LIBRARY
OF THK
University of California.
OIF^T OF"
Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH
Received October, i8g4.
iAccessions No.S^S^S^Cf. Class No.
y
Digitized by the Internet Arcinive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/difficultiesofroOOfaberich
THE
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM,
TIIK
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM
IN RESPECT TO
EVIDENCE:
THE PECULIARITIES OF THE LATIN CHURCH
EVINCED TO BE UNTENABLE ON
THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMATE HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.
GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.
MASTER OF SHERBURN HOSPITAL, AND PREBENBARY OF SAIJSBURY.
A'lvcrsus universas haercses jam hiiic prsejudicatum sit : id esse verum, qiiodcunque pri-
mum ; id esse adulteriim, qiiodcunque posterius.— Tertull. adv. Prax. § ii. Op. p. 405,
IN TWO BOOKS. ^^'^I'P' r»^ x-^
THE THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND REMOu]^^**^ ^-^''^
LONDON:
THOMAS BOSWORTH, 215 REGENT STREET.
MDCCCLIII.
F3
6~^ tS%
LONDON:
Printed by G. Baeclay, Castle St. Leicester Sq. London.
TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
NICOLAS LORD BEXLEY,
AS
A TOKEN OF SINCERE RESPECT
BOTH FOR HIS TUBLIC SERYICES AND HIS PRIYATE YIRTUES,
THIS WORK IS INSCRIBED
BY HIS OBLIGED AND OBEDIENT
HUMBLE SERYANT,
THE AUTHOR,
Sept. 17, 1825.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
ADAPTED TO THE THIRDS
It has recently been asserted by Dr. Norris of Stonyhurst:
that Members of the Roman Church cannot consistently enter into
an examination of doctrinal points with members of a Protestant
Church,
I. No ground of discussion, we are told, can now be ad-
mitted : because the principles of the Reformation were fully
discussed and finally set at rest in the Council of Trent ; the
decisions of which Council, under the aspect of its being
Ecumenical, are by every Latin revered as the dictates of the
Holy Ghost. Henceforth, no one in communion with the
Church of Rome can entertain a shadow of doubt ; henceforth,
his faith is fixed and immovable. Roma locuta est: causa
finita esf^. This being the case, it were unseemly for a Latin
' The date to the Preface of the to the fahrication of the Ecumenical
Second Edition was Long-Newton Synod's infallible decrees.
Kectory, Dec. 12, 1829. We have to perform two offices for
* Certainly, in the case of the Tri- two Prelates, who deserve every good.
dentine Council, nothing can be more One for the Archbishop of Matera,
true than the Roma locuta est : hut, learned, and among the first to give his
with respect to the Causa finita est, opinion. It is, that he mag be freed
from the yet extant Legatine Letters, from the pension upon him, with which
which abundantly reveal to us this the author of the chamber molests him.
Papal Mystery of Iniquity, it may be The other is for the Bishop of Berti-
more than suspected, that some in- nero, who behaves very well, and sticks
fluence, not quite so pure as that of like treacle to the Bishop of Fiesole.
the Blessed Spirit, largely contributed He wishes to be translated to the Bi-
Vlll
PREFACE.
to argue with a Protestant: because the very fact of his
stooping to argument would be a tacit admission, both that
shopric of Umhratico, for the conve-
nience of his family. It would he well
to gratify them. This would give spirit,
not only to them, hut also to many
others, to walk in the ways in which
they are treading : and the heneflts to
them would prove serviceable to his
beatitude. It should be considered, that
this Council is of importance, that we
have to do with Bishops, and that in
consequence it is necessary to make them
think of wishing to act well. Not to
make it known to the Prelates that we
are short of money, we have borrowed
much of it to supply the ordinary pro-
visions which are continually given to the
poor Bishops. — Poll. Epp. torn. iv.
p. 270, 271.
You must not fail to send money,
considering how important it is to keep
the Bishops well contented. Ibid. p. 274.
In another place, Cardinal Santa
Croce recommends to Cardinal Far-
nese the above-mentioned Prelates of
Matera and Bertinero, because they
had always be/iaved well: and the
example would help to keep many in
hope, and therefore in duty. Fur, in
the end, reward and punishment are the
two things, by which the world is well
governed. — Ibid. p. 302.
For these citations, I am indebted
to Mr. Turner. See Modern Hist, of
England, book ii. chap. 6. vol. i. p.
200, 203, 204.
Such was the Council, which, if we
may credit Dr. Norris, has fully dis-
cussed and finally set at rest the
principles of the Reformation : such
was the Council, on the Infallibility
of whose decrees, as we are assured
by the same unflinching Divine, no
one in communion with the Church
of Rome can entertain a shadow of
doubt : such was the Council, which,
still according to the intrepid Prin-
cipal of Stonyhurst, has so immove-
ably settled the foundations of the
faith, that any discussion with a Pro-
testant on the part of a Papist were
unseemly and inconsistent !
Truly, in the Council of Trent,
Rome has so spoken, that nothing
but Rome has spoken.
For a full account of the utter
nefariousness of this papally-packed
Conventicle, I refer the reader to Mr.
Mendham's very valuable and very
seasonable Memoirs of the Council of
Trent. Petheram, High Holborn.
The whole, indeed, of Mr. Mendham's
Works may be perused Avith singular
advantage by one who wishes to know
what Rome really is : certainly she is
any thing rather than what she has
been strangely denominated by a mem-
ber of the Church of England, ChHsVs
Holy Home! I subjoin the names
of Mr. Mendham's principal Works.
The Life and Pontificate of Saint
Pius V. 1832.
The Literary Policy of the Church
of Rome. 1830.
An Index of Prohibited Books by
command of the present Pope Gre-
gory XVI. 1840.
The Spiritual Venality of Rome, an
Account of the Taxae Cancellariie, and
TaxsePoenitentiarise, Apostolic®. 1836.
Card. Allen's Admonition to the
Nobility and People of England, &c.
1588 ; reprinted with a Preface, Lon-
don, 1842.
The Declaration of the Fathers of
the Council of Trent, concerning the
going into Churches, «fec. with a Pre-
face. Lond. 1850.
The Venal Indulgences and Par-
dons of the Church of Rome. 1839.
A perusal of these important Works,
I can venture to promise, will amply
repay the pains of the reader.
PREFACE. IX
doubt might still be entertained, and that his own faith was
neither fixed nor immovable.
Such, very lately, has been the published language of the
Principal of Stonyhurst, as addressed by him to my very able
friend and connection Dr. Whittaker^ : such also, unless my
memory altogether fail me, has been the language of Dr. Doyle
in Ireland.
1. Even on the first inspection, many persons will perhaps
deem a statement of this character not a little extraordinary.
(1.) To argue with an opponent may evince a wish to satisfy
that opponent : but, on the part of the individual who enters
into the argument, it can scarcely be construed to imply a
doubt of the truth of his own opinions.
Be ready, says St. Peter, always to give an answer to every
man, that asTceth you A reason of the hope that is in you'^.
Now surely the regular fulfilment of this precept, as en-
joined by the holy Apostle, ought not to be construed into a
dangerous acknowledgment, that a Christian entertained serious
doubts of the truth of his religion, and consequently that the
faith of a Christian was neither fixed nor immovable. In any
such oddly paradoxical manner, we certamly cannot interpret
his very plain admonition. He doubtless meant to intimate:
that, if a person should deny the truth of our doctrine, and
should call upon us for a reasonable proof of it ; we ought not
to tell him in reply, that we were precluded from speaking on
the subject, because any argument on our part would be a tacit
admission that we ourselves entertained doubts ; but, on the
contrary, we ought always to be ready to give an answer even
to every man, who should demand from us a reason of the hope
that is in us.
(2.) Assuredly, unless we introduce an universal scepticism
as to the import of language, this is the plain sense of the
Apostle's admonition.
' Some time, to tlie best of my recollection, in the year 1828 or 1829.
« 1 Pet. iii. 15.
X PREFACE.
Whence, no less assuredly, his admonition convicts of error
all those Romanists, who, on the unscriptural plea, that They
are compelled to reject every invitation to inquiry, because they
cannot admit any grou7id of discussion, and because a discussion
of what has been already settled would imply an acknowledgment
of doubt and uncertainty, decline, when a Protestant calls upon
them for an answer, to state the reason of the hope that is in
them.
(3.) The inspired Apostle, we see, is express against any
such subterfuge : and the principle of his admonition is clear
and self-evident.
We can never expect to bring over any person to our opinion,
if, in fair and open discussion, we refuse to communicate the
GROUND upo7i ivhich that opinion reposes.
2. Possibly Dr. Norris and his friends may say ; that they
do give an answer to the man that asks them a reason of the
hope that is in them : for, when questioned on the subject, they
reply; that All doctrinal points between themselves and the
Reformed were fully discussed and finally set at rest by the
Council of Trent, the decisions of which they revere as the very
dictates of the Holy Ghost^.
* The learned Eaymond Martin, a ipsa, quam credit et prtpdicat, spe et
brother-romanist of Dr. Norris and Jide: contrarium vero perturpe.
Dr. Doyle, would, I fear in no wise Eaym. Martin. Pug. Fid. Prooeni.
have agreed with them on the present p. 2.
point : for he quotes and applies 1 As little would the illustrious
Pet. iii. 15, in respect to tlie duty of Augustine have sanctioned the sub-
a professed preacher of the Gospel, terfuge of these two modern Komish
precisely as I do myself. Perhaps, Divines.
however, we must apologise for him Bonum est, ut etiam noverimus
by saying, that he flourished before defendendo adjuvare quod credimus :
the Council of Trent, inasmuch as he Apostolus enim Petrus paratos nos
wrote during the thirteenth century. esse prsecipit ad satisfactionem omni
Juxta B. Paulum, valde est decens poscenti nos rationem de fide et spe
et pulchrom, si prsedicator veiitatis nostra. August, de Nupt. et Con-
potens sit, exhortari Jideles in doctrina cupis. lib. i. c. 2. Oper. vol. vii. p, 307.
Sana, et eos qui veritati contradicunt But Augustine did not, like Dr.
redarguere ; et, secundum B. Petrum, Doyle and Dr. Norris, enjoy the high
si semper paratus sit ad satisfactionem advantage of living subsequent to the
omni poscenti eum, reddere rationem de Council of Trent.
PREFACE. XI
(1.) An answer of this sort may be satisfactory to themselves:
but can they seriously beheve, that it will ever convmce or
convert an intelligent inquirer after actual truth ?
They wish to proselyte, we will say, an individual of this
description.
The mdividual, on whom is tried the experiment, very
naturally and very fairly asks for a reason of the hope that is
in them.
Incontinently, the answer, as recommended by Dr. Norris
and Dr. Doyle, is : that Their hope must he well founded,
BECAUSE the infallible Council of Trent has finally decided the
question !
(2.) But, in reality, the persons, who would give as sufficient
even this strange answer, must either have themselves paid
very little attention to the principles of the Tridentine Council,
or must have rapidly concluded that not more attention has
been paid to those prhiciples by their antago7iists.
Their answer, such as it is, rests upon the avowed basis:
that The Cou7icil of Trent, nakedly and dogmatically, made
certairi decisions in respect to alleged Christian Doctrine and in
7'espect to alleged Christian Practice.
Whence their conclusion is: that. Since the decisions of the
Tridentine Council are to he revered as the dictates of the Holy
Ghost, those decisions cannot 71010, without manifest impiety, he
questioned or cont7we7'ted.
But, irrelevant as this answer plainly is to the case in hand :
the case, to v/it, of an iriquirer aski7ig a reason of that hope
which a Latin 7''ecomme7ids to his acceptance : the very basis of
such an answer is palpably insecure.
The Council of Trent did not make its decisions nakedly
and dogmatically. On the contrary, it rested them, even
professedly, altogetlier upon an asserted fact.
Hence, its decisions were made, not abstractedly, but co7i-
ci'ctely. They were so framed, as to depend, not upon the
simple naked infallibility of a theopneust Ecumenical Council,
Xll
PREFACE.
but -upon the previous establishment of an asserted fact in
Ilistory.
Such being the case ; by the Tridentine Synod, the cause,
even professedly, was ended, only so far as the asserted fact
could be established.
Therefore, both on the very ground gratuitously taken up by
the Council itself, and likewise on the acknowledgment that the
Infallibility of an Ecumenical Council extends not to Facts but
reaches solely to Doctrines: the asserted fact must be his-
torically substantiated, ere our modern Romish Theologians,
even on their own principles, can be allowed to say, that the
cause is ended \
' From the authority of Mr. Be-
rington we learn : that It is no article
of Catholic Faith, that the Church can-
not err in matters of fact. Faith of
Cathol. p. 154, 155. See below, hook
ii. chap. 7. § IV.
Should any Romanist, perceiving
the consequences of this acknowledg-
ment, wish to draw hack from it ; he
may he promptly met with proof
positive.
The second Nicene Council, which
sat in the year 787, roundly asserted
the fact; that No one of the antece-
dent Fathers had ever styled the conse-
crated eucharistic bread an IMAGE of
Christ's body : and, upon this precise
ASSERTED FACT, the members of that
Council built the DOCTRINE of amaterial
or substantial presence of Christ in the
consecrated eucharistic elements. Con-
cil. Nic. ii. act. vi. Labb. Concil. vol.
vii. p. 448, 449.
Yet, by Eusebius and Theodoret of
the Greek Church, and by Ambrose
and Gelasius of the Latin Church, all
of whom flourished anterior to the
year 787, the consecrated elements
had, even verbally, been denominated
the IMAGE («/x<yy and imago) of Christ's
body and blood. Euseb. Demons.
Evan. lib. viii. c. 2. p. 236. Theod.
Dial. ii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 85. Am-
bros. Offic. lib. i. c. 48. Oper. col. 33.
Gelas. de duab. Christ, natur. in Bib-
lioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.
In truth, even where Mr. Bering-
ton asserts the inerrancy of a General
Council in points of doctrine as
contradistinguished from matters of
FACT, he still rests the assertion upon
the pre^ious establishment of a fact.
The Pastors of the Church, says he,
who are the Body Representative, either
dispersed or convened in Council, have
received no commission from Chnst to
frame New Articles of Faith {these be-
ing solely divine revelations), but to ex-
plain only and to define, what anciently
was, and is, received and retained, as of
Faith, in the Church, when debates and
controversies arise about them. These
definitions in matters of faith only,
and proposed as such, oblige all the
faithful to a submission of judgment.
Faith of Cathol, p. 145. London,
1813.
It is obvious, that these definitions
of what was the ancient faith must
inevitably rest upon the establish-
PREFACE.
XIU
Now the FACT, again and again asserted by the Tridentine
Fathers, is this.
All the doctrines and all the practices, which they, the Tri-
dentine Fathers, have decided to he true and obligatory, were
ALWAYS the received doctrines and practices of the Church
Catholic, in etert age, without any variation, from the very time
of Christ and his Apostles who were themselves the first original
inculcators of such doctrines and such practices, down even to the
time in which they, the Tridentine Fathers, lived and flourished.
Nor, be it carefully observed, do they barely assert the fact
before us, as a fact.
TJie Tridentine Fathers professedly likewise build, upon the
ASSERTED FACT in question, their own specific decisions. There-
fore, they inevitably make the truth of their decisions to rest upon
the anterior fundamental truth of ath asserted fact in History K
ment of a fact. Now, in the present
Work, it is precisely this asserted
estabHshment of a fact which I con-
trovert : and, unless the Komanists
can establish it by competent His-
torical Testimony, Mr. Berington
contradicts himself in saying, that
Definitions in matters of faith
obliye all the Faithful to a submission
of judgment. For such definitions
cannot be obligatory, until the fact of
their correctness shall have been his-
torically established by their identity
with the ancient faith : and Mr.
Berington himself admits, that the
Church may err in mattees of fact.
If, then, the Catholic Church may
thus err in its judgment of antiquity :
much more may the mere provincial
Western Patriarchate of Rome.
' Semper hroc fides in Ecclesia Dei
fuit. Concil. Trident, sess. xiii. c. 3.
p. 124.
Ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia
Dei fuit : idque nunc denuo sancta
hoec Synodus declarat. Ibid. sess.
xiii. c. 4. p. 125.
Pro more in Catholica Ecclesia
semper recepto. Ibid. sess. xiii. c. 5.
p. 125.
Universa Ecclesia semper intel-
lexit. Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 5. p. 148.
Persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei
fuit : et verissimum esse Synodus htec
confirmat. Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 7. p. 153.
Sacrae Literse ostendunt, et Catho-
licse Ecclesiae traditio semper docuit.
Ibid, xxiii. c. 1. p. 279.
Cum, Scripturoe testimonio, apos-
tolica traditione, et Patrum unanimi
consensu, perspicuum sit: — dubitare
nemo debet. Ibid, xxiii. c. 3. p. 280.
Cum, igitur,— sancti Patres nostri,
Conciha, et universalis Ecclesise
traditio, semper docuerunt: — sancta
et universalis Synodus, prsedictorum
schismaticorum haereses et errores, —
exterminandos duxit. Ibid. sess. xxiv.
p. 343, 344.
Tridentina Synodus, — Sacrarum
XIV PREFACE.
Under such a statement of the matter ; a statement, be it
duly remembered, made not by me but by the Tridentine
Fathers themselves : it is obvious, that the asserted fact must
be substantiated, ere the decisions be admitted ; it is obvious,
that, until the asserted fact be substantiated, the cause is not
ended.
Nothing, therefore, can be at once, both more absurd in itself,
and more contrary to the very declaration of the Tridentine
Fathers, than to assert, with Dr. Norris and Dr. Doyle, that
the CAUSE is ended while the ¥ACT yet remains to be substantiated:
nothing can be more disgracefiilly evasive than to decline all
discussion of the Peculiarities of Romanism, on the miserable
plea ; that The principles of the Reformation have been finally
set at rest in the Council of Trent \
On the very ground taken up by the Tridentine Fathers
themselves, we say : prove your asserted fact.
Dr. Norris and Dr. Doyle reply : roivia locuta est ; causa
FINITA EST !
II. To ascribe the inconsistency of Dr. Doyle and the Prin-
cipal of Stonyhurst to all the gentlemen of their communion,
were an unfairness of which I would in no wise be guilty.
Both Mr. Berington, and the present Bishop of Strasbourg
Dr. Trevem, have felt the imperative necessity of establishing
the FACT, before they could plead the decisions.
Hence, with whatever success, they have alike manfully set
their shoulders to the wheel : the one, in his Faith of Catholics
confirmed by Scripture and attested by the Fathers of the five first
Scripturarum et sanctorum Patrum the broad assertions of the Council of
ac probatissimorum Conciliorum tes- Trent, as to the Unchanging Perpe-
timonia etipsius Ecclesise judicium et tuity of Romish Doctrine, cannot be
coNSENSUM secuta, H^o sTATUiT, Substantiated by evidekce. Hence
FATETUR, AC DECLARAT. Ibid. sess. V. he has put forth his Scheme of De-
p. 12, 13. Vide etiam sess. xiii. velopmcnt: a mere Quidlibet ex quoli-
p. 121, 122. bet, which is palpably a surrender of
' Mr. Newman evidently feels, that the whole Tridentine statement.
PREFACE. XV
centuries ; the other, in his Amicable Discussion on the Anglican
Church and generally on the Reformation ^.
Of each of these two writers, the object is the same : namely,
AN ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACT ALLEGED BY THE TRIDENTINE
FATHERS.
Their respective efforts I certainly deem a most lamentable
failure : but still, so far as they are personally concerned, they
have done nothing more, than what they felt themselves com-
pelled to do. Upon all those who have made such matters
their study, the Council has called, to establish, by Historical
Testimony, the fact which the Comicil has asserted. I readily
admit the invitation to be somewhat appalling : but the Theo-
logical World will only, on that account, the more sincerely
respect the undaunted courage of the two chivalrous indi-
viduals who have so promptly undertaken the adventure. If
they fall in the lofty quest, they at least fall in the very act of
performing their knightly devoir.
III. In the spring of the year 1825, an english gentleman of
family and fortune, Mr. Massingberd of Gunby Park, with
whom I have not the advantage of being personally acquainted,
forwarded to me, from the south of France, a copy of the
Amicable Discussion of Dr. Trevern, formerly Vicar-General
of Langres, then Bishop of Aire, now Bishop of Strasbourg.
The copy, thus transmitted to me, was accompanied by a
letter : in which Mr. Massingberd spoke, m the highest terms,
of the Bishop's personal character ; represented his Work, as
having produced a very considerable sensation among the
travelling English Laity ; and, with a degree of perhaps flat-
tering earnestness which I could scarcely have anticipated,
requested me to answer it.
' The Faith of Catholics, confirmed Discussion Amicale sur I'Eglise
by Scripture, and attested by the Anglicane et en general sur la Ee-
Fathers of the five first centuries of formation. A Paris. 1824. Chez
the Church. London. 1813. Keat- Potey, Rue du Bac.
ing, Brown, and Keating, Duke Street,
Grosvenor Square.
XVI PREFACE.
1. On perusing the Work, I found, that Dr. Trevern's
general argument, in favour of the Church of Rome and
against the Church of England, was, in brief, to the following
effect.
That which was taught hy Christ and his Apostles, and that
which was believed by the strictly Primitive Church from the very
beginning on the professed ground that she had received from
Christ and his Apostles, must indisputably be the truth. But,
with this well-ascertained Primitive Scheme of Doctrine and
Practice, the Church of Rome agrees, and the Church of England
disagrees. Therefore, the former must teach the truth, while the
latter teaches falsehood.
2. This general argument, in favour of the Church of Rome
and against the Church of England, rests upon no other, than a
studied attempt to substantiate the fact asserted by the Fathers of
the Tridentine Council.
By such a process, the decisions of those Fathers are resolved,
as they plainly ought to be resolved, into A naked historical
QUESTION OF FACT. And, accordingly, since it is admitted that
the Infallibility of Ecumenical Councils does not extend to
FACTS OF HISTORY, the solc point to be decided is : WJiether the
Doctrines and Practices of the Roman Church, as propounded
and explained by the Tridentine Fathers, have, or have not, the
authority of Christ, the inculcating sanction of the Apostles, and
the always unvarying practical testimony of universal primitive
antiquity from the very beginning.
IV. When a Roman Ecclesiastic perplexes an English
Layman, by boldly asserting, or by speciously attempting to
prove the strict accordance of his Church, both in doctrine and
in practice, with the Church which was immediately taught by
the inspired Apostles : it is desirable, that the Layman, without
the trouble of a research into documents not always very easily
accessible, should be provided with a prompt and adequate
reply.
1. A wish; says Mr. Massingberd in his letter to myself: A
PREFACE. XV 11
wish to be able to answer the questions, repeatedly and tri-
umphantly proposed by the Catholics upon topics of this
description, is everywhere now reigning.
Thus speaks an intelligent Layman from actual experience :
the object of my Work is, to furnish an easy reply to such
questions, not merely in the present day, but at any future
period whatsoever.
2. Your own theologians ; says Dr. Trevern to his english
laic friend, whom his Work is professedly intended to prose-
lyte : Yow oivn theologians, no less than ourselves, have in their
ha7ids the Ancie7it Liturgies of the Primitive Church and the
Works of the Early Ecclesiastical Writers : hut they will have
small inclination, I suspect, to bring you acquainted ivith such
documents. Ask them to communicate these documents to you :
desire them to specify the opinions ivhich they express. You will
soon find, that they take your request with no very good grace :
and, in truth, to deal plainly with you, it is impossible that they
should. Ah well. Sir, I will spare them their embarrassment :
and, so far as you are concerned, I will go on to accomplish their
defective ministrations ^
Thus speaks the present Bishop of Strasbourg : the object of
my Work is to furnish a permanent answer to the supposed
embarrassing questions, wliich, at Dr. Trevern's suggestion, the
English Laity might propound to the English Clergy 2.
Y. In the first edition of this Work, at the request of Mr.
Massingberd and in consequence of the high character which he
gave of Dr. Trevern, I treated that individual with a degree of
mildness and civility and forbearance, which has actually pro-
cured for me the censui-e of some members of my own Church.
L Whether my conduct was proper or improper, I shall not
* Discuss. Amic. lettr. x. vol. ii. translated into Italian and French.
p. B. Through God's blessing, it may tliu^
2 It is no ordinaiy satisfaction to be serviceable on the Continent as
me, that the first and second editions well as in these Islands,
of this Work have been respectively
xviii PREFACE.
undertake to determine : different opinions may probably have
been entertained of its merits.
Be that as it may, the Answer to the Difficulties of Romanism,
by the Bishop of Strasbourg, was, in point of tone and temper,
any thing rather than what I had anticipated.
(1.) Of course I did not expect, that the Bishop could make
out any satisfactory case of evidence for the Tridentine iviatter
OF FACT : I had studied the subject too long and too closely to
apprehend any such extraordinary occurrence. But I certainly
did expect, that the treatment of a gentleman on my part would
procure the cheap return of a corresponding treatment of a
gentleman on his part : I certainly did expect, from a Bishop
and a Frenchman, a measure of decent politeness at the least
equal to that of a Presbyter and an Englishman.
Yet Dr. Jortin, who seems to have known the humour of the
Latin Clergy better than I once did, might have taught me the
fallaciousness of my somewhat romantic anticipations.
Grotius, says he, was inclined to think and to judge, rather too
favourably than too hardly, of the Church of Rome. For which,
some of the Ecclesiastics of that Communion have repaid him with
the gratitude that was to be expected : and have thus taught by-
standers, that he, who endeavours to stroke a tyger into good
humour, will at the least have his fingers bitten off in the
experiment
Accordingly, my anticipations of the Galilean Prelate's
responsive courtesy were unhappily disappointed. Every page
of my antagonist's Production, that respected myself, was cha-
racterised by extreme, though perhaps not unaccountable,
irritation : and I was reviled in terms, which Dr. Trevern
indeed ought to have blushed to use, but which Dr. Jortin
teaches me were only to be expected ^
' Dr. Trevem's scurrility was said to have a consciousness of
scarcely even politic. When a man defeat,
loses his temper, he is proverbially
PREFACE. XIX
(2.) Mere general abuse, liowever, was in no wise the wbrst
part of the matter.
Through the medium of very intemperate and very offensive
phraseology, I was actually charged, by this Romish Eccle-
siastic, with having dishonestly suppressed two passages ; the
one from TertuUian, the other from Cyril of Jerusalem : both
of which I had faithfully ^ii;m, though neither of which (accord-
ing to the original plan of my Work) was I in any wise pledged
to give.
Dr. Trevern, however, fondly conceived, that the passages
were favourable to liis own cause : and he well knew, that a
stout allegation of interested and dishonest suppression would
materially benefit that cause by injuring my character. The
sanctifying end was good, and the Latin Prelate does not seem
to have been peculiarly scrupulous about the mean.
Yet, truly, a person whose own actual feats of interpolation
and suppression and mistranslation and misrepresentation
have been, as we shall presently find, so numerous and so extra-
ordinary : a person thus circumstanced ought, in common
prudence at least, if from no better motive, to have been pecu-
liarly cautious how he hazarded an accusation, and that a false
accusation, against his antagonists
* The Bishop, through the medium was pleased to determine that I ought
of his friend Mr. Husenheth, has to have quoted it : he contends, that
since, when he found himself pressed, he was justified in cbai'ging me with
acknowledged that I had fairly pro- having suppressed the passage; even
duced the passage from TertuUian: though, in the place where he brought
but he has strenuously refused to that accusation against me, he said
make any apology in respect to the not a single syllable as to my having
passage from Cyril. He does not, duly quoted it elsewhere : in other
indeed, now pretend to deny that I words, he professes to hold himself
quoted it : nay, he was absolutely justified in preferring against me a
aware of that circumstance at the very broad charge of absolute and complete
time when he deliberately charged me suppression, simply because I had ad-
with corrupt suppression. But, as I duced the passage in one part of ray
did not happen to quote it in the Work rather than in another.
precise place of my Work where he Mr. Mendham, in his valuable and
XX PKEFACE.
2. The prolix Answer of Dr. Trevern, a considerable part of
which was mere verbatim repetition of what he had already
said in liis Amicable Discussion, produced from me a Reply
under the title of The Testimony of Primitive Antiquity against
the PeculiaHties of the Latin Church, being a Supplement to the
Difficulties of Romanism^.
3. Tliis Reply called out Mr. Husenbeth, the translator and
editor of the Bishop's A7iswer : for, though, by a wanton and
very insulting attack upon the Church of England, Dr. Trevern
himself was the perfectly unprovoked aggressor ; still, from that
Prelate, even avowedly, nothing more was to be expected m
the way of controversy.
How much : he had exclaimed in his Answer to my super-
fluously complaisant Difficulties of Romanism: How much
has my patience been tried I The whole task appeared to me un-
grateful and revolting. I have endured it once, disgusting as it
was : but I could not support it a second time : a7id I declare
beforehand, that, let him write henceforth what he pleases, I shall
not read a line of his Production.
Dr. Trevern having thus retired from a field gratuitously
selected by himself, Mr. Husenbeth was pleased to step forward
into his place : and, accordingly, he published a Reply to my
Supplement, equalhng in volummous prolixity the Answer even
of his very principal.
4. As my business was with Dr. Trevern, not with Mr.
Husenbeth, I was certainly by no means bound to notice the
Performance of the latter : for I venture to think, that the laws
of just controversy do not require that an Answer should be
given to all the friends or friends' friends of a shrinking adver-
niost seasonable Life of Saint Pius to he suspected, till they can verify their
the Fifth (a genuine Popish Saint, I affidavits, like a felon or a sivindler.
trow!), Las, I fear, but too truly re- p. 217.
marked : Really, these papal writers ' Sold by Messrs. Rivingtons, St.
require to he watched at every step, and Paul's Churcliyard and Waterloo Place.
PKEFACE. XXI
sary, who may be pleased to take up in his defence that pen
which he hhnself has thought good to resign.
Yet, though not hound, I was induced, de propria liberalitate,
to expend a pamphlet upon Mr. Husenbeth : for I was moved
thereto, partly by the impotent anger of the Bishop's editor,
and partly by some remarkable adventures in the perilous field
of criticism jointly achieved by Dr. Trevem and himself ^
5. I now deemed the controversy at an end: for it were
obviously superfluous to notice in mood and form a mere scur-
rilous Pamphlet of Mr. Husenbeth; which was stuffed with
irrelevant personal abuse of myself; which contained nothing
deserving of attention, save a grossly inaccurate allegation
respecting the Emperor Julian, readily exposed by the simple
process of adducing the direct testimony of Cyril of Alexan-
dria ; and which, in truth, gave up the very point in debate
by a constrained angry confession that The Peculiarities of Ro-
7nanis7n could not he estahlished from the historical testimony of
the Antenicene Fathers.
6. But, however / might deem the controversy at an end,
Mr. Husenheth was of a different opinion. He seemed to think,
that he had not sufliciently exhibited himself. Hence he em-
ployed some four years in concocting a huge mass of vulgar
scurrility, extending through 738 pages, and distinguished by
the alike classical and modest title of Faherism exposed and re-
futed. Still, as before, he made no progress in meeting the
REAL QUESTION between us ; to which, with determined steadi-
ness, I pinned him down : for he was agai?! reduced to the dis-
graceful acknowledgement, that The Peculianties of Romanism
could not he estahlished from, the Historical Testimony of the
Antenicene Fathers.
This produced, on my part, a short final Answer : for, since
' The title of this Pamphlet is : with notices of his sxtrpHsing adventures
Some account of Mr. Husenheth'' s At- in the perilous field of criticism. Ri-
tf-mpt to assist the Bishop of Strashourfj, viiigtons.
XXI 1 PREFACE.
mere personal abuse, however it might show his weakness,
could not require any reply from me, a small Pamphlet was
more than sufficient to meet a bulky volume maxie up of such
materials. The Answer very reasonably insisted upon the
point, which Mr. Husenbeth still pertinaciously refused to
encomiter, and to which with equal pertinacity I was deter-
mined to bind him down^
7. My Answer was met by a Pamphlet in Mr. Husenbeth's
characteristic style : but, since he ventured not to retract his
TWICE-MADE ADMISSION of Inability to trace up to the Apostles the
Peculiarities of his Faith in the method which I had marked
out for him (the very simple method, to wit, of adducing the
Historical Testimony of the three first centuries,) and since my
sole concern with him was on that precise point, no reply to a
self-annihilated antagonist, absurdly bent upon having the last
word, could possibly be deemed necessary.
VI. From a wish to render my Work both more evidentially
satisfactory and more extensively useful, I was induced, in the
second edition, entirely to remould the Difficulties of Romanism,
adopting, throughout, a perfectly new and far more convenient
arrangement : and this same improved arrangement, as would
obviously be expected, is retained in the third edition.
1. The FACT, to be established by the Romanist, is: The
Aboriginal Apostolicity of the Peculiar Doctnnes and Practices
of the Modern Latin Church.
In the first book, then, of my Work, the testimony to this
effect, as adduced by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington them-
selves, in the Amicable Discussion of the former, and in The
Faith of Catholics of the latter, partly from Scripture and partly
from the Ecclesiastical Writers of the three first centuries, is
fully and openly stated : and, without the allegation of a single
' This final Pamphlet on my part Argumentofthe Difficulties of Romanism
hore the title of An Account of Mr. on the entirclt/ new principle of a Re-
JImenbeth's Professed Refutation of the fused to meet if. Crofts, Chancery Lane.
PKEFACE. XXlll
atom of counter-evidence, their testimony, even on their own
exhibition of it, is shewn to be utterly insufficient to substan-
tiate the FACT which it is designed to substantiate.
(1.) Mr. Berington, I ought here to remark, brings forward
testimony from the five first centuries : and Dr. Trevem, still
more bountiful, professes to rest his cause upon the writers of
the six first centuries.
The reason why they wish to descend so low, is obvious
enough. As Mr. Husenbeth found to his cost, no case could
be made out from the three first centuries exclusively.
But, while I deem the evidence of the Fathers of even the
fourth or fifth or sixth century quite insufficient to establish
the existence of the most prominent among the modem Latin
Peculiarities in the periods during which those Fathers them-
selves respectively flourished : still, it will be plain to the very
meanest reasoning capacity, that, for any available purpose of
REALLY and LEGITIMATELY Substantiating, by valid testimony,
the FACT to he substantiated, the ample period of the three first
centuries, touching, as they do, the most closely upon the age
of the Apostles, is the very utmost that can be either justly
required or rationally admitted.
(2.) The FACT to be proved, it will be recollected, is : The
Apostolical Inculcation and the strictly PHmitive Reception of the
Peculiar Doctrines and Practices of the Modern Latin Church,
Now, if this necessary fact cannot be substantiated by the
joint evidence of Scripture and of the Writers of the three first
centuries ; it is a clear case, that any attempt to substantiate it,
from the much later documents of the fourth or fifth or sixth
century, must, in the very nature of things, be a task utterly
hopeless and unprofitable. More modem testimony, when we
already possess more ancient testimony, may not be useless
under the aspect of supplemental and corroborative evidence :
but more modem testimony, without more ancient testimony, is
altogether worthless and inconclusive. The point in question,
whatever that point may be, must, in the first instance, be dis-
XXIV TREFACE.
tinctly proved from really ancient testimony. When that lias
been done ; later testimony may then, no doubt, but not till
then, be usefully brought forward in the way of confirmation.
(3.) On this perfectly intelligible principle, I designedly
limit my examination to the testimony produced from Scripture
and from the Writers of the three first centuries ; being fully
satisfied, that, if the Peculiarities of Romanism cannot histori-
cally be thus established, they never can be established by the
mere later testimony of succeeding ages : and, this testimony
from Scripture and from the three first centuries, any person,
accustomed to weigh evidence, will, I suspect, pronounce with
myself to be altogether defective and inefficient.
2. Here, so far as demonstration by the Latin Party is con-
cerned, the matter might well have been suffered to rest : for,
when a Romanist asserts his Peculiarities in Doctrine and in
Practice to have been inculcated upon the strictly Primitive
Church by the Apostles themselves, the burden of proof clearly
rests upon him ; nor can he expect iis to admit his assertion,
if the requisite proof be wanting.
(1.) But I have not thought it good, that the matter should
here be suffered to rest.
Hence, in the second book of my Work, assuming the post-
ure of a direct assailant, I go on to produce a mass of counter-
evidence against the Peculiarities of the Latin Church, which,
I trust, will be quite sufficient to convince any sober inquirer,
that they are assuredly of no apostolic origin, but that long
after the apostolic age they sprang up only in the course of
most lamentable corruption.
(2.) When these two distinct lines of argument, negative
and positive, are combined : the historical demonstration, that
the FACT, alleged hy the Tridentine Fathers as the very basis of
their Conciliar Decisions is utterly unfounded, will, it is con-
ceived, be as perfect as can be reasonably either expected or
desired.
yn. Since Dr. Trevcrn, with whom I was chiefly concerned
niEFACE.
XXV
in the first edition of the Difficulties of Romanism, did not
think proper, in his Amicable Discussion, to give the originals
of the passages which he adduces in evidence : I felt myself at
liberty, in my first edition, to follow his example, and thus to
escape the labour of a somewhat wearisome transcription of
Greek and Latin.
1. By various judicious friends, my primary adoption of
this defective plan has been very justly regretted^
In the second edition, therefore, as also in the present edi-
tion, the deficiency has been supplied : and, while, for the
convenience of the general or the unlettered reader, I have care-
fully excluded from the text every vestige of Greek and Latin ;
I have no less carefully, in the margin, given at full length
the original of every passage which has been cited, either by
Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington from the writers of the three
first centuries, or by myself from writers of whatsoever
description^.
' In truth, no person had more
reason to regret its adoption than
myself : for it seemed to afford a kind
of temporary triumph to my not very
scrupulous opponents. They charged
me with the intentional dishonesty of
occasionally false translations : and,
as mere references, and not the Origin-
als in full, were in the margins, the
reader had no oj)portunity of forming
his own judgment. In my second
edition, I gave the Greek and Latin
Originals in full : and then I heard
no more of my false translations.
"Whenever I have found it necessary
to return the compliment, in the way
of alleging either mistranslations or
interpolations or suppressions, I have
always carefully given the Originals,
that so the honest inquirer may de-
cide for himself.
One of my asserted dishonest mis-
translations, as the reader will find
in its proper place, was richly amus-
ing. Dr. Trevern, unluckily, for the
purpose of my conviction, resorted to
the Latin Version of a passage, instead
of going, as I had naturally done, to
its Greek Original. Hence he rapidly
fancied that he had caught me trip-
ping : his supposition being, that I
rendered the Latin word scite by the
English word boldly. Not having dis-
covered that the Greek verb ^app^a-td-
^ofiai complexly involves the sense of
boldly, and fancying that my boldly
was the reflexion of the Latin scite,
he set no bounds to his triumph over
my convicted either ignorance or dis-
honesty. This is scarcely credible:
nevertheless, it is true.
' Dr. Trevern's references are so
deplorably slovenly and unscholar-
like, that I have had infinite trouble
in following him. One or two pass-
ages, I believe, at the utmost, and
XXVI PKEFACE-
2. By adopting this plan, my Work will, I trust, have been
very materially improved.
(1.) To the theological Student and future Clergyman, who
in these latter days must anticipate the probability of not un-
frequent controversy with the Roman Priesthood, the Work,
as now moulded, may be usefal; because it will copiously
furnish him, not merely with english translations, but with the
original documents upon which that controversy depends : to
the lettered and inquiring Layman it may be satisfactory ;
because it freely affords liim full opportunity to verify allega-
tions by an immediate ocular inspection of the precise greek or
latin passages upon which they are founded : and to those of
my clerical brethren who may chance to be engaged in local
disputations with the gentlemen of the Latin Church, it may be
serviceable ; because it will supply them with genuine matter
upon which they may rely, and because it will exempt them
from the apprehension of taking up assertions which cannot be
established.
(2.) In truth, I have, from a troublesome habit of verifying
whenever I have an opportunity of verification, encountered
such specimens of iniquity, both in quoting and in translating
and in vaguely though boldly asserting upon such and such
alleged authority ; that I sincerely wish no controversial Work
were written without, both an accompaniment of the original
documents, and also references so precise that the jealous in-
quirer, without an unreasonable imposition of labour, might
have a full opportunity afforded him of examining for himself.
(3.) Should my Work, in its present form, prove beneficial
in all or in any of the several respects which I have specified :
those of no consequence, for they say my utmost diligence, I have been un-
nothing more than what other strictly able to find them : and I have not
parallel passages of the same author chosen to admit any passage unac-
say, have of very necessity been companied by its original in the mar-
omitted by me : simply because, ^vith gin.
PREFACE.
XXVU
it will not have been vainly written, nor will the author be
without his reward.
VIII. I have observed, that, whenever a Roman Divine is
hard pressed in regard to the doctrines and practices of his own
Church, he almost invariably attempts to divert the attention
of his reader from the true question, by launching out into
strenuous objurgations of Luther and the Reformers.
1. Now, even if those much calumniated individuals had
been as complete Hebrew Jews as their maligners would fain
represent them : still, I really see not what tliis has to do with
the true matter in hand.
(1.) Granting for a moment, that Luther conversed bodily with
the devil, I must needs say, even in that extreme and doubtless
very remarkable case, that the Latin Clergy will not be a single
jot nearer to that Historical Establishment of a fact which has
been imposed upon them by the Tridentine Fathers ^
' That the anile figment of Luther's
personal conference with the devil, who
is alleged to have then and there in-
spired him with the thought of deny-
ing the sacrifice of the Mass, though
he had already denied it previous to
the date of the pretended personal
conference, should have been lately
retailed by Mr. Husenbeth, for the
purpose of abusing the English Com-
monalty, will excite small wonder.
But, that the garbled misrepresenta-
tion, in which the very misrepre-
senters cannot always agree in the
same tale, and which entirely sup-
presses the not unimportant words
within my hearty should, even after
Seckendorf had consigned it to well
merited contempt, have been gravely
adduced by Bossuet without ever men-
tioning Seckendorf, reflects no ordi-
nary disgrace upon the character of
that acute though disingenous Pre-
late. Honest Seckendorf, the whole
fabrication having been thoroughly
dissected, indignantly exclaims : They,
therefore, who affirm, that Luther ac-
knowledged himself to have been con-
vinced by the devil that the Mass was
no sacrifice, are guilty of a palpable and
Our thanks are due to Mr. Scott
for a recent exposure of what he
justly calls this shameful and prepos-
terous story against Lvther. He inti-
mates, that there was the more need
of such exposure, because it has lately
been served up in the shape of a
small Tract to enlighten the lower
orders of our population. See Scott's
Hist, of the Church of Christ, vol. i.
p. 546-551.
On comparing dates, I incline to
think, though I speak under correc-
tion, that the illuminating Tract, al-
luded to by Mr. Scott, is Mr. Husen-
beth's Production, entitled A Defence
of the Creed and Principles of the
XXVlll
PREFACE.
(2.) Let the cautious inquirer never suffer himself to be
diverted by such subterfuges from the real question of debate :
let liim never for a moment forget, that, under the pain of their
Church sinking into the character of a rank vender of gross
IMPOSTURE, the Latins stand pledged to demonstrate, from com-
petent historical testimony, the naked fact ; that All the Doc-
trines and all the Practices of Modern Romanism were divinely
communicated by Chnst, were authoritatively inculcated by his
Apostles, and ivere from them directly and immediately received
by the individual members of the Strictly Primitive Church
Catholic ^
2. Should any gentleman of the Latin Communion deem
this statement too severe, in so far as it regards the fidl amount
of the FACT to be substantiated : he has my free consent to lower
it even to very utmost extent of his wishes.
Catholic Church. Happily, such Creed
and such Principles are the property,
not of the Catholic Church at large,
but only of a Particular and very
unsound Branch.
' In cheap assertion of alleged his-
torical FACTS, few persons are more
lavishly prodigal than Mr. Husen-
beth : and doubtless, with the igno-
rant or the careless, his unblenching
intrepidity may occasionally produce
its desired effect.
Every article of our creed, says he,
comes down to us, halloived by the con-
current testimonies of eighteen centuries.
— The testimonies of the early Fathers
abundantly shew, that every single
article of our faith was taught from
THE BEGiNKiKG. Defence of the Creed
and Principles of the Catholic Church.
p. 25, 65.
My simple reply is : prove it.
We are ready to shew, says he, tliat
our religious practices are grounded
uj)on Scripture and the universal
practice of Antiquity. Ibid. p. 101.
Again I reply : shew it.
In the third century, says he, St.
Cyprian speaks of secret sins confessed
to the Priests and of remission granted
by them. St. Ireneus, Tertullian, and
others, testify to the practice of secret
confession to the ministers of the Church.
Ibid. p. 93.
Once more I reply : pro"\te it.
On the matter of secret confession
to a Priest, for Mr. Husenbeth makes
his word secret designedly empliatic
by printing it in Italics, I incUne to
believe, that he has never consulted
the author to whom he so boldly re-
fers, but that he has implicitly rested
at second hand upon the intrepid as-
sertion of the not very scrupulous
Bishop of Strasbourg : periculosce ple-
num opus alecE. See below, Append,
numb. ii. §1. (2.) (3.) (5.).
Other specimens of Mr. Husen-
beth's rapidity oi assertion will here-
after be exhibited. As a foretaste,
these, for the present, may suffice.
PREFACE. XXIX
But, in that case, he must recollect, that, if he once admits
the non-inculcation of any particular doctrine or practice by
Christ and his Apostles ; he forthwith concedes its origin to be
purely human : and, if he thus concedes its origin to be purely
human; he simultaneously achnits the mere unauthoritative
novelty of the doctrine or practice in question.
IX. It may peradventm'e be proper, that I should say a
word on the nomenclature systematically and advisedly adopted
throughout the whole of the present Work.
1. In the legitimate use of the term, I am far from denying
to any individual in communion with the Church of Rome the
appellation of catholic : for I believe his particular limited
Church to be a Branch, though a very corrupt and lamentably
withered Branch, of the Catholic Church of Christ.
Hence, as a Greek, or an Armenian, or a Syrian, or an
Anglican, or a Scot, is severally a Catholic ; because, though
individually belonging to a particular national Church, he is
generally a member of Christ's Church Catholic: so, in the
self-same sense and on the self-same principle, a Latin, or a
member of some one of the particular Chiu^ches in commimion
with the Bishop of Rome, is indisputably a Catholic also.
2. But, after the restless humour of Ishmael whose hand
was against every man that every man's hand might be against
him, the gentlemen of the Romish Persuasion are not content to
share the name of catholic with the members of other Churches
which are quite as independent as the Church of Rome can be :
they, on all occasions, affect to assume it, as being, what in
truth it is not, their own proper distinguishing appellation : they
claim it, in short, as being their own, not in joint tenancy, but
absolutely and specially and exclusively.
3. Now this most absurd and arrogant assumption, which
puts them in a posture of schismatical hostility against every
other Branch of Christ's Universal Church, can never be
allowed by any Christian, who for a single moment gives him-
self the trouble to consider its obvious and inevitable tendency.
XXX PREFACE.
(1.) If he concede to the Latin the title of catholic as his
own proper exclicsive and distinguishing appellation: he of course
virtually excommunicates himself and commits a sort of ecclesi-
astical suicide, by acknowledging, that he has no right to the
name of catholic, and consequently that he is not a member of
the Catholic or Universal Church of Christ our common I^ord
and Saviour.
(2.) Such being evidently the case, it follows : that, wliile
the spiritual subject of the Pope is a Catholic, precisely as, and
not an atom more than, a Greek or a Syrian or an Anglican or
a Scot is a Catholic; the distinctive appellation of that papal
subject, whereby we mark him out among the general collective
body of Catholics, must plainly be some other appellation wliich
he can vindicate to himself exclusively.
4. On this principle, the papal subject in question may be
fitly called (for I am no way curious about the precise name of
distinction, provided only, for convenience sake, we have a name
of distinctioti), either a Romanist as a Member of the Roman
Church taken in its largest sense, or a Papist as One who
acknowledges the duty of spiritual submission to the Pope, or a
Latin as One who is in communion with the Latin Church of
the Western Patriarchate of the Roman Empire.
5. Our Legislature has, I believe, conceded to rehgionists of
this description the name of Moman- Catholics,
In this compomid title there is nothing to censure, save its
manifest and prolix superfluity. No doubt, a Roman is a
Catholic : whence, by a palpable truism, every Roman is a
Roman-Catholic ; for, while he is a Roman as a member of the
Roman or Latin Church in particular, he is a Catholic as a
member of Christ's Catholic Church in generals But, why, on
* I have, in the course of my read- by a Latin Priest, that the word
ing, seen instances of a formal dene- Catholic means Universal, and that
gation of the name of catholic to a the particular national Church of
member of the Church of England, England is not universal but limited,
on the grave plea gravely propounded That any thing so utterly childish
PREFACE.
XXXI
all occasions, we should be inconvenienced with the voluminous
title oi Roman-Catholic, rather than with the equally volumi-
nous title of Greek- Catholic or Syrian- Catholic or Anglo- Catholic
or Scoto- Catholic, I do not possess skill sufficient to discover.
6. Mr. Husenbeth, in his charitable love of excltjsiveness
out-heroding even Herod himself, actually goes the prepos-
terous length of declaring, that the application of the merely
distinctive names of Romanist or Papist or Latin must be consi-
dered as a studied insult : in other words, he pronounces (and I
understand, that many of his brethren absolutely agree with
him in the strangely unaccountable phantasy), that, unless we
will suicidally consent to acknowledge that we are not members
of the Catholic Church of Christ, we deliberately insult those
who happen to be in communion with the Particular Church of
Rome !
The truth of the matter is the very reverse. Whenever Mr.
Husenbeth or any other Romanist arrogantly assumes to him-
self, as a distinctive and not as a common appellation, the name
of CATHOLIC : he is guilty of a gross and wanton and offensive
should, even ad captum viilyi, have
ever been brought forward, will, by
the sober reader, be scarcely cre-
dited: yet, unless my memory abso-
lutely fails me, I have really encoun-
tered a solemn denegation constructed
on that precise avowed principle.
If the member of no particular
national Church can claim the name
of CATHOLIC, unless his particular
national Church be itself the entire
universal Church: that name must
forthwith be consigned to the owls
and to the bats, on the score of its
being altogether useless and un-
meaning. According to such a gloss,
the Romanist is no more a Catholic
than the Anglican : for, by mere mat-
ter of fact presented openly to our
very eyesight, the particular Church
of the one is evinced to be no more
the Universal Church in every part
of the world, than the particular
Church of the other.
The simple truth is, that the appel-
lations of Romanist and Anglican are
specific, while the appellation of Ca-
tholic is generic. Consequently, as
being members of the Catholic Church
of Christ, the Anglican and the Ro-
manist are alike Catholics : but, as
being severally members of the two
distinct national Churches of Eng-
land and Rome, they are distinctively
an Anglican and a Romanist.
I am ashamed to notice such egre-
gious trifling : my sole, though per-
haps insufficient, apology must be its
actual and active existence.
XXXll PREFACE.
insult to eve^^y member of every Church, that is unable to dis-
cover either from Scripture or from History the necessity of
subjection to one special Italian Bishop ; a Bishop, who in reality
is nothing more than the head of one of those mutually inde-
pendent Patriarchates, into which, by mere secular authority, the
converted Roman Empire was in point of geography ecclesias-
tically partitioned ^
7. I may add, that this is in no wise a vain litigious conten-
tion for a mere unimportant title.
(1.) The thoughtless folly of misdeemed polite concession,
which too often has marked even members of the Reformed
Churches within these Realms, has, by the Roman Priesthood,
been eagerly laid hold of, for the avowed purpose of perplexing
the ignorant vulgar, whether high or low, with an unblushmg
assumption of apparently acknowledged catholic exclusive-
NESS.
Every time; says Dr. Milner, speaking of candid Protestants:
Every time that each of them addresses the God of Truth, either
in solemn worship or in private devotion, he fails not to repeat : I
believe in the catholic church. And yet, if I ask him the ques-
tion ; Are you A catholic : he is sure to answer me ; No, I am K
' "Ocrai Ti ii^n <roXiis AIA FPAMMA- semper prseconia lauclum, et post
TfiN BA2IAIKnN tm t?,; fMiT^oroAsus mortem tituli sepulchrares, ut romani
iTiiAn6n(rav ovo/iUTi, f^ovm dToXaviTutretv sic semper dicamur atque papists.
T^s rift^s. Concil. Chalced. Can. xii. Baron. Martyrolog. Roman, p. 459.
Compare Concil. Chalced. can. xvii. col. i. Antwerp. 1689. cited by Dr.
Concil. Trull, can. xxx\aii. Townsend in his Charge. Aug. 15,
It is a somewhat amusing circum- 1838. p. 18.
stance, that in the use of the terra I must say, that, on principles of
Papist, the learning of Mr. Husen- common sense, the Cardinal has the
beth sliould toto ccelo disagree Avith best of the argument: for, if Mr.
the learning of Cardinal Baronius. Husenbeth deems it an insult to be
The former deems the word a name of called a Papist, he must also, by a
insult: the latter maintains, that all plain consequence, deem it an insult
the lieges of the Pope should claim it to be represented as acknowledging
as a title of honour. the Papal Supremacy.
Sint, igitur, nobis viventibus hsec
PREFACE. XXXUl
PROTESTANT. Was there ever a more glariyig instance of inconsist-
ency and self-condemnation among 7'ational beings ' ?
(2.) I was not aware, until instructed by Dr. Milner, that
each Protestant, in his private devotion, fails not to repeat, /
believe in the catholic church : but I was aware, that the same
argument, if argument it can be called, has been dressed up in
more than one of the small Tracts, which are industriously
circulated by the schismatical Latin Clergy in these realms for
the purpose of perplexing and proselyting our english common
people.
Yet, unless we will consent to be guilty of the inconsistency
and self-condemnation which Dr. Milner has very truly charac-
terised as unworthy of rational beings, Mr. Husenbeth, for-
sooth, adopting the phantasy of the Bishop of Strasbourg, will
step forward and assure us : that we actually insidt him, when
we allow indeed his claim to the title of catholic as a common
appellation, but rightly give him as his distinctive appellation
the name of romanist or papist or latin.
8. Probably, Mr. Husenbeth or some other gentlemen of
his communion will say, that we Protestants have no right to
the title of catholics : and, peradventure, he may allege as a
reason; that, while all other Churches, once sound and ca-
tholic, have deflected from the Faith, the Roman Church alone
has uniformly held it; and, consequently, that the Roman
Church exclusively is the true Catholic Church 2.
It will be time enough to admit the validity of such an
' End of Eeligious Controversy. perniciosissimis erroribus versari ne-
Lett. xxviii, p. 184. cesse est. Catech. ad Paroch. par. i.
' Quemadmodum base una Eccle- c. x. qviaist. 16.
sia (scil. Eomana) errare non potest Mr.Husenbetb complains of insult.
in fidei ac morum disciplina tradenda, How marvellously free from every
quum a Spiritu Sancto gubemetur; approximation to it is tbis authorised
ita Cffiteras oranes, qu£e sibi Ecclesiae declaration: for tbe Catechism claims
nomen arrogant, ut qua? Diaboli spi- to be Ex Decreto Concilii Triden-
ritu ducantur, in doctrinas et morum tiui.
XXXIV PREFACE.
assertion, when the position set forth in it shall have been
prohatively established. At present, we are only concerned
with the charge of insulting a member of the Church of Rome,
unless we concede to him, in his own sense of exclitsiveness, the
title of a Catholic.
Now, in regard to the very extraordinary allegation of insult,
I may fairly appeal to the whole world, as to the real quarter
from which insult proceeds ; I may fairly appeal to the whole
world, whether it be a greater insult, to style a confessed
member of the Latin Church a Romanist and a Papist while
his common right in the generic name of catholic is freely
allowed, or to declare roundly that the name of catholic is
peculiar to the members of the Latin Church and that he who
disagrees with that particular Chui'ch is not in any wise even to
be deemed a catholic.
9. On the whole, the question of insult being now tolerably
well settled, since so very unfair an use has been made of a
fashion, which originated, I believe, in mere unthinking com-
plaisance childishly conceded to arrogant and offensive im-
portunity : the idle hmnour of calling the Romanists Catholics,
in their own professedly exclusive sense of the word catholic,
ought surely, with one accord, to be systematically discontinued
by every Protestant who himself claims to be a member of the
Catholic or Universal Church of Christ.
10. As for Dr. Milner, had that gentleman somewhat varied
the form of his very ingenious question propounded to a
thoughtless Anglican; and had he, with this mere phraseolo-
gical variation, asked the lowest protestant day-labourer. Whe-
ther he was a member of Christ's Universal Church upon earth,
the existence of which he professes to believe when he recites the
Apostles^ Creed : I will venture to affirm, that the answer,
instead of being no, would promptly have been yes.
In point of dexterity and plausibility, the Work of Dr.
Milner, which he has entitled The End of Religious Controversy,
has probably not been surpassed since the days of that Prince
PREFACE. XXXV
of Sophists, the wily Bossuet ^ It is, however, strongly marked
by what I have noted to be the grand characteristics of Pro-
ductions written in favour of Popery, and in opposition ta thfi_
Reformation.
These are : Unscrupulous Misrepresentation, on the one
hand ; and Bold Allegation, on the other hand.
The adduction of two several specimens, which bear more
immediately upon my own subject, may be neither useless nor
irrelevant.
1. According to Dr. Milner, as he professes to have been
instructed by his correspondent, (whether real or fictitious)
James Brown, Esquire, the Rule of Faith, prescribed by the
Church of England and other more rational Classes of Pro-
testants, is The Written Word of God or the Bible, every indi-
vidual meanwhile being a judge for himself of the sense of the
BibW.
(1.) That many Dissenters, more especially the Socinians,
hold this opinion, will not be denied : and that various indi-
vidual Churchmen (among whom, I suppose, we must reckon
James Brown, Esquire,) have inconsistently adopted the same
irrational crudity, will not be disputed.
But, from which of the authorised Documents of the Church
of England, did Dr. Milner learn, that her Rule of Faith is
such, as, wdth the assistance of Mr. Brown, he has defined it
to be?
He has not indulged his readers with any reference; for
which, no doubt, there was abundantly sufficient reason: he
could not, in mood and form, safely refer to that which exists
not.
(2.) In the estimation of the Church of England, the Written
"Word of God is indeed the sole Rule of Faith : but, when she
' By The End of Controversy, Dr. his Work was so potent as to put a
Milner means, not Tlie Legitimate Ob- complete end to all controversy be-
ject of Controversy, but Its comiilcte tween Papists and Protestants.
Termination: thus intimating, that '^Eudof Eel.Controv.lett.viii. p.32.
XXXVl PEEFACE.
adopted that Rule as specified in lier sixth Article (a Rule,
which had previously been laid down for her by the authorised
Catechist Cyril of Jerusalem and other doctors of the Ancient
Church, such as Augustine, Ireneus, Tertullian, Hippolytus,
Cyprian, Athanasius, Jerome, and BasiP), she was far from
intimating, that, in the lawlessness of insulated Private Judg-
ment, every individual is a sufficient judge for himself of the
sense of the Bible.
The very propounding of the Articles in the year 1562, for
avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishment of
consent touching true religion, might surely have convinced Dr.
Milner, that the Anglican Church teaches no such absurdity as
that which he has been pleased to ascribe to her.
A member of the Church of England must not vaguely say,
that he receives the Written Word of God as the only Rule of
Faith : but he must further say, that he receives the Written
Word of God as the only Rule of Faith according to the sense
in which its Doctrines are specifically defined in the Articles.
The very circumstance of being a member of the Church of
England imports the precise reverse of the strange scheme,
which Dr. Milner, professedly on the mere individual informa-
tion of his alleged laic correspondent Mr. Brown, has ascribed
to her. When a man receives the Articles, he gives up all
claim to the being a judge /oy himself of the sense- of the Bible :
and, if he rejects the Articles with a denial of their being a
sound Exposition of the sole Rule of Faith, claiming the while
' Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv, p. 30. Orat. cont. Gent. Oper. vol. i. p. 1. De
August, cont. liter. Petilian. Donat. Incarn. Christ. Oper. vol. i. p. 484.
lib. iii. c. 6. Oper. vol. vii. p. 115. Epist. Test, xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 45.
Iren. adv. hter. lib. ii. c. 47. p. 147. Epist. ad Serap. Oper. vol. ii. p. 29.
Tertull. adv. Hermog. c. 12. Oper. Hieron. adv. Helvid. c. ix. Oper.
p. 346. c. 17. p. 350. Hippol. cont. vol. ii. p. 116. Basil, de ver. fid, Oper.
Noet. § ix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 12, 13. vol. ii. p. 386. See below, book ii.
Cyprian. Epist. Ixxiv. Oper. vol. ii. chap. 2. §11.2. and my Prim. Doct.
p. 211. Athan. ad Serap. Spirit. Sanct. of Justif. Append, numb. i. § 1. 1. (1.)
non esse creat. Oper. vol. i. p. 359. 2d edit.
PREFACE. XXXVU
to be his own judge as to the sense of Doctrinal Scripture, he
assuredly, whatever may be his outward conformity, ceases to
be a member of the Church of England.
(3.) The judgment, however, of that Church, touching the
TRUE sense of Doctrinal Scripture, is, in no wise, a mere arbi-
trary judgment : nor can it be called the Private Judgment of
the Corporate Anglican Church, as contradistinguished from the
Private Judgment of any other Corporate Church.
On the contrary, it is laid down on certain fixed and intel-
ligible principles, which at once approve themselves to the
right reason of every thinking individual.
While her sixth Article recognises Scripture alone as her
binding Rule of Faith : her eighth Article recognises the three
Creeds, as containing a Doctrinal Summary of what may be
proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. Now
these three Creeds are only three out of the numerous cognate
Creeds which collectively and harmoniously run up to the
Apostolic Age. Hence, in recognising them, as giving the
true sense of the Bible, the Anglican Church appeals, not to
her own mere insulated and arbitrary Private Judgment which
would be only one degree more respectable than the insulated
and arbitrary Private Judgment of an mdividual, but to the
Recorded Historical Testimony, afforded by the universal con-
sent of the Church from the beginning, as to the sense in
which her sole Rule of Faith ought to be understood.
(4.) Agreeably to this System, the whole of her Articles and
Homilies are constructed.
Throughout, she studiously refers to concurring Antiquity,
as hearing witness to the sense in which the doctrinal parts of
Scripture were miderstood and explained from the very begin-
ning : and, as she herself thus fully renounces the claim of
being her own insulated and arbitrary judge of the sense of
the Bible ; so, both by the imposition of the Articles, and
even explicitly in her nineteenth Canon of the year 1571,
she wisely, to her Clergy and through them to her Laity,
XXXVlll PREFACE.
proliibits the absurdity of licentious and independent Private
Judgment.
In the first place, preachers shall take heed, that they teach
nothing in the shape of a sermon which they may wish to be
religiously held and believed by the People, except what is
agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and
what from that very Doctrifie the Catholic Fathers and Ancient
Bishops collected \
To the PRINCIPLE of the Anglican Church, thus distinctly set
forth in her nineteenth Canon, both Bishop Jewel and the
learned Casaubon bear full and explicit testimony^. It may be
added, ^^dlat in some sort is still more important because di-
rectly official, that, in the year 1559, Queen Elisabeth similarly
avowed this identical principle, as the true principle of the
Reformed Church of England, in her formal reply to the
Emperor and the other Princes of the Romish Persuasion^.
2. So much for Dr. Milner's Unscrupulous Misrepresenta-
tion, on the authority of his real or fictitious laic friend Mr.
James Brown, that, according to the Church of England, the
Written Word of God, interpreted by the Private Judgment of
each individual, is the Sole Rule of Faith : I now pass to an
instance of Bold Allegation.
' Imprimis, videbuntconcionatores, Anglicana, per canalem Antiquitatis
ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, deduci ad nos dogmata fidei e fonte
quod a populo religiose teneri et credi Sacrse Scriptura3 derivata. Alioquin,
velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doc- quis futurus est novandi finis? Ca-
trinse Veteris aut No\i Testamenti, saub. Epist. 744. Vide etiam Epist.
quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina Catholici 837, 838.
Patres et Veteres Episcopi collegerint. a Nee causam subesse uUam cur
Canon. Eccles. Anglican, xix. a.d. coijcederet, cum Anglia non novara
^571. aut alienam amplectatur religionem,
^ Ista nos didicimus a Christo, ab sed earn, quam Christus jussit, prima
Apostolis, et Sanctis Patribus : et ea- et Catbolica Ecclesia coluit, et vetus-
dem bona fide docemus populum Dei. tissimi Patres una voce et mente com-
Juell. Apol. Eccles. Anglican, apud probarunt. Camden. Kerum Anglican.
Enchir. Theol. vol. i. p. 228. Vide et Hibern. Annal. regnant. Elisab.
etiam pp. 295, 323, 340. a.d. 1559. par. i. p. 28. Lugd. Batav.
Opto, cum Melancthone et Ecclesia 1039.
PREFACE. XXXIX
(1.) In favour of the mass of doctrines, written and tradi-
tional, scriptural and extrascriptural, which the members of
his Church are required to believe as equally and alike_
divine revelations, Dr. Milner propounds the following state-
ments.
Most likely the (Roman) Catholic peasant learns the doctrine
of the Church from his Parish Pnest : hut then he knows, that
the doctrine of this Priest must be conformable to that of his
Bishop, and that otherwise he will soon be called to account for
it. He knows also, that the doctrine of the Bishop himself must
be conformable to that of the other Bishops and the Pope;
and that it is a fundamental maxim with them all never to
admit of any tenet but such as is believed by all the Bishops,
and was believed, by their predecessors up to the apostles
THEMSELVES ^
It is proper to observe, that this Holy Church, in declaring
her doctrine, does not profess to argue upon it ifi a controversial
way, either from Scripture or Tradition : much less does she
pretend to make New Articles of Faith, or to expound the Ori-
ginal Articles in a different sense from that in which she has
always held them ; though it is true that she sometimes adopts
new terms, such as constjbstantl\.l and transubstantiation, as
more energetical and expressive of her belief, in opposition to the
rising heresies of the times. In short, her constant language is :
NIL innovetur; nil nisi quod traditum EST. Such and such
is the sense of Scripture : such and such is the doctrine of her
predecessors, the pastors of the Church, since the time of the
APOSTLES-.
(2.) The boldness of these allegations is equalled only by
their explicitness : but their very explicitness brings the ques-
tion to an abundantly easy solution.
Dr. Milner, we see, asserts : that every doctrine, taught by
* End of Eelig. Controv. lett. xii. ^ End of Eelig. Controv. lett. Ivi.
p. 82. p. 375.
xl PREFACE.
the present Church of Rome, has invariably been taught by
the Cathohc Church in every age from the very time of the
APOSTLES, who themselves originally delivered the enth'e system
as it stands fully and authoritatively explained by the Council
of Trent.
Now such language indisputably asserts A naked historicax
FACT.
Hence, like every other asserted historical fact, it can only
be received upon sufficient evidence.
This, then, is the precise point, upon which the Romish
Divines and myself are at issue.
They assert an historical fact : I deny, that the asserted
FACT can be established by testimony.
Nor is this all. I not only deny, that the asserted fact can
be established by testimony : but I furthermore maintain, that
the testimony of history directly contradicts the assertion of
the pretended fact.
Both these positions I undertake to establish in the following
Treatise.
(3.) If, then, the two positions can be established negatively
and positively, a favourite quibble of Dr. Milner, even if it
were incapable of an independent confutation, will perish by a
death of mere inanition.
He contends: that if the Primitive Church, either in the
way of difference or in the way of defect, taught any other
scheme of Christianity than the precise scheme of the present
Roman Church ; the introduction of what was new must have
been immediately perceived, and would have been immediately
protested against.
In a word, says Dr. Milner, citing the notable argument of
an apostate Divine who by some curious intellectual process
was led to desert the Church of England for the Church of
Rome, there is but one way of accounting for alleged alterations
in the doctrine of the Church ; that mentioned by the learned
Dr. Bailey : which is to suppose, that, on some one flight, all the
FREFACE. xli
Christians of the world went to sleep sound Protestants, and
aiuoke next morning rank Papists^.
Whatever seeming plausibility there may be in this argu-
ment, it assuredly cannot stand against direct Historical Evi-
dence in opposition to Romish Peculiarities. But, in truth,
it is, under every aspect, such a mere sophism, that an Anglo-
Catholic can scarcely comprehend how a man of Dr. Milner's
undoubted acuteness could ever in sober seriousness have
adduced it^.
The very sophism itself is disingenuously built upon a pre-
tended allegation, which no sane person ever made or ever
thought of making: the allegation to wit, that The departure
from Primitive Purity to Modern Romanism was at once instan-
taneous and UNIYEESAL ; insomuch that the former was the
sta7idard Faith of the Church on a Monday, and that the latter
was found to he the standard Faith of the Church by every
mother's son when he awoke on the Tuesday morning.
Now where is the person, who ever asserted an instantaneous
and UNiVEBSAL change of this description? Where is the
person, whose language, by any fair construction, could ever
have conjured up the phantom of such a ridiculous caricature ?
Dr. Milner and his cherished apostate must alike have known,
that no snch extraordinary person ever existed. Consequently,
they must alike, to serve their own ends, have been deliberately
guilty of MISREPRESENTATION PREPENSE.
The assertion, an assertion fully borne out by the stubborn-
ness of History, is : not that The departure from Primitive
Truth was characterised at once by suddenness and universality,
as these two unscrupulous individuals would misrepresent the
matter ; but that It was gradual in its progress and successive
as respects the introduction of this or that unscriptural super^
stition.
* End of Kelig. Controv. lett. xi. ^ jj^^g j)^^ Milner adduced it in
p. 73. sober seriousness ?
xlii PREFACE.
Dr. Bailey, therefore, and, after him. Dr. Mihier, might
just as reasonably have proved, on their wonderful principle
of argumentation : that A human being must always have existed
in a state of adolescence ; because, otherwise, there is but one way
of accounting for his alleged alteration in stature : which is to
suppose, that every full-grown son of Adam went to sleep, on some
one eventful night, a puling infant ; and aioohe, next morning, as
proper a man as ever trod on neafs leather,
(4.) The BOLD ALLEGATION, however, rims : that No oppo-
sition to pretended unscriptural innovation stands upon record.
Whence it is argued : that JVo such thing as atiy unscriptural
innovation could ever have occurred.
Certainly, great wits ought to have, what they are prover-
bially said not to have, long memories.
Dr. Milner himself mentions the opposition which was made,
to Prayers to the Saints and Veneration for their Relics and
constrained Celibacy, by the excellent Vigilantius, at the latter
end of the fourth century : but he, conveniently, in the true
popish fashion, that is to say, through the medium of pro-
nouncing him a heretic, would fain set aside his well-timed
protestation ; although, be it observed, this was reechoed by
the still uncorrupted Bishops and Members of the mountaineer
Churches, on that very account reviled by the furious Jerome.
No doubt, if all, who opposed ufiscriptural innovations upon
primitive scriptural doctrine, are to be promptly set down as
heretics. Dr. Milner, on popish principles, will have made out
a tolerable case for his bold assertion : for, of course, the inno-
vators themselves would not protest against their own innova-
tions. But Vigilantius does not stand alone. Various other
instances of immediate opposition to unscriptural novelties, now
unblushingly asserted by Rome to be sound primeval apostolic
doctrines, will be noticed in the course of the present Treatise.
In short, nothing can be more unfounded than Dr. Milner' s
allegation: that We have no historical intimation, as to when
any Change of Doctrine or Doctriiial Practice occurred; and
PREFACE. xliii
that We have no recorded instance of any protestation against
such Change.
These matters, I notice, both as immediately bearing upon
the plan of the present Work, and likewise as exhibiting the
controversial management of a very ingenious Romish Divine.
XI. There is yet another matter, which, though it does
not immediately belong to my present subject, I cannot for-
bear exhibiting in its true colours : Dr. Milner's sophistical
attempt to vindicate his Church from the charge of perse-
cution.
1. He sets out with stating : that, so far from the Church
of Rome being a persecuting Church, as the Reformed have
been wont fondly to imagine, she actually determines, that her
Clergy shall have no hand in the putting heretics to death,
that their authority goes no further than the pronouncing
those persons to be heretics, and that, when they have so
pronounced them, they shall even pray for their pardon from
the Secular Powers of the State'.
Was there ever a more shameless mixture of sophistry and
effrontery ?
(1.) The assertion is, that TJie Church of Rome is not a
persecuting Church : and the proof of the assertion consists in
the statement, that The Clergy are forhidden to emhrue their
hands in the blood of heretics.
According to the necessary tenor of this proof, the Laity,
it seems, are not to be deemed any portion of the Roman
Church.
Protestants, on the ground of historical testimony, charge
the Roman Church with the guilt of murderous persecution.
Dr. Milner replies, that the charge must needs be false,
because the Romish Clergy are forbidden to put heretics to
death.
Now, most plainly, this is no answer to the charge, unless
• End of Relig. Controv. lett. xlvi.p. 431, 432.
xHv PREFACE.
the Romish Priesthood are prepared to denj that the Romish
Laity form any part of the Romish Church. The charge was
brought against the Romish Church collectively, not against
the Romish Clergy exclusively. To say, therefore, that the
Romish Clergy only pronounce persons to be heretics, while the
Laity undertake the hangman's office of burning them ; and,
on that ground to frame a proof that the Romish Church is not
a persecuting Church : amounts to a gross paralogism, un-
worthy of a very tyro in Logic, unless the Romish Clergy
exclusively form the Romish Church.
It might seem as if Dr. Milner had not observed the inevi-
table consequence of the singular defence which he has set up.
The charge was: that the Romish Church is a persecuting
Church.
This charge he thinks it necessary to repel.
Now, unless the charge involved an accusation of what he
AmseZ/" admitted to be most disgraceful and most michristian,
any defence, on his part, which altogether rested on an indig-
nant denial of the truth of the accusation, would have been
absurdly superfluous.
Thus the very defence, which he has set up for the Romish
Clergy, condemns, vi consequentice, the practice of the Romish
Laity.
(2.) So much for Dr. Milner's Sophistry : and it is well
matched by his unblushing Effrontery.
The Romish Laity are guilty of murderous persecution.
But who are their teachers and instigators ?
Dr. Milner would actually have us believe, that the Romish
Clergy (for to them his argument confines the Romish Church)
stand clear of persecution, simply because, with their own
personal hands, they do not grossly play the butcher, and
simply because they hypocritically beseech their miserable laic
tools to be merciful and to spare the pronounced heretical de-
linquents.
Thus, in despite of the maxim, Quifacit per alium, facit per
PREFACE. xlv
se, we are to account the p^'esiding Demons of the Inquisition
quite exempt from any just charge of persecution and quite
innocent of that incautiously admitted wickedness ; because
they only turned over their victims to be tortured and burned
by their laic instruments : and thus we are hberally to reckon
the Romish PnestJiood quite clear of guilt, because they go
through the farce of beseeching the Lay Poioer to be merciful ;
when, all the while. Dr. Milner knew full well, that a single
inhibition of the Pope and his Clergy, a single declaration that
every layman who put a heretic to death perpetrated a grievous
sin and should be excommunicated accordingly, would enforce
and secure the mercy, which, with loathsome grimace, these
sacerdotal mummers affected to pray for.
To put forth, by way of rebutting a just charge of mur-
derous persecution against the whole Romish Church, a simu-
lated prayer for mercy, when not an effort was made to enforce
that prayer, nay when the granting of the prayed for mercy
would have been itself deemed a proof of heretical predilection
on the part of the layman who granted it, as we may see from
the persecuting Canon of the Fourth Lateran Council recog-
nised and established by subsequent Councils and Synods down
to the Council of Trent ; to put forth such a prayer by way
exculpation, when the laudatory name of ^n Act of Faith
bestowed upon a wholesale Butchery of the Inquisition dis-
tinctly shewed that no exculpation was really thought necessary
save to gull some heedless protestant dupe : to argue thus is a
specimen of shameless Effrontery, which none but a double
dipped Romish Priest could have ventured to exhibit.
2. This very obvious retort Dr. Milner endeavours to meet
by anticipation.
Whereas, says he, many heresies are subversive of the Estab-
lished Governments, the public peace, and natural morality, it
does not belong to the Church to prevent Princes and States
from exercising their just authority in repressing and punishing
them, when this is judged to be the case : nor would any clergy-
xlvi PREFACE.
man incur irregularity hy exhorting princes and magistrates to
provide for those impoi^tant objects and the safety of the Church
itself hy repressing its disturbers, provided he did not concur
to the death or mutilation of any particular disturber. Thus it
appears, that, though there have been persecuting laws in many
(Roman) Catholic States, the Church itself, so far from claiming,
actually disclaims, the power of persecuting'^.
(1.) Here again shines forth the sophist, though certainly
the quite transparent sophist.
Who ever denied, that persons, in faith heretics, may be
punished, when, in practice, they are guilty of treason and
conspiracy? But who can so grievously lack either common
sense or common honesty, as not to perceive, that individuals,
so punished, are punished for their treason, not for their heresy ?
On this principle it was, that our own glorious Elisabeth
justly punished the popish traitors, who, under the lawless
influence of the Church of Rome, were plotting against her
life and her crown. But they were punished as traitors, with
the death of traitors, not as heretics, with what the Romanists
deem the appropriate death of heretics. The question before
us respects heretics, quoad heretics, not heretics quoad traitors :
and it will still be asked, notwithstanding Dr. Milner's wish to
elude such an unpleasant interrogation ; Why did not the Pope
and his Clergy interfere to prevent the Laity from putting to a
cruel death, as heretics^ men, who had never been implicated in the
guilt of high-treason ?
If the Church of Rome deems the murder of heretics a
dime, in which her Clergy are forbidden to participate : how
shall we estimate the guilt of those very Clergy, who, believing
the slaughter of heretics to be criminal, yet never interfered
to prevent her Laity from perpetrating an acknowledged
crime?
If she approves of the bloody deed -in her Laity, though she
, ' End of Eelig Controv. lett. xlvi. p. 432.
PEEFACE. xlvii
hypocritically forbids its actual perpetration by her Clergy :
what becomes of Dr. Milner's pretended exculpation ?
The burning of heretics she must inevitably esteem, either a
heinous crime, or no crime at all.
If the forme?^ : she wickedly, in direct opposition to the word
of the Lord by the prophet Ezekiel, allows her Laity to perpe-
trate crime without any attempt to prevent it by her solemn
protest and warning ^
If the latter : she stands self-convicted of that very persecu-
tion, from which Dr. Milner would disingenuously exculpate
her.
(2.) But, in truth (to carry on an argument which I have
already employed), the exculpation, attempted by Dr. Milner,
is, under the precise aspect of an exculpation, nothing less than
a virtual acknowledgment, that The putting individuals to death,
whether by Pnesthood or Laity, on the sco7'e of heresy, is a grievous
sin.
For, if it be not a sin and a scandal, why should Dr. Milner
wish to prove, that his Church is not sl persecuting Church ?
Why should he wish to exhibit his Clergy, as inculcating
mercy, rather than as inflicting punishment ?
His very attempt shews, either his real consciousness that
persecution is a sin, or his desire to impose upon unwary Pro-
testants by exhibiting his Church under an aspect which does
not belong to her.
(3.) Meanwhile, whatever may have been the inward work-
ing of his mind, his outward allegations are strangely at vari-
ance, both with the recorded practice of his Church, and
likewise with her avowed sentiments.
In practice, we need only look to the facts, of the Inquisi-
tion, of the wholesale barbarities of Alva in the Netherlands, of
the relentless and enduring persecution of the blameless Albi-
genses and Valdenses, of the reign of the infamous Mary of
> Ezek. iii. 17, 18, 20.
xlviii PREFACE.
England, of the massacre of St. Bartholomew approved of and
exulted over by the Pope and his Clergy, of the parallel
massacre of the year 1641 in Ireland, and even of the per-
secution still carried on in the present day against the Re-
formed of that mihappy country and against all such as
dare conscientiously to repudiate the deadly superstition of
Rome.
With practice exactly tallies precept. Dr. Milner vainly
attempts to get over the third Canon of the fourth Council of
Lateran. Like a millstone, it hangs, and ever will hang,
about the neck of his apostate and blood-stained Church. How
it has ever been understood, is quite clear from the Notes to
the Rhemish Testament : and the stealthy suppression of those
particular Notes in some copies of the modern Edition of Mac-
namara serves only to shew a deep consciousness of what the
Romish Church really is. In these Notes, which form an
admirable comment upon the Lateran Canon, Bishops are
warned to be zealous and stout against false prophets and
heretics, of what sort soever, after the example of holy Elias,
that in zeal killed four hundred and fifty false prophets of
Jezabel : Protestants are censured, for foolishly expounding of
Rome the Apocalyptic Harlot, because Romanists put heretics
to death and allow of their punishment in other countries;
whereas no Commonwealth shall answer for shedding the blood
ofhe7'etics, any more than for shedding the blood of thieves,
men-killers, and other malefactors: the good (meaning, of
course, the Papists) are authorised to tolerate the evil when
it is so stronoj that it cannot be redressed without danger and
disturbance of the whole Church ; otherwise, where ill men
(be they heretics or other malefactors) may be punished or
suppressed without disturbance and hazard of the good, they
may and ought, by public authority, either spiritual or tem-
poral, to be chastised or executed : and, to crown all, by a
daring and impious perversion of our Blessed Lord's own
decision, the wretched dupes of Popery are assured, that
PKEFACE. xlix
neither the Church nor Christian Princes are blamed for
putting heretics to death^.
In the face both of fact and of precept, Dr. Milner seems
to have imagined, that he could readily persuade those men of
straw, his friends at New Cottage, that his Church was spe-
cially remarkable for its great meekness and its exemplary
hatred of persecution I Nay, truly, in absolute contradiction
to his exculpation of the Clergy or the Church (for so he
seems exclusively, to denominate the Clergy) and to his inti-
mation that any persecution on the part of the Laity was their
own unauthorised act and deed, the Notes before us vindicate
the putting heretics to death whether by the Church or by
Christian Princes, and roundly declare that heretics ought to
be chastised or executed by public authority either spiritual or
temporal.
Thus it appears, says Dr. Milner, in the very fulness of
logical self-satisfaction : thus it appears, that, though there have
been persecuting laws in many (Roman) Catholic states, the
Church itself, so far from claiming, actually disclaims, the power
of persecuting !
3. He would, however, in the way of a retort courteous,
throw back upon Protestants themselves the charge of blood-
stained persecution : just as if the guilt of one party could
whitewash the guilt of another party.
We confess with grief, that Protestants have not been alto-
gether exempt from this murderous abomination : but, to say
nothing of the mitigating abatement, that, where Protestantism
has burned her units. Popery has burned her myriads, we
venture to account for the reprobated fact on principles which
are anything rather than flattering to the Church of Rome.
The progress of Reform was gradual : nor was the whole
evil of Popery either perceived or rejected instantaneously.
They, who had been trained in a School of Persecution, did
' See Notes of the Khemish Testament on Kev. ii. 20. Kev. xvii. 6.
Matt. xiii. 29. Luke ix. 55.
d
1 TBEFACE.
not immediately unlearn its diabolical lessons : and, for a
season, they unhappily bore upon them the ancient brand of
the sanguinary Harlot out of whose polluted communion they
had obediently withdrawn themselves. It has often been said,
that the christian principle of toleration was not then under-
stood : an assertion, which, if it means anythmg definite,
means only, that the Theological World did not instanta-
neously forget the instructions of the pretended Mother and
Mistress of all Churches.
But how stands the matter in the present day ?
Protestants universally reprobate the judicial murder of
either real heretics or alleged heretics : but Papists have never
renounced the black badge of their community.
The authentic third Canon of the fourth Lateran still stands
unrepealed^. Nay, even in the midst of his sophistical attempt
at denial and exculpation, it is vindicated and defended by Dr.
Milner : and, in the authorised Notes of the Rhemish Testa-
ment, we are still taught, that Persecution is a duty, and that,
when it is not actually carried into practice, the defect springs,
not from want of will, but from want of power^.
XII. Dr. Wiseman, I observe, speaks of Mr. Husenbeth's'
Triumphant Exposure of Faher ^.
1. The learned gentleman has signalised his zeal for his
Church by adducing sundry passages from Methodius, Atha-
nasius, Ephrem the Syrian, and Gregory of Nazianzum, all of
which, it must be confessed, advocate and inculcate the direct
adoration of the Virgin Mary in the fourth and even in the
third century.
But he forgot to tell his admiring co-religionists, as Mr.
Tyler has very usefully pointed out: that the adduced pas-
» The authenticity of this famous 2 gee^ jn particular, Rhemish Note
third Canon, which some modem on Matt. xiii. 29.
Papists in very shame would fain get s Lg^t. on Prlnc. Doctr. and Pract.
rid of, is fully established by Mr. of the Cath. Church, vol. ii. p.
Evans in his Statutes of the fourth 125.
Council of Loteran. Seeley,Fleet Street.
PREFACE. U
sages are all spurious; that they were never written by the
authors alleged, but that they are the mere forgeries of a later
age.
Nor is this charge a protestant attempt to escape from the
force of evidence. The passages in question are all rejected as
PAXPABLY SPURIOUS and as gross forgeries by honourable and
well-qualified Romish Critics themselves^
2. So much for Dr. Wiseman's zeal; I must now be per-
mitted to say a few words on what he pronounces to be Mr.
Husenbeth's Triumphant Exposure of myself.
(1.) The assertion of the Council of Trent, reechoed by Dr.
Trevern, Mr. Husenbeth, Mr. Berington, Mr. Kirk, Dr.
Milner, and (if I mistake not) Dr. Wiseman himself, was :
that the Faith, propounded in the Acts of the Council, having
been delivered by Christ to the Apostles and by the Apostles
universally to their converts, had thence been always in the
Church of God. The precise words of the assertion, which
runs through the whole of the Conciliar Decrees, are, in its
most compact form : semper hcec Fides in Ecdesia Deifuit.
Thus, then, stood the matter.
An HISTORICAL FACT, not a mere Abstract Opinion, was
asserted. In other words, an Appeal was made to history :
and, since an asserted fact can only be either substantiated or
set aside by the testimony of history, I professed myself ready
to accept the challenge which had been thus thrown out to the
whole Protestant Body.
Hence, I, naturally or rather inevitably (for there was no
other mode of meeting the question in the form proposed by the
Romanists), took the matter up on the challenged ground of
pure EVIDENCE.
(2.) In pursuance of this plan, thus plainly forced upon me
by the Romanists themselves, I stated, as the very reasonable
basis of my proposed disputation : that iVb evidence could be
' Tyler's Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary. p. 156, 166, 216, 226.
Hi PREFACE.
'produced frcmi the three first, and therefore obviously in the way
of Testimony the most important, centuries, which should sub-
stantiate the HiSTOEiCAii FACT that had been so repeatedly and
so confidently asserted.
Now, in what manner did Dr. Trevern and Mr. Husenbetli
meet this plain statement ?
Truly, they professed to have confuted me by the extraor-
dinary process of AD:^^TTma the precise point in debate : by
ADMITTING, that is to say, the truth of my statement respecting
the three first centuries as given above.
(3.) This singular confutation, which, in the judgment of
Dr. Wiseman, constitutes the Triumphant Exposure of me, was
conducted, by my two opponents, in manner following.
The Silence of history during the three first ages could not
be denied : but it might be accounted for. Accordingly, the
problem of this acknowledged Taciturnity was solved: partly
by an allegation that the Peculiar Doctrines of the Roman
Church could not have been recorded in writiiig, because they
were only orally handed down through the medium of the
Disciplina Arcani ; and, partly, by an assertion, that, although
the said Peculiar Doctrines could nowhere be found in any
now existing primitive Works, yet they might, or rather they
mu^t, have been unequivocally introduced into sundry volumes
of the earliest Fathers, which, through the envy of time, have
most unluckily perished.
(4.) These two distinct solutions, however ingenious, are
not quite consistent : but still the confutation appeared to Dr.
Wiseman, so satisfactory, that he has honoured it with the
name of Mr. HusenbetV s Triumphant Exposure of me I
In pronouncing this remarkable encomium upon an equally
remarkable confutation, it escaped, I suppose, the general
acuteness of Dr. Wiseman: that, when a man attempts to
account for the non-existence of any given matter, he, by a
plain necessity, acknowledges the fact of such matter's non-
existence.
PREFACE. liii
This, I take it, is the precise amount of the T7iumphant
Exposure. If it will at all benefit the Tridentine Claim,
SEMPER hcec Fides in Ecclesia Dei fait, the gentlemen of the^
Romish Church are heartily welcome to it^.
XIII. For the loan of books which I did not possess, I have
to acknowledge my obligation, to my late respected Diocesan
Dr. Van Mildert, and to my valuable friends Mr. L. Yemen
Harcourt and Mr. Brewster ; the latter of whom has since
been called away to his rest, in the fulness of honoured age.
For passages extracted or verified from books, to which in
my then retired situation at Long-Newton I had no convenient
access, I have to thank my equally valuable friends. Dr.
Ellerton, Mr. Holden, Dr. Bandinel Keeper of the Bodleian
Library, and the venerable Dr. Routli Resident of Magdalen
College, Oxford.
But, above all, I must pay my due tribute of acknowledg-
ment to my late kind and lamented neighbour Mr. 'Anstey of
Norton, without the use of whose library I should have been
compelled, simply for want of tools, to decline the task
imposed upon me by a respectable layman of my own Com-
munion. Before his death, Mr. Anstey, with that feeling of
liberality which marked all his actions, converted his loan into
a donation : and the goodly tale of folios, some originally my
own, others the gift of my deceased worthy friend, which now
decorate or crowd my penetraU, has set me very much at ease
in respect to inquiries into Primitive Antiquity.
> With respect to the alleged Tri- Aire and Strasbourg, by the Rector
vmphant Exposure of me by Mr. of Long Newton : and the two SquireSy
Hvsenbeth, my learned friend Mr- who have flown to his succour (one of
Mendham, whom I take to be at them my Triumphant Exposer Mr.
least as well read and as good a Husenbeth), liave fared no better than
judge of evidence as Dr. Wiseman, tlieir knight. Literary Policy of the
is of a directly opposite opinion to Church of Rome. p. 313.
that gentleman. Dr. Wiseman's critical reputation
Never, says he, was foe and assail- has not been raised by the castigation
ant so completely routed and demo- which he has received from the hands
lished, as the Bishop successively of of the Bishop of Ely and Mr. Tyler.
liv PREFACE.
I may take this present opportunity of adding: that, in
reo-ard to those mediaeval references which sometimes occur in
the edition now offered to the PubHc, as references of the same
description frequently occurred in my Work on the Ancient
Valdenses and Albigenses, I was indebted, since I became
Master of Sherburn Hospital, to the liberal kindness of the
late Dean of Durham, Dr. Jenl^inson, who allowed me free
access into the Chapter Library through the private door in
the Deanery, whether he himself was absent or in residence.
If, in any manner, I have profited from the above specified
aids, to God and his Christ be the glory, and to my mother
the Church of England in this evil day of fantastical apostasy
to the Church of Rome be the benefit.
Sherburn House, March 25, 1852.
SECOND PREFACE.
In the year 1836, Dr. Wiseman published a Work entitled
Lectures on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist.
By the phrase Real Presence, in itself ambiguous, he means,
as he himself tells us, Transuhstantiation.
Now, this Doctrine of Transuhstantiation, he attempted to
establish: partly, from The Words of the Institution of the
Eucharist, as recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke,
and St. Paul: and, partly, from Our Lord's Discourse at
Capernaum, as recorded by St. John.
That Publication I answered at considerable length, in the
year 1840, by a Work entitled Christ's Discourse at Caper-
naum fatal to the Doctrine of Transuhstantiation,
Agreeably to the title, I mainly confined myself to the Proof
attempted to be drawn from The Discourse at Capernaum : for
PREFACE. Iv
THAT asserted Proof was evidently meant to be the strength of
Dr. Wiseman's battle. As for any Proof from The Words of
the Institution, that was purely supplemental ; the subject_
being already so much exhausted, that little was left for the
ingenuity of our Roman Theologian.
In a note to book i. cap. 2. § IV of this third edition of The
Difficulties of Romanism, I ventured, in consequence of what I
had already written, briefly to characterise Dr. Wiseman's
Pubhcation as A failure : and I added, that, in the year 1851,
he had subsequently published, as I was informed, a second
edition of his original Performance imder the more ambitious
title of The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in
the Eucharist proved from scripture. When my brief note
was inserted, I had not seen the Republication : but, learning
that Dr. Wiseman frequently in it had mentioned myself, I
thought it right, while this my third edition was passing
through the press, to procure and read his Republication.
As he was reported to have frequently mentioned myself, I
naturally, from that circumstance, concluded, that I should
find some Reply, whether long or short, to my criticism upon
his attempted Proof from our Lord's Discourse at Capernaum,
But I was disappointed. To use a familiar modern expression.
Dr. Wiseman has totally ignored my very full Answer to his
attempted Proof. He is altogether silent respecting it : for he
takes no more notice of it, than if it had no existence. My
self-love might have been severely tried by the mortifying
suspicion, that his silence was the result of a dignified contempt.
But he has considerately spared me that infliction. In this
second edition of his Work, he repeatedly brings me forward ;
but never, by any chance, in connexion with the Discourse at
Capernaum : so that his silence, I trust, has a less mortifying
import, than might, at the first blush, have been imagined.
Be this, however, as it may, he takes not the slightest notice
of my Answer : but, with an increase of confidence, now claims
to have proved from scripture, as contained in the Discourse
Ivi
PREFACE.
at Capernaum^ the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Truly, this
is a singular mode of conducting a controversial discussion I
I. When I was first made acquamted with the new title of
Dr. Wiseman's new edition. The Real Presence of the Body and
Bhod of Christ in the Eucharist proyed from scripture, my
curiosity, as well it might be, was not a little excited.
The ablest and most learned men of his own Church, such,
for instance, as Duns Scotus, Gabriel Biel, Wilham Occam,
Cardinal Peter ab Alhaco, Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Fisher,
and Cardinal Bellarmine, had long since declared : either ab-
solutely, that Transuhstantiation was incapable of proof from
SCRIPTURE ; or limitedly, which is the opinion of Bellarmine,
that It is incapable of any such proof from scripture as either
had satisfied or could satisfy learned men even of the Roman
Communion itself. But, what these acute disputants were con-
fessedly unable to do. Dr. Wiseman, in this latter day, claims
to have happily accomplished ! His new edition, then, I
eagerly read, expecting to find some new evidence which had
not been -adduced in the old edition. But my expectation was
doomed to be disappointed. So far as scriptural proof was
concerned, I encountered only an old friend with a new face.
II. If a writer is satisfied with deliberately ignoring a Reply
to his pretended Proofs, I may well be excused from taking
any special notice, either of such wretched quibbling as the
curious reader will find at p. 192, 193, of Dr. Wiseman's
present edition, or of such a bold defiance both of context
and of common sense as he may read at p. 196, 197. Yet
there is one point, which must not be passed over in silence.
We Protestants have commonly adduced the text contained
in John vi. 63, as a distinct statement by our Lord himself,
that, what he had said, in verses 51-58, relative to the Eating
of his Flesh and the Drinking of his Blood, was to be imder-
stood, not LITERALLY in the gross carnal sense of an actual
manducation and an actual bibition which some of his hearers
had imagined, but spiritually or figuratively.
niEFACE. Ivii
Dr. Wiseman, however, at p. 152, assures his auditors, that
This interpretation may he considered as fairly given up by all
learned commentators : and, afterwards, at p. 294, warming as
he advances, he further claims, though we have nothing for it
beyond his own bare assertion, to have bimsei.f fully shewn that
these words are nothing at all to the purpose of explanation.
So writes Dr. Wiseman : but, in thus writing, he has put
himself in an amusingly awkward position.
By subscribing the Second Article of the New Creed of
Pope Pius ly. appended to the Old Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creed, he stands self-pledged never to interpret Scripture save
according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, To redeem
this pledge, therefore, he must shew, that his view of the text
is that which the Fathers unanimously take. But what is the
Testimony of Hermeneutic Antiquity ? Why, truly, it is fatal
to Dr. Wiseman's view of the text. Tertullian, and Cyril of
Jerusalem, and Athanasius, and the Author of the Treatise on
the Lord's Supper in the works of Cyprian, and Origen, and
Chrysostom, and Eusebius of Cesar^a, and the great Augustine,
ALL understand our Lord's declaration in John vi. 63 precisely
as we Protestants commonly do.
What persons Dr. Wiseman means by the sweeping ex-
pression ALL learned commentators, or what persons he would
exclude from the character of learned commentators, he does
not inform us. Yet I may remark, that Ridley, Cranmer,
Tyndale, Jewel, Grindal, Bale, Hall, Hooker, Whitby, Til-
lotson, Waterland, Scott, Henry, Doddridge, obx ^' rv^ovrig
avh^zg, as Longinus would say, though they had the infelicity
of being Protestants ; to whom I may add, as belonging to the
same category, my valued friend Dr. Macbride, the Principal
of Magdalen Hall, who, though himself a layman, has studied
divinity like a well seasoned professional theologian; and to
whom, doubtless, if the search were extended, many others
might also be added: all these, whether in the judgment of
Dr. Wiseman learned or unlearned, stand opposed to the
Iviii PREFACE.
unnamed commentators who are to supersede all other
commentators.
But, be tlie weight of modern expositorial authority what
it may, still the reprobated interpretation turns out to be the
old patristic interpretation down at least to the fifth century.
Dr. Wiseman may compendiously deny these ancient Fathers
to be learned commentators : but then he must be reminded,
that he has subscribed the Second Article of the New Creed of
Pope Pius lY.
As for the reason why he should reject the interpretation of
Antiquity in favour of those whom he collectively denominates
ALL learned commentators, that, of course, is abundantly plain.
If the ancient and natural interpretation of the text be adopted,
the whole of his sceiptuiial peoof of the Doctrine of Tran-
substantiation, from the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel,
forthwith vanishes into thin air.
III. While my pen is in my hand, I may as well notice a
very characteristic attempt of Dr. Wiseman to establish, by an
insinuated parallelism, the dogma before us.
At the inarnage feast at Cana, says he, Christ completely/
transmuted, or, if you please, teansubstantiated, water into
wine. It would require a very fine edge of intellect to distinguish,
in the mind, between the possibility of 7naking water become
wiiie, and the i:MPOSsrBiLiTY of making wine become blood. P. 224,
225.
Our ingenious sophister would here leave, upon his unsus-
pecting and probably admiring audience, the impression, that,
while Protestants denied the possibility of a change of wine
into blood, they inconsistently admitted the strictly parallel
possibility of a change of water into wine.
Yet can Dr. Wiseman himself be ignorant, that the Pro-
testant objection to the Doctrine of Tran substantiation is not,
as he would insinuate, the abstract impossibility of the change ?
He cites me, with approbation, as saying, that The Doctrine
of Transubstantiation, like the Doctrine of the Tiinity, is a ques-
PREFACE. lix
Hon of pure evidence, p. 219. So I said, and so I still saj.
The grand primary reason, why we reject the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation, is its total want of supporting evidence both
scriptural and histoidcal. But we have yet another subordinate
reason, which stands immediately connected with Dr. Wiss-
man's insinuated parallelism. We admit the real transubstan-
tiation of the water into wine at Cana : because the guests had
the evidence of their senses, that such a transubstantiation had
actually occurred. We admit the real transubstantiation of
water into blood in the first of the Egyptian Plagues : because
the reality of the change was similarly demonstrated by the
evidence of the senses. But we refuse to admit the asserted
transubstantiation of the eucharistic bread and wine into flesh
and blood ; asserted, by insinuation, to be a parallel case to the
change of the water into wine : because, so far from having the
evidence of our senses as to the reality of the asserted change,
we have that very evidence in direct contradiction to it. And
I may add, that not a single miracle can be adduced, either
authentically recorded in Scripture, or fabulously alleged by
the Romanists themselves, where there is wanting a direct
probative appeal to the senses. For his own credit's sake, I
regret, that Dr. Wiseman should have employed, as a theo-
logical argument, what he himself must have known to be an
miworthy sophism. He may justly plead, however, that he
only acted on the avowed principle of his Church, which places
Ecclesiastical Utility far above Truth even when confirmed by
an oath.
IV. I must not conclude this Second Preface without
strongly recommending three small but very valuable Works
by a thoroughly well-read layman, Mr. Collette : who, I may
remark, is specially qualified for the sifting department of
Theology by the circumstance of being professionally a
Lawyer.
The Works are t Romanism in England Exposed. Hall and
Virtue, 25 Pater-Noster Row ; The Pope^s Supremacy a Thing
Ix
PREFACE.
of Priestcraft. Bosworth, 215 Regent Street; and Popish In-
fallibility. Hall and Virtue, 25 Pater-Noster Row.
Of these three, the last is in the form of Letters addressed
to Lord Feilding.
It is an old admonition and a wise : Do what you will ; hut
never give a reason.
Lord Feilding, however, has not attended to this sage advice.
He volunteers the reason of his secession to the Church of
Rome.
He seceded, as he freely informs us : because the Church of
Rome is the Centre of Unity ; and because, in that Church
exclusively, he finds alone claimed and alone exercised, a
Living Definite Authority Conclusive and Infallible.
Here we have a reason spontaneously given. His state-
ments touching Infallibility are, as Mr. Collette abundantly
shews, by no means remarkable for their accuracy : but, as he
professed to give a reason, the oddity of his Logic was what
chiefly attracted my attention.
A BOLD CLAIM, prouoimccs his lordship, is clearly equivalent
to an ACTUAL possession.
I should be sorry to misrepresent him : but his argument, so
far as I can understand it, runs thus.
The Church of Rome claims, to be the Centre of Unity, and
to POSSESS a Living Definite Authority Conclusive and Infal-
lible. Therefore, plainly and vi consequentioe, the Church of
Rome IS the Centre of Unity and actually possesses the Infal-
libility of a Living Definite Authority.
On the strength of this reason. Lord Feilding deserted the
Church of England which sure enough puts forth no such
claim, and joined the Church of Rome.
Mr. Newman, as I recollect, somewhere states : that, the
moment a Romanist inquisitively doubts any assertion of his
Church, he ceases to be a member of it.
One might well think, that this remark was a little quiet
piece of sly satire, had not Mr. Newman publicly expressed his
PREFACE. Ixi
own firm belief in all the portentous miracles, alleged and, as
Lord Feilding speaks, authenticated, by a Living Definite
Authority Conclusive and Infallible. His lordship's ready accept-
ance of CLAIM for PROOF would certainly fit him to be a rapidly
improving pupil in the school of Mr. Newman : but we may
doubt whether it would equally evince the cogency of his
Logic. One of our seceding Divines, who might seem to
have profitably studied in that School, would assuredly recom-
mend it to Lord Feilding. In a letter which I myself saw, he
gravely advised a friend of mine to eschew all discussion re-
specting PROOF and evidence and thenceforward to sit with
implicit trust at the feet of Mr. Newman. As this gentleman
protested against dealing with such unreasonable things as
PROOF and evidence m the choice of a religion, he had no rea-
son, I presume, for seceding to the Roman Church, beyond
either mere whim or a certain restlessness of spirit
Still, with these cases before me, I was in some considerable
perplexity. As I have, with a measure of industry, studied the
Romish Question, I had often marvelled what could be the
REASON, I mean the decent reason, why a member of the Church
of England should secede to the Church of Rome. For the
converse I could readily see reason enough : but, for the Rome-
ward Tendency, I could discover none. Before Lord Feilding
volunteered his reason, an honest desire of enlightenment, mixed
I will own with some curiosity, had led me, at two several
times, to put the question to two several gentlemen-seceders,
who, previous to their secession, were not Laics, but (by the
courtesy of England) well informed Clerics.
You must, said I, have had some reason for what you did ;
and, as you are zealous in making proselytes, you must assign
some reason for a change to the subjects of your experiments.
May I request you to give me the reason, that I also may have
a fair chance of being converted to what you deem truths
essential to salvation?
By at least one of the gentlemen, a good deal of reluctance
Ixii
PREFACE.
was shewn. He disliked controversy; he was fully engaged
from morning to night : and the like. But I did, at last, extort
an answer in the form of an unpaginal reference to a pamphlet
which he had published.
The EEASON, assigned by this diligent inquirer, so far as I
could gather it from his pamphlet, was : that Christ himself had
divinely appointed the Pope to he exclusively the Head of the Uni-
versal Church; and that All, who 7'ebelliously denied the reality
of this appointment^ and who thence rejected the communion of the
Roman Pontiff, were heretics, and would infallibly he damned.
The REASON, assigned by the other still more fruitful inquirer
(for he assured me, that all his reasons, if detailed, would fill a
volume), was: that. Had Cyprian and Ambrose lived in our
days, they would, to his certain belief, have preferred a (so called)
Catholic Chapel however m£an, to a schismatical and heretical
Conventicle of the English Church however gorgeous.
I really am not romancing : but tell the simple truth. Yet
these two gentlemen physically were no fools. Intellectually,
then, how strangely debasing must Popery be.
CONTENTS.
BOOK I.
THE ALLEGED TESTIMONY OF HISTORY IN FAYOUR OF THE
PECULIARITIES OF ROMANISM.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT, p. 3.
The Doctrines, received by the earliest Church Catholic, must have been the
Doctrines taught by the Apostles, p. 3.
I. The argument ft-om Prescription, as managed by Iren^us and Ter-
tullian. p. 3.
II. An extension of the argument from Prescription is the basis of the
Latin Scheme of Oral Tradition, p. 4.
1. The Scheme of Oral Tradition appeals to facts, and therefore by
FACTS it must be judged, p. 6.
2. The FACT, upon which the prescriptive argument reposes, must be
substantiated, before the argument itself can be admitted, p. 7.
III. The decisions of the Council of Trent are professedly founded, and
the two Works of Dr. Trevem and Mr. Berington are expressly
constructed, upon an acknowledgment that this is a true statement
of the case. p. 7.
IV. In their adduction of historical testimony, however, these two
writers are needlessly copious, when they should be sparing ; and
ominously sparing, when they should be copious, p. B.
1. Some of the peculiarities of Eomanism existed, it is admitted, in
the fourth and fifth centuries, p. 9.
2. But evidence, from the fourth and fifth centuries, is insufficient to
establish the apostolical origination of a doctrine or practice, p. 9.
IxiV CONTENTS.
3. Summary of the matter, p. 10.
4. Exemplification of the necessity of substantiating the fact, upon
which the argumentation from Prescription reposes, p. 10.
V. On the legitimate principles of historical evidence, valid testimony in
favour of the peculiarities of Romanism must be confined to
writers of the three first centuries, p. 14.
VI. In the first book of the present Work, the question will be simply
limited to an inquiry ; whether the evidence, produced by the latin
divines, he in itself sufficient to establish the apostolic origination of
the peculiarities of Romanism, p. 15.
CHAPTER II.
INFALLIBnJTY. p. 16.
The Roman Church claims to be incapable of error, p. 16.
I. Proof from Scripture and from the writers of the three first centu-
ries, p. 17.
1. Proof from Scripture, p. 17.
(1.) First proof. Matt. xvi. 18. p. 17.
(2.) Second proof. Matt, xviii. 20. p. 17.
(3.) Thu-d proof. Matt, xxviii. 18-20. p. 17.
(4.) Fourth proof. Luke x. 16. p. 18.
(5.) Fifth proof. John xiv. 16, 17. p. 18.
(6.) Sixth proof. John xvi. 13. p. 18.
(7.) Seventh proof. Acts xv. 28. p. 18.
(8.) Eighth proof. 1 Tim. iii. 15. p. 18.
2. Proof from the writers of the three first centuries, p. 18.
(1.) First set of passages. Ignatius, p. 18.
(2.) Second set of passages, Irenfeus. p. 19.
(3.) Third set of passages. TertuUian. p. 19.
(4.) Fourth set of passages. Clement Alex. p. 20.
(5.) Fifth set of passages. Cyprian, p. 20.
II. An examination of the historical evidence adduced in favour of
Infallibility, p. 21.
1. An examination of the evidence adduced from Scripture, p. 21.
2. An examination of the evidence adduced from writers of the three
first centuries, p. 24.
(1.) The passages from Ignatius, p. 25.
(2.) The passages from Iren^us and Tertullian and Clement of
Alexandria, p. 25.
(3.) The passages from Cyprian, p. 25.
III. Idle claim of the Romanists, that the Itoman Church and the Catholic
Church are identical, p. 26.
TV. Even if infallibility had been granted to the Roman Church, the
grant Avould have been practically useless without a distinct speci-
fication of the precise organ through which such Infallibility is to
be exercised, p. 28.
CONTENTS. IXV
V. If the precise seat of Infallibility be noiv unknown, it never can be
known without a special I'evelation from heaven, p. 82.
VI. Even if such a revelation should be vouchsafed ; still Infallibility
would be practically useless, unless every individual were himself -
infallible aJso. p. 34.
VII. Childish objection of the Eomanists, that the Faith of the Riformcd
Churches rests only upon moral evidence, retorted upon themselves.
p. 36.
VIII. The Tridentine Doctrine of Intention, p. 37.
IX. The Practical Inutility of a Living Infallible Judge, p. 38.
1. To derive any advantage from Infallibility, each individual must
himself be infallible, p. 39.
2. Jarring opinions as to the Import of an alleged Infallible Decision.
p. 40.*
X. The direct judgment of Augustine against the Infallibility of even
an Ecumenical Council, p. 41.
CHAPTER III.
SUPREMACY, p. 46.
The Koman Bishop and Church claim Supremacy, p. 46.
I. Proof from Scripture and from the writers of the three first centu-
ries, p. 47.
1. Proof from Scripture, p. 47.
(1.) First proof. Matt. xvi. 15-19. p. 47.
(2.) Second proof. Luke xxii. 31, 32. p. 47.
(3.) Third proof. John xxi. 15-17. p. 47.
2. Proof from the writers of the three first centuries, p. 47.
(1.) Proof from Iren^us. p. 48.
(2.) Proof from TertuUian, p. 49.
(3.) Proof from Origen. p. 50.
(4.) Proof from Cyprian, p. 50.
II. To establish Roman Supremacy, two points must be made out: that
Peter himself was constituted a monarch of the Church Catholic ; and
that The Roman Bishops are his legitimate successors in such mon-
archy, p. 52.
III. An examination of the scriptural evidence adduced in favour of Ro-
man Supremacy, p. 53.
1. Wheth.er the cited texts demonstrate, that Peter was consfituft^d a
monarch of the Church Catholic, p. 53.
(1.) The second and third alleged proofs, p. 63.
(2.) The first alleged proof, p. 53. '
2. Whether the cited texts demonstrate, that The Ronuin Biy.hops arc
e
I XVI CONTENTS.
the legitimate successors of Peter in the monarchy of the Church
Catholic, p. 57.
(1.) Not a hint is given in Scripture, that the Bishop of Rome is
Peter's ecclesiastical siiccesso?', as Scripture is cited by Dr.
Trevern and Mr. Berington themselves, p. 57.
(2.) Not a hint to the same effect is given in any part of Scrip-
ture, p. 57.
IV. An examination of the evidence in favour of Eoman Supremacy ad-
duced from the writers of the three first centuries, p. 58.
1. Whether those writers afford any demonstration, that Peter was
constituted a monarch of the Church Catholic, p. 58.
2. Whether those writers afford any demonstration, that the Roman
Bishops are the legitimate successors of Peter in the monarchy of
the Church Catholic, p. GO.
(1.) The only intelligible mode in which th^ Eoman Bishop can
be* evinced to be Peter's ecclesiastical^uccessor, is through
an historical demonstration, that Petei- was, not only the co-
founder, but likewise the first diocesan Bishop of the Roman
Church, p. 60.
(2.) This vital point is not established by any one of the passages
adduced from Ireneus and Tertullian and Origen and Cy-
prian, p. 01.
(3.) The author of the Apostolical Constitutions, p. 08.
(4.) Import of the more potent principality of Ireneus. j). 05.
(5.) Import of Cyprian's chair of Peter, p. 67.
(0.) Eemarkable assertion of Mr. Husenbeth, that All ecclesiastical
writers, without one exception, during the space of fifteen entire
centuries, have, uniformly and unanimously, attested the dio-
cesan Roman Episcopate of Peter, p. 69.
(7.) Vague statement of the more prudent and judicious Mr. Be-
rington. p. 71.
V. The wretched scantiness of the evidence adduced from the writings
of the Fathers of the three first centuries, p. 71.
CHAPTEE IV.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. p. 73.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation, as finally laid down by the Council of
Trent, p. 73.
I. The Tridentine Fathers professedly rest their decision upon an
alleged historical fact. This fact, therefore, the Eomanists
stand pledged to substantiate from historical testimony, p. 75.
1. Proof from Scripture, p. 76.
(1.) First proof. John vi. 51-58. p. 76.
(2.) Second proof. Matt. xxvi. 26-28. Mark xiv. 22-24. Luke xxii.
19, 20. p. 76.
CONTENTS. Ixvii
(3.) Third proof. I Corinth, x. 10. p. 77.
(4.) Fourth proof. 1 Corinth, xi. 2^-26. p. 77.
(5.) Fifth proof. Malach. i. 10, 11. p. 77.
(6.) Sixth proof. Heh. xiii. 10-12. p. 77. _
2. Proof from the writers of the three first centuries, p. 78.
(1.) Proof from Clement of Rome. p. 78.
(2.) Proof from Ignatius, p. 78.
(3.) Proof from Justin Martyr, p. 70.
(4.) Proof from Ireneus. p. 80.
(5.) Proof from Tertullian. p. 83.
(6.) Proof from Origen. p. 85.
(7.) Proof from Hippolytus. p. 85.
(8.) Proof from Cyprian, p. 85.
(9.) Proof from Firmilian. p. 88.
(10.) Proofs of two asserted adjuncts of Transubstantiation, from
Tertullian and Cyprian and Irenfeus : namely, the Expiatory
Character of the Eucharist vioAved as a Piacular Sacrifice, and
the Adoration of it with the highest worship of Latria. p. 88.
II. An Examination of the Scriptural Evidence adduced in favour of
the Tridentine Doctrine of Transubstantiation. p. 91.
1. Texts alleged in proof of a Change of Substance, p. 91.
(1.) The language of Christ at Capernaum, p. 92.
(2.) The language of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist.
p. 93.
(3.) The language of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p. 95.
2. An inquiry, Avhether certain texts, adduced by the Romanists, be
sufficient to prove : that the Eiicharist is a real piacular sacrifice,
which makes satisfaction for the sins both of the quick and of the
dead. p. 96.
(1.) The language of the Apostle Paul. p. 97.
(2.) The language of the Prophet Malachi. p. 97.
3. A statement of various points in the Tridentine decision, the
establishment of which from the testimony of Scripture is not
so much as even attempted by the advocates of the apostolicity
of romish peculiarities, p. 99.
III. An examination of the evidence, in favour of the Tridentine doctrine
of Transubstantiation, adduced from the Avriters of the three first
centuries, p. 100.
1. Passages alleged in proof of a change of substance, p. 130.
(1.) An examination of two passages adduced from Ignatius and
Justin Martyr, p. 101.
(2.) An examination of a passage adduced from Tertullian. p. 105.
(3.) An examination of a passage adduced from Cyprian, p. 105.
2. An inquiry, whether the witnesses of the three first centuries be
prepared to vouch for the Tridentine doctrine : that the Eu-
charist is a real piacular sacrifice, which makes satisfaction for
the sins both of the quick and of the dead. p. 105.
(1.) We have no eridence, that the substance of the sacrament
itself, or the bread and wine posterior to consecration, was,
by the earliest Christians, ever deemed a sacrifice, p. lOfi.
Ixviii CONTENTS.
(2.) The true nature of the primitive eucharistic oblations for the
dead. p. 109.
3. Notice of the proof from Irenfeus, that the consecrated elements
received divine adoration so early as even the second century,
p. 113.
4. A statement of the points in the Tridentine Decision, respecting
which the primitive witnesses, alleged by Dr. Trevem and Mr.
Berington in favour of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, are
altogether silent, p. 113.
IV. Eemarks on the fact asserted by the Tridentine Fathers, p. 114.
CHAPTEK V.
PUEGATOllY. p. 122.
The doctrine of Purgatory as laid down by the Council of Trent, p. 122.
I. Proof from Scripture and from the writers of the three first centuries.
p. 123.
1. Proof from Scripture or from what the Tridentines have pro-
nounced to be Scripture, p. 123.
(1.) First proof. 2 Maccab. xii. 43-46. p. 123.
(2.) Second proof. Matt. xii. 32, 30. xvi. 27. p. 123.
(3.) Third proof. 1 Corinth, iii. 8, 11-15. p. 123.
(4.) Fourth proof. 1 Peter iii. 18-20. p. 124.
(5.) Fifth proof. Eev. xxi. 27. p. 124.
2. Proof from the writers of the three first centuries, p. 124.
(1.) Proof from Tertullian. p. 124.
(2.) Proof from Cyprian, p. 124.
(3.) Proof from Origen. p. 125.
II. An examination of the scriptural evidence adduced in favour of the
doctrine of Purgatory, p. 127.
1. The texts from the canonical books of the New Testament, p.
127.
2. The passage from the apocryphal history of the Maccabees, p.
129.
(1.) The passage from the maccabfean history, even if we were
complaisant enough to admit that history into the Canon,
would still be found, both grievously defective, and glar-
ingly inappropriate, p. 129.
(2.) But the maccab^an history, not being canonical, can never
be allowed to prove a point of doctrine, p. 131.
III. An examination of the evidence in favour of the doctrine of Purga-
tory adduced from the writers of the three first centuries.
p. 133.
1. The miserable scantiness and comparative lateness of the evi-
dence, p. 134.
(1.) Its scantiness, p. 134.
(2.) Its comparative lateness, p. 134.
CONTENTS. Ixix
2. Oblations for the dead. p. 135.
3. The direct testimony of the three adduced witnesses, p. 135.
(1.) The testimony of Tertullian. p. 135.
(2.) The testimony of Cyprian, p. 138.
(3.) The testimony of Origen. p. 140.
IV. The doctrine of Purgatory rests upon no evidence, either of Canoni-
cal Scripture, or of the three first centuries, p. 143.
V. The origin and progress of Prayers for the Dead. p. 143.
1. Defective argument from the Early Liturgies, p. 144.
(1.) The Liturgies were not committed to writing until after the
Nicene Council, p. 144.
(2.) Negative testimony of Justin Martyr, fatal to the argument.
p. 144.
2. Dr. Brett's singular argument from Ephes. vi. 18. p. 145.
3. Kejection the Practice by the Anglican Church, p. 147.
4. The Practice sanctioned, neither by Scripture, nor by the Canon
of Tertullian. p. 148.
CHAPTEK VI.
SAINT-WORSHIP, IMAGE -WORSHIP, RELIC -WORSHIP, CROSS-WORSHIP, p. 149.
The Worship of Saints and Images and Relics and Crosses, as inculcated by
the Council of Trent, p. 149.
I. Proof from Scripture and from the writers of the three first centuries,
p. 151.
1. Proof from Scripture or pretended Scripture, p. 151.
(1.) First proof. Tobit xii. 12. p. 151.
(2.) Second proof. 2 Maccab. xv. 12-14. p. 151.
(3.) Third proof. Luke xv. 7, 10. p. 151.
(4.) Fourth proof. Eev. v. 8. p. 152.
(5.) Fifth proof. 2 mngs ii. 14. p. 152.
(6.) Sixth proof. 2 Kings xiii. 21. p. 152,
(7.) Seventh proof. Matt. ix. 20-22. p. 152.
(8.) Eighth proof. Acts v. 14, 15. p. 152.
(9.) Ninth proof. Acts xix. 11, 12. p. 152.
(10.) Tenth proof. Exod. xxv. 18. p. 152.
(11.) Eleventh proof. Numb. xxi. 8, 9. p. 153.
(12.) Twelfth proof. 2 Kings xviii. 4. p. 153.
(13.) Thirteenth proof. 1 Kings vi. 29, 32. p. 153.
(14.) Fourteenth proof. 1 Kings vii. 23, 25, 29. p. 153.
2. Proof from the writers of the three first centuries, p. 153.
(1.) Proof from the history of the mavtyrd(jm of Polysarp. p. 154.
(2.) Proof from Ireneus. p. 155.
(3.) Proof from Tertullian. p. 156.
(4.) Proof from Cyprian, p. 156.
(5.) Proof from Justin Martyr, p. 157.
IXX CONTENTS.
II. Examination of the romish case, as made out from Scripture and
from the Apocrypha and from the -writers of the three first centu-
ries, p. 157.
1. Eespecting invocation and relative woi-ship, as laid down by the
Tridentine Fathers, not a syllable is said by any one of the
witnesses adduced, p. 157.
2. Eespecting, therefore, the worship of creatures, as actually prac-
tised in the Church of Rome, still less do these witnesses give
any testimony, p. 159.
3. Spontaneous intercessory prayers of the saints in glory, p. 105.
4. Warrant of the Council of Trent, p. 16C.
CHAPTER VII.
COKCLUSION. p. 168.
As the most prominent peculiarities of Romanism rest upon no satisfactory
historical evidence, they cannot justly be enforced as a constituent portion
of Christianity, p. 108.
I. Remarkable acknowledgments of the Romish Ecclesiastics them-
selves respecting the want of evidence attendant upon the pecu-
liarities of the Latin Church, p. 108.
1. Acknowledgments respecting Transubstantiation. p. 168.
(1.) Johannes Scotus. p. 109.
(2.) Gabriel Biel. p. 109.
(3.) Occam, p. 169.
(4.) Cardinal Peter ab. Alliaco. p. 109.
(5.) Cardinal Cajetan. p. 169.
(6.) Cardinal Fisher, p. 169.
(7.) Cardinal Bellarmine. p. 170.
2. Acknowledgments respecting the adoration of the Host. p. 170,
(1.) Cardinal Fisher, p. 170.
(2.) Cardinal Bellarmine. p. 171.
(3.) Andrew Vega. p. 171.
3. Acknowledgments respecting Purgatory, p. 171.
(1.) Father Bams. p. 171.
(2.) Picherellus. p. 172.
(3.) Cardinal Fisher, p. 172.
(4.) Bishop Trevern of Strasbom-g. p. 173.
4. Acknowledgments respecting Image-Worship and Saint- Worship.
p. 174.
(1.) Petavius. p. 174.
(2.) Cardinal Perron, p. 174.
(3.) Bishop Trevern. p. 174.
(4.) Petavius respecting the spurious Apostolical Coimcil at
Antioch. p. 174.
5. General acknowledgment of Mr. Husenbeth: that The apostoUcity
of Romish peculiarities cannot he substantiated by the testimony of
Scripture and of the ecclesiastical writers of the three first centuries.
p. 175.
CONTENTS. Ixxi
(1.) A discussion of the two-fold theory, hy which Mr. Husenbeth
Avould account for tlie acknowledged fact: that The Latin
Divines cannot trace their j)ecuUarities up tu the Apostles in the
method required by the author of the DiffieuUics of Romanism.
p. 17 7.
(2.) Notice of Mr. Husenbeth's inconsistent attempt to leave
on the mind of his reader a vague impression: that The
Fathers of the second and third centuries are favourable to
romish peculiarities, p. 181.
(3.) Mr. Husenbeth asserts: that The Divines of the Latin
Church both can and Jjo trace their doctrines up to the Apostles,
though not precisely in the method required by the author of the
Difficulties of Romanism. The question is : How and
WHERE ? p. 182.
II. No reasonable being can be required to believe a fact without ade-
quate substantiation. But the fact, alleged by the Tridentine
Fathers, has never yet been substantiated, and from existing
materials never can be substantiated. Therefore the whole mass
of doctrine and practice founded upon it falls at once to the
ground, p. 183.
III. From what has hitlierto been said, the general conclusion is : that,
In admitting the peculiarities of the Latin Church as articles of the
Christian Revelation, the Romanist is content to believe without
evidence, p. 184,
BOOK 11.
THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY AGAINST THE PECULIAKITIES OF
EOMANISM.
CHAPTEE I.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT, p. 187.
The Eoraanists have attempted to establish the apostolicity of their pecu-
liarities on the basis of alleged evidence. But their attempt has been a
total failure. Therefore no man can be bound to admit the apostolicity of
their peculiarities on their own mere unproved assertion, p. 187.
I. For the production of historical testimony in favour of their pecu-
liarities, no more than the three first centuries can be legitimately
conceded to the Romanists, p. 188.
Ixxii CONTENTS.
II. But, for the production of historical testimony against the pecu-
liarities of Eomanism, no such limitation is imposed. On the
contrary, the very lateness of testimony to that effect serves only to
increase its value, p. 189.
CHAPTEE II.
INFALLIBILITY, p. 191.
For the Catholic Church, which they fondly identify with, the Latin Church,
the Komanists claim the prerogative of Infallibility, p. 191,
I. The Komanists cannot agree among themselves where this infalli-
bility is lodged, p. 191.
1. Untenability of the speculation of the Jesuits and the Trans-
alpines. p. 192.
2. Untenability of the speculation of the Cisalpines. p. 192.
3. Untenability of the general latin speculation, p. 194.
II. Evidence against the general latin speculation : that Infallihility is
lodged with an Ecumenical Council ratijied by the papal confirmation.
p. 195.
1. The practical contradictorinesa of papally ratified Ecumenical
Councils, p. 196.
(1.) Joint case of the Council of Ephesus and the Council of
Trent, p. 196.
(2.) Case of the second Council of Nice. p. 196.
(3.) Case of the second Council of Lateran. p. 197.
(4.) Case of the third Council of Lateran. p. 198.
(5.) Case of the fourth Council of Lateran. p. 199.
(6.) First case of the Council of Trent, p. 199.
(7.) Second case of the Council of Trent, p. 200.
(8.) Third case of the Council of Trent, p. 201.
(9.) Fourth case of the Council of Trent, p. 201.
(10.) Fifth case of the Council of Trent, p. 202.
(] 1.) Sixth case of the Council of Trent, p. 202.
2. Testimonies of the Fathers with introductory remarks on the
romish doctrine of Tradition, p. 202.
(1.) Iren&us. p. 205.
(2.) TertulUan. p. 206.
(3.) Hippolytus. p. 206.
(4.) Cyprian, p. 206.
(5.) Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 207.
(6.) Athanasius. p. 207.
(7.) Jerome, p. 208.
(8.) BasH. p. 208.
(9.) Augustine, p. 209.
III. Conclusion, p. 212.
CONTENTS. Ixxiii
CHAPTER III.
SUPREMACY, p. 215. ^
History testifies against each of the three alleged Facts, on which reposes the
claim of Roman Supremacy, p. 215.
I. Testimony against the dominant Supremacy of Peter over the entire
Church Catholic, p. 215.
1. Positive testimony against the dominant Supremacy of Peter.
p. 21fj.
(1.) First particular, p. 216.
(2.) Second particular, p. 216.
(3.) Third particular, p. 217.
(4.) Fourth particular, p. 217.
(5.) Fifth particular, p. 218.
(6.) Sixth particular, p. 219.
2. Negative testimony against the dominant Supremacy of Peter.
p. 219.
II. Testimony against the dominant Supremacy of the Roman Bishops
on the plea of their being Peter's successors, p. 220.
1 . Notice of the strangely indecent consequence of the pretended
Supremacy of the Roman Bishops, p. 220.
2. Cases, of early opposition to the Roman Bishops, and of acknow-
ledgment on the part even of some of the Roman Bishops them-
selves that they neither possessed nor claimed monarchical
Supremacy over the Catholic Church, p. 221,
(1.) First case. Victor and Iren^us. p. 231.
(2.) Second case. The Roman Pontiff and Tertullian. p. 221.
(3.) Third case. Stephen and Cyprian, p. 222.
(4.) Fourth case. Stephen and Firmilian. p. 223.
(5.) Fifth case. The Roman Church and the author of the "Work
on the Sacraments, p. 224.
(6.) Sixth case. The Roman Church and Augustine, p. 224.
(7.) Seventh case. Declarations of Pelagius II. and Gregory I.
p. 225.
3. Remarks on the specific ground of the declarations of Pelagius
and Gregory, p. 226.
(1.) First remark, p. 226.
(2.) Second remark, p. 231.
III. Testimony against the alleged Diocesan Roman Episcopate of St.
Peter, on the strength of which, the Popes, as his successors in
the See, claim to inherit all his imagined prerogatives, p. 233.
Ixxiv CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
TKANSUBSTANTIATION. p. 235.
So far as scriptural authority is concerned, the doctrine of Transubstau-
tiation rests, not so much upon Scripture itself, as upon the gratuitous
latin interpretation of Scripture : and, to this gratuitous interpretation, the
testimony of Antiquity is not friendly but hostile, p. 235.
I. Statements, which, by necessaiy result and implication, demonstrate,
that the Ancients must have understood our Lord's phraseology not
literally hutjiguratively. p. 237.
1. Statement of Ireneus. p. 237.
2. Statement of Tertulhan. p. 239.
3. Statement of Cyprian, p. 239.
4. Statement of Theodoret. p. 240.
5. Statement of Jerome, p. 242.
G. Statement of Augustine, p. 242.
7. Statement of Rabanus Maurus. p. 243.
II. Statements, in which the consecrated elements are said to be types
or antitypes or figures or symbols or images or representations of
the body and blood of Christ, with remarks appropriate to the
subject, p. 244.
1. The statements themselves, p. 244.
(1.) Statement of Ireneus. p. 244.
(2.) Statement of the Clementine Liturgy, p. 246.
(3.) Statement of Origeu. p. 247,
(4.) Statement of Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 249.
(5.) Statement of Macarius. p. 250.
(6.) Statement of Gregory of Nazianzum. p. 250.
(7.) Statement of Clement of Alexandria, p. 250.
(8.) Statement of T^rtullian. p. 250.
(9.) Statement of Eusebius of Cesarea. p. 251.
(10.) Statement of Ambrose of Milan, p. 251.
(11.) Statement of Jerome, p. 251.
(12.) Statement of Augustine, p. 252.
(13.) Statement of Theodoret. p. 252.
(14.) Statement of the author of the "Work on the Sacraments, p.
253.
(15.) Statement of Pope Gelasius. p. 252.
2. Striking alteration of the primitive ecclesiastical language, when
the doctrine of the material presence began to creep into the
Church, p. 253.
(1.) Anastasius of Mount Sinai and John of Damascus, p. 254.
(2.) The Fathers of the second Nicene Council, p. 255.
(3.) Modern tampering with. the old word Type. p. 256.
3. The ancient doctrine of image and similitude was retained in the
West when it began to fail in the East. p. 257.
(1.) Bede. p. 258.
(2.) Amalar of Triers, p. 258.
CONTENTS. IXXV
(3.) Walafrid Strabo. p. 258.
(4.) Druthmar, p. 259.
III. Distinct assertions, either that ChrisVs phraseology ought to he ex-
plained spiritually, or that the bread and wine are not properly his
body and blood, or that his substantial body and blood are not literally
present in the Eucharist, p. 2(51.
1. Assertion of Tertullian. p. 261.
2. Assertion of Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 262.
3. Assertion of Athanasius. p. 263.
4. Assertion of Augustine, p. 264.
5. Assertion of Facundus. p. 264.
6. Assertion of the Author of the Treatise on the Lord's Supper.
p. 265.
IV. Unequivocal denial of the doctrine of Transubstantiation through the
medium of criticism or controversy, p. 266.
1. Denial by Clement of Alexandria, p. 266.
2. Denial by Augustine, p. 207.
3. Denial by Chrysostom. p. 269.
4. Denial by Theodoret. p. 271.
(1.) Parallel denial by Pope Gelasius. p. 274.
(2.) Parallel denial by Ephrem of Antioch. p. 276.
5. Denial by the opponents of Paschase Radbert. p. 277.
(1.) Denial by Rabanus Maurus. p. 278.
(2.) Denial by Bertram of Corby, p. 280.
(3.) Denial by Elfric. p. 284.
V. Proof of the novelty of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation from the
modern incongruous retention of ancient phraseology, p. 287.
1. Original import of the phrase unbloody sacrifice, p. 287.
2. Probative testimonies, p. 291.
(1.) Passages exhibiting the consecrated elements under the
aspect of an unbloody sacrifice. Cyril of Jerusalem : Gregory
of Nazianzum : Cyril of Alexandria, p. 291.
(2.) Passages explaining such language, by teaching that the con-
secrated elements were deemed to sacrifice only on the
ground, of figurativeness and commemorativeness. Hippo-
lytus : Chrysostom : Ambrose : Augustine, p. 292.
3. Later probative testimony of Bertram of Corby, p. 294.
4. Yet later probative testimony of Peter Lombard, p. 297.
5. Summary of the present branch of evidence, p. 298.
VI. The argument, from the secret discipline of the Mysteries, confuted
and retorted upon its inventors, p. 299.
1. Confutation, from the open statement of the doctrine of the
Trinity, p. 301.
2. Confutation, from the remarkable negative testimony of the
Emperor Julian, p. 306.
' (1.) Julian's "Work against Christianity, p. 307.
(2.) Julian's other Works, p. 309.
(3.) His assertion that the Christians had no sacrifice, and his
silence as to any worship of the consecrated elements, p. 310.
Ixxvi CONTENTS.
(4.) Remarks on the total silence of Julian respecting the Doctrine
of Transubstantiatlon. p. 311.
VII. When the Fathers speak of the bread and wine being changed into the
body and blood of Christ, they themselves expressly state this
change to be, not material or substantial, but moral or sacramental.
p. 312.
1. Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 314.
2. The author of the Treatise on the Sacraments, p. 317.
3. Ambrose of Milan, p. 320.
4. Gregory of Nyssa. p. 326.
VIII. Insufficiency of the occasional plea, that the elements are only tran-
substantiated into the glorified body and blood of Christ, p. 328.
IX. Conclusion, p. 329.
CHAPTER V.
PUBGATOEY. p. 330.
Under the aspect of a point of doctrine inculcated by revelation, the notion of
a Purgatory is plainly untenable : yet, as a point of curiosity, it may not be
uninteresting to exhibit the notion, as it first dubiously and timidly ap-
peared in a form widely different from that in modern latin theology, p. 330.
I. The negative testimony against the primitive existence of the doc-
trine of a Pm-gatory. p. 332.
1. Silence of Polycarp, when his subject immediately led him to
treat of the doctrine of Purgatory had he known and received
any such doctrine, p. 332.
2. Similar silence of Clement of Rome. p. 332.
3. SUence of Athenagoras under the same circumstances, p. 332.
4. Silence of Irenfeus under the same circumstances, p. 333.
II. The positive testimony against the primitive existence of the doc-
trine of a Purgatory, p. 333.
1. Testimony of Clement of Rome. p. 333.
2. Testimony of Ignatius, p. 334.
3. Testimony of Justin Martyr, p. 334.
4. Testimony of the old author of Questions and Answers to the
Orthodox, p. 335.
5. Testimony of Hippolytus. p. 336,
6. Testimony of Cyprian, p. 337.
III. The nature and object of ancient prayers for the dead. p. 338.
1. The negative Purgatory, started by Tertullian. p. 339.
2. The negative Purgatory, adopted by Cyril of Jerusalem, though,
as he confesses, denied by many. p. 340.
3. The positive Purgatory, started or adopted by Ambrose, p. 340.
4. The positive Purgatory, finally, though after much vacillation,
adopted by Augustine, p. 341.
(1.) Fii-st statement of Augustine, p. 341.
(2.) Second statement of Augustine, p. 342.
(3.) Third statement of Augustine, p. 343.
CONTENTS. Ixxvii
(4.) Fourth statement of Augustine, p. 343.
(5.) Though, hi principle, Augustine's Purgatory is the same as
that of the Latins; in its chronological arrangement, it differs
altogether, p. 344. ^
IV. Summary and conclusion, p. 345.
CHAPTEE VI.
SAINT-WOESHIP, IMAGE-WORSHIP, RELIC-WORSHIP, CROSS-WORSHIP, p. 347.
The early Church (for it is plainly superfluous to make any such assertion
respecting Scripture) disavowed and rejected those corruptions of Saint-
worship and Image-worship and Eelic-worship and Cross-worship, which,
however disguised and modified by vain explanations, are now the vindi-
cated and established opprobrium of the Church of Rome. p. 347.
I. Saint- worship, p. 348.
1. The Ancients prove the divinity of Christ from the fact of his
universal invocation. Therefore they could not themselves have
invoked Saints or Angels, p. 348.
(1.) Novatian. p. 349.
(2.) Athanasius. p. 349.
2. With the necessary purport of this argument agree the direct
testimonies of the ancient theologians, p. 349.
(1.) Augustine, p. 349.
(2.) Origen. p. 350.
(3.) Epiphanius. p. 350.
II. Image-worship, p. 353.
1. The primitive Christians ridiculed the image-worship of the
Pagans, even when they vindicated it on the precise plea of
relative worship since brought forward by the second Council of
Nice and by the yet later Council of Trent, p. 353.
(1.) Clement of Alexandria, p. 355.
(2.) TertuUian. p. 355.
(0.) Origen. p. 355.
(4.) Amobius. p. 356.
(5.) jMinucius Felix, p, 356.
(6.) Lactantius. p. 357.
2. The primitive Christians abhorred all image -worship however dis-
guised with the old pagan pretence of relative adoration, p. 357.
(1.) Clement of Alexandria, p. 357.
(2.) Minucius Felix, p. 357.
(3.) Origen. p. 358.
3. When the deadly superstition of Image -worship began to creep
into the Church ; it was steadily opposed, and its true origin was
even pointed out. p. 358.
(1.) Epiphanius. p. 358.
(2.) The old author of the Clementine Eecognitions. p. 359.
(3.) Eusebiua of Cesar^a. p. 360.
Ixxviii CONTENTS.
(4.) Council of Elvira, p. 360.
(5.) Seremis of Marseilles, p. 360.
III. Relic-worship, p. 363.
1. Epistle of the primitive Church of Smyrna, p. 363.
2. Vigilantius and Jerome, p. 364.
3. Augustine, p. 366.
IV. Cross-worship, p. 366.
1. Ambrose, p. 367.
2. Minucius Felix, p. 367.
CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSION, p. 369.
From the whole of the preceding inquiry, the general conclusion is perfectly
obvious, p. 369.
I. When a doctrine or a practice is alleged to be apostolical, the asserted
FACT must be substantiated by competent evidence, before our
admission of such doctrine or such practice can be justly de-
manded, p. 369.
II. Reason and Faith have each their own proper province, p. 370.
1. The ofl&ce of Reason, p. 370.
2. The office of Faith, p. 370.
III. To a test of this description the peculiarities of Romanism have
been subjected ; and how lamentably deficient the answer of the
Latins is to the requisition that the fact alleged by the Council
of Trent should be substantiated by historical testimony, we have
now seen both negatively and positively, p. 370.
1. Negatively, there is a total defect of competent evidence in favour
of the apostolicity of Roman Peculiarities, p. 371.
2. Positively, there is direct and decisive evidence against the
apostolicity of those Peculiarities, p. 37] .
IV. The apparent process of the human mind, through which the Pecu-
liarities of the Latin Faith liave become the subject of devout
and implicit belief, p. 371.
V. The final and general result of the Avhole investigation is : that, In
admitting the Peculiarities of the Roman Church as articles of the
Christian Revelation, the members of that Church believe, not only
without evidence, but even against evidence, p. 374.
APPENDIX.
I. — Liturgies, p. 377.
II. — AuEicuLAE Confession, p. 387.
III. — Satisfaction, p. 394.
IV.— Anglican Orders, p. 403.
LIST OF EDITIONS
OF
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS QUOTED.
The following is a list of the editions of the principal authors quoted, which are
here given in a tabular form to avoid repetition in the body of the work. In
several instances a second reference has been added, which, it is hoped, will give
increased value to this Third Edition.
Ambeosh Opera Paris. 1549
ATHANAsn Opera Heidelb. apud Commel. 1600
Athenagoras Oxon. e Theatre Sheldoniano 1706
AuGusTiNi Opera Colon. Agripp. 1616
Basilh Opera Paris. 1638
Bellarminus, Robt. de Controvers. Fidei . . Colon. 1615
Bertram de Corp. et Sang. Domini Colon. 1551 ; Oxon. 1838
Beveridg. Synod, sive Pandect Oxon. 1672
BiNius, Notee Apud Concilia studio Labbsei, Paris. 1671
Canones Apostolorum et Concil.. . |^"p^pXt7!* ^^''''^' ^'^' ''} ^^°^- ^^^^
CHRYSosTOin Joann. Opera Heidelb. apud. Commel. 1603
Clemens Alexandrinus . . . . Colon. 1688
Clemens Roman In Patres Apostolici, Jacobson, Oxon. 1838
CoNciL. Tridentin Antverp. 1644
Cypriani Opera Oxon. 1682
Cyrilli Alexandrini adv. Julianum Lipsise, 1696
Cyrilli Hierosolymit Paris. 1631
Damasceni Opera Basil. 1575
Ephrem Antioch Apud Photium, Rothomag. 1653
Epiphanii Opera Colon. Agripp. 1617
EusEBius Pamphil. Demon. Evang Paris. Stephan. 1544
EusEBius,Eccles.Hist. 1 Paris. Vales, edit. 1677
EusEBH3s,De Laud. Constant. J
Facundus Paris. 1629
Firmllian apud Cyriani Op Oxon. 1682
Gelasius Papa Bibliotb. Patr. Paris. 1589
Gregorti Magni Opera Paris. 1542
Hieronymi Opera Colon. Agripp. 1616
HiLARH Opera Paris. 1693
HippoLYTUs Hamburg. 1716
{Cotel. Patr. Apostol. Amstel. 1724
Patr. Apostol. Jacobson, Oxon. 1838
Cureton, London, 1845
lREN5i:i Opera Gallasii edit. (Genevse) 1570
IXXX LIST OF EDITIONS OF PRINCIPAL AUTHORS.
JuLTANi Imp. Oper. Lipsia?, 1090
JusTiNi Martyr. Opera Heidelb. apiid Comrael. 1593
Labbjei, Concilia studio Paris. 1071
liACTANTius Firm. ; Divin. Instit. . . Antverp. 1570
Leo I. Ep, XL. apud Concil. studio Labbaei, torn. iii. 1318 . . Paris. 1071
LiTURGiA Clement Cotel. Patr. Apostol. Anstel. 1 724
Macaeius Lipsise, 1698
Melito apud Euseb. Hist. Evang Vales. Paris. 1077
MiNUTius Felix Lugd. Bat. 1072
Nazianzeni (Gregor.) Opera, Grsec Paris. 1030
Nysseni (Gregor.) Opera, Grsec. et Latin Paris. 1015
CEcuMENius, Comment, in Act. Apost. et Epist. Paul Paris. 1031
Oeigenis Opera Exegetica ed. Huet. Rothomag. 1008
Paschasius Eadbert. de Corp. et Sanguine Dom Colon. 1551
Pelagius II. apud Labbsei Concil. tom. V. 949 Paris. 1071
SozoMEN, Hist. Eccl Vales. Paris. 1078
Tertulliani Opera cum notis Beat. Ehenani*, Basil. 1550
Theodoketi Hist. Eccl. .. Paris. 1042 ; Vales. Paris. 1078
Discussion Amicale sur I'Eglise Anglicane et en general sur Ee-
formation. Dr. Trevem . . Paris. 1 824
Faith of Catholics, Kirk and Berington London, 1813
Milner's End of Eeligious Controversy, 8th Edit. W. E. Andrews, London.
* My edition of Tertullian has no title-page and no name of either place
or date, but I have reason to believe that 1550 is the date.
^^^ OF Xm
BOOK I.
THE TESTIMONY OF HISTOEY IN FAVOUE OF THE
PECULIAEITIES OF EOMANISM.
KiKTK/^i6\ 6vhi§ ocvrcc KXTo!,/3oiXi7 Xoyog,
Ovo yiv Oi UK^uv TO (ro(pov ivpviroii (ppivm.
Eurip. Bacch. ver. 201-203.
-S^"' OP j-^. ^^
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.
By the members of the earliest Church Catholic, the Doctrines,
taught by the Apostles, must have been received as infallibly
true : and, siace it is morally impossible that any very material
corruptions or alterations could have universally t^ken place in
the course of the two or three first ecclesiastical descents, the
Theological System, unanimously received by all the different
Branches of the mutually communicating primitive Catholic
Church, must have been that, which in the course of their
preaching the Apostles orally delivered, and which under
their direction or by their personal instrumentality was finally
committed to imperishable writing.
I. On the familiar and acknowledged fact, that All the
United Branches of the one Church Catholic symbolised in a
System of Theology, which, through the medium of one or two
or at the most three descents, they unanimously professed them-
selves to have received from the Apostles, was built the argu-
ment from Prescription, pressed with such irresistible force
against the heretics of the first and second centuries by
Ireneus and Tertullian^
Each varying Heresy had a commencement without the
Catholic Church. Consequently, no Heresy could deduce its
origin from an Apostle.
' For the distinct and fearless as- p. 36. edit. 1570. Tertull. de prse-
sertion of tliis vital fact, without the script, adv. hffir. § 6. Oper. p. 102,
snhstantiation of which the whole ar- edit, Rhenan. Ihid. § 11. Oper. p. 107.
gument from Prescription is worth- Ibid. § 14. Oper. p. 109.
less, see Iren. adv. hter. lib. i, c. 3.
4 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
But the very reverse of this was the case with that System
of Theology, which, on the professed and undeniable ground of
apostolic derivation, was unanimously received by all the then
mutually communicating Branches of the one Church Catholic.
Hence the Theological System of the early Catholic Church
could not but be apostolic, while the various discordant upstart
systems of Heresy stood self-precluded from all claim to aposto-
licity: and hence, while Ireneus and Tertullian distinctly lay
down the System universally received by the Catholic Church on
the professed ground of derivation from the Apostles^ ; Tertullian
propounds the indisputable canon. Whatever is first, is true ;
vjhatever is later, is spumou^'^,
II. An extension of the argument, employed by Ireneus
and Tertullian, is evidently the basis of that Scheme of Oral
Tradition, which, under the character of the Unwritten Word of
God, the Roman Church holds to be authoritatively concurrent
with his Written Word\
The Catholics of the present age (it is contended) deliver
nothing, save ivhat was unanimously delivered to them by their
predecessors : and their predecessors professed, that they, in like
Tnanner, delivered nothing, save what had been unanimously
delivered to them by a yet prior generation.
Now this same unanimous profession (it is alleged, as an in-
disputable matter of fact) runs back all the way to the apostolic
age itself: nor, in any one particular step of transmission, can it
ever be falsified.
The necessary conclusion, therefore, is : that the Oral Tradition
of the Catholic Church cannot but set forth the Doctrines and
• Iren. adv, hrer. lib. i. c. 2. lib. iii. Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut
c. 4. Tertull. de prtescript. adver. ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dic-
heer. § 4. Oper. p. 100. tante, quasi per manus traditae, ad
^ Quo perseque adversus universas nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum
hsereses jam hinc praejudicatum sit
Id esse verum, quodcunque peimum
id esse adulterum, quodcunque pos
TEEius. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 1. Oper,
Patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros
tarn Veteris quam Novi Testamenti,
cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor,
uec non traditiones ipsas, turn ad fi-
p. 405. Ita ex ipso ordine manifes- dem, tum ad mores, pertinentes, tan-
tatur: Id esse dominicum et verum, quam vel ore tenus a Christo vel a
quod sit PKius traditum ; id autem Spiritu Sancto dictatas et continua
extraneum et falsum, quod sit pos- successione inEcclesiaCatholica con-
TERius immissum. Tertull. de prse- servatas (Sacrosancta Synodus), paei
script, adv. lifer. § 11. Oper. p. 107. pietatis affectu ac reverentia, sus-
3 Hanc veritatem et disciplinam cipit et veneratur. Concil. Trident,
contineri in libris scriptis, et sine sess. iv. p. 7, 8. Antwerp. 1644.
sciipto traditionibus, quae ipsius
CHAP. I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 5
Practices taught and enjoined hy the Apostles from the very
beginning.
1. Such reasoning, like the exactly similar reasoning of the
Jews in favour of those traditions by which they made void
the Law, is doubtless, at the first glance, highly plausible;
and it may serve to deceive an incautious Protestant, if he
looks no further than the surface : but, as it professedly and
indeed necessarily appeals, precisely as the Rabbins appeal, to
a FACT ; by the establishment, or the non-establishment, of that
FACT, it must obviously be judged, as to its admissibility or its
inadmissibihty^
When Ireneus and TertuUian, in the second century, first
employed the argument before us ; if the heretics of the day
could by sufficient evidence have set aside the fact upon which
it claimed to repose, we instinctively feel and perceive that the
argument itself would have been altogether worthless.
This, accordingly, is acknowledged by TertuUian : for he
very justly tells us ; that Truth is a thing, against which no
person can prescriptively set up either space of time or patronage
of individuals or privilege of countries"'.
Hence, if direct Historical Testimony contradicts any part of
the Oral Tradition advocated by the Church of Rome, even
though at later periods the Tradition may have been com-
mitted to Writing ; it is clear, that the argument from Pre-
scription, as now employed in the cause of Oral Tradition,
becomes palpably null and inconclusive : for the argument
' It must, however, be confessed, He gives us seriatim and nomina-
that the Jews make out a much more tim, nothing less than a Eegular
plausible case for their Oral Law, than Pedigree of the indubitable trans-
the Romanists can do for their Oral mission of the Oral Law, from Moses
Tradition : yet we all know, how this himself down to Rabbi Judah the son
same Oral Law, notwithstanding it of Rabbi Simeon, who was honour-
professed to be built upon a fact, ably distinguished by the title of
was treated by our Lord. Bahhiu Hakadosh, or Our Rahhin the
The matter stands thus. Holy Man. Maimon. in Prsef. Summ.
Maimonides, in the way of author- Talmud, apud de Voisin. Observ. in
ity, claims to discover, in Exod. xxiv. Prooem. Raymund. Martin. Pug. Fid.
12, both the Written Law and the p. 7, 8.
Oral Law : and then he extracts from If such a fact will not satisfy us,
that text a divine injunction, that the what will ?
former should always be interpreted '■* Hoc exigere veritatem, cui nemo
according to the latter. prascribere potest, non spatium tem-
But how are we to be certain, that porum, non patrocinia personarum,
the genuine Oral Law now exists ? non privilegium regionum. Tertull,
Maimonides answers the question de virgin, veland. Oper. p. 490.
by the stout production of a fact.
6 . DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAMSM. [^^OK I.
professedly rests upon an alleged fact ; and that alleged FACT
is set aside by direct Historical Testimony.
The same remark applies to the more enlarged canon of
Vincent of Lerins, who flourished during the fifth century.
We must, in the Catholic Church, specially take care to hold
that Doctrine, which, everywhere ajid always and by all, has
been believed : for this is truly and properly Catholic^.
In the practical application of the more complex canon of
Vincent, there is a felt and acknowledged difficulty, which
leads me to prefer the more ancient and more simple canon of
TertuUian.
When Vincent speaks of the reception of a Doctrine by all
and EYERY WHERE, he must obviously be understood to except
those heretics, for the confutation of whom the canon was
composed ; and this may raise a question, as to who are and
who are not the real heretics. Furthermore, the test of every
WHERE, involving the test of all, is, in points of practical appli-
cation, not a little cumbersome : and the difficulty of the appli-
cation increases with each successive century. Hence, in the
canon of Vincent, the only test of real practical utility is the
always : and that includes and is based upon Tertullian's test
of FIRST.
Thus, for any practical facility of employment, the canon of
Vincent resolves itself into the older canon of Tertullian ; and
this more ancient canon, of abundantly easy application, is
quite sufficient to expose every novelty of whatsoever de-
scription. That, which was first delivered, was delivered by
Christ and his inspired Apostles : that, which has been intro-
duced at a LATER period, must inevitably be a mere unauthori-
tative human invention or human corruption. Heresy, in the
way of consequence, may compel the precise Definition of an
already received Primeval Doctrine, and thus give rise to the
necessary formation of explanatory Creeds or Symbols : but
the canon precludes the reception of any new and. previously
unheard of Doctrine.
This was the test which the early Ecclesiastical Writers
appHed to the Heresies of the day ; they could not be true.
' In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia ab omnibus, creditum est: hoc est
magnopere curandum est, ut id tenea- enim ver6 propri^que catholicum.
mus, quod ubique, quod sempee, quod Vincent. Commonit. lib. i. c. 3.
CHAP. I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 7
because, in derivation from the Apostles, they possessed not
the characteristic of being fiest ; or, in other words, because
they had not thus subsisted from the beginning^
2. Now exactly the same test may, with equal reason be — —
applied to the Peculiarities of Popery. Have they, or have
they not, subsisted, under apostolical authority, from the
beginning ? Do they bear the impress of being first : with-
out which, according to the canon, they cannot be t^e, ]bvit . .-
must be spurious or adulterine ? S ^^ > %-^^
On the very intelligible principle before us, then, Bi^ •:T5ral*'
Tradition of the Roman Church cannot be admitted as "proving
that the Peculiarities of the Latin Faith and Practice are of
PRUHEVAL and apostolical Origin, until the fact, upon whi^h
professedly reposes the argument from Prescription as now
employed by the Romanists, shall ifeeZfhave been clearly sub-
stantiated : and the plain necessity of the previous estabHsh-
ment of the alleged fact in question ultimately brings the
asserted primeval apostolicity of Latin Peculiarities to the
alone satisfactory decision of historical testimony.
III. That such is the true state of the case, is fully admitted
by the Divines of the Council of Trent. They rest, even pro-
fessedly, the apostolical origin of their Doctrines upon the
repeatedly alleged fact : that the Holy Fathers their prede-
cessors, and the antecedent General Councils, and the Universal
Tradition of the Church, always and every where and unani-
mously, taught and maintained the self-same Theological System,
as that which teas defined and inculcated by themselves^.
Accordingly, the matter seems to have been felt by the
more reasoning part of the Latin Clergy, who clearly enough
perceived, that the Tridentine Divines in Council rest their
decisions, not on mere Dogmatism, but on a Claim of Antiquity
' This was felt by Dr. Priestley, fewer than 173 citations from the
when he laboured to prove that So- Early Writers, uniformly interpreting
cinianism was the received Theology 35 litigated texts precisely as Catho-
of the Primitive Church. He prac- lies now do. See my Apost. of Trini-
tically shewed himself unable to ad- tar. Append. I. Numb. 1.
duce even a single passage from any ^ ggg Concil. Trident, sess. v. p. 1 2,
one of the Early Ecclesiastics, in 13. sess. xiii. c. 3, 4, 5. p. 121, 1-22,
which the texts, litigated as to tlieir 124, 125. sess. xiv. c. 5, 7. p. 148, 153.
true sense between Catholics and So- sess. xxiii. c. 1, 3. p. 279, 280. sess.
cinians, are intei-j^reted in accordance xxiv. p. 343, 344. Antwerp, a.d.
with the views of the latter. On the 1644.
other hand, I have given in full no
8 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
and Universality. Thus Mr. Husenbeth admits the question
of the Apostolicity of their Doctrines to be purely A question
OF HISTORY^ ; and thus the two modern Treatises of Mr. Be-
rington and Dr. Trevem have been avowedly constructed on
this precise basis^.
By the acknowledgment, then, of the Romanists themselves,
the FACT, which must be substantiated as essential to the truth
of any propounded Doctrine, is the Reception of such pro-
pounded Doctrine evert where and always and unanimously.
And this, as Mr. Husenbeth justly remarks, being purely A
question of history, the only Historical Medium, through
which the alleged fact can be substantiated, is the testimony
OF scripture and the early ecclesiastical writers.
