The Seven Champion Questions Proposed by a
Transcription
The Seven Champion Questions Proposed by a
Acerca de este libro Esta es una copia digital de un libro que, durante generaciones, se ha conservado en las estanterías de una biblioteca, hasta que Google ha decidido escanearlo como parte de un proyecto que pretende que sea posible descubrir en línea libros de todo el mundo. Ha sobrevivido tantos años como para que los derechos de autor hayan expirado y el libro pase a ser de dominio público. El que un libro sea de dominio público significa que nunca ha estado protegido por derechos de autor, o bien que el período legal de estos derechos ya ha expirado. Es posible que una misma obra sea de dominio público en unos países y, sin embargo, no lo sea en otros. Los libros de dominio público son nuestras puertas hacia el pasado, suponen un patrimonio histórico, cultural y de conocimientos que, a menudo, resulta difícil de descubrir. Todas las anotaciones, marcas y otras señales en los márgenes que estén presentes en el volumen original aparecerán también en este archivo como testimonio del largo viaje que el libro ha recorrido desde el editor hasta la biblioteca y, finalmente, hasta usted. Normas de uso Google se enorgullece de poder colaborar con distintas bibliotecas para digitalizar los materiales de dominio público a fin de hacerlos accesibles a todo el mundo. Los libros de dominio público son patrimonio de todos, nosotros somos sus humildes guardianes. No obstante, se trata de un trabajo caro. Por este motivo, y para poder ofrecer este recurso, hemos tomado medidas para evitar que se produzca un abuso por parte de terceros con fines comerciales, y hemos incluido restricciones técnicas sobre las solicitudes automatizadas. Asimismo, le pedimos que: + Haga un uso exclusivamente no comercial de estos archivos Hemos diseñado la Búsqueda de libros de Google para el uso de particulares; como tal, le pedimos que utilice estos archivos con fines personales, y no comerciales. + No envíe solicitudes automatizadas Por favor, no envíe solicitudes automatizadas de ningún tipo al sistema de Google. Si está llevando a cabo una investigación sobre traducción automática, reconocimiento óptico de caracteres u otros campos para los que resulte útil disfrutar de acceso a una gran cantidad de texto, por favor, envíenos un mensaje. Fomentamos el uso de materiales de dominio público con estos propósitos y seguro que podremos ayudarle. + Conserve la atribución La filigrana de Google que verá en todos los archivos es fundamental para informar a los usuarios sobre este proyecto y ayudarles a encontrar materiales adicionales en la Búsqueda de libros de Google. Por favor, no la elimine. + Manténgase siempre dentro de la legalidad Sea cual sea el uso que haga de estos materiales, recuerde que es responsable de asegurarse de que todo lo que hace es legal. No dé por sentado que, por el hecho de que una obra se considere de dominio público para los usuarios de los Estados Unidos, lo será también para los usuarios de otros países. La legislación sobre derechos de autor varía de un país a otro, y no podemos facilitar información sobre si está permitido un uso específico de algún libro. Por favor, no suponga que la aparición de un libro en nuestro programa significa que se puede utilizar de igual manera en todo el mundo. La responsabilidad ante la infracción de los derechos de autor puede ser muy grave. Acerca de la Búsqueda de libros de Google El objetivo de Google consiste en organizar información procedente de todo el mundo y hacerla accesible y útil de forma universal. El programa de Búsqueda de libros de Google ayuda a los lectores a descubrir los libros de todo el mundo a la vez que ayuda a autores y editores a llegar a nuevas audiencias. Podrá realizar búsquedas en el texto completo de este libro en la web, en la página http://books.google.com This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible. http://books.google.com "W. 1 1 3540 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS, PROPOSED BY A ROMANIST TO PUZZLE PROTESTANTS, ANSWERED BY CHARLES HASTINGS COLLETTE. _‘___ “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that alketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”--l Plum: iii. 15. _+__. LON D O N: WILLIAM MACINTOSH, 24, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1864‘ 8.3. THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS firugwh 1111 a 301113111221 10 $113311: firntestants, ANSWERED BY CHARLES HASTINGS COLLETTE, [I AUTHOR or “ novnmms 0F ROMANISM,” “ mnmm nnrv'rnn,” “Rounusn IN ENGLAND nxrosnn,” “311mm: vm., .m ms'romcu, sxmcn," “1m. WISEMAN'S roman LITERARY nmmnms," nu, ma. L_ _ _ *m-M. ‘ “ Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”—l PETER iii. 16. p_._+‘__. LONDON: WILLIAM MACINTOSH, 24, PATERNOSTER ROW. THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. ___.—_ A ROMAN Catholic writer, under the veil of the assumed name of Agathon, has, in a. small pamphlet, printed in France, though in English, proposed “ Seven Questions,” all alleged to be “ bearing upon the present ecclesiastical crisis,” for the consideration of “the bishops, the clergy, and the people of England.” The copy now before us is dated “ 1863,” and is alleged to be the “seventh edition.” We are given to under stand that the pamphlet is in very extensive circula tion. It is evidently intended to entrap the young, unwary, and unstable. The “ Seven Questions ” submitted for the con sideration of Protestants are as follows :— QUESTION THE FIRST. In what .Boolc qf the Old or New Testament is con tained the text which declares that the Scriptures are the sole rule offaith f—Oite the teat. QUESTION THE 81:00:03. In what Book of the Old or New Testament is con tained the text which declares that all the Books of the Old and New Testament are canonical and inspired, and which gives a list of the said Books ?— Gite the text. QUESTION THE THIRD. In what B0070 of they Old or New Testament is com tained the test which declares that the privatejudgment ~, .4, 4! THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. of each individual is the sole interpeter of Scripture .7Cite the text. QUESTION THE FOURTH. Supposing that visibility is a necessary quality of the true Church, that the 19th Article of the Church of England is true, and that the Church of England is the Church designated in thefirst clause of the said article, where was the visible Church of Christ from the year 1100 to 1200, andfrom the year 1400 to 1500 P QUEsTION THE FIFTH. Supposing, as some Protestants maintain, that since the establishment of Christianity the true Church has been at certain periods invisible, name those periods, and say how it was possible during those periods to obey Christ’s commands to hear the Church, to tell the Church, and also how this invisible Church could accom plish Christ’s commands of preaching the Gospel to every creature, teaching and baptizing all nations .7 QUESTION THE SIXTH. After Christ’s ascension, after the death of the last apostle or evangelist, who was the first priest who qfi'ered mass, who heard private or public confessions, who said the first prayer for the dead, and who first invoked the Blessed Virgin and the Saints .7— Give the names, dates, and localities. QUESTION THE SEVENTH. Cite the text qf Scripture in which it is declared that we are to rest from work on the first day of the week, Sunday, and that we may work on the seventh, or Sabbath-day. FIRST QUESTION. 5 “ Before attempting to answer the above ques tions,” Agathon informs us that “it will be absolutely necessary to read, and examine carefully, the follow ing remarks on them ; ” and then follows a comment on each question. These we have “ read,” and now propose to “ examine ” them as we proceed on our “ remarks ” on the “ Seven Questions.” Had Agathon contented himself with the “Seven Questions,” without the additional “remarks,” our task would have been short; but the “remarks” con_ tain so much that is specious, fallacious, and, we are constrained to add, so much that is untrue, as to have necessitated a more elaborate reply than otherwise would be required. FIRST QUESTION. “In what Book of the Old or New Testament is contained the text which declares the Scriptures are the sole rule offaith f—C‘ite the text.” Agathon sagely informs us—“ Unless this text is given, the question will not be answered; but no such text exists, therefore this first question is un answerable ” ! “The fundamental principle of Protestantism (he tells us) is, that the Bible alone is the rule of faith, the tribunal of final appeal, and the sole infallible guide.” “To be true,” he further alleges, “this principle must be laid down in so many words in" ‘ * Throughout we have retained " Agathon’s” italics. 6 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. the Scriptures,” otherwise the Protestant principle is based on “ fallible grounds, uncertain, and, therefore, most dangerous.” We are further informed that, “Whatever funda mental principle of religion is not clearly laid down in Scripture is uncertain and suspicious; but the above fundamental principle of Protestantism is not clearly laid down in Scripture : therefore the funda mental principle of Protestantism is uncertain and suspicious.” ‘ It is an old device with Roman Catholic contro versialists to advance a proposition never maintained, or even suggested, by Protestants; and then to set up this “man of straw,” gibbet it, and then attempt to scare us with it. We are not'aware that any Protestant ever pretended that the Scriptures con~ tained a single text which “lays down in as many words” that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith. The Roman Church, and all classes of Protestants, agree so far that the Scripture is the inspired word of God, and that it is a rule of faith—as far as it goes. But what we do say is summed up in the 6th Article of the Church of England :— “ Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby,'is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Such, then, being the rule adopted by all Protes tants with regard to the Holy Scriptures, we do not consider it necessary that the Scripture itself should contain a text declaring it to be the sole rule of faith. But in holding to this rule, we do sincerely FIRST QUESTION. 7 believe that the Scripture is a ufiicient rule of faith; that is, it contains all things necessary to be known for our salvation. The Church of Rome, for the first time, in the year 1546, at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, and after much difliculty and discussion, decreed that “ unwritten tradition should be received with equal piety and reverence as the sacred Scriptures in matters of faith and manners.” The Scriptures, therefore, they declare to be incom— plete a a revelation, and insuflicient as containing al that is necessary for our salvation. This arrangement was absolutely necessary to the Roman system, in order to give a show of sanction for her peculiar doctrines, against which we protest as novelties; and in order to make the Scriptures practically useless, the Church of Rome, by her creed, first published in November, 1564!, enjoins on each member a vow, that he will “admit the Scrip tures only according to the sense which Holy Mother Church has held and does hold; and that he will not interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers." Agathon admits that we are informed in the Scrip tures themselves that they “ are able to make us wise unto salvation,” and “are able to lead un believers to the wisdom of acknowledging Him (Christ) as the promised Messiah, and thus being saved through Christ.” But he asserts that this is not enough. We think otherwise. He, therefore, still requires us to produce a text “ to prove that the Scriptures alone are the sole rule of faith.” We admit, for the argument, that we cannot produce the required text. The question is, then, Have we 8 THE EVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. reformers, in claiming the Scriptures to be our sole rule of faith, introduced a new phase into Chris tianity with the reformation ? We maintain that, in so believing, we follow the universal voice of Christian antiquity. We admit that there was a period when the New Testament did not exist, but the Apostles, before they departed this life, through the Divine will, reduced to writing what was necessary for our salvation ; as a very ancient Father, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, (4.1). 140), clearly expressed himself:— “ The Scriptures are perfect as having been dictated by the word of God and his Holy Spirit.”* And he adds :-— “ For we have become acquainted with the dispen sation of our salvation through no other men than those through whom the Gospel has come to us; which, indeed, they then preached, but qfterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be tkefizundation a/mlpillar of our faith”? And in fact this same father accused the heretics of his day of using, on this very subject, the argument invariably advanced by Romanists of the present day against Protestants :— “ When they [the heretics] are confuted out of the Scriptures they turn round and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not accurate nor of authority, and because they are ambiguous, and because the truth cannot be discovered by those who * “Scripture quidem perfects: aunt, quippe is Verbo ct Spiritu ejus dictae." Iren. cont. Harem, lib. ii., 0. xlvii., p. 173. London, 1522. And 0. xxv., p. 117. Edit. Basil. 1526. 1' “ Non enim per slios dispositionem salutis nostra! cognovimus, quam per cos per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tune prmeonim verunt, poms vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundsmentum at oolumnam fidei nostrm futurum." Iren. Adv. Hares" lib. iii., 0. i., p. 117. Edit. Basil. 1526. FIRST ounsrros. 9 are ignorant of the tradition, for that the truth was not delivered in writing, but orally.“ \Ve have no hesitation in asserting that had a com munion of persons existed in the days of Irenaeus holding Romish doctrines and theories with regard to the Scriptures they would have been declared heretics. Could a Protestant of the present day have defined the Bomish objection as to the sufiiciency of the Scriptures more clearly than did Irenaeus of old when combating the heretics of his days ? We ask Agathon whether he includes Irenseus in his con demnation P We admit that certain practices were from time to time, after the Apostles had been removed, introduced into the Church, and their use sanctioned, but only on the authority of tradition ; but to establish points of doctrine as matter of faith, the sacred Scriptures were alone appealed to as of authority. When the early Christians applied the term “tradition” to points of doctrine they expressly referred to the traditions handed down by the Apostles in their writings. Suicer, the eminent professor of Greek, whose works are almost indispensable to the study of the Fathers, furnishes examples of the fact that the word THPGSOUIQ, traditio—“ tradition”——was used as “ identical with the written word.” The earliest Latin Father, Tertullian (am. 194), while he set great value on usage, custom, and tradition, which he admitted not to be authorized by Scripture, on questions of doctrine be appealed to the 4‘ (Hmretici) “ quum euim ex Seripturis argnuntur, in accusationem con vertunlur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non ecte habeant, neque_sint ex authoritate, et quia non possit 01 his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem, non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem.” Iren. Adv. hares" lib. iii., c. ii.; in Init., p. 140. Edit. Basil. 1526. 10 run saver: CHAMPION QUESTIONS. Scriptures alone as of authority. In arguing with the heretics he demanded from them proofs frbm Scripture :— “ If it is not written, let them fear the curse allotted to such as add or diminish.” ‘1‘ The passages from the early Christian writers which insist on the Scriptures as alone of authority in matters of doctrine, are so numerous and so well known that it is at the present day almost labour and time lost to repeat them: they are to be found in almost every Protestant controversial work. We will, nevertheless, transcribe two or three of them merely as illustrations. What could be more striking than the words delivered at the first General Council of Nice (an). 325) by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in the name of the 318 bishops then assembled. He says :— “ Believe the things that are written; the things that are not written neither think upon nor inquire into.”'l' Gregory, Bish0p of Nyssa (am. 379), says : “ Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the seal of the written testimony.”I I And Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (an). 386), places the matter very clearly before us. He says :— “ Not even the least of the Divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the Divine Scriptures. Do not simply give * “ Si non est scriptum, timeat vat illud, adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum." Tort. contra Hermog., p. 272. Paris, 1680. Cap. xn'i., vol. ii., p. 111. Edit. Semler, Balzac. Magi, 1773. 'l' “T07: 'IG'YPdF/l-E’VMS menus, 1'“: pi) 7E7paplae'va ,ui; dwdel ,u'not (4111:." Eussb. ad Phi1050p. in Gelas. Cyzic. Comment. Act. Cone. Nic. P., 2, r. xix., p. 185. Edit. Balf. ' I “’Ev Torin.) p.in 'r'hv div/79510111 'ri0e'oo'9m, q? o'qbpa'yls drrs'o'n rfis 7pa¢mfis yapruplas." Greg. Nyss. Dialog. de Anima et Resurrect., tom. i., p. 839. Edit. Graecolat. rmsr QUESTION. 11 faith to me while I am speaking these things to you; have the proofs of what I say from the holy word; for the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the pr00fs of the sacred Scriptures.”