^^J^t,-_. V Z i 
 
fc 
 
 
 -.LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 OK 
 
 Received 
 
 Accessions No.^-'X^ ^^ Shelf No. 
 
MILNER REFUTED; 
 
 OR, 
 
 PIOUS FRAUDS EXEMPLIFIED IN DR, MILNER'S 
 
 "END OP RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY." 
 
 BEING A SERIES OP 
 
 ripal, SMtotei, aifo 0trtrilmtei JtrtirUs 
 
 EXPOSING 
 
 DR. MILNER'S 
 
 CHAELES 
 
 AND FICTIONS. 
 
 COLLETTE. 
 
 /: 
 
 ^ rig iffnv rj T&V avOpwirw TrXdvr], did. TrouaXtcrg, KOI 7ro\\a>v 
 TO <f*av\ov ry avOptitTrtiq, Qvaei, icai 7r\avr)<ra.<ra eca<rrov ^id 
 ano Tfjs a\T)Qda. Epiphan. adv. Haereses, torn. i. p. 507, 2 (edit. 1682) 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM PENNY, 
 57, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS; 
 
 SOLD ALSO BY 
 
 BOSWORTH & HARRISON, 115, REGENT STREET; 
 CURRY & CO. DUBLIN; J. NICHOL, EDINBURGH. 
 
 1856. 
 
(o 
 
 LONDON: 
 WILLIAM PENNY, 
 
 PRINTER, ENGRAVER, AND LITHOGRAPHER, 
 57, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS. 
 
 Lou 
 
PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 DR. MILNER'S Work, miscalled the " End of Religious Con- 
 troversy " (in whatever sense the title may be construed) , a is 
 well known to all controversialists, though variously estimated 
 by the contending parties. The late Charles Butler, a zealous 
 lay advocate of the Roman Church, declared it to be " the 
 ablest exposition of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic 
 Church on the articles contested with her by Protestants ; 
 and the ablest statement of the proofs by which they are 
 supported, and of the historical facts with which they are 
 connected, that has appeared in our language." ' The same 
 work has been put forward by Romanists as " the Herculean 
 shield, which not only confounds, but fritters away the in- 
 genious subtleties of the sophist, the specious distinctions of 
 the critic, the empty theories of the sceptic, and all the im- 
 potent attacks of misguided reason against our holy religion." c 
 By another editor it is styled " The golden work of the Right 
 Rev. John Milner," &c. &c. It is recommended as a " book 
 particularly adapted for the perusal of inquiring Protestants ; 
 the one of all others which the Catholic priest or layman 
 wishes to place in the hands of such persons, as best able to 
 assist their search after truth." Again, the same editor adds : 
 "We may, in fact, safely say, that no other controversial 
 work, of modern times, has had equal success in effecting 
 conversions to our holy religion. Indeed, there are probably 
 few converts who have arrived at it, without being, partly 
 at least, indebted to this excellent work." d 
 
 While, on the other hand, Dr. Milner's work has been 
 designated by Protestant writers of credit as the most unscru- 
 pulous production that has been put forward under the garb 
 
 " By the the End of Controversy, Dr. Milner could not mean ike legitimate 
 object of controversy, since the work can in no way bear out the idea ; but from 
 the positive tone assumed, we must presume that he meant its complete termina- 
 tion, thus intimating that his work was so potent as to put a complete end to 
 all controversy between Protestants and Papists. Few readers, we think, will 
 admit that the doctor has attained his desired object. 
 
 b "Book of the Roman Catholic Church," p. 10, quoted in the Letters of 
 the Bishop of Exeter, 2nd edit. 1826, p. 16. 
 
 c In the Preface to the Edition of 1820, published by Ed. Coyne, Dublin. 
 
 d From the Preface of the Derby Svo Edition, dated 1842. 
 
IV PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 of religion, and with the affectation of candour. The Rev. 
 Joseph Mendham, in his " Literary Policy of the Church of 
 Home/' writes : " I cannot forbear adding, with respect to 
 this plausible, because deceitful work, that the reflection 
 which but a cursory examination of it most constantly and 
 forcibly impresses upon the mind, is the facility with which, 
 particularly when aided by opportune suppression, invention, 
 and adjustment, Romanists may prove anything, since the 
 authors and authorities respected by them have maintained 
 everything." The Rev. G. S. Faber, in his " Difficulties of 
 Romanism," a with great reason asserts : " In point of dex- 
 terity and plausibility, the work of Dr. Milner, which he has 
 entitled f the End of Religious Controversy/ has probably 
 not been surpassed since the days of that prince of sophists, 
 the wily Bossuet. It is, however, strongly marked by what 
 I have noted to be the grand characteristics of productions 
 written in favour of Popery, and in opposition to the Reform- 
 ation. These are unscrupulous misrepresentations on the one 
 hand, and bold allegation on the other." And Mr. M'Gavin, 
 in his refutation of parts of the work in question, declares 
 that Dr. Milner " has displayed an impudent disregard of 
 historical truth ;" that " his 'End of Religious Controversy' 
 bears one of the most prominent marks of the beast in its 
 very front ; there is downright lying and imposition." 
 
 From these brief extracts, our readers will at once appre- 
 ciate the estimation in which this work is held. 
 
 To the Roman Catholic controversialist, Dr. Milner 's book 
 has very extensively supplied weapons of attack, though very 
 few have cared, either to test the value of the authority on 
 which their favourite author relies, or to go further for 
 materials ; while, on the other hand, there is scarcely a writer 
 on the Protestant side of the question, who has not, in one 
 shape or another, been able to detect gross and palpable mis- 
 representations in Dr. Milner' s assertions. We have, there- 
 fore, scattered about in different quarters, in chapters and notes, 
 materials, ample (though not easily obtainable by the gene- 
 rality of readers) for exposing these various " pious frauds." 
 
 It is our purpose in the present work, without following 
 any particular order, to bring before our readers illustrations 
 of " PIOUS FRAUDS " of the REV. DR. MILNER, as exemplified 
 in the work in question, availing ourselves, from time to 
 time, of the labours of others, as well original as published ; 
 and, during this examination, we may occasionally refer to 
 Dr. Milner 's other work " Letters to a Prebendary." 
 
 * In the preface, 3rd edit. p. xxxiv. 
 
PREFATORY REMARKS. V 
 
 We shall confine ourselves as closely as possible to the 
 exposure of Dr. Milner's misrepresentations, rather than 
 enter on a general discussion or examination of the doctrines 
 of the Roman Church. We are fully aware of the diffi- 
 culty and extent of the task we have undertaken, arising 
 from the wide range of subjects treated of by Dr. Milner, 
 condensed into a small compass, without any attempt at 
 accuracy, either in citation of historical facts, or quotations 
 from other writers. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we feel 
 confident that, though it may be impossible in a limited com- 
 pass to expose all the misrepresentations of Dr. Milner, we 
 shall be able to lay before our readers sufficient to destroy 
 his credit, whether as a divine or a controversialist. 
 
 We may be reminded, by some of our readers, of Dr. Grier's, 
 Dr. Jarvis', Bishop Hopkins', and Mr. McGavin's very able 
 works on the same subject; but it has been universally 
 admitted, that they do not present a full examination of the 
 work; and, besides, having confined themselves (with the 
 exception of Mr. McGavin) to what more particularly 
 engaged them, as members of the Church of England, they 
 are rather incomplete. For though ourselves sincere mem- 
 bers of our time-honoured scriptural Church, we shall, in the 
 course of our examination, refute the calumnies which 
 J)r. Milner has heaped on the various other denominations 
 of Protestants with an unsparing and unscrupulous hand, and 
 to this part of our plan we particularly invite the attention 
 of our dissenting brethren. 
 
 The greatest care has been taken to arrive at accuracy in 
 the citations from authors. 
 
 C. H. C. 
 
 10th September, 1856. 
 
 NOTE. Except when another edition is expressly named, the edition of Milner' s 
 " End of Religious Controversy," from which we have quoted throughout the fol- 
 lowing pages, is the 12rao. stereotype edition printed at Derby, "for the[Roman\ 
 Catholic Book Society" without date. Tlie editors Preface bears date 1842. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 No. I. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 Issue raised by Milner between Protestants and Romanists, 2 His sophism 
 of a supposed sudden corruption of the Christian Faith to Romanism, 3 . 
 
 RULE OF FAITH. 
 No. II. The Uth Psalm. 
 
 The alleged corruption of, and Milner's attempt to weaken the faith in, the 
 Authorized Version, 5, 6 The Rhemish and Authorized Versions compared, 
 7 And Romish editions cited Calmet's evidence Various old versions cited, 
 12 Jerome's statements, 12, 13 The testimony of Estius, 12 Erasmus, 
 Cajetan, &c., 13. 
 
 No. III. Alleged Corruption of the Authorized Version, 1 John v. 7. 
 Milner's statement, 15, 16 Authorized Version vindicated, 16. 
 
 No. IV. Alleged Inaccuracies in the Authorized Translation. 
 
 Milner's charge (1 Cor. xi. 27) stated, 17 19 The various Roman editions 
 cited, 19, 20 As to Matt. xix. 11 Milner's case stated, 20 Dr. Lingard 
 agrees with ours The Authorized Translation vindicated, 21 Alleged obscure 
 translator of the Authorized Version, 22. 
 
 No. V. Protestant Rule of Faith and Private Judgment. 
 Milner's definitions, 24 His perversion exposed, 25 The principle of 
 Private Judgment stated, 25, 29, 34 The Canons of 1571 and 1559, 26 
 The Divines of the Reformation, 27. 
 
 No. VI. The Objection that Christ himself never Wrote. 
 Milner^s argument stated, 34, 35 Replied to, 35 And also by Augustine 
 (by anticipation), 35 Milner's preaching and teaching theory examined 36, 37. 
 
 No. VII. Alleged limited Scope and insufficiency of the Gospels, and the 
 
 Canonical Epistles of the New Testament as a Rule of Faith. 
 Milner's preaching theory examined Milner's statement, 37, 38 The suf- 
 ficiency of Scriptures vindicated, 40 Patristic evidence Irenseus, 42 Ter- 
 
 tullian, 43 Ambrose Jerome Augustine, 44 Clement of Alexandria 
 
 Origen, 46 Hippolytus Athanasius Cyril of Jerusalem, 47 Basil Theo- 
 
 philus of Alexandria Gregory of Nyssa Cyril of Alexandria, 48 Chrysostom, 
 49 Result of investigation No Father questions sufficiency of Scriptures- 
 Jeremy Taylor's opinion Johannes, Damascenes, and Gerson maintain the 
 
 Protestant rule, 50 As also the Tridentine Bishops Fano and Chioggia, 51 
 
 Disagreement at the Council of Trent, 51, 52. 
 
 No. Via. Tradition, or the Roman Rule of Faith. 
 
 Milner's definition, 52 His Patristic evidence in support examined 
 Ignatius, 53 57irapaSoffiQ and traditio, the meaning of these words as used 
 by early Christian writers Irenasus, 57 et seq. Tradition as to the appoint- 
 ment of the first Bishop of Rome, 61 Tertullian, 64 69 Origen 69 
 Cyprian, 70 Basil, 70, 71 Epiphaniua, 72. 
 
CONSENTS. 
 
 No. IX. The Canon of Scripture. 
 
 The teaching of the Church of England, 73 The Trent Council, 74 
 Milner's arguments and authorities for establishing the Eoman Canon, 75 
 The tradition of the Church examined before the date of the Council of Car- 
 thage, 75, 76 The Jewish Church, 76 Melito, Origen, Hilary, Cyprian, 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 76 Greg. Nazianzen, Jerome, Council of Laodicea 
 (confirmed by subsequent councils), Epiphanius, 77 Augustine, 78 Expla- 
 nation of the term ' ' Canon " of Scripture as used by Augustine, 78 Confirmed 
 by Cajetan, 79 The 74th Canon of the third Council of Carthage proved to 
 be spurious, 80, 81 The tradition of, after the third Council of Carthage, 81 
 The Council objected to by Bellarmine, 81 Du Pin, 82 Evidence against 
 the Tridentine decree in each successive century, from the sixth to the six- 
 teenth, 82, 83 The List of Innocent I. examined, 83 Shown to be a forgery, 
 83, 84 Cajetan's opinion, 83 Milner's argument derived from Augustine, 
 Hooker [175], Lardner, and Luther, 85, 87, 88 Augustine's supposed belief 
 in the Gospel on the authority of the Church, 85 87. 
 
 No. X. REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 Dr. Milner's historical misrepresentations in reference to the marriage 
 of Prince Henry (afterwards Henry VIII.) with his brother's widow, Katharine 
 of Arragon, and his subsequent marriage with Anne Boleyn The Pope's 
 alleged refusal to the divorce and second marriage stated to be the cause of 
 the king abrogating the Pope's supremacy, 88 102 His further misrepresen- 
 tations with reference to the Duke of Somerset, 102 105 Milner's misrepre- 
 sentations in regard to Elizabeth, 105, 106 Milner's Theory of the causes of 
 the Reformation, 107 The Politics of Princes and Statesmen, 107 The avarice 
 of the Nobility and Gentry, 110 The irreligion and licentiousness of the 
 People, 111. 
 
 No. XL THE FRUITS OF SANCTITY. 
 
 Rome and the Reformation. 
 
 Milner's lamentation of Protestant slander on the " Church before Luther " 
 No necessity of employing Protestant testimony Evidence from the Orations 
 of the Council of Trent of the universal depravity of the Roman Church and 
 Roman Catholic States, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120 Of Caranza The Theo- 
 logians of Louvain, 113 The like from Gravina Erasmus' Letters, 114, 117, 
 121 (notes) Milner's Protestant evidences, 115 Want of morality among the 
 Roman converts in India, 118 The passage from Calvin's treatise " De Scan- 
 dalis " examined, 119 Facilities granted by Rome to sin, 120, 121 Mis- 
 quotation from Erasmus, 121 Rome itself the sink of iniquity, 122 The 
 number of ecclesiastics at Rome, 122 The number of criminals from 1850 to 
 1854, 123. 
 
 No. XII. THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 On the Temporal and Spiritual Supremacy. 
 
 Sec. I. Milner disclaims for the Pope civil and temporal supremacy 
 Baronius holds the contrary The decree of Boniface Bull of Sixtus V. and 
 Pius V. against Queen Elizabeth, 124 The teaching of Trent defined The 
 appellation of Pope (Papa) and Milner's perversion, 125. 
 
 Sec. II. Evidence derived from the New Testament The points to be 
 proved Peter's position among the Apostles, 125 Ambrose and Chrysostom 
 on the equal worth of Paul, 127 Milner's Scriptural texts, Matt. x. 2 On 
 placing Peter first when the Apostles were enumerated, 127 Peter first to 
 confess Christ, 127 The first to whom Christ appeared after the Resurrection, 
 128 The first to preach the Resurrection and to convert the Gentiles, 129 
 
Vlii CONTENTS. 
 
 Philip's conversion of the Eunuch and the results, 130 " Feed my Sheep," 131 
 Cyprian and Augustine on, 131 Luke xxii. 32, 132 Chrysostom's inter- 
 pretation of this text, 133 Luke v. 3, 10, 134 Matt. xvi. 17, 19, text ex- 
 amined, and various interpretations given by the Fathers, 135 Binding and 
 Loosing, 137. 
 
 Sec. III. Peter's alleged visit to Rome, arguments and proofs against, 138, 
 
 146 Milner's statements, 138 Admitted to be an historical point, 139 The 
 
 idea discarded by Romanists, 139 Propositions considered i. That the 
 Fathers speak of Peter as having founded the Church at Rome, from which it 
 is inferred that he went to Rome and lived there soon after our Lord's death, 
 141, 142 ii. That Eusebius and the rest of the Greek and Roman Fathers said 
 that the word " Babylon " was used by Peter in his Epistle instead of the word 
 Rome, from which it is inferred that the Apostle died in that city, 142, 143 
 iii. That St. Jerome describes Peter as being Bishop of Rome for twenty-five 
 years in an exclusive and peculiar sense, from which it is inferred that Peter 
 must have resided there during that time, 143, 144 iv. That St. Jerome, in his 
 Latin Chronicon, and likewise Eusebius, in his Greek Chronicon, describe the 
 Apostle as mainly residing in Europe for twenty-five years, 144 146. 
 
 Sec. IV. Historical Evidence, 146 St. Paul, 147 151 Ignatius, 151154 
 Clement of Rome, 154, 155 Iremeus, 155 160 Tertullian, 160 Origen, 
 163 Cyprian and Jerome, 168. 
 
 No. XIII. Dr. Milner's Unfairness in Quotations from Protestants. 
 Chillingworth and Hooker misrepresented, 172 184. 
 
 No. XIV. PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 Sec. I. Introductory remarks, 184 Dr. Milner's sophistry, 185 The 
 Rhemish notes, 189. 
 
 Sec. II. Is the Church of Rome responsible for persecuting heretics ? 191 
 201 Disclaimed by Milner, 191 But makes the state responsible, 193 Per- 
 secution taught by Romish doctors, 194, 195 Pope's decrees, 196 200. 
 
 Sec. III. The persecuting spirit of Rome, 201 Persecuting councils, 201 
 208 Jerome and Huss, 209 Theologians of Trent, 211 The creed of 
 Pope Pius IV. The Jews and Romanists compared, 215. 
 
 No. XV. ALLEGED TOLERATION OF JAMES II. 
 
 Dr. Milner's apology examined ; his statements refuted by evidence of 
 James the Second's repeated acts of persecution, 216 227. 
 
 No. XVI. THE REV. J. GARBETT'S LETTER TO DR. MILNER. 
 
 Erroneous statement and incorrect quotations affecting the character of 
 certain eminent divines of the Church of England, viz., Archbishop Usher 
 238 Laud, 244 and Wake, 245 Bishops King, 233 Hallifax, 234 [Gor- 
 don, 236] Goodman, 236 Cheyney, 237 Shipley, 237 -Juxon, 242 Potter, 
 243 Moreton, 243 Douglas (his "Criterion" and Jesuit missions) and 
 Tomlin, 252 Charge that the national Church is a prey to Socinianism, 251 
 On the Athanasian Creed, 252 The Non-Jurors, 253 That the clergy preach 
 in churches in the morning, and in the meeting-houses in the evening, 254 
 Conclusion Extracts referring to Dr. Milner's protestations of sincerity and 
 charity, 255. 
 
M I L N E ET U TED. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 " THE /^ once delivered to the saints " is that which all 
 denominations of Christians profess to maintain and teach. 
 What that faith is, is the precise point in dispute between the 
 Churches of Rome and England. We are not agreed on the 
 subject : Protestants maintain that many of the doctrines 
 taught by the Romish Church as points of faith were not thus 
 delivered ; while Romanists, on the other hand, maintain that 
 her doctrines as now professed have been delivered to them by 
 the Apostles, and are to this day professed and taught in their 
 original purity, and which, says Dr. Milner, " the [Romish] 
 Church has ever guarded as the apple of her eye." a 
 
 In favour of the mass of doctrines, written and traditional, 
 Scriptural and extra-scriptural, which the members of his 
 Church are required to believe as equally and alike divine 
 revelations, Dr. Milner propounds the following statements : 
 
 " Most likely the [Roman] Catholic peasant learns the doc- 
 trine of the Church from his parish priest ; but 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 him- 
 self 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 in a controver- 
 sial way, either from Scripture or tradition : much less does 
 she pretend to make new articles of faith, or to expound the 
 original articles in a different sense from that in which she 
 
 * Letter xi. p. 150. b Letter xii. p. 166. 
 
2 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 has always held them ; though it is true that she sometimes 
 adopts new terms, such as consubstantial and transubstantia- 
 tion, as more energetical and expressive of her belief, in oppo- 
 sition to the rising heresies of the times. In short, her con- 
 stant 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' 3 a 
 
 The boldness of these allegations is equalled only by their 
 explicitness : but their very explicitness brings the question 
 to an abundantly easy solution. 
 
 Dr. Milner, we see, asserts : that every doctrine taught by 
 the present Church of Rome has invariably been taught by 
 the Catholic Church in every age from the very time of the 
 apostles, who themselves originally delivered the entire system 
 as it stands fully and authoritatively explained by the Council 
 of Trent. 
 
 Now such language indisputably asserts a naked historical 
 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 ourselves are at issue. 
 
 They assert an historical fact : we deny, that the asserted 
 fact can be established by testimony. 
 
 Nor is this all. We not only deny that the asserted fact 
 can be established by testimony ; but we furthermore main- 
 tain, that the testimony of history directly contradicts the 
 assertion of the pretended fact. 
 
 Both these positions, we undertake to establish in the 
 course of the following treatise, as the subjects present them- 
 selves for our examination. 
 
 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 imme- 
 diately protested against. 
 
 " In a word," says Dr. Milner, citing the notable argu- 
 ment of an apostate divine, who, by some curious intellectual 
 process, was led to desert the Church of England for the 
 
 a Letter Ivi. p. 375, Stli edit. London, 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 3 
 
 Church of Rome, " there is but one way of accounting for 
 alleged alterations in the doctrine of the Church ; that men- 
 tioned by the learned Dr. Bailey : which is to suppose, that, 
 on some* one night, all the Christians of the world went to 
 sleep sound Protestants, and awoke next morning rank 
 Papists." a 
 
 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. b 
 
 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 depar- 
 ture from primitive purity to modern Romanism was at once 
 instantaneous and universal ; insomuch that the former was 
 the standard faith of the Church on a Monday, and that the 
 latter was found to be 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 instanta- 
 neous and universal 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 such extraordinary person ever existed. Con- 
 sequently, 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 characterized at once by suddenness and univer- 
 sality," as these two unscrupulous individuals would misre- 
 present the matter ; but that " It was gradual in its progress 
 and successive as respects the introduction of this or that 
 unscriptural superstition." 
 
 Dr. Bailey, therefore, and, after him, Dr. Milner, 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 
 
 a Letter xi. p. 153. 
 
 b Has Dr. Milner adduced it in sober seriousness ? 
 B 2 
 
4 
 
 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 Adam went to sleep, on some one eventful night, a puling 
 infant ; and awoke, next morning, as proper a man as ever 
 trod on neat's leather." 
 
 The bold allegation, however, runs : that " No opposition to 
 pretended unscriptural innovation stands upon record." 
 Whence it is argued : that " No such thing as any unscrip- 
 tural 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 
 pronouncing him a heretic, would fain set aside his well-timed 
 protestation ; although, be it observed, this was re-echoed 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 unscriptural 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 
 innovators themselves would not protest against their own 
 innovations. But Vigilantius does not stand alone. Various 
 other instances of immediate opposition to unscriptural novel- 
 ties, now unblushingly asserted by Rome to be sound prime- 
 val 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 doctrinal 
 practice occurred ;" and that " We have no recorded instance 
 of any protestation against such change." a 
 
 These several matters we notice, in this introductory 
 chapter, both as immediately bearing upon the plan, to a 
 great extent, of the present work, and likewise as exhibiting 
 the controversial management of a very ingenious but not 
 very scrupulous Romish divine. 
 
 The remarkable facility with which Dr. Milner arrives at 
 his conclusions, reminds us forcibly of the terse but true say- 
 ing of the great Curran : that ' ' Error is in its nature flippant 
 and compendious ; it hops with airy and fastidious levity over 
 proofs and arguments, and perches upon assertion, which it 
 calls conclusion" 
 
 a The above is adapted from the Preface of Faber's "Difficulties of 
 Eomanism," pp. xxxix. xlii., 3rd edit., London, 1853. 
 
No. II. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 The 14th Psalm. The Alleged Corruption in the Authorized Version. 
 
 IN order to throw difficulties in the way of a Protestant 
 who receives the BIBLE, and the Bible alone, as his rule of 
 faith, and to unsettle this faith, the first step generally taken is 
 to destroy confidence in the sacred book itself. Accordingly 
 Dr. Milner commences Letter ix. by asking his imaginary cor- 
 respondent, the too confiding Mr. Brown, " By what means 
 have you learnt what is the Canon of Scripture ?" "Which 
 are the books that have been written by Divine inspiration ; 
 or indeed, how have you ascertained that any books at all have 
 been so written?" He then tries to make his dupe doubt 
 altogether of the inspiration of the Bible. " It does not/' 
 he says, te of itself prove that they [the writers of the Bible] 
 always wrote, or indeed that they ever wrote, under the in- 
 fluence of inspiration. [The italics are Dr. Milner's own.] 
 They were by nature fallible men. How have you learnt 
 that they were infallible writers ?" Then the " genuineness" 
 and completeness of the Scriptures are brought into question ; 
 and having thus led, as he supposes, his credulous reader into 
 a fit state of bewilderment, he thinks it a proper opportunity 
 to aim his death-blow at the Authorized version, and hopes 
 to demolish it at once, by showing that when " the English 
 Protestant gets possession of an English Bible," he not only 
 has all these various difficulties to contend with, but that, 
 after all, he has only a spurious Bible to rely on as his rule of 
 faith ! The assertion is conveyed in a most artful manner, 
 without compromising himself to any particular or precise 
 charge, but leaving his readers to infer that we are most 
 indubitably under the curse conveyed in Revelation xxii. 18, 
 19, by either adding to or subtracting from " the words of the 
 prophecy of this book." 
 
 The allegation rests on the fact that whereas, in the edition 
 of the Psalms, as published with our liturgical service, verses 
 in the 14th Psalm appear which do not appear in the corre- 
 sponding Psalm in the Authorized version, and that therefore 
 a suppression or addition is perpetrated. He thus hopes to 
 throw the Established Church of England on the horns of a 
 dilemma. 
 
6 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 " Look then," writes Dr. Milner (Letter ix.) , " at Psalm xiv. 
 as it occurs in the Book of Common Prayer, to which your 
 clergy swear their ' consent and assent ' then look at the same 
 Psalm in your Bible : you will find four whole verses in the 
 former, which are left out in the latter ! What will you here 
 say, dear sir ? You must say that your Church has added 
 to, or else that she has taken away from, the words of this 
 prophecy." 
 
 And in a note is added : 
 
 " These verses in question being quoted in St. Paul (Rom. 
 iii. 13, &c.), there is no doubt but the common Bible is defec- 
 tive in this passage." 
 
 Here, then, in a note which probably is not Dr. Milner's, 
 we gather that our Authorized version errs in consequence of 
 a suppression of part of God's word ; and we are led to believe 
 this to be the real charge that is urged, inasmuch as the 
 English Douay versions include all the verses alleged to be 
 suppressed. 
 
 To this charge, the offspring of folly, or malice, or both 
 united, and which betrays an ignorance of the very rudi- 
 ments of sacred criticism, it is easy to reply that the verses 
 are in Scripture, but do not properly belong to the 14th Psalm. 
 From the margin of an old Greek manuscript, as presently 
 stated, they were introduced into the text. The old Latin 
 version was made from the Greek, which likewise inserted, the 
 three verses as part of the text. In the first English Bible 
 authorized to be read in churches, published by Archbishop 
 Cranmer in 1539-40, the three verses are printed in smaller 
 letters than the rest, to denote that they are not in the 
 Hebrew. From this Bible the Psalter was inserted, in 1549, 
 in the first Prayer-book of King Edward VI., and has ever 
 since been continued ; and it has been deemed convenient to 
 retain the old translation of the Psalms, with which our 
 congregations have been so long familiar. a The verses are 
 not found in the Hebrew original, and are therefore omitted 
 in every version made directly from it. Among these is our 
 authorized translation. 
 
 The question has to be considered in a twofold aspect : 
 
 I. Have we suppressed any portion of the Scriptures by the 
 alleged omission of the verses in question in the \^th Psalm ? 
 
 II. Have we any precedent admissible by Romanists them- 
 
 a For the same reason the Latin churches did not adopt Jerome's improved 
 version of the Psalter from the Hebrew, but constantly retained in all offices 
 the old translation from the Septuagint, not because the latter was more 
 correct, but because the people were accustomed to it. 
 
THE XIV. PSALM. 7 
 
 selves, which justifies us in maintaining that the authorized 
 version is correct ? 
 
 I. In the first place, we deny that the translators of our 
 Authorized version have suppressed any portion of the WORD 
 OF GOD. 
 
 The question, then, usually put by Romanists is, If St. 
 Paul's words, which he uses in the 3rd chapter to the Romans, 
 and which he prefaces by the significant words, " It is written/' 
 are not found (as in the Roman Catholic [modern] version) in 
 the 14th [13th] Psalm, where are they to be found ? 
 
 In the celebrated Vatican manuscript, one of the oldest 
 extant, these verses are written in the margin, with this note : 
 " These are placed nowhere in the Psalms ; whence, there- 
 fore, the apostle took them must be subject of inquiry."* 
 This is the question we propose to answer. 
 
 Let us first note down St. PauPs words as they appear in 
 the respective translations (Rhemish and Authorized) of his 
 Epistle to the Romans, iii. 10 18 : 
 
 JRhemisk Version. Authorized Version. 
 
 10. As it is written: There is not 10. As it is written: There is none 
 any man just. righteous, no not one. 
 
 11. There is none that under- 11. There is none that under- 
 standeth, there is none that seeketh stendeth, there is none that seeketh 
 after God. after God. 
 
 12. All have turned out of the way, 12. They are all gone out of the 
 they are become unprofitable together ; way, they are together become un- 
 there is none that doeth good, there profitable ; there is none that doeth 
 is not so much as one. good, no not one. 
 
 13. Their throat is an open sepul- 13. Their throat is an open sepul- 
 chre, with their tongues they have chre, with their tongues they have 
 dealt deceitfully : the venom of asps used deceit : the poison of asps is 
 is under their lips : under their lips. 
 
 14. Whose mouth is full of cursing 14. Whose mouth is full of cursing 
 and bitterness. and bitterness. 
 
 15. Their feet are swift to shed 15. Their feet are swift to shed 
 blood : blood : 
 
 16. Destruction and misery are in 16. Destruction and misery are in 
 their ways : their ways : 
 
 17. And the way of peace they have 17. And the way of peace have 
 not known : they not known : 
 
 18. There is no fear of God before 18. There is no fear of God before 
 their eyes. their eyes. 
 
 Now it is asserted by Romanists that St. Paul quoted from 
 the Psalms of David (Psalm xiii. Douay version ; xiv. Autho- 
 rized version). But as the words contained in the 13th to 
 18th verses, are not found in the Authorized version of this 
 Psalm, therefore this version is defective in this respect ; and 
 
 R Montfaucon, "Origenis Hexapla," torn. i. p. 492, quoted by Dr. Jarvis in 
 his reply to Dr. Milner's "End of Religious Controversy/'' p. 54. New 
 
8 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 they have not hesitated to charge us with the sin of corrupt- 
 ing the Holy Scriptures : as proof of this charge they bid us 
 examine their translations with ours, and then the fact will 
 become apparent. 
 
 To make the subject clear to the reader, we will quote from 
 the Psalm as given in the Douay version : 
 
 " 3. They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable 
 together : there is none that doeth good, no not one. 
 
 [" Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues 
 they acted deceitfully; the poison of asps is under their 
 lips. 
 
 " Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness ; their feet 
 are swift to shed blood. 
 
 " Destruction and unhappiness in their ways ; and the way 
 of peace they have not known : there is no fear of God before 
 their eyes.] 
 
 " 4. Shall not all they know that work iniquity, who 
 devour my people as they eat bread ?" &c. &c. 
 
 Here, Protestants, it is asserted, have taken away from the 
 Psalm all that part placed [ ] from the foot of verse 3. 
 
 The first peculiarity that presents itself is, that the verses 
 alleged to have been suppressed by us, are not numbered in 
 their version. Two distinct and entire verses stand without 
 the usual, and, in fact, the otherwise invariable, numerical 
 designation ; they correspond with the 13th to the 18th verses 
 of the iii. Romans, as cited by St. Paul. The next verse 
 commences with the reference " 4," and this corresponds 
 exactly with the Protestant and Authorized division of nume- 
 rals. St. Paul's words contained in the 12th verse stand as 
 the 3rd verse in both the versions of the Psalms. It is pre- 
 sumed by Romanists, therefore, that when St. Paul quoted 
 the 13th to the 18th verses, he quoted from the 13th Psalm. 
 But the extraordinary fact of the omission of the usual 
 numerical divisions, raises our suspicion that some adjustment 
 has been made by ^Romanists after the introduction of the 
 numerical division, and that St. Paul did not quote from the 
 13th Psalm alone, but from various parts of the writings of 
 the Old Testament, and the transfer of the entire quotation 
 to the 13th Psalm is not warranted by the original Hebrew 
 text. It is true that St. Paul said, " It is written ; " but he 
 does not say that it is written in one particular Psalm. 
 
 It is admitted by both parties that the Psalms of David 
 were written originally in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew 
 text in consequence should be our authority. That portion 
 alleged to be suppressed in our versions is not (as before 
 remarked) to be found in the Psalm in question in the Hebrew 
 
THE XIV. PSALM. 9 
 
 text. It is for Romanists, therefore, to account for the 
 appearance of hese verses in their translations, or to prove 
 that the original text has been falsified. We strictly follow 
 the Hebrew version. 
 
 It may have escaped the observation of some, that the 
 Psalm in question appears again in another part of the Book 
 of Psalms in both versions ; namely, Psalm lii. in the Douay 
 version, and Psalm liii. in the Authorized. It is a remarkable 
 fact, that in the Douay version the pretended omitted verses 
 do not appear, and in all other respects the respective versions 
 are similar to Psalm xiv., Authorized version, and to Psalm xiii., 
 Douay version. We ask why have the Romanists omitted 
 the verses in question from the lii. Psalm, and placed them 
 in the xiii. ? 
 
 But St. Paul said, " It is written." We have now to show 
 that the Apostle spoke truly, and where it was so written. 
 We have, therefore, to account for the verses, 13th to 18th, 
 so quoted by St. Paul in Romans iii. 
 
 1. Verse 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; with their 
 tongues they have used deceit, is taken from Psalm v. 
 
 Douay version (verse 11). "Their throat is an open sepul- 
 chre ; they deal deceitfully with their tongues." 
 
 Authorized version (verse 9) . ' ' Their throat is an open 
 sepulchre ; they flatter with their tongue." 
 
 2. Verse 13. The poison of asps is under their lips, is 
 taken from Psalm cxl. 
 
 Douay version (verse 4) . " The venom of asps is under 
 their lips." 
 
 Authorized version (verse 3). "Adders' poison is under 
 their lips." 
 
 3. Verse 14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitter- 
 ness, is taken from Psalm x. 7. 
 
 Douay version. " His mouth is full of cursing and of bit- 
 terness and deceit." a 
 
 Authorized version. " His mouth is full of cursing and 
 deceit." 
 
 4. Verse 15. Their feet are swift to shed blood, is taken 
 from Isaiah lix. 7. 
 
 Douay version. " Their feet run to evil, and make haste 
 to shed innocent blood." 
 
 * This Psalm in the Douay version has no number, but is headed " Psalm x., 
 according to the Hebrews ;" the fact being, that the Roman Catholic versions 
 are not translated from the Hebrew, but from the Vulgate, and the Vulgate, 
 in this case, follows the Septuagint. This is an acknowledgment that the 
 Hebrew text is not followed, and accounts also for the difference in the 
 numerical series, we following the Hebrew. 
 
10 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Authorized version. "Their feet run to evil, and they 
 make haste to shed blood." 
 
 5. Verse 16. Destruction and misery are in their way, is 
 also taken from Isaiah lix. 7. 
 
 Douay version. " Wasting and destruction are in their 
 paths." 
 
 Authorized version. " Wasting and destruction are in their 
 paths." 
 
 6. Verse 17. And the way of peace have they not known, 
 is from Isaiah lix. 8. 
 
 Douay version. " They have not known the way of peace." 
 Authorized version. " The way of peace they know not." 
 
 7. Verse 18. There is no fear of God before their eyes, 
 is from Psalm xxxvi. 1. 
 
 Douay version (xxxv. 2) . " There is no fear of God before 
 his eyes." 
 
 Authorized version. " There is no fear of God before his 
 eyes." 
 
 Thus we perceive, that when St. Paul wrote "It is 
 written," he wrote truly, and these words are recorded in 
 various parts of Holy Scripture. 
 
 The origin of the interpolation, and how it was occasioned, 
 is thus stated by Dr. Jarvis : In the year 1587 appeared at 
 Rome the printed edition of the Greek Septuagint, professing 
 to be an exact copy of the celebrated Vatican manuscript 
 of which we have spoken. But instead of placing the three 
 interpolated verses in the margin, together with the note of 
 the annotator, which clearly showed that they did not belong 
 even to the Greek text, the Roman editors suppressed the note 
 entirely, and embodied the three verses in the text ! Unsus- 
 picious of this fraud, the learned world received the Vatican 
 text as the true text of the Septuagint. The old Latin 
 Vulgate was made from the Greek ; and there the three verses 
 were inserted as a part of the text. The famous Alexandrine 
 manuscript, however, which was presented to Charles I. in 
 1628 by Cyril Lucar, the Greek patriarch of Constantinople, 
 and now in the British Museum, does not contain the three 
 interpolated verses. 
 
 II. Have we any precedent admissible by Romanists them- 
 selves for coming to the decision that we are justified in main- 
 taining the correctness of the Authorized version ? 
 
 This question is as easily answered as the former; and if it 
 be maintained that the Prayer-book is right and the Autho- 
 rized version is wrong, then we retort the dilemma suggested 
 by Dr. Milner, on members of his own church ; for it must 
 be borne in mind that the note to Milner's text avers that 
 
THE XIV. PSALM. 11 
 
 there is no doubt but that the Authorized Bible is defective by 
 the alleged omission. 
 
 There a are some scores of editions of the Hebrew Bible 
 and Psalter published by Romanists; there are also many 
 translations of the Psalms from the Hebrew executed by 
 distinguished members of the Roman Church, into Latin by 
 St. Jerome, 5 Pagninus, Montanus, Felix Pratensis (whose 
 version was approved by Leo X.), Cardinal Cajetan, Malvenda, 
 and Simeon de Muis; into French by Le Maitre, Dupin, 
 and others ; and into Italian by Francesco del Pozzo : c and 
 we fearlessly challenge the production of one of these which 
 contains the passage in question. Have then the editors of 
 Hebrew Bibles, and all the above translators (to whom many 
 others might be added), executed their task with fidelity, or 
 have they wilfully mutilated the sacred text with the sanction 
 or connivance of their ecclesiastical superiors ? Are we to trust 
 their Hebrew Bibles or their vulgar Latin ones? d Did their 
 canonized St. Jerome obtrude too much upon us in the version 
 which he mended, or fraudulently give us too little in that 
 which he laboriously made? Truly Dr. Milner was well 
 advised to bring a charge against us, in which doctors, and 
 cardinals, and saints, and popes of his own Church, are 
 equally involved. 
 
 B The following is adapted from the " Protestant Guardian," 1828, vol. i. 
 pp. 8587. 
 
 b This is usually printed along with St. Jerome's works ; it differs materially 
 from that in the Latin Bible, which is the ancient ti'anslation from the 
 Septuagiiit, revised and partially corrected by Jerome. 
 
 c There is also an anonymous Italian version of the Psalter from the Hebrew, 
 executed under the auspices of Catherine de Medicis, of which several editions 
 were printed. 
 
 d Among a multitude of passages in the Fathers relative to this question, 
 the following are deserving of notice : " Latinse linguae homines Ebraica? et 
 Graecse linguae cognitione opus habent, ut ad exemplaria praecedentia recurratur, 
 si quam dubitationem intulerit Latinorum interpretum varietas." Augustinus 
 de Doctrina Christiana, 2, 11. "Cum diversum aliquid in utrisque codicibus 
 inveuitur, quandoquidem ad fidem rerum gestarum utrumque esse non potest 
 verum, ei linguae potius credatur unde est in aliam per interpretes facta trans- 
 latio." De Civitate Dei, 15, 13. " In Veteri Testamento siquando inter Graecos 
 Latinosque diversitas est, ad Ebraicam recur rimus veritatem." Hieron., Epist. 
 ad Suniam et Fretellam. " Cogimur ad ffebrceos recurrere et scientiae veritatem 
 de fonte magis quam de rivulis quserere." Hieron., Comment, in cap. 8 
 Zachariae. This last citation from St. Jerome is embodied in the Canon law. 
 (Distinc. 76, cap. Jejunium). In the same Canon law we find the following 
 sound and rational maxim : " Ut veterum librorurn fides de Ebrceis volu- 
 minibus examinanda est, ita novorum veritas Grseci serrnonis normam desi- 
 derat." Distinc. 9, cap. ut Veterum. This, by the way, is an excellent 
 specimen of the boasted harmony and unity of the Romish Church. We have 
 the Fathers and the Canon law referring us to the Hebrew Old Testament and 
 the Greek New one, as the only authentic standard ; and we have the Council 
 of Trent anathematizing us if we refuse to give that honour to the Vulgar 
 Latin. 
 
12 THE RULE OP FAITH. 
 
 We might content ourselves with thus turning this for- 
 midable two-horned argument upon Romanists, and leaving 
 them to grapple with it as well as they can. But lest some 
 of our readers should erroneously judge of all Roman Catholic 
 divines by Dr. Milner, we will, for their information, produce 
 one or two passages relating to this subject from Romish 
 commentators of rather more reputation for learning and 
 honesty than Dr. Mimer and his modern copyists. Let us 
 first hear Calmet, a commentator justly esteemed both by 
 Romanists and Protestants. On the words " Sepulchrum 
 patens," &c. he observes : " This verse and the two following 
 as far as these words ' nonne cognoscent omnes qui operantur 
 iniquitatem/ are not read in the Hebrew copies, neither here 
 nor in the 52nd Psalm [pur 53rdT] which is parallel to this, 
 nor in the Chaldee, nor the Syriac, nor in the version of 
 St. Jerome made from the Hebrew. There are even several 
 copies of the Septuagint where they are not found. a They 
 were not read in the Complutensian edition, nor by Theodoret, 
 nor St. Chrysostom, nor Euthymius, nor Arnobius, nor Apol- 
 linarius. Neither the authors of the Greek Catena, trans- 
 lated by Daniel Barbarus, nor Eusebius of Ca3sarea, have 
 given any explanation of them. In a word, St. Jerome 
 affirms that ' all the Greek expositors who have left us their 
 learned commentaries upon the Psalms, mark these verses as 
 spurious and pass them by, plainly acknowledging that they 
 are not in the Hebrew, nor in the Seventy Interpreters, but 
 in the Vulgate edition which the Greeks call Kotvrj, and 
 which differs in every part of the world/ * Calrnet, Comment, 
 in Psalm xiii. 
 
 But perhaps it may be asserted that Calmet was so liberal 
 as sometimes to overstep the bounds of orthodoxy. Let us 
 then see whether objectors will gain anything by the testimony 
 of Estius. Anything savouring of heresy will scarcely be sus- 
 pected or advanced by Romanists from the Divinity Chair 
 of the University of Douay; the great fountain where so 
 many generations of English Romanists imbibed their theo- 
 logical knowledge. The following passage is an extract from 
 his commentary on Romans iii. 10 18. "As to the texts 
 here cited by the Apostle, though they have all been extant 
 for some time in the common Latin copies in one place, namely, 
 
 a Calmet might have said that they are not found in any one good manuscript 
 of the LXX. as an integral part of the text. In the famous Vatican MS. they 
 are written in the margin with an annotation to this effect : " These words do 
 not occur anywhere in the Psalms ; it remains therefore to be inquired whence 
 the Apostle took them." Nevertheless, Cardinal Caraffa, who superintended 
 the Roman edition, thought proper to insert them in the body of the Psalm, 
 in defiance of the MSS. and all the best critics. 
 
THE XIV. PSALM. 13 
 
 in the 13th Psalm, even before the times of Jerome and 
 Augustine, it must nevertheless be known that they are not 
 all found in that Psalm in the Hebrew, nor in the translation 
 of the Seventy. This is expressly testified by Jerome in the 
 preface to the 16th book of his commentary upon Isaiah, 
 and it is also confirmed by that commentary on the Psalms 
 which bears the name of Jerome ; neither does the Chaldee 
 paraphrase acknowledge them in that place. Jerome also 
 adds that all the Greek expositors who have published com- 
 mentaries on the Psalms, plainly make the very same acknow- 
 ledgment ; and he says that they who were ignorant of the 
 Apostle's method of blending texts together, when they looked 
 out for a proper place for the testimony alleged by him 
 which they did not think was done without the authority of 
 Scripture transferred them to that Psalm in which they found 
 the first words. There have indeed been some persons who 
 maintained that those verses, discarded by Jerome, had been 
 taken away from the Hebrew text of the Psalm referred to, 
 and ought to be restored : in support of which they bring 
 forward some Hebrew Psalter of the English Church. But 
 they are well and solidly refuted by Lucas Brugensis, in his 
 annotations on the Holy Bible, to which I refer the reader/'* 
 
 We could easily fortify the above testimonies by the addi- 
 tional ones of Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, Lucas Brugensis, 
 Agellius, Jansenius, and the Jesuits Mariana and Emanuel 
 Sa. The substance of their criticisms, which it would be 
 tedious to transcribe at length, is, that the verses in question 
 form no genuine portion of the Psalm where they appear; 
 that the passage in Romans is, as we have shown, an assem- 
 blage of texts from different parts of the Old Testament, 
 which some well-meaning but injudicious transcriber intro- 
 duced at an early period into the Italic or ancient Latin 
 version of the Psalms, apparently from an over-busy and 
 needless wish of protecting St. Paul's reputation ; that it is 
 acknowledged neither by the original Hebrew b nor any other 
 version, excepting a few copies of the Kofvrj, or Greek Vulgate, 
 where it was evidently introduced from the Latin ; and finally, 
 that it is tacitly or expressly condemned by all the best 
 ancient commentators. 
 
 And now we think our Roman Catholic readers will begin 
 to perceive that Dr. Milner has thrown a stone at our church 
 which recoils upon his own. The conclusion of the whole 
 
 a Estius, Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. p. 33, ed. Paris, 1653. 
 
 b Emanuel Sa says it is to be found also in the Ethiopia and Arabic Psalters. 
 We suspect, however, that he relies upon those printed at Rome, which in 
 many instances were altered according to the Vulgate. 
 
14 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 matter is, that this passage, which is selected with such sin- 
 gular felicity to convict us of mutilating the word of God, 
 turns out to be a manifest interpolation, for which the world 
 is exclusively indebted to Dr. Milner' s authentic Latin version ! 
 This, it must be confessed, is a notable proof of the vigilance 
 and fidelity with which the Church of Rome exercises the 
 office which she arrogates to herself of sole preserver and 
 guardian of the Holy Scriptures ! After all, though this 
 corruption originally was caused by a reprehensible tampering 
 with the sacred text, we freely admit that it is one in which 
 no point of faith or morals is concerned. We do not blame 
 the transcribers and printers of the Vulgate for giving us 
 what they found in their manuscripts, nor are we disposed to 
 be severe upon the simple and well-meaning Romanist who 
 takes the passage in question as he finds it in his Psalter. 
 But when it is made the vehicle of an atrocious and unfounded 
 imputation upon our Church, and the honour and integrity 
 of our most learned divines, we repel the charge with indig- 
 nation, and confidently appeal to the wisest and best-informed 
 members of their own communion for our vindication. We 
 moreover assert, that they who are so ill-advised as to prefer 
 this charge against us, are either grossly deficient in erudition 
 and critical skill, or that they malevolently bring an accusa- 
 tion against us which they know to be groundless : and we 
 doubt whether it will be found as easy to clear Dr. Milner of 
 this reproach as it is to vindicate the fair-dealing of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Alleged Corruption of the Authorized Version of the Bible. 1 John v. 7. 
 
 IN our last article we examined Dr. Milner' s accusation 
 against our Church for having taken away from the words of 
 Scripture. The accusation is based on the supposed omission 
 of certain verses from Psalm xiv. (Douay version, xiii.), which 
 appear in the liturgical version of the Psalms. Our autho- 
 rized version of the Bible was declared to be " without doubt 
 defective " in this respect. 
 
 The object of this attack was sufficiently explained in the 
 introductory remarks to the last article, to which we beg to 
 refer our readers. With the same object in view, Dr. Milner 
 
1 JOHN V. 7. 15 
 
 proceeds to insinuate that our version is " spurious " by an 
 addition to God's word. Thus in either way falling under 
 the curse conveyed in Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 
 
 To establish his second point, it must be observed that 
 Dr. Milner does not make the accusation in an unequivocal 
 and open manner, as if conscious of its truth, but by an under- 
 hand insinuation, leaving the desired impression in the mind 
 of the uninstructed reader, that the example given is peculiar 
 to the Authorized Bible. 
 
 Our readers will better appreciate the artifice if we set out 
 the entire passage : 
 
 " Look, then, at Psalm xiv. as it occurs in the Book of 
 Common Prayer, to which your clergy swear their f consent 
 and assent ;' then look at the same psalm in your Bible : 
 you will find four whole verses in the former which are left 
 out in the latter. What will you here say, dear sir ? You 
 must say that your Church has added to, else that she has 
 taken away from, the words of this prophecy" 
 
 And in a note is added : 
 
 " The verses in question being quoted by St. Paul, Rom. iii. 
 &c., there is no doubt but the Common Bible is defective in 
 this passage. On the other hand, Bishop Marsh has published 
 his conviction that the most important passage in the New 
 Testament, 1 John v. 7, for establishing the Divinity of 
 Jesus, is ' spurious/ " a 
 
 The italics, which are important to be observed, are as 
 given in Milner. 
 
 Now the inference here intended to be conveyed is 
 undoubtedly, that whereas in the first instance our Bible is 
 defective by the subtraction or suppression of matter, so is 
 it also "spurious" by the addition of a "most important 
 passage in the New Testament for proving the Divinity of 
 Christ." 
 
 The first question we have already disposed of, we trust, 
 satisfactorily. (See Article II.) 
 
 As to the second charge, either our translation is spurious 
 or it is not, in the case cited. If it be not, then there was 
 no necessity for Dr. Milner to question the text at all. But 
 by placing this last sentence of the above note immediately 
 after that of charging us with subtracting from the Word of 
 God, wherein our version was declared defective, we conclude 
 that the present charge is that we are guilty of adding to the 
 Word of God. 
 
 From the above extract, who would have had the slightest 
 
 a Letter ix. p. 116. 
 
16 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 notion that the Roman Catholic versions in circulation in this 
 country, without exception, have the verse in question, and 
 that too without any comment or note throwing any doubt 
 upon its genuineness ? Such is the fact ! 
 
 We give the text as it stands, word for word, in the two 
 versions : 
 
 Authorized Version. Kkemish Version. 
 
 For there are three that bear record For there are three that give tes- 
 
 in heaven, the Father, the Word, and timony in heaven, the Father, the 
 
 the Holy Ghost : and these three are Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these 
 
 one. three are one. 
 
 In another part of this book, Dr. Milner says, " The whole 
 right to the Scriptures belongs to the [Roman] Church. 
 She has preserved them she vouches for them." (Letter xii.) 
 If this be true, we are quite at a loss to discover on what 
 grounds Dr. Milner attempts to throw a doubt on the 
 genuineness of a text which is thus emphatically vouched 
 for by his own Church. 
 
 We think this a most apt illustration of the title we have 
 chosen for our present series, being " a pious fraud," exempli- 
 fied by Dr. Milner, in his " End of Religious Controversy." 
 And thus we have a priest of Rome, for the sake of damaging 
 the English Bible, casting aside all his exclusive notions 
 about the "Church," "Councils," and "Tradition;" and 
 accepting the opinion of a private doctor (whom, by the way, 
 he misnames) as decisive at once of a long-litigated question, 
 if it may but subserve a sectarian purpose; and this, too, 
 concerning a doctrine which his own Church doctors expose 
 to contradiction and degradation, by placing it upon a level 
 (and the evidence supporting it) with the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Alleged Inaccuracies in the Authorized Translation of*the Bible. 
 1 Cor. xi. 27 ; Matt. xix. 11. 
 
 NOT content with his endeavours to destroy the authority 
 of, and unsettle our faith in, the Holy Scriptures, Dr. Milner 
 represents Protestant readers as labouring under addi- 
 tional difficulties, since they are stated to rely on a trans- 
 lation "wilfully corrupted." The fidelity of the Authorized 
 version is now assailed, and his correspondent, in Letter ix v 
 
1 COR. xi. 27. 17 
 
 is asked, " Can you consistently reject the authority of the 
 great universal Church, and yet build upon that of some 
 obscure translator in the reign of James I. ?" Dr. Milner, 
 however, gives credit to the " new translators " for having 
 " corrected many wilful errors of their predecessors, most of 
 which were levelled at the Catholic doctrines and discipline ;" 
 and then for particulars we are referred to " Ward's Errata :" 
 " yet [he continues] they have left a sufficient number of 
 them behind, for which I do not find that their advocates 
 offer any excuse whatever" (p. 117). 
 
 In the present instance Dr. Milner has not dealt in gene- 
 ralities, but furnishes us with two examples of retention of 
 alleged wilful corruptions in our Authorized version : " 1 Cor. 
 xi. 27, where the conjunction and is put for the disjunctive 
 or ; and Matt. xix. 11, where cannot is put for do not, to the 
 altering of the sense in both instances." These "corruptions" 
 are also stated to " stand in direct opposition to the ori- 
 ginals." 
 
 And, in Letter xxxix., Dr. Milner writes more plainly on 
 the text, 1 Cor. xi. 27 : he says, " Another more important 
 passage for communion under either kind, he [Bishop Por- 
 teus] unfairly suppresses, where the Apostle says, ' Whosoever 
 shall eat this bread OR drink the chalice of the Lord unwor- 
 thily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.' True 
 it is, that in the English Bible the text is here corrupted, the 
 conjunction AND being put for the disjunctive OR, contrary to 
 the original Greek, as well as the Latin Vulgate, to the ver- 
 sion of Beza, &c. ; but as his lordship could not be ignorant 
 of this corruption, and the importance of the genuine text, 
 it is inexcusable in him to have passed it over unnoticed." 
 
 And in a note is added : 
 
 " The Rev. Mr. Grier, who has attempted to vindicate the 
 purity of the English Protestant Bible, has nothing else to 
 say for this alteration of St. Paul's Epistle, than that in what 
 they falsely call the parallel texts of Luke and Matthew, the 
 conjunction and occurs" (pp. 377, 378). 
 
 The reader will not fail to observe the positive manner in 
 which Dr. Milner talks of the original Greek, the Latin Vul- 
 gate, and the genuine text, and of the equally positive term 
 "corruption" as applied to the Authorized rendering; and 
 though Grier's attempt may be summarily put down as a 
 failure, it will be found that we have " something else to say 
 in vindication of this (alleged) alteration of St. Paul's Epistle," 
 than a reference to parallel texts ; and we in turn declare it 
 to be " inexcusable in Dr. Milner to have passed over unno- 
 ticed " authorized editions published by members of his own 
 
18 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Church, who claim as much respect at our hands as Dr. Mil- 
 ner, and who render one of the two texts, at least, as we do. 
 
 The two instances cited are taken from "Ward's Errata/" 
 and the alleged object of these corruptions is there also stated. 
 
 We will consider each text in turn. 
 
 I. The respective versions thus render 1 Cor. xi. 27 : " 
 
 Rhemish Version. Authorized Version. 
 Now in Circulation. 
 
 Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this 
 
 bread OR drink the chalice of the Lord bread AND drink this cup of the Lord 
 
 unworthily, shall be guilty of the body unworthily, shall be guilty of the body 
 
 and blood of the Lord. and blood of the Lord. 
 
 The Protestant version has " and drink ;" all the modern 
 Romish have " or drink -," the Vulgate, it is alleged, follow- 
 ing the Greek rj, and consequently having vel, or. The 
 English translators, however, selected the reading KOI, for 
 which there is good MS. authority, and have accordingly 
 rendered it by and. 
 
 The object of this alleged perversion is stated by Ward to 
 be " on purpose to infer a necessity of communicating under 
 both kinds, as the conjunction 'and' may seem to do: 
 whereas, by the disjunctive 'or' it is evident that we may 
 communicate in one kind only." a In alleging this reason 
 Dr. Milner follows Ward. 
 
 1. We will first address ourselves to the alleged object of 
 the perversion. 
 
 We assert, that this criticism gives no countenance to 
 communion in. one kind, because, by reference to all editions 
 of the Greek, Latin, and English versions, put forth by 
 Romanists, no less than five times they use the conjunction 
 AND in joining the bread and cup together, to be both received 
 in remembrance of Christ. 5 Therefore, to say that the cup 
 is not necessary, is to make the Apostle contradict himself, as 
 well as our Lord's institution. There was, therefore, no neces- 
 sity for altering the 27th verse for any such alleged purpose. 
 But we have no reason to ignore the rendering or, if well con- 
 sidered -, for we find " or drink" placed immediately before and 
 immediately after " and drink," which strengthens the cause 
 of the Protestants by making the cup of equal necessity and 
 importance with the bread; why then wilfully reject a text 
 which is so much in our favour ! The practice of the early 
 Church of giving the cup to the laity is not denied. Besides, 
 whatever may be the true reading, the doctrine of half-commu- 
 
 a Ward's "Errata of the Protestant Bible," p. 45. Dublin : 1841. 
 b 1 Cor. xi. 26, 28, 29; x. 16, 17. 
 
1 COR. xi. 27. 19 
 
 nion gains nothing by it ; because the Apostle teaches that 
 either to eat OR drink unworthily as wrong. That the Corin- 
 thians drank of the cup is plainly declared in the context.* 
 
 2. But, secondly, the Protestant rendering is by no 
 means without a precedent, and has authority besides 
 that of some alleged " obscure translator in the reign of 
 James I." 
 
 To establish this assertion, the following, which we extract 
 from Mr. Kennard's reply to the Rev. Paul Maclachlan, Roman 
 priest in Falkirk, who brings the same accusations, borrowed 
 from Milner and Ward, will amply suffice. 5 
 
 We find it stated in Wolf's "Curse Philologicse et 
 Critics," c that more than thirty of the earliest printed edi- 
 tions of the Vulgate translation, between 1462 and 1569, have 
 et biberit (and drink), agreeing with our own version. Again, 
 Missals, both printed and MS., likewise read et biberit, 
 which is proved by Le Brun, a late priest of the Oratory at 
 Paris, in " Continuat. Memoriarum Literariarum et Histor.;" d 
 and in the Paris " Ephemerides," e quoted by Blair, " Letters 
 on the Revival of Popery." f Mr. Blair also testifies that he 
 had himself searched in numerous old editions, both MSS. and 
 printed, of the Vulgate, and German and French transla- 
 tions, and found the rendering as given by our authorized 
 translation, which is condemned as heretical. Among these 
 is the very first Bible ever printed by Fust and Guttenburg, 
 called the Mazarine Bible, about A.D. 1450, or soon after; 
 that of Mentz, 1462; the Polyglott of Cardinal Ximenes, 
 with the authority of Pope Leo X. ; Eggestein's Bible, 
 A.D. 1468; that of Nicolas de Lyra; Peter Comestor's 
 " Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle," written in the middle 
 of the twelfth century ; the Bible of the Louvain Doctors ; 
 that of the Paris Doctors and the Benedictine editors ; the 
 grand Polyglott of Antwerp; the Bible of Salamanca Uni- 
 versity, and many others, all published before the time of 
 Luther, Cranmer, &c. &c. 
 
 Again, "the reading KOI is supported by the Uncial MSS., 
 the Alexandrine, and the Clermont, with two others, and 
 even the Vulgate in the Complutensian Polyglott." g To 
 
 a See Elliott's "Delineation of Roman Catholicism," bookii. cap. vi. p. 184. 
 London, 1851. 
 
 b Controversial Correspondence between the Rev. Paul Maclachlan and 
 K. W. Kennard, Esq. Partridge and Co., London, 1855, pp. 178-9. 
 
 c Edit. Basil. 1741, vol. iii. p. 492. 
 
 d Tom. viii. part i. n. iii. 
 
 e An. 1730, Dec. p. iv. 451, et seq. ed. Belg. 
 
 f London, 1819, pp. 244252. 
 
 s Mendham's "Literary Policy of the Church of Rome," p. 359, App. 
 London, 1830. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 these let us add that the following three editions have and, 
 and not or, in the text in question ; the first printed at 
 Nuremberg by Ant. Koberger } 1487; the second at Paris, 
 1504, by Petit ; and the third at the same place by Thielman 
 Kerver, 1526. And in referring to the edition of St. Jerome's 
 works, edited by Erasmus, and printed at Basil, 1516, we 
 find the same reading et in the text. a 
 
 It would be tedious to enumerate all the editions published 
 by Roman Catholics ; we shall therefore confine ourselves to 
 a view of the most remarkable ones. 1. The Syriac New 
 Testament, Vienna, 1556-62, patronized by the Emperor 
 Ferdinand, and edited by Albert Widmanstad, the Imperial 
 Chancellor. 2. The Antwerp Polyglott, 1569-72, patronized- 
 by the King of Spain, and approved by the Louvain divines, 
 several cardinals, and Pope Gregory XIII. 3. The Paris 
 Polyglott, 1628-45, approved in the General Assembly of the 
 Gallican Church. 4. The Syriac and Arabic Testament, 
 printed at Rome by the College of the Propaganda, 1703; 
 and many others enumerated by Le Long, Boerner, and 
 Masch, all of which render the text in question as we do. b 
 And there is yet to notice "the curious and important 
 fact/' that " the jealous and sharp-sighted Spanish inquisi- 
 tors, who ordered a few corrections to be made in the 
 edition of the Latin Vulgate, printed by Colinseus, 1541, 
 wherein the passage stands ' ET biberit/ find no fault what- 
 ever with the above text." c 
 
 Now what becomes of Dr. Milner's false accusation against 
 our Protestant Bible? His Roman Catholic readers and 
 admirers will in future, we trust, have but little confidence in 
 his assertions. 
 
 II. The second text, Matt. xix. 11, is thus rendered in the 
 respective versions : 
 
 Roman Catholic. Protestant. 
 
 All receive not this word, but they All men cannot receive this saying, 
 to whom it is given. save they to whom it is given. 
 
 Ward's objection to our rendering is thus expressed : Vul- 
 gate, Non omnes capiunt ; Greek, Oi> 
 
 Ingram's " Popish Doctrine of Tran substantial on Refuted," p. 36. Lon- 
 don, 1840. " Here, by the way, on the words ' guilty of the body and blood 
 of the Lord/ St. Jerome says nothing in the Commentary that will in the least 
 favour the sense assumed by Mr. Brigham, but merely observes, ' Quia tanti 
 mysterii sacramentum pro vili despexerit ' (torn. ix. fol. 156)." Again, " Qui 
 enim indigne manducaverit ET biberit, reus erit violati corporis et sanguinis 
 Christi." Op. torn. iv. adv. Jovin. lib. 2, sec. 14. 
 "Protestant Guardian," vol. i. 1827, p. 105. 
 
 c See the "Spanish Index Expurg. of 1667," pp. 126-9. 
 
MATT. XIX. 11. 21 
 
 is against the profession of continency in priests and others, 
 that they [Protestants] translate our Saviour's words respect- 
 ing a ( single life/ and the unmarried state, thus,, ' all men 
 cannot/ &c., as though it were impossible to live continent, 
 where Christ said not ' that all men cannot/ but ' all men do 
 not receive this saying/ " a 
 
 Here let us us note a strange inconsistency. " Ward's 
 Errata " was edited by Dr. Lingard, the Romish historian, 
 who wrote an introduction to this work in its defence. Dr. 
 Luigard has since published a translation, which he has 
 erftitled " New Version of the Four Gospels, with Notes," &c. 
 London, 1851; and he there renders this very text "All 
 men are not capable" Wherein, then, consists the heresy 
 of saying " All men cannot ? " 
 
 The same objection was made by Daniel French, Esq., a 
 Roman Catholic barrister, in his discussion with Dr. Gum- 
 ming. We shall adopt the Doctor's reply. b The question is, 
 whether of the two is, not the more literal, but the more 
 faithful rendering; for every one acquainted with ancient 
 languages must know that a verbatim rendering is not always 
 correct. Which then is the real meaning? We read in the 
 Douay version, at the end of the twelfth and next verse, 
 " He that can receive it, let him receive it/' thereby explain- 
 ing the meaning of the former verse to be, " All men cannot," 
 and not " do not ;" implying evidently that there are some 
 who can, and others who cannot : and if there is any meaning 
 in the passage at all, " all do not " means " all cannot," 
 because the reason why a man does not a thing he wishes to 
 do, must be that he cannot do it. c 
 
 To refer to another passage, Gal. v. 17, where the same 
 thing occurs : " So that/' it is in our version, " ye cannot 
 do the things that ye would ;" in the Rhemish edition it is, 
 "So that you do not the things that you would." Now, it 
 will be observed, that in our version it is, " ye cannot do ;" in 
 this (Rhemish) version it is, te do not." Now if one will to do 
 a thing, the reason why he do not do it must be that he can- 
 not do it ; because two things are requisite to action : first, the 
 will, or volition ; secondly, the power. Now, if he have voli- 
 tion, or the will, but do not do the thing, the natural inference 
 is, that he has not the power ; and therefore our translators 
 have faithfully given the meaning of the passage; and the 
 Rhemish translators have given a sort of literality which ends 
 in absolute mystification. 
 
 P. 54, edit. Dublin, 1841. 
 
 b See, "Hammersmith Discussion," edit. 1852, p. 477. 
 
 c The same objection is taken to our rendering of 1 Cor. vii, 9. 
 
22 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 So much then for the two alleged corrupt renderings, by 
 " an obscure translator in the reign of James I./" in the 
 Authorized version. 
 
 III. And, thirdly, this last expression of Dr. Milner will 
 raise a smile indeed when we transcribe the list of names 
 selected to perform the arduous and responsible task of 
 accomplishing the king's desire, " that our intended transla- 
 tion may have the help and furtherance of all our principal 
 men within this our kingdom." a 
 
 The work was assigned, according to Fuller, to forty- seven 
 of the most illustrious men of the day, who spent on it three 
 years. The Scriptures were allotted, in six portions, to indi- 
 viduals selected as best adapted for the particular labour 
 assigned to them. 
 
 The names and numbers of the persons, the places where 
 they met together, with the portions of Scripture assigned to 
 each company, are as follows : b 
 
 I. WESTMINSTER. Ten. The Pentateuch, and the history from Joshua to 
 the First Boole of the Chronicles exclusively. 1. Dr. ANDREWS, fellow and 
 master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, then dean of Westminster, and after- 
 wards bishop of Winchester. 2. Dr. OVERALL, fellow of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge, master of Katherine Hall, Cambridge, then dean of S. Paul's, 
 afterwards bishop of Norwich. [He obtained his promotion from his great 
 classical knowledge.] 3. Dr. SARAVIA, prebendary of Canterbury [the friend 
 of Hooker and Whitgift]. 4. Dr. CLARKE, fellow of Christ's College, Cam- 
 bridge, vicar of Mynster and Monckton, in Thanet, and one of the six preachers 
 in Canterbury. 5. Dr. LAYFIELD, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and 
 parson of St. Clement Danes. [Being skilled in architecture, his judgment 
 was much relied on for the description of the tabernacle and the temple.] 
 6. Dr. LEIGH, archdeacon of Middlesex, and parson of All-Hallows, Barking 
 [a profound linguist]. 7. Dr. BURGLEY. 8. Mr. KING. 9. Mr. THOMPSON. 
 10. Mr. BEDWELL, of Cambridge, probably of St. John's, and vicar of Totten- 
 ham, near London [the first Arabic scholar of his age], 
 
 II. CAMBRIDGE. Eight. From the First of the Chronicles, with the rest of 
 the history and the hagiographa, viz., Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, Eccle- 
 siastes. 1 . Mr. LIVELIE [professor of Hebrew, at Cambridge]. 2. Mr. RICH- 
 ARDSON, fellow of Emanuel, afterwards D.D., master, first of Peter-house, then 
 of Trinity College. 3. Mr. CHADDERTON, afterwards D.D., fellow first of 
 Christ College, then master of Emanuel. [A Hebrew and Greek scholar, and 
 versed in Rabbinical literature.] 4. Mr. DILLINGHAM, fellow of Christ Col- 
 lege, beneficed at , in Bedfordshire, where he died. 5. Mr. ANDREWS, 
 
 afterwards D.D., brother to the bishop of Winchester, and master of Jesus 
 College. 6. Mr. HARRISON, the rev. vice-master of Trinity College [a first- 
 rate linguist]. 7. Mr. SPALDING, fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and 
 Hebrew professor there. 8. Mr. BING, fellow of Peter-house College, Cam- 
 bridge, and Hebrew professor. 
 
 III. OXFORD. Seven. The Four Greater Prophets, with the Lamentations, 
 and the Twelve Minor Prophets. 1. Dr. Harding, president of Magdalen College. 
 2. Dr. REYNOLDS, president of Corpus Christi College. [Wood says that his 
 
 * King James's address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated 22nd July, 
 1604. 
 
 b See Hewlett's edition of the Holy Bible, in three vols. 4to. London, 1811, 
 vol. i. p. 42. 
 
TRANSLATORS OP AUTHORIZED VERSION. 23 
 
 knowledge of the Hebrew and^Greek was almost marvellous.] 3. Dr. HOL- 
 LAND, rector of Exeter College, and King's professor of divinity. 4. Dr. 
 KIRBY, rector of Lincoln College, and regius professor of Hebrew [an Orien- 
 talist of profound scholarship]. 5. Mr. [MiLEs] SMITH, afterwards D.D., and 
 bishop of Gloucester. [Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek were to him as familiar as 
 English.] He wrote the learned preface to the translation, and was one of 
 those who revised the whole work when it was finished. 6. Mr. BRETT. He 
 was eminently skilled in the Oriental languages, and was rector of Quainton, 
 in Buckinghamshire, forty-two years. 7. Mr. FAIRCLOWE. 
 
 IV. CAMBRIDGE. Eight. The Prayer of Manassek, and the rest of the 
 Apocrypha. 1. Dr. DUPONT, prebendary of Ely, and master of Jesus College. 
 2. Dr. BRAITHWAITE, first fellow of Emanuel, then master of Gonvil and Caiua 
 College. 3. Dr. RADCLIFFE, one of the senior fellows of Trinity College. 
 4. Mr. WARD, of Emanuel, afterwards D.D., master of Sidney College and 
 Margaret professor. 5. Mr. DOWNES, fellow of St. John's College, and Greek 
 professor. 6. Mr. BOYSE, fellow of St. John's College, prebendary of Ely, 
 and parson of Boxworth, in Cambridgeshire. [The first Greek scholar of his 
 age.] 7. Mr. Ward, fellow of King's College, afterwards D.D., prebendary 
 of Chichester, and rector of Bishop Waltham, in Hampshire. 
 
 V. OXFORD. Eight. The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and Apo- 
 calypse.- 1. Dr. RAVIS, dean of Christ Church, afterwards bishop of London. 
 2. Dr. ABBOT, master of University College, afterwards archbishop of Canter- 
 bury. 3. Dr. EEDES. a 4. Mr. THOMPSON. 5. Mr. SAVILLE. 6. Dr. PERYN. 
 7. Dr. RAVENS. 8. Mr. HARMER. 
 
 VI. WESTMINSTER. Seven. The Epistles of St. Paul, and the other 
 canonical Epistles. 1. Dr. BARLOWE, of Trinity Hall, in Cambridge, dean of 
 Chester, afterwards bishop of Lincoln. 2. Dr. HUTCHINSON. 3. Dr. SPENCER. 
 4. Mr. FENTON. 5. Mr. RABBET. 6. Mr. SANDERSON. 7. Mr. DAKINS. 
 
 Such, then, is the list of illustrious names who have given 
 us our Authorized translation of the Bible, which Dr. MILNER 
 asserts to be the production " of some obscure translator in 
 the rein of James I." ! ! 
 
 No. V. 
 
 RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 The Protestant "Rule of Faith" and "Private Judgment." 
 
 THE burthen of Dr. Milner's book throughout is, that the 
 Romish doctrines are misrepresented by Protestants. Suffer- 
 ing under this alleged injustice, the doctor should have been 
 careful in not bringing upon himself a similar complaint 
 when he undertakes to find fault with Protestant doctrines 
 and teaching. We more particularly refer to Dr. Milner's 
 remarks on the subject which forms the title of this article. 
 
 Dr. Milner pretends to divide the sects of " Christians " 
 into three classes. The first are the " Montanists, Anabaptists, 
 
 Instead of Dr. Eedes, Mr. Lewis has James Montagu, Bishop of Bath and 
 Wells." History of Translations of the Bible in English/' pp. 310-11, ed. 
 1739. 
 
24 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 the Family of Love, Quakers, Moravians, and different classes 
 of Methodists." Their " Rule of Faith " is asserted to be, or 
 to have been, "private inspiration, or an immediate light and 
 motion of God's spirit, communicated to the individual." 
 
 The second class consists of the " more regular sects of Pro- 
 testants, such as the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Socinians, 
 the Church-of-England-men ;" and their " Rule of Faith " is 
 represented to be " the written Word of God, or THE BIBLE, 
 according as it is understood by each particular reader or 
 hearer of it" 
 
 The third class are those of his own sect, whom he calls 
 " Catholics." Their rule is stated to be " THE WORD OF GOD 
 at large, whether written in the Bible, or handed down from 
 the Apostles in continued succession by the Catholic Church, 
 and as it is understood and explained by the Church. To 
 speak more accurately, besides the rule of faith, which is 
 Scripture and Tradition, Catholics acknowledge an unerring 
 judge of controversy , or sure guide in all matters relating to 
 salvation namely, THE CHURCH." a 
 
 It is to that part of the second class referring to the 
 "Church-of-England-men" that we shall for the present 
 confine our remarks. 
 
 We have to thank the doctor for ranking "Church-of- 
 England-men " among the " more regular sects of Protest- 
 ants;" but we are placed in too close a proximity to 
 " Socinians " to be agreeable. The intended compliment 
 loses it value ; for we have yet to learn that the " Socinians " 
 are a sect of " Protestants " in the ordinary acceptation of 
 the term, except that they protest against the fundamentals of 
 Christianity, equally admitted by Protestants and Romanists. 
 
 From which of the authorized documents of the Church 
 of England did Dr. Milner learn that her rule of faith is such 
 as he has defined it to be? He gives no reference, and for 
 this there is sufficient reason, none exists. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Milner, we assert that the Church of 
 England maintains the Rule of Faith to be THE BIBLE ALONE, 
 not as it is understood by each particular reader of it, but 
 according to the INTERPRETATION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, 
 
 EMBODIED AND DISTINCTLY SET FORTH IN HER OWN ESTAB- 
 LISHED STANDARD OF DOCTRINE AND WORSHIP, THE PRAYER 
 
 BOOK. 
 
 For this assertion we appeal to the Thirty-nine Articles of 
 our religion, of which the first declares our faith in the Holy 
 Trinity ; the second, in the Divinity, Incarnation, and Atone- 
 
 The Italics and Capitals are as given by Dr. Milner, Letter vi. pp. 79, 80. 
 
top Ta 
 ' T r r - 
 :5 
 I* 
 , , ., h, 
 
 the divinity of the Holy Ghost ; the eighth, the Apostles' and 
 the Nicene Creeds ; the sixth, the sufficiency of the Holy 
 Scriptures, as containing all things necessary for salvation; 
 and the twentieth, the authority of the Church in controversies 
 of faith, as well as in the ordinary rites and ceremonies; 
 which authority is again declared in the thirty-fourth article ; 
 to say nothing of a large amount of doctrine in the other 
 articles, on justification, original sin, the sacraments, &c. 
 So that there is not a single topic decided by the councils 
 and the fathers, in the pure and primitive ages of the Church, 
 which is not here distinctly set forth with the most admirable 
 exactness and precision, leaving no room for " heretical private 
 judgment" in any important point of the Christian doctrine. 
 
 And next we appeal to the fixed order of the Liturgy and 
 offices of the Church of England, which not only sets forth 
 the creeds and all the cardinal tenets of the ancient faith 
 in the plainest terms, but keeps them constantly before 
 the eyes, and on the lips, of our people; not wrapping 
 them up in Latin, which for the most part none but the 
 priest pretends to understand, but proclaiming them in the 
 language of the country; and thus giving regularly the 
 decisions of the "judge of controversy, THE CHURCH," 
 to every man, woman, arid child belonging to the body of 
 the faithful. a 
 
 The judgment, however, of that Church, touching the 
 TRUE SENSE of Doctrinal Scripture, is in no wise a mere 
 arbitrary 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, as we have asserted, recognizes 
 Scripture alone as her binding Rule of Faith, her eighth 
 article recognizes 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 the only three 
 out of the numerous cognate Creeds which collectively and 
 harmoniously run up to the Apostolic Age. Hence, in recog- 
 nizing them, as giving the TRUE SENSE of the Bible, the 
 Anglican Church appeals, not to her own mere insulated and 
 
 , a Bishop Hopkins's " Refutation of Milner's End of Controversy," vol. i. 
 pp. 14, 15. New York, 1854. 
 
26 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 arbitrary private judgment, which would be only one degree 
 more respectable than the insulated and arbitrary private 
 judgment of an individual, but to the recorded historical tes- 
 timony afforded by the universal consent of the Church from 
 the beginning, as to the SENSE in which her SOLE rule of 
 faith ought to be understood. 
 
 Agreeably to this system, the whole of her articles and 
 homilies are constructed. 
 
 Throughout, she studiously refers to concurring antiquity, 
 as bearing witness to the sense in which the doctrinal parts 
 of Scripture were understood and explained from the very 
 beginning ; 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, 
 prohibits 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 teaching the Catholic fathers and 
 ancient bishops collected." a 
 
 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. 5 It 
 may be added, what in some sort is still more important 
 because directly official, that, in the year 1559, Queen Eliza- 
 beth 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. 
 
 a Imprimis, videbunt concionatores, ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, 
 quod a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit 
 doctrines Veteris aut Novi Testament!, quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina Catho- 
 lici Patres et Veteres Episcopi collegerint. Canon. Eccles. Anglican, xix. 
 
 A.D. 1571. 
 
 b Ista nos didicimus a Christo, ab Apostolis, et sanctis Patribus : et eadem 
 bona fide docemus populum Dei. Juell. Apol. Eccles. Anglican, apud Enchir. 
 Theol. vol. i. p. 228. Vide etiam pp. 295, 323, 340. 
 
 Opto, cum Melancthone et Ecclesia Anglicana, per canalem Antiquitatia 
 diduci ad nos dogmata fidei e fonte Sacrse Scripturae derivata. Alioquin, quis 
 futurus est novandi finis ? Casaub. Epist. 744. Vide etiam Epist. 837, 838. 
 
 c Nee causam subesse ullam cur concederet, cum Anglia non novam aut 
 alienam amplectatur religionem, sed earn, quam Christus jussit, prima et 
 Catholica Ecclesia coluit, et vetustissimi Patres una voce et mente compro- 
 barunt. Camden. Eerum Anglican, et Hibern. Annal. regnant. Elisab. 
 A.D. 1559, par. i. p. 28. Lugd. Batav. 1639. 
 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 27 
 
 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.* 
 
 And yet, in the face of all this, Dr. Milner had the hardi- 
 hood to publish the charge, that the Rule of Faith in the 
 Church of England is THE BIBLE according as it is under- 
 stood by each particular reader of it ! We invite our Roman 
 Catholic readers to point out a more glaring example of theo- 
 logical misrepresentation than this, which yet is but a speci- 
 men of the author's style of management throughout the 
 whole volume. 
 
 In a later part of the book, and in a long note, Dr. Milner 
 attributes to the Reformers and Reformation, sedition, rebel- 
 lion, blasphemies; and after reciting history in his own fashion, 
 which we will have hereafter to examine, he declares one of 
 the principles of the Reformation especially to be " that of 
 each man's explaining the Scripture for himself/' b i 
 
 Had this been one of the " especial principles" of the Refor- 
 mation, we might reasonably look for its enunciation in the 
 writings of the Reformers ; we shall therefore supply a few 
 extracts, which are borrowed from the Rev. Richard Gibbings' 
 learned work, " Roman Forgeries and Falsifications/' c to 
 prove how fallacious is the statement advanced by Dr. 
 Milner. 
 
 Cranmer's belief was that "we ought to interpret the 
 Scriptures in conformity to the sense of the antients." d 
 This feeling was of course produced by his agreement with 
 Ridley, that " we haue (hygh prayse be geuen to God therfore) 
 moste playnly, euidently, and clearly on oure side, all the pro- 
 phetes,all the apostles, and vndoubtedly all the aunciente eccle- 
 siasticall writers whiche haue written vntyll of late yeares paste." 6 
 " The present question is," (says Stillingfleet,) " how far tradi- 
 tion is to be allowed in giving the sense of Scripture between 
 us. Vincentius saith, we ought to follow it where there is 
 antiquity, vniversality, and consent. This we are willing to 
 be tryed by." f Instead of acknowledging that the Church of 
 
 Faber's "Difficulties of Romanism," in Preface, 3rd edition, 1853. 
 Letter xlvi. p. 436. 
 London, 1849, p. xi. et seq. 
 Collier's " Eccles. Hist.," ii. 56. London, 1714. 
 " Letters of Martyrs," foil. 30, 31. London, 1564. 
 
 "The Council of Trent examin'd and disprov'd by Catholick Tradition," 
 Part i. p. 23. London, 1688. 
 
28 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Home has " followed in the track of even the earliest fathers/"* 
 or, with preposterous flippancy, granting that Popery " might 
 fairly represent itself as a reform upon early Christianity ," b 
 our Divines have continually rejoiced in the conviction that 
 the fathers "must be trusted, but yet as men;" c that "the 
 very doctrine of the Scriptures themselves, as they had been 
 constantly understood and believed by all faithful Christians,"* 1 
 "is at this day intirely professed in our Church," 6 which 
 founded " its Reformation on the prophets and apostles only, 
 according to the explications and traditions of the ancient 
 fathers/' 1 It is certain " that we reverently receive the unani- 
 mous tradition or doctrine of the Church in all ages, which 
 determines the meaning of the Holy Scripture, and makes it 
 more clear and unquestionable in any point of faith wherein 
 we can find it has declared its sense. For we look upon this 
 tradition as nothing else but the Scripture unfolded : NOT A 
 
 NEW THING, WHICH IS NOT IN THE SCRIPTURE, BUT THE 
 
 SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED, AND MADE MORE EVIDENT." g "We 
 believe the concurring judgment of antiquity to be, though 
 not infallible } yet the safest comment upon Scripture," 11 
 "which rule the Reformers of the Church of England pro- 
 posed to themselves to follow :" J "nothing was more remote 
 from their intention than indiscriminately to condemn all 
 tradition ;" k and " they who refuse to be tried by this rule . . 
 are justly to be suspected ; nay, it is evident that they are 
 broaching some novel doctrines which cannot stand this 
 test;" 1 inasmuch as "where the question is concerning an 
 obscure place of Scripture, the practice of the Catholic 
 Church is the best commentary."" 1 "The principle on which 
 we separated from the Roman Church was, not that we had 
 discovered any new views of Scripture doctrines, but that we 
 
 a "Perverted Tradition the bane of the Church." A Sermon, by the 
 Rev. Josiah Pratt, B.D., p. 6. London, 1839. 
 
 Taylor's "Ancient Christianity," 1. 79. London, 1839. 
 "Calfhill's Avnswere to the Treatise of the Crosse," fol. 120. London, 
 1565. 
 
 Sanderson's Sermons ; ad Clerum, v. p. 6. London, 1681. 
 Ussher's "Sermon preached before his Majestic," p. 27. London, 1631. 
 Heylyn's " Histor. and Misce'U. Tracts," p. 34. London, 1681. 
 % Patrick's "Discourse about Tradition," p. 11. London, 1685. 
 h Waterland's " Vindication of Christ's Divinity," p. 458. Cambridge, 
 1719. 
 
 1 Chillingworth's Works, p. 285. London, 1742. 
 k Bishop Kaye's "Tertullian," p. 302. Cambridge, 1829. 
 1 Leslie's Works, vol. i. pp. 71-2. Oxford, 1832. Compare "The Primitive 
 Creed examined and explained," by Bishop Hopkins (of Vermont), Pref. p. vii. 
 Burlington, 1834. 
 
 m Bishop Taylor's Works, by Heber, vi. 521. London, 1828. See his 
 " Advice to his Clergv," in Randolph's "Enchir. Theol " i. 348. Oxford, 
 1825. 
 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 23 
 
 desired to return to the primitive confession, the views held 
 by the apostles and early fathers of the Church." a " If we 
 reject SCRIPTURE, we reject the very basis of theological 
 belief; if we reject ANTIQUITY, we reject all historical evidence 
 to soundness of interpretation." 5 To these testimonies we 
 may fitly add the command given to preachers by the Upper 
 House of Convocation in the year 1571 : " They shall in the 
 first place be careful not to teach anything in their sermons, 
 to be religiously held and believed by the people, except that 
 which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testa- 
 ment, and which has been deduced from the same doctrine 
 by the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops." c 
 
 Dr. Milner proceeds to descant largely on the unhappy 
 results of " private judgment," leading, as he would be 
 glad to have his readers understand, to utter lawlessness, 
 confusion, and anarchy. We need scarcely inform our Pro- 
 testant readers that this assertion is as fallacious as that just 
 examined. We do claim the privilege of " private judg- 
 ment," but that "private judgment" is a very different 
 thing from that which is attributed to us. Our work will 
 not be complete without recording in our pages what we 
 really mean by the right of private judgment, and for this 
 purpose we cannot do better than transcribe the sentiments 
 on this subject of the late talented Rev. J. E. Tyler, from his 
 truly pious and learned work " Primitive Christian Worship."** 
 
 The foundation on which, to be safe and beneficial, the 
 duty of private judgment, as we maintain, must be built, is 
 very far indeed removed from that common and mischievous 
 notion of it which would encourage us to draw immediate 
 and crude deductions from Holy Scripture, subject only to 
 the control and the colouring of our own minds, responsible 
 for nothing further than our own consciousness of an honest 
 intention. Whilst we claim a release from that degrading 
 
 " Rose's "State of the Protestant Religion in Germany," p. 21. Cambridge, 
 1825. Compare Bretschneider's " Apology for the modern Theology of Pro- 
 testant Germany," p. 46, London, 1827; and Mr. Rose's Appendix to his 
 work, pp. 7881. London, 1828. 
 
 b Faber's " Prim. Doctrine of Election," p. 13. London, 1836. 
 
 c Sparrow's "Collection," p. 238. London, 1671. Vid. Strype's "Annals," 
 vol. ii. part i. p. 107. Oxford, 1824. "Life of Parker," ii. 57. Oxford, 1821. 
 Cosin's " Hist, of Transubstantiation," p. 7. London, 1676. Scrivener! 
 "Apolog. pro S. Patt.," p. 57. London, 1672. Heylyn's " Life of Laud," 
 p. 238. London, 1671. Patrick's "Discourse about Tradition," p. 15. London, 
 1685. Water-land's Works, v. 317. Oxford, 1823. Routh, "Reliquiae Sacrae," 
 vol. i. Praefat. p. xiv. Oxon. 1814. Bishop Mant, on the "Book of Common 
 Prayer," p. 340. Oxford, 1820. 
 
 d London : printed for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 
 1847, Part I. cap. i. 
 
30 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 yoke which neither are we nor were our fathers able to hear, 
 we deprecate for ourselves and for our fellow-helievers that 
 licentiousness which in doctrine and practice tempts a man 
 to follow merely what is right in his own eyes, uninfluenced 
 by the example, the precepts, and the authority of others, 
 and owning no submissive allegiance to those laws which the 
 wise and good have established for the benefit of the whole 
 body. The freedom which we ask for ourselves, and desire 
 to see imparted to all, is a rational liberty, tending to the 
 good, not operating to the bane of its possessors ; ministering 
 to the general welfare, not to disorder and confusion. In the 
 enjoyment of this liberty, or rather in the discharge of the 
 duties and trusts which this liberty brings with it, we feel 
 ourselves under an obligation to examine the foundations of our 
 faith, to the very best of our abilities, according to our oppor- 
 tunities, and with the most faithful use of all the means 
 afforded to us by its divine Author and Finisher. Among 
 those means, whilst we regard the Holy Scripture as para- 
 mount and supreme, we appeal to the witness and mind of 
 the Church as secondary and subsidiary ; a witness not at all 
 competing with Scripture, never to be balanced against it ; 
 but competing with our own less able and less pure appre- 
 hension of Scripture. In ascertaining the testimony of this 
 witness, we examine the sentiments and practice of the 
 ancient teachers of the Church ; not as infallible guides, not 
 as uniformly holding all of them the same opinions, but as 
 most valuable helps in our examination of the evidence of the 
 Church, who is, after all, our appointed instructor in the 
 truths of the Gospel, fallible in her individual members and 
 branches, yet the sure witness and keeper of Holy Writ, and 
 our safest guide on earth to the mind and will of God. When 
 we have once satisfied ourselves that a doctrine is founded on 
 Scripture, we receive it with implicit faith, and maintain it as 
 a sacred deposit, intrusted to our keeping, to be delivered 
 down whole and entire without our adding thereto what to us 
 may seem needful, or taking away what we may think super- 
 fluous. 
 
 The state of the Christian thus employed, in acting for 
 himself in a work peculiarly his own, is very far removed from 
 the condition of one who labours in bondage, without any sense 
 of liberty and responsibility, unconscious of the dignity of a 
 free and accountable agent, and surrendering himself wholly 
 to the control of a task-master. Equally is it distant from 
 the conduct of one who indignantly casting off all regard for 
 authority, and all deference to the opinions of others, boldly 
 and proudly sets up his own will and pleasure as the only 
 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 31 
 
 standard to which he will submit. For the model which we 
 would adopt, as members of the Church, in our pursuit of 
 Christian truth, we find a parallel and analogous case in a 
 well-principled and well-disciplined son, with his way of life 
 before him, exercising a large and liberal discretion in the 
 choice of his pursuits ; not fettered by peremptory paternal 
 mandates, but ever voluntarily referring to those principles of 
 moral obligation and of practical wisdom with which his mind 
 has been imbued ; shaping his course with modest diffidence 
 in himself, and habitual deference to others older and wiser 
 than himself, yet acting with the firmness and intrepidity of 
 conscious rectitude of principle, and integrity of purpose; 
 and under a constant sense of his responsibility, as well for 
 his principles as for his conduct. 
 
 Against the cogency of these maxims various objections 
 have been urged from time to time. We have been told, that 
 the exercise of private judgment in matters of religion tends 
 to foster errors of every diversity of character, and leads to 
 heresy, scepticism, and infidelity : it is represented as rending 
 the Church of Christ, and totally subverting Christian unity, 
 and snapping asunder at once the bond of peace. So also 
 it has been often maintained, that the same cause robs 
 individual Christians of that freedom from all disquietude 
 and perplexity and anxious responsibility, that peace of mind, 
 satisfaction, and content, which those personally enjoy who 
 surrender themselves implicitly to a guide whom they believe 
 to be unerring and infallible. 
 
 For a moment let us pause to ascertain the soundness of 
 such objections. And here anticipating, for argument's 
 sake, the worst result, let us suppose that the exercise of 
 individual inquiry and judgment (such as the best teachers in 
 the Anglican Church are wont to inculcate) may lead in some 
 cases even to professed infidelity; is it right, and wise, and 
 justifiable to be driven by an abuse of God's gifts to denounce 
 the legitimate and faithful employment of them ? What 
 human faculty which among the most precious of the 
 Almighty's blessings is not liable to perversion? What 
 unquestionable moral duty can be found, which has not been 
 transformed by man's waywardness into an instrument of 
 evil ? Nay, what doctrine of our holy faith has not the 
 wickedness or the folly of unworthy men employed as a cloak 
 for unrighteousness, and a vehicle for blasphemy ? But by a 
 consciousness of this liability in all things human, must we 
 be tempted to suppress the truth ? to disparage those moral 
 duties ? or discountenance the cultivation of those gifts and 
 faculties ? Rather would not sound philosophy and Christian 
 
3.2 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 wisdom jointly enforce the necessity of improving the gifts 
 zealously, of discharging the moral obligation to the full, and 
 of maintaining the doctrine in all its integrity ; but guarding 
 withal, to the utmost of our power and watchfulness, against 
 the abuses to which any of these things may be exposed? 
 And we may trust in humble but assured confidence, that as 
 it is the duty of a rational being, alive to his own responsi- 
 bility, to inquire and judge for himself in things concern- 
 ing the soul, with the most faithful exercise of his abilities 
 and means ; so the wise and merciful Ruler of our destinies 
 will provide us with a sure way of escaping from all evils 
 incident to the discharge of that duty, if, in reliance on his 
 blessing, we honestly seek the truth, and perseveringly adhere 
 to that way in which He will be our guide. 
 
 It is a question very generally and very reasonably enter- 
 tained among us, whether the implicit submission and unre- 
 served surrender of ourselves to any human authority in 
 matters of faith (though whilst it lasts, it of course affords an 
 effectual check to open scepticism), does not ultimately and 
 in very deed prove a far more prolific source of disguised 
 infidelity. Doubts repressed as they arise, but not solved, 
 silenced but not satisfied, gradually accumulate in spite of all 
 external precaution ; and at length (like streams pent back 
 by some temporary barrier) break forth at once to an utter 
 discarding of all authority, and an irrecoverable rejection of 
 the Christian faith. From unlimited acquiescence in a guide 
 whom our associations have invested with infallibility, the 
 step is very short, and frequently taken, to entire apostasy 
 and renunciation of all belief. 
 
 The state of undisturbed tranquillity and repose of the man 
 who, having divested himself of all responsibility in matters 
 of religious belief and practice, enjoys an entire immunity 
 from the anxious and painful labour of trying for himself 
 the purity and soundness of his faith, is often painted in 
 strong contrast with the lamentable condition of those who 
 are driven about by every wind of novelty. The condition of 
 such a man may doubtless be far more enviable than theirs, 
 who have no settled fixed principles, and who wander from 
 creed to creed, and from sect to sect, just as their fickle and 
 roving minds suggest some transitory preference. But the 
 believer must not be driven by the evils of one extreme to 
 take refuge in the opposite. The whirlpool maybe the more 
 perilous, but the Christian mariner must avoid the rock also, 
 or he will equally make shipwreck of his faith. He must 
 with all his skill, and all his might, keep to the middle course, 
 shunning that presumptuous confidence which scorns all 
 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 33 
 
 authority, and boldly constitutes itself sole judge and legisla- 
 tor ; but equally rescuing his mind from the thraldom which 
 prostrates his reason, and paralyzes all the faculties of his 
 judgment in a matter of indefeasible and awful responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 Here, too, it is questioned, and not without cause, whe- 
 ther the satisfaction and comfort so often represented in warm 
 and fascinating colours, be really a spiritual blessing; or 
 whether it be not a deception and fallacy, frequently ending 
 in lamentable perplexity and confusion, like guarantees in 
 secular concerns, which as long as they maintain unsuspected 
 credit, afford a most pleasing and happy security to any one 
 who depends upon them, but which, when adverse fortune 
 puts their responsibility to the test, may prove utterly worth- 
 less, and be traced only by losses and disappointments. Such 
 a blind reliance on authority may doubtless be more easy and 
 more free from care than it is to gird up the loins of our 
 mind, and engage in toilsome spiritual labour. But with a 
 view to our own ultimate safety, wisdom bids us look to our 
 foundations in time, and assure ourselves of them; admonish- 
 ing us, that if they are unsound, the spiritual edifice reared 
 upon them, however pleasing to the eye, or abounding in 
 present enjoyments, will at length fall, and bury our hopes in 
 its ruin. 
 
 On these and similar principles, we maintain that it well 
 becomes Christians, when the soundness of their faith, and 
 the rectitude of their acts of worship, are called in question, 
 ' ' to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good." Thus, 
 when the unbeliever charges us with credulity in receiving as 
 a divine revelation what he scornfully rejects, it behoves us 
 all (every one to the extent of his means and opportunities) 
 to possess ourselves of the accumulated evidences of our holy 
 faith, so that we may be able to give to our own minds, and 
 to those who ask it of us, a reason for our hope. The result 
 can assuredly be only the comfort of a still more unshaken 
 conviction. Thus, too, when the misbeliever charges us with 
 an undue and an unauthorized ascription of the Divine attri- 
 butes to our Redeemer and to our Sanctifier, which he would 
 confine to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, exclusively of 
 the Eternal .Son and the Blessed Spirit, it well becomes every 
 Catholic Christian to assure himself of the evidence borne by 
 the Scriptures to the divinity of the Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost, together with the inseparable doctrines of redemp- 
 tion by the blood of Christ, and sanctification by the Spirit 
 of grace ; appealing also in this investigation to the tradition 
 of the Church, and the testimony of her individual members 
 
34 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 from the earliest times, as under God his surest and best 
 guides. " In both these cases," writes the venerable author 
 from whom we are quoting, " I can say for myself that I 
 have acted upon my own principles, and to the very utmost 
 of my faculties have scrutinized the foundations of my faith, 
 and from each of those inquiries and researches I have risen 
 with a satisfaction increased far beyond my first anticipations. 
 What I had taken up in my youth on authority, I have been 
 long assured of by a moral demonstration, which nothing can 
 shake ; and I cling to it with an affection, which, guarded by 
 God's good providence, nothing in this world can dissolve or 
 weaken." 
 
 It is to engage in a similar investigation that we now most 
 earnestly invite the members of the Church of Rome, in 
 order to ascertain for themselves the ground of their faith 
 and practice in various matters of vast moment, and which 
 involve the principles of separation between the Roman and 
 Anglican branches of the universal Church. Were the sub- 
 jects of minor importance, or what the ancient writers were 
 wont to call " things indifferent/' reason and charity would 
 prescribe that we should bear with each other, allowing a 
 free and large discretion in any body of Christians, and not 
 severing ourselves from them because we deemed our views 
 preferable to theirs. In such a case we might well walk in 
 the house of God as friends, without any interruption of the 
 harmony which should exist between those who worship the 
 true God with one heart and one mind, ever striving to keep 
 the unity of the Spirit in. the bond of peace. But when the 
 points at issue are of so vast moment ; when two persons 
 agreeing in the general principles of belief in the Gospel and 
 its chief characteristic doctrines, yet find it impossible to join 
 conscientiously in the same prayer, or the same acts of faith 
 and worship, then the necessity is imperative on all who 
 would not be parties to the utter breaking up of Christian 
 unity, nor assist in propagating error, to make sure of their 
 foundations ; and satisfy themselves, by an honest inquiry 
 and upright judgment, that the fault does not rest with 
 them. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 The objection that Christ himself wrote no part of the New Testament. 
 
 THE first objection made by Dr. Milner against the Bible 
 being considered as the sole Rule of Faith, lies in the asser- 
 
CHRIST NEVER WROTE. 35 
 
 tion, that " if Christ had intended that all mankind should 
 learn his religion from a Book, namely the New Testament, 
 he himself would have written that book, and would have 
 enjoined the obligation of learning to read it as the first and 
 fundamental precept of religion; whereas, he never wrote 
 anything at all, unless perhaps the sins of the Pharisees with 
 his fingers upon the dust." a 
 
 This, observes Dr. Jarvis, is about as wise a remark as that 
 of the unbeliever mentioned by Paley, that " if God had 
 given a revelation, he would have written it in the skies." b 
 Such remarks can operate only on the unreflecting and vulgar 
 mind. We are willing to believe that our Blessed Lord knew 
 better than Dr. Milner what was proper for HIM to do, when 
 HE told His disciples that the "HoLY GHOST should bring all 
 things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto 
 them." The learned polemic might as well say, that if our 
 Lord had intended that all men should enter His Church, He 
 would have remained on earth to found it. But why did not 
 Dr. Milner speak of the OLD TESTAMENT ? Did not Christ 
 constantly appeal to the Scriptures, meaning of course the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament ? " Holy men of God spake 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." c And as God was 
 the first Author of writing in the Old Law, so our Saviour 
 Christ, God and Man, taught the same lesson by His own 
 example and direction in the New. Dr. Milrier's objection, 
 foolish as it is, is not his own. It is as old at least as the 
 days of Augustine, when it was refuted by this great writer, 
 an admitted saint of his own church. " For when the disciples 
 wrote [saith Augustine] what Christ showed and said unto 
 them, it is not to be said that he did not write himself, inas- 
 much as the members wrote that which they learned by the 
 inditing of the Head ; for whatever He would have us to read 
 of the things which He did and said, He gave in charge to 
 them, as His hands, to write the same." d 
 
 It is a matter that should be particularly noted, that while 
 Romanists express such great veneration for the early writers, 
 known as the Fathers, when it suits their purpose, they do 
 not hesitate to hold a line of argument which is not unfre- 
 quently in direct opposition to those early writers of the 
 Christian Church. We have given one extract from St. Au- 
 gustine's works completely opposed to Dr. Milner' s views. To 
 
 a Letter viii. pp. 97, 98. b Evidences, part ii. ch. vi. 
 
 c 2 Peter, i. 21 ; see Exodus, xxxii. 16. 
 
 d Cum illi scripserunt, quae ille ostendit et dixit, nequaquam dicendum est, 
 quod ipse non scripserit, &c. Aug. de Consens. Evangel, lib. i. c. 35, p. 26, 
 torn. iii. -part ii. Paris, 1680. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 this we will venture to add one other, from many at hand of 
 a similar nature. We Protestants believe that nothing in the 
 Old or New Testament was written by accident, but under 
 the immediate Providence of God, so as to be entitled to as 
 much credit as if Christ had written it with his own hand ; 
 and so Augustine himself believed : 
 
 "For as many of His actions and sayings as Christ 
 wished us to read, these He commanded to be written in 
 a book, as if it were by His own hands. For whosoever under- 
 stands this common bond of unity, and ministry of members 
 actuated by one spirit, in different offices, under one head, 
 will receive the narratives of Christ's disciples in the Gospel 
 no otherwise than if he saw the very hand of Christ writing 
 it which was attached to His own body." 3 
 
 And thus one and the same spirit that prescribed the Old 
 Law to Moses, gave also express charge to the Evangelist 
 St. John to "write these things/' 6 
 
 The object which Dr. Milner has in view is very apparent ; 
 he prefers the preaching to the reading for the people ; for 
 under the former those traditions of the Church can be 
 maintained which cannot be read in the Word of God. The 
 commission to preach is set above the commission to write 
 and read. 
 
 Every effort is made by Rome to relieve itself from being 
 subjected to the written word. If this grand rival to its own 
 authority can but be displaced, so that it shall itself, under 
 some pretext, be allowed to occupy the first place, the object 
 is accomplished. There is then no appeal from the response 
 of the managing priest ; the ultimate authority is made to 
 rest in that officer of the Church, and what he utters becomes 
 law. Hence the eagerness of the Church of Rome to expose 
 the insecurity, the evils, the calamities, the disasters, the 
 follies, consequent upon the MERE use of the written Word ; 
 and to show how, without a guide, poor frail, fallible, erring 
 man, must of course wander, and lose the grand object 
 of his search, and all his pains. What can he know? and 
 should any clergy, excepting those of Rome, pretend to 
 instruct him, what can they do but mislead ? Rome not being 
 
 ft Quicquid enim ille de suis factis et dictis noslegere voluit, hoc scribendum 
 illis tanquam suis manibus iniperavit. Hoc unitatis consortium et in diversis 
 officiis concordium membrorum sub uno capite ministerium quisquis intel- 
 lexerit, non aliter accipiet quod narrantibus discipulis Christi in Evangelio 
 legerit, quam si ipsam manum Domini, quam in proprio corpore gestabat, 
 scvibentem conspexerit. August. De Consensu Evangelist., lib. i. cap. 35, 
 edit, as above. 
 
 b Rev. i. 11, 19; see Sir H. Lynde's "Via Devia," sec. ix. p. 205. 
 London, 1850. 
 
ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. 37 
 
 sure of the meaning of that Word, from which she claims 
 support for her teaching, there is no hope of succeeding pro- 
 perly; recourse must be had to a teaching and preaching 
 church, properly authorized. These are some of Rome's 
 notions, some of her assertions, some of the assumptions 
 which must of course be involved in her setting aside the 
 written Word in favour of a teaching arid preaching company, 
 under pretence that the one is empowered, and can act 
 efficiently, while other courses can only mislead and delude ; 
 there being no order, especially for mere individuals, to read 
 the Word. 
 
 But, if the absence of a direct unmistakable order to read 
 is so much relied on, where have we, after all, any one word 
 declaring, or so much as hinting, that this " teaching and 
 preaching " is to be that of the Church of Rome ? What one 
 word appears either in the Holy Scriptures or the fathers of 
 either church, Greek or Latin, to secure the Church of Rome 
 in the grand privilege, of being sole teacher and preacher ? or 
 to declare from her fountain alone flowed all truth, all security, 
 and all teaching of any value ? Can no one read but herself ? 
 can no one see but herself? has no one any intellect but herself? 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 The alleged limited scope and insufficiency of the Gospels and the Canonical 
 Epistles of the New Testament as a Eule of Faith Patristic Evidence. 
 
 WITH an instinctive dread of Holy Scriptures being con- 
 sidered as a Standard or Rule of Faith, Dr. Milner takes 
 every occasion to place them in a secondary position. He 
 informs us, that " only a part of them [the Apostles] wrote 
 anything, and what these did write was, for the most part, 
 addressed to particular persons or congregations, and on par- 
 ticular occasions. St. Matthew wrote his Gospel at the par- 
 ticular request of the Christians of Palestine, and St. Mark 
 composed his at the desire of those at Rome. St. Luke 
 addressed his Gospel to an individual, Theophilus, having 
 written it because it seemed good to him to do so. St. John 
 wrote the last of the Gospels in compliance with the petition 
 of the clergy and people of Lesser Asia. * * * No doubt 
 the Evangelists were moved by the Holy Ghost to listen to 
 the requests of the faithful in writing their respective Gos- 
 
38 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 pels ; nevertheless, there is nothing in these occasions, nor in 
 the Gospels themselves, which indicates that any one of them, 
 or all of them together, contain an entire, detailed, and clear 
 exposition of the whole religion of Jesus Christ. The canonical 
 epistles in the New Testament show the particular occasions 
 on which they were written, and prove, as the Bishop of Lin- 
 coln observes, that ' they are not to be considered as regular 
 treatises on the Christian religion. 7 " (Letter viii. p. 98.) 
 
 Nothing, says Bp. Hopkins, can manifest more plainly the 
 real spirit of Popery, than the necessity which its unhappy 
 priests are under to disparage, in this style, the Scriptures of 
 divine truth, in order to draw away the confidence of mankind 
 from the sacred oracles to their own corrupt teaching ; and 
 therefore we must ask the attention of our readers to the 
 various points which Dr. Milner puts in this most irreverent 
 and blasphemous specimen of argumentation. 
 
 He had just before stated that the Saviour does not appear 
 to have commanded His Apostles to write, though he repeat- 
 edly and emphatically commanded them to preach His Gospel. 
 The inference desired to be conveyed of course is, that what 
 they said orally is to be taken for our guide, as the Churches 
 who heard them have handed it down by tradition, since in 
 this mode Romish innovations may be imposed upon the 
 world, under the pretence that they are derived from the oral 
 teaching of the Apostles, notwithstanding there is not a trace 
 of them to be found in the written word. 
 
 But does not the command to preach include every mode 
 of teaching ? When, for example, the Apostle Paul addressed 
 his epistles to the Churches, commanding that they should be 
 read by the disciples when they met together, was not this the 
 PREACHING to those Churches, with the single difference, that 
 as writings are intended to remain as the permanent monu- 
 ments of instruction, they are always expected to be more 
 full and deserving of repetition than the oral teaching, which 
 is confined to a single delivery ? 
 
 And what does Dr. Milner mean by saying that the Gos- 
 pels and Epistles were addressed to particular persons or 
 congregations, and on particular occasions? Did he ever 
 hear of any divine revelation that was not addressed to par- 
 ticular persons, and on particular occasions? And, in the 
 name of common sense, does that fact prevent its application 
 to all other persons and occasions where there is equal need 
 of it ? And on the same ground, what advantage would he 
 gain for his oral traditions, which are pretended to be derived 
 from the same source? For we suppose that when the 
 Apostles delivered the truth of God by the living voice, they 
 
ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. 39 
 
 must have done it to particular persons or congregations, and 
 on particular occasions, inasmuch as they certainly could not 
 address the whole Church at once, except in writing, after 
 they were dispersed throughout the world, in the fulfilment 
 of their sacred mission. 
 
 He tells us, however, that the Christians of Palestine, and 
 those at Rome, and those in Lesser Asia, requested that the 
 Gospels might be written. He also says that "St. Luke 
 addressed his Gospel to a single individual, Theophilus" 
 apparently forgetting that this name cannot be shown to be 
 the title of any particular man, since it signifies a lover of 
 God ; and hence it is at least as likely, if not much more so, 
 that it was addressed to every believer, because each one of 
 the faithful is a Theophilus, of necessity. But Dr. Milrier 
 takes care not to inform his readers why those requests were 
 made, supposing, what cannot be proved, that the sacred 
 writers did not prepare their several contributions until they 
 had been requested. And yet it is most obvious that there 
 could have been but one reason for such a request, viz., that 
 the hearers desired to have a permanent record of what had 
 been delivered to them by the voice of the Apostles, in order 
 that they might be reminded of the truth by a lasting stan- 
 dard, and freed from the danger of distorting or losing any 
 portion of the celestial revelation, through the inevitable 
 infirmity of human memory. The ancient fathers state this 
 expressly in the case of St. Mark's Gospel ; and if it had not 
 been stated, the slightest reflection would prove the necessity 
 of such a course. And the history of the Church confirms it 
 most painfully. Since if, with the Scriptures, so much false- 
 hood and superstition have been added to the faith by a 
 pretended apostolical tradition, what must have been the 
 condition of the Church in case the wisdom of God had 
 furnished no fixed monuments of divine truth as the standard 
 of His will ? 
 
 Neither is this the whole of Dr. Milner's sophistry. He 
 informs us that the Gospels, taken altogether, do not contain 
 an entire, detailed, and clear exposition of the whole religion 
 of Jesus Christ. If he means by this that the rest of the 
 New Testament, together with the Old, is supposed to be 
 unnecessary, he treats his adversaries with the most absurd 
 unfairness, because no one has ever undertaken to say that 
 the rest of the Scriptures were superfluous, and that the whole 
 religion of Christ is in the Gospels alone. If he means by 
 an entire, detailed, and clear exposition of the religion of 
 Jesus Christ, the system of the Papal Church, we fully agree 
 with him, since it is very certain that the distinctive dogmas 
 
40 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 of Popery, which the Church of England renounces, are not 
 only unwarranted by the Scriptures, but are, in many respects, 
 directly opposed to them. But if he means that the Scrip- 
 tures of the New Testament do not contain all the doctrines 
 of the Gospel faith, and all the morality of Christian practice, 
 and, moreover, when taken in connection with the Old Tes- 
 tament, all the warrant required for the details of form and 
 ceremony which the primitive Church adopted in worship and 
 discipline, and which we have retained, we deny the assertion 
 on the authority of the fathers, and on the ground of all 
 sound argument. His quotation from the English Bishop of 
 Lincoln, that " the epistles of the New Testament are not to 
 be considered as regular treatises on the Christian religion," 
 is nothing to the purpose. The question is, whether the 
 divine Scriptures, as a whole, contain a full and ample reve- 
 lation of the Rule of Faith, and not whether it has pleased 
 the Spirit of God to put their instructions into the form of 
 what Dr. Milner or any other uninspired man would call " a 
 regular treatise." 
 
 The Church of Rome is compelled to acknowledge the 
 Bible as THE WORD OF GOD, notwithstanding, like the ancient 
 Pharisees, she makes it void by her traditions. Why, then, 
 we ask, were these divine Scriptures given at all, if they were 
 not designed to be the standard for the Church of Christ, 
 just as the Books of Moses were the standard for Israel 
 under the previous dispensation ? For if, according to Mil- 
 ner's hypothesis, the faith of the Church was intended to rest 
 on oral tradition, it is manifest that the written word would 
 be of no real value. What can be more absurd than the 
 idea that the Holy Spirit would dictate to the Church in this 
 permanent shape an incomplete, inconclusive, and unsatisfac- 
 tory exposition ? That, while there are many things recorded 
 there which are not strictly necessary to be known for our 
 salvation, yet the Spirit of God neglected to set forth the whole 
 of the faith, without which no one could be saved ! That, 
 while the Scriptures contain a rich abundance of fruits and 
 flowers, yet they do not contain a sufficient amount of the 
 Bread of Life ! As well might they charge upon the Lord 
 any other gross incongruity. As well might they persuade 
 us, that although He has adorned our bodies with various 
 members, and provided for the least among them the form of 
 grace and the beauty of colour, yet He neglected to furnish 
 the lungs to breathe, the brain to govern, or the heart to 
 circulate the blood of their vitality ! As well might they 
 contend, that although His bounty had filled our lower world 
 with an exuberance of light, and a vast variety of vegetation, 
 
ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. 41 
 
 yet He had omitted the supplies of food which were essential 
 to our being ! Is it not an amazing proof of infatuation that 
 the Papal Church will thus persist in attributing to God that 
 which would be reproached as an absurdity in any human 
 lawgiver ? For who does not know that every earthly governor 
 is chiefly careful to provide first what is most necessary ? 
 Or what mortal author ever sought to instruct the world, 
 without giving his chief attention to that which he thought 
 most important for his reader's information ? 
 
 But such is the deplorable irreverence of Papal writers 
 towards the Word of God, that they deny its chief office as 
 the Rule of Faith, the Guide to Heaven, the Light of the 
 Church and of the world. The Scriptures are indeed inspired, 
 they admit ; but the written dictates of the Holy Ghost are 
 not of half so much importance as the debates of a Roman 
 Council ! The Evangelists and Apostles wrote the Gospels 
 and Epistles by the direction of the Almighty ; but the Pope 
 and the Bishops of Trent are far better teachers than they ! 
 The Lord undertook to teach the way of life, but left out an 
 essential portion of the lesson ! The Redeemer placed His 
 saving truth on permanent record in a Book, but the truth 
 thus recorded was not worthy of being received as sufficient 
 for salvation ! He inspired His special messengers, and gave 
 them holiness, and miracles, and tongues, and made them His 
 organs to publish a written revelation, and called it, by pre- 
 eminence, the Gospel. But he intended, notwithstanding, that 
 their work should be full of fatal defects and express false- 
 hoods, in order that a succession of uninspired men, many of 
 them destitute of holiness, some of them monsters of crime, and 
 all of them without miracles or any other supernatural gift, 
 might accomplish the task of supplying and contradicting them! 
 
 Such is the fundamental proposition of Popery. The 
 Bible must be cast down, in order to set up her traditions. 
 The supremacy of the divine Scriptures must be dethroned, 
 and the dictates of Popes and Councils must be invested 
 with the crown and sceptre. And there is the head and 
 front of her offence against Heaven. It is cunningly de- 
 vised. It is artfully set forth. It is eloquently defended. 
 But it comes to this at last, and no sophistry can disguise 
 it. And hence we look upon the Papal system as involving 
 a high and very awful, though a covert blasphemy against 
 the majesty of God. (Hopkins, pp. 289295.) 
 
 Dr. Milner throughout his work is very profuse in his 
 reference to the " Fathers " of the Church wherever he can, 
 as he fancies, squeeze out an acknowledgment that may in any 
 way bear out his modern Romish Tridentine views. But it is 
 
42 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 remarkable how barren are his pages of patristic support 
 when he comes to degrade the WORD OF GOD, by placing it 
 on a level with the traditions of his Church. He does not 
 advance one single name, but a bishop of Lincoln (whose 
 meaning he perverts) to support his views. We have above 
 advanced an assertion, that the Scriptures do contain all that 
 is necessary to salvation in faith, morals, in worship, and in 
 discipline ; and in this we are amply borne out by the testi- 
 mony of the early Christian writers. 
 
 The Church, a during a long succession of ages, beginning 
 with the immediately post-apostolic times, is regarded by us, 
 Protestants, as a valuable corroboration of the conclusion 
 which, however, we deem sufficiently established by the tes- 
 timony of Scripture itself, and by the reason of the case. b 
 But to Roman Catholics, who professedly rest much of their 
 belief on the authority of the Fathers, the argument now 
 under consideration ought to be conclusive. We say, then, 
 that a chain of evidence, bearing on the supreme importance 
 and sufficiency of the written Word of God, can be drawn 
 out from the works of the great Church Fathers, proving 
 incontestably that the doctrine of the modern Church of 
 Rome, regarding the m-sufficiency of Scripture, and the co- 
 ordinate authority of an independent Tradition, was utterly 
 unknown to the ancient Church either of the East or West. 
 To exhibit all these testimonies in detail would far transcend 
 our limits: we shall therefore content ourselves with 
 adducing a few of them as specimens of the whole. 
 
 We begin with IREN^EUS, the Bishop of Lyons, and the 
 disciple and friend of Polycarp, who again had been the com- 
 panion and disciple of the Apostle John. This Father repre- 
 sents the opinion of both the Eastern and Western Churches 
 towards the end of the second century. Disputing against 
 the Gnostic heretics, who denied the perfection and suffi- 
 ciency of Scripture, and maintained that the truth could not 
 be discovered from it by those who were ignorant of Tradi- 
 tion/ Irenaeus says " We ought to leave such things as these 
 
 a We take the following from the Catholic Layman, October, 1852, p. 110, 
 et seq. 
 
 b Augustine thought as we do on this subject of patristic authority. " Other 
 authors," he says, "however excellent their sanctity and learning, I read so as 
 not to credit their assertions merely because they say thus : but because they 
 have been able to persuade me, either by means of those canonical authors or 
 by probable reasons, that their statements are not repugnant to truth." 
 August, ad Hieron. torn. ii. 15, ed. Bened. 
 
 e "When they [the heretics] are confuted out of the Scriptures, they turn 
 round and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not accurate, nor 
 of authority, and because they are ambiguous, and because the truth cannot be 
 discovered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition : for that the truth 
 
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 43 
 
 to God, who also made us, most rightly knowing that the 
 Scriptures indeed are perfect, as having been dictated by the 
 word of God and his Spirit." a Again " For we have become 
 acquainted with the dispensation of our salvation through no 
 other men than those through whom the Gospel has come to 
 us : which they then indeed preached, but afterwards, by the 
 will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures., to be the foun- 
 dation and pillar of our faith " b The last phrase, it will be 
 remembered, is the very one applied by St. Paul to the 
 Church 1 Tim. iii. 15. Irenseus, accordingly, here distinctly 
 implies, that it was by the custody of the Sacred Scriptures 
 that the Church was to sustain her office as " the pillar and 
 ground of the truth." Once more " Read more diligently 
 the Gospel given unto Us by the Apostles, and read more 
 diligently the prophets, and ye shall find the general mode of 
 action, and the whole teaching, and the whole passion of our 
 Lord predicted in them." c 
 
 We come next to TERTULLIAN, who flourished a few years 
 later than Irenseus that is to say, about the end of the 
 second century. This great writer, whom Vincentius of 
 Lerins pronounces (Commonit., c. 24) to be, " apud Latinos 
 facile princeps," thus expresses himself regarding Scripture, 
 when arguing against the heretic Hermogenes, who main- 
 tained the eternity of matter : " I adore the fulness of Scrip- 
 ture, which manifests to me the Creator and his works. 
 . . . But whether all things were made of some pre- 
 existent matter, I have as yet nowhere read. Let the shop 
 of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not written, 
 let him fear that woe which is destined for them that add or 
 
 was not delivered in writing lut orally." (Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, 
 in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, 
 neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dicta, et quia non possit ex his 
 inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant Tradition em : non enim per literas traditam 
 illam, sed per vivam vocem. Cont. Haer. lib. iii. c. 2.) It is scarcely necessary 
 to direct attention to the truly remarkable resemblance here exhibited between 
 the respective positions taken up by the Gnostic heretics and Irenseus in the 
 second century, and those occupied by the Church of Home and the Church 
 of England in modern times. 
 
 a Cedere haec talia debemus Deo, qui et nos fecit, rectissime scientes quia 
 Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictae. 
 Cont. Haer. lib. ii. c. 47, edit. Grabe ; cap. 28, ed. 1853. 
 
 b Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus, quam per 
 eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos : quod quidem tune praeconiaverunt, 
 postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum 
 et columnam fidei nostrse futurum. Lib. iii. c. 1. 
 
 c Legite diligentius id quod ab Apostolis est Evangelium nobis datum, et 
 legite diligentius Prophetas, et invenietis universam actionem, et omnem doc- 
 trinam, et omnem passionem Domini nostri praedictam in ipsis. (Lib. iv. c. 34, 
 ed. 1853 ; cap. 66, ed. Grabe.) The meaning obviously is, that in the Gospel the 
 general tenor of our Lord's actions and the whole of his doctrines were exhibited ; 
 whilst the prophets predicted all the circumstances connected with his passion. 
 
44 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 take away."* Again, when disputing against the heretic 
 Marcion, he says " I do not admit what you bring forward 
 of your own, extraneous to Scripture." b 
 
 The next witness whom we shall cite is AMBROSE, the 
 famous bishop of Milan, who nourished circ. A. D. 374. This 
 eminent Father recognized no authority as co-ordinate with 
 and independent of Scripture " How," he says, " can we use 
 those things which we find not in Scripture ? " c And again 
 <e I read [in Scripture] that He [Christ] is the first, I read 
 that he is not the second : let those who say He is the second, 
 prove it by reading."* 
 
 Contemporaneously with Ambrose lived JEROME, unques- 
 tionably the most learned theologian of the Western Church. 
 He thus expresses himself respecting the grounds upon which 
 his belief was founded : " As we deny not those things that 
 are written, so we reject those things that are not written" e 
 The instance which he gives is peculiarly worthy of attention, 
 when taken in connection with the various purely traditional 
 notions entertained by the Church of Rome of the Virgin 
 Mary " That God was born of a virgin we believe, because 
 we read it. That Mary married after she gave birth to Him, 
 we do not believe, because we read it not." ( 
 
 A few years later that is, towards the close of the fourth 
 century we come to AUGUSTINE. The writings of this Father 
 have been always held in the highest esteem in the Western 
 Church, and the Church of Rome, in particular, has ever 
 regarded them with especial reverence. What, then, is 
 Augustine's opinion on the point under discussion ? " In 
 those things," he says, " which are plainly laid down in Scrip- 
 ture, all things are found which embrace faith and morals"" 
 Again "Whatsoever ye shall hear thence [i.e. from Scrip- 
 ture] , let this savour well with you : whatever is extraneous to 
 
 a Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, quse mihi et Factorein manifestat et facta. 
 An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia, nusquam adhuc legi. 
 Scriptum esse doceat Herinogenis officina. Si non est scriptum, timeat Vce 
 illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum. Tertull. adv. Hermog. 
 c. 22. 
 
 b Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo prefers. De Cam. Chris. 
 c. 7. 
 
 c Quae in Scripturis sanctis non reperimus, ea quemadmodum usurpare 
 possumus ? Ambr. Offic. lib. i. c. 23. 
 
 d Lego quia primus est, lego quia non est secundus. Illi qui secundum 
 aiunt, doceant lectione. De Inst. Virg. c. 2. 
 
 e Ut haec quse scripta sunt non negamus, ita ea quse non sunt scripta 
 renuimus. Hieron. adv. Helvid. torn. iv. pars ii. p. 141. 
 
 f Natura Deum esse de Virgine credimus, quia legimus. Mariam nupsisse 
 post partum non credimus, quia non legimus. Loc. cit. 
 
 In iis, quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia quse 
 continent fidem moresque vivendi. August, de Doctr. Christ, lib. ii. c. 9, 
 torn. iii. 301, ed. Bened. 
 
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 45 
 
 it, reject, lest ye wander in a cloud ." a Again " Wherefore if, 
 concerning Christ, or his Church, or anything else whatsoever 
 pertaining to your faith and living, I do not say we (who are 
 not to be compared to Him, who said ' Although we/ &c. 
 Gal. i. 8), but even as St. Paul adds, ' an angel from heaven 
 were to preach to you aught besides (prseterquam) what you 
 have received in the legal and evangelical Scriptures [the Old 
 and the new Testaments] , let him be accursed' )} b It should 
 be particularly observed, that Augustine is here not condemn- 
 ing the inculcation of doctrine contrary to Scripture, but in 
 addition to it (prceterquam quod in Scripturis accepistis) . c 
 Will any candid Eoman Catholic say, that the above is the 
 language of one who believed, as the Council of Trent teaches/ 
 that there are Church traditions, respecting faith and morals, 
 not contained in Scripture, and which are to be received with 
 the same sentiments of piety and virtue as the Scriptures 
 themselves ? If more evidence be required, the same Father 
 elsewhere says " Those things, however, which appertain to 
 the investigation and preserving of true religion, Divine Scrip- 
 ture is not silent about"* Again, speaking of the confutation 
 of heresy, he says " There can be no proof of true Christia- 
 nity, nor can there be any other refuge of Christians wishing 
 to know the truth of the faith, except the Divine Scriptures.'' f 
 And, to quote once more, writing against the Donatists, ne says 
 
 a Quicquid inde audieritis, hsec vobis bene sapiat : quicquid extra est, respuite, 
 ne erretis in nebula. August. Serm. de Pastor, c. xi. torn. v. 238. 
 
 b Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re 
 quse pertinet ad fidem vitamque vestram, non dicam nos (nequaquam compa- 
 rand! ei qui dixit Licet si nos), sed oranino (quod secutus adjecit) si angelus de 
 coelo vobis annuntiaverit prceterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus et evan- 
 gelicis accepistis, anathema sit. August, cont. Petilium, lib. iii. c. 6, 
 torn. ix. 301. 
 
 c The Rhemish translators correctly render the Greek Trap' b in the 8th and 
 9th verses by " besides." But whilst they felt themselves constrained to follow 
 the Vulgate version (prseterquam quod, prseter id quod), they take care to 
 inform their readers, in their note, that, according to St. Augustine, what 
 St. Paul here condemns is " such teaching as is contrary and disagreeing to 
 the rule of faith." Now, this remark is not only at variance with the words 
 of Augustine above cited, but even to the very passage of that Father to 
 which they themselves refer, where he says, "qui autem prceteryreditur 
 fidei regulam, non accedit in via, sed recedit de via." (August. Trac'. in 
 Johan. xcviii. 7.) We may add, that Theophylact and (Ecumenius, in their 
 commentaries on this passage of the Galatians, are also directly opposed to this 
 Rhemish gloss. With respect to the Greek Trap' o there seems to be no doubt 
 that the correct translation is besides or more than, as the Rhemish translators 
 themselves render it again in Rom. xii. 3. 
 
 d See the Decretum de Can. Scrip., Con. Trid. Sess. iv. 
 
 e Quce tamen pertinent ad veram religionem quaerendam et tenendam, divina 
 Seriptura non tacet. August. Ep. 42. 
 
 f Nulla probatio potest esse verse Christianitatis, neque refugium potest 
 esse Christianorum aliud, voleutium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi Scripturas 
 Sacrse. August, de Pastorib. c. 12, torn. ix. 279. 
 
46 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 " Let them demonstrate their Church, if they can, not by 
 discourses and rumours of the Africans, not by councils of 
 their own bishops, not by the writings of any disputants 
 whatsoever, not by deceitful signs and wonders, against which 
 we have been prepared and warned by the Word of the Lord, 
 but by the words of the one Shepherd himself, in the whole 
 canonical authorities of the Sacred Books"* This remark- 
 able passage is deserving of all attention from Roman 
 Catholics. 
 
 Such are a few of the testimonies of the early Latin Fathers 
 in favour of the Rule of Faith for which Protestants contend. 
 When we turn to the Eastern Church, we find, if possible, 
 even stronger statements upon the point. 
 
 CLEMENT of Alexandria, celebrated as one of the founders 
 of the famous school of Alexandria, and the master of the 
 renowned Origen, thus writes towards the close of the second 
 century : " They who are ready to labour for what is most 
 excellent, will not desist in their search after truth till they 
 obtain demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." b 
 
 ORIGEN, the successor of Clement, in the beginning of the 
 third century, says: "In the two Testaments every word 
 that appertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and 
 out of them all knowledge of things may be derived. But 
 if anything remains which Divine Scripture does not determine, 
 no other third Scripture ought to be received to authorize 
 knowledge . . . but let us commit to the fire what remains ; 
 that is, let us reserve it for God. For God has not willed 
 that we should know all things in the present life." c Could 
 Origen have written thus if he had entertained the opinions 
 put forward by Bellarmine respecting Tradition, which obvi- 
 ously represent it as a third Scripture ? Again, " Where- 
 fore, it is necessary for us to call the Sacred Scriptures to 
 
 a Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus 
 Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in literis quorumlibet dis- 
 putatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista Verbo 
 Domini praeparati et cauti redditi sumus, sed in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, 
 in omnibus canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus." (August, de Unit. 
 Eccles. c. 16, torn. ix. 371.) This is quite in harmony with what he says in the 
 3rd chapter of the same treatise " Nolo humanis documentis sed divinis 
 oraculis sanctam ecclesiam demonstrari." 
 
 b 'AAA' oe Trovtiv trot/tot ETTI rolf (eaXXioroif, ov Trportpov cnroGTriGovTai 
 ZijTovvTeg TTJV d\r)9(iav Trplv av Tf)v dirodtiZiv air' avrutv \df3ajffi T&V 
 ypaQtiv. Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. vii. p. 889, ed. Potter. 
 
 c " In hoc biduo puto duo Testamenta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne 
 verbum quod ad Deum pertinet requiri et discuti, atque ex ipsis omnem rerum 
 scientiam capi. Si quid autem superfuerit, quod non Divina Scriptura 
 decernat, nullam aliam tertiam Scripturam debere ad auctoritatem scientiae 
 suscipi .... Sed igni tradamus quod superest, id est, Deo reservemus. 
 Neque enim in praesenti vita Deus scire nosomnia voluit. Origen. Homil. v. 
 inLevit. torn. ii. 212. 
 
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 47 
 
 give evidence : for our meanings and interpretations, without 
 these witnesses, have no credit"* 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS the Martyr, a contemporary and friend of 
 Origen, and a disciple of Irenseus, thus writes : " As he who 
 would desire to exercise the wisdom of this world cannot 
 otherwise attain it, unless he read the dogmas of the philoso- 
 phers : so, whosoever of us will exercise piety towards God 
 can learn it from no other source than from the Divine 
 Scriptures " b 
 
 ATHANASIUS, the famous Bishop of Alexandria, in the be- 
 ginning of the fourth century, expresses himself as follows : 
 " The holy and divinely-inspired Scriptures are sufficient in 
 themselves for the enunciation of truth." c Again, " These 
 [canonical books] are the fountains of salvation, so that he who 
 thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them ; 
 in these alone the school of religion preaches the Gospel ; let 
 no man add to or take from them/' d These are the words 
 of the man who spent his life in controversy with the Arians, 
 and who was the great head of the Catholic party at the 
 (Ecumenical Synod of Nice. He obviously knew nothing of 
 Traditions which were at the same time necessary to salvation 
 and not contained in Scripture. 
 
 CYRIL, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the middle of the fourth 
 century, after having given a summary of the doctrine con- 
 cerning the Holy Spirit, says that he will now prove it in 
 detail from Scripture : " For," he adds, " concerning the 
 divine and holy mysteries of the faith, even the most casual 
 remark ought not to be delivered without the Sacred Scriptures. 
 Do not implicitly believe me saying these things to you unless 
 you receive proof of the statements from the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures." e Again, speaking of the mode of the divine gene- 
 ration not being revealed in Scripture, he says : " Why, 
 
 a Quapropter necesse nobis est Scriptui-as sanctas in testimonium vocare : 
 sensus quippe nostri et enarrationes, sine his testibus, non habent fidem. 
 Orig. Horn. i. in Jer. 
 
 b Quemadmodum enim, si quis vellet sapientiam hujus sseculi exercere, 
 non aliter hoc consequi poterit, nisi dogmata philosophorum legat ; sic qui- 
 cunque volumus pietatem in Deum exercere, non aliunde discemus quam ex 
 Scripturis sacris. Hippolyt. adv. Noetum, ch. ix. 
 
 c Awrapmf pev jap daiv at ayiai KCU OioirvtvcTot ypa^ai Trpog rrjv rijg 
 dX?j0fia cnrayytXiav. Athanas. cont. Gentes, torn. i. ed. Bened. 
 
 d Tawra [j3i/3Xia] Trrjyai TOV awTijpiov, wore TOV ciify&vTa e^optiffdai rSiv 
 (v TOVTOIQ Xoyiwv* kv TOVTOIQ fiovov TO TrJQ (.vffEfisictQ didaGKaXtlov euayyf- 
 Xifrar nrjdei TOVTOIQ ETrtjSaXXsrw, /ij^ TOVTHJV atyatpeiffOu). Ex Festali 
 Epistola xxxix. torn. ii. 962. 
 
 e At! yap TTfpi rwv Otiwv Kal aytwv Trig TriaTfwg fjLVffTrjpidtv fiySe TO TV%OV 
 avtv TWV Qf.i(j)v TrapadidoaOai ypaQ&v .... fjuj^f tfiol r< rawra aoi Xeyorri 
 airXuJQ TTiffTfvnyG, lav TTJV air6dfiZ.iv TWV KarayyfXXo/ui/wv airb TUV Otiwv fir} 
 \dj3yg ypa<j>a>v. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. iv. 17. 
 
48 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 then, do you busy yourself about what the Holy Spirit has not 
 written in the Scriptures ?" a 
 
 BASIL the Great, Bishop of Csesarea, and one of the most 
 profound theologians of his age (circ. A.D. 370), thus writes : 
 " Believe those things that are written ; the things which are 
 not written seek not after." b And again, ' ' It is a manifest 
 falling away from the faith, and arrogance, either to reject 
 anything of what is written, or to introduce anything of 
 what is not written" c We shall quote one passage more, 
 as Basil is one of the authorities on whom Roman Catholic 
 divines rely most in support of Tradition : " Let, therefore, 
 the inspired Scripture arbitrate between us ; and the sentence 
 of truth shall be adjudged to those with whom are found doc- 
 trines consonant to the Divine oracles" d From these words 
 it appears that, according to Basil, Scripture and Divine 
 Oracles are one and the same thing ; and that in every ques- 
 tion their authority is supreme. 
 
 THEOPHILUS, Bishop of Alexandria, towards the close of the 
 fourth century, believed it to be " an instinct of the devil to 
 follow the sophisms of human minds, and to think anything 
 Divine without the authority of the Scriptures." e Roman 
 Catholics will, of course, assent to the first clause of this 
 sentence ; but could the Tridentine Fathers, who asserted the 
 existence of Divine traditions not contained in Scripture, 
 fairly subscribe to the second ? 
 
 GREGORY, Bishop of Nyssa, and brother of Basil, declares : 
 " Forasmuch as this is supported by no testimony of Scrip- 
 ture, we shall reject it as false"* 
 
 CYRIL, Bishop of Alexandria, in the beginning of the fifth 
 century, to the very same effect asks : " That which Holy 
 Scripture hath not said, by what means, pray, shall we receive 
 
 a Ti roivvv TroKvirpayiiovkiQ a }irj^k TO nvtvpa TO " Ajiov typa^ev kv rcm; 
 
 ; : Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. xi. 12. 
 
 Tol ytypn/xjugvofg iriffTtve, ra [irj yfyprc/zjuejAT fi/} r/rei. Basil. Horn. xxix. 
 adv. Calumn. S. Trin. The Benedictine editors (torn. ii. 611) put this into 
 the Appendix of spurious passages : but it contains nothing that cannot be 
 paralleled from contemporary writers (e. g., Cyril), and from Basil himself, as 
 in the next extract. 
 
 c 3>avepa tKTTTwaiQ Trtortwf *cai vTTpr}<f>avia(; fcarf/yopia 77 dStrtlv TI TWV 
 yfypajwjUi'wi> rj kiriirrdyfiv T&V yt,r\ yeypa[jifiev(i)v. Basil de Fide, c. i. torn. ii. 
 251, ed. Bened. 
 
 d 'H OeorrvtvcTTOG rip.lv diaiTrjaaTb) ypatyf]. Kt Trap' OIQ av tvpfOy TO, 
 <5oyiara ovvyfta roig Qtioic. Xoyoic, iiri TOVTOIQ ij'fi Trjg aKifitiaQ rj ifjfjfpog. 
 Basil. Ep. 80, torn. ii. p. 901. 
 
 e Ignorans [Origenes] quod daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata 
 humanarum mentium sequi, et aliquid extra Scripturarum auctoritatem putare 
 divinum. Theoph. Alex. Ep. Pasch. ii. 
 
 f Cum id nullo Scripturse testimonio fultum sit, ut falsum improba- 
 bimus. Lib. de Cognit. Dei, cit. ab Euthymio in Panoplia, pars i. 
 tit. viii. n. 4. 
 
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. Vv^yf - 49 
 
 and reckon it among those things that are true ? a 
 of the last two passages cannot be evaded by saying that they 
 relate to things with which Tradition had nothing to do. b 
 The writers would scarcely have expressed themselves so 
 absolutely had they been aware of the existence,, in their own 
 day, of a source of proof equally certain and authoritative with 
 Scripture, and yet independent of it. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, the famous Bishop of Constantinople, towards 
 the close of the fifth century, thus speaks of Holy Scripture : 
 " Look for no other teacher ; thou hast the oracles of God, 
 none teaches thee like these. " c Is there any doubt here as 
 to the sufficiency of Scripture? And again, " He who useth 
 not the Scriptures, but climbeth up some other way that is, 
 cutteth out for himself another and an unlawful way he is a 
 thief."* Roman Catholics think it enough to reply, that 
 Chrysostom is here speaking of antichrists and heretics. 
 Certainly ; but what he condemns them for is, not adhering 
 solely to Scripture. Had he or they heard of the existence 
 in the Church of Divine traditions not contained in Scripture, 
 would he have ventured thus to apply the words " avajScuvwv 
 aAAaxo&v ? " Once more, " Wherefore, I exhort and be- 
 seech you all, leaving aside what this man or that man thinks 
 concerning these things, to learn all these things from the 
 Scriptures" e 
 
 The above passages, taken from some of the most eminent 
 writers of the first five centuries, may serve to convey a 
 general idea of the light in which Holy Scripture, as 
 the ultimate and sufficient basis of all essential truth, was 
 regarded by the early Church. The ingenuity of controver- 
 sialists has, in various ways, endeavoured to elude the direct 
 force of some of those statements ; but the general impres- 
 sion which they leave upon every unbiassed mind, no sophis- 
 try or special pleading can efface. Nor will that impression 
 be impaired even after we have brought forward (as we shall 
 do, when considering the Roman Catholic side of the argu- 
 ment) other passages from the same or different Fathers, in 
 which the use and authority of Tradition are dwelt on. For 
 
 a "0 -yap OVK i ijOjjKfv r/ 0a'a ypa^?}, riva Srj TQOTTOV 7rapae6/i0a, feat iv 
 rote a\r]9CJQ e^ovm KUTaXoyiovfifOa ; Cyril. Alex. Glaph. in Gen. lib. ii. 
 
 b Perrone, Loc. Theol. pars ii. sec. ii. c. 1. 
 
 c M7]de ireptfjitivyg srtpov didaaKoXov' ?X 61 C r Xoyta TOV Oeov" ovSei <re 
 diSdffKei MQiKtiva ; Chrysost. Horn. ix. in Ep. Coloss. 
 
 d 'O yap jit?) TOIQ ypa^aTg %pw/zevo, aXXd avaflaivwv aXXa^;o0fv, Tovrkanv 
 trepan iavrol Kai prj vevofjuffptvrjv TK/JLVMV bdov, K\eirTr]Q tcmV. Chrys. 
 Horn. lix. in Job. 
 
 e Ato TrapaicaXw KO.I deofiai iravTwv v/iaii/, d^evTSQ TI r$ Suvt Kai r<p dtlvt 
 SOKU TTtpt TOVTWV, TTotjod T&V ypa0wv TavTa uTTavTct TTVvQdvEGOe. Chrys. 
 Horn. ix. in Coloss. cap. 3. 
 
 E 
 
50 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 it will, we trust, appear perfectly obvious, first that the Tri- 
 dentine notion of Tradition, as an authoritative source of 
 essential truths not contained in Scripture, was utterly 
 unknown to the ancient Church ; and, secondly, that even 
 with respect to inhesive truths (i. e. doctrines either expressly 
 or implicitly contained in Scripture), the first and last appeal 
 was made to the written Word, the evidence of Church Tra- 
 dition being referred to either as subordinate and simply 
 corroborative; or else in controversy with heretics, who 
 questioned the authenticity of the orthodox Scriptures ; or, 
 finally, under other very special circumstances. 
 
 As the result of our investigation, therefore, in the words 
 of Jeremy Taylor, we assert " that there never yet was any 
 Catholic Father that did affirm in terms, or in full or equiva- 
 lent sense, that the Scriptures are defective in recording any- 
 thing necessary to salvation, but that they all unanimously 
 taught to the contrary." a 
 
 But the chain of evidence in favour of the sufficiency of 
 the Scriptures, the Protestant rule of faith, does not terminate 
 with the fifth, or indeed with any, century of the Church's 
 history. We have upon our side the testimony of some 
 of the greatest theologians of every age. For instance, 
 JOHANNES DAMASCENUS, the great oracle of the Eastern 
 Church in the eighth century, thus writes : " All things that 
 are delivered us by the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and 
 the Evangelists, we receive, acknowledge, and reverence, 
 seeking for nothing beyond these." b In the beginning of the 
 fifteenth century, the famous GERSON, Chancellor of the 
 University of Paris, and the most learned man of his time, 
 thus expresses himself : ' ' In the examination of doctrines, 
 the first and chief thing to be attended to is if the doctrine be 
 conformable to Holy Scripture, since Scripture has been 
 delivered to us, as a sufficient and infallible rule, for the 
 government of the whole ecclesiastical body and its members, 
 to the end of the world. It is, therefore, such an art, such a 
 rule or exemplar, that any other doctrine which is not con- 
 formable to it is either to be rejected as heretical, or is to be 
 accounted altogether suspicious, or not appertaining to reli- 
 gion/' c This is precisely the doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land in her sixth article. 
 
 a Jeremy Taylor's " Dissuasive," p. 192, Oxford ed., 1836. 
 
 b HO.VTO. rd Trapatfedajufva r/julv did TS vop,ov /cat irpotyijTuJv Kai aTrocrroXwv 
 Kal fvayyfXiorwv, Se^o^sBa, teal ytv&<TKQfUV t Kai aej3o/j,ev } ovdev Trtpairepw 
 TGVTWV tTTi^riTovvTiQ. Job. Damasc. de Orthod. Fide, c. i. 
 
 c Attendendum in examinatione doctrinarum, primo et principaliter, si 
 doctrina sit conformis Scripturse .... quoniam Scriptura nobis tradita 
 est tanquam regula sufficiens et infallibilis, pro regimine totius ecclesiastici 
 
TRIDENTINE DOCTORS. 51 
 
 Nay, more, it is an unquestionable fact, that in the Council 
 of Trent itself, the opinions of the prelates were not unani- 
 mous respecting the famous decree, so often referred to, 
 which placed Tradition on an equality with Scripture. The 
 Bishops of Fano and Chioggia especially protested against 
 this decree : and the latter went so far as to exclaim that it 
 was impious to elevate Tradition to the level of Scripture. a 
 Even in that very assembly, whose avowed object was to 
 condemn the so-called heresies of the Reformers, there were 
 found men honest and bold enough to proclaim and defend 
 what had been the unquestioned doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church during many ages, and had never ceased to be held 
 by many of its greatest ornaments. Roman Catholics, and 
 even Protestants themselves, seem to take it for granted, as 
 a matter of course, that the decrees of the Council of Trent 
 were passed with the full concurrence of all its members, and 
 and that the characteristic dogmas of the modern Church of 
 Rome were then regarded as established verities, which only 
 needed the authority of the Church to sanction them as 
 essential to salvation. The fact, however, is far otherwise : 
 many of those dogmas were then open questions, about which 
 great diversity of opinion existed. But as any appearance of 
 such diversity, in the formal definitions of the Council, would 
 have furnished the " heretics " with a powerful argument 
 against what they maintained to be innovations on the doc- 
 trines of the Primitive Church, it was arranged that, before 
 each session, general " Congregations " should be held, in 
 which the decrees to be proposed should be discussed, and 
 the opinions of the prelates taken upon them ; it being 
 
 corporis et rnembrorum, usque in finem sseculi. Est igitur talis ars, talis 
 regula vel exemplar, cui se non conformans alia doctrina vel abjicienda est ut 
 bsereticalis, aut suspecta, aut impertinens ad religionem prorsus est babenda. 
 Gerson, de Exam. Doctr. pars ii. con. 1. 
 
 a " This equality [sc. of Scripture and Tradition] was not approved of by 
 some, and especially by Bertano (Bishop of Fano). For, he argued, although 
 both might proceed from God, from whom all truths are ultimately derived, 
 yet it did not follow that everything true should be regarded with the same 
 veneration as the Sacred Scriptures. That, inasmuch as some traditions had 
 failed, it was obvious that God was unwilling that so much stability, and, 
 consequently, so much veneration, should be attributed to them as to Scripture. 
 Nachianti, Bishop of Chioggia, inveighed still more bitterly against an equality 
 of this kind, traditions being considered by him not as Divine revelations but 
 as [human] laws, the weight of which he deemed insupportable. He exclaimed, 
 when the question of their universal adoption was proposed, that that equality 
 between the Sacred Writings and Traditions appeared to him impious. "- 
 (Pallavicino, Istoria delConcil. di Trento, lib. vi. cap. 3, 4r.) The other bishops, 
 more true to the principles of their Church, heard this protest, we are told, 
 with wonder and horror ; and, accordingly, he who dared to vindicate the 
 supreme authority of Holy Scripture, was compelled to acquiesce in the decree 
 which directly denied it. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 understood that whatever was decided upon by the majority, 
 in those preliminary meetings, should be passed in the fol- 
 lowing session with the unanimous consent of the Council, 
 the dissentient minority tacitly acquiescing in the previous 
 decision. 3 Such was the mode in which Tradition was placed 
 upon a level with the written Word of God by the unanimous 
 consent of the Catholic Church, as represented by the 
 " Sacred (Ecumenical Synod of Trent." 
 
 . No. VIII. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Tradition ; or, the Roman Eule of Faith. 
 
 WE have seen that Dr. Milner has stated the Romish rule 
 of Faith to be " the whole word of God, both written and 
 unwritten, in other words, Scripture and Tradition, and 
 these propounded and explained by the Catholic Church." 
 (Letter x. p. 125.) 
 
 No Protestant would ever reject the " unwritten word of 
 God" wherever it can be heard or found. But who is to 
 vouch for it? The meaning, however, which is attached to 
 this definition is, that as a " Eule of Faith," the written word 
 of God is insufficient, and that oral " Tradition " is equally 
 part of the Christian's rule. What is this but to admit that 
 there are doctrines taught by the Church of Rome, which she 
 declares necessary to be believed for our salvation, but which 
 are not in the written Word, but are founded on " Tradition ?" 
 We cannot admit into this discussion questions of discipline 
 and forms, but matters of faith alone. 
 
 a " The 8th of February, Cardinal del Monte [afterwards Pope Julius III.] 
 held a congregation, wherein he desired the Fathers of the Council to remember 
 the prayer he had formerly made to them, not to give their opinions anew in 
 the sessions upon the decrees that were published there ; since, those decrees 
 having been passed in the congregations by a majority of voices, this would 
 only serve, as he had formerly told them, to give the heretics an occasion of 
 talking, when they should see that the decrees that were published in the sessions 
 were contradicted by the Fathers of the Council themselves." (Du Pin, Eccles. 
 Hist. 16th Cent. vol. iii. lib. iii. ch. 1.) In the discussions which took place in 
 the subsequent congregations respecting the four articles that were extracted 
 fi'om Luther's writings, Antonio Marinari, a Carmelite, with reference to the 
 first of these articles expressed himself of opinion that Traditions should not be 
 spoken of at all, and that " it would be better to imitate the ancient Fathers, who 
 had always made use of Scripture alone, except in cases of necessity, without 
 ever daring to put Tradition in competition with it." (P. Sarpi, Kist. du Cone, 
 de Trente, liv. ii. ch. 46, edit. Courayer.) Cardinal Pallavicino attempts to 
 throw discredit on this statement of Sarpi, but there seems to be no just 
 ground for calling it in question. 
 
TRADITION IGNATIUS. 53 
 
 Dr. Milner proposes to prove that the Scriptures are insuf- 
 ficient ; and that we require the assistance of oral " Tradition." 
 In support of this position he appeals to the testimony 
 of the Fathers. These we will examine ; but we here repeat 
 that neither Dr. Milner nor any other Roman controver- 
 sialist has been able to produce one single direct assertion 
 from any early Christian writer which declares the insuffi- 
 ciency of the Scriptures as a " Rule of Faith/' and the neces- 
 sity of " Tradition" to make up any supposed deficiency in this 
 respect ; while, on the other hand, we have adduced " line 
 upon line " from these writers directly asserting and main- 
 taining the sufficiency of the written Word as the Christian's 
 sole " Rule of Faith/' This is an intelligible issue. 
 
 We will now take up each of Dr. Milner' s references sepa- 
 rately, and shall then be able to examine their value in 
 establishing his position : 
 
 " I begin/' says Dr. Milner, " with the disciple of the Apo- 
 stles, St. Ignatius of Antioch. It is recorded of him that, in 
 his passage to Rome, where he was sentenced to be devoured 
 by wild beasts, he exhorted the Christians who got access to 
 him, ' to guard themselves against the rising heresies, and to 
 adhere, with the utmost firmness, to the tradition of the 
 Apostles."' The reference is "Euseb. Hist. 1. iii. c. 30." 
 This " 30" should be 36; but that is of little moment with 
 Dr. Milner. 
 
 The passage from Ignatius is as follows : a " He [Ignatius] 
 exhorted them to hold firmly by the tradition of the Apo- 
 stles, which, confirmed by his own testimony for the sake of 
 security, he judged it necessary to commit to writing." Euse- 
 bius goes on, in immediate continuation, " Arriving, there- 
 fore, at Smyrna, where Polycarp lived, he writes one epistle 
 to the Church at Ephesus," &c., b and which we now possess. 
 So that, agreeably to Ignatius, " the tradition of the Apo- 
 stles," to which he exhorted the Asiatic Churches to adhere, 
 is contained in the epistles, which he himself composed. But 
 in making the quotation, Dr. Milner stops short at " the 
 Traditions of the Apostles!" To Ignatius's own letters, 
 therefore, recourse must be had, if we are desirous of learn- 
 ing what, according to the martyr-bishop of Antioch, is " the 
 Tradition of the Apostles;" and here we in vain search for 
 any of the Roman Traditions Apostolic, so called. 
 
 A learned professor, and editor of the writings of Ignatius, 
 Vedelius, argues that nothing that this early Christian writer 
 
 a We should here observe that we follow the invaluable work "Pope's 
 
 :niian Misquotations," p. 253, et seq. London, 1840. 
 
 b Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 36, cura Vales, p. 106. Paris, 1659. 
 
54 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 has recorded is other than what the Apostles themselves have 
 put in writing : " It is not possible/' he says, " to discover 
 any apostolical tradition in the epistles of Ignatius (I mean 
 in those which are genuine, and not spurious), which is not 
 found in the writings of the Apostles, either in as many 
 words, or at least in the same sense, and by necessary con- 
 sequence. 1 " a 
 
 In this place it may not. be without advantage to offer some 
 remarks on the terms irapa^oai c and traditio. Wherever these 
 words occur, a member of the Church of Rome at once con- 
 cludes, that they refer to some channel by which truth is 
 handed down, beside the volume of Inspiration. But this is 
 mere gratuitous assumption. The term irapaSomQ is some- 
 times, observes Suicer, identical with the written Word, and 
 signifies the Holy Scriptures themselves. For example, in 
 Gregory of Nyssa : b 
 
 " The Divine Books truly abound with instruction of this 
 nature " (namely, as to the path which terminates in glory) ; 
 " and many of the saints exhibit, as a lamp, their walk and 
 conversation to those who live in conformity with the will of 
 God. But it is in every one's power to gather, in rich 
 copiousness, from both the Testaments of the divinely- 
 inspired Scripture, the precepts which relate to this proposed 
 end. For many may be collected, and that abundantly, in 
 the Prophets and the Law, and many in the Evangelical and 
 Apostolical Traditions [aTTOfrroAiicaTc TrapaSoa-fo-i] ." 
 
 On this passage Suicer remarks : " What can be more evi- 
 dent ? That which Gregory had before called ' both Testa- 
 ments/ he afterwards describes as 'the Prophets and the 
 Law/ also ' the Evangelical and Apostolical Traditions/ 
 from whence even the blindest may perceive, that the written 
 Word is designated by the Nyssene father, tradition." 
 
 The same profound scholar quotes another example from 
 Gregory of Nyssa : c 
 
 " We believe both from the common opinion and from the 
 tradition [TrapaSoorewc] of the Scriptures," that there are 
 unclean spirits. d 
 
 Suicer gives examples of the like use of the word irapa- 
 by other Greek fathers. 
 
 To these may be added the following passage from the 
 V. Cat. of Cyril of Jerusalem : e " But take thou and hold 
 
 a Ignat. quce exstant Omnia, cur& Vedelii. Genev. 1623. Apol. cap. ii. 
 b De Virginitate, cap. xi. torn. iii. p. 147, Bened. edit. 
 c De Anima et Eesurrectione, torn. iii. p. 212. 
 d Greg. Nyssen. cap. xi. de Virginitate, torn. iii. p. 147. 
 e This translation is taken from "A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic 
 Church," vol. ii. pp. 57, 58, Oxford, 1838. 
 
oatg TRADITIO. 55 
 
 that faith as a learner and in profession, which is by the 
 Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scrip- 
 ture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some, as 
 being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the 
 knowledge of them ; in order that the soul may not perish 
 for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few, we 
 comprehend the whole doctrine of the Faith. This I wish 
 you to remember in the very phrase, and to rehearse it with 
 all diligence among yourselves, not writing it on paper, a but 
 by memory graving it on your heart as on a monument : 
 being watchful during your exercise, lest haply some of the 
 Catechumens overhear the things delivered to you. b This I 
 wish you to keep all through your life as a provision for the 
 way, and besides this to receive no other for ever : whether 
 we ourselves should change and contradict what we now 
 teach ; or some opposing angel, transformed into an angel of 
 light, should aim at leading you astray (2 Cor. xi. 14) : For, 
 though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel 
 unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed 
 (Gal. ii 8, 9) . And for the present, commit to memory the 
 Faith, merely listening to the words ; and expect at the fitting 
 season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scrip- 
 tures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at 
 the good pleasure of men : but the most important points 
 chosen from all Scripture, make up the one teaching of the 
 Faith. And as the mustard-seed in a little grain contains 
 many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath 
 enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness con- 
 tained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, there- 
 fore, brethren, and hold the traditions which ye now receive, 
 and write them on the table of your hearts (2 Thess. ii. 15 ; 
 Prov. vii. 3)." c 
 
 " Here Cyril," observes the Benedictine editor, " enunciates 
 the Creed, which is given on a subsequent page." d The Creed 
 adverted to is a little shorter than the Nicene profession of 
 
 a The Bened. Editor of Cyril assigns as a reason which prompted this com- 
 mand an unwillingness that the symbol of faith should fall into the hands of 
 unbelievers : " Norunt omnes severe cautum fuisse a Patribus, ne symbolum 
 chartis mandaretur, atque ita in infideliurn manus deveniret." Bened. in loc. 
 
 b Cyril in his Procat. num. 12, had before admonished the Illuminandi, 
 that they should not repeat to the Catechumens any part of the matter which 
 they were about to hear in the Catecheses : "Jam superius monuerat 
 Procat. num. 12, &c., ne quidquam Catechumenis repeterent de his quae in 
 Catechesibus audituri essent, &c." Bened. in loc. 
 
 Cyril. Hieros. Opera, Bened. Paris, 1720. Cat. V. sec. xii. pp. 77-8. 
 Oxon. 1703. Cat. V. sec. vii. pp. 75-6. 
 
 (1 Illic Cyrillus tradit symbolum, quod habetur infra, pag. 84. Marg. Annot. 
 ap. Ben. in loc. 
 
56 THE EULE OF FAITH. 
 
 faith; but accurately agrees with it. By traditions, there- 
 fore, it is evident that Cyril means the doctrines specified in 
 the Creed he alludes to ; which is " made up " of " the most 
 important points chosen from all Scripture/' to use the 
 language of our author. a 
 
 Suicer also furnishes examples of traditio being used as 
 " identical with the written word." " The word traditio" 
 he remarks, ( ' is employed by Cyprian in this very sense : one 
 or two instances taken from his works will suffice. When 
 Stephen had observed, ( Let no new practice be introduced, 
 except that which has been handed down,' Cyprian (Ep. Ixxiv. 
 ad Pompejum) thus writes: ' From whence is that tradition? 
 Whether has it come down from the authority of the Lord and 
 the Gospels, or from the commands and letters of the Apostles? 
 For that those things which are written, are to be done, God 
 testifies, and sets before Joshua, saying : The book of this 
 law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt 
 meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to 
 do all things which are written therein' (Josh. chap. i. 8). 
 Presently Cyprian remarks : ' If, therefore, it is either com- 
 manded in the Gospels, or contained in the Epistles or Acts, 
 that those abandoning heresy should not be baptized, but that 
 hands should merely be laid on them in order to penitential 
 discipline, let- this divine and holy tradition be observed' Thus, 
 in the same Epistle : ' If truth shall in any respect be uncer- 
 tain and fail, let us return to the fountain-head which is from 
 the Lord, to the Gospels (ad originam Dominican! et Evange- 
 licam), and to Apostolical tradition^ And a few lines after, 
 he calls it the sacrament of Divine tradition' " 
 
 On these passages, Suicer remarks : " According, there- 
 fore, to Cyprian, tradition is twofold : that of the Lord, and 
 that of the Apostles ; of these, the former is transmitted in 
 the Gospels ; the latter is revealed in the Epistles/' 
 
 * " By traditions," says Milles, " the Fathers often mean nothing else (as 
 Cyril in this passage) than the doctrine of Faith, handed down by the Prophets 
 and Apostles in the Old and New Testaments." Milles, having cited the 
 extract from Greg. Nyss. (De Anira. et Resurrect.) already given, quotes 
 another example of the similar use of TfapddoaiQ. "Cyril of Alexandria, on 
 the Ixvi. chapter of Isaiah, calls the doctrine of the Gospel rrapaSomv, a 
 tradition. ' He wishes them to be mild and patient according to the 
 Evangelical traditions.' " 
 
 Per TrapadofftiQ saepe intelligunt Patres, uti hoc loco Cyrillus, nihil aliud 
 quam doctrinam Fidei a Prophetis et Apostolis in Veteri Novoque Testamento 
 posteris traditam. * * * * Et Cyrillus Akxandrinus in caput 
 Ixvi. Esaice, Evangelii doctrinam vocat irapadoGiv. TIpaovQ OVTOVQ flovXtrai., 
 KOI avt&KaKovQ slvai, Kara ye TCLQ evay-ytXiKa^ TrapadocrtiQ. Vult eos mites, et 
 malorum tolerantes esse, juxta traditiones Evanyelicas. Not. apud Oxon. edit. 
 (1703) in loe. 
 
 b Edit. cur. Pamel. p. 195. 
 
TRADITION IREN^US. 57 
 
 The preceding quotations clearly establish that the words 
 te and traditio, in the writings of the Fathers, do not 
 necessarily mean oral Tradition, or allude to other dogmas 
 beside those contained in the Inspired Volume ; but that they 
 are not unfrequently employed, either as synonymous with 
 the Bible itself, or in reference to truths made known therein. 
 
 To return to Dr. Milner. He continues : " The same sen- 
 timent appears in the epistles of his [Ignatius's] fellow- 
 martyr, St. Polycarp, the angel of the Church of Smyrna, 
 Eev. ii. 8." Here neither passage nor reference is given. 
 Polycarp suffered martyrdom by fire, at a very advanced age, 
 in Smyrna, about 130 years after our Saviour's death, and 
 only one epistle from his pen has survived ; it is addressed 
 to the Philippians. Not only does the " the same sentiment " 
 not appear in this eminent martyr's epistle, but throughout 
 the whole of it the word "Tradition" does not appear. So 
 much, then, for the testimony of this " holy bishop." 
 
 Irenaus, we are told by Dr. Milner, " abounds with 
 testimonies to the present purpose :" " Nothing is more easy 
 to those who seek for the truth, than to remark, in every 
 Church the tradition which the Apostles have manifested 
 to all the world. We can name the bishops appointed 
 by the Apostles in the several churches, and the successors 
 of those bishops down to our own time [A.D. 180], none of 
 whom ever taught or heard of such doctrines as these 
 heretics dream of. (Adv. Ha3ret. lib. iii. c. 5.)" Now since 
 Irenseus appealed, as we shall presently see, to the fulness 
 and sufficiency of the written Scriptures, and bearing in 
 mind what we have already observed in the use of the word 
 " tradition," we have not the slightest hesitation in asserting 
 that Irenaeus never referred to any other " tradition which 
 the Apostles have manifested," except as shown forth in 
 their writings.* The Church of Rome preserved traditions, 
 but not such as are now observed in that Church. They 
 might have preserved them incorrupt to the days of Irenseus, 
 who was " vir apostolicorum temporum." Rome was then 
 famous for her faith (Rom. i. 8) ; but " Quantum mutatus 
 ab illo Hector e, qui quondam /" 
 
 Again : we are told that " this holy Father emphatically 
 affirms that ' In explaining the Scriptures, Christians are to 
 attend to the pastors of the Church, who, by the ordinance of 
 
 a Ubicumque Pontificii inveniunt vocabulum Traditiones, illud mox detor- 
 quent ad suas traditiones, quse ex Scriptura probari non possunt, ut cum Paulus 
 dicit (1 Cor. xv.), Tradidi vobis, &c., Hie statim exclamant, Audis traditiones? 
 Audio, sed mox in eodem loco lego, Paulum scripto explicare quse suut ilia quae 
 tradiderit, &c. Chemnitz, Examen Cone. Trid. pars i. p. 110, edit. 1606. 
 
