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.Ӥ
* “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.Ӥ
‘ “ 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,Ӥ 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?“