II.

PRIESTS' RELIGION.

HUMAN AUTHORITY AND INVENTION versus CONSCIENCE AND THE BIBLE.

The Scriptures are the only standard of Christian faith and practice: every one is at liberty to examine them; but no one is at liberty to decline this examination: and though we may receive the help of others, we may not rest on their authority, (which is Man-worship;) nor receive as religion, what is not in the Scriptures, (which is Willworship.)

THE

OXFORD

DIALOGUE.

(Continued from page 28.)

CHAP. IV.-WHO MAY EDUCATE.

Sewell. "You imagine that all this has nothing to do with ethics; that in this science, no words occur, but conscience, duty, virtue, vice, &c. That the facts and doctrines of religion, and still more of Christainity, and still more of the Catholic Church, are out of place in a work on morals.

Companion.-"Certainly ethics or morals, considered absolutely, have nothing to do with any particular religion, but base our duties on the light of reason, and the sensitiveness of conscience, so far as these principles have been improved by the general education of society but Christian ethics is quite another thing; this of course, is a scientific statement of Christian principles of conduct-gospel motives. You seem to confound the one with the other-to mistake the boundaries of philosophy and religion.

S." In the earliest times of Christianity, no such thing existed as a science of morals, apart from the science of religion; Christianity was the only ethical system, and Christian ministers the only ethical teachers.

C"Many other sciences, as well as that of morals, have grown up, or become more distinct in modern days; is this, then, an objection against them? And have you forgotten the philosophy of Greece, to which, on other occasions, you refer as the nearest to perfection, and the best aid in the study of Christian ethics? How, then, could Christianity be the only ethical system?

S.-"If you cannot commence any science, much less the science of morals, without learning its fundamental principles from the testimony of others, the first thing to be done is, to show you which testimony is to

be followed. Any discussion of ethics, which does not include the fact of a Catholic Apostolical Church, must be as faulty as a theory of astronomy which left out the sun.

C.-"We do not learn principles' but facts from the testimony of others; we learn principles from their reasonings: it is not the testimony but the demonstrations of an astronomer which establish his theory,-so with morals; it is not what any one testifies; we want proof, from the reasonableness of his system: but, if by moral, you mean religion, (a strange confusion of thought!) then, for such morals, there does require testimony; viz., that of the Creator:—which can be indicated only by some palpable interference with the ordinary current of events; it is the original publishers of this religion, who require God's seal to their veracity; the only testimony, therefore, that is to be followed is, not that of the Church, but of God, who bears witness to his truth, by its peculiar adaptation to our nature, the agency of grace that is associated with it, the miracles accompanying its first publication, and by the consistency of its various prophecies, histories, and doctrines, published by different men, at long intervals of time, thus requiring the oversight of one chief Author, from Genesis to Revelation. The Church has no right to require faith, but it is bound to give it; it is an assembly of believers.

'Talk they of morals, O thou bleeding Lamb,

The grand morality is love of thee!'

And yet the Apostolical Church is the sun of the Christian system! What then is Jesus Christ? Is he a planet in this system, or a satellite to those whom he came to redeem ?

"If your statement be true, the Bible is very faulty in not supplying a true theory of ethics, since, instead of making the Church a sun, the Lord God is a sun and shield to the Church; and the Lamb in the midst of the throne, renders any other light, whether sun or moon, superfluous in the celestial city, where the Church in her most glorified state will assemble; if, therefore, the Church will need such a sun then, she cannot be a sun herself now. Besides, if it is necessary to 'show us what testimony is to be followed,' it is also necessary to give us some confidence in your own teaching; otherwise, you quietly assume the right to direct us, and in speaking to the character of others, forget to establish

your own. S.-Ethics is the science of education, not mere instruction, filling the memory, but eliciting and strengthening the faculties: the education of man, is beyond the reach of man; it belongs to God: it is one of man's first and grandest duties, yet he is wholly unable to educate. He can combine outward circumstances, proclaim certain truths; but in doing this, he is working in the dark:-he cannot see how they will affect the mind; hence education sets us upon search for some communication from God, telling us what the human mind is, which we cannot see,-giving us positive rules for combining external circumstances,-promising the gift of some supernatural influence, to work where we cannot penetrate; without this, education is a dream.