* Jerome, a. Presbyter of Rome (AJ). 392), says :— “The Church of Christ, which has churches in the whole world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel, and the Apostles; she has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is, from the holy Scriptures”? And again, Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (Air). 397), says :— “ It can no way be known which is the true Church (nisi ta/ntummodo per Sam'pturas) but only by the Scriptures : otherwise, if they had regard -to other things they should be offended and perish, and not understand which is the true Church.”11 , And Augustin, Bishop of Hippo in Africa. (LD. 420), says :— “In them [the Scriptures] we have known Christ, in them we have known the Church.”§ * “Ae? yap, rep; 'rdw Gefcoy Kai a71in 'Tfis ma'rsws ova-rnpi'wr, [1.115% To 711be til/en now Beiwv wapa Slfioo'Qai 'ypazpfizv pxnfié FurAéis meal/671; TL Kal Ao'ywv Karaokevai' wapaqbepsu‘fiai unfit époi 1'33 Tail-rd o'oi Aé'yav'n ZurAéis ma'reuons, éfiv 1"?)1/ 6.165515“!er Kara'y'yeAAoMé you! Euro 1'ch Oelwv ,ufi Aafips 'ypmpéill' 1'7 o'w-repfa 7dp c.5111 'rfis rim-ems imam, 01’”: £5 eupemko'ylas, aAM‘z £5 droEet'EEws 'rwv Oeimv e’o'fl 'ypaqbéiv." Cyril Hiers. Cateoh. iv., sect. xvii., p. 108. Mouse. 1848. 1' “ Ecclesis. Christi in toto orbe ecclesias possidens, spiritus imitate con juncta est, et habet urbes, legis prophetarnm, evangelii, et apostolorum; non est egresss do finibus suis, id est, de Scripturis Benet-is." Hior. com ment. in Mich. lib. i., c. i., tom. v., p. 334. Edit. l’sris, 1602; and tom.vi.,. p. 44.5. VBI‘OD., 1736. 1; Chrys. in oper. imperfecti. Ram. 49, c. 24, tom. vi., p. 204. Paris, 1718. ' § “ In Soripturis didicimus Christum, in Boripturis didicimus Ecclesiam,” Aug. Ep. 166, p. 301, tom. ii. Paris, 1679. 12 THE snvms onsmrrox QUESTIONS. Such passages might be multiplied. They all tend to prove that the modern Roman practice of placing tradition on a level with Scriptures to establish a. point of faith was then considered heretical. Indeed, one Father Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (4.1). 4:12), emphatically said :— “It is the part of a' devilish spirit to follow the sophisms of human falsehood, and to think anything to be Divine that is not authorized by the holy Scriptures!” * In acknowledging, then, the Scriptures as our only (guide and rule of faith, we do but follow the universal testimony and belief of antiquity. We believe that “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the imple” (Psa. xix. 7), and that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may helper-fleet, throughh‘y furnished unto all good works,”—“ and are able to make us wise unto salva vation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, 17). What better, what safer rule can we require? Agathon admits that “it is a good and notable deed to search the Scriptures with a proper spirit.” In this at least we are agreed. He adds, however, that “he qualified” this “searching of the Scrip tures spoken of by our Saviour, and the study of the Scriptures commended by St. Paul in Timothy and the Bereans,” with the words, “in a proper spirit.” But “' “ Daemoniaci spiritus asset instinctus, sophismata humanarum mentium sequi, ct aliquid extra Scripturarum auctoritatem putare divinum.” Theo .phil. Alex. Op. Epist. Paschal. i., s. 6, in Biblioth. Vet. Petrum, tom. vii., p. 617. Edit. Galland. rxas'r quasrron. 13 with that want of charity, peculiar, alas! to many controversialists, Agathon, without the slightest proof, and with as little truth, declares that “the senseiin which Protestants apply these texts supposes a very improper spirit in those who study the Scripture, namely, a spirit of self-sufficiency and insubordina tion; a spirit ready to call inquestion the teaching of those to Whom Christ said, ‘He who heareth you, heareth me;’ a spirit of choosing and judging for oneself, and not that humble and docile spirit com mended by St. Paul in Timothy and in the Bereans.” We have only to request Agathon to study his Bible, wherein he will learn to be more charitable, as also the value of the command, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” There is scarcely a Protestant who reads his Bible but first, mentally or audibly, in the words of that beautiful and simple Collect for the second Sunday in Advent in our Church Service, with meekness and humility invokes a blessing from the Almighty, and prays that his Holy Spirit may enlighten his understanding. What Agathon desires to insinuate, but he has not the courage to’ speak openly, is, that our sin consists in the fact, that we do not submit our understanding to the Roman or Latin priesthood, and accept their bare, individual, and unsupported interpretation of Scripture;* for it must be borne in mind that the Roman Church has not authoritatively advanced an “infallible” or other interpretation of any one chap ter of the Bible. She has perverted a. few texts to make them accord with her modern doctrines; but ' On the interpretation of “ Scriptures,” the writer would beg to refer his readers to the chapter “ On the Interpretation of Scriptures," in his “Novelties of Bomanism." Published by the Religious Tract Seciety, 56, Paternoster Row, London. 2nd Edition, 1864. Price 4s. 141 THE snvnn CHAMPION QUESTIONS. they have no support whatever from the Church or from the early Christian Fathers. As St. Paul com mended Timothy and the Bereans for receiving the word with all eagerness, and for their “ daily search ing” and studying the Scriptures, whether the things that were taught them were true (Acts xvii. 11), we also are satisfied with the instruction we receive from our own ministry, and we pray for the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit to enlighten our understanding. And we also search the Scriptures. The object of Agathon, in common with the teach ing members of his communion, is to bring down the sacred Scriptures to a level with the traditions of his Church, or to invest these traditions with the majesty and authority of the word of God. What saith Augustine on this subject P— “ Faith will waver if the authority of the sacred Scriptures be weakened.”* ‘ As the Church of Home has never yet authorita tively declared what doctrines are based on tradition and what on Scripture, nor has she informed us where and how we are to obtain the interpretation taught by “Holy Mother Church,” backed by the unani mous consent of the Fathers, “1 here call on all Bomanists (to quote Agathon’s own mode of expres sion) to reflect most seriously on the unsafeness of the very base of their system, which sets out with a proposition (not only) condemning itself,” but ren dered wholly impossible to be reduced to practical purposes. We now beg leave to ask, in turn, three questions, ' “Titubsvit autem fides,si divinarum Scripturai-umwaccilat anthoritas.” De Doct. Christ., lib. i., e. 37, tom. iii, p. 21. Edit. Lugduni, 1562. frmsr QUESTION. 15 suggested by Question No. I., which we challenge Romanists to answer :— “1. What are the traditions necessary for our salvation to be believed, and required to be accepted with equal piety and reverence as the sacred Scrip tures which are not revealed in the Scriptures?” And cite the authority. “2. Where are we to find the interpretation of any given text of Scripture which ‘Holy Mother Church ’ hath held, and does hold, that interpretation being in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers ? ” As no such interpretation can be found, or ever has been hazarded, by the Roman Church, the Ro man Rule of Faith “is dangerous and uncertain.” “ 3. As no interpretation of the Scriptures can be advanced, unless the Fathers are unanimous in that interpretation, we require an authentic list of the Fathers whose interpretation must be obtained, and some infallible proof of the genuineness of the works to be consulted.” And cite the authority. As no such list can be produced, therefore, to follow Agatkon’s mode of reasoning, Scriptures must be a dead letter, and wholly useless. In conclusion, Agathon thinks he has discovered five “absurdities” in the Protestant system of ac cepting the Bible as their ole rule of faith :— “ 1. For in Scripture, teaching and preaching—not searching and reading—are commanded by our Saviour, as the means of diffusing Christian religion." The extracts we have given from Irenaeus would sufficiently answer Agathon. We have become ac quainted with the dispensation of our salvation 16 run SEVEN cinnamon QUESTIONS. through those, namely, the Apostles; by whom the Gospel has come to us which they first preached; but afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. They were written for our learning; they were written that they should be read and searched, otherwise the Scriptures were useless. As Agatkon admits that St. Paul commended Timothy and the Bereans for their knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and the advantages to be derived from their daily study, his “ preaching” and “ teaching” theory does not apply to the Old Testament; and besides, Christ said, “ Search the Scriptures " (John v. 39), 'which, according to Chry sostom, who is claimed by the Roman Church as a canonized saint, was a command to study the Scriptures:— “ For he did not say read, but search the Scriptures, since the things that are said of them require much research; For this reason he commands them to dig with diligence that they may discover the things that lie deep.”* And as to the New Testament, if Agathon’s theory be correct, that preaching was the only means of difi'using Christian knowledge as taught by our Saviour, the Evangelists must have been very wicked indeed to have reduced to writing the sayings and doings of our Lord in the four Gospels ; and that the Apostles transgressed his command by delivering their instructions by epistles, which were not only intended to be read by the persons to whom they were immediately addressed, but St. Paul charged the Colossians tha - “ when this epistle is read among * Cbrys. in cap. v. Evang. Joan. Hum. 40. Paris, 1621. It will be seen here, that Chrysostom renders epewa're in the imperative mood, “ search," as a command. rmsr ounsrron. 17 ' you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea” (Coloss. iv. 16). And he charged the Thessalonians, “that this epistle be read unto the holy brethren” (1 Thess. v. 27). Again, was it for his own private amusement that St. Mark reduced to writing the “Acts of the Apostles?” And for what purpose did our Lord appear in the Spiritto the favoured Apostle St. John at Patmos, and specially directed him—not to preach what should be revealed to him, but—to “write in a book ” what he saw, “ and send it unto the seven churches, which are in Asia”— the seven churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Rev. i. 11)——one of which churches (namely, Smyrna) still exists as a church ? This command was even re peated by our Lord: “ Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter” (Rev. i. 19). And here we have the fact noted in the Scriptures—the ex istence of seven other Christian churches, besides that at Rome, which it is not even pretended were de pendent on, or were subject to, the Bishop of Rome' The Roman Church is not now the Catholic Church any more than she was then. The ministers of our churches preach and teach, and we hear, and read, and search, and satisfy our own conscience that what they preach and teach is according to what we read in the written word. 2. Agatkon reminds us that St. Paul tells Timothy to “ hold fast the form of sound words which he has delivered to him,” and the Thessalonians to “stand fast and hold the traditions which they had been taught whether by word or by his epistles.” We are B 18 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. quite aware of these facts. But will Agathon, or any other Roman Catholic, inform us where this “ form of sound words” is to be found, otherwise than in the “ glorious Gospel committed to his trust ” (1 Tim. i. 11) referred to by St. Paul in the very same epistle to which Agatbon has directed our attention P or will they inform us what are the traditions handed down by St. Paul which we Protestants do not accept, and which he did not reduce to writing in one or other of his epistles ? 3. Ayathon further informs us that if our system be true, “ St. Paul is in direct contradiction to St. Peter, who says that in St. Paul’s epistles* are many things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable (by far the greater portion of mankind) wrest, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” If this be true of by far the greater portion of mankind, it is very remiss—and, indeed, very wicked—on the part of the so-called infallible Head of the Church for not giving us, as we presume he is supposed to be able to do, an infallible interpre tation of these difficulties, and thus save the destruc tion of so many erring Christians. easier? What could be But as he has not done so, the sin must lie at his door if he withholds from us his infallible in terpretation. But suppose “some,” not “ many” (as A'qathon has it), difliculties exist which the “ unlearned and unstable ” do wrest to their own destruction, how can that be a reason for our not reading and searching the Scriptures? It is not logic to condemn the use in consequence of a palpable abuse. Surely Peter and Paul, Jude and John, and the other ‘ " In which" 3,, 01;, is in the neuter gender, and therefore cannot refer to the Epistles; which is feminine, but “in which (subjects of prophecy) r things hard to he understood." Agatkon must misquote to make a case. rmsr QUESTION. 19 Evangelists, committed a great sin in reducing to writing the Scriptures, if one derived more harm than good from them ; and so also Paul, when he directed Timothy “ to give attendance to reading” (1 Tim. iv. 13). But we have yet to learn why we should go to the priests or Church of Rome for instruction on the subject at all, and on what authority he ignores the Greek Church, which is as ancient, if not of earlier date, than that of Rome. Again, we may remark that if there were existing an infallible authority, to which the faithful might appeal in order to clear up those things which “ are hard to be understood,” surely St. Peter would have taken this occasion of pointing it out, particularly as the Roman theory is that the alleged successors of St. Peter himself were to be the sole interpreters of Scriptures. Far from referring to such a tribunal, the only safeguard from error which he points. out is one, which not only every man may obtain, without the interposition of any human agency external to himself, but which excludes the very ‘ possibility of such interpretation—“ You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed lest, being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from our own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (verses 17, 18). The safeguard, therefore, recommended by St. Peter is cautious vigilance, with growth in grace and in the knowledge of Christ; not an appeal to a visible, living, infallible interpreter. Would he have left us in ignorance had it been the will of God that such a tribunal should exist? The alleged difliculties of scripture as an objection did not seem to strike Augustine when he said :— 20 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. “God hath made the Scriptures to stoop to the capacity of babes and sucklings.” * And likewise Chrysostom, when he said :— “ For what necessity is there of a discourse ? All things are plain and simple in the holy Scriptures; all things necessary are evident.”'|' 4. “That the only rule of faith was not given to Christians until printing was invented (that is 1500 years after the establishment of Christianity), for until then not one in a thousand could procure, much less ‘study’ or ‘ search,’ the Scriptures?” And is this a reason why we should discard them now and hold them as a dead letter ? The non-inven; tion of printing did not suggest itself as a difficulty to Chrysostom of the fourth century, when he urged every one to procure a copy of the Scriptures and search them diligently. On the words, “ Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly,” he wrote :— “Hear, ye who are men of the world or govern a wife and children, how he enjoins you in particular to know the Scripture, and not lightly, nor as it may be, but with great diligence. Hear, I exhort you, all men engaged in the afi'airs of life, and obtain for your selves books, the medicine of the soul. If you will have nothing else, get the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospels, as your constant teachers.’ ’ 1 But let us drive home this fourth proposition. The * “Inclinavit ergo Scripturas Deus usque ad infantium et lsctentium capacitutes.”—Aug. Enarr. in Paul. viii. 8. 1' “ Al& Ti 'yc‘ip dpuluas xpeia; mix/1a. (with Ital eilfls'a 'ri Irapiz 'ra'ls Oeials 7pa¢ais' miv'm 'ni ivaynai‘a Gfiha.”—Hom. in 2 These. Tom. xi., p. 528. Bened. Ed. It Chrysost. in Epist. ad Coloss. 0. iii., Hom. ix. p. 223, tom. Eflit. Paris,1989. Boned rrasr QUESTION. 21 Roman rule of faith is tradition and Scripture inter preted by the Church according to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. The last of the Fathers was Bernard, of the twelfth century. To follow, then, Agathon’s mode of reasoning (what an abuse of the word I), from the first to the twelfth century, the unanimous consent could not be obtained—before printing was invented, that is, 1,500 years after the establishment of Christianity—for until then not one [not in 1,000, but] in 1,000,000 could procure, much less “study,” or “ search,” the Fathers; therefore, the “ Church of Rome grossly contradicts itself,” and presented for 1,500 years an impossible rule of faith! And even now, with the advantage of printing, not only has she not published a copy of the works of these Fathers, which now must form a part of her rule of faith, but she has not even favoured us with a list of the genuine, separating them from the spurious or corrupted, works attributed to the Fathers ! 