The Greatest Writer of the 19th Century » Brownson's Writings » Dr. Jarvis's Reply to Dr. Milner

Dr. Jarvis's Reply to Dr. Milner

Brownson's Quarterly Review, January, 1848
Art. II. - A Reply to Dr. Milner's "End of Religious Controversy," so far as the Churches of the English Com­munion are concerned. By S. F. Jarvis, D. D., LL. D. New York : D. Appleton & Co.   1847.   12mo.   pp.251.
Milner's End of Religious Controversy, first published about thirty years since, is a well-known and highly esteemed work; and after - and perhaps we should not make the ex­ception- The Sincere Christian, by Bishop Hay, it is un­questionably the best work in our language on the points of our faith and practice controverted by Protestants, for general cir­culation and reading ; although, for our own reading, we prefer the work by Father Edward Worsley, entitled " Protestancy Principles, or Sectaries' Unhappy Fall from Infallibility to Fancy," a small quarto volume, printed at Antwerp, 1GG8, and of which we wish some of our enterprising publishers would bring out a new edition. But for the generality of readers, Milner's work is the most appropriate, instructive, and convincing. It is admirable for its lucid arrangement, the easy and natural manner in which the precise questions to be treated are placed before the reader, and for its condensation of mat­ter. We are at a loss which most to admire, its solid learn­ing, its rigid logic, or the candor and modesty of its temper and language. It is all it professes to be, - the end of relig­ious controversy. It has never been answered, and never will be; and no fair-minded person, willing to embrace the truth, though it conduct to that Church which he has hitherto de­spised, can read and understand it, and have any doubt remain­ing as to the fact that Catholicity is the religion, and the only religion, of God.
To this work Dr. Jarvis, a Protestant Episcopal minister of Connecticut, very well known in this section of llie country, has, in the publication before us, attempted a reply._ Dr. Jarvis, we are told, has an excellent library, and he enjoys, among people of his own persuasion, the reputation of a learned theologian, and of being profoundly versed in patristic lore. It is, we learn from his work, now twenty-five years since he first read Milner's work, and we are led to infer, though it is not expressly so stated, that his reply has the benefit of his reading and studies for that length of time. Certain it is, his work bears the marks of careful preparation, and appears to have received all the elaborate finish the author could give it. It evidently is the best he could do; and we have no reason to suppose that it is not equal to any thing a minister of his own denomination could do. It may, then, not be uninter­esting or unprofitable to out' readers to learn what he has suc­ceeded in doing.
They who have read Dr. Milner know that the excellent and learned Bishop wrote his work for candid and honest in­quirers after the truth, for readers who were willing to seek, and who had actually begun to seek ; and that it is to such that it is specially adapted. His purpose is not controversy, but the end of controversy ; and he aims not simply to silence the logic of Protestants, but to meet their actual wants, and, by the grace of God, to convince their understandings and convert their hearts. He writes as the pastor of souls, and not as the mere controversialist ; consequently, he consults not merely what can be legally demanded of him by the logical conditions of the argument, but also what is demanded by the peculiar intellectual slate of his readers. He therefore goes over much ground which the Catholic controversialist is not bound to go over, and meets and removes objections which he was under no obligation, save by the law of Chris­tian charity, even to entertain.
The only thing a Catholic, in his argument with Protestants, can be required to do, is, to prove that Almighty God has in­stituted and commissioned his Church to teach all nations, unto the consummation of the world, all things whatsoever our Lord commanded his Apostles. That once proved, there is, and can be, no further controversy. All there is, then, to do, is to hear and obey the Church. Particular objections to this or that doctrine or practice of the Church are of no moment, be­cause overruled by her authority to leach, established, if estab­lished at all, on a higher principle of certainty than is, or can be, the principle of any objections which reason can urge or suggest against it. Nevertheless, Protestant ministers imagine various objections to the several doctrines taught by the Church, which they urge with great vehemence, and which create real difficulties in ihe minds of the Protestant people, and render it often desirable that special solutions of them should be given. Protestants, in religious mailers, are poor reasoners, and in general require, for their practical conviction, not only to have a doctrine proved in its principle, but also in all its details, and not only that the truth be proved by one process, but its contradictory falsehood disproved by another. Hence our authors, aiming never at a barren victory, but always at practical instruction and conviction, often go beyond what can be legally demanded of them, and attempt by special replies to remove the particular difficulties Protestants suggest in the case of this or that particular doctrine. Dr. Milner bas done this to a very considerable extent, and lias thereby greally enhanced the practical value of his work for the class of per­sons for whom he designed it.
But this labor of love, on the part of our controversialists, is not without a certain practical evil. In performing it, we in some degree descend from our high Catholic vantage-ground, and act on the principle of private judgment and private interpretation,  and thus place our adversaries more nearly on a footing of equality with us than they have any right to pretend to. Wo thus give them a chance to talk, and sometimes with the appearance of saying something. We enable them to continue the debate ; and there are many peo­ple in the world who will take it for granted, that, so long as they continue to talk, they are not refuted ; for there are many people who seem to hold that to refute a man is to shut his mouth as well as his reason ; as if a man never speaks with­out saying something, or saying only nonsense ! Nevertheless, so it is ; and hence Protestant controversialists always seize upon this supererogatory part of our work, where they can ap­parently meet us on equal ground, and attempt to show that their objections to particular doctrines and practices are solid, and that our special answers to them are not conclusive. This, in general terms, is precisely what Dr. Jarvis attempts in his lie ply ; and under this point of view, he may be thought by those who already believe, or rather disbelieve, with him, to have said some few things not wholly irrelevant, - though, in fact, even under this point of view, he says nothing that amounts to any thing.
But with whatever success Dr. Jarvis should reply to Bishop Milner's special answers to objections to this or that doctrine, it would not aflect one way or other the, real question at issue. If it were conceded, that, independently of the authority of the Church, on the principle of private authority, or private interpretation of the Divine Traditions and of the Fathers, we cannot triumphantly prove that every Calholic doctrine taught by the Church to-day has been always and everywhere taught by her, it would amount to nothing. No Calholic believes any doctrine because, independently of the authority of the Church, he can prove it to be an apostolic doctrine; and one of our strong arguments for the Church is precisely this, that, without her authority, there is no suflicient authority to determine what is apostolic doctrine. Surely it is not to refute us, to prove successfully what we ourselves assert and urge against our adversaries ! The Catholic rule is, to take the doctrine from the Church, not the Protestant rule, to take the Church from the doctrine. We prove the Church ; we show that she is divinely commissioned to teach ; and when we have done that, we have authorized belief in all she teaches. There our argument stops ; henceforth we listen and believe. If, in our ardent charity for souls, we sometimes show or attempt to show that there is a corroborative historical testimony to the fact that the Church has in all ages taught as she now teaches, it is not because we are under any obligation to do so, nor do we thereby abandon or weaken the ground of authority, if, furthermore, in this we should not always suc­ceed, it would be nothing against us, and not in the least im­pair the authority on which we believe, and on which all must believe, or not be Catholic believers. Even if Protestants could convict us of total failure, in regard to this historical evi­dence of particular doctrines, and it should turn out that not a trace of the teaching of the Church is to be found in external history, they would prove nothing against us, or for them­selves ; the real question at issue would be unaffected. This fact Protestant controversialists in general, and Dr. Jarvis in particular, do not appear to understand, and hence all their reasoning tends only to mislead themselves. If all they ad­duce were conceded, nothing would really be conceded against us or for them ; and the very utmost that could be said would be, that a certain line of argument, which our controversialists, out of pure charity, condescend to adopt against Protestants, must be abandoned. We should still have enough left for all our wants, and to satisfy all the demands of justice, but should not have so much to give away in charity as we now have or persuade ourselves we have.
