John Jenkins.

A Protestant's appeal to the Douay Bible, and other Roman Catholic standards, in support of the doctrines of the reformation online

. (page 1 of 28)
Online LibraryJohn JenkinsA Protestant's appeal to the Douay Bible, and other Roman Catholic standards, in support of the doctrines of the reformation → online text (page 1 of 28)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook



fi^J'Jf'y^:^'^' -'It^-f^ "^M.- ^"1^'"*- v.




University of California.


Received October, 18^4.
zAccessions No.<::y^o^3y Class No.

>^%4^ ^t,^y%^M^ ♦












" Speaking tha truth in love." — Paul.






Montreal r






Preface 9

The One Source of Religious Truth 13

The One Head of the Catholic Church 49

The One Object of Religious Adoration 83

The One Sacrifice for Sin 129

The One Mediator between God and Men 17*7

The One Method of Justification » 219

The One Agent of Regeneration 263

The Christian Sacraments SOI

Purgatory , 345

Protestantism 387

















Protestants need instruction as to the
Scriptural ground upon which rest the doctrines
of the Reformation.

Protestants are too ready to receive the
unwarranted assertion made by the defenders
of Romanism, that antiquity is altogether on
the side of the Papacy.

Protestants are not sufficiently aware that it
is impossible to sustain the peculiar dogmas of
of the Roman Catholic Church, by an appeal
even to her own versions of the Bible.

Protestants, iporeover, entertain a too lenient
view of the principles and practices of Roman

Impressed with these facts, the author, in the
course of the last Winter determined to present
to the members of his Congregation, in a series


of Lectures, a connected view of those doctrines
of Protestantism which directly bear upon the
errors of the Papal Church. He hoped also,
that by making known his intention, some
Roman Catholics might be induced to hear
what a Protestant can say in defence of the
principles of his Faith.

The author was not disappointed in this
hope. Hundreds of Roman Catholics heard
these Lectures, and some few were convinced
that Protestantism is The Old Religion.
Many Protestants also were confirmed in that
Faith for which their forefathers had laid down
their lives.

It is at the request of large numbers of the
Protestant portion of his audience, which
swelled, as the course proceeded, to four
thousand persons, that the author has been
induced to give these Lectures to the public.

In preparing for the press, he has strictly
adhered to the forms of expression which were
employed in the pulpit. The reader, therefore.


will not look for that precision of style which
would mark a simply didactic treatise.

The author wishes to record his indebtedness
to a valuable work on a portion of this
controversy, by the Right Reverend Bishop
Hopkins, for the assistance, both in argument
and in authorities, rendered him in discuss-
ing the subject of the second lecture ; also
to the works of the Reverend Dr. Gumming of
London, and of the Reverend Dr. Elliott of
Cincinnati, for some of those illustrations of the
character of Roman Catholicism, which are
found in others of the Lectures.

Montreal, 15lh August, 1853.



It has been already announced to you that my object
in delivering the series of Lectures upon which we now
<enter, is to expound the principles and doctrines of the
Protestant faith. I rather desire to inform the Pro-
testant mind than to contend, much less cavil with my
■Roman Catholic friends. It will, I need not say, be
impossible, in addressing myself to such a subject as
that whose discussion is now proposed, not to refer to
the Church whose errors gave rise to those Lutheran
remonstrances which resulted in the system denomi-
nated " Protestantism :" but, in doing this it will be
my continual purpose to avoid the utterance of a single
word that will even offend the taste, much less wound
the feelings of any person who may hear me. It is
possible, so at least I believe, to deal with error without
descending to personal abuse ; it is possible to expose
the inconsistencies of a system, without infringing
towards its adherents, the law of love.

I ask for these Lectures the candid consideration of
every Roman Catholic who may favour me with his
presence and attention. Whatever I shall say of the
doctrines and worship of the Church of Rome will be
derived from acknowledged standards or authorities of


that Clmrcli. What I shall say of Protestantism, will
be, so far as I know it, in faithful accordance with
its nniver&ally acknowledged principles. And I will
farther say, that if any Roman Catholic who may hear
me, seek additional information on any subject which
shall be discussed, and will take the trouble of writing
to me a note, I will do my best, in the course of the
series, to bring out the information which he needs. In
order to this, however, it will be necessary for the
wi'iter to subscribe his name and address, as it has been
a rule with me for many years to commit to the flames^
without reading, every anonymous communication that
I receive.