5. The last allegation, that the Bible has created amongst Protestants nothing but mismle and disunion, is simply untrue. We cannot see but that the Roman rule of faith as above described could do otherwise than create disunion, and has done so. The Fathers even themselves are in direct opposition to each other on many points of doctrine and interpretation of the Scriptures. It is a fallacy to suppose that there is any unity among members of the Roman Church. It has been fully established by Edgar, in his learned work, “ On the Variations of Romanism,” that Romanists are in direct contradiction to each other on every point of their faith, proving that there are more sects and dissenters among them, though outwardly professing 22 run snvau CHAMPION closeness. to be “Catholics,” than among all the Protestant communions ; and this must be the unavoidable result of the rule of faith of that Church as above defined. There is also a marked difference in the teaching of the ante Trent and the post Trent Romish doctors and divines. QUESTION THE SECOND. ‘3 In what Book of the Old 01' New Testament is con tained the text which declares that all the books of the Old and New Testament are canonical and inspired, and which gives a list of the said books F—Oite the text ” Agathon proceeds to remark on this :— “ As, on the one hand, Protestants declare that the Scripture alone is the infallible guide and rule of faith, and as, on the other hand, they declare that all the books of the Old and New Testament are canonical and inspired—unless a text can be producedfrom the Scriptures to this effect, and giving a list of the said books—it necessarily follows that Protestants have, by their own avowal, uncertain and fallible grounds for their belief in the canonicity and inspiration of Scripture; if, therefore, Protestantism and its prin ciples be true, the text I ask for must be forthcoming; but this text cannot be given, for it does not exist in the Scriptures. Therefore, my second question is unanswerable, and, by the same reasoning, Protest antism and its principles must be false.” And he “ entreats us Protestants to reflect on our (alleged) awfully uncertain and dangerous position.” sac-01w QUESTION. 23 That is Agathon’s special pleading ; but if he were acquainted with the traditions of his own Church, he would not have advanced such a mode of coming to a conclusion, for it at once cuts at the root of his own system ; for, as we'shall presently see, his Church does not follow “tradition,” on which she professes to rely as her rule of faith. We will at once admit that there is no such pre cise text in Scripture as required. As Agathon has appealed to the Articles of the Church of England, we direct his attention to the 6th Article. He will there find two lists given. The first contains the “ names and number of the canonical books of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” This assertion is strictly true. The Church of Rome cannot assert the same of her list. We rely on the universal testimony of the Church, the universal Church—not ~the Romish branch—as well as the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves. This is the code or list accepted by the Jewish Church. And with regard to this list of the Old Testament, if Agathon requires a confirmatory text, he will find that St. Paul tells the .Romcns—~ as if in prophetic warning of the subsequent departure from this code—that “ unto the Jews were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. iii. 2). The Jews were never charged with curtailing, adding to, or otherwise mutilating the Scriptures. They re jected the Apocrypha, and admitted the same code as we Protestants do; so that at least we have a text denoting with sufficient precision the list of the Old Testament. ' . As to the New Testament, the same Articles say that we are to receive “all the books of the New Testament as they are commonly received, and account 241 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. them canonical.” We professedly follow, therefore, the universal Church in adopting this list also. To ask for a text from the New Testament giving the list required is just such a question an unbeliever in the Scriptures or a deist would ask. But as we are to presume Agathon is not an unbeliever, and as the Roman and all Protestant churches agree in the code of the New Testament, the subject on this branch is not worth discussing; and he must admit that, in this instance at least, our rule of faith has not misled us. We differ on the list of the Old Testament, we rejecting, the Roman Church admitting the Apocrypha as inspired and canonical. Romanists profess to rely for their authority on tradition and the alleged infal lible decision of their Church. Now what we assert. and maintain is, that the Roman Church has 'most grossly erred in accepting the Apocrypha, and acted in direct opposition to the tradition of the Catholic Church ; and that all Protestant churches retain the original primitive faith in respect to the canon of Scripture, and directly follow the tradition of the Church. We further assert that, down to April, 15‘t6, no other code but the one we now acknowledge was recognised by any communion, not even byl the Roman Church. The fourth Session of the Council of Trent committed the fatal error of adding these Apocryphal books to the sacred canon. There were not more than forty-nine bishops present at the session. The discussion that ensued on this subject was most disgraceful. Though they would fain have us believe that the council was under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, the bishops behaved so clamorously that it was necessary to direct them to give their votes one by one, and to number them as snoorm QUETION. 25 they were received! This is the boasted infallible authority to which Agatkon would have us submit! They came to a wrong decision after all their dispu tations. From the second to the sixteenth century we have a regular succession of divines, all admitted by the Roman Church as orthodox, who gave a list of the sacred canon, but excluding the Apocrypha, many condemning them by name as such. The last to which we would call attention is no less an individual than the famous Cardinal Cajeta-n. This illustrious prelate of the Roman Church wrote a commentary on the historical books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated to Pope Clement VIII. This book ap peared only twelve year before the meeting of the Trent Council. In the dedicatory epistle the Cardinal adopts Jerome’s rule relative to the broad ditinction made by him (Jerome) between the canonical books, properly so called, and the Apocry'pha. His words are :— “Most blessed Father,—-The universal Latin Church is most deeply indebted to St. Jerome, not only on account of his annotations on the Scripture, but also because he distinguished the canonical books from the non-canonical, inasmuch as he thereby freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say that we were forging for ourselves books or parts of books belonging to the ancient canon which they never received.” * Cajetan not only refers to Jerome as an authority who expressly and by name rejected all the Apocry pha,'|' but to the custom of the universal Latin Church * Cajetan Epist. dedic. ad P. Clem. VIL, ante Comm. in Lib. Hist" V, T. Parisiis, 154-6. 1 Symbolum Rufiini, tom. iv., 11. 143; Prmfatio in Proverbia. Bolomonis. tom. iii., Si. 11.; Prafatio in Hiereminn; ibid., 9 c. ; Prmfatlo in Danielem ; 26 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. as then existing.~ And what is more remarkable, the very edition of the Vulgate, declared at this same fourth session of the Council of Trent to be the only authentic and authorized edition of the Scriptures, places the whole of the Apocrypha in an appendix,'_as excluded by Jerome from the sacred canon. But to bring the matter more home to the R0 manist, Pope Gregory I. excluded the Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture following the list of Jerome.* Even the Vatican edition of Pope Gregory’s works, printed at Rome, excludes the Apocrypha from the list.1' So that, in fact, the Protestant churches have all come to a correct conclusion in following antiquity, in rejecting .the Apocrypha; and the Roman Church, notwithstanding her boasted infallibility, has come to a. wrong conclusion in admitting the Apocrypha. It is a fallacy to suppose that we are beholden to the Roman branch of the Catholic Church for our canon. Jerome, who flourished about the latter end. of the fourth century, followed the Greek and other churches. The earliest Christian list we can trace is in the writings of Melito, Bishop of Sardis (an. 177), which is given in “Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History”1' as the belief and practice of the Sardian Church. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, of the third century, published the same list as that acknowledged by the African Church, afterwards confirmed by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, and by Junitius. Cyril, iln'd., 9 g.; Prmf. in Librum Begum; ibid., p. 5 m., 6 a, b. 0. Edit. Basil, 1525, and admitted by Bell-mine. De Verb. Dei, lib. i., c. 3., sect. IL, 2. 20, tom. i. Prag. 1721. ' Greg. Mon, lib. xix., on 39th cap. of Job. Bened. Edit, 1705. Sea Occam. Dia1., pt. 3; Tract. i., lib. iii., 0. 16. Lugd. 1495. 1' Rome, 1608. Ex Typogr. Vatican, tom. ii., p. 899. I In Epist. ad Onesium, .pnd Emebius. Ecol. Hist. iv., o. 26, p. 191. Cantata, 1700' sncoun ounsnou. 27 Bishop of Jerusalem, of the fourth century, confirms the custom of that church. The Greek fathers, Origen, Gregory of Nazianzen, Amphilochius, and Epiphauius, amply testify the teaching of the Eastern Churches, confirmed by the great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and Eusebius, Bishop of Cwsarea. The Council of Laodicea, of the fourth century, published a similar list by a solemn decree, which was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century, and by the second canon of the sixth (so called) General Council in Trullofi‘= Why pursue the subject further? Romanism, relying on a sup posed infallible authority, has grievously blundered, and we “entreat them (in turn) to reflect on their awfully uncertain and dangerous position.” If, relying on her supposed infallibility, the Roman Church has in this case grievously erred, as she most certainly has, what reliance can be placed on .the other dogmatic assertions which she has made, estab lishing other dogmas as declarations of faith under the same authority ? We retort on Agaflmn his own conclusion. We now submit the following, suggested by Agathon’s second question :— “It is an historical fact that several successive bishops (including in this list Gregory 1., Bishop of Rome), in each successive century, commencing from the second down to the sixteenth century, and two General Councils, give, or confirmed, the list of canonical books of the sacred Scriptures, from which is excluded the Apocrypha; while the Church of Rome, subsequent to April, 1546, included the ' The references to the works of all these fathers and cunuus are set forth in full in the writer’s work, “ Novelties of Humanism," referred to ante note, p. 13; and wherein all the authorities alleged by Romsnists in support of their spuriousljst are fully examined, and shown to be forgeries. 28 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. Apocrypha in the list of sacred and canonical Scrip tures. We require to be informed on what authority does the modern Church of Rome declare that all these Christian bishops, &c., from the second to the sixteenth century (including Pope Gregory 1.), were in error, and that she now is in the right?” THE THIRD QUESTION. “ In what book of the Old or New Testament is con tained the text which declares that the private judgment of each individual is the sole interpreter of Scripture ? ——-O'ite the text.” Agathon declares that Protestants proclaim that “ individual private judgment is the means of arriving at the true sense of Scripture." He calls for the text that “ declares this principle in so many words; for, unless this text be forthcoming, it necessarily follows that Protestants have laid down a principle based on avowed and avowedly uncertain fallible testimony, viz., man’s word; but no such text can be found, therefore this third question is unanswerable.” Agathon, no doubt, thinks this very clever; but the ground of objection is cut away when we deny that any class of Protestants profess any suchproposition. We deny that we do proclaim that individual private judgment is the means of arriving at the true sense of the Scriptures, or that the private judgment of each individual is the sole interpreter of Scripture. Where are Agathon’s proofs for his assertions? What we do say is, that the Bible, and the Bible 0 THIRD quas'rrort. 29 alone, is our rule of faith, and we are not required to believe anything beyond or contrary to the Bible. It is not this man’s, or that man’s, or set of men’s, private opinion which constitutes a rule of faith. The Bible is for all, and not for a class. We are invited to read and examine for ourselves whether the doctrines we are taught by our Church are not in strict conformity with the precepts of Holy Writ. We study the Scriptures, with all the material aids which pious and learned men have prepared for us, and we pray for the assistance of God’s Holy Spirit to guide us to a proper understanding of them. We reverently listen, Sabbath after Sabbath, to the ex position of chapters and texts given to us by our ministers ; on all the fundamental doctrines of Chris tianity we have all come to one conclusion ; on matters not material, such as church discipline, not included in the Scriptures, we may and do difi'er. In what way are the members of the Roman Church better ofi" than we are ? Their Church consists of a hierarchy of a pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests. They have passed a law that no one of their communion shall hold any other interpretation of a text of Scripture than what “ Holy Mother Church” has held and does hold, whom they declare to be the sole interpreter of the Scriptures; and when that interpretation is found, it cannot be adopted unless the Fathers are unanimous in that particular interpretation. Such is the impossible requirement of their creed. This Church has never published any authoritative inter pretation whatever, nor an authorized list of the Fathers whose interpretation is to be sought. It has established, it is true, a rule that no translation of the Bible in the vulgar tongue shall be issued with~ 30 THE ssvmr CHAMPION QUESTIONS. out explanatory notes; but, notwithstanding this, ‘no issue of such notes has been authoritatively sanctioned, and no one is responsible for the correct ness of the notes issued with the Douay, or any other Romish translation.* In fact, this interpretation of “the Church” is nowhere‘ to be found. interprets-V Now, sup posing a. Romanist wants the Church’s tion of a text—say to Matthew xvi. 18-—-how is he to get it? He is denied his own private opinion upon it. He will, of course, go to his priest. How can the priest assist him if the Church never has published an interpretation, and when the most orthodox Fathers have given most contradictory opinions, whether Peter was here designated as the rock, or whether Christ referred to the confession made by Peter, or whether Christ referred to himself as the rock P—for all these interpretations are advanced 1'— and yet it is on this very text that the alleged “ sum and substance of Christianity, ” as Bellarmine has * Dr. Doyle, in his examination before a Committee of the Lords (March 21, 1825), said, “ The notes carry, in our editions of the Bible, no weight.” He declared them to be the fruits of private judgment only. See Phelan and 0' Sullivan’s “ Digest of Evidence on the State of Ireland," 1824, 1825, part i., pp. 222, 223. 1' Father Lauuoy, a. doctor of Sorbonne (died 1678), one of the most learned men of his age, and who was appointed, in 1643, censor of books, by Chancellor Seguier, and a very celebrated Roman Catholic writer, has exhausted this subject. In his Epistle to Voellus, he triumphatu exposes the uncandid and wilful misrepresentations of Cardinal Bellarmine, who most unfairly represented all the Fathers as agreeing in the interpretation that the Church was built upon Peter alone. Imunoy gives seventeen extracts from the Fathers, including passages from Origeu, Cyprian, Cyril, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and others, in which St. Peter is spoken of as the rock; eight passages, includingthe same, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and others, in which the Church is said to have been built upon all the apostles; fourty-four extracts,inc1uding passages from Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Eusebius, Johu Barons-cone, Popes Leo 1., Felix III., Hormisdas, Gregory 1., Hadrian 1., Nicholas 1., John VIII., and Stephen V., The Venerable Bede, and Others, who treat the faith which rnmn QUESTION. 