™^^T?^ ^ ^;^^ w 'Z*^^< V ^. ^ p^ *ir ^ ^tS# IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4^ I 1.0 V^ K£ Itt Ifti 122 I.I US. 11:25 IU1L6 6" \%\\%\U QipoFBtiori SSWHtlMlltttHf P!Ha:^^js! .L.z,^.-^i*^, ^^^ iiij.'ii i' I i"i I'a^t^iiiin'i^ ...■-Atfj:JtWA.ifc>^44l| 1 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CiHi\/i/ICiVIH Collection de microfiches. M Canadian Inatituta far Hiatorioal MIcroraproduetiona / InatHut Canadian da microraproductiona hittoriquat Ttchnicai and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at Mbliograplilqiiaa Tha inatitkta ha« attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia for ffUming. Faaturaa of thia copy whirii may ba biMiographicaHy unique, which may ahar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa tha uauai mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. D D D D D D Coiourad covers/ Couvartura da coulaur r~~\ Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagte Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastaurto at/ou pailiculAa Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua I I Coiourad maps/ Cartaa gtegraphiquas an coulaur Coiourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua biaua ou noira) I I Coiourad platas and/or illuatrations/ Planchaa at/ou illuatrations an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Rali* avac d'autras documents Tight binding may cauaa sf*adows or distortion along intarior margin/ Lar«iiura sarrAa paut causar da I'ombra ou da la diatortion la long da la marga IntAriaura Blank laavas addad during raatoration may appaai within tha taxt. Whanavar poasibia, thaaa hava b^an omittad from filming/ II aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajout^as iora d'Cina raatauration apparaiaeant dma la taxta, maia, lorsqua cala Atait poaaibia, caa pagas n'ont pas 4t« f iimiaa. Additional commanta:/ Commantairas supplimantairaa: Tl tc L'Inatitut a microfilm* hi maiNaur oxamplaira quit iui a 4t* poaaibia da aa procurar. Laa dMaiis da eat axamplaira qui aont paut-Atra uniquae du point da vua bibllographique, qu* peuvant modifier line image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une msKiification dana la mithode normeie de filmege aont indiquAa ci-daaaoua. D D D Coiourad pages/ Pagea de couleur □ Pagea damaged/ Pagea Pagea andommagias Pagea raatorad and/oi Pagea reataurAea at/ou pelliculiea Pages diacolourad, stained or foxei Pages dAcoiorAes, tachattes ou piquAas Pages detached/ Pagea ditachias I — I Pagea raatorad and/or laminated/ 1^ Pages diacolourad, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ Tl P< fil O b4 til al ol fil ai( Ol Showthrough/ Tranaparence I I Quality of print varies/ QualitA InAgala de I'impreaaion Includaa aupplamentary material/ Comprend du matiriai supplAmentaira Only edition available/ Seule Mition diaponible Pagea wholly or partially obacured by errata alipa. tiaauea. etc.. have been ref limed to enaura the best possible image/ Lea pagea totaiament ou partiallement obacurciaa par un feuiHet d'errata, una pelure, etc., ont 4t* fUmAaa i nouveau da fa^on i obtenir la mailkiure image possible. Tl sli Tl M dll er b4 ri| re m This item is filmed at the reduction ratio cheeked below/ Ce document eat film* au taux de rMuotkm indiqu* ei«deaaous. 10X 14X itx 2IX MX lOX 1 3 12X Itx »X MX »X Vi-- -.'k:>L- .; ,Wk4.W TIm cofiy filiiHNi hm* has bMn raproduead thanks to tha ganaroaity of: Library of tha Public Archivaa of Canada Tha imagaa ap'iaarinfl hara ara tha baat quality possibia conaidaring tha condition and laglblllty of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacificatlona. Original copiaa In printad papar covers ara filmad baginning wMi tha front oovar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or iiiustratad impraa- sion, or tha bacic cover whan appropriate. AH othar original copies are f Imed beginning on the first pege with a printad or IHuatrated Imprea- sion, and anding on the laet pege with e printed or iiiustreted impression. The lest recorded frame on eech microfiche slieil contein the symbol -^ (meening "CON- TtlVUED"), or the symbol V (meening "END"), whicliever appllae. IMaps, pistes, clisrts. etc., mey be filmed et - different reduction retioe. Thosu too lerge to be entirely included In one exposure ara filmed beginning In the upper left hand comer, left to rigitt end top to bottom, ea many fremee es required. The following diegrems illustrate the method: 1 2 3 L'exemplaira film* f ut reproduit grice A la g«niroalt« do: La bibilothAque des Archives publiques du Cenede Lae imeges suhrentee ont 4tA reproduites evec le plue grand soln, compta tenu de le condition et do le nettet* de I'exempleire film*, et en conformit* evec lea conditions du contrat de fHmege. Lee exempleires orlglneux dont le couverture en pepier est ImprimAe sent film4s en commenpant par la premier plat et en terminent salt par la damlAre pege qui comporte une empreime d'impresslon ou d'iliustretion, soit par la second plat, selon le ees. Tous les eutres exempiaires origlnaux aont fiimia en comihenvant par le premlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte dimpreaaion ou d'illuatration et en terminent par la damlAre pege qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symboiss suhrents epperettre SUr le demlAre imege de cheque microfiche, seion le ces: le symbols -»- sPgnifIs "A 8UIVRE". le nymboie ▼ signifle "FIN". i.es certes. pienches, tablaeux, etc., peuvent dtre filmte i dee teux de rAduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grsnd pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA. II eet fiimA A pertir de I'angia aupArlaur geuche. de geuclw A drolte, et de iMut en bea. an prenent le nombre d'imegee nAceaaaira. Las diagrammes suivants iiluatrant le mAthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 M£ J. A LETTER TO MEMBERS OF TBE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, BT I. W. D. GRAY, D.D., HECTOR OF THE PARISH OF ST. JOHN, N. B, IN REPLY TO A LETTER FROM EDMUND MATURIN, M. A., IMTE CURATE ST. PAUL'S, UAUFAX, N. S. / SAINT JOHN, N. B., J. & A. McMillan, printbrs, 78, prince william street. 1869. • ♦l t-t-*.*--* ,^^AX^^ ^ cu^^c^ PREFACE. I* . The following remarks upon Mr. Maturin's letter, have been prepared at the request of friends whose wishes the writer has been anxious to meet. They have been penned under many disadvantages, but are committed to the press, in reli- ance upon the blessing of God, and with the hope that, in some small degree, they may promote the cause of Truth. The author has the satisfaction to see that other replies are announced, and trusts that what is deficient in his own, will be supplied by abler pens. k /cP^^^^^A/^.'A^ /ax/ <2^^^Cq jit^ i (^I^uu4i ^-^T'T^^Z^'*-^ U^l^uH-c^^^ 6^va^Ce^ C c^vect to be exempted from the charge of having this object in view. •Sao tbo «' Morning Freeman," March 10th, 1869. 6 His letter, wliicli is Well written, condenses in a stnall com- pass the whole question at issue between the Church of Home and other Chnstiuu communions. The arguments indeed are not new, they liave been employed long since by Bossuet, and other Romish controversialists, and have been refuted as often as they liave been rcjiroduced. There is a large portion of Mr. Matnrin's letter, however, which deals but sparingly in argument, and in which bold assumptions, and confident assertions, are substituted for the reasoning process. lie seems to think that where proofs arc wanting, it is sufficient to tell us, that certain things ire " incoiitrovcrtible faefs," or ''^ have been forever settled," and then to place them, without further ceremony amongst the axioms of Theology. lie for- gets at such times, though at others he is suthciently alive to it, that as Protestants vill use their reason, they must inevi- tably inquire whether these " incontrovertible facts" arc really facts at all, or merely unwarrantable assumptions, with- out any claim to their respect. The opening pages of his letter unfold to us some rather singular matters connected with his personal history. One of the first that arrests our attention is the confession that what he terms his "recent conversion," was in reality a con- version that began in 1840, no less than eighteen years ago ; at Avhich time he was " troubled with doubts as to the true position of the Church of England, and the real character of the Protestant Reformation." In connexion with this disclo- sure, he informs us that his descent, education, and deep- rooted prejudices were all Protestant, and hence would have us to infer that the amount of evidence which overcame them must have been very strong. "We may grant the premises, without admitting the conclusion. Prejudices arising from descent and early education do not always require any great amount of evidence to overcome them. This " earlv educa- tion" is often superficial, and the preposessions connected with it are the result, not of calm inquiry-, but of incidental association. In such cases the very suggestion of a doubt, such as would naturally arise out of the " amicable discus- fiion" with the Romish Priest iii his native Parish,* would ho BiifHcient to shake the previous system of belief. And where the process of " doubting" once begins in a mind " tornientetl with speculative difficulties," there is no saying where it will end. The probability is that impressions previously cherished without investigation, will rapidly yield to those of an oppo- site character. There is " an education of revolt and reaction, as well as of acquiescence and imitation ;" and in passing through this process, enthusiastic tendencies and feelings liave often much more to do with the result, than calm and sober reason. We cannot therefore infer from the fact of Mr. Maturin's antecedent prejudices, that the evidence which overcame them was, abstractedly considered, of an over- whelming nature. In truth the account lie afterwards gives of it proves that it was far, vcrj' tar, from being entitled to this character. A doubter in 1840, what was Mr. Maturin in the befrinnins: of 1841 ? The progress, we admit was " sure and certain," but evidently not " slow and gradual." For at this time his mind was in a great measure divested of all its former preju- dices, those "deep rooted prejudices," which demanded "overwhelming evidence" to subdue them. He now sees "the Catholic system in all its proportions" — "niore beauti- ful when reflected from the light of Christian antiquity." Jlis '• constant companions," what were they ? The " canons and decrees of Trent," which sanction " transubstantiation, penance, extreme unction, the sacrifice of the mass, the celibacy of the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, the invo- cation of saints, the adoration of images and relics, with the idolatrous worship of the virgin." These and the "Komish Missal," were his "constant companions," so highly valued that the "greater part of both was committed to memory." And to these were added "the Rhemish Testament, the Edi- tion of 1582, with "all the origmal notes," those detestable notes which authorize the extemiination of heretics, which sanction the persecuting principles, upon which his Protest- * See Letter, page ISi 8 ant forefathers were " dragooned" and expatriated. No wonder that ho felt a little "perjilexed and exasperated" while he read those execrable comments upon the words of Him, who commanded that very disciple, whom the Romish Church regards as the " Prince of the Apostles," and the first link in the chain of their Primatical rulei-s, to "put np his sword intj the sheath." Still these notes, unchristian as they v.ere, did not revive the "deep-rooted prejudices," which he derived from liis persecuted ancestors. His attach- ment to Rome continued. He attended " Higii Mass in the Church of the Inimacnlate Conception, was deeply impressed with the solomnitx' of the service, the splendour of the cere- monies, the devotion of the worsljippors." In short the im- pulse given to his previous sympathies with Rome, constituted *' a new era in liis religious history."* Slow progress indeed ! And for a mind encunil)cred ''with speculative difficulties !" Slow progress ! Why it was such a jump into " remote con- clusions," such an engulfing of a whole flood of errors, as no- mind could brook, that was not impelled in its course by a distaste for the simplicity of Protestantism, and an eager longing for the gaudy pageantry, and "painted shrines" of her who sits upon the seven hills. What a folly for a man who passed through such an cxi)erience seventeen years ago, to talk of his "recent conversion" to the Church of Rome ! Rut what of 1842? Tn regard to this year, the disclosures are still more extraordinary. We do not wonder, after wliat preceded, to lind him with "Cardinal Wiseman's Lectures," admitting their " reasoning to be conclusive," and the " whole train of argument unanswerable," though we hesitate not to» say that those lectures contain the most palpable sophistries and misrepresentations. We 'do not wonder to tind him approximating the conclusion that "the whole work of the Reformation was an act of Schism," and that " it was the duty of Protestants io return to the unity of the Church." AVe do not wonder to hear from him the confession that " his •pp. 6 7. 9 heart wae essentially Catholic," and that he can give "no satisfactory explanation of the reasons why he did not then become a Catholic." But the marvel, the wonder, the unex- plained mystery is this, how with a heart so wedded to Rome, with such a guide as Cardinal Wiseman, with such a creed as the decrees of Trent," with such an enthusiastic admiration of the Papacy, and such unmitigated dislike of the Refonna- tion, believing it to be based upon two false principles, viz : the sufficiency of Scripture, and the right of private judg- ment, how with such a heart, such a counsellor, such a creed, and such prepossessions, he could suddenly, at the " solicita- tion of his friends,"* subscribe "Exauimo," the Thirty-Nine Articles, which condemn that creed at every step, and become a clergyman of the Church of England, Avhich is based upon the very principles which his soul abhorred. Did sudden illumination burst in upon hi^ mind at this crisis, shewing Inm that the articles of the Church of England were right, and the decrees of Trent wrong ? that Cardinal "Wiseman's reasonings were fallacious ? that the reformation was a good work, and the Church of England based upon a true founda- tion ? Did such a transition suddenly take place in his views, or did it not ? If it did, why not candidly tell us so, and give us the evidence which such a fact would aftbrd, as to the perpetual vacillations of his mind, and the worth of his present convictions ? If it did not, then let him explain how, with an upright heart and clear conscience, he could subscribe to the doctrines of our church, wbile he held the doctrines of the Papacy ; how he could openly profess one creed, and hold another ; how he could stand before man as a Protestant minister, while before God he was a Roman Catholic ; how he could derive his support from a church which he regarded as schismatical and heretical, for whoso principles he had no respect, and in whose foundation ho had no coniidonce ? From 1842 to the latter part of 1858, Mr. Maturin contin- ued to exercise the office of a clergyman in the Church of • pp. 8-ia. 10 i England, holding successively several curacies in Ireland^ and, for the last sevon years, that of St. Paul's at Halifax. The question which every honest mind naturally asks in regard to that period is, wJiat were his convictions then f Were they consistent with his continuance in that position, or were they not? And to this he replies: '■^During all that time my mind was never free from, its former difficulties, though they were seldom of such a nature as to occasion much serious embarrass- ment."* During all this period he had doubts as to the posi- tion of the Church in which ho ministered, and in reference to the necessity for an infallible guide ; but he never divulged these doubts to any one, "knowing, (as he says, and the assertion is certainly a strange one) that they could receive no satisfactory answer, and that it would only tend to produce suspicions, destroy confidence, and injure his U8efulness."t All this betrays the inwai'd consciousness that his position in the Church of England was a false one, and that a candid acknowledgment of his A^ews would have rendered his posi- tion untenable. And this becomes more obvious in looking at the account he gives of his studies at this time, and the conclusions to which they led him. Prior to his final review of . " Romish Controversy he had been engaged it appears, " in tne Historical investigation of the doctrines of the Church of Home." He wished to trace in the works of the ancient fathers, the origin and progress of each particular dogma of that Church, and to ascertain "/Ac real amount of evidence which might be justly claimed for it in primitive antiquity.^X An important investjigatiou ! What was the issue of it ? It Avas found tedious, uncertain, unsatisfactory? Tedious no doubt, but why uncertain ? why unsatisfactory ? The admissions of Mr. Maturin upon this point, no less than his ioasonings in regard to them, are worthy of note. He grants, that there is " sometimes a difficulty in tracing up each particular point by direct testimony to the times of the Apostles,"§ and " that it would be easy to select passages from their writings appar- ently inconsistent with the Catholic view of any doctrine, •p. 12. fp. 13. tp. 14. 5 p. 16. 11 \)efove it was clearly defined by the Church."* It is obvious, from these concessions that the Fathers did not answer Mr. Maturin's purpose. They were silent where he wanted them to speak, loquacious where he wished them to be silent. He npologises,' however, for these defects. Their silence he accounts for partly by the fact that there was no controversy iy^en, upon the doctrines that now divide the Church. But we do not need controversy to bring out the positive doc- trines of the Church. Controversy elicits the Church's pro- test against heresy. If there were no heresies there v/ould be no controversies : if no controversies no protests. But the articles of faith, which the Chui'ch holds are independent of such protests. They are necessary to be known and believed in at all times, whether there is controversy or whether there is none. The absence of controversy there- fore would not accou?it for the absence from the writings of the Fathers of anv articles of faith which the Church reallv held. But again, says Mr. Maturir.^ some of their writings are lost, and it would not be " possible to make out a chronO' logical table of the progress of Roman doctrine from such iiliperfect notice, unless we arc sure that we now have all the writings of all the primitive Fathers, and that every one of them gives a complete view of the whole Catholic system, recognised by the Church in his own time."t Xo doubt it Would be a difficult thing to make out from the primitive Fathers "a chronological table of the pro(jiress of RonMn doc- trine." The doctrines of the Primitive Church were station- ary, fixed ; those of the Church of Rome are progressive. She holds doctrines now v.'hich were unheard of then. There- fore from the writings of the early Fathers you cannot make out a tablte of the progress of Roman doctrine. Nor would it be more practicable to do so if the writings of the first Chris- tians had come down to us entire. This is obvious from the fact that those writings which we have, contain summaiies of the Christian faith, which shew what the belief of the Church upon all fundamental points was at that time, and * p. 19. f p. 16. 12 in these summaries tlie peculiar dogmas of the Homish Church are not to be found. But this is not all. The evi- dence against Romish doctrine from the early Christian writers is not only negative. Their works contain passa- ges which are not merely " apparently" but absolutely incon- sistent with Romish views. How is this difficulty to I j sur- mounted? The answer is truly characteristic. Xot, says Mr. Maturin, by considering what they may mean in the abstract, but what they must mean "when interpreted by facts in the history of the Chiistian Church."* This is cer- tainlv a new canon in the laws of verbal criticism. You want to test the authority of certain doctrines, to know whether they have the sanction of antiquity, or not. Yo»i go to ancient writers to ascertain it, and find their testimony against them. But then comes the canon. You must inter- pret the testimony by the fasts. The words abstractedly mean that the doctrines are wrong; but you must coustruo the Avords by the facts, and believe them to mean that they are right. And how are the facts to be traced ? " By appeal- ing," says Mr. Maturin, " to the doctnne of the Catholic Church iji every ago." In other words ass(tm,c that the dd^- mas of the Council of Trent, are the doctrines of the Catho- lic Church in every age ; cull them facts ; caiTy them up to test the writings of the primitive Fathers, and whatever these Fathers may say to the contrary, you must believe them to mean what accords with these dogmas. Would it be credited, if we had it not under the attestation of his own hand, that by this wretched sophistry, Mr. Maturin was led to adopt his present views of the Pope's supremacy ? *•' Formerly" hf tells us it appeared to him that the most striking passages in tlie early writers might be explained with reference to the Apostolic origin of the Koraan Church, or the dignity of the Imperial city ; but he found such an liypothcsis quite incon- sistent with facts, and consequently ho was obliged to abandon it."t But let us observe the application of this canon to a very •p. 19. fp. 19. 18 remarkable testimony, that of Gregory the Great. In writing to tlie Bishop of Constantinople, who had assumed the title of Universal Bishop^ Gregory used the following language : " What wilt thou say to Christ, the Head of the Univer- sal Church, in the trial of the last Judgment, who, by the appellation of ' Unicersal,' dost endeavor to subject all his members to thee ? Whom, I pray, dost thou mean to imi- tate in so perverse a word, but him, who despising the legions of angels constituted in fellowship with him, did endeavour to break forth unto the summit of singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over all ? Who also said, 'I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars ? For what are thy brethren, all the Bishops of the Universal Church, but the stars of Heaven ? To whom while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself, and to trample on their name in comparison to thee, what dost thou say, but, ' I will climb into heaven ?'