THE

ROlHSH DOCTRINE OF INTENTION:

IN

AN UNANSWERED LETTER TO THE ROMAN

CATHOLIC PRIESTS OF LIVERPOOL;

AN APPEAL THEREUPON TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS

OF LIVERPOOL,

AND

A SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER, ADDRESSED TO THE

EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

BY THE

REV. SAUUEL lVIINTON, M.A.
Incumbent of Silas's.

THIRD THOUSAND.

�rrlr�l1,
FLEET STREET, AND HANOVER STREET, LONDON;

LIVERPOOL � ARTHUR NEWLING, BOLD STREET.

1rIDCCCLI.

Price 3d.



'f; l)FC

C� t II '�'7

T. C. JOHNS,

Wine Office Court, Fleet Street.



THE

ROMISH DOCTRINE OF INTENTION:

ITS BEARINGS UPON INFALLIBILITY, IDOLATRY, AND

CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY�'

IN THREE LETTERS.

LETTER I.

TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS OF LIVERPOOL.'*'

REV. SIRs,-The Romish doctrine of "Intention, "as de­
fined by the Council of Trent, is of such a nature that a
Protestant can scarcely be surprised at your not wishing
to give it any needless publicity; nor can you be surprised
at his being equally anxious to give it all possible publicity.
This was the sole motive which induced me to invite you to
a public discussion on it at the close of my lecture last
Monday week, and which induces me again to call your
attention to that invitation, through the medium of the
press.
The doctrine in question is one that requires no great

power of learning or intellect to overthrow; it only requires
to be known. And as considerable attention is generally
directed to a theological discussion, however insignificant
may be the persons engaged in it, I would willingly en­
counter, for the sake of gaining such an object, what on
personal grounds I should of all things most shrink from.
It is remarkable how very little Protestants in general
are aware even of the existence of such a doctrine in your
church; and no less remarkable, that it is not put more

prominently forward in the controversy by those who are
aware of it. For surely a more powerful lever to upturn
your whole system no controversialist could desire.
The great boast of your church is, that she offers a se­

cure and peaceful refuge from the doubts and uncertainties
of Protestantism. Now, what approach to certainty or se­

curity can you offer to anyone of your flocks on the points
that most immediately concern the salvation of their souls 1

*
Reprinted from the" Liverpool Mail."



2

There can be no danger, I suppose, of any disagreement
between us, when I say that your system is pre-eminently
a sacramental one. From baptism to extreme unction, sa­

craments of one kind or another are the grand essentials to

salvation. Grace is conveyed by or through them; and

in some cases, as in that, of
absolution for an" attrite

"

person, the individual's very
salvation may depend upon

the valid£ty of the sacrament administered to him.
But

your church has decided
in the following decree of the

Council of Trent, that however properly the form of admi­

nistration may be gone through, the whole thing is null

and void, unless the officiating priest intended to
admi­

nister it. "'Whoever shall affirm, that when ministers

perform and confer a sacrament, it is not necessary
that

they should have at least the intention of doing
what the

church does; let him be accursed."-Sess. 7, can. xi. And

to show that this is no mere general intention, which can

with certainty be inferred from the priest's
outward

conduct (an" external intention," as some Romanists have

said), your own missal, on "the defects of the mass,
"

sec.

7, declares, "If anyone has before him
eleven wafers, and

intends to consecrate only ten, not determining what ten

he intends, in these cases he does not consecrate [that is,

any of them .'J because the intention is required." How,

then, can any member of your communion, up
to the day

of his death, know that he has ever received a single sa­

crament of any kind in the whole
course ofhis life? How

can he possibly know what was passing in the priest's
mind on each occasion? How can he possibly know what

was the secret intention of the priest who baptised him, of

the priest who married him (for matrimonp is a sacrament

in the Church of Rome), of the priest who absolved him,
of the priest who gave him the eucharist, or of the priest
who gave him extreme

unction? And if he could know

HII this, how much nearer would he be to that
comfortable

certainty which your churcli offers so profusely?
For the

validity of a sacrament, according to your doctrine, depends
not only on the priest's intention, but also on

the validity

ofhis orders. But orders, in the Church
of Rome, is itself

a sacrament; and therefore requires the intention of the

administrator, that is, of the consecrating bishop, as
much

as any other sacrament. So that, for anyone
to know

that he receives a true sacrament, he must know the in­

tention oj every bishop in the supposed line
of succession,

between the particular priest, who administers it to him,

and the particular apostle from whom that priest is sup­

posed to derive his orders. For if
the intention has been

wanting in any single link of the chain,
the chain is broken;



