The path which led a Protestant lawyer to the Catholic church

Front matter

The Path Which Led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic Church

BY

PETER H. BURNETT

Chapter I. The Law Of Christ

The law of Christ must form a rule of moral conduct and a

standard of faith i

Of the different modes of publication, and of the advantages

of a mixed code 3

Of Tradition as a medium of transmission 6

Of the inspiration and authenticity of the written law of Christ 9 Of the logical course of examination to ascertain the inspiration of the authors of the New Testament 11

Of the unwritten law of Christ 16

Of the Scriptural view of the written and the unwritten law 22

The true theory 26

The testimony of the Ancient Fathers 28

Of the rules to be observed in consulting the Fathers 30

Concluding remarks of this chapter 31

CHAPTER H.

OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

The organization of the visible Church must follow from the

character of Christ as a lawgiver 34

There is much more Infidelity in the world than most teachers of Christianity believe 36

Of the Scriptural proofs that Christ did organize such' an

institution, and contemplate such unity 37

Extracts from Protestant writers 40

Extracts from a Catholic writer 41

i

" . CONTENTS CHAPTER III.

THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH,

That a visible association of men cannot continue to exist

without government 44

Christ must have placed the governing power somewhere in

the Church 45

The true office of reason 49

Testimony of Christ as to the governing power of the Church 52

Testimony of St. Paul , 54

The powers of government bestowed upon the Apostolical

Church, continuing 57

The persons appointed by the apostles exercised the powers

conferred by the commission 64

Certain positions of Mr. Breckenridge examined 66

CHAPTER IV.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH.

All laws intended for the government of men should provide

some tribunal to determine what the law is 70

Such tribunal must possess infallibility, either actual or judicial, according to the nature of the system 74

Actual infallibility must be found in the Christian association 76 The judicial power of the Church must extend to every violation of the law 77

The necessity of such a tribunal shown from the true character of Scripture. 79

Causes of obscurity of the Scriptures 82

That the right of revolution cannot exist in the members of

the Church 86

The duty of the judicial power 89

Objections considered. 98

A passage from St. Peter examined 107

Is not this theory intolerant? 109

CHAPTER V.

THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER.

The executive power must exist in the visible Church 114

The Scriptural proofs of the primacy of St. Peter examined 116 The Scriptural proofs further considered 123

CONTENTS iii CHAPTER VL

HAS GOD, BY MIRACLES, ATTESTED THE FAITH AND SANCTITY OF THE

CATHOLIC CHURCH ? „ ,

PAGE.

Preparatory remarks 129

The theory of the Infidel 130

The true theory 136

CHAPTER Vn.

CAN THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES, SINGLY OR COMBINED, BE THE TRUE

CHURCH ?

Have the promises of Christ failed? 146

Has the Catholic Church been uniform in her faith? 151

The same subject further considered 161

CHAPTER VHI.

AN OBJECTION ANSWERED.

Is the Catholic rule impracticable? 167

The vicious circle 183

Can the Church decide her own cases? 188

The Church incapable of reformation 191

Wicked persons are sometimes found in the Catholic Church 196

That successors of the apostles must be successors in full... 200

CHAPTER IX.

CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS AND CERTAIN POPES.

Charges against the Jesuits 202

These charges examined 209

Charges against certain Popes 223

Could these disorders destroy the office of Pope? 238

CHAPTER X.

WHAT HAVE BEEN THE EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM, IN THOSE MEMBERS WHO HAVE FAITHFULLY REDUCED ITS TEACHINGS TO PRACTICE?

Character of the Reformers 242

The Catholic clergy make much greater sacrifices than the

Protestant 246 iv CONTENTS

PAGE.

Mr. Campbell's theory of Protestant union 257

CHAPTER XL

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

The Holy Eucharist — There were two main points in the

discourse of our Lord 275

How did the hearers of our Lord understand Him? 288

Did they understand Him correctly? 290

Exceptions to the rules deduced from our Lord's conduct. . . . 293 Did our Lord confirm the construction put upon His words

by the Jews? 300

Did His disciples understand Him in the literal sense? 302

How did the apostles understand our Lord?. 308

The words of institution 310

The first class of alleged exceptions considered 312

The second class of alleged exceptions considered 314

The words of St. Paul 318

That it is a contradiction of our senses, and impossible 322

CHAPTER Xn.

PENANCE, PURGATORY, AND INDULGENCES.

The general nature of the Sacrament of Penance 334

Did Christ confer upon the apostles the powers to remit and

retain sins? 337

Did these powers descend to the successors of the apostles?. . 341

Satisfaction 347

CHAPTER XHL

OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS : THEIR RELICS AND IMAGES.