Hence, both Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevern proceed upon
the identical plan here specified. For, by the joint Testimony
of Scripture and of the Early Ecclesiastical Writers, they
attempt to establish the fact so repeatedly asserted by the
Tridentine Divmes.
Now, except by a purely gratuitous assumption of the
Roman Church, two of the points, namely the every where
and the unanimously, are absolutely incapable of proof, because
they are contradicted by positive and recorded experience.
The Peculiarities of Popery have never been received either
unanimously or every where. Such is the simple matter of
fact: and the Romanists meet it by the broad allegation,
that all, who have ever differed from Rome and denied her
paramoiuit authority, are heretics and schismatics; so that the
Peculiarities of Popery are received unanimously and every
WHERE within the precincts of the alone Tr^ie Church.
It is not worth my while to discuss this question. For the
sake of simplifying this argument, let the claim be viewed as if
conceded. I am quite willing to rest the entire matter upon the
ALWAYS : and this the rather, because it is the only point which
Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevern attempt to establish. TJiey
' Husenbeth's Last Pamph. p. 9. eur I'Eglise Anglicane, et en general
2 The titles of the two Works are : sur la Eeformation. Par J. F. M.
The Faith of CathoUcs, confirmed by Trevern, I'Eveque d'Aire. A Paris,
Scripture, and attested by the Fathers 1824. Dr. Trevern has, since he
of the first five centuries of the published this Work, been translated
Church. By Joseph Berington. Lon- to Strasbourg.
don, 1813 : and Discussion Amicale
CHAP. I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 9
would evidentially demonstrate : that every Roman Peculiarity
has AXWAYS been 7'eceived by the Catholic Church from the tery
BEGiNNiNa. / deny the possibility of any such demonstration :
and confidently assert, that, for the always or from the be-
ginning, we have no valid Historical Testimony.
IV. In their adoption of the Ime of argument which is to
substantiate their claim of aboriginal antiquity^, there is nothing
to censure and everything to praise : but, in their management
of it, there is a particular, which will scarcely receive the ap-
probation of an accurate inquirer.
Mr. Berington and the Bishop of Strasbourg are profuse in
their citations from writers of the fourth and fifth centuries :
but they are lamentably penurious in the evidence which they
produce from writers of the three first ages.
So far as my own reading extends, the same remark equally
applies to all other Divines of the Roman Communion, who
take up a similar mode of investigation. They are copious,
when they should be sparing : they are sparing, when they
should be copious.
1. Now, with respect to so7ne among the Peculiarities of
the Latin Church, I am not aware that any person denies their
existence during the lapse of the fourth and fifth centuries.
To establish, therefore, by a large adduction of passages,
what no one dreams of controverting, seems little better than
mere misapplied labour.
2. With respect, again, to others among those Peculiarities,
the existence of which even during the fourth and fifth cen-
turies may well be doubted, it is plainly altogether foreign from
the real matter in hand to adduce any evidence from the writers
of those periods for the purpose of establishing the alleged fact
of their apostolic origination.
In conducting a discussion of the present nature, we must
never suffer ourselves to forget its true object.
Its true object is an inquiry, whether the peculiarities
OF the latin church were authoritatively inculcated by
THE INSPIRED APOSTLES, AND WHETHER PROFESSEDLY AS SUCH THEY
WERE UNIVERSALLY RECEIVED BY THE EARLIEST CATHOLIC BELIEV-
ERS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
To the satisfactory promotion of this object, citations from
writers of the fourth and fifth centuries are obviously quite
10 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
irrelevant. With the most liberal admission of their pertinence,
they can only establish the existence of this or that Peculiarity
during the lapse of the fourth and fifth centuries. But, from the
Roman Theologians, an accurate inquirer very reasonably de-
mands the Historical Substantiation of the divinely authorised
Existence of each Latin Peculiarity from the very beginning.
As Tertullian teaches, A Doctrine, in order to he true, must
have been received from the first : and, as Yincent inculcates.
We, in the Catholic Church, must carefully hold that, and no-
thing but that, which has ALWAYS been believed. Now a proof, even
if the proof were ever so full and decisive, of the Existence of a
Latin Peculiarity during the mere fourth and fifth ages, can be
no very satisfactory demonstration of the first and the always,
which, by Tertullian and Vincent, are required as a necessary
test of genuine Catholicism. In the abstract, a Peculiarity,
which exists some four or five hundred years after the Chris-
tian era, may either have been really apostolical, or 7nay have
been altogether unknown in the time of the Apostles. But
even the most cogent and invincible proof, that such Peculiarity
existed in the fourth and fifth centuries, is assuredly no proof
whatever that it was inculcated by the Apostles from the very
beginning.
3. The whole matter, in short, respecting citations from
writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, resolves itself into this.
If such citations can demonstrate, what, from the testimony
of yet earlier writers, may be equally demonstrated ; they are
superfluous: if they can only demonstrate, what, from the
testimony of yet earlier writers, is incapable of demonstration ;
they are nugatory.
In either case, their adduction by Latin Theologians will
be viewed, as a mere idle attempt, to give to their cause an
apparent strength by the ostentatious bringing forward of a
perfectly useless mass of irrelevant evidence.
4. Should the adduction of such comparatively late testimony
be defended upon the principle of the argument from Prescrip-
tion, the answer will constantly recur : that the argument from
Prescription can never be legitimately used, until the fact, upon
which that argument professedly rests, shall itself have been first
established.
Now the utter inapplicability of this argument, to any testi-
CHAP. I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 1 1
mony afforded by writers of the fourth and fifth centuries to
this or to that Peculiarity of Romanism when such testimony is
not corroborated by writers of a yet earlier period up to the age
of the Apostles, may, with great ease, be practically shewn even
through a mere simple statement of one out of many actual
circumstances.
About the middle of the fourth century, the Emperor Julian
distinctly alleged, against his christian contemporaries of the
Church Catholic, the same adoration of the wood of the cross, as
that which the Pagans offered up to the heaven-descended
buckler of Mars or of Jupiter^.
In reply to this perfectly specific allegation, Cyril of Alex-
andria, who wrote in the fifth century, proceeds, under the
form of a retort courteous, through more than three folio pages
of eloquent declamation, to ridicule the absurdity of worshipping
the impure divinities of Paganism. But then, all the while,
what he ought to have done if he could have done it, he never
once attempts to deny the accuracy of the charge preferred by
Julian'^,
Such being the case, from the concurrent testimony, positive
and negative, both of Julian and of Cyril, I readily allow, with
as much fulness as any Romanist can desire : that the adora-
tion of the wood of the cross existed in the fourth and fifth
centuries.
But does this acknowledged fact establish the yet additional
FACT so necessary to the cause of Tridentine Popery : that
the adoration of the cross was authoritatively enjoined by the
' eTto;, Z 'hvffrvxm uvd^wrot, (rcaZ,a[/.i- til at precise adoration, which they re-
yov rod <ra^' yif/,7v otXou hoTirovg, o Kccr'i- fused, along with the pagan idolaters,
vifA^iy f^iycis Z-vg, ^rot Trctrn^ "A^y,s, to offer to the sacred buckler of Jove
\vtx,v^ov ^thov; oh x'oyov, 'i^yov Vi, on rn? or INfars that was reputed to have
ToXiojs hf^uv us TO 'htnvix.U T^oaff-r'tiru, fallen from heaven. This, in form,
^^o(rKvu7v atpivTSf ku) ffi(iiff6oti, to tou was the allegation. If, then, the
e-Tocv^ov 'T^offx.vviiTi ^vXov, uxoveis ui/Tou Christians of the fourth and fifth
ffxtocy^a(poZvT is iv tu /jt-tru-TToo xou too tuv centuries had abhorred such distinctly
o\x.Yi(ji.a.TU)v iyy^oi(povTis. Juhan. apud characterised cross-worship ; for it is
Cyril, Alex. cont. Julian, lib. ^d. p. 194. impossible to misunderstand the charge
Lips. 1696. of the Emperor : the obvious answer
I give the whole sentence, for the of Cyril would have been a very brief
purpose of shewing that the charge but very flat denial.
of Julian is perfectly unambiguous. ^ Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian, lib. vi.
He ridicules the Christians, because p. 194-198.
they offered to the wood of the cross
12
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I.
Apostles, and that from them it was unanimously received hy
the earliest Church Catholic ?
On the principles of Oral Tradition, as advocated by modern
Romanists through the medium of the ancient argument from
Prescription, the fact, substantiated by the joint testimony of
Julian and of Cyril, ought to establish the additional fact of
the apostolicity of cross-worship : yet the distinct earlier testi-
mony of Minucius Felix, most effectually, and as if in very
scorn of the favourite latin theory of Oral Tradition, precludes
the possibility of any such establishment.
When charged by the pagan speaker Cecilius with the worship
of the cross, Octavius, the christian speaker in the Dialogue of
Minucius, promptly and explicitly, denies ai^together that
identical adoration, which, at a later period, wdien imequivocally
alleged by Julian, Cyril was unable to disavow%
We neither, says Octavius, worship, nor covet, crosses^.
' Cruces, etiam, nee colimus, nee
optamus. Minuc. Fel. Oetav. p. 284.
Lugdun. Batav. 1762.
The laconic, but quite decisive,
brevity of Minucius curiously con-
trasts with the rambling ambages of
the sorely perplexed and much irri-
tated Cyril some two hundred years
later.
Dr. Trevern, who is a stauncli ad-
vocate for the undoubted apostolicity
of cross-worship, does not despair of
moulding to his wishes even the un-
tractable testimony of Minucius Felix.
With this object, he takes upon
himself to interpret the speaker Oc-
tavius, as meaning only to say, that
Chrislians adore not ai,l crosses in-
discriminately; the crosses, for in-
stance, on which the two thieves were
executed : and, on the strength of this
gratuitous interpretation, he would
broadly assert, that Octavius had not
the least wish, in disagreement with
the decisions of the second Council
of Nice and the more recent Council
of Trent, to deny, that Chnsiians do
adore those which are made in imita-
tion and in memory of the true cross.
Thus glosses Dr. Trevern : to re-
concile, however, the pnmitive testi-
mony of Minucius Felix with the de-
cisions of those two celebrated Synods,
will, I fear, prove a task beyond the
expositorial ingenuity of the Bishop
of Strasbourg.
Even to say nothing of the total
silence of the speaker Octavius re-
specting any adoration of Christ's
cross, the interpretation, projected by
Dr. Trevern, is utterly irreconcilable
with the context.
Cecilius alleges, that Christians
adored Christ and his cross in j)ar-
ticular. Nam, quod religioni nostra;,
says Octavius in reply, hmninem
noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe
de vicinia veritatis erratis. Min. Fel.
Octav. p. 280.
Now, to this precise allegation, a
mere denial, that Christians adored the
crosses of ai.1i malefactors in general,
were plainly no answer : for it were
nugatory to deny a matter, which had
never been charged upon them.
The crosses, therefore, mentioned
by Octavius in his final reply, can
only be material imitations of the
true cross of Christ exclusr^ely, then
apparently beginning to be introduced
symbolically into churches, and after-
ward by the second Council of Nice
proposed to the relative adoration of
the faithful.
I suppose the Bishop would fain
ground his gloss upon the mere play
CHAP. I.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAOTSM.
13
Minucius Felix wrote about the year 220, or about one
hundred and forty years anterior to the time when Julian
brought foi^ard against his christian contemporaries a direct
accusation of gross cross-ivorship. From the evidence of Julian
and Cyril it appears, that the worship of the cross prevailed in
the Catholic Church during the fourth and fifth centuries:
from the evidence of Minucius Felix it appears, that the
worship of the cross did not prevail in the Catholic Church at
the beginning of the third century. Therefore, as the worship
of the cross could not have been apostolically inculcated upon
the earliest Church Catholic : so, most clearly, it had crept
into existence during the period which elapsed between the
year 220 and the year 360. Hence the evidence of Minucius
abundantly demonstrates, if indeed so plain a matter requires
any demonstration : that Mere unsupported citations from writers
of the fourth and fifth centuries are utterly incapable of estab-
lishing the APOSTOLICAL Origin of any of those Peculiarities, which,
by Latin Ecclesiastics, are so zealously and so pertinaciously
advocated^.
of words, observable in the answer of
Octavius : at least, no other even
semblance of a basis for that gloss
can I discover.
We neither worship, nor covet, crosses ;
says Octavius : that is ; We neither
worship representations of Christ's cross
(CRUCEM ejus), nor have we the least
wish to be crucified.
If such be the groundwork of his
lordship's projected interpretation, I
conceive no other reply to be neces-
sary, than the simple exhibition of
the charge and the answer in imme-
diate juxta-position.
Nam, quod religioni nostrae homi-
nem noxium et ckucem ejus adscri-
bitis, long^ de vicinia veritatis erratis.
Cruces nee colimus, nee optamus.
' The attempt of de Voisin, on be-
half of the Koman Church, to steer
clear of our Lord's pointed reproba-
tion of the Oral Traditions of Ju-
daism, is at least amusing, if it can
claim no higher praise.
From Matt. xxiii. 2, 3, he discovers;
that The Jews must have had a system
of Oral Tradition, which Christ him-
self sanctioned : otherwise, Christ
would not have commanded his dis-
ciples to observe and do all that
the Scribes and Pharisees enjoined.
Hence he concludes : that The
Oral Traditions condemned by Christ
were merely certain illegitimate in-
truders, quite distinct from the legiti-
mate collection which met with our
Lord's entire approbation. Such a
conclusion, therefore, rapidly brings
out the desired result : that, The Oral
Traditions of the Roman Church being
strictly legitimate, inasmuch as the
Apostolic See is their foundation and
the unbroken succession of Pontiffs their
confirmation, they plainly ought of all
men to be received as indisputable veri-
ties. Observat. in Prorem. Raymund.
Martin. Pug. Fid. p. 180.
This ingenious advocate does not
seem to have perceived, that his ar-
gument from Matt, xxiii. 2, 3, by
proving too much, proves nothing.
If Christ's command, that his dis-
ciples should observe and do aij^ that
the Scribes and Pharisees enjoined,
will demonstrate, that he sanctioned
what de Voisin is pleased to call the
legitimate Jewish system of Oral Tra-
14 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
V. On the perfectly intelligible grounds here laid down, it is
manifest, that, with the most bountiful chronological allowance,
the sole 7'eally effective Historical Testimony, produced by the
Romanist, must be confined to the three first centuries : and, even
luithin that period, no testimony will be legitimately conclusive,
unless it form one of the links of a chain extending to the age
of the Apostles themselves.
I need scarcely to add, that any portion of the more
modern testimony of the three first -ages, the evidence (for
instance) of the third century or of the latter part of the
third century, if, instead of being confirmed, it be directly
contradicted, by yet earlier testimony, is, a fortiori, altogether
useless and nugatory : and even the unsupported, though not
formally contradicted, testimony of the third century will only
be a shade more cogent, than the similarly unsupported testi-
mony of the fourth or fifth century: for, in historically de-
termining the apostolicity or the non-apostolicity of any given
doctrine or practice, the most ancient testimony will always be
the most valuable.
In fine, while the laws of Historical Evidence clearly forbid
the Romanist to indulge in the delusive habit of largely
adducing testimonies later than the third century ; the cautious
inquirer must learn distinctly to impress and firmly to retain
upon his mind the exclusively true point of investigation.
Now that point is: not What Doctrines or Practices might
be received in the Church during the lapse of the fourth or fifth
or any subsequent century; but, simply and solely, Wliether
we have sufficient Historical Evidence, that the Peculiarities of
dition ; it will equally demonstrate, Traditions of the Scribes and Pliari-
that he sanctioned the illegitimate sees, it stands directly and avowedly
Jewish system of Oral Tradition : for opposed to them.
he himself uses the word all, without The plain sense of the injunction
any restriction distinctive of the dif- runs thus.
ference between the two alleged sys- All whatsoever they bid you observe
tems legitimate and illegitimate. Thus out of the books of Moses and from the
the argument before us is effectually Law of God ( ix ra-y MuAms /3//3x«»
stultified by the circumstance of its xa) iwo roZ QioZ vofjt,ov, as Theophylact
making Christ contradict himself. rightly understands and explains the
The truth is : our Lord's .\ll, as passage), that observe and do.
any man of plain common sense Eomish Oral Tradition must be
would understand it, respects exclu- hard pressed, when it sets up such
sively the wiitten Law of Moses : and, a defence as that projected by de
instead of corroborating the vain Oral Voisin.
CHAP. I.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 15
the modern Latin Church were originally inculcated hy the
inspired Apostles a7id were from them universally received by
the earliest race of primitive Christians,
yi. In the first part of tlie present discussion, it is my
intention simply to consider the evidence, which, by Roman
Ecclesiastics, is produced from writers of the three earliest
centuries, for the purpose of substantiating the historical fact
so repeatedly alleged by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council:
that The Peculiarities of the Latin Church loere originally incul-
cated hy the Apostles, and were from them unanimously and
universally and professedly received in the very beginning by the
strictly primitive Christians.
While prosecuting this examination, I shall bring forward
no testimony to the contrary effect; I shall barely inquire;
Whether the evidence from the three first centuries, as produced
by the Romanists themselves, is sufficient to substantiate the fact,
for the establishment of which it is avowedly produced.
Should this evidence turn out to be insufficient, the Latins,
even on their own shewing, cannot reasonably demand the
admission of their Peculiarities. Still less, then, can they
demand it, should we find yet additionally in the sequel, that
The Apostolic Origin and the Primeval Unanimous Acceptance
of those Peculiarities are positively contradicted by direct Histo-
rical Testimony.
CHAPTER 11.
INFALLIBILITY.
At the very head of Latin Peculiarities, stands the claim of
Infallibility or Inerrancy : a claim, which, if substantiated, wiU,
of course, compel the admission of every other Peculiarity.
The Romanists, as we all know, claim this Infallibility or
Inerrancy on behalf of their own particular Church.
In their view, so far as I can understand the process through
which the claim is made, the true Catholic Church is infallible.
But, as they themselves maintain, various Communions have
fallen into error. Now, by this declension from soundness of
Faith, those Communions have ceased to be Branches of the
TRUE Catholic Church. Hence, the Infallibility of the true
Catholic Church is not affected by the declension of those
erring Communions. But, with the sole exception of the
Roman Church viewed as comprising the subordinate Churches
in communion with her, all particular Churches, such as the
various Oriental Churches and the several Occidental Churches
which protest agamst the peculiar Doctrines and Practices of
Rome, have declined from the sound Faith. Therefore, the
character of the true Catholic Church belongs exclusively to
the Roman Church and her Daughters. Whence, by a neces-
sary consequence, the Roman Church, since she is alone the
true Catholic Church, must needs, under that aspect, be en-
dowed with the privilege of Infallibility. Most correct, there-
fore, is the standard maxim of that alone true Catholic Church:
Mama locuta est : causa Jinita est.
In considering this chain of argument, we are naturally led
to ask for a statement of the grounds and reasons, on which we
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 17
are required to believe and admit the position : tliat, While all
other Churches have declined from the Faith, Rome alone has
preserved it pure and undejiled; and, thence, that Rome alone
is the TRUE Catholic Church, gifted, under that aspect, with the
privilege of Infallibility or Inerrancy'^.
The question is sometimes met by a quiet intimation, which
we are expected to receive without any further discussion : that
A belief in the Infallibility of the Roman Church, viewed as the
alone true Catholic Church, is implicit in the System of those who
are alone true Catholics,
But, at other times, it is more reasonably met by an attempt
to prove, from Scripture and the Fathers : that The claim of
Lifallibility on the part of the true Church Catholic, thus iden-
tified EXCLUSIVELY loith the Roman Church, was, from the very
beginning, alioays admitted and defended.
I. This last plan has been followed by Dr. Trevern and Mr.
Berington : and, since it professedly involves the grounds and
reasons of the claim, w^e are bound to state the evidence pro-
duced by them.
1. The passages, adduced from Scripture by these Theolo-
gians for the purpose of demonstrating the Infallibility of their
Church, asserted to be the alone true Catholic Church, are the
following.
(1.) I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter : and upon this
rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against if^.
(2.) Where tivo or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them^.
(3.) Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying : All power is
' It Avas this principle, I suppose, The Romanists themselves seem to
which led to the shameless interpo- be ashamed of the gross dishonesty
lation of I Tim. iv. 1, in the Bour- of this Translation ; for, apparently
deaux Translation of the New Testa- by their buying up and destroying
ment: In the latter timesj some shall it, the Book has become extremely
apostatise from the Faith of ROME. scarce. 0//(? copy will be found in the
To an ignorant person, this interpo- Chapter Library of Durham : and it
lation, exhibiting the true animus of was believed, that not more than one
Popery, produces the sufficiently plain or two other copies were in existence,
result : not only that the Faith of It has recently, however, ns I learn
Eome was the True Faith ; but like- from my friend Sir Henry Martin,
wise that, while other Churches might been ascertained, that fen copies are
apostatise from the True Faith, Rome still extant.
aloue, to the very end of time, never ' Matt. xvi. 18.
would or could. 3 jyff^t^^ xviii. 20.
18 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and
of the So7i and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you. And, lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the worldK
(4.) He, that heareth you, heareth me : and he, that despiseth
you, despiseth me : and he, that despiseth me, despiseth him that
sent me ".
(5.) / icill pray the Father : and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever ; even the Spirit
of truth \
(6.) Howbeit, ivhen he, the Spirit of truth, is come; he will
guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of himself ; but,
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak : and he will shew
you things to come\
(7.) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay
upon you no greater burden than these necessary things^.
(8.) These things write I unto thee, — that thou may est know,
how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which
is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth^.
2. If, from such scriptural passages agreeably to their well
understood aboriginal interpretation, the Early Ecclesiastics
deduced the Infallibility of the Roman Church : we may
obviously expect to find them perpetually recognising and
defending it. Accordingly the following passages are adduced,
as containing their distinct testimony in its favour.
(1.) The first set of passages occurs in several Epistles,
commonly attributed to Ignatius of Antioch: who flourished
early in the second century, and who had been a hearer of the
Apostle John.
While yet among you, I cried with a loud voice : Attend
to the Bishop and the Presbytery and the Deacons'^.
Farewell ifi Jesus Christ; being obediefit to the Bishop even
as to the commandment, and in like manner to the Presbyter'if^.
' Matt. XXViii. 18-20. '' ''E.K^avya.ffa, fAira^h wv, \Xa,\ovv fji-i-
' Luke X. 16. yaXn (puv?)' Tm iTicrKOTriu cr^otri^in, xce.)
^ John xiv. 16, 17. tS ^^sa-fiun^iM, ku) "^taxevetg. Ignat.
* John x\-i. 13. Epist. ad Philaclelph. § vii. Cotel.
* Acts XV. 28. Patr. Apost. vol. ii. p. 32,
' 1 Tim. iii. 15. ^ "'Eppuxrh iv 'lyie-ov X^/^rf , vTorar-
I
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 19
/ exhort, that you diligently do all things in the unanimity
of God, the Bishop in the place of God presiding over you^.
(2.) The next set of passages will be found in the Treatise
of Ireneus, who wrote in the latter half of the second century.
Wherefore, Christians ought to obey the Presbyters iti the
Church, those who have their succession from the Apostles, as
we have shewn ; who, with the succession of the Episcopate,
have received, according to the good pleasure of the Father,
the sure free-gift of truth'^.
Where the free-gifts of the Lord are placed, there we ought
to learn the truth from those, loith whom is the succession of
the Church from the Apostles, and among whom prevails sound-
ness and irreprehensibleness of discourse. For these, both guard
our faith in the true God the maker of all things, and increase
our love toward the So7i of God who made such dispositions
on our account, and explain to us the Scriptures ivithout danger^,
(3.) Another set of passages is taken from Tertullian, who
flourished at the end of the second century.
It is unlawful for u^ to indulge in any thing according to
our 01071 humour : nor may we choose ivhat, from his own
mere whim, any perso7i may have introduced. We have for
our authors the Apostles of the Lord, who not even themselves
selected what they might introduce according to their own humour,
hut faithfully delivered to the nations the discipline which they
had received from Chiist*.
ffofiivoi TM iTtcKoTu u$ TTi IvToX^, moiiis constat. Hi enim et earn,
ofz,aiius x.x) ru •r^tfffivrf.^iu. Ignat. Epist. quee est in unum Deum qui om-
ad Trail. § xiii, p. 25. nia fecit, fidem nostram custodi-
' Uk^ccivu, IV of>e.ovoU Qiov (r'rovhoiZ,iri unt ; et eaiii, quse est in Filium
rratra •r^do'iruv, T^oKccSrif^ivou rod Iti- Dei, dilectionem adaugent, qui tan-
tTKovrov iU TOTov Oiotj. Ignat. Epist. tas dispositiones propter nos fecit ;
ad Magnes. § vi. p. 18, 19. et Scripturas sine periculo nobis ex-
' Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia ponunt. Iren. adv. haer. lib. iv. c. 45.
sunt presbyteris obaudire oportet, his p. 279.
qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, The Bishop of Strasbourg, by way,
sicut ostendimus ; qui cum episco- I suppose, of making Ireneus bear a
patus successione charisma veritatis somewhat more precise testimony in
certum, secundum placitum Patris, favour of Infallibility, has thought it
acceperunt. Iren. adv. hser. lib. iv. expedient to render the Latin sine
c. 43. p. 277. periculo by the French sans danger
^ Ubi igitur charismata Domini d'eereues. Discuss. Amic. vol. i.
posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veri- p. 127. Where did Dr. Trevern find
tatem, apud quos est ea quae est ab his d'erreurs I
Apostolis Ecclesiee successio, et id * Nobis vero nihil ex nostro arbi-
quod est sanum et irreprobabile ser- trio indnl.c^cre licet, sed nee eligere
20 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I,
Let us grant that all the Churches have erred. — Shall loe say,
then, that the Holy Spirit has looked iqwn no one of them to
lead it into truth, though sent for this very pu7'pose from Christ,
though besought for this very purpose of the Father, that he
might he the teacher of truth f Shall ice say, that the agent
of God., the vicar of Christ, has neglected his office, suffering
the Churches to understand and believe differently, than he
himself preached through the Apostles^?
(4.) Clement of Alexandria, wlio also flourished about the
end of the second century, is considered likewise as bearing
testimony to the same effect.
Those, icho icill, may discover the truth. — For they may
learn demonstratively through the Scriptures themselves, how
heresies have beeii subverted, and hoiv, in truth and in the
ancient Church alone, there exists the most accurate knoivledge
and the o^eally best choice".
(5.) There is yet another set of passages adduced from
Cyprian, who lived toward the middle of the third century.
We ought firmly to hold and vindicate unity, more especially
we Bishops ivho preside in the Church, that we may pi^ove also
the Episcopate itself to be one and undivided. — God is one, and
Christ is one, and his Church is one, and the Faith is one, and
the Common People coupled into the solid unity of the body by
the glue of concord^.
quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. oV/w? /u.\v a-rKr^'/.k'Aa^'.v «/ a/^so-j/j, oTui
Apostolos Domini habemiis autores, ll h f^'ov^ t5j aXnk'ia, xai t>j a.^x"-ta.
qui nee ipsi qiiicquam ex suo arbitrio, 'ExxXo^o-tix, Uri axoil^icrTa-*! yvaa-is ko.)
quod inducerent, elegerunt : sed ac- h rS ovr'i u^iffr'/) Kt^nri;. Clem. Alex,
ceptam a Cbristo disciplinam fideliter Strom, lib. vii. OjDor. p. 755. Colon,
nationibus adsignaverunt. Tertull. 1688. The reader will perceive, that,
de prsescript. adv. ha?.r. § 2. Oper. in the Greek original, there is a play
p. 97. upon the words al^'itnis and al^ia-n,
' Age nunc omnes erraverint. — which I possess not sufficient verbal
NuUam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus ingenuit}^ to preserve in the transla-
uti earn in veritatem deduceret, ad tion.
hoe missus a Chiisto, ad hoc postu- ^ Unitatem firmiter ton ere et vin-
latus a Patre, ut esset doctor veri- dicare debemus, niaxime Episcopi,
talis ? Neglexerit officiura Dei vil- qui in Ecclesia pra^sidemus, ut Epi-
licus, Cliristi vicarius, sinens ecclesias scopatum quoque ipsum unum atque
aliter interim intelligere, aliter ere- indivisum probemus. — Deus unus est,
dere, quam ipse per Apostolos prre- et Christus unus, et una Ecclesia
dicabat Tertull. de pra^scrii>t. adv. ejus, et fides una et plebs in solidam
lirt'r. § 0. Oper. p. 105. corporis unitatem concordia?- glutino
'^ ToTs f^h ya.^ (iovXaftiveig iliirrai xat copulata. Cyprian, de unit, eccles.
TO ivpiiv T«v uXn&iiKv, — KO.) "hi avTuv Oper. vol. i. p. I(i8, 110. Oxon. 1083.
TMv yor/.ipcuv ix/u.ce,v0ixv-iv uTo^iixTixaJ;, Dr. Trevern, in a very slovenly
CIIAr. II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 21
There u one Episcopate, diffused through the concordant
numerosUy of many Bishops^.
II. These several tejcts from Scripture, and these several
passages from the writers of the three first centuries, are
adduced by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington, under the aspect
of Historical Testimony^. We have, therefore, simply to
consider, whether, on any intelligible principles of evidence,
they substantiate the Claim of Infallibility which has been so
confidently put forth on behalf of the Church of Rome.
1. With regard to the texts from Scripture, some of them,
indeed, promise personally to the inspired Apostles what is
ecpuvalent to Infallibility: but, as for those which are of
(jeneral application, they vouch for nothing more, than that,
through his good Providence, Clmst will preserve his Church,
in this Branch or m that Branch, from deadly and fundamental
and apostatic error.
Such a promise is, of necessity, hnplied, even in the con-
stitution of the Church : for, if those essentials, which compose
the very being of Christianity, should universally become
extinct or should imiver sally be rejected, it is clear, that
Christianity itself would cease to be Christianity, and thus
tliat Christianity, contrary to the promise of Christ, would
really be annihilated.
This, I tliink, is the plain meaning of a text, which Romanists
are fond of citing to establish the Infallibility of their own
Church.
Our Saviour, speaking of the noble Confession of St. Peter ;
that. As the Christ, he teas perfect man, and, as the So?i of the
Living God, perfect God: speakmg, I say, of this Confession,
manner, first runs these two widely I had some difficulty in discovering
separated passages into one with a the two passages, which the Bishop
direct inversion of their collocation, has masqueraded into one : for, ac-
aiid then completes the matter by a cording to his usual loose mode of
gross mistranslation. reference, he merely tells us, that we
L'Efjlise Catholique est unie entre may find his citation au livre de
tallies scs parties, et consolidee par le V Unite.
ciment (glutino) des eveqnes adherens ' Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum
les uns aiix autres. Nous qui sommes multorum concordi numerositate dif-
eveqves, et qui presidoiis dans I'Eylise, fusus. Cypiian. epist. ad Antonian.
nous devons part icuUe rente nt et plus Iv. Oper. vol. ii. p. 112.
fermement embrusser cette unite et la ' Trevern's Discuss. Amic. vol. i.
defendre. Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. p. 102-170. Berington's Faith of
126, 127. Cathol. p. 02, 63, 112-114.
22 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
and, after the familiar custom of the Hebrews, imposing upon
that great Apostle, along with his solemn confirmatory bene-
diction, the allusive name of Cephas or Peter in addition to his
original name of Simon ; he declares, that, upon the Rock of
that Twofold Confession, he would build his Church, and that,
against it, so as to blot it out from the sight of men like the
Invisible World, the Gates of Hades should never prevail.
Such is the oldest and best interpretation of the text, delivered
by Justin Martyr ; and it commends itself as the truth, by its
perfect harmony with the Confession its palpable context.
Christ, here, no doubt, promises to his Church the Grace of
a never-failing Inerrancy. But how are we to understand the
promise ? Certainly, not as the Romanists, in defiance both of
the Context and of the Judgment of the Earliest Antiquity,
would understand it : that is to say,- as importing a promise to
St. Peter specially and after him to the Roman Bishops his
alleged successors, that the Church of Rome should possess a
never-ceasing infallibility, that as such it should be the sole
Centre of Unity, and that it should be privileged with a
divinely granted supremacy over all other Churches. The
text bears no such meaning : nor was it ever thus understood
in the Primitive Church. Our Lord's promise cannot be
legitimately strained into a promise of Perfect Inerrancy, in
every, even the most minute particular : for not only is this
alike incredible and unnecessary, but even Peter himself was
rebuked by Paul, because that he and Barnabas walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. Neither can it
be construed as a promise of Universal Inerrancy throughout
the entire Catholic Church, so as to include every particular
Branch and every particular Individual : for such a construc-
tion, the Romanists themselves being judges, is prohibited by
the Testimony of History. Hence the promise is narrowed to
the point : that the Church universally, or the Church in one
or other of its Branches, should never fall into error of such
a description as would annihilate Christianity itself. The
Universal Church, says Tostatus, never errs, because it never
errs totally^. That is to say, it never errs universally in
' Ecclesia Universalis nunquam tat. Abulens. Praefat. in Matt, quaest.
errat, quia nunquam tota errat. Tos- xiii.
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 23
doctrines which are of its very essence. But, to any single
Branch, no absolute freedom from Error is promised, either
universally in point of Doctrine, or invariably in point of Time.
Yet is not the general promise to the Church CathoHc thereby
invahdated : the promise, I mean, that, within whatever narrow
limits the sincere Church might occasionally be confined (and
such narrowness is clearly implied in the express prediction of
a great apostasy characterised by a wide departure from the
Faith^), still there should never be a total abandonment of
those essential doctrines, witJiout which, contrary to Christ's
promise, the Church would cease to be the Church. In this
Branch or in that Branch, at this Time or at that Time,
the divine promise still holds good: so that there never
should be, either some Branch, or some Time, without its
fulfilment. For, as the same Tostatus again very justly ob-
serves. The Church of the Latins is not itself the Universal
Church, but only a Certain Part of it. Wherefore, even though
the AVHOLE of that particular Church itself should have erred,
there is no proof of the error of the Universal Church : because
the Universal Church remains in those Parts which err not,
whether, in point of number, these be more or fewer than the
erring Parts'^.
But, while this consolatory position is evidently inherent in
the terms of Christ's promise, and while its truth has been
demonstrated by matter of fact during more than eighteen
centuries, we shall vainly seek in Scripture for a declaration,
that any one Provincial or National Church, be it the Roman
Church or any other Church, is specially and exclusbtely
invested with the high privilege of perpetual and universal
Infallibility and Inerrancy. Thus the Church of England,
with the Inspired Word of God in her hand, justly, on the
strength of that Word, pronounces: that. As the Churches of
Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred ; so likewise
' 1 Tim. iv. 1,2. 2 Tim. iii. 1-8. salis in Partibus illis quae non er-
2 Thessal. ii, 3-12. rant, sive illse sint numero plures
' Ecclesia Latinomm non est Ec- quam errantes, sive non. Tostat.
clesia Universalis, sed Quaedam Pars Abulens. qusest. iv. in Matt, ad Pro-
ejus. Ideo, etiamsi tota ipsa er- leg. 2.
rasset, non errabat Ecclesia Univer- Tostatus was a Romanist of the
salis : quia manet Ecclesia Univer- fifteenth century.
24 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMAMSM. [bOOK I.
hath the Church of Rome erred, not only in their limig and
manner of ceremonies, hut also in Matters of FaithK
The truth is, that the Romish Claim of InfalUbiKty rests
throughout upon the sophistical assumption, that the Church of
Rome is exclusiyely the Catholic Church ; and this, on the
mere self-commendatory ground, that she alone of all the
Churches has preserved the Faith in its unaltered entireness
and its imsullied purity : for we have no better proof that such
is ideally the case, than the undaunted and reiterated assertion
of her adherents. They appeal indeed to constant historic
testimony for their repeatedly claimed always: but History
refuses to answer the appeal ; nay, rather, bears witness against
it. Thus the Tridentines broadly assert : that the very Doctrine
of the Eucharist laid down by themselves was always the
Doctrine of the Catholic Church ; which Catholic Church was
taught by Christ himself and his Apostles, and was secured from
any future error by the Holy Ghost who perpetually suggested
to it all truth^. Here we have a virtual claim of Infallibility and
Inerrancy: but then it is made on behalf of the Catholic Church
from the very beginning. This Catholic Church they would
fain identify with the Provincial Church of Rome : and then
they crown all by an assertion of the always, which, being
truly an appeal to History, thus inconsistently makes History
the final judge of the Truth or Falsehood of the Teaching of
the Spirit.
Mr. Berington, I may observe, additionally cites a consider-
able part of the fifteenth chapter of the Acts^ Certainly, the
twenty-eighth verse of that chapter fully establishes, what no
one doubted, the Infallibility of the inspired Apostles : but I
am at a loss to discover, how either that verse, or any other
verse in the chapter, establishes what he undertook to establish ;
the Infallibility, to wit, of the Church of Rome.
2. Equally irrelevant are the passages adduced from the
* Art. xix. Apostolis erudita, atque a Spiritu
* Itaque eadem Sacrosancta Syno- Sancto, illi omnem veiitatem in dies
dus, sanam et sinceram illara de suggerente, edocta, retinuit, et ad
venerabili hoc divino Euchaiistiai Sa- finem usque saeculi conservabit. Con-
cramento doctrinam tradeus, quam cil. Trident, sess. xiii. p. 122.
SEMPER Catholica Ecclesia, ab ipso ^ ^^^^ ^.v. 1, 22, 23, 28, 29, 41.
Jesu Christo Domino nostro et ejus Cited in Faith of Cathol. pp. 112, 113.
CILU*. II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 25
writers of the three first centuries. Scanty as those passages
are in number, they are likewise altogether defective in point
of efficiency.
(1.) The passages from Ignatius, brought together by Dr.
Trevern, are palpably wide of the mark.
If they be genuine, they will prove Ignatius to have been
what in modern parlance is called a High- Churchman : but
they certainly contain not a hint of even Catholic Infallibility,
still less therefore of Roman'.
(2.) The passages, from Iren^us and Tertullian and Clement,
turn wholly upon the argmnent from Prescription.
This argmnent, however, though highly valuable when legi-
timately managed, is powerless, as we have already seen, unless
the FACT, upon which it professedly rests, shall itself have been
first substantiated.
I may add, that the second passage from Tertullian sets
forth the precise view of the question, which is taken by the
Church of England and (I believe I may add) by all orthodox
Protestants.
(3.) The passages from Cyprian are totally silent on the
topic of Infallibility.
They merely propound, what in the abstract few will be
disposed to controvert, the evils of schism and the benefits of
unity^.
* See Mr. Cureton's Ancient Ver- delivered by them. — If ice follow the
sion of the Epistles of St. Ignatius. It mere letter of the Scriptures, and take
appears, that, of the Seven Epistles the interpretation of the Law as the
ascribed to Ignatius, three only can Jetvs commonly explain it, I shall blush
be received as his ; those to Polycarp, to confess, that the Lord should have
the Ephesians, and the Romans : and, given such laws. — But, if the Law of
even of these three, as they commonly God be tuiderstood as the Church teaches,
stand, a large proportion is spurious. then truly does it transcend all human
^ Mr. Berington cites also a pas- laws and is worthy of him that gave it.
sage from Origen, who flourished Orig. Homil. vii. in Levit. torn. xi.
about the middle of the third century. p. 224, 226.
Faith of Cathol. p. 114. The state- This passage exists only in the
ment, which it contains, is un- latin version of Euffinus of Aquileia,
doubtedly true ; but it is nothing who flourished in the fifth century,
whatsoever to the purjiose. I sub- Mr. Berington himself very truly re-
join it in his own translation. marks, that the Homilies of Origen,
Let him look to it, who, arrogantly which are not extant in Greek, are
puffed vpf contemns the apostolic words. thought to have been rather loosely
To me it is good, to adhere to apostolic translated by Ruflinus. Hence, as
men as to God and his Christ, and to the latin version is confessedly para-
draw intelligence from the Scriptures phrastic and argumentative, we can
according to the sense that has been only receive its testimony to doctrine
26 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
III. Here, at the close of the evidence which has been ad-
duced, we may well ask : Even if this evidence were more to
the point than it is, how would it establish the Infallibility of
tlie Church of Rome ?
The claim is built upon the assumption: that the Roman
Church, with her subordinate Churches, is the alone true Catholic
Church ; all other Churches, with the sole exception of the Roman
Church and her subordinates, having declined from the Faith,
and consequently having ceased to be Branches of the true Catho-
lic Church.
Such is the assumption, upon which rests the whole claim of
Rome to the privilege of InfalHbility.
But, whatever amount of Inerrancy may belong to the
Catholic Church in some one of its Branches, and at this
period or at that period, where is the proof of the particular
assumption now before us ? For where is the proof, that the
Church of Rome alone has never deflected from the Faith,
and therefore that the Church of Rome alone is that true
Catholic Church to which Infallibility is said to be attached ?
Unless it can be proved that such is the character of the
or to practice, as the testimony of the scimus non posse fallere, certam
fifth century. Faith of Cathol. p. 201. quandam Religionis formam qusesi-
Such heing the case, it will he foreign visse : et ad veterura Patrum atque
to my plan to notice in future any Apostolorum primitivam Ecclesiam,
passages, which Mr. Berington may hoc est, ad primordia atque initia,
adduce fromthe latin version of Origen tanquam ad fontes, rediisse. Apol.
under the aspect of their containing Eccles. Anglic, author. Johan. Juell.
evidence of the third age : and I must apud Enchir. Theol. vol. i. p. 340.
needs say, that he himself, even by Opto, cum Melancthone et Ecclesia
his own showing, ought to have ar- Anglicana, per canalem Antiquitatis
ranged them, as the testimony of deduci ad nos dogmata Fidei e fonte
Ruffinus, not of Origen. Sacrse Scripturse derivata. Alioquin,
As for the passage which I have quis futurus est novandi finis? Ca-
here gratuitously given at length, it sauh. Epist. 744.
propounds nothing hut what every These are the words of soberness
member of the Church of England is and right reason. Let Mr. Berington
quite ready to admit, though he will historically prove to us, that the
probably be unable to discover in it Theologians of his Communion draiu
any attestation to the Infallibility of intelligence from the Sa^iptures occord-
the Church of Rome. We Anglicans, ing to the sense that has been delivered
who are no advocates for the wild bg apostolic men : and he may then
licence of that arbitrary private in- fairly bring to bear upon us the pre-
terpretation which some have im- ceding passage from the latin version
skilfully misdeemed the very prin- of Ruffinus. Without this antecedent
ciple of Protestantism, receive, as proof, I really discern not the per-
owr exclusive rule of Faith, Holy tinence of his citation. It may not
Scripture as understood by primitive be useless to remark, that his Work
Antiquity. abounds with quotations equally ir-
Nos, et ex Sacris Libris, quos relevant.
CHAP. II.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
27
Roman Church as contrasting honourably with the character
of all other Churches, the assumption, so confidently put forth,
is plainly no better than a mere assmnption. Rome, indeed,
asserts^ that she has never deflected from the Faith, while all"
other Churches have so deflected ; whence she claims to be the
alone tkue Catholic Church : but, until we have the proof of
this assertion, we have nothing more cogent, than Rome's own
testimony to her own Doctrinal and Practical Inerrancy. It is,
no doubt, substantially declared by our Lord; that the essen-
tials of Christianity should never become wholly extinct or
should never be universally rejected : but, as for the historical
or documentary establishment of Romish Infallibility, it is still,
if I mistake not, a Desideratum in Latin Theology^ ?
* Wishing to know, on what definite
authority the Romanists claim Infal-
libility for their Church, I was en-
abled, through the kind interv^ention
of Mr. Newman, to put the question
to two dignified Italian Ecclesiastics.
From each of these gentlemen I re-
ceived a very courteous Latin Letter,
highly creditable in point both of
learning and of temper : but I regret
to say, that their reply furnished only
another instance, in addition to Dr.
Trevem and Mr. Husenbeth, of the
unscrupulousness of the Latin Clergy
whenever the interests of their Church
are concerned.
In none of the Early Ecclesiastical
Documents, they admitted, did the
precise word infallibility appear:
but, on behalf of the Catholic Church,
an indisputable claim of the thing
was made, by at least four of the
Early Councils, including the most
important and the first of those styled
Ecumenical, that of Nicea to wit,
through their quoting and appro-
priating the Apostolic Language at
the Primeval Council of Jerusalem
as recorded in the Acts of the Apos-
tles ; it seemed good unto the holy
GHOST and to us.
In a Pamphlet, published by Messrs.
Rivington under the title of Papal
Infallibility, and specially noticing
the more ample Letter of my second
Italian Correspondent, I suffered the
ASSEBTiON to pass, never then doubt-
ing its correctness : and I contented
myself with remarking; that the pro-
duced PROOF could only be valid, even
if thus admitted to be strictly valid,
on the concession, that the Catholic
Church of Christ and the Roman
Church of the Western Patriarchate
were perfectly identical; a point, which
neither the Orientals nor the Pro-
testants were at all inclined to con-
cede.
However, after the publication of
the Pamphlet, I was led, through
curiosity, to an examination of the
Pandecta: Canonnm, edited by Bp.
Beveridge with the Greek Scholia of
Balsamon and Zonaras : but, in none
of the Canons of the Councils re-
ferred to, nor yet in the appended
Greek Scholia, could I find any quo-
tation and appropriation of the Apo-
stolic Language.
Still I thought it possible, that such
appropriative quotation might occur
in the Acts of those Councils which
are not given in the Pandects.
For the pm-pose of ascertaining
this matter, I applied to a friend,
whose extensive ecclesiastical infor-
mation has never disappointed me.
I shall give his answer in his own
precise words.
" Since I heard from you last, I
have examined, with close attention,
the question which you proposed to
me : and I can now say, without any
hesitation, that the Apostolic Formula
in the Council of Jerusalem was not
adopted by the Councils of Nic^a or
Constantinople or Ephesus in any
of their Acts or Canons, nor by any
28- DIFFICULTIES OF RO^ilANISM. [bOOK I.
IV. Since the Roniiiiiists, however, are far more (j^uiek-
sighted in discovering the proofs of their Peculiarities than the
somewhat undiscerning Members of Protestant Commmiions,
let us, for a moment, suppose, that the Infallibility of the Latin
Church has been actually substantiated past all reasonable
contradiction : still, before any particular use can be made of
it in absolute practice, there is yet another point, which must be
both distinctly enunciated and historically demonstrated.
Even if Scripture itself, quite plainly, though in specialities
indefinitely, had taught us, that The Church of Home is infal-
lible ; we could, in the very nature of things, have derived no
practical benefit from that declaration, unless the specific organ,
through which- that highly privileged Church should propound
its unerring decisions, had likeivise been precisely and unequi-
vocally defined : for, without such authoritative definition of the
specific organ, even though a matter should in point of fact
have been infallibly propounded, ice, in point of self-application,
could never know with certainty that that matter had been
propounded infallibly.
The Romanists, if questioned on this topic, pretend not to
say, that every individual La3rman or every individual Priest,
or every individual Bishop, or even every individual National
Branch of their infallible Church is severally and personally
infallible. Where, then, is the precious gift of Infallibility
of the smaller intermediate Councils. Tradition, which consists in the
The usual Formula, with very little foregone conclusions of a former
variation, is : "eS«|s r^ ayiu, irvvotb), or age."
"H uyia ffvvohos u-rt. Gelasius, in- Thus it appears, that none of the
deed, in two instances, and Constan- Councils referred to, any more than
tine in Socrates, make a claim for the the various other Councils, ever ap-
Nicene Fathers which tliey do not propriate the Apostolic Formula : and,
make for themselves : that their De- if the Council of Antioch claims to
cisions were inspired, being pro- have acted under the suggestion of
noimced, not so much hy them, as the Holy Spirit, the circumstance can
through them by the Holy Spirit. And be of no value as to the present ques-
the Council of Antioch, in the year tion : for its claim will only have been
841, declares: that it has acted under made on behalf of itself; and, on
the suggestion of the Holy and Peace- Romish Principles, it can carry no
ful Spirit. But all the other later binding authority, inasmuch as it is
Councils seem to rest their authority not rated as one of the Eight Eastern
upon that of their predecessors, and Ecumenical Councils,
only to appeal to Scripture on un- I feel it painful to expose this un-
determined points, but never to scrupulousness of Assertion in other-
any personal inspiration or direction wise respectable and certainly learned
from above. They certainly had Romish Priests: but the cause of
great reverence for that sort of Truth requires it.
CILVP. II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 29
deposited : and From whose hands, specifically, must ive seek an
infallible settlement of every disputed doctrine or practice ?
In reply to these questions, some of the Roman Divines
assure us, that The Pope, when speaking ex cathedra and wlth-^
out contradiction from the great body of the Catholic B'lshops, h
clearly infallible : others deny the Infallibility of the Pope ; and
declare, that Infallibility is deposited with General Councils :
others again maintain, that General Councils are not infallible,
unless their decisions shall have received the approbation of the
Pope, who yet, all the ivhile, is himself fallible.
Now what can a plain man think of the practical use of an
Infallibility, respecting the deposit of which its very advocates
are themselves so disgracefully at variance ? How God really
conferred the gift of Infallibility either upon the Roman Church
or upon any other Church, can we, without blasphemy, believe,
that he would spontaneously have frustrated his own purposes
by leaving us altogether in the dark as to the precise organ
through which that gift was to be administered ? What profit
can any man possibly derive from the alleged Infallibility of
tlie Roman Church, if he be quite uncertain as to its locality :
that is to say, uncertain, whether the Infallibility itself be
lodged with Pope, or Council, or Council and Pope conjointly ;
whether it alike appertain to all the three severally ; or whether
it belong solely to one out of the three, so that the other two
stand completely excluded ?
But, even if the Romanists were agreed among themselves
as to the precise organ through which the oracles of Infallibility
are to be uttered, we should still find it necessary to call upon
tliem for historical demonstration.
Let all unanimously assert : that Infallibility is lodged with
the Pope. From Scripture and fi-om the writers of the three
first ages, we request a proof of the assertion.
Let all unanimously assert: that Infallibility is deposited with
General Councils. Still, as reasonable beings, we require
proof from Scripture and from the writers of the three first
centuries.
Let all mianimously assert: that Neither General Councils
nor Popes separately are infallible, but that Infallibility is lodged
solely ivith the two conjointly; so that General Councils are
infallible only when their decisions are ratified by a singly fallible
30 DIFFICULTIES OF EOIilANISM. [bOOK I.
Pope. Again, from Scripture and from the same primitive
writers, we require an establishment of the assertion.
We are sometimes told, that, whatever subordinate differences
there may be, all are at least agreed upon one point ; Whether
Popes and Councils separately he fallible or infallible ; at any
rate General Councils, lohen ratified by the Pope, must assuredly
be viewed as possessing indubitable Infallibility.
Now, even if this were the case, we should be no nearer to
the end of our difficulties.
For, in the first place, what is a General Council ? Clearly,
as the very name General or Ecumenical imports, it is, what
Augustine calls a Plenary Council, and what he describes as
constituted by the rej^resentatives of all the Churches through-
out the whole Christian World. To this character the grand
Council of Nicea, convened in the year 325, fully answers.
But those several Councils, which after the separation of the
East and the West, were summoned by the Pope, such as the
whole series from the First Lateran down to the Council of
Trent, were certainly not Ecumenical Councils: for, at none
of them, were the representatives of the Eastern Churches
present; and, at the Council of Trent, the last of the series,
neither the delegates of the Eastern Churches, nor those of the
Reformed Churches of the West, took any part, or gave any
assent. Councils, therefore, of this maimed description, though
it may suit the purposes of the Romanists to rate them as ten
successive Ecumenical Councils, are mere caricatures of true
Ecumenical Councils: for, in reality, they are nothing more
respectable than so many packed Conventicles, assembled to
promote the objects and interests of the Bishop of Rome.
Again, in the second place, though two Romanists might
equally admit the Infallibility of a Decision, when made by a
reputed Ecumenical Council and when ratified by the Pope :
they would quite differ as to the Fallibility or Infallibility of a
Decision made either by a Pope speaking ea; cathedra or by a
real or pretended Ecumenical Council which had never received
the Pope's ratification. Meanwhile, we should still no less
require proof, from Scripture and from the Early Writers, that
even a real Ecumenical Council, when ratified by the Pope, is
truly infallible.
But I suspect, verily, that this frequently asserted general
CHAP. U.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 31
agreement of Romish Theologians as to the InfallibiHty of an
Ecumenical Council, when papally ratified, is in no wise the
case. At least, the ground taken up by the acute Bossuet, in
which he was followed by the Galilean Church, and for which
he narrowly escaped the Papal Proscription, seems incompatible
with the present allegation.
Bossuet, with the Galilean Church, stoutly denied the Infal-
libility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra, though, out of
France, the dogma was every where received. Now, of plain
necessity, this denial involves a denial of the very point, on
which, as we are sometimes told, all members of the Roman
Church are agreed : namely, that A General Council, when its
decrees are solemnly ratified hy the Pope ex cathedra, is univer-
sally acknowledged to possess an undoubted Infallibility, For
how stands the matter in regard to Bossuet and the Church of
France? He denied the Infallibility of the Pope even when
speaking ex cathedra : and, on the high authority of Pope Bene-
dict XI Y., we are mournfully told, that the Galilean Church,
in flat contradiction to the rest of the Papal World, agreed with
him^. But, if the Infallibility of the Pope, when speaking
ex cathedra, be thus denied : those, who deny it, must also deny,
that the Infallibility of a General Council depends upon its
ratification by the Pope thus ofiicially speaking. For, since the
decision of the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is, by Bossuet and
the Galilean Church, denied to be infallible : most clearly the
Pope's only fallible ratification of a General Council cannot
make that to be infallible which was previously fallible. A
General Council, it is said, is 7iot infallible until it has received
' Bossuet wrote a Book so hostile Juribus Temporalibus Supremorum
to the opinion before us, that pru- Principum. Tempore felicis recorda-
dential reasons alone prevented its tionis Clementis XII., nostri imme-
condemnation by Pope Clement XII. diati prsedecessoris, serio actum est
His immediate successor in the Pa- de Opere proscribendo : et tandem
pacy writes thus. conclusum fuit, ut a proscriptione
Difficile profecto est aliud Opus re- abstineretur, nedum ob memoriam
perire, quod sequh adversetur doc- autoris ex tot aliis capitibus de Keli-
trinae, extra Galliam ubique receptw, gione bene meriti, sed ob justum no-
de Summi Pontificis ex cathedra lo- rorum dissidiorum timorem. Bene-
quentis Infallibilitate, de ejus Excel- diet. XIV, Brev. in Mendham's Lite-
lentia supra quodcunque CEcumeni- rary Policy of the Church of Eome,
cum Concilium, de ejus Jure indi- chap. v. p. 238. 2d edit,
recto (si potissimimi Religionis et Rome has always known when to
Ecclesite commodura exiget) supi-a bully, and when to submit.
32 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
the ratification of the Pope. But the Pope, whose approbation
can alone stamp its othenvise fallible decisions with Infallibility,
is HIMSELF, all the while, according to Bossuet and the Gallican
Church, fallible. Happily, it is no business of mine to reconcile
the strange incongruities of Popery.
The language of the learned Albert Pighius seems to go far-
ther than even that of Bossuet: for it strikes upon my own
apprehension as altogether irreconcileable with any belief, on
1m part, in the Infallibility of Councils hoivever circumstanced.
He asserts ; that General Councils are not of divine, but of
merely human, institution : and he states ; that They originate
only from a dictate of right reason ; for doubtful matters may be
better debated by many than by few, more especially when the
many are j^rudent and experienced, persons.
This assertion he proves on those very principles of histo-
rical TESTIMONY, to whicli Mr. Berington and the Bishop of
Strasbourg profess themselves willing to resort.
In the Canonical Scriptures, says he, there is not a word about
General Councils : nor, from the institution of the Apostles, did
the Primitive Church receive any thing special resp>ecting them^.
In a subsequent chapter he goes on to tell us : that. From
theological grounds, it is impossible to demonstrate, that the whole
Church ought to be represented by a General Council; when that
Council, so far from being the whole Church, is not a thousandth
part of it. For, says he, this right of representation, a General
Council has, either from Christ, or from the Church. If it be
said. From Christ: then not a single syllable can be produced
from Scripture, where it is asserted that Christ made over the
authority of the whole Church to some one or two hundred
Bishops. If it be said. From the Church : then it will be neces-
sary to establish tivo several matters ; first, that the Church has
ever conveyed such a right; secondly, that the Church possesses
any such authority^?
V. This language of Pighius evidently brings us full upon
yet another difficulty.
If we suppose the Church of Rome to possess an indefinite
'In Scripturis Canonicis, nullum Ecclesia. Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Ec-
de lis verbum est: nee, ex Apostolo- cles. lib. vi. c. 1.
rum institutione, speciale quicquam ^ Albert. Pigh. Hierarch, Eccles.
de illis accepit ilia Primitiva Christi lib. at. c. 4.
CHAP. II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 33
Infallibility, while the precise seat of that Infallibility has never
been revealed to us in Holy Scripture: it is clear, that, as
that precise seat is now unknown, so it never can be certainly
known without an additional specific revelation from heaven.
Infallibility alone can infallibly determine the precise seat of
Infallibility. But, until the precise seat of Infallibility shall
have been infallibly determined; we cannot possibly enjoy,
with any measure of assurance, the advantage of Infallibility
in an active or operative condition. Therefore no individual or
assembly in this world, without a direct revelation from heaven,
can infallibly define to us the exact place where Infallibility
is deposited.
Thus, for instance, the decision of any General Council,
even though ratified by the Pope ex cathedra, cannot itself
determine itself to be the seat of Infallibility: because, ere
that decision be accepted as infallible, we must anteriorly know
infallibly, that a Council so circumstanced is infallible. Such
knowledge, however, involving the very point to be established,
clearly, even in the nature of things, cannot be communicated
by a Council so circumstanced: for we must first know
infallibly that such a Council is itself infallible, ere we can
admit its own asseveration of its own Infallibility to be any
legitimate proof of its actually possessing such Infallibility ; and
the person, who from its oivn decision shall attempt to demon-
strate the Infallibility even of a papally ratified General Council,
will inevitably, to the sore discomposure of a logical head, find
himself whirled round and round in the giddy revolution of
the circulating syllogism. Let him manage his unpromising
materials as best he may, such a reasoner can only, first,
demonstrate the Infallibility of such a Council from its own
decision respecting its own self and then secondly demonstrate
the Infallibility of such a decision from the Infallibility of such
a Council.
I might add, that, ere we can assuredly benefit from the
Inerrancy of a true General Council, not only must the Infalli-
bility of such a Council be first infallibly established, but the
precise nature of its requisite composition must likewise be
infallibly defined and determuied. Is a genuine infallible
Council composed jointly of the Clergy and the Laity: or
must its members be exclusively clerical ? If its members
34 DTF¥ICITLTTES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
must be exclusively clerical, are they variously to be botli
Bishops and Priests and Deacons: or are Deacons to be shut
out, while Bishops and Priests are admitted : or are both
Priests and Deacons alike to be shut out, while Bishops alone
can be deemed legitimate canonical members? All these
points must be infallibly determined by antecedent infallible
authority, ere we could consistently receive as infallible the
decisions of a General Council, even on the supposition, that a
General Council itself had infallibly, though only indefinitely,
been antecedently determined to be infallible.
But I press not any further the mere subordinate entangle-
ments of this strangely perplexed question. It will be sufficient
for me to ask, in all simplicity, the advocate of Roman Infalli-
bility : Where has it been infallibly determined, that a General
Council is infallible, whe^i its decisions shall have received the
final stamp of the papal sanction ? If such a determination has
been made ; how do you demonstrate the antecedent Infalli-
bility of the determiner? If such a determination has 7iot
been made ; how know you, that a papally sanctioned General
Council is infallible? And yet, if such a determination has
not already been infallibly made ; how can it hereafter be made
without a special revelation from heaven ?
In short, by the very nature and necessity of things, no one
can infallibly define the seat of Infallibility, unless he shall
have antecedently demonstrated himself to be infallible^
VI. But we have not even yet reached the end of the
marvellous difficulties and glaring inconsistencies, with which
the dogma of Roman Infallibility is so hopelessly encumbered.
Even if it had been clearly revealed that the Latin Church
is incapable of error, and even if the precise organ of lier
Infallibility had by scriptural authority been plainly defined :
still, to derive any benefit from such InfalHbility, it would yet
additionally be necessary, that each individual Christian should
himself be rendered incapable of error.
' The concocters of the Canon Law ought to he kept perpeimlly of every
seem inclined to simplify the ques- man, without any repugnance, as god's
tion, by at once ascribing Inerrancy, word spoken bi/ the month of Peter.
and therefore Infallibility, to the Bi- The See ef' Borne hath neither spot
shop and See of Rome, without any nor wrinkle in it, and cannot ere.
mention of Coimcils. But wliere did the compilers of the
All the decrees of the Bishop ofBome Canon Law learn this ?
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 35
The alleged uncertainty and indefiniteness of Scripture is
a fruitful topic of argument with every zealous Romanist^ :
and this very indefiniteness is urged in proof; that, for the^
establishment of the Faith, Infallibility is necessary ; and,
TKEREFORE, that God 77iust have conferred it upon his Church^.
But those ingenious persons, who thus argue, seem never to
have observed, that exactly the same difficulty, if difficulty
it be, attends equally upon the decisions both of Popes and
of Councils. Scripture, as the word of God, we know to be
infallible: Popes and Councils have, by the Romanists, been
alleged to be infallible. If, then, the acknoicledged Infallibility
of Scripture may, in actual operation, prove unavailing ;
because a confessedly fallible reader may doubtless mistake
its import : certainly the alleged Infallibility of a Pope or a
Council may, in actual operation, be equally unavailing;
because a confessedly fallible reader or hearer of their in-
fallible decisions may entirely misunderstand such decisions.
In the abstract, let the decisions themselves be ever so free
from error : still no person can be infallibly sure that he
annexes to them their true meaning, unless he himself be also
infallible-'. The Romanist, in short, cannot object to infallible
Scripture its liability to be misunderstood unless explained by
an infallible interpreter, without having his objection forthwith
retorted upon himself in regard to the alleged infallible
decisions of a Pope or a Council. Every reader or hearer
of such decisions must himself be infallible, ere he can be
infallibly sure that he does not misunderstand them.
' Thus, sometimes, the Bible is eitum. Concil. Trident, sess. xxv.
even called a nasvs cereus, which, p. 507. Dr. Trevern himself talks
without the aid of Infallibility, may of certain exaggerating gentlemen
be twisted any way: and, sometimes, within the pale of the Roman Church,
it is said to he, without the authority for whose particular speculations it
of the Church, no better than Esop's were unjust to make the Catholic
Fables. Body in general responsible. Dis-
2 See below, § VIII. cuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 274, 275. Yet,
^ Thus the Council of Trent has on his principles, how will he prove,
infallibly decided, that due honour that the exaggeraters are wrong,
and veneration (debitum honorem et and that the diminishers are right?
venerationem) is to be paid to the Has the amoimt of the debitum ever
images of Christ and the Virgin and been infallibly determined ? Effect-
the Saints : but two stout disputants ually to confute the exaggeraters,
might, nevertheless, salva Synodi In- Dr. Trevern must wait for an infal-
fallibilitate, get up a very pretty and lible exposition of the infallible de-
very edifjing controversy as to the cision of the infallible Council of
precise amount of the unerring de- Trent.
36 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. [bOOK I.
VII#, Witli abundant complacency and with miglity parade
of triumpli, Romanists not mifrequently object to Members of
the Reformed Churches : that The faith of those loho reject the
authority of the Latin Communion confessedly rests only upon
Moral Evidence; while the better faith of the Romanist rests
upon the sure foundation of Absolute Lifallibility.
But what reasoning mind perceives not, at a glance, the
childish inconsecutiveness of this objection?
The Romanist himself in the first instance, receives this
very dogma of Infallibility solely upon what he at least deems
sufficient Moral Evidence : for, unless he himself be personally
infallible, he cannot be infallibly certain that his Church is in-
fallible. Hence, the faith of the Romanist ultimately rests upon
the same professed basis of Moral Evidencet as the faith of the
Protestant. In the two cases, the Moral Evidence may be
sufficient, or it may be insufficient ; but still, in each case, the
really professed basis is Moral Evidence. The sole difference
consists in the development of the original principle. Knowing
that theological truths are incapable of mathematical demon-
stration, the Protestant receives them simply upon Moral Evi-
dence. The Romanist, meanwhile, enjoys the high advantage
of receiving his theological system upon the authority of alleged
absolute Infallibility : but then it is simply upon what he
deems a sufficiency of Moral Evidence, that he receives the
dogma of Infallibility itself He is perfectly certain, that the
doctrine of Transubstantiation must be true; because it has
been infallibly defined by his infallible Church : and, as Bishop
Walmesley tells us, Wlien a dogmatical point is to be determined,
the Catholic Church speaks but once ; and her decree is irre-
vocable^. But, if we press him to tell us, why he believes his
Church to be infallible : he will find it difficult to assign any
other basis for his primary faith than the mei^e simplicity of
what he deems a sufficiency of Moral Evidence.
Such being the case, he cannot esteem us unreasonable, if we
request him to produce the Moral Evidence, upon which, in the
first instance, his belief in Ecclesiastical Infallibility reposes.
The very attempt, which has been severally made by Dr.
Trevern and Mr. Berington, evinces a tacit admission of the
reasonableness of this request. Their whole labour to establish
• Gen. Hist, of the Church, chap. ix. p. 2*^4.
CHAP. II.] MFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 37
tlie fundamental dogma of Infallibility goes professedly on the
mere principle of Moral Evidence. Witli what emolument they
have toiled to substantiate their points, is quite another ques-
tion: but, still. Simple Moral Evidence is the principle, upon
which they have laboured.
VIII. But now comes in the strongest matter of all: a
matter, nevertheless, which inevitably results from the infallibly
ruled Tridentine Dogma of intention.
The Romanists, as I have recently observed, are fond of
contrasting the alleged Certainty of Belief produced by their
principles, with the alleged Uncertainty of Belief produced by
the principles of the Reformed Churclies. Yet, in tiTith, on
the very principles of the Romanists themselves as devoutly
received from a decision of the Council of Trent, there neither
is, nor ever was, nor ever can be, under the teaching of the
Church of Rome, the very smallest modicum of Certainty.
A Papist, for instance, cannot be certain, that he has ever
been baptised, that he has ever received the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper according to his own view of it, that he has
ever been married, and, if a professed Ecclesiastic, that he has
ever been ordained. The Council of Trent makes the validity
of all the Sacraments (seven in number, if we niay believe the
Church of Rome) to depend upon the intention of the indi-
vidual Priest or Bishop who officiates^ Hence, as the Missal
understands and interprets the ])erfectly plain Canon, Should
any Priest not intend to consecrate, hut to act deceitfully, he does
not consecrate, because intention is required. And, to prevent
all misapprehension, the Missal explains the point with an even
studied minuteness of particularity. If any Priest has before
him eleven wafers, and intends to consecrate only ten, not de-
termining which ten he intends, in this case, he does not consecrate,
because intention is required^.
' Si quis dixeiit, in ministris, diim stance of concealed infidelity, no
Sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, transubstantiation of the elements,
nou requiri imentionem saltern fa- according to the belief of the Roinan-
ciendi quod facit Ecclesia ; anathema ists, can have taken place, but the
sit. Concil. Trident, sess. vii. can. 11. bread and wine will still remain mere
p. 85. bread and wine. Yet the elements,
* Of com-se, if there be a want of when consecrated or reputed to be
INTENTION in the consecrating Priest consecrated, are oflered to the highest
or Bishop, which must always be the adoration of the people, on the ground
case under the too frequent circum- that they are now the body and blood
38 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. [bOOK I.
Tliis doctrine of intention is extended, by the Council of
Trent, to all that it deems sacraments ; for, in the Canon, it
uses the plural number, without making any exceptions. But
no person can be infallibly certain as to the reality of the
Priest's intention : and the very framing of the Canon, and its
interpretation in the Missal, of plain necessity suppose the pos-
sibility of a WANT of intention. Therefore, unless each indi-
vidual Romanist possesses the omniscience of the Deity, he,
most plainly, cannot be certain of the efficacious validity of a
single sacramental ordinance within his Church : whence, as I
have stated above, he cannot, either as laic or as reputed cleric,
be certain, that he has been baptised, or that he has been married,
or that he has been ordained.
Nor does the uncertainty stop at a single step : it will extend,
through every age, up to the very time of the Apostles. If any
single Bishop, during the lapse of eighteen centuries, has failed
of having the Tridentally required intention, every sacramental
ordinance, performed by every person, whether Bishop or
Priest, ecclesiastically deriving from him, is plainly vitiated :
for, in that case, the officiating individual, is no real either
Priest or Bishop ^
Mr. Newman, I believe, has attempted to obviate the effects
of the suicidal Canon of Trent by boldly declaring, that God
always interposes to prevent any mischief arising from the
want of intention.
The vanity of such a mere assertion is so patent that it
scarcely requires a formal exposure.
In the first place, the Canon is explicit, and specifies no
exceptions.
And, in the second place, Mr. Newman's asserted exception
plainly stultifies the entire Canon, by making its declaration
altogether nugatory.
IX. The preceding remarks may serve to shew the palpable
and human soul and perfect Deity of ' Mr. Minton has done himself a
our Saviour Christ. Plainly, there- great deal of credit by his luminous
fore, if there has been a lack of in- discussion of this matter in seve--
TENTioN on the part of the Priest, a ral small pamphlets. See, for in-
Romish Congregation, on their own stiince,his Facts and Fictions. Seeley,
principles, are guilty of the gross Fleet Street. See also a very
idolatry of worshipping with the high- able Letter by Mr. Seeley himself,
est adoration of Latria the mere addressed, on this question, to Mr.
senseless creatures of bread and wine. Newman.
CHAT. II.] DIFFICULTIES OF RO^IANISM. 39
vanity of those somewhat illogical theologians, who loudly
extol the exceedmg great benefit of a living infalhble judge, and
who from that henejit woidd prove the actual existence of such a
j^itlge.
1. This singular a^^gumentum a priori is largely employed by
Dr. Trevern in the third chapter of his Afnicable Discussion,
which, in the heading, professes to treat of the Infallibility of
the Church : and the same argument for the necessity of Infalli-
bility is actually repeated by Mr. Newman in his Theo7'y of
Development,
We cafinot, says he, conveniently do without a living Inter-
preter. Therefore, by a living Interpreter, the useful privilege
of Infallibility must assuredly be possessed.
But, however great may be the alleged convenience of mi
Infallible Judge, and however numerous may be the eloquently
stigmatised Variations of the Reformed Churches ; Variations
in small matters most ingeniously exaggerated by a very inge-
nious man, for in great matters they vary not ^ : still, with all
due submisssion to Bossuet, it must, I fear, be confessed, that
Grave Dissensions both do exist and ever 77iust exist, ivithin the
walls of Troy Town, as well as without them^. No Decisions
of the living Infallible Judge could give certainty, unerring
certamty, to those Beligionists who even most implicitly re-
ceived them ; unless they could fiHt be infallibly certain, that
they themselves infallibly understood the true purport of those
infallible Decisions. When a strenuous theological dispute
had been thvis mierringly settled, a new dispute between two
' Any person may satisfy himself of he might decide, he would be alienat-
this, by a simple comj)arative perusal of ing the affections without convincing
the SyllogeConfessionum.Oxon. 1827. the judgment of one section or the
^ The present Pope has lately fur- other according to his decision, the
nished us ^\dth a practical illustration Pope avoided the immediate danger ;
of his own fallibility and that of his and, in answer to the petition, recom-
Church. Two contending parties mended in his Encyclical Letter ad-
within the Church of Rome, holding dressed to all the Patriarchs, &c., that
opposite opinions on that long vexata they should prayerfully examine the
(/uccslio, the Innnaculate Conception momentous question, and ascertain
of the Virgin Mary, agreed to petition the wishes of the clergy, &c., and
" His Holiness " while a refugee at communicate to him their views and
Gaeta, to issue an infallible mandate, wishes. He thus falls into the other
authoritatively deciding the grave difficulty of admitting his own falli-
question at issue. But the " child- bility, and leaves undecided a ques-
ren of this world are in their genera- tion admitted to be by Romanists, and
tion wiser than the children of light." by the Letter itself, of the very great-
KnoAving full well that, whichever way est importance.
40 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMA^^ISM. [bOOK L
genuine controversialists would forthwith arise as to the True
Meaning of the Unerring Settlement. Nor will the difficulty
be removed, save to the distance of a single step, by an Infal-
lible Explanation of an Infallible Decision: for still, ad infi'
nitum, miless the hearer or reader of tlie Infallible Explanation
be himself infallible, he can no more be infallibly certain that
he understands the Infallible Explanation, than he could be
infallibly certain that he understood the Original Infallible
Decision which required and gave rise to the subsequent
Infallible Explanation.
2. I have here exhibited no caricature of an imaguiary case.
In despite of the Rome hath spohen, the Cause is finished^, of
Dr. Norris and Dr. Doyle; in despite of the allegation, that
Doctrinal Points were finally set at rest by the Infallibility of
the Council of Trent : more than one dissension occurred, as to
the TRUE niPORT of the Rome hath spoken, even during the con-
tinuance of the Council itself ; and that true iMroRT remains, I
believe, to the present day, still undecided.
At the close of the Sixth Session in the year 1547, Soto, the
Dominican, dedicated to the Council three books which he had
written on Nature and Grace, to be, as he said, a Commentary
on its Decrees concerning Original Sin and Justification and
the various subjects comiected with those Doctrines : and, in
the Decrees themselves, the sure operation of which was to be
the Cause is finished, he readily discovered all his oivn opinions.
Incontinently, this called forth, from Yega, the rival Fran-
ciscan, no fewer than fifteen large Books on the same subject :
in which the several Articles of the Decrees were so expounded,
as to confirm all his sentiments ; which sentiments differed from
those of Soto, in almost all points, and, in many, were directly
contrary to them.
The reader of these Works, says Father Paul Sarpi, may well
marvel, that two persons, the chief for learning and reputation in
the Council and who had borne a principal part therein, did not
know the true scope and meaning of its Decisions : — and I could
never find, whether the Assembly did agree in one sense, or
whether there was unity of words only.
Nor was this all.
Roma locuta est : Causa finita est.
CILU\ II.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 41
Soto asserted: that the Council denied the possibihty of a
man's possessmg Assurance of Grace.
Whereupon, Catharinus wrote against him, strenuously main-
taining : that the Council, so far from having denied the possi-
bility, actually did even more than barely affirm it; for, in
effect, that grave Assembly declared the Possession of such
Assurance to be nothing less than a Bou7iden Duty,
Like Soto, Catharinus dedicated his Work also to the
Council : so that there was a clear appeal to it for an Infallible
Explanation of its Infallible Decision. But, forthwith, the
Fathers of that very remarkable Synod were all divided into
two parts : except only some good Prelates, who remained neu-
trals. These well-meamng, though sorely-puzzled, individuals,
said, that they understood not the diffekence, but that they con-
sented to the Decree in the fokm wherein it was published, be-
cause, in IT, both Parties agreed. Di Monte adopted the same
plan, and continued neutral : but Santa Croce, who, we must
suppose, understood what the neutrals could not understand,
gave his testimony in favour of Catharinus.
The natural result was : that men quite despaired of under-
standing the Council, when the Council confessedly did not
understand itself. Nay, what was still worse, though nothing
more than what might have been expected, a question, as Father
Paul tells us, was raised concerning the very Infallibility itself
of the Council : a question, that is, whether the Council, albeit
claiming to be Ecumenical, and albeit ratified by the Pope, was,
or was not, infallible ^.
Here, then, it may be fairly asked : Where are the practical
benefits of an alleged Infallibility ; when its Decrees are pro-
nounced to be unintelligible; when equally ingenious men differ,
toto ccelo, as to what their true import is ; when many good Pre-
lates declare, that they understood not the grounds of differ-
ence, but that they would consent to the verbal form, because,
to it, the opposite Parties agreed, though they could not agree
as to its meaning ; and when, under such circumstances, doubts
naturally enough arose, as to the Infallible Wisdom of a Council,
which did not understand itself^
The Variations of the Infallible Fathers of the Tridentine
' See Scott's Hist, of the Church, I am indebted for the preceding
vol. ii. p. 286,287. To this able work statement.
42 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAxNIS-V. [bOOK I.
Council ! What a subject for the sarcastic pen of a Bossiiet !
Rome hath spoken : the cause is finished !
X. Before this part of my subject is finally dismissed, it may be
useful, on the topic of Conciliar Infallibility, to adduce an autho-
rity which the Romanists will scarcely venture to contravert.
There are, as we have seen, various opinions among them
touching the true residence of Infallibility. But, if I mistake
not, the most generally adopted theory is ; that, although Pro-
vincial Councils may err. Ecumenical Councils, when their
Decisions are ratified by the Pope, are certainly infallible and
therefore inerrant. In settling any disputed question, moreover,
the Romanists profess an especial willingness to defer to the
judgment of Antiquity. To Antiquity, then, let us resort.
Now all somid members of the Church of Christ are per-
fectly ready to admit : both, that, if ever there was a really
Ecumenical Comicil, it was the First Comicil of Nicea ; and
that its judgment, in regard to the doctrine of Arius, was, as
may be shewn by most certain warrant of Holy Writ and by
the unvarying attestation of theologians convened from all parts
of the world, indisputably true and correct.
On the principles of the Romanists themselves, this earliest
of the Ecumenical Councils had every character of what they
all deem a clearly infallible Council.
Its members were assembled, not, like those of the packed
Council of Trent, from the West alone, but from the whole
Christian World: for, through their several Bishops, to say
nothing of an infinite multitude of Presbyters and Deacons and
Acolyths, were represented, according to the order of subscrip-
tion, the various Churches of Spam, Italy, Egypt, Thebais,
Libya, Palestine, Phoenicia, Coelo- Syria, Lydia, Phrygia,
Pisidia, Lycia, Pamphylia, the Greek Islands, Caria, Isauria,
Cyprus, Bith3mia, Em-opa, Dacia, Mysia, Macedonia, Achaia,
Thessaly, Calabria, Africa, Dardania, Dalmatia, Pamionia, the
Gauls, Gothia, Bosporus i.
Nor was the approbation and assent of the Roman Patriarch
wanting : for, though, by reason of his advanced age and mani-
fold infirmities, that Bishop was not personally present at the
' Labb. Concil. vol. ii. p. 50-54. refer to my Apostolicity of Trinita-
For a full account of this Council, I rianism, book i. chap. 3.
CIIA1\ II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 43
Council, he was duly represented by his two Presbyters, Vitus
and Vincent, who appeared there as his proxies, and who, on
liis behalf, subscribed the Acts and Decisions of the Assembly.
That their Decisions were strictly correct, we fully acknow-
ledge. But were they correct, of abstract necessity, because
the Council was infallible : or were they correct, because they
were based upon Scripture and agreed with the universally
received doctrine of the entire Catholic Church from the very
beginning? In other words, did the Council simply deliver a
well ascertained Truth : or did it possess such an inherent
Infallibility, as, by virtue of that Infallibility, to have been
absolutely incapable of error?
On this point, the Fathers of the Council may well be
allowed to speak for themselves.
As we have received, say they, from the Bishops our pre-
decessors, both in our first catechumenical instruction, and
afterwa^'d at the time of our baptism; and as we have learned
from the Holy Scriptures ; and as, both in our Presbyterate and
in our Episcopate itself, we have both believed and taught : thus
also now believing, we expound to you our faithK
Thus did the Nicene Fathers most rationally and most
intelligibly expound their principles.
Now this First General Council, that of Nicea, ratified by
the Bishop of Rome, was assembled in the year 325. And
the Second General Council, that of Constantinople, at which
the Roman Bishop was not present even by any accredited
proxies, was assembled in the year 381.
Here, then, in the two earliest Ecumenical Councils, we
have precisely the variety which we might desire : for the one
was ratified by the Pope ; and the other, whatever subsequent
assent might be given, received, at the time, no papal ratifica-
tion, as if such ratification were deemed imnecessary to its
independent and full and binding authority.
Between the years 391 and 430, flourished the great
Augustine of Hippo. Consequently, he wrote posterior to
both these Coimcils.
How, then, touching the Infallibility of a General Council,
' Euseb. ramphil.Epist. ad Eccles, odoritum, et Gelas. Cyzic. in Labb.
Ceesar. Falsest, apud Socratem, The- Concil. vol. ii. p. 253.
44 WFFICm.TIES OF KOMAMSM. [bOOK I.
does he deliver, not merely his own opinion (important as
his authority might be), but the miiversally prevailing opinion
of his contemporaries ?
The I'ruth of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Decisions,
of course, he does not controvert : but, in his judgment, which
he attests to have been also the judgment of his contemporaries,
the solemn declaration of a certain weighty Truth does not
imply any necessary Infallibility,
Who can be igxoeant, says he : that the letters of Bishops,
ichich either have been written or are in course of wHting after
a Canon has been confirmed, may be corrected, either through
the loiser discourse of some one more skilled i?i the subject, or
through the more grave authority a7ui the more learned presence
of other Bishops; and, again, that such corrected statements,
if there still be in them any deviation from the truth, 7nay be
reprehended through Councils; and, furthermore, that those
Councils themselves, which are assembled only through and
from particular regions or provinces, ought, without any long
dispute, to yield to the authority of Plenary Councils, which
are assembled out of the Whole Christian World ; nay, finally,
that Plenary Councils themselves often are amended, the earlier
by the later, when, through a better trial of the subject, that,
which was previously shut, is opened, and that, which before lay
concealed, is known : and all this, without any swelling of sacri-
legious pride, without any inflation of the neck of arrogance,
without any contention of dark envy ; but, on the contrary, with
holy humility, with catholic peace, with christian charity^.
When it is recollected, that this was written after the two
earliest General Councils, the one fonnally ratified and the
other not foi-mally ratified by the Bishop of Kome in his
IS
' Quis AUTEM kesciat:— Episco- Uiiiverso Orbe Christiana, sine ull...
porum hteras, quae, post confirmatum ambagibus cedere : ipsaque Plenaria
Canonem, vel scriptai sunt vel scri- s^^rE, priora posterioribus, emendam,
buntur, per sermonem forte sapien- cum, aliquo expei-imento rerum, ape-
tiorem cujuslibet in ea re peritioris, ritur quod clausum erat, et cognos-
et per ahorum Episcopormn gravi- citur quod latebat; sine ullo typho
orem autbontatem doctioremque pru- sacrilege superbiffi, sine uUa indata
dentiam, comgi ; et per Concilia li- cervice aiTogantiw, sine ulla conten-
cere reprebendi, si quid in eis forte tione lividw invidiam, cum sancta hu-
a yeritate deviatum est : et ipsa Con- militate, cum pace catholica, cum
ciha, quffi per singulas regiones vel charitate Christiana. August. deBap-
provmcias fiunt, Plenanorum Con- tism. cont. Donat. lib. ii. c. 3. Oper.
cihorum authoiitati, quse fiunt ex vol. vii. p. 87.
CHAP. Il] DIFFICULTreS OF ROMANISM. 45
capacity of the Western Patriarch, it is, I think, perfectly
clear, that, in the days of Augustine, Infallibility could never
have been ascribed to a General Council, however circum-
stanced so far as the Pope was concerned.
I am quite aware, that a Romanist may endeavour to escape
from this conclusion by asserting, that the emendation of an
earlier Ecumenical Council by a later means, not the correction
of error, but the addition of truth ; the addition, that is to say,
of some doctrinal statement which had been pretermitted by
the earlier Council : and the addition of m(^re than one article,
made by the Council of Constantinople to the end of the
original Nicene Creed, may be urged as what Augustine had
specially in his eye.
This possible reply is not devoid of plausibility : but it will
not solve the difficulty which Augustine places in the way
of Conciliar Infallibility.
In the first place, the drift of the whole context shews,
that the correctio7i of positive error, not the addition of omitted
truth, is what Augustine speaks of.
In the second place, his remark is general to all Councils,
not limited to the two first in particular.
And, in the third place, the omission of truth, which must
hereafter be supplied, is not very consistent with the idea of
Infallibility in any Council which undertook to put down
error by a perfect statement of truth.
CHAPTER III.
SUPREMACY.
From the Dogma of Romish Infalhbility, we may pass to
that Claun of a Dominant Supremacy over the wliole Catholic
Chm-ch, which, on behalf of the Roman See, is strenuously
advanced by every zealous Latin.
On the authority of the Comicil of Trent and Pope Pius IV.,
we are required to admit the following propositions.
The Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all
Churches.
Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and all others,
are bound to pledge and profess t7iie obedience to the Sovereign
Pomaji Pontiff.
The Pope is the Vicar of God upon Earth : and he possesses
Supreme Authority delivered to him in the Universal Church.
The Roman Pontiff must be acknowledged and obeyed, as
the Successor of the Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles
and the Vicar of Jesus Christ^.
' Ecclesia Romana, quae omnium prema Potestate sibi in Ecclesia Uni-
Ecclesiarum Mater est et Magistra. versali tradita, causas aliquas crimi-
Concil. Trident, sess. \di. de Baptism. num graviores suo potuerunt pecu-
can. iii. p. 87. liarijudicioreservare. Concil. Trident.
Prfficipit, igitur, Sancta Synodus, sess. xiv. p. 1G3.
Patriarchis, Primatibus, Archiepi- SanctamCatholicametApostolicam
scopis, Episcopis, et omnibus aliis, Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium Eccle-
ut — veram obedientiam Summo Ro- siarum matrem et magistram, ag-
mano Pontifici spondeant et pro- nosco : Romanoque Pontifici, beati
fiteantur. Concil. Trident, sess. xxv. Petri Apostolorum principis succes-
p. 573. sori, ac Jesu Christi vicario, veram
Ipsius Dei in terris Vicarii. Concil. obedientiam spondeo ac juro. Prof.
Trident, sess. vi, p. 61. Fid. Trident, ex bull. Pap. Pii IV.
Merito Pontificis Maximi, pro Su- Syllog. Confess, p. T).
CHAP. TIT.] DIFFICm.TIT:,S OF KOM.VNTSM. 47
I. In support of this claim of Dominant Roman Supremacy
by divine right, the doctors of the Latin Churcli adduce both
the authority of Scripture and the testimony of certain Fathers
of the three first centuries.
1. The authoritative passages, which they adduce from
Holy Scripture, are the following.
(1.) He saith unto them : But whom say ye that I am f
A nd Simon ansivered and said : Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, :
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona ; for flesh and hlood hath
not 7'evealed it unto thee, hut my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this
Bock I will build my Church : and the gates of Hell shall not
p7'evail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven : and, whatsoever thou shalt hind on earth,
shall he hound in heaven; and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth, shall he loosed in heaven^.
(2.) x\nd the Lord said : Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath
desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat : but I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and, when thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren^.
(3.) So, luhen they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter :
Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me mor^e than these f He saith
unto him : Yea, Lord ; thou knowest, that L love thee. He saith
unto him : Feed my lambs. He saith unto him, again the second
time : Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou nne f He saith unto him :
Yea, Lord ; thou knowest, that I love thee. He saith unto him :
Feed my sheep. He saith unto him, the thh^d time : Simon, son
of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved, because he said
unto him the third time : Lovest thou me f And he said unto
him : Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knoivest, that I love
thee. Jesus saith unto him : Feed my sheep^.
2. Such are the scriptural authorities, which serve as a basis
for the mighty superstructure of Dominant Roman Supremacy :
the Fathers of the three first centuries, adduced by the latin
doctors in evidence of the actual primeval exercise of this
Supremacy, are Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian.
' Matt. xvi. 15-19. with what ohjeet I know not, refei's also
' Luke xxii. 81, 32. to Mark i. 30. Lnko ix. 32. Acts ii.
^ John xxi. 15-17. Mr. Eerington, 14. See Faith of Cathol. p. 156.
48 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
(1.) Ireneus wrote during the latter half of the second
century or about the year 175.
The tradition of the Apostles, manifested throughout the whole
world, may he seen in the Church hy all who wish to hear the
truth : and we can reckon up, both those who by the Apostles were
appointed Bishops in the Churches, and the successors of those
Bishops down even to our own times. — But, since in such a
volume as this it ivould occupy too much space to enumerate the
successions of all the Churches : we shall confound all those per-
sons, who from whatever bad motive collect differently from what
they ought to collect, by simply indicatirig that apostolic tradition
and that declaimed faith of the greatest and most ancient and uni-
versally known Church founded at Rome hy the two most glorious
Apostles Peter and Paul, which has come down even to us through
the successions of her Bishops, For to this Church, on account
of the more potent piincipality, it is necessary that every Church
should resort ; that is to say, those faithful individuals who are
on every side of it : in which Church, by those who are on every
side of it, the tradition, which is from the Apostles, has always
been preserved. The blessed Apostles, then, founding and building
up that Church, delivered to Linus the episcopate of administering
it. — But to him succeeded Anacletus : and, after him, in the
third place from the Apostles, Clement received the episcopate. —
The successor of Clement was JEuaristus : and, of Euaristus,
Alexander. Next to him, the sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus
was appointed : after him, Telesphorus : — next, Hyginu^ : then,
Pius: and, then, Anicetus. But, when Soter had succeeded
Anicetus, Eleutherius now holds the episcopate, in the twelfth
place from the Apostles^,
' Traditionem itaque Apostolorum, bus fidem, per successiones Episco-
in toto mundo manifestatam, adest porum pervenientem usque ad nos,
perspicere omnibus, qui vera velint indicantes, confundimus omnes eos,
audire : et habemus annumerare eos, qui, quoquo modo, vel per sui pla-
qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Epi- centiam malara vel vanam gloriam,
scopi in Ecclesiis, et successores vel per csecitatem et malam senten-
eorum usque ad nos. — Sed quoniam tiam, prjeterquam oportet coUigunt.
valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine, Ad banc enim Ecclesiam, propter po-
omniura Ecclesiarum enumerare sue- tentiorem principalitatem, necesse est
cessiones ; maximse et antiqmssimse omnem convenire Ecclesiam ; hoc est,
et omnibus cognitaj, a gloriosissimis eos qui sunt undique fideles : in qua
duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo semper, ab his qui sunt undique, con-
Romse fundatse et constitutae, Ec- servata est ea quae est ab Apostolis
clesise, earn quam habet ab Apostolis traditio. Fundantes, igitur, et in-
traditionem et annunciatam homini- struentes, beati Apostoli, Ecclesiam,
CHAP, m.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 49
(2.) Tertullian flourished about the year 200.
If thou thinkest heaven to be still closed, remember, that the
Lord left here the keys of it to Peter and through him to the
Church ^
Let heretics, then, produce the origins of their Churches : let
them evolve the order of their Bishops, so running through suc-
cessions from the begin7iing, that the first Bishop should have, for
his author and predecessor, some one either of the Apostles them-
selves or of apostolical men their contemporaries. For, in this
manner, the apostolical Churches carry down their enrolments.
Thus the Church of the Smyrn^ans relates itself to have Polycarp,
there placed by John : thus the Church of the Romans adduces
Clement, ordained by Peter': thus likewise other Churches exhibit
those, whom, being appointed by the Apostles to the Episcopate,
they have as the channels of the apostolic seed. — Come now, thou
ivho shalt wish better to exercise thy curiosity in the business of
thy salvation ; run through the apostolic Churches, in which the
very chairs of the Apostles are still in their own places occupied,
in ivhich their identical atithentic letters are recited sounding forth
the voice and representing the face of each one. Is Achaia near
to thee? Thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Mace-
donia: thou hast Philippi ; thou hast Tliessalonica. If thou
canst go into Asia : thou hast Ephesus. Or, if thou art adjacent
to Italy : thou hast Pome ; whence also, to us Africans, there is
an authority near at hand. Happy Church, to which the
Apostles, along with their own blood, poured out their whole
doctrine^ !
LinoEpiscopatum administrandseEc- reliqnisse. Tertull. Scorpiac. adv.
clesiae tradiderunt. — Succedit autem Gnost. Oper. p. 722.
ei Anacletus: post eum, tertio loco * Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarimi
ab Apostolis, Episcopatum sortitur suarum : evolvant ordinem Episcopo-
Clemeiis. — Huic autem Clementi rum suorum, ita per successiones ab
succedit Euaristus : et, Euaristo, initio decurrentem, ut primus ille
Alexander. Ac deinceps, sextus ab Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, vel
Apostolis, constitutus est Sixtus : apostoUcis viris, qui tamen cum Apo-
et, ab hoc, Telesjihorus : ac, deinceps, stolis perseveraverit,habuerit autorem
Hyginus : post, Pius : post quem, et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo
Anicetus. Cum autem successisset EcclesiiB Apostolicre census suos de-
Aniceto Soter : nunc, duodecimo loco, ferunt : sicut Smyrnffiorum Ecclesia
Episcopatum, ab Apostolis, habet liabens Polycarpum ab Joanne con-
Eleutherius. Iren. adv. haer. lib. iii. locatum refert ; sicut Eomanorum
c. 3. p. 170, 171. Glementem a Petro ordinatum edit;
' Nam, et si adhuc clausum putas proinde utiijue et cffiterre exhibent,
calum, memento claves ejus hie quos, ab Apostolis in Episcopatum
Dominum Petro et per cum Ecclesine constitulos, apos^Mici seminis tra-
E
50 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
(3.) Origen wrote during the first half of the third century.
What, in a foiiner passage^ , was granted to Peter alone, seerns
here" to he granted to all, who to all sinners shall have addi^essed
three admonitions : in order that, unless they shall be listened to,
they may, as a heathen and a publican, bind upon earth the
person condemned, since such an one is bound also in heaven.
But, as it teas Jit, even though a matter in common teas spoken
both of Peter and of those ivho should thnce admonish the brethren,
that Peter should have something preexcellent above those who
should thrice admonish : that matter was first peculiarly ordained
respecting Peter, namely, I ivill give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven; before it was said. Whatsoever ye shall bind
upon earth, and so forth. And timly, if we shall diligently attend
to the evangelical Scriptiires, eveyi in them ice shall find, that the
matters, ivhich seem to be in comiyion both to Peter and to those
who thrice admonish the brethren, bear a more elevated sense ivhen
spoken to Peter than when spoken to the second^.
(4.) Cyprian flourished about the middle of the third
century.
The Lord says to Peter : I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
and upon this Rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of
Hell shall not prevail against it. — And, again, he says to the
same person after his resurrection : Feed my sheep. Upon one
duces habeant. — Age jam, qui voles VLit^m h^/)f/.iv«, 'iomi 'Bn'koZffSa.i ^thuxivKt
curiositatem melius exercere in ne- -rairi ro7i rag r^tTs yavha-'ia,? T^otraya,-
gocio salutis tuae, percurre Ecclesias youffi -Truffi roi; f]iu,a^T7i>e.o<nv, "v\ ikv fivi
ApOStolicas, apud quas ips.T! adllUC a.xov(r6u<Ti^ tmuffiv W) yr^; rov x^i^ivra
catliedi'fB Apostolorum suis loois prav eTva/ d>i Ihixov xu) TtXMvnv, u$ 'hidifiivov
sidentur, apud quas ij^sre autlienticte roZ roiovrou Iv rS ov^nvu- aXX', Wu
litenje eorum recitantur, sonantes tx^nv, u Kat Kotviv n Wi rev uir^ou
voceraetreprsesentantesfaciemunius- ko.) tuv vovhrna-civTuv t^Jj rovg aliX-
cujusque. Proxima est tibi Achaia? (povi xiXiKrui, i^xi^iTav, ex'-i* "rov nir^ov
llabes Corintbum. Si non longe es Ta^a, vols r^Jj vov6iTYi(ra.vTus, iVia. roZro
a Macedonia : babes Pbilippos ; babes •jr^or'ira.x.rtt.t It) rod nir^ov, ro, Aaxru
Tbessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam troi rag xXus t>J; (^ctatXilccs ruv oh^ccvuvt
tendere : babes Epbesum. Si autem roZ, Kai oa-a. lav 1'A<rnri It) t^V y/a, xou
ItalifB adjaces : babes Romam ; unde rk j|/j;. KaJ ro'tyi, u ewi^sX&Jj T^ea-
nobis quoque autoritas presto est. i^of^^^ '''o~i ivctyyiXtKoti y^ufAf^.ao'i, xai
Felix Ecclesia, Cui totam doctrinam iv rovron ivpotf/.ii a,v k-A Kara, raZra,
Apostoli cum sanguine SUO profu- ra ^oxoZvra. livcti koivo. t^o; rov nir^ev
derunt. Tertull. pra^script. adv. ha- xat ravs r^)s Movhrntrocvra.; rols eihx-
ret. § 11, 14. Oper. p. 107, 108, <povs, vaXXtiv haipo^etv xut iiTs^op^'/iv Ik
109. reiv T^os rov Yl'-r^ov il^yifiivuv •vee.^a,
' Matt, xvi. 19. rovi h.uTi^ovs. Orig. Comment, in
'■' Matt, xviii. 18. Matt. tom. xiii. Oper. vol. i. p 3-30.
' nXriv ra. Iv ro7{ uvcori^w (jt-'ovM rw Huet. PtOtbomag, 1008.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 51
he builds his Church. And, although to all the Apostles he gives
an equal power and says; As the Father sent me, I also send
you, receive the Holy Ghost; to lohomsoever ye shall remit siTis,
they shall be remitted to him ; and, to whomsoever ye shall retain
them, they shall be retained : yet, that he might manifest unity, he
by his authority disposed the origin of the same unity beginning
from one. The other Apostles, indeed, were, what Peter was ;
that is to say, they were endowed with an equal partnership both
of honour and of power : but the beginning proceeds from imity,
that the Chu7xh might be shewn to be one ChurchK
For first to Peter, upon whom he built the Church and whence
he instituted and shewed the origin of unity, the Lord gave the
piower, that, ivhatsoever he should have loosed upon earth, should
be loosed in heaven. And, after his resurrection, he also speaks
to the Apostles, saying : As the Father sent me, I likewise send
you. When he had thus spoken, he breathed upon them, and said
unto them : Whosesoever sins ye shall remit, they shall be re-
mitted unto him ; and, whosesoever ye shall retain, they shall be
retained'^.
Nor did Peter, ivhom the Lord first chose and upon whom he
built his Church, when afterward Paul disputed with him con-
cerning circumcision, claim or assume any thing to himself inso-
lently or arrogantly : so as to say, that he himself held the
Primacy, and that by posterity obedience ought to be paid to him
rather than to Paul On the contrary, he despised not Paul,
because he had formerly been a persecutor of the Church : bid he
' Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: ditiet honoris et potestatis : sed exor-
Ego tihi dico, inquit, quia, tu es Peirus, dium ah unitate proficiscitur, ut Eccle-
et super isfam petram mdificaho JEccIe- sia una monstretur. Cyprian, de Unit.
siam meam ; et porta itiferorum non Eccles. Oper. vol. i. p. 103-108.
Vincent earn. — Et iterum eidera, post '^ Nam Petro primum Dominus,
resurrectionem suam, dicit: Pasce super quern ffidificavit Ecclesiam et
oves meas. Super unum eedificat Ec- unde unitatis originem instituit et
clesiam suam. Et quamvis Apostolis ostendit, potestatem istam dedit, ut
omnibus parem potestatem tribuat et id solveretur in coelis, quod ille sol-
dicat; Sirut misit me Pater, et ego visset in terris. Et, post resurrec-
mitto vos, accipite Spiritum Sanctum ; tionem, quoque ad Apostolos lo(iuitur,
si cni remiseritis peccuta, remittentnr dicens : Sicut misit me Pater, et ego
illi ; si cui tenueritis, tenebuntur : mitto vos. Hoc cum dixisset, inspi-
tamen, ut unitatem manifestaret, uni- ravit, et ait illis : Jccipite Spiritum
tatis ejusdem originem ab uno inci- Sanctum : si cvjus remiseritis peccatu,
pientem sua auctoritate disposuit. remittentur illi ; si cnjus tenueritis,
Hoc erant utique et ca^teri Apostoli, tenebuntur. Cyprian. Epist. Jubaian,
quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio prw- Ixxiii. Oper. vol. i p. 201.
52 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
admitted the counsel of truth, mid readily assented to that legiti-
mate system which Paul vindicated^.
After these things, a false Bishop having been by the heretics
appointed to themselves, they dare to set sail : nor do they fear to
bear letters, from schismatical and profane persons, to the chair of
Peter and to the pnncipal Church whence sacerdotal unity has
arisen; for they consider not, that they are Romans {whose faith
was praised by the Apostle himself) to whom perfidy cannot have
access"^,
II. Such is the case, for the Dominant Supremacy of the
Roman Church and her Bishop over the whole Cathohc
Churcli of Christ, made out, by Mr. Berington, from Holy
Scripture and from the Fathers of the three first centuries^.
Now it is obvious, that, in order fully and distinctly to
establish this point, two matters must be severally substan-
tiated : the first is, that Chjist constituted Peter Sup7'eme Head
both of the Universal Church and likewise of all the other
Apostles, thus erecting an Absolute Monaixhy in the Society of
ivhich he was the founder ; the second is, that All the para-
mount authonty, originally vested m Peter, has from him right-
fully descended to the Roman Church and Bishop.
The substantiation of each of these two points is plainly
necessary. For, unless Peter himself had received from Christ
a grant of Universal Dominant Supremacy ; it is clear, that
no such Supremacy could be inherited from him by the Bishop
and Church of Rome: and, whatever exalted Supremacy
might have been conferred upon Peter by Christ ; it is equally
clear, that no such Supremacy can be claimed by the Roman
' Nam nee Petrus, quem primum ^ Post ista adhuc insuper, pseudo-
Doniinus elegit et super quem ffidi- episcopo sibi ab hfvreticis constituto,
ficavit Ecclesiam suam, cum secum navigare audent ; et ad Petri cathe-
Paulus de circumcisione postmodum dram, atque ad Ecclesiam priiici-
disceptaret, vindicavit sibi aliquid in- palem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta
solenter aut arroganter assumsit : ut est, a scbismaticis et profanis literas
diceret se iirimatum tenere ; et ob- fcn-e ; nee cogitare eos esse Komanos
temperari, a novellis et posteris, sibi (quorum fides, Apostolo pra^dicante,
potius oportere. Nee despexit Pau- laudata est), ad quos perfidia habere
lum, quod Eeclesife prius persecutor nonpossitaccessum. Cyprian. Epist.
fuisset: sed consilimn veritatis ad- Cornel, lix. Oper. vol. ii. p. loO, 136.
misit: et rationi legitimae, quam Pau- ^ See Berington's Faith of Cathol.
lus vindicabat, facile consensit. Cy- p. 157-159, 108, 109. The Bishop of
prian. ICpist. Quint. Ixxi. Oper. vol. ii. Strasbourg pi'oduces no evidence on
p. 191, 195. this point.
CHAP. HI.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 53
Church and Bishop, unless they can first demonstrate them-
selves to be the divinely constituted heirs of Peter.
Our business, therefore, will be to inquire, how far these
two points are substantiated by the evidence which Mr.
Berington has adduced: evidence, as we have seen, partly
drawn from Scripture, and partly extracted from writers of
the three first centuries.
III. Let us begin with examining the testimony, which he
has produced from Scripture.
1. Here, the first question is: Whether the texts, which have
been alleged, demonstrate, that Christ appointed Peter to he the
Monarch or Supreme Head of his Church,
(1.) With respect to the second and third alleged texts from
Scripture, they may safely, I think, be dismissed without much
ceremony ^
How a prayer on the part of Christ that Peters faith should
not fail, and how an admonition to the same Apostle that he
should strengthen his brethren when he himself should have been
converted, can afford any historical proof, that Christ appointed.
Peter to he the Monarch or Supreme Head of his Church, passes,
I am free to say, my own comprehension.
As little can I divine, how the same remarkable grant is
substantiated by a thrice repeated injunction from Christ that
Peter should feed his flock. The triple command seems pretty
evidently to allude to Peter's triple denial of his Lord. Hence
we are very naturally told, that Peter was grieved, because Christ
said to him, the third time, Lovest thou me ? Yet, by some
inconceivable process, the latin doctors transmute, what Peter
himself with much mortification deemed an implied reproof,
into a glorious grant of Universal Dominant Svipremacy.
To adduce such texts, in proof of an asserted historical fact,
is so utterly childish, that the experiment can only serve to
shew the grievous scantiness of scriptural testimony.
(2.) The sole text, therefore, which can be viewed as carry-
ing with it even the least cogency, is the firsf^. Let this first
text, then, be brought to the test of sober examination.
If the present text conveys any grant of that Supremacy for
which the Romanists contend, the grant can only be com-
• Luke xxii. 81, H2. John xxi. 15-n. ' Matt. xvi. 15-10.
54 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
prehended, in the supposed allegation on the part of Christ
that Peter is the Rock upon which he will build his Church,
and in the special exclusive conveyance of what is called the
binding and loosing power of the keys : for no where else, in
the entire text, can we discover a vestige of any grant of
Universal Dominant Supremacy.
Now, in two of the passages cited from Cyprian, I readily
admit, that that Father considers Peter himself to be the Rock
upon which Christ promises to build his Church : but, to make
out any satisfactory case of evidence, it ought to have been
shewn by the latin advocate of Papal Preeminence, that that
interpretation was, without any variation, universally received, as
the undoubtedly true one, from the very beginning,
A modem theologian, Mr. Husenbeth to wit, has indeed
roundly asserted : that, by all the holy Fathers and Doctors,
by all the Councils, and by the most lear7ied and pious men in
the world in every age down to the Reformation, the clause in
question has been uniformly understood as Catholics now un-
derstand itK But the assertions of this declamatory writer, in
more instances than one, are not remarkable for their scru-
pulous accuracy. The truth is : the early theologians are by
no means agreed as to the import of this part of the text^.
* Husenbeth's Defence of the Creed prevalent among our saxon fore-
and Discipline of the Catholic Church. fathers, is equally hostile to the ciu--
chap. iii. p. GO. rent popish exposition,
^ Had Mr. Husenbeth established The Lord saith to Peter : thou art
his rash assertion by written testi- stony. For the strength of his faith
mony, he would have shewn his faith- and the constancy of his confession, he
ful adherence to the oath imposed by received the name : because he joined
Pius IV., that he would receive no in- himself with firm mind to Christ, who
terpretation of Scripture except ac- is called stone hy the Apostle Paul.
cording to the unanimous consent of And, I build ]viy church upon this
the Fathers. As it is, I am puzzled stone ; that is, over myself, with the
to discover, how either he or any other belief which noiv thou vtterest respect-
popish priest can escape the guilt of ing jne. All God's congregation is
perjury, seeing that the patristic in- founded over the Stone, that is, over
terpretation of the Kock is anything christ ; because he is the ground-ivall
rather than unanimous. The worst of all the building of his own Church.
part of the matter is: that, so far All of God's Church are reckoned as
from being unanimous in the present one congregation ; and i/uit is built with
popish exposition, not one of the chosen men, not with dead stones : and
Fathers of the three first centuries all the foundation of tliese bodily stones
interprets the Eock as the Komanists is placed over christ ; for we arc,
now understand it; namely, as im- through the belief, reckoned his limbs,
porting Peter and the Line of the and he our head. Jesus saith: hell's
Popes conjointly. gates may do nought against my
I may add, that the interpretation, church. Juices and erroneous doctrine
CHAP. III.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROIilANISM.
55
Justin, the oldest Father who notices the place, contends, that
the Rock, upon which our Lord promised to build his Church,
is, not Peter individually, but Peter's Confession of Faiths
Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine, maintain, that the Rock
is Christ himself^. Chrysostom, in one place, supposes Peter
individually to have been the Rock : but, in another place, he
pronounces, with Justin Martyr, that the Rock was Peter's
Confession ; and explicitly condemns the idea, that Peter him-
self could have been intended^ Hilary also agrees with our
oldest interpreter extant : for, like Justin, he states, that the
Church was built upon the Rock of the Confession of Peter*.
From the very begimiing, then, different interpretations have
been given of the clause: and the most ancient, and as such
the most probably authentic, interpretation is not that, for
which modern Romanists contend, and which Mr. Husenbeth
undauntedly pronounces to have been unifokmly adopted by
every writer and in every age of the Church down to the time
of the Reformation^.
are hell's gates: for they lead the sin-
ful., as if through a gate, into hell-
punishment. Many there are : but none
of them has any power against the holy
congregation ; which is built upon
THE FAST STOME, CHIilST. Saxon
Homil. -for St. Peter's day. Bibl.
Bodl. MSS. Juiiii. 22, cited and trans-
lated by Soanies. Inquiry into the
doctrines of the Anglo-Saxon Church,
p. 1.31.
To the same purpose speaks the
venerable Bede, upon whose com-
mentary, indeed, the above-cited
Homily was constructed.
Metaphoric^ ei dicitur, Super hanc
petram, id est, sai-vatoeem quem con-
FESSTJS ES, (edificatur Ecclesia, qui fi-
deli confessori sui nominisparticipium
donavit. Ven. Bed. Comment, in loc.
cited by Soanies. Inquiry, p. 159.
' Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. Oper.
p. 255. Sylburg. 1593.
^ Athan. Unum esse Christ. Orat.
Oper. vol. i. p. 519, 520. Commel.
](iOO. Hieron. Comment, in Matt,
xvi. 18. lib. iii. Oper. vol. vi. p. 33.
Colon. 1616. August. Expos, in Evan.
Johan. Tract, cxxiv. Oper. vol. ix. p.
206. Colon. 1616.
' Chrysost. Homil. Ixix. in Petr.
Apost. et Eliam Proph. Oper. vol. i.
p. 856. Serm. de Pentecost. Oper.
vol. vi. p. 233. Commel. 1603.
* Hilar, de Trin. lib. vi. Oper. p.
903. Paris, 1693. The same vioAv of
the text, so far as I can understand
him, seems to have been taken by
Cyril of Jerusalem. See Cyril Catech.
xi. p. 93. Paris. 1631.
* As Mr. Husenbeth has not in-
dulged us with any specific references,
I shall not pretend to undertake the
herculean task of verifying or of falsi-
fying his formidably large assertion ;
that, hy ALL the Councils, as well as by
ALL the holy Fathers and Doctors, the
celebrated text of the Rock has been
UNIFORMLY Understood as Romanists
now understand it: for, truly, to peruse
all the Acts of all the Councils (an
undertaking, which, from his confi-
dent assertion as to their unanimity
of interpretation, we must conclude
this painful Divine to have happily
accomplished) , is a labour, from which
tlie most determined perseverance
might well shrink back in the huge-
ness of unutterable dismay.
Yet I may venture to ask Mr. Hu-
senbeth : In which of tlie Canons of
the four first General Coimcils, those
56 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [^OOK I.
Such being the simple matter of fact, a clause, the import
of which has been differently defined by different theologians
even from the days of Justin Martyr who became a convert to
Christianity little more than thirty years after the death of
St. John, is no specially secure fomidation for a grant of Uni-
versal Dominant Supremacy to the Apostle Peter. Had the
early theologians, from the begimiing, invaeiably or (as Mr.
Husenbeth speaks) uniforjily, understood the clause as the
modem Romanists would have us understand it ; I admit, that
a tolerably strong case would have been made out for at least
a personal Supremacy : but gravely to build a most important
historical fact upon a palpably uncertain interpretation is
surely the very apex of unhesitating fatuity.
The other clause in the text, which confers upon Peter the
power of binding and of loosing, is, I fear, not more satisfactory
than that which we have last considered.
To elicit any thing from this clause in favour of Peter's
Universal Dominant Supremacy, it ought to have been de-
monstrated, that the power was given to Peter exclusively.
But exactly the same power of binding and of loosing is sub-
sequently given to all the Apostles : nor is the grant attended
with the slightest intimation, either that the power was given
to Peter in some special though undefined manner above his
brethren, or that his brethren were to receive it only ultimately
from Christ inasmuch as it was directly conveyed to them solely
of Nice and Constantinople and merely by a stray Council here or by
Ephesus and Chalcedon, is the Bock a straggling Father there^ but by all
dogmatically pronounced to be the the holy Fathers and Doctors, and by
Apostle Peter ? all the Councils to boot ?
Nay, I will even request him to Certainly no prudent man, who is
inform us : In which of the Canons well assured of Mr. Husenbeth's stern
of the last General Council, that of integrity and unbending accuracy.
Trent, is such an interpretation oithe It is not a very creditable thing.
Bock authoritatively enunciated ? that romish proselytisers should, al-
But Mr. Husenbeth's "Work, in mostinvariably if not quite invariably,
which he professes to demolish the assail, with bold assertions and gross
less rapid Mr. White, was designed misrepresentations, not those who,
for general circulation as a popular they shrewdly suspect, a:e prepared
Tract : and he rightly judged, that, to answer them, but the ignorant who
with the many, a bold front of hardy are not provided with the means of
asseveration would produce a very exposing them. More than one in
imposing effect. stance have I known, even within my
Who shall gainsay an exposition, own limited sphere, of the exercise of
again and again propounded, with such unjustifiable and dishonourable
rare and striking uniformity, not tactics.
CHAP, m.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 57
through the authoritative medium of their divinely constituted
monarch the Archapostle St. Peter^. Origen, indeed, con-
tends for something peculiar in the grant to Peter above all
other persons : but Origen is not borne out by the inspired
narrative. When Jesus finally, after his resurrection, com-
municated the power, whatever the precise nature of that
power might be: he communicated it, both indifferently to all
the Apostles, and immediately from himself^. Hence, though
Cyprian maintains that unity commences from Peter, building
that notion upon his own arbitrary and gratuitous interpretation
of the rock, he fully admits, that the other Apostles were what
Peter was ; he fully admits, that they were endowed with an
equal partnership both of honour and of power ^i and, in truth,
the whole history of Paul and his fellow Apostles, as given in
the inspired writings, clearly shews their perfect mutual in-
dependence ; while it is quite silent as to any fancied absolute
Monarchy of Peter*.
2. The second question is : Whether the texts, which have
been adduced, afford any testimony, that the Bishops of Rome are
diviriely constituted heirs of the prei'ogatives of Peter, ivhatever we
may fancy those prerogatives to have been.
(1.) Now I may safely appeal even to the most careless
enquirer, whether the adduced texts contain so much as a
single syllable respecting the descent of Peter's prerogatives to
a7iy successor, still less to the specific line of Roman Bishops.
Let us, though without any warrant from Scripture, elevate
the Apostle's Supremacy to as high a pitch of absolute
Monarchy in the Church as the most zealous Papalist could
wish: still, after all the prodigality of gratuitous concession,
not a hint is given in our texts, either that the Bishop of Kome
or any other Bishop should be his ecclesiastical successor.
(2.) Nor is this all. As the texts, adduced by Mr. Bermg-
ton, are wholly silent on that vital matter: so, in no other
places, do we find Scripture a whit more coimnunicative.
Were it an essential point of faith, without which, as we are
assured in the Tridentine Confession, no person can be saved.
* Matt, xviii. 18. John xx. 21-23. * See more especially for Paul's
' John xxi. 21-28. distinctly specified rationale of the
•'' Sec the passage above, book i. Apostlesliip, Galat. i. 11-22. ii. 1-
chap. ;}. § I. 2. (4.) 10.
58 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
to believe, that the Roman Pontiff is successor to St, Peter the
Piince of the Apostles ' : surely that point would have been
distinctly and unequivocally specified in Holy Writ, either
prophetically by Christ himself, or dogmatically by some one
of his inspired disciples. But not a word does Scripture say
on the subject. If introduced any where, we might naturally
expect to find it introduced, either toward the close of the
Acts where Paul is conducted to Rome, or in that same great
Apostle's canonical Letter to the Romans, or in one of the two
Epistles of Peter himself the alleged supreme Monarch of the
entire Catholic Church and the first of the long line of the
divinely appointed succeeding Monarchs. But the very lack
of citation, on the part of our Latin theologians, is itself a
virtual confession, that the descent of Peter's Supremacy to
the Bishops of Rome is a matter quite mcapable of proof from
the testimony of Scripture^.
IV. We may now proceed to examine the testimony, which
has been produced from the ecclesiastical writers of the three
first centuries.
1. Here, again as before, the first question will be : Whether
those ivriters afford any demonstration, that Christ appointed.
Peter to he the Supreme Domi?iant Head of his Church.
When, through ambiguity of language, no direct proof of a
matter can be extracted from Scripture simply : I perceive not,
how the early ecclesiastical writers can supply the deficiency,
except by unanimously fixing a definite interpretation upon a
text, which in itself or abstractedly is indefinite.
The present, if I mistake not, is exactly a case in point,
Ireneus, the most ancient of the writers adduced by Mr.
• Sanctam Catholicam et Aposto- mitted, that Peter enjoyed certain
licam Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium privileges above the other Apostles ;
Ecclesiarum matrem et magistram, while yet they deny, that these pri-
agnosco : Romanoque Pontifici, beati vileges have descended from him to
Petri Apostolorum Principis sue- the Roman Bishops. Some strictly
cessori ac Jesu Christi Vicario, ve- personal pri^^leges of the Apostle,
ram obedientiam spondeo ac juro. — whatever may be their precise nature
Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, ex- and amount, they think themselves
tra quam nemo salvus esse potest, able to discover in Scripture : but, as
retinere et confiteri, — ego idem to any descent of these privileges
spondeo, voveo, ac juro. Prof. from Peter to the Bishop of Rome,
Fid^ Trident, in Syllog. Confess. they admit it not ; for the very satis-
P- '">• factory reason, that Scripture is al-
' On this perfectly intelligible prin- together silent respecting any such
ciple, several Protestants have ad- descent.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 59
Berington, is entirely silent respecting the Dominant Supre-
macy of Peter : for the whole passage, which has been cited
from him, treats solely of the apostolic descent of all the then
existing Branches of the Catholic Church; that of the Roman
Church, in particular, from its two co-founders Peter and
Paul, being given at large by way of exemplification'. The
other three, Tertullian and Origen and Cyprian, doubtless inti-
mate, that a Supremacy of some description or another was
granted to Peter^. Our business, therefore, will be, to estimate
the value and authority of their intimation.
Now their intunation rests professedly upon the text, in
which Christ promises that he will build his Church upon a
Roch : and Tertullian, like Cyprian, supposes the Rock in ques-
tion to be Peter^ But this interpretation, as we have seen, is
not the uniform and unvarying interpretation of the Church
from the very beginning: it is merely the private interpretation
of Cyprian and Tertullian. For, even to say nothing of Justin
and Athanasius and Jerome and Augustine and Chrysostom
and Hilary, who give an entirely different exposition of the
rock : Origen himself, with what consistency is no part of my
concern, flatly denies, in another part of the same Commentary
whence Mr. Berington has taken his citation, that the whole
Church of God was built upon Peter alone, and that the keys
of the kingdom of heaven were given exclusively to that
Apostle*. Hence it is clear, that the passage, brought forward
by Mr. Berington, can afford no proof whatever of the Domi-
' Seeabove,booki.chap.3. §1.2. (1.) ^luanov rod r^j (i^ovrris vtov ri ixoiffTeu
' See above, book i. chap. 3. § I. 2. ruv a<ro<rToXuv -, "AXXws n u^a. To\fJt.n'
(2.) (3.) (4.) <reofj!,iv kiyuVf en Uir^ov ftiv l^lajg Tvkas
^ Tertull. de pudic. Oper. p. 767, a^ou oh xa.rtff^vffovin, ruv Ti Xoituv
768. For reasons wllich in their pro- a,-?eaffreXMv xa) ruv rtXiiuv Ka.rier;^'j<r-
per place will appear, I venture to ovtnv -, Ov^' ^'s ««' £'»'' tuvtuv x.xt i(p'
say, that no Romanist will ever cite Ixda-TM alruv to Tr^on^i^/scivov, ro' TlvXai
this passage. Accordingly, Mr. Be- cfhov el xanff^vffovfftv alrni' xa.) to'
rington and the Bishop of Strasbourg 'Ew} rayr'/j t^ TiT^u olxe'^o(ji.vi<ru fjt.ou
very carefully suppress it. See below, Triv 'ExxX»o-/av ; "A^a li tS TIit^u f^'ovu
book ii. chap. 3. § II. 2. (2.) ^'ihovTot,t vto toZ Kv^iov at xXil^is Tris
* Orig. Comment, in Matt. torn. xii. tuv ov^avuv (ixirtXiias, xa) ovhig 'in^os
Oper. vol. i. p. 275. The whole pass- r&Jv fjt.a.xa.^'iu'i uvtus x^'-v^srav ; x. t. x.
age is too long to cite; but the fol- Yet, with this passage (as it were)
lowing extracts will suffice. under his very eyes, Mr. Berington
UiT^a ycc^ ita-i o X^itrrov //.a^yiTiis- — gravely cites Origen as a witness for
Ei Ti It) tov 'ivec ixitvov Ylir^ov vofjii^us the Dominant and Exclusive Primacy
u<ro TOV Qiou olxo'hofjLi7(r6oti t'/iv vciffav of St. Peter and his successors the
'ExKXtjtrixv f^ovev, ri «v (prttnis m^) Bishops of Rome 1
60 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
iiant Supremacy of Peter. Had the Catholic Church, from the
very first, taught us, without variation, that the true sense of
the text before us is a grant to Peter of a Dominant Supremacy
over all Christians : the import of an abstractedly ambiguous
text would then have been definitely fixed ; nor do I see, how
we could have rationally disallowed such powerful harmonious
testimony. But, in reality, no authoritative interpretation has
come down to us : and the weight of evidence is decidedly
against the gloss of Cy^^rian and Tertullian ; for, to omit other
witnesses, Justin, the most ancient of them all, pronounces the
Rock to be, not Peter himself, but Peter's Confession of Faith'.
Nothing, therefore, can be more idle, than an attempt to de-
monstrate the Dominant Supremacy of Peter from the mere
private unauthoritative gloss of Cyprian and Tertullian or
from the self-inconsistent language of Origen.
2. Our second question, still in the order already observed,
is: Whether the ecclesiastical ivriters of the three first centuries
afford any proof, that the Bishops of Rome have legitimately
inherited the alleged monarchal prerogatives of Peter.
(1.) I might here fairly urge, that no evidence of the early
' I subjoin the interpretation of Apostle, after a mode perfectly fami-
Justin, as being the oldest extant, liar to the Hebrews, was additionally
and therefore as carrying with it tlie called Cephas or Bock in order to
greatest weight of authority. commemorate the circumstances of
Ka) ya^ T/ov Biov X^iffrcv, Kara rhv his having confessed, that the true
reu Oar^flj avrov afOKaXv^tv, Ir/yvovra Cephas, upon which Christ would
ahrov, ha tuv fji,cc6nruv alrov, 'S,i[/.uva build his Church, is our Lord in his
T^oTi^ov xaXovfji,ivov, i<reoyof4,a<ri U'tT^ov. two-fold nature of the Son of Man
Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. Oper. p. 255. and the Son of God.
Upon one of his disciples, ivho was Such was the view taken by Justin
previously called Simon, Christ he- only thirty-seven years after the death
stowed the additional name of Peter : of St. John : and, since it stands self-
inasmiich as, through the revelation of approved, both by its accordance with
his Father, he acknowledged him to he the context, and with the national
the Christ the Sun of God. practice of the Jews, there can, I
According to Justin, the name Pf/er think, be no reasonable doubt, that
bore a direct reference to the Con- the view, so early taken by Justin, is
fession of Simon, not to his Official coiTect.
Character in the Church. Therefore, I may add, that its propriety is
plainly, he must have deemed the confirmed, not to say established, by
Bock, whence Simon derived his im- the subsequent adoption of it on the
posed name of Cejihas, to be, not part of Chrysostom and Hilary : while
Simon himself, but Christ as con- the interpretation of Athanasius and
fessed, by the heaven-taught Simon, Jerome and Augustine, that the Bock
to be at once the Messiah and the is Christ, is snhsloniially the same,
Son of the Living God: in other though it wants the admirable prc-
words, to be at once True Man and cision of the earliest comment in
True God. Matt. xvi. 16. In con- specifying the two-fold nature of the
sequence of this Confession, the Figurative Rock.
CIIAr. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 61
ecclesiastical writers, however distinct, can establish, as a neces-
sary article of faith, what has never been revealed in Scripture;
for, although such evidence may establish the true interpreta-
tion of an already existing text, it cannot make that a matter of-
divine revelation which has never been divinely revealed. But
so strong is my cause, that, with perfect safety, I may, for the
sake of argument, even waive this plea.
The Latins themselves seem to be fully aware, that the
only intelligible mode, in which the Bishop of Rome can be
heir to St. Peter, is through the medium of episcopal succession.
That the Roman Pontiffs govern a diocesan Church origi-
nally founded or rather episcopally organised by Peter and
Paul conjointly, is attested by Ireneus. But this circum-
stance, be it ever so well established, is plainly insufficient to
substantiate the point of heirship. Peter and Paul founded
many Churches, as well as the Church of Rome ; and they
appointed in them also Bishops, as well as in the Roman
Church : but, in no one case, neither in that of the Roman
Church nor of any other Church apostolically founded, does
this circumstance constitute any line of Bishops the heirs or
episcopal successors of the apostolical founders. To bring out
such a result, it must be proved, that any given Apostle was
not only the founder of a Church, but likewise its first canonical
diocesaii Bishop. Hence, obviously, an inquiry will arise :
Whether we possess any primitive historical testimony to the
necessary fact; that Peter was, not only the co-founder, but
likewise himself the first canonical diocesan bishop, of Rome.
For, unless this fact can be established, the Roman Bishops
can make out no better case of heirship to St. Peter, than the
Bishops of Antioch or of a^iy other Church said to have been
founded by that Apostle.
(2.) Now not one of the passages, adduced by Mr. Berington
from Ireneus and Tertullian and Origen and Cyprian, does,
in the least degree, tend to establish this vital circumstance.
The language of Ireneus, so far from establishing the
circumstance, is palpably inconsistent with it. He tells us,
that while the two Apostles Peter and Paul (not Peter singly)
were engaged in founding and organising the Roman Church,
they jointly delivered the Episcopate of it to Linus. Such
language is very remarkable. It imports, not that Peter and
62 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
Paul first completely founded and organised the Roman
Church, that Peter then for a season acted personally as the
earliest Diocesan Bishop of Rome, and that afterward the two
Apostles committed to Linus the Episcopate : but it imports,
that, while they were in the very course of founding and organising
the Roman Church, they jointly appointed Linus to be its first
Bishop, in order that he might take the superintendance of it
as soon as they should have apostolically completed the neces-
sary antecedent arrangements^
This is the testimony of our oldest witness : and his subse-
quent phraseology, while it perfectly agrees with that testi-
mony, is no less fatal to the theory, that the first Diocesan
Bishop of Rome was the Apostle Peter himself. Ireneus tells
us, that Clement obtained the Episcopate in the third place,
Sixtus in the sixth place, and Eleutherius in the twelfth place,
from the Apostles. Thus he reckons, we see, not from Peter
singly as he must have done had Peter been the first Diocesan
Bishop, but from the two Apostles jointly in their equal capacity
of co-founders. Consequently, if Clement were the third
Bishop from the two co-founders, Linus must, in his calcula-
tion, have been the first Bishop.
Such being the case, the evidence of Ireneus, instead of
establishing the Diocesan Roman Episcopate of Peter, goes
directly to prove, that Peter, although a co-founder of the
Roman Church, never acted personally as the first Diocesan
Bishop of that Church.
It may here be alleged, that, if Ireneus, in one place, rates
Hyginus as the eighth Bishop of Rome ; an arrangement,
which will make Linus the first Bishop : in another place, he
states this same Hyginus to have held the ninth place of the
Episcopate, through succession from the Apostles : an arrange-
' The old latin translation of Ire- in Eome: but they were in an in-
n^us, the very barbarism of which sulated or unorganised state. The
affords a valuable proof of its close Apostle, when subsequently joined
correspondence with the lost greek by St. Peter, founded the Church as
original, reads : Fundantes et instru- a Church, by regularly organising it,
entes Eccksiam ; not, Fundata et and in conjunction with St. Peter by
instructa Ecdesia. It is observable, appointing the first Diocesan Bishop,
that the accuracy of Ireneus is fully This seems to have been the mode,
established by the statement in Acts in which the Early Churches were
xxviii. 13-15. St. Paul found a So- usually founded. See Acts \\\\. 1,
ciety of Christians already existing 14.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 63
ment, which will make Peter and Paul conjointly the first Co-
Bishops of Rome^
To such an allegation, the answer, I think, is not very
difficult.
When the same writer speaks of the same individual Hyginus,
as being at once both the eighth and the ninth : it is quite clear,
that, he must be using two different modes of reckoning. In
other words, when such a circumstance occurs : it is quite clear,
that, in the writer's contemplation, Hyginus must be both the
eighth and the ninth purely under two distinct aspects.
How, then, are we to understand the numerical variation in
the phraseology of Ireneus ?
Evidently, as the very language of Ireneus directs us to
understand him.
When he speaks historically of the Line of Roman diocesan
BISHOPS : then Hyginus is the eighth, inasmuch as the two co-
founders appointed Linus the first Bishop of the now duly
organised See.
But, when he speaks of the several steps of the apostolical
SUCCESSION in the Church of Rome ; then, of course, Hyginus
stands upon the ninth step, inasmuch as the first step is jointly
occupied by the two co-founders Peter and Paul.
In truth, the very variation of the phraseology does but
establish more firmly the point for which I contend.
According to Ireneus, the Line of diocesan bishops of Rome
is: 1. Linus; 2. Anacletus; 3. Clement; 4. Euaristus ; 5.
Alexander ; 6. Sixtus ; 7. Telesphorus ; 8. Hyginus.
And, according to the same Ireneus, who herein by no means
contradicts himself, the steps of the Roman apostolical succes-
sion are: 1. Peter and Paul; 2. Linus; 3. Anacletus; 4. Cle-
ment; 5. Euaristus; 6. Alexander; 7. Sixtus; 8. Telesphorus;
9. Hyginus.
(3.) This account of the evidence of Ireneus is directly con-
firmed by the ancient author of the Apostolical Constitutions.
He gives us a list of the primitive apostolically ordained
Bishops : and, in the course of it, he distinctly states, even in so
many words, that Linus was, by Paul, consecrated the first
Bishop of the Roman Church ; while the second Bishop of that
Comp. Iren. adv. hner. lib. c. 3, 4. lib. i. c.
28.
64 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
See, whom (omitting the Anacletus mentioned by Ireneus) he
makes to be Clement, was consecrated by Peter ^
Nor does he leave any room for setting up even the slightest
pretence of ambiguity. Such a possible pretence, however, 1
have anticipated, so far as Ireneus is concerned : but, should it
be started either against Ireneus or against the author of the
Apostolical Constitutions, it is effectually cut off by this latter
writer's uniformly systematic plan of enumeration ". James, the
brother of the Lord, after a manner totally dissimilar to the
practice of all the other Apostles, is declared by the voice of
Antiquity, to have been personally liiinself the first Diocesan
Bishop of Jerusalem^. Hence, with strict consistency, the
author of the Constitutions speaks of his immediate successor
Sjmieon, as being the second Bishop of that Church*. But
Antiquity knew nothing of Peter being the first Diocesan
Bishop of Rome. Hence, with equal consistency, the same
author teaches us, that the first Bishop of the Roman Church
was Linus : and, as if completely to set aside the fabulous
Episcopate of Peter, he adds, that Linus was consecrated Bishop
by Paul. According to his reckoning, in short, Linus was the
first Diocesan Bishop of Rome, just as the Apostle James was
the first Diocesan Bishop of Jerusalem. The hebrew Bishops
of Jerusalem, therefore, might plausibly have claimed to be
heirs of all the prerogatives of James \hQ first Diocesan Bishop:
but the gentile Bishops of Rome can set up no such claim in
regard to Peter, because Peter was never the Diocesan Bishop
of the Roman Church ^
' Trif Ti 'Vufjtaim 'ExxXtiirias, ATvos cesan Bishop of Rome, is ambigu-
fjtiv KXxvhtas 9r^uros v-ro UavXov, ous : then, surely, nothing can be
KXvifAns ^i fjiira <riv Aiveu 6a.va.roy vt' more idle, than to advance a claim
ifji.oZ Ti'ir^ov hvTt^os, Kix,ii^orovyira,i. upon confessedly ambiguous phraseo-
Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46. logy.
"^ I may remark, however, that a ^ Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c.
plea of amhignUy cannot be set up by 1. lib. iv. c. 5. Epiph. cont. haer.
the Eomish Party, in regard either lib. lx^d.
to Ireneus or to the author of the * 'It^etroXu/nuv fjuv 'IxKufioi, o rod
Apostolical Constitutions, without ef- Ku^iou a.hX(pos- oS rtXsvrmoivros, hv-
fectually depriving their evidence of n^os 2v^£&»v o rou KXio-ru- /u.if ov r^i-
all value whensoever it is adduced in ros 'lov^ag 'la,Ku^ov. Constit. Apost.
favour of the papal claim of Dominant lib. vii. c. 46.
Supremacy. For, if by any Latin it s The Council of Trent, without a
should be said, that the language of shadow of authority or rather in direct
these two ancient writers, as to the contradiction to all history, strangely
individual who was the frst Dio- defines the Church of Rome to be the
CHAP. UI.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 65
(4.) It may be asked: What, then, are we to understand by
THE More Potent Pbincipality, on account of which, in the
language of Ireneus, every Church should resort to the Church
of Rome ?
Now, whatever we are to miderstand by that expression, it is
quite clear, that we cannot understand by it any Dominant
Supremacy derived to the Roman Pontiffs from the alleged first
Roman Bishop Peter : because Peter himself never personally
occupied the Diocesan Roman Episcopate. But I trust, that
we shall find no great difficulty in giving a quite satisfactory
account of the phraseology employed by Ireneus.
To serve the purpose of his party with the greater effective-
ness, Mr. Berington has thought fit to express the phrase of
Ireneus by the English words Its Supreiie Headship; thus
compelling the venerable Father, in his anglican masquerading
habit, to ascribe to the Roman Church an Universal Domi-
nant Supremacy : and, in order that the context may fitly cor-
respond with this somewhat ample rendering, he teaches that
context to say, that every other Church, that is, the faithful of
ALL COUNTEIES, must have recourse to the Roman Church^.
But good Ireneus himself gives us no such remarkable in-
formation, as that which has been extracted from him by Mr.
Berington. He simply speaks, in manner following.
To this Church, on account of the more potent principality,
it is necessary, that every Church should resort : that is to say,
those faithful individuals, who are ON every side of it. In
Mother of all Churches. Sess. vii. de Sed etin Hierusalem primum fandata
Baptism, can. iii. p. 87. It were Ecclesia totiiis orbis Ecclesias semi-
well, if the Tridentine Fathers had navit. Hieron. Comment, in Esai.
explained to us, how the Eoman ii. 3. Oper. vol. iv. p. 7.
Church can be the Mother of those ' The latin version of Ireneus is :
more ancient Churches which existed Ad banc enim Ecclesiam, I'ropter
before itself was founded. Another ]*otentiorem PRiNcirALiTATEM, ne-
Ecumenieal Council, that of Con- cesse est oninem convenire Eecle-
stantinople, which at least in this siam ; hoe est, eos qui sunt undique
respect bids more fair to be infal- fideles : in qua semper, ab his qui
lible than its successor at Trent, sunt undique, conservata est ea qute
rightly and sensibly defines the un- est ab Apostolis traditio.
doubtedly oldest Church of Jerusalem Mr. Berington's very free transla-
te be the Mother of all Churches. T?j tion runs : For to this Church, ON AC-
li yi fAtiT^os afaeruv ruv 'ExxX^fftu* COUNT OF ITS SUPERIOR HEADSHIP,
Tfis iv 'li^otro'kvfji.oi?. Epist. Synod. everg other must have recourse, that is,
Concil. Constant, ad Damas. apud the faithful of all countries ; in
Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 9. which Church has been presei-ved the
To the same purpose speaks Jerome. doctrine delivered by the Apostles.
F
66 DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM. [bOOK L
which Church, by those who are ON every side of it, tlie
tradition, which is from the Apostles, has always been preserved.
The drift of the passage is abundantly evident : particularly,
when it is explained by the parallel passage in Tertullian,
which I have cited at full length ; though, as I am sorry to
remark, Mr. Berington, in his garbled citation of it, has care-
fully suppressed all notion of its tendency^
In contentions with heretics, the subject alike discussed by
Ireneus and Tertullian, disputes might arise, as to the precise
definition of particular doctrines or as to the strict import of
particular passages in Scripture : for the heretics of the day
were very apt, either to start new doctrines, or to pervert old
doctrines, or to distort various places of Holy Writ from their
true sense in order that God's word might thus be constrained
to favour their own idle speculations.
Now, in this emergency, the rational advice, given by
Ireneus and Tertullian, is : that application should be made to
the Apostolical or Mother Church of the province, where the
dispute occurred ; because there, on account of the more
potent PRINCIPALITY with reference to the rural suffragan
Churches situated round about each Chief Apostolically-Founded
Church, the true doctrine of the Apostolic Founder, whose
identical authentic letters were there preserved, sounding forth
in a manner his very voice, and representing in a manner his
very face, might be learned with the greatest prospect of abso-
lute moral certainty.
Thus, if the dispute occurred in Achaia; recourse might
be had to the Apostolical Mother-Chiu'ch of Corinth: if, in
Macedonia; to Philippi or Thessalonica : if, in proconsular
Asia ; to Ephesus : if, in Italy or in Africa ; to Rome.
All these several Apostolically-Founded Mother-Churches,
in relation to their dependent ecclesiastical daughters which
were seated aroimd them, possessed A more potent princi-
pality ; being, what was technically denominated. Metropolitan
Churches : and to them, according both to primitive discipline
and to right reason, every Church, that is (as Ireneus carefully
explains himself, when speaking of the Metropolitan Province
' See above, book i. chap. 3. § I. 2. (2.) and Berington's Faith of
Cathol. p. 109.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 67
of Rome in particular) every Church of faithful individuals who
were on all sides of an Apostolically-Founded 3f other- Church,
was bound to resort ; because, as he adds, in such a Mother-_
Church as that of Rome, the apostoHc tradition of sound
doctrine had always been carefully preserved.
Ireneus and TertuUian, in short, are alike speaking, not of
any Dominant Universal Supremacy possessed by the Roman
Church in particular, but simply of the best mode of resolving
disputes with heretics : and this, when we recollect the very
early times in which they flourished, they most rationally
determine to be by an application to that special Apostolic See
or Chair, which might happen to be nearest to the place of con-
troversy. Accordingly, Ireneus, speaking from the valuable
knowledge which he possessed through his successive residence
in Asia and in Gaul, states, on his own personal intimacy, that
the same doctrines might be learned at Ephesus by professed
traduction from John, as those which might be learned at Rome
by similarly professed traduction from Paul and from Peter.
Thus, in disputes with innovating heretics, whether recourse
was had to Rome or to Ephesus, the answer, in either case,
would be precisely the same^ This, says the excellent Bishop
of Lyons, himself the disciple of Polycarp the scholar of
St. John: This is a most full demonstration, that there is one
and the same vivifying faith, which, in the Church, has been pre-
served and handed down in truth, from the Apostles even to the
present time, — For the Church at Ephesus, founded indeed ori-
ginally by Paul, but having Mm permanently residing among its
members even so late as the days of Trajan, is a true witness
of that vjhich ivas delivered by the Apostles'^.
(5.) The language of TertuUian will serve also to explain
that of Cyprian, when he speaks of the Chair of Peter,
Some latin theologians appear, from this phrase, to have
fondly concluded, that Cyprian is a witness for the Diocesan
Roman Episcopate of Peter. But the phrase imports nothmg
of the sort. Every Apostolically-Founded Church was deemed
' See Iren. adv. heer. lib. iii. c. 3. Ecclesia a Paulo quidem fimdata,
'^ Et est plenissima hffic ostensio, loanne autem permanente aputl
unam et eandem vivificatricem fidem eos usque ad Trajani tempora, tes-
esse, quiB in Ecclesia ab Apostolis tis est verus Apostolorum tradi-
usque nunc sit conservata et trndita tionis. Iren. adv. htn\ lib. iii. c. -J.
in vevitate. — Sed et qui^ est Ephesi p. 171, 172.
68 DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM. [bOOK I,
the Chair or Seat or (in our modern derivative Enghsh) See
of the particular Apostle who founded it. Accordingly, as
we have noted, the phrase is, by Tertullian, thus applied to all
the several Churches of Smyrna, Rome, Corinth, Philippi,
Thessalonica, and Ephesus. In each of them alike is the Chair
of an Apostle : in Rome, certainly, among the rest ; but not in
Rome more than in any other Apostolically-Founded Church.
Thus, in Rome, as Cyprian speaks, was the Chair of Peter ;
or, as Ireneus (according to his testimony) would express him-
self, in Rome was the Chair of Peter and Paul conjointly:
and thus, in Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus,
respectively, was to be found the Chair of Paul. But, in none
of these cases, did the phrase imply, that the Apostolic Founder
of any one of those Churches was also its first Diocesan Bishop.
The expression uniformly relates to the Apostle in question, not
as a Diocesan Bishop, but as the original Founder.
I need scarcely to add, that Cyprian styles the Church of
Rome THE PRINCIPAL CHURCH, precisely as Ireneus ascribes to it
THE MORE POTENT PRINCIPALITY'. As a Churcll of ApOStoHc
Foundation, it was the Principal Church in reference to Italy
and Africa: it contained, as Tertallian speaks, the nearest
Apostolic Chair, to which, in disputes with heretics, Italy and
Africa might, for the settlement of a doctrinal controversy by
an appeal to the then indisputable fact of unbroken and well-
authenticated apostolic interpretation, have quick and ready
and easy recourse^.
' The romish commentator Rigal- citTJ^/i/'y, which every Apostolic Church
tius gives a somewhat different inter- enjoyed with reference to her de-
pretation of the phrase of Cyprian : pendent daughters seated immedi-
but it is equally unfavourable to the ately round about her.
claims of his Church. Latterly, the Roman Church has
Ecclesia Principalis; id est, in urbe thought good to appropriate to herself
principali constituta. Rigalt. in loc. the style and title of the Apostolic See :
For the evident basis of this inter- but the language of earlier and better
pretation, see below, book ii. chap. 3. ages readily detects this innovating
§ II. 3. (1.) usurpation. The Diocesan Church
* Augustine unites both the ex- of Rome is no more specially the Apo-
pressions in a single sentence. stolic See, than any other Diocesan
In Romana Ecclesia semper Apo- Church founded by an Apostle: and
stolicce Cathedra viguit Principatus. the plurality of the Cathedra Apo-
August. Epist. 162. stolorum of Tertullian had not been
Here, the Apostolical Chair is the forgotten in the days of Augustine.
Chair of Peter, hecBMHe Peter was the Christiana Societas, per Sedes
reputed co-founder of the Roman Apostolorum et successiones Epi-
Church : and the Principality is, as scoporum, certa per orbem propaga-
Ireneus speaks, the More Potent Prin- tione diffunditur. August, Epist. 42.
CHAP, m.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
69
(6.) A modern Divine of the Latin Church, Mr. Husenbeth,
has indeed, with his wonted idle humour of declamatory exag-
geration, broadly asserted : that all ecclesiastical writers, with-
out ONE EXCEPTION, during the space of fifteen entire centuries ^^
have, uniformly and unanimously, attested the fact of the
Diocesan Roman Episcopate of St. Peter ^.
What these ecclesiastical writers may have done during the
latter part of those fifteen centuries, is a matter of the least
possible consequence in regard to historical testimony : Mr.
Husenbeth, however, declares, that they are equally explicit
dming the three first centuries also. Papias, Ignatius, Ireneus,
Dionysius of Corinth, Caius, Clement of Alexandria, Tertul-
lian, Origen, and Cyprian, all, no doubt, flourished in the course
of the three earliest ages : and they ALL, with one voice, at least
so says Mr. Husenbeth, distinctly and explicitly teach us, that
Peter was the first Diocesan Bishop of Rome 2.
I allow this author credit for having given moderately specific
references to his formidable list o^ primitive vouchers : but I find
no small difficulty in accounting for the very singular fact, that
such references should ever, even in the way of common pru-
I somewhat marvel, that Mr. Be-
rington has not adduced the appa-
rently splendid titles of Pontifex
Maximus and Episcopvs Episcoporum^
which Tertullian bestows upon the
Roman Bishop, as a clear proof of
the early acknowledged Universal
Supremacy of that Prelate. Tertull.
de pudic. Oper. p. 742. Probably he
was aware, that, in the first ages,
Pontifex Maximus or Summus Pon-
tifex or Summus Sacerdos or Princeps
Saccrdotum were un distinguishing
titles of all members of the Episcopal
Order : while Episcopus Episcoporum
Avas the accurate and fitting style of
every Metropolitan or every Bishop
of a principal Apostolic Church sur-
rounded by smaller dependent suf-
fragan Churches, Under this willing
belief, I cheerfully give Mr. Berington
credit for having acted like an honest
man ; a far more respectable title, than
that of a plausible controvertist.
' Husenbeth's Def. of the Creed
and Discip, of the Cath. Church,
chap. ii. p. 42.
2 Mr. White had stated: that the
belief that St. Peter had been Bishoj)
of Rome, ivas an idle and ungrounded
repiort.
Whereupon Mr. Husenbeth re-
marks : It is deplorable to see a licen-
tiate in divinity attempt thus to impose
upon such humble readers as have no
means of examining History, by such
worn-out fallacies and vile fabrications
as these. Def. of the Creed, chap. ii.
p. 41, 42.
In this strain of virulent invective,
as if indecent abuse and hardy asse-
veration might supply the place of
argument and testimony, Mr. Husen-
beth specially delights to expatiate.
The question is : whether Mr.
White who denied the Roman Episco-
pate of Peter, or Mr. Husenbeth who
has asserted it on the professed con-
stant testimony of all ecclesiastical
writers without one exception for fif-
teen centuries, has the more un-
dauntedly attempted to impose upon
such humble readers as have no means
of examining History.
70
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I.
dence, have been given^ Not one of the writers, adduced and
referred to by Mr. Husenbeth as his decisive witnesses of the
three first centuries, says a single syllable respecting the Dio-
cesan Roman Episcopate of Peter'^. All are profoundly silent ;
where the more zealous than discreet Defender of the Latin
Creed and Discipline assures his readers, that they are preemi-
nently eloquent. In truth, the silly tale rests not upon a shadow
of historical foundation ; and the early testimony both of Ireneus
and of the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, though the
unfortunate Ireneus has actually been summoned by Mr. Hu-
' Mr. Husenbeth's references to his
witnesses of the three first centuries
are given in manner following.
Papias apud Eiiseb, Hist. Eccles.
lib. ii. c. 14. Ignat. Epist. ad Kom.
Ireneus, in Iren. adv. hwr. lib.iii. c. 3.
Dionysius of Corinth, apud Euseb.
Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 24. Caius and
Clement of Alexandria, apud Euseb.
Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 14, 15. Orig.
lib. iii. in Genesim. Tertull. de prse-
script. c. 32. Cyprian, epist. 55. ad
Cornel. Pap.
As a bait for hard readers, he adds,
without giving any reference, in the
capacity of witnesses for the fourth
and fifth centuries, Ambrose, Jerome,
Augustine, Eusebius, Lactantius, The-
odoret, Sulpicius Severus, Cyril of Je-
rusalem, Chrysostom, and Athanasius.
Mr. Husenbeth, I conclude, had
never read the AVork of the old His-
torian of Treves ; or he would not
have failed to give us some ingenious
solution of the following locus vexa-
tissimus.
Fundata atque redificata Komanse
Urbis Ecclesia super firmissimam
petram, qui est christus, fidelis no-
mine Petri. Histor. Trevirens. circ.
A.D. 1122, in Dacher. Spicil. vol. xii.
p. 196.
' When I first pointed out this dis-
creditable attempt to impose upon
the unsuspecting confidence of the
English Laity, Mr. Husenbeth, in
reply, made a brief and somewhat dry
acknowledgment : that the places,
referred to by him as specifically at-
testing the personal Eoman Episco-
pate of Peter, do not all say, totidem
verbis, that Peter was Bishop of Rome.
Pamph. p. 54.
What means he by this word aij. ?
Would he insinuate, that some do, and
some do not, assert Peter's Roman
Episcopate i Not one of them says
a single xcord about it : not one of
them throws out even so much as a
hint.
By way of salvo, however, he now
assures us : that, From their concur-
rent testimonies, without one being
FOUND to deny THE SAME, it WaS
clear; that St. Peter was at Rome, was
bishop of eome, and was martyred at
Rome. Pamph. p. 55.
Certainly, they vouch for the two
facts: that Peter ivas at Rome; and
that Peter was martyred at Rome. But
WHERE, either singly or collectively,
do they vouch for the additional third
fact: that peter was bishop of
ROME ; a fact, without a shadow of evi-
dence ingeniously wedged by Mr. Hu-
senbeth between the other two ?
Not one can be found to de-
ny IT, responds this prince of logi-
cians.
True: and, on the same most satis-
factory principle, I will undertake to
prove, that Alexander the Great was
the first king of Rome. Not one
ancient historian can be found to
deny it.
Before Mr. Husenbeth next mytho-
logises on the personal Romaji Epi-
scopate of Peter, I would recommend
to his serious attention the strongly
expressed judgment of the learned
Scaliger.
De Petri Romam adventu, sede xxv
annorum, supremo capitis supplicio
ibidem, nemo, qui paiillo humanior
fuerit, credere posset. Seal, in Joan,
xviii. 31.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 71
seiibeth as one of his witnesses, is, as we have seen, altogether
fatal to the miserable legend*.
(7.) Mr. Berington contents himself with stating, as the
belief of his brethren : that peculiar powers were given to St.-
Peter; and that the Bishop of Rome, as his successor, is the
Head of the whole Catholic Church^.
Such is the statement given by Mr. Berington : but I must
do him the justice to say, that he is far too prudent a man to
hazard the specific declaration of Mr. Husenbeth, relative to
the constant testimony of all ecclesiastical writers, without one
EXCEFTio^, for fifteen centuries: a declaration, so far as the three
first ages are concerned, rendered imposing indeed to the care-
less or unlearned reader by a parade of distinct reference ; but
a declaration, absolutely ludicrous to the more jealous inquirer,
who refuses to accept hardy assertion without actual verifica-
tion.
V. The singular scantiness of Mr. Berington's evidence,
from the writers of the three first centuries, for the establish-
ment of an alleged fact, without a belief in which (according to
the Tridentine Profession) we shall doubtless perish everlast-
ingly, will have struck all who are acquainted even with the
bare names of the Antenicene Fathers. He adduces only
Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian. With what emolu-
ment he adduces this quaternion of witnesses, we have already
seen.
' The figment seems to have been the first so/e Bishop of Rome. Hence
crawling into existence during the the two Co-Founders of Ireneus be-
latter part of the fourth centmy: came, in the plastic hands of Epipha-
for, in a whimsically imperfect form, nius, the two first Co-Bishops.
we find it in the writings of Epi- If we admit this ridiculous story,
phanius who flourished about that how shall we save the infallibility of
period. the first Nicene Council: which, in
This author tells us, that Peter and despite of Apostolical authority and
Paul conjointly, acting in the two-fold example, has determined, that there
capacity of Diocesan Bishops and Uni- shall not be two Bishops in one city?
versal Apostles, were the first Co- "Iva, f^h Iv r? toXu ^uo IrivKo^oi utriv.
Bishops of Rome : and he adds, that, Concil. Nic' I. Can. ^dii. The truth
at the expiration of their double Epi- was, the good Fathers of Nice knew
scopate, Linus became their successor. no more, than Ireneus himself, about
Epiph. cont. hser. hser. xxvii. the double Roman Episcopate of Paul
The origin of the anile fiction is and Peter. If they had, we should
abundantly plain. Ireneus had stated, assuredly have detected the remark-
that Peter and Paul were the Co- able fact in the Ecclesiastical History
Founders of the Roman Church. of their contemporary and associate,
Peter, therefore, could not be decently Eusebius of Cesar^a.
and instantaneously transformed into ■' Faith of Cathol. p. 155.
72 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
Yet why should he have omitted Clement of Rome (himself
a host in attesting, if he ever had attested, the familiar Domi-
nant Supremacy of his own See^), and Barnabas, and Hermas,
and Ignatius, and Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, and Tatian,
and Athenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria, and Minucius
Felix, and Hippolytus, and Novatian, and Theophilus of An-
tioch : for I will not rigidly call upon him to produce evidence
out of the fragments of Caius, or Hegesippus, or Melito, or
Archelaus, or Theonas, or the three Dionysii of Corinth and
Rome and Alexandria ?
The simple truth is, that neither Scripture nor Primitive
Antiquity gives the least countenance to the childish fable, that
our Lord appointed Peter the Monarch of his Church, and
that the Bishop of Rome is the Rightful Heir to the alleged
Universal Dominant Supremacy of the Holy Apostle.
' The Bishop of Strasbourg has de saint Pierre d'interposer son auto-
a strong inclination to enlist the rite.
venerable Clement into the service TheBishop,then,gravely calls upon
of liis Church : but Mr, Berington, his english friend to note this primi-
far more prudently, leaves him undis- live instance of an appeal to the Chair
turbed. of Peter.
His lordship's account of the trans- Remarquez,je vous prie, ce recours a
action, whence he would deduce the la Chaire de Pierre, des les premiers
plain Supremacy of Clement, is: that temps. Disc. Am.lett. ii. vol. i. p. 43.
Fortunatus came to Kome from Co- From what part of Clement's Epis -
rinth, for the purpose of requesting tie, or from what other authentic
the Head of the Catholic Church and source. Dr. Trevem has learned, that
the Successor of St. Peter to interpose Fortunatus requested Clement to in-
his authority and thus to put an end terpose his supreme authority at Co-
to the schisraatical dissentions of the rinth, and that this is an instance of
Corinthians. appeal to St. Peter's Chair from the
Le venerable Fortunatus — se rend earliest times ; I hare not been able
a Rome pour solliciter le Successeur to discover.
CHAPTER IV.
TRANSUBSTAI^TIATION.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation, after having been briefly
asserted by the second Council of Nice in the year 787, and
after having been copiously though still imperfectly defined by
the fourth Council of Lateran in the year 1215, was at length,
with all its adjuncts and concomitants, fully specified and laid
down, by the Council of Trent, during the course of its
thirteenth session in the year 1551, and during the course
of its twenty-second session in the year 1562 ^
In the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to this last and
most complete account of the matter, after the consecration of
bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man,
' It may perhaps be doubtful, whe-
ther the second Nicene Council wished
to inculcate Transubstantiation or Con-
substantiation. At all events, it de-
nied the bread and wine to be the
image of the body and blood : and
contended, that they are the very body
and blood themselves.
Ovhiis yi^ vrori ruv traX'rlyyuv rou
Tlvivfjbu.'roi ayiMv ccffoirro'kav , h tuv
cioih'i(ji,uv Tavi^uv vifiuv, rJjv avxifActxTov
}iju,eiv 6v<ritt.v — sTiTSV sixova roZ ifeufjiOCTos
avroZ. — K«) oIik tt'jri' Aoifhtri^ (ficiysTS,
rriv ilxova rou ffu[/.aros fjt,ov, — Ovxovv
ffu.(pus a.-rohihiixrctif on ov^aftov ailn o
Ktj^iof, ovn 01 ec^oa-rokoi rl •raTt^ts, tl-
x'nva. uTov r»!v S/a <rov h^iug T^o(r<p%^o-
fjkivyiv avKifia.x'Tov 6v(na,v, aXX' ahro aifjuot,.