31 it, the Pope’s alleged supremacy over all Christian churches as the vicar of Christ, is supposed to depend ! .This difficulty does not rest with this-' text alone, but accompanies every other text in which 'modern Romanists seek to support their peculiar dogmas. And again, supposing such a required interpretation existed, it would be a matter offact, to be ascertained by research and reading. Why can not a Protestant ascertain this fact as well as a Roman priest ? Roman priests and laity are not, as a rule, so well educated or so well read in the Fathers and Ecclesiastical history as our Protestant clergy and laity are; and we have all the advantages they have, without the clogs and hindrances. On what principle, then, can a Roman priest be supposed to give a more true interpretation of Scripture than a Protestant clergyman, or even a layman? Then, again, a Romanist is compelled to act on this very principle of private judgment he desires to con demn. If we ask him how he proves the authority or mission of his Church, he will at once appeal to Scrip ture, and cite a string of texts. He requires us to exercise our private judgment on these texts; other wise, why quote the texts, if we are not to bring our mind to test the value of the quotations as applicable to the point to be established P We both take our religion upon trust from our parents and teachers, but we are told that the Scriptures contain the proofs of what we have been taught. S0 confident do they Peter confessed as the rock on which the Church was built; and sixteen passages, including extracts from Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, Bede, Anselm, Pope Celestine 111., Pope Pius IL, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who say that the Church was built on Cl-IRISI‘ the Rock. Launoii Open, tom. v.I pt. ii., p. 99. Epist. vii., lib. v. Gul. Voello. Col. Allob.,173l. And see Catholic Layman, vol. v. , December, p. 135. Dublin, 1856. 32 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. feel in this that, following the directions of St. Paul, to “ search the Scriptures, ” whether these things be so, they exhort us, in the words of St. Paul, “to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good " (1 Thess. v. 21). They appeal to our understandings, as St. Paul, when he told the Corinthians, “ I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say” (1 Cor. x. 15) ; and to that extent we exercise, with all the aid at our disposal, our private judgment. Such are the relative positions of clergy and people in our Church. If some of the “unlearned and unstable do wrest Scripture to their own destruction,” it is an exception and a perversion. What gift of God has not been perverted P The abuse of that which is good can be no argument against its legitimate use. In what better position is the Romanist in this respect F He has first to be satisfied of the infallibility of his Church, which can only be done by an exercise, to a most extraordinary extent, of private judgment on the texts of Scripture quoted. Having accom~ plished this feat, how can he be satisfied that the interpretation ofi'ered has been accepted at all times by the Church, and has the sanction of the unanimous consent of the Fathers, when the Church is not as yet agreed on the genuine and spurious writings of the Fathers ? Is all this to be taken on trust P Are we to rely for this on the priest? What if the priest be an unbeliever? For remember that a bad or wicked pope, bishop, or priest, is not disqualified from exercising his functions as such. Bellarmine said, if it were not so, a bad pope could not be the head of the Church; and other bishops, who are bad bishops, could not be the heads of their respective THIRD Question. 33 churches.it Can their instruction be relied on ? Has the Roman Church, infallible though she pretends to be, with her supposed infallible rule of faith, been able to prevent thousands upon thousands, even in favoured Italy and Ireland, from abandoning her communion? The Roman rule, therefore, on Aga flzon’s own principle of reasoning, is avowedly “awfully uncertain and dangerous.” The relative position between the priests and people, with regard to the Scriptures, is aptly illustrated by Cardinal Bellarmine, in his exposition of the text Job i. 14, “The oxen were ploughing, and the asses feeding beside them.” He says, “By the oxen are meant the learned doctors of the Church -, by the asses are meant the ignorant people, which, out of simple belief, rest satified in the understanding of their superiors”? We admit that the interpretation is not very complimentary to the Romish laity, but that is their afi'air. A cardinal and prince of controver sialists, fully imbued with the authority of the Church as sole and infallible interpreter of Scripture, could only give an interpretation in accordance with the sanction of “ Holy Mother Church,” and must be correct! ‘ The writer has fully discussed the question of the interpretation of the Church in his “Novelties of Romanism,” to which he again begs to refer the reader. We propose to Agatlzon, and Roman Catholics in * “ At si its est lequitur Pontificem mllum non ease caput Eoolessim ; et alios Episcopos, si mali sint, non esse cupita suarum Ecclesiarum." Bellarm. De Eccles., lib. iii., cap. i'v., tom ii., col. 129. B. Colon., 1620. 1' “ Boves arshsnt at asinm pascebantur juxta eos, docet per 170768 liguiflcu-i homines doctos, per asinas homines imperitos, qui simpliciter credeutes in intelligeutil. majorum acquiescunt." 13611., lib. i., DB J ustif., 0. vii., sect. in Edit. Prag., 1721. C 34 THE snvmr CHAMPION QUESTIONS. general, another question, as suggested by this third question :— “Romanists repudiate private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture, but declare Holy Mother Church to be the sole interpreter. We require the interpretation of the text Matt. xvi. 18, which shall be in accordance with what Holy Mother Church has held, and does hold, and that interpreta tion to agree with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” QUESTION THE FOURTH. “Supposing that visibility is a necessary gualitg cf the true Church, that the Nineteenth Article cf the Chm-eh of England is true, and that the Church of England is the Church designated in the first clause of the said Article, where was the visible Church Qf Christ from the year 1100 to 1200, andfrom the year 1400 to 1500 P ” To clear the ground as we proceed, we will tran scribe the Nineteenth Article referred to :— “ Of the Church—The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” A church becomes visible according to the purity of the doctrine she teaches, which is, as it were, her light; and, though we cannot rightly speak of an rouarn qnns'rron. 35 invisible church on earth, yet she may become so in proportion as she may show forth or diminish that light, and then render herself visible or invisible. From the word of God she takes her doctrine, and the Church of Christ is known by the “Word of God ; ” and that Church, while it preaches and teaches that word, is placed, as it were, on a high hill, capable of being seen by all; and, in proportion as this “ Word ” is withdrawn, or rendered inaccessible by trammels and conditions, in the same proportion will the light be taken away, and that which was visible become invisible. The visible Church, according to the ordinary Bomish acceptation of the term, is a hierarchy having for its head a bishop, who claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth—to whom Pope Boniface (an. 1294;) “ declared, decreed, and pronounced that it was altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject. ” ‘1' This was in express words referred to and confirmed by a so-called General Council, the fifth Lateran, which made it absolutely necessary to salvation that all the faithful in Christ should be subject to the Roman Pontifi-t Accord ingly the Romish Bishop, Melchior Canus, testified that the Lateran Council renewed and approved the decree of Bonifacefi and Baronius, referring to the " “ Subesse Romano Pontiflci omni humsuse creatura: declaramns, dicimus, definimus, at pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." Bull. Bonif. VIII. “ Unam Sanctam” (quoted in the Roman Canon Law Corp. Jur. Can.) Extrav. Com. Lib. i. Tit. 8, c. i. Tom. ii., p. 1159. Edit. Lipsiae, 1839. 1'“Et cum de necessitudine salutis existat omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontiflei snbesse." Con. Lat. V. Labb..et Coss. Concil. Tom. xiv. Sesaxi. Paris, 1671. 1“Quod extravagantem renovavit et approbavit Concilium Latersnense sub Leone X.” Mel. Can. Loc. Theol., lib, vi., 0. iv., p. 316. 121110. Colon, 1605. 36 run snvmv CHAMPION QUESTIONS. same decree, said that all Romanists assented to it, and no one who has not fallen from the Church dissents from it.* This, then, is an essential to the existence of this visible Church. There must be also cardinals who are princes of the Church, bishops, priests, and several minor orders of clergy; and the members consist of bad and good indiscriminately. We may add to this, that Bellarmine says that the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope is the sum and. substance of Christianity ; t and to which De Maistre adds, in his work on “The Pope,” that, without the Bishop of Rome, there can be no true Christianity— without him the Divine institution loses its force, and Divine character, and converting poweri Having now laid before the reader the notion of a visible Church entertained by the respective Churches of Rome and England, we may proceed to Agathon’sv remarks. He says :— “ Taking for granted that the true Church, estab~ lished by Christ on earth, must be visible ;—taking also for granted that the Church of England and her Nineteenth Article be true, I say that my question is unanswerable, and for the following reason :—It is impossible to point out from the year 1100 to 1200, or from the year 1400 to 1500, any congregation of men corresponding to the present congregation called " “ Haeo Bonifscius, cui assentiuntnr omnes, ut nullus discrepet nisi qui dissidio ab Ecclesil excidit." Baron. Ann. 1053. Sect. xiv. 1'“De qua re agitur, cum de primatu Pontificis sgitur? Brevissimea diesm, de sumna rei Chn'stiame." Bell. in Lib. de Sum. Pent. in Prefect" sect. i3. Prag., 1721. 1“Ssns 1e Pepe, i1 n'y a point de veritable Christianisme—sans 10 Papa l’institntion divine perd sa puissance, son carsctere divin et sa force con vertisesnte." De Maistre Du Paps, vol. i., p. 22, 38; vol. ii., p. 158, new edit. Paris, 182]. roun'rn QUESTION. the Church of England. 37 The only Christians then in existence were congregations of men holding doctrines totally opposite to those of the present Church of England—doctrines proclaimed in her Articles, Homilies, and Prayer-book to be blasphemous and idolatrous, and therefore congregations in no wise corresponding to her definition of the visible Church of Christ. Here, then, is exposed in the clearest light the total fallacy of the Protestant position: for the impossibility of answering this fourth question neces sarily implicates the fact that the Church of England is not the true Church, and that her Nineteenth Article is not true. If they were (as is taken for granted in the question for the sake of argument), nothing could be easier than to point out this true Church of Christ during the designated periods.” There are several fallacies in Agathon’s remarks. He appears to argue on the supposition that there can be only one church or congregation of Christians, and if that congregation is not the Church of Eng land it must be the Church of Rome. About the year 59 St. Paul addressed an Epistle “to the Church of God which was at Corinth.” In the year 58 he wrote “ t0 the churches of Galatia.” In the year 54 he wrote “to the Church of the Thessalonians,” all by name. In the year 60 he wrote to the Romans, and in the year 64 to the Ephesians and Colossians. He did not address these latter as “ churches,” but he called them indiscriminately, “ beloved of God, called to be saints,” “to the saints and to the faithful in Christ Jesus,” “saints in Christ Jesus,” “faithful brethren in Chrit; ” giving us clearly to understand that all the faithful in Christ are equally congregations or churches; otherwise the Romans did not then con— 38 THE s11:sz CHAMPION oussrrors. stitute a church, and St. John addressed “the seven churches which are in Asia,” in accordance with a direct command of the Lord. There is, however, this important fact to be noted, that St. Paul, writing, as we must suppose, with a prophetic foreknowledge of the arrogant claims which would be put forward by the Church to be established at the great city of Rome, calls this communion of Christians then form ing into a church a “ wild olive-tree,” engrafted with other branches on the great stem, Christ; warning them if they boasted they would be cut off as other branches, which had been broken off because of their unbelief (Rom. xi. 17—22). And these other branches were even called by St. Paul the natural branches, Rome the wild olive-branch. We ask Agathon and modern Romanists, in the words of St. Paul to the early Christians at Rome, “ Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (xiv. 10). It is not this church nor that church, nor any particular congregation of Christians, which is the visible Church of Christ, for St. Paul again tells the Romans that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord wer all is rich unto all that call upon him. For who rouarn QUESTION. 39 _ soever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall he saved ” (Rom. x. 10—13). Why then should we look to Rome alone for the visible Church of Christ? Where two or three are gathered together in Christ’s name, there is he among them (Matt. xviii. 20), there is a visible congregation or church. We have no need, therefore, to seek for the visible Church in a particular congregation under the name of the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, or the Church of Eng land, or any other particular church. Christianity was planted in Britain as early, if not before it was planted in Rome, and there has been ever since a Christian congregation or visible church, with regularly constituted bishops and clergy. This con gregation of Christians became, in course of time, amalgamated with the Roman Church by an act of usurpation, subject in spiritual matters to the Bishop of Rome. But with this dominion the pure doctrines of the Gospel became almost buried under the super stitions of Romanism, introduced from time to time into her system and religious practices, till at length an emancipation took place from a despotic priest rule by a severance from the See of Rome, which was soon followed by a Reformation, or renunciation of the doctrines which had been from time to time added to the Christian code, such as purgatory, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the invocation of the Virgin and the saints, &c., &c.; but the Reformed Churches retained the ancient creeds which alone, from the very earliest ages, were the recognised symbols of Christianity. The Reformers renounced that which was new and retained all that was old. The doctrines of the Reformed Churches are as old as the Scriptures, as nothing is admittted but 40 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. what is sanctioned by them. The Roman Church has always (except when she was totally Arian, governed by an Arian bishop) professed the very same creeds and administered the very same sacra ments as the Church of England and other denomina tions of Protestants now'do; so that it is wholly untrue to say, as Agatkon does, “that the only Christians existing were congregations of men hold ing doctrines totally opposite to those of the present Church of England.” The Roman Christians from 1100 to 1500, the period selected by Agatkon, held the same doctrines as the Church of England now does, but to these she has added others, which we have renounced as novelties. The “ fallacy ” is, that the Roman Church claims to be, and to have been, the only visible church. Taking her hierarchy and her present symbol of faith, Pope Pius’s Creed, as her passport, no such hierarchy and no church existed, as to the first, for 600 years, and as to her creed, for 1500 years, after Christ. There has, however, existed a community of Christians, smchmna, or congregation of faithful men, adoring Christ in the simplicity of the Gospel witnesses to the truth* from the establishment of Christianity to the time of the Reformation. When the Church in England emancipated itself from the dominion of the Roman Bishop, it did not cease to be a church in its strict and proper sense. The then Bishop of Durham, in reply to Cardinal *The reader is referred to “Birkbeek's Protestant Evidence," revised edition, London, 1849, for the succession of witnesses in the Church from the Apostles to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, in proof of the statement in the text, all these witnesses testifying directly or indirectly to the falsitiss of the Romanisms engraf‘ted on the Latin Church by the mail of Trent. rouarn ouns'rron. 411 Pole, the Pope’s champion, properly protested that to separate from the Pope was not to separate from the unity of the Church; the Head of the Church was Christ, and unity was unity of doctrine, to which England adhered as truly as Rome.* We never pretended that the Church of England is the true Church, to the exclusion of other churches, any more than it can be admitted that the Roman Church is the true Church. The latter, by her own confession, is only local. Her own desig nation is “ Holy Roma/n Church.” 