And now it only remains to invoke upon this under-
taking the Divine blessing. Let us remember that no
exhibition of the truth of God can be uninfluentiaL
Edification and sanctification are the fruits of a docile
and prayerful attention to the word of God. To exhibit
the truth, is to communicate light to the darkened
conscience o^ the guilty: To exhibit the truth, is to
plant a guide-post in the way of the sinner who wanders
over the wilderness of error, seeking rest and finding
none : To exhibit the truth, is to erect a light-house
within view of the tempest-tossed mariner, who seeks
in vain a harbour of repose for his troubled conscience.

The subject announced for exposition this evening is

The words which I have selected as the foundation
of my remarks upon this vital question, are found in the


xvii. chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, at
the I7th verse. They occur in that sublime prayer
which our adorable Saviour last offered for his dis-
ciples : " Thy word is truth."

This is the first principle of Protestantism. The
word of God is the fountain of religious truth, — the
one only source from which is derived all that we
know of God which is not revealed to us by his works ;
and all that we know of man's relation to God, of man's
position in the sight of God, of God's disposition
towards man as a sinner, of man's duty to God, and of
man's future destiny. "We do not, be it remembered,
assert that the word of God is the source of all truth,
for there are mathematical truths, w^hich are derived
from sources independent of the Bible ; and there are
physical truths which have been ascertained by the
investigations of science; and there are divine truths,
such as the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator,
which are revealed to us by the vast and glorious works
of creation. What we assert as a fii'st principle of
Protestantism is this, — that of all revealed truth, the
Bible is the sole fountain. — " Thy word is truth."

We wish to remind you of a doctrine which is
too reasonable to be disputed, and to which we shall
frequently refer in the course of this discussion, viz.,
that truth is never inconsistent with itself ; that truth
never contradicts truth ; that physical truth and ma-
thematical truth, and the truth of natural theology,
and the truth of revealed theology are all in perfect
harmony with each other. Independent they are, but
contradictory they never can be. This evening we


have to do with the source of all revealed truth. Let
me then announce a doctrine kindred to that now
adduced, a doctrine which is no less philosophical, viz.,
that revealed truth can never contradict itself. If (e. g.)
I draw from the acknowledged fountain of revealed
truth any doctrine whatsoever, I am bound to reject as
false every dogma which does not accord with that
doctrine. Truth is as immutable as Divinity, truth is
as consistent as God. No change in society, no mea-
sure of antiquity, no discovery of science, no variation
of climate or of language affects truth. What was truth
in Jerusalem when Christ was crucified, was truth in
Rome when Paul was crucified; what was truth in
Rome 1800 years ago, is truth in America, in Montreal,
in 1853. It will be acknowledged by all parties, that,
so far, this is an advantage to us in our present inquiry.
Another thing favourable to our present investigation
is this, that between the Church of Rome and Protest-
antism there is no dispute as to the plenary inspiration
of those Scriptures or writings which we call the Bible,
including the Old and New Testaments. The Old
Testament in Hebrew, as handed down to us by the
Jews, and the New Testament in Greek, which every
Protestant student of the original uses, and from which
our present English version is taken, are acknowledged
by the Church of Rome to be the inspired word of the
living God. We speak now of the Scriptures in the
original tongues, and we would remind every Catholic
and Protestant present, that all the versions of the
Scriptures which are of any account in either of the
two communities, acknowledge one and the same ori-


ginal. There is certainly a dispute as to the veracity
of the translations from that original ; but no Protestant
need question the fidelity of the translators of King
James's Bible, when he remembers the care which was
taken to secure a perfect rendering of God's own word,
or while he has the testimony of such scholars as Lowth,
Horsley, and Selden, in support of the integrity of the
English text. Indeed we desire no farther proof of the
accuracy of the Protestant Bible than that which is
afforded by the fact, that there is so general a corres-
pondence between it and the Latin vulgate, a version
which the Council of Trent declared to be authoritative
and divine. In the course of these lectures we shall
advance no text, (without a distinct announcement to
the contrary,) in support of the principles of Protestant-
ism, that is not found in the Roman Catholic versions
of the Scriptures ; — in the Vulgate, in Martini's Italian
translation, or in the Douay version.