Concil. Nic. II. act. vi. Labb. Concil.
vol. vii. p. 448, 449.
The fourth Council of Lateran,
speaking more precisely than the
second Council of Nice, determined,
that the alleged material change in
the elements, is not consubstantiative
but transubstantiative : for it decided,
that the bread and wine are, by virtue
of consecration, transubstantiated into
the body and blood of Christ.
Una vero est fidelium Universalis
Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino
salvatur. In qua idem ipse sacerdos
et sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus
corpus et sanguis in sacramento al-
taris sub speciebus panis et vini ve-
raciter continentur : transubstantiatis
pane in corpus, et vino in sanguinem,
potestate divina, ut ad perficienduna
mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi
de suo quod accipit ipse de nostro.
Concil. Later. IV. can I. Labb. Con-
cil. vol. xi. par. 1. p. 143.
74 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
is, truly and really and substantially, cotitained, under the species
of those sensible objects : so that, immediately after consecration,
the true body and the true blood of our Lord, together ivith his
soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and icine : for,
by the very force of the words themselves, the blood exists U7ider
the species of the wine ; and the body, under the species of the bread.
But, furthemnore, by virtue of that natural connection and con-
comitance, through ivhich the parts of the Lord, after his resur-
rection from the dead, are mutually joined together, the body exists
under the species of the wine, the blood exists under the species of
the bread, and the soul exists under the species both of the bread
and of the ivine. The divinity, m^oreover, on account of its ad-
mirable hypostatic union with the body and the soul, sifnilarly
exisfjS alike under each species. Wherefore, under each species
and under both species, so 'much as even the whole is contained.
For the entire Christ exists, both under the species of bread, and
under each particle of that species : and the entire Chiist exists,
both under the species of icine, and under all the particles of that
species. Hence, through the consecration of the bread and ivine,
there takes place a conversioti of the whole substance of the bread
into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ, and of the whole
substance of the wine into the substance of his blood, : ivhich con-
version is p7vperly and conveniently denominated Transubstantia-
tion.
Of this doctrine, the practical result is the following.
All the faithfid are bound to offer to the Eucharist that same
adoration of Latria, which is paid to the Deity : for such adora-
tion rests upon the belief, that in that sacrament there is substantially
present the Filial God, concerning whom the Father pronounced.
Let all the angels of God worship him. And, analogously, in
point of beneficial efficacy, the Eucharist, being the identical sacri-
fice which Christ offered upon the cross, must be deemed a true
propitiatory sacrifice, making satisfaction, each time that it is
offered, not only for the living, but likewise for the dead in the
Lord who have not as yet been fully purified^
' Principio docet sancta Synodus, verum Deum atque hominem, vere,
et aperte ac simpliciter profitetur, in realiter, ac substantialiter, sub specie
almo sanctae Eucharislife Sacramento, illanim rerum sensibiliuni contineri.
post panis et \ini consecrationem, — Ita enim majores nostri omnes,
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, quotquot in vera Christi Ecclesiafue-
CHA1\ IV. J
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
75
On this ample definition, the Council of Trent has built four
out of its eleven canons respecting the sacrament of the Eu-
charist and two out of its nine canons respecting the sacrifice
of the Mass : and it anathematises every person, who either
shall deny any one of the propositions contained in its definition,
or who shall assert propositions contradictory to it^
I. We must note, that the Tridentine Fathers have given
the whole of the preceding definition, not simply and nakedly,
but complexly and traditionally.
They declare, that all their predecessors, whosoever were
in the true Church of Christ, have invariably professed the
runt, qui de sanctissimo hoc Sacra-
mento disseruerunt, apertissimfe pro-
fess! sunt, hoc tam admirabile sacra-
men turn in ultima coenaRedemptorem
nostrum instituisse ; cum post panis
vinique benedictionem, se suum ipsius
corpus illis prabere ac suum san-
guinem, disertis ac perspicuis verbis
testatus est. Concil. Trident, sess.
xiii. c. 1. p. 122, 123.
Semper h^c fides in Ecclesia
Dei fuit, statim post consecrationem,
verum Domini nostri corpus verum-
que ejus sanguinem, sub panis et
vini specie, una cum ipsius anima et
divinitate, existere. Sed corpus qui-
dem sub specie panis, et sanguinem
sub vini specie, ex vi verborum. Ip-
sum autem corpus sub specie vini, et
sanguinem sub specie panis, animam-
que sub utraque, vi naturalis illius
connexionis et concomitantise, qua
partes Christi Domini, qui jam ex
mortuis resurrexit non amplius mori-
turus, inter se copulantur: divinita-
tem porro, propter admirabilem illam
ejus cum corpore et anima hypostati-
cam unionem. Quapropter verissi-
mum est, tantundem sub alterutra
specie atque sub utraque contineri:
totus enim et integer Christus, sub
panis specie et sub quavis ipsius
speciei parte ; totus item, sub vini
specie et sub ejus partibus, existit.
Ibid. c. 3. p. 124, 125.
Quoniam autem Christus redemptor
noster, corpus suum id, quod sub
specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit :
ideo PEiisuASUM semper in Ecclesia
Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta
hsec Synodus declarat ; per consecra-
tionem panis et vini, conversionem
fieri totius substantias panis in sub-
stantiam corporis Christi Domini nos-
tri, et totius substantise vini in sub-
stantiam sanguinis ejus ; quse con-
versio convenienter et proprie a sancta
Cathohca Ecclesia Transnhstantiatio
est appellata. Ibid. c. 4. p. 125.
Nuilus itaque dubitandi locus re-
linquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles,
PRO MORE IN CaTHOLICA EcCLESIA SEM-
PER RECEPTO, latrise cultum, qui vero
Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sacra-
mento in veneratione exhibeant. Ne-
que enim ideo minus est adorandum,
quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut su-
matur,institutum : nam ilium eundem
Deum praesentem in eo adesse credi-
mus, quem Pater seternus, intro-
ducens in orbem terrarum, dicit, Et
adorent eum omnes angeli Dei. Ibid,
c. 5. p. 125, 126.
Et, quoniam in divino hoc sacrificio
quod in Missa peragitur, idem ille
Christus continetur et incruente im-
molatur, qui in ara crucis semel seip-
sum cruente obtulit, docet sancta
Synodus, sacrificium istud vere pro-
pitiatorium esse. — Una enim eadem-
que est hostia, idem nunc offerens
sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum
tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi
ratione diversa. — Quare non solum
pro fidelium vivorum peccatis, poenis,
satisfactionibus, et aliis necessitati-
bus ; sed et pro defunctis in Christo,
nondum ad plenum purgatis ; rite,jux-
TA Apostolorum traditionem, offer-
tur. Ibid. sess. xxii. c. 2. p. 239,
240.
' Concil. Trident, sess. xiii. can. 1,
2, 3, 4, p. 129, 130. sess. xxii. can.
1, 3. p. 244.
76 DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [bOOK I.
same doctrine with themselves : they assert, that iJm very faith,
namely /a^^7i in Transuhstantiatio7i as they have defined it, was
ALWAYS in the Chm'ch of God : they affirm, that the adoration
of the Eucharist, with that worship of Latvia which is due only
to the true God, was a practice always received in the Church
Catholic ; and they pronoimce, that the propitiatory quality of
the Eucharist, as a piacular sacrifice both for the quick and for
the dead, is enforced by them strictly according to the teach-
ing and tradition of the Apostles themselves.
Thus, most indisputably, in the face of the whole world,
they allege A direct historical fact. Hence, the fact, so
alleged, must be established according to the well-known laws
of evidence : and hence the Divines of the Latin Church, feel-
ing the necessity of the case, have attempted to establish this
fact by the joint testimony of Scripture and of the Early Eccle-
siastical Writers.
1. The following is the evidence produced from Scripture,
for the purpose of substantiating the alleged fact: that The
doctrine of Transuhstantiation with all its adjuncts and concomi-
tants, as ultimately defined by the Council of Trent, was the
doctrine, originally taught by Ch'tnst and his Apostles, and from
them received by the Catholic Church in the very beginning.
(1.) I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. If
any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the bread,
that I will give, is my flesh ; which I will give for the life of the
world. — Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his
blood ; ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and
drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: and I will 7nise him up
at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed : and my blood is
drink indeed. He, that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,
dwelUth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent
me, and I live by the Father : so he, that eateth me, shall even
live by me. This is the bread, which came down from heaven :
not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He, that
eateth of this bread, shall live for ever^.
(2.) And, as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed,
and brake, and gave the disciples, and said : Take, eat ; this is
my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to
' John vi. 51-58.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 77
them, saying : Dnnk ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for m^any for the remission of sins ^.
(3.) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the coin-
munion of the blood of Christ f Tlie bread which we break, is it
not the communion of the body of Christ^ ?
(4.) For I have received of the Lord that which also I de-
livered unto you : that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which
he was betrayed, took bread : and, when he had given thanks, he
brake, and said : Take, eat ; this is my body, ivhich is broken for
you ; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner
also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying : This cup is
the new testament in my blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,
in remembrance of me. For, as often as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord^s death till he come ^.
(5.) I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts :
neither will L accept an offering at your hand. For, from the
rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, my name shall
be great among the Gentiles : and, in every place, incense shall be
offered unto my name, and a pure offering"^,
(6.) We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat
which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose
blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are
burned without the camp. Wherefore, Jesus also, that he might
sanctify the people with his oivn blood, suffered without the gate^,
* Matt. xxAd. 20-28. Compare Mark gathered teansubstantiated bread.
xiv. 22-24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. On this he argues : that (the manna,
' I Corinth, x. 16. like Melchizedek's hread and wine,
3 I Corinth, xi. 23-20. being typical of the Eucharist), since
* Malach. i. 10, 11. the type manna experienced transub-
' Heb. xiii. 10-12. Mr. Berington, stantiation, the antitype bread and
likewise, evidentially adduces Acts wine must assuredly do the same,
xiii. 2. Eev. v. 0, 8-10. I omit This exposition is remarkably con-
crowding my page with these texts, firmed by the second text. The
simply because I cannot discover in manna, he assures us, is there de-
them the slightest relevancy. nominated the hread of members.
There are, however, yet two other Now whence could originate this sin-
texts, which may possibly do good gular appellation ? Doubtless from
service, though they are pretermitted the foreseen circumstance, that, under
alike by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Ber- the species of bread, the members of
ington. Their feUow-religionist, de Christ were about to exist. Observ.
Voisin, claims to have established the in Proeem. Kaymund. Martin. Pug.
doctrine of Transubstantiation from Fid. p. 189.
Exod. xvi. 22 and Psalm Ixxviii. 25. I have been careful in giving my
In the first of these two texts, if reference, lest, like Mr. Husenbeth,
we may credit do Voisin, Moses states : I should be charged with romancing,
that, on the fiixih day, the Isradite.t See above, book i. chap. 8. § III. 1. (2.)
78 DIBFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
2. Such is the evidence produced by the Romish Divines
from Scripture : and the cautious reader will doubtless have
observed a very glaring deficiency in it. Not a single text has
been brought forward in order to establish two very important
concomitants of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation : the dogma,
that The Host is strictly a Piacular Sacrifice as contradistin-
guished from an Eucharistic Oblation; and the dogma, that The
transubstantiated Elements ought to be adored ivith the very icorship
of Lat^'ia which is due exclusively to the Deity^.
I now pass on to the evidence, produced, for the same pur-
pose of establishing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation with
its adjuncts, from the ecclesiastical writers of the three first
centuries.
(1.) Clement of Rome, the fellow -labourer of St. Paul,
flourished during the course of the first age.
We ought to do all things in order, ivhatsoever the Lord has
commanded y^ to perform. He has ccnnmanded, that our oblations
and liturgies should be performed at appointed seasons, and not be
made accidentally or disorderly. — They, therefore, who tnake their
oblations at the appointed seasons, are acceptable and blessed : for,
following the laws of the Lord, they err not^,
(2.) Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, flourished at the latter
end of the first century and at the beginning of the second.
' As a scriptural proof that The of the Burdigalensian Divines gives,
Mass is strictly a Piacular Sacrifice, as the faithful exposition of its true
according to the dogmatic teaching import, In the latter times some shall
of the Church of Kome, neither Mr. apostatise from the Faith of rome.
Berington nor Dr. Trevem nor yet Thus, what, from the attendant de-
the Intrepidity of Mr. Husenbeth has scription of character, some have
ventured to allege the text in Acts deemed a prediction of a great Komish
xiii. 2. Yet, if we receive the pro- Apostasy, turns out to be a prophecy
posed rendering in the Bourdeaux of the palpable Apostasy of us Pro-
New Testament, we shall have the testant Heretics. The Latin Vulgate,
dogma securely established on the however, knows nothing of the im-
solid basis of Scripture. The word portant addition of rome. In novis-
Xtirov^yovvreov, which there occurs, simis temporibiis discedent quidam ajide.
our less ambitious English version ^ Uocvra, rdlsi touTv o(piiXo//.iv, oa-x
explains by As they ministered; and o h/r-rorm i-TrinXitv WiXivfiv. Kara
even the Latin Vulgate gives Minis- kui^ous nrx'yf^.ivous rag n 'pr^o<r(po^»{
trantibus illis, as its true sense. But xa) Xsirav^ylxs i-rinXuir^ai, xa.) oIk
the Bourdeaux Theologians translate ilx^ « arotKrus ixixivaiv ylnffSai. —
it When they had offered up the Sacii- O'l ' oZv to7s -roo(rriTa.yi/.ivots xai^oT;
Jice of the Mass. I have already no- -roiovvns ras cr^ao-^o^a? ulruv, ivT^otr-
ticed their equally free translation of %ixtoI n xa.) /zaxa^ior roTs y»^ vof/,t-
the clause in 1 Tim. iv. 1. St. Paul ^0/5 rod hf-roTou ixoXov0ovvTis ol het-
wrote 'E» iiffTi^otf xoci^o7f iTaffrnffovrxi f^et^Tuvovo-iv. Clem. Rom. Epist, ad
rms TVS -rliTTiui: but the ingenuity Corinth, i. §40.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 79
The gnosticising Docetce abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer : because they confess not, that the Euchayist is the flesh of
our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the
Father raised up through his goodness. They, therefore, who
contradict the gift of God, perish while questioning^.
I delight not in perishable food, nor in the pleasures of this life.
The bread of God I desire, heavenly bi^ead, the bread of life, which
is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born afterwav'd from
the seed of David : and the drink of God I desire, even his blood,
which is incorimptible love and eternal life'^,
(3.) Justin Martyr flourished during the earlier half of the
second century.
This food is among us called the Eucharist : of ivhich it is
lawful for no other person to partake, save him, who believes that
the matters taught by us at^e true, and who has been washed in the
laver which is for the remission of sins and in order to regenera-
tion, and who lives thus as Christ has delivered. For we take not
these, as common bread nor as common drink : but, in what man-
ner Jesus Christ our Saviour, being made flesh through the word
of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation ; thus also we
have been taught, that the nourishment, over which thanks have
been given through prayer of the word that was from him, and
from which our flesh and blood are through mutation nourished, is
the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the
Apostles, in the T'reatises called Gospels, have thus handed down
that Jesus commanded them. When he had taken bread and had
given thanks, he said : Do this in remembrance of me ; this is my
body. And, in like manner, ivhen he had taken the cup and had,
given thanks, he said : This is my blood^.
^ivrai, ha to f^h ofiaXeyiTv ryiv tv^a- Ignat. Epist. ad Eom. § vii.
^iffrtav ffot^Ka uvoti rov ffurin^oi })fM/v * 'H r^oiph etiirrt KetXtTrui <7ra.p iifM*
'IniroZ X^iffTotJ, rm v<rt^ a,/>c.a.^Tta>v fifi.cuv tv^u^ia-Tioi' ris ovliu a\kiu furxir^tiv
Tx6oZffoe,v, riv rJj ^^mTornri o Har^^ 'i^ov iffriv, n tu ^ttrnuovTi iX*i6ri it»ai
nyu^iv. Ol ouv avTiXiyovTii tjJ da^ia roc, oi^ihayfAiva, «^' rif^uv, xai Xov(ra/u,iv<u
rov Siov, ffv^vrovvrti avoiynffxovffi. Ig- to v-jrio a,<^iiriek)5 a.fjt,a,^riuv xat lis a-vet-
nat. Epist. ad Smyrn. § vii. yivvtia-tv Xovr^ov, xa) ovrus (itovvn m o
' Ob^ ridof/,a.i r^o^ri (pio^ocf, ehoi rido- 'K.oitrros Ta^ituxtv. Ov yap, us xetvov
vats "Tov liiev rouroV a^rov Biou fiku, a^rov ovTi xotvov TofAa, raZra Xafifiavo-
u^Tov oh^avitv, a^rov Z,earts, os i^n ffa^\ fnv' dkk', ov t^otov ha koyou StoZ tra^-
IfltroZ X^iffrov, rov Tiou rev Stov, rov xo-roinSits 'l^ffoZs Xpitrros, o ffurv^ ilf^eHv,
yivofAivov iv virri^M \k ffvi^fiares Aa/3/J" xa) ra^xa xa) aifjLa vTi^ <rurti^ia{ fifiuiv
xa) TOfAoc, SioZ itku, ro atfjta avrov, iff^tv ovrus xa) rnv S/' iv^s koyou
80 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
Being inflamed through the word of his calling , we are the true
sacerdotal offsjjritig of God : as also God himself witnesses, saying,
that, in every place among the nations, they offer unto him accept-
able and pure sacrifices. But God receives sacrifices from no one,
except through his priests. Wherefore, predicting all who through
this name offer the sacrifice which Jesus Christ ordained to he
offered, that is to say, in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup,
which sacrifices are offered up by Christians in every part of
the earth, God testifies, that they are well pleasing to him. But
the sacrifices, which are offered by you Jews and through your
priests, he rejects, saying : I ivill not accept your sacrifices from
your hands ; for, from the rising of the sun unto its setting,
my name has been glorified among the nations. — Wherefore I
also myself say, that prayers and thanksgivings, offered up by
the worthy, are the only sacrifices, which are perfect and accept-
able to God. For Christians have been taught to offer these
alone, even in the commemorativeness of their dry and liquid
food, in which also commemoration is made of the passion which
God suffered through God himself^.
(4.) Ireneus lived through the greater part of the second
century, and wrote his Work against heresies about the
year 175.
Giving counsel to his disciples, that they should offer unto God
the first-fruits of his creatures, not as if he wanted any thing,
hut that they themselves might he neither unfruitful nor un-
rov •Tftt.^ tthrov iv^a^itrmhTtruv r^o(phv, U^iuv avrou. Tlavras ovv ol ^la, roZ ovo-
l| vi ceJfia »a) tra^Kts xara f/.ir«(iok7jv fcarog rovrou dutrlas £$ -ru^i^MXiv 'itiffovs
T(^i(pivrce,i fifAuv, ixiivov rov ffa^KOToin- o 'K^itrrog ytvifffieti, revricmv Itt) tjj iv^a-
6'ivTos 'Infou xa) tra^Ka xa) tt,l//.a, iotoa,^- ^itrrla, rod k^tou xa.) tov <zraT9i^iov, Tag Iv
6n(i,iv uvui. Oi ya,^ oc^offroXoi, Iv ro7s Tavr) totm r»is y^i ytvofiivas vto tZv
ytvofAtvots «5r' at/ruv a'^ofiVfifiovsvfAxcriv a 'K.^ttrriavuv, <;r^oXa(luv o Oiof, (Ji,a,prvpi7
xaXtTrai ilayyiXitx,, oSraig ^a.^zhuxa,v iia.^iffrovi b-Tta^y^uv uvrS. Toes 1\ v(p'
ivrtTa.X6a,t avToTg tov *l*iir6vv, kafiovra Vfjcm xa.) ^t ixiivuv vf/,uv ruv h^iuv yivo-
a^Tov, ih^oc^tarTr,a-a,vra., tl-^ilv' Touro /u,ivKs a^avccivirat, X'syuv' Ka.) rag 6vffias
9rtit7ri us TfiV ocvuf^v^fftv ftou' tout Itrri vfjt.uv ol '^^ocrti^ofji.a.i Ix reuv ^upuv hfJMiyr
TO irufAo, (jtou' xa.), ro '^qtyi^ioi e/u,Oio)g ^lori, a^o avaraXjjs yiktev 'lug ^ufffAuv, ro
Xa^ovTo, xa) il^a^iffT^ffavra,, ii-ruV Taw- ovofid, fjt,ov ^i^'n^u 1770.1, x'tyu, iv 7o7g 'iSviffiv,
TO iffri TO aif^a. fiov. Justin. Apol. i. — "Oti fAv ovv xa.) tv^a.) xa) iv^a^nrriat,
Oper. p. 76, 77. vto tuv u^iuv ytvo/u.svxi, TiXtiai /u,ovxi xa)
Uv^ufiVTig ^ta. TOV Xoyou T»]g xXvi- iva^iffTol tlffi rZ @sm ^utrtat, xa) uvTcg
atug uvTov, a^^ii^aTixov to aXtj&tvov tp'/ifii. Tavra yap fJi.ova xa) X^ia-Ttavo)
yivog ifff^iv TOV &iov, ug Ka) avTog ^a^iXa^ov 'ffon7v, xa) It' ava^vntnt 1\ rng
Slog f^a^Tv^si, UTTuv' Oti, iv TavT) to-^u T^oipr/g avTav ^'Apag ti xa) iiy^ag, iv ^ xa)
iv To7g 'ihifft, Svff'tag tva^ia-Tovg avTu xa) tov "^adovg TiTTovh %i uvtov &iog tov
xa6et,^ag 'r^o(r(pi^ovTig. Ov %i^tTai Vi -jfa^ &bov. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. Oper.
ov^ivog fivtriag ©ssj u f/.yi 5;« tuv p. 269, 270,
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 81
grateful, he took the creature bread, and gave thanks, saying :
This is my body. And, in like manner, the cup, which accord-
ing to us is of the creature, he confessed to be his own blood : and
taught the new oblation of the Neio Testament, which the Churchy
receiving it from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the
whole world, even to him who in the New Testament grants unto
us for food the first-fruits of his own gifts. Respecting this,
Malachi thus predicted. I have no pleasure in you, saith the
Lord of hosts : neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
For, from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the
same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles : and, in every
place, incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering :
and my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of
hosts^.
We ought to make an offering unto God and in all things
to be grateful to our Creator, in a pure purpose, in faith without
hypocrisy, in a firm hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits
of the creatures. And this pure oblation the Church alone off'ers
to the Creator, offering to him of his creature ivith thanksgiving.
But the Jews now offer it not : for their hands are full of blood :
for they have not received the word through which it 'is offered
to God. Nor do all the synagogues of heretics offer it. — For
to them how can it be a matter of certainty, that that bread, over
which thanks have been given, is the body of their Lord, and that
the cup is the cup of his blood, if they admit not him to be the
Son of the Creator of the ivorldf — Aiid how, again, do they
say, that the flesh passes into corruption and receives not life,
which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord'?
Wherefore, either let them change their opinion, or let them
abstain from off'ering the things which have been predicted. But
' Sed et suis discipulis dans cou- preestat primitias suorum muneruni
silium, priraitias Deo offerre sx suis in novo testamento: de quo, in duo-
creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut decini prophetis, Malachias sic prae-
ipsi nee infructuosi nee ingrati sint, signifieavit : Non est mihi voluntas in
eum, qui ex creatura panis est, ac- vobis, dicit Domimis omnipotcns ; et
cepit, et gratias egit, dieens : Hoc est sacrificiwn non acciptam de manihus
corpus mevm. Et calicem similiter, vestris. Quoniam, ab ortu soils usque
qui est ex ea creatura qute est se- ad occasum, nomen nictini gloHJicatur
cundum nos, suum sanguinem con- inter gentes : et in omni loco incensum
fessus est : et novi testamenti novam offertur nomini meo, et sacrificium pu-
docuit oblationem, quani Ecelesia ab mm. Quoniam magnum est nomen meum
Apostolis accipiens in universo raundo in gentibus, dicit Dominns omnipotens.
offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis Iren. adv. hper. lib. iv. c. 82. p. 2fil.
82 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
OUT opinion is consonant to the Eucliarist : mid the Eucharist,
again, confirms our opinion. For we offer unto him the tilings
ivhich are his, harmoniously py^eaching the communication and
unity of the flesh and the spirit For, as bread, tvhich is
from the earth, receiving the vocation of God, is now not
common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things,
an earthly thing and a heavenly thing : so likeivise our bodies,
receiving the Eucha7'ist, a7'e noio not corruptible, having hope
of the resurrection. But we offer unto him, not as if he
wanted : but giving thanks to his sovereignty, ajid sanctifying the
creature^.
TJiey are altogether vain, ivho despise the universal disposition of
God and deny the salvation of the flesh and spurn its regeneration,
saying, that it is not capable of incorruptibility. According, then,
to these things, the Lord did not redeem us with his own blood ;
nor is the cup of the Eucharist the commu7iication of his blood ;
nor is the bread, which ive break, the coTnmunication of his body.
That cup, ivhich is a creature, he confirmed to be his own body,
from which he inc7'eases our bodies". Whe7i, therefore, the mixed
cup and the broken bread receive the loord of God, the Eucharist
of the body and blood of Christ is made, from which the substance
' Oportet enim nos oblationem charisti.ie: et Euchaiistia rursus con-
Deo facere, ct in omnibus gratos firmat sententiam nostram. Offeri-
inveniri fabricatori Doo, in sententia mus enim ei qua3 sunt ejus, con-
pura, et fide sine hypocrisi, in spe gruenter communicationem et unita-
firma, in dilectione ferventi, primitias tem praijdicantes carnis et Spiritus.
eavum qui>i sunt eis creaturarum Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra
ofFerentes : et banc oblationem Ec- panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, jam
elesia sola puram offert fabricatori, non communis panis est, sed Eucha-
ofterens ei cum gratiarum actione ex ristia, ex duabus rebus constans, ter-
creatura ejus. Judsei autem jam rena et ca^lesti : sic et corpora nostra,
non offerunt : manus enim eorum percipiontia Eucharistiam, jam non
sanguine jdenoe sunt: non enim re- suntcorruptibilia, spomresurrectionis
(^eperunt verbum, per quod offertnr habentia. Offerimus autem ei, non
Deo. Sed neque omnes brereticorum quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes
synagoga;. — Quomodo autem consta- o'onationi ejus, sanctificantes ci-ea-
bit eis, eum panem, in quo gratias turam. Iren. adv. hser. lib, iv. c. 34.
o.ctre sunt, corpus esse Domini sui, p. 203, 264. For donationi. Dr. Grabe
et calicem sanguinis ejus, si non reads doimnationi : whicb, in the
ipsnm fabricatoris mundi lilium di- translation, I adopt,
cant, id est, verbum ejus?— Quo- =^ Dr. Grabe gives the following
modo autem rursus dicunt carnem much better reading of this sentence.
in corruptioncm devenire, etnon per- The cup, which is of the creature, he
cipere vitam, quae a corpore Domini confessed to be his blood; from which
et sanguine alitur? Ergo aut sen- our blood is rendered moist: and the
tentiam mutant, aut abstineant of- bread, which is oftlie creature, he con-
ferendo qua^ prffldicta sunt. Nostra firmed to be Ids body ; from which our
aut(m consonans est sententia Eu- bodies increase.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 83
of our flesh is increased and consists. How, then, do they deny,
that the flesh is capable of the gift of God who is eternal life,
since that flesh is nourished hy the blood and body of Christ ? — -
As the wood of the vine, deposited in the earth, fructifies in its
own time ; and as a grain of wheat, falling into the earth and
being dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, ivho
contains all things that afterward (and the blood of Christ) come
through wisdom in use to 'men : thus likewise our bodies, being
nout'ished from it, and placed in the earth and dissolved in it,
shall rise in their own time to the glory of God the Father, the
word of God giving unto them resurrection^.
(5.) Tertullian flourished at the latter end of the second,
century and at the beginning of the third.
Professing, therefore, that he vehemently desired to eat the
passover as his own {for it were unworthy that God should
desire any thing not his oivn) ; by saying. This is my body, that
is. The figure of my body, he made the bread his oivn body, ivhen
he had received it and distributed it to his disciples. But it could
not have been a figure, unless his body had been a true body : for
an empty thing, such as a phantasm, cannot admit of a figure.
Therefore, if he fashioned bread a body to hijnself because he had
not a true body : then he ought to deliver bread for us. It would
well have suited the folly of Marcion that bread should be crucified.
But why does he call bread his body, and not rather a pumphin ?
Tndy we might well say, that Marcion had a pumpkin rather than
brains in his skull, since he is ignorant that bread was the ancient
figure of the body of Christ. — Therefore the illuminator of the old
* Vani autem omnimodo, qui uni- consistit carnis nostrae substantia,
versam disposition em Dei contem- Quomodo carnem negant capacem
nunt, et carnis saluteni negant, et esse donationis Dei, qui est vita
regenerationem ejus spernunt, di- roterna, quie sanguine et corpore
centes non earn capacem esse incor- Christi nutritur? — Quemadmodum
ruptibilitatis. Sic autem, secundum lignum vitis, depositum in terra, suo
hffic videlicet, nee Dorainus sanguine fructificat tempore ; et granum tritici,
suo redemit nos ; neque calix Eu- decidens in terram et dissolutum,
chai'istiffi communicatio sanguinis multiplex surgit per Spiritum Dei,
ejus; neque panis, quern frangimus, qui continet omnia quce deinde per
communicatio corporis ejus. — Eum sapientiam in usum liominibus ve-
calicem, qui est creatura, suum cor- niunt et sanguis Christi : sic et nostra
pus confiraiavit ex quo nostra auget coi-pora, ex ea nutrita et reposita in
corpora. Quando ergo et mixtus terram et rcsoluta in ea, resurgent in
calix et fractus panis pereipit verbum suo tempore, verbo Dei resuiTectionem
Dei, fit Encharistia sanguinis et cor- eis donante, in gloriam Dei Patris.
poris Christi, ex quibus augetur et Iren. adv. hjvr. lib. v. c 4. p. 319.
84
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I.
prophetic phraseology sufficiently declared, by calling bread his
body, what he then intended bread to have signified^.
He indeed, even to the present time, rejected, neither that ivater
of the Creator by which he icashes his own, nor the oil ivith which
he anoints his own, nor the communion of honey and milk with
which he suckles his own, nor the bread by which he represents
his own body ; needing, even in his own sacraments, the beggarly
elements of the Creator".
Our flesh is fed ivith the body a7id blood of Christ, that our
soul also may be fattened from God^.
The Jeios laid hands upon Christ only once : but these daily
insult his body*.
Christ is our bread : because Christ is life, and bread is life.
I, says he, am the bread of tife : and, a little above ; The bread
is the Word of the living God, who descended from heaven: and,
because his body is deemed of in the bread ; This is my body.
Therefore, in praying for our daily bread, we beg a perpetuity in
Christ and an indivisibility fy^om his body^.
' Professus itaque se concupis-
centia concupisse edere pascha ut
suum (indignum enira ut quid alie-
num concupisceret Devis), acceptum
panem et distributum discipulis, cor-
pus suum illud fecit, Hoc est corpus
meiim dicendo, id est, figura corporis
mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi
veritatis esset corpus. Cffiterum
vacua res, quod est pliantasma, figu-
rara capere non posset. Aut, si prop-
terea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia
corporis carebat veritate, ergo panem
debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat
ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis cru-
cifigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus
suum appellat, et non magis peponem,
quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non
intelligens veterem fuisse istam figu-
ram corporis Christi ? Itaque illumi-
nator antiquitatum, quid tunc volueiit
significasse panem, satis declaravit,
corpus suum vocans panem. Tertull.
adv. Marcion. lib. iv. § 60, Oper. p.
285.
' Ille quidem, usque nunc, nee
aquam reprobavit Creatoris qua suos
abluit, nee oleum quo suos unguit,
nee mellis et lactis societatem qua
suos infantat, nee panem quo ipsum
corpus suum repraesentat, etiam in
sacramentis propriis egens mendici-
tatibus Creatoris. Tertull. adv. Mar-
cion. lib. i. § 9. Oper. p. 155.
2 Caro corpore et sanguine Christi
vescitur, ut et anima de Deo sagi-
netur. Tertull. de resurr. earn. § 6.
Oper. p. 50.
* Semel Judssi Christo manus intu-
lerunt : isti quotidie corpus ejus laces-
sunt. Tertull. de idol. Oper. p. 731.
* Christus enim panis noster est :
quia vita, Christus ; et vita, panis.
Ego sum, inquit, panis vitce : et paulo
supra ; Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui
dcscendit de coelis : tum quod et cor-
pus ejus in pane censetur ; Hoc est
corpus meum. Itaque, petendo panem
quotidianum, perpetuitatem postu-
lamus in Christo et individuitatem a
corpore ejus. Tertull. de orat. Oper.
p. 790.
Mr. Berington likewise cites a pass-
age from TertuU. adv. Jud. Oper.
p.l24, 125. for the purpose of shewing
that the Eucharist was deemed a pro-
pitiatory sacrifice : but, as he himself
admits that Tertullian supposes Ma-
lachi to speak of the pure sacrifices of
the heart and not of the establishment
of a real sacrificial offering ; the pass-
age, by his own confession, is clearly
quite irrelevant, and therefore may well
be omitted. Faith of Cathol. p. 257.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF HUMANISM. 85
(6.) Origen flourished duiing the first half of the third
century.
Let Celsus, as ignorant of God, offer up his placatory vows to
demons ; hut we, pleading the Creator of the universe, eat hread,-
lohich has been offered with thanksgiving and prayer for his gifts ;
and which, 07i account of prayer, has become a certain body, holy
itself, and sanctifying those who use it with a sound purposed
(7.) Hippolytus was contemporary with Origen, having
flourished during the earlier part of the third age.
He has prepared his own table, the promised knowledge of the
Holy Trinity, and moreover his honoured and unpolluted body
afid blood: which, in the mystical and divine table, are daily
sacrificed for a memorial of that ever to be remembered and first
table of the mystical divine supper, — Come, eat my bread, and
drink the ivine which I have mingled for you. His divine flesh
and his honoured body he has given unto us, he says, to eat and
drink for the i^emission of sins^.
(8.) Cyprian flourished about the middle of the third century.
A more severe and, ferocious combat is impending : to which,
ivith uncorrupted faith and stout valour, the soldiers of Christ
ought to prepare themselves ; considering, that they therefore daily
drink the cup of Christ's blood, that themselves may be able to
shed their blood for Christ^,
But now peace is necessary, not for the weak, but for the strong ;
7ior is commmiion to be given from us to the dead, but to the
living : that we may not leave those, whom we excite and exhort
' KsXa-os ^jv, us ayvoZv &10V, ra, ^a.- h'tuv uvrou tra^xa x.a.) to rif/.tov ccvrov a,if/.a,
piffTin(^i» ^acificoa-iv k-ro^thoTu' fifiiis Bj, vm ^t^euxiv hfjuv, (f>nffiv, iff6'utv xxi <riviiv tit
Tov Tocvroi ^yifziov^ya! iva^iffTovvm, 7ta,\ a.(piirtv afjitt^riZv. Hippol. m Prov, IX.
rovi [ziT ivx«^i<^Ti«s »«' ivx,vs TTii £!T< 1. O^&T. vol. 1. p. 282. Hamburg.
Toli "hoSilffi TT^otrocyof/.ivovs el^rovg \iTflo[/,iv, 1716.
ffuf/.a. ysvof/,ivevs '^loc tjjv £y;^>!y olyiov rt Christ is here spoken of as the
Ka) uyidZ^ov Tovg /u-ira, uyiov; -^^oSiffiws Personal Wisdom : but, in my ver-
ctvT^ ^^ufiivuv. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. sion, I have found it more convenient,
viii.' p. 399. Pro xi'^l^'^^'"^' ^^o® X.^"' ^^ ^^® beginning of the passage, to
^svflvj. adopt the masculine form, instead of
* Kai hTotf/.affuro rh lavTYn T^d-rt^av- the feminine form of the original.
rr.v WiyvMo-iv rtis ayius T^ia^os xartTocy ^ Gravior nunc et ferocior pugna
yBkXoiu.ivr,v, xa) ro ti/xiov kk) eix^avTtiv imminet, ad quam, fide incorrupta et
ai/rod truf^ce. xu) cuf^ec, aVs^ iv r^ (jt-vtrriKri wtute robusta, parare se debent
xa) hia. r^cc^iZ^ xaf ixuffrnv l^triXovv- milites Christi ; considerantes, idcirco
rai ^vBfMvK lU cLVKf^yyiffiv r'ni a.u[>i.\n(rTov se quotidie calicem sanguinis Christi
xa.) T^ujTr,s ixilvfis T^wxi^rii tov f/.vffTixou bibere, ut possint et ipsi propter
6uov hi-PTvov. — "EXhTi, (pa-y-n tov if/,ov Christum sanguinem fundere. Cy-
eipTov, xa.) -r'nTi oJvsv ov xix^Kxcc vfMv' t/jv prian. Epist. Iviii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 120.
86 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [ BOOK I.
to the battle, unarmed and naked : but that we may fortify them
with the protection of the blood and body of Christ^.
WJien Christ says ; I am the true vine : the blood of Christ
surely is not water, but wine. His blood, by which we are
redeemed and vivified, cannot be seen in the cup, ivhen ivine, by
which the blood of Christ is shewn, is ivanting to the cup : for, by
the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures, that blood is
declared to have been poured forth^.
Melchisedek was the priest of the most high God, because he
offered bread and wine, and because he blessed Abraham. For
who is more the priest of the Most High God than our Lord
Jesus Christ : ivho offered a sacrifice, to God the Father, and who
offered the very same that Melchisedek had offered ; that is, bread
and wine ; to icit, his own body and blood ^ ?
Returning from the altars of the devil, they approach the
Lord's holy thing with hands sordid a7id infected with the odour
of pagan sacrifices. Well nigh belching forth the deadly food of
idols, with jaws even still exhaling their wickedness and redolent
of the funereal contagion, they invade the body of the Lord. —
Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord un-
worthily, he shall be guilty of the Lords body and blood. Yet,
all such denu7iciations as these being despised and contemned,
to his body and blood violence is offered: and thus they sin
against the Lord with their hands and their mouth, even more
than when they denied the Lord^,
' At vero nunc, non infirmis sed quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quia
fortibus, pax necessaria est ; nee mo- magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam
rientibus, sed viventibus, communi- Dominus noster Jesus Christus : qui
catio a nobis danda est: ut, quos sacrificium Deo patri obtulit, ct ob-
excitamus et hortamur ad pra}lium, tulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech
non inermes et nudos rehnquamus ; obtulerat ; id est, Panem et vinum ;
sed, protectione sanguinis et corporis suum, scilicet, corpus et sanguinem ?
Christi, muniaraus. Cyprian. Epist. Cyprian. Epist. Ixiii. Oper. vol. ii.
Ivii, Oper. vol. ii. p. 117. p. 149.
^ Gum dicat Christus ; Ego sum *■ A diaboli aris revertentes, ad
vitis vera : sanguis Christi non aqua sanctum Domini sordidis et infectis
est utiqiie, sed vinum. Nee potest nidore manibus accedunt. Mortiferos
>dderi sanguis ejus, quo redemti et idolorum cibos adhuc pene ructantes,
vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando exhalantibus etiam nunc scelus suum
vinum desit calici : quo Christi san- faucibus et contagia funesta redolen-
guis ostenditur, qui scripturarum tibus, Domini corpus invadunt. — Qui-
omnium Sacramento ac testimonio cimque ederit panem aid hiberit calicem
effusus pra^dicatur. Cyprian. Epist. Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et
Ixiii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 148. sanguinis Domini. Spretis his omni-
^ Melchisedech sacerdos Dei simi- bus atque contemtis, vis infertur cor-
mi fuit, quod pnnem et vinum obtulit, pori ejus et sanguini : et plus modo
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. 87
CJwkt is the bi'ead of life : and this is not the bread of all ;
but it is our bread. And, as we say Our Father; because he
is the Father of those who understand and believe : so we call the
bread our bread ; because Christ is the bread of us, who touchr
his body. We daily p7'ay, that this bread may be given to us :
lest we, who are in Christ, and who daily receive the Eucharist
for the food of salvation, should be separated from the body
of Christ, through the intervention of some heavy offence, ivhile
being excommunicated and not communicating we are prohibited
from the heavenly bread. He himself has admonished us : I am
the bread of life, which came down from heaven. If any one
shall eat of my bread, he shall live for ever. But the bread,
ivhich I shall give for the life of the ivorld, is my flesh. Since,
therefore, he says, that ivhosoever shall eat of his bread shall live
for ever: as it is manifest, that those live who touch his body
and who receive the Eucharist by the fight of communion ; so, on
the contrary, we must fear and pray, lest, while any one being
excommunicated is separated from the body of Christ, he should
remain at a distance from salvation^.
When the Lord calls the bread his body, ivhich bread is
formed from the union of many grains; he indicates, that our
people, whom he carried, is united : and, ivhen he calls the ivine
his blood, which wine is expressed out of many grapes and col-
lected into one ; he sig7iifies our flock joined together by the com-
mixtion of an united multitude".
in Dominum manibus atqiie ore de- ego dcdero, caro mea est ^ fro seculi vila.
linquunt, quam cum Dominum ne- Quando ergo dicit in reternum vivere,
gavcrunt. Cyprian, de laps, Oper. si quis ederit de ejus pane ; ut niani-
vol. i. p. 128. festum est, eos vivere, qui cortius ejus
' Panis vitffi Christus est: et panis attingunt et Eucharistiam jure com-
hic omnium non est, sed noster est. municationis accipiunt : ita contra ti-
Et, quomodo dicimus, Pater nosier; mendum est et orandum, ne, dum
quia intelligentium et crcdcntium quis abstentus separatur a Christi
pater est : sic et panem nostrum vo- corpore, procul remancat a salute,
camus ; quia Christus noster (qui Cyprian, de orat. doniin. Oper. vol. i.
coi-pus ejus contingimus) panis est. p. 14G, 147.
Hunc autem panem dari nobis quo- ^ Quando Dominus corpus suum
tidie postulamus : ne, qui in Christo panem vocat, de multorum granorum
sumus et Eucharistiam quotidie ad adunatione congestum ; populum nos-
cibum salutis accipimus, intercedente trum, quern portabat, indicat aduna-
aliquo graviore delicto, dum abstenti tum : et, quando sangttbum snmn vi-
et non communicantes a crolesti pane num appellat, de botris atque acinis
prohibemur, a Christi corpore sepa- pluriniis expressum atque in unum
remur ; ipso pra^dicante et moncnte : coactum ; gregem item nostrum sig-
Etjo sum. panis vita' qui de ccclo de- nificat, commixtioue adunata' multi-
srcudi. Si quis ederit de meo pane, tudiriis copulatum. Cyprian. Epist.
vicrl ill atiniurii. Ptniis autem, qucin Ixi.x. (»per. vol. ii. p. 182.
88 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
(9.) Firniiliaii of Cesar^a in Oappadocia was the contem-
porary and correspondent of Cyprian.
How gi'eat an offence is it, either of those ivho are admitted, or
of those who admit, that, ivithout washing away their filth through
the laver of the Church and without confessing their sins, they
should rashly, hy an usurped communion, touch the body and
blood of the Lord; when it is ivritten : Whosoever shall eat the
bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall he guilty
of the Lord^s body and blood^.
(10.) I have now given the passages, produced as evidence,
that the naked Doctrine of Transubstantiation w^as held in the
Catholic Church from the very beginning. But there are two
of its adjuncts, for which we still require an historical proof:
the Expiatory Character of the Eucharist, viewed as a Piacular
Sacrifice ; and the Adoration of it with the same Highest
Worship as that paid to the Deity himself
With respect to the first of these two adjuncts, out of the
nine writers who have been claimed as teaching the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation, two only can be produced, Tertullian and
Cyprian, who even seem to give any comitenance to the Doc-
trine, that The Eucharist, or (as the Romanists speak) the
Consecrated Host, is a Piacular sacrifice.
The following passages occur in the Works of Tertullian.
We annually make oblations for the dead, for their nativi-
ties\
Let her pray for his soul : arid let her, meanwhile, beg for him
refreshment and a participation in the first resurrection : and let
her offer on the anniversaries of his dormition^.
And now make before God repeated mention of her, for ivhose
spirit you pray, for whom you offer annual oblations'^.
' Ceterum quale delictum est, vel talitiis, annua die facimus. Tertull.
illorum qui admittuntur, vel eorum de coron. milit. § 3. Oper. p. 449.
qui admittunt; ut, non ablutis per ' Pro anima ejus oret; et refrige-
Ecclesiae lavacrum sordibus, nee pec- rium interim adpostulet ei et in prima
catis expositis, usurpata temere com- resurrection e consortium ; et otferat
municatione continguant corpus et annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. Ter-
sanguinem Domini ; cum scriptum sit: tull. de monogam. § 10. Oper. p. 578.
Quicunque ederit panem ant biberit ca- * Et jam repete apud Deum, pro
Ucem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis cujus spiritu postules, pro qua obla-
et sanguinis Domini. Firmil. Epist. tiones annuas reddas. Tertull. Ex-
ad Cyprian, in Oper. Cyprian, epist. hort. ad castit. Oper. p. 504.
Ixxv. vol. ii. p. 227. Rigaltius reads the entire passage
2 Oblationes pro defunctis, pro na- somewhat differently.
CILy;'. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 89
The following passages occur in the works of Cjprian.
Since Victor, contrary to the form lately given in Council from
the priests, dared to appoint the presbyter Faustinus guardian of
his children : it is not fitting, that any oblation should be made
among you for his dormition, or that any prayer in his name
should be repeated in the church^.
We always, as you remember, offer up sacrifices for them,
as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the Martyrs by
an anniversary commemoration^.
These passages are adduced to establish the first of the two
adjuncts : but their defectiveness will readily be perceived ; for,
even if they proved the Mass to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for
the Dead, they are silent in regard to its sustaining any such
office for the Living,
As to the second adjunct of Transubstantiation, I mean The
Adoration of the Eucharist with the Worship of Latria, we still
require that historical proof of it which the Council of Trent
authorises us to expect: for, while the alleged duty of this
highest Adoration is, by the Synod, inculcated universally
upon the Faithful ; an assertion is broadly made, that the
practice was always received in the Catholic Church^. Hence,
we reasonably look out for a proof of this asserted always.
Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevern, however, are totally silent
on the point. They bring no substantiation, either from Scrip-
ture, or from Antiquity.
So the matter, I believe, stood, until Dr. Moehler, the Theo-
logical Professor at Munich, came forward to supply the lack
of service on the part of his predecessors.
He professes to have discovered in Ireneus a direct testimony
Neque enim pristinam poteris quentetur. Cyprian. Epist. i. Oper.
odisse, cui etiam clariorem reservas vol. ii. p. 3.
affectionem ut jam recepta? apud ^ Sacrificia pro eis semper, ut me-
Dominum ; pro cujus spiritu pos- ministis, offerimus, qtioties martynim
tules, pro qua oblationes annuas passiones et dies, anniversaria com-
reddas. TertuU. Exhort, ad castit. memoratione, celebramus. Cyprian.
§ 11. Oper. p. 520. Kigalt. Paris. Epist. xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 77.
1664. The preceding citations are ad-
' Ideo Victor cum, contra formam duced, either jointly or severally, by
nuper in Concilio a sacerdotibus da- Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevern, in
tarn, Geminium Faustinum presby- the Faith of Cathol. p. 195-203,
terum ausus sit tutorem constituere : 254-260, 354, and in Discuss. Amic.
non est, quod pro dormitione ejus vol. ii. p. 76-83.
apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio ^ Pro more in Catholica Ecclesia
aliqua nomine ejus in occlcsia fre- sempjir recepto.
90 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
to the Adoration of the Host so early as even in the second
century: and he rightly judges, that the practice of such
Adoration must always involve, as its cause, the doctrine of
Transubstantiation.
Already, in the second century, says he, St. Ireneus makes
mention of the epiclesis^
To the place, where Ireneus mentions the Invocation or
Adoration of the Host, this gentleman gives no reference :
but, on the word of a Theological Professor, he assures his
readers, that that ancient Father does mention the practice as
already established in the second century.
Such testimony is, in the highest degree, important : but it
might have been difficult to find the passage referred to by
Dr. Moehler, had he not fortunately specified the precise word
EPiCLESis as being that employed by Ireneus.
There is only one passage, in which Ireneus, when treating
of the Eucharist, employs that word: in no other place of a
parallel description, does it occur. Hence, very clearly, this
must be the passage intended by the Professor.
That we may understand the full value of Dr. Moehler's
discovery, I shall give the passage at large.
Pretending to celebrate the Eucharist over cups mingled with
wine, and extending to a further length the Discourse of invoca-
tion, he makes them appear purple and i^ed : so that the Grace,
from those who are above all things, should seem to consist in the
distillation of its own blood in that cup, through his invocation ;
and those, ivho are present, should greatly desire to taste of that
drink, in order that what is called Grace by this magicia7i, should
rain abundantly upon thein^.
There certainly is here a very hopeful, as well as a very
early, case of the Transubstantiation of at least the eucharistic
wine into blood : for though the epiclesis or invocation does
not, as Dr. Moehler supposes, precisely mean the Adoration of
' Moehler's Symbol, vol. i. Append. a^ro tSv vtI^ to, oka. xdoiv, to cu/j-a ro
p. 4. Dr. Moehler prevents all pos- lavrm trrd^iiv iv rS iKinat 'rom^'ia, hk
sibility of mistake by Avriting l5r/xA.>7<r;j t^?? EnnvAHSEfis'ajToD-'xai u-ri^tuii-
in Greek characters. ^ic&ai tovs Ta^ov-et.; l^ Ixuvov yiv-
YloTn^ia. o7vM xix^dfAtva v^etr^otovfM- trar^cci tcu -rof^KTOi, 'Ivet, xa) u; ctiirchs
vas iv)i^a^iiT7i7v, xm Wif'ki.ov ixrstvuv tov iTof/.(i^i^a-/i h Ifo. rou fjLu.yov <rovrou xXrt'i-
' . .^ . - iren. adv. hair. lib. i.
Aayay rsjj EHIKAHSEfiS, <roff<pv^ioc xcci Zof/.iv/i Xd^ig.
i^v6(^a. ccvoc(pa,ivi'/tWi ■^oiii, as doxuv, rijv c, U. p. 44:.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 91
the visibly Transubstantiated Wine, but is simply a prayer of
transmutative Consecration put up by the individual oSeiarting ;
yet the wine is said, in consequence of the prayer, t«o have been
apparently changed into the blood of what is mystically de-
nominated Grace,
At the first blush, it seems strange, that the officiating Priest
should be called a Magician, and that his Transubstantiating
Celebration of the Eucharist should be described as notliing
better than a pretence : but, had Dr. Moehler looked back to
the immediately preceding and connected chapter for the pur-
pose of ascertaining what person was spoken of, he would have
found, that the Magician, who performed this hocus-pocus
trick of the earliest recorded Tran substantiation, was not a
devout christian Bishop or Presbyter, but the gnosticising
heretic Marcus, whom the good Father suspected to be the
veritable precursor of Antichrist'.
This ingenious person, as the narrative goes on to tell
us, chiefly played off his tricks upon women, especially the
wealthier sort, for the two-fold purpose of enrichment and
sensuality^.
II. So much for Dr. Moehler. In considering the case, as
made out by Mr. Bermgton and Dr. Trevern, our first duty
will be to inquire, how far the evidence, produced from Scrip-
ture, substantiates the alleged fact : that The Doctrine of the
Eucharist, as inculcated hy the Council of Trent, is the identical
Doctrine which was received by the Primitive Church from Christ
and his Apostles.
1. For this purpose, I shall begin with examining : whether
the texts, which have been adduced in favour of the Doctrine
of Transubstantiation, are sufficient even simply to establish
the truth of the naked Doctrine itself.
• Alius vero quidam ex lis qui sunt christi. Iren. adv. ha?r. lib. i. c. 8.
apud eos magistri emendatorem se p. 48.
esse glorians ; Marcus est autem illi ^ "o^sv za) ;^^;7^aT«v Tktj&o; ttoXv a-w-
nomen, magicre imposture peritissi- tv»vo^iv, dxxa. ««/ xaru r*iv rod tr&>f4,aras
mus, per quam et viros multOS et non x.oiveov'ta.v, xara. Tcivra, vvova-^at etvral <T^a-
paucas fa'minas seducens, ad se con- 6vuovfji,ivv, "va a-hv abru xecriX^v ils to
vertit, velut ad scientissimum et per- EN. Iren. adv. hser. lib. i. c. 9. p. 4(5.
fectissimum et virtutem maximam ab Charts or Grace seems to have been
invisibilibus Logis habentem, fecit, the name, which the blasphemous
priecursor quasi vere existens Anti- impostor gave to Christ.
-■/;
■«•
92 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
(1.) One of those texts is extracted from our Lord's discoui'se
at Capernaum^ as recorded by the Evangehst St. John^
Christ , in the synagogue of Capernaum, it is alleged, expi^essly
declared the necessity of eating the flesh and of drinking the blood
of the Son of Man.
Such is the latin allegation : and doubtless, so far as respects
the bare fact of our Lord's declaration, there is, between the
Romanists and their opponents, no difference of opinion : but
in regard to the import of his declaration, there both may be
and there is a very considerable discrepance of sentiment.
For reasons best known to himself, Mr. Berington, when
citing the words of Christ in order thence to establish the
doctrine of Tran substantiation, has thought it expedient to
suppress Christ's own explanation of his own words^. Yet, if
I mistake not, the whole discourse of our Lord, when fairly
produced, explanation as well as antecede?it phraseology, so far
from being evidence in favour of Transubstantiation, affords a
strong and decisive testimony against that doctrine.
The entire matter will be found, I believe, to stand as
follows.
In the sjmagogue of Capernaum, Christ declared the neces-
sity of eating the flesh of the Son of Man and Of drinldng his
blood.
His declaration was forthwith miderstood, both by the
Jewish Auditors at large and by his own Disciples in par-
ticular, precisely after the literal manner in which the Romanists
now contend that they ought to be understood ; and the con-
sequence was a grievous taking of offence on their parts at the
assurance, that he would give them his flesh to eat.
Upon this, our Lord hastened to correct their misapprehen-
sion of his phraseology, by teaching them : that his declaration
was to be understood, not literally, but spiritually or figuratively.
It is the spirit, that quickeneth: the flesh profiUth nothing,
Tlie words, that I speak unto you, are spirit and life^.
That St. Peter and the Disciples who remained, instead
of rashly taking offence at what was 7iot meant by Christ,
' John vi. 51-58. The entire dis- Faith of Cathol. p. 193. He quotes
course is comprised in John vi. 26-63. our Lord's declaration : but siqjpresses
2 I have given the passage exactly his explanation,
as cited by Mr. Berington, in his ^ John vi. 63,
CHAP. ly.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 93
fully understood his explanation, is, I think, quite clear from
a circumstance frequently overlooked. At Capernaum, their
language was : This is an hard saying ; who can hear it f But,
when our Lord used the same phraseology at the subsequent
institution of the Eucharist, neither any offence was taken, nor
w^as any astonishment expressed. How are we to account for
such a remarkable diiference in behaviour? Clearly thus.
They had heard and they recollected his own explanation
of the parallel language employed at Capernaum. Hence,
they now, as a matter of course, understood him to speak
figuratively, not literally: and hence, what was the natural
result, his words now gave them no offence.
Though, doubtless, plain common sense requires that Christ's
own explanation of his osvn phraseology should be understood
as Peter and the stedfast Disciples certainly did understand
it : yet, to a Romanist, it may be important to know, that this
view of the explanation is no way peculiar to modern Divines
of the Reformed Churches, as if it had been recently taken up
merely to serve a turn in controversy. Long before the
eventful period of the sixteenth century, our Lord's explanation
was understood, precisely as we Anglicans now understand it,
by those two great Theologians, the one of the Latin and the
other of the Greek Church, Augustine and Athanasius^
(2.) The introductory remark, which has been made upon
the phraseology employed by our Lord at Capernaum, equally
applies to the language which he used at the institution of the
Eucharist^.
That language is, by the Latin Divines, gravely adduced,
for the avowed purpose of scripturally establishing the Doctrine
of Transubstantiation.
Yet the matter in debate is, not what our Lord said, but
what our Lord ineant.
We all know hhn to have used the words : This is my body,
and This is my blood. On that pomt, there is no dispute. The
' August. Enarr. in Psalm, xcviii. 3,4. In a separate Work, I havedis-
Oper. vol. ^dii. p. 397. Athan. in illud cussed, in full, Christ's Discourse at
Evan. Quicunque dixerit verb urn con- Capernaum fatal to the Doctrine of
tra Filium Hominis. Oper. vol. i. Transubstantiation.
p. 771, 772. The passages are quoted ^ Matt. xxvi. 26-28. Markxiv. 22-24.
at large below, book ii. chap. 4. § TIT. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Corinth, xi. 23-26.
94 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAl^ISM. [bOOK I.
dispute respects not the employment, but the import, of the
words.
Hence, plainly, the mere adduction of words, the very import
of which is the matter in litigation, can never establish a
Doctrine, which rests entirely upon a gratuitous and disputed
interpretation of the words themselves ^
But the words, even as they stand, so far from favouiing,
are absolutely fatal to, the tridentine account of the Eucharist.
Whether the words of institution be understood literally or
whether they be explained figuratively : they, at all events, as
they themselves by their very construction testify, respect the
body and blood of Christ, as broken or as given, as shed or as
poured out This, however, is incompatible with the tridentine
doctrine. For the tridentine doctrine assures us : that the
consecrated elements are transubstantiated into the complete
and living Saviour as he now exists ; namely, into the Saviour
with unbroken body and with uneffused blood eternally miited
to his human soul and to his essential divinity.
Nor is this the only difficulty, inherent in the words or in
their immediate context. The wine, even after consecration and
when (according to the Tridentine Council) its whole substance
has been changed into the substance of human blood^, our
Lord still continues to denominate This produce of the vine^ :
and the bread, even after consecration and when (likewise
according to the Tridentine Council) its whole substance has
been changed into the substance of human flesh*, his Apostle
' In consequence of an appeal to thence perverting, the ignorant of
the Throne, one of our English Mar- the present day, is to allege to them
tyrs was brought personally before the tyrant Henry, as the Protestant
that redoubtable Divine, King Henry Founder of the English Church !
of Theological Memory. The royal The pcrvcrters could scarcely be igno-
logician settled the debate with still rant, that Henry, though throwing off
greater rapidity than either Dr. Tre- the papal yoke, bm^ned those who re-
vern or Mr. Berington. So ! fellow! jected the doctrines of Popery. Yet a
Doth not Christ himself say ; This is case of this kind has come within my
my body, and This is my blood ? Doubt- own knowledge in the person of a
less, he doth : but this, saving his poor young girl,
grace's presence, was not j)remt'/y the ' Conversion em fieri totius sub-
point under litigation. The Martyr stantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis
could suffer: but he could not ar- ejus.
gue with the master of twenty le- ' Tourov rod yivvKy,eiros tyu a,f/,T'iXou.
gions, backed by a host of approving Matt. xxvi. 29.
priests. * Conversionem fieri totius sub-
It will scarcely be believed, that stantia? pnnis in substantiam corporis
one of the means of deceiving, and Christi. /
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 95
Paul, In strict harmony witli the language of his divine Master,
still continues to denominate This hi^ead^. Hence, if* we may
believe the plain words of Christ and of Paul rather than the
decision of the Council of Trent, the bread and wine, even
after consecration, are still, in point of substance, actual bread
and wine.
So again : if the words This is my body and This is my blood,
must of necessity be understood literally: then, analogously,
the words. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, as the
form is somewhat differently given by St. Luke, must of
necessity be understood literally also. The tridentine inter-
pretation, therefore, if consistently pursued, will finally bring
out the extraordinary result, that The entire substance of the cup
is converted into the substance of the New Testament-.
(3.) As the argumentative adduction of our Lord's words,
either at Capernaum or in the institution of the Eucharist, is
thus plainly nothing better than a mere begging of the
question : so the citation of St, Paul's phraseology, as addressed
to the Corinthians,- is but another glaring specimen of this very
frequent, though very unjustifiable, latin practiced
Doubtless the cup of blessing is the communion of Christ's
blood; and the broken bread is the communion of Christ's
body: but to adduce such language, as any proof of the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, is to assume, that St. Paul
designed to employ it transubstantiatively ; the very point,
if I mistake not, which ought to have been itself anteriorly
demonstrated.
In truth, however, the passage, wlien viewed in connection
with its evidently parallel context, is not only no way favour-
able to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but even positively
hostile to it.
The cup of blessing, which we bless ; is it not a communion of
the blood of Christ f the bread, which we break ; is it not. a
communion of the body of Christ ? For, since the bread is one,
we, being many, are one body : for ice are all partakers of that
one bread. I say, that the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice,
they sacrifice to demons and not to God: and I would not
' Tov oiprov toutov. 1 Corinth, xi. 26. Conversionem fieri totius siihstanlue
^ In tridentine latin, mitiatis mu- raUcis in substaniiam novi foederis.
fanJis, the resnlt will run as follows : ^ 1 Corinth, x. 16.
96 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
have you become coinmunicants of demons. You cannot dnnk
the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons : you cannot he
partakers of the hordes table, and of the table of demons^.
In this entire passage, the one leading member of it bears,
throughout, the most perfect and evidently designed analogy
to the other leading member.
By partaking of idol-sacrifices, the Gentiles are said to
become communicants of demons^.
By partaking of the consecrated bread and wine. Christians
are said to become communicants of the body and blood of
Christ^.
Here, the becoming cornmunicants of demons plainly answers
to the becoming communicants of Chrisfs body and blood.
Hence the very construction of the Apostle's argument
requires the admission : that, if the bread and wine be transub-
stantiated into the body and blood of Christ ; the idol-sacrifices
must be similarly viewed, as transubstantiated into the body
and blood of the demon-gods, who, it is well known, were the
canonised dead men of Pagan Mythology.
Unless this be admitted, no comparison will lie between the
two cases.
But a transubstantiation of the idol-sacrifices will certainly
not be maintamed.
Therefore, by the very terms of the Apostle's argument,
there can be no transubstantiation of the bread and wine'*.
2. I shall next proceed to consider the texts, which have been
adduced for the purpose of shewing : that the elements, when
consecrated, are a sacrifice, which itself atones or makes satis-
faction for the sins both of the quick and of the dead.
These texts are two in number : the one, from the book of
Malachi; the other, from the Epistle to the Hebrews^.
Respecting the two passages which have been thus brought
* 1 Corinth, x. 16, 17, 20, 21. ^ Kotvuvla, rav ffu^aros rou X^icrrou,
" Koivuvovs ruv ^cn/u,ov(uv. Communi- and Koivuvla TBV Bt,"f/.xTos Tov X^ta'ToZ.
cants of demons, not Communicants "* In truth, if we are to literalise the
tvith demons. Thus xoivuvia rod au- words of oxvc Lord, they will just as
fji,a.T0i is Communion o/the body, not much demonstrate a transubstantia-
Communion with the body: and thus tion of his bodyand blood into bread and
Koitun etrova 'I/abctos is Communion of wine, as a transubstantiation of bread
the blood, not Communion unth the and wine into his body and blood,
blood. s Malaoh. i. 10, 11. Hob.xiii. 10_12.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAOTSM. 97
forward, it must be observed, even at our very entrance upon
them : that, so far as the decision of the Council of Trent
is concerned, the Romanists stand pledged to demonstrate from
Scripture, not that the Eucharist is a sacrifice simply, but
that the Eucharist is a piacular sacrifice specially which
atones for the sins both of the quick and of the dead.
Now such demonstration has been afforded by neither of
the passages which have been adduced,
(1.) When St. Paul tells us; that we have an altar, whereof
the unconverted Jews have no right to eat : he refers not to
the Eucharist, except so far as the Eucharist is conunemo"
rative, but to the sacrifice of Christ himself without the gate
upon the altar of the cross, and to our spiritual participation
of the benefits of that sacrifice.
The text, therefore, shews indeed, that the sacrifice of Christ
upon the cross is a propitiatory sacrifice; because it mani-
festly alludes to the typical propitiatory sacrifices under the
Law, as being sacrifices of the same specific nature or quality j
but it affords not the slightest proof, that the professedly
commemorative ordinance of the Eucharist is a sacrifice of
that description or indeed a sacrifice of any description.
In the abstract, the Eucharist may or may not be a sacrifice :
but this text proves nothing whatsoever as to its precise nature ;
and still less does it authorise the decision of the Council of
Trent.
(2.) With regard to the other passage adduced from
Malachi, it possibly may, or it possibly may not, refer to the
celebration of the Eucharist.
Ireneus and Justin Martyr understand it, as bearing this
reference' : Tertullian, on the contrary, by the acknowledgment
of Mr. Berington himself, interprets it as relating, to the pure
sacrifices of the heart, not to the establishment of any literal
or material sacrificial oblation^.
' See above, book i. chap. 4. §1.2. sacrificiis addit, dicens : Et in omni
(3.) (4.) loco sacrijicia mimda offermhir nomini
* Spiritalia vero sacrificia, de qui- meo, dicit Dominus. TertuU. adv.
bus prffidictum est : et, sicnt supra Jud, Oper. p. 125. and cap. 5. p. 188.
dicit, Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, ed. Paris, 1075, where the text differs
dicit Dominus. Sacrificia non accipiam considerably from the early editions,
de manihvs vestris : quoniam, ah oriente but not so as to affect the argu-
sole usque in occidentem, nomen meum ment.
clarificatum est in omnibus gentibus. In omni loco sacrificium nomini meo
dicit Dmvimis. De spiritalibus vero offertur, et sacrificivm mmidum : gloriie
H
98 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
These two opinions arc perfectly reconcilable: and, in trntli?
they mutually explain each other. The sacrifices, predicted
by Malachi, are clearly the spiritual sacrifices of praise and
thanksgiving. Among these the liturgical celebration of the
Eucharist, as the very name Eucharist implies, stands pre-
eminent : and I am not aware, that even the most zealous anti-
transubstantialist would ever dream of denying to the devout
celebration of the Eucharist the character of a spiritual sacrifice
of thanksgiving ; though, neither from the name nor from the
scriptural account of it, can he derive any evidence, in proof
of the material eucharistic elements themselves becoming, after
their consecration, either a literal sacrifice of thanksgiving or a
propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead.
Under the aspect, then, of a due celebration of the Eucharist
being Xhe preeminent Christian spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving,
and most clearly under no other aspect, Justin and Ireneus, as
their own language abmidantly testifies, understand the passage
in Malachi to relate to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper :
and, accordingly, by a mere extension of the same prhiciple of
exposition, Tertullian views it as referring to every spiritual
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. That such is the mode, in
which Justin and Ireneus apply the passage to the commemo-
rative celebration of the Eucharist, is, indeed, palpably evident
from their own express words. Justin tells us, that prayers and
thanksgivings, offered up hy the ivorthy, are the only sacrifices
acceptable to God : and he very remarkably adds, that Christia7is
have been taught to offer these alone in the commemorative cele-
bration of the Eucharist^. Ireneus supposes, that the outward
scilicetrelatio, etbenedictio, etlaus, et Kav '2,xvhi ^ tis, rf uiotfyig, 'i^u ?£
hymni. TertuU. adv. Marcion. lib. iii. rijv red Qiou yvaitriv x.xi toZ X^ta-rou
§ 23. Oper. p. 212. avroZ, xoci ipvXoicrtrii to, uloovia. ^ixaia,
In omni loco sacrificinm nomine meo 9n^jTirf/.r,rai ttiv >ca.Xyiv xat uipixif^ov -tti-
offeretur, et sacrijiciiimmiindum ; scUicet ^tTof^m, xa.) (p/Xoj iitt) tm ©£», xou \-7ri
simplex oratio de conscientia pura. roh ^^^a's ahroZ xou ntTg ■r^otr(po^a.T;
Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. iv. § 1 . z'^'^-'- n«-5£|w Vi vf/iv, uvh^a (plXoi, xu)
Oper. p. 223. ulrov^yvtfjt.a.Ta, rod &iov, oTon T;0«j rov
For Mr. Berington's very creditable kaov J-rs ha. MocXtzioV — 'Ato avxroXr.s
acknowledgment, see Faith of Cathol. fixlov 'ias lua-f^Mv, ro ovojua. (jlov ^ih'o\a.(rrxt
p. 257. £v rati 'i0vi(ri' xoe), iv rrocvr) rcTO), Tooir-
I may add, that Justin himself, in i^i^irai Nutria, rS ovofAxrt fiev, xoci 6ufflci
another place, considers the passage, xa.6a.^a,. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph.
as relating generally to the spiritual Oper. p. 190.
sacrifices of the pious, whatever may ' Taura ya.^ MONA. See above,
be specially their country. bopk i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (3.)
CHAF. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANIS^f. 99
sign or expression of this spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving was
the oblation of the bread and wine upon the table, antecedently
to their consecration, under the aspect of a material eucharistic
oblation to God of the first-fruits of his creatures^.
Thus, most evidently, neither of the two passages, adduced
by Mr. Berington, tend in the slightest degree to shew : that
the sacrament of the Eucharist is represented in Scripture, as a
piacular sacrifice perpetually devoted by the priest for the
purpose of making an atonement both for the quick and for the
dead.
3. Having now sufficiently considered the texts, adduced by
Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevern, in regard to their cogency,
whether as establishing the bare doctrine of Transubstantiation
or as demonstrating the consecrated elements to be a true
piacular sacrifice : I may be permitted to point out the strange
deficiency of the evidence, which they have ventured to lay
before their readers.
Would they really serve their Church, their plain business
was to establish, on scriptural authority, not the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation simply, but the Doctrine of Transubstantia-
tion luith all its concomitants as defined hy the Council of Trent,
Yet, according to the tacit confession of those two Divines
themselves, as sufficiently exemplified in their total omission of
even any attempt at proof from the Bible, the word of God is
wholly silent respecting all the following very important par-
ticulars : both respecting a conversion of the entire substance of
the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of
Christ ; respecting the elements being physically, by consecration,
transmuted into the entire Ch7ist, as consisting of flesh and blood
and human soul and essential divinity ; respecting each separate
particle and each separate drop of each element being severally
and completely the entire Christ ; respecting the payment of
divine adoration to the elements when consecrated, under the aspect
of such elements beiyig , jointly and sevei^ally and dividedly, nothing
less tlian the present Deity ; and respecting the Eucharist being
a real propitiatory sacrifice for the sins both of the quick and of
the dead.
On ALL these points, dogmatically laid down by the Council
' See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (4.)
100 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
of Trent, and dutifully received by every honest Romanist as
undoubted articles of faith, we have a tacit acknowledgment,
an acknowledgment, however, which speaks volumes, that the
Bible itself is profoundly silent.
Let the points, in the abstract, be true ; or let them be false ;
from whatever quarter they may have been learned by the
Tridentine Theologians, assuredly and confessedly they have
not been learned from sceepture.
III. We now come to the evidence, adduced from the Fathers
of the three first centuries for the purpose of establishing the
asserted fact : that The Primitive Church, from the very he-
ginning, entertained the self-same opinions respecting the Eucharist,
as those which hy the Council of Trent have since been authori-
tatively promulgated.
1. Following here the same order that I followed in dis-
cussing the evidence produced from Scripture, I shall begin
with inquiring : whether the passages cited from the early
Fathers are sufficient, on their authority, even simply to esta-
blish the mere naked Doctrine of a Change of Substance.
That the witnesses of the tlu*ee first centuries, cited by
Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington, repeatedly asserted the con-
secrated bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ,
is luideniable ; but, in using such language, they, in truth, say
nothinor more than what Christ himself had said before them.
To bring forward, therefore, specimens of such phraseology,
by way of demonstrating the transubstantialisation of the
Primitive Church, is precisely the same paralogistic begging of
the question, as the adduction of Christ's own words for the
same purpose.
What the Romish Doctors ought to have shewn, would they
argue at all relevantly, is not what the early Fathers say, but
what the early Fathers mean : and it is obvious, that the bare
production of their unexplained phraseology can never establish
the alleged fact ; that The Primitive Church, from the very
beginning, held the DoctHne of Transubstantiation.
Like the language of our Lord himself, which language in
reality they simply adopt, their language, in the abstract, may
be understood either literally or figuratively : and, before it
was adduced in evidence. Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington
ought to have demonstrated, through the medium of some dis-
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 101
tinct proof, that it cannot be understood figuratively, and that
it must be understood literally. This, however, they have not
done : and, even if they had eifected it, still they would not
have established the point to be established. If we suppose it _
proved, that the language of the early writers ought doubtless
to be understood literally : it will still, so far as that language
is concerned, remain uncertain, whether they inculcate the
genuine Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or whether they con-
tent themselves with asserting the now reputed semi-heretical
Doctrine of Consubstantiation. Hence, after adducing the
passages before us, our two Latin Divines, for the purpose of
making them really effective, ought to have gone on to demon-
strate : first, that they are to be understood, not figuratively,
but literally ; and, secondly, that they teach, not the Doctrine
of Consubstantiation, but the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
(1.) It appears to me, that the only two passages, which,
even in the slightest degree, can be deemed available to our
Latin Advocates, are the first-cited passage from Ignatius and
the first-cited passage from Justin Martyr ^
With respect to the passage which purports to be cited from
Ignatius, I might at once throw it aside : for the Epistle to the
Smymeans, whence it is extracted, was certainly never written
by that early Father^. But, though such is the case, no doubt
the adduced passage will exhibit the testimony of the writer,
whoever he may have been. Under this far less authoritative
aspect, then, I will, nevertheless, examine, what claims the
passage may have as a testimony to the Doctrine of Transub-
stantiation.
The writer states, that the Docetse abstained from the Eu-
charist, because they did not confess it to be the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ.
Hence, I suppose, it is argued : that, since they abstained
from the Eucharist on this avowed ground, which was the
necessary result of their fantastical theology : it must have
been the doctrine of the Primitive Church, that the consecrated
' See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. referred to above. I may add, that
2. (2.) (3.) the second passage, cited from his
^ See Mr. Cureton's Ancient Syriac Epistles to the Romans, has been
Version oj the Epistles of St. Ignatius, largely interpolated.
102 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
bread and wine are literally the body and blood of the Re-
deemer.
But, if this be the argument intended to be built upon the
passage (and I am unable to guess what other can be in-
tended^) : nothing can be more weak and inconclusive.
Whether the words of consecration be understood literally or
figuratively, the principles of the Docetas would, in either case,
equally lead to the same Ime of conduct. If these early specu-
latists denied the actual existence of Christ's body and blood ;
which was the strange notion they had adopted : it were,
in them, plainly alike absurd to partake of the Eucharist ;
whether it was proposed to them, as being literally the identical
substance of which they denied the existence ; or whether it
was held forth to them, as being only the symbolical repre-
sentation of that same controverted substance. In either case,
a participation of the Eucharist would have been a practical
abandonment of their avowed sentiments. The passage, there-
fore, is quite unavailing as to any establishment of the alleged
FACT, that the Primitive Church held the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation'^.
Justin, on a hasty inspection of his phraseology, might seem
to intimate: that, as Christ himself was, at his incarnation,
literally made flesh and blood ; so, in the Eucharist, we literally
partake of that identical flesh and blood which Christ assumed.
But hasty indeed must be the perusal, which brings out such
a result.
When attentively considered, the whole drift of the passage
shews, that no antithetical comparison, favourable to the
Doctrine of Tr an substantiation, was ever intended. Justin
merely states : that, as the Incarnation of Christ is an un-
doubted Scriptural Doctrine : so likewise it is an equally
* The Bishop and Mr. Berington his phantasiastic hrethren, at the very
content themselves with simply citing time when Tertullian himself is
the passage: they do not teach us, how stating that the hread is a figure or
we are to learn from it the Doctrine of primevally received allegorical form
Transuhstantiation. I am reduced, of Christ's hody. Clearly, the argu-
therefore, to the necessity of conjecfjfr- ment, in the mouth of Ignatius or
ing, what may possibly have been their Tertullian, is equally cogent against
tacitly intended line of argument. the Docetce, whether we admit or
' It is worthy of note, that exactly reject the doctrine of Transubstan-
the same line of argument is adopted tiation. See above, book i. chap. 4.
by Tertullian against Marcion and § I. 2. (5.)
CHAP. IV. J DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 103
Scriptural Doctrine, that the consecrated elements are the flesh
and blood of Christ, The comparison lies, between the two
facts of two equally certain revelations, not between two equally
literal hiterpretations of two verbally revealed doctrines.
Justin's expression. We have been taught^, refers us at once
to the institutive words of Christ : and, that he did not under-
stand those words according to the explication of the Council
of Trent, is abundantly plain from his own language. The
Tridentine Fathers, as they are very properly understood
by Mr. Berington and his brethren, determine : that The body
and blood of Christ, as existing transuhstantiatively in the Eu-
chanst are not exposed to the external senses nor obnoxious to
COEPORAL CONTINGENCES^. Hence, of course, though eaten and
drunk in the holy sacrament, they are never digested, never
contribute to the gross material nourishment of the human
frame, never pass away after the mode in which all other food
passes away. But, if we may believe Justin, the doctrine
of the Primitive Church was the very reverse. He tells us :
that, although (agreeably to the Lord's own teaching) the
consecrated elements are the flesh and blood of that Jesus who
was made flesh ; yet, nevertheless, from them our flesh and
blood are through mutation nourished^. According, there-
fore, to Justin, it was the received doctrine of the Primitive
Church : that The physical reception of the consecrated elements
contributed, like the reception of any other food, to the animal
nourishment of our bodies, thyvugh the agency of that chemical
mutation, which every species of food in the process of digestion,
alike experiences.
The testimony of Justin, to this effect, is fully borne out by
the testimony of Ireneus: for, though he rightly, after the
example of his divine Master, denominates the consecrated
elements the body and blood of Chnst : he asserts, that, by
^ Gr. £^/5a;^^>j|C6jv, est ; qufe, nulla indignitate aut ma-
^ Faith of Cathol. p. 244. Mr. litia offerentium, iuquinari potest.
Berington, I suppose, builds bis state- Concil. Trident, sess. xxii. c. 1.
meni of the doctrine, thai the elements, p. 238.
when transuhsfantiated into the body In bis inference, Mr. Berington
and blood of Christ, are not obnoxious strikes me as being perfectly correct.
TO CORPORAL CONTINGENCES, upou tlie ^ 'E| ^f «7^a xa) ffd^Kii KATA ME-
folloAving decision of tbe Tridentine TABOAHN r^t(povTiii rifcuv. Justin. Apol.
Council. i. Oper. p. 77, and § GO. torn. i. 208.
Et hsec quidem ilia munda oblatio ed. Jenee, 1824.
104 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAOTSM. [^OOEl I.
these identical consecrated elements, our material bodies are
midoubtedly nourished^
Justin's testimony is also corroborated by tlie testimony of
Tertullian: for, while he states that our souls are nourished
from God through the pious reception of the holy Eucharist ;
he asserts that our flesh is fed with the body and blood of
Christ^.
I need scarcely to say, that such doctrine is wholly incom-
patible with the modern Latin Doctrine of Transubstantiation ;
a very important part of which is,, that The transubstantiated
elements are not obnoxious to corporal contingences : and yet, even
in the passages adduced by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington
themselves, such doctrine is unreservedly avowed ; nor does it
appear, that the Primitive Church ever disowned or condemned
it Hence, from the very testimony which our two Divines them-
selves have freely selected, it is evident : that The Primitive
Church could never have held the doctrine of Traiisubstantiation.
Justin, indeed, like his contemporary Ireneus and his
successor Cyril of Jerusalem, denies, that, after consecra-
tion, the eucharistic bread and wine are any longer common
bread and common drink-^ : but he speaks, as the explanatory
voice of Antiquity fully teaches us, of their moral or sacra-
mental change from a secular application to a holy purpose,
not of their physical or material change from mere bread and
wine into Christ's literal body and blood"^. Ireneus himself
explains the matter, by telling us : that The consecrated bread
ceases to be common bread, because the Eucharist consists of
' Fit Eucharistia sanguinis et cor- greek original, xoivos also) are, I ap-
poris Christi, ex quibus augetur et prehend, not quite the same as the
consistit carnis nostrse substantia. — ^p»Xo7s of Cyril. The common bread
Carnem, — qure sanguine et corpore is unconsecrated or secular bread:
Christi nutritur. Iren. ut supra, book the mere bread is the bread without
i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (4.) (what Ephrem calls) the spiritual
^ Caro corpore et sanguine Christi grace superadded to it. Tjj? vajjr^f
vescitur. Tertull. ut supra, book i. K^aipirov //.im p^a^iroi. Rphreni. Theo-
chap. 4. § I. 2. (5.) pol. apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 229. p. 794.
^ Ou yai^ us xo/vov u^rov ovTi xoivov Kothomag. 1653.
urifAa. Justin. Apol. i. Oper. p. 76. '' See Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag.
Jam non communis panis est. Iren. iii. p. 235. § 3. p. 317. ut supra,
adv. hasr. lib. iv. c. 34. p. 264. M^ Tractat. de Sacram. Hb. iv. c. 4.
'T^offi^i ouv us •4">^oTs vS u^ru ko.) rS in Oper. Ambros. col. 1248. Am-
olvu. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. iv. bros. de iis qui myster. initiant.
p. 237. Paris. 1631. § 6. p. 321. c. ix. Oper. col. 1235-1237. Gregor.
ed. 1720. In point of ideality, the Nyssen. de Baptism. Christ. Oper.
KoiMos of Justin and the communis vol. ii. p. 801 , 802. as cited at large
of Ireneus (evidently, in the lost below, book ii. chap. 4. § VII.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. . 105
two things, an eartlily thing and a heavenly thing : the earthly
thing, bread from the earth ; the heaveiily thing, Christ spiritually
present^.
(2.) Tertullian, as we have seen, directly contradicts the
modem doctrine of Transubstantiation, by asserting : that our
flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ.
I need, therefore, only yet additionally to observe ; that he
equally and even explicitly contradicts it in the two first of
the passages, which have been cited from him, by Mr. Be-
rington, with a somewhat whimsical sort of fairness, though
with a fairness which does great credit to that respectable
theologian's occasional moral honesty^. Tertullian asserts,
that, in the language of the old prophets no less than in the
language of the Gospel, bread was employed as a figure or
symbolical material form of Christ's body: and he remarks
that, as Christ rejected not the element of water in Baptism ;
so neither did he reject the bread in the Eucharist, by which
he represents his own body.
We shall hereafter find, that Tertullian preserves his con-
sistency throughout, in teaching: that the bread and wine
experience no material change of substance ; and that they are
to be vicAved as symbols of Christ's body and bloods
(3.) Alike infelicitous, so far as respects evidence, is Mr.
Berington in his last citation from Cyprian : a citation, how-
ever, which fully develops the real sentiments of that Father*.
According to Cyprian, the bread composed of many united
grains, and the wine composed of many united drops, signify
Christ the head and his people the members united in one
mystical body.
Hence, if he held any such doctrine as Transubstantiation,
he must have believed ; a matter, too palpably absurd to be
insisted upon even by the most zealous Romanist: that the
consecrated bread and wine are transubstantiated into the
mystical body, which is jointly composed of Christ and all his
faithful people.
2. I now proceed to inquire, whether the witnesses of the
' See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. ^ ggg below, book ii. chap. 4. § II.
2. (4.) 1. (7.) III. 1.
* See above, book i. cliap. 4. § I. * See above, book i. chap. 4. § I,
2. (5.) 2. (8.)
106 DIFFICULTIES OF llOMANISM. [bOOK I.
three first ages are prepared to vouch for the doctrine : that
The Sacrament of the Eucharist is a propitiatoi'y sacrifice both
for the quick and for the dead.
To prove, that the Eucharist was ever, by the primitive
Christians, offered up, as a piacular sacrifice to make atone-
ment either for the living or for the departed, no evidence has
been adduced from the Fathers of the three first centuries :
and, so far as I am acquainted with their writings, no such
evidence exists.
The passages, which have been brought forward from Ter-
tulhan and Cyprian, speak, no doubt, of certain oblations or
sacrifices having been offered up, in the early Church, for the
pious dead in the Lord : and I have no wish to deny, that the
oblations, to which those passages allude, ai'e, at least, princi-
pally, if not 'exclusively, to be sought in the primitive form
of celebrating the Eucharist^ But, as not a syllable is said
respecting the oblations being of a piacular nature : so the very
notion, that such is their character, is directly contrary to the
ideas, which the ancients associated with the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper.
(L) In regard to the substance of the sacrament itself by
which I mean the bread and icine posterior to their consecra-
tion, we have no evidence, so far as I am aware, that, under
any aspect, the strictly primitive Christians ever deemed it a
sacrifice. On this point, the testimony of the Early Church is
decidedly fatal to the modem doctrme of Romanism, as finally
settled by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council.
Justin speaks of sacrifices (his expression is plural 2) being
offered in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup: and
Ireneus intimates, that Christ, in the institution of the Eucha-
rist, taught the new oblation of the New Testament: but they
tell us not, that the consecrated elements themselves are a
sacrifice. So far as a material oblation was concerned, the
Primitive Church deemed such oblation to be, not the elements
AFTER consecration, but the bread and wine when first offered
up at the altar before consecration as eucharistic sacrificial gifts
to the Supreme Giver of all benefits.
That such is an accurate view of the matter, is put out of
* See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (10.) ^ Qj.^ (v(Tia.i.
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF KO]\IANISM.
107
all doubt by tbe consecration prayer of the oldest Liturgy
extant : tbat, which bears the name of the Clementme Liturgy,
and which is allowed to be at least as early as the third
century.
We offer unto thee the King and the Deity, according to
Christ^s appointment, this bread and this cup, giving thanks to
thee through him, inasmuch as thou hast deigned that we should
stand before thee and sacrifice to thee. And we beseech thee, that
thou wouldest graciously look upon these gifts which lie before
thee, thou the God who iieedest nothing ; and that thou wouldest
ham pleasure in them to the honour of thy Christ ; and that thou
wouldest send thy Holy Spirit upon this sacnfice, the witness of
the sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ, in order that he may
make this bread the body of thy Christ and this cup tJie blood
of thy ChristK
* TI^af(pi^o/:iiv <rot tm ^x<riks7 x.cc) Sim,
xura Tr,y ecuTOJ ^ixrcc^iv, <rov a^rov tou-
TOV Kx) TO -ffOTn/JtOV TSUTO, iU^Oi^lffTOVVTlS
erot 01 avTov, Ip' ois Kanrri^iaxras hf^x; tff-
TUVXt IVMVt'oV ffou Kx) U^ivnv ffOl' xctl
u^iaivfAiv ffi, oTaii iv/uiveHs i<^tfi\i-^r,i it)
TO, T^oKi'if/.iva, ou^x rxvTx ivuTiov arov, tru
a,viv%v/ii &ios' xx) tv^ox'^(rr,i It ui/roTs
us TlfJt-hv TOU XoiffTOO ffOV' Xxl KXTX-
Tifji.'^rti TO clyiov ffov UviUfix i<ri t>;v
Svffixv TXVT'/JV, TOV f/,X^TV^X TUV Tx6yif/,x-
ruv rod Kv^iov 'l/^trov, oTug xToipnv^ tov
ei^rev toutov ffufjux tov X^io'tov ffov, kxi
TO Torri^tov tovto dufjbx rod X^itrrov ffov,
Clement. Liturg. in constit. Apost.
lib. viii. c. 12. Cotel. Patr. Apost. vol.
i. p. 407. Amstel. 1724.
The frequently occurring prayer in
tbe old Liturgies, that the Elements
of Bread and Wine may become or
may be made the Body and Blood of
Christ, will probably, at the first
blush, startle a modem Protest-
ant not much versed in the lan-
guage of Antiquity: but it gives no
warrant for the Popish Doctrine of
Transubstantiation. It is simply a
petition founded upon our Lord's own
words. He said of the Bread and
Wine : This is my Body ; and This
is my Blood. The prayer is : that
they may become or be made, what
Christ said they were. The sense,
in short, of the phraseology of the
prayer must plainly be ruled by the
SENSE of our Lord's own words.
Such phraseology is of very high
antiquity. For, to say nothing of its
use in the old Liturgies, it is em-
ployed, by Jerome in the fourth, and
even by Tertullian in the second,
century. Hieron. Epist. Ixxxv. ad
Evag. Oper. vol. ii. p. 259. Epist. i.
ad Heliodor. Oper. vol. i. p, 2. Tertull.
adv. Marcion. lib. iv. § 60. Oper. p.
285.
In truth, so little had it to do with
any idea of a Transubstantiation of
the Elements, that the Albigenses,
who are attested to have been staunch
Anti-transubstantialists, scrupled not
to use it as having long been famihar
in the Church, while at the same time
they rejected that literal interpreta-
tion of Christ's words which the
Papists at length wished to be adopted.
See Petr. Cluniac. cont. Petrobrus.
in Bibl. Patr. vol. xii. par. poster, p.
228. Bernard, super Cant. serm. Ixvi.
Oper. column. 765. Roger. Hoveden.
Annal. fol. 328. Monet, adv. Cathar.
lib. iv. e. 3. § I. p. 295, 296. Reiner,
de liseret. c. vi. in Bibl. Patr. vol.
xiii. p. 303. Petr. Vallisarn. apud
Facts and Docum. p. 523, Radulph.
Ardent. Senn. in Dominic, post Trin.
viii. apud Usser. de Eccles. Success.
c. ^iii. § 22. Gest. Synod. Aurelian.
A.D. 1017. in Dacher. Spicil. vol. ii.
p. 670-676.
Roger Hoveden, to whom I have
just referred as one of my authori-
108
DIFFICULTIES OF KOJilANISM.
[book I.
In the prayer now under consideration, the priest supplicates,
that God would send his Holy Spirit upon the elements, in
order that he may make them Christ's body and blood.
Consequently, befo7'e this suppKcation, the elements had
tiot been made the body and blood of Christ,
Yet, before this supplication, and thence before the accom-
plished consecration of the elements, these identical elements,
in their unconsecrated state, had been professedly offered up to
God under the well defined aspect of an eucharistic oblation
or a sacrifice of thanksgiving.
Therefore, the Early Church must have viewed the bread
and wine, as gifts or oblations to God, not posterior, but ante-
rior^ to their consecration.
This primitive testimony, at once, teaches us what the first
Christians understood to be the material oblation in the
Eucharist, and stamps the brand of novelty upon the opinion
that the consecrated elements themselves are a sacrifice of
any description. It likewise shews us, agreeably (as I have
ties, apparently says also, that the
Albigenses asserted the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation : but the clause,
which contains that pretended asser-
tion, is a palpable interi^olation. It
contradicts the explicit testimony of
other witnesses : and, furthermore, it
exhibits the Albigenses as familiarly
using the word Transubstantiation
thirty-seven years before the word
itself was invented. See my Vallenses
and Albigenses. book i. chap. 10.
§ III., and my Provincial Letters.
lett. vii. vol. i. p. 178-187. In this
last work, the subject is fully dis-
cussed: and the sad error of Mr.
Maitland, in asserting, more dog-
matically than modestly, that the Al-
bigenses held the Doctrine of Tran-
substantiation, is exposed and con-
futed by distinct historical testimony.
While I am on this subject, I may
notice a charge, which, in a manner
neither very fair nor very scholarlike,
has been brought against the Episco-
pal Church in Scotland, on account
of an expression in her Eucharistic
office.
Bless and sanctify, with thy Word
and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and
creatures of bread and wine, that they
MAY BECOME the Body and Blood of
thy most dearly beloved Son.
From the use of this phraseology,
that Church has actually been charged
with teaching the Eomish Doctrine of
Transubstantiation .
No doubt, by those who are scantily
read in Primitive Antiquity, the ex-
pression, not unxDlausibly to the igno-
rant, may be so misrepresented. But
such phraseology, being simply an
adoption of our Lord's own words,
stands upon record as that of the
Catholic Church no later, and proba-
bly earlier, than the second century ;
so that, if we unskilfully charge our
Episcopalian Brethren in Scotland
with Transubstantialising, on account
of their Liturgy alone; consistency,
I fear, Avill require, that we should
delight the Romanists, by ceding to
them, on the very same ground, both
Tertullian and Jerome and mth them
the Church of at least the second and
fourth centuries. How far tractarian-
ising individuals may distort, for their
own purposes, the language of An-
tiquity, I know not : but, certainly,
no pist allegation can be made against
the Scottisli Episcopal Church itself
from the language of its Liturgy.
CHAP. lY.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 109
already observed) to the very import of tlie word Eucharist,
and in perfect harmony with the testimony of Iren^us, that
the bread and wine, when offered at the figurative altar in
order to consecration, were, antecedently to such consecration,
viewed as being strictly a sacrifice of thanksgiving from the
first-fruits of God's creatures : an opinion, which effectually
destroys the whole modern idea of an expiatory or piacular
sacrifice. The very phraseology, indeed, both of the Clemen-
tine Prayer, and of Iren^us, distinctly shews, that originally
the bread and wine were deemed eucharistic oblations only
while unconsecrated : at least (what is quite enough for my pur-
pose), it effectually shews it, on his own avowed principles, to
the modem advocate of Transubstantiation. In the Clementine
Prayer, the oblations are described as gifts from among his
creatures to God, who himself has no need of such oblations :
and, in the passages cited from Ireneus, they are similarly
represented as the mere first-fruits of God's creatures, offered
to him, not as if he wanted any thing, but only that the
offerers might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful. Such
language, respecting the material oblations offered up in the
course of celebrating the Eucharist, is strictly appropriate and
decorous, if those material oblations are the unconsecrated
bread and wine : but it is most strangely and most disparag-
ingly inappropriate and indecorous, if it relate to the conse-
crated elements, now, according to the theory of the Romanists,
actually become the literal body and blood and soul and divinity
of the incarnate second person of the Trinity,
Thus, from positive evidence, does it distinctly appear, that
the maternal eucharistic oblations of the Primitive Church were
simply the unconsecrated bread and wine, presented upon the
altar, at the commencement of the ceremony, under the aspect
of mere gifts or sacrifices of thanhsgiving : nor have we the
slightest testimony, that the elements, after consecration, were
ever, by the earliest Christians or the Christians anterior to
the third century, viewed as sacrifices of any description,
either eucharistic or piacular.
(2.) Such then, in the judgment of the Primitive Church,
were the material oblations offered up in the course of duly
celebrating the Eucharist,
110 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
Now, that the unconsecrated, and therefore (in latm phrase)
the untransuhstantiated, bread and whie can ever, m any sense,
have been offered up for and on behalf of the pious dead, no
Romanist will pretend: because such a notion would plainly
be quite alien from, and hostile to, the tridentine doctrine ;
that, In the sacrifice of the Mass, the literal Christ himself is
literally and substantially devoted, hy the officiating priest, as a
propitiatory oblation for the sins both of the quick and of the
dead. It remains, therefore, to inquire, what those oblations
and sacrifices for the departed can have been, which Tertul-
lian and 'Cyprian most undoubtedly assure us were offered up
by Christians at the close of the second and in the middle of
the third century.
That such oblations for the dead could not have been the
material oblations of unconsecrated bread and wine, is evident
to common sense, and will readily be admitted by the tri-
dentising Romanist; that they were oblations connected with
the ritual of the Eucharist, whether imepar^ably thus connected
or not, is so probable as to be well nigh indisputable. At
least, / myself have not the slightest wish to dispute this
connection : for I am quite satisfied, that, in those early times,
oblations or sacrifices for the dead regularly accompanied the
liturgical celebration of the Eucharist.
In the present account, then, of such oblations, negative and
positive, what shall we pronounce to have been their true
nature ?
To modern protestant ears, unaccustomed to ancient phrase-
ology, oblations for the dead will convey a sound not a little
ominous and startling : yet, without the least approximation
to Tridentine Popery, each devout member of the reformed
Anglican Church imites with the officiating priest, in these
identical oblations for the dead, every time that he joins in the
celebration of the holy Eucharist ; nay more, there are places
of worship in which he thus unites with the priest every Lord's
day, even when the Eucharist is not celebrated.
Justin, as we have seen, while speaking of that venerable
institution, tells us ; that prayers and thanksgivings are the only
sacrifices acceptable to God : and he adds ; that Christians have
been taught to. offer these alone in the commemorative sacrametit
CHAP. IV.] MFFICtJLTIES OF ROMANISM. 1 1 1
of the EucharistK In a similar manner, as we have also seen,
Tertullian assures us: that the dean sacrifices, which are pre-
dicted by Malachi and which Justi7i and Ireneus deem allusive
to the Eucha7ist, are the spi7'itual sacrifices of glorification and
blessing and prayer and thariksgiving'^.
From such evidence, we cannot doubt, I think, that the
oblations, offered by the primitive Christians for the pious dead,
were simply thanksgivings or eucharistic actions to God for their
happy departure f^om the iniseries of this sinful and troublesome
ivo7'ld. These oblations of thanksgiving and benediction were,
indeed, sometimes, at a later period, associated, as Tertullian,
I believe, first recom7nended, with absolute and direct prayer
for the advantage of their souls; though the eucharistic ob-
lations themselves were distinct from the direct prayer: but
tlien, as Tertullian duly informs us, the prayer, which he
irxommended, was to be put up, 7iot for any deliverance out of
a fancied purgatory, but only that they might be refreshed by
partaking of the first resurrection, instead of waiting for the
second^; a notion plainly taken up from an uncertain and
gratuitous exposition of an obscure passage in the Apocalypse*.
Accordingly, if we again turn to the ancient Clementine Prayer
of consecration, we shall find, in matter of fact, that the precise
spiritual sacrifices of benediction and thanksgiving and suppli-
cation, mentioned by Justin as the only sacrifices of the Primi-
tive Church, were duly offered up both for the living and for
the dead : supplication for the living, that they might receive
the Spirit to all holiness of conversation; thanksgiving and
benediction for all the dead saints, whether patriarchs or pro-
phets or apostles or martyrs or confessors or clerks or just men
of whatsoever description, who in every age have been pleasing
to God, and whose names he has deigned to recognised
' Tayra y«j MONA. Justin's ALONE, ^ Seeabove,bonki.chap.4. §11.2. (2.)
however, must not be so rigidly un- ^ See above, book i. chap. 4. § I.
derstood as to exclude the material 2. (10.)
eucharistic oblations of unconsecrated * Rev. xx. 4-0.
bread and wine : it imports only, « "Et/ h'of/,i6a, (tov, Ky^/j, xa\ t/Vs^ Tnt
that spiritual sacrifices of praise and kyla-i trov IxxXritrixs ryjs »to tioktuv
thanksgiving were so preeminently the 'iais ti^xtuv — x«) v^s^ 5r««r»j iTitrKOTjis
sacrifices of devout Christians, that t?? o^^oTofzouffm tov x'oyov rn? u.x^h'ia.s.
they might well in common parlance "Et-/ ■ro'^a.x.itXr.uf/.U in Ka.\ vtI^ rvt ty-'^s
be spoken of exclusively. raw -r^airipi^avTCi aoi ouhviat, K«t vTi^
112
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I.
These pious oblations for the pious dead are still, as I have
already hinted, after the example of primitive antiquity, offered
up by the truly apostolical Church of England, whenever she
celebrates the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in
the blessed Eucharist, or whenever without administration of
the Lord's Supper her ministers use the prayer for the whole
state of Christ's Church militant here in earth.
We also bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this
life in thy faith and fear ; beseeching thee to give us grace so to
follow their examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy
heavenly kingdom^.
In the Primitive Church, these eucharistic oblations for the
pious dead were offered up, not only generally and anony-
mously, but particularly and specifically. When a christian
brother was delivered out of the miseries of this sinful world,
thanksgivings were offered up, even by name, for what was
variously and beautifully called, either his birth-day into eternal
life, or his sleep in Christ Jesus. But still higher honours were
reserved for those glorious martyrs, who had resisted even
v«v, xu) TxvTos Tov kXv^ov. — "Eti 'TTU^X-
xet) Tuv IV V'^i^o^Ti, Koi tuvtos tov ffT^Ot-
TOTlBoV.
"Et/ T^oir(pi^9/u.iv cot xa) u<rt^ Teivruv
Tuv CL'T uluvos ilK^i(Tryi(Ta.vTuv troi ayiuv,
^ocT^iCc^^uv, f^o<pyiTa<v, ^ixocimv, ocTotTTO-
Xwv, fzct^TVpuv, ofjboXoyyiruv, iTncrxo'TuVf
^^itrBvri^uv, oioixovuv, v^o^ixxovtuv, u,va,-
yvuffTuv, •^uKtuv, "Txp^ivaiy, ^yi^uv, Xoii-
xaiv, xcii "TToivruv uv avreg \-ff'KTTa,ffa.i rx
ovo/u.xTa. Clem. Liturg. in Constit.
Apost. lib. viii. c. 1'2. Cotel. Patr.
Apost. vol. i. p. 407, 408.
That these oblations for the pioTis
dead could only have been oblations
of thanksgiving to God for their holy
lives upon earth and for their happy
removal to heaven, is fully established
by the circumstance, that, shortly af-
terward, in the self-same prayer, the
self-same oblations are made iovjine
tvcather, and for abundant crops ; and
no Eomanist, I presume, will venture
to assert, that, for such objects, the
supposed propitiatory sacrifice of
Christ in the Eucharist could ever
have been offered up in the Primitive
Church Catholic.
"Er/ '^^o(r(p'i^o[ji.iv <rot xa) vtio tjjs
ivx^aeriag "^ou ai^cg xa.) rJjj ii/ipo^ieis
TUV Xa^TUV' o'^US, KVXXXilTUS fiZTCiXeifjC.'
(^dvovTis 7MV 'TTu.ga. ffoZ otyctSuiv, ai-
vuf/.tv ai ocretvffTUi rov ^i^ovTa r^o^hv
'TTot.ffn ffa^Ki. Cotel. Patr. Apost. vol. i.
p. 4(:8.
We may observe, tliat the oblation
is here strictly defined to be an obla-
tion of praise and thanksffiving. But it
is the same oblation, without any va-
riation of phraseology, 'in T^otr<pioofisv
and in ^^oir<pi^of/,tv, as that, which is
equall;/ ofiered up for the pious dead
from the very beginning of the world.
The primitive oblation for the pious
dead, therefore, was not the fancied
propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass
which rests upon the unproved doc-
trine of Tran substantiation, but sim-
ply an oblation of praise and thanks-
giving to God for all his mercies
shewn toward them,
' A similar oblation of thanks-
giving for the dead in Christ occurs
also in the Burial Service.
We give thee hearty thanks, for that
it hath pleased thee to deliver this our
brother out of the miseries of this sinful
ivorld.
CHAI'. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 113
unto blood. The Churcli, of which they had been members,
annually commemorated their martyrdom : and, as an incite-
ment to the survivors, special oblations of thanksgiving were
offered up to Almighty God for the stedfastness of their tes-
timony and for their triumphant entrance into bliss everlasting ;
while their names, as a perpetual memorial, were honourably
enrolled in what were called the Diptychs^.
This very simple account of primitive worship will readily
explain those passages from Tertullian and Cyprian, which
have been preposterously adduced for the purpose of shewing :
that The Early Church deemed the traiisubstantiated elements a
true propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead.
As Christians returned thanks to God for the release of their
pious departed friends : so, if, in life, a person, like the Victor
mentioned by Cyprian, proudly and deliberately contravened
the reasonable ordinances of the Church ; no oblation of thanks-
giving for his happy dormition was, in that case, publicly
offered up m his name and on his behalf. It was thought
inconsistent to thank God for the allegorical birth-day of one,
who had acted with resolute impropriety, and who till death
(as the very nature of his testament evinced) persisted in his
misconduct.
3. For the Adoration of the Eucharistic Elements with the
highest worship of Latria, Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington do
not bring any testimony from the Early Fathers. Their de-
fectiveness, touching a very important assertion of the Council
of Trent, Dr. Moehler has endeavoured to correct by adducing
a passage, or rather a scrap of a passage, from Ireneus, in which
is mentioned the Epiclesis or Invocation. But, as we have seen,
the Professor has oddly mistaken the gnosticising impostor
Marcus for what I suppose he would denominate a Catholic
Pnest.
4. To the preceding remarks on the evidence from the Early
Fathers produced by Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevern, I may
fitly subjoin an observation similar to that which concluded
my remarks on the texts alleged by them from Holy Scriptm-e.
The proper business of those two Divines was to shew : that,
TJie Doctrine of Transuhstantiation, as defined by the council
' See Biugham's Ant. of the Christian Church, book xv. c. 3. § 17.
I
114 DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [bOOK I.
OF TRENT, was held by the Catholic Church from the very he-
ginning.
Yet, for various matters authoritatively laid down by that
Council they do not even attempt to produce any evidence.
Respecting A Conversioti of the entire substance of the ele-
ments, jointly and severally, into the entit'e living Christ, viewed
under the aspect of the essential Deity and a human soul united
to material jlesh and blood; respecting A Conversion of each
separate pa7'ticle and each separate drop of the elements into the
entire Christ; and respecting An Adoration paid to the elements
after consecration, on the avowed ground, that those elements,
jointly and severally, unitedly and distributedly, have noiv become
the Supreme Being himself: respecting all these points, the wit-
nesses, adduced by them, are completely silent.
The Council of Trent, indeed, defines all these matters with
abundant clearness and distinctness. But as we read nothing
of them in Scripture, so neither do we read any thing of them
in the writings of the Primitive Church : and the Tridentine
Synod, when unsupported by the voice of Antiquity biblical
and ecclesiastical, comes too late, even though papally ratified,
by about some fifteen centuries.
lY. For the better development of truth, let it never cease
to be carefully observed ; that the Council of Trent not only
defines the doctrine of Transubstantiation, with all its con-
comitants, nakedly and abstractedly : it likewise asserts, com-
plexly and concretely, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation,
as thus defined, was alavays the faith of the Church Catholic
from the very beginning^.
We have seen the evidence, scriptural and ecclesiastical, which
has been produced for the purpose ofsubstantiatingthis very extra-
ordinary asseveration : and the cautious inquirer will judge for
himself whether, even through evidence freely selected by the
very advocates of Tridentine Romanism (evidence, as yet not
met by a syllable of distinct counter-evidence), the asseveration
has been substantiated.
Now, to say nothing of the second Nicene Council, which
leaves it doubtful, whether Consubstantiation or Transubstan-
■ Concil. Trident, sess. xiii. c. 1. p. 122. c. 3. p. 124. c. 5. p. 125. sess.
xxli. c. 2. p. 239, 240.
CHAI'. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 115
tiation was^ in the eighth century, to be received as the alone
true orthodox faith ; and to say nothing of the fourth Council
of Lateran, which, to the Church of the thirteenth century,
leaves wholly undefined various points, minutely determined
by the modern Council of Trent some fifteen hundi'ed years
and more after the christian era : what shall we think of the
honest confession of an eminent Romanist, who was actually
writing that identical confession, at the very time while the
Tridentine Fathers were roundly declaring that their precise
definition had been the unvarying faith of the Catholic Church
in ALL ages ' ?
Before Innocent III. who presided in the Lateran Council,
says Bishop Tunstall of Durham, it seemed to the more curious
inquirer, that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist might take
place after three several modes. Some thought, that the body of
Christ was present together unth the bread or in the bread, like
fire in a heated mass of iron : which mode Luther seems to have
followed. Others thought, that the bread was annihilated or
corrupted. Others, agai?i, thought, that the substance of the
bread vjas transm,uted into the substance of the body of Christ.
This last m.ode Innocent adopted: atid thence, in that Council,
rejected the other modes. But, whether it were more expedient
to leave each curious person to his own conjecture in regard to the
mode of Chrisfs bodily presence ; as the question, previous to that
Council, icas left free, provided a person confessed the true
existence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Euchanst,
which was the faith of the Church from the beginning : or whether,
perhaps, it were better, out of the three above specified modes, to
select that one which most quadrated with the words of Chjnst,
and to reject the other modes, lest otherwise among the too curious
men of that age there should be no end of contention, since in that
disputative period silence could i?i no other way be imposed upon
curious tongues : I deem it just, since the Church is the column of
' In the year 1551, the Tridentine stall's Work on the true body and
Fathers, during their thirteenth ses- blood of Christ in the Eucharist was
sion, were displaying their remark- printed at Paris under the superin-
able intimacy with ancient Eeclesi- tendance of his celebrated nephew
astical History by magnanimously Bernard Gilpin. Hence Tunstall must
propounding this identical declara- have been wrilbig the Work much
tion : in the year 1554, Bishop Tun- aboiit the year 1551.
116 DIFFICULTIES OF RO.MANISM. [bOOK I.
the truth, that, concerning a ^natter of this nature, its decision
should altogether he firmly observed^.
No doubt, as Bishop Tunstall says, the true existence of the
body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist was the faith of the
Church from the beginning: though certainlj as we shall here-
after see, not in the sense imposed by the Romish Church^.
The real question is ; whether this true existence was, aborigi-
nally, held to be, literal and material, or figurative and
SPIRITUAL. Now, if the clearest evidence can be depended
upon, the Early Church most indisputably maintained the
latter opinion, and never so much as dreamed of the former.
But, to pass this by, the Bishop states, we see, as a notorious
FACT : that, anterior to the Fourth Lateran Council in the
year 1215, so far from there being, among the faithful, any
such complete unanimity of opinion, in regard to the mode of
Christ's literal or substantial presence in the Eucharist, as the
Tridentine Fathers have intrepidly asserted: there actually
existed, without any imputation on the orthodoxy of their
several wrangling advocates, no fewer than three several
opinions respecting that identical question.
Prior to the year 1215, a man, in romish estimation, might
be perfectly orthodox, who denied Transubstantiation, if he
held Consubstantiation.
A man might be equally orthodox, who denied both Tran-
substantiation and Consubstantiation, provided only that he
insisted upon the total Annihilation of the elements and the
substitution of Christ's body and blood in their place.
' Ante Innocentium tertium l\o- et sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia
manum Episcox)um, qui in Latera- esse fateretur; qure fuit ab initio ipsa
nensi Concilio praesedit, tribus modis Ecolesite fides: an fortasse melius, de
id (scil. Christi prtesentia in Eucha- tribus illis modis supra toemoratis,
ristia) posse fieri curiosius scrutanti- illam unam eligere quae cum verbis
bus visum est: aliis existimantibus, Cbristi maxime quadraret, et ciBteros
una cum pane, vel in pane, Christi modos abjicere, ne alioqui inter nimis
corpus adesse, veluti ignem in ferii curiosos illius iBtatis homines finis
massa, quem modum Lutherus se- contentionum non fuisset, quando
cutus videtur : aliis, panem in nihi- contentioso illo soeculo Unguis curi-
lum redigi vel corrumpi ; aliis, sub- osis silentium imponi alio modo non
stantiam panis transmutari in sub- potuit : justum existimo, ut de re
stantiam corporis Christi : quem mo- ejusmodi, quia Ecclesia columna est
dura secutus Innocentius reliquos veritatis, firmum ejus omnino ob-
modos in eo Concilio rejecit. Anvero servetur judicium. Tunstall. Dunelm.
potius, de modo quo id fieret, curio- de ver.corp.etsang.Domin.inEuchar.
sum quemrjue relinquere sure conjee- p. 46. Lutet. Paris. 15o4.
turae, sicut liberum fuit ante illud * See below, book ii. chap. 4. §
Concilium, modo veritatem coi-poris YII.
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. 117
And, again, a man might be fully orthodox, who, rejecting
each of the two speculations of Consubstantiation and Substitu-
tion, maintained the absolute Conversion of the whole substance
of the elements into the substance of Christ's body and blood.
Now, it is quite clear, that all these three opinions cannot
alike be true. What, then, was to be done in such an
emergency? Why, truly this. The Fourth Council of
Lateran, under the happy auspices of Pope Innocent, defined
the last of the three opinions, all of which were once reputed
orthodox, be thenceforth, that is to say from the date of the
eventful year 1215, exclusively orthodox: thus suddenly
transmuting two forms of anciently admitted orthodoxy into
two modifications of convicted and pestilent heresy.
But, on the principles, so stoutly maintained as his special
boast by every good Romanist, and so absolutely laid down
by the infallible Tridentuie Fathers; that Councils advance
nothing new, but decide only as to what doctrines they have
invanahly received through the unbroken channel of their pre-
decessors from the very beginning : on these principles, I am at
a loss to comprehend, how Pope Innocent and his Council
could come to any valid and legitimate decision : for, instead
of receiving the exclusive inculcation of one mode only from
the begimiing, all other modes being invaeiablt deemed
heretical: they confessedly received, as good Bishop Tunstall
witnesses, no fewer than three modes, the holding of any one
of which was, anterior to the year 1215, perfectly compatible
with orthodoxy and therefore perfectly free from the stain of
heresy.
Clearly, then, they must have decided between the three
modes, nakedly and abstractedly and dogmatically, not com-
plexly and traditionally and evidentially : for, by tradition
from their predecessors, all the three came down to them under
the pleasing aspect of being equally free from heretical insin-
cerity.
Yet, by Latin Theologians, we are constantly assured : that
Bishops, lawfully assembled in Ecumenical Councils, have always
decided upon points of faith, not by any arbitrary exertion of
mere unevidential dogmatic authority, but by an historical appeal
to the UNVARYING testimony of Antiquity; testimony, which,
WITHOUT change OR EVEN SHADOW OF TURNING, has accurately
118 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
descended to them, generation hy generation, from the very com-
mencement of Christianity.
And, by these same Latin Divines, we are analogously
instructed : that, the precise faith, now held hy their Church and
inculcated hy themselves, is the identical faith, which, without
ANY THE LEAST YARIATION, has .\XWAYS hccn maiiitaincd, from the
very first, hy the orthodox and infallihle Church Catholic^,
Now, on the principles thus laid down by Dr. Trevern and
Mr. Berington, I should be glad to learn: first, how three
totally different modes of expounding Christ's alleged substan-
tial presence in the Eucharist should all have existed, in the
Latin or papally denominated Catholic Chiu'ch, with an equal
admission of orthodoxy, anterior to the year 1215: and,
secondly, how (as these Divines speak), the Fathers of the
Fourth Lateran Council, by the simple process of neither adding
nor retrenching, managed, without making any alteration and
through an unbroken chain of living witnesses, to reject TWO
modes and to impress upon the favoured third mode the in-
falHble seal of henceforth exclusive orthodoxy.
Except by an appeal to the mere dogmatical decision of the
Fourth Council of Lateran, Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington
with the whole fraternity of the Romish Priesthood, can shew
no cause, why the Doctrine of Transubstantiation ought to be
exclusively adopted, and why the Doctrines of Consubstantia-
tion and Annihilation ought to be peremptorily rejected. They
cannot, however, appeal to the mere dogmatism of a compara-
tively late standing, without entirely abandoning their own
boasted principle of Invariable Traditional Descent.
I am at a loss to reconcile these assertions, with the conduct
of the Fourth Lateran Council on the one hand, and with the
honest acknowledgments of Bishop Tunstall on the other hand
that anterior to that Council three schemes of reputed equal
orthodoxy had existed in the Church.
It is worthy of notice, that the impossibility of establishing
the Doctrine of Transubstantiation simply from Scripture and
without the Authoritative Declaration of tlie Church, was fairly
acknowledged, as Cardinal Bellarmine informs us, both by
* See Trevem's Discuss. Araic. ton's Faith of (Pathol. Introd. p. 3,
vol. i. p. 121, 215, 216, and Bering- 12, 13.
CUAV. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
119
Duns Scotus in particular, and likewise by the most learned
and the most acute men of the Latin Communion in general :
nay, it is more than half acknowledged by that celebrated
Jesuit himself, to whose testimony I gladly refer.
Duns Scotus f says the Cardinal, asserts : that there is no place
of Scripture so express, that, without the Declaration of the
Church, it evidently compels us to adrnit the Doctnne of Tran-
substantiation. And this is not altogether improbable. For,
although the Scripture, which ive have adduced above, seems to
us so clear that it may comjyel a man who is not determinately
froward : yet, ivhether it be really so, may deservedly be doubted,
since men, the most learned and the most acute, such as Scotus
pj^eeminently ivas, are of a contrary opinion^.
The matter, then, stands thus.
Transubstantiation cannot be satisfactorily established from
SCR1PTUEE-.
^ Dicit (scil. Duns Scotus), non
extare locum ullum Scripturse tarn
expressum, ut, sine Ecclesife Declara-
tione, evidenter cogat Transubstan-
tiationem admittere. Atque id non
est omnino improbabile. Nam, etsi
Scriptura, quam nos supra adduximus,
videatur nobis tarn clara, ut possit
cogere hominem non protervum : ta-
men, an ita sit, merito dubitari potest,
cum homines doctissimi et acutissimi,
qualis imprimis Scotus fuit, contra-
rium sentiant. Bellarm.deSacr. Eu-
char. lib. iii. c. 23. apud Cosin.
^ In the year 1830, or six years after
the publication of my second edition,
Dr. Wiseman put forth a Work en-
titled Lectures on the Real Presence of
the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ in the Blessed Encharist : and,
since then, as I am given to under-
stand, he has printed, in the year
1851, a new edition of that Work
under the more ambitious title of
The Real Presence of the Body and
Blood ff Christ in the Encharist pkoved
from Scripture.
No ('oubt, if the learned gentleman
can make good the claim preferred in
the title-page to his new edition, he
will amply deserve the rank in the
Church of Rome which has been con-
ferred upon him : for he will liave ac-
complished, what an older Cardinal
ventured not to say that he had ac-
complished, and what Duns Scotus
and (as Bellarmine speaks) the most
learned and the most acute men of that
Communion declared to be incapable
of accomplishment ; namely, the proof
of Transubstantiation from the inde-
pendent TESTIMONY OF SCETPTURE.
I at once say Transubstantiation :
because, in his first lecture at its very
opening, he himself tells us, that, by
the Beal Presence, he means Transub-
stantiation as defined by the Council of
Trent. The task, therefore, which
Dr. Wiseman claims to have perform-
ed, is the Production of a proof from
simple Scripture that Transubstantia-
tion is the alone true Doctrine of the
Eucharist.
This first edition I possess and
have read. His only proof from
SCRIPTURE rests, on the sixth chapter
of St. John, and the Words of Insti-
tution as recorded in Matt. xxvi.
26-29. Mark xiv. 22-25. Luke xxii.
19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. In a sepa-
rate Work of mine, entitled Christ's
Discourse at Capernaum fatal to the
Doctnne of Transubstantiation,lhsive al-
ready discussed the pretended proof
from the sixth chapter of St. John,
and have shewn its utter futility :
and, as for his claim of proof from
the recorded words of Institution, it
120 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
Neither, as it inevitably follows from the confession of
Tunstall touching a pure historical fact, can it be established
from UNVARYING ABORIGINAL TESTOIONY AS TO THE TRUE SENSE
OF SCRIPTURE.
Therefore, as Scotus and the most learned and acute men of
the Romish Churcli openly affirmed, and as Cardinal Bellar-
mine more than half admitted, it can only be estabhshed from
THE NAKED DOGMATICAL DECLARATION OF A COUNCIL WHICH SAT
IN THE TEAR MCCXV.
The Declaration of the Fourth Lateran was confirmed and
enlarged by the subsequent Council of Trent. But this
circumstance only mars, instead of mending, the matter. The
Council of Trent roundly declares the Doctruie of Transub-
stantiation, even in its greatest fulness of plumage. Had this
infallible Synod done nothing more, its naked Declaration
might have told for what it was worth. That, I suppose,
would have been of no great value: but, at any rate, the
Council would not, by its inconsistency, have forfeited its in-
fallibility. The Tridentine Fathers actually assert (credite
posteri), that their Doctrine of the Eucharist, as defined
gratuitously by themselves, was invariably held and taught
FROM THE BEGINNING by ALL members of the true Church of
Christ^ ! How to reconcile this with the known fact, that,
prior to the time of Pope Innocent III. and the Fourth Lateran
in the year 1215, there existed in the Latin Church three
several schemes of the Eucharist, not one of which, until then,
was declared to be heretical or even heterodox, it rests with
the gentlemen of the Romish Priesthood to explain to us.
Doubtless Bishop Tunstall may say, as he does say, that the
Decisions of the Church (confounding, by the familiar popish
is nothing more respectable than a be done without calling to the rescue
mere begging of the question. Dr. the Authoritative Decisions of Coun-
Wiseman's Work I have most care- cils : the disgrace, attaching to Dr.
fully perused: and thence I can have Wiseman, consists, not in the inevit-
no hesitation in saying, that, as re- able failure, but in the ambitious folly
gards its professed object, it is acorn- of the attempt. For the confessions
plete failure. Nor does this impeach of the foremost Eomish Divines, see
any thing more than the trisdom of below, chap. vii. § I. I. July 13, 1852.
the attempt. When the ablest men ' The assertion will be found in
of the Romish Church have fairly Concil. Trident, sess. xiii. c. 1. p. 122,
admitted, that the Dogma is inca- 123. I have cited the passage in full
pable of any binding Proof from at the opening of the present chap-
3criptiu*e alone, and that nothing can ter.
CHAP. IT.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
121
sophism, the Provmcial Latin Church of the West with the
Entire Church Catholic) are the Column of the Truth : but,
even should such a construction of the text referred to be
admitted, this does, in no wise, remove the present difficulty ^
If we receive the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as defined,
first by the Fourth Lateran Council, and afterward by the
Council of Trent: we plainly must receive it, according to
the very confession of Bishop Tunstall himself, not from the
UNVAHYING Traditional Testimony of Antiquity, but simply
upon the mere naked unevidential Dogmatic Authority of two
Popes and two Councils, deciding respectively, according to
their own unsupported good will and pleasure, more than twelve
centuries and more than fifteen centuries after the Christian
Era.
' The Column or Pillar of the
Truth, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, is not the
Church, but the Mystery of Godliness.
According to the excellent punctua-
tion of Griesbach, the clause in ques-
tion is parenthetical.
Xes XXI i^^eciufiet tvis aXniflecs, xu) ofAoko-
yovfji.iva>i fAiya,, Iitti to t^j iva-tfitias
fivarrioiov^, os i^a,n^co(yi Iv ffot^x).
That thou mayest know how to con-
duct thyself in the house of God which
is the Church of the living GoD {the Pil-
lar and the Ground of the Truth, and
confessedly great, is the Mystery of God-
liness), WHO was manifested in the flesh.
The antecedent, to the genuine
reading os, is plainly Stov. E.G. the
Living God — who was manifested in
the flesh. Thus we have two great
truths asserted : 1. that the Mystery
of Godliness is the Pillar of the Truth;
and 2. that it was the Living God who
teas manifested in the flesh.
CHAPTER V.
PTJEGATORY.
By the Council of Trent it has been determined ; that There is
a Purgatory, and that The souls there detained are assisted by the
suffrages of the faithful and mcsb especially by the acceptable
sacnfice of the altar : and the same Council furthermore asserts ;
that This Doctrine of a Purgatory has been learned by the Ca-
tholic Church, both from Holy Sciipture, and from the Ancient
Tradition of the Fathers^.
' Cum Catholica Ecclesia, Spiritu
Sancto edocta, ex Sacris Litteris et
antiqua Patrum traditione, in sacris
Conciliis et novissime in hac (Ecu-
menica Synodo docueiit : Purga-
toriura esse, animasque ibi detentas
fidelium sutfragiis potissimum vero
acceptabili altaris sacrificio juvari :
prseeipit sancta Syncdus Episcopis,
ut sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam, a
Sanctis Patribus et saciis Conciliis
traditam, a Christi fidelibus credi,
teneri, doceri, et ubique prsedicari,
diligenter studeant. Concil. Trident.
sess.xxv.decret.dePurgat. p. 505,506.
Profiteor pariter in Missa ofierri
Deo verum, proprium, et propitia-
torium saciificium, pro vivis et de-
functis. — Constanter teneo Purga-
torium esse, animasque ibi detentas
fidelium sufiragiis juvari. Profess. Fid.
Trident, in Syllog. Confess, p. 4.
I subjoin the earlier decision of the
Council of Florence, rated as the six-
teenth ecumenical Council, and holden
in the year 1439.
Item, si vere po-nitentibus in Dei
caritate decesserint, antequam dignis
poenitentise fructibus de commissis
satisfecerint etomis.-is, eonim animas
panis purgatoriis post mortem pur-
gari, et ut a poenis hujusmodi rele-
ventur, prodesse eis fidelium vivorum
suftVagia, missarum, scilicet, sacrificia,
orationes, et eleemosynas, et alia pie-
tatis officia, qua3 a fidelibus pro aliis
fidelibus fieri consueveruut, secun-
dum Ecclesiae instituta : illorumque
animas, qui, post baptisma susceptum,
nullam omnino peccati maculam in-
curn-runt ; illas etiam quai post con-
tractam peccati maculam, vel in suis
corporibus, vel eisdem exutffi corpoii-
bus, prout superius dictum est, sunt
purgatae, in ccelum mox recipi, et
intueri clare ipsum Deum, trinum et
unum, sicuti est, pro meritorum ta-
men diversitate, alium alio perfectius :
illorum autem animas, qui, in actuali
mortali peccato vel solo originali de-
cedunt, mox in infernum descendere,
pcenis tamen disparibus pimiendas.
Defin. Synod. Florent. apud Labb.
Concil. vol. xiii. p. 515.
CHAP, v.] DIFnclJLTIES OF llOMANIS-Af. 123
I. Now, as the Council declares, not merely by its own insu-
lated authority, but professedly from the teaching of Holy
Scripture and the Ancient Fathers, that there is a Purgatory
circumstanced agreeably to the preceding definition : a necessity
is plainly laid, upon those who receive such Doctrine from
the Council of Trent, to establish it by direct proof, both from
Holy Scripture, and from the Ancient Fathers of the Church.
Accordingly, the necessity has been felt, and the proof has been
attempted.
1. The proof from Scripture, or from what the Tridentine
Council has pronounced to be Scripture, is thought to be con-
tained in the following passages.
(1.) Wheti Judas had made a gathering throughout the com-
pany, to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to
Jerusalem, to offer a sin-offering ; doing therein very well and
honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection {for, if he
had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it
had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and also in
that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those
that died godly. It was a holy and good thought. Whereupon
he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might he delivered
from sin\
(2.) Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it
shall be forgiven him: but, whosoever speaketh against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not he foi^given him, neither in this world, neither
in the world to come. — But I say unto you, that every idle word
that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of
judgment. — For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels : and then he shall reivard every man
according to his works'^.
(3.) Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his
own labour. — For other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ Now, if any man build, upon this
foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, tvood, hay, stubble :
every marts ivork shall be made manifest. For the day shall
declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire: and the fire shall
try every man^s work of ivhat sort it is. If any man^s ivoi'k
abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward : if
' 2 Maccab. xii. 43-46. » Matt. xii. 32. 30. xvi. 27.
124 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
any man's work shall he burned, he shall suffer loss ; hut he him-
self shall he saved, yet so as hy jire^.
(4.) For Christ also hath once sufered for sins, the just for
the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
the flesh, hut quickened by the spirit. By which also he went and
preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime ivere dis-
obedient, when once the long-suffering of God ivaited in the days
of Noah''.
(5.) There shall in no ivise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lye : but they
which are written in the Lamb's book of life^.
2. The proof from the Ancient Fathers of the Chiu'ch, or
the Fathers of the Three First Centuries, must be sought in the
following three writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen.
(1.) TertulHan, it will be remembered, flourished at the end
of the second and at the beginning of the third century.
We annually make oblations for the dead, for their nativities'^.
Let her pray for his soul : and let her, meanwhile, beg for him
refreshment and a participation in the first resurrection: and let
her offer on the anniversaries of his dormition^.
And now make before God repeated mention of her, for whose
spirit you pray, for whom you offer annual oblations^.
(2.) Cyprian flourished about the middle of the third cen-
tury.
The Bishops our predecessors, religiously considering and
wholesomely providing, determined, that no brother, departing this
life, should nominate a Clerk to a guardianship or executorship) :
and, if any one should have done this, they decreed, that no oblation
should he made for him, and that no sacrifice should he celebrated
for his dormition^.
' 1 Corinth, iii. 8, 11-15. "> Quod Episcopi antecessores nos-
' 1 Peter iii. 18-20. tri religiose considerantes, et salu-
^ Eev. xxi. 27. briter providentes, censuerunt, ne
* Tei-tiill. de coron. mil. § 3. .Oper. quis frater excedens, ad tutelam vel
p. 449. For the original, see above, cnram, Clericum nominaret : ac, si
book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (lO.j quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro
5 Tertull. demonogara. § 10. Oper. eo, nee sacrificium pro dorraitione
p. 578. For the original, see above, ejus celebraretur. Cyprian. Epist. i.
book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (10.) Oper. vol. ii. p. 2, 3. For the example
^ TertuU. exhort, ad castit. Oper. of Victor, see above, book i. chap. 4.
p. 564. For the original, see above, § I. 2. (10.)
booki. chap. 4. § I. 2. (10.)
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMA^ISM. 125
It is one thing, to stand a petitioner for pardon ; another, to
come to glory : it is one thing, to he thrown into prison and not
to come out from it until the last farthing he paid ; another, imme-
diately to receive the reward of faith and virtue : it is one thing,
to he cleansed for sins through the suffering of long pain and to
he long purged in fire ; another, to have purged all sins through
suffering : finally, it is one thing, to depend in the day of judg-
ment upon the sentence of the Lord ; another, to he crowned hy
the Lord immediately^.
(3.) Origen flourished during the earlier half and about the
middle of the third century.
It must now he considered, what awaits us hereafter : whether,
if we depart this life, having sins hut having likewise vii^tues,
we shall he saved indeed on account of our virtues and shall
he absolved of our sins knowingly committed; or whether we
shall he punished on account of our sins, and shall receive no
reward on account of our virtues. But neither of these will
he the fact : for I say, that we shall receive the reward of our
good deeds, hut shall receive no reward for our evil deeds ;
inas7nuch as it is just, that God should purify him who is willing,
and should cut out that ivhich is evil. Let us suppose, that, after
Christ the foundation in whom you have heen inst7%Lcted, you have
built 710 permanent gold and silver and precious stone : let us
suppose, that you have gold either much or little : let us suppose,
that you have silver a?id precious stone. But I speak not of
these alo7ie : for let us suppose, that you have also wood a7id hay
' Aliud est, ad veniam stare ; aliud, dunt annotate, ut commemorationes
ad gloriam pervenire : aliud, missum eorum inter memorias martyrura cele-
in carcerem non exire inde, donee brare possimus : quanquam Tertullus
solvatnovissimumquadrantem; aliud, fidelissimus et devotissimus frater
statim fidei et virtutis accipere nierce- noster pro caetera sollicitudine et cura
dem : aliud, pro peccatis longo dolore sua quam fratribus in omni obsequio
cruciatura eraundari et purgari diu operationis impertit (qui nee illic
igne ; aliud, pecc ;ta omnia passione circa curam corporum deest); scrip-
purgasse : aliud denique, pendere in seint et scribat, ac significet mihi dies
die judicii ad sententiam Domini ; quibus in carcere beati fratres nostri
aliud, statim a Domino coronari. C,y- ad immortalitatem gloriosae mortis
priiin. Epist. Iv. Oper. vol. ii. p. 109, exitu transeunt; et celebrentur hie a
110. nobis oblationes et sacrificia ob com-
Mr. Berington simply refers to two memorationes eorum, qufe cito vobis-
other passages in Cj'prian. By his cum Domino protegente celebrabi-
reference, I understand him to mean mus. Cyprian. Epist. xii. Oper. vol.
the two following, which I subjoin at ii. p. 27, 28.
full length. Offerendo oblationes eorum. Cy-
Dcnique et dies eorum quibus exce- prian. Epist. xxxiv. Oper. vol. ii. p. 67.
126
DIFFICULTIES OF IJOMANISM.
[book I.
and stubble ; lohat do you expect will happen to you after your
departure f Do you expect, that you icill enter into the holy
places, ivith your wood and your hay and your stubble, to pollute
the kingdom of God'^ Or, on the other hand, do you expect,
that, on account of the hay and the wood and the stubble, you
ivill remain in the fire, and derive no good from the gold and the
silver and the precious stone ? Neither were this equitable.
What, then, does it folloiv, that you shall first receive on account
of the wood ? It is manifest, that the fire will consume the
wood a?id the hay and the stubble: for, in his essence, God is
said, by the intelligent, to be a consuming fire. Yet the prophet,
when he says Our God is a consuming fire, specifies not ivhat it
consumes : but, in using that language, he has left us to infer from
it, that there is a something which is consumed. What, then, is
that consumed something ? Tj-uly, he consumes not that which is
according to his image and likeness, but the hay and the wood
and the stubble which have been built upon it, — For first the
deeds of unrighteousness, and then the deeds of righteousness, are
recompensed^.
ixv l^iX^a<f^iv Tov jSfav, 'i^ovTis a.jU,cc^T^-
(JLOLTO,, i^ovrs; Be xec) uv'S^xyec^iof^oc'rci,
(ra>6nvofje,ifa, (jlim S/a to. a,)it^a.ytt6/iy.a.Ta,,
a.'To'kvff'ofAiffa. Vi cri^i tcSv Iv yvuini yi/u,ce,^-
TYifj^iMH)/' » y.oXa.(T6niT'o(Jt.i6at. (mIv Oio, ra,
a,[i,et^ryifia,rcc. oVh(/.fjLov Ti (ji,Kr6lv ktjy^i/u.i^a
TeHv u,)i^^uycr.6n(/.druv' aXX' ovhi to iri^ov.
Aiyo) Be TO oi'^oXccl^iTv tu. k^uttovoc, fz,fi
uToXafiitv Be roc ^li^o-JCt' Kx^a ^iKoctov IffTi
TOV Siov xec^atoiiv (iotiXofiivov, Koci Ixkot-
TilV TYIV Ka.K'lOt,V. "ElTTU yoi^ ffl UKOOOfJL'A-
xivai, f4,tTa to huiXtov X^iffTov '\r,(roZv ov
06d/d«^«/, flj f/.ivov ^^vffov KO.) ct^yv^ov x,x)
X'i6ov Ti/itiov' 'ia-Tu (Ti 'ix,iiv ^^vffov, «
^oXvv ^^vrov, n oXtyov' 'iffTtu ci e;^;e(v
a^yv^ov, X'i6ov Tif/.io\. OJ (/.ovx Bi (pn/jbt
TUVTo,. 'AXX' iffTca ffi e'j^e/v x,ou ^vXoc,
Ktt.) ^o^TOv, KOU x,ot,Xa,(ji.Yi'»' TI (iouXii (Tot
yivi(rS'.'.t /u,iru Tm 'i^o'hov ; IIsTi^ov toti
lig-iXhtv Sis TU clyiot, ftiTo, 'rod ^uXov irov
Xft] /JLITCC TOV ^O^TOV (TOV KOLI Trig KClXu,-
l^rtiy ivu. fiiu.)ir,s TYtv (ixffi'Aua.v tov ©sou ;
'AAX« ^aX/y u.vofji.uvu.i ^iXiis, B/a tov
^o^Tov, ^la, TX ^vXa, "^lot t^v Ka,Xd.uyjv,
\v tS <7rv^), xcti fDqdiv tt,ToXu(li7v Ti^) tov
X,^vtrov xcti et^yv^ov kki Xi6ou Ti/u-iov ;
Oy'Be TovTo tUXayov. T/ evv ^^mtov uxo-
Xovisi a'JT oXoc(ii7v %ik tcc ^vXa. ; A^jXav,
OTI TO rrv^ TO xvccX'ktkov tu, ^vX» XCil
TOV ^o^Tov xai Tijv KuXxfi/iv' &iOi ya,o
Vi(jt,eav Tn ov<ria. XiyiTai, ToTg ffvvitveei
^vvctf/Avo.;, "X-v^ iTvcct uvoiXiffKov. Ka<
itriuTrtffi ju.iv to ti uvce.Xia'Kov o Tpo^r,'
TYi;, Xiyuv' 'O @ios fificov ttv^ xuTCf
vaX'iirxnv. ^Hfuv Be xocTa.Xi>.oiTt vaiTv,
OTI tiTiv 'O 0-oj t:>^ IfTTt xetTavuXiTxov,
io-Ti TI TO KaTeivae.XiirKO/u,ivov. Ti ovv itrn
TO xecTuvocXia-xciuivov ; Ov yet^ to xxt
I'lKOva, xod 'fjt, 'leoffiv avaXKrKii, oiXXa. tov
l-TTOIKO^OfJLnCitTOl. ^O^TOV, Toi \Toixohof/,ri-
6iVTBt '£,vXk, T'/jv iToi/ioco/u.tidiTa'Kv xxXu~
fA.nv.— TlouTov ya^ r-oi t?,s ct.'hixias, sirci
Tit TYiS oixuioffvvns, CC'Vob'lhoTOt.l, Olig.
in Jerem. Homil. xvi. Oper. vol. i.
p. lo4, IT)"); and torn. iii. p. 231, ed.
Paris. 1733.
Mr. Berington's version of this
passage is a free abridgment chiefly
taken from the very imperfect ap-
pended Latin, rather than a literal and
accurate translation from the original
Greek. As I am not disposed, how-
ever, like some members of his com-
munion, childishly to quibble about
trifles which affect not the sense of
an author, I can pardon Im abridrf-
menty though I cannot quite so easily
pardon his suppression of evidence.
Without giving, by the usual con-
ventional mark of an hiatus, the
slightest notice of a not vnimporiant
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 127
II. The texts from Scripture or from alleged Scripture,
which have been adduced for the purpose of establishing the
dogma of a Purgatory, may be arranged and considered under
two classes : those, which are cited from the New Testament ;
and that, which is brought forward from the second book of
the Maccabean History,
1. With respect to the texts which have been cited from the
New Testament, they may be dismissed without much prolixity
of discussion.
A bare inspection of those texts will suffice to shew, that
they are made to subserve the purposes of Latin Theology only
by a quite gratuitous and arbitrary interpretation : an interpre-
tation, the adopting of which in controversy is virtually nothing
more than a mere begging of the question.
Tliis, apparently, has been felt even by the Romanists them-
selves: for, though Mr. Berington produces the texts under
consideration, as establishing the existence of a Purgatory^ ;
the Bishop of Strasbourg, much to his credit, totally omits
them, with the honest remark, that, as Christ has not thought
fit to communicate any revelation on the subject, we can only
form conjectures more or less probable^.
Thus confessedly unable to produce any satisfactory evidence
from the New Testament, Dr. Trevern labours to supply his
lamentable want of testimony by an attempt at abstract rea-
soning.
We must make, he argues, an expiatory satisfaction to the
omission ; he presents to his readers a Origen's interpretation : but, on the
version, which typographically pur- contraiy, is Origen's fair confession,
ports to be continuous, when in truth that the text referred to, namely, 1
\ii^ not continuous. Corinth, iii. ll-lo, was of very diffi-
In my own more correct translation cult explanation. 'O to-tos ?iv '^ua-'^t^yn'
from the original Greek, translating tos ff(po\a.. Why did Mr. Berington
of course no more than Mr. Berington suppress this clause ? Why did he
had thought it expedient to cite, I thus exhibit Origen, as speaking of
have carefully placed, between the the sense of the text without the
words xaXajttjjy and U^urov, what that slightest doubt or misgiving }
gentleman ought to have placed there, He gives two other passages from
the conventional mark (viz. — ) ex- Origen; but, as they exist only in the
pressive of interrupted citation. unsafe Latin version of Ruffinus who
Now the clause between the two wrote in the fifth century, I have,
words xaXu/u,yiv and U^urov, omitted by agreeably to my proposed plan, omit-
Mr. Berington ivithout the sli htest ac- ted them. See Faith of Cathol. p.
knowledgment of an omission, is no in- 355, 356.
different or unimportant clause, which ' Faith of Cathol. p. 352, 353.
did not at all affect the propriety of ' Disc. Amic. let. xiii. vol. ii. p. 242.
128 DIFFICULTIES OF KOJHA]!^ISM. [bOOK I.
Divine Justice, either in this world or in the next. Few men,
however, make a full expiatory satisfaction in this world.
Therefore, they must make it in the next. Now, in the next
world, they can no longer pursue good works ; no longer dis-
tribute alms : no longer offer any compensatory reparation to
Heaven. One only method of making satisfaction remains
to them hereafter : that, to wit, of suffering. But, if suffering
be the sole method of making satisfaction which remains to
them hereafter : then, indisputably, there must be a place where
this suffhing is undergone. Now the place, which has been
thus clearly proved to exist, is, by the Councils of Florence
and Trent, conventionally called Purgatory^.
When a writer undertakes to substantiate a point by the
adduction of direct evidence, he travels not a little out of the
record, by resorting, in acknowledged lack of such evidence
in Canonical Scripture, to the doubtful aid of abstract reasoning
from the still more doubtful pi^emises which he finds it necessary
to lay down. Dr. Trevern assumes, as his premises : that We
must make an expiatory satisfaction to the Divine Justice, either
in this ivorld or in the next. Now where is his proof of this
otherwise perfectly gratuitous assumption? He certainly will
find it no easy matter to elicit a proof from SciiiPTUitE. The
assumption, in fact, is not only incapable of any scriptural
substantiation, but runs directly counter to the whole analogy
of faith. An orthodox Protestant, whose view of the exclu-
sively atoning eihcacy of Christ's death is somewhat more
scripturally correct than that of Dr. Trevern will at once
demolish his airy fabric by a flat denial of the premise on
which it is founded^
' Discuss. Amic. lettr. xiii. vol. ii. ueque in hoc seciilo remittetur ei, neque
p. 242-244. infvturo. In qua seiitentia datur in-
2 From an honest wish to give the telligi, quasdam culpas in hoc seculo,
Eomanist every advantage, I suhjoin quasdam vero in futuro, posse laxari.
Pope Gregory's attempt, at the close Qiiod eiiim de uno negatur conse-
of the sixth century, to estahlish the quens intellectus patet, quia de qui-
Doctrine of a Purgatory through the busdam conceditur. Sed tamen, ut
evidence afforded by the New Testa- pr^dixi, hoc de parvis minimisque
nient. Let its scanty inconclusiveness peccatis fieri posse credendum est,
avail, as far as it can avail. sicut est assiduus otiosus sermo, im-
Sed tamen de quibusdam levibus moderatus lisus, vel peccatum cuiffi
culpis esse ante diem judicii purga- rei familiaris, qua? vix sine cidpa vel
torius ignis credendus est, pro eo ab ipsis agitur, qui culpam qualiter
quod Veritas dicit : Qiiia^ si qids in declinare debeant sciunt ; aut, in non
kancio Spirilu blasphcmiam dixcrif, gravibus rebus, error ignorantia^ :
CHAP. V
•]
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
129
So imich for Dr. Trevern's abstract reasoning. With the
acknowledgment, however, before us, on his part, that Christ
has not communicated to us any revelatio7i touching Purgatory,
we may well claim to be spared the trouble of a formal dis-
cussion of passages which are nothmg to the purpose.
2. The texts from the New Testament being thus set aside
as confessedly irrelevant and inconclusive, the whole weight
of the scriptural proof of the existence of a Purgatory will
rest upon the passage contained in the second book of the
Greek History of the Maccabees : for it is not pretended, that
the Hebrew Scriptures afford so much as a shadow of evidence.
(1.) Now, even if we were complaisant enough to admit the
tridentine decree, which places the two first books of the
Maccabees in the roll of the sacred Canon : still the passage,
adduced from that History, would be found, both grievously
defective, and glaringly inappropriate.
qua cuncta, etiam post mortem, gra-
vant, si adhuc in hac vita positis
minime fuerint relaxata. Nam, cum
Pdulus dicat Christum esse funda-
meutum, atque subjungat ; Si quis
super ccd'ijicnt, supei' hoc fiindamentum,
aurum, ar<)entum, lapides pretiosos, lig-
ntif fcenum, stlpulam, uniuscujusque
opus quale sit, iynis probabit : si cujus
opus arserit, detrimenlum patietur ; ipse
auiem salvus erit, sed tamen quasi per
ignem : quamvis hoc de igne tribula-
tionis, in hac nobis vita adhibito, pos-
sit intelligi; tamen, si quis hoc de
igne futurai purgationis accipiat, pen-
sandum sollicitfe est, quia ilium per
ignem dixit posse salvari, non qui,
super hoc fundamentum, ferrum, ffis,
vel plumbum, sedificat, hoc est, pec-
cata majora, et idcirco duriora, atque
tunc jam insolubilia; sed ligna, fce-
num, stipulam, id est, peccata minuta
atque levissima, qme ignis facile con-
sumat. Hoc tamen sciendum est;
quia illic saltem de minimis nihil
quisque purgationis obtiuebit, nisi
bonis hoc actibus, in hac adhuc vita
positus, ut illic obtineat, promereatur.
Gregor. Magn. Dialog, lib. iv. c. 39.
I may here fitly ask : How shall we
estimate the conduct of Mr. Bering-
ton, in gravely citing 1 Corinth, iii.
8, 11-15, for the purpose of establish-
ing the doctrine of a Purgatory, with-
out giving his reader the slightest
hint as to the true state of the inter-
pretation of that passage ?
Could he be ignorant, that, among
the Ancients, if some hesitatingly
(like Pope Gregory) inclined to de-
duce from it the existence of a Par-
gatory, others understood it to relate
to the troubles of this present world,
and others again supposed it to de-
scribe in figurative language the final
discriminative examination of the va-
rious deeds of various men at the day
of judgment?
Yet, in despite of this uncertainty
of interpretation so well knoAvn to
every student of Theology, does Mr.
Berington bring forward the text as
affording direct evidence for a Purga-
tory, after a mode which cannot but
leave upon the mind of his unsus-
picious reader an impression, that
such, from the very beginning, was the
constant and unvaried exposition.
Why did not Mr. Berington can-
didly lay the real state of the matter
before that Romish Laity, for whose
instruction, as a monument of the an^
liquify and perpetuity of their faithj
his Work is even professedly com-
piled? See Dedication of his Faith
of Catholics.
His total suppression of Origen's own
statement of the difficulty of rightly
interpreting the text, I have already
noticed.
130 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
Respecting the very existence of any Purgatory in a future
state, the passage is altogether silent. Prayers for the dead
it mentions, indeed, with approbation: but it gives not the
slightest hint, that those prayers were offered up for the
purpose of extricating the souls of the deceased from the pains
of a Latin Purgatory. In truth, the whole place is utterly
irreconcilable with any such notion. The prayers in question
were associated with a sin-offering to be devoted at Jerusalem :
and the declared joint object of the two was, not a deliverance
from Purgatory, but a deliverance from sin to be effected
through the medium of making a sacrificial reconciliation for
the departed. .
Nor is the passage, for the purposes of Latin Theology,
defective only: it is likewise, even on the principles of that
Theology itself, glaringly inappropriate. The doctrine of the
Roman Church is : that Those, who die in mortal sin unrepented
of, are irrevocably consigned to Hell : while those, who die
tainted only with venial sin for which in this world they have
not personally made sufficient expiation, pass for a season into
Purgatory^, But the text from the Maccabean History cannot
establish the existence of a Purgatory, without flatly contra-
dicting this received scheme of doctrine. Idolatry has ever
been held one of the deadly sins. Now the men, for whom
Judas offered up prayers and a sin-offering, died in an act of
unrepented idolatry : which act is expressly declared to have
been the cause of their being slain^. They died, therefore, in
an unrepented act of mortal sin. Hence, on latin principles,
the plain and necessary consequence is : either that their souls
passed into Hell and not into Purgatory ; in which case, it
is idle to cite the place in proof of the existence of a Purga-
tory: or that their souls passed into Purgatory and not into
Hell ; in which case, the latin doctrine, of an exclusive reser-
vation of Purgatory for as yet miexpiated venial sins, will be
flatly contradicted. Thus, with singular infelicity, the text,
even if we admit it to be Canonical Scripture, can only be
made to prove the existence of a Purgatory, through the
medium of convicting the Roman Church of teaching erroneous
doctrine.
' See Concil. Trident, sess. xiv. c. 1, 5. p. 144, 148, 149. sess. xxv. p. 506.
» "2 Mace. xii. 39^2.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM. 131
(2.) But, in reality, nothing can be more nugatory than the
mere dogmatical edict of the Tridentine Council, by which a
Jewish History, written in Greek and never acknowledged
even by the Jews themselves to be canonical, is presumptuously
obtruded into the venerable roll of inspired Hebrew Scripture.
In the fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem, on behalf of the
Greek Church, excluded from the Sacred Canon of the Old
Testament, the whole of the Apocrypha^ ? His estimate of that
collection, foisted into the Canon by the Council of Trent, well
deserves our attention. So little inclined was this ancient
Catechist and Prelate of the acknowledged Mother-Church to
build any point of doctrine upon the mere uninspired and
miauthoritative Maccabean History, that he strenuously advised
his Catechumens, to have nothing in common with the Apocrypha,
but (so far as the Canon of the Old Testament was concerned)
to study those two and twenty books only which are read in
the Church : giving them this wholesome advice on the pro-
fessed ground, that since the superior wisdom of the Apostles and
py^mitive Bishops had delivered such two and twenty hooks
EXCLUSIVELY, the devout children of the Church ought not to set
upon her unauthorised documents the adulterating seal of a false
impression'^.
So likewise, in the fifth century, Ruffinus of Aquileia, on
behalf of the Latin Church, similarly excluded, from the Sacred
* Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv. p. 36-38. Euffinus, the name of Baruch is to-
and capp. 35, 36. p. 128. ed. Monaci, tally omitted : and a single book,
1848. I am perfectly aware of Cyril's under the single name of Jeremiah,
expression, 'l£f£^/<jw ^sra Ba^oy;^; : and I is enumerated. See Melit. Sardens.
am also aware of the parallel expres- apud Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. iv.
sion of Athanasius, 'U^if^i«s xa.) vm c. 25. Hieron. Prolog. Scriptur. Ga-
ahrZ Ba^ohx;. Athan. Epist. Festal. leat. Oper. vol. iii. p. 287. Epiphan.
xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 45. But it de mensur. et ponder. Oper. p.
may well be doubted, and accord- 300. Euffin. Expos, in Symbol. Apost.
ingly has been doubted, whether by p. 26. apud calc. Oper. Cyprian. Oxon.
Baruch they mean the apocrijplud 1682.
book of Baruch. The phrase, Jeremiah ^ Tovrcuv tus i'/xoa-t %vo ^'i^Xovi a.vit-
with Baruch, seems rather to indicate yUeaffx.f ^^og Ti to. a.-rox^vcpa ^»i^£v 'i^t
the canonical hebrew book of Jere- koivov. Tuvrccg MONA2 fisxira ff<rov-
miah alone ; the name of Baruch ^alus, a? ««' «v IxxXtia-ia. //.itu, •pta.p'
being joined with that of Jeremiah, pyuria.; oi.va,yivuirxef/,iv. UoXv a-ou <p^ovt-
because he was the scribe of the pro- f^Mrs^oi yktolv ol uToa-TeXot xoCi o\ x^^^aToi
phet and arranged his prophecies. liTiirxo-Toi, ol rris ixxXna-las T^otrrocrat,
In this opinion I am the more con- ol roLVTUi vra^u'SevTis . 2u aJv, Tixvov
firmed, because, in the lists of the rtjs ixxXyia-ias uv, fji.ii 'rec^a.^a.^ei.Tri Tohs
canonical books of the Old Testa- hfffiovg. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv.-p, 37.
ment, as severally furnished by Me- and cap. 35. The text is rather fuller
lito and Jerome and Epiphanius and in Touttee's edition.
132 DIl'FICULTIES OF llOMAJ^ISM. [bOOK I.
Canon of the Old Testament, the whole of the Apocrypha : and
thus, while his enumeration of the inspired canonical books
perfectly corresponds with that of the Church of England,
his subsequent partial enumeration of the apocryphal books
is attended with a distinct statement : that, by the predecessors
of the then existing generation, those books were styled, not
canonical, but ecclesiastical; and that, although they might
be read in churches for the sake of edification, they were not
to he controversially adduced as any authority for the settlement
of a point of faith and doctrineK
Such, on the part both of the Greek Church and of the
Latin Chui'ch, was the ancient estimate of the Apocrypha and
consequently of the two first books of Maccabees; and, in
strict accordance with it. Pope Gregory the great, who flou-
rished at the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh
century, having occasion to illustrate the subject of which he
was treating by a reference to the Maccabean History, regu-
larly apologises for bringing his example from a work, which
confessedly was not canonical, but which nevertheless was used
in the Church for the purpose of edification^.
Nay more: as if these ancient testimonies of the Catholic
Church both in the East and in the West were not sufficient
to put to open shame, both the Tridentine Fathers who dared
to obtrude the mere uninspired Maccabean History as canon-
ical, and such writers as Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevem who
' After specifying the Canon both extinxit, occubuit. Gregor. Expos,
of the Old and of the New Testa- Moral, in Job. lib. xix. c. 13.
ment, Euffinus proceeds as follows. Yet, with this evidence staring him
Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii in the face, Dr. Trevern has actually
libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed eccle- the hardihood to assure the english
siaslici, a majoribus appellati sunt : laic, with whom he professes to cor-
utest SapientiaSolomonis. — Ejusdem respond, that the Reformers of the
ordinis est libellus Tobise, et Judith, sixteenth century removed the Mac-
et Maccnbceonim libri. — Quaj omnia cab^anHistoryfrom the Canon, purely
legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, to rid themselves of the troublesome
noa tamen proferri ad auctoritatcm testimony, which it bears to mortuary
ex his Jidei conjirmandam. Kuffin. supplications and thence implicatively
Expos, in Symbol. Apost. p. 26, (as he fancies) to the Doctrine of
27. apud calc. Oper. Cyprian. Oxon. Purgatory! Discuss. Amic. lett. xiii.
1682. vol. li. p. 240. The truth is, it was
^ Qua de re non inordinate agimus, foisted into the Canon by the Latin
si, ex libris licet non canonicis, sed Divines for the evident purpose of
tamen ad sedificationem Ecclesiag propping up a superstition, which re-
editis, testimonium proferamus. Ele- ceives no countenance from the ge-
azar, namque, in praelio elephantem nuine Canon either of the Old or of
feriens stravit : sed sub ipso, quern the New Testament.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 133
(in defiance of the evidence of Rnffinus and the wise admoni-
tion of Cyril) actually adduce a passage from that History as
an inspired authority for the settlement of a point of faith : the
author of that identical Work, after lauding the deed of a
deliberate suicide', finally employs language, which is alto-
gether incompatible with any intelligible idea of a divine
inspiration.
/ will here, says he, make an end of my discourse. If, indeed,
it has been carried on handsomely and worthily of the subject :
this also is what I desired : but, if slenderly and meanly : this
was all that I could attain unto'^.
No really inspired writer could, either praise an act of self-
murder as a glorious and heroic exploit, or speak in such
modestly depreciating and apologising terms respecting a com-
position which in all future ages was to be received as a portion
of God's own word to his people.
The whole pretended scriptural proof, then, of the Doctrine
of a Purgatory, as set up by the Theologians of the Church
of Rome, rests upon a single solitary passage : which, in the
first place, never once mentions Purgatory; which, in the
second place, cannot be made to establish the existence of a
Purgatory, without also teaching, contrary to the declared
doctrine of the Roman Church herself, that the inmates of that
temporary mansion may be persons who have died in the act
of mortal sin unrepented of; and which, in the third place,
occurs in a Work, rejected by the Early Catholic Church both
of the East and of the West from the canon of inspired
Scripture, encomiastic of the manful and noble death of self-
murder, and apologetically confessed by its nameless author
to have been executed only to the best of his ability.