The fault of Protestants has always been to argue either on false principles, or some other question than the real one. We recollect no argument of theirs which does not conceal either a pelitio principii, the ignorantia elencki, or some other soph­ism. It must needs be'so. No man can reason against the truth without falling into a sophism of some sort. Protestants are not sophists because they want educntion or natural ability. We wish for no abler or more acute and rigid reasoners, sounder or more skilful dialecticians, than some Protestant lawyers we have known, when engaged in their own profession. It is a necessity of their false position, and grows out of the fact that nothing really logical ever is or can be urged against the truth. Protestants should try to get a clear and precise view of the real questions to be discussed, and of the princi­ples on which they are to be settled. If they would do this, and adhere rigidly to both, the debate between them and us would soon be concluded.
Undoubtedly, the questions to be debated between us and Protestants are questions which must be decided by reason, speculative or practical, or both ; therefore the only questions which can properly be debated between them and us are ques­tions which come within the province of reason. These are, Has Almighty God instituted a Church commissioned to teach ? If so, which is it? Here is all that is really in issue between the parties. The commission is the divine warrant of infallibility in teaching, because Almighty God cannot authorize the teaching of a lie ; and the Church commissioned is divine authority for believing whatever she teaches or com­mands in the name of God. Then to know what she so teaches and commands now, and always has so taught and commanded, we have only to ask her authorized teachers, and listen to what they say. The Catholic, then, has simply two points to make out, namely, that God has instituted such a Church as supposed, and that his Church is the one ; Protes­tants, in general, have one of two points to make out, either that God has instituted no such Church, or, if he has, that it is not the Roman Catholic, but theirs, or some one of theirs.
But there is in the outset a presumption in favor of the Catholic, and against Protestants. Protestants originally were subjects of the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed and was acknowledged to be the Church commissioned by Almighty God to teach. She was in possession, and to be presumed to be lawfully in possession, as such Church. Protestants were therefore bound to show good and valid reasons for protesting against her, or for throwing off her authority ; and till they did so, she was under no obligation to produce her titles, or to ad­duce evidence to sustain them. The burden of proof was on them. 'The two points she has in the argument to make out were already made out, at least so far as Protestants were concerned, if they failed to adduce good and valid reasons for contesting her claims, or for the points necessary for them to make out in their own justification. Thus, though the refuta­tion of Catholicity would not be necessarily the defence of Protestantism, - if Protestantism is anything more than a protest against the Church, - the failure of Protestants to establish their claims would be their condemnation as rebels. Protestants, then, must set forth what, if sustained, will com­pletely vindicate them, clear them of the charge of rebellion against their legitimate sovereign, before the Church is under any obligation to say one single word in her own defence. This is the exact state of the question between us and Prot­estants, and the precise view to be taken of the logical obli­gations of the two parties.
Dr. Milner, yielding to his desire to meet as far as possible the actual state of Protestant minds, has waived the presump­tion on which he had the right to insist, and which we our­selves will never consent to waive, and has attempted to do more than he was logically or legally bound to do. He at­tempts lo establish the two points which Protestants are bound to presume to be in favor of the Church ; to refute the pre­tensions of Protestants ; and to repel their objections to par­ticular Catholic doctrines and practices. The second was all that was logically necessary ; and the proof of the first carries with it all that it is necessary to say in regard to the other two. Consequently, Dr. Jarvis, in order to refute Dr. Milner, or to reply to him successfully, must show, either negatively, that what Dr. Milner advances in support of the two points which the Catholic has to make out is false or inconclusive ; or, positively, that the pretensions of Protestants, or, since he does not undertake to sustain Protestants in general, " the Churches of the English Communion," are well founded. Whatever is proved or disproved with regard to this or that doctrine, is said or not said about such matters, is of no manner of con­sequence. The authority of the Church, if established, suf­fices for all her doctrines, and its successful denial is their suc­cessful refutation.
We can now understand what the Protestant Episcopalian had to do ; let us see if he has done it. The point for us to consider is not whether Dr. Milner has successfully maintained his cause or not, but whether Dr. Jarvis has successfully re­plied to him or not. This it will be well to bear in mind. We must also premise that there is a great deal said by Dr. Jarvis on which we have neither space nor disposition to re­mark, and it must not be supposed we concede because we do not contradict it. We take notice of only such portions of what he says as may be supposed to have some direct or indi­rect bearing on the main argument ; the rest we pass in silence.
Dr. Milner divides his work into three parts. In the first part he concludes the Church from its necessity as the rule of faith, and the insufficiency of all other methods. Faith is as­sumed to be necessary, commanded by Almighty God, and is conceded to be so by those against whom he is reasoning. Then there must be some infallible rule or method of finding out what is the faith we are to believe ; for, without some such rule or method, faith is not possible, and God does not and cannot  command   what   he  does   not render  possible.      But without the Church there is no such rule or method. Hence the necessity and the fact of the Church. To refute this ar­gument, Dr. Jarvis, since he concedes the necessity of faith, must prove either that faith is possible without the rule or method asserted, or that there is some such rule independent of the Church. Has he done either ? We answer, that he can hardly be said to have even seriously attempted to do the one or the other.
In illustrating and maintaining his argument, which is con­ducted  in  a  logical,   though popular form,  Dr.   Milner  dis­cusses and refutes the several rules of faith contended for by Protestants, and arrives at the Catholic rule, which he states to be " The word of God at large, whether written in the Bible or handed down from the Aposlles in continued succession by the Catholic Church, and as understood and explained by that Church."*(footnote:   * End of Controversy, Letter VI.)  This definition of the Catholic rule is intended to include the whoh word of God as  taught or delivered by the Apostles, on the one hand, and to exclude all revelations, if such there are, which have been made to individuals subse­quently to the Apostles, on  the  other ;  and, furthermore, to include that word as understood and explained by the Catholic Church.    The rule, as defined, does not assert whether  the word  is  written  or   unwritten, but simply covers  the whole word, whether written or unwritten, or whether in part one and in part the other.    This is a question it does  not deter­mine, and which is not to be determined before determining the Church ; for it is obviously a question to be determined by the rule, and not before the  rule itself is  determined.    Unques­tionably the whole word of God delivered by the Apostles is to be received, whether written or unwritten, and Dr. J.arvis concedes it more than once.    Furthermore, if the whole word of God, as defined, is to be believed  os understood and ex­plained by the Church, all she understands and explains to be the word of God, whether written or unwritten,  must be  re­ceived and believed as his word.   Consequently, the only point in this rule to which Dr. Jarvis can legitimately object is the definition of the rule of faith to be " the word of God as un­derstood and explained by the Catholic Church,"
But, strange to say, this is precisely the point to which he does not formally object. He raises a question not raised in the definition of the rule,  namely, Whether the Church can understand and explain any thing to be of faith not recorded in the written word ; or, if she should do so, whether we should be obliged to receive it; - plainly a question for the Church herself to decide, if her authority is conceded ; for we seek the Church to tell us what is the word of God, not the word of God to tell us what is the Church. Antecedently to the Church, we are undoubtedly able to say, that any church that denies that to be the word of God which is his word, or affirms that to be his word which is not his word, is not the Church of God. But if we concede the Church to be neces­sary to teach us the word of God, we cannot determine, inde­pendently of her, what is the word of God, and erect it into a standard by which to try her. Dr. Jarvis, therefore, has no right to raise the question he does. He must deny and dis­prove the Church ; for if she is conceded, her authority is suf­ficient to settle the question without his reasoning, and over­rides whatever he may say on one side or the other.
