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^.