58 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 God, have received the inheritance of truth, with the succes- 
 sion of their sees/ (Lib. iv. c. 43.)" Well! what then? The 
 question at issue is not as to the " explaining the Scriptures/' 
 by the " pastors of the Church/ ' but whether these pastors, 
 who "had received the inheritance of truth/' declared the 
 insufficiency of the Scriptures as the sole " rule of faith/' 
 and the absolute necessity of oral t( tradition " to make up the 
 short-comings of the Scriptures. As we do attend to the 
 "pastors of our Church" and do believe that " they have r- 
 ceived the inheritance of truth " through the WRITTEN WORD, 
 we cannot exactly see how this passage is a lesson to us. But 
 in immediate connection with this passage Dr. Milner adds 
 another: "The tongues (Irenseus adds) of nations vary, but 
 the virtue of tradition is everywhere one and the same ; nor do 
 the Churches believe or teach differently from those in Spain, 
 Gaul, the East, Egypt, or Libya ;" and the reference given is 
 " L. i. c. 3." It is strange indeed that Dr. Milner should select 
 the very passage, of all others, which we were about to quote 
 against him to refute his argument.* But in quoting this pas- 
 sage we did not intend to restrict ourselves to the few lines 
 selected by Dr. Milner, but to give the whole context, which 
 we now venture to do. From this it will be seen that Irenseus 
 particularly defines what this universal tradition is ; and having 
 thus fixed it, he emphatically adds (sect. 2) that " neither will 
 he who is strong in speech enlarge it, nor will he who is 
 weak in speech diminish it. For this faith being one, 
 neither has he who can say much respecting it amplified it, 
 nor has he who can say little curtailed it." When the 
 reader has perused the entire passage, he will have no diffi- 
 culty in declaring that Irenaeus, in the passage above cited 
 by Dr. Milner, from the 4th book, c. 43, means by the 
 " inheritance of truth " received by the " pastors of the 
 Church," the truths exclusively derived and taught in the 
 written Word only. 
 
 Irena3us, in the passage in question, writes : 
 " For the Church, although she is extended throughout the 
 universe, even to the ends of the earth, received the faith 
 from the Apostles and their disciples, which faith is in one 
 God, the Father Almighty, who made heaven, and earth, and 
 the sea, and all things which are in them ; and in one Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation ; 
 and in the Holy Spirit, who predicted the dispensations of God 
 
 a We were misled by his reference. The passage will not, in all the editions, 
 be found in the third chapter, which vary in the divisions. Dr. Milner fol- 
 lows the numbering of Grabe's edition ; but in the Benedictine, printed at 
 Paris, 1710, it ranks as cap. 10. 
 
TRADITION IREN^US. 59 
 
 by the prophets, and the advent, and the generation from the 
 Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, 
 and the ascent in the flesh into heaven of Jesus Christ our 
 beloved Lord, and His coming from heaven in the glory of 
 the Father, to resume all things, and to raise the flesh of all 
 mankind ; so that, according to the good pleasure of the invisi- 
 ble Father, every knee, of things in heaven, and things on 
 earth, and things under the earth, should bow to Jesus Christ 
 our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, and every tongue 
 should confess Him, and that He should judge all things in 
 righteousness, and that He should consign to eternal fire the 
 spiritual things of iniquity, and angels that have transgressed 
 and apostatized, and the impious and unjust, and the blas- 
 phemers among men; and granting, on the other hand, life 
 and immortality and eternal glory to the just and righteous, 
 and to those who keep his commandments and perse- 
 vere in his love, some from the beginning, others after 
 repentance. 
 
 "2. And the Church, albeit she is scattered throughout the 
 whole world, having received this preaching and this faith, 
 diligently keeps it as if she inhabited one house ; and in like 
 manner she believes in these things as having one soul and 
 one heart, and she uniformly teaches them and hands them 
 down as having one mouth. For although there are various 
 languages in the world, yet the strength of tradition is one 
 and the same. And neither do the churches that are founded 
 in Germany believe or hand down otherwise; nor do the 
 churches which are in Spain, or in Gaul, or in the East, or 
 in Egypt, or in Libya, or those which are established in the 
 middle of the world. But as the sun, the creation of God, 
 is one and the same in the whole world, so also the light, 
 which is the preaching of truth, everywhere shines and 
 enlightens all men, who will come to the knowledge of the 
 truth. And neither will he who is strong in speech enlarge 
 it (for no one is above his master), nor will he who is weak in 
 speech diminish it. For this faith being one, neither has he 
 who can say much respecting it amplified it, nor has he who 
 can say little curtailed it." a 
 
 This passage needs no further remark than the observation, 
 that the word TrapaSoatws, used by Irena3us, exactly agrees 
 with the explanation we have above given of the import of 
 the word as not unfrequently used by the early Christian 
 writers. 
 
 The next passage is given as follows, also as from Irenseus : 
 
 a Irenaeus's "First Book against Heresies," ch. x. p. 50. Bened. edit., 
 Paris, 1710. 
 
60 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 " Since it would be tedious to enumerate the succession of 
 all the churches, we appeal to the faith and tradition of the 
 greatest, most ancient,, and best known Church, that of Rome, 
 founded by the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul; for with this 
 Church all others agree, inasmuch as in her is preserved the 
 tradition which comes down from the Apostles." The refer- 
 ence is " Lib. iii. c. 2." 
 
 It must be remembered that Irenseus wrote at the latter 
 end of the second century. He was born about A.D. 140, and 
 suffered martyrdom in the year 202. The passage in ques- 
 tion appears in the 3rd chapter, and not in the 2nd, in both 
 Grabe's and Massuet's editions. It thus commences : " The 
 tradition of the Apostles, manifested throughout the whole 
 world, may be seen in every church by all who wish to hear 
 the truth." Now, here is a remarkable similarity to the 
 sentiment enunciated in the former passage quoted, wherein 
 he specifies these traditions universally received by all the 
 churches, which no one dared to amplify or curtail, which 
 was not a code of unwritten doctrines, supposed to be in the 
 keeping of the pastors of the Church, and having the same 
 divine authority as the written Word ; but this " Tradition 
 of the Apostles " was contained in, and rested on, that 
 written Word. He then proceeds to say, that they " could 
 reckon up both those who by the Apostles were appointed 
 bishops in the churches, and their successors, down even to 
 his own time. But," he continues, " since, in such a volume 
 as this, it would occupy too much space to enumerate the 
 successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those 
 persons who, from whatever bad motive, make their inferences 
 differently from what they ought, simply indicating that 
 Apostolic tradition and that declared faith of the greatest and 
 most ancient and universally known Church, founded at 
 Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, 
 which has come down even to us, through the succession of 
 her bishops/' Now, was the faith of the Church of Rome at 
 that day such as required an alleged unwritten tradition 
 say, if you will, ' ' Apostolical Tradition " independent of, 
 and of equal authority to, the written Word, to support the 
 truth or orthodoxy of her doctrines ? We challenge proof of 
 this ; let the reader run over the several doctrines set out by 
 Irenseus, and which he declared to be " the faith received 
 from the Apostles," and the " tradition " universally received, 
 and which was not to be added to, or diminished from, and 
 he will deduce from the language of Irenseus, that the faith 
 of the Roman Church was founded on the tradition of the 
 Apostles, derived from the written Word alone, since by the 
 
TRADITION IREN^US. 
 
 61 
 
 written Word alone we are instructed in all those " traditions" 
 enumerated by Ireiiaeus. 
 
 But Dr. Milner quotes, or rather misquotes, this passage 
 for the additional purpose of thrusting prominently forward 
 the Church of Rome ; and, in order to give that church the 
 pre-eminence, he drops an important sentence ; the passage 
 proceeds : " For to this church, on account of the more potent 
 principality (propter potentiorem principalitatem), it is neces- 
 sary that every church should resort, that is to say, those 
 faithful individuals who are on every side of it, a in which the 
 tradition descending from the Apostles, has always been pre- 
 served by those around it." 
 
 Here we may remark, that the Church of Rome, relying 
 on her " tradition," does not now hold the same belief as did 
 the Church in the time of Irenseus. The latter declared that 
 the adjoining faithful individuals on every side of the Church 
 at Rome, should resort to that church " on account of its 
 more potent principality;" whereas the former claims autho- 
 rity for her by direct " divine " appointment, as successor of 
 St. Peter, the alleged first Bishop of Rome. On this latter 
 tradition, again, the passage referred to by Dr. Milner, strange 
 enough, throws some further light, showing that the tradition 
 now held varies from that recorded by Irenseus. Dr. Milner 
 repeatedly calls Peter the first Bishop of Rome, b whereas 
 Irenseus continues to say, (( The blessed Apostles (viz., Peter 
 and Paul), then founding and building up that church, deli- 
 vered to Linus the episcopate of administering it ;" and he 
 then enumerates the succession of the Bishops of Rome up 
 to his day, twelve in number, counting from Linus inclusively. 
 According to the tradition, therefore, of the Church in his 
 day, Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome ; but he and 
 Paul together appointed Linus as the first Bishop of that 
 see. That there should be no misunderstanding, we add in a 
 note the entire passage from Irenseus. 
 
 a The word here used is " undique," that is, those who were dependent on 
 this Metropolitan Mother Church. Each bishop of a Metropolitan Church had 
 a separate and independent jurisdiction, and this independent authority was 
 confirmed by the Sixth Canon of the First Council of Nice held many years 
 after, namely, A.D. 345. 
 
 b Letters xlvi. pp. 437 440, and xxviii. p. 284. 
 
 c Traditionem itaque Apostolorum, in toto mundo manifestatuin, adest 
 perspicere omnibus, qui vera velint audire : et habemus annumerare eos, qui 
 ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque 
 ad nos. Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine, omnium Eccle- 
 siarum enumerare successiones ; maximae et antiquissimse et omnibus cognitse 
 a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo Komae fundatse et constitutes 
 Ecclesias, earn quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem et annunciatam hominibus 
 fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes, 
 confundimus omnes eos, qui, quoquo modo, vel per sui placentium malam vel 
 
62 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 It is further to be observed, that while Dr. Milner is pro- 
 ducing this passage as illustrating the value (to put the easiest 
 construction on his motives) of oral " Tradition/' in contra- 
 distinction to the written Word, he is affording the strongest 
 argument against its adoption as a " Rule of Faith." The 
 doctor upholds the theory that Peter was the first bishop of 
 Rome ; on which point not only is Irenseus wholly silent, but 
 is by implication of a contrary opinion. But Dr. Milner 
 agrees with Irenseus in the statement that the episcopate was 
 delivered directly to Linus, as the first bishop, but is silent 
 on the co-operation of Paul. Dr. Milner' s words are : " He 
 [Peter] afterwards removed his own See to Home, the capital 
 of Europe and the world. Here, having with Paul, sealed the 
 Gospel with his blood, he [Peter] transmitted his prerogative 
 to St. Linus, from which it descended in succession to St. 
 Cletus and St. Clement;" 3 thus making Linus succeed to 
 the episcopate after the death of Peter ; Cletus then succeeded 
 in the second, and Clement in the third place. That is one 
 Tradition. Another Tradition, recorded in what is called the 
 " Apostolic Constitutions/' informs us that " Linus was the 
 first ordained bishop of the Roman Church by Paul, but 
 Clement after the death of Linus, by Peter in the second 
 place ;" b and Tertullian also declares that Clement was 
 ordained by Peter. c 
 
 Here then Tradition is at fault on one, to Rome at least, of 
 the most important of her tenets. How idle then is it for 
 Dr. Milner to strive to place his " Traditions " on a level with 
 Scripture, and call Irenseus to support his assertion ? 
 
 Dr. Milner keeps, however, what he considers the most 
 {f crushing " sentence from Irenseus for his last quotation, 
 giving it in most legible type as follows : (t SUPPOSING THE 
 APOSTLES HAD NOT LEFT us THE SCRIPTURES, OUGHT WE NOT 
 
 vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet 
 colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, 
 necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam ; hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles : 
 in qua semper, ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis 
 traditio. Fundantes, igitur, et instruentes, beati Apostoli, Ecclesiam, Lino 
 Episcopatum administrandee Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Succedit autem ei Ana- 
 cletus : post eum, tertio loco ab Apostolis, Episcopatum sortitur Clemens. 
 Huic autem Clementi succedit Euaristus : et Euaristo Alexander. Ac deinceps, 
 sextus ab Apostolis, constitutus est Sixtus : et ab hoc, Telesphorus : ac dein- 
 ceps, Hyginus : post, Pius : post quern, Anicetus. Cum autem successisset 
 Aniceto Soter : nunc duodecimo loco, Episcopatum, ab Apostolis, habet 
 Eleutherius. Irenae adv. Hser. lib. iii. c. 3. 
 
 a Letter xxviii. p. 284. 
 
 b Tijjf fit 'Pw^crtwv 'EfcjcX^fftac, Alvog fitv 6 KXav^totf TrpwroQ VTTO HavXov, 
 KXr^ijje de peTa TOV Aivov Qdvarov VTT' ifJiov Ukrpov CfVTipoc Kxtipor6v7jrai. 
 Const. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46, in Le Clerc's Patres Apost. torn. i. Edit. 
 Amst. 1724. 
 
 c De Prescript, adv. Hssret. cap. 36, p. 216. Paris, 1675. 
 
TRADITION IRENjEUS. 63 
 
 STILL TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE ORDINANCE OF TRADITION, 
 
 which they consigned to those to whom they committed the 
 Churches? It is this ordinance of tradition which many 
 nations of barbarians, believing in Christ, follow without the 
 use of letters or ink." The reference given is " L. iv. c. 64," 
 being a false one, as will shortly appear. 
 
 Here, again, for the better understanding of the author 
 quoted, we will give a literal translation of his own words, 
 such at least as are handed down to us, and we place the 
 text itself in a foot-note : a 
 
 " IF it had so happened that the Apostles had left us no 
 Scriptures, must we not then have followed the order of 
 tradition, which they committed to those with whom they 
 intrusted the Churches? To this course many nations of 
 illiterate barbarians, who believe in Christ, do assent, having 
 salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, without 
 writing or ink, and thus preserving the ancient tradition, 
 believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth," &c. 
 
 And this passage is quoted to prove that the primitive 
 Church recognized an authority, "unwritten tradition," as 
 well as the written Word; that oral instruction is amply 
 sufficient for the laity ; and that, in point of obligation, the 
 written Word need not be communicated to them by the 
 priesthood. To ourselves the passage appears decidedly to 
 establish the contrary. For doubtless, as Irenseus remarks, 
 if it had so happened that the Apostles had left us no written 
 Scriptures, we should then have been necessitated, like be- 
 lievers in the patriarchal ages, to follow the order of tradition, 
 either purely oral, or some other sufficiently recognized 
 authority. But through the good providence of God, the 
 Apostles have left us the Scriptures. Therefore, by intrust- 
 ing us with them, they have practically demonstrated to us 
 the insufficiency and insecurity of tradition; for had oral 
 tradition from age to age been sufficient, the written Word 
 would have been superfluous, and would not have been given. 
 But it is insinuated that Irenseus, in the case of the barba- 
 rians, speaks of oral tradition in terms of approbation ; be it 
 so. It was only if they had no copies of the Scripture, or 
 could not read. But was the oral Tradition commended by 
 him the same, or the tenets the same > as advocated by 
 
 a Quid autem, si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne 
 oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iisquibus committebant 
 ecclesias ? Cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes barbarorum, eorum qui in 
 Christum credunt, sine charactere et atramento scriptam habentes per Spi- 
 ritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes, 
 in unum Deura credentes, Fabricatorem coeli et terras, &c. Irenseus adv. 
 Har. lib. iii. cap. iv. p. 172, fol. Edit. Basil., 1570. 
 
64 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Dr. Milner, such as that which the Council of Trent placed 
 upon an equal footing with Scripture? Nothing of the kind. 
 What can be found instructing them in Purgatory, prayers 
 to saints and angels, St. Peter's supremacy, indulgences, &c.? 
 The tradition commended by Irenseus was simply an oral 
 catechumenical communication of such truths as those con- 
 tained in the written Word, the Articles of their Faith or 
 creed ; for of such only he especially speaks : ' ' In unum 
 Deum credentes, Fabricatorem cceli et terrae ; }) whereas that 
 enforced by the Council of Trent sets forth sundry matters, 
 not only not contained in the Bible, but directly contrary 
 toit. a 
 
 Such, then, is the evidence adduced by Dr. Milner from 
 Irenaeus on one side of the question, but he has wholly 
 omitted to notice the passages we have before quoted in a 
 former article (p. 42, supra), which to all candid readers 
 must decide the question against Dr. Milner's one-sided 
 views. 
 
 Tertullian is the next valuable witness quoted, and the 
 manner in which he handles this venerable writer might well 
 astonish the Rev. Mr. Jackson in his review of the passages 
 selected by Dr. Milner. " I must confess," he says, " that I do 
 not understand Dr. Milner." After reading the passages cited 
 by him, b and comparing them with the original, we are utterly 
 at a loss in what terms to describe his procedure. The only 
 supposition which we can make, consistent with his good faith, 
 is this that he found the passages, as he has given them, in 
 some Romish selection of Tertullian's sayings, and that he 
 was wholly ignorant of their connection and import, as they 
 stand in the original. To us it appears incredible, that any 
 intelligent man, moderately skilled in the Latin language, 
 with a copy of Tertullian before him, should with honesty of 
 intention have so misrepresented the drift of that Father's 
 reasoning, as Dr. Milner has taken the liberty of doing. 
 
 It is impossible, in any short compass, to convey an ade- 
 quate notion of the extent to which misrepresentation has 
 been here carried. We must confine ourselves to a few lead- 
 ing points; but we entreat the reader to consult the De 
 Prescript. Hseret. for himself, that he may learn to appreciate 
 the accuracy of Dr. Milner, in describing the opinions of the 
 Fathers. 
 
 The passages alluded to, which are of considerable length, 
 
 a Elliott's "Delineation," &c., p. 45. London, 1851. 
 
 b We now quote from Mr. Jackson's work, " The Two Main Questions in 
 Controversy between the Churches of England and Rome," p. 172. 
 Dublin, 1825. 
 
TRADITION TERTULLIAN. 
 
 are given in Letter x. pp. 132-3, as two distinct portions 
 Tertullian's work. The reference to the first is thus marked : 
 "Prsescrip. advers. Hseres. edit. Rhenan, pp. 36, 37;" the 
 reference to the second, "Ibid. 36, 37."- -"pp. 36, 37," is 
 manifestly a misprint for cap. or sect. 36, 37. The treatise 
 itself is also miscalled. a But, instead of the two extracts 
 being found in chapters 36, 37, or in any other chapters of 
 the De Prescript. Hasret. in the consecutive form in which 
 Dr. Milner has chosen to exhibit them, the reader will be 
 surprised to learn, that they are ingenious pieces of patch- 
 work, made up of detached sentences forcibly torn from their 
 context, out of no less than seven different chapters, some of 
 them pretty distant from each other ; namely, out of ch. 15, 
 16, 19, 31, 32, 36, 37. The rendering is as unfaithful as 
 this dislocation is unwarrantable ; and the sentences are so 
 artfully dovetailed into each other, as to present the appear- 
 ance of a connected set of propositions which produce a 
 conclusion at perfect variance with the general bearing of 
 Tertullian's argument. That argument is similar to the line 
 adopted by Irenseus; whose work Adv. Hseres. it is mani- 
 fest Tertullian made use of in the composition of his own. 
 The adversaries of both these Fathers held much in common, 
 whilst they equally rejected the genuine Scriptures, either 
 wholly, or in part ; and appealed to the pretended secret Tra- 
 ditions of their own sects, in opposition to the Traditions of 
 the Apostolic Churches, which were in that age consentient 
 with Scripture on the points in question. The heretics in 
 Tertullian's day, as appears from cap. 22 and 25 of the De 
 Prescript. Hseret., accounted for these traditive doctrines, by 
 which they had corrupted the simplicity of the Christian 
 faith, being unknown to the Universal Church, by supposing 
 that all truth had either not been revealed to the Apostles 
 themselves, or had not been communicated by them to Chris- 
 tians in general. 5 In addition to these silly and even impious 
 pretences, these heretics, it seems, made a show of appealing to 
 the written word, thus improving upon the adversaries of 
 Irenseus, who rejected the Scriptures altogether. But to 
 what kind of writings they appealed as the inspired Word is 
 the main question : on the answer to it, the whole force of 
 
 a It deserves to be remarked, once for all, that the references throughout 
 Dr. Milner's work are so vague and inaccurate, as to be nearly useless to the 
 reader. 
 
 b Solent dicere [hseretici] non omnia Apostolos scisse, e&dem dementiil qua 1 
 rursus convertunt, omnia quidem Apostolos scisse, sed non omnia omnibus 
 tradidisse ; in utroque Christum reprehension! subjicientes, qui aut minus 
 instructos, aut parum simplices Apostolos miserit. De Prescript. Haeret. 
 cap. 22. 
 
66 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 the quotation depends, as far as it is applicable to the prin- 
 ciples of Protestants. That answer will be soon furnished : 
 meanwhile, let us follow Tertullian step by step. " Sed ipsi 
 de Scripturis agunt, et de Scripturis suadent ! " The ipsi is 
 emphatical, and implies a contradiction between their real 
 principles, and their affected appeal to Scripture as a test 
 which could be consistently resorted to by the orthodox alone, 
 and which was in fact their standard of opinion. It is as if 
 Tertullian had said, these very heretics feel, that in order to 
 give a specious colour to their tenets, the Scriptures must 
 not be wholly disregarded. Ipsi de Scripturis agunt, &c. 
 " They, as well as we, appeal to the Scriptures.-" " For with 
 what plausibility," asks he, " could men presume to speak of 
 matters of faith, without reference *to the written documents 
 in which that faith is contained ? " 
 
 In this sense, we think it is plain, as the only one agreeing 
 with the context, that the following sentence is to be under- 
 stood : " Aliunde scilicet suadere possent de rebus fidei, nisi 
 ex litteris fidei ? " (Ib. c. 14. a ) " By the very impudence of this 
 appeal" he afterwards goes on to say, "they advance their 
 cause: they exhaust the patience of the strong, they impose upon 
 the weak, they raise doubts in the minds of the wavering/' ' 
 The prescription, therefore, or general rule, which he lays 
 down for managing controversy with persons of so artful a 
 character, is this : that they should not be permitted to 
 argue the matter on their alleged Scriptural grounds; for 
 before the question could be decided in such a way of con- 
 ducting the inquiry, it was manifest, that the genuineness of 
 the Scriptures to which the parties appealed, must be pre- 
 viously ascertained. And now the question is to be answered, 
 To what sort of Scriptures did these heretics appeal ? to 
 the genuine and undoubted Scriptures ? No ; neither Ter- 
 tullian nor Irenseus would have disallowed an appeal to them ; 
 but to spurious writings, or copies of the Scriptures mutilated 
 and interpolated, to serve their own purpose. An appeal to 
 Scripture, whilst men were not agreed as to what was to be 
 taken as Scripture, could lead to no concord ; it was an idle 
 
 a In Sender's edition, it stands thus: "Aliunde scilicet suadere non 
 possent, &c.," without the note of interrogation. The sense is still the same. 
 Dr. Milner's translation of this passage will be shortly seen. 
 
 b Scripturas obtendunt, et hac sua audacia statim quosdam mo vent : in 
 ipso vero congressu, firmos quidem fatigant, infirmos capiunt, medios cum 
 scrupulo dimittunt. De Prescript. Haeret. cap. 15. 
 
 c Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus, non adinittendos eos 
 ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem. Si hse illse sunt vires eorum, uti 
 eas habere possint, dispici debet, cui competat possessio Scripturarum. 
 Ib. cap. 15. 
 
TRADITION TERTULLIAN. 67 
 
 disputation, " calculated only to disorder the stomach, or to 
 distract the brain." a 
 
 Such is the scope of these passages in Tertullian when 
 viewed in their context, which Dr. Milner, after having mis- 
 translated and compounded according to his own purpose, 
 has adduced to establish this conclusion; for this is the 
 only one which can be drawn from them, as they are put 
 together by him ; that Protestants, in appealing to the Bible, 
 resemble the heretics confuted by Tertullian ; of whom that 
 Father is represented by him as saying, in terms of the 
 strongest disapprobation, " They meddle with the Scriptures 
 and adduce arguments from them ; for in treating of faith 
 they pretend that they ought not to argue upon any other 
 grounds than the written documents of faith"* (Letter x. 
 p. 132.) The artifice consists in making Tertullian deny the 
 legitimacy of an appeal to the genuine Scriptures ; whereas he 
 denied only the possibility of determining the question by an 
 appeal to spurious Scriptures, the heretics making use of 
 forgeries and corrupted copies, and resorting to a mode of 
 interpretation accommodated solely to their own hypothesis. 
 
 Dr. Milner' s effrontery in producing these passages of Ter- 
 tullian as making for his own purpose, is to be equalled only 
 by the unwarrantable freedom which he has taken in trans- 
 lating them. 
 
 To complete his perversion of Tertullian, he uses these 
 words : (t In another of his works this eloquent Father proves 
 at great length the absolute necessity of admitting Tradition 
 no less than Scripture as the Rule of Faith ; inasmuch as 
 many important points, which he mentions, cannot be proved 
 without it" (p. 134). 
 
 The work alluded to is the " De Corona Militis/' but no 
 reference to the passage is given. Throughout this perform- 
 ance Tertullian is weak and declamatory, though in some 
 passages not ineloquent. In the third and fourth chapters 
 are enumerated " the important points," which cannot be 
 proved without Tradition ; and they turn out to be ceremonial 
 
 a Quoniam nihil proficiat congressio Scripturarum, nisi plane aut stomach! 
 quae meat, eversionem, aut cerebri. (Ib.' cap. 16). In the next sentence he 
 assigns the reason : Ista Juxresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas ; et si quas 
 recipit, adjectionibus et detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui intervertit : 
 et si recipit, non recipit integras. Ib. cap. 17. 
 
 b This he gives as the translation of Tertullian's ironical word : Sed ipsi 
 de Scripturis agunt et de Scripturis suadent ! aliiinde scilicet suadere possent 
 de rebus fidei, nisi ex literis fidei? Ib. cap. 14. 
 
 c His nituntur, quae ex falso composuerunt, et quae de ambiguitate cepe- 
 runt. Quid promovebis, exercitatissime Scripturarum ? cum si quid defenderis, 
 negetur ex diverse. Si quid negaveris, defendatur. Et tu quidem nihil perdes 
 nisi vocem in contentione. Ib. cap. 17. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 practices and observances not indeed enjoined in Scripture; 
 but which Tertulliau rightly insists upon, as deriving sufficient 
 authority from express appointment and ecclesiastical usage. a 
 Dr. Milner makes Tertullian appeal to them, as a part of the 
 Rule of Faith, and consequently as emanating from Jesus 
 Christ and his Apostles. Tertullian says of these, and of 
 similar appointments : " Annon putas, omni ficleli licere con- 
 cipere et constituere, duntaxat quod Deo congruat, quod dis- 
 ciplinse conducat, quod saluti proficiat, dicente Domino, cur 
 autem non et a vobis ipsis quod justum est judicatis ?" (c. 4). 
 
 But, we shall be the better enabled to judge of the origin 
 of these Traditions, by enumerating some of them. They 
 are such as these : the form of renouncing the devil and his 
 angels, used in the rite of baptism ; the practice of trine im- 
 mersion observed in that rite ; the tasting of a mixture of 
 milk and honey on coming out of the baptismal bath, and 
 the abstaining afterwards from the use of the common bath 
 for a whole week ; the partaking of the sacrament fasting ; 
 oblations for the dead (very different, it should be recollected, 
 from masses for the dead) ; the not fasting, and not kneeling 
 in prayer, on the Lord's day, and between Easter and Whit- 
 suntide ; with others of a similar description : most of which 
 " important " practices, the Romish Church has herself dis- 
 used, in virtue of that authority for regulating matters of 
 ceremony and discipline which every church possesses, and 
 by which they had been at first established. 
 
 Besides these ingenious perversions of Tertullian' s argu- 
 ments, the doctor has also further accommodated the passages 
 from chapters (not pages, as Dr. Milner strangely misprints 
 it) 36, 37, of the treatise De Prescript. Hreret. most com- 
 fortably to his own use, by omitting Tertullian' s reference to, 
 and arguments from, the other Catholic Churches, and citing 
 merely the instance of the Church of Rome. " Percurre," says 
 the Father, " Ecclesias Apostolicas," directing inquirers after 
 the truth for confirmation in it to Corinth, Philippi, Thessa- 
 lonica, Ephesus, and, last of all, to Rome, " if you are in its 
 neighbourhood ;" and here it is that Dr. Milner commences his 
 quotations, appropriating all the praise of the Church Catho- 
 lic to that local Church alone. But are the Roman priests 
 prepared to show that Tertullian is in this passage speaking 
 of the Roman Church at all ? Whoever will be at the pains of 
 reading the treatise in the original, will be of opinion that he 
 is not, or that this is at least a very doubtful matter, and that 
 there is quite as much, if not more, reason to suppose that he 
 
 8 Quas sine ullius Scripturae instrumento, solius Traditionis titulo, et 
 exinde consuetudinis patrocinio, vindicamus. De Cor. Mil. c. 3. 
 
TRADITION ORIGEN. 69 
 
 is speaking of the whole Catholic Church, in contradistinction 
 to the heretics. It was obligatory also on Dr. Milner, refer- 
 ring to as he does (we can hardly say making use of) the 
 edition of Rhenanus, to establish the reading " ista Ecclesia," 
 which he has adopted, but which the copy of that edition to 
 which we have access (Basil, 1521) does not exhibit (p. 102). 
 That reading tends to help out, in the hands of modern sec- 
 tarians, a more special application to Rome herself alone, and 
 may enable her to fancy she can adopt Tertullian's language 
 towards the Churches of Marcion and similar communities, 
 and demand, " Who are you, and where did you come from, 
 and what business have you here in my vineyard ? This is 
 my farm/ 7 &c. &c. All this may sound very grand, but, like 
 the notions of the old Apostolics, it is in Rome's mouth equally 
 arrogant. It cannot appear to any one so very evident that 
 this passage applies to the local Church of Rome. To many 
 it must be evident, for various reasons, that it does not. No 
 one, for instance, has pretended that it was at Rome that the 
 heresies, here condemned by Tertullian, took their rise ; and 
 the Roman priests show that they also have their misgivings, 
 for they introduce the word Rome or Roman in the passage, 
 where it is not in the original, in order to fasten this sense 
 on the words. a 
 
 Dr. Milner, after these testimonies, can afford so rich he 
 fancies himself in Patristic testimony "to pass over the 
 shining lights of the third century, such as St. Clement of 
 Alexandria, St. Cyprian, Origen, &c., all of whom place 
 Apostolic Tradition on a level with Scripture" (p. 134). 
 Here is an abandonment of the question at issue. Dr. Milner 
 should have shown that some one of these held doctrines 
 which they declared to be "Apostolical Traditions," which 
 were not contained in the Scriptures, or that some one of 
 them deemed the Scriptures insufficient as a rule of faith. 
 A passage is given as from Origen, but without any reference, 
 and which we cannot find. On the other hand we have to 
 refer the reader to the extracts already produced from that 
 writer (p. 46, supra). 
 
 To this we might add several of a similar nature, but shall 
 content ourselves with the two following : 
 
 " As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, 
 is not holy, even so every sense which is without the divine 
 Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not 
 holy, because it is foreign to the Scriptures." 5 And again : 
 " Consider how eminent their danger is who neglect to study 
 
 a Simons's "Mission and Martyrdom of Peter," p. 115. London, 1852. 
 The reader will consult this book with advantage on this subject. 
 b Origen in Horn. xxx. in Matt. Latin edit. Basil. 1571. 
 
70 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 the Scriptures, through which alone a judgment as tQ the 
 soundness of their instructors can be formed." a 
 
 There is a passage in Cyprian which refers to Tradition. 
 It is in a letter written to Pompeius against Stephen, Bishop 
 of Rome, and we must from this conclude that it was Stephen 
 who pleaded custom and tradition, to which Cyprian replied 
 in the following words": "Whence comes this tradition? 
 Doth it descend from the Lord's authority, or from the com- 
 mands and Epistles of the Apostles ? For those things are to 
 be done which are there written," &c. " If it be commanded 
 in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tra- 
 dition be observed."* 3 Evidently considering those traditions 
 apostolical only which are recorded in the Scriptures. With 
 regard to Clement of Alexandria, Dr. Milner avoids citing 
 any extract to establish his position ; the passage, how- 
 ever, to which he doubtless alludes, is that cited by Messrs. 
 Kirk and Berington, in their popular work, entitled " The 
 Faith of Catholics," under the heading " The Church is the 
 Expounder of the Scriptures," pp. 12 and 114 of the first 
 edition, and p. 101 of the second edition. The fraud has been 
 so ably exposed by the Rev. R. T. Pope, in his " Roman 
 Misquotations," cap. i. p. 7, et seq. (edit. London, 1840), that 
 the reader will do well to consult that excellent work, should 
 the passage from Clement of Alexandria be quoted against him. 
 
 We then are introduced to Basil and Epiphanius, as " illus- 
 trious witnesses of the fourth age." 
 
 The former is represented as saying, " There are many 
 doctrines preserved and preached in the Church, derived 
 partly from apostolical tradition) which have equally the same 
 force in religion, and which no one contradicts who has the 
 least knowledge of the Christian laws." The reference is 
 " In Lib. de Spir. Sane.," one of the most ordinary supports 
 of Papal and Tractarian writers. 
 
 It is really a sickening task to be compelled to doubt every 
 statement advanced by a Romish divine, until a careful exami- 
 nation of the originals be instituted. " Really," exclaimed 
 the Rev. Joseph Mendham, while occupied in a similar task 
 as our own, " these papal writers require to be watched at 
 every step, and to be suspected, till they can verify their affi- 
 davits, like a felon or a swindler ." c Who, on reading 
 Dr. Milner's version of St. Basil could doubt but that he was 
 referring to doctrines necessary to be believed as matters of 
 faith ? There is not in the extract, as given by Dr. Milner, 
 the most distant allusion to rites and ceremonies of the 
 
 * Lib. x. cap. xvi. sec. 35, in Eom. torn. iv. p. 684. Paris edit. 
 b Cypr. Oper. Epist. 73, ad Pompeiura, p. 211. Oxon. 1682. 
 c Meudham's "Life of Pius V.," p. 217. London, 1832. 
 
TRADITION BASIL. 71 
 
 Church, to which, in fact this "illustrious witness" does 
 refer : the passage is taken from the 27th chapter of the work 
 cited. Basil's own words are 
 
 Ev T$ KK\r)aici irtfyvXayfJLivwv ^oy^arwv KOL jcrjjovyjuarwv, 
 ra JUEV EK: TJ]Q tyypatyov StSatDcaAtae %o/iv, ra St IK rfje rwv 
 'ATTooroAwv irapaSoatug (p. 351, torn. ii. edit. Paris, 1637.) 
 
 A more proper rendering of this would be : " There being 
 both written and preached ordinances preserved in the 
 Church; the first we have from the teaching of the Scrip- 
 ture, the latter from the tradition of the Apostles." Dr. Milner 
 translates the two words Soy/mara and Kripvyfjiara, by the 
 single word " doctrines." Neither the one nor the other bears 
 that sense. Aoyjua, in the original, is by no means equivalent 
 to the modern sense in which the word "dogma" is used. 
 Basil himself says, "AAAo yap Soy/ua KOI aAAo Kypvyfjia, 
 " a written ordinance is one thing, a preached ordinance is 
 another ;" because the So-y/m, or written ordinance, remains 
 silent, while the Kripvyfjia is spread among the people. 
 Aoyjuara are the rites, customs, and ceremonies of religious 
 worship. Thus it is employed to signify the Jewish " ordi- 
 nances" (Ephes. ii. 15) ; and see Luke ii. 1 ; and see Schleus- 
 ner's Lexicon, ad loc. And Basil says that many such are 
 handed down unwritten in the Church, lest, if written, they 
 should be thought trifling and petty ; but still ought equally 
 to be observed : and he proceeds to enumerate more than a 
 dozen instances, not one of which comes near the modern 
 meaning of the word " doctrine," which Dr. Milner has 
 chosen to employ; e. g. } signing with the cross, praying 
 towards the east, standing in prayer between Easter and 
 Pentecost, thrice dipping the party baptized; as to which 
 no man will say that they have rrjv avrrjv l<r\i>v e'x tv irpog 
 rr/v tvatfitiav, conduce equally unto godliness with points 
 of faith ; nor does the Church of Rome at this day practise 
 them. Now, if these be not necessary to be observed at all, 
 how can they be of equal service unto godliness ? How can 
 they be of equal importance with doctrinal points, such as the 
 Articles of our Belief ? a But, again, Basil was here writing 
 in the heat of disputation, and standing in defence of the 
 rites, ceremonies, and orders of the Church, and spoke indeed 
 very hyperbolically of them ; but if we take him in his calmer 
 mood, we shall find no reason to doubt as to his real senti- 
 ments on the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures as the sole 
 " rule of faith " of the true believer ; and for these his 
 expressed opinions we refer the reader to the passages we 
 have before given, in p. 48. 
 
 Epiphanius is quoted as saying, " with equal brevity and 
 * See Birckbek's " Protestant's Evidence," vol. i. p. 206. Edit. London, 1849. 
 
72 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 force (as Basil), ' We must make use of tradition: for all things 
 are not to be found in Scripture/ De Hseres. N. 61 " 
 [p. 511, torn. i. ed. 1682]. Epiphanius a great admirer of 
 tradition backs his opinion with the usual citation from 
 St. Paul, " as I delivered unto you." But neither the 
 Church of England, it should be understood, nor any other 
 Church, refuses tradition, as seems to be constantly assumed. 
 They avail themselves of its testimony with all willingness ; 
 but they do not (as Rome) " palter with a double sense," and 
 when putting out, century after century, the same arguments 
 and the same quotations, and the same accusations, employ 
 the term tradition in one sense, when their opponents are 
 using it in another. The Papal sect, with two strings to its 
 bow, pulls one or other, as may be most convenient, and 
 ever and anon ; reiterates the question, How do you know, 
 without tradition, that the Scriptures can be allowed their 
 claim to a divine character or authority ? and how do you 
 account for the change of the day for observing Sabbath, and 
 for baptism of infants, &c. ? As if all these things were depend- 
 ent upon the same kind of tradition, equally full, equally 
 important, and equally unquestioned. The points for which 
 tradition, as Papally understood, is thus made to plead, or to 
 supplement the written: Scripture, are little else than such 
 customs, rites, and ordinances as those for which St. Paul has 
 been quoted, and are here yoked in the same advocacy with 
 Epiphanius. In the particular portion of the latter author, to 
 which it might have been supposed Rome would not have 
 been very ready to send us, but that the' passage forms a link 
 in the ordinary round a of quotation on the subject of 
 Tradition; Epiphanius is here combating the Apostolici, 
 who, as Augustine observes, 5 most arrogantly assumed this 
 name to themselves how closely resembling in this respect 
 another sect, which proclaims herself, on all sides, " holy, 
 Catholic, and Apostolic" need not be pointed out and 
 their opinions on the subjects of marriage and a right 
 to private property. Epiphanius thinks (sect. 6) that the 
 apparently contradictory teachings of the Saviour and St. 
 Paul (Luke, xiv. 26; 1 Tim. v. 11) having himself misap- 
 plied and misinterpreted the former are to be settled from 
 tradition; and affirms that to marry after vows of celibacy 
 borders on sin, and that the Church has so received from the 
 Apostles. But as Chemnitz observes on an allied subject, we 
 
 * See Perrone's " Pnelectiones Theol." de Necess. et Exist. Tradit. sec. 350, 
 and notes. 
 
 b De Hseresibus, cap. 40. 
 
 c Examen Cone. Trid. de Coelibatu, pars iii. p. 100, ed. 1606. 
 
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 73 
 
 have nothing but his own assertion of the fact; nothing 
 reliable is produced to support either the statement or the 
 doctrine. Epiphanius himself proceeds to argue on the subject, 
 which were surely unnecessary, if there were any Apostolic 
 tradition extant to sanction the opinion, and authoritatively 
 decide the point. As Mr. Goode a remarks, Epiphanius " is 
 not speaking of any Christian doctrine," and in other passages 
 frequently bears witness to the satisfying fulness of Scrip- 
 ture for the refutation of false doctrine. Thus, when writing 
 against the Valentimans, he says, " Their idle fables are de- 
 stitute of confirmation, the Scripture nowhere mentioning 
 them, neither the law of Moses, nor any prophet ; nor, more- 
 over the Saviour, nor his Evangelists, nor the Apostles," &c. 
 
 Not to weary our readers by a too long continuance of the 
 same subject, we will defer our further observations on the 
 other authorities quoted by Dr. Milner to another time, and 
 proceed to another subject. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 The Canon of Scripture. 
 
 THE Church of England, in her Sixth Article, declares, that 
 " In the name of the Holy Scriptures, we do understand 
 those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of 
 whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." These 
 books are then enumerated in the order in which they appear 
 in our authorized version. The other books, which are ordi- 
 narily called THE APOCRYPHA, " The Church doth read for 
 example of life and instruction of mariners ; but yet doth it 
 not apply them to establish any doctrine ;" and the names of 
 these books are also set out ; but " all the books of the New 
 Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and 
 account them canonical." 
 
 Thtfs, it will be seen, that we admit such books in our 
 canon of the Old Testament, " of whose authority was never 
 any doubt in the Church." 
 
 At its fourth session, the Papal Council of Trent "judged 
 proper, lest any doubt should arise in any one what are the 
 sacred books which are received by the Council [and conse- 
 quently by the Church of Home], to annex a list of them to 
 
 * " Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," vol. iii. pp. 1234. Edit. 1853. 
 
74 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 the [then] present decree :" and to that decree is added a list 
 of the books which the Council declared canonical ; and the 
 decree concludes as follows: " If any one shall not receive 
 as sacred and canonical all those books, with every part of 
 them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic Church, 
 and are contained in the OLD VULGATE LATIN EDITION : let 
 him be accursed." 
 
 The Council appealed to antiquity in support of its views 
 of what it declared to be the true canon ; for throughout its 
 proceedings, an unchanged and unbroken tradition and con- 
 sent of the early fathers is constantly appealed to ; and the 
 25th, or last, session is thus brought to a close by the united 
 assembly exclaiming "The sacred and holy oecumenical 
 Council of Trent : let us confess its Faith let us ever keep 
 its Decrees. We all thus believe ; we all think the very 
 same ; we all, consenting and embracing them, subscribe 
 This is the faith of blessed Peter, and of the Apostles : this is 
 the faith of the Fathers : this is the faith of the orthodox. Thus 
 we believe ; thus we think ; thus we subscribe. So be it so 
 be it, Amen, amen ! Anathema to all heretics ! Anathema 
 anathema ! " 
 
 And thus this Council closed with a reiterated CURSE ! 
 
 In comparing the two canons of Scripture as admitted by 
 the two Churches, we find, regarding the New Testament, as 
 before observed, a perfect agreement between the Churches 
 of England and Rome ; but they differ in their enumeration 
 of the Old Testament Books ; the Church of Rome admits 
 all those acknowledged as canonical by us, but to these are 
 added the following, which we call APOCRYPHAL, the Books 
 of Tobitj Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the 
 First and Second Books of Maccabees ; all which are specially 
 named : and this list includes, in the Books of Esther and 
 Daniel, what are called " the Rest of the Book of Esther and 
 Daniel" that is, from after the third verse of the 10th 
 chapter of Esther to the end of the 16th chapter, and from 
 and including the 13th and 14th chapter of Daniel, as appears 
 in the present Douay version (the Story of Susanna, and of 
 Bel and the Dragon) and the Song of the Three Children. 
 
 We have now to examine what Dr. Milner has to say on 
 this subject. He commences by throwing ridicule on the 
 confidence which Protestants feel when they " get possession 
 of an English Bible printed by the king's printer " (Thomas 
 Basket, for instance), as though received immediately from 
 the Almighty ; but as the Bible cannot bear testimony of 
 itself, this confidence, he alleges, is vain ; and sneeringly and 
 triumphantly asks, " By what means have we learnt what is 
 
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 75 
 
 the Canon of Scripture ? that is to say, which are the books 
 that have been written by Divine inspiration ? or, indeed, 
 how have we ascertained that any books, at all, have been so 
 written ? " (Letter ix. p. 113.) And after suggesting against 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures several of the leading argu- 
 ments of the sceptic or atheist, particularly that numerous 
 apocryphal prophecies, and spurious gospels and epistles were 
 circulated in the Church during its early ages, and accredited 
 by different learned writers and holy fathers: while some of 
 the really canonical books were rejected or doubted by them, 
 he concludes with these words : 
 
 " In short, it was not until the end of the fourth century, 
 that the genuine Canon of the Holy Scriptures was fixed : 
 and then it was fixed by the tradition and authority of the 
 Church, declared in the third Council of Carthage, and a 
 decretal of Pope Innocent I." In Letter xliii. p. 411, he 
 refers in a note to the Canon of Pope Gelasius as an 
 authority. And again, in Letter xlviii., to the objection that 
 Romanists " rank the apocryphal with the canonical books 
 of Scriptures," he answers : 
 
 " That the same authority, namely, that of the Catholic 
 Church, in the fifth century, and which decided on the 
 canonical character of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Reve- 
 lations [Revelation ?] , and five other books of the New Tes- 
 tament, on which character, till that time, the Fathers and 
 ecclesiastical writers were not agreed, decided also on the 
 canonicity of the books of Toby, Judith, and five other books 
 of the Ol*d Testament, being those alluded to as apocryphal. 
 If the Church of the fifth century deserves to be heard on 
 one part of her testimony, she evidently deserves to be heard 
 on the other." 
 
 The period, " the Church of the fifth century," last referred 
 to by Dr. Milner, points to the decision of the third Council 
 of Carthage, A.D. 397. He pretends that the third Council of 
 Carthage declared on authority of the tradition of the Church 
 the genuine Canon of Scripture. Three questions at once 
 suggest themselves : First, Have we any evidence in exist- 
 ence showing what was the tradition of the Church previous 
 to the alleged decision of the third Council of Carthage on 
 the subject of the apocryphal books ? secondly, Is the Canon, 
 on which reliance is placed, genuine ? and thirdly, If genuine, 
 was the alleged tradition fixed by the authority of this 
 Council, and accepted by the Church ? 
 
 I. On the question of Tradition up to the date of this 
 Council. 
 
 St. Paul informs us that te unto the Jews were committed 
 
76 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 the oracles of God." a Cardinal Bellarmine, the great Roman 
 controversialist, admitted that the Jews rejected all those 
 books which we call apocryphal ; b and it is a very significant 
 fact that neither Christ nor any of the inspired writers of 
 the New Testament, quote from, or refer to, any of these 
 books ; and in the first century of the Church, there is not 
 one iota of evidence to show that any one of these books was 
 admitted into the Canon, as inspired writings. 
 
 In the second century we have the testimony of Melito, 
 the Bishop of Sardis, who, in an epistle to Onesimus, enu- 
 merates the Canon of the Old Testament/ from which the 
 apocryphal books are omitted. Bellarmine, in fact, admits that 
 Melito followed the Jewish Canon ; d and, indeed, Eusebius, 
 to whom we are much indebted for the history of the Church 
 in those days, in his " Ecclesiastical History "' quotes directly 
 from Melito himself a letter, signifying that he had inquired 
 what the books of Scripture consisted of, and gives a list 
 of them ; but among these appear none of the apocryphal 
 class. 6 
 
 In the third century we have the testimony of Origen 
 against the alleged Tradition. Of him, Eusebius likewise 
 testifies, that as Origen received the Canon of the Jews, he 
 rejected the Apocrypha/ 
 
 In the fourth century we have the testimony of Saint 
 Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, and Saint Cyprian (or as some 
 say, Ruffinus), 8 who also enumerate the Canon of Scripture, 
 as held in their day, being the same as was admitted by the 
 Jews ; this testimony of Hilary is acknowledged by Bellar- 
 mine. 11 Saint Cyril of Jerusalem also reckoned according to 
 the Jewish Canon, and directed his catechumens to peruse 
 the twenty-two books (the number into which the Jews 
 divided the Canon) , but not to meddle with the Apocrypha ; 
 and he exhorted them " to meditate diligently upon those 
 Scriptures, which the Church doth confidently read, and use 
 no other." 1 In this* century we have also the testimony of 
 
 a Eom. iii. 12. 
 
 b Bell, de Verb. Dei, lib. i. cap. 1, sec. i. torn. i. p. 18. Edit. Prag. 
 1721. 
 
 c Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 26, p. 191. Edit. Cantab. 1720. 
 
 d Bell, de Verb. Dei, lib. i. cap. 20, sec. xv. torn. i. p. 38. Prag. 1721. 
 
 e Euseb. lib. iv. cap. 26, p. 191. Edit. Cantab. 1720. 
 
 f Ib. lib. vi. c. 16. p. 289, ut supra. 
 
 * Apud Hieron. Oper. Ben. torn. v. col. 141. Paris, 1693. 
 
 h Bell, de Verb. Dei, lib. ii. cap. 1, sec. xv. torn. i. p. 38. Edit. Prag. 
 1721. 
 
 1 Cyril, Catech. 4, sec. xx. Edit. Oxon. 1703. It appears, however, that 
 Cyril admitted the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah ; but it is not 
 at all improbable that, as he refers to the Jewish standard of computation, he 
 refers to these in the sense in which Augustine speaks of the apocryphal 
 
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 77 
 
 Gregory ofNazianzus, who expressly gives a catalogue of the 
 canonical Scripture agreeing with our own. a To Saint 
 Jerome, we are informed by Romanists, was intrusted the 
 revision of the translation of the Old Testament by Damasus, 
 the Bishop of Rome, and it appears that he was occupied on 
 this work during the very sitting of the Council of Carthage, 
 cited above. He distinctly adheres to the books constituting 
 the Jewish Canon, and expressly rejects the several apocry- 
 phal books by name; b and this, too, is admitted by Cardinal 
 Bellarmine. c The reader will not have failed to remark the 
 appeal to the " old Vulgate Latin edition," as the authority 
 in which we are to find the books to be deemed " sacred and 
 canonical," and w r hich are to be adopted and received under 
 the penalty of a curse. Now the term " Vetus editio Vulgata 
 Latina " was used after the publication of Jerome's version, 
 which was called " Editio Nova Vulgata," the New Latin 
 Vulgate, to denote that which was made from the Greek 
 Canon. So that, while Jerome's translation, established by 
 the authority of Damasus (in the Western Church) is osten- 
 sibly retained in the Roman Communion, all those parts 
 which Jerome rejected as apocryphal, are brought in again 
 on the authority of the old Latin Vulgate ! d 
 
 In this century we have likewise a council, namely that of 
 Laodicea, held A.D. 357. In the 60th canon of this council 
 the canonical books are recited just as we accept them; 6 and 
 this canon was confirmed by the General Council of Chalce- 
 don, A.D. 451 ; f as also by the Council of Constantinople, in 
 Trullo, A.D. 692, by two hundred and eleven bishops. g 
 
 In the fifth century we have the testimony of Saint 
 Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in the island of Cyprus, who 
 reckoned up the canon of twenty-two books, as we do, and 
 
 books as after explained. A very able critique on the passage from Cyril 
 will be found in Pope's "Roman Misquotations," p. 39, et seq. London, 
 1840. 
 
 a Greg. Naz. ad Seleucum, torn. ii. p. 194. Paris, 1630. 
 
 b Hier. Ep. ad Paulinum ; Oper. Ben. 1693, et seq. torn. iv. sec. pars col. 
 571-4, et Prae. in Libros Salomonis, torn. i. pp. 938-9. 
 
 c Bell, de Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 10, sec. xx. torn. i. p. 20. Prag. 1721. 
 
 d See Dr. Jarvis's "Reply to Milner's End of Religious Controversy," p. 51. 
 New York, 1847. 
 
 e Bin. Concill. Cone. Laodicen. can. 60, torn. i. p. 304. Lutet. Paris. 
 1636. "Let it be observed, that though they \Baruch, and the Epistle of 
 Jeremiah] are in some copies [of the Laodicean Canons], yet not in all ; that 
 Aristenus in his transcript has them not, nor Caranza." See Beveridge's 
 Synodicon, torn. i. p. 481 ; and Carran. Summa Concill. Paris, 1677. Cum 
 approbat. et permiss. p. 140 (quoted by R. T. P. Pope, in his " Roman 
 Misquotations"). 
 
 f See Cosin's " Scholast. Hist, of the Canon," sect. Ixxxv. London, 
 1672. 
 
 * Labbe et Coss. torn. iv. col. 1140, can. 2. Edit. Paris, 1671. 
 
78 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 in express words declares that the books of Wisdom and 
 Ecclesiasticus are to be excluded.* 
 
 And lastly, we have the testimony of Saint Augustine, who, 
 it is alleged, assisted at the Council of Carthage, and sanc- 
 tioned the Canon in question. Now there is not the slightest 
 doubt but that Augustine expressly excluded the books of 
 Maccabees from the Canon of Scripture ; b and notwithstanding 
 this express exclusion of these books, he elsewhere includes 
 these books when he enumerates a Canon of Scripture ; c but 
 he made, nevertheless, a marked difference between the term 
 Canon of Scripture and inspired Scripture ; he used the word 
 Canon as denoting the books which were held in reverence 
 and read in the churches, under which title, besides the 
 inspired books, the apocryphal were also contained. That 
 the word Canon } as employed by him, must be understood 
 with this latitude of meaning, is obvious, from what he says 
 as to the preference to be given to some of the canonical 
 books over others. In the case of inspired Scripture, it would 
 be absurd to talk of preference. Inspiration does not admit 
 of degrees. The divine element of the Scriptures is not a 
 quantitative thing, conferring different values on different 
 parts of the Scriptures, in proportion to the amount of it 
 that may be found or thought to exist in them. The above 
 is no new explanation of Augustine's words in the passage 
 under consideration ; it was given by one of the most re- 
 nowned Roman doctors, and one, moreover, who was the 
 personal antagonist of Luther, Cardinal Cajetan. We shall 
 quote his own words, as they occur at the close of his Com- 
 mentary on the Book of Esther. The whole passage is most 
 remarkable, and therefore we will make no apology for 
 giving it at length : " Here we end our commentaries on 
 the historical books of the Old Testament ; for the remainder 
 viz., Judith, Tobit, and the Books of Maccabees are not 
 included by St. Jerome among the canonical books, but are 
 placed, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, among the 
 Apocrypha. Do not be uneasy, tyro, if you should anywhere 
 find those [apocryphal] books enumerated amongst the 
 canonical, either by holy councils or by holy doctors ; for the 
 words both of councils and of doctors must be brought to accord 
 with the rule of Jerome ; and, according to his decision, 
 those books [the apocryphal books enumerated], and if there 
 
 a Epiph. torn. ii. p. 161. Edit. Colon. 1682. 
 
 b Aug. de Mirab. Sacra Scrip, p. 26, torn. iii. part i., and in De Civ. Dei, 
 lib. xviii. cap. 36, p. 519, torn. vii. Paris, 1685 ; and Cont. Secundam Ep. 
 Gaud. lib. i. cap. 31. p. 821. Edit. Bass. 1797. 
 
 c De Doctrina Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 8. 
 
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 79 
 
 be any others like them in the Canon of the Bible, are not 
 canonical that is to say, do not contain rules for confirming 
 articles of faith ; they may, however, be called canonical, as 
 containing rules for the edification of the faithful, inasmuch as 
 they have been admitted into the Canon of the Bible and 
 authorized for this very purpose. With this distinction you 
 will be able to discern the meaning of the words of Augustine 
 (de Doctr. Christ., lib. ii.), as, also, of the decrees of the 
 Council of Florence, under Eugenius IV., and of the pro- 
 vincial Councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and of Popes 
 Innocent and Gelasius." a 
 
 Now, Cardinal Cajetan lived so late as the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, and is described by his contemporaries as an tc incom- 
 parable theologian, to whom, as to a common oracle, men 
 were wont to resort in all difficult questions of theology ;" 
 and he had the benefit of Saint Augustine's writings when 
 he thus expressed himself on the question now at issue. His 
 works abound with statements of a similar kind to those above 
 quoted. We will here quote two more, if possible stronger 
 than those which have been referred to. One occurs in his 
 commentary on the first chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews : " We have adopted Jerome's rule, to prevent us 
 from error in the determination of the canonical books; for 
 we esteem as canonical those which he delivered as such, and 
 those which he separated from the canonical books we hold 
 to be outside the Canon." b The other passage is found in 
 the Dedicatory Epistle to Pope Clement VII., prefixed to 
 Cajetan's Commentaries on the Historical Books of the Old 
 Testament. " Most blessed father," he writes, " the universal 
 Latin Church is most deeply indebted to St. Jerome, not 
 only on account of his annotations on the Scriptures, but 
 
 a Hoc in loco terminamus Commentaria Librorum Histor. Vet. Test, Nam 
 reliqui viz., Judith, Tobiae, et Maccabaeorum, libri a B. Hieronymo extra, 
 canonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae 
 et Ecclesiastico. Nee turberis, novitie, si alicubi repereris libros istos inter 
 canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis, vel in sacris doctoribus. Nam ad 
 Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tarn verba conciliorum, quam doctorum ; et 
 juxta illius sententiam, libri isti, et si qui alii sunt in Canone Biblice similes, 
 TiOTi sunt canonici, hoc est, non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei; 
 possunt tamen dici canonici, hoc est regulares ad aedificationem fidelium, utpote 
 in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti et authoritati. Cum hac eniin distinctione 
 discernere poteris et dicta Augustini in lib. ii. de Doctr. Christ, et Scripta in 
 Cone. Flor. sub Eugen. IV., Script, que in provincial! bus Conciliis Carthag. et 
 Laodic., etab Innocentio acGelasio Pontificibus. Cajetan. in omnesauthenticos 
 Vet. Test. hist. libr. Comment, p. 482. Parisiis, 1546. We extract the above 
 from the "Catholic Layman," vol. iv. p. 69. Dublin, 1855. 
 
 b Cajetani comment, in 1 cap. Ep. ad Heb. Hieronymi sortiti sumus 
 regulam, ne erremus in discretione librorum canouicorum ; nam quos ille 
 canonicos tradidit, canonicos habemus ; et quos ille a canonicis discrevit, extra 
 canonem habemus. 
 
80 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 also because he distinguished the canonical books from the 
 non-canonical, inasmuch as he thereby freed us from the 
 reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say that we 
 were forging for ourselves books or parts of books belonging 
 to the ancient Canon, which they never received." a Cajetan's 
 work appeared but twelve years before the Council of Trent, 
 and was dedicated to Pope Clement VII., and received his 
 approbation. Consequently, Jerome's rule, relative to the 
 broad distinction between the canonical books (properly so 
 called) and the apocryphal, was then recognized by the 
 Roman Pontiif himself. b 
 
 We can now fully appreciate Dr. Milner's appeal to the 
 " tradition and authority of the Church," according to which 
 the bishops assembled at the third Council of Carthage, in 
 the fifth century, are said to have been regulated in fixing 
 the Canon of Scripture. 
 
 II. The second point we proposed for our consideration is 
 whether the decree of the third Council of Carthage, on which 
 reliance is placed as an authority for fixing the Canon of 
 Scripture for the whole Catholic Church is genuine. We 
 have several grave objections to urge, to which satisfactory 
 replies must be given before the authority of this decree can 
 be conceded to Dr. Milner. 
 
 1. The forty-seventh canon is the canon that is cited. It 
 purports to give a list of canonical Scriptures. By a strange 
 blunder, the council has enumerated " FIVE Books of Solo- 
 mon;" that is, besides Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song 
 of Songs, which are in the Hebrew Canon, not only what 
 is called, in the Septuagint, the Wisdom of Solomon, but 
 also the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach, written 800 
 years after the death of Solomon, are also attributed to 
 him! d 
 
 2. In not one of the Greek copies or manuscripts of this 
 canon are to be found enumerated the Books of Maccabees/ 
 which raises a strong suspicion that the canon itself is forged. f 
 
 a Cajetani Ep. dedic. ad P. Clem. VII., ante Comm. in Lib. Hist. V. T. 
 S. Hieronymo, Pater beatissime, universa ecclesia Latina plurimum debet, 
 non solum ob annotatas Scripturas, sed etiam propter discretes ab eodem Libros 
 canonicos a non canonicis. Liberavit siquidem nos ab Hebrseorum opprobrio, 
 quod fingamus nobis antiqui canonis libros aut librorum partes, quibus ipsi 
 penitus carent, in Cousin on the Canon, sec. 173. 
 
 b "Catholic Layman," as above. 
 
 c Labbe et Coss. Concil. torn. ii. col. 117. Edit. Paris, 1671. 
 
 d See Dr. Jarvis, ut supra, p. 50. 
 
 e Justellus, Cod. Can. Eccles. Afric. can. 24, note ; and Synod. Carthag. 
 apud Balsam, in editione Joh. Tilii. 
 
 f See Sir H. Lynde's "ViaDevia," in supplement to Gibson's "Preservative 
 from Popery," p. 166. London, 1850. 
 
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 81 
 
 And Dr. Milner should explain why the Latin copy should 
 be adopted in preference to the Greek. 
 
 3. Cardinal Baronius/ the Roman Annalist, and Binius, b 
 admit that this particular canon was not confirmed by this 
 council, but by some other subsequent council of Carthage. 
 
 4. As a further proof that the canon is spurious, and that 
 the list of canonical books was inserted by some forger of 
 later date, we may observe that the council was held in the 
 year 397, Csesarius and Atticus being consuls, as the Council 
 itself relates, and yet the canon which contains the list of 
 canonical books refers to Pope Boniface, who was not Pope 
 until 418, or twenty years after. It is therefore clear that 
 this list was made and put in by some one who lived so long 
 after the council, that he had forgotten who was Pope at the 
 time it was held. d 
 
 5. We have said that the canon, as appears in the decree 
 of the Council of Laodicea, agrees with our list, but differs 
 from the list given by the later council, the third of Carthage ; 
 we have also seen that the Council of Constantinople, in 
 Trullo, A.D. 692, confirmed the canons of the former council, 
 which rejected the Apocrypha, but it also confirmed the 
 canons of the latter council, 6 which is said to have admitted 
 the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture. Now, did the Council 
 in Trullo, of 211 Bishops, intend to confirm both lists ? This 
 is very unlikely. But if there was no list issued by the later 
 Council (of Carthage), which we think our readers will agree 
 in declaring most probable, then those 211 Bishops confirmed 
 only that list which is now admitted by us Protestants as 
 the only true list ; and we have not yet heard the canon of 
 the Council of Laodicea called in question on the score of 
 genuineness. 
 
 III. The third proposition is, that supposing the canon to be 
 genuine, was the alleged tradition of the Church, with regard 
 to the Canon of Scripture, fixed by the decree of the third 
 Council of Carthage, and universally observed by members of 
 the Roman Catholic Church? 
 
 It so happens that when this same council was cited as 
 opposed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome the twenty- 
 sixth canon declaring that the Bishop of that see was not 
 to be called the chief priest Cardinal Bellarmine, ever fore- 
 most in defence of his church, with more zeal than judgment 
 
 a Baron. An. 397, num. 56, p. 249. Lucse, 1740. 
 b Bin. in Concil. Carth. 3, p. 722, torn. i. Paris, 1636. 
 c See a list of the Popes in Labbe and Coss. Cone. Gen. torn. xvi. p. 130. 
 Paris, 1671. 
 
 d See "Catholic Layman," vol. ii. p. 112. 
 * Labb. Coss. Concil. torn. vi. p. 1140, can. 2. Paris, 1671. 
 
 G 
 
82 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 declared that " this provincial council ought not to bind the 
 Bishop of Rome,, nor the bishops of other provinces/' a Then 
 why should it be binding on us ? Shortly after the meeting 
 of this Council of Carthage, a General Council of the Church 
 was held, at which, as we have seen, the canons of Laodicea 
 were confirmed. And further, this same third Council of 
 Carthage places the third and fourth books of Esdras in the 
 Canon, which Bellarmine places among the Apocrypha, so 
 that, in fact, the Church of Rome does not follow this Council. 
 
 Again, so far from dogmatically fixing the tradition of the 
 Church, Du Pin, taking the decree to be genuine, tells us 
 that the books in question were introduced into the Canon 
 only provisionally, " upon condition that the church beyond 
 sea should be consulted for its confirmation, as is implied in 
 an ancient note on that canon, which runs thus, De confir- 
 mando isto canone transmarina ecclesia consulatur. And 
 this very canon is repeated in the Council of Carthage, held 
 in the year 419, with a clause much like the former." 5 
 
 But we have ample evidence that the alleged tradition was 
 not fixed by this provincial council, even in the Roman 
 Church. We propose to cite the names of some leading 
 members of that church in each successive century, all of 
 whom rejected, in whole or in part, the apocryphal books, 
 up to the holding of the Council of Trent ; and should the 
 reader require evidence of what we assert, he will find it set 
 out in Sir H. Lynde's " Via Devia," c and Birckbek's "Pro- 
 testant Evidence." d 
 
 In the sixth century, Junilius, an African bishop. 
 
 In the seventh century, Pope Gregory I. 
 
 In the eighth, Saint Damascene, and Alcuin, Abbot of 
 St. Martin of Tours. 
 
 In the ninth, Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. 
 
 In the tenth, JSlfrick, Abbot of Malmesbury ; and Radul- 
 phus Flaviacensis, the monk. 
 
 In the eleventh, Peter, Abbot of Clugni. 
 
 In the twelfth, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Richardus de 
 Sancto Victore, and Rupert of Duyts. 
 
 In the thirteenth, Hugo Cardinalis and Saint Bonaventure. 
 
 In the fourteenth, William Occham and Nicholas de Lyra. 
 
 In the fifteenth, Alphonsus Tostatus, Thomas Waldensis, 
 Dionysius Carthusianus. 
 
 a Bell, de Horn. Pont. lib. ii. c. 31, sec. viii. p. 387, torn. i. Edit. 
 Prag. 1721. 
 
 b Du Pin, Hist, of the Canon, &c. fol. vol. i. pp. 8, 9. London, 1699. 
 c Sect. iv. pp. 142171. London, 1840. 
 d Edit. 1849, title, "Canon of Scripture." 
 
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 83 
 
 And in the sixteenth, we have Cardinal Cajetan. 
 
 So much then for the alleged tradition which the modem 
 Tridentine Church professes to follow. 
 
 The next authority appealed to by Dr. Milner is a Decretal 
 of Pope Innocent I. 
 
 The alleged list of canonical books is contained in an 
 epistle which pretends to have been written by Pope Inno- 
 cent I., in the year 405. The list stands at the end just 
 the place where the forger would add it in after-times. 
 No one appears ever to have heard of that list of Pope 
 Innocent's for FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY years after the 
 date of that letter ! of this we have proof. Cresconius, who 
 wrote at the end of the seventh century, professed to show 
 the agreement between the canons of the councils and the 
 epistles of the Popes: he quotes that very letter of Pope 
 Innocent six times, to show its agreement with the canons 
 of the councils in six points; but when he comes to speak 
 of the list of canonical books, he says nothing at all of 
 any list made by Pope Innocent, clearly showing that no such 
 list was in that letter in his time. 
 
 We hear of Pope Innocent's list, for the first time, in the 
 ninth century, AFTER a great mass of forgeries of letters of 
 Popes had been published and imposed upon the Church. 
 Even in that age, Pope Nicholas says there was no list yet in 
 the canons of the Church, and he then produces the list of 
 Pope Innocent for the first time, and that too in a letter 
 written for the very purpose of imposing those forged letters 
 on the Church as true and genuine documents. a 
 
 Such then is the further authority on which Dr. Milner 
 relies for establishing the tradition of his Church on the 
 canonical list. 
 
 Cardinal Cajetan, of the sixteenth century, who evidently 
 believed this list to be genuine, places the same interpretation 
 on the word " canonical," used by Pope Innocent, as employed 
 by Augustine, classing the two in the very same passage, which 
 we have before quoted, where Cajetan states that Augustine, 
 in arranging these books with the inspired Canon, did not 
 place them on the same footing. But how can Romanists 
 appeal to Innocent's list, when the earliest copies contained 
 no book of " Tobit!" b And, lastly, in another part of the 
 
 * The reader is referred to a series of papers containing a critical and minute 
 examination of these forged decretals in the "Catholic Layman," Dublin, 
 1853-4, from the December number, 1853. Pope Nicholas's letter is fully 
 and critically examined in the January number of 1854, pp. 2 4. The above 
 also is borrowed from the same source, p. 126, vol. ii. 1853. 
 
 b Merlin's Councils; Colon. 1530, fol. clxxxv. Paris, 1535. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 book/ Dr. Milner cites Pope Gelasius as admitting the b6ok 
 of Maccabees in the Canon of Scripture ; this is supposed to 
 be in a council held at Rome, A.D. 494. b This council is a 
 manifest forgery wholly unworthy of credit. It rests alto- 
 gether on the authority of Isidore Mercator, who lived in the 
 ninth century, and who is now acknowledged by all Roman 
 Catholics of learning to have been the most impudent and 
 audacious forger that the world has ever seen. No writer 
 before his time has mentioned this council or list of Gelasius. 
 There are no authentic records that can be relied on. Some 
 say it was held by Pope Damasus, some by Pope Gelasius, 
 some by Hormisdas. The copies differ so much that the 
 Roman cardinals appointed by the Pope to correct the Decre- 
 tum of Gratian, when they came to a passage quoted from 
 this council, had to say, " It cannot be known which is the 
 pure and true reading." c 
 
 The records of this council contain long passages, word for 
 word the same with the decretal epistle of Pope Anacletus, 
 which it is now confessed that this Isidore forged along with 
 about sixty other epistles from the early Popes. d There is set 
 forth a list of the patriarchal sees, also exactly agreeing with 
 that forged epistle, making Alexandria the second ; which list 
 is directly opposed to the second general council, 6 and is not 
 found in any genuine writing of antiquity. The whole thing 
 rests on the credit of that infamous forger. It is enough to 
 have the Canon Law filled with his forgeries ; f why should we 
 have him corrupting our Bibles too ? Richter, the learned 
 editor of the Canon Law, says of this council, " They are not 
 wanting who consider the whole apocryphal." And well they 
 may, when it is traced to Isidore. g And, after all, it is more 
 doubtful whether Isidore ever put any list of the canonical 
 books into this council at all. One of the oldest copies in 
 existence (that in the Pope's own library) gives the council 
 without any list of the books of Scripture in it. h So it would 
 seem the list was appended by some later forger in still later 
 times/ 
 
 With the above well-authenticated facts before us, we 
 cannot but admire the confident tone with which Dr. Milner 
 
 Letter xlvii. p. 411. 
 
 Labbe and Coss. torn. iv. col. 1260. Paris, 1672. 
 
 Note of the Correctors on Dist. xv. c. 3. 
 
 Compare with Decret. Dist. xxii. c. 2. 
 
 Labbe and Coss. torn. ii. p. 948, can. 3. Paris, 1671. 
 
 See the series of articles in the " Catholic Layman." 
 
 Leipsic ed. 1839, vol. i. p. 31. 
 h Berhard, in Canones Gratiani, vol. ii. p. 316. 
 1 "Catholic Layman," October, 1853, p. 112. 
 
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 85 
 
 sums up his observations on the subject under consider- 
 ation. 
 
 " Indeed, it is so clear that the Canon of Scripture is built 
 on the tradition of the Church, that most learned Protestants, 
 with Luther himself, have been forced to acknowledge it, in 
 terms almost as strong as those in the well-known declaration 
 of St. Augustine ' I should not believe the Gospel itself, if 
 the authority of the Catholic Church did not oblige me to do 
 so/ (Contra Epist. Fundam.)" The Protestants referred to 
 are ' ' Hooker, Eccl. Polit. c. iii. s. 8 ; Dr. Lardner, in Bishop 
 Watson's Col., vol. ii. p. 20." And, as a reference to Luther, 
 is added the following note : " We are obliged to yield many 
 things to Papists that with them is the Word of God, which 
 we received from them, otherwise we should have known 
 nothing at all about it. (Comment, on John xvi.)" 
 
 Here, then, by a side wind, as it were, is the Tridentine 
 Canon brought under the patronage of Augustine, Hooker, 
 Lardner, and Luther. 
 
 With regard to Luther, we may for the present observe 
 (the quotation we propose to examine more at length in 
 another article), that he wrote no " Comment, on Johnxvi. ;" 
 but he did write examinations or homilies on the Gospels and 
 Epistles for the year ; but the reference is too vague to test 
 the truth of the assertion of Dr. Milner. Dr. Grier has suf- 
 ficiently exposed his quotations alleged to be from Luther, 
 to warrant us in disbelieving anything the doctor may say 
 unaccompanied by precise references ; but supposing the quo- 
 tations to be accurate, what weight can the assertion have with 
 us ? The statement is not true, for the Greek Church and 
 Greek fathers, not the Latin Church nor Latin fathers, claim 
 first our obligations. The statement with reference to Au- 
 gustine, Hooker, and Lardner deserves our consideration. 
 
 Augustine's words are, " Ego verb Evangelio non crederem 
 nisi me Catholicce Ecclesite commoveret authoritas ;"* which, 
 literally is, " I should not have believed the Gospel, except 
 the authority of the Church had moved me thereunto;" 
 which Dr. Milner very artfully converts into, " I should not 
 believe the Gospel itself, if the authority of the Catholic 
 Church did not oblige me to do so;" and this rendering, 
 coming immediately in juxta-position with the alleged con- 
 cession from Luther, that " we are obliged to yield many 
 things to Papists, 3 ' Dr. Milner would have us believe that 
 Augustine was here pointing to the authority of the Roman 
 Church ; and since the modern Roman Church does admit the 
 
 a Aug. contr. Ep. Fund. c. 6, torn. viii. col. 154, Benedict, edit. 
 
86 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Apocrypha, therefore, as a natural sequence, we must admit 
 the Canon of Scripture which includes these books, on the 
 authority of the Roman Church. The whole is a fallacy. 
 We have shown that Augustine did not admit the same Canon 
 as does the modern Tridentine Roman Church. He expressly 
 excluded the Maccabees, if he did not reject the others also ; 
 but it is most clear, as admitted by eminent Romanists, 3 that 
 Augustine's words, quoted by Dr. Milner, had relation to the 
 primitive Church, which both saw Christ's person and his 
 miracles, and heard his doctrine ; to this very same authority 
 we also appeal for our guide. What Christian is not, 
 let us ask, induced or moved as a first motive to receive 
 the Canon of Scripture as now handed down to us, by the 
 fact that the Christian Church from the most primitive 
 times has admitted with common consent certain books as 
 inspired ? 
 
 Are not the books of Scripture, as well as the various 
 articles of Faith, when inquiry is made into the authority that 
 presents them for acceptance, made to rest upon the reception 
 of them in succession from the earliest times ? No branch 
 of the Catholic Church either can or desires to set aside the 
 corroborative external testimony afforded by what is under- 
 stood under the the term " the Church." Dr. Milner, indeed, 
 fancies that the Protestant Churches cannot avail themselves 
 of this evidence ; takes " the Church " to be of course his own 
 Church ; repeats for the thousandth time, and as inapplicably 
 as ever, the truly " well-known declaration" from St. Augus- 
 tine, how he was led by the Church to receive the Gospel ; and 
 then thinks the cause is settled, and that the Protestants 
 being outlawed, they can never enjoy the rights and privileges 
 of true and honest citizens. 
 
 But are the churches of Europe all this while denying the 
 testimony of the Church ? By no means ! They only deny the 
 Church of Rome to be "the Church." They assent to the 
 dictum of Augustine; but they question Rome's peculiar, or 
 indeed any, property in the title. 
 
 But Dr. Milner and similar citers of Augustine might 
 agree about the meaning of these words, before using them, 
 or expecting such effects to follow the producing of them. 
 Augustine was dealing with the Manichseans, who, as Bishop 
 Canus b has shown, would have a certain Gospel of their own, 
 admitted without further dispute; in this case, he says 
 
 a Durand, 1, 3. Dist. 24, 9, 1, fo. ccxci. Paris, 1508. Driedo. de Eccl. 
 Script, et Dogm., lib. iv. c. 4. Gerson, de Vita Spir. Animse, lect. 2, Coroll. 7, 
 p. 24, torn. iii. pars 1. Paris, 1706. 
 
 b Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. ii. c. 8, p. 52. Colon. 1605. 
 
THE CANON OP SCRIPTURE. 87 
 
 Augustine puts the question, " What if you meet with one 
 who doth not believe the Gospel ? what motive would you 
 use to such an one to bring him to your belief ? I, for my 
 part," he says, " should not have been brought to embrace 
 the Gospel, if the Church's authority had not swayed with 
 me." And then goes on to show, that though the Church 
 may induce a person to accept with confidence the books 
 presented to him as Scripture, yet it cannot secure him the 
 possession of the "fidem Evangelii :" the external material 
 instrument it can produce and vouch for, but can do no more. 
 So that this Romish bishop gives a very different interpreta- 
 tion to Augustine's words from that of Dr. Milner. a " By the 
 mouth of God," said Augustine, " which is the truth, I know 
 the Church of God, which is partaker of the truth." b The 
 Church, in fact, with him is known from the Word of God. 
 
 Hooker does indeed admit the high value of the evidence 
 which, not the Church of Rome, but the Church Catholic, 
 affords to the Bible being the Word of God. He thus writes : 
 " The voice and testimony of the Church, acknowledging 
 Scripture to be the law of the living God, is for the truth and 
 certainty thereof no mean evidence. For if with reason we 
 may presume upon things which a few men's dispositions do 
 testify, suppose we that the minds of men are not both at 
 their first access to the school of Christ exceedingly moved, 
 yea, and for ever afterwards also confirmed much, when they 
 consider the main consent of all the churches in the whole 
 world witnessing the sacred authority of Scriptures, ever since 
 the first publication thereof even till this present day and 
 hour ? And that they all have always so testified, I see not 
 how we should possibly wish a proof more palpable, than 
 this manifest, received, and everywhere continued custom of 
 reading them publicly as the Scriptures. The reading there- 
 fore of the Woi \ c c God, as the use hath ever been, in open 
 audience, is the plainest evidence we have of the Church's 
 assent and acknowledgment that it is His Word." [Hooker, 
 Eccles. Polit. Book v. c. xxii. 2, p. 114, edit. Oxon. 1836. 
 The reference given by Dr. Milner, " c. iii. 8," is rather 
 unintelligible. We propose to return to this reference to 
 Hooker.] This language is too plain to need any explanation 
 from us ; the sentiment is so appropriate to the explanation of 
 Augustine, as given by the Romish Bishop Canus. But a 
 reader unacquainted with Hooker's "Ecclesiastical Polity" 
 would suppose that this justly esteemed writer admitted the 
 apocryphal works into the Canon of Scripture, based on the 
 
 a See Sir H. Lynde's "Via Devia," sect, xviii. p. 279. London, 1850. 
 b Aug. in Psal. 57, p. 545, torn. iv. Paris, 1681. 
 
88 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 imaginary tradition of the Church of Rome : on the contrary, 
 Hooker most clearly places all these works out of the Canon. 
 (See Book v. c. xx.) 
 
 We have consulted Dr. Lardner in Bishop Watson's col- 
 lection, vol. ii. p. 20, and can meet with no such a sentiment 
 as intimated by Dr. Milner. Whether Dr. Lardner ever 
 wrote such a passage or not, is of little consequence. Both 
 Hooker and Lardner do, of course, accept historical tra- 
 dition, as is well known, as one of the main proofs of the 
 present Canon of Scripture, apart from the Apocrypha ; and 
 though we have many arguments to support our views, t and 
 many additional reasons for refusing to accept the apocryphal 
 books, we have based our proofs in opposition to Dr. Milner 
 wholly on the historical tradition of the Church. 
 
 No. X. 
 
 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 Historical Misrepresentations with reference to the Reformation Henry VIII. 
 Duke of Somerset Queen Elizabeth The Reformation attributed to 
 Political causes : the avarice of the nobility and gentry, and the irre- 
 ligion and licentiousness of the people. a 
 
 THE Reformation of the Church of England, in the sixteenth 
 century, threw off the usurpation of the Pope, together with 
 the whole mass of perilous innovations in faith and practice 
 which had grown up in the Church of Rome during a thousand 
 years before. It was the result, under the favouring provi- 
 dence of God, of a general awakening of the minds of men 
 throughout Europe, forced into reluctant action by an accu- 
 mulation of abuses and oppression on the part of the priest- 
 hood, of which the last was the issuing of indulgences by 
 Pope Leo X., whose agents roused the indignant eloquence 
 of Luther. The movement, however, had its real commence- 
 ment in the latter part of the fourteenth century, when the 
 famous Wickliffe boldly attacked the authority of the Pope, 
 the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the temporalities of the 
 Church. He also assailed the doctrine of transubstantiation ; 
 but his most important work was the translation of the Bible 
 into English, after it had been, for so many ages, a sealed 
 book to the great body of the priests and to all the laity. 
 
 The preachings and the writings of this extraordinary 
 man, aided by his translation of the Scriptures, bore fruit 
 
 a The whole of this article is adapted from Bishop Hopkins's " Reply to 
 Milner." Letter III. 
 
REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 89 
 
 far and wide. Not only did he succeed in gathering around 
 him a numerous body of adherents, amongst the nobles as 
 well as the middling class in England, whom the Romanists 
 stigmatized with the name of Lollards, but he was the origin 
 of the effort towards reform in Bohemia, for which John 
 Huss and Jerome of Prague were condemned by the Council 
 of Constance, and suffered the agonies of martyrdom. Wick- 
 liffe himself, of course, was adjudged to be a heretic, and the 
 sword of Rome was raised against his followers with its 
 usual persecuting vigour. The Lollards 3 Tower yet remains, 
 attached to the Archiepiscopal palace at Lambeth, where 
 may still be seen the time-worn monuments of the cruelties 
 which gave it that name. As we gaze upon the gloomy walls 
 which imprisoned so many of the martyrs of the Bible, and 
 see the iron rings bolted in the oaken floor, to which they 
 had been chained in the bloody ages of Papal supremacy, 
 we cannot but feel, with an emotion of unspeakable gratitude, 
 the contrast between the mild and gentle government of the 
 Church of England and the savage and crushing despotism 
 which [in England] has passed away. 
 
 But although Rome succeeded, apparently, in extirpating 
 the influence of Wickliffe by her favourite weapons of the 
 dungeon and the stake, yet it can hardly be doubted that a 
 lasting impression had been made upon many thousand 
 minds, which contributed largely to the ultimate triumph of 
 the true Reformation in the sixteenth century. In many 
 respects, the notions of that eminent man were crude and 
 erroneous, and the thorough and effectual work required the 
 co-operation of various labourers before it could be brought 
 to a mature result. Luther, in Germany, led the way, fol- 
 lowed by Zuinglius and Calvin; and, far from wondering 
 that their views were in some respects mistaken and defective, 
 we are rather disposed to wonder that they should have been 
 so nearly right, and, in most points, so harmonious. The 
 reformers of England had the vast advantage of being last 
 in the field. From the commencement of Luther, in A.D. 
 1517, to the accession of Edward VI., in A.D. 1547, thirty 
 years elapsed, during which they were gradually finding their 
 way to the ground of the primitive Church, in doctrine, 
 worship, and discipline ; and several years in addition were 
 spent before the true system of Christianity, recovered from 
 the corrupt innovations of past ages, was prepared for the 
 adoption of Parliament. In A.D. 1553, Edward VI. was 
 succeeded by the bigoted and persecuting Mary, who laboured 
 hard to overthrow their work and re-establish the old bondage 
 of the Papacy. But the good providence of the Almighty made 
 
90 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 use of her bloody reign to fasten the heart of the nation more 
 strongly to the principles of the Reformation ; so that when 
 Elizabeth came to the throne, in A.D. 1558, the establishment 
 of the pure Gospel of Christ as laid down in the Scriptures, 
 and the system set forth by the Apostles as it existed in the 
 primitive Church, were hailed with general joy and accla- 
 mation. 
 
 To impeach this Reformation, therefore, and persuade 
 his readers that it was in all respects an unjustifiable and 
 even execrable violation of the laws of religious truth and 
 duty, is one of the great objects of Dr. Milner's book; and 
 it must be confessed that he assails it with a dexterity and 
 hardihood which prove him to be a master in the art of reck- 
 less vituperation. To trace him in his more important mis- 
 representations, and vindicate the truth of history and religion 
 from his attacks, is a weary and ungrateful task, but one 
 which bears its own reward in the highest sense of duty. 
 
 We proceed, therefore, to our author's mode of assigning 
 the cause, and describing the instruments and results, of the 
 British Reformation. And this is his statement of what he 
 considers the commencement of the work by Henry VIII., in 
 his eighth letter, p. 106 : " Becoming enamoured of Ann 
 Boleyn, one of the maids of honour to the queen, and the 
 reigning Pope refusing to sanction an adulterous marriage 
 with her, he caused a statute to be passed abrogating the 
 Pope's supremacy, and declaring himself the supreme head of 
 the Church in England. Thus he plunged the nation into 
 schism, and opened a way for every kind of heresy and 
 impiety. In short, nothing is more evident than that the 
 king's inordinate passion, and not the Word of God, was the 
 rule followed in this first important change of our national 
 religion." 
 
 And in another place he writes/ " Such was his [Henry 
 VIII/s] doctrine, till, becoming amorous of his queen's maid 
 of honour, Ann Boleyn, and finding the Pope conscientiously 
 inflexible in refusing to grant him a divorce from the former, 
 and to sanction an adulterous connection with the latter, he 
 set himself up as Supreme head of the Church of England, 
 and maintained his claim by the arguments of halters, knives, 
 and axes." 
 
 Saving only the facts that the English Parliament abo- 
 lished the supremacy of the Pope, and declared the king to 
 be the supreme head of all estates in England, whether civil 
 or ecclesiastical, this whole statement is utterly false from 
 
 * Letter xlvi. p. 445. 
 
HENRY VIII. AND ANN BOLEYN. 91 
 
 beginning to end. But to demonstrate this falsehood will 
 require a little patient attention to the truth of history. 
 
 The real aspect of the matter is as follows : Queen 
 Katherine, who was the first consort of Henry VIII., was 
 the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and was married, 
 from motives of state policy, to Prince Arthur,, the eldest son 
 of Henry VII., a youth of sixteen years of age, who died soon 
 afterwards. This marriage had no issue, and King Henry VII., 
 in order to keep up his alliance with Spain, and prevent the 
 widow from carrying her rich jointure out of England, re- 
 solved to have her wedded to his next son, Henry. The 
 ecclesiastical law, however, was opposed to such a union, and 
 there was no remedy for this but the obtaining the Pope's 
 dispensation. The Pontiff, Julius II., who was much more 
 of a soldier and a politician than of a divine, made no diffi- 
 culty about granting the king's request, and the marriage 
 between Henry and Katherine was solemnized accordingly, 
 while he was yet in his minority. 
 
 But the validity of the whole proceeding was denied at the 
 time by many. Not only several of the cardinals, but also 
 Warham, who was then Archbishop of Canterbury, and as 
 eminent for his learning as for his office, dissented from it 
 openly, as did others of the English bishops and divines, on 
 the ground that the marriage of a brother's wife was for- 
 bidden by the law of God in the Book of Leviticus, and 
 therefore the Pope had no power to give such a dispensation. 
 These objections made the young prince uneasy, and his 
 father also. Indeed, the king became so convinced of the 
 unlawfulness of the marriage, that he commanded his son, in 
 the presence of many of the nobility, to protest against it 
 when he came of age. In compliance with his wishes, the 
 'protestation was drawn up, the prince read it himself before 
 a public notary, June 27th, 1505, and it was lodged in the 
 hands of Fox, the Bishop of Winchester. By this instrument, 
 the prince declared, " that whereas he, being under age, was 
 married to the Princess Katherine ; yet now, coming to be 
 of age, he did not confirm that marriage, but annulled it, 
 and would not proceed in it, but intended, in full form of 
 law, to avoid it and break it off; which he declared that he 
 did freely, and of his own accord."* The affection which he 
 had for his consort, however, induced him to postpone any 
 further measures, until the death of his father, and his con- 
 sequent accession to the crown, again brought up the ques- 
 tion. It was debated warmly before the Council, where the 
 
 a Burnet's "History of the Eeformation," b. 2, vol. i. p. 45 Pp. 71, 
 edit. Oxford, 1829]. 
 
92 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 majority decided that the marriage should not be dissolved. 
 And as this decision accorded with Henry's personal feelings at 
 the time, they were again married publicly, and both crowned 
 soon afterwards. 
 
 This union, disputed from the first, had several issue, of 
 which two were sons, who died at an early age, and the third 
 was Mary, the same who was afterwards queen, and the only 
 offspring of Henry and Katherine who came to maturity. It 
 so happened, however, that her father, having entered into a 
 negotiation with the King of France to marry this, his only 
 child, either to Francis himself, or to his son, the Duke of 
 Orleans, was struck with mortification and alarm when the 
 Bishop of Tarbes, who was the French ambassador, objected 
 that the Princess Mary was illegitimate, being the fruit of a 
 marriage contracted against the divine law, from which no 
 human authority could grant a dispensation.* This revived 
 the former scruples of Henry. Those scruples were further 
 strengthened by his favourite, Cardinal Wolsey, and by 
 Longland, the Bishop of Lincoln, who was the king's con- 
 fessor. He examined the Book of Leviticus, and found it 
 there recorded, that if a man took his brother's wife, he 
 shoud die childless ; and he began to look upon the untimely 
 death of his two sons as a punishment, according to this very 
 menace, for his unlawful marriage. He read the most 
 learned casuists, and especially Thomas Aquinas, and saw 
 that they were against him. He then commanded the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury to take the opinion of the bishops of 
 England upon the question. And the result was that all, 
 with the solitary exception of Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 
 declared in writing, under their hands and seals, that the 
 marriage was null and void from the beginning, since the Pope, 
 although he had full power to grant a dispensation from the 
 laws of the Church, had no warrant to authorize the violation 
 of the law of God, which, as they maintained, expressly for- 
 bade the taking of a brother's widow. b 
 
 The king being now completely convinced that the French 
 bishop was right, and that his marriage was illegal,his next 
 movement was to apply to the Pope, through Cardinal 
 Wolsey, for a decree to annul it, or to grant him a divorce. 
 For this, the arguments chiefly insisted on were the unlaw- 
 fulness of the marriage, and the manifest fact that the ques- 
 tion affected the succession of the English throne, since it 
 was evident that the Princess Mary, if illegitimate, might 
 
 * Burnet's "History of the Reformation," vol. i. p. 49 [p. 74. Oxford, 1829]. 
 b Ibid. vol. i. p. 50 [p. 76]. See Turner's " Modern Hist, of England," 
 vol. ii. pp. 142 153. London, 1828. 
 
HENRY VIII. AND ANN BOLEYN. 93 
 
 have her title disputed, and Henry, in his present circum- 
 stances, could have no other issue. Such an application was 
 certainly just and reasonable. We all know that Napoleon, 
 the first French emperor, found it an easy matter to obtain a 
 divorce from Josephine, in order that he might marry an 
 Austrian princess, on the mere ground that he might thus 
 have a hope of an heir to his imperial sceptre, although, in 
 that case, there was no question as to the validity of his mar- 
 riage. Why, then, should the request of Henry VIII. have 
 met with so much difficulty ? He had hitherto proved himself 
 a devoted servant to the Papacy. He had even published a 
 book against Luther, in return for which act of royal author- 
 ship the Pope had sent him the golden rose, which was the 
 chief compliment to princes, and had added to his other titles 
 the new and flattering appellation of " Defender of the Faith." 
 How therefore, did it happen, that the Pontiff adopted a 
 course so unaccommodating towards this his favourite son 
 in the sixteenth century ? 
 
 The answer is perfectly plain upon the face of history. 
 Clement VII., the reigning Pope, had been engaged in a war 
 against Charles V., the Emperor of Germany, and was actu- 
 ally, at the very time, a prisoner in the monarch's hands, 
 negotiating for his own release, and for a treaty of pacifica- 
 tion. And Charles was the nephew of Queen Katherine, and 
 held that the honour of her powerful house was implicated in 
 the question. Her own pride of character, and that of all 
 her kindred, naturally revolted at the idea that her marriage 
 should be pronounced unlawful from the beginning, thus 
 bringing an ineffaceable stain upon her own wedded life, and 
 through her, casting humiliation upon the majesty of Arragon. 
 And hence the emperor was violently opposed to the course 
 of Henry VIII., and the Pope was at the mercy of the 
 emperor. If Katherine of Arragon had been unprotected, 
 as was Josephine of France, or if Henry VIII. had been the 
 virtual master of the Pope's dominions, as was the Emperor 
 Napoleon, the question would probably have been settled in 
 his favour at once, without the slightest prevarication. 
 
 As it was, however, the evidence is sufficiently complete 
 that the Pope was well inclined towards Henry's application. 
 He had effected his escape from confinement, but still felt 
 himself obliged to temporize, delay, and evade a direct deci- 
 sion of the main question, from policy, lest he should provoke 
 the resentment of Charles, and involve himself in new trou- 
 bles. Nevertheless, he went very far in favour of the king's 
 request. This is fully proved by the Papal historian, Lin- 
 gard, notwithstanding the decided bias towards his Church 
 
94 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 which is apparent through his whole elaborate work. We 
 need hardly say, that his testimony, even to the mind of our 
 Roman Catholic readers, ought to be conclusive. We pray, 
 them to observe, therefore, particularly, his distinct state- 
 ment, " that the Pope signed two instruments presented to 
 him by the envoys of King Henry the one authorizing Car- 
 dinal Wolsey to decide the question of the divorce in England, 
 as the Papal legate, and the other 'granting to Henry a dis- 
 pensation to marry, in the place of Katherine, any other woman 
 whomsoever, even if she were already promised to another, or 
 related to himself within the first degree of affinity' ' The 
 Pontiff further expressed his opinion in favour of this latter 
 course in these extraordinary terms : ee The king is said by 
 some to have chosen a most circuitous route. If he be con- 
 vinced in his conscience, as he affirms, that his present marriage 
 is null, HE MIGHT MARRY AGAIN. This would enable me or 
 the legate to decide the question at once. Otherwise it is plain 
 that by appeals, exceptions, and adjournments, the case must be 
 protracted for many years" 3 - 
 
 Here, then, we beg our Roman Catholic readers to mark 
 how completely their reckless partisan, Milner, is contradicted 
 by the Pope himself, on the clear testimony of their own his- 
 torian. " Becoming enamoured," saith this favourite author, 
 " of Ann Boleyn, one of the maids of honour of the queen, and 
 the reigning Pope refusing to sanction an adulterous marriage 
 with her," &c. But, in fact, the Pope was so far from refusing 
 the application of Henry, that, on the contrary, he authorized 
 Cardinal Wolsey to decide the question of the divorce, as the 
 Papal legate in England, being perfectly aware at the time 
 that Wolsey held the marriage to be invalid, and was, besides, 
 the obsequious and devoted servant of the king. And more- 
 over, he sent a dispensation to Henry, allowing him to marry, 
 in the place of Katherine, any woman whomsoever, even if she 
 were already promised to another ! Did that look like a 
 refusal of the Pope to sanction his marriage to Anne Boleyn ? 
 
 This, however, is not the only evidence which the same 
 Pontiff has furnished on the particular point of Milner's 
 calumny. " It had been intimated to Pope Clement," saith 
 the Romish historian Lingard, " that the real object of the 
 king was to gratify the ambition of a woman who had sacri- 
 ficed her honour to his passion, on condition that he should 
 raise her to the throne. But after the perusal of a letter from 
 Wolsey, the Pontiff believed, or at least professed to believe, 
 that Ann Boleyn was a lady of unimpeachable character, and 
 
 a Lingard's "History of England," Dunigan's edition of 1848, vol. vi. 
 pp. 128-9. 
 
HENRY VIII. AND ANN BOLEYN. 95 
 
 that the suit of Henry proceeded from sincere and conscientious 
 scruples.'' a 
 
 Thus we have this favourite Dr. Milner presenting the 
 action of the Pope in one light, while the Pope himself pre- 
 sents the very contrary ! What sense of truth or decency 
 could have governed a writer who was thus ready to blacken 
 the character of the dead in the face of the highest testimony, 
 if, by so doing, he thought that he could stain, directly or 
 indirectly, the Reformed Church of England ? For no inge- 
 nuity can reconcile his statements with the facts. According 
 to Milner, the king desired the Pope to sanction an adulterous 
 marriage : according to the Pope, the application of Henry 
 proceeded from sincere and conscientious scruples. According 
 to Milner, Ann Boleyn was accessory to the monarch's sin : 
 according to the Pope, she was a lady of unimpeachable cha- 
 racter. According to Milner, the Pope refused the request 
 of Henry : according to Lingard, he was so far from refusing, 
 that he authorized Cardinal Wolsey, the king's most zealous 
 partisan, to decide the case, as Papal legate. According to 
 Milner, the Pope would not sanction Henry's marriage with 
 Anne Boleyn : according to the historian, the Pontiff gave 
 him a dispensation to marry, instead of Katherine, any woman 
 he chose, and even advised him to take that course, as the 
 quickest and easiest mode of settling the question ! How 
 plainly does this prove that the Pontiff, at this time, felt con- 
 fident of a final decision in favour of Henry, and how utterly 
 impossible to justify his own course, if he had doubted the 
 substantial justice and propriety of the monarch's application ! 
 
 But however cordial the Pontiff may have been, the 
 critical circumstances in which he found himself, with refer- 
 ence to the emperor, effectually deterred him from a firm or 
 decided course of action. His cardinals were divided in 
 opinion, and many of the more influential insisted that he 
 must delay and temporize until the imperial troops should 
 be driven out of Italy. Wolsey himself shrunk from the 
 responsibility of deciding the question of divorce without a 
 colleague, and requested that Cardinal Campeggio might 
 be united with him in the Papal commission. The applica- 
 tion was granted. After a considerable delay, Campeggio 
 arrived. The Court opened their sessions, and the queen 
 being summoned, refused to answer any authority below that 
 of the Pope himself, and appealed. The cause was evoked 
 to Rome, on the demand of the emperor, and thus three 
 years were wasted, and the king found himself no nearer to a 
 
 a Ib. vol. vi. p. 133. 
 
96 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 decision than he was at the beginning. About this time, 
 Cranmer suggested that the opinion of the foreign universities 
 should be taken ; and as it had now become apparent that 
 the Pope, influenced by political expediency, had changed his 
 course, and united his interests with the emperor, Henry re- 
 solved to submit the question to the principal learned Faculties 
 and Canonists of Europe, and abide by their decision. 
 
 The result was as follows : The judgment of the English 
 Bishops (all of whom, except Fisher, had affirmed, under 
 their hands and seals, the nullity of the king's marriage with 
 Katherine) was ratified and approved 
 
 1. By the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. 
 
 2. By the celebrated Faculty of the Sorbonne, at Paris. 
 
 3. By the divines of Bologna. 
 
 4. By the University of Padua. 
 
 5. By the divines of Ferrara. 
 
 6. By the University of Orleans. 
 
 7. By the Faculty of Canon Law at Paris. 
 
 8. By the Faculties of the Civil and Canon Law at 
 Angiers. 
 
 9. By the Faculty of divines at Bourges. 
 
 10. By the University of Toulouse. 
 
 11. By the most famous Jewish Rabbins. These were 
 consulted because the question involved the construction of 
 Leviticus, which was a portion of the Jewish law. And 
 they all decided that the Mosaic rule, by which a man should 
 marry his deceased brother's wife, in case there was no issue 
 by her former husband (the main argument of the imperial 
 party), was a local law, confined to Judea on account of its 
 connection with the orginal division of the land, and there- 
 fore not operative upon the Jews who resided in any other 
 country ; while the law forbidding the marriage of a brother's 
 wife, on the contrary, was a general law, which bound them 
 everywhere. 
 
 12. And lastly ; the same judgment was given, on their 
 individual responsibility, by a large number of eminent 
 canonists and divines in Rome itself, in Venice, and many 
 other places. 
 
 Such being the result, the king determined at length to 
 pursue the course advised by the Pope himself at the begin- 
 ning, and married Ann Boleyn privately on the 14th day of 
 November, 1532. But neither did this marriage, nor the 
 consultation of the universities, nor the refusal of Henry 
 to obey the citation of the Pontiff personally to appear at 
 Rome, in the still pending matter of the divorce, produce, 
 as yet, any open rupture. Hence, the Pope made no objec- 
 

 ENRY VIII. AND ANN BOLEYN. 
 
 tions against Cranmer, who was appointed Archbishop of CStisfe 
 terbury on the death of War ham. And the usual bull for his 
 consecration, together with the pallium, was sent from Rome 
 without delay, notwithstanding the perfect knowledge that 
 the king's course had been prompted by this favourite coun- 
 sellor's suggestions. 
 
 The declaration of the king's supremacy, however, fol- 
 lowed soon afterwards, and annihilated, at one blow, the 
 Papal power in England. Yet all the English bishops con- 
 sented to it, except Fisher, the bishop of Rochester, and all 
 the English laymen of eminence, except Sir Thomas More. 
 Nor can it be censured on any ground of Scripture or of 
 reason. Neither can it be truly denied that the act was 
 justifiable, according to the practice of the primitive Church. 
 To understand it rightly, however, it is necessary to advert to 
 the state of matters under the Papacy. 
 
 For a long period prior to this assertion of the king's 
 prerogative, the clergy enjoyed a complete immunity from 
 the administration of secular justice. They were only 
 amenable to the Church, and the courts of the king could not 
 call them personally to account for any enormity. Whatever 
 crimes they might perpetrate, whatever disorders they might 
 commit, whatever evil example they might set before the 
 community, they could laugh to scorn the powers of national 
 law so long as they enjoyed the Papal favour. Not only 
 were they thus secure in their own persons, but they were 
 the guardians of all the villains in the land ; for every church, 
 with a certain space around it, was a sanctuary of refuge, 
 and if the thief, the murderer, "or the robber, could get 
 within the line of its protection, the officers of justice were 
 set at naught; and thus the priests became the standing 
 obstacles to right, and the safeguard of the grossest iniquity. 
 We shall see, by-and-by, the application which had been made 
 by Henry VII. to the Pope to have this nuisance done away, 
 and the very small success which attended his urgent petition. 
 
 Besides these evils, the supremacy of the Pope operated 
 directly upon the wealth and the safety of the nation. Enor- 
 mous sums were annually carried out of the kingdom to 
 Rome, in the shape of Peter-pence, first-fruits, offerings, and 
 presents, to say nothing of the frequent demands of subsidies, 
 and the expenses of parties and witnesses who were obliged 
 to submit to the appellate jurisdiction of the Pontiff. The 
 prerogatives claimed by the Pope, moreover, gave him the 
 power of filling the English sees with foreigners, and the 
 expenses attendant upon the legatine authority were often 
 oppressive and severe. 
 
98 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 For all this there was not a particle of real authority in 
 the Bible, in reason, or in the primitive Church. It was per- 
 fectly undeniable that the whole despotic system was a usur- 
 pation, which came Rafter the time of William the Conqueror. 
 It was certain that the Christian bishops of the early ages 
 were subject to the civil ruler, to the emperors and magis- 
 trates, in all the temporal relations of their lives and proper- 
 ties. It was demonstrable that they held the sovereign to be 
 the supreme head of the clergy as well as of the laity in all 
 the ordinary interests of law and justice, and that even in 
 matters of faith, from the time of Constantine, the monarch's 
 assent was necessary to give practical validity to the decrees 
 of Councils. Such was the supremacy which Henry VIII. 
 determined to reclaim : the same supremacy which was exer- 
 cised by the kings of ancient Israel the same supremacy 
 which was exercised by the Christian emperors for more than 
 ten centuries. And therefore he was clearly right, on every 
 ground of argument which stands properly connected with 
 the question. 
 
 Thus, then, we trust that we have fully disproved the 
 assertions of Dr. Milner, in reference to the acts of 
 Henry VIII. We have shown that the Pope did not refuse 
 to sanction the marriage of the king with Ann Boleyn, but 
 sent him, on the contrary, a dispensation to marry any 
 woman whatever ; that instead of the Pontiff imputing to 
 either of them an adulterous design, he expressed himself 
 satisfied thatHenry's scruples were sincere and conscientious, 
 and that Ann Boleyn was a lady of unimpeachable character ; 
 that instead of the refusal of the Pope producing the Act 
 declaring the king's supremacy, the application for the divorce 
 was still pending at Rome at the time when that Act was 
 passed, and thus far the Pope had refused nothing, but had 
 only put off the decision, by policy and prevarication; that 
 instead of the king's " inordinate passion " being the cause 
 which induced Henry to insist on his supremacy, as Milner 
 so positively asserts, he had actually married Ann Boleyn 
 after the judgment of the universities had been pronounced 
 in his favour, A.D. 1532 ; and this marriage produced no rup- 
 ture with the Pope, who showed his desire to accommodate 
 the king by forwarding, at his request, the biill for Cranmer's 
 consecration the year after. a 
 
 a The dates, as given by the historian Burnet, will show the course of the 
 whole matter precisely : 
 
 A. D. 1501, Nov. 14. Prince Arthur married Katherine of Arragon. [Vol. i. 
 
 p. 71. Edit. Oxford, 1828.] 
 1502, April 2. He died. (Ib.) 
 
HENRY VIII. AND ANN BOLEYN. 99 
 
 But in tlie face of all historical evidence, Milner boldly 
 insists that the conduct of Henry VIII. was the sole result of 
 an adulterous attachment to Ann Boleyn. " Nothing is more 
 evident/' saith he, " than that the king's inordinate passion, 
 and not the Word of God, was the rule followed in this first 
 important change of our national religion." How marvellous 
 that he could not see how such a charge, if true, rebounded 
 against his own infallible Church ! For the course of Henry 
 was approved, 1st, by all the English bishops except Fisher ; 
 2nd, by the Pope himself at the beginning, though two 
 years afterwards he was gained over by the emperor ; 3rd, by 
 the foreign universities, faculties, divines, and canonists of 
 Europe ; 4th, by many of the Roman cardinals. And Henry 
 all this time was a devoted Romanist, and all who concurred 
 with him belonged to the same communion ! Did Milner's 
 anxiety to blacken the Reformation blind his eyes to the 
 
 A.D. 1503, Dec. 26. Pope Julius granted the bull of dispensation, in order 
 that Prince Henry might marry the widow, and they 
 were united accordingly. 
 1505, June 27. Prince Henry, by his father's command, protested 
 
 against the marriage, being then of age. [p. 71 .] 
 1509, April 22. The old king died, advising his son to break off the 
 
 marriage. (Ib.) 
 
 ,, June 3. The Council advise the contrary, and the king preferring 
 that course, he was married again publicly. (Ib.) 
 
 1527, April. The French king's ambassador demurs about the 
 
 Princess Mary's legitimacy. [p. 73.] 
 
 Cardinal Wolsey and Longland, the king's confessor, 
 
 revive the old scruples of the king, who examines 
 the question for himself. [p. 74.] 
 
 The English bishops, except Fisher, all concur against 
 
 the marriage. [p. 76.] 
 
 Dec. 5. The application for the divorce sent to the Pope [p. 90], 
 but the king's agent could not gain admission to him, 
 as he was the emperor's prisoner [p. 94 ; but by 
 corrupting some of the guards the king's demands 
 were made known, when the Pope sent word that 
 the dispensation should be granted.] 
 
 ,, 9. The Pope escapes to Orvieto. (Ib.) 
 
 1528, January. About the beginning of the next month, the Pope signs 
 
 the documents referred to by Lingard. 
 
 1529, July 25. The cause evoked to Rome. 
 
 1530, The Universities consulted. 
 
 1532, Nov. 14. The king married Ann Boleyn. [p. 255.] 
 
 1533, Feb. 21. The bulls signed at Kome for Cranmer's consecration. 
 
 [p. 259.] 
 Sept. 7. Queen Elizabeth born. [p. 271.] 
 
 1534, Mar. 20. Act abolishing the Pope's power passed in Parliament 
 
 [p. 292.] King's supremacy declared. [p. 318.] 
 23. Sentence of the Pope against the divorce in Rome. 
 
 [p. 275.] 
 
 Burnet, moreover, states expressly, that Henry " was beforehand with the 
 Court of Rome ;" that ''the Pope's power had then been for four years together 
 much examined and disputed," and therefore the subject was thoroughly 
 canvassed before the Parliament decided upon the act of abolition. [p. 277.] 
 
 H 2 
 
100 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 inevitable consequence of his own assertion ? Did he forget 
 that if Henry VIII. pursued his course without any just 
 ground, and only to gratify an inordinate passion, the whole 
 of these bishops, cardinals, divines, universities, canonists, 
 and even the Pope himself, were guilty as his accomplices ? 
 Did he forget that all this took place several years before the 
 Reformation ? That all the actors in it were the members 
 and the clergy of his own Church ? That Henry VIII., in 
 every point except the supremacy of the Pope in England, 
 remained a bigoted and persecuting adherent to Romanism 
 to his dying day? That, in fact, the true work which 
 restored the Church of England to the privileges of the pri- 
 mitive apostolic faith did not begin until the accession of 
 Edward VI., in A. D. 1547 ; so that thirteen years elapsed 
 after the Act of Supremacy, in 1534, during which all the 
 Romanists in England, save Fisher and More, submitted to 
 Henry's dictation. 
 
 And now, although we have occupied so large a space in 
 proving the falsehood of Milner's statements, as well for the 
 sake of historical truth as to demonstrate the utter treachery 
 of the guide who is so strongly recommended by Roman 
 Catholics, yet we do not hold Henry VIII., in any proper 
 sense, as a reformer of the Church of England. In the matter 
 of his divorce from Katherine the general sense of Rome was 
 with him. In the matter of his supremacy, to the exclusion of 
 the Pope, it was not so much a point of religion as a point of 
 government. All the bishops, save Fisher, took the new oath 
 without scruple, and all the clergy, save the Franciscans, did 
 the same. Hence. Fisher and More did not suffer as heretics, 
 but as TRAITORS, under the Act of Parliament ; and the whole 
 charge against them was confined to the secular offence of 
 opposing what was now the established law of the land. 
 
 We fully admit, however, that although Henry VIII. 
 was no reformer, he was undoubtedly an instrument in the 
 hand of God to prepare the way for the Reformation. To 
 this end, he overthrew the supremacy of the Pope and the 
 monastic system in England. As Jehu was appointed to 
 execute the judgment of Heaven against the house of Ahab 
 and the worshippers of Baal, and executed the task, while he 
 was himself a friend to idolatry : so Henry was appointed to 
 destroy the usurped power of the Pope and the superstitious 
 influence of the monasteries, notwithstanding he was, in all 
 things else, the friend and patron of Romanism. The Church 
 of Christ, as planted by the Apostles, was like a noble temple, 
 round which the hand of barbarous and wanton innovation 
 had erected an unsightly pile, thus spoiling its effect, and 
 
EDWARD VI. 101 
 
 concealing its fair proportions. To tear down the walls of 
 this, and bear away the* rubbish, would be the first step 
 towards the restoration of the original fabric. And such 
 was the work which, in part, was assigned to Henry. 
 The repairing and refitting the temple itself, so as to exhibit 
 to every eye its pristine beauty, was a very different task, 
 and was committed, in the wisdom of God, to a very different 
 instrumentality. 
 
 We have already said that the act of Henry VIII., in 
 abolishing the Pope's supremacy in England, and taking 
 possession of the monasteries, produced no reformation. He 
 may have been, as Romish writers paint him, a lustful and 
 bloody tyrant. But with that we have nothing to do. He 
 was bred and educated in the school of Romanism. He 
 was even more than commonly well read in the religion of 
 his day, and exhibited his erudition, to the admiration of the 
 Pope and the bishops, in his book against Luther, which 
 gained him the title of " Defender of the Faith." We doubt 
 not that if he had continued, in all respects, an obedient son 
 of Rome, the world would have heard very little of his 
 cruelty or his despotism. As to the first, it was a small 
 matter in comparison with the tortures and fiery death 
 inflicted by the Romish Inquisition, and universally sanctioned 
 throughout Europe previous to the Reformation. And as to 
 the second, it did not exceed the common measure of sove- 
 reigns in that age, and for centuries before. Towards his 
 wives his conduct was only severe when he believed them to 
 be faithless. None of them, from Katherine of Arragon 
 down to Katherine Parr, ever complained of his ill-treatment. 
 The famous Charlemagne had four wives at once, and yet 
 his name was inserted by many churches on the catalogue 
 of saints. Louis XIV. kept mistresses constantly under 
 the eyes of his queen, yet he was a prodigious favourite 
 with Romish bishops and! clergy. Compared with either of 
 them, or with the ordinary list of Roman Catholic sovereign 
 princes, Henry VIII. was a pattern of continence and de- 
 corum. With all this, it must be granted that he had an 
 extraordinary power of gaining and keeping the affection and 
 confidence of his subjects j so that the sole motive to which 
 we must attribute the pre-eminence of his evil character 
 amongst writers of the Church of Rome, must be their deter- 
 mination to stigmatize him because he broke the bands and 
 yokes of Papal domination. 
 
 The true work of reformation, however, was reserved for 
 the reign of his son, Edward VI., who came to the crown 
 when he was only eleven years old, and died at the early age 
 
102 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 of sixteen. Against him Milner can say nothing, save that 
 he was a boy ! But this boy was a prodigy of learning, wis- 
 dom, and piety, which we might defy the history of Europe to 
 equal. We all know that many cases have occurred of boys, 
 whose precocious development of intellect in mathematics, 
 music, and dramatic skill, has astonished the oldest and most 
 accomplished minds of their time. We all know that it has 
 sometimes pleased the Almighty to manifest His grace to 
 children in a manner quite as wonderful, of which the youth- 
 ful Samuel, called to be a prophet at an earlier age than 
 Edward was called to be a king, was a marked example. We 
 even find the principle recorded in Scripture, where the 
 Psalmist, addressing the Deity, saith : " In the mouth of babes 
 and sucklings thou hast perfected praise," a passage which 
 the great Redeemer rendered memorable by employing it in 
 His stern rebuke of the Pharisees, when they found fault 
 with the children crying in the temple, " Hosanna to the Son 
 of David/' The sneers of Milner, therefore, with respect to 
 Edward's youth, are not merely absurd, but savour of impiety. 
 That surprising boy was a man in intellect, and a saint in 
 virtue. Precocious in all respects, the victim of consump- 
 tion, which cut him off so soon, and which is well known to 
 be usually connected with a premature unfolding of the rea- 
 soning faculties, his attainments and his character were the 
 constant subjects of astonishment and delight to all around 
 him. And as his name has thus far bid defiance to the 
 calumny of Romanists, we doubt not that it will shine as 
 a bright star upon the page of history long after the memory 
 of those who mock his youth shall have sunk into oblivion." 
 
 The leading men amongst the reformers who carried on 
 the work under the patronage of their saint-like young sove- 
 reign, were Cra'nmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper. And 
 although there may be some flaws found by an ingenious 
 and unscrupulous adversary, like Milner, in their personal 
 consistency, yet we may safely challenge their enemies to 
 name an equal number of English Romanists in their day who 
 stood upon the same exalted height of Christian virtue. 
 
 We come now to another tissue of misrepresentations, 
 which this bold and reckless advocate has crowded, with his 
 usual skill, into a single paragraph, although it will require 
 many paragraphs to expose their falsity. Thus he avers that 
 " the unprincipled Duke of Somerset," who was the uncle of 
 the youthful king, and held the highest office in the govern- 
 ment, " pushed on the Reformation, so called, much further 
 
 a Burnet, "History of the Reformation," vol. iii. pp. 2, 3. 
 
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET. 103 
 
 than it had yet been carried, with a view to the gratification 
 of his own ambitious and avaricious purposes. He suppressed 
 the remaining colleges and hospitals which the profligacy of 
 Henry had spared, converting their revenues to his own use, 
 and that of his associates. He forced Cranmer and the other- 
 Bishops to take out fresh commissions for governing their 
 dioceses during his nephew's that is to say, his own good 
 pleasure. He made a great number of important changes in 
 the public worship by his own authority, or that of his 
 visitors ; and when he employed certain Bishops and divines 
 in forming fresh Articles and a new Liturgy, he punished 
 them with imprisonment if they were not obedient to his 
 orders. a He even took upon him to alter their work, when 
 sanctioned by Parliament, in compliment to the Church's 
 greatest enemy, Calvin." [Letter viii. pp. 106-7.] 
 
 The whole of this, however, is a mere string of misre- 
 presentations. For, 1st, the Reformation was prosecuted 
 vigorously, says Burnet in his history, by CRANMER, who had 
 upon his side several of the Bishops Holgate, of York ; 
 Holbeck, of Lincoln; Goodrick, of Ely; and, above all, 
 Ridley, of Rochester, afterwards of London. Old Latimer 
 was discharged from imprisonment, to which Henry VIII. 
 had consigned him on account of his opposition to the Six 
 Articles of the Papal doctrine which that monarch had 
 resolved to maintain, but declined any public station, and 
 employed himself solely in preaching the doctrines of the 
 Reformation. Somerset was " firmly united with Cranmer 
 in his design" says the same historian ; but Milner' s statement 
 makes him the leader, instead of the Bishops, to whose office 
 it belonged. This fabrication, therefore, was set forth by 
 this favourite champion in order to deceive his ignorant or 
 careless readers into the false idea that the work was the mere 
 product of an ambitious and avaricious politician. Yet nothing 
 can be more contrary to the truth of history. b 
 
 2nd. The remaining colleges and hospitals which Milner 
 states to have been suppressed by Somerset, and the revenues 
 applied to his own uses, must be an allusion, not to the act 
 of Somerset, but to the Act of the first Parliament, which 
 gave the CHANTRIES, COLLEGES, AND CHAPELS, to the king, to 
 be applied " to the maintenance of grammar-schools, to the 
 support of preachers, and the increase of vicarages." This 
 act was opposed by Cranmer and seven other Bishops ; but 
 it passed, notwithstanding. It is a manifest perversion, how- 
 
 a Here Dr. Milner adds as a note, " The Bishops Heath and Gardiner were 
 both imprisoned for non-compliance." 
 
 * Burnet, vol. iii. p. 32. Ib. p. 60-1. 
 
104 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 ever, to represent it as if it were the work of Somerset's 
 single authority. 
 
 3rd. The third fabrication of Milner states, that "he 
 forced Cranmer and the other Bishops to take out fresh com- 
 missions for governing their dioceses during his nephew's 
 that is, his own good pleasure ;" the truth being, that the act 
 passed by the whole Privy Council, appointed by the will of 
 Henry VIII., in pursuance of the course adopted during the 
 reign of that monarch, Cranmer being one of the Council, 
 and recommending the measure, both by precept and example, 
 as a prudent precaution under present circumstances. But 
 it was intended only as a temporary thing, and it was neither, 
 as Milner asserts, the single act of Somerset, nor was it forced 
 at all.* 
 
 4th. The appointment of visitors, with injunctions, the 
 preparation of the first Book of Homilies to supply the lack 
 of sermons to the people, the order to read publicly certain 
 portions of Scripture, &c., were also the work of the whole 
 Privy Council, under Cranmer's advice, and in no respect 
 the act of Somerset's sole authority ; b and the imprison- 
 ment of Bonner and Gardiner was rendered necessary by 
 their resistance to these injunctions, with which all the other 
 bishops had complied. 
 
 5th. And the last of these statements is equally untrue, 
 that " Somerset took upon him to alter the work* of the 
 bishops, in compliment to Calvin, the Church's greatest enemy." 
 What is meant by Calvin's being the greatest enemy of the 
 Church, is indeed ambiguous. If the word Church be referred 
 to the Church of Rome , the epithet may be consistent with 
 the idea of Romanists, who suppose their Church to be inca- 
 pable of improvement; but certainly quite inconsistent with 
 those even among themselves (and there are, thank God, 
 many such) who earnestly long to see her reformed. If, on 
 the other hand, our author intended to say that Calvin was 
 the greatest enemy of the Church of England, it is a very 
 gross mistake; for he was in friendly correspondence with 
 the reformers throughout. He even tliought seriously of 
 uniting all the Reformed Churches to that of England, and 
 is reported to have proposed the measure to King Edward 
 in a letter, which the Papal party suppressed. But it was 
 Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his episcopal 
 colleagues, who were the leading persons in the whole work, 
 according to their office; and the resolutions of the Privy 
 Council, under the will of the late king, together with the 
 
 a Burnet, " History of the Reformation," vol. iii. p. 7 
 b Ib. pp. 35-7. 
 
QUEEN ELIZABETH. 105 
 
 hearty assent of Edward himself, were the authority by which 
 they acted in every change of the existing system. 
 
 A few specimens of this, as given by the historian Burnet, 
 may be here set down by way of illustration. There were in 
 the Churches some images of the blessed Trinity, in which 
 the Father was represented sitting on the one hand, as an 
 old man, with a triple crown, and rays about him ; the Son 
 on the other hand, as a young man, with a crown and rays ; 
 and the Blessed Virgin between them, and the emblem of 
 the Holy Ghost, a Dove, spread over her head. And there 
 was a great variety of other images, all which the Council 
 resolved should be removed; and Somerset, who was the 
 Lord Protector during the king's minority, and, by virtue of. 
 this office, the President of the Council, wrote to Cranmer, 
 that he might give order accordingly. a Again, we find that 
 Cranmer compiled a Catechism. 5 And again, the Parlia- 
 ment, A.I). 1548, in order that there might be a perfect uni- 
 formity throughout the whole kingdom, gave their sanction 
 to the Liturgy and offices which the king, by the advice of the 
 Lord Protector, and the Council, had appointed the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, with other learned and discreet bishops 
 and divines, to draw up. c We see, therefore, throughout, 
 the utter falsehood of the statement that the Reformation, in 
 Edward's time, was the work of Somerset, for his own ambi- 
 tious and avaricious purposes. And thus we have another 
 specimen of the reckless spirit of this FAVOURITE AUTHOR. 
 
 Erom this tissue of misrepresentations Milner proceeds 
 to another. ' ' When Elizabeth came to the throne," says he, 
 " a new Reformation, different in its Articles and Liturgy 
 from that of Edward VI., was set on foot, and moulded, not 
 according to Scripture, but to her orders. She deposed all 
 the bishops except one, * * * and she required the new 
 ones, whom she appointed, to renounce certain exercises 
 which they declared to be agreeable to the Word of God, but 
 which she found not to agree with her system of politics." 
 [Letter viii. p. 107.] 
 
 Of this set of assertions thus much is true, viz., that 
 Elizabeth deprived every bishop save one, the reason being, 
 that only one would consent to her coronation ; and hence 
 the rest exposed themselves to be dealt with as traitors. 
 Under those circumstances, they should have been thankful 
 that their lives were spared ; and the notion that she should 
 have allowed them to continue as bishops is simply ridiculous. 
 But it is perfectly false that the Reformation, re-established 
 
 a Burnet, vol. iii. p. 79. b Ib. p. 93. c Ib. p. 122. 
 
106 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 under Elizabeth, differed from that which was finally settled 
 under Edward VI., in a single doctrine or principle. The 
 few alterations which were made were mere matters of verbal 
 expediency, designed to remove needless offence to the 
 remaining Romanists, who had shown a general willingness 
 to attend the Church, and who would doubtless have soon 
 conformed entirely, if the Pope's excommunication of the 
 queen, together with the strenuous efforts of Jesuit mission- 
 aries, 3 had not roused their zeal into opposition. 
 
 As to the " exercises " which Dr. Milner says she required 
 the new bishops to " renounce" they were not exercises 
 authorized by the bishops at any time, but were mere irregular 
 meetings, got up among some of the laity, conducted in 
 the Puritan style, under the name of Prophesying*, and of 
 course liable, in that day, to produce disorder. Archbishop 
 Grindal thought them likely to be edifying, or at least harm- 
 less ; but most of the other bishops, as well as Elizabeth 
 herself, were of a different opinion, ' and therefore he was 
 requested to discourage them. With what propriety, then, 
 could this be called a renunciation required of the new bishops ? 
 How could they renounce what they never had adopted? 
 
 These examples exhibit the character of Milner's book 
 throughout. He seems to have been utterly incapable of 
 writing with candour or truth, when the facts or instruments 
 of the Reformation were in question. And there is an easy, 
 dashing, confident air in his style of falsification, which shows 
 him to have been a perfect master in the art. But yet his 
 effrontery is astonishing, when we look at the contrast 
 between the treatment of bishops under the Romish kings, 
 and that which they received under the reformed sovereigns 
 of England. When Charles Y. seized the person of the Pope 
 himself, and held him a prisoner when Henry VIII. suc- 
 cessfully insisted that all his Romish bishops should agree to 
 abolish the Papal supremacy, and substitute his own, and 
 suppress monasteries when Queen Mary, instead of being 
 content with deposing Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper, 
 and confining them for a season, burned them alive at the 
 stake, with more than two hundred other victims the des- 
 potism of princely power does not draw a single remark from 
 this determined partisan. But when Elizabeth deprives the 
 bishops who refused to acknowledge her right to the crown, 
 and orders Archbishop Grindal to execute his office in putting 
 a stop to an irregular exercise of the laymen, which neither 
 the Church nor her bishops had ever authorized these are 
 
 a See Turner's "Mod. Hist, of England," vol. iv. pp. 192, 375 ; and Ken- 
 nard's and McLachlan's " Controversial Correspondence," Lond. 1855, 
 pp. 498, 500. 
 
DR. MILNER'S FURTHER MISREPRESENTATIONS. 107 
 
 shocking proofs of the despotism which produced the Refor- 
 mation ! Yea, they demonstrate that the poor bishops were 
 not allowed to have any voice at all in questions of religious 
 doctrine or worship, but that the mere dictation of royalty 
 regulated the whole ! And yet Milner must have known 
 that the entire preparation of the work was in the hands 
 of the bishops, and that not a single instance can be found 
 in which any point of doctrine or w6rship was changed or 
 established, unless it was done by their express judgment and 
 sanction. 
 
 But, to sum up the hypothesis of this favourite com- 
 pletely, we must quote another passage where he puts forth 
 his view of the Reformation : " The more strictly the subject 
 is examined," says Dr. Milner, " the more clearly it will appear, 
 that it was not in consequence of any investigation of the 
 Scriptures, either public or private, that the ancient Catholic" 
 (i.e. Roman) ' ' religion was abolished, and one or other of the 
 new Protestant religions set up, in the different northern 
 kingdoms and states of Europe, but in consequence of the 
 politics of princes and statesmen, the avarice of the nobility 
 and gentry, and the irreligion and licentiousness of the people" 
 (Letter viii. pp. 107-8.) Here is the theory of the Reforma- 
 tion, as represented by all Romanists, with a few rare and 
 candid exceptions. We pronounce it utterly untrue, as 
 we could prove from the testimony of their own witnesses. 
 We shall only for the present point out its historical absurdity, 
 and total inconsistency with common sense and reason. 
 
 This bold and unscrupulous author assigns, as his first 
 cause of the change, " the politics of princes and statesmen." 
 But what political motive could have influenced Luther in 
 Germany, Zuinglius in Zurich, Calvin in Geneva and France, 
 Cranmer in England, Knox in Scotland ? Were they politi- 
 cians, princes, or statesmen? What political motive could 
 have induced those who were the rulers of those nations to 
 quarrel with the Pope, with the emperor, with the vast 
 internal force of the priests and monks, and with the large 
 body of their own subjects, at the imminent risk of a fearful 
 civil war, if they should fail to convince the majority of the 
 people that their cause was just and righteous ? What single 
 instance can be pointed out, where the Reformation was con- 
 nected, directly or indirectly, with the field of politics, with 
 the overthrow of any existing dynasty, or with a proposed 
 change of civil government ? On the contrary, it is manifest 
 to the slightest reflection that every motive of earthly policy 
 must have been hostile to the effort which sought to over- 
 throw the established religious system of all Europe. As at 
 the beginning of the Gospel dispensation "the rulers and 
 
108 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 kings took counsel together against the Lord and against His 
 anointed/' so it was in the great movement of the sixteenth 
 century. And if the mighty hand of God had not roused 
 up, in a wonderful manner, the slumbering consciences of 
 men, the politics of princes and statesmen would have trampled 
 on the preachers of His truth, and consigned them all, for the 
 sake of temporal peace, to the flames of martyrdom. 
 
 But leaving the question of policy with respect to the 
 other branches of the work, and confining ourselves to our 
 proper field of the Reformation in England, we ask for the 
 evidence that this could have been carried forward by such 
 a motive. What earthly interest could have prevailed on 
 Henry VIII. to cast off the Pope's supremacy in the year 
 1534 ? Was it the privilege of marrying Anne Boleyn ? The 
 Pope had given him a dispensation, and even advised him to 
 take any woman he pleased, and he had actually married her 
 two years before. Was it the wealth to be derived from the 
 suppression of the monasteries ? The Pope had granted his 
 bull to Cardinal Wolsey for this very act, and there was no 
 obstacle in the way of the king's good pleasure. Was it to 
 stop the drain by which the Papal exactions and subsidies 
 drew off so much of the wealth of England ? This could 
 have been effected by act of Parliament, without any difficulty. 
 No earthly policy, therefore, can possibly account for Henry's 
 course. It was the work of Divine Providence, who raised 
 up this man of energy and passion to prepare the way for the 
 restoration of His truth, in mercy to mankind. 
 
 And where is the argument derived from the politics of 
 princes and statesmen, in the genuine Reformation established 
 under Edward VI. by Cranmer, Ridley, and their colleagues ? 
 The body of the whole nation was devoted [externally] to all 
 the doctrines and practices of Romanism, which Henry VIII. 
 had left, saving the Papal supremacy, in their full vigour. The 
 worship of the Virgin and the saints, of images and relics, 
 purgatory, priestly celibacy, transubstantiation, communion in 
 one kind, masses for the dead, all was there, and all defended 
 by the strongest arguments of positive law, and vested rights, 
 and worldly expediency. Moreover, Edward VI. was in his 
 minority, and the main powers of government rested, until 
 he should be of age, in the Council, to whom the will of 
 Henry had committed them. Was this a time which the 
 politics of princes and statesmen would choose for such an 
 undertaking? Or could the whole range of earthly policy 
 point out a single advantage to be gained by such an effort ? 
 When, since the world began, did it ever enter the head of a 
 politician, that a direct assault upon the established religion 
 of a nation was the most likely way to advance his temporal 
 
AVARICE OF NOBILITY AND GENTRY. 109 
 
 power? Most absurd and preposterous, therefore, is the 
 attempt to account for the facts by an hypothesis like this. 
 It was the work of God, and He raised up His chosen instru- 
 ments to accomplish it, not by earthly policy, but in the face 
 of it. 
 
 Equally manifest it is that Cranmer and his colleagues 
 had nothing to gain, of this world's treasures, by venturing 
 their all in such a cause. What interest had they in reducing 
 to the Scriptural standard the inordinate privileges of their 
 own order? Was it the desire, as the Romanists would tell 
 us, of having a wife? The Church of Rome was far more 
 liberal than the Reformed Church of England has ever been 
 in allowing the pleasures of female intercourse to her clergy, 
 provided only that it was not in the lawful way of marriage.* 
 Was it the enlargement of their official power? The Re- 
 formation did not enlarge, but diminished it. Was it the 
 increase of their wealth ? The Reformation dried up many 
 of the old sources of priestly profit, and did not open a single 
 new one to replace them. Under the rule of Romanism, 
 they might look forward to the princely rank of the cardinals, 
 the rich rewards of legatine authority, or even the splendid 
 majesty of the Papal throne. And the Reformation cut off 
 all these dazzling prizes of ambition, with no earthly hope of 
 a higher advancement before them. How plain, therefore, 
 the result, that their motives must needs have been derived 
 from the spiritual power of the faith, which not only purifies 
 the heart, but overcomes the world ! 
 
 And surely the argument loses nothing of its force, when 
 we come to the reign of Elizabeth. For the cause of the 
 Reformation seemed hopelessly lost under the reign of her 
 predecessor, Mary. The Pope was reinstated in his old 
 prerogatives. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, and more 
 than two hundred others, had endured the agonies of a fiery 
 martyrdom. The Parliament had submitted the whole nation 
 to the Roman yoke, and the general acquiescence proved, to 
 all appearance, that the people, at heart, had received but 
 little benefit from the measures adopted in the reign of 
 Edward, and were rather disposed to be content with their 
 old attractive superstition. On what ground, therefore, under 
 these circumstances, could the policy of princes and statesmen 
 rest the attempt to re-establish the Reformation? What 
 argument of worldly wisdom could induce Elizabeth to incur 
 the Papal sentence of deposition, which the immense resources 
 of Philip of Spain stood prepared to make effectual ? What 
 advantage could she reap from embroiling herself with her 
 
 a See Fleury's "Hist. Eccl. Cont." torn, xxili. p. 17. 
 
110 REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 subjects, especially as the decision of the Pope, in the case of 
 her father's marriage to Katherine of Arragon, made her of 
 necessity illegitimate, and she might be sure that this defect 
 in her title to the throne would be urged against her, if she 
 excited the hostility of Rome ? 
 
 This consideration alone must have determined her to do 
 nothing in favour of the Reformation, if she had really been 
 disposed to settle the choice of her religion by the policy of 
 princes. Our readers will not fail to remember how one of 
 Elizabeth's contemporaries, Henry IV. of France, abjured the 
 Protestant Church in which he was educated, and became a 
 Romanist, in order that he might put at end to the civil war 
 in which a powerful Papal faction had involved him. Much 
 more might Elizabeth, who had been brought up by Henry 
 VIII., and found the kingdom fully committed to Rome, 
 have held that her safety required her to favour no change in 
 the existing system. So manifest, indeed, in every point of 
 view, is the absurdity of Milner's hypothesis, that it is im- 
 possible to account for his venturing to palm it upon the 
 merest tyros in English history, if he had not already learned, 
 by experience and observation, that any falsehood, well told 
 and firmly adhered to, will gain some belief from the easy 
 credulity of mankind. 
 
 The next motive assigned by this favourite author, which 
 induced Elizabeth to re-establish the Reformation, is " the 
 avarice of the nobility and gentry." But how could that 
 argument apply, when there were no more monasteries to 
 suppress, and no more abbey-lands to surrender? It is ad- 
 mitted, on all hands, that this part of the work was done by 
 Henry VIII., under the Papal sanction, and the remaining 
 chantries, colleges, and chapels, were swept away by act of 
 Parliament, in the reign of Edward. It is also unquestionable 
 that when the nation returned to Romanism in the reign of 
 Mary, the titles of those who had come into possession of 
 what had formerly been Church property, were all solemnly 
 confirmed. On what, then, was the avarice of the nobility 
 and' gentry to speculate ? At no period, indeed, could such 
 an inducement have produced a religious change, because the 
 retention of these lands might have been secured just as 
 easily, without renouncing Romanism. Many monasteries 
 have been suppressed in France and Spain, although those 
 countries still continued wedded to the Papal system. But 
 the allegation loses even the semblance .of support from 
 history in the time of Elizabeth, although that is the very 
 point where proof is most necessary to sustain the statement 
 of Dr. Milner. 
 
IRRELIGION AND LICENTIOUSNESS. Ill 
 
 The last reason which Milner assigns for the Reformation, 
 is " the irreligion and licentiousness of the people." He does 
 not seem to have reflected upon the evidence thus given by 
 himself, to the results of the Romish system. For here, he 
 is speaking of the causes which produced the change in the 
 national faith ; namely, " the politics of princes and statesmen, 
 the avarice of the nobility and gentry, and the irreligion and 
 licentiousness of the people" And it is very certain that the 
 causes of the Reformation must have been in existence before 
 the Reformation itself. If, then, such was the fact if the 
 people were, as he describes them, irreligious and licentious 
 should not the Church of Rome take the responsibility ? And 
 does not this very admission prove, though, unwittingly, that 
 there was abundant need of a thorough reformation ? 
 
 And yet it is perfectly absurd to suppose that wicked 
 princes, and an avaricious and unprincipled nobility, and a 
 licentious people, would ever, of themselves, seek to exchange 
 the yoke of Romanism for the doctrines of the Bible, because 
 the priests of Rome were far more indulgent to moral iniquity 
 than the Word of God, and therefore an alteration like this 
 would never have been agreeable to the lovers of transgression. 
 Hence it is obvious that the prevailing corruption could only 
 be assigned as the cause of the Reformation in one way ; and 
 that is the very way which we assert, and which Milner could 
 never have consistently admitted. We doubt not that the 
 dreadful state of Christendom was operative, in the mercy of 
 the Most High, who raised up the instruments for the work, 
 and gave them success, in the face of difficulties and opposi- 
 tion. The author takes good care to pass by the irreligion 
 and licentiousness of the priests and monks, which exposed 
 them to the contempt and hatred of the people. He gives 
 no place to the knowledge of the Scriptures, which had been 
 translated into English by Wickliffe, more than a century 
 before, and, through the latter part of the reign of Henry 
 VIII. and the whole of Edward's, had been allowed to be 
 read without restraint. Light from the Word of God had 
 thus become widely disseminated in many quarters. The 
 doctrines of the Reformation were openly preached on the 
 Continent, by Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and their followers, 
 and with a large measure of success. A multitude of hearts 
 and minds in England were well prepared to receive them. 
 And therefore, when the hand of Divine Providence had 
 opened the way, and raised up the instruments, the pure 
 principles of religious truth were enabled to achieve the 
 victory, not through the policy of princes, nor through the 
 licentiousness of the people, but in despite of them. 
 
112 
 
 No. XL 
 
 Rome and the Reformation. 
 
 " PROTESTANTS are accustomed to paint in the most fright- 
 ful colours the alleged depravity of the Church when Luther 
 erected his standard." (Letter xxi. p. 228.) So writes Dr. 
 Milner. There is no necessity for employing Protestant testi- 
 mony on this point : an orator at the Council of Trent, in the 
 year 1546, supplies evidence, later than the commencement 
 of Luther's campaign, and in the most unrestrained terms, 
 as to the utterly disorganized state of the Church when 
 under Rome's general tutelage. The plan of putting per- 
 sons into conventual pens, and then exhibiting them, as fit 
 occasion may offer, as proofs of the Church's f( sanctity " is 
 indeed needful to be adopted. " The farther I launch out 
 into this deep/' he exclaims, " wider and wider does it ex- 
 tend, and seems shoreless : there is no esteem put upon reason 
 amongst us, its authority is overturned and lies prostrate ; 
 like brute beasts we are hurried on recklessly to right or 
 wrong, without any thought of consequences, and shame- 
 lessly, just as every man lists; so that we have come at last 
 to this, that men are ashamed of being good ; the more 
 licentious any one is, the more credit does he secure ; fathers 
 are imbrued in the blood of their sons ; sons (O, horrible and 
 foul deed !) in the blood of their parents ; as though, O God, 
 Thou wast asleep, or payedst no attention to the course of 
 events, or as if the announcement of a hell was all idle talk. 
 In former ages you might hear of one or two parricides in a 
 century : the perpetrators of such deeds were banished society 
 as monsters ; it was then the common opinion that such beings 
 should be lashed by the furies remorselessly. But now, what 
 city can be mentioned that does not abound in such charac- 
 ters ? Is not every place crowded with the headstrong, with 
 the unclean, with the impure, dicers, drunkards ? Cast your 
 eyes upon Rome, which, placed in the centre of the nations, 
 ought to shine as a star ! Look at Italy, France, Spain you 
 will discover no sex, no age, no member in fact, that is not cor- 
 rupted, rotten, putrid. But why enlarge ; Scythians, Africans, 
 Thracians live as cleanly, as free from flagrant vice." a 
 
 a Le Plat's "Monumentt. ad Cone. Tridentinum illustrand. Collectio," torn. i. 
 pp. 33, 34. 
 
113 
 
 Or hear, again, another eminent member of the Spanish 
 Church, Barth. Carranza, a Dominican; and recollect that 
 these words were addressed to the Council of Trent, March 14, 
 1546: "Grievous," says he, "is it to have to repeat, O 
 Fathers, that faith, piety, religion, have in our days become so 
 lukewarm, or rather have so wasted away, that scarce are there 
 any remains of them left ; and that the fervour which once 
 animated our ancestors has so chilled down, that we are com- 
 pelled, with Jeremy, to say : From the daughter of Sion all 
 her beauty is departed : her princes are become like rams 
 that find no pastures; and they are gone away without 
 strength before the face of the pursuer. . . . The enemies have 
 seen her y and have mocked at her sabbaths. Lament, i. 6, 7 
 [Douay version]. The rules, moreover, and regulations 
 enjoined to be observed by our ancestors are now left unre- 
 garded; the transgressors of divine law, the despisers of eccle- 
 siastical rules, stalk abroad, with head all aloft; faith, 
 as regards a large portion of our world, is extinct, and the 
 little that does manifest itself is so faint that scarcely any 
 true marks of it are discernible. Love is everywhere gone 
 cold abuses increase on every side ; yea, abuses follow hard 
 one upon another, and men's minds are so bound down by 
 perversions and wickedness that a separation is almost impos- 
 sible." a 
 
 Then take the lamentations of the theological faculty of 
 Louvain, addressed to Philip II. of Spain, some years later 
 (May, 1558) : 
 
 " But in order to provide for the well-being of the residue 
 of the Church, and that the pious may not have reason for 
 grieving and mourning over such abominable and scandalous 
 offences, and that not of ordinary individuals, but among 
 those of rank; we consider that there is a pressing neces- 
 sity for an entire and determined reform of morals; that 
 neither avarice be longer suffered to lord it almost uncon- 
 trolled over the Church, so that from the crown of the 
 head to the sole of the foot there is no soundness in it; 
 everything consequently, both sacred and profane, being 
 publicly put up for sale, and laws, excellently framed and alto- 
 gether necessary, being everywhere set aside for money's 
 sake ; nor that an impure and debauched life be permitted 
 any longer to disgrace the Church, the priests who wait upon 
 the Lord, and offer up the holy mass, going through their 
 duties with great indifference and want of propriety; living 
 most disgracefully, just as if they were married, with their 
 
 a Idem, ibid. pp. 60, 61 ; " Concilia studio Labbei." torn. xiv. col. 1839. 
 Paris, 1671. 
 
 I 
 
114 ROME AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 concubines and children; while, at the same time, monks 
 and nuns break the vows they have taken, and live full 
 wantonly . a Then again the patrimony of the Church is 
 shamefully wasted in worldly pomp, grand entertainments, 
 dress, building palaces, playing at cards, in buying dogs 
 and birds, and hiring jugglers and buffoons ; the poor the 
 members and heirs of Christ being in the mean while left to 
 starve : these and similar evils we are of opinion ought to 
 receive immediate correction." b 
 
 Then, towards the close of the Council, in 1562, the same 
 lamentation as to the degraded state, to which the Church, 
 proclaiming itself to be "holy, Catholic, Apostolic/'' had 
 abandoned its unhappy subjects, and, what is more, sunk 
 itself with them, are dwelt upon; and a contrast drawn, 
 little in favour of Romish assumptions of an undoubted 
 superiority over the Reformed Church. 
 
 "What, then/' asks Lewis M. Gravina, c "was the object 
 of our predecessors, our fathers, those heroes of our Church, 
 from whom we have so sadly degenerated, whose time- 
 honoured praises we have worn away by our evil deeds, to 
 whom we are indeed a disgrace : what did those holy men, 
 I say, design in planting and cultivating the vineyard of the 
 Lord ? what did they? Why, this was their sole object, not 
 to be seeking their own profit, but the things which are 
 Jesus Christ's. This was their grand aim, not to be pleasing 
 men, but God. They were ambitious not of honours, but of 
 toil ; did not look to be masters, but ministers ; they were 
 lords not of mere animals, but of souls; supervisors not of 
 wealth, but of men. They did, indeed, abound in wealth, 
 but were poor in vice; they found their pleasures in de- 
 
 a The inhuman Church is herself the cause of these offences. In his " Letters 
 to a Prebendary," No. V. (p. 149, edit. Derby, 1843), Dr. Milner affirms that 
 an epistle of Erasmus, addressed to a Carthusian monk, is quoted by Surius 
 [Commentarius rerum gest. ab anno 1500 ; p. 290, edit. Colon. 1586], 
 describing " in the most odious colours the profligacy of the apostate and 
 married priests, who overran Germany." Now, considering the very liberal 
 expression of sentiment, appearing in the huge collection of the Epistles of 
 Erasmus, as regards monks (see col. 1227, edit. Lug. Bat. 1706, for instance), 
 a manuscript letter merely, and to some unknown correspondent (for such is 
 the "Epistle" relied upon), can weigh but little ; and if placed in the scale 
 against the descriptions given in public and before public assemblies of 
 the anything but sacrosanct behaviour of adherents of the " holy Catholic 
 Eoman Church," about the same period, what can it avail ? And if the " pro- 
 fligacy of married priests " were so " odious " as to make the writer sigh 
 for the peaceful abode of the Carthusian, what " boundless contiguity of 
 shade" must he have panted for, to escape, and for good, from, the profligacy 
 of his own " unmarried " monks and nuns here depicted. How unsuccessful 
 are Rome's efforts to maintain the supremacy which she is constantly reaching 
 after, in every thing. 
 
 b Le Plat's " Monumentorum. ad Hist. Concil. Trident, illustr. Collectio," 
 torn. iv. 611. 
 
 c Concilia studio Labbei, torn. xiv. col. 1862-63. Paris, 1671. 
 
115 
 
 serving well, not in worldly wealth ; in the clothing of their 
 minds, not of their bodies ; they busied themselves in tend- 
 ing not their horses and dogs, but the poor and needy ; they 
 did not merely glitter before the world, they were truly 
 ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God. 
 
 But, oh, how truly wretched is the condition of 
 
 our time ! and what other reason can be given for evils 
 such as these, such calamities and such changes, than that we 
 have administered this office so differently from our ances- 
 tors ? what other cause be assigned than that we have alto- 
 gether abandoned the course which our fathers trod ? . . . . 
 The Church would still, however, have maintained her posi- 
 tion and authority, if the exercises of true piety, the admir- 
 able pursuits of true religion, upon which it had been 
 founded and established, and also been widely extended, had 
 not been relaxed, and then cast aside. For now, in a total 
 corruption of morals, and with true religion, as regards the 
 generality, utterly lost, what wonder is it if Christians, 
 caught on every aide by varied attractions, have sunk from 
 their high estate ? if the greater part of them have foundered ? 
 and the remainder are anything but water-tight ? " 
 
 " I adduced," says the honest Doctor by the help pro- 
 bably of Brerely, in whose books heaps of such matter have 
 long been shovelled together " the testimony not only of 
 Erasmus and other Catholics, but also of the Reformers 
 themselves, in proof that the morals of the people, so far 
 from being changed for the better by embracing the new 
 religion, were greatly changed for the worse." a The work in 
 which these evidences are collected, is the " Letters to a Pre- 
 bendary." 5 They consist mainly of just such lamentations as 
 might be obtained by even moderate inquirers, acquainted 
 with the population of a country, at almost any period such 
 as confession-receivers could predicate of any papally-ruled 
 region down to the present day. But will the Church of 
 Home shine by contrast, especially at that period, when the 
 management of the population was under her own more 
 complete control, and the light of her ministrations shed its 
 rays free from the pestilential vapours raised up by intrusive 
 Reformers, at a time when, it is asserted, but for the desola- 
 tions caused by Luther and his contemporaries, the same 
 peaceful reign of righteousness and truth would have con- 
 tinued to bless the earth to the present day ? 
 
 With the passages to which we have alluded, Dr. Milner, 
 
 a Letter xxi. p. 229. b No. V. pp. 147-50, edit. Derby, 1843. 
 
 c Miss Eead states in her " Six Months in a Convent" (p. 10, edit. Edinb. 
 1835), that on visiting Mrs. G.'s (a Romanist's), she saw a fine drawing, 
 
 i 2 
 
116 ROME AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 and similar writers from the days of the Reformation down- 
 ward, have pleased themselves in the quoting, supposing that 
 they had the evidence of the founders of the Reformation 
 themselves in testimony of the evil effects of that grand 
 revolution. The regrets of Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, 
 and others, are marshalled out, as if to be classed amongst 
 admissions and confessions ; but just letting these passages 
 be viewed in that light, what shall we say to the avowed 
 confessions and lamentations of members of the Church of 
 Rome ; as, for instance, of Antonio Marinari, the Carmelite 
 (Dec. 20, 1545), one of those with whose addresses the 
 Council of Trent was opened : " Now/' says he, " the Church 
 is limited to a corner of Europe, and where Christ was 
 once in the highest honour, there is he despised. a And that 
 no description of assault should be wanting on every hand, 
 foes of our own household have sprung up, assailing even 
 this poor reduced Church, laid open as it is to the hatred 
 and attacks of the infidels : some pastors are asleep, or are 
 mere mercenaries (to say nothing worse) ; then there are 
 princes engaged in furious war, and in gratifying their insa- 
 tiable ambition : many doctors teach but with the mouth ; 
 very many, who profess a more spiritual life than ordinary, 
 are filling every place with scandal; men and women of every 
 age, exhibiting the character of heathens and Turks rather 
 than that of Christians; and what is most injurious, so many 
 ministers of Satan transfigured into angels of light, who 
 despise, reject, and in fact abominate, the laws of their 
 country, the approved opinions of the Fathers, the customs 
 of Christian society, the sacraments, and, in short, everything 
 holy." b 
 
 Then, again, hear the confessions of Cor. Martirani, Bishop 
 of St. Marco c (Jan. 7, 1546), long subsequent to the period 
 at which the Reformation commenced, and when the domi- 
 nant Church had had the general population under its 
 own peculiar teaching. " There are two points/' says he, 
 " most honourable Fathers, wherein especially the state of 
 Christendom is grievously suffering religion and morals ; 
 and unless some remedy is applied, and that speedily, you 
 Avill have them falling into utter ruin : there is yet remaining 
 some little light ; we have not as yet sunk irrecoverably 
 but delay, and all things will revert to a state of ' chaos 
 
 exhibiting the peaceful and flourishing condition of the Church until the 
 Reformation under Martin Luther. 
 
 a Alluding probably to the countries overrun by Mahomet and his disciples. 
 
 b Le Plat's " Munumentt. ad Cone. Trid. illustraud. Collectio/' torn. i. p. 30. 
 Concilia studio Labbei, torn. xiv. col. 1005. Paris, 1671. 
 
 c See the list of prelates who attended at Trent, in the sixth volume of 
 Fallavicino's "Istoriadel Concil. di Trento." Faenza, 1797. 
 
117 
 
 and ancient night/ For, to refer in the first place to morals, 
 nothing can be plainer than that the morality and discipline 
 of Churchmen are so degraded, that there is nothing worse 
 for posterity to venture upon or invent if people are disposed 
 to be wicked, it is impossible they can sink lower than the men 
 of the present generation. For what conceivable crime is there 
 so atrocious, so outrageous and monstrous, in which this adul- 
 terous and sinful generation is not wallowing. Look at their 
 cupidity, cruelty, and general licentiousness ! Do not rapine, 
 plunderings, sacrileges, abound everywhere ? Do not churches, 
 courts, cities, villages, resound aloud with horrid curses and 
 oaths ? And as if it argued a want of manliness and courage, 
 Heaven itself is daringly assailed, and that daily, with every 
 kind of blasphemy ; so that I am astonished that we are not 
 struck with the thunderbolts of Heaven. When were poi- 
 sonings and stabbings a more common? and who is secure, 
 whether among the priesthood or laity, from assassins ? Be- 
 fore the very altars, during the performance of mass itself, 
 are men stabbed and murdered : our very confidants such 
 is the thirst for gold murder us in our bedrooms : in cheat- 
 ing one another, in waylaying one another, in slaughtering 
 one another, we fairly revel \_perbacchamur\ ; impure, vicious, 
 rapacious, without common humanity, to whom cruelty is 
 amusement, thievery is a mere joke, shedding blood mere sport : 
 indeed, it is impossible to mention all our ways and descriptions 
 of sinning. The farther I launch out into this sea, the wider it 
 extends, and seems shoreless/' &c. And thus this bishop of 
 this tf Holy Catholic Church" (as imagined) testifies; next 
 bringing before his auditors in Council assembled the Holy 
 City, Rome herself, and declaring its bishops why should he 
 not ? to be the cause and origin of all evil ; and as regarded 
 Italy, France, Spain, affirming the corruption to be universal ; 
 bidding the Fathers in Council assembled, unless utterly 
 stupid (nisi plumbei estis] , to rouse themselves to effect some 
 alteration in a state of affairs so deplorable in the vineyard of 
 the Church, if it be, indeed, a vineyard, and not a lair of 
 wild beasts. b 
 
 a This crime bears its glory in Rome even now ; see below. 
 
 b Le Plat's " Monumentt. ad Cone. Trid. illustrand. Collectio," torn. i. 
 pp. 33, 34, 38. With regard to the letter of Erasmus written to the men of 
 Strasburgh, in 1529, and from which Surius (" Commentarius brevis rerum 
 gestarum ab an. 1500 ;" Colon. 1586, p. 181) thinks that Sleidan would 
 have cited more largely had it been in favour of the Reformed Chui'ches, 
 which is doubtless probable, and would have been nothing wonderful ; 
 Jortin remarks : "The good man (Erasmus) did not consider that if he had 
 been seized himself as a heretic, and the monks had sat in judgment upon 
 him, he would infallibly have been pronounced one of the heretics who deserves 
 death. This treatise [the letter from which Dr. M. has quoted] is written 
 with great acrimony, and the system of religious politics which it contains is 
 
118 ROME AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 Such was the state of an ecclesiastical institution which 
 had contrived to make itself dominant by the same means as 
 are now employed to keep it in existence ; and for which its 
 sworn adherents of the present day demand an eminent 
 " moral " superiority, especially in the days of Luther, Calvin, 
 Cranmer, and Knox, on the score of being " Holy, Catholic, 
 and Apostolic " but over which one of her own bishops, with 
 more honesty and wisdom, mourned, as sunk in depravity, as 
 having reached the lowest depths of vice, as raging in ini- 
 quity, as unapproachable in wickedness ! " The appearance 
 of the Gospel [viz., the Reformation] " was not needed to 
 " drive piety out of the world/' as Dr. Milner would have 
 Luther confess it had ! (Letters to a Prebendary, No. V. 
 p. 147, edit. 1843). The modern writers who circulate and 
 recommend Dr. Milner's works, and rely thus fully on the 
 Protestant testimony of the Lutheran period, may please to 
 accept, from a similar hand, " another statement in illus- 
 tration of the little effect of Popery upon a people who 
 receive it, in civilizing and Christianizing them. There is on 
 the St. Lawrence, and in sight of Montreal, an Indian village, 
 containing a fraction of a once powerful tribe, famous for its 
 daring and cruelty in the old Indian wars. They speak the 
 French language they are all Papists they have a fine stone 
 church they go to mass on Sunday morning they are 
 regular in their attendance at the confession-box, and yet 
 they are as thoroughly Indian now as they were before they 
 ever saw a pale face. They spend the afternoon of Sabbath 
 at their old Indian games and sports, in which their priest is 
 generally their leader. They are ignorant, degraded they 
 wear their old costume, and are intemperate. An intelligent 
 French Canadian said to me, ' They are good Catholics, they 
 go to mass on Sunday morning, then go to their sports on 
 Sunday afternoon, and you ought to go over and see them at 
 them. In the fall of the year we make them join the Tem- 
 perance Society, and they keep the pledge as long as they can 
 get no money to buy whiskey. But when the ice breaks 
 away, and they can make money by piloting the rafts over 
 the rapids, they break their pledge, and they all get drunk/ 
 And there are those Indians, who are entirely French in lan- 
 guage and religion, and good Papists, with their own resident 
 priest, and at as low a point in the scale of civilization as 
 
 good for nothing." (Life of Erasmus, vol. i. 435, edit. 1808.) The single 
 quotation made by Surius (why did he not himself enlarge the quotation ?) 
 shows the soundness of this judgment upon the Letter: " Et nihil quidem 
 verius dixit Erasmus, quam ex istis novatoribus nullum meliorem, omnes 
 deteriores esse factos ;" an opinion as disgraceful to the utterer, as suitable to 
 the quoter, a Carthusian monk. See Erasmi Epistolse, col. 1227, edit. Lug. 
 Bat. 1706 j and Waddington's " Hist, of the Reformation," ii. 192. 
 
119 
 
 when the priests first went among them to teach them the 
 religion of God ! And such is the uniform testimony as to 
 the effect of Papal missions upon heathen and savage tribes. 
 They baptize them they teach them to say prayers to the 
 saints and the Virgin they fill their minds with superstitious 
 fears ; but they neither educate, civilize, nor Christianize 
 them. There are districts in India, Dr. Duff being witness, 
 where Papal priests have been manipulating the people for 
 300 years, and yet they are as ignorant of the religion of 
 Christ as the heathens around them. But why need we 
 wonder at the state of the Indians on the rivers of Canada, 
 or at that of the tribes in India or China, when Ireland at 
 home, and its children in all their dispersion, proclaim the 
 utter worthlessness of Popery as an institution for civilizing 
 and Christianizing the race." a 
 
 Among the passages selected to prove the inefficiency 
 of Protestant reform, one from Calvin's treatise " De Scan- 
 dalis," ranks as a particular favourite ; but from the style 
 of reference, " 1. vi. De Scandalis," the citators owe their 
 reference, it would seem, to Mr. Scavenger Brerely, or to 
 some of his successors. We find it in " Di\ Milner's Letters 
 to a Prebendary;" 5 in Lingard's "Tracts;" in Pastorinr's 
 " General History of the Christian Church " d and, almost as 
 a matter of course, among a heap of similar quotations in the 
 " Hammersmith Discussion," 6 and is doubtless to be found 
 in scores of other llomish publications. The passage upon 
 which so much value is put occurs in p. 71 of the Amsterdam 
 edition of Calvin's " Theological Tracts," 1667, p. 71 ; and in 
 the translations furnished for their readers all the citators 
 make it a positive object, with these perverters of the freedom 
 opened to them by the Reformation, to give themselves up to 
 licentiousness without any restraint. " What else did the 
 greater part pretend to?" as Drs. Walmsley, Lingard, and 
 Milner put it ; whereas Calvin represents them as so acting 
 as if the main point with them was to avail themselves of 
 better opportunities for all licentiousness. They had them 
 already, in the very choice society of Rome ; more laxity 
 would seem to be aimed at in Protestant freedom from the 
 martinets of Rome. This, it is not improbable, was to some 
 extent the case : the same mode of action, and in Papal coun- 
 tries too, is discernible at the present clay. Opposition to 
 Rome is in many cases almost confined to a dislike of the 
 ceaseless prying of Jesuit and other agencies of Rome, f and 
 annoyance at being DRIVEN to engage in services incessantly, 
 
 a Kirwan, in "The Record," Nov. 16, 1855. b P. 148, ed. Derby, 1843. 
 
 c P. 169, ed. Dublin, 1822. d P. 229, ed. 1798. 
 
 e P. 621, ed. 1852. f See Michelet's Works. 
 
120 ROME AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 about which they care but little, and in which they can find 
 no pleasure, and in which no interest is created except 
 occasionally on the score of opposition and to outshine the 
 poor heretics. Hence a wide-spread desire of casting off the 
 yoke, in order mainly to avail themselves of the benefits of 
 civil society, such as is afforded in Protestant countries. There 
 is nothing very wonderful in all this : let the ordinary members 
 of the Church of Rome have the same opportunities (or any- 
 thing approaching to it) that other churches afford for indi- 
 viduals to leave their former communion, and the desertions 
 would prove not unfrequently utter desolation to Rome ; not 
 probably under a desire in many cases of better teaching, but 
 of simple indifference. 
 