Moreover, the answer to the question decides nothing as to the point in debate ; Dr. Milner in his definition does not affirm or deny that the word is written or unwritten, and there­fore to assert that the word is all written is not to deny any thing the definition asserts. Dr. Jarvis says, " The simple question at issue is, whether the Bible, the written word of God, or what Dr. Milner calls the word of God at large, written or unwritten, as received and understood and ex­plained by the Roman Catholic Church, is the proper rule of faith." - p. 25. But this is a mistake. Whether the written word alone, or the written and unwritten, whether the whole is written, or only a part is written, &c, is a question solely for authority itself to decide, after we have ascertained it, whether the authority be the Church, private judgment, or something else, and therefore not debatable. Whether the rule is " the word as understood and explained by the Roman Catholic Church," is the second question in order, not the first, nor a part of the first. If we agree that the rule is the word as held and taught by the Catholic Church, then, unless Dr. Jarvis and his Protestant friends concede the Catholic Church to be the Roman Catholic, - the point he tries to dis­pute, - we must proceed to the question, Which is the Cath­olic Church ? Dr. Jarvis's simple question, therefore, is a duplex question, to say the least, and therefore cannot be the simple question at issue. The real question at issue is, Whether the rule of faith is the whole word of God -• written or unwritten - delivered by the Apostles, as understood and ex­plained by the Catholic Church, or the Bible as understood by each particular reader or hearer of it.
Dr. Jarvis undertakes to prove, and under the head of " the rule of faith " the main thing he attempts to prove is, that noth­ing can enter into the rule of faith not contained in the written word ; but this is nothing to the purpose ; for even if it be so, it does not follow that the Protestant rule is true, or the Catho­lic false. To assert that the rule of faith is the word of God contained in the written word only is one thing ; to assert that it is solely the word of God as contained in the Bible, and as interpreted by each particular reader or hearer of it, •-• the proposition Bishop Milner denies, - is another and a very different thing ; for should it be conceded that the whole word was written, and nothing can be received as of faith not re­corded in the Bible, it might still be true that the rule of faith is what Dr. Milner asserts, namely, the word of God at large, - that is, the whole word delivered by the Apostles, - as un­derstood and explained by the Catholic Church ; which is the proposition of the Bishop that Dr. Jarvis is to disprove.
Before determining the authority which is to determine what is the word of God, the question of written or unwritten tradi­tion can be raised only as an historical question, or for the purposes of an argumentum ad hominem. If it be historically true that unwritten tradition has in all ages been contended for by the generality of Christians ; if it be true that it is con­tended for by Fathers and Doctors held to be authoritative by Protestants ; or if Protestants themselves profess to hold as revealed truth doctrines which are not contained in the Scrip­tures, or not to be obtained from them without the aid of un­written tradition, and yet assert that the Bible alone is the rule, then we may urge the fact as a conclusive argument against their rule ; for if there be unwritten tradition, they are cer­tainly wrong ; or if it is shown that they must admit it or abandon their doctrine, they are refuted on their own princi­ples. It is only in this sense that we understand Dr. Milner to urge unwritten tradition. If he urges it successfully, he overthrows Protestantism ; if unsuccessfully, he does not thereby render Catholicity false or Protestantism true ; and all that can be said is, that he has used an unsound argument against Protestants ; which would, indeed, affect his character as a polemic, but not at all the real points in issue. The whole discussion into which Dr. Jarvis enters was therefore aside from his purpose, and he would not have advanced a single step in his argument, even if he had succeeded in his denial of unwritten tradition. But he has not succeeded ; nay, after going into a long and elaborate argument against un­written tradition, he very frankly concedes it. Thus he says, p. 29,- "Now the Church of England, and the churches in communion with her, do not deny, certainly, what an Apos­tle has asserted, that the written gospels do not contain all that Jesus did or said. Nor do they deny that the Apostles, in proclaiming the Gospel and establishing the Church, did and said many things which could not properly enter into the apostolic writings which have been transmitted to us. Let it be proved, then, that any doctrine or practice proceeded from Christ or his Apostles, and we receive and embrace it. ' The question is not,' as Bellarmine well observes, ' how great is the force of divine and [or] apostolical traditions, but whether any tradilion [tdiqua tradilio] be truly divine or apostolical ! ' " p. 29. This, if it mean any thing, means that u the churches of the English communion " acknowledge both the fact of unwritten traditions and the obligation to receive and embrace them, if proved to be really from Christ or his Apostles, which is all that the Catholic says ; for no Catholic holds that he is bound to believe any thing as from our Lord and his Apostles not proved by infallible authority to be from them.
Dr. Jarvis, afier this, is precluded from restricting the rule to the written word alone, and nnist say with the Catholic Bishop, " the word of Cod at large, written or unwritten." Thus far, instead of refuting the Catholic rule, he concedes it, and asserts its soundness. The only point, as we have already said, for him to deny, if he means to controvert the Catholic rule, is, that the rule of faith is the word " as understood and explained by the Catholic Church." Does be deny this ? Not at all. He concedes it, and denies, though he also as­serts, the Protestant rule of private judgment; for he main­tains expressly that the Church is the judge of controversies of faith, according to Art. XX. of the Thirty-nine Articles of his society, and that the Scriptures are to be interpreted according to tradition, or " the consentient testimony" of antiquity, or rather, of all ages. The last, if it mean any thing, denies private judgment; the first necessarily implies that the word is to be received as understood and explained by the Church. After all his flourish, to borrow his own phrase­ology, he denies the Protestant rule, and concedes the Catholic, and of course gives up the whole argument to the Catho­lic as to the necessity and fact of the Church, - the first point the Catholic had to make out.
It being now proved, or at least conceded, that there is a Catholic Church, and that the rule of faith is the word as un­derstood find explained by this Church, the next question in order is, Which is it, - the church in communion with the see of Rome, or " the churches of the English commun­ion " ? But Dr. Jarvis is not yet prepared to broach that question. He has other work to perform first. He is placed in a delicate position, which may be expressed by Protestant-Catholic, and CrtZ/io/ic-Proteslant. He must be Catholic enough to condemn Puritanism and dissent from Anglicanism ; and Protestant enough to condemn Romanism. In other words, he is an Jlnglo-Catholic, which means a man who as­serts one set of principles against us, and the contradictory set against Puritans, Socinians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Meth­odists, &c. So, though he has conceded the Catholic rule in principle, and given up the Protestant rule of private judg­ment, we must not be surprised to find him going into a long, elaborate, and learned defence of" the Protestant rule, and also indulging in very liberal abuse of us for asserting ours.
