\H . A . n ft-v>J •' '• '•¦'

A FEW THOUGHTS

concerning THE THEORIES OF

HIGH-CHUECHMEN AND TRACTARIANS;

WITH REASONS

FOR SUBMITTING TO THE AUTHORITY OF

THE HOLY SEE.

N. A. HEWITT.

rlVlS'52 CHARLESTON, S. C.
|94(£> B U RG ES A ND J a M ES, P R I NTE R S.
1^4 1846.

IV.
they will listen candidly to it, that the Catholic Church is, and has always
been, in spite of more or less degeneracy among her members, a holy
Church ; that she has always preached "Christ and Him crucified ;'' and
that, in that period to which Protestants assign the rise and establishment
of the supremacy of the Roman See, this See was the bulwark of the
blessed faith in GOD Incarnate ; and our work is nearly done. A simple
exhibition of the historical proofs of the Apostolic origin of the Sacrifice
of the Mass, and the dogma of the Real Presence, would be sufficient to
prove the whole system of Catholic doctrine to a mind thus set free from
prejudice. When it had once understood how that highest otRce of our
Lord, the continuation and application of the Sacrifice of the Cross, could
be committed to a human priesthood, it would no longer see any difficulty
iu admitting that He has communicated His infallibility to His Church ;
or that He has delegated His supremacy to the Successor of St. Peter ;
or that He has imparted an intercessory power to His blessed Mother and
the Saints reigning in Heaven.
These plain grounds of the Catholic fajth, the writer has already said,
he did not intend to exhibit in the present essay.
It may not be out of place to state that he had gone through the course
of thought which ended in his resolving to become a Catholic, and had
nearly arrived at a final decision, before reading Mr. Newman's Essay.
So far, however, as he has followed the thoughts suggested by him or
by others — he wishes to disclaim the intention of putting them forth as
his own.
It has been already made known, that he has been received into (he
Catholic Church. Upon her altar he ventures to lay this — the first offer
ing of a penitent child.
Charleston, PeiUecost, 1846.

ARGUMENT.

It is not the intention of the writer to give a minute history of his pro
gress through several stages of Protestantism to tbe faith of the Catholic
Church. Upon some part of it, however, he is obliged to touch slightly,
before entering upon the chief subject of his brief essay, in order to explain
some parts of his conduct, which have been made matter of public com
ment. During the course of his theological studies, he was led to examine the
nature and polity of the Christian Church, and became quite well
convinced of the abstract truth of some doctrines held by High Church
Anglican Divines in common with Catholics. These doctrines were
the Visibility of the Church, Apostolical Succession, and the neces
sity of Liturgical Forms in the worship of God. Convinced of the abstract
probability of these doctrines, and becoming distrustful of the Calvinistic
doctrine and discipline in which he had been bred, he began to think
seriously of entering the Protestant Episcopal Church, as a candidate for
holy orders ; and, had not serious obstacles of such a nature that he can
merely allude to them, been interposed, he would probably have done so
at once. About this time, he first began to apprehend some other Catholic
doctrines, such as Sacramental Grace; the Real Presence and Sacri
fice in the Eucharist ; and the Authority of the Catholic Church. His
knowledge on most of these points was derived first from Catholic writers,
but afterwardf, much more extensively, from the writers of the Oxford
school. Some of his Protestant friends, who saw the bent of his mind
and the tendency of his opinions more clearly than he did himself, even
then told him, that if he followed out his principles consistently to their
ultimate conclusions, he must become a Roman Catholic. Against the
Roman Catholic Church, and against some specific Catholic doctrines, he
had however, a deep and unshaken prejudice. He rashly and foolishly
thought that he could not hold Catholic principles at all, unless it were
entirely apart from the doctrine of the Roman Church. And yet, although
this opinion made him very willing to listen to the fascinating, eloquent,
and persuasive invitations of the divines of the Oxford school — to enter
their communion; and inclined him lo trust in their profession of Catholic
doctrine; the practical difficulty of determining to do so — was increased.
For, he saw the difficulty of defending the AngUcan Church without at
the same time defending the Reformation in general; and the reasons
which the Oxford writers brought up to prove the safety of remainino' in
the Anglican Church, seemed to him to prove the safety of remaining a
Congresationalist ; except so far as these reasons directly rested upon the
fact of Episcopal succession. They were, to a great extent, based upon
this supposed fact of a canonical succession from the ancient Catholic
Bishops of England ; and so far, the writer felt their force ; but no one
who knows the grounds on which the first Episcopalian divines excused
the defects of the Reformed Churches of Europe, and which are even

6
now admitted by Mr. Palmer, can wonder that he perceived a want of
consistency and certainty in the Anglican theology, and was, for a long
time, unable to determine upon entering the Protestant Episcopal Church,
as the true and only Church of Christ in this country. In this uncertainty,
he persuaded himself that he might remain in the communion of his birth
and education ; in which, he said to himself (with that misdirected though
filial feeling, which now estranges so many pious persons from the true
Mother, who "per sinum ancillamm parit filios Deo,") he had been new
born in Christ, and fed all his life long until that day. In the autumn of
the year 1842, he was licensed as a Congregational preacher, and con
tinued to officiate occasionally until the ensuing spring. This six months'
practical trial of the principle on which he was acting, convinced him that
he could not safely and happily discharge the duties of the ministry, unless
he were truly invested with the priesthood by valid ordination in the
Church of Christ. The renunciation of one false principle will often
enable the mind to receive, as by a single act, a whole series of
truths ; and thus, in simply admitting the necessity of joining that com
munion which has descended from the Apostles, the writer emhraced at
once all those Catholic doctrines which he knew to be such. The same
false principle more speciously disguised, still continued however to mislead
him. It seemed to him, that, as he could no longer remain a Congrega-
tionalist, the only alternative was to enter the Protestant Episcopal Church ;
it was, besides, the alternative which he had habitually contemplated ; the
English Church had been the object of his reverence and love from the
earliest perusal in childhood of her history ; and it was at last more from
the promptings of a heart wearied with a cold and cheerless heresy and
seeking for a better home, than from a clear and deliberate act of judg
ment — that he yielded his mind to the guidance of those who promised to
lead him in the path of the ancient Saints and Fathers,
He has before said, that he did not leave entirely unnoticed, the claims
of that venerable and august Church, whose possession of the Catholic
name should have made him pause and deliberate, before he lightly disre
garded them. He had been, in a measure,-awed by the majesty of the
decrees of Trent ; startled by the remarkable testimony of St. Irenaeus,
to the "principality" of the Roman See ; troubled at the apparent logical
necessity of admitting the tenth century to explain the seventh, and the
seventh to explain the fourth, if the fourth were admitted to be the true,
historical exponent of the first ; and above all, impressed by the consistent,
entire, and at the same time, simple and intelligible character of the Ro
man Catholic theology. But although he could not hide from himself the
difficulty under which the Oxford theology lay, from its relation to Roman
CathoUc doctrine, he felt this difficulty, not as an argument in favor of
Rome, but against the Catholic system in general. His prejudice against
the Roman Church prevented his ever thinking, for one moment, of enter
ing her fold ; and he must acknowledge, that he took the strong assertions
of the Oxford writers, that the Roman doctrines are contrary to Catholic
tradition, and yielded to the specious sophisms by which they covered the
defective parts of the Anglican system, on the strength of that truly invin
cible logic, which they invariably used when really explaining Catholic
doctrines ; without a strict and careful inquiry into the doctrines which
they rejected, and the historical foundation on which they rest.
It has been made a matter of severe censure, that the form of baptism
was repeated on the reception of the writer into the Protestant Episcopal
Church. As a Catholic, he believes that he was truly and sufliciently bap
tized in infancy, by the hand of one, whom he regards with fiUal venera
tion ; and he cannot defend, but deeply regrets his action in this case
Advantage is, or may be taken, however, of the uncertainty which the

7
petition of such acts plainly brings to light in the Episcopalian system,
cast doubt upon the true doctrine of baptism, and upon the practice of
e Catholic Church herself ; and it therefore seems necessary to explain
a few words, some of the principles incidentally connected with the act
question, without defending the act itself.
It was not then in itself wrong, to inquire whether a certain sacrament
id been duly and validly received ; and, supposing it wasproved that it
id not been received, through any defect of authority lo confer it, or a want
'the right form in the administration, it was not wrong to receive it from
e hands of one having lawful authority to give it. Nor was it wrong to
peat the form of the sacrament, conditionally, supposing there was a
)ubt respecting any essential part. The error consisted in rejecting ab-
ilutely as invalid, a baptism with water in the Name of the Blessed Trini-
' ; contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Setting aside this
ithoritative doctrine, the practice of re-baptization is evidently the only
¦actice, consistent with the Anglican theory; and yet, it is not only an er-
)r, but more than this, an error fatal to the authority of the AngUcan
hurch ; for on the hypothesis of those who hold it, she is placed in the
nfortunate position of a Church which is unable to decide what are the
ssential parts of baptism ; and therefore unable to direct the first step
hich must be taken by one who seeks admission to her fold.
There is no such uncertainty in the Catholic Church. She decrees posi-
vely, that the element of water, and the Name of the Blessed Trinity, in
nion with each other, constitute the sacrament of baptism ; without respect
rthe question whether it is administefed in the Catholic Church, and by a
riest, or not. If there is any doubt, either fn general, as to the manner of
dministering baptism in the sect from which a convert comes, or in par-
cular, in regard to the fact of his having been rightly baptized, she re-
eats the form of baptism^ under a condition, for greater certainty ; without
ny intention to annul or condemn that baptism which is rightly given
ut of her communion. There is no one of her doctrines which is more
[early supported by Catholic tradition, than this of the validity of lay
aptism ; even according to the judgment of some of the best Anglican
>ivines. And although it may seem to be an exception to her general
(Tstem, yet, when it is carefully examined, it will be found to be in deep
nd beautiful harmony with it, and analogous also to many similar provi-
ions in the natural and revealed system of Divine Providence ; as Hooker
as shewn with his usual depth of wisdom, in that noble work so highly
tuded by Pope Clement VIII., the "Ecclesiastical Polity."
Although, therefore, the want of definite principles and rules in the Prot-
stant Episcopal Church, by which, in a most momentous practical ques-
on, her disciples are thrown upon their own private judgment, or that of
thers, for guidance, casts a serious doubt over the authority of that Church;
, does not appear that any doubt ie cast upon the principle of authority it-
3lf ; or upon the Catholic Church, as an authoritative guide ; or upon her
octrine and practice respecting the sacraments.
She does not leave her children to follow their own judgment or opinion
t all ; but decides for them, and according to their belief, without any dan-
er of misleading them. In submission to her judgment, the writer has
Iready said, he rests with confidence in the beliefj that the baptism which
i received in infancy, was the true sacrament of regeneration ; by which
; was bound indissolubly to the Catholic Church, by ties of filial duty
hich no subsequent act could annul.
It was thus that the writer became a member, and six months afterward
clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church; with his mind full of
iatholic principles ; with a strong prejudice against the Roman Church
nd several of her Catholic doctrines ; and at the same time with a secret'

inward, but not fully recognized sentiment, that Cathohc principles were
responsible for their actual results in all ages of the Church, whether these
results came from their legitimate, or what then appeared, their perverse
apphcation. This sentiment would not allow him to rest quietly in his po
sition, until he had discovered a ground on which he might accept the en-
lire history of the Church, and acknowledge the presence and teaching of
the Holy Spirit in her, in all ages, and throughout all lands.
A minute explanation of the process by which he was gradually led to
wards the CathoUc Church, would be out of place. It is sufficient to say,
that it was by striving to make to himself a reaUty of what is truly posi
tive and Catholic in the AngUcan system, and by submitting his mind to
the teaching of the ancient Fathers of the Church, so far as he knew it, togeth
er with reading and reflection upon the points at issue between Protestants
and the Catholic Church, that his misconceptions were cleared up ; his ob
jections to her doclriiies and practices, one by one removed or diminished;
while his reverence for her holiness and authority, and his admiration of
her institutions, gradually deepened ; until, at length, he felt himself bound
in conscience, to transfer that allegiance which he continued to give to his
separated communion to the very last, to her, who alone has the rights of
a Mother over the baptized children of God.
It will doubtless be very hard for most of those who have not gained a
thorough insight into that system, which for want of a better name, must
be called Tractarian theology, to understand how it was possible for any
one to act as the writer did. He must acknowledge that he himself, in
calmly reviewing his course through the devious mazes of error, is sur
prised to see what power, arguments most plainly sophistical and delu
sive exerted over him. It may not be strange, that persons born and bred
in the Anglican communion, should piously endeavor to reconcile the doc
trines of her formularies, with those of the Catholic Church ; but it was
certainly a very daring exercise of private judgment for one whose knowl
edge of the Catholic system was so imperfect, to select for himself a Church
whose articles were, by the confession of their most acute defender, but
patient of a Catholic sense. No one could fall into such an error except
by his own fault ; and the writer wishes to acknowledge that the Catholic
Church had been sufficiently proposed to him lo lay a moral obligation on
him, to examine her doctrines more carefully than he did. Yet in all his
errors and mistakes, he conceives that he has sinned only against the
Catholic Church, and that she alone has a right to blame him. Some,
perhaps, will be more inclined to listen to him, when they see what force
has been required to make a final conquest of his early prejudices ; and he
trusts, that many will have the candor to allow, that in professing the
Catholic faith and ending his inquiries after the truth by submitting to an
authority which cannot err, he has acted consistently upon a conviction
which has not come to him at random, or on a sudden, or at the call of
fancy, but which is the legitimate result of the Catholic principles, which
he has implicitly held, and according to which he has directed his studies,
for the last four years ; he might truly say, since the first dawn of his bap
tismal illumination.
What has been said by the writer of his gradual progress toward the
Catholic Church, must not be misunderstood. As a member and a minister
of the Protestant Episcopal Church, he gave that Church a confiding and
fiUal obedience ; and, in intention, devoted the service ot his whole life to her
interests. He has said that he wished to discover a safe ground on which
to recognize the Catholic Church of all ages and nations, as the abode of
God's Spirit. He did so ; but, trusting with entire confidence in the essen
tial Catholicity of his own Church, he saw no danger to his fidelity to her
in loving and reverencing all the members of the family of Christ. It was

