscience may still preserve freedom and remain unfettered. I differ indeed very widely from your Rev. confrere in doctrine and in discipline; and upon this point he needs not my advice; but that advice would be, never to be guilty of hypocrisy by professing to belong to a body which adopts a code of doctrine that he does not in his conscience believe to be true.

As to fettering the word of God, it is an expression which, Rev. Sir, I did not expect from you, nor from any reasonable person. How many meanings has the word of God? Has it more than one? If the Saviour says, "This is my body," the phrase has some definite meaning. When I have fully ascertained what that meaning is, do I fetter God's word by saying, "He meant what he said?" I really blush, Sir, whilst I write, and for the first moment since I took up my pen to address you, I feel almost indignant when I find it sought to degrade the eternal word of the Most High God, by assimilating it to the vile production of some pettifogging attorney, who, anxious to cheat, strives to hide the meaning of his phrases in ambiguous expressions, that he may escape being fet

There is no species of science, the acquisition of which does not fetter the mind by restricting it to what is discovered to be truth. Such fettering is a blessing. There is, Sir, a species of pulpit-talk sometimes, indeed too often, mistaken for preaching and substituted therefor, which gives words without ideas; but it is worse than nonsense, because it deludes by the very sound having a semblance to reason: there is one excuse for him who uses it: he might himself be the dupe of the similitude. I should regret, Sir, to charge you with a deliberate intention to deceive your hearers, when you asserted that to fix the meaning which God intended his word should convey, would be what bears the appearance of a crime in the expression; "fettering the word of God." Sir, the Council of Nice fettered it, when they decided that those texts which Arius adduced to prove that the Son was not consubstantial to the Father, did not mean what he taught; the Council of Ephesus fettered it, when they decided that the texts which Nestorius adduced to prove that there were two persons in Christ, did not mean what he taught; the Council of Chalcedon fettered it, when they decided that the texts which Eutyches adduced to prove that there was only one nature in Christ, did not mean what he taught; the first Council of Jerusalem fettered it, when they decided that the texts adduced to prove the necessity of circumcision in Christianity, did not mean what some of the very first Christians contended was their meaning; the blessed Saviour himself fettered it, when he taught the disciples upon the mountain, and on a thousand other occasions. Explanation of the true meaning of any law is not fettering the law, but applying it to its proper purpose, after having pointed out what that purpose is. Teaching mankind the law of God, and explaining precisely what he has revealed, is not fettering

the mind, but is enlightening and instructing and freeing the mind from the fetters of ignorance. Do not, then, Rev. Sir, imagine that because you have culled from some former writers, of the modern English Church, a few of their phrases, the people of America will be led to imagine that the echo of delusive and refuted jargon contains sound reason. If the Church has authority to decide controversies of faith, that authority must be absolute, and must be founded upon her possession of a power to tell us with certainty what God has revealed; the instant man is taught with certainty what God has revealed, that moment his conscience is bound, in virtue of God's dominion only, it is true, but by the judicial testimony of the Church. So when I bow to the decision of the Supreme Court of the State, I do it, not because the judges have any inherent power of their own to bind me to obedience, but because I owe that obedience to the State, which commissioned the court to give me judicial testimony, as to what is the meaning of this passage of its law. The court possesses no odious power to fetter me or to fetter the law, but it has a wholesome and necessary authority to judge and to determine what is that law which is superior to the court and to the suitor: and it would be a strange plea to set up, that the court had authority to decide, but not to decide with certainty, not to fetter men nor the law, but still to decide.