After having given up the Protestant doctrine as to the un­written word, he must, in order not to be too Catholic, reassert it, deny all unwritten tradition of doctrine, and insist on the sufficiency of the Scriptures. But the Scriptures speak of "traditions." Very true; but tradition means "handed over," and may apply to the written word itself, which the Apostles handed over to their successors. But St. Paul speaks of traditions, "by word or our Epistle." True, veiy true ; but that which was unwritten at the time St. Paul after­wards wrote. The proof? " We say, and that very plainly and openly, that it is an arrogant assumption of the very point at issue, to assert that he meant unwritten tradition of his doc­trine. We say, that, in the fourteen epistles which bear his name, he did record the doctrine which he as a divinely in­spired Apostle thought it necessary to deliver in addition to the already written doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, as received by him. St. Paul's traditions of doctrines were written tra­ditions."- p. 32. Brave assertions, no doubt; but the proof? " His epistles to the Thessalonians were among the earliest, and are comparatively short. Who will undertake to prove that doctrines, not recorded in them, were not afterwards recorded in his other Epistles ?" - Ib. But, with your per­mission, this is not to the purpose.  You assert that " St. Paul's traditions of doctrines were written traditions"; and yet when the Apostle exhorted the Thessalonians to stand firm, and to hold them (2 Thess. ii. 14), they were undeni­ably, in part, unwritten ; it is, therefore, for you, who assert that they were all subsequently written, to prove it. The fact that they might have been is no proof that they were. Be­sides, you have conceded "that the Apostles, in proclaiming the Gospel, and establishing the Church, did and said many things which could not properly enter into the apostolic writ­ings which have been transmitted to us."
But Dr. Jarvis attempts to save himself by a distinction. He distinguishes between doctrines and precepts, and contends that the unwritten traditions are traditions not of doctrines, but of precepts, though, as we understand him, of divine precepts, - precepts which the Apostles received from our Lord him­self, or from the dictation of the Holy Ghost. That is, they are traditions of things to be done, not of doctrines to be be­lieved. The distinction shows, no doubt, the master. But is not faith itself a precept, in so much as it is commanded, and as in believing we are active, that is, do something ? Again, is not a precept something taught as well as command­ed, and therefore a doctrine ? And must we not believe it from God, in order that, in obeying it, we may be obeying God ? Moreover, are the divine precepts less a part of the word of God than the divine mysteries ? And is not a rule of faith which excludes a portion of the divine precepts, or even ordinances,-to adopt another term insisted on by Dr. Jarvis, -just as much a false rule as one which excludes a portion of the dogmas? The distinction, therefore, between doctrines and precepts, on which the author lays so much stress, though valid enough for some purposes, can avail him nothing for the purpose for which he makes it. The precepts are the law of God, what the law practically ordains ; and could any body regard a tradition of the word of God as complete, which only partially handed down the law of God ?
Nevertheless, we must expect Dr. Jarvis to hold on to his Protestantism, at least for some few 'pages further. Notwith­standing his concessions, he asserts (p. 37), that " the Bible, the written word of God, in its true intent and meaning, is the only rule of that faith which is necessary to salvation." But how does he prove this ?    He has already admitted that there is a portion of the word not recorded in the Bible, and whether he call it doctrine, or precept, or ordinance, how does he know thai it is not necessary to salvation ? He cites, indeed, the English Synods ; but till he has proved that they were commissioned by Almighty God to teach, they are author­ity neither for him nor for us. And yet we can find no other proof of his assertion of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. But this is a serious question. What is the faith necessary to salvation must be determined by divine authority, and there­fore, if what is contained in the Scriptures is sufficient, we must have divine authority for believing it. But, unhappily for the Protestant minister, he has no such authority ; for the Holy Scriptures, as is well known, nowhere assert their own sufficiency.    This, of itself, is decisive against Protestantism.
In arguing against the Protestant rule, Dr. Milner presses home the inability of the Protestant to settle the canon, and to be certain that he has an authentic copy of the original He­brew and Greek autographs, - that his translation is faithful, - and that he seizes the true sense. Dr. Jarvis, still in his Protestant vein, undertakes at considerable length to dispose of this formidable objection.    Let us see how he succeeds.
1. The Protestant cannot proceed a step, even if the suf­ficiency of the Scriptures be conceded, till he has settled the canon, that is, determined what books are authoritative. Dr. Milner tells his Protestant opponents that they are unable to do this. Dr. Jarvis says Protestants can do this as well as we can ; but he fails to show how. He, however, proceeds himself to settle the canon by a very short and simple process. The Catholic canon and the Protestant agree, except that the former includes seven books and certain parts of Esther and Daniel excluded by the latter. " The question, then, as to the canonical Scriptures, or Scriptures to be adduced as a rule of faith, is clearly reduced to this : Whether the seven books named, and the parts of Esther and Daniel as contained in the Septuagint and the Old Latin Vulgate, are, or are not, canon­ical."- pp. 44, 45. These books were not in the Jewish canon, were not received by some early Christians, were thought lightly of by St. Jerome, and therefore are not canonical. Therefore the Protestant canon is the true canon, and the Catholic, so far as it differs from the Protestant, false. But, waiving the argument against the books in our canon not in the Protestant, which, it were easy to show, is of no weight, on what authority does Dr. Jarvis assert the canonicity of those books with regard to which there is no dispute be­tween Catholics and Protestants, that is, of the books which Protestants hold to be canonical ? On our authority ? Nay, because he does not admit that authority, and because, if ad­mitted, it is as good for those rejected as for those retained. On what authority, then ? On the authority of the primitive Church ? By what authority do you determine what was the canon of the primitive Church ? Your own ? That is, no doubt, very respectable, but hardly sufficient for an act of faith ; at best, it cannot be more than human, and therefore not above the authority of the Holy Council of Trent, at worst.
2. But Dr. Milner continues :  Supposing you have settled
the canon of the Scriptures, how do you know that the copies
of them translated and printed in your Bibles are authentic ?
Here is a further difficulty ; for even if you have the true
canon, but a corrupt text, it avails you nothing.     What does
Dr. Jarvis answer to this ?    1.  That Dr. Milner should have
used  the  word genuine  instead  of authentic.    [Doubtful.]
2. That various learned men, though they have detected thou­
sands of various  readings, are of opinion that the   received
Hebrew and Greek text is substantially correct.   3. Conceding
that the text of the Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer is
not pure ; and 4. Entering into a long and learned dissertation
to prove that the text of the New Testament, in one instance
at least, is grossly corrupt,  and  contains what was originally
only a marginal gloss ! - pp. 52-65.    This looks to us more
like assigning reasons for doubting than for crediting the accu­
racy of the text.