3

and, according to your doctrine of apostolical succession,
every link from that downwards is utterly worthless: a
non-conductor has interposed itself, and the electric cur­
rent is stopped, hopelessly and for ever, in that line. And
this is the infallible church l This is the rock, the sure
foundation, for which we are to desert the treacherous
quicksands of Protestantism, and on which we are confi­
dently to build our hopes for eternity! This is the impreg­
nable fortress, the peaceful haven, the quiet refuge, the
calm retreat, where we are to bid a final adieu to all the
doubts, and difficulties, and dangers, and perplexities, and
uncertainties, which must necessarily attend a simple trust
in the Word of the living God! !
There is, however, one feature in the practical working

of this doctrine of Intention to which I would take the
liberty of calling your most serious attention. The charge
most pertinaciously alleged against your church by Pro­
testants, and by you as pertinaciously denied, is that of
Idolatry. Passing over, then, the invocation of saints, the
worship of the Virgin, the veneration of images, and re­
lics, &c., which have nothing to do with the doctrine in
question, we come to the worship of the Host. Here there
is no hair-splitting as to the kind of worship required from
your people. Theyare enj oined toworship, with the worship
due to God only, what looks like a piece of bread, on the
supposition that by the priest's consecration it has been
actually changed into the one living and true God himself.
But, without entering upon the question of transubstanti­
ation, you yourselves must admit, or, at least, your church
does, that if the intention of the officiating minister, or a
single link in the chain between him and the Apostles, be
defective, there is no consecration; the Host remains just
what it was before, and the assembled congregation are
worshipping as God a piece of bread! Now, one of your
favourite controversial books asserts that "the Papist,
truly represented, believes it damnable to worship breaden
gods." And yet not a Roman Catholic in the world, when
he bows before the Host, can possibly know (on your own
principles) whether he be worshipping the Creator of
heaven and earth, or a "breaden god;

"

for that entirely
depends upon the complication of uncertainties above­
mentioned. So that every member of your communion,
who believes the doctrine of Intention, is reduced to this
dilemma: he must either disobey his church, and submit
to all the consequences of such disobedience, which of
course will vary according to circumstances; or he must
wilfully and knowingly run the risk of committing" dam­
nable" idolatry. Here is peace and comfort I-here is



4

settled assurance! To pass through life, and to face

death, hop£n,q that you have not been perpetually guilty
of

" damnable" idolatry! If this alone be not
sufficient to

involve your church in
the guilt of idolatry, you must

surely allow that it places her in
most fearful proximity

to it.

And now is there not one priest in all Liverpool that

will stir a finger to help his church out of
the strange pre­

dicament) in which, to our eyes at least,
this doctrine seems

to place her! I admit most fully the unpleasantness
of a

public discussion; nor do I mean
for a moment to imply,

that a minister of religion is bound, at anyone's call, to

defend his doctrines in any particular way that may be

demanded of him. But, gentlemen, common rumour is

more than ordinarily false, if some of you have not very

lately resorted to sham
discussions in your chapels or

schools, in order to show your people the
weakness of Pro­

testant argument against Romanism. Will
there be no

danger, think you, of their beginning
to suspect something

must be wrong, if, after triumphantly putting
to flight

whole armies of imaginary foes, you are not to be found

the moment a real one appears in the field? May it not

possibly shake some of their pillows?
And if they find

you altogether unable to
smooth them again, may they not

be actually awakened out of their dream
of safety? If

you like to smile
at the supposition of such a thing, and

prefer still keeping quiet, I shall be only
the better pleased,

and will most sincerely thank you, not only on personal

grounds, but still more for the
valuable admission, that

the doctrine of Intention (by which, of course, as much as

by any other of her doctrines,
Rome's claim to infaUibil£ty

must stand or fall) w£ll not bear be£ng brought to light
even

by its own advocates.
Men and brethren-fellow-travellers, if not by the same

road, certainly to the same judgment-seat,
there to be

tried by the same rule, "the word
that Jesus has spoken

to us
"

;
*
are you prepared to stake your

immortal souls,
and the souls of those who trust to you, "on this perhaps

-this peradventure?" Will you embark your
all in a

church that has tied about her own neck such a mill­

stone as the doctrine we have spoken of 7 Will you build

your hopes for eternity on the infallibility
of a church

that has formally committed herself to such
a palpable

delusion? Could there be a more demonstrative proof,
not only of your church being fallible,

but of her having

actually fallen, than the fact
of her having, in solemn

council, decreed the doctrine
of Intention? It is possible

* John xiì, 48.



5

that the members of that council, who pronounced a curse
upon all impugners of such a doctrine, could be the
persons, or true successors of the persons, whom Jesus pro­
mised "to guide into all truth, "and with whom he pro­
mised to be "always, even unto the end of the age 1

"

Is
it possible that the men who hold and teach such a doc­
trine, can, collectively, form that church which was to be
"
the pillar and ground of the truth 1

"

The subject might be pursued further; but time and
space forbid. I must, therefore, conclude, and remain for
the present,

Rev. Sirs, your obedient servant,

SAMUEL MINTON, Incumbent of St. Silas.

