REVIEW OF LATE PUBLICATIONS.

The Triumph of Truth, in the Conversion of the Rev. I. A. Mason from the Errors of Methodism to the Catholic Faith. Written by Himself. London: Andrews, October, 1827. 12mo. p. 64. In a former number we noticed " An Appeal to the Methodists" from the pen of the Rev. Mr. Mason; and it is now our pleasing duty to call the attention of our readers to the history of his conversion to the Catholic faith. Events of this kind are happily too frequent, and the causes that induce them are too well-understood, to call forth any expression of unseemly triumph, or to excite in us any other feeling than that of gratitude for the divine bounties. In each succeeding conversion we read an awful lesson for our own edification and whilst we rejoice that one soul is added to the " fold of the one shepherd" our joy is tempered with a holy fear, lest "the kingdom of God should be taken from us, and be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof."

one

Mr. Mason had been early distinguished, among the Methodists, for his rigid adherence to the tenets of that sect; and during several years he had exercised the functions of a preacher and class leader amongst them: yet, as he advanced, he had not failed to discover many discrepancies in the system, which had alarmed his conscience, and had contributed to shake his faith in the divine origin of methodism. From this moment he determined to devote himself to the inquiry, resolved to trample on every consideration of interest or affection, in the pursuit of this most important object. That the recollection of early and fond associations was, to him, a source of no ordinary conflict, is evident from the empassioned feelings, the mingled emotions of affection and sorrow which live in every line of the appeal he has addressed to them. Accident, about this time, brought him in contact with the Rev. Mr. Martyn, of Walsall, with whom he originated a controversy which ended in his conversion.

The first question proposed for their consideration was the rule of faith; that is, Is it the word of God as contained in the Scriptures, or the word of God as taught by the church of God? In support of this latter position Mr. Martyn adduces authorities to prove that the power of preaching and teaching given to the apostles, and confirmed to their successors, has been continued in the Catholic church down to the present time: whilst Mr. Mason, on the other hand, contends that if no appeal be allowed from the preacher to the

written word, the Scriptures are a dead letter, and may be entirely dispensed with. The following dialogue on this point will serve to illustrate the real doctrine of the Catholic church on this point, and we therefore present it to our readers :

"MARTYN.-An infallible authority does not make scriptures of no use -they are of great use. They are the inspired word of God-they are precious monuments of the lives, doctrines, and miracles of Christ and his apostles. They are useful for doctrine, for reproof, for confirmation and instruction. All I assert of them is, they are not the sole independent rule of faith; and that, as to the mere letter of scripture, they are not the rule at all; it is the sense and not the letter that is our rule. And moreover, that Jesus Christ never intended them as such. Jesus Christ wrote nothing, neither did he com. mand his apostles to write. His command is, go and preach, and teach all nations; and you yourself have acknowledged that this was the rule during the days of the apostles, and you could not disprove that the same infallible authority descended to their successors in the ministry.

"MASON. I have done so: but I insist that the fact of the apostles being inspired by the Holy Ghost to write is equivalent to a command; and as God never commands without just cause, it must be that they might become the rule of faith to following generations. But your assertions upon this point make the scriptures no rule at all.

"MARTYN.—I have asserted nothing that I have not proved, or can prove. I have asserted and proved, that the command of Christ was to preach and teach-therefore, whatever the apostles preached and taught, whether written or not written, is of divine authority. And hence the apostle requires the church to observe all that he had taught, whether by word, he says, or by our epistle. The scriptures were written by piecemeal; some parts to one church, and other some to another; and the cause was this:-The apostles, not having the gift of ubiquity, when difficulties or errors arose in the distant churches which they had planted, they wrote to them such instructions as were necessary; others wrote the Gospels for different purposes; and what was thus written, coming from the same inspired source as the unwritten word, was of equal authority with it. So far, therefore, as circumstances rendered it necessary to write, that necessity is equivalent to a command: but I deny that there was any command, or any necessity equivalent to a command; or that it ever was written as the sole independent rule of faith. As to your assertion, that the promises of Christ regard the apostles teaching by the scriptures, you have first to prove that the scriptures are as plain as the living voice of the apostles-and that no living voice is necessary to explain them-and that they contain all that the apostles taught-and that they can never be lost-which you can never do; for many books are already lost which have been written by the inspired prophets and apostles. Where, then, is the proof that Christ will be with the scriptures till the end of the world, and how do they guide men into all truth? How much plainer it is to understand these promises made to the ministry of the church in the persons of the apostles. And how much more congenial with other promises made to C. M. VOL. VIII. NO 71.