3. But, Dr. Milner goes on, admitting the canon, and the
genuineness of the text,  how can you be sure that yours is
a faithful translation ?    The generality of those  who read the
Bible must read it in a translation, the  faithfulness of which
they have themselves no means of ascertaining ; and yet,  if
they are to take their faith from the Bible alone, they cannot
be certain of their faith, unless they are certain of the transla­
tion in which they read or hear it read.    What has Dr. Jarvis
to say to this ?    So far as we can understand him,  he answers
Dr. Milner's question,  1. By abusing and misrepresenting the
Holy Council  of  Trent;   2.   Berating   the   Latin  Vulgate ;
3. Excusing one error in the Protestant English translation, on
the ground of a various reading ; 4. Trying in vain to defend
another ; 5. Asserting that the Protestant version, take it all in
all, is a very excellent translation; 6. Placing in parallel columns an extract from our English version and one from the Protes­tant, and calling on " plain, unlettered " men to decide between them ; 7. Abusing ours for coining through a Latinized medium, and for retaining the word Cephas, instead of translating it Peter, in a passage in which it is not certain that Peter was the person meant; and 8. By leaving a strong impression on the reader that translations can never be worthy of full confidence. - pp. 65-70.
4. But, Dr. Milner asks again, - "Admitting that your Bi­ble is canonical, authentic, faithful, what security have you that you understand it rightly?"    Dr. Jarvis is bound to answer this question, for he says, as we have seen, that " the Bible, the written word of God, in its true intent and meaning, is the only rule  of that faith which  is necessary to salvation." Besides, what we are to believe is unquestionably the word of God, and the Bible is, and can be, the word of God only in the exact sense intended by its divine Author.    If we have no infallible certainty that we  have that sense,  we cannot have faith ; for faith must exclude doubt, and where there is not infal­lible certainty, where there is a liability to error, doubt is not excluded.    Now what certainty has the Protestant, or can he have, that he understands the words of the Bible in the very sense intended by the  Holy Ghost ?    Here we are at some loss to make out what the author really answers.    His vitu­peration of Dr. Milner and the Catholic Church is intelligible enough ; but when he comes to the direct answer to the ques­tion, he grows dark and profound.    He seems himself to feel that there is a difficulty in the case.   If, he says, the noble de­sign once entertained by the English Reformers had been car­ried out, - our Lord himself not having made any provision for the right understanding of his word, we must suppose, - there would have been a way, he  is  sure.    The child would have been baptized, early taught the creeds, [what vouches for the creeds ? ]   catechised, in  due time confirmed,  and  then would every day of his life have heard four chapters in the Bible read by a learned priest, and "with that just emphasis and intonation, that the very reading would have conveyed to him  the true  sense  of  God's  holy word." - p. 74.      This would have been ; but, alas ! Catholics and Puritans marred the " noble design," and so it is not, and has not been.    Very un­kind on the part of Catholics and Puritans, and very unfortu­nate for the " churches  of the English  communion," certain­ly.    If the " noble design " had been carried out, the Protestants would have an authoritative interpreter of the word in the "just emphasis and intonation" of the reader! But who would have gone guaranty for the " emphasis and intonation " ? The fact that the priest knew Hebrew and Greek ? Alas ! we have known men who knew both Hebrew and Greek who had a shocking bad emphasis and intonation, and we presume Dr. Jarvis has known some eminent Hebrew and Greek scholars who were, in his estimation, very bad Biblical inter­preters, whether by reading or otherwise.
Dr. Jarvis frankly concedes, that, as matters now stand, the method of arriving at the true sense of the word of God in his communion is not perfect. He says, " Even in the present tocak and imperfect state of our communion, longing as we do for a more devout and general fulfilment of the Church's pur­poses, 1 will be bold to say, that no one who clearly under­stands our system, and follows it in his daily practice, can be carried about by every wind of doctrine and the cunning crafti­ness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." -p. 75. Iierc the weak and imperfect state of the author's communion is taken as a settled fact, and also, that the perfection of the Church is a thing in futuro, perhaps, but certainly not in the present. True, after this admission, the author takes courage, grows bold, and asserts - what ? " That no one who under­stands our system," - but who understands it?-"No one who understands our system," - very well, - " and follows it in his daily practice," - that is, understands and adheres to it, - "will be carried about by every wind of doctrine." Certainly not ; a man who understands and sticks to Episco-palianism is not an Anabaptist, a Quaker, or a Mormon ; but is it certain that he understands and adheres to the word of God ?    How know you that ?    How be certain of that ?
" Thanks be to God, we have a prayer-book, which the most ignorant of our laity can understand, and which embod­ies in a devotional form the Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures." - p. 74. That the most ignorant of your laity, or even the most learned, can understand your prayer-book, may be questioned ; but be it so ; how are they to know, that, by understanding it, they rightly understand the Scriptures ? Because I understand an Episcopal prayer-book, is it certain that I rightly understand the word of God ?
But it "embodies the Catholic interpretation of the Scrip­tures." If you say that, you abandon the Protestant rule, and imply the Catholic.    But let that pass.    How are your most ignorant laity, or even your most learned laity, to know that your prayer-book embodies in a devotional form the Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures ? Rely on their ministers ? But that were " blind submission," to which (p. 75) you ob­ject, and which you regard as the condemnation of Dr. ftlil-ner's system. How, indeed, are even your ministers to know the fact themselves ? What is the guaranty, even to your min­isters, that they do not themselves mistake the Catholic inter­pretation ? Moreover, what authority have they for saying that the interpretation, even if the Catholic interpretation, is the true sense of God's word, since you deny the infallibility of even the Catholic Church, adduce Catholic testimony only as human testimony (p. 37), and say that "all attempts to enforce the decision of a present infallible interpreter end only in spiritual despotism" ? (p. 75.) If there is no present infallible interpreter, there can be no present infallible interpre­tation, and no infallible assurance that any ancient interpreta­tion is infallible ; and then no assurance, sufficient for faith, even if we understand your prayer-book, that we rightly un­derstand the Scriptures.
Dr. Jarvis appeals to what he calls tradllive interpretation, to the traditions, the "consentient testimony of all ages"; but appeals to them as helps only to private judgment. They are to be collected and ascertained by private judgment, not defined and declared, as the Catholic holds, by authority ; and when collected and ascertained, private judgment is at liberty to accept, modify, or reject, as seems to it good. But private judgment may err in determining what is the tradition of all ages, what is the consentient testimony of the Fathers ; it may gravely mistake as to the traditive interpretation itself ; it may also err gravely in the use it makes of it ; and therefore, with all the helps it gets, be still liable to err in the interpre­tation of the Scriptures. How, then, is the Protestant to be certain that he rightly understands the word of God, has seized " its true intent and meaning," - and not merely the plain, un­lettered Protestant, but even the most gifted and learned ? Our author is silent, - nay, not quite ! " The xoell-taughl Chris­tian [who has taught him, and taught him well ?] will apply to him who is set over him in the Lord to resolve his doubts." (p. 75.) That is, he must apply to his pastor, - a plain sur­render of the Protestant rule, and, in principle, an equally plain assertion of the Catholic. But who is guaranty for the pastor, if there be no infallible church who teaches him, sends him, and teaches through him ? " There is no more uncer­tainty in our communion than there has ever been in the Cath­olic Church.''- Ib. That is assumption; but at any rate, then, there is uncertainty in your communion ; how, then, in your communion, be sure that you rightly understand the word of God ? " All attempts to enforce the decision of a present infallible interpreter end only in spiritual despotism." - Ib. We distinguish ; the decision of a pretended infallible interpre­ter, or of an interpreter who is not infallible, we concede it ; of an interpreter who is really infallible, we deny it ; for submission to truth is spiritual freedom, and the decisions of an infallible interpreter are truth. But in saying this, Dr. Jar-vis evidently concedes that his communion is not, at present, infallible, and then not authorized by Almighty God to teach. " The fires of the Inquisition have made hypocrites, not con­verts."- Ib. The author's mind must be running on the English Court of High Commission, and we are happy to think his Anglicanism a little modified from what it was under Elizabeth and James.