in this spirit of unsuspicious confidence, that he went on to reverence the
Roman Church more and more ; and to lay aside one prejudice against
her after another ; and partly consciously, partly unconsciously, to imbibe
the spirit of her teaching ; without admitting to himself for a moment that
it was necessary to enter her communion, or to receive her definitions of
doctrine, as of Ikith.
Doubts and misgivings did, occasionally, arise in his mind ; but they were
unwelcome, nay most painful, and were soon suppressed. He did not
allow himself to regard the Protestant Episcopal Church in any other
light, than as a true and living portion of the Church Catholic ; and when
recent events forced upon his mind a real and abiding distrust of her
Catholicity, (which was only within the last few months,^ the allernalive
he has since adopted, immediately presented itself, as one which must be
considered, and unless the doubt were removed, adopted. In the Ught of
eternity, by which an illness, thought to be dangerous, compelled him lo
examine the grounds he had for believing himself in Catholic Communion,
they appeared to hira delusive ; and he determined to enter the Catholic
Church, simply because his conscience, enlightened by AngUcan leaching
as lo the duty of believing what the Church believes, and receiving from
her the peace and blessing of God, could not quiet itself without an act of
submission to the decrees of the holy Council of Trent, and absolution
from its awful but most merciful anathemas, by the authority of the Apos
tolic See.
Before entering upon his main subject, the writer begs leave lo address
one word lo those who are .in the stricter and more consistent sense,
Protestants. It is not unjust to say that by most of such persons the Catholic- doctrine
is condemned unheard, being prejudged apon the strength of a traditional
interpretation of a few texts of Scripture, and the stereotype fictions which
are mistaken for history. It does not seem to have occured to them, that
it is a matter of rational curiosity to inquire, candidly and serionfely, how it
was, and on what grounds, that St. Francis de Sales, St. Charles and
Cardinal Frederic Borromeo, Bossuet, Fenelon, Bourdaloue, MassiUon,
and to speak of our own country— -Cheverus and Carroll, were Catholics.
They have not attempted to comprehend the point of view, from which
Catholic theologians look at the doctrines which they themselves hold most
sacred ; the Incarnation, Atonement, and Mediation of our blessed Lord ;
Original Sin ; and Divine Grace; or to investigate the method by which they
reconcile these doctrines with others, by which they are supposed to be
contradicted and subverted. Certain very revolting and anli-christian
tenets are assumed at second hand, as the true and authorized doctrines
of the Catholic Church ; and Catholics are supposed to be either ignorant
of, or hostile to the true gospel ofRedemptiou by the Obedience and Death
of our blessed Lord and Saviour.
Now, without making a pretence of learning, the writer may say thai
he has studied the Protestant and the Catholic theology, in the writings
of some of the ablest divines of either school ; and he gives his decided
testimony to the fact, that the common notions of Protestants, and even
the notions of their theologians, respecting the doctrines of the Catholic
Church, are perfectly erroneous ; and indeed, for the most part pure fictions
of the imagination. On the other hand, he has found in Catholic writer^
a perfect insight into, and appreciation of the Calvinistic and Lutheran
systems. The sacred doctrines which these systems have retained, are
stated by them with an astonishing perspicuity and vividness; and those
other misinterpreted tenets which they have rejected, are shown to
grow out of these doctrines, to depend upon them, to heighten their signi-

ficance and protect their integrity.* He wishes to call the attention of
his Protestant friends to the fact, that a number of persons, who have
given proof of their attachment to the pure doctrine of Christ, by resist
ing the authority of the Catholic Church so long as they believed that
doctrine to be obscured by her teaching, profess to have arrived at a clear
conviction of the truth of that leaching, chiefly by meditation on the holy ¦
mysteries of the Incarnation and Mediation of our blessed Lord. And,
although he is far from thinking that this fact gives to others a sufficient
reason for adopting the same belief, he cannot but urge it upon all candid
persons, as an argument for thorough and impartial inquiry into the
grounds of the Catholic faith.
Hear St. Augustine, the Doctor most reverenced by disciples of Luther
and Calvin, speaking in his admirable "Confes.sions," a work by itself suffi
cient for the conversion of any candid Protestant, of a doctrine which in
his day was misconceived in the same way in which others flowing out of
it are now mistaken.
Speaking of that happy period when the light of the Catholic faith was
just beginning to disperse the black mistfe of Manichfean heresy, in which
his mind had been long beclouded ; he says:
'•But when] understood withal that 'man, created by Thee after thine
own image,' was not so understood by thy spiritual sons, whom of the
Catholic Mother Thou hast born again through grace, as though they be
lieved and conceived of Thee as bounded by human shape; (although
what a spiritual substance should be I had not even a faint or shadowy
notion ;) yet with joy I blushed at having so many years barked not
against the Catholic faith, but against the fictions of carnal imaginations.
For, so rash and impious had I been, that what I ought by inquiring lo
have learned, I had pronounced on condemning. For Thou, Most High
and most near, most secret and most present; who hast not limbs, some
larger, some smaller, but art wholly everywhere, and nowhere in space,
art not of such corporeal shape, yet.hast Thou made man after thine own
image ; and behold, from head to foot is he contained in space. Ignorant
then, how this thy image should subsist, I should have knocked and pro
posed the doubt, how it was to be believed, not insultingly opposed it; as
if believed. Doubt, then, what to hold for certain, the more sharply
gnawed my heart, the more ashamed I was, that so long deluded and
deceived by the promise of certainties, I had with childish error aud vehe
mence, prated of so many uncertainties. For, that they were falsehoods,
became clear to me later. However, I was certain that they were uncer
tain; and that I had formerly accounted them certain, when, with a bUnd
contentiousness I accused thy Catholic Church, whom I now discovered,
not indeed as yet to teach truly, but at least not to teach that for which I
had grievously censured her. So I was confounded, and converted: and
I joyed, O my God, that the One Only Church, the body of thine Only Son,
(wherein the name of Christ had been put upon me as an inlij»t,t) had
no taste for infantine conceits; nor in her sound doctrine maintained any
thing which should confine Thee, the Creator of all, in space, however
great or large, yet bounded everywhere by the limits of a human form."
Then again, speaking to his dear friend Alypius, who, more innocent
than himself, was the happy sharer of his grace of conversion, and went
with him to the laver of regeneration ; he exclaims :
* This is especially true of Moehler's "Symbolism," a work which cannot be
too strongly recommended to Protestants who wish to see their own svstem in
conliast with Catholic theology. ^
t I. e. By anointing with the oil of catechumens— not by baptism, which he
received after his conversion, from St. Ambrose. ^ i >

11
Great hope has dawned ; the Catholic faith teaches not what we
ught and vainly accused it of ; her instructed members hold it profane
lelieve God to be bounded by the figure of a human body : and do we
ibt to 'knock' that the rest 'may be opened T  Perish every thing,
niss we these empty vanities, and betake ourselves to the one search
truth! Life is vain, death is uncertain; if it steals upon us on a sud-
I, in wnat state shall we depart hence 1 and wlj,ere sliall we learn what
e we have neglected? and shall we not rather suffer the punishment of
i negligence'? What if death itself cut off all care and feeling? Then
st this be ascertained. But God forbid this I It is no vain and empty
ig that the excellent dignity of the authority of the Christian faith hath
irspread the whole world."*
n attempting now to give a few reasons why he considers the Roman
mmunion the true Catholic Church, the writer neither aims at a iho-
gh discussion of the subject, nor does he expect to present any new or
jinal views upon it. If he can but suggest thoughts to others which
1 lead them to study the subject at higher sources, he wUl be satisfied.
t has probably occurred lo others as weU as to himself, that for some
e past, different persons in the Anglican school have been using such
?ns as "Catholic Unity," "Authority of the Catholic Church," etc., in
) entirely different senses ; although they at first took each other to
an the same thing ; have only graduaUy learned to estimate their real
erence in principle ; and although the breadth of their ultimate diver-
ice is now first clearly exhibited. That there is, on the whole, this wide
1 definite separation between the two classes of the Anglican school, is
in ; although, as the intermediate ground is occupied, whatever is said
peeling either, can be only an approximation to the truth, and must
nit more or less of exceptions. ^
t has fallen out, as one eminent writer who opposed the Oxford move
nt in the beginning, had the sagacity to foretell, that although its au-
Ts were not "Romanists in disguise," and had no intention of introdu-
g Roman doctrine into the English Church ; yet, the claims of Rome
fe, by necessary consequence, come in close upon the questions which
y have mooted, with an imperative demand for a hearing. It was not
be expected that these claims would be quietly yielded to without a
iiggle; and, so far as the High Church theology is now an active, influ-
.ial power, in England, but especiaUy in ihe United States, it stands in
attitude of determined hostility lo the See of Rome, and the Catholic
uroh.
The advocates of this theology may be said to consider those Churches
ich, for convenience sake, we may include under the common name of
AngUcan Communion, as CathoUc, in contradistinction from the Com-
nion of the Holy See. Although they are more or less distinct and consis-
t in their language, it may be said that their school lends to consider the
man Communion as virtually cut off from the CathoUc Church — that
from an imaginary society which they see fit to call by that name.
nif! of their best writer^s allow that the Churches in communion with the
ly See, in all countries of the West, Britain and the United States ex
ited, are Catholic in a certain modified sense ; but in these two coun-
is, they are very plainly declared to be schismatical. Virtually, and
some formally, the Anglican Church is set forth as the CathoUc Church
the West ; and, as the various Oriental Churches are thought to have
parted from the pristine faith and fallen from their ancient purity, though
so far as to cease lo be true Churches ; its advocates are also obliged
lonsider it as the only pure CathoUc Church on the earth. It is cer-
' Conf. Oxf. Tr. pp. 89, 100.

12
tainly safe to say that it is characteristic of this school, though not of all
its members, to consider their own Church as, in a certain high sense, the
only genuine representative of the Primitive Catholic Church ; a witness
to Apostolic Truth in a sense in which no other Church is sn. Hence, the
titles whioh belong to the Church Catholic, such as ''Spiritual Mother,"
are applied to what we will continue to call the AngUcan Church ; a high,
and in itself; noble temper of loyalty toward this Church is inculcated;
and an obedience lo its authority is exacted, so entire, that it is even said
to be a sin to admit a doubt of the truth of what is called its teaching.
This explains also the severe language applied to those members of this
communion who have joined the CathoUc Church. It cannot be supposed
that they are called "apostates," simply on the alledged ground, that the
Anglican Bishops have canonical jurisdiction in England and America.
Upon this ground, a member of the EstabUshed Church of England under
the jurisdiction of Archbishop TiUotson, who should have joined the Non-
juring Communion, or a Non-juror who should have joined the EstabUshed
Church, one of the two, must have been equally subject to censure. So
also, a Catholic of Paris or Malta, or of the American Diocess of New-
Orleans, who should join the Communion of the Anglican Bishops, must
in consistency be condemned on the same ground, if it is a sufficient one.
And it would seem thai it would entirely change the nature of the act, if
it were done in another country — at Rome for instance, or at Paris. There
must be another ground on which converts to the Catholic Church are
called "apostates." Their profession of the Tridentine Creed, as the symbol
of CathoUc Faith; an actvyhich has its own inherent character, and which
is the same in the sight of God, wherever and by whom performed ; must
be the real ground of censure. Those who call this act an act of apostacy,
are obUged to condemn the holy Roman Church, as apostate ; while they
hold up their own Church, and their own faith, in contrast with the Roman
Church, and the Roman faith. The manner in which their own cause is
crushed under the recoil of their engine shall be shown bye and bye. But
first, the writer begs permission to quote the words of an esteemed friend
on this subject, in iUustration of what he has said.
He says, in language which has been pronounced worthy of Bossuet, if
only the Catholic Church were its subject: "Born anew and living in the
Church of Christ as we are, we must cherish the undoubling the unva
rying assurance, and we must constantly and fearlessly express that assu
rance, that our faith, the faith of the Church, is the true faith ; our God,
the God of the Church, the true God; and our Church the true Church
OF THE LIVING GoD, AND THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF HiS TRUTH. On
these points, or rather on this point, for they all make but one truth, we
are lo have no doubt: we are to admitnopossibility of a doubt of an error
as to the fact. We are in the Church; her teachings are truth; her
sacraments are life; out of her, beyond her walls, now and always, we
may look for no blessing. We know what we worship.
For salvation is of ihe Jews. Salvation is of and from the Church.
She is divine in her origin and in her guidance, and she is ever full of the
Divine Presence  Such language sounds positive. But how else
should the Church speak 1 And are not we but her mouth-pieces ? Surely
she does not doubt the reality of her own being, her own truth and autho
rity  We say this, not as a matter of private opinion, but we declare
it of the Church, that she so speaks of herself, and so teaches us to believe
and hold regarding her. She has no doubts of her own character • she
therefore permits her children neither to hold nor to express any 'such
doubts  Doubts, if they come, come from Satan. They are tempta
tions—blessed to us if we resist them; sins, if we cherish, nay, if we tole
rate them  And how, say you, are we to feel and speak of those who

