Essays and Reviews
Thornwell's Answer to Dr. Lynch
by Orestes A. Brownson
Part One of Three PartsThe Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament proved to be Corrupt Additions to the Word of God.--The Arguments of Romanists from the Infallibility of the Church and the Testimonies of the Fathers in Behalf of the Apocrypha discussed and refuted
by James H. Thornwell
New York: Leavitt, Trow & Co. Boston: Charles Tappan. 1845. 16mo. pp. 417.SOMPTTMF: in IS41, Mr.Thoriiwell, a Presbyteria-i minister, and l- Professor of Sacred Litemture and the Evidences of Chris- tianity in the South-Carolina College, "published anonymous',y in a B-altimore journal, a brief essay agaiiist thedivine inspira- 101 tion of those books of the Old Testament which Protestaiita exclude from the canoii of Scripture. To this essay, as subse quent,ly reprinted with the author's name, the Rev. Dr. Lynch, of Charleston, S. C., replied, in a series of letters addressed to ',\Tr. Thornwell, through the columns of The Catholic Miscellai?y. The volume before us is Mr. Thornwell's rejoinder to Di-. Lynch, and contains, in an Appendix, the original essay, and the substance of Dr. Lynch's reply to it. The rejoinder consists of tweiity-nine letters, which covet nearly the whole ground of coi)tron,ersy between Catholics and Protestants, and, though ,%vritteii in a Presbyterian spirit, they are respectable for ability -ind learning. The work, though nothing surprising, is, upon the whole, above the general averaoe of publications ofits class.
The purpose of the essay was to " assert and endeavor to prove that Tobit, Judith, the additions to the Book of -Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, with the -EPistle of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susannah, the Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the First and Second Book,, of Maccabees are neither sacred nor canonical, and of course of no.more authority in the Church of God tha7a Seneca7s Letters or Ttilly's Offices." (pp. 339, 340.) In the present work, the author attempts to maintain the same thesis, and to refute the objections urged by Dr. Lynch against it. He professes on h;s verv title-page to have proved the books enumerated 64 to be corrupt additions to the w6rd of God," and to have discussed and refuted 4'the arguments of Romanists from the infallibility of the Church and the testimonies of the Fathefs in their behalf." The question very naturally arises, ]Elas he done this I ]Flas be proved that these books are uninspired, as he must have done, if he has proved them to be corrupt additions to the word of God; and has he refuted the arguments of Catholics, or rather of Dr. Lynch, in th I eir beb alf ?
The arguments wbie ,h Dr. Lynch adduces for these book.,, are drawn from the infallibility of the Church and the testimony of the Fathers. If the Church is infallible, the testimony of the Fathers is of subordinate importance, for the infallibility along 102 suffices for the. f,%ithful ; if the Church is not infallible ? it is of still less consequence what the Fathers testify; for then all faith is out of the question, both for Catholics and all others. We may, therefore. waive all consideration, for the present, of the argument for the deutero-canonical books drawn from the testimony of the Fathers, and confine ourselves to that drawn from the infallibility of the Church. The argument froi-n infallibility must, of course, be refuted, before the author can claim to have refuted Dr. Lynch, or to have proved his general tbesis, that the books in question are 11 corrupt additions to the word of
The Catholic Church, undeniably, includes these books in her canon of Scripture, and commands her children to receive them as the word of God. This is certain 7 and the author concedes it; for he adduces it as a proof of her "intol(@rable arrogance." If she is infallible in declaring the word of God, as all Catholics hold, these books are certainly inspired Scripture, and rightfully placed in the canon. This is the argument from infallibility; and it is evident to every one who underi3tands what it is to refute an argument that it can be refuted only by disproving the infallibility, or, what is the same thing, proving the fallibility, of the Church. To prove the Church fallible, moreover, it is not enough to refute the arguments by which Catholics are accustomed to prove her infallibility; for a doctrine may be true, and yet the arguments adduced in proof of it be unsound and inconclusive. It will, therefore, avail the author but little to refute our arguments for the inf,illibility, unless be refutes the infallibility itself; for so long as be is unable to say positively that the Church is fallible, be is unable to refute the argument frofft her idfallibility. It may p,t@il be true that she is infallible, and if she is, the books are not uninspired compositions, but infallibly the word of God.
Mr. I'hornwell, who regards himself as an able and sound logician, appears to have some consciousness of this, and indeud to concede it. Accordingly, he devotes a third of his whole volume to disproving the infallibility of the Church, or 103 rather, to proving her fallibility. 11 I have insisted" h,3 say,,, in his Preface, 11 largely on the dognia of infallibility,-more largely, perhaps, than my readers rnav think consistent with the general design of my performance,-because I regard this a,; the prep and bulwark of all the abominations of the Papacy." (P. S.)
But to prove the fallibility of the Church, or to disprove her infallibility, is a grave undertaking, and attended with ser u@ difficulties. The Church cannot be tried except by some standard, and it is idle to attempt to convict her on a fallible antboritv. If the conviction is obtained on a fallible authority, the conviction itself is fallible, and it. instead of the Church, may be the party in the wrong. The Professor cannot take a single step, cannot even open his case, unless he has an infallible tribunal before which to summon the Chureli,-some infallil)le standard by which to test her infallibility or fallibility. But before what infallible tribunal can be cite her'@ What infallible authority has he on which he can demand her conviction ?.
The only possible way in which the fallibility of the Church can be proved is by convicting her of having actually erred on some point on which she claims to be infallible. But it is eviden4 that, in order to be able to convict her of having erred on a given point, we must be able to say infallibly what is truth or error on that point. Clearly, then, the Professor cannot comYnence his action, much less gain it, unless be has an authority which pronounces infallibly on the points on which lie seeks to zonvic' her of having actually erred. But what authority has be? Unhappily, he does not inform us, and does not appear to have recognized the necessity on his part of havin(T any authority. He sets forth, formally, no authority, designates no court, specifies no law, lays down no principles. This is a serious inconvenience, and affects both his legal and hi- logical attainrnents. His argument, let him do his best, must be ri?,inus its major proposition; and from the minor alone we have always understood that it is impossible to conclude any thing.
.Mr. Thornwell denies the infallibility of file Church. an(i he 104 recognizes no infallible authority in any one of the sect.@, includ incf even his own. Ile has, then no authority which he can -,tllege, but the tiit@ority of reason, ,ind his own private judument. Ilis own private itidoinent is of no weight, and cannot be ad. duced in a public discussion. The a ' uthority of reason we ackiiowled,,a to be infallible in her own province ; but her pro, vince is restricted to the Daturil order, and she has no jiirisdiction in the supernatural order, to which the Church professes tG belong. The Church has the right to be tried by her peers, eason is not, and cannot be, the peer of the supernatural, and is totally iiiia'ole, in so far as the Church lies within the supernatural order, to pronounce any judgment concerning ]ter infallibility one way or the other. Ileason, undoubtedly, knows that God is, and that be can neither deceive nor be deceived. It knows, therefore, if he al)points the Church, commissions her, as his organ, to declare his word, that she must declare it infallibly; for then it is be himself that declares in her declaration, and if she could either de ceive or be deceived, he himself could either deceive or be deceived.' If, then, reason finds sufficient or satisfactory grounds for believing that God h,%,, appointed or instituted the Church to declare his word, to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he bas'revealed, it pronounces her infallible, "d acknowledges its obligation to receive, without any questioning, what- ever she teacbes.