It is clear, from Dr. Jarvis's own statements and conces­sions, that he is aware of no method by which, on Protestant principles, either ministers or people can be sure that they rightly understand the word of God, that they seize its true intent and meaning, and hold it in the sense intended by the Holy Ghost. But with any uncertainty on this point, they can­not have faith ; for faith and uncertainty cannot coexist in the same mind, on the same subject, as is evident from the force of the terms themselves. But faith is possible, and, if not possible without the Church, then the Church must be, and is. The Reply is constantly recurring to the Church. The author speaks of the well-taught Christian ; but there cannot be well-taught Christians, unless therevbe some one competent to teach them. He fails, therefore, to defend his Protestant­ism, and, as we have seen, concedes in principle the Catholic rule, namely : The word of God at large, written or unwrit­ten, as understood and explained by the Catholic Church. He then concedes that there is a Catholic Church, whose function it is to teach, understand, and, explain the word. Then the first point in the Catholic argument, and which Dr. Milner un­dertakes to establish, is conceded. Thus far the Reply makes out nothing against Dr. Milner, but, as far as it goes, either concedes or defends all he contends for.
We may pass now to the second question in order, namely, Which is the Catholic Church,-the church in  communion with the See of Rome, or " the churches of the English com­munion".'1    There is a Catholic  church essential to the rule of faith.    This  is now certain, so  far as regards  the  argu­ment between Dr. Milner and Dr. Jarvis.     This   church is none of the minor Protestant sects, by ihe concession of Dr. Jarvis, and therefore, in  an argument with him, they may be thrown out of the question.    The controversy, so far as he is concerned, turns, and he wishes it to turn, between the Roman Catholic Church  and   " the churches  of the English com­munion" ; for it is, as he tells us in his title-page, only so far as "the churches of the English communion are concerned " that he undertakes to reply to Dr. Milner.   Dr. Milner, under this head, maintains that those churches are not the Catholic Church, and that the Roman is ; Dr.  Jarvis, to  refute  him, must refute these two propositions.    Dr. Milner, if he refutes the   pretensions   of  the   Anglican   communion,   can,   against Anglicans, at once,   without  further argument,  conclude  his second proposition, that the church in communion with Rome is the Catholic Church ; or, if he  establishes by direct proofs that this church is the Catholic Church,   he  can   conclude at once against all others.    Dr. Jarvis,   however, does not prove his own church, even  if he  uncatholicizes the Roman, and   must  either   disprove   the  pretensions  of all  pretended ecclesiastical bodies but his own, or prove his own by direct affirmative proofs.    Let us see, not whether Dr. Milner has succeeded, for that is not the question, but whether Dr. Jar­vis has succeeded in maintaining against him the catholicity of " the churches of the English communion."
Dr. Jarvis begins by accusing Dr. Milner of having in the outset assumed the point in dispute, by speaking of his church as the Catholic Church. In this Dr. Jarvis is wrong, and all he says about Bishop Milner's " chicanery," and "quibbling," and using words in "a double sense," is irrelevant and un­just. Dr. Milner calls his church Catholic from the outset, it is true ; but he builds no argument on the name, and in his second part he undertakes to prove that it is what he calls it. The church in communion with the See of Rome, whether in fact the Catholic Church or not, is legitimately so called. Catholic is its official name ; the name by which it has always designated itself, and been designated by others. It is its his­torical name, its proper name, by which it is distinguished in history, and in the common speech of mankind.    It is a name exclusively appropriated to it. No church or ecclesiastical body not in communion with the See of Rome has ever been known and distinguished among men by the name of Catholic. All other churches, or bodies, are known and distinguished in common speech, by the common sense of mankind, and we believe, even by themselves, by some other appellation. She alone bears it, and she has as good a right, when speaking of herself, to call herself by the name Catholic, as Dr. Jarvis has to call himself Samuel Farmer Jarvis. If the name is an argument in her favor, that is not her fault. She is not obliged to change her name, because others change their faith and communion.
Dr. Jarvis wishes, we are aware, that " the churches of the English communion " should be called Catholic ; but those churches have never officially called themselves so. The Anglican Church is officially " the Church of England," and the queen of England, who is its supreme governor, or governess, in her coronation oath, did not swear to protect and defend " the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," but the " Proiestant religion," as established in her realms. The of­ficial name of Dr. Jarvis's own society is, " The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United Stales of America " ; and when lie himself, in its General Convention, at Philadelphia, in 1844, introduced a resolution changing its name to u Cath­olic," or " reformed Catholic," the Convention voted it down, and by doing so, voted that his church is not Catholic ; for it is notorious that they hold it to be reformed. This of itself is decisive against the catholicity of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Dr. Jarvis, in asking us to call ourselves Roman­ists, and him and his friends Catholics, or Jinglo-Catholics, is not modest. He asks that we should give up the name by which the whole world knows us, and call him and his friends by a name which they have solemnly voted they will not have. We cannot be so discourteous as to call them by what in their case would be a nickname. The " churches of the English communion " call themselves Protestant ; they fraternize with Protestants ; they regard themselves as the bulwarks of the Protestant religion ; and Protestants we shall call them, when­ever we wish to distinguish them from those whom all ages have designated by the name of Catholic.
Unquestionably the name we bear is a strong presumption in our favor. The body which has always maintained the name and style of a given  corporation is prima facie it ; and any body claiming to be it, which does not use, and which has never been known to use, its name and style, is, prima facie, not it. if this is in our favor, and against Protestant Episco­palians, whose fault is it ? Is Dr. Jarvis so very modest as to ask us to give up the name and style we have always borne and used, so as to place ourselves on an equal footing with him­self ? If so, we may, indeed, admire his modesty, but cannot consent to gratify him. He must oust us from our possession, which we have held from time immemorial, before we yield one iota to oblige even him. Whatever advantage the name Cutholic gives us is rightfully ours ; and we cannot surrender it, without being false to God and unjust to our neighbour. Whatever disadvantage " the churches of the English com­munion " may labor under in consequence of not having, and never having had, the name and style of the Church of God, they must submit to it ; we forewarn them that we will not do so much as the lifting of a single hair to relieve them. So it is useless to talk about the name. They are named ; and, do their best, they will never be able to make the name Catholic stick to them.    There is often common sense in names.