13
leave us, or rather, not us, but the Church of Christ ? We should pity
them, as we pity any who err. We should pray for them, that He against
whom they sin may yet show them their error and bring them back to
His fold."*
Now, in the first place, that society which is here called the Church, has
not borne a continuous and open testimony to what its more orthodox
members consider as CathoUc truth ; she has not kept up an open and
continuous claim to the Catholic name and character, in the face of hereti
cal sects and the world. Whatever profession of CathoUc doctrine has
been made within her, has been the profession of a school, — an esoteric
doctrine, — appearing and disappearing; through some considerable inter
vals, almost or entirely ceasing ; and only preserving its existence by
means of a compromise with heresy. To confine our attention, now, to
the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United Stales. What distinct
and public claim has she made to the Catholic name and character?
What name and title has she chosen and adopted, in solemn synod, as tbe
title by which she wishes to be known ? Not "Catholic," but "Protestant
Episcopal." Let us attend, for a moment, to the significance of this act.
Within the last three centuries, a certain religious principle has shewn
itself on the surface of Christendom, mighty and wide-spreading in its in
fluence ; which has been considered by its friends as the harbinger of a
new era, and by both friends and enemies, as hostile to the ancient Church
and her religion. As soon as proclaimed, it carried a multitude of adhe
rents into schism ; and in process of time, it has embodied itself in an
untold number of sects and heresies. Many will agree with the writer,
that it is in itself the most specious of modern heresies — nay, the very in
trinsic principle of all heresy ; and that the various forms and professions
in which it is embodied, must be classed with the Gnosticism and Arianism
of the early ages. This principle, under its various forms of manifesta
tion, is known throughout Christendom as Protestantism. In proportion
to the insight which a disciple of the ancient Fathers acquires into the
nature of this principle and its doctrinal forms, will be his perception of
their affinity with these early heresies; and thus the name " Protestant,"
which from the prejudice of education, does not easily make its due im
pression upon him, will become more and more, in his apprehension, like
"Gnostic" and "Arian," the proper name of an evil principle. And so far,
wiU the title "Protestant" appear to him to be a presumptive proof that the
Communion which bears it is not a CathoUc Church.
Again, he will consider that the circumstances under which this name
was assumed, were such as to take away the plausible and oft-repeated
apology which is made in behalf of many disorderly actions of the Eng
lish Reformers. They are excused for their fraternal sympathy with the
continental schismatics in their rebellion against both the Episcopal and
the Papal authority, on the ground that their acts were not deUberale ;
and that Protestantism had not yet exhibited its real character. But in
this case the action was deliberate. Protestantism had enjoyed two cen
turies of development. The Anglican Church had had time to withdraw
herself within the entrenchments of her Episcopacy, and disavow the fel
lowship of other Reformed Churches. Anglican theology had reached
the age of its maturity, and had fully exhibited its fair show of Catholic
principles. Under these circumstances, and with a clear perception of the
significance of what they were doing, the Convention of Episcopalian clergy
and laity gave to the Church they were founding, the name "Protestant
Episcopal." • Extracts from a Sermon by Rev. J. B. Kerfoot, in "Banner of the Cros.s " for
January 24lh, 1846.

14
It does not avail anything in disproof of the assertion that this is a sec
tarian and party-title, to say that it is not derived from the name of an
individual ; for the same is true of the titles "Gnostic," "Docetfe," "Pres
byterian," "Unitarian. ' Nor does it avail any more to say that it may be
explained in an orthodox sense ; for if this were true, it applies equally lo the
titles just cited. It may be questioned whether the title "Protestant" can
admit of an orthodox sense, and does not rather express in its literal and
obvious import, that false principle of private judgment and resistance to
authority, which lies at the root of aU heresy. But what if it may be ex
plained in an orthodox sense ? The only question to be considered is, what
is Its real sense? Has it a technical and definite sense, and if so, what is
it? Now, however innocent the name may be shown to be in itself, yet,
when we consider that it is the common, historical designation of a cer
tain family of religions, it is evident that we must assign every ecclesiasti
cal body which acknowledges the name, to that family or class whose
common designation it is. In the case before us, "Protestant," must be
considered the generic name, indicating that the body to which it belongs
is a member of the class or family of Protestants ; and "Episcopal," the
specific name, expressing the quality by which it differs from the other
species of that class
This church then, called by some persons "Catholic," does not formally
claim this title, but has adopted another name, the common designation
of those who deny the authority of the Catholic Church.
In the preface to the "Book of Common Prayer," this Church says :
"It is a most invaluable part of that liberty werewith Christ hath made us
free, that in his worship, different forms and usages, may without offence be
allowed, provided the substance of the faith be kept entire; and that,' in
every Church, what cannot clearly be determined lo belong lo doctrine,
must be referred to discipline," etc. And afterwards: "But when in the
course of Divine Providence these American States became independent
with respect to civil government, their ecclesiastical independence was
necessarilij included : and the different religious denominations of christi
ans were left at full and equal liberty to model and organize their respec
tive Churches, and forms of worship and discipline, in such manner as
they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity."
It is difficult lo conceive that a document such as the one from which
these specimens are taken, whose moderate and unassuming tone contrasts
so strangely with the stern and exalted language now used by Episcopa
lian writers, should have proceeded from a Catholic council. Setting aside
the definition of Christian liberty, the full advantage of which seems lo be
accorded to all religious denominations alike, as well those who reject as
those who retain the liturgy and discipline of the Church; those English
missionaries who are gravely called by some persons Catholic priests, are
here declared to have been set free from their canonical Bishops, and from
all superior ecclesiastical control whatever, by a political revolution ; and
in this condition of independance, are said to have been fully competent to
model and organize a Church, a form of worship, and a system of disci
pline, according lo their own judgment of what was right and expedient.
Surely, a document which contains such a declaration, is scarcefy even
"patient of a Catholic sense," though most decidedly ambitious of a Prot
estant meaning.
Again, among the "alterations and amendments deemed expedient,"
the word "Catholic," was carefully expunged from the Preface, Litany,
Prayer for all conditions of men. Offertory, and such other places as contain
it, in the English Prayer Book; the Apostles', and Nicene Creeds except
ed. In the French Version of the Prayer book, it has disappeared from
the creeds. By dropping the Athanasian Creed, a distinct testimony to

15
le "Catholic Religion," and the "Catholic Faith," has been discarded.
. is true, that in the Visitation Office, a collect for grace to die in the
)mmunion of the Catholic Church has been inserted, as a discretionary
rayer; but the permission to use this prayer does not lessen the signifi-
ince of the fact, that the word "Catholic," was designedly dropped or
tered in the Common, Public Service, and that, for the reason which is
iven for aU other "amendments," thaf'local circumstances, did require it;"
e. did require the Episcopal Church to accommodate her language
lore closely to the common usage of Protestants.
The simple fact that the article of the "Holy Catholic Church" has
een retained in the creeds, is not a certain proof that it is understood
nd enforced in a Catholic sense. Clergymen, and even Bishops, explain
in an heretical sense, and deny the true sense of it, openly, without
ensure ; and it is plain that no authoritative definition of their Church
an be produced, which would afford a fair ground upon which they could
e censured — if they were brought totrial. Until, then, the article of the
[oly CathoUc Church is enforced in its true sense, we must be aUowed
) consider the doctrine of Church authority as held in the Protestant
Ipiscopal Church — a mere private opinion, held in but not by that com-
lunion. This communion has never been commonly called by its members the
iathoUc Church, and many of them consider the attempt to give it this
tie, even ridiculous; it is not known as such by the sects and the world
round it; its clergy are not known as Catholic Priests, and cannot by any
flforts they may make obtain that title ; its places of worship are not
ailed CathoUc Churches ; and those who wish to appropriate for it the
ossession of these terms, are obliged by the common and universal laws
f speech to adopt different terms, in their ordinary conversation with
ther persons, who are not of their particular religious coterie.
The CathoUcity of this Church, then, does not appear upon its surface ;
nd it cannot, therefore, appeal to the Jslain, practical rule given' by St.
iyril in the fourth century, and by the early Fathers generally.
"If thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's
ouse is,  nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic
Jhurch. For this is the pecuUar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of us
II, which is the Spouse ofourLoRo Jesus Christ." Its advocates cannot
ppeal with St. Augustine, to the^'very title of Catholic, which, not without
ause, hath this Church alone, amid so many heresies, obtained in such sort,
lat, whereas all heretics wish to be called Catholics, nevertheless to any
tranger who asked how to find a 'Catholic Church,' no one would dare
) point to his own basdica or house."
It may be said that we should look for more hidden and secret marks
f Catholicity in default of these which lie more plainly on Ihe surface.
ft default of such plain notes of the Church, we might do so ; but such
efault cannot be proved. The practical rule of ancient times micht
ease to be useful, if it had ceased to he any longer applicable ; and then
?e must look out for another rule. But, in fact, this rule admits of as
asy and as certain an application in the nineteenth, as it did in the fourth
entury. For there is a Church in these United States, which, as com-
ared with that communion, some of whose members "wish lo be called
Catholics," has a more obvious exterior resemblance to the Church of
lastages; a more definite doctrine; a stricter discipline; greater appa-
ent unity of teaching; which has from the beginning "alone, amid so
lany heresies obtained the very title of Catholic ;" which is cenerallv
nown by that title; and which requires, in express terms communion
dth itself, as necessary to salvation. This Church is governed by a Pro-
incial Council of Bishops, under a Metropolitan, like the ancient Provin-

16
ces of the Church Catholic ; it is in intirtiate communion with that body
of Christians in other nations, which is commonly known as the Catholic
Church ; and it appeals against all the sects and heresies which surround
it, lo a council which it calls (Ecumenical, as did the ancient Church.
Moreover, the whole body of its members understand that it is the only
true Church, and submit lo its authority, believing that it has a divine
commission to teach and guide them ; and aU who are converted to it, en
ter it upon that ground. In some parts of the country, where it is con
fronted with the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Bishops of that Church
make open profession of hostility to Cathohc doctrine ; and those who
might join it from the communion of the Roman Church, would be con
verted to heresy, and would confess that they had ceased to be Catholics.
Since then we are required to choose between two Episcopal Commu
nions, it is not to be thought that the practical rule of choice which was safe
in the first ages, is now so unsafe, that it will infallibly lead us into fatal er
ror ; nor can it be believed that it is necessary to go directlyconlrary to this
rule, in order to become the true disciples of those who made it.
The claim of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States has
been consjdered separately from that of the Church of England ; but though
some deduction must be made from the evidence, before it can be applied
to that church also, yet it is plain, that according to the Anglican theory,
the Church must stand upon its own merits in every country ; and also,
that so far as the formal and open claim of the title "Catholic," and the
general allowance of that claim is a prima facie argument for its validi
ty, that argument is in favor of the Roman Communion. The Anglican
Church' has not made this claim for itself, either as a whole, in which
character it has no real existence, or in its several portions ; and, as we
have seen, that portion of this so-called Church, which has acted with the
greatest freedom and deliberation, the one, too, with which we are chiefly
concerned, has, in effect, discarded the title "Catholic," altogether.
This places those who hold "Church principles," in a difficult predica
ment. For, when they have proved their "Church principles," with aU
the force of demonstration, and have produced the most perfect conviction
in the minds of their hearers, that communion with the true priesthood is
necessary to obtain the certainty of salvation ; and allowing that they can
prove the possession of sacerdotal power by the ministers of their Church;
not one step is gained toward the decision of the question, which is the
true Church ? Every attribute which has been proved to belong to the
Church of Christ, and every gift which she is proved to have, belongs to
another communion at least as evidently as to their own; so that all their
arguments, tell as much for the one as for the other. They may prove to
a perfect certainty, that one of two communions must be the true Church;
but having brought the reason and the conscience of the inquirer into this
dilemma, they cannot bring him out of it. The necessity of communion
with the true priesthood is urged as a reason for joining the Protestant
Episcopal Church. But there is a large body of Bishops and priests in
this country, with whom this act will not bring him into communion ; and
a still larger body, embracing the greater part of the entire Episcopate of
Christendom, from whom he will remain equaUy separate. Why is not
communion with these necessary? He must choose between two Episco
pal Communions, each accusing the other of false teaching; one of which
must be the true Church, the other a false pretender to her name and au
thority. If there were but one such, decision would be easy and simple
upon these "Church principles." But, as it is, it is necessary to ascend
above and beyond these elementary principles and doctrines, and lo con
sider the subject of Catholic Unity. A plain practical rule is necessary by
which to know among all societies, the One, Only Church, of the Only Son

17
of God. The Anglican theory is bound to furnish such a rule ; and it must
be one which is simple, easy, and available as a guide for ignorant inquirers;
and not only so, but suflici'ent to convert plain, uneducated Roman Catho
lics to the Anglican Church.
Setting aside as irrelevant all that is said against Roman Catholic doc
trine in the ordinary style of Protestant objections, and all arguments
which require learning and deep thought to be understood, there is but
one argument for the AngUcan Church, which pretends to any of the
quaUties which we have said the required rule must have. As stated by
Mr. Palmer it is substantially as follows :
Only the Anglican Church appeals to Scripture and Antiquity, whereas
the Church of Rome calls in the decision of later ages ; therefore, it is to
be presumed that Scripture and Antiquity are with the former, which con
fidently relies on their authority, and against the latter which decUnes to
abide their judgment.
Again, it is stated rather differently by Mr. Sewall, somewhat in this
manner :
The Anglican Church professes to have transmitted that Pure Creed,
unaltered, which the Roman Church confesses to have altered in the trans
mission ; therefore, as she alone claims to be a faithful witness, her testi
mony is prima facie alone worthy of credit.
Now, in the first place, it is a sufficient objection to this, as a practical
rule, that it is not the rule of antiquity, and that, while the ancient rule
admits of an easy and obvious application, there is no reason for substitu
ting another, and- especially one which will lead us in a directly opposite
direction. But again, this argument supposes that the claiming of a certain char
acter and office which purports to have existed from time immemorial and
is opposed by no similar and rival claim, is a presumptive proof of the
real possession of this character and office. Those who use it must abstain
then, hereafter, from their oft-repeated censure of an argument of a simi
lar kind, which they are wont to call a gratuitous assumption, when urged
by Roman Catholics. That argument is, that the claim of infallible au,-
thority, met by no rival claim, proves itself. The two arguments are so
far alike, that every objection to the latter tells equally against the former.
But upon close examination, it will appear that the presumption, upott
which both appear to be based, is, in itself, and as it stands, alone, in the
Anglican argument, in fact gratuitous : and receives all its force from
certain other postulates which are combined with it in the argument of the
Roman Catholic.
Taking the naked postulate that the claim of a character or office made,
as just now stated, is a prima facie proof that the claim is valid — it is not
true. Such a claim may create a slight presumption in its own favor, but
not more than this, irrespectively of the nature of the claitn itself, and the
antecedent probability that it wfll be made under precisely the circum
stances in which it is actually made. Now, there is no antecedent proba
bility that one small portion of the Catholic Church will preserve an his
torical testimony to the true faith amid a general declension ; nor has the
English Church the warrant of any special promise of indefectibiUty ;
nor has she sustained the character and office ascribed to her, as an inde
pendent Witness to Apostolic Truth, without faiUng, since the days of the
Apostles. Besides, since her claim as an historical witness is opposed by
the claim of infallible authority, the latter, as being the highest claim, su
persedes it altogether.
In the argument of the Roman Catholic, the need of an infallible au
thority ; the probability that it exists somewhere ; the admitted certainty
that it is in the CathoUc Church if any where ; the uninterrupted exercise