Reason, agaii), @noivs that God cannot be in contradiction with himself, and thei@efore, since both the natural order and the supernatural are from him, that he cannot establish principles in the one repugnant to those established in the other. On the authority of reason, then, we may always assert that he cannot teach oi-ie thing in the nitural order and its contradictory in the , stipei@natui-al order. If, then, it be clearly established, that the Church, on -i)atters on wl@iieb she claims to teach iDfalEbly teaclies what is in contradiction either to the supernatural or the natui@al order, it is certain trip she is fallible. But as reason cannot vo o@-@t of the order of nature, we can on its authority establish the fallibility of the Church only on the condition of convictiti,y her of having actually contradicted soi-ne law or pi,in cil)le of the natural order. If the Church, in other ivords, con ti@,tdiet reason, reason is competent to conclude against her, but i,ot Ahen she merely transcends reason; for what is above reason may be true, but what is against reason cannot be.
It follows from this that the authority of reason in the case before us is purely negative, and that the Professor can conclude from it against the Church only on condition that be proves that she actually contradicts it. But it is necessary even here to bear in mind that the natural can no more contradict the supernatural than the supernatural the natural. When the motives of credibility have convinced reason that the Church teaches by supernatural authority, her teaching is as authoritative as any principle of reason itself, and may be cited to prove that what is alleged against her as a principle of reason is not a principle of reason, with DO less force than. the alleged principle itself can be cited to prove that she contradicts reason. The Professor must, then, in order to prove her fallibility, adduce a case, not of apparent contradiction, but of real contradiction,it case in which what she teaches must evidently contradict an evident principle of reason,-so evident that it is clear that to deny it would be to deny reason itself.
The position, then, which the Professor must take and maintain, in order to establish his thesis, is, that the Church, in her teaching on matters on which she claims to teach infallibly, has taught or teaches what contradicts an evident and undeniable principle qf reason. This be must do before be can prove the fallil@ility of the Church, and he must prove the fallibility of the Church before he can refute the argument drawn from it for the books enumerated. Has be proved this ? Unhappily, be does not appear to have understood that this was at all necessary, or to have suspected that it was only by proving the Church to be against reason that be could conclude her fallibility. He does not appear to have known that there are and can be no questi,)m debatable betwei@n Catholics and Protestants but such as 105 establish the fallibility of the Church only on the condition of convictitio- her of having actually contradicted some laiv or pi-in ciple of the natural order. If the Church, in other ivords, con tradiet reason, reason is competent to conclude agtinst her, bul not when she merely transcends reason; for what is above reason may be true, but what is against reason cannot be.
It follows from this that the authority of reason in the case before us is purely negative, and that the Professor can conclude from it against the Church only on condition that he proves that she actually contradicts it. But it is necessary even here to bear in mind that the natural can no more contradict the supernatural than the supernatural the natural. When the motives of credibility have convinced reason that the Church teaches by supernatural authority, her teaching is as autboritative as any principle of reason itself, and may be cited to prove that what is alleged against her as a principle of reason is not a principle of reason, with no less force than. the alleged principle itself can be cited to prove that she contradicts reason. The Professor -must, then, in order to prove her fallibility, adduce a case, Dot of apparent contradiction, but of real contradiction,a case in which what she teaches must evidently contradict an evident principle of reasou,-so evident that it is clear that to deny it would be to deny reason itself. The position then, which the Professor must take and maintain, in order @ establish his thesis, is, that the Church, in her teaching on matters on which she claims to teach infallible has taught or teaches what contradicts an evident and undeniable principle qf reason. This be must do before be can prove the fallibility of the Church, and be must prove the fallibility of the Church before he can refute the argument drawn from it for the books enumerated. Has be proved this ? Unhappily, he does -not appear to have understood that this was at all necessary, or to have suspected that it was only by proving the Church to be against reason that he could conclude her fallibility. He do@ not appear to have known that there are and can be no questions debatable between Catholics and Protestants but such as 106 pertain exclusively to the province of reason. He labon iindei the hallucination, that lie has soi-netbin(y besides the reason com men to all men which he may oppose to us, that he has the revelatioii of Almighty God, and that he is at liberty to attempt to convict the Church, not on reason alone, but also on the word of God. This would be ridiculous, if the matter were not so grave as to make it deplorable. , He has no word of God to cite adainst us, and if he cites the Holy Scriptures at all, be must cite them either in the sense of the Church, or ,is simple historical documents ; because it is only in the sense of the Church that we acknowledge them to be inspired. We can cite them as inspired Scripture against him, as an argument?,tm ad hominem; for he holds them to be inspired Scripture as interpreted by private judgment. But he cannot against us ; for :the argument would not be ad ho)?@inem, unless cited in the sense of the Church, since it is only in that sense, that, on our own principles, they are the word of God.
The fact is, Mr. Thoi-nwell from first to last forgets in, his argument that we are as fay.from admitting his authority as be is from admitting ours. He writes under the impression, that he has the true Christian doctrine, and is invested with ample authority to define what is, and what is iio@ the word of God He assumes his Presbyterianism to be true, and when he has proved that Catholicity contradicts it, he concludes at once that Catholicity is false. But Presbyterianism is only his private jud<),Ment, and therefore of no authority. By what right does he erect his private judgment into a criterion of truth and falsehood, assume that it is infallible, and proceed to pronounce ex cathedra on the revealed word of God? We cannot recoo, nize his authority as sovereign pontiff, unless he brings us credentials from @eaven, duly signed and witnessed. His assumption we cannot admit. He is confessedly fallible, and his decisions we cannot even entertain. He does not come to ta duly commissioned by Almighty God to teach us his word; lie is simply a man, with no authority in the premises which may not l,e claimed and exercised by every other man as Nv,,Il as by 107 Mmelf. In an a @ment with Catholies he can be onlv a man.. ani,l is at liberty to adopt no line of argument that would not, be equallv proper in the me of a pagan, Mahometan, or any other inli@,i.