* In another Epistle he says, " Avhoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or desires to be so called, doth in his elation forerun anti-Christ, because he doth proudly set himself before all others."t !Novv here is a plain, unequivocal testimony from the Bishop of Rome himself, and that Bishop one of the most learned and pious that ever presided over that See, a man of deep humility and spirituality of mind ; and what is that testimo- ny ? — Why that lohosoever called himself " Universal Bishop" was, in the pride which ho evinced, the imitator of Satan and the forerunner of Antichrist. Gregoiy makes no excep- tions in favor of himself or the See of St. Peter ; but repels, by one sweeping denunciation, the idea of such an assump- tion, as Satanic and anti-Christian. How is this testimony to be evaded? Why, according to Mr. Maturin, we must not believe this to be his meaning. The woi-ds indeed are plain : the sense of them is perfectly obvious ; but still they must mean something else, because " Such an interpretation is di- rectly contrary to his own acts and claims as the successor of St. Peter."J In other words, assume that he was " the suc- * Lib. iv. Ep : 38. f Lib. vi. Ep. 30. t p> 20. 14 cessor of St. Peter :" assume that as his successor he had a claim to be "Universal Bishop:" assume that his acts as Bishop of Eome are a recognition of that claim ; and then, let him say what be will: let him disclaim the title ever so earnestly : let him denounce the assumption of it ever so in- dignantly, his words must be understood to mean something else ; in short to mean that the title which he regarded as anti-Christian and Satanic, was the very one which he de- signed to claim as his own. " The supremacy of the Pope," scys Mr. Maturin, " as well as all other Roman doctrines, stand before us in a promi- nent view, as striking facts in the theological system of the Ancient Church." We are compelled to meet this statement by a direct and positive denial. The supremacy of the Pope does not stand before us a fact in the theological system of the Ancient Church. So fiir from it, the absence of that su- premacy is as palpable in the Early Church, as the existence of the Church itself. The earliest phase under which the Churches of Christendom are presented to us in Ecclesiasti- cal History, is that in which each Church was governed by its own Clergy, and formed its own regulations. As Christianity extended and Churches were multiplied, it became customary for several Churches to combine together, forming an Ecclesiastical Confederacy, having their Synods or Assemblies composed of Clergy and Laity, and choosing their own President; and this, up to the time of Con- stantino, appeal's to have been the extent to which Eccle- Mastical regimen was carried. When that Monarch ascended the throne, a new order of things was introduced. For the purposes of political Government, the whole Empire of Rome was divided into four Prcefectures ; each of theee Pnefectures into several Biooeses, and each Diixiese again into Provinces ; and, as the general rule, tlie Church followed the divisions of territory that existed in the State. The Clergy of a Province, formed Provincial Synods presided over by the Bishop of tho Metropolis, who was styled Metropolitan. The Clergy of a Diocese composed Diocesan Synods, and were presided over by the Bishop of the chief city of the Diocese, under the titlo • » 15 1 of Exarch. But these Metropolitans and Exarchs, and the Synods over which they presided, acknowledged no " uni- versal Bishop," to whom they were ameuahle. They held their Councils, ordained their Bishops, decided upon appeals, and corrected heresies, without any reference to a foreign Prelate. So far from such a supremacy heing recognized iu the Bishop of Rome, his jurisdiction was, for a season, more limited by far, than that of the Oriental Exarchs. The Council of Chalcedon indeed conferred upon him the titla of Exarch ; but prior to this, he had not the charge of an entire Diocese. His jurisdiction did not extend beyond his Vica- rage, or ten suburbican districts ;* nor is there any instance of his ordaining Metropolitans beyond those limits until the time of Valentinian m., who passed a decree in 445, co»stitu- ting the Bishop of Rome head of the Western Church. At a la- ter period (a. D. 606,) the Emperor Phocas, a wicked Prince who had murdered his predecessor, completed the work by grant- ing to Boniface III., then Bishop of Rome, the title of " Uni- versal Bishop." And here, let interested parties affirm what they may, is the origin of " Papal Supremacy" — a human not a divine origin, a derivation as worldly, as political, as if it rested on the power of Henry VIII., or a modern Act of Parliament. That Supremacy is not a fact belonging to the Early Church. The Apostolic Fathers do not assert it. The Apostolical Canons do not sustain it. The Apostolical con- stitutions say nothing about it; and the Christian Church lived three centuries in a state of persecution, and three more in prosperity, without recognizing any such claim on the part of the Bishop of Rome. The great test of Catholic doctrine proposed by St. Vin- centius, can be of little use, in this instance, to the cause of Romanism. If what has been acknowledged " in all places at all times, and by all persons," has alone the claim to Catholic- ity, then it is obvious that the Supremacy of the Pope is not a Catholic doctrine; for unless by "all times" we mean/rowi * Theeo were Campaniii, Apulia, Lucanit, Hetruria, Umbria, Picenum, 8ubur> bicu'uiia, Sicily, Sardinia and Valeria. mmmmmmmm 16 tJu! Gthf to the 16th ccntwy, and by " all places," the ten mburhU can districts of Rome ; and by " all persons," all, with the exclusion of nine tenths of Christendom for six centuries, and of the Geeeky Oriental and Protestant Churches, in later times, we certainly cannot accommodate this celebrated rule to the Pope's Supre- macy. The doctrines of the Church of England as comprised in the three ancient creeds, can bear the scrutiny of this rule, but as to the creed of Pope Pius the JEV, it can no more stand the test of it than the creed of Mahomet can. Does not Mr. Maturin see, that by laying down such a rule as the test of Catholic doctrine, Vincentius utterly ignores the pretensions of the Pope as final Judge in Ecclesiastical causes ? " Why should he send men to the Fathers to search for his three ingredients of universality, antiquity and consent, when a course so much more short and easy lay before him ? By what a singular stupidity should he have omitted to tell the Church, that the only thing required to avoid heresy was to abide by the decisions of the vicar of Christ ; whom God had appointed like the Urim and Thummim of ancient Israel, to resolve every doubt and settle every controversy."t Surely it is a bold and unwarranted assertion of Mr. Maturin, that the historical testimony of Christianity is opposed to the Protestant system. The historical testimony of the best and purest ages, is in full accordance with that system, but directly opposed to that of Rome, in all its peculiar features. From the investigation of history, Mr. Maturin next turned to the examination of " the great principles of Catholic Unity and Church authority, in connexion with the principles of the Mng- lish Reformation."* But surely with a mind ill prepared to investigate those principles impartially ; tor long before this as is plain from the statement he immediately subjoins, he had conceived the stixingest prejudices against the most eminent of the English Reformers. Cranmer in his cstima- mation was an "unhappy man;" and his writings full of "inconclusive reasonings," " perverted quotations, and abu- sive language." Ridley's arguments not much better, sus- <( * p. 21. f See Hopkin'e on the Church of Roi tint 17 taincd by "detached passages from the Fathers, mostly spurious and doubtful." Jewel and the other Keformers in the same category, advocates of theories instead of facts, of a system of religious doctrine and Church History, which never existed but in their own imagination. And as to Uaher, Laud, Chillingworth, Taylor, BaiTOvv, Stillingflcet and others, they had the great merit, a merit however quite con- sistent with being advocates of theories instead of tacts, of improving the general tone of Protcstanl conlrovcrsij.* As Mr. Maturin has not furnished us with any specilication of tho " inconclusive reasonings," " perverted quotations," and "de- tached passages — mostly spurious and doubtful," of which ho complains, wo must wait for further information from him upon the subject ; but, in the mean time, it is truly wonder- ful to reflect that such views of the Keformers and eminent Divines of tho Church of England, were the views of a man who was, at the very time when he entertained them, a Cler- gyman of that Church, deriving his support from the membra of it, and appearing before them from Sunday to Sunday in the Pulpit of St. Paul's as the champion of Protestant prin- ciples. St. Liguori tells us upon the authority of those whom he deems strict moralists, that " it is lawful prudently to conceal the truth under some dissimulation;"! but we should hardly have expected to find this maxim acted upon by one, whose apparent devotedness to God, and spirituality of mind, 80 fully authorized the expectation of better things. But the crisis was now at hand. In pursuing the personal history of Mr. Maturin, we next arrive at that critical period "the last few months" when "Providential circumstancoa (what we are not told) led to the reconsideration of the vvholo controversy with Kome."| And who were Mr. Maturin'g companions thou ? They were Romish controversialists, Car- dinal Wiseman, Bossuet and Milner, together with tho • PP.-22, 23. j- Licet tHtnen vcritatcm orcultarc pruilcntcrsubaliqua diuimulationc, ut Augua tinuB (licit, in lib contra Mcnda. ♦ p. U. ff mmmmm Sn^tsh and Americao perverts — Ives, Manning, Kewmafi^ ko. " These works" says Mr. Maturin, " together with the Jloly Scriptures and the Christian Fathers, formed the principal sub- jects of my studies during that eventful period, and through them, under the blessing of God, I was led to the conviction that it was my duty to renounce all connexion with Protestantism and to trans- fer my allegiance to the Catholic Church."* Thus the man who doubted in 1840 — who in 1841, could find little comfort in Protestant worehip, and was obliged to seek it in the ceremonies of High Mass ; who in 1842, viewed "the whole work of the lietbrmation as an act of schism;" who with this impression, took orders in the Church of Eng- land and still remaining under these impressions, continued to Minister in that Church for sixteen years, studying the Fathers to find out Romun doctrines, and then laying them aside as unsatisfactory because they did not speak as he wished, treating the Reformers with contempt, and the English divines of the 17th century with respectful indifier^ ence ; and finally, under the determination to surmount all difficulticij, surrendering himself in 1859, into the hands of Wiseman — Manning — Newman and Ives, took at last the leap which for seventeen years he had been longing to do, by openly uniting himself with the Church of Rome. That such a process, pursued by such a mind, and under the direction of such guides, should issue in such a result, was only what any intelligent person accustomed to trace the connexion between cause and efiect might have announced beforehand. The sagacious Priest in Mr. Maturings native Parish foresaw the issue of it when it was only beginning. In the spirit of the " amicable discussion," he read the tendencies of his mind many years before, and foretold at a subsequent date that " he would ultimately become a Catholic." But now comes the important query—What was Mr* Maturin doing while pursuing this rigorous course of inves- tigation ? Was he exercising his private judgment or not ? iphe question presented itself to his own mind ; "/< may bs ,11!! 19 fTewmafi^ t the Holy dpal sub- ugh thertif hat it was i to trans- 41, could )bliged to 2, viewed Bchiam;" ih of Eng- continued dying the ym^ them lak as he , and the il indifter- rmount all i bands of It last the j; to do, by That such e direction only what connexion >eforehand. ish foresaw he spirit of of his mind t date that t was Mr* •96 of inves- mt or not? "/< may be ^aid uideedj that in all this process of inquiry, I was aciing on the very principle of private judgment, which I hold lobe so dangerous io the interests of true religion."* Yes uudoubtedlj^ it may be so said, and so said with truth. And what has Mr. Maturin to say in reply ? Strange as it may seem, his first answer is, that he was "justified on Protestant principles in theexercist of such a right."\ Protestant principles I What has he to do with them ? lie renounced them as far back as the year 1841, having even then reached the conclusion that this right of private judgment was, in fact, no right at all, that it was a usurpation of the prerogative of the Church. But in using here the "argumentum ad hominem," does Mr. Maturin mean to confess, that during all this long process of investigation which lasted eighteen years, he was indeed exercising his private judgment upon Scriptures — Fathers— r and Controi'crsial writers, and that it was by acting on this Protestiint principle, "so dangerous" as he conceives, "to the interests of true religion," that he was conducted through all the labyrinths of doubt and perplexity to the Church of Rome ? Such an admission would never do ; — it would violate Catholic principles, and vitiate the whole process, by which he arrived at his present position. A distinction must there- fore be drawn. " There is a wide diflerence he says between the exercise of personal responsibility, and private judgment. Catholics strongly hold the one, while they utterly deny the other."! Is it possible that such an answer can satisfy on ingenuous mind ? Does Mr. Maturin mean to say that when he read the Fathers and the Scriptures, he substituted la liability for a mental j>ro(?cw« ? that he did not reason and draw coyiclusions ; but merely realized the fact that he was responsible to his Maker ? that his judgment was in abeyance^ his conscience awake ? It would seem incredible that such airsonal rcyjonsil/iliti/ without tlio hinifid process solve the problems tliat ]>resent themselves to his mind ? 7\<;ain. " IJcrn^ indicidiud is hound to examine the erithnres of rdif/ion, wdh the sincere desire of join- ing that Church irhich he l)eJieKcs in his conscience to hare the strongest claims to dirine a(tthorit)/." We ask aijain — can he do this without the exercise of private jndi»ment? prirate we say emi>hatically, for he is now in search of the true Ouirch, and cannot submit himself to its authority before he has found it; ^' prirate" we say once more, for he is to pursue this inves- tigation " with a deep sense of his accounfafjiliiij to God for his decision." The decision tben is his, the judgment is his own, and therefore is neither more nor less than his ^^jmirite Judgment, and that '•'■prirate judgment," exercised, as it was in Mr. Muturin's case, upon the Holy Scriptures, the Chi'istian Fathers, and all the writings of theologians and controver- tialists, from the Epistles of Clement down to the Lectures of Cardinal Wiseman, or the lucubrations of Bishop Ives. Ko stronger attestation to the right of private judgment could he given, than is to be found in the principles which Mr. Maturin here lavs down for the guidance of those who aro seeking for the Church of Christ. And if it be suiliclent to carry a man through the laltyriuths of complicated inquirj which such an investigation demands, it may well suthco to conduct him under tlto blessing of God to the discovery of all essential truth in his sacred word. Mr. Miiturin next touches upon another critical point, the inconsistency of his own conduct in contemplating union with Rome, while retaining his position in the Church of • p. 24. 21 Eii2:Iancl. "It ma}' be tliou2;ht," lie says, "vciy strange and MU'onsistcnt tliat I should soriously tliink of sueli a step, while still eugaj^ed in the service of tlio English Chnrch, and supposed to hold and teach her evangelical doctrines in all their Scrli>tural jmrity."* That it is thought "very strange and inconsistent," is a mutter of fUct that no one questions. That the explanation of the caption. lie suggests, indee/ he did not then hrcomc a Catholic, except the want of a more full conviction of the Divine origin of the Church," a conviction which he very speedily afterwards fippears to liave arrived at. What then is his defence ? Why that ho held "all Roman doctrine," as a mattor oi private opinirM, not as an article of faith, and that he did not teach it, though stronefhi inclined, to do so.f What he did teach, was, the doc- trines common to both, "the verv doctrines of Grace which we loved to hear from the faithful preachers of the Gospel in the Church of Etigland.'J The Church of England teaches that original sin exteueai'S to think he has closed up every avenue to a reply, by denying that it was in the visible Church which rejected it, the invisible which was not in existence, or the Uible, because the Church had not found it there.f In answer to this combination of erroi^s, it might suiliceto. ask tlie Roman Catholic, where was your church before ('cUbacy was made binding? where before Purgatory was made an artielo of Faith? where before the Sacrament was obliged to be aduiinistered in one kind? or the Immaculate concep- tion put into the Creed? These dogmas were certairly not articles of faith in the Visible Church then, and much less in the Invisible; and, as to the Bible, no Church on cartli ever •p. 29. tP' 29. 25 found them there. But waviiiir these demoiiua which are quite as reasonable as that wliich Mr. Mattirin 8ng£2:cst8, wo reply unhesitatina:ly that all the css(!ntial8 of the Protestant System of Religion have been written as with a sunbeam upon the pages of revelation, from the very commencement of Christianity. The Church of the primitive ages found them there, professed them atul embodied them in their Creeds. In after times and long antecedent to the days of Luther, faithful christians who were persecuted unto the death by the Church of Rome, embraced them cordially, and proterred to endure the rack and the torture, rather than purchase life and worldly comforts by the sacrifice of what was incompar- ably more dear to them, the favour of God and hope of eternal glory. And within the bosom of the Church of Rome itsolf, there were no doubt, cliildren of God, who rose superior to Ium' corruptions, loving and obeying tl:oir Saviour, and sustaining by those very principles which Prot 'stants profess, the life of God in tlieir souls. There- fore to the so-called "unanswerable question of where wan your Church, or religious system before the days of Luther?" we reply with Jerome "the trhr Cnuacu was THERE wtiEiiE THE TRUE FAITH #AS." " It docs uot depend upon walls but ujjou the truth of its doctrines."* Heresy may get possession of the one, but it is forever excluded from the other. As to the persons who were styled I*i'otes- tants because, at the time of the Reformation they protested against the errors of Rome, they had previously been a jiart of that visible body which professed to believe in Christ, but which was marred and disfigured bv heretical dogmas and corrupt morals, both of them fostered and piultiplied under the baneful influence of Papal Supremacy. When it pleased God to shed down upon them the influences of Ilis Holy Spirit, they saw by degrees His blessed truth on the one hand, * Ef'o'.csiii non ])nriotil)UH consistil, hi'U in clogrniituni vcrilatc. Ei'clcsio ilii est ubi njrs viTu CHt, CuttTum iiiitu antics quinderim nut vijrinti, piirictlcs j." But surely the injperfoction of his vision in the tirst instance did not vitiate the subsequent pcri'cction of it, or militate against the fact that the work was the irork of God. As to the charge that Pro- testant principles lead to Intidelity, we reply that this is not their legitimate tcndonc_y. Every principle, that of private judgment among others, may be abased, and when abused lead to evil results, tliosc results being chargeable not upon the principle, but upon the abase of it. But if the evil eft'ects of that principle were as great as the desires of Mr. Maturin could make them; if the rationalism of Germany were altO' gethcr the result of it, without deriving any of its strength from the reaction of Papal superstition, still that rationalism is but a fraction ii\ comparison of the wide spread Infidelity which prevails in France, Italy, Spain and South America, and where it is exclusively the legitimate issue of Popery. As to (iibbon, it is obvious that his conversion to Popery at the age of sixteen bv reading the works of Parsons the Jesuit, and his renunciation of Popery a year and a half afterwards, upon discovering the irrational character of its doctrines, paved the way tor the Infidelity which lie after- wards displayed, the work being completed in all probability, by his acquaintance with the French writers of the School of Voltaire, and his intimate association with French Society and manners at a time when, in that Konum Catholic country, democracy and irreligion were the order of the day. It is wonderful certainly to mark the ccmiplacent calmness with which Mr. Maturin informs us that the Church of Kome "has proved her divine origin by the uninterrupted anitij of doctrine, and the i>erfect eonsistcnetj of all its parts with each other, which she has constantly maintained at every period of her existence." If there is a Visible Church on earth that has openly, palpably and grievously violated the unity of the faith it is the Church of Rome. She has had Popes that have been heretics of the most flagrant character, whoso 29 decretaU have given sanction to the grossest errors. Sho has had Councils that have issued decrees in contradiction to tlie PopfiS; aiid in contradiction to cacli other. And slic has a creed only three centuries ohl, sanctioned hy Pope and Council, which has added to the Primitive faith of the Church in many essential points, and contradicted that faith in many others. Unity in doctrines! find it where you may, you never can discover it in the liistory of the Church of Home. A distinction is drawn, hy Mr. Matuiin, hetween the Jbat '>ilrodiicUon of a doctrine, and the osing, however that these were not among the fadii of history, and that the suppression of Monasteries was resolved upon merely to gratify the rapacity of Henry, upon whom does the respon- Bibility rest? To ascertain this we must remember that Henry was born and brought up in the Romish Church, that he received from the Pope the title of "Defender of the Faith,'' u 84 i for writing against the doctrines of Lntlier, and at the very time when he committed the sins which Mr. Maturin charges him with, " retained," as he says, with the exception of Papal Supremacy, *^ every Article of the Catholic Creed." It is evi- dent then that Romanism, and not Protestantism, is respon- sible for his delinquencies. And we may here add, what it is very essential to note, viz. : that