An answer to the Rev. G. S. Faber's Difficulties of Romanism

Front matter

I

A N

ANSWER

Part The Third. Page

Succinct Review of the Difficulties of Romanism 319

Introductory Statement 321

Celibacy „ 325

Tradition 327

Real Presence 332

Characters of the first Reformers 351

Confession 365

Satisfaction 374

Indulgences 381

Prayers for the Dead — Purgatory 390

Invocation of the Saints 406

Relics 413

Sign of the Cross 416

Church of England 419

Supremacy 422

Re-union 427

Inquisition 435

Intolerance 444

Recapitulation 450

Conclusion 451

Translator's Note 459

ANSWER, &c.

My dear Sir,

^Tou have so earnestly requested me to reply to the work lately published by the Rev. G. S. Faber, B. D. against my Discussion Amicale, that I should be truly deserving of reproach if I refused to comply. The only difficulty attending your request arose from my rinding it impossible to reconcile the labour required with the occupations of governing a diocese. My necessary resolve was to interrupt the latter for a time, when I reflected on the one hand that the refutation had appeared to you peremptory and conclusive, and understood on the other that my silence would be interpreted by your countrymen as the tacit avowal of a defeat. You assure me that the attack directed in my person against the doctrine 1 profess, issued from a celebrated

B pen, from the first even of your controvertists. Well, Sir, I congratulate you upon it : the reputation and talents of such an antagonist will only add greater splendour to the truth. I trust that ere long you will see the arguments of your renowned theologian fall before you, one after another, without force or effect ; and the proofs developed in my work remained still unshaken after the appearance of his. And then 1 hope you will yourself conclude that the Faith of the Catholic Church is impenetrable to the shafts of its enemies.

In the first letter you did me the honour to address to me, I was informed that your learned friend had engaged to refute my work ; that he purposed following me step by step, and shewing on each point that I had uniformly built upon a vain illusion, by believing myself always supported by the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. This plan was certainly the only methodical one, and at the same time the fairest and best calculated to exhibit the truth with the strongest evidence. You assured me that such was the plan to be adopted by my antagonist. Imagine then my surprise, my dear Sir, when as I looked over his refutation, I found that instead of proceeding step by step after me, instead of adhering to the arrangement which I had adopted for the various questions, he had preferred abandoning it altogether, displacing the questions, and putting those in front, which ought only to have appeared in the rear. A writer of the penetration you profess to find in him, ought undoubtedly to have been sensible how much strength is acquired by proofs when properly connected with each other, and how much they lose by being separated.

Although Mr. Faber and myself are widely divided in opinion, the same motive has led each to take up the pen — that of convincing your countrymen : our great opposition is in our respective objects. Mine was to make them sensible of the reasons which ought to lead them back to unity ; his, on the contrary, was to exhibit those which might still farther remove them from it. I strive to persuade to re-union : he endeavours to perpetuate dissension. I consider that you would gain every thing by becoming again what you once were ; he thinks, on the other hand, that you have every thing to lose, if you do not remain what you are. Which of us has the more effectually pleaded his cause, or rather your cause ?

B 2

Our judges are those for whom we have written. Our books are the cause to be tried. Let them not consider their authors, but weigh well their respective arguments.

In the comparison 1 solicit, I see at once that my antagonist has a powerful advantage over me ; he expresses himself in the language of the interested party, while I write in a language to which the greater number are strangers. I entreat those nevertheless who understand both, to compare the Discussion Amicale with the Difficulties of Romanism, and impartially to weigh our proofs. This labour will no doubt cost them application and patience. I solicit them to bestow it for the honour of truth, in the name of their dearest interests, of their happiness in this world and the next.

Do not expect me, Sir, to enter at length upon all the questions which divide us ; upon the motives which establish the truth of the Catholic faith ; its conformity, whether with the natural light of human reason, or with the text of Holy Scripture, or the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church : consequently the necessity of adopting it, namely, of renouncing a pretended reformation, equally null in its establishmerit, and erroneous in its doctrine. This would be a labour far exceeding the leisure allowed by my habitual occupations ; and would be to recommence what I have already published, and transcribe the Discussion Amicale almost throughout. It is a more simple plan to refer you to that work, by pointing out the volume and page.* You will there find the proofs I have developed on the contested points ; I make bold to assure you that they still remain in all their strength, and that the Difficulties of Romanism, however specious it may have appeared to you, has not made any real attack upon them.