1' In contradiction to the Greek and other local churches, she does not authoritatively pretend to be the Catholic Church. If we were to follow the line of argument adopted by Agathon, the Roman Church cannot be the visible Church, as her principal Bishop did not claim to be the supreme Bishop for many centuries after Christ, namely, the seventh century; and he did not assume the title of “Vicar of Christ” until 1439, at the Council of Florence. Until 1546 the Nicene Creed was the only symbol of faith which she professed in common with other Christian churches. And it was not until the publication of the Decrees of Trent and the Creed of Pope Pius IV., in 1564:, that the present Roman Church became a separate body of Christians, professing a defined symbol of faith peculiar to her self, thus establishing a separate sect or communion 'Tunstall to Pole, J une, 1536, quoted by Froude as from the Rolls M55. 1- “ Quare Symbolnm fidei, quo Sancta Romana Eeolesia utitur." Con. Trid. Decratnm de Symbolo Fidei. Again, on the use of the Latin language at the Mass. Cap. VIII. Sessio. xxii.: “ Quamobrem, retento ubiqne cujusque Ecclesiaa antique, et a sun-eta. Romans. Ecclesia, omnium ecclesiarum matre et Msgistra, probato ritu ; ” and so in numerous other places ; and even Pope Pius's Creed thus commences: “ Ego 1v. firms fide credo et profiteor omnia et singuls, quze continentur in symbolo fidei, quo S. Romans ecclesia atitur, viz. die.” 80 that while this Church assumes a headship over all churches, shegnevertheless admits herself to be a local church only. 42 mar. savmv CHAMPION QUESTIONS. entitled the “ Roman Church,” which she thereupon adopted. She thus became, by her own act, a schismatical congregation of professed Christians. We conclude this subject by asking Agathon, and’ Romanists in general,— “ Where was the visible Church when the Roman Church was Arian, and governed by professed 'Arian bishops, Liberius (352), and Felix II. (355); when it was governed by Honorius I. (626), who was con demned and anathematized by the Sixth General Council as a Monotholite; when Stephen VII. was Pope, who was expelled for his immoralities, imprisoned, and strangled, and of whom Baronius said, that he entered like a thief, and died, as he deserved, by the rope; when Gregory XII. (1406—1409) was Pope, who was deposed by the Council of Pisa for heresy and perjury; or when John XXII. (1410—1415), who was deposed by the Council of Constance for simony, schism, scandalous living, &c.? During the great Western schism, from 1378 to 1429, the popedom was claimed by two or three popes at a time; some of these, alleged to be anti-popes, were acknowledged as lawful popes by at least half of the European States. Where then was the visible Church? Where was the visible Church whenAthe popedom was vacant for one year, between the years 1085 and 1086? for nearly two years, from 12M to 1243? for nearly three years, from 1268 to 1271 P for two years, from 1292 to 129%? for nearly one year after 1304 ? for two years, from 13141 to 1316 ? And there were eighteen popes whose titles have been questioned :—Fe1ix II., Athanasius II., Dioscorus, Theophylact, Sergius, Leo VIII., John XVI., Syl vester III., Benedict X., Anaclatus, Victor (1138), rrrrn QUESTION. 43 Victor IV., Paschal III., Calixtus III., Innocent III., Clement VIL, Benedict XIII., and Clement VIII. P QUESTION THE FIFTH. “ Supposing, as some Protestants maintain, that since the establishment of Christianity the true Church has been at certain periods invisible, name those periods, and say how it was possible, during those periods, to obey Christ’s commands to hear the Church, to tell the Church, and also how this invisible Church could ac complish Christ’s commands ofpreaching the Gospel to every creature, teaching and baptizing all nations .7” Agathon supposes and invents statements we do not make, and places us in positions we do not as sume. These observations apply to all of Agathon’s “ remarks ” on this fifth question, and as his objection is directed more especially against the Church of England, Ayathon will probably be pleased to be assured that nowhere in her Articles or formularies does she suppose the existence of an invisible Church; and this is perfectly compatible with the statement in her Homilies, so often quoted by Romanists, that for 800 years previous to the Reformation the Roman Church was “ drowned in abominable idolatry.” Such a statement is also perfectly reconcilable with the fact that in all ages can be found a few faithful who had never bowed their knee to Baal. In a short sketch like the present, it would be im possible to give the proofs of the assertion made in our homily at length; those, however, who desire in 44 THE savnx CHAMPION QUESTIONS. formation on the subject, will find the proofs set forth, century after century, in the first volume of “ Finch’s Sketch of the Romish Controversy,” taken exclusively from Romish sources. In Scriptural language “idolatry” includes covetousness and las civiousness. We must content ourselves with a few extracts. Baronius, the Roman Catholic Cardinal and An nalist, wrote of the Roman Church‘ at the beginning of the tenth century :— “What was the face of the Holy Roman Church P How exceedingly foul was it when most powerful and sordid and abandoned women ruled at Rome, at whose will the sees were changed, bishops were pre sented, and—what is horrid to hear, and unutterable ! —false pontififs', their lovers, were intruded into the Chair of Peter, who are only written in the catalogue of Roman pontiffs for the sake of marking the times ; for who can affirm that men illegally intruded by wicked women of this sort were Roman pontifi's? There was never any mention of any clergy electing or afterwards approving. All the canons were closed in silence; the decrees of the pontiffs were suppressed; the ancient traditions were proscribed; and the an cient customs in electing the popes, and the sacred ceremonies, and the usages of former days, were wholly extinct. Thus, lust, relying upon the secular power, and mad, and stimulated with dominion, claimed everything for itself. Then, as it seems, Christ evi dently was in a deep sleep in the ship, when, these winds blowing so strongly, the ship itself was covered with the waves”? “ London, 1850. TBaronii Annalee. Ecol. Tom. X., p. 679. Ann. Chr., 912. Antv. 1603. rrrrn QUESTION. 45 And Genebrard, the- learned Benedictine monk and chronicler, adds :— “ For nearly 150 years, about fifty popes—namely, from John VIII. to Leo IX.—deserted wholly the virtue of their ancestors, being apostates rather than apostolical.” * And, coming down to the time of the Reformation, Cardinal Bellarmine admits that— “ For some time before the Lutheran and Calvin— istic heresies were propounded, there was not (as contemporary authors testify) any confidence in ecclesiastical judgments, and discipline with regard to morals, and knowledge of sacred literature, and reve rence for Divine thing; there was scarcely any reli gion remaining”? ’ Pope Pius V., in 1566, admits “ the corrupt and depraved morals of the clergy to be the cause of heresies ”1—in other words, of the Reformation. We would draw attention to the speeches delivered at the Trent Council itself. Peter'LDaniseus, Orath of the King of France, as testified by Labboeus in the 111th vol. of his Councils, An. 1545, said :— “Hence, since it appears to many that almost all the evils and troubles of the Church have flowed from this fountain, namely, that the Ministers of the Church of almost every order have very far declined from the sanctity and innocence of ancient times, so that hardly a vestige of them is to be seen.”§ ‘ “ Per annos fere 150 Pontifices circiter quinquaginta a Joanne scilicet VIII. usque ad Leonem IX.—a virtute majorum prorsus defecerunt, aposta tici potius quam apostolici." Goneb. chrou. ad ann. chr. 904. Paris, 1585. t“Nu]la in moribus disciplina, nulls in sacris literis eruditio, nulls in rehns divinis revarentia, nulla propemodum jam erat religio." Bellarmini Concio, xxxiii. Open, tom. vii., col. 296. Colon, 1617. 1: See Life of Pius V., by Mendham, p. 42. London, 1882. §“ Deinde quum omnia feri ecclesiae mala et incommoda ex e0 fonts pro» 46 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. The Dominican Friar, George of St. James’s, com pared the priests to “robbers,” and talked of the “infidel prelates” of his day. He accused the “clergy” and “rulers of the Church” of “worship ping the golden calf, to their ruin and the scandal of the Church,” declaring that the errors and heresies in the Church had originated from these abuses;* and that “ prelacies, dignities, and rich benefices were conferred on the unworthy and unlearned, and even on boys.” And much more to the same effect we find in the various discourses addressed to the Council; the following being a sample, an extract from the speech of Peter Fragus, DJ). :— “ And I testify, 0 most august Fathers, that this place to which, unworthy as I am, I have ascended, has never so much dreaded the dangers of the Christian republic, or dissensions, or schisms, as our most corrupt morals and our oflimces; more especially when I con sider that we have fallen so low that we can neither hear our ills, nor their remedies”? We would ask Agathon, and all Romanists who pretend that their Church is the only visible Church, how it was possible during those periods to obey Christ’s commands to hear the Church, to tell the fluxiase multos videantur, quod omnium pens ordinum ministri ecclesim ab illa priscorum temporum sanctitate et innocentia plurimuxn deflexerint, viz ut tonne ejns vestigium jam apparent, etiam vos rogat et obtestatur, ut vilaa morumqua in ecclesiasticis personis acerrima sacrorum canonum norm dirigates.” stb. at Coss., tom. xiv., an. ch. 1545, p. 992, Paris. 1671. Oratio Petri Danesii, Oratoris Christ. Francorum regis ad Synodum. *Lab. at Coss. Concil. Tom. xiv,, col. 1047. Paris, 1672. i . . . . Testorque, patres amplessimi, locum hune quem ego indignus oonscendi, non tam unquam Christianaa reipublicaa pericula, non tam dissensiones, non tam achisumta, quam corruptissimos mores nostros, nostmquo delicta formidasse. Presertim dum considero, eo nos prolapsos, ut nee vitia. jam nostra, nec rcmedia pati possumus. Oraiia, .P. Frago' Doc. Theol., ad Patres in Concih'o Trid. habita 1551. Ibid. Tom. xiv., col. 1056. Paris, 1672. rrrrn QUESTION. 47 Church ? And, also, how this invisible Church [for, remember, “ Christ evidently was in a deep sleep in the ship, and the ship itself was covered with the waves,” and therefore invisible] could accomplish Christ’s commands of preaching the Gospel to every creature, teaching and baptizing all nations? And, by the way, Agathon draws our attention to the text, “Tell the Church.” Bellarmine’s interpreta tion of this text is somewhat original. He says :— “ Lastly, tell it to the Church—that is, to himself”* [the Pope]. In other words, the Pope is the Church centred in himself, as the supreme and last authority, chiming in with the definitions we gave in our last of their “visible Church.” \Ve would gladly hear from some Romanist what his opinion would be of the result of an appeal to such a tribunal as described by Baronius and Genebrard, and whether the Church speaks through such corrupted and apostatical channels. By exposing the absurdity of Agalhon’s fifth ques tion as applied to the Roman system, we think we have sufliciently answered the question itself. It will be observed that Agathon repeatedly insists on the preaching and teaching theory as a peculiar command of Christ. Now, it is a remarkable fact that the priests of the Roman Church are not ordained either to preach or teach. The old form existing in the Church of laying on of hands, and invoking the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that the candidate for priest’s orders should efi'ectually preach and teach the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ, was in 1439 abandoned by a decree of the (so-called) General * “ Postremo dicere Ecclesize—Id est sibi ipsi." Bell. de Concil. Auctor. Lib. ii., 0. xix., p. 60. Tom. Prag. 1721. 48 run snvnN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. Council of Florence; and the substituted form is, “Receive ye power to offer sacrifice for the living and the dead;”* and which is the present form, as pre sented in the Pontificale Romanum. Why Agathon should therefore insist on his preaching and teaching theory as a. mission of the Roman priesthood, is some thing remarkable. Nor, indeed, do the members of the Church of Rome now obey Christ’s command, “to hear the Church, to tell the Church.” As this text from St. Matthew’s Gospel (xviii. 17) is insisted upon by Agathonj' and is perpetually thrust before us by Roman controversialists as a command from Christ to “ hear the Church,” by which they mean the Roman Church, to the exclusion of all other churches, and that we grievoust sin for not hearing this Church, we may profitably examine this text, and show how it is misapplied. The text is as follows :— “ If thy brother shall trespass [Romish version, qfind] against thee.” The Greek word is, dnaprfio'p. The parallel passage is in Luke xvii. 3. “ If thy brother trespass (dpdp-rp) [Romish version, sin], * “ Accipe potestatem ofl’erendi Sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis et mor. tuis," Concil. Florent. Decret. Unionis. Labbe. Concil. Tom. xviii. C01. 550. Venet, 1728. TAgathon gives inhis “remarks” his private interpretation of the text in question, unsupported, as absolutely required of his creed, by the inter pretation which the Church has held and does hold, and according to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. Agathon says :— “ According to the clear and express words of Jesus Christ, in the religion or church which he came to found, establish, or ‘build on a. rock,’ the Gospel was to be ‘ preached to every creature,’ ‘ all nations ' were to be ‘ taught and baptized,’ appeals were to be made, and decisions given and received, under pain of those who did not ‘ hear ’ and receive them being ‘ as heathens and publlcans ;’ and all this was to continue, and Christ was to be with His Church ‘ always until the end of the world.’ Now all these actions and qualities necessarily imply or require a visible and external. agency ; therefore an invisible Church is no Church." FIFTH. QUESTION. , 419 against thee,* rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.” (See Lev. xix. 17, 18, where this course is pointed out, the Levitical law being, “ Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyselfi”) In the place quoted by Agathon you are directed, in case of such trespass, to “ go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall bear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee,” you are then directed, as the next step, to “ take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." This was in conformity with the law of Moses, as laid down in Dent. xix. 15, where two or three witnesses are necessary in cases of “ iniquity ” or “ sin,” in matters of “ controversy ” or “ con tention ” between man and man, in civil and criminal matters. “ And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; ” and if “ he refused to hear this tribunal, he should be treated as a heathen and a publican.” Tell what? a private quarrel with a. brother—tell his fault! And because we are to tell “ the Church ” of a brother’s fault, of our quarrel with a neighbour, Romanists jump to the conclusion, “ that the whole saving faith is declared by the Church; " and, of course, that Church to which appeal is to be made is that peculiar denomination of Christians which acknowledges the Bishop of Rome as its supreme head! Was ever any conclusion so pre posterous ? We have heard Bellarmine’s definition of “tell it to the Church; ” but will any one pretend to ' Bohleusner in his Lexicon to the New Testament gives the meaning of the word in both these texts as follows; “ dpap'ravew as Tim, injuria office", ofl‘endei-e, Isadore sliquam, violate oflioia alteri (la vita. Mam. xviii. 16 ; Luz: xvii. 3." D 50 ran snvan CHAMPION oursrrolvs. assert that our Lord selected that particular tribunal to decide a question of private dispute 7 Are we to go, and indeed do Romanists themselves go, to the Pope, or his deputies, bishops or priests, in all their private disagreements—for we have nothing to do with doctrine here? But the word here rendered “church” simply means a “ congregation” or “assembly.” The word should be rendered “the assembly,” as is done in exactly a parallel case in Acts xix. 32, 39, 40, in the Romish (Rheimish) version of the Testament, published under authority in England. We could not take a better illustration. When Paul was at Ephesus, Demetrius, the silversmith, gained money by making and selling idols to be dedicated to the heathen goddess Diana. He called a meeting of his fellow- craftsmen, and showed them that Paul’s teach ing would interfere with their calling, and that their trade was in danger; they created an uproar, and rushed into the theatre, or place of meeting, and assaulted Paul’s followers. Paul sought to interfere, but his disciples and the rulers dissuaded him from appearing there. There was a great tumult. Some cried one thing, some another; for the assembly [slclchna'la, literally “church”] was confused. The town clerk interfered and addressed the assembly. He rebuked Demetrius and his followers, saying, that “if they had a cause against any man, the courts of justice were open; ” “let them accuse one another; ” “and if you inquire after another matter, it may be decided in a lawful assembly.” “ And when he had said these things he dismissed the assembly.” In these three places the same Greek word is used as in Matt. xviii. ‘17,. rendered“ church,” to which an appeal was to be made, which in this instance meant nothing more srx'rn quas'rrou. 51 than an assembly of people—laymen, and not neces sarily clerical. Such is the proper meaning of the word in this text, so pertinaciously appealed to by Romanists to establish the authority of their Church, under cover of a perversion of the plain intention of Scripture. We conclude this “ Question" by asking of Agathon, and Romanists in general, on what autho rity do Romanists apply the text Matt. xviii. 