Essays and Reviews


Thornwell's Answer to Dr. Lynch
by Orestes A. Brownson
Part Two of Three Parts

< Part One

MR. THORNWELL begins his argument against the Church (LetterIV.) by asserting, in substance, that we are unable to prove her infallibility, or if able, only by a process which superse(les the necessity of an infallible church to determine what is or is not the word of God. " It is just as easy," he savs, " to Prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the infallibility Of 130 any church." The evidence for both 11 is of precisely the same nature." The infallibility of the Church-" the inspiration of Rome," as he iinl@roperly expresses it-" turns upon a promise which is said to have been made nearly two thousand years ago; the inspiration of the New Testament turns upon facts which axe said to have transpired at the same time. Both the promise and the facts are to be found, if found at all, in this very New Testament." You must prove its credibility, or you cannot prove the promise; and if you prove its credibility, you prove the facts. Therefore " you cannot make out the historical proofs of Papfci infallibility without making out at the same time the historical proofs of Scriptural inspiration." Consequently, if you contend that the proofs are insufficient for the inspiration, you deny their F,ufficiency for the infallibility, and then ea-adot assert your infallible Church ; if you say they are sufficient for the infallibility, you concede their sufficiency for the inspiration, and then do not need your infallible Church to determine what is or is not the word of God. (pp. 57-65.)

But Dr. Lynch proves, as we have seen in our former article, and as is sufficiently evident without proof to every one of ordinary reflection, that it is morally impo@ible to determine, with absolute certainty, what Scriptures are or are not inspired, except by the infallible Church. To assert, after this, that the infallible Church itself is provable only by proving Scripturil inspiration, is only asserting, in other words, that no adequate proof of what is or is not inspired Scripture exists. But some adequate method does exist, as Dr. Lynch proves, and Mr. Thornwell concedes. This method, if not private Judgment, is the infallible Church, as he also virtually concedes ; for private illumination is not a method of proof, since, if a fact, it is not a fact that can be adduced in evidence; and the other two methods supposed, name the jadgment of the learned, and the single individual commissioned by Almicrhty God to announce the fact of inspiration to the world, he either abandons or cannot assert. The method, then, is either the infallible Church, or private judgment. It tannot be private judgment, if the objections urred against it be 131 conceded. To attempt, without answering these objections, te show that equal objections bear against the Church, is, for the purposes of the argument at least, to concede them, and therefore to prove, if any thing, that Do adequate method of proof exists, whiel-i is not allowable. As long, then, as private judgrnent remains unrelieved of the objections which declare it an impossible and therefore an unsupposable method, the argument proves too much for the Professor as well as for us, and couse- queiltly nothing.

This answers sufficiently Mr. ThornwelPs reasoning, as far it is intended to bear against Dr. Lynch's argument for infallibbity from the necessity of the ease. But we have a higher purpose in 'new than the simple vindication of Dr. Lynch, or the formal refutation of Professor Thornwell, and will therefore waive this reply and meet the reasoning on its intrinsic merits. Mr. Tbornwell's conclusion rests on two assumptions :-I. That in order to establish the infallibility of the Church, Catholics are obliged to establish the credibility of the New Testament; and 2.. That the credibility of the New Testament, when established, is all that is needed to establish Scriptural inspiration,-that is, to settle the question what Scriptures are and what are not insl)ired. Both of these assumptions we deny. l@ In order to establish the infallibility of the Church, it is not necessary to establish the credibility of the New Testament. All that is needed to establish the infallibility is the miraculous orio,in of the Church. If she had a miraculous origin, she was founded by Almighty God; for none but God can work a miracle. If founded by Almighty God, she is his Church and speaks by his authority ; there@re infallibly; for God can antliorize only infallible truth.

IL Drder to make out the miraculous origin of the Church, we are iot obliged to recur to the New Testament at all; we can do it, and are accustomed to do i@ when arguing -,vith avowed unbelievers, without any reference . 0 the authority of the Scriptures, either as inspired or as simple historical documents. We do it by taking the Church as we find her to-day, existing as an historical fact, and traeing her up, 132 step by step, through the succession of ages, till we ,iscend to her original Founder. The extraordinary nature of her claims, tidiformly put forth, and steadily acted upon from the first her various institutions, professino, to embody facts, which could not in the, nature of things have sprung from no facts, or from facts pertaiuidg exclusively to the natural order; the external history which runs parallel to hers; the relation held to her from the beginning by the Jewish and pagan worlds, and by the various heresies in each succeeding age from the Gnostics down to the followers of the Mormon prophet;-all these combined prove in the most incontestable manner her supernatural character, and triumphantly establish the fact that her Founder must have had miraculous powers, and'she a miraculous origin.

Undoubtedly, the infallibility of the Church turns, in the argui-nent, upon a proi-nise made nearly two thousand years ago; but it is not true that the promise must necessarily be found only in the New Testament. A promise may be expressed in acts as well as in words, in the fact as well as in its record. The promise we rely upon is expressed in the miraculous origin of the Church, and is concluded from it on the principle, that the effect may be concluded from the cause, if the cause be known. In the natural order, God, in giving to a being a certain nature, promises that being all that it needs to attain the end of that nature. So in the supernatural order, in creating a supernatural bein(y lie promises it Lll the po-,iei@s, issistance, means, and con- ditions necessary to enable it to its supernatural func- tions, or to gain the supernatural end to which he appoints it. In sap rnaturallv foundin(r the Chiii@ch to teach his word, he therefore promises her it-ifallil)ility in teaebing it: because the function of teacliidg the %vord of God cannot be discharged with. out it.

2. But even if we were obliged-as we are not and cannot be-to assert the credibility of the New Testament in order to make out our historical 'proofs, it -,vould not be that credibility which would sufficf,, to establish Scriptural inspiration, nor should we be obliged to i-ri.,ike out ativ facts from which Scriptural inspir. 133 ation could be iinmt,,diately concluded. A@ all we bay, to make out is the miraculous origin of the Church, and as this i, made out, if the fact of the miracles of our Lord is established, all that, in any case, we could need to do, in regard to the credibility of the New Testament, would be to make out its credibility so far as requisite to establish this fact. AVe do not want the New Testament to prove the miraculousness of the facts, for that follows from the facts themselves ; nor to accredit as teachers or witnesses those by or in favor of whom Almighty God performs the miracles, for that follows from the miraculousness we can, at most, need it only for the purpose of proving that the miracles, in their quality of simple historical facts, actually occurred. For this simple historical testimony is sufficient, and consequently Vne simple 7tistoi-ical credibility of the Now Testament, as far as needed to authorize us to assert that the miracles actually took 1.)iace, is all that it can even be pretended that we must make out. The New Testament is not one book, but a collection of books bv different authors, each resting on its own independent in rits, and the proof of the credibility of one does by no means establish the credibility of the rest. ']'he most we can need for our purpose is the historical credibility of one of ,he Four Gospels, say the Gospel according to St. Matthew; for that Gospel records all the facts necessary to establish the miraculous origin of the Church. Consequently, all the credibility of the New Testament -,ve can, in any case, be required to establish, is the historical credibility of St. Matth(,w's Gospel.

This Gospel may be perfectly credible as an historical document, ivitb.out beiiio, inspired. The facts to be taken on its authoritv, though supernatural as to their cause, are within the Datural order as to their evidence, and as easily proved w, any other class of historical fict-. They fall under the senses, and require in their witnesses only ordinary sense and ordinary honesty. To the trustworthiness of their historian, who, in recording them, has only to give a faithful narrative of what has transpired @ fore his eyes, or what be b is collected from tb@ testimony of eyewitnesses, nothino, beyond the ordinary human facilities can 134 be requisite. Hence, many Protestants maintain the credibility of the Evangelical -History, and yet deny the inspiration of - the Cxospels. We have by us i leai@ited and elaborate work, in which the author, who, for learning and ability, ranks second to no Protestant theologian in the country, maintains, on the author. ity of the Pentateuch, the inspiration of Moses, and the divine origin of the Mosaic law, and yet denies the inspiration of the Pentateuch itself. Indeed, if none but inspired documents could be cited as credible authority for historical facts, human history would need to be closed at once, and Mr. Tbornwell would find himself shut out from all means of establishing the historical objections he urges ivith so much ze@t, in the volume before us, against the Church ; for undeniably, he can eite no inspired Scripture for them. It is not prudent for an author to take a ground which must prove more fital to himself than to his op ponent.