I shall confine myself, therefore, to placing again before your view some of the more important articles, witli an analysis of the proofs and objections which the Rev. Mr. Faber brings against them. To this I shall dedicate the first and second parts of this Reply : they will suffice, 1 conceive, to j ustify my assertions, to rectify the judgment you have formed of them, and to confirm the triumph of the Catholic Creed. In the third part, I shall take a review

* These will be cited from the more correct edition, published in Paris, by Potey, No. 46. Rue du Bac. 1824.

of the false suppositions, wrong intepretations, mistakes, reproaches, disposition to ill-humour, and hostile indications, which I have unfortunately, but too frequently, met with in The Difficulties of Romanism,

Part The First. On The First Three Letters Of The Discussion A Mic Ale

The first Letter places before the reader an historical summary of the establishment of the Church of England. It exhibits Elizabeth, authorized by her Parliament, driving out of their sees those Bishops who, with a single exception, opposed her assumptions ; and replacing them with men servile and accommodating, chosen from the second order of the clergy. Dux fcemina facti. It is nevertheless incontestable that Jesus Christ confided the government of his church, as well as the teaching of his doctrine, to the Apostles and their successors, and by no means to the potentates of the earth. It is true therefore that a radical defect of competent authority rendered null the work of Elizabeth, and her two houses of parliament, who formed, if you will, a parliamentary and royal church, but assuredly not one canonically Christian.*

* Humanam conati sunt facere Ecclesiam, would be here repeated by St. Cyprian. (Ep. 52.)

Apply again with me, Sir, to the unhappy schism of 1559, what your learned doctor wrote against that of 1689, and which ought, with much greater reason, to have disgusted him with the assumption of Elizabeth. Listen to this able theologian : "A decree was made by a " senate of laymen, that the bishops who refused 44 to take the new oaths should be ejected out of 44 their places. The time for taking them being 44 expired, and these fathers refusing them, they 44 are deprived of their palaces, revenues, in short, 44 of all the rights annexed to their episcopal 44 office. Hitherto we complained not. Let the " secular hand reassume, if it pleases, what it 44 has bestowed upon the church. This may 44 hurt the temporal estates of the bishops, but 44 can never affect the consciences of subjects : 44 for Christ has laid no obligation upon us to 64 assert the legal rights of bishops, in opposition 44 to the magistrate ; but certainly he has obliged 64 us to assert those rights, which he himself be- " stowed upon the church, in order to preserve 44 it under persecution ; and which no earthly 64 power ever gave, or was able to give. And yet " the violence of our adversaries proceeded so 44 far ! Our reverend fathers were driven at last

PART I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 9

" from the very cure of souls ; altars opposite " to theirs erected, and bishops, of an adverse " party, thrust into their places. Though they " were alive, their seats were filled, and filled " by colleagues, before they were vacant, before " their predecessors were deprived of episcopal " power by bishops who had authority to do it. " Upon this account we looked upon the obe- " dience we owed them to be still valid, nor " could we transfer it to their successors, who " had departed from Catholic unity, from Christ " himself and all his benefits, according to the " doctrine of St. Cypriarv's age." %

Such is, word for word, the history of the deplorable overthrow effected in 1559 : and thus ought all those to have spoken respectfully, but firmly, whose misfortune it was to witness it. Such is the language of every man of enlightened understanding, who knows what are true canonical principles — the distinction of the two powers, and their boundaries — what belongs to the one and to the other. It will ever be the manifest condemnation of Elizabeth and her parliament. Mr. Faber appears to have been sensible of this, since he has not attempted to * Dodwell on the late Schism. London, If 04, pp. 4, 5.

10 ANSWER TO THE [ PARX

contradict it. He has done honour to his judgment and prudence, by keeping silence upon the conclusions at the end of my first letter. Those alone ought to suffice at this day to bring back England to unity. The establishment of her Church once found to be null in its origin, will be null for ever. Two centuries and a half have already passed over the actual state of things : ten more might pass, but they would never render that valid and legitimate which was not so the first day of its existence. There is no prescription against Heaven.