however had Henry may have been, it cannot atfcct the nature of the work which lie accomplished : it cannot prove that Romanism was sound, or that the Refomiation was otherwise than the work of God. In eft'ecting his designs, whether of Judgment or of Mercy, God employs bad instruments as well as good ones, and over- rules the ambitious projects of the former, as well as holy motives of the latter, for the promotion of his own glo y. The great obstacles to the Reformation of the Church, having been removed in the time of Henry, the work itself Was commenced in earnest in the reign of his successor. The first thing attended to Was the public service. A primary object with Cranmer and his fellow-labourers was to furnish their countrymen with an English Liturgy freed from the errors and superstitions that abounded in the Latin ritual. For the accomplislimont of this design the King, in the second year of his reign, appointed the Archbishop, with other Bishops and Divines, to draw up an order for public Worship, based upon Holy Scripture and Primitive usage. In the execution of this work Cranmer and his associates proceeded Avith much caution. They consulted the dilferent usages of Sarum, York, Bangor, Hereford and Lincoln. These they reduced to uniformity and drew up from them, a form of Prayer in English, which is commonly called the lirst Prayer Book of Edward VI. This work was an important step in the right direction, but it was still imperfect. The authors of it had excluded many superstitious practices that were embraced in the Latin ritual, but they had left others that were objectionable and which required to be removed. Ac- cordingly in 1552, a further revision was carried into effect, objectionable ceremonies and prayers were removed, and important additions made, by which the Book of Common 1 85 Pmycr was brought ndarly to its present form. The next Htep in the work of Reformation was the drawing np a series of Articles of religion as a standard of belief upon certain leading points, for the members of the English Church. The order of the King and Council for this work was issued in 1551. The draft of them when made was laid before the Council, then revised by the Archbishop, then sent for inspec- tion o Cecil and the .six Royal Chaplains, and finally returned to the Council accompanied by a petition that they would obtain an order for their being subscribed by the clergy, an order which was issued by the King in 1553 shortly before his death. These Articles originally forty-two in number, Avere afterwards reduced to thirty-nine, and were essentially the same as those which now constitute the " Confession of Faith" in the Church of England. And now let us ask what urc Mr. Matiirin's objections to these measures ? His charges against them are, that while these formularies contained important alterations and variations of doctrine, " none of them received the sanction of the Church in Convocation," and that " rigorous measures were adopted with the Bishops and Clergy who refused to acknowledge the validity of them." Alterations in doctrine they certainly did contain, but unlike the changes which have been made in the creed of the Church of Rome, they were for the better and not for the worse ;* and if these alterations were not at that time passed in Convocation, they were at all events sanctioned by both houses, after the final revision of the Liturgy in 1661. In regard to the forty-two Articles the probability is just the reverse of what Mr. Maturin states. They were originally published in connexion with a Catechism which did not receive the sanction of Convocation, and Burnet was led perhaps from this circumstance to doubt their having been * Among the ailditiong were the General ConfeRsion, the Absolution, and the Commandments in the Communion Service — also a rubric in regard to kneeling •t the Ss'-ranient, denying any adoration or acknowledgment of the Corponal presence. Among the things excluded were. " Extreme Unction, Prayers for the Dead, Circular Wafers, Exorcisms, Trine Immersions in Baptism and private Confessions, &c. hi 86 Biibmitted to that body. But the title prefixed to tlicm was "Articles as^reed on in the last Convocation of London, A. D., 15o'2, by the Bishops and other learned men." This title was published both in Latin anended. This was prior to the publication of the lirst Book of Edward. Another was held in 154'J, after the lirst Liturijv was brouy-ht into use. / « ■ •/ CD The necessity for such a visitation was obvious. For though the new IServicc had b^en formed with so much skill and moderation that it Avas dilHcult for Bomanists to object to it, and nearlv the whole bodv of the clergy laid aside tlio liomish ritual, yet there were many of them that contrived virtualli/ to retain it. Whoever will be at the pains to examine into the facts connected with these Koyal A^isiUitions, and to mark what the ceremonies were wliicli the visitors were directed to restrain, will see at once the necessity which exis- ted for such a process.! That the Second Service Book of • Strype men : Craiiincr, 207. |Uurtirt records Kome of them in Iho injunctions givcii io the Visitors — viz. — " That no Minister do counterfeit the Popisli Mass, as to kiss the Lord's Tahle^ waslting his lingers at every time in the Communion, blessing his ryes with tlie pntcn or sudary, or eros-sing his head with the paten, sliiftingof the hook from one place to another, laying down and iicliing ,the chalice of the Communion . holding up his fingers, hands or thumbs joined towards \\ia temples; breathing upon thu bread or chalice, shewing the Su'.'ramcnt o)icnly before the distri'tution of the Communion; ringing of saoriiig bells, or setting any light upon the Lord's board at any time; and finally to use no other ceremonies than are appointed in tlu* King's Book of Common Prayers, or kneeling otherwise than is in the eamt) UooL"— list.: Kcform: Records IL SSC. 87 Edward should have been loss acccptahle to Romanists than the first is not to be wondered at. It struck more decidedly at the evils of their system, removing a variety of supersti- tious ceremotues to which the people were habituated, and from some of which the ecclesiastics derived no small emolu- ment. Hence a determined opposition to it vas shewn, and a loud complaint raised a.<;ainst the Ucforma+ion as the source of constant changes. Amongst the opposcrs of the Xew Liturgy there were some doubtless who were swayed by feel- ings of personal interest, but others, we may presume who were actuated by conscientious nu^tives, and whose firmness, as in the cases of Gardiner, Heath and Dav, was wortl.v' of a better cause. It does not however appear that the measures adopted against the Bishops and Clergy who refused to acknowledge the validity of these changes were characterized by any peculiar severity ; especially when we bear in mind that they occurred in an au'e when the rights of conscience were but feebly recognized, and the principles of toleration, as they prevail at the present day, were utterly unknown. Passins: by the reign of Mary with the single remark that *' the Catholic religion was restored for a short time," Mr. Maturin, arrives at the period when the reformed Church of England was legally established on its present foundation, by Queen Elizabeth in 15o9, and which ho tells us "was effected by the enactment of those two famous Statutes, the Act of Supremacy, and the Act of Uniformif)/." To the srtate- ment that the Keformcd Church of England was legally estab- lished at that time, and that the Statutes referred to were the chief enactments by which it wa« recognized as the National Church, we have no desire to object. But from what we meet with on a subsequent page, it is plain that he means us to understand, that these Acts of Parliament are the sole foundation on which it stands. To this wo do object, as an insinuation that has not a shadow of truth to sustain it. As a National Establishment, the Church of England rests «pon Acts of Parliament, but as a branch of the Church of Christ, she rests upon " the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." 38 This distinction if kept In view, will sliow the fallacy of the inference he afterwards draws, that the Church of England is only " part and parcel of the State, the creation of Man and not of God;" an inference as destitute of any solid basis, a» the assertion of it is devoid of modesty and candour. In regard to the Bill for the restoration of the English Liturgy, Mr. Maturin's remark would lead us to infer that Convocation was against it, FarUawcnt against it, the Nation against it, and yet by some mysterious influence, it passed into a law. There is no doubt that the preparations for a new Parliament at the commoueemcnt of Elizabeth's reign, were made in conformity with the bad precedents of recently preceding reigns, and that ever}- expedient was employed, that of creating new peers among the rest, to ensure a Majority in Parliament. There is no doubt also, as the whole Episcopacy of England at that time consisted only of sixteen Bishops, eleven of wham had been advanced to that position by Mary, because they were zealous Papists, and, of the remjilning Jive three had lost preferment in Edward's time for the same reason, and two had always been Papists though more ready to comply with existing laws than their brethren, that the voice of the ]"]piscopal Bench, whether in Convoeation or in Parliament, would be against the changes that were now proposed. But of whut value was the vote of such a body of Ecclesiastics, in opposition to the will of the more enlightened portion of the Nation, including the best informed of the Laity, as Avell as Ecclesiastical persons of eminent piety who had been deprived of their livings under the preceding reign if When the Liturgy Bill was iirst intro- duced into Parliament, it was felt that information upon the subject was required, and action upon it was suspended until this could be obtained. With a view to this it was deter- mined at the Council Board, that a public conference should be held upon certain leading articles between the Komanists and Reformers ; all the arguments on both sides to be sub- mitted in writing. After consultation with his brethren Archbishop Heath submitted the names of four Bishops and four other ecclesiastics of professional eminence as disputants f IC 39 on the Romish shle. On that of the Reformers, an equal number was selected, amongst whom were Jewel, Grindal and Home. The disputants met in Westminster Abbsy (the Privy Council and Members of Parlirnent being present) to discuss the question whetlier it was not against the Word of God, and the custom of the Ancient Church, to use a Tongue unknown to the people in the Common Prayers and administration of the Sacraments. No sooner had thev t' assembled than Bishop White of Winchester announced that they had not brought their arguments in writing, but that one of their number would state extemporaneously the reasons for retaining a foreign language in the Liturgy. This was a violation of the rule of the Conference. Nevertheless a long and vehement speech from Dr. Cole, Dean of St. Paul's was listened to, in which references to authorities were mingled with violent abuse of the Retbrmers, and the conclusion arrived at that nothing was more inex2>edie:it than to bring down religious rites to the level of vulgar understandings, iimsmuch as ignorance was the mother of devotion. When Dr. Cole had cuueluded, his associates were asked whether they had anything more to say — and ui)on their answering in tiie Dcgative, tUc Reformers were called upon. Home, afterwards liislnqt of Wincheetcr, lirst solemnly invoking the guidance of G'^IV Siiirit, read a calm scholarlike paper, set- ting forth \h Scripture a unfokied ii' oaiiing for' fe Ujecf. ..jt* uy ;icingterms, the arguments deducible from lie enrlv Christian writers. The evidence ft' . ])iiper, produced a very deep impression, nurnjur of approbation at the conclusion of i)p?< then said thiy liad more to urge upon the r!njl»it- them to do so, it was agreed that Cole's ,»,:•;••' . ijis li(»u ' be committed to writing, with any addi- »H'u >utter th'-'v might choose to supply, and handed to the R. r !s, who should furnish them, on the other hand, witii u co»»v of the [»aper read by Home. A future day to hear the i .rtUer discussion of these matters was to be appoin- ted, and in the mean time it was agreed that they should meet on the following Monday, to discuss a second question, viz, ^'■u'lu'lher every church has not authorUjj to appoint, change^ 40 and take away ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites, so that the same he done to edification." At the time named, the disputants met. The Lord Keeper Bacon, acted as President, together with the Romish Archbishop Heath. The Bishops being called upon to read the argument upon the question to be discussed, positively refused to do so, and said, that nothing should be read upon the subject, until Home's paper wjis first replied to. The President appealed to the order of Council and previous arrangements, but the Bishops were resolute. Their own Archbishop told them they were wrong, and called upon them to proceed, but shifting their ground of opposi- tion, they still refused. In short their conduct was so violent and refractory that the Conference was broken up, and the whole object for which Parliament had suspended its opera- tions defeated. This conduct on their part was looked upon as setting lawful authority at Jotiance. It was determined to proceed against them for contempt, and accordingly Bishops White and AVatson, as the most guilty, were com- mitted to the Tower. And here is the history of the '• imprisonment of two Catholic Bishops," which Mr. Maturiu says, was done to obtain a mnjoriti/ in (he Upper IIoui^c. Does it not require some stretch of credulity to believe that these Romish Bishops were the true Church under the guidance of the Divine spirit, and that the changes they withstood were the mere fruits of a lay-rebellion, against the legitimate exer- cise of Church authority ? As to the whole of Mr. Maturin's charges however about the exclusion of Bishops, and mode of obtaining majorities, we may renmrk, that if his statements were altogether correct, which they certainly are not, they would come with a bad grace from a writer who has passed over, without a comment, the more ilagrant instances of this nature which occurred in the reign ot Mary. In reference to her first Parliament, Burnet sa^vT?, " There had been great violence used in many elections, and many false returns were made : some that were known to be zealous for the Refor- mation, were forcibly turned out of the House of Commons, which was afterwards oflered as a ground upon which that Parliament, and all acts made in it might have been annulled. 41 There came only two of the Reformed Bishops to the House of Lords the two Archbishops and three Bishops were in prison ; two others were turned out ; the rest staid at home, so only Taylor and Ilarley the Bishops of Lincoln and Here- ford came. When Mass began to be said, they went out, as some reported, but were never suffered to come to their places again. Others say they refused to join in the AVorship, and so were violently thrust out." As to the statement that cccry Catholic Bishop was deprived of his See, with one exception, it is right to remark that these Bishops were not dismissed from their Sees by an t'ct of arbitrary power, without affording them the option of retaining them. The simple truth of the case was that they chose to resign their Sees, rather than take the oatli which a*;knci»v'^'^dged the Supremacy of their Lawful Sovereign. Til- -dyy- !>.. Supremacy passed in Elizabeth's reign, was more mild in its character than that of Henry's. After passing the Commons it was amended in the Lords by a Committee of Noblemen and Bishops notorious I'or their adhereuce to Romish opinions, The Bill thus amended, was voted against by the Bishops, but passed the Lord's with only one Lay dissentient; and was ver}- properly entitled "yL« act restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdictioii over the estate Ecclesi- astical and Spiritual, &c." This Statute provided that every officer Ecclesiastical or Temporal who received the Queen's fee or wages, should take a prescribed oath, acknowledging the Queen to be the Supreme (governor of the Realm, reject- ing the jurisd; i ion of every foreign Prelate, and pledging true allegiaiH, ; i*' the Sovereign. This oath was in unison with the eighin Cuiion of the Constitutions of Clarendon passed in 1164, undci' Henry IT, which was admitted by the prelates then present to be nothing more than a declaration of the ancient Law of England. It was this reasonable oath, capable theologically and constitutionally of the most trium- phant vindication, that was now tendered to the clergy. Of the inferior clergy who wore probably ten thousand, not more than 'ghty or one Imndred refused it, but the Bishops with one -;« -option, did so, and thereby forfeited their Sees. 42 Whatever liardbliip attended the operation of this Law it is obvious that the Bishops incurred it by their own act, by their deteniiiued adherence to what was illegal and preju- dicial to the rights of their Sovereign. The case was widely dilFerent in the reign of Mary, where the Bishops wero turned out of their Sees, and the inferior clergy out of their livings, simply because they were married persons, though they had married in conformity with existing Laws. It is said that no less than nine thousand were deprived on this account.'" And all this was done by a Commission from Queen Mary, by virtue of lier authority as Head of the Church, the very office which she condemned as a sinful and sacrilegious usurpation. How with these facts before L r on Mr. Maturin complain of the resignation of Romisii ' -hops in the reign of Elizabeth? And how while the blood stained pages of Mai-y's reign are unoblitcrated, can he talk of Penal Laws, and of the executions that followed them? How mourn over the fate of the one hundred and twenty in Elizabeth's reign, but pass by in silence the two hundred and eighty eight who were brought to the stake in the reign of Mary, besides an unknown number that were secretly massacred in tliciv prisons? IIow lament over More and Fisher in the reign of Henry, but shod not a single tear over the tombs of Cranmcr and Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Taylor, Bradford, and a host of others, who were tortured, not accept- ing deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection ? We are no advocates for the violation of the rights of conscience, and regret that any thing like persecution on account of religion should have ever received the counte- nance of any protestant Sovereign. But there is one distinction which we ought carefnllv to notice. Protestant Sovereigns have persecuted, but they have done so in rhlatlon of (he primiplrs of their irlif/ion. Papal Sovereigns have persecuted in a ten-fold greater degree, but they have done it in accordance with the prinriples of their creed. When Marv signed the document for bnrnina; heretics she acted ii\ conformity, not simply with her own cruel propensities, but Uurnet on Rcfor. 43 with tJie Laws of her Church.* And this is a point which ought ever to be borne in mind, in estimating the claims of the two syptems. While the peculiar dogmas of the Papal System were being confirmed at Trent, a review of their own doctrinal standards occupied the attention of the English Divines. The forty two articles compiled under Cranmer's authority, were carefully revised. Some were added and others conden^ sed : so that the number of them was reduced to thirty-nine. These in their amended form received forthwitli the unani- mous consent of convocation ; and this Mr. Maturin tells us, but upon this point he is certainly mistaken, "was the first occasion on which convocation liad acted in favour of the doctrines of the Reformation." lie complains that this consent was obtained "after the exclusion of Catholics from that bodv," but the oiilv exclusion of them was that which they aftected for themselves, by vacating their offices in the national church, rather than boar true allegiance to their • In the Epitome contained ir, the 9lh vol. of Liguori's works we meet the fol- lowing statements : — " A Bishop is bound, even in plac ,'s where the office of the Holy Inquisition is in force, sedulously to lake care Ihul he shall purge the Diocese entrusted to him from heretics, and if lie shull find any, lie ought to punish them with the Canonical punishments ; but he ought to bcwnro that he does nut impede the Inquisitors of the faith from doing their duty." Again. — " We ndheriug to the Constitutions of our predecessors, Gregory XIV., Benedict XIII., and Clement XIL, having removed certain cavils and subterfuges by which the execution of them was impeded, decreed and appointed that he who was accused of an excepted crime, if at any time he sliouid fly to a place of protection, ought to bo drugged forth from it, Art oftkx as i-uoof slfficiknt foii tiif. TouTunE coili) he had, which should prove his crime." Again — "If tho crime of heresy is treated of; since by our i)rcdcce8sor John XXI, who is called XXII, in his constitution beginning 'Ex parte vestnt" in Ihe Roman Bullarium, Vol. I. it has been olready decreed, that heretics, or tliose suspected of heresy, — also Jews, who when they had been converted to the Catholic faith thence fill into apostary, — if they fly /» a Church, ought to be immediately dragged out from thence by the inquisitor ,•' it is by no means our intention to derogate from this aforesaid constitution ; on tho contrary, it is our will that the same shall be observed, by attending to and follow- ing, however, that method which wo now subjoin, namely — that tho inquisitor, as often as a criminal of this description is to be dragged out of a church, should use all diligcnuo that this should be done with all duo reverence for tho house of God." 44 Sovereign or conform to a Liturgy whicli according to his own statement, "contained in itself nothing directly contrary to their faith."