8, PEEL-STREET, PRINCE'S-PARK, LIVERPOOL,
Feb. 13, 18fH.

LETTER II.

TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF LIVERPOOL.

MEN AND BRETHREN, hearken: Albeit the appeal comes
from one of those whom you have been accustomed to

regard as the unscrupulous calumniators of your church.
Here, at least, you need fear no misrepresentation; inas­
much as your own priests have one and all tacitly admit­
ted the facts upon which it is grounded. You are perfectly
aware, how well trained and practised they are in theologi­
cal controversy, and how ready at all times to seize upon
whatever they may think a mis-statement of the doctrines
or practices of their church. Can you doubt, therefore,
that, if there had been anything of the kind in the letter
which I lately addressed to them, it would long ere this
have been detected and exposed. Can any reason be assign­
ed for not one of them having even attempted a reply, ex­
cept that which at once suggests itself, namely, that there
is no possible reply to make 1 No exception, I am sure, could
be taken against the tone of it; for the most fastidious
critic might safely be challenged to point out a harsh or
uncourteous expression. Nor can it be pretended, that its
subject-matter was of too little consequence to be worth
noticing. For the objection therein made to a particular



6

doctrine of your Church-the doctrine of Intention, is one

which, if valid, not only overthrows, indirectly, her claim

to infallibility, (for if she has made one mistake, she may
make a dozen.) but also directly strikes at the root of'

each and all of those props on which you are taught to

rest your hopes for eternity. You rely upon sacraments,
trust to priests, and appeal to popes, councils, and fathers.

But sacraments, priests, popes, councils, and fathers are

all things, the very existence of which, if the doctrine
of

Intention be true, must for ever remain a matter of utter

uncertainty. Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and all
the

host of supposed fathers, whose opinions form part of

your rule of faith, may, for all you know, have
been

mere unbaptized heathen; for how can you be sure of the

intention of the persons who baptized them? The Gre­

gories, Bonifaces, Leos, with the whole line of supposed

popes, whom you regard as the centre of your church's

unity, if not the rock on which she is built, may have been

mere unauthorized intruders, raised successively to the

pontifical throne by the College of Cardinals, and them­

selves accepting it, on the supposition of their being duly
ordained priests, because the ouiuiard form of ordination

had been gone through, but being in reality simple laymen
from want of the administrator's intention at some link

of the chain between them and the Apostles. So the

assemblies of Nice, Ephesus, Trent, &c., whose decisions

you regard as infallible, on the supposition of their having
been general councils composed of lawfully ordained

bishops, may be no more entitled to your respect than

an equal number of any other men in the world, meeting

together to decide upon matters of faith: for how can yOll
be sure, that they were individually real bishops at all,
and consequently that they could collectively form a real

council? Exactly on the same ground, Father A., Father

B., or whoever may be the priest, to whom you immedi­

ately look for the all-essential rites of your church, may
be not one atom more of a priest than yourself, and con­

sequently have no more power to absolve you, than you
have to absolve him. While even if he had the power of

administering the various sacraments to you, it would be

impossible for you to know whether he ever exercised
it ;

inasmuch as whatever he might appear to do, the whole

benefit of it absolutely depends upon his own secret inten­

tion. So that you may go on to the day of your death,
not only building your faith on the authority of imaginary

popes, imaginary councils, and imaginary fathers;
but

also building your personal hopes of salvation upon the

grace of imaginary sacraments, administered by imaginary



7

priests. And yet you are taught, that visibiHty is essential
to the Catholic Church!

The importance, therefore, of this question can scarcely
be over-rated: seeing that it is inextricably intertwined
round every branch of your whole system. I question if

you could mention a single doctrine peculiar to your
church, in which the theory of Intention is not directly
or indirectly involved.-Papal supremacy? Why, to know
that the person, who may have possession of the Vatican
at any given time, is a true Pope, you must know the in­
tentions of hundreds of persons, who have been lying in
their graves for ages.-The unity, visibility, catholicity,
and authority of the Church? Why, no human being can

possible tell, whether himself, or any other given indivi­

dual, is a member of the church at all. Nay the very
existence even of an outward church can only be a mat­
ter of faith, unless you could see another person's intentions.
And however confidently you may believe, on the strength
of Ohrist's promise, that there always must be a church
in the world; there is no promise made that any particu­
lar person, whether priest or layman, shall belong to
that church: so that it never can be a visible body
even in its external ecclesiastical character. If you main­