" We will not, and cannot," says Dr. Jarvis, (p. 117,) " be drawn from our vantage-ground by the wily manoeu­vres of Dr. Milner. He knew, and his brethren now cannot but know, that there is no debate between us on the terms of the ancient creeds. The Seventh Article of the Synod of Lon­don, in 1552 - the same with the Eighth Article of 1662- says, ' The three creeds - Nicene Creed, Alhanasius's Creed, and the Apostles' Creed - ought thorowly to be received and believed ; for they may be proved by most certain war­rants of Scripture.' Thus far, therefore, our faith is that of the Catholic Church at the end of the first four General Coun­cils. From this vantage-ground, I repeat, we cannot and will not be driven ; and it is an unfair use of terms, to deny us the name of Catholic, or to represent the debate between the English and Roman Communions as if we were the heretics, and they the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."
Here we see that Dr. Jarvis claims to stand on a vantage-ground. He asserts that his faith is that of the Catholic Church at the end of the Fourth General Council. But what is the proof? " We believe the ancient creeds." But that is a point to be proved, not taken for granted. If you believe the creeds in the sense and for the reason the Catholic Church did at the end of the Fourth General Council, you do, so far as her faith at the time was embodied in them ; but that you do so believe them is not evident from the fact that you profess to receive and believe them ; because you may believe them in some other sense, or for some other reason, than hers. You roust prove that you hold them in a Catholic sense, and for a Catholic reason, before you can pretend to stand on the vantage-ground you boast.
To believe the ancient creeds, it is necessary, as is evident from their face, to believe the Holy Catholic Church, as we have also proved, by proving that the rule of faith is the word of God as understood and explained by the Catholic Church. In the act of faith, then, there must always be belief of the Church. Now, if we turn to the article of the Synod of Lon­don cited above, we find that the reason assigned for believing the ancient creeds is, not that they are the creeds of the Cath­olic Church, - the word of Gon as understood and explained by her, - but that " they may be proved by most certain war­rants of Holy Scripture." In believing them for this reason, there is no belief of the Catholic Church, expressed or im­plied, but a virtual denial of the Church. If the reason for believing is the most certain warrant of Scripture, the want of such warrant, even if we had the Catholic Church teaching, would be good reason for not believing, and therefore the Church teaching counts for nothing. The Doctor's vantage-ground, therefore, evidently slides from under him.
Moreover, the ancient creeds, at the time mentioned, were held as creeds, and no debate whether they were or were not provable by " most certain warrants of Holy Scripture " was allowed, because the Church had spoken, and concluded debate. Her authority was held to be final, and no one was at liberty to reject it, on Scriptural or any other grounds ; and every one was bound to believe it under pain of anathema. Is Dr. Jar-vis free to open the debate ? If he is, he denies the authority of the Catholic Church at the end of the Fourth General Council, and his faith is not hers. Is he not free ? What binds him ? The ancient Church ? No ; for it is not on her authority he takes the creeds,, but on the alleged fact that " they may be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scrip­ture." What, then, binds him ? The authority of the Synod of London, which asserts that fact ? If so, he makes the Synod authoritative, and, therefore, must prove it is the Cath­olic Church that speaks in it, before he can allege it, or allege, that, in believing on its authority the ancient creeds, his faith is that of the Catholic Church at the end of the Fourth Gen­eral Council. He must, then, prove his church to be the Cath­olic Church, before he can claim the vantage-ground of which he speaks.
Finally, no man believes the ancient creeds who does not believe the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. But no man who rejects the authority of that Church, separates himself from her communion, and believes a communion which is not hers to be the Catholic communion, does believe her. Consequently, before Dr. Jarvis can be at liberty to affirm that his faith is that of the Catholic Church at the epoch desig­nated, he must prove the Catholicity of his own communion, and that, in believing it, he believes the Catholic Church of the ancient creeds. These considerations may not, indeed, drive the Doctor from his boasted vantage-ground, but they show, at least, that he does not occupy it.
Dr. Jarvis is not at liberty to pursue the line of argument which he sees would be very convenient for him. He wishes to be allowed to assume, since he professes to believe the creeds, that his faith is that of the Catholic Church in the early ages, from that to conclude his orthodoxy, and then from his orthodoxy to conclude his church. But this will not do. The Church cannot be concluded from the faith ; for, without the Church, we have no authority by which to determine what is the faith, whether the ancient or modern faith,-to dis­tinguish, where there is and can be no difference. The Doc­tor misconceives the question at issue. He labors under the hallucination, that Catholics yield him the early ages of tho Church, and that the controversy begins only at the end of the Fourth General Council, - that his faith is admitted to be that of the Catholic Church at that epoch, and that it is contended that he is wanting only in regard to certain matters not ex­pressed in the creeds, and which he alleges are subsequent additions, but which Mr. Newman calls developments, and he cites Mr. Newman's Essay in proof of it. But the work he cites was written, not by a Catholic, but by a member of the communion to which he himself professes to belong, and its doctrine is not Catholic doctrine. Dr. Jarvis may be assured that Catholics yield him not one iota of antiquity, and no more grant that his faith is that of the Church in primitive than in modern times. His vantage-ground is purely imaginary. We hold ourselves bound by the primitive creed, without alteration, addition, or diminution, save its further explication for the condemnation of new errors which from time to time arise. We recognize no ancient, no modern creed ; for the creed of the Church is always, and everywhere, the same and invariable,- never young, never old. The question is simply, What was the creed, or doctrine, of the Church in primitive times ? Set­tle that question, and you unchurch every pretended church which has deviated, or which deviates from it. But that is not a question for private judgment, to settle by private interpre­tation of the three creeds enumerated and the early Fathers ; but a question for authority, the authority which proposes and defines the faith, - that is, the Catholic Church herself. Evi­dently, then, the question, Which is the Catholic Church ? must precede the question, Which is, or who has, the Catholic faith ? If Dr. Jarvis had just simply considered that the doctrine is to be taken from the teacher, not the teacher from the doctrine, he could hardly have fallen into the gross blunder of attempting to establish his orthodoxy without the Church, and then the Church by his orthodoxy. In homely language, he puts the cart before the horse.
The question now returns, Which is the Catholic Church ? And this question must be answered without any appeal to the faith, which we can know only by the Church. The contro­versy into which Dr. Jarvis seeks to lead us is wholly irrele­vant, and could settle nothing for him or for us. Which is the Catholic Church ? There is a Catholic Church, - that is settled ; and, between Dr. Jarvis and Dr. Milner, it must be either the church in communion with Rome, or the churches of the English communion.    Which of these is it ?