* AVhen they did this, their places were filled by abler and better men, who out of love for the true religion of Christ, and a desire to see it permanently secured to their country, subscribed the thirty-nine articles, which have ever since proved a Bulwark against the encroachments of popery, excepting in the case of those who have subscribed them professedly "jK/; animo," but really, with ^^ menial reser- vations," or in a "won natural sense." We are now prepared to estimate the worth of Mr. Matnrin's assertion in regard to the Reformation under Elizabeth tliat the actuating motive of it was simply, "to establish her throne on a sure foundation," that as "the Pope had decided against the validity of licr mother's marriage, Catholic England could not have acknowledged her title to the Crown without her submission to the authority of the Church;" and hence to obviate this difficulty, it was necessary that "England must become Protestant."t Of the Pope's feelings towards Elizabeth we have no reason to doubt. They are very clearly expressed in the JiuU of Pius V, issued in 1570, and entitled, "the damnation and ex- communication of Elizabeth Queen of England and her adherents." This remarkable document is couched in the following terms — " He that reignetli on High, to whom is given all power "in Heaven and in Earth, conimittc 1 one holv Catholic and "Apostolic Church (out of which there is no salvation) to "one alone upon earth, viz. to Peter the prince of the " Apostles, and to Peter's successor the Bishop of Rome, to "be governed in fullness of power. Ilim alone he made "prince over all people and all kingdoms, to pluck up, "destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build." AVe do out "of the fullness of our Apostolic power, declare the Aforesaid "Elizabeth, being a heretic, and a favourer of heretics, and "her adherents in the matters aforesaid, to have incurred • p. 36. f p. 37. 1 45 "the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity "of the body of Christ" — and moreover, we do declare her "to be deprived of her pretended title to the Kingdom "aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity and privilege what- " soever. — And also the nobility, subjects, and people of the " said Kingdom, and all othei's which have in any sort sworn "to her to be forever absolved from anv such oath, and all "manner of duty, dominion, allegiance, and obedience; as "we also do by the authority of these presents, absolve them, "and deprive the said Elizabeth of her protended title to the "Kingdom, and all other things above said. And wo do oom- "mand an I interdict all and every the noblemen, subjects, "people and others, aforesaid, that they presume nut to obey "her or her monitions, mandates and laws, and those who "shall act contrarv, we involve in the same sentence of "anathema." It is true that the document was worthless, as Eossuet styled it " a piece of waste paper." It is true also that " Catholic (?) England," so far from not acknowledging Elizabeth's title to the Crown, did through the loaders of the Romish Party, sign a declaration admitting it in the most ex[)licit terms. "Wo hold Queen Elizaboth (they said) to be the lawful (iuoen of England and Irohmd, and that obedience and i'oalty are justly due to her by all lior English and Irish subjects."* The document, nevertheless, is important as a record of Papal interference with the rights of Sovereigns, ami shews us very plainly how that intei'forence would be carried out at the present day, if Ihc j)ovci' of doiiuj so were only in the hands of the Pope. As to the J?ontitrs objecticn to the succession of Elizabeth, that no doubt was dependent altogether upon her cnrd. The question of her legitimacy had, in point of fact, nothing to do with it. The same power that dispensed with Canons and Constitutions to legalize ironry's marriage with liis brother's wife, could have settled " currcnk calamo' the * Tlii« declaration was signed by Wntson, Feckenliam, J. HarpsficUl, nnJ N. IFatpsfielil, Aichliislio|) Heath also, with Bisiiops Poole, Toiistal, Wl.itr, Ogle- thorpe, Thurlhy, 'J'ulierville an;! many Abbots mid Deanu, ucknowledgtd that, under the circumtitan'Tr, the Dull cuuld not bo binding. 46 queBtion of lier legitimacy, and no doubt would have done so, if she had not been a heretic. Mr. Maturin just reverses the facts of the case when he tells us that England became I'rotcstant to establish Elizabeth on the thixjue. The dispute betAveen England and the Pope was simply this. The Pope said England «hall be lioman therefore Elizabeth shall not ascend the throne. England said we will be Protestant there- fore Elizabeth shdH ascend the Throne. AVe devoutlj' thank God that the voice of the latter prevailed, that Elizabeth of immortal niemory did ascend it and retain it too, and that the principles and doctrines which her firmness upheld, are still dear to the hearts of those Avho belong to England's Church. From the Church of England viewed as an cstrtMishment Mr. Maturin proceeds to comment upon lier claims as " the. representative of the (rue Chareh of Chri>^t in these dominions.'' The Church of England regards herself as a branch of the true Church of Christ, having, in her spiritual capacity, an existence entirely independent of all State Legislation, and as old as Christianity itself. The object of the Pamphlet before us is to prove that she is not a branch of the Church of Christ, because she is severed, by the assertion of her National and Spiritual independence, from the domination of the Church of Rome. *' There was clearly," our Author says, " a separation of the Church oi' Eiif/land from the Church of Borne ; and this separation must be an act of schism, unless it can be proved that that separation was lavfuf,''* To this we bog to say in reply, that if the separation of which he complains, be in reality* a "schism," such as the Scriptures of truth condemn, theti the Church of Rome and not the Church of England, is responsible for it, inasmuch as she gave rise to it by hcj: corruptions both in doctrine and practice; and by her own act and doed effected it, by the infamous Bull of Excommunication which was issued as we have seen against Elizabeth and her subjects. This, if there be " schism" in the case, is where the authorship and sin of • p. 38. 47 it and responsibility for it properly belong ; and the more you magnify that sin and responsibility, so much the more do you increase the guilt of the Church of Rome. We have no authority, however, to apply the term " schism" in the sense in which the Apostolic writings condemn it, to the assertion of that independence, to which the Church of England, and every other national Church in Christendom has an inherent right. In its Scriptural use the term means a division among Christians of the same Church or Congre- gation, attended with strifes and heart-burnings, and the alienation of feelings which invariably accompany those divisions. Mr. Maturin's own case is, by the breach of Chris- tian fellowship which it has o(!casioned, a much nearer approximation to it, than anything which can be charged against the Church of England in her collective capacity. To vindicate her conduct in throwing off the shackles of the Pope's Supremacy, shackles which he had no right to impose, and she iio right to wear, the Church of •England is not under the necessity of proving the corruptions in doctrine, which have been charged against the Cliurch of Rome ; but yet these corruptions are capable of the most ample proof, and would render her separation an act of imperative necessity, inasmuch as the only terms upon which communion with Rome could have been maintained, would have been flDfid ((Tins, viz., the acceptance of a creed which has added unscrip- tural articles to the creed of the Primitive Church, and sanc- tioned a variety of rites and practices which are opposed to the religion and derogatory to the honor of God. " Church Records," notwithstanding Mr, Maturin's asser- tion to the contrary, do prove the introduction of those cor- ruptions of doctrine, with sufficient clearness to warrant the conclusion that they formed no part or parcel of the Primitive Creed of the Christian Church. Indeed to render this probable, we have only to mark the curious specimen of con- troversial fencing with which he endeavours to ward off the inquiry about them, telling us that there is no record of how or when they came in, and therefore, suspicious as they appear for want of the marks of genuineness, or from indications oi 48 their being counterfeit, we must conclutlc that they %ocre always there. A nuxn's house is suspected of containing con- traband goods. J>ut when the Sheriif goes to search for them, the owner of the dwelling stands before tlie door and tells him, it is of no manner of use for 30U to go in there ; for whatever you find, you will not be al)le to shew precisely how or when it fjot there, and therefore, whatever you may think about it, you cannot prove it to be contraband. You may find some strange things tliere, sonic that belong to the class which the law forbids ; but it does not folloAv that they have been brouglit in since the house was built. It is to be presumed that what is there now, was always there, unless you can first shew the precise time and mode of its l>eing brought there. This is the mode in which Mr. Matnrin endeavours to prepossess our minds against the impressions likelv to 1)C made uiion lliombv the investiii:ation of "■CImreh Records ;" and we n-peat the assertion, that the very adop- tion of such a motltiod, indicates a consciousness that the testimony of these records is against him. With tlie same controversial tact, but with still greater violation of the rides of candid argument, he gravely calls upon us to take up seriatim the alleged errors of his creed, uiul, in regard to each of them to prove the )i(f/atire. '^'AVo mav defv." he savs, " anv Protestant to prove that there ever was a period sin<;e the l)eginning of Christianity, in which any one doclr'me of the Komish Church was not held by the whole Church of Christ on earth." To this we repl}' that it is not our business to [trove the iuyative, to shew that in any givi'ii century these doctrines were not held, but his business to shew, and, if they were really so the task wouhl he an easy one, that they actually iccrc held by the Universal Church in each successive century. We know what the Faith of the Church was in the begin- ning of the Ith Century. We have it in the JVhrne Creed, to whicli anv uiember of the Church of En2:land can refer in his Prayer book. This was the Old Clreed, and this down to the IGth Century was the Creed of the Church of ]{ome. And in reference to this Creed, the first Council of Ephesus, 49 held in the middle of the 5th Century, passed a decree pro- hibiting any addition to it *^ it should be lawftil," they said *^for no one to profess^ to write or to compose any other form, cr Jaith than that defined by the Holy Faihas, who, with the Holy Ghosty had been assembled at Nice." Yet in defiance of this decree of a General Council wliicli the Church of Rome acknowledges, she has framed a New Creed, adding twelve New Articles to the Creed of the Xieene age. This New Creed containing the peculiar dogmas of the Churcli of Rome, was put forth by Pius the IVth in 1564, and is as follows : — "L I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and all other observances and consti- tutions of the same church. *'U. I also admit the Holy Scripture, according to that ^ense which our Holy mother, the Church, has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and inter- pretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of iJie Fatliers. "Ill, I also profess, that there are truly and pwperly Seven Sacraments of the new law instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit. Baptism, Contirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matri- mony,* and that they confer grace, and that, of these, Baptism Confirmation and Orders, cannot be reiterated without sacrileii-e: and [ also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church, used in tiie solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments. "IV. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification. " V. I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God, a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for'ihe limvg and ike dead; and that in the most Holy Sacrament of the •How alisuril the idea thai there is a " ^'ncrtt/z/en/ " of the New Low, which ••ronfcrs grace," and yet the Priesthood of the Church of Komo not alioned to purtukc uf iu 60 Eucharist there an truly, really and substantially the tody and blood together with soul and didnity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the icholc substance of the loine into the blood; which conversion the Catholic Church calls trans- aubstantiailon. I alao confess, that under either kind alone, Christ is received ichole and, entire, and a true Sacrament. " VI. I constantly hold that there is a Pun/atory, and that the souls therein arc helped by the suffrages of the faithful. "VII. Likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to he honoured and invocated; and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics arc to he held in veneration. " VIII. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of the other Saints may be had and retained ; and that due honour and veneration are to he given them. "IX. I also affirm, that the 2>ower of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. " X. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, for the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Home, successor to St' Peter, Prince of the Ajjostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. "XI. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons, and General Councils, and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent: and I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies, which the Church condemned, rejected, and anathematized. " Xn. I N. K. do at this present freely profess, and sin- cerely hold this true Catholic fiiith, without which no one ca7i be saved: and I pron^ ^c most constantly to retain and confess the ^amc entire and inviolate, with God's assistance to the end of my life." The above is Mr. Maturin's present Creed. He believes in Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions — that he must interpret the Scriptures in the sense of Holy Mother Church and 51 nccordin^ to the unanimouB consent of the Fathers, that Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, Matrimony, and Confirmation are Sacraments, and confer grace :^ — 'that in the Mass is offered to God a propitiator)/ sacrijicc for the livinff and the dead: that in the Eucharist, the hody and hlood substantiaUy, together with the Said and Divinity of Christ arc present: — that the ivhole substance of the bread is converted into the bodtj, and the whole su()sfance of the wine, into the hlood of Christ, and yet tliat in taking either of these by itself you receive G hirst whole and entire: — he believes that there ia a Purgatory, where souls are helped by the suffrages of the faithful: that saints are to be invocated, relics venerated, images retained and honoured, indulgences regarded as sanctioned by Christ, that the Bishop of Kome is "successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and fiuallv that this is true Catholic faith icithout whieh no one can be saved. Y w surely when a system of this kind, so gigantic in its oi 9, so complicated in its details, so utterly at variance wiLii all that we read in Scripture, and so entirely different from the simple creed of the early churches, is offered for our acceptance, upon pain of forfeiting salvation, we have a right to ask tbe propoundcr of it to prove that it was the creed of the primitive christians ; that Paul and Peter held it, that Ignatius and Polycarp, professed it, that Iremeus and TcrtuHian subscribed to it. It is not enough to stand before such a mass of strange materials and tell us, you can- not find out tho time when eacb of these dogmas came in^ therefore you must believe that the Church Catholic always held them; you cannot tell the precise day or month when Transubstautiation, Purgatory, images, relics and Mariolitry were introduced, therefore you must believe that St. Paul «levated the host, that St. Peter said Masses for souls in Purgatory, that St. John worshipped images, that Polycarp believed in seven Sacraments and that Iremeus offered a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead. It is surely unreasonable to ask men to believe these things with- out evidence. n"y. in defiance of the counter evidence 52 arising from the fact that they arc not found in Scripture or the writings of the eariy Fatlicrs. Mr. Maturin tells us plainly, that "there may be sometimes a dilHculty in tracing" up each particular point of faith or practice, by direct testi- mony to the times of the Apostles."* We have no doubt that this difficulty does exist; that Mr. Maturin seriously felt it, and that after laborious researches for many years, ho was glad to "appeal from a past, dead and silent Churcli, to a present, living and speaking one ;" but as we have no con- fidence in that present, speaking one, but have much rcsj>cct for that jyasi silent one, we must call upon him for positive evidence, from the " Records of tl)C Church," that tho dogmas of his present Creed, were believed in primitive times. In regard to the Bible, we muy re-assert what we havo affirmed in reference to the early records of tho Church, that it is incredible that such a superstructure as the Church of Rome has reared upon the basis of Tradition, should havo existed in the first Century, and l»cen known to Apostles and Evangelists, without our being able to trace some evidence of it in their writings, writings Avhit^li, in connexion with those of the Old Testament, contain, as our sixth Article justly allirms, "All things necessary to salvation, so thut whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be rerjulred of any man, that it should be believed as an aiiicle of tho faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to .salvation." The position maintained in this Article, Mr. Maturin denies.. It must bo proved he tells us, by one of two ways, "either by an express declaration of Scripture itself, or by disproving the existence of ang other ride of faith." if As tc Scripture he affirms that there is not a single passage in the Bible which asserts its own sufficiency, and he then proceeds to conunent upon three important passages, which are 8uppo?o.l to bear upmi the subject, viz., John v. 89, Acta xvii. 11, and 2 Tim. iii, 15-17. As the comments upon these well known texts are somewhat curious, it may be desirable to examine them. • p. 15. t p. 44. 53 The first is- John v. 39. " Search ♦he Scriptures, for in th«m ya think ye have eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me." Now in regard to this text, we wish it to be clearly understood that we' lay no stress upon it as a proof of the sufficiency of Holy Scriptures as a rule of faith, though in connexion with other pasjsages, it may furnish a very reason- able ir.^erence to that eft'ect. If the words "Search the Scriptures" are to be taken as a command, which is the light in which almost all ancient Commentators have viewed them, and in which the Douay Testament has ivndcred them, though wl(h a note appended, shewing that the case is some- what puzzling cvr-n to an intallible Church, then they indi- cate the duty of those who have in their possession the lively oracles of God, to search the Scriptures carefuUj^ in order to test the truth of the message that is brought to them in his name ; and thus they sunction the exercise of that " pi . . ;ite judgment" which Mr. Mtiturin views with such abhorrence, but which in commenting upon this and other passages, ho has, nevertheless ventured to exercise. Nor is the fact to be lost sight of, that, if our Lord referred the Jews to a written rule of faith, for evidence uiwu tne most important of all sub- jects, viz., his own Divine Mission and the objects of it, it is surely in harmony with such a reference, thiit we should go to the writlen standard, for the great essentials of our faith. But the main point to which we wish to refer in connexion with this text, is Mr. Maturin's remark, that if it proves any thing it proves too much, as it would shew that the Old Testament was a sufliclent rule of faith without the New, and conse(piently that the latter was superfluous. Now if a piin- ciple is good for anything, carry it out. Mr. Maturin tella us, " that the unwritten word was certainly the first rule of faith to the Primitive Christians, and when the written word was afterwards added to it, it cannot surely be maintained that the former was superseded or merged into the latter."* In this passage he preserves a very close resemblance to his favorite author liossud, who says, — "Jesus Christ having •p. 52. 54 laid the foundation of his Church hy preaching, tlie vnwrittm word, was consequently, the first rule of Christianity ; and when the writings of the N'cw Testament were added to it, its authority was not forfeited on that account." Now with these statements before us we beg to ask, whether, when the unwritten word was as he supposes the rule of faith Christians had or had not a sufficient rule ? If not, then it follows that, for a considerable period in the History of the early Church, God left His Church without a complete rule of faith. If on the contraiy, the unwritten rule Avas sufficient, the written one which was afterwards added to it was supci-fluous ; and this conclusion is the inevitable consequence of the principle upon which Mr. Maturiu reasons, when he argues from the suffici- ency of the Old Testament to the supei-iluity of the Xcw. The next passage upon which he comments is Acts xvii. 11-12, " These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so; therefore many of them believed." An admirable text! How does our author expound it? "They searched tho Scriptures," he tells us, "to compare the predictions of the Prophets with the statements of the Apostle, with reference to the sufferings of Christ, and being thus convinced of the truth of the facts of the Gospel history, many of them believed the testimony of St. Paul, and embraced all the other doctrines taught by Him not because thetj were uriften in the Scriptures bid because they were delirere.d to them on the authorifi/ of a Teacher sent from God?*" "VVho authorised Mr. Maturiu to limit the comparison instituted by these inquiries, to the single topic of Christ's sufferings f Who told him that, with tho exception of this topic, they embraced all the other doctrines taught by the Apostles not because they were written in tlce Scriptures but because the>/ were delivered to them on the authorifi/ of a Teacher sod from God? All this is perfectly gratuitous. There is not a word in the text or context to warrant it. Nothing but the determination to exalt traditions at all haz- • p. 46. r5 ards, could have induced him thus to trifle with the testimony of Sacred Scripture. Why even the note upon this passage in the Douay version might have enlarged his conceptions upon the subject — "The Jews of Berea, says that note, are justly commended for their eagerly embracing the truth, and searching the Scriptures to find out the texts alleged by the Apostles; which was a far more generous jJroceeding than that of their countrymen of Thessalonica, who persecuted the preachers of the Gospel without examining the grounds they alleged for what they taught" The D6uay translators do not presume to affix the limitation which Mr. Maturin has done. The passage, in defiance of all attempts to obscure and neutralize its testimon3', is a very important one. What does it present to us ? A Society of men in possession of the Old Testament Scriptures. They are visited by an . Apostle, who comes to them with a message from God* They listen to his Message with candour. They test it by the writtcii word, comparing the two together from day to day. The conse(|Uciiee of which was that mau}'^ of them, both Jews and Greeks, became believers in Christ, and received for the course they adopted, the high commendation of the Apostle. Evidently with these men, the Scriptures, as far as they pos- sessed them, were the Rule of Faith. They were tlie test and standard by wiiich they tried the doctrines they hoard. Now this is just the course which we would have all, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics to pursue. AVe would have them take those very Scriptures in addition to thoae of the New Testament, and in humility and dependence upon the Divine blessing, exercise the powers of reason which God has given tbcm, to ascertain, not merely as Mr. Maturin would have them, //.