After having related the origin of your Established Church, and shewn its essential defect, I pass in my second Letter to the examination of its doctrine. The end of my whole discussion is to shew — 1st. That an absolute necessity, stronger than every obstacle and repugnance, renders it obligatory to put an end to the schism, by returning to the mother church. 2dly. To prove that all the pretexts and grievances alleged to justify separation from that church, or to retain people at a distance from it, far from being founded on scripture or primitive tradition, are most certainly in opposition to them. I begin then by demonstrating — and

PART r.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. H

there is no exaggeration in the expression — that the church is essentially one, that there can never be a motive for breaking unity with her, and that to depart from unity, is by the very act, departing from the Church of Jesus Christ. Here proofs of every kind combine to exalt to the highest degree of certainty this fundamental truth, entirely decisive between our separated brethren and ourselves : both the natural light of the human mind, and the design and precepts of our Saviour, the Father and Creator of this light ; the doctrine of all the apostles* and their disciples, doctors or bishops, as well in their particular writings, as in their decisions in council ; the practice of the church, and the order of its government pursued from the beginning ; and finally, the testimonies even of those who broke unity in the 16th century, and of those who in support of that particular reformed party in which they were born, never ceased to thunder against those who dissented from them.f

* God is not the God of dissention, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches. 1 Corinth, xiv. 33. And all the apostles like St. Paul, since their teaching was the same, and upon this point St. Jude testifies it expressly of all.

+ I have quoted these various authorities in my second letter

I have collected in my second Letter a number of texts on this great question, which appear to me well calculated to make an indelible impression upon my readers. Yes, Sir, if I do not deceive myself, whoever among your countrymen is faithfully in search of the truth, will there clearly see, as I venture to assure him, that truth can never be found in schism and separation.

from page 53 to 60. I will here add the following to the celebrated Theologians of your church: "The King" (says Casaubon of James the First) "plainly believes, without fallacy " or deceit, that there is but one true church, called Catholic " or Universal, out of which he holds that no salvation is to be " expected. He detests those who in old times and afterwards " either departed from the faith of the church, and so became " heretics ; or departing from her communion became schis- " matics." How was it possible to speak so well, and yet not apply his principles to the transactions of the preceding reign ? How was it that James the First was not sensible of the strict obligation of honestly labouring to bind again the bond of unity? What did it profit him to wear so rich and noble a crown during a mortal life in the midst of the schism, if he knew it to be such ? "The ark out of which all perished," says Mr. Perkins, "was "an emblem of the church militant, out of which all are con- " demned : out of the militant church there being no means of "salvation, no preaching, no sacraments, and by consequence " no salvation." On the Revelation^ p. 308.

"If the Church of Rome," says Tillotson (T. 6, p. 245) " be the Catholic Church, it is necessary to be of that com- " munion ; because out of the Catholic Church there is no ordi- " nary possibility of salvation."

part ft] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 13

Shall I only recal to your remembrance those words twice repeated by our Divine Saviour in the admirable prayer which he made to his Father in the midst of his Apostles, the evening before his passion ? " That they all may be " one," said he, 44 that the world may believe " that thou has sent me. That is to say, that " all those who may hereafter believe my word, " and the preaching of my Apostles, may be one 44 among themselves, as thou and I Father ! are 44 one : in order that by the agreement of their 44 faith, by their adherence to the same pastors, 44 their perseverance in the same church, they 44 may prove to all the faithful that my mission 44 came from thee. For thou alone, O Father ! 44 canst command the minds and hearts of men ; 44 thou alone canst bring them to uniformity of 44 belief, and retain them in it. At this spectacle, 44 hitherto unknown upon the earth, the infidels 44 will feel thy power and thy sweet influence, 44 and will come to adore thee at the feet of the 44 same altars. Let them be o?ie, that the world 44 may know that thou hast truly sent me \"

Tell me, Sir, can you ever be persuaded that any man can love our amiable and adorable Saviour, and remain insensible to this moving prayer? That any one can be zealous for his glory, and yet be pleased with divisions, and oppose the accomplishment of his wishes ? That it is possible to desire the extension of his kingdom, and yet arrest its progress by word and example ? To wish that his divine mission should be displayed in the intimate union of all his followers, and yet by laborious efforts to retain Christians at a distance from one another, and by rash and often calumnious accusations prevent them from religiously giving each other the hand, and becoming again among themselves what they were iti the days of peace and confraternity ?

