, 1872-01-08
An American Do!Iinger.

1AC ~. L. 4icuDct>t piOtldIAie eAae
it knew mot single prominent cler-
ical or lay Catholic in the Republic who
has dared openly to join in the noble
protest of Dollinger and his associates.
To this Mansfield Tracy Walworth. son
of the late Chancellor of that name, re-
sponded thus Tribune.
The term prominent is susceptible Of
several constructions. See if the follow
ing description answers to that term :
My father was the late Chancellor Wal
worth, of New York State, for twenty
years the chief Judge of the Court of
Chancery here. Shortly before being
admitted to practice law in the courts of
this State and of the United States, I
became convert to the Roman Catholic
Church In order intelligently to speak
of my new faith, purchased library
of Catholic standard authorities, several
hundred volumes. They were the
works of eminent theologians, dogmatie
tlCdtloCS, SdQICh AAotolACo VI
toned authority-among them Dol
linger's Church History, Mohler's Sym
boiisn, Bishop England's WORKS, Lin
CARDS works, and indeed, all frst-class
standard authorities, such as Roman
Catholic prelates and the more accom-
plished of the clergy in this country
place upon the ibrary-shelves. I mad e
myself perfectly familiar with the dog
mas of the Church, the scriptua1 au-
thorities and the traditions of the
Church upon which they were founded.
The cogent reasons which induced me
to connect myself with the church of
Rome were, that other churches were
constantly changing their dogmas, and
that truth, divine ruth, must of its
own nature be unchangeable. 1 was
instructed that had joined a Church
which held one set of dogmas. from the
davs of Christ to the end of all time,
and which being the Church established
by our Saviour, could not teach in one
age and to one generation of men what
it did not teach in another; that what
ever dogmas man of the first century
proclaimed as the dogmas of his Church
must be each and all the same dogmas
that man of the nineteenth century
announced as his dogmas. 1t was reas-
enable to believe that no more doctrines
could be required of the latter than of
the former. The Christian of the first
century did not believe in the infalli-
bility of the bishop of Rome; the Amer
ican Catholic of 1860 did not believe in
the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
1t was not taught to him, and if he does
not believe it he cannot have Christian
burial. Thus. the good Catholic who
died in 1860 held just one doctrine less
than the good Catholic Of 1871 holds
when he passes into the presence ofhis
Creator. Is this unity of faith? Is this
belonging to an Interchangeable Church?
1 deny the infalibility of the Bishop of
Rome, Just as Archbishop Purcell, Of
Cincinnati, denied it; just as the learned
great Roman Catholic Church his
torian, Dollinger denies it. He knows,
as I know that as the prelates OF the
United States know, that it is new;
that it is not what men were required
to believe in 1860, and in the time Of
Christ and his Apostles. 1t is as great
a variation in faith as any variation ex-
posed by Bossuet in his memorable
work, The Variations of the Protestant
Churches, one of the very authorities,
standard authorities, placed in my hand
to induce me to accept the Catholic as