III. If the revealed word of God, whether in the New
Testament or in the Old Testament, be altogether silent re-
specting the existence of a Purgatory : it is utterly vain to
seek for information on the subject from any mere uninspired
mortal.
Hence, in the very nature and necessity of things, even if,
as AN HISTORICAL FACT, it could be evidentially established, that
' See 2 Mace. xiv. .'57-40, ryl (rvvTx?,ii, rovro x-a.) uvTOi lihXoV tt
' KaJ avTos avToSi x.a.Ta.'jea.vtru tov ^£ ilriXcoi x«) f/.ir^ius, reuro i<piXTiv ^f
\'oyov. KaJ, tl fih xxXus xai ivftKTUt f^'>i. 2 Macc. XV. 87, 38.
134 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
the Early Church believed and taught the Docttine of a Purga-
tory : still, we should have nothing substantiated, save that
the Early Church, departing in this instance too soon from the
simplicity of the faith, had presumptuously dared to teach a
doctrine, which is no where propounded in the inspired Scrip-
tures either of the Greek or of the Hebrew Canon.
But, though such would be the sole result even of the estab-
lishment of the fact in question, my veneration for the Primitive
Church and my unwillingness to see her charged with an
unscriptural superstition prompt me to inquire, whether the
passages from Tertullian and Cyprian and Origen, adduced for
that purpose by Dr. Trevern or Mr. Berington, are sufficient
for its evidential establishment^
1. Now, even on a mere rapid inspection of the alleged
testimony, it is impossible not to be struck, both with its mise-
rable scantiness, and with its comparative lateness.
(1.) The Fathers of the three first centuries, whose writings,
either wholly or partially have come down to us, may be
roughly estimated as in number exceeding twenty : and out of
these, the sole even pretended vouchers for the primitive belief
in the Doctrine of a Purgatory, whom the painful industry of
Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington has been able to discover,
amount precisely to the sum of three.
(2.) Woefully scanty as is this meagre muster-roll, the com-
parative lateness of the individuals who are by name summoned
to the ecclesiastical parade, is equally unsatisfactory.
Omitting all the Fathers of the first and all the other Fathers
of the second century, though many of them treat of matters
transacted beyond the grave, Mr. Berington is content to give,
as his very earliest witness, Tertullian ; who, according to his
own statement, flourished from the year 194 to the year 216^;
and, with Tertullian, he and Dr. Trevern are willing to asso-
ciate Cyprian and Origen; who, still accorduig to his own
statement, were actively living, the one from the year 248 to
the year 258, the other from the year 203 to the year 254^
Thus, confessedly, we have not a single witness for the first
century, and only one for the second: that solitary witness,
' Discuss. Amic. lett. xiii. vol. ii. ' See Chronol. Table in Faith of
p. 243. Faith of Cathol. p. 354- Cathol. Introd. p. li.
357. 3 Ibid.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 135
moreover, flourishing, not at the beginning of the second, but
quite at its end and at the beginning of the third. Hence,
even if the passages really proved what they have been adduced
to prove, they would only establish the somewhat useless fact :
that, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, and
about one hundred years after the death of St. John the last sur-
vivor of the Apostolic College, the Church, so far as its practices
ivere known to Tertullian, for whatever reason, though certainly
not from any scriptural authority, had begun to teach the Doctrine
of a Purgatory.
2. Some of the adduced passages speak of oblations made
for the dead : and the fact of those oblations is thought to
establish the early existence, both of what the Latins call the
Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass and of the unscriptural dogma
now under consideration.
But the fallacy of any such notion has already been ex-
posed: for the oblations in question were not the Missal
Sacrifice of Christ for the quick and for the dead, as the
modern Latins speak ; but they were simply spiritual sacrifices
of praise and thanlcsgiving to God for the happy departure of
the saints to glory.
3. These matters being premised, we may now proceed to
the direct testimony of oiu' three witnesses.
(1.) Tertullian undoubtedly recommended, that prayers
should be offered up for the benefit of the dead : and, from this
perfectly well established fact, Mr. Berington, as the circum-
stance of his citing Tertullian apparently intimates, would have
us infer, that Tertidlian and his contemporaries held the Doctrine
of a purgatory.
The necessity of this liberal inference, to the cause of Mr.
Berington and Dr. Trevem, is abundantly manifest. Ter-
tullian recommends prayers for the dead : but he says not a
syllable about Purgatory. Hence, unless the implied in-
ference, required by Mr. Berington, be just ; it is nugatory to
cite Tertullian, as a witness in favour of that doctrine.
From an ignorance of the notions prevalent among the
Christians at the end of the second and at the beginning of
the third century, nothing is more conunon than hastily to
fancy ; that Prayers for the dead, and Tlie Doctrine of a Pur-
gatory, are strict correlatives : for Why, it is asked, sJwuld m£n
136 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
pray for the dead, save to deliver their souls from the pains of
Purgatory ?
But these two matters are, in no wise, correlative. Those
comparatively early Christians, who may finally have sym-
bolised in opinion with Tertullian, prayed, indeed, we may
suppose, for the dead : but they thus prayed, on a principle
totally different from that which has been adopted by the
modern Church of Rome. Even in one of the passages cited
from Tertullian by Mr. Berington himself, the ground of such
prayers is very distinctly stated : and, in another passage which
has not been cited by him, the same statement of their object
is repeated. By these early Christians, who, if we may judge
from the old Liturgies, had at length adopted the speculation of
Tertullian, prayers were offered up for the dead, not that they
might be delivered froin an imaginary Purgatory, but that they
might he partakers of the first resurrection instead of waiting for
the last\ Hence the offering up of prayers for the dead, by
Tertullian and such of his contemporaries as symbolised with
him, affords not the slightest proof, that the Primitive Church
held the Doctrine of a Purgatory^.
It will probably be urged, that Tertullian recommends
prayers for the dead, not only that they may partake of the
first resurrection, but likewise that in their separate state they
may experience refreshmenf^. Now refreshment implies release
from pain : and release from pain implies a Purgatory.
Nothing can be more fallacious, than such inductive rea-
soning. What Tertullian meant by this refreshment, he himself,
in yet another place, unequivocally declares. The expression,
in his use of it, set forth, not a release from pain, but an enjoy-
ment of positive though imperfect happiness, on the pa7't of the
just, from the very moment of their dissolutioii, in that separate
abode of holy disembodied spirits which Tertullian supposes our
' Pro anima ejus oret : et refrige- tionis plenitudine, per camern quoque.
rium interim adpostulet ei et in prima Tertiill.de anim. Oper. p. 689. and
resurrectione consortium. Tertull. de cap. 58. tom. iv. p. 335. ed. Halse
monogara. § 10. Oper. p. 578. Magd. 1771.
In summa, quum carcerem ilium, ' I have used the expression, Ter-
quod Evangelium demonstrat, inferos tullian and such of his contemporaries
intelligiraus ; et novissimum quadran- as si/mholised ivilh him, because it is
tern, m,odicum quoque delictum mora re- not improbable, that his recommenda-
surrectionis illic luendum, interpreta- tion of Prayers for the Dead should
mur: nemo dubitabit animam aliquid be followed by his admirers,
pensare penes inferos, salva resurrec- ^ Refrigerium.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 137
Lord to distinguish hy the appellation of Abraham^ s bosom}, A
prayer, therefore, for the refreshment of the deceased, whether
such a prayer be scripturally warrantable or not, imports, at
all events, nothing more than a petition : that a departed soul
might rest in Abraham^ s bosom until the day of 7'esurrection ;
instead of being consigyied to the separate abode of wicked dis-
embodied spirits, where they I'emain in fearful anticipation of Hieir
final sentence at the day of judgmenf^.
Whatever immediate success the recommendation of Ter-
tullian might have had, it is clear, that prayers for the dead
had been introduced, even into public worship, not long after
the time of Constantine : for we find a prayer of this descrip-
tion in the old Clementine Liturgy. That prayer I consider
as specially valuable : because it throws a strong and distinct
light upon the notions, which were prevalent, certainly in the
fourth, perhaps also in the latter part of the third, century.
Supplication is made in it for two particulars : that God would
pardon the sins of the individual deceased; and that he would
place him in the blessed rest of Abraham^ s bosom whence sorrow
and pain and lamentation flee away^. As for any dehverance
' Earn itaque regionem sinum dico et Candida ejus? TertuU. de anim.
Ahrah<B ; et, si non coelestem, sub- cap. /iS. Oper. p. 688.
limiorem tamen inferis, interim re- This passage is absolutely fatal to
frigerium prtebituram animabus jus- the Doctrine of a Purgatory. Ac-
torum, donee consummatio rerum cording to the opinion of Tertul-
resurrectionem omnium plenitudine lian, the abode of separate spirits is
mercedis expungat. — Quod si aeternus divided into two mansions. In the
repromittitur, et ascensus in caelum one, the pious enjoy refreshment (re-
sedificatur a Creatore, promittente frigeria) ; with a blissful anticipation
etiam semen Abraham velut Stellas coeli of future perfect happiness : in the
futurum, utique ob ccelestem promis- other, the wicked snffer punishment
sionem ; salva ex promissione, cur (supplicia) ; which punishment con-
non capiat sinum Abrahce dici tern- sists in a fearful anticipation of an
porale aliquod animarum fidelium re- eternity of positive misery,
ceptaculum, in quo jam delinietur fu- ^ 'Tcrs^ a.va'xa.vffa.f/.Uuv U X^icru
turi imago, ac Candida quredam utrius- a'hiX(pa)v ^^<wv lin6Z//,iv' otus o (f>ikav-
quejudicii prospiciatur? Tertull. adv. e^uToi Gios, o T^oa-^ilafuvos avrod rhv
Marcion. lib. iv. § 51. Oper. p. 275. '^"^X^^y ^«^5i^>; avraj rreiv a.^a.^mf^at,
^ Accordinglj^, this idea is distinctly \x.ov(nov xa.) uKovfftov' xa) 'Ixius xa) %l-
set forth by TertuUian. (Jt-ivhi yivof/.tvos, xttTaTu^yi tU x^okv
Omnes ergo animse penes inferos, iv(n(leov, unifAivav us xox-rov 'A(i^ccat/u. xa.)
inquis. Velis ac nolis et supplicia 'l<raxx xa) 'laxuli, /u,itu Tavruv tuv u<r
jam illic et refrigeria, habes pauperem uluvos ih^iffrntravTuv xa.) Totntravruv to
et divitem : et, quia distuli nescio fiXyi/aa kvtov' 'itSa. u-ri^^a, o^vvn, xa)
quid ad banc partem, jam opportune Xy^jj, xa) (rnvayfAos. Orat. pro mort.
in clausulam reddam. Curenim non inLiturg. Clement, apud Const. Apost.
putes animam et puniri et foveri in lib. viii. c. 41.
inferis interim, sub expectatione utri- The very commencement of this
usque judicii, in quadam usurpatione prayer, Let us pray for our brethren
138 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
from Purgatory, not a word is said, not a hint is given, re-
specting it. On the contrary, the language employed even
expressly disavows the existence of any such scripturally um-e-
cognised mansion.
21ie souls of all live with thee ; and in thy hand are the spirits
of the just, WHOM TOEIHENT SHALL IN NO WISE TOUCH : for all the
sanctified are mAer thy hands. Look, therefore, upon this thy
servant, whom thou hast chosen and 7'emoved to another condition ;
and pardon him his sins, both voluntary and involuntary. Make
the angels henevoh nt to him : and place him in the bosom of the
patriarchs and th) prophets and the apostles and all those who
have been pleasing to thee from the beginning of the world :
WHERE IS NEITHER GRIEF NOR PAIN NOR LA:MENTATI0N ; but where
is THE QUIET ABODE OF THE PIOUS and THE STILL LAND OF THE
UPRIGHT, even of those ivho in it behold the glory of thy Christ^.
Thus, I think, to prove the early belief of a Purgatory,
from the language of Tertullian respecting prayers for the
dead, is indeed a task most deplorably hopeless.
(2.) We have next to inquire, whether Cyprian will stand
the doctrine of the Roman Church in any better stead than
Tertullian.
It must be confessed, that a passage, to all appearance not a
little promising, has been adduced from the Epistles of that
Father : for he actually speaks of a person, tormented for his
sins with protracted pain, being long in a state of purgation by
fire'^. But promising as the passage may appear, I regret to
say, that I know not how to excuse Mr. Berington and Dr.
who EEST in Christ, is irreconcilable yap ^yiKa-fitvci wto ra? x^'^'^^ "'"" s'*^'"*
with the Doctrine of a Purgatory, into Alros xa) vvv aV/Ss tTt tov '^ovkov trou
which, according to Dr. Trevem, even rav^s, ov \\i7Ji\w ko.) <T^aaiXn^ov sJ; \ri^at
the best of us must enter, for the A!5|/v' xcxi avy^u^ynrov avTM, tin ixuv ij
purpose of being purified from our ukuv ll'^f/.a.^Ti. "AyyiXavi svfuviTf ?r«-
sliyhtest stains. A suffering abode in Qao-Tria-ov o-Itm' x,a.) x«t«t«^ov uvtov Iv
Purgatory, the pains of which, in the tZ xoXtm tZv TXT^ia^^cuv ko.) tuv -r^a-
judgraent of the most approved Latin (purMV ko.) rZv a.^toaroXuv xa.) cravriwv Tuv
Doctors, though but temporary in du- ocr aluv'oi irm ivu^iffryitra.vTuv' o-rov ovx
ration, equal those of Hell in point ht kv-rvt, h^vvn, xa) (mvayfAos' «XA.a
of intensity, were but a sorry rest i« x^^"^ ivtrifiajv art^f^Uo; , xou yn tuhiav
C^Wsf for our departed brethren, who, o-yy«v»jwsv«, xa.) ruv h avryj o^mvtuv rh*
as Dr. Trevern speaks, doivent etre ^o^etv rod X^ta-rod <tov. Orat. pro mort.
purifies de leurs moindres souillures. in Liturg. Clement, apud Constit.
Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 243. Note. Apost. lib. viii. c. 41.
' UtivTedv a.1 ■v^w;^a/ tk^o. ffot Z^ojffi' xx) ^ Pro peccatis longo dolore crucia-
'fuv ^ixciieuv rk •prviufAttToe, Iv r^ ^^t^' "o^ tum, emundari et piirgari diu igne.
itffh, uv oh f*h a.-^y,rxt ^uffocvos' -ravrii Cyprian* Epist. Iv. ut supra.
CHAP. Y.]
DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM.
139
Trevem from absolute dishonesty, save by the imputation of
somewhat disijraceful imiorance.
The place before us refers, not to any Purgatory in a future
state of existence, but simply to the allegorical fire of peniten-
tial austerities in tliis world : a fire, m whicli, by the early
discipline of the Church, it was required that the lapsed should
for an appointed season exercise themselves.
Nor is this account of the passage a mere evasion of an
mterested adversary. As the whole context of the place, both
antecedent and subsequent, though prudently suppressed by
Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington, distinctly shews, that Cyprian
is treating of penance in this world : so, by a commentator of
their own communion, the learned Rigaltius, this just and
natural explanation of it is actually given i. Yet as if the
* Disputat Cyprianus, de lapsis ad
poenitentiam, hoc est, ad veniam et
Ecclesiam, recipiendis. Nam, post
impetratam poenitentiam, ea rite per-
acta, poenitentibus venia datur, pax
et Ecclesia redditur lapsis, puta lihel-
latis et turificatis. Ac varias qiiidem
intercedere, ait, circumstantias et fi-
guras delictorum ; pro quibus, Epi-
scoporum ai'bitrio, temperari pcBniten-
tia debeat. Hoc tamen interesse,
quod cum libellatis mitius agi debere,
multa suadeant. ContradicebantEpi-
scopi nonnuUi, ideo maxima negan-
dam esse poenitentiam lapsis, quod,
laxata semel disciplinse regula, max-
imum sequeretur Ecclesise detrimen-
tum, et in summo periculo versaretur
fidei Christianfe tenor. Nam quis
deinceps pro nomine Christi martyria
non fugiat, aut vitam qiiacunque ra-
tione suam non redimat, qui lapsis
poenitentiae tempus concedi debere
intellexerit ? Hoc vero non ita me-
tuendum esse, Cyprianus ait. Etenim
long^ aliam esse conditionem lapso-
rum ; aliam, confessorum sive mar-
tyrum. Hos statim paradiso recipi,
de gloria, de mercede, de corona,
certos : illos ad veniam stare, anxios
et sollicitos, quid statuat ac decernat
Episcopus ; et an pienitentiffi tempus
indicat tam longura, quam esse de-
bitori solet carceris toedium, unde non
exeant, donee solvant novissimum
quadrantem; an forma poenitentiae
futura sit tam atrox, pro qualitate
scilicet criminis, ut per cineres et
pulverem volutari, per jejuniorum
tristitiam, perque ciliciorum asperita-
tem macerari, per gemitus et suspiria,
cordis exsestuantis dolorem clard lo-
quentia, velut metallum ignibus ar-
dentissimis excoqui ac purgari de-
beant; et, post haec omnia tandem,
aut si qua infirmitas urserit, a3gr6
recepti, in diem judicii, ad sententiam
Domini pendeant reservati. Cum sit,
igitur, tanta poena proposita lapsis ut
eventus incerti poenitentiam adipis-
cantur, tam certa vero tamque prae-
sens martyri gloria ; non esse, cur
ad fugienda martyria fideles invitari
poenitentia videantur. Kigalt. in Cy-
prian. Epist. Iv. apud Cyprian. Oper.
vol. ii. p. 109.
If Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington
were acquainted with this comment
of their able and honest fellow-reli-
gionist Rigaltius : what shall we think
of their conduct, in adducing, without
the slightest notice of it, a perfectly
irrelevant passage of Cyprian as evi-
dence for the Doctrine qf a Future
Purgatory, they themselves actually
knowing that the passage ivas irrele-
vant ? If they were unacquainted
with the comment of Rigaltius : what
shall Ave think of their theological
competency to erect, from the attesta-
tion of the Early Fathers, as Mr. Be-
rington speaks, a Monument of the
Antiquity and Perpetuity of the Faith
of the Catholics of the United King-
140 DIFFICULTIES OF RO^IANISM. [bOOK I.
passage stood in an insulated form without any elucidating
context, and as if their own Rigaltius had never written ; this
identical passage is gravely adduced, by two Latin Theolo-
gians of the nineteenth century, for the purpose of exhibiting,
to their unsuspicious laic readers, the venerable Cyprian as a
primitive witness for the Doctrine of Purgatory ^
(3.) Of the three alleged w^itnesses for the primitive exist-
ence of the Doctrine of Purgatory, Origen alone remains : and,
as he is in truth delivering, not the sentiments of the Church,
but a mere private speculation of his own, anathematised, with
sundry others of his whimsical phantasies, by the fifth Ecume-
nical Council which sat at Constantinople in the year 553 ; so
I have once more to complain, that our two zealous Roman
Divines have sedulously avoided putting their readers in pos-
session of the real merits of the case 2.
Origen, rejecting the old established doctrine of the Church
Catholic, maintained, that Hell is only a temporary abode, that
the punishment of the condemned is not eternal, and that all
intelligent beings will be finally restored to order and happiness.
This notion, of plain necessity, produced, as it has since also
among some of the modem Socinians similarly produced, the
dom? See title and dedication of The xovra •rivri aytav •jeart^wv ffvvsk^evruv iv
Faith of Catholics. Kti/ytrTavTivovToXif' tins Ifixv^uin t« Say-
To mislead the unsuspicious Laity fjt.a.riffe'i)>'ra. Jora t55j a,yia.s TiTa^rfis cruv-
by the bold adduction of pretended ohov, xa.) rohs xar xurfjs (ikx(rip>ifzovvrocs
authorities, which cannot be verified a.v'Jif^a.TKnv, nyovv' ^^lyivm ko.) to. auroZ
save by a not always easy resort to a ka-ifiri VoyfiocTO!, kk) avyy^a.(jb(jt,a.Ta.. Bals.
library of reference, is a disgraceful apud Beveridg. Synod, vol.i. p. 150.
and unhallowed practice, which can- Oxon. 1672.
not be too strongly reprobated. By 'H 5r£^?rT>j trvv^a — a.vihfji.a.TUTi xa.)
Mr. Berington's formal citation of the 'noiyivnv xa) rk uvrov uiri^>i trvyy^d/n/uei-
passage in Cyprian, under the head tu ««} aXkexora. ^oy/u-ara. Zonar. Ibid.
o{ proofs of Purgatory from the Fathers, This Council did not put forth any
the great bulk of his readers, I make Canons: Kavavaj Ti »i reiecvT^ tnivo^os
no doubt, have been fully satisfied, olxl^ihro-. but it is commonly under-
that the martjTed Bishop of Car- stood and allowed, that, among the
thage in the third century symbo- speculations of Origen condemned by
lised, on the article of a future Pur- it were the following. 1. The pre-
gatory, with the modern Church of the existence of souls. 2. The rotundity
Latins. of all human bodies after their resur-
' For the direct and distinct evi- rection. 3. The non-eternity of fu-
dence of Cyprian against the Doctrine ture punishment,
of a Purgatory, evidence carefully The last of these speculations pro-
suppressed both by Mr. Berington and duced that identical Purgatory of
by Dr. Trevem, see below, book ii. Origen, Avhich Mr. Bei-ington gravely
chap. n. § II, 6. adduces in evidence for the Primitive
^ 'H ^i/u.<rT» ffuvo^oi yiyoviv It) 'lover- Antiquity of the Latin Doctrine of a
Tiviavov (iatriXieoi red T^eurou, ixeirov t|«. Purgatory.
CHAP. V.J ])IHaCULTlE« OF KOMANLSM. 141
Doctrine of a Purgatory ^. For, if the torments of Hell be not
eternal, and if those torments are designedly efficacious to reclaim
and to refine the sufferers in order to their final admission into
celestial glory : Hell, in the established ecclesiastical sense of
the word, has no existence ; and its place is forthwith occupied
by a Purgatory of only temporary duration.
Such was the Purgatory, struck out by the inventive genius
of Origeii, and condemned with various other speculations by
the second general Council of Constantinople ^.
Having thus annihilated Hell, and having thus supplied its
place with a Purgatory (which differs, however, not a little, in
point of arrangement, from the accredited Purgatory of the
modern Latin Church) ; Origen had next to undertake the
somewhat arduous task of establishing his novel speculation by
the authority of Scripture. This he attempted to perform, by
adducing in evidence the well-known text from St. Paul's first
Epistle to the Corinthians. Mr. Berington, in his free abridg-
ment (for translation it is not) of the passage from Origen
which has been given in an accurate form by myself, would
fain exliibit that Father, as speaking the received doctrine of
THE Church on the topic of Purgatory, and as expounding
unhesitatingly the probative text of the Apostle according to
its unvaried and univei'sally admitted interpretation. But, in
every way, such an exhibition of Origen is grossly inaccurate.
The learned, though fanciful, Catechist of Alexandria gives us
his own insulated private reasoning, not the doctrine of the Church
which in truth he had rejected : and, in the very midst of the
passage (though Mr. Berington has been pleased to suppress
the acknowledgment, not even so much as noting its omission
' See Carpenter's Exam, of Abp. quas Ecclesia Catholica agnoscit.
Magee's Charges, p. 43. Origenian. ad Orig. Oper. prffifix.
' Our two authors ought to have vol. i. p. 151, 153.
known and stated, that this is the Origen transmuted an eteraal and
precise account very accimately given retributive Hell into a piacular and
of Origen's Purgatory by their own temporary Purgatory : and, forthwith,
learned fellow-religionist Huetius. those two unaccountable Theologians,
Satis ex superioribus, etiam me Mr. Berington and Dr. Trevern, ad-
silente, colligitur, damnatorum posnis duce him as a witness in favour of the
modiim aliquando ei finem ex decreto doctrine now held by the Church of
Origenis impositum in. — Perspicuum Ptome !
hinc est, non alias admisisse poenas Does that Church, with Origen,
Originem quam piaculares et tcmpora- admit no other than jjifcular and tem-
rias ; cujusmodi sunt purgatorise ill®, porary punishments ?
142 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [eOOK I.
by the common conventional mark indicative of non-continuous
citation), instead of quoting the probative text with the full
confidence of a man who knew that he was securely building
upon its universally admitted exposition, he fairly owns that it
is very difficult to he understood^. Confessedly, therefore, he
would establish his novel speculation, of a Hell transmuted into
a Purgatory, by a text so obscure, that he himself very credit-
ably acknowledged (though his honest acknowledgment is
suppressed by Mr. Berington) the absolute imcertainty of its
import.
Nor is this all. At a subsequent period, and in his last and
best production, Origen himself relinquished that interpretation
of the text, upon which he was content to build his purgatorial
hypothesis. In his Work against Celsus, he considers the text,
as referring to God's providential punishment of sin in this
world: arguing, with some acuteness, that we cannot legiti-
mately deem the fire mentioned by the Apostle to be a literal or
material fire, unless, what is a plain absurdity, we also deem
the objects consumed by it to be literal or material wood and
hay and stubble 2.
Whether his final interpretation of the text be strictly cor-
rect, is nothing to our present purpose : the gloss of the more
ancient Tertullian, who, by the wood and the hay and the stuhhle,
understands erroneous doctrines, incapable, like the imperishable
gold, of hearing the test of the figurative crucible, is probably
' 'O ro'Tos nv ^vtr^iYiyyiros (rtp'ol^a, resorted to by the Romish Priest-
Orig. in Jerem. Homil. xvi. Oper. hood, purely to make the worse ap-
vol. i. p. 155. pear the better cause.
I have already noticed, at some '^ KxretBalvu yk^ @ios 0.^0 T«d iVw
length, Mr. Berington's unacknow- (/.iyUovi xa) v-4^ovc, on to. tuv ivf^eH-Treuv
ledged suppression of this important ko.) [/.oLXiiTTa, rZv (pavXuv q]x.o^io(/,i7. — 'E^av
remark by Origen. It, in truth, re- oZv xiyt^rcn -rd^ sTva/ xaravaX/V^ov, ^»j-
duces his explanation of the text to a tov/uiv T/W t^itu v-^o SzoZ xccrecva-
mere valueless conjecture of his own. xla-Kur^ai -, Ka) (pa^£v, on rm xccxiav.
See above, § I. 2. (3.) Note. Mr. ««) ra. Jt' auV^j T^aTra^jva, ko.) too'ti-
Berington's deliberate suppression of x^; Xsyo^sva |yx« sTv^/ x«J zk"^"^ *«'
a clause in the midst of a passage KocXa/u,m, xccravaXitrxu &ios u? tv^.
which he professed to translate, can 'ETa/xoJa^srv yovt <pa.vXo; xiyirxt rS
only, I submit, be accounted for in -r^ov-rol^Xry/ivM koyixu hf^iXloo luXa. xa.)
one way. He saw, that, if the clause zk'^o^ ««' xaAa^»jv.' E/ fAv oZv 'i^u
were fairly given, it would at once hT^oti Hxj^u? vivo^irr&cn toZto, tS dm-
stultify the entire passage, as afford- y^oi^avri, xcc) in^fzocnxa-s ^vv^mi 'm Tit-
ing any evidence, that the Early ^a.,TT~A(Tot.i Woixo^o/^oZvrx rh (pocdXov IvKa.
Church maintained and taught the ^ ^^i^rov P, xoLXafj^n^' 5J5x«v, oV/ xa.\ to t~u^
modem popish Doctrine of Purgatory. i\,xov xu.) ccltrhrov voy,^ri<rirei,. Orig. cont.
It is lamentable to see such trickery Cels. lib. iv. p. 168. ed. Cantab. 1C77.
CHAP. Y.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 143
more accurate, while it is equally useless to the latin demon-
straters of a future Piu'gatory ^ Be that, however, as it may,
the cautious inquirer will now perceive, that, if the proof of the
primitive belief in that Tridentine Article of the Roman Faith
is to rest upon Origen : it will indeed rest upon nothing more
substantial than a reed, not very strong even in itself, but frac-
tured most unmercifully by the authoritative infallibility of the
fifth Ecumenical Council.
ly. All antiquity, says Bishop Trevern of Strasbourg,
speaks of an intermediate place, where souls, before they enter into
heaven, must he purified from the slightest stains of iniquity"'.
Dr. Trevem's comprehensive all antiquity, even according
to his own shewing, commences, not in the apostolic age, but
with Cyprian and Origen, who are alleged as his earliest wit-
nesses, though both of them flourished about the middle of the
third century : and, with respect to these two Fathers who are
thus compelled to usher in all antiquity, Cyprian (as we have
seen) knew nothing of any doctrine of a Purgatory, and Ori-
gen's substitution of a temporary Purgatory in the place of an
eternal Hell was condemned by the fifth Ecumenical Council as
an heretical and impious speculation.
On the whole, the modern Romanists may, if they please,
receive, with implicit credulity, the Doctrine of a Purgatory,
upon the mere strength of the tridentine decision in the six-
teenth century : but its truth rests upon no evidence, either of
canonical Scripture, or of the three first ages.
y. Though I have now fully shewn the total defect of
evidence in support of the Primordial Reception of the Doctrine
of a Purgatory, whether produced from Scripture or from the
Early Fathers of the Church : yet, even as a matter of curio-
sity, it may not be uninteresting to say somewhat more on those
Prayers for the Dead, which, though not of necessity involving
' Qui (Christus) futurus esset fun- id est, sui Christi. Tertull. adv.
damentum credentium in eum, super Marcion. lib. v. § 6. Oper. p.
quod prout quisque superstruxeiit 304.
dignam scilicet vel indignam d(jc- ' Toute l'antiquite parle d'tin en-
trinam, si opus ejus per ignem droit intermediaire, ou les ames,
probabitur, si merces illi per ig- avant d'entrer au ciel, doivent etre
nem rependetur, Creatoris est : quia purifiees de leurs moindres souillures.
per ignem indicatiir vestra super- Trevern's Discuss. Aniic. lettr. xiii.
sedificatio, utique sui fundamenti, vol. ii. p. 243. Note.
144 DIFFICULTIES OF llOMANIiBM. [l300K L
the belief of a Purgatory, yet certainly very much tended to
introduce it.
The precise time, when Praying for the Dead became the
general practice of the apostatising visible Church, it is perhaps
impossible to determine : but I can find no mention of it earlier
than the recommendation of it by Tertullian somewhere about
the year 200 ; and even he does not attest it to be any received
Ecclesiastical Ordinance, but recommends it purely on the
strength of his own unauthoritative private judgment.
1. Some modern advocates of this unscriptural superstition,
unable to produce the slightest notice of it prior to Tertullian,
have resorted to the expedient of alleging the Universal Occur-
rence of Prayers for the Dead in the ancient Eucharistic Litur-
gies. Whence they argue : that this Universality of Liturgical
Occurrence demonstrates the Aboriginal Universality of the
Practice.
(L) But, even to say nothing of the total silence of Scrip-
ture, these advocates seem to forget : that the Eucharistical
Liturgies, as we now have them, were not committed to writing
until after the Council of Nice ; some, probably, in the fourth
century ; and some, not until the fifth century.
Hence, as we know not what fantastical novelties may, from
time to time, have been added in the course of their oral trans-
mission during three centuries ; their present appearance can
only be evidence for the later period, during which they were
successively committed to writing : and no one, I suppose,
denies the extensive prevalence of the practice in the fourth
andjifth ages.
(2.) Now, that Prayers for the Dead were gradually foisted
into the Liturgies of the then universally communicating
Churches, some time after the close of the second century,
and not improbably in consequence of the recommendation
of Tertullian, we have as perfect a negative demonstration
as can be desired or even well imagined.
About the middle of the second century, somewhere between
the years 139 and 150, Justin Martyr, in his Apology ad-
dressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, professes to give a
studiously exact account of the mode, in which Christians,
after their Baptism, devoted themselves to God in the cele-
bration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist : and he does it, as
CHAP. Y.] DIFFICULTIES OF 1J0:MANISM. 145
lie carefully and explicitly tells us ; lest, says lie, if ive preter-
mitted this, ive might, IN SOME PARTICULAR, seem to be dishonestly
tampering with our narrative'^.
Agreeably to this profession of studied and undeviating
accuracy even in the smallest matters, he gives a minute
account of the then celebration of the Eucharist : an account,
if we examine it, so minutely precise, that he even thrice
mentions the well known primitive custom of mixing water
with the wine offered for the rite at the Lord's table. The
custom was built upon the supposition, whether correct or
incorrect, that agreeably to' the Jewish manner of celebrating
the Passover, the wine, at the Last Supper, was so mixed by
our Saviour himself. And yet, though Justin, thyice mentions
tliis small circumstance, and thus exemplifies his professed and
studied and practised accuracy : he is totajlly silent respect-
ing any Prayers for the Dead being then liturgically offered up.
But, to such ominous silence he could have had no temptation,
on the score that the practice, supposing it to have then existed,
might give offence to a pagan Emperor : for, in truth, it would
have too nearly resembled the Parentalia of the Romans them-
selves to occasion any special ill-will if adopted by Christians,
Hence, we may be morally sure : that, in the Eucharistic
Liturgies, as used in the time of Justin, there were no prayers
FOR THE dead.
From the establishment, therefore, of this important FACT,
the necessary result is : that Prayers for the Dead were gra-
dually foisted, into the lo7ig orally transmitted Liturgies, at a
subsequent period ; and, consequently, that Those Liturgies, as
they now appear in the writing of only the fourth and fifth centu-
ries, afford no valid evidence for the aboriginal antiquity of the
practice,
2. I have confidently spoken of the total silence of Scrip-
ture : and, with it, as we have seen, the equally total silence
of Justin very curiously and very remarkably corresponds.
Yet, singular as it may appear, the authority of Scripture
itself, in behalf of Prayers for the Dead, has been claimed,
both by Dr. Brett, and also by some recent followers of that
gentleman.
Apol, i. Oper. p. T-i.
L
146 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
St. Paul, say they, charges us to mahe supplications for all
saints\ But unless we pray for dead samts as well as for
living saints, we do not obey his charge of universal supplica-
tion. Therefore, it is, not merely a pious thought, but our
absolute scriptural duty, to pray for the dead ^,
This whimsical interpretation of Scripture, which no plain
reader could ever have anticipated, rests soUly, I believe, upon
the ingenuity, and therefore upon the mere private judgment,
of Dr. Brett.
Most evidently, the Early Church knew nothing of it:
because, if she had, she would, we may be quite sure, have
adduced it in defence of the practice, as soon as ever the
practice itself was liturgically adopted.
But, that she ever did this, no proof is alleged by Dr. Brett :
and the language, employed by Cyril of Jerusalem irresistibly
shews, that he at least had never heard of the interpretation
before us. In the fourth century, when the practice of
Praying for the Dead was struggling for admission into the
Church, it was, as Cyril confesses, objected to by many, on
the ground of its unprofitableness to a departed soul how-
ever circumstanced^. How, then, does the good Catechist
meet the confessed objection? Does he at once silence the
objector, by adducing the familiar and imiversal and abori-
ginal interpretation of a text, which, if we may believe Dr.
Brett and his modern followers, makes Prayer for the Dead
even an imperative scriptural duty? Nothing of the sort.
Instead of adducing Dr. Brett's interpretation as the perfectly
acknowledged catholic sense of the text; which, on the sure
ground of Aboriginal Testimony to a fact, would, no doubt,
have been a fully conclusive answer : he is totally silent touching
any authority of scripture for the Practice ; and contents
himself with meeting the objection by nothing more respect-
able than a rambling attempted illustration, which, of course,
affords not a shadow of evidence. Cyril well hiew, that he
could not establish the Practice from canonical scripture :
Ephes. vi. 18. rvtijt.ix.ruv a.'Toi.Wa.affoiA.vn Tovti rou xoir-
' See Brett's Dissert, concerning fj(.ov, n ov fjLiff kfjt.a^'rAf^o'.ruv, lav l-ri Ttjs
the Ancient Liturgies, § 19. p. 274. T^o<nv;^7is f^vii/xovivnn -, Cyril. Hieros.
3 oHa yk^ nOAAOT2 tovto xiynv- Catech. Mystag. V. p. 241. Paris,
T«j. T< u^iXiirai '4'V^h, fAirx »jt/.Ko- 1631.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM. 147
and the Apocrypha he had already charged his Catechumens
to reject, as not possessing any authority'. Nothing, there-
fore, was left for him, save the quicksand of gratuitous
illustration: and, of what value that is, he had abundantly
signified to his pupils, by exhorting them, to receive nothing
through the medium of mere plausible ratiocination, and to
repose not the slightest confidence in the assertions of their
Catecliist, unless, from tiie holy scripttjkes, they should have
full demonstration of the matters propounded'^.
How far Cyril was consistent in advocating Prayers for
the Dead, which he could not establish from scripture, and
which he laboured to establish through the medium of what
he himself stigmatises as mere plausible ratiocination^, is
nothing to our present purpose. If, through the infelicity
of the age, he submitted to be the huckster of unscriptural
and unwholesome trash, he at least had honestly propounded
THE AUTOCRACY OF SCRIPTURE as a guard or an antidote.
3. The rejection of the practice by the Anglican Church
is singularly instructive.
In the earlier stage of her reformation, she had incautiously
retained it : but, at a later period, when better instructed, she
expunged the once admitted Prayers for the Dead, and thus
retracted that imposition of an unscriptural phantasy, which she
felt to be altogether inconsistent with her own invaluable Sixth
Article.
Accordingly, in the third part of the Elizabethan Homily
concerning Prayer, she reprobates Prayers for the Dead, not
only as at length conriected ivith a belief in Purgatory, but like-
wise on the score of their oivn scripturally demojistrated inherent
or abstract inutility and folly : for the judicious homilist care-
fully distinguishes these two points, by first generally rejecting
all Prayer for the Dead as being palpably unscriptural, and by
next particularly rejecting them as connected with Purgatory.
After stating, that, if we will cleave 07ily unto the Word of
God, then must ive needs grant thai ive have no commandment to
pray for them that are departed out of this ivorld ; and after
citing the words of Abraham in the parable of the Rich Man
' Catech. iv. p. 36, 37. ^ UifiavoTvirt ko.) Xoyuv Kuraffiiiu-
« Catech. iv. p. 30. a7s.
148 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
and Lazarus : the excellent writer proceeds ; These words, as
ihey confound the opinion of helping the dead hy prayer, so they
do clean confute and take away the vain error of Purgatory.
Finally, he winds up the whole with the distinction into
general and particular, which he had laid down at the com-
mencement.
Let us not therefore dream, either of Purgatory, OR of Prayer
for the Soids of them that be Dead : but let us earnestly and dili-
gently pray for them which are expressly commanded in Holy
Sciipture ; 7iamely, for Kings and Rulers, for Ministers of God^s
Holy Word and Sacraments, for the saints of this world other-
wise called the Faithful ; to he short, for all men liying.
It is impossible not to see, in these concluding expressions, an
evident explanatory reference to the very text, on which Dr.
Brett and his followers would build a Scriptural Command to
pray for Defunct Saints who have passed from this world into
another.
I have thought it good to be thus full, because some modems
have alleged : that, if the Anglo-Catholic Church does not
enjoin Prayers for the Dead, she, at least, by carefully avoiding
all censure of the Practice, tacitly sanctions it.
Under every aspect, nothing can be more incorrect than
this allegation. The rejection of a once received Practice is the
very acme of implied censure ; and the language of the Homily
is an unequivocal declaration of expressed censure.
I really cannot see, how any consistent member of the
Reformed English Church can advocate the present most idle
and most unscriptural superstition : a superstition, moreover,
totally unknown in the best and purest ages of Christianity,
and appearing only as part and parcel of the miserable innova-
tions of the fourth and fifth centuries.
4. On the whole, the Practice of Prayer for the Dead may
be safely said to rest, neither upon Scripture, nor upon the
Liturgical Forms of the Aboriginally Primitive Church. It
lacks, at once, the binding authority of the Bible, and the
inferior sanction of the wise Canon of Tertullian.
Whatever is first, is true : whatever is o/" later introduction,
is adulterate.
CHAPTER VL
SAINT-WOESHIP, BIAGE-WOBSinP, TJELIC-WOIISHIP, CROSS-WOESinP.
The Church of Rome inculcates upon her members, anathe-
matising all those who presume to differ from her, the Worship
of Saints and Images and Relics and Crosses.
I have no special concern with those ingenious distinctions,
between Latria and Dulia, between Positive Worship and
Relative Worship, which she has devised for the purpose of
escaping the very natural and obvious charge of gross idolatry ;
distinctions, which, in actual practice, and sometimes even in
unreserved declarations of certain exaggerating doctors (as the
Bishop of Strasbourg speaks i), are found but too often to
vanish altogether ; distinctions moreover, which, at least in the
case of Relative Image- Worship and Cross- Worship and Relic-
Worship, have been borrowed from the strictly homogeneous
theory of ancient Paganism 2. Since the Roman Church de-
' See Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 274, This also was the precise doctrine
275. of the paganising Israelites, when
^ Deos, inquitis, per simul,\chra they worshipped the golden calf:
veneramur. Arnob. adv. Gent, lib.vi. whether they boiTOwed the bovine
p. 195. form of the sj-mbol itself from the
This is the precise doctrine of the bull Apis or from the Cherubim.
Eoman Church. The adoration which they paid to
Honos, qui eis (scil. imaginibus it, hke that which the Papists avow-
Christi, deiparse Virginis, et aliorum edly pay to their images, was, in the
Sanctorum) exhibetur, refertur ad phraseology of the Eoman Church,
PROTOTYPA, quae illaj reprresentant : not positive, but relative. For, as we
ita ut, PER IMAGINES quas osculamur are expressly told, in sacrificing to
et coram quibus caput aperimus et the image of the calf, they Avorshipped
procumbimus, Christum adoremus, Jehovah the God who brought them vp
et Sanctos, quorum illse imaginem out of the land of Egypt. See Exod.
gerunt, veneremur. Concil. Trident. xxxii. 4-8. Nehem.ix. 18. Psalm cvi.
sess. XXV. p. 507, 508. 19, 20 : and note, that, in the first of
150
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I,
clares, that that worship, however modified or disguised, was
always prevalent in the Cathohc and Apostohc Church, was
received in the primitive times of the Christian Religion, was
confirmed by the consent of the holy Fathers, and was ratified
by the decrees of the sacred Councils : she undoubtedly, with
whatever prudence, brings the alleged fact of sxnch primeval and
universal Worship to the simple test of historical investiga-
tion^.
these places, what our english trans-
lators render plurally gods, ought, as
in the second of them, to have been
singularly rendered God. Yet, though
such worship was but the relative
worship of the Council of Trent nlti-
mately directed to Jehovah himself, it is
ever stigmatised as the foulest idolatry.
^ 'H iP>hof/,n xcci olxovfiiviKh ffvvohos
yiyoviv. It) tJJj 'Roe,a^^X^ia.s KeovtrrccvTivou
xoffiav l^yjKovTex. Ittx ecyiiuv Tan^aiv,
a,9^'iia'6'ivTuv iv HiKCita. Ttjs Bidvvia;, xara,
TMV sl/iovofjcd^uv, iiyovv ^OKTTta.voKCcr'n-
yopaiv. "Hn; to.; uxovipcas lx,TVT/ntriis
-r^txncvv-Ta-^aii xa.) xocTUffTd^iffdai c^^^iTt-
xajg l-ip'/i(pitrBiTo, of/.otcoi tm toZ TifJiiaU
tfra.v^'iv TtJ'Pi'M, xai <r^ tuv Tiffruv ix-
KXr.fftct •;rcc^t$eoxiv OVTO) ffi^iff6a.i Tohg
TVTOVS TOV 'V^OffXrif/.f^OC'TOS TOU K-U^IOV
xa.\ 771; avTov a.(XTo^aj$ xa.i appijTus
Tixovtrn; horoxoi', xa) Toui tmv ayiuv
ocTuvTuv. Zonar. apud Bever. Synod,
vol, i. p. 384. See also Concil. Nic.
secund. act. i. Labb. Concil. vol. vii.
p. CO, 61, 56, 57. act. vi. p. 541. act.
vii. p. 556, 584.
Mandat sancta Synodus omnibus
episcopis et ceteris docendi munus
curamque sustinentibus, ut juxta Ca-
tholicse et Apostolical EcclesiiB usum,
prim£Evis Christians Eeligionis tem-
poribus receptum, sanctorumque Pa-
trum consensionem, et sacrorum Con-
ciliorum decreta, in primis de Sanc-
torum intercessione, invocatione, Ee-
liquiarum honore, et legitimo Ima-
ginum usu, fideles diligenter instru-
ant ; docentes eos, Sanctos, una cum
Christo regnantes, orationes suas pro
hominibus Deo offerre ; bonum atque
utile esse, suppliciter eos invocare;
et, ob beneficia impetranda a Deo
per filium ejus Jesum Christum Do-
minum nostrum, qui solus noster
Bedemptor et Salvator est, ad eorum
orationes, opem, auxiliumque, con-
fugere : illos voro, qui negant Sanc-
tos, ffiterna felicitate in ca-lo fruentes,
invocandos esse ; aut qui asserunt,
vel illos pro hominibus non orare ;
vel eorum, ut pro nobis etiam sin-
gulis orent, invocaticmem esse idolo-
latriam ; vel pugnare cum verbo Dei,
adversarique honori unius mediatoris
Dei et hominum Jesu Christi ; vel
stultum esse, in coelo regnantibus,
voce vel mente, supplicare ; impife
sentire. Sanctorum quoque marty-
rum et aliorum cum Christo viven-
tium sancta corpora, quae viva membra
fuerunt Christi et templum Spiritus
Sancti, ab ipso ad ODternam ^'itam
suscitanda et glorificanda, a fidelibus
veneranda esse ; per qua^ multa be-
neficia a Deo hominibus pr;Bstantur :
itaut affirmantes, Sanctorum Reliquiis
venerationem atque honorem non de-
beri ; vel eas, aliaque sacra monu-
menta, a fidelibus inutiliter honorari;
atque, eorum opis impetrandre causa,
Sanctorum memorias frustra frequen-
tari ; omnino damnandos esse, prout
jampridem eos damnavit, et nunc
etiam damnat Ecclesia. Imagines
porro Christi, deiparai Virginis, et
aliorum Sanctorum, in templis pree-
sertim habendas et retinendas ; eisque
debitum honorem et venerationem
impertiendam : non [quod credatur
inesse aliqua in lis dirinitas vel vu'tus,
propter quam sint colendse ; vel quod
ab eis sit aliquid petendum ; vel quod
fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda ;
veluti olim fiebat a gentibus, quo; in
idolis spem suam collocabant : sed
quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur, re-
fertur ad prototypa, quae illse reprae-
sentant ; ita ut, per Imagines quas
osculamur et coram quibus caput
aperimus et procumbimus, Christum
adoremus, et Sanctos, quorum illfe
similitudinem gerunt, veneremur: id,
quod, Conciliorum prsesertim vero se-
CHAP. VL] difficulties of ROMANISM. 151
Hence her ecclesiastics stand pledged, not only to receive
and inculcate the practice upon the naked authority of the
second Nicene Council in the eighth centary and of the Council
of Trent in the sixteenth century, but likewise to substan-
tiate the alleged FACT of the Chronological Universality and the
Apostolical Origination of the Practice itself.
I. Now this task, somewhat mercilessly imposed by the
Roman Church upon her Priesthood, can only be accomplished,
partly by the evidence of Scripture, and partly by the con-
CLu-rent mibroken testimony of the three first ages up to the
very time of the earliest promulgation of Christianity.
Accordingly, the high enterprise of its accomplishment has,
after this precise manner, been most magnanimously under-
taken by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington^
1. The proof from Scripture, or from what the Tridentine
Council wdth a splendid disregard of Antiquity has pronounced
to be Scripture, is asserted to be contained in the following
several passages.
(1.) Now, therefore, when thou didst pray, and Sarah thy
daughter-in-law, I (the angel Raphael) did hri?ig the 7'eniem-
brance of your prayers before the Holy One : and, when thou
didst bury the dead, I was with thee likewise^.
(2.) This was his vision : that Onias, who had been high-
priest, a virtuous and a good man, reverend in conversation,
gentle in condition, well spoken also, and exercised from a child
in all points of virtue, holding up his hands, prayed for the
whole body of the Jews. This done, in like manner there ap-
peared a man ivith gray hairs a?id exceeding glorious, who was
of a wondeiful and excellent majesty. Then Onias answered,
saying : Tliis is a lover of the brethren, who prayeth much for
the people and for the holy city, to wit, Jeremias the prophet of
God\
(3.) I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over
one sinner that repenteth, more than over 7iinety and nine just
persons which need no repentance. — Likewise I say unto you :
cundffi Nicsenae Synodi decretis contra vol. ii. p. 265-387. Faith of Cathol,
Imaginum oppugnatores, estsancitum. p. 414-417, 430-434, 427, 428,
Concil. Trident, sess. xxv. p. 507, 508. « x^y^-^ ^^^ jg.
» Discuss. Amic. lett. xiv.-xvii. ^ 2 Maccab. xv. 12-14.
152 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner
that repenteth^.
(4.) A?idf when he had taken the hook, the four living crea-
tures and the four and twenty elders fell doimi before the Lamb,
having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours
which are the prayers of saints'^.
(5.) And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him ; and
smote the ivaters ; and said : Where is the Lord God of Elijah f
And, when he had smitten the ivaters, they parted hither and
thither : and Elisha went ovei^.
(6.) And it came to pass as they were burying a man, that,
behold, they spied a band of men : and they cast the man into the
sepulchre of Elisha : and, when the man was let down and
touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feetf^.
(7.) And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue
of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of
his garment. For she said within herself : If I may but touch
his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about :
and, when he saw her, he said: Daughter, be of good comfort ;
thy faith hath m.ade thee whole. And the woman was made whole
from that hour*.
(8.) And believers were the more added to the Lord, multi-
tudes both of men and women : insomuch that they brought forth
the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches;
that, at the least, the shadow of Peter parsing by might over-
shadow some of them^.
(9.) And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul :
so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs
or aprons ; and the diseases departed from than, and the evil
spirits went out of thern}.
(10.) Thou shalt make two cherubim of gold : of beaten work
shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy-sea^.
' Luke XV. 7, 1 0. In this passage, thing to do >vith bodily austerities :
Mr. Berington, after the manner of it means, solely and exclusively,
his school of Theology, very ludi- that change of mind which we ctdl
croiislyandvery inaccurately translates repentance.
(jtiravoovvTi and fiirctvoict;, by the eng- ^ Eev. v. 8.
lish doing penance and penance : just ^ 2 Kings ii. 14.
as if our Lord was enjoining one of * 2 Kings xiii. 21.
the bodily penances of a modem * ]\] att, ix. 20-22.
roman devotee. The original Greek, ^ Acts v. 14, 15,
as every schoolboy knows, has no- ' lb. xix. 11, 12. « Ex. xxv. 18.
CHA1\ TI.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
(11.) And the Lord said unto Moses: Make thee^'d' fiery
serpe7it, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pUss,' that
every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shcM live.
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon ay^U^:.
and it came to pass, that, if a serpent had bitten any mdiiy^
when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived K
(12.) lie 7'emoved the high places, and brake the images, and
cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that
Moses had made; for, unto those days, the children of Israel
did burn incense to it: and he called it A thing of brass"^,
(13.) And he carved all the walls of the house round about
with carved figures of cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers,
within and without. — The two doors also were of olive-tree : and
he carved upon them carvings of cherubim and palm-trees and
open flowers ; and overlaid them with gold\
(14.) And he made a molten sea — And it stood upon twelve
oxen — And, on the borders that were between the ledges, ivere
lions, oxen, and cherubim'^.
2. The proof from the testimony of the three first centuries,
the cogency of which obviously depends upon its distinctness,
its copiousness, its universahty, and its immediate contact with
the apostolic age, is discovered in the several passages follow-
ing, extracted from the narrative of the martyrdom of Polycarp
and from the writings of Iren^us and TertuUian and Cyjman
and Justin^.
' Numb. xxi. 8, 9. Genuine Chair of St. James ivos greatly
' 2 Kings xviii. 4. reverenced in the fourth century.
^ 1 Kings vi. 29, 32. But such evidence as this, as it
■* Ibid. vii. 23, 25, 29. bears not upon tlie question of apo-
* Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington stolically ordained Relic-Worship, ho it
cite also certain passages from Ori- is far too late to be of any legitimate
gen : but, as they exist only in a latin historical unportance. Very probably,
translation, and as they are of them- the bones of Ignatius might have
selves (even as they stand in that been carried back to Antioch, de-
translation) of small evidential rele- cently wrapped up in a linen-cloth
vancy and importance ; I omit them, (b x/vw KaTirih) as the unknown
agreeably to the plan which I have author of the Acts of his Martyrdom
distinctly laid down and which I have says, ( § 6 ; in Dr. Jacobin's Patres
invariably followed. Apostolici, p. 032) for the natm-al pur-
I. They likewise cite Chrysostom pose of christian burial in the seat of
and Eusebius and the Acts of the his bishopric ; and I make no doubt,
Martyrs in Euinart, for the purpose that, in the fourth centviry, fruitful
oishewmQ^ihoX the Relics of Ignatius as it was after the conversion of
were carried hack into the East afier Constantine in imaginary Relics, the
his martijrdom at Rome, and that the Chair of St. James was as duly shewn
154
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I.
(1.) When the envious and the ivicked one, the adversa7'y of
the race of the just, says the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna,
saw the greatness of Poly carp's martyrdom; — he laboured
industnously, that his 7'emains might not he taken away by us,
which many of lis did vehemently desire, that they might partake
of his holy body. Hence he suggested to JVicetas to intercede with
the governor, that his body should not be delivered for sepul-
ture : lest, said he, leaving him that was crucified, they should
begin to worship this person. And these things they said at
to the curious in such matters as the
True Cross of Christ so happily dis-
covered hy Helena and so ingeniously
distinguished from the two conco-
mitant crosses of the two thieves
(Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 13.
Euffin. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 7.):
but I see not, how all this is to prove
the apostolical ox'v^in of Eelic- Worship.
II. Dr. Trevern moreover assures
us, on the authority of Justin Martyr,
who flourished before and after the
year 150, and who had been instructed
in the faith by the contemporaries of
St. John, that Christians, even at
that early period, were wont to turn
to the east and to sign themselves
with the indispensable sign of the
Cross. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 378.
Truly, the diligent reader of Justin
will hugely marvel, from Avhich of his
writings Dr. Trevern learned this
notable piece of information. "With
astonishing ignorance or with reso-
lute dishonesty (I pretend not to de-
termine which) the Bishop of Stras-
bourg refers his enghsh laic friend
to a Work, which he liberally gives
to Justin, but which in good sooth
was wiitten by some unknown author
at least a full century after Justin
was dead and laid in his grave. The
book, entitled Questions and Answers
to the Orthodox, is printed, indeed,
among the Works of Justin : but, as
eveiy person acquainted with the
writings of the Fathers well knows,
Justin had no more concern in its
manufactory than Dr. Trevern him-
self. A production, which the criti-
cism of that Prelate ascribes to Justin
and the middle of the second century,
actually no less than twice refers to
Origen who flourished about the
middle of the third century. See
Quaist. et Respons. Ixxxii. Ixxxvi.
in Oper. Justin, p. 342, 344. and
torn. iii. pt. 2. pp. 116, 122. ed. Jena,
1842.
III. I had well nigh forgotten to
notice, that, even from Scripture it-
self, Dr. Trevern undertakes to esta-
blish the fact of actual Rehc- Worship
on the part of the strictly primitive
Christians.
When the protomartyr Stephen was
dead, devout men, as we Anglicans in
our simphcity have been wont to un-
derstand the passage, carried him
out for the purpose of giving him
decent christian burial. Acts viii. 2.
But the Bishop of Strasbourg de-
monstrates from the place, that the
earliest believers, under the very
sanction of the Apostles, revered the
Relics of Stephen. Discuss. Amic.
Lettr. XV. vol. ii. p. 811.
Though I may perhaps incur the
censure of breaking a butterfly upon
the wheel, yet, with respect to this very
extraordinary demonstration, I cannot
refrain from making a single remark.
The same greek verb, trvyx.of/.'i^u,
is used, both by Luke and by Sopho-
cles, in reference to the same object,
a dead body. Acts viii. 2. Sophoc.
Ajax. ver. 1071, 1072.
Now few persons, I apprehend,
will suspect, that Menelaus was jea-
lous, lest Teucer should carry off the
corpse of Ajax for the purpose of
converting its several members into
Belies. Yet Dr. Trevern can gravely
keep his countenance, while thus in-
terpreting the object of the devout
men, when they carried off the body
of the murdered Stephen. Nay, more,
he can preserve his physiognomical
solemnity, even while adducing to an
English Layman, this very interpre-
tation as proof positive of the occur-
rence of a FACT.
CHAP. VI.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 155
tlie suggestion and instigation of the Jews^ who also watched
us lohen ive were about to take him from the five ; inasmuch as
they icere ignorant, that neither can we ever forsake Christ ivho
suffered for the salvation of the saved th7'oughout the whole ivorld,
the sinless for sinners, nor that ice can ever worship any other.
For him, being the Son of God, we adore : but the martyrs,
as disciples and imitatoi's of the Lord, we icorthily love on
account of their special affection to their own King and Master ;
with whom may we be partakers arid felloio-disciples I But the
centmion, beholding the contention excited by the Jews, threw him
into the midst of the fire and burned him. And thus we, after-
ward gathering up his bones more honourable than precious
stones and more tried than gold, deposited them where it natu-
rally foUoived that we should deposit them. To us assembling
in this place so far as lies in our power, with triumph and with
joy, the Lord will grant to celebrate the birth-day of his martyr-
dom, both in memory of those who have completed their ivrestling,
and for the exercise and preparation of those who are about to
wrestle ^
(2.) As Eve, says Ireneus, by the discourse of a fallen angel,
was seduced to apostatise from God, disobeying his word: so
Mary, by the discourse of a good angel, was evangelised, that she
should bear God in her womb, obedient to his word. And, as the
former was seduced to disobey God : so the latter was persuaded
to obey God; in order that the Virgin Mary might thence become
'O dl avTi^TiXos xa) ^dtrxetvos xeci voito kcc) rifioii xoivavovg rs x&/ truf^.fiei-
TovTi^os, avTixiiuivos T* yivsi ruv ^i- 6r,ra.s yiviffSat. 'l^a/v ouv o ixarovrx^^os
xatuVf Iduv TO fjLiyi6oi avrou Tiji fjca.^- ruv ^lov^aiuv yivo/aiv^iv' (piXovtixiav, 6tis
<rvo'tai, — I'TfiTnoiVffiv, a/g [ji.y^\ to 'ki'i-<^a- aurov Iv f/,itrM red -^u^og ixavinv. OwVa*
vav cthrov u(p' fi/na/v Xr,ipht>i, xa.'t'Jfi^ "ToX- ri }!ju.us vffTi^ov otviXof^tvoi to, TifziUTS^ec,
Xuv iTi^Vf^ovvTuv roiiTO Toiriffcci xcti xot- X'tiaiv -^oXvTiXeov xa) ^oxif/,uriox vtI^
vtuvnircci Tu ayiiu, avTou cru^KiCfi. 'T<pri(iaX& X^^"'''^ offTo, ccvrou, cc^iSif^iSa, o-rou xa.)
yoZv N/X9JTJJV \vTv^i7v TM ci^^ovri, uari axoXovdov Tiv. "lS,v6a us ovvarov iifuv
fiv ^ovvBct avrou to eraJfAct Ta<p'^' /u,7j, trvvayefjcivoii, Iv a,ya.XXiu,tfii xu) ^apS
<P*)ff)v, a^iVTSs Tov Iff^TOiv^eof^'ivov, Tovrev ^ra^s^ii o Kv^iog iTirtXiTv t*iv tou ficc^-
cio'^covrai ffi(?>i!T6a,i. Ka/ rtturx uTov, rv^lov avTov rifAt^av yivi^Xiov^ t^ n rriv
vfo^ocXXovTuv xa.) iviff^vovTuv lovha'iuv, tuv yi6Xnxo<ruv (/.vyifiviv, xa.) <ruv fisX'
o't xa) Wn^yKxav, f^iXXovruv riftuv Ix tov Xovrcov atrxriffiv ri xa) Iroificiffiav.
Tv^os Xaf4,[iciviiv' uyvoovvTig oti ovrt tov Epist. Eccles. Smyrn. § 17, 18.
X^iffTov TOTi xaraXi-ritv ^L>v*iirofii6ec, tov in Patr. Apost. Cotel. vol. ii. p.
v-rl^ Ttis rod Tavrog xnfffjt.ov tuv ffuZ,e- 201, 202. andp. 582. ed. Oxon. 1838.
(/,Ueav ffuTTi^tag faSovTo.., a.(/,cafji.ov vTi^ Mr. Beiington lightly understands
u.[ji,a^TuXuv, ovTi iTi^ov Tivoc tri^iff&ai. the Smym^ans to have buried the
TovTov (jiXv ya^, viov ovra, tov &iov, bones of Polycarp : Dr. Trevem,more
'x^offKvvovfAiv Tovg %\ f/.a^Tvgaiy ug fjLo.- ingenious, has discovered, that they
SviTas xa) ynfjL'/^Tag tov Kv^lov, aya-ruf/.iv preserved them to be venerated as
a^ia/g, ivtxa ivvoiug avvn^^XvtTou rtis lU Relics. See Discuss. Amic. lett.
Tflv <%av ^affiXia xa) ^i^dtrxaXov' uv yi- XV. vol. ii. p. 312, 313.
156 DIFFICULTIES OF llOMAIsISM. [bOOK I.
the advocate of the virgin Eve. Thus, as the human race ivas
doomed to death through a virgin : so the human race might be
delivered also through a virgin ; the balance being equally held,
between the disobedience of one virgiti, and the obedience of
another'^.
(3.) You may begin, says TertuUian, from parables : ivhere
there is the lost sheep, sought for by the Lord and carried back
upon his shoulders. Let the very pictures of your cups be pro-
duced : if, even hi them, the interpretation of that animal will
clearly shhie forth'^.
In all our movements, whether we come in or whether we go
out, whether we put on our raiment or whether we bind on our
sandals, in the bath, at the table, ivhile using either lights or beds
or couches, in whatever fashion we may be employed, we ivear our
forehead with the sign of the cross. If, for these and the like
points of discipline, you demand scriptural authority : truly you
will find none. Tradition ivill be alleged to you, as their voucher:
custom, as their confirmer : faith, as their observer^.
(4.) Let us, says Cyprian, be mindful of each other, in our
prayers : let us be concordant and unanimous : let us always
7nutually pray for one another : let us, by mutual charity, relieve
our troubles and distresses. And, whosoever, through the celerity
of the divine favour, shall first depart, let our love persevere with
the Lord: for our brethren and for our sisters, let not our prayer
cease with the mercy of the Father"^.
' Quemadmodum enim ilia per an- est ovis perdita, a Domino requisita,
gelicum sermonem seducta est, ut et humeris ejus revecta. Procedant
effugeret Deum prsevaricata verbum ipsse pictiirse calicum vestronim, si
ejus : ita et hsec per angelicum ser- vel in illis perlucebit interprotatio
monem evangelizata est, ut portaret pecudis illius. Tertull. de pudic.
Demn, obediens ejus verbo. Et, sicut Oper. p. 748. and cap. 7. p. 559. ed.
ilia seducta est ut effugeret Deum : Paris. 1075.
sic hffic suasa est obedire Deo, uti vir- ^ Ad omnem progressum atque
ginis Ev8evirgo Maria fieret advocata. promotura, ad omnem aditum et ex-
Et, quemadmodum adstrictum est itum, ad vestitum et calceatum, ad
morti genus humanum per virgin em : lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cu-
solvatur per virginem, eequa lance bilia, ad sedilia, quacunque nos con-
disposita virginalis inobedientice j^er versatio exercet, frontem crucis sig-
virginalem obedientiam. Iren. adv. naculo terimus. Harum et aliarum
haer. lib. v. c. 16. p. 340, 341. and cap. ejusmodi disciplinarum si legem ex-
19. ed. Oxon. 1702. where Grabe has postules Scripturarum, nullam in-
retained the inferiorreading, approved, venies: traditio tibi pra>tenditur au-
of course, by Feuardent, salvatiir. trix ; consuetudo, confirmatrix ; et
For a right understanding of this fides, observatrix. TertuU. de coron.
tasteless tissue of unmeaning an tithe- milit. § 3. Oper. p. 449.
ses, compare Iren. adv. hoer. lib. iii. * Memores nostri in\dcem simus,
c. 33. p. 221. Concordes atque unanimes : utrobique
^ A parabolis licebit incipias, ubi pro nobis semper oreraus : pressuras
CHAP. YI.] DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANIS^M. 157
Bravely endure : spiritually advance : ha^jpily arrive. Only
remember us then, when in you virginity shall begin to be
honoured ^»
(5.) We venerate and worship, says Justin Martyr, the Angelic
Host and the Spirits of the Prophets, teaching others as we our-
selves have been taught^,
II. Such is tlie Romish Case, as made out, from Canonical
Scripture, from the unsafe Apocrypha, and from the Ecclesias-
tical Writings of the three first centuries.
1. The FACTS, to he substantiated, were: that The Invocation
of Saints and the Relative Worship of Images and Relics and
Crosses, as propounded and defined by the Second Council of Nice
and afterwards by the Council of Trent, are inculcated in Scrip-
ture ; and that, accordingly. On Scriptural Authority, such Prac-
tices universally and notoriously prevailed in the Universal Church,
during the very first centuries, up to the time of Christ and his
Apostles.
Such were the facts, proposed to he evidentially established.
Yet, respecting this asserted Invocation and respecting this
asserted Relative Worship, not a single syllable is said by any
one of the witnesses produced, whether from Scripture, or from
the Apocrypha, or from the Ecclesiastical Writings of the three
first centuries.
Here it will be exclaimed by the merely English reader:
Surely, Justin Martyr, as cited above, attests, that the Christians
of his age, only forty years after the death of St. John, venerated
and worshipped both the Angelic Host, and the Spirits of the
departed Prophets ; nay more, attests, yet additionally, that they
had been taught so to do by their predecessors, which brings the
testimony up to the very life-time of St. John.
Certainly, in the preceding citation, they are represented as so
doing : but then it is only in the garbled and falsified translation
of Dr. Milner, not in the statement of Justin himself 3.
et angustias mutua cariiate releve- mementote tunc nostri, cum in-
mus. Et quis istinc nostrum prior cipiet in vobis virginitas honorari.
divinne dignationis celeritate prices- Cyprian, de habit, virgin. Oper. vol. i.
serit, perseveret apud Dominum nos- p. 103. Ed. Oxon. 1682.
tra dilectio : pro fratiibus et soro- ^ -jj^^, original, from which Dr.
ribus nostris, apud misericordiam Milner has thought fit to produce this
Patris, non coiToboratio. Cyprian. marvellous attestation, will forthwith
Epist. Ix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 143. be given.
> Durate fortiter : spiritaliter per- ^ -pj^g j^^^^j ^f Eeligious Contro-
gite : pervenite feliciter. Tantum versy. Letter xxxviii. p. 253.
158 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
The translation makes a most extraordinary appearance by
the side of the original, which I have duly subjoined in the
margin, but which, for very obvious reasons, Dr. Milner has
thought it inexpedient to produce.
Justin really theologises in manner following.
But HIM (namely the Father) ; and the Son wlio came forth
frotn him, and who hath taught these things to us and to the army
of the other good angels who follow him and are made like imto
him ; and the Prophetic Spirit : we worship and ive adore,
honouring them in word and in truth, and, to every person who
wishes to learn, imgrudgingly delivering as we ourselves have been
taught^,
Justin evidentially informs us, that the adoration of the Holy
Trinity constituted the worship of the Catholic Church from
the very beginning. But Dr. Milner compels him to attest the
primeval and universal establishment of the Idolatrous Super-
stition of the Church of Rome : and, to crown all, actually
transmutes the Prophetic Spirit of God, worshipped by the Pri-
mitive Christians as the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity,
into the disembodied Spirits of the Prophets I
It is only just to say, that Mr. Berington is not guilty of any
such stupendous perversion of Justin : but, nevertheless, on the
general matter, he is evidently in despair, though he puts the
best face upon it that he can.
Speaking of Images and Crosses, he says : It cannot be neces-
sary, that, on this subject, I should adduce any authorities from
the Fathers, which would prove ; that. In the early ages, particu-
larly from the time of Constantine, Painted Representations of
mysterious Facts, of the Cross, of the Lives of Saints, ivere exhi-
bited in the places of public worship^.
With his views, and with the avowed object of his Work, I
should have thought, that the production of authorities up to
the apostolic age, for the purpose of substantiating the alleged
FACT, not merely of the Exhibition of Images and Crosses and
Pictures, but of their Relative Worship on the part of the faith-
AXX EKEINON rs' x,a,) rov Toto xx) <r^otrxvvoZfji,iv, Xoyw ko.) a,kr,h'tce, nri-
ahrov TION ikSovree,, xeti ^thu^mru, 'hfiZs f^eovrie, xa) -ravr) /3aj;Ao/t£v^ f/.uhiv, us
retVTO. xoti tov tm* ScXXmv tTOf^iiveov xoCi }^^a.x,6vi[Ji.iv , a,ip6ovus voc^a^thovris. JUS-
i^oftoiouf^ivuv uyalZv ocyyiXuv ffr^xrov' tin. Apol. i. Oper. p. 43.
nNETMA n to ^^o<p^TtKov' tn^'ofAiSa ^ Faith of Cathol. p. 428.
CHAP. VI.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 159
fill as inculcated by the Councils of Nice and Trent, was, in
truth, the very reverse of mmecessary. That Mr. Berington
can produce abundant authorities from the time of Constantine
downward, I make no manner of doubt: for the Church had
then begun rapidly to degenerate into that unhallowed super-
stition, by which so widely in extent she has ever since been
disfigured. But he must recollect, that the question is not.
What might be the belief and practice of the fourth or fifth or
sixth or seventh centuries, but What was the belief and practice
of the Primitive Church up to the time of the Apostles founded
professedly upon the teaching of inspiration. Yet the adduction
of authorities, to this latter effect, Mr. Berington actually pro-
nounces to be quite unnecessary. That it was out of his power
to produce them, is sufficiently manifest : that their production
is unnecessary, he will persuade no person who in the slightest
degree understands the nature of historical testimony. The
adduction of such evidence is the precise matter, which we
require : Mr. Berington assures us, that it cannot be necessary,
2. But, if it be impossible to substantiate the Invocation of
Saints and the Relative Worship of Images and Relics and
Crosses, as defined by the two Councils of Nice and Trent,
either from Scripture or from the Apocryj)ha or from the
Writings of the three first Centuries : still less can such
Invocation and such Worship be substantiated, as they prac-
tically exist or have existed in the gi'oss form of absolute
idolatry.
Those modern Romanists, who come in contact with scrip-
tural Protestantism, are wont to assert : that their Invocation
of the Saints is a mere request, that they would pray on their
behalf; that the Relative Worship of Images is simply the
appropriate worship, whether Latria or Dulia, of the objects
represented by such images, for the Images themselves contain
or possess no divine potency ; that the Relative Worship of
Relics is nothing more than a natural affectionate veneration,
on the principle of what are commonly styled keepsakes, for
whatever has belonged to an eminently pious individual ; and
that the Relative Worship of the Cross is but the Ultimate
Worship of the Incarnate Deity who was crucified ^
' Some Eomanists, I believe, still Pope Gregory : that images, through
please themselves with the excuse of the medium of representation, are the
160
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I.
Thus, for instance, complacently glozes the Bishop of Stras-
bourg to the english laic, whom he is attempting to proselyte.
But, even to say nothing of the total want of authority, either
scriptural or primitive, for such vain notions and performances :
how stands the matter, in respect to the fact of naked actual
practice ?
The very prayers, publicly used in the Latin Church, both
before the Reformation and after the Reformation, supplicate
the Virgin and the Saints, not merely to intercede for believers
(as, while in the flesh. Christians are directed to pray for each
other) ; but absolutely to grant to them those holy gifts and
graces, and to impart to them that needful spiritual strength
and assistance, which God only can bestow*. Dr. Trevern
books and remembrancers of the mi-
learned. See Gregor. Epist. lib. ix.
epist. 105. They do not seem to be
aware, that this was precisely one of
the pleas advanced by the more de-
cent sort of pagan idolaters. Aoxodfft
^h fjcoi xa) 01 vo(Jt,o6'iTa.t, xci6oixi^ rtvt
irai'heov ocyik^, i^iv^uv to7s av6^u-7roii
Taurt ra. uyoiX{ji,tx,Ta,, ffri^ila rrts "^oh
TO 6i7ov TifAy,;, xai uff-rt^ ^ii^ayeu-
yiav Tiva xcc) ooov ^^o; eivecfAvriffiv.
Maxim. Tyr. Dissert. xxxAiii. p. 369,
370.
' Sancta Dei genetrix, quae digne
meruisti concipere quem totus orbis
nequivit comprehendere ; tuo pio in-
terventu, culpas nostras ablue, ut pe-
rennis sedem gloriae, per te redempti,
valeamus scandere, ubi manes cum
fiUo tuo sine tempore. Collect, in
Hor. ad usum Sarum. Paris. 1526.
fol. 4. Burnet's Hist, of the Eeform.
vol. ii.p. 143. Records under Edward,
No. 29.
Sancta Maria, succurre miseris,
juva pusillanimos, refove flebiles, ora
pro populo, interveni pro clero, inter-
cede pro devoto foemineo sexu. Ibid,
fol. 30.
Mariam primum vox sonet nostra,
per quam nobis vitse sunt data pr^B-
mia: regina quae es mater et casta,
solve nostra per filium peccamina :
angeloi'um concio sacra, et archange-
lorum tm-ma inclyta, nostra diluant
jam peccata praistando supernam coeli
gratiam. Ibid. fol. 80.
Virgo singularis, inter omnes niitis,
nos, culpis soliitos, mites fac et castos.
Vitam prtesta puram ; iter para tutum .
ut, videntes Jesum, semper colkcte-
mur. Ibid. fol. S).
Consolare peccatorem : et ne tuum
des honorem alieno vel crudeli, pre-
cor te, regina coeli. Me habeto ex-
cusatum, apud Christum tuum natum,
cujus iram expavesco, et furorem per-
timesco, nam peccavi tibi soli. O
Maria Airgo, noli esse mihi aliena,
gratia coelesti plena : esto custos
cordis mei : sign a me timore Dei :
confer vitse sanitatem : et da morum
honestatem : da peccata me vitare :
et, quod justum est, amare ; Odulcedo
virginaHs : nunquam fuit, nee est,
talis. Ibid, fol. 44.
Georgi, martyr inclyte, te decet
laus et gloria, praedotatum miUtia; per
quem puella regia, existens in tris-
titia, coram dracone pessimo, salvata
est. Et animo te rogamus, corde in-
timo, ut, cum cimctis fidelibus, coeli
jungamur civibus, nostris abluti sor-
(iibus : ut simul, cum laetitia, tecum
simus in gloria; nostraque reddant
labia laudes Christo cum gloria. Ibid,
fol. 77.
Martyr Chris tophore, pro Salvatoris
honore, fac nos mente fore dignos
Deitatis honore. Promisso Christi,
quia quod petis obtinuisti, da populo
tristi dona qnsa moriendo petisti.
Confer solamen, et mentis telle gra-
vamen. Judicis examen fac mite sit
omnibus. Amen. Ibid. fol. 77.
O Willielme, pastor bone, cleri
pater et patrone, munda nobis in
agone : confer opem ; et depone vitse
sordes ; et coronse coelestis da gaudia.
lb. fol. 78.
CILVP. YI.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROJIANISM,
161
himself, with what consistence it matters not, cites approba-
tively, and adduces authoritatively, Cyril of Alexandria as
erecting St. John into a second Holy Ghost, Gregory Nazi-
anzen as praying for illumination and direction to Basil and
Cyprian and Athanasius, Basil himself as invocating the Saints
for deliverance in adversity and for grace in prosperity, and
vos, uudena millia, puella3 glori-
osee, virginitatis lilia, martyrii rosffi,
in vita me defendite, proebendo mihi
juvamen; in morte vos ostendite,
supremum ferendo solamen. Ibid,
fol. 80.
Maria, mater gratiae, mater miseri-
cordiee, tu nos ab hoste protege, et
hora mortis suscipe. P. xci. appended
to tlie Breviary, ed. Antverp. 1G19.
Solve vincla reis : profer lumen caecis :
mala nostra peile : bona cuncta posce.
Monstra te esse matrem : sumat per te
preces, qui, pro nobis nalus, tulit esse
tuus. P. Ixxxix. Offic. parv. beat. Ma-
riae, p. 127.
In the mass-book, printed at Paris
1634, the grossly offensive idea, set
forth in this prayer, is again pro-
pounded in slightly varied phrase-
ology. Jure matris, impera Eedemp-
tori.
1 reverence you, sacred virgin
Mary, the holy ark of the covenant :
and, together with all the good
thoughts of all good men upon earth
and all the blessed spirits in heaven,
do bless and praise you infinitely, for
that you are the great mediatrix be-
tween Grod and man, obtaining for sin-
ners all they can ask and demand of
the blessed Trinity. Hail Mary! The
Devot. of the sacred heart of Jesus,
including the devot. to the sacred
heart of the blessed Virgin Mary;
with an appendix, and the indult of
his holiness Pius VII. in favour of it :
for the use of the midland district.
Edit. 12. Keating and Brown. 1821.
p. 293.
O holy Mary, our sovereign queen,
as God the Father, by his omnipo-
tence, has made thee most powerful ;
so assist us, at the hoiu' of our death,
by defending us against all power
that is contrary to thine. Hail Mary !
O holy Mary, our sovereign queen, as
God the Son has endowed thee with
so much knowledge and charity that
it enlightens all heaven; so, in the
hour of death, illustrate and strengtli-
en our souls with the knowledge of
the true faith, that they may not be
perverted by error or pernicious ig-
norance. Hail Mary! holy Virgin,
our sovereign Queen, as the Holy
Ghost has plentifully poured forth
into thee the love of God ; so instil
into us, at the hour of death, the
sweetness of divine love, that all bit-
terness at that time may become ac-
ceptable and pleasant to us. Hail
Mary ! Ibid. p. 212, 213.
Hail Mary, lady and mistress of
the world, to whom all power has
been given both in heaven and in
earth ! Ibid. p. 206.
Angelical youth, Aloysius, — for the
love thou hadst for Christ crucified
and his most blessed mother, receive
me as thy client and obedient ser-
vant: aid and assist me in the pur-
suit of virtue and learning: nourish
and increase in me a purity of mind
and manners : turn off all the snares
laid against my chastity : ward and
defend me against the dangers of the
world : inspire my heart with a true
and filial confidence in the ever
blessed virgin Mary, the mother of
good counsels : govern and direct me
in my choice of a state of life. Ibid,
p. 348, 349.
Glorieuse et immaculee vierge Ma-
rie, tres-digne fille du Pere, tr^s-digne
m^re du Fils, tres-digne epouse du St.
Esprit, souvenez-vous que nous vous
sommes entierement devoues: n'ou-
bliez pas que vous etes notre protecta-
trice aupres de Dieu, et ne per-
mettez pas que nous mourions dans
le peche mortel. Tableaux de la sainte
Messe. Paris, chez H.Vauquelin. p. 14.
Mon S. Ange gardien, et vous mes
bienheureux patrons aupres de Dieu,
obtenez-moi, par votre credit, le par-
don de mes peches avec la grace de
vivre et de mourir saintement. Ibid,
p. 7.
Alma Rcdemptoris mater, qufr per-
M
162
DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM.
[book I.
Asterius as beseeching Phocas to grant unto him an abundant
entrance into the kingdom of heaven i. James Naclantus
Bishop of Clugium, without the shghtest recorded censure
either from Pope or from Cardinal or from Council, in the
sixteenth century averred, as the true sense of the Nicene
Fathers, that the faithful ought to adore the very Image itself,
with the identical worship, whether Latvia or Dulia or Hyper-
dulia, which they offered up to the Prototype of the Image :
so that, if the Image represented Christ, it was to receive the
self-same adoration as the Second Person of the blessed Tri-
via cceli porta manes et stella maris ;
succurre cadenti, surgere qui curat,
populo : tu, quae genuisti, natura mi-
rante, tuum sanctum genitorem :
virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab
ore sumens illud Ave, peccatorum
miserere. Ibid. p. 115.
Ave, regina coelorum ; ave, domina
angelorum ; salve, radix, salve, porta ;
ex qua mundo lux est orta. Gaude,
virgo gloiiosa, super omnes speciosa:
vale, valde decora, et pro nobis
Christum exora. Ibid. p. 116.
Salve, regina, mater misericordiae ;
vita, diilcedo, et spes nostra, salve.
Ad te clamamus, exules filii Evas.
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
in hac lachrymarum valle. Eia ergo,
advocata nostra, illos tuos miseri-
cordes oculos ad nos converte. Et
Jesum, benedictum fructum ventris
tui, nobis post boc exilium ostende ;
O Clemens, pia, dulcis, virgo
Maria ! Ibid. p. 117.
* See Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 281-
287. It is possible, that the ad-
dresses, to which Dr. Trevem refers
as actual precatory invocations, were
nothing more than rhetorical apo-
strophisations. But I am no way
concerned to settle this point : for we
know well enough, that, in the fifth
century, much superstition had crept
into the Church.
Meanwhile, the conduct of Dr.
Wiseman totally unfits him for the
task which he has imposed upon
himself: because he stands convicted
either of gross ignorance or of shame-
less dishonesty.
In his professedly evidential ap-
peals to Antiquity, he purports to
quote various passages from Atha-
nasius, Ephrem, Methodius, and Gre-
gory Nazianzen ; all of which incul-
cate the very rankest adoration of
the Virgin : and then he asks tri-
umphantly: Do (Koman) Catholics
use stronger words than these ? Or did
St. Athanasius think and speak, with us,
or with Protestants ?
Certainly, the passages, adduced by
Dr. Wiseman, are veiy remarkable.
But, as Mr. Tyler, in his Worship of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, has pointed
out, they all are absolute forgeries of a
later age. Whence, by honourable
and well qualified Eomish Critics
themselves, they have all been re-
j ected as palpably sjmrious.
Dr. Wiseman is perfectly at liberty,
on his otvn behalf, to vindicate the pro-
priety of PRAYING TO THE VIRGIN
maey: as he himseK expresses his
proposed mode of adoration, in a Let-
ter to the Morning Herald, dated St.
Mary's College, Birmingham, 3d Sun-
day after Epiphany, 1843. But, with-
out due inquiry, he ought not to have
adduced, as an ancient evidential
warrant for the present acknowledged
adoration of the Virgin, passages
purporting to have been written by
Methodius, Athanasius, Ephrem, and
Gregory Nazianzen, when, all the
while, these very passages were de-
tected FORGERIES of a later age.
For my own part, I really believe,
that Dr. Wiseman has sinned through
ignorance, not through dishonesty.
My reason for this charitable supposi-
tion is : that he has been convicted of
other gross errors in the way of cita-
tion by Dr. Turton, the present very
learned Bishop of Ely. Yet this
judgment of charity will not exempt
him from the charge of most unjusti-
fiable precipitancy and carelessness.
CHAP. TT.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
163
iiity^ Peter de Madrano asserted, that, by a special privilege,
the Virgin is present in her Images personally and physically
and really : in order that, from the faithful, she might, in those
Images, receive due adoration '^. i^ccording to Basil and
' Ergo lion solum fatendum est,
fideles in ecclesia adorare coram
imagine, ut nonnulli ad cautelam
forte loquuntur ; sed et adorare
imaginem, sine quo volueris scrupulo :
quin et eo illam venerantur cultu, quo
et prototypon ejus. Propter quod,
si illud liabet adorare latiia ; et ilia,
latria : si dulia vel hyperdulia ; et
ilia pariter ejusmodi cultu adoranda
est, Jacob. Naclant. Clug, Expos.
Epist. ad Eoman. cap, i. cited in
Homil. iii. against Peril of Idolatry,
p. 197. Oxon. 1802. For the exactly
similar decision of Biel, see below,
book ii. chap, 6. in init. note.
* Dicendum sit, concessum deiparffi
dominre privilegium assistendiphysic^
et realiter in aliquibus suis simula-
chris seu imaginibus: — quod, in
aliquibus simulachris seu imaginibus
insignibus ipsius, pi6 credatur Assis-
tere adesseque personaliter physic^ et
realiter; — ut in illis debitas adora-
tiones recipiat a fidelibus cultoribus.
E. P. Petri de Medran. Kosetum
Theolog. p. 311. Hispal. 1702. cited
in Life of Bp. Pecock, p. 79.
I. We have here the true rationale
of the superstition, which makes the
Image of a Saint in one place so much
more fashionable and reputedly po-
tent than the Image of the self-same
saint in another place : this puppet is
thought to possess more of the present
demigod., than that puppet.
Were it otherwise, Avhy should a
celebrated Image attract crowds of de-
votees and draw to itself a superfluity
of rich donations : while its rustic vil-
lage counterpart is consigned to neg-
lect and poverty, until some lucky
stroke of a dexterous priest or some
cleverly managed miracle shall at
once introduce it to wealth and no-
toriety ?
II, Here, likewise, we have the true
rationale of the pai'allel superstition,
that well-dressed Madonnas occasion-
ally move their eyes, or shed tears, or
sweat, or bleed, or even speak, and that
wooden Bambinos sometimes descend
from their niches for the useful purpose
of making sundry erratic excursions.
Thus good Peter de Madrano tells
us, respecting the Images of our Lady
del Aviso and of Pity, in the highly
privileged Colleges of Lima and Cal-
laya : Non semel in miraculosum su-
dorem lachrymasque resoluta sunt.
But yet more wonderful, as detailed
by this same Peter, are the exploits of
the miraculous Image of our Lady del
Rosario, the patroness of Lima and
all Peru.' Stepe refulsit auricomis
solaribus radiis : atque, in varios as-
pectus, veneratione et amore et timore
dignos, divinum vultum transmutavit.
Reset. Theol. p. -311.
These citations from Peter de Me-
drano I have given on the authority
of tlie Author of Bp. Pecock's Life.
So far as I can learn, the work itself,
Rosetum Theologicum, is not to be met
with in England : but, when not
merely references are given, but the
passages themselves cited at full
length, while the Book purports to
have been printed at Seville in the
year 1702, it is difficult to believe that
the extracts can be mere fabiications.
I have had no opportunity of verify-
ing them : but I faithfully give them
as I found them. The Life of Bp.
Pecock was lent to me, with a strong
recommendation, by the late excellent
Bp. Van Mildert.
The accuracy of the extracts is sus-
tained by their minute correspondence
with other parallel statements. Of a
similar character, for instance, was
the Image of the Virgin, which repri-
manded the heedless Pope Gregory
for passing by her too carelessly ; the
Crucifix, which spoke to St. Bridgit ;
and the graven Madonna, which
highly commended the piety of one
of her votaries to the veracious sexton
of the church. Eom. Modern, gior.
5. Mabill. D. Itahc. p. 133. Diirand.
de Eit. lib. i. c. 5. cited in Middleton's
Letter from Eome, p. 203. Nay,
even as yesterday, we have had a re-
petition of the same tom-foolery in
the case of the Pope-admired weeping
Virgin of Eimini.
III. In all these cases of impos-
ture, the rationale wa-H the diligently
164
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book I.
Theodoret and Chrysostom and Gennadius and Euagrlus and
Gregory the great and Gregory of Nyssa, all of whom are by
Dr. Trevem deemed unquestionable authorities, the Relics of
the Saints are not only useful as exciting devotional reminis-
cences : but they are likewise mighty ramparts, which are
capable of protecting towns from the military assaults of their
enemies ; they are champions, by whom all disasters are turned
away from us ; they are strong rocks, which dissipate and nul-
lify the snares of unseen demons and all the craftiness of Satan;
they possess such astonishing virtues, that the very touch even
of the shrine which contains them will bring down a blessing,
and that the touch of the Relics themselves will accomplish all
the desires of those who are admitted to so great a favour ^
inculcated doctrine, ridiculed of old by
Arnobius in reference to Paganism :
the doctrine, to wit, that the prototype
was physically, and really, and per-
sonally present in the representative
puppets.
Sed erras et laberis, says the pagan
image -worshipper : nam neque nos
fera, neque auri argentique materias,
neque alias quibus signa confiunt, eas
esse per se deos, et religiosa decerni-
mus numina ; sed eos in his colimus,
eosque veneraraur, quos dedicatio in-
fert sacra, et fabrilibus efficit inha-
bitare simulachris. Amob. adv. gent,
lib, vi. p. 203.
Arnobius replies, precisely as I
should reply to Peter de Medrano
and his image-worshipping fellows of
the Latin Church.
Non improba neque aspernabilis
ratio, qua possit quivis tardus necnon
et prudentissimus credere, deos, re-
lictis sedibus propriis, id est cceIo,
non recusare nee fugere habitacula
inire terrena: quinimo, jure dedica-
tionis impulses, simulachrorum coales-
cere junctioni. In gypso ergo man-
sitant, atque in testulis, dii vestri ?
Quinimo testularum et gypsi, mentes,
spiritus, atque animee, dii sunt ? At-
que, ut fieri augustiores vilissimiB
res possint, concludi se patiuntur et
in sedis obscure coercitatione lati-
tare ? Ibid. cap. 17.
' Basil. Homil. xx. in quadrag.
martyr. Homil. xxvi. de mart. Ma-
mant. Oper. vol. i. p. 533, 600, 001.
Theodor. de grajc. affect, curat, serm.
\iii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 593, 594, fiOO.
Chrysostom. Homil. xxxii. in Epist.
ad Eom. Oper. vol. ix. p. 759. Homil.
Ixix. in Petr. et Paul. Oper. vol. i.
p. 856, Homil. Ixx. Encom. martyr,
^gypt. Oper. vol. i. p. 809. Gennad.
de rir. illus. c. vi. Euagr. Hist.
Eccles. lib. i. c. 13. Gregor. Magn.
Epist. lib, vii. epist. 23. Gregor.
Nyss. in quadrag. martyr, orat. iii.
Gregor. Nyss. de Martyr. Theod.
I. The two most curious specimens
of rehquary superstition are those
mentioned by Gennadius and Eua-
grius, as referred to above.
1. From the former we learn, that
Nisibis, being a frontier town, and
thence liable to be attacked by the
enemies of the Roman Empire, was
fortified by the Emperor Constantino
with the body of holy James, its de-
funct bishop ; who, for the express
purpose of defending it from hostile
assaults, was carefully buried Avithin
its walls.
2. By the latter we are taught,
that, for a similar military purpose,
the body of holy Symeon the stylite,
with his iron chain, was conveyed to
Antioch. Here his credit as an effi-
cacious champion rose so high, that
the Emperor Leo, anxious for the
security of his dominions, wished to
obtain from the Antiochians this
cheap and therefore peculiarly valua-
ble defence: but the prudent citi-
zens knew too well their own interest
to part with it. Our city has no walls;
was their reply, as recorded by Eua-
grius : hence ive brought hither the
most holy body of Symeon^ that it
CIIAP. VI.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
165
Lastly, in the Roman Breviary, gross and direct adoration is
offered to the Cross : for the senseless wood is not only cele-
brated, as our exclusive hope ; but it is actually supplicated, to
increase righteousness to the pious, and to grant pardon to the
guilty'.
3. With respect to the Saints in glory, it is far from impro-
bahle, that, like their suffering brethren in this world, they may
pray, in general terms, for the whole State of Christ's Church
Militant here in earth. Of this, however, we know nothing :
because nothing has been revealed.
But, let their own free and spontaneous practice, on behalf
of the Church at large, be what it may : we have no warrant
might serve us in the stead both of
wall and of bulwark. Their pleaded
reason was so satisfactory to tlie
judicious Leo, that he forth wth as-
sented to their wishes. Euagrius
adds, that many parts of the body
remained to his own time, and that
he himself had been privileged to
see the head. He further remarks,
that, during the episcopate of Gre-
gory, Philippicus sohcited a loan of
the holy Eelics, that so he might
with the greater safety make a mili-
tary expedition into the East.
II. To these specimens I shall
subjoin the actual decision of the
second Council of Nice.
I adore and lionour and salute the
Relics of tlie Saints, as of those, tvho
have wrestled on belmlf of Christ, and
who have received grace from him to
accomplish healings and to cure dis-
orders and to eject demons: according
03 the Church of the Christians hath
received from the holy Apostles and
Fathers down even to ourselves. Con-
cil. Nic. II. act. 1. Labb. Concil. vol.
vii. p. 60.
III. Dr. Trevem would fain per-
suade us, that nothing superstitious
attaches to the veneration of Relics,
for that they are viewed only in the
light of a sort of edifying religious
keepsakes : and he assures his in-
tended proselyte, that the person,
who attributes to the members of
his Church any other view of them,
does but deceive himself. Discuss.
Amic. vol. ii. p. 309, 310.
It is no easy matter to deal with
a Theologian, who thus, to serve a
turn, sets all evidence at nought, and
who even magnanimously bids de-
fiance to the Infallibility of an Ecu-
menical Council, the Second Nicene
to wit. He wrote this in the year
1824. At that time, the Holy Coat
of Treves had not been publicly
adored by thousands with the sanc-
tion of the Archbishop and the
Church. Whether Dr. Trevem lived
to witness this practical refutation
of his statement, I am not able to
say.
' Crux ave, spes unica, hoc
passionis tempore, auge piis justi-
tiam, reisque dona veniara. Breviar.
Rom. Hebdom. 4. Quadrages. die
sabbatp. 311. ed. Antv. 1619.
On this prayer to the Cross, Thomas
Aquinas frames a syllogism, by which
he triumphantly demonstrates, that
the Cross ought to be worshipped
with the same adoration of Latria,
as that paid to Christ.
Illi exhibemus cultum Latria^, in
quo ponimus spem salutis.
Sed, in Cruce Christi ponimus spem
salutis : cantat enim Ecclesia ; O
Crux ave, spes unica, hoc passionis
tempore, auge piis justitiam, reisque
dona veniam.
Ergo, Crux Christi est adoranda
adoratione Latriae.
This remarkable specimen of Logic
is cited, from Aquinas, in Bp. Tay-
lor's Dissuasive from Popery, chap,
ii. sect. 7.
As pieces of the true Cross are
preserved, the syllogism beautifully
illustrates Dr. Trevern's theory of
Reliquary keepsakes.
166 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
either from Scripture or from primitive Antiquity, to invocate
them, with the special purpose of obtaining their intercessory
prayers either for ourselves or for any other individuals : and,
if, like the Romanists, we adopt the habit of any such miau-
thorised invocation ; we can never be certain, that we are not
guilty of the idle folly of supplicating those who hear ns not '.
The mighty difference, between a general belief (if, without
authoriti/ hoivever, we choose to take up such a belief) that the
Saints in glory spontaneously pray for Christians in general, and
invocations actually addressed to them ivith the purpose of obtain-
ing their special prayers for our individual selves in particular,
is so palpable and so strongly marked, that it is evident even to
the meanest comprehension. In truth, the matter is very
honestly and very handsomely confessed by Cardinal Cajetan :
for he destroys at one blow the whole system of invoking the
Saints, by the open acknowledgment, that we have no means of
certainly knowing ivhether the Saints hear our prayers, though ive
piously believe this to be the case ^.
The firm belief in a point, whereof we have no means of
certainly knowing the truth, is, I fear, more closely allied to
folly than to piety. For my purpose, however, the fair ac-
knowledgment of the learned Cardinal is amply sufficient.
4. As, in point of practice, the Romanists, however Dr.
Trevern and other like sophists may try to gloss the matter
over, do much more than simply ask the Saints to pray for
them ; inasmuch as they actually beseech them to grant those
spiritual gifts arid graces which God only can bestow ^ : so, m
truth, they act not thus, without what, on their principles, they
deem quite sufficient authority ; for their infallible Coimcil of
' Dr. Trevern would argue, that, and his friends prove from revela-
if a knowledge of distant transac- tion, that God has communicated to
tions, and even a jjower of reading the Saints in glory a portion of his
the human heart, might from God own peculiar knowledge, and that he
be communicated to Elisha and to has required us to invocate them for
Peter upon earth : why may not the the personal benefit of their inter-
same power, to any extent which God cession : and the dispute Avill then
shall deem expedient, be communi- terminate triumphantly in favour of
cated to the Saints in heaven ? Dis- Eomanism.
cuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 260, 267. ^ Certa ratione nescimus, an Sancti
Nothing can be more idle than nosti'a vota cognoscant, quamvis pie
such childish sophistry. The ques- hoc credamus. Cajetan. in secundam
tion is not, what God may do, but secund. qusest. Ixxxviii. ail. 5.
what he has done. Let Dr. Trevern ^ See above, § II. 2. note.
CHAP. TI.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 167
Trent is plainly enough their ftill warrant for all such idola-
trous devotions.
This Council asserts : that we ought to resort^ not only to
the intercessory prayers of the Saints, but likewise to their aid
and assistance ^
How we are to understand such assistance, is sufficiently
plain, both from the idolatrous prayers already noticed, and
likewise from a marvellous jingling prayer addressed to St.
Catharine : in which this female is actually implored, to give
her votary a contrite heart, to regulate all his senses,' to save
him from the storm of death, to give him victory over the
world, and finally to grant him a joyful resurrection, that so,
having become a new man, he may be a citizen of heaven -,
Is Catharine here solely requested to pray to God for her
suppliant ? Is she invoked for nothing more ? Truly, she
is invoked for what the Council aptly calls aid and assistance :
but then it is such aid and assistance, as God only can bestow.
' Ad eorum orationes, opem, auxili- Visita tu me infirmum : et in bonis
iimque, confugere. Concil. Trident. fac me firmum.
sess. XXV. p. 507. Agonista Dei fortis, prsesto sis in hora
* Ave, Virgo Dei, digna Christo, mortis,
prece me consigna. Decumbentem fove,leTa : et de morte
Audi PRECEs ; preesta votum : cor in solve sseva :
bono fac immotum. Ut resurgam novus homo, civis in
Confer mihi cor contritum : rege visum coelesti domo.
et auditum : What a wonderful person Catharine
Eegegustumetolfactum : virgosancta, must be, thus to discharge at will the
rege tactiun : functions of Omnipotence ! But we
Ut, in cunctis, te regente, vivam Deo have had quite enough of this foolery,
pura mente. to call it by the hghtest name. Mean-
Christum pro me interpella : salva while, what says a jealous God ? J
mortis de procella. am Jehovah : that is my name : and my
Superare fac me mundum, ne demer- glory I will not give to another. Isaiah,
gar in profundum. xlii. 8.
CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSION.
Taking in regular succession the most prominent Peculiarities
of Romanism ; Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, Transubstantia-
tion. Purgatory, Saint -Worship, Image -Worship, Relic -Wor-
ship, and Cross -Worship; I have now shewn: that. Even
according to the evidence produced hy the latin advocates them-
selves, those Peculiarities, ivhether in regard to their abstract
truth, or in regard to the alleged fact of their universal recep-
tion hy the Primitive Church from, the teaching of the Apostles,
rest upon no testimony either of Holy Scripture or of the Writers
of the three first centuries.
Whence the obvious 'conclusion is : that The Peculiarities of
Romanism cannot justly or reasonably he obtruded upon us, under
the aspect of a constituent portion of Christianity.
1. In corroboration of such a result, it will be useful, before
I finally close this branch of our inquiry, to exhibit some re-
markable acknowledgments, which irresistible conviction seems
to have wrung from the very Romish Doctors themselves.
The FACT, asserted by the Council of Trent, and therefore
required to be established by the Divines of the Latin Church,
was this : that, quite up to the fibst pkoiviulgation of Chris-
tianity, THE peculiarities OF ROMANISM WERE BY THE PRIMITIVE
CATHOLIC CHURCH, UNIVERSALLY RECEIVED, ON THE PROFESSED
AUTHORITY OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES.
Such was the fact to be established : and it is obvious, that
the only intelligible mode, in which this repeatedly asserted
CHAR \'II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 169
FACT ccDL be established, is by the concarvent testimony of Scrip-
ture and of the ivriters of the three first centuries.
Yet, notwithstanding the attempt to produce that concurrent
testimony which has been made by some of the Romish Eccle-
siastics, the Divines of the Latin Church have often themselves
confessed : that, Neither from Scriptu^^e, nor from the earlier
Fathers, is it possible to substantiate the Apostolicity of their
favownte Peculiarities.
1. Let us observe, for instance, their own open acknowledg-
ments respecting the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
(L) There is no place of Scripture so express, says the great
schoolman Johannes Scotus, that without the declaration of the
Church, it can evidently com,pel us to admit Transubstantiation ^.
(2.) The doctrine of Transubstantiation, says Gabriel Biel, i.s
no where found in the Canon of Scripture ^.
(3.) That the substance of the Irread remains, says the school-
man Occam, is more reasonable and more easy to be held : nay,
it is liable to fewer inconveniences ; and to the Sacred Scriptures
it is less repugnant \
(4.) Transubstantiation, says Cardinal Peter ab AUiaco
Archbishop of Cambray, cannot be proved from, the Sacred
Scriptures *.
(5.) From the Gospel, says Cardinal Cajetan, there appears
nothing, which compels us to understand the words, this is my
BODY, in their proper or literal acceptation : — nay, that presence
in the sacrament which the Church holds, cannot from these words
of Christ be demonstrated, unless also the declaration of the
Church be added ^.
(6.) In Scripture, says Cardinal Fisher, Bishop of Rochester,
' Non exstat locns ullus Scripturse * Transubstantiatio non potest pro-
tam expressus, ut, sine Ecclesise de- bari ex Sacris Literis. Petr. ab. Alliac.
claratione, evidenter cogat Transub- Camerac. in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6. art.
stantiationem admittere. Johan. Scot. 1, 2. apud Cosin.
in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 3. apud Cosin. * Non apparet ex Evangelio coac-
' Neutiquam invenitur in Canone tivum aliquod ad intelligendum hffic
Biblionim. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect. verba proprie, nempe, Hoc est corpus
40. apud Cosin. meum : — iino preesentia ilia in sacra-
^ Substantiam panis manere, ra- mento, quam tenet Ecclesia, ex his
tionabiliusetfacilius est ad tenendum: verbis Christi non potest demon-
imo minoribus incommodis obnoxium strari, nisi etiam accesserit Eccle-
est ; et Sacris Scripturis minus re- siee declaratio. Cajet. in Th. p. 3. q.
pugnat. Occam. Centil. lib. iv. q. 6. et Ixxv. art. 1. Ibid. q. xlv. art. 14. apud
in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6. apud Cosin. Cosin.
170 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
there is laid down no ivord, by which it can be proved that this
transmutation of substance takes place ^.
(7.) Although, says Cardinal Bellarmine, I may be able to
produce a text of Scripture, which, to a 7iot refractory person like
myself, seems sufficiently clear to prove Transubstantiation ; yet,
lohether it be really so, may ivell be doubted, since men the most
learned and the most acute, such as among the first was Scotus,
hold the contrary opinion ^.
2. After these pregnant acknowledgments respecting the
Doctrine of Transubstantiation, we may usefully attend to
yet additional acknowledgments respecting the Adoration of
the Consecrated Elements or (as the Romanists speak) the
Adoration of the Host.
On tliis point, while Cardinal Fisher admits, that, if the
Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false (a Doctrine, as we
have just seen, which he confesses to be incapable of proof
from Scripture), the Roman Church, when inculcating the duty
of worshipping the Consecrated Elements with the same wor-
ship as that which is paid to the Deity, inculcates an act of
gross idolatry : both Carduial Bellarmine and Andrew Vega
assure us, that, since, on the principle laid down by the Council
of Trent and received as indisputable by their Communion, no
man can be certain as to the intention of the consecrating
priest whether he really did or did not mean to consecrate the
bread and wine, no man can be certain whether he does or does
not receive the true .sacrament of the Eucharist. In other
words agreeably to the acknowledgment of Cardinal Fisher,
these two Divines assure us, that, in worshipping the apparent
bread and wine, no man can ever be certain, that he is not
idolatrously worshipping inere bread and wine.
(1.) It cannot be doubted, says Fisher, that if there be nothing
* Nullum in Scriptura verbum posi- primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sen-
turn est, quo probetur in Missa banc tiant. Bellami. de Euchar. lib. iii.
substantiae transmutationem fieri. c. 23. apud Cosin.
Fisher. Roffens. cont. Luther, de capt. On these remarkable concessions,
Babylon, c. i. apud Cosin. our own Bishop Cosin well observes :
^ Quamvis Scripturam adduxerim, that Protestants ask nothing more, than
quae mihi satis clara ad probandam a permission to agree in sentiment with
Transubstantiation em videatur ho- the most learned and the most acute men
mini non protervo : tamen, an ita sit, of the Roman Communion. See Cosin,
merito dubitari potest, quum homines Histor. Transub. Papal, c. v. § III.
doctissimi atque acutissimi, qualis cum p. 55.
CHAP, til] difficulties OF llOMANISM. 17 1
in the Eucharist except bread, the whole Church, through fifteen
centuries, has been idolatj'ous. Whence it follows, that those,
who before us adored this Sacrament, are all to a man con-
demned: for they will have been adoring the creature bread in
the place of the Creator^,
(2.) No one, says Bellarminej can be certain with the certitude
of faith, that he receives the true Sacrament : inasmuch as the
Sacrament is not made without the intention of the minister;
and inasmuch as no person can discern the intention of an-
other 2.
(3.) It cannot, says Vega, be through faith assured to any one,
that he has received the least sacrament. And this is as certain
from faith, as it is manifest that we are livitig. For, except
through the medium of a direct revelation, there is no way, by
which, either evidently or through certain faith, we can know the
intention of him who ministers ^
3. Passing from their acknowledgments respecting the Eu-
charist, we may now beneficially attend to the acknowledg-
ments of the Latin Ecclesiastics respecting the Doctrine of
a Purgatory.
(1.) Punishment in Purgatory, says Father Barns, is a Doc-
trine seated in human opinion. Neither from Scripture, nor
from the Fathers, nor from the (earlier) Councils, can it be
• Nulli dubium esse potest, si nihil tentione ministri non conficiatnr, et
in Eucharistia prseter panem sit, quin intention em alterius nemo videre po-
tota Ecclesia, jam per xv annos cen- test. Bellarm.lib.iii. c. 8. sect. Dicent.
tenarios, idololatra fuerit; ac, proinde, in Bp. Taylor's Dissuas. from Popery,
quotquot ante nos hoc Sacramentum chap. ii. sect. 12.
adoraverunt, omnes ad unum esse ^ Nemini potest per fidem constare,
damnatos : nam creatm^am panis ado- se recepisse vel minimum sacramen-
raverint Creatoris loco. Fisher. Eof- tum. Estque hoc ita certum ex fide,
fens. cont. fficolamp. Oper. p. 760. ac clarmn est nos vivere. Nulla est
Wirceburg. 1597. See also Coster. via, qua citra revelationem, nosse
Enchirid. Controv. c. xii. possumus intentionem ministrantis.
In this passage, the zealous Car- vel e\'identer, vel certa ex fide. Andr.
dinal asserts, what few sober examiners * Veg. dejustific. lib. ix. c. 17. in Bp.
of Antiquity will be disposed to Taylor's Dissuas. from Poper. chap.
grant ; namely, that The Church, ii. sect. 12.
FROM THE VEEY BEGINNING, adored These statements are built upon
the Eucharist. Before he pressed this the following decision of the Council
point upon his opponent, he ought, of Trent.
simply as a matter oi fact, to have Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum
evidentially substantiated it. sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt,
'■^ Non potest quis esse certus certi- non requiri intentionem saltem faci-
tudine fidei, se percipere verum sacra- endi quod facit Ecclesia, anathema sit.
mentum : cum sacramentum sine in- Concil. Trident, sess. vii. can. ll.p. 85.
172 DIFFICL'LTIK.S OF KOMANISM. [bOOK I.
firmly deduced. Nay, with sahinission to better judgment, the
contrary opinion seems more conformable to thern ^
(2.) There is no fuel to be found in Scripture, says Picherel-
liLs, either to kindle, or to maintain, the fire of Purcjatorxj'^,
(3.) Many perhaps, says Cardinal Fisher of Roclicster, are
induced not to place so great a confidence in Indulgences, because
their me in the Church seems to be more recent, and because it
has only very lately been found among Christians. To these I
answer: that We cannot certainly determine with whom they
first originated. — No orthodox person now doubts whether there
he a Purgatory : and yet, among the ancients, there was either no
mention, or at least very rare mention, of it. To this day, indeed,
tJie Greeks believe not in its existence. Let any one, who pleases,
read the comments of the ancient Greeks : and he will find, I be-
lieve, either no discourse, or at any rate very rare discourse, con-
ceiming Purgatory. Nor did the Latins conceive the truth of this
matter, all together and at one time. In the Primitive Church,
the beluf either of Purgatory or of Indulgences was not so neces-
sary, as it now is. For then charity burned so ardently, that all
were perfectly prepared to seek death for Christ. — Put now a
considerable portion of the people would rather cast off Chris-
tianity, than endure the rigour of the canons. So that it has not
happened without the particular direction of the Holy Spirit, that,
after the lapse of so many years, the belief in Purgatory, and the
use of Indulgences, should have been generally received by the
orthodox. While there was no care respecting Purgatory, there
was no inquiry about Indulgences : for, on Purgatory, the whole
estimation of Indulgences depends, lake away Purgatory : and
what need will there be of Indulgences f For, truly, we shall
want no Indulgences, if there be no Purgatory. Considering,
therefore, that Purgatory was for a season unknown ; that it was
then gradually believed by some, partly from revelations, and
partly from the Scriptures; and that thus at length the belief in
' Punitio ergo in Purgatorio est res ' Piclierell. de Miss. c. ii. p. 160.
in fjniniono humanaposita: quio,nec apnd Stillingfieot. Bishop Stilling-
ex ScriptnriK noc l*utnl)iis nee Con- Hoot montions also Ali)li()nsns a
ciliis dodnci potent firmitor. Immo, Castro, Polydoro, I'otrus a Soto, Pe-
salvo moliore jvidicio, opposita sen- rionius, and Bulongcr, as lionestly
Ujntia eis oonforinior vidotur. Barn. and creditably making a similar con-
Catholico-Rorn. Pacif. soot. ix. litt. foHsion.
u. ad iir. Paralip. apud Stillingfleet.
cirAP. VII.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
173
it loas generallif, most fully admitted hj the orthodox Church : ice
can very easily understand a certain reason for Indulgences,
Since, then, Purgatory was hut so lately known and received by
the Catholic Church : who can wonder that there should have been
no use of Indulgences in the nascent Church at the beginning ^ ?
(4.) Our faults, says Bishop Trevern of Strasbourg, are so
great, so multiplied ; penance is so rare among v^, and generally
so light; our dispositions to profit by Indulgences are so defective,
so uncertain : that, after having been absolved and pardoned, we
must for the most part depend upon making expiation in another
world. But where ? In what place, and after what rnanner ?
Had it been necessary for us to be instructed in these questions,
Jesus Christ would doubtless have revealed the knowledge of thern.
He has not done so. We can, therefore, only form conjectm^es
more or less probable ^.
• Multos, fortasse, movet Indul-
gentiis istis non usque acleo fidere,
quod earum usus in Ecclesiavideatur
I'uisso recentior ot adniodura sero re-
pei'tus ajjud Christianos. Quibus ego
respondeo : Non certo constare, a quo
primum tradi ccioperunt. — Nemo certfe
jam dubitat ortliodoxus, an Purga-
torium sit : de quo tamen apud pris-
cos illos, nulla, vel quam rarissi-
ma, fiebat mentio. Sed et Grmcis, ad
liunc usque diem, non est ereditum
Purgatorium esse. Legat, qui velit,
Grajcorum veterum commentarios : et
nullum, quantum opinor, aut quam
rarissimum, de I'urgatorio sennonem
inveniet. Sed neque Latini, simul
omnes ac sensira, hujus rei vcritatem
conceperunt. Neque tarn nccessaria
fuit, sive Purgatorii, sive Indulgentia-
rum, fides, in Primitiva Ecclesia,
atque nunc, est. Nam tunc usque-
adeo charitas ardebat, ut paratissimi
fuissent singuli pro Christo mortem
oppetere. — Nunc autem bona pars
populi magis Christianismimi exueret,
quam rigorem canonum patcretur.
Ut, non abs(iue maxima Sancti Spi-
ritus dispensatione, factum sit: quod,
post tot annorura curricula, Purga-
torii fides, et Indulgentiarum usus,
ab orthodoxis generatim sit receptus.
Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio
ciura, nemo quaisivit Indulgentias :
nam illo pendet omnis Indulgen-
tiarum existimatio. Si tollas Purga-
torium, quorsum Indulgentiis opus
erit? His enim, si nullum fuerit
Purgatorium, nihil indigebimua.
Contemplantes, igitur, aliquandiu
Purgatorium incognitum fuisse ;
deinde quibusdam pedetentim, partim
ex revelationibus, partim ex Scrip-
turis, fuisse ereditum ; atque ita tan-
dem generatim ejus fidem ab ortho-
doxa Ecclesia ftiisse receptissimam :
facillimt'' rationem aliquam Indulgen-
tiarum intelligimus. Quum, itaque,
Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac
receptum Ecclesia; fuerit universffi :
quis jam de Indulgentiis mirai'i
potest, quod, in principio nascentis
Ecclesiffi, nullus fuerit earum usus.
Fisher, Roff. Assert. Luther Confut.
Oper. p. 496. Wirceb. 1.-^97.
' Au suqdus, nos fautes sont si
graves, si multiphees; la penitence
si rare, parmi nous, et g(^»neralement
si legi>re ; nos dispositions k profiter
des Indulgences si defectueuses, si
incertaines : qu',apr^s avoir ete absous
et pardones, il doit nous rester pour
la plupart beaucoup k expier dans
I'autre monde. Mais o\X 1 Dans
quel endroit, et de quelle maniere ?
S'il avoit ete necessaire pour nous
d'etre instruits sur ces questions,
J6sus-Christ nous en auroit sans
doute rev^l6 la connoissance. Il
NE l'a point fait. Nous ne pou-
vons done former que des conjec-
tures plus ou raoins probables. Dis-
cuss. Amic. lettr. xiii. vol. ii. p.
242.
174 DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM. [bOOK I.
4. Our attention may next be usefully turned to latin ac-
knowledgments respecting Image -Worship and Saint -Wor-
ship.
(1.) It is certain, says the learned Jesuit Petavius, that
Images, and especially Statues of Christ, during the first ages of
the Church, were not substituted in the place of idols, nor exposed
to the veneration of the faithful ^.
(2.) No traces of the Invocation of Saints, says Cardinal
Perron, can be found in the authors, who lived nearest to the
times of the Apostles : but, for this fact, ice account by the cir-
cumstance, that most of the loritings of that early period have
(3.) In the stormy centuries of reviving persecutions, says
Bishop Trevem of Strasbourg, the Church possessing neither
temples nor oratories, had not been able to fix Pictures or
Images on the walls or altars, in the same manner as she did
later ^,
(4.) Thus confessedly unable to produce any genuine testi-
mony in favour of early Image -Worship, the Latins, at one
period, built much upon a pretended Apostolical Council of
Antioch : in a canon of which, not only the use, but the" very
adoration, of Images, is exhibited as authorised by the Apostles.
The credit of this Syiiod was, in their day, strenuously de-
fended by Baronius and Binius and other writers of the same
stamp *. But Petavius, much to liis credit, fairly admits :
that the alleged canon, which is to establish Image -Worship
upon apostolical authority, is nothing better than A hank
FORGERY.
With respect, says he, to that Apostolical canon, which
' Certum est, imagines Christi et mestic cups or the sacramental cha-
maxime statuas, primis Ecclesiae lices of the early Christians (whether
sseculis, non fuisse suhstitutas loco of the two is uncertain), as heing
idolorum, nee fidelium venerationi ornamented with an embossed repre-
expositas. Petav. Dogm. Theol. lib. sentation of the good Shepherd bear-
XV. c. 13. n. 3. ing home the strayed sheep on his
^ See Stillingfleet's Rational Ac- shoulders. See above, book i. chap,
count of the Grounds of Protest. 6, § I. 2. (3.) But, how this circura-
Religion, part iii. chap. 3, § 19, p. stance can establish the Relative
590. Worship of Images, as enjoined by the
3 Answer to Diffic. of Roman, p. Councils of Nice and Trent, I do not
28. Dr. Trevem, indeed, attempts perceive.
to demonstrate the primitive Avorship * Baron. Annal. a.d. 102. n. 19-20.
of Images from the passage in Ter- Bin. Not. in Concil. Antioch. Concil.
tullian, which either describes the do- vol. i. p. 62,
CHAP. A^I.] DIFFICUI.TIES OF KOMANISM. 175
Francis Turrian first brought to light, I judge it to be sup-
posititious ^
5. The most remarkable, however, because the most sweep-
ing acknowledgment is that, which has been made by Mr.
Husenbeth.
Of the Apostolicity of Romish Pecuharities, I had repeatedly
demanded a distinct and explicit historical demonstration from
Holy Scripture and from the writers of the three first cen-
turies.
Wearied and annoyed and perplexed by the steady perse-
verance, with which I have resolutely fiixed, to this single
intelhgible point, the question litigated between the Reformed
Catholics and the Roman Catholics; a question admitted by
Mr. Husenbeth himself to be simply A question of history^:
that somewhat incautious Divine has finally been driven to the
following very extraordinary confession.
Undoubtedly we ought to be able to trace every point of
Catholic Faith up to the Apostles, And thus we can and do
trace our Doctrines. We do so in a manner, perfectly rational
and satisfactory: though not precisely in the singular siethod,
WHICH, with most PERVERSE INGENUITY, MR. FABER HAS ilARKED
OUT FOR US^
Now, the method, which my perverse ingenuity marked out,
was nothing more than the very method to which the Council
of Trent had directed me. Again and again, it declares, of its
carefully defined doctrines, This faith was always in the Church
of God *. Mr. Husenbeth, therefore, ought not to have been
so grievously scandalised at my simply proposing to test the
Conciliar Assertion. The method, in fact, was merely the
very natural method of A recurrence to the testimony of holy
SCRIPTURE AND OF THE EARLIEST ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS ; for, if
the Tridentine Faith was ALWAYS in the Church of God, it
must needs be luminously apparent in those quarters : and, that I
might in no wise seem unhandsomely parsimonious, I liberally
' Quod ad ilium canonem aposto- tion of the Apostolicity of our Doctrines
Ileum attinet, quern primus edidit in is a question of history. Pamphlet,
lucem Franciscus Turrianus, eum p. 9. Faberism exposed and refuted,
puto supposiTiTiuM esse. Petav. p. 712.
Dogmat. Theol. de Incam. lib. xv. c. ^Pamp.p.lO.Faberismexpos.p. 712.
14. n. 5. * Semper hfec Fides in Ecclesia
^ I give his own words. The ques- Dei fuit. Concil. Trident, passim.
176 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
extended the chronological limits of the required ecclesiastical
testimony to the entire period of the three first centuries.
And how does Mr. Husenbeth meet my proposal, or rather
the proposal of the Council of Trent ' ?
He, openly and with perfect truth (I wot), acknowledges :
that The members of his Communion cannot trace their Pecu-
liarities of Faith and Practice, up to the Apostles, in the method
which I have thu^ 'mai^ked out for them.
Now, the method, w^hich I marked out for them was An
Evidential Appeal to Scripture and the Writings of the three
first centuries.
Therefore, most plainly, Mr. Husenbeth here acknowledges :
that, BY THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCBIPTURE AND OF THE ECCLESI-
ASTICAL WRITERS OF THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES, THE APOSTOLICITY
OF ROMISH PECULIARITIES CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED.
This FACT was what I always asserted : this fact, in its per-
tinacious assertion by me, excited the boundless wrath of Mr.
Husenbeth, and stirred him up to much uncomeliness of vitu-
perative phraseology 2 : this fact I have fully demonstrated:
this FACT, after all, has been pettishly acknowledged by Mr.
Husenbeth himself.
If he should think proper to deny his own acknowledgment,
or if any one of his brethren should refuse to ad^nit its validity:
let rebutting evidence be produced, if it can be produced, from
Holy Scripture and from the writings of the three first cen-
turies.
Unless such evidence be produced, the mere stout denial of
the acknowledgment, or the mere strenuous refusal to admit its
validity, will serve only to excite a smile upon the countenance
of the historical inquirer. The denial or the refusal equally
and necessarily implies an assertion of the existence of such
' What, with most amusing bad judgment of Mr. Husenbeth, a glar-
taste, he calls Faberism, he ought ing absurdity to demand the sole
rather to have denominated Tri- conceivable existing Historical Tes-
dent'mm. timony : namely, the Testimony of
' The assertion of this fact has Scripture and of the three first cen-
been^ says he, Mr. Faber's eternal turies.
statement: and the man (myself to When a cause is hopeless, an
"svit) n'ill not see its glaring ahsurdity. Advocate is apt to lose his temper :
Pamph. p. 10. when Argument fails, an imtated
For the settling of a confessed Opponent is apt to shew his weakness
QT^ESTiON OF HISTORY, it is, in the by ill manners.
CHAP. VII.] DIFFICULTIES OF nOMANTSM. 177
evidence. If, then, such evidence exist, let it forthvy^ith be
PEODUCED.
(1.) I should not, however, do perfect justice to Mr^^
Husenbeth, if I omitted noticing the theory, by w^hich he
would account for the fact, long insisted upon by myself, and
now by him fully and unreservedly acknowledged.
The formidable difficulty, at present before us, he would
solve by a two-fold allegation.
In the first place : While the earlier Fathers wrote very
little in point of quantity, and while none of them professed to
write complete Expositions of the Faith : it has unfortunately
happened, that so great a portion of the Works of the three
first centuries have perished, as to leave nothing better than a
poor remnant of mere broken and disjointed and imperfect
stepping-stones.
And again, in the second place : By the Disciplina Arcani,
or by the Institution of the old Christian Mysteries which
prescribed the strictest secrecy to all save the Initiated ; the
Ancient Theologians were prohibited from committing to
Writing the sublime arcana of their Religion ^
a. With respect to the former part of this two-fold allegation,
Mr. Husenbeth, in his wonted idle humour of inflated exag-
geration, and by way (I suppose) of producing stage effect with
the ignorant and the mireasoning, adopts, upon a large scale, the
vain excuse of Cardinal Perron ; and thence poetically speaks
of the broken and imperfect stepping-stones of the three first
centuries ; just as if nothing had come down to us, save a few
scanty and nmtilated and disconnected fragments which might
all be comprised without lack of room in a twelve-penny
pamphlet. And he further, we may observe, entertains his
friends and the Public with a grave assurance ; that the Early
Fathers wrote very little ; that of that little still less has been
preserved ; and that none professed to write complete expositions
of Faith,
What ! Did Justin and Ireneus and TertuUian and Hippo-
lytus and Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian and the labour-
loving Origen (as Athanasius well terms him) write but little ?
Are the very ancient Creeds, drawn up by the early theolo-
Pamph. p. 10, 11.
178 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
gians and preserved by Ireneus and Tertullian, even to say
notliing of the Symbol of Gregory Thaumaturgus and the old
Symbols of the Roman and Hierosolymitan and Alexandrian
Churches, no sufficiently ample expositions of primeval Faith i?
Find we not, in the yet extant Writmgs of the three first
centuries, either statements or discussions of perhaps every
material point of doctrine then held and taught by the Church
Catholic ?
Are the remains of more than twenty of the Fathers of the
three earliest ages insufficient for every reasonable purpose of
historical investigation ?
And especially have the writings of the above named primi-
tive Doctors, Justin and Ireneus and Tertullian and Hippo-
lytus and Clement and Cyprian and Origen, come down to us
so parsimoniously through the envy of all-devouring time, that
the poor disjointed and incoherent and scarcely intelligible
fragments are mere broken and imperfect stepping-stones ?
But I forbear — For the sake of Mr. Husenbeth's moral
credit, I wish to believe, that his corporal eyes have never
visited the goodly folios (patagonian stepping-stones, I trow),
which contain the Works of the Fatliers whose names have
been enumerated.
When Mr. Husenbeth and Cardinal Perron before him
complain of the great loss which their cause is gratuitously
said to have sustained by the destruction of certain Writings
of the three first centuries, we are naturally and reasonably led
to ask : why they and their friends, such as Dr. Trevem and
Mr. Berington, have not made a better and more ample use of
the Writings which have survived?
Doubtless, many of them have perished: yet still, from the
amply sufficient remainder, we can easily establish the abori-
ginally acknowledged apostolicity and the consequently primi-
tive reception of every really Catholic Doctrme.
Why, then, cannot the same be done, from the same mate-
rials, with the Peculiarities of Romanism? Why, for the
substantiation of those Peculiarities, has not more use been
• Clearly, Pope Pius IV. thought Constantinopolitan Symbol in the
the ancient creeds lamentably defec- latter end of the sixteenth century,
tive : for he tacked a dozen new- This high authority, Mr. Husen-
fangled Articles to the old Niceno- beth, no doubt, may plead.
CHAP. VII.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 179
made of the treasures which we still possess ? Why, under
each point of doctrine or of practice, are so many of the early
Writers left altogether uncited ? Why, in the hands of Dr.
Trevem and Mr. Berington, are the pretended proofs fronT
them at once so miserably inconclusive and so deplorably
penurious ?
It would have been but seemly, on the part of Mr. Husen-
beth, to produce clear evidence from the numerous Early
Writings which we still possess, ere he idly and gratuitously
babbled of his imaginary loss of testimony through the destruc-
tion of those which have perished.
What ! Can no clear evidence, for the Apostolicity of Latin
Peculiarities, be produced from any one of more than twenty,
either wholly or partially extant. Fathers of the three first
centuries ?
Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington have made the attempt.
With what emolument : the inquirer has noticed, and Mr.
Husenbeth has virtually acknowledged. All these ancient
Fathers die: and, unhappily for the cause of Romanism,
they die, and make no sign.
/3. We may now pass to the latter part of Mr, HusenbetKs
two-fold allegation: which, without testing the consistency of
the two parts, he has, somewhat heedlessly, borrowed from Dr.
Trevern.
There existed, we are told, in the Primitive Church, a
Disciplina Arcani : that is to say, a Strict Discipline of
Secrecy or a sort of Free Masonry, which prohibited the
Earlier Fathers, in many instances, from committing certain
sublime Mysteries of Religion to writing. Whence, from
their Works, it is unreasonable, if we may credit Mr. Husen-
beth, to expect any proof of the Apostolicity of Romish Pecu-
liarities.
No person, who had not already perused Dr. Trevern's
Amicable Discussion, could have anticipated, that such a plea
as this would be gravely advanced in argument upon a Ques-
tion, which Mr. Husenbeth himself rightly pronounces to be a
Question of History. For how stands the real case in regard
to the ancient Discipline of Secrecy, which no doubt existed in
at least the Early Churcli ?
180 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
The vital Doctrines, of Christ's Godhead and the Holy
Trinity, were, as it is well known, and as Dr. Trevern himself
has confessed, the very highest Secrets of the old Ecclesiastical
Mysteries : and yet so freely were they committed to writing,
that again and again we may read them, either severally or
jointly, in every yet extant Work of the three first centuries.
Thus, in regard to the early Arcane Discipline, stands the
real case. The very highest Mysteries were unreservedly
committed to writing, though they were only gradually un-
folded to converts in the course of their catechumenical
instruction. Why, then, could not the Peculiarities of Popery,
if they had really existed from the first, have been committed
to WRITING also ?
Truly, according to Mr. Husenbeth and liis precursor Dr.
Trevern, the Peculiarities of Popery were much too sublime
mysteries to be committed to writing : but no such delicate
scruple prevailed, respecting the very subordinate mysteries
of Christ's Godhead and the Trinity ! Hence (so runs the
solution of these two Divines), in the extant Documents of
the three first ages, we readily find the latter, while we vainly
seek the former I
' y. Proceed we, finally, to notice conjointly the two parts of
Mr. HusenhetKs two-fold allegation.
I have hinted, that, in simultaneously propounding them
both, he has not attended to the point of consistency.
The matter stands thus.
In accounting for the non-appearance of Romish Peculia-
rities in the early Ecclesiastical Writings, Mr. Husenbeth
urges two several reasons: first, that they certainly must have
once been there, though they no longer appear in the scanty
fragments or mere stepping-stones which we now possess, the
greater part of those Writings having perished ; secondly, that,
being mysteries of the highest order, they were iiever com-
mitted to WRITING at all, whence, obviously, we must not
expect to find them in any early written Documents.
Now who does not see the hopeless inconsistency of these
two pleas, though they are both honoured with the approbation
and adoption of Mr. Husenbeth ? According to the first, the
Peculiarities certainly had appeared in various early Ecclesi-
CHAP. VII.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 181
astical wkitings now unhappily lost. According to the second,
they never could have appeared there, because they w^ere never
committed to whiting at all !
(2.) Let the double solution, however, avail what it cari
avail : still, whichever of the two mutually inconsistent theories
be ultimately adopted by Mr. Husenbeth and his Party, let it
be carefully noted by the honest inquirer, there will, in either
case, remain, in undiminished force, the fatal acknowledgment ;
that. Simply AS A notoeious fact, the Apostolicity of Romish
Peculiarities cannot he historically substantiated from Holy Scrip-
ture and from the extant Writings of the three first centuries.
Yet, notwithstanding his acknowledgment of this fact, and
notwithstanding even his laboured attempt to account for it on
the two-fold and not very consistent plea of the Loss of ancient
WRITTEN Documents and of the Prohibition by the Disciplina
Arcani to commit to writing the Mysterious Doctrines of the
Church : Mr. Husenbeth, apparently, still wishes to leave, on
the mind of his unguarded or indulgent reader, a vague gene-
ral impression ; that all claim to the good offices of the Early
Fathers is by no means to be relinquished, but that these same
Early Fathers actually do attest the Primeval Apostolicity of
Romish Peculiarities.
To uSf and to every reasonable mind, he observes, it will
amply suffice, when we find the Fathers of the second, third,
fourth, and subsequent, ages, teaching Doctrines, which, in their
time, were universally believed to have descended from the
Apostles: for, on the principle of Tertullian's excellent Ar-
gument from Prescription, such Doctrines must be true, and
cannot \iQ erroneous ^
I have nothing to object to this statement of Mr. Husenbeth,
provided he can bring it to bear upon the present question.
His observation, if it mean anything and unless it be altogether
irrelevant to the matter in hand, must have been introduced
for the purpose of intimating : that Tlie early Fathers attest
the Apostolicity of Romish Peculiarities, and that To every rea-
sonable miiid their testimony ought amply to suffice.
Now where do the Fathers of the three first centuries, to
' Pamph. p. 11.
182 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [eOOK I.
whose primeval Writings I have specifically limited the in-
quiry, and without whose attestation no later Productions can
have the slightest evidential value: where, I say, do these
earliest Fathers of the first and second and third ages, teach
the Peculiarities of Romanism, under the well defined character
of Doctrines and Practices, which, in their time, loere universally
believed to have descetided from the Apostles f
Doubtless, as Mr. Husenbeth in the letter very truly observes,
all the Fathers of the second and third centuries teach Doc-
trines thus specifically characterised ; Doctrines, to wit, which
were universally believed to have descended from the Apostles to
all the various ecclesiastical successions.
But what concern has this with the matter now immediately
under consideration ?
We are, I take it, engaged, not with Sound Catholic Doc-
trines in general, but with the Peculiarities of the Latin Church
in particular.
Sound Catholic Doctrines in general, I readily allow, are
taught by the Fathers of the second and third centuries, under
the aspect of Doctrines, which, in their tirne, ivere universally
believed to have descended from the Apostles : but where are the
Peculiarities of the Latin Church in partictdar taught by those
Fathers, luider the same specific and distinct character of
universally acknowledged Apostolical Doctrines ?
From the Fathers of the three first centuries, let Mr.
Husenbeth produce his instances of attestation to the Pecu-
liarities of Romanism: and he may then, with my full and
free consent, call in Tertullian's argument from prescription.
(3.) We are assured, however, by Mr. Husenbeth: that,
although the Divines of the Latin Church are miable to trace
their peculiar Doctrines up to the Apostles precisely in the
method marked out for them by myself; yet they both can and
DO trace them up to the Apostles in a manner perfectly rational
and satisfactory.
In what perfectly rational and satisfactory manner, different
and distinct from that marked out by myself, Mr. Husenbeth
and his sacerdotal brethren both can and do trace the peculiar
Doctrines and Practices of their Church up to the Apostles ;
as he honestly confesses that they ought to be able to trace
CHAP. Vn.] miTICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 183
them : lie is not careful to teach us, and / myself cannot even
conjecture ^
We CAN and do, says he, trace our Doctrines up to the
Apostles. ~
I simply ask : how and wheee ?
We can do so, says he, in a manner perfectly rational and
satisfactory.
I barely reply: fiat expeeimentum ; Let him even cmne
forth, and make the trial.
If the ingenuity of Mr. Husenbeth can happily accomplish,
what no mortal man has ever yet accomplished : he will
deserve the eternal gratitude of the Church which he so
doggedly advocates.
II. No reasonable being can be justly required to believe
AN alleged fact, without an adequate historical substantia-
tion : yet 1 will readily allow, that an alleged fact may have
occurred, though we may be unable to prove its occurrence.
Hence, though the alleged fact, of The Universal Reception
of Romish Peculiarities by tJie entire Catholic Church, quite up
to the time of the Apostles, and on the acknowledged express
authority of the Apostles, he utterly incapable of histobical
' When this was written, I had not Doctrines and Practices gradually
had the benefit of reading Mr. New- developed through the middle ages
man's Work on Development. He and at length ftdly expanded by the
had evidently felt the unseemly con- Tridentine Fathers, were in existence
trast, between the broad Tridentine from the very beginning. To ordi-
Assertion This Faith was always in nary eyes, indeed, these Germs are
the Church of God, and the total lack quite invisible : and it may be doubted,
of historical testimony to establish whether they were in the contempla-
it. To meet the difficulty, he put ti on of the Council, when their famous
forth his Treatise on Development. dictum of the semper was so boldly
But the very principle of that work and so repeatedly uttered. But, even
really concedes the point in debate. if the acute organs of Mr. Newman
The demand on my part was for can descry them, still they are not
Tangible Documentary Evidence from the Tangible Historical Evidence,
Scripture and the Writings of the three which I demanded, and which the
first centuries. Now this Evidence Council proclaimed to be in existence,
to the truth of a nakedly asserted Hence, so far as I can see, he has left
FACT neither is nor can he produced the Question or Fact, as Mr. Husen-
by Dr. Newman, any more than by beth properly calls it, just where he
Mr. Berington or Dr. Trevem or Mr. found it : that is to say, just where it
Husenbeth. In fact, he does not was left by his predecessors. A
even attempt such a hopeless task, somewhat similar scheme had been
though really imposed upon every described and recommended, perhaps
Romish Divine by the Council of by Mr. Newman himseK, in the eighty-
Trent: but, in lieu of the Distinct fifth Number of the Tracts for the
Testimony which I had demanded, Times. I cannot marvel at the failure :
he tells us, that the Germs of all the for, ex nihilo, nihil fit.
184 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK I.
substantiation; still, in the abstract, the alleged fact itself
may really have occurred.
As, therefore, I have now shewn negatively, what, in truth,
has been fiiUy admitted by various approved Doctors even of
the Latin Church herself; that The Romanists are miable to
produce any satisfactory evidence for the Apostolicity of their
Peculiarities, either from Holy Scripture, or from the Writings
of the three first centuries : so I shall next proceed to shew
positively ; that The Ancients are not merely silent in regard to
tlie Apostolicity of the Peculiarities of Iio7na7iism, hut they
actually hear strong and direct testimony against those straiige
Innovations, both doctrinal and practical, which characterise the
modern Church of the Latin Patriarchate.
III. Meanwhile, from what has hitherto been said, the gene-
ral conclusion, if I mistake not, may be briefly stated in manner
following.
By admitting the peculiarities of the latin church as
binding articles of the christian faith, the romanist is con-
tent to believe without evidence.
BOOK 11.
THE TESTIMONY OF HISTOKY AGAINST THE
PECULIARITIES OF ROMANISM.
Hoc exigere veritatem, cui nemo praescribere potest ; non spaciiim tem-
porum, non patrocinia porsonarum, non privilegium regionum. TertuU. de
virgin, veland. Oper. p. 490.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.
Hitherto, I have simply considered the evidence, produced by
the Romanists themselves, partly from Scripture, and partly
from the Writers of the three first centuries, for the avowed
purpose, both of establishing the revealed truth of the Peculiari-
ties of the Latiii^ Communion, and of substantiatmg the alleged
msTORicAL FACT that those Peculiarities loere universally received
hy the Primitive Church from the very beginning on the special
ground that they had been delivered by the authoritative teaching
of Christ and his Apostles : and, without adducing any testi-
mony to the contrary effect, I have merely shewn, what in
truth has actually been admitted even by some of the papal
advocates themselves, that sitch evidence is altogether insufficient
to make good the proposition, for the demonstration of which it
was declaredly brought forward. Hence, even if nothing more
were said, and even if I stopped short at the present point of
the discussion, no reasonable person could be justly required to
admit the Peculiarities of the Latin Church either doctrinal or
practical^.
For the matter now stands, in manner following.
The Pecuharities of Romanism are, by the Latins, asserted
to be an essential and constituent part of Christianity, incul-
• In the language of a Scottish verdict, the matter would be said to be
not proven.
188 DIFFICULTIES OF liOMANISM. [bOOK II.
catecl by our Lord and his Apostles, and under their sanction
and authority received from the very first by the Church
Cathohc. Such being the case, the burden of proof clearly
rests upon the shoulders of the asserters. Let the asserters,
then, make good their assertion : and the question is settled.
Now tliis question is, by one of the asserters admitted, by
others tacitly acknowledged, and by none denied, to be A Ques-
tion OF HisTOKY. As A Question of Histoky, therefore, it
must be discussed.
Accordingly, the Romanists have attempted to establish then*
assertion on the basis of alleged evidence. But their attempt
is a total failure. Consequently, no man can be fairly re-
quired, on the plea of religious obligation, to admit the truth
of their assertion: inasmuch as their assertion, even on their
own shewing, has never yet been substantiated by adequate
testimony.
I. On the legitimate principles of Historical Evidence, I
required the pkoof of the assertion, that The Peculiarities of
Romanism were received hy the Catholic Church from the very
beginning on the alleged express authority of Christ and his
Apostles, to be brought from Scripture and from the Writings
of the three first Centuries: for, if, from the testimony of
Scripture and the Writings of the three first Centuries, the
assertion could not be substantiated ; it were a palpable waste
of time to seek for its substantiation in Writings of the foui*th
or fifth or sixth Century.
Accordingly, as is plain to the very meanest comprehension,
the matter stands in manner following.
' All eyen perfectly complete historical demonstration, of the
actual existence of a doctrine or a practice four or five himdred
years after the christian era, is no proof, that such doctrine or
&uch practice existed in the apostolic age or in the earliest age of
the Church. To establish the fact of primeval existence, we
require pnmeval evidence : and, unless the testimony of Scrip-
ture and. of the three first Centuries be found to corroborate, in
regard to their own times, the testimony of much later periods ;
the testimony of those later periods, bearing only upon the
doctrines and practices which were received during their own
evolution, can never afford any solid proof, that those doctrines
CHAP. I.] DIFFICIIXTTES OF ROMANISM. 189
and those practices were apostolical and pnmitive. The con-
necting Unk of evidence is plainly wanting : and the copious-
ness, even were it much greater or at least much more uni-
versal than it really is, of the fourth or fifth or sixth Age, can
never be legitimately viewed, as salving the defect and as
filling up the silence of Scripture and of the three first Ages.
On these perfectly intelligible principles, if, in addition to
Scripture, we concede the three first Centuries to the Romanist
as the field from which he is allowed to make out his case of
evidence: we, in truth, present him with a very ample and
very liberal concession : for we might, in undeniable equity,
determine the end of the second century to be the proper limit
of his permitted historical investigation.
II. But, while, for the production of evidence to substantiate
his assertion, the Romanist is justly confined to Scripture and
to the three first Centuries : the diligent inquirer after truth is
subjected to no such confinement.
For testimonies against the Peculiarities of Romanism, he is
at full liberty to resort, not only to Scripture and to the Writ-
ings of the three fii^st Ages, but to the Writings also of any
subsequent Period.
The reason of this difference, between the legitimate station
of defence and the legitimate station of attack, is sufficiently
obvious.
If, in the Documents of the fourth or fifth Century, the dili-
gent inquirer finds, on the part of the then existing Church
Catholic, a disavowal or a contradiction of Latin Peculiarities :
it will follow, a fortiori, that Peculiarities, unknown or dis-
avowed in 'the fourth or fifth Century, could not have been
universally received, upon the declared authority of Christ and
his Apostles, in the first or second or third.
Hence, as early testimonies are absolutely indispensable to the
cause of modern Romanism : so, for the purpose of the honest
inquh'er after truth, there is an aspect, under which the very
lateness of testimony, against Latin Peculiarities renders such
testimony peculiarly cogent and valuable.
Thus, for instance, any testimony of the third Century
against those Peculiarities would only prove, that they had
not started into existence, or that they were not ecclesiastically
190 DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [liOOK II.
received, during the lapse of the tliird Century : whereas testi-
mony of the sixth Century against them would prove, that,
even at that comparatively late period, they were still unknown
and unrecognised.
In short, the lower we can descend in producing testimony
against the Pecuharities of Romanism ; the more fully and
completely and fatally we shall demonstrate their upstart
usurping novelty.
CHAPTER IL
INFALLIBILITY.
For the Catholic Church, which they fondly identify with the
provincial Latin Church of the Western Patriarchate, the Ro-
manists claim the high prerogative of InfallibiHty.
I. Where this Infallibility resides, however : or, to speak
perhaps more accurately, Whether this Infallibility alike resides
with three several organs, or is confined to one of those three
organs exclusively : the doctors of the Latin Church, as if in
bitter mockery of the very claim itself, have never yet been
able fully to agree ; and the Infallible Church herself, notwith-
standing her alleged Infallibility which doubtless is lodged
SOMEWHERE, has not hitherto, I believe, thought good to deter-
mine this knotty question.
1. The Jesuits, and those high Romanists who bear the
name of Transalpines or Ultramontanes, while they of course
admit that a papally ratified General Council is infallible, con-
tend also for the Personal Infallibility of the Pope ; when, on
any point of faith, he undertakes to issue a solemn decision^
But, as those speculatists are confuted by the undeniable
fact, that Pope Gregory VII. solemnly adjudged to the Roman
Pontiff the identical title which Pope Gregory I. had solenmly
declared to be the badge of Antichrist's forerunner ^i so the
' Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath. rit. Gregor. I. Epist. lib. vi. epist.
Church, p. 121-124. 30.
' Ego fidenter dice, quod, quis- Quod solus Romanus Pontifex jure
quis se Univcrsalem Sacerdotem dicatur Universalis, Gregor. VII. dictat.
vocat vel vocari desiderat, in ela- Epist. lib. ii. epist. 55. Labb. Concil.
tione sua Antichristum prfecur- vol. x. p. 110.
192 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
Latin Divine, Almain positively declares^ on behalf of his ov^n
party in the infallible Church, that the Pope may err even judi-
cially; alleging very sensibly, in proof of his declaration, the
whimsical circumstance, that, in regard to the tenure of the
property possessed by Christ and his Apostles, Pope Nicholas III.
and Pope John XXII. gave two judicial decisions which flatly
contradicted each other ^
2. The low Romanists, who are distinguished by the name
of Cisalpines (for serious differences exist, it appears, even in
the very bosom of Privileged Inerrancy,) not only deny the
Personal Infallibility of the Pope: but hold also, that, for
heresy or schism (to both of which, we find, the alleged fallible
head of an infallible body Is actually liable), he may be lawfully
deposed by a General Council 2. Such being the case, they
must, on their OwA principles, inevitably hold the Infallibility
of a General Council even when not sanctioned by the papal
confirmation: for it is quite clear, on the one hand, that no
prudent To^^Qy at least, would ratify the sentence of his own
deposition, or confirm the decree which pronounced him to be a
schismatic or a heretic ; and it is equally clear, on the other
hand, that no General Council could infallibly pronounce the
Pope to be a heretic or a schismatic, himself all the while stiffly
denying, as of course he woidd deny, the offensive allegation,
unless such General Council, independently of any papal ratifi-
cation, were itself constitutionally infallible.
But, here again, we are immediately encountered by a prac-
tical confutation of the low Cisalpines, as we before encountered
a similar confutation of the high Transalpinfes.
The Council of Constantinople, which sat in the yeai* 754
but which was never confirmed by the Pope, unanimously de-
creed the Removal of Images and the Condemnation of Image-
Worship : but the second Council of Nice, convoked in the
year 787 and confirmed by the Pope, decreed the Reestablish-
ment of Image- Worship, and anathematised all those who had
concurred in its abolition; a decision, afterward repeated by
' Papa potest errare, errore judi- cialiter, Christum et Apostolos nihil
ciali : de personali, omnibus notum habuisse in communi nee in proprio :
est. Jac. Almain. de Auctor. Eccles. alter, oppositum. Ibid,
c. X. ^ Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath.
Quonmi unus determinavit judi- Church, p. ] 21-124.
cnxv. II.]
DIFFICULTIES OF llOMANISM.
193
tlie Council of Trent, which also was hononred by the papal
confirmation '.
Now the Cisalpines, by the very necessity of their principles,
hold the Infallibility of a General Council not ratified by the
Pope ; for, otherwise, they will be reduced to the inconsistency
of maintaining, that the Head of the Church may be fully con-
victed of heresy and may be lawfully deposed from his high
station by a Council, which itself is fallible and therefore pal-
pably unauthomtative : and, a fortiori, they hold, in common
with all Romanists, the undoubted Infalhbility of .a General
Council, when the Pope has been pleased to ratify it.
Hence they are brought to the goodly conclusion : that Tlie
papally unratified Council of Constantinople which condemned
Image -Worship, atid tlie papally ratified Councils of Nice and
Trent which established Image-Worship^ are, in their opposite
decisions, all equally infallible'^.
' Concil. Nic. II. act. i. Labb.
Concil. vol. vii. g. 56, 57, 60, 61. act. vi.
p. 541. Concil. Trident, sess. xxv.
p. 507, 508,
^ It may be useful to consider the
perplexed case of the Cisalpines
somewhat more at large.
I. In the words of the second Ni-
cene Comicil, the Cisalpines may pos-
sibly object: that. Although the Coun-
cil of Constantinople has been denomi-
nated the seventh Ecumenical Council;
yet, by persons who think rightly, it is
lawfully and canonically styled a false
Synod, as being alienated from all truth
and piety, and as having rashly and
boldly and atheisfically barked against
the Heaven-delivered Ecclesiastical Le-
gislation, and as having insulted the
Holy and Venerable Images, and as
having commanded, them to be removed
from the Iwly churches of God. Hence
they may urge, that, on their piinci-
ciples, tliey are no way bound to admit
its InfalUbiUty.
But such an evasion will, in no
wise, serve their purpose.
How do they know, that the Council
of Constantinople was not the seventh
Ecumenical Council, but on the con-
trary that it was a false synod ?
They can only reply : that Its cha-
racter was determined to be such by the
second Council of Nice.
Such a reply, however, is, on their
principles, palpably irrelevant and
nugatory.
The Council of Constantinople, un-
ratified by the Pope, declared itself to
be the seventh Ecumenical Council :
the second Council of Nice, ratified
by the Pope, contradicted its declara-
tion. Now, on the principles of the
Cisalpines, a papally ratified Council
and a papally unratified Council are
alike infallible. The perplexing ques-
tion, therefore, will perpetually recur :
Why should the Cisalpines believe the
declaration of the Sficond Nicene Coun-
cil as to the character of the Council of
Constantinople, rather than the declara-
tion of the Council of Constantinople as
to its own character?
II. Possibly, however, taking a
somewhat difierent ground, the Cisal-
pines may allege ; tliat The Council of
Constantinople was not ecumenical and
therefore not infallible, because the west-
em Bishops tvere not present.
To this allegation, according to the
principles advocated by the Bishop of
Strasbourg, it would be quite suf-
ficient to reply : that Tacit assent, not
mere bodily presence, on the part of the
Bishops dispersed over the world, as-
sures us that a Council is really ecu-
menical. Trevern's Answer to i)iff. of
Roman, p. 23.
But we can do much more.
As soon as the merits of the case
194
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
3. Tke respective peculiar theories of the Transalpines and
!the Cisalpines having been thus compendiously disposed of,
nothing remains but the third theory, in which all good
Romanists agree, whether they make or make not the special
.axlditaments of Transalpines and Cisalpines.
This third theory is : that Infallibility is lodged with a General
Council ratified by the papal confirmation.
As the present theory is, by far, the most convenient to the
Romanists; as it is universally (I believe) adopted by them.
were known in the "West, the conduct
of the occidental Bishops was prompt
and decisive. In the year of 794, or
exactly seven years after the session of
the second Nicene Council, Charle-
magne assembled at Frankfort a
Council of 300 western Bishops, who
reversed the idolatrous decision of the
Nicene Fathers, and who ratified the
antiidolatrous decision of the Con-
stantinopolitan Fathers by their con-
current unanimous condemnation of
Image-worship. To the Constantino-
politan Council, therefore, nothing
was wanted, save the papal confitina-
tion : and the Cisalpines, who hold
that a General Council may convict the
Pope of heresy, and may thence law-
fully pronounce his deposition, will, of
course, deem the papal confirmation
quite unnecessary. Hence the Cisal-
pines, unless they be content to
plunge into irremediable inconsis-
tency, must clearly admit the Infalli-
biUty of the image-condemning Fa-
thers of Constantinople.
Nay, they are bound to do it even a
fortiori. For they acknowledge the
right of the Council of Constance to
depose all the three then rival Popes,
and to set up yet a fourth in their
place, though, by latin theologians,
the Council of Constance is not rated
as an Ecumenical CouncU. There-
fore, if they thus, by a plain and ne-
cessary consequence from their own
principles, acknowledge the Infallibi-
lity of the papally unratified Council
of Constance : they cannot consistently
deny the equal Infallibility of the
papally unratified Ecumenical Council
of Constantinople, whose image-
condemning decree received even the
formal and express assent of 300
western Bishops assembled in the
Council of Frankfort.
Should they attempt to cut this
gordian knot, by at once denying the
Infallibility both of the Council of
Constantinople and of the Council of
Constance, on the dogmatical plea
that neither of those two Councils was
ecumenical : they will immediately be
involved in the absurdity of maintain-
ing ; that A Council, neither ecumeni-
cal nor infallible, may, nevertheless, in-
fallibly convict a Pope of lieresy or
schism, and may thence laivfully proceed
to his formal deposition.
III. The reason, why the Council of
Constance, is not rated as ecumenical,
I conclude to be, because it asserted the
superiority of Councils to Popes, and
becavise it obviously could not have re-
ceived the papal confirmation. Here,
then, arises yet another difficulty for
the amusement of the Cisalpines.
The Pope-deposing doctrine of the
Council of Constance was rejected, as
false, by the two acknowledged ecu-
menical and papally ratified Councils
of Florence and Fifth Lateran. Hoc
Concilium, says Cardinal Bellarmine
of the Council of Constance, quantum
ad primas sessiones, ubi definit CON-
CILIUM^ESSE SUPKA PAPAM, reprobotum
est in Condi. Flor. et Later. V. ultimo :
quantum ad ultimas sessiones, et ea om-
nia quoB probavit Martinus V. ab om-
nibus Catholicis recipitur. Bellarm.
De Cone, et Eccles. lib. i. cap. 7.
Now, so far as I can understand
the matter, the Cisalpines can by no
possibility maintain their own. opinion,
without directly asserting : that The
two ecumenical and papally ratified
Councils of Florence and fifth Lateran,
which stand the sixteenth and seven-
teenth in the popish muster-roll of Ecu-
menical Synods, have erred in their de^
cision, and consequently are in no wise
infallible.
CHAP. II.]
DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM.
195
whether they additionally hold or entirely reject the other two
theories ; and as, in truth, it constitutes the very strength of
their battle, by enabling them to disavow at pleasure any con-
ciliar decree which has not been passed by some one of the
acknowledged eighteen ecumenical and papally ratified Coun-
cils : it will be proper to state the evidence agauist it somewhat
more copiously.
II. Now this evidence may be usefully arranged under two
1. I pretend not to say, what may
be Dr. Trevern's private sentiments
on this highly curious question : for,
like our renowned Protector Oliver
Cromwell, he possesses the en\dab]e
and useful faculty of speaking largely
on a topic without exciting a single
definite idea.
He assures his readers, however:
that We Catholics agree perfectly in the
same principle : and, in reality, we on
both sides attach the seal of Infallibility
to UNIVERSAL CONSENT. Answ. to
Diffic. of Rom. p. 23, 24. And this
assurance he deems quite a sufficient
reply to what he is pleased to call my
formidable objection ; meaning, I do
suppose, by the rule of contrary, that
my objection is not formidable.
It is somewhat difficult to perceive
the cogency of the reply, inasmuch as
it professedly rests upon the alleged
fact of UNIVERSAL CONSENT. Ai'e we
to receive or to deny the doctrine of
The Superiority of a Council to the
Pope? Two papally ratified Ecu-
menical Councils, we see, deny it:
and yet, as the Cisalpines have prac-
tically demonstrated, the denial of
these two infallible Councils is by no
means a matter of universal con-
sent.
The truth is, Dr. Trevern was
grievously hampered : and thence, ac-
cording to his wont, while he wraps
up his lack of definiteness in barren
and unmeaning generalities, he falls
foul of myself in the cheap line of
personal abuse.
2. Mr. Berington teaches us : that
It is no article of catholic faith to be-
lieve, that the Pope is in himself infal-
lible, separated from the Church, even
in expounding the faith. Faith of
Cathol. p. 177, 178.
I have the satisfaction of perfectly
agreeing with him as to the fallibility
of the Pope, though I am somewhat
puzzled how to reconcile him with
himself.
Unless I wholly misunderstand Mr.
Berington, the Church is doctrinally in-
fallible : but tlie Vicar of Christ, the
divinely appointed liead of the Church,
is doctrinally fallible. Mr. Bering-
ton, in short, who apparently is a
stout Cisalpine, seems to hold the
favourite Low Church paradox of
an, infallible body decorated and
guided by a fallible head. Com-
pare Faith of Cathol. p. 145, 154,
155, 177, 178.
How to digest this paradox, I know
not. At all events, the doctrine of a
fallible head beneficially presiding over
on infallible body, though patronised
in this realm of England by Mr. Be
rington, is scarcely reconcilable with
the rational opinion of Pope Leo as
expressed at Home.
Totius familise Domini status et
ordo nutabit, si, quod requiritur in
corpore, non inveniatur in capite.
P. Leon. Epist. Ixxxvii.
It certainly is nothing more thanm-
turalto maintain : that The state and or-
der of the whole family of the Lord will
totter, if, what is required in the body, is
not found in the head. Hence, if an
alien may presume to give an opinion,
I should say: that, on genuine latin
principles, the Transalpine has de-
cidedly the better of the Cisalpine ;
that Pope Leo is more than a match
for Mr. Berington. Yet, after all, I
must candidly acknowledge myself
somewhat staggered, in regard to the
mere naked fact of the Roman Pon-
tiff's Infallibility; when I recollect
the pmc^imZ cisalpine ai'gument of Al-
main, from the flat judicial contradic-
toriness of the two transalpinely in-
fallible Popes, Nicolas III. and John
XXII.