Were we arguing the question, we should plant ourselves on the fact of prior possession, on the presumptions in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, and there stand, till the Protest­ant Episcopal Doctor had set forth good and valid reasons for ousting us. But we are not arguing the question ; we are only examining Dr. Jarvis's Reply to Dr. Milner. Dr. Milner undertakes both to prove his own church, and to disprove the pretensions of his opponents. There are certain marks of the true church in the Nicene Creed, and which, at least, all who admit the authority of that creed must accept. Dr. Jar­vis finds no fault with them, but, so far as we can understand him, acknowledges them to be the true marks of the true Catholic Church. These marks are, Unity, Sanctity, Catholic­ity, and Apostolicity ; - " Credo Unam Sanctum Ecclesiam, Catholicam et JJpostolicam."   The church which possesses all these marks is the true Catholic Church ; any body, or asso­ciation, calling itself the Church, that wants any one of these, is a false church, and to be rejected. Dr. Milner shows that the Roman Catholic Church possesses all these marks, and that no other so-called church does ; at least, he attempts to show this. Dr. Jarvis, to refute him, must show that they are all possessed by the churches of the English communion ; and, if he fail to do so, he must concede that Dr. Milner is right, and that the Roman is the Catholic Church. Does he succeed or fail ?    Let us hear him.
" Since the Fourth General Council, the state of the Church has been very materially altered. They who equally maintain the great principles of the ancient creeds are now riven into separate communions. The question is, not whether there ought to be unity, but who has violated unity. The question is, not whether holiness should be the badge of our Christian profession,  but which  of the contending  parties  is  the least
unholy Our object is, to gather together in one  the
scattered and divided members of Christ's fold ; to perfect holiness on earth, that we may enjoy it in heaven ; to render the Church truly Catholic, as it once ivas ; and, for that pur­pose, to restore the blessed communion of the apostolic fel­lowship."- p. 117. This evidently implies that Dr. Jarvis considers the Church now existing to be destitute of these four marks, and supposes the question to be, not who pos­sesses or does not possess them, hut through whose fault have they been lost.
But the question he would raise cannot be entertained, be­cause it presupposes the Church to have ceased to exist. The Catholic Church, without the four marks enumerated, is not conceivable. The Doctor, therefore, cannot go into any inquiry by whose fault the true Church has lost them, for she cannot lose them. If the view he takes were admitted, we should be obliged to say, the Church, the true Church, we are in pursuit of, does not exist. This is implied in the Doctor's carefully chosen language. Unity, he tells us, has been violat­ed,- the members of Christ's fold scattered and divided; we are to inquire, not what church is holy, but which " is the least un­holy"; and the purpose of the churches of his communion is, to recover unity, to " perfect holiness," to render the Church truly Catholic, and to restore the Apostolic communion ; - all expressions which necessarily imply that he holds that there is at present no church existing which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic ; for,  otherwise, he would not be seeking  to revive, restore, or to manufacture such a church.
But there is a Catholic Church to-day, as we have seen. Therefore Dr. Jarvis cannot affirm any thing which denies it. What he affirms, then, cannot be predicated of the Catholic Church. But it may apply, and he must hold that it does apply, to " the churches of the English communion " ; for, if he held otherwise, he could not assert what he does. There­fore it is a full admission on his part that the churches of that communion want the marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. Then, by his own admission, they are not the Catholic Church ; and therefore the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. Thus both points Dr. Milner under­took to make out are conceded, and the argument, so far as Dr. Jarvis is concerned, is closed. Will not Dr. Jarvis write another Reply ?
We could easily obtain the same conclusion by a dozen dif­ferent processes, each of which Dr. Jarvis would be obliged to admit to be legitimate ; but we refer our readers to Milner's End of Religious Controversy itself, in which they will find all that needs to be said, and far better said than we could say it. Having established, so far as required for our present purpose, the two points which, in the argument, the Catholic has to make out,-or having shown that Dr. Jarvis has not invalidated them, but is really obliged to concede them, and virtually does con­cede them, - our work is done. We will not follow him into his long discussion concerning particular doctrines, for we never will consent to be drawn by Protestants into any discus­sion of the sort. If the Catholic Church is the Church of God, all she teaches is true, all she does as the Church is right and holy ; and if it is not acceptable to you, that is your fault, not hers. The question, whether she be the Church of God, - the question as it relates to the motives of credibility, to the grounds for believing her to be the Church of God, com­missioned by God himself to teach all nations, all things what­soever our Lord hath commanded, - we are ready and wil­ling to discuss with Protestants ; for this is a question which is to be settled by the authority of reason, speculative and practical, common to them and to us ; but all beyond is the province of authority, and not debatable.
Dr. Jarvis has taken up nearly forty pages of his work with an attempt to convict Bishop Milner of quoting unfairly and mistranslating his authorities. We have examined that part of his work, and, setting aside his comments, - which are not to he relied on, - we think the authorities, as he cites them, are much stronger in favor of the Catholic, than as cited by Dr. Milner himself. He has not, so far as we can see, convicted the Bishop of unfairness in a single particular, unless it be un­fair to cite an author on one subject, without also citing what he says on some other subject not connected with it. As for mistranslation, if by mistranslation is meant a translation which perverts the sense of the author, he has not, even on his own showing, succeeded in convicting the Bishop of a single in­stance. We have no space to enter into the discussion, which could, moreover, answer no purpose but that of giving us a chance to display our own patristic learning. But we keep our learning for use, not display, and therefore pass over what .Or. Jarvis says on this point. We have no apprehensions for the reputation of Dr. Milner. A charge of unfairness or of ignorance against him, from Dr. Jarvis, does not move us, nor does it tempt us to a retort. Dr. Milner is beyond the reach of praise or blame, and it ig a matter of exceedingly small moment to him or to his brethren, what Dr. Jarvis may think of his scholarship. He cared, when living, little for human ap­probation or censure. He devoted his eminent abilities, solid learning, and enlightened zeal, to the service of God, who is able to protect him and his reputation. Few men who have written in our language have more effectually served the cause of truth and virtue. He was a man without pretension, with­out show or parade, free from all arrogance and from all ped­antry. It was glory enough for any one man to be the author of the End of Religious Controversy, - a work to which thousands owe, and tens of thousands will owe, under God, their happy conversion from Protestant error to Catholic truth. Happy was he in being permitted to write it, and honored is he in falling under the displeasure, and being the object of the vituperation, of Samuel Fanner Jarvis, D. "D., LL. D., &c. But enough. We are not disposed to complain of Dr. Jar-vis's want of candor, fairness, and justice ; for he is a Protes­tant minister, and men do not gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles. He has probably done as well, being what he was, as he was able ; and not without the grace of God can he be other than he is. We close by a single suggestion, which we beg him to weigh well. His embarrassments evidently arise, not from any objections he has to the Church, but from the fact that he cannot become a Catholic without ceasing to be an Anglican. He sees clearly enough that Anglicanism is not the Church of God,-that it wants every mark of the true Church. But what shall he do ? Shall he say it is no church at all, nothing but a human establishment, and no part of the Church of God ? So he must say, if he admits that the Cath­olic Church still subsists in her normal state. But then all who adhere to his communion are schismatics, heretics, fight­ing against God, and blaspheming his Spouse. Can he say this ? In reply, we ask him, Which is the more difficult to believe, that a little handful of Anglicans, in a corner of the world, during three hundred years have been heretics, or to believe that the whole Christian world for one thousand years, and by far the larger part of all who bear the Christian name for thirteen hundred years, have been involved in frightful errors, sunk in gross superstition and idolatry,- that the Church no longer has a normal existence, that she has failed, and that Almighty God has broken his word ?