 But how stands the case with Rome and her internal pro- 
 ceedings? Are there no scandals there? Does this very treatise 
 of Calvin intimate any superiority in that church, as if men 
 would improve themselves by going back to her, and seeking 
 once more the privileges of that severe sect ? Is there any 
 indication that the licentious behaviour so painful to the 
 reformer was, or was likely to be, any offence in Rome? 
 Nothing of the kind ! Calvin knew that the direct contrary 
 was the truth ; and that, as Sir Edwin Sandys says, a " with 
 respective attendance of her pleasure, no law almost of God 
 or nature so sacred, which one way or other they find not 
 means to dispense with, or at leastwise permit the breach of, 
 by connivance, and without disturbance/ 5 b 
 
 The same charges, and in more than twofold measure, 
 might be meted out to Rome, and on the very points in 
 which she judges adherents of the Reformed Churches to be 
 so peculiarly reprehensible. There is no reason to fear any 
 comparison with Rome on that score : in licentiousness of 
 living, discords, and above all the abominations of monkery; in 
 idleness, quarrelling, perfidiousness, absence of bare humanity, 
 
 a "Survey of State of Religion," p. 40, ed. 1687. 
 
 b The Bavarian envoy, at the Council of Trent, in 1562, declared " That 
 Bavaria was overrun with heresy of every description, that the contagion 
 was not confined to the lower orders, but had seized the nobility and 
 middle ranks, so that scarcely a city or town was uninfected. He affirmed 
 that the evil was greatly aggravated by the shameful conduct of the clergy, 
 great numbers of whom indulged in gluttony, drunkenness, and all kinds of 
 vice, as if iu open contempt of God and man, and lived in flagrant violation of 
 their vows of chastity," &c. Le Plat, vol. v. 338 ; Cramp's " Text-book of 
 Popery," p. 284, edit. 1851. 
 
 c This state of being "lost to the feelings of human nature," is one of the 
 consequences which Erasmus is quoted, in " Letters to a Prebendary" (p. 148), 
 to show' followed the becoming an "Evangelical." It flourished, however, 
 under Papal rule ; see supra, p. 118, note. In the selections which Dr. M. 
 has made from the writings of Erasmus (p. 148), in order to discredit the 
 Reformer, is one from which, besides giving a false reference, he has omitted 
 a sentence of some little consequence, showing that the offences, which Eras- 
 mus conceived chargeable upon the Lutherans, were just as >rife among the 
 
121 
 
 &c. &c., she far eclipsed any evil proceedings amongst the easy 
 members of Protestant communities : in the one case the pro- 
 ceedings were a scandal to the community to which the indivi- 
 duals professed to belong ; in the other money was made of 
 them, seeing that "where there is muck, there is money," in 
 spirituals as in temporals. But can the offences have been con- 
 sidered as any scandal by the dominant priesthood ? As Calvin 
 argues (p. 86), there was no great necessity for persons to join 
 the Reformed Church in order to escape (as was imagined) from 
 the severity of Papal discipline. The austerity of that church 
 offered no check to intemperate living of any description; 
 they might eat and drink, and be recklessly dissolute all the 
 year round, if only it was all cleared off by confession and 
 cash. The attempt to recommend the Church of Home for 
 its Spartan discipline, and to lower the Lutheran and Genevan 
 Churches for alleged laxity as to moral teaching, Calvin affirms 
 and he knew them well to be truly ridiculous ; and men- 
 tions as a pretty conclusive proof the vexation of parties who 
 had joined those communities, at finding themselves cut off, 
 or at all events checked in, the enjoyment of their former 
 " liberty ;" and as for the great body of the clergy, the masters 
 of the people and their authorized instructors, " vasta lacuna 
 est" (he asserts) "omne genus scelerum," poisoning whole 
 neighbourhoods ! a very natural consequence of Rome's 
 disciplinary rule of celibacy, and her doctrines of penance, of 
 indulgences, of confession, &c. &c. 
 
 Could people well " become worse " in such a church as 
 this, and be any proper scandal to it ? The testimonies before 
 cited as to the moral condition of the Papally taught popu- 
 lation were given, it should be observed, just about the time 
 
 so-called Catholics: " Circumspice populum ilium evangelicum, et observa 
 num minus illic indulgeatur luxui, libidini, et pecunise, quam faciunt ii'quos 
 detestamini." (Opera, torn. ix. p. 1296, ed. 1540.) The latter sentence Dr. M. 
 has thought better dropped ; and well (in one view) he might, intimating, as 
 it does, that those under Papal instruction were as much given to pleasure, 
 licentiousness, and money-making, as those whom the writer terms Evan- 
 gelicals. And the concession has been made even in the present day, of the 
 liability of the chiefs of the system to sin, and that there is no proud superiority 
 to be claimed on the above grounds even in their kolinesses. "There is no 
 article of the Catholic [Romish] faith which teaches that Popes are either 
 immaculate or infallible. Sinners like ourselves [! !]. they have been even 
 depose*! by that Church of which they formed the head." So M. Gandolphy, a 
 priest, overcome by evidence, instructed his London flock (see his " Sermons," 
 1814, vol. ii. 321-2), and correctly enough. But the supervisors thought such 
 honest announcements not exactly the thing : the flock probably felt rather 
 queer at this descent of their Holinesses, and their becoming " one of iis ;" and 
 accordingly, in approved copies of the " Sermons," this sentence is placed 
 among errata a revised judgment mounts his holiness in the clouds again, 
 and there he is set to reign in the foggy majesty of ex-cathedral infallibility. 
 Gregory XVI. used to get drunk two or three times a week j see Nicoline's 
 "Hist, of the Pontificate of Pius IX.," p. 6. 
 
122 ROME AND THE REFORMATION. 
 
 of Luther's death, and some twenty years subsequently; when, 
 as the Bishop of St. Marco affirms, it was impossible that 
 any future sinners could outmatch those of his day ; and that 
 the Church of Rome was herself the grand cause of the 
 horrible state of morals not Luther, nor Calvin, nor their 
 teachings ! How can the crimes, which raised the indignation 
 and lamentations of Luther, and the other " patriarchs" of the 
 Reformation, be otherwise now used by Rome than as a con- 
 venient tool to damage that interest, when she herself at the 
 present day can argue for their allowance, and under consider- 
 ation easily tolerate them ! But perhaps the so-called " old 
 religion." being of course older now than in the days of 
 Luther and Calvin, &c. exhibits its effects upon the popula- 
 tions of the world all the more brightly from having got rid 
 of those deformationists, and especially at the fountain-head. 
 Let us see. The Dublin Daily Express gives, in a recent 
 impression, the following appalling picture of the immorality 
 of the Eternal City itself: 
 
 Few persons have an idea of the immense apparatus that 
 exists at Rome for the spiritual training of the citizens. The 
 whole of the Papal States contain rather more than three 
 millions of inhabitants, and yet in the city of Rome itself, 
 according to the statistical returns made by the Vicar- general, 
 there are 36 bishops, 1,226 secular priests, 2,213 monks, 
 1,919 nuns, 689 seminarists, making a total of 6,083 eccle- 
 siastics and religious, all devoted by profession to the spiritual 
 edification of the people of this one city. The population of 
 Rome is only 177,500, while that of Dublin is 258,361. 
 Imagine the Irish metropolis, though much larger than Rome, 
 blessed with thirty prelates like Dr. Cullen ! Rome certainly 
 ought to merit the epithet holy, as she has a spiritual teacher 
 of some kind for every twenty-five inhabitants, including the 
 children. 
 
 This vast amount of spiritual agency has everything to aid 
 and facilitate its action in Rome, because the civil power is 
 all in the hands of the clergy. Every possible condition, 
 therefore, requisite for the full development and complete 
 effect of the Roman religion, is there present. It ought, 
 consequently, to be a perfect paradise a model farm of intel- 
 lectual, industrial, and spiritual husbandry. Of all the f cities 
 that ever existed, Rome ought to be the most free from igno- 
 rance, vice, and crime. 
 
 Let us see, then, whether the Church of Rome, favoured as 
 it is, possesses what Roman doctrines teach is one of the 
 marks of the true Church sanctity. There is one crime 
 which above all others indicates the moral condition of any 
 country. It is the first that was committed by man, and it 
 
123 
 
 is the foulest that man can commit. That crime is murder. 
 Should we not infer that this crime was altogether unknown 
 in the Holy City ? Would it not be a fair conclusion from 
 the premises we have laid down, that there should be no 
 crime in Rome at all no violence, no bloodshed, no robbery, 
 no theft ; that there should be no need for police, or prisons, 
 or courts of justice, or any species of carnal coercion and 
 temporal punishment ? Most certainly it would. 
 
 But how stands the case ? The following table shows the 
 number of prisoners in the Roman States during a period of 
 five years : 
 
 In 1850 10,436 persons. 
 
 In 1851 11,279 
 
 In 1852 11,767 
 
 In 1853 12,035 persons. 
 
 In 1854 ...... 13,006 
 
 Thus it appears there has been a steady increase in the 
 number of prisoners, indicating an increase of discontent, 
 misery, and crime among the people. The statistics of crime 
 do not include the numerous bands of brigands who infest 
 the road and elude the police. Of the total number of 
 criminals in the Roman prisons, one-third were guilty of the 
 crime of murder ; that is, there was one murderer in every 
 750 of the population. Compare this with an " heretical " 
 country, Scotland, where there is one murderer only in every 
 270,000 of the population. How suggestive is this contrast ! 
 
 Murder prevails to a fearful extent in Rome. It is the 
 greatest of all crimes, and it seems to be attended with the 
 most impunity and the least infamy. Every church is a 
 sanctuary for the assassin, where he may abide in safety. 
 Other criminals are reviled as thieves and* rascals ; but the 
 murderer is comparatively honourable, and is distinguished 
 from viler offenders by his prison dress. If you ask why, 
 the answer is, " Oh, sir ! he was only guilty of the colpo di 
 stiletto." The honourable man treacherously inflicted a mortal 
 stab on his neighbour. That is all. a 
 
 No. XII. 
 DPE'S SUPR 
 
 SEC. I. On the Temporal and Spiritual Supremacy. 
 
 THE discussion of the question of the Pope's supremacy at 
 the present day can only be compared to a man fighting 
 
 a The " Achill Herald," 1856, p. 68 ; and for the state of affairs in England 
 by one who knew and lived amongst them, just prior to or about Mr. Brerely's 
 days, see White's Way to the True Church," sec. 38, 1, p. 210, edit. 1616. 
 
124 THE 
 
 with a shadow. Whatever power the Popes arrogated to 
 themselves, and indeed enjoyed, in the middle ages, it is very 
 clear that they were not possessed of any such dominion in 
 the early days of the Christian Church, nor at the present 
 time. 
 
 In direct opposition to his general opinions and disposition, 
 Dr.Milner disclaims for the Pope all " civil and temporal supre- 
 macy, by virtue of which he can depose princes, or give or take 
 away the property of other persons out of his own domain." 
 (Letter xlvi. p. 434.) It is true, he admits, that different 
 Popes in former ages have assumed arbitrary temporal power, 
 and that such powers have been defended by various theolo- 
 gians, " though not as a matter of faith" This may be merely 
 the temporary opinion of a private doctor, adopted for a purpose, 
 for Baronius, the Roman chronicler, says, " that there can be 
 no doubt of it, but that the civil headship is subject to the 
 sacerdotal," and " that GOD hath made the political governor 
 subject to the head of the Spiritual Church;"* and ac- 
 cordingly Pope Boniface by decree, as recorded, and now 
 extant, in the Canon Law of the Roman Church, said, " We 
 declare, say, define, pronounce it to to be necessary to sal- 
 vation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman 
 Pontiff." 5 That which is here claimed refers to temporal as 
 well as spiritual supremacy ; for this Pope goes on in the 
 same decree to declare that " the one sword must be under 
 the other, and the temporal authority must be subject to the 
 spiritual power hence, if the earthly power go astray, it 
 must be judged by the spiritual;" and all this he pretends 
 to prove by the authority of the Scriptures ! Again, Pope 
 Sixtus V. issued his Bull against Henry, King of Navarre, 
 and the Prince of Conde, " depriving them and their posterity 
 for ever of their dominions and kingdoms/' This he declares 
 to be " God's ordinance ; " and he exercised his assumed 
 right by " the authority given to St. Peter and his succes- 
 sors," &c. And the Bull of excommunication against Queen 
 Elizabeth by Pius V. begins with these words : " He that 
 reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and 
 in earth, hath committed the Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one alone on 
 earth, &c., to Peter, prince of the Apostles, and to the Roman 
 Pontiff, successor of Peter, to be governed with a plenitude 
 
 a Politicum Principatum Sacerdotal! esse subjectum nulla potest esse 
 dubitatio. Baron. Annal. Ann. 57, sec. 32, torn. i. p. 453, edit. Antv. 1612. 
 Politicum Imperium subjecit Spiritualis Ecclesise domino. Ib. sec. 33. 
 
 b Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanse creaturse declaramus, dicimus, 
 definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Corp. 
 Juris Canonic! a Pithoseo Extrav. Com., lib. i. tit. 8, cap. 1, torn. ii. 
 Paris, 1695. 
 
TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 125 
 
 of power ; this one He hath constituted prince over all nations, 
 and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, 
 ruinate, plant, and build," &c. a Thus, then, it is clear that 
 this temporal power was claimed, not only by divine right, 
 but " as a matter of faith.' 3 
 
 Dr. Milner, therefore, begins his chapter on " the Pope's 
 Supremacy" with a misrepresentation. 
 
 As, however, Dr. Milner tacitly gives up this ground, and 
 in so doing has, we must admit, exercised a wise discretion, 
 he is nevertheless bound, on the authority of the Council 
 of Trent and Pope Pius IV., to admit the following pro- 
 positions : 
 
 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 true obedience to the sovereign 
 Roman Pontiff. 
 
 The Pope is the Vicar of God upon Earth : and he pos- 
 sesses 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, , b 
 
 Dr. Milner undertakes to solve the question, " Whether the 
 Bishop of Rome, who by pre-eminence is called Papa (Pope, 
 or Father of the Faithful), c is, or is not, entitled to a superior 
 rank and jurisdiction above other bishops of the Christian 
 
 a Mag. Bullar. torn. ii. p. 324, edit. Luxemb. 1727. 
 
 b Ecclesia Romana, quse omnium Ecclesiarum Mater est et Magistra. 
 Concil. Trident, sess. vii. de Baptism, can. iii. p. 87, edit. Antverp. 
 1644. 
 
 Prsecipit, igitur, Sancta Synodus, Patriarch! s, Primatibus, Archiepiscopis, 
 Episcopis, et omnibus aliis, ut . . . veram obedientiam Summo Romano Pontifici 
 spondeant et profiteantur. Ib. sess. xxv. p. 573. 
 
 Jpsius Dei in terris Vicarii. Ib. sess. vi. p. 61. 
 
 Merito Pontifices Maximi, pro Suprema Potestate sibi in Ecclesia Universal! 
 tradita., causas aliquas criminum graviores suo potuerunt peculiar! judicio 
 reservare. Ib. sess. xiv. p. 163. 
 
 Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium Eccle- 
 siarum matrem et magistram, agnosco : Romanoque Pontifici, beati Petri 
 Apostolorum principis successor!, ac Jesu Christi vicario, veram obedien- 
 tiam spondeo ac juro. Prof. Fid. Trident, ex Bull. Pap. Pii IV. Syllog. 
 Confess, p. 5. 
 
 c Dr. Milner would have us infer, or the explanation is not pertinent, that 
 that very title imports a concession of the claim. So common a book as Suicer 
 would have told him, that so far from the appellation Tlaira being appropriated 
 to the Bishop of Rome, as Father of the Faithful, it was. down to the fifth 
 century, assigned in common to all the bishops of the Western Churches ; that 
 even priests were called by this name ; and that in the acts of the Council of 
 Constantinople, A.D. 448, Eutyches, the heretic, is designated Papa. The 
 bishops of the C4reek Church are still called Popes. "Two Main Questions 
 Stated," &c., p. 248. Dublin, 1825. 
 
126 THE 
 
 Church, so as to be its Spiritual Plead upon earth, and his 
 see the centre of Catholic unity ? " a 
 
 The question is not whether the Pope of Rome is entitled 
 to a superior rank, but the superior dominancy claimed for 
 him by the Council of Trent ? 
 
 We must now follow Dr. Milner step by step in his 
 " proofs " in support of this asserted supremacy. 
 
 He commences as follows : 
 
 " Let us begin with consulting the New Testament, in 
 order to see whether or no the first Pope or Bishop of Home, 
 Saint Peter, was any way superior to the other apostles." l 
 
 Here, in the very outset, Dr. Milner makes a leap, and at 
 once takes for granted that St. Peter was the first Pope or 
 Bishop of Rome. As this is a subject of some considerable 
 interest, we will consider it under a distinct head, in its proper 
 place ; but first, we must follow him in his own order, and 
 examine the 
 
 SEC. II. Evidence of Pope's Supremacy derived from the New Testament. 
 
 He has to prove from the New Testament 
 
 1. That Christ constituted St. Peter Supreme Head, both 
 of the Universal Church, and likewise of all the other 
 Apostles ; thus erecting an absolute monarchy in the Church 
 of which He was Founder. 
 
 2. That St. Peter was the first Pope or Diocesan Bishop of 
 Rome. 
 
 3. That all the paramount authority, originally vested in 
 St. Peter, has from him rightfully (and by Divine right) 
 descended to the Roman Church and Bishop. 
 
 Here again, Dr. Milner gives the real question the " go-by," 
 by pretending that all he has to prove is, that " St. Peter was 
 superior in any way to the other Apostles." When Dr. Mil- 
 ner made this statement, he must have had Barrow's 
 " Treatise of the Supremacy " in his possession and under his 
 consideration, for he refers to it several times. Now Barrow 
 declares/ that " we may well admit that St. Peter had a pri- 
 macy of worth, or that in personal accomplishments he was 
 most eminent among the Apostles, although afterwards there 
 did spring up one who hardly in any of these respects would 
 yield to him ; who could confidently say ' that he did not 
 
 * Letter xlvi. p. 437. b Ib. p. 437. 
 
 c See Faber's "Difficulties of Romanism," book i. cap. 3, p. 52, edit. 
 London, 1853. 
 
 d In the "Pope's Supremacy," pp. 45-6, edit. London, 1849. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127 
 
 come behind the very chiefest of the Apostles ;' a and of whom 
 St. Ambrose said, ( Neither was Paul inferior to Peter, being 
 well to be compared even with the first, and second to none ;' b 
 and St. Chrysostom, ' For what was greater than Peter, and 
 what equal to Paul/ c This is the primacy which Eusebius 
 attributeth to him, when he calleth him ' the excellent and 
 great Apostle, who for his virtue was the prolocutor of all the 
 rest.'" d 
 
 Dr. Barrow willingly ceded to St. Peter a primacy of 
 " repute " or of ' ' order," i. e. " bare dignity," imputing that 
 commonly, in the meetings of the Apostles, they yielded to 
 him a precedence or privilege as chairman. 
 
 But Dr. Milner has to establish the Tridentine assumption, 
 founded, as affirmed, on divine right, provable from the 
 New Testament. (Letter xlvi. p. 437.) 
 
 1. " St. Matthew, in numbering up the Apostles, expressly 
 says of him, ' The first, Simon, who is called Peter ' (Matt. 
 x. 2) ; in like manner the other Evangelists, while they class 
 the rest of the Apostles differently, still give the first place to 
 Peter (Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 13)." It is absurd 
 to argue for such a primacy in St. Peter as is claimed by the 
 Church of Rome at the present day ; for had there been any 
 great object in view, this order would have been maintained, 
 whereas such is far from being the case. John, while refer- 
 ring to the et call " of the Apostles, names Peter after Andrew. 
 St. Paul knew of no such distinction ; in Gal. ii. 9, he writes 
 " James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars," &c. ; 
 and again, in 1 Cor. iii. 22, " Whether Paul, or Apollos, or 
 Cephas ;" and again, in 1 Cor. ix. 5, he places Peter last. It is 
 further worthy of remark, that in what are called the " Apo- 
 stolic Constitutions" St. Paul and St. Peter are introduced 
 jointly prescribing orders ; they begin, " I, Paul, and I, 
 Peter, do appoint." f 
 
 2. " St. Peter was the first to confess his faith in Christ 
 (Matt. xvi. 16)," referring to Peter's acknowledgment "Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (p. 438). 
 
 This assertion, borrowed from Bossuet, will not bear exami- 
 nation. There was nothing in this acknowledgment exclu- 
 sively to merit Peter's promotion ; for already, before him, had 
 " Nathanael answered and said unto him/ Rabbi, Thou art 
 
 a 1 Cor. xv. 20 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11. 
 b Ainb. de Sp. S. lib. ii. cap. 12, torn. iv. p. 254. Paris, 1661. 
 c Chiysostom, torn. v. Orat. 167, vol. ii. p. 568, edit. Paris, 1837. 
 d Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cap. 14, p. 46, edit. Oxon. 1845. 
 e John i. 44. 
 
 f 'Eyijj TlavXos Kcti lyw HsrpoQ diaraffffo/jLeOa. Const. Apost. lib. 8, 
 cap. 33. Lab. Concil. torn. i. col. 498. Paris, 1671. 
 
128 THE POPE^S SUPREMACY. 
 
 the Son of the true God ; Thou art the King of Israel " 
 (John i. 49). And Martha made the like confession, "I 
 believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which 
 should come into the world" (John xi. 27). As also did all 
 the other Apostles : " And they that were in the ship came 
 and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the 
 Son of God " (Matt. xvi. 33) . Even one possessed with devils 
 " fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What hast 
 Thou to do with me, Jesus, Thou Son of God Most High " 
 (Luke viii. 28). 
 
 3. " The first to whom Christ appeared after his resurrec- 
 tion (Luke xxiv. 34) ." The text cited is "The Lord is 
 risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (p. 438). 
 
 The word "first" is unwarrantably added; but how is 
 the fact recorded by all the four Evangelists. 
 
 Matthew informs us that " Christ appeared to Mary Mag- 
 dalene and the other Mary " (xxviii. 9) : this is the first inter- 
 view. The second appearance is recorded in the 16th verse, 
 when " the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, where Jesus 
 had appointed them ;" no mention is made of Peter in parti- 
 cular. Mark (xvi. 9) expressly states, " Now when Jesus 
 was risen, early in the first day of the week, He appeared 
 first to Mary Magdalene;" and, in the 12th verse, we read, 
 " After that He appeared in another form unto two of them 
 as they walked and went into the country;" and " AFTER- 
 WARDS He appeared unto the eleven " (v. 14) . Luke omits to 
 name the first appearance of our Saviour to Mary Magdalene, 
 but records the second appearance to the two named by 
 Mark (Luke xiv. 13). One of these, we are told, was Cleo- 
 pas ; that the other was not Peter is evident from the con- 
 versation that then took place between our Saviour and 
 the two. Cleopas, not recognizing Jesus, relates the circum- 
 stance of the visit by the women to the sepulchre, and the 
 angels, " which said, he was alive and certain of them [viz. 
 Peter and John] which were with us, went to the sepulchre, 
 and found it even so as the women had said, but Him [Christ] 
 they saw not. )J It is not likely that Cleopas would have 
 said, " Certain of them which were with us went to the 
 sepulchre," if Peter had been with him at the time. St. 
 John is more explicit : in chapter xx. he first relates the 
 interview with Mary Magdalene, who then told the disciples 
 of the resurrection; and in verse 19 he states, that in the 
 same day, at evening, when the disciples were assembled, 
 Jesus stood in the midst of them, which is the first time He 
 appeared to the disciples ; and at the 26th verse, " that after 
 eight days, then came Jesus and stood in the midst," which 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 is the second appearance. He then relates the 
 of the great draught of fishes (xxi. 14), when Christ again 
 appeared. " This is now the third time that Jesus showed 
 himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the 
 dead." No particular mention whatever is made of Peter. 
 We may be referred to the text from St. Paul's Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, wherein he says, " And that he was seen 
 of Cephas, then of the twelve" (1 Cor. xv. 5), which is the 
 parallel text to Luke, cited by Dr. Milner. As we cannot 
 suppose that Paul contradicted Luke or John, we must be 
 driven to the necessity of believing that one of the two 
 named by Luke (xxv. 13), and Mark (xvi. 12) was Peter, not- 
 withstanding the very peculiar mariner in which Cleopas 
 addressed our Lord. In this case the other Apostle, Cleopas, 
 saw the Lord as soon as Peter did. a 
 
 Neither Dr. Milner nor Bossuet, therefore, has any ground 
 for asserting that Christ appeared first unto Peter. 
 
 4. " The first to preach the belief of this (the resurrection) 
 to the people." (Acts ii. 14.) "And first to convert the 
 Jews." (ii. 37.) Dr. Milner seems to have forgotten that, 
 previous to this act of St. Peter, our Lord expressly conferred 
 on each of the Apostles the like privilege in this respect. 
 " But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is 
 come upon you; and ye shall be witness unto me both in 
 Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and unto the uttermost part of 
 the earth." (Acts i. 8 ; and see Luke xxiv. 49, &c.) 
 
 5. " The first to convert the Gentiles." (Acts x. 47.) 
 The circumstance here referred to has reference to St. Peter's 
 
 vision and the subsequent conversion of Cornelius. It is 
 very evident that St. Peter himself was ignorant of his sup- 
 posed prerogatives, for he did not venture to go to Cornelius 
 without a special command. He did not act on his own 
 authority, as ruler of the Church, as is attempted to be here 
 established, for he even doubted whether it were lawful to 
 preach to the Gentiles. It is supposed by Dr. Milner that 
 he acted by virtue of the precedency given him over the other 
 Apostles. That no such authority in Peter existed, the cir- 
 cumstances connected with the very event amply testify, for 
 we are subsequently told that u when Peter was come up to 
 Jerusalem, they [the other Christians] that were of the cir- 
 cumcision [calling him to account for his actions] contended 
 with him, saying, Thou wentest in unto men uncircumcised, 
 and didst eat with them." (Acts xi. 2, 3.) Peter, in reply, 
 did not plead his plenary powers, or authority as Christ's 
 
 a Collette's "Pope's Supremacy," p. 82. London, 1852. 
 
130 
 
 vicar, but "rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and 
 expounded it by order unto them ; and when they heard it, 
 they glorified God." They were convinced by his reasoning 
 and narration, not by his authority; and though Peter may 
 have converted Cornelius, and had a special commission among 
 the Jews, Paul had an equally independent commission, and 
 was appointed to preach to the Gentiles ; and we have his 
 direct testimony that he did not hold this commission from 
 any superior or temporal head of the Church, but immediately 
 by divine revelation, by divine permission of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ,* and to whom was intrusted the daily care of all the 
 churches. (2 Cor. xi. 28.) Had this been recorded of her 
 fancied head, St. Peter, Dr. Milner would riot have failed to 
 parade the text with confident exultation. 
 
 Dr. Milner should be reminded that the events to which he 
 alludes (Acts x.) occurred subsequent to those related in 
 Acts viii. Philip was selected by a special messenger from 
 heaven to preach to the Ethiopian eunuch, and convert him 
 to the Lord Jesus, and also performed the ceremony of bap- 
 tism, on which occasion a miracle was performed ; but we 
 deduce from this no proof of a primacy in Philip. 5 Indeed, 
 it is asserted that Philip, before this, preached Christ, did 
 many miracles, and baptized many, and among others con- 
 verted Simon the sorcerer. The Apostles at Jerusalem, 
 hearing of his success, sent John and Peter to assist him. 
 (Acts viii. 14.) Peter being sent by the other Apostles " im- 
 plies" that he was not superior to them. (John xiii. 16.) 
 It is a favourite argument, repeated again and again, as if it 
 carried some weight, that in the order of the Apostles' names 
 that of Peter stands first. But if this superiority were always 
 assigned, which it is not, it would prove nothing to the pur- 
 pose. No authority can be inferred from this circumstance, 
 nor anything beyond bare precedence. Reuben was first in 
 the numbering, but Judah was chief in rank. Chrysostom, 
 in his homilies on St. Matthew, assigns certain grounds of 
 preference; if there were any superiority involved, he cer- 
 tainly knew nothing of it. c 
 
 a Galat. i. 1120 ; ii. 1, 2, 6, 19. 
 
 b It may be observed, that the Ethiopic Church has, at the present day, a 
 tradition that, when the eunuch was baptized by Philip, he went home and 
 converted the queen to the faith, and baptized her and her family, and this 
 Church has since maintained the Christian faith ; to this effect their Emperor 
 David wrote to the Bishop of Rome (See Geddes' "Church History of Ethio- 
 pia," and " Damian a Goes, de Morib. ^Ethiop.," pp. 484, 582. Col. Agrip. 
 1574) ; and that "this was done before Peter went to Cornelius to preach the 
 faith unto him." 
 
 c Robins's "Whole Evidence against the Claims of the Roman Church," 
 p. 47. London, 1855. An excellent volume. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131 
 
 6. Referring to John xxi. 15, 17, Dr. Milner proceeds with 
 his supposed Scriptural proofs : " Again I would ask, is there 
 no distinction implied in St. Peter's being called upon by 
 Christ to declare three several times, that he loved him, and, 
 in the end, that he loved him more than his fellow- Apostles ; 
 as likewise in his being each time charged to feed Christ's 
 lambs, and, at length, to feed his sheep also" 
 
 It must be a sorry case indeed that relies on very weak 
 presumptive evidence (if it can be called evidence at all). All 
 that Dr. Milner can draw from this occurrence is, that there 
 was an " implied distinction.-" We think that we ought to 
 have far more than an " implied distinction " in favour of 
 Peter, to warrant us in believing that our Lord appointed 
 this Apostle as the Supreme Head of the Church. It is a 
 great stretch of the imagination to suppose that this grant is 
 substantiated by a thrice-repeated injunction from Christ 
 that Peter should feed his flock. It is evident that such a 
 charge was not considered by the early Christian writers 
 peculiar to Peter, or the Bishop of Rome, his alleged suc- 
 cessor. 4 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, writing to Stephen, 
 Bishop of Rome, said: "We, being many shepherds, do 
 feed one flock, and all the sheep of Christ." b "What is 
 said to Peter [according to St. Augustine], is said to all, 
 Feed my sheep/ ;c 
 
 The thrice-repeated command evidently alludes to Peter's 
 previous thrice-repeated 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 ? On this Augustine 
 remarks : " He recompenseth a threefold denial with a three- 
 fold confession, that his tongue might not appear less acces- 
 sible to love, than it had been to fear." d And again, " Peter 
 straightway received pardon from the Lord, when he had 
 most bitterly bewailed the sin of his threefold denial." e Yet, 
 
 a Casaubon, to whom Dr. Milner refers occasionally (Letter x. p. 131, and 
 xxvi. p. 275) as being so frightened at the overwhelming evidence in the 
 writings of the Fathers, both on general topics and on St. Peter being head 
 of the Papal Church, and the Roman Pontiffs his successors, states in the 
 plainest terms that such notions as those entertained by Baronius on that head, 
 and of course by Dr. Milner, are the vainest of the vain : "Scripturse ac 
 primorum sseculorum praxis, et metum Baronii et conjecturam illius pariter 
 atque illationem vanlssima vanitatis arguunt." Exercitt. ad Annales Eccles. 
 Baronii, p. 663, edit. Geneva, 1655. 
 
 b Epist. 68, ad P. Steph. p. 188, edit. Lipsiae, 1838. 
 ' c Aug. de Agone Christ. 30, torn. vi. p. 439. Paris, 1837. 
 
 d Aug. in Johan. Tract. 123, torn. iii. pars 2, col. 817, sec. 5. Paris, 1690. 
 
 e " Petrus mox a Domino indulgentiam accepit, qui amarissime flevit trinte 
 negationis culpam." Aug. de Temper. Serm. 66. 
 
 K2 
 
132 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 by some inconceivable process, the Latin doctors transmute 
 what Peter A$m*e{with much mortification,, deemed an implied 
 reproof, into a glorious grant of universal dominant supre- 
 macy ! 
 
 7. Luke xxii. 32 is then cited to prove that Peter was " to 
 act the part of the shepherd, not only with respect to the flock 
 in general, but also with respect to the pastors themselves " 
 in other words, to act as the supreme head or minister of 
 the Church of Christ, by Christ's special appointment. This, 
 w r e are told, " is plainly signified by the Lord's prayer for the 
 faith of this Apostle in particular, and the charge he subse- 
 quently gave him : Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired 
 to have you, that he may sift you as wheat ; but I have prayed 
 for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and thou being once converted, 
 confirm thy brethren." 
 
 Surely Dr. Milner must have considered that his Protest- 
 ant readers knew as little about the Bible as the members 
 of his communion. He commences at the 32nd verse; but 
 if we go back a little, we shall find sufficient evidence that 
 our Lord did not intend to confer any peculiar dignity on 
 Peter; on the contrary, the words of Christ were evidently 
 uttered in rebuke. We read from the 24th verse in the 
 same chapter, that there was a strife among the Apostles 
 who should be accounted the greatest. Here was an oppor- 
 tunity presented to our Lord to declare his intention of 
 conferring a supremacy or primacy of order on Peter. Christ, 
 on the contrary, rebuked them saying, " The kings of the 
 Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and they that exercise 
 authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall 
 not be so : but he that is greatest among you, let him be 
 as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth 
 serve/' 
 
 Here Christ's instruction was addressed to them all. 
 But the reproof was addressed to Peter alone, because, as 
 Chrysostom says, of his two offences ; first, because he con- 
 tradicted his master ; and, secondly, because he put himself 
 before the others. Immediately after this reproof, we have 
 Christ's address to Peter that his faith should not fail. On 
 this Peter replied by protestations of the firmness of his 
 faith, declaring his readiness to follow him even to prison 
 and to death; and then the Lord foretold that Peter should 
 thrice deny him before hardly a day had run its course. 
 And then we have in the same chapter the prophecy fulfilled ; 
 Peter, denying his Lord thrice, yes, even (as Matthew 
 relates, xxyi. 74), " he began to curse and to swear, saying, I 
 know not the man." 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 133 
 
 How Dr. Milner can have the hardihood to refer to this 
 chapter at all, and more especially to the particular fact of 
 the prayer that Peter's faith should not fail, is almost unac- 
 countable, for the text has direct reference to Peter's subse- 
 quent denial, not to Peter's own supremacy. 
 
 But Dr. Milner seems to have altogether overlooked the 
 fact, that though our Saviour did not, at this time, include 
 the other Apostles in his prayer the circumstance did not 
 then require it he did so at other times. In John xvii. 
 6 9, in particular, we find that Christ prayed for all the 
 Apostles, and expressly said (verse 20), " Neither pray I for 
 these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me 
 through their word." 
 
 We cannot better close our remarks on this text than by 
 giving the interpretation of the illustrious Father, Chrysos- 
 tom, which is peculiarly corroborative of the foregoing obser- 
 vations ; the more especially as Dr. Milner appears at all 
 times to profess a great reverence for the early Christian 
 writers, and never omits an opportunity of appealing to them 
 as authoritative. 
 
 " Christ, therefore, wishing to repress such feelings, 
 assented to the denial [?'. e. permitted it to come to pass that 
 Peter should deny him] . For since he (Peter) would not en- 
 dure either His (Christ's) words nor the words of the Prophet 
 (and yet it was for this reason that he assumed the cha- 
 racter of a prophet that he might not contradict), he is 
 taught by deeds. For that he assented to the trial just in 
 order that this tendency in him might be corrected, listen 
 to what he says : ' But I have prayed for thee that thy faith 
 may not fail.' Now he uttered these words sharply reprov- 
 ing him (Peter), and to intimate that his fall would be more 
 serious than that of the other disciples, and would need more 
 help. For his offences were twofold ; first, in contradicting 
 [his Master] ; secondly, in putting himself before the others ; 
 but, thirdly and mainly, his assuming the whole [responsi- 
 bility] to himself. With a view of curing these things, there- 
 fore, he permitted the fall to take place, and on this ground, 
 passing by the others, he addressed himself to him (Peter) 
 alone. For says He, ' Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath 
 requested to winnow you as wheat;' that is_, to disturb, 
 agitate, and try you. ( But I have prayed on thy behalf 
 that thy faith may not be wanting/ But why, if he 
 prayed for all, does he not say, I have besought on behalf 
 of all? Is it not very evident that this is just what I 
 before mentioned, that he is reproving Peter particularly, 
 and showing that as his fall would be worse than that of 
 
134 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 the others, he therefore addressed the conversation to him 
 especially." a 
 
 8. "Is there no mysterious meaning/' continues Dr. 
 Milner, " in the circumstance, marked by the Evangelist, of 
 Christ's entering into Simon's ship in preference to that of 
 James and John, in order to teach the people out of it ; and 
 in the subsequent miraculous draught of fishes, together with 
 our Lord's prophetic declaration to Simon : Fear not, from 
 henceforth thou shalt catch men ? (Luke v. 3, 10.) " 
 
 We confess that we are perfectly at a loss to discover any- 
 mysterious meaning in the circumstance of our Saviour being 
 pressed by the people when he stood by the borders of the 
 lake, and seeing two ships at hand, the fishermen having 
 gone out of them, being engaged washing their nets, that he 
 should enter into one of the ships, which happened to be 
 Simon's, and sit down and teach the people out of this ship. 
 When he had done speaking, he told Simon to launch out 
 into the deep ; and then is related the miraculous draught of 
 fishes, Simon's astonishment, and his exclamation requesting 
 Jesus to depart from him, for that he was a sinful man. 
 Dr. Milner does not, however, unfold the mysterious cover- 
 ing which here envelops Peter's supremacy by divine right, 
 and that of the Bishops of Rome, as his successors. 
 
 We cannot inform our readers how this " miraculous 
 draught of fishes," together with our Lord's declaration to 
 Simon, that from henceforth he " should catch men," tend 
 in any way to establish his case ; but had Dr. Milner taken 
 the ordinary precaution of looking to the parallel text in 
 Matthew iv. 19, and Mark i. 17, he would have found exactly 
 the same " prophetic declaration " applied by our Saviour to 
 Andrew by name, together with Peter. 
 
 9. " But the strongest proof," writes Dr. Milner, " of St. 
 Peter's superior dignity and jurisdiction, consists in the 
 explicit and energetical declaration of our Saviour to him, in 
 the quarters of Cesarea Philippi, upon his making that glo- 
 rious confession of our Lord's divinity : Tliou art Christ the 
 Son of the living God. Our Lord had mysteriously changed 
 his name, at his first interview with him, when Jesus, look- 
 ing upon him, said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona ; thou 
 shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (John i. 42) ; 
 and on the present occasion he explains the mystery, where 
 he says, Blessed art thou, Simon, Bar-jona," &c. &c. ; see 
 Matt. xvi. 1719." 
 
 In the first place, we have already shown that the " glorious 
 
 a Horn, in Matth. Ixxxii. or Ixxxiii. torn. vii. pp. 886-7, edit. Paris, 
 1837. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 135 
 
 confession of our Lord's Divinity was not peculiar to Peter, 
 nor was he the first to make this important declaration 
 (pp. 127-8, supra) ; and in the second place, we can discover 
 nothing " mysterious " in the change of name from Simon 
 to Peter, or a stone. Nor was there anything peculiar in the 
 circumstance, for it is also related of our Lord that he sur- 
 named James and John, Boanerges, which is, the Sons of 
 Thunder (Mark iii. 17) ; and this immediately after the text 
 in which is recorded the change of name of " Simon " to 
 " Peter." 
 
 If this text conveys any grant of that supremacy for which 
 Romanists contend, the grant can only be comprehended 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 nowhere else in the entire text 
 can we discover a vestige of any grant of a Universal Domi- 
 nant Supremacy. That Dr. Milner relies on this interpreta- 
 tion is evident from the manner in which the text is quoted. 
 
 We shall not weary our readers with any attempt at an 
 interpretation of the text in question : we could only advance 
 an opinion, which, while it differed from Dr. Milner' s inter- 
 pretation, might not agree with that of all our readers. We 
 believe that the Rock on which the Church was to be built 
 was Christ, and that an express distinction was made by our 
 Saviour between the words Trcrpoc, a Stone, Peter (John i. 
 42), and irirpa, a Rock, CHRIST (Eph. ii. 20, 1 Cor. x. 4), on 
 which the Church was to be built. 
 
 But how can Dr. Milner or any Romanist attempt to put a 
 precise construction on this text, when they cannot present to 
 us anything like a " unanimous agreement of the Fathers " in 
 the interpretation of it ? The truth is, the early theologians 
 are anything but agreed as to the import of this part of the 
 text. Justin, the oldest Father who notices the text, con- 
 tends, that the Rock, upon which our Lord promised to build 
 his Church, is not Peter individually, but Peter's Confession 
 of Faith. a Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine, maintain 
 that the Rock is Christ himself. 5 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 
 
 a Justin. Dial, cum Trypb. Oper. p. 255. Sylburg. 1593. 
 
 b Atban. Unum esse Christ. Orat. Oper. vol. i. pp. 519, 520. Commel. 1600. 
 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. 
 
136 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 idea, that Peter himself could have been intended.* 1 Hilary 
 also agrees with our oldest interpreter extant : for, like Jus- 
 tin, he states, that the Church was built upon the Rock of 
 the Confession of Peter. b From the very beginning, 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 con- 
 tend, and on which Dr. Milner undauntedly relies to support 
 his theory. 
 
 Such being the simple matter of fact, a clause, the import 
 of which has been differently denned- by different theolo- 
 gians 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 foundation for 
 a grant of Universal Dominant Supremacy to the Apostle 
 Peter. Had the early theologians, from the beginning, 
 invariably or uniformly understood the clause as the modern 
 Romanists would have us understand it, we admit that a 
 tolerably strong case would have been made out for at 
 least a personal Supremacy in Peter : 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 not more satisfactory than 
 that which we have last considered. 
 
 To elicit anything from this clause in favour of Peter's 
 Universal Dominant Supremacy, it ought to have been 
 demonstrated, that the power was given to Peter EXCLU- 
 SIVELY. But exactly the same power of binding and of 
 loosing is subsequently 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 through the authoritative 
 medium of their divinely-constituted monarch, the Arch- 
 apostle St. Peter. c Origen, indeed, contends for something 
 peculiar in the grant to Peter above all other persons : but 
 Origen is not borne out by the inspired narrative. Ter- 
 tullian, on the contrary, declared expressly that it was a per- 
 sonal gift to Peter, declaring the Bishop of Rome to be a 
 
 B Chrysost. Homil. Ixix. in Petr. Apost. et Eliam Proph. Oper. vol. i. 
 p. 856. Serm. de Pentecost. Oper. vol. vi. p. 233. Commel. 1603. 
 
 b Hilar. de Trin. lib. vi. Oper. p. 903. Paris, 1693. The same view of the 
 text, so far as we can understand him, seems to have been taken by Cyril of 
 Jerusalem. See Cyril Catech. xi. p. 93. Paris, 1631. 
 
 c Matt, xviii. 18. John xx. 21-23. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137 
 
 usurper for arrogating to himself this special privileged 
 When Jesus finally, after His resurrection, communicated the 
 power, whatever the precise nature of that power might be, 
 He communicated it, indifferently to all the Apostles, and 
 immediately from Himself. b Hence, though Cyprian main- 
 tains 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: and, in truth, the 
 whole history of Paul and his fellow-Apostles, as given in 
 the inspired writings, clearly shows their perfect mutual 
 independence; while it is quite silent as to any fancied 
 absolute monarchy of Peter . d 
 
 Does any Roman Catholic at the present day believe the 
 Pope of Rome has any such power as is here supposed to be 
 conveyed by the gift of the keys ? Is there one who believes 
 that the Pope of Rome has any such power vested in him ? 
 Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 heaven, are our Saviour's words to Peter, without any restric- 
 tion or reservation. Let him realize the thought, and he will 
 at once discard the idea as most impious. Christ gave to 
 Peter, not to Peter only, but also to the other Apostles, the 
 gift of healing the sick and of performing miracles. Why 
 do they claim to be successors of St. Peter in part only 
 of his "prerogatives?" The solution of the question is 
 easy ; but as no one can believe in the vain pretensions, it 
 is useless to discuss the question further. 
 
 Having now examined every single text separately adduced 
 by Dr. Milner for the doctrine of St. Peter's dominant autho- 
 rity, we unhesitatingly affirm, that not only do these texts 
 afford no testimony that Christ appointed Peter to be the 
 Supreme Head of His Church on earth, but utterly fail in 
 supporting any claim made for him to that lofty position 
 one, indeed, to which the Apostle himself would never 
 have aspired; 6 and are also as inapplicable in proving that 
 the Bishops of Rome are divinely constituted heirs of the 
 prerogatives of Peter (whatever we may fancy those preroga- 
 tives to have been), for it must be borne in mind that it is 
 the title of the " BISHOP OF ROME" and of his "See" for 
 which Dr. Milner is arguing. f 
 
 a Tert. de Pudicitia, cap. 21, torn. iv. p. 434. Halse Magd. 1771. 
 b John xxi. 2123. 
 
 c Epist. Quint. Ixxi. Oper. vol. ii. pp. 194, 195. Edit. Oxon. 1682. 
 d See more especially, for Paul's distinctly specified rationale of the Apostle- 
 ship, Galat. i. 11 22 ; ii. 1 19. Faber's " Difficulties of Romanism," b. i. c. iii. 
 e See Prot. Journal for 1836, p. 583. f See Letter xlvi. p. 437. 
 
138 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 We must now direct our attention to the consideration 
 whether, after all, Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. We find 
 Dr. Milner's " Peter-boat " gently gliding down the stream, 
 without affording any notion how he managed to get her off 
 the stocks. He at once introduces us, without a single "by 
 your leave," to St. Peter, as " The first Pope or Bishop of 
 Rome ;" and this subject we propose to consider in a separate 
 article. 
 
 SEC. TIL St. Peter's alleged visit to Rome.* 
 
 Dr. Milner, with his accustomed hardihood, declares ff that 
 St. Peter (after governing for a time the Patriarchate of 
 Antioch, the capital of the East, and thence sending his 
 disciple Mark to establish that of Africa at Alexandria) 
 finally fixed his own see at Rome, the capital of the world ; " 
 and that Saint Peter was " the first Pope or Bishop of 
 Rome," and that " his successor in the see of Rome succeeds 
 to his primacy and jurisdiction." b 
 
 The above and one or two other passages of this work are 
 intended to convey to those who are not versed in Ecclesias- 
 tical history, the impression that St. Peter lived and died in 
 Europe that he lived there for the greater part of twenty- 
 five years, and that it was for the sake of the principal 
 Gentile Church that the Apostle thus set at nought the 
 express command of Jesus, " Go not into the way of the 
 Gentiles" (Matt. x. 5). 
 
 It is admitted by the Roman clergy, that if St. Peter 
 occupied himself with the see of Rome only in the same 
 general sense in which he is known to have occupied himself 
 with the sees of Alexandria, Carthage, Lyons, Britain, and all 
 the other Gentile cities or countries of his time, if he did not 
 devote himself to the great Gentile capital in some exclusive 
 manner in which he did not devote himself to any other city, 
 there would be no grounds for the pretensions of their Church 
 to a universal supremacy. Their Church is, they all admit, 
 neither so much older than any other Church, nor so much 
 purer, nor so much more enlightened, nor so much more in 
 accordance with Scripture^nor so much less a Gentile Church, 
 than other Churches, as to entitle it upon such grounds to 
 
 a We are indebted for this article to Thomas Collins Simon, Esq., the 
 talented author of " The Mission and Martyrdom of St. Peter :" Seeley, 
 London, 1852. We most confidently recommend this book, as it embraces a 
 critical examination of every passage usually adduced from the Fathers in 
 support of the assertion that St. Peter personally went to Rome. 
 
 b Letter xlvi. pp. 440, 437, 439. 
 
ST. PETER'S ALLEGED VISIT TO ROME. 139 
 
 have assumed authority over other cities or other Churches. 
 They therefore insist upon the importance to them of the 
 Apostle's European residence ; and happily this grand point is 
 not with them an article of faith. They admit that it is a 
 mere matter of fact, which must stand or fall by whatever 
 evidence there exists respecting it. " It is an historical fact, 
 which we have to prove (says Father McCorry, in his tract 
 upon the subject), and that fact, like every other fact, must 
 be proved by the weight of testimony " (p. 4). 
 
 The strongest evidence by which the Roman priesthood 
 have sought to conciliate the belief of uninformed Protestants 
 to this strange notion of Peter's having lived twenty-five years 
 in Europe, consists of the following separate propositions : 
 1. That the Fathers speak of Peter as having founded the 
 Church at Rome ; from which it is inferred that he went to 
 Rome and lived there soon after our Lord's death. 2. That 
 Eusebius and the rest of the Greek and Roman Fathers said 
 that the word " Babylon " was used by Peter in his Epistle 
 instead of the word Rome ; from which it is inferred that the 
 Apostle died in that city. 3. That St. Jerome describes 
 Peter as being Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years in an 
 exclusive and peculiar sense ; from which it is inferred that 
 Peter must have resided there during that time. 4. That 
 St. Jerome, in his Latin Chronicon, and likewise Eusebius, 
 in his Greek Chronicon, describe the Apostle as mainly 
 residing in Europe for twenty-five years. 
 
 We shall examine each of these propositions, but it may be 
 of use to premise, that the story in question was first put for- 
 ward by Cardinal Baronius, about the time of the Reforma- 
 tion, and was long believed to exist in the writings of Eusebius 
 and Jerome, although (as is now well known to the learned) 
 neither of these writers affords the slightest foundation for it. 
 However piously intended, the fraud never cordially sup- 
 ported became at length so manifest, that it was disclaimed 
 even long before Milner's time by the most zealous of the 
 Papal writers, and with no small amount of indignation by 
 some of them. Charles Du Moulin, the great ecclesiastical 
 lawyer, whom Father Calmet describes as a steadfast 
 Roman Catholic, writes thus : " Even when, after the 
 breaking up of the empire, the Bishops of Rome began to 
 extend their authority over other churches, they never alleged 
 or put forward this story of Peter's having left the East, 
 which they would not have omitted to do if there had been 
 any such thing to put forward, a clear proof that there was 
 not, the story not having been yet invented" (vol. iv. 
 p. 460). 
 
140 THE POPE 7 S SUPREMACY. 
 
 Father Hardouin, a learned Jesuit, and zealous partisan of 
 the Papal pretensions, well aware how little historical support 
 the story had, writes to the same effect : " We Roman Catho- 
 lics hold that at least Peter's head was brought to Rome after 
 his crucifixion, and that it ought to be duly worshipped there ; 
 but that the Pope is Christ's substitute and Peter's successor 
 is clear enough, without our being bound to suppose that 
 Peter himself ever came to Rome." The celebrated Father 
 Antonio Pagi, a Franciscan monk, and the most learned as 
 well as partial of Baronius' s commentators, honestly declares 
 that the story is " contrary to Scripture." (See Baronii 
 Annales, vol. i. A.D. 45, note.) And as this fatal objection to 
 it is admitted by all the more learned of the Roman Catho- 
 lics, we shall here observe what the Scripture information 
 amounts to : 1. Our Lord's command that Peter should not 
 go to the towns or cities in which the Gentiles prevailed, but 
 that he should go to the towns and cities in which there were 
 the greatest number of Jews (Matt. x. 5, 6). 2. Peter's 
 account of himself as resident at Babylon, when his death 
 was at hand (1 Pet. v. 13; 2 Pet. i. 14), Babylon having 
 at that time some hundred thousand Jewish inhabitants, 
 while Rome often had none at all, and never more than a few 
 thousand. 3. Peter's residence in Judea and Syria until 
 Agrippa's death, which took place in the fourth year of the 
 Roman Emperor Claudius, whereas the story reports him to 
 have gone to found the Roman Church in the second year of 
 Claudius. 4. Paul's residence at Rome for two years, without 
 having seen Peter there, nor even heard of his having been 
 there. Such is the Scripture upon this point. Stephen 
 Baluze, a learned and zealous Papist, who died in 1718, says 
 of this story of Baronius : " How preposterous (absurda) 
 such a supposition as this is, when no ancient writer states it, 
 those well know who are acquainted with this subject." 
 (Baluze in Lactant. de Mort. Persecut. cap. 2.) In adverting 
 to this remark of Baluze, Father Ceillier says : " And this 
 also is the view of the matter that I adopt." (Ceill. vol. i. 
 c. 9.) Father Calmet, who died in 1757, says that even 
 before his time, the supposition of Baronius had been aban- 
 doned by the Roman clergy as utterly untenable : ee As to 
 saying that Peter lived twenty-five years at Rome as bishop, 
 that is a notion that people do not now pretend to justify." 
 (Prel. Diss. on 1 Peter.) The amiable and learned Roman 
 Catholic Archbishop De Marca says (De Concordia Sacer- 
 dotii et Imperii, lib. vi. cap. 1, 4), in utter contempt of the 
 pious fraud of Baronius : " St. Peter went from Jerusalem 
 to Antioch, and thence to Babylon, where the hereditary 
 
ST. PETER'S ALLEGED VISIT TO ROME. 141 
 
 patriarch of the first dispersion of the Jews resided. When 
 established in that city,, he wrote his first Epistle." 
 
 We see then that the story put forward by Milner is not 
 believed by the Roman Catholics themselves at least, if by 
 any of them, only by the more ignorant and uninformed ; 
 and this would be perhaps enough to make clear respecting 
 it. We shall now, however, proceed to explain, for the satis- 
 faction of our readers, the four propositions above given, out 
 of which Cardinal Baronius was tempted to invent the story, 
 in the hope of thereby arresting the Reformation. 
 
 Proposition 1. All the Fathers unite in saying that it was 
 at Jerusalem that St. Peter laid the foundations of the Roman 
 Church, there being Romans among his first converts 
 (Acts ii. 10), who subsequently returned home, "preaching 
 the word" (viii. 4), after the death of Stephen. Thus 
 Gregory of Nyssa, in his sermon upon Stephen, says, " From 
 this time the disciples of the twelve began to traverse the 
 whole world, and this was the beginning of the diffusion of 
 the Gospel in all quarters. In this way it was that Samaria 
 received the word. Thus also the Egyptians, Syrians, Par- 
 thians [i. e. Babylonians,] and the Mesopotamians, the Italians 
 also, and the Illyrians, and the Macedonians began to have 
 their churches/' 
 
 Irenseus also, after quoting portions of Peter's address from 
 the second chapter of the Acts, says, " These are the words 
 of that church [at Jerusalem], by which every other church 
 was founded. These are the words of the parent church - 
 the words of the Apostles, &c., after the ascension of the 
 Lord." (B. iii. ch. xii. sect. 5.) 
 
 St. Athanasius says of these early converts, in his sermon 
 "De Sementi :" "For they were scattered in this way, in 
 order that in their travels over the world they might diffuse 
 and, as it were, plant the Christian churches." 
 
 St. Chrysostom speaks thus of this sudden creation of the 
 Christian churches everywhere : " For though it is a little 
 thing to say, ' I shall build my Church/ do not hasten over 
 the words as if they were nothing, but unfold them to your 
 understanding, and reflect how immense an act it was in this 
 rapid manner to fill with so many churches every portion of the 
 earth that is inhabited by mankind, and to erect altars every- 
 where, in the country of the Romans, and of the Persians [i. e. 
 Babylonians], in Scythia, in Mauritania, and upon the Indus. 
 But what am I saying? The thing went even beyond 
 this world of ours ; for the British Isles, which are situated 
 beyond our sea which lie, in fact, in the very ocean these 
 felt the power of those mighty words. Even there, even in 
 
142 
 
 those islands, churches and altars were then erected and the 
 words so spoken were realized in every heart. Thus it was 
 that His Apostles founded our Lord's churches everywhere." a 
 
 And what says Cardinal Baronius himself? "In the 
 thirty-fifth year after the birth of Christ " these are his 
 words " all the Christians except the Apostles were com- 
 pelled to leave Jerusalem on Stephen's death, when they pro- 
 ceeded into different countries the most widely separated from 
 one another. In these countries they preached the Gospel, 
 and enabled the Apostles in this manner to multiply under 
 favourable circumstances the churches of God." (Annal. 
 A.D. 35, init.) 
 
 But Baronius often admits that Peter's presence is not 
 implied in his foundation of a church. " For what does it 
 mean/' he asks (A.D. 39, para. 16), " when Peter is said to 
 have founded the Church of Antioch ? They are quite wrong 
 who think that Peter must have gone to Antioch for that 
 purpose." And, again : " As Peter's chair at Alexandria, in 
 which it cannot be made to appear that Peter ever was, was 
 founded by that Apostle, it is quite evident that his pre- 
 sence was not necessary to found even a patriarchal see." 
 (Ibid.) 
 
 Thus, though Peter is said to have founded the Church of 
 Rome, there is no reason whatever for supposing him to have 
 gone to that city. 
 
 Proposition 2. This is now well known by those versed in 
 Church literature to be altogether a mistake. Neither Euse- 
 bius nor any other of the Greek or Latin Fathers have said 
 that " Babylon " meant " Rome " in Peter's First Epistle. 
 Eusebius, indeed, mentions a conjecture to that effect as cur- 
 rent among some of the Jewish converts in his day, but that 
 is all ; and Eusebius is the only one who mentions even this ; 
 no other Greek or Latin Father has even alluded to it. He 
 does not say, however, that a conjecture of that description 
 (formed, moreover, 300 years after the event) appeared to him 
 sufficient foundation for rejecting the information of the 
 Scriptures. He says the contrary ; he says the proposed meta- 
 phor was too bold (TpowiKUTtpov). (B. ii. chap, xv.) 
 
 What gave credibility for a short time to the story of 
 Baronius was that Jerome, a Latin writer, who, although he 
 himself acknowledged that he was a very bad Greek scholar, 
 yet professed to translate this Greek passage of Eusebius, in 
 his work on Ecclesiastical Authors, simply wrote down, upon 
 the authority of Eusebius, that Peter had used one name for 
 the other, not that there was a rumour of his having done 
 a Chrysost. vol. i. edit. Paris, 1834, p. 702. 
 
ST. PETER'S ALLEGED VISIT TO ROME. 143 
 
 so. But even on the supposed authority of Eusebius, Jerome 
 did not reject the Scripture statement, but distinctly states 
 that it was from Babylon Peter wrote. (Comment, on Haggai, 
 chap, ii.) In Jerome's own Commentary also on Peter's 
 Epistle, he does not so much as mention what his ignorance 
 of Greek led him to suppose was the opinion of Eusebius. 
 
 We have observed that none of the Fathers have sanc- 
 tioned the rumour recorded by Eusebius any more than 
 Eusebius himself. They have not even recorded it. It is to 
 this that Father Tillemont adverts, when he says, " Bishop 
 Pearson attributes this notion to many of the Fathers. It 
 is to be regretted that he has not mentioned who they were. 
 He did not, however, himself entertain it." a And scarcely 
 any of the more enlightened Horn an Catholic writers have 
 adopted the practice of the few Jewish converts alluded 
 to by Eusebius, even though they supposed that they had 
 the authority of Eusebius and other Fathers to uphold them 
 in doing so. "Peter's First Epistle," says Father Dupin, 
 " was written from Babylon. Some of the ancients were of 
 opinion that Rome was meant by this name, but this inter- 
 pretation would not be natural. We cannot precisely assign 
 the time when it was written ; but we may consider that it 
 was written at Babylon, A.D. 45." (Prelim. Diss. sect. 4.) 
 We have already seen what was the opinion of the Roman 
 Catholic Archbishop De Marca ; and Father Calmet says, that 
 several other distinguished Romanists had long given up the 
 rumour, as a frivolous innovation upon Scripture. But in 
 fact, all now, except the more ignorant Romanists, find them- 
 selves reduced to the necessity of abandoning this rumour, 
 however vaguely they may choose to express themselves on 
 the subject : for they are all agreed that the Epistle was 
 written about A.D. 45, while Claudius was Emperor; so that 
 supposing it written in Europe, is supposing Peter to have 
 left the East in the reign of Claudius, that notion of Baro- 
 nius which (as we have already shown) all the learned in 
 communion with the Church of Rome now acknowledge to 
 be utterly untenable. Upon what grounds then is it, we ask, 
 that enlightened Protestants are expected to listen to a 
 Roman story, which Romanists themselves do not believe ? 
 
 Proposition 3. It is quite a mistake to suppose that Jerome 
 describes Peter as being Bishop of Rome for twenty-five 
 years in any other sense than as he was Bishop of Carthage, 
 Canterbury, or Alexandria for the same time. Jerome has 
 said exactly the contrary : " Peter did not fix his see in any 
 
 a Till. art. Peter, note 31, vol. i. part 2. 749, edit. Bruxelles, 1706. 
 
144 THE POPE 7 S SUPREMACY. 
 
 single city only. The whole world was Peter's see." (Jer. 
 adv. Vigilantium.) And that was the view that all the Fathers 
 took of this matter. St. Augustine says, that " Peter received 
 the whole world as his diocese." (Aug. in Psalm ciii. serm. 
 iii. sec. 16, vol. iv. p. 1161.) Gregory the Great says that 
 Alexandria was as much Peter's see as any other church, 
 and that the Bishop of Alexandria was then sitting in Peter's 
 chair as well as himself. (Lib. vi. Epist. 40.) In the same 
 spirit St. Gildas speaks of Peter as bishop of these islands. 
 (Gild. De Excid. Brit. p. 2.) Thus we see that though 
 some of the Fathers speak of Peter as the bishop of single 
 countries or cities/ as Alexandria, England, Antioch, Rome, 
 &c., they considered it rintrue as well as unorthodox to 
 speak of him in the way modern Romanists do, as having 
 fixed his see anywhere; and we further perceive from the 
 above references, as well as many others, that even if it were 
 true that Peter was exclusively Bishop of Alexandria, Bri- 
 tain, or Rome, his having been bishop of a place would not 
 imply his having gone to that place, as Cardinal Bellarmine 
 frankly admits, arguing that "many who were Bishops of 
 Rome never resided at Rome; such as Clement V.,"John XXII., 
 Benedict XII., Clement VI., and Innocent VI., who were 
 ordained in France, and in France lived all their lives." 
 (Bell. De Summ. Pontif. lib. ii. chap. 1). And Father Har- 
 douin, as we have seen, argues to the same effect. But we 
 may here observe, that it was not until a very late period 
 that -any of the Fathers spoke of Peter as a bishop at all. 
 Even up to the time of Eusebius this was not done. " The 
 Apostles," says De Valois, the learned Roman Catholic com- 
 mentator upon Eusebius, " had a rank peculiar to themselves, 
 nor were they reckoned among the bishops " (On Euse- 
 bius, iii. 14) ; and again, " It must not be forgotten that 
 Eusebius never reckons the Apostles among the bishops of 
 
 the Churches Irenceus, as well as ]Eusebius, says 
 
 that Peter and Paul laid the first foundations of the Church 
 of Rome, but these writers nowhere reckon them among the 
 bishops of that church." (iii. 21.) But this point is unim- 
 portant. What it is really of moment to remember is, that 
 even if Peter was Bishop of Rome thirty-five years, as some 
 say, or twenty-five, as others inform us, that fact does not 
 prove him to have been at Rome at all, or to have been its 
 bishop in other sense than as St. Gildas said he was Bishop of 
 Britain, or as Gregory the Great said he was Bishop of Alex- 
 andria, or as Augustine and Jerome say he was bishop of the 
 whole world. 
 
 Proposition 4. It remains that we should now show upon 
 
ST. PETER'S ALLEGED VISIT TO ROME. 145 
 
 what grounds all well-informed Roman Catholics reject this 
 fourth portion of the historical evidence adduced by Baronius. 
 The chief facts to be here stated are, that Eusebius wrote in 
 Greek, and Jerome in Latin, the one being a Greek, the 
 other a Latin Father ; that Eusebius first wrote his Chro- 
 nicon and then his History; that his Chronicon is now 
 wholly lost; that Jerome was an indifferent Greek scho- 
 lar ; that what is now sometimes erroneously called his 
 Translation of Eusebius's Greek Chronicon, he himself 
 admitted was not a translation of that work, but a compila- 
 tion from various writers, from Eusebius among the rest ; 
 that the MSS. of Jerome's Chronicon reached the first editors 
 full of interpolations and changes ; that it appeared to Baro- 
 nius and others that it must have been even altered in form 
 and arrangement from what Jerome originally wrote ; that 
 we have now, therefore, no clue as to what there was or was 
 not in the original Greek Chronicon of Eusebius no clue even 
 as to what there was or was not in the original Latin Chronicon 
 of Jerome, Baronius and all the Roman clergy admitting that 
 it cannot be relied upon per se for any one statement that 
 it contains ; that the passage in it about Peter's having lived 
 twenty-five years at Rome is nevertheless not unlikely to have 
 really originated with Jerome, as there is a somewhat similar 
 passage in Jerome's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Authors, 
 which work he acknowledges that he compiled from Eusebius ; 
 that if it really did originate with Jerome, it is very uncertain 
 whether Jerome used the terms of this passage in any other than 
 their ecclesiastical sense; that in their mere ecclesiastical sense 
 they neither denote a journey to Rome nor a residence there ; 
 that if they are to be looked upon in any other light, the 
 passage is a mere mistranslation from Eusebius (B. ii. c. 14) ; 
 that Jerome, however, has nowhere, even upon the supposed 
 authority of Eusebius, incorporated this statement with his 
 own original writings, although these writings are extremely 
 voluminous ; that none of the other Greek or Latin Fathers, 
 except two, ever noticed it ; and that these two only noticed 
 it as a statement of Jerome's. 
 
 The passage from Jerome's Chronicon runs thus : te In the 
 second year of Claudius, Peter, as soon as he had founded the 
 Church of Antioch, is given the mission of Rome (Romam 
 mittitur), where he promulgated the Gospel, and he was also 
 the bishop of that church for twenty-five years, without 
 cessation." 
 
 It has already been shown that, in ecclesiastical language, 
 " to found a church," or " to be its bishop/' does not imply 
 a person's presence. Those Apostles were also said " to pro- 
 
 L 
 
146 THE 
 
 mulgate " the Gospel anywhere, who caused it to be preached 
 there; and " to have the mission" of a city, or " to proceed" 
 to it, who occupied themselves about its church. Thus, 
 Nicephorus (xiv. 39) says that <e when Peter had arranged 
 the Church of Rome, he next proceeded (utT&atvtv) to Alex- 
 andria," although it was well known that he never went there. 
 The ancient Latin translator here uses transit to express this 
 ecclesiastical sense. So that we see there is a great proba- 
 bility of Jerome's having only used these words in an eccle- 
 siastical acceptation in his passage ; but if we prefer to attach 
 the ordinary meaning to the word, we see that this naturally 
 resulted from the attempt of one little versed in Greek 
 literature to translate the passage in Eusebius ii. 14, where 
 the Apostle is said to have had his exertions directed against 
 the Samaritan heresy at Rome, while he was still residing at 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Jerome's ignorance of Greek he himself acknowledges in 
 his preface to his Latin Chronicon. 
 
 The interpolations, alterations and errors, of which the Chro- 
 nicon almost wholly consists, are attested by Baronius (A.D. 3.25, 
 para. 215], where he speaks of it as a "labyrinth of error." 
 
 Father Ceillier (vol. iv. p. 256) explains how Eusebius 
 wrote his Chronicon before his History, which was the larger 
 and completer work ; and that the Chronicon was wholly 
 lost. He also explains (p. 221) the fictitious character of a 
 work which passed for some time under the name of Euse- 
 bius's Chronicon ; but which was a mere mass of extracts, 
 compiled by Scaliger from recent writers. 
 
 The reader will now see what substantial reasons induced 
 the enlightened Roman Catholics to refuse to defend their 
 church by so frivolous and groundless a story as that brought 
 forward by Baronius, and here repeated by Dr. Milner for 
 circulation among uninformed Protestants. But why, we 
 again ask, should Roman Catholics now call upon the latter 
 to believe what the better informed among themselves have 
 long ago regarded as a groundless and even an absurd story ? 
 
 SEC. IV. Historical Evidence. St. Paul. Ignatius. Clement of Eome. 
 Irenaeus . Tertullian . Origen . Cyp rian . Je rome . 
 
 Having comfortably established St. Peter as the Bishop of 
 Rome, by the mere power of assertion unsupported by any 
 proof whatever, Dr. Milner proceeds to affirm that " his suc- 
 cessors there [at Rome] have each of them exercised the power 
 of supreme pastor ; and that they have been acknowledged by 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ST. PAUL. 147 
 
 all Christians,, except by notorious heretics and schismatics, 
 from the apostolic age down to the present, the writers, and 
 doctors, historians of the church unanimously testify." a 
 Here there is a direct appeal to the testimony of history, and by 
 which Dr. Milner seems to be willing to test the claim raised 
 by his church for the supremacy and presidency of her chief 
 bishop. We now propose to examine these authorities. 
 
 1. ST. PAUL. The first authority appealed to is St. Paul, 
 " who (we are told), having been converted and raised to the 
 apostleship in a miraculous manner, thought it necessary to go 
 up to Jerusalem to see Peter, where he abode with him fifteen 
 days (Galat. i. 18)." (p. 440.) It is strange that Dr. Milner 
 should force the meaning of a writer so accessible to every 
 one. That St. Paul thought it necessary to go to Jerusalem 
 to visit Peter is a stretch of the doctor's imagination : his 
 own translation of the Testament tells him simply, "Then 
 three years after [he had gone to Arabia and again returned 
 to Damascus] I came to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed 
 with him fifteen days." It is natural that St. Paul, " being 
 called to the grace of Christ," should be desirous to see 
 Peter, one of the foremost, if not the chief, of the Apostles, 
 and certainly, according to tradition, the eldest of them. But 
 how this can prove a Supremacy in Peter is quite beyond 
 our comprehension. This took place about A.D. 38. b St. 
 Luke, in his history of the "Acts of the Apostles," in the 
 ninth chapter, describes St. Paul's journey to Damascus, and 
 afterwards to Jerusalem at this time. It is wholly impossible 
 to trace any hint or allusion in the circumstance related by 
 him, from which we can deduce any such inference as Dr. 
 Milner desires to convey from the fact of St. Paul's visit ; on 
 the contrary, he does not even so much as name St. Peter, 
 though he enters into various circumstances which occurred 
 to himself while at Jerusalem. 
 
 Chrysostom, commenting on the fact of St. Paul's visit, is 
 very far from drawing any argument in favour of St. Peter's 
 primacy from it ; indeed, had such a primacy been acknow- 
 ledged by Chrysostom, he would, like Dr. Milner and other 
 modern Komanists, have taken this opportunity of asserting 
 the fact ; but Chrysostom seems to make it a condescension 
 on the part of St. Paul. He says, " What can indicate more 
 humility than this intention (^vgifc) ? After so many and 
 so great exploits, having no need at all of Peter, or of his 
 discourses, but being in dignity equal to him (for I will now 
 say no more), he yet doth go up to him, as to one greater 
 
 a Letter xlvi. p. 440. 
 
 b Acts ix. 26, is considered the parallel passage. 
 L 2 
 
148 
 
 and more ancient ; and a sight alone of Peter is the cause 01 
 his journey thither." " He went, not to learn anything of 
 him, nor to receive any correction from him, but for this only, 
 that he might see him and honour him with his presence/' a 
 
 But why did not Dr. Milner pass on to the subject nar- 
 rated by St. Paul in the second chapter to the Galatians? 
 Fourteen years after, namely A.D. 52, St. Paul went up again 
 to Jerusalem, because " of false brethren " having preached 
 erroneously with reference to circumcision. (Acts xv.) Here 
 he expressly informs us that he was the chosen Apostle to 
 preach to the Gentiles, while Peter was chosen for the ' ' apo- 
 stleship of the circumcision/' The subject was discussed at 
 Jerusalem among the Apostles there ; but when St. Peter 
 subsequently went to Antioch, St. Paul tf withstood him to 
 his face (before them all), because he was to be blamed." 
 (Gal. ii. 11, 14.) 
 
 But if St. Paul be appealed to as bearing testimony on the 
 subjects, first, as to St. Peter's having occupied the See of 
 Home ; and, second, of his recognized position as Supreme 
 Bishop of the whole Christian Church, and consequently that 
 St. Paul was subject to him, we could briefly reply, that no 
 such conclusion can be gathered from his writings ; the nega- 
 tive evidence, on the contrary, may be strongly urged : 
 
 I. St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, as the Rhemish 
 Testament acknowledges, " about twenty-four years after our 
 Lord's ascension," viz. A.D. 57. He nowhere in this Epistle 
 so much as names Peter as being at Rome, though he sends 
 his salutations to numerous persons there, and mentions 
 twenty-six by name. Perrone, the Jesuit Lecturer at Rome, b 
 is sadly incommoded by the inference so fairly deducible from 
 the silence of St. Paul, against any residence of St. Peter in 
 that city, when some mention of him at least would have 
 been so natural. Perrone thinks that the omission may be 
 paralleled by the absence of any reference to the bishops of 
 other sees in other Epistles ; but after having endeavoured to 
 squeeze an argument for St. Peter's chieftainship out of nearly 
 all his public actions/ and making all of them bear witness 
 to his having had a dominant superiority conferred upon him, 
 and which he began to exercise in the first Council; how 
 utterly inconsistent to imagine him placed in actual possession 
 of the throne of his glory, and yet that nothing should be 
 heard of him, not a single recognition of his giving any order, 
 
 * Chrysost. in Gal. i. 18, p. 804, torn. x. Paris, 1837. 
 
 b Prselectiones Theologicae, torn. ii. de Primatu, sec. 556, edit. Mediol. 
 1845. 
 
 c See Elliott's "Delineation of Romanism," p. 615. London, 1851. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ST. PAUL. 149 
 
 no sign of presence. Whether he had, unfortunately, just 
 gone off to his country seat at Albano, we cannot say ; there 
 is no trace of him anywhere. Tradition is, in short, con- 
 fessedly needed (see Perrone ut supra, 540 and note), to act 
 as an interpreter in an obscure matter, and to explain to us 
 that the supremacy is there to be found ; and it being thus 
 plain (so they say) from tradition why the primacy was insti- 
 tuted, it is evident that this article of faith is founded on 
 Scripture. St. Paul himself proceeded to Rome, from whence 
 he wrote several Epistles. The same Rhemish translation 
 the edition now in general use in England informs us that 
 he wrote his Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and 
 Colossians, from Rome, about A.D. 64. In these he names 
 several persons then at Rome, who desired their salutation, 
 but Peter is not named. His Second Epistle to Timothy was 
 also written from Rome in the time of his last imprisonment 
 at Rome, and not long before his martyrdom; namely, A.D. 
 66, when he was brought before Nero the second time. And 
 here we have very strong presumptive evidence, that Peter 
 was not there at that period. Paul complained that all but 
 Luke had forsaken him. "At my first answer no man stood 
 with me, but all forsook me. I pray God that it may not be 
 laid to their charge." a Had Peter been there, would he have 
 left Paul to suffer alone ? b 
 
 Tradition informs us that St. Peter boldly faced death ; if at 
 Rome then, why should he have forsaken Paul in the hour of 
 need ? And, if so, either as bishop or otherwise, how very 
 remiss he must have been in his duty as shepherd of his 
 sheep ; for, in addition to the above facts, Paul states, that at 
 this time, when Onesiphorus " was in Rome he, sought me 
 out very diligently, and found me." Had the supposed " Su- 
 preme Pontiff," Peter, been there, he would have had no diffi- 
 culty in finding out through him so important an Apostle. 
 
 II. And, secondly, we can discover no allusion whatever to 
 the supposition of Paul being in any way subject to Peter. If 
 any inference of this kind is to be drawn from the New Tes- 
 tament, we should be led to consider that Paul was more 
 favoured than Peter. We expressly read, that upon Paul de- 
 volved " the care of all the Churches." c How conclusive would 
 this have appeared to Romanists had thus much been affirmed 
 of Peter ! Besides, Paul himself declared, that "in nothing [no 
 
 a 2 Tim. iv. 11 and 16. 
 
 b See this subject ably followed out in a pamphlet entitled " The See of 
 Eome, its Claims to Supremacy examined," being an extract and translation 
 from the "Recueil Catholique." London and Edinburgh, 1852. 
 
 c 2 Cor. xi. 28 ; and see Acts ix. 15, xiii. 2. 
 
150 
 
 gift, endowment, privilege, or right] am I behind the very 
 chiefest of the Apostles." (2 Cor. xii. 11.) Again, he said of 
 himself, that he " was not a whit behind the very chiefest of 
 the Apostles." (2 Cor. xi. 5.) And this declaration he made 
 upwards of thirty years after St. Peter is supposed to have 
 assumed the supreme government of the Church, as Christ's 
 representative. Peter's mission was destined to be among the 
 Jews. We find him, therefore, as the Apostle of the circum- 
 cision, carrying out his mission in Jerusalem, Csesarea, Lydda, 
 and Joppa, at which latter place he remained some time. 
 After this he preached to the Jews dispersed through Pontus, 
 Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia; and, lastly (as is 
 generally supposed), in Babylon, in Assyria. (1 Peter v. 13.) 
 It was not his office, therefore, as far as we can learn from 
 the Scriptures, to preach to the Gentiles in their own country, 
 much less to exercise any primacy over the Gentile churches. 
 While, on the contrary, Paul was called to preach to the 
 uncircumcised. (Rom. xi. 13 ; Gal. i. 6, 7.) And Rome came 
 under his especial care, and was therefore appointed by God 
 to a special and independent charge, irrespective of Peter or 
 any other supposed supreme Pontiff of Christ's Church. Arid 
 this is borne out by the testimony of Gregory of Nazianzum, 
 esteemed by Romanists a Father of the Church, who in the 
 Thirty-third Oration, sec. 11 (attributed to him), distinctly 
 confined Peter's sphere of action to Judea. 
 
 In. no one passage do we find related of Peter, as of Paul, 
 " that he had received grace and apostleship for obedience 
 to the faith among all nations, for His [Christ's] name/' 
 (Rom. i. 5.) And further, we have Scriptural evidence that 
 Paul resided at Rome for a considerable period of time, 
 but none at all respecting Peter; the evidence is against 
 such a supposition. 
 
 Ambrose, bishop of Milan, A.D. 390, another Father 
 and a saint canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, 
 recorded his opinion that " neither was Paul inferior to Peter 
 being well to be compared even with the first, and second 
 to none." a And another Father, also a canonized saint, 
 St. Chrysostom (A.D. 400), said, " For what was greater than 
 Peter, what equal to Paul ? " b And again he says, " Christ 
 committed the Jews to Peter, but set Paul over the Gentiles " 
 " he [Paul] doth further show himself to be equal to them 
 in dignity, and compared himself not only to others, but even 
 
 a Nee Paulus inferior Petro, cum primo quoque facile conferendus, et nulli 
 secundus. Amb. Oper. vol. iv. De Spiritu Sancto, lib. ii. cap. 12, col. 254. 
 Paris, 1661. 
 
 b Chrys. torn. v. Orat. 167. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IGNATIUS. 151 
 
 to the ringleader, showing that each did enjoy equal dignity"* 
 His work, " The Praises of Paul," is replete with such pas- 
 sages as the following : " He was the light of the churches, 
 the foundation of faith, the pillar and ground of truth ;" 
 " Nothing was more bright, nothing more illustrious than 
 he ;" " None was greater than he, yea, none equal to him ;" 
 " He had the whole patronage committed unto his hands." 
 Peter, it is very evident, did not hold the primacy in the 
 estimation of Saint Chrysostom. All the Apostles with him 
 were equal, for while extolling Paul, he included Peter and 
 the others : " But when I speak of Paul, I mean not only him, 
 but also Peter and James and John, and all their choir. For 
 as in a lyre there are different strings, but one harmony ; so, 
 too, in the choir of the Apostles, there were different persons, 
 but one teaching; since one, too, was the musician, even the 
 Holy Spirit, who moved their souls. And Paul, signifying this, 
 said, ' Whether, therefore, it were they or I, so we preach/ ): 
 
 Even Pope Gregory I. acknowledged that Paul t( was made 
 head of the nations, because he obtained the principate of the 
 whole world." 
 
 2. IGNATIUS. His second witness is "St. Ignatius" (p. 440). 
 
 " St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of the Apostles, and 
 next successor, after Evodius, of St. Peter in the see of An- 
 tioch, addresses his most celebrated Epistle to the church, 
 which he says ' PRESIDES in the country of the Romans/ '' 
 
 It is difficult to comprehend what these few words, " pre- 
 sides in the country of the Romans," have to do with Peter's 
 primacy, or the supremacy of the Pope of Rome over the 
 whole Christian Church. Ignatius wrote about the year 100. 
 Six Epistles are attributed to him, which are said to have been 
 written very shortly before his martyrdom : he refers to the 
 approaching event frequently. The six Epistles were written 
 to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadel- 
 phians, and Smyrnseans. In his Epistle to the Romans, he 
 says, " Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the church 
 which has obtained mercy from the most Holy Father, and 
 his only begotten Son Jesus Christ ; beloved and illuminated 
 through the will of Him who willeth all things which are 
 according to the love of Jesus Christ our God ; which also 
 presides in the place of the region of the Romans ; and which 
 I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, as being united both in 
 
 8 p. 440, vol. iii., Paris, 1835 ; and p. 811, vol. x., Paris, 1837. 
 
 b And see St. Chrys. Oper. toin. ii. p. 594, B. Bened. edit. Paris. 
 
 c " Caput etfectus est nationum, quia obtinuit totius Ecclesise principatum." 
 (Greg. M. in I. Keg. lib. iv. Videsis.) "Paulus Apostolorum Princeps." 
 (Epist. Spalat. in Lat. Syn. sub P. Jul. II. sess. 1, p. 25, quoted by Barrow.) 
 
152 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 flesh and spirit to all His commands, and filled with the grace 
 of God in Jesus Christ/' &c. a 
 
 In addressing his letter to tliis church, he refers to it most 
 naturally as presiding in the place of the region of the 
 Romans ; we shall presently see that he uses the same man- 
 ner of speech to the other churches, and far from conferring 
 any precedency or universal government centred in this 
 church, his words clearly indicate a limited jurisdiction to 
 that peculiar region. There is nothing in the entire Epistle 
 which could by any possibility denote any superiority in this 
 particular church ; on the contrary, he says, " I write to the 
 churches, and signify to them all, that I am willing to die for 
 God ! " Again, he says (sec. 9) , " Remember in your prayers 
 the Church of Syria, which now enjoys God for its shepherd, 
 instead of me : let Jesus Christ alone oversee it, and your 
 love." 
 
 Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, and, as Dr. Milner inti- 
 mates, next successor, after Evodius, to St. Peter himself, 
 who is supposed to have been the first bishop of that place. 
 Milner, a few lines before, says, that " St. Peter, after govern- 
 ing for a time the Patriarchate of Antioch, finally fixed his 
 own see at Rome, the capital of the world/' Peter's mar- 
 tyrdom is said to have taken place A. D. 61 ; so that at the 
 time when St. Ignatius wrote this Epistle, Peter must have 
 already occupied his see, then in his alleged successor's posses- 
 sion. It would be natural to suppose that Ignatius would 
 have referred to so peculiar a privilege, but nothing of the 
 sort appears. The only reference to St. Peter is in the fol- 
 lowing : " Pray, therefore, unto Christ for me, that by these 
 instruments [wild beasts, referring to his approaching death] 
 I may be made the sacrifice of God. I do not, as Peter and 
 Paul command you. They were Apostles, I a condemned 
 man," &c. 
 
 We shall now see that his language towards the Church of 
 Rome was nothing peculiar. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 he writes, " Ignatius, who is called Theophorus, to the church 
 which is at Ephesus, in Asia, most deservedly happy, being 
 blessed through the greatness and fulness of God the Father, 
 and predestinated before the world began, that it should be 
 always unto an enduring and unchangeable glory, being 
 united and chosen through his true passion according to the 
 will of the Father," &c. He calls them " much beloved in 
 God," that they had " perfectly accomplished the work that 
 was co-natural unto you," and "famous throughout the 
 
 B Archbishop Wake's Translation from the text of Vossius. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IGNATIUS. 153 
 
 world." He exhorts them to be " subject/' not to the see 
 or Bishop of Rome, but to their own " bishop and presbytery, 
 that they might be wholly and thoroughly sanctified;" "for 
 your famous presbytery, worthy of God [he said] is fitted as 
 exactly to the bishop, as the strings are to the harp." He 
 refers frequently to the excellency of their bishop, as CD joying 
 in this respect a peculiar privilege. Is it not strange that he 
 did not refer to the greater privilege which the see of Rome 
 is pretended to have enjoyed, as being presided over by the 
 " Chief Apostle," and then his legitimate successor ! and as 
 Dr. Milner adds, then exercising "the power of Supreme 
 Pastor, and acknowledged as such by all Christians?" In 
 this Epistle he nowhere names Peter, but he speaks of Paul 
 as " The holy, the martyr, the deservedly most happy Paul." 
 
 To the Magnesians he writes, " To the blessed [Church of 
 Magnesia], by the grace of God the Father in Jesus Christ 
 our Saviour : in whom I salute the church which is at Mag- 
 nesia." He speaks much of their bishops and presbyters, 
 he urges them, " as becomes those who are prudent in God, 
 submitting to him [their bishop], or rather not to him." 
 Does he here then refer to the Bishop of Rome as Supreme 
 Pastor ? No ; " but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Bishop of us all." 
 
 The Pope of Rome modern Romanists declare to be 
 " Vicar or Representative of Christ." Here Ignatius calls the 
 Bishop of Magnesia " bishop presiding in the place of God," 
 their presbyters as presiding " in the place of the Council of 
 the Apostles," and exhorts them all to " study to be con- 
 firmed in the doctrine of our Lord and of His Apostles." 
 
 To the Trallians he writes, "To the holy church which 
 is at Tralles, in Asia, beloved of God the Father of Jesus 
 Christ, elect and worthy of God, having peace through the 
 flesh and blood and passion of Jesus Christ, &c." He speaks 
 of them as continuing in the apostolical character ; he also 
 refers to their bishops. 
 
 And to the like effect he wrote to the Philadelphians. 
 
 To the Smyrnseans he writes in a similar manner : "To 
 the church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus 
 Christ, blessed with every good gift ; being filled with 
 faith and love, and being wanting in no gift ; most worthy 
 of God, and fruitful in saints; the church which is in 
 Smyrna, in Asia;" and declares them to be " settled in an 
 immovable faith." Romanists assert, Where the Pope of 
 Rome is, there is the Catholic Church. Ignatius, in this 
 Epistle, says, " Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic 
 Church" ( 8). 
 
154 
 
 We liave been particular in going through all the six 
 Epistles, for it will satisfy any candid reader that the fact of 
 Ignatius stating that the Church of Rome " presided in the 
 place of the region of the Romans/-' when compared with a 
 like reference to the other churches, did not disclose any 
 acknowledgment on his part that the Bishop of Rome " exer- 
 cised a supreme power" over other churches out of the 
 " place of the region of the Romans." Nor did his praises 
 of that church place it above other churches, for his lan- 
 guage, if anything, is more laudatory when writing to other 
 churches. Unless it were to make a vain display of the name 
 of a Christian martyr, we are at a loss to perceive why Igna- 
 tius should be cited as a witness to the supremacy of the 
 Bishop of Rome over the primitive Church. 
 
 3. CLEMENT OF ROME. The third witness is thus intro- 
 duced : " About the same time, dissensions taking place in the 
 Church of Corinth, the case was referred to the Church of Rome, 
 to which the holy Pope Clement, whose name is written in the 
 Book of Life (Philip, iv. 3), returned an Apostolical answer 
 of exhortation and instruction " (p. 440) . We cannot discover 
 under what authority, except his own, Dr. Milner asserts that 
 the case of the Corinthians was referred to the Church of 
 Rome. It is true that Clement wrote an Epistle, full of love 
 and Christian feeling, to the Corinthians ; but he neither wrote 
 as an Apostle, nor as one in authority, nor was his Epistle 
 addressed as from one holding supreme authority, or any 
 authority at all, over all churches, and certainly not in the 
 form or on the pattern of a modern Pope's letter. It did 
 not go forth as from himself; but he writes, "The church of 
 God which is at Rome, to the church of God which is at 
 Corinth, elect, sanctified by the will of God through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord." Each he acknowledges " a church of 
 God;" nor does he place his own church higher than that 
 of Corinth. There is not one word throughout the whole of 
 these two Epistles to indicate that Clement assumed to him- 
 self any such position as Dr. Milner would fain make out for 
 him. On the contrary, he says, " Christ is theirs, who are 
 humble, and who do not exalt themselves over the flock" 
 ( 16). The Epistle runs altogether in the same strain. Nor 
 is there the slightest historical evidence extant to warrant 
 the supposition that either the Church of Corinth or any 
 other church recognized in the Bishop of Rome a superior 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; and were it the subject of the pre- 
 sent discussion, we might show that there is a large portion 
 in this Epistle of pure and unadulterated Christianity, which 
 would ill accord with modern Romish teaching. If the fact 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE CLEMENT. 155 
 
 of writing a letter of " exhortation and instruction " to the 
 Corinthians conferred any peculiar privilege on the writer, 
 Paul had already occupied the ground, in having first written 
 a truly Apostolic exhortation to these same Corinthians ; and 
 yet no person would say that therefore Paul had a superior 
 jurisdiction over them. We might refer to other Epistles of 
 a similar nature, if it were any argument to the point. 
 
 There was not wanting an opportunity, in this Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, for Clement to assert or refer to his sup- 
 posed privilege as Supreme Pastor. He writes at some length 
 concerning the ministry; and there are many remarkable 
 passages in which he could not have omitted mentioning so 
 important an office as that of the one Supreme Bishop of the 
 Church, had any such then been recognized, particularly as 
 successor of one particular Apostle, specially appointed by 
 Christ to that peculiar office. 
 
 Again, as he had special reason to refer to Peter, as also 
 to Paul, the following extract will show in what way he 
 referred to each of them and their work in the ministry for 
 Christ's sake ; and where also he might have availed himself, 
 as the supposed successor of St. Peter, to have referred to 
 his peculiar office and jurisdiction; but, on the contrary, his 
 attention was more forcibly directed to Paul ; and this as 
 Bishop of Rome was natural enough, as Paul was most cer- 
 tainly at Rome, and laboured there for two years, and died 
 there ; while there is not one line of historical evidence, as 
 we have proved, that St. Peter was ever at Rome at all. 
 
 " Let us set before our eyes the holy Apostles. Peter, by 
 unjust envy,. underwent not one or two, but many sufferings; 
 till at last, being martyred, he went to the place of glory that 
 was due unto him. For the same cause, did Paul, in like 
 manner, receive the reward of his patience. Seven times he 
 was in bonds ; he was banished, was stoned ; he preached both 
 in the East and the West, leaving behind him the glorious 
 report of his faith ; and so having taught the whole world 
 righteousness, and for that end travelled even to the utmost 
 bounds of the West, he at last suffered martyrdom by the 
 command of the governors, and departed out of the world, 
 and went unto his holy place ; being become a most eminent 
 pattern of patience unto all ages" ( 5). a 
 
 Clement, in the same First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 quoted by Dr. Milner (though apocryphal), is made to call 
 James, our Lord's brother, " the Bishop of Bishops." ' 
 
 a We have here adopted Archbishop Wake's Translation. 
 b " Episcopo Episcoporum." See Concil. Lab. torn. i. col. 82E. Paris, 1671. 
 Epist. Clement. Papse I. ad Jacobum Fratrem Domini. 
 
156 
 
 4. IREN^US. The fourth witness cited is Irenseus : " In 
 the second century St. Irenseus, who had been instructed by 
 St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John the Evangelist, referring 
 to the tradition of the Apostles preserved in the Church of 
 Rome, calls it ' the greatest, most ancient, and most universally 
 known, as having been founded by St. Peter arid St. Paul ; 
 to which (he says) every church is bound to conform, by 
 reason of its superior authority ;' " and as a note is added, 
 "Ad hanc ecclesiam convenire necesse est omnern ecclesiain. 
 Contra Hseres. 1. iii. c. 3." (Letter xlvi. p. 441.) 
 
 As Irenseus lived at the latter half of the second century, 
 his testimony as historical evidence deserves particular atten- 
 tion. By giving a garbled, truncated citation, which has 
 not the merit of being even a translation, Dr. Milner hopes 
 to press the respected name of this bishop into his rank of 
 witnesses in proof of Peter's episcopate of Rome, and of his 
 having the supremacy over all others. Irenseus wrote in 
 Greek; but we rely almost solely on a Latin translation, and we 
 have few means of testing its accuracy. The entire passage, 
 so far as is applicable to the point in issue, is as follows : 
 
 " The tradition of the Apostles, manifested throughout the 
 whole world, may be seen in the Church by 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 would occupy too much 
 space to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we 
 shall confound all those persons who, from whatever bad 
 motive, make their deductions thus inaccurately, by simply 
 indicating that apostolic tradition and that declared faith 
 of the greatest and most ancient and universally known 
 church, founded at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles 
 Peter and Paul, which has come down even to us through 
 the succession of her bishops. For 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 which church, by 
 those who are on every side of it, the tradition, which is from, 
 the Apostles, has always been preserved. The blessed Apos- 
 tles, then, founding and building up that church, delivered 
 to Linus the office of administering it. But to him suc- 
 ceeded Anacletus ; and, after him, in the third place from 
 the Apostles, Clement received the episcopate. The successor 
 of Clement was Euaristus ; and, of Euaristus, Alexander. 
 Next to him, the sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was ap- 
 pointed ; after him, Telesphorus : next, Hyginus : then, Pius : 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IREN^US. 157 
 
 and then, Anicetus. But, when Soter had succeeded Anicetus, 
 Eleutherius now holds the episcopate, in the twelfth place 
 from the Apostles." a 
 
 With the entire passage before us, we have no difficulty in 
 ascertaining the true value of the evidence adduced. We 
 may safely admit, though it has not been satisfactorily proved, 
 that at this time the Roman bishopric was a most potent see. 
 Rome was the seat of the empire, and the most important 
 city ; but this is no reason for declaring that she had any 
 ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction over other churches. 
 No such deduction can be drawn from the words of Irenseus. 
 The deception lies in the insufficiency of the quotation of 
 Dr. Milner; the words immediately following give the key 
 to the passage, " For to this church, on account of the more 
 potent principality, it is necessary that every church should 
 resort." Now here Irenseus proceeds to explain his meaning, 
 "that is to say, those faithful individuals who are on 
 every side of it :" " eos qui sunt undique " cannot mean 
 " every church," according to the sense Dr. Milner would 
 desire to convey. To serve his own purpose, the doctor has 
 thought proper to express the phrase of Irenseus by the 
 English words its superior authority, thus compelling this 
 venerable father to ascribe to the Roman Church a universal 
 dominant supremacy; and in order that the context may 
 fitly correspond with his somewhat diffuse rendering, he 
 makes Irenseus state that every church is bound to conform 
 " to the see of Rome." 
 
 The true sense of the passage is evident when compared 
 with parallel passages from Tertullian and Jerome. 
 
 The passage from Tertullian is as follows : 
 
 " Let heretics, then, produce the origin of their churches ; 
 let them evolve the order of their bishops, so running through 
 successions from the beginning, that the first bishop should 
 have for his author and predecessor some one either of the Apo- 
 stles themselves, or of apostolical men, their contemporaries. 
 For, in this manner, the apostolical churches carry down their 
 enrolments. Thus, the church of the Smyrnseans relates itself 
 to have Polycarp there placed by John. Thus the church 
 of the Romans adduces Clement ordained by Peter [he does 
 not say that Peter himself was bishop] . 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 who shalt wish better to exercise 
 thy curiosity in the business of thy salvation ; run through the 
 
 a The original text of this passage we hare given above, pp. 61-2, note c. 
 
158 THE 
 
 apostolic churches in which the very chairs of the apostles are 
 still in their own places occupied, in which their identical 
 authentic letters are recited, sounding forth the voice, and 
 representing the face, of each one. Is Achaia near to thee ? 
 Thou hast Corinth. Ifthouart not far from Macedonia, thou 
 hast Philippi, thou hast Thessalonica. If thou canst go into 
 Asia, thou hast Ephesus. Or if thou art adjacent to Italy, thou 
 hast Rome ; 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 ! " a 
 
 We shall presently see that Tertullian considered all 
 churches " conspiring in the same faith were accounted by 
 him as apostolical churches, because of the consanguinity of 
 doctrine/' and, with respect to churches planted by the 
 Apostles, he considered them all of equal worth. 
 
 Jerome, of the Latin Church, writing to Pope Damasus, 
 stated that he followed none as first but Christ, and was 
 associated in communion with the Bishop of Rome (probably 
 his own bishop, and certainly his intimate friend), but, being 
 . absent, and not being able to have recourse to him, he held 
 to that bishop to whom he was nearest, namely, the " faithful 
 Egyptians." b In fact, he declares that all bishops, in point 
 of merit and dignity, are equal, and all of them are successors 
 of the Apostles : " Wheresoever a bishop is, whether at Rome, 
 or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Alexandria, he is of the 
 same worth and the same priesthood." c , Irenseus himself 
 bears testimony with regard to other churches to the follow- 
 ing effect : " This is a most full demonstration, that there 
 is one and the same vivifying faith, which, in the Church, 
 has been preserved and handed down in truth, from the 
 Apostles even to the present time : for the Church at 
 Ephesus, founded, indeed, originally by Paul, but having John 
 permanently residing among its members, even so late as the 
 days of Trajan, is a true witness of that which was delivered 
 by the Apostles." d 
 
 * Age jam, qui, voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae, 
 percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae Apostolorum 
 suis locis praesidentur, apud quas ipsae authenticae literse eorum recitantur, 
 sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proxima est tibi 
 Achaia ? Habes Corinthura. Si non longe es a Macedonia : habes Philippos ; 
 babes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere : habes Ephesum. Si 
 autem Italiae adjaces : habes Romam ; unde nobis quoque autoritas praesto est. 
 Felix ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, &c. 
 Tertull. Praescript. adv. Haeret. sec. 11, 14. Oper. pp. 107, 108, 109, edit. 
 Bea. Rhenani, 1550 ; and capp. 32, 36, p. 216, Paris, 1675. 
 
 b Epist. adDamas. lvii.tom.ii.p.175. Paris, 1602. See infra, title "Jerome." 
 
 c Hier. ad Evag. vol. iv. par. 2, Ep. ci. alias Ixxxv. p. 803. Paris, 1706. 
 See infra, "Jerome." 
 
 d Et est plenissima haec ostensio, unam et eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IREN^IUS. 159 
 
 With these extracts before us, it is abundantly evident, 
 that in any question of doctrine or discipline arising among 
 the members of adjacent churches, or in the provinces, 
 Irenseus recommends that appeal should be made to the 
 nearest apostolically founded Metropolitan Mother-Church, 
 to which the " faithful who are on every side of it should 
 resort." 
 
 This passage, therefore, can in no way assist the cause of 
 "Papal Supremacy." 
 
 But Dr. Milner, in order yet further to establish his posi- 
 tion from Irenseus, adduces (after others) the supposed exer- 
 cise of a predominant authority in the case of the Roman 
 Bishop Victor the circumstances attendant on which we 
 should otherwise have viewed as supplying proof sufficient 
 that the Bishop of Rome had not any rightful ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction over other churches. 
 
 "I must add," writes Dr. Milner, "that, at this early 
 period, Pope Victor exerted his superior authority, by threat- 
 ening the bishops of Asia with excommunication for their 
 irregularity in celebrating Easter, with the other moveable 
 feasts ; from which rigorous measure he was deterred chiefly 
 by St. Irenseus (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 24)." (p. 441.) 
 
 The following is shortly the history of the matter. Victor 
 was the first bishop who appears to have interfered with 
 the liberties of other Churches. He wrote to the bishops of 
 the East, desiring them to keep Easter-day on the Sunday, 
 and unable to answer their arguments in favour of their view 
 of the subject, who, following the old Jewish custom, kept 
 the day on the fourteenth day after the first new moon 
 that followed the vernal equinox: cut short the dispute, 
 by withdrawing himself from their communion, or, if the 
 Romanists prefer the expression, excommunicating the 
 churches of the East ; and thus the guilt of the first schism 
 lies at his door. But the Eastern bishops wholly disregarded 
 his threats, for the quarrel continued for 120 years after, 
 when the question was settled at the Council of Nice, 
 A.D.325. 
 
 Victor, Bishop of Rome, on this occasion, took upon him- 
 self, with overbearing assumption, to act for the Western 
 bishops : and although he held the largest and a most im- 
 portant see, the other Western bishops exhorted (Rufinus says 
 
 quee in Ecclesia ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata et tradita in veritate. 
 Sed et quae est Ephesi Ecclesia a Paulo quidem fundata, loanne autem 
 perrnanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora, testis est verus Apostolormn 
 traditionis. Iren. adv. Hser. lib. iii. c. 3, pp. 171, 172, edit. Qenevae, 
 1570. 
 
160 THE 
 
 jubebant, commanded) him to desist, but rather to seek the 
 peace and unity of the Church. Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, 
 on the part of the bishops of Gaul, wrote to the Bishop of 
 Rome, rebuking him most severely. The following extract 
 is a literal translation of the transaction as related by Euse- 
 bius himself, to whom Dr. Milner pretends to refer us : 
 
 " Upon this, Victor, Bishop of Rome, immediately at- 
 tempted to cut off from the communion, the whole of Asia 
 with the neighbouring churches, as having given their assent 
 to heterodox opinions, and he notified it in letters pro- 
 claiming all the brethren who dwelt there to be excommuni- 
 cated. But this did not please all the bishops. They 
 exhorted him rather to consult peace, and neighbourly unity 
 and love. And their letters are now extant, wherein they 
 have sharply rebuked Victor. (<PpovTai t KOL ai rourwv 
 
 0WVCU, 7T\r]KTtK(ji)TpOV Ka9aTTTO[J.v(*)V TOV BtKTOjOOC-) Among 
 
 whom Irenseus, having written in the name of the brethren 
 of Gaul, over whom he presided, maintains indeed that the 
 mystery of our Lord's resurrection ought to be celebrated only 
 upon a Sunday, but admonishes Victor in many other words 
 not to cut off whole churches of God for observing an ancient 
 custom, handed down to them by tradition. }} a 
 
 5. TERTULLIAN. As the fifth witness we have Tertullian : 
 Dr. Milner thus introduces him (Letter xlvi. p. 441) : 
 
 " Tertullian, a priest of the Roman Church, who flourished 
 near the same time [namely, the latter end of the second 
 century] , calls St. Peter ' the Rock of the Church/ and says, 
 * that the Church was built upon him/ (Prescript. 1. i. c. 22. 
 De Monagam.) Speaking of the Bishop of Rome, he 
 terms him in different places, ( the Blessed Pope, the High 
 Priest, the Apostolic Prelate/ ' J And to this latter portion of 
 the quotation no reference is vouchsafed. 
 
 Dr. Milner certainly relied on good Mr. Brown, of the 
 " New Cottage," being unprovided with a Tertullian ; but 
 we, out of the circle of that little happy coterie, are well 
 provided with copies of all the Fathers of the Church, and 
 what is more, we know a little of their contents, and are 
 therefore in no way dismayed, when we see arrayed against 
 us so many learned references. Now the fact is, that Tertul- 
 lian, so far from admitting the Pope's superior jurisdiction or 
 primacy, on the plea of his being the successor of St. Peter, 
 directly and most distinctly opposed him; he declared him to 
 be a usurper; that whatever privilege Peter may have 
 received of Christ, it was a personal grant to him, and not in 
 
 a Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 24. Colonise, 1612. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TERTITLLIAN. > 
 
 C 
 any way to be inherited by his successors. His 
 
 " Concerning this opinion of yours, I ask whence 
 arrogate this authority to your church ? If because our Lord 
 said to Peter, ' On this rock I will build my Church ; to thee 
 have I given the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; or whatsoever 
 ye shall bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in 
 heaven / therefore thou presumest to have acquired the power 
 of binding and loosing to thyself, that is, to all the churches 
 allied to Peter (Petri propinquam) . Who art thou overturn- 
 ing and changing the manifest intention of our Lord, con- 
 ferring this personally (personaliter) to Peter, ' ON THEE/ he 
 says, 'I will build my Church, and will give to thee the keys 
 (not to the Church) ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind and loose/ 
 not what they shall bind and loose ? " a 
 
 With respect to personal succession, Tertullian had no par- 
 ticular regard, if succession of doctrine were maintained ; " as 
 the doctrine of a church when it is diverse from, or contrary 
 unto, that of the Apostles, shows it not to be an apostolic 
 church, though it pretend to be founded by an Apostle ; so 
 those churches that cannot produce any of the Apostles, or 
 apostolic men, for their founders (being much later, and newly 
 constituted), yet conspiring in the same faith, are nevertheless 
 to be accounted apostolical churches, because of the consan- 
 guinity of doctrine." b 
 
 Again, Tertullian clearly expresses himself on the meaning 
 of " Apostolic Church." He had no idea of confining that 
 title to any peculiar church. " Immediately after, therefore, 
 the Apostles, .... first having through Judsea borne wit- 
 ness to the faith in Jesus Christ, and established churches, 
 next went forth into the world, and preached the same doc- 
 trine of the same faith to the nations, and forthwith founded 
 churches in every city, from whence the other churches 
 thenceforward borrowed the tradition and the seeds of doc- 
 trine, and are daily borrowing them, that they have become 
 churches. And from this cause they are themselves also 
 accounted apostolical, as being the offspring of apostolical 
 churches. The whole kind must needs be classed under their 
 
 a De tua nunc sententia, quasro, unde hoc jus Ecclesise usurpes ? Si, quia 
 dixerit Petro Dominus ; Super hanc petram cedificabo Ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi 
 claves regni ccelestis ; vel Qucecunque alligaveritis vel solveritis in terra, erunt 
 alligala vel soluta in ccelis : idcirco prsesumis, et ad te derivasse solvendi et 
 alligandi potestatem, id est, ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam : qualis 
 es, evertena atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem PERSONALITER 
 hoc Petro conferentem. Super TE, inquit, cedificabo Ecclesiam meam : et dabo 
 TIBI claves (non ecclesice) : et, qucecunque SOLVERIS vel ALLIGAVERIS, non quce 
 solverint vel alligaverint. Tertull. de Pudic. Oper. pp. 767, 768, edit. Beat. 
 Ehenan. ; and cap. 21, torn. iv. p. 432, Halae Magd. 1771. 
 
 b Lib. de Prescript, cap. 32, p. 213. Paris, 1695. 
 
 M 
 
162 THE POPE^S SUPREMACY. 
 
 original. Wherefore these churches, so many and so great, 
 are but that one primitive Church from the Apostles [not 
 from the Apostle Peter], whence they all spring. Thus all 
 are primitive, all are apostolical, all are one. The commu- 
 nion of peace, the title of brotherhood, and the token of 
 hospitality, prove this unity, which right no other principle 
 directeth than the unity of the tradition of the same mystery 
 (viz., faith in Jesus Christ)." 3 What can be more plain than 
 this acknowledgment ? How inconsistent with the idea that 
 the Church of Eome was the mother and mistress of all 
 churches, the source of unity, the Apostolic Church to the 
 exclusion of all other churches, as is pretended at the present 
 day ! 
 
 With regard to churches planted by the Apostles, he con- 
 siders them all of equal worth : " They are all first and all 
 apostolic." b 
 
 These sentiments, if uttered by a modern Romanist, would 
 be considered rank heresy. 
 
 We have already seen that Tertullian did not consider the 
 Roman Church the Apostolic Church. He named several 
 others, which were to be consulted and appealed to by those 
 in their respective and immediate districts, in matters of faith 
 as well as morals an admission completely at variance with 
 any idea of a dominant supremacy in the Church of Rome, 
 had such existed. If Tertullian held any person as supreme 
 in the Church, it was not the Bishop of Rome, but the Em- 
 peror. " We reverence [he says] and worship the Emperor, as 
 a man inferior only to God ; we offer sacrifice for the health 
 of the Emperor; we pray for his health." " We in the 
 Emperors reverence the judgment of God, who has set them 
 over the nations; we know that in them is that which 
 God hath willed," &c. d 
 
 Dr. Milner informs us that Tertullian called the Bishop of 
 Rome " Blessed Pope, the High Priest, the Apostolic Pre- 
 late." In reply, we quote the following extract from Barrow: 
 " Clement, Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle to St. James, calls 
 St. James ' The Bishop of Bishops ;' the Clementine Recog- 
 nitions call him 'the Prince of Bishops/ Rufinus, in his 
 translation of Eusebius, calls James 'the Bishop of the 
 
 * De Prescript. Haer. cap. 20, edit, as above. 
 
 b Omnes primad, omnes apostolicse. Tert. de Prescript, cap. 20, and see 
 edit. Patr. Caill. torn. v. p. 376. Paris, 1842. 
 
 c Colimus imperatorem, ut hominem a Deo secundum ; sacrificamus pro 
 salute imperatoris ; oramus pro salute imperatoris, &c. Tertull. ad Scapu- 
 lum, cap. 2. 
 
 d Tertull. Apol. sec. xxxii. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ORIGEN. 163 
 
 Apostles/ &C." a The title " Bishop of Bishops " was a common 
 appellation among the early Christians. Many instances might 
 be adduced. Rufinus (lib. ii. cap. 26) called Athanasius 
 " Pontificem Maximum," chief Bishop ; and Adrian, Bishop 
 of Rome, wrote to Tharasius, Bishop of Constantinople, and 
 addressed him, " To my well-beloved brother Tharasius, uni- 
 versal patriarch." 5 But how does Tertullian introduce this 
 epithet of "Bishop of Bishops ?" In the commencement of 
 the treatise De Pudicitia he exclaims, " Audio etiam edictum 
 esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium. Pontifex scilicet 
 Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum, edicit : Ego et mcechice et 
 fornicationis delicta pcenitentia functis dimitto. O edictum, 
 cui adscribi non poterit. Bonum factum ! " c I very much 
 doubt whether any Romanist, with this passage before him, 
 will say that Tertullian was speaking in praise of the Bishop 
 of Rome when he designated him " Bishop of Bishops ! " 
 
 Tertullian had fallen into the heresy of the Montanists 
 when this was written, but this will not assist Dr. Milner, for 
 it is he who quote^ him as an authority. 
 
 5. ORIGEN. With a brevity usually adopted by those who 
 tread on uncertain ground, all that Dr. Milner says of this 
 Father is, " In the third century, we hear Origen," and his 
 reference is " Horn. 5, in Exod. ; Horn. 17, in Luc." 
 
 These references are indeed showy enough, but are most 
 unfortunate, if intended to supply evidence of inerrability or 
 infallibility, and then in due orider, of the supreme authority 
 of the occupant of the Papal See. In the one case, the 
 Apostle is certainly spoken of as a " Princeps Apostolorum," 
 a phrase easily explainable, but in immediate connection 
 with, and as if to heighten the guilt of, his denial of the 
 Saviour " tertio denagarit ;" A and in the other, though 
 termed a " petra solidissima" yet here cited as an instance of 
 weak faith modicce fidei (Matt. xiv. 31) ; e the Apostle thus, 
 as it were, showing that he too, as if refusing the inerrability, 
 which Rome would thrust upon him for her own interest, and 
 to secure dominion by quoting his name, " was himself also a 
 man" (Acts x. 26). Any way, what possible resemblance 
 is to be found to the Apostle a most solid rock, a pillar of 
 the Church in the time-serving, trading, managing, perse- 
 cuting sectarianism of Rome ! 
 
 a Barrow, on the Supremacy, p. 111. London, 1849, wherein the references 
 are fully given and veriiied. 
 
 b Surius, Concil. torn. in. p. 72. Col. Agr. 1567. 
 
 c Tertul. de Pudic. Leipsic edit. 1839, Part ii. p. 135 ; and edit. Khenan. 
 cap. 1, p. 742 ; and Hahe Magd. 1771, p. 365. 
 
 d Tom. iii. p. 952, edit. Paris, 1733. e Tom. ii. 145. 
 
 M 2 
 
164 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 6. " ST. CYPRIAN," Dr. Milner tells us, " repeatedly affirms 
 that the Church was ' founded on Peter/ that he ' fixed his 
 chair at Rome/ that this is f the Mother Church/ and "the 
 root of Catholicity;-' " the references for all being sufficiently 
 vague, viz., " Ep. ad Cornel., Ep. ad Anton., De Unit., &c." 
 
 Besides the convenient generality of these references, the 
 meaning to be attached to such metaphorical expressions as 
 " the root of Catholicity/' &c. (Cypr. Ep. 44 or 45), is by no 
 means settled amongst adherents of Rome itself, among those 
 at least who are not mere partisans.* Tertullian makes use 
 of the same language (De Praescript. cap. 21), but in a way 
 that rescues the term altogether from the exclusive use of 
 modern Rome. His words are quite Catholic : " Si hsec ita 
 sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quse cum illis Eccle- 
 siis Apostolicis, matricibus, et originalibus fidei conspiret 
 veritati deputandam." And yet Perrone, b the Jesuit lecturer 
 of Rome, refers to this very chapter of the " Prescriptions/' as, 
 though not directly mentioning the primacy of Peter, yet 
 implying it ! There is not a word leading in that direction, 
 and it is a base imposition on the reader to let him imagine 
 anything of the kind ; it is to the Catholic churches, not 
 the mere local Church of Rome, that the language is appli- 
 cable. So little, however, is there, 'in fact, honestly to be 
 used for the special elevation of the Roman See by quotations 
 from Cyprian, that it is a notorious fact, proved beyond dis- 
 pute, that the later Roman edition of Cyprian's works, 1563, 
 and those which are reprinted from it, have been most shame- 
 fully corrupted, in order to introduce Peter's primacy, and 
 the chair of Peter, in just that particular treatise to which 
 Dr. Milner has bravely referred, in order to support the 
 claim of the Roman Pontiff; and Rigault, a Roman commen- 
 tator on Cyprian's works, admits that they have in these 
 places been corrupted by interpolation." 3 Of what value, 
 then, are Dr. Milner's references, particularly when the exclu- 
 sive applicability of the words to Papal Rome is left unproved. 
 Were we to go to any armoury in the third century, which, 
 either by plain inference, or direct statement, furnishes 
 weapons against the supremacy of the Roman See, we should 
 have recourse to the letters of Cyprian. 6 
 
 * Lumper, "Hist. Theologico-Critica de Vitis Patrum," Aug. Vind. 1798, 
 torn. xii. p. 537. 
 
 b Praelectiones Theologicse, torn. ii. 217, ed. Mediolani, 1845, sec. 503. 
 
 c See James's treatise on the "Corruption of the Fathers," &c., reprint, 
 London, 1843, pp. 75 and 82. 
 
 d See the Oxford edition of the works of Cyprian, 1682, vol. i. p. 106, where 
 the whole subject is examined. 
 
 e "Journal of Sacred Literature," July, 1856, p. 284. Perrone and others 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE CYPRIAN. 165 
 
 But before we dismiss this Roman edition of Cyprian we 
 mean that which was " corrected " by order of Pius IV., 
 under the superintendence of four Cardinals, printed by Paulus 
 Manutius, and from which, and other editions, expressions have 
 been copied let us remark, that in order to make Cyprian 
 speak in favour of the Pope's supremacy, passages have been 
 introduced which do not appear to have been in the original or 
 early copies, while other passages directly against the idea of 
 a Papal supremacy are expunged ; for instance, in the epistle 
 written by Firmilian, bishop of Csesarea,to Cyprian, and which 
 Pamelius himself acknowledges that Cyprian translated into 
 Latin ; when speaking of the arrogance of Stephen, bishop of 
 Rome, in the claim to be supreme, as the successor of Peter, 
 he expresses his "just indignation at the manifest folly of 
 Stephen, that boasting so much of his bishopric, and that he 
 hath the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of 
 the Church were set, brings in many other rocks," &c. ; and 
 adds, " What a mighty sin hast thou heaped up to thyself, in 
 that thou hast cut thyself off from so many flocks ! For do 
 not deceive thyself: it is thou that hast cut off thine own 
 self. He, verily, is the real schismatic, who has made him- 
 self an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. 
 For, while thou thinkest that all may be separated from thee, 
 thou hast merely separated thyself from all." a This passage 
 is omitted from many editions. b 
 
 We are told that Cyprian calls Rome " the Mother Church," 
 and " the root of Catholicity." In these expressions Dr. 
 Milner finds an acknowledgment of the universal jurisdiction 
 of that see ; and he can discover no denial of it in Cyprian's 
 resolute refusal to conform with its ordinances. 
 
 Cyprian, it is well known, is claimed by both parties. Dr. 
 Milner, however, in adducing passages from this Father, 
 which may seem at first sight to support the Papal supre- 
 macy, has, according to his usual practice, entirely omitted 
 to take notice of those which make against his hypothesis, or 
 to endeavour to reconcile the seeming discrepancy of this 
 
 strive to make up for the loss of these surreptitiously introduced passages, by 
 affirming that other parts of Cyprian's writings testify as liberally to St. Peter's 
 dominant authority, and that the letter of Pelagius II., a bishop of Rome 
 in 580, helps to verify the identical passage objected to. But we, with Baluze, 
 ask (note on Cyprian de Unitat. Eccles. cap. 2), what is the character and 
 age of the MS. containing the Epistle of Pelagius ? 
 
 a And yet Perrone, the Jesuit lecturer at Rome, refers to this very letter 
 as furnishing indirect proof of St. Peter's dominion over the Church Universal. 
 See Praelect. Theolog. torn. ii. p. 218 (ed. Mediolani, 1845), sec. 503. 
 
 b See, among other editions, edit. Oxon. 1682 ; Firmil. Epist. 75, in 
 Oper. Cyprian, vol. ii. pp. 218, 224, 225, 228, &c. ; Col. Agrip. Epist. 75, 
 pp. 114, 117, for these passages. 
 
166 
 
 Father's testimony. " One of these things, however," says 
 Mosheim, " must be true ; either that one of the parties mis- 
 understands Cyprian, or that Cyprian was at variance with 
 himself, and had no clear notions of the nature of Church 
 authority." For the candid exposition of this Father's real 
 opinion respecting the precedency which he attributed to the 
 successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome, and for the most 
 probable mode of reconciling his various assertions, the reader 
 will do well to consult Mosheim's sensible remarks, in a note 
 on the De Reb. Christianor. ante Constant, sec. 3, s. 23. 
 From that work we shall content ourselves with bringing 
 together a few passages, in which Cyprian, in the most express 
 terms, denies all jurisdiction in the Roman bishop over the 
 Church of Carthage; leaving them with this observation, 
 that if the authority of this writer is to be appealed to, the 
 more obscure and doubtful expressions of his meaning, such 
 as are those alleged by the Romanists, are, on every just 
 principle of interpretation, to be explained by those which 
 are perspicuous and explicit. 
 
 The general reason assigned by the African bishop for the 
 superiority of the Roman See, is this : " Rome for its mag- 
 nitude ought to precede Carthage " a (Ep. 49). Hence he 
 calls it, " Ecclesia principalis," that is, says Rigaltius him- 
 self, " Ecclesia in urbe principali constituta," in Ep. 55 
 (quoted by Dr. Milner) . In his letters to Cornelius, Bishop of 
 Rome, he addresses him on a footing of perfect equality, and 
 freely reproves his errors ; which affords a strong presump- 
 tion, until removed by positive proof, that he admitted no 
 superiority of jurisdiction. In the question of rebaptizing 
 heretics, he acquaints Stephanus with the decree passed in 
 the African synod, not for the purpose of approval and rati- 
 fication ; but, as he expressly says, " pro honore communi et 
 pro simplici dilectione" (Epist. 72). And when Stephanus 
 disapproves the sentence, and returns an imperious answer, 
 Cyprian, so far from submitting, procures the confirmation 
 of the decree in still stronger terms, in another synod con- 
 vened for that very purpose. The excommunication issued 
 in consequence, by Stephanus, was nothing more, in point 
 of fact, than a separation of himself and his church from 
 the communion of Cyprian and the African bishops; and 
 not, as the comparatively modern sense of the word imports, 
 the pretence of separating Cyprian from the Church of Christ. 
 To this pitch of arrogance the Roman bishops had not then 
 arrived. But, whatever it might have been, it was contemned 
 
 a Quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma prsecedere. 
 Epist. 49. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE CYPRIAN. 167 
 
 by the Father and his Church. The principle of Cyprian's 
 resistance is best explained by his words. In Epist. 71, ad 
 Quintum, he denies that Peter himself had any primacy of 
 jurisdiction, and if not Peter, much less his successors; for 
 he wrote : " Nor did Peter, whom the Lord first chose, and 
 upon whom he built his Church, when afterward Paul dis- 
 puted with him concerning circumcision, claim or assume 
 anything to himself insolently or arrogantly; so as to say, 
 that he himself held the primacy, and that by posterity obe- 
 dience ought to be paid to him rather than to Paul. a So far 
 from deferring to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, he 
 extravagantly exalts the rights and independence of the epis- 
 copal order. In his address to the Carthaginian Council, he 
 uses these words : " For none of us has set himself up as 
 the bishop of bishops, or has driven, by tyrannical fear, his 
 colleagues to the necessity of obeying him, since every bishop 
 has his own will for the exercise of his liberty and power, and 
 can be no more judged by another than he can judge another. 
 But let us all wait for the judgment of our universal Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both to place us in the 
 government of his Church and to judge of the quality of our 
 actions." b Agreeably to these high notions of the episcopal 
 office, he severely reprimands Cornelius for interfering in 
 behalf of the schismatics Fortunatus and Felicissirnus, who 
 had been condemned by the African bishops. After these, 
 and similar passages which might be adduced, Dr. Milner's 
 quotations from Cyprian may be safely passed over un- 
 noticed. 
 
 It is alleged, however, that where Cyprian was not himself 
 concerned, he fully acknowledged the Pope's supremacy, by 
 advising him " to depose Marcian, a schismatical bishop of 
 Gaul, and to appoint another bishop in his place" (Letter 
 xlvi. p. 441). The words of Cyprian are here misrepre- 
 sented, or misunderstood. He does but advise Stephanus 
 to write to the bishops of Gaul in the fullest manner ; " ut 
 
 a Nam nee Petrus, quern primum Dominus elegit, et super quern aedificavit 
 Ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione postmodum disceptaret, 
 yindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit : ut diceret se pri- 
 matum tenere ; et obtemperari, a novellis et posteris, sibi potius oportere. 
 Cyprian. Epist. Quint. Ixxi. Oper. vol. ii. pp. 194, 195, Oxon. 1682, and Col. 
 Agrip. 1617, p. 102. 
 
 b Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopurn se esse Episcoporum consti- 
 tuit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit ; 
 quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suce arbitrium 
 proprium; tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nee ipse potest alterum 
 judicare. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri J. C., qui unus et 
 solus liabet potestatem et prceponendi nos in Ecclesice suce gubernatione et de actu 
 nostro judicandi. Sententia 87, Episcop. Synod. Carthag. Labbe et Coss. 
 torn. i. col. 786, Paris, 1671 ; and Oper. Cyp. torn. i. p. 229, Oxon. 1682. 
 
168 
 
 plenissimas litteras ad Galliarum episcopos faciat," exhort- 
 ing them no longer to suffer Marcian, the friend of Novatian, 
 to insult the episcopal college. 51 He does not suggest to the 
 Bishop of Rome to depose him by his own authority ; and if 
 he had, it would not make for the Romanists 7 purpose ; as in 
 that case, Cyprian must have supposed that the jurisdiction 
 of Rome extended over Gaul, although we find him denying, 
 which is sufficient for our purpose, that it extended to Car- 
 thage. He bids him stir up the bishops of Gaul to the act 
 of deposition : " And who knows not," observes Mosheim, 
 " that we daily exhort others to do acts, when we possess no 
 power or authority over them, to enforce obedience?" 5 
 
 7. JEROME. As we propose to return to this part of 
 Dr. Milner's work, and in order not to weary our readers by 
 a continuation of the same subject, we shall conclude for the 
 present our examination of the evidence of " the Fathers," 
 with the testimony of Jerome ; the last Father appealed to ; 
 and of St. Jerome, whom Dr. Milner introduces as follows : 
 
 " Finally, the learned St. Jerome, being distracted with the 
 disputes among three parties which divided the Church of 
 Antioch, to which church he was then subject, wrote for 
 directions on this head to Pope Damasus, as follows : ' I, 
 who am but a sheep, apply to my shepherd for succour. I am 
 united in communion with your holiness, that is to say, with 
 the Chair of Peter. I know that the Church is built upon 
 that rock. He who eats the paschal lamb out of that house 
 is profane. Whoever is not in Noah's Ark, will perish by 
 the deluge. I know nothing of Vitalis, I reject Meletius, 
 I am ignorant of Paulinus ; c he who does not gather with thee, 
 scatters.' Ep. ad Damas" d 
 
 Being pressed by the Bishop of Antioch respecting the per- 
 sons of the Trinity, Jerome thus addressed the Pontiff : " A 
 sacerdote victimam salutis, a pastore presidium ovis flagito. 
 Facessat invidia, Romani culminis recedat ambitio ; cum suc- 
 cessore piscatoris et discipulo crucis loquor. Ego nullum pri- 
 nisi Christum, sequens ; beatitudini tuse, id est, cathe- 
 
 a Ne ultra Marcianum, Novatlani amicum, Collegio Episcoporum insultare 
 patiantur. Epist. 67. 
 
 b "The two Main Questions," &c., p. 285 : Jackson. Dublin, 1825. 
 
 c Dr. Wiseman, with his usual infelicity, says that these three claimants 
 were "men of suspected faith." Moorfield Lectures, VIII., p. 284, edit. 
 London, 1836. He was apparently ignorant that while the faith of Vitalis 
 was more than suspected, Paulinus was supported, throughout the struggle, 
 by the See of Koine, and that the name of Meletius stands for worship in 
 the Latin Martyrology, Feb. 12, p. 27. Kobins's "Whole Evidence against 
 the Church of Home," p. 119, a volume well deserving the reader's best 
 attention. 
 
 d Letter xlvi. 443. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE JEROME. 169 
 
 drse Petri, communione consocior. Super illam Petram 
 sedificatam Ecclesiam scio," &c. a 
 
 The learned reader will be surprised when he is told that 
 the above extract is the original from Jerome, of which 
 Dr. Milner purports to give a perfect translation. According 
 to him the Pope is identified with the shepherd, and his Holi- 
 ness and St. Peter's Chair are represented as the foundation 
 of the Church ? No allusion whatever is made to Christ, 
 the Shepherd to whose flock this Father said he belonged, 
 the Leader whom alone Jerome would follow, and the Rock 
 on which the Church was built ; yet this is the true import of 
 his words. And what proves it to be so is this, that Jerome 
 speaks in the sequel of attaching himself to the Egyptian 
 confessors, whom he calls Damasus's colleagues, which he 
 certainly would not have done had he considered him as the 
 alone supreme governor and director of the Church. " As I 
 cannot [he writes] always have recourse to you, I hold to 
 the Egyptians, who present the same faith as Home ;" evi- 
 dently considering doctrine as a test of the true Church, as 
 he says in another place, " The Church does not consist of 
 walls, but of true doctrine. Wherever the true faith is, there 
 is the Church." b He paid due deference, it is true, to the 
 Bishop of Rome, but this was no acknowledgment of the abso- 
 lute superiority of the occupier of the see ; since, after desir- 
 ing him to lay aside the fancied importance of his rank 
 (Romani culminis ambitio), he brings him down to a level 
 with himself, when he addresses him as the successor of the 
 fisherman, and a disciple of the Cross. 
 
 But the gist of the extract consists in the epithet " beati- 
 tudini tuae" (translated by Dr. Milner, " your holiness "), as 
 addressed to the Bishop of Rome. This and similar titles 
 were most common among the early Christians. John, 
 patriarch of Constantinople, was addressed as " the most holy 
 and blessed universal patriarch." Cornelius, bishop of Rome 
 (in the fabricated Epist. ii.), writing to Bishop Rufus, is made 
 to call him " tuse sanctitati," literally, " your holiness." 
 Augustine, writing to a priest, and even to a layman, uses 
 the same expression. d 
 
 This letter of Jerome, written from Antioch (whither he 
 had gone, as he says of himself, " pro meis facinoribus ") to 
 
 Hier. Oper. torn. ii. Epist. Ivii. p. 175. Paris edit. 1602. 
 
 b Jerome in Psalm cxxxiii. torn. vii. p. 388. Paris, 1602. 
 
 c Sanctissimo atque beatissimo cecumenico Patriarchae Job. Const., &c. 
 Surius Concil. torn. ii. p. 436. Col. Agrip. 1567. 
 
 d Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit. (Aug. de Orig. Anim. lib. ii. cap. 1, 
 torn, x., edit. Ben.) Hinc angor, quod sanctitati tuae minus quam vellem 
 cognitus sum. Ibid. lib. i. cap. 2. 
 
170 
 
 Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in whose Church he had been 
 baptized, and in communion with which he remained, <c unde 
 olim Christi vestimenta suscepi," was, in fact, one of mere 
 consultation respecting the propriety of adopting the new and 
 insidious mode, introduced by the Arians, of expressing the 
 Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. " Ideo mini Cathedram Petri 
 .... censui consulendam" The Roman faith was at that 
 time incorrupt ; the Eastern tainted with Arianism. " Nunc 
 in Occidente sol justitise oritur ; in Oriente, Lucifer ille," &c. 
 Wherefore, Jerome makes it his boast, " Ego nullum primum, 
 nisi Christum, sequens, beatitudini tuse, id est, Cathedrae Petri, 
 communione consocior." 
 
 He disavows all connection with the heretical churches of 
 the East, and describes himself, in following Christ alone, to be 
 joined in communion with the See of St. Peter; "upon which 
 rock " (" non super Petram, ut arbitror," says the Romish 
 scholiast, " sed super fidem quam Petrus professus est "), or 
 upon Peter's ministry, " the Church of Christ itself had been 
 originally built." This universal Church of Christ, founded 
 on Peter, and not the particular Church of Rome, was " the 
 Noah's ark 3) into which whoever entered not must perish 
 the temple in which whoever ate not the Lamb was profane ; 
 and it was a fair consequence, drawn by Jerome, that they 
 "who gathered not with Damasus and his church, scattered;" 
 because Damasus and his church held, in that aye, the genuine 
 faith of the Church of Christ. 
 
 But, says the same scholiast, "Fieri potest, ut Roma 
 quoque degeneret." In which case Jerome would no longer 
 have boasted that he was joined in communion with her 
 bishop; he, who says of himself, "Nullum primum, nisi 
 Christum, sequens." THESE IMPORTANT WORDS, WHICH GIVE A 
 
 NEW TURN TO THE QUOTATION, ARE WHOLLY OMITTED BY 
 DR. MlLNER. a 
 
 That b Jerome pointed to CHRIST as the Rock on which the 
 Church was built, is evident from other parts of his writings. 
 He says : " But the Catholic Church which is founded with 
 a firm root upon the Rock Christ stands," &c. c " Christ is 
 the Rock who granted to the Apostles (Apostolis] that they 
 also should be called rocks." d " We are all built upon the 
 foundation of the Apostles, Jesus Christ our Lord the corner- 
 stone holding us together ; and as we are founded on the 
 
 a Jackson's "Two Main Questions stated in controversy between the 
 Churches of England and Rome," &c., p. 244. Dublin, 1825. 
 
 b The following is taken from Collette's " Pope's Supremacy, a Thing of 
 Priestcraft," p. 118. London, 1852. 
 
 c Jerome, " Ad Principiam Virginem," torn. iii. p. 173. Paris, 1602. 
 
 d In Amos, lib. iii. cap. 6, torn. v. p. 263. 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE JEROME. 171 
 
 Prophets, so did the Patriarchs stand upon the foundation of 
 the Apostles." a He is still more explicit in his commentary 
 on the 60th Psalm : " He" [David], says he, "is exalted in 
 Christ, who, according to the Apostles, is called both the firm 
 Hope and the Rock of believers. Thou hast exalted me upon 
 a rock, that is to say upon Thyself, as the following passage 
 declares. 'But the rock was Christ?' Petrus, Peter, was 
 derived from Petra, the rock ; whence the Lord said, ' Thou 
 art Peter (Petrus) , and upon this rock (Petram) I will 
 build my Church/ And in another place. The floods came 
 and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it 
 did not fall ; for it was founded upon the firm rock (quce est 
 Christus) which is Christ." b 
 
 Again, in alluding to ( ' the Church " he did not mean the 
 Roman Church, for, as we have seen, he considered that 
 wherever the true faith was to be found, te there is the 
 Church." " The Church," he says, " is collected from 
 many persons, and yet she is called one, on account of the 
 unity of faith " c "The Church is an assemblage of various 
 nations." d And though he believed Peter to have been the 
 founder of the Church, yet he gives him no precedence over 
 the other Apostles; all enjoyed, he remarks, the same 
 eminence, and that equally, though one was selected as a 
 head man, and to guard against divisions; and that such 
 precedence was, in St. Peter's case, owing to his age. e Not 
 a word here, so far as we can discern, of Lord Peter. 
 
 Admitting, then, that Jerome considered the Bishop of 
 Rome to be the successor of St. Peter, Dr. Milner does not 
 advance his cause one iota by an appeal to his writings, for he 
 is directly opposed to the idea of a Bishop of Bishops, or one 
 Supreme Bishop in the Church. The title Pope was not at 
 that period peculiar to the Bishop of Rome, for Jerome him- 
 self, writing to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, addresses f 
 him as " most blessed Pope " (amantissime et beatissime 
 Papa) . According to his doctrine, all bishops of the Church 
 were equal. " Bishops," he writes, " should recollect that they 
 are superior to elders, rather by custom than by virtue of the 
 Lord's appointment (et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere), 
 and that they ought to rule the Church in common." g 
 
 a Comment, lib. ii. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 4, torn. vi. p. 308. 
 b Comment, in Psalm Ix. torn. vii. p. 178. 
 c Ib. Psalm xxiii. p. 76. 
 d Ib. Psalm xx. p. 67. 
 
 e ^Etati delatum est, quia Petrus senior erat. Hieron. contra Joviu. 
 lib. i. cap. 14, vol. iv. p. 168, ed. Paris, 1706. 
 f Ep. 71, torn. i. 250, ed. Col. Agrip. 1616. 
 *? Epist. ad Titum, lib. i. cap. 1, torn. vi. Paris, 1706. 
 
172 CHILL1NGWOBTH AND HOOKER 
 
 We shall conclude by quoting the following well-known 
 passage, which is conclusive evidence that Jerome was opposed 
 to the doctrine of " supremacy :" 
 
 " With the exception of ordination,, what does a bishop 
 do which an elder does not ? The church of the Roman 
 city is not to be deemed one thing, and the Church of the 
 whole world another. Gaul, and Britain, and Africa, and 
 Persia, and India, and all foreign nations adore one Christ, 
 and observe one rule of truth. If you look for authority, the 
 world is greater than a city. WHERESOEVER A BISHOP is, 
 WHETHER AT ROME, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or 
 Alexandria, or Tmuis, he is of the same worth, and the 
 same priesthood (ejusdem meriti, ejusdem sacerdotii] . Neither 
 the power of riches nor the inferior outward condition of 
 poverty makes a bishop either higher or lower. But all are 
 the successors of the Apostles. Why do you quote to me 
 the custom of one city merely ? " a 
 
 So much then for the testimony of Saint Jerome. 
 
 No. XIII. 
 
 CHILLINGWORTH AND HOOKER MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 Dr. Milner's unfairness in quotations from Protestants. 
 
 THE "End of Religious Controversy" contains passages 
 from Chillingworth and Hooker, almost every one of which 
 is either garbled or misrepresented. To a consideration of 
 these we shall confine the present article, and trust that it 
 may prove instrumental in leading some of our readers to 
 the study of those masterly divines. 
 
 It will be proper to notice, in the first place, the manner 
 in which Dr. Milner has introduced the " inconstant Chil- 
 lingworth," as he has been pleased to term him, to the 
 readers of his work of equivocal celebrity : 
 
 " Chillingworth," says Dr. Milner, " was first a Protestant of the Establish- 
 ment : he next became a Catholic, and studied in one of our seminaries. He 
 then returned, in part, to his former creed : and last of all, he gave in to 
 Socinianism, which his writings greatly promoted."** 
 
 Surely, when the learned prelate laid this heavy charge 
 upon the memory of a departed Christian, it was incumbent 
 on him to have substantiated it with some degree of evidence ; 
 
 a Jerome, ad Evag. torn. ii. p. 512, edit. Paris, 1602 ; and torn. iv. ep. 101, 
 p. 803, Paris, 1706. Epist. 146, Vallarsii. 
 b Letter viii. p. 97. 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 173 
 
 how far it is supported by fact will be seen by an appeal to 
 these " writings " themselves. 
 
 When Knot, the Jesuit, accused our great divine of 
 Socinian heresy, his reply was, i: that he believed the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, the deity of our Saviour, and all other 
 supernatural verities revealed in Scripture, as heartily as any 
 man" a 
 
 " To clear myself once for all," he adds, " from all imputations of this 
 nature, which charge me injuriously with denial of supernatural verities, I 
 profess sincerely, that I believe all those books of Scripture which the Church 
 of England accounts canonical to be the infallible Word of God ; I believe all 
 things evidently contained in them ; all things evidently, or even probably 
 deducible from them : I acknowledge all that to be heresy, which by the Act 
 of Parliament primo of Queen Elizabeth is declared to be so, and only to be 
 so. And though in such points which may be held diversely by divers men 
 salvd Fidei compage, I would not take any man's liberty from him, and humbly 
 beseech all men that they would not take mine from me ; yet thus much I can 
 say (which I hope will satisfy any man of reason), that whatsoever hath been 
 held necessary to salvation, either by the Catholic Church of all ages, or by 
 the consent of Fathers, measured by Vincentius Lirinensis his rule, or is held 
 necessary, either by the Catholic Church of this age, or by the consent of 
 Protestants, or even by the Church of England, that, against the Socinians, 
 and all others whatsoever, I do verily believe and embrace." b 
 
 The above is taken from the preface to his " Religion of 
 Protestants, a safe way to Salvation," where more to the 
 same purport occurs; and where he condescends to prove, 
 that even his adversary could not have believed the things 
 which he had alleged against him. But we trust here is 
 enough to convince our readers that the work above named 
 is quite guiltless of Socinianism ; for no man who values his 
 character for consistency a rush, would advocate a doctrine in 
 his book, which he had just abjured in his preface. 
 
 Moreover the work was licensed, and its orthodoxy avouched 
 by Doctors Prideaux, Fell, and Potter; three sound and 
 learned divines of the Church of England. 
 
 We have also the valuable testimony of Dr. Cheynell, a 
 bigoted fanatic of the parliamentary party, and one of Chil- 
 lingworth's most bitter opponents during the heat of the civil 
 wars, that the latter adhered to the doctrines and principles 
 of his book to the last. For proof of this, we refer our readers 
 to CheynelFs " Chillingworthi Novissima," from whence the 
 following passages are taken : 
 
 " You that were the licencers of his [Chillingworth's] subtle atheism," says 
 Cheynell, " repent, repent ; for he was so hardened by your flattery, that (for 
 
 a The reader should understand that Chillingworth was threatened with 
 having this stigma fixed on his character, if he should attempt to refute the 
 Jesuit author of "Charity Maintained," and in his reply to that author in 
 which he contradicts the slander. 
 
 b Chillingworth's Rel. of Prot., Pref. sec. 5 and 28. 
 
174 CHILLINGWORTH AND HOOKER 
 
 aught the most charitable man can judge) he perished by your approbation ; 
 he ever appealed to his works even to his dying day, and what was it which made 
 him dote upon them but your licence and approbation ? " 
 
 Cheynell persecuted Chiliingworth with his efforts to con- 
 vert him to Puritanism upon his very death-bed, till at last, 
 finding all his efforts, as might have been expected, useless, 
 he 
 
 " Desired him that he would now take off his thoughts from all matters of 
 speculation, and fix them upon some practical point which might make for 
 his edification." " He thanked me," continues Cheynell, " very heartily, 
 and told me that in all points of religion he was settled, and had fully expressed 
 himself for the satisfaction of others in his book, which was a$>proved and licenced 
 by the very learned and judicious divines." 
 
 Cheynell adds, in his funeral oration over the body of his 
 illustrious victim (for such we may also designate him), 
 
 " He hath left that phantasie which he called his religion, upon record in this 
 subtle book." 
 
 To that immortal work then we confidently appeal, and 
 defy the admirers of Dr. Milner to prove from it, that 
 " Chiliingworth last of all gave in to Socinianism," or that 
 " his writings greatly promoted it." 
 
 We shall now notice Dr. Milner's introduction to his first 
 citation from Hooker : 
 
 " I shall have occasion," writes the learned doctor, "hereafter to notice 
 the claims of the Established Church to authority, in determining the sense of 
 Scripture, as well as in other religious controversies : in the mean time, I 
 cannot but observe, that her most able defenders are frequently obliged to 
 abandon their own, and adopt the Catholic rule of Faith. The judicious 
 Hooker, in his defence of the Church of England, writes thus : a ' Of this we 
 are right sure, that nature, Scripture, and experience itself have taught the 
 world to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting to some judicial and 
 definite sentence, whereunto neither party that contendeth, may, under any 
 pretence or colour, refuse to stand. This must needs be effectual and strong. 
 As for other means, without this they seldom prevail.' " b 
 
 It is not improbable that Dr. Milner borrowed this quota- 
 tion from the Jesuit Knot, who long ago applied it in much 
 the same way. Had the doctor ever read the preface himself, 
 he would have known that Hooker is neither speaking of the 
 sense of Scripture, nor of anything appertaining to Christian 
 faith, but merely concerning ecclesiastical ordinances of them- 
 selves indifferent ; and he adds in the very same section of his 
 preface : 
 
 " Not that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe those laws, 
 which in their hearts they are steadfastly persuaded to be against the law of 
 God. But," continues he, " your persuasion in this case ye are all bound 
 for the time to suspend, and in otherwise doing, ye offend against God, by 
 troubling His Church without any just or necessary cause. Be it that there 
 
 a Hooker's Eccl. Polity, Pref. art. 6. b Letter viii. ad fin. 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 175 
 
 are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our laws : are those reasons 
 demonstrative ? are they necessary, or mere probabilities only ? An argument 
 necessary or demonstrative is such, as being propounded unto any man, and 
 understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent. Any one such 
 reason dischargeth, I grant, the conscience, and setteth it at full liberty. For 
 the public approbation given by the body of the whole church unto those 
 things which are established, doth make it probable but that they are good ; 
 and therefore unto a necessary proof that they are not good, it must give place. 
 But if the skilfulest amongst you can show, that all the books ye have hitherto 
 written, be able to afford any one argument of this nature, let the instance be 
 given."* 
 
 All this is evidently in strict accordance with what he else- 
 where teaches ; namely, that 
 
 ' ' Although ten thousand general councils would set down one and the same 
 definitive sentence concerning any point of religion whatsoever, yet one 
 demonstrative reason alleged, or one manifest testimony cited from the mouth 
 of God himself to the contrary, could not choose but over weigh them all." 
 
 And his reason is this 
 
 " Inasmuch as for them to have been deceived, it is not impossible ; it is, 
 that demonstrative reason, or testimony divine should deceive." 
 
 In the next place of Hooker referred to by Dr. Milner, 
 that prelate has abused us with the old misconstruction of 
 Knot, Brerely, and others before them. Dr. Milner is the 
 more inexcusable for this, because the work of Chillingworth, 
 which he occasionally quotes, has amply vindicated this very 
 passage, if indeed it can be said to have needed vindication. 
 We will first allege what Dr. Milner advances, and then 
 give the passage of Hooker, illustrated by Chillingworth's 
 exposition : 
 
 DR. MILNER. " It was not until the end of the fourth century, that the 
 genuine canon of Holy Scripture was fixed ; and then it was fixed by the 
 traditon and authority of the Church, declared in the third council of Carthage, 
 and a decretal of Pope Innocent I. Indeed it is so clear, that the canon of 
 Scripture is built on the tradition of the Church, that most learned Protestants " 
 here a foot-note refers us to Hooker's Ecc. Pol. B. 3, s. 8., " with Luther 
 himself, have been forced to acknowledge it, in terms almost as strong as those 
 in the well-known declaration of St. Augustine." 
 
 HOOKER. " Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath dis- 
 covered unto the world by revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise, 
 that itself is divine and sacred. The question then being, by what means we 
 are taught this ; some answer, that to learn it we have no other way than 
 tradition." 
 
 CHILLINGWORTH. " Some answer so, but he doth not." 
 
 HOOKER. " As namely, that so we believe, because we from our predeces- 
 sors, and they from theirs have so received. But is this enough ? that which 
 all men's experience teacheth them, may not in any wise be denied ; and by 
 experience we all know, that the first outward motive leading men to esteem 
 of the Scripture, is the authority of God's Church." 
 
 a Hooker's Eccl. Polity, Pref. art. 6. b Ibid. lib. ii. sec. 7. 
 
 c Letter ix. p. 114 ; and see ante p. 87. 
 
176 CH1LLINGWORTH AND HOOKER 
 
 CHILLINGWORTH. " The first outward motive, not the last assurance 
 whereon we rest." 
 
 HOOKER." For when we know the whole Church of God hath that 
 opinion of the Scripture, we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any 
 man, bred and brought up in the Church, to be of a contrary mind without 
 cause." 
 
 CHILLING WORTH. " The whole Church that he speaks of, seems to be that 
 particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up, and the authority of 
 this he makes an argument, which presseth a man's modesty more than his 
 reason. And in saying, it seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without 
 cause, he implies, there may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind, and that 
 then it were no impudence to be so." 
 
 HOOKER. "Afterwards, the more we bestow our labour upon reading or 
 hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing itself doth 
 answer our received opinion concerning it." 
 
 CHILLINGWORTH. " Therefore the authority of the Church is not the pause 
 whereon we rest ; we had need of more assurance, and the intrinsical argu- 
 ments afford it." 
 
 HOOKER. " So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us 
 before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered 
 farther reason." 
 
 CHILLINGWORTH. " Somewhat, but not much, until it be backed and 
 enforced by farther reason ; itself, therefore, is not the farthest reason, and last 
 resolution." 
 
 HOOKER. " If infidels or atheists chance at any time to call it in question, 
 this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of 
 the Church, concerning Scripture, and our own persuasion, which Scripture 
 itself hath settled, may be proved a truth infallible." 
 
 CHILLINGWORTH. "Observe, I pray, our persuasion, and the testimony of 
 the Church concerning Scripture, may be proved true ; therefore neither of 
 them was, in his account, the farthest proof." 
 
 HOOKER. " In which case the ancient Fathers, being often constrained to 
 show what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures, endea- 
 voured still to maintain the authority of the books of God, by arguments, such 
 as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judge 
 thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even 
 by such kind of proofs, so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living 
 shall be able so deny it, without denying some apparent principle, such as all 
 men acknowledge to be true." 
 
 CHILLINGWORTH. " Natural reason then, built on principles common to all 
 men, is the last resolution, unto which the Church's authority is but the first 
 inducement."* 
 
 We shall now direct the attention of our readers to a ground- 
 less imputation against Chillingworth, elicited by his reason- 
 ing upon the obscurities of Holy Writ. 
 
 "You may indeed answer," says Dr. Milner, "with Chillingworth and 
 Bishop Porteus, that whatever obscurities there may be in certain parts of 
 Scripture, it is clear in all that is necessary to be known. But on what autho- 
 rity do these writers ground this maxim ? They have none at all ; but they 
 leg the question, as logicians express it, to extricate themselves from an 
 absurdity, and in so doing they overturn their fundamental Rule. They profess 
 to gather their articles of faith and morals from mere Scripture ; nevertheless, 
 confessing that they understand only a part of it, they presume to make a 
 distinction in it, and to say, this part is necessary to be known, the other part is 
 not necessary." b 
 
 a Hooker's Eccl. Polity, lib. iii. sec. 8 ; and Chillingworth, cap. 2, sec. 30, 
 and note. 
 
 b Letter ix. p. 120. 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 177 
 
 Whether Chillingworth has really begged the question, or 
 Dr. Milner unjustly imputed this to him, we will leave to be 
 collected from the reasoning pursued by the former. 
 
 " I say/' argues he, maintaining the perspicuity of Scrip- 
 ture 
 
 " I say sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelligible, in things necessary, to 
 all that have understanding, whether they be learned or unlearned. And my 
 reason hereof is convincing and demonstrative, because nothing is necessary to 
 be believed, but what is plainly revealed. For to say that when a place of 
 Scripture, by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses, 
 whereof one is true, and the other is false, that God obliges men under pain of 
 damnation, not to mistake through error and human frailty, is to make God a 
 tyrant ; and to say that He requires us certainly to attain that end, for the 
 attaining whereof we have no certain means ; which is to say, that, like 
 Pharaoh, He gives no straw, and requires brick ; that He reaps where He 
 sows not ; that He gathers where He strews not ; that He will not be pleased 
 with our utmost endeavours to please Him, without full, exact, and never-failing 
 performance ; that His will is, we should do what He knows we cannot 
 do ; that He will not accept of us according to that which we have, but 
 requireth of us what we have not. Which, whether it can consist with His 
 goodness, with His wisdom, and with His word, I leave it to honest men to 
 judge." a 
 
 He says, moreover, in another place, 
 
 " If you say, that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of faith ; 
 I answer, that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them, what- 
 soever it is, which was intended by God, is true ; for he that doth not so, calls 
 God's truth in question. But to believe this or that to be the true sense of 
 them, or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false, is not neces- 
 sary either to faith or salvation. For if God would have had His meaning in 
 these places certainly known, how could it stand with His wisdom, to be so 
 wanting to His own will and end, as to speak obscurely ? Or how can it con- 
 sist with His justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those 
 words which He Himself hath not revealed." b 
 
 In another part of his work, Dr. Milner discovers (and 
 perhaps he is indebted for the discovery to Cheynell), that 
 
 " Chillingwoi-th, in his ' Religion of Protestants,' cap. iii., expressly 
 teaches, that ' the books of Scripture are not the objects of our faith/ and 
 that ' a man may be saved, who should not believe them to be the Word of 
 God.'" c 
 
 Now these words, taken by themselves without rational 
 qualification, have a sound of disparaging the Holy Scriptures. 
 But let them be taken in connection with the context, and 
 they say no more than Dr. Milner himself would probably have 
 said : 
 
 "If a man should believe Christian religion wholly and entirely," argues 
 Chillingworth, " and live according to it, such a man, though he should not 
 know, or not believe the Scripture to be a rule of faith, no, nor to be the 
 Word of God, my opinion is, he may be saved ; and my reason is, because he 
 performs the entire condition of the new covenant, which is, that we believe 
 
 Chillingworth, cap. 2, sec. 104. b Ibid. cap. 2, sec. 127. 
 
 c Letter xi. p. 154, in a note. 
 
 N 
 
178 CHILLINGWORTH AND HOOKER 
 
 the matter of the Gospel, and not that it is contained in those or these books. 
 So that the books of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith, as the 
 instruments of conveying it to our understanding ; and not so much of the 
 being of the Christian doctrine, as requisite to the well-being of it." 
 
 He, however, adds 
 
 " Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should 
 believe the matter of these books, and not the authority of the books; and, there- 
 fore, if a man should profess the not-believing of this, I should have reason to 
 fear he did not believe that. But there is not always an equal necessity for 
 the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal reason."* 
 
 Consonant to this is the short but magnificent 13th section 
 of the first book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. There 
 our great divine does not deny that it is " a matter merely 
 accidental unto the Law of God to be written." 
 
 He confesses that " writing " is 
 
 " Not that which addeth authority and strength thereunto." 
 
 That 
 
 " His laws do require at our hands the same obedience howsoever they be 
 delivered." 
 
 But he adds, 
 
 "His providence notwithstanding, which hath made principal choice of this 
 way to deliver them, who seeth not what cause we have to admire and 
 magnify ? " 
 
 The truth is, we reject not the peculiar doctrine of Rome 
 simply because it is not in Scripture, but because it is neither 
 in Scripture, nor can be otherwise proved to be the Word of 
 God. We refuse it, not because it is tradition, but because 
 we have reason to fear that it is not tradition. Were it once 
 proved to be res tradita non inventa, we should embrace it as 
 heartily as the Scripture itself. 
 
 Hitherto we have seen Dr. Milner contenting himself with 
 the petty artifice of abstracting partial sentences from the 
 authors with whom we have confronted him, no doubt with a 
 view to lessen the deserved esteem in which these writers are 
 held, by forcing them to seem to say that which they never 
 intended, and which contradicts the obvious tendency of their 
 works. This indeed is bad enough, but it had been happy 
 for the posthumous fame of itie learned prelate, if he had 
 abstained from bolder and baser deceptions. How his 
 devoted admirers will extenuate even this, we know not. Far 
 less can we conceive what garment they will contrive broad 
 enough to hide the deformity of that which follows ; unless, 
 indeed, they will say, that a reader who can take the asser- 
 tions of a controversialist of their Church upon trust deserves 
 to reap the fruits of such egregious folly. Such a one only 
 
 R Chillingworth, Eel. of Prot. cap. 2, sec. 159. 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 179 
 
 could ever be deceived by them, and to such a one might 
 their author have said, with honest Davus in the play, 
 
 " Certe, hercle, mine hie se ipsus fallit, hand ego." TEKENCE. 
 
 Dr. Milner is writing upon the " Real Presence/' which 
 he considers as synonymous with the " Corporal Presence/' 
 although the doctrines are in reality very distinct. He brings 
 many examples of "eminent bishops and divines of the 
 Establishment in this country," who firmly believed in the 
 " Real Presence." The last of these is Hooker ; from whose 
 immortal work he garbles a passage, as follows : 
 
 " Lastly, the profound Hooker expresses himself thus : 'I wish men would 
 give themselves more to meditate with silence on what we have in the Sacra- 
 ment, and less to dispute of the manner how. Since we all agree that Christ, 
 by the Sacrament, doth really and truly perform in us his promise, why do we 
 vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantia- 
 tion, or else by transubstantiation ? ' (Eccles. Pol., B. v. 67.) " a 
 
 The place, as quoted by Dr. Milner, seems to describe the 
 manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, to be either 
 by consubstantiation, or else by transubstantiation; and 
 contains an exhortation to peace, upon the ground that this 
 doctrine of his actual presence being received, the mode of it 
 is but of minor importance. 
 
 First, Dr. Milner begins his citation in the middle of a 
 sentence ; secondly, he delivers that as spoken affirmatively, 
 which his author delivers interrogatively ; thirdly, he helps 
 the dice by substituting " in," for " by ;" fourthly, he omits 
 one whole folio page, and about a third of another, which 
 occurs between the " how " which terminates the first, and 
 the " since," which begins the second sentence of his quo- 
 tation ; and he does this without an ellipsis, or the slightest 
 intimation of this grand omission, although the matter which 
 he has overlooked contains some very pregnant and con- 
 vincing arguments against the doctrine which his citation is 
 brought to support ; fifthly, he again corrupts the sense, by 
 beginning his second sentence with a word, which falls in 
 the course of that of his author; sixthly, he perverts his 
 author's meaning, by closing his quotation with a period, 
 where his author makes no stop, and before his sense has been 
 fully developed. 
 
 Hooker's doctrine was briefly this : that Christ, by the 
 Sacrament, imparts Himself, as a mystical head, to every 
 member of His mystical body, the Church ; and that the con- 
 secrated elements instrumentally communicate to worthy 
 receivers the grace of that body and blood which were given 
 
 a Letter xxxvii. p. 367, note. 
 N 2 
 
180 CHILLINGWORTH AND HOOKER 
 
 for the life of the world. But that a literal, corporal 
 manducation of the very substance of His flesh and blood 
 is necessary in order to this, he disproves and utterly 
 denies. 
 
 As it would occupy too much space to give all that is con- 
 tained between the first and second sentences of the learned 
 prelate's quotation, we must refer our readers to the original 
 for their entire satisfaction. However we will restore the 
 true reading of the passages, and adduce so much of the 
 intervening matter as may suffice to vindicate Hooker's 
 doctrine : 
 
 "All things considered," says our judicious divine, in allusion to what had 
 gone before, "and compared with that success, which truth hath hitherto had 
 by so bitter conflicts with errors in this point, shall I wish that men would 
 more give themselves to meditate with silence, what we have by the Sacra- 
 ment, and less to dispute of the manner- how ?" 
 
 Nevertheless Hooker undoubtedly never meant to deny 
 the utility of rational inquiry into this, more than in other 
 religious matters, otherwise he would not have gone on in the 
 prosecution of it, as he immediately did. It remains then 
 that we discover what he considered that truth to be, which 
 he describes as having had hitherto so little success. In 
 exposition of the words, " Take, eat, this is my body/' &c., 
 he says (a considerable way farther on, but still between the 
 sentences of Dr. Milner's quotation) : 
 
 " If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our 
 teacher, to whom Christ was Himself a schoolmaster ; let our Lord's Apostle 
 be His interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication : My body, the 
 communion of my body ; My blood, the communion of my blood. Is there any 
 thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life, 
 because through Him we obtain life ; so the parts of this Sacrament are called 
 His body and blood, for that they are so to us ; who receiving them, receive 
 that by them which they are termed ? The bread and cup are His body and 
 blood, because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the par- 
 ticipation of his body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any 
 certain effect, is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect where- 
 unto it tendeth." 
 
 And again : 
 
 " The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore 
 to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament. 
 And with this the very order of our Saviour's words agreeth ; first, ' Take and 
 eat ;' then, ' This is my body which was broken for you ;' first, ' Drink ye all of 
 this ;' then followeth, ' This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed 
 for many, for the remission of sins.' I see not which way it should be 
 gathered by the words of Christ, when and where the bread is His body, or 
 the cup His blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth 
 them. As for the Sacraments, they really exhibit, but, for ought we can 
 gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really, nor do really 
 contain in themselves, that grace which with them, or by them, it pleateth God to 
 bestow. If on all sides be confessed, that the grace of baptism is poured into 
 the soul of man ; that by water we receive it, although it be neither seated in 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 181 
 
 the water, nor the water changed into it ; what should induce men to think 
 that the grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Eucharist, before it can 
 be in us that receive it ? The fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the 
 body and blood of Christ. There is no sentence of Holy Scripture which saith, 
 that we cannot by this Sacrament be made partakers of his body and blood, 
 except they be first contained in the Sacrament, or the Sacrament con- 
 verted into them. 'This is my body,' and 'This my blood,' being words of 
 promise, sith we all agree, that by the Sacrament, Christ doth really and truly 
 in us perform his promise ; why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce con- 
 tentions, whether by consubstantiation, or else by transubstantiation the Sacrament 
 itself be first possessed with Christ or no? " a 
 
 Upon a case so clear, we will not insult our readers with 
 note or comment. 
 
 We will now advert to confession; where we shall find 
 Dr. Milner, ut semper, misrepresenting the admirable Chil- 
 lingworth. 
 
 " Let the persons alluded to " (viz. who are deterred from 
 embracing the Roman Catholic faith, from a dread of Sacra- 
 mental confession) 
 
 " Let the persons alluded to," says the learned prelate, " humbly and fer- 
 vently pray," &c. "and let them be persuaded of the truth of what an 
 unexceptionable witness (Chillingworth) says, who had experienced, while he 
 was a Catholic, the interior joy he describes ; where, persuading the penitent to go 
 to his confessor, ' not as one that can speak comfortable and quieting words to 
 him, but as to one that hath authority delegated to him from God himself, to 
 absolve and acquit him of his sins,' he goes on : ' If you shall do this, assure 
 your souls, that the understanding of man is notable to conceive that transport 
 and excess of joy and comfort, which shall accrue to that man's heart who 
 is persuaded he hath been made partaker of this blessing.' (Chillingworth, 
 Serm. vii.)" b 
 
 Here Milner applies to one sort of confession what Chil- 
 lingworth says of another. That whereof the former speaks 
 is the sacramental confession of Rome; this to which the 
 latter alludes is the reformed confession of England. For, 
 first, Chilliugworth quotes the following passage from Bishop 
 Usher's answer to the Jesuit : 
 
 " ' Be it known to our adversaries of Rome (I add also to our adversaries of 
 Great Britain, who sell their private fancies for the doctrine of our Church), 
 that no kind of confession, either public or private, is disallowed by our 
 Church, that is any way requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of 
 the Keys, which Christ bestowed upon his Church. The thing which we reject, 
 is that new picklock of sacramental confession obtruded upon men's consciences, 
 as a matter necessary to salvation, by the canons of the late conventicle of 
 Trent, in the 14th session.' " 
 
 Secondly; he calls the "Sacramental, necessary, univer- 
 sal confession " of the Church of Rome, " an intolerable 
 burden ;" and, lastly, he thus prefaces the passage cited by 
 the learned prelate : 
 
 " Therefore, in obedience to his gracious will, and as I am warranted, and 
 even enjoined, by my holy mother the Church of England expressly, in the Book of 
 
 * Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. v. sec. 67, 5. b Letter xli. ad fin. p. 401. 
 
182 CHILLINGWORTH AND HOOKER 
 
 Common Prayer, in the Kubrick of visiting the sick (which doctrine this 
 Church hath likewise embraced so far), I beseech you, that by your practice 
 and use you will not suffer that commission which Christ hath given to his 
 ministers, to be a vain form of words, without any sense under them, not to be 
 an antiquated expired commission, of no use nor validity in these days : But 
 whensoever you find yourselves charged and oppressed, especially with such 
 crimes as they call peceata vastantia conscientiam, such as do lay waste and 
 depopulate the conscience, that you would have recourse to your spiritual 
 physician, and freely disclose the nature and malignancy of your disease, that 
 he may be able, as the cause shall require, either to search it with corrosives, or 
 comfort and temper it with oil. And come not to him, only with such a mind 
 as you would go to a learned man experienced in the Scriptures, as one that 
 can speak comfortable quieting words/' &c. a 
 
 The bold deceit which we have been detecting in Dr. Mil- 
 ner's celebrated work, may be traced to its very last page. 
 There we read, that 
 
 " The most eminent Protestant divines " 
 
 amongst whom he enumerates Hooker and Chillingworth 
 
 " All acknowledge that salvation may be found in the original Catholic 
 Church" (he means of Eome) ; "but" that "no divine of this Church, con- 
 sistently with her characteristical unity and the constant doctrine of the holy 
 Fathers and of the Scripture itself, can allow that salvation is to be found out 
 of this communion, except in the case of invincible ignorance." b 
 
 This is the common bugbear wherewith Roman Catholic 
 writers strive to terrify those whom they fail to convince. 
 But for Dr. Milner, if he had hopes of salvation for those 
 amongst us who err through "invincible ignorance/' our 
 chance for heaven was as good in his estimation, as was that 
 of Roman Catholics in the estimation of Hooker and Chil- 
 lingworth : for it is a calumny to say that those writers 
 thought Popish heresies to be pardonable without that plea. 
 Hooker, indeed, charitably held, that " God was merciful to 
 save thousands of our fathers, living in Popish superstitions ;" 
 but mark the sequel " inasmuch as they sinned iynorantly !" 
 " Their ignorance did make me hope they did find mercy, 
 and so were saved!" Again: "If I be deceived in this 
 point," says he, " not they, but the blessed Apostle hath 
 deceived me. What I said of others, the same he said of 
 himself : ' I obtained mercy, for I did it ignorantly! Con- 
 strue his words, and you cannot misconstrue mine. I speak 
 no otherwise, I mean no otherwise, than he did." He, how- 
 ever, adds, 
 
 " I must needs say that their case is fearful, their estate dangerous, which 
 harden themselves, presuming on the mercy of God towards others. It is 
 true, that God is merciful, but let us beware of presumptuous sins. God 
 delivered Jonah from the bottom of the sea ; will you therefore cast yourselves 
 headlong from the tops of rocks, and say in your hearts, God shall deliver us ? 
 