196 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
heads : the Practical Contradictonness of Councils thus circum-
stanced, either to Scripture, or to the Primitive Church, or to
themselves, or to other Councils similarly circumstanced; and the
Testimony of certain of the old Fathers in regard to points, ichich
immediately involve the Conciliar Infallibility maintai7ied hy the
advocates of the Latin Church,
1. Let us begin with the Practical Contradictoriness of papally
ratified Ecu7nenical Councils, either to Scripture, or to the Pri-
mitive Church, or to themselves, or to other Councils similarly
circum,stanced.
(1.) The Council of Ephesus, rated as the third Ecumenical
Council, after a due recital of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creed which defines the procession of the Holy Ghost simply
from the Father, determined : that it was unlawfid to introduce
any other additional point of faith into that already solemnly
recognised Symbols
But the Council of Trent, rated as the eighteenth Ecumenical
Council, heedless of the decree of its remote predecessor, con-
firmed that additional article of faith, which complexly defines
the procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and
from the Son 2.
(2.) The second Council of Nice, rated as the seventh Ecume-
' TouTuv a.vecyvuir&svTtov, u^iiriv h otyla. sion of the Holy Ghost from the
ffvvohoi, iTi^xv ^ia-Tiv fA^hvi l^uvcci -x^o- Father only. And, accordinglj'^, under
<pi^uv ^youv ffvyy^K(ptiy ri iruvri0ivett, this precise aspect, the Greeks have
^rec^ii rhv o^iffh7iret\i -pra^oc. tuv ayiuv always indignantly protested against
-ra^i^uv Tuv Iv T>J N;*a£wy a-v\icc;^^HvTajv the introduction of the clause, as a pre-
•^roXii (Tuv 'Ay'tM Uviv,ocxTi.Tohs Ti ToX//,euv- sumptuous innovation of the Latins
ras « ffvvTi&'ivtm Tttrrtv Ir's^uv viyouv t^oko- in the very teeth of the Ecumenical
^/^£/v rt -r^oip's^uv roTg Sixovtriv tTierr^iipitv Council of Ephesus. Had the old
us i^iyvua-tv rlo; uXyihla;, — tl fih ziiv i-ri- definition of Tertulliau been adopted,
ffxo'zoi 7j xXn/iixo), aXXoT^iovs iJven, rov? it is possible, that the dispute between
l-x'iffKO'rovi Tns IvKTKOTns, xtiCi rovg xX»i^i- the two rival Churches, a dispute not
Kovs rov xXyi^od' it Ti XolIko) uiv, uvet- yet terminated, might have been hap-
6ifji,ot,Tiliff6ai. Concil. Ephes. can. vii. pily prevented. Hoc mihi et in ter-
Bever. Synod, vol. i. p. 103. tium gradum dictum sit, qui Spiritum
* Concil. Trident, sess. iii. p. 6. I non aliunde puto, quam a Patre per
have no immediate concern with either Filium. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 4. Oper.
the abstract propriety or the abstract p. 406. The Per Filium, which (if I
impropriety of introducing the fa- mistake not) is a doctrine admitted
mous clause Filioqve. My present by the Greeks themselves, might have
business is, not with Doctrinal Truth saved the honour of the Ephesine
a$ such, but with Conciliar Infalli- Council, by being received as a mere
bility. Now the complex procession explanation of the mode in which the
of the Holy Ghost from both the Spirit proceeds from the Father : the
Father and the Son is clearly an Filioque is a palpable addition of an
iri^K w/Vr/f from the sim,ple proces- Iri^a. -r'urm.
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 197
nical Council, and afterward tlie Council of Trent, rated as the
eighteenth Ecumenical Council, decreed the Relative Worship
of Images, cursing all those who should presume to impugn
their decision ^
But Holy Scripture, without descending to any idle and
sophistical distinctions of Latria and of Dulia or of Relative
Worship and Positive Wo7'ship, altogether forbids the making
of images for the purpose of bowing down to them and worship-
ping them 2.
(3.) The second Council of Lateran, rated as the tenth Ecu-
menical Council, prohibited the Marriage of the Clergy; and
that, not merely on the score of temporary and mutable discipline
(though such an imposition, made even under this aspect, were
offensively presumptuous), but on the distinctly specified score
of immutable morality: for it expressly rests its prohibition upon
the judicially alleged circumstance, that The Marriage of the
Cle7'gy is nothing better than a devotion to chambering and wan-
ton7iess\
But Holy Scripture declares, that marriage is honourable in
all men ; and, accordingly, speaks with full approbation of the
marriage of the Clergy*: while the ancient Council of Gangra,
which sat about the year 330, actually anathematises, as mani-
fest heretics, all those who should refuse to receive the com-
munion of the Lord's Supper from the hands of a married
Presbyter 5.
' Concil. Nic. ii. act. i. Labb. Concil. Lateran, it is chambering and wan-
vol. vii. p. 60, 61. Concil. Trident. tonness : according to assuredly in-
sess. XXV. p. 507, 508. fallible Scripture, it is honourable in
^ Exod. XX. 4, 5. all men. The (jround of the pro-
^ Cum enim ipsi templum Dei, vasa hibition savours strongly of ancient
Domini, sacrarium Spiritus Sancti, de- Gnosticism and Manicheism.
beant et esse et dici : indignura est eos * Heb. xiii. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 2, 4, 8,
cubilibus et immundicitiis deservire. II, 12.
Concil. Later, ii. can. vi. Labb. Concil. * E/ rts ^tax^ivoiro ti^) -r^irfivTi^ou
vol. X. p. 1003. Yet the consistent yiyafAt^xoToi , us f^h ^^^vai, Xnrov^yr,-
Church of Rome actually determines erocvrs? uhroZ, 'r^ovipo^a.i fiiraXxjiiTv,
that identical institution, which in the avothf^ai 'ia-Tu. Concil. Gangren. can.
case of the Clergy she estimates as iv. apud Bevereg. Pandect. Canon,
chambering and Avantonness, to be in vol. i. p. 419.
the case of the Laity one of her seven This Council was held to censure
Sacraments! Concil. Trident, sess. Eustathius and his followers, who
xxiv. can. i. p. 345. According to the condemned marriage in general, and
infallible Council of Trent Marriage who particularly abominated a mar-
is a sacrament : according to the ried Clergy. 'U^iTg yiyafji.yiKOTa.s a^rs-
equally infallible second Council of trr^iipovro. Ibid. p. 415.
198
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II,
(4.) The third Council of Lateran, rated as the eleventh
Ecumenical Council, decreed : that oaths, contrary to ecclesias-
tical utility (the points of contrariety and utility to be, of course,
determined by the interested Roman Priesthood themselves),
are not to be performed: because, so far from being legiti-
mately binding oaths, they are mere acts of perjury null and
void from the beginning ^
But Holy Scripture pronounces: that every oath, which
does not contradict a plain and well defined moral duty, is im-
periously binding upon the conscience; that those, who love
false oaths, are hated by the Lord ; that, whatever goes forth
from a person's lips mider the obligation of an oath, must be
strictly kept and performed; and that no vain and arbitrary
and interested plea of utility can authorise us to violate an
oath, but that it must be religiously observed even though
• Non enim dicenda sunt jura-
menta, sed potius, perjuria, qua?
contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam et
sanctorum patrum veniunt instituta.
Concil. Later, iii. can. xvi. Labb.
Concil. vol. X. p. 1517.
This canon is the real basis of the
doctrine, that Faith is not to be kept
with heretics : and it bears the same
relation to it, that Genus bears to
Species. When Faith with heretics is
not contrary to ecclesiastical utility,
as in the case of the ordinary trans-
actions of life between man and man ;
it must be religiously kept ; but, when
Faith with heretics is contrary to ec-
clesiastical utility ; then it must be
religiously broken.
I. Such was the principle, on which
faith was broken to Huss at the Coun-
cil of Constance : not that faith was
not ordinarily to be kept with heretics,
but that it was not to be kept ivhen
ecclesiastical utility required its breach.
Nullum fidei catholicce vel juris-
dictioni ecclesiastic ce prgejudicium ge-
nerari, — quo minus, dicto salvo con-
duclu non obstante, liceat, judici com-
petent! et ecclesiastico, de hujusmodi
personarum erroribus inquirere, —
eosdcmque punire, quantum justitia
suadebit, si suos errores revocare per-
tinaciter recusaverint ; etiam si, de
salvo conductu conjisl, ad locum venerint
judicii, alias non venturi : nee sic pro-
mittentem, cum fecerit quod in ipso
est, ex hoc in aliquo reraansisse obli-
gatum. Concil. Constant. Decret.
Quod non obstantibus salvis conduc-
tibus. Labb. Concil. vol. xii. p. 169.
II. The Council of Trent fairly ac-
knowledges the decision of the Coun-
cil of Constance to be Si faith-breaking
decision, by the very circumstance of
its professing to suspend it, in favour
of heretics of all nations, during the
period of its own session : thus flatly
contradicting the sixteenth canon of
the infallible third Council of Lateran,
if the Council of Constance rightly
interpreted that canon.
Insuper, omnifraude et dolo exclusis,
vera et bona fide promitlit, ipsam Syn-
odum nuUam vel manifeste vel oc-
culte occasionem qu^sitiu-am ; aut
aliqua auctoritate, potentia, jure, vel
statute, pri\ilegio legum vel canonum
aut quorumcunque Conciliorum, prffi-
sertim Constantiensis et Senensis,
quacunque forma verborum expressa,
in aliquod hujus fidei publico; et ple-
nissima: assecurationis ac publicie et
libera audientia;, ipsis per ipsam Syn-
oduni concess(B, prcejudicium, quovis
modo usuram, aut quemquam uti per-
missuram : quibus in hac parte pro
hac vice derogat. Concil. Trident.
Salv. Conduct, sess. xviii. p. 201.
In the not very complimentary
omni fraude et dolo exclusis, the Tri-
dentine Fathers confess their Con-
stantian Predecessors to have been
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 199
the observation of it may be disadvantageous to the benefit or
convenience of the juror ^.
(5.) The fourth Council of Lateran, rated as the twelfth
Ecumenical Council, and at a subsequent period the Council
of Trent also, declared : that, in the Eucharist, the substance of
the bread and wine is materially changed into the substance of
the body and blood of Chrisf^.
But the early Fathers of the Church pronounced, as the
undoubted orthodoxy of primitive tunes : that the change in
the elements is not material but moral : and, consequently, that
the bread and wine, by virtue of consecration, pass not out of
their own proper nature and substance-^.
(6.) The Council of Trent, rated as the eighteenth Ecu-
menical Council, after propounding the doctrine of all men
being bom in original sin, declared : that it was not the inten-
tion of the Council to comprehend, within the decree which
treats of original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary
the mother of God; but that the holy Synod ratified and
adopted the papal decision, which straitly forbade, until the
Pope should have made up his mind on the subject, the public
preaching or asserting, that the blessed Virgin was conceived
in original sin*.
But Scripture pronounces: that all mankind, Christ only
in his human nature excepted, are conceived and bom in sin''.
most infamoxisly and most grossly frau- et maturam discussionem, — decre\it
dulent and treacherous. et preecepit, ac prsesentis decreti vir-
* Numb. XXX. 2. Levit. xix. 12. tute mandat et prsecipit omnibus et
Deut. xxiii. 23. Zechar. viii. 17. Psalm singulis cujusque ordinis, — ut in pos-
XV. 4. Eev. xxi. 8. terum, donee articulus hujusmodi a
^ Concil. Later, iv. can. i. Labb. S. Sede Apostolica fuerit definitus,
Concil. vol. xi. par. i. p. 143. Concil. vel per sanctitatem suam et Sedem
Trident, sess. xiii. c. 1, 2, 3, 4. can. Apostolicam fuerit aliter ordinatum,
i, ii. p. 122-125, 129, 130. non audeat, in publicis concionibus,
* See below, book ii. chap. 4. § lectionibus, conclusionibus, et aliis
VII. quibuscumque actibus publicis, asse-
* Declarat tamen hsec ipsa sancta rere, quod eadem beata Virgo fuerit
Synodus, non esse suae intentionis, concepta cum peccato originali. Ibid,
comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de p. 24, 25.
peccato originali agitur, beatam et The Pope, I believe, has not yet
immaculatam Virginem Mariam Dei quite made up his mind. When he
genetricem ; sed obsen^andas esse has, what will become of the Tri-
con stitutiones felicis recordationis dentine boast: semper hsec Fides
Sixti Papse IV, sub poenis in eis con- in Ecclesia Dei fuit? See before
stitutionibus contentis, quas innovat. p. 39.
Concil. Trident, sess. v. p. 14. Sane- * Rom. iii. 10. v. 12-19. 2 Corinth,
tissimus dominus noster, post longam v. 21. 1 Peter ii. 22.
200 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK IL
The Council of Trent, therefore, forbids us to preach and assert,
what Scripture enjoins us to preach and assert.
(7.) The Council of Trent declared : that, although Christ
instituted the Eucharist in two kinds, and although he thus
administered it to his Apostles ; yet we are bound to confess,
that the whole and entire Christ and the true sacrament are
taken only under one kind, that the recipients of the Eucharist
only under one kind are defrauded of no grace, and that the
censurers of the administration of the Eucharist under one
kind only to the Laity and the non-officiating Clergy are ac-
cursed ^
But Christ (as the very Council itself, with an assurance
paralleled only by that of the Council of Constance, actually
confessed) authoritatively instituted the Eucharist under two
kinds ; administered it, under both kinds, to the Apostles, who,
at that time (even if we admit them to have been then ordained
to the ministry), were assuredly not officiating ; and gave no
warrant for the presumptuous and indecent sacrilege, as Pope
Gelasius and Pope Leo well stigmatise the profane innovation,
of administering it only under one kind 2.
' Concil. Trident, sess. xxi. c. 3. teriis, tam sacramentorum corn-
can, i, ii, iii. p. 204, 205, 206. munione se temperant, ut interdum
^ Insuper declarat, quamvis Ee- tutius lateant, ore indigno Christi
demptor noster in suprema ilia ccena corpus accipiunt, sanguinem aiitem
hoc sacramentum in duabus speciebus redemptionis nostrte haurire omnino
instituerit et Apostolis tradiderit, ta- declinant. Quod ideo vestram volumus
men fatendum esse, etiam sub altera scire sanctitatem, ut vobis bujusmodi
tan turn specie totum atque integrum homines et hisce manifestentur indi-
Christum verumque sacramentum ciis ; et, quorum deprehensa fuerit
sumi ; ac propterea, quod ad fructum sacrilega slmulatio, notati et pi'oditi a
attinet, nulla gratia necessaria ad sanctorum societate, sacerdotum au-
salutem eos defraudaii, qui unam toritate pellantur. Pap. Leon. serm.
speciem solam accipiunt. Concil. Tri- quadrages. iv.
dent. sess. xxi. c. 3. p. 204. Vide The sacrilegioua miscreants {io a.(\o\)i
etiam Concil. Constant, sess. xiii. the phraseology of the two Popes
Labb. Concil. vol. xii. p. 100. Gelasius and Leo), who wished to
Comperimus, quod quidam, surapta communicate under the kind of bread
tantummodo corporis sacri portione, only, were the Manich^ans. These
a cahce sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui heretics were the original mutilaters
procul-dubio, quianescio quasupersti- of the Eucharist; as their prede-
stitione docentur obstringi, aut Integra cessors, the Gnostics, were the original
sacramenta percipiant, aut integris advocates of Image-Worship. See
arceantur : quia divisio unius ejus- Iren. adv. hser, lib. i. c. 24. § ; and
demque mysterii, sine grandi sacri- cap. 25, § 6. ed. Lipsiai, 1848. Epiph.
legio, non potest provenire. Pap. adv. hrer. lib. i. hser. 27. Yet, what
Gelas. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. was rank sacrilege, and idolatrous im-
dist. ii. c. 12. piety in one age of the Church, be-
Quum, ad tegendam infidelitatem came, in another age, orthodoxy so in-
suam, nostris audeant interesse mys- disputable as to be sanctioned even
CHAP. II.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAJJISM.
201
(8.) The Council of Trent decreed: that the person, who
should censure the practice of not celebrating Mass in the
vulgar tongue, is accursed ^
Scripture forbids the celebration of divine service in an
unknown language^.
(9.) The Council of Trent decreed : that the souls of the
faitliful, after death, pass into purgatory, ere they pass into
heaven ^.
Scripture declares : that those, who die in the Lord, are
blessed, and rest from their labours. And, accordingly, it
exhibits the soul of Lazarus, as passing immediately into that
portion of Hades or the separate state which is denominated
Abraham'' s bosom : while it describes the soul of the rich man,
as confined in that other portion of Hades, which is set forth,
not as a transient preparatory purgatory, but as a dungeon of
fearful prelibatory punishment to receive its completion in
gehenna*.
muler the penalty of a bitter ana-
thema.
With such naked historical facts as
these staring him in the face, Dr.
Trevern has absolutely the undaunted
assurance to gloze in manner fol-
lowing.
Mais peut-^tre I'Eglise Catholique
avoit-elle dans les derniers temps
outrepasse les homes dans sa pra-
tique et dans son enseignement ?
Bien moins encore. Ses principes,
une fois definis, sont irr6vocables :
elle-meme y est immuablement en-
chainee par des liens qu'il lui est do-
renavant impossible de briser. Dis-
cuss. Amic. lett. xvi. vol. ii. p. 324.
What? Were the principles of the
Catholic Church (as Dr. Trevern ri-
diculously calls the pro-sdncial Latin
Church) irrevocable, when two Popes
solemnly and judicially pronounced,
that communion under one kind was a
great sacrilege ? But the Romish
Priesthood are not very curious as to
FACTS, when the interest of their
Chiu-ch is to be subsei-ved. Under
this influence, Dr. Trevern will tell
us ; that lier principles are irrevocable :
and Mr. Husenbeth, not a whit be-
hind his Gallican master, will gravely
assure us, in absolute defiance of tes -
timonj' ; that all ecclesiastical writers,
without one exception, for Jifleen cen-
turies down to the time of the Beforma-
tion, vouch unanimously and expressly
for the Roman Episcopate of St. Peter !
• Si quis dixerit, — lingua tantam
vulgari Missam celebrari debere ; —
anathema sit. Concil. Trident, sess.
xxii, can. ix. p. 244.
2 1 Corinth, xiv. 1-26.
^ Concil. Trident, sess. vi. can.
XXX. p. 60. sess. xxv. p. 505, 500.
* Eev. xiv. 13. Luke xvi. 19-31.
Our English translators, using, in
Luke xvi. 23, the old word Hell in its
original sense, have probably misled
many persons into the false notion,
that the parable describes the rich
man as being in what we now com-
monly denominate Hell. But such is
not the intimation of the parable.
The separate soul of the rich man is
said to be, not in Gehenna, but in
Hades : iv r» a^>j. When the final
place of endless punishment, after the
reunion of the soul and the body, is
meant, the entirely different word
Gehenna is always employed.
Since this was written, I have very
fully discussed the subject of Hades
or Sheol in a work entitled The Many
Mansions in the House of the Father.
Eoyston, 40 Old Broad Street, July
17, 1852.
202 DIFFICULTIES OF ROM.iNISM. [bOOK II.
(10.) The Council of Trent pronounced: that the sacrifice
of the Mass is offered, not only for the sins and necessities of
the living, but likewise for the relief of the dead in Christ not
hitherto /z«% and su-fficiently purified ^
Yet, with strange inconsistency, this self-same Council de-
fined the effect of Extreme Unction to be : that it washes out
the remains of sin, and effectually cleanses us from those faults
which might still require to be expiated^.
(11.) The Council of Trent declared all those persons to be
accursed, who should deny the apocryphal books of Tobit,
Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and Maccabees so far as the
two first portions of that history extend, to be sacred and ca-
nonical^.
But the Primitive Church, as we learn from the distinct and
concurring testimony of Melito and C3rril and Ruffinus and
Jerome and Epiphanius and Athanasius, rejected the apo-
cryphal books from the Canon of Scripture : and reckoned up
the canonical books of the Old Testament, precisely as the
Jews have always done, and as the Reformed Churches still
continue to do*.
2. Let us next proceed to the testimony of certain of the
Fathers in regard to points, which immediately involve the
ConciHar Infallibility maintained by the advocates of the Latin
Church.
For the better perception of the force of this testimony, it
will be necessary to premise a few observations respecting the
Romish Doctrine of Tradition : a doctrine, for which, through
the medium of a most gross misrepresentation, the authority of
the Ancients is confidently adduced.
Ireneus, about the year 175, insists, with much sound sense,
upon the mighty strength of the argument to be derived from
the uniformity of apostolic tradition in every distinct Church
' Concil. Trident, sess. xxii. c. 2. Catech. iv. cap. 35. p, 37, 38. Euffin.
p. 239, 240. Expos, in Symbol. Apost. ad calc.
^ Unctio delicta, si quae sint adhuc Cyprian. Oper. p. 26, 27. Hieron.
expianda, ac peccati reliquias abs- Prolog. Scriptur. Galeat. Oper. vol.
tergit. Concil. Trident, sess. xiv. c. 2. iii. p. 287. Epiphan. de mensur. et
p- 161. ponder. Oper. p. 300. Athan. Epist.
3 Concil. Trident, sess. iv. p. 8. Festal, xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 44, 45.
* Melit. Sardens. apud Euseb. Hist. Succinct. Script. Synop. Oper. vol. ii.
Eccles. lib. iv. c. 25. § 26. Cyril. Hieros. p. 61-63, 101, 133.
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROLLNISM. 203
which then existed ^ The Romanists, eagerly catching up the
phraseology of the venerable primitive Father, wish to claim
him as the unexceptionable advocate and early witness for
Tradition in their sense of the word : and, by this dishonest
management, they have, it is to be feared, deceived numbers, to
the no small danger of their eternal salvation. But, in truth,
no two things can be more different, than Tradition in the
mouth of Ireneus, and Tradition in the mouth of a Latin Eccle-
siastic. By Traditio7i, Ireneus means the oral delivery of the
SELF-SAME matters which the Bible delivers in wnting : so that all
unlettered Catechumens received exclusively from oral dehvery
those identical doctrines, which they might have equally re-
ceived, and which more literate persons actually did addition-
ally receive, from the written word of God 2. But, by Tradition,
the Roman Church means a concurrent and coequal supple:ment
to Scripture : a supplement, which, whether it respects faith or
practice, is to be received and venerated with an equ^l pious
affection and reverence with God's own written word, on the
professed ground that it is no less a divine revelation than
Scripture itself; a supplement, which makes good the alleged
deficiencies of the written word, so that God's will and God's
revelations are to be sought, not exclusively in the written word,
but partly and equally (so far as authority is concerned) in what
the Latins are pleased to call the unwritten word^.
' Iren. adv. hser. lib. i. c. 2, 3. p. therefore (according to the Eoman-
34-36. ists) be mppUed from oral tradi-
' Iren. adv. hser. lib. iii. c. 3,4. tion; but the precise great funda-
p. 170-172. and cap. 4. § 1, 2. mental truths,which the written word
ed.Lipsise, 1848. p. 437. Quid autem, inculcates.
si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas ^ Perspiciens hanc veritatem et dis-
reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ciplinam contineri, in libris scriptis,
ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tra- et sine scripto traditionibus, quae
diderunt iis quibus committebant ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis ac-
ecclesias ? Cui ordinationi assentiunt ceptse, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu
multae gentes barbarorum eorum, qui Sancto dictante quasi per manus tra-
in Christum credunt, sine charta vel ditse, ad nos usque pervenerunt, or-
atramento scriptam habentes per spi- thodoxoinim Patrum exempla secuta,
ritum in cordibus suis salutem, et sacrosancta Synodus, omnes Hbros tarn
vetcrem traditionem diligenter custo- veteris quam novi Testamenti, cum
dientes. utriusque unus Deus sit auctor ; nee
Ireneus then proceeds to give us non traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem
wJutt these unlettered barbarians had tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam
learned by oral tradition or by the de - vel ore t«nus a Christo vel a Spiritu
livery of evangelical truths through Sancto dictatas et continua succes-
the medium of oral catechumenical sione in Ecclesia a Catholica conser-
instruction : and we find them to be, vatas, pari pietatis affectu ac re-
not any matters respecting which the verentia, suscipit et veneratur. Concil.
written word is silent, and which must Trident, sess. iv. p. 7, 8.
204
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
Now, except in the way of trifling or unessential ceremonies
which might be rejected or retained at pleasure, and wliich are
no way necessary to salvation, the ancients recognised nothing
of Tradition as explained and defended by the modern advo-
cates of the Church of Rome ^ The gnosticising heretics, in-
deed, for the purpose of establishing their monstrous specula-
tions, insisted upon a concurrent supplemental oral tradition :
which, in principle, was the very same as the tradition asserted
by the Latins : and which, in application, was used after a pre-
cisely similar manner 2. But Ireneus, the identical witness who
is actually claimed as their own by the Roman Ecclesiastics,
bears his testimony, in the very strongest terms, against this
bastard supplemental Tradition : and, in the place of it, or
rather in direct opposition to it, he would set up that legitimate
apostolical Tradition, which, alike and harmoniously, was handed
down both in the written word and in the oral instructions deli-
vered to the Catechumens by each several then existing Church
without any variation 3.
* Thus Tertullian mentions the
early prevalence of the custom of
signing with the sign of the cross,
though Scripture confessedly gives
no warrant for any such practice.
Tertull. de coron. mil. § 3. Oper.
p. 449. So long as this practice be
used simply to indicate, that we pro-
fess to know nothing save Jesus
Christ and him crucified : it is per-
fectly harmless, though in no wise
obligatory. But, if it be industriously
used for the purpose of scaring away
devils and the like : it then becomes
a contemptible and mischievous su-
perstition.
' Nee enim fas est dicere, quoniam
ante praedicaverunt (scil. Apostoli)
quam perfectam haberent agnitionem :
sicut quidam audent dicere, gloriantes
emendatores se esse Apostolorum.
Postea enim quam surrexit Dominus
noster a morte, et induti sunt super-
veniente Spiritu Sancto virtutem ex
alto, de omnibus adimpleti sunt, et
habuerunt perfectam agnitionem, ex-
ienmt in fines terrse, ea quae a Deo
nobis bona sunt evangeliz antes, et
coelestem pacem hominibus annun-
ciantes, qui quidem et omnes pariter
et singuU eorum habentes evangelium
Dei : — quibus siquis non assentit,
spemit quidem participes Domini,
spernit autem et ipsum Christmn Do-
minum, spernit vero et Patrem, et est
a semetipso damnatus, resistens et
repugnans saluti suse ; quod faciunt
omnes hosretici. Cum enim ex Scrip-
turis arguuntur, in accusationem
convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum :
quasi non rect6 habeant ; neque sint
ex authoritate ; et quia varie sint
dictfB ; et quia non possit ex his in-
veniri Veritas ab his, qui nesciant
traditionem. Non enim per literas
traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem :
ob quam causam, et Paiilum dixisse ;
Sapienliam autem loqiiinuir inter per-
fectos, sapienliam autem non mtmdi
hnjits. — Cum autem ad eam iterum
traditionem, qufe est ab Apostolis,
quae per successiones Presbyterorum
in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus
eos qtii adversantur traditioni : dicent,
se, non solum Presbj^eris sed etiam
Apostohs existentes sapientiores, sin-
ceram invenisse veritatem. Iren. adv.
hffir. lib. iii. c. 1, 2. p. 1G9, 170, and
pp. 422, 424, ed. Lipsia?, 1848.
^ Traditionem itaque Apostolorum,
in toto mundo manifestatam, in Ec-
clesia adest perspicere omnibus, qui
vera velint audire. Iren. adv. heer.
lib. iii. c. 3. p. 170.
CHAP. II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 205
The decisions, then, of the Council of Trent and of other
Councils of the same stamp, are professedly built : not simply
upon Scripture, even according to their own gratuitous inter-
pretation of Scripture; but, also with declared equal pious
affection and reverence i, upon sundry oral traditions, which
they are pleased to call apostolical, and which propound both
doctrines and practices respecting which Scripture itself is pro-
fomidly silent. And these decisions, thus professedly built upon
a foundation altogether distinct from Scripture, we are, under
the very penalty of a curse, required to admit, as infallible
determinations from which no appeal can He even to Scripture
itself.
These observations being premised, we shall now be prepared
to hear and to feel the full force of the testimony, so distinctly
borne, by certain of the ancient Fathers, both to the sole autho-
rity of Scripture as a rule of Faith, and to the fallibility of all
Councils, whether provincial or ecumenical.
(1.) Let us first attend to the venerable Ireneus.
The disposition of our salvation we know not through any other
persons, than those by whom the Gospel ha^ come to us : which
then, indeed, they themselves orally preached; but ivhich after-
ward, according to the will of God, they traditionally handed
down to us, in the written word, as the future basis and column
of our faith^.
What this apostolical tradition, from tradition kot committed to writing
common alike to all then existing iti the Holy Scriptures, on the part of
Churches, propounded, Avas not some- the gnosticising heretics, non enim
thing unrevealed in the written word, per literas traditam illam (scil. veri-
but simply the articles of faith set taiem), sed per vivam vocem ; was the
forth by that written word itself. See express allegation of those heretics,
Iren. adv. hser. lib. iii. c. 4, 5. and condemned, not approved, by Mr. Be-
lib. i. c. 2, 3. rington's witness Ireneus. See Faith
Yet, with all these passages under his of Cathol. p. 130, 132.
very eyes, Mr. Berington actually cites Thus unblushingly, on the pre-
Iren^us, as a voucher for Tradition, tended venerable authority of Ireneus,
according to the sense alike ascribed is error propagated among the igno-
to that word both by the old Gnostics rant, or the indolent, or the unwary,
and the modern Church of Rome: * Pari pietatis affectu ac reve-
that is to say, according to his own rentia. Concil. Trident, sess. iv.
definition of the term, he actually p. 8.
cites him, as vouching for the recep- ^ Non enim per alios dispositionem
tion of points of catholic belief and salutis nostras cognovimus, quam per
practice not committed to writing in eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad
the Holy Scriptures; when, all the nos : quod quidem tunc pra:!Coniave-
while, Ireneus is stoutly condemning runt ; postea vero, per Dei volunta-
this identical claim, of establishing tem, in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt
points of catholic belief and practice fundamentum et columnam fidei nos-
206 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
WCf folloiving one only tj'ue God as our teacher, and hacing
his DiscouKSES as the rule of truth, always say the sarne things
respecting the same matters^,
(2.) Let us next hear TertuUian.
As for Hermogenes, let his shop produce the written word.
If he be unable to produce the written word in substantiation of
his tenets, let him fear that Woe which is destined to those ivho
either add to it or who detract from it^,
(3.) We may next hear Hippolytus.
There is one God, ivhom we know from no other authority, than
the HOLY SCRIPTURES. For, just as a person, who wished to exer-
cise the wisdom of this ivorld, would not be able to attain it save
by attention to the dogmata of the philosophers : so, if we wish to
exercise piety toward God, we can exercise it from no other quarter
than from God^s own oracles. Whatsoever matters, then, the
divine scriptures declare; these let us learn: and, whatsoever
matters they teach ; these let us recognise : — not according to our
own humour or according to our own mind, neither tcith any
wresting of the thijigs delivered from God ; but, even as he him-
self wished to shew us through the holy scriptures, thus let its
Uarn^.
(4.) We may next attend to Cyprian.
Whence is that Tradition f Does it descend from the authority
of the Lord and the Gospels : or does it come doivti from the man-
dates and letters of the Apostles f God testifies, that those things
are to be done, tvhich are written. — If, then, any such precept can
be found, either in the Gospel or in the Epistles, or in the Acts
tree futnrum. Iren. adv. hser. lib. iii. bus destinatum. Tertull. adv. Her-
c. 1. p. 169. mog. § 22. Oper. p. 346.
The apostolic tradition, we see, ac- ^ Ejg 0sos, ov ohx, aXXohv iTiyiyvtua--
knowledged by Ireneus, was contained xo^jv, a.hX(po), »i Ik ruv uyiuv y^x-
in the written word. Whether that (paiv. "Ov ya^ t^otov ia.v rt? fiouXti^^
word was read or orally COmmuni- t^v ao<pia.v rod aiuvos rourou a,<rx,uv, ovx
cated, still there was no diversity in uXXui '^wnffirai rovrov rv^sTv, ikv fth
the truths propounded : for, in fact, yoyf^ufft <pt\o(ro<pMv hrv^^f tov avrov ^v
they were identical. t^ottov e<rot hoa-i^nav ua-xiTv {houXofA,i6tt,
' Nos autem unum et solum verum olx. Hxxohv %aK7i(rofji,iM v\ Ix. ruv Xoyluv
Deum doctorem sequentes, et regu- rod &iou. "Oa-a, rotvuv x'/i^vtrtrauffiv at
lam veritatis habentes ejus semiones, hlon yga(pei), '/^ufisv' xa.) oaa, h'^do--
de iisdem semper eadem diciraus. xovinv, iTtyvcofitv — ^^ xar l^iav -r^o-
Iren. adv. haer. lib. iv. c. 69. p. 300, ai^sfftv, //.nTi xecr J'iav vouv, ^sjSs /S<a-
and p. 368. ed. Oxon. 1702. (Sf^ivoi rk v-pto roZ Siod hhf^ivet- «xx',
Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis «» r^o-rav uItos \{iov\yi6vt ha tuv ayiuv
officina. Si non est scriptum, timeat y^a<poov lu^ai, otirus JSw^s*. Hippol.
VcB illud adjicientibus aut detrahenti- cont. Noet. § ix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 12, 13.
CHAP. U.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 207
OF THE Apostles : — let this Divine and Holy Tradition be
observed^.
(5.) We may next hear Cyril of Jerusalem.
Respecthig the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a
tittle ought to be delivered without the authority of the holy scrip-
tures. Neither ought any thing to be propounded, on the basis
of mere credibility, or through the medium of plausible ratiocina-
tion. Neither yet repose the slightest confidence in the bare asser-
tions of me your Catechist, U7iless you shall receive from the holy
SCRIPTURES full demonstration of the matters propounded. For
the security of our faith depends, not upon verbal trickery, but
upon demonstration from the holy scriptures 2.
(6.) Let lis next hear the great Athanasius.
The holy and divinely inspired scriptures are sufficient for the
declaration of the truth\
Let a person solely learn the matters, which are set forth in the
scriptures: for the demonstrations, contained in them, are, in
order to the settling of this point, quite sufficient and complete"^.
If ye are disciples of tlie Gospels, — walk according to what is
WRITTEN. But, if you choose to allege any other matters beyond
what is WRITTEN : why do you contend against u^, who will never
be persuaded either to hear or to speak a single syllable beyond
God's WRITTEN WORD^?
These ; namely, the canonical books of Scripture, from which
the apocryphal books are carefully excluded: These are the
' Unde est ista traditio ? Utrumne Xoyias ; «XXa i| k-jtoSu'^ius tuv hlcav
de dominica et evangelica auctoritate iffri y^et(puv. Cyril. Hieros. Catecb.
descendens, an de Apostolonim man- iv. p. 30. Paris: or § 17. p. 108.
datis atque epistolis veniens ? Ea Monac. 1848.
enim facienda esse quae scripta sunt, ^ Avrd^Kus fAv ya.^ ilrh ul uyiai
Deus testatur. — Si ergo aut in Evan- xa.) howivirroi y^a<pai, -^^h Tm Ttjs
gelio pra?cipitur, aut in Apostolorum ak>ihtxs a?rayy£X/av. Atlian. Orat.
Epistolis aut Actibus continetur: — cont. gent. Oper. vol. i. p. 1.
observetur divina bsec et sancta tra- * Mivov ru, b raiii y^Bi(pa.7s (ji.a.v6et-
ditio. Cyprian. Epist. Ixxiv. Oper. viru' aurd^xyi yk^ xett tKuva, TO, iv au-
vol. ii. p. 211. recTs xilftiva <y£g< rotirou ^tx,^a,^uyju.aTci.
^ A'S yoc^, -rt^) Tuv hieovxu.) ayiuv rijs Athan. ad Serap. Spirit. S. non esse
'zrt(rria/s fiva-T^i^iuv, (£4>?§6 to tv;;^ov oiviu creat. Oper. vol. i. p. 359.
Tuv 6iiot)v 'Tra^a.^itoo'Sa.i y^atpSiv' fAYiVi ^ E/ roivvv fj!,a.6nToe,i itrn tuv ivayyi-
a-rXui Ti^avoTTiri xa,) Xoyav xttTCtaxiV' Xi/uv, — ffTot^zlri toTs yiy^ecftf^ivois xai
ais <roe.^u^i^iff6a,i' fji-rltt ifcoi tu roMTa ytvofiivoii. E< Ti 'in^a, ^u^a. ra, yi-
ffoi XsyovTi ocrXus ^Kfnvffrts, lav rnv y^af/,fz,svoi kxXiTv fiovkierffi, ri T^og hf^»S
ccTo^n^iv Tuv xoe,ra,yyiXXofi.ivuv ocro ruv 'Siafjtci^iffh, rovs fJi-riri axovuv fjinri kiyuv
hluv fi,ri Xcc(i'/is y^a,<pei/v' ft ffurv^ia, ya.^ ^ec^a ra yiy^ctfjtfjb'iva. TiJof/,ivovs ; Athan.
aijTv rris Ttima/s vfAuv, ovk I| iii^itri- de incarn. Christ. Oper. vol. i. p. 484.
208 DIFFICULTIES OF RO^IANISM. [bOOK II.
fountains of salvation; so that he, ivho thiy'sts, may dnukfroin the
oracles contained in them. In these ai.one is the evangelical school
of piety. Let no one add to them : and let no one detract from
them 1.
It is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak the
thijigs tvhich are NOT weittens.
Wliat the WEITTEN WOED has never revealed, you ivill never he
able to discover^.
(7.) We may next attend to Jerome.
As we deny not the things which are weitten : so the things,
which are not weitten, we reject. We believe, that God was
born of a virgin ; because we read it : but, that Mary was
7narried after her parturition, we believe not ; because ive read it
not*.
Learn, then, in the diyine sceiptuees, through ivhich alone
you can understand the full will of God, that some things are pro-
hibited and that other things are commanded, that some things are
granted and that other things are persuaded^.
(8.) Let us next hear Basil.
It is a manifest apostasy from the faith, and a clear proof of
arrogance, either to disregard any matter of the things which are
' Tawra -rvya.) tov ffu-yioiav, uim Oper. vol. ii. p. 172. Orthocloxus
vov ^I'^uvra, ifji,<pooi7(rfia.i twv ev rovTOtf loquitur.
Xoy'iuv. 'Ev rovroi; [jlovoi? to rtjs tiitrs- * Ut hsec, quae scripta sunt, non
/Ssi'aj ^iha.ffKaXt'iov tva,yyiXiZ,ir»t. M«- negamus : ita ea, quae von sunt scrip-
tiii Tovrois iTifhocXxiru- ^9j^£ tovtuv ta, renuimus. Natum Deum esse de
u.<paioi'Kr6u ri. Atlian. Epist. Test. virgine, credimus ; quia legimus :
xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 45. Mariam nupsisse post partum, non
Immediately afterward, Ath an asius credimus; quia non legimus. Hieron.
informs us, that the apocryphal books, adv. Helvid. c. ix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 110.
though appointed to be read for edifi- It is somewhat unfortunate, that
cation, must be carefully excluded the learned Fathers of the Council of
from the acknowledged written word of Trent, and after them Pope Paul V.,
God, inasmuch as they are not received should not have adopted this very
by the Church as canonical. simple rule of Jerome for the purpose
'AXX' ivixci yt crXiiovo? a.K^t{?>uet.s of determining tlie question, whether
T^o/rri^yi/u.!, xat touto y^a.(pik)v avxy- the Virgin Mary was or was not born
xuius' us on iffriv xai 'in^a. fii(iXiec, in original sin. Since the Doctiune
TovTMv 'i^ahv, ou Ketvovt^ofisvx fAv, tstv- is nowhere delivered in scriptuiie,
Tafi'iva, Ti TK^ei ruv ^rocTi^uv a.vot.yivuff- WB may well ask, WHERE can any
KiffQxi Toli u^ri T^ocri^^^ofji.ivois xai determining Pope learn its truth?
(iovkofiivots xaryix.ii'r^eti tov tTis ihffi- ^ Scito itaque, in scriptiins divinis,
/Ss/aj Xoyov. Ibid. p. 45. per quas solas potes plenam Dei in-
^ Uai^ovTMv ya.^ 'lliov i^eorZv to. f/.yi telligere voluntatem, i)rohiberi qua^-
yiy^ocfi/Aivce, xoCi xiystv. Athan. Epist. dam, praecipi qua^dam, concedi ali-
ad Scrap. Oper. vol. ii. p. 29. qua, nonnulla suaderi. Hieron. ad
^ "O ya^ olx itTiv h y^atpyi, ol^ iv- Demetriad. de "sirgin. Oper. vol. ix.
^^ffiis. Athan. de S. Trin. dial. ii. p. 4.
CHAP, n.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 209
WEITTEN, or to introduce argumentatively any matter of the tilings
which are not written ^
The things, which are WRITTEN, believe : the things, which are
not written, seek not after'^,
(9.) Finally, let us hear the great Augustine.
Demonstrate, from any one of the canonical Apostles and
Prophets, the truth of what Cyprian has written to Juhaianus :
and I should then have no room for contradiction. But now,
since what you produce is not canonical ; through the liberty to
which the Lord has called us, I receive not the decision even of a
man, whose praise I cannot attain unto, with whose writings I
presume not to compare my own writings, whose genius I love,
with whose eloquence I am delighted, ivhose charity I admire,
whose martyrdom I venerate ^.
Why adduce you the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and
yet reject his example for the peace of the Church ? Who knows
not, that the holt canonical scripture, whether of the Old or of
the New Testament, is comprehended within its own certain limits f
Who knows not, that, to all later episcopal lette7's, it is so preferred,
as to exclude any permission of rising doubt or dispute, whether
whatsoever is written in it, be true or right f But, as for the let-
ters of Bishops which either are written or were written after the
confirmation of the Canon; if peradventure there be found in them
any deviation from the truth, we may freely correct them, either by
the loeightier discourse of more skilful theologians, or by the better
instructed prudence of other Bishops, or by the collective interven-
tion of Cou7icils. So again: National or Provincial Councils
ought, indisputably, to yield to the authority of Plenary Councils,
which are collected out of the whole Christian World : and Plenary
Councils themselves may often be amended by later Councils;
* ^xvi^a 'iK-rrcofftg 'priffTiu? xet) iiTi^r)- quoniam canonicum non est quod re^
<pa.v'nx.s KXTtiyo^ix, yj echrsTv ti tmv yi- citas, ea libertate ad quam nos vocavit
ypitf/.fji.ivuv, n iTtiffdysiv tuv f^yi yiy^cc/u.- Dominus, ejus viri, cujus laiidem con-
ftivaiv. Basil, de ver. fid. Oper. vol. ii. sequi non valeo, cujus multis Uteris
p. 386. mea scripta non comparo, cujus in-
^ To~s yiy^Biju./u.ivois Titrrivv ra ft.yi genium diligo, cujus ore delector,
yiy^uf^fiiya, f^h Z^riTiu Basil. Homil. cujus charitatem miror, cujus mar-
de Trin. xxix. tyrium veneror, hoc quod alitor sapuit
" Ac per hoc, si ea, qufe commemo- non accipio. August, cont. Crescon.
rasti, ab illo ad Jubaianum scripta, de grammat. lib. ii. c. 32. Oper. vol.
aUquo Apostolorum vel Prophetarum vii. p. 100. and torn. ix. col. 430,
canonico recitares : quod omnino con- ed. Benedict,
tradicerem, non haberem. Nunc vero,
210 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK 11,
when, through better experience, that, which was shut, is opened,
and that, which lay hid, is known'^.
The Romish Clergy, in the way of a set-ofF, frequently allege
a passage, in which Augustine says : that He would not believe
the very Gospel itself, unless moved thereto by the authority of the
Church Catholic^,
On the strength of this passage, they have been wont, as
WyclifFe strongly remarked in the fourteenth century, to de-
stroy Holy Writ and the Belief of Christian Men, by their
accursed methods or false reasonings : first, that the Church is
of more authority and credence than any Gospel ; secondly,
that no man now alive knoweth which is the Gospel, except it
be by an approval of the Church ; and hence, thirdly, that, if
men say that they believe this to be the Gospel of Matthew or
John, they do so for no cause, but that the Church confirmeth
and teacheth it^.
Thus do these unscrupulous individuals, dishonestly substi-
tuting the mere Provincial Church of Rome for the entire
Church Catholic (as Augustine speaks), and little recking the
danger of driving men into direct infidelity, shrink not, for the
base interest of their own communion, from giving an advantage
to the unbeliever, of which we may be sure he will not be slow
in availing himself.
In thus pointing out the familiar dishonest substitution of the
Provincial Church of the Western Patriarchate for the entire
' Cur auctoritateni Cypriani pro quas per singulas regiones vel pro-
vestro schismate assumitis, et ejus vincias fiunt plenariorum Concilio-
exemplum pro Ecclesise pace respu- rum auctoritati quse fiunt ex universe
itis ? Quis autem nesciat, sanctam orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus
Scriptvram canonicam, tarn Veteris cedere : ipsaque plenaria ssepe priora
quam Novi Testamenti, certis suis posterioribus emendari ; cum, aliquo
terminis contineri, eamque omnibus experimento rerum, aperitur quod
posterioribus episcoporum literis ita claiisum erat, et cognoscitur quod
pr^poni, ut de illaomnino dubitari et latebat ? August, de Baptism, cont.
disceptari non possit, utrum verum Donatist. lib. ii. c. 3. Oper. vol. vii.
vel utrum rectum sit, quicquid in ea p. 37. and tom. ix. col. 98. ed. Bened.
scriptum esse constiterit: episcopo- ^ Ego vero Evangelic non crede-
rum autem literas, quae post confir- rem, nisi me Catholicse commoveret
matum canonem. vel scriptse sunt vel autoritas. August, cont. Epist.
scribuntur, et per sermonem forte Manich. quam vocant Fundamen.
sapientiorem cujuslibet in ea re peri- c. v. Oper. vol. vi. p. 42.
tioris, et per aliorum episcoporum ' Wycliffe's How Antichrist and his
graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque Clerks travail to destroy Holy Writ,
prudentiam, et per Concilia, licere M.S. Corp. Christ. Coll. Cantab, apud
reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veri- Vaughan's Life of Wycliffe ; vol. ii.
tate deviatum est: et ipsa Concilia, p. 239.
CHAP. II.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. \s 211
Catholic Church in every Quarter of the World, I would by^n6
means be understood as conceding, even to the real Catholic
Church, that superiority over the Gospels which the Popish
Priesthood, by a wretched perversion of Augustine's meaning,
would ascribe to the Church of Rome. That impiety be far
from me. But, though I admit no such superiority to the
Church under any aspect, it may be useful for the Protestant
Layman to know, that the very mode, in wliich the Romish
Clergy are fond of adducing Augustine, involves a gross mis-
representation of that eminent Father.
He says, no doubt, that he would not believe the very Gospel
itself, unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church Catholic,
But what is the true import of his language ? He means not to
assert, the superiority of the Church over the Bible ; as if the
Bible were only a sort of ancillary dependant upon the Church.
His statement purely respects a modification of the question of
EVIDENCE. We none of us can beHeve without evidence of some
kind : but this process of the understanding does not make the
evidence, upon which the Gospel is received, superior to the
gospel itself.
Precisely of this nature, is the particular kind of Evidence,
without which Augustine very reasonably declares, that he
could not receive any one of the Four Gospels.
It is abundantly easy to explain his declaration.
Let us suppose, that any one in the present day should sud-
denly produce a Document, purportmg to be a Gospel written
by St. Paul. How would such a Document be received?
Doubtless, it would be forthwith rejected, on the perfectly
sufficient ground, that the Catholic Church, in no one of its
branches, had ever either heard of or received the pretended
Pauline Gospel.
On the same principle, Augustine rightly adduces the eviden-
tial authority of the Catholic Church for the reception of our
acknowledged Canonical Gospels. Had any one of those Gospels
wanted the necessary stamp of Evidential Attestation, by the
circumstance of the Catholic Church having rejected it on the
ground of detected spuriousness (as in fact it did thus reject
sundry still extant Apocryphal Gospels) from the very time of
its first appearance : we, assuredly, could not have received that
Gospel as genuine and canonical.
212 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
In short, Augustine really says nothing more, than that he
would not receive any one of the Gospels without sufficient
evidence of its genuineness : and, in thus making the Church a
Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ, he says pretty much the
same thing as our own Twentieth Article.
That this is the whole which he meant, is abundantly clear,
both from the context of the much abused passage itself, and
likewise from another place in his Treatise on the City of God,
where he contrasts the Apocrypha with Canonical Scripture.
Many idle fables, he tells us, had been put farth : all of which,
under the general name of Apocrypha, had, after a diligent
examination, been separated from Canonical Authority ^
Nothing, I suppose, can be more rational than this statement.
III. As the alleged Infallibility of papally ratified Councils
is, of plain necessity, altogether incompatible with the well
ascertained occurrence of perpetual contradictions both to Scrip-
ture and to the Primitive Church and to other Councils and
even to themselves : so it is easy to perceive, how the Fathers,
not only of the three first centuries, but also of the fourth and
fifth centuries, would have viewed the arrogant pretensions of
the Roman Church to an inerrancy of deciding both doctrinal
and practical points, not only upon her own dogmatical inter-
pretation of Canonical Scripture, and not only upon the insuffi-
cient authority of the iminspired and primitively rejected Apo-
crypha, but even upon an indigested chaotic mass of silly oral
traditions vainly indicatory of matters respecting which God's
Weitten Word is entirely silent
The Bible alone, professedly shutting out the Apocrypha
which the Tridentine Synod has presumptuously declared to be
canonical, those early Fathers acknowledge, as the Authori-
tative Rule of Faith and Practice. Traditions or speculations,
which set forth points unpropounded or contradicted by scrip-
ture, they strenuously and systematically reject To the law
and to the testimony, is their constant language. Whatever
' Omittaraus, igitur, earum scrip- nibus et aliorum prophetarum, et re-
turarum fabulas, quae apocryphce nun- centiora sub nominibus Apostolorum,
cupantur, eo quod earum occulta origo ab haereticis pi'oferuntur : quae omnia,
non claruit partibus, a quibus, usque sub nomine Apocryphorum, ab autori-
ad nos, autoritas Veracium Scriptura- tate canonica, diligenti examinatione,
rum, certissima et notissima sue- remota sunt. August, de Civ. Dei,
cessione, pervenit. — Multa sub nomi- lib. xv. c. 23.
CHAP. II.]
DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM.
213
cannot be proved from the written word, tliey pronounce to be
undemonstrated and miobligatory. Cyril charges his Catechu-
mens, not to acquiesce bhndly and servilely in his statements,
but to try by scripture all that he advanced, and, if found con-
trary to it, to reject his Lectures without the least ceremony or
hesitation : Jerome, and the whole concurring chorus of those
ancient Theologians, avow themselves to receive only the things
which are written: while the things which are not written,
they positively and uniformly throw aside : and, as Augustine
calls for demonstration, not from mere human authority, but
from the CANONICAL WRITINGS of the Apostles and Prophets : so
he explicitly tells us, that Provincial Councils may be corrected
by Ecumenical Councils, and that earlier Ecumenical Councils
themselves may be amended by better advised later Ecumenical
Councils.
In fine, the written word of God alone they admit to bb
truly infallible^
' While this third edition was pass-
ing through the press, my attention
was directed hy a friend to a portion
of a Work pubHshed anonymously at
Dublin under the title of The Rock of
the Chvrch.
The writer attacks me on the
groimd, that I first denounce the Fa-
thers as no authority in matters of
Faith, and then attempt to urge their
authority for my own private opinions.
p. 171.
This attack he limits to my proof
from the Fathers, that The Early
Church Catholic held Holy Scripture
to he THE SOLE BINDING RULE OF
FAITH.
He is correct enough in saying,
that I deem the Fathers no'uuthority
in matters 0/ faith : but, in asserting
that / urge their authority for my own
private opinion, he is guilty of so gross
a misrepresentation, that, without as-
cribing to him an unusual amount of
obtuseness, I am constrained to view
it as dishonestly intentional. I do
not urge their authority for my own
opinions : but I quote them as compe-
tent witnesses to a fact ; the fact,
namely, that The Early Church held
Holy Scripture to be the sole binding
Rule of Faith. This evidence to a
FACT, I need scarcely say, remains
precisely the same, whether, in my
private opinion, I agreed or disagreed
with the anonymous writer.
Of this he seems to be conscious :
which places the form of his attack in
no very creditable position.
The correctness of my citations, as
fully given in the original Greek or
Latin, he does not venture to im-
pugn : but he would fain set aside
their efficacy to establish the point,
which he, all the while, saw they were
adduced to establish.
With this object, he states, that
the Fathers, in the cited passages,
did not mean to assert, that Scripture
is universally the sole Rule of Faith ;
but only that it might be conveniently
urged against certain erroneous doc-
tiines of the day because they could not
be found in Scripture.
Now, most plainly, the real ques-.
tion is : not what errors the cited
Fathers are opposing, but how they
oppose the errors in question,
These Fathers, then, as the cita^
tions themselves fully shew, oppose
the erroneous doctrines of their ad-
versaries : first, by the undeniable as,
sertion, that those doctrines nowhere
occur in Scripture ; and, secondly, by
the broad and repeated declaration,
that a sound Catholic will receive NO'
214
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
THING, save what Scripture, thus dis-
tinctly represented as the sole Binding
Eule of Faith, will vouch for.
But the anonymous writer, in his
most extraordinary argument, is un-
skilfully treading upon very tender
ground. His argument of necessity
admits, that the fathers were fully
justified in rejecting the erroneous
doctrines simply because they could
not he found in Scripture.
Here we may well say to the
writer : Mutato nomine, de te fahula
narratur. If the erroneous doctrines
of certain early heretics were justly
rejected because they nowhere occur
in Scripture : then sundry Eomish
doctrines, such as Purgatory and
Mariolatry and Papal Infallibility and
Papal Supremacy and the like, must
with equal justice be rejected, because
neither does Scripture give any war-
rant for them. This is our familiar
Protestant argument. Meanwhile, the
anonymous Popish writer would, I
suspect, be thought to take up a very
strange position, if he should gravely
maintain, as in the exactly parallel
case of the cited Fathers, that our ob-
jecting to sundry Eomish figments on
the ground that they had no watrant
from Scripture, was a clear proof, that
we did NOT hold Scripture to be uni-
versally the sole Binding Eule of
Faith, but that we limited its authority
to our rejection of certain Popish un-
scripturalities.
The writer hopes, however, that he
has still another string to his bow.
Finding it impossible to set my cita-
tions aside, he resorts to the old sa-
cerdotal device of alleged mistransla-
tion. Here, he prudently gives his
reader no opportunity of using his
own judgment, for he cautiously re-
frains from setting before him the
original Greek or Latin words alleged
to have been mistranslated by me.
Under such suspicious circumstances,
as I have, in my margin, given
the originals of the cited passages
in full, I think it quite a sufficient
answer to refer any competent Hel-
lenist or Latinist to the thus given
originals themselves. — August 14,
1852.
CHAPTER III.
SUPREMACY.
The Latin Theologians claim for the See of Rome the right of
a Dominant Supremacy over the whole Chm-ch Catholic : so
that those, who are not in subjection to that See, are to be
accounted as aliens and rebels and schismatics.
Now the plea, on which this claim is set up, is the trans-
mission of the Dominant Supremacy of St, Peter to his canonical
successors the Bishops of Rome.
In such a plea, it is evident, that three Historical Facts are
alleged: 1. The Dominant Supremacy of St. Peter over the
entire Cathohc Church ; 2. The constantly acknowledged
Dominant Supremacy of the Roman Bishops, on the specific
ground that they are severally St. Peter's Successors; and
3. The Diocesan Roman Episcopate of St. Peter himself, which
makes his successors the rightful heirs of all his high preroga-
tives.
Hence, our present business is to produce testimony against
each one of these three alleged Historical Facts.
I. The testimony against tlie Dominant Supremacy of St
Peter must, obviously be sought in the volume of the New Tes-
ment.
Here our purpose must be to inquire, not whether the holy
Apostle might or might not, in some cases, be recognised, by
his brethren in the Apostleship, as the first among equals in
ecclesiastical authority : for, with this very inferior and (in
truth) very insignificant question, either affirmatively or nega-
216 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
tivelj, we have no manner of concern. But our purpose must
be to inquire, whether the whole tenor of the Greek Scriptures
be not absolutely fatal to the notion ; that Peter was the Sove-
reign Monarch of the Catholic Church, that his Dominant
Supremacy extended over every member of it, and that all the
other Apostles (so far from being his ecclesiastical equals) both
rightfully owed and cheerfully paid to him a due canonical
obedience : for this, not the former, is the real question which
must be brought under discussion.
1. The positive testimony, against the Dominant Supremacy
of St. Peter, may be arranged under the following particulars.
(1.) Shortly after the ascension, we find Peter apparently
taking the lead in the important business of appointing a suc-
cessor to the miserable Judas. He acts, at least, as a sort of
prolocutor ; and, in so far, he might seem to have some kind of
preeminence : but, as we advance in the narrative, the phantom
of an Absolute Primacy flits away from our grasp and vanishes
into impalpable ether.
Had Peter been the divinely-appointed vicar of Christ upon
earth ; he, no doubt, acting as the Lord's special representative,
would have appointed, by his own exclusive sovereign autho-
rity, the new suffragan Apostle : for, in regard to such elevated
rank, it were plainly incpnsistent to come to any other con-
clusion.
But, in point of fact, we do not find, that this was the case.
The whole Assembly, not he himself specially, appointed two can-
didates for the vacant office : and, when that preliminary step
had been collectively taken, the matter was referred, not even
then to Peter, but by lot to the Supreme Head of the Church
himself.
From these recorded circumstances I infer, that the prolo-
cutjon of the zealous and warm-hearted Peter was incidental
rather than officials
(2.) The next time, that we hear of Peter, is on the day of
Pentecost, Through the descent of the Holy Ghost, the Apo-
stles spake with diverse tongues, as the Spirit gave them utter-
ance : and the strangers in Jerusalem were not a little amazed
at the circumstance. Whereupon Peter, standing up with the
» Actsi. 13-26.
CHAP. UI.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 217
eleven, explained to them the fact and nature and object of the
miracle.
Now the substance of the explanatory speech, ascribed by
name to Peter, must certainly, both from the turn of the expres-
sion and from the necessity of the narrative, have been alike
delivered by all the Apostles. Had Peter alone spoken in a
single particular tongue, a small part only of the multitude
would have miderstood him. Doubtless, therefore, the same
matters were delivered by the other Apostles in other tongues
to other divisions of the multitude : and, accordingly, we read,
not that Peter stood up solely, but that he stood up jointly with
the eleven; not that the multitude in return addressed Peter
exclusively, but that they spake unto Peter and unto the rest of
the Apostles ^
(3.) Soon after this transaction, we find St. Peter, not
enacting the Sovereign Primate, but submitting with St. John
to the collective authority of the Apostolic College.
Whe7i the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them,
Peter a7id John'^.
It is easy to conceive, that Christ's Monarchal Vicar might
send two of his dependant suffragans, in the quality of his
legates a latere, upon an ecclesiastical errand : but it is very
difficult to explain, how the dependant suffragans took upon
themselves to send Christ's Monarchal Yicar and their own
lawful Dominant Primate upon the business of the Church,
thus apparently governed in common by a spiritual aristocracy,
not by a single absolute spiritual sovereign.
(4.) In course of time, the Gentiles, no less than the Jews,
received the word of God from the honoured hand of Peter.
But this circumstance displeased those of the Circumcision :
and they forthwith proceeded to contend with their asserted
Ruling Primate. Yet that high officer, most unaccountably, on
the principles of our modern Latin Theologians, did not silence
them by the divme authority of his Sovereign Vicariate. So
far from it, he was content meekly to vindicate himself on the
very sufficient score, that it was not for him to withstand God.
Satisfied by this rational process, the gainsayers held their
• Acts ii. 1-37. 2 Ibid. viii. 14.
218 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
peace and glorified the Lord. It is evident, however, that they
submitted, not to Peter's primatic mandate, but to the very
ample reason which he gave for his conduct^.
(5.) We next have an account of what is usually called the
first Council at Jerusalem.
In this Synod, after much previous disputation, Peter is said
to have risen up and spoken. He was followed by Barnabas
and Paul. And the business was finally closed by James :
who, apparently as the President of the Council, gave his ulti-
mate sentence. Barsabas and Silas were then sent to Antioch
with Paul and Barnabas, not however by Peter singly in his
supposed capacity of Dominant Primate, but by the Apostles
and Presbyters collectively in conj miction with the whole
Church : Peter himself not being even so much as once men-
tioned in the decretal letter, which runs in the general name of
the Apostles and Presbyters and Brethren^.
From such a narrative if we could collect any thing specific,
it would be, that James, not Peter, was the Primate of the
Apostolic College ; and a very plausible case might be made
out on the strength of the circumstances, that James acted as
the first stationary Bishop of Jerusalem, and that the Church
of Jerusalem was acknowledged by the fifth Ecmnenical
Council to be the Mother of all Churches ^ : but, in truth,
we learn nothing, as to" the Dominant Primacy of either
Apostle. James seems to have presided on the occasion:
but, if that were the case, he was a mere temporary president.
The decree of the Council avowedly rests on the general col-
lective authority of the Apostles and Presbyters acting in
harmonious conjunction with the whole Church. Neither
Peter, nor Peter's legate, ruled the Assembly: nor do the
concurrence and sanction of Peter seem to have been at all
more necessary than the concurrence and sanction of any other
* Acts xi. 1-18. ' Acts XV. 4-31. Then the Apostles, before they went
^ Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. ii. away, placed James, who was called
c. 23. lib. iv. c. 5, Epist. Synod. </ie Jwsf, in Christ's seat : and all the
ConcU. Constant, ii. apud Theodoret. faithful congregation obeyed him, ac-
Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 9. cording to God's teaching. He then sat
It is a cuiious circumstance, that, in that See thirty years : and, after
on these identical principles, the him, Symeon, a relation of Jesus. Whe-
old Anglo-Saxon Church pronounced loc. in Bed. 397. cited by Soames,
James, not Peter, to have been Christ's Inquiry, p. 163.
Vicar and Successor.
CHAP, m.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 219
Apostle, in order to make tlie decree valid and canonical. This
primitive Council, in short, furnishes no warrant for any of
those arbitrary and fanciful rules, by which the Church of
Rome, in the midst of jarring Synods, vainly attempts to pre-
serve a shadow of chimerical Infallibility.
(6.) If, however, all the Apostles were mere suffragans
of their divinely instituted Dominant Lord and Primate St.
Peter : then, of course, St. Paul likewise must have sustained
toward him the same relative character of dutiful submission
and canonical obedience. But, in point of fact, the very
reverse of this proves to have been the case : nor, on latin
principles, do I discern, how St. Paul can be viewed under
any other aspect tlian that of an always negatively independent
and sometimes positively contumacious rebel.
As Paul evidently labours in perfect independence of Peter
and without the slightest reference to his alleged Sovereignty :
so, in strict harmony with his practice, he carefully and (as it
were) jealously intimates that he derived his authority, neither
from Peter nor from James nor from any other of the Apostles,
but by revelation of Jesus Christ alone ; and, agreeably to this
claim of perfect independence, when he met Peter at Antioch,
he withstood him to his face, because, as he assures the Galatians,
he was to he blamed ^
How such conduct, on the part of a confessedly inspired
Apostle, can be reconciled with the latin theory of Peter's
Monarchal Dominant Supremacy, I confess myself utterly
unable to discern.
2. To the positive testimony against the monarchal rule of
St. Peter, we may properly subjoin that negative testimony
which is furnished by the total silence of the Evangelical
Writers.
If the doctrine of the Dominant Supremacy of Peter, with its
adjunct of the Roman Succession, as stated in the Tridentine
Confession of Pope Pius lY, be an article of the catholic faith
so essentially necessary, that no person, as we are gravely
assured, can be saved without its unhesitating reception: we
may reasonably expect, that it would be distinctly and ex-
« Galat. i. 11-24. ii. 1-10.
2,20 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
plicitly stated in Holy Scripture ^ Yet, what the Roman
Doctors have determined to be necessary to salvation, the
Bible never so much as once even mentions. Not a hint on
the topic of the Apostle's Absolute Monarchy is dropped in
any part of the inspired Ecclesiastical History : nor is Peter
himself throughout his two Epistles, or Paul throughout his
fourteen Epistles, a whit more communicative. Equally silent
are the Epistles of James and John and Jude : nor do we find
any assertion of this alleged Dominant Primacy in the book of
the Apocalypse.
II. Sciipture, then, both positively and negatively, testifies
against the vain figment of St Peter's Absolute Ecclesiastical
Monarchy : and we shall soon find, that History no less testi-
fies against the pretended fact, of the constantly achnoivledged
Dominant Supremacy of the Roman Bishops on the specific
ground that they are all equally St. Peter^s successors.
1. Let us first, by way of prelude, notice the strangely
indecent and grossly absurd consequence, which, even at the
very threshold of our inquiry, must, as History assures us,
inevitably result from the favourite alleged fact of the Latin
Theologians.
According to Ireneus, the Church of Rome was jointly
founded by the two Apostles Peter and Paul : and the Bishop,
whom in the first instance they appointed to superintend the
newly organised Society, was Linus '2. Now Peter certainly
died before John, and probably before several other of the
Apostles.^ Such being the case, a most extraordinary inversion
of all ecclesiastical discipline must, according to the latin theory,
have inevitably followed. If Peter himself were the first
Dominant Primate, and if his Monarchy were ordained to
descend to his asserted roman successors : then, upon the death
of Peter, the existing Bishop of Rome, whoever that Bishop
might be at the time of the Apostle's demise, would become
the Spiritual Monarch or the canonical Dominant Primate of
' Sanctam Catholicam et Apostoli- ram catholicam fidem, extra qnam
cam Eomanam Ecclesiam, omnium nemo salvus esse potest^\x\ieQrQ.xQ. etin-
Ecclesianim matrem et magistram, violatam retinere et confiteri. Prof,
agnosco : Eomanoque Pontifici, beati Fid. Trident, ex bull. Pii IV. apud
Petri Apostolorumprincipissuccessori Syllog. Confess, p. 5.
ac Jesu Christi vicario, veram obe- • ^ Iren. adv. liajr. lib. iii. c. 3.
dientiam spondeo ac juro. — Hanc ve- p. 170.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 22 1
the entire Church Catholic. John, however, was undoubtedly
alive, when Peter died : for he is known to have long sur-
vived all his brethren. Hence, as John had, by the latin
theory, been a suffragan of the Dominant Primate Peter ; he
would plainly on the death of Peter, become, by the same latin
theory, a suffragan of the new Roman Dominant Primate who
was Peter's legitimate successor in the Universal Monarchy :
and thus, at length, we shall be brought to the goodly conclu-
sion ; that An inspired Apostle of the Lord owed the canonical
obedience of a dependent suffragan to an uninspired Bishop of
Rome,
2. After this prelude, we may profitably observe, both the
early unscrupulous opposition to the dictates of the Roman
Bishop, and the fair acknowledgment even on the part of some
Roman Bishops themselves that they neither possessed nor
claimed any such Dominant Monarchal Authority as that
which has been so bountifully bestowed upon them by more
modern Latin Divines.
(1.) In the second century, Victor of Rome, a very in-
temperate and apparently a very foolish Prelate, thought fit
to excommunicate the Asiatic Bishops, because, forsooth, they
refused to observe Easter at the same time with himself.
To this impudent usurpation of a Dominant Authority
which did not belong to him, his episcopal equals very pro-
perly refused to submit : and, instead of bowing to a pre-
sumptuous individual who -(according to Pope Gregory Yll
and the present Roman Doctors) was the divinely Lawful
Monarch of the Universal Church, they, in conjunction with
the excellent Ireneus of Lyons in the West, sharply repre-
hended him in written documents which were extant in the
time of Eusebius, and refused to make any alteration in the
practice to which they had always been accustomed^
(2.) Toward the close of the same second century or at the
beginning of the third, the Roman Bishop asserted his right to
a Dominant Supremacy in the Church (so early did this vain
' 'AXX' oh TOCfft Q/S 7o7i ITtffKOTOI? 'TTnS (p^OViTv. ^i^OVTOit Si KcCi u\ TOUTWV
avru (scil. Victorij tm t5}j u^rivn; act) BiKTopoi' £v oi; xx) o 'El^yiva7os. Kuseb.
r'tis T^os Tohf TX^triov tviixrius xec) aya.- Hist. Eccles. lib. V. C. 24.
222
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
figment begin to blossom), on the plea that he was the successor
of the Universal Monarch St. Peter,
Upon this, Tertullian plainly told him, that he was an
usurper : stating, at the same time, very distinctly, that what-
ever preeminence or privilege Christ might be supposed to
have granted to Peter, he granted it to Peter personally and
not to any line of his pretended successors in the Primacy^.
(3.) In the third century, Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of
Carthage took opposite sides on the question of the rebaptisar-
tion of heretics.
For presuming to differ from him on this topic, Stephen had
excommunicated the Asiatics. But his arrogance made not the
slightest impression upon Cyprian. On the contrary, he sum-
moned a provincial Council of the African Bishops : and these
Bishops, with Cyprian at their head, unceremoniously ratified,
with a severe allusion to the insolent though utterly disallowed
pretensions of Stephen, the doctrine espoused by the Asiatics ~.
' De tua nunc sententia, quaero,
unde hoe jus Ecclesise usurpes ? Si,
quia dixerit Petro Dominus ; Super
hanc petram (ed'ificaho Ecclesiam meam,
tibi dedi claves regni ccelestis ; vel
Qu(jECunque alligaveritis vel solventis in
terra, crunt allegata vel soluta in ccelis :
idcirco prtesumis, et ad te derivasse
solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id
est, ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri pro-
pinquam : qualis es, evertens atque
commutans manifestam Domini in-
tentionem personaliter hoc Petro
conferentem. Super te, inquit, cedi-
ficabo Ecclesiam meant : et dabo tibi
claves: et, qua-cumqiie solveris vel
ALLiGAVERis, non quo! solverint vel
alligaverint. Tertull.de pudic. Oper. p.
767,708. or Oper. vol. iv. p. 434. Halie
Magd. 1771.
At the beginning of the Treatise,
Tertullian, in a somewhat sneering
manner, propounds those claims of
the Roman Bishop which called forth
his strenuous indignation.
Audio etiam edictum esse propo-
situm, et quidemperemptorium, Pon-
tifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus
Episcoporum, dicit : Ego et mcechiee
et fornication is delicta poenitentia func-
tis dimitto. O edictum cui adscrihi
non poterit honum factum! Ibid,
p. 742. or p. 305, Halse Magd. ut
sTipra.
Perhaps it maybe said, that this
Treatise was written by Tertullian
after he had fallen into the heresy of
Montanism.
Doubtless it was: but that is no-
thing to the purpose ; for his heresy
respected the alleged character of
Montanus, not the question of Roman
Primacy by virtue of a pretended suc-
cession from Peter.
' Superest, ut de hac ipsa re
singuli, quid sentiamus, proferamus ;
neminem judicantes, aut a jure
communionis aliquem, si diversum
senserit, amoventes. Neqve enim quis-
quam nostrum Eiriscopum se Episcopo-
rum consliluit ; aut, tyrannico terrore,
ad obsequendi necessitatem, collegas suos
adigit : quando habeat omnis Episcopus,
pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae,
arbitrium proprium ; tamque judicaH
ab alio non possit, quani nee ipse potest
judicare. Sed expectemus universi
judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
qui unus et solus habet potestatem,
et prwponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae
gubernatione, et de actu nostro judi-
candi. Concil. Cartbag. Sentent. Epis-
cop. LXXXVII. in Oper. Cyprian,
vol. i. p. 229, 230.
This decision of the eighty-seven
African Bishops exactly expresses
Cyprian's own sentiments relative to
the Episcopate, as set forth in his
CHAP, m.]
DIFFICtJLTIES OF ROMANISM.
223
(4.) In this same third century, Firmilian of Cappadocia,
no less than Cyprian of Carthage, took a zealous part in the
baptismal dispute : and if we may judge from his somewhat
uncourtly phraseology, he appears to have venerated the
Papal Supremacy quite as little as Cyprian himself.
Stephen of Rome had idly claimed to be the Monarchal
Successor of St. Peter. But Firmilian absolutely sneers at
him for setting up such a ridiculous figment, pronounces him
to be a second Judas, and calls him an arrogant and presump-
tuous and manifest and notorious idiot K
Treatise on the Unity of the Church.
I-Ie considers all the Bishops collec-
tively as forming only one joint go-
veraing Episcopate.
Unitatem firmiter ten ere et vindi-
care debemus, maxima Episcopi qui
in Ecclesia praesidemus, ut Episco-
patum quoque ipsuni unum atque
indivisum probenius. — Episcopatus
unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum
pars tenetur. Cyprian, de Unit. Ec-
cles. Oper. vol. i. p. 108.
He repeats the same opinion in his
Epistle to Antonianus.
Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum
multorum concordi numerositate dif-
fusus. Cyprian. Epist. Iv. Oper.
vol. ii. p. 112.
' Sed non si nos propter Stepha-
num hanc beneficii gratiam cepimus,
statim Stephanus beneficio et gratia
digna commisit. Neque euim et
Judas, perfidia sua et pi-oditione qua
sceleratfe circa Salvatorem operatus
est, dignus videri potest, quasi causam
bonorum tantorum ipse prscstiterit,
ut per ilium mundus et gentium
populus liberaretur. Sed hasc interim,
quae ab Stephano gesta sunt, prse-
tereantur: ne, dum audaciae et inso-
lentise meminimus, de rebus ab eo
improb^ gestis longiorem moestitiam
nobis inferamus. — Qualis vero error
sit, et quanta sit csecitas ejus, qui
remissionem peccatorum dicit apud
synagogas hffireticorura dari posse,
nee permanet in fundamento unius
Ecclesiae qure semel a Christo supra
petram solidata est. Hinc intelligi
potest, quod soli Petro Christus dix-
erit: QiKECunque ligaveris super terrain^
eruntligata et in ccbUs : et^qvceciinque
solveris super terrain, erunt soluta et
in c(bUs. Et iterum in Evangelio,
quando in solos Apostolos insufflavit
Christus, dicens: Accipite Spiritum
Sanctum ; si cujus remiseritis peccata,
remittentur illi ; et, si cujus tenueritis,
tanebuntur. Potestas ergo peccato-
rum remittendorunj Apostolis data
est, et Ecclesiis quas illi a Christo
missi constituerunt, et Episcopis qui
eis ordinatione vicaria successerunt. —
Atque ego, in hac parte, justfe in-
dignor ad hanc tarn apertam et ma-
nifestam Stephani stultitiam : quod,
qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco glo-
riatur, et se successionem Peiri
tenere contendit super quern funda-
menta Ecclesiae coUocata sunt, multas
alias petras inducat et Ecclesiarum
multarum nova a^dificia constituat,
dum esse illic baptism a sua auctori-
tate defendit. — Stephanus, qui per
successionem cathedram Petri habere
se pra)dicat, nuUo adversus hrereticos
zelo excitatur. — Quinimo tuhsreticis
omnibus pejor es: nam, cum inde
multi cognito errore suo ad te ve-
niant, ut Ecclesiffi verum lumen ac-
cipiant ; tu venientium errores ad-
juvas, et, obscurato lumine eccle-
siastics veritatis, tenebras haereticaj
noctis accumulas. — Vide, qua im-
peritia reprehendere audeas eos, qui
contra mendacium pro veritate nitun-
tur: — ut de nullo alio, magis quam
de te, dicat Scriptura divina; Homo
animosus parit lites, et vir iracundus
exaggerat peccata. Lites enim et dis-
sentioues quantas parasti per Eccle-
sias totius mundi ? Peccatum vero
quam magnum tibi exaggerasti,
quando te a tot gregibus scidisti ?
Exscidisti enimteipsum : noli tefallere.
Siquidem ille est vere schismaticus, qui
se a communione ecclesia slictB unitatis
apostatem fecerit. Dum enim putas
224 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
(5.) In the fourth century, Ambrose, if Ambrose were the
author of the ancient Work on the Sacraments, expresses
himself respectfully indeed of the Roman See, but at the same
time asserts his own independence.
3fy wish, says he, is to follow the Church of Rome in all
points : but yet we men possess some measure of plain common
sense. Whatever, therefore, is better preserved elsewhere, we also
shall rightly guard and uphold. In truth, we follow the Apostle
Peter himself: we adhere to his devotion. What answer can the
Roman Church make to this \?
(6.) In the same fourth century, Augustine employs lan-
guage, clearly incompatible with the notion, of a Dominant
Papal Supremacy which would exhibit the Roman Church as
the Mother and Mistress of all Churches.
Understand, says he, by the daughters of kings mentioned in
the Psalm, those cities which have believed in Christ and which
have had kings for their founders. — Behold Rome, behold Carthage,
behold other and other cities. They are the daughters of kings :
and they have delighted their own king in his honour : but, fr<ym
them all collectively, there is made up only one queer?.
omnes ate abstineri posse, solum te ah Thus does Firmilian protest against
omnibus abstinuisti. Firrail. Epist. the attempted insolent usurpation of
Ixxv. in Oper. Cyprian, vol. ii. p. 218, the Koman Bishop even in the third
224, 225, 227, 228. century: and thus do we slill protest
It is on the identical principles of against the same oifensive absurdity
Firmilian, that we of the Reformed in the nineteenth century.
Churches are wont to consider the Bi- * In omnibus cupio sequi Eccle-
shopof Rome as </ie arc/jsc/iisw«//c a«rf siam Romanam. Sed tamen et nos
as the grand ringleader of presumptuous homines sensum habemus. Ideo,
divisions in the Church Catholic. From quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos
those, who, exercising their christian recte custodimus. Ipsum sequimur
liberty, will not in all things impli- Apostolum Petrum : ipsius inhaere-
citly submit themselves to him and mus devotioni. Ad hoc Ecclesia
his accompHces, he forthwith se- Romana quid respondet ? Tractat.
parates himself: imperiously de- de Sacrament, lib. iii. c. ]. in
nouncing them as schismatics, when in Ambros. Oper. col. 1244, 1245. Paris,
truth he is the real schismatic. As 1549.
Firmilian well objects to Stephen : ^ Intellige etiam filias regum civi-
What a mighty sin hast thou heaped tates, qua3 crediderunt in Christum et
up to thyself, in that thou hast cut thy- a regibus conditse sunt. — Ecce Roma,
self off from so many flocks / Fordo ecce Carthago, ecce ali fie et alia? civi-
not deceive thyself: it is thou that hast tates, filiffi regum sunt : et delecta-
cut off thine own self. He verily is the verunt regem suum in honore ipsius ;
real schismatic, who has made himself et, ex omnibus, fit una quffidam re-
are apostate from the communion of gina. August. Enarrat. in Psalm xliv.
ecclesiastical unity. For, while thou Oper. tom. viii. p. 149, and torn. iv.
thinhcst that all may be separated from col. 394. § 23. ed. Bened. " Sumus
thee, thou hast merely separated thyself enim Christiani, non Petriani," observes
from all. Augustin.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 225
(7.) Finally, even so late as toward the close of the sixth
century, two successive Popes, Pelagius II and Gregory I,
both on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their prede-
cessors, expressly disclaimed that Supreme Monarchal Domi-
nation, which they rightly judged to be alike inconsistent with
christian humility and with the mutually equal jurisdiction of
the other Patriarchs.
The circumstance, which led to this formal disavowal, was
the assumption of the title of universal bishop on the part of
John of Constantinople : for such an assumption they deemed
equivalent to a profane and impious claim of Monarchal Domi-
nation and Supremacy over the whole Church Catholic.
Regard not the name of universality, which John, says
Pelagius, has unlaivfuUy usurped to himself :— for let no one of
the Patinarchs ever use this so profane appellation, — You may
toell estimate what mischief may be expected rapidly to follow,
when, even among priests, such perverted beginnings break forth.
For he is near, respecting whom it is written : He himself is king
over all the sons ofpride^.
My fellow-priest John, says Gregory, the immediate successor
of Pelagius in the Papacy, attempts to be called the universal
BISHOP. / a7n compelled to exclaim : times ! manners !
Priests seek to themselves 7ianies of vanity ; and glory in new and
profane appellations. Do I, in this matter, defend only nfiy own
proper cause ? Do I vindicate an injury specially offered to my"
self'i- Do I not rather take up, the cause of God Omnipotent,
and the cause of the Church Universal'^ — Far from the very
hearts of Christians be that name of blasphemy, in which the
honour of all Priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated
to himself by a single individual ^ I
' UniversaUtatis nomen, quod sibi pora ! mores ! Sacerdotes vanitatis
illicit^ usurpavit, nolite attendere : — sibi nomina expetunt, et novis ac pro-
nulhis enim Patriarch arum hoc tarn fanis vocabulis gloriantur. Nunquid
profano vocabulo unqnam utatur. — ego, hac in re, propriam causam de-
Perpenditis,fratres carissimi, qui de vi- fendo ? Nunquid specialem injuriam
cino subsequatur, cumetin sacerdoti- vindico ; et non magis causam Omni-
bus erumpunttam perversa primordia. potentis Dei, et causam Universalis
Quia enim juxta est ille, de quo scrip- Ecclesiae? — Sed absit a cordibus
tum est : Ipse est rex super nniversos Christianorum nomen illud blas-
Jilios superhicB. Pap. Pelag. II. Ep.\'iii. phemise, in quo omnium sacerdotum
2 Consacerdos mens Joannes vocari honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi de-
Universalis Episcopus conatur. Ex- menter arrogatur. Pap. Gregor. I,
clamare compellor ac dicere : tern- Epist. lib. iv. epist. 32.
Q
226 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
No one of my predecessors, says the same Pope Gregory, ever
consented to use this so profane appellation : for, if a single
Patria7xh he styled univeesal, the name of Patriarch is dero-
gated from the other's. But far, very far, be it from a christian
m,ind, that any person should wish to snatch to himself a title,
whence he m,ay seem, even in any the very smallest degree, to
diminish the honour of his brethren^!
What, exclaims the same Gregory to his presumptuous
brother of Constantinople: WJiat wilt thou say to Christ, the
true Head of the Universal Church, in the examination of the
last judgment : thou, who attemptest to subjugate all his members
to thyself by the appellation of imiYERSAL ? In the use of so
perverted a title, who, I ash, is proposed for thy imitation, save
he, who, despising the legions of angels constituted in a social
equality with himself, endeavoured to break forth to the summit of
an unapproached singulaiity ? — To consent to the adoption of
that wicked appellation is nothing less, than to apostatise from the
faith^,
I indeed, the same Gregory is still the speaker : / indeed con-
fidently assert, that, whosoever either calls himself or desires to be
called TJNIVEBSAL priest ; that person, in his vain elation, is the
precursor of Antichrist: because, through his pnde, he exalts
himself above the others^.
3. These two respectable Pontiffs, we may observe, censure
the claim of unitersal dominant supreihacy, on the ground,
among other matters, of its encroaching upon the mutually
independent jurisdiction of the coequal Patriarchs, and of its
thus violatino: the canons of the Fathers.
(1.) The position, which they take, is strictly correct. Hi-
' NuUus unquam decessorum me- appellatione supponere ? Quis, rogo,
orum hoc tarn profano vocabulo uti in lioc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille
consensit : quia videlicet, si unus ad imitandum proponitur, qui, de -
Patriarcha Universalis dicitur, Patri- spectis angelorum legionibus secum
archarum nomen cseteris derogatur. socialiter constitutis, ad culmen cona-
Sed absit, hoc absit, a Christiana tus est singularitatis erumpere ? — In
mente, id sibi velle quenquam arri- isto tam scelesto vocabulo consentire,
pere, unde fratrum suorum honorem nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere.
imminiiere ex quantulacunque parte Pap. Gregor. I. Epist. lib. iv. epist. 38.
videatur! Pap. Gregor. I. Epist. ^ Ego vero fidenter dico, quia quis-
lib. iv. epist. 80. quis se Universalem Sacerdotem vocat,
^ Tu quid Christo, Universalis sci- vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua
licetEcclesiaeCapitijin extremijudicii Antichristum priccurrit ; quia, super-
es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus biendo, cseteris prffiponit. Pap. Gro-
membra tibimet conaris Universalis gor. I. Epist. lib. vi. epist. 30.
CHAP. III.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 227
therto, we have noticed only the language and conduct of
individuals, or at the most the language and conduct of the
pro^dncial Synod of Carthage. But now, under the happy
auspices of Pope Pelagius and Pope Gregory, let us proceed to
notice the express decisions of Ecumenical Councils : Councils,
which by the Latins are deemed to he absolutely infallible.
The phantom of that universal dominant supremacy, which
tlie Roman Bishops now claim as their especial prerogative,
is effectually dissipated by those ancient Councils, to which
Pelagius and Gregory evidently refer ^ ; for, while they define
the mutual independence and proper coequality of the great
ecclesiastical Patriarchs, they give to the Occidental Patriarch
nothing more than a barren precedence of honour ; and even
this barren precedence of honour they give to him, not on the
idle plea of his being the divinely appointed successor of St.
Peter, but simply because the seat of his Episcopate was the
original capital of the secular Roman Empire.
Let those ancient customs he confirmed, says the Council of
Nice, rated as the first Ecumenical Council, which have pre-
vailed 171 Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis : that the Bishop
in Alexandria shall possess jurisdiction over all those districts ;
since this same privilege is customary also to the Bishop in
Rome. In like m,anner, with respect to Antioch and throughout
the other Eparchies, let their privileges he severally preserved
to the Churches'^.
' Frater et Coepiscopus noster "EKaarof tZv ^aT^iet^^Zv <ro7s ihioif
Joannes, mandata dominiea, aposto- ^r^ovofiiots cc^xsTa-^ai oipuXst, xai (/.fi nvx
lica priBcepta, regulas pntrum, despi- Tovrui, \-7ra.^^ia.v Wi^av, olx. oZ(ra.v oivu-
ciens, eum (scil. Antichristum ) per hv kk) il u^x^s vto t^v kItoZ x.^7^^,
elationem praecurrere conatur in no- v^a.^TaZ,iiv' touto yk^ tv^o; Io-ti tUs
mine. xoirfitx?is i^overlus.' Aristen. Ibid. p.07.
^ T« a^;^ari56 U)^ x^xriire,/, to, h A<- Yet Bellarmine has actually the as-
yyVrw xai Aifivv) x») UivTotToXtt, uff-fft^ surance to propound the folloAving
Tov iv 'AXi^oivd^iix Itio-xo'tov TeivTav gloss as its true exposition.
Toiirav ix'-'v T'^v l^ouffixv- WiiV/i xu.) tu Quarta igitur et vera expositio est,
Iv T^ 'VufjLr, i-Tfiffxo-xM rouTo trvvne'ii iffrr Alexandrinum debeie gubernare illas
of4.otui ti xeti, xaru rhv 'AvT/o;^£/av xcx,) provincias, quia Romanus Episcopus
h rali uXXctts t'rec^:^i«i; , ra T^icrfiucc ita consuevit : id est, quia Eomanus
ffuZ^iff&at rctli IxxXi^iTtocis. Concil. Nic. Episcopus, ante omnem Conciliorum
I. can. vi. in Bever. Synod, vol. i. definitionem, consuevit perniittere
p. 60. EpiscopoAlexandrino regimen Jjlgyp-
On this canon, Aristenus remarks : ti, Libya^, et Pentapohs. Bellarm. de
Aiyv'zrrov xeti A/jSwjjf xai Uivra'TroXiug Pont. Rom. lih, ii. c. 13. tom. i. col.
' AXi%o(.vh^i'icc$ £';^£T&; rm l^ovirioiv xcct 634. ed, Paris, 1613.
e 'Vuf^ns, 'Tuv vTo 'F&i/u.yiv' xcci o Iv 'Ay- The ingenious Cardinal's id est cer-
rw^itx, xa.1 ol kofrot, ruv oikuuv. — tainly introduces one of the most
228
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
Let the Bishop of Constantinople , says the Council of Con-
stantinople, rated as tlie second Ecumenical Council, possess a
privilege of honourable precedency immediately after the Bishop
of Home : because Constantinople is new Rome^.
It hath seemed good to the holy and genei^al Synod, says the
Council of Ephesus, rated as the third Ecumenical Council,
that to each Eparchy should be preserved pure arid inviolate, the
just privileges of old appertaining to it, according to the anciently
brilliant specimens extant of the qu'ul-
libet ex quolibet.
I need not, I presume, at this time
of day, discuss the spurious canons of
the Council of Nice ; for every decent
Eomanist is now ashamed of them.
Yet the time was when, from one of
these forgeries, it was gravely at-
tempted to establish the fact of the
early ruled Supremacy of the Eoman
Patriarch. I subjoin the pretended
canon as a theological curiosity.
Sicque preeest Patriarcha iis om-
nibus, qui sub ejus potestate sunt:
sicut ille, qui tenet sedem Komae,
caput est et princeps omnium Pa-
triarch arum.
On the authority of Theodoret, Ge-
lasius of Cyzicus, and Nicephorus, it
is quite certain, that tlie genuine
canons of the first Nicene Council
amounted only to twenty. By the
addition of the spurious canons, these
genuine twenty, like Falstaff s men of
buckram, suddenly expanded into
seventy: and, as the tale proceeded
under the diligent hands of Pisanus
and Turrianus, these seventy soon
became eighty. Thus did the first
Nicene Council satisfactorily establish
the primitive acknowledgment of the
Dominant Supremacy of the Roman
Pontifi".
' Toy fiivToi KuvtrTceyTiVdV^oXias ift-
ffXDTCV 'i^ilV TO. T^ifffiuoc, TVIi TlfAyii
fiiTU TOV TJJJ 'TuflO^S iTTurxOtOVf 3<a TO
iivui cclrhv viav 'Taif^nv. Concil. Con-
stant, can. iii. in Bever. Synod, p. 89.
On this canon, the following are
the comments of Balsamon and iVris-
tenus.
Taw 01 fAtyoiXou 'K.uvffTxvrivov fiiraya,-
yevTOS Iv eci/T^ to, ffXTJTT^a, tyis (hxiri-
Xi'ixs ruv 'Vuft.aiuv, [Ji.%TM))0^u.tT6n 'SLut-
ffTBtvrtvovroXn xec) vix 'Vuf^n x») Tatruv
TWV ^(iXiltlV (ioCfflXlS. KivTitJhv Xk) 01
rri; ^ivt'i^oc; ffuv'ooov clyioi TccTi^sg ^/iii~
ftffttvTo iXi^iv TOV lfr«r«#*«v a.uT?is tx
T^sa-fiiTcx, T'/is Tiu,n; /Jt-iToe, tov Itio-xotov Tfis
vr^icrjivTi^x-S 'VA>fz,yis, ^;a to uvoct xvTnv
y'iav '?ofji,nv. Balsam. Comment. Ibid,
p. 80.
'O 'KwffTotvTivov'TroXf.us /xsto, tov Tm-
fiflS TSTifi^jTcet, Tmv ccvtuv T^itrfiiiuv
Koci Trig oiuryis fjt,i6i^ii T/fjctii tm 'VufArtg
I'Ttffx'o'roo xoc) KuvtrTctyTnovroXin's Ifl-
trxoTos' xocSug xv.) i ilaotTTos oy^o'>?
xavMv Tiis Iv XaXxjjSov/ ffvvo^ov tov tct-
VOVOt ToZtoV iVOYIffi, ^iU, TO i'lVOil T-'CVTVIV
viscv 'Feofi'/iv, xoi) Tif/.yi$y,vai (ixa'tXita. Ti
x,ai ffvyxXyiTM' to yoco, M.ITOC,, ivTCtZdct,
6V Tni TtfM^?, OCXXOC TOV ^^ovou, iffr)
%yiXot)TixoV ui ay i'lToi Ttg, oti, /u,iTa,
voXXoh; ^^ovovs, tyu 'lirm Tif/,^s tm
'P'Uf/.ilS ftiTiff^i Kxi K/kiviTTavTivov
ToXiu;. Arist. Comment. Ibid. p. 90.
It will be seen, that in my transla-
tion of the canon I have liberally and
gratuitously favoured the Roman
Bishop, where I was in no wise bound
to pay him that compliment. I have
rendered the preposition fzira imme-
dialely after : and I have so con-
stnicted my version as to make it in-
timate, that a precedency of honour
was granted by the Council to the
Roman Patriarch above the Constanti-
nopolitan Patriarch. But Aristenus
gives an entirely different turn to the
clause. According to his explanation,
the preposition ^sra refers, not to
precedency even of mere barren honour^
but simply to chronological succession :
and thus he would make the true im-
port of the clause to be ; that, Rome
being the older capital than Constanti-
nople, the Bishop of Constantinople^
aft,er (fUTx) a considerable lapse of
time, became a partaker q/" equal ('i<r*is)
honour with the Bishop of Borne. I am
content, however, to let the Pope and
his admirers have the full benefit of
my own designedly liberal translation.
They have my free permission to un-
derstand fAtTcc of honour and not of
time.
CHAP, ni.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
229
prevalent custom : every Metropolitan being equally secured in the
due discharge of his own proper functions^.
Following in all things the decrees of the holy Fathers, says
the Council of Chalcedon, rated as the fourth Ecumenical
Council, and recognising the lately read Canon of the one
hundred and fifty most pious Bishops, we also define and
decree the same matters respecting the privileges of the most holy
Church of Constantinople which is new Rome. For to the
throne of old Rome, on account of that city being the imperial
city, the Fathers rightly granted privileges : and the hundred and
fifty most pious Bishops, moved by the same purpose, granted
equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome ; rightly
judging, that the city, honoured with the imperial sovereignty and
the senate, and enjoying equal secular privileges with the older
imperial Rome, should be magnified also like it in ecclesiastical
matters, being in rank the second city after it^.
' "E^a^s Tetvvv r? ccyia, xat olxovfAiviK^
ffuvodo), tru^KT^oci iKKirTn l^ra^i^^/a kccSoc^o.
Kxi a.p>let(rTa, to. uvr^ T^oiro'iiTa, OiKnia, £|
a.^'^ris oivtuhv, xxra, to 'Vot.'Knn x^ar^ffav
t6o;' cihna,v s^cvtos \>cix.(Ttov f^n'r^oToXlrov
TOi "(TO, ru\ 'TiT^Biyfjt.'iVUV TPOS TO OiKiTllV
a.j(poe.Xis ixXafiiiv. Concil. Ephes. can.
viii. in Bever. Synod, vol. i. p. 104.
This canon was specially made on
account of the attempt of the Pa-
triarch of Antioch to invade the ex-
empt jurisdiction of the Cj'prian
Church. It is adduced for the pur-
pose of she^ving, both how well de-
fined the prerogatives of the great
Patriai'chs were, and how jealously
any intrusion into a province which
severally belonged not to them was
guarded against.
^ UavTap^oZ TO?! tuv kyluv ^XTt^uv
O^Oti iTOfiiVOI, KO.) TCV X^TIOIS kiKtytuxt-
6'%)iTa. xBiviva ruv iKCtrov Tivrr.xovTo. 6io-
(piXiffToiruv iTHTKoTuv yva)^tZ,ovTii , rot,
avToe xeci *]fius opi^o/u,iv ti Kcct ^pfi<pi~
^o(/,i6«. <ri^t TMV T^itrjiiiMV T>it kyiuToi-
T*is iKKXyitrms KavcrTecvTivovToXicus vias
'VufjbTis- K«/ yk^ TM 6^ovM Ttjs w^sc/sK-
Ti^a; 'Veufjcn, oia, to ^affiXivnv t«v
fTflX/V IxilvnV, 01 <TOCTi^i$ UX6T60S aTo^s-
^a>XOt.(Tt TO, V^lfffillOC,, Kxl TU CCVTU
ffXO-TTM XIVOVfA-Vei, Of ixOCTOV •TiVT'/IXOVTOl,
ho(piXi(TTOt,TOI iXtirXOTOl TO, "taot, V^lff^llX
a^ivu/u,ctv TM Tjjf vs-rj 'Vufji.ni xyieDTctTM
6^0VIU' ivkoyug X^IVCCVTig, T^v (iocffiXila,
xoci ffuyxXi^riu rtf/,7>h7ira,v iroXiv, xot) tZv
Ti^cc (latriXl^t'Vuf^^, xect iv to7s ixxXriffiecff-
Ttxoli eo; Ixiivviv fiiya,Xvviff6ai 'TT^a.yfiOt.ffi
^iVTi^UV fAlT IxtivTiV VTU^^OVtrUV. COU-
cil. Chalced. can, xxviii, in Bever.
Synod, vol. i. p. 145.
I have here again favoured the
Eoman Bishop by understanding the
preposition ^sra of honour and not of
time, though I might have followed
those who judge otherv/ise. Never-
theless, as I have no wish to claim
any exaggerated praise for my in-
dulgence, I will fairly confess, in
despite of Aristenus, that I believe
my own interpretation, as it stands
in the text, to be the right one. In
good sooth, if the truth must come
out, Aristenus is completely laid
prostrate, while my own favourable
interpretation is no less completely
established, by the Fathers of the
sixth Ecumenical Council in Trullo,
These congregated Prelates deter-
mine, that the throne of Constanti-
nople should enjoy equal privileges
and prerogatives with the throne of
Eome : but that, in respect to the
grave point of honorific precedency,
Eome should walk first, then Constan-
tinople, then Alexandria, then Antioch,
and then (such is the caducity of all
ceremonial dignities) Jerusalem the
Mother of all Churches. Concil. in
Trull, can. xxxvi. in Bever. Synod.
230^
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
Thus we see, that, whatever either of patriarchal prerogative
or of honorific precedency was enjoyed by the Bishop of
Rome, he received it, not from any divine right but simply
from the grants of mere men, not as the successor of St. Peter
in a fabled Ecclesiastical Monarchy but simply as the Prelate
of a city which was the ancient capital of the Empire^
Nor is even this degrading view the whole view of the
question. The Ecumenical, and therefore (according to tlie
modern Latins) the infallible. Council of Chalcedon recognises,
in explicit terms, the right of the Emperor to erect Metro-
politan Sees by virtue of his imperial letters patent : so that,
although the general spiritual authority of a Bishop in the
Christian Church at large be derived neither from Princes nor
from Councils, those privileges of a Patriarch or a Metro-
politan, by which he exercises a geographically defined terri-
torial authority over suffragan diocesan Bishops, might be con-
ferred, not only through the sanction of an Ecumenical Synod,
but even by the direct mandate of a laic Emperor^.
vol. i. p. 198. In liis comment on this
canon, however, good Aristenus stiffly
contends for a perfect equality of
jurisdiction on the part of Rome and
Constantinople : a matter, grievously
fatal to the papal claims of an Uni-
versal Dominant Supremacy. I may
add also, though I speak against the
Pope and myself, that Aristenus, like a
sturdy canonist as he is, will not abate
one iota of bis interpretation of th e fifra.
To <rov KeoviTTiiivTivov^oXiUi ruv 'Itruv
OU'TUS iv TM T^'lTM XCtVOVt TYIS SV KuV-
(rTavTivovToXn ervvo^ov yi^f/,7jviuirxf^iv^ kcci
Iv TM ilxotTTM oyh'oM Ty,s IV 'Ka.XK'/idovt
ffvvo^sv' uffTi fm KOCTU, rhv riy-viv ^iuri^ov
TOV 'Feufiyis ToirTitr^aii, ctXXa Kura Tohs
P(^^ovovs. Ourea yovv kou Ivrecv^cc ou
voiTv, TYtv fMra. T^ohffiv tov ^^ovov uvoci
c»j>.«uT/x>)v, «XX' ch Tijs Tiy-rii. Msra
yu.0 ^^cvov; ToXXohs, Tuv 'laoov T^S(r/3s/&tv
tJj 'VaifjLo.'iMv IxxX'/iiTiix, xat o ^^cvos ovTog
tSJj KuvtrruvrivovproXicos 'irv^i' oiu to,
^ccffiXitec Ti xa.1 ffvyKXriToo 'nfjt,r,&7iva,i tyiv
^oXiv TXVTtjv, xett ToJv "(foov UTToXecviiv
v^tff^iiuv rri "r^KrPtvTiga, 'Vufji^. Arist.
Comment, in can. xxx^d. Concil. in
Trull, apud Bever. Synod, vol. i. p. 109.
This interesting dispute, respect-
ing the true import of the fiira,, fur-
nishes a beautiful exemplification of
the unspeakable benefit of Infalli-
bility, as possessed and exercised, for
the benefit of the hesitating Church,
by three acknowledged Ecumenical
Councils.
' The simple truth of the matter
was, that the spiritual territorial ar-
rangement of the Church was, for the
sake of convenience, made to corre-
spond with the secular territorial
arrangement of the Empire. This
circumstance is so notorious, that I
may well save myself the trouble of
dwelling upon it at large. See
Concil. Chalced. can. xvii. Concil.
Trull, can. xxxviii. Bai'on. Annal. in
ann. xxxix,
^ "Oa-ett Ti Ti^'/j ToXtts ^i«. y^ocfAfturav
(icco-iXixaJv VM Tijs fAyir^oTfoXius iri/u.r,^i^-
cuv ov'n(j(,oe,Ti, /uovyi; ocTroXKuiroKrocv Tni
rifA.7is- Concil. Chalced. can. xii. in
Bever. Synod, vol. i. p. 120.
On this, Balsamon remarks : Ta
fixffiXixa, T^otrrciyfAOfrct T^xy/x.oiTtxo}
rvrroi xiyovreu. Balsam. Comment.
Ibid. p. 120. These Pragmatical
Types were sometimes procured by
ambitious Prelates, who were de-
sirous of raising their Bishoprics
into Metropolitanships. The Coun-
cil condemns the practice: but de-
nies not, that the already existing
CHAP, m.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 231
(2. ) For the purpose of establishing the Roman Patriarch's
Dominant Supremacy over all the other Patriarchs no less
than his mere honorific precedence before them, some of the
more zealous Papalists have alleged, that an authoritative con-
firmation by the Pope was necessary to the canonical institution
of each newly elected Patriarch.
Such an allegation shews only the truth of the adage, that
a drowning man will catch at a straw. So completely is it
founded upon a gross suppression and misrepresentation of facts,
that it has actually been exposed by an honourable indivi-
dual even among the Romanists themselves. When Baronius,
through the allegation now before us, attempted to salve the
tottering Supremacy of his Pontiff, Peter de Marca, Arch-
bishop of Paris, preferring christian honesty to sacerdotal
management, at once demolished his idle plea by the very
simple process of exhibiting the truth and the whole truth.
Each Patriarch, when elected, the Roman Patriarch himself
just as much as any other Patriarch, communicated by letter his
election to all his patriarchal fellows, subjoining his profession
of the common faith, and requesting to be admitted by them
into full communion. This, in every case alike, was the regular
proceeding. The Patriarch elect of Constantinople or Antioch
or Alexandria did, indeed, write letters communicatory to the
Patriarch of Rome, according to the tenor and purport which
have been stated: but then the Patriarch of Rome elect
equally wrote exactly similar letters to the Patriarchs of Con-
stantinople and Antioch and Alexandria^. Hence, on the part
Metropolitansliips had been right- in the Sovereign, How Dr. Wise-
fiilly established by these imperial man and his ambitious associates,
mandates. T«f [ji-ivrat <r^o rov toc^ov- whether Papists aboriginally, or mi-
Tos Havivos, Tiftn^iltras i>cxXyi<rixs otTo serable Perverts from the Church of
iTio'xo'^rMv ug (/.nr^oTtoXn? xocto, cr^aiTTa- England, reconcile this impertinence
|/v (huffiXiKw, ^lopj^iTxi i^^iiv (jLovnv 7-^y of their Italian Master with the In-
Tifji-m. Balsam. Ibid. p. 126, 127. fallibility of the Ecumenical Council
I may in the present day (Dec. 12, of Chalcedon which gives the appoint-
1850,) well remark, that this circum- ment of Metropolitans to the direct
stance bears very curiously upon the mandate of a Laic Sovereign, I pre-
recent sUly insolence of Pius IX. tend not to determine. Certainly,
exhibited in his appointment of a the Infallibility of the Council of
Territorial Metropolitan and twelve Clialcedon, and the Infallibility of
TcrritoHal Suffragan Bishops within that profound Divine Pope Pius IX.
this independent realm of England, are, most amusingly, at issue,
the right of marking out Territorial * Quippe usu receptura erat per
Bishoprics, though not of consecrat- illas tempestates, ut Patriarchs, et
ing the Bishops thereof, being vested ipse etiam Romanus Pontifex recens
232 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
of the Pope, as de Marca well observes, liis confirmation of the
eastern Patriarchs was no sign of dominant jurisdiction, but
only a testimonial that he received them into communion and
assented to their consecration^.
The strict accuracy of that highly respectable Prelate Peter
de Marca is fully established by the unexceptionable testimony
of Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third
century. He states, that, not merely the greater Patriarchs,
but even the whole College of Bishops, confirmed, by their
expressed assent, the election of Cornelius to the Bishopric of
Rome: and he adds, that letters testimonial, respecting the
ordination of Cornelius, were sent from Rome to himself and
to the other African Bishops; who, upon the receipt of them,
by their unanimous assent confirmed his appointment^.
Thus, we see, in the third century, the confirmation of the
Roman Bishop by the other Bishops his equals was no less
requisite, for the purpose of preserving ecclesiastical unity, than
the confirmation of other Bishops by the Roman Bishop. It
was a confirmation strictly mutual and reciprocal : whence, of
course, it could, on neither side, import any right of dominant
jurisdiction. Accordingly, when Pope Leo I, in the fifth
century, confirmed the election of Anatolius, he expressly
stated, that he did it to preserve throughout the whole world
the integrity of one communion^.
But even this is not the whole. At the close of the fourth
electus, literas de sua ordinatione episcoporum testimonio quorum nu-
mitterent ; quibus addebatur pro- merus universus per totum mundum
fessio fidei, in synodicis eorum epist- concordi unanimitate consensit. — Et
olis conscripta. Petr. de Marc, de factus est Episcopus a plurimis col-
Concord. Sacerdot. et Imper. lib. vi. legis nostris, qui tunc in urbe Koma
c. 6. § 2. vol. ii. p. 78. ed. Paris. 1668. aderant : qui ad nos literas honorifi-
* Qiod ad Patriarchas attinet, re- cas et laudabiles et testimonio suai
Bponderi potest : Confirmationem il- prsedicationis illustres de ejus ordina-
lara non esse signum jurisdictionis, tione raiserunt. — Quo (loco) occupato
sed tantum susceptionis in commu- de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nos-
nionem, et testimonium quo consta- trum consentione firmato : quisquis
bat, summum Pontificem consentire jam Episcopus fieri voluerit, foris fiat
consecrationi jam peractfe. Petr. de necesse est. Cyprian. Epist. Iv. Oper.
Marc, de Cone. Sacerd, et Imp. lib. vol. ii. p. lOi, 105.
vi. c. 5. § 2. Ibid. ^ ut per totum mundum una nobis
' Venio jam nunc, frater carissime, sit unius communionis integritas ; in
ad personam Cornelii collegre nostri : qua siDcietatem ture dilectionis am-
ut Cornelium nobiscum verius nove- plectimur, et gestorum qua3 sumpsi-
ris, non de malign orum et detrahen- mus seriem, necessariis munitam
tium mendacio, sed de Domini Dei subscriptionibus, approbamus. Pap.
judicio qui Episcopum fecit, et Co- Leon. I. Epist. xxxviii.
CHAP, ni.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 233'
century and at the beginning of the fifth, three successive
Popes, Damasus and Siricius and Anastasius, refused to con-
firm Flavian, the Patriarch of Antioch. Their refusal, how-
ever, was determined to be no impediment to his exercise of
the just functions of his Patriarchate : for, since all the Oriental
and Asiatic and Pontic and Thracian and Illyrican Churches
had confirmed him and were in communion with him : it was
very reasonably held, that the mere solitary additional con-
firmation of the Roman Patriarch and his Occidental Suffragans
could not, in any wise, be deemed necessary and essential. If
that Patriarch were determined peevishly to stand out against
the whole Christian World, the whole Christian World was
not to be paralysed out of compliment to his unreasonable ob-
stinacy'.
III. We now come finally to the very basis of the whole
monstrous superstructure of universal suprejuacy as claimed
by the Bishop of Rome.
The foundation of the claim is the alleged fact that Peter
was the first Roman Pontiff. From this alleged fact it is
argued : that, as Peter, the divinely constituted Bishop of the
whole Catholic Church, was also the first Diocesan Bishop of
Rome ; the line of his Diocesan Successors must all^ severally,
from him, inherit the same Universal Supremacy that he pos-
sessed.
Such an argument is professedly built upon an asserted
Historical Fact. But where is the substantiation of the Fact
itself? The earliest authority which we have respecting the
present matter is that of Ireneus. Now that venerable Prelate,
in a manner which cannot be mistaken because he repeatedly
makes a numerical statement, assures us, that not Peter, but
Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.
His account is: that Peter and Paul conjointly organised
the Roman Church ; and that, when they had thus organised
what was originally a handful of insulated believers, they
conjointly delivered the Episcopate of the new Church to Linus^.
• Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. tutre. — Funtlantes igitur et instru-
c. '23. entes, beati Apostoli, Ecclesiara,
' Successiones maximfe et anti- Lino Episcopatum administrandae
quissimffi et ab omnibus cognitce a Ecclesia^tradiderunt. Succedit autem
gloriosisajmis duobus ApostoHs Petro ei Anacletus : post eum tertio loco
et Paulo, Rom 86 fundatse et consti- ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur
234 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
Hence Linus was the first Diocesan Bishop of Rome: and, hence,
whatever jurisdiction the present Bishop of Rome may have by
virtue of succession in the See, he can only have, even ex pro-
fesso, the jurisdiction of the first Bishop ; which first Bishop,
according to Ireneus our oldest authority, was Linus, not Peter.
Li truth, notliing can be more monstrous than the popish
figment. Peter, so far from being the first Bishop, was not
even the exclusive founder or rather organiser of the Church.
In that fxmction, Paul is associated with him : so that, if the
Apostolic Organising of a Church makes the Apostolic Orga-
niser the^^'s^ Diocesan Bishop, Paul must be rated as the first
Bishop of Rome, just as much as Peter. On such a supposition,
therefore, we shall have, con,trary to the well-known judgment
of the Early Church, tivo conjoint Bishops simultaneously pre-
siding in the same See^
Thus insecure is the very professed basis itself of the Uni-
versal Supremacy of the Roman PontiflP. He claims, as the
Diocesan Successor of Peter; whereas,. Peter never was the
Diocesan Bishop of Rome.
Clemens. Huic autem Clementi Iran. adv. lia?,r. lib. iii. c. 3. p. 170,
succedit Euaristus : et, Euaristo, 171.
Alexander: ac deinceps sextus ab ' See ante, p. 71. Note •.
Apostolis constitutus est Sixtus.
CHAPTER IV.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Unlike many of tlie Peculiarities of the Roman Church, such
as Purgatory, Saint -Worship, Image -Worship, and the like,
the Doctrine of Transubstantiation professes to rest upon the
solid foundation of Scripture itself. But, when we come to
examine the real state of the matter, that Doctrine will be found
to rest, not so much upon Scripture itself, as upon the latin
interpretation of Scripture.
In regard to the bare words of Scripture, there is no dis-
pute between the Catholic of the Roman Church and the
Catholic of the Anglican Church. The dispute respects, not
the occurrence of the words, but their import. That our Lord
said of the bread and wine. This is my body and This is my
blood, all are agreed : what he meant by such expressions, is a
question still litigated. The Romanist contends, that the ex-
pressions ought to be understood literally : the Anglican con-
tends, that they ought to be understood figuratively. Hence,
when the Romanist would prove the Doctrine of Transubstan-
tiation from Scripture, the Anglican denies the validity of his
proof : for he alleges, that the pretended proof rests, not upon
Scripture itself, but only upon a gratuitous and unacknow-
ledged interpretation of Scripture.
On this principle, the Anglican maintains, that the Roman-
ist's asserted proof from Scripture is nothing better than a pal-
pable Begging of the Question: and he urges, apparently not
without reason, that the Romanist ought to demonstrate the
truth of his own particular mterpretation, ere he can be allowed
236 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [liOOK II.
to adduce it controversially iii the way of evidence. In the ab-
stract, the words. This is my Body and This is my Blood, may
doubtless be understood literally : for there is nothing, either in
their conventionally inherent sense or in their just grammatical
construction, which precludes the possibility of such an accep-
tation. But the same words may, doubtless, be also understood
figuratively : for the whole analogy of scriptural language, so
far from contradicting, is in truth favourable to, such an expo-
sition ^
Now, even putting other testimony aside, the Anglican
thinks, that Scripture alone, when Scripture is compared with
Scripture, most abundantly decides the question in his favour ;
while, on the part of his adversary, the place of legitimate com-
parative argument is supplied by nothing more convincing,
than a positive and reiterated assertion of the exclusive and
necessary propriety of the literal interpretation. But the
Romanist, though he produces no argument from Scripture
itself to establish the truth of his exposition, denies the validity
and conclusiveness of the scriptural proofs alleged by the An-
glican : while he contends, that the gloss of the Anglican is a
mere gratuitous innovation upon the ancient and universally
received interpretation of our Lord's now litigated phraseology.
Under these circmnstances, the dispute, if it be confined to
Scripture, must plainly be interminable ; for the dispute respects
the true interpretation of Scripture ; and, as neither party will
admit the propriety of the other party's interpretation, so the
Anglican is not more disposed to yield to the unmixed dog-
' Solet autem res, quae significat, tends for the literal interpretation of
ejus rei nomine quam significat nun- our Lord's words : why does he not
cupari : sicut scriptum est ; Sejjlem analogously contend for the literal
spicee septem anni sunt : non enim interpretation of St. Paul's words in
dixit, septem annos significant. Et the case of the Baptismal Sacra-
septem loves septem anni sunt: et ment? Our Lord, in the letter, does
multa hujusmodi. Hinc est, quod not more distinctly say, that the con-
dictum est : Petra erat Christus. Non secroted elements are his body and
enim dixit, pet ra significat Christum: his blood; than St. Paul, in the
sed tanquam hoc esset, quod utique letter, says, that As many of yon, as
per substantiam non hoc erat, sed have been baptised into Christ, have
per significationem, August. Qusest. put on christ. Gal. iii. 27. His
lib. iii. super Levit. quaest. 57. Oper. precise words are 'S.otffTov hthCffxirh :
torn. iv. p. 85. and torn. iii. col. 516. yet no one thence supposes, that we
ed. Bened. literally put on Chiist as a gar-
When, in the case of the Euchar- ment.
istic Sacrament, the Romanist con-
CHAP. lY.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 237
matism of the Romanist, than the Romanist is disposed to bow
before the scriptural arguments of the Anglican ^
To settle the dispute, therefore, we must seek evidence ex-
trinsic from Scripture : and, since the Romanist, for his inter-
pretation, claims the sanction of Antiquity ; he himself points
out the precise quarter where we are to look for testimony.
Simply, then, as a point of fact, I venture to assert, that, so
far from Antiquity being friendly to the scheme of literal inter-
pretation, it is decidedly hostile : for, under almost every possible
mode and form, it rejects the literal exposition of our Lord's
words in favour of their figurative exposition.
For the due establishment of this assertion, it is now my
business to cite evidence.
I. I shall begin with producing statements, which, by neces-
sary result and implication, demonstrate, that the ancients must
have understood our Lord's phraseology not literally but figura-
tively.
I. Let us first hear the venerable Iren^us, while, in a frag-
ment happily preserved by Ecumenius, he propounds the lan-
guage employed by the martyr Blandina during the persecution
which occurred at Lyons in the year 177.
The Greeks, having apprehended the slaves of those who were
questio7ied, attempted to learn from them, through the medium of
torture, some secret 7'especting the Christians. Whereupon, not
having any thing to speak satisfactory to their torturers, those
slaves, inasmuch as they had heard from, their mobsters that the
divine communion was the blood and body of Christ, fancying that
it was REALLY blood and flesh, gave this account to the examiners.
But they , forthivith taking it for granted that this was done in the
• No one, I trust, will so far mis- manist who declares that his con-
understand me, as to suppose, that I viction is precisely opposite. Here,
here confess the true sense of Scrip- then, the dispute, i? confined to Scrip-
ture, as it regards the Doctrine of ture, must needs be interminable :
the Eucharist, to be wholly uncer- and, on this ground alone, do I ap-
tain. I confess no such thing. On peal to extrinsic evidence. My prin-
the contrary, I am fully satisfied, that ciples have been so pertinaciously
Scripture, when fairly and honestly misrepresented by sundry well-mean-
compared with Scripture, is alto- ing though not very clear-headed
gether hostile to the Dogma of men, as if I were introducing an
Transubstantiation, and requires no additional Rule of Faith, that I
extrinsic evidence to determine its have thought it advisable here to
real import. Bui, in the way of repeat my often given, though
argument, my own conviction will determinately disregarded, explana-
plainly avail nothing with a Ro- tion.
238
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
secret ceremonial of the Chi'istians, communicated the information
to the other Greeks : and they then proceeded, through tortures, to
attempt to wAng a confession from the 'martyrs Sanctus and
Blandina. To them, however, Blandina boldly and aptly replied:
How can those persons endure to perpetrate such deeds, who^
through ascetic severity, indulge not even in permitted fiesh'^'^
The apt answer of Blandina, tliougli thrown into the form
of a retortive question, is implicatively a palpable denial, that
Christians, in the celebration of the Eucharist, substantially eat
the flesh and drank the blood of their divine Master. But,
assuredly, no such denial, could have been made with truth, if
the primitive Christians had held the tridentine doctrine : that
The lohole substance of the bread is co?iver'ted into the substance of
the body of Christ, and the ivhole substance of the ivine into the
' Ka< s7ris (iovXiTOii rovnro iJi,a,h7v, Ix,
vuv 'Eloyi^aioo tm Aovydovvav -rns KsXr/-
K^S l^itrxo-XM, "ffi^) 'la.yKrou kcu BXav-
%'iV7is TMv //.ecoTu^uv, y^ci(pivrMV, [aA^oi
civ ocK^i^us. 'CLg %\ Oiu, (i^ct^iuv iTa^a-
6i(r6a,i, 'iari recvroi.
'X.ciffTiavuv ya,^ xaryi^ovfAivuv douXov;
'EXA.>j»sj ffvXXa(iovris, tirot, (ji-kSuv r)
'Z'a.^a, Tovruv dyi^iv u^rcppnrov "ri^i X^kt-
TiocvMv uvayxd^ovTis' ol ^oZXoi ovroi, f/,yi
i^ovns Tus TO to); a.vtt,yx,iiil^/)u<ji x,a,f
ri^ovTiv i^iTv, 7ea.goiTo\ n-Aovov ruv ^is-^orajv,
rhv htav fAiToiX'/i'^iv atfAot k«) ffZfjLo,
ttvai X^tiTTov, avTot vofi'iiravTSs -~m ovri
alfAOt, X.OU aagKO, iivoci, rovro i^tlTov rots
iKl^nTouffi. Ol 5s XafhovTis ai; scvTo^ptjfioe,
TOVTO viXilffSoLi X^ia-TixvoTs , xcti d^ ToZro
roTs eiXXoig "EXky,tri i'^tvrby.Tivov. Kou tous
ftu^rv^as 'SdyKrov xa) Bkav^'ivi^v o/naXo-
yrifxa.i Oio, ^mixiivaiv ^vciyKx^ov, Olg iv-
ffTO^us BXav5iv»j Xvapp'/KTioLffaTo, TIm; civ,
tlToZffoc, Tovruv avci/T^oivro, ol f/,yi 5s tuv
i<Piif/.iva)v K^iuv 5/ a.ffxrio'tv a^oXecuovTig ;
CEcum. Comment, in I Petr. iii. 12.
Comment, vol, ii. p. 498. Paris. 1631.
The Bishop of Strashourg has
honoured me, by criticising, after a
manner pecuharly his own, my trans-
lation of this passage.
I. I had rendered the word
i^ccpptio'iKa-oe.To, boldly replied : certainly
concei\ing, that I had committed no
very deadly sin against greek philo-
logy.
Whereupon, the Bishop, not (as
an ordinary critic would have done)
turning to the greek original, hut on
the contrary resorting rather to the
latin version, there discovers the
word scite.
Upon this, exulting in the success
of his examination, he fortln\ith
triumphantly calls upon his laic
friend, to ask me what scite means ;
and strenuously exhorts him, even to
press me to give its true sense : fur-
thermore remarking, with equal truth
and sagacity, that boldly is not the
meaning of scite; however, for the
gaining of my own private ends, I
may he disposed to ascribe to it such
a meaning.
Thus runs the criticism of Dr.
Trevern. Unluckily, he did not
chance to discover, that my english
word boldly was brought, neither out
of the latin scite nor yet out of the
corresponding Greek iva-'ro;^as, but
out of the famihar complex import
of the verb I'TrapptKnoia'ecTo.
Had Dr. Trevern, instead of run-
ning to the latin version, first con-
sulted the greek original, and next
(if labouring under any doubt)
turned to a dictionary: he would
have found, that the verb vetppyKna.-
^ofji,a.i denotes, in latin lihere dico,
in english to speak freely or boldly.
II. In the remarkable word scite,
the Bishop detects a plain indica-
tion of the special cleverness of Blan-
dina in repelling the accusation,
without revealing the secret of Tran-
substantiation : a secret, which, from
the present passage, he rapidly learns
to have been quite familiar to her.
CILVP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 239
substance of the blood of Christ Therefore, either the holy
martyr Blandina died with a he in her mouth, or the primitive
Christians held not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
The same result, I may add, is brought out by the very
phraseology which Ireneus employs in his narrative.
He tells us, that the slaves, in consequence of having heard
from their masters that the divine communion was the body
and blood of Christ, fancied that it was really flesh and blood.
Now such language plainly imports, that, what the slaves
only fancied, was an error. In other words, it imports: that,
in the judgment of Ireneus and the Church of the second cen-
tury, the consecrated bread and wine were not realhj or mate-
rially, but only figuratively and sacramentally, the body and
blood of Christ.
2. Let us next hear the homogeneous reasoning of Tertul-
tuUian.
We must not call our senses in question, lest we shoidd doubt
7'especting their fidelity even in the case of Christ himself For,
if we question their fidelity , ive might peradventure be led to say :
that Christ falsely beheld Satan precipitated from heaven ; or
falsely heard the voice of his Father testifying of him ; or was
deceived, when he touched Peter's mother-in-law ; or smelt a diffe-
rent odour of the ointment, which he received for his sepulture; or
tasted a different flavour of the wine, which he consecrated in
memory of his own blood^.
No person, who believed a doctrine contradictory to the
animal senses, could thus, in respect to the consecrated wine,
have argued for the fidelity of the animal senses.
3. Let us next hear the statement of Cyprian.
When Christ says; I am the true vine: the blood of Christ is
not water, but v-ine. His blood, by which we are redeemed and
vivified, cannot be seen in the cup, when wine, by which the blood
of Christ is shewn, is wanting to the cup : for, by the sacrament
' Non licet nobis in diibium sensus Petri socrum tetigit ; aut alium
istos revocare, ne et in Christo de postea unguenti senserit spiritum,
fide eornm deliberetur. Ne forte quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit ;
dicatiir: quod falso Satanam pro- alium postea vini saporem, quod in
spectarit de ccelo prfecipitatura ; aut sanguinis sui memoiiam consecravit.
falso vocem Patris audierit de ipso Tertull.deanim.Oper.p.653.orcap.l7.
testificatam ; aut deceptus sit, cum vol. iv. p. 245. ed. HaltB Magd. 1771.
240 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. f BOOK II.
and testimony of all the Scriptures, that blood is declared to have
been poured outK
Cyprian, we see, joins together, as homogeneous in point of
phraseology, Christ's declaration / am the True Vine, and
Christ's expression This is my Blood. But the declaration is
confessedly figurative. Therefore, by the very necessity of his
collocative arrangement, Cyprian must have deemed the expres-
sion figurative also.
Upon the present passage, it may be additionally remarked :
that, by a singular inversion of terms, Cyprian reduces the
romish plea oi Literalism to a palpable absurdity.
He does not say ; The wine is the blood of Christ : but he
says, inversely : The blood of Christ is the wine.
Hence, if, as the Romanists urge, the direct proposition
demonstrates the literal transubstantiation of the wine into
Christ's blood: the inverse proposition, as given by Cyprian,
must equally demonstrate the literal transubstantiation of
Christ's blood into wine.
4. Let us next attend to the similar reasoning of Theodoret.
Jacob called the blood of the Saviour the blood of the grape.
For, if the Lord be denominated a vine, and if the fruit of the
vine be called wine, and if from the side of the I^ord fountains of
blood and water circulating through the rest of his body passed to
the lower parts : well and seasonably did the patriarch say ; He
washed his garments in wine, and his raiment in the blood of
grapes. As we, then, call the mystic fruit of the vine, after its
consecration, the blood of the Lord : so Jacob called the blood of
the true vine the blood of the grape. — Our Saviour, indeed, inter-
changed the names : for to his body he gave the name of the
symbol, ivhile to the symbol he gave the name of his body ; and,
having thus called himself a vine, he applied the appellation of his
blood to the symbol. — But the scope of such language is perfectly
familiar to those, who have been initiated into the Mysteries. For
our Lord required : that they, who partake of the divine Mysteries,
' Cum dicat Christus ; Ego sum vinum desit calici : quo Christo san-
vitis vera : sanguis Christi non aqua guis ostenditur, qui scripturarum
est utique, sed vinum. Nee potest omnium sacramento ac testimonio
videii sanguis ejus, quo redemti et effusus pra^di.atur. Cyprian. Epist.
vivificati yumus, esse in calice, quando Ixiii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 148.
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
241
should not atte^id to the nature of the things which they see ; hut
iJiat, in the change of names, they should believe that change which
is wrought by grace : inasmuch as he, who called his own natural
body wheat and bread and who further bestowed upon himself the
appellation of a vine, honoured also the visible symbols with the
name of his body and blood; not changing their nature, but adding
grace to nature'^.
This passage is analogous to the preceding statement of
Cyprian : but it surpasses it in strength. Through the mouth
of his speaker Orthodoxus, and thus professedly exhibiting
orthodoxy as orthodoxy stood in the fifth century, Theodoret
first teaches us, that the reason, why Christ denominated the
sacramental wine his own blood, was, because he had previously
denominated himself a vine ; for, if Christ be figuratively a vine,
homogeneity requires that the juice of the vine should be
figuratively the blood of Christ : next assures us, that the lan-
guage, which inculcates the doctrine of only a sacramental or
moral change in the consecrated elements, was familiar to all
those, who had been initiated into the Mysteries: and lastly
declares, even in so many words, that no change, by virtue of
consecration, tal^es place in the nature or in the physical sub-
stance of those elements^.
AiffTorris cava f^ecff rat, o Se ttJs afji-TfiXou
xa^TOi oivas 'r^otrayo^ivira.i, alfjictroi Ss
xa) u^ctTos ix tUs tou Asff'roTou ^Xiu^eis
x^ovvoi v^ocr^iSivTis %ia. rov Kofpfou ffufi-a.-
Tos %<t\ to. xdru ^^i^xSov' uxorui u^a
nXuvii £v otvM rriv trrokhv eevrov, xui iv
aifAuri a'Ta<puXris Ttjv W£^//3aA^v etVTov,
"ilff^i^ ya^ tlfizTs rov /ucuo'tixov rns a.f/t.-
viXov xa^Tov, fjiSTa, rov aytafffAov, titfjboc.
"hiffTorixov ovofcd^ofAiv' ouru rrii aXfiSivriS
ufCTiXov TO ectf/,x trTa,(pvXris uvofAccffiv oitf^a.
— 'O Vi yi 2<wr*)^ o fifAin^os Iv^XXct^t ra
ovo/xaTct' xou ru fAv ffdifji.a,Ti ro tou
(rvfjt,(hoXou TiSuxiv ovof/ta, tm ^l o-Vfi(ioXu
TO TOU ffuf/,aTOi' ouTeog, a.fjt'Ti.Xov Icturov
evofiacras, aJfAoe, to trvfji.fioXovTf^offyiyo^iuffiv.
— AjjXas trxoTos to7s tu 6i7a fiiuunfiivoi;.
'HfiouXi^^t) yec^ tous tuv 6iiuv fcvarfi^'iuv
(jbiTotXety^oivovTas, fjLvi rri (puffii tuv (iXi-
TOfiivcov T^oiri^uv, uXXo, ^loc, tUs tuv evo-
fiaTuv ivaXXayUst TiffTivitv t»j ix Tns
^ei^iTOi ytyivfifiivri /u-iTctfioX^. 'O ya^
^h TO (putfti ffu[Aa, (tItov xa.) a^rov •Y^oir-
ayo^iuffocs, xat au 'TaXiv lavTov ecfcrtXov
ovofAoiffus , ouTos TX o^uf/.ivaL (rufJt,^oXa t^
TOU ffet)f/.ee,Tos xa) ctifAKTOs T^offnyo^nj
TiTtfjtnxiv, oh Tijv (pufftv fiBTafidXXeaiif
aXXoi rhv ^d^iv t5J (fiuru vpofTi^uxug.
Theodoret. Dial, i.' Oper. vol. iv. p. 17,
18. Paris. 1643. and capp. 7, 8. ed.
Tiguri, 1593.
^ Dr. Trevem, who is apt to resort
to confident assertion when argu-
ment and evidence fail him, roundly,
according to his wont, denies the
homogeneousness of the two expres-
sif)ns, / am tlie vine, and This is my
Mood : whence he dogmatises, that,
although the former ought to be in-
terpreted //(/i/ra^irt'/y, the latter ought
doubtless to be interpreted literally.
Discuss, Amic. vol. i. p. 295.
It is his misfortune, we see, to dis-
agree, both with Cyprian in the third,
and with Theodoret in the fifth, cen-
tm'y. According to these ancient ec-
clesiastics, since Christ is symbolised
242 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
5. Let us next hear the doctrine advocated by Jerome.
A II lovers of pleasure, rather than lovers of God, — inasmuch
as they are unholy in body and in spirit, neither eat the flesh of
Christ, nor drink his blood. Concerning which he himself speaks :
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.
For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed^.
All outward communicants, whether holy or unholy, eat and
drink the material elements of the consecrated bread and wine.
Therefore, according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation,
holy and unholy alike, eat and drink the body and blood of
Christ. But Jerome declares, that the body and blood of
Christ are not received by the unholy. Therefore Jerome
could have known nothing of the Doctruie of Transubstan-
tiation.
He again speaks exactly to the same purpose in his Comment
on Hosea.
They sacrifice many victims and eat their flesh: but they
desert the alone victim Christ ; for they no not eat the flesh of
him, inasmuch as his flesh is the food 0/ believers-.
If Christ's flesh be the food of believers only: then un-
believers do not eat it, though they may eat the consecrated
bread.
6. Let us next hear the parallel statements of St. Augustine.
Persons of this description must not be said to eat the body of
Christ, inasmuch as they are not to be reckoned among the mem-
bers of Christ. — WJien he said; W7ioso eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood, he remaineth in me, and I in Mtyi : he
shewed, what it is to eat the body of Christ and to drhik hU
blood, not merely so far as the sacrament is concerned, but verily
and indeed : for this is to remain m Christ, that Christ also
by a vine, his blood is consistently bibit saugninem menm, habet vitam
and analogically symbolised by the cBternam. Etenim pascha nostrum
juice or allegorical blood of the vine. immolatus est Christus. Hieron.
Truly, they would have been amazed Comment, in Esai. Ixvi. 17. Oper.
at the theory, which makes the -sane vol. iv. p. 226. Col. Agripp. 1016.
figurative and the blood literal. ^ Isti multas imraolant hostias, et
' Omnes voluptatis magis ama- comedunt carnes earum : unam
tores, quam amatores Dei, — dum non Christi hostiam deserentes, nee co-
sunt sancti corpore et spiritu, nee medentes ejus carnem ; cujus caro
comedunt carnem Jesu, nee bibunt cibus credentium est. Hieron. Com-
sanguinem ejus. De quo ipse loqui- ment. in Osee viii. Oper. vol. v. p.
tur : Qui comedil caruem meam, et .^8.
I
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 243
should remain in him. For he thus spake it as if he should say :
WJioso remaineth not in me, nor I in him ; let not that person
assert or imagine, that he eateth my body or drinketh my bloodK
To believe in him is to eat the living bread. He, who believeth
in him, eateth. — We also to-day receive visible food: but a sacra-
ment is one thing : and the virtue of a sacrament, another. How
many receive from the altar and die ; nay die, even by the very
act of receiving. — The true recipient is, he who eats internally,
not he who eats externally : he who eats in his heart, not he who
presses with his tooth. — He, who remaineth not in Christ and in
whom Christ doth not remain, beyond all doubt n£ither eats his
flesh nor drinks his blood, although carnally and visibly he may
press luith his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ:
but he rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a thing to
his own condemnation^.
The remark on the language of Jerome equally applies to the
strictly analogous language of Augustine.
7. Finally, not to weary with a superfluity of evidence, let us
hear the still parallel statement of Raban of Mentz even so late
as the earlier part of the ninth century.
27ie Lord willed, that the sacraments of his body and blood
' Nee isti ergo dicendi sunt man- manducat {spiritaliter) carnera ejus,
ducare corpus Christi, quoniam nee nee bibit ejus sanguinem; licet ear-
in membris computandi sunt Christi. naliter et visibiliter premat dentibus
— Ipse dicens, Qui manducat carnem sacramentum corporis et sanguinis
meani et bibit sanguinem meum, in me Christi : sed magis tantse rei saera-
manet, et ego in eo ; ostendit, quid sit, mentum ad judicium sibi manducat
non Sacramento tenus, sed revera, et bibit. August. Expos, in Evan,
corpus Christi manducare et ejus Joan, tract, xxvi. Oper. vol. ix. p. 78,
sanguinem bibere : hoe est enim in 80, 81. Col. Agripp. 1616.
Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et In the second edition of this Work,
Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tan- I cited the principal clause of the
quam diceret : Qui non in me manet, foregoing passage precisely as it
et in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat stands in the Cologne edition of
aut existimet manducare corpus meum Augustine : Nee manducat SPIRITALI-
aut bibere sanguinem meum. August. ter carnem ejus. I was not then
de Civ. Dei, lib. xxi. c. 25. aware, that the woi'd spiritaliter is an
^ Credere enim in eum, hoc est interpolation, and that the Louvaine
manducare panem vi^alm. Qui ere- Divines fairly confess its non-oceur-
dit in eum, manducat. — Nam et nos rence in the MSS. Even with the
hodie accipimus %isibilem cibum : interpolation, the clause is abund-
sed aliud est sacramentum : aliud, antly strong against Transubstantia-
virtus sacramenti. Qnam multi de tion ; but, without it, the clause is
altari accipiunt, et moriuntur: et ac- absolutely fatal to it. See Soames's
cipiendo moriuntur. — Qui manducat Inquiry into the Doctrines of the
intus, non foris; qui manducat in Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 401-404.
corde, non qui premit dente. — Qui Our twenty-ninth Article accurately
non manet in Christo, et in quo non cites the clause ivithout the spmious
manet Christus, proculdubio nee spiritaliter.
244 DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [jiOOK 11,
should he received by the mouth of the faithful and should he
reduced into their aliment: that so, through a visible body, an
invisible effect might he shewn. — At the Lord's table, the sacra-
ment of this thing is, by some, received to life ; by others, to de-
struction : but the thing itself is received, by every man to life, by
no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker of it,
that is, whosoever shall have been associated as a member to Christ
the head in the kingdom of heaven ; for a sacrament is one thing,
hut the virtue of a sacrament is another thing. The sacrament is
received by the mouth : by tlie virtue of the sacrament the inner
man is satiatedK
It will readily be perceived, how deeply the good Prelate of
Mentz had drunk into the spirit of Augustine. He adopts
even his very words. A sacrament is one thing : the virtue of a
sacrament is another thing.
II. I shall next produce statements, in which the conse-
crated elements are said to be types or antitypes or figures or
symbols or images or representations of the body and blood of
Christ; appending to them such remarks as may be appro-
priate to the subject.
L The statements on this point are the following.
(1.) Let us first hear the sentiments of Ireneus, the scholar
of Polycarp the disciple of St. John.
They, who have followed, the last ordinances of the Apostles,
know, that the Lord appointed a new oblation in the new Co-
venant according to the words of Malachi the jyrophet : Where-
• Maluit Dorainus corporis et san- Tridentine Fathers, through the me-
guinis sui sacramenta lidelium ore diuni of which they attempt to rid
l^ereipi, et in pastum eorum redigi : themselves of an ohvious difficulty
ut, per visibile corpus, invisibilis os- inherent in the very nature of an
tenderetur eflfectus. — Hujus rei sacra- actual transubstantiation.
mentum de mensa dominica assumi- If the matter, received in the par-
tur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ticipation of the Eucharist, be di-
ad exitium : res vero ipsa, omni (jested and reduced into ailment, as
homini ad vitam nuUi ad exitium, Eaban asserts with Justin and Ire-
quicunque ejus particeps fuerit, id neus and Tertullian : then, assu-
est, Christo capiti membrum as- redly, the Tridentine Fathers must
sociatus fuerit in regno coelesti ; have decided, and the Romish Clergy
quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud must still teach, very differently from
virtus sacramenti. Sacramentum the early Doctors of the Church,
enim ore percipitur : virtute sa- when they maintain ; that The tran-
cramenti interior homo satiatur. Ha- substantiated elements are not ob-
ban. Mam-, de Instit. Cler. lib. i. c. 31. noxious to corporal contingencies. See
Eaban's expression, in pastum Concil. Trident, sess. xxii. c. 1. p.
eorum redigi, is plainly quite irrecou- 238. and Berington's Faith of Ca-
cileable with tliat decision of the thol. p. 244.
GHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 245
fore,f7'07n the rising of the sun even to his setting, my name has
been gloHjied among the nations, and in every place incense is
offered to my nanie and a clean sacrifice. As also John says, in
the Apocalypse : The incense is the prayers of the saints, Paul
likevnse exhorts, that we should present our bodies a living sacri-
fice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service.
And again : Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit
of our lips. For these oblations are not according to the Law,
tohose handwriting the Lord, having blotted out, hath taken away
from the midst ; but they are according to the spiiit : for, in spirit
and in truth, we must worship God. Wherefore also the obla-
tion of the Eucharist is not carnal but spiritual, and in that
respect pure. For we offer unto God the bread and the cup
of blessing, giving thanks unto him, because he has commanded
the earth to produce these fruits for our food : and then, having
finished the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that he would
7nake this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the
cup the blood of Christ ; in order that they, who partake of these
ANTITYPES, may obtain remission of sitis and life eternal. Where-
fore they, who bring these oblations in remembrance of the Lord,
approach not to the dogmas of the Jews : but, liturgising spi-
ritually, they shall be called the sons of wisdoniK
^lara^iiri Tu^nxoXov^nKOTif iVao-/, rov y^ iKiXivai tK^vffect tovs ku^tovs rou-
Kv^iov viav 'r^otr<po^oiv iv rn xaiv^ "hiaSrixn rovs us r^o(phv fifAiri^av' ko.) ivravSa,,
»eihffT'/)Kiva,t Kucra, to MaXet^tou rod t«v ^^off(po^u.v TsXecavrsj, iKxccXovfAiv ro
<r^o<pviTov' AiOTi, a-ro avaroXav hxiou xai Ilvsy^a to "Ayiov, oTeag a':fo(p^vn riiv
\us ^U(rf/,uvy TO ovof^d fiou ^iho^affrut \v 6vffiav ravrnv, ko,) rov a^rov ffufca tou
ToTs ihsfft, xa) iv -zruvrt To-ru ^v/u^iaf^a X^itrTod, xeu ro ^oryi^tov ro cclfAX rov
T^offaytrcti ru ovofAuri fAov xoc) Svffia, K^io'rov' 'ivx ol fiiruXafhovrii rovrav raiv
xa,6oi,^a,. "ilff-rt^ xeti o 'ludvvTis iv tjJ 'ANTITTIinN, tjJ; d(pitriei)s ruv af^et^'
a.^oxa.kv'ipu X'tyu' Ta 6viJbia,fi.a.ra. ilfftv ai riuvj xut rhs ?ft»?f ecl&tvioUf rv^utriv.
T^offsv^ai ruv ayiav. Ka) o HecvXos Ol ouv ravrag rag T^offipo^as Iv rri
Ta^axaXii fifiois Tot^Bta-rtio'ai ra, ffufActra, ava/nv^ffst rod Ku^tou ayovngj ou rois
VfiMv ^vff'iKv Z^ZffocVf dylxv, ihd^iffrov r^ ruv 'lovdccleuv ooyf/,affi T^off'i^^evrai' ak-
BbS, T«y Xoytxriv Xoir^iiav fifiZv. Keti Xd, ^iiVfAoirtxus Xurov^yovvns, r^s
irdXiv' ' Avoe,<pi^uf/i,iv iuffinv alv'tinas, rovr- <ro(f)iets vio) xXfi^movreu. Ireil. Frag-
iirri, xBi^Tov x^ixiuv. Aurui (aiv at ment. in Append, ad Hippol. Oper.
^^o(r<po^ee,'i ol xmroc rovvo/iov ilff), ou ro x^t- vol. ii. p. 64, 05. Hamburg!, 1716.
poy^a(pov l^aXu-<^as o Kv^ios ix rod fiiffou See above, book i. chap. 4. § III.
9i^xsv, dxXu, xard -rvivfAOi, iv -rvtvfiart 2. (1.) for the true import of the
yd^ xoc) dXnhicc %t7 •^e^offxvvuv rov Btov. phrase employed by Ireneus and other
AiOTi xai h <r^oa-(fo^d rtjs tlxa^Kfriois very ancient writers, which describes
ohx 'iarri cra^xtxh dxxd ^rviVfAccrtxh, xeii the consecrated elements as beim/
iv rovrtfi xctQa^d. U^offtpi^ofjiiv yd^ nu made or as becoming the body and
eiM rov d^rov y.a) to '^oT-h^iov tJJj blood of Christ. It assuredly gives
246 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
In the Primitive Church, according to the testimony of
Iren^us (which, as here stated, may serve yet additionally to
confirm the result of an already conducted discussion), the as
yet unconsecrated bread and wine were first offered up on the
table as an eucharistic oblation, antecedently to the prayer
which invoked the Holy Spirit to make them the body and
blood of Christ : for he expressly states, that that prayer was
not put up until the oblation was finished. Next, after the
oblation had been finished, the elements w^ere consecrated.
And then, at length, as Iren^us teaches us, those elements,
which had been first eucharistically offered on the table, and
which had next been consecrated by prayer, were made, sacra-
mentally or typically, the body and blood of Christ : that is
to say, for so he explains the meaning of that ancient phrase,
they became the antitypes or figures of Christ's most precious
body and blood.
Now, what Ireneus and the Primitive Church meant by anti-
types, cannot for a moment be doubted : because St. Paul, in
his Epistle to the Hebrews (a Work cited by Ireneus in the
course of this very passage), has fully and unambiguously set-
tled its import.
Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands,
which are the ANTITTPES of the true holy places ; but into heaven
Hence, in the theology of Ireneus and the Primitive Church,
the bread and wine, when consecrated by prayer, are antitypes
or figures of Christ's body and blood: just as the levitical holy
places were antitypes or figures of the true holy places, even of
the sanctuary of God in heaven.
(2.) Let us next attend to the thanksgivings in the ancient
Clementine Litui'gy, which was used by the faithful previous to
communicating 2: and, as we have already, in an earlier part of
no countenance to the Doctrine of • oh ya,^ us x^'^^'^o'^ira Uyia lUnX-
Transubstantiation, though some de- hv o X^itrros, 'ANTITTHA ruv aX>i^t-
fectively read Dhines of the present vuv, uxx' us alrov rov ob^aviy. Heb.
day have rashly charged the Episco- ix. 24.
pal Church in Scotland with transub- ^ j gather this from the circum-
stantialising, because the ancient stance, that the thanksgiving uext in
phrase occurs in her eucharistic li- order is directed to be used after
turgy. communicating ; ^£r« t^v f/,ireiX7]-4.tv .
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 247
this inquiry, noted, liow strictly that Litiu-gy harmonises with
Ireneus in its statement that The bread and wine are to he vietoed
as an oblation or eucharistic sacrifice only antecedently to their
being consecrated^ ; so we shall now find, that subsequently to
their being consecrated, it pronounces them, still in close
harmony with Ireneus, and employing indeed even verbally
the self-same phraseology, to have become antitypes or figures.
We moreover give thanks, Father, for the precious blood of
Jesus Chist which on our behalf was poured out, and for his
precious body : of ivhich also we celebrate these elements as the
antitypes, he himself having commanded us to set forth his
death^.
The doctrine, that The consecrated elements are antitypes of
Chrisfs body and blood, was, we see, no way peculiar to Ireneus.
On the contrary, it was the solemnly recognised doctrine of the
Primitive Church, introduced and interwoven into the forms of
the most ancient Liturgy now extant.
(3.) We may next, even somewhat at large, very profitably
attend to Origen, as he comments upon the eleventh verse of
the fifteenth chapter of St. Matthew.
Perhaps some one engaged upon this passage may say : that, as
that, which entereth into the mouth, defileth not the man, though
by the Jews it might he deemed common ; so that, which entereth
into the mouth, sanctifieth not the man; though, by the more simple,
that, which is called the Bread of the Loed, may be thought to
sanctify.
This argument, I think, ought not to be despised : and therefore
it evidently requires discussion ; which, in my judgment, should be
to the following effect.
As not the food, hut the conscience of him who eats doubtfully, pol-
lutes the eater {for he, who doubts, is condemned if he eats, because
it is not of faith) ; and as, to the polluted and unfaithful, nothing
is unclean by itself, but only through that person^s own pollution and
unbelief: so that, which through the word of God and prayer is
language, which imports that its pre- rod lx.^v6U<ros l-ri^ fi/!/,Zv, *«} rov n-
decessor was to be used before com- f/,iov (fufAccres' o5 xa) 'ANTITTHA raZra.
municating. l^r^reXaw^sv, avrou haTa^af/,ivou rifuv
' See above, book i. chap. 4. § III. Kwrayyixxuv rov alroZ Mvarov. Clem.
2. (1.) Liturg, in Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c.
^ "En tv^ct^iffToufiiv, Hdn^ vf^uv, 25,
v^t^ rou TifAiou alfiaros 'iricou X^tffTev
218 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
sanctified, sanctijieth not the user by its own virtue. For, if such
were the case, it would sanctify even him who eateth the bread of
THE Lord unworthily: and, in despite of Paid^s assertion, no one,
on account of this food, would have become weak, or ivould have
been sickly, or ivould have fallen asleep. Therefore, in the bread
of the Lord, there is profit to the v^er, when he pai-takes of that
BREAD with an unpolluted mhid and a pure conscience. Thus,
neither from our not eating, so far as concerns the bare circum-
stance of our not eating that bread sanctified by the word of God
and prayer, do we come short of any good thing; nor yet, from
our mere eating, do we abound in any good thing : for the cause
of coming short is sin and wickedness ; and the cause of abounding
is righteousness and uprightness. — But, if every thing, which
entereth into the tnouth, passeth into the belly, and is cast out into
the draught : then also that food, which is sanctified through the
word of God and prayer, passeth, so far as its material substance
is concerned, into the belly, and is cast out into the draught;
though, in regard to the prayer which hath been said over it, it is,
agreeably to the analogy of the faith, profitable, and causeth the
mind to behold ivith quicksightedness that ivhich projiteih. For it
is not THE MATTER OF THE BREAD, but THE WORD THAT IS SAID OVER
IT, which profiteth him who eateth it worthily of the Lord.
Thus much concerning tJie typical and symbolical body ^
vet' on, oio'TiP ov ro ilffi^^of^ivov ug to Aiet tovto Iv vfjuv "XoWoi ctaHvus xec)
ffTofAU. x.oivo7 Tov av^^euTov, x,«,v vo/u,i^ijTai oippcoffToi, xu) xoif^coyrcti Ixavo). Ka/, Wi
uvect u'TTo Tuv ^lovhoiioiv xoivov' euTus ov tov a^Tou toivvv tov Kv^iov, h u(pi\i'ia.
TO ilffi^^o/Jt-lvov lis TO ffTOfjt,a, a,ytuZ,n tqv tZ ^^a/fiiveti IffTtv, Ituv, a.f/,tciVTM rai
avdpuToVf xav vtto tuv xxs^xioTi^Mv vo- VM xat xa.6a,^^ t^ ffuviihviffii, fAiTocXetfjo-
(jLi^viTai a,ytot,Z,iiv 6 ovofji.aZ,'ofJt,ivoi ccotos (ioiv*i tov cc^tov. Ovtu ^s, ovTi Ix tov
TOV Vivpiov. ftn <pecyi7v, ^a^' avTo to fjcn (pa.yi7v eiTo
Kcc) IffTtv, oi/Acci, Xoyos ovx ilxetToe,- tov ayieiffhvTos Xoyu Siov xai Ivtiv^h
(ppnvriTos' xa.), S<a tovto, ^lofjttvos ffoc<pa>s cc^tov, vffTi^ov[/,t6ot, kyaSov Tivog' ovTi, Ik
^tyiymiui, ovtu; if^o) ^oxovffns 'i^iiv. tov (petyiTv, -ri^iffffivof^iv uyu^a! tivi' to
"ilff-PTSP oil 70 (i^ufix, aXX' VI ffvviionffts ya^ a'tTiov tth vffTi^^ffieog, h xaxia iffTt
TOV (AITO. 'hlOI.K^'tfflUS iffflOVTO;^ XOlVol TOV Xu) TO. O.fJl.Ot^T'fjfJLaTOt,' xa,\ TO euTteV TVS
(fietyovToi, (o y«^ ^ioc,x(^iv'ofjt.ivos, lav ^dy^, ^i^tffffivffiu;, h ^txaioffvvfi IffTt xa.) <r«
XetTOlx'iX^tTOtt, OTt ovx ix TtffTiUs)' Xu] xa.T0^6u[Jl,U.T0t.. E/ OS ^av TO llff^O^lVO-
oiffTi^ ovTiv xei.6a,^ov ov <^a.^ uvto iffTt ju,ivov fig to ffr'ofjca, iig xoiXixv ^nt^iT, xu)
Tu fcif/.tBtfff4,iveii xa.) aTiffTM, aXXa Ta^a u; u(pi^^aJvot, ixfiuXXiTcti' xa.) to kyta-
Tov ft.tafffJU)v avTOV xa) tv\v avtffTtkv' ov- ^ofASvov fh^ZfAa ^ik Xoyov ©£«« xet) iv-
Tus TO kyiat,of/.ivov dtk Xoyov Stov xa) Tsv^icog, xaT ocvto f/Xv to vXixov, us ttiv
ivTiv^icog, ov tS lotou Xoycu kyia^it tov xotXiav ^u^i7, xa) tig a(pio^uva l*/3aX-
^^ufjbivov. E/ yk^ TOVTO, hyia^i yk^ uv tov XiTat' xucTk Ti t^v l<rtyivofJt.ivnv avraJ
iff6iovTa ava^i/us tov u^tov tov Kv^tov' xa) tv^ijv, xark Trtv avaXoyiav t5j5 ?r/V-
ov^iiS av, ^tk TO ll^cufjt.a tovto, kffhvYis ^ tius, di(piXif/,ov yiviTai, xa) tyis tov vov
appaffTog iyivtro, h ixot/^ecTo' toiovtov atrtov hafixi'\^ias, o^uvtos I't) to uft-
C11A1\ IV.] DIl^FICULTlES OF ROMANISM. 249
Origen, we see, not only pronounces the consecrated bread of
the Eucharist to be the typical and symbolical, and therefore not
the literal or substantial or inaterial, body of Christ : but he hke-
wise, through the entire passage, uses language, which is pal-
pably irreconcilable with the Doctrine of Trans ubstantiation as
inculcated by the Roinish Priesthood, and which would be re-
jected by them as teaching an impious heresy. I may add, what
indeed cannot have failed to strike the reader, that the whole of
this early statement is in exact accordance with the decision of
our Anglican Articles, which rest the spiritual benefit of parti-
cipating the holy Eucharist, not upon the mechanical operation
of eating the bread of the Lord, but upon the meetness and
worthiness of the recipients
(4.) Let us next hear Cyril of Jerusalem, as, in his charac-
ter of a public Catechist, he still employs the same phraseology
for the purpose of explaimng to his catechumens the true cha-
racter of the consecrated elements.
While eating, the C07nmu7iicants are commanded to eat, not
bread and wine, but the antitype of the body and blood of
Christ-.
With all assurance, let us partake, as it were, of the body and
blood of Christ : for, in the type of bread, the body is given to
thee ; and, in the type of loine, the blood is given to thee : in
order that thou mayest partake of the body and blood of Christ,
becoming with him joint body and joint bhod^.
When Cyril says, that the communicants are commanded to
eat, not bread and wine, but the antitype of the body and blood
of Christ : he clearly means, agreeably to the distinction in his
immediately preceding fourth Mystago^cal Catechesis, that
\ouv. Ka) ouK h vXti tou a^Tov, aA.x' 6 ' See Art. XXV. xxviii. xxix.
l-T etuTM il^^/zivos X'oyos, Iffriv o u^Omv ^ Ttvo/Aivot ya^, ouk a^rov xot) o'lvou
Tov fif) afo^ias too Kv^iou Itr^iovra, xiXivovren fyiutrenr^aiy aXXoi 'ANTITT-
avTov. nOT ffufAttros xcci aifMtros tov ^piffTou,
Kai ravra, fjtXv ^i^i too TTHIKOT Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. p.
Kai 2TMBOAIKOT tru/^uros. Orig. 244. and § 20. p. 331. ed. Paris. 1720.
Comment, in Matt. tom. xi. Oper. ^ "iiirrs, fAira 'ratrm 'TXt]^o(po^ias, ^s
vol. iii. p. 498-500. Ben. Paris. 1733. ffu(ji,aros xa) alf^ttroi fJi.iTaXa.fjt,^a.tu)fjiiv
For this very important and valu- X^/o-T-aw" b TTUfl/ ya.^ Si^rou, ^i^oTcci
able citation, I am indebted to Mr. a-oi ro au(Au.' ko,), h TTno< o'lvou, Vtlo-
Pope. See his Koman Misquotation, ra< troi to aJf^a' 'iva yivy fAiraXaliav
p. 271,272. The translation, wliich creifcaTos kolI alftxroi X^itrrou, avtrffufAos
is somewhat more literal than that «ai trvvaifAos aurou. Cyril. Hieros.
given by Mr. Pope, is my own. Cat. Myst. iv. p. 237. and § 3. p. 320.
250 DIFFICULTIES OF ROJIANISM. [bOOK II.
they are commanded to eat, not mere bread and wine, or simple
bread and wine to which no spiritual grace has been super-
added by consecration, but holy bread and wine by which the
body and blood of Christ are now antitypically or figuratively
represented^
(5.) We may next hear exactly the same language from the
mouth of Macarius.