tain, that it must be so; then you give up the doc­
trine of Intention, and with it the infallibility of your
church; for intention cannot be visible.-Transubstan­
tiation? Why, how can you know, that you really eat
the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, at the celebration
of the Lord's Supper; unless you know, not only the
intention of the officiating priest, but also the endless
combination of intentions, that are essential to the validity
of his orders? But its bearing on all the sacraments
is too obvious to require any enumeration of them.-Shall
we then pass on to the Invocation of Saints, with the
veneration of their images and relics? Why, the men
whose aid you invoke, and whose images or relics you
venerate, may never even have been admitted into the

church by baptism, or have partaken of anyone of her

ordinances.-Purgatory? Why, the privilege of being
admitted there at all depends upon your dying in com­
munion with "the Church" through her sacraments, (which
all require intention) and the length of time you have to
remain there depends very much upon the intention of
the priest, who says masses for you after your death.-In

short, it meets you at every turn; and reduces that
entire ecclesiastical structure, which so charms you by
its apparent grandeur and solidity, to "the baseless fabric
of a vision."



8

Let me then appeal to you as men, who must each one
" bear his own burden,"

'* and who must each one "render

account to God for h£mselj," t however any church or

any priest may pretend to relieve you of the burden, and
to give account for you. If there be, lying at the very
root of your religious system, a doctine so plainly decreed

by the authority of your church, that not one of your.

priests can venture to deny it, and yet so manifestly
absurd, nay so suicidal, in its nature, that not one of

them dare utter a word in defence or even in palliation
of it, for fear of drawing upon it too large a measure of

public attention-is it not high time for you to awake

out of your slumber; to gather up your strength for

the mental effort of looking your church full in the face,
and seeing what she is made of? Summon to your aid,
if only for one honest steady glance, the intellectual

faculties God has given you, and see whether she will

bear lookìng at either by the light of reason or revela­
tion. Look to your foundations, and see whether your

house, firm and compact as it appears, may not be built

upon a quicksand. "I speak as to wise men, judge ye
yourselves what I say; "t and judge what your priests
say, if they should venture to say anything. Ask

them, whether you are, or are not, bound by the decrees

of the Council of Trent? Ask them, whether that council

did, or did not, decree the doctrine of Intention? Ask

them, whether they do, or do not, believe it themselves 1

Ask them, whether such a doctrine, does or does not,
render it impossible for either themselves or you to know

that they are true priests at all; and) consequently,
that they have any claim upon your submission, or any

power to benefit you by their ordinances 1 Ask them,
whether such a doctrine does, or does not, give them the

power (supposing them to be true , priests) of conveying
the grace of a sacrament to one person,

and withholding
it from another, while precisely the same outward form

is administered to them both, and perhaps at the same

moment 1 Ask them, whether this does, or does not, give
one man such an absolute, irresistible, irresponsible,

power over other men, as can find no parallel elsewhere

in this fallen world 1 Ask them, whether they can, or

can not, produce a solitary text out of the whole Bible,
which even appears to sanction such a

doctrine? Ask

them, whether a person regenerated in baptism is, or is

not, according to this doctrine, regenerated by the intention

* Gal. vi. 5. Romish Version. t Rom. xiv. 12. Romish Version.

:t l Cor. x. 15. Romish Version.



9

of the baptizer? and then ask them, whether St. John

did, or did not, say, that the children of God are
"born

not of the will of man?
":II: Ask them, whether it is, or

is not, written in the Word of God, that "cursed be
the

man that trusteth in man 1"t and then ask them whether

it is, or is not, "trusting in man," to depend upon
the

�'ntention of a priest for regeneration, absolution, or any
other spiritual blessing 1 Ask them, whether the

minis­

tration of the word depends upon the minister's intention

for its efficacy;' and if not, why should the ministration

of a sacrament? And, lastly, ask them, if an explanation
of all this can be given, why they do not come forward

like men, and give it; or, if none can be given, how they
can expect you to repose in the bosom of a church,

which

presents such a hopeless mass of confusion, which
is in­

volved in such self-evident contradictions, which has com­

mitted herself in such palpable delusions, and which can

offer nothing to the anxious enquirer after salvation, but

a complicated tissue of peradventures, and uncertainties,
and doubts; laying him indeed a prostrate slave at the

foot of her priesthood, by assuring him that there is no

salvation to be obtained except from them; but unable

to give him the slightest assurance at the
commencement

of his career, that he will really be able to obtain it from

them, and equally unable, at the close of his career, to

assure him that he has actually obtained it ?

Now, if your priests can give you such answers to these

questions as will enable you to "satisfy everyone that

asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.;":I:
then you will only be the more intelligent members of

your church, and the more confirmed in your attachment

to her, for having thus closely scrutinized her claims.

