The New Hampshire Gazette And General Advertiser

Extracts from a letter written by the Reverend Mr. John Thayer, to his brother,
in answer to some objections, &c.

My dear Brother.

YOUR first objection, taken from the
persecutions that Catholicks have
excited against their enemies, only proves
that there have ever been bad Catholicks,
who, under the pretext of Religion, have
vented the malignity of their heart. Our
Religion, far from approving, highly
condemns all such Christians, and knows
no other instrument of defence than mild-
ness, patience and charity. There have
been, and still are, cruel and persecuting
Gatholicks, as there are also cruel Pro-
testants: but neither the one nor the o-
ther are so in consequence of their prin-
ciples, but because they deviate from
them. We do not pretend that all Ca-
tholicks are Saints; we unhappily see
the contrary, and it is this that afflicts
all the good. This however I can assure
you, after a vast acquaintance among Ca-
tholicks of several different kingdoms,
that I never yet saw a single one expres-
any bitterness or animosity against Pro-
testants; on the contrary, they pity them
and pray for them, as deluded and de-
ceived. Examine whether such be the
sentiments of your different sects towards
us, and even towards each other, and af-
terwards decide, who have a persecuting
spirit, we or you.

2. As we lay great stress on the unity
of doctrine that ever has prevailed a-
among Catholicks, you think to weaken
this our argument by opposing to us the
unity that reigns among Mahometans.
But let me tell you, that this unity of be-
lief, which you attribute to them, is whol-
ly imaginary; for according to the best
historians, the Mahometans are divided
first into the two greater sects of Ormar
and Ali. These last, who are called
Schiites, from five principal sects, which
like so many trees, shoot into seventy
branches. Among all these different so-
cieties there is a vast variety of belief.
Some doubt of their Religion, and are
pure Deists: others admit the Metempsycho-
sis; others absolute predestination, &c.
They give each other the titles of ortho-
dox and heterodox, and carry their mutu-
al hatred to such an extremity, that in
their pilgrimage to Mecca, they form so
many bands apart, refusing to pray toge-
ther. There can be then no question
between us about Mahometan unity, but
only about that of Protestants. Now I
assert that if you were all perfectly of the
same opinion, this would be the work of
chance & not the consequence of your prin-
ciples. There is nothing in your funda-
mental principle that necessarily produ-
ces this unity; on the contrary, your
principle, that "every one is to examine
"for himself," must be naturally a
source of division: whereas the consti-
tution of our Church is such, that it is
impossible there can be division concern-
ing articles of faith. Remark, I say con-
cerning articles of faith; for in matters
of opinion, each one is free to hold what
he pleases; but as soon as the Church
has decided, that such a point belongs to
the faith, all true Catholicks, because
they hold her infallible, necessarily sub-
mit to the decision. Those that refuse to
submit, by this very refusal really sepa-
rate themselves from the Church, Since
they thus renounce her fundamental prin-
ciple, i. e. that she is the infallible "ba-
"sis of truth." 1 Tim. iii. 15. This in-
dividual unity of faith is evidently mark-
ed in Scripture, and was certainly Christ's
intention in founding his Church. It is
said, Ephes. iv. 4, 5, there is "one body
"and one Spirit;" to animate it, one
"Lord, one faith, one baptism," i. e.
our faith ought to be one in the same
sense as our Lord Jesus is one, i. e. strict-
ly and absolutely so. Our Church alone
can pretend to this unity. which of it-
self suffices to convince the unprejudiced,
that she alone is Christ's spouse: yet we
do not pretend to assign this as the only
note to distinguish her: there are three
others marked in the creed. which you
admit as well as we, viz. holiness, apostoli-
city, and catholicity. Examine whether
all or any of these marks belong to your
sects.--Observe that all the Fathers of
the Church had our idea of the necessity
of unity of faith in Christ's Church: you
as well as we regard them as Saints; and
certainly by their nearness to Christ's and
the Apostles' times, they must have known
their mind. I could cite volumes of texts
from their works to prove this, as well
as the other articles of our faith; but the
bounds of a letter forbid.