I seriously invite my reverend antagonist to weigh in his heart and before God the considerations which arise from the sublime prayer of our Saviour. I entreat him moreover to dwell some moments on these words of the celebrated Protestant Claude, to Dr. Henchman, Bishop of London, in 1680, on occasion of the Dissenters in that extensive diocese: " Evidently/ 5 he wrote, " their conduct is equivalent to a positive " schism, a crime detestable in itself both to God " and man. Those who are guilty of it, whether " by first establishing it themselves, or continuing " to enforce it among others, must expect to part I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 15

" have a terrible account to render at the great " day of judgment." Claude did not perceive that he himself was at the head of a party of Dissenters whose origin and schism came from Calvin ! He was not sensible that he himself was continuing tc maintain this schism among his partisans ! and he did not apply to himself what he said with so much justice of his imitators present and future, that they must expect to have to render a terrible account ! What astonishing blindness ! How cau we consider it but as a just visitation from above? But why should this unhappy Claude rind imitators even in our days ? Why must we even now have the pain of witnesssng an able writer sharing his inconsistency ; proclaiming like him the enormity of schism, and like him taking up his pen or raising his voice to attach the people to it more firmly ? Let him prove then at the same time either that Elizabeth and her clergy did not break unity ; or that out of unity, and in schism, we can secure our salvation. Neither he, nor any one in the world, will ever prove either.

I must however remark, to his praise, — and it is a consolation to me to make it public, — that he appears to have felt the force of the proofs which fill my second Letter. Had he found them defective, he would not have hesitated to object to them. I take authority from his silence to say, that on the decisive question of unity we are both agreed. What I truly deplore is, that while he admits the principle with all the Protestant communions, he rejects with them its essential and immediate consequence, though he prides himself on logical exactness. This consequence ought long ago to have led him and them to that tribunal of Divine creation, which Jesus Christ has erected in his church, to preserve the faithful in unity. The establishment of this tribunal, and the obligation of submitting to it, are the subjects of the Letter following.

When it is once demonstrated, and acknowledged on all sides that the precept of unity is indispensable, and of rigorous obligation upon all Christians, it must be believed that our Divine Legislator has given us the means of observing it. Now this means, since personal inspiration has ceased, can be no other for us all, than the establishment of a supreme tribunal, which has the right of declaring what is revealed, and what is not ; and which, itself secured from

PART I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 17

error, will also preserve us from it while subject to its decisions. If such a means does not exist, then we have no means whatever of obeying Jesus Christ on this essential point. Without this tribunal, it is impossible for us ever to remain united ; with it, we can never be otherwise. If the New Testament had never been written, we ought still to have believed in the institution of this ancient authority, and admitted it as the necessary effect of a known cause, and the evident consequence of an acknowledged principle. Both are inseparably bound bv a chain, impalpable, but indestructible.

This method of reasoning is not at all to the taste of Mr. Faber. There was one way, and only one of refuting it : he should have proved that without acknowledging an infallible authority, Christians can always remain in unity of faith. But neither he, nor any other upon earth, will discover such a proof. The passions of men and the experience of ages will eternally appear in opposition to it. What then is his resource to furnish a refutation ? At first he professes not to perceive the intimate relation and connexion between the precept of unity, and the

c necessary existence of an infallible tribunal. He

takes infallibility separately, as if persuaded that by keeping it apart from unity, he can attack it with greater advantage. He therefore passes over my second Letter like the first, and enters at once into discussion with the third. We shall soon see whether his attempt is crowned with success ; but it is curious enough to observe how, after so often repeating that, he should take my work for his text, he passes over in silence the first hundred pages !

It is true, however, that farther on he glances at the first argument of my third Letter ; and at page 39 he has chosen to say a few words upon it without finding fault. Here however he appears to disapprove of the observation I made in these words, " God commands us to preserve " unity in religion ; therefore he has furnished " us with the means of so doing." This mode of concluding a priori appears to him too hazardous, too bold and venturesome. And yet no one more freely yields than himself to the dictates of his own reason. He very often delights in putting whole pages of my book into form, into syllogisms suitable to his purpose, and intentionally so turned as to introduce what he intends to object to me. Nay more ; in the same chapter, page 38, he forgets what he has just blamed, and pleads himself in favour of theological reasoning : 44 we shall introduce/' says he, 44 an universal scepticism, if we deny 44 the right of forming a private judgment upon

44 perfectly unambiguous propositions In

44 these matters, and in various others which 44 might easily be specified, 1 hold private judg- 44 ment to be strictly legitimate ; and I feel per- 44 suaded that the Bishop of Aire will not dis- 44 agree with me/' Well, Sir, do you find any ambiguity in the propositions which I have advanced, on the absolute necessity of a supreme authority ? Are they not on the contrary as clear as the light ? I had a right then, according to Mr. Faber himself, to make use of them, and he was wrong; in censuring me for it.