In the Church are offered bread and wine , the antitype of
Chrisfs flesh and blood: and they, who partake of the visible
bread, eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually'^.
(6.) Let us next hear Gregory of Nazianzum, as he still
duly employs the same accredited ecclesiastical phrase-
ology.
Knowing, then, that no person is worthy of the great God and
sacrifice and high-priest, who has not first offered himself unto
God a living and holy sacrifice, performing a reasonable and
acceptable service, and sacrificing unto God the sacrifice of praise
and a broken spirit which is the only sacrifice required at our
hands by him who gives us all things : how could I dare to offer
to him that which is from without, the ANTITYPE of the great
Mysteries^?
(7.) Let us next attend to the parallel language of Clement
of Alexandria.
The Scripture has named wine a mystic symbol of the holy
blood\
(8.) Let us next observe the still parallel phraseology of
Tertullian.
God in your Gospel has so revealed the matter, calling the
bread his own body, that you may hence understand how he gave
the figure of bread to be the figure of his oivn body : ivhose body.
* M^ 9r^offip(^i ovv us YIA0I2 rS *a) cc^X'^^^^Si oirris, fJt.A •r^on^ov lavrov
cc^rtu xai tm q'Ivm' ffuf^a, yoc^ xa) eeJfACi Ta^iffTijtn tm @iu dvtr'iocv ^axra.^ uytav,
X^tffTov xotra, rriv ^ser^onxhv Tvy^dvn //,nol tviv Xoytxriv Xar^uxv tvu^iirTov iTt-
ccTo(pci(riv. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mys- "hu^aro, (Ji,7iVi 'iho-t r^T Qiu ^vtrlccv aWttnus
tag. iv. p. 237. and § 6. p. 321. ««/ ^rvsw^tta ffuvnr^ifjt.fjt.ivov, >jv fiov^v
"Ev <rn IxKXyjffia,, vr^o<r(pi^iTeci a^ros <rd,vra ^ovs k<XtnTi1 -xa,^ hy-uv ^v/ria.)>'
xa otvos, 'ANTITTHON tJjs tra^xog ah' cr&Jj I'^eXXav 6app?i(rai 9r^off(pi^siv avrS
rod xcc) rod aif^aros' xa) ol fAirecXcifcfiei- <r>jy i^ahv, rhv ruv fnydXav fAUffrijoieov
vovTis ix rod <pa.ivofji.ivou a^rov, ^vivf^otri- 'ANTITTIION ; Gregor. Na2;ianzen.
xus rhv (xa,^xa, rou Kv^iov ItrStouffi. Ma- Orat. i. Oper. vol. i. p. 38. Paris. 1630.
car. yEgypt. Homil. xx\ii. p. 168. * Mu<rT/xov d^u. 2TMBOAON h y^a(ph
Tetdren ovv tl^a/s iyu, xoct on fAti^its ulfjcaros ayiou oivov aive/iocffiv. Clem.
d^ios rod iu,iyakov xct) @iou xa.) 6vfji.aros Alex. Pfedag. lib. ii. c. 2. oper. p. 156.
ClIAl'. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF HOMANISM. 251
conversely i the prophet has figuratively called bread, the Lord
himself being afterward about to ijiterpret this sacrament^,
Christ reprobated, neither the water of the Creator with which
he washes his people, nor the oil with ivhich he anoints them, nor
the felloioship of honey and milk with which he feeds them as
infants, nor the bread by which he represents his own body :
for, even in his sacraments, he needs the beggarly elements of the
Creator"^,
(9.) We may next listen to Eusebius of Cesarea.
Christ himself gave the symbols of the divine economy to his
own disciples ; commanding, that the image of his own body
shoidd be made^.
(10.) Let us next hear Ambrose of Milan.
In the Law was the shadow : in the Gospel is the image : in
Heaven is the reality. Formerly a lamb was ofih'ed, a calf was
offered : now Christ is offered. — Here he is in an image : there he
is in reality"^.
(11.) Let us next hear Jerome.
After the typical Passover had been completed, and Christ had
eaten with the Apostles the flesh of the lamb ; he takes bread which
comforts the heart of man, and proceeds to the true sacrament of
the Passover : that, as, in the prefiguration of him, Melchisedek
the Priest of the Most High God had done, offering bread and
wine ; so he himself likewise might represent the truth of his own
body arid blood^.
* Sic enim Deus in evangelic quo- fjt,a,6nra.7?, rh EIKONA rov iVov ffufiot-
que vestro revelavit, panem corjnis ros '^onlirSa.t -ret^ecxsXivo/^ivos. Euseb.
snum appellans : ut et hinc jam eum Demons. Evan. lib. \iii. c. 2. p. 236.
intelligas corporis sui figuram panis Paris. Stephan. 1544. Immediately
dedisse ; cujus retro corpus in panem aftenvard he says : "A^tm ^t ^^tiff^en
prophetes figuravit, ipso Domino hoc 2TMB0An/ rod l^iov ffufAuroi ^a^iVihov.
sacramentum postea interpretaturo. * Umbra in lege : imago in evan-
TertuU. adv. Marcion. lib. iii, § 12. gelio : Veritas in coelestibiis. Ante,
Oper. p. 209. agnus offerebatur, offerebatur vitulus :
2 Sed et ille quidem, usque nunc, nunc Christus oflFertur. — Hie, in
nee aquam reprobavit Creatoris qua imagine : ibi, in veritate. Ambros.
suos abluit, nee oleum quo sues Officior. lib. i. c. 48. Oper. col. 33.
unguit, nee mellis et lactis societat^m Paris, 1549.
qua suos infantat, nee panem quo * Postquam typicum pascha fuerat
ipsum corpus suum repe^sentat ; impletum, et agni cames cum Apo-
etiam in sacramentis propriis egens stolis comederat ; assumit panem qui
mendicitatibus Creatoris. TertuU. confortat cor hominis, et ad verum
adv. Mai-cion. lib. i. § 9. Oper. p. 155. paschre transgreditur sacramentum :
^ iTaA/y ya.^ avreg to. 2TMBOAA Ttis ut, quomodo, in proefigurations ejus,
h^iou oiKovofttai roTi avreu ta^ih'ihov Melchisedech summi Dei saeerdos,
252
DIFFICULTIES OF KOIVIANISM.
[book II.
(12.) We may next attend to the great Augustine.
The Lord, when he gave the sign of his body, did not doubt to
say : This is my body^.
In the history of the New Testament, so great and so 7nar~
vellous was the patience of our Lord, that bearing with Judas,
though not igriorant of his purpose, he admitted him to the
banquet, in which he commended and delivered to his disciples the
FIGUKE of his own body and blood^.
These (namely the water and the blood) are sacratnents, in
vjhich, not what they are, but what they shew forth, is the point to
be always attended to : for they are the signs of things, being one
thing, and signifying another thing\
(13.) Let us next hear Theodoret.
Tlie mystic symbols, after consecration, pass not out of their
own proper nature. — Place, then, the biage by the side of the
archetype ; and thou wilt see the similitude : for it is meet, that
the TYPE should be similar to the reality^.
panem et vinum oflferens, fecerat;
ijise quoque veritatem sui corporis et
sanguinis repr^sentaret. Hieron.
Comment, in Matt. xxvi. Oper. vol.
vi. p. 59.
' Non enim Dominus dubitavit
dieere ; Hue est corpus meum : cum
siGNUM daret corporis sui. August,
cont, Adimant. c. xii. Oper. torn. vi.
p. 09. edit. Colon. Agripp. 1616. and
§ 3. torn. viii. col. 124. ed. Bened.
^ In historia Novi Testamenti,
ipsa Domini nostri tanta et tarn mi-
randa pationtia, quod eum tamdiu
pertulit tanquam bonum, cum ejus
cogitationes non ignoraret, eum ad-
hibuit ad couAivium, in quo corporis
et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis
commendavit et tradidit. August.
Enar. in Psalm, iii. Oper. torn. viii.
p. V.
^ Hajc enim sacramenta sunt, in
quibus, non quid sint, sed quid os-
tendant, semper attenditur : quoniam
SIGN A sunt rerum, aliud existentia, et
aliud significantia. August, cont.
Maximin. lib. iii. c. 22. Oper.
torn. vi. p. 275 : reckoned in the
Benedictine edition, lib. ii. § 3.
toni. viii. col. 725.
* Oli^i ya^, fiira rov ayiccff/Aov, to,
fjuuffrtxa, 2TMBOAA rris oixtias llw'Ta-
rat ^vaiui.~ Ha^oiht rs'ivuv rS a^x,^-
TtnTM T«» EIKONA, xa) o-^u ttiv 'OMOI-
OTHTA* p(^^h yoc^ ioiKivat rr, ocXridua.
Tov TTOON. Theod. Dial, ii.' Oper. p.
85. and cap. 24. fol. 113 verso, ed. Ti-
guri, 1500.
I would direct the inquirer's spe-
cial attention to Theodorets contradis-
tinction of the image from its arche-
type : Tu a^^STU-xcu t«v iixova.
When the Tridentine Fathers
teach us, that the worship paid to
images is to be referred to the pro-
totypes which those images repre-
sent : do they mean to intimate, that
the images and their prototyi>es are
distinct ; or do they teach us, that
the images and their prototypes are
identical ?
Their words are : Honos, qui eis
exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae
ilia? reprsesentant r ita ut per ima-
gines, quas osculam.ur et coram
quibus caput aperimus et procnm-
bimus, Christum adoremus, et Sanc-
tos, quorum illrc similitudinem ge-
runt, veneremur. Goncil. Trid. sess.
XXV. p. 507, 508.
The same doctrine had been pre-
viously advanced by the second Ni-
cene Council, act. iii.
That vci-y extraordinary reasoner,
Dr. Trevern, unable to rid himself of
the stubborn fact, that the ancients
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
253
(14.) Let us next hear, from the ancient author of the Work
on the Sacraments, the very words, vs^hich in his days were
used in the consecration of the elements.
Dost thou wish to learn the form of consecration? Hear,
then, its very words. The priest says : Cause this our oblation
to be reasonable and acceptable; because it is the figure of the
body and blood of our Lord Jesus ChristK
(15.) Let us finally hear the judicial decision of Pope
Gelasius.
Assuredly, the image and similitude of the body and blood of
Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries'^,
2. It is obvious, that, when the novel Doctrine of a Sub-
stantial Presence of the Lord's Physical or Material Body and
invariably style the consecrated ele-
ments symbols or images or figures of
Christ's body and blood, actually
makes an experiment upon the cre-
dulity of his English Laic by at-
tempting to persuade him, that a
symbol and the thing sym,bolised by it,
or an image and its prototype or ar-
rhetype, may very well be identical.
Thus the circumstance of the con-
secrated wine being a symbol of
Christ's blood is by no means incon-
sistent with the doctrine, that the
symbolical wine is identical Avith the
blood which it symbolises / Some ac-
count of this experiment may be seen
in Discuss. Amic, Lett. x. vol. ii. p.
60-62. It had already been tried by
Bcssuet, on the principle of a sophis-
tical tampering with the double sense
of the word sign. Hist, des Variat.
livr. iv. § 11.
Another Komanist, Haimon of Al-
berstadt, admits that a sign cannot be
that of which it is a sign : and then,
on a principle entirely different from
that of Bossuet and Trevern, labours
hard to shew, how the apparent bread
and wine may be a sign of the body
and blood of Christ, notwithstanding
they are by Transubstantiation iden-
tical witli the same body and blood.
Nullum signum est illud, cujus est
signum : nee res aliqua sui ipsius
dicitur signum, sed alterius.
Thus runs the fair confession :
and then comes the tug of war, than
which nothing can be more amusing.
The whole of Haimon's powers of
distinctiveness are put in requisi-
tion : but, forsooth, for the solution
of such a problem he labours in very
vanity. See Aimon. Halber. Tract,
de Corp. et sanguin. Domin. in Da-
cher. Spicil. vol. xii. p. 28, 20.
Another ingenious Divine. Kathe-
rius of Verona (so inconsistent is
error with itself), cuts the matter
short by altogether denying, that the
bread and wine are figures. Bather.
Veron. Epist. de corp. et sang. Do-
min. Ibid. p. 38.
' Vis scire quia verbis coelestibus
consecratur ? Accipe quae sunt verba.
Dicit sacerdos : Fac nobis, inquit,
hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationa-
bilem, acceptabilem : quod est figura
corpoiis et sanguinis Domini nostri
Jesu Christi. Tractat. de Sacram.
lib. iv. c. 5. in Ambros. Oper. col.
1248.
* Certe imago et similitudo cor-
poris et sanguinis Christi in actione
mysterionim celebrantur. Gelas. de
duab. Christ, natur. cont. Nestor, et
Eutych.inBiblioth. Patr.vol. iv.p.422.
To avoid the scandal of an here-
tical Pope, the Komanists have la-
boured to prove, that this Gelasius
was either Gelasius of Cyzicus or
Gelasius of Cesarea. Their efforts,
however, have been fruitless. Frustra
omnes, says Cave: magna enim est
Veritas et pravaluit. Tandem vi ve-
ritatis adactus, manus deditipse Lab-
ba3us. Dr. Cave's reference to Lab-
bffius is : Dissert, de Script. Eccles.
vol. i. p. 342.
254 DIFFICULTIES OF RO^LAJHSM. [bOOK II.
Blood in the Eucharist began to be adopted and patronised :
the primitive ecclesiastical language, which described the
consecrated elements as being antitypes or figures or symbols
or images or similitudes, would inevitably appear altogether
inconsistent with the new and more fashionable system of
sacramental theology. For, if, by consecration, the elements
literally and physically and substantially became the material
body and blood of Christ : those elements, thus miraculously
changed in their nature or substratum, could no longer be
truly said to be only an image of Christ's body and blood,
when they had actually become Chrisfs body and Mood their
own proper and literal selves : inasmuch as the very name of
image imports, that the image is one thing, and that the matter
represented by the image is another thing.
(1.) Accordingly, in the seventh and eighth centuries ;
during which, notwithstanding the check given by the Council
of Constantinople in the year 754, the Doctrine of the Sub-
stantial Presence was rapidly gaining ground, until at length,
in the year 787, it was formally ratified by the second Nicene
Council: in the seventh and eighth centuries, we find the
ancient phraseology of the Church, which ill suited the favourite
novelty, rejected with a high hand and sometimes with a most
astonishing degree of intrepid effrontery.
Thus, about the year 680, Anastasius of Mount Sinai, utterly
disregarding the statement of the much older Orthodoxus of
Theodoret, makes his Orthodoxus propound a statement dia-
metrically opposite.
So we believe, and so we confess, according to the voice of
Christ himself, — This is my body. — He did not say : This is
the ANTITYPE of my body and my bloodK
Thus, likewise, about the year 740, John of Damascus is
absolutely shocked to the heart by the impious language of
those earlier theologians, Ireneus, Cyril, Macarius, Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzum, Augustine,
Theodoret, and Pope Gelasius.
The bread and wine are not the type of the body ayid blood of
' OP0OA. Oura TiffTivofiiv, x,a.) ou- ffufjtccTos sea) tov ec'if^otres f^ou. Anastas.
rui of^oXoyovfAiv, xara. rhv (puvriv ecvrou Hocleg. c, xxiii. p. -'350. For Theodo-
Xotffrod, — Touro fiou i(tt) to aufjitx.. — ret's Orthodoxus, see above, § II. 1.
OuK u^i' rodro Ur) ro ANTITTUON (13), and below, § IV. 3.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 255
Christ. God forbid ! But they are the very deified body itself
of the Lord : the Lord himself having said ; This is, not the type
of my blood, but my blood^,
(2.) Much in the same strain, but with a splendid intrepidity
of assertion, proceed the infallible Fathers of the second Nicene
Council.
No one, either of those trumpets of the Spirit the holy Apostles,
or of our celebrated Fathers, ever called our unbloody sacrifice
the iMAaE of his body. — For he did 7iot say : Take, eat, the
IMAGE of my body. — Thu^ clearly is it demonstrated, that no-
where did, either our Lord, or the Apostles, or the Fathers, call
the unbloody sacrifice, offered up through the priest, an image :
but they called it the body itself and the blood itself^.
Tlie matchless Theologians of Nice, in their zeal against the
Council of Constantinople wliich in the year 754 had rightly
determined the Eucharist to be an image of Christ's body and
blood, appear to have unaccountably overlooked the circum-
stance : that, even to say nothing of the ancient perpetual use
of the synonyms, type, antitype, symbol, figure, sign, and simi-
litude ; the very word image had actually, in the fourth and
fifth centuries, been thus employed, both by Eusebius and
Theodoret of the Greek Church, and by Ambrose and Gelasius
of the Latin Church^. Their point, however, was at all events
to be carried : and, in the use of that important controversial
weapon, hardy assertion, we find them by no means either
scrupulous or parsimonious.
Yet, while they thus dogmatised respecting the alleged
uniform rejection of the word image : they ventured not to
deny, though the acknowledgment is made with evident sore-
ness, that the elements had been perpetually styled antitypes.
The difficulty, therefore, was, how to manage this provoking
' OTK IffTi TTnOS a^ros xtti o ra; ahroZ. — Ka) ohx, sWi' Aa/3sT«, (payin,
oTvos rov eufictTos xa.) cti[jt,a.roi rou X^itr- rriv EIKONA <rov ffu>f^aro$ (aov. — Ovxovv
Tov' fih yivoiTo' akk' uv-to to ffuf^a rod a-a(pus aToVihiixTOii, on OTAAMOT, ovri
Kv^iov rihafji-ivov, uvtov rod Kv^iov s/- o Kv^iog, otln oi aToffTokoi, « ^rarl^sj,
TovTOi, ToZt'o fiov IffTi, OT TTn02 tov EIKONA iiTov rhv ^id rou h^iajf "pr^oeripi-
a,'if/,aTos, kkku. to aJf/.a. Joan. Da- ^of^ivtjv uvaifiOiXTOv 6uff'toc,v, akk' ccvro
masc. Orthod, Fid. lib. iv. c. 14. ffeof^oi xa) avro ctlf^x. Concil. Nicen.
^ Ou^s/j yoi^ -yfoTi, rav ffakTtyyuv ii. act. vi. Labi). Concil. vol. vii. p.
Tou Tlvivf^oiTos ayiuv aTotrrokav, y] tuv 448, 449.
uoiVificov -TTaripuv hf^Zv, rhv avaifzetxrov ^ See above, book ii. chap. 4, § II.
yijiiuv SvffMv, — 'sTiTEv EIKONA tov auixa.- 1. (8.) (0.) (]2.) (14.)
256 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK IT*
circumstance : for small were the emolument of compendiously
discarding the troublesome word image, if its synonym the
equally troublesome word antitype should be suflPered to remain
unaccounted for. Truly, they overcame the difficulty in
manner following. The occurrence of the word antitype, even
in the writings of the holy Fathers, they were constrained to
acknowledge; but they roundly asserted, that the bread and
wine were never called antitypes, save previously to their con-
secration^
An honest inquirer, who shall have carefully perused the
passages already adduced in quite sufficient abundance, will of
course perceive, that such an assertion, thrown out for the
evident purpose of merely serving a turn, requires not any
answer. Lest, however, some dauntless modern Theologian
of the Latin School should revive the attempted evasion of the
Deutero-Nicene Fathers, an answer shall be given in regular
mood and form.
Gregory Nazianzen, who flourished in the fourth century,
tells us, that his sister Gorgonia, when labouring under a
malady which had baffled the power of medicine, rose in the
night, and prostrated herself before the altar. Here, she
solemnly prayed for deliverance : when, lo, having mingled
with her tears whatsoever portion of the antitypes of the precious
body or blood her ha7id had treasured up, she departed com-
pletely healed of her malady 2.
Here, plainly, the antitypes were the consecrated elements,
which Gorgonia had reserved from the last celebration of the
Eucharist : and thus perishes the adventurous allegation of the
Deutero-Nicene Fathers, that, by the ancients, the elements
were styled antitypes only before, and never after, their con-
secration.
(3.) This allegation, however, is not without its measure of
utility. Our modem Latin Divines, as I gather from the
translation of Cyril of Jerusalem by that zealous Romanist
nPO jusv 7«5 rou ayiccfffjuou TiXnu- rifJi.lou ffcofji.aros n roZ a,'lfji.a.Tos hx^)p\6n-
<r£«5, 'ANTITTHA ri(r) ruv ay'iuv -rari. ffuv^ifff.v, tovto Kot.TaiJi.iyvv(ra, rols "Bdx^v-
Quv ilffi'^Zi iholiv ovof4.a.^scr0cii. Concil. <riv, Z rod ^au/^urog, a,T7,Xhv ivSvi ahSo-
Nicen. II. act. vi. Labb. Concil. vol. fx,ivy, t^ ffeorn^ti^i, >co6^» ko.) trufj^a. xaJ
vii. p. 449. -^uxm. Gregor. Nazian. Orat. xi.
2 E" «r<»y T/ ruv 'ANTITTUnN tou Oper. vol. i. p. 187.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 257
Grodecius, would fain have us understand, by type and antitype,
nothing more than what they call species or appearance: so
that, when the body and blood of Christ are said to be given in
the TYPE of bread and wine ; the true meaning of such phrase-
ology is, that the literal or substantial body and blood of the
Redeemer are given in the species or under the outward delusive
appearance of bread and wine ^. But, to such an evasion, the
allegation of the Deutero-Nicene Fathers, by the very necessity
of its drift and purpose, is plainly fatal : for that allegation,
through the medium of its perfectly intelligible object, distinctly
shews, how, in their days, with reference to the body and blood
of Christ, the words type and antitype were always understood.
They acknowledged, that, by the ancients, the bread and wine
were said to be types or antitypes of Christ's body and blood.
Bvit, by such phraseology, they evidently understood the ancients
to mean, that the elements were the symbols or figures or repre-
sentations or signs or similitudes of the body and blood of Christ :
for, otherwise, in defence of their new-fangled Doctrine of a
Substantial Presence, they needed not to have troubled them-
selves to assert, that, by the ancients, the name of antitypes was
only bestowed upon the elements aw^ecec?en% to their consecration^.
3. Toward the close, then, of the eighth century, we see,
the Fathers of the Second Nicene Council were employed in
diligently cursing all those, who, after the manner of the
ancients, should presume to say, that the consecrated bread
and wine are an image or figure or similitude of the body and
blood of Christ : but, during some years before, and during
many years after, the memorable year 787, the old-fashioned
Divines of the hitherto less corrupted West continued, in their
rustic simplicity, to use the identical phraseology, which an
Ecumenical Council in the East had branded with the stamp of
anathematised heresy.
' Cyril says : 'Ev TTnn< yk^ u^rou, Gustantes enira, non panem aut vi-
Vthorxt (foi TO ffufjia,' koc), Iv TTUfi/ Hum ut gustent, jubentur, sed,
o'i'vau, ^l^orat ffoi ro aJfAci. This is QUOD SUB SPECIE EST (videlicet
rendered by Grodecius : Nam, sub panis et vinum), corpus et sangui-
SPECiE panis, datur tibi corpus : et, nem Christi.
sub SPECIE \ini, datur sanguis. '^ I need scarcely remark, that ex-
Again : Cyril says: Tivof/.tvoi <ya^, actly tlie same proof is furnished by
euz a^Tov ko.) o'ivov xiXivavrui y%v(ra.a6a.i, John of Damascus. Had he inter-
aXXa 'ANTlTYnOT ffu(ji.a,roi xki a!lfjt.a' preted TV'jToi as Grodecius is pleased
raj rov x^itrroU. This, still more to do, he never would have exclaimed
liberally, is rendered by Grodecius: f/,ri yivoiro.
S
258 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAJflSM. [eOOK H.
(1.) The Lord, in the Supper, says the venerable Bede about
the year 720, gave to his disciples the figuee of his holy body and
bloodK
(2.) Sac7'aments, says Amalar of Triers about the year 820,
ought to have a certain sbiilitude of those things, whereof they
are sacraments, Let us, therefore, say, that the officiating priest
hears a similittjde to Christ, as the bread and wine bear a
snmLiTTiDE to the body aiid blood of Christ Thus also the sacri-
fice, offered up by the priest at the altar, is, after a soet, as the
sacrifice of Christ upon the cross^.
Whence, as we learn from Augustine, if sacraments had not a
certain similitude to those things ivhereof they are sacraments,
they ivould not be sacraments at all. But from this similitude,
they commonly receive the names of the things themselves. There-
fore, as, after a certain mode, the sacrament of Christ's body is the
body of Christ : and as the sacrament of Chrisfs blood is the blood
of Christ: so likewise, the sacrament of faith (in Baptism) is faiths
(3.) Christ, says Walafrid Strabo about the year 860, in the
supper, which, before his betrayal, he had celebrated with his disci-
ples after the solemnisation of the ancient Passover, delivered, to the
same disciples, the sacraments of his body and blood in the sub-
stance OF BREAD AND WINE : and taught than to celebrate them
in commemoration of his 'most holy passion. — He himself, coming
in the flesh, instituted certain greater rites : aiid taught them,
that they ought to pass, from things carnal to things spiritual,
from things earthly to things heavenly, from things temporal to
things eternal, from things imperfect to things perfect, from the
shadow to the body, from IMAGES to truth*.
' Dedit in coena discipulis figu- earum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non
RAM sacrosanct! corporis et sanguinis haberent, omnino sacramenta non
Bui. Bed. Comment, in Psalm, iii. essent. Ex hac autem similitudine
^ Sacramenta debent habere simi- plerumquejamipsarumrerumnomina
LiTUDiNEM aliquam earum rerum, accipiunt. Sicut ergo, secundum quen-
quarum sacramenta sunt. Quaprop- dam modum, sacramentum corporis
ter siMn.is sit sacerdos Christo, sicut Christi corpus Christi est ; sacramen-
panis et liquor similia sunt corpori turn sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi
[et sanguini] Christi. Sic est immo- est : ita et sacramentum fidei fides
latio sacerdotis in altari quodammodo est. Amalar. Trevor, de Eccles. Offic.
UT Christi immolatio in cruce. Ama- lib. i. c. 24. in Bibl. Patr. vol. ix. par.
lar. Trever. de Eccles. Offic. in Pra€at. prior, p. 320. Colon. 1018.
in Biblioth. Patr. vol. ix. par. prior. * Itaque Christus, — in coena si-
p. 801. Colon. 1618. quidem, quam, ante traditionem
^ Unde in eadem epistola idem ( Au- suam, ultimam cum discipulis habuit,
gustinus) qui supra; Si enim sacra- post paschoe veteris solennia, coi-poris
jnenta quondam similitudinem rerum et sanguinis sui sacramenta, in pcmis
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
259
(4.) Our Lord, says Druthmar the scholar of Bede about the
year 800, gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body for the
remission of sins and for the preservation of charity, that, being
et vini subslantia, eisdem discipulis
tradidit : et ea, in comraemorationem
sanctissimse suse passionis, celebrare
perdocuit. — Ipse, in came adveniens,
illis majora instituit : et, a camalibus
ad spii-italia, a ten-enis ad coelestia,
a temporalibus ad eeterna, ab imper-
fectis ad perfecta, ab umbra ad corpus,
ab IMAGINIBUS ad veritatem, docuit
transeundum. Walafrid. Strab. de
Eebus Eccles. c. xvi. in Bibl. Patr. vol.
ix. par. prior, p. 956, 957. Colon. 1618.
The attentive reader will not fail
to note Walafrid's decisive expres-
sion, In panis et vini substantia.
To tlie three preceding citations
from Bede and Amalar and Walafi'id
Strabo, the two latter of which I
have somewhat enlarged, I was first
directed by Bishop Cosin. His Lord-
ship also gives an extract from an
epistle of the Emperor Charlemagne
to Alcuin, in the year 778. Whatever
may have been the theological attain-
ments of that great Prince, his lan-
guage may at least be viewed, as
shewing the familiar doctrine which
prevailed among the Western Di-
vines of his days.
Christus, coenando cum discipulis,
panem fregit, et calicem pariter dedit
eis, in figuram corporis et sanguinis
sui : nobisque profuturum magnum
exhibuit sacramentum. Car. Magn.
Epist. ad Alcuin. de ration. Septua-
gint.
On this same topic, the Work of
Bertram of Corby, on the body and
blood of Christ, is, as we shall pre-
sently find, most full and decisive.
Flourishing about the middle of the
ninth century, while the controversy
respecting the allegation of Paschase
Radbert was at its height, he ex-
pressly states and maintains : that,
although the consecrated elements are
indeed the body and blood of Christ,
they are not so eeally but only figu-
ratpv^ely.
The Tridentine Fathers, with good
reason, placed the Work of Bertram
in their list of prohibited books.
Nevertheless, the learned Professors
of Douay seem to have thought the
proposed remedy a somewhat strong
measure: for they incline to main-
tain, that ivith due coiTection adminis-
tered of course by a catholic hand,
the Work of this stubborn witness of
the ninth century may peradventure
be tolerated. They hint, however,
that its notoriety alone procured it
that favour. The contents of the
book could not conveniently be hushed
up : therefore it were best to let it
loose upon the world in an amended
form.
The whole passage exhibits so cu-
rious a specimen of the most ap-
proved Duacensic System of explain-
ing and managing and correcting and
garbling a troublesome old author,
that I shall borrow it from the cita-
tion of Bishop Cosin.
Quanquam librum istum magni
non existimemus momenti, itaque
non magnopere laboraturi simus, si
vel nusquam sit, vel intercidat; atta-
men ciim jam soepe recusus sit et
lectus a plurimis, et per interdictum
nomen omnibus innotuerit; hcereti-
cis constet de ejus prohibitione per
varios catalogos, fuerit catholicus
presbyter, ac monachus Corbeiensis
ccenobii, Carolo non tam magno quam
Calvo charus ac venerabilis, juvet
historiam ejus setatis, in catholicis
veteribiis aliis pluiimos feramus
errores, et extenuemus, excusemus,
EXCOGITATO COMMENTO PEES2EPE NE-
GEMUS, et COMMODUM SENSIJM EIS
AFFiiTGAMUs, dum oppouuntur in dis-
putationibus aut in conflictationibus
cum adversariis : non videmus, cur
non eandem cequitatem et diligentem
recognitionem non mereatur Bertra-
mus ; ne heeretici ogganiant, nos An-
tiquitatem pro ipsis facientem exu-
rere et prohibere. — Quin et illud me-
iuimus, ne liber iste, non solum ab hae-
reticis, verum immorigeris quoque Ca-
tholicis, ob interdictum avidius legatur,
odiosius allegetur, et plus vetitus quam
permissus noceat. Ind. Expurg. Belg.
p. ^4.. ed. 1609. In the Indices Expurga-
torii duo, testes Fraudum ac Falsationuni
Pontijiciarum, Hanov. 161 1, or pp. 4, 5,
of the original edition. Antv. 1571.
The Bishop subjoins sundry speci..
mens of their emendations or conve-
nient exjjlications. To these I shall
add yet another instance.
260
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book n.
mindful of that fact, they might alway in A fiouee do that,
which he not forgetfully was about to do for them. This is my
body: that is, in a sacrament. And, taking the cup, he gave
thanks and gave unto them. Because, among all the nourish-
ments of life, bread and wine avail to strengthen and refresh our
infirmity, he was rightly pleased through these two to confirm the
ministry of his sacrament. For wine both exhilarates and
increases the blood. Therefore, not inconveniently, the blood of
Christ is figured by this : since, whatsoever comes to us from
him, makes us joyful with true joy, and increases all our good.
As if any person, departing on a journey, leaves to his friends
some bond of love, in the tenour that they should do this, every day,
for the purpose of not forgetting him : so God commanded it to
be done by us, spiritually transferring his body into the bread and
the wine into his blood, that by these tivo we may commemorate
what he has done for us from his body and his blood, and may
not be ungrateful to such most loving charity^.
The original Saxon of Elfric's
Epistle to Wulfstane written about
tbe close of the tenth century, as pre-
served in the Library of Exeter Ca-
thedral M 3, contains the following
passage.
Nevertheless, this sacrifice is not the
same body of his wherein he suffered
for us, NOR the same blood of his tvhich
he shed for vs : but spiritually it is
made his body and blood ; as to as that
munna which rained from heaven, and
as was that water which did flow out
of the rock.
But, in the latin translation of the
Epistle preserved in the Library of
Worcester Cathedral, the above pas-
sage has been carefully erased, doubt-
less by the zealous hand of some
transubstantialising Eomanist.
For my knowledge of this fact, I
am indebted to Mr. Soames and Dr.
Stewart. See Soames's Hist, of the
Refoi-m. vol. iii. p. 165, 1G6 ; and
Stewart's Protest. Layman, p. 822-
324.
Respecting the expurgation of the
ancient Fathers by the Romish eccle-
siastics, when the testimony of those
Fathers was judged to be troublesome,
the curious reader may consult Bp.
Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery,
chap. i. sect. 1. The following com-
pliment, gravely paid to Pius V. for
his holy care in this particular; is not
a little amusing.
Sixtus Senensis, in epistola dedi-
catoria ad Pium quintum laudat
Pontificem in hsec verba: Expur-
gari et emaculari curasti omnium catho-
licorum ac prcccipue velerum Patrum
scripta.
' Deditque discipulis suis, et ait :
Accipite et comcdUe ; hoc est corpus
meum. Dedit discipulis suis sacra-
mentum corporis sui in remissionem
peccatorum et conservationem chari-
tatis ; ut, memores illius facti, semper
hoc IN FiGURA facerent, quod pro eis
acturus erat non oblivisceretur. Hoc
est corpus meum.- id est, in Sacra-
mento. Et, accipiens calicem, graiias
egit, et dedit illis, dicens. Quia, inter
omnes vitfe alimonias, cibus panis et
vinum valent ad confirmandam et re-
creandam nostram infirmitatem, rect6
per hffic duo ministerium sui sacra-
men ti confirmare placuit. Vinum
namque et leetificat, et sanguinem
auget. Et idcirco non inconvenienter
sanguis Christi per hoc figuratur :
quoniam quicquid nobis ab ipso Ireti-
ficat Lnetitia vera, et auget omne bonum
nostrum. Sicut denique si aliquis
peregre proficiscens dilectoribus suis
quoddam vinculum dilectionis relin-
quit, eo tenore ut omni die hicc agant,
ut illius non obliviscantur : ita Deus
CHAP. IV.] DUTICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 261
III. The Romanist, we have seen, contends that the words
of our Lord, in the institution of the Eucharist, ought to he
understood literally or carnally : while the AngHcan, with the
members of various other Reformed Churches, maintains, that
they ought to be MndiQV^ioodi figuratively or spiritually. I shall
now, therefore, produce a series of passages, in which the
ancient Theologians, either directly pronounce that Christ's
phraseology ought to be explained spiritually , or unequivocally
assert that the bread and wine are not properly his body and
blood, or expressly determine that his substantial body and
blood are not literally present in the Eucharist.
1. Let us first hear Tertullian.
If Christ declares, that the flesh profiteth nothing ; the sense
must he decided from the matter of the saying. For, because
the Jews deem^ed his discourse hard and intolerable, as if he
had truly determined that his flesh was to be eaten by them :
in order that he might dispose the state of salvation toward the
spirit, he promised; It is the spirit that quickeneth. And thus
he subjoined: The flesh profiteth nothing ; namely, to quicken.
There follows also what he would have us to understand by spirit:
The words which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life, —
Appoiiiting, therefore, the word to be the vivifier, because the
word is spirit and life ; he called the same likewise his own flesh :
for, since the Word was made flesh, it was thence to be sought
for the purpose of life, and was to be devoured in the hearing,
and was to be rumijiated upon in the intellect, and was to be
digested by faith. Hence he had shortly before pronounced his
flesh to be also heavenly bread^,
prsecepit agi a nobis, transferens bread, he must have meant A Transuh-
SPIEITALITER corpus in panem, vinum stantiatwn of his body into the bread;
in sanguinem, ut per hrec duo memo- for which, I suppose, no Komanist
remus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore contends. This argument would have
et sanguine suo, et non simus ingrati held good, if he had not used the
tam amantissimm charitati. Christian. word spieituaijly. I have noticed
Druthmar. Expos, in Matt. Evan. already a similar case of inver-
0. Ivi. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. ix. pai*. sion. It is quite fatal to the novel
prior, p. 934. Colon. 1618. popish Doctrine of Transubstantia-
Druthmar's inversive expression, tion.
Transferring his body into the bread, ' Si carnem ait nihil prodesse, ex
and the wine into his blood, must not materia dicti dirigendus est sensus.
be left unnoticed, as that which no Nam, quia durum et intolerabilem
TransubstantJahst could have used. existimaverunt sennonem ejus, quasi
For, if by the clause, The ivine into his vere carnem suam illis edendam de-
blood, Druthmar meant A transub- terminasset : ut in spiritum dispone-
stantiation of the loine into his blood: ret statum salutis, promisit; spiritns
then, by the clause, His body into the est qui vivifcat. Atque ita subjunxit ;
262
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMAOTSM.
[book n.
2. Let US next hear Cyril of Jerusalem^ while instructing
his Catechumens in the true import of our Lord's phraseology.
Christ, once conversing with the Jews, said: Except ye eat my
flesh a7id drink my blood, ye have not life in yourselves. They,
not having spiritually understood the things which ivere spoken,
being scandalised, went back ; fancying, that he exhorts them
to flesh-eating. — In the new Covenant, heavenly bread and the
cup of salvation sanctify the soul and body. As bread cor-
responds to the body, thus also the ivord is fitting to the soul, —
When David says to God ; Thou hast prepared a table before
me : what means he else, than the mystical and intellectual table
which God hath prepared before usf — On this account also.
Solomon, enigmatising this grace, says, in the book of JScclesiastes :
Come, eat thy bread in cheerfulness, namely the spiritual bread ;
and come (he calls with a saving and beatifying vocation), drink
thy wine in a good heart, namely the spiritual wine. — Strengthen,
then, thy heart, partaking of this bread as spiritual : and
joyful the countenance of thy souP.
Caro nihil j^rodest ; ad vivificandum,
scilicet. Exequitur etiam, quid velit
intelligi spiritum : Verba, qnce lociitus
sum vobis, spirittis sunt, vita sunt. —
Itaque sermonem constitnens vi-s-ifica-
torem, quia spiritus et vita sermo,
eiindem etiam carnem suam dixit, quia
et sermo caro erat factus, proinde in
causam \'it8e appetendus, et devoran-
dus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu,
et fide digerendus. Nam et, paulo
ante, carnem suam panem quoque
coelestem pronunciarat. Tertull. de
resurr. cam, p. 68. § xxviii. Oper. p.
69. and § 37. ed. Paris, 1675. p. 347.
It may be doubted, whether, in ab-
solute strictness of speech, the earlier
Fathers ever interpret John vi. 62-63
of the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup-
per. They seem rather to under-
stand it of an independent spiiitual
manducation of Christ's body and
blood: which spiritual manducation,
however, theybelievetobe symbolically
represented by the subsequently ap-
pointed sacramental participation of
bread and wine.
The distinction is of some import-
ance : for it is obvious, that those,
who thus interpreted the passage,
could by no possibility have held the
doctrine of Transubstantiation.
See this subject well treated by Dr.
Waterland, in his Keview of tlie Doc-
trine of the Eucharist, chap. \i.
The old principle of interpretation
was remembered by Fulgentius even
so late as the beginning of the sixth
century.
Unumquemque fidelium corporis
sanguinisquedominiciparticipem fieri,
quando in baptismate membrum esse
illius corporis Christi eiiicitur : nee
alienari ab illo panis calicisve con-
sortio, etiamsi antequam panem il-
ium comedat, et calicem bibat, de hoc
sneculo in unitate corporis Christi
consti tutus abscedat. Sacramenti
quippe ilUus participatione et bene-
ficio non privatur, quando ipse hoc,
quod illud sacramentum significat, in-
venitur. Fulgent, apud Waterland.
yof>i,ivoi, 'ix%yiv' Eav /jt,h (poiynri (/.ov t^v
fftk^KO. Ko.) TTitiri [jt,ov TO etJfiix,, ovx ix,^rt
^iuriv Iv lauraTs. 'EicsTvoi, f/-h uxtixooTSS
TvivfjcccTixZ; Tuv Xtyof^ivuy, (Tx,a,v^a,Xitrfiv-
TJJ, CCTTTlXSoV iU TOC, OTItrCi), VOfAl^OVTlg OTt
it) (ra^Ko(pa,yia.v ai/rohs 'zr^oT^iTirxi, — 'Ev
T^ xaivyi 'hia.SriKr!, u^rog ov^oivios, x.a) To-
TVi^ioy (Twrm^iaVf "^vy^v xeci ffufjbo. ocyioi-
^ovTct. "iltr-zri^ o ci/^Tos ffctiftetTi KUToiX-
X»iXos' oiiroo xeci o Xoyog r*) '4'^XV '"'^f^^'
^lo;. — -"Orav o Kv&^uTOi Xiyri Qtal, 'Hroi-
f4.xcrecs huTiov fiov r^ccTi^etv' ti kXXo
ffny-eclvU Vt 7flV flVffTIKhv XCCi V07}Tt}V T^d-
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTrES OF KOMANISM. 263
3. Let us next hear the great Athanasius.
Whe7i our Lord conversed on the eating of his body, and ivhen
he thence beheld many scandalised, he forthwith added : Doth this
offend you f What if ye shall behold the Son of man ascending -
where he was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth : the
flesh profiteth nothing. The words, which I speak unto you,
are spirit and life. Both these matters, the flesh and the spirit,
he said respecting himself: and he distinguished the spirit from
the flesh, in order that, believing both the visible and the invisible,
they might understand his sayings to be not carnal but spiritual.
For to how many persons could his body have sufficed for food :
so that it might become the aliment of the whole world f But,
that he might divert their minds from carnal cogitations, and
that they might learn the flesh which he would give them to be
supercelestial and spiritual food : he, on this account, mentioned
the ascent of the Son of 7nan to heaven. The words, said he,
which I speak unto you, are spint and life. As if he had inti-
mated : My body shall be exhibited and given as food for the
world : so that that food shall be given to each one spiritually,
and shall to all be a preservative to the resurrection unto life
eternal^.
4. We may next hear the distmct and positive avowal of
Augustine,, in professed opposition to the gross fancy of those
Jews who imagined that our Saviour offered to give his own
literal flesh and blood as a necessary aliment for his disciples.
^i^av, rjy o 0£oj fificTv 'hroificcfftv i^tvav- a,f/,<poTi^a. ft^t etiirou t'l^riKi, ffct^Ka xa
Ttas ; — A<a touto, ko.) o '^oXofjt.iuv, rxv- TtMiv (/.a,' xeci to ^vivf^a •rgo; to Kara
T»v a,iviTTC)f/.ivos T>jv ^x^iv, Iv Tu 'Ex- ffu^KO, ^ntTTuXiv, 'Ivct f^h ju,ovav TO <patvo-
KXruTtocffT^ Xiyit' Aiv^o, ^dyt iv ih- f/.ivov, ocXXa. xttt to gco^utov kvtou, '?rta''
(fipoa-vvri Tov ccotov ffov, tov TViu//.ciTixov Tivo'oi.vTis , fAoiSuiriv' on xon, a, ktyu, ovx
ei^Tov' Aiv^o {.xa.'ku Tn* a-tur^^iov xect f/.oc- iiTTi ffet^xitu, aXXoi 'TviOf/.ecTixx. Tioffots
xBt^ioToiov xX?,a-tv), XXI "prli tov oJvov ffov yoc^ tj^xn to irufjcx T^o; (i^utriv, Vva xeu
Iv xx^iu, otyxf^i TOV <rvivfiXTixov o'lvov. TOV xotr/u.ov txvtos touto T^OIp'/j yivtiTxi i
— 'STfi^i^ov TYiv xx^'iuvy f/,iTxXufjt.^xvuv * AXXx, 3/a TOUTO, t5jj £/j ob^xvovs xva-
XVToZ us 'rvlVf/.XTlXoZ' XX) tXx^VVOV TO ^XffiUS If^VyifiOViVO'i TOV VtOV TOV XvS^O)-
t"^? '4''^Z^S <rov T^offoaTov. Cyril. Hieros. ^ov, 'ivx tyis ffufJi.xTix'ni Iwoixg xvrovs
Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 230, 287, 288 : x(piXKV(rn, xx) Xoi-rov r^v il^nfAivnv irx^xx
and capp. 4-9, pp. 320-22. ed. Paris. (o^ua-iv xvuhv ol^xviov xx) Tviu/axTi-
1720. xfjv T^o(phv fra^' xvtov ot^ofjiivYiv f/,x6uim.
' 'O^yivixa Tt^) Tfjs TOV ffufiXTOs "A yx^ XiXxXnxx, (priff)v, v/jc7vf Tvsvftd
(h^uiTiui ^ixXiyof/,ive3 , xx) oix tovto 'XoX- IffTt xx) l^uri- Itrov t^ ii^tTv' To ju,iv
Xovs iw^uxu; rovs ffxxvtxXtfffiVTa;, (pn<T)v ^itxvvf/.ivov xx) 'hth'of/ivov vr\^ tov xofffjuov
Kv^ioi' Tovto ii/itxs trxxv^xXi^it ; 'Eav ^o6r,ffiTxi T^o(pri, us Tvivf/,aTixus iv
ovv Siu^riayjTi tov vlov tov kvS^u'Trov xvx- ixxo'Tcu txvtyiv xvxoi^oirSxii xx) y'nitrSou
P>xUovTX oTov *iv TO -T^oTi^ov ; To 'X'nvfix -PTxa-i (pvXxxTri^iov us xvxaTxatv ^urjg
Io't) to ^cuo-^oiovv' h a-u^^ u(piXi7 ot/Ssy. xitoviov. Athan. in illud Evan. Qm-
Ta pr,f4,xTx, a, iyu XiXaXrixx v[jt.7v Tviv- cunque dixerit verbum contra filium
f4x iffTi xx) Z,un. Ka} ivTxv^a yx^ hominis. Oper. vol. i. p. 771, 772.
264 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
Christ instructed them, and said unto them : It is the spirit
that quickeneth ; the flesh proflteth nothing. The words, which 1
speak unto you, are spiii^t and life. As if he had said: Under-
stand SPIRITUALLY luhat I have spoken. You are not about tc
eat this identical body, which you see ; and you are NOT about tc
drink this identical blood, which they who crucify me, will pour
out. I have commended unto you a certain sacrament : ivhich,
if SPIRITUALLY understood, will vivify you. Though it must be
celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly^.
5. Let us next hear Facundus, an African Prelate ; wlio,
about the middle of the sixth century, wrote to defend Theo-
dore of Mopsuesta for having asserted, that even Christ himself
received the adoption of sons, inasmuch as he condescended to
receive the initiatory sacrament of adoption, both when he was
circumcised and when he was baptised.
The sacrament of adoption may be called adoption : just as the
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, ivhich is in the conse-
. crated bread and wine, we are wont- to call his body and blood.
Not indeed, that the bread is properly his body, or that the wine
is PROPERLY his blood : but we so denominate them, because they
contain the myste7y of his body and blood within themselves.
Hence it was, that our Lord called the consecrated bread and
wine, which he delivered to his disciples, his own body and blood^,
6. Lastly, we may hear the author of the Treatise on the
Lord's Supper: a Treatise, ascribed by Dupin to Arnold,
Abbot of Bonneval, who flourished so late even as the twelfth
century, and who was the intimate friend of the renowned
Bernard of Clairvaulx'^.
At the doctrine of this mystery, the auditors tvere astonished,
when the Lord said : Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of
' nie autem instruxit eos, et ait * Potest sacramentum adoptionis
illis : Spiritus est, qui vivificat : caro a<Zo/)^ionimcupari: sicut sacramentum
autem nihil prodest. Verba, qua; lo- corporis et sanguinis ejus, quod est
cutus sum vohis, spiritus est et vita. in pane et poculo consecrate, corpus
I Spiritaliter intelligite, quod locutus ejus et sanguinem dicimus ; non quod
sum. Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, proprie corpus ejus sit panis, et pocu-
mandicaturi estis : nee bibituri ilium lum sanguis ; sed quod in se mjs-
sanguinem, quern fusuri sunt qui me terium corporis sanguinisque con-
crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod tineant. Hinc et ipse Dominus bene-
vobis commendavi : spiritaliter intel- dictum panem et calicem, quem disci-
lectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse pulis tradidit, corpus et sanguinem su-
est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet um vocavit. Facund. Defens. Concil.
tamen invisibiliter intelligi. August. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. Oper. p. 144.
Enarr. in Psalm, xcviii. Oper. vol. ' Dupin's Hist, of Eccles. Writ,
viii. p. 397. vol. i. p. 132.
CELiP. lY.]
DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM.
f«P
#
man and shall drink his blood, ye shall not have lifi^ta^ you. ^s
Because some believed not this, nor were able to undei^siand it,
they went bach : for they thought it a horrible and nefarious tiling
to eat human flesh; fancying, that they were taught to eat Ms
flesh boiled or roasted or cut asunder, when yet his personal flesh,
if divided into portions, would not be sufficient for the whole
human race. But, in thoughts of this description, flesh and
blood profit nothing : for, as the Master himself taught us, the
ivords are spirit and life; nor, unless faith be added, can the
carnal sense penetrate to the understanding of so great a pro-
fufidity. The divine essence ineffably pours itself into the visible
sacrament, that devotion in respect to the sacraments might be a
point of religion, and that a more sincere access, even so far as to
the participation of the spirit, might lie open to that reality of
which the body and blood are sacraments : not indeed that this
UNION CAN EXTEND TO ANY PARTICIPATION OF THE ACTUAL SUB-
STANCE OF CHRIST, but certainly to a most germane association^,
TV. In criticism and in controversy there is this great utility.
^
\.
• Ad doctrinam mysterii hujiis ob-
stupiierant auditores, cum diceret
Dominus : Nisi manducaveritis carnem
Jil'ii hominis,et biberitis ejus sanguinem ;
non habcbitis vitam in vobis. Quod
quidani quia non credebant, nee po-
terant intelligere, abierunt retro :
quia horrendum eis et nefarium vide-
batur vesci carne humana ; existi-
mantes, hoc eo modo dici, ut camera
ejus vol elixam vel assam sectamque
niembratim edere docerentur, cum
illius personse caro si in frusta par-
tiretur, non omni humano generi
posset sufl&cere. — Sed, in cogitationi-
bus hujusmodi, caro et sanguis non
j)rodest quidquam : quia, sicut ipse
M agister exposuit, verba hccc spiritus
el vita sunt: nee carnalis sensus ad
intellectum tanta3 profunditatis pene-
trat, nisi fides aecedat. — Sacramento
visibili ineflabiliter divina se infudit
essentia, ut esset religioni circa sacra-
menta devotio ; et ad veritatem, cujus
corpus et sanguis sacramenta sunt,
sineerior pateret accessus, usque ad
participationem spiritus: non quod
USQUE AD CONSUBSTANTIALITATEM
Cheisti, sed usque ad societatem
germanissimam ejus, ha?c unitas per-
venisset. Tractat. cle Cain. Domin.
ad calc. Oper. Cyprian, vol. ii. p. 40.
If, in ascribing this Treatise to Ar-
nold of Bonneval, the judgment of
Dupin be well foimded, the value of
the present testimony will be greatly
increased : for, in that case, we shall
have an orthodox doctor of the Church
even in the twelftli century, not only
adopting the tone of his theology from
Athanasius, but denjing, totidem ver-
bis, that, in the reception of the Eu-
charist, we partake of Christ's sub-
stance.
The following account of Arnold
of Bonneval is given by Trithe-
mius.
Arnoldus Abbas Bonse-Vallis or-
dinis Cisterciensis, beati Bernard!
Abbatis quondam familiaris amicus,
vir in divinis scripturis studiosus et
eruditus, secularium quoque litera-
rum non ignarus, ingenio promtus et
clarus eloquio, nee minus eonver-
satione quam doctrina conspicuus,
nomen suum scribendo posteritati
notificavit. Defuncto namque Guliel-
mo Abbate Sancti Theoderici, et opus
vitJB Sancti Bernardi imperfectum
rehnquente, ipso etiam Sancto jam
coelestia regna teneute, scripsit et
perfecit, Vitam Sancti Bernardi Ubris
quatuor, et Virorum illnstrium Gesta
nonnuUa, et Quasdam Epistolas. Cla-
ruit sub Friderico Imperatore piimo,
A.D. 1160.
266 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
that it is morally impossible to misapprehend the sentiments
of the critic or the controvertist. We may deem the criticism
itself erroneous, or we may pronomice the argument itself
inconclusive : but the opiriions of their respective authors we
cannot mistake. The very drift of the criticism or of the
argument invincibly estabhshes the fact, that such and such
were the sentiments of the critic or of the controvertist.
The evidence, which I shall now bring forward is of this
precise description. We find the early Theologians, not only
(as we have already seen) denying in express terms the doctrme
of Transubstantiation, but denying it also through the medium
of criticism and controversy. Their rejection, therefore, of the
doctrine unavoidably and irrefragably follows : and, since they
always obviously and sometimes even avowedly reject it on
behalf of the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church of the
several ages, in which they respectively flourished, must clearly
have also rejected the doctrine in question.
1. During the times of the Alexandrian Clement, or in the
course of the second century, certain sectaries, who bore the
name of Encratites, contended, that the use of wine w^as un-
lawful. Among other arguments, Clement employs against
them one deduced from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Christ himself, he reasons, consecrated true and proper wine
in the institution of the Eucharist. This wine, thus consecrated,
he himself commanded his disciples to drink. Therefore, on
the invincible authority of our Saviour Christ, the use of wine
cannot but be lawful.
Know well, says he in the winkling up of his argument, that
the Lord himself also partook of wine : for he himself also was a
man. And he blessed the wine, saying : Take, drinh ; this is my
blood, the blood of the vine. The holy stream of exhilaration
allegorically represents the Word, who poured himself out, on
behalf of many, for the remission of sins\
Thus runs the argument of Clement against the Encratites :
perfectly, conclusive, if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be
rejected ; perfectly inconclusive, if the Doctrine of Transub-
Ew >ya^ 'itrrt, fUTiXafiiv o'l'vov xeti \K^iof/,ivov us ei^ia-tv u.f/.ce,^riZv, il^^oa-v-
uvTOi' Km.) yk^ oiv6^u7ros xet) ctlros, vtj? elyiov aWyiyo^u va,fji,cx,. Clem. Alex.
Ka) ilXoynffiv ri tov oJvov, iWuv' Ad,- Pffidag. lib. ii. c. 2. Oper. p. 158. and
/SiTs, 'riiri' rovTo f/,av Icrri to a.7/u,cc t-JJj § 32. torn. i. p. 206. ed. Lips. 1831.
afiTiXov. Tov Aoyov, rov ^i^i -roXXuv p. 186. ed. Potter.
CHAP. IT.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAOTSM. 267
stantiation be received. According to the speculation of the
Transubstantialists, the substance of the wine is literally changed
into the substance of human blood through virtue of the prayer
of consecration. Now, had Clement and the Catholics of his
age held any such opinion, he never, unless he were an
absolute idiot, could have reasoned as he has done : for, though
our Lord's command to drink wine in the Eucharist is full
proof of the lawfulness of drinking wine ; his command to drink
blood in the Eucharist were assuredly no proof whatever, that
the use of wine is lawful. The very reasoning, therefore, of
Clement irresistibly proves, that he never could have held the
Doctrine of Transubstantiation : and, accordingly, he tells us,
not that the holy or consecrated wine was changed into the
substance of Christ's blood, but that the holy or consecrated
wme allegorically represents ov figuratively signifies it.
2. We have recently seen Augustine, on behalf of the
Church at the close of the fourth century and the beginning
of the fifth, expressly declaring, that, in the sacrament of the
Eucharist, we do not eat and drink the literal body and blood
of Christ, but that the words of the Lord are to be understood
spiritually^. Let us now attend to his perfectly correspondent
criticism on the tropical language of Scripture.
In the interpretation of figurative passages, let the following
canon be observed. —
If the passage be preceptive, either forbidding some flagitious
deed and some heinous crime, or commanding something useful
and beneficent : then such passage is not figurative. But, if
the passage seems, either to command some flagitious deed and
some heinous crirne, or to forbid something useful and beneficent :
then such passage is figurative.
Thu^, for example, Christ says : Unless ye shall eat the flesh
of the Son of man, and drink his blood; ye shall have no life
in you. Now, in these words, he seems to command a heinous
crime or a flagitious deed. Therefore the passage is a figure,
enjoining us to communicate in the passion of our Lord, and
admonishing us to lay it up sweetly and usefully in our memory :
because, for us, his flesh was C7mcified and wounded.
On the other hand. Scripture says : If thy enemy shall hunger,
give him food : if he shall thirst, give him drink. Here, without
* See above, book ii. chap. 4. § III. 4.
268 DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [bOOK U.
all doubt, an act of beneficence is enjoined. But, as for the
passage ivhich immediately follows ; This doing, thou shalt heap
coals of fire upon his head: one might imagine, so far as the
ba7'e words are concerned, that an action of heinous malevolence
was commanded. Under such circumstances, therefore, doubt not,
that THE PASSAGE WAS SPOKEN FIGURATIVELY. For, sifice it is
verbally capable of a double inte7pretation, after one mode to
inflict an injury, after another mode to confer a benefit : charity
requires, that, by coals of fire, you should understand the burning
groans of penitence, through which is healed the pride of that
person, who grieves that he has been an enemy of the man that
returns him good for evil by assisting him in his distress^.
Augustine, we may observe, first lays down a canon of
hermeneutic criticism, and then illustrates it with appropriate
examples. Now one of these examples is the command of
Christ to eat his flesh and to drink his blood : and another of
them, professedly adduced as homogeneous, is our Lord's
expression relative to the heaping coals of fire upon the head
of an enemy. Hence, from the very drift and necessity of his
criticism, it is, I think, quite impossible to misapprehend the
sentiments of Augustine relative to the nature of the Eucharist.
3. The same attestation in the same century is borne also by
John Chrysostom in his Epistle to Cesarius : a Work, which
affords a memorable instance of the unprincipled romish
practice of attempting either to suj^press or to garble what-
ever contradicts the dogmata of the Latin Church.
Before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread : but when the
grace of God, by the priest, has consecrated it, no longer is it
' Servabitur ergo, in locutionibus Ait Scriptura : Si esurierit inimicus
figuratis, regula liujusmodi. — tuns, ciba ilium: si sitit, potum da illi.
Si praeceptiva locutio est, aut fla- Hie, nullo dubitante, beneficentiam
gitium aut facinus vetans, aut utilita- pra?cipit. Sed quod sequitur ; Hoc
tern aut beneficentiam jubens ; non enim faciens carhones ignis congeres
EST riGURATA. Si autem tlagitium aut super caput ejus : malevolentise facinus
facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem putes juberi. Ne igitur dubitaveris
aut beneficentiam vetare ; figueata. figurate dictum : et, cum possit du-
EST. pliciter intei-pretari, uno modo ad no-
Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carneni cendum, altero ad prsestandum bene-
Jilii hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non ficium ; te potius charitas revocet, ut
habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel intelligas carbones ignis esse urentes
flagitium videtur jubere. figura est pauitentiae gemitus, quibus superbia
ERGO, prsecipiens passioni Domini sanatur ejus, qui dolet se inimicum
esse communicandum, et suaviter fuisse hominis a quo ejus miseriae
atque utiliter recondendum in me- subvenitur. August, de Doctrin.
moria : quia pro nobis caro ejus cru- Christian, lib. iii. c. 16, 16. and tom. iii.
cifixa et vulnerata sit. p. 52. ed. Benedict. Paris. 1085.
CHAr. lY.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 269
called bread ; but it is esteemed woi'thy to be called the Lord^s
body, ALTHOUGH THE NATURE OF BREAD STILL REMxUNS IN IT^
The following account of popish dealing with this obnoxious
Epistle is given by the very learned Mr. Goode.
In 1548, Peter Martyr, in his Dispute with Gardiner, Bishop
of Winchester, concerning the Eucharist, produced a passage
from an Epistle of Chrysostom to Cesarius, evidently over-
tui'ning the popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation : professing
that he had copied the Epistle from a Florentine Manuscript^
and had placed it in the Library of Archbishop Cranmer.
Gardiner, not being able to deny this, endeavoured to get over
the difficulty as well as he could : and ascribed the Epistle to
another John of Constantinople, who lived about the beginning
of the sixth century. This answer was adopted by others :
though, as the Archbishop observes, still the argument recurred
upon them ; forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning
of the sixth age ; and Transubstantiation, by consequence, was not
the doctrine of the Church then. And, accordingly, the copy in
Cranmer's Library being, of course, lost, in the dispersion of
his books. Cardinal Perron, in his Treatise of the Eucharist,
flatly accuses Peter Martyr of forgery : and uses abundance of
arguments to pe^'suade the world, that there never was any such
Epistle as had been pretended. So likewise says Bellarmine.
Thus the matter stood till 1680 : when Bigotius, having
brought a copy of the Epistle from Florence, printed it with
his edition of Palladius ; and strengthened it, says Dr. Wake,
with such attestations, as to show it to be beyond all doubt
authentic. But, before the publication of the Book, this part of
it was interdicted, and the printed leaves were cut out of the
Book : and, of this, the edition of Palladius of that year remains a
standing monument, both in the Preface and iti the Booh ; for the
truth of which 1 can also testify, having a copy of the Book ;
which is not, i?ideed, of uncommon occurrence. However, the
very leaves cut out of Mr. Bigofs Preface by those doctors, and
the Epistle raised out of the Book, fell into the hands of Dr.
Wake : by whom they were published in the Appendix to his
* Antequam sanctificetur panis, . etiamsi natura pakis in ipso per-
pnncm nominamus : divina aiitem il- mansit. Chrysost. Epist. ad Capsar,
lum sanctificante gratia, mediante sa- apud Wake, and see Dupin, Nouv.
cerdote, liberatus est quidem appella- Bibl. des Auteurs Eccles. torn, iii,
tione 'panis ; dignus autem habitus p. 37. Paris. 1098.
est Dominici Corporis appellatione,
270 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of
England against M. de Meaux, p. 127 et infra^
Such dealing with evidence requires, I suppose, no comment.
Dupin, the Roman Catholic historian, thus refers to the sub-
ject under consideration : The Catholics for a long time sus-
pected Peter Martyr of imposture, and considered the fragment of
this letter as apiece of his own invention. But some time after
M. Bigot having found an ancient manuscript copy of the version
of that letter in the Lih^ary of the Dominicans at Florence, it was
no longer doubted but that Peter Martyr had token the fragment
from thence. It appears to me that one ought not to reject it as a
piece unworthy of St. Chrysostom^,
In truth, the Epistle to Cesarius, as the Romanists them-
selves are constrained to admit, is quoted, as the Production of
Chrysostom, by John Damascen, Anastatius the Presbyter,
Nicephorus, and others. As Archbishop Wake remarks:
So many ancient authors have cited it as St. Chrysostom's Epistle
to Cesarius ; such fragments of it remain in the most ancient
writers as authentic : that he who, after all these, shall call this
Piece in question, may well, with the same reasonableness, doubt
of all the rest of his Works ; which, perhaps upon less grounds,
are on all sides allowed as true and undoubted.
4. In the fifth century, the Eutychians maintained, that the
body of Christ, after his final ascension to heaven, was sub-
stantially changed or absorbed into the Divine Essence : the
substance and nature of the body being converted into the
substance and nature of the Deity^. Thus, according to such
* Goode's Divine Eule of Faith Auteiirs Eccles. par L.E. Dupin. torn,
and Practice, chap. v. sect. 3. vol. i. iii. p. 87. Paris. 1008.
p. 196, 197. 3 To this speculation of the Euty-
^ Les Catholiques ont longtems chians, the author of the Athanasian
soup9onne Pierre Martyr d'imposture, Creed alludes in the following clauses,
et ont considere le fragment de cette One Christ : one, not by conversion
lettre comma une piece de son inven- of the Godhead into flesh, hut by taking
tion. Mais depuis quelque temps M. of the manhood into God; one alto-
Bigot ayant trouve un exemplaire yether, not by confusion of sub-
manuscrit assez ancien de la version stance, but by unity of person.
de cette lettre dans la Bibliothfeque The four first Ecumenical Coun-
de Dominicains de Florence, on n'a oils were respectively summoned
plus doute que ce ne fut de la que against four principal Heresies : the
Pierre Martyr avait tire le fragment Council of Nice, against Arianism ;
qu'il en avait rapporte. I] me semhle the Council of Constantinople,
meme que Ton ne doit pas rejetter against Apollin arianism; the Coun-
comme une pi6ce indigne de St. Chry- cil of Ephesus, against Nesto-
sostome. Nouvelle Biblioth^que des rianism ; and the Council of Chal-
CHAP. IV.]
DimCULTIES OF ROMANISM.
271
a system, the humanity of Christ, virtually and effectively,
ceased to exist, being wholly, by confusion of the substances,
transmuted into his Divinity^
This singular notion they attempted to defend or to illustrate
by citing against the Catholics, as a sort of argumentum ad
hoininem, their own familiar language respecting the Eucharist.
After consecration, the elements of bread and wine were, by
the Catholics, always denominated the body and blood of Christ.
Their phraseology, indeed, as every Catechumen of the higher
class well knew, was simply metonymical : but it suited the
Eutycliians, particularly as they might easily adduce specimens
cedon, against Eutychianism. Hence
the Decisions of these four great
Orthodox Councils were said to be
briefly comprehended in four greek
words. In their judgment, accord-
ing to the sense of the Catholic
Church handed down from the be-
ginning, Christ is God and Man,
The last of these words, a,irvyx,^rui,
without confusion of substance, refers
to the Eutychian Heresy, condemned
by the Council of Chalcedon.
Perhaps for the information of
some readers, and for thejfcdicatory
explanation of a most valflpie Creed
very little understood and therefore
by the ignorant very strenuously
reviled, it may not be useless to re-
mark: that the Athanasian Symbol
was drawn up for the purpose of
meeting the verbal subtleties and the
refined distinctions resorted to by
the wrangling advocates of the four
principal condemned Heresies, of
Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestori-
anism, and Eutychianism. The pe-
culiarities of those Heresies com-
pelled the introduction of coiTe-
spondent peculiarities into the
Creed.
' It is not easy to define in words
the strict notion of the Eutycliians ;
but, that it was something to this
effect, seems to be demonstrated by
their own illustration of it.
Heaping Heresy upon Heresy,
they had adopted the juggling fancy
of the Gnostic Marcus, whom Ire-
n6us represents as the first author
of the Dogma of Ti-ansubstantiation :
and then they employed this pre-
tended change of the eucharistic
bread and wine into real flesh and
blood, as illustrating and as corre-
sponding with the alleged substantial
change of Christ's humanity into his
Divinity.
Very oddly, they appear not to
have perceived the total incompati-
bility of these two Heresies. For, if,
after his ascension, the humanity of
Christ had been transuhstantiatively
changed into his Divinity, the eu-
charistic bread and wine, in the
celebration of the Lord's Supper,
could not possibly have been them-
selves transubslantiatively changed
into flesh and blood which had al-
ready undergone their own transub-
ttantiation and had therefore ceased
as such to exist.
Thus, even if the Catholic Church
had then held the Dogma of Tran-
substantiation, Theodoret might have
confuted the Eutychian Heresy by
this reductio ad absurdnm. But, hap-
pily, he chose a different method :
and by denying the jiremises of the
illustrative argument of the Euty-
chians, he thus denied the Dogma
of Transubstantiation to be the then
received doctrine of the Catholic
Church. The very line, which he
took, doubles the value of his evi-
dence : because he might have taken
a different line. Had he taken that
different line, he could not have been
adduced as a witness to prove, that,
in the fifth centurj^ the Catholic
Church not only did not hold the
Doctrine of Transubstantiation, but
condemned it as held by the Euty-
chians.
272 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
of very inflated and exaggerated and affectedly mysterious
language, to understand and interpret it literally. Accordingly,
on this perversion, they built their illustrative argument.
As the bread and wine, they alleged, are, after consecration,
transmuted into the body and blood of Christ: so, they con-
tended, was the body of Christ, after its assumption into heaven,
transmuted or absorbed into the divine substance.
Thus, according to their statement, stood the argument : and
the mode, in which it is answered by Theodoret on behalf of
the orthodox Church of the fifth century, is not by an admission
of the premises coupled with a denial of the conclusion (the
manner, in which a Transubstantialist must inevitably, on his
principles, have been constrained to answer it), but by a denial
of the conclusion through the medium of an explicit denial of the
premises. The Eutychians, in short, alleged, that the Catholics
held the Doctrine which has subsequently been denominated
Transubstantiation : Theodoret, on the part of the Catholics,
flatly contradicted the allegation.
Nothing can be more clear and satisfactory, than the method
in which Theodoret has managed the controversy. He throws
the discussion into the form of a dialogue. The speakers are
Eranistes and Orthodoxus. Eranistes is the representative of
the Eutychians: Orthodoxus, as his^^feme imports, is the
representative of the sound Catholics of the fifth century. By
a series of questions, allusive to the ancient Christian Mys-
teries, one of which was the Doctrine of the Eucharist, Eranistes
dexterously works up Orthodoxus to the verbally precise point
which he wished : and then pounces upon him with an argu-
mentum ad hominem, constructed indeed upon his oivn words,
but constructed upon those words, taken in the sense wherein
Eranistes found it convenient for his purpose to take them.
Orthodoxus, however, is not thus to be entrapped. He flatly
denies, on the part of the Church Catholic, the occurrence of
any sacramental transubstantiation in the consecrated elements :
and assures his disingenuous antagonist, that his words, as
understood by the orthodox, convey no such extraordinary and
unheard of meaning. Thus, forthwith, he effectually stultifies
the inductive argument of Eranistes : but then, in the very
act of stultifying it, he denies, as palpably unorthodox, the
dishonestly alleged Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
m
CHAP. IV. J DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 273
Eran. What call you the offered gift, previous to the sacer-
dotal invocation ?
Orthod. I must not speak distinctly : for some of the uninitiated
may be present
Eran. Let your answer, then, he enigmatical,
Orthod. Food prepared from such and such grains,
Eran. But how do you call the other symbol ?
Orthod. This also is a common name, denoting a kind of
drink.
Eran. But, after consecration, how do you call these things ?
Orthod. The body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
Eran. And do you believe, that you partake of Chris fs body
and blood ?
Orthod. So I believe.
Eran. As, then, the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are
one thing before the sacerdotal invocation ': but, after the invo-
cation, are transmuted and becom^e another thing : so the Lords
body, AFTER its assumption, is transmuted into the divine sub-
stance.
Orthod. You are caught in your own net. For the mystic
symbols, after consecration, pass not out of their own nature.
For they remain in their former substance and shape and
appearance: and they are seen and touched, such as they were
before. But they are understood to be what they were : and they
are believed and venerated, as being those things which they are
believed. Compare, therefore, the image with the archetype ;
and you will perceive their resemblance : for the type must needs
be similar to the truths
EPAN. T/ x.ocXi7; to 'X^otr(pt^oft,i- EPAN. Ka; •prKmCn; yi trAifAU.TOf
vov ou^ov, T^o Tvii It^itTix.yi; iTi!cXr,tricu; ; 'K^itrrov f/.iTuXei/u,(iciviiv koc) a'ljLcecTos ;
0P60A. Ov ;^;^^ a-cc(pZ; ii-nTv' stxos OP0OA. Oiireo -rttrnvM,
ya,^ TtMUi a.fjLviirovs Ta^'Jvat. EPAN. "Cta-Ti^ toUvv tu ffvfjt.(ho'ka,
EPAN. AlviyfiKTuous « i^eft^itrif tov ^Sff'Torixou a-eti/UKTo; Ti xa.) ttlfji.'/.roi,
iffreo. uXy^oc fitv iiffi T^o T?ii li^artxiii ItikX^-
0P60A. T^y Ik rotuv^i cTS^ficirMV trtais, fcira Ss yi rhv t-r'ncXrfftv fUTec,-
r^opriv. (ieiXXiTai xa) in^ct yiviTvi' outco to
EPAN. T# Vs iTi^ev irv/£p,okcv ^ug tia-TOTixov <ru[Ji.it, (/.itu t«v a.va,Xrf^t)),
ovofza.i^Of/.lv ; t/y TJJv otJcrietv /xiTlfikri^v Triv hlotv.
OPBOA. Ka/vov xa) tovto ovo/aa, vri- OPeOA. *EaA(Wf uli v(p*)vis apxueriv.
fiO-TOi uhoi irr,/u,(x7vov. Oudi ya^, /u.tToc tov o:,yioitrf/,oy, to, fjt,uar-
EPAN. Msra di yt tov ocyinfffiovy TtKoc tTUfjt,(io\oe, Thi oixilxi i^tffTaToci ^u-
vui TxuTot T^offocyo^ivit; ; inug . Msv£/ ya,^ sir} Tvt{ le^oTi^oti
OPeOA. '2uifjLa XonTTou ku.) eufict, oltr'tots xa.) roS ir^^^^fiaTos xa) tov i72ove'
X^tlTTOU. xa.) l^KTO, IffTI Xu) OiTTU, Old XCc) 'T^O-
t
274
DIFFICULTIES OF E0:MAI^ISM.
[book n.
The bread and wine, after consecration, says the personified
Orthodoxy of the fifth century, remain in their former sub-
stance and shape and appearance.
Therefore, if they remain in their former substance, they
clearly experience no transubstantiation^
(1.) It may be useful to remark, that Theodoret in the East
was not the only writer against the Eutychians during the
lapse of the fifth century : their dishonest argument from the
eucharistic phraseology of the ancient Catholics, which they
TiPOV >JV' VoniTUl 08 Ct'Ti^ iyiVlTO' X.XI
^IffTiViTUI, KCc) T^OtrKVVUTOCI, Ui iKllVO,
evTX a.Ti^ 9tiffriviTcx.i. Tlx^cchs roivvv
VU a.^^lTV-PTlf) T>JV ItKOVX, Tca.) o-<pii TJJV
of^otoTnTX. X^ri yu^ loiKivcti tjj aXriSna,
Tov rv-TTot. Theodor. Dial. ii. Oper.
vol. iv. p. 84, 85. Paris. 1642.
' For the purpose of evading this
direct testimony of Theodoret, the
Bishop of Strasbourg, carefully how-
ever withholding the original Greek
from the profane gaze of the unini-
tiated, has thought tit to render the
important clause, Msvs; ya.^ i-r) rtis
vr^oTS^as ovtrias ko.) rov ffpf^^n/aoiTos rcci roZ
tlloui, in the following very extraor-
dinary manner: They remain in the
shape and form of the former sub-
stance. Answ. to Diffic. of Koman.
p. 270.
I. By such a version, Dr. Trevern
doubtless makes Theodoret speak like
a good Papist, who contends that the
substance of the elements is changed while
their accidents remain unaffected: but
then, even to say nothing of his forc-
ing Orthodoxus to commit the palpa-
ble absurdity of offering a perfectly
incongruous reply to Eranistes, he
perverts the original Greek in a man-
ner disgraceful to any person who
claims to be even a moderate scholar.
Had Theodoret meant to have said
what the Bishop of Strasbourg has
been pleased to put into his mouth,
he would have written, not Mivn ya.^
«wi Tjjj T^oTi^ecf olffioti KBcl rod o'x,^fjt.a,70i
Ktx.) Tou il'hovi, but Msv£/ yup it) rov tsJj
^^oTi^xg oixr'ius ff^vifji,aTos Kxi i'l'hovi.
Even a decent schoolboy would teach
him, that the Greek of Theodoret is
UTTERLY INCAPABLE of the Strange
version which he has given of it.
Not content, however, with tlius
indecently falsifying his author, Dr.
Trevern, apparently not considering
how inconsistent one part of his gloss
is with the other, and probably sus-
pecting that his gross mistranslation
would not be suifered to pass without
merited castigation, attempts to escape
through yet a different loop-hole.
Though the whole chspute between
the Catholics and the Arians ran
upon the word ohtrU in the undoubted
sense of substance, though the vain
subtleties of the schoolmen had never
been heard of in the days of Theodo-
ret, and though Theodoret himself in
the immediately preceding antithetical
speech of Eranistes had actually em-
ployed the very word ohiria in the
sense of substance : yet Dr. Trevern
has the hardihood to assure us, that
the self-same word oviria, in the re-
spondent speech of Orthodoxus, de-
notes, not substance, but those physical
qualities which the schoolmen call acci-
dents. Answer to Diff. of Eom. p.
273, 274.
If, then, we put together Dr. Tre-
vern's gloss upon the word ova-ice. and
his projected translation of the lead-
ing gi-eek clause; we shall find him
exhibiting Theodoret, with stupendous
incongruity, as declaring, of the con-
secrated elements : that They remain
in the shape and form of tlie former ac-
cidents ; in other words, tliat They
remain in the accidents of the former
accidents ; or, in unscholastic English,
that They remain in the physical quali-
ties of the former physical qualities!
II. The intelHgent reader will
scarcely believe, that Dr. Trevern's
ally and translator, Mr. Husenbeth,
has absolutely, in defiance of Greek
Syntax, persisted to the last, though
CHAP, IV. J
DUTICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
275
with wilful perverseness chose to interpret precisely as the
modern Romanists would still have us interpret it, received the
self-same answer also from Pope Gelasius in the West.
Certainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord,
which we receive, are a divine thing : because, by these, we are
made partakers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the sub-
stance OR NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE CEASES NOT TO EXIST :
and, assuredly, the image and similitude of the body and blood
of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries^.
the well-nigh incredible blunder has
been duly pointed out to him, in main-
taining the ■propriety and admisHbility
of his galliean principal's translation.
According to Mr. Husenbeth, the
strictly legitimate v( rsion of Mivu yk^
\t) tJjj T^orioeti alffioci tend rou tr^rifiaTog
xai Tvy s'/aovs, is, I'hey remain in the
shape andfoiyn of the former substance :
and every charitable attempt, of a
plain well-meaning Hellenist like my-
self, to set him right, is declared by
him to be nothing more than so much
interminable verbal criticism !
To argue with such an individual is
useless : I must even turn him over
to the schoolmaster.
III. I regret, that Mr. Berington,
who evidently has not sinned throiiyh
ignorance, should have disgraced him-
self by a simulated parenthetic emen-
dation, which ought never to have
dropped from the pen of an honest
scholar.
His version of the passage, with
the mock parenthetic emendation, runs
as follows.
They remain in the former substance,
figure, and appearance (or rather, in
the shape and form of the former sub-
stance), to be seen and to be felt as be-
fore. Faith of Cathol. p. 240.
By an intellectual process which
surpasses my comprehension, Mr.
Berington actually adduces the en-
tire passage a.s favourable to the doc-
trine of Transubstantiation. This ac-
counts for his hibernian emendation
of a right version into a wrong one.
* Cert6 sacramenta quae sumimus
corporis et sanguinis Domini divina
res est, propter quod et per eadem
divinoe efficimur consortes naturae.
Et tamen esse non desinit substantia
vel natiira panis et vini : et certe
imago et similitudo corporis et san-
guinis Christi in actione mysteriorum
celebrantur. Gelas. de duab. Christ,
natur. cont. Nest'ir. et Eutych, in
Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.
Baronius, shocked, I suppose, that
a Pope should heretically deny the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, wishes
to give the Treatise on the Two Na-
tures of Christ to Gelasius of Cyzicus :
but that honest and acute Romanist
Dupin sufficiently establishes the
right of proprietorship in favour of
Gelasius the Pope. To my argu-
ment it is of the least possible conse-
quence, whether the Cyzicene or the
Latin were the true author : in either
case, we shall have a Father of the
fifth century writing, on behalf of the
Catholic Church, against the doctrine
of Transubstantiation.
The expository tricks tried by
Popery upon tliis refractory passage,
in a Roman Index of books to be ex-
purgated, are given and deservedly
exposed by Mr. Mendham in his
valuable and important Work on the
Literary Policy of the Church of Home,
chap. iii. p. 121, 122. 2d edit.
With respect to the authorship of
the Treatise, he justly remarks : that
No one doubted Gelasius to be the Pope
of that name in the fifth century, until
plainly interested motives induced the
Romanists to move a question upon the
subject. The case is stated in Cave's
Hist. Lit. : where he asserts Labb^to be
satisfied of its authenticity. The mo-
dern discussians are mere loans upon
antiquity.
So far as respects the evidential
importance of the dispute, he then
makes a remark to the same effect as
my own. All, that is in contest, is the
Pope or a Theologian of the same age.
276 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
(2.) I may add, that, when, notwithstanding the repeated
assurance of their perversely misinterpreting the conventional
phraseology of the Catholics, the Eutychians, even in the sixth
century, still pertinaciously continued to employ it, by way
of demonstrating, or at least of illustrating, the alleged trans-
mutation of the substance of Christ's body into the substance
of the Godhead : they once more received the same answer from
Ephrem of Antioch.
The body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, neither
DEPARTS FROM ITS SENSIBLE SUBSTANCE, on the One hand: nor
remains separated from intellectual grace, on the other hand.
And spiritual baptism likewise, being whole and single, both re-
tains the propriety of its sensible substance, I mean the water :
and loses not that, ivhich it hath become^.
This answer of Ephrem, clear and distuict as it is even
exclusively upon the principle of controversial respondency
which forms the basis of the present part of our discussion,
acquires yet an additional force and precision, from the circum-
stance of his bringing, on the evident ground of acknow-
ledged analogical homogeneity, the two holy sacraments of
Baptism and the Eucharist into immediate comparative juxta-
position. The symbols of bread and wine, he argues, are no
more physically or substantially changed into the body and
blood of Christ, than the symbol of water is physically or sub-
stantially changed into the inward moral grace of Baptism.
In neither case, do the material elements depart from their
own sensible substance or nature. They are severally united,
indeed, by virtue of consecration, to a spiritual grace : but the
spiritual grace is superadded to the material symbols. As for
the symbols themselves, whether eucharistic or baptismal, they
experience no physical change. The bread and wine, in the
one sacrament, still remain bread and wine : just as the water,
in the other sacrament, still remains water.
Whether Gelasius of Rome or Gelasius <r<w«« X^ia-roU, xa) r7is ui(r^7iT»is oua-leet
of Cyzicus was the author, in either ov» i^iffra.ra.t, xa) rr,; vo^tyis ahal^irov
case, the passage is equally the testi- fjtim x.'^^iroi. Kai to (ia-rri(rfji.et, li
mony of the fifth century : and it per- ?rv£v^«r/«6ii, oXov yivof/.ivov ko.) iv u-tto.^.
fectly accords with the contemporan- x."^, ko.) to "hov t^s alffhrri; ovtrixs, tou
eous testimony of Theodoret, and (as vlaTo; xiyu, hao-u^w xa) S yiyonv «J*
we shall next see) Avith the still later aT^Xiffiv. Ephraem. Theopolitan.
testimony of Ephrem. apud Phot. Bibl. cod. ccxxix. p. 794.
Tfl (Ta^a Tuv Tiffruv kctfie,(ixvofiivov Rotliomag. 1G53.
CILiP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF KOI^IAJ^TISM.
277
5. About the year 818, Paschase Radbert of Corby, either
actually asserted, or was thought to have asserted, the Doctrine
of Chrisfs Substantial Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy
Supper. From various expressions in his Work on the Eu-
charist, it has been doubted by Bishop Cosin, whether he were
truly either a Transubstantialist or a Consubstantialist ; and it
must be owned, that, throughout the entire Book, his ever
varying language is not a little inconsistent ^ : but be this as
it may, he and his followers were at least believed to have
advanced some modification of the Tenet of a Substantial
Presence ; and the not unreasonable ground of that belief was
his crude statement, that the body of cheist in the euchaeist
IS THE SAME BODY AS THAT, WIHCH WAS BOKN OF THE VIRGIN,
WHICH SUFFERED UPON THE CROSS, AND WHICH WAS RAISED FROM
THE GRAVE^.
This persuasion immediately called up a strenuous opposition
• Cosin. Histor. Transubstan. Pa-
pal, c. V. § 29. p. 86-89.
* Quia voluit, licet figura panis et
vini hsec sic est, omnino nihil aliud,
quam caro Christi et sanguis, post
consecrationem credenda sunt. XJnde
ipsa Veritas ad discipulos : Hcoc, in-
quit, caro me a est pro mundi vita. Et,
ut mirabilius loquar, non atja plane,
QUAM QUiE NATA EST DE MAEIA, ET
PASSA IN CRUCE, ET PESUEKEXIT DE
SEPULCHRO. Haec, inquam, ipsa est,
et ideo Christi caro est, quse pro
mundi vita oifertur: et, cum dign6
percipitur, vita utique seterna in nobis
reparatur. Paschas. Eadbert. de Sa-
cram. Eucharist, chap. iii. p. 19.
Colon. 1551.
For reasons best known to himself,
the romish editor of this work at
Cologne has thought fit to print it as
the production of Eabanus Maurus
Archbishop of Mentz. Doubtless it
were important to enlist such a man
in the cause of Transubstantiation ;
and doubtless a Work of that eminent
Prelate, in favour of the Doctrine,
might well, as a seasonable corrective,
be annexed to the opposing Work of
Bertram, which could not be alto-
gether suppressed, and which accord-
ingly is printed in the same volume
with the work so liberally bestowed
upon Raban : but, in truth, the Arch-
bishop of Mentz not only held opinions
directly contrary to those propounded
in the Work which the romish editor
has made to bear his name, but even
wrote specifically and professedly
against the identical passage which
has been cited above.
In the blank leaf of the copy of the
Work de Sacramento Eucharistia;,
which belongs to Bishop Cosin's
Library at Durham, is the following
note, most probably in the hand-
writing of that learned Theologian
himself.
Non est hie liber a Rabano scriptus,
sed a Paschasio Radberto Monacho
Corbiensi, contra quem Rabanus satis
apert^ argumentatus est. Est igitur
ementitum nomen Rabani. Vide Us-
serium de Success, et Statu Ecclea.
cap. ii. n. 17. p. 39. and p. 25. ed.
Lond. 1G87.
I subjoin the spurious title, which
the Romish editor at Cologne has
prefixed to a Work, which really
is the property of Paschase Rad-
bert.
Rabanus de Sacramento Eucharis-
tiae. Opus nunc primum recens
editum, ex bibliotheca Cuthberti Ton-
stalli EpiscopiDunelmensis. Accessit
ejusdem argumenti opusculnm Ber^
278 DIFFICULTIES OF EOI^IANISM. [bOOK H.
to a doctrine, which had lately indeed been recognised in the
East, but which had hitherto been unknown in the West.
(1.) Among the foremost of its opponents, we find, about
the year 825, Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz. In his
Epistle to Heribald, he specially notices the offensive statement
of Paschase, proves it to be an unscriptural error, and sets
forth in avowed hostility to it what he esteems the old and true
Doctrine of the Eucharist.
With respect to your interrogation, Whether the Eucharist,
after it has been consumed and in the manner of other food has
passed into the draught, returns again into its pristine nature
which it had before its consecration upon the altar : a question of
this descrip)tion is superfluous, since in the Gospel the Saviour him-
self has said; Evert thing, that enters into the mouth, goes into
the belly, and passes away into the draught. The sacrament of the
body and blood of the Lord is composed of things visible and cor-
poreal : but it produces an invisible sanctijication both of the body
and of the soul. Why need we, the?!, on the part of that which
is digested in the stomach and which has passed away into the
draught, talk of a return to its pristine state: ichen no person
ever asserted the occurrence of any such return ? Lately, indeed,
SOME individuals, not thinking rightly concerning the sacrament of
the body and blood of the Lord, have said : that that very body
AND BLOOD OF THE LORD, WHICH WAS BORN FROM THE VIRGIN MARY,
IN WHICH THE LORD HIMSELF SUFFERED ON THE CROSS, AND IN
WHICH HE ROSE AGAIN FROM THE SEPULCHRE, IS THE SAME AS THAT
WHICH IS RECEIVED FROM THE ALTAR. Ln Opposition to wMch
ERROR as far as lay in our power, writing to the A bbot Egilus, we
propounded what ought truly to be believed concerning the body
itself. For, respecting his body and blood, the Lord says in the
Gospel : I atn the living bread, ivhich descended from heaven.
If any person shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. For
my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He, who
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. The
person, therefore, who eats not that bread and who drinks not that
trami Presbyteri. Colonife, apud Bertram of Corby: when, in truth,
Joannem Quentel. Anno 1551. they were fellow - labourers on the
By tins curious piece of editorial same side of the question, both alike
management, Baban of Mentz is ex- combating the novel speculations of
hibited as opposing and correct in g Paschase Radbert.
CHAP. IV. J
DIFFICULTIES OF BOMAmSM.
279
hiood^ has not the life here intended: for mere teinporal life,
indeed, without any such manducation, may in this world be
enjoyed by men, who are not in his body through faith ; but eternal
life, which is promised to the saitits, can never be enjoyed by such
individuals. Lest, however, they should fancy, that, in that meat
and drink which they receive carnally and understand not spiri-
tually, life eternal is promised in faith ; so that they, who receive
it, should die neither in soul nor in body : he condescended to meet
a?id to anticipate any such cogitation: For, when he had said,
He, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life :
he immediately subjoined; I will raise him up at the last clay;
that, meariwhile, he may have eternal life according to the spirit^,
Raban, it appears, had already written on the same topic to
' Quod autem interrogastis, Utrum
JEvcharistia, postqitam consvmitiir et in
secessum emittitur more aliorum cibo-
rum, itentmredeat in naturam pristinam
quam hahuerat antequam in altari con-
sccraretur ; superflua est hujusmodi
qusBstio, cum ipse Salvator dixerit in
evangelio : Omne, qvod intrat in os,in
ventrem vadit, et in secessum emittitur.
Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis
Domini ex rebus visibilibus et cor-
poralibus conficitur : sed invisibilem,
tam corporis quam animee, efficit sanc-
tiflcationem. Quae est enim ratio, ut
hoc, quod stomacho digerituret in se-
cessum emittitur, iterum in statum
pristinvmi eedeat : cum nuUus hoc
unquam fieri asseruerit? Nam qui-
dam, nuper de ipso sacramento cor-
poris et sanguinis Domini non recte
sentientes, dixerunt : hoc ipsum cor-
pus ET SANGUIKEM DOMINI; QUOD DE
MARIA VIRGINE KATUM EST, ET IN QUO
IPSE DOMINUS PASSUS EST IN CRUCE ET
RESUEREXIT DE SEPULCHRO, IDEM ESSE
QUOD SUMITUR DE ALTARI. Cui er-
rori, quantum potuimus, ad Egilum
Abbatem scribentes, de corpore ipso
quid vere credendum sit, aperuimus.
Dicit enim, de corpore et sanguine
suo, Dominus in evangelio : Ego svm
panis vivus, qui de ccelo dcscendi. Si
quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in
uetermim. Caro enim mea vere est
cibus, et sanguis mens vere est potns.
Qui manducat meam carnem et hihit
meum sanguinem, habet vilam atemam.
Hanc ergo vitam non habet, qui iHum
panem non manducat, nee istum san-
guinem bibit. Nam illam temporalem
vitam sine illo homines utcunque in
hoc sseculo habere possunt, qui non
sunt per fidem in corpore ejus : seter-
nam vero nunquam, qufB Sanctis pro-
mittitur. Ne autem putarent, sic in
isto cibo et potu, quem camaKter su-
munt et spiritualiter non intelligunt,
in fide promitti vitam setemam ; ut,
qui eiim sumerent, nee anima nee
corpore morerentur, huic cogitationi
dignatus est occurrere. Nam, cum
dixisset ; Qui manducat carnem meam
et bibit mevm sanguinem, habet vitam
(Bternam: continuo subjecit et dixit;
Ego resuscitabo eiim in novissimo die ;
ut habeat interim, secundum spiritum,
vitam seternam. Raban. Archiepis.
Mogunt. Epist. ad Heribald. Episc.
Antissiodor. de Euchar. c. xxxiii. ad
calc. Reginon. Abbat. Pruniens. libr.
II. de eccles. disciplin. et rehg. Chris-
tian, p. 516. Stephan. Baluz. Tutel,
Paris. 1671.
I have introduced into the text two
obvious and necessary emendations
of Baluzius. His notes to that efiect
run as follows.
Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis
id est ex rebus.'] Puto locum ilium ita
legendum esse : Sacramentum corporis
et sanguinis Domini ex rebus.
Idem esse quod sumitur de altari.'\
Lacuna hie erat apud Stevarlium, qui
eam admonuit extare in M. S. exem-
plari. Nos illam certissimfe supple-
vimus ex praefatione anonymi a Cel-
lotio editi.
280 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
the Abbot Egilus : but, not content with this effort in the cause
of primitive truth, he likewise addressed himself to Heribald.
That, in his epistle to the latter individual now before us, he
referred to the offensive assertion of Paschase, is clear and
indisputable: for he has cited it, almost in the precise words
of its author, and certainly without the omission of a single
article.
On the whole, the language of the Archbishop is, in three
several points of view, very remarkable.
Without the slightest hesitation, he pronounces the Doctrine
of Paschase to be an error, which he himself was strenuously
opposing : by the use of the word some, he clearly testifies, as a
naked matter of fact, that, in his time, the Doctrine was held
only by a few adventurous admirers of Paschase : and, by the
expression lately, he no less clearly indicates, also as a naked
matter of fact, that the Doctrine of a Material Change of Sub-
stance, though it had been in the fifth century perversely
started by the eutychian heretics, and though in the eighth
century it had been recognised as orthodox by the second
Nicene Council, was, in the ninth century, resisted throughout
the West as a palpable innovation.
(2.) An additional light is thrown upon this important con-
troversy by the celebrated Treatise of Bertram of Corby on the
Body and Blood of Christ.
The novelty of Paschase made so much noise in the West,
that it excited the attention of imperial majesty itself. Hence
Charles was induced to ask the opinion of Bertram on the sub-
ject: and the Work of that very able writer, whose talents
through shrouded in monastic seclusion had not escaped the
notice even of royalty, is, in fact, an answer to the Emperor's
question.
The excellency of your highness asks me : Whether the body and
blood of Christ, which in the Church is received by the mouth of
the faithful, is produced, only in A mystery, or in reality. In
other words, you ask me : Whether it contains somewhat secret,
which is manifest to the eye of faith exclusively : or Whether,
without the veil of any mystery, the corporeal eye beholds that
externally which the mental eye beholds internally, so(that to the
broad light of day the whole transaction is clear and open ; whe-
ther, IN short, it be the identical body, which was born from
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 281
MARY AND SUFFERED AND DIED AND WAS BURIED, AND WHICH RISING
AGAIN AND ASCENDING TO HEAVEN SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE
FATHER.
Of these two questions, let us begin with inspecting the first :
and, lest we should be detained by the windings of dubiety, let
us set out with explicitly defining, what is figure, and what is
REAI.ITY.
Figure, then, is a certain adumbration, shewing its import
under certain coverings. Thus, for instance, when, in the Lord^s
prayer, we beg for our daily bread; or when Christ, in the Gospel,
says, I am the living bread ivhich descended from heaven; or when
he calls himself the vine, and his disciples the branches : all these
expressions say one thing, but mean another,
Reaxity, on the contrary, is the demonstration of a thing
manifest, veiled in no images of shadows, but expressed in plain
and open and natural significance : as when we say, that Christ
was born from the Virgin, that he suffered, that he was crucified,
that he died, and that he was buried. For nothing is here
shadowed out under the veil of figures ; but the reality of the
matter is shewn forth in the plain signification of natural words ;
nor can we here understand any thing beyond what is absolutely
spoken.
In the former instances, however, it vjas not so : for, substan-
tially, Christ is neither bread nor a vine, nor yet are the Apostles
branches^. Wherefore, here, there is figure : but, there, reality ;
that is to say. Reality, as importing the naked and open signi-
fication of any thing, is shewn forth in the relation.
Let us now return to those matters, for the sake of which these
definitions have been laid down : I mean the body and blood of
Christ.
If that mystery be not celebrated under a figure, it cannot
rightly be called a mystery : because the name of mystery can-
not justly be applied to that, in which there is nothing hidden,
nothing remote from the bodily senses, nothing hidden by a veil.
* The reader will not fail to re- may be proper to observe, that, in
mark, that Bertram, precisely after giving a figurative intei-pretation of
the manner of Theodoret and other the bread mentioned in the Lord's
ancient theologians, considers all prayer, Bertram only follows a fa-
these expressions as homogeneous : vourite practice of the ancients. See
whence, of course, he pronounces Cyprian, de Orat. Domin. Oper. vol.
them to be all equally Jigurative. It i. p. 146, 147.
282 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [^^^^ n*
But that bread, which, through the ministration of the priest, is
made the body of Christ, shews one thing exteimally to the human
senses, and speaks another thing internally to the minds of the
faithful^. — The wine also, which, through sacerdotal consecration,
is made the sacrament of the blood of Christ, shews one thing
superficially, but contains another thing inter7ially. — Since, then,
no person can deny that such is the case, it is manifest, that that
bread and wine are the body and blood of ChAst FiGURATi^iiiLY. —
For, if, as some pretend, nothing is here received figueatiyely,
but the whole is discerned in reality : then there is no room for
the operation of faith ; inasmuch as nothing spiritual is trans-
acted, but the whole is received according to the body. — Accord-
ing to the appearance of the creature and the form of things
visible, neither the bread nor the wine experience in themselves
any transmutation. Therefore, if they have experienced no ti^ans-
mutation, they are nothing else than what they were before. —
Let us now pass to the second question, and let us consider :
whether the identical body, which was born from MARY AND
SUFFERED AND DEED AND WAS BURIED, AND WHICH NOW SITS AT
THE RIGHT HANT) OF THE FATHER, IS THAT, WHICH IN THE CHURCH
IS DAILY RECEIYED BY THE MOUTH OF THE FAITHFUL THROUGH THE
MYSTERY OF THE SACRAMENTS.
According to the substance of the creatures, what they were
before consecration, that also they are after it. Previous to
consecration, they were bread and wine : and, in that same
appearance, when consecrated, they are seen still to remain. —
Nothing is here transacted corporeally : but it must be spintually
apprehended. It is the body of Christ, but not corporeally :
it is the blood of Christ, yet not corporeally. — The body,
which Christ received from the Virgin Mary, which suffered,
' It will be observed, that Bertram, tialising, because she retains it in
though expressly writing against the her own Eucharistic Liturgy. To
novel fancy of a Change of Sub- avoid giving offence to the ignorant,
stance, still scruples not to use the it might be prudent, in the present
old phraseology of the bread being day, to discontinue the use of that
made the body of Christ. A sense of particular form : but, as a point of
justice impels me to notice this an- conscience, I should have no scruple
cient phrase wherever I meet with either to administer or to receive the
it: because, both most unjustly and Holy Eucharist according to it. So, I
most unlearnedly, the Episcopal well remember telling my late learned
Church in Scotland has, more than friend Bp. Russell of Glasgow, assign-
once, been accused of transubstan- ing, at the same time, my reasons.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 283
ichich tvas buried, which rose again, was a real body ; the same
ichich remained visible and palpable: but the body, which is
called the mystery of God, is not corporeal, but spiritual. — -
Spiritual flesh which is received by the mouth of the faithful,
and spiritual blood which is daily given to be drunk by the
faithful, differ from the flesh which was crucified and from the
blood which was shed by the lance of the soldier. Therefore
THEY ARE NOT THE SA^IE.
In the prayers, which are recited after the mysteries of the
blood and body of Christ, the pnest uses the following language.
Receiving the pledge of eternal life, we humbly beseech thee,
that, whatsoever of the sacrament we touch in the biage, we may
receive the same by manifest participation.
Now a pledge and an image are a pledge and an image of
some other thing : that is, they have respect, not to themselves,
but to something else. For a pledge is a pledge of the thing, for
ivhich it is given : and an image is an image of that, whereof
it shews forth the similitude. — Therefore also that, which the
Church celebrates, is the body and blood of Christ : but still, as
a PLEDGE ; but still, as an image. —
We see, then, that the mystery of the blood and body of Christ,
which is now received in the Church by the faithful, is separated,
by a mighty difference, from, that which was born of the Virgin
Mary, which suffered, which was buried, which rose again, which
ascended to heaven, ivhich sits at the right hand of the Father^.
' Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium aliquid contuentes, noverimus quo
sumitur corpus et sanguis Christi, rationis iter contendere debeamus.
qua;rit vestra magnitudinis excel- Figura est adumbratio quEedani,
lentia, in mysterio fiat, an in veri- quibusdam velaminibus quod in-
TATE. Id est : Utriim aliquid secreli tendit ostendens. Verbi gratia, ver-
contineat, quod oculis fdei solummodo bum volentes dicere, panem nuncu-
pateat : An, sine cujuscun que velatione pamus. Sicut, in oratione dominica,
mysterii, hoc aspectus intueatur corporis panem quotidianum dari nobis ex-
exteriuft, quod mentis visus inspiciat postulamus ; vel cum Christus in
interim, ut totum, quod agUur,in mani- evangelio loquitur, dicens, Ego sum
festationis luce dare scat ; et tjtriim panis vivus qui de coelo descendi ; vel
IPSUM corpus sit, quod de MARIA cum scipsum viteniy discipulos autem
NATUM EST ET PASSUM, MORTUUMET palmites, ap'pe\\a,t,Effo sum,dicen?;vitis
SEPULTUM, QUODQUE RESURGENS ET vera, vos autem palmites : ha'ic enim
ccELOS ASCENDENS AD DEXTERAM PA- Omnia aliud dicunt, et aliud innuunt.
TRis coNsiDEAT. VERITAS, vero, est rei manifestes
Harum duarum qurestionum pri- demonstratio, nullis umbrarum ima-
joaam inspiciamus : et, ne dubietatis ginibus obvelata?, sed puris et apertis
ambage detineamur, definiamus, quid (utque planiiis eloquamur) natura-
sit FIGURA, quid atsritas ; ut, certum libus significationibus insinuatse :
284
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
[book II.
For tills his view of the subject, Bertram cites, throughout
his whole Treatise, those two great luminaries of the Western
Chm-ch, Ambrose and Augustine. Every^vhere, he strengthens
himself by their early authority ; on the rational principle, that
doctrinal truth must needs he older than doctrinal falsehood:
and I note, with no small satisfaction, that he adduces the very
passages which I have adduced, and that he understands them
precisely as any man of plain common sense 7nust understand
them.
(3.) To the same controversy there is, I think, a clear
utpote cum dicitur, Christus natus
de Virgine, passus, crucifixus, mor-
tuus, et sepultus. Nihil enim hicjiytiris
obvelantibus adumbratur ; verum rei
Veritas, naturalium significationibus
verborum, ostenditur: neque aliud
hie licet intelligi, quam dicitur.
At, in superioribus, non ita. Nam,
substantialiter, nee panis Christus,
nee vitis Christus, nee palmites Apo-
stoli. Quapropter, hie, figuea : supe-
riori vero Veritas in narratione mon-
stratur; id est, nuda et aperta signi-
ficatio.
Nunc redeamus ad ilia, quorum
causa dicta sunt ista ; videlicet, corpus
et sanguinem Christi.
Si enim nulla sub figuea myste-
rium illud peragitur, jam mysterium
non rite vocitatur : quum mysterium
dici non potest, in quo nihil est abdi-
tum, nihil a corporalibus sensibus
remotum, nihil aliquo velamine con-
tectum. At ille panis, quod per
sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus
efficitur, aliud interius (lege, exterius)
humanis sensibus ostendit, et aliud
interius fidelium mentibus clamat. —
Yinum quoque, quod sacerdotali con-
secratione Christi sanguinis efficitur
sacramentum, aliud superficie tenus
ostendit,aliud interius continet.— Hsec
ita esse, dum nemo potest abnegare,
claret, quia panis ille vinumque
FiGURATE Christi corpus et sanguis
existit. — Nam, si, secundum quosdam,
FIGURATE nihil iiic accipiatur, sed
totum in veritate eonspiciatur ; nihil
hie fides operatur : quum nihil spiri-
tuale geritur ; sed, quicquid illud est,
totum secundum corpus accipitur. —
Secimdum speciem namque creaturse
formamque rerum visibilium, utrum-
que hoc, id est, panis et vinum, nihil
habent in se permutatum. Et, si nihil
permutationis pertulerunt, nihil aliud
existunt quam quod prius fuere. —
Jam nunc secundse qusestionis pro-
positum est inspiciendum, et viden-
dum : utrum ipsum corpus, quod de
MARIA NATUM est ET PASSUM, MORTUUM
ET SEPULTUM, QUODQUE AD DEXTERAM
PATRIS CONSIDEAT, sit quod ore FIDE-
LIUM PER SACRAMENTORUM MYSTERIUM
IN ECCLESIA QUOTIDIE SUMITUR.
Secundum creaturarum substan-
TiAM, quod fuerunt ante consecra-
tionem,' hoe et postea consistunt.
Panis et vinum prius extitere: in qua
etiam specie, jam consecrata, perma-
nere videntur. — Nihil igitur hie corpo-
raliter ; sed spiritualiter sentiendum.
Corpus Christi est, sed non corpo-
RAiJTER : et sanguis Christi est, sed
NON CORPORALITER. Coi^JUS, qUOd
sumpsit de Maria Virgine, quod
passum, quod sepultum est, quod
resurrexit, corpus utique verum fuit;
idem, quod visibile atque palpabile
manebat : at vero corpus, quod myste-
rium Dei dicitur, non est corijorale
sed spiRiTUALE. — Differunt, autem,
caro spiritualis qme fidelium ore
sumitur, et sanguis spiritualis qui
quotidie credentibus potandus exhi-
betur, a came quae crucifixa est, et a
sanguine qui militis effusus estlancea.
NON IDEM IGITUR SUNT.
In orationibus, quae post myste-
rium sanguinis corporisque Christi
dicuntur, et a populo respondetur
Amen, sic sacerdotis voce dicitur.
PiGNUs (EterncB vita; capienfes, Immi-
liter imploramns, vt, quod imagine con-
tiiigimvs sacramenti, manifesta sacra-
menti,man ifestapariicipationc sumanws,
Et PIGNUS enim et imago alterius
rei sunt ; id est, non ad se, sed ad
CHAP. lY.]
DIFFICTILTIES OF ROMANISM.
285
reference in the Paschal Homily of Elfric the Saxon, who
flourished toward the close of the tenth century, and who still
contended for the ancient doctrine maintained against the
novelties of the day by Raban and Bertram^
Much is, betwixt the invisible might of the holy housel, and the
aliud, aspiciunt. Pignus enim illius
rei est, pro qua donatur : imago illius,
cujus similitudinem ostendit. — Qua
de re et corpus Christi et sanguis est,
quod Ecclesia celebrat : sed tanquam
PIGNUS, tanquam imago. —
Videmus, itaque, multa differentia
separari, mysterium sanguinis et cor-
poris Christi quod nunc a fidelibus
suniitur in Ecclesia, et illud quod
natum est de Yirgine Maria, quod
passum, quod sepultum, quod resur-
rexit, quod coelos ascendit, quod ad
dexteram Patris sedet. Bertram.
Presbyt. de corp. et sanguin. Domin.
p. 180-222. Colon. 1501. or § v.-
Ixxxix. Oxon. 1838.
The Work is addressed to Charles
the Bald, but the Cologne editor erro-
neously exhibits it, as addressed to
the Emperor Charlemagne.
I. Nothing can be more beautiful
and more satisfactory than Bertram's
overwhelming argument from the
very nature of a mystery or sacra-
ment.
Unless, says he, the mystery be trans-
acted under a figure ; that is, unless
the body and blood of Christ be only
FIGURATIVELY present : the mystery
could not, without a gross abuse of
language, be called a mystery.
In truth, the novel phantasy of
Transubstantiation destroys the very
nature and character of a sacrament :
for, in a sacrament, as the word was
always understood in the Church,
there is an outward visible sign re-
presenting or symbolically shadowing
forth an inward spiritual grace : but,
according to the doctrine of the
Transubstantialists, let them labour
to disguise the matter as they may,
the mystery of the Eucharist is a sa-
crament without any outward visible
sign ; because the elements, having
by the tlieory been, transubstantiated,
have ceased to be what Bertram calls
a FIGURE, and have become what he
contradistinctively styles a reality.
•Now this, as he well argues, is plainly
inconsistent with the very notion of
a mystery or sacrament.
II. There is yet another matter,
to which the inquirer may profitably
direct his attention.
The second Coimcil of Nice, in the
year 787, Avith equal ignorance and
folly, had proscribed and anathema-
tised the word image as employed to
describe the nature of the consecrated
elements, on the strange blundering
plea that it had been so employed by
no one of the ancients.
Yet, as we learn from Bertram,
this identical word image actually
continued, about the year 860, still
to be used in the old post-communion
prayer of the Latin Church. The
circumstance, in short, was so fami-
liar, as of course it must have been
where a public Liturgy was concerned,
that he absolutely employs it in the
way of a clear and decisive ai gument
against the novelty of Transubstan-
tiation.
' This Homily is given at large,
with the saxon original appended, by
Mr. Soames. Inquiry into the doc-
trine of the A.nglo- Saxon Church, p.
423, 428-442. In the course of the
Homily, as it now stands, occur two
idle tales, extracted from the Vita
Patrvm, relative to the apparition of
a child upon the altar and of a bloody
finger. The self-same two fables are
introduced into the Work of Paschase
Eadbert. Bp. Cosin, who is un-
willing to concede the transubstan-
tialism of Paschase, contends, that
the tales have been, at a later period,
dishonestly foisted into his Book.
See Cosin. Hist. Transubst. Papal, c.
v. § xxix. p. 88, 89. However, this
may be, they have clearly, I think,
on the very principle of internal
evidence, been interpolated into the
Paschal Homily of Elfric : for with
clumsy inconsistency, thoy run di-
rectly contrary to its whole tenor
and design and purport and argu-
ment.
286 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAJOSM* [bOOK n.
visible shape of his proper nature. It is naturally corruptible
bread and corruptible wine: and is, by might of God^s word,
truly Christ's body and his blood; not so, notwithstanding,
BODILY, but GHOSTLY.
Much is, betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the
BODY THAT IS HALLOWED TO HOUSEL. The body, truly, that Christ
suffered in, was born of the flesh of Mary, with blood and with
bone, with skin and with sinews, in human limbs, ivith a reasonable
soul living : and his ghostly body, which we call the housel, is
gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, without limb,
without soul : and, therefore, nothing is to be understood therein
BODILY, but all is GHOSTLY to be understood.
Whatsoever is in that housel, ivhich giveth substance of life ;
fiat is, of the ghostly might and invisible doing. Therefore is
that holy housel called a mystery : because there is one thing in it
seen ; and another thing, understood. That, which is there seen,
hath bodily shape : and that, which we do there understand, hath
ghostly might. Certainly, Chrisfs body, which suffered death and
rose fivm death, never dieth henceforth : but is eternal and un-
passible. That housel is temporal, not eternal; corruptible, and
dealed into sundry parts ; chewed between teeth, and sent into the
belly : howbeit, nevertheless, after ghostly might, it is all in every
part. — This mystery is A pledge and A figure ; Christ's body is
TRUTH ITSELF. TMs pledge we do keep mystically, until that we
he come to the truth itself: and then is this pledge endedK
' With the now adduced mass of their respective followers were all
evidence staring him in the face, for alike staunch Transubstantialists,
I can scarcely believe him to have though they unluckily differed as to
been ignorant of its existence, Bossuet the best mode of expressing their
actually asserts, as a decisive argu- favourite doctrine,
ment in favour of the apostolicity of Catholic doctors, he gravely tells us,
the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, agree at the bottom and dispute only
that, both in the East and in the about the manner. C'est ainsi, que les
West, it was unanimously adopted docteurs catholiques, d'accord dans le
from the words of our Lord, without J'onds, disputoient des manieres. Hist,
experiencing the least opposition : des Variat. livr. iv. § 32.
and he adds, that those, Avho believed Truly Raban and Bertram adopted
it, were never marked by the Church a most original method of explaining
as innovators ! Hist, des Variat. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation,
livr. ii. § 36. when they clearly established it
If the inquirer be curious to know, through the unexpected medium of
how he rids himself of such contro- denying any change in the bubstance
versies as those between Paschase of the consecrated elements.
and Bertram, let him learn, that, in If the difference consisted only in
the summary decision of the Bishop the mode of expression, &s the Jesuitism
of Meaux, these two champions with of Bossuet would persuade us, why
CHAP. lY.] DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. 287
Y. The retention of a descriptive word through long custom
or habit, when that word is evidently incongruous with a theo-
logical system now prevalent, both indicates the comparative
novelty of such theological system, and aids us in the ascertain-
ing of the more ancient theological system which it has sup-
planted.
1. Of this description is the word unbloody, as applied to
what the Romanists call the Sacrifice of the Mass.
In that Sacrijice which is celebrated in the Mass, say the
Fathers of the Comicil of Trent, the self-same Christ is con-
tained and is unbloodily immolated, who once upon the altar of
the cross offered himself bloodily^.
Now such language is palpably inconsistent with the Doc-
trine of Transubstantiation.
If the substance of the wine, as the same Tridentine Fathers
assure us, be changed, through the prayer of consecration, into
the substance of Christ's blood ; and if, in the Sacrifice of the
Mass, the self-same Christ be immolated who offered himself as
a piacular oblation upon the altar of the cross: it is clear, that
the Sacrifice of the Mass, according to the latin notions of it,
is not an unbloody sacrifice ; for, by the hypothesis, the wine
having been transubstantiated into literal material blood, most
undoubtedly, by the same hypothesis, literal material blood
cannot but form a part of the Sacrifice.
Hence we gather, in strict conformity with the evidence
did the infallible Tridentine Fathers of Bertram : and therefore I can fear-
place the Work of our zealous Tran- lessly assert, that it affords not even
suhstantialist Bertram in their list of the slightest warrant for the evasion
prohibited books, while no such black of Bossuet. In truth, his gloss can
mark was set upon the Work of the be viewed only, as a brilliant exem-
equally zealous Transubstantialist Pas- plification of the Duacensic System
chase ? of the Excogilato commento persfepe
Bossuet, I suppose, would tell negemus et commodum sensum eis affin-
us, that they preferred the mode gamus. In this wholesome pi^actice,
of Paschase to the mode of Ber- some modem Komish Theologians,
tram. whom I could mention, may well be
In that case, why did these simu- said to emulate even Bossuet himself
lated sticklers for Antiquity prefer and the whole College of Douay
the newer mode of expression to the Doctors to boot.
older mode : for, that the mode of ^ In divino hoc sacrificio, quod in
Paschase was the innovation, is indis- Missa peragitur, idem ille Christus
putable, both from the express testi- continetur, et incruente immolatur,
mony of Ptaban and from the whole quiinaracrucissemelseipsumcruente
tenor of the controversy ? obtulit. Concil. Trident, sess, xxii.
I have perused the entire Work c. 2, p. 239.
288 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
already adduced, that the Doctrme of Transubstantiation is a
self-convicted novelty : and hence we collect, that the phraseo-
logy, still through long custom retained when it has ceased to
be appropriate, manifestly indicates the prevalence of a totally
different scheme of doctrine when such phraseology was ori-
ginally adopted.
In an earlier stage of the present discussion, I have stated :
that the only sacrifice and oblation, recognised in the Eucharist
by the primitive Church, were, the spiritual sacrifice of praise
and thanksgiving, and the material oblation of the bread and
wine upon the hordes table under the aspect of an offering of the
first-fruits of God's creatures anterior to and in order to their
consecration^. If there be any evidence, that the Christians of
the two first ages considered the elements of bread and wine
as a sacrifice after their consecration ; which notion is plainly
essential to, though (as we shall soon find) not exclusively in-
herent in, the latin doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass: I
can only say, that I have unintentionally, not dishonestly,
overlooked it. Certain it is, that neither Mr. Berington nor
the Bishop of Strasbourg has brought forward any testimony
to this effect: and, as I have no particular reason to doubt
their diligence; so, with respect to myself I am not aware that
any such testimony is in existence-.
' See above, book i. chap. 4. § II. prayers and praises and thanksgivings
2. III. 2. which always preeminently accompanied
^ Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
allege our Protestant Dr. Grabe, as To this spiritual sacrifice was added
stating, on the authority of Ireneus, the presentation of bread and wine
that all the contemporaries of the Apos- upon the table, before, and in order to
ties or their immediate successors, whose their consecration : and such presen-
writings are still extant, considered the tation of the unconsecrated elements
blessed Eucharist to be the sacrifice of was deemed by them a material obla-
the New Law, and offered bread and tion of the first fruits of God's crea-
wine on the altar as sacred oblations to tures. See Justin and Ireneus cited
God the Father. Grab, in Iren. adv. above, book i. chap. 4. § 1. 2. (3.) (4.) :
hffir. lib. iv. c. 32. See Discuss. Amic. and compare the passages from Cle-
vol. ii. p. 77, 78. Faith of Cathol. ment, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Euse-
p. 2.56. bins, Hilary, Constantine, and Chry-
What, in the Eucharist, the earliest sostom, cited immediately below,
believers held to be the sacrifice of the No other sacrifice, except these, did
New Law, was not, as these two the primitive Christians of the age of
writers would intimate, the consecrated Justin and Ireneus acknowledge in
elements viewed as transubstantiated the sacrament of the Eucharist. The
into the body and blood of Christ : but superadded notion, that the consecrated
it was, as we are repeatedly assured, elements were themselves an unbloody
and as indeed the very name Eucharist commemorative and symbolical sacrifice,
imports, that spiritual sacrifice of was later than the age of Justin and
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROLVNISM.
289
It is obvious, that sacrifices of the description recognised by
the Primitive Church were truly and properly unbloody sa-
crifices. Accordmgly while Clement of Alexandria, like
Justin Martyr, tells us, that perpetual prayers and praises and
hymns and thanksgivings are the Christian's true sacrifice
to God ^ : Athenagoras places the unbloody sacrifice and rea-
sonable worship of Christianity in opposition to the holocausts
of Paganism^ : Tertullian declares, that Christians sacrifice with
pure prayer, inasmuch as God requires not blood^ ; Eusebius
repeatedly denominates the prayers of believers the unbloody
and reasonable sacrifice* ; Hilary remarks, that we, upon whom
the consummation of ages is come, sacrifice indeed to God, but
not with blood and holocausts^; Constantino employs the same
familiar language as Eusebius^; and Chrysostom, speaking of
the sacrifices offered up by Christians, observes, that they no
Iren^us. Accordingly, in their writ-
ings, no such notion can be disco-
vered.
Had our two Romish Theologians
adduced what Dr. Grabe says on the
thirty-fourth chapter of the fourth
bookoflren^us, I should readily have
stated, that few indeed are the Pro-
testants who would assent to his spe-
culation, and that this very speculation
has been abundantly confuted by pro-
testant Divines. Nothing said by
Iren^us will warrant any such infer-
ence of an actual illapse of the Holy
Spirit upon the bread and wine when
consecrated,, as that which has been
drawn from his words by Dr. Grabe.
See Grab, in Iren. lib. iv. c. 84. For
the entire passage of Iren feus, see
above, book i. chap. 4. § 1. 2. (4.)
* Svfftai fiiv BCUToo, iv^a) n xec) a'tvoi.
Clem. Alex, Strom, lib. vii. Oper. p.
728. and cap. 7. § 49. ed. Lips. 1881;
p. 860, Potter. Ey;^a) xa.) iv^aoiffr'iui,
vTo ToJv u^ituv yivofitvat, TiXitai ftovett xeti
tvupKrrot ilfft Tu Siu Svir'ieti. Justin.
Dial, cum Tryph. Oper. p. 270. and cap.
117. tom. ii. p. 388. ed. Jena), 1842.
* TJ Bg (ji,ot oXoKocvTivtriuv uv fjCTi oiTreii
Stes ; K«/ Toi •T^O(r(pi^iiv Oiov avettfiecx-
Tov 6vff\a,y xa) tjjv XoyiXTiv T^oard.ynv
XetT^uetv. Athenag. Legat. § xii. p.
49. Oxon. 1700,
^ Sacrificamus, — sed quo pra^cepit
Deus, pura prece. Non enim eget
Deus, conditor universitatis, odoris
aut sanguinis alicujus, Tertull. ad
Scapul. § 2. Oper. p. 553.
■* Tag avaifAovs xxi Xoyixas ivfflas rag
h' ii/xeHv. Euseb. de laud. Constant.
Orat. c.xvi. p, 544, and p.490,ed. 1830.
Sva-iais uvaifAoig xa) fji,v<rrixais it^ov^yiais
TO Sitov IxdffxovTo. Euseb. de \it. Con-
stant, lib. iv. C. 45. Ta <r£^va t«j
Xpitrrov T^KTi^tis 6vfji.ara, ^/ uv xaXka-
^ovvTis, rag uva.ifji.oui xa) Xoyixki uutm
rs T^offuviTs Nutrias, ^la Tavrog ^tov, ru
t^t Tavraiv T^off(pi^iiv Osai, ^la rov Tav-
Tuv avurareo ao^ii^iug avTov, ^ih^dy-
f/,i6a. — TavTag di TaXiv rag diru/xdrovg
xai voi^Kg 6v(riag to. <7r^o(pr,Ttxa xyi^vmi
koyia, uoi •m ^t^is^ovTa' Suffov tu @sm
ffvffiav atviffiug. Euseb. Demons. Evan,
lib. i. c. 8. p. 27.
^ Non enim sanguine et holocaustis
nos, in quos consummatio soeculorum
devenit, sacrificamus Deo : sed, quod
sacrificium vespertinum placitum sit,
audiamus Dominum. — In hoc, manus
elevandse sunt : quia, istiusmodi ora-
tionibus, jam ab initio mundi bene-
dictis, Dei regni coelestis prfeparata
possessio est. Hilar. Comment, in
Psalm, cxl. Oper. p. 330. and § 4.
tom. i. col. 458. ed. Venet. 1749.
Movaig iv^aTg ditatfJi,dxroig ^^cg 'txi-
ffiav Siou d^xovvrat' oh yd^ ahrw (plkov
a'tfidruv ;^vtng. Constant, ad Sapor,
apud Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii.
c. 15. p. 377.
U
290 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
longer offered up blood, but that their service was a reasonable
service, even the worship of God in spirit and in truth ^
As time, however, rolled on, though the old ideas still
remained in full force, the notion of a sacrifice began to be
extended, not only to the material oblation of the elements
before consecration, but also the setting forth the same elements
after consecration. Yet still the thought of any transubstan-
tiation of the bread and wine into the Hteral or material body
and blood of Christ most assuredly, as we may learn from their
own language, never once occurred to those speculatists.
Their doctrine was : that. Since the sacrament of the Eu-
charist was at once symbolical and commemorative of the sacrifice
of Christ upon the cross, and since the sacrifices under the Law
were at once symbolical and predictive of the same sacrifice of
Christ upon the cross : the consecrated bread and wine might, by
the fair rule of analogy, be, in some sort, themselves likewise,
deemed a saoifice, even the symbolical sacrifice of commemoration.
Under this aspect, then, as they had been accustomed to
call the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving an unbloody sacri-
fice ; and as they were wont similarly to designate the material
oblation of bread and wine which was made antecedently to
the prayer of consecration : so they readily and appropriately
applied the same appellation to the consecrated bread and wine,
when the sacrament of the Eucharist began to be esteemed a
symbolical and commemorative sacrifice.
Now the very mode in which they explained the doctrine,
and the very epithet of unbloody which they transferred to the
newly esteemed sacrifice, alike demonstrate, that they knew
nothing of the dogma of Transubstantiation.
The alleged sacrifice of the consecrated elements they deemed
symbolical and commemorative : and, as, of course, no blood
was shed in a sacrifice thus characterised, they justly and accu-
rately called it an unbloody sacrifice.
• ToiuvTUi avu<p\^o[^tv 6uirt(is raj Iv With much the same ideality, Euse-
iKt'tvoj) 'ivvecft.ims -x^o(r(pi^i(r6a,t tm 6v<riair- bius compares the thanksgivings of
Tfi^'tM, ouK in -r^ofoaroi kou (ioKi, ovk 'in Constantine to fireless and smokeless
alfji.a, x,ou xvio-ffav. UoivTex, ravTce, XiXvTai, Sacrifices.
Ktt) avTUffi^j^viKTXi uvt) toutuv h Xoyt^cii Tla,vhr,fj!,ovi ivTiXuv io^ras , rS '^avrui
XocT^ua,. — "Oiroo yot^ T^o(id.Tov K^iirTuv (ixffiXu @iZ iu^ec^iirrovi threes , oiff'Ti^
civ&^w^os, TOffovToi avTr, iKUvns h SutriK. r/vaj ccrv^ovs kxi aKocTvoVi Svirlocs, avt-
Chrysost. Homil. xi. in Heb. vi. torn. ^ifATiTo. Euseb. de vit. Constant.
xii. p. 163, ed. Paris, 1834. lib. i. c. 48. p. 355.
CHAP. TV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 291
Thus did the doctrine and the epithet strictly harmonise.
The SACRIFICE was unbloody: because it was not a literal
piacular sacrfice, but only a figurative sacrifice professedly
symbolical and commemorative of the one great literal piacular
sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.
2. This speculation I cannot trace higher than Hippolytus
and Cyprian, both of whom flourished during the earlier part
of the third century * ; but it seems to have become fashionable
during the fourth.
Accordingly, in the lapse of the fourth and fifth ages, we
distinctly observe it : but then we observe it in the form already
specified ; a form, evidently fatal to the modern phantasy of
Transubstantiation.
(I.) The following passages exhibit the consecrated elements
under the aspect of an unbloody sacrifice.
We beseech the philanthropic Deity, says C3rril of Jerusalem,
to send the Holy Spirit upon the offered elements, that he may
make the bread to be the body of Christ and the wine to be the
blood of Christ: for whatsoever the Holy Spirit shall have
touched, that thing is sanctified a7id changed. Then, after having
completed the spiritual sacnfice, even the unbloody service, upon
that sacrifice of propitiation, we beseech God on behalf of the
common peace of the Churches. — The supplication of the holy
and most tremendous sacrifice, thus lying before us, is off'ered up.
We twine not a chaplet : but, on behalf of our sins, we offer up
Christ sacrificed ; propitiating, for the dead and for ourselves
him who is the fiend of jnan"^.
* Ta rifiiov xa) a^.^avrov avrou ffufzu. * ITa^axaXow^sy rov (ptXciv^^Mrov Biov,
Ku.) eufAoiy tt.'Xi^ iv TJ? f^viTTix,^ xa) Slice. ro "Ayiov UviUfAa i^aToa'TukBn i^i to,
T^ccTi^'/i xaff ixairrvv iTiriXouvTon 6vO' T^oxiif/,ivit, "vec -zroim^, tov f/.h u^rov
fjtivee.. Hippol. in Prov. ix. I. Oper. o-&i^a X^itrrod, TOV Te oivov aJf/,ex. X^itrrau'
vol. i. p. 282. ireivTus ya^, ov ikv i(p<i\peciro ri "Ayiov
Si Jesus ChristUS, Dominus et DeUS UnZfji.a,, toZto hyiatrrai xa) /ie,irx(is(iXt)-
noster, ipse est SUmmus sacerdos ra/. ETra, fUTa to ecra.^Ttcrdriva.t Thv
Dei Patris ; et sacrificium Patri seip- irviu/^aTtxiiv 6ua'ia,v, Th ANAIMAKTON
sum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri in sui Xxt^uccv, W) tyi$ 6v(rla.s ixitvn; tov tku<r-
commemorationem prrecepit : utique fioii, ^x^axetXodf/.tv tov Qiov v-rt^ x/nvfjs
ille sacerdos vice Cbristi vere fungi- tuv ixKXnffiuv il^nvm. — 'H Vinffts avoi<pi-
tur, qui id, quod Christus fecit, imi- ^irat rJJf ayixg xa) <p^ixuhi(TToiTni •z^o-
tatur ; et sacrificium verum et plenum xnf^ivvis hcias. — OJ <rTi(pavov TXixofnv'
tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si uXXa X^itrrov, ia-ipayiaa'fiivov vt\^ tmv
sic incipiat offerre secundum (juod ip- hf^-sri^uv af/,oc^Tnficx.Ttuv, -r^ocrtpi^ofAiv' l|-
sum Christum videat obtulisse. Cy- iXtoufMvoi, vvX^ avTuv x«i hf^uv, tov
prian. Epist. Ixiii. Oper. vol. ii. (ptXive^urov. Cyril. Hieros. Catech.
p. 155. Myst. V. p. 241, 242. and capp. 7, 10.
292 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [«00K H.
Julian, says Gregory of Nazianzum, unhallows his hands, dese-
crating them from the unbloody sacrifice, through which in Christ
ice communicate both with his sufferings and with his divinity^.
The Pagans, says the same writer, leap upon the altars : and,
with the blood of men and of sacrifices, pollute the unbloody
sacHfices^
We offer, in the Churches, says Cyril of Alexandria, an un-
bloody sacrifice;— as having become the proper body and blood of
the all-vivifying Word^,
The table having the shew-bread, says the same writer, signifies
the UNBLOODY sacrifice; through which, while eating the bread
from heaven, that is Christ, we are blessed^.
(2.) But then the following passages explain why the conse-
crated elements were styled an unbloody sacrifice, by teaching
ns, that they were deemed a sacrifice only on the ground of
FIGURATIVENESS and COMMEMORATIVENESS.
He has prepared his own table, says Hippolytus, — his honoured
and unpolluted body and blood : which, in the mystical and divine
table, are daily sacrificed for a imemorial of that ever to be
remembered and first table of the mystical divine supper^.
What then ? says Chrysostom. Do we not daily offer ? We
offer, indeed, but yet so as making A commemoration of his
death. — We offer not another sacrifice, as once the high-priest
did, but always the same : or rather we perform A memorial of
the sacrificed.
In Touttee's edit. 1720, the reading is ^va-ieiv 3/ ^s iv\oyovfAi6a., vov ei^rev iff-
Tra^axaKovfiiv ; and in cap. 10, avreuv Sinvrts rev l| ol^ctvoZ, Tovriffriv X^kttov.
Ti, and 0iov is supplied from MSS. Cyril. Alex, de Adorat. in Sjiirit. lib.
after pXav^^aTov. xiii. p. 457.
' Tag ^i7^its a<pcc'yviZ,iTai, rn; ANAI- 5 'Hroif^uffaro T»jv lawTjJj T^a.'riZ,av,
MAKTOT 6vffia,i ocvoKuSut^uv, ^i vis — ro fifjciov xa) cipf^gavTov ccvrov ffufji-a. kcc)
fljU,i7s 'X.^tffTU HOIVUV/)UfilV, KOt.) TUV TufiiJ- a7jU,a, CiTi^ Iv t5j fjiVffTtX^ KCtI &ita. T^a-
fiXTuv, xa.) t5j; hoT'/iro;. Gregor. iT£^>j xa.0 Ixeiffryiv ifinXovvron fivof^zva
Nazian. Orat. iii. Oper. vol. i. p. 70. EIS ANAMNH2IN tks anfiv^trrou xa.)
^ SufftaffTn^ieov xetTo^^ovf/.ivoi, xa.) rag t^utvis Ixuvng r^xviZ^rjs tou fiuffnxou
ANAIMAKTOrS Sviriag, av^u-^m xa) h'lou ^u-rvou. Hippol. in Prov. ix. 1.
Svfftuv a'lfiaffi, ^^aivovTig. Greg. Naz. Oper. vol. i. p. 282.
Orat. XX. p. 34H. 6 -pj g*:^ . 'H^wsr? xaf ixaffrm nfii^av
^ ANAIMAKTON Iv vaTs IxxXmie^iS ov 'T^i)(r(pi^o/u,tv ; n^offfi^of/,iv f/,iv, aXX'
nXevfJt,iv Svff'iav, — us J'5;«v ffuu,a. ytyovos ANaMNH^IN Toiovf^ivoi tov iavarov al-
xa.) fiivToi xa,) aif/t,a. <rov •xavra. ^uoyovovv- rau. — Ovx aXkyjv 6vffiav, xaia.'X'tg o 'A^-
roi Aoyou. Cyril. Alex. Anathem. xi. p(^ii^{vi 'tt'oti, aXXa rhv avrhv ui) 'Toiov-
Oper. vol. vi. p. 156. ^«v- [AaXXov l\ ANAMNH2IN s^ya^o>£^a
* 1ri(jba,ini fitiv h r^uTiZ,'^, rhv T^ohffiv Suffla;. Chrysos. in Heb. X. homil.
tp^ovffa. ruv a^rwv, vm ANAIMAKTON xvii.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 293
We now, says Ambrose of Milan, see good things through the
IMAGE : and ive possess the good things of the image. We have
seen the Prince of priests coming to us : we have seen and we
have heard him offering for us his own blood. So far as we are
able, let us priests follow him, that we may offer sacrifice for the
people. Weak, indeed, we are in merit ; nevertheless, through
sacrifice, we are honourable : for, if Christ does not now seem to
offer personally, yet he himself is offered upon earth when the
body of Christ is offered. Nay, he himself is manifested in us
for the purpose of offering, inasmuch as his word sanctifies the
offered sacrifice. And he himself, indeed, stands our advocate
with the Father : but now we see him not. Then, however, we
shall see him, when the image shall have passed away, and when the
REALITY shall have come. — Ascend, therefore, man, to heaven :
and thou shalt see those things, of which here there was only the
SHADOW or IMAGE. — Thou shalt see the perfect man, now no
longer in IMAGE but in reality^.
Christ, says Augustine, is our priest for ever after the order
of Melchisedek, who offered himself as a holocaust for our sins :
and he commanded, that the similitude of his sacrifice should be
celebrated m memory of his passion ; in order that that, which
Melchisedek offered unto God, should now seem to be offered by
us in the Church of Christ throughout the whole world^.
Let us sacrifice to the God of the martyrs : — but, whatsoever is
offered, is offered unto God. — The flesh and blood of this sacri-
fice was promised, before the coming of Christ, through the victims
its SIMILITUDE : in the passion of Christ, it was given through
* Videmus nunc per imaginem bona : mo, in coelum : et videbis ilia, quorum
et tenemus imaginis bona. Vidimus umbra hie erat vel iMAGo.-^Videbis
Principem sacerdotum ad nos veni- perfectum hominem, jam non in
entem : vidimus et audivimus offer- imagine, sed in veritate. Ambros.
entem pro nobis sanguinem suum. Enarr. in Psalm, xxxviii. Oper. col.
Sequamur, ut possumus, sacerdotes, 1345.
ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium. ^ Ipse est etiara sacerdos noster in
Etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles sternum secundum ordinem Mel-
sacrificio : quia, etsi nunc Christus chisedec, qui seipsum obtulit holo-
non videtur offerre ; tamen ipse offer- caustum pro peccatis ilostris : et ejus
tur in terris, quando Christi corpus sacrificii simitjtudinem celebrandam,
offertur. Imo ipse offerre manifesta- in suae passionis memoriam, com-
tur in nobis, cujus sermo sanctificat mendavit ; ut illud, quod Melchisedec
sacrificium quod offertur. Et ipse obtulit Deo, jam per totum orbem
quidem nobis apud Patrem advocatus terrarum in Christi Ecclesia videamus
adsistit : sed nunc eum non videmus. offerri. August. Ixxxiii. Queest,
Tunc videbimus, cum IMAGO transient, qurest. 61. Oper. tom. iv. p. 216. and
VERITAS venerit. — Ascende ergo, ho- tom. vi. col. 34. cd. Bened.
294
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book n.
very reality : after the ascent of Christ, it is celebrated through
the sacrament of commemoration ^
Was not Christ once sacrificed in himself? And yet, in the
sacrament, not only through all the solemnities of Easter, hut even
every day, he is sacrificed for the people. Neither does that man
speak falsely, who, when the questioti is put to him, shall answer :
that Christ is thus sacrificed. For, unless the sacraments had
a certain similitude to those things whereof they are sacraments,
they ivould 7iot he sacraments. But, from the similitude, they
commonly receive the names of the things themseltes. There-
fore, as the sacrament of the hody of Christ is, after a cei^tain
manner, the hody of Chiist ; and as the sacrament of the hlood
of Christ is the hlood of Christ : so the sacrament of faith is faitli^.
3. The same opinion, that the setting forth of the consecrated
elements is to he viewed as a symbolical and commemorative and
' Ipsi Deo martyrum sacrificemua :
— sed, quod offertiir, offertur Deo. —
Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis, ante
adventum Christi, per victimas simi-
LiTUDiNEM,promittebatur : in passione
Christi, per ipsam veeitatem, redde-
batur; post ascensuni Christi, per sa-
cramentura memorle, celebratur.
August, cont. Faust. Manich. lib. xx.
c. 21. Oper. vol. vi. p. 137. and torn,
viii. coll. 847, 348. Sacrificemus is the
inserted reading of the Louvain
editors.
^ Nonne semel immolatus est Chris-
tus, in seipso? Et tamen, in Sacra-
mento, non solum per omnes Paschse
solennitates, sed omni die, populis
inimolatur. Nee utique mentitur,
qui, interrogatus, eum respondent im-
molari. Si enim sacramenta quan-
dam siMiLiTUDiNEM earum rerum,
quarum sacramenta sunt, non habe-
rent; sacramenta non essent. Ex
hac autem similitudine, plerumque
etiam ipsarum eerum nomina acci-
piunt. Sicut, ergo, secundum quen-
dam modum, sacramentum corporis
Christi corpus Christi est : ita sacra-
mentum fidei fides est. August. Epist.
ad Bonifac. xxiii. See Ep. xcviii. § 9.
torn. ii. ed. Bened.
By the sacrament of faith, Augustine
means the sacrament of Baptism. He
treats, we see, of the two sacraments,
on tlie principle of exact homogeneity.
Each has a similitude, and each has a
reality shadowed out by that simili-
tude. ' The bread and wine, in the
one sacrament, according to this lu-
minous statement of Augustine, are
no more transubstantiated into the
material body and blood of Christ;
than the water, in the other sacrament,
is transubstantiated into the literal
grace of regenerative faith. In each
case alike, the several elements are
respectively the appointed similitudes
of their corresponding realities. With-
out such resemblance, as Augustine
observes, the sacraments would be no
sacraments.
The principle on which the Fathers,
subsequent to the times of Hippoly-
tus and Cyprian, were wont to deno-
minate the consecrated elements an
unbloody sacrifice, is well set forth by
Zanchius.
Ad summam, regula hsec tenenda
est : Patres, quo sensu intellexerunt,
corpus et sanguinem Christi adesse
in coena, panemque esse ipsum cor-
pus Christi ; eodem etiam senserunt,
in coena ofierri Cliristum, coonamque
ipsam esse sacrificium hilasticum sed
incruentum, nempe in mysterio, in
figura, in imagine. Zanch. in Epist.
ad Ephes. v. p. 422.
All this is perfectly intelligible :
but, when a Transubstantialist calls
the consecrated elements thetmblondy
sacrifice, he utters a palpable self-
contradiction.
CHAP. IV.] DimCULTIES OF ROMANISM. 295
therefore unbloody sacrifice, was still maintained in the ninth
century, by that decided antitransubstantialist Bertram of
Corby.
Augustine says, we perceive, that sacraments are one matter,
and that the things whereof they are sacraments are another
matter. Now, the body in which Christ suffered, and the blood
which flowed from his side, are certain things. But the mysteries
of these things he pronounces to be the sacraments of the body
and blood of Christ, which are celebrated in memory of the Lord's
passion, not only at the annual festival of Easter, but likewise
every day in the year. And, though the body of the Lord, in
which he suffered, be one; and tltough the blood, which was
shed for the salvation of the world, be also one : yet the sajcror-
ments have taken the nam£s of the things the3ISELYES, so that
they should be called tJie body and blood of Christ ; inasmu/;h as
they are thus denominated, on account of their smiLmiDB to the
things which they signify; just as our yearly solemnities are
called the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord, though IN
HIMSELF he once only suffered and rose again, nor can those days
which are past be now reeled. But the days, on which we
COMMEMORATE the Lord^s passion or resurrection, are called by
the names of those events : because they bear a certain sdolitude
to those days, in which the Saviour once suffered and rose again.
Hence we say, that to-day or to-morrow or tlie next day is the
crucifixion or resurrection of the Lord : notwithstanding that those
days, in which tJiese matters really occurred, have passed away
many years ago. On the same principle, then, we may also say,
the Lord is sacrificed whensoever the sacraments of his passion
are celebrated : though, in himself, as the Apostle teaehes us, he
was, for the salvation of the world, only once sacrificed. Christ,
says he, suffered for us, leaving you an example, that ye should
follow his steps. He tells us, not that Christ daily suffered IN
himself, for us, but that he did so only once. He left us,
however, an exemplar, which, in the mystery of the Lord's body
and blood, is daily represented to the faithful : in order that,
whosoever shall approach it, that person may know, that he ought
to communicate with those sufferings of Christ whereof he exhibits
the IMAGE in the sacred mysteries. — What the Lord did once, is
now daily repeated. For he once offered HnrSELF for the sins of the
people. Wherefore tJiis scone oblation is daily celebrated by the
296
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
faithful : hut then it is celebrated in A mystery : that, ichat the
Lord Jesus Christ accomplished once offering himself, this, in
MEMORY of his passiofi, should, through the celebration of the
mysteries, be daily transacted. Nor yet is it falsely said, that, in
those mysteries, the Lord either is iinmolated or suffers : since they
have a similitude of that his death and passion, whereof they
are the representations. Hence they are called the Lord^s
body and blood : inasmuch as they take the name of that, of
which they are the sacrament. According, the blessed Lsidore says ;
Jt is called a sacrifice, as if made holy ; because by mystic prayer
it is consecrated in memory of the Lord^s passion^.
' Cemiinus, quod S. Augixstinus
aliud dicit sacramenta, et aliud res
quanim sunt sacramenta. Corpus
autem in quo passus est Christus, et
sanguis ejus de latere qui fluxit, res
sunt. Harum vero rerum mysteria
dicit esse sacramenta corporis et san-
guinis Christi, quse celebrantur ob
MEMORiAM dominicfB passionis, non
solum per omnes Paschae solennitates
singulis annis, verum singulis in anno
diebus. Et, cum unum sit corpus
dominicum in quo semel passus est,
et unus sanguis qui pro salute mundi
fusus est: attamen sacramenta ipsa-
EUM RERUM vocabula sumpserunt, ut
dicantur corpus et sanguis Christi ;
cum, propter similitudinem rerum
quas innuunt, sic appellentur; sicut
pascha et resurrectio Domini vocantur,
quse per singulos annos celebrantur,
cum semel in seipso passus sit et re-
surrexerit, nee dies illijam possunt
revocari, quoniam proeterierunt, Ap-
pellantur autem illorum vocabulo dies,
quibus MEMORiA dominicse passionis
sive resuiTectionis commemoratur :
idcirco quia similitudinem illorum
habeant dierum, quibus Salvator se-
mel passus est et resurrexit. Unde
dicimus, hodie vel eras vel perendie
Domini pascha est vel resurrectio : cum
dies illi, quibus hsec gesta sunt, mul-
tis jam annis praeterierunt. Sic etiam
dicamus, Dominum immolari, quando
passionis ejus sacramenta celebran-
tur: cimi semel, pro salute mundi,
sit immolatus in semetipso : sicut
Apostolus ait : Christus passus est pro
nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, ut
sequamini vestigia ejus. Non enim
ait, quod quotidie in seipso patiatur.
quod semel fecit. Exemplum autem
nobis reliquit, quod, in mysterio do-
miuici corporis et sanguinis, quotidie
credentibus pr.esentatur : ut, quis-
quis ad illud accesserit, noverit se
passionibus ejus sociari debere, qua-
rum IMAGINEM in sacris mysteriis
prcestolatur. — Quod semel fecit, nunc
quotidie frequentatur. Semel enim,
pro peccatis populi, se obtulit. Cele-
bratur tum ligec eadem oblatio singulis
per fideles diebus : sed in mysterio :
ut, quod Dominus Jesus Christus
semel se oiferens adimplevit, hoc in
ejus passionis memoriam quotidie ge-
ratur per mysteriorum celebrationem.
Nee tamen falso dicitur, quod in mys-
teriis illis, Dominus vel immoletur vel
patiatur : quoniam iUius mortis atque
passionis habent similitudinem, qua-
rum existuntREPR.iiSENTATiONES. Un-
de dominicum corpms et sanguis domi-
nicus appellantur : quum ejus sumunt
appellation em, cujus existunt sacra-
mentum. Hino beatus Isidorus, in
libris Etymologiarum, sic ait: Sacri-
Jicium dictum, quasi sacrum factum :
quia prcce mystica consccratur, in me-
moriam dominiccB passionis. Bertram,
de Corp. et sang. dom. p. 197-200.
Isidore Hispalensis flourished in
the seventh century. Bertram has
fortunately preserved a remarkable
passage in this old writer's Book on
Etymologies, which the emendatory
care of the Koman Priesthood (emen-
DATUS tolerari queat, as the Douay
Divines speak) has carefully excluded
from its proper place (Isid. Etymol.
lib. vi. c. 19.) in the printed copies of
his Woi'ks. I subjoin it, on the prin-
ciple of gathering up the fragments,
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 297
4. It is worthy of our special observation, that the doctrine,
propounded by the Divines of the fourth and fifth centuries,
and adopted by Bertram in the ninth century; namely, that
the consecrated elements are an unbloody sacrifice, because they are
the memorial and representation of the one only true sacrifice upon
the cross; shewed itself, under the sanction of a great Latin
Theologian, even so late as the middle of the twelfth century :
in other words, that doctrine shewed itself, only about some
sixty or seventy years before the time, when the transubstan-
tiahsing decree of the fourth Council of Lateran stamped, upon
the word unbloody, as then and since applied to the Sacrifice of the
Mass, the character of utter absurdity and hopeless incongruity.
In the year 1150, the famous Peter Lombard, commonly
called the Master of the Sentences, was made Archbishop of Paris:
and, in the year 1215, Pope Innocent III. and his packed Con-
venticle (which is rated as the twelfth Ecumenical Council) first
decreed by name the orthodoxy of the Tenet of Transubstan-
tiation.
Let us now hear this great Theologian's resolution of a regu-
larly propounded question.
Can that, which the priest transacts, be rightly called a sacrifice
or immolation : and is Christ daily sacrificed, or was he only once
sacrificed f
That, which is offered and consecrated by the priest, is called a
sacrifice and oblation, because it is the memoeial and RErRESEN-
TATION of the true sacrifice and holy immolation accomplished
upon the altar of the cross. And Christ died once upon the cross,
and was there in himselp sacrificed : but he is daily sacnficed in
A sacrament; because, in the sacrament, a commemoration is
made of that lohich WAS done only once^.
that nothing may be lost. See Cosin. quod offertur et consecratur a sacer-
Hist. Transuh. Pap. c. v. § 26. p. 85. dote, vocari sacrijicium et ohlationem,
Sicut visibilis panis et vini sub- quia memoeia est et eeprjcsentatio
STANTIA exteriorem nutrit et inebriat veri sacrificii et sanctai immolationis
hominem : ita Verbum Dei, qui est facta? in ara crucis. Et semel Chris-
panis-vivus,participationesui,fidelium tus mortuus est in cruce, ibique im-
recreat mentes. Isid. Hispal. Etymol. molatus est in semetipso : quotidie
apud Bertram, de corp. et sang. dom. autem immolatur in saciumento ;
p. 200, 201. quia in sacraraento recordatio fit
' Si, quod gerit sacerdos, propria ilUus, quod factum est semel. Pet.
dicatur sacrijicium vel immolatio : et si Lombard. Sentent. Ub. iv. distinct.
Christus quotidie immoletur,vel semel 12. apud Usser. de Eccles. Success, c.
tantum immolatus sit ? vii. § 21. and p. 745. ed. Mogunt.
Ad hoc breviter dici potest. Illud, 1632.
298 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
5. The following, then, is the sum of the present branch of
evidence.
When the sacrament of the Eucharist, in the course of the
third and at the commencement of the fourth century, began,
analogically with the character of the prechristian levitical
oblations, to be esteemed a symbolical and commemorative
sacrifice : that alleged mere imitative and shadowy sacrifice
was, consistently and accurately and in truth contradistinc-
tively, styled unbloody; for obviously, in such a sacrifice, no
blood was either shed or present.
But, when, in the same sacrament, the substance of the bread
and wine was, in defiance of all Antiquity, determined to be
materially changed into the substance of Christ's body and
blood; and when, consequently, the celebration of the Eucha-
rist was deemed a literal sacrifice of the literal body and blood
of the Saviour : nothing could be more flagrantly absurd, than
to continue to bestow the epithet of unbloody, upon what the
innovating transubstantiative decree of the fourth Lateran
Council had plainly metamorphosed into a bloody sacrifice, and
upon what the yet earlier innovators of the second Nicene
Council had declared to be the literal body and blood of Christ.
Custom, however, not unfrequently prevails over fitness and
propriety: and, through the oversight of innovators, ancient
formulas, those grievous and provoking tell-tales, are not always
made to square with new speculations. The old epithet un-
bloody was carelessly retained, though the reason for its adop-
tion had ceased^. And thus the very retention of the epithet
betrayed the innovation, while it evinced the prior existence of
a more ancient and a very different scheme of doctrine 2.
' In divino hoc sacrificio quod in perly denominated an unbloody sa-
Missa peragitur, idem ille Christus crifice, it is certainly no easy matter
continetur et incruente immolatur, to comprehend.
qui in ara crucis semel seipsnm cru- ^ I may here remark, that the for-
ENTE obtulit. Concil. Trident, sess. mula, which the modem Latin Church
xxii. c. ii. p. 239. makes to be the most necessary and
Ov^afzov, ouTi Kvoioi, ovrt ol octo- essential part of sacerdotal ordina-
ffroXot, 7j -Trocr't^'-i, itxova, tWov rhv ^la. tov tion : Accipe pofestatem offerre sacri-
U^iui ^^otripi^ofiivTjv ANAIMAKTON ^u- Jicium Deo, Missamque celehrare tarn
trmv, «XX' uuTo <ru(ji.a, xec) avro oufjicc. pro vivis quam pro defunctis, in nomine
Concil. Nicen. ii. act. vi. Lahb. Con- Domini : has been confessed, by the
oil. vol. vii. p. 449. better informed Komanists them-
How an alleged sacrifice, in which selves, to be not older than the latter
what is asserted to be literal sub- end of the eleventh century. See
stantial blood is poured out from the Courayer's Dissert, sur la validite des
chalice, may, nevertheless, be pro- Ordin. Angl. c. xii. vol. ii. p. 36, 37.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 299
VI. Bellarmine, I believe, was the first or one of the first,
who adduced the ancient Christian Mysteries as an evidence
for the primeval reception of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
The Eucharist, he argued, was one of the secrets of the Myste-
ries. But it could only have been made a secret on account of its
involvincf the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Therefore, from
the very beginning, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was a
principal secret of the ancient Mysteries,
Thus notably reasoned Bellarmine : but Schelstrate, in his
Disciplina Arcani, seems to have advanced a step even beyond
the sufficiently adventurous Cardinal.
The wretched scantiness of any thing, which the most dex-
terous management could construe to resemble iostoeical
DEMONSTRATION, in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the three first
centuries, must inevitably strike every person who has paid the
least attention to the subject.
This glaring want of early evidence (the only evidence,
which, in historical research, can be deemed of any value) was
naturally alleged, by the reformed Catholics, against those who
still adhered to the innovations of the Church of Rome. The
FACT itself was indisputable : and the question was, how its in-
convenient stubbornness could best be managed. Here, with
Bellarmine's speculation strapped upon his shoulders (meet
burden for meet back), stepped in the ingenious Schelstrate;
fully satisfied that the somewhat late discovery of the learned
Cardinal and his associates might now be turned to a specially
good account.
The Doctrine of Transubstantiation (thus commenced the
syllogistic operations of Schelstrate, precisely where those of
Bellarmine had terminated) was a prime secret of the Mysteries:
but the very essence of the Mysteries was studied concealment:
therefore it is unreasonable to expect any proof of the aboriginal
reception of the Doct7ine of Transubstantiation from the writings
of the early Fathers.
The Bishop of Strasbourg, as if unconscious of the singular
modesty of the demand upon our credulity involved in the
argument of Schelstrate ; a demand to wit, that we should believe
the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, without ANY historical
PROOF, simply because Cardinal Bellarmine had been pleased to
assu7'e us, that, from the very first, it was a secret taught in the
300
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
old Chistian Mysteries : the Bishop of Strasbourg, there being
verily nothing new under the sun, has condescended, for the
complete conviction of his sorely perplexed English Laic, to
borrow his prepotent bolt from the armoury of his predecessor.
We cannot, he assures us, fairly expect any very decisive testi-
mony to the Doctrine of Transuhstantiation from the writings of
the early Fathers : because, had they, by the Arcane Discipline,
been allowed to express themselves clearly ; such a7i improvident
exposure would have been at once a palpable discovery and betrayal
of the whole secret K
' The passages, quoted by Dr.
Trevem, for the purpose of shelving,
to my utter confusion, that the Pri-
mitive Church from the very begin-
ning held the Doctrine of Transuh-
stantiation, are thus characterised by
HIMSELF.
These passages are, for the most part,
taken, from writings published against
the Jews and Pagans, or from homilies
pronounced before the uninitiated. In
such circumstances, the Fathers, not
BEING ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEM-
SELVES CLEARLY, considered the eucha-
ristic bread and wine in their relation
to the senses, and denominated them
types, emblems, images, allegories,
figures, and sacraments, without
ADDING THAT THESE VISIBLE APPEAR-
ANCES COVERED THE BODY AND BLOOD
OF JESUS CHRIST : WHICH WOULD HAVE
BEEN AT ONCE DISCOVERING AND
BETRAYING THE SECRET. AnSW. tO
the Diffic. of Koman. p. 263. See
also Ibid. p. 231-236.
I. In matter of fact, let the cause
be what it may. Dr. Trevem, we see,
confesses, that, in regard to the Dogma
of Transubstantiation, the Fathers do
NOT EXPRESS THEMSELVES CLEARLY:
and he adds, that they perpetually
denominated the consecrated elements
types or emblems or images or allegories
or figures or sacraments, without
ADDING THAT THESE VISIBLE APPEAR-
ANCES COVERED THE BODY AND BLOOD
OF JESUS CHRIST.
This is his own free confession : and
yet he modestly requires us to believe,
that the early Fathers assuredly held
the Doctrine of Transubstantiation ;
because, forsooth, he and Schelstrate
and Bellarmine are pleased to inform
us, that that Doctrine was taught in
the Mysteries, and therefore that the
Fathers could not speak out more
plainly without betraying the secret
which they were forbidden to do by
the Disciplina Arcani !
Truly the Bishop makes no scanty
draft upon the presumed credulity of
his English Laic.
II. Let our Anglican Laity know,
however, that Dr. Trevern is grossly
inaccurate in the statement even of
his own case.
He says, that the passages, in
which the early Fathers denominate
the consecrated elements types or
images or figures or the like, without
adding that these visible appearances
cover the body and blood of Jesus
Christ, occur (he cautiously inserts)
for the most part, in works exptosed only
to Jews or Pagans or uninitiated Cate-
chumens.
Well was it, that he inserted /or the
most part. By this management, he
has provided for himself a back-door
to escape withal, while the intended
impression upon his reader from his
general statement was left to produce
its fuU effect.
1. Of the numerous specimens
which I have given of the phraseology
commented upon by Dr. Trevem, not
more, I believe, than tivo, the extract
from the Homily of Macarius and
the extract from the Oration of Gre-
gory Nazianzen, can be construed
to have been addressed to persons,
who had never been baptised, and
who consequently had never been
initiated into the secrets of the
Mysteries. See above, book ii. chap.