Protestant controversialists are exceedingly Drone to forget this. They assume that they have the word of God, that tliev know and believe what. God has revealed, and that they have ill their opinions a standard by which to try the Church. Yet they claim to be reasoners, and tell us that we have surrendered our reason! But whether the Church be or be not commissioned to declare the word of God, it is certain that they are not. Certain is i4 tha4 if she is not authorized to de@iare @t, no one else is; and equally certain is it, that no one not so autl-iorized has any right to ad(lice in an argument any thing he takes to be the word of God, save by the sufferance or consent of his opponents. It is a grave mistake to suppose that there is any other common ground between us and our adversaries than that of reason. It will @ not do for our adversaries to suppose, that, because we hold to the inspiration of the Scriptures, they may allege them in. their own sense against us; for we admit their inspiration only on the authority, and in the si,-,zse, of the Church. On her authority, and in the sense in which she defines ti,cir doctrines, we hold them to be the word of God ; but in no other sense, and on no other ground. Independently of her authority and interpretations, there are no inspired Scriptures for us. This fact must never be lost sight of, and it would qava Protestants an immense deal of labor, if they would keep it in mind, and govern theimelves accordingly. If they cite the Bible against us, on any authority or in any sense but that of the'Church, it is not for us the word of God, but simply tll(,ir private opinion, by which we are not and cannot be bound. Am-g. ourselves, who admit the authority of the Church, and therefore the inspiration of the Scriptures, it is lawful, on a point on which the actual teaching of the Church is matter of inquiry, to appeal to the written word, as also to the Fatliers and Doctors Of the Church, and also to the analogies of faitli; but it is n,-yel 108 awful for there out of the Church, dcdyin(,f her author'tv, td Make a like appeal ,t@,aiiist us ; for the ctuthority to kvlii,@ we appeal is resolvil)le into the authority of the Church, wlich thc@v deny.
@l-.e r,ul,-, we b@r insist upon is that of common sense and common jtistic , and Tests for it-, authority on the piincif),Ie, that no until his the i-ii4ht to assume in his argument the poirt that is in question. We ourselves cite the Scriptures affainst otii- adver@ar-'@ s, but alwavs either ad hominem,-becaiise they, tlio,,Io,ll we (10 not, admit their inspiration independently of the authority of the Church,-or as simple historical document,-,, ,%vliose aiithepticity and authority as such document-,, but not as inspired writings, reason is competent to determine. But we never tssume our Church and her definitions as the authority on Nvbicii to convict those without of error ; for to do so would beasheerbe(yo,iiio,oftliequestion. Undoubtedly,ifourCburch is right, all her adversaries are wrong. It needs no argument to prove that. We, therefore, take our stand in the argument, either on what our adversaries concede, or on the common reason of mankind, and attempt to prove, from the o-@ie or the other, or both ' that every one is bound to believe and obey the Church. Protestants must not c xpect us to allow them more than we claim for ourselves. They may need more in order to make out their case; but we are not aware that they have any right to special privileges, or to exemption from the common ,Dbligatioiis of reason and justice. As there are no concessions of ours which can avail them, they must in their controversies with us take their stand on the reason common to all men, and, ring since common to all, alike theirs and ours. They must b their action at common law, not on a special statute. Then they must restrict themselves to those questions which come within the jurisdiction of reason, and which she is competent to decide' 'thout appeal. Then they must waive all questions which wi pertain to the subject-i@atter of revelation ; for these all iindeni:-,],)Iv lie in the supernatural order, and therefore without the province of reason. 109
We frankly concede that Mr. Thornwell has proved that Catholicity is not Presbyterianism, and that, if Presbyterianism is the r velation of God, Cath,liit;y is not. But this amounts to nothin- ; Presbyterianism is neither proved nor conceded to be Chi-i-itiaiiitv. He cannot, therefore, assume it against us. We coiiee(-Ie @im not one inch of Christian ground on which to set Iii,; foot. We (lemur to every ai-oument he adduces or att-ml,@, to adduce from the convictions or prejudices of his sect, or from his own conceptions of the word of God. We listen to no ai,@rument,.;, we en rtain no objections, we plead to no charges, not drawn froi-n the common reason of mankind. We must, therefore, beg him to descend from his tripo(@ and meet us as a man with no authority but that which belongs to the reason of every riiaii.
We must, in view of this state of the case, eliminate from Mr. Thornwell's arguments against infallibility, as net to be eDtertained, all that lie urges on the authority of his own religious convictions or prejudices, and confine ourselves simply to what he adduces on the simple authority of reason. These last, all that is leoitiniately adduced, consist of an attempted refutation of Dr. LvDch's aroument for the infallibility of the Church, and certain ,)bilosophical, historical, and moral objections alleged against the Church.
We might well pass over Mr. Thornwell's attempt to refute Dr. Lynch's argument for infallibility, because, if successful, it would accomplish nothing to his purpose. The argument he has to refute is the argument from the infallibility of the Church, not the argument foi- it for the question is not on believing that infallibility, but on denying it. It may, as we have said, be true, and yet the arguments by which we attempt to prove it be unsound and inconclusive. The defect of proof is a good reason for Dot believing, but it is not always an adequate reason for denyin(r The thesis the Professor seeks to maintain requires him to deny the infallibility of the Church, or to assert her fallibility, and therefore the burden of proof devolves on him. He asserts that the disputed books are corrupt additions to the word 110 of God, which he cannot possibly prove without disproving t]14 infallibility of the Church, which declares them to be inspired Sci-il,ture. But he claims to have won a victol-v over Dr. t, Lyiic@, and his friends have bound the laurel around' his brows. We are, therefore, disposed to subject his claim to a sliL-Ylit examinatiod, and to inquire if his shouts have not been a little I)remature, and if, after all, the victory does not remain with his opponent. If he has succeeded, he has gained nothing for his thesis ; but if he has failed, we can conclude against it at once, at least so far as he is concerned.
Mr. Thornwell states Dr. Lvneh's Lreneral argument for the disputed books to be,-
Whatever the pastors of the Church of Rome declare to be true must be infallibly certain :"That the Apocrypha [the books enumerated] were inspired, the pastors of the Church of Rome declare to be true "
Therefore it must be infallibly certain."
This is stated in Mr., Thornwell's language, not in r. ne and is by no means so well expressed as it might be; but let that pass. SubStitUtiDg the names of the books alleged by Mr. Thoriiwell to be corrupt additions to the word of God f6r the term -4,pocrypha, we are willing to accept it. To this argument, which he has shaped to suit the objections be wishes to bring against it,. Mr. Thomwell's first objection is, that it is " vitiated by the ambiguity of the middle." The words " pastors of the Church," may be understood either universally, ptiticularly, or distributively,-to mean the whole body of the pastors, some of tlaem, and every one individually.