efficacious, and so I shall by her testimonial judgment and determination, get precisely and infallibly the whole word or revelation of the Lord, neither more or less. If this is not authority predicated upon infallibility, I know not what it is: and if it be not, I have no certainty, because if she is not infallible she may err; and if she may err, I cannot be certain but she does actually err in this special instance. But you will ask, has she not God's peculiar benediction? I answer, by asking: will it infallibly lead her to truth? If it will, I have certainty, and her authority is predicated on infallibility. If it will not, I have no certainty, and bereft of that, I can have no faith, because faith is founded upon certain and not upon probably true testimony. It would be a novel mode, Rev. Sir, of commencing a Christian creed, to say: "I believe it is highly probable that there is one God. I believe that it is highly probable that his only Son became man; Ï believe it is extremely probable he died on the cross. I believe it is very likely, indeed I am almost certain, that he will reward the good and punish the wicked." No, Sir, there can be no reasonable faith except upon the basis of infallible certainty; and the infallible certainty that the Church will give us the doctrine of God, rests upon her concentrated wisdom and piety, uniting the testimony of such a host so congregated from every quarter of the globe, as renders it impossible that they should either be deceived as to But you will tell me that you do not con- what common doctrine received from Christ tradict yourself, because you allow the was given by the founders of all the ChurchChurch that authority which, resting on the es to the nations of the earth, and makes it possession of concentrated wisdom and piety, impossible that they should conspire to corand upon the peculiar benediction of her rupt that testimony. But, Rev. Sir, one divine founder and head, is all that she arro- would imagine you should be extremely caugates to herself, inducing her not to go beyond tious in unfolding the record of this tribunal, the word of the Lord to do either less or more." because the date of your change and all its If I could know what you mean, I should circumstances, and the testimony against it be able in a word to dispatch your whole are indelibly clear upon it. The second phrase. This quotation of yours, in my ap-ground is, the peculiar benediction and proprehension, should mean that the Church has the power of giving an infallibly correct judgment—yet that cannot be your meaning, because you said before, "not that absolute authority which is predicated on the claim of infallibility." You say here, the authority of the Church in her decisions in controversies of faith, is to judge and determine, not going beyond the word of God either for less; that is, giving us the doctrines whole and entire; so that we do not get less than the revelation and law of God; nor more; so that we get no more than the law of God. Then, if we get neither less nor more, we must get precisely the law of God. If she has got a peculiar benediction of God for this purpose, that peculiar benediction must be infallibly

mise to which you allude; but which certainly, if made, places you in no very enviable a station, because to justify yourself, you must prove that the benediction was inefficacious, and that the divine promise was forgotten; because unless the Church erred in her doctrine, you are opposed to God's truth. No wonder then that you instinctively shrink back and throw your old shield before you: 'Give her less than this, and you make her a mere nullity; give her more than this, and then you make the Bible the mere creature of her will." As for the figure of "magnifying the ark above the law and the testimony which it enshrines," I do not understand it, unless you mean one of two things, neither of which, even in your own statement, is

66

or any other human being, that you or your society are right, and that any one who differs from you is wrong? I differ, Sir, from Mr. Whitaker's explanations of the sacred volume, as much probably as does any other

Ghost with the self-same homage as I do the Father: I believe, as firmly as I do that I now write, that he who was crucified on Calvary was the eternal God, by whom all things were made, having a body and soul personally united to his divine nature. But I am at as perfect a loss as I ever was in my life to know how, when Mr. Whitaker denies that those propositions are contained in the Bible, you can prove with certainty that they are. You adduce texts; and he adduces texts in contradiction to you. You say he mistakes; he charges the mistake upon you. You say that the Church in the first ages explained them as you do, and that you therefore must be right. He asks you whether the Church was then infallible in her explanations: you say, "No, she was liable to error." He says that she erred in this explanation if she gave it. Who is now to de