TI)is fact, namely, that we need only the historical credibility of the New Testament at most, seems not to have sufficiently arrested Mr. Thornwell's attention; or if it has, lie must have too hastily concluded that the same order of credibility which is sufficient for the miracles is also sufficient for the inspiration. He l@i-oceeds, apparently' on the assumption, either that simple historical credibility is sufficient to establish the inspiration of the Scriptures, or that we need supernatural credibility to establish the miracles. Thus, be asks :- -

"If the books of the, N- ew Testament are to be received as Gredible testimony to the.Liiiracles of Christ, why not on the subject of theii@ own inspiration ? Are you not aNvat-C that the great historical argument on which Protestants rely in proN,in,,,), the inspiration of the Sciiptui@es presupposes ODIV the ffe? i@ienes8 of tl)e books and the credibility of their authors ?-.- They assert it [their own inspirations, and [if credible] are to believed...... I had thoughcthat the onl ' y difficult ' y in making out the external proofs of inspiration was in establishing the credibility of the books which -profess to be inspired. It had struck me, that, if it were once settled that their own testimony was to be received, the in atter was at an end. But it seems now that . . . . . it is still 135 doubtful whether, ii tile way of private judwment, a man could ever be assured I that credible books are to be believed on the subject of their origin :"-pp. 62,'63.

This reasoning involves a transition a specie ad speciem. Credible books are certainly to be believed within the order of credibility which they are proved or conceded to possess, but not within an order which transcends or rises rbove it; for nothing can transcend it,-elf. and the conclusion must be in the order of the premises, or the argument is a fallacy. The credibility of the New Testament which we assert, or which it is contended we are obliged to assert, is simply historical credibility, or credibility in the natural order ; but the credibility the Professor needs, to establish the inspii,atioib, is credibility in the supernatural order; for inspiration per iiis, undeniably, to the supernatural order, both as to its cause and as to the medium of its proof. Therefore we may receive the books as credible testimony to the miracles, and not on the subject of tlieii- own inspiration.

Mr. Thornwell evidently reasons on the assumption, that we cannot assert the credibility of the New Testament in relation to the miracles without sortincr it in relation to the inspiration. 'that is, a witness cannot be credible at all, unless he is universally credible, and he who receives his testimony in one order binds himself to receive it in evc@ry order ; if be receives it in one respect, he must in every respect ; in matters of fact, then also in matters of opinion 1 But this is too extravagant for any man in his sober senses seriously to maintain. If this were once admitted, there would speedily be an end to human testimony, and our Presbyterian frien I would find himself in a sad plight; for his sole dependence is cn private judgment, and he can pretend to nothing better than human testimony for his religious belief. No witness, unless absolutely omniscient, is or can be universally credible ; and as no man is absolutely omniscient, it follows, if no one can be credible under one relation without being credible under every relation, that -no one can in any respect be credible, at all. But we cannot concede this. Every day, in every court of law, in all the practical affairs of life i!136 which there is an appeal to human testimony, we act, and are obliged to act, on the supposition, that a man may be credible in relation to some things without being credible in relation to all tilin(rs.

Every body knows that a witness may be perfectly credible in testifying to facts which fall under the observation of his senses, and vet be deserving of no credit in relation to his opinions, his judgments, his view-,, or his explanations of the causes of the facts to which he testifies. Nothing hinders, then, a man from bein(r a credible witness to the facts recorded in the New Testarnent, even though he should assert and believe himself inspired ivhen in point of fact be was not; for in testifying to the facts he testifies to what has come under his senses, while in asserting his inspiration he is merely giving an opinion, or offering an explanation of certain facts or phenomena of his own internal experience. The erroneous opinion or explanation does not impair his credibility as a witness to the facts, if his error is one -s@-bich he mav innocently entertain. That a man can innocently believe himself divinely inspired when be is not can hardly admit of a doubt. A man so believing is, by the very terms of the supposition, uninspired. He is then. since inspiration is a superiilttui@al fact, necessarily ignoraiit of inspiration, unacquainted ivith its pbeiio.Dena, and destitute of the necessary criterion for determining what it is or whit it is Dot. What more natural, then, than that he should mistake certain phenomena of his own experience, otherwise inexplicable to him, for those of inspiration, and thus honestly believe himself inspired, when in realitv he is uninspired ?

The Professor argues on the assumption, common to all entbusiasts, that no man can honestly mistake the origin or cause of the phenomena of his own internal experience, and therefore, that, when one says he is inspired, we must believe either that fie actually is inspired or that he is a liar, a w;@ul deceiver, whose word is-to be received on no subject whatever. There ii no reason for this assumption. He who is inspired, undoubted ly, knows the fae,, and is as incapable of being deceived ii 137 relation to it as lie is of deceiving others ; but from this it by no means folloivs that a man who is not inspired must alwavs know that he is not. Tnsl)iration is, sometimes, at least, nece,,,,,arv to enable us to determine what is not inspiration, a-, ,Yell as to determine what is. He is little versed in the natural history Of enthusiasrin, @vho has yet to ]earn that honest men, men of rare gifts and inflexible principles, whose word on any subject within the ranye of seii-iblo observation we would Dot hesitate -t moment to take, not utifrequently laboi- under the impression that they hold immediate intercourse with the Almighty, are inspired, or divinely illuminated, when such is far from being the fact. Witness, for instance, Jacob Boehmen, George Fox, and Emanuel Swedenborg. These men are not inspired., nor are they 'iiars. They do not intend to deceive, and are not even deceived themselves as to the facts of their internal experience, from which they idfer their inspiration ; they are deceived on y in their opinions, their judgments of those fact,-,, the explinatiolis of them which tl)ey adopt, or the origin and cause which they assi,,-n them. Who dare pretend that this destroys their credibility in relation to simple mttters of fict, evident to their senses They do not mistake, thev only misinterpret, the facts of their own consciousness; and who may Dot do as much? All men, however trustworthy they may be as witnesses to sensible facts, unless supernaturally protected from error, are liable, is is well known, to err in their jud(yment,-,, in their explanations of pbenordeua,-in relation to the origin and causes of things, and in relation to the origin and causes of their own internal experience as well as of other things.

The Professor falls into the common mistake of Protestants; that the inspiration of a genuine book, by an author proved to be historically credible, may be concluded from its own declaration. We say be falls into this mistake ; for we cannot suppose that he falls into the still grosser one of supposing that we can prove the miracles only by a supernaturally credible witness, Piece that Nvould deny that Christianity itself can be proved,Day, that any thing supernatural is or can be provable, and 138 therefore that man is or can be the subject of a supernatural revelation. If the miracles cannot be proved without a supernaturally credible witness, the supernatural credibility of the witness will in turn demand another supernaturally crediblewitiiess to establish it, and this another, and thus on ad infinitztm. We should need an infinite series of supernatural witnesses in order to establish the supernatural. But wti iiifinite series is an irifinite absurdity.

As we cannot ;ui)t)ose the Pi@of,?ssor iffnorant of the absurdity idto which he would fall, if be contended for the necessity of any thing more than ordinary historical credibility to establish the miracles, we must suppose hini to hold that ordinary historical credibility is sufficient to establish the inspiration-of the Scriptures, in case they declare their own inspiration. But the inspiration of a genuine book, historically credible, cannot be concluded from its own declaration; because inspiration, being a supernatural fact, falling in no sense, as do the miracles, within the natural order, can bq proved only by a supernaturally credible witness, which a merely historically credible witness is not. Before, from the declaration of the book, the Professor can conclude its inspiration, he must prove its author a cred-'@ble witness to the supernatural. But no witness is a credible witness to the SUPeYDattit-,tl, unless he is himself inspired or divinely coinrdissioned. The witness is not credible, unless coi-npetent. In ordinary cases, a witness mav be competent, and not credible; but in no case can lie be credi@e, if incompetent. No witness, unless inspired or divinely commissioned, is competent to testify to the supernatural. The witness is not competent, unless he can intellectually attain to or take cognizance of that to which hp, is tA-) testify. But no witness can intellectually attain to or take cognizance of the §upernatural,-whicb, by the,fact that it is supernatural, transcends all natural intellect,-witliout something more than natural intellect ; that is, without supernatural illumination or &-,sistance,-precisely what is meant by being inspired or divinely commissioned. Therefore the Professor cannot conclude the inspiration from the mere historical et-d- 139 'bility of the witness, and must prove the author to be inspired, or divinely commissioned, before, from its own declaration, he can conclude a given book is inspired Scripture.