Ambiguity of the middle is where the words are taken in one sense in the major, and in another sense in the minor; but where they are taken in the same sense in both the premises, ,tlthough in themselves susceptible of several meanings, there is no ambiguity of the middle. In the argument as stated, the words, pastors, &c., are, in themselves considered, susceptible of the senses alleged, but as used in the argument they ti-e tied down to one sense. The rule of construction is, to understand 111 all words used in a general or universal sense, unless there be some reason, expressed or iMDlied, in the context or the nature of the subject, for not doing so. There is, in the present case, no such reason in either premise, and therefore we must take the words generally, or universally, in botb,-for the whole body of pastors. If so, there is no ambiguity of the middle.
But Mr. Thornwell werts that Dr. Lynch does use the words in the three different senses mentioned. He accuses him of meaning by them, at one time, the whole body of pastors collected or assembkd in council, at another time, apart onlv, and finally, every one individually; and alleges as proof, the fact, that in his Letter he predicates infallibility, 1. of the whole body of pastors in their collective capacity, 2. of the Council of Trent, in which only a part were personally assembled, and 3. ot each single teacher or missionary.
.I. That Dr. Lynch, when he predicates- infallibility of the body of pastors in their collective capacity, means the whole body, takes the words, pastors, &c., universally, is conceded, but ,that he means the whole body assembled in council we dev. He speaks of them as a,body of individuals in their collective capacity, not as a collected or congregated body; and that he does not mean the body of pastors assembled in council is evi,,dent from the fact, that he contends that the pastors of the Ch-,cb hd decided the question of the inspiration of the books in dispute Ion( r before the Council Df Trent, since, to do so, they did not need to assemble in a general council. Thus be says expres-ly,-" The, doctrines of the Catholic Church can be known from the universal and concordant teaching of her pa-stc,"s, even when her bishops have not assembled in t general council and embodied those doctrines in a list of decrees." (pp. 370, 371.) It is evident, then, that Dr. Lynch holds the pas. .tors of the Church to be a body of individuals, to have a collec. tile capacity, and the faculty of teaching infallibly in that capacity, even when not congregated. If Mr. Thornwell had recog. @ a difference between collective and collected, or congregated 112 he would casil have surmounted this part of his difficulty, with y out any foreign aid.
2. The act,., of the Holy Council of Trent, toticliin(r faith and niorals, Dr. Lynch unquestionably hold,, to be infallible, not because lie predicates infallibility of a part of the body of pastors, but because they were the acts of the whole Church represented in it, or at least made so by subsequent adoption, as is evident enou(,rb from his language. The proof, therefore, that he takes the words in a partitive sense, is inadequate.
3. That each single pastor teaches infallibly in his collective capacity, as " member " of the body of pastors, is conceded, but that he does so individually or in his individual capacity is denied; for in his individual capacity be cannot teach at all. Dr. Lynch speaks of his reaching infallibly only in his capacity as member of the body. As member of the body, the only sense in which he is a teacher at all, he participates of its infallibility, and teaches by its authority, and infallibly, not because be is individually infallible, but because it is infallible. Consequently in representing the single teacher as teacbing infallibly, Dr. Lynch does not use the words pmtors, &c., in a distributive sense.
Mt. Thornwell is unfoi-tuDat,-, in his proofs, notwithstanding he bad shaped his statement of the argument with special reference to them. He fails to substantiate his objection of " ambiguity of thb middle," and consequently all that be says, which is founded on it, fall,; to the ground. The beautiful argument he had constructed to prove that a Catholic can never know when and where to find the infallible authority on which he bad expended so much labor, and lavished so many rare ornaments, falls to pieces through default of a foundation. Decidedly, it is an inconvenience to build without any thing to build with or to build on. It is worse thai being compelled to make bricks without straw.
My. Thornwell, after his objection to the form of the argumen@ proceeds to deny and to refute its major, namely, the infallibility of the Church. His first effort is to refute Dr. Lynch's argu- 113 m(.nt for it. Dr. lynch contends that " we cannot be called on to believe any propol@ition without adequate proof;" that " when Almighty God desiamed to inspire the works contained in the Holy Scriptures, he intended they should be believed to be in sj)ired;" and that @l therefore there does exist some adequate proof." Thus far all is evident enough, and the Professor brings no objection to what is alleged. We may presume it, then, as conceded, that there does exist some adequate proof of their itjsl,)ii-,ition, that is to say, some authority competent to declare the fact. What is it? " It must be" says Dr. Lynch, " a body of individuals to whom, in their collective capacity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision on the subject." It must be such a body, because it can be nothing else. This body is composed of the pastors of the Catholic Church. Therefore the pastors of the Catholic Church have authority to make an unerring decision, that have infallible authority to declare the word of God.
Mr. Thornwell does not deny, tha@ if such a body exi sts, it is the pastors of the Roman Catholie, Church. On this point he raises no question, and we may regard him as conceding it. He denies the necessity of any such body -as Dr. Lynch asserts. He objects, firs@ to the form of the aroument by which Dr. Lynch undertakes to prove it. The argumet, be says, sins by an imperfect enumeration of particular. It is a destructive disjunctive conditional, which must contain in the major all the suppositions which can be conceived to be true, and in the minor destroy all but one. But Dr. Lynch has not included ill such suppositions in his major, and therefore, conceding that be ba-c destroyed in the min or all he has enumerated save one, he is not entitled to his conclusion. Dr. Lynch has enumerated four metliods:-I. Every individual, on the streiioth of his own private examination, is to decide for himself,-pi-ivate judgment; 2. Every individual, is to receive books a,-, inspired, or reject them as uninspired, according to the decisions of such persons as ha judo.'es qualified by their erudition and sound jud-ment to deters mine the question,-the judo,,ment of the learned@; 3. We must 114 t, O& (@ the inspiration of Scripture from some individual whom God has commissioned to announce this fact to the world ; of 4. From a body of individuals to whom, in their collective capac. ity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision on the subject. But a fifth supposition is possible, says the Professor. namely, " God himself by his Eternal Spirit may condescend to be the teacher of men, and eiiligliteii their understandings to perceive in the Scriptures themselves infallible marks of their inspiration. " This supposition Dr. Lynch has " entirely overlook-ed, " " strangely suppressed," and therefore cannot even by der,troying the first three suppositions conclude the fourth.