17 to the Roman Church in particular, when the Roman Church did not then exit, and whether Romanists adopt the course pointed out by this text before they “ hear the Church ” ? QUESTION THE SIXTH. “After Christ’s ascension, after the death of the last Apostle or Evangelist, who was the first priest who Qfi’ered mass, who heard private or public confessions, who said the first prayer for the dead, and who first invoked the Blessed Virgin and the saints ?— Give the names, dates, and localities.” To this question, so triumphantly proposed, Aya thon,,with equal assurance, “remarks” that, “It is evident that this question is nnanswerable, for it is absolutely impossible to give the dates, names, and localities required.”—“ Now, if these four doctrines, or practices—via, sacrifice of mass, confession to a priest, purgatory, or prayers for the dead, and invoca tion of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints—be really .corruptions, and really sprung up in the Church at 52 run snvmw CHAMPION onnsrrons. certain periods, nothing can be easier than to name the time, the place, and the author, when, where, and by whom these doctrines or practices were introduced.”—— “ No Protestant, however learned, however profoundly versed in history and chronology, has ever yet been able to fix upon the precise date, the precise spot, the precise author, when, where, and by whom these doc trines and practices were introduced; and the only way in which he attempts to make good his gratuitous assertion is, by supposing what is almost too absurd to mention-—viz., that all Christendom, from east to west, from north to south, was vaccinated, as it were, secretly with poisonous matter during its sleep, and that it woke up and found itself strangely and fatally changed, without knowing when or how. No time, no place, no author, no courageous opponent, no movement of resistance, no difficulty of acceptation; not one of these things, all of which ought to be clearly shown to make the assertion barely probable, can be named.” And he argues thus :—“ Had they been novelties, their authors could be named; but their authors cannot be named, therefore .they are not novelties, but doctrines of Apostolic origin”—-“ therefore, these doctrines are not heresies and inventions of men, but they are of Apostolic origin. They are not corrup tions, but practices coeval with Christianity. It never was a novelty to believe them ; it is a novelty to deny them." i We showed, under the Fourth Question, that a deep seated corruption existed in the Roman Church, and which infected her and almost the entire priesthood at the time of the Reformation. Its existence was ad mitted. Had the prelates who brought these charges srx'rn QUESTION. 53 'been called upon to account when and in what manner, and with whom, these corruptions originated, they would have been, perhaps, at fault for the proof required. But their astonishment would have been great indeed, that, failing to give this proof, they had been met with the assertion that they were not cor ruptions at all, for want of this evidence. “Had they been corruptions their authors would be named; but as their authors cannot be named, therefore they are not corruptions, but practices of Apostolic origin.” .It is by the application of Ayathon’s principle that we can appreciate its absurdity. But this line of argument is not original. It was a favourite method adopted by Dr. Milner, in his “ End of Religious Controversy." But it is peculiarly illogical and inconclusive. An alleged abuse exists in doctrine; we cannot, it is said, assign the precise time when it originated, because we did not go to bed one night when it did not exist, and awake the next morning and find it existing in full force; therefore it is no abuse at all, but a fact co-existing with Chris tianity itself, and of Apostolic origin. Agathon appears to have forgotten the parable of the tures, as related in St. Matthew’s Gospel (xiii. 24), wherein our Lord likened the kingdom of heaven “ unto a man which sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.” The mischief was not immediately detected when “ men awoke "— “ but when the blade was sprung up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? " Now, if the master 54 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. had argued as Agathon does, and denied the existence of the tares, or had asserted that the tares were sown by the man together with the “ good seed,” because they could not point out the exact time when the tares were sown, and were not at once perceived when the men awoke, they would have been rather astonished; but the master said, “An enemy hath done this.” So we say of the “ Romanisms “ against which we protest; they were not taught by Christ or his Apostles. We find none of them in the Bible. They were not sown with the good seed. There is no evidence whatever extant that either of them were instituted or taught by Christ or his Apostles. This alone is sufficient for us Protestants. There is no trace of the fact that either of them formed any part of the accepted doctrines of the early Chris— tian Church. We, therefore, declare them to be novelties. The history of the introduction into the Church of the various doctrines against which we protest, has been the subject of careful study of the writer of the present treatise, which he has published under the title of “ Novelties of R0manism.”"‘ In this he has shown the rise, development, and introduction of each of the peculiar doctrines of the Roman Church, founded almost exclusively on Romish authorities. This book sufficiently answers the challenge so boldly and confidently advanced by Agath'on. “Rome was not built in a day," and so with her doctrines; one corruption led to another, in quick succession, until “Romanism” was, in 1564, com pleted. The pure gold was hidden under “ the wood, hay, and stubble,” the accumulated rubbish of moms 'Beligious Tract Society, Paternoster Bow, London, 1864. Price 45. sixrn (answer. 55 sive centuries, the inventions of a corrupted priest hood. We will endeavour to answer Agathon’s question. If we do so to the satisfaction of the reader, Romanism will stand convicted on the principle of Agathon’s own mode of reasoning. Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the most simple form. He took bread and break it, and after giving a. blessing, he gave to each of his disciples then seated at the table; and in like manner, after supper, he took the cup and gave a blessing, and gave to each of his disciples, calling the bread his body, the wine his blood. Being there in the flesh himself, he evi dently spoke figuratively, for he thrice after referred to the elements as bread and wine (1 Cor. xi.) He enjoined the disciples to do the same in his remem brance until he should come again. This ceremony was at once adopted by all Christians as a part of their Divine service. The earliest record which we have of the celebra tion of Divine service, after the Apostles had left this world, is given by Irenseus, (an). 130).* He informs us, when the people were assembled on the Sunday, the Scriptures were first read, then an exhor tatibn was given, a prayer, and then the bread, and wine, and water, the people saying “Amen,” the bread and wine was given to each who had given thanks, and were sent by the deacons to those who were not present: “ And this food (he says) is called the Eucharist.” Then a collection was made for the orphans, widows, the sick, and the poor. Such was the simplicity of the service in the second century, of ' Booond Apology, p. 97. Paris, 1615. 66 THE saves cnnrrros' qunsrrons. what is now called by Romanists “ the Mass.” Among the early converts to Christianity were necessarily many Jews. It was their custom, when they made their solemn appearances before God, to take ofi'erings with them, usually the produce of the earth, in» token of their grateful acknowledgment of daily mercies. The early converts retained this cus tom; and, at the public assemblies, brought with them bread and wine, fruits, corn, &c. These, when consecrated by prayer, were used in part for the communion, and the rest distributed to the poor. The gifts thus brought retained the name of “ ofi'er ings,” and from this simple beginning we can trace the complicated superstitions of the Mass. From these “ ofi'erings ” the Eucharist was afterwards called an “oblation,” then a “ sacrifice ”-—but gratulatm-y only, not empiaiom. It was the offering of the first fruits of the earth, not of the body of Christ, though this furnished a pretence, some years later, for changing the supper into a sacrifice, by reason of the everal attendant circumstances. The first two centuries of the Christian era was a period of great persecution. Many suffered martyr dom in vindication of their faith. It was a custom among the Greeks to celebrate the memory of their heroes at their tombs, to excite the survivors to emulate their deeds of valour. Greek Christians, in order to encourage each other to suffer death for the Gospel, retained this custom. They gathered such of the relics of the martyrs as could be saved, and hono‘urably buried them. An annual commemoration (called the day of their nativity, or birthday to heaven, really the anniversary of the day of martyr dom) we celebrated at their tombs, or at the place of slxrn common. their martyrdom. 57 At these assemblies, after prayers and exposition of the Scriptures, they rehearsed in order the names of the martyrs and their deeds; then were thanksgivings to God offered up for giving them victory. The proceedings terminated with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The intent of these meetings, as we clearly gather from the writers of these times, was, in fact, to teach that those who had died in Christ lived with the Lord, and were retained in afl'ectionate remembrance of the Church, and to excite survivors to constancy and faith. But there was no religious worship rendered to the martyrs themselves. From this harmless, nay, laudable cus tom, arose prayers for the departed, intercession of the departed, and ultimately, conjoined with the Jewish customs above described, in course of time the ceremony was converted into a propitiatory sacrifice for the departed. Early in the third century we begin to trace the custom of the presentations at these celebrations in memory of martyrs, still only as a commemoration. But from this arose the 'custom of ofi‘ering for the dead. These offerings were generally made-by the parents of the deceased; the gifts were, however, dis tributed to the poor. From this, as applied to martyrs, arose saints’ days, and the transition was easy to prayers for the dead. Christians now began to pray for the dead—this was the first innovation-— but it was not that they should be freed from purga tory or its supposed pains. At this period it was the belief of many that the souls of the departed did not at once go to their eternal happiness, but waited until thefinal resurrection. They prayed for a consumma tion of their glory, and that they themselves might 58 ran saves CHAMPION QUESTIONS. join the departed on the resurrection of the just— a custom having no sanction in Scripture, but still differing widely from the modern practice and inten tion of praying for the dead. For we find that the apostles, prophets, patriarchs, the Virgin Mary, and the martyrs (none of whom are supposed to go to purgatory) were included in these prayers. In fact, the notion of a purgatory did not enter the imagina tions of men; there is no trace of it in any of their writings. Other early Christian writers adopted St. Paul’s idea, that “to be absent from the flesh was to be present with the Lord.” Origen (about an 230) broached a new theory, that all, even the devil, would, after a time of punish ment, be eventually saved; but thi theory, which paved the way for the belief in a purgatory, was con demned by a fifth General Council (an. 553), and also by Augustine, who, however, in one of his writings, suggests the possibility of there being a purging fire, or that it was not incredible (he went no further), which clearly proves that the doctrine was being broached, but was not a Christian doctrine. The'next step we trace in the writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (aJ). 240), wherein we find that Christian now began to make mutual agreements with each other to the effect, that he who should first depart should remember the survivor, and implore God in his behalf when in the next world. Here we have the beginning of intercession of saints, but it was the departed for the living. At the commencement of the fourth century, when Christianity came under the protection of the State, they collected the bones of martyrs and re-interred them under the communion-table with pomp and cere srxrn QUESTION. 59 monies. We begin now to trace the terms “ altar” and “ sacrifice,” but that these were figurative terms is evident from the fact that the same term “sacri fice ” was applied to “ baptism.” * We cannot trace the word “ mass ” before the middle of the fourth century. After the sermon the Eucha rist was now celebrated. persons not permitted to the catechumens, or those not as yet reconciled to There were three classes of partake of this sacrament— under instruction; penitent: the Church; and demoniacs, or those supposed to he possessed. The sermon being ended, the deacon intimated to these that they should withdraw, dismissing them with the words, “Ite misso est,” a valedictory expression, or solemn leave-taking of them, but which did not apply to the ceremony which followed. But, according to Neander and others, in succeeding ages these words began to be contracted to the mass, and applied to the cele bration of the Eucharist that followed, which became to be called “ The Mass." 1' The latter and of the fourth century was famous for craters, especially in the Greek Church. They displayed their oratory principally on the occasion of the memorial of departed martyrs and great men. To give effect they began to apostrophize the departed. We find an instance of this in the first oration of Gregory Nazianzen, wherein he apostrophized the soul of the Great Constantine, “ if thou hast any un derstanding in these things ; ” but he also, in his second oration, in like manner addressed Julian the apostate, who was supposed to be in hell. This is the first invocation of the departed that we can trace. * Melchior Canus, Loc. Theol., lib. Xii., fol. 4241- 426. Louvain, 1569. 1' Neander's Church Hist., vol. , p. 461. note. London, 1851. 60 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. It was evidently no part of the doctrine or practice of the Church, but by little and little the custom gained ground. Certain Christians in Phrygia appear to have in stituted oratories to Michael the Archangel; but this rising heresy was emphatically condemned, in A.D. 368, by a Council assembled at Laodicea. It must be admitted that in 380 the custom of praying for the dead was practised; at this time, as Eusebius informs us, they prayed for the soul of Constantine. But, as we said before, in every prayer we find included patriarchs, prophets, evangelists, apostles, martyrs, and the Virgin Mary. Here we have the foundation on which the modern custom is based, which is inseparable from the doctrine of purgatory not then developed. It will be observed that Agatkon omits purgatory from his list in his “ Questions,” but includes it in his “remarks,” “ Prayers for the dead or purgatory.” When Dr. Wiseman came to reconcile the difliculty suggested above, be said that it was quite true that the early Christians prayed for the Apostles, Virgin Mary, &c., simply because the Church had not declared that the saints belonged to a higher order. Now, as the first act of canonization did not take place until the tenth century, and it was not until 1439, at the Council of Florence, that the Roman Church made up its mind, and decided that departed saints went to heaven, we can arrive with some certainty at the date of the introduction of this custom. We have now seen the beginning of those innova tions on Christianity embraced in Agathon’s sixth question. Of these, prayers for the dead alone appear, to the end of the fourth century, to.have slx'rn QUESTION. been generally practised. 61 We can now separate the practices under the seVeral heads selected by Agathcm. And first as to the Mass. The Sacrament of the Eucharist being instituted by our Lord during and after supper, it was not ordered to be taken fasting. The first trace we can discover that it was to be taken fasting, as now enjoined by the Roman Church, was at the Council of Carthage, held A.D. 397.* It is worthy of note here, that the Manichees, who held wine in abhorrence, attempted to introduce a custom of taking the Communion under one species only. Leo (an. 450) and Gelasius (an. 492), both Bishops of Rome, condemned in express terms this heresy, and ordered that the Communion should be received entire, as instituted by our Lord, or not at 2111.? As we are on this subject we may also record the fact that, in the year 1095, a Council was held at Clermont under Pope Urban II. There were present 13 archbishops, and 250 bishops and abbots. By the 28th Canon it was directed that all who communi cated should receive the elements under both kinds, unless there be necessity to the contraryi And the Council of Constance, in 1414, after much dis cussion, first authoritatively withdrew the cup from the laity. The decree admitted that the Sacrament was instituted by our Lord in both kinds. “ Not . Labb. et Ooss. Concil. Garth. can. nix., tom. ii., col. 1165. Paris, 1671. fLeon. Mag. Oper. Lut. 1623, col. 108. Galas. in Corp. Juris Can. Decret. Grat. tert. pars. dist. ii., cap. xii., col. 1168. Lugd. 1661. I“Ne quis communicet de sltari nisi corpus separatim ct smqninem similiter sumst, nisi per necessitatem at par cautelem." Labb. et Cots. Concil., tom. 1., col. 506. Paris, 1671. I 62 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. withstanding which,” it decreed that thellaity should be deprived of the cup.