Now, since in making out our historical proofs the most which it can be pretended that we must do is to make out the histoiical credibility of the books of the New Testament, or the cred.bility of their authors, in their quality of author, merely in relation to the natural order, it is not true, even in case we must appeal for our facts to the New Testament, that we cannot make out the historical proofs of the infallibility of the Church, without making out at the same time the historical proofs of the inspiration of the Scriptures ; for we are not obliged to assert the credibility of the New Testament in relation to the supernatural, the sense in which it must be asserted in order to be credible authority for its own inspiration.

Nor, waivino- this, do we, in making out the credibility which we are supposed to be under the necessity of making out, establish any facts from wl)ich the inspiration of the New Testament can be immediately concluded. The Professor himself says the Protestant argument " presupposes the genut@neness of the books and the credibility of their authors." In addition, then, to the credibility of the authors, it is necessary, in order to establish the inspiration, to establish the genuineness of the books ; that is, that they were actually written by the persons whose names they bear, and have come down to us in their purity and integrity. Now this, even if we must make out the credibility of the New Testament, we are not obliged to mtke out. An historical document may be authoritative without being genuine. - If it contains a faithful narrative of facts as t--4ev occured, it is sufficient for the ordinary purposes of history. That the Gospel according to St. Matth,3w, for instance, does contain such a narrative, is provable, without proving. its inspiration, in the usual way of authenticating historical documents, by the nature of the narrative itself, the quality of the facts recorded, the cir. cumstances under which it was published or first cited, the estimate in which it was held by those best qualified to judoe of its n 140 Rtitliority, the manner in %vliieh it was treated by those who had an interest in discrediting it, ind by reference to various contemporary or subsequently existing mopiiments, especially public institution-- implying, founded upon, or growing out of, the facts which it professes to record. In this way we could accredit this Gospel as an historical document, even if it bad come down to us without the author's name. Indeed, ancient historical works in general derive but little authority from the nagnes of their authors, and, other things being equal, the works of Herodotus, Livy, and Tacitus would have no less authority than they now have, even if they had been anonymous productions. As the genuineness of the book is an essential element in any method of proof of its inspiration, except that by the infallible Church, and as we are under no necessity, prior to the Church, of prov, ing it in the case of a single one of the books of the New Testament, it follows that we are not obliged, in making out the historical proofs of the infallibility of the Church, to make out at the sai-ne time the historical proofs of the inspiration of the Scriptures.

We can now easily expose the fallacy of Mr. Thornwell's pretended dilemma. Assuming what we have just disproved, he says to I)r. Lynch, in his peculiarly sweet and delicate mani-ier:-

" Now, Sir, one of two tbiDgS must be true ; either the credibility of the Scriptures can be substantiated to a plain, unlettered man, or it cannot. If it can be, there is no need of your infallible body to authenticate their inspiration, since that matter can be easily gathered from their own paces. If it cannot, then your argument from the Scriptures to an Indian or negi-o in favor of an infallible body is inadmissable, since he is incapable of apprehending the premises from which your conclusion is drawn. You have ta@ed both boi,ns of this dilemma, pushing Protestants with one, and upl)olding Popery with the other, and both are fatal to Voti. Now, as it is rather difficult to be on both sides of the same question at the same time, you must idhere to one or the other. If you adhere to your first position, that all human learniny is uecessary to settle the credibility of .he Scriptures, then you must seek other proofs of an infallible 141 body than those which you think you have gath(red from the Apostles........... A circulating syllooisrn proves nothing; ail@i if he who establishes the credibility of the- Scriptures by an infallible body, and then e-,tablisli(-,s the infallib"@itv of the bodv from the. credibility of the Scriptures, does not rea;on in a I am at a loss to Apprehend tll@ nature of tl)at. soplii,,m. If you @tdliere to your other itoii,@ion, th;tt the accit@,rcy of the -Eyvangelists can be easilv substantiated, tl)en your objections to private, judgment are fairly given up, and you surrender the point, that a man can decide for himself, witi@ absolute certainty, concerning the inspiration of the Bible. Take which horn you please, your cause is ruined; and as you have successively chosen both, you have made voui@elf as ridiculous as your reasoning is con@4, 65.

This argument evidently involves a transition from one genus to another. The, Professor confounds in the first part of his fancie dilemma the historical credibility, and in the second the accuracy of the Evangelist,; in their account of the miracles, with the inspiration of the Scriptures, and then concludes as if thev were all facts of the same order ; which is a sad bliiiidei-, and little creditable to the " Professor of Sacred Literature and the Evidences of Christianity in the South Carolina College." Dr. Lynch does not say that it requires " all human learning to settle the credibility of the Scripturers " in any sense in which he can need tl,,eir credibility prior to the Church ; be simplv maintains that all btii-nan leirninr, and perhaps more too, is necessary to settle, with -tbso'iute certainty, by private judgment, on intrinsic grounds, the i)i,,@irat,on of ancient writiDgs,--%vhicli is -i generically distinct propostion. 'I'he "accuracy of the Evangelists," which be a,,sert-, can be substantiated to the Indiin or negro, is not the insl:);ration or the s@oer)?,atural credibility of the Scriptures ; but their accuracy a-, historians of the millacles, oi, '.hat the miracles which they record actually transpired. As this acairacy does not presuppose or necessarily imply the inspiration or the superdatiiral credibility of the Scriptures, noth@ ing hinders Dr. Lynch from adhering to both of the positions he has assumed, "pushing Protestants with one, and upheld. 142 in o, Popery with the ot bpr," however inconvenient it may be te his Presbyterian adversary.

" Ile who establishes the credibility of the Scriptures by an infallible body, and then establishes the infallibility of the body from the credibility of the Scriptures, reasons in a circle," if the credibility in both cases be taken in the same sense, we concede; if in diferent senses, we deny. But Dr. Lynch does not est@iblisli the infallibility of the Church from the credibility of the Scriptures at all; or if he does, it is not from their credibility in that sense in which lie contends that their credibility can be proved onlv by the infallible bodv. The onlv sense in which he can be sai@i to establish the infallible body from the credibility ot the, Scriptures is their simple historical credibility; the sense in which be asserts the infallible body as necessary to prove their credibility is their credibility as inspired writings. As they can have the former without having the letter, we may, without Iuy v;cious circle, ti@-c the facts we need to prove the infallible body from their li;stoi-ical credibility, and thel take the infallible body to prove their inspiration, or supernatural credibility, although we are, as we have shown, under no necessity of doing so. Does the Professor deny that we can do so? Does be contend .that this Would be to reason in a vicious circle ? What, then, sliall we say of his own reasoning for the inspiration of the New Testament? If be denies the distinction we have made, the historical credibility of the New Testament and- its inspiration are one an the ,,aiiie thin(,,-convertible terms. Then we retort his argument. He says the infallibility of the Church "turns upon a promise which is said to have been made nearly two tliou,,ai3d years ago,--tlie inspiration of the New Testament turns upon facts wbeb are said to have transpired at the same time. Both the pro?itise aj?,d, thefacts are to befo@tnd, if fqund at all, iit this very New Testanzent. " Here it is positively asserted that the ficts which prove the inspiration can nowhere be found but in the New Testament itself. Then they must be taken on its credibility. But credibility and inspiration, aceGr4 ing to him, are one and the stme thing, convertible terms. 143 Then he must tah-, the ins iration of the Now Testament to prove the facts, aid then the @acts to pi@ove the inspiration. li th@s be not to reason in a circle, we are at a loss to ipl)i-elietid the nature of that sopitism."

Now one of two-tfiings must be true either this r@-onii)(' is valid, or it is not. If it is, LNIR. Thornwell cannot make out @lic inspiration of the Scriptures ; for " a circulating syllogism proves iiothin(Y." If it is Dot, he fails to refute Dr Lynch, and then is refuted by him, as we proved in our former article. In either case, be is refuted. " Take which liorn you please, your cause is ruined." Although the Professor says " it is rather difficult to be on both sides of the same question at the same time," yet he contrives to surmount the difficulty. He assumes that this reasonidff is not valid, by urging, in spite of it, his own argument for Scriptural inspiration, and that it is valid, by urging ii against Dr. l@yiacb. We may, then, reply to him in his ow@i el)oice languiye:-" Take which born you please, your ciuse is i-u-'@ned ; and as you have successively chosen both, you have made yourself as ridiculous a-,,your reasoning is contem,ptib e.'