true; viz. either that the Church has no more to do with the Bible than has a box in which it is kept or that the dead ark had authority to judge and to determine controversies of faith, for which purpose it possessed concentrated wisdom and piety, and had re-human being. I adore the Son and the Holy ceived a peculiar benediction from God. You have therefore retreated to final unintelligibility, from multiplied contradiction. Here, at least from me, you may be secure. And now in sober sadness I ask you, have you made one step towards removing the appalling difficulty which has met you at every turn?" But when we leave this general ground; when we ask what the faith of the Gospel is in all its parts, coincidence of sentiment is at an end, and many contradictory replies meet our ear. How then are we to choose amidst all these conflicting opinions of men? How is the faith of the Gospel to be more minutely ascertained?" You told us enlightened reason would lead us to knowledge; then you said that even if we found it, we still should not agree. You next answered, that primitive antiquity would illustrate those things not clearly revealed in the book. The saints would tell us what doc-cide it between you? "Let the Church have trines they derived from the Apostles: this was our tradition; of course you ran away from [it,] telling us that you only sent us to them for the purpose of knowing what they practised. The Bible was to give doctrine. Then you told us the Church had authority to decide in controversies of faith. But you soon denied this, for you told us that her decisions should not fetter our minds nor fetter the word of God. Still you told us that she had wisdom and piety and God's peculiar blessing, to establish her authority; and yet though so established, she may err, although she could not give us more than the word of the Lord, nor less than the word of the Lord, and yet, giving precisely the word of the Lord, she might err. The whole conclusion then seems by some magic brought to this, that by the word of the Lord is meant the Bible. The old question then recurs-suppose I believe this to be God's book, how shall I know its meaning where there are so many contradictory explanations? And to this, Sir, you give no answer. By what right then, Rev. Sir, do you presume to call me erroneous in my interpretation of that book? By what right, Sir, do you presume to tell Mr. Moderwell or Mr. Whitaker,

authority to decide this controversy," you say. He answers, "But you said she was not infallible and had no authority to fetter God's word." I have read some very fine sounding works which would decide against you, upon the very ground that you followed the opinion of the Church in those early ages; because the blow-pipe had not as yet been invented, nor was there a sufficient number of Greek names given to plants and flowers, science was then only in its embryo-America had not been discovered, and therefore the Apostles could not testify the doctrines of the Saviour, nor could this testimony have been secured and perpetuated, for the mariner's compass was not constructed, neither gun-powder nor steam-engines were used; Luther had not written, nor were the articles of the English Protestant Church enacted by proper authority. Rev. Sir, I am tired, and so I suspect are you; and so I fear are my readers. I trust when you next hold a convention of your Church, you will have the goodness to leave us unmolested; and I shall on my part cease to subscribe myself. Yours, &c. &c.

A ROMAN CATHOLIC. Charleston, S. C., Aug. 28th, 1828.

"SOPHISTRY OF PAPISTS.-VICIOUS CIRCLE."

[THE following brief critique upon a sophism frequently made use of against the Catholic argument, is extracted from the " United States Catholic Miscellany," Vol. II. for 1824.]

DR. WATTS, in his Treatise of Logic, and I do contain his revelation. Therefore, by other writers of his description, charge Ro- your principle, you must receive these books man Catholics with gross and palpable ab- as the word of God." surdity in their arguments, and exemplify the sophism of the Vicious Circle, by reference to the arguments of Catholics, viz.

Thus, whether a Catholic or Papist argues with a person who allows the authority of Scripture, but does not allow Church inCase 2. A Papist argues with a person fallibility; or argues with a person who allows who acknowledges the infallibility of the Church infallibility, but does not allow ScripChurch, but questions and doubts the autho-tural authority; or argues with a person who rity of certain Books. No one can say it would be sophistry to address such a person in these words "Sir, you allow the body of true believers, that is the Church, does certainly know what God has revealed, and can point out with infallible certainty the books which do contain his revelations. Sir, that Church testifies to you that these books

LETTERS ON THE CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE AGAINST THE CATHOLIC RELIGION.

ADDRESSED TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA.

[THE following Series of Letters has been assigned the first place among the larger Controversial Writings of Dr. England-both as naturally taking this place in the chronological order, and also, because the introductory remarks with which they are prefaced, and the primary subject of the Evidence of the Catholic Religion, which is contained in them, naturally connect them with the preceding and subsequent parts of the Polemic Division of his Works. They were published in the "U. S. Catholic Miscellany," Vols. VI and VII, for the years 1826-8.]