3. What seems to give you the most pain
in our doctrine is. the infallibility which
we attribute to our Church. A simple
explication of this point must remove, I
think, whatever it has alarming. Observe
first, that we attribute this infallibility to
the whole Church, i. e. to the majority
of Bishops joined to the Pope, and not to
the Pope alone. If some particular di-
vines regard the Pope alone as infallible,
their opinion cannot be justly imputed
to the whole Church, which has never
defined any such thing. But in order to
put our doctrine of infallibility in a clear
light, let us recur to that moment, when
Christ, by his Spirit, revealed "all
"truth to his Apostles, and established
them, and the Pastors their successors,
as depositaries of these truths. This bo-
dy of Pastors thus established, have, in
all ages, declared every rising novelty to
be contrary to the sacred deposit commit-
ted to them by Christ: Thus when Arius
denied the divinity of Christ, the Church
condemned him, and declared, that she
had received the contrary: Thus when
Pelagius denied original sin, the Church
delared his doctrine to her deposit, and
brought baptism, which had ever been
practised in her bosom; as a standing
proof of our corrupt origin. Her infalli-
bility consists then in the publick and
perpetual testimony that she ever renders
to truths of fact. For what is the Chris-
tian Religion, my dear Brother?
It is a public fact. Whether Christ has
existed, taught such and such doctrines,
wrought such miracles? Whether the Bi-
ble be written by such and such authors?
&c. all these matters of fact that have
fallen under the senses, and that can only
be known by the eye or ear witnesses.
The teaching Church, i. e. the majority
of Bishops united to the Pope, is this bo-
dy of hereditary Bishops: and you can-
not surely refuse her an infallibility, i. e.
a capacity of exactly relating facts, which
you readily grant not only to whatever
considerable society, civil or religious;
but even to individuals. When the Ma-
hometans, who are composed of different
nations, and consequently of different in-
terests, unanimously attest, that at such a
time they received such a doctrine from
Mahomet, no one of common sense can
dispute a publick fact of this nature.
Why then should you refuse the testimo-
ny of the Catholick Church, that is com-
posed of various nations directly opposed
in their interests, and often at war: when
all her Pastors, as unanimously at least
as the Mahometans, declare, that they
have received such doctrines from Christ
and the Apostles, and all agree in the ex-
position of all the articles that belong to
the faith, and deny that there has ever
been the least change in the Church? And
how is it possible to suppose any change?
There is in the first place a body of pas-
tors, as we have said, established to pre-
vent all innovations: the perpetual re-
turn of our holidays put continually be-
fore the eyes of the faithful, our myste-
ries many of which are and ever have
been daily practised. For instance,
Christians ever communicated. It is
possible to suppose, that when their Pas-
tors presented them what appeared to be
bread, they did not ask what they were
to receive in this sacrament, whether
mere bread or the real body of Christ?
Christians then, in all ages, must have
known what they were to believe in
so important a matter, especially the near-
er they were to the Apostles' times, when
Pastors were certainly exact to instruct
their flock. Whatever you suppose to
have been their faith in this point, it
must have continued without any altera-
tion: for if there had been the smallest
change, the people, who are naturally
turbulent, would have cried out in a mat-
ter so vastly important. If you say that
they did so, but that it has not come to
our ears: I answer that this is truly
strange, hence we have contemporary his-
torians, that have recounted the minut-
est disputes about words and letters, that
have happened in every period of the
Church (not excepting the times of the
greatest ignorance) and so essential a
change as this would have passed in si-
lence! How incredible! Besides, what
interest could the Church have had to
change her doctrine? How could all the
different nations that compose it, have
combined to make this change, since
their interests are all different. If the
French, for example, had attempted this
change, would not the English have op-
posed them? and even, if all her parts
had united to form this change, would
not heretics, who have at all times ex-
isted round about the Church, have re-
proached this alteration, and thus have
transmitted it to posterity? Form the
same reasoning for all the other articles
of our faith, where you suspect a change,
as for this of the real presence of Christ
in the holy Communion. Thus you see,
my dear Friend, that common sense for-
ces us to receive the Church's testimony
when she declares that she has received
such and such truths from Christ and the
Apostles, and that she has conserved
them unaltered. When we are arrived
to admit this her testimony con-
cerning what Christ and the A-
postles delivered her, from that mo-
ment, if consistent we are Catholicks:
since all Christians hold that what Christ
and the Apostles taught is certainly true,
This moral infallibility, which you are O-
bliged to grant to the Church, as to all
other great societies, becomes divine in
virtue of the promise of Christ, who has
expressly communicated to her his own
immutability. This appears in a strik-
ing manner, if we consider the words of
Christ's promise. He said to the Aposto-
tles Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. "Go
"forth, and teach, and behold I am with
"you " (i. e. teaching) "until the end
"of the world." Now a Church, that
has Christ present while it teaches, must
certainly be infallible; and this presence
is surely promised to the successors
of the Apostles, to whom the words,
"until the world's end," must be appli-
ed, since the Apostles themselves were
all dead, except St. John, before the end
of the first century. Again Christ pro-
mised his Apostles, John xiv. 16, 17,
the Spirit of truth to remain with
"them forever," i. e. to the end of the
world. This text, for the same reason as the
preceding, must also be applied to the
Apostles' successors, the pastors and teach-
ers of the Church; which, having thus
for guide "the Spirit of truth"
must
necessarily avoid all errors in faith, i.e.
must be infallible.

(To be continued.)