 * Chillingworth, Serm. vii. sees. 10, 12, 14. b Letter 1. p. 493. 
 
MISREPRESENTED. 183 
 
 He pitieth the blind that would gladly see ; but will He pity him that may 
 see, and hardeneth himself in blindness? No; Christ hath spoken too much 
 unto you to claim the privilege of your fathers /" '* 
 
 As for Chillingworth, it is plain that he had hopes for 
 those Roman Catholics, qui sequuntur Absolonem in simplici- 
 tate cordis, that they may be saved, "yet, so as by fire" l 
 " We hope/' says he " (and spes est rei incertce nomeri), 
 that some of you may possibly be saved, by occasion of their 
 unaffected ignorance" c But his hopes were scarcely equal 
 to his fears. 
 
 " It were a thing much to be desired, " he admits, " that there were no divi- 
 sions ; yet difference of opinions touching points controverted, is rather to be 
 chosen than unanimous concord in damned errors. As it is better for men to 
 go to heaven by divers ways, or rather by divers paths of the same way, 
 than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell. Arnica pax, magis arnica 
 veritas!" A 
 
 Such is the candid treatment which two of the most emi- 
 nent divines that this country could ever boast, have received at 
 the hands of the ingenuous Dr. Milner, a prelate who (it is 
 recorded by his own pen) would have " despised himself if he 
 had knowingly published any falsehood, or hesitated to retract 
 any one that he was proved to have fallen into." e One who 
 could exclaim in the language of antiquity f 
 
 " Heu prisca fides ! Heu, Candida veritas ! " 
 
 One. who dare accuse even a Jewel of " deliberate impugning 
 of the known truth/' of " hypocrisy/' and of shameful falsi- 
 fication of the Fathers /' g and a Barrow of " chicanery/' and 
 " shameful misrepresentation/' h Yet could Dr. Milner, 
 without attempting the slightest proof, brand an illustrious 
 Christian with the odious mark of Socinianism, who had from 
 the pulpit designated the Socinians " heretics/' and pro- 
 nounced their doctrine " blasphemous/' i And of whom his 
 most determined theological opponent had borne unimpeach- 
 able testimony, that " he ever appealed to his works even to 
 his dying day " he appealed to that work in which he had 
 professed the doctrines of the Church of England " against 
 the Socinian and all others whatsoever" to that invaluable 
 work which had been " approved and licensed by very learned 
 and judicious divines." k 
 
 Shall we be told that we have been profaning the sacred 
 
 a Hooker's Serm. on Justification, sees. 36, 38. 
 
 b Chillingworth, Eel. of Prot. cap. 2, sec. 158. 
 
 c Ibid. cap. 5. sec. 76. d Ibid. cap. 5, sec. 72. 
 
 e In address, note, p. 30. ' Ibid, postscript. 
 
 8 Letter xxvi. ad fin. p. 274. h Letter xlvi. in a note, p. 436. 
 
 1 Chillingworth, Serm. v. sec. 29. k Vide places above quoted. 
 
184 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 dead ? Not, we hope, by the followers of a Milner. Of him 
 we have said only the truth. We have not aspersed his 
 fame, nor tainted his memory with the breath of calumny. 
 Would he had done equal justice to the names of the great 
 men who preceded him to the grave. Neither the wisdom of 
 Hooker the reason of Chillingworth the acuteness of 
 Barrow nor the learning of Jewel could protect them from 
 the touch of this moth. The insect at last is fled ; the filth 
 it has left behind it must be brushed away.* 
 
 No. XIV. 
 
 PERSECUTIONS. 
 SEC. I. Introductory Remarks. 
 
 THE grand desire of the Church of Rome is, and ever has 
 been, to obtain accession to her numbers, and thus acquire 
 whatever the ostensible object put forward may be temporal 
 dominion and wealth. Persecution grows out of, and almost 
 naturally accompanies the system. Having attained in a 
 country her darling desire, supremacy, she has dared almost 
 anything in the determination, when endangered, to retain 
 that position. Rule I will, is her motto ; and the readers of 
 this volume will learn, if not already acquainted with the fact, 
 something as to the means to which she is prepared to have 
 recourse in carrying that point ; never hesitating to smear 
 her escutcheon even with blood, in making good her claim to 
 that motto, in such kingdoms of Europe as furnished a suffi- 
 cient body of ruffianism, to be moulded, or in any way 
 moved, for her defence. 
 
 Still with all this ferocity of determination (the securing 
 of numbers being one of her main objects), the hideous aspect 
 of her shield having been found, in a predominantly Protestant 
 country, to present a sad obstacle to the working out of her 
 schemes for making " progress ;" she has taken the utmost 
 pains, notwithstanding this settled determination, to wash 
 out, or in any way to paint over, the " damned spot." That 
 Church has accordingly made or adopted rules, which she 
 finds very convenient for occasional use in gaining credit at 
 
 * The Protestant Journal, Nov. 1831, pp. 683694. 
 
**0 THR 
 
 fivftfl 
 
 one time, or sheltering herself from disgrace at anight ffty 
 she would not appear exactly in the character of 
 
 "Milk- white hind." 
 
 On the subject of Persecution for Religion, Dr. Milner in 
 Letter xlix. 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 pro- 
 nouncing 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 ? 
 
 The assertion is, that the Church of Rome is NOT a perse- 
 cuting Church : and the proof of the assertion consists in the 
 statement, that the clergy are forbidden to ^mbrue 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 Rom,an 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 
 the Romish priesthood are prepared to deny 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 executioner'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, 
 unworthy 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 per- 
 secuting Church. This charge he thinks it necessary to 
 repel. 
 
 Now, unless the charge involved an accusation of what he 
 himself admitted, to be most disgraceful and most unchristian, 
 any defence, on his part, which altogether rested on an indig- 
 
186 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 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 consequently, the practice of the Romish 
 laity. 
 
 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 
 delinquents. 
 
 Thus, in despite of the maxim, Qui facit per alium, facit per 
 se, we are to account the presiding 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 liberally to reckon 
 the Romish priesthood quite clear of guilt, because they go 
 through the farce of beseeching the lay power 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 rejbutting a just charge of mur- 
 derous persecution against the whole Romish Church, a 
 simulated 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, recognized and established by subsequent Councils 
 and Synods down to the Council of Trent to put forth such 
 a prayer by way of exculpation, when the laudatory name of 
 an act of faith, bestowed upon a wholesale butchery of the 
 Inquisition, distinctly showed 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. 
 
THE PRIESTHOOD OR LAITY? 187 
 
 This very obvious retort, Dr. Milner endeavours to meet by 
 anticipation. 
 
 " Whereas," says he, " many heresies are subversive of 
 the established 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 clergyman incur irregularity by exhorting princes 
 and magistrates to provide for those important objects and 
 the safety of the Church itself, by 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 dis- 
 claims, the power of persecuting." (Letter xlix. p. 466.) 
 
 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 Elizabeth 
 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. Mil- 
 ner' 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 ?" a 
 
 If the Church of Rome deems the murder of heretics a 
 crime, 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 approve of the bloody deed in her laity, though she 
 hypocritically forbids its actual perpetration by her clergy, 
 what becomes of Dr. Milner's pretended exculpation ? 
 
 a We shall, in another Article, prove that the priests, and not the laity, 
 are in fact responsible for the persecution of alleged heretics. 
 
188 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 The burning of heretics she must inevitably esteem either 
 a heinous crime, or no crime at all. 
 
 If the former, she wickedly, in direct opposition to the 
 word of the Lord by the prophet Ezekiel, allows her laity to 
 perpetrate crime without any attempt to prevent it by her 
 solemn protest and warning (Ezek. iii. 17, 18, 20). 
 
 If the latter, she stands self-convicted of that very per- 
 secution, from which Dr. Milner would disingenuously excul- 
 pate her. 
 
 But, in truth (to carry on an argument which we 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 priesthood or laity, on the score 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 a persecuting Church ? 
 Why should he wish to exhibit his clergy, as inculcating 
 mercy, rather than as inflicting punishment ? 
 
 His very attempt shows, either his real consciousness that 
 persecution is a sin, or his desire to impose upon unwary 
 Protestants by exhibiting his Church under an aspect which 
 does not belong to her. 
 
 Meanwhile, whatever may have been the inward working 
 of his mind, his outward allegations are strangely at variance, 
 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 
 Albigenses and Valdenses, of the reign of the well-known 
 Mary of England, of the massacre of St. Bartholomew ap- 
 proved of and exulted over by the Pope and his clergy, of 
 the parallel massacre of the year 1641 in Ireland, and even 
 of the persecution still carried on in the present day against 
 the Reformed of that unhappy 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. a 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 suppres- 
 
 a The proofs of the authenticity of this decree will form the subject of a sepa- 
 rate Article. 
 
THE RHEMISH NOTES. 189 
 
 sion of those particular notes in some copies of the modern 
 edition of Macnamara serves only to show a deep conscious- 
 ness pf 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 punish- 
 ment in other countries ; whereas no commonwealth shall 
 answer for shedding the blood of heretics, any more than for 
 shedding the blood of thieves, men-killers, and other male- 
 factors : the good (meaning, of course, the Papists) are 
 authorized to tolerate the evil when it is so strong 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 temporal, to be chas- 
 tised 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 neither the 
 Church nor Christian princes are blamed for putting heretics 
 to death* 
 
 a Of these awful notes the following may serve as specimens : 
 
 " A heretic may be excommunicated, and so made as an heathen or a 
 publican was to the-Jews, by the discipline of the Church, casting him out of 
 the fellowship of Catholics : which excommunication is a greater punish- 
 ment; than if he were executed by sword, fire, and wild beasts." (Note on 
 Matt, xviii. 17.) 
 
 " St. Augustine also referreth this compelling to the penal laws which 
 Catholic princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics, proving that 
 they who are by their former profession in baptism subject to the Catholic 
 Church, and are departed from the same afterwards, may and ought to be com- 
 pelled into the unity and society of the universal Church again." (Note on 
 Luke xiv. 23.) 
 
 "Not justice nor all rigorous punishment of sinners is here forbidden, nor 
 the Church or Christian princes blamed for putting heretics to death ; but that 
 none of these should be done for desire of our particular revenge, or without 
 discretion, and regard of their amendment, and example to others." (Note on 
 Luke ix. 55.) 
 
 "The Protestants foolishly expound it of Rome, for that there they put 
 heretics to death, and allow their punishment in other countries ; but their 
 blood is not called the blood of saints, no more than the blood of thieves, man- 
 killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which, by order of justice, 
 no commonwealth shall answer." (Note on Rev. xvii. 6.) 
 
 "You may see hereby, that the spiritual power of bishops hath authority 
 to punish, judge, and condemn heretics and other like rebels." (Note on 
 2 Cor. x. 6.) 
 
 " 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, 
 
190 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 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 ! 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 unauthorized 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 I 
 
 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 Protestant- 
 ism 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 
 Home. 
 
 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 
 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 
 understood : an assertion, which, if it means anything defi- 
 nite, means only, that the theological world did not instanta- 
 neously forget the instructions of the pretended mother and 
 mistress of all churches. 
 
 by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed." 
 (Note on Matt. xiii. 29, 30.) 
 
 For a full history of this edition of the Rhemish Testament, see "The 
 Complete Notes to the Douay Bible and Rhemish Testament ; with a Preface, 
 embodying the Facts and Documents connected with the publication of both 
 editions," &c. &c. By the Rev. R. J. M'Ghee. Dublin, 1837. 
 
REPUDIATED BY DR. MILNER. 191 
 
 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. a Nay, even in the midst of his sophistical attempt 
 at denial and exculpation, it is vindicated and defended by 
 Dr. Milner : and, in the authorized notes of the Rhemish 
 Testament, 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. b 
 
 SEC. IT. Is the Church of Rome responsible for Persecutions of Heretics ? 
 
 One of the questions which were reserved for further con- 
 sideration, is that which stands at the head of the present 
 article. 
 
 In letter xlix. Dr. Milner labours hard to prove that the 
 Church of Rome is not responsible for the persecution of 
 heretics, and that she does not take upon herself or even 
 sanction " religious persecutions." He expressly denies that 
 she "maintains a claim of punishing heretics with penal- 
 ties, imprisonment, tortures, and death;" but, on the con- 
 trary, ' ' she disclaims the power of so doing " (the italics are 
 his own). In support of this assertion he quotes a passage 
 from an epistle attributed to Pope "Leo the Great," 
 Bishop of Rome between the years 440 and 461 ; when 
 " writing about the Manichean heretics, who, as he asserted, 
 laid all modesty aside, prohibiting the matrimonial con- 
 nection, and subverting all law human and divine, says, that 
 the ecclesiastical lenity was content even in this case, with 
 the sacerdotal judgment, and avoided all sanguinary punish- 
 ments. However," continues Dr. Milner, "the secular emperors 
 might inflict them for reasons of state" (p. 465). Among 
 other ancient writers he quotes Tertullian as saying that 
 " It does not belong to religion to force religion." He then 
 declares, that the " Canon Law [of the Church of Rome] as it 
 stood in ancient times, and as it still stands, renders all those 
 who have actively concurred in the death or mutilation of 
 any human being, whether Catholic or heretic, Jew or Pagan, 
 
 8 The authenticity of this famous third Canon, of which some modern Papists, 
 in very shame, would fain get rid, is fully established by the Rev. John 
 Evans, in his "Statutes of the Fourth Council of Lateran." Seeley, Fleet 
 Street. 
 
 b Faber's " Difficulties of Romanism," in Preface of third edition. 
 
192 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 even in a just war, or by exercising the art of surgery, or by 
 judicial proceedings, irregular; that is to say, such persons 
 cannot be promoted to Holy Orders, or exercise those orders if 
 they have actually received them. Nay, when an ecclesiastical 
 judge or tribunal has, after due examination, pronounced 
 that any person accused of obstinate heresy is actually 
 guilty of it, he is required by the Church expressly to declare 
 in her name, that her power extends no further than such 
 decision : and, in case the obstinate heretic is liable, by the 
 laws of the State, to suffer death or mutilation, the judge is 
 required to pray for his pardon " (p. 466) . For all this original 
 matter, Dr. Milner gives no authority, because, in fact, none 
 is producible, though he is not very particular in appending 
 an ambiguous reference when it suits his convenience. 
 
 Dr. Milner then proceeds to state that " Whereas many 
 heresies are subversive of the established governments, the 
 public peace, and of national morality, it [nevertheless] 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 actually the case ; nor would 
 any clergyman incur irregularity by exhorting princes and 
 magistrates to provide for those important objects, and the 
 safety of the Church itself, by repressing its disturbers, pro- 
 vided he did not concur to the death or mutilation of any 
 particular disturber. Thus it appears [but Dr. Milner's 
 representation, be it remembered, is unsupported by any 
 authority], 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" (p. 466) . 
 (The italics are Dr. Milner's.) 
 
 It appears, therefore, by the statement of Dr. Milner, that 
 the Roman Church not only does not sanction persecution, 
 but disclaims the power of persecuting; and further, that 
 should a person be condemned of heresy, it can only declare 
 the person to be such, while the judge is dutifully enjoined to 
 pray for his pardon. Since, however, hundreds of thousands 
 have been tortured and put to death for the so-called crime 
 of heresy, in fact, for not thinking and believing as the Church 
 of Rome thinks and believes, the State and not the Church is 
 guilty, if any guilt attaches to the act. 
 
 Dr. Milner, moreover, has an excuse at hand for the State. 
 In the same Letter, p. 486, he says : " In the first place, 
 whenever Catholic states and princes have persecuted Pro- 
 testants, it was always in favour of an ancient religion, which 
 had been established in their country, perhaps, a thousand 
 or fifteen hundred years, and had, during that time, preserved 
 
BY THE CHURCH OR BY THE STATE. 193 
 
 its peace, order, and morality, while they clearly saw, that 
 an attempt to alter this religion would, unavoidably, produce 
 incalculable disorders and sanguinary contests." And, in 
 the second place, " if Catholic states and princes have enforced 
 submission to their Church by persecution, they were fully 
 persuaded that there is a Divine authority in this Church to 
 decide controversies of religion, and that those Christians who 
 refuse to hear her voice, when she pronounces upon them, 
 are obstinate heretics." 
 
 We will now inquire how far Dr. Milner's assertions can 
 be borne out by historical facts. We will take first the 
 opinion of private doctors of the Church of Rome. 
 
 Eckius, the celebrated opponent of Luther, devotes a whole 
 chapter to this subject in his '' Enchiridion," and conducts 
 his inquiry in a very systematic and business-like manner. 
 He first proves from Scripture that " obstinate or relapsed 
 heretics are justly put to death;" then he notices several 
 objections, on the part of Lutherans, to this doctrine; and 
 lastly, answers the said objections. The following is a speci- 
 men of his mode of reasoning on this subject : " ' And the 
 man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the 
 priest (that standeth there to minister before the Lord thy 
 God), or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou 
 shalt put away the evil from Israel' (Deut. xvii. 12). The 
 reason for this law is still in force, that we should take away 
 the evil from the midst of the Church. ' But the earth which 
 beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing ; 
 whose end is to be burned' (Heb. v. 8). An heretic is earth 
 of this sort."* 
 
 Let us now see how he deals with the objections of the 
 Lutherans. " The Lutherans object that the Lord com- 
 manded His servants to let the tares grow together with the 
 wheat, and that by tares are signified heretics" To this 
 objection Eckius thus replies " To root out heretics by death 
 is not contrary to the command of the Lord (as being limited 
 to) when the tares cannot be extirpated without the extir- 
 pation of the wheat ; wherefore He (the Lord) adds, ' Lest, 
 perhaps, ye also root up the wheat together with them :' 
 when there is no fear of that, let not the severity of discipline 
 sleep." 
 
 Eckius seems to lose no opportunity of enforcing the doc- 
 trine that "hseretici obstinati aut relapsi juste per mortem 
 e medio tolluntur," for, in his " Second Homily for St. George 
 the Martyr's Day," he says, " Heretics are wont to inquire 
 
 a "De Hsereticis comburendis." See "Enchiridion Locorum Communium 
 adversus Lutherum et alios Hostes Ecclesise." Colonise, 1567. 
 
 O 
 
194 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 ' why they are burned ? ' Behold the reason even to the 
 letter, because they do not remain in the vine." a 
 
 From Eckius we proceed to Alphonsus a Castro, who says : 
 " The last punishment to be considered is that of the body, 
 viz. DEATH a punishment with which we will prove, by God's 
 assistance, that heretics ought to be visited." " From which 
 words it is abundantly plain, that it is not a modern inven- 
 tion, but a very old opinion of wise Christians, that heretics 
 should be burned with fire." b It will be perceived that 
 a Castro claims antiquity, as sanctioning his view of the 
 teaching of his Church, while Dr. Milner laboured to show 
 that the Church, in early days, abhorred persecution on 
 account of religion. 
 
 The next doctor we quote is the canonized " seraphic 
 doctor/' Saint Thomas Aquinas. He first argues that 
 heretics are to be tolerated, and this opinion is founded on 
 2 Tim. ii. 24, and 1 Cor. xi. 19. On the other hand he 
 argues, from the text Titus iii. 10, that persecutions are jus- 
 tifiable, and having thus weighed the two sides of the argu- 
 ment, founded on Scripture, he then sums up his own opinion 
 as to what the Church does or should teach. He says, 
 
 "Although heretics are not to be tolerated, by reason of their delinquency, 
 they are to be waited for until the second reproof, in order that they may 
 return to the sound faith of the Church ; but those who continue obstinate in 
 their error after the second reproof, are not only to be consigned to the sen- 
 tence of excommunication, but also to the secular princes TO BE EXTERMINATED 
 (exterminandi) " "If falsifiers of money, or other malefactors, are justly con- 
 signed to immediate death by secular princes, much more do heretics, imme- 
 diately after they are convicted of heresy, deserve not only to be excommuni- 
 cated, but also JUSTLY TO BE KILLED (sed etjuste occidi)." c 
 
 To come nearer home, Dens declares it to be the accepted 
 doctrine in the Roman Church that the rites of heretics 
 should not be tolerated ; d that they ought to be compelled by 
 
 a (Quintae partis Joannis Eckii in Lutherum et alios. MDXXXYI. fol. 94.) 
 "Tomus tertius Homiliarum de Sanctis." For these quotations from 
 Eckius, we are indebted to the Rev. John Evans's " Letters on the Papal 
 Aggression," letter vii. ; and his "Papal Aggression and Concessions to 
 Rome." Painter, London, p. 13, whose text we have followed. 
 
 b "Ultima se jam offert corporis pcena ; mors scilicet, qua hcereticos, nisi 
 tempestive resipiscant, juste puniendos esse apertissime, Deo favente, demon- 
 strabimus." " Ex quibus verbis apertissime constat non esse recentem inven- 
 tionem, sed antiquissimam sapientium Christianorum sententiam haereticos 
 esse igne cremandos." Alph. a Castro de Hseret. Punitione. Madrid, 1773. 
 Lib. ii. cap. 12, pp. 123, 128. This a Castro was lately quoted from the 
 pulpit of St. George's Cathedral, Southwark, as an example to be followed. 
 
 c " Secunda secundae partis Summ. Theolog. S. Tho. Aquinatis." Romae, 
 1586, Quasst. xi. Art. iii. p. 93. 
 
 d " Resp. 2. Ritus aliorum infidelium, nempe paganorum et haereticorum, 
 per se non sunt tolerandi : quia ita sunt mali, ut nihil veritatis aut utilitatis in 
 bonum Ecclesiee inde derivetur." Dens, Tractatus de Virtutibus. De Ritibus 
 Infid. tolerandis. Tom. ii. pp. 82, 83. Dublin, 1832. 
 
MILNER CONTRADICTED. 195 
 
 corporeal punishments to adopt the Roman faith/ and that if 
 they refuse, they are justly punishable by death; and for 
 these opinions he appeals to Thomas Aquinas as an autho- 
 rity, and to the burning of John Huss as a precedent. 5 
 
 To come nearer still to our own times. The following 
 remarkable passages we extract from the Roman Catholic 
 monthly journal, entitled the " Rambler." In the January 
 number of 1854, we read as follows : 
 
 "We have no intention of entering now upon the general question of reli- 
 gious persecution ; but this we will say, that those who believe the Old 
 Testament to be the word of God cannot deny that he has sanctioned the 
 crushing of falsehood by material means. To make a great outcry about a 
 Christian having put into practice the same principles which were enjoined by 
 God as rules of action upon Moses, Josue, and Samuel, which were 
 applauded in David, and which St. Peter was inspired to put into practice, 
 may be good policy in one who wishes simply to protest against Rome, caring 
 little what becomes of Christianity, but is suicidal in the Protestant who 
 wishes at the same time to uphold ' the whole Bible' as the pure and exclusive 
 revelation of God. The Church has persecuted, and on principle there is no 
 denying the fact ; but the principle is one of policy and prudence, not of 
 dogma, and, in the present state of the world, she rarely acts upon it ; not that 
 in itself the principle is indefensible even on modern grounds, for the punish- 
 ment of a religious offence by imprisonment and DEATH is in itself no more 
 incompatible with reason, or with the Christian spirit, than the infliction of the 
 same punishment on the thief and murderer." p. 2. 
 
 Again, in the June number for 1849 : 
 
 " For our own selves, we are prepared to maintain that it is no more morally 
 wrong to put a man to death for heresy than for murder ! that in many cases 
 persecution for religious opinions is not only permissible, but highly advisable 
 and necessary ; and further, that no nation on earth, Catholic or Protestant, 
 ever did, ever does, or ever will, consistently, act upon the idea that such per- 
 secution is forbidden by the laws of God or the Gospel (!).... Instances do 
 incessantly occur in which persecution, in some form or other, is both wise, 
 merciful, necessary, and Christian." 
 
 But it may be said these are but private opinions of 
 doctors of the Church, and are of no authority. We shall 
 then pass on to the Bulls of Popes, and the decrees of 
 Councils, registered in this same body of Canon Law, to 
 which Dr. Milner has the hardihood to refer us. c 
 
 a " Resp. 2 ad qusestionem infideles baptizati, quales esse solent hseretici 
 et apostatae, item schisraatici baptizati cogi poasunt, etiam pcenis corporalibus, 
 ut revertantur ad fidem Catholicam et unitatem Ecclesise." Dens, Tract, 
 de Virtutibus. An Infideles sint compellendi ad Fidem ? Tom. ii. p. 79. 
 Dublin, 1832. 
 
 b " An heretici recte puniuntur morte ? Respondet S. Thomas, 2. 2, qusest. 
 xi. art. 3, in corp. affirmative : quia falsarii pecunise, vel alii rempublicam, 
 turbantes, juste morte puniantur : ergo etiam heretici, qui sunt falsarii 
 
 -fidei, et, experiential teste, rempublicam graviter perturbant Idem 
 
 probatur ex condemnatione articuli 14. Joan. Hus. in concilio Constantiensi." 
 Dens, Tract, de Virtutibus. De Pcenis Criminis Hseresia. Tom. ii. p. 89. 
 Dublin, 1832. 
 
 c For this collection of authorities we are indebted to the Controversial 
 correspondence with Rev. Paul Maclachlan. Partridge & Co. London, 1855, 
 p. 253 et seq. 
 
 o 2 
 
196 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 Turning then to the Canon Law, or " Corpus Juris 
 Canonici," we find ample material at hand. The edition to 
 which we at present refer is that of " Colonise Munatianre," 
 1779, a reprint of the text of Gregory XIII. We have only 
 room for the heading of the various decrees, which are suffi- 
 ciently indicative of their contents. 
 
 Decret. ii. pars, causa xxiii. q. 4, 38, p. 315, et seq. 
 This decree is headed " Heretics are to be forced to salva- 
 tion." Again, another heading is, " Heretics profitably 
 suffer what the Catholics profitably inflict." ( 39.) A third, 
 "The Church rightly persecutes* heretics." At p. 317 we 
 read, "The Church may seek the aid of kings." Under 
 Pope Gregory I., cap. 48, we read, " Earthly powers ought 
 to war against the enemies of the Church." Again, "What 
 the priests cannot effect by teaching, power must exact." 
 (Isidorus, in Quasst. v. c. xx.) " Let secular powers coerce 
 schismatics and heretics." (Pope Pelagius, c. xliii.) " They 
 are not homicides who, from zeal for Mother Church, are 
 armed against the excommunicated." (Pope Urban II., 
 c. xlvii.) 
 
 In the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX., p. 238, under the 
 title " De Hasreticis," we read, by order of Pope Lucius III., 
 that heretics are to be handed over to the secular powers to 
 be punished, and their goods confiscated to the Church. 
 And the like is decreed by Innocent III. (p. 239), who adds 
 that advocates and notaries are not to give advice to heretics. 
 The fourth (General) Council of Lateran, under this same 
 Innocent III., as we shall presently see, decreed the general 
 extermination of all heretics. Pope Gregory IX. (p. 241) 
 also decreed the same, and absolved all persons from their 
 oath of allegiance to heretics. 
 
 The " Magnum Bullarium Romanum" (Luxemburg edit. 
 1727), a book of undoubted authority, furnishes us with 
 useful information on the subject in hand. In the first 
 volume, under the title of Pope Honorius III., A.D. 1216, we 
 find this Pope issuing a Bull confirming the laws of the 
 Emperor Frederick II. for the extermination of heretics. 
 In 1243 Innocent IV. issued a Bull to the same effect, and 
 in the same year (see torn. i. p. 103) he issued another Bull 
 directing a crusade against heretics. Alexander IV., A.D. 
 1254 (torn. i. p. 122), issued a similar exterminating Bull, 
 and appointed the Inquisitors; and in 1262 Pope Urban IV. 
 instructed these Inquisitors to exterminate heretics. Pope 
 Clement IV., in 1265 (p. 140), confirmed the constitution of 
 Pope Innocent IV. against heretics. Pope Nicholas III., 
 by Bull dated 1278, further decreed the excommunica- 
 
PERSECUTING POPES. 197 
 
 tion of heretics, and for handing them over to the secular 
 arm. 
 
 In 1317 Pope John XXII. decreed the extermination of 
 all the "enemies of the orthodox faith;" and Pope Boni- 
 face IX., in 1391, like Honorius III., reconfirmed the exter- 
 minating laws of the Emperor Frederick II. 
 
 In 1418 Martin V. (" Mag, Bull. Rom." fol. 289 ; Luxemb. 
 1727) issued his famous Bull against Wickliffe, Huss, and 
 Jerome of Prague, and condemned them and their followers 
 for holding heretical opinions, and handed them over to the 
 secular courts for punishment. We shall presently see that 
 these secular courts were by the Canon Law compelled to 
 inflict the ordered punishments. 
 
 Dr. Milner says, that " The Council of Constance, in con- 
 demning John Huss of heresy, declared that its power 
 extended to nothing further."* And does Dr. Milner and his 
 retailers expect that we are to be amused with this 
 exhibition of prudish abstinence ! The Council no doubt 
 imagined that, by merely leaving Huss to the course of the 
 law, they were themselves exempt from any blood-guiltiness. 
 But what was the result of their proceedings ? During the 
 15th session Huss, and during the 21st Jerome of Prague, 
 were condemned to the flames for holding so-called heretical 
 opinions, notwithstanding the safe-conduct which had been 
 vouchsafed by the Council, and on which they relied; and 
 it was at the 45th session of this Council that Martin V. 
 issued the last-named Bull, thus approving of the previous 
 decree of the Council ; and Bellarmine (Book i. On Councils, 
 cap. 7) says, " This Council, with respect to its last session, 
 and of all those things which Martin V. approved, is ad- 
 mitted by all Catholics " as general, and therefore infallibly 
 binding. The fate of these martyrs is well known. They 
 were burnt alive. The murders were the result of the 
 decree of a Popish Council, and enacted by Popes; for 
 John XXIII. in 1414, had already exhorted the King of 
 Bohemia to " root out " the errors of Wickliffe. 
 
 The Council expressly declared that no safe-conduct given 
 to presumed heretics by princes or others should be a pro- 
 tection, however binding the instrument might be considered, 
 and that the proper ecclesiastical authority should inquire 
 into the errors of the party, and otherwise proceed against 
 thein. b 
 
 P. 466, Letter xlix. In Von der Hardt's " Eerum Cone. Constantiensis," 
 torn. iv. part 6, p. 440. 
 
 b Labb. Concil. ed. Mansi, torn, xxvii. p. 799. See Cramp's "Text-book of 
 Popery," p. 485. London, 1851. 
 
198 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 Bzovius, the Romish historian,, who continued the annals 
 of Baronius, admits that armies of 500,000 men were raised 
 to exterminate the unoffending Albigenses " at the com- 
 mand and exhortation of Pope Innocent III.;" a and Inno- 
 cent VIIL, by a Bull, enjoined the secular powers, under 
 pain of anathema, to take up arms to extirpate these simple- 
 hearted followers of Christ, " wherever they could be found." b 
 AndBzovius again says, that " innumerable heretics were burnt 
 alive " for " persisting in their obstinacy/-' Romanists shrink 
 from taking the responsibility of the Inquisition on their 
 Church, but hear what Bzovius further says : c " About that 
 time, Pope Innocent III. (as Sixtus V. relates in his diploma 
 for the institution of the festival of St. Peter the Martyr) 
 authorized the godlike Dominick to distinguish himself against 
 the heretics, by constant preaching and meetings for discus- 
 sion, and by the office of the Inquisition, which he first 
 intrusted to him ; and that he should either reconcile them to 
 the Church, if they were willing to be reconciled, or strike 
 them with a just sentence if they were unwilling to return' 3 
 
 But to continue to quote the persecuting decrees of succes- 
 sive Popes. After Martin, we have, in 1486, Innocent VIIL, 
 and Pope Julius II. in 1511, who each issued similar Bulls 
 for the anathematizing and the punishment of heretics. 
 Leo X., in 1520, issued his Bull wherein, among other so- 
 called errors of Martin Luther, he condemned his assertion 
 that the burning of heretics was contrary to the will of the 
 Holy Spirit; and this same Leo declared that the exter- 
 
 a Bzovii Annales Eccl., torn. xiii. p. 156. An. Chr. 1209. Innoc. III. 
 12 and 14. 
 
 b We here add an extract from the Bull itself, to prove that the secular 
 authorities were compelled, by anathema of the Popes, to execute the judg- 
 ments against heretics (torn. i. p. 453, ed. Lugd. 1655) : 
 
 " Inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis sententiae contra haereticos promulgate, 
 a magistratibus ssecularibus executioni demandentur absque aliquot processuum 
 revisione. 
 
 " Innocentius Papa VIIL venerabili fratri nostro episcopo Brixien. et 
 dilecto filio Inquisitori in partibus Lombardree. 
 
 "2. At cum hujusrnodi crimen baeresis sit mere ecclesiasticum, et delicta 
 nullo pacto impunita remanere debeant, tenore prassentium vobis com mittimus 
 atque mandamus, ut si est ita, eisdem officialibus ssecularibus civitatis Brixi- 
 ensis, sub excommunicationis poena, et aliis censuris ecclesiasticis, praecipiatis 
 atque mandetis, ut infra sex dies, postquam legitime fuerint requisiti, sine 
 aliqua dictorum processuum pervos agitatorum visione, sententias per vos lataa 
 contra hujusmodi hsereticos prompte exequantur, appellatione remota. Quam 
 excommunicationis pcenam ipso facto volumus, et tenore praesentium decla- 
 ramus incurrisse, si, quod mandatum fuerit, infra dictum sex dierum spatium, 
 cessante legitimo impedimento, cum effectu nou impleverint, &c. 
 
 " Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum sub annulo Piscatoris, die trigesimo 
 Septemb. 1486, Pontif. nost. an. tertio." (Innocentius Octavus, Magnum 
 Bullarium Komanum. Luxemburg!, 1727.) 
 
 c Ibid. Inquisitio. An. Ch. 1215. Innoc. III. c. 19. 
 
PERSECUTING POPES. 199 
 
 minating constitutions of the German emperors were 
 laudable. a 
 
 In 1527, about forty years previous to the massacre of St. 
 Bartholomew, the bishops and clergy assembled at the 
 Council of Sens or Paris, and issued a missive exhorting all 
 Christian princes to exterminate heretics, and this was aimed 
 more particularly against the Lutherans. 5 
 
 Clement VII. in the following year then issued his Bull 
 for the extermination of heretics. Paul III., in 1536, reissued 
 the Bull known as the Bull " In Coena Domini," which was 
 directed against the followers of Luther; and this same Pope, 
 in 1542, after giving authority to the Inquisitors in matters 
 concerning heresy, declares that the secular arm is to be 
 called in to assist in the persecutions. And the Bull of 
 Julius III., A.D. 1550, was issued against all those who 
 opposed these Inquisitors. We then have the comprehensive 
 Bull of Paul IV., A.D. 1559, which concentrates and calls into 
 exercise all the persecuting decrees, acts of councils, and bulls 
 that had ever been enacted or issued against heretics. Pope 
 Pius V., ever ready for such services, in 1569 addressed a 
 special letter to Charles IX. of France, previous to the 
 massacre of St. Bartholomew, urging him on to the persecu- 
 tion of heretics. Shortly after followed the massacre of St. 
 Bartholomew. 
 
 We cannot, however, pass over this enumeration, without 
 giving prominence, more particularly to the famous decree of 
 Innocent III. passed at the fourth Council of Lateran, which 
 Gregory IX. inserted in the Canon Law of the Church of 
 Rome, or Decretals, and which to this day stands unrepealed : 
 
 "We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy exalting itself against 
 that holy orthodox and Catholic faith, which we have above set forth ; con- 
 demning all heretics, by whatever names they may be denominated, having, 
 indeed, different faces, but tails tied together, because they all agree in the 
 same folly. Let those persons, when condemned, be abandoned to the secular 
 authorities being present, or to their officers, in order that they may be duly 
 punished those who are clergymen being degraded ; so that the property of 
 persons thus condemned, if laymen, shall be confiscated, and in the case of 
 clergymen, applied to the Churches from which they drew their stipends. 
 But let those who are discovered as only notably suspected unless, according 
 to the nature of the suspicion and the quality of the person, they show their 
 innocence by a suitable purgation be struck with the sword of anathema. . . . 
 Let the secular powers, whatever offices they may hold, be advised and in- 
 structed, and, if need be, compelled by ecclesiastical censure, and as they 
 desire to be reputed and held faithful, to take a public oath for the defence of 
 the faith, that they will study to the utmost to exterminate from all territories 
 subject to their jurisdiction all heretics so marked by the Church And 
 
 a Bulla Leonis Papa? X. ad vs. Lutherum, An. Chr. 1520 ; in Labb. et Coss. 
 Concil. torn. xiv. Paris, 1672. 
 
 b Labb. et Coss., torn. xiv. coll. 432 and 440, and see col. 461. Paris, 1672. 
 c Pii Quinti, Pont. Max. Epist. lib. iii. Epist. 45, a Goubau, Antvp. 1640. 
 
200 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 if the secular power refuse to comply, let it be signified to the sovereign 
 pontiff, that he may declare the vassals released from their fealty, and give the 
 country to Catholics, who, having exterminated the heretics, may peaceably 
 possess it. 
 
 " We add, moreover, that every archbishop, by himself or by his arch- 
 deacons, or other honest (?) and fit (? !) persons, should traverse, at least once 
 or twice a year, every parish in which it is rumoured that heretics reside ; 
 and there compel three or four men of good repute or, if expedient, the 
 whole neighbourhood to make known to him any heretics, or person hold- 
 ing secret conventicles, or dissenters from the life and manners of the 
 faithful."" 
 
 In conformity with this Bull, every bishop is compelled 
 to swear, "All heretics, schismatics, and rebels against the 
 same our lord (the Pope), or aforesaid successors, I will, to 
 the utmost of my power, persecute and attack. , b 
 
 In a late Roman work on the Canon Law, Devoti's " Jus 
 Canonicum," a publication now in use, and of authority in 
 England, it is laid down, that everything contained in the 
 Decretals of Gregory IX. is law. c 
 
 In this last decree we find a full and sufficient reply to all 
 the arguments and assertions of Dr. Milner. The Church, 
 he says, does not persecute, but heretics are to be struck 
 with the sword of anathema, and when condemned, they are 
 to be abandoned to the secular power, which in turn is to be 
 compelled by ecclesiastical censure to carry out the Church's 
 condemnation. 
 
 Truly this is a pitiful and paltry manoeuvre, but it will not 
 hold good. " Qui facit per alios facit per se," is an old legal 
 
 a Decret., headed Innocent III., in Concilio General!, reprinted in the 
 Corp. Juris Can., torn. ii. p. 758, edit. Lips. 1839. 
 
 b " Hsereticos, schismaticos, et rebelles, eidem Domino nostro, vel successo- 
 ribus praedictis, PRO POSSE, PERSEQUARET IMPUGNABO." Pontificale Romanum, 
 p. 88, edit. Paris 1664. This edition is in use by Dr. Wiseman ; and see 
 Decretum Greg. IX. lib. ii. tit. 24. 
 
 Titulars in Roman Ireland, on being examined before a committee of the 
 Bouse of Lords, were bold enough to declare that the persecuting canon of 
 the fourth Lateran Council was spurious, and not found in the original. But 
 this decree of the fourth Lateran Council, held by Innocent III., is to be 
 found at the present day in the Canon Law of the Roman Church, as above 
 quoted and referred to. 
 
 The decree of the fourth Lateran Council, commanding the extermination of 
 heretics, is to be found also in Labb. and Coss. Concil., torn. xi. ab anno 1188 
 ad annum 1284, Paris, edit. 1671 Title "III. de Hsereticis ;" and see p. 423. 
 The decree of the Council of Constance, that heretics are to be burnt alive, is 
 found in the same edition of " Councils," torn, xxvii. p. 1196. In the 
 "Concilium Oxoniense," sec. 13, anno Dom. 1408, we find a decree that 
 heretics in England should be burnt alive. 
 
 c " Hodie Corpus Juris Canonici, quo in scholis, et in foro utimur, constat 
 ex Gratiani Decreto, decretalibus Greg. IX., Sexto Decretalium Bonifacii VIII., 
 Clementinis, Extravagantibus ; Gratiani Decretum, uti supra ostendimus, 
 nullam per se habet publicam auctoritatem ; sed ea donatse sunt cetera? collec- 
 tiones, quarum nunc facta mentio est : quidquid igitur in Us comprehenditur 
 legem facit : contra quee in Decreto continentur tantum valent, quantum per se 
 ipsa extra Decretum valerent." (Devoti, "Jus Canonicum," torn i. p. 379, 
 ed. Rom. 1837.) 
 
PERSECUTING SPIRIT OF ROME. 201 
 
 axiom, which is equally applicable to the Church of Rome as 
 to secular communities, and we unhesitatingly assert that 
 the Church of Rome is responsible for the persecution of 
 (so-called) heretics. 
 
 SEC. III. The Persecuting Spirit of Rome. a 
 
 Though we should give up the authenticity and genuineness 
 of the atrocious third canon of the fourth Lateran Council, 
 or even of the whole of the seventy statutes of that celebrated 
 synod, we should still be in possession of ample materials, 
 wherewith to make good against the Church of Rome the 
 charge of teaching and carrying into effect, whenever and 
 wherever she can, the doctrine of persecution. 
 
 The charge is, indeed, a grave one, and should not be 
 advanced upon slight grounds ; for it involves a far greater 
 degree of guilt than the mere act of persecution, which, if 
 not in accordance with the teaching of the Church, affects 
 not the Church, but simply the perpetrators of that act. Of 
 this the modern champions of Rome are fully aware, and, 
 whilst they admit that persecution has taken place to a great 
 extent, endeavour to remove all responsibility from the Church, 
 by asserting that such persecution was not in accordance with 
 the spirit of Rome's teaching, but, on the contrary, altogether 
 opposed to it. 
 
 On this point we are content to join issue, and, in order 
 that the whole proceeding may be fairly conducted, we are 
 further content that the decision of the question shall rest 
 entirely on the accredited witnesses of Rome herself. Let 
 us distinctly state the charge, which is as follows : That 
 " Rome has embodied such a principle in her system, so as 
 to make herself responsible for the deeds of cruelty which 
 her sons have perpetrated under the pretence of religion. m 
 
 Such is the charge; let us now proceed to examine the 
 evidence, and we shall discover traces of this persecuting 
 spirit at a very early period. 
 
 A remarkable instance of it occurs in the "Conventus 
 Aquisgranensis " (Aix-la-Chapelle) in the year 797 or 799. 
 
 a The following paper was furnished to us after the former had been pre- 
 pared. Though on the same subject, we feel sure that our readers will not 
 regret that we have given it a place in our pages. For this and the following 
 article, "King James II.," we are indebted to the Rev. John Evans, the author 
 of the "Statutes of the Fourth Council of Lateran." 
 
 b See "The Persecuting Spirit of Kome," a Lecture delivered at St. Chad's 
 Church, Shrewsbury, March 20, 1851, by the Rev. John Evans, M.A. 
 
202 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 What is termed a " Capitulatio Carol! Magni," is given, 
 wherein we find the following clause : " If any one among 
 the Saxons has inadvertently not been baptized, and chooses 
 still to hide himself away, and shall despise coming to be bap- 
 tized, preferring to continue a pagan, let him die the death." a 
 The Rev. David O'Croly cites a passage from Becanus to 
 the following effect : b " If the Church in the first ages did 
 not subject heretics to the punishment of death, it was because 
 she was weak and impotent unconnected with civil power 
 and civil authority ; in proof of which, it is sufficient to 
 remark, that she no sooner became powerful and strong, than 
 she began to exercise severity towards all those who had the 
 hardihood to gainsay her doctrines. She first inflicted the 
 penalty of banishment ; afterwards pecuniary fines ; then 
 confiscation of all their goods ; until at length, exasperated 
 by their obstinacy and insolence, she proceeded to the last 
 extremities, and subjected them to all the horrors of capital 
 punishment, as we may read in the laws of Valentinian and 
 Marcian, lib. quicunque." Here we find no attempt to shift 
 the responsibility from the Church to the civil power ! The 
 whole merit of the proceeding is claimed for the CHURCH, 
 and an apology is offered for her shortcomings " in the first 
 ages ;" she did not then persecute, because, forsooth, " she 
 was weak and impotent." As she grew in power she amply 
 redeemed the faults of her early days ; and Becanus, as cited 
 by Mr. O'Croly, assigns the reason which, according to 
 Romish theology, justified the proceedings of the Church. 
 " In fine," writes Becanus, c " religious liberty, being directly 
 opposed to unity of faith, and ruinous to the commonwealth, 
 is by no means to be sanctioned ; and it is lawful and requisite 
 to protect orthodoxy by the infliction of pains and penalties, 
 by the persecution of heretics, and the extinction of heresy." 
 Whether we agree with Becanus, that persecution is " lawful 
 and requisite," or not, we shall find ample reason to acknow- 
 ledge the truth of his statement respecting the doings of his 
 Church as Rome increased in power. Time, most assuredly, 
 did not soften the spirit displayed in the " Capitulatio" above 
 cited, and we find it in after-days raging in all its fury against 
 
 a "Conventus Aquisgranensis. Caroli Magni Capitulatio de Partibus 
 Saxonise, A.D. 797." Labbe and Cossart, torn. vii. col. 1132. Paris, 1671. 
 
 " VII. Si quis deinceps in Gente Saxonum inter eos latens non baptizatus 
 se abscondere voluerit, et ad baptismum venire contempserit, paganusque 
 permanere voluerit, morte moriatur." 
 
 b " An Inquiry into the Principal Points of Difference, Real or Imaginary, 
 between the Two Churches," p. 236. Dublin, Milliken and Son ; London, 
 B. Fellowes, 1835. 
 
 c Or Van der Beeck, of the Jesuit Order, who wrote " Manuale Controver- 
 siarum hujus Temporis," Antverpise, 1624 ; often reprinted. 
 
PERSECUTING COUNCILS. 203 
 
 the followers of Peter Waldus, with regard to whom even 
 Reinerius Sacco, an Inquisitor General, who wrote about the 
 year 1254, bears this testimony : " They have a show of piety 
 in their life and conversation ; they repose their belief in God, 
 and in all the articles of the creed, and only blaspheme the 
 Roman Church and clergy." " For blasphemy like this," 
 observes Grier, " they were hunted down like wild beasts, and 
 for an adherence to their Christian principles their virtuous 
 descendants of the present day are exposed to the unmitigated 
 severity of Popish persecution." a What had the temporal 
 powers to do with these poor people ? Their conduct as 
 citizens was faultless, their creed even correct ; their only 
 fault, according to the Inquisitor's own testimony, was, that 
 they "blasphemed" a strong term, by the way " the Roman 
 Church and clergy." For what, then, and at whose instiga- 
 tion were they so cruelly persecuted ? Becanus, as we have 
 seen, can answer the question: " In fine, religious liberty being 
 directly opposed to the unity of faith, and ruinous to the 
 commonwealth, is by no means to be sanctioned ;" although 
 nothing in the creed of these unfortunate people was dis- 
 covered contrary to " the unity of faith," nor anything in 
 their conduct " ruinous to the commonwealth," yet they 
 claimed "religious liberty," and Rome judged that this was 
 " by no means to be sanctioned ;" assuredly her policy was 
 prudent, if not of a Christian character, for religious liberty 
 would be like the fabled upas-tree in the paradise of Rome ; 
 her fairest flowers would wither and die beneath its destruc- 
 tive influence. 
 
 The motive appealed to., in the decree of Aix-la-Chapelle is 
 distinctly avowed in the well-known canon of the third 
 General Council of Lateran, A.D. 1179, under Pope Alex- 
 ander III. This celebrated canon b was directed against the 
 Albigenses, under which name, it would appear, were deno- 
 minated all who were opposed to the Roman Pontiff. The 
 canon commences thus : " Although ecclesiastical discipline, 
 as the blessed Leo saith, being content with the judgment of 
 priests, does not take sanguinary revenge, yet it is assisted by 
 the decrees of Catholic princes, that men may often seek a 
 saving remedy through fear of corporal punishment." After 
 enumerating the titles by which these heretics were called, 
 the canon proceeds to subject to " a curse both themselves, 
 
 a " Hsec secta magnam habet speciera pietatis, e6 quod coram hominibus 
 juste vivant, et bene omnia de Deo credant, et ornnes articulos qui in symbolo 
 continentur : solummodo Romanam Ecdesiam blasphemant et clerum." Reiner 
 Sac., cap. iv. p. 54. See Grier's "Epitome of the Councils," p. 175. 
 Dublin, 1828. 
 
 b Labbe and Cossart, torn. x. col. 1522, sec. 27. Paris, 1671. 
 
204 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 their protectors or harbourers, and all persons who admit 
 them into their houses or lands, or have any dealings with 
 them. But if they depart in this sin, let not the oblation be 
 made for them (under any pretext of privileges granted to 
 any from us, or on any other ground), nor let them receive 
 burial among Christians/' The canon then names the Bra- 
 bangons, and the people of Arragon, Navarre, and the Basque 
 provinces, charging them with paying no respect to churches, 
 sparing neither age nor sex, but, "after the manner of 
 heathens," wasting and destroying everything; it directs 
 that they " be considered bound by the same sentence and 
 penalty as the fore- mentioned heretics, nor be admitted to 
 the communion of the Church, until they have abjured that 
 pestilent company and heresy." . . . . " And let their goods 
 be confiscated, and let it be free for princes to subject 
 such persons to slavery." .... "We also, out of Divine 
 mercy, and relying on the authority of the blessed Apostles 
 Peter and Paul, grant to the faithful Christians, who have 
 taken arms against them, and, at the advice of the bishops 
 and other prelates, have contended to drive them out, a re- 
 laxation of two years from enjoined penance." We need not 
 here enter into the truth or falsehood of the charge brought 
 against the Brabangons and others, but merely remark that, 
 if true, then the canon interferes with the civil laws, and that 
 the Albigenses, against whom the canon was directed, as said 
 in the commencement, are not charged with open outrages, 
 but merely a hint given of their practising " secret wicked- 
 ness." All that we are now concerned with is the spirit of 
 the canon ; and the avowed principle of forcing men to " seek 
 a saving remedy through fear of corporal punishment." 
 
 Whatever may be the merit of this exterminating canon, 
 it was confirmed by the reigning Pontiff, and forms a part of 
 the Canon Law of Rome to this day. In the year 1209, the 
 Provincial Council of Avignon a made a more general pro- 
 vision for the extermination of heretics. In the second canon 
 (which is headed " That heretics be exterminated and 
 punished ; that Jews be deprived of all administration ") the 
 necessity of calling in the aid " of the material sword " is 
 declared, and directions given that every bishop cause his 
 subjects, counts, castellans, soldiers, and other parishioners 
 to swear, if need be, respecting the extirpation of heretics. 
 The canon further establishes " an inquisition of two or three, 
 or more if necessary, laymen of good character, to be sworn to 
 discover heretics," &c. If the twenty-seventh canon of the third 
 Lateran Council was not sufficiently general in the denuncia- 
 
 a Labbe and Cossart, torn. xi. col. 41, et seq. Edit. Paris, 1671. 
 
PERSECUTING COUNCILS. 205 
 
 tion of heretics, and if the decree of Avignon, as that of a Pro- 
 vincial Council, might seem wanting in authority to enforce 
 the more general denunciation, the deficiency in both respects 
 was amply atoned for by a document, for the coriciliar cha- 
 racter of which we need not, for our present purpose, con- 
 tend. We may consider the third canon of the fourth Lateran 
 Council simply as a constitution of Pope Innocent III., and 
 as such breathing the spirit of the Church of Rome ; being 
 concerted and issued by the supreme head of that Church, 
 and bearing out the observations of Becanus, that in propor- 
 tion as the Church gained power, she exhibited that power in 
 persecuting all gainsay ers. Must we remind our readers, 
 that, in order to prevent mistakes, and to take away all 
 excuse for negligence in carrying out the provisions of the 
 canon, decree, or constitution call it what you will a creed 
 is given, to which reference is made, and an anathema 
 thundered forth against all who shall dare to exalt themselves 
 against such creed ? Here, too, we have no enumeration of 
 crimes, as was the case in the twenty- seventh canon of the 
 third Lateran Council, but simply the crime of heresy, to 
 which the most fearful penalties are attached ! an ample 
 vindication of the Albigenses, if, as Lingard chooses to assert, 
 those people were contemplated by the decree. 
 
 " We a excommunicate and anathematize every heresy which 
 exalteth itself against this holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith, 
 which we have set forth above : condemning all heretics, by 
 whatsoever name they may be called; who have, indeed, 
 diverse faces, but their tails are bound together, for they 
 
 make agreement in the same folly ." " Let such persons, 
 
 when condemned, be left to the secular powers who may be 
 present, or to their officers, to be punished in a fitting 
 manner ; those of the clergy first being degraded from their 
 orders : so that the goods of such condemned persons, if they 
 shall be laymen, be confiscated ; but in the case of clerks be 
 applied to the churches from which they derived their 
 stipends." " But let those who are only marked with sus- 
 picion, be smitten with the sword of anathema, and be shunned 
 by all men until they make proper satisfaction; unless, 
 according to the grounds of suspicion and the quality of the 
 person, they shall have demonstrated their innocence by a 
 proportionate purgation. So that if they shall remain under 
 excommunication for a twelvemonth, thenceforth let them be 
 condemned as heretics. And let the secular powers, what- 
 ever offices they may discharge, be admonished and induced, 
 
 a Labbe and Cossart, torn. xi. p. i. col. 147-9. Paris, 1671. We repeat 
 this decree here as coming under the title of " Persecuting Councils." 
 
206 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 and, if need be, compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as 
 they desire to be reported and accounted faithful, they pub- 
 licly set forth an oath, that to the utmost of their power they 
 will, bond fide, strive to exterminate from the lands subject 
 to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church ; 
 so that whensoever any person is advanced, either to spiritual 
 or temporal power, he be bound to confirm this decree with 
 an oath. 1 " And so, according to Dr. Milner, this is a temporal 
 decree ! The crime is heresy, a spiritual offence ; the moving 
 power to stir up the temporal powers to exterminate heretics is 
 excommunication, anathema, ecclesiastical censure! for the 
 decree thus proceeds : " But if any temporal lord, being re- 
 quired and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to cleanse 
 his country of this heretical filth, let him be bound with the 
 chain of excommunication by the metropolitan and the other 
 co-provincial bishops. And if he shall scorn to make satis- 
 faction within a year, let this be signified to the Supreme 
 Pontiff, that thenceforth he may declare his vassals to be 
 absolved from their fidelity to him, and may expose his land 
 to be occupied by the Catholics, who, the heretics being 
 exterminated, may, without contradiction, take possession of it, 
 and possess it in the purity of the faith ; saving the right of the 
 chief lord, so long as he himself presents no obstacle, and 
 offers no hindrance in this matter ; the same law, neverthe- 
 less, being observed concerning those who have not lords in 
 chief." " But let the Catholics who, having taken the sign 
 of the cross, have girded themselves for the extermination of 
 the heretics, enjoy the same indulgence, and be armed with 
 the same holy privilege as is conceded to those who go to the 
 assistance of the Holy Land." So then, the temporal power, 
 " the secular arm," is called in and urged to exterminate the 
 heretics : but, whatever violence may be used, whatever tor- 
 tures inflicted, whatever blood may be shed, in carrying into 
 effect the behests of the CHURCH ; that Church, with unblush- 
 ing effrontery, when charged with the deed, exclaims, " Thou 
 canst not say I did it." Oh, no ! the Church merely cheers 
 on, and rewards with an " indulgence" the assassin whose 
 arm strikes the blow ! The spirit of this exterminating 
 decree was speedily and extensively carried out, and its pro- 
 visions echoed by numerous provincial councils, such as that 
 of Cremona, A.D. 12.26; Narbonne, A.D. 1127; Toulouse, 
 A.D. 1229; Beziers, A.D. 1233, and others. How sincere is 
 the prayer of Rome, when she delivers over her victims to 
 the " secular arm," that mercy may be shown to them, is 
 proved by the nineteenth decree of the Council of Narbonne, 
 " Ut a carcere nemo excusetur propter senium," " That no 
 
PERSECUTING COUNCILS. 207 
 
 one be excused from prison on account of old age." a " With 
 regard," says the decree, " to those who are to be imprisoned, 
 we have also thought right to add, that neither the husband 
 on account of his wife, although young, nor any one on 
 account of their children or parents, or of those otherwise 
 related, or on account of infirmity, or age, or any other like 
 cause, be excused from imprisonment without the special 
 indulgence of the Apostolic See." Here the temporal power 
 is forbidden to show mercy ! 
 
 The reiterated threats of ecclesiastical censures against 
 those temporal lords who showed no alacrity in carrying out 
 the decrees against the heretics, prove it to have been an 
 ungracious task; that the temporal powers would have let 
 the work of extermination alone, if they had not been urged 
 on by the spiritual authorities ! That this inference is not 
 an incorrect one, we have no less a testimony than that of 
 Pope Innocent IV. He writes to the authorities of Lom- 
 bardy, b approving and enforcing the laws of Frederick II. 
 against heretics, and in case of their demur, tells them that 
 he will cause the Inquisitors to compel them to carry out the 
 laws, which he recites verbatim : at the end of those laws, 
 thus approved and sought to be enforced, are these words : 
 " And we order that those who are marked by this inquisi- 
 tion, although but slight proof of superstition attach to 
 them, be examined by ecclesiastics and prelates; by whom, 
 if they shall be found to deviate from the Catholic faith at 
 least in an article [of faith], and being by them admonished 
 in a pastoral manner, shall be unwilling, forsaking the devil 
 of darkness, to acknowledge the God of light, but persevere 
 in their conceited obstinacy of error : we decree that the 
 Patareni and other heretics, by whatsoever name they may 
 be reckoned [or called], being condemned by the edict of 
 our present law, suffer the death which they affect : that, 
 being consigned to the trial of flames, they be publicly 
 burned alive." "Nor do we grieve that in this particular, 
 from which they obtain punishment only, and no other fruit 
 of their error, we satisfy their own wish." Such is the law, 
 and such the sentiment approved by Pope Innocent IV. 
 (A.D. 1243). Nearly 300 years afterwards we find the 
 Council of Sens making the test of heresy equally strict. 
 " Moreover, those who have been guilty of one species of 
 heresy, or have erred in one article of faith, and have after- 
 wards simply or generally abjured heresy, if they are guilty 
 
 a Tom. xi. part i. col. 493. Paris, 1671. 
 
 b "XIII. Ad Lombardiae, Komaniolae et Marchise Tarvisinse Kectores." 
 Labbe and Cossart, torn. xi. p. i. col. 621. Paris, 1671. 
 
208 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 of another species of heresy, we decree to be judged as lapsed 
 into heresy." a This Council treats the enactments of the 
 third canon of the fourth Lateran Council as well known, 
 and enforces the provisions of that canon almost in its very 
 words. However ungracious the work of " exterminating 
 heretics" may have seemed to those "temporal powers," 
 whose zeal the Pope found it necessary to quicken by threats 
 of compulsion, should they appear slack in bringing "the 
 secular arm " to his assistance, it was to the Pope himself a 
 " pleasant work," if we may judge from the concluding words 
 of the document above cited : " We, king of kings, utterly 
 execrate, pursue with vengeance, despoil of all their goods, 
 those apostatizing from the Catholic faith; and restrain 
 them by laws, as making shipwreck of profession and of life. 
 We cut off their successors, and take away from them every 
 legitimate right." b If such be the sentiment of the head of 
 the Roman Catholic Church, and if such be the terms in 
 which that sentiment is expressed, can we wonder to find a 
 spirit of persecution pervading the whole of the Canon Law 
 of Rome ? It would be strange indeed if it did not so per- 
 vade it, especially when we remember the boast of Rome 
 that she is " Semper eadem !" Whatever miracles her 
 advocates may claim for her, there is yet one which she has 
 not attempted to perform ; " the leopard " has not yet 
 attempted to "change her spots!" To suppose that Inno- 
 cent IV., when speaking ex cathedra (though we do not 
 admit the claim of infallibility, either on the part of Pope or 
 Council), spoke merely as an individual, and not as the organ 
 of the Church, would indeed be a grievous error, and, should 
 we fall into it, we should find ourselves quickly and sternly 
 corrected by the most eminent divines of the Romish com- 
 munion. In citing the opinions of such writers, we may 
 have occasion to repeat passages from their works already 
 cited ; but it will be necessary to do so, as such passages not 
 only prove the authenticity and genuineness of the docu- 
 ments in support of which we quoted them, but also prove 
 those documents to be a necessary and inseparable portion of 
 the system to which they belong. The reader also will have 
 the advantage of being familiarized with a number of proofs, 
 
 a " Insuper eos qui in una, specie hseresis commiserunt ant in uno fidei 
 articulo erraverunt," &c. Labbe and Cossart, torn. xiv. col. 440, et seq. 
 Paris, 1671 ; see p. 199, ante. 
 
 b " Rex Begmn Apostantes a fide Catholic^ penitus execramur, insequimur 
 ultionibus, bonis omnibus spoliamus. Et ut a professione vel vM naufragantes 
 legibus coarctamus. Successiones tollimus, ab eis omne jus legitimum abdica- 
 mus." Datum Perusii, Secundo Kal. Novemb. Pontificatus Nostri Anno 
 Primo. Ibid. col. 623. 
 
JEROME AND HUSS. 209 
 
 which, whilst in point of succession they furnish a catena, 
 have yet the advantage of cumulative evidence ; for, if we 
 may so speak, each link of the chain thus presented is fully 
 sufficient for the stress it has to sustain quite strong enough 
 to form an indissoluble connection between Rome and her 
 doctrine of persecution, as well as her practice. 
 
 So imperative a duty did the Council of Constance, in 1414, 
 consider the extirpation of heretics, that it condemned to the 
 flames Jerome of Prague and John Huss ; in both cases, but 
 more especially in the latter instance, adding treachery to 
 cruelty, by violating the safe-conduct on the strength of 
 which Jerome and Huss had been induced to attend the 
 Council. At whose instance Jerome and Huss were burned, 
 we have the testimony of ^Eneas Sylvius, afterwards Pius II., 
 who tells us " sentence was passed [against Huss and Jerome] 
 in the assembly of the fathers, that those who should refuse 
 the doctrine of the Church were to be burned. 3 ' a 
 
 It is worth our while to remark, how every attempt to 
 evade the charges of cruelty or treachery against the Church 
 of Rome defeats itself: thus Delahogue, in his zeal to ex- 
 onerate the Council of Constance, confirms all that has been 
 said respecting the persecuting spirit of the whole system of 
 Rome ! 
 
 " The defence/' says Grier, " he sets up for it is this, that 
 Jerome, having relapsed into the heresy which he had 
 abjured, ' excidit ab omni salvi conductus privilegio/ '' 
 Unless there had been a standing law of Rome awarding the 
 penalty of death in such cases, how could Delahogue affirm 
 that Jerome, by relapsing into heresy, had " forfeited all privi- 
 lege of a safe-conduct ? " The very force of his justification 
 of the Council rests upon the guilt of his Church in this 
 matter. Spondanus, as cited by Grier, still more strongly, 
 if possible, brings the charge home to the ecclesiastical autho- 
 rities ; in defending the emperor, he tells us " that the emperor 
 could not compel the ecclesiastical power to respect the faith 
 he had pledged [to Huss,] as it was beyond his jurisdiction." 
 We must not omit the defence, by Simanca, a learned 
 Spaniard, of part of the proceedings at Constance against 
 Huss; Simanca maintains/ "that faith given to heretics is 
 
 a " Lata est in consessu patrum ad versus con tumaces sententia, CREMANDOS 
 ESSE qui doctrinam Ecclesiae respuerint." Hist. Bohem. c. 36, cited in Grier's 
 Epitome of the Councils, p. 231. Dublin, 1828. The subjunctive form, "qui 
 respuerint," might, perhaps, be more correctly translated "for rejecting." 
 See Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. iii. pp. 493, 524, edit. 1853. 
 
 b Grier's Epitome, pp. 227, 228. Dublin, 1828. 
 
 c Annal. Compend. xiv. cap. 15 45. Grier, p. 228. 
 
 d Simanca De Catholicis Institutionibus, tit. xlvi. sec. 52, 1569. Grier, 
 pp. 231, 232. 
 
 P 
 
210 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 not to be kept ; for if faith is not to be kept with tyrants, 
 pirates, and other public robbers, because they slay the body, 
 much less is it to be kept with obstinate heretics, who slay the 
 soul/' . . . . " RIGHTLY, therefore, were certain heretics con- 
 signed to lawful flames by the most weighty judgment of the 
 Council of Constance, although safety had been promised to 
 them; and blessed Thomas [the angelic doctor] likewise holds 
 that an intractable heretic is to be delivered up to the judges, 
 notwithstanding the faith and oath, by which he may have 
 bound a Catholic." Let us not be told that the Council of 
 Constance is only partly acknowledged by the Church of 
 Rome,, for the part we are now concerned with is fully 
 acknowledged; as Bellarmine says, a " This Council, as far as 
 its first session, where it defines that a Council is above the 
 Pope, was reprobated in the Councils of Florence and fifth 
 Lateran ; the remainder was approved." The only matter 
 rejected is the defining the authority of a Council as above the 
 Pope's authority. The very circumstance of a safe-conduct 
 being at all necessary implies the existence of those laws, 
 whose operation the safe-conduct was intended, " pro hac 
 vice/' to suspend; and so also did the Council of Trent, by 
 three times granting a safe-conduct, three times establish the 
 existence of the persecuting decrees of the Church, and 
 acknowledge them to be in force ! That the attention of the 
 Council of Trent was called to the subject, is proved, also, by 
 the very same circumstance ; and we may, therefore, justly 
 infer the approbation of such decrees, when she did not repu- 
 diate a single clause of any of them, but, on the contrary, 
 extended their operation by the canons on baptism. These 
 canons allow the baptism of children by heretics, in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be 
 valid; and by virtue of such baptism claim the right of com- 
 pelling all persons, so baptized, to join the communion of 
 Rome ! b But we have been told that all this is merely a 
 " matter of discipline" and, as such, may be altered ; that 
 the circumstances which required such severity have passed 
 away, and, therefore, these persecuting canons may be con- 
 sidered as in a state of abeyance. We may, then, fairly ask, 
 " Why has no alteration taken place ? Why are laws which 
 are no longer required by the circumstances which called 
 them into existence, not only retained, but retained without 
 a single modification ? " The only ground, which can be 
 reasonably urged for their being retained, is, that they con- 
 tain a principle, and that principle requires that the laws 
 
 a De Concc. lib. i. cap. 7, p. 12, ed. Paris, 1613. 
 b Canons iv. viii. xiv. ' ' On Baptism." 
 
PERSECUTING SPIRIT OF ROME. 211 
 
 should still be retained, as circumstances similar to those 
 which called the said laws into existence may again arise, 
 and then that principle would again require the laws to be put 
 in force. Such reasoning is just and conclusive, and if the 
 principle be a wholesome one, it is right that the laws which 
 embody it should remain in force. Be it remembered, how- 
 ever, that if such a principle, wholesome or unwholesome, be 
 found to exist, then it becomes a matter of doctrine ; and if 
 we find that doctrine sought to be deduced from Scripture, 
 then, so long as Rome receives the Scripture, even as a partial 
 rule of faith, and so long as INFALLIBILITY is claimed for her, 
 she cannot abandon nor alter those laws ; nay, if true to her 
 own creed, she must, as an IMPERATIVE DUTY, enforce them 
 when circumstances require, and her position will permit such 
 enforcement. So thought the divines of the Faculty of 
 Theology of Paris ; and so they honestly stated in their cen- 
 sure on Erasmus's Commentary on the New Testament : 
 " Whereas it is a Catholic principle, and to be held faithfully, 
 that it is not only lawful, but a DUTY, to inflict death on obsti- 
 nate heretics, when it can be done without endangering the 
 State/' &c. a 
 
 So, too, thought the reverend theologues who attended 
 the Council of Trent, if we may judge by the sentiments they 
 have left on record for our guidance in this matter. Fonti- 
 donius says : " If this kind of punishment, which the Church 
 now uses, seem to you to be cruel, condemn at the same time, 
 in this charge of cruelty, those most holy Fathers who thought 
 that the safety of the Church was to be provided for by the 
 utter destruction of heretics ; condemn that most keen cham- 
 pion of the Church, Jerome, the thunderbolt of heretics, who 
 decided that putrid flesh must be cut away ; . . . . condemn 
 that glorious speech of Dioscorus of Alexandria, uttered in 
 the Council of Chalcedon, applauded by the judgment of all, 
 in which he exclaimed that heretics were worthy not only of 
 punishment, but of flames." b 
 
 Yillalpandeus, after justifying, in his way, the conduct of 
 his Church in putting heretics to death, thus concludes : 
 " Heretics, therefore, without doubt, when, being admonished, 
 they refuse to return to a better mind, are deservedly punished 
 with bonds and fire. )} c 
 
 a " Declarationes ad Censuras Facultatis Theologise Parisiensis." Le Clerc's 
 edition of Erasmus's works, vol. i. col. 905. Lug. Bat. fol. 1706. 
 
 b " Petri Fontidonii Doctoris Theologi, pro Sacro CEcumenico Concilio Tri- 
 dentino, ad versus JoaunemFahritiumMontanum ad GermanosOratio." Labbe 
 and Cossart, torn. xiv. col. 1700 et seq. Paris, 1671. 
 
 c "Apologia Indictionis Concilii Tridentini factae a Pio Quarto Pontifice 
 Maximo. Adversus Joannem Fabricium Montanum. Auto re Gasparo Cardillo 
 
212 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 We have here no attempt to make the secular powers 
 responsible for putting heretics to death ; the whole merit is 
 claimed for the Church, and we are told respecting the burning, 
 also, of heretics, that it is a kind of punishment which " the 
 Church now uses" We fear had such a work as Dr. Milner's 
 " End of Controversy" appeared in those days, the author 
 would scarcely have escaped the charge of heresy ; for we still 
 find in all its vigour the spirit of Leo X., who, in a bull of 
 1520, condemned as erroneous the opinion " That heretics 
 should be burned is contrary to the will of the Spirit." In 
 vain would Dr. Milner have looked for support to Aquinas, 
 who would have told him that heretics are rightly punished 
 with death, " because forgers of money, and others who dis- 
 turb the State, are justly punished with death : therefore also 
 heretics, who are forgers of faith, and, as experience testifies, 
 grievously disturb the State." As little comfort would he 
 have received from Eckius, who, in his " Manual of Common 
 Places, against Luther and other enemies of the Church," 
 deduces the doctrine from Scripture ; and would, doubtless, 
 have referred Dr. Milrier to his " Second Homily for St. 
 George the Martyr's Day." Gregory IX., who inserted the 
 third canon of the fourth Lateran Council in the Decretals, 
 would not have commended an assertion so derogatory to the 
 character and claims of Papal Rome ; and had Benedict XIV. 
 seen Dr. Milner's book, his holiness would have replied very 
 briefly to the statement in question, " that we may not use- 
 lessly waste our time in illustrating a matter undoubted among 
 all; it will be abundantly sufficient to allege one sanction of 
 Innocent III. in the fourth General Council of Lateran, an. 
 1215, in the third canon of which ' De Hsereticis/ bishops 
 are ordered," &c. a That the reverend theologues, whose 
 sentiments we have given above, spake not simply their own 
 private opinions, may be gathered from the storm of 
 anathemas poured forth by the assembled fathers at the 
 conclusion of the Council of Trent : 
 
 Cardinal "Anathema to all heretics !" 
 Response " Anathema, Anathema !" b 
 
 Nor was this a momentary feeling, a mere occasional out- 
 burst of holy zeal, for, in the 2nd chapter of the 25th session, 
 it is directed that, in the first Provincial Council to be held 
 after the closing of the Council of Trent, " all heresies con- 
 demned by the Sacred Canons and General Councils, and 
 
 Yillalpandeo Hispano Segobiense Doctore Theologo." Ibid. torn. xiv. col. 
 1885 et seq. 
 
 a See M 'Ghee's "Laws of the Papacy," pp. 92 et seq. ; or p. 242, edit. 1841. 
 
 b Labbe and Cossart, torn. xiv. col. 921. Paris, 1671. 
 
CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. 213 
 
 especially condemned by this same synod, they publicly 
 detest and anathematize;" which is echoed in the clause of 
 the creed of Pius IV. " I also profess and undoubtedly 
 receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by 
 the Sacred Canons and General Councils, and particularly by 
 the holy Council of Trent; and likewise I also condemn, 
 reject, and anathematize, all things contrary thereto, all 
 heresies whatsoever condemned, rejected, and anathematized 
 by the Church." Now, as this creed concludes with a 
 solemn oath which binds those who receive it, not only to 
 live and die in the Romish faith, but also to compel every 
 one, over whom they have influence, to hold, teach, and 
 preach, " this true Catholic faith, out of which, [it affirms,] 
 no one can be saved," we can easily discern the mind of 
 "the Church" by a reference to canons and decretals, 
 already cited. These persecuting canons, and the doctrine 
 upon which they are based, are made as permanent as an 
 oath can make them. The Tridentine Fathers, as we have 
 seen, were full of the fiery zeal which glowed in the breast of 
 the Jesuit Tirinus, when he wrote the following comment 
 on Zech. xiii. 3 : " Whence Lutherans may learn that 
 heretics are to be punished with death, as well in the new 
 law as in the old. For even the very parents, if they glow 
 with zeal for the divine honour, acting at once as judges and 
 executioners, will thrust through a son so apostatizing." a 
 And lest the spirit which the concluding words of the Triden- 
 tine Fathers breathed should pass away, those words were, so 
 to speak, echoed every Maundy Thursday, when the Bull " In 
 Ccena Domini " was read in the Pope's presence : " We ex- 
 communicate and anathematize, on the part of Almighty 
 God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and also by 
 the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and 
 by our own, all Wiclifntes, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, 
 Anabaptists, and all other heretics, by whatsoever name they 
 are called, and of whatsoever sect they may be, and also all 
 schismatics, and those who withdraw themselves, or obsti- 
 nately depart from obedience to the Bishop of Rome." 
 Good care is taken, we see, in this Bull to prevent the sons 
 of Rome from supposing that it is the heresy only, and not 
 the person of the heretic also, whom they are bound to detest 
 and anathematize ! b When, therefore, Dr. Milner tells us 
 
 " See "R. P. Jacob! Tirini .... Commentariorum in Sacram Scripturam 
 Tomus Secundus," p. 56, col. 2. Venetiis, 1738, folio. 
 
 b " In a work, written by a Roman Catholic, Count FERDINAND DALPozzo, 
 'Catholicism in Austria,' &c., occurs the following passage: 'The Bull In 
 Ccena Domini contains a host of the most absurd pretensions. The reading of 
 this Bull, which was usually performed every year at Rome on Holy Thursday, 
 
214 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 that "if Catholic states and princes have enforced submission 
 to their Church by persecution, they were fully persuaded 
 that there is a divine authority in this Church to decide all 
 controversies in religion,, and those who refuse to hear her 
 voice, when she pronounces upon them, are obstinate heretics," 
 we can only say, that if the states and princes really were so 
 " persuaded/' they only believed what they were told, and 
 did as they were bidden. When he asks us, " On what 
 grounds can Protestants persecute Christians of any descrip- 
 tion whatever ?" we answer, " On no grounds whatever. We 
 have no canons, no laws to justify such a proceeding." But 
 when he goes on to tell us that the Church never persecuted 
 at all ! nay, so far from it, that " when an ecclesiastical 
 judge or tribunal has, after due examination, pronounced 
 that any person accused of obstinate heresy is actually guilty 
 of it, he is required by the Church expressly to declare, in 
 her name, that her power extends no further than such 
 decision ; and in case the obstinate heretic is liable by the 
 laws of the State, to death or mutilation, the judge is required 
 to pray for his pardon " a When Dr. Milner tells us this, we 
 cannot but feel that he has done his Church the greatest 
 injury it was in his power to do her ; he reminds us that she 
 can add mockery to cruelty ! Forsooth, the ecclesiastical 
 judge, when he hands over the condemned heretic to the 
 secular powers, " is required by the Church expressly to 
 declare that her power extends no further than such deci- 
 sion." Indeed ! why this was the very plea urged by the 
 Jews to Pilate for delivering up Jesus to be dealt with by 
 "the secular power;" though the Jews did not add the 
 cruel hypocrisy of praying that Pilate would not injure the 
 innocent victim of their malice. The Jews, it is true, were 
 not permitted by their Roman conquerors " to put any man 
 
 was suspended by order of Clement XIV., to avoid offending crowned heads." 
 (See Mendham's " Literary Policy of Rome," p. 260. London, 1830.) A 
 rather curious and illustrative incident, in connection with this "suspended" 
 Bull, appears in a recent pamphlet "Boyle versus Wiseman," Lond. 1855, 
 pp. 10, 12 ; where Dr. Burgess, of Bristol, will be found instructing another 
 priest, Mr. T. M. M'Donnell, from this very Bull, as promulgated by Pope 
 Martin V., " that all ecclesiastical persons, secular or regular, who shall pre- 
 sume, directly or indirectly, to drag an ecclesiastical person before a lay court 
 shall, for so doing, incur sentence of excommunication ipso facto." The ready 
 adoption of this sword of authority was discerned to be very "inexpedient." 
 It would not be safe to employ a weapon, privately, which had been 
 publicly declared now to be " of no authority in England," and the "error 
 was i-ecognised." But how instructive the use of it ! Mr. Boyle will surely 
 abandon a Church, in which " people may accommodate themselves and con- 
 sciences either to bless or to curse, to save or to ruin, just as it may suit 
 their selfish passions." See M 'Ghee's "Law of the Papacy," pp. 41, 66, 
 216, 297, 302, edit. 1841. 
 a Letter xlix. p. 466. 
 
JEWS AND ROMANISTS COMPARED. 215 
 
 to death,"* and we are told that the Church of modern Rome 
 forbids the ecclesiastic to dip his hands in blood ; but how 
 complete is the parallel, when she delivers up the victim she 
 has pronounced worthy of death, " declaring, We have a law, 
 and by our law he ought to die" b Nor does the parallel cease 
 here ; if the Jews reminded the hesitating Pilate, that " if 
 thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend," c so those 
 princes who should be negligent in the work of exterminating 
 heretics are plainly told that they will be deemed no friends 
 of Papal Rome ! d Rome has indeed proved herself rightful 
 heir-at-law of the debased Jewish Church. 
 
 Before we dismiss this subject, we should record the fact 
 that the old leaven that worked in the time of Innocent III., 
 in exciting the massacre of the helpless Albigenses, still 
 worked in the breast of Dr. Milner ; and as if fearing that 
 Protestants should think that the spirit of his Church had 
 suffered an abatement, he exclaimed, "Thus, to my judgment, 
 am I and the whole Catholic body, without consenting to it, 
 pledged in the face of the legislature to condemn the wars of 
 Charlemagne and the crusade against the infamous Albi- 
 genses." e We trust we are all children of mercy, trained 
 and educated in the benevolence and charity which Christ 
 has taught and enforced, and if we have read the history of 
 that infernal and murderous persecution of the devoted 
 Albigenses (whose chief crime was their determined opposi- 
 tion and resistance of the Papal tyranny), what opinion, or 
 what comment shall we form on this merciless priest, who, 
 after the lapse of centuries, feels the same passions and the 
 same thirst of blood against those innocent victims of Popish 
 and arbitrary violence ? Crimine ab uno DISCE OMNES ! f 
 
 a John xviii. 31. b John xix. 7. c Ibid. 12. 
 
 a ' ' Let the secular powers, whatever office they may discharge, be admonished 
 and induced, and, if need be, compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they 
 desire to be reputed and accounted faithful, so for the defence of the faith they 
 publicly set forth an oath, that they will endeavour, to the utmost of their 
 power, bond fide, to exterminate from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all 
 heretics denounced by the Church." Concil. Lat. iv. canon Hi. Concil. Aries. 
 1534, canon iii. &c. &c. 
 
 e A Reply to the Report published by the Cisalpine Club on the Authenticity 
 of the Protestation, &c., by the Rev. John Milner. London, 1795, p. 28. 
 
 f The Pursuits of Literature, Dialog, iv. note to line 210, p. 322. London, 
 1799. 
 
216 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 No. XV. 
 
 ALLEGED TOLERATION OF JAMES II. 
 
 CHARLES XIL, King of Sweden,, as we read in the history of 
 that chivalrous sovereign, on one occasion undertook, with a 
 few devoted followers, to defend a house against an over- 
 whelming mass of the Turks : during the assault the house 
 caught fire, and the king, in the hurry of the moment, seiz- 
 ing a small cask which was at hand, with the assistance of 
 two of his attendants, poured its contents upon the advancing 
 flames ; the contents, alas ! proved to be brandy, and, as may 
 readily be supposed, the fury of the fire, instead of being 
 allayed, was increased by the inconsiderate proceeding of the 
 king. The above anecdote was recalled to our mind by the 
 attempt of Dr. Milner to repel the charge of intolerance, 
 brought against the Church of Rome, by selecting for this 
 purpose King James II. as a miracle of toleration ! All who 
 know anything of that most unfortunate monarch's reign, are 
 well aware that the Papists, finding that the established 
 Church of England was the grand obstacle to their regaining 
 power in this kingdom, left no means untried to alienate the 
 minds of the people from the Church ; and, the more effectu- 
 ally to attain their object, endeavoured to draw in the Dis- 
 senters to make common cause with them : all this was to be 
 effected by repealing those Acts of Parliament which, by 
 requiring certain tests, prevented Roman Catholics from occu- 
 pying positions of power or influence in the country. The 
 repeal, therefore, of such statutes was a necessary preliminary 
 to further proceeding, and, as the Popish party conceived, 
 would be highly gratifying to Dissenters, whose feelings must 
 naturally, they fancied, be conciliated towards the promoters 
 of such liberal measures ; we must not, therefore, be sur- 
 prised to find James (who was a devoted Papist) either as 
 Duke of York, or as King of England, zealously supporting 
 any and every measure, calculated to serve the purposes of 
 the party of which he was the ready tool ; whilst his zeal for 
 religious liberty was, like that of its modern advocates, mer- 
 cenary, temporary, and delusive. The scheme of inducing 
 Dissenters to make common cause with the Papists was not 
 thought of, in the reign of James II., for the first time ; for 
 in the year 1663 we read that ft It was certainly the strength 
 of Popery that now chiefly made the separation of Protestants 
 
KING JAMES II. 217 
 
 from the Church of England ; the Papists laboured for a 
 liberty which they knew not how to enjoy without a common 
 relaxation of the laws against all other Dissenters." 8 Again, 
 in the year 1672, " The Commons in this Parliament were by 
 long experience more and more sensible that the Papists were, 
 for their own pleasure and advantage, playing and striking 
 the Churchmen and Dissenters one against another. At one 
 time the patrons of indulgence, to break the established 
 Communion, and for their own sakes to let in a universal 
 toleration ; at another time the pushers on of severity and 
 persecution, to exasperate the Nonconformists against the 
 laws and the Church, and make them fly towards Popery 
 and a dispensing power for refuge and protection." 5 The 
 apprehensions of the Parliament were confirmed by the cir- 
 cumstance of an army, " pretended to be designed for service 
 against the Dutch," being encamped at Blackheath, and of 
 which " many of the officers were Papists." This circumstance 
 led to the passing of " an Act for Preventing Dangers which 
 may happen from Popish Recusants," in consequence of which 
 Act " the Duke of York, who was general of the army, and 
 the Lord Treasurer Clifford, laid down all their places." 
 When we remember that the said Act contained a clause 
 which imposed the following oath on all persons taking the 
 oaths of supremacy and allegiance : " /, A. B., do declare, 
 that I do believe there is not any transubstantiation in the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of bread 
 and wine, at or after the consecration thereof, by any person 
 whatsoever," we cannot wonder that James, Duke of York, 
 or James II., King of England, should labour to set aside 
 such an Act under any colourable pretence, and claim a tole- 
 ration for Dissenters and Papists which Papists, when in 
 power, are bound by their own Canon Law to allow to none 
 who dissent from Popery. The Church of England was the 
 grand barrier, and that once removed, the Popish party well 
 knew that there was no denomination of Dissenters suffi- 
 ciently numerous or powerful to make head against the 
 Church of Rome ! These considerations will enable us to 
 judge of the value of Dr. Milner's position " Whatever may 
 be said of the intolerance of Mary, I trust that this charge 
 will not be brought against the next Catholic sovereign, 
 James II. I have elsewhere shown, that, when Duke of 
 York, he used his best endeavours to get the Act De Haere- 
 tico Comburendo, repealed, and to afford an asylum to the 
 Protestant exiles who flocked to England from France on 
 
 a Compleat History of England, vol. iii. p. 248. 
 b Ibid. pp. 294, 321, edit. 1719. 
 
218 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and, in short, that, 
 when king, he lost his crown in the cause of toleration : his 
 declaration of Liberty of Conscience being the determining 
 cause of his deposition/' Whatever share the Duke of York 
 might have in repealing the Act De Hteretico Comburendo, 
 in 1677, we can scarcely, when we consider his conduct as 
 King James II. (to be noticed hereafter), give him credit for 
 a real love of " Religious Liberty ;" but we can easily under- 
 stand, that if credit for a tolerant spirit could thereby be 
 gained for his party, he would readily promote the repeal of 
 the said Act. History, however, tells us a different tale : 
 " Under the apprehensions of Popery, it was thought to be 
 some wisdom of prevention, to make an Act for taking away 
 the Writ De H&retico Comburendo, whereby it was enacted 
 That the Writ commonly called Breve de Hceretico Combu- 
 rendo, with all Proofs and Proceedings thereupon, in order to 
 executing such Writ, or following or depending thereupon, and 
 all punishment by Death, in pursuance of any Ecclesiastical 
 Censures, be from henceforth utterly taken away and 
 abolished. " A wise and prudent enactment; for should 
 Home gain the ascendancy, she would find no parallel in the 
 laws of the kingdom to justify her own exterminating sta- 
 tutes, and would therefore have the greater difficulty in 
 calling them into action. Every Protestant must rejoice that 
 such a disgrace to any kingdom as the Writ De Hceretico 
 Comburendo was removed from the statute-book, be the 
 motive of the repealers what it may ; and great cause, indeed, 
 is there for thankfulness that it has never been replaced 
 by any statute or canon of Rome " De Hcereticis Exter- 
 minandis." The key to James's apparent love of " Religious 
 Liberty " may, perhaps, be found in his speech to the Parlia- 
 ment, November 9, 1685 : " Let no man/' said the king, 
 "take exception, that there are some officers in the army not 
 qualified, according to the late Tests, for their employment : 
 the gentlemen, I must tell you, are most of them well known 
 to me ; and having formerly served with me on several occa- 
 sions, and always approved the loyalty of their principles by 
 their practices, I now think them fit to be employed under 
 me; and will deal plainly with you, that after having had 
 the benefit of their services in such time of need and danger, 
 I will neither expose them to disgrace, nor myself to the 
 want of them, if there should be another rebellion, to make 
 them necessary to me/' a How well the intention of James 
 was understood, by persons well qualified to judge of it, at 
 
 a Compleat History of England, pp. 434, 439, edit. 1719. 
 
KING JAMES II. 219 
 
 the time, we may gather from the speech of a member of the 
 House of Commons. " And pray let us not forget that there 
 was a Bill of Exclusion debated in this House ; I was there 
 and showed myself against it : the arguments for it were, 
 that we should, in case of a Popish successor, have a Popish 
 army. You see the Act of the Test already broken: but 
 pray remember what the late Lord Chancellor told you, 
 when the late king (of blessed memory) passed that Act (the 
 words were to this effect) : By this ACT you are provided 
 against Popery, that no Papist can possibly creep into employ- 
 ment. I am afflicted greatly at this breach on our liberties ; 
 and seeing so great difference betwixt this speech and those 
 heretofore made, cannot but believe this was by some other's 
 advice. This struck at here is our all. And I wonder that 
 there have been any men so desperate as to take employ- 
 ment,, not qualified for it, and would have, therefore, the 
 question, that a standing army is destructive to the country/' 
 Here we have a member declaring how he has, by the king's 
 proceeding, been compelled to recede from his former liberal 
 opinions, and to arrive at the conclusion that a standing 
 army, because officered by men thrust in by the king con- 
 trary to the law of the land, would be " destructive to the 
 country." Some such change of opinion has been avowed 
 in our own time by men who advocated the admissipn of 
 Papists into Parliament, not supposing that any men would 
 have been " so desperate " as to vote in direct opposition to 
 the oath they had taken ! Here it may be worth while to 
 notice that whatever ridicule may have been thrown by 
 historians from time to time on the celebrated plot of "Titus 
 Gates," far different opinions have been entertained on that 
 matter. The severe punishment inflicted upon Gates, though 
 he was declared to be " convicted, upon full evidence, of two 
 horrid perjuries, excited the pity of the spectators, and so 
 much the more, they thought, that he had, perhaps, com- 
 mitted some mistakes in the circumstances of time and place, 
 but the substance of his evidence was undoubtedly true; for 
 the main of his depositions was demonstrated by the papers 
 of Coleman, and by a concurrence of many other acts and 
 deeds. And it is much to be feared, that the truth of his 
 evidence had given much more offence to the Court than 
 any mistakes in it." a With every wish to give James 
 credit for kindness of heart, the heaping of honours on such 
 a man as the infamous Judge Jeffreys, makes us not 
 unreasonably suspect him of hypocrisy when, on a former 
 
 * Ibid. p. 442. 
 
220 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 occasion, he expressed his disapprobation of that monster's 
 proceedings; had the king's abhorrence of the severity of 
 Jeffreys been real, he would scarcely have appointed him, in 
 
 1685, " Lord Chancellor/' That the king's motives, in 
 disregarding the Test Act, were not misconstrued by the 
 member of the House of Commons whose opinion we have 
 cited, we have full proof in the king's own subsequent speech 
 to the Lords and Commons ; he told them " that he would 
 dispense with the Test Act, which was the greatest legal 
 barrier against Popery; that he would keep up a standing 
 army, to be commanded by Popish officers, whom he expressly 
 recommended, in approving the loyalty of their principles by 
 their practices"* The love for " Religious Liberty " was shown 
 in the prosecution of Richard Baxter, and the way in which the 
 trial was conducted by Jeffreys. 6 The same game of alternate 
 severity and relaxation was played in Scotland, but with a more 
 open avowal of the royal intentions. The Lord High Commis- 
 sioner Murray, in his speech to the Scottish Parliament in 
 
 1686, thus openly declares the meaning of James : " And 
 now, my Lords and Gentlemen, after so great and excellent 
 designs for promoting the honour, the ease and wealth of 
 this kingdom ; after his resolution to pardon so many 
 enemies, and to free so many of the guilty from further severe 
 but fyst prosecutions ; his Majesty believeth that none will 
 wonder, if he desire, by the advice and consent of his Great 
 Council, to give ease and security to some of his good subjects 
 of the Roman Catholic Religion, who have been in all times 
 firm to the Monarchy, and ready to sacrifice their lives and 
 fortunes for the service and security of the Crown." c The 
 creatures of the Court were for immediately passing an Act, 
 but " the wiser part " prevailed to have a committee appointed 
 to examine the laws touching the Papists, which committee, 
 after a full inquiry, drew up a Bill, whereby " Papists were 
 to be allowed the exercise of their religion in private, with- 
 out repealing those former Acts, which made them liable 
 to penalties for publickly assembling together." A warm 
 debate ensuing, the king sent orders to dissolve, or at least 
 to prorogue, the Parliament. The spirit of toleration, the 
 real love for " Religious Liberty," which moved James in all 
 these matters, may be judged of from his letter, in the fol- 
 lowing February, to the Privy Council of Scotland, which 
 letter was accompanied by " a Proclamation for Liberty of 
 Conscience and Suspension of the Laws against Papists." The 
 letter plainly tells us whose " tender consciences " are to be 
 
 ft Compleat History of England, p. 445, edit. 1719. 
 b Ibid. pp. 446, 447. c Ibid. p. 448. 
 
KING JAMES II. 221 
 
 cared for ; it runs thus : " Whereas by Our Letter of the %\st 
 of August last past, We were Graciously Pleas' d to Inform 
 you of Our Designs, in order to the Ease of Our Roman 
 Catholic Subjects (unto which We had your Dutiful Answer 
 in some Days thereafter) : We have now thought fit to Publish 
 these our Royal Intentions, and to give an additional Ease to 
 those of Tender Consciences : So to convince the World of our 
 Inclinations to Moderation ; and to evidence, that those of the 
 Clergy who have been Regular, are our most particular Care. 
 And though We have given some Ease to those whose Principles 
 We can with any safety trust; We have at the same time 
 expressed Our highest Indignation against those Enemies of 
 Christianity, as well as Government and Humane Society, the 
 Field-Conventiclers, whom we recommend to you to Root out 
 with all the Severity of our Laws, and with the most vigorous 
 Prosecution of our Force ; it being equally Our and Our 
 People's Concern to be rid of them," fc. a Tolerant, indeed ! 
 Whilst the " tender consciences" of Papists are to be respected, 
 the poor Field-Conventiclers must be " ROOTED OUT," and 
 that, too, without mercy ! What a pity that Dr. Milner had 
 not the above before his eyes when he ventured to hold up 
 James as an example of toleration ! But we shall see much 
 more of this kind of " toleration " before we have done with 
 the unfortunate James. 
 
 With regard to the reception by James of the Huguenots, 
 who were nying from the persecution in France, consequent 
 upon the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, " it soon," 
 observes Mr. Macaulay, " became clear that all this compas- 
 sion was simulated merely for the purpose of cajoling his 
 Parliament, that he regarded the refugees with mortal hatred, 
 and that he regretted nothing so much as his own inability 
 to do what Louis had done." b According to Hume, no one 
 was deceived by the proceedings of James : " When a prince 
 of so much humanity, and of such signal prudence as Louis, 
 could be engaged, by the bigotry of his religion alone, with- 
 out any provocation, to embrace such sanguinary and impo- 
 litic measures, what might be dreaded, they asked, from 
 James, who was so much his inferior in these virtues, and who 
 had already been irritated by such obstinate and violent 
 opposition ? In vain did the king affect to throw the highest 
 blame on the persecutions in France : in vain did he afford 
 the most real protection and assistance to the distressed 
 Huguenots. All these symptoms of toleration were regarded 
 as insidious ; opposite to the avowed principles of his sect, 
 
 Ibid. p. 448. b Macaulay's Hist, of England, ii. 18. 
 
222 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 and belied by the severe administration winch he had himself 
 exercised against the Nonconformists in Scotland. 1 " * If 
 James were sincere in his pity for the persecuted Huguenots, 
 then Dr. Milner fails the more signally in referring to his 
 reign to vindicate the Church of Rome from the charge of 
 persecution ; for, in such case, the guilt of those undoubted 
 acts of intolerance which James allowed to be perpetrated, is 
 only removed from the person of the monarch to rest with all 
 its weight upon that system which compelled him to the 
 perpetration of such enormities. 5 As there seems to be a 
 disposition, even in the present day, judging from the con- 
 cordats of which we have lately heard so much, to imitate 
 Louis XIV. in his Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, it may 
 be as well to give a brief description of the Revocation. We 
 take the following account from the " Catholic Layman," 
 April, 1854 : " It now remains to notice, what the Revoca- 
 tion actually was, and its results. From 1662 down to 1685, 
 a series of measures were adopted, all tending to the injury 
 of the Protestants. They were gradually excluded from all 
 public employment ; prohibited from entering any profession, 
 and assailed in the daily exercise of their religion, in the 
 education of their children, and in the management of their 
 families. In 1680 a royal declaration forbade Romanists to 
 embrace the Reformed religion under penalty of the galleys 
 for life. An edict of 1681 allowed children to abjure at the 
 age of seven years ; and if a child of that age could be induced 
 to enter a church, to kiss an image of the Virgin, or to make 
 the sign of the cross, any of these acts was sufficient to jus- 
 tify the taking the child from its parent, and compelling them 
 to make allowance for its maintenance proportionate to their 
 supposed ability. In the same year, 1681, began the Dra- 
 gonnades, which meant the quartering of soldiers upon the 
 Protestants, with an unlimited licence to plunder and oppress 
 them ; and to this treatment all the provinces of the king- 
 dom were, in turn, subjected. At last, in October, 1685, the 
 Edict of Nantes was revoked. By the Edict of Revocation, 
 the temples of the Protestants were directed to be demolished, 
 and the exercise of their worship to cease, as well in private 
 houses as in the castles of the nobles, under pain of confis- 
 cation of body and goods. Ministers who refused to be con- 
 verted, were ordered to quit the kingdom within fifteen days, 
 
 a Hume's "Hist, of England," vol. viii. pp. 241, 242. London, 
 
 MDCCLXXXVI. 
 
 b Burnet, vol. i. p. 583 (cited by Hume), says that the Duke of York, when 
 in Scotland, assisted personally at the torture of criminals ; whilst Wood row 
 mentions only one instance, that of Spreul, vol. ii. p. 169, vol. iii. p. 253, edit. 
 1830. See Hume's Hist, of England, vol. viii. pp. 172, 173. 
 
KING JAMES II. 223 
 
 under pain of the galleys. Protestant schools were to be 
 closed ; a children born after the publication of the edict were 
 to be baptized by a Romish priest, and brought up in the 
 religion of Rome. A period of four months was granted to 
 refugees to return to France and abjure ; that term expired, 
 their property was to be confiscated. All the provisions of 
 the law regarding relapsed heretics were confirmed ; and to 
 complete the iniquity of the decree, it was also ordered, under 
 pain of the galleys for men, and imprisonment and confiscation 
 of goods for the women, that no Protestant should quit the 
 kingdom, or carry their goods abroad. b Such were the terms 
 of the 'edict which revoked the Edict of Nantes." 
 
 James's proceedings in Ireland, in 1687, bear a great simi- 
 larity in many points to the above Edict of Revocation : for 
 instance, because the Provost and Fellows of the University of 
 Dublin refused to receive a vicious, ignorant person, a new 
 convert to Popery, into a vacant fellowship, although such 
 reception would have been contrary to their statutes and 
 oaths, Tyrconnel stopped their salaries ; and " it was not 
 thought enough, upon King James's arrival, to take away 
 their maintenance, but they were further proceeded against, 
 and the vice-president, fellows, and scholars, all turned out ; 
 their furniture, library, and communion-plate seized, and 
 everything that belonged to the college and to the private 
 fellows and scholars taken away. All this was done, not- 
 withstanding that when they waited upon King James, at his 
 first arrival in Dublin, he was pleased to promise them, 
 that he would preserve them in their liberties and properties, 
 and rather augment than diminish the privileges and immuni- 
 ties that had been granted them by his predecessors. In the 
 house they placed a garrison, and turned the chapel into a 
 magazine, and the chambers into prisons for the Protestants. 
 One Moore, a Popish priest, was made provost ; one Mackarty, 
 also a priest, was made library -keeper, and the whole designed 
 for them and their fraternity ." . ..." At length things 
 came to that height, after King James was in Ireland, that 
 most of the churches in and about Dublin were seized upon 
 by the Government ; and at last, Lutterell, governor of Dublin, 
 
 a In James TI.'s reign, too, schools were opened ; " but it was for this 
 purpose, not of training up Popish youth, but rather of stealing Protestant 
 children, that a Free School, under A. Pulton, a Jesuit, was opened at the 
 Savoy, assisted by Thomas Parker, another Jesuit." Compleat Hist, of 
 England, vol. iii. p. 488, edit. 1719. Just the same scheme is in operation 
 now ! Every one knows how common is the invitation to attend such and 
 such a school, where no difference is made, it is affirmed, and the religion of the 
 children is not interfered with. Semper eadem Roma! 
 
 b See Bishop Burnet's "Account of his own Times," iii. 80, 81, ed. 
 Oxford, 1833. 
 
224 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 issued out his order, forbidding more than five Protestants to 
 meet together, under pain of death. Being asked, whether 
 this was designed to hinder meeting in churches ? he an- 
 swered, it was designed to hinder their meeting there, as well 
 as in other places : and accordingly the churches were shut 
 up, and all religious assemblies through the whole kingdom 
 forbidden under pain of death." a 
 
 " But to give a decisive blow, there was auAct of Attainder 
 pass'd in Parliament ; in order to which every member of the 
 House of Commons returned the names of all such Pro- 
 testant gentlemen as lived near them, or in the county or 
 borough for which he served ; and if he was a stranger to 
 any of them, he sent to the country for information about 
 them. When this Bill was presented to the King, for his 
 assent, the Speaker of the Commons told him, That many 
 were attainted in that Act, upon such evidence as satisfy'd 
 the House; and the rest upon common fame." 
 
 " In this Act there were no fewer attainted than two 
 Archbishops, one Duke, seventeen Earls, seven Countesses, 
 twenty-eight Viscounts, two Viscountesses, seven Bishops, 
 eighteen Barons, thirty-three Baronets, fifty-one Knights, 
 eighty-three Clergymen, two thousand one hundred eighty- 
 two Esquires and Gentlemen; and all of them (unheard) 
 declared and adjudged traytors, convicted and attainted of 
 High Treason, and adjudged to suffer the pains of Death 
 and Forfeiture. The famous Proscription of Rome, during 
 the last Triumvirate, came not up, in some respects, to the 
 horror of this ; for there were condemned in this little King- 
 dom more than double the number that were proscribed 
 through the vast bounds of the Roman Empire. And to 
 make this in Ireland yet the more terrible, and to put the 
 persons attainted out of a possibility of escaping, the Act 
 itself was conceal' d, and no Protestant allowed a copy of it 
 till four months after it was passed. "Whereas in that of 
 Rome, the names of the persons proscribed were affixed upon 
 all the publick places of the city, the very day the Proscrip- 
 tion was concerted; and thereby opportunity was given to 
 many of the noblest families in Rome to preserve themselves 
 by a speedy flight for better times." b In England, tob, 
 matters were fast approaching to the same state. Dr. Peach ey, 
 the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, for refusing to break his 
 oath by admitting one Alban Francis, a Benedictine Monk, 
 to the degree of M.A. without taking the oaths prescribed, 
 
 a Dr. King, cited in the " Compleat History of England." vol. iii. pp. 474, 
 475 ,edit. 1719. 
 b Ibid. p. 475. 
 
KING JAMES II. 225 
 
 was deprived of his office of Vice- Chancellor and suspended 
 " ab qfficio et beneficio of his headship of Magdalen College !" a 
 The infamous treatment of the Fellows of Magdalen College, 
 Oxford, because they refused to perjure themselves, by elect- 
 ing as their president a man of such infamous character that 
 even his own party were ashamed of him and gave him up. b 
 The Fellows of Magdalen, however, were to be punished, and, 
 because they would not consent to forego their oaths, were 
 finally expelled. "After the expulsion of the Fellows, most 
 of the Demies were likewise turned out of Magdalen College 
 by the Bishop of Oxford and Mr. Charnock, his Vice-Presi- 
 dent, and Roman Catholicks put in their places. To acknow- 
 ledge the King's favours, the Bishop of Oxford published a 
 book containing Reasons for abrogating the Test and Penal 
 Laws, and his Majesty commanded the Stationers not to 
 print any answer to the same." c The object of all the King's 
 ostentatious display, or rather talk, of Toleration, must by 
 this time be apparent to every one capable of drawing a con- 
 clusion from facts. How beautifully is the spirit of " tolera- 
 tion," and a respect for " tender consciences," shown by the 
 attempt to compel men of education to perjure themselves, 
 and then visiting with the heaviest punishments in his power 
 those noble-minded men who chose, at all risks, to " obey 
 God rather than man." 
 
 The atrocious Act of Attainder, passed in the Parliament 
 of Ireland, has already been noticed ; but we must not forget 
 that the above Act was preceded by a repeal of the Act of 
 Settlement, 
 
 " This iniquitous Bill," says Smollett, " was framed in 
 such a manner, that no regard was paid to such Protestant 
 owners as had purchased their estates for valuable considera- 
 tion : no allowance was made for improvements, nor any 
 provision for Protestant widows : the possessor and tenants 
 were not even allowed to remove their stock and corn. When 
 the Bill was sent up to the Lords, Dr. Dopping, Bishop of 
 Meath, opposed it with equal courage and ability ; and an 
 address on behalf of the purchasers under the Act of Settle- 
 ment was presented to the King by the Earl of Granard ; 
 but, notwithstanding these remonstrances, it received the 
 Royal Assent ; and the Protestants of Ireland were mostly 
 ruined." 11 
 
 Dr. Milner, when he referred to James's celebrated " Decla- 
 ration " as a proof of his love for " Liberty of Conscience," 
 
 Ibid. p. 475. b Ibid. p. 477. c Ibid. p. 481. 
 
 d Smollett's Continuation of Hume's "History of England," vol. i. p. 45. 
 Lond. MDCCLXXXVIII. 
 
 Q 
 
 
226 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 must have supposed that the people of England, of the pre- 
 sent day, are totally unacquainted with the history of by-gone 
 days. Our forefathers were not so easily deceived. " Not 
 only the Church of England men were abundantly satisfied 
 that the King's Declaration of Indulgence was to prepare the 
 way to Popery, but the very Dissenters themselves began to 
 be convinced that this alone was the design of it. Nay, the 
 King himself was now conscious that his Protestant subjects 
 generally understood his meaning, and expected no liberty, 
 either to the Church or to separate congregations, any longer 
 than till the Papists were able to exercise their full and abso- 
 lute will and power. To take away this jealousy of the people, 
 the King repeated and confirmed his former Declaration in a 
 mariner that did but increase the fears of Popery ." a So far Dr. 
 Milner may be right when he assigns the said "Declaration" as 
 a cause of James's loss of the throne ; but then it was not on 
 account of the king's love of toleration expressed in that 
 document; it was because the people fully understood that 
 the said " Declaration" was merely a delusion, and put 
 forth simply to render the introduction of Popery more easy. 
 That the people of England were correct in their estimate of 
 this specious document, the king's conduct in Ireland fully 
 proved ; indeed, a letter was found in the pocket of Viscount 
 Dundee, who fell in the battle of Killicrankie, signed by 
 Melfort, James's " most trusted minister, to tell him ' that 
 a declaration of indemnity and toleration, then preparing, 
 was couched in such terms that James could break through 
 it when he pleased/ ' Upon another occasion, in 1693, 
 Lord Middleton obtained his [James's] consent " to have 
 a Declaration issued containing an entire amnesty and ample 
 promises of consenting to every measure which Parliament 
 mighty carry, for the security of the court and religious 
 liberty of the kingdom. But it was too late ; the previous 
 Declaration had made too great an impression on men's 
 minds to be so easily effaced. It was not doubted that he had 
 spoken his real feelings, and if so, this could not be sincere 
 (we know now, that at the very time that it was issued, Mel- 
 fort wrote to the minister of the Pope that it was meant as a 
 delusion), and accordingly it gained over no one in England, 
 while it disgusted his adherents in Ireland, who looked upon 
 it as an open desertion of them." b Could James have read 
 such a defence of his character and conduct as that set up 
 for him by Dr. Milner, especially so far as it is grounded on 
 his celebrated Declaration, if he were really the kind-hearted 
 
 a Compleat History of England, vol. iii. p. 481. London, 1706. 
 b London Quarterly Eeview, Jan. 1856, pp. 250, 255. 
 
KING JAMES II. 227 
 
 man Dr. Milner would have us believe him to be, his rebuke 
 of the writer might have extended no further than this: " If an 
 enemy had done this, I could have borne it." For, most 
 assuredly, no one can read the account of James's proceed- 
 ings, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, without coming 
 to the conclusion that the much-vaunted Declaration was of 
 about the same value as the money which King James caused 
 to be coined in Ireland " for his majesty's occasions." a Let 
 us not be told that he was influenced in his conduct by evil 
 counsellors, and that he really intended to act up to this 
 " Declaration ;" for such a defence only serves to shift, as 
 before noticed, the guilt of his intolerant proceedings from 
 the king to the religion he professed. Could any proof be 
 adduced of the rectitude of King James's intentions, so much 
 the worse for Popery ! Had the power of Rome become 
 dominant in England during the reign of James, and had 
 the king appealed to his " Declaration " in behalf of his 
 Protestant subjects, he would have been told by the Romish 
 bishops of England (as the Romish bishops of Belgium told 
 their sovereign, in 1815) : " We do not hesitate to declare to 
 your majesty, that the canonical laws, which are sanctioned 
 by the ancient constitutions of the country, are inconsistent 
 with the Declaration which would give to England equal 
 favour and protection to all religions." b 
 
 a "The king's old stores were ransacked, the shops of tradesmen and the 
 kitchens of burghers were pillaged to supply the mint with a quantity of brass, 
 which was converted into current coin for his Majesty's occasions ; an arbitrary 
 value was set upon it, and all persons were required and commanded to take it 
 in payment, under the severest penalties, though the proportion between its 
 intrinsic worth and currency was nearly as one to three hundred. A vast sum 
 of this counterfeit coin was issued in the course of one year, and forced upon 
 the Protestants in payment of merchandise, provisions, and necessaries for the 
 king's service." * * * * 
 
 " Understanding that the Protestants had laid out all their brass money in 
 purchasing great quantities of hides, tallow, wood, and corn, he assumed the 
 despotic power of fixing the prices of these commodities, and then bought them 
 for his own use." Smollett's Continuation of Hume's History of England, 
 vol. i. p. 47, edit. 1788. 
 
 b See Annual Register, 1815, p. 399. In the text, "Declaration" is 
 substituted for "projected constitution," and " England" for "Belgium." 
 
228 
 
 No. XVI. 
 THE REV. j. GARBETT'S LETTER TO DR. MILNER. 
 
 Erroneous Statement and Incorrect Quotations affecting the character of 
 certain eminent Divines of the Church of England, viz., Archbishops 
 Usher, Laud, and Wake ; Bishops King, Hallifax, [Gordon,] Goodman, 
 Cheyney, Shipley, Juxon, Potter, Douglas (his "Criterion" and Jesuit 
 Missions), and Tomlin. Charge that the National Church is a prey to 
 Socinianism. On the Athanasian Creed. The Non-Jurors. That the 
 Clergy preach in Churches in the Morning, and in the Meeting-houses in 
 the Evening. 
 
 THOUGH we do not undertake to defend or justify all that 
 may be written or said by or of the divines, either of the 
 Established Church, or of that of our Dissenting brethren, 
 we nevertheless think that the following examination of 
 Dr. Milner's perversions will not be considered unimportant, 
 as showing how little credit can be given to Dr. Milner's 
 assertions. 
 
 The present article is a transcript of a letter addressed, in 
 March, 18.26, to Dr. Milner, by the REV. JOHN GARBETT, 
 M.A., Vicar of Harborne, Staffordshire, Honorary Canon of 
 Worcester, and formerly Rector of St. George's and Rural 
 Dean, Birmingham. It is with the kind permission of Mr. 
 Garbett that we present our readers with this admirable 
 Letter. The whole of it is so excellent that we give it un- 
 abridged. 
 
 In the 33rd Letter, p. 331, Dr. Milner writes " We must 
 all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, to be examined 
 in our observance of that commandment, among the rest, 
 Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour" 
 
 Mr. Garbett selects this passage as his motto. We cannot 
 envy the feelings of one who could so quote Scripture, while 
 himself transgressing the moral precept and command of the 
 Lord thus referred to by himself. 
 
 RIGHT REVEREND SIR, It is an old complaint against 
 controversial writers, that they often sacrifice truth to party 
 zeal, and appear more intent upon acquiring a conquest over 
 their adversaries, than upon preserving accuracy in their 
 statements, and fidelity in the use of their authorities. 
 
 Few modern works have been deemed more deservedly 
 obnoxious to accusations of this kind than your book, 
 entitled " The End of Religious Controversy/' which, in the 
 fifth edition, has recently fallen into my hands. Presuming, 
 
ENGLISH DIVINES PERVERTED. 229 
 
 from the circumstances under which it was composed, and 
 from the popular form of its publication, that it was espe- 
 cially designed to produce an effect upon general readers 
 conscious, also, that the proposed effect has, in no inconsider- 
 able degree, resulted from it I am induced to trouble you 
 with a few remarks upon certain statements contained there- 
 in, affecting the reputation of eminent members of the Church 
 of England, and which do not appear to have attracted the 
 attention of those by whom many other of your mis-state- 
 ments have been animadverted upon and exposed. My mo- 
 tive in addressing you originates with the conviction, that 
 not a few defer to your seeming erudition, and are entangled 
 by your ingenuity of reasoning, who want either the qualifi- 
 cations or disposition to enter into an inquiry, the result of 
 which, I affirm, without a moment's hesitation, would dis- 
 cover to them that your main assumptions are derived from 
 presumed facts, many of which are more than doubtful, and 
 many destitute of foundation, and sustained by arguments 
 often inconsequential in themselves, not seldom equally con- 
 clusive against the Church of Rome, and generally either 
 irrelevant or powerless in respect to the objects against which 
 they are levelled. 
 
 For the furtherance of your purpose, the exaltation of 
 the Roman Catholic upon the ruins of the Protestant com- 
 munity, you trace, with partial eye, the page of history, 
 enlarging upon every incident, and renewing every trite 
 objection which has a tendency, however remote, to dis- 
 honour the doctrine, discipline, and practice of the Reformed 
 Churches. When, therefore, in your researches you meet 
 with any tale injurious to Protestants, you revive it in its 
 most offensive form, be the authority ever so vague, or the 
 confutation ever so decisive; and when different details of an 
 allowed narrative present themselves, you invariably adopt, 
 and not uncommonly exaggerate, that which is the most dis- 
 graceful to the objects of your dislike; that which may best 
 expose the mere natural infirmities of which we all partake, 
 and of which those who are most sensible will ever judge 
 with the most moderation and forbearance. 
 
 Demanding that the members of your own religion should 
 be viewed with candour and allowance, to which I cheer- 
 fully accede their claims, you estimate Protestants by a 
 criterion which nothing less than perfect virtue can sustain. 
 Thus, complaining of illiberality in the advocates and writers 
 of the Reformed communities, you feel no reluctance in brand- 
 ing our ablest and most pious divines as liars and hypocrites, 
 asserting what they do not believe, for the sake of temporal 
 
230 ENGLISH DIVINES PERVERTED. 
 
 advantage, and maintaining intentional falsehood by the 
 detestable engines of fraud and persecution. The divisions 
 amongst us you expatiate upon more than is consistent with 
 ingenuousness ; whilst you cast a veil over the direful and 
 sanguinary contentions of the Church of Rome. You nar- 
 rate, in high-wrought terms, the sad effects which you suppose 
 the Reformation to have produced, and the profaneness and 
 immorality which obtain in countries subject to its influ- 
 ence; but you maintain a cautious silence upon the vice 
 and wickedness, upon the deep and awful ignorance which 
 prevailed for ages before, and with invectives against which 
 the pages of your ablest writer abound ; and you glide over 
 the notorious infidelity and vice, the debasing slavery of mind 
 and body, which yet reign in countries beneath the Papal 
 dominion, and the most intensely in those nations which are 
 most devoted to its sway. You ruminate, with unrestrained 
 delight, upon every moral obliquity which appears in the 
 lives of the Reformers, though conscious that a similar mode 
 of arguing will uncanonize the holiest martyrs of the Chris- 
 tian calendar; but you suppress the horridly wicked cha- 
 racters of the Popes and their satellites ; and the iniquities 
 which, for many ages, rendered the city and see of Rome so 
 foul a nest of sensual abomination, as to impress upon the 
 minds of not a few of her faithful members an enforced 
 conviction of her identity with the mystical Babylon of the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 In the same unequal spirit, you constantly adduce the 
 excellences (which I should blush to disown or depreciate) 
 of many who have lived and died in your communion : you 
 dwell, with commendable pleasure, upon their edifying de- 
 parture from the turbulent and harassed stage of life ; and 
 adduce it as an argument perfectly unanswerable of the 
 superior influence of your religion in that trying and all- 
 important moment which you, somewhat rashly, assume as 
 invariably setting the seal to sincerity : but, on the other 
 hand, you take not the slightest notice of numbers of holy 
 Protestants, who yielded, with glowing joy, their departing 
 spirits into the hands of a merciful Redeemer, after a life too 
 brightly exemplifying the influence of His faith upon the 
 mind, to originate a doubt of the principle from whence it 
 flowed, or of its assured acceptance with Him, " unto whom 
 all hearts are open." 
 
 The holy zeal, the sacrifice of earthly good, the scorn of 
 deliverance at the price of conscience, which marked the 
 cruel death of thousands whom the insatiate vengeance of the 
 Roman hierarchy hurried to the flames, elicit no meed of 
 
ENGLISH DIVINES PERVERTED. 231 
 
 approbation from your pen, excite no sentence of reproba- 
 tion towards their ferocious persecutors, and appear to kindle 
 in your mind no warmer emotion than that of contemptuous 
 scorn for the darkness of fanatical delusion. 
 
 In animadverting upon the Church of England, truth 
 forces from you the cold admission, that " she has better pre- 
 tensions to unity, and the other marks of the Church, than 
 any other Protestant society has" (Letter xv. p. 182 a ) ; 
 and conscious that her doctrine, discipline, and formulas 
 grounded upon, and strictly reduced to, the rule of the apo- 
 stolical and primitive ages afford an invincible reply to every 
 argument not levelled at the purest era of the Christian 
 annals, you attempt to wound her partly through the sides 
 of individual members, as though your own community were 
 insusceptible of private error; and partly, by alleging the 
 opinions of parties who have seceded from her, as though a 
 government were accountable for the proceedings of revolted 
 subjects. Whilst, at one moment, you represent her as a 
 bigoted and persecuting sect ; at another, you exhibit her as 
 so loose and careless in her notions, as to allow and sanction 
 every adverse tenet, inclusive even of the wide extremes of 
 Antinomianism and infidelity ; and her clergy you describe 
 as a body of clashing inconsistency with the doctrines of their 
 Church ; but for the most part, as the more odious opposition 
 to their engagements, involved in the 'guilt of the Socinian 
 heresy. 
 
 It is obvious, from the limits of the letter now addressed 
 to you, that no discussion is intended upon so wide a field as 
 even a small portion of the topics above alluded to would 
 necessarily open to the controvertist. I allude to them 
 merely to warn the incautious and uninformed reader, not 
 hastily to infer that your statements are so trustworthy and 
 your arguments so conclusive as the plausibility of your 
 terms, and the boldness of your allegations, may, at first, 
 lead him to imagine. A few examples, too, of your peculiar 
 mode of statement and quotation, may tend to cast light 
 upon the validity of certain positions of your book, and place 
 him upon his guard with respect to others. He will, per- 
 haps, be led to perceive that you have, not seldom, relied 
 upon the ignorance of those into whose hands your work 
 would fall ; and inferred, with at least as much acumen as 
 integrity, that it would be no unsafe basis whereon to build, 
 in an age when theological research appears almost out of 
 
 * These references are altered so as to apply to the same edition as before 
 quoted by us. 
 
232 ENGLISH DIVINES PERVEETED. 
 
 taste, and when fearlessness of assertion becomes identified 
 with truth. 
 
 It is but a small part of your references, the correctness of 
 which I have attempted to ascertain ; but the truth compels 
 me to state, that in the majority of instances which I have 
 collated, your readers have just cause to complain of unfair- 
 ness and partiality. During the whole period of your con- 
 troversial career, accusations of literary disingermousness 
 have been levelled against you by your opponents, Roman 
 Catholic as well as Protestant; and epithets have been 
 applied to characterize your probity and candour, of which, 
 although I should be unwilling to adopt them, it would be 
 improper to blame their application, for it would be difficult 
 to confute their justice. 3 
 
 Allow me to repeat, that the popularity your book has 
 acquired, and the importance thus derived to its positions, 
 are the motive for troubling yourself and the world with 
 these remarks, dictated by no unkind feeling .to wards you or 
 any member of your Church, but simply by a desire to aid 
 the cause of truth, and do to justice to the violated memory of 
 piety and learning. 
 
 Lest, however, it may be supposed, that to attacks upon 
 individual character, and to historical incident, your injustice 
 is confined ; and that your doctrinal assertions remain invul- 
 nerable ; it must be added, that many of your interpretations 
 of Scripture are strained and far-fetched ; your mode of 
 quoting that and the Fathers, partial and perverse: your 
 statement of Protestant tenets, often erroneous and unjust ; 
 and, in brief, your account of persons and transactions, 
 generally at variance with the fact. For the truth of parts 
 of this assertion, an appeal may be made, with safety, to 
 the pages of those who have already encountered you; and 
 it would not require much leisure or research to make good 
 the whole. 
 
 Reflecting upon the severe and bitter spirit in which your 
 volume is composed, it is impossible not to feel perpetually 
 hurt and indignant in the perusal of it. Trusting that I 
 have imbibed no portion of its temper, and cheerfully ren- 
 dering to your learning and talents the deference to which 
 they are entitled, and to your station every respect which it 
 can claim, it will be a subject of sincere regret if my pen 
 shall be found to have given utterance to any rashness of 
 expression indecorous towards you, and as such, unbecoming 
 to myself. Whatever may be thought of the course you 
 have adopted, as most serviceable to the Roman End of Con- 
 
 a See Prot. Guardian, 1828, p. 345. 
 
BISHOP KING. 233 
 
 troversy, I hope not to forget that these lines are addressed 
 to a scholar, a divine, and a prelate of the Church of Christ, 
 though of what I must deem its most corrupted branch. 
 
 I. Permit me, then, in the first place, to recall your atten- 
 tion to a passage, which lias recently been brought before 
 the public in several ways, and which forms a note in 
 Letter ix. p. 124 of your book. 
 
 " Some bishops of the Established Church, for instance, 
 Goodman and Cheyney, of Gloucester; and Gordon, of Glas- 
 gow ; probably also King, of London ; and Hallifax, of St. 
 Asaph, died Catholics." 
 
 As it is with reference to the two last-named prelates that 
 the passage is especially quoted, I will postpone to them a 
 few observations which occur upon the three first. 
 
 The report you have revived against King, Bishop of Lon- 
 don, is an ancient and long- suppressed calumny, fabricated 
 in the hotbed of Papal sedition at Douay, a and transplanted 
 into England, where, as is known to no one better than 
 yourself, it received, immediately upon its importation, the 
 most satisfactory and decisive contradiction. It was promptly 
 and circumstantially denied by his own son, Henry King, 
 afterwards Bishop of Chichester, in a discourse at St. Paul's 
 Cross. The denial was echoed, in very strong and indignant 
 terms, within two years of the calumniated prelate's decease, 
 by the eminent Bishop Hall, then Dean of Worcester, in a 
 sermon before the Convocation, wherein he appeals to his 
 own .personal knowledge, and that of many whom he 
 addressed. 5 The whole circumstances of the refutation are 
 likewise formally detailed by another contemporary prelate, 
 Dr. Godwin, who occupied the see of Hereford at the time, 
 and was on close terms of friendship with Bishop King. The 
 actual evidence against the statement is that of Archbishop 
 Abbot and three other bishops, Morton, Lake, and Felton, 
 who regularly visited him in his last illness ; of his house- 
 hold, who attended him ; of his chaplain, who administered 
 
 a ["But of all foule mouths that have slaundered that blessed soul, he that 
 wrote the Bp. of London's Legacie, is tlie most shameful and slaunderous Her. 
 In the year 1622, when he first divulged this libell, he made the worthy bishop 
 to speak those silly motives, which his worthy self had devised. And then, in 
 1623, he made a new publication of the same work, changing only the title- 
 leaf and the preface to the reader; and whereas, throughout the whole book, 
 he maketh the bp. speak what himself had forged ; he now giveth his 
 reader leave, with his full consent and allowance, to suppose all these passages 
 to be fictiones personarum, and warranted by the figure Prosopopeia." See more 
 in Mason's "New Art of Lying, covered by Jesuites under the veil of Equivo- 
 cation," London, 1624, pp. 64, 66 ; and also "A Sermon at Paul's Cross on a 
 Scandalous Report that the late Bishop of London was reconciled to the 
 Church of Rome," by H. King, his eldest Son; 4to. London, 1621.] 
 
 b See his sermon "Columba Nose." 
 
234 ENGLISH DIVINES PERVERTED. 
 
 to him the Holy Eucharist ("the last bread," says Bishop 
 Hall, " that ever he received in this world, even the bread of 
 the Lord ") ; and of his family, who, with Sir Henry Martin 
 and other friends, participated with him in the blessed me- 
 morials of his Redeemer's sacrifice. And, if this Protestant 
 evidence may not suffice to counterbalance an anonymous 
 Popish story from Flanders, we have also the testimony of 
 Preston, the very Roman priest who was said to have recon- 
 ciled him to the Church ; but who made oath, first before 
 the primate, and afterwards before two lay privy councillors, 
 that he had never spoken to, corresponded with, or even, 
 seen the deceased prelate. 
 
 With the whole of this, sir, you are well acquainted, for 
 Bishop Godwin's book is quoted in your volume. Yet thus 
 condescending to revive this confuted falsehood, you cannot 
 be displeased if I repeat the forcible axiom of Bishop Hall 
 on the occasion, " Veritas non est, qua mendaciorum fulcris 
 indiget :" and if I call to your memory the closing obser- 
 vations of the former bishop. The language of both these 
 divines is certainly strong : not stronger than the case 
 deserved; not so strong as your own style upon much 
 slighter occasions. Solicitous as we are, in this age of 
 refinement, to qualify truth by inoffensive phraseology, let, 
 at least, convicted slander retain its proper designation. Both 
 prelates would deem their language as applicable to the 
 reviver as the original inventor of the story. 
 
 " It might seem," says Bishop Godwin, " to be now an 
 ordinance of the Papal religion, and a Catholic doctrine, to 
 calumniate boldly, that something, at least, may stick. * * 
 We leave such aids to the votaries of falsehood. It behoves 
 the followers of truth to cultivate sincerity. I wonder not at 
 their anxiety to enrol amongst them a man eminent for his 
 learning, piety, extraordinary eloquence, and assiduity in 
 preaching. But, ever abhorring Popish superstitions, from 
 early youth to his latest breath, and certainly altogether 
 ours, he died on that day which the Church consecrates to 
 the Passion of our Lord, as he had lived, so piously in 
 Christ, that I pray it may be my lot so to live and so to 
 die." a 
 
 II. To the equally unfounded accusation against Bishop 
 Hallifax, it seems scarcely necessary to say much, since the 
 recent appearance of the late Dr. Samuel Parr's Letter on 
 the subject. Unwilling to weaken the force of this appeal, 
 addressed as well to the sincerity of your religious profession, 
 as to your moral probity and love of truth ; and the manly 
 a De Prsesulibus (Richardson's), p. 195. 
 
BISHOP HALLIFAX. 235 
 
 firmness of which is powerfully contrasted with the shrinking 
 evasiveness and sophistry of your reply ; I will but make 
 a few brief remarks on the correspondence between your- 
 self and the bishop's son, judiciously annexed to Dr. Parr's 
 tract by its respectable editor. 
 
 Mr. Hallifax having requested you to name your authority 
 for the assertion that his Father died a Papist, you inform 
 him, in reply, that you relied on the testimony of a " certain 
 Catholic," since deceased, who had access to the bishop in his 
 illness; and, as if conscious that your tale was perfectly un- 
 tenable, yet, as you say of your opponents, " wanting the 
 rare grace of acknowledging error" (Letter xxxii. p. 330), 
 you add, " I spoke of the fact barely as probable." This is 
 not strictly the case. For though, in the first instance, the 
 calumny is qualified with a " probably/' you introduce it, a 
 second time, as resting " on good authority" (p. 329) ; and 
 finally discuss it, a third time, as an indubitable fact. For, in 
 making the illiberal assertion, "that you have sufficient 
 reason to affirm/-' that Protestant writers " do not really 
 believe what they declare/' you bring forward, amongst 
 others, "a late Warburtonian Lecturer," Bishop Hallifax, 
 " lamenting on his death-bed that he could not return " to 
 the Pope (Letter xlv. pp. 432, 433). 
 
 That Mr. Hallifax should deem your reply unsatisfactory 
 will surprise no one who reads it. In another letter, there- 
 fore, as moderate and respectful as the first, he entreats you 
 to acquaint him with the name of your informant, at what 
 place, and when he had access to the bishop, &c. To this 
 communication you gave no reply. You have, however, 
 recently designated it as a " fishing letter." Contemptible ! 
 Is it " fishing" for a son to entreat the name of one who he 
 believes has calumniated his father's memory ? Is it " fish- 
 ing " to ask a prelate of the Church of Christ, who loudly 
 proclaims himself the advocate of truth, to assist him in 
 ascertaining the veracity of an important fact ? It does not 
 appear why you should hesitate to reply, conscious that silence 
 admits but of one interpretation. If your informant spake 
 true, the incident carries no discredit to him, however disho- 
 nourable to Dr. Hallifax. If false, you ought not to desire 
 that your name should be the instrument, on the one side, of 
 handing down a slander from generation to generation ; and 
 enumerated, on the other, amongst the many who, by uni- 
 versal admission, have sustained the papal cause by forgery 
 and defamation. What, sir, is your own vehement language 
 against many Protestants, whose offence, if guilty, is trivial 
 compared to this ? And to what amounts your declaration. 
 
236 ENGLISH DIVINES PERVERTED. 
 
 that " you should despise yourself if you knowingly published 
 any falsehood, or hesitated to retract any one that you were 
 proved to have fallen into?" (p. 30, in Address, note). 
 
 In one part of your book you remark, that " Wilful infi- 
 delity arid heresy involve greater guilt than moral frailty" 
 (Letter xviii. p. 178). The truth of this proposition few, I 
 presume, will question ; though the humble mind will hesi- 
 tate to decide what obliquities of faith may appear to the 
 Omniscient Judge voluntary or involuntary ; being content 
 meanwhile to maintain, that actual disbelief is manifested as 
 well in rejecting a portion of God's revealed word, as in 
 renouncing the whole. There is, then, one important axiom 
 of Holy Writ, so little obnoxious to dispute or sophistry, that 
 the violation of it appears unquestionably to involve the sin 
 of WILFUL infidelity. It is this " HE SHALL NOT REST 
 
 UPON GOD'S HOLY HILL, WHO SLANDERETH HIS NEIGHBOUR," 
 
 and " MAKETH OR LOVETH A LIE." 
 
 III. Of the three other prelates, Goodman, Cheyney, and 
 Gordon, who are said to have " died Catholics," the correct- 
 ness of the assertion is of less importance; I believe the 
 statement to be true of the first alone. Of Gordon, Arch- 
 bishop of Glasgow, it does not appear why you should name 
 him among the prelates of the Established Church. 
 
 To such a convert as Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester, the 
 Church of Rome is fully welcome. The sole apology for his 
 conduct must be found in his admitted weakness of intellect. 
 When you say he " died " a Romanist, you express the least 
 important part of the fact. He lived in the Church of Eng- 
 land Papist in heart ; and, as such, enjoyed, without com- 
 punction, her dignities and emoluments. At a time when, 
 from his more than suspected principles, he had well nigh 
 incurred a penalty of deposition, " he took the oath enjoined 
 in the sixth canon, for preserving the doctrine and discipline 
 of the .Church of England against all Popish doctrines which 
 were thereunto repugnant." a Under this, he conformed as 
 long as the Establishment had wealth and honour to bestow ; 
 but when her inveterate foes had accomplished her destruc- 
 tion, he threw off the mask of hypocrisy and equivocation ; 
 and died avowedly, as he had lived secretly, a Roman Catholic. 
 " A scandal so unreasonably given/' says the testy Dr. Hey- 
 lin, " as if the devil himself had watched an opportunity to 
 despite this Church." 
 
 Allow me to direct your attention to the observations of 
 certain contemporary writers upon this circumstance; the 
 
 " Heylin's "Life of Archbishop Laud," p. 446. 
 
BISHOPS GOODMAN, CHEYNEY, AND SHIPLEY. 237 
 
 two latter of which will be found to convey a direct denial of 
 your assertion of the apostasy of the other English prelates. 
 
 Walker speaks of Bishop Goodman as " one of those weak 
 minds whom the vile and detestable practices of the Puritans 
 had scandalized into Popery ." a Now it is very true, that the 
 frantic excesses of that distracted age made Papists of some, 
 and infidels of more. But this author is not happy in select- 
 ing the apostate Bishop of Gloucester as an illustration of 
 the fact ; for Goodman had been long a Romanist in prin- 
 ciple. The remarks of Fuller, who was upon terms of inti- 
 macy with him, are more worthy of notice. " The adversaries 
 of our hierarchy," says this writer, " have no cause to triumph 
 thereat, who slanderously charge Popish compliance on all his 
 order; being able to produce, of two hundred bishops since 
 Queen Elizabeth, but THIS ONLY INSTANCE, and him a person 
 of no great eminence." 5 " It is no scandal to the Church 
 of England/' says Bishop Kennett, " that this man was the 
 only bishop who made his addresses to Cromwell, and dedi- 
 cated a book to ' his Excellence/ with flattery and a servile 
 petition ' for hearing his cause, and doing justice' to him. It 
 is further remarkable, that as he was the ONLY apostate bishop 
 of our Church since the Reformation, so he was the only one 
 who left children to beg their bread. I saw the example at 
 my own doors." c 
 
 IV. The two latter quotations include a direct denial of 
 the apostasy (not only of Bishop King, but also) of Bishop 
 Cheyney ; which rests, in the main, on the suspicious evi- 
 dence of this same Goodman, who was his successor in the 
 see of Gloucester. That Cheyney was a consistent member 
 of the Church of England cannot, perhaps, be affirmed ; but 
 that he died a Papist is adverse to the testimony of the 
 learned Camden, and of Bishop Godwin; authorities in every 
 respect superior to Goodman. Both these writers characterize 
 Cheyney as " too much a Lutheran ;" and this explains his 
 conduct in Queen Mary's days, when, being Archdeacon of 
 Hereford, he powerfully argued against transubstantiation, 
 yet readily assented to the belief of the corporal presence. 
 It is unnecessary to observe upon the consistency of this 
 conduct with the Lutheran notion of the Eucharist, and its 
 irreconcilableness with the Romish tenet. 
 
 V. I proceed to another act of injustice against an English 
 Bishop, Dr. Shipley, whom you place " in the first rank of 
 
 a Sufferings of the Clergy, p. ii. p. 33. 
 b Worthies of England (Denbighshire). 
 
 c Life of Charles II. in the "Complete History of England," vol. iii. 
 p. 215. 
 
238 ENGLISH DIVINES PERVERTED. 
 
 complete Socinianism " (Letter xv. p. 185). This accusa- 
 tion you have condescended to borrow from a Unitarian 
 writer, Mr. Belsham ; heedless of the positive contradiction 
 given to it by the Bishop of Calcutta, Dr. Heber, who, from 
 his alliance with the family of Dr. Shipley, must be well 
 acquainted with his opinions, and who, upon the authority of 
 his son, the Dean of St. Asaph, the father of Mrs. Heber, 
 denied the imputation which you maintain. The following 
 is Bishop Heber's reply to Mr. Belsham's statement. 
 
 " On what evidence it is that he ascribes a dissembling of 
 their faith to men of unblemished character, whose writings, 
 doubtless, may be searched in vain for anything on which to 
 found the charge of heresy, he has not deigned to let us 
 know. For Bishop Shipley, whose memory I respect at least 
 as much as Mr. Belsham can, and whose private sentiments 
 I have better means of knowing than Mr. Belsham can pos- 
 sibly possess, I can answer, on the authority of his son, that 
 the charge is as false as it is injurious. Had Dr. Shipley's 
 faith been inconsistent with that of the Church to which he 
 belonged, those who know his utter disregard of worldly 
 interest, and his characteristic frankness, know that he would 
 not have retained his preferments a single hour. In truth, 
 however, his daily devotions and his confidential intercourse 
 were in perfect consonance with his public professions. . . . 
 Mr. Belsham," concludes his lordship, " might have known 
 all this, had he thought it worth his while to be accurate." a 
 
 VI. I have next to animadvert upon your injustice towards 
 a more illustrious character than either of the preceding, 
 Archbishop Usher; in common with his brethren, Juxon, 
 Bishop of London ; Morton, of Durham ; and Potter, of 
 Carlisle ; for these are the " three other Anglican bishops " 
 referred to in the following passage : 
 
 " The enemies of Church and State, having hunted down 
 the Earl of Strafford, and procured him to be attainted of 
 high treason, the king, Charles I., declared that he could not, 
 in conscience, concur to his death ; when the case being re- 
 ferred to the archbishops, Usher and Williams, and three 
 other Anglican bishops, they decided (in spite of his majesty's 
 conscience, and his oath to administer justice in mercy) that 
 he might, in conscience, send an innocent man to the block, 
 which he did, accordingly, in the person of Strafford." 
 (Letter xlviii. p. 461.) 
 
 For this narrative you refer to Collier's Church History, 
 vol. ii. p. 801,. who certainly relates something of the kind; 
 
 a Bampton Lectures ; notes to Lecture II. 
 
ARCHBISHOP USHER. 239 
 
 but first expressly acquits Juxon, one of the " three ;" and 
 in the very next paragraph, gives a different account of the 
 whole business, which account harmonizes with that of Usher 
 himself; but of which you, of course, take no notice. 
 
 It would be idle to appeal to your sense of impartiality in 
 stating, after due improvement, a narrative which stands in 
 direct opposition to accounts pointed out and abstracted in 
 the self-same page where you met with it. Not that, as in 
 the preceding and too many other cases, you have no respect- 
 able authority for the story ; but that authority labours under 
 so many difficulties, and is so opposed by other and more 
 credible testimony, that no candid writer would have adopted 
 it in the peremptory manner in which it is given by you. 
 There are three conflicting statements of this transaction, 
 resting upon the respective evidence of Bishop Hacket, Lord 
 Clarendon, and Archbishop Usher himself. The first account 
 of Collier, which you profess to receive, is derived from the 
 former of these distinguished witnesses ; and as the book in 
 which it occurs is not very common, I will here transcribe 
 the passage. 
 
 Having mentioned the proceedings in Parliament, the out- 
 rages of the people, the advice of the Privy Council, the 
 formation of a conspiracy for the private assassination of 
 Stratford, in case the royal assent to the execution was with- 
 held, and the memorable letter of the noble culprit to the 
 king, Dr. Hacket proceeds thus : 
 
 " It being, therefore, to no purpose to dispute what was 
 the best remedy to save this lord, when there was none at all, 
 the House of Lords nominate four prelates to go to his 
 Majesty, to propound how the tenderness of his conscience 
 might safely wade through this insuperable difficulty. These 
 were Lord Primate Usher, with the Bishops Morton, Williams, 
 Potter. There was none of these four but would have gone 
 through fire and water, as we say, to save the party ; which 
 being now a thing beyond wit and power, they state the 
 question thus to the king (sure I am of the truth, because I 
 had it from the three former). Whether, as his Majesty 
 refers his own judgment to his judges, in whose person they 
 act, in Court of Over, King's Bench, Assize, and in cause of 
 life and death, and it lies on them if an innocent man suffer ; 
 so why may not his Majesty satisfy his conscience in the 
 present matter, that, since competent judges in law had 
 awarded that they found guilt of treason in the earl, he may 
 suffer that judgment to stand, though in his private mind 
 he was not satisfied that the Lord Strafford was criminous, 
 for that juggling and corrupt dealing which he suspected in 
 
240 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 the proofs at the trial ; and let the blame lie upon them who 
 sat upon the tribunal of life and death ? The four bishops 
 were all for the affirmative." a 
 
 This account differs importantly from your version of it. 
 It is, however, sufficiently unfavourable to the prelates con- 
 cerned. But, in the first place, it does not coincide with 
 Lord Clarendon's statement of the business, who, Williams 
 excepted, implicates the bishops no farther than by suggesting 
 that they did not fortify the conscience of the king with so 
 much confidence as he thought political regard to the delicate 
 situation of their order required. Secondly, the above nar- 
 rative contradicts a twofold statement of Archbishop Usher, 
 given, under his own hand, to Dr. Bernard, preacher at 
 Gray's Inn ; and, by word of mouth, at the moment of ex- 
 pected dissolution, to his chaplain, Dr. Richard Parr; and 
 corroborated by the explicit evidence of King Charles himself: 
 all which testimonies are noticed by Collier in the same page ; 
 but, with characteristic candour, unnoticed by you. 
 
 The memory of Bishop Hacket is more venerable for 
 piety and erudition than for deep judgment or extreme accu- 
 racy. His work, from which the above is quoted, is one of 
 the most learned and gossiping pieces of biography in the 
 language ; and his excessive partiality to the subject of it, his 
 patron and benefactor, gives to every character and event in 
 it that kind of colouring which it may have been the desire 
 of so profound a politician as Archbishop Williams that it 
 should bear, and whose conduct is placed by his grateful 
 biographer in a light different from that in which it appears 
 to other writers, to whom, at least, he was less confidently 
 known. 
 
 Respectable, then, as is the name of Hacket, no one will 
 venture to exalt his authority above that of Usher, especially 
 in a case where the latter was the party present. The aged 
 biographer probably retained no very perfect recollection of 
 the details of an interview, the importance of which must 
 have been but slight in his mind, when compared with the 
 convulsions which so soon burst forth, and terminated only 
 in the destruction of Church and State. When he published 
 the " Life of Williams/' sixteen years had elapsed, and he 
 was rapidly advancing to the eightieth year of his age. He 
 candidly tells us also, that he did not write down at the 
 time the events of those two years, in the earlier part of 
 which this incident occurred ; and he had been sufficiently 
 harassed to render an imperfect recollection of it more than 
 
 a Life of Archbishop Williams, p. ii. p. 161. 
 
ARCHBISHOP USHER. 241 
 
 venial. That his statement is incorrect in some points, there 
 is internal evidence. He says, the " House of Lords nomi- 
 nated these prelates to go to the king ; " whereas it appears 
 the king sent for them, by advice of the council and judges. 
 He says " FOUR " bishops only were consulted ; whereas we 
 know there were FIVE, the name of Juxon having escaped his 
 memory. 
 
 Your friend Mr. Charles Butler has said, with justice, that 
 " a fairer, a more learned, or a more honourable name than 
 that of Archbishop Usher the Church of England cannot 
 produce." 51 I account, sir, my pen not slightly honoured in 
 the endeavour to rescue from obloquy this exalted name. 
 Strong must be the evidence to convict such a man of the 
 Jesuitical casuistry which your statement conveys. There is, 
 as I lately observed, a twofold contradiction, delivered by 
 the primate to his chaplains, Drs. Bernard b and Parr, and a 
 corroborating testimony from the king. The latter of these 
 narratives is here subjoined. 
 
 Dr. Parr, having spoken of a dangerous illness of the arch- 
 bishop, and of the edifying manner in which he prepared to 
 close a life of toil and perturbation, tells us : 
 
 " After some other discourse, I then made bold to ask him 
 if he had advised the king to pass the bill against the Earl of 
 Strafford, as it had been reported. To which he replied ' I 
 know there is such a thing most falsely laid to my charge, for 
 I neither gave nor approved of any such advice, as that the 
 king should assent to the bill against the earl; but, on the 
 contrary, told his majesty, that if he was satisfied, by what 
 he had heard at his trial, that the earl was not guilty of 
 treason, he ought NOT, IN CONSCIENCE, to consent to his 
 condemnation ; and this the king knows well enough, and can 
 clear me, if he pleases/ Nor was my lord primate mistaken 
 in this. For when, not long after, it was told his majesty 
 that the Archbishop of Armagh was dead, he spake to Colonel 
 William Legge and Mr. Kirk, then of his bedchamber (as 
 they were since to his late majesty), to this effect, viz., that 
 ' he was very sorry for it ;' together with high expressions 
 of his piety and merits. But when one there present replied 
 that he believed ' he might be so, were it not for his per- 
 suading your majesty to the Earl of Strafford's execution/ 
 
 Book of the Roman Church, p. 302. 
 
 b In his Funeral Sermon, p. 106, Dr. Bernard says, that the Archbishop 
 ''gave him a charge" to contradict a scandal raised against him, as "if he had 
 made use of a pretended distinction between a personal and a political 
 conscience" to satisfy the king. Yet this "contradicted scandal" is the 
 account which the Roman Catholic historian, Dr. Lingard, chooses to give of 
 the business, excepting Juxon alone from the guilt. (Hist, of Eng. vol. vi.) 
 
 R 
 
242 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 To which the king, in a great passion, replied, that IT WAS 
 FALSE. 'For/ said the king, f after the bill was passed, the 
 archbishop came to me, with tears in his eyes, saying, ' Oh, 
 sir ! what have you done ? I fear that this act may prove a 
 great trouble to your conscience, and pray God your majesty 
 may never suffer by the passing of this bill ;' or words to that 
 effect." " This," adds the doctor, " is the substance of two 
 certificates, taken, at divers times, under the hands of these 
 two gentlemen of unquestionable credit, both of which, since 
 they agree in substance, I thought fit to contract into one 
 testimony, which I have inserted here, having the originals 
 by me to produce, if occasion be. And now, I hope, after 
 what has been said to justify my lord primate of this calumny, 
 that no honest or charitable person can believe it. But as 
 for those who are so ill-natured and censorious as to think 
 and speak ill of all men that do not fully comply with their 
 notions and opinions, it is no great matter what they either 
 believe or report." a 
 
 With respect to Archbishop Williams, the question is per- 
 haps of less importance. It has generally been taken for 
 granted, that he recommended the death of Stafford. Lord 
 Clarendon, for instance, charges him with advising the king 
 in a manner far more worthy of a Jesuitical confessor than 
 of a Protestant divine. This, however, is not asserted by 
 any of the parties present. The only ascertained fact is, that, 
 at the end of the conference between the king and the prelates, 
 Williams put a paper into his majesty's hands, which was 
 supposed to contain reasons for the execution. If so, it 
 would be an additional proof, if that were wanted, that the 
 opinion of his brethren was adverse to his own. But the 
 archbishop averred to Bishop Hacket, that the paper did not 
 refer to Stafford, but contained a strong dissuasive against 
 passing an Act of still greater importance, which was then 
 before the king, viz., to render the Parliament perpetual, by 
 assenting to which Charles sealed his fate, and, it is said, the 
 same pen confirmed both bills, as it were signing his own 
 death-warrant with that of his unhappy friend. 
 
 Of Juxon, it seems to be universally admitted, except by 
 Oldmixon and other violent writers, with whom truth is 
 nothing, and party everything, that he was so far from 
 uniting in such Jesuitical advice, as even to be of opinion that 
 the king, having positively promised Stafford to carry him 
 through his trial with safety, 5 was bound to pardon him, 
 
 a Life of Usher, p. 61. 
 
 b In a letter to the earl, only sixteen days before the Bill was signed, Charles 
 thus expresses himself: "I cannot satisfy myself without assuring you, in 
 
BISHOPS JUXON, POTTER, AND MORTON. 243 
 
 guilty or innocent. At this interview, therefore, says' Dr. 
 Usher, " the Bishop of London spake nothing at all." With 
 the royal promise the prelates had no concern. It was not 
 submitted to their judgment. The question proposed to 
 them was simply this, Whether the king ought or ought 
 not to assent to a Bill of Attainder, which had not only passed 
 both Houses of Parliament, but also received the express 
 sanction of the judges of the land ? It does not appear, after 
 all the clamour raised against them, how they could answer 
 other than they did. They left the decision to rest upon a 
 matter of fact of which his majesty could be solely the witness 
 to himself, viz., Whether, having personally attended the 
 trial every day, and knowing the facts on which the attainder 
 rested better than any other person possibly could, he really 
 believed the earl guilty of those deeds which the legal ex- 
 pounders of the law had declared to be treason ? that if, in 
 Archbishop Usher's words, Cf upon hearing of the allegations 
 on either side, he did not conceive him guilty of the crime 
 wherewith he was charged, he could not condemn him/' a 
 If, then, we are to believe the testimony of this unreproached 
 and irreproachable ornament of the Christian Church, united 
 to the declaration of the king, the calumniated prelates de- 
 cided, in direct opposition to your assertion, that the king 
 was bound, ' ' in conscience," NOT " to send an innocent man 
 to the block." 
 
 The narrative which vindicates Usher, includes of course 
 the vindication of Potter and Morton also. But I cannot 
 allow the last-mentioned name 'to pass by without noticing 
 the conduct of a late Roman prelate, enrolled by you 
 amongst the beatified spirits of the just : I mean Bishop 
 Challoner, who laboured to revive an old stigma against a 
 man whom the testimony of Izaak Walton pronounces to 
 have been a " pattern of apostolical charity and more than 
 human patience ;" b but whose profound learning, employed 
 in opposition to Roman corruptions, renders his name, of 
 course, an object of opprobrium. 
 
 Having lived to see the eventful fall and restoration of the 
 Church he loved, and of which he was a distinguished orna- 
 ment ; having been reduced from the principality of Durham 
 to a state of actual poverty and want; having sustained, 
 with primitive endurance, the fiery trial of persecution and 
 distress ; and hoping, at length, to pass the relics of a long 
 
 the midst of your troubles, that, upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer 
 in life, honour, or fortune." (Strafford's Letters, vol. ii. p. 416.) 
 
 11 Dr. Bernard's Sermon, p. 108. 
 
 b See this writer's character of Bishop Morton in the "Life of Dr. Donne." 
 
 R 2 
 
244 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 and tumultuous life in pious repose and peace ; Bishop Mor- 
 ton was dragged forward, by the unceasing vigilance of 
 Popish slander, at the age of ninety-four, as an authority for 
 the authenticity of the absurd and malignant fable of the 
 Nag's Head consecration ; a fable which remains on record as a 
 striking proof of what bigotry can invent, and prejudice believe. 
 The aged bishop replied promptly, with a solemn denial, 
 on oath, of the falsehood imputed to him ; which he affirms 
 to be " a most notorious untruth ;" adding, " that he always 
 believed that Nag's story to have proceeded from the father 
 of lies." "For," says he, on his death-bed and his un- 
 shaken adherence to the Church in her severe trials gives 
 peculiar interest to his words 'if I had not believed, upon 
 sufficient evidence, that the succession of bishops in the 
 Church of England had been legally derived from the 
 Apostles, I had never entered into that high calling, much 
 less continued in it thus long/' a Yet, in despite of the vene- 
 rable bishop's solemn oath and dying words, corroborated by 
 the declaration of lay peers, bishops, &c. does Dr. Challo- 
 ner, after the lapse of a century and a half, in one of his 
 popular works, renew the charge, accompanied with all the 
 refuted details of the Nag's Head slander. 5 He would have 
 done well to remember the observation of Dr. Barwick upon 
 the whole transaction : " So little do they consider, that 
 none do more disturb the unity or weaken the faith of the 
 Church, for which they would appear so much concerned, 
 than such as endeavour by fraud or falsehood to support and 
 maintain them." 
 
 VII. I have next to notice, in your work, a statement of 
 less importance, but worthy of remark, as tending to illus- 
 trate your peculiar mode of citing authorities, and the 
 implicit deference paid to the correctness of his spiritual 
 guides, by your respectable lay advocate, the author of the 
 "Book of the Roman Catholic Church/' In a note to 
 page 396 [edit. 1842], you give us this reference: "See 
 the defence of Bancroft's successor in the See of Canter- 
 bury, Dr. Laud, who endeavoured to enforce Auricular Con- 
 fession, in Heylin's Life of Laud, p. ii. p. 415." This note 
 Mr. Butler copies verbatim in p. 107 of his volume. 
 
 Doubtful that Laud, however indiscreet, could have been 
 guilty of such excessive imprudence, and that Heylin, how- 
 
 a See Archbishop Bramhall's Works, p. 432, and Lindsay's edition 
 Mason's Vindication, &c. (preface, p. xcv.) 
 b " Grounds of the Old Religion." 
 Life of his brother, Dean Barwick, who was Morton's agent in this 
 
ARCHBISHOP LAUD. ARCHBISHOP WAKE. 245 
 
 ever partial, could have committed the still greater absurdity 
 of defending such attempt, I complied with your direction ; 
 and having referred to Heylin's " Life of Laud," I found, as I 
 suspected, the contrary to have been the case. So far is 
 Heylin from " defending " any such attempt, so far is he 
 even from hinting that Laud endeavoured to " enforce " 
 anything of the kind, that he treats the imputation with 
 contempt. He allows that the king, not the archbishop, 
 had been accused of such a design; and he dismisses the 
 accusation as an unauthorized anonymous calumny. I will 
 quote the passage, and leave it to the reader. It occurs 
 in a defence of Laud against divers allegations of two writers 
 of the day. 
 
 " If," says Heylin, " he approved of auricular confession, 
 and wished to introduce it into the Church (as both authors 
 say he did), it is no more than what the Liturgy commends 
 (though we find not the word auricular in it), a or what the 
 canons have provided for such as shall be willing to confess 
 themselves. But whereas we are told, by one of our authors, 
 that the king should say, he would 'use force to make it 
 be received, were it not for fear of sedition amongst the 
 people;' yet it is but in one of our authors neither, who 
 hath no other authority for it but a nameless doctor." Such 
 is the passage from which you and Mr. Butler inform your 
 readers, that Archbishop Laud " endeavoured to enforce 
 auricular confession ;" and that Dr. Heylin " defended " the 
 attempt. 
 
 VIII. My next observations are elicited by your use of 
 the name of Archbishop Wake. His correspondence with 
 Dupin has been so often discussed that it seems superfluous to 
 renew the subject; were it not that, although his declara- 
 tions are too explicit to be misunderstood by any unpreju- 
 diced mind, his authority is constantly alleged in direct 
 opposition to his sentiments. Thus, for instance, his opinions 
 were adduced, not long since, by a clergyman of our commu- 
 nion, to sustain the project of a union between the Churches 
 of England and Rome. The inconsistency of this project 
 with the intentions of Archishbop Wake, and with the prin- 
 ciples of our own Church have been so forcibly stated by the 
 learned and truly Protestant prelate to whom your volume is 
 addressed, b that I should deem it presumption to enlarge 
 farther on the subject than your employment of his name 
 requires. I cannot, however, refrain from expressing an 
 
 a And surely as little the thing intended by the word. 
 ^ See Bishop Burgess's "Popery incapable of Union with a Protestant 
 Church," in reply to Rev. S. Wix. 
 
246 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 opinion, that of the many theories of improvement with 
 which the world - is every day favoured, in some form or 
 other, the practicability of union between the Churches of 
 England and Rome is either one of the most irrational, or 
 one of the most dangerous. Your own testimony is sufficient 
 to satisfy us, that a project of this kind could not be carried 
 into effect without an entire surrender of Christian liberty, 
 and an essential sacrifice of Christian truth, on the part of 
 Protestants. What, then, ought to be expected from the 
 success of such a plan, but a return to that state of spiritual 
 and intellectual darkness, from which the benign hand of 
 Providence mercifully rescued us, through seas of martyred 
 blood ? What ought to be anticipated, but a descent from 
 the moral and religious eminence upon which we have been 
 elevated, by the blessings of the Reformation, to that debas- 
 ing and slavish superstition which still overhangs the coun- 
 tries most devoted to the Roman See ? 
 
 But to return to Archbishop Wake. In Letter xxxii. 
 pp. 329, 330, you comment upon certain remarks of Bishops 
 Hallifax, Porteus, Watson, Barrington, &c., and coolly and 
 deliberately conclude by pronouncing them, one and all, 
 guilty of wilful and intentional hypocrisy, perjury, falsehood, 
 and slander. You affirm, that they did " not seriously be- 
 lieve " the writings which they gave to the world ; but that, 
 knowing the superior purity of the Roman creed, and 
 " wanting the rare grace of acknowledging their error at the 
 expense of temporal advantage, they had no other defence for 
 themselves but in clamour and calumny." As an exem- 
 plification of this most unprincipled band, you place the 
 venerable name of Archbishop Wake. 
 
 Leaving all this invective, equally gross and rancorous, to 
 carry its own reply, I will not ascribe, as might fairly be 
 done, such unfounded imputations to the operation of similar 
 principles within your own bosom ; nor will I ask how you 
 stand justified to God and man, and to the dictates of an 
 enlightened conscience, in calumnious invective against men 
 whose integrity will not lose by comparison with the sincerest 
 members of the Church of Rome. I cannot, however, with- 
 hold the offering of fervent gratitude to the Author of all 
 good, that neither our temporal peace, still less our eternal 
 destiny, is consigned to the fiat of erring mortals, blinded by 
 prejudice, and intoxicated by bigotry and passion. 
 
 You remark (p. 329, note), that Dr. Wake, " having en- 
 tered into correspondence with Dr. Dupin, for the purpose of 
 uniting their respective churches together, he assures the 
 Catholic divine, in his last letter to him, as follows : ' In 
 
AECHBISHOP WAKE. 247 
 
 dogmatibus, prout a te candide propommtur, non admodum 
 dissentimus ; in regimine ecclesiastico minus ; in fundamen- 
 talibus, sive doctrinam, sive disciplinam spectemus, vix 
 omnino.' ' Here, you say, " he acknowledged to Dupin, 
 that there was no fundamental difference between his doc- 
 trine and that of Catholics." (Letter xxxiii. p. 333.) 
 
 This, and a subsequent remark of the same kind, is to 
 imply, that the archbishop was as unprincipled as the other 
 prelates and divines with whom his name is conjoined ; and 
 that, having passed a laborious life in stemming Popish 
 opinions, with a view to " temporal advantage," and thereby 
 attained the summit of human dignity, he was now ready 
 to be reconciled to a Church, the religion of which, you say, 
 he had " so foully misrepresented :" which " foul misrepre- 
 sentation," I presume, consisted in tearing away the veil that 
 covered the specious exposition of the deep and crafty Bos- 
 suet; in whose steps Roman writers have since deemed 
 it safer to tread, than allow their tenets to be viewed in 
 that primitive grossness by which they so easily extended 
 their empire in ages of simple ignorance and darkness ; by 
 which they still retain dominion over the blinded and super- 
 stitious populace ; and in which they are candidly exhibited 
 by earlier and not less able, though more ingenuous, members 
 of your Church, than it is now deemed prudent to authorize 
 and avow. 
 
 Ignorance and prejudice have constantly given a false 
 colouring to the correspondence of our learned primate with 
 Dupin. During the rupture between Pope Clement XI. and 
 the Church of France, which threatened to terminate in the 
 complete secession of the latter from the See of Rome, Dr. 
 Wake, in his zeal for Protestantism, as well as in that spirit 
 of peace which peculiarly marked his character, made an 
 attempt to unite in one communion the Anglican and Gal- 
 lican Churches. But the very basis of this union was laid in 
 a renunciation of the Pope's dominion by the latter. When 
 you assert that " he acknowledged there was no fundamental 
 difference between his doctrine and that of Catholics," you 
 assert that which (with your interpretation of the term 
 " Catholic," and your view of " fundamentals ") is not war- 
 ranted by the passage before you. He neither speaks of the 
 doctrines of the Roman Church in general ; nor yet of those 
 of the Gallican Church in the abstract ; but according as they 
 were frankly expounded by a particular divine, " prout a te 
 candide proponuntur ; " and that divine never allowed to be 
 an orthodox expositor of Popish doctrines, but esteemed little 
 better in his day than half a Protestant. The Gallican 
 
248 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 Church herself was always accounted the most heretical and 
 refractory daughter of the Roman See. Among her other 
 heterodoxies, for instance, she maintained that the Pope's 
 supremacy is a mere arrangement of ecclesiastical expediency. 
 Yet every consistent Romanist asserts, that this supremacy 
 is not only jure divino, but that a denial of it includes a 
 denial of the fundamentals of Christianity. When, then, the 
 archbishop says, that between the liberal exposition of this 
 heterodox expounder of the most heterodox branch of the 
 Romish Church, and his own opinions, there was no " funda- 
 mental difference," he makes a statement importantly at 
 variance with that which you derive from his words. 
 
 Yet, even for a conclusion thus imperfect, you deem it 
 necessary to garble the archbishop's language. To prove 
 that he was ready to shake hands with Rome, it was certaidly 
 more needful than candid to omit the words by which your 
 quotation is immediately preceded ; which sufficiently evince 
 what kind of union he contemplated. " I had believed," 
 says his grace to Dupin, " that the time was arrived, in which, 
 having shaken off the yoke of Roman tyranny, you would 
 unite with us in the same communion : in dogmatibus, prout 
 a te candide," &c. 
 
 Again, you observe, " The late Archbishop Wake, after all 
 his bitter writings against the Pope and the Catholic Church, 
 coming to discuss the terms of a proposed union between this 
 Church and that of England, expressed himself willing to allow 
 a certain superiority to the Roman Pontiff." (Letter xlvi. 
 p. 445.) How wearisome it is to be repeating the same thing. 
 He never proposed a union with what you call " the Catholic 
 Church," controlled by the Pope ; but with the Gallican 
 Church, when she had " shaken off the yoke of Roman 
 tyranny." A " certain superiority" he was, indeed, willing 
 to allow, not to the " Roman Pontiff," but to the Bishop of 
 Rome ; and what that superiority was will best be understood 
 by his own words. 
 