IS
of its prerogatives from the first by the Roman See ; and the correspon
dence between the claim of authority which this ^See makes in the name
of the Catholic Church, with the promise of our Lord to St. Peter; are all
thrown in to strengthen the presumption, that the Catholic Church, centred
in the Holy See, has that very authority which she claims. The Catholic
argument is not then based upon a single postulate. But the Anglican
argument is based upon this very postulate which is denied to Catholics,
and which is by itself perfectly insufficient to sustain the weight.
But further, this argument only wears the show of being simple and
easy, by begging the whole question with all its difficulties. The Roman
Church does not allow that she has altered the Primitive Creed, and Cath
olic divines do not decline to sustain her doctrines by Scripture and Anti
quity. It cannot then be assumed that they do ; nor can it be proved, with
out going into a complete theological and historical discussion of the whole
subject of Christian doctrine ; a necessity fatal lo the rule in question.
Again, this argument may be turned against AngUcan as easily as
against Roman theology. For the Presbyterian may say : "I appeal to the
New Testament, the true ApostoUcal Tradition ; but you call in the Tradi
tion of later ages ; a presumptive proof that I agree and you differ with
Apostolical Christianity." And the Nestorian may say: "I receive the Pri
mitive Faith by the Tradition of the first three centuries ; — but you rely on
the decision of a later Council; therefore it is to be presumed that my
Church has the Original Deposit unaltered, which yours confesses to have
altered in the transmission." And the Monophysite may say : "My Church
professes the Pure Creed of Nice andEphesus; but yours calls in the deci
sion of a later Council; therefiDre I am a Catholic, you a Chalcedonian ;
ITie doctrine of St. Mark, is the Column of the Church of Alexandria.''''
Finally, it is not true that the AngUcan Church does profess to have
transmitted the Primitive Creed unaltered. For she imposes the clause
"filioque," added by the Pope to the Creed of Constantinople, which is re
garded by her advocates as the unalterable Symbol of the CathoUc Faith ;
and in England she protects this article of faith by an anathema.
The writer hopes that the meaning and force of what he said above is
now apparent, that the terms "Catholic Unity" and "Authority of the Cath
olic Church," are used by certain writers in a sense different from that
which they seem to have, and had in the mouths of the Fathers. It seems
to him that by the "CathoUc Church," they mean the abstract Church,
which is universal only in a logical sense ; i. e. that assemblage of offices
and functions which make up the institution called "the Church," (as we
speak of "Society," "the State;") which becomes concrete only in parti
cular Churches ; by "Unity," the harmony and perfection of these various
parts under one organized form ; by the "Catholic Faith," as it were the
inner soul of doctrine which informs this outward body, animates it
throughout, and corresponds to all its parts ; and by the "authority," or more
strictly speaking, the "testimony of the Church," the evidence which its
present constitution and past operation afford, to show the original idea
according lo which it was created.
This ideal and theoretical character of their conception of Catholicity,
accounts for the fc(ct that particular Churches, in which only, the ideal, ab
stract Church becomes embodied, are taken for the Church Catholic ; and
the name, office and authority of a "Spiritual Mother," ascribed to them.
But it is overiooked, that, according to the strict Anglican theory, the one.
Church is to be found, not in any ecclesiastical confederation, but in every
bishopric ; and in every one, as entirely and distinctly as if there were but
one. This idea, to which every mind must be driven by the stress of loo-ic
touches closely upon ihe verge of the true coflception of the Holy See
which, once gained, expands mto the conception of Catholic Unity. But'

19
aside from this harmonizing principle, it is hot possible to show how any
ecclesiastical confederation can possess the character of unity, or to vindi
cate any kind of religious obedience and reverence for its doctrinal decrees.
The same able writer just quoted has shown how perfectly the Anglican
theory breaks up and demolishes the idea of CathoUc Unity, by suggesting
the doubt whether a person can possibly leave one branch, to give his
words a real meaning we should say, one diocess of the Church, for an
other ; as if the sacraments were a bond of indissoluble union between the
soul of the recipient and one particular bishop, and not rather with the
whole Catholic Church ; the very opinion which St. Paul wished to con
demn, when he disclaimed baptizing in his own name: as if distinct, inde
pendent and hostile communions could be each the One, Only Church of the
Only Son of God.
According to this theoi-y, although the communion of all Churches is
regarded as desirable, and on their part a duty, yet such union is not pro
perly regarded as the Spiritual Unity of the Church, which, except as seen
in each separate bishopric, is invisible.
Now, whoever chooses to adopt the theory of an Invisible Church,
and maintain it with logical consistency, is welcome to do so ; and Catholics
ire ready to encounter him in the fair field of argument. But those who
make profession of the doctrine of a Visible Church cannot be allowed to
shelter themselves behind this theory.
And, therefore, since there is a Visible Communion known as the Catholifr
Church, having a Visible Unity which corresponds to the letter of the pro
mises of Holy Scripture ; and professing to be the literal fulfilment of the
prophecies concerning the one, permanent, visible Kingdom of God, and
there is no literal fulfilmeiit of them if it is not ; and the prerogatives of its
Chief Bishop and Principal See are founded on certain special promises
made by our Lord to St. Peter, which have had a visible, historical fulfil
ment in that See ; and have had no special fulfilment if that is not the
true one ; this Communion has a prima facie claim to be considered as the
Catholic Church, by one who would follow the rule laid down by the an-
;ient Fathers.
It would appear then, that there is ho tenable ground upoii which an un
questioning obedience to the authority of the Anglican Church can be en-
brced ; nay, rather, that, is the duty of those of its members who imagine
t to be a portion of the CathoUc Church, seriously to consider whether
hey have not mistaken its character. "For how should the Church speak ?
Surely she does not doubt the reality of her own being, her own truth and
authority." And although th? state of doubt and unsettledness is in itself injurious,
t is to be remembered that Episcopalians who are led to call in question
he safety of continuance in their own communion, do not question any of
he sacred doctrines they have heretofore held, or relapse into a sceptical
rame of mind ; but simply consider whether they ought to receive other
irticles of faith, which are acknowledged by some Anglican divines to be
lot heretical, and are even declared to be, at least in part, reconcilable
vilh the Anglican formularies.
Nor can it be made to appear sinlul that inquirers after truth should doubt
vhether the Protestant Episcopal Church really possesses the character
which she has shown no anxiety to claim ; and suspect that she really
lelongs to that religious family whose common designation she has as-
iumed ; especially since she allows her bishops to assert it openly without
lensure. For the Catholic Church "has no doubts of her own character.
she therefore permits her children neither to hold nor to express any such
loubts." From which we draw the certain conclusion that the Protestant
Episcopal communion is not the Church.

20
In this connection, the following sentences of deep wisdom from the pen
of Moehler, will be found worthy of careful study :
"The power of society in which man lives is so great, that it ordinarily
stamps its image on him who comes within its circle. Whether it serve
truth or falsehood, whether it direct its efforts towards higher objects or
follow ignoble pursuits, invariably will it be found to fashion the chg,rac-
ter of its members after its own model. Hence, where scepticism has
spread in a community, and has impressed its image on its bosom, it is a
work of infinite difficulty in the individual to rise superior to its influence.
"Faith, on the other hand, when man sees it firmly estabUshed like a
rock about him, and the community, which presents a great and Uvely
image of attachment to the Redeemer and of happiness in him, — the com
munity, we say, whose imperishable existence is faith in him, and accord
ingly himself, — necessarily seizes and fiUs up the whole mind of the indi
vidual. Accordingly, should the religious man not live in a community
which hath the indestructible consciousness of possessing the truth, and
which hath the strongest internal and external grounds for that belief,
such an individual would necessarily become a prey to the most distract
ing doubts, and his faith would either take no root, or soon again wither."
And again — ''The unity must be a visible unity, — obvious to the eyes,
perceptible by the identity of doctrine, by the real, mutual relations and
communion of all the followers of Christ with each other ; for otherwise
these consequences could not be deduced from it. Thus the true, vital com
munion of all attest the dignity of Christ, as every work vouches for its
master. On the other hand, in the schisms and dissensions among believ
ers, the dignity of Christ is lost sight of; strangers are brought not to the
faith, and even those already believing are delivered up to doubt and un-
beUef."* The simple fact that what is caUed "Catholic doctrine,'' as held by per
sons out of the communion of the Holy See, is not a fixed doctrine, but a
vague and floating mass of opinion, considered to be very dangerous un
less held in check by some strong safeguard, and confined within certain
limits, differently fixed by different persons, which are supposed to include
a certain ground lying exactly in the middle of theology, between the
most fatal errors on either side ; and that one great danger to which
thoughtful minds are at present exposed is that of mistaking counterfeit
for genuine Catholicity ; this simple fact is one of the best proofs we can
have, that an infalUble authority is needed to decide for us what is truly
Catholic doctrine, and is a presumptive argument that the Roman Church,
which alone professes to be that authority, is that authority.
Here, the writer wishes to notice a criticism which has been made upon
the reasons which certain persons have given for submitting to the autho
rity of the Holy See. It is said that they have become Roman Catholics
on the theory of development, and of a celebrated Essay by one of their
number, that it is a defence of the authority of the Roman See "based on
speculation ;" as if they had invented a speculative theory of the develop
ment of Christian Doctrine, and, simply on the strength of that theory, had
ventured to embrace the Roman Catholic faith.
Now, although the author of that Essay (which the writer believes will
be hereafter judged to stand in the same relation to the Catholic, as But
ler Analogy to Revealed Religion,) has employed philosophical instruments
of investigation, yet there is no ground for saying that the real process by
which he became a Catholic was a speculative process. Nor is it true that
he and others who have entered the CathoUc Church really receive her
•Symbolism, pp. 341. 345.

21
doctrines on the theory of development, which they have merely used to
remove a difficulty.
Believing in the doctrine of One Visible Church, the Roman Communion
has seemed to present a prima facie claim to be considered that Church.
But there has appeared to be a moral difficulty in the way of acknowledg
ing her claim. It has been felt that her teaching contradicted articles of
faith, rooted in the conscience and the spiritual life. By the effect of spir
itual discipline, and meditation on the doctrines already believed, and those
which seemed at first sight to contradict them, together with an increas
ing knovpledge of their actual fruits in holy persons, now beatified with
Christ, who had been trained under their practical influence, this difficulty
has been removed; and these doctrines have appeared in a new Ught. Their
intrinsic nature is therefore no longer a seeming obstacle ui the way of
their being received as articles of faith, on sufficient authority. This diffi
culty removed, the claim of the Roman See has gained infinitely. But
here, another objection to her authority is brought up. It is said that we
do not find the entire system of the Roman Church, pohtical and doctrinal,
formally and clearly laid down by Christian writers, from the very first. In
reply to this, the theory of development is brought in, to show that this
is not a sufficient objection against an authority divinely attested. But
the real ground, at last, upon which the authority of the Holy See is ac
knowledged, is, that she brings credentials of a Divine Mission ; among
which not the least certain and indisputable are the sentences of Holy
Scripture itself.
It has been again objected that there are other explanations of Christi
anity, heretical and infidel, on the principle of development ; ready to avail
themselves of the admission of that principle. There are : For instance,
Calvinism is a development of the doctrines of Divine Sovereignly, Original
Sin, and the Atonement, from the text of Scripture ; partly by exposition,
partly by metaphysical reasoning; ending in an analysis and scientific ar
rangement of the results of this combined process. Among all the systems
of genuine Protestantism, this alone offers to compete with the Roman
Catholic theology in scientific accuracy and completeness ; and therefore
a comparison between the two is sometimes made, which, now that the
former is nearly obsolete, is considered an invidious one to the latter.
But let us consider on what a different footing the two stand. The
Calvinistic system appeals primarily to the text of Scripture, interj)reted
by the individual judgment; and secondarily to reason and spiritual ex
perience. We can therefore interrogate Scripture, reason and conscience
concerning its doctrines ; and, for ourselves, we find a sufficiently distinct
answer that they are false. This is a private opinion, the value of which
depends on the number and competence for judgment of those who hold
it. In the absence of authority, we might at least say that this develop
ment, not being sustained by the judgment of the majority of Christians, is
not binding on the conscience, as the true explanation of Scripture.
Whatever the private judgment of individuals upon the Roman Catho
lic doctrines might be, and however strong their personal conviction that
they are in accordance with Scripture, reason and conscience, they would
not trust their own judgment so far as to regard them as de fide, merely
upon this ground. It is because these developments are sanctioned by
infallible authority, that they receive them ; and thus the principle upon
which they receive the true and genuine, protects them against all false
and counterfeit developments. And surely the fact that there are false
and counterfeit developments of Christianity is rather an argument for be
lieving that there is one which is true and genuine, than the contrary,
nor does it appear how any advantage is yielded to heretics by claiming