« U'ue Cliurch, but as the Bcnmns did, the irue Christ, and the vital docirincs of His relifjion. In doing this, in the spirit of the Beneans, they would no doubt find in Scripture, what the Beraians found, all things necessary to salvation. We come now to the third passage which Mr. Maturin has selected. II Tim., iii, 1.% 17, — " From a child thou hast knowa "tke holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto 5» Salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scrijv tare is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctiine, forreproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness : that the man of GoJ may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This passage asserts the following points — First, tliat the Holy Scriptures which Timothy had known from his child- hood, were able to make aman icise unto Salmtion, through, i. e. by leading to faith in Christ Jesus. Secondly, that all Scrip- ture, all that was comprehended under that title, was divinely inspired. Thirdly, tliat the Scripture thus inspired was profitable by conveying information in matters of doctrine and practice; and lastly, that the servant or Minister of God who was well versed in these Scriptures would be thereby fit- ted, nay perfected, completely i>repared for all good works. The teaching of the passage is nothing less than this, that Holy Scripture being divinely in**pired, can instruct us in matters of faith and practice, imparting that wisdom which leads to saving faith, and that knowledge which prejiares a man for the discharge of every duty, and if this be not equivalent to tlie position laid down in the 6th Article of our Church, it would be difficult to say what language could convey the truth whicli it asserts. But, says Mr. Maturin, the Holy JScriptiircs here mean the " Old Testament," and therefore cannot warrant the conclu- sion that we arc to find the Articles of our faith in the New Testament, which was afterwards to be written. It so hap- pens, however, that at the time when the Apostle wrote this Epistle to Timothy three of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and seventeen of the Epistles were already written^ and St. Peter, in his Second Epistle penned in the ynme year, refers to St. Paul's Epistles, as comprehended under tlie ternt •' Scriptures." It is not therefore certain that by the terms "'all Scripture," at v. 10, the Old Testament alone was relerred to. But grant that they do refer to the Old Testament and to that exclusively, then we say that the argument in favor of tlie complete sufficiency of the Scriptures becomes moro invincible than before j for if the Old Testament could fur- 57 nish a man with the requisite knowledge for salvation, "a fortiori" the Old and New Testament together, must abundantly convey that knowledge. But, says Mr. Maturin once more, " St. Paul alludes to his own oral teaching in the context as supplemental to the teach- ing of Scripture."* We reply, that it is by no means certain that there is any allusion in the context to his oral teaching. The reference at v. 14, may be to a totally difterent instruc- tor, and probably is so. But suppose it to be to St. Paul ; what does the reference prove ? — that there was anything in St. Paul's oral teaching, that is not contained in Scripture? that there was any doctrine which he promulgated then, or at any other time, which is not comprised in the written teachings of the Old or New Testament? Assuredly not. There is no such intimation given. There is not a shadow of proof to shew that such an idea ever entered into the mind of St. Paul. Such an intimation, if it were contained in tho context, would be a contradiction to his own words in the text before us, as well as on other occasions ; as for example his language in addressing Agrippa, — "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day witnessing both to small and great, saywff none other thiru/s than (hose which the Prophets and Moses did say should come, that Christ should suifer, and that he should bo the iirst that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people and unto tho Gcntiles."t If the doctrines which Paul taught, were contained in the Scriptures then, as he plainly tells us they were ; we may be quite sure they are contained in tho Scriptures now. If the Jewish Canon comprised them, the Christian Canon which embraces all that iV contained, together with the elucidations of those very same doctrines as com- prised in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, must no doubt embrace them too. We have no need therefore of anything " supplemental" to these. We want no additional code, invisible to mortal eye, and incomprehensible by mortal intellect, of which no man can tell the locality or the dimcn- »p. 47. f Acts, xxvi. 22. 23. 58 sions, floating about somewhere in the mysterious recesses of a Churcli which professes to be, but is not infallible, and to be brought fortli at sundry intervals, with ever increasing Bupplenicuts, and ever augmenting violations of truth, some in the 7th, some in the 9th, some in the 16th and some in the 19th Century. The Holy Scriptures are our rule of faith and practice. In having them we have enough. They con- tain every doctrine and precept of our holy religion ; and the oral teaching of every man, as in the case of Paul himself, must be tested by them, as the one d'mnely insjylred and excho- sice standard of the truth. But these very writings, we are told, set up a diflerent standard; there are "other texts" says Mr. Maturin from which we are authorized to conclude that " another rule of faith is laid down in Scripture itself."t This we unhesitatingly deny. There are texts in Scripture which speak of Traditions, but no texts Avhich sanction the belief that there existed at any time a class of doctrines or precepts, differing from those which we find in the inspired writings. For evidence that there was such an independent authority, we are referred by Mr. Maturin to the following passages : 2 Thes. ii, 15, 1 Cor. xi, 2, 1. Tim. vi, 20, 2 Tim.' i, 13, U, 2 Tim. ii, 2. The substance of what he says upon the above passages is as follows — lie deems it "perfectly clear" that the traditions spoken of at 2 Thes. ii, lo, 1 Cor., xi, 2, were " doctrines or articles of fuitli," and from 1 Tim. vi, 20, that these articles of faith wore not contained in "written documents," but orally delivered and that not to the congregation, but to the pre- siding oificer, viz., Timothy, and from 2 Tim. i. 13, 14, that as the [iresiding ofliccr, Timothy under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost, was to. ''^ keep i. e. preserve these traditions ; and, from 2, Tim. ii. 2, transmit them to future ages ; i. e. through ' the constant succession of Bishops and Pastors;" and then, linally, as the grand conclusion — "that the independent existence of Apostolical Tradition as a rule of faith is clearly recognized even in Scripture itself." tp.47. 59 Now really there is something so compact in this sj'stem ; the several parts of it appear, at first view, so nicely adjusted to each other, and the whole to answer so well the end for which it was constructed, that one almost hesitates to dis- turb the symmetry of it — nevertheless there are objections to it. ♦ • We take exception at the outset to tlie statement that " it is perfectly' clear that the traditions spoken of at II Thess. ii. 15, were doctrines or articles of faith." So far from this being perfectly clear, we think the context proves that they were directions about some matters of practice. Why did not Mr. Maturin read on seven verses further and observe St. Paul's own explanation of what these traditions were? — " We command you brethren in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us." It appears from this passage that what the apostle had in contemplation, was the personal conduct of the individual members of that Church, and that the tra- ditions referred to were nothing more than directions which he gave to the Thessulonians, both orally and iii writing, not to walk disorderb/, not to eat the bread of otlicrn, but to follow his example, and work for their own living. It ai)pear3, therefore, from the very context where this celebrated word "Traditions," occurs, that it had nothing whatever to do with what the Romish Church stvles "articles of faith," and which they profess to found upon apostolical traditions ; so that the very corner stone of the whole fabric crumbles as soon as you come to examine it. Again we take exception to the statement that these "traditions" — or directions whether relating to faith or practice, were delivered exclusively to Timothy as the presiding officer or minister of the Church. It is plain from the very passage quoted from Corinthians* that such was not the case, for the Apostle says, in that passage, " I praise you BRETHREN, that yo remember mo in all things, and •I Cor, 11: ?. 60 keep the ordinances (traditions) as I delivered them to you.'" Thus the Scripture itself, not merely in the contexts, but in the very texts themselves which Mr. Maturin has quoted, breaks in upon the specious system he has constructed, and tells him, "I am not of your way of thinking." Once more we take exception to the assumption tlmt these traditions whether committed to Timothy individually or the Church collectively iccre any thinfj different from or more than ice have recorded in the written 'word. Let it be granted that "the good thing" which was committed to Timothy was *a form of sound words' which, in the Urst instance, he heard from the oral teaching of St. Paul; and thiit by the same oral 2)roccss he taught those things to others, and they again to others, as every faithful minister of Jesus Christ does at the present hour. But how does this prove that these "sound words" are any thing over and above what is inscribed upon the sacred pages of the New Testament? What evidence have we that St. Paul delivered doctrines to the Thessalonians which are not contained in his Epiatlc^ to the 'rhessalonians ? or doctrines to Timothy which are not recorded in the Epistles to Timothy? What evidence liave we that thoy are contained in none other of St. Paul's Epistles? that they are not recorded either in the Epistle to the Romans? or in the Epistles to the ('orinthians? or in the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians? or in those to Titus and Philemon? what evidence to show that they were not recorded in the other Apostolical Epistles? or in either of the four Gospels, or the Apocalyse?* There ia not a shadow of evidence to prove this; but there is, on the other hand, every reason to conclude that they were so, and that they are at present constituent parts of the written ivord. !Mr. Maturin gives us what he I'egards as an analysis of the New Testament, dividing it into four parts, viz. — the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Kevelation, and then after describing the first as mere "Memoirs,'' the second as "frag- ments," the third as "incidental allusions," and the fourth •See Marsh's comparative view. 61 fts a "Prophetic "Vision," asks, with as ranch gravity as if ho thouglit the qnestion unanswerable, in which of the four wo are to K^ok for the "whole system of Christianity"? It might surely have occurred to him, that the whole was not likely to be contained in any one of its parts. On a sub- Bequent page he tells us that " traditions arc generally divided by theologians into three classes, Divine, Apostolical and Ecclesiastical; the two former relating to doctrines, and tho latter to ceremonies only."* Now suppose we ask him to tell us in which of these three classes the whole system of traditional doctrines and ceremonies is contained, would ho think we were serious in making the demand? or would he regard the question as a mere "/stcm of Jix eclat ion as contained in the whole Bible and believe it all to l)e profitable for doctrine, reproof^ correction and instruction in righteousness, we also believe that any one of the four parts to which he refers, may, under tho blossinii: of God, conduct a man to salvation. St. John tells us that "many other signs truly did Jesus in tho presence of his disciples which are not written in this book \i. c. the Gospel of St. John,), but then he adds, what seems to have escaped Mr. Maturin's notice when he referred to this passage, "But these arc vritlcn that ye might believo tliat Jesus is the Christ, and that bclieoing, yc miyht have lift throiifjh J lis namc."-\- • p. G7. ■\ Augustinc'-s remark upon this text is worlliy of note — " The Lord Jesus having dono many tilings, they arc not ail written, iis the same St. John thfl Evangelist testifies, that the Lord CI r st said and did many things that are not written ; but l/ioac were c/iuseii fur writing w/iich appeared to be aiij/ieicnl for the talvatiun oftitose who nhould believe" — S'cc Johann. Uvang. c. ii., 'I'ract 49. 62 Wc are warranted in concluding that evciy doctrine essen- tial to the salvation of the soul, every precept necessary r.a a rule of life, every promise required to animate the believer, and every warning requisite to alarm the sinner, have all been placed upon record in the sacred pages. The same reason that would urge the recording a part of them, would demand the recording of the whole, viz., to preserve them from the uncertainty attendant upon a mere oral trans- mission. Mr. Maturin draws a distinction between traditions as a ground of faith, and traditions viewed as a mcdhnn.* But it is precisely in this latter view that we object to them. We do not believe that in conveying a revelation to man- kind containing a variety of doctrines or articles of faith, together with numerous precepts adapted to man in all tho ditferent relations of life, an all-wise Providence would have committed these things to so precarious a vehicle as that of oral tradition. "It is not with Doctrines as it is with ceremonies, or as it is with the usages of civil Law. Tho daily practice of the Church or the daily practice of Courts of Jui/ doctrine coming from Christ and His Apostles, should have been left unrecorded in the jS'^cw Testament, and confided to the future record of the Fathers.''^ Is'or is it of any avail to tell us, that this uncertainty is provided for by the Infalli- bility of the Church. We do not admit that the whole Church Visible, or any j^art of it, and less than all that part which constitutes tJte Church of Home is infallible. Neither reason, nor Scripture, nor History, nor facts permit us to entertain such a notion, but all, with one concurrent testimony unite in the condemnation of it. Another objection to regarding such traditions as any part • p. 01. I Marsh Conip. view. p. 07. 68 of the Rule of Faith, is the difficidly of discovering them, of ascertaining what theg are or ichire thnj are deposited. Mr. Maturin has already defined for us what he means by tradi- tions, and told us of the three classes into which Theologiana divide them, viz. — " Divine, Apostolical and Ecclesiastical."* But where are they lodged, and how are we to know them when we see them ? lie intimates indeed that they have been '■'■ recorded by the Fathers and CoukcH/-." This is a wide field. The works of two of the Fathers alone, viz. : Chrvsos- tom and Jerome, in their best Editions, amount to four and twenty folio volumes. Add to these the writings of all the rest, together with the decrees of some eigliteen General Councils, and it must be admitted that here is u large space to travel over, in search oi these deposits. And when you search for them, in this expanded Pi»hcre, how are you to recoifniso them ? The mere use of the term " Traditions" will not point them out, for the Fathers generally employ this term in reference to doctrines recorded in the New Testa- ment, and if, on the other hand, they giv^e the name of "Apostolical Traditions" to any that are not recorded there; this only proves that such was their opinion upon the subject. But they were fallible men, and liable like others, to be mistaken. Shall we then require the " vnanimous consent of the Fathers'" as a test of the Divine or Apostolical origin of these traditions? In that case, we require what we shall never find ; for "though the Fathers, in general, maintain the Doctrines which the Ciiurch of England has in common with the Church of Ivome, such for instance as the doctrines of the Trinity and tlie Atonement, yet the doctrines in which the (Jhurch of England difi'ers from the Church of liome, are precisely the doctrines, in which the Fathers are not unani- mous, "f Shall we then, as the ultimate resource, go to the decrees of Councils for these traditions ? But Councils, as well as Fathers w'cre liable to error: they were composed of persons who were all, in their individual capacity, fallible, and who * p. 51. f Sec Mareh Comp. vivw. 64 arc consequently bo in their collective capacity; for what ground have we to suppose that a collection of fallible individuals can constitute an infallible assembly? Not cer- tainly of the decrees of such Councils which we have upon record, for in many instances they contradict each other, and ai'e in conflict with the early Christian writers, as well as with the Inspired Scriptures. Not certainly any promise made to such Councils by the Divine founder of our religion, for the records of inspiration from the commencement of Genesis to the last verso of Revelation contain i»o such promise. Mr. Maturin says indeed, that " w?c hacc just the. same authority for rcccichtg the Council of Trent, as for ra-ciohuj the Canon of ScrijUurc." But this is one of those unfounded asser- tions with which his work abounds. We have historical testimony to prove that a Council was convened at Trent at a certain time, and that it passed certain Canons which go under the name of " the decrees of the Council of Trent;" and wo have also historical evidence of the fact, that certain hooks which go under the title of the Holy Scriptures, were written at a certain period, by the authors whose names they bcai*. But testimony to the facts that certain decrees were passed by a Council and that certain books were written by speciiied authors, is a widely diflcrcnt thing from testimony that the contents of the one or the other arc true. In the former case wo have the same authority for receiving the Council of Trent, that we have for receiving the Canon of Scripture; but in the latter case (and this is the very sense in which Mr. Maturin means you to understand him) you have no such authority; i. c., you have not the same authority for believing that the decrees of the Council of Trent are inspired, and therefore true, that yon have for believing that the Canonical Scriptures are in- .Bpired and therefore true. So i'ar from having the same authority in both cases, you have cviry authority in the one, hutnonc whatcccr in the otlici". As soon as you open the Sa- crecl Scriptures, you are struck with the internal evidence of their truth ; you discover in them atevcy step, the marks of their authority. All is reasonable — all is holy — all is divine. 65 But not so in the decrees of Trent. Here the internal evi- dence is just of a contrary nature. You discern at every step the marks of their human origin, hy the palpahle contradictions whicli you find in them, boUi to reason and revelation. Take as an illustration of this, that very doctrine to which Mr. Maturin has specially ciUled our attention, as being founded mainly on tradition* and as having been in posses- sion of the Church for 1800 years, f the doctrine of Transub- fiTANTiATioN. IIc earnestly recommends us " always to take our views of Catholic doctrine from the public documents of the Church itself^ or from the authorized expositions of Catholics themselves."| Let us do so in the present case. Council of Trent — Canon 1. — "If any one shall deny that the body and bloody together icith the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacramcfit of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as in a sign, or in a figure, or virtually — let him be accursed." Canon 2. — " If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the bodv and blood of our Loi'd Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and. singular con- version of the v^holc substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine stillremaining, which conversion tlie Catholie Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be accursed." O.inon 3. — " If any one shall deny, that in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, entire Christ is contained in each kind, and in each several partiek of either land when separatedf let him be accursed." Canon 4. — " If any one shall say that, after consecration, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is only in the wonderful Sacrament of the Eucharist, in use while it is taken, and not either before or after, and that the true body of the • pp. 49. 50. t p. 40. t p. 93. E f 66 Lord ioes not remain in the hosts or particles which have been oonsecratcd, and which arc reserved, or remain after the communion, — let him be accursed."''' In addition to these decrees we find it said in the " Cate- chism of the Council of Trent'" tluit, "Not only the true body of Christ, and whatever appertains to the true mode of existence of a body, as the bones and nerves, but also that entire Christ is contained in this Sacrament. Now here we have oftered for our acceptance, a supposed miracle of the most stupendous character ; which has no parallel in the miracles of Moses, of Christ, or of his Apos- tles : they invited the exercise of reason, but this forbids reason to act; they were appeals to the senses, but this sets all the senses at defiance. It requires us to believe that our holy Saviour when he instituted the Eucharist, took his own body in his hands and gave it entire to each of his disciples ; that he gave that body "broken" before it was broken, a sacrifice before it was sacrificed — that after the ascension of that body to heaven, is continued on ea 'th, that while it remains at the right hand of God, it is laid upon ten thousand altars in th : militant Church. It supposes that the same body is dead * That there may be no question about the accuracy of the tranolution we sub- join the Latin : " Canon (1.) 