But if they altogether fail to do so; then beware of

letting them lull you to sleep again, on the ground of

her presumed infallibility. They may tell you that your

part is not to examine or investigate, but to bow to her

decisions with the same unquestioning submission that you
would render to those of God himself. They may tell

you that, as the Church of Rome claims to be infallible,
while the Church of England acknowledges herself to be

fallible, Rome must be the safer guide of the two. But

did it never occur to you, that the very determination,
with which she so constantly asserts this claim, has" at

least, a very suspicious appearance? Which should you
think the most 'likely to be an honest and trustworthy

* John ì. 13. Romish Version. t Jer. xvii. 5. Romish Version.

t 1 Pet. iii. 15. Romish Version.



10

guide,-the one who puts into your hand a complete chart
of the road, and bids you narrowly examine it, that you
may see whether he is leading you right; or the one who
seems so desperately afraid of your looking about you,
or asking a single question, that he is for ever threat­

ening not to lead you another step, unless you keep your
eyes shut, and trust to his infallible guidance? Depend
upon it, my dear friends, this is the secret of your church's
claim to infallibility. She knows that without it she would
not have a leg to stand upon. She knows that if you
once begin to look her in the face, and bring her doctrines
to the test of God's Word, it is all over. She knows that
if you once begin to suspect she may be wrong, you will

very soon find out she is wrong,-fatally, fundamentally
wrong. No wonder she should tell you that it is a sin

to doubt. No wonder your priests should tell you not
to trouble your head about such a thing as the doctrine
of Intention. No wonder they should be so fearful of

your aspiring to the honour which distinguished the
Bereans of old, because they" received the Word with
all eagerness, daily searching the Scriptures, whether
these things were so."*
But are you willing to be debarred from this honour 1

Are you willing to be robbed of this privilege? If not,
arise in the strength of the Lord, and gird yourselves for
the work; Quit you like men; be strong. "Try your
ownselves, whether ye be in the faith "t once delivered
to the saints; or whether ye be involved in the great
apostacy from that faith? "Prove your ownselves."
_"
Search the Scriptures,"] with earnest prayer for the

Spirit's guidance. "Believe not every spirit, but try the

spirits, whether they be of God."§ Try your church,
whether she be of God. And if you find her not to be

so, but, on the contrary, to be "making void the com­
mandment of God for her tradition, teaching doctrines
and commandments of men," II whether those men be

popes, councils, or fathers; if you find her" hating the

light, and coming not to the light, that her works may
not be reproved j i'e] if you find that her desire to sup­
press the testimony of Scripture evidently arises from her

knowledge of the fact, "that it does not prophecy good
concerning her, but evil;" if you find her to be the de­

velopment of that "mystery of iniquity," which was

*Acts xvii. 11. Romish Version. t2 Cor. xìii. 5. Romish Version.

:t John v. 33. Romish Version. § 1 John iv. 1. Romìsh Version.

I! Matt. xv. 6, 9. Romish Version. � John iii. 20. Romish Version.



11

"

already working
,,* in the very life-time of the Apostles,

and which, therefore, must, in its germ, be almost as
ancient as Christianity itself; if you find her portrait
in all its leading features drawn to the very life on the page
of prophecy ; if you find her history too recorded there,
in its rise, progress, and final doom; then, "He that
hath ears to hear, let him hear" the warning voice of the

Spirit of God, which waxes louder and louder, as the
time of its fulfilment draws nigh, "Go out from her, my
people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that

you receive not of her plagues."t
With earnest prayer, that the Spirit of God may guide

us into all truth,

I beg to remain,

Your sincere friend,

SAMUEL MINTON,

2], DAULBY-STREET, LIVERPOOL,

April 26th, 1851.

LETTER III.

"
He was glad that the eyes of the public were now opened with regard

to most of the doctrines of their religion, Open straightforward decla.
ration was now the proper course for them, and he had no doUbt that

they would make satisfactory progress.":

Report of Cœrdinal Wiseman's last sermon.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE" LIVERPOOL STANDARD."

SlR,-The editor of the paper] in which my letter to
the Roman Catholic Priests of Liverpool first appeared,
has reminded me of an omission in it; namely, that no
allusion is made to the "political" bearings of the doc­
trine of Intention. This omission may perhaps be sup­
plied by the following remarks-

* l Thess. ìì, 7. Romish Version.
Version.

t Rev. xviii. 4. Romìsh

t "l.iverpool Mail."



12

Rome's spiritual power, as every one knows,
is the

result of her combined priestly and sacramental system.