22
for the Chui-ch illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and for her decisions cer
tified by the warrant of a divine promise, what they claim for themselves,
without sign or pretext of authority.
But Calvinism is dying out ; indeed, as a real philosophy having power
over the intellect of the world, it has already passed away ; whereas there
is another system in which we can trace a resemblance to its darker fea
tures, not simply heretical, but infidel ; of whose nature we have had ds
yet but some premonitory indications ; which is just beginning to agitate
the mass of mind, and at the same time to throw the higher regions of in
telligence into commotion ; whose future progress is unknown ; of whose
destined conflict with the Truth, many sagacious, far-seeing minds have
dimly prognosticated : and its principle is "development."
Now, some occult connection between the theory of development in
Catholic philosophy, and the theory of this infidel system, has been hinted
at ; and some may feel an anxious misgiving lest those who hold this .
theory have not ascertained, and duly and deliberately estimated the rela
tion between the two. But let it be considered that there is, in general, an
occult connection between Truth and error ; and, more especially, between
those forms of Truth and error which co-exist and have the greatest power,
in any particular age ; and that the exhibition of that particular principle
on the side of Truth, which error at that time simulates, gives it the
most decided advantage in the conflict between the two. Nor is it any
new thing that the sagacity of the author of falsehood should make the
disclosure of his counterfeit of the aspect which Truth is destined to assume,
precede the unveiling of the divine lineaments of Truth herself.
Perhaps it may be well, before leaving this subject, to obviate some mis
conceptions of the sense in which the word development is used by Mr.
Newman ; and it shall be done, by a citation of his own words. The In
troduction to his Essay, (p. 19.) furnishes us with a clear and exact defini
tion of the "theory of development," which is sufficient to refute a great
number of objections which have been founded on mis-statement. This
definition is as foUows:
"The highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated once for
all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the re
cipients, but as received and transmitted by minds not inspired and
through media which were human, have required only the longer time
and deeper thought for their /mM elucidation."
Development of doctrine, then, according to Mr. Newman, is only the
"full elucidation" of "truths communicated once for all" by the Apostles,
and "received and transmitted" by tradition in the CathoUc Church.
Bearing this definition in mind, we shaU find, in examining the entire ar
gument of Mr. Newman's work, that he has not abandoned the Catholic
ground, as some have said.
As to the test of St. Vincent, "quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab
omnibus," which he is supposed to have given up, it wiU be seen by refer
ring lo pp. 13, 18, and 15, of his Introduction, that he says, "It contains a
majestic truth," and ''must bo considered as true in the abstract ;" and
that it is "an unfair interpretation of Vincentius' rule which is necessary
lo make hira available against the Church of Rome."
Gluoting the language of Pope St. Innocent, asserting the prerogatives
of his See lo the Council of Milevis, (Essay p. 85,) he says ; "Here the
Pope appeals, as it were, to the rule of Vincentius ; while St. Augustine
bears witness, etc."
The real objection which he makes against this rule, is, that although it
is sufficient to condemn Protestantism, and to furnish us with the out
lines of CathoUc doctrines, and, so far as it goes, supports the claims of
the Church of Rome, it is at last inadequate, it does not go far enough
and does not enable us to "finish the picture of the divine religion."

23
Lt the same time, he clearly lays down the position that the Catholic
trines have been held in the Church,— "semper, ubique, et ab omnibus,"
that we have sufficient historical proof of the fact.
The Christianity of the second, fourth, seventli, and intermediate con
es, is in its substance, the very religion which Christ and his Apostles
ght in the first." (Introd. p. ii.)
Lgain ; "Certain doctrines come to us, professing to be Apostolic, and
sessed of such antiquity, that though we are able to assign the date of
ir formal estabUshment to the fourth, or fifth, or eighth, or thirteenth ccn-
r, as it may happen, yet, their substance may, for what appears, be co-
l with the Apostles, and be expressed or implied in texts oJ Scripture'^
Ipeaking of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, he says ; "I do not see
yhat sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive cl^ivines
ts favor, which will not also avail for certain other doctrines of the Ro-
1 Church, which will presently come into mention." {p. 14.)
Lgain, he caUs it a "grudging and jealous temper," which "will occupy
If with carping at the Ante-Nicene testimonies for Nicene or Medieval
trines or usages;" instancing the testimony of St. Gregory, St. Clem-
Origen, and St. Cyprian for particular doctrines. Invocation of Saints,
¦gatory, praying to Angels and Merits of Martyrs, and the "general
imony to the spiritual authority of Rome in primitive times.'''' (p. 75.)
Of whether of the two do they, (the saints of the first three centuries,)
ak the more frequently, of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or of the
>e's Supremacy? In truth, scanty as the Ante-Nicene notices may be
Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and laova definite tha,n
adducible testimonies in favor of the Real Presence." (p. 17.)
ind afterwards, in speaking of the same subject of the Papal Suprema-
he says ; "The simple question is, whether the clear light of the fourth
fifth centuries may be fairly taken to illuminate the dim notices of the
ceding." A question not difficult of answer by one who receives
first six (Ecumenical Councils as final and conclusive concerning the
iolic faith.
.gain, speaking of the doctrine of Purgatory ; "The iiolion o^ suffering,
rial, or punishment after this life, in the case of the faithful departed,
plher vague forms of the doctrine of purgatory, has almost a consensus
ts favor, of the four first ages of the (Jhurch." (p. 16.)
The special prerogatives of St. Mary — the Virgo Virginum, were not
3w thing in the Church, or strange to her earlier teachers." {p. 16.)
'he last passage which shall be cited illustrates clearly the definition of
elopment given above.
[t appears from what remains of primitive antiquity, that the atmos-
re of^the Church was, as it were, charged with them, (Catholic doc-
es)from the first, and delivered itself of them from time lo time, in this
' or that, in various places or persons, as occasion elicited them, testi-
g the presence of a vast body of thought within it, which would one
take shape and position." (p. 173.) In a word, development of doc-
e in the C!hurch is plastic, not creative.
'he writer does not think it necessary to notice the vague charge of ra-
alism, brought against some who have lately written on the Catholic
, and especially against Mr. Newman. He is aware, nevertheless,
; they have been obliged to go upon ground which has its own peculiar
gers for those who are not watchful against them. An unbeliever might
btless make use of their writings to fortify himself in his infidelity ; and
lany ways it is to be feared that the present controversies concerning
doctrines of faith will incidentally do harm. But, besides that the en-
responsibility of all this evil rests with Protestants, the risk of doing

24
harm always attends upon the speaking of Divine Truth, and the inquiry
into Sacred Mysteries. Truth injures those whom it does not benefit, and
blinds those whom it does not enlighten. The Shepherds on the Delecta
ble Mountains said to the pilgrims who asked if the way before them was
safe ; "safe fbr those to whom it is safe, but transgressors shall fall therein."
And just so far as doubt and darkness are cast over the way of truth by
present controversies concerning the Church, we see but the remote con
sequences of the first fatal sin of schism.
In leaving this part of the subject, the writer must be permitted to ad
dress an affectiohate remonstrance to those who have ventured lo assert
that members of the English Church to whose strictness and purity of life
such unimpeachable testimony has been given,* might have become or may
still become infidels or atheists, by the same process of reasoning which has
made them Roman Catholics, and without giving more reasonable occa
sion for surprise. He would suggest to them that they ought to reflect
carefully, before using such language, whether there is not more danger
that infidel conclusions wiU be drawn from it, and by a juster process, than
from the position that we ought to admit an infalUble authority in religion
on probable arguments, although the history ol its past operation presents
difficulties which it requires faith to surmount, and a deep philosophy to
explain. It is always a sign of danger when "Ae that departeth from evil
is accounted mad," and men are "despisers of those that are good;" and
although those pure and devoted men who have recently confessed the
Catholic faith before the people of England cannot be injured by the un
just censures, and by what, in many instances, has been the reckless defa
mation of their opponents, the injury which has been done to others, and
which will increase in proportion as this course is adhered to, is incalcula
ble. They cannot be condemned as apostates without condemning the
Roman Church of apostacy ; and the Roman Church cannot be condemned
on any principles which will not equally avail to subvert the foundations
of the Church of England. Anglican churchmen ought to admit, and if
they felt perfect confidence in their position would be willing to admit,
that in the present stale of Christendom, (i. e. according to their theory of
the loss of unity,) it is not surprising that the most conscientious persons
should take the Roman communion fbr the true and only CathoUc Church ;
and that they ought not be condemned of schism on rules which are only
applicable in a state of the Church entirely different from what they sup
pose its present state to be.
Else, they are obliged to defend the ever-recurring paradox, that those
who believe in Catholic Unity in the very sense of the ancient Fathers, and
hold their very notion ot schism, are of all persons, in the most danger of
falling Irom unity into schism.
Upon whioh follows the still more startling paradox, that the promises
of our Lord to St. Peter, if taken in their literal sense and interpreted by
the event, sanction an authority whose decisions it is mortal sin to obey.
Such are some of the difficulties which beset those who profess CathoUc
doctrines, wUile they accuse the Roman Church and the Catholic Church
in communion with her, of schism. Wishing to follow antiquity, they are
obliged to condemn its most important practical rule, as worthless andun-
safe. They are obliged to believe that not only has this rule ceased to be
a plain, unerring guide lo the truth ; but moreover, that heresy embodied
in a visible form and exhibiting the appearance of unity, permanence and
Catholicity, is present throughout the world, wherever any claim to the
name of (5hurch and the profession of Faith is made, to deny this claim
» See an article on "The Present Crisis in the English Church," by Mr. Glad
stone, re-printed at Baltimore.

25
and bear a constant, unchanging witness against it, "as the lightning
Cometh out of the east, and shinetli even unto the west."
Having spoken of infallible authority in connection with the Apostolic
See, it may be necessary to say a few words upon this much misappre
hended point.
Most persons seem to suppose that Catholics attribute to each and every
successor of St. Peter, an individual and complete gift of infallible know
ledge concerning divine truth ; as if, for instance, supposing we were to ask
him in private about any difficult or disputed question, he could at once,
and by divine inspiration give us the right answer. Certainly this is the
belief of no one. In the first place, the authority of the See is the author
ity not of the Pope who fills it at any one time, independently of other
Popes, but of the entire succession ; each one being but the organ of his
See, not the See itself And again, according to the very highest opinion,
the infallibility of the Holy See consists but in this, that it is always over
ruled by the providence of God, to propose, sanction and promulgate those
doctrinal decisions which are right.
The Catholic doctrine on this subject is thus briefly stated by Moehler.
"The dogmatic decrees of the Episcopacy (united with the general
head and centre) are infalUble ; for it represents the Universal Church,
and one doctrine of faith falsely explained by it, would render the whole a
prey to error. Hence, as the institution which Christ hath established for
the preservation and the explanation of his doctrines, is subject, in this its
function to no error ; so the organ through which the Church speaks ia
also exempt from error."*
The doctrine is, then, that the Church, the Body of Christ, expresses
the certain decisions of the "mind of Christ," the divine understanding
which has been given her, through her organ the Episcopacy, whose head
and centre is the See of St. Peter. As the Episcopate, then, is not a per
fect and entire organ separately from the Holy See, the authority of that
See is evidently a conditio sine qua non of the infalUbiUty of its decrees.
So far, all Catholics agree. And further, all agree that the Pope, as the
Doctor and Pastor of the whole flock of Christ, has the executive power to
promulgate and enforce decrees already made, and is the actual and final
Judge of questions arising upon the general statutes and decrees of the
Church, to whom obedience is due.
But here an objection is raised by Protestant controversialists. They
say that the seat of infalhbiUly has not been defined by the Catholic
Church, and that Catholic theologians are not agreed among themselves
on the question as to which is the infallible tribunal ; and they go on to
argue, that the theory of infaUibility does not really provide for certain and
unerring guidance in faith, because it leaves it at last uncertain which is
the true guide.
This objection is based on the assumption that there are two opposite
infallibilities contended for by CathoUc theologians, between which we are
required to choose, if we take either. This is not so. It is a certaui and
settled doctrine, as we have seen above, that the Church is infaUible, and
that the Episcopacy of the Church, united with the Pope, is her infallible
organ. The point which is undefined, and respecting which there is some
difference among theologians, concerns the infalUbiUty of the Pope consi
dered apart from the general body of the Episcopate of which he is the
head. It is not however respecting two or three separate and distinct
infallibilities, one of the CathoUc Church, another of (Ecumenical Coun
cils, and another of the Holy See, that questions are raised by theologians.
The infallibility of the Church is one, though its operation is divel-se, and
• Symbolism, p. 379.