Protestantism enters its protest against any

MENT Scriptures, as binding upon the faith and


First, — Protestantism rejects the Apocrjrphal books
or writings ; not as historical and moral writings having
the same claim to our respect as the works of Xenophon,
or Plato, or any other ancient historian or moralist ; but
it rejects them as inspired writings.


Observe 1. — The Canon of both Jews and Protest-
ants, as it respects the Old Testament, is precisely one.

In support of this position, I shall merely transcribe
a few sentences from the celebrated Catholic historian,
Dupin, who in his history of the Canon, vol. i. page 7,
quotes Jerome on this subject : — " All the books of the
Old Testament among the Jews are twenty-two, of
which five belong to Moses, eight to the prophets, and
nine to the other holy penmen; and we are to take
notice, that whatever is not contained in the number of
those books which we have translated from the Hebrew,
is Apocryphal. From hence, it follows, that the Book
of Wisdom, commonly ascribed to Solomon, Ecclesias-
ticus, said to be composed by Jesus, the son of Sirach,
Judith, Tobit and Pastor, do not belong to the Canon,
no more than the two books of the Maccabees." Did
Jesus Christ, or his apostles, ever charge the Jews with
the omission of any Canonical book ? No. And yet
if the writings which we call Apocryphal were inspired,
as the Church of Rome asserts, they would surely have
laid themselves open to that charge. Did Christ, or his
apostles, ever quote from, or refer to these disputed
writings ?

Observe 2. — The Apocryphal books were not admitted
into the Canon of .scripture during the first four centuries
of the Christian Church. The first catalogues of the
Canonical books made by the ecclesiastical- Greek and
Latin authors, comprehended no more than the Jewish
Canon in the Books of the Old Testament. In support
of this statement we again furnish the testimony
of our Catholic historian Dupin, whose statements no


candid Koman Catholic will be disposed to question,
" The first and most ancient catalogue of the Canonical
^ooks that we have, drawn up by a Christian author, is
that of Meiito, Bishop of Sardis. This catalogue is
mentioned by Eusebius in the 26th chapt-er of the 4th
book of his history. In it he reckons only twenty-
two books of the Old Testament. Origen, in a passage
extracted from his commentary on the 1st Psalm,
reckons also twenty-two. The Council of Laodicea,
which is the first Synod wherein the number of
Canonical books was determined, assigns only twenty-
two books of the Old Testament, including the book
■of Esther, and joining Baruch, the Lamentations
and the letters, with the prophecy of Jeremiah, This
catalogue is followed by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his
fourth catechetical lecture, and by St. Athanasius in his
Festival epistle." The same historian says again that
" the first catalogue wherein the books of the Apocrypha
were admitted as canonical and as having the same
authority as the Bible, is that of the tliii'd Council of
■Carthage, (Africa,) held in the year 39*7 ;" he further
intimates that they were " received on condition that the
Church beyond the sea (Europe) should be consulted
for its confirmation." Taking then, the authority of a
Roman Catholic historian, it appears that during the
first four centuries the Jewish canon alone was received in
Christendom. The decision of the Council of Laodicea,
omitting the Apocrypha, was received by the universal
church. But the Council of Carthage in Africa decided
only for themselves, and besides they wished to consult
<ihurches in other countries on this subject At «