But Dr. L Dch has not "entirely overlooked," "stranuelir y n Y suppressed," this fifth supposition, but expressly mentions it, and gives his reason for not including it in the number of supposable methods. Mr. Thornwell has generously furnished us the evidence of this. After enumerating the four methods stated, Dr. Lynch says (Appendix, P. 359) :-" I might perhaps add a fifth method; that each one be informed what books are inspired bv his private spirit. But I onit it, as, were it true, it would be superfluous, if not a criminal intrusion on the province God would have reserved to himself, to attempt to prove or disprove, when our duty would be simply to await in patience the revelation to each particular individual. You are not a member of the Society of Friends, and your essay is not an expose of the teichings of your private spirit, but an effort to appeal to argument. " With this passage before his eyes, we cannot understand how the Presbyterian minister could assert that Dr. Lynch entirely overlooked this fifth method, for undeniably the Catholic Doctor means bv the private spririt precisely the same thing the Presbvterian does by God condescending to teach men by his Eternal I - Spirit. Moreover, the reasons assigned by Dr. Lynch for not including it in the list of supposable methods are conclusive, at least till answered. These reasons are two :-l. That, if assiiinei, all argument would be foreclosed, either as superfluous oi- as criminal ; and 2. Mr. 'rllornweu evidently rejects it, because he appeals to argument, and therefore against him it cannot be 115 ne,ce,4ai,v to include it. These are solid reasons, and -i%lr. Tliornw(,Ii should leave met them before accusing I)r. Lviieli of htv"iia, entirely overlooked the method of int(!rior illumination, and especially before insisting upon its being supposable. Mr. Thornwell is apparently disposed to maintain that this fifth method is the one ictually adopted, but this he is not at liberty to do. The method is private, not public, and cannot be appealed to in a public debate. In a public debate, the appeal must alwavs be to a public authority, that is, to an authority common to both parties. If the authority, to which the appeal to be made is private, there can be no public debate ; if private, interior, immediate, as must be the teachings of the spirit, there can be no argument. Argument in such a Case would be superffuous and even criminal. Whep, therefore, a man resorts, on a given question, to argumen@ and to public argument, he necessarily assumes that the authority which is to determine the question is public, and denies it to be private. Mr. Thornwell in his essay made his appeal to argument, and wrote his essay to prove that the question he raised is to be settled, not by tile private spiri@ but by public facts, argument-,, and authority. -He therefore cannot fall back on the private spirit. Havin(Y elected public authority, he must abide by it. If he cannot now fall back on the private spiri@ he cannot allege it as a supposable method; and if he 'cannot so allege i@ he. cannot accuse Dr. Lynch's argument of sinning by an imperfect enumeration of particulars, because it omits it.
Mr. Thornwell, furthermore, is, very much affected by Dr. Lynch's supposed temerity in restricting the number of supposable methods to the four enumerated. Ile grows very eloquent, and manifests DO little pious horror at what he Calls an effort to set bounds to Omnipotence. All thit is very well, but he him. self excludes the method of private teaebiiio,, by writin, his book o prove, on other grounds, that the books in question are uninspired, and he does not even attempt to sug(yest tn a(lditional method. Nobody, unless it be himself, seeks to limit Om. "iPo,t,ence; nobody, tk) our knowledge, denies that Alini(,htv 0 116 ate method, if he had chosen te liod might have adopted the priv do so. 'llie question is not, as is evident from the whole train of Di-. Lyncli's reasoning on abstract possibilities, but on what is or is not possible in hac providentia. Nobody pretends that the private spirit is not supposable because it is metapbysieallv impossible, but it is not supposable because incompatible with other things which we know must be supposed, and which Mr. Tlioi@nwell undeniably does suppose.
The alleged fifth method not being supposable, unless Mr. Tlioi-nwell chooses to coiidemn himself for attempting to argue the question, and to confess that all his arguments are senseless and absurd, nay, profane and criminal, the objection raised to Dr. L-yiich's major falls to the ground; and as he does not pre. tend that the conclusion is not logical, he must grant the conclusion or deny the minor. But he cannot grant the conclusion without co ' needing the infallibility of the Church, which he seeks to disprove. He therefore asserts that " the ininoi, is lame, and can at best yield only a lame and impotent conclusion. The minor is proved only by removing or destroying the first three suppositions. But this is not done ; for the arguments by which Dr. Lynch seeks to do it apply with equal force against the fourth, which he must retain. But the legitimacy of this reply is questionable. One of the four suppositions must be true, for some adequate proof does exist. If the objections adduced are in themselves considered sufficient to remove the three, they cannot be urged against the fourth, for that would prove too much, namely, that there is no adequate proof. If insufficient they must then be shown to be so on other grounds, or -else we can always reply, one supposition is true, and it must be the fourth, because it cannot be one or another of the first three.
We deny the assertion, that the arguments against the three apply with equal force against the fourth. We begin with Dr. Lyiieli's argument against the first supposition,-tbat every iiidivi,lual is to decide for himself on the strength of his own examination. This is utterly impossible ; for the bulk of ma@ 117 find want-the ability, the leisure, and the opportunity to ac(li.ii-e the tmount of science and erudition necessary to enable them to come to an absolutely certain conclusion on the subject of the inspiration of the Scriptures. This is evident to every one who e,onsiders,-l. The controversies which have obtained respecting the canon; 2. The nature of the questions to be settled, and what it needs to enable one to decide respecting the fact of the inspiration of ancient books on intrinsic grounds; 3. That every one is required to believe the truth on the subject, not only after a life of inquiry, and historical and scientific investigation, but from the moment of common to years of discretion; and 4. The actual condition of the generality of mankind in relation to scien@ and erudition. These considerations are amply sufficient to disprove the first supposition; for every one is comnianded to believe, and the proof, to he adequate, must be adequate in the case of every one,-of the ignorant slave and rud(, savage, as well as of the learned and gifted few,-of the boy or girl in whom reason has just dawned, as well as of the s6entific veteran or the grey-haired scholar.
The Professor replies: The learning asserted to be necessary, if necessary at all,'Must be so because the fact of inspiration in general is not determinable without it, and therefore must be as necessary in the body supposed as in the individual decidin(y for himself. But the body must acquire it either by investigation or by inspiration. If by investigation it has no advantage over the individual and whatever proves his inability applies -,vith equal force against its ,Ibility. If by inspiration, then it must have the same learning to be able to determine the fact of its own inspiration, and the people who are to receive its decision must also have it in order to be able to judge of its inspiration. Henee the Professor sums up triumphantly,-" When you shall condescend to inform me how, the Fatliei-s of Trent could decide with infallible certainty upon the Scriptures, without the learning which is necessary, in your view, to understand the evidence, "f @b,','y themselves were ,inspired; or how, if inspilkd, they could %without this learning, either be certain themselves of'the fact, ol 118 ef,t,iblisb it with infallible certainty to the people, who, with')Ut your learning, must judoe of the inspiration of the Iloly Coun cil,--when, consistently with your principles, you resolve these difficulties, one of the objections to your argument will cease." (P. 5 I.)