CONTENTS V CHAPTER XIV.

MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS.

PAGE

General misrepresentations of the Catholic doctrines 381

Causes of this system of misrepresentation 386

How did these alleged errors get into the Church, and when? 398

The unity and sufferings of the Old Church 414

Conclusion 420

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

Judge Burnett's " Path Which Led a Protestant Lawyer to The Catholic Church," was published fifty years ago.

If an excuse for its reappearance now were needed, it will be found in the following extracts from Dr. Brownson's review of the work in i860; —

" The Appletons have, since the beginning of the year, published the anxiously looked for work of Governor Burnett, of California, giving his full reasons for becoming a Catholic. It is the work not of a priest, nor of a professional theologian, but of a clear-headed, strong-minded lawyer, who has not suffered the law to make him forget he has a soul, or to stifle his conscience. It is written in a clear, forcible and unpretending style, in a straightforward earnest manner, and is to be judged not as mere literary performance, but as the grave utterance of a man who really has something to say, and is pressed by an internal necessity to say it.

What strikes the reader at a glance in this remarkable volume, is its perfect honesty and sincerity. As you read it you feel that the eminent jurist is honestly retracing the path and detailing the successive steps, by which he actually came into the Church; and it has a very high psychological value aside from its positive and conclusive arguments for the objective truth of Catholicity or the divine foundation and constitution of the Catholic Church. The whole tone and character of the work inspire confidence in the author, as a fair-minded man,

vii viii

EDITOR'S PREFACE as a candid judge, and as one who would be as incapable of knowingly deceiving others as of deceiving himself. He has evidently inquired earnestly and honestly for the truth for his own mind, and he gives the results of his inquiries for precisely for what he found them worth to himself. It is always of great interest to see what has convinced a conscientious mind, intent on saving its own soul, endowed with more than ordinary ability, highly cultivated, strengthened by varied experience, and accustomed to sift and weigh evidence as a lawyer in the most difficult and intricate cases.

The argument of the book is presented under the legal form, by the judge who sums up the case and gives his decision, rather than as presented by the advocate. It is an argument addressed to reason and good sense, not to passion and sensibiHty; and we cannot conceive it possible for any fair-minded man to read it and not be convinced, although we can conceive that many a man may read it and not acknowledge himself convinced. The difficulty is that the mass of non-Catholics, unless already touched by the grace of God, have a mortal repugnance to finding the Catholic Church proved; and the more legitimate and conclusive the argument addressed to them, the less legitimate and conclusive will they find it. They are not accustomed to find or to expect certainty in matters of religion, and they feel it a sort of insult to their understandings when you present them a religion which demands and seems to have certainty. The author has a truly legal mind, and he brings every question to the law and testimony, and insists on a verdict accordingly, whereas the mass of our non-Catholics recognize no law or testimony in the case, and suppose all depends on one's own fancy or caprice.

The author assumes what is true, that religion if re^

EDITOR'S PREFACE ix ligion, is the lex suprema for the reason and will ; and the question in his mind was never whether religion is to be obeyed or not, but whether there be a revealed religion and if there be what and where it is. What and where is the court to apply it. His book is the answer.

If we could convert the age to reason, we could easily convert it to Catholicity. All the great principles on which faith rests are principles of reason, principles of natural religion, included in the law of nature. In believing Catholicity, the man who really believes what is called natural religion, the truths of reason, that is the truths reason is competent to prove with certainty, has no principles to change, no principles to reject or to adopt. What he has to accept in addition to what he already holds is not in the order of principles, but in the order of facts, provable in like manner as any other facts. The incarnation is a fact, redemption through the cross is a fact and the church is a fact, judgment is a fact. The supernatural order is a fact, but a fact which supposes the natural, and which is created in accordance with the principles of natural reason, only lying in a sphere above reason.

Into this question Judge Burnett has not entered. He takes for granted the authority of reason, supposes his readers acknowledge reason and conform to its principles, and confines himself to proving to reason the supernatural facts asserted by the church. This he does conclusively, and in doing it does all that is necessary to be done for those who really understand and accept the authority of reason. We know no author, writing a popular work who has done it better ; we are not certain but we might say, who has done it so well, so conclusively.

In writing his book. Judge Burnett has rendered a noble homage to his new faith ; he has, too, performed a

X

EDITOR'S PREFACE patriotic act which will compare favorably with the most glorious deeds of our greatest patriots. Through him California has made a more glorious contribution to the Union than all the gold of her mines, for the truth is more precious than gold, yea than fine gold." — Brownson's Quarterly Review, April, i860.