8i quis negaverit, in Sanctissims eucharistio; sacramcnto con- tineri verc, reuliter, et substantialiter, corpus ot snnguinem una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proindc totum Christum ; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtutc; anathema sit. " (2.) Si qiuB dixerii, in sacro-sancto cucharistin) sacramcnto rcmancrc sub- stantium panis et vini una cum corpore ct saiiguino Domini nostri Jcsu Christi' ncgavcritquc mirabilcm illani et singularem ronvorsionem totius substuntiffi panis in corpus, ct totius substantia vini in sanguincm, manpiiiib::B dumtaxat specicbus panis et vini ; quam quidcm conversioncm Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Iruusub- stantiationem appcllat ; anathema sit. " (3.) Si quis ncgaverit, in venerabili sacramento eucharistiiB sub unnqunque specie, ct singulis cujusque specici partibus, separationo facta, totum Christum contineri ; anathema sit. " (4.) Si quis dixerit, pcracta consccratione, in admirabili eucharistias sacra- tnento non esse corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, scd tantum in usa, dum sumitur, non autcm ante vel post, et in hostiis sou particulin consccratia, qua post communioncm, rcscrvantur, vel supcrsunt, non rcmanere verum corpus Domini ; anathema sit. 67 and living at the same time ; that a sacrifice completed more than eighteen centuries ago, is still continued, that the memo- rial of a sacrifice is the sacrifice of which it is the memorial, and that this sacrifice, though the blood is in the cup, r.nd partaken by the faithful, is nevertheless an " unbloody sacri- fice." It calls upon us to believe that the whole substance of the wine in the cup is converted into blood, and yet that the cup contains the "flesh, bones, and ner*rcs" of the blessed Jesus ; to believe that every crumb of the Host is converted into ''^ whole Christ," and yet that the lohole Host is but one Christ. Can a reasonable man feel any respect for such a dogma as this — a dogma that requires us to believe that a part is equal to the whole, that a material substance has no extension, that it occupies no place, possesses no qualities — a dogma wliich confounds time, annihilates space, silences reason, contradicts the senses, — that is based upon a tradition nowhere to be found, and confirmed by a Scripture — that means something totally different; can a reasonable man feel respect for a dogma, which is fraught with such an accu- mulation of absurdities ? So far from it, the fact that such a monstrous tenet is said to rest mainly upon tradition, ought to convince us that tradition is no safe medium, for convey- ing to us through a long succession of ages, the Holy doctrines of our Faith. Mr. Maturin talks of testing some of the Protestant views, on i)hilosophical principles.* Let him bring a little sound philosophy, or even a little common sense to bear upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and we are quite sure that he will soon have to take shelter under the grand (piietus for all scruples, the wing of an infallible Church. It is no small argument against the claims of oral tradition as a " medium " for conveying to us the doctrines of our holy religion, that it is necessary to depreciate the Bible in order to sustain them, to misrepresent its contents, and profanely, as we caimot but regard it, to deny the necessity for its having been written. AV^ho would have expected to hear from one • p. 53. 68 who professes to admit the insph-ation of the Scripturea, that the Bible is " a series of authentic records, ilhistrating tho external progress of Chrislia)uh/ in the ivorld and including frequent alkisions to tho doctrines of our Holy Religion ;" and that " the whole system of Christianity would have been j)recisch/ the same at the present day, (f the New Testament had never been written at all? The Bible a History of ^^ Kvternal prof/rcss!" with ^^ frequent allusions to internal doctrines!!" The detailed accounts of our blessed Lord's ■parables, discour- ses, prayers, hallowed precepts, imrninf/s, promises, and prophe- cies, mere allusions to internal doctrines ! The preaching of the leading Apostles to Jews and Gentiles, under the guid- ance of the Holy Ghost, from tho time of our Lord's ascension, to St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, A. D. 65, a period of more than 30 years, mere ^^ allusions to internal doctrines!" The epistles written by live different Apostles, twenty one in number, several of them very lengthy, and entering into the minute discussion of the Christian scheme of redemption, mere "allusions to internal doctrines!" Tho whole of tho Old Tcstiiment with its splendid series of Types and Prophecies, and thoi Book of Revelation with its addresses to the seven Churclies of Asia, and its magoiticent descriptions of the dangers, trials, and ultimate triumph of the Church of Christ, a mere history of "External pro- gress !'* And all these faithful records for no essential end, written under the guidance of tho Holy Ghost, but for so Blight a benefit, that "the whole system of Christianity would have been precisely tho same at tho present day, if the New Testament had never been written." Yes truly, the system would have been the same, but we should have known very little about it. If notwithstanding these written and inspired records, such a gigantic system of error, as that comprised in tho decrees of Trent could usurp the place of the primitive scheme of Christianity — and that system tho fruit of tho so-called oral traditions, what would have been the fate of Christianity, if it had been loft entirely to tho tender mercies of such traditions ! But the "unwritten word," wc are told again, was tho 69 first rule of faith* and to shew hcvf long it was thef Exclusive Rule, we are referred to the fact that the Canon of Scripture was not fixed or defined by the Church till the close of the 4th century.f Now in reply o this we refer again to what we have already stated, that there never was a time from the days of our Lord to the present hour, when the Church was without a toritien standard. When our Lord opened His ministiy on Earth, and when His Apostles, acting upon His commission, began theirs, the Old Testa- ment was that standard. To this He on all occasions appealed. "How roadest thou?" — "It is written," "ye do err, not knov.nng the Scriptures." And so His Apostles: the eftect of their Lord's teaching, and of the out pouring of the Holy Gliost upon them was not to acquaint them with things ichieh are not in the Scriptures, but so to enlighten their underetandings as to enable them to see and exi)lain what were there. That Gospel which they preached, with tbe' Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, was ihe identi- cal salvation, which Prophets had foretold ages before, and which the very angels desired to look into,^ and as soon as Christian Churclics were planted in Judea and other parts, they began, under the guidance of the same spirit which qualified them to preach, to irrite their accounts of our Lord's teaching, and to furnish the various Churches which were springing up i^tn every hand, with an enlarged standard of written documents. Thus the Gospel of St. Matthew is thought to have been written in Hebrew, about five years after tiie ascension of Christ, and to have been translated into Greek about twenty seven yeai-s later. The Gospels of Mark and Luke were subsequently written. In the mean time, we have St. Paul's Epistles, commencing about the year 52, and added to, from time to time, for the next twelve or thirteen years. Then follow the Epistles of Peter and John, with the Gospel of John in 89, and the Revelation in 97. So that it is obvious that, in every part of the Christian Church, written documents, known to be com- tho •p. fiZ. fp. 56. Ji.Pct. i, 11, 12. 70 posed under the guidance of inspiration were deposited at that early period, in addition to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which, owing to the dispersion of the Jews, were to be found in all those parts where Christian Churches were founded. As to the persons who have given us Cataloguea of the Books of the New Testament in the fourth century, of whom there are six, viz., Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Eufinus, Augustine and the forty four Bishops at the third Council of Carthage, they performed a good work, and corroborated by their testimony what Protestants and Rouian Catholics are perfectly agreed upon at the present day, though in regard to one of these Books, the Church of Kome, notwithstanding her supposed infallibility was entirely mistaken at that time; for she excluded the Epistle to the Hebrews from the Canon but afterwards when infallibility was more developed admitted it. But if those good men who thus gave their attestation to the the canon, had never done so, and if Pope Galasius who was wiser than his prede- cessors, had never given his sanation to the Epistle to the Hebrews at the close of the fifth century, we should still have been able to trace and point out the Canonical Books, from the testimony of much earlier writeif?, of whom we have a complete chain extending back through the third and second centuries, up to the Apostolic Fathers, within the limits of the first century, who all quote to a greater or lesser extent from those writings which are at present received as the inspired recoi*ds of Christianity. And in regard to these persons it is, as it has been justly said " a consideration of great importance that the witnesses lived at different times and in countries widely remote from one another ; Clement flourished at Rome, Ignatius at Antioeh, Polycarp at Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, Ire mens in France, Athenagoras at Athens, Theophilns at Antioeh, Clement and Origen at Alexandria, TertuUian at Carthage, and Augustine at Hippo, both in Africa, and, to mention no more, Eusebius at Cjcsarea. Philosophers, rhetoricians and divines, men of acuteness and learning, all concur to prove that the books of the New Tes- tament were equally well known in distant countries, and it . « "i «, "h 71 received as authentic, by men who had no intercourse with one another."* We deny therefore most emphatically the inference Mr. Maturin would have us to draw, that because certain lists of Canonical books were made out in the 4th and 5th centuries, therefore Christians antecedently to those dates, were destitute of a written rule of faith. But then says Mr. Maturin, it was not their only rule of faith. *' We shall search in vain he tells us, through all the Records of Christian antiquity, for any proof that the early Christians regar- ded the Bible as the only Mule of Faith." To this »/e reply, that the early Christian writers applied the terms " Rule of Faith," to any brief summary of the leading articles of Chris- tianity. But that, in so applying it, the truly primitive writers never meant to deny that the Holy Scriptures were the great standard by which all such summaries were to be tried, or that they contained, as our 6th Article very pi'operly says, " All things necessarj' to salvation." It may be well here to give from those very Fathers to whom Mr. Maturin has referred us, viz., Irenaeus and TertuUian, a specimen of these summaries. First from Ircmcus — " The Church, though scattered over "all the woi'ld from one end of the earth to the other, recei " ved from the Apostles and their disciples the belief in one "God, the Father Almighty who made the heaven and the "earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them; and in "one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit, who preached by the Prophets the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth by a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the " dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved "Jesus Christ our Lord, and His advent from Heaven in the "Glory of the Father to restore all things, and to raise all "flesh of all mankind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord and "God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure " of the invisible Father, every knee should bow of things in "heaven and things ?u earth and things under the earth, and a li * H. Home, V i. p. 82. T2 "that every tongue sT .)uld confess to Ilim, and that He may "execute just judgment upon all; that lie may send the "spirits of wickedness and transgressing and apostate angels, "and all impious and wicked and lawless and blasphemous "men into everlasting fire ; and to the just and holy, and "those that have kept His Commandments, and remained "stedfast in His love, some from the beginning, others after "repentance, having given life, may confer on them immor- "tality, and put them in possession of eternal glory."* Now let it be observed that Irenfcus gives this summary as " the faith preached by the Church ;" so that here we have reference to that oral teaching which Romanists st3'le " Apos- tolical Traditions ;" and then mark tTic following facts, — iirst, that every article of faith referred to in it is contained clearly, explicitly, and, to a gix^at extent in the same words, in the Canonical Scriptures ; thus establisiiing the perfect corres- pondence between the oral tcac1meing born " of her, lived in the person of Jesus Christ, that from that " time He preachetl a new law, and a new promise of the ' IrcEL adv. hsr. lib I. c. 10. Ml "kingdom of heaven ; that he performed miracles, was cru- "cifiod, rose again the third day, and being taken np into ♦* heaven, sat at the right hand of the Father, and in His " stead, sent the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers ; "and that He shall come with glory to take the Saints into "the fruition of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and "to adjudge the wicked to everlasting fire, having restored "to life both the one and the other, and raised their bodies." " This rule," he adds, " instituted by Christ, raises no disputes "among us except such as heresies introduce, or such as " make heretics."* Here again we have a celebrated writer of the 3rd Century presenting us with a summary of Christian doctrine, " a rule of faith" for the Church of that age, and when we come to look into it what do we find ? why that cvcrjj article in it, is an article contained in the llohj Scriiitures, and that n.ot one of the. peculiar dof/mas of the Church of Home is there. Is it not obvious then that the creed of the Primitive Church, i. e. of the Church in the days of the Apostles, and the age imme- diately following was esssentially different from (he creed of the Church of Rome at the present time ? that the former is in accordance with what we find in the Canonical Scrip- tures, while the latter in groat and important points is at variance with them, both by adding what they do not contain, and contradicting what they do ? • I ese summaries moreover, according as they do in every par;, Uir with the inspired Scriptures, are important attes- r.'i. ; to the fact, that tliose Scriptures contain in them "all liiiiigs necessary to salvation," and are to be regarded as the great, in short, the only full and comprehensive rule, for tho guidance of the Christian church. But we have testimonies to this fact, more direct and explicit, both from the writers above referred to, and from a host of others. Thus " Polgcarp,'" about the year 117, writing to the Philip- pians says : — " Neither can I, nor any other such as I am, come up to • Do prcBscript, adv. hoerct. c. 13. 74 " the wisdom of the blessed and renowned Paul, wlio being "himself in pereon with those who then lived, did, with all " exactness and soundness, teach the word of truth, and being '■'•gone from ijou, icrote an epistle to you, into ichieh if you look, '■'■you will be able to edi^y yoursclces in the faith tliat has been '■'■ dclircrcd unto you, which is the inofher of us all."* Thus Irenseus at a later period in this century says : — *' By no others have we come to the knowledge of the plan "of our salvation but those through whom the Gospel came " to us, which they then preached, but afterwards bj' the will " of God delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the Founda- "TIOX and pillar of OUll FAITH."t Again, having to deal with heretics ?r/(«> disputed the author, ity of Scripture, and wished to appeal from it to the oral teaching of the Apostles, he meets them upon their own ground, by referring them to the tradition preserved in the Churches founded by the Apostles, and then describes them as persons who, — " When reproved from the Scriptures, immediately began "to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not " correct, nor of authority, and as if they wore ambiguous ; " and as if the truth could not be discovered from them, by those " who were ignorant of tradition, for that the truth was not "delivered in writing but 0RALLY."t AVhether Mr. Maturin's present creed, approximates more to that of Iremeus, or that of the heretics whom he refuted, may be left to the decision of any man who feels himself at liberty to exercise his private judgment. But certain it is that the Romanist Erasmus, perceiving clearly the source from whence Ironsieus drew his proofs, says, — "lie fights against a host of heretics, with the sole aid of the Scri2)tures." Again Ii-enjeus anys, — " On this account we labour to adduce those proofs which "are derived from the Scriptures, that confuting them by the " very words of God, we may, as is in our power, drive them "from their enormous blabphemy."§ £p. ad. Pbilipp, sec. 3. f Adv. hcer. lib. 3. c. 1. \ Ibid. iii. 2. § Ibid. 4. 68. 7fi And again ; " Using those proofs which are from the Scrip- " iiires you may easily overturn, as we have demonstrated, all ^^ those heretical notions ichich tccre afterivards invented."* Upon the very decided testimony of Irenceus we remark, that those passages which Romanists appeal to in his writings, to shew that he also referred to A2)ostolical tradition, whicli no doubt he did do and for the purpose already explained, altbrd a most decided evidence against the traditionary system of the Church of Rome, for it is obvious that in those references he identifies the ApostoHcal traditions ujjVA thedoctrines of ScrijUiirc^ whereas Romanists seva' tliem, and make them supplementary to tliose doctrines. The real sentiments of Irenajus may be summed up in his own emphatic counsel : — " Bead very diligently that Gospel which has been given " us by the Apostles, and read very diligently the Prophets, " and you will find the whole course of action, and the ivhole " doctrine, and the whole passion of our Lord proclaimed in "them."t Ilippolyfus the Martyr, avIio flourished in the early part of the 3rd century, thus gives his decided testimony upon the subject : — " There is one God of whom, brethren, we have no know- " ledge, but from the Holy Scriptures. For as, if any one " should wish to learn the Avisdom of this world, he will not " be able to obtain it otherwise than by reading the doctrines " of the philosophers ; in the same way as many of us, aa " would learn religion, shall not be able to learn it anywhere "else than from the Oracles of God."X Origen, a little later in this century says : — " To me it seems good to cleave close, as to God and our " Lord Jesus Christ, so also to his Apostles, and to take my " information from the divine Scriptures, according to their oini ''tradition."^ And again, — " Therefore in proof of all the words we utter when teaching. •Ibid 5. 14. f Ibid 4. 66. ^lomil Contra Noet. s. 9. § M. Levit. Horn. 7, s 4. " wc ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as confirming " the doctrine we utter. For as all the gold that is without " the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that is hot in "the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable to " some, is not sacred, hecmise it is not contained by the doctrine " of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone which it "contains within itself as the temple [renders sacred] the "gold that is in it,"* Still later in the same century we have the testimony of Cyprian, who in his controversy with Stephen, Bishop of Rome, about the rebaptization of heretics, objects to Stephen's appeal to tradition in the following terms — "Whence is that tradition ? Docs it descend from Domini- "cal and Evangelical testimony, or does it come from the "commands and epistles of the Apostles ? For God declares "that those things are to be done that are M;n7/t'n, ... If, "therefore, il is cither commanded in the Gospel, or contr' ' in *'the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who lome "from any heresy should not bo baptised, but only hands "placed upon them for repentance, let that divine and holy "tradition be observed But if there is "but one baptism which is among us, and is internal, "and of the divine favour has been granted to the Church "alone, what obstinac\^ and presumption is it to prefer a " human tradition to the divine appointment, and not to per- "ceive that God is indignant and angry as often as human "tradition annuls and neglects the divine precepts Vf . . . Cyprian has often been quoted on tlie other side of the question, because he frequently employs the word "Tradi- tion," but it is obvious, as Lumper admits, that " Cyprian acknoicledyed no other Tradition than that which is contained in the Scriptures." ' Our next extracts are from the proceedings of the Council of Nice, in 825. On that occasion the proceedings were opened by a speech from the Emperor Constantine, in the conclusion of which we find the following judicious advice — * In Matt, comment, series 18. jEpist ad Porapcium. 77 "It would be grievous, yea, very grievous, our enemies "being destroyed, and no one daring to oppose us, that we "should wound one another and aftbrd pleasure and laughter " to our adversaries. And especially when we are discussing " divine things, and hai'c the tcdchmrj of fJir mod lloly Spirit "full// committed to icriting. For the Ermu/dical and Apostolical "books, and oravlfs of the ancient prophets:, clkarly and fully "teacii us vihat should be our views respecting the Godhead. "Let us, therefore banish hostile contention, and take tub "SOLUTION OF THE POINTS IN QUESTION FROM THE AVORDS OP "DIVINE INSPIRATION."* In regard to the manner in which the discussions were conducted, Athanasius tells us that the assembled IVishopa were desirous, "to write words that were confessedly words of Scripture." Attain he savs — "But here also, the Bishops having o>x 6. 