4. § II. Even the heretic Marcion,
assailed by TertuUian, had been by
baptism initiated previous to his lapse
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 301
The distinct confession of Dr. Trevern, that the early Fathers
were not allowed to express themselves clearly , I readily accept.
Whatever may have been the reason of the provoking tacitur-
nity of those respectable ecclesiastics, the confession doubtless
propounds a circuinstance but too true and but too itidisputable.
The acknowledged fact is certain : we have, therefore, only to
inquire, whether the mode of accounting for it, adopted from
Schelstrate by the Bishop of Strasbourg, can be satisfactorily
estabHshed.
1. These two very sagacious speculatists seem, either to
have themselves forgotten, or to have expected their readers to
forget, that the Doctrine of the Eucharist, whatever that Doc-
trine might be, though doubtless one of the secrets of the old
Mysteries, was neither the only secret nor even the principal
secret.
The grand arcanum was the Doctrine of the Trinity, viewed
as including the immediately connected Doctrine of Christ's
godhead and incarnation : the subordinate arcana were all the
dependent and distinguishing Doctrines of the Gospel ; the
Doctrine of the Eucharist no doubt among the rest, but not
more than the Doctrine of Baptism and any other peculiar
Doctrine.
That the Doctrine of the Trinity was the palmary secret,
the fountain whence all the other minor secrets proceeded,
stands established upon the most positive and direct evi-
dence.
Cyril of Jerusalem informs us, that this grand secret, with
its dependent concomitants, was communicated only to those
into heresy : for he was the son of not merely said to be symbols or
the worthy Bishop of Pontus, who figures, but in which it is even ear-
faithfully excommunicated him, how- plicitly denied that communicants
ever he might grieve at his apostasy. partake of that body of Christ which
See Epiph. cont. hser. haer. xlii. sect. 1. poured forth its blood upon the cross.
2. Nor is this all. Augustine's August. En arr. in Psalm, xcviii. Oper.
Enarrations on the Psalms, from vol. viii. p. 397. The passage is cited
which one of my specimens was ex- above, book ii. chap. 4. § III. 4.
tracted, and which indisputably are III. Thus lamentably weak, in
addressed to the initiated because every point of view, is Dr. Trevern's
they set forth the high secrets of attempt, through the medium of his
Christ's godhead and the Holy Trinity fancied secret of the Mysteries, to
(See, inter alia, August. Enarr. in account for the appalling fact, that
Psalm xliv. Oper. vol. viii. p. 144, the early Fathers do not express them-
145), actually contain a passage, in selves clearly on the Doctrine of Tran-
which the consecrated elements are substantiation.
302 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
who were quitting the class of the Catechumens \ Gregory of
Njssa, speaking of our Lord's charge to baptise in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holj Ghost, says em-
phatically : This is the word of the Mystery, in which, through
the hirth from above, our nature is changed from corruptible into
incorruptible'^, Jerome is so absorbed by the idea of the pal-
mary secret, that he even notices that secret alo?ie, as if it were
exclusively the object of the Arcane Disciplined And the
speaker in the Dialogue entitled Philopatris, who, under the
appropriate name of Triephon, personates a Christian Cate-
chist ; when, to his simulated perfect Catechumen Ct^itias who
is the other speaker in the Dialogue, he professes to deliver the
special secret of the Ecclesiastical Mysteries; declares that
secret to be : The lofty, the great, the immortal, the celestial
God: the Son of the Father; the Spirit proceeding from the
Father : one from three ; and three from one : deem these things
Jove ; reckon this to be God^,
Such is only a small part of the evidence, which might easily
be adduced : but since Dr. Trevem pretends not to de7iy the
circumstance, I may well be spared the trouble of greater
copiousness.
' Tocvra. rk {AVffr'^^ia, vvv h iKKkyierix Pliilopat. c. xi. ill Oper. Liician. vol.
^mysTrai tm Ik x,a<rn^ovfJ!,ivcii)v fzirocf'xit.X- iii. Reitz. Amstel. 1743.
Xa/Aiveo. Oux 'iffriv idog Ihixois ^f/iyuff- To this enunciation of the grand
6ctir eu yk^ Uvikm rk -ri^t IIATPOS KAI secret of the Christian Mysteries, the
•TIOT KAI 'AFIOT ONETMATOS h^- pagan buffoon, but simulated Cate-
yavfii^a fivtrr^^ix. OuTi <rj^/ <reov //.vtr- chumen, Critias, is made to reply.
TTi^iuv \t) xcirti^ou/u,ivuv Xivxug XetXou- 'A^i^fiiuy f/.i ^t^uffxui , xa.) o^xog ri aoiS-
f^tv, kXkk -TToXXk ToXXkxii kiyofitv Icri- /u.iTiic7i' xa.) yk^ ix^i^/u,iiis eug N/x«^a;^of
xixaXvufiivug, 'iva, ol tldom 'Tfurroi vov- o Tt^affvivos. Ovx otha, yit^ t/ Xiyus.
ffuiri, xa.) ol fih il^'oTis f^ri p)XaP>uffi. "Ev r^/a, T^ta. 'iv. Msii t>jv Tir^axrvv (phi
Cyril. Hieros. Catech. vi. p. 60. and rm UvSayo^ov, ^ t^v lytok^a. xu) tpio.-
§ 29. p. 196. ed. 1848. xkla. -, Ibid.
^ OuTOi Itrriv o Xoyog TOT MTSTH- Gesner seems to have proved, so
PIOT, h M, ^/a r>is olvuhv yivvfiffiu?, far as matters of that kind can be
f^iTeierxivd^tren 9i/u,ciJv h (pvcris a-ro tov proved, that the Philopatris was
(pSci^Tov -TT^os TO ci(p6a.^Tov. Gregor. written during the reign of the Em-
Nyss. cont. Eunom. orat. i. Oper. peror Julian. See Gesner. Disput.
vol. ii. p. 2. de setat. et auctor. Philopatr. in Oper.
^ Consuetude autem apud nos Lucian. ad calc. vol. iii.
istiusmodi est, ut iis, qui baptizandi It was in consequence of the
sunt, per quadraginta dies public^ Doctrine of the Trinity being thus
tradamus sanctam at adokandam the grand secret of the Christian
TRiNiTATEM. Hieron. ad Pammach. Mysteries, that the ecclesiastical
epist. Ixi. c. 4. Oper. vol. ii. p. 180. historian Sozomen avowedly refrains
"* 'T-v^/^j^ovra Biov, fjciyav, el/t^fi^oTov, from inserting in his Work the Creed
ov^oLv'taivoe.' Tiov -rocr^os, Tinufjt,x Ix Hat- of the first Nicene Council. See
r^os Ix'To^ivofiivov' iv Ix r^iuv, xoCi \\ tvos Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 20.
T^i»' rauTX vo/u,i^i Ztjva, rov^' hyov Qiov.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 303
I consider it, then, as an acknowledged fact : that the pal-
mary secret of the Mysteries was the Doctrine of the Trinity^
And now, with this fact before us, let us turn to the very
logical argument of Schelstrate and his copyist.
If, as we are assured, the true reason, why no satisfactory
evidence for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation can be dis-
covered in the writings of the earlier Fathers, is ; that, by the
Arcane Discipline, they were not allowed to express themselves
clearly, for such a procedure would have been at once a dis-
covery and a betrayal of the secret : then, since one of the
minor secrets of the Mysteries was thus carefully guarded, we
must conclude, a fortiori, that the palmary secret of the Mys-
teries would be even yet more jealously preserved. Now the
palmary secret of the Mysteries was the Doctrine of the
Trinity. Therefore, according to the argument of Schelstrate
and Dr. Trevern, it is vain to expect any satisfactory evidence
for the Doctrine of the Trinity in the writings of the earher
Fathers : because, had they committed that Doctrine to paper,
it would have been at once a discovery and a betrayal of the
secret.
Thus indisputably stands the case, according to the necessary
purport of the argument now before us : for it will scarcely be
said, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is less sacred and less
important than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; it wiU
scarcely be said, that the primitive Christians might freely
communicate their greater secret, while respecting their smaller
secret they were by the Arcane Discipline not allowed to express
themselves clearly.
But how is this case met by stubborn facts ? Why, truly,
there is scarcely a single antenicene Father, from whose
writings the Doctrine either of the Trinity or of the Divinity
' Hence Tertullian, at the close of Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii
one of those Creeds or Baptismal decucurrisse. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 3.
Professions, which, as a Eule or Oper. p. 405.
Canon, he attests to have come down This was the Mystery, communi-
substantially from the beginning of cated to the advanced Catechumens
the Gospel, generically describes bap- shortly before their baptism, and con-
tised Christians, as Believers in the fessed by them at their baptism, when
Father, and the Son and the Holy they gave the answer of a good con-
Ghost. science to the legitimate interroga-
Fidei eorum qui credunt in Patrem tion of the officiating Bishop or Pres-
et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. byter.
304
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
of Christ may not be distinctly learned^ Nor is this all.
Those early Theolgians not only commit their palmary secret
to writings, which, it might be alleged, were circulated only
among themselves the initiated: they likewise, equally and
imreservedly, state it m those public apologies, which were
addressed to the pagan Emperors, and which were even designed
for the most extensive circulation possible. Let us note, for
instance, the Apologies of Justin and Athenagoras : one of
whom flourished about the year 140 ; the other, about the year
170. The Doctrine of the Trinity was the grand secret of the
Mysteries : and yet, when it was thought beneficial to the
Church, that, for the purpose of disarming the political jealousy
of Roman Paganism, this tenet should be fairly and openly
stated; Justin and Athenagoras, standing forth avowedly as
her spokesmen, make not slightest scruple of clearly stating
that grand Doctrine, in the face of the whole world, both
heathen and judaic and christian^.
' See Bull's Defens. Fid. Nic. and
Burton's Testim. of the Antenic.
Fathers to the divin. of Christ. May
I he allowed to add to these great
Works my own Apostolicity of Trini-
tarianism ?
' See Justin. Apol. i. Oper. p. 43.
Athenag. Legat. § ix. xi. xxii. p. 37,
38, 41, 96. The honest inquirer may
also attend to the passages marked
out hy the following references.
Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. Jud. Oper.
p. 198. Tertull. adv. Prax. Oper. p.
405, 406. TertuU. Apol. adv. gent.
Oper. p. 850. Melit. Apol. apud
Chron. Pasch. in a.d. 164, 165.
Clem. Alex. Protrep. Oper. p. 5, 6,
66, 68. Origen. adv. Cels. lib. iii. p.
135. lib. iv. p. 169, 170. Amob. adv.
gent. lib. i. p. 24. Minuc. Fel. Octav.
p. 280, 281, 284. Lucian. de Mort.
Peregrin. Oper. vol. iii. p. 333, 334,
337, 338.
It was doubtless from the various
Apologies and other controversial
Works produced by the early eccle-
siastical Avriters, in which they dis-
tinctly propound the Doctrines of
Christ's godhead and the Trinity,
that the principal secret of the Mys-
teries was more or less known even
to the Pagans. Hence we find the
Worship of Christ as God to have been
one of the stock objections, regularly
adduced against the Church by every
heathen scribbler : and hence, as we
have seen, the buffoon, who in the
time of Julian wrote the dialogue
Philopatris, distinctly exhibits the
Doctrine of the Trinity as the grand
secret of the Christian Mysteries.
In fact, the secrets of these Myste-
ries were rather nominal than real :
for their gradual communication was
rather a point of mere catechetical dis-
cipline, than any attempt to confine
them to a few select master-minds.
They were freely and indiscriminately
communicated, in the way of pro-
gressive instruction, to ali. who were
on the point of being received by
baptism into the full communion of
the Church Catholic. Accordingly,
when the interests of Christianity
seemed to require it, these nominal
secrets were unreservedly exposed to
the full gaze both of Jews and of
Pagans. Such was the conduct of
Justin in his controversial dialogue
with the Jew Trypho : and such, as
I have already obsen'ed, was the
conduct of all the ancient Apologists
to the pagan Emperors or to the
pagan world in general.
CHAP. lY.]
DIFFICULTIES OF BO^LVNIS^f.
305
Now, if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation were one of the
subordinate secrets of the Mysteries, as Bellarmine and Schel-
strate and Trevem pretend : how are we to account for the
strange inconsistency, that the primitive Christians should
readily commit, even to the most public writings, their chief
secret ; but that a subordinate secret they should have guarded
with so much jealousy, that, even by interested latin perspi-
cacity, no clear traces of it can be discovered in any of their
compositions ' ?
h
' The Bishop of Strasbourg, in his
mode of treating the subject, gives
not the slightest hint, that the Mys-
teries communicated any other secret
than that of Transubstantiation : and
thus, while he dexterously avoids
committing himself by an explicit
assertion, that Transubstantiation
was the sole secret; he leaves upon
the mind of his unsuspicious English
Laic the false impression, that the
Mysteries were instituted for the
special and exclusive pmpose of con-
cealing the Doctrine of the Eucharist,
which he contends to have been the
Doctrine of Transubstantiation. See
Discuss. Amic. lettr. viii.
On mi/ own mind the impression
was assuredly left (and, on a careful
reperusal of his eighth Letter, I see
not how any other impression coidd
be left), that such was the circum-
stance which he wished to inculcate :
and thence, in the first edition of this
Work, I discussed the matter accord-
ingly; demonstrating, as my im-
pression of Dr. Trevern's purpose
obviously led and required me to
demonstrate, that the Doctrine of the
Eucharist was neither the sole nor
even the principal secret of the Mys-
teries.
I. This natural process, though
worked out with what many deemed
a superfluity of respectful politeness,
stirred up the vehement wrath of the
Bishop : and, in his Answer, he fiercely
reviled me, as having wilfully mis-
represented him, inasmuch as he had
never asserted Transubstantiation to .
be the exclusive secret.
His bitter wrath evinces nothing
more than an extreme irritation, that
his too evident pui^pose of guarded
deception was detected and exposed.
He tells us, that he never asserted
Transubstantiation to be the exclusive
secret of the Mysteries.
True : he never, totidem verbis et
litens, committed himself by hazard-
ing any such grossly false assertion.
The sagacious Prelate was much too
wary to adventure the dangerous
experiment. But, if he had no sinister
object of deception in view : why, in
addressing an English Layman who
may be presumed to have not much
studied topics of this description, was
he TOTALLY SILENT as to the existence
of any other secrets beside the Doc-
trine of the Eucliarist ; why did he
write in such a manner as inevitably
to convey the impression, that the
Mysteries were instituted for the
exclusive purpose of concealing from
all save the initiated the grand arca-
num of Transubstantiation ?
II. In truth, the whole of his argu-
ment turns upon this very hinge : and,
without it, nothing can be more
wretchedly inconclusive.
It is no wonder, he reasons, that so
little clear proof of the Doctrine of Tran-
substantiation can he elicited from the
Works of the early Fathers. The Disci-
pline of the Secret did not allow them to
express themselves clearly. Had they
openly and fully entered upon the Doc-
trine, this would have been at once dis-
covering and betraying the secret.
Thus argues Dr. Trevern : and his
argument is specious enough, so long
as his deceived reader fancies the
exclusive secret of the Mysteries to
have been the Doctrine of the Eucha-
rist. But, the moment the truth is
told, the argument, as we have seen,
forthwith commences the imgraceful
operation of limjHng : while Dr. Tre-
vern himself breaks forth into a
towering passion against the mis-
chievous truth-teller.
306 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM. [bOOK U.
The simple truth is: that, although the sound primitive
Doctrine of the Eucharist was doubtless one of the subordinate
secrets of the Mysteries, those Mysteries possessed no such
portentous arcanum as that of Transubstantiation. Hence the
early Fathers could by no possibility have written about a
Doctrine, of which they were profoundly ignorant ; and hence,
of course, to seek for any clear traces of it in their Works is
mere bootless labour and vanity and vexation of spirit.
2. Accordingly, that neither the Mysteries taught, nor that
the Christians even of the fourth century k?ieia any thing of,
the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is established, beyond all
reasonable doubt, by the very remarkable negative testimony
of the Emperor Julian.
That extraordinary man was once, in profession at least, a
christian : but hating the light of the Gospel, he apostatised to
Paganisnu Now Julian, be it carefully observed, had been,
not merely an uninitiated Catechumen, but a baptised Mysta^
As a baptised Mysta, he must have heard the preparatory
lectures of the Catechist : as a baptised Mysta, he must, ac-
cording to the discipline of the Church, have been regularly
initiated into the Mysteries. If, then, the Doctrine of Tran-
substantiation were a secret taught in the Mysteries, Julian
must have been well acquainted with the existence of that
Doctrine : and, if acquainted with its e.vistence, a man of his
humour could not have failed to make it the subject of his
bitterest ridicule.
How, then stands the case with the imperial apostate, who,
III. His conduct is the more repre- ment was not worth a straw. Alba-
hensible : because he ought to have spin. Police de I'ancienne Eglise, livr.
known and fairly stated, that, when i. c. 2, p. 47. apudAlbertin.de Eucha-
liis notable argument from the Dis- rist. lib. ii. p. 703. Daventrise, 1054.
cipline of the Secret was first pro- See Bingham's Ant. of the Christ,
pounded, a verj' honest and respect- Church, book x. c. 5.
able Bishop of his o\\n Communion, ' Gregor. Nazian. Orat. iii. Oper.
Albaspinseus to wit, instantaneously vol. i. p. 70. Sozomen. Hist. Eccles,
demolished it pretty much on the lib. v. c. 2. Each of these writers
same piinciple of reasoning with my- speaks of Julian's profane oblitera-
self. tion of the holy character which he
AlbAspinoeus rightly urged, that, to received in the laver of Baptism; and
the conclusiveness of the argument, describes that obliteration to have
it was imperatively necessary, that been eflfected by tlie unhallowed blood
the Doctrine of the Eucharist should of the victims, which he devoted to
have been the sole and exclusive the pagan deities or the averruncan
secret of the Mysteries. This, how- demons. The fact of his baptism is
ever, if was not. Therefore the argn- the matter necessary to my argument.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 307
having been baptised, bad indisputably been initiated into all
the secrets of the Mysteries ?
(1.) In his Work agamst Christianity, great part of wliich
has been substantially preserved and regularly answered by
Cyi'il of Alexandria, Julian ridicules, the Adoration of Christ
on the part of the Church ; the Godhead of Christ ; the Birth
of Christ from the Virgin ; the Conception of Christ by the
Holy Ghost; the Doctrine, that Christ was the Creator of
the Universe ; the Doctrine, that Christ is the Word of God,
the Son of God, God from God of the substance of the Father ;
the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is the basis of the Doctrine
of Christ's Godhead : he laughs in a most especial manner, at
the Tenet of the Resurrection from the Dead in Christ ; which,
as including the Resurrection of Christ the first-fruit, is (ac-
cording to the accurate statement of St. Paul) the very basis
of our faith and preaching: he amuses himself likewise with
what he deems the incm'able absurdity of the Purification of
Sin by the mere Element of Water in Baptism : and ap-
proximating to the very subject of Transubstantiation and the
Literal Sacrifice of Clirist's Material Body and Blood in the
celebration of the Eucharist, if any such extraordinary doc-
trines had then been held and taught in the Church, he mocks
the hated Galileans for saying, that Clirist had otice been sacri-
ficed on their behalf, and, consequently, that they themselves
offered up iw sacrifices^.
' See Cyiil. Alex. cont. Julian, lib. I. His reasoning would have been
V. p. 150. lib. vi. p. 191, 21.3. lib. \'iii. veiy weak, even if it had been founded
p. 253, 261,262, 276. lib. ix. p. 200, upon fact: for, as the veiiest child
201, .314. lib. X. p. 327, 333. lib. vii. might have seen, the true question
p. 245, 250. lib. ix. p. 305, 306, lib. x. was, not whether Julian systemati-
p. 354. Lips. 1696. cally ridiculed every Docti'ine of
For the purpose of ireakening, if Christianity; but whether it be credi-
not of absolutely oveHurintiq my argu- ble, that such a man would pcrpetu-
ment from the silence of .lulian, Mr. ally ridicule mamj Doctrines less
Huscnbeth, with his wonted disregard capable of being made a subject of
of accuracy when a turn is to be merriment, and yet that he would
served, has asserted, in liis last pam- totally omit to ridicule the Doctrine
phlet (p. 33.), that Julian never once of Transubstantiation which /or above
mentions the Rcvirrection of Christ : all others presents the greatest capa-
wliencp, I siippose, lie would have us bility of burlesque,
conclude, that, since .Tuhan omits to 11, But his reasoning is built upon
ridicule C/jW.s/'s2?csMr/YT/io;?, he might an absolute falsehood: for Cyril
also well omit to ridicule //<e Doc/nwc assures us, that Julian, even most
of Transuhstantiation,thovigh T^eYfeetly cspeeiallj/, ridiculed the Dodrine of
acquainted with both the one and the the Fesurrection from the l)end in
other. Christ; of whkh Resurrection Christ
308
DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM.
[book II.
But yet, though thus eagerly bent upon catching at any
thing in Christianity which he might speciously turn to deri-
sion, >t:yer once, on any occasion or by any accident, does he
mention, or even so much as remotely allude to^ the latin Doc-
trine of Transubstantiation^
himself ivas the first, -fruit and the
earnest.
In the first edition of this Work,
as I professed not scholastically to
enumerate all the Doctiines ridiculed
Ly Julian but only to give specimens
of his humour, I accidentally omitted
to mention, that Julian, among other
Doctrines of Christianity, ridiculed
also that of the Resurrection from the
Dead in Christ. This circumstance,
apparently, has led Mr. Husenheth
most unhappily to fancy, that he
might safely assert the total silence of
Julian respecting our Lord'sEesurrection.
That the cautious inquirer may duly
appreciate this individual's utter con-
tempt of accuracy, I subjoin the testi-
mony of Cyril in his own precise words.
n^ixareei ya,^ ctvToTs (scil. Christia-
nis) lis v'TTctr^ifriv TVii viohirtu; h ^ci^is'
Tiu^nrffen Vi T^otr^oxuiri kcc) <r?j Ik vix^uv
avoiffTua-ius iv X^iittm' o ^h MAAI2TA
oiecyiXZ T^og tois oikXeig aTctffiv o ttJs
uXneua; ix^^os (scil. Julianus), wVcrs^
euK hoy, tm -jravru, Iff^vovTt ©£«, xa)
GavArov xoiiTTovot ccToipyivat tov Xoyui
<p6a^oig v-roxtifJt.ivov xutoc, idiocy <p6ffi». Cy-
ril. Alex, coiit. Julian, lib. vii. p. 250.
' To rid themselves of the neces-
sary conclusion from Julian's total
silence respecting Transubstantiation,
Dr. Trevern and his diligent follower
Mr. Husenbeth allege, that Cyril has
answered no more than one book out
of the three in which the Emperor's
attack upon Christianity was arranged :
whence we may easily suppose, that
the Doctrine was ridiculed in the
course of the tivo books which Cyril
lias left unansivend. Trevern's Ans.
to Diff. of Eom. p. 2S4, 285. Husen-
beth's Ans. to Supplem. p. 208, 209.
I. Where these two writers learned
that Cyril has answered no more than
the first book of Julian's Work, I shall
not pretend to determine. Certain,
however, it is, that Cyril himself gives
not the slightest wan-ant for any such
evasion. He simply tells us, that
Julian's Work was comprised in three
books : and afterwards he remarks,
that the first book was so rambling
as to require a better arrangement of
its contents in his controversial reply.
T^ia ffvyyiy^ee.(pt (itfiXix xbcto, tuv
ayiuy ii/ecyyiXtuv xai xura rni ilayoZg
TUV 'X.^tffrtavuy ff^ntrxtia;. Cyril. COnt.
Julian, lib. i. p. 3.
'IffTioy fiiy TOi xaxuvo. 'Ev ya^ tS
«^&>rM koyeu d/a •rXiiffruv f^iv offcov lyyoiuv
'i^^ircct' a.ya n xa) xoireo to, aura ^i^i-
(TT^iipeav xa.) avetxvxXuv, av 'Xavtrcu' xa),
oTi^ a,v iv cio^eui tii^itrxoiro Xtyuv, vovrt
xx) J/a /xitrav xcc) Tolg TiXivraloig ivnhh,
rovs TJJs a.yTiffri<nas Xoyoug a^o(p^vUiy
«v oux iv xixTfioii roL^ot, tou ytyivy^ofiiyous.
Waffa ya^ vug ayuyxn ro7g Ta.^' ocvtov
XtyofAiyotg (piXoyiixuv vi^nfAiyovg, olx, oLtuI^,
aXXa ^XiicrxHig, <Ti^i tuv cchruv atiXo-
youvTceg o^xir&Bct. AnXovTig toivvv iv
TU^it T^ -r^lVCohlffTt^a, TOV 'TCC^ CCVToZ
Xoyov, xa,) rug iv uvrS ^ixvotctg trvyivty-
x'ovTig xccT u^og, oh^ IxciffTny frXuffTaxigf
a-rox^uvTug Ti oL<za,'^ xa) ivTi^yag, v^av-
TYiffofj^iv. Ibid. lib. ii. p. 38, 39.
II. This is the whole that Cyril
says of Julian's y^rsf book : but, as for
professing to answer no more than
that portion of his Work, he does
THE VERY REVERSE ; for his language
plainly intimates, as indeed we might
naturally suppose, that his plan was
to answer the whole Work, not a third
part of it only.
'E** auTm Oi Xoi'Tov Iriov tyiv ixiivau
ffvyy^a.<pYiV'\yTi6ifji.ivoi Ti Toi/g <rr/;^«i/f W)
Xs^ieog auTtig, ayrtToiiro/^sy to, va.g tau-
Tuv iv xofffAM Tco ViovTi ToCig ixiivov xa.'
Tapp^tna-iv avTi'rt(pi^tirGai ^i7v olx ayivvug
iyvuxoTig. Cyril, cout. Julian, lib. ii.
p. 38. Vide etiam lib. i. p. 4.
III. Accordingly, if we read Cyril's
Composition with reasonable atten-
tion, we shall perceive, that he com-
pleted his plan in exact agreement
mth his own description of the Work
which he professed to answer.
He states, that the diift of Julian's
Treatise was, partly to laud Heathenism
at the expense of Revelation, partly <o ri-
dicule the Books of Moses, and partly, to
assail the Doctrine and Members of the
Christian Church.
CHAP.
IV.J
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
309
(2.) Exactly the same remark applies to Julian's yet extant
other Works. ♦
Again and again he ridicules the Galileans and all that
appertains to them ; their Agapae and Ministrations at Tables,
their Base Superstition, their Acknowledgment of Christ's God-
Oy 5«S/«, x«t Ttis tvotyoZs fifccHv 6^n^-
xsiets ctvoo'iais xatTaxtx^Mynoi, tuv tx^
"EkXntri ffo(puv ^toc/u.v>jfioviun trv^vug' xeci
k'Tta.a'A f^lv iv(pn/jt.ia, ffTi^etvoi rag Ixiivuv
xaxooo^ia;' xocTa,6^oe,<runTai 'Si ruv li^uv
vns ixx\rtffta,i ^oyf^coiruv' xa) tuv (aXv
"iHuffiui IffTo^iuv xa.Ta,f/,ii^iZ' xccrccyo^iuu
d\ xoc] kiravruv o.'Va.^aTXus TcHv aytuv,
Cyril, cont. Julian, lib. ii. p. 38.
IV. This is Cyril's account of the
contents of the three books into which
Julian's Treatise was divided : and, as
liis answer is in exact accordance
Avith the whole of those contents, not
with a jJart of them only ; so he dis-
tinctly teaches us, both where he
comes to the end of Julian's first
book, where he begins with his second
book, and where he enters upon his
third book.
1. The end of Julian's first book he
marks as follows.
^liffxivafffAivr)? ^£ otiruf yi/u,7v T^f It)
TovToig ivvoictf "^atfiiv <ra i^i^^s' ffv/u.Ti'
^mo-f/ca ya^ ruv lauToZ ^otsTrat Xoyuv o
(piXaffo^os ^lovXiecvcf, outu kiyuv, Cyril,
cont. Julian, lib. iii. p. 93.
2. The beginning of Julian's second
book he thus, immediately afterwards,
notices.
nf/,ei/v ffxtvu^ias 'rov r^oTov, ffvyx^ivtiv fsi-
^aroii To7s lavroZ •n'a.va.Sxlois ^oyfAdcn <ra
XgitfTiavuv, ovTu Xiyuv. Cyril, cont.
Juhan. lib. iii. p. 90.
;3. The beginning of Julian's third
book he specifies in manner following.
npoffi^dyii Ti TouToif ffo<pos 'loukiu-
vos iTi^ee. arra, rns X^ia-riavuv 6^nirxutts
xarayo^tvuv 'jtuvtcc^ov' y^ei(pti §g outus.
Cyril, cont. Julian, lib. vi. p. 205.
V. These three books, thus dis-
tinguished from each other in the
course of the reply to them, exactly
correspond in their cited contents
with the previous description of the
whole Work which had been given by
CjTril : for the first book exalts Hea-
thenism at the expense of Revelation ;
the second book ridicules the Histories
of Moses; and the third book assails
specially the Doctrine and Members of
the Christian Church.
Cyril, then, according to his own
proposed plan, has evidently answered
ALL the three books of Julian's Trea-
tise, not, as Dr. Trevern and Mr.
HusenbeLh are pleased gratuitously
to assert, the first book only : and,
since he describes the entire Work of
the Emperor as rcvihng all matters
appertaining to Christians, both their
manners and their laws and their
mysteries^ so that there is no good
thing in the whole Scripture which
he does not labour to pervert, ("A*av-
TOi fM,v oZv rk 'K^io'Tietva'v 'htu(ii(->Knrcci
^a,^ avrS, 'i6yi r$, xa.) loynt, xctt fzvffrr.-
picc' xu) ovhiv \ffrt Tuy tO yiyovoTuv tj xai
o^^ug li^nfAivuv fa^oc, <ri,s hias y^ct-(pris,
ftn roiig tig (pocvXoryira Ti^i^aWuv ttl-
riens, ovx i^v6^ia. Cyril, cont. Julian,
lib. iii. p. 74); my argument from
Julian's total silence in regard to the
popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation,
remains, with all fitting deference to
the speculation of my two opponents,
in its full original force.
VI. Before I conclude, it may be
proper to notice an apparent discre-
pance between Cyril and Jerome, as
to the number of books into which
Julian'^ Work was divided.
According to Cyril, it contained
three books : according to Jerome, it
comprehended seven. Cyril, cont.
Julian, lib. i. p. 3. Hieron. Epist.
Ixxxiv. Oper. vol. ii. p. 259.
The two Fathers may, I think, be
easily reconciled.
Julian, I suppose, wrote his Work
against Christianity in three books,
dividing those three books into seven
sections or chapters : so that two of
the books should contain severally
two chapters, while the third con-
tained three. Inconsequence of this
ai-rangement, Cyril, I apprehend, is led
to speak of the three principal or larger
divisions : while Jerome speaks of the
seven subordinate or smaller divisions.
This, of. course, 'is conjecture : but
310 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
head : Moses also, and the prophets, upon whom the Gospel is
avowedly built, come in for a due share of his vituperation :
Athanasius is reviled, as the enemy of the gods, and as the artful
inveigler of noble women to receive the sacrament of Baptism :
and, through the side of the first christian Emperor Constan-
tino, the Gospel is vilified, as encouraging universal profligacy
and dishonesty and licentiousness by its Doctrine of Cheaply
Purifying Ablution and Free Pardon on Condition of Re-
pentance*.
Yet NEVER does the Emperor even once please himself,
cither by ridiculing, or by simply noticing, that Doctrine so pi'e-
eminently liable to lidicule, which has been gravely exhibited
to us as the grand secret of the ancient Christian Mysteries.
(3.) Immediately associated, in Popish Theology, with this
grand secret of Transubstantiation, is, the notion that In the
Mass there is a real and literal sacrifice of the victirn Christ, and
the superadded dogma that TJie transubstantiated elements ought
to receive the divine adoration of Latvia,
Had Juhan ridiculed either of these dependant superstitions,
he would have established their famihar CMstence in the fourth
century, and thence would also have established the then
existence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
But, so far from this being the case, he reproaches the
Church of his day with having no sacrifice at all^ : and he is
altogether silent on so tempting a sul^ject of banter, as that of
eating the Deity whom his adorers themselves had made.
To the last allegation, which nowhere appears in the Works
it is, perhaps, not unreasonable con- Cyril speaks of Julian's entire Work
jecture, since the same Work is evi- against Cliristianity. See Cyril, com.
dently spoken of by holh. Julian, lib. i. p. 3, 4.
I mention the discrepance, lost ' See Julian. Imper. Oper. Orat.
such a writer as Mr. Husenbeth, vi. p. 192. Orat. Fragment, p. 305.
shifting the gi'ound taken up by Dr. Misopog. p. 303. Epist. vii. p. 370.
Trevern, should be disposed to say, Epist. xlii. p. 423, 424. Epist. xhx.
that Cyril only answered three books p. 429-431. Epist. li. p. 432-435.
out of the seven, and that the Empe- Epist. lii. p. 435-438. Epist. Ixii.
ror mi;jht have ridiculed Transub- p. 450. Epist. Lxiii. j). 453, 454. Orat.
stantiation in some one of the re- Fragment, p. 289, 295. Epist. vi.
raaining unansv/ered/owr books. Such p. 370. Epist. xxvi. p. 398. Epist. li.
a fetch, however, will not serve the p. 432, 435. Csesar. p. 330. Lips,
pui-poses of Komanism ; for nothing 1090.
is more plain, than tliat, under the ^ Jidiau. apud Cyril. Alex, cont,
aspect of containing three books, Julian, lib. x. p. 345.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 311
of Julian, Cyril, of course, could give no answer : but, to the
charge that the Christians had no sacrifice, he does reply. And
what is the nature of his rejouider? Truly, so far from
alleging that Christians duly offered up a literal sacrifice when-
ever Mass was celebrated, he intimates : that, although Julian
spake truly in saying that Christians had no sacrifices like the
Jews or the Gentiles, yet certainly they were in no wise
without the far better spiritual and intellectual sacrifices of
faith, hope, charity, justice, temperance, and obedience^
(4.) I may be mistaken in estimating the strength of this
argument : but it strikes upon my own apprehension, as being
perfectly irresistible.
Let any reasonable being consider the complete knowledge
which the baptised and therefore fully initiated apostate pos-
sessed of the Doctrines of Christianity, his utter hatred of the
Gospel, his perpetual recurrence to the detested GaHleans and
their more detested Theology, his humour of turning into
ridicule whatever in Christianity he thought capable of being
made ridiculous, and the peculiar liability of the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation with its Adjuncts to be made the subject of
profane banter and mockery: let any reasonable being con-
sider these several matters ; and then let him judge, whether,
if Transubstantiation had been a Doctrine of the early Catholic
Church regularly taught in the Mysteries and duly received
by all the faithful, it could possibly have been passed over in
total silence by such a man as Julian.
The complete taciturnity of the Emperor, in every thing
that regards the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is, I think, as
complete a negative proof of its non-existence among the secrets
of the Mysteries and consequently of its non-existence in the
fourth century during which Julian flourished, as can be either
desired or imagined. Above all other Doctrines, the Doctrine
of Transubstantiation with its Adjuncts is incontestably the
most obnoxious to banter and ridicule. Yet, wliile Julian
repeatedly scoffs at Doctrines much less adapted to the purposes
of burlesque, he never ridicules that which is even especially
and preeminently suited to his humour, the latin Dogma of
Transubstantiation.
Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian, lib. x. p. ^i.b.
312 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
In truth, one of its Adjuncts, the Adoration and the subse-
quent Eating of the Host to wit, had he really kno^vn such to
be the practice of Christians in his day, could not have failed
to elicit his sarcastic powers all the more fluently from his
remembrance of the well known question in the Treatise of
Cicero.
By a very common figure of speech, says the Roman Orator,
we call bread Ceres and wine Bacchus. But luho was ever yet
so besotted, as to fancy, that what he eats and drinks is literally a
god^f
With this familiar passage of Cicero before him, could the
classical Julian have known the Doctrine of Transubstantia-
tion, and yet have remained totally silent ?
Before the present part of the subject is dismissed, it may
add to the force of the argument, if we contrast the taciturnity
of Julian in the fourth century with the open ridicule of the
Arabian Averrhoes in the eleventh century.
Since Christians eat what they adore, let my soul be with the
philosophers'^.
If Transubstantiation were the Doctrine of the Church in
the fourth century, as either it or something like it was in the
eleventh century though the name had not been then invented,
why spake not Julian like Averrhoes ?
YII. It will be asked : How, then, are we to understand
the singularly strong language respecting the Eucharist, which
certainly occurs, if not in the writings of the earlier Fathers,
yet in the writings of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centu-
ries ; language, adduced with sufficient copiousness by the
latin advocates for the purpose of historically demonstrating
the aboriginal existence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation
within the pale of the Church Catholic ?
To this question, the reply is abundantly easy.
Let those Fathers be allowed the very reasonable privilege
of explaining their own phraseology : and their grandiloquence
' Cum fruges Cererem, vinum Li- dant quod adorant, sit anima mea
berura, dicimus ; genere nos quidem cum philosophis. Aver, apud Cardin.
sermonis utimur usitato : sed ecquem Perron, de Euchar. c. 29.
tarn amentem esse putas, qui illud, Thus naturally do the unscriptural
quo vescatur, deum credat esse ? Cicer. absurdities of Popery either generate
de Nat. Deor. lib. iii. § 10. p. .'{23. Infidelity or confirm Infidels in their
' Quandoquidem Christiani come- unbelief.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 313
will speedily shrink into the very moderate dimensions of
theological correctness.
Unhappily for the cause of truth, so far as the laic members
of their own communion are concerned, the Roman Divines
very duly produce the grandiloquence, but very carefully sup-
press the explanation^
With much inflation of language, the postnicene Fathers
perpetually speak of the consecrated elements, as being
changed or transformed into the body and blood of Christ,
as being made or as becoming the body and blood of Christ, as
experiencing a wonderful alteration of character which must
not be judged of by our external senses : and, in consequence
of their employing such diction, the sacerdotal advocates of the
Latin Church unscrupulously bring them forward as staunch
and manifest Transubstantialists.
But, if we will only have the patience to hear them explain
themselves, we shall find, from their own express statements,
that the change, of which they speak, is a change, not of sub-
stance, but of character : we shall find, that the change, which
they thus magnificently celebrate, is a change, not material or
physical, but moral or sacramental^.
' The Bishop of Strasbourg cannot retort his own insulting language to
be allowed to plead ignorance of the my brethren the English Clergy)
explanatory passages, for he himself have proceeded, for the information of
hints at them even while iu the very the La'dy, to supply his deficiency of
act of suppressiny them. See Discuss. ministration. Discuss. Amic. lettr. x.
Amic. lettr. x. vol. ii. p. 59. vol. ii. p. 8.
It might seem as if som^ allusion to The same charge oi copiously ad-
them was thought inevitable or at duciny the yrandiloquence of the post-
least prudent, lest the charge of total nicene Fathers, while he carefully
and systematic and deliberate garbling suppresses their explanations, may be
of evidence should be preferred equally preferred against Mr. Bering-
against him : but still, while he in- ton. Not one of the explanatory
geniously puts into the mouth of his passages, which, in the present sec-
English Layman the allegation that tion, I am about to bring forward,
such passages do exist, he carefully does Mr. Berington, any more than
refrains from producing the passages the Bishop of Strasbourg, lay before
themselves. his readers. They are all sedulously
Why would he not, by their honest suppressed.
production, enable his friends of the '^ The trick of exhibiting the Fathers,
Laity to form, by their own ocular in- as speaking of Christ's body being
spection, a really just and accm'ate identically present in the Eucharist,
estimate of the litigated question ? when in truth they speak only of its
Truly he well knew, that such a step sacramental presence, is by no means
would have been fatal to his cause. a modern device of the Eomish
Hence it is easy to account for his Clergy. Wycliffe, in the fourteenth
bitter wrath against myself; who (to century, tells us, that the same spe-
314 DIFFICULTIES OF BOMANISM. [bOOK H.
This change, in short, which through virtue of consecration
the bread and wine experience, is explicitly declared by them,
though our modern Latin Divines carefully suppress such
declai'ations, to be homogeneous or similar in nature, to the
change tvrought by consecration in an altar or in a church or in
the chrism anciently used in the rite of confirmation, to the change
wrought in a layman by sacerdotal ordination, to the change
lorought in the unregenerate by the mighty efficacy of that spiritual
renovation which attends upon the right reception of the sacrament
of Baptism.
Now, in all these illustrative cases, the change is, plainly and
mideniably, moral or sacramental, not material or substantial.
Therefore, in the case of the Eucharist which they are
professedly adduced to illustrate, the change produced in the
bread and wine must, by the very necessity of the illustration,
have been viewed, not as matenal or substantial, but as moral
or sacramental.
1. No person ever spake of the Eucharist in more florid and
exaggerated terms than Cyril of Jerusalem, who flourished
about the middle of the fourth century. Hence, with the
Latin Clergy, he is a specially favourite authority.
Christ himself having declared and said concoming the bread ;
This is my body : who shall liereafter dare to doubt ? Christ
himself having asserted and pronomiced ; This is my blood : loho
shall hesitate, saying that it is not his blood ? He once, at Cana
of Galilee, by his own nod, changed the water into wine : and is
he not ivorthy of credit, that he changed the ivine into blood ? If,
tvhen called to a mere corporeal marriage, he wrought that great
wonder : shall we not much rather confess, that he hath given the
fruildon of his own body and blood to the sons of the bridegromn ?
Wlierefore, with all full assurance, let us partake, AS IT were, of
the body and blood of Chnst For, in the type of bread, the
body is given to thee ; and, in the type of wine, the blood is given
cious mode of puzzling or deceiving tectionem et aliarum fallaciarum, tol-
tbe Laity prevailed also in his days ; lit argutias adversantium : nt aliqua
but that he and his friends, by de- loquuntur Sancti de sacramento, ut
tecting and exposing such fallacious panis ; et aliqua dicunt de isto, non
equivocations, nullified the subtle ut identice, sed mcramentaliter, coipus
contrivance of their unscrupulous ad- Christi. Confess. Magist. Johan.
versaries. Wycclyff, in Yaughan's Life of WyclifFe.
Secta nostra, per equivocatiouis de- Append. No. VI. vol. ii. p. 450, 451.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. 315
to thee : in order that thou may est partake of the body and blood
of Christ i becoming with him joint body and joint blood, — Chnst,
once conversing ivith the Jeius, said : Except ye eat my flesh and
drink my blood, ye have 7iot life in yourselves. They, not having
SPlBITUALLY understood the things which ivere spoken, being scan-
dalised, went back, fancying that he exhorts them to flesh-eatino.
— Attend not, then, to the bread and wine, as if they were mere
bread and wine : for they are the body and blood of Christ,
according to the Lord-s declaration. If sense suggest any thing
to thee, let faith confirm thee. Judge of the matter, not from
taste, but undoubtingly from the full assurance of faith, having
been deemed worthy of Chnsfs body and blood. — The apparent
bread, though sensible to the taste, is not bread, but the body of
Chiist : and the apparent tvine, though the taste intimate this, is
not wine, bat the blood of Chist, — Strengthen, then, thy heart,
partaking of this bread AS SPIRITUAL : and make the countenance
of thy soul joyful ^
In the midst of this declamatory language, from the intima-
tions with which it is sprinkled, the real doctrine of Cyril, even
if we should travel no further for its development, is abun-
dantly manifest.
He first warmly exhorts his Mystae to partake, as it were, of
the body and blood of Christ : and he explams his emphatically
* AuTou auv i'x'olp/ivBtfCiveu itu) u-roMTOi aJfia, ev» 'ix^n ^uh iv lavTsis. 'ExsTvm,
vfipi rov cc^rov, Tovro f^ov itrrt <ro euy.u.' (m aKViKoins IlNETMATIKftS ruv Xiyo-
ris roXfi^^iru ufi(pt(->uK>.uv Komov ; Kaf //.Uuv, ffKavbotXurSivTis, acrtjX^iv t'n rot
etvTou fii^atug-aftivev Kui uor,Koro3, Tuw- o-riffu, vo/ni'i^oyTii on It) 2APKO*AriAN
TO (Aou icrr) to cufjuu,' t/j i'thoiaifit Tori, avrohg T^oT^iTircii, — Mr} ^^o<nx,i «<>*> uf
Xiyuv f^h itvoci uvTov to aJf^a ; To u^u^ i^/Xsry, tS u^tm jcu) t^ o'/vm' o-u/Ltei yoc^
Tori us oJvov fisTafiB^kriKiv, iv Koiva rris xxt uTf^et X^iffTov xara rh ^urToTixhv
retXtXuta?, oiKtiio vivf^oiri' xaCi ovx a.%1'0^ ruy^uvti ivo^putriv. El ya^ xcci h a'/tr-
'TiffTOS IffTtv ohev /Lcirulicikuv flf aTf^oc ; ^jjct/j aroi touto vTofieiXXu, akka h ST/V-
Ei'f yufiov <rct)fioiTiXov xk'/Jus, rctvryiv rtf <ri fiifiaiovra. Mi), a^o tvs yivcfteaSt
\6ot,vfAOiTovpyriffi TYiv 'PCa.^oihe^oi'ouot.Y' xou, K^'tvr,i to cr^ayfioi, aXk' oi^o Ttig ^iO'Tiug
ro7s uto'is Tov vvfi^pMvo;, ov •ffok'kSf fiaX' trkv^o^o^ou avtv^oiaa-TuSf ffufAaros xeci
\ov Tnv uToXtivtiv Tou ffMfzaTos ctv-os a'/jMaroj X^itrrou xciTu^iahis. — ^"O <pecivo-
uurou kk) tov alf^ocros ^u^'/,a-d.fiCtvos e/aoXo- f4,ivoi cH^rot cux ccoto; IffTty, tl xcci rJj
yyi^Kftrai ; "ilo'Ti, /xiTci ^ua-'/i; -rXv^ofO' yiv<r%i aicr^nros, uXXa trufioi, X^nrrou' xui
^iecs, fiS ffufiUTOi xoct a"fia.Toi /^sraXa^- <pocivofx,i)/B; oUva ovx oHves IffTiv, t'l xot) fi
(idvufiiv X^tffTov. *Ey TTnn< yk^ ol^rov, yiutra Tovro (iovXiTOtt, uXXa ctlfAot X^i<r-
Si^flTa/ ffoi TO o'Sftet' xcc), ev TTllQt o'lvov, tcZ. — 2t«j/|9W T'/jv xa^Vioiv, (JLiTaXufij^oi-
^i^orai aoi to BUfjt.%' 'Ivx y'tMyi (liTuXafiuv vuv avrov ut HNETMATIKOT* xui tXd-
trdficeiTos xxi alfjt,xTOi X^ia-ToUt irCfirai^uoi ^vvev to rtis '4'VX^S ffov rr^otrwrot.
xtt,) avitoLi^oi auTov. — Tlori Xoifro;, to7s Cyril. Hici'os. Catccli. Mystag. iv. p.
'lovhuioii ^ixXiyifiivos, (Xiytv' 'Ea» fit) ?i37-239.
(p^iynr't /wo xhv vu^xoi, xac.) xinTi (MU to
316
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
[book n.
distinctive as it were, by teaching them, that the Lord's body
and blood are given, not literally, but in the type of bread and
in the type of wine^ He then declares, that the consecrated
bread and wine are not mere bread and M^ine,' or that they are
not bread and wine viewed under the sole and exclusive aspect
of their physical qualities : for, bi/ superadded grace (as Ephreni
of Antioch speaks), they are, according to the true or spiritual
purport of the Lord's declaration, the body and blood of Christ;
whence we must not be so far misled by our taste as to deem
the holy elements nothing more than mere or (as Justin and
Ireneus speak) common bread and wine, such as are used in
the ordinary secular intercourse of society^. Lastly, he re-
peatedly and carefully tells us, as if to prevent all possibility of
misapprehension, that we are to partake of the bread as spi-
ritual, that the words of Christ are to be spiritually understood;
and that the Jews erred in interpreting him literally and in
thence crudely fancying that he exhorted them to substantial
flesh-eating^.
* Dr. Trevem and Mr. Berinfjton
have simultaneously agreed to sup-
press the word us in their respective
versions of this passage. With them,
Cyril's mystse are exhorted to partake,
not as it were of the hody and blood of
Christ, but simply of the body and blood
of Christ. See Ans. to Diff. of Koman.
p. 240, and Faith of Cathol. p. 209.
* Justin. Apol. i. Oper. p. 76. Iren.
adv. h£er. lib. iv. c. 34. p. 264. In
point of ideality, I apprehend, the
xotvov of Justin and the communis of the
latin version of Ireneus are not quite
the same, as the -^^iXols of Cyril. The
common bread is the unconsecrated or
secular bread : the mere bread is the
bread without the spiritual grace at-
tached or superadded to it.
5 This most important explanatory
part of the Cathechesis ; which justly
exhibits, as a gross error^ the notion
of the Jews, that Our Lord exhorted
litem to the literal eating of his own
flesh ; is, by Dr. Trevem, in his cita-
tion of the statement of Cyril, care-
fully and prudently suppressed. See
Discuss. Amic. lettr. x. vol. ii. p. 8, 9.
But even such unjustifiable sup-
pression of evidence is not the worst
part of Dr. Trevern's conduct. He
moreover deliberately interpolates the
language of Cyril, that so he may
compel him distinctly and verbally
to propound the Doctrine of Transub-
stantiation.
Cyril, speaking of the change in
the eucharistic elements, tells his
now baptised Mystce : that, Whatso-
ever the Holy Spirit shall have touched,
that thing is sanctijied and changed.
But Dr. Trevem makes him say:
that, Whatsoever receives the impres-
sion of the Holy Spirit, is sanctijied and
changed into another substance.
Tlecvras ya,^ ov lav t<pci-^airo to Ayiov
Hvivfca, Tovro fiyixtrreti xec) f^irafii-
(iknrai. Cyril. Catech. Mystag. v. p.
241, and v. cap. 7. p. 327. ed. 1720.
The reading in this last-named edition
is fTayrctfs,
Car tout ce, qui recoit I'impression
de I'Esprit Saint, est sanctifie et
change en une autre substance.
Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 87.
By the shameless interpolation of
the words en vne autre substance, Dr.
Trevem would delude his English
Layman into a belief, that Cyril, even
totidem verbis, propounds the latin
Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
We shaU presently find, that Dr.
Trevern's interpolation of the word
substance is regular and systematic.
CILIP. lY.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 317
Thus evident is the real doctrine of Cyril, even in the midst
of much loose declamation : but, in his immediately preceding
Catecliesis, he had already put the matter out of all doubt, by
distinctly stating, that the change in the bread and wine pro-
duced through virtue of consecration is homogeneous with the
change in the chrism or confirmatory ointment produced
through virtue of a similar consecration ; in other words, he
had put the matter out of all doubt, by distinctly stating, that
the change in the consecrated elements is, not material or sub-
stantial, but moral or sacramental.
Ye have been anointed ivith ointment, having become associates
and partakers of Christ But take care, lest you deem tJiat
ointment to be mere ointment. As also the bread of the Eucha-
rist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer bare
bread, but the body of Christ : so likewise this holy ointment is
no longer mere ointment, nor as one may say common ointment,
after the invocation; but it is the gracious gift of Christ and the
presence of the Holy Spirit, being made energetic of his own god-
head, which is symbolically anointed upon your forehead and upon
your other organs of sense. And, with the apparent ointment
indeed, the body is anointed : but, with the holy and vivifying
Spirit, the soul is sanctified^.
2. The same turgid language occurs in the ancient Treatise
on the Sacraments, which was long ascribed to Ambrose,
which in fact breathes the very tone of his theology, and which
is still inserted in his Works: but its real import is fully
explained by the illustrative adduction of the professedly
homogeneous case of a person, who, from being originally
unregenerate, had, through virtue of his rightly receiving
the consecration of Baptism, happily become regenerate.
Perhaps you will say : My bread is common bread : but that
bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; yet, when
KOI,) fjbira^ot tou X^itrrov yivo/xivoi. *AA.X' t?; atirau hortiroi lvs^y»jT/xov yivofuvov,
opot, fAvi v'Tovo'Affni ixuvo TO fiv^ov "v^/Xflv oTi^ trv/u,(ioXtxus X't) f/.ircO'TOU KOc't TUV
tfvai. "fiSnEP, KAI a^res rrif tv^a^iir- aX> a>v ffou ^oUrott altrSmrYt^iuv. Ka), rS
TiaSf META Tfiv iTixXfiffiv tou 'Ayiov ftiv (penvo/xivai fiv^u, to ffaif4,et ^^Utcci' tS
TIviVfiKTo;, olx iTt ol^Tos XiTos, aXka, ii uyitu xcc) t^MO-roiS Uviv/xetTt, v ^v^vt
faiftx X^iffTov' "OTTQ, KAI TO a yiov rouTo uyiai^tTcti. Cyril. Hieros. Catech-
f£v^o¥ ovK iTi -^iXov, ovV ug oiv tl-Tot tJj Myst. 111. (capp. 2, 3.) p. 235.
xotvov, fiiT WixXnffiv, uXXa, X^kttou
318 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
consecration is superadded, from bread it becomes the flesh of
Christ. Let us then defines now that, which is bread, c<in become
the body of Christ by consecration.
Noiv, in ivhat words, and in whose expressions, is the rite of
consecration performed? Truly, in the words and expressions
of Jesus Christ. — Tlie word of Christ, therefore, makes this
sacrament. What word of Chistf Truly, that by ichich all
things were made. The Lord commanded; and the heaven, the
earth, and the seas ivere created: the Lord commanded; and
every creature was produced. You see, then, hoiv operative is the
word of Christ. Hence, if there be so great power in the luord
of the Lord Jesus, that the things, which were not, should begin
to be : hoto much more operative is it, that the things^ which are,
should be commuted into somewhat else. —
TJierefore, that I may answer you, there was not the body of
Christ before consecration : but, after consecration, I say unto
yoUf that now there is the body of Christ. lie spake; and it
7vas done; he commaiided; and it ivas created, you youbself
EXISTED ; BUT you EXISTED, AS THE OLD CREATURE : AFTER YOU HAD
BEEN CONSECRATED, YOU BEGAN TO BE THE NEW CREATURE, Would
you know HOW you became the new creature ? Every one, he says,
is a new creature in Christ. Learn, then, how the word of Chnst
can work a change in every creature : learn, hotv it transmutes, at
pleasure, the institutes of nature^.
The illustrative winding up of the passage, where the change
effected in the bread and wine by consecration and the change
' Tu forte dicis : Mem panis est non erant : qiianto magis operatorius
usitatus; sed panis iste panis est ante est, ut sintquffi erant et in aliud com-
verba sacramentorum : vbi accesseni mutentur. —
consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Ergo tibi ut respondeam, non erat
Hoc igitur astruamus, quomodo, po- corpus Christi ante consecrationem :
test, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi sed, post consecrationem, dice tibi,
consecratione. quod jam coi*pus est Christi. Ipse
Consecratio, igitur, quibus verbis dixit ; et factum est : ipse mandavit ;
est, et cujus sermonibus ? Domini et creatum est. tu ipse eras ; sed
Jesu. — Ergo sermo Christi hoc con- eras vetus ceeatura : posteaquam
ficit sacramentum. Quis sermo consecratus es, nova creatura esse
Christi ? Nempe is, quo facta sunt ccepisti. Vis scire, quam nova crea-
omnia. Jussit Dominus ; et factum tura ? Omnis, inquit, iri Christo nova
est coelum : jussit Dominus ; et facta creatura. Accipe ergo, quemadmodum
est terra : jussit Dominus ; et facta sermo Christi creaturam omnem mu-
suntmaria: jussit Dominus ; et omnis tare consueverit ; et mutat, quando
creatura generata est. Vides ergo, vult, instituta naturre. Tractat. de
quam operatorius sit senno Christi. Sacram. hb. iv. c. 4. in Oper. Ambros.
Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone coL 1248.
Domini Jesu, ut inciperent esse quae
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
319
effected in a naturally unregenerate man by baptismal rege-
neration are professedly brought together as homogeneous
changes, distinctly and unequivocally shews, that, in the judg-
ment of the writer, the mutation in the eucharistic element is,
not substantial or material, but moral or sacramental^
' Dr. Trevern's management of
this passage must in no wise be left
unnoticed.
Tbe illustration from Baptism,
which determines the change in the
bread and wine to be only moj^al or
sacramental, he totally suppresses :
and, in order to bring out the desired
result that the ancient author should
teach a substantial change, he actually
interpolates the original Latin. Nor
is even this the whole extent of his
amazing assurance. First, he trans-
lates the words, in aliud commntentur,
by the words, pa^se en une autre sub
STANCE : and then, to complete the
scandalous deception, he prints his
interpolated version in Italics, with-
out giving a line of the original
Latin ; that so his English Laic
might not fail to observe an appa-
rently veiy remarkable attestation to
the Doctrine of a Substantial Change
in the Elements. See Discuss. Amic.
lettr. X. vol, ii. p. 92.
I. In truth, this unscrupulous
Bishop of Strasbourg has carried to
an unparalleled extent the system of
deliberately interpolating \h\^ important
word SUBSTANCE, which obviously con-
stitutes the very hinge of the present
dispute.
1. If, as we have recently seen,
Cyril of Jerusalem writes, Uuvtos ya^
eu Itnv i^di^uiro ro "Ay«9V UvtvfAOi, rouro
iiyiairrcn kbc) (AivafiifikviTai : Dr. Tre-
vem forthwith translates the place,
Car tout ce, qui refoit V impression de
r Esprit Saint, est sanctifie et cimnge
EN UNE AUTRE SUBSTANCE.
a. If the author of the Treatise on
the Sacraments, writes, In aliud com-
mutentur : Dr. Trevern, as if the pro-
priety of his intei-polation were indis-
putable, makes him say, Passe en une
AUTRE SUBSTANCE.
3. If, in the ancient Liturgies,
prayer is offered to God, that the
elements may become or may be
changed into the body and blood of
Christ : Dr. Trevern, again and again,
assures his English Layman, that,
with one voice, they all proclaim the
Change of substance ; and laments
most tragically, that our Bishop Bull
and Archbishop Wake and Dr. Water-
land should have been unable to dis-
cover so plain a matter. See Discuss.
Amic. vol. i. p. 431, 435. vol. ii. p. 1,
2. Answer to Diffic. of Eoman. p. 130,
131, 182, 195, 198.
4. If the Protestant Divines, Ste-
phens or Grabe or Whiston, con-
struct an office for the Eucharist,
professedly adopting the precise
above-mentioned phraseology of the
ancient Liturgies: Dr. Trevern assures
his Layman, that they all, convinced
by irresistible testimony, direct us to
pray for a Chayxge of substance. See
Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 420, 427,
428. Answ. to Diff. of Pwom. p. 19G.
5. K the old Catecheses use the
same phraseology as the old litur-
gies : Dr. Trevern incontinently in-
forms his Layman, that Change of
substance is the Doctrine, which
they all invariably inculcate. See
Answ. to Diff. of Ilom. p. 259.
G. If the Fathers of the six first
centuries tell us, that the bread and
wine become or are made by conse-
cration the body and blood of Christ :
Dr. Trevern clamorously assures his
English Layman, that they all to a
man inculcate a Change o/ substance ;
nay, in a somewhat prolix though
doubtless very sentimental oration
which he kindly puts into the collec-
tive mouths of those venerable per-
sonages, he absolutely compels them-
selves, the actual old ancient Fathers,
to declare, that the Change of sub-
stance is their universal and un-
varied Doctrine. See Discuss. Amic.
vol. ii. p. 31, 41. Answ. to Diff. of
Rom. p. 304-317.
II. Such are the unworthy devices
resorted to by the Bishop of Stras-
bourg to prop an indefensible specu-
lation.
No doubt, the Ancients, as we all
320
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book n.
3. In a genuine Work of Ambrose ; for so, on the critical autho-
rity of Dupin and the learned Benedictine Editors, I ventured
know, tell us, again and again, that,
by the prayer of consecration, the
elements of bread and wine become or
are made or a?-e changed into the body
and blood of Clirist; building their
phraseology, mutatis mutandis, upon
the very language of our Lord him-
self and his Apostle Paul (Matt. xxvi.
26, 1 Corinth, xi. 29) : but we are not,
with Divines of Dr. Trevern's stamp,
rapidly to conclude, from such phrase-
ology, that they therefore assert, what
neither Christ nor St. Paul asserted,
A Change of substance. The real
question is : "Whether the Ancients
speak of a moral or a substantial
Change : and such a question can
only be determined by their own ex-
planation of their ov/n phraseology.
This very dispute, however. Dr. Tre-
vern, with all imaginable compen-
diousness, settles, by the very simple
plan of universally interpolating, on his
own private authority, the palmary
word SUBSTANCE !
Truly, if Latin Di\dnes may be per-
mitted thus to theologise to English
Laymen, they Avill find small difficulty
in completely demonstrating, that the
Doctrine of Ti-ansubstantiation was
held by the Catholic Church from the
very beginning !
III. Perhaps, by some admirer of
Dr. Trevern, I shall be told, that that
Prelate cites two at least of the ancient
Fathers, Eusebius of Emessa in the
fourth century and Cesarius of Aries
in the sixth century, each of whom
distinctly states, that the visible
creatm-es are changed into the sub-
stance of Christ's body and blood :
Les creatures visibles en la substance
de sa chair et de son sang; and Les
creatures visibles en la substance de
son corps et de son sang. Discuss.
Amic. lettr. x. vol. ii. p. 29, 30.
I readily aUow, that here there has
been no interpolation : but, when the
whole tale shall have been unfolded,
our English Laity will perhaps be
disposed to think with myself, that
a more disgraceful attempt at delibe->
rate imjtosture has rarely been perpe-
trated.
1. What our proselyting Bishop
adduces, as the ttvo distinct testimo-
nies of two distinct ancient authors
whom he unhesitatingly pronoimces*
to be Eusebius of Emessa and Cesa-
rius of Aries, are, in truth, one and
the self-same testimony : for not only
are the pretended two passages, seve-
rally ascribed by him to those two
authors, absolutely identical ; but even
the pretended two horaihes, which
contain the pretended two distinct
passages, are, verbatim, from begin-
ning to end, absolutely identical also.
NoAV it is a clear case, that two un-
connected individuals, in two different
centuries, could, by no moral possi-
bility, have severally sat down and
severally written two homilies, which,
with marvellous coincidence, shall,
throughout, be verbatim identical.
Hence, I suppose, it will be allowed,
tliat the pretended two testimonies,
being in truth only one testimony,
cannot have appertained, both to
Eusebius and also to Cesarius. Who-
ever was tlie author of the one single
testimony (for certainly there is no
more than one testimony, though the
Bishop liberally supplies his pro-
jected proselyte with tico testimonies),
he could only have been one single
individual.
2. Whether, then, was this one
single individual, so rapidly multii)lied
into tiro distinct indiriduals, Eusebius
of Emessa who flourished in the
foiulh century, or Cesarius of Aries
who flourished in the sixth century ?
Truly, under favour of Dr. Trevern,
he was neither the one nor the other
of those two Fathers.
The homily, which contains their
pretended distinct testimony, is one of
a series of five. It will be found in
the Cologne edition of the BibUotheca
Patrum a.d. 1618, though not in the
Paris edition of the same Work by
De Eigne : and it will also, verbatim,
be found among the Works of Jerome,
vol. ix. p. 212, 213. Colon. Agrip.
1616 ; where, by the editor, it is
rightly ascribed to an uncertain author.
And well does Jerome's editor thus
ascribe it : for, in truth, its author is
utterly uncertain and utterly unknown.
That it was neither by Eusebius nor
by Cesarius (the former of whom. Dr.
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
321
to style the Treatise : in a genuine Work of Ambrose, we meet
with phraseology so exactly parallel to that employed by the old
Trevem, with most suspicious caution,
represents as having been its acknow-
ledged author for a thousand years),
is, I believe, confessed by all critics :
for, while, in pure conjecture, it has
been variously given to Eucherius, to
Isidore Hispalensis, to Bruno de
Segni, to Faustus of Eiez, to Maxi-
mus either of Eiez or of Turin, to the
venerable Bede, to Rabanus Maurus
of Mentz, to a supposed Eusebius
Gallicanus, and to sundry others with
whose very characters Baronius pro-
fesses himself unacquainted (aliorum
nobis ignotorum) ; nothing about it
is certainly knoiim, save that it was in
existence in the time of Paschase
Eadbert or during the ninth century,
because Paschase, in his Epistle to
Frudegard de Corpore Christi, cites
the passage produced as ancient
evidence by Dr. Trevern, and like
him erroneously ascribes it to Euse-
bius of Emessa. Clearly, therefore,
in the ninth century, the homily was
in existence : but, when it originally
sprang into existence, we know not.
Yet does the Bishop of Strasbourg
solemnly produce this single compara-
tively modern testimony of some un-
certain author, as the trao distinct
testimonies of Eusebius of Emessa
and Cesarius of Aries : and that too,
without either telling his English
Layman where these pretended two
distinct testimonies may be found,
or giving him the slightest hint of
their true character.
3. Let the passage, however, have
been penned by whom it may. Dr.
Trevern brings it forward as a clear
testimony in favour of the Doctrine
of Transubstantiation. But, in truth,
it is nothing to his puii)ose.
As Aubertin remarks: Ut recte
monet [the supposed Euseb. Emis.]
ad initium homihee, quia corpus as-
sumptvm ahlalurus crat ex oculis nostris,
et sideribvs iUatums, nccessarium crat,
ut nobis in hac die sacramentnm cor-
poris et sanguinis consea'aret, nt cole ■
returjngiter per mysterium quod semel
qfferehalur in pretium. Quis enim
sanus dixerit, consecrare sacramentnm
corporis et sanguinis Christi side-
ribus illati, ut a nobis jugitcr colafvr
per mysterium quod semel oblatum
pro nobis est in jyretium, esse, corpus
ipsum ac sanguinem proprie et sub-
stantialiter efficere? Ubinam gen-
tium hffic phrasis id unquam signifi-
cavit ? Sic igitur et hie Author, licet
prima fronte nobis adversari \ideri
posset, totus profecto noster est, qui-
cumque ille sit. Verum de Authore
tarn ignoto nimis agimus. De
Sacram. Eucharistise, p. 882. Daven-
triffi, 1654.
4. The homily, indeed, for I have
perused it from beginning to end, is
flat against the Doctrine : and the
only passage, which, in an insulated
state and with a careful studied sup-
pression of all the remainder, might
even seem to make for it, is that pro-
duced by the Bishop of Strasbourg
under the imposing aspect of two dis-
tinct testimonies borne by two dis-
tinct writers living in two distinct
ages. The passage I here subjoin
in the original Latin.
Visibilis sacerdos, visibiles crea-
turas, in substantiam corporis et
sanguinis sui, verbo suo, secreta po-
testate, convertit.
(1.) With respect to the present
passage, in order to reconcile the un-
certain author with himself, we must
conclude : that, when he spake of the
Visible Creatures being changed into
the SUBSTANCE of Christ's Body and
Blood, he meant nothing more, than
that they are so changed, into the
VERITABLE Body and Blood, only
sacramentally or (in ancient phrase)
through the mystery ; and thus, as our
Anglican Church expresses it, became
VEEiLY and INDEED, that Body and
Blood of Christ, which, by the Faithful
only, are taken and received in the
Lord's Supper.
(2.) In this opinion I am the more
confirmed by the circumstance, that
exactly the same phraseology is used
even by that staunch anti-transub-
stantialist, Bertram of Corby.
He says : that the Bread and Wine,
being changed into the substance of
Cbx'ist's Body and Blood, are indeed
to be received by the Faithful ; though
his Flesh is not, as unbehevers ima-
gine, to be eaten. For, while they
322
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
writer on the Sacraments, that we cannot doubt of the one
author having borrowed from the other : and the fact of muta-
tion is yet further estabhshed by the important circumstance, that
Ambrose winds up his grandiloquence with the self-same illus-
are to be received truly, still they
are thus received only through the
MYSTERY or by virtue of the Sacra-
ment. And, to say nothing of the
whole drift and tenor of his Treatise,
he, in a shortly subsequent place,
puts the matter out of all doubt, by
an explicit declaration : that, Accord-
ing to the SUBSTANCE of the Creatures,
they remain, after consecration, what
they were before it.
Tunc intelligetis, quod non, sicut
infideles arbitrantur, carnem meam a
credentibus comedendam; sed vere,
l^er mysteriiim, panem et vinum, in
corporis et sanguinis mei conversa
SUBSTANTIAM, a credeutibus sumenda.
Bertram, de Corp. et Sang. Domin.
p. 194, 195 : or Oxford edition, 1838,
p. 16.
Nam, secundum creaturarum sub-
STANTiAM, quod fuorunt ante conse-
crationem, hoc et postea consistimt.
Ibid. p. 205 : or Oxford edit. p. 27.
At, inquit Perronius, to quote
again from Aubertin's work (p. 881),
si quis diceret Dominimi secreta potes-
tate agnitm paschalem in corporis ac
sanguinis sui suhstantiam convertisse,
nonne ellehoro et medicamento dignus
censeretur? Minime sane, suhstan-
tiam de qualitate et conditione intel-
ligendo, prout illam exposuimus. Sic
enim Bertramus ait, Dominus in de-
serto manna et aquam de petra in suam
carnem et sanguinem convcrtere prce-
valuit, eum intelligens manna et
Petram sacramentum corporis sui
sanguinisque effecisse. Quanto magis
Author noster id dicere potuit de
pane et vino quffi Domini coi-pus et
sanguis efiiciuntur, non modo in Sa-
cramento, sed etiam in efficacia?
Quid vero, si ipse Bertramus sit hujus
homilise Author, quemadmodum Per-
ronius ipsemet observat, eam a non-
nullis illi tribui? Annon utrobique
eodem modo loqui potuerit, tametsi
repudiata semper transubstantia-
tione ?
* The painful reader will probably
think, that enough has now been said
on this topic: nevertheless, I must
request his patience for a few mo-
ments longer.
Dr. Trevern has deliberately quoted
a spurious liomily, as the true paschal
homily of Eusebius of Emessa. Now
it happens most unluckily, that a
Greek (not a Latin) Oration on the
Paschal Holyday, purporting to have
been really written by this very Euse-
bius, is still extant : which said Ora-
tion, instead of advancing any thing
favourable to the Doctrine of Tran-
substantiatii )n, absolutely contains
not the slightest allusion whatever to
tlie Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
The whole of this singular composi-
tion is, in fact, a sort of Dialogue
between the Deril and Pluto respect-
ing the descent of Christ ad inferos.
Satan proposes to keep him there:
because, while upon earth, he had
greatly annoyed the fiend by convert-
ing the two publicans Matthew and
Zacchfeus, whom the DevU considered
as his own undoubted property. But
Pluto disapproves of the plan, and
expresses much unwillingness to
accede to it. Nothing can be in worse
taste : but still the Oration is quit©
foreign to Dr. Trevern's purpose.
This strange piece was published
in the year 1821, by Dean Augusti,
from two M.S.S. in the imperial
Library at Vienna. For the addi-
tional confusion of Dr. Trevern, I
may remark, that Augusti, like my-
self, will tell him, that the latin homi-
lies, which bear the name of Eusebius
of Emessa, are not his property, but
the compositions of authors by most
supposed to have been Gallican eccle-
siastics. Augusti considers the judg-
ment of Baronius on this point to be
quite conclusive : and he cites from
him a sentence, which I would strongly
recommend to tlie serious attention
of the Bishop of Strasbourg.
Sunt quidam librorum institores,
qui vulgarium et obscurorum virornm
libros nobilium scriptorum titulis
coronaut.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 323
trative adduction of the confessedly moral change produced
in the worthy recipient of the strictly parallel sacrament of
Baptism.
Perhaps you will say : I see another matter : how then do you
assert to me, that I shall receive the body of Christ f
It now, therefore, remains, that we should prove this position.
How many examples, then, shall we use ? Let us prove, that
this is not that, which nature formed, but which the benediction
has co7isecrated : let us prove, that the force of the benediction
is greater than the force of nature, because nature itself is changed
by the benediction,
Moses held a rod : he threw it down ; and it became a serpent.
Again, he laid hold of the tail of the serpent : and it returned
iiito the nature of the rod. You see, how, through prophetic
grace, the nature of the serpent and the rod was twice changed.
The rivers of Egypt ran with pure ivater : suddenly, from the
veins of the fountains, blood began to burst fo7'th ; so that there
was no diink in the rivei^s. Again, at the prayers of the prophet,
the blood of the Hvers ceased : the nature of the waters retwmed.
The people of the Hebrews was shut in on every side : here,
obstructed by the Egyptians; there, confined by the sea. Moses
lifted up his wand: forthwith the water separated itself, and
became congealed in the appearance of walls; so that, between its
waves, a road for footmen was visible. Jordan, also, turning back
contrary to nature, flowed upward to the commencement of its
fountain. Is it not hence clear, that the nature even of the waves of
the sea or of the course of a river is changed'! — The river Marath
was very bitter, so that the thirsty people coidd not drink of it.
Moses threw wood into the water : a?id the nature of the streams
laid aside its bitterness, which grace infused suddenly tempered. —
If, then, human benediction availed so much, that it should
change nature : what shall we say concerning divine consecration,
where the very words of the Lord the Saviour operate f For that
sacrament, which you receive, is effected by the word of Ch7istf If
the word of Elias so availed, that it brought dowii fire from heaven:
shall not the word of Christ avail, that it shoidd change the kinds
of the elements f Concerning the ivorks of the whole world, you
have 7'ead: that He spake; and they ivere made ; he conunanded;
and they were created. If, then, the word of Christ could pro-
duce out of notlmig that which ivas not : cannot it change, into
324 MFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [bOOK H.
that which they icere not, the thiiigs which already exist f — It
was the true flesh of Christ, which was crucified, ivhich icas
buried: tndy, therefore, this is the sacrament of that flesh. TJie
Lord Jesus himself eosclaims : This is my body. Before the
benediction of the heavenly words, another kind is named : after
the consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He himself calls
it his blood. Before consecration, it is called another thing :
after consecration, it is called blood. You say ; Amen : that
is ; it is true. What the mouth speaks, let the ifiternal mind
confess : what the word sou7ids, let the affection feel. By these
SACBAivcENTS, then, Chmst feeds his Church : by these, the sub-
stance of the soul is strengthened. — Christ is in that saceament,
because it is the body of Christ. Therefore it is food, not cor-
poreal, but SPIRITUAL. —
Having, then, gained all things, we knoio that we are rege-
nerate. Nor let us ask : How were we regenerated f Have we
entered into the womb of our mother, and have ive been born
again f I recog^iise not here the ordinary course of nature. But
there is here no order of nature, where there is excellence of
grace. — We must not doubt, that the Holy Spirit, descending
fronfi above into the font or over him who obtains baptism, co-
operates the truth of regeneration^.
' Forte dicas : Aliud video : quo- inde, mari claiisus. Virgam levavit
modo tu mihi asseris, quod Christi Moyses: separavit se aqua, et in
Corpus accqnam ? miirorum sijeciem congelavit ; atque,
Et hoc nobis adhuc superest, ut inter undas, via pedestris apparuit.
probemns. Jordanis, retrorsum conversus contra
Quantis, igitur, utimur exemplis ? naturam, in sui fontis revertitur exor-
Proberaus non hoc esse qiiod natura dium. Nonne claret naturam vel
formavit, sed quod benedictio conse- maritimorum fluctuum vel fluvialis
cravit: majoremque vim esse bene- cursusessemutatum^ — Marathfluvius
dictionis quam naturse, quia benedic- amarissimus erat, ut sitiens populus
tione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. bibere non posset. Misit Moyses lig-
Virgam tenebat Moyses: projecit numinaquam: etamaritudinemsuam
eam ; et facta est serpens. Eursus aquarum natura deposuit, quam infusa
apprehendit caudam sei-pentis : et in subito gratia temperavit. —
virgse naturam revertitur. Vides, Quod si tantura valuit htimana
igitur, prophetica gratia, bis mutatam benedictio, ut naturam converte-
esse naturam et serpentis et virgse. ret; quid dicimus de ipsa consecra-
Currebant J^^gypti flnmina puro aqua- tione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini
rum meatu : subito de fontiimi venis Salvatoris operantur ? Nam sacra-
sanguis C(Bpit erumpere ; non erat mentum istud, quod accipis, Christi
potus in fluviis. Rursus, ad pro- sermone conficitur. Quod si tantum
phetse preces, cruror cessavit flumi- valuit sermo Helise, ut ignem de ccelo
num : aquarum natura remeavit. deponeret : non valebit Christi sermo,
Circumclusus undique erat populus ut species mutet elementoram ? De
Hebraeorum : liinc, ^gj'ptiis vallatus ; totius mundi operibus legisti : Quia
CHAP. IV.]
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
325
The final adduction of the illustration, from the parallel and
homogeneous sacrament of Baptism, determines, even if the whole
tenor of the preceding context had not already quite sufficiently
determined, the doctrine of Ambrose as to the nature of the
change in the eucharistic elements : and, accordingly, he is
cited and brought forward by Bertram of Corby, throughout
his whole Treatise on the body and blood of Christ, as decidedly
establishing his own view of the question ; that the consecrated
bread and wine are figures or symbols or sacraments of that,
vjhich they allegorically represent, and by the name of which they
are tJience metonymically called^.
ipse dixit; et facta sunt: ipse man-
davit; et creata sunt, Sermo ergo
Christi, qui potiiit ex nihilo facere
quod non erat, non potest ea, quffi
sunt, in id mutare quod non erant ?
— Vera utique caro Christi, qufe cru-
cifixa est, quae sepulta est ; ver& ergo
camis illius saceamentum est. Ipse
clamat Dominus Jesus : Hoc est corpus
meum. Ante benedictionem verborum
coelestium, alia species nominatue:
post consecrationem, corpus Christi
siGNiFiCATUK. Ipse dicit sanguinem
suum. Ante consecrationem, aliud
DiciTUE : post consecrationem, sanguis
KUNCUPATUE. Et tu dicis ; Amen :
lioc est ; verum est. Quod os loquitur,
mens interna fateatur: quod sermo
sonat, afFectus sentiat. His igitur
SACEAMENTis pascit Ecclesiam suam
Christus, quibus animee firmatur sub-
stantia. — In illo SACRAMENTO Christus
est, quia corpus est Christi. Non ergo
coRPOEALis esca, sed spieitalis est. —
Unde adepti omnia, scimus rege-
neratos nos esse. Nee dicamus :
Quomodo regenerati sumus? Non ag-
nosco nsum naiurce. Sed nullus hie
naturae ordo, ubi excellentia gratis.
— Non utique dubitandum est, quod,
superveniens in fontem vel super
eum qui baptismura consequitur, ve-
ritatem regenerationis cooperetur.
Ambros. de iis qui myster. initiant.
c. ix. Oper. col. ia;J5-1237.
* The strictly consentaneous man-
agement of this passage in Ambrose,
on the part of Dr. Trevern and Mr.
Berington, well deserves the attention
of the honest inquirer.
They, first, very duly cite the ad-
duced change of the rod of Moses
into a serpent and conversely of the
serpent into the rod: because this
change is undeniably a change of
substance.
Next, they carefully omit the
equally adduced changes, of the liquid
waves of the Bed Sea into an appa-
rently solid wall, of the defluent wa-
ters of the Jordan into refluent waters,
and of the bitter streams of Marath
into sweet streams : because, palpa-
bly, in all these changes, no change of
SUBSTANCE OCCUrS.
Next, they duly cite, as if in imme-
diate illustrative connexion with the
SUBSTANTIAL change of the rod, the
language of Ambrose relative to the
change of the consecrated elements
into the body and blood of Christ:
BECAUSE, by thus citing it, that lan-
guage would naturally seem to im-
port a parallel or homogeneous sub-
stantial change of the consecrated
elements also.
Lastly, they carefully omit his real
concluding illustration, from the case
of the MOEAL change wrought in an im-
regenerate man by spiritual regenera-
tion: BECAUSE, had this illustration
been faithfully exhibited to their
readers, the plain and necessary infe-
rence would have been, that Ambrose
knew of no change in the conse-
crated elements save a moral change
only.
I. Through this dexterous alterna-
tion of quoting and suppressing, car-
ried on with curious uniformity of
plan by these two Latin Divines, they
contrive to make out a case, which
may well perplex the unsuspicious
individual, who, good easy man, rely-
326
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book n.
4. But of all the writers of the fourth or fifth century,
Gregory of Nyssa is by far the most copious in his valuable
illustrations of the nature of that change, which occurs in the
elements of bread and wine by virtue of the word of consecra-
tion. He may, indeed, be well said to have exhausted the
subject : for he has established, past all reasonable doubt, that,
however grandiloquently some of the postnicene Fathers might
speak of the eucharistic transmutation; they, in reality, ac-
knowledged no change, save that which is simply moral or
sacramental.
ing full surely on their citative inte-
grity, never dreams of consulting, or
perhaps has no opportunity of con-
sulting, the entire original of Ambrose :
for, doubtless, by such management,
Ambrose, as thus curtatively exhibited,
appears to compare the change in tlie
eucharistic elements to the unde-
niably SUBSTANTIAL change of the rod
of Moses. See Discuss. Amic. vol. ii.
p. 12-14. Answer to Diff. of Eom.
p. 242-'2-44. Faith of Cathol. p. 214
-216.
That the design of this management
was to bring out the seemingly logical
result of a substantial change in the
consecrated elements, is actually
avowed by the Bishop of Strasbourg
himself: for he, even professedly, ar-
gues ; that. Since the illustrative
change in the rod of Moses was sub-
stantial, the illustrated change in the
consecrated elements must be sub-
stantial also. See Discuss. Amic.
vol. ii. p. 41. Answ, to Diff. of Rom.
p. 306.
Why did the Bishop suppress the
other equally adduced changes in the
waters of the Red Sea, and of Jordan,
and of Marath?
Clearly, because, had he honestly
cited them in their proper place, his
argument must then have run as fol-
lows.
Since the illustrative changes in the
waters of the Red Sea, and of Jordan,
and of Marath, were not substantial,
the illustrated change in the conse-
crated elements must also be not
substantia:,.
II. The truth is, that he and Mr.
Berington work entirely upon a false
principle ; the real deceptive quality
of which would immediately have
been self-evident, had thev not with
cuiious unanimity garbled the pass-
age.
Nothing can be more plain, than
that the several non-homogeneous mi-
racles, brought forward by Ambrose,
could never, simply because they are
non-homogeneous, have been de-
signed for illustration. Totally dissi-
milar as they are in character, he ne-
vertheless, justly and properly, em-
ploys them all alike: because he
employs them, not in the way of illus-
tration for which their utter non-
homogeneonsness palpably disqualifies
them, hut purely in tlie way of the
familiar argument from the less to the
greater.
If God could iDork, of old, such mi-
racles as these, he reasons : why should
we doubt of his working the still greater
miracle of so changing the bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ,
as to impart to the originally mere ma-
terial creatures a mighty grace alike su-
pernatural and spiritual ?
Such, from the non-homogeneous
character of the various addiiced an-
cient miracles, is, most indisputably,
the argument : as for the nature of the
change in the consecrated elements,
that is illustrated, not by all or by
any one of the adduced miracles, but
by the case of the strictly and ex-
clusively MOiLALchange produced through
regeneration.
III. It is really painful thus to ex-
pose the deliberate and systematic and
simultaneous practices of the Romish
Priesthood; for, unless my memory
deceive me, I have noted exactly the
same dishonest management of Am-
brose by other Latin Divines, as well
as by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Bering-
ton : but the cause of truth im-
periously requires such an exposure.
h.
CHAP. IV.] DimCOLTIBS OF ROMAOTSM. --vk« %
Since this holy altar, at which we stand, is in its nature only a
common stone, differing nothing from those other flat tablets,
which are built irito our walls or which ornament our pavements ;
but, when it ha^ been dedicated to the service of God and has
received the benedictioti, it is a holy table^ an unpolluted altar, no
longer indiscriminately handled by all, but touched only by the
pi-iests and even by them with pious caution : and, again, since
the bread is originally mere common bread; but, when the
mystery shall have wrought its sanctifcation, it is both called
and is the body of Christ : thus the mystic oil, THUS the wine,
though of small value before the benediction, respectively operate
tvith mighty power after sanctification by the Spint. The same
potency of the word, moreover, effects a venerable and honourable
priest : when, through the newness of the benediction, the indi-
vidual is separated from common fellowship with the many. For,
only yesterday and the day before, he was nothing more than one
out of the many, nothing more than one of the Laity : but now he
is set forth, as a leader, as a presessor, as a teacher of piety, as a
hierophant of the hidden mysteries. And these things he does,
not at all changed in body or in form : but he does them ; being,
in outward appearance, the same person that he was before;
though, in his invisible soul, through a certain invisible power
and grace, being metamorphosed into a better condition^.
* "E<pfi) Ko,) TO SufficcffTyi^iov Tovro to ftuffm^iMv Xav^avovruv /nvtrTetywyos' *«<
aytov. u ^XQiff'r^Ka.fiiv, X't6o$ Itrr) xaTU. ntZrec <7ron7, (ji,yioiv rou (ruf/.a.Tos vi ttj;
<rJiv (fivirtv xoivo;, ovSlv ^ia(pi^uv ruv etXXeov f/,o^<pris a,f/,ii(phis' aXX' ii'ra.^^^uv Kara,
'TrXa.Kuiv, ai ro7s roi;^ois h/Jt-uv olKo'hofj(,oZ(n <ro (petivofiivov ixiTvos o? «y, ao^oiroo rm
xat KuXXoTiXova-i to, i'^Bi(pyi. ''Etii^o.v ^vvdf4,u xai X^'V'' ''^'' oio^arov ■4"'X^*
?« xuhipu^^ Trt Tou &iov h^a.'prua, xou (ji,iTix.fji,o^(pu6iis ^r^ns ro (hiXriov. Gregor.
<rm ivXoyteiv ihila,To, 'itrri r^a.viZ,et ocyia, Nyssen. in Baptism. Christ. Oper.
^vfficcffT^piov a;^;;^ayTav, oiix 'irt 'Tra.^k '^xy- vol. ii. p. 801, 802. Paris. 1615.
TMv '^t]kec.(p&i/u,ivov, aXXa, fiovov tuv hoieav. This explicit Statement of Gregory
xa.) rouTuv ivku(iovf4,ivuv. 'o ci^Tog fully explains the real import of a
^dkiv cl^Tos Itrr) rius xojvo;' aXX', orav passage, or rather a combination of
ecvTov TO fji,vffTri^iov U^av^yrKTri, troi'fjLn. x^tg-- two passages, which has sometimes
TOU xiyiTo-i ti xa.) y'lnToci. OuTug to been adduced from him by the Ro-
fjcve-Tixov iXatov, ouTuig o oJvog, oxiyov Ttvog manists : the anonymous Romanist
a^/a ovTO, T^o tyis iuXoyias' fUTa tov T. C. for instance.
ayixo'f^ov tov tov Ilnvfjt,uT05, ixuTi^ov KaXaJf oZv xa) vvv tov tm Xoyeo tou
auTuv Ivi^yii ^ioi<p'o^ui. 'H uvtvi §£ tov &iou aytu^of/,tvov oc^tov ug (Tuf/.a. tou %iiv
X'oyou l)uvoi.(ji,ig xoCi tov li^io, TonT ffSf^vov Aoyov fJt,tTOiToii7<r6ot.t TiffTivof/,u,i. — Il^Of
xai Tifitov Tii xetivoTriTi Trig ivXoytag Ttjg ixsTvo ;£4£Tao'ra';^£/&'a'aj tuv <paivojU,svei>v
<ffpoi Toug ToXXoug xotvoTTiTog ^'^^i^ofji.ivov. Tr)v (pifftv. — Orat. Catech. c. xxxvii.
X6)g y-x^ xat t^uyiv itg vTci^x'^v tuv •xoX- We Protestants, at least of the
Xuv xx) TOU lyifjbov, a.6^oov cfrohUvuTai Church of England, admit a sacra-
xxSrtyifjLuv, 'zo'oih^og,%t%aaKot,Xog iu<n(hi'toi,gt mental or moral change in the ele-
328 WFFICULTIES OF EOMAI^^ISM. [bOOK U.
This remarkable passage spealis for itself. From no com-
mentary can it derive any greater clearness and perspicuity
than it already possesses.
VIII. Some modem Romanists, I believe, attempt to smooth
the difficulties attendant upon the Doctrine of Transubstantia-
tion, by alleging : that llie bread and wine are changed into
the GLOEIFIED body and blood of Christ, which, unlike his body
and blood before their glorification, have now become most
highly spiritualised or etherealised.
How this speculation is to serve their cause, I do not see.
The very terms of the allegation admit, that The glorified
flesh and blood of Christ are still suBSTANTiAii flesh and blood :
and, indeed, if they were to deny this proposition, they would,
at once, both deny the very Doctrine of Transubstaiitiation
itself, and would flatly contradict the two reputed Ecumenical
Councils of Quarto-Lateran and Trent ; for each of them
defines, that. By virtue of consecration, the substance of the
bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and
blood of Christ. In point, therefore, of abstract difficulty,
I see not how we are relieved by the present theory: for a
transubstantiation of bread and wine into real matemal flesh
and blood is still asserted to be accomplished ; and, if, by an
odd contradiction in terms, Christ's glorified flesh and blood
should be denied to be mateeial or substantial flesh and blood,
then, plainly, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the Doc-
trine of a Change of one Material Substance into another
Material Substance, is itself altogether abandoned.
But, in truth, even if any benefit did accrue to the Ro-
manists from the speculation now before us, what his cause
gained here, it would forthwith lose there.
Our Lord pronounced the words. This is my body and This
is my blood, befoee his glorification : and we are assured by
the Romanist, that the bread and wine were then first tran-
substantiated into his body and blood. Now of what nature
ments, according to the tenor of Gre- gory here speaks of a substantial
gory's own illustrative comparisons : change : we should not only put an
but we deny a substantial change. entirely gratuitous sense upon his
Morally, the nature or quality of the words, according to Dr. Trevern's fa-
elements is changed : materially, it vourite mode of citing the Fathers ;
remains unchanged. Were we, with but, what is still worse, we should
the Komanists, to suppose that Gre- even make him contradict himself.
CHAP. IV.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 329
was this asserted original process of transubstantiation ?
Sui-ely, we are not required to say, that the bread and wine
were then transubstantiated into the glorified body and blood
of Christ, when, as yet, Christ's body and blood themselveS^
had not been glorified.
According to the present theory, so far at least as concerns
its necessary purport, the bread and wine, at the fiest institu-
tion of the Eucharist, were transubstantiated into the u7iglori-
fied body and blood of Christ: but, evee since, they have
continued to be transubstantiated mto his glonfied body and
blood.
Now I cannot perceive, what relief, in any respect, would be
derived from the present theory, even if it had actually been
propounded, as an Article of Faith, by the two famous trari-
substantialising Ecumenical Councils. Explain the matter
as you please, the Doctrine will still remain : that The sub-
stance of the bread and wine are, hy the sacerdotal prayer of
consecration, matenally transmuted into the substance of the
body a7id blood of Christ^.
IX. Here, then, I shall conclude my histoeical testimony
against the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation. After
previously exhibiting the histoeical testimony in favour of it
as produced by the Latin Divines, and after shewing its total
insufficiency to establish the matter contended for: I have
womid up the subject by bringing forward such a mass of
EVIDENCE to demonstrate the upstart novelty of the Doctrine, as
I venture to hope will not be very easily set aside.
* In immediate connexion vrith this tern quidem ejus per totum mundum
present point, it has been well re- diflFnsam esse fateor. Sed ne vos ex-
marked, that the Doctrine of Tran- istimatis, me sanctum negare sacra-
suhstantiation flatly contradicts our mentum a Jesu Christo institutum.
profession in the Creed, that Christ Ego credo et coufiteor, sacramentum
noiv sits at the right hand of the Fa- sacrosanctse coenre, in qua comedo
ther, whence he will come to judge both corpus Jesu Christi sanguinemque
the quick and the dead. ejus bibo, non eo modo ac ratione
Num credis, inquit ille, corpus Jesu carnis absurda qua Capernaitee et
Christi in sacramento altaris esse ? Papistai arbitrabantur : sed ita statuo
Minimi, inquam : nam id quidem me, capiendo eum panem ac bibendo
repugnat illi fidei nostras capiti, in id vinimi, vere corpus Christi edere
quo dicimus ac credimus, eum sedere ac sanguinem ejus bibere ; idque per
ad dcxteram Dei Patris, nee inde fidem atque in spiritu. Petr. Scrib.
ante venturum quam dies judicii ille Examin. in Crispin. Act, Martyr,
magnus et illustris venerit. Divinita- fol. 187.
CHAPTER V.
PURGATOHY.
If any such region as the Purgatory of the Latin Church
really exist, we may be morally certain that Christ would have
explicitly announced its existence : and, if Christ has been
totally silent on the subject, we cannot reasonably be expected
to believe in the existence of a region which has never been
propounded to us by the voice of revelation.
Now, on the awful truths of the next world, our Lord is
copious and distinct, alarming and consolatory. We have the
whole fearful machinery of the last day placed, as it were,
substantially before our very eyes : the sheep, on the right
hand of the Judge ; the goats, on the left hand. We hear, as
if with our bodily ears, the irreversible doom of weal or woe.
The doors of the adytum are thrown open: the mystery,
hidden or but dimly perceived through a long succession of
ages, is unreservedly declared to the whole universe. Yet,
respecting Purgatory, the great and omniscient hierophant is
profoundly silent.
Since, then, we cannot reasonably be expected to believe,
what has never been revealed : still less can we reasonably be
expected to believe, w^hat has even been plainly contradicted
by the voice of inspiration.
I heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me : Write ; Blessed
are the dead ivhich die in the Lord from henceforth. Yea, saith
the Spint, that they may rest from their labours : and their
loorks do follow them^.
' Rev. xiv. 13.
CILVP. v.] DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. 331
The dead in the Lord are blessed : and, whensoever they
depart hence, they rest from their labours. Now, if it were
necessary for them to enter into Purgatory, ere they were
admitted into a state of beatified quiescence ; which, according
to Dr. Trevem, all must do, since the jire of Purgatory must
cleanse us even from the slightest stains with which our souls
shall depart out of this world^ : they would nx)t, immediately
after death, rest blessedly from their labours ; for doubtless the
Purgatory of the Latin Priesthood does not hold forth to its
inmates the accommodation of a bed of roses. Therefore, by
an inevitable consequence from the plain words of Holy Writ,
they enter not into any such region as a Roman Purgatory.
Under the aspect, then, of a Point of Doctnne inculcated by
the Christian Revelation, the notion of a Purgatory, as delivered
by the Latin Church, is plainly untenable : because, not only
is such notion nowhere taught in Scripture, but it is even alto-
gether incompatible with Scripture.
To the well informed Protestant who has the Bible in his
hands and in his heart, I need scarcely remark, that the very
notion of a Purgatory, which should cleanse us from our sins,
is perfectly abhorrent from the whole Analogy of the Christian
Faith. The departed Saints, we are taught, wash their robes
and make them white, not in the flames of a superfluous Pur-
gatory, but in the blood of the Lamb^. The unscriptural idea
of a Purgatory, which has plainly enough been borrowed from
the recorded reveries of Pagan Philosophy, intrudes presump-
tuously into the special office of the great Purifier : and, by
intimating, through a necessary consequence, the insufficiency
of Christ's blood alone to purify the sinner, con\dcts itself of
gross falsehood, through the very act of claiming to supply,
what is lacking, to the potency of our Lord's righteousness.
Untenable, however, as the very notion of a Purgatory is
under the aspect of a Point of Doctrine : still, under the aspect
of a Point of Fact, it will be useful evidentially to shew, that
the notion no more prevailed in the Primitive Church than it
' Doivent etre purifiees de leurs ment by the same Apostle. The blood
moindres souillures. Discuss. Amic. of Jesus Christ, his Son cleanseth us
vol. ii. p. 243. note. from ma, sin. 1 John, i. 7. If from all
- Kev. vii, 14. Perhaps even still sin, what need can there be of any
more definitely strong is anotlier state- other Purgatory ?
332 DIFFICULTIES OF ROIMANISM. [bOOK U.
can be found in the Bible ; and, yet further it may not be unin-
teresting to exliibit the notion, as it first dubiously and timidly
appeared in a form very widely different from that, upon which
the Roman Theologians, in their superscriptural wisdom, have
been pleased to impress the seal of asserted orthodoxy.
I. The negative testimony, against the primitive existence
of the Doctrine of Purgatory, lies in the circumstance: that
More than one of the very earliest Fathers will prove totally
silent on the topic of that Doctrine, even when the naturae of their
subject must inevitably have led them to be explicit, had they ideally
held the Doctrine to be an indisputable and important verity,
1. Polycarp, who flourished during the first and second cen-
turies and who was a disciple of the Apostle John himself,
twice, in his Epistle to the Philippians, speaks of a Resurrection
from the Dead, Yet, what on Romish principles we might
naturally have expected, he gives, concomitantly, not the
slightest hint of any antecedent and preparatory Purgatory
during the intermediate period of the separation of the soul
from the body^
2. Clement of Rome, who flourished in the first century,
and whose name is declared by St. Paul to be written in the
Book of Life, enters, through an entire section, into an illus-
trative statement of the Doctrine of a future Resurrection : and
he additionally carries on the same subject through the four
following sections. Images of the Resurrection, he tells us,
are perpetually presented before our very eyes. The suc-
cession of day and night declares it to us. The night ter-
minates, and then the day arises. We learn, again, the same
lesson from the sowing, and the perisliing, and the reproduction
of common gram. Surely, then, we cannot think it a strange
thing, that God should similarly raise us up to life and immor-
tality. Yet not a hint does he give, that our Resurrection,
according to the varied forms of the Purgatorial Superstition,
is, either preceded, or attended, or followed, by a Pui'gatory^.
3. Athenagoras, who flourished in the second century, pro-
fessedly wrote, at very considerable length, an express Treatise
on the Resurrection of the Dead. Yet, like the more ancient
' Polycarp. Epist. ad Philipp. § 2, ^ c\em. Roman. Epist. ad Corinth.
i. § 24-28.
CHAP. Y.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 333
Clement, notwithstanding the nature of his selected subject, he
leaves, what might well seem impossible, if we are to receive the
Decision of the Council of Trent, the closely connected state of
Purgatory wholly unnoticed and not so much as even hinted at^.
4. Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of St. Johii,
who flourished through the greater part of the second century,
and who had conversed intimately with the Churches both of
the East and of the West, is led, in the course of his great
Work, to treat of the Condition of the Departed. Here, had
the Doctrine of Purgatory been then the Doctrine of the
Catholic Church, he could not but have entered upon it. Yet,
on the contrary, he satisfies himself with simply intimating :
that The souls of the dead shall depart into an Invisible Place
(the Hades of the Greek Scriptures, the Sheol of the Hebrew)
prepared of God for them ; where they shall abide in constant
expectation of the resurrection and reunion of the body'^.
II. So much for negative testimony. The positive testimony
against the primitive existence of the Doctrine of Purgatory,
lies in the "circumstance : that Many of the oldest Fathers hold
language either directly contradictory to, or utterly incompatible
with, the Doctrine in question.
1. Clement of Rome, the fellow-labourer of St. Paul, who
flourished through all the latter half of the first century, is not
only, as we have already seen, totally silent respecting the
existence of any Purgatory, even when expressly treating of
Death and the Resurrection^: but he moreover unequivocally
declares, that, when once we shall have departed this life, there is
no room for us in another either to confess or to repent ; our
condition hereafter being as fixed and immoveable, as that of an
' Athenag. de Eesurr. Mort. Oper. modum et Dominus resurrexit, sic
p. 143-219. venient ad conspectnm Dei. Iren.
2 Cum enim Dominus in medio adv. haer. lib. v. c. 26. p. 856.
umbrae mortis abierit, ubi anirase Ireneus here propounds an un-
mortuorum erant ; post deinde cor- doubted Scriptural Doctrine : but not
poraliter resurrexit, et post resur- a syllable does he say of the disem-
rectionem assumptus est: manifestum bodied spirits, being in any Purgatory
est, quia et discipulorum ejus, propter during the intermediate state, or (what
quos et hsec operatus est Dominus, was the earliest form of the supersti-
animaj abibunt in invisibilem locum tion) of their finally passing through
definitum eis a Deo, et ibi usque ad the fire which at the Day of Judg-
Eesurrectionem commorabuntur sus- ment will burn up our present earth
tincntes Eesurrectionem ; post, reci- in order that by suffering they may
pientes corpora et perfecte resur- make atonement for their sins,
gentes, hoc est corporaliter, quemad- ^ Clem. Epist. ad Cor. i. § 24-28.
334 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOIC II.
ill-formed vessel of clay, when once, ivith all its imperfections, it
shall have been irrevocably hardened by the process of baking ^
This statement is quite fatal to tlie very principle of a Pur-
gatory. According to that figment, however varied and modi-
fied in its subordinates, souls are purified and softened and
ameliorated by a sufficient exposure to purgatorial fire. But,
according to Clement, the very reverse of this takes place.
When once a soul has departed this life, there is no room for
repentance. Henceforward, the wicked, like an ill-formed
vessel of clay which has been baked in the fire, are incapable
of improvement. They are hardened ; not mollified : eternally
deteriorated ; not ultimately improved.
2. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, who flourished at the
latter end of the first and at the beginning of the second cen-
tury, maintains precisely the same Doctrine as Clement : the
Doctrine, to wit, that, when once a person departs from this
world, his lot is instantaneously and irrevocably determined.
When our existence here, says he, shall have been brought to
an end, two States only, a State of Death and a State of Life, are
set before us. For, as every allegorical coin bears i7npressed upon
it the stamp of God or the stamp of the world : so, after his de-
cease, shall every one depart to his oivn approp>riate habitatio7i^.
The only difierence between these two ancient writers is:
that the illustration, employed by Clement, is a baked vessel of
clay ; while that, employed by Ignatius, is a stamped coin.
3. Justin, who flourished during the first half of the second
fjtiv. YlviXoi yd^ lir/xiv its Tnv X^''^"'' fJi-a-roi, "hyo, t6 fjt-\v &toZ, to Be KOfffjcoV
Tov Ti^viTOU. 'Ov T^o<ffov yoc^ x,i^a,fjciv$ , net) ix.a.(TTov ulruv 'Itiav xa^ocKrn^oc i<^i-
ikv Toi^ ffxivos, xa) Iv ruTs X'^"''^ u-IitoZ xii/xzvov 'ix,'h "' a.^Tna-Toi tov xo(ry.ou tov-
otKffT^oc(p'^ « ffvvT^ip>ri, '^a.'kit a.iTo ava- tov, ol Vi 'TS'iffTo) iv aycivy ;^a^a«T^^a
^XciffffW Ikv b\ 'T^o(pSa.tTn s/j '''''^^ x,ot.[/.ivov @iov n«T^o; B;a 'I'/iirov 'K^kttov' B/ ou
TOV Tv^os avTo (ioiXiiv, ovxiTt (•>0Yi6n(ni lav (Avt uv&ui^irMs 'ixof^tv to iTn^avitv us
avTM' ovru; xai iifii7;, im; Ifff/Xv iv to ccvtov tk^os, to Z,7iv ccvtov ovx 'iffTiv
TovTM Tu xofffAu, Iv TJ? ffa^ni a l-z^u.'^'x.- Iv h/juv. Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes.
fjt.iv •rovn^u iu,'.ra.vome^f^iv i^ oX'/is Tijg § 5.
x«^S/«j, 'tva, a-u&uf/,iv v-ro tov Kv^iov, If this Epistle be the production of
'ius izof^^v KOLi^ov i^iTOLvo'ias. M.ra ya^ a later age, and not the work of Ig-
To llikhTv rif^Ki Ix. TOV x'offfAov, ovx'sTi natius, as Mr, Cureton's very learned
"hvva.fjt.iScx, ixit i^cu.o'XoyrKrBi.aSou tj (jlito.- and able Publication may lead us to
vo£?v £T/. Clem. Epist. ad Cor. ii. § 8. believe, the evidence, on the principle
^ 'EsTiJ ovv TiXos TO. ir^dyfAoiTa. 'i^th laid down in book ii. chap. 1. § II.
iTixuTai TO. Ivo ofiov, T£ ScivuTo; , xui will be strengthened rather than im-
'h %oi)'n' xa) 'ixuffToi its tov thov t'otov paired.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 335
century, and who had conversed with the disciples of St. John,
equally uses language incompatible with the idea of a Purgatory.
Wlien God, says he, shall raise all from the dead: he will
place the holy in eternal happiness ; hut will consign the unholy
to the punishment of eternal Jire'^,
4. The old author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox,
a Work once attributed to Justin and still published along
with his writings, is even yet more express.
In this life, tvhile the body and the soul are united, all things
are common to the just and to the unjust. But, immediately after
the departure of the soul from the body, the just are separated
from the unjust; each being conducted by angels to their fitting
places. The souls of the just pass forthwith into Paradise, where
tJiey become the associates of the angels and archangels, and where
they are privileged to enjoy the beatific vision, of Christ the
Saviour : but the souls of the unjust pass into certain regions of
Hades, which have been appointed for them. Here, each, in the
places respectively suitable to their characters, remain under sure
guardianship, imtil the day of resurrection and final retribution^.
Whatever might be the age of the author, this passage, I
think, is one of the most important and decisive testimonies ex-
tant against the reception of the Doctrine of a Purgatory in the
Early Church. The author does not write, as if he were
merely giving his own private opinion : but he is plainly deli-
vering the ecclesiastically received Doctrine of the period.
This view of the character of his testimony is fully borne
out by the exactly parallel testimony of my next witness.
* 'O ©so?, oTu-v -ra.vra.s avKffTriffri, xei) rovrois o/zoia. Mtroc Ti r^y Ik tqu au-
Tovi ftiv iv a.luv'iM KO.) olXutm (hxtriXi'ia u<p- {jLctroi £|o^ov, ihSvi yivirai tuv ^muteov
6d.PTov; Ka) a.6ava,rove xeu k'kv'Trovi xa- Ti xxi u^iKeov {] otctffToXvt. "AyovTxt yct^
vitffTYiff^, Tov; ^£ i/j xoXatriv aluviov Tv^og iiTo ruv ocyyiXuv Uf ot^'iov? kvtuv totov;'
^ec^a^if/,'^*!. Just. Dial, cum Tryph. al fih ruv ^txaiuv ■v/'£;;^a/, tig rov Tct^ei-
Oper. p. 270. and cap. 117. torn. ii. hia-ov, 'ivSa. trw^rvxtt^, n xa) 6ia uyyiXuv
388. ed. 1843. ts xa) ic^^uyyiXcov , kkt h-Trrucriocv %\
^ Ov^ *iv 'i^ovffiv ai ^pv^a) IvraZfa. x'^i tov 'S&ittJ^os X^iirrod, xxtos, to ti^v-
fiira, rov ffuift,a.'ro? xxra.ffTUffiy, tocCttiv fjt,ivov, 'Efi^nfiovvTis ix toZ tfu/jtocros, xai
'i^ovfft xa.) fjt,ira, rhv \vriv6iv a-To rov ivdnf^ouvns T^og tov Kv^iov' at 6i tujv aoi-
ffuizaroi \\ohav. 'Evrad^a /xtv yec^ ra, xuv •^u^a)^ ilg rovf Iv tm ut'/i roTovg.
Tris ivcuffius <ra.v<ra, xotvu vTu^^it ^/- — Koc't ilffiv iv Toli u^toii a.vruv totois
xaiuv T£ xa.) citixuv, xa) oVhtfAta iffrh (puT^a'rrofJi.ivat 'ieog rJjj rif^i^as -t^S a.voc,-
Iv avToTi ^ia(po^et xara rovro' oTov to ffraaiui xa) avTaTo^offeo^s- QufOst. 6t
ytviff0at xa) TO a.-Tohri(Txuv, xa) to Respons. ad Orthod. Ixxv. in Oper.
vyiaiviiv xa) to voffsTv, xa) to TkovTtTv Justin. p. 339. and p. 105, IOC. tom.
xa) TO Tivto-^ai, xa) ru aXXa to, iii. pt. 2. ed. JenfP, 1843.
336 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
5. Hippolytus, who flourished about the year 220, is very
large and copious on the same subject: and his Doctrine is
perfectly identical with that of the author of Qiiestiom and
Answers to the Orthodox,
According to his account, which is evidently built upon the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the souls of the wicked,
immediately after death, are consigned to that division of
Hades, which is dark and waste and dreary, and which locally
approximates to the burning lake of Gehenna. Here they
suffer temporary pimishments, which continue till the day of
judgment: when, after just sentence has been passed upon them,
they are finally consigned to everlasting misery. But the souls
of the just, immediately after death, pass into that other division
of the invisible state, which is bright and glorious and lumi-
nous, and which figuratively bears the name of Abraham! s
Bosom, Into this blessed region, where they have the antepast
of eternal felicity laid up for them when at the last day their
souls shall be reunited to their bodies, they are triumphantly
conducted, upon their departure from this world, with the
hymns and canticles of accompanying angels. Here they
reside, in the perpetual contemplation of happiness, and in the
joyful expectation of yet higher blessings which are reserved
for them hereafter at the resurrection from the dead. In this
place, there. is neither burning nor frost: but the countenance
of the holy patriarchs perpetually smiles upon them, while they
are anticipating a future eternal rest and hfe in heaven ^
In its precision and definiteness, this passage is most impor-
tant. The very thought of a Purgatory seems never once to
have occurred to the writer. So far as, from a comparison of
Ka/ ovroi //.iv o Tso) dxifiovuv <ro<ros. 'Ev toutm Vi tm ^to^leo, roTog a<pu)-
Tli(u %t ulov, iv u ffvvi^ovra.t \pv^at ^iffrai rig, Xifivyj tv^os ufffiia-rou' iv tS
oiKcc'iuv n xa) a.^iKuv, uvayxuTov uTiTv. /u,h ouhivo) Ttva, xa,rcippi^i(p&BH v'^riiX'A'Pee.-
'O koyii ro'Ttog i(rT)v iv r^ xr'mii axoc- f/,iv' iffKiva.(Tra.i 'hi tig t^jv 'jr^onj^ia'/u.ivytv
Taffxtvatrrog, ^tu^tov vToyuov, iv a (pug 'hy-i^av vto &iov, iv '/i ^txaia.; x^iincog
xotr//,ou ovK iTiXafz-rn. ^urog roivvv iv v-fftxputrig (ji,ia, -rairiv u.t,ius T^offivix,6uyi'
rovrtu rat x.'^^ma fjcii xccTCt^cc/^.-rovTOg, Kai oi //.iv a^ixoi, xat &iu aTU^n-
avctyxyj ffxoTog otnvixug rvy^a-vuv. ffuvng, ra nri f/.a.ra,ia, 'i^ya y^ii^uv av-
Tovro TO Xi^^iov us (p^ov^iov avtvBfi^^yi ^^uTtuv xuritrxiuxfffiivex, i'thuXa, ug &iov
•^v}(^u7g' i<p' cu xtt.TiffTa.6'A(Ta.v uyysXoi rifi'^erxvng , ravryig rTig aiVtov xoXaffiug,
(p^ov^ot T^og Tag iKxtrruv v^u^ng B/a- ug ci'lrioi (jLtci,<ffJi.a.ro)v ytvoy-ivoi, 'jr^off'
vif/.ovrig rag rwv r^e-reov Tr^ocrxat^oug x^i6uffi.
xoXdffug. Ot Ti Vixuioi t5jj aip^aprov xai avt-
CHAP, v.]
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM.
337
Scripture with Scripture, we can gather any knowledge of the
Intermediate State, the truth seems to be here very accurately
propounded. Neither the felicity of the Elect, nor the misery
of the Reprobate, will be co7npleted, until, in the day of the
Resurrection, the soul shall be reiinited to the body.
6. Cyprian, who flourished in the middle of the third cen-
tury, adopts the sentiment of the more ancient Clement of
Rome: and, by a greater expansion of the idea, precludes
all danger, if indeed there could possibly be any danger, of
misapprehension.
When once we have departed hence, there is no longek any
PLACE FOR REPENTANCE, NO LONGER ANT EFFECTIVENESS OF SATIS-
FACTION. Here, life is either lost or held : here, we may provide
for our eternal salvation by the worship of God and the fruitful-
ness of faith. Let not any one, then, he retarded, either hy sins
or hy length of years, from attaining to salvation. To a person,
ivhile he remains in this world, repentance is never too late. Those,
who seek after and understand the truth, may always have an easy
xXsiTTov /Sac/Xf/aj tu^uo'iv' o't Iv tu> «.dyj
VVV fiiV ffWl^OVTCCI, «XX' OU TOO UVTOf
TOTM Z KOU o\ IthiTiOI.
M/a ya.^ ii; tovto to ^u^iov xa,(aoog,
on T^ !TfX>i itpia-TUTee, u^^dyyiXov k/Jt-a,
C'Toaria. •jriTiimuxuf^iv. "Hi/ ?ri>A»?v ^i-
iX6ovTii, ai KctTctyo/iivot iiTo tcuv \<r) t^j
"^v^ecs TiTccyf^'iycav a.yy'iXc'jv , oh /jt,iS. obu
TC^lVOVTCCt.
'AXX' 01 /u.\y ^'txeiioi, ti; "hi^ioc, (pen ray u-
yovf^ivoi, KKi iiTo Tuv itpscT'reci'riuv xcf-rct
TOTov BcyyiXuv vfjt.vovf/.iyot, ccyavrai il;
^aioiov (pajrinov' iv tu oi a,T k^^yiS oi-
KKioi voXirivo'Drce.t' oh^ vtt* aveiyxti; x^x-
Touf/.ivoi, uXXoc, TYis ToJv o^ufz-ivaiv etyat^cuv
6'ia.i alt oc<roXetvovTi;, xu.) tJj tuv ixoitr-
roTi xutvav t^oo^ox'kx. n^'ofMvoi, xkxuva,
TovT&iv fiiXTiM rtyovf4,ivoi. O.'f a totos
eh xafzocm^'o^oi ytvirai' oh xetva-tuv, oh
x^voc, oh T^ifioXoi iv uhTM' uXX n tuv
•rariowj oixk'iuv n c^ufiivn o-^/iS TcivTOTi
fjiH^ia., uvxfiivovTuv T>}y /xiTO. Touro to
^M^tov uvccroiVfftv xa.) ectatviccv avocfitma'/v
iv oh^etviti. TevTM dl ovoft/x. xixX^crxoftiv
xoXtov 'Afi^axf/,.
Oi lj u^ixoi SIS a^tffTi^a. iXxovrat v-jto
uyyiXuv xoXaffTuv, ovxiTi iKovffiug "tto-
g'.iio/u,ivoi, uXka fjLiTet ^iecf u; litrfiioi
\kx'of/,ivoi. O'lf 01 i(piirTUTis ccyysXoi
^iciTi/u,T0VTeti ovitot^ovT iiy xa) fo^tou
OfJl.fJ(.a.Ti i-TBiTilXoVVTiS , Ug TO. XOLTUTiOCt
fo^ovvTSj. "As uyof>(.iv«i i\Kov<riv ol i^ta--
TUTis ioiis -^rXntriov t*?? ynvvr,;. Ot
lyyiov ovTie tov ^6v pipaffttiv uOiocXnTTtus
V-TTOiXOUOVCTI, XCe.) TOV TJJ? 6iaf/.Yli U.TfJl.'A)
ohx afAOioova-iv. AuTYii ii Trig iyyiovcs
o^J/lias Tm (pojii^etv xoii vTiofoxXkovTu;
6'ioc,v TOV Tv^cg o^ZvTie, xa.Tot'TriTviyec.tn,
Tti T^offooxicc Tr,s fjt,iXXoviTyig y^lffius, »^f)
dweiuii xoXtt.Z,ofiCivot. 'AXXa xa) ov tov
Tuv vaTiooJV X^i^^ **' Tovs ^ixaiovs
o^uffi, xcu i'TT avTM TavTM xoXa^ofiivoi.
X««f ya^ (ia^u xa) (Ji.iya ava y-itrov
iffrri^ixTcci, uiTTi (^h }ix.aiov o-v/LtTa^in-
ffxvTa T^o(r%i^afffai, (ji.%ti uoikov ToXf/.ri-
ffavTa ttiXiiiv.
OvTo; Tip) uhou Xoyo;' iv «} i^v^a)
TavTuv xari^ovrai, a^^' x-ai^ov ov o
&ios a^iirsv' avaa-Tuo-iv TnTt TavTCtiv
'Troinffofjt.ivo;, oh ^v^^s fjt.ttivffujfji.aruv,
aXX' aura to. ffUf^aTa avKTTuv. Hip-
polyt. e libr. adv. Grroc. Oper. vol. i.
p. 220, 221.
Tliis Fragment has been variously
attributed to Iren^us and Origan and
the presbyter Caius : the probability
is, that it belongs to Hippolytus. In
point of testimony, this is of no con-
sequence. The fragment, whichever
of the early Fathers was its author, is
fatal to the alleged antiquity and
primeval reception of the Doctrine of
Purgatory.
338 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
access to the indulgence of God, Even to the- very end of your life,
pray for your sins: and, by confession and faith, implore the one
only true Deity. To him, who confesses, pardon is freely granted :
to him, who believes, a salutary indulgence is gi^anted from the
Divine Pity; and, even in the very article of death, he
PASSES TO nmORTALITYi.
How absolutely fatal the whole of this passage is to the very
notion of a Purgatory, I need scarcely to remark. The principle
of a Purgatory is ; that, save in the case of what is technically
rated as mortal sin, there still is, to those who have departed
hence, place both for repentance and for effectiveness of satis-
faction : and the ground of it is ; that, after death, we may, for
what the Papists are pleased to call venial sins, make satisfaction
to the justice of God by expiatory suffering. But the Doctrine
of Cyprian is : that. When once we have departed hence, there is
no longer any place for repentance, 7io longer any effectiveness of
satisfaction.
III. In the Primitive Church, an opinion, built upon an
obsciu*e passage in the Apocalypse, very early prevailed.
It was thought : that Martyrs and Confessors and Men emi-
nent for their Evangelical Piety would rise again from the
dead at what was esteemed a first and partial resurrection;
while the rest of mankind would not be resuscitated until the
General Resurrection in the Day of Final Consummation at the
Second Advent of the Lord.
The result of this not very tenable opinion, though many
good men even in the present day have maintained it, might
easily be anticipated in the case of imaginative minds, disposed
rapidly to draw their own conclusions from Scripture : perhaps
all the more rapidly, the more obscure was the Scripture.
Through a belief that many would not partake of the first
* Quando istinc excessum fuerit, facilis accessus est. Tu, sub ipso
nullus jam poenitentiffi locus est, nul- licet exitu et vitoe temporalis occasu,
lus satisfactionis eflfectus. Hie, vita pro delictis roges : et Deum, qui unus
aut araittitur, aut tenetur : hie, saluti et verus est, confessione et fide agni-
ffiternne, cultu Dei et fructu fidei, pro- tionis ejus implores. Venia confi-
videtur. Nee quisquam, aut peccatis, tenti datur : et credenti indulgentia
retardetur, aut annis, quo minus salutaris de divina pietate conee-
veniat ad consequendam salutem. In ditur : et ad immortalUatem, sub ipsa
isto adhuc mundo manenti, poeni- morte, transitur. Cyprian, ad De-
tentia nulla sera est. Patet ad in- metrian. Oper. vol. i. p. 190. See
dulgentiam Dei aditus : et, quterenti- also Cyprian. Epist. xii. Oper. vol. ii.
bus atque intelligentibus veritatem, p. 27, 28.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 339
resurrection but would be doomed to wait for the second, it at
length became customary to offer prayers for the dead : not,
however, that they might be extricated from an imaginary
Purgatory, but that they might participate of the first or par-
ticular resurrection, instead of waiting for the Ultimate or
General Resurrection ^
1. This opinion, which at the best reposes only upon a text
of disputed interpretation, the speculative genius of Tertullian
could not suffer to rest in its pristine simplicity.
If to participate in the first resurrection, he argued, he a privi-
lege: then, conversely, to wait for the ultimate resurrection must he
a punishment This penal delay, therefore, must he viewed as an
expiation of offences committed in the flesh : and, accordingly, to
such expiation our Lord alluded, when, in the parahle, he spake
of a person heing cast into a prison, whence he should not he
suffered to depart until he had paid the very last farthing"^.
Had Tertullian advanced his speculation, merely as a con-
jecture of his own ; it might, unauthoritatiyelt, have been
suffered to avail as far as it could avail : but, unhappily, he had
the daring presumption to claim for it the sanction of the Para-
clete''. And now let us mark, what, in the progress of time,
has gradually followed. The utterly unscriptural notion of
a penal expiation after death, advanced by Tertullian, when he
had lapsed into the heresy of fanatical Montanism, as a fre-
quent revelation of the Holy Spirit, has since been stamped, by
the no less fanatical Infallibility of the Tridentine Fathers, with
the seal of indisputable orthodoxy*.
' See above,booki. ch. 5. § III. 3(1.) the purification of souls was first started
2 In summa, quiim carcerem ilium, by Simon Magus. See Epiph. cont.
quod Evangelium demonstrat, inferos hajr. ha^r. xxi. It was held also by
intelligimus ; et novissimum quad- the Manicheans, who had clearly bor-
rantem, modicum quoque delictum rowed it from the reveries of ancient
mora resurrectionis illic luendum in- oriental Paganism. See my Hor.
terpretamur : nemo dubitabit, ani- Mosaic, vol. ii. p. 197-203. 2d edit,
mam aliquid pensare penes inferos, See also Epi])li. cont. hrer. ha-r. 66.
salva resurrectionis plenitudine, per and p. 643, 644. ed. Colon. 1682. We
carnem quoque. Tertull. de anim. really may wonder, not without consi-
Oper. p. 689. and cap. 58. vol. iv. derable awe, how a man of Tertul-
335. ed. Hal. Magd. 1770. lian's acuteness could persuade him-
^ Hoc etiam Paracletus frequentis- self, that such a flat contradiction of
sime commendavit. Tertull. de anim. the very groundwork of Christianity,
Oper. p. 689. cap. 58. as a penal expiation of sin after
'• Concil. Trident, sess. xxv. p. death, could ever have been a revela-
505, 506. In connexion with Christ- tion of the Paraclete. God cannot
ianity, the doctrine of « Purgatory for contradict God.
340 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
2. This idle and enthusiastic phantasy, when once started,
even though started by an individual both after his lapse into
heresy and upon the very basis of the heresy into which he had
lapsed, was not suflPered, in the gradual corruption of the once
sincere Church, to lie silently dormant.
It is mentioned with grave approbation by Cyril of Jeru-
salem, who flourished about the middle of tlie fourth century :
though he fairly confesses, that many even then denied, that the
souls of the departed, whether they quitted this world with sin or
without sin, could he at all benefited by the prayer offered up, on
their behalf, over what he calls, in the novel fashionable phraseo-
logy of the day, the holy and most tremendous sacrifice. He
defends and illustrates the heresy-propped speculation of Ter-
tuUian, which that writer professed to have received from the Pa-
raclete after he had become a Montanist, by the supposed case of
a king, who had banished from his presence certain of his rebel-
lious subjects, but who had afterward been persuaded at the in-
stance of their friends and relatives to remit their punishments
3. The same notion, though with greater specialty, is ad-
vanced by Ambrose, who flourished during the last quarter of
the fourth century.
He thinks, that those, whose sins have not been expiated in
this life, will experience a purgatorial fire in the course of the
time which elapses between the first and the final resurrection :
and he adds, that the punishment of some will extend even
beyond the final resurrection, if they shall not have completed
the entire length of the intermediate period^.
Here, with a lamentable misapprehension of the true and
only principle of meritorious expiation, we have direct mention
uyiuv Toiri^uv xa.) li'iffKOTuv xal Teivretiv iv Tifiaiptai; , auru tovtov TpomviyKiTiv'
aTku; TCuv iv 7ifyt,7v T^axixoiju,^f/.iveiJV, fit- oiix, av aUToTi olvi<riv ^myi tuv KoXa-ffiuv ;
y'iffrr,v ovyiffiv -jftaTivowii 'iiTi(r&a.i Ta7; ■\pu- Cyril. Hieros. Catecli. Mjst. V. p. 241.
X^'i's, v'Ti^ uv h Vinirif u.va,<pi^iTOLi rvii ^ Qui autem non veninnt ad pri-
ayiocs xou (p^muhiaruTni ^^oxufzivyis mam resurrectionem, sed ad secun-
fvtriocg. Kou {lo6\ofjt.a,i vf^u,? xto vToh-iy- dam reservantur : isti urentur, donee
(ji.a,rai Tilffitr ot^cc ya^ nOAAOTS touto impleaiit tempora inter primam et
Xiyovra;, T/ ai^iXuTcti 4''^Z''^> f^i'rot, SGCundam resurrectionem ; ant, sinon
kfia^ryif^oiTcov uTuXXtnirirofiivyi rotih too impleverint, diutius in supplicio per-
x'ntrfji.ov, vi ov (Jt.i6' a.f/.x^T'/ifJi'Oi.ruv, iccv l-ri manebunt. Ideo ergo rogemus, ut
t55j w^ofTSMt^Jjj fzv'/i/4.ovi6nTi ; "a^« ya^, in prima resurrectione partem habere
I* ris (iacriXivs cr^oa-xiK^ovKoree.; /xutm, mereamur. Ambros. EnajT. in Psalm.
i^o^ifTOUs <roiviinilv' iJra oi rovrois ^iet<pi- 1. Oper. col. 1286.
CHAP, v.] DIFFICULTIES OF llOSIANISM. 341
of a Purgatorial Fire, respecting which the two older writers,
Tertullian and Cyril, notwithstanding that the former claimed
to have received his Doctrine from the Paraclete, say nothing
distinct and specific.
This error, naturally enough produced another kindred
error, perfectly familiar indeed to Popery, and (I fear) not
quite unfamiliar to some who call themselves Protestants. It
was thought better, as Gregory Nazianzen tells us, to be puri-
fied by an expiatory discipline now, then to be consigned here-
after to torment, when the season, not of purification, but of
punishment, shall have arrived^
Persons, who thus theorised, preferred to anticipate Purga-
tory by self-inflicted expiatory penances and mortifications for
sin, rather than run the risk of hell, which is a place of punish-
ment, not a place of purification.
This notion is the basis of all voluntary monastic austerities,
and is simply a following out of the unscriptural Doctrine of
Purgatory.
4. The tunes of Augustine immediately succeed the times
of his master Ambrose : and it is not a little remarkable, that,
although Ambrose had expressed his sentiments with a consi-
derable degree of positiveness, his pupil Augustine evinces a
very odd sort of hesitation respecting the whole matter, which
clearly enough indicates, that, in his days, the superstition had
not been perfectly digested, though it w^as gradually acquiring
strength and consistency.
(1.) In his Treatise on Faith and Works, that great Father
of the Western Church remarks : that. From the passage in
which St. Paul speaks of the fire trying every man^s work, and of
the individual himself being saved yet so as by fire, some deduced
the opinion; that persons, who had built wood or hay or stubble
upon the true foundation, might, through certain fiery punish-
fnents, be purified, so as to receive finally, by the merits of that
foundation, the privilege of ultimate beatitude. Hence he allows,
that, if such be really the case, those persons do well, who
w^ould admit all comers indiscriminately, both good and bad,
to the rite of Baptism. But then he at the same time main-
tains, that, if such a mode of inductive reasoning from a very
' 'Ea; yec^ kiynv to. IxfThv ^ixeneurri^ioc, tj 7i]i iKuhv (iaffuvtu Ta^xTifiipfiiivat, IjviKei
ols h ivTKV^a <pndu <Ta.^a.^i^6oinY, co; B'iX- KoXdffius xuiooi, ou x,a,6d^inus. Greg.
Tiov itvoLi vuv ■rcciliu^^vat x.u) Kadci^Crivxi, Naz. Oral. XV. Oper. i. p. 229.
342 DIFFICULTIES OF RO^IANISM. [bOOK II.
obscure passage be admitted, the inevitable result will be:
that numerous passages, which are neither obscure nor ambi-
guous, will stand convicted of speaking falsely. The plain
consequence, therefore, is : that the interpretation of the
obscure passage, for which some contend, cannot possibly be
its true interpretation'.
Here, unless I wholly understand him, Augustine, upon the
very rational principle that Obscure texts must he expounded in
dependent harmony with texts which are 7iot obscure, denies the
Doctrine of a Purgatory.
(2.) Yet, in one of his discourses, we find him employing
phraseology, which certainly imports, that, at that time, he had
at least adopted some such indefinite speculation as that advo-
cated by Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem.
Beyond all doubt, the dead are assisted, by the prayers of Holy
Church, and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms which are
given for the repose of their souls ; so that the Lord 7nay deal
with them more mercifully than their sins deserve : for this has
been handed down by the Fathers, and is observed by the whole
Church. — Such exercises most assuredly profit the dead : but then
those persons only are benefited, who have so lived before death,
that these things may be useful to them after death".
' Quod (soil. 1 Corinth, iii. 10-15.) intellectus. August, tie Fid. et Oper.
quidam ita intelligendum putant, ut c. xv. Oper. vol. iv. p. 28, 29. and
illi videantur sedificare, super hoc fun- torn. vi. col. 178, 180. ed. Bened. 1679.
damentum, aurum, argentum, lapides ^ Orationibus vero sanctse Ecclesia\
preeiosos, qui fidei qua in Christo est et sacrificio salutaii, et eleemosynis,
bona opera adjiciunt : illi, autem, qufe pro eorum spiritibus erogantur,
ftjenum, ligna, stipulam; qui, cum " non est dubitandum mortuos adju-
eandem fidem habeant, male operan- vari : ut cum eis misericordius agatur
tur. Unde arbitrantur, per quasdem a Domino, quam eorum peccata me-
poenas ignis eos posse purgari ad ruerunt. Hoc enim a Patribus tradi-
salutem percipiendam merito funda- turn universa observat Ecclesia, ut,
menti. — Si ergo hrec omnia (scil. 1 pro eis qui in corporis et sanguinis
Corinth, xiii. 1. Jacob, ii. 14. 1 Co- Christ! communione defuncti sunt,
rinth. vi. 9, 10. Galat. v. 19-21. 1 cum ad ipsum sacrificium loco sue
Pet. iii. 21. Matt. xix. 17. Jacob, ii. commemorantiu", oretur, ac pro illis
20. Matt. XXV. 37, 41. 1 Corinth, xiii. quoque id offerri commemoretur. —
3.), et cfetera quae innumerabiha per Non omnino ambigendum est, ista
omnes Scripturas sine ambiguitate prodesse defunctis ; sed talibus, qui
dicta reperiri possunt, falsa erunt : ita vixerint ante mortem, ut possint
poterit verus esse ille intellectus de eis hoBC utilia esse post mortem. Au-
lignis et fo-no et stipula, quod hi salvi gust. serm. xxxii. Oper. vol. x. p. 138.
erunt per ignem, qui, solam in Chris- and serm. clxxii. § 2. torn. v. col. 827.
tum fidem tenentes, bona opera neg- ed-. Bened.
lexerunt. Si autem ista et vera et Perhaps it may be asked : Is this a
clara sunt : proculdubio, in ilia Apo- genuine homily of Augustine ? It
stoli sententia alius requirendus est occurs in the Works of Bede.
CHAr. V.l ' DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 343
(3.) So again, in his Treatise on the Eight Questions of Did-
citius, with most infelicitous disregard of the very opinion ex-
pressed by himself in his Treatise on Faith and Works, he half
inclines to think : that the fire, wliich St. Paul mentions as
burnmg the defective works of a Christian, though the Christian
himself is saved as by fire, may perhaps be a Purgatory ;
through the fire of wliich all must pass alike, whether they
have built upon the true foundation gold and silver and pre-
cious stones, or whether they have only accumulated upon it
wood and hay and stubble.
That some such thing as this occurs after the present life is far,
he observes, //"om beitig incredible^
(4.) But, when he comes to treat directly of Purgatory
itself, though still, with the same lamentable inconsistency,
relying for his scriptural proof upon the self-same obscure and
perfectly indecisive passage of St. Paul ; he speaks with almost
as much positiveness, as if, in accordance with the vain pre-
tence of the enthusiastic Tertullian, the silence of Christ had
been subsequently remedied by a special revelation from
heaven to himself in particular.
JBi/ that transitory fire, concerning which the Apostle says ; He
himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire : not deadly, but only
minute, sins are purged. — Whoever is conscious that any deadly
sin rules within him, that person, unless he shall have worthily
reformed himself, and (if space be afforded Am) shall have done
penance for a long time and shall have been bountiful in alms-
giving a.nd shall have abstai7ied from his sins : that person cannot
be purged in the transitory fire, concerning which the Apostle
speaks ; but the eternal fire will torment him without any remedy.
As for minute sins, though they camiot slay the soul, yet they so
deform, it by a sort of leprosy, that, without difficulty, or at least
with great cotifusion, they sufer it to receive the embrace of the
heavenly bridegroom. — Let such sins, then, be redeemed, by con-
tinual prayer, and by frequent fasting , and by larger alms, and
above all by the forgiveness of our enemies : lest, when accumu-
lated, they should sink the soul into perdition. But, whatever of
' Tale aliqviid etiam posthanc vitam magis minusve bona pereuntia dilex-
fieri incredibile non est : et, utruni erunt, tan to tardius citiusve salvari ?
ita sit, qumri potest. Et aut inveniri, August, de octo Dulcit. quaest. Oper.
aut latere, nonnullos fideles per ig- vol. iv. p. 250. and torn. vi. col. 138.
nem quendam purgatorium, quanto § 13. ed. Bened.
344
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
those sins shall not have been thus redeemed, it tnust he purged in
thejire mentioned by the Apostle. — On this principle, if we thank
God for depriving tcs of our friends or of our substance, confess-
ing with true humility that we suffer less than we deserve : our
sins will be purged in this present ivorld ; so that, in the future
ivorld, that purgatorial fire shall find, either nothing, or certainly
but little, to burn away. But, if we neither give thanks unto God
in tribulation, nor buy off our sins by good icorks : we must,
under such circumstances, remain in the fire of Purgatory just so
long a time, as it may require to burn away our smaller si?is, like
wood and hay and stubbleK
(5.) Thus, after much vacillation (a vacillation, which
plainly could never have occurred, had the modern Latin
Doctrine been invaHably the familiar Doctrine of the entire
Catholic Church from the very beginning), Augustine, if the
Discourse be his, seems finally to have adopted, so far as p7in-
ciple is concerned, the identical dogma of a future Purgatory
which is now held by the Church of Rome.
Yet, though in principle, the Purgatory of Augustine is the
' Illo enim transitorio igne, de quo
dixit Apostolus ; Ipse auiem salviis
erit, sed tnmcii quasi per hjnem : non
capitalia, sed miiiuta, peccata purgan -
tur. — Quicunque enim aliqua de istis
peccatis in se doniinari cognoverit:
nisi digne se emendaverit, et, si ha-
buerit spatium, longo tempore poeni-
tentiara egerit, et largas eleemosynas
erogaverit, et a peccatis ipsis abstinu-
erit ; illo transitorio igne, de quo ait
Apostolus, purgari non potent, sed
fBterna ilium Hamma sine ullo re-
medio cruciabit. Quae autem sint
minuta peccata, licet omnibus nota
sint : tamen, quia longum est ut om-
nia replicentur, opus est, ut eis vel
aliqua nominemus. — Quibus peccatis
licet occidi animam non credamus,
ita tamen earn, velut quibusdam pas-
tulis et quasi hoiTenda scabie re-
plentia, deformem faciunt, ut earn ad
amplexus illius sponsi ca-lestis aut
vix aut cum grandi confusione venire
permittant. — Et ideo, continuis ora-
tionibus, et frequentibus jejuniis, et
largioribus eleemosynis, et propcipud
per indulgentiam eorum qui in nos
peccant, assidue redimantur: ne forte,
simul coUecta, cumulum faciant, et
demergant animam. Quicquid enim
de istis peccatis a nobis redemptum
non fiierit, illo igne purgandum est,
de quo dixit Apostolus. — Aut enim,
dum in hoc mundo vivimus, ipsi nos
per poenitcntiam fatigamus : aut, certe
volente aut permittente Deo, multis
tribulationibus pro istis peccatis affli-
gimur : et, si Deo gratias agimus,
liberamur. Quod ita fit, si, quotiens
maritus, aut uxor, aut filius, moritur ;
vel si substantia, quai a nobis plus
quam oportet amatur, aufertur. —
Tamen, si Deo, qui illam a nobis
auferri velut plus pater permittit, tan-
quam boni filii gratias agamus, et
minus nos pati quam meremur cum
vera humilitate pix)feramus : ita pec-
cata ipsa in hoc seculo purgantur ;
ut, in futuro, ille ignis purgatorius
aut non inveniat, aut certe parura in-
veniat, quod exurat. Si, autem, nee
in tribulatione Deo gratias agimus,
nee bonis opei'ibus peccata redimi-
mus : ipsi tamdiu in illo purgatorio
igne moras habebimus, quamdiu su-
pradicta peccata minuta, tanquam
ligna, fa-num, stipula, consumantur.
August de Ign. Purgat. serm. iv.
Oper. vol. X. p. '382. and serm. civ. in
Append, tom. v. col. 18"). ed. Bened.
and assigned to Csesarius of Aries.
CUM', v.]
DIFFICULTIES OF llOMAJ<fISM.
345
same as the Purgatory of the Latins : in its arrangement, it
differs most widely and most essentially.
According to the theory of the Roman Church, the soul,
immediately after its separation from the body, passes into a
present Purgatory : yet the duration and intensity of its suffer-
ings, in that place of expiatory torment, may be abbreviated
and relaxed by the prayers of the living.
But, according to the theory of Augustine, the purgatorial
fire, through which the leprous soul is doomed to pass, is the
fire which consumes the world at the still future Day of Judg-
ment ; whence it would follow, that the prayers for the dead,
recommended by that Father, are not prayers by which the
soul may be liberated from a present Purgatory ; but that they
are prayers, which may avail to give the soul a better passage
through the yet future transitory fire at the General Con-
summation^
IV. The difference is striking : and it is a difference, which,
in point of chronological arrangement equally applies to the
older, though still singularly varying, theories of TertuUian and
Ambrose.
' Vespera autem ilia j^';?is est seciili ;
et carainus ille, veriiens dies judicii :
divisit, inter media ilia quse divisa
erant, etiam caminus. — Sunt ergo
quidam carnales, et tanien Ecclesioa
gremio continentur, viventes secun-
dum quendam modum suum. — Qui-
cunque talis permanserit, et secun-
dum quendam modum vitte aptum
carnalibus, et de gremio Ecclesiro non
recesserit, et non fuerit seductus ab
lift^reticis, ut ex contraria parte divi-
datur : veniet caminus ; et ad dex-
teram poni, sine c amino, non potent.
Sed, si caminum pati non vult, pergat
in turturem et columbam. Qui po-
test capere, capiat. Si autem non sic
erit; et a?dificaverit, super funda-
mentum, ligna, foenum, stipidam ; id
est, amores seculares, fundamento
fidei suae, superaedificaverit ; tamen,
si in fundamento sit Christus, ut
primum locum ipse habeat in corde et
ei nihil omnino anteponatur; por-
tantur tales, tolerantur et tales. Ve-
niet caminus : incendet ligna, foenum,
stipulam. Ipse autem, inquit, salvus
erit, sic tamen. quasi pei' ignem. Au-
gust. Enarr. in Psalm, ciii. cone. 8.
Oper. vol. viii. p. 430.
Qualis tunc erit velut aurea per
ventilationem, ita per judicium pur-
gaia novissimum, eis quoqiie igne mun-
datis, quibus talis mundatio neceSsaria
est. August, de Civ. Dei, lib. xx.
c. 25. Oper. vol. v. p. 253.
Nunquid dicturus est quispiam hoc
fidei tempus illi fini esse coa^quan-
dura, quando igne judicii novissimi
mundabantur, qui offerant hostias in
justitia ? Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xxii.
c. 20. Oper. vol. v. p. 253.
It is not improbable, that Augustine
may have borroAved this notion from
a conjectural hint, which had been
previously thrown out by Origen.
See Orig. adv. Cels. lib. iv. p. 108,
109. hb. V. p. 240, 241. lib. vi. p.
292, 293. The idea itself seems to
have been ultimately taken from those
successive purgatorial catastrophes of
the Avorld, Avhether by a deluge of
water or by a deluge of fire, which
constitute so conspicuous a feature
in many of the ancient systems of
theological philosophy, both orien-
tal and occidental. See Origeu.
advers. Cels. lib. iv. p. 173. lib. v.
p. 244, 245.
346 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK H.
Tertullian, from the revelation of the Paraclete, contended
for a sort of 7iegative Purgatory ; which consisted rather in a
delay of final complete happiness, than in any actual suffering
of positive torment : and this negative Purgatory, in which less
perfect souls are doomed to make expiation, until they shall
have paid the last farthing, by severely experiencmg that de-
layed hope which maketh the heart sick, he placed chrono-
logically between the first and the ultimate resmTCction.
Ambrose (though, where he learned the doctrine, does not
appear) contended for a positive fiery Purgatory: and this
positive Purgatory (which now, so far as I am aware, first
makes its appearance, unless indeed something of the sort be
insinuated by Cyril of Jerusalem) he similarly placed between
the two supposed successive resurrections, though in some
cases he would extend it even beyond the ultimate.
Augustine, when at length, after much hesitation and after a
total abandonment of his apparently original opinion, he had
adopted the speculation of a positive fiery Purgatory, chose, in
his chronological arrangement of it, to differ both from Ter-
tuUian and from Ambrose : for, instead of placing it between
the first and ultimate resurrection, he made it an appendage and
concomitant of the final Day of Judgment; supposing his
positive purgatorial fire to be no otlier, than the fire which will
consume the universe ^
Now, had the modern Latin Doctrine of Purgatory been the
Doctrine of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, it
were impossible that these strange vaiiations could have oc-
curred. As Tertullian and Ambrose and Augustine mutually
differ from each other: so, at present, does the Church of
Rome differ from all the three. But this could never have
taken place, had the modern Latin Speculation been the uni-
versally received Doctrine of the Primitive Church. Therefore,
even to say nothing of the direct testimonies against the im-
scriptural dogma of Purgatory, it is abundantly clear, from the
very fact of ascertained variation, that that dogma, as now held
and enforced by the innovating Church of Rome, was com-
pleted, only by slow degrees, and in the lapse of a considerable
period.
• See 2 Peter iii. 7-1 :3.
CHAPTER VI.
SAINT-WOESHIP, IMAGE-WOKSHIP, EELIC- WORSHIP, CEOSS-WOESHIP.
Geayelt to sit down, for the purpose of demonstrating from
Scripture that The luorship of a7iy being save God is expressly
prohibited, were mere trifling : for, in the present day, it would
be a plain waste of time, which might be much more profitably
employed.
The Bible knows nothing of those paganising distinctions
between relative worship and positive worship, by which the
Church of Rome vainly attempts to hide the deformity of her
apostatic superstition : a superstition, which, in actual practice,
and even on the authority of some of her ablest members, is ever
running into the most direct and most offensive idolatry ^ On the
' To the abominations already no-
ticed above, the reader may add the
following notable decision of Gabriel
Biel.
Si fueriut imagines Christi ; ado-
rantur eadem specie qua Christiis, id
est, adoratione latriee : si, beatissimse
Virginis ; hyperduliae. Gabr. Biel.
super can. Miss. lect. 49. § 2. ed.
Tubinga;, 1499.
Was this G abriel ever censured by
his ecclesiastical superiors for his
gross inculcation of idolatry ? If Dr.
Trevem and Mr. Husenbeth wish to
repel the charge preferred against
tlieir Church, let them produce the
regular censure of the present most
impudent culprit. The truth is, that,
let the matter be speculatively dis-
guised as it may, the pretended re
lative worship of images perpetually,
in practice, runs iuto the vilest idolatry.
For instance, can the two following
prayers, to a senseless image and an
equally senseless cross, be viewed, by
plain common sense, under any other
aspect ?
Salve sancta facies nostri Eedemp-
toris, in qua nitet species divini splen-
doris, impressa nivei candoris ! Salve
vultus Domini imago beata ! Nos
dediic ad propria^ O felix Jigura !
Ave crux, spes unica ! Auge j^Hs
justUiam, reisque dona veniain.
The former of these two worse than
silly prayers is addressed, I suppose,
to the pretended impression of our
Lord's countenance on the two several
napkins of Agbarus and Veronica: for
that seems to be the Image there in-
vocated. Aringhi plainly tells us,
without the least censure either from
Pope or Cardinal, that this vain idol,
is at once preserved as a bulwark
against mad image-breakers, and is
offered to the faithful to be by them
adored.
Imacinem hanc ab Edessenorum
348 DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [bOOK lU
contrary, as the Bible condemns the voluntary and unrequired
humility of worshipping Beatified Spirits : so it condemns all
Image- Worship, on the plea, not only of its particular impiety,
but likewise of its universal absurdity ; thus plainly, by the
very necessity of its phraseology, making no diflPerence between
Popish Images of Saints and Pagan Images of false Divinities ^.
Omitting, then, the superfluity of a formal confutation from
Scripture, I shall rather employ myself in establishing the his-
torical fact: that The Early Church disavowed and rejected
those corruptions of Saint- Worship and Image-Worship and
Relic-Worship and Cross- Worship , which, however disguised
and modified by vain eosplanations, are now the vindicated and
established opprobrium of the Church of Rome.
I. The first m order, among such abominations, comes the
practice of Saint- Worship : which includes, on the one hand,
the Worship of the Virgin Mary ; and, on the other hand, the
Worship of the Angels.
1. From the notorious circumstance of our Lord being
universally invocated, the early Christians not unfrequently
prove, in the way of professed argument, his true and essential
divinity : and they rest their proof, partly upon the scriptural
civitate translatam, condigno ad hsec minic, which, in curious plagiaristic
risque tempera venerationis cultu in imitation of the great goddess Diana,
divi Silvestii ecclesia, veluti divinum whose worshipped Image was he-
quid et perenne sacrarum imaginum Heved hy tlie Ephesians to have fal-
monumentum, pariter ac propugna- len down from Jupiter, came down from
culum adversus insanos iconoclastas heaven, an 't please you, in tlie year of
asservari, et suscipiendam fidelihiis grace 1530. Ibid, voh ii. p. 404.
ADORANDAMQUE proponi. Aring. Rom, We may now, in our own day, add,
Suht. voh ii. lib. v. c. 4. § 6. to the miracle-working picture of the
As a specimen of the trickery hy Blessed Dominic, the wonderful por-
which this contemptible idolatry is tent of the winking Virgin of Rimini :
supported and advanced, Aringhi and, though the Holy Coat of Treves
gravely tells us: that The Images of has not, to the best of my recollection,
the Blessed Virgin shine out confinually professed to work miracles, unless the
by new and daily miracles, to the com- stupendous faith of its votaries can
fort of their votaries and to the con- itself be deemed a miracle ; yet, in
fusion of all gainsayers. He adds : strict analogy to the invocation of the
Within these few years, under every senseless wood of a cross, this equally
Pope successively, some or other of our senseless garment, by whomsoever
sacred Images, especially of the more manufactured, has actually, just as if
ancient, have made themselves illus- it possessed intelligence, been sup-
trious, and have acquired A peculiar plicated, by its sacerdotally besotted
WORSHIP AND VENERATION, by the ex- adorers, to pray for them !
hibition of fresh signs ; as it is notorious ' See, in particular, tlie magnifi-
to all, who dwell in this city. He then cently contemptuous passages, in
gives us a most ridiculous account of Habak. ii. 18-20, in Isaiah xliv. 9-20,
a miracle-working picture of St. Do- and in Psalm cxxxv. 10-18.
CHAP. YI.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 349
illegality of invocating any being save God, and partly upon the
absurdity of fancying that any being save God can hear invoca-
tions addressed to him from every quarter of the universe.
Now this argument were palpably inconclusive, if the per-
sons, who employed it, had themselves habitually invocated
either Angels or the Souls of the Departed Saints.
Therefore such persons, by the very drift and necessary
purport of their reasoning, could not have indulged in that
vain and bootless superstition.
(I.) If Christ icere only a man, argues Novatian about the
middle of the third century ; how, when invocated, is he every-
where present : for omnipresence is the nature, not of man, but of
God ? If Christ we^^e only a man ; why, in our prayers, is a
Tnan invocated as our mediator : since, to afford us salvation, the
invocation of a man may well he deemed inefficacious ^
(2.) We are truly worshippers of God, says Athanasius in the
fourth century : because we invocate no one of the creatures nor
any mere man, but the Son who is by nature from God and true
God ; made man indeed, yet not the less therefore the Lord him-
self and God and Saviour. Who would not justly admire this
being : or who woidd not collect, that he must needs be somewhat
ttmly divine^?
2. With the obvious and necessary purport of this general
argument (an argument perfectly conclusive in the mouth of
an Anglican, but an argument which can never be employed
either with cogency or with consistency by a modem Romanist),
agree the direct testimonies of the ancient theologians.
(1.) We may first hear, against the Worship of the Saints,
the testimony of Augustine.
Let not our point of religion be the Worship of Dead Men.
For, though they lived piously ; still they are not to be so ac-
counted of, as requiiing from us any such honours : but they
rather wish us to worship him, through whose illumination they
• Si homo tantummodo ChristUS, ^ 'AXXa uX'/i^a; ^-oa-ifisTs, en /urXv-i
quomodo adest ubique invocatus ; ruv yivyirZv, fjch Vi xonov nvx olvfpurov
cum hfec hominis natura non sit, sed aXXa rov U &ioi! <p6a-zi xui uXnS.vov
Dei, ut adesse omni loco possit ? e=ov Tier rovrov Vi y.vrju.ivov avP^cj^ov,
Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur euTtv viTTcv Kv^mv uut&v xu) 0.=ov x^J
homo in oratiouibus mediator invo- iMTYt^a., \<Tix,r^Xovu.i&a.. ToUto h t/,-
catur, cum invocatio hominis ad prce- ovx £v ^it/^a^-s/sv" ^' <r/j oijx an jvvhro
standam sahitem inefficax judicetur. htov dXn^us uva.i to <g^yfjLa. ; Athan.
Novat. de Trin. in Oper. Tert. p. CIO. cont. Arian. Or. iv. Oper. vol. i. p. 275.
350 DIFFICULTIES OF ROIVIAJI^ISM. [bOOK U.
rejoice that we should be partners of their merit. They are to he
honoured, therefore, on account of imitation ; not to he prayed to,
on account of 7'eligion'^.
(2.) Let us next, against the Worship of Angels, hear the
testimony of Origen.
Having learned to call those beings Angels, from their official
character of m£ssengers ; ice find them also, in the Sacred Scrip-
tures, styled Gods, on account of their being divine. Yet they are
not so styled, as if we were commanded to venerate and to worship
them in the place of God ; since they are only mere ministering
agents, who convey to zis God^s blessings. For all supplicatiotis
and prayer and intercession and thank sgiviyig we must offer up to
God ivho is above all, through the living Word and God who is a
High-Priest superior to all A^igels. — To invocate Angels, indeed,
lohen men know so little about them., were itself irrational : but,
even on the supi^osition that ive were ever so loell acquainted with
such mystenous ivonders; still this very supposed knowledge, while
it was setting forth their nature and their respective offices, ivould
forbid us presumptuously to pray to any other than the all-suffi-
cient Deity through the Son of God our Saviour'^.
(3.) Let US next, against the Worship of the Virgin Mary
specifically, hear the testimony of Epiphanius.
After censuring at great length the collyridian heretics for
invocating the Virgin as a sort of goddess, and after declaring
that Christians ought not indecorously to venerate the Saints but
rather him who is their Sovereign Lord and Master : he sums
up the whole with the following most wholesome admonition.
Let Mary he held in honour : but let the Father and the Son
* Non sit nobis religio cultus honii- a-i^'Siv kv.) TonffKvnlv dvr) rov QioZ. U»<retv
num mortuorum. Quia, si pie \ixe- ^b yx^ Vi'/i<riv ko.) T^offivx^v xa.) hnuhv
runt, non sic habentur, ut tales quffi- ««/ £t»;^a^/a-T/av ccva^nfi^rTsov tm It) Toart
rant honores : sed ilium a nobis coli esf , B/« rod Iti vavruv dyyiX/uv d^x.'^-
volunt, quo illuminante la^tantur me- ^s^?, \i^'^vx,av Aoyov ko.) @iov. — 'Ayyi-
riti Sui nOS esse COnSOrteS. HonO- Xous yk^ KuXiffcct uh dvaXxfiovras r/iv
randi sunt ergo propter imitationem, vri^ «v^^<^cr«yj ti^i etvruv Witrriifzijv,
non adorandi propter religionem. o!j>c 'Jxoyov' 'Ivi Ti x.a.) xrr.f vt'oSktiv « ti^)
August, de ver. relig. C. Iv. Oper. ccItZv lTsirTy,f/.'/i, ^a.vju.cc(nr,s Tt; ouaa KO.)
vol. i. p. 317. d-TToppnTo;, »K-rak/i!p^/i' avrn h iTKTTr.fjt,'/!,
^ TovTovf ^h ayyiXou; cctto -rov t^ynv Ta.^atrT'/,<rcc<ra rr,v ^veriv cturuv Kot) £ip' ol;
uvTuv f/,if^,x6yi}coTii KocXuv, ivp'iiTH.oft.iv 0.1- uTiv 'iKetCToi TiTayf^ivoi, ova iearn et-XXio
T9VS, ^la TO h'tov; thai, xx) 610115 Iv TccTg fietppuv sil^-cr^at, '/J tm T^o; tuvtx dix^xi?
li^Ki; -ffori ovo^u.a^cf/.ivov: y^xpa.?;. ' AkX' iTt Tairi &i^ , ^tct rov lurriPo; rif/-iuv Tiou
ev^ uffri TooffTUffffiffSa.! '/if/.^v Toh; ^ibcko- rov Qiov. Urig. Cont. Cels. lib, V. p.
vovvTus, Ku) (pioovra.; fif/.iv rot. rov BioZ, 233. ed. Cantab. 1677.
CI£AJ. VI."] DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. 351
and the Holy Ghost he ivorshipped. As for Mary, let no one
worship her^.
Epiphanius, we see, strongly reprehends the then nascent
heresy of worshipping the Virgin in the place of a Divinity 2.
Yet, in the lamentably corrupt practice of modern Rome, Mary,
as we learn from the Office of the Blessed Virgin, is actually
invocated as the Queen of Heaven^. This shameless idolatry,
even litei^atim and verbatim, is the precise form of adoration that
was offered to Astoreth or Isis. Both in temper and in mode,
the practice of the Papists is a perfect double of that of the
Jews in their reply to Jeremiah.
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of
Jehovah, ive will not hearken unto thee. But toe will certainly do
ivhatsoever thing goeth forth out of our oion mouth, to burn incense
unto THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN and to pour out drink-offerings unto
her, as ive have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our
pnnces, in the cities of Judah^,
The nature of this insane idolatry, plagiarised so evidently
from ancient Paganism, we may learn from that blasphemous
perversion of the whole Book of Psalms, which bears the
appropriate name of Tlie Mary-Psalter. Throughout this entire
travesty, the name Mary is systematically introduced in the
place of the name Jehovah. Whence, of course, that highest
adoration, which the Romanists call Latria, and which in the
Psalms is paid to Jehovah, is paid in the blasphemous parody to
the Virgin Mary.