 Having challenged the Pope to establish any supremacy 
 whatever from Holy Writ, he subjoins, in that spirit of peace 
 which led him to the discussion " If Councils have conceded 
 any prerogative to the bishop of the imperial see (although, 
 with the fall of the Empire, , that prerogative may justly be 
 deemed extinct; nevertheless) for my part, the rights of 
 nations, the liberties of churches, and the dignity of bishops, 
 being always preserved, let him, with my good will, enjoy his 
 primacy, such as it is. I envy him not this first rank, nor the 
 empty title of honour. But, to lord it over other churches ; 
 to claim to himself alone the episcopal office entire, a part of 
 
ARCHBISHOP WAKE. 249 
 
 which Christ left entire to every bishop ; a and to stir up heaven 
 and earth for the destruction of every one who opposes his 
 unjust tyranny ; this, we never could, nor ought ye to bear." 
 And, finally, his opinion having been demanded by Jablonski, 
 upon the lawfulness of seeking a union with that Church to 
 which you represent him as so ready to conform, he demands, in 
 accents of indignant surprise, te Are any of us so unacquainted 
 with, or inexperienced in the tyranny of the Romanists, as to 
 imagine, that, for our sakes, they will descend from the 
 height of infallibility and dominion ? or that we should, on 
 their account, voluntarily return again to a slavery so long 
 renounced ? May God far avert from the minds of all a 
 design so infamous, so destructive ! " He asserts, that if 
 ever an attempt is made to reconcile Protestants and Papists, 
 it .must be commenced on terms of complete equality ; that, 
 as a necessary preparative, Rome must recede from her pre- 
 tence of infallibility, and allow her tenets and practices to 
 be judged by the Word of God. " Without a previous sti- 
 pulation of this kind," are his words, " we shall treat with 
 them to no purpose ; unless, under pretext of conciliating 
 peace, we decide upon renouncing the truth. God grant, 
 that, in considering these points, we may seek, not so much our 
 own, as the things of Jesus Christ ; nor so love the peace of this 
 world, as to forfeit the rewards of that which is to come." b 
 
 It is needless to animadvert upon the above language. 
 None knew better than Dr. Wake, that with the renuncia- 
 tion of Papal authority alone is a door opened to union 
 between the churches : he, therefore, made such renuncia- 
 tion the basis of his proposal. This dogma is the keystone 
 which yet keeps together the heterogeneous and unwieldy 
 mass of Roman error. 
 
 The candour with which you have viewed the design of 
 the learned primate will be more apparent by referring to a 
 statement of your own, given to the world some years ago. 
 You then asserted, that no plan of union was ever proposed 
 to Protestants, by Dupin, " upon any other footing, than that 
 they should admit the the authority of the Catholic Church, 
 the Pope's Supremacy, the Seven Sacraments, the Sacrifice 
 of the Mass, the Invocation of Saints," &c. c Admitting the 
 accuracy of this statement, I leave the reader to decide what 
 would have been the sentiments of Archbishop Wake upon 
 
 a For the correct understanding of this phraseology, we must bear in mind 
 that it is borrowed from the definition of episcopacy by that early foe of Papal 
 usurpation, St. Cyprian. " Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum 
 pars tenetur." De Unitate Ecc. cap. 2. 
 
 b Appendix to vol. vi. of Maclaine's Mosheim. 
 
 c Instructions addressed to the Catholics. 
 
250 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 such a proposition : nor can I forbear recommending it to 
 the serious consideration of any well-meaning projector of 
 ecclesiastical unity ; and bid him ask his faith, his reason, and 
 his conscience, what he is doing, when he is solicitous to 
 promote a reconciliation with the Romish Church ? 
 
 IX. I proceed next to vindicate a very learned and acute 
 defender of Christianity from the charge of falsely translating 
 one of his authorities. 
 
 In the ' ' Criterion " of Bishop Douglas, a negative argument 
 is drawn against the genuineness of the miracles imputed by 
 your Church to Francis Xavier, from the silence of the Jesuit 
 missionary Acosta, in whose book, says his lordship, " we 
 find an express acknowledgment that no miracles had ever 
 been performed by missionaries amongst the Indians/' Thus 
 far you quote the bishop ; but the pith of his argument con- 
 sists in the words immediately following. " For," he adds, 
 " Acosta assigns it as one reason why the Gospel was not 
 propagated by them with the same success as it was by the 
 Apostles, that the power of working miracles did not subsist 
 among the missionaries, who, not being able to excite the 
 admiration or the fear of the barbarians, by the majesty of 
 any such works, were, consequently, despised by reason of 
 their mean appearance/' This is the passage, upon quoting 
 the former part of which, you exclaim, " What will the ad- 
 mirers of this detector say, if it should appear that Acosta 
 barely says, ' that there was not the same faculty or facility 
 of working miracles among the missionaries which there was 
 among the Apostles ? ' " (Letter xxiv. p. 260.) The best reply 
 to this demand will be to produce the words of Acosta, as I find 
 them in the " Criterion," not having the book itself at hand to 
 consult. You give us only the first part of the passage, 
 omitting that which would clear all ambiguity, if any such 
 there were, in your extract : " Altera causa in nobis est, cur 
 apostolica prsedicatio institui omnino non possit apostolice, 
 quod miraculorum nulla facultas sit ; nostri mine temporis 
 cum talium operum maj estate sese barbaris admirandos et 
 timendos non praebeant, nihil restat nisi ut reliqua vita3 
 inopia et impotentia penitus contemnatur." a No one can for 
 an instant doubt of the strict accuracy of the Bishop's version. 
 Acosta explicitly declares, first, that the preaching of the 
 gospel could not be carried on by them with the success of 
 the Apostles, because they had " not any power of doing 
 miracles, miraculorum nulla facultas." Secondly, that they 
 could not render themselves objects of terror or admiration 
 to the barbarians, by the " majesty of such works/' and were 
 a Lib. ii. cap. 8. See Brit. Mag. vi. 482-3. 
 
THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 251 
 
 therefore utterly despised, which he could scarcely have said, 
 if they had any miraculous powers, much less if he believed, 
 as you tell us, that Xavier himself performed miracles " too 
 numerous to be related." 4 
 
 X. Proceeding in the same uncandid course, you diligently 
 strive to represent the National Church as a complete prey 
 to the Socinian heresy. Thus, as a specimen of the mode by 
 which this calumny is sustained, you allege the objections of 
 certain divines to what are called the damnatory clauses 
 of the Athanasian Creed, and hence infer the disbelief of the 
 whole body of the Church, in the doctrine of the Blessed 
 Trinity ; an inference worthy to be cited for its correctness 
 and liberality. 
 
 I cannot forbear remarking, that, a charge of indifference 
 towards the creed of St. Athanasius does not come with a 
 peculiar good grace from the members of a Church whose 
 infallible head, Pope Liberius, not only subscribed to the 
 Arian heresy, against which the creed was originally com- 
 posed, but also united in the condemnation of Athanasius 
 himself; a fact demonstrative, even if it stood alone, upon 
 how tottering a basis the boasted indefectibility of the Roman 
 See is placed. As this, however, rather belongs to a wider 
 subject than the present letter undertakes to discuss, I will 
 return to your assertions. 
 
 In a note to Letter xv. p. 186, you tell the world to 
 gratify, I presume, the popular love of novelty that the 
 omission of this Creed " so often took place in public service, 
 that an Act of Parliament has just been passed to enforce 
 the repetition of it." Upon this extraordinary statement, I 
 would only observe, that if you really are aware of the 
 existence of such an Act of which no one in the kingdom, 
 except yourself, has ever heard, you might possibly render 
 a kindness to some persons who may unwarily transgress 
 any of its enactments, by informing them where this secret 
 piece of legislation is to be found. A Bill to enforce the 
 use of the Athanasian Creed is as unlikely to pass the Legis- 
 lature, sub silentio, as any Act that can well be conceived. 
 This, however, must have been the case, if your account 
 be correct : its enactment was certainly unknown even to 
 the enactors. It is not easy to conjecture in what possible 
 misapprehension you were involved, when the above sentence 
 escaped your pen. 
 
 The Eev. K. C. Trench, in his " Notes on the Miracles of our Lord," has 
 some remarks " on the later or ecclesiastical miracles " (p. 49), where, referring 
 to those imputed to St. Xavier, he says, that in the numerous epistles written 
 by him, "of miracles wrought by himself, there occurs not a single word." 
 
252 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 As to the " omission of the Creed in public service/' there 
 seems to be as much foundation for the allegation as for this 
 Utopian Act of Parliament, designed to remedy the evil. 
 Allegation against allegation is but tiresome, and carries 
 little weight. As, however, you have condescended to admit 
 Unitarian authority against the Church, you may not reject 
 its testimony on the opposite side. Probably, then, the fact 
 stated in the following extract from one of their theologians, 
 is as correct as the phraseology is coarse and injurious. It 
 is not quoted from respect for the sophistical production in 
 which I met with it ; but as a specimen of the temper by 
 which we are assailed. " Still that vile compound of impiety 
 and nonsense, commonly, but falsely, called the Creed of 
 St. Athanasius, continues to be read in all the churches and 
 chapels of the dominant sect." a These are the allegations, 
 and this the strain, of our conflicting foes, united on no 
 point but hostility to us. Such is the intemperate virulence 
 by which we are attacked, on the one hand, as senseless and 
 impious bigots, for systematic conformity to obligations the 
 most solemn that human beings can contract; and such the 
 harsh and groundless imputations with which we are loaded, 
 on the other, as perjured and apostate heretics, for systematic 
 violation of them. "THEY BARE FALSE WITNESS AGAINST 
 
 HlM, BUT NEITHER DID THEIR WITNESS AGREE TOGETHER." 
 
 Returning to the charge, you say (Letter xvi. p. 192, note), 
 " I have not met with a Protestant bishop or other eminent 
 divine, from Archbishop Tillotson to the present Bishop of 
 Lincoln [Tomline] who approves altogether of the Athanasian 
 Creed." This is intended to imply that there is a universal 
 disinclination on the part of our divines to the doctrines of 
 this creed. If the defection be so general, why are not a few 
 of them named ? They are, I suppose, to be ranked with 
 those many " titled or otherwise distinguished " converts to 
 Popery, of whom you boast ; but whose names you tell us it 
 is not " prudent " to mention (Letter ix. p. 124, note) . 
 
 Highly disingenuous is it to infer, that, because a person 
 may not be entirely pleased with the anathemas affixed to a 
 peculiar exposition, therefore he is an unbeliever of the funda- 
 mental articles of Christian faith. To go no farther than the 
 two prelates whose names you introduce, the orthodoxy of 
 Bishop Tomliue remains unquestioned ; his well-known objec- 
 tion is introduced by a solemn asseveration of his entire 
 belief in the doctrine of that creed ; and his abstract of 
 Scripture evidence to the Holy Trinity is full and satis- 
 
 a Discourse on the meaning of the term "Saviour," by James Yates. 
 
ALLEGED SOCINIANISM. THE NON-JURORS. 253 
 
 factory. And, without referring to the works of Tillotson, 
 there is a book quoted in your volume, Dr. Birch's life of 
 this prelate, which records the confession of a Socinian 
 writer, who, having often discussed the controversy with the 
 archbishop, testifies that " he was the best reasoner, and had 
 most to say for himself of any adversary he had ever en- 
 countered." 
 
 There is a time, Dr. Milner, when forbearance becomes 
 criminal. I cannot, therefore, refrain from observing, that, 
 of your uniform illiberality towards those who differ from 
 you, no part is more gross, for none is more self-evidently 
 groundless, than your reiterated attempts to fasten the stigma 
 of Unitarianism on the Church of England. Assuredly, no 
 worthy object can be attained by persisting in this most false 
 and most offensive imputation. It can only procure converts 
 among the misguided and uninformed, and must be followed 
 by disgust in every well-principled mind. Unquestionably, 
 also, it affords to your opponents more than sufficient justifi- 
 cation for continuing to charge your Church with deeming 
 no means unworthy to extend her dominion; when they 
 behold an individual, respectable for attainments and vene- 
 rable by years, still rejecting the legitimate weapons of 
 Christian warfare, and cherishing arms so unworthy of his 
 character and cause. 
 
 XI. The same indiscriminating spirit of hostility induces 
 you to point out the Non-jurors, as forming, at this day, a 
 schism in the bosom >f the Church (Letter xv. p. 187). 
 The Non-jurors have, for many years past, been totally extinct. 
 And their secession, as all are aware, arose from no hostility 
 to the doctrines of the Church. Whatever their peculiar 
 views, the Church of Rome experienced among them some of 
 its ablest opponents. 
 
 XII. The paragraph which conveys the above statement, 
 includes another yet less justifiable. It scarcely, of itself, 
 deserves attention ; although it has been noticed by a learned 
 living prelate as an " unfounded calumny." 3 You inform 
 your correspondent, that " even now, it is notorious that 
 
 a Bishop Blomfield's letter to C. Butler, Esq. It is strange, that this 
 gentleman should complain of undue warmth in his lordship, when replying to 
 his feeble defence of a most unprovoked slander upon the whole body of the 
 clergy. Judge of us as uncharitably as you please, and let the decision rest 
 with the Searcher of all hearts. But where is the privilege, to you or 
 Mr. Butler, of obstructing the labour, and rendering odious the persons, of 
 the authorized guardians of religion and morality, by foul accusations of 
 perjury and hypocrisy ? I believe the opinion is general, that Mr. Butler has 
 sacrificed a portion of his credibility, by relying upon your authority, when he 
 ought to have searched for himself. 
 
254 ENGLISH DIVINES MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 many clergymen preach in the churches in the morning, 
 and in the meeting-houses in the evening " (Letter xv. 
 p. 188). Were I to adopt your own language, this should 
 be termed an " utter disregard of chanty and truth." The 
 statement is unworthy a serious reply. 
 
 It seems impossible to rescue the two last- quoted speci- 
 mens of controversial energy from the charge of intentional 
 misrepresentation. With these, I close the present obser- 
 vations ; leaving them to their due effect upon every impar- 
 tial mind. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of the course you have pur- 
 sued towards Protestantism and Protestants, I only speak in 
 accordance with the spirit of the truly Catholic Church to 
 which I belong, when I give utterance to a sincere and 
 fervent prayer for yourself, and every member of your creed, 
 that, holding, on earth, the great essentials of our common 
 faith, " in the bond of peace and in righteousness of life," 
 you may, finally, with us, be united " in one fold, under 
 one Shepherd," in heaven. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, &c. 
 
 (Signed) JOHN GARBETT. 
 
255 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 WE have brought before our readers a few few in com- 
 parison with the numerous perversions of Dr. Milner, fair 
 samples, nevertheless, of a mass of similar " pious frauds" 
 Dr. Milner without doubt was (if not a learned man) at least 
 well stored with material, which he dressed up in the most 
 attractive and plausible form. We cannot but admire the 
 dexterity with which this writer has endeavoured to pass 
 base for current coin. Dr. Milner declares to us the motives 
 which actuate him. These he gives us to understand are 
 " sentiments of charity," and that he has " no other interest 
 than that of Jesus Christ, no other wish but for our salva- 
 tion." a He does not fail to impress upon his readers that 
 he is thoroughly convinced of the truth of what he asserts. 
 " Though far from claiming inerrancy," he says, " he should 
 despise himself, if he knowingly published any falsehood, or 
 hesitated to retract any one that he was proved to have fallen 
 into" (p. 30). And he further declares that "there can be 
 no excuse for persons in religious matters, of his [Dr. Mil- 
 ner' s] profession and situation, should they, for their tem- 
 poral advantage, or from their prejudices, go astray to mislead 
 others in a matter of eternal consequence. Such conduct" 
 (he says) " would be hypocritical and doubly perfidious and 
 ruinous. It would be perfidious to the individual so mis- 
 guided, and to the church or sect which he professes to 
 serve; since nothing can injure it so much as the appear- 
 ance of insincerity and human passions in its official 
 defenders" (p. 50). And he appeals with awful solemnity 
 " to the great day of universal trial," and the condemnation 
 awaiting " the faithless guides who have led astray poor 
 bewildered souls." And he professes to "follow truth 
 wheresoever she might lead him, with the utmost sincerity 
 and ardour of his soul." But how we are to reconcile all 
 these protestations with the perversions patent to all who 
 will take the trouble to examine for themselves, is a question 
 which we will leave to the consideration and solution of our 
 readers. 
 
 * Letter i. p. 54. 
 
 LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM PENNY, 57, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS. 
 
ANTI-ROMISH WORKS 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES HASTINGS COLLETTE. 
 
 Second Edition, enlarged and improved, price 2s. 6d. 
 
 ROMANISM IN ENGLAND EXPOSED, 
 
 Price Is. 
 
 POPISH INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 Also 3 price 6d. pp. 104. 
 POPISH FRAUDS EXEMPLIFIED 
 
 BY 
 
 DR. WISEMAN'S LECTURES. 
 
 No. 1. PURGATORY. 
 
 Price Id. 
 
 A TRACT FOR CARDINAL WISEMAN 
 
 On CHAP. Y. OF ST. JOHN'S G-OSPEL. 
 
 Also, price 2s. 6d., demy 8vo., 152 pp. 
 
 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY 
 
 A THING OF PEIESTCEAET ALIKE UNWAEEANTED 
 BY HOLY SCEIPTUEE OE TEADITION. 
 
 This work is an examination and exposure of the Abbe Miel's 
 Pamphlets on the Pope and the Holy Scriptures, and the Pope 
 the Primitive Church. 
 
 [Mr. Collette is happy to announce this controversy has led to 
 the conversion of the Abbe Miel. See " Catholic Layman" for 
 October, 1854, p. 119.] 
 
 N.B. The above can le had ly order from WILLIAM PENNY, 
 57, Lincoln 1 s-Inn Fields, and all Booksellers. 
 
"MILNER REFUTED;. 
 
 OE, 
 
 PIOUS FRAUDS EXEMPLIFIED IN DR, MILNER'S 
 
 "END OP RELIGIOUS CONTBOVEBS * ." 
 
 BEING A SERIES OF 
 
 (Sripal, Selerto, ni (tatriWrtr JMMes 
 
 EXPOSING 
 
 DR. MILNER'S FALLACIES AND FICTIONS. 
 
 PART II, 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 Error is in its nature nHpparK^w^i4cfih^ij$cw3|4^^ps w ^h airy and fastidious 
 levity over proofs and arguments, aiid 'pulUllui upon assertion, which it calls 
 con clu sion . Curran . 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM PENNY, 
 57, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS; 
 
 SOLD ALSO BY 
 
 BOSWORTH & HARRISON, 115, REGENT STREET; 
 CURRY & CO. DUBLIN ; J. NICHOL, EDINBURGH. 
 
 1857. 
 
LONDON : 
 
 WILLIAM PENNY, 
 
 PRINTER, ENGRAVER, AND LITHOGRAPHER, 
 
 57, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS. 
 
PKEFATOKY KEMARKS. 
 
 THE Preface to Part I. sufficiently explains the object and 
 scope of the present work. The editor thinks it now only ne- 
 cessary to observe that, in replying to Dr. Milner's statements, 
 he has freely availed himself of the labours of others where 
 he has deemed them applicable ; his occupation is rather 
 that of a compiler than an author. The greatest care has 
 however been taken to obtain accuracy. He has to thank 
 the Rev. JOHN EVANS, of Whixall, Prees, Shrewsbury, for 
 his valuable assistance in furnishing two most interesting 
 papers on the " Fourth Lateran Council " and " Indul- 
 gences." 
 
 NOTE. Except when anotlier edition is expressly named, the edition ofMilner's 
 "End of Religious Controversy '," from which we have quoted throughout the fol- 
 lowing pages, is the 12mo. stereotype edition, printed at Derby "for the 
 [Roman] Catholic Boole Society" without date, but the editor's Preface being 
 dated 1842. 
 
ERRATA TO PART I. 
 
 Page 25, lines 14 and 15, for "heretical private judgment" read " heretical' 
 
 private judgment. 
 
 " 61, end of note a , for " 345" read " 325." 
 " 72, line 24, for " Paul" read " Basil." 
 " 144, line 1. The passage from Jerome has been quoted in error. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 No. XVII. PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 The Fourth Council of Lateran, its Canons and Decrees Dr. Milner's 
 excuse for the third Canon An act of a temporal congress Inconsistent with 
 other Romanists, who deny that the Canon was passed, 2 The Canons stated, 3 
 Not simply against the Albigenses, 4 Proved to be general The Conciliar 
 character of the Council, 5 Recognised by Popes and Councils, 6 Evidence 
 of those who deny the Conciliar character examined, 9 The third Canon 
 examined, 10 Alleged omission from the Mazarine copy, 11 Canons of the 
 Council of Lateran, Aries, and Sens compared, 13, 15 Cardinal Pole's admis- 
 sion, 16. 
 
 No. XVIII. PURGATORY. 
 
 SECT. I. Dr. Milner's definition examined, 18 The doctrine stated, 19. 
 
 SECT. II. Alleged Scriptural evidence, 23 Dr. Milner's case stated, 24 
 2 Mace. xii. 46, 271 Cor. xv. 29, 33 (The present belief of the Jews, 34) 
 Luke xvi. 22, 351 Peter iii. 18, 20, 36 Luke xii. 58, 59, 391 Cor. iii. 13, 
 15, 45 Matt. xii. 32, 51. 
 
 SECT. III. Origin and progress of the belief in Purgatory Founded on the 
 custom of praying for the dead, 55. 
 
 SECT. IV. Alleged traditional evidence founded on the Fathers, 69 
 Chrysostom, 70 Tertullian, 71 Cyprian, 74 Augustine, 75. 
 
 SECT. V. Alleged concessions of " Eminent Protestant divines," 77 
 Luther Melancthon, 78 Cranmer, 79 Usher Montague Taylor, 80 
 Forbes Sheldon Barrow, 81 Blandford, 82 Andrews, 83. 
 
 No. XIX. INDULGENCES. 
 
 SECT. I. Milner's statement and definitions, stating what Indulgences are 
 not, 85 Pardon of sin granted, 86, 89 Technical expressions, 86 Alleged 
 conditions attached Contrition and confession, 88, 102 Object of retaining 
 absolution, 89 Admitted to be a pious fraud, 90 Not to exempt repentance 
 Answered, 91 When confession not necessary, 92, 102, 106 Sanctification 
 and justification as referring to Indulgences, 92, 94 Denies the right to buy 
 and sell, 94. 
 
 SECT. II. Scriptural evidence, 95 The case of Adam, the eternal punish- 
 ment due to sin remitted, 95 Case of David (2 Sam. xii. 14), 95 Matt, xviii. 
 952 Cor. ii. 10, 96 Case of Acacius, 97. 
 
 SECT. III. Extraordinary admissions of Romanists as to Indulgences, 97 
 Heathen origin, 98 Admission by Milner of the uncertainty, 99 The effect 
 when gained stated, 99, 108. 
 
 SECT. IV. Its origin and progress in the Church, 100 Reasons for main- 
 taining the doctrine, 101 Different kinds of Indulgences, 103 Their duration, 
 104 The uncertainty as to the power of the dispenser, and as to the time 
 when dispensed, 105 How the Pope or Bishop obtains an Indulgence, 105 
 Conditions attached to Indulgences, 105 Requirements For what end 
 granted, 106 Its value and effects, 107 Uncertainties on this head, 108 
 Granted to the dead, nature of, 108 Jubilees, 108 The Trent decree, 109 
 The important admission, and as to "gains," 111 Confessionalia, 112 
 Alleged parallel between Protestant and Popish Indulgences Charles I. The 
 Anabaptists, 114. 
 
 SECT. V. The "Taxse Cancellarite Apostolicse," and "Tax* Sacrae Pcsni- 
 tentiarise Apostolicae" The distinction explained, and Milner's sophisms and 
 misrepresentations exposed, 115, 127 The table of taxes, 125 Conclusions, 
 126 Passage from Bucer examined, 127. 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 No. XX. COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 
 
 SECT. I. Milner's false definition, 128 Decree of Constance, 129 Cardinal 
 Bona, Aquinas, Cassander, Bellarmine's admissions on the early Christain 
 custom, 130 Milner's subtleties exposed Founded on tradition Answered, 
 131. 
 
 SECT. II. Alleged Scriptural evidence, 136 Luke xxiv. 30, 31, 136 
 Acts ii. 42, and xx. 7, 1371 Cor. xi. 27, 138. 
 
 SECT. III. Alleged traditional evidence, 139 Milner's statement, 140 
 Ingatius, 140 Clement of Alexandria Irenseus, 141 Tertullian Dennis of 
 Alexandria, 142 Cyprian, 143 Basil Story of Satyrus, 144 Chrysostom, 
 145 Ambrose Gregory Nazianzen, 146 Athanasius, 147 Popes Leo I. 
 and Gelasius I., the passages from their epistles critically examined, 147, 152 
 Council of Toledo, 153 Matter of discipline, 153 Jerome Augustine, 154 
 Hugo St. Victor, 155 The alleged dangers and scandals, 156. 
 
 SECT. IV. Alleged modern concessions, case of Pius IV. and the Hun- 
 garians, 1 57 Luther, 158 Synod of Poictiers, 159 Proclamation of 
 Edward VI., 159 Conclusions, 160. 
 
 No. XXI. ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 SECT. I. Dr. Milner's definition Complaints of misrepresentations by 
 Protestants, 161 Gother's propositions and curses, 163 Worship and office 
 of Demons, 165. 
 
 SECT. II. The practical and licensed teaching of the Roman Church, 166 
 The Koinan Breviary, 167 Milner's edition of the " Devotion of the Sacred 
 Heart," 167 "The Catholic School Book," 169 Liguori's " Glories of Mary," 
 170 Authority of the work, 175 Glories of St. Joseph, 176 Bona Ventura's 
 Psalter, 181. 
 
 SECT. III. Dr. Milner's alleged Protestant apologists, 185 Bishop "Mon- 
 tague, 185 Bishop Thorndike, 186 Archbishop Sheldon, 187 Bishop 
 Blandford, 187 Bishop Gunning, 188 Duke of Somerset Luther, 189. 
 
 SECT. IV. Alleged" Scriptural evidence, 191 Eom. xv. 30, Job xlii. 8 
 Gen. xxxii. 26, xlviii. 16, xviii, 2, Jos. v. 14, 192 Kev. v. 8, 194 Luke 
 xv. 10, 196. 
 
 SECT. V. Dr. Milner's proofs founded on tradition, and his alleged Patristic 
 evidence examined Irense us, 198 Polycarp, 199 Justin Martyr, 201 
 Basil, 204. 
 
 SECT. VI. The genuine testimony of the Fathers adduced, 206 Tertul- 
 lian Clement Alexand., 206 Origen Basil Gregory Nyssen Chrysostom 
 Damascen Athanasius Novatian Ambrose, 207 Irenaeus Origen 
 Council of Laodicea, 208 Augustin Epiphanius, 209. 
 
 SECT. VII. Dr. Milner's inconsistences and speculative theories in his 
 vain endeavour to make us believe that this Popish doctrine is a " sublime 
 and consoling " doctrine, 210 220. 
 
 No. XXII. CONCLUSION. 
 Page 221. 
 
MILNER REFUTED. 
 
 PART THE SECOND, 
 
PART II. 
 
 No. XVII. 
 
 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 The Fourth Council of Lateran, its Canons and Decrees.* 
 
 DR. MILNER, in his "End of Religious Controversy," 
 devotes a whole letter (letter xlix.) to the subject of " Re- 
 ligious Persecution," in which he attempts to vindicate the 
 Church of Rome from the heavy charges which history has 
 brought against her. According to Dr. Milner's statement 
 of the case, Rome is so far from manifesting, or entertaining 
 even, a persecuting spirit, that the " Canon law, as it stood in 
 ancient times, and as it still stands, renders all those who 
 have actively concurred to the death or mutilation of any 
 human being, whether Catholic or heretic, Jew or Pagan, 
 even in a just war, or by exercising the art of surgery, or by 
 judicial proceedings, irregular; that is to say, such persons 
 cannot be promoted to Holy Orders, or exercise those orders 
 if they have actually received them." 
 
 If such be the " canon law as it stood in ancient times, 
 and as it now stands," truly, as Dr. Jarvis remarks, "in 
 Rome, canons are mere paper barriers, when occasion serves." 6 
 " I asked," says Dr. Jarvis, " a prelate in Rome, who was a 
 judge in a criminal court, how he could possibly sit on trials 
 of life and death when the Canon law so strictly forbade it. 
 ' So I told his Holiness/ said he, ' when he appointed me ; 
 but he answered, Can I not absolve you ?' " The celebrated 
 Daniel OConnell is reported to have said that there never 
 was an act of parliament framed " through which he could not 
 drive a coach and six ; " and it appears that " his Holiness " 
 entertains a similar opinion of his own skilfulness as respects 
 " the Canon law." Dr. Milner, however, seems to have had 
 some misgivings as to the facility with which his statement 
 
 a We are indebted for this article to the Rev. John Evans, of Whixall, Frees, 
 near Shrewsbury. 
 
 b "A Reply to Dr. Milner's 'End of Religious Controversy,'" by Samuel 
 Farmer Jarvis, D.D., LL.D., p. 248. New York, 1847. 
 
 B 
 
2 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 might be received, inasmuch as certain parts of this same 
 "Canon law" appear, to the uninitiated at least, sadly at 
 variance with such amiable provisions. Accordingly, the 
 doctor selects a portion of the Canon law which had at- 
 tracted the notice of Protestants, and endeavours to show 
 that the Church of Rome is by no means responsible for 
 such an atrocious enactment. 
 
 This troublesome statute, viz., the third Canon of the 
 Fourth General Council of Lateran, Dr. Milner tries to get 
 rid of in the following manner : " But it must first be 
 observed ivho were present at this Council, and by whose 
 authority these decrees of a temporal nature were passed. 
 There were then present, besides the Pope and the Bishops, 
 either in person or by their ambassadors, the Greek and the 
 Latin emperors ; the kings of England, France, Hungary, 
 the Sicilies, Arragon, Cyprus, and Jerusalem ; and the repre- 
 sentatives of a vast many other principalities and states so 
 that, in fact, this council was a congress of Christendom, 
 temporal as well as spiritual." Now, here it is worthy of 
 remark, that Dr. Milner rests the vindication of the Church 
 of Rome upon the fact that the exterminating canon in 
 question was the act of "a congress of Christendom, TEMPORAL 
 as well as spiritual. 3 ' His vindication rests upon the fact 
 that the Fourth General Council of Lateran (we cannot too 
 often repeat it) did pass the statute in question ; indeed, it 
 must rest upon this fact, otherwise the presence of emperors 
 or kings, " either in person or by their ambassadors," could 
 not affect the statute in any way whatever. The whole force 
 of the doctor's argument lies in this, that the third Canon 
 of the Fourth General Council of Lateran was a temporal 
 enactment by a congress " temporal as well as spiritual ! " 
 Let us contrast Dr. Milner's argument with the defence of 
 succeeding champions of Rome, and observe how different is 
 the ground assumed. In the " Hereford Discussion," a we find 
 Mr. Waterworth denying that the statutes of the Fourth 
 General Council of Lateran were ever passed at all ! " I 
 defy," says Mr. Waterworth, " Mr. Venn to prove that they 
 ever were. I say they never were passed at all by the Council, 
 and I will give him some authentic evidence in proof of my 
 assertion." .... "I, therefore, say that that Canon was 
 never passed in the Council. It is put in the Decretals, not 
 as being passed, but as having been proposed in the Council, 
 by Innocent III. Thus, then, by this alone, I might 
 
 a " Authenticated Report of the Discussion which took place between the 
 Rev. John Venn and the Rev. James Waterworth, &c.," p. 16. London : 
 Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1844. 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 3 
 
 take the ground from under him. The canon never was 
 passed, much less received, by the Catholic Church." True, 
 it never was " passed " nor ' ' received " by the Catholic 
 Church ; but there is no difficulty in proving that it was, with 
 the remainder of the seventy Canons of the Fourth Lateran 
 Council, both passed, received, and acted upon, by the Church 
 of Rome. At present, however, we have only to do with the 
 difference between Dr. Milner and Mr. Waterworth ; the 
 former says that the Canon in question must needs be a 
 temporal enactment ; and he rests the proof of this upon the 
 temporal elements of the Council which passed it. Now, if 
 the Council did not pass it, then the argument fails which 
 rests upon the presence of temporal elements ; those temporal 
 elements could not affect a statute which the Council did not 
 pass ! Though Mr. Water worth's assertions fail to " take 
 the ground " from under Mr. Venn, they assuredly " take 
 the ground from under" Dr. Milner, whose argument rests 
 upon no other ground but that which Mr. Waterworth says 
 that he has demolished ! So far is Mr. Waterworth from 
 treating the Canon as a mere temporal matter, emanating 
 from temporal authority, that he lays the responsibility of 
 the said Canon entirely upon Innocent III ! Dr. Milner is 
 right when he attributes the Canon to the Council, and wrong 
 when he asserts that it was a merely temporal enactment. 
 Mr. Waterworth is right in allowing its Papal character, but 
 wrong in denying that the Council passed it ; and Dr. Milner 
 and Mr. Waterworth are both wrong in considering it as 
 merely contemplating the so-called heresies of the Albigenses. 
 Of its theological origin and nature, the very words of the 
 Canon furnish sufficient and irrefragable evidence. The first 
 Canon of the Fourth General Council of Lateran propounds 
 a creed, among the articles of which appears one making the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation an article of faith; the third 
 Canon opens with a reference to the creed propounded in the 
 first Canon : te we excommunicate and anathematize every 
 heresy which exalteth itself against this holy, orthodox, and 
 Catholic faith, which we have set forth above ; condemning all 
 heretics, by whatsoever name they may be reckoned; who 
 have diverse faces, but their tails are bound together, for 
 they make agreement in the same folly." Dr. Milner was 
 quite right in asserting that the Council passed this most 
 atrocious Canon ; but when were temporal princes authorized 
 to " excommunicate and anathematize ? " When were tem- 
 poral princes permitted to be judges of orthodoxy ? As to 
 its being confined to the heresies of the Albigenses, a glance 
 at the Canon will show that they are not once named ; and 
 
 B 2 
 
4 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 what the heresies are, which it does contemplate, is made clear 
 by the reference to the creed propounded in the first Canon. 
 Now, as the first Canon establishes the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation as an article of faith, it clearly follows that all 
 who repudiate that doctrine come within the scope of the 
 Canon ! Dr. Milner says, " Nor was this exterminating 
 Canon ever put in force against any other heretics, except 
 the Albigenses ; nor was it enforced even against them, except 
 in the case of the above-named counts. 3 It has never been 
 even published, or talked of in these Islands; so little have 
 Protestants to fear from their Catholic fellow subjects, by 
 reason of the third Canon of the Council of Lateran." 
 Milner goes on to assert that in Mary's reign, during the 
 first two years, " no Protestant was molested on account 
 of his religion ; that, in the instructions which the Pope 
 sent for her conduct on the throne, there is not a word to 
 recommend persecution; nor is there in the Synod, which 
 the Pope's legate (Cardinal Pole) held at that time, one 
 word, as Burnet remarks, f in its favour/ 3: We have just 
 seen how Mr. Waterworth " takes the ground " from under 
 Dr. Milner, and now we have a remarkable instance how an 
 ingenious man can contrive to cut the ground from under 
 himself! Not a word to recommend persecution, in the 
 Synod held by Cardinal Pole " at that time ! " Let Cardinal 
 Pole speak for himself. The Cardinal, in his preface to the 
 decrees of the Synod held at Lambeth, A.D. 1 55 6, b exhorts 
 the Archbishops and Bishops and other prelates to enforce the 
 Constitutions by ecclesiastical censure on the contumacious, 
 and, if need be, to call in the secular arm. In the second 
 decree, the books to be used by the clergy are pointed out, 
 and the decree of the Fifth Lateran Council, "De Libris 
 imprimendis," is enforced ; the decree [alas for Dr. Milner !] 
 afterwards proceeds thus, " But that people may know, every 
 error of former times being taken away, what doctrine to 
 follow and what they ought to avoid, together with this same 
 Synod we reverently take up and embrace, according to the 
 rules and dogmas of the holy Fathers, all that faith which 
 the Holy and Apostolic Roman Church, the mother and 
 mistress of all Churches, teaches, and we decree that the same 
 be done by all and openly professed ; and, according to 
 the decrees of the General Council celebrated under Pope 
 Innocent III., of happy memory, and of other Councils and 
 
 a of Thoulouse, Comminges, Foix, and other Feudatory Princes :" see 
 Milman's " Latin Christianity," vol. iv. 
 
 h " .Reformatio Angliae, ex decretis Reginaldi Poli, Cardinalis, Sedis Apo- 
 stolicre Legati." Labbe et Cossart, torn, xiv., col. 1784, et seq. Paris, 1671. 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 5 
 
 Roman Pontiffs and traditions, and the very letters which 
 are wont to be read ' IN DIE COSN.E DOMINI/ We condemn, 
 and altogether reject, every heresy exalting itself against this 
 holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith ; a and whatever is different 
 from it, every dogma which is at variance with the same 
 faith, we prohibit and forbid to be believed, practised, or 
 taught; all heretics, of whatever name and kind, who other- 
 wise believe, hold, and teach, than the same Roman Church 
 believes, holds, and teaches, we condemn and anathematize ; 
 also all censures and punishments enacted against heretics and 
 favourers of them, and against ordinaries and all others to 
 whom the office belongs, negligent in extirpating heresies, we 
 renew and enjoin to be fully executed ! " Are we, in the face 
 of the above, to be told that the Albigenses alone were aimed 
 at in the Canon in question ? that the said Canon was never 
 published, or talked of, in these islands ? and that not a word 
 is said to encourage religious persecution in the decrees of 
 the Lambeth Synod ? 
 
 Dr. Milner tells us that the Council had temporal elements, 
 and the third Canon, by virtue of being passed by a council 
 so composed, is, therefore, temporal. Mr. Waterworth tells 
 us that the Council had nothing to do with it, and, therefore, 
 the Church of Rome is not responsible for it. Milner and 
 Waterworth, both, tell us that it only concerned the Albi- 
 genses, and Milner says that it was never talked about in 
 these islands, nor a word recommending persecution contained 
 in the Lambeth decrees ! The statute itself never mentions 
 the Albigenses once, but condemns all who oppose "this 
 holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith !" So does Pole, in the 
 very words of the third Canon, and, moreover, calls into 
 action and renews " all censures and punishmants enacted 
 against heretics, and the favourers of them "III 
 
 We now proceed to consider the conciliar character of the 
 Fourth Lateran Council. 
 
 Dr. Milner rested his assertion, of the temporal character 
 of the third Canon of the Fourth General Council of Lateran, 
 on the ground that the said Canon was passed by a Council 
 in which there was a temporal element ! The evidence, how- 
 ever, furnished by the very wording of the Canon in question, 
 soon made it apparent, even to the most cursory reader, that 
 there was nothing temporal about the document, except the 
 announcement of the superiority of the spiritual to the 
 temporal powers, and the threat of both spiritual and tern- 
 
 a The very words of the third Canon of the Fourth Laterun Council ! 
 
6 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 poral punishment to such rulers as should venture to disobey 
 or neglect the behests of the spiritual authorities. Conse- 
 quently, in order to relieve the Church from the responsibility 
 attaching to the enactment of such an atrocious statute, it 
 was necessary to adopt another mode of defence. As the 
 ecclesiastical character of the Canon could not be denied, 
 nor its cruel atrocity be disguised, an attempt must be made 
 to deny its genuineness; but here, again, a difficulty pre- 
 sented itself, for the Canon was one of a series, and betrayed 
 too many signs of relationship to its fellows to permit that 
 relationship to be doubted. Hopeless as the attempt must 
 necessarily be, nevertheless, the attempt was made to deny that 
 the Council passed any Canons at all that the documents, 
 hitherto popularly known as " Statutes of the Fourth General 
 Council of Lateran," were never heard of till the year 1535 ! 
 How utterly untenable such a position must be, will at once 
 appear from the evidence we are about to produce ; and our 
 readers will, probably, be of opinion, that such a position 
 would never have been taken up, had the champions of Rome 
 for a moment supposed that Protestants were either able or 
 willing to trouble their heads about it. 
 
 Our readers are aware that the Fourth General Council of 
 Lateran, under Pope Innocent III., was held in the year 
 1215, and, so far from its enactments being unheard of until 
 1535, we are enabled to trace the recognition of them 
 through a series of documents down to the celebrated Council 
 of Trent. 
 
 We find the statutes of the Council in question fully 
 recognised in the year 1223, only eight years after it was 
 held, in the " Constitutions of Richard Poore, Bishop of 
 Sarum." a We can scarcely suppose that Bishop Poore would 
 be so reckless as to appeal to an authority which did not 
 exist, to statutes which were never passed, and that, too, 
 at a time when there must have been abundance of living 
 witnesses to prove the futility of his appeal. Again, in the 
 year 1234, just eleven years after their recognition by Poore, 
 we find them acknowledged by the Council of Aries ; the 
 first Canon of which Council is thus headed : " That the 
 Statutes of the Fourth Lateran Council be diligently ob- 
 served." b If the Fourth Lateran Council passed no statutes, 
 how could the Council of Aries, within the short space of 
 nineteen years, venture to use such language ? The Canon, 
 whose heading is given above, thus speaks : " Since we are 
 
 a Labbe et Cossart, torn. xi. p. 1, col. 161. Paris, 1671. Also Wilkins's 
 " Concilia Magnee Britannia?," torn. i. pp. 599, 600. Edit. London, 1737. 
 b Labbe et Cossart, tom. xi. p. 2, col. 2339, et seq. Paris, 1671. 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 7 
 
 bound by a debt of obedience faithfully to observe the con- 
 stitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, we command all our 
 suffragans, and strictly direct, that they diligently observe 
 the Canonical rules, and the statutes of the fourth Lateran 
 Council promulgated by our Lord the Pope Innocent III., 
 and cause them to be observed by their subjects." 
 
 In the above we have a full answer to those who tell us that 
 " the so called statutes of Lateran were compiled by Innocent 
 and only read to the Council, who determined nothing 
 concerning them." That they were composed or compiled 
 by Innocent, no one will dispute, nor that he read them to 
 the Council, but in the above Canon they are spoken of as 
 " Statutes of the Lateran Council," and as "promulgated by 
 Pope Innocent III. ;" as such, too, they are recognised in 
 the decretals of Gregory IX., according to Vincentius Bel- 
 lovacensis. " Many things," says he, " are determined 
 concerning the coercion and punishment of heretics, and 
 concerning the Greeks, who had returned to the Catholic 
 faith. Also many other things very useful to the Catholic 
 Church, all which are distributed in seventy Canons, arid are 
 contained in the decretals of Gregory IX." a But, supposing 
 that the statutes in question be merely the Constitutions of 
 Innocent III., how does the attributing them to the head of 
 the Church remove the obloquy attaching to them from the 
 Church itself? The matter is really so simple and so plain, 
 that no comment is required, nor should we give ourselves 
 the trouble to rebut such feeble arguments, but that, by 
 showing the nature of the defence, we also show how 
 reckless is the character of those who attempt it, and how 
 fully conscious they are that no sound arguments can be 
 brought forward wherewith to defend their cause. Such a 
 mode of defence forcibly reminds us of a ruse, sometimes 
 practised by soldiers, when they would secretly abandon a 
 position, and wish the enemy to believe that they have not 
 retired ; the utmost care is taken that all may appear 
 unchanged, but, upon a nearer approach, the enemy discover 
 that the seeming sentinels are literally men of straw ! 
 
 But to proceed with our evidence. Just one year later 
 than the Council of Aries, in the year 1235, b we find a 
 reference to the statutes of the Fourth Lateran Council in the 
 Constitutions of the Abbot of St. Albans; and, in 1236, they 
 are referred to by Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 a Labbd et Cossart, torn. xi. p. 1, col. 119. Edit. Paris, 1671. 
 b Wilkins's "Concilia Magnse Britanniae," torn, i. p. 631. London, 1737. 
 La bb^ and Cossart, torn. xi. p. 1, col. 481. Paris, 1671. 
 
 c Wilkins's "Cone. Mag. Brit.," torn. i. p. 639. London, 1737. 
 
8 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 The foregoing testimonies are fully sufficient to prove the 
 existence of the seventy statutes of the Fourth Lateraii 
 Council, and that they were well known and recognised as 
 such, at a time when an imposition could not have been suc- 
 cessfully attempted. We are able, however, to trace references 
 to the disputed statutes, at short intervals, in the Ordinances 
 of Otho, Archbishop of Tusculum, A.D. 1248 ; Nicosian Con- 
 stitutions, A.D. 1252 to 1255; Council of Sens, A.D. 1269; 
 Constitutions of Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, and 
 the Council of Pont Audomar, A.D. 1279 ; Constitutions of 
 Peckham ; the Epistle of Pope Martin IV., and the Council 
 of Saltzburg, A.D. 1281; Council of Bourges, A.D. 1286; 
 Synod of Exeter, A.D. 1287; Synod of Bayeux, A.D. 1300; 
 Synodal Constitutions of Woodloke, Bishop of Winchester, 
 A.D. 1308; Council of Palentia, 132.2; Council of Avignon, 
 1337; Council of Beziers, 1351; Articles concerning the 
 Reformation of the Universal Church, put forth by the 
 University of Oxford, A.D. 1414; Council of Constance, 
 Session xix., A.D. 1415 ; Council of Tortosa, in Catalonia, 
 A.D. 1429; Council of Frisengen, A.D. 1440; Council of 
 Rouen, A.D. 1445 ; Council of Sens, A.D. 1528. Thus we 
 have, down to the year 1528, a complete chain of evidence 
 as to the genuineness and authenticity of the statutes 
 of the Fourth Lateran Council ; a chain, too, of such a 
 texture, that any single link of it is sufficient for our pur- 
 pose ! especially any link preceding the year 1535. The 
 testimony of the celebrated Council of Trent is especially 
 decisive, and ought to be sufficient to silence the cavils of 
 every obedient son of Rome. The Council of Trent treats 
 the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council as the Voice of the 
 Church / 
 
 In the " Decretum de Reformatione Matrimonii," cap. i., 
 we read, " Therefore adhering to the steps of the sacred 
 Lateran Council, celebrated under Innocent III." b Again, 
 in cap. v. De Reformatione, we find, " And the constitution 
 of Innocent III., in the GENERAL COUNCIL, which begins, 
 ' Qualiter et quando/ " c and in cap. viii. of the following 
 session, De Regularibus et monialibus, "According to the 
 form of the Constitution of Innocent III., IN THE GENERAL 
 COUNCIL, which begins, ' In singulis.' " d 
 
 We might stop here, for the ground of those who affect to 
 
 a Sessio xiv. cap. v. "Neque enim per Lateranense Concilium Ecclesia 
 statuit," &c. 
 
 b Sessio xiv. cap. i., Decretum de Ref. Mat. 
 e Sessio xxiv. cap. v. De Reformatione. 
 d Sessio xxv. cap. viii. De Reg. et Mon. 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 9 
 
 question the validity of the third Canon, on the supposition 
 that, the Fourth Lateran Council passed no Canons at all, is 
 completely cut from under their feet ; but as there are others 
 who admit the conciliar character of the Canons generally, 
 yet attempt to exclude the third Canon, we will proceed to 
 examine the claim of that particular Canon, and we shall 
 find that it has not met with that injustice at the hands of 
 those who were fully competent to judge of its merits, which 
 it has found among some modern advocates of Rome. 
 
 Before entering upon the subject of the third Canon, we 
 may briefly notice the evidence adduced by those who affect 
 to deny the conciliar character of the Lateran statutes gene- 
 rally. Platina and Nauclerus have been cited, as stating that 
 nothing was done by the Council, whereas Nauclerus only 
 says that nothing could be "fitly determined," and Platina, 
 whose words appear to be echoed by Nauclerus, tells us that 
 nothing could be " openly determined ; " a very different 
 thing from saying that " nothing was determined." So forci- 
 bly must the qualifications " apte " and " aperte " have struck 
 those who cited Nauclerus and Platina as witnesses, that they 
 very prudently, if deceit can be so characterized, left out the 
 qualifying words ! They knew that those words must be fatal 
 to the purpose for which the passages containing them were 
 cited. Much stress, however, has been laid upon the testi- 
 mony of Du Pin, especially that contained in a passage quoted 
 from his treatise, " De Antiqua Ecclesise Disciplina." 3 
 
 " Therefore no Canons were established by this Council ; 
 but some things were prepared by the Roman Pontiff, some 
 of which seemed to some persons convenient, and to others 
 burdensome. But even on reading the Canons themselves 
 it is evident that they were not passed by the Council, or, at 
 least, not in the manner in which we have them." There is 
 a hesitancy in the above passage which cannot fail to strike 
 the reader; there is no straightforward bold assertion, and 
 the " at least " of Du Pin seems to have been introduced as 
 a saving clause ; for as he was about to publish a history, he 
 felt that, as an honest historian, he must publish statements 
 wholly at variance with such an assertion, as he actually did 
 when he came to mention the Council of Aries, held in the 
 year 1234 ; he tells us that " John Baussanus, Archbishop 
 of Aries, held a Provincial Council in the year 1234, wherein 
 he made twenty-four Constitutions. In the first he orders 
 that the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council shall be put in 
 
 Diss. 7, c. 3, I.e. See Hereford Discussion, p. 24. London, 1844. 
 
10 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 execution."* Again, " In the year 1246, William De Broa, 
 Archbishop of Narbonne, held a Council of the Bishops of 
 his province in the town of Beziers, wherein he made a col- 
 lection of forty- six Canons extracted out of the preceding 
 Councils : namely, the Fourth General Lateran Council," 
 &c. Why Du Pin should throw any doubt at all, or at any 
 time, upon the authority of the Lateran statutes, will be 
 easily understood when we remember that he was the active 
 champion of the liberties of the Gallican Church, against the 
 overbearing authority of Rome, and that he opposed other 
 documents of equal importance, in the eyes of Rome, at least, 
 with the statutes in question ; so much so as to cause himself 
 to be characterized as a hasty and inaccurate writer ; he was 
 even deposed from his professor's chair for the boldness of 
 some of his opinions. Would the champions of Rome adduce 
 his authority on these points ? Moreri, in his " Grand His- 
 torical Dictionary," gives him the character above mentioned, 
 and, moreover, tells us that Du Pin was " the soul and organ 
 of all that was done in the Sorbonne against the Bull 
 Unigenitus ! b Collier, too, has been cited to disparage the 
 authority of the third Canon, as will be more particularly 
 noticed hereafter; but his testimony at once, so far as the 
 testimony of a single historian can, demolishes the assertion 
 that the Fourth Lateran Council passed no Canons at all, for 
 the whole force of the argument, sought to be drawn from the 
 words of Collier, lies in his mistaken statement that the third 
 Canon is not found with the other Canons ; and where does 
 he say that they are to be found ? Why, forsooth, in the 
 " Mazarine copy, coeval WITH THE COUNCIL ! " If the testi- 
 mony of Collier, therefore, be worth anything, it fully estab- 
 lishes the conciliar character of the disputed Canons ; at all 
 events it would ill become the partisans of Rome to discredit 
 the testimony of their own witness ! It is in truth waste of 
 time to attempt seriously to refute such trifling, for of what 
 consequence would it be, could Du Pin, Collier, Platina, 
 Nauclerus, or even Matthew Paris, be shown to deny in 
 honest earnestness, the genuineness of the Lateran statutes, 
 when we find the highest official authorities of Rome not 
 only referring but deferring to them ? 
 
 We shall conclude this article by an examination of the 
 famous third Canon. 
 
 a Vol. xi. pp. 109, 115. 
 
 b " Si on ne peut pas disconvenir qu'il n'ait travaille avec trop de rapidite et 
 
 t/'op peu d' exactitude," &c M. Du Pin a jou un grand role dans les 
 
 affaires de la Bulle Unigenitus. On sait qu'il a e"te fame et Vorgane de tout ce 
 qui s'est fait en Sorbonne contre elle." 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATER AN. 11 
 
 In examining the case of the third Canon we will first take 
 the evidence of Collier, which, whilst it establishes, so far as 
 such evidence can, the evidence of the Lateran statutes in 
 the Mazarine copy, presents us with a blunder of no ordinary 
 character. " But here," writes Collier, " it must be said that 
 this chapter or Canon is not to be found in the Mazarine 
 copy, coeval with the Council, but was transcribed from a 
 later record." That Collier, though guilty of a gross blunder, 
 did not doubt the genuineness of the third Canon is clear 
 from the way in which he speaks of the Council : " This 
 year [1215], the General Council of Lateran was held 
 under Pope Innocent III. ; 'twas opened in November, the 
 Pope having some time before sent a general summons to 
 all the prelates in Christendom; under this denomination 
 Matthew Paris reckons patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, 
 archdeacons, deans, abbots, priors, templars, and hospitallers. 
 There were four hundred and twelve bishops of the Council, 
 of which number Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, was 
 one ; whether there were any more of the English prelates 
 there is not mentioned by historians; though 'tis probable 
 there might be four in all, it not being unusual to send that 
 number to the Roman synods." " The great design of the 
 meeting was to encourage the crusade and send succours to 
 the Christians in Palestine." 
 
 " The English Church being represented at this Council, I 
 shall lay two or three of the most remarkable Canons before 
 the reader." " There were seventy of these Canons in all, 
 which being read in full council, were disliked by several of 
 the Fathers, as Matthew Paris reports ; his words are these : 
 ' Facto prius ab ipso Papa exhortationis sermone, recitata 
 sunt in pleno Concilio capitula septuaginta, quae aliis placa- 
 bilia, aliis videbantur onerosa." When Collier tells us that 
 there were " seventy Canons in all," if he had doubted the 
 genuineness of the third Canon, he surely would have said 
 something about the Canon whose place it usurped ! All 
 that he really says, is, that " it is not to be found in the 
 Mazarine copy coeval with the Council, but is transcribed 
 from a later record ; " not a word about its want of authen- 
 ticity; not a syllable of any inaccuracy in the transcript. 
 Collier, however, was mistaken as to its non-existence in the 
 Mazarine copy ; and we can only account for his blunder by 
 the supposition that he had not an opportunity of inspecting 
 that copy, or that he neglected to do so. The Mazarine copy 
 has indeed been mutilated, and a portion of the leaves con- 
 taining the third Canon been destroyed ; but very important 
 
12 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 parts of this Canon remain to prove its existence in the 
 Mazarine copy ; and an inspection of the Canon, as given in 
 Labbe and Cossart, will show that the defects are, so to 
 speak, mechanical, and not owing to the original absence of 
 the Canon. This plainly appears, in the marginal references 
 which are given, sometimes to the MS. Maz. and sometimes 
 to MS. Dacherianum ; and, occasionally, the readings of the 
 two manuscripts are contrasted, whilst evidently the prefer- 
 ence is given to the MS. Maz. For example, by the side of the 
 text, respecting preachers, the following note is given in the 
 margin, "In MS. Dacheriano quartum capitulum est cum 
 hoc titulo : De eo ne quis prsedicet nisi missus. Sequens 
 autem capitulum, quod hie quartum est, ibi est quintum atque 
 ita deinceps" Here the manuscripts are contrasted, and we 
 are told that, in the Dacherian manuscript, " The following 
 head, which here is the fourth, is there the fifth." As but 
 two manuscripts were used, the Mazarine and the Dacherian, 
 and the word " there " clearly refers to the Dacherian text, 
 it is equally clear that the word " here " must refer to the 
 Mazarine text. Collier's blunder, then, is sufficiently mani- 
 fest. But even had the Canon been absent from the Mazarine 
 copy, it would signify nothing, so long as the said Canon is 
 duly acknowledged by competent authority; nor would the 
 loss of the Canon itself exonerate Rome from the charge of 
 persecution, so long as every provision of the disputed Canon 
 is repeated, over and over again, in the unrepealed Canon 
 Law of the Romish Church. The presence or absence of the 
 Canon, with respect to any particular manuscript, is therefore 
 but an idle question, and only raised, by way of special plead- 
 ing, to draw off the attention of Protestants from the real 
 question at issue. Of this we may be sure, that, had the 
 third Canon of the Fourth Lateran Council been the only 
 authority for exterminating heretics, Rome would have 
 guarded it "as the apple of her eye." In the very same 
 year, 1234, Gregory IX., nephew of Innocent III., published, 
 in his decretals, the third Canon of Lateran, as being enacted 
 " IN CONCILIO GENERALI," and the Council of Aries deter- 
 mined that " the statutes of the Fourth Lateran Council be 
 diligently observed." The Council, in its zeal for the due 
 observance of the Lateran Statutes did not forget the third, 
 as we shall perceive by comparing that Canon with the third, 
 fourth, and fifth Canons of Aries; it was but just to 
 recapitulate those parts of the Lateran laws which were 
 especially to be observed, as otherwise people might be lost 
 in the long story contained in seventy Canons. We will 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATERAX. 
 
 13 
 
 place the Lateran and Arlesiaii enactments side by side, and 
 thus enable the reader to judge for himself. 
 
 Lateran IV., Canon III. 
 
 Moneantur autem et inducantur, 
 et, si necesse fuerit, per censuram 
 ecclesiasticam compettantur seculares 
 potestates, quibuscunque fungantur 
 officiis, ut sicut reputari cupiunt et 
 haberi fideles, ita pro defensione fidei 
 prcestent publice juramentum, quod 
 de terris sues jurisdictioni subjectis 
 universes hcereticos ab ecclesia deno- 
 tatos bona fide pro viribus extermi- 
 nare studebunt. 
 
 Aries, Canon III. " Ut quilibet 
 compellantur hsereticos de terris suis 
 exterminare." 
 
 Item statuimus quod quilibet epi- 
 scopus moneat et efficaciter inducat, 
 et, si necesse fuerit, per censuras com- 
 pellat, potentes, castellanos, consules, 
 et civitatum et aliorum locorum 
 dominos, quibuscunque fungantur offi- 
 ciis, ut sicut reputari cupiunt et haberi 
 fideles, ita pro defensione fidei prcestent 
 publice juramentum, quod de terris 
 suce jwisdictioni subjectis universos 
 hcereticos ab ecclesia denotatos bona 
 fide pro viribus exterminare studebunt. 
 
 The words printed in italics show that not only was the 
 sense of the third Canon of Lateran to be observed, but it 
 must be adhered to, even to the very letter ! We subjoin the 
 Canons in an English dress, though this will scarcely make 
 the matter plainer. 
 
 Lateran IV., Canon II I. 
 
 And let the secular powers, what- 
 ever office they may discharge, be ad- 
 monished and induced, and, if need be, 
 compelled by ecclesiastical censure ; that 
 as they desire to be reputed and ac- 
 counted faithful, so for the defence of 
 the faith they publicly set forth an 
 oath that to the utmost of their power, 
 they will bond fide strive to exterminate 
 from the lands subject to their jurisdic- 
 tion, all heretics pointed out by the 
 Church. 
 
 A rles, Canon III. 
 
 We also decree that every bishop 
 admonish and effectually induce, and, 
 if need be, compel by censure, those in 
 power, castellans, consuls, and the 
 lords and rulers, both of cities and 
 other places, whatever offices they may 
 discharge, that as they desire to be 
 reputed and accounted faithful, no, for 
 the defence of the faith, they publicly 
 set forth an oath, that, to the utmost of 
 their power, they will bond fide strive to 
 exterminate from the lands subject to 
 their jurisdiction, all heretics pointed 
 out by the Church. 
 
 The only difference in the above extracts is exactly what 
 would be looked for in the Canons of a General Council and 
 those of a Provincial Council acting in obedience to the 
 General and Superior Synod. " Let the secular powers be 
 admonished," says the General Council, without particular- 
 izing, because that was unnecessary in the case of a Council 
 with the Pope at its head ; on the other hand, the Provincial 
 Council enumerates the temporal authorities within its juris- 
 diction I A complete answer this, to those who would try to 
 make us believe that the Council of Lateran did not contem- 
 plate sovereign princes as within its jurisdiction. 
 
14 
 
 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 LateranlV., Canon III. 
 
 Credentes vero praeterea receptores, 
 defensores, et fautores hcereticorum 
 excommuiiicationi decernimus subja- 
 cere. a 
 
 Aries, IV. " Ut singulis Dominicis 
 et festis publice excommunicentur hcere- 
 tici et eorum fautores." 
 
 Item statuimus, ut singulis diebus 
 Dominicis et festivis publice excom- 
 municentur et anathematizeutur pul- 
 satis campanis et extinctis candelis, 
 omnes hsereticorum, quibuscunque 
 nominibus censeantur, credentes, re- 
 ceptatores, defensores et fautores eorun- 
 dem. b 
 
 Here we have again just the difference between the general 
 order and the particular words of command given by those 
 whose duty it is to see that the general order is carried into 
 effect. The word " credentes" is erroneously translated in 
 Perceval's " Roman Schism/' p. 136, " But we who believe," 
 &c.; the translator not being aware that the term " credentes" 
 was used, by way of reproach, and applied to those who held 
 heretical opinions ; this is clear from its use in such passages 
 as the following: "At nemo puniatur tanquam credens vel 
 h(sreticus. ))c The adoption of this peculiar term of reproach 
 identifies the source whence it was derived. We have still 
 further evidence afforded by the Council of Aries of this 
 identity. 
 
 Lateran, Canon III. 
 
 Adjicimus insuper, ut quilibet 
 archiepiscopus vel episcopus, per 
 se, aut per archidiaconum suum, vel 
 idoneas personas honestas, bis aut sal- 
 tern semel in anno propriam parochiam, 
 in qua fama fuerit hsereticos habitare, 
 circumeat ; et ibi tres vel plures boni 
 testimonii viros, vel etiam si expedire 
 videbitur totam viciniam, jurare com- 
 pel lat si quis ibidem haereticos sciverit, 
 vel aliquos occulta conventicula cele- 
 brantes, seu a communi conversatione, 
 vita et moribus dissidentes, episcopo 
 studeat indicare. d 
 
 Aries, Canon V.. " Ut inquerantur 
 hseretica et denuncientur." 
 
 Item ut plenius exterminari valeat 
 hseretica pravitas, statuimus ut in sin- 
 gulis parochiis, tarn in civitate quam 
 extra, quilibet episcopus sacerdotem 
 unum vel duos, vel tres bonse opinionis 
 laicos vel plures, si opus fuerit, jura- 
 menti religione constringat, quod dili- 
 genter et solicite investigent, si quos 
 ibi reperint hasreticos, credentes, fau- 
 tores, defensores, et receptatores 
 eorum, ut ipsi episcopo et rectoribus 
 civitatum, et dominis locorum, et 
 bajulis eorum, cum omni studeant 
 festinantia intimare, ut eos puniaut 
 
 a But adherents and receivers also, and maintainers, and favourers of 
 heretics, we decide to lie under excommunication. 
 
 b That heretics and their supporters are to be excommunicated on Sundays 
 and holy days. 
 
 Also we decree, that upon each Sunday and holiday, that all heretics, under 
 whatever name they be classed, and all their adherents, receivers, maintainers, 
 and fautors be, with toll of bell and extinction of candle, excommunicated and 
 anathematized. 
 
 c Concil. Tolos. cap. viii. ; Labbe et Cossart. torn, xi., p. 1, col. 42. Paris, 
 1671. 
 
 a We add, moreover, that each archbishop or bishop either in person or 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 15 
 
 secundum canonicas et legitimas sanc- 
 tiones : nihilominus bona haereticorum 
 confiscantes, qui incarcerari debent 
 ad arbitrium episcopi sufficiente pro- 
 visione reddenda.* 
 
 Here again we have the order given by the superior, and 
 the inferior officer issuing the necessary directions to carry 
 the said order into effect. No recognition can be more 
 complete. 
 
 The Canons of the Council of Aries, with the exception of 
 the twenty-fourth, were renewed in A.D. 1236. 
 
 Not less remarkable than the above is the testimony 
 afforded by a " General Decree" of the Council of Sens, 
 A.D. 1527, 1528, to the genuineness of the third Laterari 
 Canon. The whole of the decree is too long to extract, but 
 we give portions of it which amply bear out what we have 
 just said. 
 
 Later an, Canon III. General Decree of Sens. 
 
 Excommunicamus et anaiheinatiza- In primis juxta Lateranense Con- 
 
 mus omnem hceresim extollentem se cilium, excommunicamus et anathema- 
 
 adversus hanc Catholicam fidem quatn tizamus omnem hceresim extollentem se 
 
 superius exposuimus ; credentes vero adversus orthodoxam et Catholicam 
 
 prceterea, receptores, defensores, et fau- ecclesiam. . . . ejusdem Concilii autori- 
 
 tores hcereticorum excommunicationi tate credentes, receptatores, defenswes et 
 
 decernimus subjacere. fautores kcereticorum excommunicationi 
 
 subjacere decernimus. 
 
 We have not only the very words of the third Lateran 
 Canon given in the above extract, but we are plainly told that 
 the intention is to carry out the behests of the Lateran 
 Council. Equally plain declarations are made in other portions 
 of the decree, " hinc est quod districts juxta sacrum generate 
 Lateranense Concilium prohibemus;" b and these provisions of 
 the third Canon are enjoined to be carried into effect. So 
 
 by his own archdeacon, or fit and respectable persons, should twice, or any 
 way once each year, go through any parish in which it is reported that 
 heretics are living ; and there lay some three or more individuals of good 
 report, or if need be, the whole neighbourhood under oath, that if any one 
 learns that any heretics, or other persons are holding their meetings there, 
 or not joining in the ordinary ways and manner of living^ he take care to 
 make the bishop acquainted therewith. 
 
 a Wherefore that heretical parties may the more completely be got rid of, 
 we ordain that in every parish, both within the city and without, every bishop 
 put one or more priests, if need be, under oath, that they carefully and dili- 
 gently look after any heretics who may be found there, or adherents, favourers, 
 maintainers, and receivers of the same, and acquaint the bishop himself as- 
 soon as possible, and the rector of the cities, the principal lord of the place, 
 and their bailiffs, in order to have them punished according to canonical and 
 proper orders, &c. Labbd and Cossart, torn. xi. p. 11, col. 2341. 
 
 b I.e., Hence it is that following most carefully the holy general Lateran 
 Council. 
 
16 PERSECUTIONS. 
 
 again we road, " . . . . et si in expurgando hujusmodi fermento 
 fuerint remissi aut negligentes intelligant se poenas incursuros 
 quce sacro yenerali Lateranensi Concilia continentur." 3 
 
 In which of the Lateran Councils and in what particular 
 Canon the threatened penalties "are contained," is clearly 
 shown by the extracts given above. The Canon, too, is 
 treated as a well known document, otherwise the bishops 
 would scarcely understand the penalties which negligence 
 or remissness on their part would incur. 
 
 The above testimonies might be deemed fully sufficient to 
 rescue the Canon from the unhandsome treatment it has 
 received at the hands of those, who, in all honesty and duty, 
 were bound to support its most just claims. We will, however, 
 appeal to the testimony of a witness of whom Rome ought to 
 be very proud, and especially those of her children who reside 
 in the British dominions, as he completely exonerates England 
 from treating so important a document with the disrespect 
 insinuated by Dr. Milner, b who writes, " It has never been 
 even published or talked of in these islands ! " 
 
 Cardinal Pole, in a Council assembled at Lambeth, A.D. 1556, 
 called into notice and into action the third Canon of the 
 Fourth General Council of Lateran ! c The cardinal, in his pre- 
 face to the decrees, exhorts the archbishops and other prelates 
 to enforce the Constitutions by ecclesiastical censure on the 
 contumacious, and, if need be, to call in the secular arm. In 
 the second decree the books to be used by the clergy are 
 pointed out, and the decree of the Fifth Lateran Council, 
 " De Libris imprimendis," is enforced ; the decree afterwards 
 proceeds thus : " But that the people may know, every error 
 of former times being taken away, what doctrines to follow, 
 what they ought to avoid, together with this same Synod we 
 reverently take up and embrace, according to the rules and 
 dogmas of the holy fathers, all that faith which the Holy and 
 Apostolic Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all 
 Churches, holds and teaches, and we decree that the same be 
 done by all, and openly professed : and, according to the decrees 
 of the General Council celebrated under Pope Innocent III., of 
 happy memory, and of other Councils and Roman Pontiffs, and 
 traditions, and the very letters Apostolical, which are wont to 
 be read ' IN DIE CCEN.E DOMINI/ we condemn and altogether 
 
 a That is If they manifest any carelessness or want of care in getting rid of 
 this adulteration, they are to be informed that they will incur the same punish- 
 ment, as decreed by the Holy General Lateran Council. 
 
 b Letter xlix. 
 
 c Reformatio Angliae, ex decretis Reginald! Poli, Cardinalis, Sedis Apo- 
 stolicae Legati. Labbe* et Cossart, torn. xiv. col. 1784, et seq. Paris, 1671. 
 
FOURTH COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 17 
 
 Reject, every heresy exalting itself against this holy, orthodox , 
 and Catholic faith, and whatever is different from it : every 
 dogma which is at variance with the same faith, or does not 
 agree with it, we prohibit and forbid to be believed, practised, 
 or taught : all heretics, of whatever name and kind, who 
 otherwise believe, hold, and teach, than the same Roman 
 Church believes, holds, and teaches, we condemn and anathe- 
 matize : also all censures and punishments enacted against 
 heretics and favourers of them, and against ordinaries and all 
 others, to whom the office belongs, negligent in extirpating 
 heresies, we renew and enjoin to be fully executed." a The 
 internal evidence furnished by the decree of the Lambeth 
 Synod indicates its source too clearly to admit of a doubt, 
 even had not the cardinal himself told us what Canons he 
 intended should be put in force. Should any one contend 
 that the cardinal did not refer to the third Canon of the 
 Fourth Lateran Council, he would be reduced to the necessity 
 of admitting, what we have before stated, that it is of little 
 consequence whether the genuineness of the disputed Canon be 
 established or not, as far as Rome has the will, and asserts her 
 right, to persecute those who dissent from her creed ! Let 
 the reader bear in mind that Dr. Milner's defence amounts* 
 to nothing, unless the Council did pass this atrocious Canon ; 
 that Collier's blunder can only be urged by those who admit 
 that sixty-nine Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council are to 
 be found in the " Mazarine copy coeval with the Council ;" 
 whilst the authenticity and genuineness of the document in 
 question is amply proved by the decrees of other Councils 
 which have never been impugned ! We might, as far as relates 
 to the charge of maintaining the doctrine of persecution, safely 
 consign the whole seventy decrees of the Council at once to the 
 flames ; but, it might be said, as the editor of " Instructions 
 secretes des Jesuites" observes, when speaking of a certain 
 work condemned, by the Parliament of Paris, to be burnt, 
 " B ruler le livre n'etait pas bruler la doctrine" 
 
 a See "Statutes of the Fourth General Council of Lateran," by the 
 Rev. John Evans, A.M. London, Seeleys, 1843. p. 65, 66. [We especially 
 recommend this work to our readers. ED.] 
 
18 
 No. XVIII. 
 
 PURGATORY. 
 
 " Et quse necessitas est pro Purgatorio sic tumultuari, nisi quod Papistica 
 ecclesia lucro suo timet, quod insestimabile trahit ex Purgatorio ?" LUTHERT 
 Opera, torn. ii. fol. 119, ed. Witt. 
 
 SECT. I. Dr. Milner's Definitions of Purgatory Examined. 
 
 IT is a remarkable fact that a Church which proclaims 
 itself to be infallible should not have put forward a clear and 
 denned exposition or explanation of her belief on the subject 
 of Purgatory. This doctrine is left very much to the discre- 
 tion of the Bishops to explain as they best may. The Synod 
 of Trent "enjoined on Bishops that they diligently strive 
 that the sound doctrine touching Purgatory, delivered by the 
 Holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, held, and 
 taught, and everywhere proclaimed, by the faithful of Christ ; 
 but that the more difficult and subtle questions, and those 
 which tend not to edification, and from which for the most 
 part there is no increase of piety, should be excluded from 
 popular discourses specially before the uneducated multitude. 
 In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which seem 
 to border on error, they are not to be made subjects of public 
 discussion." But the holy Synod, having an eye to the 
 commercial value of the doctrine, directs the clergy to be 
 careful that " the suffrages of the faithful to wit, sacrifices 
 of masses, prayers, almsgiving, &c., which are wont to be 
 performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed be 
 piously rendered; and whatsoever things are due on their 
 behalf from the endoivments of testators, or in any other 
 way" (and here is the whole morale of the question), that 
 " these are to be discharged in a proper manner." [Sess. xxv. 
 Decree touching Purgatory.] 
 
 Dr. Milner declares " that all which is necessary to be 
 believed by [Roman] Catholics on this subject, is contained 
 in the following brief declaration of the Council of Trent : 
 ' There is a Purgatory, and the souls detained there are 
 helped by the prayers of the faithful, and particularly by 
 the acceptable sacrifice of the altar/ " a And in the next page 
 he would make out that the Romish Church has defined only 
 
 a Letter xliv. p. 414. 8vo. Edit. Derby, 1842. 
 
DEFINITION EXAMINED. 19 
 
 two points connected with this doctrine, " namely, as to there 
 being a middle state, which we call purgatory ; and as to the 
 souls detained in it being helped by the prayers of the living 
 faithful. True it is, they do not generally believe that these 
 souls are punished by a material fire ; but neither does our 
 Church require a belief of this opinion."* 
 
 The Council of Trent, at the 25th session, declared that 
 the " Catholic Church " on this head, " instructed by the 
 Holy Ghost/' derives this doctrine from " the sacred writings 
 and the ancient traditions of the Fathers." 
 
 In laying out this doctrine, Dr. Milner finds it needful 
 to tread very lightly ; and he has accordingly furnished as 
 meagre an explanation and detail as possible, in order to 
 render the work he has undertaken more easy, namely, to 
 make this modern Tridentine doctrine accord with the 
 teaching of " the sacred writings and the ancient traditions 
 of the Fathers/' But we would remind Dr. Milner and the 
 circulators of his book, that there is a little more to be 
 learned on this subject, which "is necessary to be believed 
 by [Roman] Catholics." 
 
 In order, therefore, fully to appreciate Dr. Milner' s argu- 
 ments, we beg to fill up the little hiatus which he has left. 
 
 The " brief declaration," rendered briefer still by his manner 
 of quoting it, refers to a Canon then recently passed by the 
 Synod on the same subject. 
 
 The Canon referred to was passed at the 6th session of 
 the same Council of Trent in January, 1547. By the thirtieth 
 Canon on Justification, it is decreed, " If any one shall affirm 
 that, after the grace of justification received, unto every 
 penitent sinner the guilt is so remitted, and the penalty of 
 eternal punishment so blotted out, that there remains not 
 any penalty of temporal punishments to be discharged, either 
 in this world or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance 
 to the kingdom of heaven can be laid open, let him be 
 accursed." And in the 22nd session (chap, ii.), it is 
 declared that the Romish sacrifice of the Mass is not only 
 " propitiatory," but what the minister offers on the altar is 
 the " one and the same victim which was offered on the 
 cross ; " whereby they tell us that this modern sacrifice, this 
 crucifying our Saviour anew, " agreeable to the traditions of 
 the apostles," "is rightly offered not only for the sins, 
 punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful 
 who are alive, but also for those who are departed in Christ, 
 who are not as yet fully purified and purged" 
 
 a Letter xliv. p. 415. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 PURGATORY. 
 
 Here we have, under the same authority, the additional 
 information that the Romish Purgatory is a place of punish- 
 ment ; but the Catechism of the Council of Trent goes further 
 still. 
 
 "Besides this (namely, hell) there is a purgatorial fire, in 
 which the souls of the pious, after suffering for a time, are 
 cleansed, and thereby admission obtained to the eternal 
 abodes, into which nothing unclean can enter."* 
 
 The authority of this Catechism is undoubted. The well- 
 known Dr. Doyle, on his examination before a committee of 
 the Lords, declared it to be the most approved and authentic 
 summary of the creed, faith, and morals of the Roman 
 Church. 5 
 
 The same Catechism, a little further on (part i., sec. x.), 
 again refers to "expiation by the fire of Purgatory." 
 
 From other Catechisms, however, we obtain still further 
 information ; for instance, 
 
 Dr. Challoner describes Purgatory as " a middle state of 
 souls which depart this life in God's grace, yet not without 
 some lesser stains of guilt of punishment which retard them 
 from entering heaven : " and the Christians who go to Pur- 
 gatory are, " 1st, such as die guilty of lesser sins, which we 
 commonly call venial ; as many Christians do, who, either by 
 sudden death or otherwise, are taken out of this life before 
 they have repented of these ordinary failings ; 2nd, such as, 
 having been formerly guilty of greater sins, have not made 
 full satisfaction for them to the divine justice." 
 
 And in a similar strain Cardinal Bellarmine writes : 
 
 " By the pains of Purgatory, venial sin is expiated in respect 
 of its guilt." d 
 
 And again, "Purgatory exists for those only who die in 
 venial sin, and for those who depart this life with liability to 
 punishment, their guilt having been already remitted." 6 
 
 And Thomas Aquinas, a canonized saint of the Church 
 of Rome, asserts that " it is inconsistent with the Catholic 
 faith to deny a Purgatory of faithful souls, which have de- 
 
 a ' ' Prseterea est purgatorius ignis, quo piorura animae ad definitum tempus 
 cruciatae expiantur, ut eis in aeternam patriam ingressus patere possit, in quara 
 nihil coinquinatum ingreditur." Catech. Concil. Trid. part. i. v. Purg. 
 Ignis, p. 61. Paris, 1848. 
 
 b Digest, Lords, March 21, 1825, part i. p. 176. 
 
 c "The Grounds of the Catholic Doctrine," &c. By Rev. Rich. Chal- 
 loner, D.D., Vic. Ap. 15th Edition. London, 1843. Pp. 39, 40. 
 
 d Per pcenas purgatorii peccatum veniale expiatur etiam quoad culpam." 
 Bell. Oper. torn, ii., De Purg. lib. ii. cap. 6. Colon, edit. 1628. 
 
 6 " Purgatorium pro iis tantum esse, qui cum venialibus culpis moriuntur, 
 et pro illis qui decedunt cum reatu pcense, culpis jam remissis." Idem, 
 lib. ii. c.l. 
 
DEFINITION EXAMINED. 21 
 
 parted hence in a state of grace."* And Cardinal Cabassutius 
 declares : " There is a certain place of Purgatory in which 
 the souls of the faithful, departing in the favour of Christ, 
 which have not yet made complete and adequate satisfaction 
 for their faults by works worthy of repentance, are purified 
 by temporary tortures." b 
 
 That the fire is believed to be a material fire, is plain from 
 Cardinal Bellarmine, who states that "it is the general 
 opinion of theologians, that the fire of Purgatory is a true 
 and proper fire, and of the same quality with our elementary 
 fire ;" c and that " almost all theologians teach that the damned 
 and the souls in Purgatory are in the same place, and tortured 
 in the same fire," d and he certifies to and approves of the 
 saying of Cardinal Cajetan, " that the punishment, which 
 remains to be undergone after the remission of the guilt, is 
 that very same sensible punishment which the sinner ought 
 to suffer in hell, its permanent endurance alone excepted." e 
 
 To this it is important to add that the soul supposed to be 
 viz. in Purgatory can be freed, or the duration of the sufferings 
 can be shortened, otherwise than by the sacrifice of the Mass; 
 in this life by repeating certain prayers and going through 
 certain penitential works, and after this life by Indulgences ; 
 and again by others in this life taking upon themselves to 
 satisfy, and by prayers and mortifications to obtain relief 
 for those who are suffering in Purgatory. We are told in 
 the " Hours of the Blessed Virgin, according to the ritual of 
 the Church of Salisbury," that " whosoever in the state of 
 grace shall say seven prayers before the crucifix, and seven 
 Paternosters, and seven Ave Marias, shall attain fifty-six 
 thousand years' pardon; fourteen thousand granted, by St. 
 Gregory, fourteen thousand by Nicholas I., and twenty-eight 
 thousand by Sixtus IV." f Souls, it appears, are liberated from 
 
 a " Est a fide Catholica alienura negare fidelium ani'marum, quae hinc in 
 statu gratiae decesserint." Thorn. Aquinat. Sumina Theol. ISuppl. quaest. 
 100. DePurg. Duaii, 1614. 
 
 b " Aliquem esse purgatorii locum, in quo fidelium in Christi gratia dece- 
 dentium animae, quse necdum dignis pcenitentiae operibus pro culpis de integro 
 et ex aequo satisfacerunt, cruciatibus ad tempus expurgantur." Cabassutii 
 Notit. ConciL Flor. c. xcii. p. 645. Lugd. 1670. 
 
 c "Communis sententia theologorum est verum et proprium esse ignem (pur- 
 gatorii), et ejusdem speciei cum nostro elementari." Bellarm. Opera, torn, ii., 
 De Purgat. lib. ii. e. 11. Colon. 1628. 
 
 < l " Theologi fere omnes decent eodem in loco esse et eodem igne torqueri 
 damnatos et animas purgatorii." Idem, c. 6. 
 
 e "Nam (ut recte explicat Card. Cajetan. in Tract, de Contritione, quaest. 4) 
 posna ilia quse luenda restat post culpae remissionem est ilia ipsa pcenasensus, 
 quam in Gehenna pati debuisset peccator, remota solum aeternitate." Bellarm. 
 Opera, torn. iii.,"De Pcenitentia, lib. iv. c. 1. Colon. 1628. 
 
 1 See further extracts from this, with the references, in -Tyler's Primitive 
 Christian Worship, part ii. chap. 1. London, 1847. 
 
22 PURGATORY. 
 
 Purgatory by the act of the Pope, and, when duly delegated,, 
 by bishops and priests. This is effected by the application 
 to the suffering souls of a portion of the " treasures of the 
 Church/' a which sacred treasure consists "of the super- 
 abundant merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord, 
 and of his Virgin Mother, and of all the saints." 
 
 " We have resolved/' says Pope Leo XII., " by virtue of 
 the authority given to us from heaven, fully to unlock that 
 sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and 
 virtues of Christ our Lord, and of his Virgin Mother, and of 
 all the saints, which the Author of human salvation has 
 intrusted to our dispensation. To you, therefore, venerable 
 brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, it 
 belongs to explain with perspicuity the power of Indulgences ; 
 what is their efficacy in the remission, not only of the canonical 
 penance, but also of the temporal punishment due to the 
 divine justice for past sin ; arid 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 denied is 
 admissible!"" 
 
 On these imaginary treasures they pretend to draw from 
 time to time, and apply them to the necessities of the less 
 fortunate brethren " purifying in the fire of Purgatory, that 
 an entrance may be opened for them" to heaven. This pre- 
 supposes the truth of the doctrine of Supererogation; i.e. that 
 we can do more good works than are necessary for our 
 salvation, and that these superabundant good works are 
 treasured up and reserved by the Church, to be applied to 
 make up the deficiency of others. 
 
 In this spirit, while enlarging on the wondrous virtues of a 
 saint of his Church, St. Pacificus of San Saverino, Dr. 
 Wiseman describes one of the occupations of this individual, 
 " whose heart," he tells us, " burned with the desire of 
 freeing the souls that are afflicted in Purgatory from the most 
 cruel and bitter torments ; as cheerfully taking upon himself 
 to satisfy, both by prayer and mortification, some portion of 
 the punishment which the souls of the members of the 
 suffering Church are doomed to endure." c 
 
 a Bell, de Indulg. sec. 3, p. 657, torn. iii. Prag. 1721. 
 
 h Bull of Pope Leo XII. Laity's Directory ; Keating & Brown, London, 1825. 
 c Lives of St. Alphonsus, &c., edited by Dr. Wiseman, p. 202. 
 London, 1847. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 23 
 
 All this is confirmatory of the teaching of the Church of 
 Home as defined by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, 
 where we find it laid down under the chapter on Penance and 
 Satisfaction, founded on the text Gal. vi. 2, under the title, 
 " One person can make satisfaction to God for another." 
 
 " Herein, indeed, must we magnify, with the greatest 
 praises and thanksgivings, the great goodness and mercy of 
 God, who has granted this indulgence to human weakness, 
 namely, that one person should be able to make satisfaction 
 for another; which, indeed, is, in a pre-eminent sense, a 
 
 property of this part of penance Those who are endowed 
 
 with divine grace can, in the name of another, fully pay to 
 God what is owed to God (by the other) ." a 
 
 Thus then it appears that Purgatory is represented by 
 Romanists to be a place and not merely a state of suffering, 
 where external torture is undergone from material fire ; that 
 those only who die in venial sins, who have not made sufficient 
 satisfaction in this life, go there; that it is a place for the souls 
 of the pious only " the truly penitent and justified sinner" 
 for those whose sins have been forgiven, but who have to 
 undergo punishment for those sins though forgiven ; and that 
 the souls there detained can be assisted or relieved by cer- 
 tain acts done in this life by survivors. 
 
 This explanation is necessary, in order to enable us to judge 
 of the value of Dr. Milner's evidence, adduced to prove that 
 the doctrine is sanctioned by Scripture and the tradition of 
 the Fathers ; and we shall be able also fully to admire his 
 summary decision in defining, in three lines, all " that is ne- 
 cessary to be believed by [Roman] Catholics on this subject." 
 
 SECT. II. Alleged Scriptural Evidence. 
 
 DR. MILNER, in Letter xliii., quotes a passage from the 
 Confutation of Dr. Porteus, wherein he is represented as 
 saying " There is no scriptural proof of the existence of Pur- 
 gatory. Heaven and hell we read of perpetually in the Bible, 
 
 a Catech. Concil. Trid. I. pars ii. De Pcenitentise Sacramento, Nos. cix. 
 and ex. p. 312. Paris, 1848. 
 
 "cix. Satisfacere polesl unus pro olio. In eo vero summa Dei bonitas et 
 dementia maximis laudibus et gratiaruin actionibus praedicanda est, qui 
 
24 PURGATORY. 
 
 but Purgatory we never meet with ; though surely if there be 
 such a place, Christ and his Apostles would not have concealed 
 it from us." 
 
 This is a fair issue, and Dr. Milner, contrary to his usual 
 manner, meets the objection with a bold front. This he 
 thinks he can afford to do, if his simple definition of the 
 Papal doctrine is to pass : " there is a Purgatory/' i.e. a middle 
 state. Dr. Milner asserts, " First, the Apostles did teach their 
 converts the doctrine of Purgatory among their other doctrines, 
 as St. Chrysostom testifies [no reference] and the tradition of 
 the Church proves ; secondly, that the same is demonstratively 
 evinced from both the Old and New Testament." a 
 
 The doctor, however, objects to the collusiveness of Bishop 
 Porteus's argument, and produces an alleged parallel case. 
 We are informed that " Scripture nowhere commands us to 
 keep the first day of the week holy. We perpetually read of 
 sanctifying the Sabbath, or Saturday, but never meet with 
 the Sunday as a day of obligation ; though, if there be such 
 an obligation, Christ and his Apostles would not have con- 
 cealed it from us!" But on reference to the Rhemish 
 Testament now in circulation in Great Britain, edited by 
 Dr. Challoner, and circulated with the written approval of 
 Dr. Wiseman, in a note to Acts xx. 7, we find Chrysostom, 
 the very authority appealed to by Dr. Milner, brought forward 
 to testify against him. The note runs: "And on the first 
 day of the week. Here St. Chrysostom with many other 
 interpreters of the Scriptures explain, that the Christians, 
 even at this time, must have changed the Sabbath into the 
 first day of the week (the Lord's day) as all Christians now 
 keep it." If this be so, the change of Sabbath can be proved 
 by Scripture, and the Apostles did not conceal it from us. 
 
 The Scriptural texts on which Dr. Milner relies to prove 
 demonstratively the divine origin of Purgatory are thus intro- 
 duced and commented upon by him : 
 
 *To begin with the Old Testament, I claim a right of 
 considering the two first books of Machabees as an integral 
 part of them ; because the Catholic Church so considers 
 
 humanae imbecillitati hoc condonavit, ut unus posset pro altero satisfacere ; 
 quod quidein hujus partis posnitentise maxirae proprium est. 
 
 "ex. . . . Ita qui divina gratia prsediti sunt, alterius nomine possunt, quod 
 Deo debetur persolvere ; quare fit ut quodam pacto (Gal. vi. 2) alter alterius 
 onera portare videatur." 
 
 a Dr. Wiseman, in his Moorfields " Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and 
 Practices of the Catholic Church/' lecture xi. vol. ii. p. 53 (London, 1851), 
 is by no means so bold : he bases the authority of Purgatory on Tradition, 
 "yet not but that its principle is laid down, indirectly at least, in the Word 
 of God." 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 25 
 
 them/ from whose traditions, and not from that of the Jews, 
 as St. Augustin b signifies, our sacred canon is formed. Now 
 in the second of these books, it is related that the pious 
 general. Judas Machabeus, sent 12,000 drachmas to Jerusalem, 
 for sacrifices to be offered for his soldiers slain in battle ; after 
 which narration the inspired writer concludes thus : It is 
 therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, 
 that they may be loosed from their sins (2 Mach. xii. 46). I 
 need not point out the inseparable connection there is between 
 the practice of praying for the dead, and the belief of an 
 intermediate state of souls ; since it is evidently needless to 
 pray for the saints in heaven, and useless to pray for the 
 reprobate in hell. But even Protestants, who do not receive the 
 books of Machabees as Canonical Scripture, venerate them as 
 authentic and holy records: as such, then, they bear conclusive 
 testimony of the belief of God's people on this head, 150 years 
 before Christ. That the Jews were in the habit of practising 
 some religious rites for the relief of the departed, at the 
 beginning of Christianity, is clear from St. Paul's first Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, where he mentions them, without any 
 censure of them ; c and that this people continue to pray for 
 their deceased brethren, at the present time, may be learned 
 from any living Jew. 
 
 " To come to the New Testament : What place, I ask, must 
 that be which our Saviour calls Abraham's bosom, where .the 
 soul of Lazarus reposed (Luke xvi. 22) among the other just 
 souls, till, by his sacred passion, he paid their ransom ? Not 
 heaven, otherwise Dives would have addressed himself to 
 God instead of Abraham ; but evidently a middle state, as 
 St. Augustin teaches. d Again, of what place is it that St. 
 Peter speaks, where he says, Christ died for our sins, being 
 put to death in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, in which 
 also coming, he preached to those spirits that were in prison 
 (1 Peter iii. 19). It is evidently the same which is mentioned 
 in the Apostle's Creed : He descended into hell ; not the hell 
 of the damned, to suffer their torments, as the blasphemer 
 Calvin asserts, 6 but the prison above mentioned, or Abraham's 
 bosom ; in short, a middle state. It is of this prison, accord- 
 ing to the holy Fathers/ our blessed Master speaks, where 
 
 a ' Coucil. Carthag. iii., St. Cyp., St. Aug., Innocent I., Gelas., &c." 
 b 'Lib. xviii. De Civ. Dei." 
 
 ' Else what shall they do, who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise 
 not at all ? why are they then baptized for them ? 1 Cor. xv. 29." 
 ' De Civit. Dei, 1. xv. c. 20." 
 'Instit. 1. ii. c. 16." 
 Tertul., St. Cypr., Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, &c." 
 
26 PURGATORY. 
 
 he says, / tell thee thou shall not depart thence till thou hast 
 paid the very last mite (Luke xii. 59). Lastly, what other 
 sense can that passage of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians 
 bear than that which the holy Fathers* affix to it, where the 
 Apostle says, The day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire, and 
 the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any 
 man's work abide he shall receive a reward. If any man's 
 ivork be burnt he shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be 
 saved, yet so as by fire (1 Cor. iii. 13 15) ? The prelate's 
 diversified attempts to explain away these scriptural proofs of 
 Purgatory are really too feeble and inconsistent to merit that 
 I should even mention them. I might here add, as a further 
 proof of a Purgatory, the denunciation of Christ concerning 
 blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, namely, that this sin shall 
 not be forgiven either in this world or the world to come 
 (Matt. xii. 32) ; which words clearly imply that some sins are 
 forgiven in the world to come, as the ancient Fathers sho\v." b 
 (Letter xliii. pp. 411413.) 
 
 If the reader will take this scriptural explanation and com- 
 pare it with the teaching of the Church of Borne as we have 
 shown it, derived from their own documents, he will search 
 in vain for the clear demonstration alleged by Dr. Milner. It 
 amounts to this, according to his own showing : That a cele- 
 brated Jew wrote that it was a holy and wholesome thing to 
 pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins ; 
 and on this Dr. Milner takes for granted that the connection 
 between the practice of praying for the dead and a belief of 
 an intermediate state is inseparable. That Lazarus was in a 
 middle state when he was in Abraham's bosom; and that 
 Christ preached to spirits that were in prison, which was the 
 same place as when He "descended into hell/' from which 
 prison no person can depart till he has paid the last mite. 
 That the day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire, and that 
 fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any 
 man's work abide he shall receive a reward. If any man's 
 work be burnt he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be 
 saved, yet so as by fire. And lastly, that blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven either in this world or 
 the world to come, which clearly implies that some sins are 
 forgiven in the world to come. 
 
 a "Origen, Horn. 14inLevit.,&c.;St. Ambrose in Ps.cxviii.; St. Jerom.lib.ii. 
 contra Jovin.; St. Aug. in Ps. xxxvii., where he prays thus: 'Purify me, O 
 Lord, in this life, that I may not need the chastising fire of those who will be 
 saved, yet so as by fire.' " 
 
 b " St. Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. xxi. c. 24 ; St. Greg. lib. iv. ; Dialog. Bed. in 
 cap. iii. Marc." 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 27 
 
 We would ask any impartial reader whether Dr. Milner's 
 alleged demonstrative proofs are not merely arbitrary interpret- 
 ations and assertions; and that, from his own showing, the 
 Popish doctrine of Purgatory is not even hinted at in these 
 several texts. If Dr. Milner fails to prove his case on his 
 own showing, it is scarcely necessary to continue the exami- 
 nation. The plan of our work, however, compels us to follow 
 up his line of argument. 
 
 4 
 
 I. (2 Mace. xii. 46.) Dr. Milner claims the books of Mac- 
 cabees as an integral part of the Old Testament, because 
 " the Catholic Church so considered them." His authorities 
 are, " Concil. Carthag. iii., St. Gyp., St. Aug., Innoc. I., 
 Gelas., &c." Among these references, which are certainly 
 very meager, we have already fully examined the alleged 
 authority of the Council of Carthage and of Innocent I. (See 
 No. IX. Part I. pp. 81 3.) We cannot account for the appear- 
 ance of the name of the Bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, in Dr. 
 Milner's list ; for Rufinus, in his explanation of the Creed which 
 is found among Cyprian's works, and formerly attributed to 
 him, actually by name excludes the two books of Maccabees 
 from the list of Canonical Scriptures. And this is fully 
 admitted by Cardinal Bellarmine, a as also by Bishop Canus, b 
 though afterwards asserting gratuitously (cap. xi. Respons. 
 ad. 2.) that Rufinus so decided from his ignorance of patristic 
 tradition. The reference to Augustine we have also considered 
 very fully (Part I. No. IX. p. 78). Dr. Milner, however, 
 adds, as from lib. xviii., De Civitate Dei, that Augustine stated 
 that " the Sacred Canon of Scripture is to be formed from 
 the traditions of the Church and not from the Jews ; " giving 
 us thereby to understand that Augustine considered the 
 books of Maccabees as included in the " Sacred Canon of 
 Scriptures," whereas we have clearly shown that Augustine 
 did not include these books in the " Sacred Canon," properly 
 so called ; and this is further evident from the following 
 passage from Augustine : 
 
 " Although there may something be found in the book of Maccabees meet for 
 this order of writing, and worthy to be joined with the number of miracles, yet 
 we will not weary ourselves with any care thereof, for that we have in- 
 tended only to touch a short rehearsal of miracles contained in the Divine 
 Canon." c 
 
 a Bell, de Verbo Dei, lib. i. c. 20, p. 38, torn, i., edit. Prag. 1721. 
 b Can. Loc. Theolog. lib. ii. c. 10, p. 67. Colon. 1605. 
 1 Aug. de Mirab. Sacree Scrip, lib. ii. c. 34 ; torn. 3, pars i. p. 26. Parin, 
 1686. 
 
28 PURGATORY. 
 
 Evidently intending to exclude these books from the true 
 canon. 
 
 In the eighteenth book of the " City of God," cited by Dr. 
 Milner, chap, xxxvi., Augustine does admit that these books 
 are excluded from the Jewish Canon, but admitted in an 
 " Ecclesiastical Canon :" "Hos libros non Juda^i sed Ecclesia 
 pro canonicis habet." But here he was speaking of example 
 of life and instruction of manners, and as forming no part of 
 the divine rule of faith, as he clearly explains ; for in the 
 very same book and chapter he opens his meaning in a pass- 
 age which Dr. Milner has found it convenient to suppress ; 
 
 " This reckoning," he says, " is not found in the Holy 
 Scriptures that are called Canonical, but in certain other 
 books, amongst which are the books of Maccabees."* 
 
 So much then for the testimony of Augustine. 
 
 The testimony of Pope Gelasius we have already fully 
 considered [pp. 79 84. Part I.] . His opinion is evidently 
 based on a forged and apocryphal epistle of Isidore. But Du 
 Pin, the Roman Catholic historian, who strangely enough 
 treated this Canon as genuine, admits that mention is made 
 in it of only one book of the Maccabees, 5 and adds that 
 " these determinations were not followed by all authors and 
 all churches, until the matter was at last [namely, in 1546] 
 fully decided upon by the Council of Trent !" c 
 
 We will now examine the story itself, as it stands recorded 
 in the 2nd book of Maccabees. 
 
 It appears that on the day after the battle, when Judas and 
 his men were collecting the dead bodies, in order to bury 
 them in the graves of their fathers, they found, under the 
 coats of every one that was slain, things that had been con- 
 secrated to the idols of the Jamnites ; and this circumstance 
 is expressly stated to have been the cause of their death. 
 Hereupon Judas and his men besought God by prayer that 
 the sin might not be remembered, and also exhorted the 
 people to abstain from any repetition of the offence ; and 
 having made a collection of money, sent it to Jerusalem to 
 offer a sin-offering before the Lord. The Romanist asserts 
 that the expression here rendered (both by the Septuagint and 
 in our translation) a sin- offering, indicates and so rendered 
 in the Douay version a sacrifice for the sins of the 
 
 a " Haec supputatio non in scripturia sanctis quse appellantur canonicse, sed 
 in aliis invenitur, in quibus sunt et Machabfeorum libri." De Civ. Dei, lib. 
 xviii. c. 36, p. 519, torn. 7. Paris, 1685. 
 
 b Du'Pin's Hist, of the Canon, &c. fol., vol. i. p. 13. London, 1699. 
 
 c For the successive witnesses of the " Catholic Church," considered as a 
 matter of traditional evidence, see No. IX., p. 76, part i. ct seq. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 29 
 
 dead;' 11 who, according to modern Romish notions, must be 
 in Hell, and therefore were not in Purgatory. 
 
 a The following excellent remarks we borrow from the "Catholic Layman," 
 Dublin, August, 1854, p. 94 : 
 
 " Before we can rely on this writer's 'historical testimony,' we must know 
 exactly what his testimony is. We cannot be bound by an erroneous trans- 
 lation ; the writer wrote in Greek, and we must look to the Greek which he 
 wrote, to learn his testimony with accuracy. 
 
 " We look anxiously for the most authentic copy of the Greek, and we have 
 no hesitation in adopting, for this purpose, an ancient manuscript, belonging 
 to the Pope, which is carefully preserved in the Pope's library in the Vatican. 
 This book is at least 1,200 years old, if not more. There is no copy that can 
 compare with it in point of authority, except the Alexandrian Manuscript now 
 in the British Museum ; and the two copies agree in the place in question, and 
 every other Greek copy of Maccabees agrees with them too ; so we have no 
 room to doubt what the writer did really write in the Greek. And we are able 
 to make use of that valuable manuscript in the Pope's library, because an 
 exact copy of it was printed in the year 1587, by the authority of Pope Sixtus 
 the Fifth. 
 
 " We now give an exact translation from the Greek as then published by 
 Pope Sixtus ; and we place beside it the translation in the Douay Bible, that 
 our readers may compare the two. 2 Mace. xii. 43, &c. : 
 
 Douay Translation. Correct Translation. 
 
 43. And making a gathering he 43. And having made a preparation 
 sent twelve thousand drachms of sil- of two thousand drachms of silver, 
 ver to Jerusalem, for sacrifice to be according to a collection man by man, 
 offered for the sins of the dead, thinking he sent to Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice 
 well and religiously concerning the on account of sin, acting altogether 
 resurrection. well and correctly, reasoning con- 
 cerning the resurrection. 
 
 44. (For if he had not hoped that 44. For if he did not expect that 
 they that were slain should rise again, the slain ehould rise, it would have 
 it would have seemed superfluous and been superfluous and trifling to pray 
 vain to pray for the dead.) for the dead. 
 
 45. And because he considered that 45. Besides seeing that a most 
 they who had fallen asleep with god- excellent reward is reserved for those 
 liness had great grace laid up for them, falling asleep with piety, a holy and 
 
 46. It is therefore a holy and whole- pious thought. Wherefore concerning 
 some thought to pray for the dead, that the dead, he made atonement, to be 
 they may be loosed from sins. loosed from sin. 
 
 <( We have printed in Italics the places in which the difference is important ; 
 and we give here the corresponding Greek words, that those learned in that 
 language may satisfy themselves which translation is correct. In ver. 43, the 
 Greek words are, Tlpoaayaytiv Trepi afiaprtaQ Qvviav. In ver. 46, baia Kai 
 tvcref3t]g 77 nrivoia. bOtv irept TU)V TtOvrjKOTCjv rov t%i\aa[jiov tTroirjfraTO, Tf)Q 
 tt/iapnag a7ro\v9rjvat. We appeal to all Greek scholars if we have not trans- 
 lated this correctly. 
 
 " Observe, now, in verse 43, the historian does not say in the Greek (what 
 the Douay version is thought to say), that Judas Maccabeus offered the 
 sacrifice for the benefit of the dead. He says nothing of the dead ; he only 
 says that it was offered on account of sin. 
 
 " Observe, next, in verse 46, what the writer says about a holy and pious 
 thought is not spoken of what follows (as the Douay translation makes it 
 appear), but of what goes before. Every Greek scholar will see that it is 
 impossible to connect these words in 1 } he Greek with vvhat follows. It was the 
 belief in a reward for those who die the death of the righteous, that the author 
 of this book called a holy and pious thought. 
 
30 PURGATORY. 
 
 Now let us look back to the sentence in Dr. Milner's 
 letter above quoted, in which he brings this history as a 
 proof, to the effect that the practice of praying for the dead 
 
 " Observe, lastly, that the Douay Bible, in verse 46, again applies the benefit 
 to the dead ' to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.' But 
 the writer in the Greek does not say so. He does not say that the dead might 
 be loosed ; he does not say who were to be loosed, but he says that Judas made 
 an atonement concerning, or on account of, the dead ; he does not say /or the 
 dead, for then he would have written t'Trtp, whereas he has written Trspi, con- 
 cerning the dead ; and he does not say that they should be loosed, but ' to be 
 loosed,' which might be for Judas himself, and for others, if living : for if tfie 
 sins of the dead had brought the living under sin, an atonement would be re- 
 quired/or the living because of the dead. 
 
 " We observe here that Dr. Milner has argued only from verses 43 and 46 ; 
 he has not referred to ver. 44. We, therefore, answer here only from the verses 
 he relies on, and we will consider ver. 44 separately. 
 
 "From verses 43 and 46, rightly translated, our answer is clear. The sacri- 
 fice was offered, and the atonement was made, not for the dead but for the 
 living. 
 
 " It is a fact that, according to the law of Moses, the sin of those who were 
 slain had brought guilt upon the whole nation of the living, which required to 
 be atoned for by sacrifice, according to the Jewish law. 
 
 " We have a clear instance of such a case in the book of Joshua, chap. vii. 
 v. 1 'But the children of Israel transgressed the commandment, and took to 
 their own use of the anathema. For Achan, the son of Charm i, &c., took 
 something of the anathema, and the Lord was angry against the children of 
 Israel.' Here observe that one man only committed the sin, and it was un- 
 known to the rest, for he hid the thing in the ground (ver. 21), and yet it 
 brought God's anger on the whole people. 
 
 "Now, the sin on account of which Judas Maccabeus offered sacrifice was 
 exactly of the same kind. ' They found under the coats of the slain some of 
 the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews ' 
 (2 Mace. xii. 40). This was the anathema or accursed thing, which they, like 
 Achan, had taken ; and in the same way it brought God's anger on the nation. 
 
 " And the punishment was like in both cases. In Achan's case, the people, 
 after a succession of victories, in which none of them were killed, were put to 
 flight before their enemies, and many of them killed, because of what Achan 
 had done. Just so, Judas Maccabeus, after many victories, met with a check, 
 and some of his soldiers were killed ; and when they came to bury them, they 
 found the reason, that they had taken of the cursed thing. 
 
 " There was this difference in the two cases : In Achan's case, the guilty man 
 was not killed. The atonement consisted in putting him to death, by God's 
 command ; but there was sacrifice too, for all his sheep and oxen were burned 
 (Joshua vii. 24, 25, 26). But in the case before us, the idolaters were slain. 
 Judas, therefore, could not make atonement for the guilt that had been 
 brought upon the nation, by putting them to death ; and it was his duty to 
 look to the law of Moses and see what atonement was directed for such a case. 
 This he would find exactly prescribed in the book of Leviticus, chapter iv., 
 from verse 13 to 31, inclusive. In those circumstances it was the duty of 
 Judas Maccabeus to have such a sacrifice offered at Jerusalem, not for the 
 benefit of the dead, but that the living might be delivered from the sin or guilt 
 which the wickedness of the slain had brought upon the whole people. And 
 on looking back to the correct translation which we have given of verses 43 
 and 46, it will be seen that every word is exactly suitable to such a sacrifice : 
 for instance, when Judas provided the sacrifice, by a ' collection made man 
 by man,' it was evidently that each of the people should contribute to the 
 atonement, which was made for the people as a whole ; if the sacrifice had 
 been for the benefit of the dead, it would have been enough to collect from 
 those who desired to give. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 31 
 
 was the same among the ancient Jews 150 years before 
 Christ as among the early Christians, and Roman Catholics 
 of the present day. If that history of the Maccabees prove 
 
 "This is the true account of what is related in those two verses, because this 
 is what Judas was bound to do, according to the law of Moses, which was the 
 only rule that it was lawful for him to follow in that matter. Romanists will, 
 no doubt, acknowledge that Jews were strictly bound by the law of Moses, 
 both as to the manner of offering sacrifice and the purpose for which it was to 
 be offered ; excepting only in the case of persons inspired and directed by God, 
 which no one supposes was the case with Judas. 
 
 " Now, we have shown that, according to that law, it was his duty to offer 
 that sacrifice for the living ; and we have shown that the two verses on which 
 Dr. Milner relies, when rightly translated, are most appropriate to that sacrifice 
 which the law required for the living, and that those verses do not say it was 
 for the dead. Now, can any one show us, from the law of Moses, that it was 
 Judas's duty to offer sacrifice for the dead ? a We urge this upon him. If he 
 cannot (and we know he cannot), will he not agree with us that Judas offered 
 hia sacrifice according to the law, and not contrary to the law, seeing that 
 Judas was bound by that law, and was a most strict observer of it ? The 
 Jewish law commanded idolatry to be punished with death (Num. xv. 30, 31), 
 without any sacrifices. 
 
 "We have now given a full answer, as respects those two verses which Dr. 
 Milner argues from. We will now go on and consider v. 44, which he has 
 not introduced into his argument. 
 
 "It has been most plainly proved that the writer of that book was an 
 uninspired historian, he admits it himself. b It is a rule, in judging 
 
 a [Josephus is silent as to any act of this kind on the part of Judas. Antiq. 
 lib. xii. c. 12. ED.] 
 
 b [See Mace. xv. 38, 39. But we have several reasons for objecting to the 
 writer of the books of Maccabees being considered even an historian of un- 
 impeachable credit. We will cite a few cases to the point. In Mace. i. 6, 7, 
 it is said that Alexander, on his death-bed, divided his kingdom among his 
 ministers, whereas it is stated by historians that he died at Babylon, without 
 having made any division of his empire, and that it was not till after his death 
 that the principal officers of his army divided it among themselves. In 
 chapter vi., Antiochus is said to have died at Babylon of an illness caused by 
 a deep melancholy ; but in book 2, chap. i. verses 15, 16, it is affirmed that he 
 was stoned, and torn in pieces, at Nanea. And again, in chapter ix. verse 28, 
 he is represented as having died on the mountains, of a dreadful complaint. 
 In book 1, chap. viii. verse 7, it is said that Antiochus was taken alive by the 
 Romans, who presented Eumenes with the sovereignty of India, whereas it 
 is asserted by historians that they defeated Antiochus in three battles, but 
 never took him prisoner ; and as to India, the Roman empire never extended 
 so far as to that country. In verse 15, it is said that the Romans had esta- 
 blished a senate, and that every year they intrusted the supreme authority to 
 one individual. Now, it is well known that they every year elected two 
 consuls with sovereign power. As to what is said in book 2, chap. i. verse 19, 
 about fire being taken from the altar secretly, this is evidently a mere fable ; 
 and one is astonished to hear Razias commended for what he did, which he is 
 in chapter xiv. verse 46, for, as St. Augustine says well, it was a folly in 
 Razias to put himself to death, and no mark of wisdom or virtue. The same 
 Father, in another place, affirms, that to pretend to become a martyr to Jesus 
 Christ by destroying oneself, is to borrow from Judas the cord and the 
 precipice. Can one, moreover, believe an author to have been inspired by the 
 Spirit of God, when he says (2 Mace. xv. 38) that if he had done slenderly and 
 meanly, it was all he could attain unto? ED.] 
 
32 PUEGATORY. 
 
 anything at all of the practice of the Jews about prayer and 
 sacrifice for the dead, it proves that they prayed and sacrificed 
 for those who died in mortal sin, that they might be loosed 
 from their sins. Do " Roman Catholics of the present day" 
 pray and offer sacrifice for those who die in mortal sin, that 
 they may be loosed from their sins? Dr. Milner would tell 
 us that they do not that they consider this a wicked and 
 heretical doctrine, and that it is condemned by their Church 
 as such. How, then, can he tell us that this history proves 
 that the practice of the Jews was the same as theirs ? 
 
 Dr. Milner takes it for granted that the practice in ques- 
 tion was a constant part of the public worship of the Jews 
 that is to say, that they practised it always and continually as 
 a part of their public worship. But in fact it was (supposing 
 
 of all such historians, that a great difference is to be made between 
 the facts which the historian relates and his own reflections upon those 
 facts. The one may be most correct, and the other most erroneous. The 
 difference is greater still between the actions which the historian records, 
 and the historian's guess, for it can be little more than a guess, at the secret 
 thoughts which led the actor to do what he did. Dr. Milner must surely have 
 observed the importance of this distinction, in reading even historians of the 
 highest character and credit. 
 
 "The highest praise an historian can obtain is, that he keeps the facts which 
 he records distinct from his own reflections on those facts that he does not 
 allow his own reflections to influence the account of the facts. The writer of 
 this book has done it admirably. He evidently connected in his own mind 
 this sacrifice with the dead rather than with the living ; yet where he relates the 
 sacrifice verses 43 and 46 he does not say it was for the dead ; he describes 
 it exactly as it was, in the true translation. Verse 44 is riot the relation of 
 the fact, but his own reflection on the fact, which may be right or wrong, 
 without injury to his character for fidelity as an historian. 
 
 " We are, therefore, to consider this verse not as the relation of a fact, but 
 as the inference which he drew from the fact he relates. 
 
 " Now, how could the writer of this book know the secret thoughts of 
 Judas's mind ? How could he know that Judas was thinking of the resurrec- 
 tion ? If the writer was inspired, he could know it ; but if he was only an 
 uninspired man, it could only be a guess. 
 
 "Now, we are prepared to affirm that this writer was wrong in supposing 
 that Judas offered this sacrifice with any regard to the resurrection of those 
 who were slain. And still more we are prepared to expect that our Roman 
 Catholic readers will, on reflection, agree with us that the writer was wrong in 
 this (though, perhaps, not on exactly the same grounds that we think so). 
 Now, let them mark this ; the men who died on that occasion died in mortal 
 sin. They carried in their clothes the proofs of their idolatry, perhaps in 
 hopes to have the protection of the heathen gods in the battle ; but whatever 
 their motive, their sin was idolatry, which was a mortal sin. Romanists will 
 not deny this. Even the note on the Douay Bible acknowledges the sin of 
 which they were guilty to be a mortal sin, which cannot be denied, if we look 
 to Deuteronomy vii. 25, 26. That note in the Douay Bible supposed these 
 men might be excused through ignorance ; but how could any Jew be ignorant 
 that heathen idolatry was a mortal sin ? what Jew could be ignorant that 
 heathen idols were the accursed thing ? Let Roman Catholics mark this ; if 
 that sacrifice was offered for the dead, it was offered for those that were KNOWN 
 AND PROVED TO HAVE DIED IN MORTAL SIN, and, as we have shown, the 
 Jewish law commanded idolatry to be punished with death (Num. xv. 30, 31)." 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 33 
 
 the Romish interpretation be correct) a thing done only once, 
 150 years before Christ, and not repeated, so far as we can 
 derive any information from either inspired or profane history. 
 And indeed the history, even as it is given in the Douay 
 translation, does not profess to speak of what was usually 
 clone among the Jews, but only of what was done on that 
 particular occasion. But we need not insist further on this, 
 for if the history proves anything of the practice of the 
 Jews 150 years before Christ, it proves that their public 
 worship then comprised prayer and sacrifice for those who died 
 in mortal sin, and that they might be loosed from their sins, 
 whereas modern Romanists do not pray for those who die in 
 mortal sin these do not go to Purgatory ; nor do Romanists 
 pray that those in Purgatory may be loosed from their sins, 
 for in Purgatory sins are supposed to have been already for- 
 given. 
 
 We now appeal to our Roman Catholic readers whether 
 this be not conclusive proof that the reflections which the 
 writer of this book of 2nd Maccabees makes on the facts 
 which he records, are uninspired and subject to error ? Will 
 they now maintain that the opinion of this writer, contra- 
 dictory as it is, not only to the doctrine of the Gospel, but 
 even to the teaching of the Church of Rome, must needs be 
 inspired ? We add nothing to this, but that the writer of this 
 book is allowed to have been a Greek, and, as such, may have 
 had no opportunity of witnessing the public worship of the 
 Jews. See Acts xxi. 28, 29. 
 
 The text from Maccabees being the only passage in any 
 writing anterior to the Christian era which is now commonly 
 adduced in proof of the doctrine under examination, it 
 may reasonably be inferred that the Old Testament writers 
 knew nothing of Purgatory, notwithstanding the alleged 
 '* conclusive testimony of the belief of God's people on this 
 head 150 years before Christ." 
 
 The alleged " inseparable connection between the practice 
 of praying for the dead and the belief in an intermediate 
 state of souls [in Purgatory]," we will presently consider. 
 But before we dismiss the subject of the alleged Jewish 
 custom, we may draw attention to the mode in which this 
 subtle writer hurries to a conclusion, connecting one period 
 with another. 
 
 Dr. Milner declares it quite clear, from 1 Cor. xv. 29, 
 " Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if 
 the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then baptized for 
 them?" and from this he deduces "that the Jews were in 
 the habit of practising some religious rites for the relief of 
 
34 PURGATORY. 
 
 the departed." But is it at all clear that the text refers in 
 the remotest degree to the subject under discussion ? Do 
 Romanists now ff baptize for the dead" ? Dr. Milner should 
 have shown how this text applies to the case of souls in 
 Purgatory, or that ee baptizing for the dead" meant "praying 
 for deceased brethren " 
 
 Very far from being clear, this text seems to have given 
 great occasion for disagreement. The great Popish contro- 
 versialist and authority, Cardinal Bellarmine, in his treatise 
 on Purgatory, falls foul of this text, but does not deal with 
 it with such off-hand irreverence as this more modern aspir- 
 ant. He shows a -that the Fathers have given five different 
 interpretations of the passage in question. Bellarmine, sup- 
 ported by one Father Ephrem, does not hesitate to reject the 
 interpretation of Epiphanius, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, Tertullian, and Ambrose. And then, again, he shows 
 that we have the Romish Churchmen and Doctors, Petrus 
 Cluniacensis, Dionysius, Hugo, Gagneius, and others, who 
 differ in opinion from Blessed St. Thomas Aquinas, St. 
 Anselm, Sedulius, and Cardinal Cajetan, and that the Blessed 
 St. Thomas proves his respect for the Fathers by differing 
 from all of them. And from what Bellarmine himself 
 advances from the various interpretations adduced, we 
 arrive at the conclusion that nothing can be gathered from 
 this text in favour of Purgatory. 5 And yet this is the pas- 
 sage Dr. Milner has the hardihood to quote as most clear in 
 favour of Purgatory ! 
 
 But, again, we most emphatically deny Dr. Milner's con- 
 clusion, that " the Jews now pray for their deceased brethren" 
 in the same sense, or to the same end or purport, modern 
 Romanists do. We have carefully examined their books of 
 public and private devotion, and we can trace no similarity 
 whatever. 
 
 For the purpose of more precise information on this point, 
 we placed before a Jewish Rabbi, well known in London 
 both for his learning and his piety, two questions, and we 
 have much pleasure in transcribing the replies. 
 
 Q. What is the nature or object of prayers for or concern- 
 ing the departed in the Jewish Church ? 
 
 A. "They have no further object than that the sins of the 
 departed may be forgiven* The prayers consist of supplica- 
 
 * Bell, de Purgatorio, lib. i. c. 5. p. 1800, torn. i. Ingolst. 1590. 
 
 b See Finch's "Sketches of the Romish Controversy," vol. ii. p. 461. 
 London, 1850. 
 
 c The sins of the departed in Purgatory are supposed to be already forgiven. 
 The prayers are for the relief of the sufferers of the pain or the punishment 
 due for those sins already forgiven. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 35 
 
 tions and appropriate psalms, expressing submission to the 
 will of God, and our belief in eternal life. Psalm xlix. is 
 one peculiarly applicable, and always read at the house of 
 mourning." 
 
 Q. What do the Jews believe on the subject of an inter- 
 mediate state after this life and before the resurrection ? 
 
 A. " We know nothing of an intermediate state. We are 
 taught throughout our Scriptures to believe that on the dis- 
 solution of the body, the spirit or soul will return to the Lord, 
 who will then award reward or punishment according to its 
 deserts ; but in what manner, or when this will take place, is 
 not revealed to us. We, therefore, presume not to form any 
 conjectures, but rest satisfied that such will be the case, for 
 which Isa. Ixiv. is our warrant. N.B. Charitable offerings are 
 made in the synagogue the Sabbath after the decease of any 
 member of the congregation. These are not to purchase 
 prayers or blessings for the soul, but wholly and solely for 
 the benefit of the poor, without any ulterior object whatever. 
 The name of the deceased being associated with them is 
 merely a customary compliment to his or her memory." 
 
 The words in italics are those which are scored under by 
 the Jewish Rabbi. 
 
 II. (Luke xvi. 22.) Dr. Milner pretends that the place to 
 which Lazarus the beggar was carried by the angels, and 
 which our Saviour called " Abraham's bosom," was neither 
 heaven nor hell, but a third place, and, therefore, it is 
 inferred, must be the Popish Purgatory ! If we refer, how- 
 ever, to the note in the Rhemish Testament now in use, 
 " Abraham's bosom" is represented as being " the place of 
 rest, where the souls of the saints resided till Christ had 
 opened heaven by his death." 
 
 The Jesuit Maldonate, referring to this text, says, " I do 
 greatly suspect that by the bosom of Abraham the highest 
 heavens is intended. " a But we would ask any priest if he 
 can conscientiously take money from any person, or would 
 any person give money to a priest, for saying prayers or 
 masses to redeem his or his friend's soul out of Abraham's 
 bosom? Surely that is a state that needs none of his 
 masses ; neither would any other better than the " Serpent" 
 pray for souls to be redeemed out of Abraham's bosom ! b 
 
 It is admitted that the " limbus patrum," or the place 
 where the saints who died before the coming of Christ, 
 
 a " Valde suspicor per sinum Abrahce summum ccelum designari." Maldo. in 
 Lucam, p. 298. Mogunt. 1596. 
 
 b See Gooch's " Plain Truth Vindicated," p. 215. Waterford, 1830. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 PURGATORY. 
 
 went, is a different place from Purgatory. Yet this text is 
 adduced by Dr. Butler, in his Catechism, approved by four 
 Irish [Romish] Bishops, a in order to prove, or as referring 
 to, a limbo ; while Dr. Milner and Priest Keenan, b in his 
 Catechism, also approved by a like authority, adduce the 
 same text as referring to Purgatory. 
 
 III. (1 Peter iii. 18 20). Dr. Milner follows the usual 
 interpretation given to this text, and declares the prison here 
 mentioned to be Purgatory, and it is intimated that the mere 
 word is of itself sufficient to determine the question. 
 
 Now (writes Hall c ) there are many considerations which 
 lead to the conclusion, that the preaching of which the 
 Apostle speaks did not take place between the death of 
 Christ upon the cross and his resurrection from the tomb. 
 In the first place, it is said that the souls to whom Christ, by 
 his Spirit, preached, were such as had been t( disobedient," 
 and that the time of their disobedience was before the flood, 
 "while the ark was a- preparing/' so that the " long-suffering 
 of God" must denote his patience and forbearance in calling 
 them by his Spirit to repentance through the preaching of 
 Noah (Gen. vi.). Moreover, since those to whom Christ 
 preached were disobedient, it is clear that they were not 
 confined in that receptacle for the souls of the patriarchs, 
 which is known to Romanists, and to Romanists only, as the 
 limbus patrum, for themselves acknowledge that Noah and 
 the patriarchs were obedient preachers of righteousness. 
 Neither could it be to souls in Purgatory that Christ went 
 to preach, inasmuch as the souls there detained had already 
 received full remission of all their sins, and were only suffer- 
 ing in order to satisfy d God's demands previously to their 
 entrance into heaven. To what purpose, then, would be his 
 preaching, if no repentance or change could be effected by 
 it ? The text does not say he delivered them. If, indeed, 
 these disobedient people died in mortal sin, they went to 
 hell, whence there is no deliverance ; and if in a state of 
 grace, they went to limbus _, where there was no torment 
 requiring deliverance, 6 and where the preaching of Christ 
 would have been no less superfluous than in Purgatory. 
 
 a See 32nd Edit. p. 13. Dublin. 
 
 b Catechism, 3rd Edit. p. 159. 
 
 c Doctrine of Purgatory and the Practice for the Praying for the Dead, 
 Examined, pp. 56 62. London, 1843. 
 
 d Bellarm. de Christo, lib. iv. cap. 9; De Purg. lib. ii. cap. 6; Catechism, 
 ad Parochos, p. 74, edit. Lugd. 1579. 
 
 e Bellarm. de Purg. lib. ii. cap. G, 14. Catechis. ad Parochos, p. 73, ed. 
 Lusd. 1570. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 37 
 
 By attending to the scope of the Apostle's argument, as it 
 is carried on uninterruptedly from the 18th verse of the 
 third to the 7th of the following chapter/ it will be seen that 
 he is drawing a parallel between the antediluvians in the 
 days of Noah, and the Jews of his own time, and showing, 
 from the cases of those respectively who obeyed or disobeyed 
 the preaching of Christ by Noah, that a like distinction 
 would be made between those Jews who received or rejected 
 the offer of salvation which Jesus had died to purchase for 
 them. In the former part of the third chapter, he had been 
 exhorting his converts to the cultivation of a spirit of unity 
 and brotherly love, and to the maintenance of a Christian 
 life and conversation; entreating them not to be discouraged 
 in the discharge of their duty by the fear of persecution, for 
 that God was ever mindful of his servants; urging the 
 example of Christ, who, being without sin, underwent the 
 most cruel tortures and death ; and calling upon them rather 
 to glory that in any way they were deemed worthy to endure 
 suffering for his sake. He proceeds to assure them that con- 
 formity to the will of Christ, in renouncing sin, in cultivating 
 holy dispositions, in firmly adhering to the truth, was essen- 
 tially necessary to their eternal peace ; and this assurance he 
 confirms by a reference to the punishment inflicted upon 
 those who lived before the flood. To these rebellious spirits, 
 who are reserved in prison unto the judgment of the great 
 day, Christ had preached by his Spirit in Noah; but they 
 being disobedient perished, while the eight souls who obeyed 
 God's righteous laws were saved. And in like manner those 
 who, under the Gospel dispensation, believe and obey the truth, 
 will receive eternal salvation ; but those who abuse the invi- 
 tations and long-suffering of the Saviour, will be condemned 
 for ever in the prison of hell. 
 
 God himself has declared that his Spirit did strive with 
 man before the flood (Gen. vi. 3), which doubtless was the 
 Spirit in Noah, by which he became a preacher of righteous- 
 ness, and condemned the world of the ungodly (2 Peter xi. 5.; 
 Heb. xi. 7). It is therefore reasonable to conclude, with two 
 of the greatest divines 5 of our Church, that the Spirit by 
 which Christ is said to have preached in Noah to the wicked 
 spirits now in Hades, was that very Spirit by which he was 
 
 a It should be remembered that our Bibles were not originally divided into 
 chapters and verses, but each book, gospel, or epistle was written as in one 
 unbroken letter, so that the close connection in the argument, when the chain 
 of argument was uninterrupted by the commencement of a new chapter, 
 would then be more clearly seen than it is at present. 
 
 b Archbishop Tillotson and Bishop Pearson. 
 
38 PURGATORY. 
 
 raised from the dead. None other could it be than the Spirit 
 of his Divinity his Divine Spirit, and not his human soul 
 inasmuch as he could not be raised from the grave by virtue 
 of any other spirit ; and consequently this preaching has no 
 relation whatever to souls in a separate state. To say, as 
 Bellarmine at first did, that Christ preached in his soul only, a 
 is directly to contradict the statement of the Apostle, who 
 manifestly teaches that his going forth to preach was in the 
 Spirit of his Divinity, and before his appearance in the flesh. 
 It cannot, therefore, be understood of his preaching the 
 Gospel, between his death and resurrection, to departed spirits 
 in Purgatory. 
 
 With respect to the patristic interpretation of the pass- 
 age, Jerome observes that Christ preached to the spirits in 
 prison, when the patience of God waited in the days of 
 Noah, bringing the flood upon the wicked. 5 
 
 It may be (suggests Augustine) that the whole of St. Peter's 
 statement concerning the spirits in prison, who believed not 
 in the days of Noah, has no reference whatever to hell, but 
 rather to those times of which he has transferred the example 
 to our own. For, before Christ came once in the flesh to die 
 for us, he came after in the Spirit to those whom he would, 
 giving them by visions such spiritual intimations as he wished ; 
 by which Spirit he was also quickened when, during his 
 passion, he was mortified in the flesh. c With this interpre- 
 tation of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas agrees. d The Venerable 
 Bede also remarks : He who in our times, coming in the 
 flesh, preached the way of life to the world, preached also 
 before the flood, by his Spirit, to those who were then 
 unbelieving and carnally -minded. For he was by his Holy 
 Spirit in Noah and in other holy men who lived at that time, 
 and by their good conversation preached to the wicked men 
 of that age, that they might be converted to better things. 6 
 
 Lastly Calmet observes, that Christ preached by his Spirit, 
 with which he filled Noah, to the unbelievers of that time. 
 He preached, therefore, to those unbelievers, not in person, 
 or visibly, but by his Spirit communicated to Noah. f 
 
 a Bellarm. de Christ! Anima, lib. iv. cap. 13 16. For his change of 
 opinion see his Recognitio Librorum, torn. i. p. 1. ; Bp. Gibson's Preservative, 
 vol. xi. p. 78, ed. Lond. 1848 ; Bp. Pearson on the Creed, p. 228, fol. edit. 1715 ; 
 Eulke's Annotations upon the Khemish Testament, 1 Pet. iii. 19. 
 
 b Hieron. lib. xv., Comment, in Isai. cap. 54, torn. iii. col. 395. Ed. Paris. 
 1704. 
 
 c Aug. Epist. 164, ad Euodium, cap. 6. 
 
 d Sunim. Theol. pars iii. quaest. 52, art. xi. p. 145. Lugd. 1567. 
 
 e Beda in 1 Pet. iii. 19, torn. v. col. 980. Basil. 1563. 
 
 f Calmet, Comment, liv. xxiv. 159. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 39 
 
 From the opinion of these writers, it appears that they 
 interpret the passage precisely as we have done, referring the 
 preaching to the Holy Spirit in Noah, and making not the 
 slightest allusion to the preaching of Christ to suffering souls 
 in the unknown Papal region, after his death upon the cross. 
 His soul doubtless went where the souls of other men go 
 when separated from the body, or the perfection of his 
 human character would have been incomplete ; but as to the 
 notion that his soul was then employed in preaching to the 
 dead, not only does there appear wanting a solid reason for 
 his so doing, but also a deficiency of the same gift in those 
 who seek for one. 
 
 One of the modern advocates of Popery observes, with 
 reference to 1 Peter iii. 19 : " It is necessary to state that 
 the note upon this text in the Douay Bible does not pretend 
 even to urge it as a proof of Purgatory ; it merely says, it is 
 a proof of a third place." But Messrs. Berington and Kirk, 
 and likewise Mr. Husenbeth, certainly believe that the passage 
 proves Purgatory; as did also Mr. Gother, Dr. Challoner, 
 Dr. Milner, and the superiors by whose permission the 
 "Abridgment of Christian Doctrine" is scattered among the 
 Roman population. To the note then in the Douay version, 
 and the comment of Dr. T. Butler, we will apply the words 
 of Clemens Alexandrinus : a " Sometimes when they are con- 
 victed, they deny their principles ; being ashamed openly to 
 confess those doctrines of which in private they make their 
 boast." 
 
 IV. (Luke xii. 58, 59 ; and see the parallel passage, Matt. v. 
 25, 26) . Dr. Milner makes a strange bungle of his texts ; he 
 actually makes the Abraham's bosom, where Lazarus was at 
 rest, whither the souls of the just depart, to be the same 
 place where the very last mite or farthing is exacted by the 
 adversary who casts the delinquent into prison ! 
 
 The text runs thus : 
 
 Matt. v. 25, 26 ; Luke xii. 58, 59. " Agree with thine adversary quickly, 
 whilst thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver 
 thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast 
 into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, 
 till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." 
 
 According to Dr. Milner, and in fact the general Papal 
 interpretation, the farthings are " venial sins," the payment 
 
 a 'EvioTf k feat TO. tavTwv ^ifXtyxo/tevot apvovvrai doypara a 
 
 tlv aldovfitvoi a KO.T' ISiav av^ovai di$d0KovTt<; O%TWQ. Serin, lib. viii. 
 c. 16, torn. ii. p. 892. Oxon. 1715. 
 
40 PURGATORY. 
 
 is " human satisfaction," and the prison " Purgatory " A To 
 such lamentable straits are the supporters of this doctrine 
 reduced, that almost every text of Scripture which contains 
 the word " fire/' or that speaks of, or even alludes to, any 
 kind of " prison/' is seized upon with the utmost avidity, for 
 the sake of upholding their visionary views ; like the servants 
 of Benhadad, with ropes about their necks, who eagerly 
 watched the lips of the king of Israel, to catch a word that 
 might be favourable to their pitiable condition (1 Kings, xx. 
 3133). 
 
 The plain meaning of the precept is readily determined by 
 the context to apply solely to this life. It simply enjoins 
 that if any difference exist between a man and his neighbour, 
 it is the duty and interest of each to do all in his power to 
 promote immediate reconciliation and peace, and not need- 
 lessly suffer an appeal to be made to the judge, where the 
 loser may meet with painful, though just, severity. Now, 
 what can this have to do with purgatory ? 
 
 But take another view, and consider the spiritual applica- 
 tion of the injunction. It may be paraphrased to the effect 
 that man is a sinner; that God has a controversy with him; 
 that the present life only is the accepted, the proper time for 
 reconciliation ; that he is invited to return to God through 
 Christ ; that if he neglect the invitation and die in his sins, 
 he has only to expect the righteous sentence of his Judge, 
 and that doom from which he will not escape " until he has 
 paid the uttermost farthing." This is a method of expressing 
 continuity or eternity, of which similar examples are not 
 wanting m the Scriptures. Thus in Psalm ex. 1, " Sit thou 
 on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool" 
 (see also Isa. xxii. 14) ; from which text it cannot be sup- 
 posed that Christ will be removed from his high dignity as 
 soon as all his enemies have been subdued unto him. Surely, 
 then, nothing but a most perverted judgment can ever extract 
 from the text under consideration anything like a proof of 
 purgatorial durance. 5 
 
 Suppose, for a moment, that a man could pay the utter- 
 most farthing, in such case he would liquidate the debt, and 
 his venial sins would stand in no need of that remission or 
 
 a Bellarmine, torn, ii., De Purg., lib. i. cap. vii. p. 397. Ed. Coloniie, 
 1628. Milner, p. 413, letter xliii. 
 
 b If the word " until " (ew) is always to be understood as terminating at a 
 certain period, how will the Komanist, who constantly insists upon the 
 perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, get over the saying of St. 
 Matthew (i. 25), "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first- 
 born Son " ? According to the Papistical interpretation of the word in this 
 place, the Virgin Mary had children after the birth of our Saviour, which is 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 VCv,v : 
 XjVffo 
 
 forgiveness for which the Papist contends, when arguing 
 upon Matt. xii. 32. a Where payment is made, pardon is not 
 required. Besides, if no one who enters Purgatory is to come"' 
 out " until he has paid the uttermost farthing," of what avail 
 are prayers and masses for the sufferer while there ? Yet we 
 are told that by these means the dead are daily supposed to 
 come forth discharged from all payments to be made by 
 themselves. To be sure, it is not said by the Romish Church 
 where the debt is to be paid : so that a mortuary fee, or the 
 donation of some wealthy relative into the hands of a sordid 
 priesthood, may probably solve the difficulty. But it is said 
 in the text by whom it is to be paid ; " till thou" that is, 
 the sinner himself, not his friends and relatives, " till thou 
 hast paid the uttermost farthing." The debt, therefore, 
 admits of no commutation ; and, consequently, all the 
 masses and prayers in Christendom are superfluous and 
 nugatory. 
 
 In the interpretation which has been given above, it. will 
 be found that we are borne out by the authority of the 
 Fathers, and even by the Romanists themselves. 5 Thus, 
 St. Ambrose remarks, that the reconciliation must take place 
 " while we are in this body." c 
 
 known to be universally denied by the Romish Church. The note, however, 
 upon Matt. i. 25, in the Douay Bible, shall supply a comment upon the text 
 under review, and also exhibit a specimen of Romish consistency of interpre- 
 tation : 
 
 "Till she had brought forth her jirst-boi'n Son. From these words Helvidius 
 and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had 
 other children besides Christ. But St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, 
 that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among 
 the Hebrews, to denote by the word until only what is done, without any 
 regard to the future. Thus it is said, That Noah sent forth a raven, which went 
 forth, and did not return TILL the waters were dried up on the earth ; (Gen. viii. 
 6, 7 ;) that is, did not return any more. Also God says, / am TILL you grow 
 old (Isai. xlvi. 4). Who dares infer that God should then cease to be ? Also 
 in 1 Mac. v. 54, T7iey went up to Mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered 
 holocausts, because not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace ; that 
 is, not one was slain, before or after they had returned. God saith to his 
 divine Son, Sit on my right hand TILL / make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall 
 he sit no longer, after his enemies are subdued ? Yea, and for all eternity." 
 See Hieron. advers. Helvid. de Perpet. Virg. B.M., torn. iv. col. 133. Paris. 
 1706. 
 
 a " In Purgatory only is remission of sin, and not in hell, nor in heaven." 
 Abstract of the Douay Catechism, p. 95. London : Andrews, 1839. 
 
 "Assuredly we have a right to conclude that there is some remission of sin 
 in Purgatory." Dr. Wiseman, Lect. xi., p. 57. London, 1851. 
 
 b Dr. Milner, we have seen, refers us (but without any indication or refer- 
 ence to guide us in our examination) to Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Ambrose, 
 Jerome, &c., as alleging that "the prison " and "Abraham's bosom," referred 
 to by our Saviour, were one and the same place. 
 
 c " Redde promissum, dum in hoc corpore es, <fcc." Ambros. lib. ix., in Luc. 
 cap. xix. 25, torn, i., col. 1503. Paris, 1686. 
 
42 PURGATORY. 
 
 " He is never released from prison," says Jerome, " who 
 does not pay the last farthing before the end of life." a 
 
 It is also observed, in a commentary wrongly attributed to 
 this Father, that the sinner "will never come out" of the 
 prison in question, " inasmuch as he is always paying the 
 last farthing, while he is suffering the everlasting punishment 
 of his earthly sins." b 
 
 The comment of Chrysostom runs thus : 
 
 "Agree with thine adversary whilst thou art in the way with him, that is, 
 in this life ; for, when the way is finished, there is no longer time for repent- 
 ance. Beware lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge to 
 the avenging powers, and thou be cast into prison ; that is, into outer darkness, 
 being condemned, not only for thy deeds, but even for thy thoughts. Let us 
 implore the All-merciful God, that we be not delivered up to the devils." 
 
 Augustine has the following exhortation : 
 
 " Induced, therefore, by these salutary reflections, beloved brethren, let us 
 agree with our adversary while we are in the way with him ; that is, let us 
 conform to the Word of God while yet we are in this life ; for afterwards, when 
 we shall have departed hence, there will be neither room for contrition nor 
 satisfaction. Nothing will then remain except the judge, the officer, and the 
 
 Again, speaking of the parable of Dives and Lazarus, he 
 observes : 
 
 " With reference to his [Abraham's] declaration, that the good cannot, even 
 if they wished, pass over to those places in which the wicked are punished ; 
 what else does it mean, except that no merciful assistance can be rendered by 
 the just, even if they wished to render it, to those who, by the immutability of 
 
 a "Nunquam solvitur a carcere, qui quadrantem verbi novissimum non 
 solveret ante finem vitae." Hieron. Comment, in Marc. Hi., torn, v., p. 895. 
 See also Pseudo-Jerom. Comment, in Matt. v. 25. Ibid. col. 856. Paris, 1706. 
 
 b " Semper non exiturum esse, quia semper solvat novissimum quadrantem, 
 dum sempiternas pcenas terrenorum peccatorum luit." Pseudo-Jerom. Com- 
 ment, in Lament. Jerem. lib. i., cap. i., torn, v., col. 807. Paris, 1706, 
 Augustine has the very same words, de Sermone Dom. in Monte, ad locum, 
 lib. i., cap. xi., sect, xxx., torn, iii., pt. ii., col. 177. E. Paris, 1689. 
 
 c QvTbiQ fVVOti Tty) a.VTlc'lK^) G0t>, 6Wf OTOV 1 f.V Ty bSty) JUEr' dVTOVj TOVT- 
 
 IGTIV (v T(f)ds TV flitf fav yap r/ bdoQ TfXeaOrj, OVK sort voi fjKTavotag tcaipog. 
 B\7re JUT? ere Trapadq) b avTidiKOQ T(p Kpiry, KO.I b KQITIJG raig TifjiMpovcraiQ 
 Svvaptffi, icai flXrjQyQ tie rrjv QvXaKijv, tie TO GKOTOQ TO e<i)Ttpov, ea)Q ov 
 airofidiQ TOV ta\a.Tov KodpavTijv, ov \IQVOV Trtpi TWV TrpaZewv, a\\a /cat 
 Trfpi Td)v fv9vnr]ffe<i)v Kpivofifvog. HapafcaXftrwjLtfv TOV fXtrjjjiova Qeov, prf 
 irapadoOrjvai TOIL; dat/jioffi." Chrysostom. Horn. Ixxvii., de Pcenitentia, torn, i., 
 p. 824, B. C. Ed. Paris, 1636. See also Horn. xvi. in Matt. v. 25, 26, torn, i., 
 p. 204, seqq. 
 
 d " Hsec ergo, fratres charissimi, salubriter cogitantes, faciamus amicitias cum 
 adversario nostro, dum sumus in via cum illo : hoc est, consentiamus verbo 
 Dei, dum adhuc sumus in hac vita : quia postea, cum de hoc seculo trarisierimus, 
 nulla compunctio vel satisfactio remanebit. Judex restat, minister et career." 
 Augustin. Horn. v. in Tim. iv., torn, x., col. 420, D. Basil, 1569. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 43 
 
 the divine sentence, are so fast in prison, that they cannot go out thence until 
 they have paid the uttermost farthing ?" a 
 
 That neither Hilary himself, nor those whose opinion he 
 rejects, knew anything of the Romish interpretation, appears 
 from the following exposition : 
 
 " Since Christ permits us at no time to be influenced by an unforgiving 
 spirit, he enjoins us to agree with the adversary quickly, during the whole 
 course of our life. Of the opinion maintained by many on this head I have 
 not thought it necessary to treat. They have referred the precept of being 
 reconciled to an enemy by good-will, to the concord effected between body and 
 spirit when at war with each other." b 
 
 Theophylact writes thus : 
 
 " Some suppose that the adversary is the devil, and the way, life ; and that 
 our Lord's exhortation is to this effect : While thou art in this life be recon- 
 ciled to the devil, that he may not hereafter be able to convict thee of sin, and 
 thereby of having what belongs to him. But rather understand, that Christ 
 says this of adversaries in this world, exhorting us not to be litigious, and 
 thereby be distracted from religious actions." c 
 
 To the above may be added the interpretation of Fulgentius, 
 a writer of the sixth century. 
 
 "A man makes the word of God his adversary, when he does those things 
 which holy writ forbids. To such an one it is said in the psalm, Thou hatest to 
 be reformed and hast cast my words behind thee. If any one in the way that 
 is, if any one in this life agreeth not quickly with this divine word, he is 
 thrown into the prison of eternal fire, and will have no rest beyond it. He is 
 a friendly adversary who urges with a salutary opposition, in order that he 
 may delivery us from the opposition of our deadly sins."* 1 
 
 a " Quod autem dicit, ad ea loca in quibus torquentur impii, justos, etiam si 
 velint, non posse transire, quid aliud significat, nisi post hanc vitam it* 
 receptis in carcere, ut non inde exeant donee reddant novissimum quadrantem, 
 per incommutabilitatem divinse sententiae, nullum auxilium misericordiae posse 
 prseberi a justis, etiam si earn velint prsebere?" August. Qusestionum Evan- 
 geliorum, lib. ii., sect, iii., col. 265, torn. iii. Paris, 1689. 
 
 b " Quia nullum tempus vacuum affectu placabilitatis esse permittit, cito in 
 omni mice nostrce via reconciliari nos adversario benignitate praecipit. Quid 
 autem a pluribus in hoc capite sensum sit, non putavi esse tractandum. Hoc 
 enim, quod adversario reconciliari benevolentia jubemur, ad corporis et spiritus 
 adversantium sibi concordiam retulerunt." Hilar. Comment, in Matt. v. 25, 
 26, col. 626. Paris, 1693. 
 
 c Tivff vojjLi%ovaiv avTiSiieov XsytaOai TOV c~iao\ov, bdov de, TOV (3tov* 
 irapcuveiv Se TOV Kvptov OVTMQ, ia>Q OTOV i tv rtp (3iqt TOVT(p, BiaXvQrjri 
 TTOOQ TOV c~iao\ov, Iva prj f%y vffTfpov t\eyxtiv ere Trepi a/mpnaf, wg 
 
 ^XOVTCt Tl T(t)V tKtlVOV. 2u St VOtl OTl Ktfl 7Tpl Td)V tVTavOa ClVTldlKdiV 
 
 Xeyfi rovro, Trapaivwv JUTJ diKa't<rQai, KUL airo TO>V Suwv epyw irepi- 
 airaaOai. Theophylact. Comment, in Matt, v., p. 30. E. Paris, 1635. 
 
 d " Adversai-ium sibi quippe facit homo Dei verbum, quamdiu ilia facit quaa 
 divinus sermo prohibet. Cui dicitur in Psalmo : ' Tu vero odisti disciplinam, et 
 projecisti sermones meos post te.' Huic sermoni divino si quis in via, hoc est, 
 si quis in hac vita, cito consentiens non fuerit, missus in carcerem ignis seterni, 
 ultra requiem non habebit. Bonus enim adversarius iste, qui salubri adver- 
 
44 PURGATORY. 
 
 Thus also Bede : 
 
 " Until thou payest is put for infinity, just as in another 
 place, ' until I place thine enemies/ " a &c. 
 
 And Maldonatus : 
 
 " The way is the time of this life, the prison is hell. He 
 will never come out, because those who are in hell never 
 pay." b 
 
 Alexander also : 
 
 te It does not mean that we shall come out afterwards, but 
 that we shall never come out. Because, when the condemned 
 suffer infinite punishments for any mortal sin, they never 
 thoroughly discharge them. Those of whom this is said will 
 never come out of the prison of hell." c 
 
 It appears, then, that the interpretation given above fully 
 accords with the primitive Fathers, and is entirely at variance 
 with the sense which is forced upon the text by the Romanists 
 of modern days. d 
 
 No foundation for the doctrine of Purgatory can therefore 
 be discovered in this passage; for, (1.) To the person who is 
 in danger of being thrust into prison, it is said, " Thou shalt 
 by no means come out till thou hast paid the uttermost 
 farthing." This is an expression which admits of no com- 
 mutation of punishment. The sinner must pay the whole 
 debt in his own person the priests of Home promise deliver- 
 ance by means of masses and money ; but, according to the 
 text, the offender shall by no means come out except by 
 paying the uttermost farthing. (2.) As the crime here spoken 
 of is uncharitableness, and therefore a mortal sin, it cannot 
 be said with any consistency, that Purgatory is the prison ; 
 because, according to their teaching, mortal sins send persons 
 to hell. (3.) If the text refer to the other world, it may be 
 expounded by that parable (Matt, xviii.) where the unkind 
 servant is cast into prison till he shall pay all that is due 
 from him ; that is, he should lie there for ever ; inasmuch as 
 
 sitate jugiter instat, ut a nobis adversitatem mortiferse iniquitatis expellat." 
 Fulgentii Rusensis Episcopi, de Remissione Peccatorum, lib. ii., cap. v., p. 
 387. Paris, 1684. 
 
 a "Donee solves pro infinite ponitur, sicut alibi, 'Donee ponam inimicos.' " 
 Beda, lib. v., p. 12. Colonise, 1612. 
 
 b " Via est huj us vitae tempus ; career infernus. Nunquam exiturus, quia 
 qui in inferno sunt nunquam persolvunt." Maldonat. Comment, p. 121. 
 Mentz, 1596. 
 
 c " Non significat nos exituros postea, sed nunquam. Quia cum pcenas in- 
 finitas pro quolibet mortali peccato diluant damnati, nunquam eas persolvunt. 
 Nunquam ex inferni carcere exiturisunt de quibus hoc dictum est." Alexand. 
 Histor., lib. ix., p. 385. Paris, 1683. 
 
 d The above extracts are taken from Hall's "Doctrine of Purgatory, and 
 the Practice of Praying for the Dead, examined," pp. 36 42. London, 1843. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 45 
 
 the debt was ten thousand talents, too much for a prince, 
 much less for a servant who had nothing to pay, and there- 
 fore his master forgave him his debt. Our debt, as sinners, 
 is not paid unto God by us, but forgiven ; therefore, when it 
 is not pardoned, it can never be paid. Uncharitable and 
 malicious men, who will not forgive others, will be sent to 
 hell; for he that hateth his brother is a murderer, and no 
 murderer hath eternal life. Maldonatus, the Jesuit, and other 
 Romanists as before shown, also acknowledge that " Purga- 
 tory cannot be proved from Matt. v. 25, as the prison there 
 spoken of is hell, and not Purgatory "* 
 
 V. 1 Cor. iii. 13-15. We can scarcely permit a text to be 
 advanced to prove a doctrine, when the very meaning of the 
 text is a matter of considerable debate among these " Holy 
 Fathers" of the Greek and Latin churches. With his accus- 
 tomed boldness Dr. Milner adduces this text, as proof of the 
 Popish Purgatory ; " What other sense can that passage bear, 
 than that which the Holy Fathers affix to it ? " In a note are 
 added the names of four " Holy Fathers," on whose testimony 
 Dr. Milner relies Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. 
 
 Of all the texts in Scripture which seemed to puzzle the 
 Fathers the most, Dr. Milner could not have selected one 
 which more forcibly displays the absence of unity among 
 them in their interpretation of the Scriptures. Cardinal 
 Bellarmine in his book on Purgatory, in his famous contro- 
 versial work, has brought together the various opinions on 
 the subject. 
 
 The difficulties (he writes) of this passage are five in 
 number : 
 
 "1. What is understood by the builders. 2. What is understood by gold, 
 silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble. 3. What is understood by the 
 day of the Lord. 4. What is understood by fire, of which it is said that on 
 the day of the Lord it shall prove every one's work. 5. What is understood 
 by the fire, of which it is said, we shall be saved yet so as by fire. When these 
 things are explained the passage will be clear. The first difficulty, therefore, 
 is, who are the architects who build upon the foundation ? Augustine, in his 
 book on faith and works, chapter 16th and elsewhere, thinks that all Christians 
 are here called by the apostle architects, and that all build upon the founda- 
 tion of the faith either good or bad works. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 and (Ecumenius, appear to me to teach the same upon this passage. Many 
 othei-s teach that only the doctors and preachers of the Gospel are here called 
 architects by the apostle. Jerome insinuates this in his second book against 
 Jovinianus. The blessed Anselm and the blessed Thomas hold the same 
 
 a This last passage is extracted from Elliott's "Delineation of Roman 
 Catholicism." Book ii., chap, xii., p. 251. London, 1851. 
 
46 PURGATORY. 
 
 opinion on this passage, although they do not reject the former opinion. Many 
 more modern think the same, as Dionysius the Carthusian, Lyra, Cajetan, and 
 others. 
 
 "The other difficulty is rather more serious. For thei-e are six opinions. 
 Some by the name of foundation understand a true but an ill-digested faith ; 
 by the names of gold, silver, and precious stones, good works; by the names 
 of wood, hay, and stubble, mortal sins. Thus Chrysostom upon this place, who 
 is followed by Theopliylact. The second opinion is, that Christ or the preach- 
 ing of the faith is understood by the name of foundation ; that by the names 
 of gold, silver, and precious stones, are understood Catholic expositions ; by 
 the name of wood, hay, and stubble, are understood heretical doctrines, as the 
 commentary of Ambrose and even Jerome seems to teach. The third opinion 
 by the name of foundation understands living faith, and by the name of gold, 
 silver, and precious stones, understands works of supererogation, &c. Thus 
 the blessed Augustine, in his book on faith and works. The fourth opinion is 
 that which is held by those, who explain by gold, silver, &c., to be meant good 
 works, by hay and stubble, &c., venial sins. Thus the blessed Gregory, in the 
 fourth book of his dialogues, chapter 39th, and others. The fifth is of those, 
 who understand by gold, silver, &c., good hearers, and by stubble bad hearers, 
 &c. Thus Theodoret and (Ecumenius. The sixth opinion, which we prefer to 
 all, is, that by the name of foundation is to be understood Christ, as preached 
 by the first preachers. By the name of gold, silver, &c., is to be understood 
 the useful doctrine of the other preachers, who teach those who have now 
 received the faith. But by the name of wood, hay, &c., is to be understood the 
 doctrine, not heretical or bad, but the singular doctrine of those preachers who 
 preach catholically to the Catholic people, but without that fruit and profit 
 which God requires. 
 
 " The third difficulty regards the day of the Lord. Some understand by 
 the name of day the present life, or the time of tribulation. Thus Augustine, 
 in his book on faith and works, chap. 16, and Gregory, in his 4th book of 
 
 dialogues, chap. 39 But all the ancients seem to have understood by 
 
 that day, the day of the last judgment, as Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, and 
 others. The fourth difficulty is, what is the fire, which in the day of the Lord 
 shall prove every one's work ? Some understand the tribulations of this life, 
 as Augustine and Gregory in the places noted, but these we have already 
 rejected. Some understand eternal fire, but that cannot be, for that fire shall 
 
 not try the building of gold and silver Some understand it to be the 
 
 pains of purgatory, but that cannot be truly said. First, because the fire of 
 purgatory does not prove the works of those who build gold and silver ; but 
 that fire of which we speak, shall prove every one's work what it is. Secondly, 
 the apostle clearly makes a distinction between the works and the workmen, 
 and says concerning that fire, that it shall burn the works but not the workers, 
 for he says, if any one's work shall remain, and if any work shall burn ; but 
 the fire of purgatory, which is a true and real fire, cannot burn works, which 
 are transitory actions, and have already passed. Lastly, it would follow, that 
 all men, even the most holy, would pass through the fire of purgatory, and be 
 saved by fire, for all are to pass through the fire of which we are speaking. 
 But that all are to pass through the fire of purgatory and to be saved by fire is 
 clearly false, for the apostle here openly says that only those who build wood 
 and hay are to be saved as by fire ; the church also has always been persuaded 
 that holy martyrs and infants dying after baptism, are presently received into 
 heaven without any passage through fire, as the Council of Florence teaches in 
 its last session. It remains, therefore, that we should say that the apostle here 
 speaks of the fire of the severe and just judgment of God, which is not a purging or 
 punishing fire but one that probes and examines. Thus Ambrose explains it on 
 Psalm 118, and also Sedulius. 
 
 " The fifth and last difficulty is, what is understood by the fire, when he 
 says, but he shall be saved, yet so as by fire ? 
 
 " Some understand the tribulations of this life, but this cannot properly be 
 said, because then even he who built of gold and silver would be saved by fire. 
 Wherefore Augustine and Gregory, who are the authors of this opinion, when. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 47 
 
 they were not satisfied with it, proposed another, of which we shall speak by 
 and by. Some understand it to be eternal fire, as Chrysostom and Theopliylact. 
 But this we have already refuted. Others understand the fire to be the con- 
 flagration of the world. It is, therefore [?], the common opinion of theologians, 
 that by the name of this fire is understood some purgatorial and temporal fire, 
 to which after death they are adjudged, who are found in their trial to have 
 built wood, hay, or stubble. a " 
 
 In the above enumeration it will be observed, that three 
 out of the four Fathers, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, are 
 adduced as holding opinions directly contrary to the modern 
 Romish interpretation. The "therefore" of Bellarmine is 
 consequently almost as conclusive as the assertion of Dr. 
 Milner ; but how they can come to a dogmatic decision, when 
 the consent of the Fathers is anything but " unanimous " 
 on the subject, is somewhat at variance with the requirements 
 in that behalf contained in the Creed of Pope Pius IV., which 
 imperatively demands the " unanimous agreement of the 
 Fathers" on the particular text, before an interpretation can 
 be affixed. 
 
 We will make a few remarks on the four Fathers cited : 
 
 I. Origen first paved the way for the introduction of a 
 belief which led to the application of the text in question to 
 a purgatorial fire. But he expressly admits that the passage 
 " was very difficult of interpretation." 5 This same writer in* 
 his last, best, and crowning work, that against Celsus, most 
 distinctly considers the text as referring to God's providential 
 punishment of sin in this world : arguing, with some acuteness, 
 that we cannot legitimately 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. 
 
 In one of his earlier works, usually cited/ Origen is wishing 
 
 a Bell. De Purg., torn. ii. cap. iv. lib. i. p. 332. Prag. 1721. 
 
 b 'O TOTTOQ i]v du<r<k/7yjrof atyodpa. Orig. in Jerem. Horn. xvi. Oper. 
 vol. i. p. 155, ed. Huet. Kothomag. 1668 ; and edit. Paris, 1733, torn. iii. 
 p. 232. 
 
 c Karafialvti yap 6 Qeog dirb TOV iSiov jufyg0ov^ *cai v^ovg, OTf. TO. TWV 
 dvQp(i)7ra)v teal judXiora TU>V <}>av\o)v oiroj/o/m. 'Eirav ovv Xsyfjrai trvp 
 tlvai KaTava\ifficov, ^TOV/jLev' Tiva Trakirti VTTO Qtov KaravaXiaKtaQai ; 
 Kat (j)dfiev, on rr\v KOKiav, KOI TO. vir' aurrjg Trparro/^fva, icat rpoTrucwg 
 XtyofJifva %v\a flvai KO.I -^OOTOV Kal fcaXa/jTjv, KaravaXiaKti o Qtog w TTVO. 
 'ETToiKodo/Jitiv yovv o QavXoQ Xlyerai r<p 7rpow7ro/3\r/ftvc/j XoyiK 
 %v\a Kai x9 TOV K( *i KaXafjLrjv. El p.tv ovv ?x tl ^? 4 aXXwg 
 TavTa Ttft avayoa^avTi) icai (rw/tartKwg Svvarai Tig TrapctGTrjcrai 
 fjiovvra TOV <}>av\ov ^vXa rj %OQTOV r) jcaXo^Tjv* drj\ov, OTI Kal TO irvp V\IKOV 
 teal aiaQriTov vor}Qfi<reTai. Orig. cont. Gels. lib. iv. p. 168. Ed. Cantab. 
 1677. 
 
 d See Dr. Wiseman's Lectures, lee. xi. vol. ii. p. 60. London, 1836. The 
 passage relied on is quoted as from " Homil. xvi. al. xii. in Jerom., torn, 
 pp. 231, 232. Benedictine Edit." 
 
48 PURGATORY. 
 
 to establish a new theory of his own, founded on this very 
 text, namely, that the punishment of Hell was only temporary, 
 and that all, the devil himself included, would be finally 
 restored to eternal happiness. He also taught, that all, 
 except Christ, would have to undergo this fiery ordeal. This, 
 among other speculations, was condemned as impious and 
 heretical by the fifth (Ecumenical council of the church, 
 namely, that of Constantinople, A.D. 553. a 
 
 But this is not all: Augustine himself repudiated the doctrine 
 here enunciated by Origen : "What Catholic Christian (he 
 said) learned or unlearned, does not vehemently abhor that 
 Purgatory of sins which Origen speaks of namely, the doc- 
 trine that those who have finished this life in scandalous 
 crimes, and sacrileges, and impieties, the greatest possible 
 nay, that the devil himself and his angels shall, after a very 
 long time indeed, be purged and liberated, and restored to the 
 kingdom of God and to light. . . . Concerning which vain im- 
 piety I have disputed diligently in the books on the City of 
 God, against the philosophers from whom Origen learned those 
 notions." b And, before Augustine, Epiphanius did not hesitate 
 to call Origen " the Father of Arius," and the root of other 
 heresies, adding, " And this, too, which he maintains, I know 
 not whether to grieve or laugh at ; for this excellent teacher, 
 Origen, dares to teach that the devil will again be what he 
 was once, and will return to the same dignity, and will ascend 
 the kingdom of heaven. O shocking ! Who can be so sense- 
 less and so foolish as to believe that John the Baptist, and 
 Peter, and John the Apostle, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and 
 the rest of the prophets shall be co-heirs with the devil in the 
 kingdom of God." c 
 
 When we consider that Dr. Milner quotes Origen and 
 Augustine, as holding one and the same doctrine relating to 
 Purgatory, and that " the same as the present Church of Rome 
 now holds," we can scarcely sufficiently admire the boldness 
 of the man in hazarding such an assertion. But to support 
 so desperate a cause as the doctor has undertaken to advocate, 
 we cannot expect that he would be very scrupulous as to the 
 means employed for attaining his end. 
 
 Ambrose, Bishop of Milan about A.D. 370, is also referred 
 
 'H TTffiTTTjj vvvodog ysyoviv t-rrl 'lovffrtviavov /3a<rtXgo TOV Trpwrov, 
 irivrt ayiwv Trarspaiv avvt\96vr<i)v iv KwvoTCtvrtvovTroXfi' 
 TO. doyfJLanaOtvTa virb TVIQ ayiag rtraprjjg avvodov, Kai 
 
 TOVQ Kar' avTrj (3\aa^r]fJiovvTa^ avfQffiariatv^ tfyovv 'Qpiytvijv Kai TO, avrov 
 aatfiri doypara Kai truyypa^/tara. Bals. apud Beveridg. Synod, vol. i. 
 p. 150. Oxon. 1672. 
 
 b Aug. Lib. de Haeres. c. xliii. torn. viii. p. 10. Edit. Benedict. Paris. 
 
 c Epiph. Oper. vol. ii. p. 314. Paris, 1622. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 49 
 
 to, as giving the Popish interpretation to the same text ; but 
 Bellarmine, as we have seen, is constrained to admit, under 
 the "third difficulty" arising on the interpretation of this 
 text, that Ambrose held heretical opinions on this subject. 
 " It remains, therefore/' he says, " that we should say that 
 the Apostle is here speaking of the fire of the severe and just 
 judgment of God, which is not a purging or punishing fire, 
 but one that probes and examines. Thus AMBROSE explains 
 it in Psalm cxviii." a 
 
 Jerome. Dr. Milner refers us to the second book against 
 Jovinian [cap. 13] ; whereas Jerome, in the very same work, 
 expressly refers to this fire as being the temptations in this life 
 whereby a man is tried, and brought to the knowledge of his 
 own weakness and sinfulness, as a preparation for the more 
 perfect and excellent work of the Spirit by which the trials 
 and suffering of life will be assisted and lightened. 5 
 
 Augustine. It is quite impossible to conceive the boldness 
 of Dr. Milner in adding this illustrious Father to his list of 
 witnesses. We have seen that Bellarmine records his inter- 
 pretation of the text, as referring to the " tribulations in this 
 life ;" and in this opinion he joins Pope Gregory I. c 
 
 But Augustine has written at considerable length on the 
 text from 1 Cor. iii. The passage is so remarkable that we 
 cannot do better than transcribe it into our pages. We quote 
 from the work, "Enchiridion de Fide," &c., attributed to 
 Augustine : 
 
 " For the fire, of which the Apostle speaks, must be understood to be such 
 a fire as both could pass through, that is to say, as well he who builds upon 
 this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, as he who builds upon it wood, 
 hay, stubble. For when he had said this, he added, ' And the fire shall try 
 every man's work, of what sort it is ; if any man's work abide, which he hath 
 built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, 
 he shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.' The fire, 
 therefore, shall prove the work not of one of them only, but of both of them. 
 The trial of tribulation is a sort of fire, respecting which it is clearly written 
 in another passage, ' The furnace proves the potter's vessel, and the trial of 
 tribulation just men.' That fire effects in this life what the Apostle affirms, 
 if it occurs to two believers, to the one, namely, who thinks of the things of 
 God, how he may please God, that is to say, who builds upon Christ the 
 foundation, gold, silver, precious stones ; and to the other, who thinks of 
 worldly things, how he may please his wife, that is to say, who builds upon the 
 same foundation, wood, hay, stubble. For the work of the former is not 
 
 a "Superest igitur, ut dicamus hie apostolum loqui de igne severi et justi 
 judicii Dei, qui non est ignis purgans vel affligens, sed probans et examinans. 
 Ita exponit Ambros. in Psalmo cxviii." De Purg. lib. i. cap. v. p. 332, edit. 
 Prag. 1721. 
 
 b See Willet's "Synopsis Papismi," vol. iv. p. 67, edit. London, 1852. 
 
 c "Aliqui intelligunt tribulationes hujus vitse. Quocirca B. Augustinuset 
 Gregorius, qui sunt auctores." Bell, de Purg. lib. i. cap. v. p. 332. Prag. 
 1721. 
 