78 rity of tlic one, nor you by the authority of the other. Let the points nnd causes, and reasons on both sides contend against each other, with authorities of the Scriptures, witnesses not belonging exclusively to either of us but common to both."* Again, in one of his letters to Jerome, Augustine says : — " I have learned to ffiee this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture alone, as that I should believe most firmly that none of them hath erred in anything, &c., — but others I do read, that how great soever their sanctity and learning bo. T do not therefore think that to be true because of their opinion, but because they are able to persuade me, either by some other Canonical Authors, or by probable reasons that they have not erred from the truth." Such then are some of the testimonies from the Fathers of the Jirst four centuries. Very many additional ones might have been given, but these may be suiRcient to shew that the sentiments of the earliest and best of these writers were in perfect accordance with the sixth article of the Church of England. When these writers speak of "Traditions" in connexion with the doctrines of the Gospel, they refer, in general, to what was writim in the sacred Scriptures. When they use the term in reference to any summaries of Christian doctrine that might have been based upon the oral teaching of the apostles, they speak of summaries which contain no doctrine which is not plainly and explicitly comprised in Holy Scripture. If the Fathers of the first three centuries recognize a separate and distinct tradition, of doctrines not contained in the Divine oracles, such doctrines, for example, as Transubstantiation, Purgatory, the worship of images, the adoration of and immaculate conception of* the Virgin Maiy, let Mr. Maturin adduce the testimonies to prove it. Until he does so, we cannot consent to accept such tenets? upon the authority of a Church which claims, but has not, infallibilit3',believing as Ave do, that such an attribute belongs to no earthly Church, and least of all to the Church of Rome. * Lib. ii. c. 14. I 79 With the Holy Scriptures in our hands, and the guidance of the Divine Spirit, wc have no ditficulty in tracing out dis- tinctly, every principle, doctrine, and precept of our holy religion, and every ordinance too which that religion enjoins. We have no difficulty in proving the inspiration of Scripture, or in discovering what to our minds is a sufficient warrant for our views of infant baptism, the" Sabbath, Einscopacy, and of all the other doctrines, rites, and ceremonies, which Mr. Maturin has enumerated on the sixty lirst and sixty second pages of his letter. Some of these things we hold in com- mon with the Church of Rome, and therefore it would ho worse than useless to enter into a discussion ahout them. Others, without any pretence to infallibility, or the aid of Traditions, we have decided for better thati she has done. For example, wo have avoided the inconsistency of mak- ing an "extreme unction," of what was not intended to be "extreme," of converting 'into a "passport to death,'' what was designed to be the means of rcfloratton to life. We liave avoided the absurdity of supposing that when our holy Sa- viour told his disciples, " ye ought to wash one another's feet," he meant that the Pope of Home sliould annually immerse in water, contained in a silver bucket, the feet of twelve or thirteen pilgrim-priests. We have avoided the inconsistency of making Sacraments of things which have not the character of Sacraments, and the impiety of keeping up a pretence to "miraculous power," by a system of imposition which, in many parts of Europe and under the direct sanction of the Papal authority, has brought disgrace upon the Christian name ; so that, upon the whole, our rule of faith has worked quite as well and somewhat better in settling the question about the temporary or permanent obligations of various practices, than the rule adopted by the Church of Rome. As to Mr. Maturin's assertions in regard to Infant Baptism, that there is neither command for, nor example of it to be found in the New Testament, we may safely leave him for an answer in the hands of Cyprian. The learned Ceillier, it appears, had referred to Cyprian as a witness for Divine Tra- 80 tVitions. Lumper, himself a Romanist, in commenting upon this reference, obsen-cs : — " By the leave of that most learned man and others, I must say that neither in this, nor the preceding passages, do St. Cyprian's words refer to divine traditions, distinct from holy Scripture. Any one will easily be convinced of the truth of this my assertion, if he will only at his leisure read the whole of the letters quoted Cypuian ACKNOWLEDGED NO OTHER TRADITION THAN WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE Scriptures And the ilhistrious Ceillier is both mistaken, and leads othors into error, when lie asserts that St. Cyprian defends 'mfard baptism, by the authority of tradition : since the contrary iiH obvious, from the letter of the holy Bishop to Fidus, v^herc he dcfchds the baptism, of infants by the clearest reasons, derived from holv scripture, icithoui makincf otvf mention of tradition. '■■^ Wo come n^xt to the Canon of Scripture ; and here the difference l)coth Chirelies ari' agreed in regard to them, that they are gen nine, authentic, and inspiri'd. JJut, in addition to these, th(^ (Jiiureh ofiionu'hds introduced into her Canon the whole of those adilitional hooks iiMiiinonly known unde- tho name of the Apoeryplia, 'vith thi' exco[)tion of the tliird and fonrth i'ooks of Esdvas and the i)rayer of Manasses. Now these Apo(*rypii: thei'c is no evidence of their having been written under the guidance of ins[iiration, and further because they contain some things -ntrary to sound doctrine and others too puerile and absuru to be credited. That lliey were not at once excluded from hci canon, at the time of the Ecformation, was a proof that she i»rocee(led slowly and carefully in thM good woi'k. That some }iarts of tliem were quoted in hep llomiiies, oidy shews that she ( onsideis certain portions of them as <.'ontaining veiy wholesome counsels, a ti'uth which no jjious i\'ader of them would be disposed to question. IJut in ex'-ludin;;: tiicin from lier canon, she has exercised a sound discretion w i '-li, in tliis instance as in many otlierp, has proved a more valuable jtossession than tho imaginary inrallibllity of the Church oT iiome. Mr. Maturin elylcH our canon a ''mutilated" one, and (l< iii< s that it ac(!onls with anv of the lists of the J-'athers. It does, how- ever, aerfeetly, as with others so v.ith that of I-kUtinus, who after enumerating the very books which wo 83 lie icy the nd ere ain to lUS include in our Canon and those alone, remarks in terms well worthy of Mr. Maturin's attention — "These are the Books wljich the Fiitliers have included within the canon : and out of them ihcif mtcmied that the articles of our faith should be framed."* T5ut from the Canon of Scripture we must now turn to the text of it, and to our authorised translation, both of which aceordiiig to Mr. Maturin's views, ought to be perfect, in order to warrant us in regarding the Bible as our rule of Faith. "W^c must be sure" he says, "that it contains the pure word of God; that we have the genuine text in all its ijitogrity, nothing added, altered, or omitted, notwithstand- ing all the various readings of dift'orcnt MSS., and versions; that every part of every book is divinely inspired; that the Engliyh Translation is perfectly correct (though it was made in the very iutUncy of Biblical criticism, and not from the present staiidard texts of the Hebrew Bible and Greek Tes- tament,) juul furtlier, that we are fully compc''Mit to arrive at the true interpretation of the Sacred Volume, by our own reason and coi.imon s(mi8c, or by the immediate inspiration of the fS[iiiit of God."t Now to thi.s we rejily, that all these qualifications are not ro(pii>^ite to render the Bible upon which we depend for an account of tlie doctrines and precepts of our religion, an adequate rule of faith. Many various readings may exist iu the original manuscripts, and many passages may be imper- fectly tran;;lated, without its atfecting, in the slightest degree, any [)i'iii<'i|)lc or doctrine of our religion. Neither our Lord nor His apostles hesitated to quote from the Scptaagin.', though the inauuscripts of that translation varied from each other, and, ill many instances, from the llcbrem orirfinal. God's J'roviilcuco is a suflicient guarantee for the preservation and integrity of His written word. AVhile He permits it to pass throiigli the hands, and bo transmitted from age to age, by • Ilii" • sunt (lUOD Patros infra (^inonnn. cnnrliigcrunt, ex ({uiliiis riJui nostrv tissrrtiotios ronsturo vulucruiit. Kufini lOxpor. 8) ml). Ait. ult> 84 the agency of fallible beings, and to bear ample marks of its being so, He takes care that the [/rcat ■idding the slightest alterations under pain of the most di-eadful anathemas. But it was scarcely published before it was discovered to abound with errors, and was quickly ciiUed in. A more correct edition was issued by Clement A'^lll. in LOKi, accompanied by a similar bull. An edition still further improved left the press iu 1503. The diffeienee between these is verv cousiart of hi.s letter, that, " the incvHahle tendmcji of Froks- Uint principles, both hi iheon/ and practice must always be to Socinianisni and l7}fidelif)/."* We meet this af«sertion with an unequivocal denial. The Icrjitiniatc use of private judg- ment has no necessary connexion with infidelity. It is the abuse of that principle which leads to it, and that abuse of it has existed in connexion with the Church of Rome to an extent for greater than it ever has done under the ascendency of Fi'otestantism. And there is nothing surprising in this. *' When a system so absurd and mischievous is held forth as the only genuine representation of the religion of the New Testament, and the means of comparing the one with the other are studiously withheld, it cannot be wondered at, that reflecting minds should take refuge in Infidelity. To them it must appear far wiser and better not to believe at all than to sutter such a degradation of reason and common sense as popery requires of them. ' If this be Christianity,' they argue, if these silly superstitions, these ridiculous legends, this idol worship and priestcraft, this hostility to knowledge and freedom, this desolating principle of persecution, belong to a system which arrogates to itself a heavenly origin, we will indignantly reject its claims, and rather H'ander in the uncertainties of scepticism than submit ourselveH to a yoke which a child might spurn to wear. Such a system carries with it its own refutation, and only deserves to be consigned to everlasting contempt. Thousands and tens of thousands fp. 64. 89 have reasoned thus ; and in such countries as France, Italy, and Spain, particulariy the latter, infidelity concealed, or iivowod, is diffused to an astonishing extent, and numbers iinionij its adherents, a large ])roportion of the clergy tlieni- selves. They have confounded Christianity with Popery, and the tyrannical policy of their church prevents them from rectifying the mistake. By demanding implicit faith, with- out examination or enquiry, and vigilently guarding all the avenues to divine truth, it has driven them into unbelief, as their sole resource. They must either cease to think or cease to believe ; who can he surprised that they choose the latter alternative V"* 'No svstem of tyrannv can ultlmatelv chain the human mind. It will think, it will reason, it will judge. Man, as soon as inquiry is awakened in his mind, hecomes conscious that he has a rk/hf, to do so, and it is vain hy the assumption of an authority which God never gave or sanc- tioned, to attempt to deprive him of this right. But Avhen that attempt is made and fails, the natural eflect is, to produce disgust at the existing state of things. By that powerful law of reaction which is iiievitably called into exercise in such cases, men bound at once from the prison of mental slavery, to the regions of speculation ; and it is marvellous indeed, if speculation thus excited, should stop short of rejecting the good as well as the evil. It is not a little astonishing that in order to prove the necessity of an infallible jud;jc of confroiursics', Mi'. Maturin should refer to the dici|)08e that promises of perpetuity and heavenly guidance and Divine presence, belonged to what may not be perpetual or under the Divine influence at all, we sec the wisdoA of that provision which has made these pro-mises the property not of ;i Visible Church, asi Bueh, but of the Invisible or Mysti'cai Church of Christ, a Church which, uau mover fail> and in always under heavenly guidance and dircctioo.. 94 Wr I l^ •; riii i' wrinkle, or any such thing."* "And gave him to be head over all things to tlie Church, Avhich is His body, the fulness of Him that"" lilleth all in all.'t "And lie ia'tho Head of the body the Church. "J "Ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innnmerablo company of angels; to the general assembly and Church of the first-born which .'vve written in heaven. "§ !N^ow it was to this Church, this Church of all ages and nations^ this hinlji and bride of Christ, without reference to any particuUir localit}', to any earthly centre of unity, that the rich ar.d precious promises of Clirist were given. It was to this Church our holy Saviour referred, when He declared that " the gates of hell should not prevail against it." — to this when he said, "Lo I am with you always," to tliis when he eaid, " I will send you another comforter, who sliall loach you all things, and guide you into all truth." It is to this spiritual, or as it is t:omcli!nes called, "Mystical" Church of Christ, composed of Cod's elect p" )plc of all ages and nations, that the pledges of light and power and perpetuity are given. And surely it must bo supertluous to add, that the Church of Rome is not this aggregate of God's elect people, and that consequently as a "visible body" of professing C'hristians, she has no right to claim those jirecious piomisos as her peculiar possession ; in fact has no riglit {o nit)/ share in them, any further than hhe retains within her pale, some, who in spite of her errors in doctrine and practice, still adiiere to the essentials of Christian truth, and live under their saving influence. As to any special cilainis built upon our Lord's address to Peter, the}- are worthless. Tlie asserter of them has two things to accomi)lish, jvhich never yet have been effected — viz. — to establish the connexion between the Church of Home and Peter — and secondly Peter's connexion with the privileges in question. It is po^siUc that St. Peter as well as St. Pa«l n\ay liave Ijeon at Uome, luit there is not the slight- est evidence to shew that he was ever the Bishop of Pome; • Ej.hc8. v., 25. fEphts.: 1,23, S3. t^'oI'>-:18. ^ Hob. xii. : 28, 23. 23. 95 there is on the other hand good reason to conclude that he never was so. And if he liad been, what then ? What reason have we from the passage on which these claims aro founded, to concluac that either Supremacy ov infallibility were ever transmitted by him, to his successors in that See? As to the "Rock'' of which our Lord speaks, theologians are not agreed, ^vhetller it refers to Christ Himself — to Peter or to Pcdr's conft.sslon. If to Christ Himself, then it assigns nothiug to Peter. If to Peter, it must have been to Peter personally or oiiicially. If personally, then the privileges died with him : \^ oJjidnU//, it was in connexion with his otiice as an AposUc, not as an ordinary Bishop, and was consequent- ly not transmitted to his successors. But after all, it might not have referred to Peter either personally or ofhcially, but to the noble coni'essiou which he had just uttered. "■ Tliou art tiio Christ, the Son of the living God." And this was the view taken of the passage by some of the ablest writers of Christian Anticpiity. Mr. Maturin prefiices his comments upon Mat. xvi. 18, with the remark that the infallibility of the Church, is founded upon " the [)romises of Jesus Christ, as ihc/j irci'c y nhont/ow hundred Bishops from all parts of the Christian world, a num- 9T hoy much greater tlian the number who aosembled at the Council of Nice ; and yet this great Council, which at first was orthodox in its faith, subsequently departed from it and adopted at last tlie views of the Arians, thus proving what the 21st Article of the Church of England declares of General Councils: viz: "that they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God." And when you put the Pope and Council together, can 3'ou out of two»fal- liblcs make an infallible ? The Council of Trent, if no other of this kind, stood upon record, would forbid such a conclu- sion. For as long as reason maintains the position w.-.ch God lias assigned her, in directing the counsels of His creatures, no w^ell informed mind which feels itself free to think for itself, can ever recognize in the decrees of tliat Council, a faithful exhibition of the Truth of God. And why should we imagine, contrary to the testimony of Scripture, and the facts of histoiy that such an attribute as infallibility ever belonged to any earthly church ? — or if to any — why to the Church of lioine ? What gives her the special claim to this prerogative ? — Xot surely the reason Mr. Maturin assigns when he tells us she has never separated fron\ any other Church; for this is contrary to fact. The Church of Rome never separated from any other ! — ^^ by she is the grand separatist of Europe ! — She is the Giant Schismatic of Christendom I It was the Church of Rome that separated from the Greek Church. Felix II. Patriarch of Rome pro- nounced sentence of excommunication, in the year 484 against the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and thus cut off all Ecclesiastical fellowship with the Churches which were under their direction. And whateftectr ed the separation between the Church of England and the Church of Rome ? J^^ot the exercise of supremacy/ on the part of Henry VIII, for this was the legitimate right of the Crown. What then ? Why the infamous Bull of Pius the Vth against Queen Elizabeth, denouncing her as a hcrctio, and absolving her subjects from the obligation to obey hor. This was the grand act of separation, and this was the act of v' ■ * 98 Kome. And so it has been in all uges. Slic has issued her Bulls of Excommunication against AValdcnscs, Albigenses, and all the Protestant Churches of the Continent, as well as against the Greek Church and the Church of England; and then having isolated herself by her errors in doctrine and de- nunciations in diacipline, from all other branches of the visible Church, she coolly says, "We are the Catholic Church;" wc who, at most, are only a part, are notwithstanding the univcr' sal Church, and we too alone arc InfalUble. Why so — Beeaiise we arc the only Church that claims it ; in other Avords, because we are the Church of all others which has profited least by that heavenly counsel — " Go and sit down in the lowest room, that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, friend go up higher."* As it is obvious then, that inflillibility belongs to no earthly tribunal, as neither Popes nor General Councils liave it, and National Churches do not lay claim to it, let us turn to con- template that Scriptural, reasonable, moderate and limited Church authority, which Churches, whether National or not, may rightly claim; and which the Church of England has so clearly dctined in her 20th Article, both as to matters of ce- remony, and controversies of faith. She claims in that Article, the right of " decreeing rites and ceremonies." As regards those "ceremonies and rites of the Church ordained oul}'^ by man's authority," she claims, as she is fully autho- rized to do, the right to ordain, change, or abolish them as she sees fit, "so long as all things be done to edifying;" and as to " controversies of faith," she also asserts her right to lay down, for the guidance of her nicmbers, such decisions as she deems necessary for the setting forth of truth, and the preservation of peace and order within her pale. She does not claim the right to make ncio Articles of faith, either out of "development," "traditions," or any other materials. She would never have dared to add to the faith of the early Christian Church such dogmas as those of Transubstantiation, -^ ■ ■ - I ■ I ■ ■ . . ■ * Luke xivi ) 7, 8< 99 Purgatory, and the "Immaculate Conceptioh." Ko— slie lays ^ovvn for lior own guidance the plain, obvious. Scriptu- ral rule, that it is not lawful for her to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word written, nor besides the same, to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation." "But who," asks Mr. Maturin, "is to decide Whether the Church's judgment is contrary to Scripture or not ?"* We answer, the great judge of quick and dead, He who will decide all things, the truth or fallacy of the tlecrccfi of Trcnt^ as well as of the Articles of the Church of England. He, not "individual opinion," as Mr. Maturin intimates, is the "Judge of Controversies," to whose superior authority she bows. As her Statute Book, so her " Judge of contro- versies" is Dirlne. She holds the one in her hand now, to guide her in her decisions ; she expects to appear before the other hereafter, to fjice an account of those decisions. If what she defines now bo in accordance with His revealed will, her children are bound to accept it ; if otherwise, they are at liberty to say to her, as Peter and John said to the Church authorities in their day, " whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard "f But, says Mr. Maturin, the Anglican Church has no author^ ity. Whatever she may claim in theory, she has certainly not the power to execute it in practice. " That power is reserved to her Moje^t^if in Council, as the Prerogative of the Royal Supremacy, established by King Henry VHI, and Queen Elizabeth." It is finally settled (he adds) that the Church of England lias no power, not only to enact canons in convocation, but to decide controversies on ^natters of Faith. And indeed it seems probable that from the beginning of the present i-eligious establishment, "the Church" in the 20th Article, really meant the Queen of England." All Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England was derived entirely from the Sovereign, thus practically illustrating the nature of •p. 79. f Acts iv. 10 20. 100 fk V )i;j' wr.: N '■ V. the Boyal Supremacy, as a blasphemous usurpation of the rights of Christ and of His Vicar upon earth."