This is the argument in all its force. Its substance is, wbitever difficulties there may be in the way of the method of private judgment, precisely the same difficulties are in the way of the @dy of individuals supposed, and can no more easily be overcome by it than by the individual himself. This is the common Protestant reply to our objections against the method of private judgment, and is tantamount to saying, that a man has just the same difficulties to overcome in simply declaring what be believes and always has believed as in determining bv personal inquiry and examination what he ought to believe ; or that it is as easy to ascertain and verify the truth we are ignorant of as it is merely to express with precision the truth we already possess and always have possessed from the first memeiit of our existence 1
But let us examine this famous argument, which, in one form or other, is the great, and virtually the only, argument by which Protestants seek to evade the force of the objections of Catbolies to their scheme of proof. Dr. Lynch asserts that a certain amount of science and erudition is necessary to enable an individual, on the strength of his own examination, to come to an absolutely certain decision on the fact of the inspiration of an ancient writing, whose inspiration is determinable, not on extrinsic, but mainly on intrinsic grounds. Then, says the Professor, the same amount is necessary to enable an inspired individual to judge of the evidence of his own inspiration. But this conclusion can follow only from the assumption, that the evidence of inspiration must be the same for the inspired and the uninspired. If you make the evidence mediate in the uninspired, you must also make it mediate in the inspired ; and if immediate in the inspired, then also immediate in the uninspired. )3ut it is not mediate ii; the inspired ; for, unquestionably, he 119 wh<) inspires immediately evide ces the fact to the one he in. spires. flow, then, contend foi- iiiediate evidence in the unin- spired ? Grant this re oning, and the author condemns him- self. The evidence is immediate, and vet be has written t book to settle the question by argument and erudition, both of which are mediate. He has, on this hypothesis, evidently proved nothing; for he his offered inappropriate evidence, and must be mistaken when he says that he has proved the books enunierate(] to be " corrupt additions to the word of God. "
A,r,iin; the Professor asserts, that, if the learning alleged be necessary in the particular case, it is so because the fact of inspir,ition is determinable. in no case without it, that is, that a thing cannot be true in the particular unless it be true in the universal,--as if one should say, some men cannot be black, because all men are not black; or, some are black, therefore all men are black ! We presume Mr. Tboriiwell's servant is a black man; therefore, he 'himself is a blac,c man. I The principle the Professor adop@ is, not only that what, is true Of the genus must be true of the species, but, also, that ;What is trli(i of the species must be true of the genus. Thus, man is an am. inal; but a goose is-at, Animal; therefore, man is a goose;or, a goose is an adimal; but man is an animal; therefore, a goose is a man. 13ut,the principle, if adopted, carries us farther yet. It is the d 'al of all di eni eeeti., the fundamental error of Spitiozism or pantheism. Thus, under the genus substilice, God.is substance -1 but a moss is @substalice; therefore, God is a moss, or reverse it, and a moss is God ! T, this a principle to be adopted by a ProfessDr of " the I Evidences of Christianity in so respectable an institution as the South Carolina College Ilas the Professor yet to make his philosophy, as well as his theology ?
But, evidently, there is a. difference of species; for the Prof@r would take it as unkind, nay, uncivil, in us, if, because be comes under the, genus animal, as does every 'Dan, we should insist on including him in the species goose. It cannot therefl", folloiv, that, because a thing is true in the particular, it 120 taust be true in the universal. Consequently, Dr. Lynch ma7 assert that a certain amount of science and erudition is necessary to decide on a particular fact by a particular agent, on particular grounds, and yet not be obliged to concede that the same amount i3 necessary in every case, whoever the to;eitt, and whatever the grounds on which he is to decide. ']'he amount alleged to be necessary may not be necessary in the case of the inspired themselves to detei-rdine the fact of their own inspiration ; it may not be necessary in the case of the eyewitnesses of the miracles by which the inspired evidence the fact ' that God speaks to and by them; it may not be necessary to those who receive the fact immediately from the inspired themselves, or on the authority God himself has commissioned to declare it; and yet be indispensable in the case of a single individual who has, on the strengtl-t of his own examination, to decide whether a book written some two or three thousand years aoo is or is not an inspired composition ; as it needs no argument to prove.
The knowledge, be it more or be it less, necessary in the case, to determine what books are and what are not inspired, must be possessed by the body supposed, as well a.-, by the individual, we concede ; and if that body is destitute of it and has it to learn, it must learn it either from investigation or inspiration, we ,ilso concede ; otherwise we deny it. But the body asserted in the hypothesis is, by the very teriyis of the supposition, already in possession of the truth, and of all the knowledge necessary to declare it, and, in deciding the question, ha.-, only to declare solemnly what it already holds and has held from the moment of its institution. Thereforej it has to acquire the knowle(l,re neither b-,- investigation nor by inspiration ; for it has not to icquire it at all. Unless, then, the Professor chooses to maintain that to declare what one already holds directly from oui- Lord or his Apostles is the same thing as for an individual ignorant of it to learn it by the examination of historical documents and scientific investigation, he must concede that the parity lie seeks to esta:b-lishbetween every individual deciding the fact of irspir- 121 ation on the strength of his own examination, and the Church, or body of teachers sup'osed, doind, it on the authority of our p Lord and his Apostles, from whom it received it immediately, has no foundation except in his own fancy, and that the conclusions which depend upon it fall to the ground.
The ProfessoFs reasoning is initiated by his supposing a body of individuals totally different from that supposed in the bypotlic.sis be is arguing affainst. The body he supposes is no body or corporation at a',l ; but a simple aggregation of individuals who at any given time compose iL. Between such a body and the Apostles there must needs be all the distance of time and space, that there is between the Apostles and the individuals themselves. It would and it could possess only what the individuals composing it should b-@iiiy to it, and they could bring to it only what they acquire in their individual capacity. 11 The inere fact of human CODgi-egation," as tl-ie Professor riffhtly coilten@,,,,, could confer no power, bevond the aggregate power of the indIN-iclzials congregated. Ileiice the ao;ore(Tat(, body, or collect;oii of individuals, as well as the Single individual, would need to o4)t@iiii, itliei- by investigation or inspiration, the ]@nov@led(r necessary to coi-ae to an infallible Decision. II needed no learned l@i-of(@ssot- to tell us all this, which is bv no means beyond the reach of @ny man of ordinary sense. @ndeed, we feel humbled when we find learned men brini.ing such objections to us,-humbled for ourselves, that they can think so meanly of our understai-icl,.n(,rs as to suppose us capable of holding any thing against Nvliieli objections so obvious even to a child may be urged, and 'humbled for them, that they should imagine, that, in bringin such objections, they are telling something Recondite, or treat it 'f, po-;sihle that such objections can have any power to demolish lat lofty and spacious edifice, the Church, founded upon the roe!,, firmly built and cemented, which has withstood all the a,@q@,ttilts of wicked men and devils for eighteen hundred years, anci ,t@)-aiDst which the gates of hell shall never prevail, not ever to I osen a single stone or to detach a single tile.