 E 
 
50 PURGATORY. 
 
 burned, because he did not love those things by whose loss he might be 
 toi-mented ; but the work of the latter is burnt, because these things which are 
 loved in their possession, are not destroyed without grief. But forasmuch as 
 when the alternative was presented to him, he preferred being without them 
 to being without Christ, and did not, through the fear of losing them, desert 
 Christ, although he grieved for their loss ; he is saved, indeed, yet so as by fire : 
 because the grief for the things which he loved consumes him ; but it does not 
 overthrow him, he being supported by the stability and incorruptibility of the 
 foundation. But that some such thing may take place after this life i^ not in- 
 credible, and whether it is so may be inquired into ; and it may either be discovered 
 or lie concealed, namely, that some believers are saved through a purgatorial fire, 
 sooner or later, in proportion as they have more or less loved perishable goods, not 
 those persons, however, of whom it is said, ' They shall not possess the kingdom 
 of God,' unless, indeed, their crimes are remitted to them in consequence of 
 their seasonable repentance." 11 
 
 Such, then, is St. Augustine's interpretation of the text. 
 "We ask any reasonable man whether from the above extract 
 he can gather the acknowledgment, even in the fifth century, 
 of the existence of the Romish doctrine of Purgatory ; and, 
 indeed, were Augustine's definition to agree point by point 
 with the modern interpretation, Roman Catholics would be 
 none the nearer in establishing their position, for Augustine 
 expresses himself in a doubting manner. He there proposes 
 a doctrine as not being incredible, or whether it be so might 
 be inquired into. But this is undeniable evidence, that in 
 Augustine's time Purgatory was not a matter of faith, and 
 what is there stated is only a matter of opinion. 
 
 We have limited our quotations from ' ' the Holy Fathers" 
 
 a " Ignis enim, de quo eo loco est locutus Apostolus, talis debet esse intelligi, 
 ut ambo per eum transeant, id est, et qui sedificat super hoc fundamentum 
 aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos ; et qui sedificat ligna, fcenum, et stipulam. 
 Chm enim hoc dixisset, adjunxit, Uniuscujusque opus quale sit^ignis probabit. 
 
 51 cujus opus permanserit, quod supercedificavit, mercedem accipiet. Si cujus 
 opus autem exustum fuerit, damnum patietur : ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen 
 quasi per ignem. Non ergo unius eorum, sed utriusque opus ignis probabit. 
 Et quidatn ignis tentatio tribulationis, de quo aperte alio loco scriptum est, 
 Vasa figuli probat fornax, et homines justos tentatio tribulationis. Iste ignis 
 in hac interim vita facit quod Apostolus dixit, si accidat duobus fidelibus, uni 
 scilicet cogitanti, quae Dei sunt, quomodo placeat Deo, hoc est, sedificanti 
 super Christum fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos ; alteri autem 
 cogitanti ea quae sunt mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, id est, sedificauti super 
 idem fundamentum ligna, fcenum, stipulam. Illius enim opus non exuritur, 
 quia non ea dilexit quorum amissione crucietur ; exuritur autem hujus, quo- 
 inam sine dolore non pereunt, quse cum amore possessa sunt. Sed quoniam 
 alterutra conditione proposita, eis potius carere mallet quam Christo, nee 
 timore amittendi talia deserit Christum, quamvis doleat cum amittit ; salvus est, 
 quidem, sic tamen, quasi per ignem ; quiaurit eum rerum dolor, quas dilexerat, 
 amissarum ; sed non subvertit neque consumit fundamenti stabilitate atque 
 incorrupt] one munitum. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibite 
 non est, et utrum ita sit quaeri potest ; et aut inveniri, aut latere, nonnullos 
 fideles per igneni quemdam purgatorium, quanti magis minusve bona pereuntia 
 dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusque salvari ; non tamen tales de quibus dictum 
 est, qu5d regnum Dei non possidebunt, nisi convenienter pcenitentibus eadem 
 crimina remittantur." Aug. Enchiridion de Fide, Spe, et Caritate, torn. vi. 
 p. 222. Bened. edit. Paris, and Colon. Agripp. 1616, torn. iv. p. 250. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 51 
 
 to the four cited by Dr. Milner ; our readers will, we think, 
 agree with us that they do not justify his confident appeal. 
 
 VI. Matt. xii. 32. This is the last of the series of texts 
 ordinarily cited " as a farther proof of Purgatory." " The 
 denunciations of Christ concerning blasphemy against the 
 Holy Ghost, namely, that this sin shall not be forgiven, either 
 in this world or in the world to come (we are informed), 
 clearly imply that some sins are forgiven in the world to 
 come." A wonderful discovery indeed ! Dr. Milner surely 
 was aware that " forgiveness of sins" is a distinct article in 
 the Christian's creed, admitted by all Protestants. We 
 sincerely believe that God", in His great mercy, does pardon 
 the truly contrite and penitent believer ; that if we seek that 
 forgiveness, humbly bewailing our past siris, and bring forth 
 fruits meet for repentance, God will ( ' cast all our sins into 
 the depths of the sea," not imputing our trespasses unto us. 
 We know that through Christ is preached unto us the for- 
 giveness of sins ; a that repentence and remission of sins are 
 preached in His name ; b " In whom we have redemption 
 through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." c We know also 
 that Christ our Lord " is the propitiation for our sins ;" d and 
 that " His blood cleanseth from all sins." There is no room 
 for a purgatory other than this. The question between us 
 and the Church of Eome is, whether that person whose sins 
 are already forgiven, and who is thus reconciled to God, and 
 whose name must therefore be "written in the Lamb's Book 
 of Life," must nevertheless endure the pains and torments of 
 Purgatory, a satisfaction to the divine justice for the temporal 
 punishment of those sins which are forgiven. Impossible ! 
 God, we read, is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. 
 Punishment is not a forgiveness ; a purgation in the " blood 
 of the Lamb" is not a bodily torture. For He hath borne 
 our griefs, and carried our sorrows, and He will give " us 
 rest ;" for there is a rest, and there is no condemnation to 
 them that die in the Lord Jesus. We have a glorious hope 
 before us : " We press toward the mark for the prize of the 
 high calling of God in Christ Jesus ;" a joy which no Roman 
 Catholic can experience, for he must anticipate, not a joyful 
 resurrection, but torments in Purgatory. 
 
 Does Dr. Milner pretend to assert that "the world to 
 come" in this text means Purgatory ? This, however, cannot 
 be the meaning of the words in St. Matthew's Gospel, " Who- 
 
 * Acts xiii. 38. h Luke xxiv. 47. 
 
 Eph. i. 7. a 1 John ii. 2. ' 
 
52 PURGATORY. 
 
 soever speak eth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be for- 
 given him neither in this world, nor the world to come."* 
 The words are explained in the parallel text in Mark iii. 29, 
 where we read, " He that shall blaspheme against the Holy 
 Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal 
 damnation." And St. Luke xii. 10, says, " Unto him that 
 blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven 
 him." 
 
 Dr. Milner here again refers us to the " ancient Fathers," 
 Augustine and Pope Gregory. We will take first the Fathers 
 antecedent to these two ; their silence on the point will prove 
 to demonstration that they were entirely ignorant of the 
 Romish interpretation of the passaged 
 
 Thus Hilary observes : " He [Christ] condemns the per- 
 verseness of the Pharisees with marked severity, promising 
 the pardon of all sins, and withholding indulgence from 
 blasphemy against the Spirit. For whereas other words and 
 deeds are freely pardoned, the denial of God in Christ is shut 
 out from mercy ." c 
 
 Ambrose remarks to the same effect, that " whosoever shall 
 not receive remission of sins in this world, will not be in 
 heaven ." d 
 
 Jerome merely adverts to the utter impossibility of forgive- 
 ness : " Whosoever shall ascribe the works of the Saviour to 
 Beelzebub the Prince of the devils, and shall say that the 
 Son of God hath an unclean spirit, his blasphemy shall at no 
 time be forgiven." 6 
 
 a " By the world to come, is understood the world succeeding this, and so it 
 answereth to the world present, as Mark x. 30, ' They shall at this present 
 receive a hundredfold, and in the world to come life everlasting.' Wherefore, 
 Purgatory being imagined to be now present, it cannot be taken to belong to 
 the world to come (E plies, i. 12) ; so also must we understand that place, that 
 Christ is exalted above every name, 'that is named in the world, or the world 
 to come ;' that is, in the world which shall be after this, I think that they will not 
 by the world to come in this place infer Purgatory; nor yet, where the Apostle 
 saith, 'The powers of the world to come' (Heb. vi. 5)." Willet's "Synopsis 
 Papismi." Revised edit. London, 1852, vol. iv. p. 62. 
 
 b It is a legal maxim, that "Denon apparentibus, et non existentibus, eadem 
 est ratio." 
 
 c " Pharisaeorum perversitatem severissima definitione condemnat, peccatorum 
 omnium veniam promittens, et blasphemise Spiritus indulgentiam abuegans. 
 Nam cum csetera dicta gestaque liberali venia relaxentur, caret misericordia, si 
 Deus negetur in Christo." Hilar. Pictav. Comment, in Matt. xii. 31, col. 671. 
 Paris, 1693. 
 
 d "Quihic non acceperit remissionem peccatorum, illic non erit." Ambros. 
 de Bono Mortis, cap. ii. sec. v. torn. i. col. 391, D. Paris, 1686. 
 
 e "Quicumque opera Salvatoris Beelzebub principi dsemoniorum deputarit, 
 et dixerit Filium Dei habere spiritum immundum, huic nullo tempore blasphe- 
 mia remittetur." Jerom. Comment, in Matt. xii. 32, lib. ii. torn. iv. p. i. 
 col. 49, 50. Paris, 1706. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 53 
 
 To conclude with the interpretation of Chrysostom : " Your 
 blasphemy will be unpardonable, and ye will suffer punish- 
 ment, both here and hereafter, Many, indeed are punished 
 here only; as, for instance, the incestuous person, and those 
 who received the sacrament unworthily among the Corin- 
 thians; but you will suffer both in this world and in the 
 next." a 
 
 Augustine, one of Dr. Milner's authorities, himself says 
 this sin "has no forgiveness for ever." "This sense," he 
 adds, "is merely expressed in other words, and in another 
 form of speech." Again, he observes that the sin in question 
 " cannot be remitted at all," without the remotest allusion 
 to any other exposition. b It is true that he seems, in one 
 place, to sanction the Romish view of this text ; but with so 
 little confidence in his interpretation, that elsewhere he 
 remarks, " Concerning this point, since it is a most intricate 
 question, no hasty opinion must be formed." d He also 
 writes : " Indeed, no sins are remitted in the kingdom [of 
 heaven]. But if none are to be remitted in that last judg- 
 ment, I suppose that the Lord would not have said of a 
 certain sin, that it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world/ 
 nor in the world to come." 6 It is clear, however, that he 
 cannot here be thinking of Purgatory, since he is speaking 
 expressly of the last judgment. 
 
 The fact is, that the great authority for this non sequitur 
 interpretation is Pope Gregory himself, the founder of the 
 doctrine, who says, " As every one departs out of this world, 
 such is he presented at the judgment ; nevertheless we must 
 believe in a purgatorial fire for certain lighter failings before 
 the judgment: for the Gospel says, Whosoever speaketh a 
 word against the Son of man, &c. From this declaration it 
 is given us to understand, that some sins may be pardoned 
 in this life, others in the next. For, that which is denied 
 
 a Ata dr) TOVTO aavyvuaTOQ vpiv HJTO.I rj /3Xa<r$7/ua, cat ivravOa KOI 
 iKii ddMTert SIKTJV. IloXXoi (/iv) yap tvTavOa ticoXaaOrjaav jjiovov, af 6 
 
 TrfTTOpVtVKWQ, h)Q 01 dVCL^lMQ HtT(lG'%OVTtQ fJ,VC!Tr)pl<i>V TTapCt KopU'dlOlQ' VfJLtlQ 
 
 Se, KO.I evTdvOa icai ticti, Chrysost. Horn. xli. in Matt. xii. 32, torn. i. 
 p. 475. Paris, 1636. 
 
 b " Cum remitti nobis hoc peccatum omnino non possit." Augustin. ad 
 Bonifacium Epist. 185, cap. xi. sect, xlviii. torn. ii. col. 662, C. Paris, 1688. 
 
 c De Civit. lib. xxi. c. 24, referred to by Bellarm. de Purg. lib. i. cap. iv. 
 torn. ii. p. 392, H. Colonize, 1628. 
 
 d " Dequare, quoniam profundissima qusestio est, non est modo praecipitanda 
 sententia." August, contr. Julian. Pelag. lib. vi. cap. v. torn. vii. col. 1120, 
 A. Basil, 1569. 
 
 . e ' Et peccata quidem nulla remittuntur in regno. Sed si nulla remitterentur 
 in judicio illo novissirno, puto quod Dominus non dixisset de quodam peccato, 
 non remittetur, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in future." August, adv. Julian. 
 Pelag. lib. vi. cap. v. torn. vii. col. 1119, D. Basil, 1569. 
 
54 PURGATORY. 
 
 respecting one sin, is, by a manifest consequence, granted 
 respecting others."* 
 
 Such is the Pope's reasoning, which it is only necessary 
 to carry out to its results in order to prove its fallacy. For 
 example : the competency of Pope Gregory XVI. to carry a 
 conclave of Cardinals upon his shoulders during an Italian 
 carnival " is denied ; " ergo, it is " by manifest consequence 
 granted " that Pope Gregory XVII. will hereafter be able to 
 accomplish the onerous task. Or, to be serious, the crime of 
 murder can be approved neither in this world, nor in the 
 world to come ; therefore, upon the principles of Papal inter- 
 pretation, some other crimes may be approved in heaven. 
 Indeed so inconclusive is the reasoning upon this text to 
 prove forgiveness of sin in the world to come, that although 
 Bellarmine adduces it to establish the existence of a Purgatory, 
 yet, in summing up, he candidly confesses that the inference 
 does not follow from the premises, and therefore that any 
 reasoning upon the passage for this purpose is altogether 
 illogical. 5 
 
 Having examined all the Scriptural texts advanced by Dr. 
 Milner, we can sufficiently appreciate the boldness of his 
 assertion that "the Apostles did teach their converts the 
 doctrine of Purgatory." The second part of the subject the 
 " Patristic evidence," or the " evidence from Tradition," we 
 will now consider more fully, as also the attempt to bolster 
 up this modern Popish figment, by tacking to it the early, 
 though not Apostolic or Scriptural, custom of praying for the 
 dead. 
 
 SECT. III. Origin and Progress of the Belief in Purgatory, founded on the 
 custom of Praying for the Dead. 
 
 In order to enlist the early Christian writers in favour of 
 the modern Popish doctrine of purgatory, Dr. Milner, like all 
 other Romish controversialists, is obliged to tack this doctrine 
 on to that of the early custom of " praying for the dead." He 
 
 a " Ex quibus nimirum sententiis constat, quia qualis hinc quisque egreditur 
 talis in judicio praesentatur. Sed tamen de quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante 
 indicium purgatbrius ignis credendus est, pro eo quod Veritas dicit, quia si 
 quis in Sancto Spiritu blasphemiam dixerit, neque in hoc seeculo remittetur ei, 
 neque in futuro. In qua sententia datur intelligi, quasdam culpas in hoc 
 sseculo, quasdam vero in futuro posse laxari. Quod enim de uno negatur, con- 
 sequens intellectus patet, quia de quibusdam conceditur." Greg. Magn. 
 Dial. lib. iv. cap. xxxix. torn. ii. col. 441. Paris, 1705. 
 
 b "Non sequi secundum regulas dialecticorum." De Purg. lib. i. cap. iv. 
 torn. ii. p. 393, B. Colonise, 1628. 
 
 Hall's "Doctrine of Purgatory, and Practice of praying for the Dead, 
 examined," pp. 43 49. 
 
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 55 
 
 treats of the two under one head. (Letter xliii.) We have 
 seen (supra p. 25) that immediately after the text from 
 2 Maccabees, Dr. Milner adds : 
 
 "I need not point out the inseparable connection there is between the 
 practice of praying for the dead, and the belief of an intermediate state of 
 souls, since it is evidently needless to pray for the Saints in heaven, and useless 
 to pray for the reprobate in hell" (p. 412). 
 
 And from this assertion he jumps to the conclusion, that 
 where prayers were offered for the departed, they were offered 
 for those supposed to be " in a middle state," and this middle 
 state he at once declares to be the modern Popish Purgatory. 
 
 In order, however, fully to appreciate the value of Dr. 
 Milner' s references, we must enter into a short history of the 
 origin and gradual development of the practice of praying for 
 the dead. a 
 
 There .can be no doubt but that the Purgatory of the 
 Romish Church is founded on Paganism. The early Chris- 
 tian custom of offering oblations for the dead, on the anniver- 
 sary day of the death of saints and martyrs, gave occasion 
 for its gradual reception and revival among some Christians ; 
 for from hence proceeded the custom of reciting prayers for 
 the dead, which gave rise to the speculation of an inter- 
 mediate place between heaven and hell where the departed 
 spirits were supposed to rest, waiting for the day of judgment. 
 
 It is well known that when our Lord ascended to His 
 throne above, the Apostles and their immediate successors 
 suffered cruel persecutions. The histories of the early Chris- 
 tian Church record the severe persecutions suffered by the 
 converts from Judaism and Paganism, which were carried on 
 through all the Roman provinces. The martyrs died in sup- 
 port of their faith, and sealed it with their blood. Torments 
 of the most exquisite nature were invented, and none were 
 considered too horrible to be inflicted on those soldiers of 
 Christ. b The vengeance of their persecutors was not satisfied 
 with the death of the victims, but their malice extended to 
 their dead bodies, and even to their very bones; for they 
 used to burn the latter, and scatter the ashes to the winds. 
 This was done in the vain hope of depriving Christians of a 
 future resurrection; the mainspring of their constancy, and 
 solace in their sufferings. 
 
 a The following is adopted from the editor's " Pious Frauds, exemplified in 
 Dr. Wiseman's Lectures," London, 1853, p. 53 et seq. : In every instance where 
 a, reference to the Fathers is made, the original text itself is added. We omit 
 the original text for the sake of brevity. 
 
 b Iren. lib. iii. c. 4. 
 
 c Epist. Martyruin Galilee, apud Euseb. lib. v. 
 
56 PURGATORY. 
 
 The early Greeks, we are told, celebrated the memory of 
 their heroes, and those illustrious persons who died in defence 
 of their country, on the anniversaries of their deaths ; and 
 these celebrations and solemnities were performed about their 
 tombs. This was done both in regard and honour of the 
 deceased, and also to animate and encourage each other to 
 follow the example of the illustrious dead. 
 
 Thus the early Christians, lately converted, bringing with 
 them their customs and prejudices, imitated, in this respect, 
 their Pagan ancestors, and in like manner celebrated the 
 anniversaries of the death of those who had suffered for the 
 Gospel. They also hoped, thereby, to confirm others in 
 the faith, and excite them to patience and fortitude, and 
 strengthen them to meet their fate with resolution and resig- 
 nation. The great object of the survivors was, in the first 
 place, to give their martyrs burial ; and where they could not 
 recover the entire body, to collect such fragments as could 
 be found, which, as relics of the departed, they honourably 
 buried; without, however, pompous ceremony without re- 
 quiems or dirges, such as mark the present Church of Rome. 
 There is in the Epistle from the Church of Smyrna to the 
 neighbouring churches/ announcing the martyrdom of Poly- 
 carp, an interesting passage, which may be appropriately 
 quoted here. The epistle describes the circumstances attend- 
 ing his martyrdom. He was burnt to death ; after this some 
 Christians collected his remains, and the epistle proceeds : 
 
 " But the envious adversary of the just observed the honour put upon the 
 greatness of his testimony and his blameless life from the first, and knowing 
 that he was now crowned with immortality and the prize of undoubted victory, 
 resisted, though many of us desired to take his body, and have fellowship with 
 his holy flesh. Some then suggested to Nicetes, the father of Herod, and 
 brother of Alee, to entreat the governor not to give up his body. 'Lest,' said 
 he, ' leaving the Crucified One, they should begin to worship this man.' And 
 this they said at the suggestion and importunity of the Jews, who also watched 
 us when we would take the body from the fire. This they did, not knowing 
 that we can never either leave Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all who 
 will be saved in all the world, nor worship any other. For Him, being the Son 
 of God, we worship ; but the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of our Lord, 
 we worthily love, because of their pre-eminent goodwill towards their own 
 King and Teacher, with whom may we become partakers and fellow-disciples. 
 The centurion, seeing the determination of the Jews, placed him in the midst, 
 and burnt him, as their manner is. And thus we, collecting his bones, more 
 valuable than precious stones, and more esteemed than gold, deposited them 
 where it was meet. There, as we are able, collecting ourselves together in 
 rejoicing and gladness, the Lord will grant to us, to observe the birthday of 
 his martyrdom, for the remembrance of those who have before undergone the 
 conflict, and to exercise and prepare those who are to follow." 
 
 The celebration of an anniversary commemoration of the 
 trials and constancy of martyrs, on the day on which they 
 suffered death, was then introduced. The anniversary days 
 
 a Euseb. Hist, iv, cap. xv. p. 163. Paris, 1628. 
 
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 57 
 
 of the martyrs' death were called the days of their nativity, 
 as upon that day they were born to a new life, or, as it is 
 sometimes called, " their translation" These anniversary 
 commemorations were still continued to be held at the places 
 of burial ; and therefore the assemblies were ordinarily held 
 at the cemeteries, and subsequently in churches ; they became 
 more frequent as the long list of martyrs daily increased ; and 
 we gather from the early writers how these meetings were 
 conducted. Public or congregational prayer was celebrated, 
 with an exposition of the Scriptures. The names of those who 
 had that day suffered for the truth were rehearsed. They 
 dwelt on the several trials and sufferings sustained by the 
 departed ; their courage was extolled, their tombs decorated 
 with trophies or garlands of flowers, as emblems of victory ; 
 then thanksgivings were offered to God for giving their 
 martyrs victory over sin and death ; Chrysostom describes 
 their enthusiasm as rising almost to madness. a The cere- 
 mony was concluded by the celebration of the Eucharist, and 
 alms-giving to the poor. 
 
 These alms were afterwards called oblations. The gifts 
 were mere doles, not in money, but in corn, grain, grapes, 
 bread, wine, &c. ; and not, as in modern days, offered for the 
 souls of the deceased supposed to be in Purgatory. b 
 
 There can be no question, then, as to the intention of 
 these assemblies and solemnities. It was, in the first place, 
 to show to the people that such as were dead in Christ were 
 still alive, both in God and in the memory of the Church ; 
 and, in the next place, to animate and encourage the survivors, 
 who were still suffering persecutions, to the like trials, suffer- 
 ings, and constancy. They worshipped Christ, and served 
 no other ; Him they adored as the Son of God, but cherished 
 the martyrs as the disciples and followers of the Lord. They 
 solemnised the day of their nativity, which was that of their 
 death ; in remembrance of such as had conflicted for the 
 truth, and in order to incite others to follow the example 
 thus set before them. They hoped to be made capable of 
 the like graces, and at last copartners and fellow-sharers in 
 the same glory. , c 
 
 There is a very remarkable passage in one of the books 
 attributed to Origen : 
 
 " Let us observe, O friends, what a change has taken place in men. For 
 the ancients (Greeks) celebrated the natal day, loving one life, and not hoping 
 another after this. But now we do not celebrate the natal day, because it is 
 
 a Chrys. Oper. torn. ii. p. 339. Paris, 1718. 
 
 b See Scultet. Med. Theol. Patrum, Amb. 1603, p. 307, on the Canons of 
 the Councils of Carthage and Vaison. 
 c See ante Epist. Smyrn. pp. 34, 35. 
 
58 PURGATORY. 
 
 a beginning of griefs and temptations ; but we celebrate the day of death, inas- 
 much as it is a laying aside of all griefs, and an escape from all temptations. 
 We celebrate the day of death, because those die not who seem to die. Where- 
 fore, we both observe the memorials of the saints, and devoutly keep the re- 
 membrance of our parents and friends which die in the faith ; as well rejoicing 
 for their refreshing [which cannot be in Purgatory] as requesting also for our- 
 selves a goodly communion in the faith. Thus, therefore, we do not celebrate 
 the day of birth ; because they which die shall live for ever, and we celebrate 
 it, calling together the religious persons with the priests, the faithful with the 
 clergy ; inviting, moreover, the needy and the poor, feeding the orphans and 
 widows, that our festivity may be for a MEMORIAL or BEST to the souls departed 
 ('ut fiat festivitas nostra in memoriam requiei defunctis animabus, quorum 
 memoriam celebramus'), whose memory we celebrate, and to us may become a 
 sweet savour in the sight of the eternal God.' ' a 
 
 That these commemorations and oblations were offered 
 for, or in memory of martyrs, then actually enjoying eternal 
 happiness, is evident from the writings of CYPRIAN, who pro- 
 fessed himself to be a pupil of Tertullian, and a great admirer 
 of his wri tings. b 
 
 The following passages from Cyprian are highly interesting, 
 and pertinent to the subject. In his thirty-ninth epistle he 
 writes : 
 
 " His grandmother, Celerina, was long since crowned with martyrdom. His 
 paternal uncle also, and his maternal uncle, Laurentius and Egnatius, them- 
 selves once militant in secular camps, but true and spiritual soldiers of God, 
 whilst they overthrew the devil by the advance of Christ, merited palms of 
 the Lord and crowns by illustrious suffering. We always offer sacrifices for 
 them, as you remember, as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the 
 martyrs by an anniversary commemoration." 
 
 Again St. Cyprian, in his twelfth epistle, speaking of 
 those who, though not having undergone martyrdom, had 
 " witnessed a good confession" in chains and imprisonment, 
 says : 
 
 " Finally, also, take note of the days on which they depart from life, that 
 we may be able to celebrate their commemorations among the anniversaries of 
 the martyrs ; although Tertullus, our most faithful and most devoted brother, 
 according to the usual anxiety and care, which he shows to the brethren in 
 every kindness and labour of love (who neither in that respect is deficient in 
 attention to their bodily wants), has written, and does write, and signify to me 
 the days on which, in prison, our happy brethren, by the issue of a glorious 
 death, pass to immortality ; and oblations and sacrifices are here celebrated by 
 us on account of their commemorations, which we shall speedily hold in company 
 with you, the Lord being our protector."* 1 
 
 It is allowed, also, that martyrs on death passed into glory, 
 not purgatory. Cyprian, after having in preceding lines 
 described the manner in which the year was passed by the 
 confessors and saints shut up in prison, observes : 
 
 " Sufficiently blessed are those of you, who, journeying by these footsteps 
 of glory, have already departed from life j and the path of virtue and faith 
 
 a Orig. Oper. studio Erasmi, Basil. 1536, torn. i. p. 500. ex off. Froben. 
 b See Jerome, vol. iv. part ii. p. 115, edit. 1684. 
 
 Epist. xxxix. Oxon. 1682, p. 77, ed. Pamel. num. 34. 
 d Epist. xii. Oxon. p. 28, ed. Pam. num. 37. 
 
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 59 
 
 having been completed, have arrived at the presence of the Lord, the Lord himself 
 rejoicing. " a 
 
 " Torments which do not readily dismiss to a crown, but torture until they 
 overthrow ; unless that some one, rescued by the Divine Majesty, should 
 expire amidst the very torments, having obtained glory, not by the termination 
 of punishment, but by the quickness of dying. " b 
 
 Again, in his seventy-sixth epistle, addressed to Christians 
 imprisoned in the mines for the cause of truth : 
 
 "Joyful you daily expect the salutary day of your departure, and about 
 forthwith to retire from life, you hasten to the gifts and the divine habitations 
 of the martyrs ; expecting to see, after these darknesses of earth, the most re- 
 splendent light, and to receive a glory greater than all sufferings and conflicts, 
 agreeably to the declaration of the Apostle, 'The sufferings of this present time 
 are not worthy to be compai-ed with the glory that shall be revealed to us.' " c 
 
 And in Epistle 31 : 
 
 "For what mx>re glorious or happy event could, from the divine Majesty, 
 fall to the lot ofany man than, amidst the very executioners, undauntedly to 
 confess the Lord God ? than, whilst the diversified and exquisite torments were 
 putting forth all their severity, the body having even been wrested to dislocation, 
 and tortured and mangled, to confess Christ the Son of God, although with a 
 departing, yet a free spirit ? than, the world having been abandoned, to have 
 sought Heaven ? than, men having been left, to stand among angels ? than, all 
 secular hindrances having been burst asunder, now to be placed liberated in 
 the presence of God ? than to hold fast, WITHOUT ANY DELAY, a heavenly 
 
 And again from Tertullian : 
 
 " We make oblations for the dead for their birthdays to Heaven on the anni- 
 versary days"* 
 
 To the like effect we migh quote from other writers; it 
 will, however, be sufficient to add here, that Cassander, a 
 Roman Catholic himself, admitted that these prayers were to 
 show the love and affection, and the hope of a resurrection, 
 of those who offered them up. In a word, they gave thanks 
 for the glorious victory of the martyrs/ 
 
 These sacrifices or prayers, therefore, which were offered 
 for the departed, so far from being supplications for a miti- 
 gation of the punishment of souls in Purgatory, as suggested 
 by Dr. Milner (ante p. 25), were in remembrance of those 
 who as admitted by Romanists, go immediately to Heaven. 
 
 It will not be forgotten (see p. 25 ante] that Dr. Milner 
 asserts that he need not point out the inseparable connection 
 there is between the practice of praying for the dead, and 
 the belief of an intermediate state of souls, since it is 
 
 a Epist. xxxvii. p. 73, ed. Pam. num. 16. 
 b Epist. xi. p. 23, ed. Pam. num. 8. 
 c Epist. Ixxvi. Oxon. 1682, p. 233, ed. Pam. num. 77. 
 d Epist. xxxi. p. 62, ed. Pam. num. 26. 
 
 e De Cor. Milit. p. 289. Eothomagi, 1662. See Pope's " Roman Misquota- 
 tions." London, 1840, p. 197, etseq. 
 
 f Cassander, Consultat. Artie. 24. De Artie. Beligionis, p. 234. Lugd. 1608. 
 
60 PURGATORY. 
 
 evidently needless to pray for the Saints in Heaven, and use- 
 less to pray for the reprobate in hell. Now the fact is inde- 
 pendent of the evidence even already adduced so late as the 
 fourth century, the opinion prevailed, and indeed was strongly 
 advocated by Chrysostom and Augustine, that even the suf- 
 fering of souls in hell might be alleviated, although they 
 could not be entirely removed, by the prayers of the living, 
 as the reader will find, by a reference to the passages indicated 
 in the foot note. a 
 
 We quite agree with Dr. Milner that prayers offered for 
 those in hell are " evidently needless," but because they are 
 needless, that can be no reason for declaring that these prayers 
 necessarily presupposed a belief in those who uttered them, in 
 the modern doctrine of Purgatory. Dr. Milner's argument, 
 or rather dogmatic assertion, falls to the ground*; for prayers 
 and sacrifices were offered for those admitted to be in a state 
 of happiness, as well for those supposed to be in hell. 
 
 This primitive custom did not remain long in its original 
 simplicity ; time began to work changes, the large influx of 
 Jews and Pagans who renounced their faith to embrace 
 Christianity brought with them their prejudices, and retained 
 many of the rites and ceremonies to which they had been 
 accustomed. The following age, therefore (A.D. 200), was 
 most fruitful in these innovations and ceremonies. 
 
 To confine ourselves, however, to the subject proposed, and 
 fully to understand the development of the present dogma of 
 Purgatory, it is necessary to trace out each custom bearing 
 upon it to its particular source. As the anniversary meetings 
 were derived from the ancient Greeks, so the offering of 
 oblations, above alluded to, was derived from the Jews. It 
 was customary with them, whenever they made their solemn 
 appearances before God, always to take with them some 
 presents, especially of the first-fruits of the earth, in token 
 of homage and acknowledgment. The ancient Christians, of 
 whom a great part were descended from the Jews, followed 
 that example, insomuch that at the public assemblies every 
 one brought with him a certain quantity of bread and wine, 
 corn, grain, or grapes, which were sanctified or consecrated 
 to God by prayer. A part of this bread and wine was 
 apportioned for the communion of the Holy Supper, and 
 
 a Augustine, Enchirid. c. xx. sect. xxix. torn. vi. col. 238, D. et Paulin. 
 Ep. 19. Paris, 1685. Chrysostom. Horn. iii. in Philip, c. i. torn. vi. p. 33, B ; 
 Horn, xxxii. in Matt. c. xiii. torn. i. pp. 372, 373, and Horn. xxi. in Act. c. xi. 
 torn. iii. p. 203, A. Paris, 1636. Athanas. Quaest. ad Antioch. xxxiv. vol. iii. 
 torn. ii. p. 275. Paris, 1698. Prudent. Catheraerin. Carm. 5, De Cereo 
 Paschali, p. 17. Amstelodami, 1667.Theopkylact. in Luc. xii. 5, p. 344, B. C. 
 -D. Paris, 1631. 
 
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. Gl 
 
 the rest was eaten in common (for the agapes, or love-feasts, 
 were continued after the days of the Apostles), and the 
 surplus was distributed among the poor. These gifts, thus 
 presented by the people, were, as before explained, called 
 offerings, and it was from this that the Eucharist was some- 
 times called an oblation, and afterwards a sacrifice; not 
 expiatory but gratulatory only. The Fathers of that age say 
 that " they offered to God the first-fruits of his creatures," 
 which words cannot be understood to mean the body of Jesus 
 Christ, though it has served as a pretence afterwards for 
 changing the Supper into a so-called real sacrifice. Thus it 
 was that the offerings, presented at the assemblies held on 
 the days solemnised for the martyrs, were called oblations or 
 sacrifices offered in memory of the saints, the circumstance of 
 the day occasioning that title; for nothing passed on that 
 action relating to the saints other than simple commemora- 
 tion; and those offerings were not the Body and Blood of 
 Christ, but bread and wine only, or the first-fruits themselves, 
 employed for the several purposes mentioned. 
 
 It is further remarkable, that to induce every one to con- 
 tribute something, the names of those who offered, and the 
 nature and extent of the offering itself, were with a loud voice 
 proclaimed in the church. a 
 
 In course of time, we find, that, on the death of any dis- 
 tinguished personage, the year having fully expired, they 
 commemorated in the assembly the name of the defunct upon 
 that day, declaring how happy he was having died in the 
 faith ; and all those that were present, besought God that he 
 would grant them the like exit ; which done, the parents or 
 friends of the deceased, that they might render his memory 
 honourable, presented the church and the poor present with 
 their offerings. Many stipulated that their names also 
 through such acts of charity might continue in favour of the 
 church ; and, not unfrequently, for such purposes bequeathed 
 to the church testamentary legacies, to be yearly paid upon 
 the anniversary-day of their decease, and upon this the 
 custom of anniversaries was grounded. 
 
 We have thus seen that these "offerings for the dead" 
 were only memorials of the devotions, trials, fyc., of the 
 deceased, and not expiatory sacrifices. In corroboration of 
 this latter position, we find that women, who were never in 
 those days permitted to sacrifice, still offered in memory of 
 their deceased husbands ; b besides many of the living pre- 
 
 a Hieron. in Iren. lib. ii. c. 11, and in Ezech. c. xviii. 
 b Tert. de Monag. c. 10, p. 955. Rothom. 1662. 
 
62 PURGATORY. 
 
 sented such offerings upon their own actual birth-days, this 
 being an act of recognition only, and a piece of homage paid 
 to God, who gave them life on that day. We see now to 
 what this ancient custom has been perverted, for from hence 
 proceeded the custom of " praying for the dead," which, as 
 we shall presently see, Tertullian confesses, even as practised 
 in his days, to be founded on custom and not Scripture, rank- 
 ing it among many other observances, which are at this day 
 disallowed by the Church of Rome. a 
 
 But we should carefully remark in what sense the early 
 Christians "prayed for the dead/' for they never believed 
 that they were shut up in a place of torment, for the expur- 
 gation or washing away the sins done in the body ; and in 
 fact the doctrine of Purgatory was as yet unknown in the 
 Church. It was the belief of some that souls of martyrs 
 and saints were immediately after death translated to Heaven. 
 By others, that the souls of the just remained in a state of 
 non-existence, as it were, awaiting the last day of judgment; 
 which belief paved the way for the doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 Irenasus believed that the souls of the just were not 
 admitted into the presence of the " Beatific Vision" until 
 after the Day of Judgment, and that the souls of those go 
 into unseen places assigned to them by God, and there remain 
 till the resurrection, afterwards receiving again their bodies 
 and rising perfectly, that is bodily, even as the Lord also rose 
 again, so will they come again into the presence of God. b - 
 
 The questions that suggest themselves are : Where is that 
 place ? Is it a place of torment ? Is it a place of repentance ? 
 And did they believe that souls in that intermediate state 
 could be assisted by the suffrages of the faithful ? Irenseus 
 explains the former passage as follows : 
 
 " The preachers, who are the disciples of the Apostles, affirm that those 
 who are translated from hence are transported into Paradise, that being 
 prepared for just men and such as have the spirit, the place whither St. 
 Paul's was caught up, where he heard things unutterable ; and that they 
 should continue there till the consummation and end of the world, seeing 
 incorruption." c 
 
 And thus Erasmus, in his animadversions upon that 
 Father, observes, and with good reason (de purgatorio nulla 
 mentio), that there is no mention made by him of Purgatory ; 
 justly acknowledging, that that pious authpr spoke as one 
 wholly unacquainted with any such fable ; and for this reason 
 it was ordered, by the Expurgatory Index both of Spain and 
 
 a Tertull. de Corona Militis, p. 289. "Kothom. 1662. 
 
 b Tren. adv. Hser. lib. v. c. 2Q, p. 356. Gallasii, edit. Geneva?, 1570 ; and cap. 
 31, 2, ed. 1853. Iren. lib. v. c. 7. 
 
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 63 
 
 of the Low Countries, that that note of Erasmus should be 
 quite obliterated. 21 
 
 Tertullian tells us his belief that : 
 
 " That place (of departed souls) is the bosom of Abraham, not in Heaven, 
 yet higher than hell, a refreshing to the souls of the just until the consumma- 
 tion of all things at the resurrection," &c. b 
 
 But Romanists do riot admit Tertullian's speculation 
 relative to the term " Abraham's bosom/' for Maldonate, a 
 Jesuit, on the text Luke xvi. 23, says, " I very much suspect, 
 that by the bosom of Abraham the highest Heaven is 
 intended." 
 
 That this place was believed to be a place of torment there 
 is no evidence whatever, for similar passages to the following 
 from Cyprian are frequently met with in the writings of the 
 <mte-Nicene fathers, who say that, " The righteous are called 
 to their refreshing, the unrighteous are called to punish- 
 ment." d 
 
 That it was not considered a place of repentance, or that 
 the souls after death could be assisted by the prayers of the 
 faithful on earth, is evident ; for Clement, Bishop of Rome 
 (A.D. 66), who wrote copiously on Death and the Resurrec- 
 tion, gave it as his opinion, that " when once we shall have 
 departed this life there is no room for us in another either to 
 confess or repent ; our condition hereafter being as fixed and 
 immovable as that of an ill-formed vessel of clay, when once, 
 with all its imperfections, it shall have been irrevocably 
 hardened by the process of baking." 6 
 
 And again, Ignatius (A.D. 70), a reputed saint of the 
 Church, said : 
 
 " When our existence shall have been brought to an end, two states only 
 are set before us, a state of death and a state of life. For as every allegorical 
 coin bears impressed upon it the stamp of God or the stamp of the world, so 
 after his decease shall every one depart to his own appropriate habitation." f 
 
 All this looks very like Purgatory ? 
 
 That one mortal can assist another in working out his sal- 
 vation is so contrary to all Scripture and reason that were all 
 
 a Index Expurg. Belgic. p. 72, and Index Expurg. Hispan. p. 136. 
 
 b " Earn regionem sinum dico Abrahas, etsi non ccelestem, sublimiorem tamen 
 inferis ; interim refrigerium, praebituram animabus justorum, donee consum- 
 matio rerum resurrectionem omnium," &c. Lib. iv. cont. Marcion. cap. 34. 
 
 c " Valde suspicor per sinum Abrahse summum ccelum designari." Maid, in 
 eum locum, p. 298. Edit. Mogunt. 1596. 
 
 d "Ad refrigerium justi vocantur, ad supplicium rapiuntur injusti." Serm. 
 de Mortalit. Edit. Oxon. 1682. 
 
 e Clem. Epist. ad Cor. ii. 8. in Patres Apost. ed. Jacobs ; Oxon. 1838. 
 
 f Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. 5. Edit, ut supra, Clem. Epist. 
 
64 PURGATORY. 
 
 the Fathers to testify their belief in such a monstrous and 
 unnatural doctrine it could have no possible weight in deciding 
 the matter ; but happily not one can be found, who, in the 
 most distant manner, insinuates that such a belief ever existed 
 in the primitive Church; on the contrary, such of them as 
 have mentioned this subject are most positive in denouncing 
 so gross an idea; one illustration alone, of the many that 
 might be adduced, will suffice : 
 
 Hilary said, " No one can be aided by the good works or 
 merits of others, because each must buy oil for his own 
 lamp." a 
 
 It has been objected, however, that these early Fathers did 
 nevertheless pray for the dead. To what end did they pray, 
 if they did not believe that the departed could be assisted by 
 these prayers ? To establish this custom the ancient Liturgies 
 are quoted. It is at once admitted that the early Christians 
 did in a manner pray for the dead, and we have seen from 
 whence that custom originated, and we admit that some of 
 the early Liturgies do witness that some such custom did 
 exist ; but it has been established, beyond dispute, that the 
 Liturgies attributed to the different writers, and which bear 
 their respective names, are not genuine and unadulterated 
 witnesses. Some of them have, by Romanists themselves, 
 been proved to be of much later date than that which they 
 are supposed to bear, and others have been greatly added to 
 and interpolated. But such as they are they bear no evidence 
 that the doctrine of Purgatory was ever admitted. In the 
 Clementine Liturgy we read : 
 
 "The souls of all live with Thee ; and in Thy hand are the spirits of the 
 just, whom torment shall in no wise touch ; for all the sanctified are under Thy 
 hands. Look, therefore, upon this Thy servant, whom Thou hast chosen and 
 removed to another condition ; and pardon him his sins, both voluntary and 
 involuntary. Make the angels benevolent to him ; and place him in the bosom 
 of the patriarchs, and the prophets, and the apostles, and all those who have 
 been pleasing to Thee from the beginning of the world, ivhere is neither grief 
 nor pain nw lamentation, but where is the quiet abode of the pious and the still 
 land of the upright, even of those who in it behold the glory of Thy Christ. " b 
 
 It must be admitted, that in the fourth century great inno- 
 vations were made in the form and practice of public worship. 
 Prayers and oblations for the dead became more frequent; 
 and this custom, grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but 
 
 a " Alienis scilicet operibus ac meritis neminem adjuvandum.quia unicuique 
 lampadi suaeemere oleum sit necesse." InMatth. cap. 27, p. 591. Paris, 1652. 
 See Birckbek's Protestant Evidence, London, 1851, fora succession of witnesses 
 on this subject. 
 
 b Orat. pro Mort. in Liturg. Clement, apud Constit. Apost. lib. viii. c. 41. 
 
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. DO 
 
 on tradition alone, was the first innovation on primitive 
 Christianity. But to argue from hence that Purgatory was 
 at this time an accepted doctrine of the Christian Church is a 
 manifest perversion of the truth. The learned Jeremy Taylor 
 on this subject observed : 
 
 "How vainly the Church of Rome, from prayer for the dead, infers the 
 belief of Purgatory, every man may satisfy himself by seeing the writings of 
 the Fathers, where they cannot meet with one collect or clause for praying for the 
 delivery of souls out of that imaginary place. Which thing is so certain, that in 
 the very Roman Offices, we mean the vigils said for the dead, which are psalms 
 and lessons taken from the Scripture, speaking of the miseries of the world, 
 repentance, and reconciliation with God, the bliss after this life of them that 
 die in Christ ; and the resurrection of the dead ; and in the anthems, versicles, 
 and responses, there are prayers made recommending to God the soul of the 
 newly defunct, praying, ' he may be freed from hell and eternal death,' that 'in 
 the day of judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins, but 
 that he may appear among the elect in the glory of the resurrection; 1 but not one 
 word of Purgatory or its pains. " a 
 
 And Usher, in his celebrated " Answer to a Challenge made 
 by a Jesuit," in the chapter " Prayer for the Dead," quotes 
 largely from the liturgies of Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril 
 of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and others, which fully establish 
 the fact that the oblations or sacrifices were offered FOR the 
 Apostles, Virgin Mary, Martyrs, Saints, &c., wholly irrespective 
 of either the modern additions or innovations of supplication 
 for their intercession, or of the belief that such oblations 
 would be beneficial to the departed, suffering in a supposed 
 fiery or any other species of Purgatory. This alone is sufficient 
 evidence that the custom and intent of the early Christians, in 
 praying for the dead, were wholly different from the modern 
 Popish doctrine, which we admit, with Dr. Milner, to be quite 
 inseparable from the doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 One example out of the many will suffice. In the liturgy 
 attributed to the Apostles, under the title of the " Apostolic 
 Constitutions," is the following prayer: "We offer unto Thee 
 for all the saints which have pleased Thee from the beginning 
 of the world, patriarchs, prophets, just men, apostles, martyrs, 
 confessors, bishops, priests, deacons" &c. b 
 
 It is asserted by Romish controversialists, to get over a 
 difficulty, that martyrs went to heaven at once. This will 
 not assist the argument ; for, in reply, we assert that in the 
 prayers found in the early liturgies, where prayers are offered 
 
 a Jeremy Taylor's Works, edited by Heber (Lond. 1822), vol. x. p. 149 ; 
 "Dissuasive," &c. chap. i. sect. 4. 
 
 b "En 7rpoff0tpo/iEV aoi KCII wTrep TravTwv T&V a?r' aitivoQ evapecrTtivdvTiov 
 ffoi ayt'wv, Trarpicrpxwv, Trpo^jjrwi/, ^iiccu'aiv, aTTOOToXwv, |japripan>, 6/zoXo- 
 yfjrwv, liri<TK6ir<oi>, 7rpeff|3t>rfpwj> ? SiaKovwv, &c. Constitut. Apostolic, lib. viii. 
 cap. 12. 
 
G6 PURGATORY. 
 
 up for the departed, no distinction is made between one or 
 another class of saints or departed. They are all classed under 
 one form of prayer, and no single instance can be adduced, 
 wherein prayers were offered up for souls supposed to be in a 
 temporary state of purgation or punishment. We are aware 
 that it is asserted that Augustine said, " that he does injury 
 to a martyr who prays for a martyr." It is nevertheless not 
 the less true that prayers were offered up for martyrs. 
 
 On the other hand, some of these early Christians held, with 
 Paul, that to be absent from the body was to be present with 
 the Lord. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) said, " When God shall 
 raise all from the dead, He will place the holy in eternal 
 happiness, but will consign the unholy to the punishment of 
 eternal fire." a He makes no mention of Purgatory. 
 
 In another place, in a work published with his writings, but 
 supposed to be of a later date, and therefore a better witness 
 against the Church of Rome, we read : 
 
 " In this life, while 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 con- 
 ducted by angels to their fitting places. The souls of the just pass forthwith 
 into Paradise, where they 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, until the day of resurrection 
 and final retribution." b 
 
 Cyprian, however, gives us still more precise information 
 on this subject : 
 
 " When once we have departed hence, there is no longer any place for re- 
 pentance, no longer any effectiveness of satisfaction. Here, life is either lost or 
 held : here, we may provide for our eternal salvation by the worship of God 
 and the fruitfulness of faith. Let not any one, then, be retarded, either by 
 sins or by length of years, from attaining to salvation. To a person, while he 
 remains in this world, repentance is never too late. Those who seek after and 
 understand the truth may always have an easy 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 granted from the 
 Divine pity ; and, even in the very article of death, he passes to immortality. " c 
 
 This divided opinion, and uncertainty on the subject of the 
 nature of the existence of the soul immediately after death, 
 
 a Just. Dial, cum Tryph. Oper. p. 270, edit. Heidelb. apud Commel. 1593 ; 
 and cap. 117, torn. ii. p. 388, ed. Jeme, 1843. 
 
 b Qusest. et Respons. ad Orthod. Ixxv. in Oper. Justin, p. 339, edit, ut supra, 
 and pp. 105, 106, torn. iii. pt. 2, ed. Jense, 1843. 
 
 c , Cyprian, ad Demetrian. Oper. vol. i. p. 196. See also Cyprian. Epist. 
 xii. Oper. vol. ii. pp. 27, 28 : and also De Mortal, sect. ii. p. 157, edit. Oxon. 
 1C82. 
 
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 67 
 
 gave rise to many speculations ; and Origen, as already 
 observed, was the first of all the Fathers who suggested the 
 probability of a purging, or purgation, of souls by fire. 
 
 This idea, first promulgated by Origen, was taken up by 
 others who came after him ; and Lactantius, Ambrose, Au- 
 gustine, Jerome, and others, put forward their speculations, 
 but they still, to a certain extent, admitted the supposition 
 started by Origen. 
 
 Augustine, however (A.D. 400), extended his speculative 
 meditations on the subject. He at one time said that our 
 souls must under some " circumstances remain in the fire of 
 Purgatory, just so long a time as it may require to burn away 
 our smaller sins, like wood, hay, and stubble." a This sounds 
 very much like genuine Popery; but, not to mention that 
 doubts have been raised whether this sermon was written by 
 Augustine, the doctrine here enunciated is very different from 
 the Popish Purgatory, for Augustine's fire was not then 
 kindled his, like Origen's fire, was deferred to the day of 
 judgment. But even this was not an accepted doctrine of the 
 Church in his day. He resolves the whole question, as we 
 have seen, into a matter of probability ; it was in his mind 
 problematical only, and was not, therefore, dogmatically laid 
 down by the Church. 5 And he admits that the doctrine was 
 borrowed from the Platonists, and that Christians were not 
 obliged to accept it. c But an acknowledgment made in 
 another part of his works, the genuineness of which we have 
 not heard disputed, leads us to believe that the former quota- 
 tions are additions of a later date. In a later and more 
 mature work he writes, in more decisive terms, " There is no 
 middle or third place, but he must needs be with the devil 
 that is not with Christ;" and again, " The third place besides 
 heaven and hell we are utterly ignorant of; nay, we find not 
 in Scripture that there is any." d 
 
 There are also .mentioned purgatorial fires in other writings 
 of the early Fathers, but used in quite another sense ; namely, 
 the tribulations in this life ; thus in the fifty-fifth Epistle of 
 Cyprian, 6 which we shall presently more fully notice, and in 
 other writers. 
 
 a Aug. Serm. CIV. in Append, torn. v. col. 183, ed. Bened. assigned to 
 Caesarius of Aries. 
 
 b Aug. in Enchir. ad Laur. cap. 69, torn. vi. p. 222, Bened. edit. Paris, 
 1685. (See supra, p. 50.) 
 
 c De Civ. Dei, lib. xxi. cap. 13, edit. Paris, 1685. 
 
 d " Non est ulli ullus medius locus, ut possit esse nisi cum diabolo, qui non 
 est cum Christo." " Tertium locum penitus ignoramus ; imo esse in Scripturis 
 sanctis non invenimus." De Peccat. Remiss, et Merit. Patr. Caill. torn. cxl. 
 p. 316, sect. 55. Paris, 1842. 
 
 p Vol. ii. pp. 109, 110, edit. Oxon. 1682. "Aliudest ad veniam stare," &c. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 PURGATORY. 
 
 That the doctrine of Purgatory was not admitted by the 
 early Church is thus frankly acknowledged by the Roman 
 Catholic bishop Fisher. 
 
 " There is," he says, " no mention at all, or very rarely, of Purgatory in the 
 ancient Fathers. The Latins did not at once, but by degrees, admit this 
 doctrine ; and the Greeks believe it not at this day. And Purgatory being so 
 long unknown, it is no wonder that in the first times of the Church there was 
 no use of indulgences, for they had their beginning after men had been awhile 
 scared with the torments of Purgatory." a 
 
 This reference to the present belief of the Greek Church is a 
 most conclusive argument that the custom of praying for the 
 dead, as practised in the early Church, was totally different 
 from the modern Popish practice, for it is now inseparable 
 from the modern doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 Before what is called the great Western schism took place, 
 the Churches of the East and West professed one and the 
 same creed and symbol of faith, they were one in point of 
 doctrine; corruptions of time affected each, the Greeks, 
 equally with the Latins, in course of time prayed for the dead 
 in the sense before explained. When the schism, or separation, 
 took place, the Greeks did not then know of the doctrine of 
 Purgatory ; and though they still retain the ancient practice 
 of praying for the dead, they do not now believe in Purgatory. 
 The Latins, or Western Church, on the contrary, became by 
 degrees more corrupt ; and as, " by degrees," the doctrine 
 became developed, and men's minds became " scared with the 
 torments of Purgatory," the priests began to find it profitable 
 to themselves in many ways. It was therefore thought pro- 
 per to stamp it with the infallible seal of the Church, which 
 was first effected at the Council of Florence, A.D. 1439. b 
 
 The testimony of Bishop Fisher is thus corroborated by 
 Alphonsus a Castro, who says, " There is almost no mention 
 of it (Purgatory) in any of the ancient writers." The almost 
 is, in fact, never. And on the subject of the Popish figment 
 of INDULGENCES, the offshoot from Purgatory, the same Al- 
 phonsus says " that they were received very late in the 
 Church." d And Cardinal Cajetan said, " There is no autho- 
 rity of Scripture, nor of any Fathers, Greek or Latin, that 
 bring them to our knowledge." 6 
 
 a Roffens. Lutheri Confut. art. xviii. p. 200. Colon. 1559. 
 
 b Synod. Florent. apud Labb. et Coss. Concil. torn. xiii. p. 515. Paris, 
 
 c " De Purgatorio fere nulla in antiquis scriptoribus mentio." Alphons. de 
 Castro contra Hseres. lib. viii. p. 578. Paris, 1571. 
 
 d " Earum usus in Ecclesia videtur sero receptus." Ibid. 
 
 e " De ortu indulgentiarum, si eertitudo liaberi posset, veiitati indagaudae 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 69 
 
 The proposition of a Purgatory, and an intermediate 
 state of suffering, was first submitted for discussion at 
 the second Session of the Council of Ferrara, 15th March, 
 1438. 
 
 Having thus briefly taken a review of the origin, progress, 
 and subsequent establishment, of the doctrine of Purgatory, 
 we can at once proceed to consider the quotations adduced by 
 Dr. Milner from the writings of the early Christians in support 
 of this modern Popish dogma. 
 
 SECT. IV. Alleged Traditional Evidence, founded on the Testimony of 
 the Fathers. 
 
 DR. MILNER thus introduces his Traditional evidence :- J 
 
 "St. Chrysostom (he says), the light of the Eastern Church, flourished within 
 300 years oi'the age of the Apostles, and must be admitted as an unexceptionable 
 witness of their doctrine and practice. Now he writes as follows : ' It was not 
 without good reason ordained by the Apostles, that mention should be made of 
 the dead in the tremendous mysteries, because they knew well that they would 
 receive great benefit from it.' a Tertullian, who lived in the next age to that of 
 the Apostles, speaking of the pious widow, b says, ' she prays for the soul of her 
 husband, and begs refreshment for him.' Similar testimonies of St. Cyprian* 
 in the following age, are numerous. I shall satisfy myself with quoting one of 
 them ; where, describing the difference between some souls which are im- 
 mediately admitted into heaven, and others which are detained in purgatory, 
 he says : ' It is one thing to be waiting for pardon, another to attain to glory ; 
 one thing to be sent to prison, not to go thence till the last farthing is paid, 
 another to receive immediately the reward of faith and virtue ; one thing to 
 suffer lengthened torments for sin, and to be chastised and purified for a long 
 time in that fire, another to have cleansed away all sin by suffering,' namely, 
 by martyrdom. It would take up too much time to quote authorities on this 
 subject from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, JEusebius, St. Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, 
 St. Augustine, and several other ancient Fathers and writers, who demonstrate 
 that the doctrine of the Church was the same as it is now, not only within a 
 thousand, but also within four hundred years from the time of Christ, with 
 respect both to prayers for the dead, and an intermediate state, which we call 
 Purgatory. How express is the authority of the last-named Father, in par- 
 ticular, where he says and repeats, ' through the prayers and sacrifices of the 
 Church and alms-deeds, God deals more mercifully with the departed than 
 their sins deserve.' (Senn. 172, Enchirid. capp. cix. ex.) How affecting is this 
 saint's account of the death of his mother, St. Monica, when she entreated him 
 to remember her soul on the altar ; and when, after her decease, he performed 
 this duty, in order, as he declares, ' to obtain the pardon of her sins. Confess, 
 lib. ix. cap. 3." d 
 
 I. Chrysostom. Now, to omit that Dr. Milner, in all these 
 
 opera ferret : verurn quia nulla sacrse Scripturse, nulla priscorum doctorum 
 Graecorum aut Latinorum autoritas scripta hunc ad nostram deduxit notitiam." 
 Thorn, de Vio Cajetan. Opusc. Tract, xv. De Indulg. cap. i. p. 129. August. 
 Taurin. 1582, and Venet. 1531, torn. i. fol. 46. 
 
 a " In cap. i. Philipp. Horn. 3." b " De Monogamia, cap. x." 
 
 c "S. Cypr. lib. iv. ep. ii." d Letter xliii. pp. 414, 415. 
 
70 PURGATOKY. 
 
 passages, is constantly mistaking the mention of prayer for the 
 dead, and the oblations made in the early Church, as if, of 
 course, implying a a means of release from Purgatory through 
 masses, and bequests of money for saying them, at so much 
 per head ; what argument of any decisive value can be derived 
 from the sentence quoted from Chrysostom, when we find the 
 paragraph (No. 4) from which it is selected, thus com- 
 mencing ? 
 
 "Let us not lament for the dead merely, but for those 
 gone in their sins; these are worthy of lamentations, of 
 beatings of the breast, of tears. For what hope is there, I 
 would know, of those who depart in their sins to a place where 
 they cannot be cleared of them ? Whilst they were on earth, 
 there was a good hope of change," &c. ; and, then, the words 
 almost immediately following: "But this [praying] is for 
 those who have departed in faith ; the catechumens are not 
 counted worthy of so much consolation, but are deprived of all 
 such assistance, this only excepted. The poor can offer some- 
 thing for them, and from this some little refreshment may 
 be derived, for God desires that we should profit by one 
 another," b &c. &c. How little sound foundation there is in 
 all such statements and arguments, or assertions for Chry- 
 sostom does not prove where or when the Apostles ordained 
 praying for the dead upon which any one would choose to 
 place any reliance, need not be shown. But let them carry 
 what value they may, he must be clear-sighted who can 
 see anything of Dr. Milner's demonstration; there is no 
 intimation that the effect was to be a release from torment 
 in the pains of Purgatory-fir e. c Both the language and the 
 intent of the passages cited from most of the Fathers have 
 been either distorted or misapprehended ; the act of offering 
 for an individual, signifying an act done in his place by some 
 substitute, having, in later days and gradually, been perverted 
 to mean a benefiting him through prayers on his behalf to 
 get him out of Purgatory. The same course was also run as 
 regarded oblations ; both the act of making offerings, and the 
 recital at the altar of the names of such as had made obla- 
 tions of any considerable value, by degrees coming to be 
 degraded into saying masses for the dead ; and the priesthood, 
 finding and making a most profitable revenue out of that 
 
 a " Our Komanists, indeed, do commonly take it for granted that Purgatory 
 and prayer for the dead be so closely linked together that the one doth neces- 
 sarily follow the other ; but in so doing, they reckon without their host, and 
 greatly mistake the matter." Usher's "Reply to a Jesuit," chap. vii. p. 168. 
 Camb. 1835. 
 
 b Horn. iii. in Epist. ad Philipp., torn. xi. p. 251, ed. Paris, 1837. 
 
 c See JBingham's " Antiquities of the Christian Church," book xv. chap. iii. 16. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 71 
 
 popular opinion, of course diligently inculcated it. But origin- 
 ally, as Bingham states, " the reasons which we meet with in 
 the ancients for praying for souls departed, have no relation 
 to their being tormented in the fire of Purgatory, but most 
 of them tend directly to overthrow it. Whence we may 
 safely conclude, that though the ancients prayed generally 
 for the dead, at least from the time of Tertullian, who first 
 speaks of it, yet they did it not upon those principles which 
 are now so stiffly contended for in the Romish Church ." a 
 Chrysostom's doctrine, however, on the object and efficacy 
 of prayers, was very different from the present teaching 
 of Rome, for he strongly advocated the opinion, that 
 even the sufferings of souls in hell might be alleviated, 
 although they could not be entirely removed, by the prayers 
 of the living. 6 And he expressly says that prayers were 
 offered for martyrs. 
 
 In another place, however, Chrysostom speaks more clearly 
 on the subject we have on hand, affirming, without any am- 
 biguity of language, that, " so long as we remain on earth, we 
 have good hopes before us ; but as soon as ever we depart, 
 we have opportunities for repentance no longer with us, nor 
 can we wash away our offences." d He then enlarges upon 
 the case of Dives, and how at last he had to become a hum- 
 bled petitioner to him who once lay at his door begging ; but 
 there is no record of his succeeding in his suit, nor that 
 masses in consequence were offered for his release, nor a word 
 about 10,000 left to priests to say them, or to build a chapel . 
 to our Lady for any of those mummeries and delusions now 
 characterizing so fully the Church of Rome ; not a word of 
 all this machinery for raising him from the pit of woe, nor of 
 the merits of St. Abraham as any way available. 
 
 II. Tertullian. The passage quoted from this writer is in 
 the original as follows : " Pro anima ejus oret; et refrigerium 
 interim adpostulet ei, et in prim a resurrectione consortium; 
 et offerat annuis diebus dormitionis ejus/' that is, " Let her 
 pray for his soul ; and let her meanwhile beg for him refresh- 
 ment, and a participation in the first resurrection; and let 
 her offer on the anniversaries of his dormition." 
 
 It is surprising that Dr. Milner should have selected this 
 
 H "Christian Antiquities," book ii. chap. xx. 5, and book xv. chap. iii. 16. 
 
 b Horn. xxi. in Act. Apost. torn. iii. N.T. pp. 202, 203, Paris, 1636 ; torn, 
 ix. p. 186, ed. 1837 ; and see supra, p. 60. 
 
 c 'T-TTfp fiaprvptov. Ibid. p. 204. Paris, 1636 ; and torn. ix. p. 188 ; torn, 
 ix., ed. Paris, 1837. 
 
 d De Lazaro, Concio 2, sect. 3, torn. ii. p. 894, edit. Paris, 1837. 
 
72 PURGATORY. 
 
 work (De Monogamid) as establishing the custom of the early 
 Church. Tertullian, when he wrote this treatise, was actually 
 out of the pale of the Church ; nay, more, he wrote it against 
 the Church. a 
 
 This is the only passage quoted from Tertullian, though 
 there are others much more to the point, and which are con- 
 tinually quoted by Romanists to prove that the doctrine of 
 Purgatory was admitted by the Christians of that time. It 
 will not be an uninteresting inquiry to trace the reason of 
 this apparent omission on the part of Dr Milner ; it is not 
 accident. Bellarmine quotes one passage from Tertullian to 
 the following effect : " Why should you not think that the 
 soul is both punished and cherished in Hades in the mean- 
 time, while it is expecting either judgment, through a certain 
 practising or whitening of it?" b Now one would have sup- 
 posed that this was sufficiently explicit for Dr. Milner, but 
 he knew that this was dangerous ground ; for, though this 
 work also was written when Tertullian was a heretic, Dr. 
 Milner was likewise aware that Tertullian expressly says that 
 he derived this doctrine from the wretched impostor Mon- 
 tanus, who pretended to be the " Holy Ghost," and deceived 
 many, and among others Tertullian himself, who was on this 
 iccount also declared to be a heretic : c " for the Paraclete 
 [meaning Montauus] most frequently set forth this doctrine." 
 This passage, therefore, would not serve his purpose. The 
 other passage more frequently quoted is taken from the 
 treatise "De Corona Militis," a work w r hich Tertullian also 
 wrote after he espoused Montanism. The passage is, " Obla- 
 tiones pro defunctis,pro natalitiis, annua die facimus" " We 
 make oblations for the dead, for their birthday to heaven, on 
 the anniversary day." d This, in " The Faith of Catholics," is 
 rendered " We make oblations for the dead on the anniversary 
 day," as the correct translation ; and to carry out the decep- 
 tion, the editors actually add what they pretend to be the 
 passage from the original, as the words of Tertullian, " Obla- 
 tiones pro defunctis annua die facimus." 6 The significant 
 words, "pro natalitiis" are omitted. That " pro natalitiis " 
 is properly rendered birthdays to heaven, is borne out by the 
 corroborative testimony of two Roman commentators. De 
 la Cerda, the Jesuit, on this passage, says, " By natalitia 
 Tertullian means the days on which saints, dead to the world, 
 
 a Prsefatiuncula Pamelii, Eothom. 1662, p. 936. 
 
 b Bell, de Purg. lib. i. cap. 7 and 10, from Tert. de Anima, cap. 58. 
 
 c See Edit. Rigalt. p. 306, Paris, 1675. Tert. de Anima, cap. 58. 
 
 d Edit. Roth. 1662, p. 289. (See p. 60, supra.} 
 
 K "Faith of Catholics," ed. 1813, p. 354, and edit. 1830, p. 356. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 73 
 
 are born to heaven."* And another Roman Catholic, le 
 Prieur, says, " By natalitia Tertullian means the solemnities 
 accustomed to be held in honour of martyrs, on the day 011 
 which, being dead to the world, they were born to heaven. 
 From whence we make oblations on the annual day that is, 
 yearly." b 
 
 The omission of the word natalitia (if intentional) is most 
 obvious; for its appearance in the proper place clears the 
 passage of all difficulties. 
 
 We have seen what these oblations on the anniversary days 
 mean, we may be, therefore, spared any further explanation 
 here. We, nevertheless, have, in this passage, the tempting 
 word " oblations," though Dr. Milner lets this passage pass. 
 There must be some reason for this, which must account for 
 the difficulty he had in selecting such passages as may appear 
 the clearest. 
 
 There is no difficulty, however, in accounting for his passing 
 over this passage unnoticed. It will be remembered, that 
 Dr. Milner asserted that the doctrine of Purgatory, which he 
 tacked on to the doctrine of "praying for the dead," was 
 taught and sanctioned by Scripture. Now, had Dr. Milner 
 quoted the passage in question, he would have at once destroyed 
 his argument ; for, in the same paragraph, Tertullian admitted 
 that the custom was not enforced by Scripture, which he 
 vindicated without any support from writing, but " by the 
 authority of tradition alone, and from thence by the protection 
 of custom." He expressly classes the custom among many 
 others which were merely traditional customs, or discipline, 
 not matters of faith, but ceremonial usages, and for the most 
 part entirely repudiated by the Roman Church at the present 
 day. After naming all these several observances, Tertullian 
 uses these words : " If for these and other like regulations, 
 you demand the law of the Scriptures, none can be found; 
 tradition will be held up before you as originating, usage as 
 conforming, and faith as practising them." c He nowhere 
 states the custom to be an "Apostolic tradition ;" this also is 
 an invention of the compilers of " The Faith of Catholics." 
 
 Now, it must be observed that Roman Catholics have 
 always quoted this last passage in proof of the antiquity of 
 
 a " Tertullianus intelligit per natalitia dies quibus sancti, mundo mortui, 
 nascuntur coelo." De la Cerda e Soc. Jesu, in loc. Tert. Op. Paris, 1624, 
 p. 657. 
 
 b Prieur, in loc. Tert. Oper. Rig. et Prior. Annotat. adject. Lutet. 1664, 
 p. 102. Pope's "Roman Misquotations," London, 1840, p. 65. 
 
 c " Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum si legera expostules Scriptu- 
 rarum, nullam invenies ; traditio tibi praeteudefcur auctrix, consuetude con- 
 firmatrix, et fides observatrix." Edit. Roth. 1662, p. 289. 
 
74 PURGATORY. 
 
 Roman "masses." Modern Roman oblations for the dead, 
 and masses for the dead, are almost inseparable ; we ask 
 whether Romanists are ready to stand by the testimony of 
 Tertullian, namely, that there is NO warranty in Scripture for 
 their doctrines of Purgatory, and Masses, and Prayers for 
 the dead ? We do not think they will dare to make so wide 
 an admission ; and, if not, they must entirely renounce the 
 testimony of Tertullian. 
 
 It may not be amiss to notice that when Tertullian is 
 talking of a matter of fait h, as necessary to be believed, he 
 uses a very different strain ; here he makes a direct appeal to 
 SCRIPTURE, and rejects all other authority. He " adores the 
 fulness of Scripture/' "Whether all things were made of 
 any subject-matter, I have as yet read nowhere. Let those 
 of Hermogenes' shop show that it has been written ; if it be 
 not written, let them fear that woe which is appointed for 
 such as add or take away." a 
 
 We now can appreciate the value of the omission of this 
 and of the former quotation by Dr. Milrier from his list of 
 witnesses. 
 
 III. Cyprian. If our readers will take the trouble to ex- 
 amine the passage quoted from Cyprian, they will find that he 
 was treating of the trials and tribulations in this life, and to 
 such he refers ; and this is admitted by Rigaltius, a Roman 
 Catholic commentator on the works of Cyprian. 5 
 
 The quotation from this author, "It is one thing to be 
 waiting for pardon," &c. deserves consideration, as well from 
 the authority of the writer, as because it is the only evidence, 
 at so early a period, which even seemingly leans to this opinion. 
 " Testimonies from St. Cyprian" that there is a Purgatory are 
 NOT " numerous; " but testimonies that there is not any Purga- 
 tory ARE so, both from the strain of his discourses, and from 
 explicit declaration. 
 
 Cyprian was not a man so grossly to contradict himself, as a 
 belief in Purgatory would imply. The passage can be misun- 
 derstood by those only who are unacquainted with his writings. 
 The main controversy of that age was about the treatment 
 of the "lapsed," those who had fallen from the faith during 
 the persecution, and afterwards became penitent. Antonian, a 
 
 a "Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem." Tert. adv. Hermog. cap. 22, edit. 
 Roth. 1662, p. 417. " An autera de aliqua subjacent! materia facta sint omnia, 
 nusquam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. Si non est 
 scriptum, timeat vse illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum." Ibid. 
 
 b See the passage from Rigaltius fully set out in the Oxford edition of 
 Cyprian, in a note, p. 109, vol. ii. edit. 1682. 
 
 c See the treatise Ad Demet. sect. 16, or cap. v. ; and De Mortal, cap. v. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 75 
 
 prelate of Numidia, having beard that Cornelius, bishop of 
 Rome, had readmitted to his church, after penance, some 
 who had sacrificed to idols, wrote to Cyprian, expressing his 
 opinion that this indulgence would slacken the zeal of 
 Christians to endure martyrdom, and his doubts of the pro- 
 priety of communicating with Cornelius. It is in reply to 
 this, that the passage in question occurs. Cyprian meets the 
 objection of the Numidiaii bishop, arid dissipates his alarm, 
 by reminding him that the severe penances which the lapsed 
 had to undergo before readmission, and the uncertainty of a 
 ratification by God, rendered their case so obviously different 
 from the glorious estate of martyrs, that there was no danger 
 of zeal being thereby slackened. " You admit," he argues, 
 " adulterers to penance for a certain time ; and then restore 
 them to the Church ; yet the number of the continent is not 
 thereby diminished, nor the resolutions of chastity weakened/' 
 " It is one thing, at last, to stand waiting for a pardon," &c. 
 
 It is then apparent that Dr. Milner garbled the passage, 
 as his custom was, and that it has nothing to do with an 
 intermediate state of expiation. 3 
 
 This passage, quoted by Dr. Milner, on which, as Bishop 
 Forbes remarks, almost all Romanists are wont to glory, is, 
 in the first place, obscure nothing certain can be inferred 
 from it ; and, in the second, whatever may be the correct 
 interpretation, it helps nothing in support of the Purgatory 
 of the Romanists. Those, the Bishop observes, who are 
 being tormented in Purgatory, can neither be described as 
 " waiting for pardon," nor to be uncertain what their final 
 sentence may be ; seeing that, according to Romish doctrine, 
 souls in Purgatory are taught to regard their salvation as 
 sure. 5 
 
 The passage we have before quoted from Cyprian's works 
 [p. 66] will sufficiently clear this illustrious Bishop of 
 Carthage from the charge. of holding the modern Popish 
 doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 IV. Augustine. The names of Cyril, Eusebius, Epipha- 
 nius, Ambrose, Jerome, are all proclaimed as " demonstrating 
 that the doctrine of the [early] Church was the same as it is 
 now;" but Dr. Milner does no more than advance a bare 
 and unsupported assertion. Knowing the value of his un- 
 supported assertions, we may safely pass over to Augustine, 
 
 a Garbett's " Nullity of the Roman Faith," pp. 294-96, Loncl. 1827. 
 b So Bishop Forbes, in his " Considerations Modesto," pp. 226-28, Lond. 1658. 
 S. Cyp. lib. iv. ep. 2 ; ep. 51, p. 62, ed. Paris, 1836. 
 
76 PURGATORY. 
 
 though it is unfortunate that in quoting from this one single 
 discourse (172, col. 827, edit. 1683), the Doctor did not 
 observe the doubt cast upon its being a genuine production 
 of Augustine's. But, any way, nothing is proved as to a 
 Purgatory. What is exhorted to be done is put down to 
 tradition and the custom of the Church ; and includes a 
 qualification that the parties for whom prayers are offered, 
 and oblations made, are those who have died, having par- 
 taken of the body and blood of Christ. And then, the style 
 of the subsequent remarks is so equivocal, that the Doctor 
 would have done better had he not selected just this parti- 
 cular Sermo in support of his Church's dogma. Who can 
 doubt, it is asked, that assistance is obtained by works of 
 mercy, for those " on ivhose account prayers are not idly (non 
 inaniter) made to God?" Whereas many would unhesi- 
 tatingly confirm their utter uselessness, even in the time of 
 St. Augustine. And then he goes on, " Non omnino ambigen- 
 dum est ista prodesse defuiictis," &c., " it is not altogether 
 to be questioned but that the dead are benefited by offerings 
 and prayers;" but such, that is, who have so lived in this life 
 that these things prove beneficial to them after death. But 
 " there is not the slightest necessity for connecting the words 
 with sulphureous torments or Vatican satisfaction. It was 
 believed that prayer and almsgiving might possibly render 
 some assistance to the departed ; at least it was so hoped, 
 and the ancients, in charity perhaps, though unscripturally, 
 thus attempted to aid them, and wished to be assured that 
 they were able to do so. As to the authority for the practice, 
 we say, ovSe ypv." & 
 
 The other passage is Augustine's account " of the death 
 of his mother, Monica." But what can this have to do with 
 the question of Purgatory ? In the first place Purgatory is 
 not a place of pardon, according to Romish teaching, but of 
 punishment, the sins are supposed to have been pardoned ; b 
 whereas Augustine was praying for the forgiveness of the sins 
 of his mother. Secondly What were the offences respect- 
 ing which St. Augustine prayed ? They were offences of the 
 tongue, of which Christ had said that they who commit 
 them should be in danger of hell fire, for he says : 
 
 " Yet I dare not say that from the time that Thou didst regenerate her by 
 baptism, no word came out of her mouth contrary to thy command. And it 
 was said by thy Son, the Truth, 'whosoever shall say to his brother, thou fool, 
 
 a Elliott's " Delineation," p. 277, London, 1851. 
 
 b See Dr. Wiseman's "Moorfield Lectures," Lect. xi. vol. ii. pp. 47, 54. 
 London, 1851. 
 
CONCESSIONS OF PROTESTANT PRELATES. 77 
 
 shall be in danger of hell fire.' And woe be even to the commendable life of 
 men, if, laying aside mercy, Thou didst examine it ; but because Thou art not 
 extreme in seeking out what is done amiss, &c. I, therefore, &c., do now 
 beseech thee, for the sins of my mother, &c., forgive, Lord, enter not into 
 judgment with her, &c." a 
 
 Augustine, therefore, was not praying for his mother's 
 delivery from the pains of Purgatory, but that she might not 
 be condemned to hell. It must be remembered that Monica 
 was not yet judged ; Augustine prayed that when judged she 
 should not be condemned. It is evident, therefore, that he 
 had no thought at all of praying that she might be released 
 from what she was suffering at that time ; there is no hint of 
 such a thing in his prayer. Yet this is what any one, who 
 believed in Purgatory, would certainly have prayed for. And 
 lastly, not only was St. Augustine silent respecting any tem- 
 poral pains, but he added ' ' I believe Thou hast already done 
 what I ask," " Et credo jam feceris quod te rogo." There- 
 fore, if St. Augustine believed that God had already granted 
 everything he thought it necessary to pray for, for his mother, 
 he could not have been uneasy about the repose of her soul. 
 We have already seen that Augustine was by no means 
 decided in his opinion with regard to a Purgatory ; as he 
 states in one place, that there might be such a place, at 
 another, that there is no such third place. b 
 
 Such, then, are Dr. Milne r's proofs in support of the 
 modern Popish doctrine of Purgatory from Tradition. 
 
 SECT. V. Alleged Concessions of " Eminent Protestant Prelates." 
 
 Dr. Milner is very ready as all other Romanists ever 
 have been to avail himself of any, however distant, acknow- 
 ledgments made by Protestants, in favour of Romanism. 
 These acknowledgments are paraded with an air of triumph, 
 as if it had been undoubtedly " demonstrated," and from the 
 very mouths of the opponents themselves, that they freely 
 supported what they laboured to overturn, and inculcated upon 
 others what they themselves openly denied. Especially is this 
 the case with regard to Martin Luther, of whose sentiments, 
 and Melancthon's, we shall have hereafter more to say. The 
 necessity of the case is certainly urgent; the doctrine of Pur- 
 gatory, and its accessory Indulgences, is most remunerative ; 
 and any one, dead or alive, whom it is fancied has a shadow 
 of a vote to give, must be pressed to record it upon the side of 
 
 * Aug. Confess, lib. ix. cap. xiii. sect. 35, torn. i. col. 170. Paris, 1689. 
 b See supra, p. 50, and p. 67. 
 
78 PURGATORY. 
 
 the doctrine. " Sirs, you know that our gain is by this trade; " ;l 
 and gross as is the delusion, yet such profits are made by the 
 living proprietors of the lottery, that the clamours and adver- 
 tisements to come and buy are incessant; and though the 
 tickets are utterly useless, every one turning up blank, the 
 managers cease not quoting any and every authority for the 
 profitableness of the investment ; even Luther himself being 
 pressed into the service by Dr. Milner, as recommending the 
 trade ! (See Letters xliii. p. 416, and xlii. pp. 409, 410.) 
 
 But the Doctor thus continues his subject : " I should do 
 an injury to my cause, were I to pass over the concessions of 
 eminent Protestant prelates and other writers, on the matter 
 in debate." The matter in debate, and the heading of each 
 page, is " Purgatory ; " and the chapter is entitled, " On Pur- 
 gatory and Prayers for the Dead." We have seen that Dr. 
 Milner has asserted the f ' inseparable connection " between 
 the two; that Protestant prelates "believed that the dead 
 ought to be prayed for;" that therefore they held the Popish 
 doctrine of Purgatory. But a few extracts by way of evi- 
 dence will at once set this question at rest. 
 
 Among the names cited we find those of Luther, Calvin, 
 Melancthon, Bishops Cranmer, Ridley, Andrews, Usher, 
 Montague, Taylor, Forbes, Sheldon, Barrow, and Bland- 
 ford; a goodly selection of illustrious names indeed ! 
 
 With regard to Luther (who, as Mr. Maguire, M.P., lately 
 instructed the House of Commons b was a believer in Pur- 
 gatory), his opinion respecting such wares has been deli- 
 vered with tolerable distinctness in the Smalcaldic Arti- 
 cles (Part 11, art. 2, sec. 15), where, having referred to the 
 case of Monica, the mother of St. Augustine the instance 
 so often adduced by Romanists he thus proceeds : fe Our 
 Romanists cite these human testimonies in order that their 
 shameful, blasphemous, and accursed marketings in masses 
 to be said for souls in Purgatory, and for offerings, may 
 acquire credit. But never will they find support for such 
 things from Augustine ; he never even dreamed of this pur- 
 gatoriaii mass-mongering." c So much for Luther ! And as 
 respects Melancthon, who it is insinuated favoured Purga- 
 tory, the very section, of the Apology for the Augsburg Con- 
 fession, cited by Dr. Milner, commences with these words 
 (cap. xii., Abus. art. iii. sec. 90), "The position which our 
 
 a Acts xix. 25, Douay version. 
 
 b In a late Maynooth Debate ! What connection on earth could there be 
 between the two ? But note the diligence of Kome, ever on the watch to turn 
 a penny. 
 
 Libri Symbolic* Eccles. Lutherans, edidit F. Frantre, Lips. 1847, p. 12, 
 sect. 1G. 
 
CONCESSIONS OF PROTESTANT PRELATES. 79 
 
 opponents take for maintaining the application of masses for 
 rescuing souls from Purgatory, through which they make 
 untold profits, is altogether unsupported a from the Scrip- 
 tures." In truth, so far from the doctrine being the same 
 now, as asserted by Dr. Milner, as in the days of the Fathers, 
 an entirely different meaning was attached to the expressions 
 among the earlier Patristic writers. To offer for the dead, 
 whether for saints or for others, was to. make oblations in 
 their stead, and as a sign that the individual had departed in 
 the faith, and in communion with the Church ; and indeed 
 this custom prevailed so generally, that where it was omitted 
 the person was regarded as having separated from the Church, 
 neglected his duties, and as having intimated that he was not 
 unwilling to be ranked as a heathen; and, accordingly, the 
 Church, by refusing oblations, used to signify the exclusion 
 of the individual from the body of the faithful ; and hence 
 the dying, in order to mark their adherence to the Church, 
 and that they did not class with either catechumens,, or 
 penitents, or excommunicated, used to express a desire that 
 offerings should be made in their name, and in their stead. b 
 Is this all " the same " with Romish trafficking in masses ? 
 Of Cranmer, Dr. Milner writes : 
 
 "In the first liturgy of the Church of England, which was drawn up by 
 Cranmer and Ridley, and declared by Act of Parliament to have been framed 
 by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, there is an express prayer for the departed, 
 that God would grant them mercy and everlasting peace" (p. 416). 
 
 Ergo, Dr. Milner would have it understood that Cranmer 
 and the first English liturgy taught the doctrine of the 
 Papal Purgatory ! 
 
 "Is not all our trust," exclaims Ai-chbishop Cranmer, "in the blood of 
 Christ, that we be cleansed, purged, and washed thereby ? And will you have 
 us now to forsake our faith in Christ, and bring us to the Pope's Purgatory to 
 be washed therein, thinking that Christ's blood is an imperfect lee or soap 
 that washeth not clean ? If he shall die without mercy that treadeth Christ's 
 blood under his feet, what is treading of his blood under our feet, if this be 
 not ? But if, according to the Catholic faith which the holy Scripture teacheth, 
 and the prophets, apostles, and martyrs confirmed with their blood, all the 
 faithful that die in the Lord be pardoned of all their offences by Christ, and 
 their sins be clearly expunged and washed away by his blood, shall they be 
 cast into another strong and grievous prison of Purgatory, there to be punished 
 again for that which was pardoned before ? God hath promised by his word, 
 that the souls of the just be in God's hand, and no pain shall touch them ; and 
 again he saith, Blessed be they that die in the Lord. For the Spirit of God saith 
 that/rom henceforth they shall rest from their pains. " c 
 
 a Nulla habent testimonia, nullum mandatum ex Scripturis. 
 
 b See the treatise of Fechtius De Oriyine et Superstitione Missarum in Hono- 
 rem Sanctorum, p. 113, Rostochii, 1707. 
 
 c Jenkyns's Cranmer's Remains, vol. ii. p. 234, quoted in Dr. .lewis's 
 Reply, p. 222. 
 
80 PURGATORY. 
 
 We then have the names of eight other prelates given, 
 who are represented as having entertained a belief that " the 
 dead ought to be prayed for ; " all embraced under the very 
 ample reference, as authority for the statement " Collier's 
 History " ! a We will take the eight in succession, availing 
 ourselves, in some measure, of Dr. Grier's " Defence" of his 
 reply to Dr. Milner's assertions, &c. 
 
 Archbishop Usher is first named, who nevertheless cau- 
 tions us 
 
 "Diligently to consider, that the memorials, oblations, and prayers made 
 for the dead at the beginning had reference to such as rested from their labours, 
 and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Utopian 
 Purgatory, whereof there was no news stirring in those days," though there 
 might be " certain sticks then a-gathering, which ministered fuel afterwards 
 unto that flame." And again he remarks, referring specially to Bellarmine, 
 "Thus these men, labouring to show how the prayers for the dead, used in 
 their Church, may stand with their conceits of Purgatory do thereby inform 
 us how the prayers for the dead, used in the ancient Church, may stand well 
 enough without the supposal of any Purgatory at all." b 
 
 This is rather an infelicitous commencement. This witness, 
 at least, hardly supports what he is summoned to accredit. 
 
 Montague, Bishop of Chichester, on the contrary, derides 
 the idea of praying for souls in the kingdom of Purgatory; and 
 tells us that "it is the purging fire, which hath made the Pope's 
 kitchen smoke so much heretofore." And again, after sum- 
 ming up all his arguments against the dogma, he concludes 
 with saying, " that there is not any resolution, public or 
 private, for the first 600 years in the Church on the subject." 
 Lastly, he tells his opponent to " believe it if he will ; that 
 he must see better evidence before he believes it." In 
 addition to this we have the collateral evidence of Spinckes, d 
 that " Bishop Montague does not speak in favour of Purga- 
 tory," notwithstanding the singularity of his opinion on the 
 subject. 
 
 Then Dr. Taylor, bishop of Down, says : " We complain 
 that the doctrine of Purgatory, which is in all parts of it 
 uncertain, and in the late additions to it certainly false, is yet 
 with all its faults passed into an article by the Council of 
 Trent." e Again, " Purgatory is an innovation ; wherever the 
 ancient Fathers speak of prayers for the dead, they rarely, if 
 ever, make mention of Purgatory. n As the same prelate 
 
 a Letter xliii., p. 416. 
 
 b Answer to a Jesuit, pp. 169, 178, 187, edit. Camb. 1835. 
 
 c New Gag for an Old Goose, pp. 295-98. See also Mr. Goode's " Tract XC. 
 historically Refuted," pp. 135-42. 
 
 d Answer to Proposal for Catholic Communion, p. 176. 
 
 e Works, vol. x. 154, Heber's edition ; or Dissuasive, p. 28, ed. Oxford, 
 1836. 
 
 f Grier's Defence, pp. 269-70. 
 
CONCESSIONS OF PROTESTANT PRELATES. 
 
 elsewhere observes, the doctors of Rome, like Dr. Milner 
 throughout his 48th letter, ordinarily assume a necessary 
 connection of praying for the dead with Purgatory, " vain! 
 supposing that whenever the holy Fathers speak of prayers for 
 the dead, that they conclude for Purgatory, which vain con- 
 jecture is as false as it is unreasonable : for it is true the Fathers 
 did pray for the dead, but how ? That God would show them 
 mercy and hasten the resurrection, and give a blessed sentence 
 in the great day." Dissuasive, part i. section iv. 4. a 
 
 With reference to Bishop Forbes, Dr. Milner would have 
 served his cause better had he never summoned him to speak 
 a word for his Purgatory. We do not wonder at his anxiety 
 to bring up any one who seems willing to testify in favour of 
 the doctrine, for it is, to Rome, most valuable. Bishop 
 Forbes, however, asserts, in his " Considerations Modestse" 
 (p. 210), that the dogma has no foundation in Scripture; that 
 Bellarmine's arguments, especially those from Scripture, are 
 miserably distorted and most frigid ; and that as regards the 
 imaginary support from 1 Cor. iii., writhe as the cardinal 
 does miserably, he does after all but squeeze an argument out 
 of the passage. Then again, on p. 239, the bishop observes 
 that the Papal Purgatory may be refuted by most clear 
 testimony from the Fathers; and lastly (p. 266), affirms that 
 the Romanists, inasmuch as their doctrine finds assured sup- 
 port from neither Scripture, nor the early Fathers, nor the 
 Councils, do not reckon it as an article of faith. 
 
 So much for Bishop Forbes as a believer in the Papal 
 Purgatory, 5 though mistaken in his closing observation, as is 
 plain from the creed of Pope Pius IV. 9. 
 
 As to Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, he published 
 two sermons according to Wood ("AthenseOxon."), and only 
 one according to Collier (" Historical Dictionary"). How- 
 ever, neither of the two under his name expresses any opinion 
 about prayers for the dead. 
 
 Then there is brought up Barrow, Bishop of St. Asaph, 
 who has his epitaph engraved on a plate of brass, and fastened 
 to his tombstone in the churchyard at Shrewsbury. It 
 
 a It may be noticed that Bishop Taylor's words have been perverted to 
 serve the same cause, in our own days also ; Mr. French, in the Hammersmith 
 Discussion (p. 376, London, 1851), quoting him as if assenting to the inter- 
 pretation put upon the passage in the History of the Maccabees, "that the Jews 
 did pray and make offerings for the dead." And how is that effected? By 
 just dropping the words, "says the Romanist," and thus leaving it to be 
 regarded as the bishop's own assertion ! See his "Liberty of Prophesying," 
 chap. 20. 
 
 b The original of several of the passages here alluded to is given by Mr. 
 Goode in his "Tract XC. historically Refuted," Lond. 1845, p. 132. 
 
 O 
 
82 PURGATORY. 
 
 entreats those repairing to the house of God to pray that 
 " their fellow-servant might find mercy/' Spinckes speaks 
 of his being the author, yet that he only desired prayer in 
 the sense St. Paul prayed for Onesiphorus (2 Tim. i. 18). 
 
 It is doubted, however, whether the inscription did proceed 
 from the bishop himself; and, any way, neither the Church of 
 England nor its members, are bound by the sentiments of 
 a "private doctor." And, "in fact, were each of these 
 prelates individually possessed of the notion" in favour of a 
 Romish Purgatory, " it would afford no colourable plea for 
 the continuance of a practice which is unsupported by 
 Scripture."* 
 
 The opinion attributed to Dr. Blandford, Bishop of Wor- 
 cester, depends for its validity upon the statement of the 
 duchess of York, who, in the days of Charles II., ivanted to 
 be proselyted to Rome, and accordingly accepted, nothing 
 loth, the opinions upon the matter in hand of Dr. Heylin, 
 Archbishop Sheldon, and Bishop Blandford, asserting for Dr. 
 Morley, Bishop of Winchester, doubts if any such conference 
 ever took place ( ' that she spoke to two of the best bishops 
 we have in England," and that " they told her that there 
 were many things in the Roman Church which it were much 
 to be wished we had kept/' Among these are mentioned 
 confession, prayer for the dead, &c. " But God be thanked," 
 writes Bishop Stillingfleet, "the cause of our Church doth 
 not depend upon the singular opinion of one or two bishops 
 in it. The utmost that can be made of all this is, that there 
 was a certain bishop of the Church who held both Churches 
 to be so far parts of the Catholic Church, that there was no 
 necessity of going from one Church to another. But if he 
 asserted that, he must overthrow the necessity of the Re- 
 formation, and consequently not believe our Articles and 
 Homilies ; and so could not be a true member of the Church 
 of England." b 
 
 a Grier's Defence, pp. 271-73 ; and see Chalmer's Dictionary. 
 
 b An Answer to some Papers lately printed, concerning the authority of the 
 Catholic Church in matters of Faith, &c. Load. 1686, pp. 6063. 
 
 It will not be considered an unsuitable addition, we trust, if we just show 
 the modern iise which is being made of this duchess's name for attracting and 
 encouraging proselytes ; and the ingenious readiness of Rome in catching at 
 anything that may in any way promote her glory, and keep up the empty 
 notions of her followers. We copy the following notice of Rome's adroit 
 adaptation of former occurrences to modern times, from a letter addressed to 
 the Liverpool Herald, March 8, 1856. As the editor remarks, there is no such 
 person now existing as a Duchess of York ; but what mattered that among 
 the party whose valour was to be warmed up by the "glorious announcement ;" 
 and the hopes and fancies of both priest and attendants to be kept glowing ? 
 The introduction of Lord Clarendon's name just at this present period is also 
 not without signification "that persecuting minister :" 
 
INDULGENCES. 83 
 
 And lastly, we have Andrews, Bishop of Winchester. This 
 bishop's opinion respecting Purgatory and prayers for the 
 dead appears in his "Sermons" (p. 302), and in his answer 
 to Bellarmine (p. 192), to be in perfect accordance with the 
 doctrine of the Church of England.* 
 
 So much then for the alleged " concessions of eminent 
 Protestant Prelates" on the matter in debate; and with this 
 further illustration of Dr. Milner's modesty, candour, and 
 love of truth, we dismiss for the present the subject of Pur- 
 gatory. We quite agree with the doctor that he is not 
 infallible, and we accept his apology that he " is far from 
 claiming inerrancy :" but we do doubt the sincerity of his 
 further declaration, "that he should despise himself, if he 
 knowingly published any falsehood, or hesitated to retract any 
 one that he was proved to have fallen into ;" b for during his 
 lifetime every one of the erroneous statements which we have 
 examined were pointed out to Dr. Milner, but neither he 
 nor his followers have ever had the grace to retract any one of 
 the PIOUS FRAUDS we have here again exposed. 
 
 No. XIX. 
 
 INDULGENCES. 
 
 THAT Popery has been for some time, and still is, rapidly 
 on the increase in England, no one, who has paid the least 
 attention to passing events, can for a moment doubt. How 
 far it may be permitted to spread its baneful influence, is 
 
 " SIR, Passing St. Anne's Roman Chapel on Sunday evening last, I was 
 rather surprised to see a great crowd assembled at the front gate ; on crossing 
 the street, something like the following caught my ear : ' The glorious con- 
 version of one of the Royal Family to Catholicity ! Here you have the glorious 
 conversion of one of the Royal Family, the Duchess of York, to the Catholic 
 faith ; in a letter to that persecuting minister, Lord Clarendon ; neatly printed 
 in a book of 12 pp. for one penny! ' This was addressed to the people coming 
 out after service. In the midst of the harangue a priest came out, and on 
 hearing the noise, he came down and listened to the glorious announcement [which 
 he himself had probably set the crier to sell] ; and after giving a very percep- 
 tible smile of approbation, went back again, &c. &c., 
 
 Yours truly, TRUTH." 
 
 a Grier as above. 
 
 b Address, p. 30, note. 
 
 c The Editor is indebted to the Rev. John Evans, of Whixall, Frees, Shrews- 
 bury, for this Article. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 INDULGENCES. 
 
 only known to Him who is the great Disposer of all things. 
 Doubtless, for good and wise purposes, these things are per- 
 mitted ; and although it becomes not us, short-sighted mor- 
 tals, to attempt to measure the designs of Infinite Wisdom by 
 our finite understandings, yet we trust that there is nothing 
 of presumption in the hope which we would express, as to 
 the shades which seem fast deepening around us ; we hope, 
 then, and trust, that they may be intended as a merciful 
 warning to us, that the gross darkness which once involved 
 the nation may again visit us, if we are indifferent to the 
 blessings so dearly purchased for us, under God, by the 
 sufferings and blood of our holy and devoted martyrs if 
 we do not exert ourselves to strengthen the things which 
 remain. 
 
 If the early days of the Church were distinguished by the 
 zeal with which her spiritual guides " contended for the faith 
 once delivered to the saints," by the holy earnestness which 
 they exhibited in their unceasing endeavours to arrest the 
 progress of heresy and superstition, surely a coldness or 
 indifference in this respect argues a fearful departure from 
 the spirit of primitive Christianity ! 
 
 Does it not, then, become an imperative duty, on the part 
 of those who " profess and call themselves Christians," to 
 embrace every opportunity of exposing, in all their naked 
 deformity, the soul-destroying doctrines of the most corrupt 
 of all communities, the Church of Rome? for exposure of 
 error may reasonably be expected to advance the cause of 
 truth, among those at least who are not dead to every religious 
 feeling. The very nature of that charity which we are 
 bound to extend to every individual, be his errors what they 
 may, forbids us to extend it to the errors themselves. Dr. 
 Johnson once wrote, " He that voluntarily continues in igno- 
 rance, is guilty of all the crimes which ignorance produces ; 
 as to him who extinguishes the tapers of a lighthouse might 
 be justly imputed the calamities of shipwrecks : " how much 
 more guilty are they who not only " extinguish the tapers of 
 the lighthouse," but hold out false lights, to lure unfortunate 
 mariners to run their bark upon a rocky coast, for the sake 
 of sharing in the plunder of the wreck; and little short 
 would be the guilt of him, who, when it was in his power to 
 do it, should fail to warn the intended victims of the destruc- 
 tion prepared for them. Of all the " cunningly devised 
 fables" of E/ome and they are many, the doctrine of Indul- 
 gences may be looked upon as one of the most ensnaring, 
 and as perilous to those who are so unhappy as to be beguiled 
 by it, as it is gainful to the Church which employs it in 
 
INDULGENCES. 85 
 
 " making merchandise of souls." a As we proceed we shall 
 see abundant reason why the Church of Rome should both 
 be anxious to retain the doctrine, and, at the same time, by 
 all the means in her power, endeavour to prevent the exhi- 
 bition of it, in its true light, to the eyes of the world. She 
 has not forgotten the consequences which followed the ex- 
 posure of these things in the days of Luther ; and Protestants 
 would do well to bear this important point in mind also. If 
 the exposure of the nefarious traffic in indulgences led the 
 way to the exposure of other abominations, at the commence- 
 ment of the Reformation if it then induced men to turn 
 their attention to the dangerous and wicked doctrines con- 
 nected with the doctrine of indulgences, why may it not, 
 a fortiori, with the blessing of God, lead to similar results 
 now ? We fully believe that such would be the case, and we 
 feel assured that our belief is shared by the modern cham- 
 pions of Rome; hence, indeed, their extreme sensitiveness 
 on these matters; hence their attempts to explain away, or 
 to soften down, the language of Papal documents still extant, 
 and, if the claim of infallibility be allowed, still in force. 
 
 They, the advocates of Rome, would fain persuade us that 
 she never countenanced such things as the sale of pardons and 
 indulgences, and that, although such doings were formerly 
 heard of, nothing of the kind can take place in these days 
 and in enlightened and happy England ! Dr. Milner writes: 
 
 " I. An indulgence never was conceived by any Catholic to be a leave to 
 commit a sin of any kind, as Dr. Coetlogon, Bishop Fowler, and others may 
 charge them with believing. The first principles of natural religion must 
 convince every rational being, that God Himself cannot give leave to commit 
 sin. The idea of such a license takes away that of His sanctity, and of course 
 that of His very being." Letter xlii. 
 
 By Dr. Milner's own showing, then, if it shall appear that 
 Rome has ever encouraged " the idea of such a license," that 
 of her "sanctity" can scarcely be entertained ; whilst the very 
 evidence that she has encouraged such an idea, by authorita- 
 tive documents, will go far to endanger "of course that 
 of her very being," so far as she claims to be a Christian 
 community. 
 
 " II. No Catholic," says Milner, "ever believed it to be a pardon for future 
 sins, as Mrs. Hannah More and a great part of Protestant writers represent 
 
 the matter III. An indulgence, according to the doctrine of the 
 
 Catholic Church, is not, and does not include, the pardon of any sin at all, 
 little or great, past, present, or to come, or the eternal punishment due to it, 
 
 a See "Church of England Quarterly Review," for Jan. 1840, for an article 
 by the writer of the present paper, on "The Nature and Venality of Papal 
 Indulgences." 
 
86 INDULGENCES. 
 
 as all Protestants suppose. Hence, if the pardon of sin is mentioned in any 
 indulgence, this means no more than the remission of the temporary punish- 
 ments annexed to such sin." 
 
 " If the pardon of sin is mentioned in any Indulgence " 
 the use of the word "if" seems to imply something of a 
 doubt, whereas the Doctor should have written " when" as 
 he was perfectly aware that " pardon of sin " is mentioned in 
 some very important documents. Dens makes no "if" about 
 the matter, but boldly meets the objection, that "Pontiffs 
 sometimes say in their Bulls that they grant indulgences of 
 sins/' by the following answer : " E,. The cause is put for 
 the effect, and the indulgence of the punishment arising from 
 the sin is signified." 5 * Though "your if is a great peace- 
 maker/' Dens scarcely thought it prudent to trust to it in so 
 important a matter. Mr. Green, the Roman priest at Tixall, h 
 tells us, " The expressions ' venia peccatorum ' and ' remissio 
 peccatorum' are technical expressions, as familiarly under- 
 stood by a Catholic theologian as any legal technicality is 
 by a gentleman of the law." We shall have something to 
 say, by-and-by, upon these theological " technicalities/' but 
 at present it will be sufficient to observe that, according to 
 Dens and to Mr. Green, the difficulty can only be got over 
 by interpreting the words " pardon " and " remission " in a 
 "non-natural sense," as some modern writers propose to 
 interpret the language of the Thirty-nine Articles, and indeed 
 as was suggested some years ago by a proselyting son of 
 Rome. c That " pardon of sin " is mentioned, we have abund- 
 ant proof, and the very defence, by Dens and Green, is an 
 admission of the fact. Pope Urban, towards the close of the 
 eleventh century, promised to those who should join the 
 banners of the cross against the infidels, " an indulgence of 
 all their sins," and a good deal more " Plenam suorum pec- 
 catorum, si veraciter fuerint corde contriti et ore confessi, 
 veniam indulgemus; et in retributione justorum salutis eeternse 
 pollicemur augmentum." d Mr. Green's own extract and 
 reference are given, and so also shall his translation be 
 adopted. " We mercifully grant them full pardon of their 
 
 a " OBJ. Pontifices in Bullis aliquando dicunt, se concedere indulgentias 
 peccatorum : ergo," &c. 
 
 " R. Ponitur causa pro effectu, et significatur indulgentia pcense ex peccato." 
 Dens, Theol. vol. vi. p. 418, No. 30. 
 
 b "The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth," by the 
 Eev. T. S. Green. London, T. Jones, &c. 1838, p. 28. 
 
 c See " Bampton Lectures," by William Hawkin, M.A. Annotations, 
 p. 275. Oxford, 1787. 
 
 d Ex Oratione Urban. II. in Cone. Claremont : apud Matt. Paris, anno 
 1095. 
 
INDULGENCES. 87 
 
 sins, if they be truly contrite in heart and make confession 
 with the mouth ; and in the retribution of the just we pro- 
 mise them an increase of eternal happiness." a Mr. Green 
 favours us with an extract from the hortatory oration of 
 Innocent IIL, b to the fourth General Council of Lateran, in 
 which the phraseology is the same with that of Urban, except 
 the word " peccaminum" is substituted for " peccatorum," 
 and the words " de quibus " (" for which ") are inserted before 
 " veraciter fuerint corde contriti." Mr. Green's object is to 
 fix the attention upon the words ' ( corde contriti " and " ore 
 confessij" and so also in an extract from an indulgence 
 granted by Alexander III. to those who would take up arms 
 against the Albigenses : " The words are," says Mr. Green, 
 " Qui autem in vera poenitentia ibi decesserint, et pecca- 
 torum indulgentiam et fructum mercedis seternse se non 
 dubitant percepturos." c "With regard to* those who die 
 there in true repentance, let them not doubt that they will 
 receive indulgence of their sins and the fruit of an eternal 
 reward." Surely Dr. Milner had no occasion to employ the 
 conjunction " if." It is more than probable that, " if " the 
 parties concerned in the liberal promises of Urban, Alex- 
 ander, and Innocent, had known that when "pardon" and 
 " remission " were spoken of, " the effect was put for the 
 cause," or that the words " pardon " and " remission " were 
 mere " technical terms," and that the word " sins " was in the 
 same predicament ; it is more than probable, we repeat, that 
 if the parties concerned had been aware of such an interpret- 
 ation, they could hardly have " screwed their courage to the 
 sticking point," as fearless soldiers of the Church against the 
 infidels and heretics. In the case of Urban, " Gul. Tyrius 
 says, 'that Urban expressly mentions those sins which the 
 Bible tells us exclude from the kingdom of God, viz. " mur- 
 ders," " thefts," and the like ; and not only absolved them 
 from all the penances due to their sins, but bid them not 
 doubt of an eternal reward after death/ as William of Malmes- 
 bury also tells us. The same testimony is given by Odericus 
 Vitalis, in whose time the expedition began, ' upon which/ he 
 says, ' all the thieves, pirates, and rogues came in great num- 
 bers and enlisted themselves, having made confession; ' and St. 
 Bernard d rejoices much that ' there were few who were not 
 bad characters ; because, he says, there was a double cause 
 
 a " The Truth," &c. p. 20. 
 
 b Ex Serm. Hortat. Innoc. III. in Cone. Lat. 4 : apud Matt. Paris, anno 
 1215. 
 
 Ex Decreto xxvii. Cone. Lat. 3. 
 
88 INDULGENCES. 
 
 of joy; viz., that their own countries were well rid of such 
 rogues, and that they had entered upon an enterprise which 
 would assuredly take them to heaven/ " a Good reason indeed 
 had Bernard for rejoicing, and, whatever might be the mean- 
 ing of " remission/' " pardon/' or " sin," there can be little 
 doubt that the countries relieved from the presence of such 
 characters were truly indebted to the Pope for his indulgence. 
 We may, however, be reminded, that although the terms 
 " pardon of sins " are found in these and other Bulls, yet the 
 condition " contriti et confessi " is also found. Most true ; 
 and the value of it we may learn from the testimony of a 
 most unexceptionable witness to the behaviour of these vere 
 pcenitentes et contriti, as well as confessi, when they had 
 arrived as far as Constantinople : " And the Christians them- 
 selves conducted themselves shamefully, since they overthrew 
 and burned the palaces of the city, and carried away the 
 lead, whence the churches were covered, and sold it to the 
 Greeks." b Lest the reader should be wearied, one other 
 specimen only shall be given of a " pardon " granted by Pope 
 Boniface (the inventor of Jubilees), in his Bull published in 
 the year 1300, " not only a plenary and larger, but a most 
 full pardon of all their sins, we will and do concede." c This 
 Bull also contains the clause about contrition and confession, 
 " vere pcenitentibus et confessis," with a remarkable addition, 
 which appears in Mr. Green's extract, viz. " vel qui vere 
 pcenitebunt et confitebuntur" Mr. Green was very angry 
 with Archdeacon Hodson for inferring, from the phraseology 
 of Boniface, that " the Pope here takes away more than all 
 the punishment due to sin," and accuses the archdeacon of 
 misinterpreting, and therefore of misapplying, a passage from 
 Bellarmine. The archdeacon thus writes : " Now Bellarmine 
 tells us that t a plenary Indulgence takes away all the punish- 
 ment due to sin/ With this interpretation Mr. Green quarrels, 
 and gives us his own interpretation, and, in a note, the words 
 of Bellarmine." d Mr. Green's translation seems to have been 
 
 * See "British Mag." Aug. 1842, p. 157, for a paper by the Rev. E. O 
 Harington. 
 
 b "Ipsique Christian! nequiter deducebant se, quoniam civitatis palatia 
 sternebant, et auferebant plumbum, unde ecclesiae erant coopertse, et vendebant 
 Graecis." 
 
 This is an extract from " Belli Sacri Historia," the original of the first piece 
 in the "Gesta Dei per Francos," which is but an abridgment. The whole is 
 given in Mabillon and Germain's " Museum Italicum," torn. i. pars alt. pp. 130 
 239. " The Church of Home's Traffic in Pardons substantiated." London, 
 Painter, 1838, p. 15. 
 
 c "Non solum plenam et largiorem, imo plenissimam concedemus et conce- 
 dimus peccatorum." Bullar. Compend. Cherubin., torn. i. p. 36. 
 
 d " Indulgentia . . . plenaria totum poenee reatum tollit qui post culpam 
 remissam forte reniansit." Bellarm. torn. iii. De Ind. lib. 7, cap.tx, G. 
 
INDULGENCES. 89 
 
 made in a hurry, and, assuredly, does not mend the matter : 
 "A plenary indulgence takes away all the punishment due to 
 sin, which remains after the remission of the guilt." The 
 word "forte" seems to have been overlooked. How the 
 inference drawn by the archdeacon is affected by the above 
 it is difficult to perceive ; for if all, whether punishment or 
 guilt, be forgiven by a plenary indulgence, what is the effect, 
 in such a case, of " indulgentia plenior," and, a fortiori, of an 
 " indulgentia plenissima ? " 
 
 Bellarmine, indeed, tells us that "indulgences do not 
 remit guilt [culpam], neither mortal nor venial, but only 
 punishment, and that temporary." 11 And so also Dens : "What 
 is an indulgence ? It is the remission of the temporal 
 punishment due to sins remitted as to the guilt, made by 
 the power of the keys extra sacramentum, by the application 
 of satisfactions which are contained in the treasure of the 
 Church." b The doctrine thus stated is not altogether recon- 
 cilable with other statements of Romish teachers, but that 
 is their concern; let us, however, take these statements as 
 they stand, and, surely, they afford us an example of the 
 most solemn trifling. If all the punishment of sins, whether 
 mortal or venial, or, if you choose, all the remaining punish- 
 ment, temporal though it be (and the word temporal is not 
 confined to mortal life !), is taken away, what does it matter 
 to the receiver of such indulgence whether it be called " a 
 pardon of sin" or " a remission of punishment ? " Rome 
 wishes to retain both the power of confession and absolution, 
 and also the power of granting indulgences ; there is no 
 little danger lest, whilst advocating the efficacy of each, one 
 should be exalted at the expense of the other. If there 
 remain, after confession and priestly absolution, so heavy a 
 debt of punishment that, it may be, thousands, of years must 
 elapse before that debt is satisfied, the penitent may feel 
 uncomfortable with such a prospect before him, and think 
 slightingly of the absolution which leaves him in so undesir- 
 able a position. Something like this seems to have occurred 
 to Bellarmine, when he wrote " realum tollit qui. . . . FORTE 
 remansit," not perceiving how much the value of the plenary 
 indulgence was damaged by thus making the benefit depend 
 upon "if, perchance." To ordinary readers, nevertheless, 
 " indulgence and remission of sins are everywhere united, so 
 as to convey the idea that the pardon of guilt, as well as the 
 remission of a temporal punishment, is included in the 
 
 a Ibid. torn. ii. De Ind. lib. ii. c. 3, F. 
 b Theol. vol. vi. No. 30, p. 417. 
 
90 INDULGENCES. 
 
 boon."* Morinus, " in his ' Sacrament of Penance/ justly 
 observes, that these indulgences cannot be understood of a 
 mere relaxation of canonical penance, because that remission 
 of sins is granted upon which eternal life is vouchsafed, and 
 therefore, they must have reference to God, and not merely 
 to the Church." b The reader may think that there is some 
 truth in the distinction between " Old Popery" and " New 
 Popery," which some writers have made, notwithstanding 
 the claim of infallibility set up for the Church of Rome. 
 Perhaps, however, some modern sons of Rome may think, as 
 others have done before them, that an indulgence can neither 
 secure the pardon of sins nor exemption from punishment. 
 That there were some who thought thus, we learn from very 
 good authority. Gregory of Valentia tells us of some who 
 thought " that ecclesiastical indulgence of itself could remit 
 no punishment either in the judgment of the Church, or in 
 the judgment of God; but that it was a kind of pious fraud, 
 whereby the Church, by promising such remission, may 
 allure men to the devout performance of good works which 
 were required in the form of the indulgence, that in proportion 
 to that devotion, and the value of those works, satisfaction be 
 made to God, and not by any virtue in the indulgence itself." c 
 To much the same purpose speaks another " school-doctor :" 
 " The devising of Indulgences is a pious fraud and a harm- 
 less deceit, that by a devout kind of error the people may 
 be drawn to godliness." d The same opinion is, doubtless, 
 referred to as in the above extract. Roman Catholics hold- 
 ing such opinions, certainly never believed an indulgence to 
 convey " a pardon for sin." 
 
 " IV. We do not," proceeds Dr. Milner, " believe an indulgence to imply any 
 exemption from repentance, as Bishop Porteus slanders us ; for this is always 
 
 a Ferraris, Prompt. Bibliotheca, Indulg. art. v. sect. 16, 17. See Elliot's 
 "Delineation of Eoman Catholicism," p. 339, edit. Lond. 1851. 
 
 b Ibid. p. 232. 
 
 c " Una est, quam refert Albertus in quarta distinctione vigesima, articulo 
 decimo septimo, et D. Thorn, hie in supplem., tertiae partis, questione vigesima 
 quinta, articulo secundo, quorundam qui dixerunt indulgentiam ecclesiasticam 
 nullam poenam remittere per se, nee in foro Ecclesise, neque in foro Dei ; sed 
 esse piam quandam fraudem, qu& Ecclesia per illam remissionis pollicitationem 
 homines alliciat ad exequendum devote ea opera pia, quse in indulgentise forma 
 exiguntur, ut pro ratione ejus devotionis, et valore eorum operum, Deo satisfiat, 
 non autem per vim ipsius indulgentiae." Gregorii de Valentia, e Societate Jesu, 
 Comment. Theol. torn. iv. disp. vii. quest, xx. de Indulgentiis, punct. i. col. 
 1784, A. Lutet. Paris. 1609. 
 
 d " Num tibi leves .... causse videntur, quibus ab hac nova indulgentiarum 
 assertione patres ante Albertum et Thoman discesserunt, asserentes nihil esse 
 nisi piam fraudem ac dolum non malum, quo plebs officioso," &c. Wessel. 
 Farrag. Eer. Theolog. Basil, 1522. Epist. contra Tac. Hock de Indulgent, 
 cap. i. fol. 106. 
 
INDULGENCES. 91 
 
 enjoined or implied in the grant of it, and is indispensably necessai-y for the 
 effect of every grace ; nor from the works of penance and other good works, 
 because our Church teaches that the ' life of a Christian ought to be a perpetual 
 penance ; and that to enter into life, we must keep God's commandments, and 
 must abound in every good work,' Whether an obligation of all this can be 
 reconciled with the articles of being 'justified by faith only,' and that 'works 
 done before grace partake of the nature of sin,' I do not here inquire." 
 
 There is no little confusion and a good deal of caution in 
 the above. What are the " temporary punishments" spoken 
 of above ? Do they not include " canonical penance ? " Dens, 
 in explaining the meaning of an indulgence for a certain 
 time, as " of a hundred days," affirms that the benefit is 
 the same as if the penitent had " performed a penance of a 
 hundred days, accustomed to be imposed, according to the 
 canons"* But we shall see more of this by-and-by. The 
 good Doctor exhibits a prudent caution when he tells us that 
 repentance is " always enjoined or implied in the grant," for, 
 if we may trust Dens, it is not always enjoined, neither is it 
 always required, and is sometimes dispensed with : 
 
 " The seraphical doctor tells us of some indulgences granted to help to 
 build some church, or the like : those that gave a penny towards it should be 
 pardoned the third part of their repentance, and for another penny another 
 third part, and for another penny the last third part ; so that for three pence 
 remission may be obtained." b 
 
 The same principle is clearly acknowledged by Dens : 
 
 " If the work concur, in substance, with the end intended by him who grants 
 the Indulgence, it seems to be sufficient ; otherwise not. So Bellarmine, Lay- 
 man, Billuart, and Daelman, against Neessen, Collet, &c. Whence if an 
 indulgence be granted to those who shall give money to build a church, 
 although it be given out of vain glory, they gain the indulgence ; but if prayers, 
 fasts, alms, &c., be enjoined to appease God, to obtain the conversion of infidels, 
 &c., he who gives out of vain glory does not appear to satisfy." 
 
 Can a man be "in a state of grace " who gives "out 
 of vain glory ? " And yet, if the object be " to build a 
 church," a person giving "out of vain glory" obtains, or 
 
 a " Sed significatur, quod is, qui consequetur illam indulgentiam centum 
 clierum, obtineat tantam remissionem pcenarum temporalium in hoc sceculo vel in 
 Purgatorio luendarum, quantam obtinuisset, si poenitentiam centum dierum 
 secundum canones imponi revera peregisset, spectando scilicet earn mere 
 quatenus satisfactoriam !" Dens, Theol. torn. vi. No. 31, p. 419. 
 
 b Bonavent. in Sent. Venet. edit. p. 323. 
 
 c " An sufficit facere opus injunctum quoad substantiam, etiamsi ex fine vel 
 circumstantiis fiat peccatum veniale ? 
 
 "E.. Si opus quoad substantiam factum concurrat ad finem intentum a con- 
 cedente indulgentiam, videtur sufficere ; secus non. Ita Bellarminus, Layman, 
 Billuart, et Daelman, contra Neessen, Collet, &c. Undesi concedatur indulgentia 
 eis qui dabunt nummum ad aedificandum ecclesias, etsi ex vana gloria detur, 
 lucrantur indulgentiam ; si vero injungantur preces, jejunia, eleemosynaeque 
 ad placandum Deum, ad obtinendum conversionem infidelium, &c., non videtur 
 satisfa'cere qui ilia opera facit ex yana gloria." Dens, Theol. torn. vi. No. 35, 
 p. 430. 
 
9.2 INDULGENCES. 
 
 rather gains, the Indulgence. The very question, to which 
 the preceding extract is the response, proves that a person 
 may commit a venial sin, and yet obtain an Indulgence. " Is 
 it sufficient to perform the enjoined work as to its substance, 
 although from the intention [ex fine] or circumstances a 
 venial sin be committed ? " Rome, as we have said, likes to 
 have both Confessions and Indulgences when she can ; but 
 she is very liberal, and, when it appears to serve her pur- 
 pose, by no means exacting as to the conditions of an 
 Indulgence ; thus Dens tells us, that, as to sacramental 
 confession, 
 
 " 1. When it is not required in the Bull, it is not necessary, but a state of 
 grace is sufficient ; nevertheless to those who are in mortal sin, and desirous 
 to gain an indulgence, it will be necessary as an ordinary mean to a state of 
 grace, if a confessor can be had. 
 
 " 2. When, indeed, confession is required in the Bull, but only as a disposi- 
 tion and ordinary mean to a state of grace, it is necessary indeed to those who 
 have fallen into mortal sin, but not to those who have only venial sins."* 
 
 If a person does not confess, how is he to be judged of as 
 to being in a proper state to receive, or gain, an Indulgence ? 
 Is he left in this important matter to the exercise of private 
 judgment ? But to return to Dr. Milner: 
 
 " V. It is inconsistent with our doctrine of inherent justification to believe, 
 as the same prelate charges us, that the effect of an indulgence is to transfer 
 ' the overplus of goodness,' or justification of the saints, by the ministers of 
 the Pope, to us Catholics on earth. Such an absurdity may be more easily 
 reconciled with the system of Luther and other Protestants concerning im- 
 puted justification, which, being like a clean neat cloak thrown over a filthy 
 leper, may be conceived transferable from one person to another." 
 
 There may be some " technicalities/' which only a Romish 
 theologian can explain, but, assuredly, Dens and others 
 speak of a treasure of " Satisfactions :" 
 
 "What is an Indulgence ? 
 
 " It is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sins remitted as to 
 their guilt, made by the power of the keys ' extra sacramentum,' by the 
 application of the satisfactions which are contained in the treasure of the 
 Church. 
 
 " What is understood by the treasure of the Church ? 
 
 "It is an accumulation of spiritual goods remaining in the divine keeping, 
 and of which the disposal is intrusted to the Church. 
 
 a "An ad lucrandum indulgentiam necessaria sit confessio sacramentalis 1 
 "R. 1. Quando ea inBulla non exigitur, non est necessaria, sed sufficit status 
 gratise ; existentibus tamen in peccato mortali et indulgentias lucrari cupien- 
 tibus, erit necessaria tanquam medium ordinariurn ad statum gratise, si habeatur 
 copia confessarii. 
 
 " 2. Quando in Bulla exigitur quidern confessio, sed tantum tanquam dis- 
 positio et medium ordinarium ad statum gratise, ea quidem necessaria est 
 lapsis in mortali, sed non iis qui habent sola venialia." Dens, Theol. torn. vi. 
 No. 35, p. 431. 
 
INDULGENCES. 93 
 
 " Whence is this treasure got together ? 
 
 " First it is got together from the superabundant satisfactions of Christ, 
 then from the superfluous satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of 
 the other Saints. " a 
 
 The play is upon the word " satisfactions ;" it matters 
 little, however, by what name these " bona spiritualia" are 
 called, so long as the pretended effect is the same; nor 
 whether that effect is produced by their being " imputed" to 
 Roman Catholics, or "offered to God for them." What can 
 it signify to a debtor, whose creditor is satisfied by another 
 man paying the debt, whether that other man pays the 
 sum, earned by his own industry, into the hands of the 
 creditor, or a sum equal to the debt be placed to his name 
 on the credit side of his account ? It certainly cannot be 
 placed to the account of the debtor's own inherent industry, 
 nor, if his defalcations have been the result of wasteful ex- 
 travagance, to his inherent honesty. Now Dens employs an 
 illustration very like this in explaining the difference between 
 the effect of indulgences in the case of the living and the 
 dead ; in the latter case, it is " solum solutio," but in the 
 former case it is both <( solutio," and also " absolutio." 
 
 " For example, whilst payment is made for a person imprisoned for debt 
 out of a common fund left for that purpose, nevertheless, in the case of 
 indulgences for the living, he [the prelate] further takes and applies in the 
 name of Christ the same satisfactions, and thus, in consideration of them, the 
 punishment due is remitted, which is nothing else than absolution, or judicial 
 or authoritative remission, which cannot be exercised towards the dead," &c. b 
 
 " A judicial remission" looks very like " a justification," for 
 the person thus absolved and cleared is made "rectus in 
 curia." His character is cleared, and that out of a fund 
 accumulated by others ! Dr. Milner and Dens speak of 
 " satisfactions," whilst in Dr. Butler's Catechism, revised, 
 
 a " Quid est Indulgentia ? 
 
 " R. Est poenae temporalis peccatis quoad culpam remissis debitse remissio, 
 factu potestate claviuin exti-a sacramentum per application em satisfactionum 
 quae in thesauro Ecclesise continentur. 
 
 " Quid intelligitur per thesaurum Ecclesise ? 
 
 "R. Est cumulus bonorum spiritualium permanentium in acceptatione 
 divina, et quorum dispositio Ecclesise est concredita. 
 
 " Ex quibus thesaurus ille coalescit ? 
 
 " R. Primario coalescit ex superabundantibus Christi satisfactionibus, deinde 
 ex superfluentibus Beatae Mariae Virginis et reliquorum Sanctorum satisfac- 
 tionibus." Dens, Theol. torn. vi. No. 30, p. 417. 
 
 b " V.g. dum pro incarcerato propter debita solvitur ex bonis communibus 
 ob ilium finem relictis, attamen etiam in indulgentiis pro vivis ulterius 
 nomine Christi easdem satisfactiones acceptat et applicat, sicque consideratione 
 earum remitti prenas debitas, quod nihil aliud est quam absolutio, seu remissio 
 judicialis vel authoritativa, quae exerceri non potest in defunctos," &c. Dens, 
 Theol. torn. vi. No. 39, p. 437. : 
 
94 INDULGENCES. 
 
 enlarged, approved, and recommended, as a general catechism 
 for the kingdom, we find different terms employed : 
 
 "When the Church grants indulgences, what does it offer to God, to supply 
 our weakness and insufficiency, and in satisfaction for our transgression ? 
 The merits of Christ, which are infinite and superabundant : together with 
 the virtues and good works of his Virgin Mother, and all his saints." Lesson 
 xxviii. Cork, 1839. 
 
 In a French catechism, to which the Pope's Bull is 
 prefixed/ we read : 
 
 " Q. What, then, in a word, is the intention of the Church in the dispensa- 
 tion of indulgences ? 
 
 " A. To assist well-meaning Christians to clear themselves in regard to God, 
 and make up their infirmity." 
 
 Something very like "justification," in making Christians 
 " clear in regard to God." There are, indeed, few points in 
 which the doctors of Rome are agreed as to the nature, 
 effects, and extent of indulgences ; and no wonder, therefore, 
 that Dr. Milner should fall into inconsistency in attempting 
 to settle the whole matter in a page or two ; and his playing 
 upon the words "justification," "satisfactions," "imputation," 
 was probably only intended to draw off the attention of the 
 reader from the real merits of the case, and to make him 
 believe that he, Dr. Milner, had cleared up a matter upon 
 which so much has been written, and such various opinions 
 held, by the ablest divines of Borne. b Bossuet and Gother 
 represent indulgences merely as the relaxations of the 
 canonical censures or canons, whilst by Dens and Dela- 
 hogue the opinion of Bellarmine is followed, that an indul- 
 gence averts the wrath of God with respect to the temporal 
 punishment of sin. c 
 
 " Lastly," writes Dr. Milner, " whereas the Council of 
 Trent calls indulgences heavenly treasures, we hold that it 
 would be a sacrilegious crime in any person whatever to be 
 concerned in buying or selling them." A crime, indeed, for 
 other reasons besides the one given by the Doctor, who is 
 "far from denying" that such things have been! And yet 
 we find Dens allowing that an indulgence may be "gained" 
 by giving money to build a church, even though it be given 
 " out of vain glory ! " We remember to have read of an un- 
 sophiscated rustic being told by a surly porter, that Lord 
 
 a Cited in Elliot's "Delineation," &c., pp. 310, 311. London, 1851. 
 
 b " Sed quaenam sit ilia poena quae vi indulgentiarum remittitur, non con- 
 venit inter theologos, ut videri est in Regula Fidei, Veronii (c. ii. sect. 4, de 
 Indulg.)" Delahogue Tract, de Sac. Poenit. Append, de Indulg. chap. ii. 
 art. 1. 
 
 c " Valent autem indulgentiae non solum in foro Ecclesise sed etiain in foro 
 Dei," &c. Dens, Theol. torn. vi. No. 30, p. 418. 
 
INDULGENCES. 95 
 
 was " not at home ; " but, before the poor fellow had gone 
 very far from the nobleman's residence, the porter called him 
 back and hinted, that, " if he would give him half a crown," 
 perhaps he, the porter, could name the hour when " my lord" 
 would be " at home." The countryman complied, and when 
 he had, a second time, got a little way from the door, he 
 turned round, and, after a pause of a minute or two, exclaimed, 
 " Well, now, if that wasn't a Lord's house, I should say 
 such doings were very like bribery and corruption ! " And, 
 probably, such doings as granting an indulgence to a vain- 
 glorious person, simply because he had "given money to 
 build a church," would be termed, "if that wasn't the Pope's 
 house," a very disreputable affair, even by Dr. Milner. 
 
 After having told us what an indulgence is not, Dr. Milner 
 proceeds to tell us what it is, but by no means succeeds in 
 clearing the matter from its difficulties. 
 
 I. He supposes a prince wholly to remit a capital punish- 
 ment, or to leave the criminal subject to a lighter punishment, 
 and tells us that God may act in either of these ways ; but 
 we know that God has told us in His Word that " the blood of 
 Christ cleanseth from all sin ;" He tells us what He has done, 
 and does not leave us to speculate on what He might do. 
 
 II. He seeks a proof in the punishment of Adam, that the 
 guilt of sin was pardoned, and ' ' the eternal punishment due 
 to it " remitted ! A most unfortunate reference for the doc- 
 trine of indulgences, for, will any one say that the infirmities 
 of the body which " is dead because of sin," those infirmities, 
 that mortality, which every son of the offending Adam in- 
 herits, can be averted, or even alleviated, by an indulgence ? 
 We know of Rome's pretended miracles of healing the sick, 
 but have any of her writers claimed this virtue for an indul- 
 gence ? And some such test would assuredly have proclaimed 
 their power, had such power been connected with them ! Our 
 Saviour attested His own power to forgive sins by showing 
 His power to heal the infirmities of the body : " Whether is it 
 easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and 
 walk? But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath 
 power on earth to forgive sins, (He said unto the sick of the 
 palsy) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch and go 
 into thine house. And immediately he rose up, and took 
 up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house 
 glorifying God." a Equally unfortunate is the appeal to the 
 case of David (2 Sam. xii. 14), for Nathan was especially 
 commissioned, and gives a special reason, " Howbeit, because 
 by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of 
 
 a Luke v. 2325. 
 
96 INDULGENCES. 
 
 the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee 
 shall surely die." Now, to make the parallel hold, as the 
 indulgence remits the temporal punishment of sin, to say 
 nothing of other important differences in the case, we should 
 have read of some mitigation of David's temporal punishment; 
 but we read of none, the Prophet told him that the child 
 should surely die, and it did die I The reference to the case 
 of the incestuous Corinthian (2 Cor. ii. 10) is not more fortu- 
 nate : " To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also ; " and, in 
 the preceding verses, St. Paul assigns his reasons why the 
 penitent should be forgiven, ' ' Lest perhaps such an one should 
 be swallowed up with over much sorrow ." a If the whole 
 context be examined, there will be seen to be no parallel 
 whatever between the proceeding of the Apostle and indul- 
 gences of Rome. The object of those who adduce the 
 passage is to show that the good deeds of others might 
 "satisfy" for the misdoings or "infirmities" of the offender; 
 and that the Apostle assumed the power of remitting the 
 " temporal punishment ; " and then to have it supposed that 
 this power has descended to " the successors of St. Peter ; " 
 but this is not only a petitio principii, but in every way a 
 misrepresentation of the case. St. Paul could scarcely con- 
 template the superabundance of good works on the part of 
 those to whom he proposed the comforting of the offending 
 brother, that he " might know the proof of them," whether 
 they were " obedient in all things" 
 
 We need not pause to examine the justness of Dr. Milner's 
 inferences from such premises further, as to the above points ; 
 for, if all that he contends for were granted, still he must 
 assume another very important point before he can establish 
 the parallel he seeks ; he must take it for granted that the 
 doctrine of a Purgatory also is true ; he must assume also the 
 truth of the doctrine of works of supererogation, though our 
 Lord Himself has said, " When ye have done all those things 
 which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, 
 we have done that which was our duty to do." A Pope 
 would teach Dr. Milner that Rome's teaching on these 
 points is not that of Scripture. Gelasius adduces the peti- 
 
 a " But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part; that 
 I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, 
 which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive 
 him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with over 
 much sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love 
 towards him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of 
 you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive anything, I 
 forgive also : for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes 
 forgave I it in the person of Christ." 
 
INDULGENCES. 97 
 
 tions of the Lord's Prayer, " lead us not into temptation, &c." 
 to prove that the best of men is not without sin, and argues 
 that the text, " If we say that we have no sin, we shall make 
 him a liar" (1 John i. 8), is applicable in this case. a 
 
 Again he argues that Acacius, being dead, could not obtain 
 absolution, because he was altogether beyond all human in- 
 terference. 5 
 
 Thus we see that the doctrine of Indulgences is connected 
 with many other equally unscriptural doctrines, and that 
 Rome necessarily fears the exposure of her traffic in such 
 matters, as it thus leads to investigate all the errors which it 
 involves. Even Bellarmine agrees withGelasius as to the power 
 of Rome over the dead. " Therefore neither Peter, nor the 
 Pope, can challenge any prerogative more than other over 
 the dead ;" c though he thinks that Indulgences are profitable 
 to the dead " per modum suffragii." A remarkable instance 
 of an acute mind endeavouring to support a doctrine, the 
 hollowness of which it could not but clearly perceive ! Du- 
 randus confesses that Indulgences have no foundation in 
 Scripture or antiquity : " Very little can be affirmed with 
 any certainty, concerning Indulgences, because neither the 
 Scripture speaks expressly of them ; and the Fathers, Am- 
 brose, Hilary, Augustine, Hierom, speak not at all of them." d 
 Sylvester Prierias says, " Indulgences have not become known 
 to us by the authority of Scriptures, but by the authority of 
 the Church of Rome, and of the Popes, which is greater." 6 
 Alphonsus de Castro says, " Among all things, there is none 
 which the Scriptures have less opened, or whereof the old 
 writers have said less. What wonder, then, that among the 
 ancients there is no mention of them ? " { " The use of them," 
 
 a Labbe'et Cossart, torn. iii. col. 1243. Paris, 1671. 
 
 b " Siquidem ipsis Apostolis Christi voce delegatum est, Quce ligaveritis, et 
 reliqua. Cfeterum de eo, qui in divino judicio est constitutus, nobis non fas 
 est aliud decernere praeter id, in quo eum suprenms dies invenit." Ibid, 
 col. 1259. 
 
 c Bellarm. de Indulg., lib. i. cap. xiv. q. 2. 
 
 d " De Indulgentiis pauca dici possunt per certitudinem, quia nee Scriptura 
 expresse de eis loquitur. Quod enim dictum est Petro, Matt. xvi. : ' Tibi 
 dabo claves regni coelorum. Et quodcunque ligaveris,' &c., intelligitur de 
 potestate ei data in foro pcenitentiae. De collatione autem Indulgentiarum 
 non est clarura quod debeat intelligi : Sancti etiam, ut Ambrosius, Hilarius, 
 Augustinus, minime loquuntur de Indulgentiis.' " Durand. a Portiano in 
 Sent. Theol. P. Lombard., lib. iv. dist. xx. qusest. 3. 
 
 e " Indulgentiae auctoritate Scripturfe non innotuere nobis ; sed auctoritate 
 Ecclesiae Romanes, Romanorumque pontificum, qu<e major est." Sylvest. 
 Prier. in Luth. Concl. Dial, in Luth. Op. Witeb. 1554, torn. i. fol. 166. 
 
 f " Inter omnes res, de quibus in hoc opere disputamus, nulla est quam 
 minus aperte sacrae literae prodiderint, et de qua minus vetusti Scriptores 
 dixerint. Quid ergo minim . . . . ut apud priscos nulla sit de eis mentio." 
 Alphons. de Castro adv. Hser. col. 1589, lib. viii. Indulg. fol. 142 ; or 
 
 H 
 
98 INDULGENCES. 
 
 he tells us, "was, it seems, received late into the Church." 8 
 Cardinal Fisher candidly acknowledged, " As long as there 
 was no care about Purgatory, no one sought for Indulgences ; 
 for upon that depends all the value of Indulgences ; if you 
 take away Purgatory, what need will there be of Indul- 
 gences ?" b Other ancient testimonies might be adduced to 
 the same purpose, but the above are sufficient to show a 
 considerable difference between " Old Popery" and " New 
 Popery," and to shake considerably the assumed confidence 
 of appeal to scriptural authority in support of the doctrine of 
 Indulgences. 
 
 What if, after all, the whole matter has a heathen origin? 
 "What," writes Mr. Blunt, in his "Vestiges of Ancient 
 Manners and Customs discoverable in Modern Italy and 
 Sicily," " what then is the advantage of Masses? It is the 
 price of the Indulgence, or a more speedy delivery from 
 the pains of Purgatory. And what was the advantage of 
 sepulture, and the funeral rites of old? A more speedy 
 deliverance from the misery of wandering on the wrong side 
 the Styx. The difference is inconsiderable." Mr. Blunt has 
 just before remarked, " In some places the poor are deluded 
 enough to pay a certain sum monthly to their priest, for the 
 sake of insuring a ceremony after death which they hold 
 it a serious misfortune to want." And a little after he 
 says : " Having had cause to touch upon the sale of Indul- 
 gences, it is convenient to mention in this place a passage in 
 Suetonius, which appears to me to afford some explanation of 
 that abuse of the Church of Rome. In his life of Vespasian 
 he records several indecent plans which that emperor pursued 
 for raising a revenue ; and amongst the rest that of selling 
 pardons (' absolutipnes' is the word used) to culprits, whether 
 guilty or innocent, ' nee reis, tarn innoxiis quam nocentibus, 
 absolutiones venditare cunctatus est/ (Vespas. 16.) Since 
 then the Pope has confessedly adopted some practices of his 
 imperial predecessors, those pontifices maximi whose title 
 he inherits ; such, for instance, as that of offering his foot for 
 salutation, which was first done by Dioclesian, is it not 
 possible that he may also have followed so tempting an 
 example in his fiscal arrangements, and have thus granted to 
 
 Alphonsi a Castro Opera adversus oinnes Hzereses, lib. viii. sect. Indulg. 
 col. 578, fol. Paris, 1571. 
 
 a "Earum usus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptns." Ibid. 
 
 b "Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit Tndulgentias ; 
 nam ex illo pendet omriis Indulgentiarum existimatio ; si tollas Purgatorium, 
 quorsum Indulgentiis opus erit." Assert. Luther. Confut. Antwerp, 1523, 
 p. 111.- 
 
 c London : John Murray, 1823, p. 180. 
 
INDULGENCES. 99 
 
 spiritual offenders, as a spiritual prince, that release from 
 punishment which it seems was before accorded to temporal 
 offenders by a temporal prince?"* The truth of Mr. Blunt's 
 suggestion will be pretty evident when we touch upon the 
 rise of Indulgences, on which we shall have the less occasion 
 to dwell, having already cited authorities alluding to that 
 part of the subject. 
 
 " Still," says Dr. Milner, " this power, like that of absolution, is not arbi- 
 trary ; there must be a just cause for the exercise of it ; namely, the greater 
 good of the penitent, or of the faithful, or of Christendom in general ; and 
 there must be a certain proportion between the punishment remitted and the 
 good work performed. Hence [mark this, reader !] no one can be sure that he 
 has gained the entire benefit of an Indulgence, though he has performed all the 
 conditions appointed for this end ; and hence, of course, the pastors of the 
 'Church will have to answer for it, if they take upon themselves to grant Indul- 
 gences for unworthy or insufficient purposes." 
 
 What an admission ! All then may amount to just nothing ! 
 And therefore all the learning and sophistry of the doctor 
 might have been spared. How careful ought the pastors to 
 be in examining into the worthiness of the "cause" before 
 granting Indulgences, and yet Dens tells us this must not be 
 too nicely questioned, but taken for granted, 5 and no doubt 
 should ever be publicly expressed respecting the validity of 
 an Indulgence on the part of the grantor. Has not the 
 good doctor been a little incautious in his admission ? The 
 benefit of the individual, the good of the Church or of 
 Christendom, affords, after such an admission, but a trea- 
 cherous foundation to rest upon. There are other dangers 
 too, as we shall presently see. 
 
 "Lastly," writes Dr. Milner, "it is the received doctrine of the Church, that 
 an Indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical 
 penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual remission by God himself, 
 of the whole or part of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight. The 
 contrary opinion, though held by some theologians, has been condemned by 
 Leo X. and Pius VI. ; and indeed, without the effect here mentioned, Indul- 
 gences would not be heavenly treasures, and the use of them would not be 
 beneficial, but rather pernicious to Christians, contrary to two declarations of 
 the last General Council, as Bellarmin well argues." 
 
 Assuredly in that case Indulgences would not be heavenly 
 treasures, even "when truly gained," of which the doctor 
 admits there may be a doubt ! " The above explanation," 
 proceeds Dr. Milner, " of an Indulgence, conformably to the 
 
 a Ibid. pp. 190-1. 
 
 b " Denique observandum est, quod non sit particularium examinare causas 
 Indulgentiarum, sed quod pro reverentia debita Praelates Ecclesiae debeant 
 supponere, causam justam et sufficientem esse : igitur neque in concionibus, 
 neque in aliis ocoasionibus coram populo unquam moveatur dubium circa vali- 
 ditatem Indulgentiag ex parte concedentis." Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 37, 
 p. 434. Edit. Dublin, 1832. 
 
 ii 2 
 
100 INDULGENCES. 
 
 doctrine of theologians, the decrees of Popes, and the defi- 
 nitions of Councils, ought to silence the objections, and 
 suppress the sarcasms of Protestants on this head." How 
 far the given explanation will accomplish all this, the reader 
 will judge for himself; and to enable him to do so more 
 effectually, we proceed to a brief outline of the history of 
 Indulgences, and of Jubilees, so intimately connected with 
 them. Rome, indeed, has little wish to have this point 
 cleared up, and her modern champions, in their attempts to 
 conceal the true state of the case, have done little more than 
 endeavour to cover the original painting with a coat of water- 
 colours, which any Pope may, at his pleasure, easily remove 
 by a slight application of his infallible sponge, whenever it 
 shall appear desirable to exhibit the original picture in its 
 primitive beauty to the admiring gaze of his delighted 
 subjects ! 
 
 In the primitive Church a wholesome system of discipline 
 obtained, by which offenders were frequently obliged to 
 continue for a considerable time in some cases for many 
 years in a state of penance and separation from the sacra- 
 ments. It seemed, however, expedient to the Council of 
 Nice to give power to all bishops to shorten the time, and to 
 relax the severity of the Canons. a This favour was called an 
 Indulgence, and appears to have been a just and necessary 
 provision, without which no society could be well governed. 
 But after the tenth century a great alteration took place, and 
 the original design seems to have been altogether laid aside. 
 In the hands of the Popes the machinery of Indulgences was 
 employed, and with effect, to promote the power and affluence 
 of the See of Home. The first Indulgence, in the modern 
 sense of the word, was granted by Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, 
 and Legate of Gregory VII., to those who would take his 
 part against Henry IV. Similar Indulgences were granted 
 by Urban II. to such as would undertake the Crusade to 
 the Holy Land ; and, after him by succeeding Popes, for the 
 same purpose. Morinus states that these Indulgences did 
 not merely absolve from Canonical penance, but that "a 
 remission of such sins was granted by them, upon which 
 eternal life depends." 6 Be this as it may, we find that when 
 they came to be regarded as effecting a deliverance from 
 
 a " Liceat Episcopo humanius aliquid de eis statuere." See Beveregii 
 Pand. Can. Cone. Nic. Can. 12. 
 
 b See Baron. Annal., A.D. 1084, n. 15, and Bower's "Lives of the Popes," 
 vol. v. p. 280, 4to. (edit. London, 1750) ; Morinus de Sac. Poen. 1. 10, c. 20. 
 The reader will excuse some few repetitions of authorities., as they are necessary 
 to the course of the statement. 
 
INDULGENCES. 101 
 
 Purgatory, they were considered as too important to be 
 intrusted wholly to inferior hands ; and, accordingly, in the 
 Fourth Lateran Council, held by Innocent III., a the power 
 of the bishops was abridged. We may here draw the atten- 
 tion of the reader to a remark previously made, that without 
 Purgatory the Indulgences would be things of no value, as 
 admitted by Cardinal Fisher, whose opinion has already been 
 cited. b The value, then, of Indulgences clearly depends upon 
 Purgatory. But something more was necessary to make the 
 machinery work satisfactorily ; and accordingly, counsels of 
 perfection, works of supererogation, and a communication of 
 merits, or, more correctly speaking, of " satisfactions/' were 
 invented. 
 
 Here then we see at once why the Church of Rome is so 
 solicitous to maintain these doctrines; without them Indul- 
 gences would be nothing worth. And here also we see the 
 reason of her sensitiveness on the subject of Indulgences ; if 
 they are brought into disrepute, the doctrines of Purgatory, 
 works of supererogation, &c., become little better than idle 
 tales. We have already seen, as to the doctrine of Indul- 
 gences, that the theologians of Rome tell us of a certain 
 treasure placed at the disposal of the Pope; and that this 
 treasure consists of the superabundant satisfactions of Christ, 
 with the superfluous satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
 and of the rest of the saints. d Clement VI., however, speaks 
 of the merits of " the Holy Mother of God and of all the 
 elect " as contributing to the said treasure ; so that if any 
 important deduction depends upon the term " satisfactions," 
 we must have recourse to the technical interpretation, and 
 say that " merits " mean " satisfactions," or no little confu- 
 sion will ensue. There appears, even with the aid of the 
 technicalities, some difficulty on the subject of the culpa, 
 when the application of the above-named treasure is to be 
 made for the release of souls from Purgatorial sufferings, or 
 from a part of them. We have seen that an Indulgence is 
 stated to be " the remission of the temporal punishment due 
 to sins already remitted quoad culpam, by the power of the 
 
 a A.D. 1215. 
 
 b "Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit Indulgentias ; 
 nam ex illo pendet omnis Indulgentiarum existimatio : si tollas Purgatorium, 
 quorsum Indulgentiis opus erit." Assert. Luther. Confut., Antwerp, 1523, 
 p. 111. (Supra p. 98.) 
 
 c Eckius distinguishes between merits and satisfactions. Enchiridion, p. 248, 
 Colonise, 1567. 
 
 d Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 30. " Ad cujus quidem thesauri cumulum, 
 beatae Dei Genetricis, omniumque electorum, a primojusto ad ultimum, nierita 
 adminiculumpraestare noscuntur." Corpus Juris Cuounici Extravag. Commun. 
 lib. v. tit. ix. c. i. ii. 
 
102 INDULGENCES. 
 
 keys, extra sacramentum, and by the application of the 
 treasure which is contained in the Church." But this 
 unfortunate culpa, Romish theologians have found it no 
 easy matter to manage. Accordingly, we find Dens, some- 
 what inconsistently with his definition of an Indulgence, it 
 must be confessed, stating, " but the guilt itself of the sin is 
 not directly remitted by Indulgences." Was this an inad- 
 vertence? or was the cautious phraseology suggested by the 
 recollection that some of the Popes, not aware of the mischief 
 their infallibilities were doing, had made use of expressions 
 sounding so very like pardon of sins, " properly speaking," 
 that the assertion of Indulgences having nothing at all to do 
 with such pardons, was too hazardous ? Such a recollection 
 clearly suggested the interpretation of " causa pro effectu," 
 as appears from the previous statement of the objection, 
 " Pontiffs sometimes say in their Bulls that they grant In- 
 dulgences of sins." a The very use of the word directe 
 implies that indirecte there is some connection implied. It 
 is really of little consequence whether " confession " be re- 
 quired or not ; if it be required, it is then only one of the 
 conditions, and the Indulgence is to give full and certain 
 effect to the absolution, and something besides. If it were not 
 so, there would be no necessity for naming the absolution, 
 for that would be a matter of course, and would be understood 
 as such ; some connection, then, there must be, though not 
 directe. When Indulgences were first brought into the 
 market, it would be necessary to speak of them as accom- 
 plishing all that the purchasers could wish to have done for 
 their money. In a little time, however, this would be found 
 to damage the Confessional, for who, with a full pardon in 
 his pocket, would want absolution from a common priest ? 
 What must be done ? A clause " contritis et con/essis" must 
 be inserted, and insisted upon; matters would then go on 
 better, Indulgences would recommend Confession, and yet 
 had a boon to bestow, which the Confessional had not, and 
 
 a " Ipsa autem peccati per Indulgentias directe non remittitur." Theol., 
 torn. vi. No. 30, p. 418. Again, " Generatim autem Indulgentia non remittit 
 prenam ullius peccati, nisi ante quoad culpam remissi." Ibid. No. 34, p. 426. 
 Dens is not always quite consistent with himself; in p. 426 he tells us that 
 " in all indulgences mention is made *de vere contritis et confessis,' " and yet, 
 in p. 431, he speaks, as we have seen, of a case in which confession is not 
 required: " Quando ea in Bulla non exigitur," &c. Are we to " take a dis- 
 tinction," as Counsellor Crossmyloof says, and understand Dens to mean that 
 it is always mentioned in the Indulgence, though not always in the Bull ? But, 
 by his own showing, if not mentioned in the Bull, the mention in the Indul- 
 gence "goes for nothing." By the .way, Mr. Green would soften Dens by 
 translating, " But the guilt itself of sin directly is not remitted by an Indul- 
 gence." " The Truth, &c.," p. 145. 
 
INDULGENCES. 103 
 
 would thus recommend themselves. We may observe that 
 " Indulgence AND remission " are both mentioned in a docu- 
 ment by Benedict XIII. "We mercifully, in the Lord, 
 grant ... to all and each of the faithful, vere p&nitentibus et 
 confessis, ... to gain a plenary Indulgence AND remission of 
 all their sins." a Whatever may be the explanation of this 
 redundancy, it certainly is very emphatic. 
 
 Indulgences are divided by theologians into 1. "Ple- 
 naria3," 2. " Non plenarire," 3. " Pleniores," 4. " Plenissimse." 
 When an Indulgence is limited to a certain place, as an altar 
 or a church, it is called a " local Indulgence ;" when it is 
 attached to any material thing, as an image, a rosary, &c., it 
 is termed " real ;" when granted to any person, without any 
 restriction as to a place or thing, it is called " personal ;" whilst 
 those which are granted only during a certain period are called 
 " temporal/' 
 
 " Plenaria3," we are told, remit the whole debt of temporal^ 
 punishment ; " pleniores " go further, as regards the offences 
 with which the debt is connected, and give a power of ab- 
 solving in " cases and censures reserved to the Pope." Here, 
 then, the Indulgence is needed to gain absolution in certain 
 cases ! If by absolution, priestly absolution, sins are remitted 
 " quoad culpam," the plenary Indulgence, by permitting that 
 absolution, in reserved cases, which the priest could not give 
 without such permission, does, to all intents and purposes, 
 convey a pardon, " quoad culpam " as well as " quoad pcenam." 
 If such a conclusion had not been very evident, Milner and 
 others might have saved themselves much trouble by simply 
 stating that "remission only relates to granting absolution 
 in reserved cases, &c." "Plenissima3 " have a further power, 
 according to Collet, "of commuting vows or of dispensing in 
 the case of certain irregularities." " Non plenariaj" are not 
 granted for the remission of the whole debt of temporal 
 punishment, but are wont to be limited to a certain number 
 of days or years, " according to the method by which formerly 
 canonical penances were prescribed ; winch being abrogated, 
 the use of Indulgences began to be more common, and, as it 
 were, succeeded to their place," &c. c A very incautious 
 admission this, because, when an Indulgence is granted, as 
 
 a " Plenariam in uno die cujuslibet raensis duntaxat, per unumquemque 
 fidelem, ad sui libitum, eligendo omnium peccatorum suorum Indulgentiam AC 
 remissionem misericorditer in Domino concedimus." Datum Romae, apud 
 Sanct. Mariam Majorem, sub Annulo Piscatoris, die 14 Septembris, 1724, 
 Pontificatus nostri anno prime. Dens, Theol., torn. viii. No. 287, p. 430. 
 
 b The sufferings of Purgatory are spoken of as "temporal," as opposed to 
 the eternal torments of Hell. 
 
 c Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 31, p. 419. Dublin, 1832. 
 
104 INDULGENCES. 
 
 they have been, for some hundreds or thousands of years, it 
 seems absurd to suppose that any penance would have been 
 imposed for a term so far exceeding the life of man. This matter 
 has troubled the theologians of Home exceedingly, and their 
 explanations do not seem to clear the matter very satisfac- 
 torily. Bellarmine thinks that the popes who granted indul- 
 gences for " ten or twenty thousand years," in so doing had 
 an eye to the heinousness of the crimes committed. 3 What 
 is most worthy of remark is that Bellarmine supposes the 
 punishment to be proportioned to the penance which would 
 have been enjoined ! Dens does not mend the matter ; " for 
 any one may owe so many years of penance if he had so 
 sinned that so great a penance should be owing." This is 
 the opinion of Steyaert : " Nor," he adds, " ought there to 
 seem anything wonderful that so many years of punishment 
 should be due, according to the Canons, although ohe cannot 
 live so long : because that length of time, says Boudart, 
 might be abridged by the intenseness and fervour of charity, 
 by which the enjoined works or other works of virtue were 
 imposed ! Hence some undeservedly find fault with these 
 Indulgences of many [years] as if they were forged by the 
 questors, and never granted by the Church." 5 But how is 
 the proportion to be reckoned ? If the sufferings in Purga- 
 tory exceed all that could be suffered in this life, in intensity, 
 surely the ratio should be reversed ! No wonder that some 
 Romanists feel rather sensitive on this point, seeing that 
 such unsatisfactory reasons are given for centenary and mil- 
 lenary Indulgences. That any honest man should be scan- 
 dalized by such absurdities no one can wonder; but that a 
 serious doubt should be expressed as to &fact, supported by 
 the most undeniable evidence, does seem a little extraordi- 
 nary; and, as Mr. Mendham very pertinently observes, "by 
 the simple process of accumulation, Indulgences of moderate 
 length may reach the extent of one of any dimensions, par- 
 ticularly in the case of long livers and frequent offenders." d 
 
 a " Sed quidquid de hoc sit, nou videtur negandum, posse aliquos reos fieri 
 pcenitentiae agendas secundum canonesper spatium aliquot millium annorum." 
 Bellarm. Opera, torn. vii. ; De Indulg., lib. i. cap. ix. Colon. 1617. 
 
 b Dens, Theol, torn. vi. No. 31, p. 420. Dublin, 1832. 
 
 c See Mendham's "Memoirs of the Council of Trent," p. 318, note. Ed. 1834. 
 
 d Dr. Milner obtained an Indulgence, bearing date June 27, 1814. By the 
 performances of certain conditions thereunto annexed, a plenary Indulgence 
 might be obtained, and also an Indulgence of a hundred days, which might be 
 obtained for the space oiffteen years, once a day by each individual ; so that it 
 appears, by a very simple arithmetical process, that a person whose life should 
 extend through that space, and whose circumstances' admitted of the per- 
 formance of the conditions, might obtain an Indulgence for 1500 years ! (See 
 " Devotion of the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ," pp. 485, 486. 
 London, Keating and Brown, 1830.) 
 
INDULGENCES. 105 
 
 The Pope is the great dispenser of the treasure which 
 supplies Indulgences, and, to a certain extent, the bishops 
 also, but this extent is not exactly ascertained nor defined ; so 
 there is a danger, should they go beyond a certain limit, of 
 the Indulgence granted by the bishops being altogether 
 invalid ; whether the whole of such Indulgences are to be 
 considered as of no effect, or only the excess, is not agreed 
 upon among divines. a Purchasers, under such circumstances, 
 would do well to take the opinion of some skilful and practised 
 theological conveyancer, lest perchance they may afterwards 
 discover some flaw therein, which may have the effect of 
 vitiating the whole. Especially careful should they be that 
 the Indulgence has not been obtained at a time when such 
 kind of Indulgences were suspended, nor of those which have 
 been absolutely annulled ! Pius V., in 1567, repealed all 
 those that had been granted for lucrative purposes. Paul V., 
 in 1606, repealed all those which were granted to the regulars 
 of every order by his predecessors, and gave others in their 
 places; Innocent XI., in 1678, also withdrew many Indul- 
 gences, as false, forged, and apocryphal* How does any one 
 know that a future pope may not thus deal with the Indul- 
 gences he has himself obtained at, it may be, a great sacrifice ? 
 For if " religious orders " were thus dealt with, what can 
 private individuals expect? 
 
 The Pope or Bishop, although he cannot grant an Indul- 
 gence to himself, may, nevertheless, have a share in the 
 Indulgence he grants to another, as he may also give power 
 to a priest to give him absolution; one reason, however, 
 which is assigned, appears somewhat fanciful, " as a person 
 who dispenses public property may take his own share ! " c 
 With regard to the requisites for obtaining Indulgences, the 
 applicant must be a baptized person ; must be in a state of 
 grace, and perform certain conditions; but the conditions 
 must not in themselves be such as would satisfy for the debt 
 of punishment, otherwise the Indulgence would be nugatory/ 1 
 The conditions usually enjoined are, prayers, penance, visiting 
 of churches, alms, fasting, &c. The amount of alms, unless 
 determined by the Bull, may vary according to the circum- 
 stances of the giver. Should the Bull be indefinite in the 
 directions given, e.g. that an Indulgence will be granted of 
 a hundred days to a person visiting a certain church, he may 
 
 a Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 33, p. 424. Dublin, 1832. 
 b Ferrari's Prompt. Bib. Indulgent., art. iv. sect. 14, et seq. Franc. 1781. 
 c Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 33, p. 425. Thorn. Suppl. 27 quaest. art. 4. 
 d St. Thomas says that in such a case the Indulgences would be pious 
 fraud*. 
 
106 INDULGENCES. 
 
 obtain that Indulgence as often as he repeats his visit, i.e. it 
 would be a partial Indulgence, and such partial Indulgences 
 may be obtained " srepius eodem die." A plenary indulgence 
 can only be obtained once in a day. If two Indulgences be 
 granted under different heads for the same day, and each 
 prescribe a condition which cannot be repeated in the same 
 day, then by one act both may be gained. The Church 
 requires a certain intention in those who wish to gain Indul- 
 gences, yet they may be granted to one insensible and about 
 to die! a As to the conditions, it is sufficient, unless other- 
 wise expressed, that the last be performed when the individual 
 is in a state of grace ; so much of the enjoined conditions is 
 only absolutely necessary as may answer the proposed end of 
 the party granting the Indulgence. The effects are, however, 
 more certain, if all the conditions be performed in a state of 
 grace. We have already seen how liberal the Church is 
 respecting the condition of sacramental confession, and in the 
 case of a contribution to build a church, though given "ex 
 vana gloria ; " nor does it signify whether the money be given 
 " propria manu," or sent by another hand. The very question 
 " whether, by the force of the c clausula/ contritis et confessis, 
 which is put in ordinary Indulgences, the faithful, though not 
 conscious of any mortal sin, be not bound to confess?" 
 shows that the " clausula" did not occur in every case. On 
 account of the very great difficulty occasioned by this requi- 
 sition, Clemens XIII., who had approved the Decree of the 
 Sacred Congregation by which it was made imperative, re- 
 laxed the severity of it so far as to dispense with actual con^ 
 fession in the case of those accustomed to attend the sacrament 
 of penance once a week, and were conscious of no mortal sin 
 since they last confessed. It is acknowledged that there was 
 a wish to keep up the custom of confessing as frequently as 
 possible. 5 We have seen that an adequate cause for granting 
 Indulgences is required ; but that it ought to be taken for 
 granted and not too curiously inquired into. When granted 
 to many, it suffices if the united works of many are propor- 
 tionate to the proposed end ; the mere relief, however, of souls 
 suffering in Purgatory is not an adequate end ! Now, although 
 with regard to an individual it be deemed a sufficient end 
 that the merciful disposition ["mansuetudo"] of the Church 
 is made manifest, this will not do for a community. There 
 
 a "Dictis non obest, quo minus possit Indulgentia concedi sensibus destitute 
 et morituro ; sicut enirn potest quis applicare satisfactions suas ignoranti, ita 
 potest Pastor Ecclesise applicare satisfactiones Christi et Ecclesise sensibus 
 alieno." Dens, torn. vi. No. 34, p. 428. Dublin, 1832. 
 
 b Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 36, p. 432. 
 
INDULGENCES. 107 
 
 are other details, which, lest the reader be wearied, are 
 omitted ; but surely enough has been given to show that the 
 affair is somewhat complicated. 
 
 Turn we now to a very, very, important matter the value 
 of Indulgences. It is acknowledged to be an axiom respecting 
 them, that " tantum valerit, quantum sonant;" but how is this 
 axiom to be understood ? Two solutions are given. First, 
 that in the performance of the prescribed conditions an 
 individual, " licet in minimo gradu devotionis," obtains the 
 whole indulgence to the extent expressed, whether plenary 
 or for a hundred days, &c. ; and this opinion, we are told, 
 holds good when the enjoined conditions are particularized.* 
 Second. The other opinion is, that the individual is benefited 
 in proportion as he fulfils the intention of the donor, and 
 that the quantity is mentioned to show hoiv much the donor 
 could give, and not that every one obtains the benefit to that 
 extent ; and this opinion holds good when the conditions are 
 not expressly stated. 6 It is also proved by a quotation from 
 the " Extravag. Antiquor. de Poenitentiis," in which Boniface 
 VIII. grants the fullest Indulgence to those who visit the 
 Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul. c Hence it follows, that 
 a person, through some defect on his part, may not benefit 
 to the full extent expressed, and therefore it is recommended, 
 although he may have obtained one to the fullest extent, to 
 make all sure, by getting another ! and also to perform the 
 prescribed works " amplius et liberalius." 
 
 Holden, in his Divince Fidei Analysis, a work in use among 
 modern Romish divines affirms that, 
 
 " The effects of all Indulgences are doubtful, that are granted for the consola- 
 tion of souls in Purgatory. Much more doubtful is it whether any Indulgences 
 
 a Thorn. Supplern., qusest. 25, a. 2, ad. 4. 
 
 b Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 38, p. 436. Dens cites Steyart, who quotes 
 Estius, Sylvius, and Wiggers. 
 
 c " Unusquisque tamen plus merebitur, et Indulgentiam efficacius conse- 
 quetur qui Basilicas ipsas amplius et devotius frequentabit." 
 