The book as it now meets the reader, has been reduced to about one-half its original size. This task was rendered easy by the omission of the lengthy and frequent quotations, subsidiary arguments and repetitions, that the eminent jurist, unjustly to himself, evidently considered necessary to a clearer understanding of explanations and lines of reasoning, that were sufficiently plain in the first instance.

It is hoped that this abridgment has been accomplished without seriously disturbing the continuity of his treatment or of weakening the force of his arguments.

The rest has been left almost as it came from the pen of the author. The theologian will discover an occasional technical inaccuracy, which the evident good faith of the distinguished convert together with his unqualified professions of submission to the judgment of the Church, will prevent even the most critical from interpreting in other than a perfectly orthodox sense.

The editor takes great pleasure in acknowledging his gratitude to Judge Burnett for the invaluable aid his book has been to him in his dealings with many sincere and intelligent non-Catholics, in their attempts to find the true church and hopes that it may be the means of assisting others to find the " One fold and the One Shepherd."

James Sullivan, S. J., Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Mo.

Feast of All Saints, November ist, 1908.

Preface

I was once a Protestant, and I became a Catholic. The main reasons which led to this change will be found substantially stated in the following work. My quotations of Scripture are generally from King James's translation, mainly for the reason that this was the one used by me in my pursuit of the true Church.

My parents were Baptists ; but until the age of thirtytwo, I was not a believer in the truth of Christianity. My own observations of men and things, as well as the arguments of others, at length satisfied me that the system was divine; and I at once acted upon my convictions, and joined myself to the Disciples, in 1840. In 1843 I moved with my family to Oregon. After my arrival and while I was temporarily located at Fort Vancouver, I attended High Mass as a mere spectator, on Christmas, at midnight. I had never witnessed anything like it before, and the profound solemnity of the services — the intense, yet calm fervor of the worshippers — the great and marked differences between the two forms of worship — and the instantaneous reflection, that this was the Church claiming to be the only true Church, did make the deepest impression upon my mind for the moment. In all my religious experience, I had never felt an impulse so profound, so touching. I had witnessed very exciting scenes in Protestant worship, and had 'myself often participated, and was happy. But I had never felt any impulse so powerful — an impulse that thrilled my inmost soul. I gazed into the faces of the worshippers,

xi xn

PREFACE and they appeared as if they were actually looking at the Lord Jesus, and were hushed into perfect stillness, in His awful presence.

As I knew nothing of the reasons upon which the Catholic theory assumes to rest, I soon thought I saw errors that I could not sanction. And then there came a painful revulsion in my feelings, as if the flowers of Paradise had been almost within my reach, and had been suddenly withdrawn from sight, and I had found it to be but an illusion and a mistake. But still I can never forget the holy impulses of my soul at that deep moment.

My knowledge of the Catholic theory was exceedingly general and indefinite. I had never read a work in its favor, and had never heard but two Catholic sermons, and they were not upon controversial points. I knew that the Old Church made what are called arrogant and intolerant pretensions ; but in all my reading, in all my intercourse with men generally, and among my own kin, I had scarcely ever met with anything in her favor. From my limited opportunities, I had only learned that

" To love her was shame, to revile her was glory."

In the fall of 1844, a Baptist preacher settled in my immediate neighborhood, who had the published Debate between Campbell and Purcell ; and as the Catholic question was often mentioned, and as I knew so little about it, I borrowed and read the book. I had the utmost confidence in the capacity of Mr. Campbell as an able debater. But while the attentive reading of the Debate did not convince me of the entire truth of the Catholic theory, I was greatly astonished to find that so much could be said in its support. On many points, and those of great importance, it was clear to my mind, that Mr. Campbell had been overthrown. Still, there were many objections to

PREFACE xiii the Catholic Church, either not noticed by the Bishop, or not satisfactorily answered ; and I arose from the reading of that discussion still a Protestant.

My thoughts continually recurred to the main positions and arguments on both sides, and the more I reflected upon the fundamental positions of the Bishop, the more force and power I found them to possess. My own reflections often afforded me answers to difficulties that, at first, seemed insurmountable, until the question arose in my mind, whether Mr. Campbell had done full justice to his side of the question. Many of his positions seemed so extreme and ill-founded, that I could not sanction them. All the prejudices I had, if any, were in his favor. I knew that it was worse than idle to indulge prejudices when investigating any subject whatever. I was determined to be true to myself ! and this could only be in finding the exact truth, and following it, when known.

