Images de page
PDF
ePub

protestants and roman-catholics, the following rule should be rigidly observed:-"THAT NO DOC

TRINE SHOULD BE ASCRIBED TO THE ROMANCATHOLICS, AS A BODY, EXCEPT SUCH AS IS AN ARTICLE OF THEIR FAITH.

Among the many misconceptions of their tenets, of which the roman catholics have to complain, they feel none more than those, which proceed from a want of the observance of this rule. It is most true, that roman-catholics believe the doctrines of their church to be unchangeable; and that it is a tenet of their creed, that what their faith ever has been, such it was from the beginning, such it now is, and such it ever will be. BUT THIS PROPOSITION THEY CONFINE TO THE ARTICLES OF THEIR FAITH; and they consider no doctrine to be of faith, unless it have been delivered by divine revelation, and propounded by the roman-catholic church, as a revealed article of faith. This the roman-catholics wish their adversaries never to forget.

When any of their adversaries find, in any catholic writer, a position, which they think reprehensible, they should inquire, whether it be an article of catholic faith, or an opinion of the writer. In the latter case, they should reflect, that the general body of the catholics is not responsible for it, and should therefore abstain from charging it upon the body.

If they take the higher ground, they should first endeavour to ascertain, that it is an article of the catholic faith. But here, again, they should carefully examine, whether it be the principle itself,

66

66

which they mean to impute to the catholics, or a consequence, which they themselves deduce from it these are widely different, and should never be confounded. If it be the principle, they should then inquire, whether it has been propounded as an article of faith by the church. A wise method of ascertaining this would be, to read the "Catechism of the Council of Trent." A proper perusal, however, of that document requires attentive study. If they be unable to give it such a perusal, let them read Bossuet's "Exposition of Faith," and consult Mr. Gother's "Papist Misrepresented and Represented," or at least doctor Challoner's abridgment of it; let them also read doctor Challoner's "Three Short Summaries of Catholic Faith "and Doctrine," contained in three sections prefixed to his "Garden of the Soul," the most popular Prayer-book of the English catholics. Having read these, let them ascertain, whether the doctrine, with which they charge the catholics, be, in terms or substance, stated in any of these works as an article of their faith. If they conceive that it is so stated, let them insert in their publication the passage in which they profess to discover the erroneous tenet; mentioning explicitly the work, the edition of it, and the page in which it is contained. Should the passage be found, in terms or substance, in any of the works which have been mentioned, then it will be incumbent on the catholics, either to show that the writer, in whose work the passage is found, was mistaken, (which, from the acknowledged character of all the works, will, in all probability,

never happen), or to admit that it is an article of their faith the roman-catholics will then be justly chargeable with it, and with the consequences justly deducible from it. Whatever other opinions can be adduced, though they be the opinions of their most respectable writers, though they be the opinions of the fathers of their church, still they are but matters of opinion, and a catholic may disbelieve them, without ceasing to be a catholic. Would it not be both a fair and short way of ending the controversy between the protestants and catholics, that every person, who charges the general body of catholics with any religious tenet, should be obliged to cite, from the catechism of the council of Trent, or from one or other of the works which have been mentioned, THE PASSAGE, in which such tenet is contained and propounded as an article of faith?

IV.

Application of the preceding Suggestion to the charge of corrupt Doctrine and unjustifiable Practices, repeatedly brought against the Roman-catholic Body in "the "Book of the Church."

I REQUEST you to consider with attention the rule which I have suggested: then to ascertain whether any doctrine, which you have imputed to the romancatholics, or the sanction of any practice which you have charged upon them, is to be found in the creed of Pius IV, in the council of Trent, in its catechism, or in any of the works which I have men

tioned, or in any other work of similar authority. If you find it in the council, in its catechism, or in any of the works which I have mentioned, the roman-catholics must abide the consequences. If you do not find it; you may abuse the doctrine and those who maintain it, in any terms you think proper; but you are not entitled to charge it upon the roman-catholics: it is merely the imagination of an individual; IT IS NO PART OF THE CATHOLIC

CREED.

If any of the ridiculous doctrines, which are maintained by any of the sectaries mentioned in a publication (not unknown to you,)-The Letters of Don Manuel Alvarez Espriella*,-(all of whom appeal to the scriptures, and protest against popery, and are therefore, according to the protestant catechism, published by the learned bishop of St. David's, to be deemed protestants); should be charged by a roman-catholic on a protestant of the church of England, as a tenet of his religious

# Espriella's list of them is curious: "Arminians, So. "cinians, Baxterians, Presbyterians, New-Americans, Sa"bellians, Lutherans, Unitarians, Millenarians, Necessarians, "Sublapsarians, Supralapsarians, Muggletonians, Antino"mians, Hutchinsonians, Sandemonians, Baptists, Anabap"tists, Podobaptists, Methodists, Universalists, Calvinists, "Materialists, Destructionists, Brownists, Independants, Pro

testants, Hugonots, Non-jurors, Seceders, Hernhutters, "Dunkers, Jumpers, Shakers, and Quakers, &c. &c. &c." A precious nomenclature! An interesting account of many of these sectaries is given in the "Histoire des Sectes Re"ligieuses, par M. Gregoire, 2 vols. 8vo. 1810." From this work Espriella might have considerably augmented his own list.

creed, might not the protestant justly require the roman-catholic to point out the doctrine or the practice thus charged upon him, either in the Bible, or at least in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Homilies, or the Liturgy? and, if it should not be found in any of these, would not the protestant be justly acquitted of all responsibility for it? By parity of reason,-in all the cases, in which you charge the roman-catholics with corrupt doctrine, will they not be entitled to an acquittal? unless you produce, in the council, or in some other of the works I have referred to, the corrupt doctrine for which criminate him.

you

It is the same with respect to the practices, for which, in a multitude of instances, you have criminated the roman-catholics, sometimes individually, but oftener collectively: May you not be justly required to show, that the council, or some of the works which have been referred to, contains the doctrine which prescribes, or sanctions, or excuses, the practice thus charged on the roman-catholics? and, if no such doctrine should be found in them, will you not be bound to retract the charge?

Here then I confidently take my stand.-I acknowledge that individual catholics have maintained unjustifiable doctrines, and have been guilty of unjustifiable practices; but I insist on the production of the tenet, justly ascribable to the catholic creed, to which any such doctrine or practice can fairly be attributed. I aver, that not one such tenet can be produced if it cannot, I claim for my church an acquittal from your charges.

« PrécédentContinuer »