26
though it secures the Church from error in the exercise ¦' of her separate
functions, in a difTerent manner, according to the nature of each. The
gift of infalUbiUty secures the Church in all ages from faiUng as a Church;
the same security is extended over (Ecumenical Councils as the organs
of the Church ; and those who hold the highest opinion of the authority
of the Holy See would only say that the same security was extended over
the doctrinal decisions of that See. Nor would any Catholic really and
practically dissent from this general statement of their doctrine. It is
certain that the Church is infaUible ; and because she is infaUible, it is
certain that the Universal Episcopate can never fail in the exercise of its
proper office, which is necessary to her existence ; and it is equally certain
that the See of St. Peter can never fail — as the Centre of unity, and the
Rock on which the Church is built.
The difference of opinion a.mong Catholics does not concern a practical
question, but one merely abstract. It is agreed that the Pope with his
fficurnenical Council cannot err in doctrines of faith and morals; and also
that the Pope — speaking ex cathedra out of council — with the assent of
the Bishops, cannot err in doctrines of faith and morals; but it is disputed
whether his doctrinal decisions proposed ex cathedra, have a warrant of
infallible certainty simply from the authority of his See, or whether the
general assent of the Bishops is that warrant.
But, as just now slated, this is an abstract and nol a practical question.
For, in point of fact, all the doctrinal decisions enforced by the Holy See
are either the decisions of the Pope with an (Ecumenical CouncU, or the
decisions of the Pope with the assent of the general Episcopacy out of
council. The Holy See and the Catholic. Episcopate do not propose
opposite doctrines, but the same doctrine. There can be no doubt as to
what a Catholic is required to believe, now ; there has never been any
doubt, from the beginning ; and this is a sufficient assurance that there
never will be any doubt. It is certain that the (/hurch is infallible, from
the Divine promise ; and it is therefore certain that her necessary organs
will always continue to perform their office in harmony and unity with
each other. And although it may appear to be a difficulty that we cannot
define the precise relation between the several parts and organs of the
Church, so as to point out exactly how far each is dependent upon and
limited by the others, yet there is no class of reasoners who are in a situa
tion lo urge this difficulty against Catholics. For those who hold any other
doctrine of Church authority find it much more difficult to mark out its
precise limits, and define accurately its conditions ; and those who hold to
the authority of Scripture interpreted by private judgment are met by the
same difficulty ; and philosophers who assert the supremacy of reason arc
equally unable to make an exact, metaphysical analysis of those mental
powers by which the processes of reason are carried on and completed.
To resume, now, the interrupted thread of the argument ; the foregoing
part of it may be thus briefly summed up.
The only two claimants of whom the question treats, are present in tho
United States. It is agreed that one of them is the Catholic Church ; and
it is agreed, also, that the one which is not the CathoUc Church is no
Church at all, but a schismatical sect. Only one of these communions open
ly claims the name 'Catholic,' or is commonly known as Catholic ; and this
communion is essentially and visibly one with similar Churches, known as
Catholic, in all parts of the earth. The other is called by a name assumed
in council which is the technical name of a family of reUgions confessedly
heretical ; and it exists as an independent communion, separate from
that visible body every where known as the Catholic Church ; and it has
been condemned by its solemn judgment. All persons who have sufficient
knowledge are required to submit to one of these two Churches, under
pain of mortal sin ; and all the members of the one which is not the true

27
hurch are rightfully subject to the authority of the Bishops of the other,
id are bound to enter at once into their communion. One claims an in-
llible assurance that she is the true Church ; the other confesse/herself
Uible. But, "The true Church of the Uving God, the pillar and ground
thfe Truth," "divine in her origin and in her guidance,'' and, "ever full of
e divine presence," "does not doubt the reality of her own being, her
m Truth and Authority. She has no doubts of her own character, she
erefore permits her children neither to hold nor to express any."
It is safest then, since we must choose between the two, to join that
immunion which alone professes to be certain that she is the Church,
id that her doctrines are the Truth, or calls herself, or is called bv the
orld, 'Catholic' ¦'
It was said in the outset of our argument that two very distinct and dif-
rent views of the unity and authority of the Church have been set forth
' two different classes of the AngUcan School. The first has been con-
Jered ; and it now remains to say a few words upon the second.
According to this theory, CathoUc unity is the union of aU particular
-ovincial or National Churches in one communion ; and the authority of
e Catholic Church is a power to make infallible doctrinal decrees con-
rning matters of faith, when assembled in (Ecumenical Council. This
acramentum unilatis" is supposed to be now broken ; so thatthe author-
' of the Church, in its highest sense, is suspended, and each divided part
liable to error. The Catholic Church is supposed to include within it-
If three large and distinct divisions, called the Roman or Latin Church,
e Greek Church, and the Anglican or Reformed Church. The points
controversy between the Roman and Greek Churches, and those be-
een both these Churches and the Anglican Church are regarded as
en questions, and various opinions are held concerning them, even up
an acknowledgment of the decrees of the Council of Trent ; which some
raid be wiUing to accept as binding, if sanctioned by what they consider
true (Ecumenical Council. A high reverence is professed fbr the Roman
lurch, and for her authority, on account of the special dignity of the See
St. Peter; the extent of her communion; her high spiritual gifts; the
ary of her Saints and miracles. Of course, the absurd accusations of
[•hism," and "idolatry," are given up; and the high tone respecting the
lative purity of the AngUcan Church is exchanged for one much more
Ddest and lowly.
Separation from the See of Rome and from CathoUc Christendom is
nented as the greatest misfortune ; and re-union is looked fbr as the
&t and ujost sacred hope that can be cherished.
This pfecuUar view of the relation between the Anglican and Cath-
c Churches was first taken, from a position which to many has proved
be their last resting place, before entering the gates of the City of God.
lose who first proposed it are now, most of them, within the Catholic
lurch. It would seem that their own deUberate judgment, sustained as
is by the judgment of all Cathohcs, the greater part of Anglicans, and
3 common sense of the world, should decide the question whether this
silion is real and tenable, in the negative. Surely, it would be very
ange, if the true issue between the Roman and Anglican Churches were
t what it is, and always has been, taken to be by both parties, and by
concerned spectators of the conflict ; but a different one, understood by
ly a few persons. It would appear that there is no escape from the di-
nma proposed in the former part of our argument, and no middle ground
tween the position of those who denounce the Roman Church, and one
thin her communion. It is difficult to conceive that the transition state
(1 become permanent, although some wish to make it so; and probably
)st of those who cannot determine to pass from this state into that of full
ilholic bcUef, will retreat upon more Protestant ground.

28
But let us proceed to consider some of the difficulties which beset the
theory in question.
In the first place, while it professes lo be built on the idea of a Visible
CathoUc Church, it is in fact based on the idea of an Invisible Church,
whose unity is invisible. For it supposes that estranged and hostile com
munions, having no outward bond of union, make up one Church ; and so
must at last bring us back to the other theory of independent Bishops and
diocesses, each one, as it has been said, a perfect reiteration of the one type,
the abstract, ideal Church. For the real, vital unity of the Church, the
Body of Christ, is that in which its very life consists, and if this unity is
destroyed, the body is destroyed also, and ceases to exist as a body. If
then, the Visible Society of all the faithful can exist in a divided state, and
the aggregate of a number of separate and hostile Churches can be re
garded as the Visible Catholic Church, this Visible Society cannot be the
one, organized and living Body of Christ. The outward form of unity
must repeat itself in every bishopric. We might go on to argue that, as
every separate Church is the complete embodiment of the one Catholic
type of the Church, it must be by itself a perfect organ of the indwelling
Spirit, and therefore fuUy competent to the office of teaching ; so that this of
fice cannot depend on the external union of the whole Episcopacy, or be
suspended by its division. This is indeed areductioad absurdum; and
the advocates of this theory will not acknowledge it. They cannot avoid it,
however, nor a hundred other conclusions equally absurd ; for their theory
leads by strict logical necessity to the notion of diocesan independence, and
the attempt to connect the principle of authority with such a principle of
unity as this, the two principles being perfectly irreconcilable, must re
sult in perpetual contradiction. They do not, indeed, really hold the theo
ry of the invisible Church, and in their positive dogmatic statements, and
their controversial arguments against Protestantism, the Catholic idea ap
pears ; but they do hold a number of consequences following from this
false theoretical principle, which they use in argument against Catholics,
and in self defence ; and thus they often in reality exchange the true prin
ciple for a false one, and draw conclusions from the latter, while they seem
to argue from the former.
Leaving these thoughts, which might be pursued very far, let us consid
er the question whether that sacrament of unity on which the judicial au
thority of the Church depends has been in fact broken, or not; whether
there is on earth a Church Catholic in the state of unity, or a Church
CathoUc comprising divided parlfe.
Dr. Clarke says, that every person ought to have a moral bias toward
the belief in the being of God, because it is in itself so much better and
more excellent that God should be, than that he should not be. For the
same reason, every person who perceives the excellence and necessity of
Catholic unity ought to be strongly biased toward the belief that it exists,
and ever has been and ever will be preserved. It is to be presumed that
one CathoUc Church, endowed with all the authority which the Church,
in the nature of things, can have, has existed from the begining, still exists,
and will exist lo the end of time, unless it is proved to the contrary. This
presumption is indefinitely strengthened in regard to the present and the
future existence of unity, by the admitted fact that it did ^ictually exist
from the beginning through several centuries.
Again, it is admitted that the prophecies concerning the Church, and
the general description of it in Scripture, are fulfilled only in one, visible.
Catholic Church ; that such a Church is the very authority appointed by
Christ to represent him, and, in his name, to condemn heresy and teach
the Truth through all ages, to the end of the world. But it is said thatthe
literal fulfilment of these predictions has been hindered by the sins of

29
God's people, and the exercise of the authority conferred by the charter
temporarily suspended.
Now, there is a certain society in England, which has been formed part
ly by secession from the EstabUshed Church, calling itself the "Holy Cath
olic and Apostohc Church," whose founders have put forth precisely the
same notion of the present state of the Christian Church. They say, that
according to the original constitution of the Church, the supreme govern
ment IS vested in a coUege of twelve Apostles, guided in all things by in
spiration, and furnished with that complete endowment of sup;ernatural
gifts, which was conferred by the descent of Pentecost. They cite the fol-
c°5^'»f -P-^^^^"® ''¦°'° ^'- P'^'J'' (-^-P^- '^- 11.) as a description of the four-
told Ministry of the Apostolic Church, and a proof of its perpetuity. "And
he gave some Apostles ; and some Prophets ; and some Evangelists; and
some Pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the
unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."
Comparing this with the parallel passage (1st. Ep. Cor. xii. 8.) they gain
in addition, "Miracles ; then gifts of healings, helps, governments diversities
of tongues." As has been said, they consider that this Primitive, Apostoli
cal system was intended to be perpetual; and they consider, moreover, that
St. Paul was a type of the Apostleship of the Gentiles ; that this gift was
withdrawn after the first age, in consequence of the sins of the Church,
which, being thus left to herself, resorted to the Episcopal system as the
best substitute she could find for Apostolic authority; of which remarkable
change the words of St. Paul to Timothy, (1. Ep. Tim. Ui. 14, 15,) are
supposed to be a darkly prophetic intimation; "These words write I unto
thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou
mightest know how thou oughtesl to behave thyself in the house of God."
The present Church is, according to them, like a ship that has gone to
pieces, upon whose fragments, larger or smaller, the different bodies of
Christians are floating upon the sea of time. This can be better expressed
in words once used by Mr. Newman.
"That vast CathoUc body, the Holy Church throughout all the world,
is broken into many fragments by the power of the IDevil ; just as some
huge barrier cUff which once boldly fronted the sea, is at length cleft,
parted, overthrown by the waves. Some portions of it are altogether gone,
and those that remain, are separated from each other  And thus we stand
in this day of rebuke and blasphemy, — clinging to our own portion of the
Ancient Rock, which the waters are roaring around, and would fain over
throw."* Now, these persons alluded to, (who are not like the Mormon leaders,
whose system bears a coarse likeness to their own, mere obscure, ignorant
fanatics, but men of learning, rank and inteUigence,) profess to have re
ceived a restoration of the ancient. Apostolic gifts ; and to have commenced
a work, which is the beginning of the re-constitution of the Church. In con
nection with their movement, they have revived a millenarian doctrine,
which they maintain as an apostolical tradition, witnessed to by the Fathers
of the first three centuries, and which, they can, of course, easily sustain
by the text of" Prophetic Scripture. This movement has assumed a decid
edly ecclesiastical and ritual aspect; the chapels of the sect have been
mistaken for Catholic Churches, and their liturgy, (which has been com-
fiiled, according to the favorite plan of the Non-jurors, from all the ancient
iturgies,) has been mistaken for the Mass ; vestments, lights, holy oil and
a careful ceremonial are used, auricular confession and prayers for the
dead, are among their received practices.
? Par. Serm. vol. lii. Serm. xiv.