My mind was, therefore, left in a state of restless uncertainty; and I determined to examine the questions between Catholics and Protestants thoroughly, so far as my limited opportunities and poor abilities would permit. In the prosecution of this design, I procured all the works, on both sides, within my reach, and examined them alternately, side by side. This investigation occupied all my spare time for about eighteen months. I observed substantially the course of investigation pointed out in the introductioUj and followed the rules of construction therein given. Besides this, I prayed humbly and sincerely, that I might first know the truth, and then have the grace to follow it wherever it might lead me. I examined carefully, prayerfully, and earnestly, until I was satisfied, beyond a doubt, that the Old Church was the true, and the only true Church.

xiv

PREFACE

"And I said, if there's peace to be found in the world, The heart that was humble might hope for it here."

And in this I was not mistaken. I found her, as holy Cyprian of old had said, The house of unity and peace/' I mean to live and die in her communion.

Introduction

It is a fact well known to every jurist and lawyer, that almost every new, and at first perplexing case arising in our courts of justice, (and which are not governed by statutory law,) is decided at last by the legitimate extension and application of well-known and familiar principles. The difficulty exists in the extension and application of the principle to new predicaments of fact ; and the judge who possesses discrimination and impartiality in the highest degree, is most certain to arrive at the correct conclusion. The power to discriminate between a just and a false application of a principle belongs to the highest order of mind.

All the parts of every system of truth must be perfectly consistent with each other. All the facts, and series of facts that have existed at any time from the beginning of the world to the present age, were consistent and harmonious in every particular. The existence of one does not displace that of another. They no more conflict with each other, than do the stars of heaven. Each occupies its place in the vast chain of events. And all the parts of a true system, as well as all facts, are not only thoroughly consistent one with another, but they all bear a certain relation to each other, more or less intimate. As all the events that ever did occur were connected with certain other events — with some as their causes, with others as their effects — so, all the truths of a true system are, in the same way, connected with each other. If, then, in the investigation of a certain system,

XV xvi we can find its leading principle, by patient and honest application and extension of this principle, we shall be led, step by step, to the discovery of other principles, and finally be enabled to arrive at the whole truth.

The object of every fair writer or speaker is to place, in the minds of others, an exact copy of his own thoughts, y'ln doing this, he selects words and phrases best adapted, in his opinion, to accomplish the end intended. If the writer or speaker understands the existing usages of the language he employs as a medium of thought, he selects those terms which will most accurately convey his true meaning to others. For this reason, the construction put upon the words of a writer or speaker by his contemporaries, is generally the correct one. There are exceptions to this general rule, for the meaning may be misapprehended; but these exceptions are special cases, to be judged by the special circumstances of each particular case.

The philosophic author of Hermes, as cited by Dr. Wiseman in his lectures upon the Real Presence, has expressed his views upon this subject in the following beautiful terms :

" For what is conversation between man and man ? 'Tis a mutual intercourse of speaking and hearing. To the speaker, 'tis to teach ; to the hearer, 'tis to learn. To the speaker, 'tis to descend from ideas to words; to the hearer, 'tis to ascend from words to ideas. If the hearer in this ascent can arrive at no ideas, then he is said not to understand ; if he ascends to ideas dissimilar and heterogeneous from the speaker's, then he is said to misunderstand. What then is requisite that he may be said to understand ? That he should ascend to certain ideas treasured up within himself, correspondent and xvii similar to those within the speaker. The same may be said of a writer and reader."

I. The construction should he upon the entire Scriptures, taken and construed together, so as to give free force and effect to all the passages.

The rule at law for the construction of statutes and written instruments, is substantially the same, with one exception, which will be stated in its proper place.

" One part of a statute must be so construed by another, that the whole may (if possible) stand, (i Blackstone's Com. 89.)

" It is an established rule in the exposition of statutes, that the intention of the lawgiver is to be deduced from a view of the whole, and of every part of a statute, taken and compared together." (i Kent's Com. 461).

" The construction ought to be upon the entire deed, and not on any particular part of it. And such construction should be given, that, if possible, every part of the deed may be operative." (16 Johnson's N. Y. Reports, 172.)

The reasons for this sensible rule are very simple. It is presumed that the lawmaker intended something by each and every provision of the statute, and that he also intended to be consistent with himself. But as a mere human legislator may, and often does, contradict himself, the courts will only give force and effect to the different provisions so far as possible. Such a limitation will not apply to the divine law, which is consistent, and not contradictory.

There are many examples in the Scriptures .which show the necessity and propriety of this rule. In one place we are substantially told that we are saved by keeping the commandments — in another, by grace — in anxviii other, by the blood of Christ — in another, by baptism — in another, by faith. These different provisions are not at all in conflict with each other, and may, therefore, be so construed together as to give force and effect to all. The correct construction would be, that we are saved by the agency of all these requisites taken together.