C.-"How can education be the highest duty of man if he cannot educate, and if, moreover, it belongs exclusively to God?

"It would appear also, from your reasoning, that since the mind cannot

be seen, it, therefore, cannot be known; whereas it is plain that seeing can only give us ideas of colour, originally, and extent, solidity, &c., secondarily; whether this faculty, then, should be mentioned in this connexion, is at least questionable; we understand what is, by an appropriate process, not sensation, but reflection and consciousness; and can thus learn as much of what is within, as we can by the senses of what is without; indeed we know nothing of all other things, but as they as imagined in the mind itself, as the things that are seen, affect this unseen observer. But I am willing to leave this higher education of man to the power of God; to regard human agents as only tutors in his establishment; teaching principles he has inspired, out of a book he has provided, and depending on his superintendence for success. But what has this to do with the Catholic Church, and her exclusive right to educate; and what are the 'positive rules' which God has laid down for the education of man?

S.-"To obtain this, (communication with God,) we must recur to revelation, for revelation we must go to the apostles, and for communion with the apostles, we must go to the Catholic Church: like our ancestors who cleared away from our own system the corruptions of Popery,-we must fall back on the witness of those good and wise men who died fifteen hundred years ago.

C.-"How can we go to the apostles for revelation, they have departed, and the revelation is all that is left; if by revelation you mean the Bible, (and I know of no other,) we must now learn even about the apostles from that book. For communication with the apostles, we need no Catholic Church, but simply a sight of the autobiographies which the apostles have left for our instruction: we need not travel back fifteen hundred years to learn about a book which we have in our hands. Nor need we inquire about the apostles, from men who lived three hundred years after the apostolic age, especially when we have the apostolic writings.

S.-"Not only is man unable to educate, but without the Church he has no right to educate; every man will deem himself the best judge of his own interest; it may be agreeable to a parent's conscience, or a teacher's sense of duty; but his conscience is no better authority, simply as the conscience of a man, than the equally strong conviction of the child that no control is necessary or useful.

C.-"These are very strange premises; the assertion that man has no right to educate man, is first, very general and indefinite, and secondly, is a mere assertion. If you mean that I, as a man, have no right to enforce a particular kind of education, on those with whom I have no natural connexion, you are right; but if you mean that, as a parent, it is not a natural duty to educate my children, your statement is as bold and tyrannous, as it is unfounded. To assert that the judgment of a parent, is of no higher authority than the waywardness of a child, is to overthrow all social order, and to deny your own principle, viz., that we obey God when we obey our parents and governors.'

S.-"No power exists except by derivation or permission from God, and all power used without a solemn acknowledgment of its author, is a usurpation. A parent is to his family a type and representation of God;

Rex est vicarius Dei. Therefore, both parental and civil authority require the support and witness of the Church, or they fall to the ground.

C. "How can that be a usurpation, which exists by permission or derivation from God? If all power is of God, the acknowledgment of its author, cannot be essential to its constitutional character. In what sense is the parent a representation of God, and how far is Rex vicarius Dei?

"But it is a strange doctrine, that we require a distinct and positive sanction, to the appointments which seem made by nature,' for if so, reason or natural religion, has no province whatever; consequently we have no possible test of the true religion; for if all natural ties are nothing, till revelation sanctions them, morality is merely positive, and that might be the true revelation which outrages all our natural principles, commanding parents to hate their offspring, and sanctioning cruelty in return; there would be no agreement between nature and revelation,-no test of God's word by his works. This attempt, therefore, to cement all authority, by priestly approval, effectually overturns not only all natural ties but all Scriptural claims; burying revelation under the ruins of reason. Again, if parents and the state require distinct credentials, will not the Church require the same ?-observe, distinct credentials, not her own assertions. You say, parents must quote the commandment,-Honour thy father and thy mother,' the state must quote the apostle,- Fear God and honour the king;' therefore these two depend on the Church! A little time ago you proved that the Church depended on them.