30
Such is a brief sketch of this singular society,* which is merely intro
duced lo show the extent to which the dream of the re-constitution of the
Church may be carried ; the possible danger which may be in store for a
coming age, from counterfeit images of CathoUcity ; the possible danger
of admitting that the plenary authority of the CathoUc Church has been
suspended, dwelling upon private notes of the Church, going by our judg
ment of the marks and tokens of a Divine movement, and looking out for
a restoration of a state of Catholic unity which has passed away, rather
than a return to an actual Church which has preserved unity from the
beginning. To return to our argument. It is assumed that the doctrinal decisions
of the Roman Church want nothing but the sanction of an (Ecumenical
Council, to make them the one true expression of Catholic doctrine. The
only question is, then, whether the CouncU of Trent is (Ecumenical. The
only objection to its (Ecumenicity is based on the opinion, that the Greek
and AngUcan Churches are integral parts of the Church Catholic ; from
the moral though not from the technical value of which, the present assent
of the Greek Church, and the former assent of the Anglican, to at least the
greater part of the Roman CathoUc system, detracts much.
Now, since the only objection to the (Ecumenicity of the Council of
Trent is based on an assumption supposed to be previously proved, i. e.
that the Greek and Anglican Churches are not in heresy, or schism, it can
not be argued that they are not in heresy or schism, from the want of
(Ecumenicity in the Council of Trent. The Catholicity of the Greek and
AngUcan. Churches must be proved, irrespectively of the question concern
ing the authority of this Council. Every thing depends on the value of
this proof. On the part of the Anglican Church, it is necessary to prove
that she has not denied any of the Catholic doctrines ; and in order to do
this, it must be first proved, on independent grounds, that the doctrines of
the Council of Trent have not a CathoUc sanction, antecedent to the de
crees of that Council. In regard to most of these doctrines, it must be
proved that the authority on which they are received in the Greek, as well
as in the Roman Church, is nol Catholic. We are thrown back at last
upon the question, what is unity and what is schism ; and, in order to find
a definition of schism which will not condemn both the Anglican and
Greek Churches, the doctrine that the See of St. Peter is the "Primardium,
Unilatis" must be disproved. It is difficult to imagine how this can be
done, on grounds which are consistent with that reverence which is pro
fessed (or the authority of the Roman Church, and the beUef that she has
acted from the beginning under Divine guidance ; not to insist here that
(Ecumenical Councils and CathoUc tradition must first be overthrown, be
fore tho Chair of Peter can be assailed.
It would seem that the question of the Catholicity of the Anglican
(Jhurch may be easily decided against her, without touching the subject
of the authority of the Council of Trent at all. It is reaUy difficult to
s(='(! any reason why the Council of Florence should not be considered
(Ecumenical, as well as those of Nice and Chalcedon. The deputies of
the Greek Church were present; a formulary of concord was ratified; the
Creed was sung in Latin and Greek, as a symbol of reunion; and although
the Greek Church soon afterwards fell away, and refused to stand by the
decisions of her own representatives, yet, if we take the creed of the En
glish Church as our standard, as an able Anglican writer hag observed,
she did so on heretical grounds. Either the acts of the Florentine Coun-
*Sec, for fiirlhcr information on this subject, "Tracts for the Last Days;" Re
views of the same in the "Christian Remembrancer," and "Eclectic Review" of
Ihe past year ; and a "Letter to Rev. W. Sibthorpe," by Henry Drummond, Esq

31
cU a,re the acta of the Greek Church, or, according to the Anglican stan
dard, she is heretical. At least, there is no question that this Council was
recognized as (Ecumenical by the English Church for some centuries.
And by this Council, the authority of tbe Successors of St. Peter and the
See of Rome was defined as an article of faith.
Whatever plausible objections maybe urged against the Council of
Florence, however, from the fact that the Greek Church does not reckon
It among the (Ecumenial synods ; no similar objections can be brought
against the Second Council of Nice ; whose decisions equally condemn
the Anglican Church of heresy. It is true that the old Anglican theolo
gians argued against it, and their arguments are repealed by their follow
ers of the present day ; but they argued on a quite different theory con
cerning the authority of Councils. Those who believe that the deciees of
a Council, in which the general body of the Episcopacy is represented, or
which is received and submitted to by the Universal Church, must be
obeyed without question, and cannot be reversed ; cannot find any reason
for rejecting the decisions of the Deutero-Nicene Council. This Council
is now received as (Ecumenical by both the Latin and Greek Churches ;
and if by universality of reception, is meant, as it must be, a moral uni
versality, the dissent of the small number of Anglican Bishops detracts
nothing fi-om that authority which is given to the decrees of this Council
by the assent of the vast majority of the Bishops of Christendom. Be
sides this, the English Bishops once received the doctrine of the Deutero-
Nicene Council in common with the whole Catholic Church, and with the
Greeks ; and they had no power to retract their assent, once given. So
tliaj the Greek Church has a perfectly fair and sufficient ground for her
condemnation of the Anglican Church as heretical. Catholics want no
better or stronger arguments against Anglicanism, than those of the Greek
prelates and theologians.
In proceeding to consider the (Ecumenicity of the Council of Trent, let
us remember that there is an antecedent probability that the unity of the
Catholic Church has been preserved, and that this probabUity is height
ened in proportion to the necessity there is for the exercise of her author
ity in defining truth and condemning error. There is a moral obligation
upon us to welcome the proofs which are offered, if there are any, suppos
ing there is no higher moral obUgation which supersedes it. Such higher,
antecedent obUgation does not exist in the case of those who see no in
trinsic error and unholiness in the doctrines of the Roman Church ; and
there is, therefore, in their case, a necessary moral bias towards the beliel
that the CathoUc Church has been preserved in unity, simply because it
is more exceUent in itself, and more for the good of mankind that it should
exist in unity. And, although there is, on the other hand, another antece
dent probabUity that the Divine Ideal of the Church would be but partial
ly realized on earth, yet this probability is fully answered by the actual
history of the Church according to the Catholic hypothesis, without sup
posing a loss of unity and authority. When we consider further that in
the prophecies and promises of Scripture, the actual disorders of the Church
are taken into the account, and the preservation of unity and authority
predicted in spite of them, the probability becomes almost certainty. No
thing but a manifest deficiency of any fulfilment in the event, of the pre
diction that unity would be preserved, can justify the h)rpothesis that itsful-
ment has been hindered. On the other hand, if we find anywhere an exhi
bition of unity and an exercise of authority like that which is predicted, it
is certain that the Society in which we find them is the Catholic Church.
Taking now a general survey of Christendom, the Roman Communion
apart, we find in the East what is called the Orthodox Church, com
prising three independent portions ; and four other Churches general-

32
ly regarded as heretical ; all possessing a Succession from the Apostles.
In the West, there are several independent Communions likewise claim
ing to have the Episcopal Succession. The Orthodox Greek Church
condemns all these Communions except herself as heretical ; and the other
Eastern Churches and the Anglican Church agree with her in condemn
ing each other. Moreover, the Anglican Church at a former period con
demned the Greek Church, as heretical and schismatical.
In Western Christendom there has also arisen a form of heresy, at once
the most specious, the most entirely hostile to the fundamental principles
of the Church, the most ambitious, the most dangerous, that has appeared
since the beginning of the Christian era. It has spread itself with a kind
of Catholicity over a number of countries, and has endured already through
the conflicts of centuries. It is admitted that this heretical doctrine has
prevailed extensively in those Communions which profess to descend from
the Ancient Church, and can claim some show of sanction from their for
mularies. At least they have not condemned it.
Now, there cannot be imagined a state of things which requires the
clear and definite decisions of an (Ecumenical Council, if this is not one.
Judging from the past history of the Church, we should not be surprised
to find large Communions once making part of the Catholic body, in he
resy or schism ; and some prevalent, heretical doctrine, the chief enemy
of the Faith, fbr the time. We should moreover expect to find one Cath
olic Church from which all these separated Communions have been
broken off; which condemns them all fbr their separation from herseff;
and which, by a superhuman wisdom, has detected the hidden principles
and inner significance of the great heresy of the age, and by the decisions
of an (Ecumenical Council, set up an impregnable barrier against it.
Now, there is one Church, generally known as the Catholic Church,
"resolute to inherit the earth,"* which is present upon every spot where a
rival Church exists, or an opposite doctrine to her own is professed, as a
witness against it, both in the East and West ; and she is possessed of such
high holiness and such transcendent spiritual gifts wherewith to maintain
her claims, that we dare not deny any of her formal doctrines, but are com
pelled to do her homage as the Envoy and Ambassadress of the Most
High. Moreover, the pretended Apostolic Churches out of her Commu
nion, have given their present or past testimony, with her, against each
other ; joining her, some in one time and place, some in another, but all
more or less corroborating that authority which they reject in common.
And the decrees of the Council which she upholds as (Ecumenical alone
furnish an adequate condemnation in principle and detail, of the Protes
tant errors.
Certainly, there is not on the face of things any strong or manifest rea
son to think that the unity and" authority of the Church have been inter
rupted. Assuming the hypothesis that there exists a Catholic Church
bound together in unity, and that this Church is surrounded by sects
severed from unity, all the phenomena of Christendom correspond to this
hypothesis. It explains and reconciles all. This hypothesis, we have seen,
is in, itself probable ; still further, it is the very hypothesis of Holy Writ-
moreover it is the actual hypothesis of the Church of the first centuries ;
and we are bound by the laws of strict logic and true phUosophy, as well
as by the higher law of obedience to the revealed Word of God, to assume
it as true, so long as the application of it to facts is possible.
The Idea of Unity is a Divine Idea ; its excellence and perfection are in
herent in itself, and are intuitively perceived by reason ; and since it is a
revealed truth that God, in constituting the Church, intended that the Idea
* Rev. W. I. Kip.

33
of Unity should be realized in it, it is certain that if we behold any where
this idea actually realized, we behold that very fulfilment of the Divine pur
pose which was intended in the Divine Mind. Supposimr that purpose to be
thwarted, the Divine Idea of Unity would not be realized. There could
be no actual form of Unity which would be a real, perfect, and adequate
representation of this Divine Idea. There could be no Church, no See,
no Council, actually and perfectly representing the idea of a Catholic
Church, a Holy See the Centre of Unity, and an (Ecumenical Council.
These are only the creations of Divine Power ; human wisdom cannot at
tain to their accomplishment. When they are beheld in actual existence.
It IS true of them, as of the other works of God, and in an immeasurably
higher sense ; that "Invisibilia . . . ipsius ... per ea qua3 facta sunt, intel-
lecta, conspiciuntur : sempiterna quoque ejus virtus, et divinitas:" must
we not add, of those who look upon them with so clear a vision and yet
withhold the assent of faith, "ita ut dnt inexcusdbiles."
There is an idea of Christ, and an idea of the Blessed Virgin, His Mother.
These ideas are divine ; and a created intellect could not conceive them of
itself. But when the portraits of Christ and of Mary are presented to us in
the Gospel, they bear witness to themselves that they were drawn by the
Divine Hand. So also the CathoUc Church, the Holy See, the Council of
Trent, bear witness to themselves that they are the works of God. They
need only to be seen to be recognized as such. We could not indeed at
tempt to prove their divine authority from the divine excellence which is
plainly manifest in them, to those who cannot see this themselves, by rea
son of the mist and haze of error through which they look. But we may
say, even to some who have been our teachers, and whose inability to learn
the lesson they have taught us we regard with sorrow ; you have shown us
the Catholic Church, you have exhibited to us her doctrines, you have des
cribed to us her Saints in such fair and winning aspect, so lovely, so un
earthly, so sublime, that we are forced to yield the entire, perfect and un
reserved homage of our hearts, as to the Supreme and Only Church,
"omnia alia superans, et nihil habens sibi simile vel cequale.'.
There seems to be, what is in truth an unaccountable dread in the minds
of some at the thought of taking this clear and definite view, and acting
ujpon it. They speak in high terms of the authority of Rome, and yet
close their eyes to tbe proofs of her spiritual supremacy ; they would have
the Catholic Church to be, not precisely what she professes to be, the
Sole and Supreme Church of Christ, the Mother and Guide of all Chris
tians, nor yet an usurper and pretender ; the Council of Trent, they will
neither call a Latrocinium,nor yet an (Ecumenical Synod; they will not
venture to despise its decisions, but do not fear to disregard its anathemas ;
they profess to follow the counsels of the Saints, while going steadily on
in a path which they all pronounce to be the way of error and delusion.
It would" seem that the inconsistency of such sentiments, is of itself ap
parent ; and that we might rest the argument here, without going into
minor details, and taking up lesser objections. But there are some of
these which deserve attention, if not from their own merits, yet from the
simple fact that they exert an actual influence over many minds.
Perhaps a large number of them may be reduced to the form of this
one proposition.
It cannot be true that separation from the See of St Peter is, per se,
separation from the Unity of the Church, for some Churches now sepa
rated from that See do not exhibit the phenomena of schism.
Of course it is the Greek Church, and the Anglican Church with its
two branches, which are here spoken of, and which are supposed to exhi
bit some internal signs and tokens of participation in the life and unity of the
Catholic Church. But after all it is only in regard to the A.nglican
5

34
Church that we are really concerned to notice it ; for it is too plain to re
quire proof, that the Greek Church has fallen into just that state of decay
which we should expect to find befalling a severed branch.
To speak then of the Anglican Church, it will not be denied that at cer
tain periods she has exhibited the general phenomena of schism ; nor that
these phenomena are now exhibited in certain portions of her territory;
nor that some of these phenomena are exhibited throughout the extent of
her communion. But it is said that she does not exhibit precisely the
same phenomena which the ancient schisms exhibited. She has retained
life and energy ; she has had holy Doctors and Rulers ; God has blessed
and acknowledged her sacraments ; the orthodox and apostolical temper
has been manifested within her; the yearnings of love toward the Catho
lic Mother have been felt by her members. It is difficult to apply the
stern and awful language of the Ancient Fathers concerning the schisms
of their day to such a communion. And have we not had personal expe
rience of the grace that dweUs within her? Have not her ordinances
been blessed to our spiritual good ?
It is painful to adopt the cold language of argument against the cher
ished feelings of pious and trustful hearts. But it must be done ; and may
it be with gentleness and love, even when it wounds the deepest !
Let us consider then, how absolute must be the reliance those persons
place on their own judgment or that of others, who presume to decide with
confidence, either that the phenomena of schism in the early ages were
manifestly different from those presented by the Anglican Communion ; or
if they were, that they must necessarily be the same in every age ; or that
private experience is a sufficient criterion of the actual state of a religious
body. It is to be remembered, always, that we look back upon the finish
ed history of ancient heresies, and that, through the medium of Catholic
writers ; whereas we live in the midst of the divisions of the present day,
and feel the influence of those who are hostile to the CathoUc Church.
Are we sure that in the Semi-arian, Montanist, Luciferian, Novatian,
Nestorian and Eutychian Communions of the early ages, there were no
signs of spiritual life and energy ; no tokens of grace and blessing ; no aus
tere and zealous rulers, learned and devout teachers, blameless and faith
ful Christians ? Are we certain that the same reasons which are now
given for continuing 'out of the communion of St. Peter's Chair might not
have been urged against St. Jerome, when he said, in the fourth century,
"I speak with the Successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross.
I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion
with thy blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. I know that on that
Rock the Church is built ; whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside this house
is profane ; if a man be not in the Ark of Noe, he shall perish ?" Are wc
certain that the same reasons would not have availed to keep Donatists
and Meletians within their schismatical Churches ? Would they not keep
Nestorians and Monophysites at the present time in heresy ?
Nay, so far as they are allowed to have weight, are they not equally
available in defence of other Protestant Churches as in defence of the An
glican. They are, in fact, the chief reasons they adduce when pressed
by the arguments of Episcopalians, to prove that they are within the
pale of the Christian Church. They appeal against the sentence of exci
sion, to the marks and tokens of the Divine presence among them ; and to
the sanction of the Most Holy, who blesses their ordinances to their spirit
ual good. Nor are we at liberty to condemn the appearance of faith and
holiness in members of these rehgious bodies, as a mere counterfeit. The
decision of the Church does not oblige us to do so ; and so far as the sen
tences of the Fathers exceed that decision, they are but opinions and do not
bind us. It was not natural that men who lived in an age of hardihood