'Blit thi,@ body, this to-(Yrc@(rate of individuals, is not the bod@ 122 supposed by Dr. Lynch, and to prove thit this has iio advantaoc, over the individual is iiotliiii(,, to 'blie. purpose, for nobody certairtly no Catholic, denies it. The Professor's argument is a sheet paralo,risni, of that species which consists in proving what is not supposed in the questiod, and which is not denied by the adversary,-a sophism for which the learned Professor has a peculiar fondness, and into which he falls with remarkable facility. The body supposed by Dr. Lynch is the Church teaching; for he says, " the pastors of the Catholic Church claim to compose it." But the Catholic Church, as a body or corporation, the only sense in which it is alleged to have any teachin(r faculty at all, is not an no, relation of individuals who at any given time compose it,- @g - a body born and dying @th them; but the contemporary of our Lord and his Apostles, in immediate communion with them, and thus annihilating all distance of time and place between them and us. She is, in the sense supposed, a corporation, and, like every corporation, a collective individual possessing the attribute of immortality. She knows no interruption, no succession of monient:@, no lapse of years. Like the eternal God, who is ever with her, and whose organ she is, she has duration, but no succession. She can never grow old, can never fall into the past. The individuals -,vho compose the body may change, but she chanffes Dot; one by one they may pass off, and one by one be renewed, while she continues ever the same; as in our own bo(lies, old particles constantly escape, and new ones are assimilated, so that the whole matter of which they are composed is ebang(!d once in every six or seven vears, and yet they remain always identically the same bodies. These changes as to individuals change nothing as to the body. The Church to-day is identically that very body which saw our Lord when he takrnaeled in the flesh. She who is our dear Mother, and on whose words we hang with so much delight, beheld with her own eyes the stupendous miracles which were performed in Judea eighteen hundred years ago; she assisted at the preaching of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended upon them in &ven tongues of fire ; she heard St. Peter, the prince of the 123 A,postles, relate how the Spirit descendcl upon Cornelius and his household, and declarehow God had chosen that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of God and believe; she listtened with charmed ear and ravished heart to the last admonition of " the disciple whom Jesus loved........ My dear children, love on(, another; " she saw the old Temple razed to the ground, the legal rites of the old covenant abolished, and the once chosen people driven out from the Holy Land, and scattered over all the earth; she beheld paean Rome in the pride and pomp of power, bled under her persecuting emperors, and finally planted the cross in triumph on her ruins. She has been the contemporary of eighteen hundred years, which she has arrested in their flight and made present to us, and will make present to all generations as they rise. With one hand she receives the de.positum of faith from the Lord and his commissoned Apostles, with the other she imparts it to us. Such is the body supposed, between -,vhich and thiNindiNi(lual Mr. Thornwell must establish the parity he contends @for, or not establish it at all. What has this body to do, in order to decide what books are, and what are not, inspired ? Merely to declare a simple fact which she has received on competent autbority,'-Merely what our Lord or his Apostles have told her. What needs she, in order to do it with infallible certainty ? Simf)lv protection against Forgetting, misunderstanding, ind misstating; and this she has, because -,be has, according to the hypothesis, our Lord always abiding with her, and the Paraclete, who leads her into all truth, and " brings to her remembrance " all the words spoken to her by our Lord himself personally, or by his inspired Apostles,-keepiDg her memory always fresh, rendering her infallible assistance rightly to understand and accurately to express what she rememben to have been tau t. Here are all the conditions requisite for an .gh infallible decision; and all these must be supposed, because they are all asserted in the hypothesis.
Now we demand what parity there is between such a body, 'which has only to state what it believes and always has believed OR the inspiration of Scripture, and which has the supernatural 124 assistance of the Holv Ghost to state it infallibly, and an individual who has noth'lnfv but certain wi-itin(ys before him, ancl who li,%s to determine, by the examination of docuinenls and scien. tific investigation of the intrinsic evidences, whether they art, inspireil or not,--a fact which, since it is supernatural, lies out of the order of nature, and is therefore only extrinsically provable. Who so blinded by passion, by pride, by prejudice, or il-norauce, as to pretend, that such a body, supposing it to exist, can no more come to a certain conclusion, is in no better condition for coming to a certain conclusion, on the fact of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, than an ignorant slave on our plantations, or a rude savaoe of our forests? Who is he ? Indeed, it is the learned Presbyterian minister, the " Professor of Sacred Literature and the Evidences of Christianity in the South Carolina College 1 " It is evident to any man of ordinary sense, that such a body can decide the question infallibly, and equally evident that the ignorant slave or the rude savage cannot.
To the dilemma, therefore, in which the Professor affects to have placed his Catholic opponent, we reply:-The Council of Trent could, uninspired, but simply assisted by the Holy Ghost, decide with infallible certainty upon the inspiration of the Scriptures, without the learning necessary in the case of the individual deciding for himself on the strenoth of his own examination, because it had only to give an authoritative expressio?t to the actual faith of the body of pastors it represented,-and it could establish the infallibility of its expression to the people who were to receive it, because, to do so, it bad only to establish that it did express the universal faith of that body, easily collected from its being received by the whole body as soon as made known. The other part of the dilemma falls of itself. We do not assume, nor are we obliged to assume, that the Fathers of Trent were inspired. Inspiration is needed only where the truth to be promulgated is unknown and has to be revealed: where nothing is to be done but infallibly state the truth already revealed and believed, the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, without inspiration, suffim. 125
We have here shown that the difficulties suggested are re. solvable on Catholic principles; the Professor must tberefor4A concede, according, to his promise, that one objection to Dr. Lyneh's argument c ases. But this one objection is his only objection to that argument, so far as it bears against the first-arried method; and since this is removed, the argument, thus far, is not refuted. If Dot refuted, it, at least against the Professor, is sound, and, then, the first method is destroyed, and I)r. Lynch is entitled to his conclusion against it.
There remain to be considered the second and third suppositions. The second, that of relyin(p on the juduinent of the n zn learned, the Professor passes over in profound silence, and therefore yields it up as indefensible. It is remarkable, however, that Mr. Tbornwell should do so; for it is really the method actually adopted by the mijority of Protestants, and abandoning it is virtually abandoning Protestantism itself. Undoubtedly, Protestants assert private judgment; but the private judgment on which they actually rely is not the private judo,inent of each individual, but the private judgment of those assumed to be learned and wise and prudent. Protestantism must never be taken at its '-word ; for one of its essential propei@ties is, to profess one thing and to do another, or to give us the name without the thing,-tbe sign without the thing signified. Wboei,er knows Protestants at all knows that they take their opinions, Dot on their own private judgment, but on the authority of their masters. Whenever they do not do so, we find them becoming downright Rationalists, or absolute apostates from Christianity ; and it is never, only as grouped around ,Ome leader, sweai,ino, by the words of some master, that we see them retain anything of the form of religion, or present any co-pact appearance. The people are aware of their own inaI)ility to decide for themselves what they ought to believe, and they only decide what beresiarcb they will follow,-wbat master tliev will have. Thus they say,-" So said Martin Liither, so I "aid John Calvin, or George Fox ; so teach Edwaras and Dwio, t, Owen and Gill, Wesley and Swedenborg, Murray and Inh 126 Ballou, kjhannino, and Fourier, Emerson and Parker." It. is not in himself the poor Protestant confides, but in some leader who seems to him, for his learning, wisdom, and sound judgi-nen@ worthy of confidence. If here and there a bold, energetic individual starts up with perfect confidence in his own judgment, and has the courage or the audacity to proclaim, as the truth of God, his own personal conceits or convictions, he either founds a new sect, or a new party or faction in the sect, to which he pertains ; as we see in the instance of Muncer and George Fox, Brown and Sandeman, Wesley and Whitefield, Erskine and Irving, Southeote and Pusev Campbell and Bush. nell, Charming and Parker. If each judged for himself, we should see no sects, parties, or groups; each would stand alone, on his own two feet, acknowledging no master, and no fellow, saying always 1, never able to say we.