* This, we trust, is sufli ciently precise for Agathon on this branch of the subject. Going back to the fifth century, down to the end of this period, we can find no trace whatever of the doctrine of the conversion of the elements, or Tran substantiation. The Fathers constantly speak of the bread and wine as types, antitypes, images, and sym bols of the body and blood of Christ, expressions wholly incompatible with that doctrine—an essential in the Mass service. The words of Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (Ad). 492), are too striking to be passed over." He said:— “ Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord which we receive are a Divine thing, because by these we are made partakers of the Divine nature. Nevertheless, the substance or nature of the bread and wine cease not to exist; and assuredly the images and similitudc of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries”? This is precise and clear language of the doctrine of the Church at the end of the fifth century. Gergory I. (an. 600) composed the office of -Mass, but which in many respects varies from modern form. A great change now took place. receiving the ofi'erings made by the people, the the On the officiating minister besought God that those fruits of charity might become acceptable to him. The prayers or orisons ofiered on these occasions were retained, but instead of being rehearsed over the 'Labb. et Coss. Concil., tom. xii., col. 99. Paris, 1671. TGelss. De Duab in Christo Nature, &c., in Bibi. Petr. Tom. iv., psr. i., col. 422. Paris, 1589; and see Dupin Eccl. Hist., vol. i., p. 520, Dublin, 1723, for a vindication of the authenticity of the passage. srxrn Quss'rros. 63 eleemosynary gifts of the faithful, they were now pronounced over the elements of bread and wine, designated the body and blood of Jesus Christ. At the beginning of the eighth century, the round form of the bread, or host, was introduced. The highly figurative language used by the Greeks with reference to the Eucharist, led to some now beginning to no language very much approach ing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or actual change of the elements; but the Council held in Constantinople an. 7545, which condemned image worship, checked this rising heresy in the East, de claring, in express terms, the elements to be only types and symbols of the body and blood of Christ."ll The second Council of Nice, however (an. 787), dis carded the terms of image and symbol, as applied to the consecrated elements. This heresy had not been extended to the Western Church, for we find that Bede (an. 720), Druthmar (an. 800), Amalar of Triers (an). 820), Walafred Strabo (an. 860), and Elfric the Saxon, who lived at the close of the tenth century, all referred to the consecrated elements as types and images. At the commencement of the ninth century, Paschas Radbert advanced the following doctrine :— “ That the body of Christ in the Eucharist is the same body as that which was born of the Virgin, which sufi'ered on the cross, and which was raised from the grave.”1' Whereupon, and immediately after, that is, in'825, Rabanus, Archbishop of Metz, in an epistle addressed “ Labb. et Coss. Couei1., tom. vii., cnls. 448, 449. Paris, 1671; and Concil. Gsnl., tom. iii., p. 699. Bomm, 1612; and Surius Conci1., tom. iii., p. .153. Colon" 1567. _ fPaschas Radbert de Seer-am. Eucharq cap. iii., 1:. 19. (101011., 1551. 64 v THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. to Bishop Heribald, specially condemned this new theory as then lately introduced by “ some indi viduals -not thinking rightly concerning this Sacra ment."* As a further evidence of the novelty of the doctrine at this time, the Emperor Charles took the opinion of Bertram, a monk of the Abbey of Corbie, on the subject, who wrote a treatise condemning the idea advanced by Radbert, and declared, that “ the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ figuratively”? This evidence, at least, ought to satisfy Agathon. The doctrine, however, gained ground, and in 1059 was resisted by Beringarius, who was compelled, under threat of being put to death, to declare that the bread and wine are the very body and blood of Christ, and that Christ is sensibly felt, broken, and torn by the teeth of the faithfuli Transubstantiation was “ definitively settled by the Church at the Lateran Council, 1215,”§ under Inno cent III., who ordered also the surplus consecrated bread to be locked up, hence pix-es. Honorius 111., in 1217, instituted the elevation and adoration of the host." And thus was the Mass Service completed, except that Gregory IX., in 1230, added the little bell to inform the people when to kneel down to adore the hostfil 'Raban, 800., ad Heribald, de Euchar, c. xniii., ad cale. Region. Abbat. Pruineuns Libr. II. de Eccles. Disciplin. et Belig. Christ, p. 516. Stephan. Baluz. Tutel. Paris, 1671. 1’ Bertram. dc Corp. 01: Bang. Domin., pp. 180—200. 001011., 1551. 1 Corp. Juris. Cam, tom. i., pp. 2, 104. Paris, 1612. §Neander Ch. Hist" vol. vii., p. 466. London, 1852. Lab. Concil., tom. xi., [2. 14.3. Paris, 1671. n Fleury’s Eccl. Hist., v01. xv., lib. 18'di p. 663. Paris, 1719. 1[ Mosheim, Eccl. Hist, cent. xii., pt. i., 0. iv., 5. ii., p. 423, note 2. London, 1852. srx'rn QUESTION. 05 It will be seen that the Mass was not invented in a day; but the innovations from time to time havebeen sufliciently indicated. As to Invocation of Saints, the Rev; J. Endell Tyler has in two works, “ Primitive Christian Wor ship, or Evidence of Holy Scripture and the Church against the Invocation of Saints and Angels; ” and “The Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome proved to be contrary to Holy Scripture, and to the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ through the First Five Cen turies,”* after having given a careful and critical examination of all the ecclesiastical writers, and the records of early Councils to the close of 500 years after Christ, clearly demonstrated, “ as with one voice, that these writers and their contemporaries knew of no belief in the present power of the Virgin, and of her influence with God; no practice, in public or private, of praying to God through her mediation, or of invoking her for her good offices of intercession, and advocacy, and patronage; no offering of thanks and praise made to her; no ascription of Divine honours or glory to her name. On the contrary, all the writers through these ages testify, that, to the early Christians, God was the only object of prayer, and Christ the only mediath and intercessor in whom they put their trust.” Mr. Tyler’s work remains unrefuted. The first act that we can find recorded of the invo cation of a saint is when the body of Chrysostom was transported to Constantinople. The Emperor Theo dosius, in the year 4170, knelt down before it, praying it to forgive his parents, who had persecuted it while * Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London. 1847. E 66 THE savmv CHAMPION QUESTIONS. living. But this superstition was rebuked by the Fathers of this age. Nicephorus, in his Ecclesiastical History, informs us, that one Peter Gnapheous, of Antioch, in the year 470, was the first who introduced invocation of saints into the prayers of the Church, and ordered that the “ Mother of God” should be named in every prayer; but this man was infected with the Eutychean heresy, for which cause he was condemned by the fourth General Council. This superstition, which was hitherto private, only now became public; for to this date there is no trace whatever in any of the genuine Liturgies of invocation of the Virgin, or any of the saints. This is a great fact. The commemoration of the saints was changed into invocation; preachers, instead of addressing their discourses to the living to excite them to imitate the actions of the dead, began now to direct their prayers to the dead on behalf of the living. But as yet the custom was restricted to a sect of the Greeks; the Latins did not receive it for 120 years after. Pope Gregory 1. (an. 600) first entered the name of the Virgin Mary in the Litanies with the am pro nobisfi“ We now find invocation of saints publicly practised. Gregory also ordered pictures of the Virgin Mary to be carried about in processions. In 610 Boniface 1V. consummated the act of pagan idolatry by opening the Pantheon at Rome, and sub stituted therein the images of so-called saints in place of the pagan deities, consecrating the place for the purpose ; hence the feast of All Saints. Under the pontificate of Boniface V. (617) invoca tion of saints was first used in the Latin Church. * Polydore Vergil de Invent. rer. B. viii., c. 1., p. 143. London, 1551. SIXTH QUESTION. 67 The Council of Constantinople (4.1). 7541) first enjoined, under anathema, the invocation of the Virgin Mary and other saints.*. In an. 855 Leo IV. established the festival of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and added the octave to invest it with greater dignity.f ' The first act of canonization of a so-called saint took place under John XV. (an. 933),}: and Neander, in his “ Church History,” notes this period as the proper date when invocation of saints was authorita tively recognised by a bull—namely, that of Pope John XV.§ . According to Fleury, the little oflice of the Virgin - was introduced at the beginning of the eleventh century, and was afterwards confirmed by Urban II. (4.1). 1095).“ In 1140 the Festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was introduced at Lyons, but was condemned by Bernard as a novelty without the sanction of Scripture or reasonfil This doctrine was the constant subject of discord between the Dominicans and Franciscans, the one rejecting the notion as a deadly heresy, the other vehemently sus taining it. The Council of Trent refused to decide between the two contending factions, until ultimately it was authoritatively established (as authoritatively as a pope could do) by Pius IX. in December, 1859, to be believed as if an Article of Faith. Alexander III., in 1160, decreed the canonization 'Lahb. et Coss. Concil., tom. vi., 001. 1661. Paris, 1671. 'I'Fleury's Eccl. Hist, lib. xlix., p. 598., torn. x. Paris, 17041 1Ibid, tom. xii., p. 175. §Church History, vol. vi., p. 144. London, 1852. [I Fleury's Hist. Ech, tom. xiii., p. 105. Paris, 1767. And Mosheim‘l Ecol. Hist., cent. 1., p. 2, cap. iv., sec. iii. 1F]eury’l Eco]. Hist... t0 xiv" p. 527. Paris, 1769. 68 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. of saints, declaring that none should be intoked except first duly canonized.* In 1439 the Council of Florence consummated the doctrine by decreeing that departed saints were in a state of beatitude, and therefore now for the first time, according to the Remish theory, could saints be properly and lawfully invocated. The doctrine cannot bear an anterior date.1' We have now fully answered Agathon’s requisition on Invocation of Saints. .7 As to Purgatory— Gregory 1., Bishop of Home (about A.D. 600), was the first, if the dialogues attributed to him are genuine, who began to teach a doctrine very like the modern purgatory. It was now supposed that departed souls. expiated their own sins (a doctrine not new admitted, for in the Popish purgatory sins are supposed to have been forgiven) in divers ways—by baths, ice, hanging in the air, &0. This was Gregory’s theory,I feunded on well-known pagan fables. In an. 998 prayers to deliver souls out of purgatory were first appointed to be read, by Odilon, Abbot of Clugny, and he instituted a festival for that purpose.§ This was only a private custom. In 14:39 purgatory first received the approval of a conciliar decree at the Council of Florence." We have thus accounted for purgatoryand prayers for the dead. Lastly, Confession-On this subject we think we can give Agathon some precise information. ‘ *Polydor Virgil, B. iv., e. vi., p. 122. London, 1551. 1- See Veron’s “ Rule of Faith," p. 82. Birmingham, 1833. ZiGregq lib. iv. Dialog., o. 1v., p. 484, tom. §liosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 2., pt. ii., 0. iv., s. ii. ]! Labb. et Coss. Concil., tom. xiii, col. 515. a _ - " Paris, 1705,. P‘-'-"‘>|"" i Paris, 1671-. V -" ‘15 " " - "i. i six'rn common. 69 The first act of private confession to a priest on record is in the latter end of the fourth century. The occurrence that took place is recorded by the historians Socrates and Sozomenfi" Confession was in the early Church a public act, and made before the Whole congregation. The penitent was, after a public confession of his sins and the public performance of penance, re-admitted into the communion of the Church. About the year 250, during and after the Decian persecution, the numbers of penitents returning to the faith was so great that the bishops could not attend to them all, and the public confession of many was scandalous; accord ineg a new office was created, a “penitentiary presbyter,” to whom all who desired to be admitted to public penance for private sins should first con fess their sins, and afterwards, if not too scandalous for public ears, confess them in public. This was the first institution of a penitentiary priest. In the year 390 the office was suppressed, and with it private con fession abolished. This occurred at Constantinople, by order of Nectarius, bishop of that city, and the example was followed all over the East. The sup pression came about by reason of a scandalous occur rence happening to a lady of distinction after confession, the crime having been committed in the church itself. The misbehaviour‘of one priest was visited on all the clergy, and set the whole city in an uproar; and to appease the tumult Nectarius not only deprived the offending deacon of his office, but also removed the penitentiary, and with it all private confession; and the more effectually to prevent for the future the scandal, inseparable, as it appears, from “Somalis. v., 0.1a. Boa,1ib.vii.,c.xu'. > 70 run snvnn CHAMPION QUESTIONS. the system, while abolishing the office he directed that every person should follow his own conscience in the matter of confession to"a priest. Such was the origin, such was the efl'ect, of its introduction. We hear nothing more of enforced auricular con fession until the latter end of the eighth century. We have the authority of the Roman Catholic Historian, Fleury, for stating that the first command given'for private confession was in the year 763. It was issued by Chrodigang, Bishop of Meta; but this custom was restricted to his own monastery.“IF Auri cular confession was, by the fourth Lateran Council, first authoritatively required of all persons of years of discretion, under pain of mortal sin, an. 1215f The Same Roman Catholic historian, Fleury, admits, “ This is the first canon that I know of which has commanded general confessionf’j; and the Council of Trent appeals to no higher authority. Mosheim, in his “ Ecclesiastical History, ” observes on this law :— “Before this period several doctors, indeed, looked upon this kind of confession as a duty inculcated by Divine authority; but this opinion was not publicly received as the doctrine-of the Church; for, though the confession of sins was justly looked upon as an essential duty, yet it was left to every Christian’s choice to make this confession mentally to a superior being, or to express in words to a spiritual confidant and director.” § ‘ Agathon, we trust, will admit that we have answered * “ C’est la premiere fois que je trouve la confession commandée.“ Fleury’s Eccl. Hist., lib. xliii., p. 425—426. Tom. ix. Paris, 1703. 1 Lab. et Coss, Concil., tom.