Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

BOOK II.

THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY AGAINST THE

PECULIARITIES OF ROMANISM.

Hoc exigere VERITATEM, cui nemo præscribere potest; non spacium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum. Tertull. de virgin. veland. Oper. p. 490.

CHAPTER I,

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT,

HITHERTO, I have simply considered the evidence, produced by the Romanists themselves, partly from Scripture and partly from the writers of the three first centuries, for the avowed purposes both of establishing the revealed truth of the peculiarities of the Latin Communion, and of substantiating the alleged historical fact that those peculiarities were universally received by the primitive Church from the very beginning on the special ground that they had been delivered by the authoritative teaching of Christ and his Apostles: and, without adducing any testimony to the contrary effect, I have merely shewn, what in truth has actually been admitted even by some of the papal advocates themselves, that such evidence is altogether insufficient to make good the proposition, for the demonstration of which it was declaredly brought forward. Hence, even if nothing more were said, and even if I stopped short at the present point of the discussion, no reasonable person could be

R

justly required to admit the peculiarities of the Latin Church either doctrinal or practical.

For the matter now stands, in manner following. The peculiarities of Romanism are, by the Latins, asserted to be an essential and constituent part of Christianity, inculcated by our Lord and his Apostles, and under their sanction and authority received from the very first by the Church Catholic. Such being the case, the burden of proof clearly rests upon the shoulders of the asserters. Let the asserters, then, make good their assertion and the question is settled.

Now this question is, by one of the asserters admitted, by others tacitly acknowledged, and by none denied, to be a question of history. As a question of history, therefore it must be discussed.

Accordingly, the Romanists have attempted to establish their assertion on the basis of alleged evidence. But their attempt is a total failure. Consequently, no man can be fairly required, on the plea of religious obligation, to admit the truth of their assertion: inasmuch as their assertion, even on their own shewing, has never yet been substantiated by adequate testimony.

I. On the legitimate principles of historical evidence, I required the proof of the assertion, that The peculiarities of Romanism were received by the Catholic Church from the very beginning on the alleged express authority of Christ and his Apostles, to be brought from the writings of the three first centuries: for, if, from the testi

mony of the three first centuries, the assertion could not be substantiated; it were a palpable waste of time to seek for its substantiation in writings of the fourth or fifth or sixth century.

Accordingly, as is plain to the very meanest comprehension, the matter stands in manner following.

An even perfectly complete historical demonstration, of the actual existence of a doctrine or a practice four or five hundred years after the christian era, is no proof, that such doctrine or such practice existed in the apostolic age or in the earliest age of the Church. To establish the fact of primeval existence, we require primeval evidence: and, unless the testimony of the tree first centuries be found to corroborate, in regard to their own times, the testimony of much later periods; the testimony of those later periods, bearing only upon the doctrines and practices which were received during their own evolution, can never afford any solid proof, that those doctrines and those practices were apostolical and primitive. The connecting link of evidence is plainly wanted : and the copiousness, even were it much greater or at least much more universal than it really is, of the fourth or fifth or sixth age, can never be legitimately viewed, as salving the defect and as filling up the silence of the three first ages.

On these perfectly intelligible principles, if we concede the three first centuries to the Romanist

« VorigeDoorgaan »