2:0 LEGTETPvE ?^

second Afriean council, held in 418, the- Apocrypha
taken into the Canonical catalogue, but they were so fay
from determining absolutely on this subject that they
thought proper to confer with the churches in- Italy.
It remained for the Council of Trent in 1545^
authoritativ^ely and definitely to add the uninspired
Apocrypha to the Word of God, and to pronounce its
anathema upon all who do not hold it as sacred and
canonical. Yet we are often asked, and this too in the
language of defiance, to show that the Christian
church previously to Luther ever held a different Canon !.
Secondly, — Protestantism rejects an unwi-itten word ;
it rejects all oral tradition as a rule of faith : It denies,
the necessity of an unwritten word to supplement the
deficiencies of the written word i It denies the existence
of an unwi'itten word, and it has in vain demanded the
proof of its existence in the Catholic Church.. Where
lie these oral traditions ? where is the evidence of theip
inspiration I Do they teach any thing diff'erent from
the preaching and writings of the Great Teacher and
His Apostles ? llien I reject them, and I say " ye make
the commandment of God of none eff'ect by your
tradition." But Protestantism goes farther,, it denies
the possibility, for any practical, authoritative puj-pose, of
an unwritten word. Take (e. g.) the histoiy of the Old
World : Primitive religious truth had to pass through
few hands, and yet how soon did the world forget the
institution of the Sabbath, and the doctrine of God^s-
Unity. What has oral tradition done for the descendants
of Noah? I need only refer to- those nations whicb
in the present day are destitute of the Gospel. But si


Roman Catholic friend might be disposed to ask whether
we are not commanded to " hold the traditions which
have been taught, whether by word or epistle ?" Yes,
I grant that the Thessalonians were thus taught, and I
have no hesitation in declaring my willingness to accept
these traditions or deliverances of the Apostle's mouth,
if the Church of Rome can produce them, and furnish
demonstrative evidence that they are truly what they
profess to be. I cannot proceed to the next step in the
discussion, without inviting your attention to the opinion
of two of the Fathers on the comparative value of the
written and unwritten word. Theophilus Alexandrinus,
who died in 412, says plainly, "It is part of a devilish
spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in the
authority of the Holy Scriptures." Jerome, who died
eight years after Theophilus, writes thus in his controversy
with Helvidius : " As we deny not those things which
are written, so we refuse those things which are not
written. That God was born of a virgin, we believe,
because we read it ; that Maiy was married after, we
believe not, because we do not read it."

Thirdly, — Protestantism rejects the authority of the
Fathers as a rule of faith. They were but men, fallible
men ; they aspired not to inspiration ; they were in the
habit rather, as we have already seen, of appealing to
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as their
rule of faith. Protestants esteem the Fathers, many of
them at least, as men of piety and learning, and reject
not their testimony when it agrees with the teaching of
the Scriptures ; but it is as necessary to establish the
Scriptural authority of the doctrines of the Fathers by

22 tfiCTURE J.

an appeal to the AVord of God, as it is to establish the
scripturalness of the teaching of our own divines, by an
appeal to the same standard. We spoke just now of
immutability as an essential attribute of truth : does
the teaching of the Fathers, or their exposition of the
Bible possess this attribute ? Is there no contradiction
amongst them ? Is there even a general consistency of
opinion? By no means. Not only is one Father
opposed to another Father, but not unfrequently to
himself. The creed of Pope Pius IV. contains the
following vow or oath, which every Minister of the
Church of Rome takes upon himself : " Nor will I ever
take or interpret the Scriptures otherwise than by the
unanimous consent of the Fathers." But who ever found
the Fathers unanimous in their interpretation of the
Word of God ? It would surprise if not amuse you,
were I to quote their differences of opinion even on that
simple passage of Scripture, " the Lord's Prayer." But
I have only time to refer to their various interpretations
of a passage which is considered of some importance by
our Roman Catholic brethren : and lest it should be
surmised that my own representations of the views of
the Fathers might be swayed by previously formed
opinions, I shall give you an epitome of these views
furnished by one of the most learned writers, and eminent
authorities in the entire Roman Catholic community,
Cardinal Bellarmine. The passage occurs in the 3rd
chapter of 1st Corinthians, and is thus rendered in the
Douay version : " According to the grace of God that
is given to me as a wise architect, I have laid the
foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every


toan take heed how lie buildeth thereupon. For other
foundation can no man lay but that which is laid, which
is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this
foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,
stubble, every man's work shall be manifest ; for tho
<iay of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be
revealed in fire, and the fire shall tiy every man's work,
of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he
hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward ; if any
man's work burn, he shall suffer loss ; but he himsdf
shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