‘,xi., p. 1. Decret. xxi., 001s. 171—173. Paris, 1671. IFleux-y’s Ecol. Hist., tom. xvi., p. 375. Paris, 1769. §Mosheim'| Eecl. Hist, cent. xiii, pt. ii. , oh. iiL, s. i. snvmr'rn Qims'rrox. 71‘ this part of his question, as to confession, with sufficient precision. We have thus taken each sub ject proposed by Agathon in succession, and demon strated the circumstances and period when each was introduced into the Roman Church with sufficient precision to demonstrate their novel origin and their want of Apostolic authority. The ,reader is specially referred to the author’s “ Novelties of Romanism,” published by the Religious Tract Society, for more extended information, of which the above is but an abridgment. QUESTION THE SEVENTH. Cite the text of Scripture in which it is decided that we are to rest from work on thefirst day of the week, Sunday, and that we may work on the seventh, 01' Sabbath day.” Agathon says “that this question is also unanswer able/K and alleges tha “no such text as the one required is to be found in Scripture.” That is Agathon’s private opinion, probably borrowed from Dr. Milner’s “End of Religious Controversy. ” But had Agathon studied his own Rhemish Testament instead of Milner, he would have found a note added to the text Acts xx. 7, “ And in the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, "—the following words :— “Here St. Chrysotom, with many other interpre ters of the Scripture, explains that the Christians, even at this time, must have changed the Sabbath 72 THE SEVEN cumrron QUESTIONS. into the first day of the week (the Lord’s day) as all Christians now keep it.” If, then, St. Chrysostom, claimed as a saint in the Roman Church, “ with many other interpreters of the Scriptures,” have come to the conclusion that the change is authorized by this text of Scripture, we think that Agathon's question is sufiiciently answered. Therefore, all Agathon’s deep concern for us be nighted Protestants for having “flown in the face of the plain and express declaration of Scriptures, violated the Rule of Faith, and made this violation a standing practice necessary to salvation, and in so doing have necessarily fallen into the grossest contradiction of our own principles, and thereby forfeited any sort of claim to be the true Church, ” is lost as inapplicable to us. Agathon comes to the conclusion, in consequence of our declaring the Scriptures to be our sole rule of faith, that we “ are necessarily in a false, incon sistent, and therefore most awfully dangerous position.” The only way we can perceive any escape for us is by “Holy Mother Church” publishing an infallible interpretation of the Scriptures, and thus rescuing us from this “awfully dangerous position.” Our danger is supposed to be that, for want of a speaking and teaching church to give us this orthodox interpretation, we wrest Scriptures to our own con demnation. If she gave us that infallible interpreta tion, she might enclose us all at once in her net. If she withhold this infallible interpretation, we must believe that she is not able to produce it. +—§_ 73 CONCLUSION. Ayathon, in 3. “Conclusion,” declares that “no Protestant, as long as he is a Protestant, can have faith,” and that “without faith it is impossible to .please God.” The faith that is required is alleged to be “ the complete trustfulness to the word of mother, the childlike and confiding reception and acceptation of the teaching of another.” thon’s.) (The italics are Aga We have always been under the impression that we are in fatal error for holding the doctrine that we are saved by faith alone. At least, that doctrine is im puted to us. We are now told that we have no faith at all. “ The Catholic Church alone teaches, the Catholic alone has faith. The Protestant Church proposes, and Protestants accept or reject, as they think fit, the dectrines proposed; and, therefore, they have notfaith, but opinion. Opinion will not save a soul.” What is the nature of the faith required of the Romanist ? It is summed up in a few words in the “ Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola,”* where we read, “that we may in all things attain the truth, 1hat we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black, if the hierarchical Church so define it to be.” But what saith St. Paul? “ Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." “I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say.” ' “ Translated from the authorized Latin." by Charles Seager, M.A., “to which is prefixed a Preface by the Right Rev. Nicholas Wiseman, D.D.," p. 180. London, 1847. 74: THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. It is not true that we accept or reject, as we think fit, the doctrines proposed to us. We are required to accept, and we do accept, all the fundamental doc trines of the Christian Church, which the Roman, Church herself acknowledges to be such. We do so because they are plainly revealed in Scripture. But we are not required to believe anything which “is not read therein, or may be proved thereby." In the early Christian Church, in the fourth cen tury, all believers in the doctrine of the Trinity were entitled to the name of “ Catholic Christians.”* That the members of the Roman Church should now ex clusively arrogate to themselves that title, is a piece of assumption which is neither sanctioned by the Gospel, nor dictated by charity. Again, every class of Protestant accepts the Creed known as the Nicene Creed as his symbol of faith. Of this Creed the third General Council—that of Ephesus (AJJ. 431)—declared “that it should not be lawful for any one to profess, to write, or to compose any other form of faith than that defined by the holy Fathers, who with the Holy Ghost had assembled at Nice.” This Creed continued to be the only declaration of faith required by a member of the Catholic Church down to the Council of Trent; and the assembled divines at the third session of this Council (an. 1546), solemnly declared that this same Creed was the “summary in which all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and only foundation against which the gates of hell shall never * “ Hana legem (i. 2., qui seeundum Apostolicam disciplian Evangelicam que doctrinam patris et Filii et Spiritiis Sancti unam deitatem sub pari majestate et sub pit. Trinitate credunt) sequentes, Christiauorum Catho licorum nomen Jubemus amplecti." Vida Cod. Just, lib. i., tit. 1. . (‘ONCLUSION. ' 75 prevail; and that it was to be recited in those words in which it was read in all the churches.” We accept every article of this Creed. .How ca 11 it be said, then, that we have no faith? And what right has Agathon to condemn us as not believing in, and to be out of the pale of, the Catholic Church? What is it, then, which we do not believe? This is easily answered. We do not believe the twelve addi tional Articles added to the Nicene Creed by the authority of Pope Pius IV. in November, 1564. The Roman Church declares that Creed “ to be the true Catholic faith, out of which no one can be saved.” These twelve additional Articles contain the several doctrines against which we protest, on the principle that our Church' does not require of us to accept any doctrine which has not the sanction of Scripture. We challenge Ayathon to prove that these several doctrines are sanctioned by Scripture, or that they formed any part‘ of the symbol of faith of any one Christian community previous to the year 1546! It is a favourite device of Romanists which Agathon adopts in stating that we Protestants agree “that salvation is attainable in the Church of Rome,” and therefore that Church “ must be the safest religion‘to live and die in.” This is a palpable fallacy. Our salvation is with God alone. It is the Roman Church alone which declares that there is no salvation out of that particular Church; but, because she chooses. to set up this dictum as a law, is that any reason it should be true? “Who art thou that judgest another?” We are equally charitable towards the Jew and the Mussulman. God forbid that we should consign to everlasting damnation every one who does not believe as we believe! What would '76 THE SEVEN CHAMPION QUESTIONS. Ayathcm say if a like assertion were made by a Jew or Turk ? Ayatklm says that we “reject the teaching of this medium—the Church—guaranteed by God himself from all error.” Prove to us that this promise is given to the Roman Church, then accuse us of reject ing the medium guaranteed by God. We would urge Romanists to read St. Paul’s warning to the Romans themselves, “ Boast not against the branches, lest thou also should be cut ofi'-” (Rom. xi. 1’7, 22) .' And Agaflzon does not quote fairly when he accuses us of saying that “ the Ohm-ck has erred and may err.” What we do say and maintain is, “ As the Church of Jeru salem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith ” (Article xix). The members of the Roman Church declare them selves to be the “ Catholic Church,” whereas she de signates herself, in her authorized documents, as “ the Holy Roman and Apostolic Churc ,” and never “ the Catholic Church.” They have no warrant, therefore, to arrogate to themselves exclusively the term “ Ca tholic.” And although the Scriptures were for all, they impudently apply to themselves all the promises made by Christ to the Apostles, by declaring their priesthood to be exclusively the successors of the Apostles. And, when called upon for their creden tials, they produce these same promises contained in the Scriptures as their authority, and call upon us to accept their own exclusive interpretation of these texts, alleging that the Roman Church is the Church pointed out by Christ as founded on a rock, against :01} the gates of hell shall never prevail! Agathon CONCLUSION. 77 tells us the “logic is inexorable.” We admit it. If, therefore, the Roman Church claims the sole privilege of interpreting the Scriptures, we require of her some authority independent of the Scriptures to prove her mission. If she relies on Scripture she must be con tent to let it speak for itself, otherwise we get entangled in the “ vicious circle ” which is to be avoided by all logicians. We now bid adieu to Agathon and his “ Seven Champion Questions.” We cannot understand a man who believes in the truth of his mission writing under an assumed name, except on the principle of the old proverb, omne ignotmn pro magnifico. Is Agathon afraid that his own insignificance would detract from the weight he desires to attach to his Champion Ques tions? We fear that we have already attached too much importance to his challenge. We will not be so rude as to apply to Agathon another trite proverb, but he must bear in mind that while it is easy to suggest questions, a reply is rendered the more diflicult if the question be accompanied by sophistry and misrepresentations, more particularly when these misrepresentation are bolstered up by dogmatic asser tion, that the questions propounded are incapable of being solved. The remarkable facility with which Agathon (as we had on another occasion to remark of Dr. Milner) arrives at his conclusions, reminds us forcibly of the terse but true saying of the eloquent Curran, that “Error is in its nature flippant and com pendious; it hops with airy and fastidious levitg/ over proofs and arguments, and perches upon assertion which it calls conviction.” ~d Pm; For/r Shillings. THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM. 1‘ CHARLES HASTINGS COLLETTE. secouo EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. RELIGIOUS TRACT SOOETY, 56, Parnrmosrnn Row, am) 164, Freeman. “The object of this work is to show that every one of the specialities of Romanism is a novelty superinduccd upon primi tive Christianity; and s0 exact is the learning on which this compendious volume is founded, that the book will endure the test of the sharpest examination of its many literary refer ences.“-—-The Christian Spectator. “Mr. Collette, in a plain and earnest style, exhibits a suc cession of facts and reasonings which it will be easier to bespatter with abuse than refute. The first part illustrates the development of doctrines in reference to supremacy, the canon of Scripture and its interpretation, transubstantiation, the invo cation of saints and image worship, purgatory, indulgences, and iradition. This classified arrangement is followed by a chrono logical one, whereby we have shown to us the growth and development of the allegorical and prophetic‘ ‘mustard-tree,’ about which Dr. Wiseman preached a wily sermon some years ago. And. the whole is appropriately concluded by a contrast of the old and newfcreed, with a compendious summary of Protest ant truths contrasted with Popish errors. We recommend for popular uses this calm and lucid statement of facts, the author ities for which have been carefully verified."-—The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record. “ By an immense array of facts and documents, Mr. Collette proves that the whole system of Romanism is a novelty, an impudent series of additions to the religion of the Gospel.”— Ihe Bulwark. “ Mr. Collette has a wonderful acquaintance with the consti tutions of the primitive Church, and with the writings of the early fathers, and he brings this knowledge, as well as his studies of the later development of heretical usurpation, to bear upon an exposure of the innovations of the various bishops who have held sway m Rome.”-—Mornin9 Herald. In One Volume, post 8m, price 98. HENRY VIII. : AN HISTORICAL SKETCH. BY GHARLES HASTINGS BULLETTE. This Work contains a Reply to the several popular errors connected with the domestic andpublic character of Henry 1711]., and acts attributed to him. MORNING ADVERTISER, March 22, 1864. “We heartily commend this volume to the general perusal of Protestant Englishmen as an antidote of the false aspersions heaped upon the character of Henry VIII, the chosen instru ment, whatever may have been his failings, to break the chains which bound England in their numbing fetters, and to clear the way for the glorious liberty of thought and free perusal of God’s word, to which these islands owe so much of their pros perity and glory.” READER, March 19, 1864. “ All his facts are honestly stated, and his deductions there from are made in a careful spirit.” LONDON REVIEW, March 19, 1864. “Mr. Collette has made an interesting digest of facts too commonly passed over. His conclusions will, of course, be dis puted by many; and it must be admitted that he is an avowed partisan. . . . . He has condensed the elaborate matter of Mr. Froude into a more generally readable compass, with such additions as his own researches enable him to make, and has furnished Protestants with a manual of instruction on one of the most importuntpcriods of English history.” LONDON: W. H. ALLEN 8: 00., 13, W'ATERLOO PLACE. Price 5s. DR. WISEMAN’S P OPISH LITERARY BLUNDERS EXPOSED. “The gentleman’s name was Mr. Worldly Wiseman. town of Carnal Policy."-—The Pilgrim's Progren. He dwelt in the “Its author is, we believe, of the legal profession; and cer tainly, the invariable precision with which the writer, avoiding needless digressions, keeps to the point; and the keen, pitiless logic which runs through his arguments, bear the impress of a legal education. We may add, that these pages are well worth perusal, simply as a specimen of clear, terse, logical reasoning, even by those persons who have little sympathy for the lucubra tions of the ‘ Christian Fathers,’ and less for those of Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman.”——.'Z7te C'rz'tt'o. “ It is, perhaps, an advantage, rather than otherwise, that a. controversy of the kind should be taken up by a layman, sup posing him to be properly qualified: the imputation of profes sional bias will be avoided in this case; and where questions of evidence are under discussion, a learned lawyer, such as Mr. Collette evidently is, may be of special service to the cause of truth. His literary qualifications for the task he has under taken are evidently first-rate, and his corrections of the Cardinal are sustained by sound criticism.”—The Clerical Journal. “ As a lawyer, Mr. Collette has sifted every point of evidence, weighed it, given the exact passages to which the Cardinal goesv to prove his case, shows them to be utterly subversive of the opinion and arguments of the Cardinal himself, and then decides that a grosser case of resolute fraud has never been prosecuted in any ourt of Law where honest dealing prevails. Mr. Collette has done his work ably and well, and is worthy of the esteem of all honest men for having exposed such infamous means of propping up a. system that is at the present moment, to all appearances, tottering to its speedy fall." —— Bell’s Weekly Measenyer. “This is a book of great value and profound learning. To all who wish to understand the literary policy of the Jesuits, we earnest-1y recommend it. It is one of the most conclusive and withering exposures of the ‘inductive skill’ and craft of Dr. Wiseman which it is possible to imagine, and it cannot fail to be productive of the best results, by deterring others from attempting to pursue a similar course.”—.Bulwark. London: WILLIAM PENNY, 57, Lincoln‘s Inn Fields; Messrs. HALL, 26, Paternoster Row; And may be had of all Booksellers. I ii: ~| :Mrufl. I ~ *Jfirilidl, ... ‘1 J. .lfi .v..7__ _ , Y 1 .JK J! .0 .. m? kafivgu A -. I, " ~ 7 i V ' '. ‘ I .l I . o . _ i '_ I Iv - .5 ‘ i On 218! December, 1864, will be publislmi, price 38. 6d. i ‘5.“ E @nliehe in 11312 115ng Qtaflgulir litigant :” l A comnovmsm CORRESPONDENCE ms'rwmm 1 CHARLES HASTINGS COLLETTE, ESQ, OF LONDON (PROTESTANT), DR. GERATHY, OF DUBLIN (ROMAN CATHOLIC). This most interesting correspondence originated from a challenge given by Dr. . Gerathy, and the result is a volume replete with theological and historical research on each side of . the question. ' .4 Of the Roman Catholic advocate it may be said that he is no novice. It will be found that he has brought to bear on the controversy a surprising amount of apparent erudition, and has displayed the utmost zeal in collecting together all the available arguments and quotations in support of his position. But as the controversy proceeds, it soon becomes apparentthat Dr. Gerathy has miscaleulated the power and resources of his ~ adversary. Mr. Collette has,with patient perseverance, allowed no single argument or quotation of any Value or importance to pass unanswered. The reader will thus have presented to him the arguments on both sides calmly and dispassionately dis cussed with a'careful and critical investigation of the authori ties relied on. The result of this controversy has fully estab lished not only the worthlessness of the pretensions of the Church of Rome, but the' shifty expedients resorted to and erroneous quotations relied on to prop up a false position. ~13; A very valuable Biographical Index, showing also the dates when the numerous authors quoted flourished, with particulars of the schral councils referred to, is added to the volume, which will be found of essential service to, those unacquaintcd with ecclesiastical history. The‘yalue of the citations can be thus readily appreciated. " ' N.B_.-—_-Copies will be forwarded to purchasers by book-post free on transmission of Post-office order or postage stamps, at 3s. _6d, per copy, to C. Bum, Esq, Protestant Alliance, 7, Sechants’ Inn, Fleet Street, or to MR. R. WHITE, PUBLISHER, woansor. ' 1717'va r-HIP'W"? ' 'ITEYWY'vvm -~'~> 9:81:93?“