No grace without a sacrament, and
no sacrament without

a priest. Here is complete machinery for
an absolute

ecclesiastical despotism. Through this spiritual power,
as

everyone also knows, or ought to know,
she acquires

indirectly an immense amount of temporal power, against
which every civil government, Roman

Catholic no less

than Protestant, has always had to struggle for
its very

existence. But how is the struggle to be maintained 1

The only way of delivering the Roman Catholic laity
from

the tyranny of their priests, would be to
make the admi­

nistration of the sacraments compulsory by law, unless

just cause could be shown in any particular
instance for

withholding it. This is the case as regards
the Church of

England. None of our laity can be deprived
of a sacra­

ment at the mere will of their minister; and therefore

ecclesiastical tyranny is impossible. Rome appears to

have foreseen that her power might at any time be thus

checked by any State that was not too fond of
the name

of civil and religious liberty to prevent the tk£ng being

destroyed by its most inveterate foe; and therefore,
with

the wisdom of the serpent, she has most skilfully guarded
herself from any such assault.

Take an illustration or two.-From a published speech
of the Rev. Dr. M'Neile's, entitled, "The Papal Anti­

christ," I extract the following paragraph;
in a note to

which the letters alluded to are given at length :-" The

circumstance concerning Mr. and Mrs. Galway was this.

Mrs. Galway was so unwell that she was
confined to her

room. Christmas came; at which time they think it

important that all the members of
their church should

enjoy the rites of the church.
Mr. Galway called the

priest to have the rites of the church
for his lady, which

he (the priest) refused. On being
asked the reason of

this refusal, the priest pleaded the orders of his bishop,
that he should not do it. Mr. Galway wrote a letter to

the bishop (Dr. Abraham), but the bishop
returned him

no answer. Mr. Galway wrote a second letter to the

bishop, and to this he got no answer; and
then Mr. Gal­

waypublished both of these letters, with
his name attached

to them, in a newspaper, showing that
the ground-the

only ground-for this interdict by
the bishop was, that

Mr. Galway presumed to maintain his political indepen­
dence." This occurrence took place at Waterford, in

Ireland, about fifteen years ago.
Still later history informs us of a priest assembling

a number of Roman Catholic parents at the door of a



13

Ragged-school, and threatening to withhold the rites of

the church from any of them who
did not at once remove

their children from that school. This priest, it may be

()bserved in passing, is reported afterwards, not only to

have spoken strongly in favour of civil
and religious liberty,

but also to have abused, in no measured terms, the cler­

gyman, under whose superintendence the
school is placed,

for admitting children into it against
the will oj their

parents! ! !

Thirdly; within the last week a letter appeared in the

columns of a London newspaper, from the Rector of

Castlebar, county Mayo, detailing a brutal outrage which

has just been perpetrated there, in consequence of a priest

cursing from his altar the Protestant Scripture-reader,
and threatening not to perform mass, or give them any
other service on the following Sunday, if he (the Scripture­

reader) was not driven out of the parish before
that time.

A day or two afterwards, thirty armed ruffians broke
into

the house wh ere the poor man lodged, in the middle of the

night, cruelly ill-treated the inmates, almost destroyed
their little property, and would undoubtedly have mur­

dered the special obj ect of their attack, had he not been

providentially detained that evening in a neighbouring
town. Nor was it without considerable difficulty and

delay, that the owner of the house could afterwards obtain

any redress or protection from the Roman
Catholic autho­

rities of the place. Had Cardinal Wiseman heard of this

occurrence, when, in his last sermon, he said, that conver­

sions to Popery "must, humanly speaking, be the result

of the working of the mind itself, of thought, reflection,
inward conviction, and a careful examination of what

was passing around. Humanly speaking, he repeated;
for it was the grace of God, and that alone, which made

converts to the Catholic religion. They were astonished

at the strange visitations, the irresistible calls which
com­

pelled men to come to the church. It was heart-rending
at times to see the struggles through which the convert

had to pass. Catholics well knew, that they trusted far

more for the conversion of anyone, or for the conversion

of a multitude, to the power of prayer, than to any
amount of controversy, of lecturing, preaching, writing, or

persuasion." Oh, this gentle, meek, charitable, loving,
Church! Oh, this ill-used, misrepresented, calumniated,

oppressed victim of Protestant tyranny! Pity it,
comfort

it! Cherish it ! Never mind its
"

speaking as a dragon" in

Castlebar; we don't live there. See how" like a lamb"

it is in England!
But what has all this to do with the doctrine of Inten-



14

tion 1 Everything. Suppose the British Parliament, in
order to secure to all British subjects that beautiful
" civil and religious liberty," had passed such a law as we
have hinted at, rendering the administration of sacra­

ments, whether Romish or Protestant, compulsory. And

suppose, in any of the above cases, the persC?ns threat­

ened with the deprivation .of them, had taken refuge
behind the law, practically asserted their civil and reli­

gious liberty, and set their priest at defiance. Suppose
Mr. Galway had said, I will maintain my political inde­