The contriver of this monstrous impiety was the papally
sainted Bonaventura^: sainted, of course, posthumously, and
therefore sainted after his perpetration of the blasphemy : and,
that nothing might be wanting to the furtherance of such
idolatry, there was instituted a peculiar Society entitled The
Fraternity of the Mary-Psalter, which was confirmed vv^th many
' 'Ev rifji,ri 'iff-Tu Mu^ta' o ?£ UuTy)^, xeci lished a literal translation of St. Bo-
Tio;, Kx) "Ayiov llv.vfi^, T^inr>cvvuiTfia/' naventura's Psalter, translated from
T'/jv Mx^'iav fjLTt^iis TT^'XTKuvi'iTM- Eplpli. tliG last Frcnch edition of I8o2 ; care-
cont.hffir.lib.iii.tom.ii.haer.TO.p.lOOJ:. fully compared with the Latin, which
§ 7. ed. Colon. 1082. See also hsner. 78. should he in the hands of all Contro-
^ 'Ai/r; @iou rritJTr.v Tccouiraytiv IffTTov- versialists, and tliose who would w4sh
S««ora; Kxt ff'Tovha.Z^ovTa.;. to ascertain what Romish Mariolatry
3 Ave, Regina c^lorum ! practically is. Published by the Bri-
'* Jerem. xliv. 16, 17. tisli Pteformation Society, London,
* Dr. Gumming has recently pub- 1852, piice one shilling.
352 DIFFICULTIES OF EOMANISM. [bOOK II.
approving and encouraging indulgences by Sixtus IV. His
meet successor. Innocent YIIL, additionally granted, to all
those who should enter into it, a plenary remission, from punish-
ment and faults, once in their life-time, and once in the article
of death. The project, aided by the recent canonisation of
the notorious Alphonsus Liguori (notorious alike for frantic
Mariolatry and the Systematic Inculcation of Dishonesty and
Obscenity), seems fully to have answered : for the unhallowed
devotion of Italy to the well-nigh exclusive worship of the
Virgin is said to increase daily^
How this worship is paid in practice, sufficiently appears
from the idolatrous prayers in her office.
Hail, Queen I Mother of mercy I Our life, sweetness, and
hope, all hail! To thee we cry, the exiled children of Eve^.
Its character further appears from the inscription, placed, in
the year 1711, without any censure, over the principal gate of
one of the great chm^hes of Florence.
There is no one who can he saved, most holy, except through
thee. There is no one who can be freed from evils, except through
thee. Mary, in truth, opens her bosom of mercy to all, that men
may universally receive from her fulness : the captive, redemption;
the sick, cure ; the sad, consolation ; the sinner, pardon ; the just,
grace; the angel, joy ; the ivhole Trinity, glory ^.
It will be readily seen, that, throughout the whole of this
* In Italy, the head - quarters of salve! Ad te clamamus, exules filii
Popery, Mariolatry, by all accounts, Evffi ! See Foye's Romish Riles, Offices,
is so rampant as nearly to supersede and Legends, p. 378. London, 1851.
the worship of the Deity. With these ' See the full inscription in the
progressive idolaters, Mary is abso- original Latin, given by Dr. Middle-
lutely a goddess ; nay such a goddess, ton in his Letter from Eome. Prefat.
as completely to eclipse God the Son Disc. p. 45.
and entirely to throw God the Father The reader would do well addition-
into the background. She is, in short, ally to peruse the valuable Work of
a perfect pattern of exclusiveness. I Mr. Tyler, entitled The Worship of the
myself have seen a letter from one of Blessed Virgin Marg in the Church of
our perverts, in which the unhappy Eome, contrary to Holy Scripture and
victim of antiscriptural delusion cele- the faith and practice of the Church of
brates the alone praises of the Virgin Christ through the first five centuries.
Mary, and speaks of her more in the Also he may consult a very important
namby-pamby style of a brain-sick and seasonable Work by the Hon.
lover than with the decent sobriety J. W. Percy, entitled Romanism as it
of a well-instructed Christian. Such exists at Rome. An immense collection
miserable folly is very sickening. of blasphemous and idolatrous in-
— July 19, 1852. scriptions is given, with annexed
^ Salve, Regina ! Mater miseri- statements where they may now be
cordiee ! Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, found and read in Rome itself.
CHAP. Yl] difficulties OF ROMANISM. 353
disgusting and blasphemous folly, the peculiar offices and cha-
racteristics of the God-Man are ascribed to a mere creature, his
mother according to the flesh.
II. From Sai7it -Worship, let us proceed to Image -Wor-
ship.
1. The early Christians perpetually ridiculed the Image-
Worship of the Pagans, as the very quintessence of absurdity :
nor did they ridicule it one jot the less, when the Pagans vindi-
cated the silly practice on the precise ground that the Roman-
ists still continue to vindicate it; on the ground, namely, that
The Worship was not absolute hut relative, or (as the Tridentine
Fathers express it) that The honour paid to the Images is referred
to the Prototypes which the Images represent.
Now, from the very necessity of the case, it is obvious, that
persons, who thus ridiculed all Image -Worship w\iQ\hev positive
or relative, could by no possibility have been themselves Image-
Worshippers under any aspect or under any modified explana-
tion : for, if tliey, either positively or relatively, had worshipped
(as the Council of Trent speaks) the Images of Christ and the
Virgin Mother of God and the other Saints ; they would plainly
have subjected themselves to a complete and most triumphant
retort courteous from the Pagans, whom they inconsistently
ridiculed for doing the very thing, which they were all the
while doing" themselves.
Nor would any distinction, which they might have been
pleased to draw between Christian Saints and Heathen Gods,
have in the least saved them from the force of the well-merited
retort. If the Relative Worship of Images, as avowedly prac-
tised by the Pagans, were in itself a fitting subject of just ridi-
cule : the Relative Worship of Images, as confessedly practised
by the Christians, must in itself be equally deserving of indig-
nant satire. The ridicule of the early Ecclesiastical Writers
touched the inherent absurdity of the Image -Worship as such:
whether that Worship were positive, as it was doubtless prac-
tised by the besotted vulgar ; or whether it were relative, as
the educated Pagans delighted to explain it. Hence, had they
themselves been consciously addicted to Image -Worship either
positive or relative, they could never have dared to ridicule the
self-same practice on the part of the Pagans: or, had they
strangely adventured upon so palpable an inconsistency, they
A A
354
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
could by no possibility have escaped the hearty and joyous
laugh of the perfect retort courteous.
You Christians ridicule OUR Image - Worship forsooth, on the
professed ground of its absolute and inherent absurdity: and
yet your own churches are actually crowded with Images, to which
you offer up that identical Relative Worship which in our ca^e you
take upon yourselves to deride. Let Clodius reform himself, ere
he kindly undertake the reformation of others ^
Were I an African or a Hindoo, such assuredly would be
the answer which I should make to a Latin Missionary ; who,
with the Tridentine Decision in his mouth and with a Wor-
shipped Crucifix in his hand, should rashly attempt to ridicule
• For the evident purpose of avoid-
ing such a retort, the Tridentine Doc-
tors boldly assure us : that, while
they themselves inculcate only the
relative Worship of Images, the an-
cient Pagans worshipped them abso-
lutely and positively placed their
HOPE in them.
Imagines porro Chiisti, Deiparse
Virginis, et aliorum Sanctorum, in
templis prsesertim habendas et reti-
nendas, eisque debitum honorem et
venerationem impertiendam ; non
quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis
divinitas vel virtus, propter quam sint
colendae, vel quod ah iis sit ahquid
petendum, vel quod fiducia in Imagi-
nibus sit Agenda, veluti olini liebat a
Gentibus, quae in Idolis spem suam
collocabant : sed quoniam honos, qui
eis exhibetur, rei-ebtur ad proto-
TYPA, quae illse reprasentant ; ita ut,
per Imagines, quas osculamur, et
coram quibus caput aperimus et pro-
cumbimus, Christum adoremus, et
Sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem
gerunt, veneremur. Concil. Trident.
sess. XXV. p, 507.
But such an assertion is so com-
plete a misrepresentation, as to
amount to something very like a
downright falsehood. No doubt, many
of the vulgar Pagans, just like many
of the vulgar Papists, worshipped
their Idols absolutely : but, when
pressed by the early Christians with
the absurdity of their Image- Worship,
the superior sort among them vindi-
cated it on the self-same plea oi rela-
tiveness, as that employed by the Tri-
dentine Theologians to vindicate theh^
own Idolatry. See Orig. cont. Cels.
lib. vi. p. i284. Arnob. adv. Gent. lib.
vi. p. 195. Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib.
ii. § 2. p. 141. The passages, here
referred to, will presently be given in
full.
Assuredly, therefore, the Triden-
tines, disguise the truth as they
please, cannot censure Pagan Idola-
try without at the same time con-
demning their own Image- Worship,
inasmuch as the two stand excused
upon precisely the same ground of
relativeness.
The honour, say the Tridentines,
which is paid to them, is referred
to the prototypes which they repre-
sent.
Eight, reply the old Pagans: that
is just what we do. We worship our
gods through images : Deos per
simulachra veneramur.
Meanwhile, after all, what is this
shuffling excuse of relativeness ? The
honour, say the Tridentines, which is
paid to Images, is referred to their
prototypes : so that, when we uncover
our heads and prostrate ourselves
before them, we adore Christ, and
venerate the Saints, whose Hkeness
the Images exhibit. Thus, notwith-
standing the attempted distinction
between adoremus and veneremur, we
have a plain confession, that the
very uncovering of the head and the
very prostration of the body, which,
through Images, is paid to Christ, is
paid also, through Images, to the
Saints.
CHAP. Vr.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. ■ 355
the venerable and ancient Image -Worship of my remote fore-
fathers. *
Let us now attend to the language and the reasoning of the
old Ecclesiastical Writers.
(1.) It were absurd, says Clement of Alexandria, as the very
philosophers confess, that man, who is the plaything of God,
should make God: it were absurd, that the Deity himself should
he made by a childish contrivance. For that, which is produced,
must needs be similar to that, from which it is produced. — But
Images, wrought by mean artizans, are produced from loorthless
materials. Therefore, they themselves must be worthless and
material and profane'^.
(2.) When the devil, says Tertullian, introduced into the
ivorld manufacturers of Statues and Images, and representations
of every description : that rude trafficking of human calainity de-
rived both its name and its profit from Idols. Hence every art,
which produces an Idol in ivhatsoever manner, becomes the head
of idolatry. — Consequently, every form or diminutive Image must
be called an Idol. — God prohibited, as much the making of an
Idol, as the worship)ping of it. — Wherefore, to eradicate the very
substratum of idolatry, the divine Law proclaims ; Ye shall not
make an Idol : and it forthwith subjoins to this proclamation ;
Nor the likeness of the things, which are in heaven, and which are
in earth, and ichich are in the sea'^.
(3.) We, says Origen, deem those the most ignorant : who are
' TiXo7ov f/iv T av un, ug otlrai <pa.(nv oi poscit. — Iclolum tam fieri quam coli
<ptXciffo(poi, a.vffpMT'iv ovTfls ^raiyviov Siou Deus prohibet. — Propter hanc cau-
©50V i^ya^sa-^oti, km) yiyviff^cci Tat^.ns sam, ad eraclicandam scilicet mate-
'Ttx^^ii '^«'' ©««>'* ^TE' "^0 yivo/u,ivov, ravTov riam idololatrife, Lex divina procla-
xx) OJU.OIOV TM \\ ov yivfrut. — Ta Ti mat ; Ne f'eceritis idulum : et conjun-
w^of a,v6^uTuv (iocvKViTc-Jv x.a,ra,trxiva^'ofjt.ivoe, getis ; Neque simiUtndinem eorinn, qiice
a.ya.XfjLtt,itt. ri xxt ti^a. Ix rr,s uk*is t7i$ in coelo sunt, et qntB in terra, et qu/B in
uoytjg yivtrai' utrri xai alrk av uv) d^yx vutri. Tertull. de Idol. Oper. p. 729.
xa.) iiXixei xcti ^'t.^n'ka.. Clem. Alex. (capp. 3, 4.)
Strom, lib. vii. Oper. p. 714. and cap. Tertullian seems to cany the raat-
T). vol. iii. p. 225, ed. Lips. 1831. ter so far, as to prohibit the whole art
^ Ubi artifices statuarum et imagi- of statuary. But this very exaggera-
num et omnis generis simulachrorum tion, untenable as it is, adds to the
diabolus seculo intulit ; rude illud value of his testimony. For he could
negotium humanfe calamitatis, et no- never have proscribed the art as an
men de idolis, consequutum est, et art, if the Christians of his day noto-
profectum. Exinde jam caput facta riously even venerated Images. The
est idololatriae ars omnis, qua; ido- retort from Paganism would, in that
lum quoquomodo edit. — Igitur omnis case, have been too obvious : Physi-
forma vel formula idolum se dici ex- cian, heal thyself.
356 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANlSlf. [iJOOK IL
not ashamed, to address lifeless things, to jjetition the iceak for
health, to a^h life from the dead, to pray for help from the most
despicably needy. And, though some may allege, that these
Images are not gods hut ordy their symbols and representations :
eve7i such persons, fancying that imitations of the Deity can be
7nade by the hands of some mean artizan, are not a whit less
ignorant and slavish and uninstructed. From this sottish stu-
pidity, the very loivest and least informed of us Christians are
exe7npt^.
(4.) You Pagans allege, says Arnobius, that you tvorship the
gods through the medium of Images. What then ? Even if there
were 710 Images in existence, coidd the gods be ignorant that they
were worshipped : coidd the gods fancy, that you paid them no
honours f You tell us, that they receive your prayers and suppli-
cations through the medium of a sort of go-betweens. — JVow what
can be more injuHou^, more contumelious, more hard, than to
know a god, and yet to supplicate another thing ; than to expect
assistance from a deity, and yet to deprecate a senselsss represent-
ation^,
(5.) It is manifest, says the christian speaker in the Dialogue
of Minucius Felix, that your gods were mere men, whom we
know both to have been born and to have died. Yet tvho doubts,
that the vulgar adore and publicly vjorship their consecrated
Images'^ — How comes one of these gods into existence'^ Why,
truly, he is cast in a mould, or he is hewn out of a block, or he is
carved with a tool ! As yet, however, saving your presence, he is
not a god. Lo, he is ballasted, he is hoisted up, he is set fairly
upon his legs ? Still, mind you, he is not a god. At last, he is
' 'Hf/.i7s Ti d-Ta,i^ivTOTa.rotJs (pccfilv rovs vobis uUum sibi existimabunt hono-
(/.Yi ctlcr^vvouivovs iv ru To~i elyJ/u;;^oi; -zr^otr- rem ? Per tramites ergo quosdam,
XaXsrv, xea) Ti^i f^h vyiiia.; to dirhvls et per quaedam fidei commissa, ut
tTiKaXovf/.ivovs, Ti^i h ^'^n? to vik^ov dicitur, vestras sumunt atque acci-
d^itovTUi, Ti^) Ti Imov^iccs to d-ro^ai-rcc.- piunt cultiones : et, antequam hi seii-
Tav iKiTivovTizg. Keiv Tivi; Ti f^h Tot-urd tiant, quibus illud debetur obsequium,
^aca-iv uvoii tovi hoh;, eixxa. fnfiT^/LcdTov simulachris litatis prius, et velut reli-
dXn^tvaiv xuKUMov crv/u,fioXa' ovlh ^rrov quias quasdam aliena ad illos ex auc-
xtxi oSroi, iv (iavxCtrcov x.-^"'' "^^ f/.if/.viy.a.roc, toritate transmittitis. Et quid fieri
rrii Sii'oTviTni (pavTu^o/^svot uvai, dTai^iv- potis est injuriosius, contumeliosius,
Toi iia-i )c!ci dv^^aTo^tx, y.%\ dfjLa.h~i',- ui diirius, quam deum alteram scire, et
rovi \(Tx,drovs tmv iv hf^h d-yrviXxdx.^ui rei alteri supplicare : opem sperare de
va.vr%i Tfis cl-jrctihuff/Bcs nat rrts dfia.dia.i. numine, et nullius sensus ad effigium
Orig. cont. C els. lib. vi. p. 284. deprecari? Arnob. adv. gent. lib. vi.
' Deos, inquitis, simidachra venera- cap. 9, p. 195. and see cap. xvii. edit.
7nur. Quid ergo? Si ha?c non sint, Lips. 1816.
coli se dii nesciunt, nee impertiri a
CHAP. YI.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 357
ornamented, he is consecrated, he is adored I Now, an H please
you, he is a god every inch ofhim^.
(6.) What madness is it, says Lactantius, either to fashion
Images tvhich they themselves may afte^'ward fear, or to fear
Images which they themselves have fashioned ! We do not fear
the Images the7nselves, they tell us ; hut those beings, after whose
similitude they are fashioned, and by whose names they are con-
secrated. — Why, then, do not you raise your eyes to heaven'^ —
Why do you turn to walls and stocks and stones, rather than look
thither where you believe your gods to be"?
2. With the necessary tenor of this language ; which the
Tridentine Fathers might have studied to some advantage, ere
they taught us, that (in christian chiu'ches !)«the honour paid
to Images is referred to the Prototypes which they represent :
witli the necessary tenor of this language, the direct testimony,
that The primitive believers abhorred all Image- Worship however
disguised with the old pagan pretence of relative adoration, per-
fectly and unequivocally agrees.
(1.) Let us first hear Clement of Alexandria.
An Image, truly, is mere dead matter, fashioned by the hand
of the artizan. But, with us Christians, there is no sensible re-
presentation formed out of sensible 7natter. God, the alone true
God, is our Intellectual Lnage^.
(2.) Let us next hear Minucius Felix.
Why, asks the pagan disputant Cecilius, have the Christians
no Altars, no Temples, no knoivn Images ? Why need they affect
such secrecy, unless their worship were something shameful and
richly meriting punishment f Whence, or what, or where, is that
' Manifestum est, homines illos fiugere, qufe ipsi postmodum timeant;
fuisse, quos et natos legimus, et aut timere, quae finxeiint ! No7i ipsa,
mortuos scimus. Qiiis ergo dubitat, inquiunt, timemiis ; sed cos, ad quorum
horum imagines consecratas vulgus imaginem facta, et quorum nominihus
orare et i)ublic6 colere? — Quando, consccrata svnt. — Cur, igitiir, oculos
igitur, liic nascitur? Ecce, funditur, in coelum non tollitis ? — Cur ad pa-
fabricatur, scalpitur ! Nondum deus rietes et ligna et lapides potissimum,
est. Ecce, plumbatur, construitur, quam illo spectatis, ubi eos esse cre-
erigitur ! Nee adhuc deus est. Ecce, ditis ? Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib. ii.
ornatur, consecratur, oratur ! Tunc, § 2. p. 141.
postremo, deus est. Minuc. Eel. ^ "Eim ya^ us a.\n6us to AyaXfitx.
Octav. p. 217, 220, and cap. 23, p. 119. vXri vix^k, n^^virou ^H' /«5i"»^<?«^A*£v»7.
ed. Cantab. 1712. 'H^rv "hi, d-^ tiXm u](T6yiT%i aitr^tjTiv.
Augustine writes to the same effect 'SoyiTev Je to «y«Xfjt.d. Utiv o ©■«?, o
in Psalm xciii. jjart 2. vol. iv. p. 12C1. f/,ovos ovtus es«j. Clem. Alex. Admon.
and p. 1047. Psalm xcvi. Paris. 1679. ad gent. Oper. p. :34. and cap. 4. § 51.
* Qua", igitur, amentia est, aut ea torn, i, p. 45, ed. 18:31.
358 . DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
one solitary God, with whom neither Republics nor Monarchies
are acquainted? — What strange monsters, ichat portents, do
Christians devise ! How prodigious their doctrine, that their
God, forsooth, whom they can neither shew nor see, diligently
ifiquires into all their thoughts and actions ^ !
Do you fancy ; replies the christian disputant Octavius, when
in regular course he comes to answer this objection of his op-
ponent: do you fancy, that, if we have no Temples and Altars,
we hide what we worship f What Image can I fashion for God"^ ?
(3.) Let us next hear Origen.
Celsus remarks, that we have neither Altars nor Images nor
Temples. — We ought 7iot to dedicate Images constf'ucted by the
ingenuity of artizans. The best Images are those formed by
God^s word within us : namely, the imitations of those exemplars
of justice and temperance and manliyiess and ivisdom and piety
and all other virtues, which are so conspicuous in Christ^,
3. When the deadly superstition of Image- Worship, since
ratified as part and parcel of genuine Christianity both by the
second Council of Nice and by the yet later Council of Trent,
began . stealthily to creep into the declining Church : we find,
that it was steadily opposed, and that its true origin was dis-
tinctly perceived, by those who advocated the pristine purity of
Evangelical Worship,
(1.) Epiphanius, in the fourth century, as he himself informs
us, entering into a church at Anablatha for the purpose of
prayer, observed upon a suspended veil the representation of
an Image either of Christ or of some Saint ; which of the two,
the good Father did not precisely recollect. Moved at the
' Cur nullas aras habent, templa ' Putatis autern, nos occultare quod
nulla, nulla nota simulachra,nunquam colimus ; si delubra et aras non habe-
palam loqui, nunquam libera congre- mus? Quod enim simulachrum Deo
gari; nisi illud, quod colunt et inter- fingam ? Minuc. Fel. Octav. p. 313,
primunt, aut puniendum est, aut cap. 32.
pudendum ? Unde autem, vel quis ^ Mit» raZra, ti o KiXa-og (pv^i*'
ille, aut ubi Deus unicus, solitarius, 'H^Ss (iuf^ovt kk) kyaXfiecra, xa.) nan
destitutus ; quern non gens libera, non th^v(r6a,t (pivyuv. — ' AyaXfjt^ara, Tt *«)
regna, non saltern Romana supersti- v^itovto, ©£f ».vK6rifji.cx.Ta., ohx, v-ro /Ja-
tio, noverunt ? — At etiam Christiani, vuva-uv nx^tTuv KccncKivufffAiva., a.xx'
qusenam nionstra, quae portenta, con- vto x'oyov &iov T^oLtovfji^iva, tea,) fio^^ou-
fingunt! Deum ilium suum, quern fjbiva. \v hfuv, at d^iru), (jt.>(ji.nfj^a.ra. rvy-
nec ostendere possunt nee videre, in x.'^vovffoc.t rov -^^utotokou Trdirrii xt/Vs^j,
omnium mores, actus omnium, verba U «J lo-r/ lix.uio(rvvni, ko.) av^^s/aj, x.a.)
denique et occultas cogitationes dili- iro(p'as, »xi ivin(iiias, ko.) tZv xoivuv
genter inquirere ! Minuc. Fel. Octav. d^tTA-v, Ta^echiyf/,aTa. Orig. eont.
p. 91-95, cap. 10. Cels. lib. viii. p. 389.
CHAP. VI.] DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 359
sight of a Human Image in a church of Christ so notoriously
contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, he rent it without
further ceremony, and advised the keepers of the place to use
it as a shroud for some dead pauper.
The conduct of the zealous Bishop, v^ho deemed the polluted
tapestry fit for nothing but a winding-sheet (dead to the dead !)
produced, he tells us, a certain measure of murmuring. In
that early stage of corruption, however, the keepers, though
evidently out of humour at the fate of their embroidered trum-
pery, only ventured to require, that Epiphanius should give
them a new veil in the place of that which he had torn. This
he readily promised them to do : meaning, doubtless, to give
them a decent plain veil instead of the tawdry ornament where-
with they had disguised their oratory ^
(2.) The old author of the Clementine Recognitions, who is
at least useful as a witness whatever may be his other qua-
lities, ascribes the introduction of Image- Worship to the prince
of darkness.
In his time, he remarks, the devil was wont, through some
of his agents, to allege, as a decent and honest plea for Image-
Worship, that Visible Images were adored only to the honour of
the invisible God.
This pretence of the innocence and propriety of Relative
Image- Worship, though it has been subsequently ratified by
the theological wisdom of at least two collective Ecumenical
Councils, he pronounces to be most assuredly false^.
' Prreterea audivi quosdam mur- custodibus ejusdem loci, ut pauperem
murare contra me, quia, quando simul mortuum eo obvolverent et efferrent.
pergebamus ad sanctum locum qui lUique, contra murmurantes, dixe-
vocatur Bethel ut ibi collectam tecum runt : Si scindere voluerat, jusUim eratj
ex more ecclesiastico facerem, et ve- vt aliud darct velum atqiie mutaret.
nissem ad \dllam qure dicitur Ana- Quod cum audissem, me daturum
blatha, vidissemque ibi prseteriens esse pollicitus sum, et illico esse mis-
lucernam ardentem, et interrogassem surum. Epiphan. ad Joan. Episc.
quis locus esset, didicissemque esse Hieros. Epist. in oper. Hieron. vol. ii.
ecclesiam, et intrassem ut orarem : p. 177, ed. Col. Agrip. 1616.
inveni ibi velum pendens in foribiis ^ Per alios item serpens ille pro-
ejusdem ecclesioe, tinctum atque de- ferre verba hujuscemodi solet : Nos
pictum, et habens imaginem quasi ad honorem invisibilis Dei imagines
Christi vel sancti cujusdam ; non visibiles adoramvs : quod certissime
enim satis memini, cujus imago fuerit. falsum est. Clement. Recog. lib. v.
Cum ergo boo vidissem in ecclesia § 23. Cotel. Patr. Apost. vol. i. p.
Christi, contra auctoritatem Scriptu- 552. Vide etiam Ibid. lib. v. § 14.
rarum, hominis pendere imaginem : p. 550,
scidi illud: et magis dedi consilium
360 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [nOOK II.
(3.) Eusebius gives us an account of certain Images of
Christ and the woman who had been healed of a bloody flux,
Avhich, he says, were extant in his time at Paneas or Cesarea-
Philippi.
For this strange unseemly circumstance, and likewise for
representations of Paul and Peter and Christ himself graphic-
ally depicted with colours, he A^ery rationally and very truly
accounts on the principle, that such a practice , in point of
origination, was apparently pagan'^.
(4.) The corruption, though long opposed by every enlight-
ened Christian, had certainly begun to steal into the Church
even before the time of Constantino : for, otherwiscj we cannot
account for the appearance of the thirty-sixth canon of the
provincial Council of Elvira, which strenuously censures and
prohibits it.
It hath seemed good to us, that Pictures ought not to he
admitted into a church ; lest that should he painted upon ivalls,
ivhich is worshipped and adored^.
Such a canon would scarcely have been made, unless
experience had shewn, that the mere ornamental introduction
of Pictures, however innocent in the ahstract, had yet practically
led to some odious abuses, which the Council wisely laboui'ed
to abolish, at their very commencement, by removing the inci-
dental cause.
(5.) Unhappily, the prudent decision of the Council of
Elvira was neglected or disregarded : and, in process of time,
the result was a case of flagrant idolatry. Yet still, though
the case occurred even so late as the close of the sixth century,
there was not wanting a faithful episcopal witness to oppose
and protest against the crying abomination.
' Keti ^etvf^ao-Tav ovTiv tdvs TaXcci i'^ his latin version, carefully restores to
ifiyeov ivi^yirrjivrxs T^oj T^v 'SwTr.^e; Peter liis due precedence. Apostolo-
fif/.c!jv Touj-To, -PTivoiyiKivrft' 0T& kk) tuv Tum PetH ttc PaiiH. If Dr. Trevem
a-rog-'To/i.uv alrov rx; iinovag UccvXcv x.a.) and Mr. Husenbetli had never taken
nir^ov Hcci airov V/i T«y X^tirrov, hoc any greater liberties with the old ec-
XZoo[ji.tt.Tm \v y^ee.(pct7c crMl^o/Jcsvix.s tTTor^Yi- clesiastical writers, I should have had
ffKf/.iv a>s iix.is ruv TyXuiaJv a.T!/^<c(ptiXecx.- Small reasou to complain of their
Tus oTx cruTyiooLi, 'EQNIKH; 5TNH0EIA/, proceedings.
«ros^' loiUToTf rovTov Ti[jt.a.y um^otuv tov ^ Placuit. picturas in ecclesia esse
T^oTov. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. non debore : ne, quod colitur aut
c. lb, adoratur, in paiietibus depingatur.
Valesius, jealous (I suppose) that Concil. Elib. can. xxxvi. Labb. Cone.
Eusebius should have arranged Paul torn, i. p. 974. Paris, 1071,
before Peter, somewhat amusingly, in
CHAP. Yl.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
361
Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, finding it impossible to prevent
his people from worshipping the Images which had been unad-
visedly set up in the churches, forthwith, like a faithful and
vigilant pastor, brake the contemptible puppets in pieces. For
this action, he was censured by Pope Gregory : not, however,
on the ground that the people had not committed idolatry, for
this was most fully allowed by the Roman Prelate ; but on the
totally different ground, that Images might he employed as a
useful m,ean of conveying instruction to the illiterate^ though any
worship of them ought to he strictly prohibited'^.
' The Bishop of Strasbourg, ac-
cording to his wont, has grievously
tami)ered with the narrative of these
transactions.
He exhibits Serenus, as being only
officiously and superfluously anxious
to prevent that idolatry, which he
thought very probably would take
place. Whereas, the truth of the
matter was, that tlie idolatry, as might
easily have been anticipated from the
vile unscriptural practice of setting
up Images in churches, actually had
taken place, and that good Serenus
brake the miserable puppets on that
very account.
I. Dr. Trevern's statement runs, in
his own precise Avords, as follows.
Ecoutez, je vous prie. Monsieur, ce
qu'ecrivoit un grand pape a un
eveque de Marseille, qui, par vn zele
mconsidere, avoit brise les images des
saints, sous le pretexte qu'il ne faut
jms les adorer. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii.
p. 353.
Not a hint is here given, that the
foul act of idolatry had actually been
perpetrated : on the contrary, the
English Layman, by the very turn of
the sentence, is industriously led to
conclude, that the excellent Serenus
was a fiery and inconsiderate zealot,
who strenuously laid about him right
and left, under the idle trumped up
pretext, that the worthy Massilians
tvould certainly be taking to worship
the Images, when all the while (good
honest souls!) such a phantasy had
never once entered into their imagin-
ations.
Such, plainly, is the Bishop's
version of the matter : and, accord-
ingly, lest his english friend should
be in any danger of misunderstand-
ing that version, he supplies him with
the following very extraordinary trans-
lation of Pope Gregory's comment
upon the affair.
Si vous aviez defendu qu'on les
adore, nous n'aurions qu'a vous
louer. Mais nous vous blamons de
les avoir brisees. Dites-moi, mon
frere, avez-vous entendu dire que
quel que pretre ait jamais fait ce que
vous avez fait? Au defaut de toute
autre, une consideration devoit vous
retenir, celle de ne pas vous croire le
seul saint, le seul sage, parmi vos
confreres : autre est d'adorer la pein-
ture ; autre, d'apprendre par elle ce
qu'il faut adorer. Ce que I'Ecri-
ture montre a ceux qui savent lire, la
peinture le montre aux idiots qui ne
savent que regarder. Saint Greg, le
Gr. Epi. a Serenus. an 590. See
Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 353.
II. Let us now hear Pope Gre-
gory's own version of the matter, in
his two successive eiustles to Serenus
on the subject.
1. Gregorius Sereno Episc. Massil.
Quod fraternitati vestrae tam sera
scripta transmittimus, non hoc tor-
pori, sed occupationi, deputate. La-
torem vero prfesentium dilectissimum
filium Cyriacum, monasterii patrem,
vobis in omnibus commendamus, ut
nulla hunc in Massiliensi civitate
mora detineat, sed ad fratrem coepi-
scopum nostrum Syagrium, cum sanc-
titatis vestrse solatio, Deo protegente,
proficiscatur. Prseterea indico du-
dum ad nos pervenisse, quod frater-
nitas vestra, quosdam imaginum ado-
EATOREs ASPiciENs, easdem in ec-
clesiis imagines confregit atque pro-
jecit. Et quidem zelum vos, ne quid
manuf actum adorari posset, habuisze
362
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
How much more wisely Serenus judged than Gregory, has
been lamentably shewn by the subsequent edicts of the two
laudavimns ; sed frangere easdem
imagines non debuisse, indicamus.
Idcirco enim pictura in ecclesiis ad-
hibetur, ut hi, qui literas nescivmt,
saltern in parietibus \idendo, legant
quffi legere in codicibus non valent.
Tua ergo frateniitas, et illas servare,
et ah earum adoratu populiim pro-
hibere, debuit : quatenus et literarum
nescii haberent unde scientiam his-
toriae colligerent, et populus in pic-
turcB adoratione minime peccaret. Gre-
gor. Epist. lib. ix. epist. 105.
2. Gregorius Serene Episc. INIassil.
Convocandi sunt dispersi Ecclesiai
filii, eisque Scripiurce Sacr<E est testi-
moniis ostendendum, quia omne manu-
factum adorari non licet : quoniam
scriptum est : Dominum Deum tvum
adorabis, et illi soli sei-vies. Ac deinde
subjungendum, quia picturas ima-
ginum, quae ad sedificationem imperiti
populi fuerant facta?, ut, nescientes
literas, ipsam historiam intendentes,
quid actum sit discerent. Quia
TEANSISSE IN ADORATIONEM VIDERAS,
IDCIRCO C0MM0TUSES,UTEAS IMAGINES
FRANGi PR.ECiPEKES. Atque eisdem
dicendum : si ad banc instructionem,
ad quam imagines antiquitus factte
sufit, habere vultis in ecclesia, eas
modis omnibus et fieri et haberi per-
mitto. Atque indica, quod non tibi
ipsa visio historise, qua? pictura teste
pendebatur, displicuerit : sed ilia
ADORATIO, QU^ PICTURIS FUERAT IN-
COMPETENTER EXHIBITA. Atque, in
his verbis eorum mentes demulcens,
eos ad concordiam tuam revoca. Et,
siquis imagines facere voluerit, mi-
nime prohibe : adorari vera imagines
omnibus modis vela. Sed hoc sollicit6
fraternitas tua admoneat, ut exAdsione
rei gestae ardorem compunctionis per-
cipiant, et in adoratione solius omni-
potentis sanctae Trinitatis humiliter
prostemantur. Gregor. Epist. lib.
xi. epist. 13. aliter 9.
III. Dr. Trevern's reply to my
charge against him, of wilfully sup-
pressing and perverting the import-
ant FACT, that the Massilians had ac-
tually been guilty of worshipping their
images, and that this foul deed of
REALLT PERPETRATED idolatry tvas the
moving cause which led Serenus to de-
molish the mischievous trumpery, is cer-
tainly one of the most remai'kable
performances I ever chanced to en-
countei*.
1. First, he describes himself as
being compelled to reestablish the
FACT : which fact, though I had
faithfully given Gregory's two succes-
sive epistles in his own precise origi-
nal words, he, with astonishing assur-
ance, alleges to have been mutilated
by me.
2. Next, he conveniently professes
himself to y^e/ nothing save disgust and
pity for my conduct : though the whole
of my conduct was simply an exposure
of his conduct, by the very simple pro-
cess of a fair and honest adduction of
the original documents on which the
entire question depended.
3. And, lastly, by a more accurate
citation from Pope Gregory than that
which he had previously given, he at
length absolutely confesses the occur-
rence of the precise fact, which I had
before very truly charged him with
wilfully suppressing and perverting:
for he now admits Gregory to have
written to Serenus ; seeing some
PERSONS adore THE IMAGES in the
Church, you liave broken them ! Answ.
to Diffic. of Roman, p. 29-31.
Thus does this singulai* controvert-
ist finally admit, even while reviling
myself: that Serenus brake the Images,
not under the pretext that the Massi-
lians ought not to adore them (as he
originally thought fit to exhibit the
matter), but because ihej actually had
adored them ; a natural result of the
setting up of pretended holy and even
miraculous Images, by no means,
it is to be feared, peculiar to the
Massilians of the sixth centuiy.
IV. The prudent inquirer will doubt-
less have observed, that Pope Gregory,
however he might err in judgment,
yet plainly knew nothing of thatBela-
tive Worship of Images afterward so
zealously inculcated by the Deutero-
Nicene and Tridentine Councils.
He professedly considers Images
and Pictures as a sort of books to the
unlearned, ichich might convey to their
minds the same ideas that letters con-
veyed to the belter instructed.
CHAP. VI.]
DIFFICULTIES OF KOMAJilSM.
363
Councils of Nice and Trent. The case is adduced simply to
shew, that, even so late as the close of the sixth century, the
Church still possessed such a witness as Serenus.
III. From Image- Worship, we may next proceed to Relic-
Worship.
1. Against even the possibility of such a miserable supersti-
tion, as that of preserving in reliquaries dead men^s hones for the
purpose of relatively worshipping them, we have a valuable
testimony borne by the Church of Smyrna immediately after
the martyrdom of Poly carp in the year 147' : though it is to
be feared, that the originally innocent and natural practice of
1. This use of such implements,
which subsequent experience has
proved to be so horribly mischievous,
is widely different from offtring to
t/iem a Relative Worship terminating
in their Prototypes.
(1.) According to Gregory: Pic-
tures are introduced into churcfies, in
order that they, who are ignorant of
letters, by seeing such Pictures upon the
walls, may there read what tliey cannot
read in books.
(2.) But, according to the Triden-
tiue Fatliers : The Images of Christ
and the Virgin and the Saints are to be
had and retained more especially in
churches, and due honour and venera-
tion are to be paid to them ; because
the honour, which they thus receive, is
referred to the Prototypes which they
represent : so that, through the Images,
which we kiss, and before which we un-
cover our heads and prostrate ourselves,
we adore Christ and venerate the Saints
whose similitude they bear. Concil.
Trident, sess. xxv. p. 507, 508.
2. Will Dr. Trevern pretend to tell
even his readers of the generally do-
cile romish communion, that the
views of Pope Gregorj' in the sixth
century, and of the Tridentine Fa-
thers in the sixteenth century, re-
specting the use of Images or Pictures
in churches, are identical ?
Yet these Tridentine Fathers have
actually the impudence to assert, that,
what they call the Legitimate Use of
Images, or, in other words, the Use of
Images as defined by themselves, was
received in the primeval times of the
Christian Religion : prima-vis Christ-
iancB Religionis temporibus receptum !
Ibid. p. 507.
This, forsooth, to our very faces,
with Pope Gregory's two epistles
under our very eyes.
V. At the end of the present note,
it may be useful to subjoin the stre-
nuous protestation of the West, both
Francic and Anglo-Saxon, against the
second Nicene Council, on the express
ground, that it enjoined the Adora-
tion of Images : a practice, which the
Church of God altogether execrates.
Anno 792. Carolus, rex Francorum,
misit synodalem librum ad Britan-
niam, sibi a Constantinopoli directum ;
in quo libro (heu, proh dolor !), multa
inconvenientia et verse fidei contraria
reperiebantur : maxima, quod pene
omnium orientalium doctorum, non
minus quam trecentorum, vel eo am-
plius episcoporum, unanimi asser-
tione confirmatum fuerit. Imagines
adorari debere : quod omnino Ecclesia
Dei execratur. Contra quod scripsit
Albinus epistolam, ex authoritate Di-
vinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter af-
firmatum ; illamque cum eodem libro,
ex persona episcoporum ac principum
nostrorum, regi Francorum attulit.
Roger. Hoveden. Annal. par. prior,
fol. 232.
' I follow Bishop Pearson in as-
signing the year 147, as the date of
Polycarp's martyrdom. It strikes me,
as being much more probable than
any one of the several years 166 or
167 or 169 or 175, which have been
variously selected Isy Tillemont and
Basnage and Usher and Petit and
other writers.
364 DIFFICULTIES OF KOilANISM. [bOOK II.
their assembling annually at the place where they had huiied
his few remains may have tended to introduce the culpable
practice of a later period. I may add, that this testimony is
yet additionally valuable, not only on account of its venerable
antiquity, but likewise on account of its being at the same time
a primitive testimony against the corrupt humour of invocating
departed Saints and Martyrs.
When the envious and the ivicked one, the adversary of the race
of the just, saiv the gi^eatness ofPolyca.rp's martyrdom, he laboured
industriously, that his remains 'might not he taken away by us. —
Hence he suggested to Nicetas, the father of Herod and the bro-
ther of Alee, to intercede with the governor, that his body should
not be delivered for sepulture: lest, said he, leaving him that was
crucified, they should begin to worship this person. And, these
things they said at the suggestion and instigation of the Jews, who
also watched us when we were about to take him fi^om the fire :
because they were ignorant, that neither can we ever forsake Christ
ivho suffered for the salvation of the saved throughout the whole
world, nor that we can ever worship any other. For him, being
the Son of God, we adore : but the Martyrs, as disciples and
imitators of the Lord, ive worthily love on account of their special
aff'ection to their own king and master. Now the centurion, he-
holding the contention excited by the Jews, threw him into the
midst of the fire and burned him. And thus ice, afterward
gathering up his bones more honourable than precious stones and
more tned than gold, deposited them where it naturally followed.
that we should deposit them.. To us assembling in this place so
far as lies in our power, with triumph and with joy, the Lord
ivill grant to celebrate the birth-day of his martyi^dom'^ .
2. The Smyrneans, instead of superstitiously preserving, only
gave decent sepulture to, the scorched bones of Polycarp : but,
after the Church had been taken under the protecticm of the
State, and when the flame of Pagan persecution had been
quenched, an excessive veneration for the Bodies and Relics
and Tombs of the Martyrs rapidly sprang up to maturity.
Various instances of this occur in the writings of Ambrose,
who flourished during the latter part of the fom-th century :
' Ep. Eccl. Smyr. § 17, 18. For original Greek, see above, book i.
cbap. 6. § 1,2. (1.)
CHAP. VI.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAMS-M.
365
and, among them, we find a sufficiently curious case of per-
verted devotion, in the practice of deep and prolonged potations
at the Sepulchres of the Saints for the purpose of more effectu-
ally procuring their favourable attention^
Matters became even still vs^orse at a period very little later :
for Augustine notices the conduct of certain monastic hypo-
crites, wdio travelled about the country, driving, like pedlars,
a gainful traffic by the sale of fictitious Relics^.
Under such circumstances, Vigilantius, toward the end of
the fourth century, disgusted, as well he might be, with this
wretched superstition, roundly denominated its advocates idola-
trous cinder-worshippers, and charged them with idly venerating
the Bones of Dead Men according to the exact ceremonial of
Paganism^.
This plain language not a little offended Jerome, who was
deeply tainted with the fashionable absurdity. The zealous
Father, however, though he angrily vindicated the Relic-
Mongers, disclaimed, on their behalf, the allegation of idolatry :
' pise devotionis obsequium !
Bibamus pro salute exercituum, pro
coraitum virtute, pro filiorum sanitate.
Et hsec vota ad Deum pervenire judi-
cant: sicut illi, qui calices ad sepul-
chra martyrum deferunt, atque illic
in vesperam bibunt, et aliter se exan-
diri posse non credunt. Ainbros. de
Hel. et jejun. c. xvii. Oper. col. 1133.
Vide etiam, Ambros. epist. Ixxxv.
serm. xci. xciii. Oper. col. 685, ()86,
793, 794-, 795-798.
^ August, de Oper. Monacli. c. xxviii.
§ 30. and torn. vi. col. 498. ed. Bened.
1689. This disgusting trade was ac-
tually carried to such an extent, that
the cutting up of dead martyrs and
the jobbing of them piecemeal was
prohibited by an express statute of
Honorius and Theodosius. Nemo
martyres distrahat: nemo mercetur.
Datum Cal. Mar. Edict, apud Cod.
Justin, lib. i. tit. 2. Some such of-
fensive absurdity seems to be still
patronised in the Pope's Church.
What they call an Altar cannot be
legitimately consecrated, unless some
reliquary scrap of a dead saint is
placed under it.
•* Ais, Vigilantium, qui koct uvr'np^oc-
a-iv, hoc vocatur nomine, nam Dorml-
tnntius rectius diceretur, os foetidum
rursum aperire, et putorem spur-
cissimum contra Sanctorum Mar-
tyrum proferre Reliquias, et nos, qui
eas suscipimus, appellare cinerarios
et idolfitras, qui mortuorum homi-
num ossa veneremur. Hieron. adv.
Vigilant, epist. liii. Oper. vol. ii. p.
157.
Exortus est subito Vigilantius, sen
potius Dormitantius, qui immundo
spiritu pugnet contra Christi Spiri-
tum, et Martyrum neget Sepulchra
veneranda, damnandas dicat esse
vigilias. —
Sedentem (scil. Vigilantium) cer-
nunt in ecclesia, et, inter verba blas-
phemite, dicentem :
Quid necessc est, te, tanto honore, tiou
solum honorare, scd etiam adorare, illud
nescio quid, quod in niodico vasciilo
iransfvrey^do colis l —
Et in consequentibus :
Projie ritum Gentilium videmus, sub
pr(pfextii reliffionis, introductum in eccle-
sias, sole adhucfulgente moles cereontm
accendi, et uhicunque pulvisculum nescio
quod, ill modico vasculo pretioso lintea-
mine circumdalum, osculantes adorare.
Hieron. adv. Vigilant, c. ii. Oper. vol.
ii. p. 159.
366 DIFFICULTIKS OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
for he declared, that they no more worshipped and adored
their favourite Rehcs, than they did the Sun or the Moon, the
Cherubim or the Seraphim ^
3. The soreness of Jerome is as evident as the manly and
honest indignation of Vigilantius": but, though he might truly
enough for himself hidwidually disclaim the worship of Relics,
vexed and annoyed at the irritating charge as he plainly was ;
he undertook, if we may credit his contemporary Augustine,
much more than he could perform, when he volunteered the
awkward task of a general collective vindication.
I have known, says Augustine, that many are adorers of
Sepulchres and of Pictures: — hut the Church herself condemns them,
and studies to correct them, as had children^.
Here, with Jerome's permission, and in full corroboration of
the excellent Vigilantius whom his opponent with pettish face-
tiousness reviles as belying his name by being nothing better
than a sleepy-headed dunce : here we have, at once, a fair con-
fession, and a just reprobation, of the vile practice of Relic-
Worship*.
lY. Nothing remains, save to produce evidence for the non-
existence of Cross - Worship among the primitive Christians.
* Nos autem, non dico Martyrum of Felix, were held in the very church
Eeliquias, sed ne Soleni quidem et itself. Revellings and drunkenness
Lunam, non Angelos, non Archan- followed. The roof reechoed with the
gelos, non Cherubim, non Seraphim, voices of blasphemy and idolatry. See
et omne nomen quod nominatur et in Gilly's Vigilant, p. 213, 214.
praesenti sapculo et in futuro, colimus ^ Novi multos esse sepulchrorum
et adoremus. Hieron. adv. Vigilant, et picturarum adoratores ; — quos et
epist. liii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 157. ipsa Ecclesia condemnat, et tanquam
^ The reader would do well to pro- malos filios corrigere studet. August,
cure and peruse Dr. Gilly's Work, de morib. Eccles. Cathol. lib. i. c. 34.
entitled Vigilantius and his Times. He and torn. i. col. 713. ed Ben. 1689.
will tind there a most curious and * The contempt, to which such
interesting account of the lamentable wretched superstitions exposed Christ-
progress of superstition in the mind ianity among the still remaining Pa-
and practice of a really good, though gans of the Empire, is strongly ex-
sadly mistaken, man, Paulinus of pressed by Eunapius, on occasion of
Nola, the friend of Vigilantius. When the introduction of Monks and Ptelic-
Christians depart from the simplicity ^Vorship into Alexandria, when, in
of the Gospel, it is fearful to see what the year 389, the Canobic Temples
results follow from unauthorised will- were destroyed. Eunap. in Vit. JEdes.
worship. The favoinite Saint of Pau- He could see the absurdity of wor-
linus was an individual called Felix. shipping Dead Men's Bones and
In his honour a church was built and Heads : but he is blind to the folly of
a festival was celebrated. Sorely to his own Image -Worship. With an
the mortification of Paulinus, the con- exact inversion, precisely the same is
sequence was any thing rather than the inconsistency of the Piomanists,
godliness. Banquettings to the glory as exhibited by the Council of Trent.
CHAP. VI.] DIFFICULTIES OF IlOilANISM. 367
Against tlie Church of the fourth century, Julian alleged the
sottish Worship of the Cross: and, by the tacit admission of
his subsequent antagonist Cyril of Alexandria, such Worship
certainly prevailed at least in the fifth century ^
1. There was, I fear, but too much ground for the general
allegation of the Emperor : yet, on the part of Ambrose while
relating the conduct of Helena as to the discovery of the True
Cross at Jerusalem, we have a noble protestation, in the name
of the devout Empress, against any such degrading superstition.
Helena, says he, found the yet extant inscription, which distin-
guished' the Cross of Christ from the crosses of the two thieves. She
adored the King, not the wood ; for this latter practice is a pagan
error and the vanity of the impious : hut she adored him, who hung
upon the wood, and ivhose name was ivritten in the inscription^.
From the oblique liint of Ambrose, it is too plain, that the
paganising error (as he justly styles it) of Worshipping the
very Cross itself, with what the Deutero-Nicene and Tridentine
Doctors call a relative adoration, had then infected many mem-
bers of the Church Catholic : but it is no less plain, that that
great and good man utterly reprobated such a practice as no
better than the brainless impiety of rank Heathenism.
2. At a much earlier period, probably from their frequent
use of the symbol, the same allegation, as that of Julian, had
been preferred against the Christians.
About the year 220, the pagan speaker Cecilius, in the
Dialogue of Minucius Felix, objects, to the christian speaker
Octavius, the Adoration of Christ and his Cross.
Octavius, in reply, acknowledges and vindicates the Adora-
tion of Christ : but, as for the other part of the charge. We
neither, says he, worship Crosses, nor wish for them^.
' Julian, apud Cyril. Alex. cont. qui putatis Deum credi, aut meruisse
Julian, lib. \i. p. 194. noxium, aut potuisse terreniim. —
' Habeat Helena qure legat, unde Cruces nee colimus, nee optaraus.
crucem Domini recognoscat. Invenit Minuc. Fel. Octav. cap. 29. p. 280, 284.
ergo titulum; regem adoravit: non Nearly allied to these wretched su-
lignum utique, quia hie gentilis est perstitions is the popish figment of
error et vanitas impiorum ; sed adora- the Scapular.
vit ilium, qui pependit in ligno, scrip- Mr. Collette, the author of a very
tus in titulo. Ambros. de obit. Theo- valuable Work Romanism in England
dos. Iraperat. Oper. col. 498. exposed, having observed in the Tablet
3 Nam quod religioni nostraj homi- an announcement of so-called Devo-
nem noxium et crucem ejus adscri- tional Articles on sale, among which
bitis, longe de vicinia veritatis eiTatis ; Scapulars of all kinds conspicuously
368
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
[book II.
figured, inquired of a Popish Priest
connected with this mercantile specu-
lation, whether the miracle-working
rags were patronised by Dr. Wiseman
and the Romish Clergy. The answer
was in the atfirmative.
The Scapular is the badge of the
Redemptorists, a new Order of Sacer-
dotal Impostors founded by that re-
cently dubbed saint Alphonsus Li-
guori, ALL whose infamous Writings
have been solemnly approved by the
Authorities of the Church of Rome.
At the easy cost of four pence, a
Papist may become tlie fortunate
possessor of two square oblong bits of
cloth or serge, one brown and the
other red, ycleped a Scapular : which,
when tied together by a string, are to
be hung round the neck. A printed
book, containing the number of In-
dulgences attached by the Pope to the
wearing of this rag, may be bought
along with it. The number of these
Plenary Indulgences, which attend
upon the merit of buying and wear-
ing the Scapular, may bid defiance to
the powers of arithmetical calcu-
lation.
Hence Mr. Collette well observes :
It appears to me very much like taking
out a perpetual licence to commit sin ;
J'or,'by virtue of the badge of this Order,
the wearer is entitled periodically to a
Plenary Indulgence, and may then start
afresh, with a guarantee from the Asso-
ciation, that the wearer, after death,
shall not suffer the eternal flames of
hell.
He adds, as the declaration of the
Romish Church : If the Scapular is
worn out or lost, you may make another
for yourself; and persons, who, through
negligence or even through impiety,
have omitted to wear it or have thrown
it aside, may resume it with the same
advantages and jjtivileges. Romanism
in England, p. 'ZO, 21. 2d edit. Hall,
Virtue, and Co. 25 Pater Noster Row.
1 remember, in my younger days,
a little Work entitled Beading made
easy. Certainly, the purchase and
use of the Scapular of the Redempto-
rists may well rejoice in the appella-
tion of Salvation made easy. Who
would perish, when four pence, eng-
lish money, will purchase admission
into the Kingdom of Heaven ?
My reason for exclusively availing
myself of what Mr. Collette says re-
specting the Scapular, is simply be-
cause that portion of his Work bore
immediately upon the subject of the
present chapter. But his whole Work
is Avell worth the serious attention of
the Protestant inquirer, and certainly
does him great credit. Nothing can
give a right-minded Cleric more plea-
sure than to see a well-informed
Laic step forth in defence of our com-
mon Faith. Would God, all the
Lord's people were Prophets!
CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSION.
FiiOM the whole of the preceding inquiry, the conclusion is so
obvious, that it can scarcely fail of having been anticipated.
I. To demand from us the admission, that any particular
Doctrine or any general System of Doctrine forms a consti-
tuent part of Divine Revelation, while yet the alleged fact of
such constituency is altogether unsupported by competent evi-
dence, is certainly to propound a most unreasonable requi-
sition.
Let the alleged fact be established; and then, no doubt,
mere human reason must be put to silence, and the implicit
submissiveness of Faith must be brought into immediate opera-
tion : for, to reject a Doctrine, when it has been proved to be
a portion of Divine Revelation, merely because it may be
offensive to tlie vain pride of human reason, is no less absurd
and inconsistent ; than to admit a Doctrine when we have no
proof that it has been revealed from Heaven, merely because
some one may idly tell us that the highest act of faith is to believe
without evidence^. But, assuredly, the alleged fact itself must,
' Something like this has been ad- ing from the opinion, which they so
vocated by our modem Tractarians. violently propound respecting Infant-
As might have been anticipated, Baptism, while they presumptuously
Tractarianism has turned out to be apply the name of Heretics to all who
only a half-way house to Rome. Its differ from them. By the Sacramental
very principles shew, that, if fairly System, they mean, I suppose, the
followed out, they must inevitably Popish Dogma of the Opus Operatum ;
conduct a man to Popery. Take, for or the Fancy that the Sacraments me-
instance, what the Tractarians call chanically and invariably carry with
the Sacramental System. As I have them the inward Grace of which tliey
never seen an explicit definition of arc the outward Signs. I need scarcely
the term, I can only guess at its mean- say, how directly this stands opposed
B B
370 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
in the jflrsi instance, be established; or, in other words, this or
that particular Doctrine must be adequately shewn really to
constitute a part of God's Revelation : for, without such anterior
establishment, or without such preparatory demonstration, our
admission of the Doctrine in question will be nothing more
respectable than a gross act of blind credulity.
II. The truth is : Reason and Faith have each their own
proper province ; and neither can intrude upon the province
of the other, without detriment to the cause of sound religion.
1. It is the office of Reason to examine, on the ordinary
principles of evidence : first, whether a Revelation, which pur-
ports to come from God, really does come from him; and,
secondly, in case the divine origination of the code in question
shall have been satisfactorily established, what special Doctrines
that Revelation propounds for our acceptance ^
2. It is the office of Faith, in strict correspondence with the
preparatory labours of Reason : first, to receive, with implicit
assurance, that which has been reasonably proved to be a
Divine Revelation; and, secondly, to embrace, with unhesi-
tating confidence, every Doctrine, which by sufficient testimony
shall have been shewn to constitute a part of that Divine
Revelation.
III. Now, to a test of this precise description, the Pecu-
liarities of Romanism have been subjected.
With respect to the divine origination of Christianity itself,
ALL, who bear the name of Christians, are of course agreed.
Hence the question, between the Roman-Catholic and the
Reformed-Catholic, solely respects the Doctrines and appended
Practices, alleged by the former to be taught by Christianity.
On tliis point, the Reformed-Catholic professes himself
ready to believe any Doctrine, which, by adequate and mtelli-
gible testimony, shall be shewn to constitute a part of the
Christian Revelation : and, since the Roman-Catholic requires
him to admit various Doctrines u?ider that precise aspect, he
conceives himself fully warranted, even by the express decision
to the sober and deliberate judgment Tliis is the Sacramental System of the
of the Church of England. In her English Church : and to this System
25th Article, she distinctly and scrip- we Clerics have all subscribed,
turally rules, that, in such only as ' See Acts, xvii. 11. and 1 Thessal.
worthily receive the Sacraments, they v. 21.
hare a wholesome effect or operation.
CIIAr. VII.] DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 371
of that very Revelation itself, to demand from the Roman-
Catholic the establishment of the alleged fact by clear and
competent evidenced
The equity of such a demand is tacitly admitted by the
Roman-Catholic himself: for, otherwise, the Works of Dr.
Trevern and Mr. Berington could scarcely have been brought
into existence. Those Works are a virtual answer to the
demand in question : and, so far as I can judge, they have the
merit of affording to it the only answer of which the case is
capable.
Yet, how lamentably deficient that answer is, we have now
seen at large both negatively and positively.
1. Negatively, there is A total defect of evidence : either
that the Peculiarities of Romanism are set forth in Holy
Scripture ; or that, during the three first centuries (within the
exclusive limits of which, even upon the largest allowance, all
really legitimate Historical Testimony must obviously be
sought), they were received, by the Primitive Church Catholic,
as undoubted constituent parts of the Christian Revelation.
2. Positively, there is dieect and decisive evidence, extend-
ing, not only through the three first centuries, but down even
to a much later period : that such Peculiarities, under the
aspect of Doctrines expressly taught by Divine Revelation, either
were utterly unknown to the Early Church ; or that, when
known in consequence of their being started by some pre-
sumptuous iimovator, they were forthwith disowned and con-
demned and rejected.
lY. The Peculiarities of the Roman Faith being thus cir-
cumstanced, it may well be wondered, by what extraordinary
process of the human mind they can ever have become the
subject of devout and implicit belief.
I can only account for the fact in some such manner as the
following.
Certain Councils, reputed Ecumenical, and thence deemed
infallible, have pronounced the Peculiarities in question to be
indisputable verities. Therefore, since the judgment of the
Catholic Church is more weighty than the judgment of any
' Be ready always to give an an- a reason of the hope that is in you.
swer to EVERY man, that asketh you 1 Pet, iii. lij.
372 DIFFICULTIES OF EOIHANISM. [bOOK U.
private individual ; as indisputable verities, those Peculiarities
must be received^.
This, duly inculcated by the whole body of the Priesthood,
is, I take it, the real ground of general acquiescent latin be-
lief: but, in truth, even on the acknowledged principles of
the Romanists themselves, nothing, when the matter is fairly
examined, can well be more lamentably unsatisfactory.
The Councils, which propound the Peculiarities before us,
propound them, not nakedly and abstractly ^ but on the professed
basis both of their original apostolic autho7'ity and of their universal
reception by the Church frcrm the very beginning.
Thus, for instance, the Council of Trent, in propounding the
Doctrine of Transubstantlation and in ordaining that the Con-
secrated Elements should receive the same adoration as that
which is paid to the Supreme Deity, lays down these matters,
not simply on the ground of its own Absolute Infallibility, but
complexly on the ground that such Doctrine and such Practice
ALWAYS prevailed in God^s Church Catholic",
Here the Tridentine Fathers refer us to an alleged fact:
and, upon this alleged fact, they even professedly build their
DECISION. Therefore, if the fact be incapable of establishment :
the DECISION, avowedly depending as it does upon the fact,
must, by the very terms of the tridentine statement, inevitably
fall along ivith the fact.
Now the alleged fact is precisely that : which, on the one
hand, is established by no real Historical Evidence ; and
which, on the other hand, is absolutely contradicted by all
Historical Evidence 3.
Consequently, when a person builds his faith upon the
asserted Infallibility of the decisions of Ecmnenical Councils,
he builds it, in reality, upon an alleged fact relative to the
' Mais peut-etre I'Eglise Catho- speaks but once : and her decree is
licpie avoit-elle dans les derniers irrevocable. The solemn deterraina-
tenips outrepasse les homes dans sa tions of General Councils have re-
pratique et dans son enseignement ? raained unalterable and will ever be
Bien moins encore. Ses principes, so. Walmesley's Gen. Hist, of the
une fois definis, sont irrevocables : Church, chap. ix. p. 224.
elle-meme y est inimuablement en- ^ Semper hsec fides in Ecclesia Dei
chainee par des liens qu'il lui est fuit. Concil. Trident, sess. xiii. c. 3.
dorenavant impossible debriser. Tre- p. 124. Ideo persuasum semper in
vern's Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 324. Ecclesia Dei fuit. Ibid, c, 4. p. 125.
When a Dogmatical Point is to ^ See above, book i. chap. 4. book ii.
be determined, the Catholic Church chap. 4.
CHAP. VII.]
DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM.
373
earliest Church in and from the very time of ChHst and his
Apostles : which alleged fact, is not only incapable of esta-
blishment, but actually stands contradicted by positive testi-
mony. ^
Yet, imless I wholly mistake, the very hardiest of the
Papalists pretend not to assert the Infallibility of Ecumenical
Councils in regard to facts: they carefidly limit their Infal-
libihty to points of doctrine ^
^ Mr. Berington speaks as follows.
It is no article of Catholic Fuilh,
that the Church cannot err, either in
matters of fact or Discipline, or in
matters of speculation or civil policy
depending on mere hnman judgment or
testimony. These are no revelations
deposited in the Church; in regard of
ivhich ALONE, she has the promised
assistance of the Holy Spirit. Bering-
ton's Faith of Cath. p. 154, 155.
I. The sagacious Dr. Poynder,
when Mr. Berington's Work was sub-
mitted to his inspection, intimated
himself to think the assertion too general.
Doubtless, it is far too general, as
the wise Vicar Apostolic distinctly
perceived, for the interests of the
ROMAN CHURCH : but it is not a whit
too general for the easily separable
interests of Truth.
Mr. Berington, however, not hap-
pening to see quite so far into a mill-
stone as his lynx-e^'ed superior, and
evidently not perceiving the drift of
his cautiously worded objection, man-
fully stood up for h'ls own opinion.
You think the assertion too general,
says he to Dr. Poynder. As far as
FACTS, meaning dogmatical facts, are
meant : what I have said on that point
must satisfy, I conceive, every difficulty.
See Faith of Cathol. Lett, to Dr.
Poynder, p. xlvi.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the
broad hint of the Vicar Apostolic,
that he should quietly hold his tongue
and refrain from rashly measuring
the Extent of the Inerrancy of the
Church : Mr. Berington steadily per-
sisted in his original determination
of explicitly teaching the whole world,
that It is no article of Catholic Faith,
that the Church cannot err in matters
OF fact.
II. Wliat precise idea he wishes us
to annex to his explanatory phrase,
dogmatical facts, I will not under-
take to determine : but, if it have any
intelligible meaning, it must, I should
suppose, be designed to express facts
positively recorded by history or
facts incontrovertibly attested
by competent evidence.
1. This, however, is a point of no
great consequence.
The real question is : Whether the
Catholic Church (as the latin gentle-
men are pleased to express them-
selves) be infallible, in the determina-
tion of AN ALLEGED HISTORICAL FACT,
as well as in the determination of a
POINT OF DOCTRINE.
2. Such is the question : and, witli
respect to application, it comes into
play in manner following.
Was the Ecumenical Council of
Trent infalhble : when it decided, as
AN HISTORICAI. FACT, that The Doctrine
of Transubstantiation was always lield
in the Catholic Church; as well as
when it decided, as a point of doc-
trine, that The Belief in Transubstan-
tiation is the only true belief?
3. I understand Mr. Berington to
answer this important question in
the negative : while Dr. Poynder,
clearly perceiving the ineritable con-
sequences of such a reply, wished,
with abundant prudence, to make his
less cautious brother hold his tongue.
4. The question, however, unless
he writes quite unintelligibly, has
been fairly answered by Mr. Bering-
ton : It is no Article of Catholic Faith,
that the Church cannot err IN matters
OF FACT. And the rational^ of the
answer is very sensibly and very
handsomely given : Historical mat-
ters OF fact are no revelations depo-
sited in the Church ; in regard of which
revelations alone she has the promised
assistance of the Holy Spirit.
III. If Mr. Berington should, in
374 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. [bOOK II.
Therefore, plainly, when an Ecumenical Council, like that
of Trent, professedly rests the decision of a doctrine upon an
alleged fact; in the statement of which alleged fact, the
Council confessedly may he mistaken, and by Historical Testi-
mony both negative and positive is actually evinced to have
heen mistaken: such Council's decision of a doctrine, when
thus made to repose upon a falsely alleged fact, can, by no
intelligible possibility, vindicate to itself the least degree of con-
clusive authority.
With suicidal hand, the Council of Trent, like various other
similarly circumstanced Comicils, has, in truth, been its own
destroyer. It refers us to a fact, for its decision of a doctrine.
By its own free reference, therefore, it even invites us to exa-
mine and discuss the Historical Testimony, on which the
alleged fact might anteriorly be thought to be supported.
The invitation has been accepted : and the alleged fact turns
out to be an utter falsehood, respecting which the Tridentine
Fathers, on this point confessedly fallible, have laboured under
a most grievous and most portentous error. How, then, can
the doctrine be true; when its professed basis, the alleged
FACT, rests itself upon no foundation ?
y. I fearlessly submit, that, by no possibility, can the
anywise, wish to modify or retract; declare, notwithstanding what he has
in other words, if he should wish to himself written and published, that
withdraw from the above plain state- the Chm-ch is infallible in matters of
ment of his answer according as I fact : then he must have the good-
understand it : he will immediately ness to account for the very curious
bring himself into the following un- circumstance, that the practically in-
satisfactory dilemna. fallible second Council of Nice should
1. Should he fairly acknowledge have asserted the fact, that No one
the Church to be not infallible in of the Fatliers before the year 787 had
MATTERS OF FACT ; then, since all the ever styled the consecrated bread an
Tridentine Decisions, and more espe- image of Christ's body; when yet, both
cially the Tridentine Decision in re- Eusebius and Theodoret among the
gard to the Doctrine of Transubstan- Greeks, and Ambrose and Gelasius
tiation, professedly rest upon an among the Latins, all of whom Jiou-
ALLEGED MATTER OF FACT, namely, risliecl anterior to the year 787, had,
the SEMPER ha;c Jides in Ecclesia Dei even verbally, employed this identical
fnit ; it is plain, that the Tridentine expression image in that identical ap-
Fathers, inasmuch as they make their plication. See Concil. Nic. ii. act. vi.
DOCTRINAL DECISIONS to rest upou AN Labb. Concil. voL vii. p. 44.8, 449.
alleged fact, respecting which fact Euseb. Demons. Evan. lib. viii. c. 2,
they confessedly may have been mis- p. 236. Theodoret. Dial. ii. Oper.
taken, may also have thence been vol. iv, p. 85. Ambros. Offic. lil). i.
mistaken in their superstructed DOC- c. 48. Oper. col. 33. Gelas. de duab.
trinal decisions. Christ, natur. in Biblioth. Patr. vol.
2. Should he, on the other hand, iv. j). 422.
CHAP, til] difficulties of bomanism. 375
warmest adherent of the Papacy establish the doctrine, save
througli the medium of historically substantiating the fact.
Hence, since as yet at least the fact has not been substantiated,
tlie general conclusion, from the whole preceding discussion,
may, for the present, be briefly stated in manner following.
In ADIkOTTING THE PECULIABITIES OF THE LATIN CHURCH AS
ARTICLES OF THE CHMSTIAN REVELATION, THE EOMANIST BELIEVES,
NOT ONLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE, BUT EVEN AGAINST EVIDENCE.
APPENDIX,
I.
LITURGIES.
One of Dr. Trevern's most favourite arguments, by which he would
demonstrate the reception of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation on
the part of the Primitive Church Catholic from the very beginning,
is the language of the ancient Liturgies. Discuss. Amic. Lettr. ix.
Answ. to biff, of Rom. p. 181-230.
An author, omnibus hoc vitiimi est cantoribus, is apt to regard with
parental fondness a production of his own, which yet may not strike
upon the apprehension of another person as possessing any very
special measure of cogency. Such, apparently, were the different
estimates of this present argument, as respectively formed by the
Bishop of Strasbourg and myself : and the result of the variety, so
far as / am concerned, was my well-nigh total silence on the topic in
the first edition of the Difficulties of Romanism.
Encouraged by my taciturnity. Dr. Trevern unhappily mistook
systematic mercy for overwhelming terror. I was unwilling to hurt
the feelings of an individual, whom, on account of his high alleged
amiability, I had been requested to treat with all gentleness and
forbeai^ance : my evidence seemed to be quite ample enough, without
going into the very inferior question of the Liturgies : and there
were certain matters intimately connected with Dr. Trevern's argu-
ment from that quarter, which I could not enter upon without an
unpleasant exposure of most reprehensible conduct. Now I had no
wish toj dissect the Bishop a single iota more than I found absolutely
378 APPENDIX. [liturgies.
necessary : and his argument from the Liturgies I deemed, even in
itself, quite beneath the gravity of serious criticism. Hence, in
compliance with the warmly expressed wishes of Mr. Massingberd,
I conceived, that a prudent silence on that argument, while I barely
mentioned that such an argument had been used, was the best and
kindest plan which I could adopt.
In his Answer, Dr. Trevern remarks, doubtless very truly, that,
to the argument in question, I offer reply, none whatsoever ; to his
utter astonishment, none. But it may be doubted, whether, with
equal truth, he tells me, that my weak eyes were dazzled by the
brilliancy of the old Liturgies : and it may peradventure be also
doubted, whether, with any very surpassing measure of discretion,
he loudly and somewhat insultingly dares to the combat his sup-
posed shrinking antagonist. Necessity, they say, has no law : and,
since the Bishop and his friends have now sufficiently enjoyed his
imaginary triumph in re liturgica, I must, when thus bearded, be
even content to buckle on my armour.
I. Not one of the old Liturgies, as it is well known, was com-
mitted to writing until the fifth, or perhaps in some instances the
fourth, century. Previous to that period, whatever of the old
Liturgies was in existence, traditionally floated only in the memories
of the Priesthood, or partially at least might be caught up by the
imperfect recollection of the Laity.
Under such circumstances, it is obvious, that, if any change of
Doctrine gradually took place ; a correspondent change of expres-
sion, or rather a correspondent heightening of expression (the easy
possibility of which, as we shall presently see. Dr. Trevern himself,
\vith interpolative ingenuity, has fully and practically demonstrated),
would tacitly and almost imperceptibly take place also. Hence,
when the Liturgies came to be committed to writing, they would
indeed, most indisputably, exhibit the Doctrine of the Age when
they were so committed : but, whether they would likewise faithfully
exhibit the Doctrine of a much Earlier Period, must plainly be
learned, not from the Liturgies themselves (which, in the very nature
of things, is impossible), but from other independent and ancient
extrinsic testimony.
Thus, for instance, in the old Clementine Liturgy, which, or
something resembling which, was doubtless used memoriter in the
Eastern Churches anterior to the time of Constantino, the perpetual
recurrence of a doxology to the Three Persons of one essential God-
head is an excellent proof of the Early Universal Reception of the
Doctrine of the Trinity : because we have direct extrinsic evidence,
LITURGIES.] APPENDIX. 379
that that doxology is older than the days of Justin Martyr and
Polycarp ; the former of whom avowedly received it from a prior
generation of Christians who had been contemporary wdth St. John,
and the latter of whom used it under his well known character of
an immediate pupil of the holy Apostle himself. But, if the same
Liturgy inculcated the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, we should
only have a proof, that such Doctrine was received, when that
Liturgy, as we now have it, was committed to writing : unless some
ancient extrinsic and independent evidence shall, additionally, prove
also its reception /ro?;i the beginning.
Hence it is obvious, that the testimony, afforded by the ancient
Liturgies to any Doctrine, cannot, in itself, be justly deemed older
than the fourth or fifth century ; for, would we make it available to
an earlier period, we must produce independent evidence, as in the
recently noticed case of the multiplied doxologies, that such Doctrine
could claim an earlier existence : and hence it is also obvious, that
the testimony afforded by the ancient Liturgies, thus resolving itself
into and thus depending upon yet older distinct testimony, can
never be legitimately deemed to possess any higher value than that
of an occasionally very useful supplement.
I am far from admitting, as we shall presently find, that, in point
of fact, the ancient Liturgies do teach the Doctrine of Transub-
stantiation : I am merely, through the very intelligible medium of
a case hypothetical, shewing what the value of their testimony would
be, if they really did teach any such extraordinary Doctrine.
II. It will now probably be seen, why, under a controversial
aspect, I thought very cheaply of Dr. Trevern's favourite argument
from the Liturgies : it will now probably be seen, why I judged,
that I might well save myself the trouble of formally considering a
matter, which, for its value, depended wholly upon extrinsic support.
But, as I have hinted, there was yet another reason for my
silence : my extreme unwillingness, to wit, through a decent com-
jdiance with the wish expressed by Mr. Massingberd, to expose a
Prelate, of so amiable a described character as Dr. Trevern, X)ne jot
more than I was absolutely compelled to do.
In his Answer to myself, the Bishop of Strasbourg sums up in a
single sentence the several points of Doctrine, which, in his Dis-
cussion Amicale he had previously enumerated and insisted upon, as
set forth, clearly and distinctly, in the ancient Liturgies. It will
be convenient, therefore, to give his own proper summing up, as a
sort of text on which to raise my ensuing observations.
Treating of the Liturgies, he says : They all speak uniformly, and
380 APPE^^Dix. [liturgies.
in expressions the most energetic, of our Doctrines. All proclaim, with
one voice, the Altar, the Oblation, the Unbloody Sacrifice of the New
Covenant, the Real Presence of the Victim, the Change of Substance,
and, in fine, the Adoration. Answ. to Diff. of Roman, p. 18ji.
I shall consider these several points according to the order in
which they stand.
1. The Liturgies, it seems, all proclaim the Altar.
How this can be any proof, that those, who used them, held the
Doctrine of Transuhstantiation, I am really at a loss to comprehend.
When, probably from the very beginning, the bread and wine
were offered at the table, as a material oblation of the first fruits of
God's creatures, in order to their subsequent sacramental conse-
cration ; when, also, most probably from the beginning, the whole
service at the same table was deemed a spiritual and unbloody sacri-
fice of thanksgiving, whence doubtless, it received the name of the
euAiharist ; and when again, at a later period, the consecrated ele-
ments, still upon the same table, began to be esteemed a symbolical
unbloody sacrifice commemorative of the one efficacious literal bloody
sacrifice upon the cross : the natural consequence was, that a table,
thus circumstanced, would be called an Altar. Without such an
appellation, the phraseological allegory would have been incomplete :
for an Altar is implied in a Sacrifice. But, before the use of the
word Altar can be construed to prove the Doctrine of Transuh-
stantiation, we must have it distinctly shewn to us, that the literal
body and blood of Christ are materially offered up at the Lord's
table as an Expiatory Sacrifice both for the Living and for the
Dead.
Ji. The Liturgies furthermore proclaim the Oblation.
Doubtless they do : but it does not therefore quite logically follow,
that they use the word Oblation in the same sense as that, wherein
Dr. Trevern now uses it. The Bishop gratuitously assumes, what
he ought to have iwoved. It is a cheap artifice to annex a modern
sense to ancient phraseology : though it is an artifice, which may
easily deceive an English Layman unaccustomed to discussions of
this nature. The Primitive Chiu-ch, as I have already most abun-
dantly shewn, meant, by the word Oblation, no such fancied Literal
Sacrifice as the modern Latin Sacrifice of the Mass.
3. The Liturgies also proclaim the Unbloody Sacrifice of the New
Covenant.
Certainly they do : but the real question is, what they mean by
the expression. Nothing can be more infelicitous, than this mem-
ber of Dr. Trevern 's demonstration ; which, in conjunction with the
LITURGIES.] APPENDIX. 381
rest of his arguments, is to puzzle all the assembled champions of
the Church of England, even though their luckless dumb-foundered
Mother should put forth through them every resource of wit and
learning. Ans. p. 1 78. The very word unbloody, haplessly retained
by the modems to their own conviction and condemnation, even itself
shews, that the authors of the Liturgies could never have held the
Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But, of the character of the Un-
bloody Sacrifice in the Early Church, I have already been so copious,
that it were alike useless and wearisome to be guilty of repetition.
Suffice it to say, that that phrase was severally and accurately used
to express, both the Eucharistic Preparatory Oblation of the as yet
unconsecrated bread and wine, and the Spiritual Sacrifice of praise
and thanksyiving, and finally (when the notion was at length super-
added to the more ancient ideas) the Consecrated^ Bread and Wine
under the aspect of a cojnmeynorative symbolical sacrifice.
4. The Liturgies further proclaim the Real Presence of the Victim.
Here again Dr. Trevern remorselessly employs the stale artifice
of annexing modern latin ideas to comparatively ancient ecclesi-
astical phraseology. To establish the circumstance of Christ's pre-
sence with the Eucharist being real to all w^orthy recipients, as
Augustine and Jerome well draw the line of distinction, it is no way
necessary to contend for its being substantial; unless indeed we be
prepared to maintain, that a spiritual presence of the second person
of the Blessed Trinity is not a real presence : and, since Christ was
for our sakes a victim upon the cross, his presence, even of what-
soever nature, is of course the presence of the victim. At the same
time I must remark, that Dr. Trevern has produced no instance
where the old Liturgists employ any such expression, as that which
he has gratuitously put into their mouths. He has given no speci-
men of their proclaiming the Heal Presence of the Victim. With
respect to the word Host or Sacrifice, which some of them use ; to
assert, that that word means the victim Christ substantially or
materially present, is, in truth, neither more nor less than to beg
the very question which is disputed : a convenient process, with
which the Bishop of Strasbourg, to say nothing of other diligent
labourers in the same hopeful cause, is supereminently familiar.
5. But the honest inquirer will remind me, that the Liturgies,
as he is credibly informed by Dr. Trevern, actually proclaim the
Change of substance. To assert, therefore, that he begs the
question, is palpably inaccurate, not to say dishonest, on the part of
his anglican opponent.
Such I readily admit to be the information, communicated again
382 APPENDIX. [lituiigies.
and again by Dr. Trevem (Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 431, 435. vol. ii.
p. 1, 2. Ans. to Diff. of Rom. p. 130, 131, 182, 198.) for the benefit
and illumination of the English Laity : but unluckily no information
of this very important description is capable of being verified by
reference to the ancient Liturgies. The word substance is, purely
and entirely, the Bishop's ovm. undisputed property. Not one of
the old Litiu-gies ever employs the expression. They pray, indeed,
that the bread and tvine may he changed into the body and blood of
Christ, or (as the oldest of them all, the Clementine Liturgy, ex-
presses it) that the Holy Spirit would make this bread to be the body
of God's Christ, and this cup to he the blood of God's Christ (^oTraf^
UTTOipyjvyi rov k^Tov rovrov a-Zf^cc rov X^kttov (tov, x-otl rh Trorii^iov rovro
uJfAx rov XptFTov <rov) : but they never pray, that they may be
changed into the substance of Chrisfs body and blood. To serve
his own ends. Dr. Trevem has been pleased to interpolate, in his
assurances repeatedly to interpolate, the very important and indeed
palmary word substance : by which quaint device he first makes the
authors and users of the old Liturgies pray for a substantial Change
in the Elements, and then produces this forged petition as proof
positive that they assuredly held the modern Latin Doctrine of
Transubstantiation, In short, the matter under debate is ; Whether
the ancients spake of a moral or of a substantial change : and Dr.
Trevem compendiously settles the point by gratuitously interpolating
the word substance.
From this very management of his, I may remark, in passing,
how feeble would have been the evidence of the written Liturgies
in favour of Transubstantiation, even if they had really, as they now
stand, taught any such Doctrine. The almost imperceptible addi-
tion of the word substance ; if, when the Liturgies were committed
to writing, or when they were somewhat previously recited memoriter,
the phantasy of a Transubstantiation had begun, under the auspices
of the Priesthood, to take hold of men's minds : the almost imper-
ceptible and perfectly approved addition of this sijigle word would at
once specifically determine the nature of the change. And then, in
the next stage of communicated eiTor, this supposed comparatively
ancient addition of the one word substance, had it ever been actually
made, might have served some zealous and rapid Trevem, as an
invincible demonstration, from the ipsissima verba of the old Litur-
gies, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had most certainly
been the Doctrine of the Catholic Church from the very beginning.
6. Lastly, the Liturgies proclaim the Adoration.
(1.) Here, Dr. Trevern, I admit, is not guilty of interpolation, so
LITURGIES.] APPENDIX. 383
far as the letter is concerned : but we can scarcely, I fear, acquit
him of interpolation in the spirit.
He employs, I allow, nothing more than the single naked word
Adoration. But what adoration does he wish his readers to under-
stand : and to what object directed?
Clearly, the adoration of the consecrated elements, or the
Adoration of what they call the Host, as now practised by the Church
of Kome : for, unless this be his meaning, his allegation is obviously
quite impertinent.
But where, in the ancient Liturgies, is any mention made of
the adoration of the consecrated elements ?
I read, in some of them, an Adoration of the lord : and I ob-
sei-ve, in others of them, a lowly bowing down in his presence before
his ALTAR : but, in none can I discover any Adoration of the con-
secrated bread and wine, either enjoined or practised.
In his summary of matters to be learned from the ancient Litur-
gies, the Adoration of the transubstantiated elements is, through
contextual insinuation, tacitly interpolated by the Bishop of Stras-
bourg : just as he, before, expressly interpolated the very important
word substance. Adoration of god before his Altar, united with a
decent reverence of the consecrated gifts viewed as standitig in his
place, or as being his divinely ordained symbolic representatives,
occurs, we readily admit, in the old Liturgies : and straightway, for
the instruction and proselytation of the English Laity, Dr. Trevem's
ready gloss, like the fabled deceptiveness of glamourie, transmutes
THE ADORATION OF GOD before his Altar into a modern popish
ADORATION OF THE HOST UpOU his Altar.
(2.) The Roman Missal, as printed at Rome in the year 1047,
does indeed contain a direct Adoration of the Host : but, since
nothing of the sort occurs in any one of the ancient Liturgies which
have come down to us, we may easily estimate the value of the
testimony afforded by a Roman Missal printed in the seventeenth
century.
(3.) It may be said, however, that I overlook the Liturgy of St.
Chr^^sostom, in which, as we have been informed by a foreign Pro-
fessor of Divinity, there occurs a clear case of the adoration of
THE CONSECRATED ELEMENTS.
I had not discovered any such practice in that Liturgy : but Dr.
Moehler claims to have there detected it.
In his Symbolism, he asserts, that the old Liturgy of St. Chrysos-
tom contains what is plainly this very adoration : and the Proof
of his Assertion lies in the alleged Fact; that the Adoration is
384 APPENDIX. [lituiigies.
directed to be silently paid immediately upon the Elevation of the
Host, and therefore that such Adoration is certainly paid to the
Host itself. Symbol, vol. i. p. 351.
I have carefully followed Dr. Moehler to the Liturgy of Chrysos-
tom in the very edition to which he refers : that of Gear, printed at
Paris in the year 1647, an English translation of which will be
found in Dr. Brett's Collection of Principal Liturgies, p. 32-43.
Here, however, I can find none of the remarkable things for which
the Professor vouches. The Rubric speaks of the Priest stretching
forth his hands and touching the holy bread, in order to make the ele-
vation : but it does not indicate the precise time when the elevation
is made ; though we may fairly suppose it to be made, when, in
immediate consecution, the Deacon says, Let us draw near. Mean-
while, there is not a syllable of any direction, that the Adoration
should be silently paid either by the Clergy or by the Laity, imme-
diately upon the elevation of the Host : the very circumstance on
which Dr. Moehler builds his argument. Before the Elevation
takes place, the Priest is directed to p7'ay with a low voice, and like-
wise the Deacon in the place where he stands; each saying three
times, Lord he merciful to me a sinner : and all the People, in like
manner, are charged to worship devoutly ; which, probably enough,
may mean silently or mentally. But all this takes place before the
Priest even prepares to make the Elevation, and therefore, of course,
BEFORE the Host is actually elevated : and after the time when
we may suppose it to be made, still not a hint is given of any Ado-
ration being paid to the Elements. The Being, who, from first to
last, is exclusively adored, is the Deity, chiefly in and through the Son.
III. In my Supplement to the Difficulties of Bomanism, which
served as a Reply to Dr. Trevern's Answer, I briefly touched upon
liis liturgical dealings with the two points of substance and adora-
tion. Supplem. p. 113, 114,
Mr. Husenbeth, in return, attempted to vindicate his principal :
but he would have acted more wisely, had he remained silent.
I . With respect to the word substance ; though, with abundance
of impotent wrath and idle abuse of myself for what he is pleased to
term my disgraceful obstinacy and my artfid evasion : he is obliged
to confess, that this same word substance nowhere occurs in the old
Liturgies.
Such being his confession, it is tantamount to a full acknowledge-
ment of Dr. Trevern's not very creditable interpolation. In truth,
the interpolation or the non-interpolation was a mere Question of
Fact ; nor could it possibly be answered differently.
LITURGIES.] APPENDIX. 385
2. But, in regard to the adoeation of the Consecrated Elements,
he holds himself more fortunate : for he remarks, that, if we de-
mand Proof Positive, we may have it in a passage, already cited hy
Dr. Trevern from the Clementine Liturgy.
After it is offered, each one in order should receive the body and
blood of the Lord, and approach to it with the fear and reverence due
TO the body of the king. Ans. to Diff. of Eom. p. 902.
This is a Translation of a Translation : and, therefore, I subjoin
Dr. Trevern 's own French Translation of the Greek Original.
Apres qu'il est offert, chacun en son rang doit recevoir le corps et le
sang du Seigneur, et se'en approcher avec la reverence et avec la
crainte due au corps du Eoi. Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 407.
(1.) On this passage, thus expressed, Mr. Husenbeth, while he
reviles me with all his might, as a dishonest shuffler and a wretched
glosser and a captious fury and a suppressor of truth and an insi-
nuater of falsehood, simply because I cannot, like himself, discover
in the old Liturgies what verily is nowhere to be found in them,
comments in form and manner following.
Observe the words, appeoach to it. To what? Evidently the
Sacramental Species. Therefore the Sacrameyital Species were to be
adored with the fear and reverence due to the Body of the King of
heaven and earth. Husenbeth 's Reply to Supplem. p. 273.
(2.) Mr. Husenbeth 's ill-advised commentary invites our attention
to yet another specimen of Dr. Trevern 's inveterate habit of inter-
polation.
The words, due to, through the medium of which an enjoined
fear and reverence, evidently meant to be exhibited as an act of
Religious Adoration, are grammatically referred to the Body of the
King, occur nowheee in the original : they are purely the geatui-
tous addition of the Bishop of Strasbourg; an addition, more-
over, which disturbs and dislocates the construction of the entire
sentence.
(3.) Here, then, I apprehend, we have a critical case of surpassing
curiosity.
First, a Latin Bishop, deliberately and advisedly, both in French
and in English, in two different Works written at two different
times, interpolates the words due to, and completely distorts the
construction of a whole sentence : and next, a Latin Priest, with
equal deliberateness and advisedness, brings forward, in professed
evidence to an alleged fact, not the genuine words of the old Liturgy
in their true construction, but the spurious words of his superior's
interpolation in an utterly false construction of the original passage.
c c
386 Ai^PENULx. Lliturgies.
(4.) Really, there seems to be no end of the strange liberties
which the sacerdotal gentlemen of Rome apparently deem them-
selves privileged to take with the ancient Ecclesiastical Writings.
The Greek of the Liturgy says not a single syllable about the fear
and reverence due to the Body of the King : nor does it give the
slightest hint of any Adoration being paid to the Consecrated Ele-
ments. It mentions, indeed, modesty and caution: but these terms,
under the aspect of words indicating adoration (as Dr. Treveru and
Mr. Husenbeth, mistranslating the original, would, for their own
purposes, have us understand them), it refers not grammatically to
the Body of the King. On the contrary, it simply inculcates a
modest and cautious reception of Christ's body and blood by each
communicant : who himself, after the use of silent mental prayer, is
charged, in his regular course of succession, to approach as to the
body of the King almighty and eternal.
(5.) For the entire satisfaction of the honest enquirer, I subjoin
the original of the passage, whence our two painful Divines have
learned, as they assure us on the word of a Bishop and a Priest,
such very extraordinary particulars.
Mer« ol ravroe, yivza-da) »5 6u7ix, Itrjarog ToivTog rov Xcccv Kut 7r^o(nvx.o-
fAivov iitrv^a^' xoci, qtocv ^vivi^flii , j^^iTaXotf^l^xviTa IkosVt*) tci^ig kx6 Ixv-
iViV Toy xy^ifltxoy o-auxrti; kxi tov TifAiov uif^ccrog, iv raz^ii, uirct etioovf
KXi ii/Xcc/iii'oig, a)g ^oCTiKlug Tr^ori^^of^ivot (raofjixTi. Constit. Apost. lib.
ii. c. 57.
But, after these things, let the sacrifice he performed, the whole
people standing and praying silently : and, when it shall have been
offered, let each company by itself partake of the Lord^s body and
honourable blood, company by company, with modesty and caution,
approaching as to the body of the King.
(6.) Such is a sample of the method by which, from the old
Liturgies, Dr. Trevern and Mr. Husenbeth would demonstrate, to
the hoped for entire satisfaction of the English Laity, the Primitive
Adoration of the Consecrated Elements.
IV. For this disgraceful exposure, the Bishop of Strasbourg has
no one to thank save himself.
In the first instance, I might so far comply with Mr. Massing-
berd's wishes, as to remain politely silent, where I could not honestly
commend. But when my unexampled and (I fear I must confess)
even culpable taciturnity produced no better return than the inso-
lent exultation of a fancied triumph over supposed conscious weak-
ness : no person can fairly expect, that, through a romantic and (as
I now perceive) altogether fruitless wish to conciliate, I should any
CONFESSION.] APPENDIX. 387
longer preserve my originally merciful and somewhat chivalrous
silence.
Truly, I have small pleasure in the distasteful task of publicly
exhibiting the dishonesty of an uncandid and unscrupulous antago-
nist : but, by the extraordinary folly of Dr. Trevern, freedom of
choice has not been left to me. He has recklessly courted exposure :
and he has now abundantly received it.
11.
AURICULAR CONFESSION.
Auriculae Confession to a Priest, the Church of England, it has
often been asserted, allows, and in some cases recommends. It
would, however, be more correct to say : that, what the Church of
England allows or recomynends is not Auricular Confession in the
conventional sense of the phrase, but only the friendly and spontaneous
Consulting of a pious and judicious Divine by one who laboured under
some pa7'ticular distress of conscience^. The Church of Rome, on
the contrary, not only allows and recommends Auricular Confession
in its conventional sense ; but also, as a matter of strict religious
obligation, imposes and enforces it.
I. Such being the case, it is the business of Dr. Trevern to shew,
not merely, The primitive existence of Sacerdotal Auricular Con-
fession, but also The primitive enforcement of a Periodical Auricu-
lar Confession, through the medium of which every mortal sin, even
though by reason of its having been secretly committed occasioning no
public scandal, and even though committed solely against what we
Protestants arrange as the tenth commandment of the Decalogue, is
required to be fully stated to a Priest, under the aspect of imperative
religious obligation, and with the associated Doctrine that any volun-
tary concealment is nothing less than absolute sacrilege. See Concil.
Trident, sess. xiv. c. v. can. i.-xv. and Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 139.
Accordingly, in his zeal to convict the Anglican Church of error,
the Bishop of Strasbourg undertakes to perform this arduous task,
partly from Scripture, and partly from the evidence of Primitive
Antiquity. Discuss. Amic. Lettr. xi. vol. ii. p. 138-203. Mean-
' See the Notice for the Adminis- Directions in the Office for Visiting
tration of the Communion and the the Sick.
388 APPEJsBix. [auricular
while, he is prudently silent as to the abominable questions which
the Confessor is directed to put to young persons, both male and
female : questions, which can only serve to pollute the mind both
of the gloating priest and of the modestly shrinking virgin or inge-
nuous youth ; questions, for the instruction of the Confessor, laid
down with disgusting particularity by Alphonsus Liguori, lately
dubbed a Saint by the Pope, with a statement, that, after twenty years'
careful perusals, his Writings were found to be perfectly orthodox,
and in all respects unexceptionable ; questions, nevertheless, which
this precious specimen of Romish sanctity directs to be importunately
asked by the Romish Confessor.
1. To discover in Scripture any explicit command either of Christ
or of his Apostles, that we should periodically make to a Priest a
distinct and particular confession of all our remembered sins, under
the pain of incurring the guilt of sacrilege by deliberate and volun-
tary concealment, was obviously a matter altogether impossible.
The Bishop, therefore, does not attempt it. Yet, what cannot be
proved explicitly, may, he thinks, be proved inductively.
The power of the keys, or the right of absolution and retention, he
argues, has been given by Christ to his Apostles and their laiifuUy
constituted successors. But this j^ower , cannot be effectively exercised,
without Auricular Confession as 'practised in the Church of Rome:
because, unless the Priest be made intimately acquainted idth the mis-
deeds of his penitent, he cannot know the actual internal disp)Osition of
his soul; and, unless he knows the actual internal disposition of his
soul, he cannot tell ivhether he be a fit sid)ject to receive Absolution.
Therefore, by a necessary consequence from Holy Scripture, Periodical
Auricular Confession of our sins to a Priest is imposed upon us as a
duty of strict religious obligation.
(1.) With respect to this syllogism, I might well observe, that
the Doctrine of Absolution by a 'Priest, as now taught in the Latin
Church, agrees but very ill with the Doctrine maintained by Anti-
quity.
Nemo se fallat, says the venerable Cyprian even in the middle of
the third century : nemo se decipiat. Solus Dominus misereri
potest. Veniam peccatis, quae in ipsum commissa sunt, solus potest
ille largiri, qui peccata nostra portavit, qui pro nobis doluit, quem
Deus tradidit pro peccatis nostris. Homo Deo esse non potest
major : nee remittere aut donare indulgentia sua servus potest,
quod in Dominum delicto graviore commissum est : ne adhuc lapso
et hoc accedat ad crimen, si nesciat esse praedictum; Maledictu^
homo, qui spem habet in homine. Dominus orandus est, Dominus
CONFESSION.] APPENDIX. 389
nostra satisfactione placandus est ; qui negantem negare se dixit,
qui omne judicium de Patre solus accepit. Cyprian, de Laps. Oper.
vol. i. p. 129.
(2.) Let this however pass : and, purely for the sake of argument,
conceding the propriety of the Roman Doctrine oi Positive Absolution,
rather than enforcing the more seemly Doctrine of Conditionally
Declarative Absolution on the part of the Priesthood ; let us, even
thus, see how Dr. Trevem's syllogism will support itself.
Now his syllogism undeniably rests altogether upon the position :
that A Priest can form no accurate judgmerit of the actual internal
dispositioji of his penitent in regard to sincerity or hypocrisy, unless
that penitent shall minutely specify to him., in fidl circumstantiality ^
all the recollected sins against the decalogue which he has ever com-
mitted.
On this position, the syllogism avowedly depends : and, although
the same position is confidently laid down by the Council of Trent,
its gross and hopeless absurdity is so enormous, that a mere state-
ment of it is amply sufficient for its full exposure. See Concil.
Trident, sess. xiv. c. 5. p. 148, 149.
S. If, however, the enfoecement of Auricular Confession as prac-
tised in the modern Church of Rome cannot be proved from Scrip-
ture ; Dr. Trevern is at any rate confident that the primitive
Church of Christ is his decided ally.
The true limits of legitimate testimony, as I have already ob-
served, cannot, at the very utmost, be extended beyond the period
of the three first centuries. In saying this, I mean not to allow,
that Dr. Trevern can prove his point from the practice even of a
much later period, and I might well insist upon the speedy abroga-
tion of the novelty of p)rivate Confession on the part of the Greek
Church about the end of the fourth century by reason of its soon
experienced grievously immoral consequences : but I simply wish to
intimate, that our legitimate inquiries must, on the principles of
historic evidence, be confined within those most sufficiently ample
boundaries. See Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 19. Sozomen.
Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. c. 16.
From the three first centuries, then. Dr. Trevern adduces in
evidence, Clement of Rome, Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, and
Cyprian.
In pursuance of his own references, I have followed him to all
those writers : and the result has been precisely such, as, from his
ordinary loose style of pretended demonstration, might well have
been anticipated. Not one of his alleged witnesses says a shigle
390 APPENDIX. [auricular
syllable in regard to the primitive ecclesiastical enforcement of a
Periodically Private and Particular Confession to a Priest, under
the aspect that such a Confession is of strict religious obligation and
necessity.
(1.) His first witness is the Roman Clement : and his manage-
ment of that author is perfectly characteristic.
In the passage cited from Clement, he commences his operations
■with interpolating the word all : and then he deliberately argues
from his own interpolation ; as if Clement had intimated, that we
are bound to confess all our sins to a Priest. Yet Clement himself
merely says : that We ought to repent of our sins here, because there
will be no room for Confession and Repentance hereafter. Of the
duty of Universal Private Confession to a Priest, he absolutely
gives not so much as a hint.
E(W5 ^a■fA^i iv rovTcti raf KOcrfAM, Iv rvf c-u^k] a, i7r^u.^ufAiv Tror/j^a,
z^UfjLi* Ksn^ov i^iruvotx?. Mira yu^ ro i^iXS-h vj/iAoig zk tov Koa-f^coVj
cvK'iTt ^vvdfAi&cA ix.il i^o[/.oXoyvi<j-UG-docl jj (/.iTocvtih \ti. Clem. Rom.
Epist. ad Corinth, ii. § 8.
(2.) His second witness is Ireueus: and, for evidence, he refers
us to two several passages in the Work of that Father against
Heresies.
The first of these two passages gives us an account of a worthless
gnosticising impostor named Marcus, who induced many silly
women to join his party, and who then most infamously abused his
influence over them : and it finally states (the matter, I suppose,
which constitutes Dr. Trevern's facile demonstration), that some of
these women, on their repentance, made a full confession of the im-
purities into which they had been seduced. Iren. adv. haer. lib. i.
c. 9.
The second of the two passages tells us, that the heretic Cerdon
(in his better days, I do suppose) often went to church and made
confession (ssepe in ecclesiam veniens, et exomologesin faciens): but,
whether, by the necessity of discipline, he made a Periodical Private
Confession to a Priest duly seated in a confessional box, or whether
he joined only in a General Public Liturgical Confession of Sin to
Almighty God, we receive no information from Ireneus. Iren.
adv. hser. lib. iii, c. 4.
(3.) His third witness is TertuUian : and never, surely, was a
■s^itness more infelicitously selected.
TertuUian, in the place referred to, says not a word respecting
the duty of Private Auricular Confession to a Priest : he speaks
CONFESSION.] ArPENDIX. 391
only of Public Penitential Confession of gross and scandalous sin,
made to the Loed before his altar, Vi the presence of the whole
assernbled. congregation.
Exomologesis est, qua delictum domino nostrum confitemur : non,
quidem, ut ignaro; sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur,
confessione poenitentia nascitur, poeniteiitia Deus mitigatur. Ita-
que exomolegesis prosternendi et humilificandi hominis disciplina
est, conversation em injungens misericordise illicem. De ipso quo-
que habitu atque victu mandat, sacco et cineri incubare, corpus
sordibus obscurare, animum moeroribus dejicere, — jejuniis preces
alere, ingemiscere, lachrymari et mugire dies uoctesque ad Domi-
num Deum tuum, Presbyteris advolvi et aris dei adgeniculari,
omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injungere. Tertull.
de Poenit. § ix. Oper. p. 483, 484
(4.) His fourth witness is Origen.
This author recommends, in the place referred to for the pui-pose
of establishing the primitive obligatoriness of Private Auricular Con-
fession to a Priest, that, when sins press heavily upon the conscience,
the offender should confidentially state his case to some discreet and
experienced adviser, rather than smother it within his own bosom ;
a recommendation, in the propriety of which few, at least in some
peculiar cases, will refuse to concur : but whether any individual
should choose to follow his recommendation (which exactly corre-
sponds with that in our Anglican warning for the celebration of the
holy communion), was, so far as respects the point of obligation,
purely optional. Orig. Homil. ii. in Psalm, xxxvii.
(5.) His fifth witness is Cyprian.
The admirable Bishop of Carthage is so sti'angely wide of the
mark in respect to the avowed purpose of his adduction by Dr.
Trevem, that, were I not tolerably well acquainted with that disin-
genuous Prelate's humour of catching at straws, I should really
admire his splendid audacity of reference and citation.
In the Discourse on the Lajjsed, to which we are invited for evi-
dence in favour of the primitive enforcement of Private Periodical
Auricular Confession to a Pnest as now enjoined by the Church of
Rome, Cyprian never once even so much as mentions the sub-
ject. He is treating, throughout the whole Discourse, of an
entirely different topic. Confession, indeed, he very largely men-
tions : but then the only confession of which he speaks, is that
Public Confession of Apostasy from the Faith united with the long
probative humility of public penitence, which the strict discipline of
the Primitive Church required of all those who in time of persecution
392 . APPENDIX. [auricular
had through terror lapsed into pagan idolatry, ere they could he
readmitted to the privilege of full ecclesiastical communion with the
permanently steadfast and faithful. Cyprian, de Laps. Oper, vol. i.
p. 121-138.
II. Such is the evidence, by a gross misrepresentation of which
the Bishop of Strasbourg would unblushingly persuade our English
Laity, that a forced system of Periodical Private Confession to a
Priest, altogether identical with the present offensive and mis-
chievous and grossly immoral imposition of the Roman Church,
prevailed from the beginning in the Church Catholic.
Nor is this the whole extent of Dr. Trevern's unwarrantable pal-
tering. He likewise has the actual effrontery to adduce, as if it
were scriptural, though in plain defiance of very plain Greek, the
strange unauthorised distinction between Mental Repentance and
Bodily Penance, which is one of the many cherished delights of the
Latin Church: just as if, in the original of the New Testament,
two entirely different words were used to express two entirely differ-
ent ideas.
Thus, in his Amicable Discussion, vol. ii. p. 20*2, 208, he makes a
distinction, between le repentir, and le f aire penitence or le remplir les
ceuvres de penitence qui nous sont prescrites pour satisfaire a la justice
divine. This last phrase, Works of Penance, he seems to have fabri-
cated out of St. Paul's expression, ct|<«ft rtig ju.irxvoiccg \ya.. Works
worthy of Repentance or Works meet for Repentance or (in other words)
A Holy Conversation suitable to Repentance. Acts xxvi. 20.
Following out the groundless distinction which he has been
pleased to make, Repentance, he tells us, is the sole condition pro-
pounded by the Reformation. But the constant Doctrine of the
Church, as propounded by the Saviour himself, is : that Repentance
alone is insufficient ; we must also go to Confession and do Penance.
Discuss. Amic. ut supra.
Now I beg to ask this extraordinary scripturist : Where, in the
entire New Testament, is there a single passage, purporting to exhibit
the ivords either of our Saviour Christ or of any one of his inspired
Apostles, which enjoins the Performance of a modern Latin Penance,
contradistinguished from Repentance, as necessary to Eteriial Sal-
vation ?
An uneducated Romanist, who peradventure has read the trans-
lations authorised by his Church, will promptly reply, that Penance
is enjoined again and again in Holy Scripture. But the Bishop of
Strasbourg is not an uneducated Romanist. He knows perfectly
well, that the expressions Penance and to do Penance, which perpe-
CONFESSION.] APrENDIX. 393
tually occur with most ridiculous absurdity in the romish versions
of the New Testament, do not exhibit the true idea of the original
words [Ailoiyotoc and ^iruvoiTv. These words, from the very necessity
of their etymology, relate, not to the outward austerities which the
Latin Church enjoins under the name of Penance, but purely and
exclusively to that moral change of mind which we denominate
Bepentance. Nay, what renders Dr. Trevern still more inexcusable,
is the notorious fact, that, to escape absolute nonsense, the romish
versions are sometimes actually compelled to exhibit the true sense
of the original. Thus, while they render one and the same greek
word fAzruvoih, sometimes to repent, and sometimes to do penance:
the Bishop of Strasbourg is not ashamed to attack the hated Ke-
formation on the score that it rejects the 7iecessity 0/ bodily penance,
and requires only mental eepentance evidencing itself (as St. Paul
speaks) in meet or appropriate uorks of holiness; thus insinuating,
what is palpably contrary to fact, that the phraseology of the New
Testament equally inculcates the two perfectly distinct ideas by two
perfectly distinct words, and that the Reformation arbitrarily adopts
the one inculcated idea while it rejects the other no less inculcated
idea.
By this lamentable, and (I fear) systematic, mistranslation of the
greek original, thousands and millions may have been seduced by
the apostatic Church of Rome into a scheme of mere unauthorised
and misdeemed meritorious will-worship.
1^ III. It is worthy of remark, that, in the fourteenth century, the
practice of Confession was viewed with such hobrok by the more
holy and respectable part of the Clergy whether secular or regular,
that it probably would have become extinct, had not the Mendicants,
under sanction of the Pope, eagerly intruded themselves into every
district and specially courted the loathsome task which better men
abhorred.
This extraordinary circumstance was, in the year 1357, openly
declared, by the Archbishop of Armagh, before the Pope and Car-
dinals, in the Consistory at Avignon : and he intimated, that the
grand object of the Friars, in striving to keep up the Practice of
Confession, w^as, to insinuate themselves into the deepest secrets of
the female heart from the throne to the cottage, and to philosophise
(as the Prelate contemptuously expresses it) with the fairest ladies
in private chambers : ut, per tale consortium, jam cum pulcherrimis
dominabiis philosophentur in cameris. Armach. Defensor. Curat, in
Browne's Fasciculus, vol. ii. p. 479. cited by Turner.
IV. To deny or to condemn the revolting impurities of the Con-
394 APPENDIX. [satisfaction.
fessional is equally out of the power of our modem Romanists. The
Obscenities of their newly made saint, Alphonsus Liguori, have been
ratified by full Papal Authority. To deny them is impossible ; be-
cause they stand recorded in imperishable, though untranslateahle,
Latin : to condemn them is no less impossible ; because their con-
demnation is the condemnation of the Pope and his Cardinals.
There they stand in Liguori s own Work, the perpetual opprobrium
of the Roman Apostasy^.
III.
SATISFACTION.
In point of Principle or Theoretical Rationale, the fruitful parent
of Expiatory Penance, Expiatory Good Deeds, Purgatory, Indul-
gences, and Supererogation, is the vain fantasy, so congenial to our
proud though fallen nature, the phantasy of meritorious satisfac-
tion : a figment, which stands directly opposed to the True Doctrine
of JUSTIFICATION, SO happily unburied by Luther from beneath the
mass of Scholastic Rubbish, which had covered it ever since the
time of Bernard.
This deeply rooted and widely pullulating heresy, which lies at
the bottom of all False Schemes of Religion whether pagan or papal
or mohammedan or socinian, is cherished, in all its baneful luxuri-
ance by the Church of Rome : and the account, which is very
accurately given of it by the Bishop of Strasbourg, may be briefly
stated in manner following.
The Meritorious Passion of Christ upon the Cross delivers us only
from the Eternal Punishment of Sin : in a Temporal Point of View,
we ourselves must make Satisfaction for it to the offended justice of
God. Now this Satisfaction is made, partly by our personally under-
going certain Penalties, and partly by our performing certain meri-
torious Good Works. With respect to the Penalties, they consist of
Bodily Penance here and of the Pains of Purgatory hereafter : with
respect to the meritorious or expiatory Good Works (oeuvres expia-
toires), they consist of Abstinence arid Fasting and the Care of widows
or orphans and Ahnsgiving and the Visitation of the sick ; Works,
' The Protestant public is indebted lishing, a masterly epitome and expo-
to Dr. Blakene.y for editing, and the sure of Liguori's " Moral Theology."
British Eeformation Society for pub- Price, 5s. 8vo. pp. 384. London, 1802.
SATISFACTION.] APPENDIX. 395
Dr. Trevern observes, which in the Latin Church are reckoned among
the most important Satisfaction. Discuss. Amic. Lettr, xii. vol. ii.
p. 204-225.
In this System, we cannot avoid being struck with the circum-
stance : that, Although the Satisfaction for Sin made by Christ
could not decently be altogether denied ; yet it should be circum-
scribed as far as possible, in order that room might be left for those
most important Satisfactions which Man is to make for himself.
A fair division of the Work, therefore, is proposed : and, thus,
each shall have his due shai-e of meritoriousness.
The Satisfaction from Sin, made by Christ, delivers only from
Eternal Punishment. So far as respects this Temporal World, he
has made no Satisfaction for Sin. Here, then, Man must step in,
and complete the otherwise defective Work. He himself must
make Satisfaction, partly by sufferings here, and partly by sufferings
in Purgatory hereafter.
I. For such a Scheme of Doctrine as this ; I speak in regard to
its Principle or Rationale : the question is, whether there be any
foundation, either in Holy Scripture, or in the avowed Faith of the
really primitive Church.
] . Dr. Trevern, according to his wont, confidently asserts : that
Christ made Satisfaction for our Sins, only so far as to exempt us
from eternal punishment ; and that we ourselves must supply the
defect in our Redeemer's expiation, partly by undergoing temporal
punishment on earth or in purgatory, partly by performing certain
meritorious actions in the way of an expiatory satisfaction to God
for our transgressions.
This Doctrine he boldly avow^s to be the undoubted mind of
Christ : and, as such, he claims to prove it from Scripture itself.
*(1.) What, then, is the amount of his promised demonstration ?
Truly, his meagre proof from Scripture is limited, after all his
lofty grandiloquence and endlessly prolix declamation, to The Mourn-
ing of Job among the ashes on account of his trials, to The Sackcloth
JRepentance of David and Ahab and the King of Nineveh, and to A
strange Perversion of a very plain passage of St. Paul wherein the
Apostle speaks of the ajfflictions of Christ the head being filled up in
the afflictions of his mystical body the Church.
(2.) How these are to demonstrate, that either temporal sufferings
or the performance of good deeds can make an expiatory satisfaction
to God^s justice for our varied transgressions ; the lofty enterprise
undertaken by the Bishop of Strasbourg : I must even confess
myself utterly unable to comprehend. There is not, so far as I can
396 APrENDix. [satisfaction.
discover, the very slightest perceptible coherence between his pre-
mises and his conclusion. When thrown into the useful form of a
syllogism, which will distinctly exhibit the real amount of Dr.
Trevern's prodigal verbosity, his whole argument runs in manner
following.
Joh mourned among the ashes on account of his trials : David and
Ahab and the king of Nineveh repented in sackcloth : and the afflic-
tions of Christ the head are still harnionioushj ^irolonged in the affiic-
tions of his suffering body the Church, Therefore, temporal
punishments endured, and good deeds j^erformed, are able, by their
expiatory meritoriousness, to satisfy the strict justice of our heavenly
Father.
I have rarely fortuned to light upon a more perfect specimen of
logical inconclusiveness.
'2. If the Proof from Scripture be thus palpably and even ludi-
crously defective, the Testimony of the Early Fathers to a Doctrine
altogether unscriptural could only benefit the Church of Rome so
far as establishing the deplorable fact of a very rapid and baneful
corruption.
(1.) Dr. Trevern quotes, Tertullian of the second and third cen-
turies, Cyprian of the third century, Ambrose of the fourth century,
and Augustine of the fourth and fifth centuries, as teaching, that We
make satisfaction to God by the temporal pains which we endure.
ip,.) If these writers employ such language in the sense annexed
to it by the Latin Church, I can have no hesitation in saying, that
they speak without a shadow of authority from Scriptin"e.
But I greatly doubt, whether they mean to convey the precise
idea, which the Bishop would ascribe to them.
We all know, that, in the classical idiom, the same phrase in-
differently signifies to give satisfaction and to suffer j)unishmeht.
This very simple circumstance is probably the true key to the
phraseology employed by certain of the Fathers. When they spake
of a man making satisfaction to God by any manner of temporal
suffering, they meant not, I apprehend, to intimate : that his pains
w^ere meritoriously capable of expiating his transgressions ; but
only that, in the course of God's just moral government, sin ought
to have merited punishment as its companion, even though the
offender might ultimately be saved.
In this view of the matter, I seem to be confirmed by the
language of Ambrose, so late as the last quarter of the fourth
century : language, which is of no very easy reconciliation with the
theory advocated by Dr. Trevern.
SATISFACTION.] APPENDIX. 397
Quibus laboribus, quibus injuriis, possumus nostra levare peccata?
Indignae sunt passiones hujus temporis ad superventuram gloriam.
Non, ergo, secundum merita nostra, sed secundum misericordiam
Dei, coelestium decretorum in homines forma procedit. Ambros.
Comment, in Psalm, cxviii. (cxix.) serm. xx. comm. 4. Oper. col. 1595.
By what labours, by what injuries, can we lighten our sins ? In
reference to future glory, the sufferings of this time are altogether un-
worthy. Hence, toward man, the form of celestial decrees proceeds,
not according to our merits, but according to the mercy of God.
Utinam banc stipulam in messe, hoc est, inanem avenam fructus
mei, non abjiciat, sed colligat ! — Ergo et agendam poenitentiam, et
tribuendam veniam, credere nos convenit : ut veniam, tamen, tan-
quam ex fide speremus, non tanquam ex debito. Ambros. de Poenit.
lib. ii. c. 8. Oper. col. 191.
Would that the Lord would not reject, but collect, this my mere
stubble in the harvest, these empty wild oats of my fructijication ! —
It is fitting, therefore, to believe, both that repentance is to be per-
formed, and that jmrdon is to be granted : nevertheless, in such
manner, that we should hope for pardon, as from faith, not as from
debt.
Be this, however, as it may, if we must refer to the Ancients for
the purpose of ascertaining the real Doctrine of the Primitive
Church, doubtless the testimony and authority of St. Paul's own
fellow-labourer, the Roman Clement, who flourished in the first
century and who was taught by the Apostles, are incomparably more
valuable and more decisive, than those of the much later Fathers,
Tertullian and Cyprian and Ambrose and Augustine.
ocvreov THf oiKxiOTT^ccyixq v)<; KXTii^yoicruvTi, aXXcc Cicc 6iXi^f*»Tog ocvtov.
Kx} YtfAiiq OVV, ^iot, 6iXiijf4,UTog xvtov Iv li^ia-rM 'l>j(roy xAji^t'vTS?, ov Oi Ixv-
rcov ^tx.xiovfiCi6x, ov^l otx r'tig *}tiiripxg copixg, >j a-vvia-ie*^, k iv<ri[iiixq, >j
z^yuv m Kxrii^yx<rcifAi6x Iv o<rioTnri x,x^ixq' aXXx oix TiJs 'x-ta-rtag, at vjg
TTcivrxg rovg xtt xiZ'vog o TrxvTOKffUTCo^ Qiog iOiKxiua-iv' a ia-rof oo\x ilg
Toi/g xlmxg tuOV xIcovmv. 'Af^i^v. Ti ovv 7roiK<rci)f/.,iv, uoiX(pot j 'Ayao-a/mv
XTTo r'iig xyxSoTToitxg , kx) lyKxrxXiiTreJ/^iV t^v xyxTniv j MYiaxfzag rovTo
ix<rxi Aia-'XQTVjg g^ tffuv yiyiy^6iivxi. AXXx a-Titva-off^iv, fAira hcriviixg
Kxi TT^odvf^ixg, TTciv ggyov xyxfov iTTtriXlh. Clem. Rom. Epist. ad
Corinth, i. § 32, 33.
All, therefore, have been glorified and magnified, not through them-
selves or through their own works of righteousness which they have
done, but through the will of God. Wherefore, being called through
his will in Christ Jesus, we are justified, not through ourselves, or
398 APPENDIX. [satisfaction.
through our own wisdom or intellect or piety, or through the works
which we have wrought in holiness of heart ; hut through faith, by
which the Almighty God has justified all from everlasting. To him
he glory and honour through all ages! What then shall we do,
brethren ? Shall we he slothful from the jjoformance of good deeds,
and shall we forsalce charity ? The Lord forhid that such should
he our case I Bather let us hasten, u'ith all vehemence and alacrity,
to accomplish every good work.
II. Of the mishapen brood, which universally sprhig from the
unscriptural tenet of Satisfaction, I have already noticed, at very
considerable length, the Doctrine of Purgatoiy. It only remains,
therefore, to offer a few observations upon the rest of its offspring.
1. In Penance, simply viewed as an outward expression of Inward
Repentance, there is certainly nothing blameworthy : and, if any
individual finds himself spiritually profited by bodily mortification,
he is perfectly justified in his use of it. Thus, for instance. Fasting
is recognised by the Anglican Church, and (I believe) by every other
Reformed Church, as a beneficial mean of putting our souls in a
proper posture to meet their God. But, when Penance is taken up
under the vain notion, that it is an Expiatory Deed which is avail-
ahle to satisfy the justice of the Almighty ; then, instead of being
useful, it becomes positively mischievous ; because it at once ad-
vances a claim of merit on our part, and removes us from the only
sure foundation of the merit of Christ.
Dr. Trevern asks, whether to appease the Anger of God, and to
satisfy his justice, do not ultimately come to the same thing ?
I readily answer, no. The difference consists in the total dissi-
milarity of ideas conveyed respectively by those two phrases. Sin-
cere Repentance, offered up through the alone merits of Christ, is
doubtless available to appease God's Anger, when we have sinned
against him : but such Repentance does nothing to satisfy his Jus-
tice in the w^ay of making a meritorious expiation. To talk, indeed,
of the Expiatory Meritoriousness of Repentance, is a plain contradic-
tion in terms. By the very act of repentance, we acknowledge our-
selves to be sinners. But what possible Expiatory Meritoriousness
can there be in a soiTowful acknowledgment and direct confession
that we are great and undeserving offenders ? Clearly, there can
be none : unless, indeed, we are prepared to maintain the actual
existence of that moral paradox, a meritorious sinner or a holy trans-
gressor.
2. The various good deeds, enumerated by the Bishop of Stras-
bourg, all certainly, in themselves, deserve our approbation : yet,
SATLS FACTION.] APPENDIX. 399
through noxious admixtures and empirical adulterations, the very
best things may he turned even into a deadly poison.
(1.) We reformed Catholics, quite as fully as the unreformed Ca-
tholics of the Roman Church, allow the Excellence, and (under one
aspect) the Necessity, of Good Works. But this is not precisely the
question. Dr. Trevern clearly deems them meritorious : for, unless
such be their supposed character, I perceive not how they can make
an expiatory satisfaction to God for our transgressions.
Now it is under this precise idea of their alleged Meritoriousness,
that the language and doctrine of the Latin Church ai^e by us
thought to be objectionable.
We acknouiedge, says the accurate Hooker, a dutiful necessity
of doing icell : hut the meritorious dignity of doing well we utterly
renounce. Disc, of Justiiic. § vii.
This, I believe, is the Doctrine, not only of the Church of Eng-
land, but of all the Reformed Churches : the Doctrine, not only of
all the Reformed Churches, but of that venerable and most ancient
Witnessing Church, which, by a long line of succession connecting
itself immediately with the primitive ages, may claim the high and
extraordinaiy praise of 7iot being a Reformed Church, simply be-
cause it required not reformation. With the depressed, but unex-
tinguishable. Church of the Piedmontese Valleys, we all, if I
mistake not, agree in this vitally important point. We confess the
DUTY, but we reject the merit, of Good Works: and, viewing them
under that aspect, we thence consistently deny the possibility of
their making any Expiatory Satisfaction to God for our Transgres-
sions. Adopting the language of the judicious Hooker, we dare not
call God to reckoning, as if ive had him in our debt-books. The little
fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and un-
sound. We put no confidence at all in it : we challenge nothing in
the world for it. Our constant suit to God is and must be, to bear
with our infirmities, and to pardon our offences. Disc, of Justific.
§ vii.
(Q.) In this lowly estimate even of our best performances, we
hold ourselves to be warranted, not only by the Express Decision of
Scripture, but by the Entire Analogy of the Christian Faith.
So far from arithmetically calculating a proportionable corre-
spondence between merit and reward; we deem it more seemly to
adopt the w^ords which our Saviour Christ hath prepared for us, and
to confess that when we have done all we have still done nothing
more than our bare duty : instead of ascribing to om* works any
even remote possibility of making an expiatory satisfaction to
400 APPENDIX. [satisfaction.
God's strict justice for our many evil deeds; the whole Analogy of
Faith, as propounded luminously to the primitive Roman Church by
the great Apostle himself, compels us to take up a Doctrinal System
diametrically opposite. Luke xvii. 10. Rom. iii. 19-28. v. 16-21.
xi. 6,
The Doctrine of mekit, and the Doctrine of duty, in short, lie
at the very root of the utterly irreconcileable differences between
the lapsed Church of Rome and the reformed Church of England.
3. Indulgences sprang out of the Penitential Discipline of the
Primitive Church.
Persons, who had lapsed into idolatry, or who had been guilty
of any scandalous crime, were separated by ecclesiastical authority
from the body of the faithful : nor were they readmitted, until, by
a course of austere penitence, they had sufficiently evinced their
sincerity and their amendment. The Church, however, which, like
every other well-organised society, possessed and exercised the
power of ejecting or receiving members, was induced, when she had
well-grounded reason to believe repentance sincere, occasionally to
relax the severity or to shorten the time of this required probation.
When that was done, the grace, accorded to the penitent, was natu-
rally styled a7i Indulgence.
Such, and such only, were the Indulgences of the Primitive
Church : and I know not what objection can be rationally taken to
the system of her moral discipline.
But, when the unscriptural notion of a Meritorious Eccjnatory
Satisfaction to God's Justice was annexed to the ancient probationary
penance required by the Church as an evidence of sincerity, the
same pestilent idea infected also with its antichristian poison the
simple primitive Indulgence.
If self-inflicted punishment for sin, or punishment inflicted by
ecclesiastical authority, could make an expiatory satisfaction to the
Divine Justice : then the power of remitting such punishment was
equivalent to the power of declaring, that the Church, according to
her own good pleasure and discretion, could assign to the Divine
Justice a smaller measure of expiatory satisfaction than that Justice
would otherwise have claimed.
Now this extraordinary speculation, in pursuance of which the
Church bountifully undertook to determine, that God not unfre-
quently was and ought to be satisfied with a lighter degree of expia-
tion, than his own Justice, if left to itself, would have exacted
from the offender : this extraordinaiy speculation sprang, naturally
and of necessity, from the new Doctrine of an Expiatory Satisfaction
SATISFACTION.] APPENDIX. 401
to God, engrafted upon the primitive very harmless or rather very
laudable Discipline of Penance and Indulgence. Discuss. Amic.
Lettr. xiii.
The revolting arrogance of so strange a phantasy, when plainly
exhibited in its true colours, must, I think, shock every well-regu-
lated mind.
To imagine that the Divine Justice would agree to be satisfied
with a smaller quantity of expiation than the amount of its original
requirement, and that each Priest enjoyed the singular privilege of
adjusting the terms of this yet more singular bargain between God
and his creature, is contrary alike to Scripture and to every con-
sistent idea which we can form of the divine attributes.
Yet this theory, which, if really founded upon the Bible, would
drive every thinking mind into absolute infidelity, was but the
legitimate offspring of the new Doctrine of Expiatory Satisfaction as
superadded to the old penitential discipline of the Church.
(I.) We are assured, however, by the adventurous Bishop of
Strasbourg, that Indulgences, viewed (be it carefully observed) under
the present precise aspect, rest upon the authority of St. Paul.
The great Apostle, says he, teaches us positively, that to the Church
belongs the double right of prescribing and of mitigating Satisfactory
Punishments. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 227.
For the establishment of this assertion, he refers to two connected
passages in the two Epistles to the Corinthians. 1 Corinth, v. 1-5.
2 Corinth, ii. 6-10.
According to the ancient and godly discipline of the Primitive
Church, the Corinthians, as St. Paul expresses himself, had delivered
an incestuous member of their community unto Satan for the de-
struction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the
Lord Jesus. 1 Corinth, v. 5. This they did under the immediate
sanction of the anxious Apostle : and, afterward, when they were
satisfied as to the sincerity of the man's contrition, they pardoned
him the disgrace which he had brought upon the Church, and re-
admitted him to the enjoyment of his former privileges as a baptised
Christian. The circumstance and the ground of his readmission
were communicated to St. Paul : and St. Paul, in reply, informed
them ; that, as they had forgiven the offender, so likewise did he
for their sakes in the person of Christ. 2 Corinth, ii. 10.
Such was the very simple transaction, from which, with his
wonted rapidity of facile inference, Dr. Trevern has learned, for the
information of the English Laity, that, by the especial authority of
St. Paul, to the Church belongs the double right of prescribing and of
D D
402 APPENDIX. [satisfaction.
mitigating Satisfactory PimisJmients : Punishments, that is to say,
according to his avowed Doctrine, which should be able to make a
Meritorious Expiatory Satisfaction, not merely to the outraged
Church viewed as a body-corporate, but even to the Divine Justice
itself.
(2.) Bad, however, as Indulgences may be when viewed even
under the present most unscriptural aspect, their evil admitted of a
still higher degree of sublimation.
The Bishop, like a prudent controvertist, treads lightly over
ground which assuredly is not hallov^ed. What was the crying nui-
sance, which' first roused the honest indignation of the great and
much calumniated Luther? The Pope, commencing business as a
wholesale dealer, actually drove a gainful pecuniary traffic in Eccle-
siastical Indulgences! Instruments of this description, by which
the labour of making a fancied Meritorious Satisfaction to God by
Penance or by Good Works or by the fabled pains of Purgatory was
pared down to the dwarfish standard that best suited the purse of a
wealthy offender, were sold in a lump, to a tribe of monastic vaga-
bonds, by the Prelate who claimed to be upon earth the divinely
appointed Vicar of Christ. These men purchased them of the Pope,
by as good a wholesale bargain as they could make : and then, after
the mode of itinerant pedlars, they disposed of them in retail, each
Indulgence of course bearing an adequate premium, to those who
affected such articles of commerce. The madness of superstition
could be strained no higher : the Reformation burst forth like a tor-
rent : and Luther, with the long-suppressed Bible in his hand, glori-
ously merited and obtained the eternal hatred of an incorrigible
Priesthood.
4. It is worthy of observation, that Dr. Trevern is wholly silent
as to the imaginary fund, whence the inexhaustible stock of papal
Indulgences is supplied.
Whether he was himself ashamed of the Doctrine of Superero-
gation, or whether he thought it imprudent to exhibit such a portent
before the eyes of his English laic correspondent, I shall not pretend
to determine. From whatever motive, he omits it altogether. Yet
the lucrative absurdity is in no wise obsolete. We have the autho-
rity of a late sovereign Pontiff himself to assert that it still, even in
the present day, continues to exist. Let the tale be recited in his
own words : for no other can be found equally appropriate.
We have resolved, says Pope Leo in the year 1824, hy virtue of thd
authority given to us from heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure,
composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues, of Christ our Lord and
ANGLICAN ORDERS.] APPENDIX. 403
of his Virgin-Mother and of all the Saints, which the author of human
salvation has entrusted to our dispensation. — To you, therefore, vene-
rable brethren. Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, it belongs
to explain with persjncuity the power of Indulgences: what is their
ejicacy in the remission, not only of the Canonical Penance, but also
of the Temporal Punishment due to the Divine Justice for Past Sin ;
and what succour is afforded, out of this heavenly treasure, from the
merits of Christ and his Saints, to such as have departed real penitents
in God 's love, yet before they had duly satisfied by fruits worthy of
Penance for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying
in the fire of Purgatory, that an entrance may be opened for them into
their eternal country where nothing defiled is admitted. Bull for the
Observ. of the Jubilee, a.d. 1825.
From a stock of merits, supplemental to the otherwise too scanty
merits of Christ, and contributed by the dead Saints over and above
what was necessary for themselves : from this heterogeneous stock,
which by special divine authority the Pope even now actually claims
to have at his own disposal, Indulgences are issued, which shall not
only remit the Canonical Penance imposed by the Church and thus
liberate the fortunate possessors from the Temporal Punishment in
this world due for past sin to the Divine Justice, but which shall
also open the very doors of Purgatory for the blissful escape of those
faithful suffering spirits who departed this life without having made
full Satisfaction for their iniquities by fruits worthy of penance !
The time will come, it was long since foretold, when they will not
endure sound doctrine: but, after their own lusts, shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away
their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Tim.
iv. 3, 4.
IV.
ANGLICAN ORDERS.
The Bishop of Strasbourg, in a tone of dogmatism which more
prudently as well as more decorously might well have been omitted,
has taken upon himself, for the honest purpose of perplexing his
EngHsh Layman, to decide, that the Orders of the Anglican Church
are invalid, and consequently that our pretended Clergy are mere
404 APPENDIX. [ANGLICAN
Laics without any legitimate apostolical call to the ministration of
God's word and sacraments. Discuss. Amic. Lettr. i. vol. i. p. 1-14.
Every thing, says this unprovoked calumniator of his brethren,
which has been done in the Church of England, under Elisabeth, has
been done without right and without a shadow of 2>ossible comiwtency .
The whole is radically null, in the commencement; 7iull, during its
present existence; null, so long as it shall continue to exist. These
truths are not less clear to the intellect, than broad daylight is to the
visual organs. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 408^.
I. It is somewhat remarkable : that Dr. Trevern should carefully
specify, as luminaries of the Galilean Church, Perron and Morin and
Petau and Vansleb and Renaudot and Le Brun and Arnauld and
Nicole (Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 397) ; and yet that he should have
been as totally silent respecting the very learned and the very able
Courayer, as if no such individual had ever existed. Nevertheless,
on the precise point of the English Ordinations, this identical Cou-
rayer was the professed opponent of Renaudot, one of the writers
mentioned by him with so much approbation.
While Dr. Trevern was engaged in the charitable and doubtless
(according to the title of his Book) very amicable occupation of streuu-
ously reviling, to an English Layman, the Orders of the Anglican
Church : while he was diligently employed in assuring his corre-
spondent, that from the reign of Elisabeth, every thing was null ;
null yesterday, null to-day, null to-morrow, null to the very end
of time : why did he not inform his meditated proselyte, that one of
the ablest defences of the validity of our Ordinations was actually
written; not by an individual among ourselves, but by a Latin
Ecclesiastic ; not by a Latin Ecclesiastic of some obscure and easily
overlooked district, but by a native of the always distinguished coun-
try to which Dr. Trevern himself owes the no small honour of his
own origination ?
Was the Bishop of Strasbourg ignorant of the existence of the
Work of Courayer ? If so : how shall we deem so scantily instructed
a controvertist in any wise competent to step forward for the pur-
pose of gratuitously attacking the Church of England ?
Was the Bishop of Strasbourg well acquainted with the Work of
Courayer ? If so : why did he not, in all fairness, refer his english
* No doubt, it is, on this very prin- and Presbyters to be mere laymen, he
ciple of gratuitously asserted nullity, constitutes, for the purpose of super-
thai the late insolent aggression of seding them, a sham territorial Arch-
Pius IX. upon the independent Eealm bishop of his own and some dozen
of England has been so offensively sham territorial Bishops as his Suf-
perpetrated. Deeming our Bishops fragans. July 20, 1852.
OHDEKS.] APPENDIX. 405
friend to that masterly production ; in order that, after perusing his
own crude and hasty invectives, the Layman might have an oppor-
tunity of learning the well argued and well established sentiments of
another French Romanist, who, without any great derogation from
Dr. Trevern, may certainly, in point of talents and acquirements, be
pronounced at the least not his inferior ?
However we are to account for the fact, yet assuredly it is a fact,
that the Gallican Prelate, while amicably occupied in the hopeful
task of yilifying bur English Ordinations, preserves a most ominous
silence respecting the important Work of Courayer, entitled Disser-
tation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglais et sur la succession
des Evesques de VEglise Anglicane, avec les preuves justificatives des
fails avancez dans cet Ouvrage.
II. When the first edition of the Difficulties of Romanism was
published, I take shame to myself, even though an Englishman,
that I had never perused the work of Courayer : for, had I done so, I
should have judged my own very brief and summary defence of the
Anglican Church plainly superfluous.
But, if J, an Englishman but little conversant in gallic litera-
ture, thus take shame to myself for having never read the Work of
a french author : how shall w^e estimate the unenviable predicament,
in which Dr. Trevern, himself a Frenchman, must submit to be
placed ?
Has he read, or has he not read, the Work of his own fellow-
countryman, the Work of his own fellow-religionist?
Let the question be answered as it may, the not very agreeable
alternative has already been stated. In his attack upon our English
Ordinations, he must even be content to take his choice between
disgraceful ignorance and deliberate dishonesty.
III. Courayer, himself a dutiful child of the Mother and Mistress
of all Churches, pronounces, as a matter of course, us unlucky An-
glicans to be graceless heretics and mischievous scliismatics. That
standing piece of popish civility w^ere to be expected alike, whether
he really in his heart deemed us so, or whether he prudently judged
any urbane concession on such long since established points to be
bad policy.
But, while he will not flatter us, either as to our Doctrinal Faith,
or as to our Ecclesiastical Independence : he settles the perfect
Canonical Validity of our Orders upon such a basis of facts and
authorities, as a much stronger arm than that of Dr. Trevern, even
though aided and abetted by the polemical prowess of Mr. Husen-
beth, will not be able to overturn.
406 APPENDIX. [ANGLICAN
All the disingenuous assertions of the Bishop of Strasbourg, duly
retailed at second hand by the indiscriminating zeal of his english
coadjutor, had already, more than a century ago, been distinctly met
and admirably exposed to well deserved contempt by the learned
and able Courayer. From that lingering delight of Mr. Husenbeth
the anile figment of the Nag's Head Tavern retrospectively, down to
the modern labours of Dr. Trevern and his editorial ally j^rosjwc-
tively, the subject, through the most stubbom of all arguments, that
which is built upon the direct evidence of officially eecorded facts,
had been completely set at rest by a singularly powerful contro-
vertist, who to succeeding examiners has left nothing to be added
and nothing to be desired.
1. Parker of Canterbury, from whom descend all our English
Ordinations, and whose own ordination consequently is the turning
hinge of the dispute, was consecrated at Lambeth, on the seven-
teenth day of December in the year of grace 1559, by Bai'low,
Scory, Coverdale and Hodgkins.
Kespecting the episcopal consecration of the three last, anterior
to their joining in the consecration of Parker, there is no dispute, as
there can be" no doubt : because it appears upon the public official
registers. The sole question is that of the episcopal consecration of
Barlow : consequently, the sole question is, whether Barlow was
himself a Bishop or only a Presbyter when he joined in the conse-
cration of Parker.
(1.) Now, even if the anterior episcopal consecration of Barlow
could not be established, still I see not, how the validity of Parker's
consecration could thence be disputed. In that case, his conse-
cration would have been performed by three acknowledged Bishops,
having a Presbyter as their consentient assessor : and the con-
currence of th7'ee Bishops, though I know not how the primitive
apostolic necessity of that/ttZZ tale could be easily demonstrated, has
ever been deemed quite amply sufficient even by the most rigid
canonist.
True: as we may fancy the triumphant eagerness of those two
accomplished ecclesiastical antiquaries. Dr. Trevern and Mr. Husen-
beth, to exclaim ; True : but the uncanonically _?jresiiWj9<i<ows
assistance of a Presbyter renders null and void the whole unseemly
transaction .
Verily, this possible objection, which I have amused myself with
'stating, would come with a peculiarly bad grace from our two
adventurous Romanists : for, if it be valid, alas for our entire apo-
stolical succession, both Latin and Anglican ! The learned Dr.
OllDEBS.] APrENDlX. 407
Fletcher, as Mr. Hiisenbeth calls him, pronounces the alleged
doubtful and fearful uncertainty, attendant upon our English Orders,
to be an aivfid consideration : yet, if their soundness be thus wrapped
in uncertainty, the mischief, I fear, will have been perpetrated a
trifle more than exactly one thousand years before the consecration of
Matthew Parker. Most unluckily for our two amicable assailants of
the Anglican Church, it stands upon record; that, in the year 558,
Pope Pelagius I. was consecrated Bishop even of Rome herself by no
more than two Bishops assisted by a single concurring Presbyter.
Diim nou essent Episcojd, qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo Epis-
co])i, Joannes de Perusio et Bonus de Ferentino, et Andreas Presbyter
de Ostia: et ordinaverunt eum. Lib. Pontifical, in vit. Pelagii 1.
The consecration, therefore, of Archbishop Parker, even if we con-
cede the mere Presbyterism of Barlow, will be more canonical than
that of Pope Pelagius, by the precise amount of one Bishop : for,
while the Pope could boast of only two episcopal consecrators, the
Archbishop might honestly rejoice in three.
Mr. Husenbeth remarks, I observe, that, if Barlow himself was no
Bishop, Mr. Faher will admit, that he could not have made Parker a
Bishop.
Certainly, on such a supposition, Mr. Faber will veiy readily
admit, that Barlow alone could not have conferred episcopacy upon
Parker : and he trusts, that, in return, Mr. Husenbeth will with
equal readiness admit, that Andrew the Presbyter of Ostia could not
alone have conferred episcopacy upon Pope Pelagius. If, however,
Mr. Husenbeth should still magnanimously contend for the inva-
lidity of our English Orders on the favourite plea that Barlow was
only a Presbyter, I shall tremble for the soundness of his own
ordination and his mission to boot ; even to say nothing of the juris-
diction, which Bishop Trevern professes, as a most essential point,
to have specially received from the hands of Pope Pelagius 's
successor.
(2.) This parenthetic statement, de propria liberalitate, I add to
the overwhelming proofs of Courayer : for, in good sooth, so fully has
he established the fact of Barlow's own episcopal consecration, that
it may w^ell be deemed sportively superfluous. I shall give a very
brief and imperfect account of his evidence, referring the honest
inquirer to the Dissertation itself for his further more ample
satisfaction.
The name of Barlow, it is conceded, does not appear upon any
register of episcopal consecrations now extant : but the fact of his
consecration is demonstrated by such a mass of circumstantial testi-
408 APPENDIX. [ANGLICAN
mony, that it cannot be set aside without the introduction of an
universal scepticism.
In truth, if we are to reject the consecration of Barlow or even
(as Dr. Fletcher speaks) deem it fearfully uncertain, simply because
it appears not upon any extant register : we must, for the self-same
reason, reject, or at least deem fearfully uncertain, the consecration
of various Bishops, respecting whose actual consecration, however,
not a shadow of doubt w^as ever entertained. Fox of Hereford,
Sampson of Chichester, Bell of Worcester, Day of Chichester,
Latimer of Worcester, Withe of Lincoln, Bayne of Lichfield,
Turberville of Exeter, Hopton of Norwich, Godwell of St. Asaph,
and even the redoubtable popish persecutor Gardiner of Win-
chester, stand all in the same predicament with Barlow, and
present all to Dr. Fletcher and Mr. Husenbeth the same appal-
ling topic of awful consideration: nor can we establish the fact
of their several consecrations, save by exactly the same process
as that through which the fact of Barlow's consecration is esta-
blished ; namely, undeniable circumstantial evidence deduced from
recorded public official acts and from, the well preserved rolls of
Parliament.
If, however, some determined modern Romanist should profess
himself dissatisfied alike and equally with the testimony arising
from the yet extant commission of Henry VIII. to the Archbishop of
Canterbury for the consecration of Barlow, with the testimony arising
from the yet extant investiture of Barlow by the same Prince with the
temporalities of the See of St. David's, with the testimony arising
from the two yet extant writs of summons to Parliament addressed to
Barlow as Bishop of St. David's, and with the testimony arising
from the yet extant deed of translation on the part of still the same
Prince by which Barlow was removed from St. David's to Bath-and-
Wells : he will scarcely object to the equally extant testimony of his
favourite sovereign Queen Mary, as it appears in her commission to
consecrate Bourne to the see of Bath-and-Wells then vacant by the
deprivation of William Barlow the last Bishop thereof. This last
instrument I subjoin,
Regina, omnibus Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, vel aliis quibuscam-
que, quorum in hac parte intererit, salutem.
Vacante nuper sede episcopali infra ecclesiam nostram catlie-
dralem Wellensem per deprivationem et amotionem ultimi Episcopi
ibidem (Will. Barlow], Decanus et Capitulum ejusdem ecclesise
(licentia prius a nobis per eos alium eligendi in eorum Episcopum
et Pastoreni petita pariter et obtenta) discretum virum Mag. Gil-
OEDEKS.J APPENDIX. 409
bertum Bourne, S. Theologiae Baccalaureum, hi eorum Episcopum
et Pastorem caiionice elegerunt et nominaveruut, sicuti per eorum
literas, quas vobis mittimus prsesentibus inclusas plenius liquet,
vobis significamus : et caetera. Teste Regina apud Westmonasterium,
28 die Martii. Per ipsam Reginam. Courayer's Dissert, vol. ii.
p. Ixxxv, Ixxxvi.
2. The main and essential point having been settled, namely, the
Consecration of Parker by Bishops who themselves had been duly
consecrated, our learned Romish Divine proceeds to answer and
demolish all those minor quibbles and objections, which his less
candid brethren have so offensively delighted to conjure up, and
which in a flimsy attack upon the English Ordinations the Bishop
of Strasbourg (not to mention the emulous feebleness of Mr. Husen-
beth) has been contented to retail for the benefit of his Layman with
as much assurance as if they were new discoveries hitherto unan-
swered and plainly unanswerable.
Ces verites ; Dr. Trevern blushes not to say, while his learned
compatriot Courayer is never once mentioned : Ces verites ne sont
pas moins claires a Vesprit, que le jour Vest a nos yeux. Discuss.
Amic. vol. ii. p. 408.
Hence, with ludicrous gravity, he tells us, that, were he a member
of the most ancient and most illustrious and most honest assembly
in the whole world, our British House of Commons to wit ; an
assembly, which no Englishman, let him be gentle or simple, can
reverence and honour more entirely than Dr. Trevern does ; he
would certainly, with humble and firm confidence, move, that it be
an indispensable duty to abate and effectually remove the crying
nuisance of the year 1558 ; for, on every principle of morality and
equity, to maintain and preserve a manifest and undoubted Anti-
christiarr Establishment, when it might so easily be put down, is
quite as bad as to have been concerned in the unspeakable atrocity
of first setting it up. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 409.
IV. Thus harmoniously consistent from beginning to end, in the
concluding chapter of his preeminently Aynicable Discussion ; the
chapter, in which he mildly laments the profound ignorance of those
birds of darkness the modern Anglican Clergy, meekly apologises
for the generally beneficial Inquisition, charitably abuses the
Reformation, and humanely declaims against that freedom of reli-
gious worship which we deem our gloiy but which he confidently
predicts will be the ruin of the Church of England : thus, I say, in
his concluding chapter, does this remarkable Divine exhibit to us,
embodied in his own person, that amiable spirit of persuasive con-
410 APPENDIX. [ANGLICAN
ciliation, by which, in all ages, the Church of Rome has been so
peculiarly characterised.
V. Before I close the present subject, 1 must say a word on the
Romish Orders themselves, as they have subsisted, at least, since
the third day of March in the year 1547.
1. Dr. Fletcher, and Mr. Husenbeth after him, pronounce, as we
have seen, the doubtful and fearful uncertainty, attendant upon our
English Orders, to be an awful consideration. But what shall we
say to the appalling circumstance, that, ever since the year 1547,
the Romanists can have no certainty, that they themselves possess any
Orders at all ?
In that memorable year. Thirteen Canons concerning Sacraments
in general (de Sacramentis in genere) were put forth by the Council
of Trent : and, therefore, on popish principles, were put forth infal-
libly. Now, of these Thirteen Canons, the eleventh pronounces an
anathema (cursing being the familiar weapon of Rome) upon any
person, who shall say, that the intExNTIon of Ministers to do what the
Church does, while they make and confer the Sacraments, is not
required of them. Such intention, therefore, in the judgment of the
Coimcil, is plainly deemed essential to the validity of the Sacraments.
Siquis dixerit, in ministris, dum Sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt,
non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia :
anathema sit. Orders, however, constitute one of the Seven Sacra-
ments of the Romish Church. Therefore, if Orders be conferred
without the intention of conferring them, which intention the in-
fallible Council, under an anathema, pronounces to be necessary :
they are confessedly, ipso facto, invalid. But no person can be
absolutely certain, that a Popish Bishop, when he confers Orders,
has any intention of conferring them. And this fearful uncertainty,
as Dr. Fletcher speaks, extends, not only to the inferior Orders, but
likewise to the highest Order of Priest or Bishop : for, in the
Romish Church, so far as the point of Order is concerned. Priest
and Bishop are identical.
Nor does the matter stop even here. The officiating Bishop,
when he ordains, or when conjointly with other Bishops he conse-
crates a Bishop, however devout and sincere his intention may be,
can have no certainty, that he himself is a Bishop, or even that he is
an incorporated member of Christ's Catholic Church : because, the
valid reality of his own baptism, and the valid reality of his own
consecration, alike depending upon the intention of the baptiser or
the consecrators, he can never be certain of the reality of the inten-
tion of those several individuals.
ORDERS.] APPENDIX. ' 411
Thus, since the validity of all the so-called Seven Sacraments
depends respectively upon the intention of the officiating Priest or
the officiating Bishops ; for the Thirteen Canons are declared to
affect Sacraments in general; it is utterly impossible, that either
Dr. Fletcher or Mr. Husenbeth or indeed any person in the sup-
posed Orders of the Church of Kome can be certain, that his Ordina-
tion, or even his anterior Baptism, possesses the least validity.
But yet this is not all. According to Tridentine Infallibility,
INTENTION is invaviahly necessary. It must, therefore, be necessary,
in every step of descent, from the very time of the Apostles. There-
fore, if once there has been even one poor flaw in the transmission of
either Baptism or Orders by any single occurrence of the wickedness
of KON- INTENTION, all Subsequent Baptisms and Ordinations, that
have been derived from that corrupt and thence ineffective source,
are plainly, by the decision of the Council of Trent, ipso facto, null
and void.
Mr. Husenbeth may say, that such daring wickedness is incredible.
Be it so : but still he can never be certain, that it has not been
perpetrated. We Protestants are not bound by any such Conciliar
Speculation : but, to Dr. Fletcher and Mr. Husenbeth, this doubtful
and fearful uncertainty, attendant upon their own Orders, must,
I suppose, by their own shewing, be an awful consideration.
2. When, some short time ago, if I remember aright, the per-
plexing Tridental Dogma of the Necessity of intention was publicly
brought home to Mr. Newman, he endeavoured to escape from it in
manner following.
The existence of the Dogma itself he admitted : but he con-
tended, that even if a Bishop or Presbyter could be guilty of such
incredible wickedness as to administer any one of the Seven Sacra-
ments without the intention of effectively administering it, God
would mercifully interpose to correct such evil as might result from
*the impiety of his minister. Hence, in Mr. Newman's judgment,
unless I wholly misunderstand him, if a couple were married with-
out any intention on the part of the Priest to marry them ; still,
in practical effect, the want of intention would in no wise damage
the efficacy of that Sacrament: or if, through infidelity (what is
said to have not unfrequently been the case), a Priest should have
no intention to work the miracle of Transubstantiation ; still the
elements would be duly transubstantiated, and thus their wor-
shipper would be exempted from the sin of idolatrously worshipping
mere bread and wine : or again, if a Bishop should have no inten-
tion to ordain the individual to whom ostensibly he gave the Priest-
412 APPENDIX. [ANGLICAN ORDERS.
hood ; still, notwithstanding the lack of intention, the Priesthood
would be validly conferred.
I cannot help thinking, that a gentleman of Mr. Newman's acute-
ness must have felt an unpleasant consciousness, that he was prop-
ping up a bad cause by a gratuitous assumption which perfectly
stultifies the decision of the Council of Trent. For what could be
more nugatorj^, than to declare the Necessity of intention to tJw
validity of a Sacrament, when, all the while, God would effectually
interpose to do away any such alleged necessity ?
The whole resolves itself into the following dilemma.
Intention, on the part of the officiater, either is, or is not, essen-
tial to the validity of the administered Sacrament.
If it is essential : then Mr. Newman represents the Deity as
directly contradicting the Council, by practically setting aside its
decision, and by making the Sacrament equally valid whether
ministered with or without intention.
If it is not essential : then Mr. Newman exhibits the Council, as
either asserting a gross falsehood, or as advancing a flat platitude.
In either case, it may be doubted, whether the Council owes any
overwhelming debt of gratitude to its ingenious commentator.
When the same Dogma of The Necessity of intention was
recently brought forward against a popish disputant, his retort
courteous was : You twit us with the Dogma of intention ; but
you equally have it in your own Church : for your Articles make
the beneficial efficacy of a Sacrament to depend upon the worthiness
of the recipient ; which plainly involves the Dogma of intention,
because, if the recipient made himself unworthy by having no
intention to receive the Sacrament devoutly, to him the Sacrament
would have no beneficial efficacy.
The prompt answer w^as : True : we make intention necessary to
the beneficial efficacy of a Sacrament : but there is this difference
between your system and our system. You suspend the efficacy of
a Sacrament upon the intention of the Priest : which can never be
known, with certainty, to any other person. We, on the contrary,
suspend it upon the intention of the Recipient; who cannot but
know, whether he devoutly receives it, or internally derides it.
In propounding the Dogma of intention, the Council of Trent
has unaccountably fixed a mill -stone upon the back of every
Komanist, which no ingenuity can throw off.
London - -Printed by G. Barclay, Castle St. Leicester Sq.
By the same Author^
The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy; or, a Dis-
sertation on the Prophecies which treat of the grand period of Seven
Times. Second Edition. Painter, 342 Strand.
The Many Mansions in the House of the
Father, scripturally discussed and practically considered.
Royston and Brown, 40 Old Broad Street.
Works against Romanism.
The Pope's Supremacy a thing of Priestcraft ;
Being a Compendious Refutation of the Arguments from Holy
Scripture and Tradition, by which Modern Romanists attempt to
support the Papal Usurpation. By Charles Hastings Collette,
Author of " Romanism in England Exposed," &c. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
"The whole subject is examined with a minuteness and an accuracy which leave
nothing to be accomplished in the way of proof. We would defy any man honestly
to ponder the facts and arguments contained in this volume, and to remain a fol-
lower in the monstrous assumption which is laid open with such consummate skill
by Mr. Collette." — BelVs Weekly Messenger.
Also by the same Author,
Romanism in England Exposed. The Redemp-
torist Fathers of St. IMary's Convent, Park Road, Clapham. 2d
Edition. Enlarged. Fcap. cloth, 2*. Qd.
Popish InfallibiUty. Letters to Viscount Feilding
on his Secession from the Church of England. 18mo. cloth, Is.
Cases of Conscience, for the Use of the Laity.
By Pascal the Younger. With a Prefatory Letter to the Right
Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., and a Reply to the Defence of the
Church of Rome in the "Dublin Review." Fourth Edition, 8vo.
containing 130 closely-printed pages, 2*. 6d.
" No Antipapal pamphlet has appeared in modern times more lucid in its argu-
ment — more logical in its conclusions — more astounding in its statements — or more
powerful in its language — than ' Cases of Conscience.' " — The Bulwark, for May.
** For powerful statements, startling facts, pungent wit, and that eloquence
which is reasoning on fire, our day, fruitful in power, has produced nothing like
* Cases of Conscience.' " — Archdeacon Garbett.
An Exposition of the Principal Motives which
induced me to leave the Church of Rome. By C. L. Trivier,
formerly a Roman Catholic Priest. Translated from the French by
Mrs. BusHBY. Fcap. 8vo. cloth, 3*. 6d.
** To those who are wavering, if they will read at all and judge for themselves,
the value of this book is past aU calculation. It has been very carefully translated
by Mrs. Bushby, and is well worthy of a large circulation." — BelPs Weekly Mes-
senger.
LONDON: THOMAS BOSWORTH, 215 REGENT STREET.
WORKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED •
BY
THOMAS BOSWORTH,
215 REGENT STREET, LONDON.
The Fine Arts ; their Nature and Relations.
With detailed Criticisms on certain Pictures of the Italian and
French Schools. By M. Guizot. Translated from the French,
with the assistance of the Author, by_ George Grove. With Illus-
trations drawn on Wood by George Scharf, jun. Medium 8vo.
cloth extra, lis.
The Poets of the Woods. Twelve Pictures of
English Song-Birds, executed in Colours in the best style of
Lithography. From Drawings by Joseph Wolf. With Orna-
mental Borders, and Poetical Descriptions selected from the best
Authors. Small 4to. cloth gilt, gilt edges, 15*.
The Life of Wallenstein^ Duke of Friedland.
By Lieut.-Col. Mitchell. Second Edition, crown 8vo. cloth,
reduced to 5s.
" A work written with the feeliags of a soldier, the principles of a patriot, and
the penetration of a statesman." — Alison^ s History of Europe.
Illustrations of Mediaeval Costume in England.
Collected from MSS. in the British Museum, Bibliotheque de Paris,
&c. By T. A. Day and J. H. Dines. With numerous Coloured
Engravings. Small 4to. cloth, 9*.
** The engravings leave nothing to be desired. They are really beautiful, and at
the same time most accurate. The letterpress is terse, comprehensive, and good."
— Weekly News.
Works recently Published by Thomas Bosworth.
Uncle Tom's Cabin. By Harriet Beecher
Stowe. The " Author's Edition" of this most talented and popular
American Novel, containing a Preface by the Authoress, written
expressly for this Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth, 3s. 6d.
Mrs. Stowe has a direct interest in the sale of this Edition, and it is the only one
printed in this country which is authorised by her.
The History of the Christian Church. Vol. I.
— The Church in the Apostolic Age. By Henrt W. J. Thiersch,
Doctor of Philosophy and Theology. Translated from the German
by Thomas Carlyj^e, Esq. of the Scottish Bar. 12mo. cloth, 6s.
** A. learned and instructive work." — Arnold's Theological Critic.
The Pleasures, Objects, and Advantages of
Literature. By the Rev. Robert Aris Willmott, Incumbent of
Bearwood, and Author of " Lives of the Sacred Poets ;" " Jeremy
Taylor, a Biography," &c. &c. Second Edition, revised, fcap. 8vo,
cloth, 5s.
" An elegantly written and agreeable book, especially well adapted for reading
by snatches, when leisure disposes the mind to seek for diversion rather than to
engage in study." — Spectator.
" It may be read over and over again, and will always impart some new delight."
— Gentleman' s Magazine.
The Rookeries of London : Past, Present, and
Prospective. By Thomas Beames, M.A., Preacher and Assistant of
St. James's, Westminster. With Woodcuts. Second Edition, en-
larged, post 8vo. cloth, 5*.
** The work is exceedingly well written, and makes its appearance opportunely."
— Morning Post.
Last Glimpses of Convocation. Showing the
latest Incidents and Results of " Synodical Action " in the Church of
England. Fcap. 8vo. cloth, 4s. 6d.
i.^
LIBRARY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
THIS BOOK IS DUE BEFORE CLOSING TIME
ON LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW
LIBRARY USE M
^R 171972 7
fiFC'flLD M^l
r''79-4PM$4
-
^.^^i^^iii.. --«12IF-'
A'
Faber, G
The di
57256
.S.
Pfi Oil! •fi fiR of
BX1765
f3
Romanism
•
y^ ^
_ ____--^
^^^^
5725t
exiu5
F3
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY
i iWesTLEYS.Vi^.