XX

the visible church-that she shall be built upon a rock, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her?

" to see

"MASON. So then the certainty of the doctrines of the written word must depend upon the teaching authority of the Christian ministry; yea, and the very authority of the scriptures too. But St. Luke tells Theophilus he wrote his gospel to him, "that he might know the verity of those things in which he had been instructed." Jesus Christ himself told the Jews to search the scriptures, that they might come to a knowledge of his divine character and mission. St. Paul commends the Bereans for searching the scriptures, whether these things were so or not." Thus overturning your assumption altogether. For if the certainty of Theophilus's faith did not depend upon what he heard, but upon the written gospel of St. Luke-if the certainty of the character and doctrines of our Saviour himself was to be drawn from the scriptures-and if the faith of the Bereans was commended because it was founded not so much upon the declarations of even an inspired apostle, as upon the testimony of the scriptures-a fortiori, the scriptures are a stronger and more sufficient rule to us than the ipse dixit of fallible men.

"MARTYN.—It is an axiom of logic, "that which proves too much, proves nothing at all." Will you say, Mr. Mason, if the Scribes and Pharisees, to whom our Saviour then spoke, could not discover this testimony concerning Christ in the scripture, as most certainly many of them pretended not to do, that therefore his divine authority was not infallibly certain ? Or, in other words, was not the divine mission of Christ thus certain, whether they found it there or not? Would an infallible apostle have been to be disbelieved if the Bereans, through their own blindness, had not found in the scripture that these things were so? Then what becomes of your faith in Christ? And what becomes of your former assertion, that the apostles were infallible, and their preaching and teaching the only rule of faith during their day? As to the narrations which Theophilus had heard, they might be from unauthorized, or at least less authorized persons. And St. Luke might very properly think it necessary to give him his account as of greater verity, coming as it did from an evangelical and an eye-witness. But, after all, the certainty of the facts related, even in St. Luke's gospel, depends on his infallibility. It is evident therefore the scripture may be referred to as illustrative or corroborative of a doctrine or fact, and yet the certainty of its truth depend on an infallible interpreter. If you ask me why they were referred to them, if not as a rule of faith? I answer at once, as we now refer the Jews to the law and the prophets, the Musselman to the Koran, or the Bramin to his Shaster, or as Catholics now refer Protestants to the Bible. We all know the Old Testament is not the sole independent rule of faith, and particularly not as interpreted by the Jews. We all know that the Koran or the Shaster is no rule at all, and yet, when addressing those who believe in them, we ex professo refer them to their own acknowledged law. So Catholics now refer Protestants to their own rule, although we know well it is not the sole independent rule of the Christian faith and practice.

"You seem to fear lest the authority of the scriptures should depend upon the authority of the church, and I unequivocally assert that it does. Protestants have only moral evidence of the scripture being the authentic work of the apostles, and the inspired word of God. Now mere moral evidence can never

produce infallible certainty, and yet you must have this certainty before you can make an act of divine faith upon any doctrine of the scriptures. You have received the original scripture from the Catholic church. You are obliged to depend upon her testimony, either individually or in council, both as to the number of books, the genuineness of the copies, their authenticity and inspiration. To certain fathers we are indebted for their learned labours in examining copies, and detecting spurious and surreptitious productions, and other corruptions of heretics; and to the councils of the church we owe our knowledge and faith in the sacred canon. The third council of Carthage was the first that defined the sacred canon, so as to stamp upon it the seal of undisputed authority. Now, if the Catholic church was fallible, and might err, perhaps she erred then, and if she might then err in council, a fortiori, individuals were liable to err, and then where is your fallible certainty in the scripture? But, supposing the scripture to be the only infallible rule of faith, this would be an article of faith, and consequently found in the only sufficient rule. Now, I demand of you plain scripture for it. But you cannot produce a plain unequivocal text, declaring it to be the sole, independent, sufficient rule of faith; and if you could produce such proof, still it would be to be shewn how the scripture can bear testimony to itself, and I would drive you after all into the real vicious circle."