 The term Bc^iliccK among the ancient Romans signified a building where 
 causes were heard, ambassadors received, public business transacted, &c. The 
 term was afterwards applied to certain churches in Rome, viz., St. Peter's, 
 St. Maria Maggiore, St. John Lateran, St. Croce in Gerusalemme, St. Paul's, 
 St. Lorenzo, and St. Sebastian's. The following reason has been assigned for 
 the application of the term. Upon a certain occasion, the four Patriarchs of 
 Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, came to Rome, and four 
 principal churches were assigned to them during their residence, viz., St. Paul's, 
 St. Maria Maggiore, St. Lorenzo, and St. Peter's. The Pope reserved for him- 
 self St. John Lateran, which was then superior in rank to St. Peter's. St. 
 Sebastian's and St. Croce were afterwards added, because in going from St. 
 Paul's to the Lateran it was necessary to pass by St. Sebastian's, and in con- 
 tinuing the visitation from the Lateran to St. Lorenzo, St. Croce came also in 
 the way. See Burton's "Antiquities of Rome/' p. 386. London, Johu 
 Murray, 1821. 
 
108 INDULGENCES. 
 
 at all avail to deliver souls from Purgatory ; nay, more, whether they profit 
 the dead in any way ; so that there is no certainty that prayers and oblations, 
 including even the sacrifice of the Mass celebrated at what are called pinvileged 
 altars, carry with them any efficacy or value as regards the dead, on the score 
 of the Indulgences granted for that purpose, except it be in the way of suffrage, 
 that is, meaning the piety and holiness of the party making the offering, and 
 the good pleasure of an omnipotent and merciful God, of which man knows 
 absolutely nothing."* 
 
 Veron, who is recommended to us in his " Rule of Faith/' is 
 equally uncertain as to the value or efficacy of these wares of 
 Rome. 
 
 Indulgences granted for the dead, as we have seen, differ 
 from those granted for the living, as being only " solutio." 
 The power of granting them belongs to the Pope, and to him 
 alone. He has power so to do, according to some divines, 
 because the words, Matth. xvi. 19, " Whatever thou shall 
 loose" &c., may be referred to those to whom the power is 
 delegated as long as they are on earth, or because the Church 
 may do as much for the dead as the faithful do, who offer 
 prayers and satisfactions to God, that souls may be delivered 
 from Purgatory ; whilst others, again, contend that the souls in 
 Purgatory may still be considered on earth, for they have not 
 reached their journey's end, and, therefore, are under the 
 jurisdiction of the Pope! Indulgences "pro defunctis" are 
 applied by way of suffrage, and the souls in Purgatory will 
 benefit according as they departed in a state of grace or 
 otherwise. Applicants for these must perform the prescribed 
 works duly, and, according to Tournelly, should be in a state 
 of grace. This is, however, denied by Bellarmine, Boudart, 
 Billuart, Neesen, and others, unless it be enjoined expressly. 
 As to the certainty of their being efficacious, authors are 
 divided; but we are given to understand, that it is more 
 meritorious to obtain Indulgences for the dead than for 
 ourselves. Benedict XIII., Jan. 15, A.D. 1720, granted certain 
 Indulgences called, " plenarise liberae," i. e. applicable at 
 pleasure "pro defunctis aut pro vivis." So numerous are 
 the Indulgences which, from time to time, have been granted, 
 that it is usual to suspend them (certain privileged altars and 
 confraternities excepted) during the year of a Jubilee, lest they 
 should interfere with each other ! In cases where the soul 
 is lost or happy, the fruit of the Indulgence is to go into the 
 common treasury, or is applied to other souls, or to the more 
 indigent or worthy among the living. b With respect to 
 
 a Lib. ii. cap. 6, sec. 3. 
 
 b Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 40, pp. 440, 441. For an account of the dif- 
 ferences of " doctors " on these difficult questions, see paper in Br. Mag. for 
 April, 1843, by the Rev. E. C. Harrington ; and for Bellarmine's perplexity 
 especially, Br. Mag., June, 1843, by the same gentleman. 
 
INDULGENCES. 109 
 
 Jubilees, we may briefly remark that they are either ordinary, 
 every twenty-five years, or extraordinary, granted for some 
 weighty reason, such as the commencement of a pontificate, 
 or a massacre. a Boniface VIII. instituted the first Jubilee, 
 A.D. 1300, to recur every hundred years; Clement VI. re- 
 duced the term to fifty, exemplo Jubil&i Judaici ; Urban VI. 
 again reduced the term to thirty-three years, pro numero 
 tetatis annorum Christi; at length Paul II., considering the 
 shortness of human life, ordained that it should take place 
 every twenty-five years. During the ordinary Jubilee, all 
 Indulgences, except those for the dead, extra urbem Ro- 
 manam, are suspended, with certain exceptions as above 
 stated; but no rule, we are told, can be laid down, "cum 
 tanta reperiatur varietas in diversis Bullis." b The only sure 
 way is to consult the Bull appointing the Jubilee, called the 
 " Bulla Concessionis." Privileges usually conceded at such 
 times are, the liberty of choosing confessors ; a faculty, con- 
 ceded to confessors, of absolving from reserved cases, inforo 
 conscientice tantum; of commuting vows; of commuting 
 prescribed works, as in the case of boys not yet admitted to 
 the communion. 
 
 Tedious as, probably, the reader may have thought the 
 above account of Indulgences and Jubilees, the subject has, 
 in reality, been treated with all the conciseness it would allow 
 of; and it may be urged, as a further apology, that the sub- 
 ject is, at the present moment, one of paramount importance. 
 The materials have been collected from accredited sources; 
 and briefly, compared with what might have been done; as 
 the subject has been touched upon, it is trusted that enough 
 has been done to shake the confidence of the reader in Dr. 
 Milner's statement. If the ablest theologians of Rome have 
 not been able to unravel the intricacies of the subject, nor 
 even the Sacred Congregation, especially appointed for that 
 purpose, we can scarcely hope to succeed in making that 
 plain which has perplexed the most celebrated divines. An 
 appeal to the Council of Trent will do nothing for us, for the 
 " Decree concerning Indulgences " does little more than 
 admit the abuses of these things ; it is as follows : 
 
 "Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the 
 Church ; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, 
 delivered unto her of God ; the sacred synod teaches and enjoins that the use 
 of Indulgences, most salutary for the Christian people, and approved of by the 
 
 a Witness the St. Bartholomew. See Mendham's " Life and Pontificate of 
 St. Pius V." p. 213 (London, 1832) ; and " The Massacre of St. Bartholomew," 
 by Sir W. S. R. CocKburn, Bart., A.M. London, W. Parker, 1840. 
 
 b Dens, Theol., torn. vi. No. 43, p. 448. Dublin, 1832. 
 
110 INDULGENCES. 
 
 authority of sacred councils, is to be retained in the Church ; and it condemns 
 with anathema those who either assert that they are useless, or who deny that 
 there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, how- 
 ever, it desires that, according to the ancient and approved custom in the 
 Church, moderation be observed, lest, by excessive facility, ecclesiastical 
 discipline be enervated. And desiring that the abuses which have crept into 
 these matters, and by occasion of which this excellent name of Indulgences 
 is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains generally by 
 this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof, whence a most abund- 
 ant cause of abuses amongst Christian people has been derived, be entirely 
 abolished. But as regards the other [abuses,] which have proceeded from 
 superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what other source soever, since 
 by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the 
 said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited ; 
 it commands all bishops, that they, each in his own church, diligently collect 
 all abuses of this nature, and report them in the first provincial synod ; that 
 after the opinions of the other Bishops have been also ascertained, they may 
 be forthwith referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and 
 prudence that which may be expedient for the Universal Church will be or- 
 dained ; that thus the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the 
 faithful, piously, holily, incorruptibly." Session XXV. 
 
 In the above decree, that " evil gains " had been made is 
 fully admitted ; and as gains may be good or evil according 
 to the view of the parties making them, the question still 
 remains open as far as this decree is concerned, nor is the 
 matter at all cleared by a previous decree of the twenty-first 
 session, which abolishes questors. 
 
 "But as regards Indulgences, or other spiritual graces, of which the faithful 
 of Christ ought not on this account to be deprived, it decrees that they are 
 henceforth, at the due times, to be published to the people by the ordinaries of 
 the places, aided by two members of the chapter. To whom also power is 
 given to gather faithfully the alms, and the succours of charity offered, without 
 their receiving any remuneration soever ; that so at length all men may truly 
 understand that these heavenly treasures of the Church are administered, not 
 unto gain, but unto godliness." 
 
 The above does little more but change names, for under 
 what name would a contribution in money, to build a 
 church for example, or for a crusade, be received? And 
 if received, what does it matter whether the receiver be called 
 a questor or "the ordinary of the place," since money is 
 given and an Indulgence received in exchange ? The crimi- 
 nality of the sale is acknowledged, and the crime condemned 
 but not abrogated. "The people give alms, and the Pope 
 gives Indulgences," so there is no sale, and consequently no 
 evil gains. " What priest or pope would ever confess that 
 his gains were of that description?" 11 Under what name 
 were the proceeds received, which Leo granted to his favourite 
 sister Magdalena, married to Francisco Cibo, the natural 
 son of Innocent VIII. ? b To forbid all gains would have 
 
 a Cramp's "Text Book of Popery," p. 338. London, 1851, 
 b Elliott's "Delineation, &c." p.~325. London, 1851. 
 
INDULGENCES. . Ill 
 
 been highly inexpedient, as well as somewhat disrespectful, 
 to some of the so-called successors of St. Peter. We shall 
 see more of this, however, by-and-by ; and it will be difficult 
 for Home to escape from the charge of venality, by any 
 technical subterfuge. " The fairest and most rational method/' 
 says Blackstone, a " to interpret the will of the legislator, is 
 by exploring his intentions at the time the law was made, by 
 signs the most natural and probable ; and thes e signs are 
 either the words, the context, the subject matter, or the 
 spirit and reason of the law." If the word " peccatum " be 
 examined, in some of the instruments in which it is found, 
 by such a process it will require no little ingenuity to show 
 that it means " poena." But as to the technicalities of the 
 law, so far as mere words are concerned, they may be ac- 
 counted for by the adoption of terms employed in preceding 
 statutes, and which words bore a certain and intelligible 
 meaning to those for whom such statutes were originally 
 intended ; any difficulty that may attend the interpretation 
 of them in our time, arises, in a great measure, from the 
 different acceptation of such terms in the present day; to 
 ascertain their legal meaning, we must trace them to the 
 time when they were first employed, and the meaning then 
 attached to them by the legislator, who employed them, will 
 be their meaning now. Thus in a statute of Edward III. all 
 ecclesiastical persons were forbidden to purchase provisions 
 at Rome; now, when we know that, at the time the statute 
 was framed, the nominations to benefits by the Pope were called 
 provisions, we are not at a loss to interpret the meaning of 
 the word, when we find it in the above-named statute. There 
 are, indeed, certain technicalities, which are known among 
 lawyers by the name of " legal fictions." Are we to consider 
 Papal technicalities as coming under this head? Assuredly 
 they could hardly be looked upon in the light in which 
 Blackstone views certain " legal fictions, as highly beneficial 
 and useful/' b for they could scarcely be restrained within the 
 same limits, with regard to which it is a maxim, "that no 
 fiction shall extend to work an injury," this could not be the 
 case with theological fictions. 
 
 Some of the "legal fictions" have of late years been done 
 away, and no harm appears to have arisen from their abro- 
 gation. However beneficial they may be accounted in laiu, 
 the less we 'hear of them in divinity the better. What some 
 
 a "Commentaries," Introduction, 2. 
 
 b Blackstone's " Commentaries," Book III. Chap. 4, vi. " It is no uncommon 
 
 thing for a plaintiff to feign that a contract made at sea in reality was made at 
 the Royal Exchange." Ibid. ?.< 
 
 iook III. chap. 7, iii. 
 
112 INDULGENCES. 
 
 theologians understand by "technicalities" we are able to 
 ascertain ; Amort 3 quotes a constitution of Pius IV., in which 
 the Pontiff says, " we grant that the soul may obtain, as far 
 as shall please the Divine Majesty, a plenary indulgence from 
 punishment and guilt" Clement X., so late as 1675, a Jubilee 
 year, in a Breve 'of Indulgences in favour of the Archconfra- 
 ternity Cincturfitorum et Cincturatarum, recites from an Indult 
 of Gregory XIII. a merciful relaxation, or release a pcend et 
 a culpd. b We come still later to the Extension of the Uni- 
 versal Jubilee in 1775, celebrated under Pius VI.; and at 
 p. 5 (Roman edition) his holiness declares that the sum of 
 the Jubilee is, that the penitent faithful, in the first place, 
 "ex Clavium potestate a culpa penitus liberentur [by the 
 power of the keys are thoroughly freed from guilt], and are 
 finally absolved from obligation to punishment pa>n& reatu 
 absolvantur." c Surely technicalities will not do here; 
 nothing short of a " legal fiction" can make culpa stand 
 for pcena. But were it otherwise, if the offender feels that 
 he is free from all the consequences of guilt, what need he 
 care for the doctrine which tells him that the guilt was not 
 removed by the instrument which freed him from punishment? 
 " The rose doth smell as sweet by any other name." In a 
 high-flown address of Dr. Moylan, dated Nov. 2, 1813, we 
 read, "Were your sins as red as scarlet, by the grace of 
 absolution and application of this plenary Indulgence, your 
 souls shall become white as snow." d Surely such language 
 connects, indirecte at least as Dens says, Indulgences with 
 pardon of sin, and makes them effectual in doing what simple 
 absolution could not effect, or why speak of the " application 
 of this plenary Indulgence" in addition to the absolution? 
 We must not omit to mention certain curious documents 
 called " Confessionalia," e which are certain forms on a small 
 sheet of vellum or paper, and containing, " perhaps without 
 exception, among other favours, the choice of a confessor 
 with full power to absolve both in common and reserved 
 cases. It is impossible to deny the existence of these little 
 important documents/' says Mr. Mendham, " and I am 
 happy to have a pretty large number of originals in my own 
 possession ; a blank is left for the name, and particular date 
 of the month, the year being generally printed." As to their 
 
 a Hist. Indulgent., p. 416. (See Mendham's "Venal Pardons and Indul- 
 gences of Rome," p. 77. London, 1839.) " Ut anima indulgentiarn plenariarn 
 apcena et culpa, quantum Divinae Majestati placuerit, consequatur, concedimus." 
 
 b Mag. Bullar. Luxemb. 1730, torn. x. p. 208. 
 
 c " Venal Pardons, &c." p. 78. 
 
 '' Referring to an Indulgence of Pius VII. (See next note.) 
 
 e See Mendham's "Venal Pardons, &c." p. 58, et seq. London, 1839. 
 
INDULGENCES. 113 
 
 contents, " Pretty universally we have a full pardon and 
 remission of sin all sin the gravest and most enormous 
 sins an elected confessor to make all things as sure as 
 possible in cases of emergency when absolution may not be 
 attainable, the application of the Indulgence in its full virtues 
 at the point of death, in articulo mortis and, lest that 
 should not take place, an adjourned efficacy is even given to 
 it, as often as required, toties quoties likewise the possessor 
 attains the portentous addition to his treasures, that it will 
 secure him living, from future Purgatory (a claim afterwards 
 sufficiently guarded, but still absolutely asserted at the time 
 by the donor) and in one instance remission from guilt as 
 well as from punishment, a pcend et culpd." 
 
 But these are bygone things, we may be told ; such things, 
 however, (as when we come to the Taxse there will be an 
 opportunity of proving), are not altogether so obsolete as 
 some would have us to believe. It has not been thought 
 necessary to go into the history of Tetzel, which is so generally 
 known, nor to disprove that Luther's only quarrel was with 
 him as a monk of another order/ because, as we have seen, 
 the decree of the Council of Trent fully admits the existence 
 of the grossest venality in the case of Indulgences. We may 
 now fairly ask, Must not such things be fraught with the 
 greatest evil ? Is there not something fearfully revolting in 
 the language of Clement VI. , b who says, as " f a single drop of 
 Christ's blood would have sufficed for the redemption of the 
 whole human race' the rest was a treasure which he acquired 
 for the militant Church to be used for the benefit of her sons, 
 &c. &c? " c As if the Redemption of mankind were dependent 
 not on the death of the Saviour, but on the quantity of his 
 precious blood which was shed ? As if the Almighty, in his 
 infinite wisdom, either exceeded or fell short of what was 
 necessary to effect the purposes of his mercy ? Is such doc- 
 trine likely to improve the spiritual condition of professing 
 Christians ? The history of Christendom furnishes a melan- 
 choly response to such a question. When the most notorious 
 sinners may, by the performance of such conditions as we 
 have seen, do away with all fear of future punishment when 
 the rich man, " clothed in purple and fine linen, and faring 
 sumptuously every day," may, by a pecuniary sacrifice, though 
 the money be given " ex vana gloria," be as sure as the most 
 
 a The case is well cleared up in a note in Murdock's edition of " Mosheim's 
 Eccl. Hist,." vol. iii. pp. 101-2. London, 1841. 
 
 b In his Bull Unigenitus, De Pcenitentiis, &c. Extrav. Clem. Unigenitus, 
 tit. De Pcen. 
 
 c See Elliott's " Delineation, &c." p. 309. London, 1851. 
 
 I 
 
114 INDULGENCES. 
 
 devout and humble Christian, of escaping the sufferings due 
 to his sins what must be the practical effect of Indulgences ? 
 Well may Mr. Eustace, when speaking of the depraved state 
 of morals in Italy,* ask, " May it not be ascribed to the 
 corruptions of the national religion, to the facility of abso- 
 lution, and to the easy purchase of Indulgences?" Here is 
 a testimony, at once to the purchase of Indulgences, in modern 
 times, and to the practical working of the system. This 
 testimony is the more valuable, as it is that of a Roman 
 Catholic of no mean attainments as a scholar. 
 
 From what the reader has seen of Indulgences, he may 
 feel disposed to think that these "heavenly treasures" are 
 "not beneficial, but rather pernicious to Christians." 5 Dr. 
 Milner's attempt to establish a parallel between Protestant 
 Indulgences, as he calls certain relaxations relating to matters 
 purely of discipline; the devoting by the clergy of their 
 money to the service of Charles I., and the conduct of the 
 Anabaptists, is merely ridiculous, when we recollect his own 
 statement of "the received doctrine of the Church, that an 
 Indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a remission of the 
 Canonical penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual 
 remission by God himself of the whole or part of the temporal 
 punishment due to it in his sight." 
 
 The reader by a reference to Burn's " Ecclesiastical Law," 
 under the head " Penance," will see at once how far the 
 Indulgences of Rome, as defined by Dr. Milner, are 
 parallel with any commutation of penance allowed by the 
 Canons. 
 
 As to the instance of Matrimonial Indulgences, the parties 
 who purchase marriage licences, which are, in fact, a dispen- 
 sation from the necessity of having the banns of marriage 
 published, are the best judges how far these matters are con- 
 nected with Purgatory. By the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., 
 power is given to the Archbishop of Canterbury to grant 
 faculties, dispensations, and licences, as the Pope had done 
 before* 
 
 Could the doctor mean to perpetrate a miserable pun when 
 he adduced the conduct of the Anabaptists of Minister as 
 dispensing with all law and indulging themselves in lawless 
 riot ? Under any other supposition, nevertheless, there is no 
 semblance of connection ! 
 
 a " Classical Tour through Italy," vol. iii. p. 133, 6th edit. London, 1821. 
 b Letter xlii. 
 c Letter xlii. 
 
 d See Burn's "Eccl. Law," Marriage - Licence, Phillinioi-e's edition, 
 vol. ii. p. 465. 
 
115 
 
 We now proceed to consider the important subject of the 
 TAXJS. 
 
 The books known under the title of TAX^E CANCELLARI^E 
 APOSTOLIC^; and TAX.E SACR.E PCENITENTIARI.E APOSTOLIC.E, 
 eminently deserve the character given to them by Mr. Mend- 
 ham, as the most important and curious works in the whole 
 circle of Papal literature. The champions of Rome are 
 exceedingly troubled and perplexed on the subject of the 
 said Taxse, and would fain exonerate the Church of Rome 
 from the charge of having put forth these extraordinary 
 publications ; but, unfortunately for their client, they have, in 
 the eagerness and blindness of their zeal, adopted, individually, 
 such opposite lines of defence, that they have, in reality, sub- 
 stantiated the charge they sought to meet; thus, one party 
 would resolve the charges for absolution, commutation of 
 penance, &c., into mere fees of office ; another avers that the 
 whole is a mere forgery by Protestants ; whilst a third party 
 declares that Rome is quite clear in the matter, inasmuch as 
 the " vile book" was placed in the Index Prohibitorius ! Dr. 
 Milner is particularly grieved and highly indignant on the 
 subject, as we find by a note appended to Letter xli. 
 
 " This curious account,"* writes the doctor, " is borrowed from the Taxce 
 Cancellarice Romance, a book which has been frequently published, though with 
 great variations both as to the crimes and the prices, by the Protestants of 
 Germany and France, and as frequently condemned by the See of Rome. 
 It is proper that Mr. Clayton," the gentleman assailed by the veracious 
 Bishop, " and his friends should know that the Pope's Court of Chancery has 
 no more to do with the forgiveness of sins, than his Majesty's Court of 
 Chancery has. In case there ever was the least groundwork for this vile 
 book, which I cannot find there ever was, the money paid into the Papal 
 Chancery could be nothing else but the fees of office, oh restoring certain 
 culprits to the civil privileges which they had forfeited by their crimes." 
 
 It is important that the reader should bear in mind, that 
 the Taxes Cancellarice Apostolicce, and the Tax<R Sacra 
 Poenitentics Apostolicce are distinct works, at least distinct 
 portions under the general denomination of Taxse; a cir- 
 cumstance which Dr. Milner did not find it convenient to 
 remember, although we fully agree with him that "the 
 Pope's Court of Chancery has no more to do with the forgive- 
 ness of sins, than his Majesty's Court of Chancery has." 
 Was Dr. Milner really ignorant of the true history of these 
 books ? The reader will, perhaps, be able to give an opinion 
 of the proper answer to this question, after reading the 
 evidence about to be produced of the genuineness and 
 authenticity of the "vile book." 
 
 When Dr. Doyle was examined before the Parliamentary 
 
 Of licence to commit crimes for a pecuniary consideration. 
 
 i 2 
 
116 INDULGENCES. 
 
 Committee on the state of Ireland, he retorted the charge 
 of pecuniary Penance on the Church of England, and 
 referred to Burn's "Ecclesiastical Law/' under the word 
 PENANCE, in proof of the fact ; this recriminating charge we 
 have already seen disposed of when the subject of Indul- 
 gences was under consideration ; and therefore pass on to 
 the defence attempted by other equally ingenious advocates 
 of Rome. The late Charles Butler, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, 
 says a 
 
 "The real state of the case is as follows : There are some sins so enormous, 
 that to raise the greater horror of them, the absolution from them is reserved to 
 the Holy See. In these cases the Priest, to whom the penitent reveals them 
 in confession, states them without any mention of person, time, or place, to 
 the Roman See ; and the Roman See, when it thinks the circumstances of the 
 case render it proper, grants a faculty to the Priest to absolve the penitent 
 from them. All this is attended with expense. An office or tribunal is kept 
 up for that purpose ; a fee is required for the document in which the power of 
 absolution is granted. Thus the sums of money are only fees of office ; they 
 are small ; the lips of a Roman datary would water at the sight of a bill of an 
 English proctor." 
 
 Here, then, we see what Dr. Milner could not discover, 
 the " groundwork for this vile book," although even Mr. 
 Butler forgot the Taxes Sacra P&nitentiaria? Apostolicce, and 
 only remembered the Chancery. The Jesuit Lingard carries 
 his admission further, and acknowledges the existence of the 
 Taxes Cancellaria Romanes ; b but then " the Taxes Cancel- 
 lariae Romance were ingeniously corrected, interpolated, and 
 enlarged ; the improved copy was circulated by the Reform- 
 ers, as a proof that Rome was the great custom-house of 
 sin; and the cheat was greedily devoured by the prejudices 
 of their disciples." Lingard was, it would seem, not so 
 ignorant as Dr. Milner, for he, Lingard, was aware of the 
 " real groundwork of the vile book," and knew how e( the 
 vile book" was " corrected, interpolated, and enlarged ;" for 
 surely what had no existence could be neither corrected, nor 
 interpolated, nor enlarged, by the opponents of Rome ! 
 
 Dr. Thomas Butler, Chamberlain to His Holiness Pope 
 Gregory XVI., and formerly President and Professor of 
 Divinity in St. Clement's College, Rome, writes thus c 
 
 " Now for the reasons which I myself have for considering it a spurious 
 production First, It is a palpable forgery, because even the printer has not 
 dared to put his name to it. d Secondly, Because it has not the censor's appro- 
 
 a Butler's "Book of the Roman Catholic Church," pp. Ill, 112. London, 
 1825. 
 
 b Lingard's " Remarks on the Charge of the Bishop of Durham," &c. p. 246, 
 12mo. Dublin, 1822. 
 
 c Butler's ' ' Truths of the [Roman] Catholic Church proved from Scripture 
 alone," vol. ii. p. 265, 12mo. fourth edition. London, 1843. 
 
 d We shall see hereafter that this is not the case. 
 
TAX^E. 117 
 
 bation ; and no work, as it is well known, can be printed in a Catholic country 
 without such approbation. Thirdly, Because it is asserted to be printed at 
 Koine in the year 1744, a work, to be sure, printed at Rome more than 
 two hundred years after the Reformation/ to expose the infamies of Popes ! 
 Fourthly, Because it is said to be printed at Rome in Latin, and in French, 
 forsooth, for the benefit of Italians. Fifthly, Because immediately after its 
 first appearance it was condemned at Rome, at Paris, and at Madrid, as a 
 manifest calumny against the Church of Christ." 
 
 It is a pity that Dr. Thomas Butler had not before his 
 eyes the admissions of his namesake and of Lingard, for the 
 recollection of these might have made him a little more 
 cautious, and taught him to speak of a corrected, inter- 
 polated, and enlarged work, rather as a partial than a 
 total forgery ! But the work was condemned, "immediately 
 after its first appearance, at Rome, at Paris, and at Madrid ;" 
 that is, we presume, that it was placed in the Indices Prohi- 
 bitorii, though, according to Lingard, the Index Expurga- 
 torius would have been the fitter place for it ; and even here 
 it might have been noted, as many works are, not to be read 
 donee expurgetur ; this would have prevented the circula- 
 tion of the debased coin, and have preserved to Rome the 
 precious residuum after the dross had been purged away. 
 But " this," writes Mr. Mendham, b " is a matter worth in- 
 quiring into ; it is both a literary and a Papal curiosity. By 
 the year 1564, when the Trent Index was compiled and pub- 
 lished (to say nothing of preceding Indexes), twenty-seven of 
 the editions of the Taxse, above enumerated/ had appeared, 
 and there were probably more, now unknown, and yet no 
 notice whatever was taken of them, not of a single instance ! 
 The first notice which was taken of them, or rather of some- 
 thing like one of them, was in the year 1570, just a century 
 after the appearance of the first edition, and that, not in a 
 Roman Index, but in an Appendix to the Roman one, pub- 
 lished by the authority of the King of Spain. And in what 
 terms does it there appear? 'Praxis et Taxa Officinse 
 Poenitentiarise Papse' (pp. 76), a work, which, if even it 
 existed under that title, was probably never, and certainly 
 not now, known. It is, however, generally admitted to refer 
 to the copy in the ' Centum Gravamina ;' as if this were the 
 only edition, or none had proceeded from Rome and else- 
 where, or were not known ! But let us follow the progress 
 of this singular condemnation. With apparent misgiving, 
 and possibly with some fear, that, in its simple form, it 
 
 * And yet the prohibition, on which so much stress is laid by some, appeared 
 one hundred years (1570) after the first appearance. 
 
 b "Spiritual Venality of Rome," p. 73. London, 1836. 
 c Ibid. pp. 21-58. 
 
118 INDULGENCES. 
 
 might involve what the Papacy knew to be its own offspring, 
 the next Index published by Papal authority in Rome, that 
 of 1596, by Clement VIII., adds, ab hcereticis depravata. 
 In the edition by Pius VI., in 1786, it is still further slightly, 
 probably with some intention, altered cum ab hcereticis 
 depravata. It is the same in Pius VII/s, in 1806, and in 
 1819." When the reader recollects that the "Centum Gra- 
 vamina" contained the Exposition of Grievances by the Popish 
 Princes of Germany, and that the third grievance complains 
 of the " intolerable burden of Indulgences, when under the 
 show of piety for building churches, or an expedition against 
 the Turks, the Pope sucks the marrow of their estates, &c. 
 &c." a When the reader recollects this, he will not wonder 
 that the perusal of such a home-charge against Papal exac- 
 tions should be prohibited, and, at the same time, the prohi- 
 bition be so entered as not to touch what it would be vastly 
 inconvenient to abolish ; and, indeed, the Index Prohibit or ius, 
 by not forbidding, sanctions the work when not " depraved 
 by heretics ;" the work must needs exist, or it could not be 
 depraved, as we before remarked. 
 
 We are now prepared to enter upon the history and de- 
 scription of these most remarkable productions ; and shall 
 see abundant reason, in the course of our inquiry, why 
 Rome should, wish both to retain, and, at the same time, to 
 disown them. In pursuing our investigation of the subject, 
 our task will be comparatively easy, as we have little more 
 to do than to follow the path marked out by the late Rev. 
 Joseph Mendham, in his able and invaluable work, " The 
 Spiritual Venality of Rome/' 
 
 The subject of the Taxse is intimately connected with that 
 of Indulgences ; for b " to this power of granting Indulgences 
 is to be assigned the power of pecuniary absolution, or the 
 commutation of penance for money, which is the foundation 
 of the Taxae, and constitutes their essence. Simply to enjoin 
 penitence and penance, and to absolve the offender on the 
 performance of them, may be considered as an exercise of 
 ecclesiastic authority, emanating from the power of the keys ; 
 but to allow them to be commuted, to be compounded for, or 
 redeemed for money, is certainly the exercise of a further 
 prerogative ; it is not an act of discipline, but of Indulgence. 
 And that such a prerogative was claimed by the Church, 
 with respect to all sins, of whatsoever enormity, is evident, 
 from many, perhaps the greater part, of the ancient Peni- 
 tentiary Canons." 
 
 '* Dupin, Eccl. Hist., vol. iii. p. 182 et seq. Dublin, 1723. 
 b "Spiritual Venality," p. 10. London, 1836. 
 
TAX^E. 119 
 
 This proceeding was introduced into England at a very 
 early period, as we find by a reference to the "Poenitentiale" of 
 Theodoras, who was sent from Rome to be Archbishop of 
 Canterbury in the seventh century ; the work is still extant, 
 and an excellent edition of it has been given by Petit, Paris, 
 1677. Theodoras was succeeded by the venerable Beda, 
 who has also given a work of the same description under 
 the title of " De Remediis Peccatorum." "And here," 
 says Mr. Mendham, "which is all that answers our parti- 
 cular purpose to remark, the penance enjoined for all sorts, 
 and the most infamous, of crimes, might, in case of inability 
 (not easily distinguishable from disinclination) to perform 
 the penance, be commuted by almsgiving, which doubtless 
 went through the hands of the confessors, or others.* .... 
 We here see how naturally, and almost innocently, crept in 
 a system, which, in progress of time, attained the most 
 flagitious character." 
 
 The next instance is supplied by the " Pcenitentiale" of 
 Ecgbert, in the eighth century. We have carefully examined 
 this document, and fully accord with Mr. Mendham in his 
 opinion of its fearful contents : " Here we are likewise dis- 
 gusted with the demoralizing particularization of the vilest 
 iniquity ; an advance is made in the compounding system." 
 So truly disgusting are some of the contents of this " Pceni- 
 tentiale," that we cannot pollute our pages with the transcrip- 
 tion of them, even in the original language. " A considera- 
 tion is had of the different capabilities of the rich and the 
 poor ; the penances are more accurately valued ; and the 
 alms are to be divided into three parts, one to the altar, the 
 second for redeeming slaves, the third to be distributed to 
 ecclesiastic necessities ut ecclesiasticis necessitatibus distri- 
 buatur. After some matter of the same character, there 
 follows an enumeration of what are called the Twelve 
 Remissions of Sin." b "In the ecclesiastic laws of Alfred 
 the Great, vi. ix., something of the same kind occurs, 
 but it is in the nature of direct fine." c 
 
 We turn now from England to what Mr. Mendham appro- 
 priately calls "the legitimate and congenial soil of such 
 productions ;" and in the " Poenitentiale Romanum," a col- 
 lection from a more ancient book ,of the same name, and 
 
 a " Item qui non potest sic agere poenitentiam, sicut superius diximus, in 
 primo anno eroget in eleemosynam solidos viginti tres, pro uno anno in pane et 
 aqua, donet in eleemosynam solidos viginti duos, et in unaquaque hebdomada, 
 unum diem jejunet ad nonam, et alium ad vesperum, et tres quadrigesimas ; 
 in secundo anno viginti solidos ; qui sunt sexaginta quatuor solidi." xiv. 
 
 b See Wilkins' Cone. Mag. Brit. torn. i. pp. 140-41. ''Spiritual Venality, "p. 12. 
 
 c Ibid. pp. 12, 13. 
 
120 INDULGENCES. 
 
 others, and strongly characterized by its offensiveness, and 
 there we find, in an extract from the ancient work and 
 Theodoras, tit. ix. cap. xxvi. xxix., the same pecuniary 
 composition for declined penance, adapted in one case, in the 
 proportion of three to one, to the different means of the rich 
 and the poor. The Canon derived from Theodorus is nearly, 
 if not quite, the same as that given above from Beda." In 
 the canons subjoined to the Decretals of Gratian, near the 
 end, is the following note : 
 
 "It is to be noted also, according to John, that if a penance be imposed by a 
 Canon, any one may be liberated, by the proper authority, from fasting, by 
 giving a penny, or reading the Psalter. But Innocent says, that necessary 
 fasts, as of 'the four seasons, and of the like sort, cannot be redeemed unless 
 there be a reasonable cause ; but voluntary fasts may be redeemed even without 
 the authority of the superior."* 
 
 Mr. Mendham states that he is indebted to Rusticus, in 
 his "Three Capital Offences/^ &c., "for an important reference 
 to Muratori's "Antiq. Ital. Med. ^Evi," ed. Milan, 1738, &c., 
 and therein to torn. v. coll. 711, &c., containing a disserta- 
 tion De Indulgentiarum Origine, where the learned Romanist 
 affirms that ' in process of time, men dedicated to God re- 
 duced the entire redemption of penance to pecuniary mulcts, 
 which for the most part they did not allow to escape from 
 their own hands/ In col. 741, is the following parallel pas- 
 sage one of those, no doubt, which were not very acceptable 
 to Benedict XIV. : ' Wherefore, from the time that the Peni- 
 tential Canons were published in the West, and the form of this 
 kind of redemption was brought in, a broad way was opened 
 to many, not to say most of the clergy, to procure their own 
 advantage, not less than that of others/ But his most 
 important communication is, the Penitential Canons of the 
 Monastery at Bobbio, near Piacenza, entitled Pcenitentice 
 Ritus, e codd. MSS. Monasterii Bobiensis, pp. 723, &c. There 
 the rate of compensation, if a penitent could not fast, was 
 twenty-six solidi for one year's fasting, if rich, or three, if 
 poor, with a great deal more to the same purpose. The 
 usual enormities being included."" 1 We need not here go 
 again into the matter of indulgences and their venal condi- 
 tions, but proceed with the Tax- tables of Rome, which, as 
 Mr. Mendham observes, 
 
 a " Canones Pcenitentiales, " edited by Antonius Augustinus, Archbishop of 
 Tarragona. Venet. 1584. 
 
 b Published at Liverpool in 1824. 
 
 c "Quare ex quo Canones Pcenitentiales in Occidente prodierunt, et 
 invecta fuit forma ejusmodi redemptionis ; multis, ne dicam plerisque, e clero 
 via lata aperta est ad suum sibi commodum procurandum, non minus quam 
 alienum." 
 
 d "Spiritual Venality," p. 14. London, 1836. 
 
TAX.E. 
 
 "Are certainly a considerable advance and improvement upon 
 Indulgence under which they class ; for their absolution for the grossest crimes 
 perhaps for all crimes is expressly set to sale at specified prices, without 
 any allusion or admonition respecting the two first parts of penance, although, 
 if mentioned, they would probably occasion no impediment. But, in the 
 penitentiary part, that which chiefly occupies us, the whole is nothing but 
 bare absolution, or dispensation, or licence, &c., for grossi, or floreni, or ducats, 
 pounds, shillings, and pence."* 
 
 " To what times or persons the origin of these small and precious volumes is to 
 be assigned is, perhaps, impossible to be determined. The least objectionable 
 part, indicating only unprincipled cupidity and rapacity, the Chancery Taxes, 
 may with certainty be traced back to Pope John XXII., who reigned at the 
 beginning of the fourteenth century, and is celebrated by papal, b as well as 
 other historians, for his immoderate extortion by the dexterous management of 
 benefices, and by other means, and for the immense wealth which he accumu- 
 lated, and left behind him. The frequent and exclusive reference to the Liber 
 Jo. XXII. in Leo the Tenth's Taxse Cane. Apost., published 1514, place the 
 fact beyond a doubt." .... "Polydorus Vergilius expressly ascribes the 
 origin of some such Taxes to him." c 
 
 Mr. Mendham enumerates the various editions of the 
 Taxse, pertaining to the Penitentiary, as well as to the 
 Chancery of Rome, extending from the year 1471, in which 
 Sixtus V. occupied the pontifical chair, to the year 1820, 
 during which time not less than FORTY-FIVE impressions 
 appeared before the public. A manuscript collection of 
 these Taxse is then adverted to, which appears in the British 
 Museum. The original is found in the Harleian department 
 of the Museum, and is described, in the last catalogue of the 
 MSS. in it, in four volumes folio, 1808, in vol. ii. p. 262, 
 &c. It consists of two volumes, small folio, Num. 1850, 
 1852, written on vellum, having every appearance of genuine- 
 ness and coeval antiquity, that is, in the former part of the 
 sixteenth century. These volumes were withdrawn from the 
 archives of the Roman Chancery, at the death of Inno- 
 cent XII., by John Aymon, Apostolic Prothonotary, and 
 bought of him in Holland, at a great price, by the earl of 
 Oxford. They contain copies of the Taxa3, both Cancellarise 
 and Pcenitentiarise, in various forms. d 
 
 " And now," says Mr. Mendham, "it may fairly be asked, whether, in the 
 face of the evidence which has been adduced, the pretence can, with the 
 slightest probability, be supported, that these infamous productions are not 
 the genuine and authentic productions of the Papacy ? We have seen the way 
 prepared by the Penitentiary Canons ; and to them succeeded the Tax-Books, 
 of the genuineness of which no reasonable doubt can be entertained ; the first 
 of these, to more than the number of twenty, issued from countries and places 
 devoted to the Roman See ; the very first, to the number of fifteen, from 
 Rome itself, most of them attested by Audiffredi in a professed work 6 enume- 
 
 " Spiritual Venality," p. 19. 
 
 See Ciaconii " Vitse et Acta Pontt." &c. torn. ii. p. 395, ed. 1677. 
 
 " Spiritual Venality," p. 20. 
 
 See Elliott's " Delineation of Romanism," p. 354, third edition. 1851. 
 
 " Catalogus Rouianaruin editionum Saeculi XV." Romas, 1783. 
 
122 INDULGENCES. 
 
 rating the first Roman editions, dedicated, quite devoutly, to Pius Sextus, Pont. 
 Opt. Max. (quasi Deo Opt. Max.), the rest from Paris, Cologne, Venice ; that 
 from the last place under the auspices of Gregory XIII." 
 
 We have now seen what is the value of the assertions of 
 those who attempt to deny the authenticity and genuineness 
 of the Taxse, how they contradict each other; and that 
 the mention, unmeaning as it is, in an Index Prohibitorius, 
 actually proves the existence of the work, the depraved 
 copies of which it affects to condemn ! If further confirma- 
 tion were needed, such may be found from a well-known 
 passage in the writings of the celebrated Claude D'Espence, 
 who particularly refers to the edition of the Taxae published 
 in Paris, 1520. a 
 
 " He never once doubted of its being a genuine production of Rome. . . He 
 throws not out the slightest insinuation that the work, which he distinguishes 
 from the ' Centum Gravamina,' proceeded from any heretical quarter," .... 
 " The eminent Frenchman, to whom we are so much indebted, was a doctor 
 of the Sorbonne, and rector of the University of Paris. Paul IV. would have 
 made him a cardinal, had not the supposed interests of France prevailed. De 
 Thou affirms that he was too good, as John de la Casa was too bad, for that 
 honour. b Crashaw writes concerning him, ' of whom not only Thuanus, Bochel- 
 lius, and other indifferent and moderate, but even Possevine, the Jesuit, and 
 Genebrard, that rough and bitter Papist, give most honourable testimony." 
 
 " In his commentary on the Epistle to Titus, on c. i. v. 7, he has, what 
 he calls, Digressio Secunda, on the word aiffxpoKtpHiia, and there, having 
 expressly referred to the 'Centum Gravamina,' he proceeds to say that all those 
 charges might be considered as a fiction of the enemies of the Pope, were it not 
 for a book printed, and for some time publicly exposed to sale at Paris, entitled 
 Taxce Camera seu Cancellarice Apostolicce, c in which more wickedness might be 
 learned than in all the summaries of all vices, and in which are proposed 
 licence of sinning to most, and absolution to all who will buy it. He wonders 
 that this infamous and scandalous index of iniquity should be so far from being 
 suppressed by the friends and rulers of the Roman Church, that the licences 
 and impunities for such abominations continue to be renewed in the faculties 
 granted to the legates from Rome of absolving and rendering capable of 
 ecclesiastical promotion all sorts, and even the most atrocious, of criminals. 
 He then calls upon Rome to blush, and cease any longer to prostitute herself 
 by the publication of so infamous a catalogue." 
 
 Dr. Milner seems to have been especially annoyed by a 
 publication by Anthony Egane, B.D., who had been for some 
 years the Pope's Apostolical Penitentiary, or Confessor- 
 General in Ireland, and who " revealed this mystery of 
 iniquity' 3 after his conversion to the Protestant faith ; it is 
 entitled " The Book of Rates now used in the Sin Custom- 
 House of the Church and Court of Eome, containing the 
 
 a " Spiritual Venality," pp. 7678. 
 
 b Lib. xvi. ad ann. ]555. 
 
 c "Quae scandala ex Gravaminibus Germanicis passim collecta, 1, 2, 5, 8, 67, 
 74, 75, 84, 91, 95. Haec, inquam, lucra turpia, odio Pontificis Romani ficta sint, 
 si non, quod ait et conqueritur ille, velut Prostat, et in qucestu pro meretrice 
 sedet, liber palam ac publice hie impressus, hodieque, ut olim, venalis, Taxap 
 Camera? seu Cancellariae Apostolicfe," &c. (Mr. Mendham gives the whole text.) 
 
123 
 
 Bulls,, Dispensations, and Pardons, for all manner of Villanies 
 and Wickednesse, with the several sums of monies given and 
 to be paid for them. Published by Anthony Egane, B.D., 
 late Confessor-General of the Kingdom of Ireland, and now, 
 through the mercy of God, Minister of the Gospel according 
 to the Reformed Religion. Licensed according to Order. 
 London, 1674." a 
 
 " In reference to these tables of ' decreed impositions/ '' 
 Egane observes, that " there are hundreds even of the ordinary 
 priests who know not what it means ; because that these 
 arcana imperil are always kept close from them, and reserved 
 on purpose for certain persons called Apostolic Penitentiaries, 
 to whom the absolution of particular and heinous sins is 
 committed (as it was to myself in Ireland within these four 
 years), and of such persons there may be one or two in every 
 city or diocess; which, before they have that power, must 
 take an oath of secrecy never to reveal the mysteries of their 
 Church, and to keep them from the knowledge, not only of 
 the laity, but also of the ordinary Priests and Friars, and 
 especially from any man that is suspected to be of no acute 
 parts, or of so much learning or honesty as might make him 
 scruple their authority; and neither may it, perhaps, have 
 come to the knowledge of some half-witted fellows, who either 
 for lucre or liberty, neither stick to the one religion or the 
 other, of which sort of people we have divers amongst us in this 
 kingdom, whose names are not worth mentioning by either 
 party ; but as to those sins commonly called reserved cases, 
 if any man shall acknowledge himself guilty of any such in 
 confession to an ordinary confessor, he can only tell him 
 where the Pope's bankers reside, who are to absolve him, and 
 will gladly receive him, so he bring with him the price of his 
 sin; and this great Penitentiary is thereupon to procure a 
 Bull of Indulgence and pardon for all wicked persons offending 
 in the cases here set down, and divers others." b 
 
 These assertions of Anthony Egane have been corroborated 
 by Father O'Leary, in his " Caution to the Common People 
 against Perjury, so frequent at Assizes and Elections." This 
 facetious and talented individual enables us to discover 
 where those " detestable bankers," who traffic in these vile 
 anti-Christian and anti-social crimes, are to be found. O'Leary, 
 
 a A second edition appeared in 1678, and a fifth in 1715 ; it was again 
 published in 1809, by Francis Maseres, Esq., Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer.' 
 See Maseres' "Occasional Essays," p. 558, 8vo. London, 1809. 
 
 b Elliott's " Delineation," p. 368, third edit. London, 1851. 
 
 c Milner's " Vindication of the End of Religious Controversy," p. 246. 
 London, 1822. 
 
124 INDULGENCES. 
 
 " the light and glory" of the Popish clergy of Ireland,, as his 
 biographer styles him/ says, " In the diocess of Cork, and in 
 several others, the crime of perjury is considered a reserved 
 case, from which no one but the Bishop can absolve, let them 
 be never so penitent. The restraint shows the enormity of 
 the guilt ; whereas the inferior clergy can reconcile ordinary 
 sinners, upon sincere repentance, and a firm resolution of 
 amendment. But the perjurer, having exceeded the ordinary 
 bounds, let his repentance be ever so sincere, must have 
 recourse to an extraordinary power." Egane tells us that 
 there is a Papal missionary resident in each diocess in 
 Ireland to absolve from heinous sins ; whilst O'Leary inad- 
 vertently tells us that the Bishop is such, and it cannot be 
 supposed that, if the ordinary Priest has his confessional dues, 
 the Bishop, in extraordinary cases, goes without his. b 
 
 " Dr. Milner is evidently much chagrined on finding such 
 overwhelming evidence against the practices of the Papacy, 
 of which he endeavours to get rid by inveighing against 
 Egane personally, with whom, he says, ' this vile fabrication 
 originated/ ( ! ! ) The reason which the Bishop assigns for 
 his assumption is Egane' s poverty ! But what has the 
 account of this man's vagrancy from Ireland to Oxford, and 
 thence to Cambridge, so circumstantially reported from 
 Wood's 'Athense,' to do with the main question, which 
 respects the genuineness of the book itself? Although, by 
 the way, Egane does not deserve to have such disrespectful 
 mention made of him, since, on leaving the former University 
 in 1673, he bore with him the attested certificate of the Vice- 
 Chancel] or and Provost for excellent conduct during his stay 
 there. Be this as it may, the Taxse went through number- 
 less editions, both in Popish and Protestant countries, before 
 Egane was born. Dr. Milner certainly must have known 
 that a Paris edition of this book made its appearance about 
 the commencement of the Reformation, in a thin quarto, with 
 the French king's licence of sale for three years, from the 
 press of T. Dennis ; c and that the 'Taxse Penitentiarise' 
 were published along with it at the same time; that D'Aubigne, 
 in his ' Confession of Sanci/ says that the See of Rome will 
 not suffer the book to be destroyed; and that Richerius, a 
 
 a "Life of Dr. O'Leary," by Rev. Mr. England, 8vo. Cork, 1823. 
 
 b See Blair's "Letters to William Wilberforce, Esq., M.P." London, 1819, 
 pp. 8295. The late C. Butler, Esq., admitted " the fee for the document !" 
 
 c Grier's "Defence of his Reply," pp. 251, 252, cited in Elliott's "Delinea- 
 tion," pp. 368, 369, third edition. The original is worth giving: "Cujus 
 rei (Romish peculation) testis est locupletissimus nullaque ratione refutandus 
 aut improbandus Liber Taxae Cancellarise Romanae." Hist. Concil. General, 
 lib. quarti, pars ii., auct. Ed. Richerio, p. 106. Colonise, 1681. And yet, as we 
 have been, one objector says that there was no printer's name. 
 
TAXJE. 125 
 
 writer not of inferior note to Dr. Milner, tells us that it is 
 'a book not to be impeached or disproved/ 7 
 
 We may now introduce the reader to a few select morceaux 
 from the Tables themselves, commuted into English money, 
 omitting, necessarily, some of the most flagrant instances, 
 because the crimes to which they relate are too horrid to be 
 named before Protestants.* 
 
 "I. DISPENSATIONS OF VOWS. 
 
 . s. J. 
 
 "1. If a man has vowed, but not solemnly, to take the habit of 
 some religious o"rder, for changing his vow, made in con- 
 science only, he is to pay . . . . . . . . . . 1540 
 
 " 2. If a man has taken a vow of chastity, solemnly, he may 
 have a dispensation, if necessary, for not keeping his vow, 
 paying the prelate .. .'. .. .. .. .. 15 4 
 
 ' ' 3. For prolonging the term of vows to go to the holy sepulchre, 
 
 or to St. Peter's, at Rome, upon a lawful cause assigned. . 929 
 " 4. If the dispensation be only for two years . . . . . . 401 
 
 " 5. For changing the pilgrimage to the sepulchre into another. . 1236 
 " 6. For changing one vow into another for a perpetuity, in the 
 
 case of a chapter, convent, or great college. . . . . . 100 
 
 "II. DISPENSATIONS OF OATHS. 
 
 " 7. For the breach of an oath or contract respecting civil em- 
 ployments or concerns. . .. .. .. .. .. 723 
 
 " 8. For a Bull containing both the inhibitory clauses, and abso- 
 lution from infamy, in such cases . . . . . . . . 56 9 G 
 
 "9. And if several persons are included in the same act or con- 
 tract, each must pay .. .. .. .. .. .. 300 
 
 "10. For the breach of an oath that cannot be kept without 
 incurring everlasting damnation ; as, for example, a dis- 
 honest vow, or a wicked promise .. .. .. .. 620 
 
 " N.B. You are to take notice, that there is a difference to be made between 
 the tax of a bishop, abbot, or general of an order, and of an ordinary 
 person. The prelates are to be left to the discretion of their confessors (who 
 best know their incomes). 
 
 "m. DISPENSATIONS OF CRIMES. 
 
 . s. d. 
 
 " 11. For a marriage contracted in the first degree of affinity, and 
 in conscience only, to be paid for according to the ability 
 of the party .. .. 1000 2 6 
 
 " 12. For a marriage in the second degree, beside a gratification 
 
 to the prelate, the pope, or his missionary, is to be paid. . 100 15 6 
 
 " 13. For erecting a public Jewish synagogue . . . . . . 603 15 
 
 "14. For a private synagogue in a Jew's house .. .. .. 300 1 6 
 
 "15. For (a crusader, or) soldier in the Catholic cause, who 
 neither kills nor wounds any (heretic) in war, nor (as an 
 officer) causes another to do so . . . . . . . . 36 9 
 
 "16. For pardon and rehabilitation (or readmission into the 
 bosom of the Church) of a heretic in ample form, with 
 the inhibitory clause, before abjuration (of his heresy) . . 36 9 
 
 "17- For simony, or for fornication of priests, friars, or nuns, 
 
 each 36 9 6 
 
 "18. For incest in a layman .. .. .. .. .. 460 
 
 a See " Letters on Roman Catholic Controversy," by W. C. Brownlee, D.D., 
 p. 3/53, et seq. New York, 1834. 
 
126 INDULGENCES. 
 
 s. d, 
 
 "19. For adultery in a layman 400 
 
 " 20. For adultery and incest together 620 
 
 "21. For the adulterer and adultress jointly .. .. .. 660 
 
 " 22. For absolution to keep a concubine at bed and board, with 
 
 a dispensation to hold a benefice . . . . . . .'. 456 
 
 "23. For striking a clerk or priest .. .. ,. .. .. 622 
 
 "24. For striking an abbot or prelate .. .. .. .. 12 6 3 
 
 "25. For striking a bishop or archbishop .. .. .. .. 24 6 
 
 "26. For wounding a priest in any of his members . . . . 18 4 9 
 
 "27. For wounding a layman .. .. .. .. .. 006 
 
 " 28. For murder committed by a bishop, abbot, chief of an 
 
 order, or knight, each .. .. .. .. .. 50 12 6 
 
 " 29. For murder by a friar, or guardian of a monastery . . 40 9 
 " 30. For murder, by an ordinary person, to be rated according to 
 
 circumstances at the discretion of the prelates . . . . 000 
 
 "31. For the murder of a priest by a layman . . . . . . 620 
 
 " 32. And for commutation of public penance to private for the 
 
 same ' 18 4 6 
 
 " 33. For the murder of a layman by a layman . . . . . . 324 
 
 " 34. For the murder of a father, mother, brother, sister, or wife, 
 
 each 418 
 
 "35. For marrying another wife after murdering the former, 
 
 &c 829 
 
 The reader is now in a position to exercise his own judg- 
 ment as to the genuineness and authenticity of the Taxse, and 
 also as to their corrupting tendency, and the matter may be 
 safely left to his unbiassed opinion. 51 Intimately connected 
 as these Taxse are with the subject of Indulgences, we would, 
 
 a In the year 1800, a Spanish ship from Europe was captured near the 
 coast of South America by Admiral Harvey, then captain of the Southampton 
 frigate. There were on board large bales of paper, valued in her books at 
 7,500. These were Indulgences or pardons for various sins mentioned in the 
 Catholic Rubric, and the price, which varied from half a dollar to seven dollars, 
 was marked on each. They had been BOUGHT in Spain, and were intended for 
 SALE in South America. At Tortola some Dutch merchants bought the whole 
 for 200, with the hope of being able to smuggle them among the Spaniards in 
 America. (Hamilton's "Tracts on some leading Errors of the Church of 
 Rome," p. 68.) We have been favoured by a friend with the following fact, 
 of which he himself was an eye-witness : When the small seaport of Diluzo 
 (the ancient Antium) was taken by the squadron under the orders of the late 
 Admiral, then Captain, Dundas, a party of sailors, who had strolled as far as 
 the palace of a church dignitary, in the neighbourhood, found in the library a 
 small deal box, tied with tape and sealed. On examining the box, it was 
 ascertained to be entirely filled with blank Indulgences, printed at the 
 "Stamperia of the Pope," and impressed with the Papal arms. It is hardly 
 possible for the most depraved imagination to fancy a crime which was not set 
 down in these Indulgences, with its price annexed ; besides which, there was a 
 plenary indulgence, the price of which varied, according as the crime or crimes 
 had already been perpetrated, or were to be committed within a specified 
 time, and a further indulgence for all crimes not contained in the catalogue. 
 
 In 1748 a Spanish ship, containing bales of Indulgences, was captured by an 
 English cruiser, and sent into Boston. Fleet, the bookseller there, purchased 
 a large quantity of them, and printed various editions of ballads on the back of 
 them. He also advertised the originals, to be had at a much cheaper rate, 
 either by single Bull, quire, or ream, than they could be purchased of priests, 
 "and yet warranted to be of the same advantage to possessors." See Dr. 
 Sail's "True Catholic and Apostolic Faith," London, 1840, pp. 443, 444. 
 
TAXM. 127 
 
 for a moment, revert to the assertion that Indulgences do not 
 remit the guilt of sin, and that though absolution remits the 
 guilt, it still leaves a degree of punishment, more or less, to 
 be remitted by the Indulgence; we thus revert to this assertion, 
 because, by thus taking Rome on her own grounds, we come 
 to a very pregnant question : " What is the difference be- 
 tween the efficacy of our Saviour's blood as the Scripture 
 teaches, respecting the extent of its application to the case of 
 the truly humble and penitent sinner, and as Rome teaches, 
 when its efficacy depends upon its application by Papal 
 hands?" "The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin," 
 according to the Scripture, and there is " no condemnation 
 to them which are in Christ Jesus/' every claim is satisfied, 
 "the handwriting that was against us is taken out of the 
 way," the bond is cancelled by him who "nailed it to his 
 Cross." But with Rome it is not so ! Though we are told 
 that " a single drop of his blood would have sufficed for the 
 redemption of the whole human race," and that the super- 
 abundance of that precious blood forms a part of the treasure 
 to be applied by the Pope ; yet he cannot wholly apply it 
 for absolution leaves a portion of the debt still to be remitted ! 
 and the Indulgence, by which that portion is remitted, cannot 
 remit the guilt I Rome would have acted more in conformity 
 with her usual boldness to have claimed the power of remitting 
 both guilt and punishment, which, indeed, we have seen that, 
 on emergency, her Papal rulers have not scrupled to do ! 
 
 As a closing sentence on the subject of Indulgences, Dr. 
 Milner quotes (p. 410) a passage, by no means a novel one 
 among writers of his class, from Bucer (" de Regno Christi," 
 lib. i. cap. 4.), to the effect that the Protestants " seem to have 
 embraced the Gospel" merely " in order to shake off the yoke 
 of discipline, and the obligation of fasting, penance, &c., 
 which lay upon them in Popery, and to live at their pleasure ;" 
 and the citation would have been pertinent, had either Bucer 
 himself or his Church countenanced, or his instructions any 
 way encouraged, such notions, which it has been made suffi- 
 ciently evident that the- doctrine and practice of the Church 
 of Rome, with regard to Indulgences, does do; and as for 
 " the yoke of discipline," we beg our reader to consult Mr. 
 Scudamore's " England and Rome," Lond. 1855, p. 398, and 
 ponder the lamentation of Herschen, a modern R. C. divine, 
 upon this very subject. Bucer characterizes such persons as 
 he brought forward as the " impious," and shows plainly that 
 their manner of life was utterly unconnected with the instruc- 
 tions of their teachers* 
 
 a P. 24 of Buceri "Scripta Anglicana." Basil, 1577- 
 
128 
 
 No. XX. 
 
 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 SECT. I. Dr. Milner's False Definition. The Decree of Constance. Admitted 
 Modern Innovation. Cardinal Bona, Thomas Aquinas, Cassander. Mil- 
 ner's Statement. Asserted to be Traditionary. 
 
 OF all the arguments adduced to support popish doctrines, 
 those in favour of the custom of administering the Lord's 
 Supper to the laity under one kind, and thus depriving them 
 of the cup, are the most flimsy and the most contradictory. 
 
 The laity was first authoritatively deprived of the cup by 
 Conciliar decree in the year 1414, namely, by the Thirteenth 
 Canon of the Council of Constance. It will be necessary to 
 set out this decree in full, in order to avoid the possibility of 
 misrepresentation; and this is the more important, since Dr. 
 Milner accuses " Bishop Porteus, Dr. Comber Kennit, &c.," 
 of misrepresenting this Council. It is a fact, nevertheless, 
 that Dr. Milner, while thus complaining, is himself guilty 
 of misrepresenting the same decree. His words are, 
 
 " Dr. Porteus, &c., accuse this Council of decreeing that ' notwitltstanding 
 (for so they express it) our Saviour ministered in both kinds, one only shall in 
 future be administered to the laity, as if the Council opposed its authority to 
 that of Christ ; whereas it barely defines that some circumstances of the institu- 
 tion (namely, that it took place after supper, that the apostles received, without 
 being fasting, and that both species were consecrated) are not obligatory on all 
 Christians."* 
 
 Now we maintain that the Council did oppose its authority 
 to that of Christ, for it declares, decrees, and defines that, 
 although Christ did institute this sacrament after supper, and 
 administered it to His disciples under each species of bread 
 and wine, nevertheless, notwithstanding this (hoc non ob- 
 stante), that this sacrament should not be consecrated after 
 supper, nor received by the faithful unless fasting, excepting 
 in certain cases, such as infirmity and the like, and that it 
 be received by the laity in one kind only, and this is declared 
 to be law. The alleged " bare mention " is put forward in a 
 most positive and unequivocal manner, and is made the prin- 
 cipal object of the decree. The decree not obligatory ! Why, 
 are not all gainsayers " repelled as heretics that ought to be 
 severely punished/' and handed over to the tender mercies 
 
 a Letter xxxix. p. 379, note. 
 
THE DECREE OF CONSTANCE. 129 
 
 of "the Inquisitors." The decree itself is so unequivocal 
 that we will let it speak for itself: 
 
 " Whereas in some parts of the world there are persons who presume rashly 
 to assert that Christian people ought to take the Sacrament of the Eucharist 
 under both species of bread and wine, and that the laity should communicate 
 not only under the species of bread, but also under the species of wine ; also 
 that they should receive it after supper, or at least not fasting, &c. : hence it 
 is that this present sacred General Council, lawfully congregated, in the Holy 
 Spirit, at Constance, taking care to provide for the safety of the faithful 
 against this error, after mature deliberation of those learned in both divine 
 and human law, declares, decrees, and defines, that, although Christ did institute 
 this venerable sacrament after supper, and administered it to his disciples 
 under each species of bread and wine, nevertheless, notwithstanding this (hoc 
 non obstante), the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved 
 custom of the Church, has held, and does hold, that this sacrament should not 
 be consecrated after supper, nor received by the faithful except fasting, unless 
 in case of infirmity, or other necessity, by the law of the Church conceded and 
 admitted. And as this custom was reasonably introduced to avoid some 
 dangers and scandals, although in the primitive Church this sacrament was 
 received by the faithful under each species, Jtenceforth let it be received by 
 those consecrating it under each species, but by the laity only under the 
 species of bread, &c. Whence, since a custom of this sort was reasonably 
 introduced by the Church and Holy Fathers, and has been very long observed, 
 let it be taken for law, which it is riot lawful to disapprove or to change at 
 pleasure, without the authority of the Church. Wherefore to say that to 
 observe this custom or law is sacrilegious or unlawful, ought to be deemed 
 erroneous, and those pertinaciously asserting the contrary of the foregoing 
 ought to be repelled as heretics and severely punished by the diocesans of the 
 place or their officials, or the inquisitors of heretical depravity, in the kingdoms 
 or provinces in which anything shall happen to be attempted or presumed 
 against this decree, according to the canonical and lawful sanctions whole- 
 somely framed in favour of the Catholic faith, and against heretics and 
 their adherents."* 
 
 a ' ' Cum in nonnullis mundi partibus quidam temerarie asserere prsesumant, 
 populum Christianum debere Eucharistiae sacramentum sub utraque panis 
 et vini specie suscipere, et non solum sub specie panis, sed etiam sub 
 specie vini, populum laicum passim communicent ; etiam post ccenam vel alias 
 non jejunum, &c., hinc est quod hoc praesens Concilium Sacrum Generale 
 Constant, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregatum, adversus hunc errorem 
 saluti fidelium providere satagens, matura plurium doctorum, tarn divini quam 
 humani juris, deliberatione prashabita, deciarat, decernit, et diffinit, quod, 
 licet Christus post ccenam instituerit, et suis discipulis administraverit, sub 
 utraque specie panis et vini, hoc venerabile sacramentum, tamen, hoc non 
 obstante, sacrorum canonum auctoritas laudabilis, et approbata consuetude 
 Ecclesise servavit et servat, quod hujusmodi sacramentum non debet confici 
 post ccenam, neque a fidelibus recipi non jejunis, nisi in casu infirmitatis, 
 alterius necessitatis, a jure vel Ecclesia concesso vel admisso. Et sicut haec 
 consuetude ad evitandum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter intro- 
 ducta, quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a 
 fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea a conficientibus sub utraque et a laicis 
 tantummodo sub specie panis, suscipiatur, &c. Unde cum hujusmodi consue- 
 tudo ab Ecclesia et sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, et diutissime 
 observata sit, habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare, aut sine Ecclesise 
 auctoritate pro libito mutare. Quapropter dicere, quod hanc consuetudinem 
 aut legem observare sit sacrilegum aut illicitum, ceuseri debet erroneum ; et 
 pertinaciter asserentes oppositum praemissorum tanquam hceretici arcendi sunt 
 et graviter puniendi, per dioecesanos locorurn, seu officiales eorurn, aut inquisi- 
 tores haereticae pravitatis, in regnis seu provinciis, in quibus contra hoc decre- 
 
 K 
 
130 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 We shall pass on from this strange endeavour to misrepre- 
 sent the plain meaning of this decree to other parts of the 
 subject, as raised by Dr. Milner. It will be observed that 
 the Council admitted that Christ, when He instituted this 
 sacrament,, administered it in both kinds ; and that it was so 
 received in the primitive Church ; but that to avoid certain 
 alleged scandals, a change was reasonably introduced by the 
 Church and holy Fathers, and had been very long observed, 
 and was to be taken for law. Now, in contradiction to this 
 assertion, that the custom of half- communion had been very 
 long observed, we have the acknowledgment of Cardinal 
 Bona, who testifies, that, from the origin of the Church to the 
 twelfth age, Christians at all times and in every place com- 
 municated under the species of bread and wine. a St. Thomas 
 Aquinas said, " According to the ancient custom of the Church, 
 all men as they communicated in the body, so they also 
 communicated in the blood." 5 And Cassander, the famous 
 Romish ritualist, to the same effect, says, " In the Latin 
 Church, for upwards of a thousand years, uninterruptedly, 
 the body of Christ and the blood of Christ were separately 
 given, the body apart, and the blood apart, after the conse- 
 cration of the mysteries." And Cardinal Bellarmine virtually 
 admits the same, when he says, in his chapter De Euchar., 
 lib. iv. c. 4, while alleging, in excuse for the change, " that 
 the inconvenience became more and more apparent as the 
 multitude of communicants increased, and so the custom 
 under both species gradually ceased." We will not now 
 insist on the passages usually quoted from the epistle of Pope 
 Gelasius, where he declares that communion in one kind 
 only could not be administered without great sacrilege ; nor 
 the words of Pope Leo, that those who communicated in one 
 kind should be thrust out of the Church by sacerdotal 
 authority; since the import or intent of these passages is 
 
 turn aliquid fuerit forsan attentatum aut praesumptum, juxta canonicas et 
 legitimas sanctiones, in favorem Catholicae fidei, contra hsereticos et eorum 
 fautores, salubriter adinventas." Labb. et Coss., torn. xii. p. 99, &c. Paris, 
 1672. 
 
 a " Semper enim et ubique ab Ecclesise primordiis usque ad sseculum duo- 
 decimum, sub specie panis et vini communicaverunt." Bon. Liturg., lib. ii. 
 cap. 18. 
 
 b "Secundumantiquse Ecclesise consuetudinem, omnes, sicut comraunicabant 
 corpori, ita communicabant et sanguini." S. Thorn, in Joannem, cap. vii. 
 sec. vii. p. 363. Paris, 1640. 
 
 c " Occidentalis vero, sive Romana Ecclesia, rnille amplius annis continuis, 
 non aliter quam sub duplici hac specie in conventu Ecclesia3 sacramentum 
 hoc Dominici corporis et sanguinis administrasse legitur, idque in pane et vino, 
 atque adeb separatim." Cassander, de Sacr. Commun., p. 1025. Paris, 
 1616. 
 
MILNER'S STATEMENTS. 131 
 
 questioned ; they will form the subjects for subsequent con- 
 sideration. 
 
 The reader will not have failed to observe the conflicting 
 testimony borne by the fathers of the " General Council of 
 Constance/' and that of various cardinals and doctors of 
 the same Church, and how very different these latter report 
 the testimony, as to the custom of the ancient Church, to 
 what Dr. Milner does. 
 
 With these preliminary observations we shall proceed to 
 examine and expose Dr. Milner's subtleties, as set out in 
 Letter xxxix. He begins by intimating that the Romish 
 practice is sanctioned by tradition ; " The Catholic Church," 
 he says, " was formed and instructed in its divine doctrines 
 and rites, and especially in its sacraments and sacrifices, 
 before any part of the New Testament was published, and 
 whole centuries before the entire New Testament was pub- 
 lished and collected and pronounced by her to be authentic 
 and inspired" (p. 374).* Again intimating by this that half- 
 communion was a divine rite established by the Church, 
 before any part of the New Testament was published ; and 
 that the custom therefore was founded on the tradition of 
 the Church from the time of the Apostles. This intimation 
 becomes more evident from what follows : " Indeed Pro- 
 testants are forced to have recourse to the traditions of the 
 Church [printed in italics] for determining a great number 
 of points which are left doubtful by the sacred text, particu- 
 larly with respect to the two sacraments, which they acknow- 
 ledge." Mark the Jesuitical insinuation ; he dared not 
 assert boldly, that the question under consideration was left 
 " doubtful by the sacred text." What ! Does Dr. Milner 
 dare even to insinuate that the institution and administration 
 of the Eucharist in both species was left doubtful by the 
 " sacred text " ? Are we not told, in Matthew xxvi. 26, &c., 
 Mark xiv. 22, Luke xxii. 19, and in Paul's first Epistle to 
 the Corinthians xi. 23, that our Lord took bread, that He 
 blessed, brake, and gave to His disciples, saying, TAKE, EAT, 
 &c. ; and that He took wine, blessed, and delivered the 
 cup, saying, DRINK YE ALL OF THIS; and that He said to 
 them all, Do this in remembrance of me ? And again, does 
 not St. Paul plainly say, " The cup of blessing which we 
 bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The 
 bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body 
 of Christ? " (1 Cor. x. 16.) And again, " For as often as ye 
 
 a We are to deduce from this that the authenticity and inspiration of 
 Scripture depended on the declaration of the [Roman] Church : this is arro- 
 gance indeed ! 
 
 K2 
 
132 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 
 death till He come. Let a man examine himself, and so let 
 him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." (1 Cor. xi. 
 26 28.) Is the question left here in any doubt ? And as 
 if still farther to bear out his bold theory, he compares half- 
 communion with the custom of the Church in the use of 
 water in baptism, by "infusion or aspersion" instead of 
 immersion, and also of "infant baptism," which latter (by 
 the way), Bellarmine asserts, is sufficiently and clearly proved 
 from Scripture/ and then in contradiction to what had been 
 before asserted, he goes on to compare it with customs ap- 
 parently enjoined by the example of Christ, and which can 
 only be proved by Scripture, which, nevertheless, Protestants, 
 he asserts, do not follow ; and he instances that Christ commu- 
 nicated with the Apostles at an evening supper, after they had 
 feasted on a lamb. Christ never said, " Do this after supper, 
 and after you have feasted on a lamb." Though the Council 
 of Constance did declare that the sacrament should not be 
 administered after supper, it might just as well be urged 
 that the sacrament is not properly performed, unless ad- 
 ministered in an " upper chamber," or that it was not to be 
 administered to females, because none were present at the 
 institution. The other case cited, as showing that Christ's 
 ordinances were not to be followed, is that he enjoined the 
 Apostles to wash one another's feet, as an example that " they 
 should do as he had done to them." (John xiii. 9 15.) The 
 Church has never considered this an ordinance to be observed; 
 it bears no parallel with the duty of administering the cup 
 to the people, which the Church did universally practise 
 until withheld by a Popish Council. The priests of Rome do 
 not in this respect follow the alleged command, admitting it 
 to be a matter of indifference ; but if Dr. Mimer's argument 
 is to be admitted, then equally the entire sacrament is a 
 matter of indifference, as much so as he makes one point 
 of it. 
 
 Having thus misstated and mystified the question, he 
 emerges from his cloud of sophistry by complacently 
 asking : 
 
 "That if none of these rites are essential to that ordinance [the Eucharist], 
 or necessary to be practised at present, with what pretension to consistency 
 then can they [Protestants] reject her [the Popish] doctrine and practice in the 
 remaining particulars [i.e., taking the cup from the laity] of this mysterious 
 
 !l "Licet enim non inveniamus expresse mandatum, ut baptizemus infantes, 
 tamen id et colligitur satis aperte ex scripturis, ut supra ostendimus." Bell, de 
 Sacra. Bap., lib. i. cap. ix. 
 
MILNER'S STATEMENTS. 133 
 
 In order to afford the best answer to the objections raised 
 against this practice, Dr. Milner proposes to give a clear 
 exposition of the institution itself, and of the doctrine and 
 discipline of the Church concerning the controversy in 
 question. This exposition is given in the following lucid 
 manner : 
 
 " It is true that our Blessed Saviour instituted the Holy Eucharist under 
 two kinds; but it must be observed that he then made \ii\sacrljice as well as a 
 Sacrament, and that he ordained priests, namely, his twelve Apostles (for 
 none else were present on the occasion), to consecrate this Sacrament and 
 offer this sacrifice. Now, for the latter purpose namely, a sacrifice it was 
 requisite that the victim should be really present, and at least mystically 
 immolated, which was then, and is still, performed in the Mass, by the sym- 
 bolical disunion or separate consecration of the body and the blood. It was 
 requisite, also, for the completion of the sacrifice, that the priests, who had 
 immolated the victim by mystically separating its body and its blood, should 
 consummate it in both these kinds. Hence it is seen that the command of- 
 Christ, on which our opponents lay so much stress drink ye all of this 
 regards the Apostles as priests, and not the laity as communicants."'" 1 
 
 Did any one ever read such a tissue of sophistry such a 
 " learned way of talking nonsense" ? Christ never made the 
 sacrament a sacrifice, in the sense the Roman Church 
 attaches to that word ; He did not then ordain the Apostles 
 priests ; they were ordained to that office after the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, when he breathed upon them and said, 
 " Receive ye the Holy Ghost/' Dr. Milner must mean that 
 the Apostles were ordained priests by our Saviour saying 
 Hoc facile, which he would construe sacrifice this, but 
 which we render, and properly, "Do this." And then he 
 would persuade us that the Apostles received the cup as 
 priests ; and consequently that though these priests are now 
 obliged to receive the cup as the Apostles did ; yet it is suffi- 
 cient if other persons receive the bread only. Let us admit 
 that the word facere does sometimes signify "to sacrifice," 
 but it would puzzle even the ingenuity of a Dr. Milner to 
 prove that iroitiv, which is the word in the original, is ever 
 used in that sense either in the New Testament or elsewhere, 
 nor can it be proved that a priest was ever ordained by that 
 form. Suppose it did confer this privilege, then when the 
 Apostles took the bread, the words having been uttered, they 
 were consecrated priests, whereas the tenor of Dr. Milner's 
 argument is, that it was necessary, at least, for the Apostles 
 on that occasion to have taken in both kinds ; they all were 
 priests; but then how is it that in the Church of Rome, 
 though several priests assist at the celebration of the mass, 
 yet he only who consecrates the elements, does take the wine ? 
 
 a Letter xxxix. p. 375. 
 
131 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, by confession, that since all the Apostles 
 drank of the cup as priests, they do plainly offend against the 
 order of the first institution, in allowing the cup to no more 
 than one of all the priests that are present. Had such a 
 distinction been really intended to have been established by 
 our Saviour, and that the cup was to be received by the 
 priest, and denied to the laity, could Paul have omitted to 
 refer to it ? On the contrary, when he wrote to the Corinthians 
 about the Lord's Supper, he utters not a syllable on that 
 matter ; but refers them to the first institution, and tells the 
 whole Church, that they are commanded to receive both 
 kinds in remembrance of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 23, &c.) a 
 
 Then look at his compromise or paring down of the genuine 
 Popish doctrine of the corporal presence, by talking of a 
 " mystical immolation," "symbolical disunion," "mystical 
 separation." Does not his Church plainly teach that the victim 
 said to be offered up at the mass, is no mystical or symbolical 
 thing, but the selfsame Christ that lived and walked in this 
 world, and hung on the cross? 5 Does not the Catechism of 
 the Council of Trent tell us that it is the " very body, blood, 
 bones, and nerves" of our Lord, as well as his "soul and 
 divinity"? Does not his Church teach that the wine is 
 truly and really substantially changed into the blood, and the 
 bread into the body ? Then why talk about " mystical im- 
 molation" and " symbolical disunion," &c., but to mystify and 
 mislead, or because he could not help seeing, though he 
 could not or would not admit, the falsehood of the inter- 
 pretation of the Church of Rome, utterly incompatible, as he 
 was beginning to discover it to be with reason and Scripture. 
 And again, why talk about " mystically separating the body 
 and its blood," when immediately after he tells us that the 
 Romanist takes both body and blood when he receives the 
 consecrated bread? 
 
 Yet consider again the quality of this man's reasoning : 
 
 "True it is (he says) that when Christ promised this Sacrament to the 
 faithful in general, he promised, in express terms, both his body and his blood 
 (John vi.) ; but this does not imply that they must, therefore, receive them 
 under the different appearances of bread and wine." P. 375. 
 
 And what is his reason? forsooth because the modern 
 Trent conventicle teaches otherwise ! And to introduce the 
 6th chapter of John's gospel as expressly, and as of course, 
 
 a See Bennett's "Confutation of Popery/' chap. xi. part ii. London, 1714. 
 
 b " Catechism of Christian Doctrine," p. 108. London, 1843. 
 
 c "Jam vero in hoc loco a pastoribus explicandum est, non solum Christi 
 corpus, et quidquid ad veram corporis rationem pertinet, veluti ossa et neruos, 
 sed etiam totuni Christum in hoc Sacramento contineri." Catech. Cone. Trid., 
 pars ii. sec. xxxi. p. 235. Paris, 1848. 
 
135 
 
 referring to the Eucharist, is a bold step in advance for Dr. 
 Milner to take, when he knew that the Council dared not 
 apply this text to the Eucharist, for it was very cogently 
 
 Sressed upon them by one of the bishops present, that if they 
 id admit the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel to refer to the 
 Eucharist, they must admit the Communion to be adminis- 
 tered in both kinds, seeing Christ had said, ' e Except ye eat 
 the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no 
 life in you." (John vi. 53, &c.) a 
 
 And then with marvellous consistency he goes on to show 
 that the laity are not deprived of the blood of Christ, because 
 "the precious body and blood being equally and entirely 
 [Italicised by Dr. Milner] present under each species, is 
 equally and entirely given to the faithful, whichever they 
 receive." If this be true, why is not the ministering priest 
 contented to take one only, and that th bread ? And here, 
 by the way, we may note that there is a glaring inconsistency 
 in the Decrees of Trent in this respect, for it says that the 
 bread is changed into the body, and the wine into the blood. 
 It is true that a body, that is a living body, may contain 
 blood ; but no blood contains the body. That each species 
 equally and entirely contains both, is subsequently asserted 
 by the Council merely to get over a difficulty. They have no 
 warrant whatever, from Scripture or Tradition, for any such 
 an assertion. " And thus " (says Dr. Milner, hurrying to a 
 conclusion) " Romanists possessing the reality of them both, 
 their species or outward appearance is no more than a matter 
 of changeable discipline." 
 
 If this be really so, why does Dr. Milner thrust in the 
 word faithful ? According to his system, both the faithful 
 and unfaithful alike receive the real body and " blood, bones 
 and nerves, soul and divinity," when they receive of the 
 wafer. It was necessary for him to confine it to the faithful, 
 otherwise his 6th chapter of St. John would not fit, for there 
 it is said, " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
 hath eternal life 31 (verse 54) ; whereas St. Paul contemplates 
 an unworthy reception, which entails on the recipient a con- 
 demnation rather than a blessing. It is, however, not true 
 that it is a matter of " changeable discipline," as we have 
 seen by the Decree of Constance. 
 
 a See Albertinus "De Eucharistia," p. 210 (Daventriae, 1654), and Du 
 Moulin's "Anatomy of the Mass/' p. 282, edit. Edinb. 1833. 
 
136 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 SECT. II. Alleged Scriptural Evidence. 
 
 BUT after all, Dr. Milner proposes to prove half-communion 
 from Scripture, which we had been led to suppose was 
 " doubtful on the subject;" but now we are told, that, ac- 
 cording to the " great lights of the Church," St. Chrysostom, 
 St. Augustine, St. Jerome, &c. (no references given, be it 
 understood), and from the text (which he cites, p. 377), 
 it seems clear that our Lord did " administer the Holy Com- 
 munion" to Cleophas and the other disciples, whose guest 
 he was, at Emmaus, "under the form of bread alone." 
 (Luke xxiv. 30, 31.) It is true that it is related that Christ 
 " took bread, and blessed, and brake and gave to them." From 
 this it is pretended that although Christ did deliver both 
 bread and wine at the first institution of the Lord's Supper, 
 yet he himself afterwards varied his own institution, for after 
 the interview named he delivered the bread and not the cup. 
 
 It is admitted that at the time referred to Christ did take 
 bread, and gave a blessing and brake, yet it does not follow 
 that he then celebrated the Eucharist; and the Rhemish 
 version merely says he blessed, but not that he blessed the 
 bread, though our translators have added " it," which is not 
 in the original. The blessing and breaking of bread was 
 usual at their ordinary meals. Thus St. Paul when he was 
 in the tempest (Acts xxvii. 35), and also our Lord when he 
 fed the five thousand (Matt. xiv. 13, Mark v. 41), and like- 
 wise when he fed the four thousand (Mark viii. 6). It will 
 not be asserted that on either of these occasions our Saviour 
 or St. Paul administered the Lord's Supper. The reason of 
 our Lord's blessing and breaking bread at Emmaus, was 
 evidently to convince his disciples of the truth of his resur- 
 rection; by his demeanour at table and the manner of 
 blessing the meat, which were well known to them; and 
 that, by his familiar conversation with them, they might be 
 satisfied that he was the very person whom they well knew 
 to have been lately crucified; and thus it came to pass, 
 that "their eyes were opened" (Luke xiv. 31), because "he 
 was known to them in breaking of bread" (verse 35). 
 
 But admitting that Christ did at this time celebrate the 
 Lord's Supper, we may suppose that He used the words of 
 consecration, "This is my body," and yet it is not so said 
 that He did use them. Nor is it said that He consecrated 
 any wine, which Romanists allege to be necessary at the 
 Lord's Supper, although the laity do not drink of it. Why, 
 therefore, may we not suppose that he delivered the cup to 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 137 
 
 those disciples at Emmaus, although the history docs not 
 relate it ; as well also we may and must suppose, according 
 to their own principles, that He used the proper words in the 
 consecration of the bread, and that He did not omit the con- 
 secration of the cup ; although the Gospels do not mention 
 either of those particulars.* 
 
 Again, Dr. Milner asserts that " it is written of the baptized 
 converts at Jerusalem," that they partook of bread, without 
 any mention being made of the cup in what he assumes to 
 be a celebration of the Eucharist, because they are said to 
 break bread (Acts ii. 42, and xx. 7), and of those at Troas 
 also, without any reference to " the other species" (p. 377). 
 
 In reply we have to state, that although if by " breaking 
 of bread" we are to understand the Lord's Supper (which 
 nevertheless we have questioned), yet since there is not a 
 syllable spoken of the consecration of the cup, we must beg 
 leave to argue, as we did before we must either suppose that 
 they did consecrate the cup, whenever they brake the bread ; 
 or we must not ; if we suppose they did, then Dr. Milner's 
 objection falls to the ground. Because we have as much 
 reason to suppose that they drank the cup, as we have to 
 suppose the consecration of it ; and consequently the silence 
 of Scripture will not prove that they abstained from the 
 wine. But if we must not suppose that they consecrated 
 the cup, then they did not celebrate the Lord's Supper; 
 because, according to the principles of the Romish Church, 
 both kinds must be consecrated by the priest that officiates ; 
 or else there is no Sacrament. 
 
 But we assert that though there is nothing mentioned but 
 " breaking of bread ;" yet it must be considered that " bread" 
 is a comprehensive word, and often signifies all manner of 
 nourishment, whether of meat or drink. Thus when Joseph's 
 brethren went "to eat bread" with him (Gen. xliii. 25), and 
 our Saviour "ate bread" at the Pharisee's house (Lukexiv. 1), 
 we are not to imagine that their entertainment consisted of 
 bread alone, but of other eatables also. And surely Dr. Milner 
 believed that both the Patriarch and the Pharisee allowed 
 their guests some drink at their meals. Now since "bread" 
 is so often put for both meat and drink, why may we not 
 justly conclude that in the passages adduced, it is put both 
 for bread and wine ? and especially as this interpretation is 
 more consistent with the first institution, and the other is in- 
 consistent. But supposing some of these " baptized converts" 
 did omit both the consecration and the delivery of the cup, 
 it does not follow from this that we may lawfully do the 
 
 a Bennett's "Confutation," &c. p. 163. London, 1714. - 
 
138 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 same. Surely it cannot be argued that we may break a 
 plain and positive law of God, because some others have done 
 so before us. 
 
 The last text cited is that from 1 Cor. xi. 27, " Whoso- 
 ever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily, shall 
 be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 
 
 The accusation that the authorized version has been per- 
 verted by substituting and for or has been already fully 
 discussed/ and the former rendering vindicated. In addition 
 we might point out numerous passages in the Old Testament 
 where the Hebrew has IK or, but where the later Vulgate 
 translated it and. b It is worthy of notice that Bellarmine 
 himself, in order to avoid the difficulty presented in the 53rd 
 verse of John vi. (asserted to refer to the Eucharist), which, 
 if taken literally, cuts at the root of the practice of " half- 
 communion," " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man 
 and drink his blood," desires to read it as if it were or 
 instead of and, instancing (Acts iii. 6), " Silver and gold/ 7 
 which he says means, or gold, as a parallel passage. Why, 
 then, make such an outcry against Protestants, when, as it is 
 alleged, they use and for or ? That or is used in the same 
 sense as and in the text in question is plain from the fact 
 that the Apostle uses and in the 26th, 28th, and 29th verses 
 (Cor. xi.) , that is the one immediately preceding, and the two 
 immediately following that quoted by Dr. Milner. But we 
 are inclined to believe that the modern Rhemish reading is 
 stronger for us. The Apostle says that by drinking or eating 
 unworthily we are guilty of the body and blood ; a person is 
 supposed to have received both, because he is said to be 
 guilty of both. But granting that Paul, writing to the 
 Corinthians, intimated that one species might be omitted, 
 what right has the Church of Rome to say that that shall be 
 the wine ? Or refers to either element. 
 
 To allay the conscience of the Roman laity, they are taught 
 to believe a palpable absurdity ; viz., that " whole and entire 
 Christ, and a true Sacrament is received under one kind 
 only," for which assertion, set out in the 18th Article of Pope 
 Pius's Creed, there is not one particle of authority in 
 Scripture; nor is it supported by tradition. And this leads 
 us to the assertion, to which we have given a direct denial, 
 that 
 
 a First Series, No. iv. p. 16, et seq. 
 
 b See, among other places, Lev. iv. 22, 23 ; Prov. xxx. 29, 30, 31 ; and for 
 numerous instances in the New Testament where or and and are used indis- 
 criminately, see Bennett's " Confutation," p. 168, chap. xi. par. ii. edit. :is 
 above. 
 
 c Bell, de Euchar., lib. iv. sec. 25, torn, iii pp. 682, 683. Paris, 1608. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 139 
 
 " The whole series of Ecclesiastical History proves that the Catholic Church, 
 from the time of the Apostles down to the present ever firmly believing that 
 the whole body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ equally subsists 
 under each of the species or appearances of bread and wine regarded it as a 
 mere matter of discipline which of them were to be received in the Holy 
 Sacrament." P. 378. 
 
 SECT. III. Alleged Traditional Evidence. 
 
 IN the paragraph last cited Dr. Milner advances two propo- 
 sitions : 
 
 First. That the whole series of Ecclesiastical History proves 
 that the Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles 
 down to the present time ever firmly believed that the body, 
 blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ subsists under each 
 of the species or appearance of bread and wine. 
 
 Secondly. That from the same evidence it is proved, that it 
 has ever been regarded as a matter of discipline which of 
 them (bread or wine) was to be received in the Holy Sacrament. 
 The First is an assertion yet to be proved. Various passages 
 from different writers are adduced, not one of which refers in 
 the remotest degree to the statement advanced, and which, 
 therefore, remains a bare assertion put forward by Dr. Milner. 
 The Second is an abandonment of the true Popish teaching 
 as advanced by the Church of Rome in the Council of Con- 
 stance, whereby it is " declared, decreed, and denned" that 
 the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper should not be received 
 except fasting that thenceforth it should be received by the 
 laity under the species of bread only. And that this practice 
 is to be adopted as an ordinance, which it is not lawful to 
 gainsay or change without the authority of the Church. 
 Whereas Dr. Milner asserts it to be a mere matter of discip- 
 line ivhich of them bread or wine is to be received, the 
 Council declaring that the bread alone was to be received by 
 the laity. 
 
 When a proposition is so loosely stated, and alleged proofs 
 are as loosely quoted to support erroneous assertions, the 
 task of the critic becomes doubly onerous, and to a certain 
 extent unprofitable ; for it is comparatively easy, under such 
 vague premises, to turn on the opponent, and allege that 
 his arguments are misunderstood or misrepresented. Since, 
 however, the Church of Rome denies the cup to the laity, we 
 must take Dr. Milner' s quotations, as adduced, to prove that 
 it has ever been considered a matter of discipline, that the 
 bread should alone be received in the Holy Sacrament by 
 the laitv. 
 
140 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 The list of passages from Christian antiquity selected to 
 prove the truth of these assertions, is one in common use; 
 nearly the same vouchers being exhibited in various Roman 
 Catholic controversial publications ; such, for instance, as Dr. 
 Lingard's "Tracts/' 3 and seem intended rather to defend or 
 excuse, than to establish the practice in question, or rather 
 the requirements of the Church of Rome in the administration 
 of this Sacrament. It might have been expected, accordingly, 
 that such evidence would have been unambiguous, the doctrine 
 or practice being in such direct contradiction to the plain 
 and simple words of the Ordainer. It is, however, just the 
 reverse, as will be seen when the passages are examined. And 
 here again we have to complain of the vague and unsatisfactory 
 manner in which these alleged proofs are placed before us. 
 That there should be no mistake, we will transcribe all that 
 Dr. Milner has alleged as proofs of the practice in question 
 down to the Council of Constance. 
 
 "It is plain [that is, the two propositions above set out] from Tertullian in 
 the second century (ad Uxor. I. ii.), from St. Dennis of Alexandria (apud 
 Euseb. lib. vi. c. 44), and St. Cyprian (de Lapsis) in the third, from St. 
 Basil (Epist. ad Csesar.), and St. Chrysostom, in the fourth, &c. (apud Soz. I. 
 viii. c. 5), that the Blessed Sacrament, under the form of bread, was preserved 
 in the oratories and houses of the primitive Christians, for private Communion, 
 and for the viaticum in danger of death. There are instances also of its being 
 carried on the breast at sea, in the orarium or neckcloth (St. Ambrose in 
 Orbit. [? Obit.] Frat.). It appears also that St. Birinus, the Apostle of the 
 West Saxons, brought the blessed Sacrament with him into this island in an 
 orarium (Gul. Malm. Vit. Pontif., Florent. Wigorn. Higden, &c.). On the 
 other hand, as it was the custom to give the blessed Sacrament to baptized 
 children, it was administered to those who were quite infants, by a drop from 
 the chalice (St. Cypr. de Laps.). On the same principle, it being discovered, 
 in the fifth century, that certain Manicbsean heretics, who had come to Rome 
 from Africa, objected to the Sacramental cup, from the erroneous and wicked 
 opinion of the Mainchees, Pope Leo ordered them to be excluded from the 
 Communion entirely (Serm. iv. de Quadrag.), and Pope Gelasius, for the same 
 reason, required all his flock to receive under both kinds (Decret. Comperwius, 
 Dist. iii.). It appears that in the twelfth century only the officiating priest and 
 infants received under the form of wine ; which discipline was confirmed at 
 the beginning of the fifteenth century by the Council of Constance (see 
 cap. xiii.) on account of the profanations, and other evils, resulting from the 
 general reception of it in that form." [Letter xxxix. pp. 378, 379.] 
 
 It will be perceived that Dr. Milner commences with Ter- 
 tullian, who wrote about the latter end of the second century 
 why omit prior testimonies ? 
 
 Ignatius, who was martyred about seventy years after the 
 death of our Lord, in his Epistle to the Church of the Phila- 
 clelphians (chapter iv.), exhorts them "to use one Eucharist; 
 for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup." L 
 
 a P. 218. Ed. Dublin, 1822. 
 
 b "That one bread is broken unto all, and one cup is distributed to all." Elg 
 K.ti apro roly iraaiv iQptyOr], KUI 'iv Trorripiov roit; oXoig ditvfpiiOri. Ignat. 
 Ep. ad Philad. According to the fuller text, p. 33. Ed. Geneva?, 1623. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 141 
 
 And Dionysius the Areopagitc relates the practice of the 
 Church in his time as follows : " After the priest has prayed 
 that he may holily distribute, and that all they that are to 
 partake of the sacrament may receive it worthily ; he breaks 
 the bread into many pieces,, and divides one cup among all." H 
 And in the " Constitutions," called " Apostolic," we read in 
 book ii. chap. 57, "And when the sacrifice is offered up, let 
 each rank receive by himself the Lord's body and His pre- 
 cious blood" And Justin Martyr, who nourished about the 
 middle of the second century, in his first Apology, sec. 65, 
 writes : b " When the president has given thanks, and all the 
 people given a joyful assent, they who are called deacons 
 give to each of those who are present to partake of the con- 
 secrated bread and wine and water; and they carry it also 
 to those who are not present;" and adds the significant 
 words, " as Christ commanded them." 
 
 Arid Clement of Alexandria, in his " Stromata," written 
 against the Gentiles, says, " When they distributed the holy 
 Eucharist, as the custom is, they permit every one of the 
 people to take a part or portion thereof." d That he includes 
 the wine, is evident from the following : " The mingling of 
 drink, and of the water and of the word, is that which we 
 call the Eucharist;" 6 so that, according to him, it was the 
 custom in his day that the people should partake of the cup 
 as well as the bread. 
 
 Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, lived about A.D. 180. He also 
 enjoined the use of the cup with the bread, as we read in his 
 fifth book, chap. ii. sec. 2 : " They are altogether vain who 
 despise the restoration of the flesh; for, according to this 
 notion, neither the cup of the Eucharist is the communion of 
 His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of 
 His body." From these passages we gather both directly 
 and indirectly that the cup used to be administered indiscri- 
 minately with the bread ; while not one passage from these 
 
 3 Tbv yap ty/cffcaXv/ijusvor, etc. Dionys. Areopag. Eccles. Hierch. c. 3. 
 Edit. Basil. 1539- We believe this to be the production of a later period. A 
 caution is therefore necessary in its citation. 
 
 b Aidoaaiv eicaerr<> T&V TrapovTwv utraXafltiv airo TOV 
 aprou Kai olvov KO.I vdarog. Ka0w TrapidwKav evreraXS'ai 
 P. 162 ; ex Bibl. Regia, Lutet. Grsec. 1551 ; or vol. i. p. 268, ed. Jente, 
 1842. 
 
 c It appears to have been an ancient custom to mix water with the wine; a 
 custom no way affecting the present argument. 
 
 d Kai rr\v ev^apiariav nvff diavtlp.ai>Tt<. (we; t'0og) avrbv $/} tKaarov 
 TOV \aov \af3tlv rrjv jwolpav tirirptTrovaiv. Clem. Alex. Stromat. lib. i. 
 cap. i. p. 94. Ex Bibl. Medicsea. Florent. 1550. 
 
 e 'H tie dfityo'lv avOiQ Kpaaig TTOTOV TS ical \6yov fu^aptorta K*c\jrat. 
 Idem, Psedagog. lib. ii. cap. ii. p. 35. Edit, utsuprd,. 
 
142 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 writers can be adduced to support Dr. Milner's propositions, 
 or even that the administering the cup was a matter of 
 discipline. 
 
 We come then to Tertullian. Dr. Milner does not give 
 the passage on which he relies. Tertullian,, however, in the 
 passage referred to in the fifth chapter of the second book, 
 "Ad Uxorem/' is speaking of the difficulty of a Christian 
 woman, married to a heathen, concealing from her hus- 
 band the Christian rites ; that when he discovers her taking 
 bread in the morning, before she tastes anything else, he 
 will suspect it not to be mere bread. The utmost that this 
 can be adduced to prove, is that the Christians of Tertullian's 
 age were perhaps accustomed to carry home with them part 
 of the bread only, and not of the wine from the Lord's 
 Supper ; but to argue from it that they received the Com- 
 munion only in one kind is utterly ludicrous. 3 The fact is, 
 they took home not one but both species ; and this appears 
 on the evidence of Tertullian himself. Bossuet grants this, 
 but says that it was done immediately after consecration ; as 
 if it made any difference, whether it was soon or not, when 
 the question at issue is whether the primitive Christians 
 preserved the blessed Sacrament, as Dr. Milner insists, under 
 the form of bread only for private communion. But to come 
 to Tertullian' s testimony. This father, speaking of the resur- 
 rection, says (cap. 8), " Our flesh is fed with the body and 
 blood of Christ." b And in his Address to his Wife, to which 
 Dr. Milner particularly alludes, he urges her, in two separate 
 places, to take the cup with earnestness of soul ; which proves 
 that the Sacrament was received, in his time, under both 
 kinds. c It is in the sixth chapter of this same book that 
 Tertullian writes, " Of whose hand shall she desire [the sacra- 
 mental bread], and from whose cup shall she partake of the 
 sacramental wine?" d Dr. Milner must indeed be possessed 
 with some degree of assurance to refer us to Tertullian. 
 
 The next authority is St. Dennis of Alexandria, quoted by 
 Eusebius ; e but the passage is not given. He barely relates 
 that one Serapion, who had sacrificed to idols, prayed for the 
 comfort of the Eucharist as a token of reonciliation to the 
 Church; and that the priest sent him, by the young man 
 
 a "Vigilance recommended [and just as needful now] in two Charges, and 
 two Letters in Answer to Kemarks on the Bishop of Durham's Charge." 
 Lond. 1818, p. 267. 
 
 b " Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et aniina de Deo san- 
 guinatur." Tertul. de Eesurrect. cap. 8, edit. Pamel. Paris, 1631. 
 
 c Ad Uxor. lib. ii. capp. 4 et 6. 
 
 d " De cujus manu desiderabit ? de cujus poculo participabit ? " 
 
 e Euseb. H. E. vi. (not iv. as given by Milner), c. 44. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 143 
 
 who delivered the message, a small portion of the Eucharist, 
 enjoining him to moisten it, and so to pour it into the old 
 man's mouth ; and it is hardly worth further notice than to 
 exhibit Dr. Milner's usual intrepidity of assertion, unsustained 
 by a semblance of proof, when he says, in his " Vindication," 
 that " there is not a word of the narration which intimates 
 that the liquid species was sent with the Eucharistic bread, but 
 the contrary." What, no intimation in the word eu^a/oto-rm, 
 which implies both species none in a.7rofipiai nor any in 
 tTTKjTa^ai, or Ev^cfv, that the liquid, not less than the solid, 
 species was sent to the dying ? None whatever, our Greek 
 savans tell us ! a 
 
 The sick person did receive in both kinds. For the lad 
 who brought the portion of the Eucharist was commanded 
 by the priest, who sent him to sop the bread into wine, and 
 being moistened, to put it into the old man's mouth, and 
 this was accordingly performed ; the words used in the story, 
 to which Dr. Milner sends us, are aTrojSpt^cu, liriaTcfcai, 
 lyytvaai, to wet, to moisten, to infuse, which are not properly 
 spoken, but of some liquid matter. 5 
 
 Really Romanists ought to be afraid, if they are not 
 ashamed, of their champion, for he furnishes us with argu- 
 ments, and refers us to works which stultify himself. 
 
 The passage from Cyprian, next referred to, if it be con- 
 clusive either way, proves the contrary to that for which it is 
 cited. The use of wine is plainly expressed, the deacon is men- 
 tioned as administering it ; and that of the bread is sufficiently 
 implied in the words edere et contrectare. c But this is still 
 more manifest from another passage in the very same tract, 
 where the author expressly says, in the person of those who 
 are supposed to have received only in one kind, " nos nihil 
 fecimus, nee derelicto cibo et poculo Domini" &c. (cap. 2) . d 
 
 But we have not yet done with Cyprian. While speaking 
 of such as in time of persecution had lapsed and not adhered 
 to the truth, and thereupon were debarred from the Com- 
 munion, he desired that upon their repentance they might 
 be admitted, and he gives this reason : " How shall we fit 
 them for the cup of martyrdom, if before we admit them 
 not by right of communion to drink the Lord's cup in the 
 Church?" 6 And again, while arguing for the necessity of 
 
 a Milner's "Vindication," p. 214. Grier's "Reply to the End of Con- 
 troversy," p. 225 ; and " Defence," p. 223. 
 
 b Birckbek's " Protestant Evidence," vol. i. p. 176. Edit. 1849. 
 
 c De Lapsis, cap. 4. 
 
 d "Vigilance recommended," ut supra, p. 265. 
 
 e " Quomodo ad martyrii poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius ad 
 
144 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 administering the Sacrament in wine and not in mere water, 
 as the aquarii did (clearly proving the eustom of administer- 
 ing the cup to the laity), he says, "Because some men out 
 of ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, 
 and ministering it to the people do not that which Jesus 
 Christ our Lord, the author and institutor of this sacrifice, 
 did and taught." a These are all the authorities cited of the 
 third century; we in vain look for proofs of either of the 
 propositions suggested. 
 
 Descending the stream of time, we accompany Dr. Milner 
 to the fourth century, when Sts. Basil and Chrysostom 
 flourished, and to them he refers us. The former says, in the 
 very epistle referred to (but not quoted) by Dr. Milner (Epist. 
 ad Caesar.), that "it is good and profitable to partake every 
 day of the blessed body and blood of Christ." And where 
 he treats of the peculiar custom of Christians, he asks, 
 " What is proper to him who eats the bread and drinks the 
 cup of Christ ? " b And, as far as the latter is concerned, he 
 draws no distinction between the priest and the laity, when 
 we come to partake of the divine mysteries, " for we are," 
 says he, " all admitted to them alike." And again, it was 
 not lawful under the old dispensation, for the people to 
 partake of the same things with the priest, but not so now ; 
 "for to all one body is offered, to all one cup." c Now, is it 
 possible to find language more adverse to Dr. Milner's cause ? 
 particularly when he added that " the communion of the body 
 and blood of Christ is necessary to salvation ," d His allusions 
 to the stories of Satyr us, e an unbaptized person, and of 
 Birinus/ the apostle of the West Saxons, would be unde- 
 serving of attention, were it not that Dr. Milner has given 
 them a dash of the miraculous. The circumstance of their 
 having carried the consecrated bread in their neckcloths, 
 during their voyage, however it might have enabled them to 
 walk on water, after they encountered shipwreck, could only 
 
 bibendum in Ecclesia poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus ?" 
 Cyp. Epist. 54, torn. i. lib. i. edit. Parael. Paris, 1602. Epist. 53, ed. Paris, 
 1836. 
 
 a "In calice Domini sanctificando et plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt, quod 
 Jesus Christus sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor fecit et docuit." Id. Epist. 63, 
 lib. iii. ep. 3. 
 
 b Basil. Op. torn. iii. p. 267, and torn. ii. p. 445. Paris, 1839. 
 
 c Chrysost. in Ep. ad Corinth., Horn. 18, sec. iii. torn. x. p. 670, edit. Paris, 
 1837 ; in Matt. Horn. 32, sec. vii. torn. vii. See Dr. Grier's " Reply," p. 227. 
 
 d Reg. Moral. 21, dvayicaia Trpog wr)v ai&viov r/ Koivuvia TOV atofiitTOQ 
 Kai ai/zarof TOV Xpt<rroi). 
 
 e Apud Arnbros. de Obitu Fratris, fol. 128 verso, torn. i. Edit. Paris, 
 1529. 
 
 f Guil. Malm. Vitse Episc., p. 241. Edit. Francof. 1601. See Fox's "Acts 
 and Monuments," vol. i. 347-8. Edit. 1853. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 145 
 
 go to prove their veneration for the Sacrament, but by no 
 means the general usage of the Church. But the very climax 
 of absurdity is, where he rests his proof of the ancient Church 
 only communicating in one kind, on the hypothesis that 
 these persons did not take the liquid species, because no 
 mention is made of it ; and the " puzzle he has given inge- 
 nuity to show how they could carry it in such a vehicle as 
 their neckcloth." 
 
 Oh, but he presents proof positive that Chrysostom himself 
 allowed Communion in one kind, referring us to Sozomen's 
 "Ecclesiastical History;" for that a heretic lady, we are 
 there told, contrived to put a piece of common bread into 
 her mouth, in place of that which had been consecrated, 
 and that, on applying her teeth to it, it became petrified. Dr. 
 Milner gives the reference, but wisely suppresses the story. 
 In order to throw an air of credibility round his story, the 
 historian* adds that the stone was preserved in his time in 
 the clinodia of the Church of Constantinople. But may not 
 the lady have substituted a stone for the bread in her mouth ? 
 Whatever may have been the trick practised, the historian's 
 silence about the wine is no proof that it was not administered. 
 On the contrary, Cardinal Bona, in commenting on the pas- 
 sage, expressly says, " I can nowhere discover in Chrysostom's 
 writings, that this affair led to a change in the established 
 custom, according to which the deacon distributed the wine." b 
 The contrast between the flippant assumption, that Chryso- 
 stom allowed any deviation from Communion in both kinds, 
 and such high authority, supersedes the necessity of a single 
 observation on this bit of romance. 
 
 But only conceive the hardihood of a man pretending to 
 candour and honesty [Letter i. pp. 50, 54, and p. 30, &c.] refer- 
 ring us to Chrysostom as proving the custom of depriving the 
 laity of the cup. Why Chrysostom insists on the fact that 
 there is no difference between the priest and the people, with 
 respect to receiving the Eucharist (the very difference which 
 the Council of Trent has established as a law of the Church) . 
 Thus he says : 
 
 "There are things wherein the priest differs nothing from the people ; as 
 when, for instance, we must use the awful mysteries [the Eucharistic elements]; 
 for we are all equally worthy of them. It is not now as it was under the old 
 dispensation, when the priest ate some parts and the ruler others, and when 
 
 a Sozomen. Hist. Eccl., lib. viii. cap. v. Cantab., 1720. 
 b Rerum Liturg., lib. ii. cap. xviii. sec. 3. 
 
 c Dr. Grier's "Defence," pp. 226-8; see also Mr. Scudamore's "Com- 
 munion of the Laity," pp. 66 69. London, 1855. 
 
 L 
 
146 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 it was not lawful for the people to partake of what the priest partook ; but 
 now one body and one cup are placed before all." 11 
 
 But were there no other illustrious Fathers to whom Dr. 
 Milner could refer us in this fourth age ? Let us fill up the 
 gap for him. 
 
 Ambrose (de Sacram. lib. ix. cap. 6, sec. 28), speaking to 
 the people concerning the Eucharist, says, " If as often as 
 the blood is poured out it is poured out for the remission of 
 sins, it behoveth me always to receive it, that my sins may 
 always be forgiven me I who am always sinning ought 
 always to have medicine." And, again, commenting on the 
 xi. chap, of 1 Corinth., he says, " The testament is established 
 with blood, because blood is the evidence of the divine 
 goodness, in token of which we receive the mystical cup of 
 the blood to the refreshment of our body and of our soul." 
 And in another passage of the same comment he says : "Be- 
 cause we have been delivered by the death of the Lord, 
 mindful of this, in eating the flesh and drinking the blood, 
 which have been offered for us, we signify that we have 
 obtained in those the New Testament." 
 
 These decisive testimonies from Ambrose himself sufficiently 
 meet the argument in favour of half-Communion, which 
 Ilomish divines seek to derive from the fact that, at the point 
 of death, he communicated in the species of bread only. This 
 did not arise from a recognition on his part, or on the part 
 of those about him, of the practice of half-Communion ; but 
 simply from this, that he died before the cup could be 
 administered. 5 
 
 Again we have Gregory Nazianzen, of the same century. 
 " Reverence (he said) the mystical table to which thou hast 
 approached, the bread of which thou hast partaken, the cup of 
 which thou hast communicated"* And again, he said of his 
 sister Gorgonia, " If the hand treasured up any portion of 
 the types or tokens of the precious body and of the blood," d 
 that his sister, after she had communicated, laid up some 
 part of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; now, 
 as she kept the consecrated bread in a cloth, so she might 
 carry the wine in a phial; she however received in both 
 kinds, might not also the other person who is said to have 
 brought the bread in a neckcloth, have also brought the wine 
 in a phial similarly concealed ? e 
 
 * 'A\\a TTCLGIV Iv a&fjia Trpo/cfirai /car Trorr/pioi' ev. Sup. 2 Cor. Horn, 
 xviii. torn. iii. p. 645, edit. Savilii, et p. 670, torn. x. Paris, 1837. 
 
 b "Catholic Layman" (Dublin, June, 1856), p. 63. 
 
 c Orat. XI. in Sanct. Baptism., torn. i. p. 716. Paris, 1778. 
 
 d Kott t'i irov TL rStv CLVTITVTTWV TOV TI/JLIOV <rw/iaro r) TOV aipaTOQ rj 
 \f to k9i]ffavpifff v, TOVTO KctTap-iyovcfa TOIQ fidicpvaiv. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. II. 
 in Laud. Gorgon. e Birckbek, vol. i. p. 210. London, 1849. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 147 
 
 Athanasius speaks even yet more plainly in his Second 
 Apology : " This, and no other, is the manner of this cup 
 this do you lawfully give to the people to drink of." Whereas 
 Dr. Milner' s Church says it is not lawful to give the cup to 
 the laity. 
 
 In passing on to the fifth century, we have the well-known 
 passages from the ordinances of Popes Leo and Gelasius, in 
 support of half-Communion, reproduced by Dr. Milner, as 
 though they had never before been so much as challenged : 
 " On the same principle (says he), it being discovered in the 
 fifth century that certain Manichsean heretics objected to the 
 sacramental cup, from the erroneous and wicked opinion of 
 the Manichees, Pope Leo ordered them to be excluded from 
 the Communion entirely." It was for the same reason, adds 
 Dr. Milner, that Pope Gelasius "required all his flock to 
 receive in both kinds." He, however, avoids quoting the 
 passages in question ; and for very obvious reasons, as the 
 reader will see. We, however, will supply the deficiency, and 
 here add the words of each pope. 
 
 Pope Leo the Great, in treating of the Manichseans, writes 
 thus : 
 
 " They withdrew themselves from the Sacrament of our salvation. With 
 unworthy mouth they receive Christ's body; but they altogether refuse to 
 drink the blood of our redemption, which things we would advertise you of, that 
 both such men may be manifested by these tokens unto you, and also that 
 they, being brought to light, may be thrust out of the Church by sacerdotal 
 authority."" 
 
 Pope Gelasius I., who lived as late as A.D. 496, expressly 
 says that to administer the Communion in one kind is open 
 sacrilege : 
 
 " We have found that some, having received only the portion wherein is the 
 holy body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood ; who, without doubt 
 (forasmuch as led by some strange superstition they are so taught), should 
 receive the whole Sacrament, or be kept from the whole ; because the dividing 
 of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege"* 
 
 There is no doubt, therefore, but that such an order was 
 made, as stated by Dr. Milner ; but no evidence is offered to 
 prove that it was the practice in Leo's time to distribute the 
 
 a "Abdicant enim se Sacramento salutis humanae. Ore indigno Christi 
 corpus accipiunt ; sanguine autem redemptions nostrae haurire omnino declinant. 
 Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem, ut vobis hujuscemodi homines 
 his manifestentur indiciis et notati et proditi a sanctorum societate sacerdotali 
 auctoritate pellantur." Leon. Mag. Op. Lut. 1623, col. 108, serm. iv. de 
 Quadrag. 
 
 b " Comperimus autem quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri 
 portione, a calice sacrati cruoris abstineant ; qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio 
 qua superstitione docentur obstringi), aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut 
 ab integris arceantur : quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grand! 
 sacrilegio non potest provenire." Gelas. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Decret. Grat. 
 tert. pars de Consecr., dist. ii. cap. xii. col. 1168. Ludg. 1661. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 bread only, or that the practice was to be varied on that 
 occasion by the addition of the cup. The contrary appears 
 to have been the case, and that it was a settled custom to 
 receive the cup as well as the bread, otherwise Leo would 
 not have pointed out the refusal of those persons to partake 
 of the wine as the surest mark of distinction between them 
 and the orthodox. 51 He presses on the notice of his congre- 
 gation the objections of those persons, " that so they might 
 by this evidence be discovered, and their sacrilegious dis- 
 simulation be detected." In a word, if the distribution of 
 the cup were not an established ordinance of the Church, why 
 should he call the violation of it sacrilegious? Yet this 
 passage is unblushingly adduced to prove that Communion 
 under one kind was always partially admitted. Besides, if, 
 as Dr. Lingard argues (by a curious inversion of reasoning, 
 making the heretics give the law to the Church) that as the 
 Manichees " communicated like others/' it was customary 
 with many Christians so to communicate, how would the 
 refusal to drink mark that body ? how could they be detected ? 
 Can anything more plainly show that the rest of the com- 
 municants, the orthodox Christians, did take the wine? 
 
 In Dr. Wordsworth's " Sequel to Letters to Mr. Gordon " b 
 we find so admirable an exposure* of Romish dealing with 
 these decrees of the early Bishops of Rome, that we must 
 transcribe rather largely. Dr. Wordsworth quoted the pas- 
 sages from Gelasius, in his letters to Gordon. The Dublin 
 Review, in an article supposed to be written by Dr. Wiseman, 
 undertakes to call in question the citation and explain its 
 meaning; and a remarkable feature in the explanations of 
 the* reviewer is, that he takes still a different view of the 
 subject from Dr. Milner, and both again differing from Car- 
 dinal Baronius, as will be seen : " The title (says the reviewer) 
 of the Canon he (Dr. Wordsworth) quotes, and the gloss 
 upon it, forbid us to read it as he has done. The Canon 
 forbids the priest to abstain from receiving the cup, and that 
 abstinence it calls a ' great sacrilege/ It is the celebrant the 
 Canon condemns, not the lay communicant ; and the rule of 
 the Church is no more condemned by it, than it is by the 
 Statute of Mortmain or the Reform Bill." d 
 
 The Dublin Reviewer ventures to affirm that the prohibition 
 of Gelasius refers to the consecrating priest alone, and not to 
 anyone else ; and thus, while he pretends to revere a Pope as 
 
 a See " Letters to the Author of Remarks [Dr. Lingard] on the Bishop of 
 Durham's Charge," p. 262, ut suprd. 
 b Letter vi. London, 1848, second edit. 
 c Third edit., London, 1848, Letter vi. p. 156. 
 '' Diiblin Review, July, 1847. Dublin. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 infallible, he flatly contradicts him ! For look at the words 
 of Gelasius : " I hear that some persons abstain from the 
 cup ;" but these, says the reviewer, were priests, and priests 
 alone. What ? Priests of Rome bound by the ties of a certain 
 superstition ! This is very strange ! Besides, these priests put 
 themselves forward, and are allowed by other priests of Rome 
 to consecrate the holy elements ! and this they do, when, if 
 they did not take upon themselves to be celebrants, they 
 might escape unnoticed; for it is the celebrant alone, ac- 
 cording to the Dublin Reviewer, that the Pope forbids to 
 abstain from the cup ; and this they also do, when if they, 
 being celebrants, abstain from the wine the wine consecrated 
 by them, which according to the reviewer was only to be 
 tasted by the celebrant, will never be tasted at all ! Why 
 then did they consecrate it? a But this is not all the ab- 
 surdity which the critic palms upon the Pope. These super- 
 stitious celebrants are either to receive the whole Sacrament 
 or to be repelled from the whole, because, says the Pope, 
 the division of the Sacrament cannot take place without 
 great sacrilege; so that priests (not laymen), superstitious 
 priests, are either to be admitted, not only to communicate, 
 but to consecrate the elements, or else they are to be repelled 
 from the Communion ; and repelled by whom ? by the cele- 
 brant that is, by themselves ! 
 But the reviewer says : 
 
 "We find it impossible to explain upon what principle Dr. Wordsworth 
 reads books. The title of the Canon he quotes, and the gloss upon it, forbid 
 us to read it as he has done. The Canon forbids the priest to abstain from 
 receiving the cup, and that abstinence it calls a great sacrilege. It is the 
 celebrant the Canon condemns, and not the lay communicant." 
 
 "The Title and the Gloss," affirms the reviewer, make 
 the prohibition apply to the PRIEST alone. The Title and 
 the Gloss ! Yes, and here is another striking instance of the 
 destructive character of the Church of Rome. She spares no 
 one, not even her own Popes. We have now a few words to 
 say about the "Title and the Gloss/' b 
 
 The precept of Gelasius, as we have observed, is found in 
 one of his letters, with no " Title or Gloss." It is simply a 
 paragraph in an epistle. This paragraph was extracted from 
 the letter, and transcribed into the Canon law of the Roman 
 Church, and it stands in the collection of Canons called the 
 Decretum of Gratian, who was a Benedictine monk of 
 
 a See Jacobellum c. Brodam, ap. Von der Hardt. Cone. Const, iii. 476, 637. 
 
 b The title is " Corpus Christi, sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere." 
 The gloss is in the edition of Gratian, A.D. 1518, p. 545. "Hoc intelligo de 
 conjlciente ; nain infirmus, vel sanus in necessitate, sine vino corpus sumero 
 potest." In later editions this is " hoc debet intelligi," &c. 
 
150 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 Bologna in the twelfth century, and completed his work 
 about the year 1149, and dedicated it to Pope Eugenius III. 
 The same paragraph of Gelasius will be found in the earlier 
 collection of Canons, made by Ivo, a Bishop of Chartres, who 
 is called a most careful interpreter 5 of the constitutions of 
 the Church. But there it stands with this title : " The body 
 of the Lord is not to be received without the cup -," c and 
 another collector of Canons in the same age, Micrologus, d 
 declares that Gelasius had commanded "all to be excom- 
 municated, whosoever (quicunque) having received the body 
 abstained from the blood ;" and Radulphus de Eivo, who 
 transcribes the words of Micrologus, gives the same reason 
 as he does, viz., the very words of Gelasius, that " the Sacra- 
 ments cannot be divided without great sacrilege ;" and Cas- 
 sander e informs us, that in his old MS. of Canons, this was 
 the title of the decree : " No one is permitted to receive the 
 Communion of the body alone without partaking of the 
 blood/' 
 
 What, then, has the reviewer's remark led to? To the 
 revelation of the fact, that the Church of Rome, finding that 
 one of her own ancient Popes condemns her present practice of 
 half-Communion as a great sacrilege, has treated him with the 
 same arrogance as she has done Scripture ; she has taken the 
 words of Gelasius, and has dealt with them as she has dealt 
 with many other authorities of a similar kind ; f she has 
 clapped aviperine gloss by their side to eat out the bowels of 
 the text, and has posted a title at their head to belie the 
 whole body. If we may so say, she has put her own infallible 
 judge into the pillory for speaking the truth ; and has ordered 
 him to recant his own orthodoxy, and to adopt her corrup- 
 tions ; and has made that to apply to the priest alone, which 
 Gelasius intended for all. This is so evident, that it is 
 allowed (as the reviewer ought to have known) even by the 
 Roman Church Historian, Cardinal Baronius, a Pope's con- 
 fessor and Prothonotary of the Church. He says g that some 
 persons interpret the " words of Gelasius of the priest alone." 
 fc But," he adds, "in truth, there is in these words no mention 
 
 Ayliffe, Parergon, p. xvii. 
 
 Trithemius de Script. Eccles. sec. 349. 
 
 Ivo, Decret. part ii. cap. 89, p. 66, edit. Lovan. 1561. " Non esse 
 sumendum corpus Domini sine calice." Gelasius Majorico et Joanni Episcopis. 
 
 De Eccles. Observ. cap. 19, inBiblioth. Max. Patrum. 
 
 " De Commun. in utrllque specie," p. 1106. 
 
 For numerous instances of corruptions in the Canon Law, by means of 
 titles and glosses, and even mutilations of the text, see Dr. James's " Corruption 
 of the true Fathers," pp. 190, 245, 246, 252, 258, 262, 264, 265, ed. Lond, 1688, 
 [reprinted Camb. 1843]. 
 
 * Baron. Ann. Eccles. ad an. 496, sec. 21, torn. v. p, 571, ed. Colon. 1609. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 151 
 
 made of the celebrant ; and that which is evidently spoken 
 generally, ought by no means to be restricted to the priest* 
 Reject, therefore," he says, " this childish interpretation." 
 Such is the great historian's opinion of the solution of the 
 reviewer, who will, we suppose, say that " he finds it impos- 
 sible to understand upon what principle" Cardinal Baronius 
 " read books." We for our own part are puzzled to under- 
 stand on what principle the reviewer does not read them. 
 But we turn from him to the Cardinal. Many of our readers 
 will be aware, that Baronius, finding the fraud of the " title 
 and gloss" to be too glaring, and yet not willing to admit the 
 fatal alternative that half-Communion had been condemned 
 by a Pope as a "great sacrilege," devised an ingenious 
 method for getting rid of this difficulty ; he alleged that Pope 
 Gelasius enjoined Communion in both kinds, in order to detect 
 Manichceans. 
 
 We know from Leo I., who was Bishop of Rome 5 more 
 than a quarter of a century before Gelasius, that the Mani- 
 chseans (who were the predecessors of the present Parsees, 
 or sun-worshippers) believed in two principles, one good, 
 and the other evil, and held other monstrous opinions ; that 
 they abominated wine, which they called the gall of the devil, 
 and yet sometimes surreptitiously stole into Christian congre- 
 gations, and intruded even into the ranks of communicants, 
 and that they received the bread, and also the wine, but 
 would never swallow the latter, but pretended to swallow it, 
 and afterwards ejected it from their mouths. 
 
 Leo mentions in one of his sermons d this fact of their 
 "declining to swallow the wine;" and he tells his hearers, 
 that he informs them of it in order that those Manichsean 
 intruders may be made manifest to them by this test, and 
 that they who are convicted of thus sacrilegiously counter- 
 feiting the character of communicants, may be excom- 
 municated by the priests. 
 
 It is alleged by Cardinal Baronius, 6 that Leo I., and Gela- 
 
 a The Cardinal's words are : " Eevera nulla ibi de sacerdote sacrificante 
 nientio habetur ; ut plane quod generaliter esse dictum apparet, ad sacerdotes 
 minime restringi debere satis intelligi possit.. Rejicimus igitur frigidam 
 ejusmodi .... solutionem." 
 
 b Leo, A.D. 440461 ; Gelasius, A.D. 492496. 
 
 c See the passages quoted by Bishop Andrews, ad Card. Bellarmin., cap. 8, 
 p. 190. 
 
 d The original words are given in Dr. Wordsworth's Appendix, i. p. 292. 
 [S. Leonis Magni Opera, ed. Lugduni, 1700, torn. i. p. 106, sermo xli.] 
 
 e Baron. Annal. ad an. 4^>6, sec. 22. "Quod igitur abstinentia calicis pro- 
 derentur penitus Manichsei, idem plane remedium, quo usus est Sanctus 
 Leo adhibendum putavit esse Gelasius, ut latitantes sub Catholico nomine 
 impios detegeret Manichseos ; prudentissime quidem S. Leonis vestigiis ia- 
 sistens Gelasius, istud quod vidimus sancivit decretum." And this opinion is 
 
152 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 sius after him, enacted that the cup should be administered 
 to the laity, to detect these JManichseans. Hence, says he, 
 the decree of Gelasius. 
 
 To what wretched shifts are the greatest men of the Roman 
 Church driven by their desire and determination to maintain 
 the corruptions of Rome at all hazards. Desperate, indeed, 
 must the cause be which can be defended by persons of their 
 ability with no better arguments than these. Observe what 
 absurdities are fathered on Leo and Gelasius by the Cardinal's 
 hypothesis. 
 
 First Leo detects the Manichasans by their abstinence 
 from the cup, and yet he is said to have enjoined its adminis- 
 tration, in order to detect them ! 
 
 Secondly Leo does not order the Priest to administer the 
 cup, but he speaks to the people concerning the refusal of 
 the Manichasans to partake of it ; he supposes the cup to be 
 administered, as a matter of course, and that every one will 
 partake of it; and yet he is said to enjoin the priests to 
 administer what he clearly implies it has been always the 
 practice of the people to receive ! 
 
 Third Gelasius, who was a quarter of a century after 
 Leo, is made to say that he does not know what is the tie of 
 superstition by which these supposed Manichseans are bound, 
 as if the reason for which the Manichees refused wine had 
 not been given by Leo, a and was not notorious to all, viz., 
 that wine was created by the devil. 
 
 Fourthly He is made to call Manichseism a superstition, 
 that is an excess of reverence ; whereas it was rank infidelity, 
 and so Leo calls it. b 
 
 Fifthly He is made to say that these intruders are either 
 to be repelled from the entire Sacrament, or to be admitted 
 to it. c What ! Manicha3an infidels admitted, by a Pope's 
 order, to the Holy Communion ! 
 
 And Sixthly, both these Popes are made to enact what had 
 been enjoined by Christ himself, and continued in the unin- 
 terrupted practice of the Church, from the times of the 
 Apostles to their own ! 
 
 Thus far, and right well, Dr. Wordsworth in his sequel, on 
 which the Dublin reviewer has not hazarded a rejoinder. 
 
 adopted by celebrated Romish divines of this day, e. g. Perrone (Preelec. 
 Theolog.), pars i. cap. iii. p. 233, "Ad Manichaeos detegendos." 
 
 a Leo, serm. xli. "Damnant creaturarum naturam in Creatoris injuriam, et 
 contaminari edentes asserunt iis quorum non Deum sed Diabolum conditorem 
 esse definiunt." 
 
 b Leo, 1. c. "Ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeiit interesse 
 mysteriis." 
 
 c " Aut Integra sacramenta recipiant, aut ab integria arceantur." 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 153 
 
 But here we cannot but advert to a brilliant specimen of 
 boldness in reference, upon which Dr. Lirigard a has ventured 
 in leading us, of all imaginable places, to the Eleventh Council 
 of Toledo, to support even his cautious statements. He could 
 hardly have selected one more subversive of the assumed 
 practice of single Communion. The eleventh Canon of that 
 Council actually refers to persons who do receive the cup, but 
 could not swallow more ; and releases those from a necessity 
 of receiving, who, compelled by inevitable weakness, cannot 
 retain what they have received. 5 And this we are to take 
 as a proof of Communion in one kind, " being partially 
 admitted" in the ancient Church ! So much for " Toledo 
 trusty!" 
 
 But Dr. Milner would reduce everything in his Church, 
 except Supremacy, to a "matter of discipline" and occa- 
 sional arrangement, proving her to be, as indeed her whole 
 history shows her, a most dexterous accommodator ; and, 
 provided some temporary advantage is secured, advocating 
 at different times opposite views of the same question. Other- 
 wise he surely would not have introduced the Decree of 
 Gelasius, quoted in the Canon Law (Gratian. part iii., de 
 Consecrat. dist. ii. 12), but, with Dr. Lingard, c set about 
 questioning its genuineness, the Bishop affirming that a 
 "division of one and the same mystery cannot be made 
 without great sacrilege." Such was the decision of a Roman 
 Pontiff, at the end of the fifth century ; and here we see that 
 the sacrilegious suppression of part of the Sacrament was the 
 cause, and the only cause, for passing the Decree. But it does 
 not hence follow, as Dr. Milner insinuates, that it was pre- 
 viously the practice to communicate in one kind alone. No ! 
 The Decree was not made to regulate the practice of the 
 faithful, but was levelled, for the particular reason assigned, 
 against the superstitious persons then in Rome. Cassander 
 thought that the testimonies of Leo and Gelasius, instead of 
 favouring, condemn this practice. In reply to a half-Com- 
 munionist, he says, " that it is very evident, that during their 
 Pontificates, Communion in both kinds was usual in the 
 Church; otherwise how could the Manichseans be detected, 
 unless the cup of Christ's blood had been offered to all in the 
 
 a Tracts, p. 214, ed. Dublin, 1822. 
 
 b Some of the original is worth quoting : " Sed quod prceter Dominid calicis 
 haustum traditam sibi non possint Eucharistiam deglutire. . . . quicumque 
 ergo fidelis inemtabili qualibet infirmitate coactus Eucharistiam perceptani 
 rejecerit," &c. Canones Apost. et Concil. Selecti, collegit H. T. Bruns, 
 torn. i. p. 314, Berol. 1839. 
 
 c Tracts, p. 89. Dublin, 1822. 
 
154 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 Church ?" And not only for 500, as Cassander admits/ but 
 even 700 years more, as Cardinal Bona acknowledges, the 
 Communion was, as we have seen, most certainly administered 
 to clergy and laity, to men and women, in both kinds. As 
 for the impediments and obstacles, which are unavoidable, 
 " What can be more unreasonable than to justify neglect of 
 duty, where obvious and practicable, from omission of duty 
 where impracticable? To necessity there is no law/" b 
 
 But were there no other witnesses who lived in the fifth 
 century, who can bear testimony to the practice of the 
 Church in that age, whose writings have been preserved ? Are 
 the names of Jerome and Augustine of no authority with 
 Dr. Milner ? It is quite true that neither of them said one 
 word of half-Communion, and therefore he prudently leaves 
 them alone. But we can afford to consult them, for they 
 most surely testify that the modern Papal innovation was 
 then unknown. 
 
 Jerome said <e that the Pastors administered the Eucharist, 
 and distributed the blood of our Lord to the people." He 
 also reports how Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, in France, 
 was wont to carry the Communion to persons absent. " There 
 was no man (he said) richer than Exuperius, who carried the 
 Lord's body in a wicker basket, and His blood in a glass/" 1 
 It is true, indeed, that the Bishop sold the Church plate for 
 the relief of the poor, so that he was driven to use osier 
 baskets and glass cups ; but, nevertheless, the story testifies 
 that he carried the consecrated bread and wine separately and 
 apart, and not by way of " coucomitancy," that absurd modern 
 Roman invention to get over the difficulty of taking the cup 
 of life from the people, so insisted on in Dr. Milner' s first 
 proposition. 
 
 Augustine, speaking of the Eucharist as distinguished from 
 the Jewish sacrifices, says, "Not only is no one hindered 
 from taking the blood of the sacrifice, but, rather, all who 
 ask to have life are expected to drink of it" e 
 
 And again, " the whole Church having received the cup, 
 answereth Amen." f We presume that Dr. Milner could not 
 
 a Cassandri Opera, p. 1025. Paris, 1616. 
 
 b Garbett's "Nullity of the Koman Faith," p. 155 ; and see Grier's "Reply 
 to Milner," pp. 230, 231 ; and Jarvis's "Reply," p. 199. 
 
 c "Sacerdotes qui Eucharistise serviunt, et sanguinern Domini populis ejus 
 dividunt." Hieron. sup. Sophon., cap. iii. torn. vi. edit. Basil. 1537. 
 
 d " Nihil illo ditius, qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat 
 in vitro." Hieron. Epist. ad Rusticum. 
 
 e " Non solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortantur, 
 qui volent habere vitam." Aug. 4 qu. 57, sup. Levit. 
 
 "Sanguis Abel significat sanguinem Christi, quo universa Ecclesia accepto 
 dicit, Amen." Id. ibid. qu. 49. 
 
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE. 155 
 
 assert that the officiating priest, who alone receives the cup,, is 
 the " whole Church ! " But once again : 
 
 Augustine* thus writes : " While the host is being broken, 
 and the blood from the cup is being poured into the mouths 
 of the faithful, what else is signified but the immolation of 
 the Lord's body on the cross, and the pouring out of the 
 blood from his side ? " 
 
 From the fifth Dr. Milner gives a leap to the twelfth cen- 
 tury, when he says that "It appears only the officiating priest 
 and infants received under the form of wine ; " but gives no 
 reference ; and we cannot assist him, for it is not true. Hugo, 
 of Saint Victor's, near Paris, lived in this century ; he not 
 only testifies that the cup was received by the laity, but also 
 gives a reason why they should receive the entire Communion 
 in both kinds. " Therefore (he says) the Sacrament is taken 
 in both kinds, that thereby the twofold effect might be sig- 
 nified; for it hath force, as St. Ambrose saith, to preserve 
 both body and soul." b 
 
 We might cite a succession of witnesses of each century 
 from the fifth, where Dr. Milner leaves us, to the twelfth, 
 who testified in the clearest terms of the continued practice 
 of the Church unchanged, of administering the cup to the 
 laity, but it would swell our pages beyond bounds : we shall 
 therefore content ourselves by referring our readers to Birck- 
 bek's "Protestant Evidence," reprinted by the Protestant 
 Reformation Society, in 1849, where he will find ample 
 evidence of that fact. 
 
 From the twelfth century he takes another bound to the 
 fifteenth, when he asserts that this " discipline was confirmed 
 at the beginning of the fifteenth century by the Council of 
 Constance." 
 
 Now, we would beg the reader to turn back and examine 
 Dr. Milner' s two propositions and assertions, and the evidence 
 he has adduced in support of them, with the remarks which 
 we have added ; and we ask him if he ever met in any work, 
 be its pretensions to merit what they may, so lamentable a 
 failure ; nay, not merely a failure, worse than that, down- 
 right misrepresentation and suppression of truth. We can- 
 not comprehend how priests in this country can be so blind 
 to their own cause as to put forward and recommend so 
 shallow, so treacherous a hand-book, to instruct their lay 
 dupes, in order to enable them to confound their Protestant 
 antagonists. 
 
 * Gratian's Decret. pars iii. de Consecr. d. 2, c. 37, Cumfrangitur, &c. 
 
 b " Ideo duabus speciebus sumitur, ut significetur hujus Sacramenti duplex 
 effectus ; valet enim ad tuitionem corporis et animae." Hugo de S. Victor, in 
 Summd, Sentent. Tract. 6, cap. vi. torn. iii. Venet. 1588. 
 
156 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 It appears, therefore, certain that it is on the decree of the 
 Council of Constance that the present Church of Rome rests 
 the foundation of her teaching, as regards half-Communion ; 
 and that she has directly opposed her authority to that of the 
 Divine Founder of the institution, and the subsequent practice 
 of the early Church. This decision was confirmed by the 
 Tridentine Council. Both of these Councils employ the 
 word licet? which intimates to common understanding some- 
 thing more in prospect than a bare definition and decision 
 upon matters of mere discipline. It was not enough for the 
 Church of Rome " to make the commandments of none effect 
 by tradition ;" she has mutilated an express ordinance. The 
 Council of Trent, imitating the example of that of Constance, 
 confesses that Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds, 
 and so delivered it to the Apostles, and that they and the 
 primitive Church practised accordingly ; then it is asserted 
 that the Church had weighty and just causes for altering the 
 divine institution ; b and some pericula and scandala, " dangers 
 and scandals," are mentioned as grounds of its decision ; yet 
 the weakness and folly of such excuses betray themselves 
 when the magnitude and importance of the command, which 
 is thereby violated, are considered. Dr. Milner thinks it 
 necessary to use stronger language to bolster up and excuse 
 such a deviation from the original ordinance ; he says it was 
 " on account of the profanations and other evils resulting 
 from the general reception of it in that form" (p. 379). 
 
 This is giving a very bad character to the lay communi- 
 cants of that day. Our uninstructed readers, however, will 
 scarcely believe that the " profanations and other evils," alleged 
 as justifying the setting aside of Christ's ordinance, and what 
 Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gelasius considered sacrilege 
 and as deserving of excommunication, were the risk of spilling 
 the wine, and the indecency which arose from communicants 
 dipping their beards into it ; lest the wine kept for the sick 
 should turn sour, or some person should not be able to bear 
 its smell and taste, and the like ! And it is worthy of remark 
 that the examples adduced by Dr. Milner nearly all come 
 under the latter class, contemplated by the Council. 
 
 It will have been observed that the alleged custom was 
 made law, and was not to be changed, " except by the au- 
 thority of the Church." The authority of the Church of 
 Rome can be made known only by a decree of a General 
 
 a Cone. Const., sess. xiii. apud Labbe, torn. xii. col. 100. Cone. Trid., 
 sess. xxi. cap. ii. Paris, 1671. See Cramp's "Text-book of Popery," p. 288, 
 ed. 1851. 
 
 b See Elliott's "Delineation of Roman Catholicism," p. 183, edit. 1851. 
 
MODERN CONCESSIONS. 157 
 
 Council, confirmed by a reigning Pope ; short of such au- 
 thority, any change would, according to the decree of the 
 General Council of Constance, confirmed by the Trent 
 Council, render the innovator a heretic, and place him under 
 the ban of anathema. 
 
 SECT. IV. Alleged Modern Concessions. 
 
 THE instances of concessions occasionally made in favour 
 of certain religious bodies, which are cited by Dr. Milner, 
 need no very particular notice ; they were illegal, and un- 
 sanctioned by his Church. They are all, however, referable 
 to her ordinary practice as a time-serving manager, of yielding 
 to external pressure, or the gratifying by an exclusive privilege 
 some royal " son of the Church." For instance, " Pius IV. 
 (he tells us), at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand, 
 authorized several bishops of Germany to allow the use of 
 the cup to those persons of their respective dioceses, who 
 desired it" (p. 379). But of the reason of this petition being 
 granted nothing is said, which was the hope of checking the 
 wide spread of a so-called heresy, with which the provinces 
 of Hungary, &c., were fairly overrun, by the allowance to 
 receive under both forms. But the plan did not succeed, and 
 within two years the permission was withdrawn/ This fact, 
 however, Dr. Milner withholds. Well is it, in one sense, that 
 he should teach his readers " that the manner of receiving 
 the Sacrament under one or the other kind, or under both 
 kinds, is a mere matter of variable discipline" (p. 379), for 
 after all his far-fetched and laboured arguments in support of 
 half-Communion, he affirms in his "Vindication" 5 at last, 
 " that he always knew and confessed that both species were 
 generally ministered in the ancient Church," an admission 
 deserving particular remark as illustrating the ambidextrous 
 character of his writings, for previously he had held language 
 of the very opposite description. The observation upon the 
 " anathemas" (as he terms them) of the Bishop of Durham 
 (Dr. Barrington), need not detain us. Both he and Dr. 
 Lingard were observant of the opinions of that prelate, 
 mainly lest they should interfere with Catholic Emanci- 
 pation. 
 
 In the next place, we have an attempt to obtain the Votes 
 
 a Card. Bona, Kerum Liturg., lib. ii. cap. xviii. Cramp's "Text-book of 
 Popery," p. 285, edit. 1851. 
 
 b " Vindication," p. 214 ; Grier's " Defence," p. 224. 
 
158 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 of eminent Catholics in favour of the doctrine under con- 
 sideration, a letter of Luther being quoted to show that he 
 reproached Carlstadt "with having placed Christianity in 
 things of no account, such as communicating under 'both 
 kinds" The passage, as given in a note/ will show that the 
 objection of Luther was directed rather against the perver- 
 sion of it, and that because the proceedings of Carlstadt 
 were leading people to suppose they had done a brave deed 
 a spirit and temper largely cherished in the Church of Rome, 
 by partaking of both kinds, and resting upon the mere out- 
 ward act. Luther's language on the occasion resembles, and 
 may be justified by, that of Bossuet, b who complains, though 
 the parties might in the latter case have readily defended 
 themselves (the Church having authorized, for instance, In- 
 dulgences in 'the most open manner), that "many preached 
 nothing but Indulgences, pilgrimages, almsgiving to the 
 religious, and made those practices, which were only the 
 accessaries of piety, the foundation of religion." 
 
 "On another occasion" (Dr. Milner continues, p. 380) 
 ' ' he [Luther] writes, ' If a Council did ordain or permit 
 both kinds, in spite of the Council we would take but one, or 
 take neither, and curse those who should take both/ ' A 
 very ingenious perversion indeed, the good Dr. having just 
 dropped the words qualifying the sentiment, and on which the 
 argument of the whole sentence depends ! The real state- 
 ment of Luther is : " Nor let it weigh with any one, that 
 they boast about a Council, by authority of which [the par- 
 taking of both kinds] is now again allowed. We have 
 authority from Christ, and have no desire to attend to 
 Councils on points plainly sanctioned by the Gospel. Nay, 
 we say further, if a Council by its own authority should take 
 upon it to ordain or allow full Communion, in that case we 
 should be less disposed than ever to partake of both kinds ; 
 on the contrary, neglecting both the Council and its edict, 
 we should prefer that the people should partake in either form 
 or none, and by no means under both kinds ; and openly to 
 hold them accursed, whosoever should partake of both upon 
 the authority of such Council, and its edict." This statement 
 
 a In a letter addressed to Gaspar Giittel : " Ego Carolostadium offendi, quod 
 ordinationes suas cassavi, licet doctrinam noil damnarim nisi quod displicet in 
 solis ceremoniis et externis faciebus laborasse eum, neglecta interim yera 
 doctrina Christiana, hoc est, fide et charitate. Nam sua iriepta docendi ratione 
 eo populum perduxerat, ut sese Christianum arbitraretur per has res nihili, si 
 utraque specie communicaret, si tangeret, si non confiteretur, si imagines 
 frangeret." Luther's Briefe, vol. ii. p. 177. Berlin, 1826. 
 
 b "Variations," book v. sec. i. 
 
 c For satisfaction we subjoin the Latin : "Nee quenquam id morari debet, 
 quod Concilium jactant, in quo id rursum licere sanciatur. Nos Christi jus 
 
MODERN CONCESSIONS. 159 
 
 will change the aspect of affairs, we apprehend, not a little. 
 The management of the passage illustrates yet once more the 
 dexterity of Dr. Milner, or his prompter, in cooking testi- 
 mony. 
 
 The remaining evidence, which he supposes favourable to 
 the Romish ordinance upon the subject, may be classed 
 among those instances of impediments, which are distinctly 
 mentioned, as at the synod of Poictiers in 1560, as being the 
 ground for allowing or partaking in one kind ; not author- 
 izing the practice generally, still less making themselves or 
 their synod sole referees on the subject. And here we 
 meet again, most characteristically, some further " disingenu- 
 ous " behaviour instances multiply upon us in Dr. Milner' s 
 conducting of the case in his " construction of the Procla- 
 mation of Edward VI., for which he rightly refers to Bishop 
 Sparrow's Collection, p. 17. The king enacts with the con- 
 sent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons in 
 Parliament assembled, ' That the most blessed Sacrament of 
 the body and blood of our Saviour Christ should from hence- 
 forth be commonly delivered and administered unto all per- 
 sons within our realm of England and Ireland and other 
 our dominions, under both kinds, that is to say, of bread 
 and wine (except necessity otherwise require), lest any man 
 fancying and devising a sundry way by himself, in the use of 
 this most blessed Sacrament of unity, there might thereby 
 arise any unseemly and ungodly diversity/ The object was 
 to turn the mass into a general Communion, according to the 
 primitive practice of the Catholic Church; to make every 
 Christian feel the necessity of his receiving the blessed Sacra- 
 ment of unity in one uniform manner ; and thus, except in 
 cases of absolute necessity, to provide for the general ad- 
 ministration and reception of the elements by all its subjects 
 at the parish churches every Lord's day. The exception did 
 not refer, as Dr. Milner dreamed, to the two elements of 
 bread and wine, but to reasonable causes of absence from 
 what was deemed a common and general duty. The old 
 maxim that necessity has no law, is applicable here; and 
 God will not mark as done amiss what He in His providence 
 deprives men of the power of performing. This construction 
 is in perfect accordance with that of the historian whom 
 
 habemus, et Concilii nee morari nee audire volumus, in his quse manifeste sunt 
 Evangelii. Quin amplius dicimus ; si quo casu Concilium propria auetoritate 
 id statueret aut permitteret, tune minirne. omnium nos velle utraque specie 
 potiri, imo tune primum, in despectum tarn Concilii quam statuti sui, vellemus 
 aut alterutra tantum aut neutra, et nequaquam utraque potiri ; ac plane eos 
 anathema habere, quicunque auetoritate talis Concilii vel statuti utraque poti- 
 rentur." Oper. torn. ii. fol. 416. Wittemb. 1546. 
 
160 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 Dr. Milner quotes, contained in the paragraph preceding the 
 proclamation. And in the very page which he quotes, viz. 
 Heylin's ' Hist, of the Reformation/ p. 58. a With what face, 
 then, could he insinuate that Communion without the cup was 
 thereby allowed in cases of necessity, and thus triumph over 
 the inconsistency of the Church of England ? The ' dilemma' 
 is entirely of his own devising." b 
 
 Having thus followed Dr. Milner, step by step, throughout 
 the entire letter, we arrive at the following results : 
 
 First He misstates the decree and express law of his 
 Church on the point in question. 
 
 Secondly By his endeavour to class the practice as a 
 "variable discipline," without the Church's authority, he 
 shows how plastic is Rome when it suits her purpose. 
 
 Thirdly That Dr. Milner' s assertions that the doctrine of 
 "concomitance," that is the body and blood, soul and 
 divinity of Jesus Christ are equally and entirely present under 
 each species, was "held by the Catholic Church from the 
 time of the Apostles," and is proved by the " whole series of 
 Ecclesiastical History," rest solely on his own unsupported 
 ipse dixii. 
 
 Fourthly And equally that it was regarded as a mere 
 matter of discipline which of the species was to be received in 
 the Holy Sacrament. 
 
 Fifthly That not one of the authorities cited will bear the 
 test of fair criticism or examination. They exemplify the har- 
 dihood with which Popish champions will hazard statements 
 at the risk of damaging their own reputation, provided the 
 advance of the Church can be in any way forwarded. 
 
 And lastly That Dr. Milner has proved himself an advo- 
 cate without discretion, without truth, and wholly unworthy 
 of credit. 
 
 a Vol. i. pp. 119, 120, edit. Camb. 1849. 
 
 b Dr. Jarvis's "Reply to the End of Controversy," pp. 208-9. 
 
161 
 
 No. XXI. 
 
 ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 1 Tim. ii, 5; Matt. vi. 6 ; Heb. ix. 15, xii. 24, viii. 6, vii. 25 ; Eph. ii. 18 
 John xiv. 6 and 13 ; Acts iv. 12 ; Heb. iv. 14-16. 
 
 SECT. I. Dr. Milner's Definition of his Church's teaching Complaints of 
 Misrepresentation by Protestants. 
 
 IN letter xxxiii. Dr. Milner complains in bitter terms of the 
 " foul misrepresentations" of the doctrine of his Church, on 
 the subject of "Invocation of Saints" "the worship of 
 images and pictures." 
 
 This question is to be viewed in a twofold aspect, first, 
 what the Church of Rome authoritatively teaches in her 
 Decrees of the Council of Trent; and secondly, what the 
 people really practise, and what we find unrebuked and 
 indeed sanctioned in rituals, books of devotion, and works of 
 admitted orthodox divines and doctors of the Roman Church . 
 The doctrine of Invocation of Saints as defined in the Decrees 
 of Trent, is, perhaps, on first appearance, the least objection- 
 able of Rome's peculiarities ; but when we turn from these 
 and see and read what is really practised, sanctioned, nay 
 encouraged by the priests of Rome, then indeed, we assert 
 that no language, no denunciation, no protestations can be 
 too strong in reprobation of Rornish teaching and practices 
 on these subjects. 
 
 Our observations must for the present be confined to the 
 subject forming the title of the present paper; and before we 
 proceed to discuss Dr. Milner's position and references, we 
 will bring under review some few of the fruits and results 
 of the licensed teaching of the Church of Rome, and show 
 whether Protestant objections are " foul misrepresentations," 
 or whether such objections " have not a leg to stand on, if 
 we take away misrepresentation" (p. 333). 
 
 The "genuine doctrine" on this "Article of Faith" Dr. 
 Milner defines as follows : 
 
 "It is simply this, that 'the Saints reigning with Christ offer lip their prayers 
 to God for man; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to 
 have recourse to their prayers, help, and assistance, to obtain favours from 
 God, through his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alone our Redeemer and 
 Saviour' Concil. Trid. Sess. 25, de Invoc. Hence the Catechism of the Council 
 
 M 
 
162 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 of Trent, published in virtue of its decree (Sess. 24, de Ref. c. 7), by order of 
 Pope Pius V., teaches that ' God and the Saints are not to be prayed to in 
 the same manner ; for we pray to God that he himself would give us good things, 
 and deliver us from evil things; but we beg of the Saints, because they are 
 pleasing to God, that they would be our advocates, and obtain from God what 
 we stand in need of (Pars iv. Quis orandus)"* 
 
 The italics are as given by Dr. Milner. 
 
 "We are not about to quarrel with this modified representation 
 of the authorized teaching of the Romish Church as expounded 
 by the Decrees and Catechism of the Council of Trent, except 
 that Dr. Milner has omitted to notice that the Council of 
 Trent intimates that the saints hear the mental and verbal 
 prayers of the suppliant. The doctrine as thus enunciated is 
 perhaps the least objectionable of the numerous heresies and 
 corruptions complained of and protested against among those 
 patronized by the Church of Rome. It cannot claim, however, 
 the sanction of Scripture (indeed the Decree of Trent does 
 not itself do so), and therefore is it rejected by us. But Dr. 
 Milner knows well how to evade a difficulty. The charge of 
 " gross Idolatry" is not in this respect brought against the 
 Church of Rome, when speaking through her Decrees, 6 and 
 the accepted or permitted teaching and practice of the mem- 
 bers of that community. We charge her reputed saints and 
 authorized doctors with teaching, and many of her members 
 with practising, gross, blasphemous idolatry. As evidence of 
 what we assert, we beg the reader to refer to the Rev. T. 
 Hart well Home's " Mariolatry ; or, Facts and Evidences de- 
 monstrating the Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the 
 Church of Rome, derived from the Testimonies of her reputed 
 Saints and Doctors, from her Breviary and other authorized 
 Romish Formularies of Devotion, confirmed by the Attesta- 
 tions of Travellers." 
 
 In order, however, to make the contrast more striking, 
 between the definition of his Church thus laid down, and the 
 alleged slanderous misrepresentations, "the idolatrous phan- 
 tom of Catholicity, which Protestant controversialists have 
 held up for the identical Catholic Church" (p. 334,) Dr. 
 Milner lays before us a series of propositions borrowed from 
 
 a Letter xxxiii. p. 334. 
 
 b It should be borne in mind that the Decrees of the Council of Trent 
 furnish but a polished exhibition of the doctrines and usages of the Church of 
 Rome. The state of the Church long previously to the assembling of that 
 Council was such that its own members had for some time been loudly calling 
 for reform, and a determination to have one of some kind was growing. 
 Hence the abundant mention of reform, and the delicacy of it ; and although, 
 in the Decrees, it would not disturb current practices over much, our remarks 
 will have reference more especially to doctrines and practices tolerated and 
 licensed in that Church, rather than to formally-authorized proceedings. 
 
 c Second edition ; London, Painter, Strand,' 1841. 
 
MILNKR'S DEFINITION. J63 
 
 the Papist Gother, and "republished by the venerable [Popish] 
 Bishop Challoner," containing accusations against Romanists 
 invented for the occasion. He attempts to shelter the Church 
 of Rome under a variety of curses framed by Gother, from the 
 charge of practising or encouraging idolatry ; though, should 
 we propose " these cases" to any member of that communion, 
 who did not agree with them, we should probably be asked, 
 and very rationally, what right has he or they to pronounce 
 curses? Who gave him power to anathematize? An exami- 
 nation, however, of these anathemas of Gother a will show that 
 they amount to nothing, and prove no condemnation of the 
 doctrine we reprehend. The first is, "Cursed is he that 
 commits idolatry." This is to be sure very satisfactory, when 
 the point in dispute is, What is idolatry ? Is it idolatry to 
 give to created things the honour due to the Creator ? Yea, 
 says the Church of England. No, says the Church of Rome. 
 This, therefore, is a very cheap and harmless curse ; but if it 
 be contended that no idolatry is sanctioned by the Church of 
 Rome, then we tell our Romish readers that we shall make 
 good the charge of unrebuked idolatry against authorized 
 teachers of their communion. 
 
 " Cursed is he (says Dr. Milner, quoting from Gother) that 
 believes the Saints in heaven to be his redeemers ; that pays 
 to them as such, or gives God's honour to them, or to any 
 creature whatsoever. Amen." All this reads marvellously 
 well, and may have its effect upon those who have not been 
 behind the scenes. But though " a Papist" may not pray to 
 the Saints a as his redeemers," or give to them what is 
 strictly the honour of God this is not our charge against 
 them, and is therefore no real honest disclaimer, though it 
 might be wished that a Protestant should deem it such, that 
 prayers of any description are offered up to the saints, and 
 that any protection, or aid, or benefit, is expected from them. 
 Our charge against them is for making the saints their 
 mediators, advocates, and intercessors, and with depending 
 upon their merits, expiations, &c. This charge is not denied ; 
 therefore, the anathematizer permits these to go free. And 
 as to the next clause, we need not disagree about terms, 
 though "Papists" do implore them and the Virgin to bestow 
 gifts and graces which (if there be any truth in the Bible) GOD 
 ONLY can bestow. We insist that to pray to any others than 
 God, to worship them, to serve them, to implore spiritual 
 
 a "A Papist misrepresented and represented," p. 101, ed. London, 1832. 
 A work represented by *Dr. Milner " as one of great authority among 
 Catholics." Letter xxxiii. p. 334. But see Bp. Gibson's "Preservative," 
 vol. xiii. p. 321, London, 8vo. edit. 
 
 M 2 
 
164 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 blessings from them, to rely on their intercession, mediation, 
 &c., is to give God's honour to creatures. But they deny this. 
 
 Again, " Cursed is every goddess-worshipper, that believes 
 the Virgin Mary to be more than a creature." This is loosely 
 worded; why did he not say, "Cursed is every one that 
 worships the Virgin Mary with more than creature-worship ?" 
 The reason is obvious. He could not have so said, without 
 cursing the saint and cardinal, Bonaventura, and those by 
 whom the Roman liturgies and services were compiled, to 
 say nothing of the extravagances of Saint Liguori. What 
 have goddess- worshippers to do with the business? We call 
 them not goddess- worshippers. We do not charge them with 
 believing the Virgin to be a goddess in the strict use of the 
 term, viz. uncreate, existing independently, &c. ; though, 
 as we shall presently see, one canonized saint invokes 
 the blessed Virgin "to command her beloved Son by the 
 right of a mother," and a pope only very lately declares her, 
 as alone destroying heresies, his greatest, his entire ground 
 of hope. This approaches very near to goddess-worship. 
 " Cursed be he that honours her [Dr. Milner has omitted this 
 expression !] that worships her, or puts his trust in her more 
 than in God ; that believes her to be above her Son, or that 
 she can in anything command Him." When a man sits 
 down coolly to curse and anathematize his fellows, we must 
 suppose in charity that he is very wary and cautious in pro- 
 mulgating his execrations; and that those who adopt them 
 are solemnly satisfied of their propriety. It appears, then, 
 that this is their divinity : he who honours or puts his trust 
 in the Virgin as much as in God, and believes her to be 
 equal to her Son, is a good Catholic, and not to be con- 
 demned, for the curse only extends to -more honour, or 
 worship, or trust, being placed in her than in God ! It is 
 well that Dr. Milner admitted some modification; he con- 
 sidered himself on the safe side. However, what the blessed 
 Virgin can do, or is said to do by her devotees and lovers, 
 will appear in the sequel. These curses, which are bruited 
 about and refulminated every now and then, are a sort of 
 Anglican-Romish cannonade, noisy enough, but veryharmless; 
 the Papal or Pagan idolater may safely walk in the way of 
 the discharge ; if he be astounded with smoke and noise, it 
 is the utmost he will su stain . a 
 
 But as Mr. Southey remarks, 5 greater authorities than Mr. 
 Gother and Dr. Challoner, endorsed even by Milner, have 
 
 a Adapted from Garbett's "Nullity of the Roman Faith," pp. 341-44. 
 b "Letters to C. Butler, Esq.," p. 432. 
 
165 
 
 taught adherents of Rome to do all these things ; and the 
 proofs of that statement are growing every day, and will be 
 presently illustrated. Further to exemplify the alleged mis- 
 representation of the teaching of his Church, Dr. Milner tells 
 us (p. 336) that " the charge of idolatry against [Roman] 
 Catholics for merely honouring those whom God honours, 
 and for desiring them to pray to God for us, is too extravagant 
 to be any longer published by Protestants of learning and 
 character/' Had it been Dr. Milner' s avowed object to 
 show that the practice of the Church of Rome, in this respect, 
 is actually idolatrous, he could hardly have expressed himself 
 in terms better suited to that purpose. He is very indignant 
 at the " blasphemous terms in which Mede and a hundred 
 other Protestant controversialists" (p. 333), speak of the 
 Romish invocation of saints, when they say that Romanists 
 have substituted for the worship of Christ the doctrine of 
 demons. Did Dr. Milner hope that his readers would be 
 misled by the vulgar notion of that word, to suppose that 
 we accuse his Church of worshipping devils ? If so, a refer- 
 ence to Plato a may, perhaps, undeceive them. "A demon" 
 according to that philosopher, " denotes a mediator between 
 God and man. Demons are interpreters and carriers to the 
 gods from men, and to men from the gods, of the prayers 
 and sacrifices of the one ; and from the other, of their com- 
 mands and rewards." And again, " God is not approached 
 immediately by man, but all the commerce and intercourse 
 between gods and men, whether waking or sleeping, is carried 
 on by means of demons " h Such, says Plato, were the 
 demons of the ancient heathen ; such, says Dr. Milner, are 
 the saints and angels of the modern Romanist. Did the 
 heathens worship their demons, not as the Supreme Creator, 
 but as his creatures and ministers, as mediators, and inter- 
 cessors between God and men ? So do Romanists worship 
 angels and saints. Did not this subordinate worship of " those 
 whom God honours " ultimately lead the heathens " to wor- 
 ship the creature more than the Creator ? " In the Romanist 
 it has unquestionably led to the same abuse. The blessed 
 Virgin, especially, is worshipped more than her Maker. 
 For the truth of this we might appeal to every one who has 
 resided in those countries where the Roman is the dominant 
 religion ; but even for the evidence of this notorious fact, we 
 had rather appeal to those whose testimony cannot be sus- 
 pected of partiality between us. We beg, then, for the present 
 
 a In Sympos., Op v vol. iii. p. 202, ed. Serrani. 
 b Plato in Sympos., vol. iii. p. 203. 
 
166 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 purpose, to refer the Romish reader to the accounts which some 
 of the most acute of the Mahomedan theologians have given, of 
 the change which appeared to them to have taken place in 
 the belief of Christians, concerning the fundamental doctrines 
 of the Trinity. The passages to which we allude will be 
 found in the second book de Synedris of the learned Selden, 
 who gives them in the original language from manuscripts 
 then in his possession, and now extant, we believe, in the 
 Bodleian Library. It will be found, on perusing them, that 
 these Mahomedans derived their most plausible argument 
 against the Christian religion from the assumed fact, " that 
 the belief of the ancient Church was essentially different 
 from that of modern Christians, who, instead of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, adore the Father, Son, and the VIRGIN 
 MARY." We do not of course mention this remarkable fact 
 by way of proving that the blessed Virgin was ever wor- 
 shipped as a person of the Trinity ; a but this we say it does 
 incontestably prove, that these learned Moslems could per- 
 ceive no difference in the worship that was then paid to her 
 and that which was given to the eternal Father and his 
 incarnate Son. b And was it not with some show of reason 
 observed that it appeared that the God of the Christians of 
 the ninth century had changed his sex ? 
 
 SECT. II. The Practical and Licensed Teaching of the Roman Church. 
 
 Dr. Milner, we have seen, tells us that his Church teaches 
 nothing more than that God and the saints are not to be 
 prayed to in the same manner, and that the latter are not 
 applied to for any good thing, or for deliverance from evil 
 things. This is so common an assertion among Romanists, 
 that it is essential that we should present our readers with a 
 few extracts from the Roman Breviary (a more authentic 
 source could not be appealed to) ; and it will be seen that 
 prayers are immediately and directly addressed to the Virgin, 
 and not simply to the Almighty in the name and through 
 the mediation of Jesus Christ "the one Mediator between 
 God and man ; " Romanists do implore of her blessings which 
 God alone can bestow. We quote from Husenbeth's edition, 
 Norwich, 1830. 
 
 * Rome's Marie, not the Blessed Virgin of Holy Scripture, has been called 
 a " complement " of the Trinity ; and statues of her are rising, huge affairs ! 
 in various parts of Papal Europe. 
 
 b "Two Letters to Rev. J. Milner, D.D., on certain passages in his 'End of 
 Religious Controversy,'" by the Rev. T. H. Lowe j London, 1826, pp. 4345. 
 
ROMAN BREVIARY. 167 
 
 Pars. Vern. cliii. " Hail, Star of the Sea, and kind Mother of God, and ever 
 Virgin, Happy Gate of Heaven ! Do thou, taking that ' Hail ' from the 
 mouth of Gabriel, changing the name of Eve, establish us in peace. Do thou 
 loose their bands for the accused ; for the blind bring forth a light ; drive 
 away our evils ; demand for us all good things. Show that thou art a Mother ! 
 Let Him who endured for us to be thy Son, through thee, receive our prayers. 
 O excellent Virgin ! meek among all, do thou make us meek and chaste, free 
 from fault; make our life pure : prepare for us a safe journey, that beholding 
 Jesus, we may always rejoice together. Praise be to God the Father, Glory 
 to Christ most high, and to the Holy Ghost : one honour to the Three. 
 Amen." 
 
 jEst. cxlvi. " Under thy protection we take refuge, Holy Mother of God ; 
 despise not our supplications in our necessities, but from all dangers do thou 
 deliver us, O glorious and Blessed Virgin." 
 
 JEst. cxlv. " O Mary, Mother of Grace, Mother of Mercy, do thou protect 
 us from the enemy, and receive us at the hour of death." 
 
 JEst. cxcviii. " The Holy Mother of God is exalted above the choir of 
 angels to the heavenly realms. The gates of Paradise are opened to us by 
 thee, who, glorious this day, triumphest with the angels." " Rejoice, O Virgin 
 Mary, thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Deem me 
 worthy to praise thee, hallowed Virgin. Give me strength against thy 
 enemies." 
 