* Now upon this tissue of cxapeals thoy made totliem on tboir own behalf. Thus Loo the Grciit, who was Poix> of Rome from 440 to 461, and who was anxious enougli to extend the rijj-hts of the Romish See, actually applied to the Hmperor Valentinian III, for a Law to make him tha ILmlofthc Wcslcm CInnrh ! The Bishop of Rome dependant upon an act of Valentinian for his right to govern tlie AVestern Church I What straugo things does history unfold I VIZ., 105 As it r'^^ards the rights of Papal Supremacy in England, the claim to it, for reasons already assigned was invalid " ab initio." It had not even the sanction which long prescrip- tion "omctimes gives to what, upon its own merits, has no title to our respect. For though it had, from time to time, been exercised and extended under the reigns of weak and timid Sovereigns, yet as we have already shewn, a continued pro- test against it had been kept up, and the rights of the Crown reasserted and acted upon imder various reigns, from the times of the Heptarchy, down to the lieformation itself And 'thus, whether we look to the Holy Scri[>tures, or to tlie early history of Christendoiu, or to the particular history of Great Britain, wo see how utterly worthless, how destitute of all foundation in truth, as well as of all connexion with loyalty and respect for the laws of his nation h the insulting dechira- tion of Mr. Maturin, that the Royal Supremacy of England, is a blasphemous usurpation of the rights of Christ, and of His Vicar on earth ! ! " Which then is the 'rue Church of Christ."* Yes ivhich? we emphatically repeat ; forlind it whore you may, it is cer- tainly not the Church of Home. It is absurd to talk of her having been founded upon the Prince of the Apostles, for there never was a Prince among their number. It is vain also to say, that she has been preserved from c^ery scliism and heresy, for she has been the cause of numerous schisms, and her presei^t creed wfull of heresies. As to th*^ marks or notes of the true Church, this is a point upon which Konian- ists themselves are at issue. Thev are not affrocd as to tho nature nor rs to the number of them. Some make them two, some three, some four, some six, some eleven, some twelve, and some (Bellarmin for example) make tlicm Jif- teen. He admits however, that they may be reduced to the four selected by Mr. Maturin — viz., Unifij, Sunctit^/, Catholicif)/, Apostolioity. Had iMr. JMaturin adhered to those of his own ffenuinc creed, viz., that of Pope Pius IV, wo sho .Id have had the number tho same, but the nature of tho • p. 86. " -mi Mi pi' h 106 marks different: they would have been Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman. This however, would never have done ; for it would have been a tacit admission that Unity was not one of them ; and it would have involved also the insuperable difficulty of reconciling the paWiCJffer mark ^^ Roman'' with the universal one " Catholic.'' "We admit therefore, that in this instance, he has acted judiciously in preferring the sym- bol of Constantinople, to that of the Council of Trent ; — and yet, upon a careful examination, it will soon be obvious that the notes which ha has chosen are not the characteristics of the Church of Rome. Unity is the Jirst. Has the Church of Rome a title to this distinctive note? The Unity which the Scripture commends is one of sound doctrine and Christian love, produced by the influence of the Holy Ghost, and we have a fine description of it in the fourth chapter of Ephesians, by which it is obvi- ous that it supposes : 1. The acknowledgment of One God, — the Sternal Father. 2. One Lord, — Jesus Christ, who is the head of the body, the Church. 3. One Spirit, — the Holy Ghost. 4. One faith — that which was once delivered to the Saints. 5. One hope, — viz., of eternal life. 6. And one baptism, that of Christ, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, in the name of the blessed Trinity, and with the outward emblem of water; and finally the heavenly result of these things — peace. Now this is undoubtedly a true description of the Unity of the Church of Christ ; it comes to us upon the authority of inspiration, and wo may therefore take it as a test or criterion to asceriain whore the Spiritual body or true Church of Christ is to be found. Xow upon this description we remark, at the outset, that it omits one important item, which Mr. Maturin has added to it — viz., " One See founded by the voice of the Lord UPON Peteb." Search the description from end to end, and you will not discover a syllable of this. It would be strange indeed if you could ; for the Lord never founded any See upon Peter ; and when this beautiful description of the Unity of the Church, was given by St. Paul, the Sec to which Mr. Maturin refers, was not in existence. He never found that 107 mark of the true Church in the "Word of God, but, in the exercise of hia own private judgment, he discovered it amongst the words of a poor fallible man, like himself. It is therefore no part of Christian Unity, nor any criterion of the true Church of Christ. Again, we remark, that such a unity as that which St. Paul describes, is not to be found in the Kom- ish Church ; and, consequently, she has not this mark of being even a part of the true Church of Christ. In the uni- formity which she substitutes for the true unity of Christ's Church, there arc three capital defects. First, the unity be- tween the Head and the members, is interrupted, and in a great measure subverted, by the substitution of another Head in the place of Jesus Christ, viz, the Pope of Rome, to whoju the eyes of Roman Catholics arc directed as the " Lord God upon Earth." Secondly, the fait'i which the Romish Church proposes to ber members, is not the Faith once deliver- ed to the Saints, but a corrupted faith, subverting, in some essential points the true lUith of Christ, and adding to it in others as essential to Salvation, Articles of foith which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever authorized. And thirdly, the Church of Rome docs not exhibit, in her past or present history, that "Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," which is the very essence of the Unity of the Church of Christ. She has broken that peace, by her conflicts with the Eastern Church, schismalically srvcrinf/ from it. She has broken the bond of peace, by persecuting the people of God, until her true character as drawn by tlie pen of iufspiration is " drunk with the blood of the Saints." She has broken that bond of peace, by severing from her Communion, all the Protestant churches in the " world, because they refuse to join her in her corrupted faith and idolatrous acts, and thus she stands at present disunited from every other commU' nion that professes the Christian faith ; from those followers of Christ who exhibit the truest marks of being members of Ilia Mystical body." Nor does her internal history exhibit that peace and unanimity which she would wish us to believe it does. So far from it, there have existed within her own bosom such a. series of conflicts, and dissensions as can find 108 ■I I III' ' ■ El' ■i' no parallel in the history of other Churches. Their whole gystem of Theology has hecn in a state of perpetual change and vacillation. There was what was termed the LomhanUc, which taught that justification arose from grace and works. There was the Sc/whtslic, divided into ThomisfSy Scoiists, Occamists, wliich led to the remark from a Parisian divine, that the Scholastics were so discordant among themselves, that scarcely two could he found of the whole number who held the same opinion. Then there has been the 3Ionasiic Theology, which teaches that salvation is to be sought in Papal indulgences, works of supererogation and will wor- ship ; then the intermediate Theology which gives much sounder views of Christian doctrine, attributing our justiiica- tion to faith in Christ, springing from love ; and fifthly, the Jesuitical Theolorjij, which difibrs in man}- points, and especially in the doctrine of Justification from the preceding systems- Then there have been the long continued and violent dissen- tions between the Franciscans and Dominicans, as upon other points of doctrine, so especially upon that dogma which has become for the first time in the lOth century, an article of faith, viz., the immaculate conception of the Virgin. Then there have been the confiicts between the Jesuits, Benedictines, and other orders. The contests between the Bishops and the Pope, and the still more violent disscntions between the Popes themselves. The fearful schisms of a divided Popedom from 1378 to 1429, a period of fifty-one years, shewed plaiidy to the world, that Unity did not exist at the xcry centre of unity itself. The Cardinals in 1378 chose Urban Yl, a Xeapoiitan, as the Pope. Some of their own number afterwards retired to Fondi and elected a differ- ent i)erson, who took the title of Clement VII. Urban resided at liome, Clement at Avignon ; some nations adhered to the one, some to the other — war followed; bloodshed ensued ; and thus the Unity o'dho Latin Church was destroyed. I^or did the contest end here. The division was continued by tiieir successors, until 140G, when the Council of Pisa excommunicated Gm/ory and Benedict the two reigning Popes, and elected a third, Alexander V, both of the others, however, 109 an refusing to comply with the directions of the Cotincll. The Council then describing themselves as the rcpreaentaikcs of the Church Unkerscd, declared the French anl Italian Popes guilty of Schism, hcrcsi/, error, perjuri/, incorrigiblencss, contU' viaci/, pertinacif'/, ini'jH>/>/, violation of voios, scamMizalion of the holy Umrcrsal Church of God and unworthy of all power and dignity." This did not remedy the evil. Neither Gregory nor Benedict heeded the Council, and the only result waa that there were three Popes instead of two. Gregory was obeyed by Germany, Naples and Hungary; Benedict by Scotland, Spain, Armagnac and Foix ; iVlexander, by the other European Nations. Tlius the three ecclesiastical Chiefs continued to distract the Latin Church, andtoremedv the evil, all the efforts of Councils and new elections were fruitless, till 1421), when the triple Popedom resolved itself into unity again, under the Rule of Martyn V. AVhat a pre- cious comment does this history furnish upon Mr. Maturin's " One Communion under one Visible Head ! !" Surely the one body composed of Greek, Latin, and Anglimn Churches, would bo no worse after all, than that composetl of the adher- ents of Gregory, Benedict and Alexander! Unity in the abstract is not a mark of the Church of Christ. There is a unity of Paganism, a unity of 3Iahomedamsm, a unity of Judaism, but none of these unities are notes of that church. To indicate that Church it must be such a unity as the apostle describes in the fourth of Ephesiaus, That unity does belong to all the members of His mystical body, wher- ever they arc found ; and each of the Visible Churches of Christendom is just so far united to that spiritual botly, as it possesses of that spiritual union. But it is obvious that in the constrained uniformity of the Church of Rome, devoid as it id of some of the essential components of that unity, we can- not trace ihis mark of the true Church of the 'Redeemer. The Church of Christ is holy. Sanctity is one of the notes applicable to her, though in difterent degrees, at every stag© of lier existence, from the laying of her foundation on Cat- vury, to the adding of the head stone, amid the ascriptions of praises in the heavenly regions. As a visible Church aha ■MltH «;] 110 18 tt nii'areci body, comprising the evil and the good, hut the voUecim body is termed holy, on account of the profession of its memhers. AVhen viewed as the spiritual or mystical Church of Christ, every member is not merely by profession but in reality, not only externally, but internally, and vitally holy, and advances in this essential grace until it reaches its consummation in glory. Mr. Maturin is not satisfied with claiming this note for the Church of Rome, but assigns it to her as her special privilege, regarding her means of grace preeminently calculated to promote it, and the actual fruits of holiness, as shining forth with peculiar lustre in the lives and actions of her members. Among the means he enumer- ates the Grace of Sderaments, her constant ■public services, imprcs* sire ritual,, frequent Fasts and Feasts, and the inestimable privilege of skcret confession. The fruits which he speci- fies as the result of those, are the devout lives of Romanists Rs compared with ungodly Protestants, attention to religious duties, reverence for Priests, Sanctuaries and altars, devoted lives of Priests, magnificent Temples with costly decorations, perfect union, communion with saints in heaven and sympa- thy with souls in purgatory. It is truly wonderful to nuirk the blind enthusiasm and fanatical anlor with which Mr. Matu- rin has plunged into the vortex of Rome's delusions. As to the "sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost conferred upon all her children,"* it is obvious that it leaves a large proportion of them in a most ungodly- state ; and this very doctrine of the '* opus operatum" of the 8acraments, has been the means it is to be feared of destroying the souls of countless multi- tudes. Her frequent public services are to thousands, a mere matter of form, substituted for what is substantial. If her ritual is impressive, it is because Protestantism has compelled her to translate her public services into English. The repe- tition of Latin prayers to congregations who did not under* Btand a word of them, could not have been very impressive, or at all events very edifying, in former times. Festivals and Fasts have their use if used aright, but if men who ■ I ■-■' .-I ■- ■■-— — . ..— i . ■■! II ■ — .■■■.I-. ■■■i H llUa ■ I ill« .^..^^■. — ^tll* ■ HH Mi 11 III I ■ a i i n t iMII ■■■■— ^— 1> • p. 88. t p. 88% Ill abstain from cnting flesh on certain daj-s do not fast fiofti fiin but live in the grossest indulgence of it, as is often the ease with inerabers of the Church of Rome, it is only the means of making vice more inveterate, and the prospect of amendment more hopeless. Mr. Maturin numbers amongst the means of Sanctity in the Church of Home, '■'■her incethn.' able practice of secret confession.'* Inestimable in one sense the practice is ; for it would not be easy for the human mind to estimate the amount of pollution and abomination which attiiches to it. Open a volume of " Dens's comjilete body of Theology," a Work sanctioned at a meeting of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland in 1808, and subsequently made the conference book for the Clergy of Leinster, by Drs. Doyle, Keating and Kinsella, and note the queries set forth afl proper to bo put to females in the confessional,* and then form your judgment of ''the inestimable practice of secret con- fession." Or, if the Theology of Den's, be not ateommand, turn to the writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori, one of the saints whose biography Cardinal Wiseman has written, and note tho questions suggested in his treatise on the sixth and ninth commandments; and then make up your mind upon this " inestimable practice." Really when Mr. Maturin refers us to " Secret Confession " as a means of sanctity, it Avould be right to bring forward, in all its deformity, the history of the Confessional, as displayed in the works above referred to, and this, in due time, will probably be done. That there have been saints in the Church of Rome before Popery was known in it, we arc fully convinced ; that in later times, there have been men Avho like Fcnelon or Paschal liavo risen above her fal.«e system, and cherished the life of God in their souls wc do not (picstion ; but when Mr. Maturin talks of " the strict and devout lives of Catholics, as contras- ted with the ungodly lives of Protestants, we can only attribute it to his enthusiastic love of hyperbolism. He can know very little about the moral and spiritual condition of the great bulk of the Romish population, if he imagines that ■ , .« * Hee especially, in the case of married females. Tom<, vii, pp, 140, 60# 112 '( going to Mass, repeating Ave Marias, observing certain fasts, or trembling nt the power of their Priests, are proofs of that Nanctity wliich characterizes the Church of our Iledeemer. Thct a very devout servant of this Mother, described her charity as immense, as ex- ' tending to the very end of time, and spreading, from pole to pole ; as reaching ' up to the highest heaven, and down to the suhterraneons abyss of the prison of ' Purgatory ; and affirms that, as she is full for herself, she must needs pour forth ' herself abundantly for the good of men, alive or dead. St. Bridget, in her fa- ' mous revelations, was divinely informed that Mary was the consolatrix of all ' those who are in purgatory. If she be so who can explain the satisfaction this great Virgin feels in seeinrg the devout, suceoar these souls, towards whom she ' maintains such tender feelings of love 1 Let us then also give to the Mother of ' Love this 8.itisfuction, by giving abundant at^ffragu to theaouh in purgatory.'^ " Act of virtue fir one day. " Visit in some Church an image of Mary. " Act of virtue for the whole Month. - When you hear (he clock strike, lay an Ave Maria. If '7 118 " Ejaculation, " Mother of love, uplift the voice " Of thy most fervent prayer, " To Jesus, for the sufT'ring souls " That breath that torturing air." " St. Bcrnardine of Sienna, the Franciscan, wilt be the protector of this Jay, " whose devotion to Mary is not less celebrated by all, than that to the souls in " purgatory, one of which, as the Bollandists tells us, he called from purgatory, " and united to the body that it might explain to friends and relations the state " of the der.d, and procure their suffrages." "Wc select another extract from the " Psalkr of Bonavcn- tura," a canonized saint of the Romish Church, ".vhich shews the style in which prayers are addressed to the Virgin : — " Come unto her all ye that labour and uro heavy hidcn : and she will give refit " unto your souls." " For the honour of thy namo, O Lady, let the fru't of thy " glorious womb be reconciled to us." " For the dead shall not praise th?c, Lady. '• neither they that arc in the pit: but thoy who through thy grace shall attain '' everlasting life." " Let her mercy take away the multitude of our sins: and '• bestow on us the abundance of merit. Stretch forth thine arm unto us, glori- >• 0U8 Virgin, and turn not away from us thy glorious fiicp." «''l'l»ou alone " cnconij..iisscst the circuit of the earth, to succor them that cry unto thee." " Ronicmlter Lady, and speak good things in our favour, and Tuii\ from is thk " WKATii OF THY Sox. " Let thine Apostlcs, and '"lu Prophets of God bless thee : '• let marfyr.5, confessors, and virgins sing to the " " For since, O Lac'y, thou '• wrrt most humble : riiou i>iu;jr I'oucK Tin; uxciiCATEn Won., ro takk flesh fkom " TiiF.K." "Incline to us the countenance of GoJ — coMPKr, Him to have mercy on ■• sinnerr,'" " Wipe away all our sin ; heal all our infirmities." " Let Mary arise, •' and let her enemies bo scattered : let them all be biuiscd under her feet." "Truly God is loving unto Israel, even unto such ns worship and venerate his " Mother." O come let ug sing unto our Lady, let us heartily rejoice in Mary the " Queen of our salvation." " Let us conic bi (ore her presence with thunksgiv- " ing, and shew forth her praise with psalms." '• O come let us worship and fall " down before her, let us confess our sins lo her with tears." " Obtain for us a •'plenary indulgence; stand for us before the tribunal of God; receive our " souls in the end, and introduce us into elersia! rest." " The Lord said unto our Lady, sit Kiollur o;i my right hand." "He thai "sliall worthily worship /icr, f,h:\\\ he JtmliJieJ ,- but he that shall neglect her, shall '•die in his sins." "According to thine ordinance ihc. world continues, whose " foundations, thou, too, with God,did.'t la;/ from the beginnini^."' " All the earth '•doth worship thee: the spmHc of the everlasting Father." " Holy, holy, holy, •• Mary, Mother of God, Mother and Virgin." "The Church thioughout all the " world joins in rralling upon thee." •' 'i'he mother of a Divine Majesty." ' Who- " soever loill be saved, before all things it is nei.fssary that he hold the right faith about •' Manj:' 119 To shew the liglit in which this Saint is viewed in the Church of Rome take the following extra jt from the '' Koman Breviary." , " O God who hnst given the hlessrd Bonaventure to be A MIKistkr or eternal BALVATioN TO THY PEoi'LK, grant, We brsioch Thee, that him, whom we iiave had for OUR TEACIIKB OP LIFE vvos EARTH, We may deserve to have for our Inteiicessor IN HEAVEN." The above maj- snihfe as specimens of the practical work- ing of the Romish system, and ought to he sufficient to shew to every unprejudiced mind, tliat, as far as an adherence to doctrine is concerned, the Church of Rome has no claim to Apostolicity. In Mr. Matui-in's closing remarks upon this note we meet with some misstatements Avhich rerpiire to ho noticed. In regard to the first foitr General Councils, he states it to be " a remarkable fact, that eve7\'j one ol' these Councils contains a clear unei/uirocal fesfinwn'/ to the S'lprrniaei/ of the Pope in the Unicerst'l Chvre/t." ]*ut the case is widely differ- ent : the real truth is that not one of these (h'liieUs has recoo- iiized the. Pope's St'premac'/ ; but three of them on the other hand passed canons Avhich Avere utterly inconsistent AVith it. Tho first of tliem as already stated, shewed that tbo limits of his inrisdiction extended onlv to the snl)url)icarA' districts. The sceond, as Mr. Maturin says, declareon >.ny ditine rlf/ht in tho Rishop of Rome, as the suc<-essor of St. Peter, but upon the ant>quif>/ of tfie citji of Pome itself. .Moreover the precedence granted on this account, Avas merely a precedence of rank, not of Juris- diction. Tliis is obvious from the fact, that tliis very Council ratitiod the sixth canon passed at the Council of Nice. Avhich limited bis jurisdiction to the suburbicary districts. h\ the thinl General Council, vi/., i\vAio^ .Ephesus, a canon AA'as pas- sed excm[)ting Cyprus frcnn the jurisdiction of any other See; Avhich the Council never could have done, if it had recognized a Universal {Supremacy in the Pope of Rome. An) " passed over the ocean to the Britiak isle." Here again wc have the introduction of the Gospel into Britain in the first century. Tcrtullian writing in the beginning of the third century speaks of Britain as subdued to Christ, and Ircnaeus, speaks of the Gospel as ]>roiiBgatcd to the <* utmost bounds of the earth." And Clemens Romanus, the very friend and fellow-laborer of St. Paul, says that St. Paul, preaching the Gospel, "went to the titmost bounds of the west." When the facts here attested are put together, it •eems, to say the least of it, highly probable that the *' utmost bouudfi ot the Weat," included Britain, and that it was the " tent-maker" that passed over the ocean to the British IsleB> and was the instrument, in the hands of God, of sub- Ouing them to Christi liblc by ic Ian* ! whole ffirmed of the e infcr- , at all I in the lending )cean," ties (or British in the eaks of atcd to nd and to the thcr, it ot the ver the of eub>