The Cardinal first enumerates the difiiculties of the
passage, and then furnishes an epitome of the differences
•of the Fathers : —

" The difficulties of this passage are jive in number>.
1. What is to be undei-stood by the builders ? 2. What
is to be understood by gold, silver, precious stones,
wood, hay, stubble ? 3. What is to be undei-stood by
the day of the Lord. 4. What is to be understood by
the fire, of which it is said, that in the day of the Lord
it shall prove every one's work? 6. What is to be
understood by the fire, of which it is said, he shall be
saved, yet so as by fire ? When these things are explained^
the passage will he clear,

" The first difficulty, therefore, is, who are the archi-
tects who build upon the foundation? The blessed
Augustine, in his book on faith and works, c. 16, and
in his ' Enchiridion,' c. 68, and elsewhere, thinks that
all Christians are here called by the apostle architects,
and that all build upon the foundation of the faith
either good or ba'd works. Chrysostom, Theodoret,

24 iECTtTRB 1^

Theophylact, and (Ecumenks, appear to me i& U&ck
the same upon this passage. Many others teach that
only the doctors and preachers of the gospel are here
called architects by the apostle. Jerome insinuates thi&
in his second book against JoTinianus. The Messed
Anselm and the blessed Thomas hold the same opinion
on this passage, although they do not reject the former
opinion. Many more modern thi^ik the same, as Dio-
nysius the Carthusian, Lyra, Cajetan, and others.

" The other difl&culty is rather more serious, for there
are six opinions. Some^ by the name of foundation,
understand a true but an ill-digested faith ; by the name
of gold, silvery and precious stones, good works ; by '
the names of wood, hay, and stubble, mortal sins. Thus
Chrysostom upon this place, who is followed by Theo-
phylact. The second opinion is, that Christ, or th*
preaching of the faith, is to be understood by the name
of foundation ; that by the names of gold, silver,
precious stones, are to be understood Catholic exposi-
tions, as the commentary of Ambrose and even Jerome
seem to teach. The third opinion, by the name foun-
dation, understands living faith ; and by the name of
gold, silver, and precious stones, understands works of
supererogation, &c. Thus the blessed Augustine, in his
book on faith and works, lib. 6. The/owr^A opinion is
that of those who explain by gold, silver, <fc;c., to be
meant good works ; by hay, stubble, &c., venial sins.
Thus the blessed Gregory, in the fourth book of his
dialogues, c. 39, and others. The fftk is the opinion
of those who understand by gold, silver, &c,, good
hearers ; and by stubble, &c., bad hearers. Thus


Theodoret and (Ecumenius. The sixth opinion, which
we prefer to all, is, that by the name of foundation i»
to be understood Christ as preached by the first
preachers ; by the name of gold, silver, &c., is to be
understood the useful doctrine of the other preachers,
who teach those who now received the faith ; but by
the name of wood, hay, <fec., is to be understood the
doctrine, not indeed heretical, or bad, but singular, of
those preachers who preach catholically to the Catholic
people, without the fruit and usefulness which God

" The third difficulty regards the day of the Lord.
Some understand by the name of day, the present life
or the time of tribulation. Thus Augustine, in his book
of faith and works, c. 16, and Gregory, in the fourth

book of his dialogue, c. 39 But all the ancients

seem to have understood by that day, the day of the
last judgment, as Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, and

" The fourth difficulty is, what is the fire, which in
the day of the Lord shall prove every one's work 2
Some understand the tribulations of this life, as Augus-
tine and Gregory, in the places noted ; but these we
have already rejected. Some understand eternal fire ;
but that cannot be, for fire shall not try the building of
gold and silver. . . . Some understand it to be the
pains of purgatory; but that cannot be truly said.
First, because the fire of purgatory does not prove the

Online LibraryJohn JenkinsA Protestant's appeal to the Douay Bible, and other Roman Catholic standards, in support of the doctrines of the reformation → online text (page 1 of 28)