 Here are direct prayers to the Blessed Virgin, not through 
 the merits or mediation of Christ. Nor is she applied to as 
 an advocate, to obtain from God what we stand in need of; 
 but she is asked to grant what God alone can bestow. 
 
 A person, who so positively repudiates all the grosser 
 forms of superstition, and complains that the accusation 
 brought against his Church is a scandalous misrepresentation, 
 would himself, one would suppose, avoid occasion of com- 
 plaint on the same score. This, however, is not the case ; 
 and to establish our assertion, we propose to give a few 
 extracts from a little work, which was published under the 
 patronage of " The E [ight] E [ev.] J [ohn] M [ilner] , 
 Bishop of Castab[ala],V[icar of the] M[idland] District]." 
 The title of the work is 
 
 " Devotion of the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ, with its Nature, 
 Origin, Progress, &c. ; including the Devotion to the Sacred Heart of the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary, &c., and the Eecommendatm-y Pastoral Letter of the 
 Bishop of Boulogne to the Faithful in his Diocese. Twelfth edition ; with an 
 
 Appendix, on Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Prayers for the 
 
 Exercise of that Devotion, and an Indult of his Holiness Pope Pius VII. in 
 favour of it: for the use of the Midland District. By the R.R.J.M. Bishop 
 of Castab., V.M.D. London : printed and sold by Keating and Brown, 
 38, Duke-street, Grosvenor-square, and 24, Bartlett's-buildings, Holborn. 
 1821." 12mo. 
 
 From the extracts which we are about to submit, it will 
 be found that the teaching is not " simply " of that subdued 
 character adapted to a Protestant country, as represented by 
 the Doctor : 
 
 "THE DEVOTION TO THE SACBED HEART OF MART. SECTION I. 
 
 " As the adorable heart of Jesus was formed in the chaste womb of the 
 Blessed Virgin, and of her blood and substance, so we cannot, in a more 
 
168 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 proper and agreeable manner, show, our devotion to the sacred heart of the 
 Son, than by dedicating some part of the said devotion to the ever-pure heart of 
 the mother. For you have two hearts here united in the most strict alliance 
 and tender conformity of sentiments, so that it is not in nature to please the 
 one, without making yourself agreeable to the other, and acceptable to both. 
 Go, then, devout client, go to the heart of Jesua ; but let your way be through 
 the heart of Mary. The sword of grief which pierced her soul opens you a 
 passage : enter by the wound love has made ; advance to the heart of Jesus, 
 and rest there even to death itself. Presume not to separate and divide two 
 objects so intimately one, or united together ; but ask redress in all your 
 exigencies from the heart of Jesus, and ask this redress through the heart of 
 Mary. 
 
 "This form and method of worship is the doctrine and the very spirit of 
 God's Church ; it is what she teaches us in the unanimous voice and practice 
 of the faithful, who will by no means that Jesus and Mary should be separated 
 from each other in our prayers, praises, and affections. 
 
 " Come, then, hardened and inveterate sinner, how great soever your crimes 
 may be ! Come and behold ! Mary stretches out her hand, opens her breast 
 to receive you. Though insensible to the great concerns of your salvation, 
 though, unfortunately, proof against the most engaging invitations and inspira- 
 tions of the Holy Spirit, fling yourself at the feet of this powerful advocate. 
 Her throne, though so exalted, has nothing forbidding, nothing dreadful ; her 
 heart is all love, all tenderness. If you have the least remains of confidence 
 and reliance on her protection, doubt not she will carry you through her own 
 most blessed heart in the most speedy and most favourable manner, to the 
 truly merciful and most sacred heart of her Son Jesus." Pp. 198 201. 
 
 Here we are invited to " dedicate some part of the same 
 devotion to the ever pure heart of the mother/' giving the 
 same devotion to the mother as to the Son. Their two hearts 
 are represented as united, so that it is not in nature to please 
 the one, without making ourselves agreeable to the other, and 
 accepted by both ; we are not to presume to separate the two, 
 and we are also invited " to ask redress through the heart of 
 Mary. 33 The Blessed Virgin is called " a powerful advocate." 
 
 In " Section II." the Virgin Mary is addressed as " O Holy 
 Mother of God, glorious Queen of Heaven and Earth ! " and 
 the following words are not exactly in accordance with the 
 idea that favours are to be obtained through Christ alone : 
 " Obtain for me at present the gift of a true repentance, and 
 those graces I may stand in need of for the gaining of life 
 everlasting."* 
 
 The following four prayers, from the same work, however, 
 place the question in a very clear light. Graces are asked 
 of the Blessed Virgin, which God alone can bestow, and 
 these are not asked " through Jesus Christ : 3> 
 
 " O Holy Mary, our Sovereign Queen ! as God the Father, by his own 
 omnipotence, has made thee most powerful, so assist us at the hour of our 
 death, by defending us against all power that is contrary to thine. Hail, 
 Mary. 
 
 " 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 our death illustrate and strengthen our souls with the knowledge of 
 
 Ibid., pp. 201, 202. 
 
169 
 
 the true faith, that they be not perverted by error or pernicious ignorance. 
 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 bitterness at that time may become 
 acceptable and pleasant to us. Hail, Mary. 
 
 "Our Blessed Lady herself taught St. Mechtildis the above-mentioned triple 
 salutation, promising her certain assistance for it at the hour of her death." 
 Pp. 212, 213. 
 
 Again, there is another book, " The Catholic School- 
 Book," H from which the following passages are given, intro- 
 duced, under the approbation of Dr. Milner, in 1818, as 
 being, in his opinion, " eminently entitled to the patronage 
 of the Catholic public." ... "As such," he added, he should 
 " not fail to recommend it in those places of education in 
 which he had any authority or influence." The subjoined 
 extracts will show what profound reverence and affection the 
 young mind is taught to entertain and cherish for the 
 Virgin : 
 
 " Next to God, and the most adorable humanity of his Son Jesus Christ, it 
 is she whom we must chiefly honour and love, by reason of that most sublime 
 and excellent dignity of Mother of God, which raises her above all creatures 
 which God has ever created. 
 
 " By her we may receive all the assistance which is necessary for us. She 
 is most powerful with God, to obtain from him all that she shall ask of him. She 
 is all goodness in regard of us, by applying to God for us. Being Mother of God, 
 he cannot refuse her request : being our Mother, she cannot deny us her intercession 
 when we have recourse to her. Our miseries move her, our necessities urge her ; the 
 prayers we offer her for our salvation bring to us all that we desire : and St. Ber- 
 nard is not afraid to say, ' That never any person invoiced that Mother of Mercy 
 in his necessities, who has not been sensible of the effects of her assistance.' " 
 "Catholic School-Book," p. 158. 
 
 "If you will be a true child, and a sincere servant of the Blessed Virgin, 
 you must be careful to perform four things : 
 
 "1. Have a great apprehension of displeasing her by mortal sin, and of 
 afflicting her motherly heart by dishonouring her Son, and destroying your 
 soul ; and if you chance to fall into that misfortune, have recourse readily to 
 her, that she may be your intercessor in reconciling you to her Son, whom 
 you have extremely provoked. ' She is the refuge of sinners as well as of the 
 just, on condition they have recourse to her with a true desire of converting 
 themselves,' as St. Bernard says. 2. Love and imitate her virtues, principally 
 her humility and chastity. These two virtues among others rendered her most 
 pleasing to God; she loves them particularly in children, and is pleased to 
 assist with her prayers those whom she finds particularly inclined to those vir- 
 tues, according to the same saint. 3. Have recourse to her in all your spiritual 
 necessities : and for that end offer to her daily some particular prayers : say 
 your beads, or the Little Office, sometimes in the week ; perform something 
 in her honour on every Saturday, whether prayer, abstinence, or alms ; honour 
 particularly her feasts by confession and communion. 4. Be mindful to invoke 
 her in temptations, and in the dangers you find yourself in of offending God. 
 You cannot show your respect better than by applying yourself to her in these 
 urgent necessities, and you can find no succour more ready and favourable 
 than hers. 
 
 a " The Catholic School-Book ; containing easy and familiar Lessons for the 
 Instruction of Youth of both Sexes in the English Language, and in the Paths of 
 true Religion and Virtue." Twentieth edition, with additions. London, 1839. 
 12mo. 
 
170 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 "If you perform this, you will have a true devotion to the Blessed Virgin, 
 you will be of the number of her real children, and she will be your mother, under 
 whose protection you shall never perish ." Ibid., pp. 159 161. 
 
 We would ask any admirer of Dr. Milner whether this 
 teaching is in accordance with the simple definition he has 
 before laid down. The fact is, he has written his book to 
 mislead or waylay, as it were, Protestants, by making the 
 system of his Church as palatable as possible in a Protestant 
 country, having the success of the so-called Emancipation 
 Bill in view; a but his practical teaching is exhibited in what 
 he does " not fail to recommend in those places of education 
 in which he had any authority or influence." 
 
 But to clear ourselves from the alleged "foul misrepre- 
 sentation" of Rome's teaching, and to prove that. we have 
 " a leg to stand upon " without " indulging in misrepresenta- 
 tion," let us go to a higher authority than Dr. Milner, and 
 see to what frightful results this doctrine of " invocation of 
 Saints," and more particularly of Rome's Virgin, has led and 
 is leading millions. We refer to a very popular work, " The 
 Glories of Mary," by the late canonized Saint Alphonsus 
 Liguori. 5 We start with the assertion that Liguori only 
 develops the practical working of the system of Romanism, 
 which, in fact, places the Virgin Mary on a level with, if not 
 above, our blessed Redeemer. 
 
 In page twenty-eight we read 
 
 " From the moment that Mary consented to become the Mother of God, 
 says Bernardine of Sienna, she merited to receive sovereignty over all 
 creatures. Mary and Jesus having but one and the same flesh, says 
 St. Arnaud, Abbot, why should not the Mother enjoy conjointly with the Son 
 the honours of ' royalty ? ' As many creatures as obey God, so many obey the 
 glorious Virgin ; everything in heaven and on earth which is subject to God, 
 is also under the empire of His most holy Mother." 
 
 Here is most unequivocal language. The Virgin reigns 
 sovereign over all creatures, enjoys conjointly with the Son 
 all honours of royalty, and everything in heaven and earth is 
 under her empire. Thus we have the Virgin Mary prac- 
 tically incorporated in, or made equal to, one of the Trinity. 
 
 This co-operation of Rome's Virgin is much insisted upon. 
 We are told that 
 
 a Letter xxxii. p. 332. 
 
 b Dublin, John Coyne, 1841 ; fourth edition, entered at Stationers' Hall. 
 John Coyne is the authorized publisher of Romish works in Dublin. The 
 title-page of the work in question is as follows : " The Glories of Mary, Mother 
 of God; containing a beautiful paraphrase on the 'Salve Regina.' Translated 
 from the Italian of St. Alphonsus Liguori, and carefully revised by a Catholic 
 Priest. Fourth edition. Hail Mary ! full of grace ! the Lord is with thee ! 
 Angel Gabriel in St. Luke. Dublin, printed by John Coyne, 24, Cook-street, 
 1841." 
 
171 
 
 " It was by her consent that Jesus might sacrifice Himself for our redemp- 
 tion" (p. 128). 
 
 "Why was not the mystery of the Incarnation accomplished without the 
 consent of the Virgin 1 It is because God wishes she may be the, principal of 
 all Good in the law of Grace" (p. 88). 
 
 "St. Peter Damian (we are told) goes still further, asking himself this 
 question : Why has God, before He became incarnate in Mary's womb, applied 
 for her consent ? For two reasons (he replies) ; first, to oblige us to be very 
 grateful to her ; and, secondly, to teach us that our salvation depends on the 
 will of this Blessed Virgin" (p. 123). 
 
 As a natural consequence, Abbot Rupert is quoted as 
 exclaiming 
 
 "O, great Queen! it is by you the miserable are saved ; and because their 
 salvation is your worJc )% ihey shall form your crown in Heaven" (p. 34). 
 
 And it is, therefore, broadly stated that 
 
 "It is now the general sentiment of the Church", that the intercession of the 
 Mother of God is not only useful, but even necessary to salvation" (p. 122). 
 "God will never save us without Mary's intercession" (p. 131). 
 
 This is St. Bonaventure's saying ; but St. Augustine is 
 represented as going a step further 
 
 "Men," he says, "have but one sole advocate in Heaven, and it is you, 
 Holy Virgin" (p. 145). 
 
 If St. Augustine said this, we cannot be surprised that 
 St. Anselm should add, that 
 
 " Our salvation is often more speedily effected by invoking Mary, ' Beautiful 
 as the Moon,' than in calling on Jesus, the ' divine Sun of Justice' " (p. 186). 
 
 How natural, therefore, is the exclamation 
 
 "Why should Christians feel any scruple in saying to her, with the 
 [Roman] Church and the Saints, ' SAVE us ?'" (p. 130). 
 
 Yes, indeed, why should they, if the priests keep the Bible 
 from them ? 
 
 "St. German then had reason to call Mary the respiration of Christians ; 
 for as the body cannot exist without breathing, so the soul cannot live without 
 recurring to the Mother of God" (p. 71). And "she herself warns us [when, 
 and where, and whom, we are not informed], that she has at her disposal all 
 the treasures of the divinity" (p. 89). 
 
 One would suppose that this was plain speaking enough. 
 But hear St. Anselm, he asks 
 
 "How is it, that we ask many things of God without obtaining them, but 
 when we ask them through Mary they are granted to us ?" (p. 104). He had 
 only just before assured us in order " to increase our^confidence in Mary, that 
 our prayers will often be more speedily heard in invoking her name than in 
 calling on that of Jesus Christ ! " 
 
 Having thus completely superseded the office of Christ as 
 our mediator and advocate, we are shown how necessary is 
 the interposition of the Blessed Virgin : and for what reason 
 think you ? 
 
 " God [we are told by Eichard St. Lawrence] in the Old Law often com- 
 plained that there was none to interpose between him and sinners ; but since 
 
172 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Mary the Mediatrix of peace has appeared on earth, she restrains his arm and 
 averts his wrath" (p. 95). 
 
 "That as the Kingdom of God," observes Gerson, "consists in mercy and 
 justice, the Lord has, as it were, divided it, reserving to Himself the dominion 
 of Justice, and yielding to His Mother that of Mercy " (p. 29). 
 
 This view of the subject is much insisted upon : 
 
 "An Angel told St. Bridget that the prophets of the ancient law leaped for 
 joy when they foresaw that in consideration of Mary's purity and humility God 
 would be appeased, and turn away his wrath from those who had most irritated 
 him" (p. 65). 
 
 And Albertus Magnus says 
 
 " If Ahasuerus heard the petition of Esther through love, will not God, who 
 has an infinite love for Mary, fling away, at her request, the thunderbolts 
 which he was going to hurl at wretched sinners?" (p. 30). 
 
 " Mary not only gives but offers to all men, without exception, milk and 
 wool ; the milk of mercy, and the wool of her intercession, the former to re- 
 animate our confidence, and the latter as a rampart against the thunders of 
 Almighty vengeance" (p. 31). 
 
 Not only is the Almighty represented to us in this revolt- 
 ing character, but Christ even is rendered an object of 
 dread. 
 
 "Go," says St. Bernard to the sinner, "Go to find the Mother of Mercy ; 
 discover to her the wounds of thy soul ; and Mary, showing to her Son the 
 breast whence he drew nourishment, will mollify his anger and appease his 
 wrath" (p. 64). 
 
 Then we have Rome's Virgin presented to us as an inde- 
 pendent and self-acting power. To illustrate this we will 
 take two of many similar passages : 
 
 "St. Bernard, asking the question, why the Church calls Mary Queen of 
 Mercy, answers it himself by saying : 'It is because she opens at pleasure the 
 abyss of divine mercy, so that no sinner, however enormous his crimes may be, 
 can perish if he is protected by Mary ' " (p. 31). 
 
 And Mary is supposed to have appeared to St. Bridget and 
 to have made to her the following revelation (p. 33) : 
 
 "I am the Queen of Heaven and Mother of Mercy ; I am the joy of the 
 just, and the gate through which sinners go to God ; to no one on earth have I 
 refused my clemency there is no one who has not attained some grace through 
 my intercession, though it were no greater than that of being less violently 
 tempted by the devil ; in fine, unless a person be absolutely cursed (this should 
 be understood of the irrecoverable malediction of the damned), how wicked and 
 reprobate soever he is, he may obtain grace and mercy through me ; and hence 
 woe, eternal woe to him who, having it in his power to profit of my commisera- 
 tion, does it not, but is lost through his own fault." 
 
 Thus we see the 'Blessed Virgin is made, step by step, to 
 supplant CHRIST (the sole mediator and advocate of the 
 sinner), and even to share with the GODHEAD the glory of 
 His empire and to dispense His mercies. If it had only 
 stopped here, we should have had sufficient to deplore. But 
 alas ! Liguori goes still further than this. Mary is repre- 
 sented as having Christ and God Himself at her command, 
 and they obey ! 
 
173 
 
 " Yes (says St. Bonaventure), Mary has so loved us, that she has given us 
 her only Sou." " She gave him to us (says Nieremberg) when, in virtue of 
 her jurisdiction over him as Mother, she permitted him to deliver himself up to the 
 Jews. God could and did recompense Abraham's generosity ; but what can 
 men render Mary for immolating Jesus? . ... As she sacrificed for us a Son 
 who was infinitely dearer to her than herself" (pp. 46, 47). " While we say of 
 Virgins that they follow the lamb, we can say of Mary, on earth, that the lamb 
 followed her." "When Maiy presents herself before Jesus, the aliar of 
 reconciliation, to mediate for us, she rather seems to dictate than to supplicate, 
 and has more the air of a Queen than of a subject " (p. 137). 
 
 " We can say of the Saints that God is with them ; but to Mary it has been 
 given, not only to conform herself to the will of God, BUT THAT GOD HIMSELF 
 HAS BEEN CONFOKMED TO HER " (p. 137). " You, O holy Virgin, have over GOD 
 authority of a mother, and hence you obtain pardon for the most obdurate 
 sinners" (p. 140). a 
 
 And lastly, to crown all, we are told that "all is subject 
 to Mary's empire, even GOD HIMSELF" (p. 137). 
 
 As to visions of the Virgin Mary, and miracles -wrought, 
 we need scarcely add they are innumerable. To illustrate 
 more practically the assertion with which we prefaced these 
 quotations from Liguorr's work, we will further quote two 
 narrations, which are taught and received as facts by the 
 Romish Church : 
 
 " During the pontificate of St. Gregory the Great, the people of Rome 
 experienced in a most striking manner the protection of the Blessed Virgin. 
 A frightful pestilence raged in the city, to such an extent that thousands 
 were carried off, and so suddenly, that they had not time to make the least pre- 
 paration. It could not be arrested by vows and prayers which the Holy Pope caused 
 to be offered in all quarters, until he resolved on having recourse to the Mother of God. 
 
 " Having commanded the clergy and people to go in general procession to 
 the church of our Lady, called St. Mary Major, carrying the picture of the 
 Virgin, painted by St. Luke, the miraculous effects of her intercession were soon 
 experienced; in every street as they passed, the plague ceased (?). And before 
 the end of the procession, an angel, in human form, was seen on the tower of 
 Adrian, named ever since the castle of St. Angelo, sheathing a bloody sabre. 
 At the same moment, the angels were singing the anthem, Regina Cceli, &c., 
 ' Triumph, O Queen, and Alleluia.' The holy Pope added the words, ' Ora 
 pro nobis Deum!' 'Petition God of our souls to save!' The Church has 
 
 a The extracts given are only a few of many of a similar nature. The work 
 under consideration is by no means scarce, it having gone through several 
 editions, and we have before us the edition of 1848, which is sold at the low 
 price of one shilling ; but Dr. Wiseman has lately edited another. Each later 
 edition varies in some particulars from the preceding. Affrighted at the gross 
 and glaring blasphemies of Liguori, not only are apologies and forced explana- 
 tions tendered, but, in defiance of the unequivocal approbation of every single 
 word which Liguori wrote, it has been deemed proper to drop parts, "from 
 motives of expediency " " des motifs de convenance " (p. iv. Paris edit. 1854). 
 
 We would not insult our readers by making any comment on such language 
 and teaching as the above. A priest would tell us that all must be taken in a 
 " Catholic" sense, and you must understand it as the " Church" does, and that 
 she means nothing more than to honour the Blessed Virgin. But if there is 
 any out-spoken honesty in our Roman Catholic readers, they will raise their 
 voices in unanimous reprobation of such blasphemous teaching. The words 
 are too plain for any but their literal interpretation, and the " Church" when 
 approving them vouchsafed none other. 
 
174 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 since used this anthem to salute the Blessed Virgin in Easter time." 
 " True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary," p. 34. 
 
 And again 
 
 " We read in the Chronicles of St. Francis, that brother Leo once saw in a 
 vision, two ladders, one red, at the summit of which was JESUS CHRIST ; and 
 the other white, at the end of which presided his blessed Mother. He observed 
 that many who endeavoured to ascend the first ladder, after mounting a few 
 steps, fell down ; and on trying again, were equally unsuccessful, so that they 
 never attained the summit ; but a voice having told them to make a trial of 
 the white ladder, they soon gained the top, the Blessed Virgin having held 
 forth her hand to help them " (p. 177). 
 
 The two following are taken from Dr. Wiseman's edition 
 of Liguori, London, 1852, observing first that in the preface 
 to this edition, p. xviii., we read as follows : 
 
 " Remember that it [the work in question] has been strictly examined by 
 the authority which is charged by God himself to instruct you, and that that 
 authority has declared that it contains NOTHING [so printed in original] worthy 
 of censure." 
 
 In page 64 we are informed : 
 
 " Bernadine de Busto relates that a bird was taught to say, ' Hail, Mary ! ' 
 A hawk was on the point of seizing it, when the bird cried out, ' Hail, Mary ! ' 
 in an instant the hawk fell dead. God intended to show thereby, that if even 
 an irrational creature was preserved by calling on Mary, how much more would 
 those who are prompt in calling on her, when assaulted by devils, be delivered 
 from them." 
 
 And again, in page 196 
 
 " Father Eusebius Nieremberg says, ' that in a city of Aragon, there was a 
 beautiful young lady, of noble birth, named Alexandra, who was courted by 
 two young men. Out of jealousy, they one day fought, and both were killed. 
 Their enraged relatives, considering the young lady as the cause of this sad 
 event, murdered her, cut off her head, and threw it into a well. Some days 
 afterwards, Saint Dominic passed by the spot, and, inspired by God, went to 
 the well, and cried out, ' Alexandra, come forth ! ' In an instant the head of the 
 murdered woman came up, and remained on the edge of the well, and entreated 
 the Saint to hear her confession. The Saint did so, and in the presence of 
 an immense concourse of people, drawn there by the wonderful event, gave her 
 communion. He then commanded her to say for what reason she had received 
 so great a grace. Alexandra replied, that when her head was cut off, she was 
 in mortal sin ; but that, on account of the Rosary she was in the habit of 
 saying in her honour, the most Blessed Virgin had kept her alive. The 
 animated head remained for two days on the edge of the well, so as to be seen 
 by all ; and, after that the soul went to Purgatory. A fortnight afterwards 
 Alexandra appeared, beautiful and shining, like a star, to St. Dominic, and 
 said, that the Rosary recited for the souls in Purgatory is one of the greatest 
 reliefs that they meet with in their torments ; and that, as soon as ever they 
 get to heaven, they pray earnestly for those who have performed this devotion 
 for them. As soon as she had said this, Saint Dominic saw her happy soul 
 ascend, with the greatest joy, to the kingdom of the blessed." 
 
 We will now draw to a close our quotations, with two ex- 
 amples from Liguori's numerous prayers : 
 
 "Queen of heaven and earth! Mother of God! my sovereign mistress! I 
 present myself before you as a poor mendicant before a mighty Queen. From 
 the height of your throne, deign to cast your eyes on a miserable sinner, and 
 lose not sight of him till you render him truly holy. 
 
 " O illustrious Virgin ! you are Queen of the universe, and consequently 
 
175 
 
 mine ; I desire then to consecrate myself more particularly to your service ; 
 dispose of me according to your good pleasure; direct me, I abandon myself 
 wholly to your conduct, never more let me be guided by myself ; chastise me 
 if I disobey you ; your correction will be sweet and agreeable ; I am then no 
 longer mine, / am all yours ; SAVE ME, O powerful Queen, save me by your 
 intercession with your Son" (p. 35, edit. 1841). 
 
 "Draw me after you, O holy Virgin, that I may run in the odour of your 
 perfumes. Draw me, for I am withheld by the weight of my sins, and the 
 malice of my enemies. As no one can go to your Son, unless the heavenly 
 Father draw him, so I presume to say in the same manner, that no one can go 
 to the Father unless you attract him by your prayers. It is you who obtain 
 pardon and grace for sinners ; you are the teacher of true wisdom, and the 
 repository of the treasures of the Most High. You have found favour with God, 
 being preserved from original sin, filled with the Holy Ghost, and selected as 
 the Mother of His Son. All these graces you have received, O most humble 
 Mary, not alone for yourself, but also for us, in order that you might be able to 
 assist us in all our wants. You succour the just by preserving them in grace, 
 and you help the wicked by disposing them to receive the divine mercy ; you 
 aid the dying, preserving them from the snares of Satan, and conducting them, 
 after death, to the mansions of the blessed" (p. 182). 
 
 Romanists do not cease to complain that they are misrepre- 
 sented by Protestants of this country. Some few protest that 
 it is unfair to visit the extravagances of a few enthusiasts on 
 their church as a body. But we contend that we are justified 
 in asserting that the sentiments of Liguori, as expressed in 
 his acknowledged works, must be those of the modern 
 Roman Catholic Church. How does the case stand as to 
 the writings of Liguori ? We find, that with a view to his 
 canonization (the most solemn act of this modern Church, 
 and in which Cardinal Bellarmine asserts she is infallible)/ 
 Pope Pius VII. confirmed the decree of the Congregation of 
 Rites, which declared 
 
 "That all the writings of St. Alphonsus, whether printed or inedited, had 
 been most rigorously examined according to the discipline of the Apostolic See, 
 and, that not one word had been found ' censures dignum;' and that in all these 
 examinations, undertaken with a view to canonization of St. Alphonsus, and in 
 the definite judgment of the sacred congregation, all agreed, ' voce concordi, 
 unanimi consensu, una voce, unanimiter." b 
 
 And in consequence he was canonized by the late Pope 
 Gregory XVI., A.D. 1839. Again, in the "Lives of Modern 
 Saints," a work approved and specially recommended by 
 two Roman authorities (Bishops of Roman Catholics, one of 
 whom is Dr. Wiseman), and dedicated to the regular clergy 
 of the [Roman] Catholic Church in England, we find 
 " the precious work, entitled ' the Glories of Mary/ " most 
 particularly mentioned and recommended as a work the fruit 
 of several years' labour, " in which he [Liguori] had employed 
 himself to choose from among the works of holy fathers and 
 theologians the most conclusive proofs in favour of the pre- 
 
 a Bell. " Church Triumphant," torn. ii. p. 871. Colognae, 1671. 
 
 b See "[Roman] Catholic Calendar for 1845," p. 167. 
 
 c " Life of St. A. Liguori, &c." vol. ii. pp. 19 21. Richardson, London, 1848. 
 
176 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 rogatives of Mary, and the fittest to engage the faithful to 
 devote themselves to her service" (p. 20). "The applause 
 with which the book was received, or the number of editions 
 through which it has gone, is scarcely to be credited" (p. 21). 
 
 But to place the matter beyond a doubt, that the doctrines 
 taught by Liguori are or ought to be universally received by 
 all classes of modern Romanists, we find in their own Missal, 
 or Prayer-book, which is in daily use in England, that they 
 must pray, on the 2nd of August in every year, in the fol- 
 lowing words : " O God, who by the blessed Alphonsus 
 Maria, thy confessor and pontiff, who was inflamed with a 
 zeal for souls, hast enriched thy Church with a new offspring, 
 we implore that, taught by his saving admonitions, and 
 strengthened by his example, we may be able, happily to 
 come to thee through the Lord." a 
 
 And in Lesson V. of their Church Service for the same day, 
 the identical book in question is thus expressly named, and 
 specially commended : " Being an admirable worshipper of 
 the Mother of God, he [Liguori] wrote and published a book 
 upon her praises;" and in the same lesson his writings are 
 stated to be " fraught with sacred erudition and piety ." b 
 
 But the Blessed Virgin has not the monopoly. The 
 "Queen of Heaven" has her glories recorded, and so has 
 "ST. JOSEPH." We have now before us the work entitled 
 the " Glories of Saint Joseph." 
 
 The " Glories of Saint Joseph" are entered at large in a 
 volume under that title, stated to be "chiefly from the 
 French of Rev. Father Paul Barrie," in a " second edition, 
 revised, corrected, and improved," and published by "Richard 
 Grace, [Roman] Catholic Bookseller, 45, Capel-street, Dub- 
 lin, 1843." 
 
 We have stated the peculiar prerogatives of Rome's 
 " Marie." What she enjoyed, Joseph, her spouse, enjoyed 
 too ; for we read in pages 14 and 15 : 
 
 " Mary, spouse to Joseph, doth in plenitude of grace, surpass both men 
 and angels ; and has not her husband, think you, the like endowments, since 
 God judged him a fit match for her, and for this end gave him so great an 
 abundance of grace, virtue, and sanctity, that neither men nor angels ever had 
 the like, whereby to fit him to be the spouse and guide to the Virgin Mother ; 
 God judging it fit, that in her right, he should partake of all her honours, 
 favours, and dignities ? If, therefore, she be a princess, he is a prince, and he 
 also is king, wherever she is queen ; for God, who designed to raise Mary to 
 the quality and honours of the Mother of God, at the same time designed her 
 
 a "Missale Romanum," Mechlin, 1840, p. 402, and "Roman Anglican 
 Ritual." Keating and Brown, London, 1831. 
 
 b This article is quoted from the Editor's "Romanism in England exposed/' 
 Letter X. Lond. 1851. 
 
a husband like to herself, whom He loved above all men upon earth, 
 fore endowed him with all graces suitable to such a dignity." 
 
 A logical deduction, indeed ! If Mary was Queen of 
 Heaven, then Joseph, of necessity, as her husband, was King 
 of Heaven ! " Much virtue is there in an if." But if the 
 Blessed Virgin is not Queen of Heaven, we suppose Joseph 
 would not presume to claim the title of King. We are willing 
 to leave this matter to such alternative ; but not so " Father 
 Paul Barrie," and we must presume also Dr. Wiseman and 
 the train of priests who attended at Poplar, on the dedication 
 of a temple to their honour. For we are told, in page 16 : 
 
 "That the angels who beheld the Son of God, in the bosom of his Eternal 
 Father in Heaven, seeing him also in the arms of St. Joseph upon earth, 
 might very well cry out with wonder and astonishment : * Behold the Governor 
 of the Universe, governed by a man,' and address to St. Joseph the same 
 admonition that Methodius did to the Mother of God in these following words : 
 ' O nursing-father to him who feeds all creatures ? O rich Joseph, to whom 
 God Himself became a beggar! Thrice happy art thou, who hast Him for thy 
 debtor, who lends to every one whatsoever he possesses, for all creatures are 
 indebted to God for their being, and for everything they enjoy ; but to oblige 
 thee, God will become obliged to thee, and make Himself thy debtor.' " 
 
 Then, again, what can be plainer than the following ac- 
 knowledgment in favour of Joseph, by St. Theresa? 
 
 " God by his other saints helped us in some particular cases of necessity ; 
 but helps us in all necessities by St. Joseph, as by his plenipotentiary, to let 
 us understand, that as He was subject to him in all things upon earth as to a 
 father, so He was the same in heaven, granting him whatsoever he asked" 
 (P. 47). 
 
 He is accordingly called 
 
 "The DIVINE Spouse of our Blessed Lady" (p. 51). 
 
 And " if we desire to know what is best to SECURE OUR 
 SALVATION/' we are told that there cannot be any doubt but 
 that the Blessed Virgin will advise us to be " devout to St. 
 Joseph" (p. 129). It is not surprising, therefore, that in 
 the " Litanies of St. Joseph " we find thickly and profusely 
 scattered about such expressions as the following, as applied 
 and addressed to him : 
 
 "Advocate of the humble. Defender of the meek. Quintessence of all 
 virtue. Theatre of all glorious privileges (p. 65). Appointed master of God's 
 household. Our Intercessor in the hour of danger. Our patron and protec- 
 tion (p. 155). Whom the Eternal Father made his Vicar on earth," [and we 
 presume, therefore, first Pope, even before St. Peter]. "Prince of all his 
 possessions (p. 156), who [Joseph] dost triumph for ever, shining with ineffable 
 glory : who didst sovereignly despise the world" (p. 157). 
 
 Then comes another series of rhapsodic expressions, peculiar 
 to Romish theology. Joseph is declared to be : 
 
 " The vermilion rose of charity. Lily of charity. Doctor of humility. Splen- 
 dour of modesty. Mirror of married persons [and why don't priests follow his 
 
 N 
 
178 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 example?]. Advocate of sinners. Comforter of the afflicted. Protector of the 
 poor. Solace of all who labour. Guide of the wandering. The safety of the 
 shipwrecked. Father of the faithful. Who as an angel didst deliver divine 
 oracles. Who, as an arch-angel was the companion and guardian of the angel 
 of the Great Council. To whom the Almighty was subject. To whose dominion 
 the Queen of Dominations was subject. In whose arms, and bosom, as on a 
 throne, the King of Glory vouchsafed to sit (p. 158). The original guardian 
 of Virgins. Our most holy patron. Our strongest defender. Our most 
 loving father (p. 159). Ensign of our salvation. Heaven of Wisdom (p. 161). 
 Mirror of Divine paternity. Image of God the Son. Impression of the Holy 
 Ghost (p. 160)." 
 
 But this mighty Joseph condescended to step down for a 
 moment from this lofty pinnacle of greatness, to assist us in 
 all our little troubles, even to effecting " miraculous cures" 
 (p. 112), and that too by the humble means of "a miraculous 
 ointment" (p. 113), far more potent than that of the modern 
 " Holloway." This "miraculous ointment" actually had (if 
 we could only persuade our readers to believe it) so much 
 virtue that it / 
 
 " Had the power of working miracles, which it likewise communicated to 
 beads, medals, images, and papers that touched it, or the cloth that wiped it 
 off" (p. 115). 
 
 A very awkward opponent Father Paul Barrie might prove 
 to Mr. Hollo way, if\\Q (Father B.) could only procure a pot 
 of this miraculous ointment ! 
 
 Then St. Joseph cured all sorts of "sore eyes" (p. 120), 
 " distempers and plagues," "violent headaches" (p. 119). He 
 assisted a nun to pay the " debts which she had contracted" 
 (p. 125). He "also favours marriage, and unites the hearts 
 of married persons, procuring them a true and constant 
 conjugal affection." Also "helps persons pregnant" (p. 127). 
 " He favours also married persons, by giving them children" 
 (p. 128). And we are told that he lifted "a cart out of a 
 rut, which could neither go backwards nor forwards" (p. 131) ; 
 and he is so obliging as to " help persons even without being 
 asked" (p. 132) ; and this was exemplified in an extraordinary 
 manner, in the case of a young man who had put himself 
 under his protection : 
 
 " As he walked in the fields for his amusement, he met two men unknown 
 to him, one of whom shot at him with a blunderbuss charged with hail-shot. 
 All entered his body, without giving him any mortal wound ; two or three 
 staid in his belly, and one of them beat flat upon his forehead." 
 
 Of course no injury was done, " and he offered a picture (at 
 St. Joseph's church) of this miraculous escape, as a memory 
 of his gratitude" (p. 133) . But, to sum up, he supersedes any 
 mesmeric medium, for we are told, " when you have lost any- 
 thing you highly value," you are to have recourse to St. 
 Joseph to beg "his help," and heigh, presto !-" the lost 
 thing is recovered" (p. 84, et seq.) 
 
179 
 
 And to our fair readers St. Joseph shows himself peculiarly 
 amiable ; and this is testified on the unimpeachable evidence 
 of Father Barrie himself! 
 
 "I knew [he says] a young woman violently attacked with a passion of love, 
 which she freed herself from by resolving, in honour of St. Joseph, to abstain 
 for nine days from the conversation of the person she loved," and upon recom- 
 mending herself every day to St. Joseph, " she was perfectly freed from this 
 tormenting and dangerous spirit" (p. 108). 
 
 Another, more desperate, case is cited on the same evidence. 
 We are surprised St. Joseph did not prescribe a nunnery. 
 But this reminds me that St. Joseph makes himself generally 
 useful even in this line. A religious "house of nuns" was 
 running dry for want of " novices/' and funds as well. The 
 Superior 
 
 " Had recourse to St. Joseph, to beg his assistance. The devotion was no 
 sooner begun, than a young lady with a good fortune offered herself to live and 
 die with them in God's service, which favour will never be forgotten " [of 
 course not] (p. 68). 
 
 Our readers may think we are joking; but we assure them 
 that we transcribe faithfully and, what is more, Father 
 Barrie declares that he " heard this from the mouth of the 
 Superior herself" (p. 67) ; and you cannot, therefore, resist 
 this evidence ! 
 
 We must not quit this extraordinary production without 
 calling attention to the fact that JESUS, MARY, and JOSEPH 
 are created into another Trinity. The whole of chapter iii. 
 treats of this. Gerson, we are told (p. 25), says, 
 
 "That if the first rank and hierarchy in heaven is that of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, so the second is this of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and that all 
 other saints are of a lower rank, and of a different hierarchy." 
 
 The former is stated to be the uncreated, the latter the 
 created Trinity, but in the image or likeness of the former. 
 
 "Mary bears the image of God the Father, Jesus the Son, according to his 
 humanity, in a just likeness to what He is in Heaven, as he is the Word or 
 Son of God ; and St. Joseph represented the Holy Ghost, in the quality of 
 Spouse to the Blessed Virgin Mary," &c. (p. 26). And a little further on we 
 are told that "as none can divide their love to the three persons in the uncreated 
 Trinity, they ought to follow a similar rule in their respect to the created Trinity," 
 &c. (p. 27). 
 
 To sanctify this creation of Popish theology, we are told, 
 that 
 
 " Pius VII. [the same Pope who confirmed the approval of Liguori's ' Glories 
 of Mary'], by a decree of the 28th April, 1807, granted for ever an indulgence 
 of 300 days, to the faithful, each time they devoutly repeat the following 
 three aspirations, and if only one of them is said, an indulgence of 100 days, 
 and all applicable to the souls in purgatory : , 
 
 " 'Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I offer you my heart and soul. 
 
 " ' Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, assist me in my last agony. 
 
 " 'Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, may I expire in peace with you' " (p. 231). 
 
 N 2 
 
180 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Here let us pause for one moment, fully to appreciate the 
 doctrine thus endorsed by a Pope. The three undivided 
 persons of the uncreated Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, are co-eternal and co-equal; "none, therefore, can 
 (without sin) divide their love," each commanding an equal 
 affection. We are offered another Trinity, of whom the same 
 "Son," of the uncreated undivided Trinity, is one. This 
 second Trinity is composed of this same Son, and Mary, and 
 Joseph, who, we are told, demand also our " undivided love," 
 to whom we are to " offer our hearts and souls," and to whom 
 we are to pray " to assist us in our last agonies," and that we 
 may expire in peace with them ! In theology, as in mathe- 
 matics, " things that are equal to the same are equal to one 
 another." Mary and Joseph are placed in our affection on a 
 level with Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity ; so, 
 therefore, must Mary and Joseph require from us the same 
 equal and undivided affection which is given to the Father 
 and the Holy Spirit. The consequence is inevitable. A new 
 God and Goddess are thus incorporated into the Divine 
 Trinity, converting Christianity into a Pagan Pantheism, and 
 Pagan temples are erected to their honour. 
 
 It is true that this book does not come before us with the 
 same authoritative endorsement as the "Glories of Mary," 
 but we should not overlook the several rules and decrees of 
 Popes that are ostentatiously set out in it, not merely recom- 
 mending the devotion and Litanies to Joseph, but encou- 
 raging them by the offer of extravagant "indulgences" 
 (those imaginary "celestial treasures" composed of equally 
 imaginary superabundant merits of departed saints, and said 
 to be at the free disposal of an ecclesiastical impostor), 
 applicable as well to the devotee as to " souls in purgatory." 
 And, further, this " second edition" is sold by the recognized 
 " Catholic" bookseller in Dublin, and is sanctioned by the 
 Romish priesthood; and in order to ascertain whether the 
 sale be still permitted, the volume from which we quote was 
 purposely purchased so late as the 18th of October, 1856. 
 And, besides, what right has any one to repudiate the work ? 
 Do Romanists not boast of a uniformity of teaching throughout 
 all her ministry ? It is not in the index of prohibited books ; 
 and so confident does the writer feel that he is doing nothing 
 contrary to the teaching of his Church, that he does not 
 think it necessary to offer any apology, as did Liguori, in 
 desiring his book to be accepted only so far as it was in con- 
 formity with the teaching of his Church. 
 
 Our extracts on this subject would not be complete were 
 we to pass over the very famous or rather mfamous Psalter of 
 
381 
 
 Saint Bonaventura. Rome lias, in the most emphatic manner, 
 declared orthodox the works of this so called saint, having 
 given them her approval in most unequivocal terms. Bona- 
 ventura was elected Cardinal-Bishop by Gregory X., and 
 attained every honour in the Church, short of the Papal 
 chair. Two centuries after his death he was canonized by 
 Pope Sixtus IV., who declared that the "BLESSED TRINITY 
 
 TESTIFIED TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS A SAINT IN HEAVEN;" 
 
 and further, that "he [Bonaventura] so WROTE ON DIVINE 
 
 SUBJECTS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT SEEMS TO HAVE SPOKEN 
 
 IN HIM."* It must be borne in mind that it is an accepted 
 doctrine of this modern Church, that in the act of canonisation 
 THE CHURCH is infallible. 5 A century after this, Pope Six- 
 tus V. ordered the writings of this sainted individual to be 
 "most carefully emendated," and in his decretal letter 
 declares him to be an acknowledged doctor of the Church, 
 and directs his authority to be cited in all places of education, 
 and in all ecclesiastical discussions and studies ; and, to crown 
 the whole, a PLENARY INDULGENCE is promised to all those 
 who assist at his mass on his feast, the 14th of July. All 
 classes of Romanists, on this same 14th of July in every year, 
 are bound to pray in the following words : " O most excel- 
 lent doctor, Light of the Holy Church, blessed Bonaventura, 
 lover of the divine law, pray for us." " O Lord, who didst 
 give blessed Bonaventura to thy people for a minister of 
 eternal salvation, grant, we beseech thee, that whom we 
 enjoyed as the instructor of our life on earth, we may deserve 
 to have as our intercessor in heaven." This prayer is in the 
 Roman Breviary, Paris, 1846, p. 806; and the latter prayer 
 is inserted in the Roman Missal as a collect, London, 1844, 
 p. 318. Thus do we find, in a most solemn manner, that the 
 modern Roman Church requires of all its members, both lay 
 and clerical, that they should pray for the intercession of him 
 who, in this life, instructed them in that system of religion 
 which w r e can designate by no other title than "Baptized 
 Heathenism," and must acknowledge his teaching, on the 
 subject now under consideration, the " Invocation of Saints." 
 These preliminary remarks are necessary, and must be most 
 especially borne in mind, for Romanists do not hesitate, 
 when it suits their convenience, and especially when hard 
 pressed in controversial discussions, to deny all knowledge of 
 such a saint, as also the authority of his works, and more 
 particularly the work we are about to cite, though its authen- 
 ticity is most indubitable. 
 
 a Acta Sanct. Antwerp, 1723, p. 831. 
 
 b See Bellarmme's "Church Triumphant," vol. ii. p. 871. Cologne, 1617. 
 
182 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Among the works thus "carefully emendated" is found 
 the mfamous " Psalter of the Virgin Mary," than which, 
 perhaps, a more blasphemous production does not exist. 
 This saint has parodied the Psalms of David, by substituting 
 the name of the Virgin Mary in the place of the LORD 
 JEHOVAH. One or two examples are sufficient to give an idea 
 of this most extraordinary production. Our quotations are 
 taken from the Metz edition, vol. vi. 1609, a The following 
 is a literal translation from the Latin : 
 
 Psalm xxx. " In thee, O Lady, have I trusted ; let me not be confounded 
 for ever : in thy grace take me. 
 
 " Thou art my strength and my refuge : my consolation and my protection. 
 
 " To thee, O Lady, have I cried, while my heart was in tribulation : and 
 thou didst hear me from the top of the eternal hills. 
 
 " Deliver me out of the snare which they have laid privily for me, for thou 
 art my helper. 
 
 " Into thy hands, Lady, I commend my spirit, my whole life, and my last 
 day," &c. (p. 480.) 
 
 Psalm xxxi. " Blessed are they whose hearts love thee, O Virgin Mary ; 
 their sins shall be mercifully blotted out BY THEE," &c. (p. 481.) 
 
 Psalm xxxv. 2. "Incline thou the countenance of God upon us; COMPEL 
 HIM (coge ilium) to have mercy on sinners." (p. 481.) 
 
 Psalm xciii. "The Lord is a God of vengeance; but thou, Mother of 
 Mercy, bendest to be merciful." (p. 485.) 
 
 And thus is the " Te Deum " also blasphemously addressed 
 to the Virgin Mary : 
 
 "We praise thee, Mother of God : we acknowledge thee, Mary the Virgin. 
 
 "All the earth doth worship thee, Spouse of the eternal Father. 
 
 "To thee all angels and archangels, &c., so faithfully do serve. Holy! 
 Holy ! Holy ! Mary, parent Mother of God and Virgin ! 
 
 " Lady, SAVE THY PEOPLE (salvum fac populum tuum), that we may partake 
 of the inheritance of thy Son," &c. &c. &c. 
 
 In vol. vi. p. 466, we read : 
 
 "Therefore, O Empress, and our most benign Lady, BY THY RIGHT or 
 MOTHER, COMMAND (jure matris impera) thy most beloved Son that he vouch- 
 safe to raise our minds from the love of earthly things to heavenly desires," &c. 
 
 The Litany and the Athanasian Creed have been similarly 
 perverted. 
 
 Having brought to the notice of our readers Bonaventura's 
 Psalter, let us at once meet an objection that is made by 
 Romanists when this work is cited by Protestants as evidencing 
 the practical teaching of their Church on the subject of the 
 worship of the Virgin Mary. It may be relied on as a 
 general rule, that the most repugnant and idolatrous portions 
 of the Romish system are kept in the background in this 
 country until the convert is fairly entrapped. The poison is 
 
 a The first edition of Bonaventura's collected works was commenced under 
 the patronage of Pope Sixtus V., and finished under Clement VIII., to whom 
 the work was dedicated (at least the sixth volume, which contained this very 
 psalter) in seven volumes, printed at the Vatican press. 
 
183 
 
 mixed with honey, so that the baneful quality of the mixture, 
 unseen by the outward eye, does not become developed until 
 it has fairly taken root and contaminated the whole consti- 
 tution. Thus, these and such-like works are kept out of 
 view in England ; and, for purposes of their own, Romanists 
 have not hesitated openly to declare that, but for Protestant 
 malignity, such works, the exponents only of the sentiments of 
 darker ages, would have remained in obscurity. Repeatedly 
 has this objection been raised at public and other meetings, 
 and as often refuted. Some Romanists, like snails, when 
 they are touched, draw in their horns. In a mixed assembly 
 of Protestants and Romanists, the latter dread an exposure, 
 and for present purposes do not hesitate to invent any sub- 
 terfuge, so as to appear better in the eyes of the Protestant 
 public than they are represented to be. They successively 
 reject fathers and doctors of their church, when they are 
 brought in testimony against their modern innovations. In 
 the present case, however, such objections and subterfuges 
 cannot for one moment be admitted. 
 
 " Roma locutttj causa finita est." Her motto is " Semper 
 eadem" She claims to be infallible, and an appeal is made 
 by a self-styled infallible Pope on behalf of the writings 
 of this very individual Bonaventura. According to her own 
 doctrine, what was right then, must be so now ; and, to carry 
 out this same principle, the Psalter of the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary was reprinted at Rome so lately as 1834, a and is a literal 
 translation from the Latin into Italian, with the sanction and 
 imprimaturs of the masters of the so-called Apostolical Palace, 
 " Fr. Angelus V. Modena/' and of his deputy, " A Piatti 
 Archieps Trapesunt. ;" and further this same Psalter of the 
 Virgin Mary was reprinted in 1844 at Rome, with all the 
 sanction of the proper authorities, at the press of A. Monaldi, 
 Via Sistina, No. 47, and has passed through no less than 
 eleven editions within the last few years, and was publicly 
 sold for twopence in the streets of Rome, and at the very- 
 steps of St. Peter's Church, as well as in all the shops : and 
 this, too, in a country where the press was under the most 
 rigid ecclesiastical censure. 5 
 
 a " Salterio di S. Bonaventura alia beata Vergine Maria, col Tesfco di riri- 
 contro. Roma, presso Gio. Battista Marini, Piazza del collegio Romano, 
 Num. 4." On the second title-page is the following : " Preci Quotidiane alia 
 Madre di Dio per impetrare una buona morte, tratte dal Salterio di S. Bona- 
 ventura. Nuova Traduzione col testo di rincontro. Roma, 1834. Presso 
 Gio. Battista Marini, Piazza del collegio Romano, N. 4." 
 
 b "To show you the popularity of this formulary of devotion, sanctioned a,'? 
 it is by the present Pope, and approved by the censors, I may mention that 
 in the course of the five years which have elapsed from 1834 to the end of 
 
184 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Had this been a solitary instance in this modern church 
 where such blasphemies had been indulged in, we might, in 
 charity, be led to consider Bonaventura' s extraordinary pro- 
 ductions as the ravings of a deranged intellect ; but alas ! 
 whichever way we turn, we find disciples of Bonaventura 
 equalling, if not surpassing him, in his mariolatrous ravings. 
 Witness the writings of Bernardinus de Bustis, in his " Office 
 of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin/' [Co- 
 logne, 1607] ; Bernardinus Senensis [Paris, 1636] ; Theo- 
 philus Raynaud, of Lyons [Diptycha Mariana, Lugduni, 
 1665]. These and many others we could name bear evident 
 testimony of the practical working of Romanism. But for 
 the present we will content ourselves by referring the reader 
 to the several passages collected from these and other Romish 
 writers in Tyler's works, the " Primitive Christian Worship/' 
 and the " Worship of the Virgin Mary/' published by "The 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge." 
 
 With such works at hand to exemplify the practical teach- 
 ing of the Church of Rome, we need not resort to misrepre- 
 sentation, to paint her worse than she is. But we protest 
 against Dr. Milner's assertion, "That it appears that the 
 heinous charge of idolatry brought against Catholics [Ro- 
 manists] for their respect towards the saints, is grounded on 
 nothing but the mistaken meaning of the word WORSHIP." 
 (Letter xxxiii. p. 336.) 
 
 1839, it went through ten editions ; and I hold in my hand at this moment the 
 tenth edition, dated Rome, 1839, which is an exact reprint of that of 1834. I 
 have also recently seen a gentleman, to whom a friend at Rome has sent a 
 copy of the eleventh edition, dated 1840. So that on an average, this Psalter 
 of Bonaventura is so popular as to require at least two editions every year ; 
 and in order that every Roman Catholic may possess it, it is sold at the very 
 smallest possible price at which it can be printed. Now if streams be the 
 purest near to the fountain, and if light is the more unsullied and clear the 
 nearer we approach to the sun from which it emanates, may we not presume 
 that the theology of the Romish church is most unalloyed under the very wing 
 and superintendence of his holiness the Pope ; and that if we are to find the 
 pure and unquestionable exponent of Roman theology in any part of the 
 universe, it will be where censors of books are appointed, as at Rome, to see 
 that nothing erroneous passes through the press, and where the Pope, armed 
 with the tremendous attribute of infallibility, inspects the publication, adds to 
 it his signature, and pronounces it calculated to edify and instruct the faith- 
 ful." Dr. Gumming, " Lectures for the Times." London, 1845. Hall and Co., 
 Paternoster-row. And we have seen a Paris edition of 1849. It is not true, 
 as stated by some Romanists, that this Psalter was placed in the index of 
 prohibited books. The "Catholic Layman," of May, 1855, gives a most 
 learned and elaborate article, proving the authenticity of the work in question. 
 
PROTESTANT APOLOGISTS. 185 
 
 SECT. III. Dr. Milner's alleged Protestant Apologists for the Roman 
 Teaching. 
 
 So anxious is Dr. Milner to vindicate his church from the 
 charge of idolatry, and further to satisfy us that her doctrine 
 has been misrepresented, that he presses into his service 
 divines of the Church of England as repudiating such an 
 idea. The argument would be good, if tenable ; but, like most 
 of Milner's quotations, the passages cited are blundering 
 perversions. 
 
 " Several of the brightest lights (he says) of the Established Church, such 
 as Archbishop Sheldon, and the Bishops Blandford (see ' Duchess of York's 
 Testimony, in Brunswick's Fifty Reasons '), Gunning (Burnet's 'Hist.,'&c., 
 vol. i. p. 437), Montague, &c., have altogether abandoned the charge of 
 idolatry against [Roman] Catholics on this head ; the last-mentioned says, ' I 
 own that Christ is not wronged in his mediation. It is no impiety to say, as 
 they (the Catholics [Romanists]) do, Holy Mary, pray for me ; Holy Peter, pray 
 for me ('Treat, of Invoc. of Saints,' p. 118), whilst the candid prebendary of 
 Westminster warns his brethren ' not to lead people by the nose, to believe 
 they can prove Papists to be idolaters, when they cannot.' Thorndike's 
 ' Just Weights,' p. 10." [Letter xxxiii. 339.] 
 
 We have already stated that we do not undertake to justify 
 all that may have been written or said by divines of the Estab- 
 lished Church. a We know, even at this day, that it would be 
 a libel on our clergy to charge the whole body with the aber- 
 rations of a few Tractarians and Puseyites. The Church has 
 never been entirely free from semi-popish divines, whose 
 hearts are with Rome, but, with equivocal Jesuitical morality, 
 do not hesitate to pass for Protestants. We, however, can 
 claim, in some of the instances cited by Dr. Milner, " honour- 
 able exceptions." Omitting the "et cetera" as rather too 
 vague a reference even for Dr. Milner, we have five names 
 cited; of these two only, Montague and Thorndike, are 
 quoted with any possibility of finding the passage referred to. 
 As to Montague's "Treatise of Invocation of Saints," at 
 p. 118, the words quoted are found as given by Dr. Milner, but 
 he stops short. Had he continued, he would have found that 
 the bishop's sentiments are directly the reverse of what Dr. 
 Milner would represent them to be. Montague's words are : 
 
 " Indeed, I grant Christ is not wronged in his mediation ; it is no impiety 
 to say as they do, Sancta Maria, ora pro me ; Sancte Petre, ora pro me ; and so 
 no wrong unto Christ Jesus to use mediation of intercession unto him. b As it 
 is taught, I add, in their schools, by their Doctors, resolved by that oracle of 
 
 a First Series, No. xvi. p. 228. 
 
 b " This is the veil spread over the minds of many. It is a slender one ; and 
 yet the best that may be found. You make again a distinction where Scrip- 
 ture distinguishes not ; when St. Paul says, ' there is one mediator,' it is a 
 mediator of intercession that he is speaking of; for, having exhorted us to 
 pray and supplicate for each other, he adds, ' for there is one God, and one 
 mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a 
 
186 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Trent. BUT NOT as practised in their use and custom, where simple men 
 invoke Saints as they do God ; go to their devotions unto the Blessed Virgin, 
 not only far more frequently than they do to Christ [as has been abundantly 
 proved in preceding pages], but without any difference at all, go to it down- 
 right, as to the authors and originals of the things they desire, having them in 
 their power to bestow or not. They have power much more than they had 
 on earth ; not to give, but to entreat, to prevail with God, now sooner in 
 the state of bliss and immutability, than in the state of subjection unto sin and 
 misery. But admit it not impiety, as I think it is not ; it is flat and egregious 
 foolery at best." "Treatise of Invocation of Saints," pp. 118, 119. 
 
 The whole treatise of Bishop Montague shows the futility 
 of all argument for the Invocation of Saints, from reason, 
 Scripture, and from the Fathers ; in short he concludes it, to 
 use his own words, " a point of plain folly, and ridiculous 
 absurdity, as it is laid down, even by the most learned, 
 judicious, and advised amongst them" (Romanists) ; and "in 
 point of practice and performance, by the simple vulgar 
 people not acquainted with nor capable of scholastic niceties, 
 of difference in terms of invocation and advocation, help, 
 original and derived ; it is flat impiety against God, and 
 idolatry in their ordinary devotion unto the creature." a Now 
 it is known that Montague attacked Calvinistic doctrines 
 the Calvinists in turn attacked Montague ; they charged him 
 with favouring Popish doctrines. In their charge against 
 him, set out by Collier verbatim, in his " Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory," they say : 
 
 " SEC. V. The said Richard Montague hath, notwithstanding, in his said 
 book entitled *A Treatise concerning the Invocation of Saints' [the book 
 referred to by Dr. Milner], affirmed and maintained that Saints have not 
 only a memory, but a more peculiar charge of their friends ; and that it may 
 be admitted that some Saints have a peculiar patronage, custody, protection, 
 and power, as angels also have over certain persons and countries, by special 
 deputation ; and that it is no impiety so to believe." b 
 
 It will be observed that there is no charge here that Bishop 
 Montague held the Popish doctrine of Invocation of Saints, 
 or that he favoured it. Had he done so in this book, his 
 enemies, the Calvinists, would not have omitted to charge 
 him with it. They did not do so. 
 
 We proceed to notice Dr. Milner's appeal to Herbert 
 Thorndike, " the candid prebendary of Westminster." The 
 
 ransom for all,' teaching us, that he alone who ransomed is the alone mediator 
 of intercession, through whom our supplications are received. The office of 
 mediator of redemption expired when he ascended on high, and his all-sufficient 
 atonement was accepted of the Father." Garbett's " Nullity of the Roman 
 Faith," p. 328. 
 
 a " It seems almost customary with Romish writers much to their advan- 
 tage, to be sure to omit the latter portion of the passage from Bp. Montague. 
 * You quote (observes the Durham clergyman, in reply to Mr. Lingard) Bp. 
 Montague as conceding this point. Let me improve your quotation by giving 
 the whole of it, we shall then better judge of the extent of this concession.' " 
 "Two Charges and a Letter to the Clergy of Durham," London, 1813, p. 145. 
 
 b Collier, "Eccl. Hist.," vol. ii. part ii. b. ix. p. 737. London, 1712. 
 
MONTAGUE. 187 
 
 quotation given, as from this writer, has no place whatever in 
 the treatise to which Dr. Milner refers : it is an entire fabri- 
 cation from first to last, concocted from three several sentences 
 brought into hotchpot. The first sentence is taken from the 
 table of contents, and the second and third have no connection 
 with each other in the writings of Herbert Thorndike, and 
 are, in fact, directly opposed to the sentiments of that writer, 
 who declares that to pray to saints departed, for those things 
 which God alone can give, as all Papists do, is, in the proper 
 sense of the word, downright idolatry. If they say their 
 meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their 
 requests from God, how dare any Christian trust his soul with 
 that Church which teaches that which must needs be idolatry 
 in all that understand not the figure. [Judgment of the Church 
 of Rome, xii. head.] a 
 
 So much for the ' ' candid prebendary of Westminster/' 
 The only reference to "Archbishop Sheldon and Bishop 
 Blandford " is " See Duchess of York's Testimony in Bruns- 
 wick's Fifty Reasons." The idea of a Milner referring to 
 the unique production of the "Fifty Reasons" for "testi- 
 mony ! " The Duke of Brunswick's book, entitled " Fifty 
 Reasons," is only one degree worse, if that be possible, than 
 Dr. Milner's. They are both characterized by the boldest 
 perversions of truth that it has ever been our misfortune to 
 meet, without any exception. This supposed letter is added 
 to some of the editions of Brunswick's " Fifty Reasons." Of 
 the letter itself we beg to refer our readers to the remarks 
 already offered in our article on Purgatory. 
 
 Burnet in his " History of his own Times," to which Dr. 
 Milner has drawn our attention, does not in any way couple 
 Sheldon's name with the Duchess of York, but he informs 
 us that he and others preached so vehemently against Popery 
 that the king interfered and endeavoured to put a stop to it, 
 but Sheldon resisted. 5 And with reference to Bishop Bland- 
 ford, all that Burnet relates is, that Blandford was called in 
 when the Duchess of York was on her death-bed. 
 
 " She protested to him she had no scruples with relation to her religion, and 
 was still of the Church of England ; and assured him that no Popish priest had 
 ever taken the confidence to speak to her on this matter [i.e., taking the 
 Sacrament]. Up to her death she never owned to him that she had any 
 scruples, though she was for some days entertained by him at Farnham, after 
 the date of the paper which was afterwards published in her name. All this 
 passed between the bishop and me, upon the duke's showing me that paper all 
 
 a " Remarks on a Pamphlet by Rev. J. Waterworth, Newark," by the Rev. 
 R. Simpson, 1834, quoted in the Protestant Journal, 1835, p. 302. 
 
 b Burnet's " History of his own Times," vol. i. pp. 308-9, edit. London, fol. 
 1742. The same edition as that quoted by Dr. Milner. 
 
188 INVOCATION OF SAINTS, 
 
 writ in her own hand, which was afterwards published by Maunbury. I went 
 immediately to Mosley and gave him an account of it, from whom I had all 
 the particulars above mentioned, and upon that he concluded that the unhappy 
 princess had been prevailed on to give falsehoods under her hand, and to 
 pretend that these were the grounds of her conversion." (P. 309.) 
 
 So, according to Burnet, it appears that, at the time the 
 statement was made, it was supposed to be false. 
 
 That Burnet should be referred to in Gunning's case, 
 proves either that Dr. Milner never turned to the pages of 
 the writer he pretends to quote, or he must have supposed 
 that he might safely hazard a perversion of truth, and stand 
 the chance of detection. The reference to the pages of Bur- 
 net is correct, and there we read that 
 
 "A bill was brought into the House of Commons, requiring all members of 
 either house, and all such as might come into the King's court or presence, to 
 take a test against Popery ; in which not only transubstantiation was re- 
 nounced, but the worship of the Virgin Mary and the Saints, as it was practised 
 in the Church of Rome, was declared to be idolatrous. This passed in the 
 House of Commons (A.D. 1678, reign of Charles II.) without any difficulty ; 
 but in the House of Lords, (running, Bishop of Ely, maintained that the 
 Church of Rome was not idolatrous. He was answered by Barlow, Bishop ot 
 Lincoln. The Lords did not much mind Gunning's arguments, but passed 
 the bill." 
 
 This is the passage indicated by Dr. Milner from Burners 
 " History of his own Times/' vol. i. p. 435. a Now here Dr. 
 Milner would have us stop, for he gives us not the slightest 
 idea of what followed. Burnet goes on immediately to say, 
 " And though Gunning had said, that he could not take that 
 test with a good conscience, yet as soon as the bill was passed 
 he took it in the crowd with the rest.' 3 Burnet goes on to 
 show that a noble duke and duchess and twelve ladies were 
 specially exempted by the bill which passed the Commons, still 
 it does not appear that Gunning attempted to have himself 
 included in this exemption. If Gunning really believed that 
 the Romish practice was not idolatrous, surely Dr. Milner 
 showed very little judgment in selecting such a man, who, 
 against his conscience, immediately takes the oath against 
 which he had protested. But we must be excused if we 
 refuse to rank such a man among the " brightest lights of 
 the Established Church/' though we can scarcely be surprised 
 at his finding an admirer in Dr. Milner. That Dr. Milner 
 has made Gunning's scruples a point for argument is evident, 
 since he introduces the same subject in his letter on Trail- 
 substantiation [Letter xxxvi. pp. 355-6], wherein he says 
 that the most eminent prelates, in the reigns of Charles I. 
 and Charles II., generally acquitted Romanists of idolatry 
 in "worshipping Christ in the Sacrament;" "and, more 
 
 a But not p. 437. Edit. fol. ; London, 1742. 
 
DUKE OF SOMERSET. 189 
 
 especially, the learned Gunning, Bishop of Ely, who repro- 
 bated the declaration, when it was brought into the House 
 of Lords, protesting that his conscience would not permit 
 him to take it. (Burnetts t Hist, of his own Times/)" Here 
 again, wholly concealing the fact that he took the declaration 
 nevertheless. 
 
 It really appears as if Dr. Milner could not speak the 
 truth if he tried. 
 
 Again, in order to relieve his church from the " heavy " 
 charges brought against her in invoking saints and angels, 
 Dr. Milner calls up the Duke of Somerset, " who only took 
 up the pretext of idolatry [he tells us] as the most popular 
 for revolutionizing the [so-called] ancient religion " (p. 332) ; 
 and that he and others were actuated merely by " motives 
 of avarice and ambition," in carrying 011 the measure of 
 abolition. His evidence for these statements is altogether 
 omitted ; and, even if true, what blame, particularly in a 
 Protestant country, can a son of Rome, with any decency, 
 lay upon them? Then Luther, with equal omission, is said 
 " warmly to have defended the Romish doctrine in these 
 particulars." The authorized Symbolic books of the Lutheran 
 faith speak very unambiguously to the contrary; the Smal- 
 cald articles, as they are called, and which were drawn up by 
 Luther himself, asserting that such invocation is to be ranked 
 among abuses arid errors of Antichrist, and at variance with 
 an acknowledgment of Christ. " For it is (say they, Part II., 
 art. ii. sec. 26) uncommanded and unsupported by any 
 counsel, or example, or passage, in Scripture; it is a matter 
 altogether injurious (sec. 27) . Angels and saints are not to 
 be invoked by us, nor honoured as patrons and intercessors ; 
 nor are certain helps to be attributed to them, as Papists 
 teach and practise; for this is idolatrous, and such honour 
 is owing to God alone." 
 
 So anxious indeed is Dr. Milner to enlist Luther in his 
 own ranks, that he summons him again in another part of 
 this same letter, as a witness in his favour, and notwithstand- 
 ing the black catalogue of crime affixed upon him, Dr. Milner 
 is glad enough to enlist " the Patriarch of Protestantism " 
 (as he calls him, p. 338) in favour of praying to saints and 
 angels, affirming that " Luther did not find anything idola- 
 trous in the doctrine and practice of the Church with respect 
 to the saints," and then quotes him as believing that great 
 miracles are wrought at the tombs of the saints, and there- 
 fore "I (he is made to say), with the whole Catholic 
 Church, hold that the saints are to be honoured and invo- 
 cated by us." A German source is produced as authority 
 
190 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 for this statement, and really it has something of a mythical 
 aspect : here is Luther the " sacrilegious " Luther all at 
 once become an uncommonly good fellow, and allowed to 
 pronounce, as good as any of them, in favour of the invoca- 
 tion of saints ! "I and the whole Catholic Church." There 
 is something mysterious in all this. The second portion of 
 the reference a we can test the value of rather more easily ; 
 and there Dr. Milner does obtain some little help, but it is 
 from a letter written in 1518, when Luther's views on some 
 points had not run clear of all Papal dregs ; and yet, after 
 all, his estimate of such prayers is but comparative, thinking 
 applications to saints better than to wizards and gipsies. 
 But Luther is quoted, as we so often find to be the case, 
 imperfectly. He goes on to explain himself, observing that 
 it is impious and perverse to be anxious solely about the 
 body, neglecting the command, " Seek first the kingdom of 
 God, and all these things shall be added unto you." If then 
 it is allowable to pray for such things, it should be permitted 
 to those only who are imperfect, and who live rather in sub- 
 jection to Moses than to Christ. Such worship of saints is 
 therefore a thing merely to be borne with, not to be extolled 
 as a practice altogether becoming a Christian life. Just 
 consider if any of the saints addressed is noted among the 
 people on the score of chastity, patience, faith, hope, charity, 
 and other spiritual gifts : such blessings are not sought for ; 
 we have no such saints, to whom recourse is had for such 
 things. But there is St. Laurence to quench fire, Sebastian 
 for the plague, &c. ; and in short all the celebrated saints are 
 in repute for temporal benefits solely ; so much so, that they 
 are worshipped more than apostles, and would be altogether 
 neglected were bodily ailments and grievances to cease, b or 
 bodily things to be neglected. Such persons are to be borne 
 with in such practices, till they can be instructed in a taste 
 for better things, or, if better informed, reproved for not 
 taking a higher aim. And this is an authority to be seized 
 on for upholding the invocation of saints and angels ! " the 
 great Patriarch of Protestantism " become a serving-man to 
 the Church of Rome ! 
 
 The other reference to Luther's works c furnishes still less 
 for Rome's support if we have lighted upon the treatise 
 intended so indistinct are Dr. Milner's guide-posts. There 
 
 a "Epist. ad G. Spalatin," torn. i. fol. 131, ed. Aurifabri, 1579 ; or in De 
 Wette's " Luthers Briefe," vol. i. pp. 201-3. 
 
 b Sometimes they curse their Saints in the present day, if their demands are 
 not granted ; calling St. Januarius, for instance, a yellow-faced rascal. 
 , c Luther's " Prtep. ad Mortem," [torn. i. fol. 89, edit. Wittemb. 1589]. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 191 
 
 is nothing about invoking Marie, nor saints, nor angels; 
 merely a half-sentence about saints praying for us, " orent 
 pro me ; " and thus fades away the vision of Luther's support 
 to this ' ' interesting " doctrine. Thus does Dr. Milner strug- 
 gle to scrape together apologies even from so-called heretical 
 Protestants, in defence of the Popish doctrine of " Invocation 
 of Saints," even at the expense of truth and very much to 
 the disparagement of his own character as an honest con- 
 troversialist. 
 
 It is a matter of curious speculation how Dr. Milner read 
 books when he took them in hand. Did he read backwards 
 or hold the books upside down ? For scarcely in a single 
 instance, where an advantage is attempted to be gained, does 
 he read straightforward in the honest orthodox way. It is 
 well that he should cry out very loud that his church's 
 teaching is misrepresented ; he expected to distract the atten- 
 tion of an inquiring reader. It is an old trick. The fugitive 
 thief, if he can do it dexterously, often joins the yelping 
 pack, and with them cries lustily, " stop thief ! " 
 
 SECT. IV. Alleged Scriptural Sanction. 
 
 Is it a fact that, on an examination of the Decree of the 
 Council of Trent, we find that the Council does not assert 
 that the practice of invoking saints has any foundation 
 in Holy Scripture ? The absence of any such declaration is 
 the more important, because in the very Decree immediately 
 preceding, which establishes Purgatory as a doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome, the Council declares that doctrine to be 
 drawn from the Holy Scripture. In the present instance the 
 Council proceeds no further than to charge with impiety 
 those who maintain the invocation of saints to be contrary to 
 the word of God. The Council abstains from affirming any- 
 thing whatever as to the Scriptural origin of the doctrine and 
 practice, which it commands all Bishops to teach "with 
 diligent assiduity." Hence perhaps arises Dr. Milner's 
 excessive caution in treating this part of his subject. He 
 treads very gently, as on flints with bare feet. We propose 
 now to examine his appeal to the written Word. 
 
 On entering upon this part of the subject, we must beg our 
 readers not to confound two distinct questions, which are 
 artfully brought together as included in the same system : 
 namely, intercessory prayers one for another while in this 
 world ; and invoking the prayers of the departed. The one 
 
192 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 is specially encouraged ; the other, to say the least of it, has 
 no sanction whatever in the Word of God. 
 
 I. Rom. xv. 30, Job xlii. 8. On these texts Dr. Milner 
 writes : 
 
 " Our Protestant brethren will not deny that St. Paul was in the practice of 
 soliciting the prayers of the church to which he addressed his Epistles (Rom. 
 xv. 30, &c.), and that the Almighty himself commanded the friends of Job to 
 obtain his prayers for the pardon of their sins. Job xlii. 8." (P. 336.) 
 
 Here in the outset is an abandonment of the question, 
 which is not, " whether it be lawful or profitable to pray for 
 each other, while in this life," but " whether (to follow the 
 words of the Council of Trent) the Saints reigning with 
 Christ offer their own prayers for men to God : and that it 
 is good and profitable suppliantly to invoke them, and to fly 
 to their prayers, help, and assistance, for obtaining benefits 
 from God." Now Paul, in the first text cited, besought his 
 brethren, then living, "to strive together with him in their 
 prayers TO GOD for him (Paul) ;" and in Job we read that 
 the Lord said, " Take unto you now seven bullocks and seven 
 rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves 
 a burnt-offering, and my servant Job shall pray for you : for 
 him will I accept." In both these instances prayers were to 
 be made directly to GOD, and there is not the most distant 
 allusion to any intermediate departed saint, whose help, 
 prayers, and assistance were directed to be invoked. Mutual 
 prayers for the living are in these texts expressly sanctioned 
 and encouraged, and accordingly, do all classes of Protestants 
 use such intercessory prayers. A prayer to God to assist a 
 living suffering brother on earth is very different to offering 
 up a prayer to a being who, the supplicant takes for granted, 
 is reigning with Christ, and can hear his prayers, and who 
 will offer up those prayers to God, that the saints will " fly 
 to his help and assistance for obtaining benefits from God, 
 by his Son Jesus Christ." Dr. Milner may succeed in 
 throwing dust into the eyes of his correspondent Mr. Brown, 
 of New Cottage ; but he and his admirers must despair of 
 succeeding with any moderately well-informed reader. 
 
 II. Gen. xxxii. 26, xlviii. 16, xviii. 2, Jos. v. 14. The 
 Second class of texts are taken from the Old Testament. 
 
 " That it is lawful and profitable to invoke the prayers of the angels, is plain 
 [Dr. Milner argues], from Jacob's asking and obtaining the angel's blessing, 
 with whom he had mystically wrestled (Gen. xxxii. 26), and from his invoking 
 his own angel to bless Joseph's sons (Gen. xlviii. 16)." (P. 338.) 
 
 How can this sanction the invocation of a departed invisible 
 spirit? Jacob invoked a blessing from one he could touch 
 and see, one with whom he wrestled. It is argued, however, 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 193 
 
 that this was a created angel. But if we turn to the passage, 
 we find as follows : after he wrestled with the angel " Jacob 
 called the place Peniel, for / have seen God face to face, and 
 my life is preserved" (Gen. xxxii. 21 30). 
 
 It is clear from this, that Jacob did not wrestle with a 
 created angel. That we are correct in this interpretation, we 
 find it clearly stated so in 12th chap, of Hosea, 3 5. Ac- 
 cording to Hosea this angel was none other than the LORD 
 himself; and this interpretation might be supported from early 
 Christian writers, if any such testimony were needed. 8 
 
 And then Dr. Milner appeals to the alleged fact, that Jacob 
 "invoked his own angel to bless Joseph's sons" (Gen. xlviii. 16) . 
 
 The text is as follows : " And he blessed Joseph, and said, 
 God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, 
 the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the 
 angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." Here 
 it is asserted that Jacob invoked his own angel. He did not 
 invoke any angel. It was a prayer that the angel who re- 
 deemed him should bless his sons. Romanists do not pretend 
 that angels are redeemers ; such an assertion would be pre- 
 posterous, and contrary to their authorized teaching. The 
 redeeming Angel was no other than the " Angel of the Cove- 
 nant," the second Person of the Trinity, in which the LORD 
 has pleased to reveal himself to us. And this interpretation, 
 also, is borne out by the primitive writers; among others, we 
 might specially name Eusebius, b who declared that the angel 
 spoken of by Jacob was God the Son. 
 
 Jacob clearly speaks of God as the Angel, and the Angel 
 as God ; being the Angel or Messenger of the Covenant, God 
 manifested to man. And observe, he does not speak of this 
 angel as Michael, Gabriel, or other created 'being; but of the 
 Lord himself, who appeared to him agreeably to the revelation 
 of God himself recorded in a previous chapter (Gen. xxxi. 11), 
 and thus communicated by the Patriarch to Rachel and Leah. 
 " And the Angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, 
 Jacob; and I said, Here am -I. And he said .... /am the 
 God of Bethel where thou anointedst the pillar, and vowedst 
 a vow unto me." The angel whose blessing he desired for 
 the lads was the God to whom he had vowed a vow in Bethel, 
 the Lord himself. 
 
 Then again, Dr. Milner instances the fact " of the three 
 angels who permitted Abraham to bow himself to the ground 
 
 a Clem. Alexandrini Psedagogus, lib. i. p. 110. Paris, 1641. Chrysostom. 
 in cap. xlviii., Gen. Horn. Ixvi., torn. iv. p. 731. Paris, 1835. 
 b Demonst. Evan. lib. v. cap. 10. 
 c See Tyler's "Prim. Christian Worship," p. 40. London, 1847. 
 
194 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 before them" (Gen. xviii. 2), which, he says, if a sin, they 
 were guilty of a crime, as was the other angel before whom 
 Joshua fell on his face and worshipped (Jos. v. 14) . 
 
 These two texts are introduced to nullify the force of the 
 fact stated in Rev. xix. 10, where the angel refused to permit 
 John to prostrate himself and adore him. "For," continues 
 Dr. Milner, "if the mere act itself, independently of the 
 Evangelist's mistaking him for the Deity, was forbidden, 
 then the angels [in the two texts cited from the Old Testa- 
 ment] were guilty of a crime." The cases are very different. 
 In the former, John thought the angel to be the Lord, but 
 was told by the angel himself that he was a mere creature : 
 " See thou do it not. I am thy fellow servant, and of thy 
 brethren that have the testimony of Jesus : worship God." 
 But no such acknowledgment was made in either of the latter 
 cases. On the contrary, the angel who appeared to Joshua 
 declared himself to be present e{ as captain of the host of the 
 Lord," and commanded Joshua to loose his shoe from off his 
 foot, for the place whereon he stood was holy ; made holy by 
 the presence of the Lord himself, for immediately after we 
 read, " And the Lord said unto Joshua" (cap. vi. .2) . 
 
 In the case of Abraham, there is nothing to show that he 
 considered that the three were other than men, or that he, 
 in the first instance, gave them other that civil respect common 
 in the East, by bowing down. The original Hebrew word, 
 as also the Septuagint translation irpocrtKvvricFtv, or De Sacy's 
 rendering into Latin, se prosternavit, does not convey an act 
 of solemn religious worship. Chrysostom, a who treats of this 
 passage, takes it as a matter of course that Abraham, not 
 knowing who they were, addressed them as men who were 
 passing. It is evident that his acts were simply those of 
 common hospitality usual in the East ; and that he did not 
 worship or invoke, or otherwise treat them as angels ; and 
 therefore this text can make nothing in support of the doctrine 
 it is quoted to uphold. But here, again, the context clearly 
 shows that it was the Lord, the-Angel of the Covenant ; and 
 this view is also clearly maintained by the early Christian 
 writers, and particularly Justin Martyr and Athanasius. b 
 
 These are all the references that are usually made to the 
 Old Testament, and all that Dr. Milner adduces. We now 
 come to the New Testament. He asserts : 
 
 III. Rev. v. 8. " That it is lawful and profitable to invoke the prayers of 
 the angels, is also sufficiently plain, with respect to the saints, from the 
 
 a Chrys. in cap. xviii., Gen. Horn, xli., torn. iv. p. 481. Ben. Ed. Paris, 1836. 
 b Athan. Ep. contra Arian. torn. i. p. 561, &c. Paris, 1698. And Justin 
 Martyr, Dial, cum Trypho, ch. 56, p. 150, &c. Paris, 1742. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 195 
 
 Book of Revelations [Revelation] where the four and twenty elders in heaven 
 are said to have golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of tJie saints. 
 Rev. v. 8." (p. 338). 
 
 The text itself is as follows : 
 
 " And when he (one of the elders referred to in verse 5) had taken the book 
 [which had been sealed with seven seals, which no person could open, v. 3], 
 the four beasts [which were round about the throne of God in heaven, full of 
 eyes, c. iv. 6], and four and twenty elders [which were also round about the 
 throne upon seats clothed in white raiment, with crowns of gold on their 
 heads, c. iv. 4], fell down before the Lamb [which stood in the midst of the 
 elders, as it had been slain, having seven horns, &c., c. v. 6] having every one 
 of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints, 
 and they sang a new song, saying," &c. 
 
 From this text he asserts it to be sufficiently plain that it 
 is lawful and profitable to invoke the prayers of the saints. 
 Granting for one moment that the "odours" in these golden 
 vials are the " prayers of saints" it does not say that they 
 are the prayers of the "saints" on earth offered up to the 
 saints in heaven, or the prayers of the "saints" in heaven 
 for the " saints" on earth, or prayers on behalf of themselves. 
 The prayers of the sinner to the " saints," if Dr. Milner's 
 interpretation be accepted, are in no way contemplated. 
 
 We are not prepared to deny, nor afraid to admit that a 
 created angel is in question, and that the prayers of the 
 righteous are presented, or represented before God by the 
 Angelic Host; a but the text requires many more additional 
 words, to gather from it what Dr. Milner would desire to 
 make out of it as so clear. b 
 
 It is not our province to offer a precise meaning to a text 
 which has been variously interpreted, and of which the Church 
 of Rome has not dared to offer an authoritative explanation. 
 According to Bellarmine's opinion a litigated text can form 
 no ground for establishing a doctrine ; and Dr. Milner is no 
 authorized expounder of Holy Writ where his Church has 
 affixed no dogmatic interpretation, founded on the "unanimous 
 agreement of the Fathers." 
 
 a It is evident, from a comparison of the parallel passages, that the Saviour 
 was not the angel spoken of, inasmuch as the words, " before the Lamb" are 
 quite express. Origen says, " Angelus ejus, perpetuo faciem ccelestis Pairis 
 aspiciens, semper preces ejus in ceelum affert, PER UNICUM PONTIFICEM, summo 
 Deo." Cont. Celsum, lib. viii. p. 401. Cantab. 1658. 
 
 b " That this description gives no support to the Romish theory, will appear 
 from one or two considerations. 1. These living creatures and elders are not 
 the redeemed in glory. They are symbolical or hieroglyph ical personages. 
 2. They are symbolical, not of the church in heaven, but of the universal 
 spiritual church of God on earth. 3. The only doctrine which can be 
 legitimately founded on the passage and it is one which accords with the 
 entire Word of God is, that the church on earth is constantly employed in 
 presenting its petitions to the throne of Jehovah, and that these petitions rise 
 before him as 'the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing 
 to God.' How remote this is from the doctrine of saint- worship, we need not 
 waste words in showing." Edinburgh "Lectureson Popery, "p. 293-4. Ed. 1851. 
 
 o 2 
 
196 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 IV. Luke xv. 10. The only other text that is referred to 
 is brought in sideways as it were, " We know that there is 
 joy before the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. 
 Luke xv. 10." (p. 337.) This is introduced to prove that 
 angels have some cognizance of what is passing on earth ; and 
 hence it is argued that, since the angels both know and take 
 an interest in the actions of persons on earth, they can hear 
 our prayers and act as our intercessors. 
 
 Romanists with exultation point to this text as proof that 
 the angels and saints have cognizance of what transpires on 
 earth ; and, by a system of development peculiar to their 
 theology, they add, if there is joy in the presence of the 
 angels over one sinner that repenteth, they must be directly 
 cognizant of our actions and thoughts; and if so, why may 
 we not reasonably implore their intercession in our behalf? 
 To this we answer, that there is no proof whatever in 
 Scripture that either saints or angels, of their own power, are 
 directly cognizant of what is going on on earth; but that 
 what they do know of us is by a direct revelation from God 
 to them ; and this very text supports this view, as the context 
 will testify. " Then drew near unto him all the publicans 
 and sinners for to hear him. And he spake this parable unto 
 them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if 
 he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in 
 the wilderness, and go after that which is lost until he find 
 it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders 
 rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his 
 friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for 
 I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that 
 likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth 
 more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no 
 repentance," &c.; that is to say, as the man who has found 
 the sheep which was lost calls his friends together, and tells 
 them of the fact that they may rejoice with him, so God 
 proclaims, amid the choirs of the angels and of the saints in 
 heaven, what they were previously ignorant of, namely, that 
 some poor sinner has repented ; and then they rejoice, not 
 because they see what is done upon earth, but because they 
 are told by Him who has no pleasure in the death but in the 
 repentance of his peopled 
 
 This view of the subject is not restricted to Protestants 
 alone ; we have the opinion of the great schoolman and divine 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, Gabriel Biel, who lays it 
 down, First, that " saints in heaven, by their natural know- 
 
 a This interpretation is given by Scott, Doddridge, Fulke, &c. 
 
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 197 
 
 ledge, which is the knowledge of things in their proper kind, 
 know no prayers of ours that are here upon earth, neither 
 mental nor vocal, by reason of the immoderate distance that 
 is betwixt us and them." Secondly, that "it is 110 part of 
 their essential beatitude that they should see our prayers or 
 our actions in the eternal world ;" and Thirdly, that "it is 
 not altogether certain whether it do appertain to their 
 accidental felicity to see our prayers :" and concludes, "from 
 whence it may seem probable, that although it do not follow 
 necessarily upon the saints' beatitude that they should hear 
 our prayers of congruity, yet it may seem probable that God 
 revealeth unto them all those suits which men present unto 
 them." a 
 
 Augustine, moreover, considered that this question was by 
 no means easy of determination, " Whether at all, or how far, 
 or after what manner, the spirits of the dead were acquainted 
 with the things that concerned us here." b He, no doubt, had 
 in view the warning of St. Paul on this very subject, namely, 
 not to intrude into those things which he had not seen. c 
 
 But what need have we to drink from " broken cisterns" 
 which hold no water, when we have the express testimony 
 from the fountain-head that "the dead know nothing more; 
 neither have any part in this world, and in the work that is 
 done under the sun." d 
 
 a "Dicendum quod sancti in Patria qui de facto in ccelis sunt, naturali 
 cognitione pura vespertina, quse est cognitio rerum in proprio genere, nullas 
 orationes nostrum in terra consistentium, neque mentales, neque vocales cog- 
 noscunt, propter immoderatam distantiam inter nos et ipsos. 
 
 "Non est de ratione beatitudinis essentialis ut nostras orationes, aut alia 
 facta nostra, matutina cognitione videant in verbo. 
 
 " Utrum autem videre nostras orationes pertineat ad eorum beatitudinem 
 accidentalem, non per omnia certum est. 
 
 " Unde probabiliter dicitur, quod licet non necessarib sequitur ad sanctorum 
 beatitudinem, ut orationes nostras audiant de congruo ; tamen Deus eis revelat 
 omnia, quae ipsis ab hominibus offeruntur." Gab. Biel in Canone Missae. 
 Lect. 31, Lugdun. 1527 ; and see Birckbeck's "Protestant's Evidence," vol. ii. 
 p. 249. London, 1849. 
 
 b "Respondeo magnam quidem esse quaestionem verum vel quatenus, vel 
 quomodo, ea quae circa nos aguntur noverint spiritus mortuorum." P. 1221, 
 torn. iv. part 2. Paris, 1681. 
 
 c Col. ii. 18. 
 
 d "Douay Version of Eccl. ix. 5, 6; and see 2 Kings (Douay Version, 
 iv. book) xxii. 20, and Job xiv. 21, to the like effect. To the text from Eccle- 
 siastes, the Douay Bible has this important note : 'Know nothing more, viz., 
 as to the transactions of this world, in which they have now no part unless it 
 be revealed to them.' The question, then, that naturally suggests itself is, if the 
 departed know nothing of what is done under the sun, unless it be revealed to 
 them, is it not a manifest absurdity to pray to them for their intercession to 
 God on our behalf when these very prayers must first be revealed to them 
 by God himself?" " Komanism in England Exposed," 2nd edit. pp. 4244. 
 London, 1851. 
 
198 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 SECT. V. Dr. Milner's Proofs founded on Tradition, and his Alleged 
 Patristic Evidence Examined. 
 
 WITH these texts Dr. Milner closes his evidence derived 
 from Scripture ; and we now proceed to his alleged proofs 
 derived from the early Christian writers. Dr. Milner's words 
 are many, but his proofs are few. He says : 
 
 " The Church derived her doctrine on this and other points immediately 
 from the Apostles before any part of the New Testament was written. The 
 tradition was so ancient and universal, that all those Eastern churches which 
 broke off from the central Church of Rome, a great many ages before Protes- 
 tantism was heard of [or Martin Luther either, we presume], perfectly agree 
 with her in honouring and invoking the angels and saints." P. 338. 
 
 These are bold words, but alas ! unsupported by any proofs, 
 though an attempt is made; and they are summed up in a 
 few hurried references as follows : 
 
 " With respect to our opinion, as to the earliest date of prayers to saints, I 
 may refer you to the writings of St. Irenaeus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, 
 who introduces the Blessed Virgin praying for Eve (Contra Haeres. iv. c. 19) ; 
 to the apology of his contemporary St. Justin the Martyr, who says, ' We 
 venerate and worship the angelic host and the spirits of the prophets, teaching 
 others as we ourselves have been taught' (Apol. 2 prope init.) ; and to the 
 light of the fourth century, St. Basil, who expressly refers these practices to 
 the Apostles, where he says, ' I invoke the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs 
 to pray for me, that God may be merciful to me and forgive me my sins. I 
 honour and reverence their images, since these things have been ordained by 
 tradition from the Apostles, and are practised in all our Churches' (Epist. 205, 
 torn. iii. edit. Paris). You will agree with me that I need not bring down 
 lower than the fourth age of the Church her devotion to the Saints." 8 
 
 We will examine these references in the order given. 
 
 I. St. Irenceus, the disciple of Polycarp, we are told, " in- 
 troduces the Blessed Virgin praying for Eve." There is no 
 passage in Irenaeus to justify any such assertion. The passage 
 alluded to has been most ably examined and vindicated by 
 the late Rev. J. E. Tyler, in his invaluable work, "The 
 Worship of the Virgin." 5 Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons, 
 A.D. 180. The passage referred to is as follows : 
 
 "As Eve was seduced to fly from God, so was the Virgin Maiy induced to 
 obey him, that she might become the advocate of her that had fallen." 
 
 Irenaeus wrote in Greek ; the original is lost, and we have 
 only a Latin translation. It is useless, therefore, to speculate 
 on what the writer intended to convey by this passage. The 
 word used in Latin is advocata. 
 
 It is difficult to see how the circumstance of Mary becoming 
 the advocate of Eve, who lived so many generations before 
 her, to whom Eve neither prayed nor invoked, can bear upon 
 the question, whether is it lawful and right for us, now 
 
 a Letter xxxv. p. 353. 
 
 b London, 1851, pt. Hi. sec. iii. p. 157, et seq. 
 
 c Lib. v. c. xix. p. 316. Bened. edit. Paris. 
 
1REN.EUS PERVERTED. 199 
 
 dwelling on the earth, to invoke those saints whom we believe 
 to be in heaven.* The most that Dr. Milner can make of 
 this passage is, that the Virgin Mary is occupied in heaven 
 offering up prayers for Eve. This is not the question at 
 issue. But suppose departed saints do pray for us in heaven, 
 that can be no warranty for us to pray to them that they may 
 pray to God for us, or that they can hear our prayers. That 
 Irenaeus had no such idea as is pretended to be conveyed is 
 evident; for, first, he believed that the souls of the just were 
 not admitted into the presence of the " Beatific Vision" until 
 after the day of Judgment, and that the souls of those go 
 into unseen places assigned to them by God, and there remain 
 till the resurrection, afterwards receiving again their bodies, 
 and rising perfectly, that is, bodily; even as the Lord also 
 rose again, so will they come again into the presence of God. b 
 He made no exception in favour of the Virgin Mary, while 
 the Council of Trent requires that the Saint should be actually 
 reigning with Christ. Secondly, even long after her death the 
 Blessed Virgin was prayed for, and not prayed to, under the 
 supposition that this consummation of happiness was not yet 
 attained by the saints : Irenseus could not have considered 
 the Virgin his advocate in the modern Roman sense. And 
 thirdly, Irenseus himself leaves us no room to doubt as to his 
 belief in the efficacy of invocation of saints and angels. For 
 example, he writes : 
 
 "Nor does it [the Church] do anything by invocation of angels, nor by 
 incantations, nor other depraved and curious means ; but, with cleanliness, 
 purity, and openness, directing prayers to the Lord who made all things, and 
 calling upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, it exercises its powers for 
 the benefit and not for the seducing of mankind." 
 
 II. Dr. Milner takes care not to lose a chance of parading 
 names in the ranks of witnesses, hoping thereby to induce his 
 credulous readers to imagine that all equally bear the same 
 evidence in his favour. Irenceus, he tells, was the disciple of 
 Poli/carp, and from this he would infer that he derived this 
 doctrine of Invocation of Saints, and of the Virgin from Poly- 
 carp, and thus enjoyed Apostolic sanction. We will here 
 again follow Mr. Tyler : Polycarp suffered martyrdom by 
 fire, at a very advanced age, in Smyrna, about one hundred 
 and thirty years after our Saviour's death. Only one epistle 
 from this holy man's pen has survived. It is addressed to 
 the Philippians, and in it he speaks to his brother Christians 
 
 a See Tyler's "Christian Primitive Worship," pt. 1, c. iv. p. 120. London, 
 1847. 
 
 b Iren. Adv. Haer. lib. v. c. 36. 
 
 c Betied. edit. Paris, 1710. Lib. ii. c. 42, seu. v. p. 166, quoted by Mr. 
 Tyler. 
 
200 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 of prayer constant, incessant prayer : but the prayer of which 
 he speaks is supplication only to God ; to any other religious 
 invocation he never alludes. In this epistle he admonishes 
 virgins how they ought to walk with a spotless and chaste 
 conscience, but he makes no mention of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 It would not be out of place here to advert briefly to the 
 epistle generally received as the genuine letter from the 
 Church of Smyrna to the neighbouring churches, narrating 
 the martyrdom of Polycarp. With some variations from the 
 copy generally circulated, the letter is preserved in the works 
 of Eusebius. On the subject of our present research its 
 evidence is not merely negative : it purports to contain not 
 only the sentiments of the contemporaries of Polycarp who 
 witnessed his death, and dictated the letter, but also the very 
 words of the martyr himself in the last prayer which he ever 
 offered on earth. So far from countenancing the invocation 
 of any being save God alone, or relying upon any one's 
 advocacy and intercession except only Christ's, the letter 
 contains a very remarkable and very interesting passage 
 which bears directly against all exaltation of a mortal into an 
 object of religious worship. A few extracts must suffice : 
 
 " The Church of God which is in Smyrna, to the Church in Philomela, and 
 to all branches of the holy Catholic Church dwelling in any place, mercy, 
 peace, and love of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied." a 
 
 Before his death Polycarp offered this prayer, or rather 
 this thanksgiving, to God, for his mercy in deeming him 
 worthy to suffer death for the truth : 
 
 " Father of thy beloved and blessed Son, Jesus Christ, by whom we have 
 received our knowledge concerning thee, the God of Angels and power, and 
 of the whole creation, and of the whole family of the just who live before thee ; 
 I bless thee because thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and this hour, to 
 receive my portion among the number of the Martyrs in the cup of Christ, to 
 the resurrection both of soul and body in the incorruption of the Holy Ghost ; 
 among whom may I be received before thee this day in a rich and acceptable 
 sacrifice, even as thou the true God who canst not lie, foreshowing and 
 fulfilling, hast beforehand prepared. For this, and for all, I praise thee, I bless 
 thee, I glorify thee, through the eternal High-priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved 
 Son, through whom, to thee, with Him in the Holy Ghost, be glory both now 
 and for future ages. Amen." 
 
 Having described his death, and the anxiety of his friends 
 to get possession of the remains of his body, the narrative 
 proceeds : 
 
 " Some one then suggested to Nicetes to entreat the governor not to give up 
 his body, lest, said he, leaving the crucified One, they should begin to worship 
 him ; and this they said at the suggestion and importunity of the Jews, who 
 also watched us when we would take the body from the fire. This they did, 
 not knowing that we can never either leave Christ, who suifered for the 
 
 a Euseb. Paris, 1628, book i. hist. iv. c. xv. p. 163. 
 
JUSTIN MARTYR MISQUOTED. 201 
 
 salvation of all who will be saved in all the world, or worship any other. For 
 him, being the Son of God, we worship ; but the Martyrs, as disciples and 
 imitators of our Lord, we worthily love because of their pre-eminent good will 
 towards their own King and Teacher, with whom may we become partakers 
 and fellow-disciples." 
 
 In this relic of primitive antiquity \ve have the prayer of 
 a holy Martyr at his last hour, offered to God alone, through 
 Christ alone. Here we find no allusion to any other inter- 
 cessor; no commending "of the dying Christian's soul to the 
 Virgin. Here also we find that Christians offered religious 
 worship to no one but the Lord ; while they loved the Martyrs, 
 and kept their names in grateful remembrance, honouring 
 even their ashes when the spirit had fled. Polycarp pleads 
 no other merits, he seeks no intercession, he prays for no 
 aid, save only his Redeemer's. 
 
 III. The second reference is to Justin Martyr, who is 
 represented as saying, " We venerate and worship the angelic 
 host, and the spirits of the Prophets, teaching others as we 
 ourselves have been taught;" and our search for the original 
 passage is not aided by being referred to the Second instead 
 of the First Apology, as arranged in old editions of Justin. 
 Surely, will the reader uninitiated in Romish management ex- 
 claim, this is something to the point, and worthy of attention ; 
 for it shows that Justin Martyr attests that the Christians 
 of his time, only forty years after the death of St. John the 
 Apostle, venerated and worshipped both the angelic host and 
 the spirits of the departed prophets ; nay, more, attests that 
 they had been taught so to do by their predecessors, which 
 brings the testimony up to the very lifetime of St. John ! 
 
 What, however, will our good readers think of the honesty 
 and accuracy of Dr. Milner, who thus tries to end controversy 
 on the subject, when we show them, by reference to the 
 original, which Dr. Milner avoids, of course, that the passage 
 is not only a grossly garbled one, but clearly mistranslated, 
 and that Justin Martyr, in fact, never said any such thing as 
 Dr. Milner imputes to him. 
 
 The passage referred to, and intended to be cited by Dr. 
 Milner, occurs in Justin's First Apology ; where, having stated 
 that the Christians could never be induced to worship the 
 demons whom the heathens worshipped and invoked, he 
 proceeds thus : 
 
 "Whence also we are called Atheists (men without God) ; and we confess 
 that, with regard to such supposed gods, we are Atheists ; but not so with 
 regard to the most true God, the Father of justice and temperance and of the 
 other virtues without any mixture of evil. But both HIM and the SON, who 
 came from Him and taught these things to us, and the host of the other good 
 angels accompanying and made like to Him and the Prophetic Spirit, we 
 reverence and worship, honouring them in reason and truth ; and, without 
 
202 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 grudging, delivering the doctrine to every one who is willing to learn as we 
 were taught." 8 
 
 Now, whatever doubt a Greek scholar might possibly 
 entertain as to the true translation of this passage in other 
 respects (as to which we shall say a word presently) , how any 
 man of Milner's pretensions could have dared to transmute 
 IINEYMA TO TrpotyrjTiKov (the prophetic spirit of God, wor- 
 shipped by the primitive Christians, as He is still, as the 
 third person of the Blessed Trinity), into the disembodied 
 spirits of the prophets, is somewhat amazing ! But what will 
 not those who value short-lived victory more than permanent 
 truth venture upon, in the vain hope that the ignorance of 
 their readers may save them from the exposure they merit ? 
 
 We admit that there is some ambiguity in the other part 
 of the passage, and are aware, as Dr. Milner must also have 
 been, that the ablest critics in the Roman Church are much 
 divided as to the proper translation of the clause relating to 
 the angels ; some translating it as we do, " Him [God] arid 
 His Son who came from Him, and taught us and the army 
 of good angels those things, and the Holy Spirit we venerate 
 and adore ; " and others, " Him and His Son who came from 
 Him, and taught us those things, and the army of good 
 angels and the Holy Spirit, we venerate and adore." The 
 former making the word " taught " govern the words, " the 
 army of the other good angels/' while the latter makes the 
 words, " revere and worship " govern the word, " angels/' 
 Supposing, however, each of these constructions to be possible 
 grammatically ; that the latter cannot be the true interpre- 
 tation, will, we think, be clear to any one who plainly and 
 closely considers the matter. To suppose it, would be to 
 impute to Christians the practice of paying to the host of 
 angels, the selfsame reverence, worship, and honour, which 
 we pay to the Holy Trinity, the Supreme Father, His ever 
 blessed Son, and the Holy Spirit, and even placing the angels 
 before the third Person of the Trinity. All will revolt from 
 such an interpretation, as not only impious, but contrary to 
 
 H Tow d\r]9fffTaTOV Kal TTarpof StKaioavvriG Kal owfypoavvriQ .... a\V 
 tKflvov Tf Kal rbv Trap' avrov Tibv fXOovra, Kai diddZavra rjp-d<; ravTCt, 
 KOI TOV rwv aXXwv iiron'tvMv Kai (^ofioiovfitvcjv dyaO&v ayyk\wv orpardv, 
 Hviv}id rt TO TrpofoiTiKov <TE/3o/i0a cai irpoGKvv&iLtv. Apol. i. sec. vi. p. 47, 
 Bened. edit, by P. Maran. Paris, 1742. 
 
 "Et confitemur quidem nos talium qui habentur Deorura esse expertes et 
 atheos, sed non verissimi illius Dei ; Patris videlicet justitise et temperantise 
 et virtutum aliarum ; verum hunc ipsum et qui ab eo venit, atque haec nos et 
 aliorum sequentium et assimilatorum bonorum angelorum exercitum docuit 
 Filiurn et Spiritum Propheticurn colimus et adoramus, cum ratione et veritate 
 venerantes, atque unicuique discere volenti et edocti sumus candide tradcntes." 
 Justin. Martyr, Apologia Priraa, p. 11, cum riotis Thirlbii, 1722. 
 
JUSTIN MARTYR MISQUOTED. 203 
 
 % 
 
 the principles professed by the most celebrated Roman Ca- 
 tholic writers ; and every candid man must, we think, admit, 
 that if Justin Martyr had intended to represent the holy 
 angels as objects of religious worship (which in no other 
 passage of his writings is there the slightest trace of), he 
 would have selected some more appropriate place for so stating, 
 and would not so violently have thrust the mention of them 
 among the Persons of the ever blessed Trinity, assigning to 
 them a place between the second and third Persons of the 
 eternal hypostatic union. 
 
 Feeling this strongly, and anxious to avoid the charge of 
 impiety, some writers (and, among others, the Benedictine 
 editor of Justin) a have attempted to draw a distinction be- 
 tween the two verbs in this passage, " reverence and worship ;" 
 alleging that the lower degree of " reverence " expressed by 
 the latter, applies to the angels; whilst the former verb, 
 implying the higher degree of worship, alone relates to the 
 Godhead. But this distinction rests on a false assumption ; for 
 the two words (o-fj3o/i0a) we reverence, and (irpoativvov^v) 
 ive worship, are used equally to convey the idea of the highest 
 religious worship, as is familiar to every scholar who has 
 studied the Septuagint and the Greek Testament. b 
 
 In determining the true meaning of an obscure passage 
 grammatically susceptible of two different acceptations, the 
 author himself is often his own best interpreter; and if he 
 has expressed, in another place, the same leading sentiment 
 without the same obscurity, and free from all doubt, surely 
 the light borrowed from that passage ought to be used to fix 
 the sense of the ambiguous one and establish the author's 
 consistency ? 
 
 Now, Justin, in the very same treatise, a few passages 
 further on, again defends the Christians against the same 
 charge of being Atheists, and on the selfsame ground first, 
 " that they worship the Father, who is Maker of all ; secondly, 
 the Son, proceeding from Him; and, thirdly, the Holy 
 Ghost." In both cases he refers to the same attributes of 
 the Son as the teacher of Christian truth, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, as the Prophetic Spirit. The following extracts are 
 the only parts necessary for our present purpose " Who of 
 sound mind will not confess that we are not Atheists, 
 reverencing, as we do, the Maker of the universe ; and Him 
 who taught us true things and who was born for this 
 purpose Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate 
 
 a Opera Justin. Paris, 1742 ; Praefat. pars ii. cap. iv. p. 22. 
 b Exod. xxxiv. 14 ; Ps. xciv. (xcv.) 6 ; 1 Sam. (1 Kings) xv. 25 ; 2 Kings 
 (4 Kings) xvii. 36; Heb. i. 6; Acts xviii. 7, 13, xix. 27. 
 
204 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 instructed, as we are, that He is the son of the true God, 
 and holding Him in the second place; and the Prophetic 
 Spirit in the third order we, with reason, honour."* In 
 which passage he makes no mention or allusion whatever to 
 the angels, either before or after the Holy Spirit. 
 
 We would also, in confirmation of this view, refer our 
 readers to another passage in the same treatise, No. 17, in 
 which Justin distinctly says, " We adore God alone " (Qebv 
 
 jUaV fJLOVOV TrpOGKVVOVfJLtv}. 
 
 We have no doubt, therefore, that the true meaning of 
 the passage cited in so unfair and garbled a manner (to say 
 the least of it) by Dr. Milner, in his " End of Controversy/' 
 is as follows " Honouring in reason and truth, we reverence 
 arid worship Him, the Father of Righteousness, and the Son 
 (who proceeds from Him ; and instructed in those things both 
 ourselves, and the host of the true good angels following Him, 
 and made like unto Him), and the Prophetic Spirit" in 
 which interpretation we follow the learned Grabe and Langus, 
 entitled the interpreter of Justin, and other eminent writers. 
 
 We have now, we think, at least, said enough to satisfy 
 our readers that Dr. Milner's version of the passage is not 
 to be depended on, and that Justin Martyr cannot be con- 
 sidered an authority for the invocation of angels. As to the 
 invocation of saints, there is not a suggestion, we venture to 
 assert, from one end of his work to the other . d 
 
 IV. The third and last reference is to St. Basil, in the 
 passage as given above. In the foot note we are referred to 
 " Epist. 205, t. [torn.] iii. Edit. Paris ; " no doubt meaning 
 the Benedictine Edition, but Dr. Milner avoids giving any 
 page. 
 
 St. Basil, Bishop of Neocassarea, died about A.D. 378. All 
 Christians, whether in the earliest ages from his own times, 
 or in more modern days, have agreed to do his memory 
 honour ; he is often appealed to under the title of the great 
 teacher of truth, and acquired the name of the Great Basil, 
 in contradistinction to the multitude of bishops and pastors of 
 the same name who succeeded him in other times, and were 
 fully forty in number. We need scarcely be surprised, there- 
 
 a Bened. ed. Paris, p. 51. 
 
 b Bened. ed. p. 54. 
 
 c See S. Justini Apologia Prima cuin Latina Joannis Langi versione. Edit. 
 a J. E. Grabe, Oxoniae, 1700, p. 11. Any one who desires to investigate 
 the matter further will do well to consult Bishop Kaye's excellent work on 
 Justin Martyr, p. 53 (Second edition, London, 1836); and Mr. Tyler's 
 "Primitive Christian Worship," p. 107 to 114. London, 1847. 
 
 d For these observations on the passage in question we are indebted to " The 
 Catholic Layman." Dublin, 1852, July, p. 85. 
 
BASIL FORGED. 205 
 
 fore, to find many confessedly spurious works ascribed to 
 him ; and the world is deeply indebted to the labours of the 
 learned Benedictine editor, M. Julian Gamier, who has done 
 so much towards the separation of the supposititious from 
 the genuine works of this eminent writer. 
 
 In vol. iii., p. 69, Bened. Ed., Paris, 1730, the epistles 
 attributed to St. Basil are arranged in three classes. First, 
 those written by St. Basil before he was made bishop, A.D. 
 370; second, those which he wrote after he was bishop of 
 Ceesarea, between 370 and 378; third, those without date, 
 including many doubtful, and some spurious. 
 
 In page 462, vol. iii., appears one addressed to Julian the 
 Apostate, numbered by the Benedictine editor 360, but 
 originally printed as No. 205 the very epistle referred to 
 by Dr. Milner. 
 
 It is unhesitatingly ranked by the learned Benedictines, 
 not merely as doubtful, but spurious; and no one, we appre- 
 hend, could open the book without at once noticing that it 
 is so for at the top of the page in which it occurs, are the 
 words, printed in large capitals S. BAS. C^SARE^E CAPPADOC. 
 ARCHIEP. EPISTOL^ SPURTS. See page 462, torn. iii. Bene- 
 dict., Paris, 1730. 
 
 The epistle in question is also specially condemned, and 
 the reasons given in the life of St. Basil prefixed to the same 
 work (c. viii. p. 63). 
 
 Now, what is this 205th epistle but the very one to Julian 
 the Apostate? And, we ask, did the Rev. Dr. Milner, who 
 wrote in 1802, ever take the trouble of reading the epistle 
 he thus quotes, or of looking at what the Benedictine editors, 
 who wrote seventy years before, said of its undoubted spuri- 
 ousness ? 
 
 If Dr. Milner had the Benedictine edition before him when 
 he wrote, we must pronounce him guilty of actual dishonesty, 
 in concealing the fact that deprived the quotation of any 
 authority ; if he had not, what rashness was it for a man to 
 suppose that he was ending controversy, when he did not 
 even take the pains of knowing what the best writers of his 
 own faith had written before him on the principal authority 
 he relied on ! 
 
 Truly, we cannot but be astonished at the risks which con- 
 troversialists of the Church of Rome will run, when attempt- 
 ing to trace back the present practices of their Church to 
 the times of our Lord and his Apostles; and whatever judg- 
 ment our candid Roman Catholic readers may form of the 
 fairness or the learning of Dr. Milner, we think they must 
 admit that the authorities relied on by such writers require 
 
206 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 to be examined into with the utmost caution, before they 
 allow themselves to adopt them as proofs that the modern 
 doctrines of their Church agree with those of the Catholic 
 antiquity of the primitive ages. a 
 
 SECT. VI. The Genuine Testimony of the Fathers Adduced. 
 
 HAVING examined, seriatim, all Dr. Milner's authorities 
 from the early Christian writers in support of his case, we 
 have now only to supply evidence omitted by Dr. Milner. 
 
 " To invoke the saints suppliantly," b as recommended or 
 enjoined by the Council of Trent, is, in plain English, to call 
 on the saints in our prayers, or to pray to them ; and that 
 prayer to any unseen being involves religious worship, we 
 think will scarcely be controverted by the most zealous 
 advocate of the Church of Rome. Whether the prayers be 
 to them as intercessors merely, or as the direct dispensers of 
 grace, assistance, and safety; or whether they amount to 
 what the Church of Rome attempts to distinguish as Latria, 
 or not without doubt such prayers are an act of religious 
 worship, very different in kind from any mere honour or 
 petition offered to any fellow -creature on earth, however 
 elevated in power or rank. 
 
 That the Fathers thought prayer a mode of addressing 
 God alone, is proved by numberless passages in which they 
 uniformly define it with express reference to God and no 
 other. 
 
 Tertullian, A.D. 190, says in his Apology for the Chris- 
 tians of his time : 
 
 "Those things I may not pray for from any other, but from Him of whom I 
 know I shall obtain them ; because, both it is He who is alone able to give, 
 and I am he unto whom it appertaineth to obtain that which is requested, 
 being his servant, who observe Him alone. " c 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, A.D. 200, defines prayer by its 
 relation to God : 
 
 " Since there is but one good God, both we and angels pray to Him alone 
 that those good things may be given us which we want, and those continued 
 which we have." d 
 
 a We are also indebted for these observations to "The Catholic Layman," July, 
 1854, p. 84 ; and see Bp. Hopkins's " Refutation," vol. ii. p. 100. 
 
 b " Bonum atque utile suppliciter eos invocare et ob beneficia impetranda 
 a Deo, ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugere." 
 
 c Apologeticus adversus Gentes, cap. xxx. p. 67, ed. Rigalt. Paris, 1635. 
 
 d "O0fv tiKOTwg kvb^ OVTO T ayaOs Qtov Traoct avrs p,6va rS)v ayaOwv 
 TO. [lev SoOfjvai TO, dk Trapafitlvai iv%6[.if9a i'i/.tti(; Tt Kcti 01 ayyfXoi. 
 Strom. 1. 7, p. 853, Opera, ed. Potteri. Oxon. 1715. 
 
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 207 
 
 So Origen, A.D. 230, in his writings against Celsns (who 
 had said of the demons that they belong to God, and in that 
 respect were to be prayed to, that they may be favourable 
 to us), thus replies : 
 
 "Away with Celsus's counsel, saying, that we must pray to demons; for 
 we must pray to him who is God over all ; and we must pray to the Word of 
 God, his only begotten Son, and the first-born of all creatures ; and we must 
 entreat him, that he, as High Priest, would present our prayer to his God and 
 our God."* 
 
 " Prayer," says St. Basil, A.D. 370, " is a request of some 
 good thing, which is made by pious men unto God." b 
 
 " Prayer," says Gregory Nyssen, A.D. 380, " is a conversing, 
 or a conference with God." c 
 
 " Prayer," says St. Chrysostom, A.D. 400, " is a colloquy, 
 or discourse with God." d 
 
 " Prayer," says John Damascen, A.D. 780, " is an ascension 
 of the mind unto God, or a request of things that are fit from 
 God."* 
 
 Now, as the holy Scriptures assuredly do not teach us, any 
 more than the early Fathers, to pray to saints, either as 
 benefactors or intercessors, the next question is, what did 
 the early Fathers think of invocation ? Did they distinguish 
 it from prayer and did they, or not, consider it a form of 
 worship properly due to God only ? 
 
 We need not here go back even so far as the third century, 
 for the great St. Athanasius, in the fourth century, is con- 
 clusive on the matter : 
 
 "We are," says he, "truly worshippers of God ; 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 himself, 
 and God, and Saviour. " f 
 
 So Novatian, a presbyter of the Roman Church, in the 
 third century, argues that Christ is God, because he is every- 
 where invoked : 
 
 "If Christ was only a man, how, when invocated, is lie everywhere present ; 
 for omnipresence is the nature not of man, but of God?"*? 
 
 So St. Ambrose, A.D. 390, in his funeral oration on the 
 Emperor Theodosius, says : 
 
 8 Origen, Cont. Cels., lib. viii., Oper. torn. i. Bened. ed., p. 761. Paris, 1733. 
 
 b Basil. Orat. in Julittam Martyr., Op. torn. ii. p. 35. 
 
 c Greg. Nyssen., Orat. i., de Oratione. 
 
 d Chrysost. in Genes., Homil. 30, Op. torn. i. p. 301 ; vide same, lib. i., De 
 Orando Dom. Op. torn. ii. p. 778. 
 
 e Damascen. de Fide Orthodox., lib. iii. c. xxiv. 
 
 f AXXa a\r)9(t} OtofftfBtiG, on fjirjdfva TWV ytwrjTMV, ftr) fit KOIVOV riva 
 avGowTrov, a\\a rov eic Qtov Qvafi Kai a\r)0ivov Bfou Tiov f7riKaXov/i0. 
 Athan. Contr. Ar. Orat. iii. Op. torn. i. p. 582, Ben. ed. Paris, 1698. 
 
 "Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest ubique invocatus, cum 
 hsec hominis natura non sit sed Dei, ut adesse omni loco possit. Si homo 
 
208 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 " Thou alone art to be invocated, Lord ; thou art to be requested to supply 
 the want of him in his son." a 
 
 A.D. 180, in his second book against heretics, 
 says : 
 
 "As the Church has freely received from the Lord, so does she freely 
 minister ; nor does she do anything by invocation of angels, nor by incantations, 
 but purely and manifestly directs her prayers to God who made all, and calls 
 upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 So Origen (cont. Cels. lib. v., p. 580, opera, Benedict. Ed. 
 Paris, 1733) says : 
 
 pe 
 
 know so little about them, were itself irrational ; but, even on the supposition 
 that we were ever so well acquainted with such mysterious wonders, still this 
 very supposed knowledge, while it was setting forth their nature and their 
 respective offices, would forbid us presumptuously to pray to any other than 
 the all-sufficient Deity, through the Son of God our Saviour." 
 
 We shall merely add here the Canon of the Council of 
 Laodicea, A.D. 364, the decrees of which were received and 
 approved of by the whole Church (cap. 35) : 
 
 "That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart aside 
 and invocate angels ; therefore, if any man be found using this secret idolatry, 
 let him be accursed, because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ." c 
 
 In the epitome of the canons which Pope Adrian delivered 
 to Charles the Great this decree is thus abridged ; 
 
 " Ut anathema sit, quicumque relicta ecclesia angelos colere, vel congrega- 
 tiones facere prsesumpserit." " That whosoever, leaving the Church, did pre- 
 sume to worship angels, or to make meetings, should be accursed." 
 
 This condemnation of prayers to angels as idolatrous was 
 occasioned by a sect of heretics in the fourth century, who, 
 for the purpose of exercising this unlawful worship of praying 
 to angels, held private meetings, separate from those of the 
 
 tantummodo Christxis, cur homo in orationikus mediator invocatur, cum in- 
 vocatio hominis ad praestandam salutem inefficax judicetur." Novat. de Trin., 
 c. xiv. p. 747, Oper. Tertull. Rigalt. Paris, 1635. This treatise was frequently 
 attributed to Tertullian or Cyprian, even in the time of St. Jerome, as he 
 remarks, Catalog. Script. Eccl., c. 81, and Apolog. Cont. Ruffin. lib. ii. 
 Natalis Alexander has shown that the doctrine of this treatise is sound. 
 Hist. Eccl., saec. ii., dissert, ix. art. iv. torn. iii. p. 411. Paris, 1714. 
 
 8 "Sed tamen tu solus, Domine, invocandus es ; tu rogandus, ut eum in 
 filiis reprsesentes." Ambrose, Op. torn. ii. p. 1207, Bened. ed. Paris, 1690. 
 
 b " Nee invocationibus angelicis facit aliquid, nee incantationibus, nee reliqua 
 prava curiositate, sed munde et pure et inanifeste orationes dirigens ad Domi- 
 num, qui omnia fecit, et nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christ! invocans." Advers. 
 Haeres., lib. ii. (c. Ivii.) c. xxxii., ed. Bened., p. 166. Paris, 1710. 
 
 c "On ov dtl XpiffTiavovQ iyKaTa\t'nriiv Ttjv tKK\rjaiav TOV Qtov, Kai 
 cLTri'tvai Kai ayyk\ovQ ovofidZtiv r\ GwafyiQ Troitlv, a?rfp aTTJjyopfurat. 
 Elrig ovv tvptOy Tavry ry KfKpvp.jJLf.vy f/dwXoXarpei^i (7%oXa'wi> tarw 
 avdOffMa' on syicargXiTre TOV Kvpiov tjp,a>v 'Irjcrovv XpiffTov, TOV Tiov TOV 
 Geow, cai t^(tXoXarpfi\t Troo^rjXQtv. Concil. Laod. Can. 35. Pandecta 
 Canonum Apostol. Oxon., 1672, p. 468. 
 
AUGUSTINE EPIPHANIUS. 209 
 
 Church, in which it was not permitted; and no one ever 
 doubted that the Council would have equally condemned, on 
 the same principle, prayers to saints, if such had been prac- 
 tised in their time. 
 
 In all these passages the essential identity of religious 
 invocation and prayer is clearly implied ; and it clearly never 
 entered into the conception of any of these ancient Fathers 
 that we could pray to any beings without worshipping them. 
 
 The very word adoration is obviously taken from adorare, 
 which literally is to pray to. 
 
 Now, would it be possible to show more strongly that it 
 was deemed by the Church of the first, second, third, and 
 fourth centuries, that invocation was a thing proper to God 
 only ; and that it necessarily implied the omnipresence of the 
 being invocated ? which would be obviously to ascribe one 
 of the attributes of Deity to a creature, a thing which could 
 not be done without impiety, or, indeed, idolatry. 
 
 Let us next hear the great St. Augustine, A.D. 400 
 
 "Let not our point of religion be the worship of dead men ; for, though they 
 lived piously, still they are not to be so accounted of, as seeking from us any 
 such honours ; but they rather wish us to worship Him, through whose illumi- 
 nation they rejoice that we should be associates of their merit. They are to be 
 honoured, therefore, on account of imitation, not to be prayed to on account 
 of religion."* 
 
 A further reason for not praying to them might be men- 
 tioned, which no less a writer than Cardinal Cajetan candidly 
 acknowledges, viz.: "That we have no means of certainly 
 knowing whether the saints hear our prayers" (which would 
 destroy, at one blow, the whole system of invoking them), 
 " though," adds the cardinal, " we piously believe this to be 
 the case." 5 Why there should be any piety in believing a 
 thing without any proof either from the holy Scriptures or 
 . the ancient Fathers of the Church, we are at a loss to imagine, 
 unless piety and credulity are to be deemed identical ! 
 
 We would add one more out of many early authorities, 
 that of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in the island of 
 Cyprus, in the fourth century (A.D. 370), who, after censuring, at 
 great length, the Collyridian heretics for invocating the Blessed 
 Virgin as a sort of goddess, and declaring that Christians 
 ought not indecorously to venerate the saints, but rather 
 
 a "Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum. Quia, si pie vixerunt, 
 non sic habentur, ut tales quserant honores : sed ilium a nobis coli volunt, quo 
 illuminante laetantur meriti sui nos esse consortes. Honorandi sunt ergo 
 propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem." August, de Ver. Relig. 
 c. lv., Oper. vol. i. p. 786. Bened. ed. Paris, 1679. 
 
 b "Certa ratione nescimus, an sancti nostra vota cognoscant, quamvis pie 
 hoc credamus." Cajetan in Secundam Secundse Quaest., Ixxxviii. art. 5. Aug. 
 Taur. 1581, p. 411, 
 
210 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Him who is their Sovereign Lord and Master, sums up 
 the whole with the following admonition, which is perhaps 
 scarcely less needed in the present day than it was in the 
 days of the nascent Collyridian heresy : " Let Mary be held 
 in honour; but let the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost be worshipped. As for Mary, let no one worship her."* 
 We think we are now in a position to assert, that the 
 invocation of saints was not the practice of the ancient 
 Church in primitive times, and we cannot but admire the 
 boldness with which Dr. Milner appeals to primitive Chris- 
 tianity, by declaring his willingness to be judged by evidence 
 of writers of those days. It is difficult, indeed, to imagine 
 how any man, who has sworn to abide by the unanimous con- 
 sent of the Fathers, can dare to appeal to Catholic antiquity 
 in justification of praying to any created being, in the face 
 of such authorities as we have above cited. b 
 
 SECT. VII. Dr. Milner 's Inconsistencies and Speculative Theories, in his 
 vain endeavour to make us believe that the Popish Doctrine of Invo- 
 cation of Saints is a " sublime and consoling " doctrine. 
 
 THE Bishop of Durham is quoted by Dr. Milner as taking 
 an objection to the Popish practice of invocating saints. 
 " It is blasphemous to ascribe to angels and saints, by praying 
 to them, the divine attribute of universal presence" [p. 337] . 
 To this Dr. Milner replies, by asking a question in return, 
 how it follows, from his praying to an angel or a saint in any 
 place where he might be, that he necessarily believes the 
 angel or saint to be in that place? The question is a 
 difficult one, but he himself pretends to solve it by supposing 
 " that God is able to reveal to them (saints and angels) the 
 prayers of Christians who address them here on earth." A 
 few lines above this last passage Dr. Milner exclaims against 
 the " extravagance" published by Protestants, of the " Charge 
 of Idolatry against [Roman] Catholics, for desiring them to 
 pray to God for us" [p. 336]. 
 
 Taking these two passages together, it is very evident, that 
 
 a 'Ev Tifiy tGTw Mapiot* 6 fit Ilar^p, icai Yto, /cat "Ayiov Hvv[j.a, Trpoa- 
 KvvtiaOa)' rriv Mdpiav fJLrjddg Trpoo-fcuvtirw. Epiph. Cont. Haer. lib. iii. 
 torn. ii. hser. 79, p. 1064. Paris ed. 1622; Colon. 1682. "Honoretur sane 
 Maria : Pater vero, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus adorentur. Mariam adorare 
 nemo velit." 
 
 b We take this also from "The Catholic Layman," June, 1854 ; see also Scuda- 
 more's " England and Eome," pp. 304408. London, 1855. 
 
 c "Charge in 1810" [p. 13; p. 99 in "Two Charges and a Letter to the 
 Clergy of the Diocese of Durham," &c., ed. 1813, p. 98]. 
 
211 
 
 this controversial champion was not clear in his own mind, 
 whether saints hear the prayers of Christians on earth directly 
 when " they are desired to pray to God for us/' or whether 
 these prayers come to their knowledge indirectly, by being 
 communicated to the saints by God himself. But then Dr. 
 Milner would have to account (which of course he does not) 
 for the apparent absurdity of a Christian praying to a departed 
 saint, that the saint may intercede through Christ to God for 
 certain blessings needed, which prayers are not directly heard 
 by the saint, but are first revealed by God to the particular 
 saint invoked, who, when informed of the fact, in turn prays 
 to God to grant the prayer of the Christian offered through 
 him. This "extravagant" idea is suggested by Dr. Milner 
 himself in. his endeavour to escape a difficulty, and by in- 
 truding into those things which are not, nor ever were, 
 intended to be revealed to us. Cardinal Cajetan admits 
 "that we have no means of certainly knowing whether the 
 saints hear our prayers." a 
 
 This difficulty has puzzled other Romish theologians beside 
 Dr. Milner. Cardinal Bellarmine, in his treatise on the 
 " Beatitude of the Saints" (lib. i. c. 20), writes : " Concerning 
 the manner in which they know what is said to them, there 
 are four opinions among the doctors : 
 
 " 1. Some say that they know them from the relation of the angels who at 
 one time ascend to heaven, and at another time descend thence to us. 
 
 "2. Others say that the souls of the saints, as also the angels, by a certain 
 wonderful swiftness that is natural to them, are in some measure everywhere, 
 and themselves hear the prayers of the supplicants. 
 
 " 3. Others say that the saints see in God all things from the beginning of 
 their beatitude which in any way may appertain to themselves, and hence even 
 our prayers that are directed to them. 
 
 "4. Others say, lastly, that the saints do not see in the Word our prayers 
 from the beginning of their blessedness, but that our prayers are only then 
 revealed to them by God when we pour them forth." 
 
 Thus, then, we find, according to their own admission, the 
 subject is surrounded by uncertainties and difficulties. 
 
 We may be permitted to add here, that Dr. Wiseman, in his 
 Moorfield Lectures/ declares it clear that the saints and 
 angels do know what passes on earth, and that they are 
 aware of what we do and suffer. So much for unity. 
 
 Then again, to complicate matters, particular saints are 
 said to have particular virtues : 
 
 " We firmly hold it to be an article of faith [says the doctor] that angels and 
 saints have no virtue or excellence but what has been gratuitously bestowed 
 upon them by God, for the sake of his incarnate Son, Jesus Christ ; and that 
 
 a In Secundam Secundse Quaest., 88, art. v. Aug. Taur. 1581, p. 411. 
 b Lecture xiii. p. 103, edit. 1851. 
 
 p2 
 
^12 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 they can procure no benefit for us by means of their prayers to the Giver of all 
 good gifts, through their and our common Saviour, Jesus Christ. In short, 
 they do nothing for us mortals, in heaven, but what they did while they were 
 on earth, and what all good Christians are bound to do for each other namely, 
 they help us by their prayers." P. 335. 
 
 The plea is disingenuous : for Romanists know well that 
 the question is concerning unseen and heavenly mediators, 
 not about men like ourselves. We allow it to be a duty of 
 Christians to pray for each other; but there is a great 
 difference between desiring good men to pray for us, in the 
 Gospel sense of that duty, and requesting saints and angels 
 to pray for us, in the meaning of Papal rituals, specimens 
 of which we have already submitted, which are shown to 
 be widely different from the representations of Dr. Milner. 
 Romanists do, in fact, supplicate saints directly, as if they 
 were heard by them, to befriend the supplicant by the saints' 
 own inherent power, to intercede for them at the throne of 
 God by virtue of their personal merits, in blasphemous dero- 
 gation to the all-atoning and incommunicable intercession of 
 the Redeemer the one Advocate between God and man. a 
 
 But supposing Dr. Milner' s theory to be true, what a com- 
 plicated system we should have ! We all know that, under 
 different circumstances, different saints are invoked. Peculiar 
 saints have, according to Romanists, to use Dr. Milner' s own 
 words, peculiar "virtues and excellences which have been 
 bestowed upon them by God." Thus, for instance, St. An- 
 thony, the abbot, secures his votaries from fire; and St. An- 
 thony, of Padua, is the refuge of the timid in times of thunder 
 and war ; St. Blase cures disorders of the throat ; St. Genou, 
 the gout ; St. Lucia heals all diseases of the eyes ; St. Ni- 
 cholas is the patron of young women who desire to be married ; 
 St. Ramon is their powerful protector during pregnancy ; and 
 St. Lazarus assists them when in labour; St. Polonia pre- 
 serves the teeth; St. Domingo cures the fever; and St. Rogue 
 is the saint invoked under apprehensions of the plague. And 
 thus in all diseases, under every pressure of affliction, some 
 saint is accessible by prayer whose peculiar province it is to 
 relieve the object of distress. 6 
 
 Romanism has been termed not inaptly "baptized Pa- 
 ganism;" there is an exact similarity between modern 
 Romanism arid Paganism. The parallel is to be traced here 
 
 a Elliott's " Delin. of Roman Catholicism," p. 768, ed. 1851. 
 
 b See, for further information, Brand's " Popular Antiquities," sess. 29, 
 vol. i. pp. 196-7, ed. 1841. Cramp's " Text Book of Popery," p. 398. London, 
 1851. " Historia Imaginum," autore Jo. Molano, pp. 532 and 504-5, edit. Lo- 
 vanii, 1771. Supplement to Gibson's "Preservative," p. 181, vol. viii. Lon- 
 don, 1850. 
 
213 
 
 also. Pagans assigned to each of their gods the power of 
 curing peculiar diseases ; they prayed to Apollo against the 
 plague ; to Hercules against epilepsy or fits ; to Juno and 
 Lucina in times of pregnancy. 
 
 The Christian Father Arnobius (Cont. Gent. 1 3) formerly 
 taxed the Pagans for forging themselves gods, the one a car- 
 penter, others drapers^ others mariners, fiddlers, cowkeepers ; 
 and to each was assigned a particular occupation. The orators 
 and poets worshipped Apollo, Minerva, and the Muses; the 
 physicians JEsculapius, the soldiers Mars, the blacksmiths 
 Vulcan, the hunters Diana* 
 
 St. Augustine (De Civit. Dei, i. lib. c. 5) writes a whole 
 chapter of the employments men had been pleased to assign 
 their gods, which he thinks the most ridiculous thing ima- 
 ginable. " They cut out," he says, " to every god his task, 
 and according to that distribution, they tell you, you must 
 direct your prayers to each of them according to his office ; 
 does not that look more like the buffoonery of a stage than 
 the majesty of God?" Whatever the absurdity be, the 
 Church of Rome has not scrupled to do the like, assigning to 
 every saint his office ; every one choosing for his patron him 
 whom he believes to preside over his trade or profession, and 
 to whom he flies in times of trouble. The cobbler and jour- 
 neyman shoemaker have St. Crispin, the tanner has St. Cle- 
 ment, the sailor St. Nicholas, and the printer St. John or 
 Daniel, or St. Luke, or St. Jerom, or Augustine, according to 
 the quarter of Europe in which he dwells, though Moses is 
 considered most appropriate. St. Andrew and St. Joseph are 
 the patron saints of carpenters; St. Anthony of swineherds 
 and grocers ; St. Blaise of wool-combers ; St. Catherine of 
 spinners ; St. Cloud of nailsmiths ; St. Eloy of blacksmiths, 
 farriers, and goldsmiths; St. Euloge [who is probably the 
 same with St. Eloy] of smiths, though some say of jockeys; 
 St. Florian of mercers ; St. Francis of butchers ; St. George 
 of clothiers; St. Anne and St. Goodman, sometimes called St. 
 Gutman, of tailors; St. Gore, also called St. Goarin, with the 
 devil on his shoulders and a pot in his hand, of potters ; St. 
 Hilary of coopers ; St. John Port-Latin of booksellers ; St. 
 Josse and St. Urban of ploughmen ; St. Leodagar of drapers ; 
 St. Leonard of locksmiths as well as of captives ; St. Lewis of 
 periwig-makers ; St. Martin of master shoemakers ; St. Ni- 
 cholas of parish clerks, and also of butchers as w^ell as sailors ; 
 St. Peter of fishmongers; St. Sebastian of pinmakers, on 
 account of being stuck with arrows; St. Severies of fullers; 
 
 " See " Roma AntiquaetBecens," by James duPre. London, 1850. Cap. vii. 
 p. 181. 
 
214 AVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 St. Stephen of weavers; St. TMa of falconers; St. Wilfred, 
 St. Hubert j also St. Honor or Honore, of bakers ; St. William 
 of hatinakers ; St. Windeline of shepherds ; and St. Gertrude 
 is pleased to condescend so far as to be the friend of rat- 
 catchers. a 
 
 But of all the saints REGINA MARIA reigns paramount as 
 " Queen of Heaven." Pope Gregory XVI. claimed her as a 
 patroness of peculiar worth. He showed his signal attach- 
 ment to her in his encyclical letter addressed to the Prelates 
 of the Romish Church in 1832, shortly after his assumption 
 of the pontifical dignity. In the beginning of his letter his 
 Holiness observes : 
 
 " We select for the date of onr letter the most joyful day (Feb. 15) on which 
 we celebrate the solemn festival of the most Blessed Virgin's triumphant 
 assumption into heaven, that she, who has been through every great calamity 
 our patroness and protectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our 
 mind by her heavenly influence to those counsels which may prove most 
 salutary to Christ's flock." 
 
 The closing paragraph contains the following sentence : 
 
 " But that all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes 
 to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest 
 hope yea, the entire ground of our hope. May she exert her patronage to draw 
 down an efficacious blessing on our desires, our plans, and our proceedings, in 
 the present straitened condition of the Lord's flock. " b 
 
 This looks very much as if the Pope considered that the 
 Blessed Virgin was not a secondary actor in the matter of 
 our salvation, and we must presume that Roman Catholics 
 take her out of the general list of saints, and place her on a 
 higher and different footing. Now with regard to the patron 
 saints enumerated, does a Roman Catholic pretend to assert 
 with Dr. Milner, that when he addresses his prayers to one 
 of these, he really believes that God has bestowed on that 
 particular saint the peculiar " virtue or excellence " stated to 
 be attributed to him or her, and that on the prayer being 
 offered up by the Christian, the ALMIGHTY seeks out that 
 particular saint endowed with the peculiar "virtue and ex- 
 cellence," and informs him or her of the prayers of the 
 sufferer and his wants, and that this saint in turn, as the 
 special advocate of that peculiar class of sufferers, prays to 
 God as he before did while he was on earth, and then, after 
 
 a Let it not be considered that we are loading our pages with the notice of 
 bygone absurdities. From the aspect of the times, and the tendency mani- 
 fested to club in defence [See "Brit. Protestant," Oct. 1856, p. 171] of mother 
 Church, there is no delusion or folly of former days but may be resuscitated 
 in our own, if it will only subserve the formation of companies and guilds, and 
 make individuals of importance, who before floated about, belonging to nothing 
 out of the common way, besides being in another direction so interesting and 
 so poetical. 
 
 b The Laity's Directory for 1833. 
 
215 
 
 this roundabout process, the supplicant's prayer is rendered 
 efficacious ? To such " extravagance " does this Popish 
 system lead ! 
 
 It is quite a common thing to be told by Roman Catholics 
 that because we Protestants do not practise saint-worship, or 
 appeal to them as our intercessors and advocates, we can 
 neither appreciate nor practically believe, a point in our 
 common creed, the " Communion of Saints." 
 
 We all know that there is a " communion of saints " on 
 earth, when there is mutual and congregational prayer and 
 holy intercourse ; and that there is a " communion of saints " 
 in heaven, when they join with the angelic h<jst in singing 
 prayers and praises before the throne of grace ; and that there 
 will be a universal and perfect " communion of saints " when 
 that happy period shall arrive, when " it shall come to pass, 
 that the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion, 
 shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the serpent's 
 meat." Isa. Ixv. 25. 
 
 Our Roman Catholic brethren, however, consider that 
 "communion of saints" must necessarily mean the act of 
 praying to them as our intercessors. Forgetting, however, 
 his indirect theory of intercession, and carried away by the 
 grandness of his theme, Dr. Milner bursts out into extrava- 
 gant laudation of the advantages enjoyed by the Romanist 
 by reason of a supposed direct intercourse with angels by a 
 " communion of saints," and of the " profitableness of invoking 
 their prayers." " How sublime and consoling ! " he exclaims, 
 " how animating is the doctrine and practice of true Catholics, 
 compared with the opinions of Protestants ! a We hold daily 
 and hourly converse, to our unspeakable comfort and advan- 
 tage, with the angelic choirs, with the venerable patriarchs 
 and prophets of ancient times, with the heroes of Christianity," 
 &c. (p. 339) . Sublime, indeed, for every shoemaker to have 
 his St. Crispin, for every baker to have St. Wilfred, the car- 
 penter his St. Joseph, and, last of all, a Santa Rita (as in 
 Spain) b to accomplish impossibilities; though we must not 
 ornit the patron of thieves and highwaymen, who were com- 
 monly called clerks of St. Nicholas, and used to invoke him 
 as devoutly for a rich booty as the rogues of ancient Rome 
 
 a These pleasant notions of the great advantages attendant on this com 
 panionship have been adopted by Mr. Keenan, in Scotland. He enlarges upon 
 them in his " Romish Catechism," and argues how, urged by the kindlier 
 feelings of our nature, if " we throw aside for a moment dreary, dry, unloving 
 Presbyterianism," we think about " bright angels " and the lovely Maria, and 
 obtain such treats as never were. See Montgomery's " Popery as it qxists in 
 Great Britain and Ireland," Edinb, 1854, pp. 395, 452. 
 
 b "Roman Catholicism in Spain," by a resident. Edinb. 1850, p. 110. 
 
216 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 did the goddess Laverna, or the modern Italian banditti make 
 vows to the Virgin Mary. a " Consoling," indeed, is it for 
 those who have a St. Polonia for a dentist, a St. Ramon for a 
 man-midwife, a St. Nicholas to cheer up old maids. Only 
 contemplate these " unspeakable comforts and advantages " 
 our Roman Catholic brethren enjoy, of which we, poor be- 
 nighted Protestants, are deprived ! What Protestant does 
 not envy the daily and hourly converse which is supposed to 
 take place between the supplicant and the departed saint. 
 But Dr. Milner forgets in his rhapsody that, according to his 
 own theory, there is no communion, since neither of the 
 parties can hear each other. God is represented as com- 
 municating the prayer offered up to the patron saint. The 
 saint does not comprehend what is asked until it is revealed 
 to him. If our Roman Catholic brethren call this holding 
 converse or " communion with saints," we can only say that 
 such an idea of conversing strikes us as very peculiar and 
 original, only paralleled by the process employed by modern 
 spirit-rappers, who invoke the spirit through a medium. 
 
 But again, there is another difficulty in the way of this 
 Milnerian theory, and one not easily got over : the votary 
 may be supplicating an imaginary spirit, a saint who does 
 not exist, nor ever has existed. Who can vouch for the fact 
 of the existence of any departed spirit in heaven among the 
 beatified "reigning with Christ" (p. 339), "contemplating 
 the wonderful ways of God's providence with all his creatures 
 here on earth ?" (p. 337.) This is no random supposition 
 suggested by the sceptical whim of a Protestant. We are 
 tempted to hazard an heretical unbelief from having read a 
 strange occurrence related by Cardinal Bellarmine, the truth 
 of which we are happily not called upon to vouch. ' It is 
 gravely related by this cardinal " that the people [of the 
 Church of Rome] did, for a long time, celebrate some one 
 for a martyr, who, as related by Sulpitius in his 'Life of 
 St. Martin/ afterwards did appear, and told them that he had 
 been a thief and was damned ! " b " How sublime and con- 
 soling ! how animating " must these feelings have been ! The 
 party was doubtless invoked, prayed to, "for a long time." 
 What "unspeakable comfort and advantage, to hold daily 
 and hourly converse " with one who had been a thief and 
 was damned ! c 
 
 That some of these so-called saints never existed at all can 
 
 * "Protestant Guardian," vol. i. p. 301, note. 
 
 b Bell, de Sanct. Beat., lib. i. cap. vii. torn. ii. p. 397. Pragse, 1721. 
 c See Home's "Romanism Contradictory to the Bible," sec. iv. London, 
 1827 ; or " Protestant Journal," 1832, p. 411. 
 
217 
 
 be proved from the testimony of Roman Catholic writers. We 
 take the following extract from the eminent Romish ritualist, 
 Cassander. a " There is," he says, " another error, not un- 
 common; that neglecting, in a manner, the ancient and 
 known saints, the common people worship more ardently and 
 diligently the new and unknown, of whose holiness we have 
 but little assurance, and some of whom are known to us only 
 by revelation, insomuch that of several of them it is justly 
 doubted whether ever there were such persons in the world ; " 
 and he says that " St. Martin found a place, honoured in the 
 name of a holy martyr, to be the sepulchre of a wicked 
 robber ." b Boniface VIII. caused Hermannus Ferrariens 
 (who had been canonized for a saint), after thirty years, to 
 be taken out of his grave, and burned in A.D. 1300. Then 
 witness the exposure made by our Bishop Usher. According 
 to our monkish historians, St. Amphibolus was bishop of the 
 Isle of Man,and fellow-martyr and disciple of St. Alban, and was 
 worshipped as a saint and martyr ; but the matter turns out to 
 be a mistake arising from a misunderstanding of a passage 
 in the old acts or legends of St. Alban. In this the Amphi- 
 bolus mentioned was nothing more than a cloak, which Alban 
 happened to have at the time of his execution. It is a word 
 derived from the Greek, and signifies a rough shaggy cloak, 
 which was usually worn by ecclesiastical persons of that age. 
 So that these people worshipped an old shaggy cloak for a 
 saint ! c almost as great an imposition as the so-called holy 
 coat of Treves. And another curious fact has come to light. 
 There are two Popes, Zephyrinus and Callistus, in the calen- 
 dar of canonized saints, who are even at this day invoked, 
 and whose memory is recorded in the book of" lying wonders/' 
 the Roman Breviary . d We find, by the lately-discovered 
 work of Hippolytus, 6 that both these individuals were a 
 scandal to the Church, and held heretical doctrines on the 
 personality and the divinity of THE SON. 
 
 Moreover Rome finds it, at times, a very good plan to 
 forego those " sublime " fancies herself, if a temporary with- 
 drawing of them will secure her some proselytes. Mr. Veron 
 
 a Oassander, Consult, p. 971. Paris, 1616. 
 
 b Ibid. Art. 21, de Art. Relig., p. 973. Edit. 1616. 
 
 e Usher, De Brit. Eccles. Primord., c. xiv. p. 539, 4to. Quoted by D. 
 Middleton, in his " Letter from Rome." 
 
 d See Collect in the Festival of Zephyrinus, 26th August. Brev. Rom., 
 p. 1055, edit. Ratisbon, 1840; and Collect on the Festival of Callistus, Octo- 
 ber 14th. Ibid. p. 1151. 
 
 e St. Hippolytus, "Philosophumena; sive Refutatio Hseresium," lib. ix. sive x. 
 p. 278, et seq. edit. M. Miller ; and see Wordsworth's "Hippolitus," cap. xii. 
 el scq. London, 1853. 
 
218 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 an authority teaches us, in his "Rule of the Catholic 
 Faith/' " that it is not of faith, that the saints in heaven hear 
 the prayers of the living ; " that " it is not of faith, that the 
 saints are our mediators, and that rather that this character 
 belongs to Christ only ;" that "the canonization of the saints 
 is no article of faith ; in other words, it is no article of faith 
 that the saints whom we invoke for instance, St. Laurence, 
 St. Vincent, St. Gervase, and St. Blase, St. Chrysostom, 
 Ambrose, Dominic, &c. are really saints, and in the number of 
 the blessed. "* While, on the other hand, it is dogmatically 
 laid down by a great authority, Ferraris, 6 with respect to the 
 saints that are to be worshipped : 
 
 " No one should be venerated as a saint, without the licence of the Pope ; 
 though during his lifetime he may have wrought miracles. (Tom. vii. sect, i.) 
 Hence he only is properly and strictly taken as a saint, and worthy of venera- 
 tion, who is duly canonized by the Pope enrolling his name in the register, or 
 publicly, solemnly, and canonically entering it in the number and catalogue of 
 Saints, and declaring and defining him to be such by a published decree, that 
 he may be esteemed and worshipped by all. (Sect, ii.) The Pope being assured, 
 by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, of the person's sanctity, and of his being in 
 glory, issues his diploma, or breve of his beatification. (Sect, xii.) Hence 
 many noted doctors hold that it is an article of faith that the Pope cannot err 
 in the canonization or beatification of Saints. (Sect, xv.) It is not certain 
 who was the first Pope who canonized Saints. Many hold that the first 
 canonization solemnly celebrated was by Leo III., A.D. 804." (Sect, xix.) 
 
 But it was not until A.D. 1160, under Alexander III., that 
 the first decree of canonization of Saints was issued, which 
 ordained that none should be from thenceforward acknow- 
 ledged Saint but whom the Pope declared to be such. 
 
 And this is the Church where only sure teaching is to be 
 obtained ! It would be well surely that the relations of 
 individuals about to be canonized were aware of these draw- 
 backs ; they would save themselves in pocket at least, besides 
 escaping the building on a mere sand-bank. c But these are 
 trifles in the list of inconsistencies. Let us rather ponder 
 over the "sublime and consoling" privilege which we poor 
 Protestants, though claiming to be true Catholics have cast 
 away. Let us suppose that Dr. Milner does not hold the 
 indirect theory, but with Dr. Wiseman, and the great bulk 
 of Romanists, claims for the suppliant " a daily and hourly 
 
 a Veron's "Rule of Catholic Faith," pp. 81, 83, 84. Birmingham, 1833. 
 
 b Ferraris F. L. " Encyclopaedia Ecclesiastica, sive Prompta Biblioth.," torn, 
 viii. 4to. Francof., 1781. See torn. vii. "Veneratio Sanctorum." 
 
 c " The fees of all sorts have been considerably raised since the days of 
 John XXII., and were so exorbitant in the seventeenth century, that a rela- 
 tion of Cardinal Borroineo, a Saint of Paul the Fifth's manufacture, patheti- 
 cally entreated his children that they would content themselves with being 
 honest men, and never think of becoming Saints, as the canonization of their 
 cousin had proved a most ruinous concern ; and his rage for working miracles, 
 instead of being any benefit to his kindred, had well-nigh reduced them all to 
 beggary." See "Protestant Guardian," I. 139, note. 
 
219 
 
 converse" with departed and beatified spirits; then consider the 
 position in which this notion places us, for example, with the 
 supposed Queen of Heaven, Rome's Marie* Every Romanist 
 is bound to offer to her at least two prayers every day, morn- 
 ing and evening. All who use the rosary (and the more 
 devout are accustomed to that exercise) extend this number 
 to 150. Let us take into calculation the seven canonical 
 hours of the monks and nuns, and the daily masses of the 
 priests throughout the world, and we presume that the aver- 
 age for the whole Church of Rome would be very moderately 
 stated at ten Hail Marys each day for every man, woman, 
 and child belonging to their communion. Now, there are 
 128 millions of persons attached to that Church, to say 
 nothing of all the rest who, as they claim, ought to be 
 attached to it, and who, because they are not so at- 
 tached, are charitably shut out from the hope of salvation. 
 This, of course, gives the Virgin Mary the privilege of 
 hearing (or having revealed to her, as the case may 
 be) 1,280,000,000 petitions every day. Supposing the 
 worship to be constant and unceasing, each hour of the 
 twenty-four would contain, on the average, 53,333,333, or 
 nearly fifty-four millions of these petitions; each minute 
 would include about 889,000,000; and each second 14,814, 
 or nearly fifteen thousand. And as we have allowed ten 
 Hail Marys for each worshipper, the result would be that 
 fifteen hundred souls must pass in review before the Virgin 
 Mary every second, day and night, even if she had no other 
 occupation than to attend to them ; and of these she is expected 
 to know all their wants, all their feelings, all their temptations, 
 all their sins, and to give them the benefit of her influence, 
 her protection and her prayers, so as to secure their salvation ! 
 What wild absurdity to expect such a work as this at the 
 hands of a creature, unless we first contrive to believe that 
 creature to be invested with the attributes of God ! Against 
 Scripture, against reason, and against the true Catholic 
 Church, how wonderfully the infatuation which Romanism 
 has succeeded in establishing during the dark ages of European 
 ignorance, and which the assumed infallibility of the Papal 
 Church will not suffer her to reform away, even in the light 
 of the nineteenth century ! What is there, we ask, sublime or 
 consoling in such a phantom of extravagance ? What ad- 
 vantage could be gained to the Church, even if it were 
 possible that the Almighty should have laid such a burden 
 
 a The rest of this article we take from Hopkins's "End of Controversy 
 Refuted," vol. ii. p. 66, et seq. New York, 1854. 
 
220 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 on the shoulders of the ever-blessed Virgin ? How infinitely 
 more sublime and consoling is it to know that the mighty 
 providence of God is exercised by Him who alone can exercise 
 it by Him who is indeed Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omni- 
 potent by Him who beholds, without effort, the past, the 
 present, and the future by Him who is the King Almighty, 
 immortal and invisible, by whom and for whom all things 
 were created, and in whom all things consist by Him who 
 has promised that He will never leave us nor forsake us by 
 Him who is the true Head of his Church THE LORD JESUS 
 CHRIST, God over all, blessed for ever ! AMEN ! 
 
221 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 WE have now brought to a conclusion the task which we proposed to our- 
 selves, of exposing "the pious frauds" and misrepresentations contained in Dr. 
 Milner's "End of Controversy." How far that task has been accomplished the 
 reader must judge for himself; we can only say that we are not conscious of 
 having, in the necessarily few subjects treated of in Part I. and II., omitted, or 
 passed over any point of importance without investigating it to the utmost of 
 our power ; and that, whatever defects may be discovered in what we have 
 written, will not, we trust, be imputed either to negligence, or to a wish to 
 misrepresent, in a single instance, the practice or teaching of the Church of 
 Rome. Our sole aim has been to discover and establish the TRUTH, whilst 
 exposing the misrepresentations with which the work we undertook to examine 
 ' so fearfully abounds ; we have endeavoured to give a faithful account of what 
 we found, carefully observing the rule, "nothing extenuate nor set down aught 
 in malice." 
 
 To error in reasoning all men are liable, and, therefore, no degree of crimi- 
 nality may attach to the "lame and impotent conclusions" so often arrived at 
 by Dr. Milner ; but it is otherwise with regard to direct misrepresentation of 
 facts, especially in those cases wherein ignorance can only be the result of 
 culpable negligence or of criminal indifference. Some of the misrepresentations 
 which it has been our painful duty to expose, are so glaring, that it is difficult to 
 conceive how a dignitary of the Church of Rome, whose very position required 
 that he should be a scholar, "a ripe and good one," and also an expert theo- 
 logian, could perpetuate them in pure ignorance. Yet such misrepresentations 
 abound in "The End of Controversy," and have been allowed to disgrace the 
 pages of that work, in successive editions, to the present time. We cannot help 
 asking ourselves the question, " Is it possible that such things can be the result 
 of mere carelessness or inattention, or are they the fruits of a most reckless 
 disregard of the truth ? " Let the question be answered how it may, the answer 
 must be fatal to the cause which is sought to be supported by such unworthy 
 means. But a further consideration is forced upon us, when we remember 
 that it is not in one or two solitary instances that such manifest misstatements 
 occur ; and that no attempt has ever been made, on the part of Romanists, to 
 explain or disown them ; but, on the contrary, " The End of Controversy" is 
 extensively circulated, and spoken of as unanswerable. When we think of this, 
 we are tempted to ask, " Is not only the doctrine of equivocation sanctioned by 
 the practice of Rome, but even direct untruths approved, when they appear to 
 serve her cause or to blacken the character of her opponents ? " Alas, that we 
 should be compelled to say so of any professedly Christian community ! the 
 answer must be in the affirmative. To make good this assertion we are not 
 driven to the works of Sanchez nor of his hopeful follower Liguori (with 
 regard to whose works, the Church of Rome has recorded her deliberate judg- 
 ment, that they contain not one word worthy of censure) ; we find the doctrine 
 of equivocation thus sanctioned in a note on Genesis xii. 13, " My Sister. This 
 was no lie ; because she was his niece, being daughter to his brother Aaron, and 
 therefore, in the style of the Hebrews, she might truly be called his sister, as 
 Lot is called Abraham's brother." 11 No lief though the object was to deceive ; 
 and we know that the Egyptian king was deceived by the assertion of Abra- 
 ham, and, when undeceived by the interposition of God himself, severely 
 rebuked the patriarch for the deceit he had practised. Compare the truthful 
 
 a The Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate, &c. Dublin, printed 
 by Richard Coyne, bookseller to the college of St. Patrick, Maynooth, 1833. 
 
222 CONCLUSION. 
 
 statement in the Scripture of Abraham's backsliding with the equivocal note of 
 the Divines of Douay, and sanctioned by the approbation of Dr. Murray. But 
 we have said that Rome can sanction even that which she acknowledges to be 
 a lie, whenever an emergency may seem to render such sanction necessary ; 
 and we are able to make good our assertion by adducing the note of the Douay 
 Divines appended to Genesis xxvii. 19, " I am Esau thy first-born. St. Augus- 
 tine (L. contra Mendacium, c. 10), treating at large upon this place, excuseth 
 Jacob from a lie, because this whole passage was mysterious, as relating to the 
 preference which was afterwards to be given to the Gentiles before the carnal 
 Jews, which Jacob by prophetic light might understand. So far is certain, that 
 the first birthright, both by divine election and by Esau's free cession, belonged 
 to Jacob : so that if there was any lie in the case, it would be no more than an 
 officious and venial one." a "//there was any lie in the case!" The simple 
 and truthful narrative of the Scripture shows us that there was a lie, and that 
 both Jacob himself and Rebecca, at whose instigation Jacob was induced to 
 utter the falsehood, were fully conscious of it, and of the probable consequences ; 
 nor, indeed, as the Scripture informs us, did either Jacob or Rebecca escape the 
 punishment of their deceitful dealing. The Bible records this lamentable de- 
 fection in Jacob for our admonition, whereas the Romish divines would have 
 us believe that it is recorded for our imitation: " So that if there be any lie in 
 the case, it could be no more than an officious and venial one." 
 
 But to return to our "Refutation of Milner : " if the reader should think 
 that much more might have been said upon some important points, we must 
 beg him to remember that we were necessarily restricted by the limits of a 
 work intended to answer such, a book as that of Milner, and, confined to the 
 briefest form compatible with perspicuity ; we have, moreover, given such 
 abundant references, that whoever wishes for further information on such 
 points can be at no loss where to search for it. If, on the other hand, some of 
 our readers may think that we have been, occasionally, somewhat tedious, we 
 must request them to bear in mind, that an illogical argument or a false repre- 
 sentation may be stated in a very few words, whilst it may require many words to 
 expose the misrepresentation, and to refute the illogical argument whose con- 
 clusion has been drawn from false premises, involving, perhaps, more than one 
 misrepresentation. We have endeavoured to show, and we trust successfully, 
 that Dr. Milner has signally failed in the proofs he has adduced in support of 
 the doctrines of Rome which we have reviewed, both from Scripture and from 
 the Fathers, and that he has equally failed in his attempts to adduce evidence 
 in favour of Romish superstitions from the works of learned and eminent 
 divines of the Protestant communion. 
 
 The observations which apply to the work of Dr. Milner are equally applicable 
 to the writings of Dr. Wiseman, and of others who have pursued a similar 
 course. Unwise, truly, is the builder who constructs his edifice upon a founda- 
 tion of sand, and expects it to abide unshaken the pressure of the flood and the 
 fury of the storm ! But, surely, still greater is the folly of the man, who, when 
 he may build upon a foundation of solid rock, seeks to cover the firm surface of 
 that rock, ere he proceeds to build, with a depth of unstable and shifting sand ! 
 Yet, of such folly has Rome been guilty ; she " has overlaid the foundation " 
 the solid rock of scriptural truth with respect to that system of superstitious 
 and corrupt doctrine and practice which distinguishes her from every truly 
 Catholic community. Of this she is fully conscious, and would fain prevent 
 her deluded children instituting a comparison between the immovable rock 
 of Scripture, and the mere shifting sands of human inventions and fictitious 
 traditions ; or, she would persuade them that these crumbling materials partake 
 of the solidity of the rock itself, b and are equally trustworthy. To bolster up 
 
 a The Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate, &c. Dublin, printed 
 by Richard Coyne, bookseller to the college of St. Patrick, Maynooth, 1833. 
 
 b The Council of Trent speaks of receiving and venerating the Scripture 
 and tradition, "pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia." Sessio iv. Sec. 1, of the 
 Canonical Scriptures. 
 
CONCLUSION. 223 
 
 this pretence has she invented the doctrine of infallibility a most suicidal 
 proceeding, for, if her claim to infallibility is just, then the stern facts of 
 history, the contradictory Decrees of Councils and Bulls of Popes, show us 
 that such infallibility cannot be relied upon, and, if we may so speak, that the 
 Church has derived no benefit from an infallibility which is itself fallible. 
 Whilst we repudiate the traditions of Rome, which she declares to be of equal 
 authority with the sacred Scriptures, we do not undervalue the assistance we 
 may derive from the writings of those venerable men " the Fathers ;" nor 
 should we for, when carefully and candidly examined, their writings afford no 
 support to the superstitions and corruptions of Eome ; and, whatever may be 
 their failings, for they were, like ourselves, fallible men, yet, if on any one point 
 there be a "unanimous consent of the Fathers," it is in referring us to the 
 Bible as the sole foundation of Faith. We might adduce numberless passages in 
 support of this assertion, but we will content ourselves with presenting to out- 
 readers the advice of St. Basil the Great : 
 
 " If you know how to search the Scriptures for the help they offer you, you 
 will have no need of my aid, or of that of any other person, to guide you in 
 your conduct. You will have the illumination of the Holy Spirit to enlighten 
 you ; that is to say, you will draw your light from the source of light itself." 
 " Work out your salvation with fear and trembling ; but I conjure you not to 
 suffer anything like distrust to take possession of your soul ; nothing can be 
 more hurtful to its interests. Are you not in the service of the best of 
 masters ? is He not always willing to come to your assistance ? Look up to 
 Him with faith, and you will find that not only He will never abandon you, 
 but every time you pray to Him with sincerity and confidence, you will feel 
 His presence in the interior of your soul ; He will deign Himself to say to you, 
 ' Here am I.' " a Perhaps the very best antidote to Romish error, is a careful 
 and candid examination of Rome's authorized teaching and the works of her 
 most eminent divines, and a comparison of her peculiar tenets with the 
 teaching of Holy Scripture ; to the reader who has time and opportunity to 
 make such comparison we may safely leave the answer to the all-important 
 question, " Rome or the Bible, Which ? " b 
 
 a " Letter to a Lady," cited in "The Book of the Fathers," pp. 164, 165. 
 London, T. W. Parker, West Strand, 1837. 
 
 b See an admirable Lecture by the Rev. H. B. Kennedy, D.D., Head 
 Master of Shrewsbury School, and Prebendary of Lichfield, delivered at 
 St. Chad's Church, Shrewsbury, April 10, 1851. 
 
 LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM PENNY. 57, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS. 
 
ANTI-ROMISH WORKS 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES HASTINGS COLLETTE. 
 
 In Two Parts, Post Free, 5s. each, or 9s. together, 
 
 MILNER REFUTED, 
 
 Or Pious Frauds Exemplified in Dr, Milner's " End of Religious 
 Controversy." 
 
 Second Edition, Post Free, price 2s. 8d. 
 
 ROMANISM IN ENGLAND EXPOSED. 
 
 Post free, price Is. Id. 
 
 POPISH INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 Post free, price 2s. 8d. 
 
 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY 
 
 A Thing of Priestcraft alike unwarranted by Holy Scripture 
 
 or Tradition. 
 
 Also, price Is. Id. per post, 
 
 TWO LECTURES ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 No. I. -THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE. 
 No. II. HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED. 
 
 N.B. Any of the above Works will be transmitted by post, on receipt of a 
 post-office order or postage-stamps, by MR. WILLIAM PENNY, Printer and 
 Publisher, 57, Lincoln' s-Inn Fields, London. 
 
 Price 7d. post free, pp. 105. 
 
 PIOUS FRAUDS EXEMPLIFIED 
 
 IN 
 
 DR. WISEMAN'S LECTURES. 
 
 No. I. PURGATORY. 
 Young Men's Tract Association, No. 2, Hornsey-road, Islington. 
 
 Price Id. 
 
 A TRACT FOR CARDINAL WISEMAN 
 
 On CHAP. VI. of St. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 N.B. Grants of this Tract maybe obtained at half -price , on application 
 addressed to the Secretary of the YOUNG MEN'S TRACT ASSOCIATION, No, 2. 
 Hornsey-row, Islington, London. * 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $I.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 
 k ft k.1 fv/\ ^MU5 
 
 
 JAN 20 .043 
 
 
 uEC 7 -^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^YJw'KMF 
 
 
 A/*-^ 1 
 
 
 
 
 / I 
 
 
 Ey^isea Jp- 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 /Fcb'uSSS^, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FtS 7 k>(X 
 
 
 *--'.--a Voi^ ' '.' 7r 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21-100m-7,'40 (6936s) 
 
YC < 
 
 C3 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY