I witness the strenuous efforts made by Protestant writers against
scepticism, and their ill success, I am led to execrate the miscalled
"Reformation." Had that horrible event not taken place, instead of the
desultory warfare by detached guerillas, we should have had the full
strength and power of an organized, disciplined, compact army, against
scepticism. To speak even of the learning displayed by Protestant
writers is to suggest how much more vast the learning, that would now be
the portion of England, if the church property were in the hands of the
Abbots of former days instead of being held by its present possessors.
In force of reasoning, too, Protestant vindicators of religion are at an
immense disadvantage. They are hampered by principles, which they should
never have adopted. Private judgment is to them what Saul's armor was to
David, ill-fitting, and cumbersome. To borrow an illustration from
Archbishop Whately, "They are obliged to fight infidelity with their
left hand; their right hand being tied behind them." One of the
specialties of this age is "historical research." The application of the
historical criticism inaugurated by Niebuhr has dealt Protestism a fatal
blow, while, on the other hand, it has been favorable to the cause of
Catholicity. This has happened for the reason that the Catholic Church
is not founded exclusively on the Bible, as Protestantism is. Catholics
take the Bible as an authentic history. This authentic history
establishes the divine mission of our Lord, and the institution of the
church by His divine authority. This church, "the pillar and ground of
truth," attests the divine authority of Holy Scripture. There is no
_circulus vitiosus_ in our argument. With us the individual must bow to
the collective wisdom of the church, divinely established. Protestants
cut a pretty figure with private judgment. In political elections, and
in clubs, meetings, and so forth, the Protestant very properly allows
that the voice of the majority must prevail. This is common sense; and
yet in religious matters forsooth, the private judgment of an ignorant
and illiterate individual must be permitted to overrule the decision of
the collective wisdom of learned theologians. This shows how far men are
liable to be blinded by prejudice. In fact, if men had an interest in
denying that "two and two make four," they would unquestionably do so.
We may also deduce from this violent aberration in religion an argument