35
nd sternness, and who were engaged with the enemies of the Faith in
onstant battle, should stop to consider carefuUy how far the evil tenden-
ies of heresy and schism might be counteracted by the goodness of God ;
r what would be the good fruits which would come from the possession
f gifts of the Church,— her scriptures— her faith— her moral code— her
iscipUne— her sacraments ;— when held, out of her communion. So
luch was certain ; that heresy and schism, when seated in the wiU, and
lersisted in after due warning, were mortal sins ; that the authors of new
octrines and the founders of new sects, however outwardly holy, were
kely to be bad men ; and that true charity as well as a divine command
lade it the duty of the Catholic Church to protect the Faith by an ana-
he ma.
It may be, that now, by the aid of a more enlarged observation, a calm-
r and more profound phUosophy, and a clearer knowledge of the laws of
tie divine government. Catholic theologians are able to discriminate more
ccurately between heresy and schism as formal principles and wilful
cts, and the same, as stoics and conditions, in which a portion of the re-
;enerate nature which springs from ecclesiastical life is preserved, and by
ecret supplies from the source of grace, enabled to resist that tendency to
ecay and dissolution from the hidden disease within, which is constantly
hewing itself. So far as we can see, it is indeed only by thus keeping
live a spirit cognate to the Catholic Church, that any preparation can be
nade for a future healing of the wound of heresy, by a re-union with the
arent stock. Dead branches cannot be re-ingrafted.
It seems to be thought, however, that there is a special characteristic
elonging to piety in the Anglican Church, not seen in the members of
ther Protestant Churches ; that it is after a higher and more Catholic
S^pe ; at once more sober and more fervent ; more chastened and more
xalled ; more lofty and more symmetrical.
This is what we should expect in a communion which has retained so
luch of the Catholic doctrine and discipline. Says Moehler ; "It is an in-
ontrovertible maxim of experience, that the individual who is unconnected
^ilh any ecclesiastical community has either no religion, or a very mea-
re and scanty one, or is given up to a distempered fancy or a wild fana-
cism, so that in none of the three cases can religion exert her blessed in-
uences. On the other hand, the more stable the ecclesiastical commu-
ity to which we belong, the more will the true, interior qualities of man
xpand and bloom forth in freedom. ... In proportion only, as a religious
ociety approximates to the Catholic Church, doth it exert a more effica-,
ious influence on spiritual life. Here, indeed, we may observe, as shaU
fterwards be proved, that it is only according to CathoUc principles, that
Church can be consistently formed ; and where out of her pale any thing
f the kind exists, the truth of what we assert is confirmed, to wit, that
^here a ray of true Christian light doth fall, it will have the effect of
inding and uniting, whereby all the doctrines tending to schism and divi-
ion are, practically at least, refuted."*
It is no more strange that the Anglican Church should produce an An-
rewes, a Hammond, a Ken, a Nelson, a Ferrar, a Martyn, men of whom
, is a grief to think that they lived and died exiles from their true home,
lan that Puritanism should boast of a Howe, a Baxter, a Henry, a Dod-
rige a Brainard, an Edwards, an Eliot. Moreover, those men of high
nd lovely virtue in the English Church whose name and authority are
ow the most honored, lived — not so much in the Anglican system, as in
le Tiolier system of past ages ; and but reflect the light of the ancient
iatholic Saints. Also, their peculiar type of character has been both rare
* Symbolism, pp. 344-5.

36
and evanescent, and has not succeeded in stamping its image upon the
general mind of' their Church. Little Gidding has not perpetuated or re
produced itself. The mantle of Laud and Andrewes has not fallen on their
successors. Athanasius was exiled and persecuted, but his principles tri
umphed. So it was with Anselm and Becket, and our glorious Gregory;
but Laud dies on the scaffold, and his magnificent schemes and all the re
sults of his aspiring policy perish with him ; Sancroft, and Ken, and their
companions are cast out, and leave no trace upon the age which follows
them. And, if we suppose that there is not in the Catholic Church an
ideal of saintly character, higher and more perfect than even the highest
ever seen elsewhere, it may be, because we have not yet looked upon the
master-pieces of the Divine Spirit's workmanship. The English Church
has produced no one like St. Francis Xavier, or St. Francis de Sales, (the
one of whom converted a million of heathen, the other, seventy thousand
heretics,) or St. Carlo Borromeo, or St. Vincent de Paul, or St. Jean
Baptiste de la Salle, or her, the spiritual Mother of tens of thousands of
holy nuns, who stamped upon her bosom with a red-hot iron, the Name of
Jesus.* It is a significant fact ihat some of the most devout of Anglican clergy
men, as Fletcher of Madely, and Martyn, have been destitute of any
knowledge of the Catholic system ; and that the more fervid exhibitions
of religious feeling in that communion have usually shown hostility to her
ecclesiastical and ritual forms. And when the utmost has been allowed,
the lives of holy persons in that communion are not a witness or sanction
to anything positive in her, whereas the Saints of the Catholic Church
are witnesses to a positive system and a claim of authority of whose excel
lence and necessity they have a spiritual experience, and are themselves
the living proofs. Holy persons out of the communion of the Catholic
Church really and inwardly belong to her, and are witnesses, not to their
own system, but to hers. We but derive from them a proof that the
highest efforts after sanctity without her pale, reach only a resemblance in
kind to that which she accomplishes in a far higher degree, produces in
greater exuberance, and brings to a more consummate perfection ; a re
semblance which could not have been reached, unless her masters had
furnished the models, and taught the lessons of the divine art.
In the English Church, which in this respect stands on very different
ground from the Episcopalian Church of the United States, the simple
fact of succession in the ancient Sees is very much relied on. But this
certainly has no force in itself, unless the succession of doctrine is proved
also. It needs but a slight knowledge of ecclesiastical history to inform
us of instances in ancient times, when the Sees of the Church were filled
by bishops who had changed her doctrine, and Catholic missionaries were
sent to reclaim their people from error. This argument from succession
is employed in total disregard of the proof that the Pope, as the successor
of St. Peter, is the Pastor of the whole flock of Christ ; proof, which may
be evaded by those who take an intelligible ground against the Roman
Church, but not by those who have given up that ground, with whom we
are now arguing. Setting this aside, the question is, which communion
is the genuine descendant of that ancient Catholic Church of Eno-land
which for nine hundred years was in strict communion with and subo'rdina-
tion to the Holy See, — the Established Church, or the little flock of Roman
Catholics? The Catholics of other countries, history, the common sense
of the world, and even the greater part of the members of the English
Church herself say, the latter. And the Catholic Church in England has
* St. Jane Prances de Chantal, foundress of the Order of Nuns of the Visitation
of the B. V. M.

37
actually preeefved the continuity of life and doctrine from the preceding
age of the Church, and received a tradition faithfully transmitted without
interruption, through all past ages, from the first planting of the Church
Ul England; whereas the Anglican Church is obliged to pass over the tra
dition of the intervening age as corrupt, and join herself directly to the
primitive period ; thus falsifying her own credit as a witness to the Truth,
through the greater part of her existence.
If the Apostolical Succession has any practical value, it is this ; — that it
is a guaranty of the truth of that system of doctrine which the successors
of the Apostles teach ; and, as the succession extends through all ages, so
must the divine warrant be held to certify the truth of their teaching,
through all ages. The Apostolic Mission is but an extension of the Mis
sion of the Son of God from the Father, as a Teacher whose word is to
be received upon the authority of his Mission ; and thus St. John declares
that the Truth "dwelleth in Us, and shall be with us, forever." Nor is it
enough to say that the Truth is always preserved and handed down by
the Apostolic line, though it is mingled with a mass of error; for then we
are obliged to sit in judgment upon the teaching of the Church, in order to
separate the Truth from the error with which it is mingled. And thus the
advantage of a divinely commissioned authority, perpetually declaring the
Truth in the Name of Christ, is lost. The question is not concerning
moral corruption, practical abuses, and the perversion of holy things lo
wicked purposes by individuals, for these are undeniable ; but concerning
the system of doctrine sanctioned and enforced, and known of all men, as
Orthodox and Catholic. Nor does it avail to plead that this doctrine is
not denied ; for besides that the plea is not true, if it were true, it is a fatal
defect in the Anglican system, that some essential parts of this doctrine
are not affirmed. Supposing that a denial of them is not required, neither
is assent to them required. And they are of such a nature, and of so in
timate a connection with the other parts which are mutually held, that if
they are not irreconcilable with them, they are necessary lo their integrity
and to their preservation. In proportion to the evidence of their truth, is
the evidence of their necessity ; and so far as the authority whether of
Churches, Councils, Doctors or Saints is aUowed to be sufficient to con
vince us of their being true, and cognate with the other articles of the
Catholic Faith, that authority should convince us that it is necessary to re
ceive and profess them likewise as articles of Faith.
The fact that there has been such a movement toward Catholicism as
we have seen of late in the English Church, and that Catholic doctrines
have been so ably defended by her members ; but more especially that a
spirit alien from sectarian and party hatred, and loving toward the great
Catholic body, has been exhibited, has had no small weight with some ;
and it has seemed to them safe to trust themselves upon a current which
was setting so strongly toward Catholic Unity. This drawing of sorrowful
and orphan hearts toward the forsaken Mother has not been felt in the
Anglican Church alone. It first showed itself in German history and
poetry. The Lutheran Divine Franoke approximated very closely to the
CathoUc Faith, and revived Patristic studies ; Congregational preachers
have dreamed of bringing their sects back to Catholic Unity, and discoursed
of Baptismal Grace and the Eucharistic Presence ; other Protestants again
have denounced Protestantism* and eulogised the Middle Ages; a distin
guished Presbyterian Divine has lately complained of the growth of "sa
cerdotalism" and a liturgical spirit in his own sect. The influence of the
great Catholic re-action of our time has in truth extended far and wide.
That this movement has had more consistency, depth and power in the
Anglican Communion, than elsewhere, is not strange ; since that Church
* Dr. Skinner.

38
is so much nearer the Catholic Church than any of the other Reformed
Communities, and her children live amid so many memorials of past ages,
and such abundant treasures of Catholic learning ; in places too, hallowed
and protected by the tutelage and intercession of guardian Saints. Indeed,
it was foretold by a learned French ecclesiastical historian,* that the Church
of England, standing as she does, midway between the Catholic Church
and the general body of Protestants, would be the instrument of Divine
Providence to reconcile them to her. If indeed such a movement had
proceeded, without showing any tendency toward ' Rome ; if it had suc
ceeded in drawing to itself learned and holy members of the Roman
Communion; if study, and prayer, and meditation, and the interference of
the Most High had in no way set the authority of the Holy See and the
holiness of its doctrine in a clearer light; persons might use this argu
ment. But events have taken it from them. So far as Catholic principles
have been thoroughly and fearlessly adopted, so far have they been seen
on the whole, to lead towards Rome; even in those who have as yet
stopped short of the portal which we hope they may one time enter.
The authority of individual teachers is another, and with many the
prevailing reason for continuing in the Anglican Church. Such authority
the present writer was himself disposed to place at the highest. But there
was one consideration which went very far towards destroying its power
over his nrtind. Besides the perplexing variety of opinions on the roost
important subjects prevailing among those who had the best claim, in his
view, to be submitted to ; and the great changes which had taken place
in the views of some ; the fact that they had grown up under a Protestant
system, and could not be supposed to have thrown off the habits of thought
impressed upon them by their education, made him distrust their judgment
when it was opposed to the judgment of Saints, who were nurtured and
lived from their birth under the full influence of the Catholic system; but
especially when it was opposed to the judgment of the holy Roman
Church. Let it not be thought that he cannot sympathize with the deep and
trustful confidence which many persons of an humble and devout temper
feel towards one revered EngUsh Divine, to whom he is himself under
great obligations ; when he expresses his belief that they have fallen into
the very error which is the source of all seels and parties in religion, by
following a guide of their own choice, in place of obeying that authority
which is alone infalUble. Surely it cannot be that children of the Catholic
Church should be the sport of such misgivings and fears and uncertainties
as those with which many conscientious AngUcans are now troubled, who
tremble lest they have mistaken the way of life and peace, and find no
slay for their souls.
It must be said, that those who adopt such reasonings as those we have
been considering, give to private judgment its most unbounded sway, and
trust themselves in the matter of salvation, not to the decisions of an
authority speaking in the name of Christ, but to the dictates of private and
individual experience. Such is not the commandment of Christ and his
Apostles. He commands us us to believe and obey Him alone ; — and He
is present and speaking in His Church, — nol the Church of one age only,
but through all ages, lo the consummation of the world. We are not to
consider difficulties, nor lo regard appearances, but we are to obey simply
and from the heart, that authority which Christ has appointed in his room.
If what the writer has said shall help lo persuade any to make this reso
lution, he adds his own assurance to that of many others more worthy to
be trusted, that they will find in the bosom of the CathoUc Church that real
ity whose shadow they are fruitlessly pursuing.
* Henrion.

Yil F UNIVERSITY UBBABY
 Illiipi
3 9002 08837 0078

f^r

^W

¦'!i^