THE following we take from the Toronto Mirror, a catholic paper, published in Toronto, Canada. It is an extract from the words of W. Lockhart, late B. A., of Oxford, now missionary priest of the Catholic Church, to the ministers and lay members of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He speaks as follows:
"I say, then, that I am a Catholic by the grace of God, because I was led to see that some other authority besides the Bible and the Bible only was necessary in order to prove many of the very points which all Protestants admit to be essential to Christianity. Protestants deny this, and declare that nothing is necessary to be believed but what can be proved from the Bible and the Bible only—namely, from plain texts of Scripture. The whole question is, therefore, reduced into a nutshell; in proof or disproof of this, lies the proof or disproof of Protestantism.—I do, therefore, solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to prove by plain texts of Scripture the questions concerning the obligation of,
I.—The Christian Sabbath.—1st. That Christians may work on Saturday, the old seventh day. 2d. That they are bound to keep holy the first day—namely, Sunday. 3d. That they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also.
II.—The necessity of infant baptism or any command or permission to confer it. . . .
If these, or any of these, cannot be proved from the Bible and the Bible only, without reference to authority or tradition (which latter, according to the principles of Protestantism, is a mere human and fallible guide,) I would ask any candid Protestant to say why he believes them still: and if he is determined to believe them in common with Catholic Christians, how does he reject the only ground on which Catholics believe them—namely, the ever-living infallible guidance promised by Our Lord to His Church before a single syllable of the New Testament was written, on the authority of the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth?—1 Tim. iii, 15. Matt. xxviii, 16, 20. These questions I proposed publicly in the Cathedral of Tuam, and have received the following letter, which I subjoin with my own comments thereon, from which it will appear how wholly inadequate are the texts alleged—though indeed no stronger can be brought forward—to prove what it is attempted to substantiate. Yet this is the very foundation of Protestantism, and those who protest against the Church must first prove that they have grounds for their attack, and defend their own rule of Faith, the Bible and the Bible only:—
LETTER OF THE REV. J. FOWLER, PROTESTANT CURATE OF TUAM.
Tuam, Monday, May 16th, 1853.
REV. SIR,—In reply to your challenge to produce Scriptural authority for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, I would refer you to the Apocalypse, Chap. i, 10.—'I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day, and heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet,' and 1 Cor. xvi, 2. 'On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him, that when I come the collections be not then to be made.' Though I do not acknowledge the authority of the council of Trent, yet, as it is binding on you, I would direct you to its Catechism, Part III, Chap. iv, question 7, where the above passages are quoted in proof of the change of the Sabbath. As to infant baptism, it is proved by Matt. xviii, 3. 'Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,' compared with Mark x, 16.—'And embracing them, and laying his hands upon them, He blessed them.' 1 Cor. i, 16.—'And I baptized all the household of Stephanas; besides I know not whether I baptized any others;' and Acts xvi, 33.—'And he taking them the same hour of the87night, washed their stripes; and himself was baptized and all his house immediately.' Col. ii, 11.—'In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision, not made by hands in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ.' Rom. v, 17.—'For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.' That these are conclusive on the subject I would again refer you to the Tridentine Catechism, Part II, Chap. ii, question 31. Should you feel any difficulty in acknowledging them, you must first settle it with your own Church. You are opposed to her in your attempt to assail us. . . .
'I have now replied to, your challenge, and as garbled extracts may be made to prove anything, I do request that you will read the whole letter if you refer to it in your public lecture.—I am, Rev. Sir, your obedient servant,
JAMES FOWLER, Clk.
'Rev. W. Lockhart.'
I would now ask the writer, and all candid Protestants, whether the points in question are proved by the above texts? The two about the Lord's Day only prove what no question has been raised about, viz., that the first day of the week was kept holy by the early Christians. But where is the command for this, or where the permission to supersede the old seventh day obligations? How do we know that both were not to be kept, or that we may work on Saturday?
As to infant baptism, the two texts first quoted would prove equally well that infants need no baptism; for when Our Lord took them in His arms, we are not told that he baptized them, but said that, such as they were, they were fit for the kingdom of Heaven. The texts about the household of Stephanas and of the Jailor prove nothing, since there is no mention of infant children in either household. The texts about circumcision, as analogous to baptism, prove nothing, otherwise they would equally prove that none but male children could be baptized, because none but male children could be circumcised.
*** The references to the Council of Trent, and the Prologomena of Menochius are nothing in point, for I do not ask how Catholics, who believe in one Infallible Church, prove those points; but how Protestants, who believe in the Bible, and the Bible only, prove them.
Earnestly recommending the matter to the serious consideration of all conscientious Protestants, I subscribe myself their servant for Christ's sake,
W. LOCKHART.
Missionary Priest, Order of Charity,
(Late B. A., of Oxford.)