After declaring what reason suggests on the necessity of a supreme tribunal, I come to the authorities which demonstrate its real existence. It is Jesus Christ who teaches it ; his apostles and their successors ; the conviction which ever animates the Church, and

c 2 directs her dogmatical decisions in councils. These proofs brought together demonstrate that in fact this tribunal, the propriety of which good sense alone had ascertained, was positively established by Jesus Christ. I beg those who have at hand the Difficulties of Romanism, to compare the 2d chapter of the first book with my third Letter. Mr. Faber saw very plainly the force and developement of the proofs which I there adduced, and he does not even endeavour to destroy them ! He contents himself with advancing that I do not reason according to the promises and expressions of our Lord, but from the interpretations which I give to them. Judge, Sir, between us ; are not the following words clear and positive declarations — " Go ye therefore " and teach all nations : teaching them to ob- " serve all things whatsoever I have commanded " you : and behold I am with you all days, even " to the consummation of the world }"* What need here of arbitrary interpretations ? How can these words be susceptible of opposite expo-

* St. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.

PART I ] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 21

sitions ?* Jesus Christ promises his apostles and their successors to the end of the world that he will assist them, when they shall teach the precepts which he has given them. Can it enter any sensible head, that error can corrupt that teaching which is directed by our Saviour himself? And when he says to them, I will ask " the Father, and he will give you another " Paraclete : when he shall come, the spirit of " truth, he shall teach you all truth. " Can there be any fear of pernicious mixture in doctrine where the Holy Spirit resides, and teaches all truth ? What is wanting to the clearness of these magnificent promises ? What need have they of any interpretation ? And above all, how can they be interpreted in an opposite sense ? Truly there are certain unfortunate minds, for which no human language is sufficiently plain. Tell them further with St. Paul that the Church of God is the pillar and ground of truth ; they will reply that doubtless it was so in the time of the apostles, but that in our days we behold this pillar on the contrary sur-

* See Bossuet, Corollaire de la Defense du Clerge Gall, parag. 8, and Dissertation Prelimin. parag. 21.

mounted by a group of errors. Have then the gates of hell prevailed against the Church ? Has Jesus Christ ceased to be with her ? Has he withdrawn his Holy Spirit, and failed to accomplish his word ? No, no, my dear Sir, far be such blasphemy from us ; we know that the world will pass away, but that his word will not pass away. Let us hold fast his brilliant promises ; and pity every communion which rejects them, which prides itself on having no connexion with them, and by that alone cuts itself off from the body of Jesus Christ. Let us deplore the blindness of those who invent interpretations opposite to the promises given to the Church, only because they are determined, in spite of every proof, never to re-enter her bosom.

" That the privilege of infallibility resides in " the Catholic Church/ 5 saj^s Mr. Faber at the beginning of his discussion, page 10, "is strenu- " ously maintained : but as to the precise quarter 44 where it is to be found, there is not the same c4 unanimity. 55 He goes on to say, that some hold it to reside in the Pope, and others in a general council : and adds, page 12, 44 Under

PART I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 23

" such circumstances, if the prerogative of in- " fallibility belong to the church, ice must seek " its residence elsewhere than in the person of the Pope." A truth too striking* for nie to wish to dispute. But let him listen to one reproach which he very often deserves. He sets out with saying, and repeats again and again, that he chooses the Discussion Amicale for his text, and that it is his intention to comment upon it from beginning to end. And yet at page 224 of the 1st volume, I insert this objection at length, and give its solution : he takes no notice of this whatever. He forgets his engagement with the public and with myself. I can no longer discover his purpose. Fie must be satisfied with my referring both himself and his readers to my book, I will here only sum up my answer in a few words. " The general ac- " ceptation of the bishops dispersed over the " world assures us that a council is really " oecumenical or universal : by them also are " we made certain that the Pope has pronounced ■ : ex cathedra. Thus we Catholics agree per- " fectly in the same principle ; and in reality " we on both sides attach the seal of infallibility

" to universal consent" This, I conceive, is all that needs be said in reply to this formidable objection.

The opinion of those who place infallibility in a general council, appears best to suit the taste of Mr. Faber. But unluckily says he, 44 from 44 faithful history we learn, that general councils, 44 upon points both of doctrine and practice, 44 have decided in plain and avowed opposition 44 to each other. " He is not the first who has made this assertion : but certainly if he had been able to prove it, he would have been the first who had succeeded in so doing. It is curious to observe how he proceeds in his demonstration. He takes two councils, one of which was from the beginning rejected by the whole of the West, and soon after by the universal Church : and the other immediately approved by it. He wonders to find them teaching opposite doctrines, as if he had honestly expected to find them unanimous. Truly I lament that this pitiful objection should be revived in these days. There is not a student in our seminaries who does not know that the Conciliabulum of Constantinople in 754 was never