pendence; suppose the parents of those poor children had

said, We will not debar our children from the blessings
of education; suppose the Irish peasants had said, We
will not persecute an innocent man, just to please your
reverence-what would the priest have done? Why he
would have preached a sermon the very next Sunday on
the doctrine of Intention (however difficult it might be
to find a text), and after making them distinctly under­
stand that the outward form of a sacrament is nothing
without the priest's intention, he would have reminded

them, that however human laws may compel the one,
they could not very easily compel the other; and that,
therefore, if they were not satisfied with empty forms, but

really wanted the rites of "the church, they had better take
care and "hear the church." It might be curious to
contrast the different phraseology in which this would be

put at Castlebar, and at St. George's, Southwark; but

practically, the same effect would, no doubt, be produced
upon the minds (and correspondently to the various duties

required from them, upon the conduct) of the respective
auditories.

Oh! those good old fathers of Trent knew right well
what they were about, in decreeing the doctrine of Inten­
tion. They were not weak enough to commit their in­
fallible church to such a self-evident absurdity for nothing.
Was it not the very screw wanting to make the machinery
perfect? Could anything have been devised by the wit
of man, to rivet more firmly the chains of priestly usurp­
ation; to enable Rome to laugh at kings or parliaments;
to bid defiance to any attempt at restraining her power,
and to crush every vestige of

" civil and religious liberty?
"

Why, if the Emperor of Russia, or the Sultan of Con­

stantinople himself, were a sincere Romanist, he would be
but a helpless' prostrate slave at the foot of his confessor.
The confessor perhaps might not wish to risk his life by
refusing his majesty the outioard jorm of absolution, or of
the eucharist; but he would take care at the same time
that his majesty thoroughly understood the doctrine of



15

Intention. It would be quite unnecessary to make special
allusion to it on any particular occasion. The confessor
need only instil into his mind, as a general principle, that
the church. confers her favours on none but obedient

children. Surely the words of Jeremiah must have been
meant to reach farther than the false prophets and false

priests of his own day, when"moved by the Holy Ghost,"
he cried-" The prophets prophecy falsely, and the. priests
bear rule by their means,' and my people love to have
it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?

" *

How to meet this dangerous foe in this its political
character I leave for politicians to discover. To see that,
if we admit a barrel of' gunpowder into our house, it will

inevitably explode and blow us to atoms-is no reason

why we should resign ourselves to our fate, and admit it ;
but, on the contrary, is the strongest possible reason,
why we should strain every nerve to prevent its admission;
or, if already admitted, to get rid oj it. How that can be

accomplished is another question. But we have got over

by far the greatest part of the difficulty, when we have

persuaded people to open their eyes, and see what the

danqer really is !
If the above remarks shall have this effect upon a single

person, it will be a matter of thankfulness to,

Sir, your obedient servant,

SAMUEL MINTON.

8, PEEL-STREET, PRINCE'S-PARK, LIVERPOOL.

Feb. 17, 1851.

* Jer. v, 30.



APPENDIX.

A STRIKING proof of the horror, entertained by
Romish Priests,

of any allusion to the Doctrine of Intention,
is afforded by the fol ...

lowing extract from p. 108, of their own Report
of the Carlow Dis ..

cussion :-
" MR. POPE-With respect to the validity of orders in the Church

of Rome, how can the Rev. Gentlemen prove their
ordination to be

valid? The efficacy of their Sacraments depends upon
the intention

of the administrator! I ask the Rev. Gentlemen,
how could they enter

into the heart of the Bishop, who ordained them, and
learn whether the

intention was there?
" MR. CLOWRY (Romish Priest) rose and said, that such was not

the doctrine of the Church ofRome; itmight have been
theprivate opinion

oj some of her divines."

Only imagine how completely stunned Mr. Clowry
must bave

been by the bare mention of that fatal doctrine,
when in the confu­

sion of the moment, he could publicly assert that it was not
the

doctrine of his Church; although the Council of Trent, to
whose

decrees he was sworn, pronounces an
anathema upon all who shall

deny it. A very little reflection, however,
seems to have shown him

what a mistake he had made; for he subsequently explained his

meaning to be, "that there is no definition
of faith in the Catholic

Church, regarding the nature of the intention necessary
for the

valid administration of the Sacraments. Whether
that intention

must be internal or external, is a free opinion among theologians.

The opinion of the necessity of the
internal intention alone, could

support his argument." Now,
without stopping to enquire what

can possibly be meant by an external intention,
or what is the nature

of the intention, decreed to be necessary by the Council of
Trent-­

the passage, quoted from the Romish Missa],
in the first of the

foregoing letters, indisputably proves it to
be such an intention, as

can only be known to the person himself,
which is all that is necessary

to support either Mr. Pope's argument,
or our own. All the dis­

quìsitions, therefore, which Romish
Divines indulge in, as to the

kind of intention required, can answer no possible purpose
to a

Protestant, except to throw dust in his eyes,
and divert his atten­

tion from the only really important point-that an
intention is re­

quired.
Another proof of the impossibility of putting

even a plausible face

upon the matter, may be gathered
from a popular Roman Catholic

work, called
" A Papist Misrepresented and Represented."