"Besides, the declaration of the apostle, is not the authority of the Church; your conclusion then should be, not that the authority of the state and parent depends on the Church; but that it depends on the apostle, or rather on the Bible: now the Church is not the basis of revelation; but revelation is the basis of the Church. Where, then, is her exclusive claim to educate?

S.-" If either parent or state attempt to educate man, without the co-operation of the Church, they are flying in the face of their Lord and Master, and must take the consequences.

C. "The consequences cannot be very alarming, since there is yet no warrant adduced from the Lord and Master referred to: you have mentioned his commands, not the commands of the Church as sanctioned by him; but the clergy ambitiously calling themselves the Church, take their Master's place and arrogate his authority."

CHAP. V.-ETHICS AND CHRISTIANITY,

S.-"What then, you may ask, is the difference between ethics and the Catholic religion? The Church with the Bible is on one side; Plato and Aristotle, Zeno and Epicurus, and Locke and Hobbes, Paley and Rousseau on the other.

C.-"Now you distinguish morals from religion; in the previous chapter you condemned all moral systems as faulty, which left out the Church: "but here you regard ethics as human philosophy, and Christianity as including the Church and the Bible.

S.-"What, then, are the differences between them? First, the one comes from God, the other from man; secondly, the one which comes

from man must be subject to our scrutiny, the one from God must be implicitly received.

C.-"By the one which comes from God' do you mean 'the Bible and the Church?' Because these are two; and whilst one of them is admitted, the other is questioned. The Bible is from God, but the Church, in your sense of it, cannot be found; and if it could, it would have no authority but self-praise, which is no recommendation. The quiet way in which you pass off the Church' alongside the Bible as part of our bargain, and legitimately involved in your conclusion, is rather amusing but since these two things are quite distinct, it is not very philosophical to confound them.

"The second distinction you adduce between Christianity and ethics may serve to distinguish the Church from the Bible; the former is from man, and should therefore be scrutinized; the latter is from God, and may therefore be implicitly followed. The Bible Church is a collection of humble believers in Jesus Christ, not a dominant hierarchy. The Church, in the sense of the clergy, is not to be found in the whole Bible; it is a modern invention, an attempt on the part of men to thrust themselves into the priesthood, which is completed and perpetuated in Jesus Christ: it is the case of ambitious, upstart servants running riot, and beating their fellows in the absence of their lord.

S.-"The third distinction is, that ethics are systematic; whilst Christianity is irregular. Fourthly, in receiving on testimony the system of Christianity, we abandon our own judgment of its contents, put our trust in God, and make his word the standard of truth! whilst in human ethics, we test each point by our own reason, conscience, and experience.

C.-"This fourth difference is the same as the second. But what is meant by putting our trust in God when we receive Christianity on testimony? The testimony is that of the Church, therefore we put our trust in the Church. If by abandoning our judgment of the contents, you mean that the Church is our interpreter-that she both tells us what is the Bible, and decides what the Bible contains, then our faith is not in God, but in the Church. What other differences are there?

S.-" Fifthly, as that which comes from God is true, and truth is one, there cannot be several systems of Christianity: there can be no sects or schools within the Church. In all points acknowledged to be revealed, there must be uniform agreement.

C. "If you would direct me to a Church that has no schools in it, you would do me a great service, since neither Roman Catholic, Anglo Catholic, or any other catholic or particular universal body exhibits such a phenomenon of unity. I fear the real Catholic Church must be sought for in nubibus. You say, that 'in all points acknowledged to be revealed, there must be uniform agreement!' That is, men agree where they do not differ.

S.-"This agreement is not founded on a conviction of the understanding, but on a conviction of the heart,—that what such and such authority declares to be revealed, is revealed.

C." You mean, I suppose, that faith in the Church should not properly be from an enlightened conviction, but blind feeling, otherwise called