The violation of this fundamental rule has, perhaps, led to more errors than any other. We have a notable instance in the temptation of our Lord by Satan, when he said :

If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down ; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."

This proposition was very acutely made, and the quotation to sustain it seemed very appropriate. But the poor devil had forgotten that another passage of Scripture must also be construed with it, and, consequently, his learning was completely put down by the reply of our Lord : It is written again. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

2. All the texts relating to the same subject must be considered as written by the same person, having a perfect knowledge of all that had been zvritten before, the reader making a fair allozvance for the difference in the style of each writer, and the different character of the existing circumstances.

The rule of law which requires all statutes relating to the same subject, though passed at different times, to be taken and construed together, is substantially similar to the above rule. The rule at law is based upon the presumption that the lawgiver was competent, and therefore acquainted with the state of the law as it existed at the xix passage of the act, and had the previous laws in his mind when framing the statute.

The framers of statutes may be, and are sometimes ignorant of the existing state of the law; and this fact may possibly render the rule subject to exceptions in special cases. But the rule I have laid down in reference to the proper construction of Scripture is not subject to such exceptions. The whole having been dictated by the same infallible Spirit, must be held equally entitled to our confidence.

The prima facie presumption of competency in a human, becomes conclusive when applied to a Divine Lawgiver.

3. Words of unlimited meaning are yet to he restricted by the general scope and intent of the system.

Among the examples to be found in the Scriptures, coming within this rule, it will be sufficient to mention the one found in the sixteenth chapter of St. John's Gospel, where our Lord tells His Disciples that, when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." The phrase all truth is exceedingly broad, yet it must be restrained by the general scope and intent of the system Christ came to establish. It was no part of His system to teach mere truths of science. The latter class of truths cannot be embraced in the phrase all truth."

The rule is founded in the principles of sound interpretation. At law it is substantially the same. A statute may contain very broad and sweeping terms, and yet they are restrained to the scope and intent of the act. So the provisions of the seventh amended article of the Constitution of the L^nited States, which, in general terms, secures the right of trial by jury, in all cases where

XX the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of twentydollars, is confined to trials in the Federal tribunals, and does not prevent the States from restricting the right of trial by jury to controversies involving a larger sum than twenty dollars.

4. When a general principle is laid down in general terms, and without exceptions stated at the time, or in any other portions of the Scriptures, it must he taken in its widest sense compatible with the general scope and intent of the system.

It is the practice of all lawgivers to state general principles embracing a whole class of cases, in general terms, and then to state the exceptions to the general principle specially. The form or manner of the statement of these exceptions is not at all material. They are often stated expressly as exceptions, and defined to be such ; but they are often stated simply as special provisions in reference to special cases, without any express statement that they are express exceptions. In either case they limit the meaning of the general clause. There are some principles embracing all cases, and without exception; while there are other principles that embrace only a great majority of cases, and are, therefore, subject to some exceptions. In regard to the latter class of principles, it is matter of convenience first to state the general principle in general terms, and then afterwards to state the exceptions specially. We will suppose that the general principle would embrace ninety-eight out of each hundred cases. It would then be very difficult to state each of the ninety-eight cases separately, while it would be very easy to state the two cases as exceptions.

5. When such exceptions to the general rule are stated in any part of the Scriptures, they are to he taken out of the operation of the general principle as exceptions, leavxxi ing the general principle to govern all other cases coming fairly within its import.

This rule is properly but a branch of the fourth rule, but will be found useful in practice. Both these rules are substantially the same as those applied in similar cases at law. There are often general statutes passed, embracing a great many cases, and yet liable to exceptions. These exceptions are often stated in the body of the act as exceptions — they are often stated in the same act, but not in the form of exceptions, but as provisions for particular cases, and they are often found in separate acts relating to special cases, which would otherwise come within the general principle. These special acts, as a general thing, have no express reference to the general act, but their provisions in their very nature are special, and must be taken out of the general principle, because they conflict with it. To state a case in point : There was a general act passed by the legislature regulating the Practice at Law. In this act there was a general provision requiring all process to be served upon the defendant by reading the same to him. There were many different forms of action, and in reference to one form of action, " Petition in Debt," there was a special act, and a clause in this act requiring the process to be served by delivering a copy of the writ to the defendant. There was no express reference in this special act to the general Practice Act, and yet there was no doubt as to the correct construction. In Petition in Debt" the process had to be served by copy, and in all the other cases by reading.