This must needs be. How, except by relying,on such men as Mr. Thornwell, could the great body of Presbyterians, for instance, come to any conclusion on the question discussed in the volume before us ? In fact, they do not attempt to obtain a conclusion by anv other means. "Mr. Thornwell is a godly man; he is a great and learned man; he has investigated the subject; be wont deceive us; and we will believe what be f,ays." Here is the fact, disguise it as you will, and Mr. Thornwell knows it as well as we do. We must, therefore, regard his passing this method over in silence as a tacit confession that in his judgment Protestantism is not defensible.
Nevertheless, we cannot be much surprised that Mr. Tbornwell passes this method over in silence. It is not a method to be avowed. Protestant ministers would have a short lease of their power, if they were to avow it. They would be pressed with a multitude of questions, which it would be very inconveiiient to answer. 11 After all, "-the justly indignant people whom they have led might say,-" this private judgment you preached was only a pretext, a bait to catch gudgeons. You never meant it; you only meant that we must submit our jud@ ments to yours ! Is it true that you monopolize all the learniiig. 127 all the wisdom, all tlip judgment, in the world? What guai,anty c n you give us, f@illiue men as you confess yourselves, that ),on yourselves are not deceived,-nay, that you are incap.'Ib.0 of deceiving Rs ? You deceived us, when you promised us the right of private, judgment. What reason have we to suppos(, you do not deceive us in other tbin(rs also? " Such questioiis might be put, and, if put, it is obvious that it would be very inconvenient to answer t@ip.
The first method is disproved; the second is abandoned; only the third remains. This. that of a single individual duly corniiiissioned by Almi(,,Iity God to announce the fact of inspiration to the world, the Professor does net attempt to defend as true, or as one which be does or can hold; but he maintains, that ' on Catholic principles, it is probable, and therefore Dr. Lynch is entitled only to a probable conclusion,-not sufficient for his purpose, because he must conclude with absolute certainly. The Professor concludes, that, on Catholic principles, this hypothe,,;is is probable, from the fact, that, on Catholic principles, it is a probable opinion that the Pope is infallible. But his argumedt involves a transition from one genus to anotl)er, and therefore concludes nothing. The single individual asserted in the hypothesis is commissioned in his individual capacitv to aniiounce the fact, and it is in this capacity that he is to do it. But such a commissioned individual is not the Pope, or Sov,ereign Pontiff. No Catholic holds the Pope in his individual capacity to be infallible. Ile is infallible, as we hold, and as we presume Dr. Lynch also holds; but only in his capacity of Supreme Head of the Church, in which sense be is included in the fourth hypothesis, as joined to the body of individuals asserted, inseparable frcm it, and essential to it. Concede, then, the infallibility of the S.)vereign Pontiff, nothing is conceded in f,tNTor of the third method ; for in the sense in which he is infallibl he is tile Church, or essentially includ in the fourth method; since the head is not without the body, nor the body without the bead.
The third method, then, is not the i-netliod. Then no one 128 of the first three. Then the Fourth is; because soi-ne of proof does exist, and it can be no other. Mr. 'I'hot-nwoll, therefore, has not refuted Dr. Lynch's argument. If be has not refuted it, against him, it stands good. Then the method of proof is the body supposed. But this body has authority to make an unerrint decision on the subject of inspiration, n ,that is, to declare unerringly ivhit is or is not the word of God, therefore infallible in declaring the word of God. But this body is composed of the pastors of the Catholic Church. Therefore the pastors of the Church are infallible in declaring the word of God, the proposition Dr. Lynch undertook to prove. It would seem from this, that the learned and logical Professor's shouts of victory were decidedly premature. It is clear, also, since we are not considering what is or is not possible in the abstract, but in 7tac p?-ovidentia, that the whole controversy turns between the first method and the fourth ; for the private spirit is not admissible. and the Professor does not defend the second, and cannot, and would not if he could, defedd the third. It is, then, either private judgment or the Catholic Church. So the Professor virtually concedes or maintains. What, therefore, he further tdduccs in his Fourth Letter, namely, that it is as easy to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the infallibility of the Church, cannot be entertained. There does exist some adeiltiate proof; this is conceded. It evidently cannot be the i-nethod of private judgment; for it is absolutely impossible for ,t field slave, for instance, ignorant of letters, and with no time or'ability to learn, to be able to decide for himself, on his own exai-ninatioii, whether Tobias or Ecclesiasticus is or is not an inspired composition. But, if not private judgment, it must be the infallible Church, and therefore the Church and its infallibility follow from the necessity of the case. This necessity overrides every possible objection, Bring as many objections as you please, and we dismiss them, as proving, if any thing, too much, and therefore nothing. Q?,tod nimis @robat, nihil p,-obat.
Thus far we bai-e confined ourselves, after stating the queff 129 don, to showii3(r that the Pi-of@,isor has not refuted Dr. Lynch s ar,o,umeiit 5)i- the infallibility of the Church. This h beer, perfectly gratu@tou:i on our part, for the burden of proof is or the l@rofesFoi-. ]3tit liavinix Niiidicated Dr. Lynch's argument for the infallibility of the Church, we are now tble to conclude it Lt,(),ailist @Nlr. 'llioi-n%vell from the necessity of the case, the sti-oii,rest at- ui-n itt iat it is possible to use. Infallibility overrides all o@jecti us ; and consequently, the Professor, let - him do his best, cannot pi-on-e the fallibility of the Church. Here, then, we well iniht rest; but we find our author rather an amusing companion, and xve should be sorry to part company with him so soon. We hope, therefore, to be able, in an early number, to consider the direct proofs of the fallibility of the Church, which lie has attempted to bring. In the meantime, we recommend him, since lie must hold his looical reputation dear, to make himself acquainted with Catholicity, before attempting ,again to write iainst it, and review also his logic, before he again asks his opponent to reason in syllooisrns.
> Part Two
Adapted from
Essays and Reviews p. 100
Brownson's Quarterly Review (April, 1848)
Works, Vol. VI, p. 427
Revised January 9, 2005.