It would seem, indeed, that here Mr. Mason was really encircled in perplexity; but eager to grapple with any twig of argument or sophistry that may float in his way, he contends that if the Scripture cannot bear testimony to itself, neither can the church. To meet this objection, Mr. Martyn shortly proves that the church derives her authority from the infallible word of God; whereas the Scriptures are dependant on the authority of the church; and if the church has erred, as Protestants contend, then what certainty have they that the Scriptures are infallible. To illustrate this doctrine, Mr. Martyn likens the church to an oak: it is of the same nature, animated with the same living sap, and bears the same fruit as its parent stock, first planted by the divine hand; &c. and having silenced his adversary on this point, he continues thus:

"MARTYN.-I have now proved that the rule of faith was the teaching authority of the church; that this alone was coeval with revelation, that the scriptures did not set aside that authority, nor are they, for this reason, the sole independent rule of faith. I will now proceed to another natural argument. The rule of faith appointed by Christ to guide mankind into all truth, must evidently be universal as well as coeval. In the first place it must be universal in matters of faith, i. e. it must contain all that Christ taught-it must contain it in such a manner, that all men may come to the same conclusion as to every article of what Christ taught, or it is no longer a certain and sufficient rule of faith. Now it is easy to show that the teaching authority of the church is this rule. Teach all things,' says Christ, whatsoever I have taught you.'-Here then Christ taught them all things, and they were to

6

teach all things to others; and to enable them so to do, 'The spirit would "bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had taught them.' But the scriptures do not contain all things. In the first place many books are lost, and we have no security that these lost books did not contain many points which the scriptures do not now plainly enjoin. Secondly, we are told that Jesus Christ spent forty days with his disciples after his resurrection, instructing them in the things regarding his kingdom, and yet we are -nowhere told what these things were. Thirdly, St. John tells us, if all the things which Jesus did and taught were written, the world would not contain the books: here is a positive declaration that all things were not written. We have positive evidence, therefore, that all things were taught to the apostles, but all things were not written. Again, Protestants themselves believe many things which are nowhere plainly revealed in the bible, which they ought to be to form a complete rule of faith. For example; you believe the Christian Sunday is divinely appointed. Now I ask you to show me when, and where, and by whom,—and I defy you to bring a single passage in proof of this point, that I cannot prove may be easily explained another way, and that I cannot meet with many more passages much more explicit for the Jewish sabbath. You believe that infants ought to be baptized-I demand a plain scripture command for it; I defy you to produce any proof which I cannot overturn, and produce strong arguments to the contrary, as indeed the Anabaptists do. Most Protestants believe that divine and apostolical command to abstain from blood and from things strangled as annulled, so that Christians can lawfully eat these things: I demand proof from scripture. I might propose many other points; such as sprinkling and the sign of the cross in baptism; whether it be lawful for Christians to swear in any case; whether they may go to law; whether if a man robs me of my cloak, I am bound to give him my coat also. In none of these points, and a hundred more, do you make the scripture your sole independent rule of faith. I will here repeat what I have propounded before; if the scripture be the sole independent rule, then this proposition is an article of faith, and the most important one, because this point must be settled before a man can know what he is called to believe, and what not, and this definite proposition must be plainly declared in the scriptures; and I demand where this proposition is plainly asserted? I do not ask you to prove the truth of the scriptures, for this I believe as much as you; neither will I permit you to fly off into a moral argument upon the point, for that moment you abandon your rule-scripture, and scripture alone is your rule, and I demand scripture. I will carry the point farther. You must own the English bible to be your sole independent rule of faith, at least for all who can read no other. Now I ask you, where you are told this in scripture, and how you know from scripture that the English gospel of St. Matthew is infallibly a true copy of the original written in Hebrew, and lost many hundred years ago? And how are you infallibly certain from the scripture, that your translation is a faithful translation of the other originals, which have also been lost many years ago? Now, I positively declare, without fear of confusion, that the scripture is not universal in all necessary matters of faith and practice.

"MASON-I acknowledge that it is nowhere specified what the things were which Christ taught to bis apostles after his resurrection. And I know