The

writer goes through the various doctrines
of Popery in succession;

showing, under each head, how grievously
Romanism is misunder­

stood, and what a very passable, respectable, quiet
sort of thing it

is, when viewed in a proper light. But although every
other Romish

doctrine, I believe, is mentioned in its turn,
not the most distant

hint is given, from beginning to end,
of the existence even of the

Doctrine of Intention.

One of the very few attempts made to defend it, is
a Tract en­

titled, "Absurd Protestant opinions
on the Doctrine of Intention;"



APPENDIX.

in which the writer endeavours to show-not, as might have been

expected, the absurdity of Protestants supposing that Romanists
could hold such a doctrine, but-the absurdity of denying it. The
sole ground, on which he rests his argument, is, that otherwise you
must admit a mere mockery of a Sacrament to be a true Sacrament.

This, however, is a mistake; because we hold, that intention is ne­

cessary,-not on the part of the administrator, but-on the part of the

recipient. A man who goes to the Lord's table with a right inten­

tion, receives the full benefit of the ordinance, however defective

may be the minister's intention. While a man who goes with a

wrong intention, receives no benefit, however perfect may be the
minister's intention. This shows the soundness of Bishop Burnet's

distinction, that an open mockery of a Sacrament is not a true

Sacrament, but that a concealed mockery of one is a true Sacra­
ment. Because, if a man knew that a certain ceremony was only
performed in mockery of a Sacrament, he could not join in it with
a right intention. But if he were deceived, and thought he was

going to a true Sacrament, it would be a true Sacrament to him,
because his intention would be right, and tbe moral effect produced
upon his mind would be just the same as if the minister's intentions
had been the best possible. Yet a large portion of the Tract in

question is occupied with ridiculing this almost self-evident view
of the matter: and the writer hints at its close, that to receive the

Romish view, is a
" mark of superior enlightenment" !

Nor is this all. For, after quoting, throughout the whole of his

tract, one solitary text of Scripture, (which, as far as it bears at
all upon the question, is directlu against the Doctrine of Intention,)
he concludes with accusing those, who deny it, of want of "respect
for Scriptural teaching" II-The text alluded to is Ezek. iii. 18.
"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou

givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from
his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die

in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." But
to be of any service to his argument, it should have run-" When
I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him

warning, and speokest to warn the wicked from his wicked way,
[but not with the intention] to save his life; the same wicked man shall
die in his iniquity." Whatever loss the man might suffer from the

prophet's fault, resulted from the defectiveness-not of his intention,
but-of his act. If the prophet had given the warning, it would
have been just as likely to take effect upon the person warned,
whether he intended it to take effect or not. The prophet's inten­
tion could neither make it take effect, nor prevent it taking effect;
for, in the very next verse, it is implied, that the prophet might
warn him, and yet the man not turn from his wicked way. So

that, instead of favouring the doctrine of Intention, this passage
inferentially militates strongly against it; by giving rise to the

enquiry, If intention be not necessary to the efficacy of the word,

why should it be necessary to the efficacy of a sacrament?-Yet
to refuse our assent to a doctrine, in support of \Vhich this is the

only text even mentioned, proves us destitute of "respect for
Scriptural teaching" III



z 36

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

GUERILLA WARFARE;

OR, FACTS AND QUESTIONS FOR ROl\lISH CONTROVERSIAL!STSo

No. I. Price Id.

"YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM!"

A SERMON.

Price 2d.

" LECTURES ON UNITARIANISM."

306 Pages. Price 2s.

THE CONFESSIONAL.

A SERMON, PREACHED AT �r. SILAS' CHURCH, LIVERPOOL,

J'an, '22, 1851.

With an Appendix, wherein, by contrasting" A Papist
misrepresented and represented," with her own authorised

standards, Rome is convicted out of her own mouth of

"SPEAKING LIES IN HYPOCRISY," in order to hide her true

character. Price 6d.

A FAREWELL SERMON.

PREACHED AT ST. THOMAS'S CHURCH, PENKH TLL,

STAFFORDSHIRE, Oct. 29, 1848.

Price 6d.

"I vYOULD THOU WERT COLD OR HOT;"

OR, A FEW WORDS TO THE LAODICEANS

OF THE PRESENT DAY.

Price Is.

Sethps,
FLEET STREET, AND HANOVER STREET, LO!\DON.