ker denies that those propositions are contained in the Bible, you can prove with certainty that they are. You adduce texts; and he adduces texts in contradiction to you. You say he mistakes; he charges the mistake upon you. You say that the Church in the first ages explained them as you do, and that you therefore must be right. He asks you whether the Church was then infallible in her explanations: you say, "No, she was liable to error." He says that she erred in this explanation if she gave it. Who is now to decide it between you? "Let the Church have authority to decide this controversy," you say. He answers, "But you said she was not infallible and had no authority to fetter God's word." I have read some very fine sounding works which would decide against you, upon the very ground that you followed the opinion of the Church in those early ages; because the blow-pipe had not as yet been invented, nor was there a sufficient number of Greek names given to plants and flowers; science was then only in its embryoAmerica had not been discovered, and therefore the Apostles could not testify the doctrines of the Saviour, nor could this testimony have been secured and perpetuated, for the mariner's compass was not constructed, neither gun-powder nor steam-engines were used; Luther had not written, nor were the articles of the English Protestant Church enacted by proper authority. Reverend Sir, I am tired, and so I suspect are you; and so I fear are my readers. I trust when you next hold a convention of your Church, you will have the goodness to leave us unmolested; and I shall on my part cease to subscribe myself. Yours, and so forth, A ROMAN CATHOLIC. THE VICIOUS CIRCLE [The following brief critique upon a sophism frequently made use of against the Catholic argument, is extracted from the United States Catholic Miscellany, for 1824.] Dr. Watts, in his Treatise of Logic, and other writers of his description, charge Roman Catholics with gross and palpable absurdity in their arguments, and exemplify the sophism of the Vicious Circle, by reference to the arguments of Catholics, viz. "A vicious circle is when two propositions, equally uncertain, are used to prove each other. Thus Papists prove the authority of the Scriptures by the infallibility of their Church, and then prove the infallibility of their Church from the authority of the Scriptures.' To a school-boy this appears a formidable barrier against Popery, and many a sage professor has learnedly declaimed against Popish absurdity, in the detail of the exemplification. Stamped with the authority of a dictum of the schools, the example passes with equal currency as the definition. Let us meet the mighty adversary. To do so we must take the following three several cases. Case 1. A Papist argues with a person who believes in the authority of the Scriptures, but who does not believe in the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church. No one will tell us that the said Papist is guilty of bad logic and is a sophist, when he thus addresses such a person-"Sir, you acknowledge this book to be authority, I shall shew you from several passages thereof, that the Church is infallible." This is not a vicious circle, for there is no question between them of the authority of the Scripture, and to such a person the Papist does not prove the authority of the Scriptures, by the infallibility of the Church. Hence, in this case, there is no vicious circle, for if he prove the infallibility of the Church from the authority of the Scriptures, he only proves that which has been questioned, from that of which there was no question. Case 2. A Papist argues with a person who acknowledges the infallibility of the Church, but questions and doubts the authority of certain Books. No one can say it would be sophistry to address such a person in these words "Sir, you allow the body of true believers, that is the Church, does certainly know what God has revealed, and can point out with infallible certainty the books which do contain his revelations. Sir, that Church testifies to you that these books do contain his revelation. Therefore, by your principle, you must receive these books as the word of God." This certainly is not proving one questionable proposition by another, and then proving the second by the first. But it is proving that which has been questioned and of which there was doubt, by that of which there was no doubt. This is no sophistry. Case 3. A Papist argues with a person who does not believe either in the infallibility of the Church or in the authority of the Scriptures. In this case he cannot assume either as a principle. What is he to do? What would a Protestant do? The Catholic can do at least as much. The Protestant says that without the authority of an infallible Church he can prove the authority of the Scriptures. The same arguments will, in the mouth of a Catholic, lead to the same conclusion. Therefore, if it be possible for the Protestant, it is possible for the Catholic-therefore the Catholic needs not the infallibility of the Church, to do what his neighbor can do without it. Having proved the authority of the Scriptures thus, the Catholic may next proceed upon what he has proved, now assuming as a principle that of which there can be no doubt. Thus we are brought to case 1, in which there is no sophism. Or the Catholic may find, without the authority of the Scripture, reasons to convince a person, that if God speaks he must establish some mode by which man may infallibly find out what he teaches; and next that this mode is by receiving the testimony of the great body of the Church; and thus we are brought to case 2, in which there is no sophism. Thus, whether a Catholic or Papist argues with a person who allows the authority of Scripture, but does not allow Church infallibility; or argues with a person who allows Church infallibility, but does not allow Scriptural authority; or argues with a person who does not allow either; he proceeds to prove both points without sophistry: he does not argue in a vicious circle-he is not a violator of the rules of sound sense or good logic-and Dr. Watts and his imitators, either were very ignorant of the manner in which Catholics argue, or very ignorant of what is meant by the sophism of a Vicious Circle-or were dishonest men who deceived their pupils upon an important subject, and who bore false testimony against the best and most numerous, and most enlightened society in the whole world. We leave to their admirers and followers their choice of the several portions of this good disjunctive proposition, and we trust that each day will add new light to the intellect, and new desires to the will, so that true knowledge may increase, sophistry be detected and exposed, and the most important concerns of men be brought more closely under the eye of reason and the regulation of correct judgment. A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. Pope. CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE Letters addressed to the Roman Catholics of the United States of North America [From the United States Catholic Miscellany for 1826-8.] LETTER I. CHARLESTON, S. C., Sept. 4, 1826. To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. My Friends,-I am a native of Ireland, but a citizen of America, and of course, have resided during several years in this Union. I am a Roman Catholic; and one of the principal inducements which operated on my mind in preferring this to any other part of the world was, not merely the excellence of its political institutions, but, as I flattered myself, the absence of bigotry. I was led to believe that, although men differed from each other in religion, yet when there was no profit or preference to be obtained by acrimony, I should not meet with any. I was also led to think the American mind was candidly and sincerely occupied in searching after truth; and that, as it was given to investigation, it would speedily arrive at its discovery. I must confess, that I have been disabused of some [part] of my error. I found that there was in the general constitutions of most of the States, a principle which restrained men from being tyrants over the consciences of their neighbor, but that neither law nor constitution had effected what I now find cannot be produced by mere political regulation-that cordial and affectionate feeling which is the result of true charity for each other, amongst men who differ in religious belief. I found what I was altogether unprepared for; that, in many of our States, a Roman Catholic, though legally and politically upon a level with his fellow-citiezns, was however too often looked upon, by reason of his religion, as in some degree morally degraded. I found that it was by no means considered a want of liberality, on the part of the Protestants, to vilify the Catholic religion, and to use the harshest and most offensive terms when designating its practices; but that if a Catholic used any phrase however modified, which even insinuated any thing derogatory to the Protestant religion, he was marked out as a shocking bigot, and his offence was unpardonable. |