But even this is not the worst. Mr. Thoriiwell's conclusio@i i-ests oil the assumption that the Scriptures declare their owl inspiration, that their inspiration "is a matter" which " mav he easily gathered from their own pages@" " They assert,' be mountains, " their own inspiration, and, if credible, are to be believed." But, graiitiii(y that they declare their own iiispiratiod, we have sl;owii that it does Dot necessarily follow that they ,ire inspired, because, to render their own testimony sufficient for that, they itiust be proved to be superdaturilly credible, since inspiration is a supernatural fact, provable otilv by a siipernaturally credible witness, and the only credibility, ii anv which the. Professor can claim for them is simple historical credibility. He binds himself to reason from our premises, because he says we cannot make out the @bistorical proofs of the Church without making out at the same time the historical proofs of inspiration. Consequently, since the historical credibility of the Scriptures is sH that we, at mos@ can be obliged to @ake ou@ it is all the 144 Professor can have as the principle from which to reason against us. This is conclusive against him. But waiving this, waivin,,f the ot-jection to the order of credibility, and -giving-what we do not concede-tliat we must make out the genuineness of the books it is pretended we must cite, still he cannot conclude Scrij)ttiral inspiration, because no one of the books whose historical credibility we need or ea) need declares its own in@ration. 'NVe have shown, that for our purpose it suffices, in aIN, ease, to establish the credibilit of one of the Four Gospels as y an historical document. But no one of the Four Gospels declares or intimates that it is inspired Scripture, or, even assert.,the inspiration of any other of the Scriptural books. Consequently, tne Professor has not even its own declaration for the inspiration of Scripture, and must be mistaken in saying that Scriptural inspiration is a matter which " may be easily gathered from " the pages of the Scriptures themselves.

]3ut, add-, the Proiessor, "you [Dr. Lynch] have yourself adi@tted that the teaching of the Apostles was supernaturally protected from error, and if their oral instructions were dictated by the Holy Ghost, whv should that august and glorious Visita,.lt desert them when 'uiiey took the peii to accomplish the same o@lect when absent, which, when present, they accomplished by the @'ongue ? " (p. 6'-).) The question is irreverent and impertinent. We have no right to demand of the Holy Ghost the reasons of what he does or does not do. It is competent for him, if such be his pleasure, to inspire men for one thing and not for another, to inspire them to teach and not to write, to enable. them to accomplish a given object by one me od an not another method ; and the Pr@fessor cannot say that be does not, because he sees no reason why he should. The Holy Ghost may have reasons not known to the learned Professor of Sacred Literature, &c., in the South Carolina Collere.

Dr Lynch adult that the teacliin(y of the Apostles was -t-, perliat,urally protected eroni error, and we must, prove that it was. or not prove the infallibility of the Church ; but that it ther@ fore necessarily follows that they were ins@ed as -authors,'or 7 145 eve.ri as teachers, we neither admit nor are bound to adrnit. To be inspired, is, undoubtedly, to -i3e supernaturally protected froi-a error, but to be supernaturally protected from error is not necess.arily to be inspired. Every Catholic believes his Church supernaturally protected from error ; but no one believes her to be inspired. As all Catholics make this distinction, Dr. Lynch's admission is no admission of inspiration even in the teaching of the Apostles. Inspiration is necessary only when the mission is to reveal truth; when the mission is simply to teach a revelation Already consummated, supernatural assistance, without inspiration, is all that is needed. I If the mission of,the Apostles wa,simply to teach a revelation which they bad received through their personal intercourse with their Master, while he was yet with them in the flesb,-and prior to the Church, this certainly is all that we can be required to establish,-they had no need of inspiration, eitbc4r as teachers or as writers, in order to be supernaturally protected from error. To concede or to assert such protection, then, is not to concede or assert their inspiration. We certainly cannot be required to make out for the Apostles any thing more than iN@(@ claim for the Church, and since all we claim for her is supernatural protection from error in teaching a revelation already consummated, this is all that we can be obliged to make out for them.

Nor does the inspiration of the Apostles or of their writings folfow immediately from the facts on which we must rely in order to prove the infallibility of the Apostles, or their supernatural Drotection from error. The facts on which we do and must rely are the miracles. These do not of themselves prove the inspiration, but simply the divine commission of him by or in favor of whom Almiohty God works them, on the principle asserted by St. Nicodemus:-" Rabbi, we know thou art come a teacher from God; for Do man can do the miracles which thou doest, unless God be with him." The divine commission follows necessarily from the miracles, and the supernatural protection from error, or the infallibility, follows necessarily from the divine cornmission. But the insl-)Iratioti does not, because the teacher may, 146 be commissioned to teach, and mav teach infallibly, without be@ inspired. Even Apostolic inspiration, then, cannot be immediately concluded from the facts on which we must rely ; then a fortiori, not the writings of the Apostles. We say immediately, for to say it can be mediately is nothing to the purpose. We ourselves hold that the inspiration both of the Old Testament and the New can be mediately proved, that is, through the teachiDo, of the Church, proved by the miracles to be supernaturally protected from er@,-or. But the Professor continues,-" The Apostles themselves declare their writings possessed the same authority with their oral instructions. Peter Tanks the Epistles of Paul with the Scrip. tures of the Old Testament, which -were confessed to be inspired; and Paul exbol@ts the Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions they bad received from him, either by word or epistle." (p. 62.) That the Apostles anywhere declare their writings possess the same authority with their oral instructions, we have not found in ,any of the writings attributed to them with which we are acquainted ; and if they did, it -,vould not be sufficient, for the question at this moment relates, not to the authority, but to the inspiration, of the Scriptures, and it is not yet proved that even the oral instructions of the Apostles were inspired. The Epistles of St. Peter and of St. Paul are not admissible testimony, because they are not included in that portion of the New Testtment whose credibility we can, in any case, be obliged to make out. We can have no oc @ion for their testimony, prior to the Church ; and as the Professor binds himself to the testimony we must use, or to what necessarily follows immediately from it, be cannot use it. The question now before us is, not whether be can or cannot, without the Church, prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, but whether he can prove it from the facts which %ve must prove in order to prove the infallibility of the Church. St. Paul was Dot one of the twelve; his vocation was subsequent to the establishment of the Church; and in no case can it be necessary for us even to establish his divine commission in 147 order to establish the miraculous origin of the Church, from which her infallibility immediately follows. But even if the Professol could cite the authority of St. Paul, he would be obliged to make out, before his citation would avail him any thing,-I. That St. Paul's oral instruction was inspired; 2. That the Epistle to the Thessalonians is genuine; 3. ]'hat the Epistle to which he refers in it was the Epistles which we now have under his name; and, 4. That these Epistles are possessed by us precisely as he wrote them. Here are four ftets not easy to make out, and which the Professor must make out for himself; for we are under no obligation to make them out for him, and they do not follow necessarily from any thing we are bound to make out.

The divine commission of St. Peter as one of the Apostles, we, of course, are obliged to make out; but ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia-wben we have done that, we have, in fact, made out our infallible Church. Let this, however, pass for the present. Though kve are obliged to make out the divine commission of St. Peter as one of the twelve, we are not obliged to make out his inspiration, or the authenticity or genuineness of the Epistles attributed to him. The Epistle the Professor cites is no authority till its authenticity and genuineness are proved, and it happens to be precisely one of those books of the New Testament whose authenticity and genuineness Protestant theologians, at least many of them, call in question. But granting its genuineness, it avails nothing till the Professor proves that the Epistles of St. Paul to which it refers are those we now have, and that we have them as St. Paul wrote them ; for the Professor is not merely to prove that there were inspired writings, but he is to prove what writin(ys now possessed by us are or are Dot to be received as inspired Scripture. But even suppose this done, it does not follow that these Epistles are inspired. St. Peter does not, as the Professor asserts, " rank them with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which were confessed to be inspired," but simply with " the other Scriptures." What Scriptures these were, whether inspired or uninspired, the Professor may or may not have some means of knowing, but St. Peter, in the writings 148 attributed to him, nowhere informs him. That the Scripturei of the Old Testament were. confessed to be inspired, we know from tradition and the Church, but not from the New Testament. From the New Testament alone we can prove neither that the books of the Old Testamen ' t were inspired, nor of what books the Old Testament consisted. St. Paul tells us, indeed, that 11 all Scripture divinely inspired is profitable," &c., but he nowhere tells us what books or portions of books are divinelv inspired Scripture. It is not true, then, that the inspiration of the Scriptures can " be easily collected from their own paces." Then the whole argument of the Professor falls to the ground; for even if their own testimony were to be received, it would still be necessary to have the infallible body to prove their inspiration, since they themselves do not assert it.

We are not surprised that Mr. Thornwell should strive earnestly to convict his Catholic opponent of reasoning in a vicious circle. He must, as a Protesttnt, do so. Protestantism would abnegate herself, should she once concede that it is possible for us to prove the infallibility of the Church, without havino- re- course to the supernatural autlioi@ity of the Scriptures. 1 t is with the Protestant, therefore, a matter of life and death. It lie fail-, it is all over with his cliei@ished Pi,otestanism. Her friends must follow her in long and sad procession to her final restin(,,-place, howl their wild requiem, and leave the nightshade to grow over her grave, and return to their desolate beartlis, with none to comfort them. What, indeed, is the essential principle of Protestantism, in so far as she pretends to be distinguished from the open and total rejection of all supernatural religion ?- What is it, but the assertion that the Bible is the original and only source or authority from which Christianity is to be taken? Every body knows that this is her essential, her fundai-nental principle, in every sense in which she can even pretend to be a rpligiou. To admit it to be possible for us to establisb the infallibility of the Church without the Scriptures, or without their supernatural authority, would be to surrender this 149 -principle, and with it Protestantism herself, as far as she can claim to be distidgui bible. from infidelity.

All Protestants know this, and hence they always assert that we do and must reason in a -vicious circle. It w.)uld be so con venient, it is so necessary, for them, that we should, they have for so long a time so uniformly and so confidently asserted that we do, that it is hard for them now to admit, or even to believe, that we do not and need not. Like inveterate story-tellers, they appear to have come tt last, by dint of lodo- and continued repetition, to believe their own falselioods,-the last infirmity of the credulous and the untruthful. Indeed, we can hardly doubt that the great body of Protestants really do labor under (3 hallucination, that we must, in order to establish the Church, first establish, in the usual Protestant way, the authority of the Scriptures as inspired documents ; and as we contend that the infallibility of the Church is necessary to prove their inspiration, that we must prove the inspiration by the Church, and the Church by the idspiration,-a madifest vicious circle. But as a circle proves notbin(,r, they think they may well say, that in proving the Christian religion we have and can have no advantage over them. Grant, say they, we must prove the credibility of the Scriptures before we can conclude their inspiration, from which we take our faitli, you must prove the same credibility before you can conclude the infallibility of the Church, from which you are to take yours, and you have and can have, prior to the Church, no means of proving that credibility which we have not.

When the credibility is once established, our difficulties are ended, for the inspiration is easily collected from the express declaration of the Scriptures themselves; but the infallibility of the Church is not. We have the express authority of the div,inely accredited witness, but you have only your own interpret-, ations or constructions of certain texts, in which you may err; and if you do not, you cannot assert that yours is the church intended, without malii)o, a full course of universal bistorv for eighteen hundred years. How much simpler is our method than 150 yours! With how many difficulties you encumber yourselves from which we are free! You have to make out all that we must make out, and in addition the fact of an infallible church, and the further fact that yours is it.

You may tell us that we may mistake the sense of Scripture, that our method is encumbered with difficulties, that it does not give us absolute certainty, and that something easier and surer is desirable. Be it so, what then ? You have nothing to say, for you have nothino, better to offer us. Suppose the Church; Nvhat do you gain ? You must take it from the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves from the same authority that we do, that is, private judymeut. You must take it also from the Scriptures by your private interpretation of them ; and you must take the fact that yours is the Church from your private Interpretations of history. Every step in your process of proof must be taken by private judgment, and we should like to know bow private judgment is more certain in your case than in ours, -why it is to be condemned in as, and commended in you. Be it that it does not yield absolute certainty; what then? Absolute certainty,-wbo can have it? What presumption for such frail and erring mortals as we are to pretend to it! We do not need it. It is not in accordance with the intentions of Providence, nor compatible with our moral interest, that we should have it. " The true evidence of the Gospel is a growiiig evidence, sufficient always to create obligation and assurance, but e effectual only as the heart expands in fellowship with God, and becomes assimilated to the spirits of the just........... Our real condition requires the possibility of error, and God has made no arrangements for absolutely terminatino- controversies and settling questions of faitb, without regard to the moral sympatbies of men." (pp. 74, 75.) With such certainty as we have we study to be satisfied. It is not the characteristic of wisdom to aim at impossibilities, or of honesty to profess to have what it has not.

Thus they reason, and must reason, wise and honest souls I who assert that the Bible is the original and only source of 151 Christian doctrine, and who define faith, with Professor, Stuart of Andover, to be a species of probability, more certain, perhaps, than mereopinion, but less certain than knowledge, or ring the death-knell of their own system. If it be possible in the nature of things or the providence of God to bring an unbeliever to Catholicity without first converting him to Protestantism, they must for ever shut their mouths, or open them only to give vent to their mortification and despair. But, happily for us, the reasonings which demand the principle of universal skepticism for their postulate are not apt to convince, and the assertions of men :who deny all infallible authority, and confess to their own fallibility and want of certainty, are not absolutely conclusive. It ,is possible, after all, that these learned Protestants are mistaken, Dav, laboring under " strong delusions," and that we poor benighted Papists have the truth. At worst, the authority on which we rely can be no more than fallible, while that on which they rely must be fallible at best. At worst, then, we are as well off as thev can be at best.

But are these Protestants, who would have us regard them as full-grown men, strong men, the lights and support of the age, anvare, that, in all this argumentation on which they pride them.selves, and which they hold to be our complete refutation, they are merely reasoning against us from their own principles, and not from any principles common to them and us @ Their reasoning, undeniably, rests on the assumption of the Bil)le as the original and only source, under God, of Christian doctrines fundamental principle of Protestantism, and which we no more admit than we do the other fundamental principle of Protestant.ism, namely, private judgment. They are very much mistaken, if they suppose that we merely object to their rule of private judgment, if they suppose that thev and we occupy commor, ground till we reach the limits to which the Bible extends, and that our only controversy with them, as far as the Bible goes, is @one of simple exegesis, and after that merely a controversy in relation to certain points of belief not to be found in the Bible.. Our main controversy with them is prior to the Bible, and relates 162 to the origin or fountain and authority from which the faith in to be drawn.

Protestantism, taking it according to the professions of its most distinguished doctors, is resolvable into two principles, if principles they can be called, namely,-I. The Bible is the original and only source of Christian faith; and, 2. The Bible is to be taken on and interpreted by private judgment. These are its two rules. It is nothing to us whether these two rules are or are not compatible one with the other, and we do not inquire now whether the latter does or does not necessarily and in fact absorb the former, and reduce Protestantism to sheer Transcendedtalism in principle, for that is a matter which we have already sufficiently discussed elsewhere; but we say, what everybody knows, that Protestantism professes these two rules as fundamental, and that they are essential to its very existence, and one of them as much as the other. Now we, as Catholics, reject and anathematize both of these rules, as Protestants ought to know. Consequently, for them to urge an argument against us which assumes either as its principle is a sheer begging of the question, or an assumption of Prot@ta-ntism as the principle from which to conclude against Catholicity. Yet this is precisely the method of. argument adopted in the brief summary of their reasoding which we have given.

This is not liohtly said. Mr. Thornwell's whole reply to Dr' Lynch is a striking illustration and proof of it. Dr. Lynch states certain objections to private judgment; Mr. Thornwell replies, You cannot urge those objections, because, whatever their iN,ei,rht, they bear as bard against the Church as against us. What is the proof of this? You must take the Church from the Scriptures, or not take it at all; and if you take it from them, you must do so by private judgment, for you cannot use your Church before you get it; and as you can get your Church 'Only subsequently to the Scriptures, you must take the Scriptures themselves on private judgment, or use a circulating syllogism, which proves nothing. But the proof that we must take the Church froiu the Scriptures ? Why you must take it from the 153 Scriptiires-because you have notl)in(r e-se to take it fi-om. But the proof that we have iiotbitic, else to take it from ? The Pro- fessor has no possible answer, but the assumption of the Bible the original and only source of Christian faith. Consequently, at, bottom, whether he knows it or not, be simply assumes one principle of Protestantism a,-, the principle of his answers to objections uroed against the other. That is, if we consider Prot,estaiitism in its ' unity, he attempts to prove the same by the 'same; if in it@ diversity, he reasons in a viciotis circle,-provino, private jlidoment by his Bible rule, and his Bible rule by priN,ate jud,-riiieiit 1 And yet Mr. Thornwell has the simplicity to accuse Dr. Lynch of using a circulating syllouism.

Undotitedly, it is very convenient for Protestants, when hard pressed @ to one of their principles, to resort to the other; but as both rules are denied, and are both directly or indirectly called in question in every controversy they have or can have with -Lis, they would do well to bear in mind that the arguments they thus adduce are as illegitimate and worthless as if drawn from the very principle tbev are bi-ouo@lit to defend. We really wish that our Protestant friend-, would study a little logic, at least mtke themselves acquainted with the more ordinary rules of reasoning and principles of evidence. It would save us some trouble, and themselves from the ridiciile to wltich,they expose themselves, whenever they undertake to reason. It is idle to attempt to convince a man by arguments drawn from thc, principle or system he is opposino, or to pretend to have refuted him by reasons which derive all their force fi@orn principles which be neither adi-nits nor is obliged to adinit. In reasoning, each pai@ty must reason from principles admitted by the other, or from principles proved by arguments drawn from principles which the other does not or cannot deny. Our Protestant friends ouclit to know this; for Mr. Tbornwell very considerately inforins us (p. 72) that they ilre' -not " prattliiig babes and silly women," but "bearded men." Protestants seem to have inquired how it would be convenient them that we should reason, and to have concluded, because, 154 if we should reason in t given manner, it would be just the thin(, for them, that we of course do and must reason in that i-nanner. If we admitted their doctrine as to the Bible, we undoubtedly should be obliged to reason in the manner they allef)'e. If the road from unbelief to Catholicity lay through Protestant territory, if we could convert the unbeliever to the Church only bv first converting him to Protestantism, as Mr. Thomwell virtually contends, we should, of course, be obliged to make out the divine authority of the Scriptures, if at all, in the way in which Protestants attempt to do it, and then many of the objections we now urge and insist upon against private judgment we should be obliged to meet as well as they; but, surely, some other proof that such is the fact should be brought forward than tl)is, that, if it be not so, then Protestantism must be false; for the conclusion is not one which we are not able to concede. In reasoning with Protestants, we are generally civil enough to take them at their word; and as we find them professing to hold the divine authority of the Scriptures, we draw our arguments against them from the Scriptures, because it is always lawful to reason against a man from his own principles; but in reasoning ,i(ya,.nst unbelievers, we make no appeal to the Scriptures, unless it be sometimes as simple historical documents, proved to be such by general historical criticism, in which character we can legitimately appeal to them. The assertion, that we are obliged, by the nature of the case, to take the Church from the Scriptures, is alto(,Yetber gratuitous, and even preposterous. It rests, as we have seen, on the assumption, that the Bible is the original and sole authority for Christian faith. This is what Mr. Thornwell holds, what as a Protestant be must hold. The Bible, then, occupies the same place in his system that the Church does in ours; for this is precisely what we sty of the Church. The Bible is for him the original and sole depositary of the faitb,-its keeper, witness, teacher, and interpreter. He must, then, establish the divine authority of the Scriptures, a,,, we the divine authority of the Church; for only a divine authority is sufficient for Christian faith. To do this, as we have already established, he must have 155 it supernaturally credible witness. Prior to and independently of the supernatural authority of the Scriptures, then, he must obtain such witness. This he can do, or he cannot. If he cannot, he cannot establish the divine authority of the Scriptures. If he can, then we also can; for prior to the Scriptures, we stand, at least, on as good ground as he. But such a witness is all we need for the divine authority of the Church. Then either the .Professor cannot establish the divine authority of the Scriptures, or we can establish the divine authority of the Church without the Scriptures. Where now are the Professor's assumption, and his triumph about reasoning in a circle?

Again. The divine authority of the Scriptures is itself an article of faith, because a supernatural fact, and a revealed fac4 if a fact at all. This can be proved without the Scriptures, or it cannot. If it cannot, then it cannot be proved at all, for the Scriptures can authorize no article of faith till their own divine authority is established. If it can, it is false to say the Scriptures are the original and only authority for faith, for here is an article of faith not taken from them, but from some other source and authority. Or in another form: Either the supernatural @itness supposed can be obtained, or cannot. If the Professor says the latter, he abandons his Protestantism, by confessing to his inability to establish the divine authority of the Scriptures, from which alone he is to take it. If he says the former, he also abandons his Protestantism; for then he concedes the possibility of another authority for faith than the Scriptures, which Protestantism does and must deny, or deny itself. The Professor may take wh-.ch alte ' rnative he pleases ; in either case, he must surrender his Protestantism, as far as at all distinguishable from sheer infidelity.

Thus easy is it to overthrow the strongest positions of Protestants, and we confess that our only practical difficulty in refuting Protestantisi-a lies precisely in its weakness, nay, its glaring -absurdity. Our arguments agtinst it fail to convince, because too easily obtained, and because they are too obviously conel7a. ,give. People doubt their senses, and refuse to trust their reason. 156 They think it impossible that Protestantism, which makes such lofty pretensions, should be so untenable, so utterly indefensible, as it i-nust be, if our arguments ao-ainst it are sound. We succeed too well to be successful, and fail because we i-nake out too stron(y a case. Indeed, Protestantism owes its existelace and influence, after its wickedness, to its absurdity. If it had been less glaringly absurd, it would long since have been numbered with the, things that were. Fuit ilium. But many people fina it difficult to believe it to be what it appears; they think it must contain something. which is concealed from them, some hidden wisdom, some profounl truth, or else the enlightened men among Protestants would not and could not have manifested so much zeal in- its behalf,-fo@getting that Socrates ordered just before his death a cock to be sacrificed to @-culapius, that Plate advocated promiscuous concubinage, and that Satan, notwithstaiidijig his great intellectual power, is the greatest fool in the uiiiverse,-a fool whom a simple, child saying credo outwits and turns into ridicule. But they may be assured that it is not one w.hit more solid than it appears, and that the deeper they probe it, the more unsound and rotten they will find it.

Protestants would do well to study the Categories, or Pr.T(ficaments, and learn not to contemn proper and necessary di,-,tinctions. They should know that they cannot conclude the supernatural from the natural ; and that the historical credibility of the Scriptures does not, of itself, establish their divine authority in relation to the supernatural order. Historical credibility suffices for the miracles; and miracles accredit the teachers, but not immediately the teaching, whether oral or written. The teaching is-taken on the autnority of the accredited teacher. Consequently, between the miracles and the divine authority of the Scriptures the authority or testimony of the teacher must iiitervene, and whether it does intervene in favor of the Scriptures or not is a question of fact, not of reason.

Hence it is easy to de@t the falsity of Mi. Thornwell's general thesis, that " it is 'ust as easy to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the infallibility of any church." The inspiration 157 of the Scriptures and the divine authority or infallibility of the Church are both supernatural facts, -and therefore provable only bv evidence valid in relation to the supernatural. In order to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Professor must prove their divine authority ; for be is to tike their inspiration frorr. their own testimony, which is not adequate, unless supernaturally credible. But to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures, be must prove the divine commission of the Apostles. Tbe supernatural is provable in two ways,-by miracles, and by divinely accredited or commissioned teachers. The miracles accredit or prove the divine commission of the teachers, but, as we have just seen, not the divine authority of the writings. ]'his must be taken on the authority of the teachers themselves, and the Apostles are the only teachers supposable in the case; because all, whether Church or Scriptures as a matter of fact, comes to us from God through them. Consequently, the Professor must establish, in some way, their divine commission, or not establish the divine authority of the Scriptures, and therefore the supernatural credibility of their testimony to their own inspiration.

This we also must do, or not be able to assert the infallibility of the Church. The divine commission is a point common to us both; both must make it out,-he without the authority of Scripture, and we without the authority of the Church. If he if w can make it out, we can, and I e can make it out, he can ; for we both, in relation to it, stand on the same ground, have the same difficulties, and the same, and only the same, @eaus with which to overeot-ne them.

The divine commission of tl-ie Apostles is made out, if at all by the miracles historically proved to have actually occurred. These, thus proved, accredit the teachers, that is, the Apostles as. teachers come from God, therefore commissioned bv him; and if commissioned by him, what they teach, as from him, must be infallibly true, because he cannot authorize the teaclilno,- of what is not infallibly true. Thus history proves the miracles, the riiir. acl@ prove the divine commission, and the divine comini4ion 158 proves the infallibility. Thus ftr, we and the Professor travel to,recher. But-and this is the point lie overlooks-wheii we have gone thus far, and obtained the divinely commissioned Apostles, we have got the infallible Church; for they are it, in all its plenitude and in all its integrity. Has the Professor got his inspired Scriptures @? No. He has not yet got even their divine authority, and does not as yet even know that there are any Scriptures at all, much less what and which they are ; and he can know only as these divinely commissioned Apostles inform him, that is, as taught by the infallible Church,-precisely what we have always told him, and what he ought to have known in the outset.

Does the Professor answer, that we have not yet proved the present existence of the infallible Church, and that ours is it? Be it so. We must, of course, establish the fact of communion between us and the Church of the Apostles, or not be able to assert the infallibility of our Church. But the Professor has also to establish the fact of his communion with the same Church, before he can assert the divine authority of the Scriptures ; for he is to assert it on her authority, and this he cannot do until he proves that he has her authority. The simple questioii, then, between us is, whether it is as easy for him to establish the fact of the communion in his case, as it is for us to estalolish it in ours. He must prove, not only that it is possible in his case, but that it is as easy in his as in ours, or abandon his thesis.

As yet,- the Professor has only the point in common with us of the divine comnii-.,sion, or infallible Church, of the Apostles. The authority of this Church he must bring home to the sacred books with absolute certainty, and with so much exactness as to include no uninspired and to exclude no inspired Scripture. He must bring it home, not merely to soi-ne books, but to all whose inspiration is to be asserted ; and this not in general only, but also in particular,-to each particular book, chapter, verse, and sentence. This, in the nature of the case, he can do only by proving the genuineness of the Apostolic writing, and the iden- 159 tity, purity, a-,id integrity of all those books which, though. not written by the Apostles themselves, are to be received as inspired on their authority. This be must do before he can establish the divine Luthority of the Scriptures, and be able to conclude their inspiration from their own testimony, in case he has it.

This is what the Professor has to do, in order to make out the fact of Apostolic communion in his case; but all we have to do, in order to establish it in ours, is to prove historically the continuance in space and time of the Church of the Apostles, and its external identity, or its identitv as a visible corporation or kinodom, with our Church. Now which is the easiest? Is it as easy to prove the authenticity, purity, and integrity of some sixty or seventy ancient books, written in different languages, and transcribed perhaps a thousand times, subject to a thousand accidents, as to establish the external identity of a visible corpo,. .ttion or kingdom, extending over all nations, the common centre around which, in one form or another, revolve all the siouificant events of the world for eighteen hundred years, and no .more to be mistaken than the sun in the cloudless heavens at noonday? We are to prove, we grant, the external identity of our Church with the Church in the days of the Apostles,-a thing, in its very nature, as easy to be done as to establish the continuance and identity of any civil corporation, state, or einpire, ancient or modern. But the Professor has to do as much as this, and more too, in the case of the Bible, and of each separate book, chapter, and sentence in the Bible,-a thing viorally impossible to be done, as all the attempts of Protestants to establish the divine authority of the Scriptures sufficiently prove.

But even if this were done, the Professor would not have e.qtablished the inspiration of a single sentence of Scripture, as Scripture. The divine authority of the Scriptures does not prove their inspiration, unless they themselves declare it; for the Professor must gather their inspiration from their own pages. He can assert no book to be inspired, unless, if it be a genuine Apostolic writing, it clearly and unequivocally asserts its own 160 inspiration, and if it be not an Apostolic ivriting, unless it is clearly and unequivocally declared to be inspired by some book whose divine authority, is established. And even this would not be enough for his purpose ; for lie must not only make out the inspiration of certain books, but lie must establish by divine authority what books are, and what are net, to be received t@ inspired Scripture. . He must bring divine authority to say, These, and these only, are to be so received. This last is impos sible, for it is well known that Scripture nowhere draws or pro f(,sses to draw up a list of the inspired books. This of itself is con, elusive ao-ainst the Professor. The former, also, is impossible, for none of the Apostolic -,vritin,,Y"I, unless it be the Apocalypse, whose authenticity many Protestants deny, assert their own inspiration, and, with this exception, and some portion of the prophetic books, what is received as Scripture is nowhere in Scripture asserted to be inspired. Ilence there are amongst us Protestant Doctors of Divinitv, @vbo, while processing to acknowledge the autbo),itv of our Lord and his Apostles@ and the general historical fidelity and authority of the Bible, deny entirely its inspiration.

The Professor, therefore, must be decidedly mistaken in siying that, "it is just as easy to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the infallibility of any church." His meaning is, that, 1- the nature of the case, it must be as easy to prove the insp; tion as the infallibility, which we see is bv no means the 'far , because, on no hypothesis, ciii lie prove the inspiration of I - Scriptures without first proving the infallible Church, and the nistorical identification of the Church in space and time is a thing infinitely easier to make out than the authenticity, identity, purity, and integrity of tncieiit writiiigg. The latter can be done, if at all without a continued infallible authority, only with extreme difficult , and bv a few gifted individuals who have ample y 7 and learned leisure for the purpose. The other is a rhinos easily done. It is, i-nakin(y allowance for the greater zn lapse of time between the two extremes, a--, easy to prove that Piiis IX. is the successor of St. J'eter in the goverment of the Church, a.-, that James K. Polk is he successor of George -Wm'a 161 ington in the PreK'dency of the United States; and the fact of the succession in the former case a,-, much prove- that the Church of which Pius IX. is Pope is the Church of St. Peter, that is, of the Apostles, as the succession in the latter case proves that the United States of which Mr. Polk is President are the same political body over which George Washington presided. Even the allowance to be made for lapse of time dwindles into idsi@nificatice, the moment we consider the more important part in the affair-, of the world performed by the Church than by the United States, or by any temporal state or kingdom of ancient or modern times.

To identify and to establish the purity tnd in@rity of an ancient book, which has been subject to all the accidents of two or three thousand years, is by no means an easy task; but the identity in space and time of an outward visibly body, " a city set on a bill," the common centre of nations, and spreading itself over all lands and conducting the most sublime and the most intimate affairs of mankind, everywhere with us, at birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage, in sickness and health, in joy and sorrow, in prosperity and adversity, in life and death,-takidg US from our niother's womb, an4 accompanying us as our guardian angel through life, and never leaving us for one moment till we arrive at home, and behold our Fatler's face in the eternal habitations of the just,-is the easiest thing in the world to establish through any supposable series of ages. You may speak of its liability to corruption ; but far less litble must it be, even bumanly Speaking, to corruption than the Scriptures, and indeed, after all, it is only from its incorruptiiess and its guardian care, that even you, who blaspheme the Spouse of God, conclude the purity and integrity of the Scriptures. Far easier would it be to interpolate or mutilate the Scriptures, without detection, than for the Church to corrupt or alter her teachings, always iiffused far more generally, and far better known than their pages. If publicity, extent, and integrity of the Christian people are to be pleaded for the purity ani integrity of the sacred text, as they 162 must be, then a fortiori for the purity and integrity of the Churcli's teaching.

But passinw over all this, supposing, but not conceding, that the Professor could make out the inspiration of Scril)ture, it would amount to just nothing at all ; for the real matter to be determined is, what is or is not to be received as the word of God, and till this is determined, or an unerring rule for determining it is obtained, nothing is done of any practical moment. To [)rove that the Scriptures are inspired, and therefore contain the word of God, is only to prove where the word, or,,ome portion of the word, of God is, not what it is. Between where and what there is a distance, and, unless some means are provided for bridging it over, an impassable gulf. We are not told what the word of God is,,till we are told it in the exact sense intended by the Holv Ghost, and this is not told us by being told that the word oi God or some portion of it, is contained in a certain book. How will the Professor tell us this I

The controversy turns on the means of evidencing the word of God to the Indian or negi,o. Suppose the Prof@sor goes to the Indian or negro, with his copy of the Holy Scriptures ; suppose, per i2npossible, that he succeeds in proving to him that the several books were dictated by the Holy Ghos@ and in the exact state in which he presents them. What is this to him? He cannot read, and the book is to him a sealed book, as good as Do book at all. What Shall be done? Shall the or negro wait till he has learned to read, and to read well enough to read, understandingly, the Bible,-which is out of his power,and also till be has read it through several times, and some five or six huge folios besides, to explain its unusual locutions, and its references to strange rdaniiers and customs, and to natural and civil historv, before hearin(r or knowing what is the message sent him by his Heavenly Father? What, in the mean time, is be to do? Is he to remain a heathen, an infidel, an alien from the commonwealth of our Lord? If he needs the. Gospel as the medium of salvation, bow can he wait, as he must, on the lowest calculation, more than half the ordinary life of man, without 163 peril to his soul ? If he does not need it, what do you make the Gospel but a solemn farce? Suppose he does wait, suppose he does get the requisite amount of learning; what surety have you, even then, that he Will Dot deduce error instead of truth from the book, and instead of the word of God embrace thcwords of men or of devils'?

The pretence of Protestants, that thev derive their belief, such as it is, from the Bible, is nothing but a pretence. If not, how happens it that, as a general rule, children grow up in the persuasion of their 1)arents,-that the children of Episcopalians find the Bible teaching Episcopalianism,-Presbyterian children find it teaching Presbyterianism, Baptist children Baptist doctrine, Methodist children Methodism, Unitarian children Unitai-ianism,UniversalistcliildrenUniversalism? Whyisthis? The Professor knows why it is, as well as we do. He knows it is so, because their notions of religion are not derived from the Bible, but from the idstructions of their parents, their nurses, their Sundav-sebool teachers, their pastors, and the society in the bosom of which they are born and brought up, and that, too, long before they read or are able to read the Bible so as to learn any thing from its sacred pages for themselves. He knows, too, that, when they do come to read the Bible,-wliieh may happen with some of tliem,-they read it, not to learn what they are to believe, not to find what it teaches, but to find in it what they have already been tauo;bt, have imbibed, or imagined. All Protestants know this, and it is difficult to restrain the expression of honest indignation at their hypocrisy and cant about the Bible, and taking their belief from the Bible,-the Bible, the precious word of God. The most they do, as a general rule, is to go to the Bible to find in it what they have already found elsewhere, and it rarely happens that they find any thin(, in it except what they project into its sacred pages from their own rdinds.

To hear Protestants talk, one would think they were tl-le greatest Bible-readers in the world, and that they believed every thing in the Bible, and nothing except what they learn from it. It is no such thing. Who among them trust,, to the Bible alone 1 164 Where is the Protestant parent, pretedclin(r to any decent respect for religion, who leaves his children to grow up without any religious instruction till tbev are able to read and understand the Bible for themselves? Iraq Dot every sect its catechism? A catechism? What i-neans this? With "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible" on their lips, have they the audacity and the inconsistency to draw up a catechism and teach it to their children ? Why do they not follow out their piineiple, and leave their children to 11 the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible ? " Do you shrink, Protestant parents, as well you may, from the fearful responsibility of suffering your children to grow up without any religious instruction? Why not shrink also from the still more fearful responsibility of teaching them your words for the word of God? You tell us the Bible is your solo rule of faitli, that there are no divinely appointed teachers of the word of God, and you sneer at the very idea that Almighty God has provided for its infallible reaching; and yet you, without authority, fallible by your own conf@ion, draw up a catechism, take upon yourselves the office of religious teachers, and do Dot hesitate to teach your own crude notions, your own fallible, and, it may be, blasphemous opinions, training up your children, it may be, in the synagogue of Satan, keeping them aliens from the communion of saints, and under the eter-nal wrath of God! How is it that you reflect not on what you are doing, and for your cliildren's sake, if not for your own, you do not tremble at your madness and folly ? Who gave you authority to teach these dear children ? Who is responsible to their young minds and candid souls for the truth of the doctrines you instil into them ? 0 Protestant father, thou art mad ? Thou lovest thy child, art ready to compass sea and land for him, and yet, for augbt thou knowest, thou art doing all in thy power to train him to be the eternal enemy of God, and to suffer for ever the flames of divine vengeance !

But the catecbism.-Who gave to you authority to draw up a catechism ? Would you teach -our children damnable her(,, sies ? Would you poison their minds -,vitb error and their 165 beart,i with lies? 'vn"hat it is you do when you draw up and teach a catechism ? You deny the authority of the Church to teach, yet here you are, Episcopilians, Presbyterians, Baptist-,, @lletliodists, Ranters, Jumpers, Dunkers, Socinians, Unitariatis, Ui)ivei,sili@ts, all of you, doing what you make it a crii-ne in her to do,-di-awit)o, up arid teacliin(,- a Catechism, the most solemn and responsible act of teachino, that can be performed for in it you demand of confiding childhood simple and uriwaveriii(f belief in what you teach 1 But the catechisms, you say, are for the most part drawn up in the ladotiage of the Holy Scriptures. Be it so. Who gave you authority to teach the Holy Scriptures? What infallible assurance have you, that, in teacliin(i the words of Scripture, you are teaching the sense of Scripture ? Is it a difficult tbidg either to lie or to blaspheme in the words of Scripture ?

We confess that we can hardly observe any measure in our feelings or in our language 7 when we regard. the profession and the practice of Protestants, when we consider how they lie unto the world and unto themselves, and how many precious souls, for whom our God has died, they shut out from salvation. One must speak in strong languaoe, or the very stones would cry out against him. The Pro@@,,,;or, -vvhom we have suppo@ going with his Bible in his liquids, and holding it out to the rude savage or poor slave, ignorant of letters, saying, " Read this, my son, and it shall mtke you wise unto salvation,"-would he wait, trunk ye, till his tawny son or blacli brother had learned to read and become tble to draw his faith from the Bible foi himself, before instructing bii-n ? Be assured, not. He would basten to instruct him without delay in his Presbyterian Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Five Points of the Svnod of Dort, or some modi6cation of them. Never would be trust him to the Bible alone. So it is with all Protestant missionaries, and so must it be. No iuatter what they profess, in practice none of the sects place or can place their dependence on the written word to teach the faith without the aid of the living preacher. They all know, or might know, that they use 166 the Bible, not as the source from which the simple believer is to draw his faith, but as a shield to protect the teachers of one sect from those of another ; and that they assert its authority onlv as enabling each preacher to find some,plausible pretext for preaching whatever comes into his own head. They place their dependence, not on a dead book, which when interrogated can answer never a word, which lies at the merey of every interpreter, but, nolens volens, on the living teacher, and do without authority, and against their avowed principles, what they condemn us for doing, and what we do at least consistently, and in obedience to our principles.

There is no use in multiplying words or making wry faces about the matter. Whatever men may pretend, '@ they have any form of belief or of unbelief, their reliance is oii the living teacher to preserve and promulgate it. The thing is inevitable. And since it is so, it is absolutely necessary, if we are to know and believe the word of God, that we have teachers daily authorized, divinely appointed to teach that word, so that we may not believe for the word of God the words of fallible men or of devils. Therefore, even if we could establish the inspiration of the Scriptures, as we cannot without the Church, the Church would still be indispensable, for without her we should still have no infallible means of knowing what is the word of God.

We have here refuted the Professor's thesis in all its parts. We have shown him that be has no logical right to urge it; that if he is allowed to uroe it, he cannot prove it, but that we can easily prove the contrary; an d, finally, that if he could prove it, it would avail him nothing. We hope this will be satisfactory to him and his friends. He has been, even his friends must confess, singularly unsuccessful ; but the fault has not been altogether his own. I-le has done as well as any Protestant could do. But it is an old and expressive proverb, if a homely one, that " nobodv can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Nobody can mttl@e any tliinc,, out of Protestantism, and her defence must needs baffle the finest intellects. She is utterly indefensible. No man can construct an argument in her favor, oi 167 against the Church, that is not at bottom a niere fallacy. Logic as well as salvation is on the side of the Church, not with her enerni@, and Protestantism is as repugnant to sound reason as she is to the best interests of i-nan. Whoever espouses her must needs render himself an object of pity to all good men and good angels. Mr. Tbornwell has naturally respectable abilities, even considerable logical powers, and some vigor of intellect. He wants refinement, grace, unction, but he has a sort of savaue earnestness which we do not wholly dislike, and manifests a zeal and energy, which, if directed according to knowledge, would be truly commendable. But all these qualities can avail him nothing, for Protestantism at best is only a bundle of contradictions, absurdities, and puerilities. How a man of an ordinary, stomach could undertake its defence would be to us unaccountable, did we not know to what mortifications and humiliations pride compels its subjects to submit. Pride east the aDgelS, which kept not their first estate, down from heaven to hell, and perhaps we ought not to be surprised that it degrade-, inortal men to the ignoble task of writing in defence of Protestantism.

The refutation of the Professor's thesis oives us the full right to conclude the infallibility of the Church with Dr. Lynch from the necessity of the case, and therefore to assert it, whatever objections men may fancy aoainst it; because the argument for it tests on as high authority as it is possible in the nature of things to have for any objection aoainst it. Nevertheless, we will examine in our next Review the Professor's moral and his. torical objections to the Church, dud dispose of them as well ag we cmi-we hope to his satisfaction.

> Part Three

---

Adapted from
Essays and Reviews p. 129
Brownson's Quarterly Review (July, 1848)
Works, Vol. VI, p. 452

Revised January 9, 2005.

Top